An unobserved delayed-pulse counterexample to a fitted tail bound constructs two admissible optical inputs giving the same finite measurement record but different missed energies. The future-domain validity of a fitted power-law optical envelope article gives a nonnegative, continuously differentiable delayed pulse with adjustable energy. The counterexample persists through a calibrated causal detector, not just an ideal instantaneous power readout.
Let , where the additional pulse has support after the record ends at . A linear receiver with impulse response and responsivity measures . Causality means for . Therefore, for every recorded time ,
since every argument is negative. This causal indistinguishability of delayed optical inputs on a finite record holds even when the impulse response is known exactly and the recorded data are noiseless.
For an original example, record through and place the smooth sine-squared pulse of the parent article at , with width and peak . Its extra optical energy is . A chosen causal exponential receiver with decay time produces no difference in the initial record, although it will respond when the later pulse arrives. If its impulse response has unit area, the complete later output-area difference is in the receiver's output-area units.
Any rule using only the common initial record must return the same proposed bound for both inputs. Without a justified restriction on later illumination, the delayed pulse energy can be chosen larger than any proposed finite guarantee. More accurate calibration of that same initial record cannot resolve this information gap.
NIST characterized its detector, cable and oscilloscope together with a short known optical input before correcting pulse measurements.[ref] Such response calibration addresses receiver distortion. Source shutoff, exclusion of later pulses or a future-valid rate envelope supplies the additional physical information needed for a missed-energy guarantee. The delayed pulse here is a mathematical construction, not a reported defect of that apparatus.
A validated lower bound on a power-law tail exponent is an exponent constraint that is justified over the future interval where it is used to bound unrecorded energy. A fitted slope over a finite observation window is not by itself such a guarantee. Acquisition duration from a power-law tail-energy tolerance needs a global optical-power envelope, including a lower exponent limit above one for its finite-energy guarantee.
One sufficient condition, for positive absolutely continuous power, is
Integrating the logarithmic derivative gives . The time-dependent decay-rate envelope provides the equivalent integrating-factor argument when zeros of the power need handling. This is a sufficient condition, not a necessary characterization of every bounded tail.
For an original conditional estimation example, assume an exact power-law family with known and initial power . At , a measured ratio range yields
approximately . Within that assumed family, the lower endpoint gives a conservative extension about for a remaining-energy tolerance. A nominal exponent two would instead require .
The ratio interval constrains the exponent only conditional on the exact family, known time scale and suitable measurement uncertainty. It cannot exclude a later secondary pulse or a transition to a slower law after the observed window. Future-domain validity of a fitted power-law optical envelope therefore requires independent physical justification or explicitly limited claims. If the justified exponent set reaches one, this envelope alone supplies no finite all-time energy guarantee.
Finally, the measured trace must represent optical power rather than an uncorrected receiver tail. NIST measured the detector, cable and oscilloscope together using a short characterized optical input before correcting pulse measurements.[ref] The exponent example is an original model calculation, not an observed law attributed to that apparatus.