The noise penalty from nearly parallel signal and reference shapes is the precision lost when a spectral estimator must reject a nuisance pattern resembling its desired signal. For nonzero shapes and positive-definite noise covariance , define their inverse-covariance correlationThe Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives . The minimum-variance spectral contrast orthogonal to a reference shape has varianceIf the nuisance amplitude were known and subtracted without uncertainty, the corresponding optimum variance would be . Exact nuisance rejection therefore multiplies variance by and standard uncertainty by .
The relevant angle is the noise-whitened angle between spectral signal and nuisance shapes: it is measured after a whitening transformation, not generally from the raw plotted spectra. A channel with large noise contributes little to separating the shapes even if their plotted curves differ there.
For an original example, let , and . Rejecting the reference forces the contrast to , with variance . With known nuisance amplitude, its variance would be . The rejection penalty is therefore in variance, about in standard uncertainty. Only the weak second-channel component distinguishes signal from nuisance.
The primary stimulated-Raman experiment reported systematic spectral noise above its calculated shot-noise limit and described pure-solvent subtraction of a common pattern.[ref]
Femtosecond Broadband Stimulated Raman: A New Approach for High-Performance Vibrational Spectroscopy by David W. McCamant and others. Results and Discussion, theoretical shot-noise limit versus observed noise and pure-solvent subtraction
A reference can remove that shared pattern while also making an overlapping desired signal hard to estimate. Retain full covariance in the variance calculation.[ref]Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results by Barry N. Taylor and Chris E. Kuyatt. Appendix A, equation A-3
At exact proportionality, no unit-response rejecting contrast exists; a low-noise result obtained by suppressing the signal as well is not a valid amplitude estimate.