Numerical feasibility residual for baseline constraints
ID: numerical-feasibility-residual-for-baseline-constraints
A numerical feasibility residual for baseline constraints measures how closely computed pulse-estimator weights satisfy their requested responses. For , evaluateThis is not the same diagnostic as the projected unattainable response in null-space feasibility test for baseline-estimator constraints. That test asks whether a solution exists at the chosen matrix rank; the residual checks the weights actually returned.
Small numerical components need physical scaling. If the measurement model is , an estimator intended to preserve the signal and reject the backgrounds instead has biasThus an unweighted Euclidean residual norm is not a universal error bound. Coefficient magnitudes and the units of each constraint matter.
For an original example, suppose the constant-background residual is and the linear-time residual is . A background offset contributes through the first residual. A drift rate also contributes through the second. The much smaller raw numerical value is not a much smaller physical leakage. Expressing time in microseconds changes to without changing that leakage.
A response-normalized tolerance for baseline-feasibility residuals can specify allowed response errors in matching units and check . When coefficient bounds , are justified, the corresponding bias bound is . A noise-minimizing estimator still needs a separate variance calculation from the actual covariance.[ref]
NIST's before/after pulse baselines provide the physical setting for rejecting background and drift.[ref]
Calibration Service for Low-level Pulsed-Laser Radiometers at 1.06 µm: Pulse Energy and Peak Power by Rodney W. Leonhardt. §3.5, printed p. 8; §7.2, Leakage Effect
Report the chosen constraint scaling and tolerated leakage. A small solver residual alone establishes neither low variance nor negligible bias for every possible background. New to topics? Read the docs here!