We report here the analysis results for the measurements done in elog:16388.
Figs. 1 & 2 are respectively measurements of the white noise excitation and the optimized excitation. The shaded region corresponds to the 1sigma uncertainty at each frequency bin. By eyes, one can already see that the constraints on the phase in the 0.61 Hz band are much tighter in the optimized case than in the white noise case.
We found the transfer function was best described by two real poles + one pair of complex poles (i.e., resonance) + one pair of complex zeros in the righthalf plane (nonminimum phase delay). The measurement in fact suggested a righthand pole somewhere between 0.050.1 Hz which cannot be right. For now, I just manually flipped the sign of this lowest frequency pole to the lefthand side. However, this introduced some systematic deviation in the phase in the 0.30.5 Hz band where our coherence was still good. Therefore, a caveat is that our model with 7 free parameters (4 poles + 2 zeros + 1 gain as one would expect for an ideal signalstage L2P TF) might not sufficiently capture the entire physics.
In Fig. 3 we showed the comparison of the two sets of measurements together with the predictions based on the Fisher matrix. Here the color gray is for the whitenoise excitation and olive is for the optimized excitation. The solid and dotted contours are respectively the 1sigma and 3sigma regions from the Fisher calculation, and crosses are maximum likelihood estimations of each measurement (though the scipy optimizer might not find the true maximum).
Note that the mean values don't match in the two sets of measurements, suggesting potential bias or other systematics exists in the current measurement. Moreover, there could be multiple local maxima in the likelihood in this highD parameter space (not surprising). For example, one could reduce the resonant Q but enhance the overall gain to keep the shoulder of a resonance having the same amplitude. However, this correlation is not explicit in the Fisher matrix (firstorder derivatives of the TF, i.e., local gradients) as it does not show up in the error ellipse.
In Fig. 4 we show the further optimized excitation for the next round of measurements. Here the cyan and olive traces are obtained assuming different values of the "true" physical parameter, yet the overall shapes of the two are quite similar, and are close to the optimized excitation spectrum we already used in elog:16388.
