Pulse-width uncertainty from correlated edge timing depends on the joint errors of the two crossing times, not just their separate uncertainties. For specified leading and trailing crossings , let . Their variance identity is
This is exact for the stated difference of random times. Approximating the edge errors from waveform measurements may require a local model. NIST's primary uncertainty law explicitly retains covariance terms.[ref]
A common time translation illustrates cancellation. Suppose measured edges have errors and , with independent zero-mean components. The pulse width error is ; the common disappears. For an original example, take standard deviations for , for , and for . Individual edge uncertainties are about and , but pulse width uncertainty is only . Incorrectly treating the two full edge errors as independent would give .
A common timing-scale error is different. If measured times obey , then : the offset cancels but the scale error remains. For a pulse width, a parts-per-million standard scale uncertainty contributes . If independent of the residual edge errors above, it raises the combined standard uncertainty to .
Nor does every shared voltage error make the edges positively correlated. A fixed threshold shift can move a rising crossing later and a falling crossing earlier, increasing pulse width uncertainty. The waveform slopes and shared references determine the covariance sign. A measurement should therefore record its level convention and model the two edges together. Keysight's documented pulse width uses the rising and next falling 50-percent crossings.[ref] These uncertainty calculations assume both crossings exist; missing or multiply selected edges need a separate observation model.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.