Error in summation of spectral components

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on estimating the error in the power/variance of spectral components derived from a Gaussian signal using FFT. It highlights that the error for a spectral component follows a Chi-squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom, leading to a 95% confidence interval for the true frequency component. The main question posed is whether the error in the total power estimate for N spectral components is also Chi-squared with 2N degrees of freedom or if it should be calculated differently. Participants suggest that independent errors should be added in quadrature, but note that errors may not be independent when integrating over a frequency range. The conversation emphasizes the importance of validating error estimation methods through testing with known signals.
SpecGuest
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
HI everyone,

Imagine we are sampling of a gaussian signal along time and need to know the power/variance associated with the first N spectral components. So we take our favorite fft algorithm to get the PSD.

The error associated with a given estimated spectral component f(w) (w is the frequency) of a Gaussian signal follows a Chi-squared distribution with ν=2 degrees of freedom (we just have a single spectrum, no averaging, no overlapping). For instance the 95% confidence interval is given by:

.[νχ2(ν,α/2), ν/χ2(ν,1−α/2)] with ν=2 and α=0.05.

That is, we have 95% of chance to find the true F(w) in the range
[νχ2(ν,α/2)f(w), νχ2(ν,1−α/2)f(w)].

NB: f(w) is the estimated frequency component, F(w) is the true frequency component.

My question is the following: what is the error in the power/variance estimate which equals to the sum of f(w) over the N spectral components (N positive frequencies) of the spectra?

  1. Is it given by a χ2 law with ν=2N degrees of freedom?
  2. Is it given by the summation of the error in each independent frequency ?
  3. Something else?
Thanks for your help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Independent errors would add in quadrature.

But if you are summing to find the area under the curve (integrating over a frequency range), then the errors are not independent.

I'd figure out a way to take multiple trials and use the standard error of the mean for my error estimate for random errors. Then I'd add that in quadrature with estimates for instrumental and other possible systematic errors. I'd also use our more accurate Fourier transform code (see below) which allows greater accuracy and precision at every step.

As a double check, one can always start your analysis method with a known perfect signal (sum of sine waves of known frequency, amplitude, and phase) and then add random errors of known mean and distribution to them and see how they impact the errors that result from your Fourier transform methods. This is a powerful double check that your methods for estimating errors in your frequency analysis process are reasonable.
 
Thank you for this answer. Actually, I did the double check, that was my first step and also the reason why I'm asking here since I was told that the uncertainty was option 1 in my previous post. But it turns out, unless I did a mistake somewhere in my test program, that option 1 is not the right answer! It is not clear to me whether the uncertainty in each of the spectral components are independent or not. There are some good reasons to think they are not but I guess this also depends on how you evaluate your PSD.
Anyway, thank you for the reference about the EI method. I'll check that.
 
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K