NIST Technical Note 1939

Detailed Study of Uncertainties in OnWafer Transistor Noise-Parameter 

Measurements

James Randa

This publication is available free of charge from:

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939
NIST Technical Note 1939

Detailed Study of Uncertainties in OnWafer Transistor Noise-Parameter 

Measurements

James Randa

RF Technology Division

Communications Technology Laboratory

This publication is available free of charge from:

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

October 2016

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1939

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1939, 28 pages (October 2016) 

CODEN: NTNOEF

This publication is available free of charge from: 

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939
i

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

ABSTRACT: This paper uses a Monte Carlo simulation program to explore various aspects 

of uncertainties associated with the measurement of the noise parameters of transistors on 

wafers. The dependence of the noise-parameter uncertainties on the different input 

uncertainties is investigated in detail. Other issues that are considered include the effect of 

probe losses, the importance (or not) of including input terminations with reflection 

coefficients as near as possible to the edge of the Smith chart, improvements due to inclusion 

of an input termination with noise temperature well below ambient, and the effect of including 

a “reverse” measurement. We also briefly consider the case of well-matched amplifiers on 

wafers.

Keywords: noise parameters, on-wafer measurement, simulation, transistor, uncertainty 

analysis
ii

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

2. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Overview of the Measurements.......................................................................... 2

2.2 The Simulation Program..................................................................................... 4

2.3 Results for Connectorized Amplifiers ................................................................ 5

3. INPUT VALUES....................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Transistor Properties........................................................................................... 5

3.2 Input Uncertainties.............................................................................................. 6

4. DEPENDENCE ON INPUT UNCERTAINTIES ..................................................... 9

4.1 Base Set............................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Uncertainties in Hot Input Noise Temperature and Probe Efficiency ................ 10

4.3 Uncertainties in Output Noise-Temperature Measurements............................... 13

4.4 Uncertainties in Measurements of Reflection Coefficients................................ 15

4.5 Ambient-Temperature Uncertainty..................................................................... 16

4.6 Varying all Input Uncertainties Simultaneously................................................. 17

4.7 General Features ................................................................................................. 18

5. SIMULATION RESULTS FOR IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES ........................ 18

5.1 Smaller Probe Loss............................................................................................. 18

5.2 Inclusion of a Cryogenic Input Noise Temperature............................................ 20

5.3 Measurement vs. Computation of Output Reflection Coefficients..................... 21

5.4 Inclusion of a Reverse Noise Measurement........................................................ 22

5.5 On-Wafer Amplifier Measurements................................................................... 23

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 25

7. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 26
1

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

1. INTRODUCTION

Measuring the noise parameters of transistors on wafers is both difficult and important. 

The difficulties associated with on-wafer measurements of transistor noise parameters 

comprise the usual difficulties inherent in noise-parameter measurements, compounded by the 

difficulties of making microwave measurements on a wafer. An overview of noise-parameter 

measurements on and off-wafer can be found in [1]. Such measurements are important because 

the transistor noise parameters are needed in the design and signal analysis of circuits 

containing that transistor. While it is true that there are successful models that can be used for 

the noise properties of many transistors [2-4], the validity of such models ultimately rests on 

their agreement with measurement results. Furthermore, verification of new models or models 

for new transistors requires comparison to empirical data. And any meaningful comparison of 

models to data requires at least some estimate of the uncertainties of the data, in order to 

evaluate the significance of discrepancies. While it is a widespread practice to report noiseparameter measurement results without quoting the uncertainties, even in such cases, there 

must be some implicit estimate of the approximate uncertainties. In addition, it is generally 

beneficial to adopt practices that are likely to minimize the uncertainties.

Because of the importance and difficulty of these measurements, it is worth some effort to 

understand the uncertainties associated with the measurements and to investigate possible 

improvements in the methodology. In this paper, we report on a detailed study of the 

uncertainties in on-wafer noise-parameter measurements. Our interest is in general features, 

such as the typical magnitudes of the uncertainties, the dependence of the output uncertainties 

on the input uncertainties, which input uncertainties have the biggest influence on which output 

uncertainties, and the effects of possible improvement strategies. The analysis assumes what 

is known as the (original) cold-source method proposed in [5,6], which is the method used at 

NIST [7] and also in common use elsewhere. Because we will focus on general features of the 

uncertainty dependencies, we expect that the results will be valid beyond the specific 

measurement method assumed, but until other simulations are performed to confirm this, those 

expectations remain educated guesses rather than predictions.

