Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 338 3 b iii Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Increasing exposure reduces fractional photon shot noise as , but a fixed background mismatch grows in proportion to the signal. The fractional systematic error is , independent of exposure. The systematic-error signal-to-noise ceiling can therefore be poor for a faint source in a bright sky even when random fluctuations are tiny.
Better background subtraction requires matching sky location and time, correcting detector response, dithering or modelling spatial background variations. If were known exactly, one could instead use , which is unbiased and has variance . The ceiling arises from an uncorrected or unknown mismatch in the prescribed subtraction, not an unavoidable property of measuring two patches.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 338 3 b i Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Treat and as mean detected counts, or as photon counts with unit quantum efficiency. Let the independent patch measurements be and . For the specified unweighted background subtraction ,The first error is a fixed bias of an estimator; the last expression is the sum of independent photon shot noise variances. Since are already patch totals, no extra factor of the pixel count is needed, and read noise is neglected.
To obtain the systematic-error ceiling requested in the following clause, define the accuracy measure using total root-mean-square error relative to the true source count. By the bias-variance decomposition of mean squared error,For , the shot-noise term is approximately , but the mismatch term must be retained.
There is a terminology qualification: the usual variance-based signal-to-noise ratio in photon counting is and does not include a fixed bias as noise. The printed next-part limit requires the root-mean-square accuracy convention above. A deterministic background mismatch contributes to mean squared error, not to the statistical variance.