Correlated spectral endpoint error
ID: correlated-spectral-endpoint-error
Correlated spectral endpoint error means that the errors in two estimated frequencies have nonzero covariance. Their effect on a frequency difference depends on that covariance as well as on the uncertainty of each endpoint. Shared errors can cancel in a difference without making the absolute frequencies accurately known.
Let endpoint errors be ϵ0,ϵT, with standard uncertainties u0,uT and correlation coefficient ρ. The error in the increment is ϵT−ϵ0, soFor equal uncertainties u, the result is 2u2(1−ρ). Independent errors give 2u2, perfectly shared errors give zero, and perfect anticorrelation gives 4u2. This is correlated-input uncertainty propagation applied to a difference.[ref]
uΔ2=uT2+u02−2ρuTu0.
An original common-offset model writes ϵ0=b+η0 and ϵT=b+ηT. Suppose b has variance sb2 and the two independent residual errors each have variance s2, all mutually independent. Each endpoint then has variance sb2+s2 and their covariance is sb2, butWith sb=0.3 and s=0.1 in compatible frequency units, each endpoint has standard uncertainty about 0.316, while the increment error has standard uncertainty about 0.141. This spectral common-mode offset rejection follows from subtraction, rather than from knowing the common offset's value.
Var(ϵT−ϵ0)=2s2.
A shared gain error behaves differently. If Yt=(1+g)ωt+b, the constant offset cancels but YT−Y0=(1+g)(ωT−ω0). A shared 1% scale error therefore remains a 1% increment error. Calling an error common does not establish which part cancels.
To estimate covariance, repeated measurements should preserve the reference and data-processing relationships relevant to the two endpoints. Filtering or overlapping fitting windows can introduce correlations. The spectral frequency-increment measurement noise contribution also depends on covariance between physical fluctuations and estimation errors; the endpoint formula alone does not justify dropping that separate term. A two-dimensional infrared spectroscopy statistic should be interpreted through its actual estimator and response model, not by automatically adding independent noise to two abstract frequency labels.
New to topics? Read the docs here!