The uncertainty analysis for noise-parameter measurements rests on a Monte-Carlo (MC) 

simulation [8,9] for the type B uncertainties. In a given set of measurements, the type A 

uncertainties can obtained by a statistical analysis of the fit to the measurement data. A 

simulation program has been developed that incorporates the type B simulation and extends it 

to include an evaluation of the root-mean-square (RMS) type A uncertainty [10], thus 

providing an estimate of the expected uncertainties in noise-parameter measurements for a 

given DUT with specified uncertainties of the input quantities (input noise temperatures, Sparameters, reflection coefficients, ambient temperature).

This simulator offers an efficient way to explore aspects of the uncertainties. It can consider 

a wide range of strategies and parameter values in far more detail (and less time) than would 

be required to obtain the necessary devices and sources and to perform the measurements. In 

this paper, we first investigate how the uncertainties in the different noise parameters depend 

on the various input uncertainties. This was done for connectorized amplifiers in [11]. The 

results for on-wafer transistors are expected to be similar in some respects, but there are 
2

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

inherent differences worth exploring. We then investigate possible improvement strategies for 

on-wafer measurements of transistor noise parameters. We will not concern ourselves with the 

distribution of input states; that has been extensively studied since the early days of noise 

parameters [12-14] and continues to be of recent interest [15], but we have nothing to say about 

it at this time. Instead, we will assume a good distribution of input reflection coefficients and 

investigate variations in the usual measurement strategy. We assume that the transistor noise 

and scattering parameters are not known in advance (or are perhaps known only 

approximately), so that optimization based on knowledge of the scattering or noise parameters 

cannot be done.

The next section is devoted to background. In it we present an overview of the simulation 

program and review reasons for believing it. We also review the earlier simulation results for 

connectorized amplifiers [11], as a guide to the sorts of measurement strategies to consider. 

Section 3 discusses the values used for the input terminations and for the transistor noise and 

scattering parameters, as well as the input uncertainties. Section 4 investigates the dependence 

of the uncertainties in the noise parameters on the uncertainties in the various input parameters. 

Section 5 presents simulation results for different situations and strategies, and in Section 6 we 

summarize the results and present conclusions.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Overview of the Measurements

The experimental configuration for the measurement of noise parameters of on-wafer 

transistors is shown in Fig. 1. A series of different input terminations (differing in noise 

temperature Ti and/or reflection coefficient Γi) are presented to the input of the on-wafer device 

under test (DUT), and the output noise temperature (or noise power spectral density) is 

measured for each. The output noise temperature’s dependence on the characteristics of the 

DUT can be parameterized in various ways. At NIST [7] we use the wave, or noise-correlation 

matrix representation [16],







































 





































1, 11

1, 12

1 2

2

1, 11

1,

,1 2

1, 11

2

1,

2

2,

2

21

2,

1

2Re

1

1

1

1

S

X

X X

S

T

S

S

T

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i















, (1)

where 

, / ,  /  ,

*

12 1 2 21

2

2 2 21

2

kB X1  c1kB X  c S kB X  c c S (2)

and where c1 and c2 are the amplitudes of the noise waves emanating from ports 1 and 2 of the 

DUT in the absence of any input wave. The noise parameters (X1, X2, and X12) and the gain 

parameter G0 ≡ |S21|

2

are determined by a least-squares fit to the set of equations of the form 

of eqn. (1), where the values for T2,i are the measured output noise temperatures at the on-wafer 

reference plane 2 in Fig. 1.
3

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Fig. 1 General measurement configuration and reference planes.

An alternative, more commonly used, representation of the noise parameters is the IEEE 

representation [17] of the effective input noise temperature Te, often written as











  



 

2 2

2

1 opt 1 G

opt G

e min T T t

 

 

, (3)

where G is the reflection coefficient of the input termination (the “generator”), and the noise 

parameters are Te,min , t, and the complex reflection coefficient opt . It is common to write t in 

terms of the noise resistance Rn, t = 4RnT0/Z0, where T0 = 290 K, and Z0 is the reference 

impedance, taken to be 50 . In this representation, the output noise temperature T2,i is given 

by

T2,i = Gav,i[T1,i + Te,i], (4)

where the available gain Gav,i is given by

Gav,i =

|S21|

2

(1 − |Γ1,i|

2

)

|1 − Γ1,iS11|

2

(1 − |Γ2,1|

2

)

, (5)

and Te,i is given by Te of eq. (3) evaluated with ΓG = Γ1,i.

The noise parameters in the IEEE representation can be computed from the noise 

parameters in the wave representation and the S-parameters (and vice versa). The equations 

relating the noise parameters in the different representations can be found in [8,16] and are not 

repeated here. Because the IEEE representation is more commonly used, we will use it in 

Ti, Γi DUT

Output

Measurement

System

VNA

1 2

Wafer

Probe 1 Probe 2

1 ' 2'
4

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

presenting the results in this paper. (The wave representation was used in the analysis because 

it is more convenient for certain purposes, such as treatment of the reverse measurements that 

are discussed below.)

2.2 The Simulation Program

The simulator is based on a Monte Carlo program used for the uncertainty analysis of noiseparameter measurements at NIST [8,9]. As input, it reads the on-wafer transistor noise and 

scattering parameters, the on-wafer reflection coefficients and noise temperatures of the input 

terminations, uncertainties in input parameters (including correlations), and the probe loss and 

its uncertainty. It then generates NS sets of simulated measurements by choosing random values 

from the input distributions for the input measured variables (scattering parameters, reflection 

coefficients, input on-wafer noise temperatures, output noise temperatures). All results 

reported in this paper were obtained with NS = 20,000. This value of NS is large enough that 

most of the uncertainty values have stabilized to within about 5 percent of their values and all 

have stabilized to within ten percent. Gaussian distributions are used for all variables except 

the ambient temperature, for which a rectangular distribution is used because it better models 

the effect of thermostatic control of the laboratory environment. Each set of simulated 

measurements is analyzed in the same manner as a real set of data would be analyzed, by a 

weighted least-squares fit to the equations for the output noise temperatures as functions of the 

fitting parameters (the noise parameters and the gain parameter, G0 ≡ |S21|

2

) and the explanatory 

variables (the ambient temperature, the reflection coefficients and noise temperatures of the 

input terminations, as well as the output reflection coefficients of the DUT for the different 

input reflection coefficients). The fit is done in the wave or noise-correlation-matrix 

representation [16], and the usual IEEE noise parameters (Tmin, Rn, Γopt) are computed from 

these parameters for each of the NS simulated measurement sets. The uncertainty in a parameter 

y is then given by the root mean square error (RMSE) of the sample of NS values,

u(y) = RMSE(y) = √Var(y) + (y̅ − ytrue)

2 , (6)

where y is any of the noise (or gain) parameters (either in the wave or the IEEE representation), 

and Var(y) is the variance of the sample of simulated results for y.

In a given real (or simulated) set of measurements, the type A uncertainties can be 

evaluated from the covariance matrix produced by the fitting process. In the present 

investigation, the input uncertainties will be taken to be the standard (combined) uncertainties, 

and therefore the results of the MC simulation will include the effects of random fluctuations 

in the input measurements. Thus, it is not necessary to add a separate estimate of the type A 

uncertainties to the results of the MC computation. (In fact, the simulation program does 

separately evaluate an estimate of the type A uncertainties by themselves, but that information 

will not be used in this study.)

In the course of analyzing the simulated measurement data, the program encounters 

instances of unphysical results, as well as cases in which the simulated measurement results 

do not admit a good fit for the noise parameters. This is not surprising: it happens in real life, 

so it should happen in a realistic simulation. The simulator computes two sets of results, one 
5

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

with the “bad” cases included, and one with the “bad” cases discarded. In a real measurement 

situation, a set of measurements that violated a physical bound or that did not admit a good fit 

would be discarded (one hopes). Therefore, all results reported in this paper are those with the 

bad cases discarded. For this purpose, a good fit was defined as having a χ

2

per degree of 

freedom less than 1.0 [18].

The simulation program and its components have undergone extensive application and 

verification. The basic Monte Carlo has been used for the uncertainty analysis of noiseparameter measurements both on and off wafer [8,9]. The best tests of the validity of the 

uncertainty analysis are the comparisons involved in verification methods for such 

measurements [19, 20]. In those cases, the observed agreement (within uncertainties) between 

predictions and measurements confirms not just the measurements, but also the associated 

uncertainties.

2.3 Results for Connectorized Amplifiers

The simulator has already been used to investigate strategies for improving noiseparameter measurements on connectorized amplifiers [11]. Although on-wafer transistors pose 

a significantly harder challenge, those connectorized results can inform our choice of issues 

for the on-wafer case. Relevant results from simulations on connectorized amplifiers are 

summarized as follows. Unsurprisingly, the input terminations should be distributed across 

the complex plane, comprising both highly reflective points and less reflective, interior points, 

including a matched load. Additional (beyond four) reflective terminations do not help 

appreciably. Also as expected, if a hot input termination is used, its noise temperature should 

be as far from ambient as possible (while still keeping the DUT and the output measurement 

system in their linear operating ranges). Using a cold (cryogenic) input matched load, in 

addition to the ambient and hot loads, helps significantly, particularly for low-noise amplifiers. 

Reflection coefficients at the output of the DUT should be measured rather than computed 

from cascade. Inclusion of a reverse measurement (direct measurement of the noise emanating 

from the input of the amplifier) helps, but it requires a different measurement configuration. 

We will see below whether these features persist in the case of on-wafer transistors.

3. INPUT VALUES

3.1 Transistor Properties

We are interested in exploring general features of on-wafer noise-parameter measurements, 

not special cases that only occur for certain values of input parameters. Accordingly, we will 

consider five different sets of transistor noise parameters, with a range of values of the 

parameters. Since challenging cases are the most interesting, we have included cases with 

(very) small Tmin and large |Γopt|,|S11|, and |S22|. The five different sets will be referred to as 

T1 – T5, and the values for their noise and scattering parameters are given in Tables 1 and 2. 

Although challenging, the values are realistic: the values for T1 – T4 were actual measured 

values from [7], and the values for T5 are representative of MOSFETs modelled in [21]. All 

five transistors are low-noise and are poorly matched, both in terms of |Γopt| and in terms of 
6

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 1. Noise parameters of the transistors considered in the simulations.

DUT G0 Tmin (K) Rn (Ω) |Γopt| φopt (

o

)

T1 7.68 31.1 10.7 0.652 86.0

T2 20.6 34.1 12.5 0.700 53.7

T3 2.63 60.3 9.66 0.671 119.

T4 20.1 3.92 15.2 0.947 47.1

T5 13.6 17.0 40.0 0.750 30.0

Table 2. Scattering parameters of the transistors considered in the simulations.

DUT S11 S12 S21 S22

T1 -0.4387-0.5873i 0.1377+0.0219i -

0.1628+2.767i

-0.4678-0.3364i

T2 -0.1291-0.7662i 0.1150+0.0565i -1.773+4.176i -0.2691-0.4924i

T3 -0.6007-0.4088i 0.1382-0.0143i 0.4413+1.560i -0.5716-0.2489i

T4 0.0297-0.8055i 0.1122+0.0692i -2.147+3.930i -0.1256-0.5274i

T5 0.8570-0.4950i 0.0023+0.0259i -3.196+1.845i 0.8310-0.3030i

S11 and S22. T4 is particularly low-noise and poorly matched, and is below the resolution of 

many or most measurement systems. 

The entries in the tables are the on-wafer values, taken at the reference planes of the onwafer calibration. Figure 1 [22] shows the general measurement setup, with reference planes 

identified. The listed values for T1 – T4 are taken from results that were obtained using pseudowaves [23] with a reference impedance of 50 Ω. The values for T5 are also taken to be for 

pseudo-waves with a reference impedance of 50 Ω. If a different reference impedance were 

used (e.g., if travelling waves were used), the specific numbers would change, but the 

qualitative conclusions of the paper would be the same. The five “transistors” listed in the 

tables are actually just sets of values at five individual frequencies. However, they cover a wide 

enough range of values as to be representative of the problems faced in measurements of onwafer transistor noise parameters.

3.2 Input Uncertainties

For the constellation of input reflection coefficients, we choose the set shown in Fig. 2. 

This represents a rather idealized set, in that it populates all four quadrants and includes both 

reflective and interior points, in addition to the two matched loads (one hot and the other 

ambient temperature). As noted in the introduction, our general approach will be to assume a 

good distribution of input reflection coefficients and to investigate other effects. The points are 

labelled so that we can refer to them individually. As with the noise parameters, the reflection 

coefficients are at the on-wafer reference plane 1 and are assumed to be for pseudo waves. Due 

to probe losses, the maximum value of the magnitude of the input reflection coefficient is 

approximately 0.907. One of the questions that will be considered is whether the measurement 
7

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

uncertainties could be improved significantly by increasing this maximum, by using lowerloss probes. 

The transistors of Table 1 are not all stable for all the terminations of Fig. 2. The simulation 

program checks for stability and flags unstable configurations. The stability criterion used was 

that |Γ2

| < 1 [24]. For each transistor, we delete from the base set those terminations that result 

in instability. The unstable terminations for T1, T2, and T4, are R4 and R5; for T3, only R5 is 

unstable; and for T5, only R2 is unstable. 

The input uncertainties are those used in the past by the noise project at NIST in the 

uncertainty analysis of on-wafer noise-parameter measurements [7,9]. Generally, they are 

somewhat larger than the corresponding uncertainties for measurements on connectorized 

amplifiers [11]. Real and imaginary parts of reflection coefficients are treated separately, and 

the same u(Γ) is used for each, u(ReΓ) = u(ImΓ) ≡ u(Γ) = 0.005. The correlation coefficient 

between errors in measurements of different reflection coefficients is taken to be ρ = 0.36. For 

the ambient temperature, we use an uncorrelated uncertainty of 0.5 K. This accounts for the 

variations in the thermostatically controlled laboratory temperature. Different measurements 

of the ambient temperature are separated by long enough time intervals that they can be treated 

as uncorrelated. In addition, there is the possibility of thermal gradients within the laboratory, 

resulting in a correlated error estimated to be 0.3 K. Combining the two results in an uncertainty 

of 0.5831 K in the ambient temperature, with a correlation coefficient of ρ = 0.1552. 

For the non-ambient input terminations, we assume that the noise temperature and its 

uncertainty are known at an off-wafer reference plane (1 ́ in Fig. 1) and that the values at the 

on-wafer reference plane (1 in Fig. 1) are calculated from the off-wafer values, T1 = αT1

′ +

(1 − α)Tamb. Errors in T1 due to errors in α are taken to be perfectly correlated, since the main 

contributors are errors in |S21|, which will be the same for all input terminations. Correlations 

of errors in T1

′ are taken to be negligible compared to those in α. Since α is a ratio of available 

Fig. 2 Constellation of input reflection coefficients for the Base set.
8

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

powers, it depends on the reflection coefficient of the input termination, but for purposes of 

the uncertainty estimate, we use the nominal value given by |S21|

2

, which is the value for a 

perfectly matched load. If we let uTamb(T1) be the uncertainty in the on-wafer noise temperature 

T1 due to the uncertainty in Tamb, and similarly for the contributions due to uncertainties in α

and T1

′ , then the uncertainty in T1 is given by

u(T1

) = √uTamb(T1)

2 + uα(T1)2 + uT1

′

(T1)

2 , (7)

where

uTamb(T1

) = (1 − α)u(Tamb), (8)

uα

(T1) = (Tamb − T1

′ )u(α), (9)

uT1

′

(T1) = αu(T1

′ ). (10)

The correlation between two non-ambient input noise temperatures, for example, a hot Th and 

a cold Tc, takes the form [22]

ρ = −

ucor(Tc

)ucor(Th)

u(Tc

)u(Th)

= −

uα

(Tc)uα(Th)

u(Tc

)u(Th)

, (11)

where ucor is the uncertainty arising from the correlated errors, and u(T) and uα(T) are given by 

eqs. (7) and (9), respectively. The minus sign is due to the fact that the errors in Th and Tc due 

to an error in α have different signs. Unless otherwise noted, we will use α = 0.75 and u(α) = 

0.01. For the non-ambient input temperatures, we use off-wafer values of Tc' = 80 K, u(Tc') = 

1.16 K, Th' = 1235 K, u(Th') = 6.17 K. With the aforementioned values for α and u(α), that leads 

to on-wafer values of Tc = 134 K, u(Tc) = 2.33 K, Th = 1000 K, u(Th) = 10.5 K, and ρ = - 0.831. 

The uncertainty for both off-wafer noise sources are typical of secondary noise sources, rather 

than primary noise standards that would be available only to national measurement 

laboratories.

The uncertainties in the measured output noise temperatures are modelled in a manner 

similar to the on-wafer input noise temperatures, 

u(T2

) = √uTamb(T2)

2 + uα(T2)2 + uT2

′

(T2)

2 , (12)

with uTamb(T2

), uα(T2), and uT2

′

(T2) given by the analogues of eqs. (2) – (5). For u(T2

′ ), 

the uncertainty in the measurement of the off-wafer output noise temperature, we use 

u(T2

′ ) = 0.005 × |T2′ − 296.15 K|, (13)
9

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

which is an adequate approximation of the uncertainty achievable with the radiometer used at 

NIST [25]. The more detailed approach to u(T2

′ ), used in [11], is not necessary here because 

the output probe prevents |Γ2

′ | from getting too close to 1. As is the case for the input noise 

temperatures, the principle source of correlated errors in the measured output noise temperature 

is the error in the value of α. We therefore take the correlation coefficient for measurement 

errors in different output noise temperatures to be 

ρij =

uα

(Ti)uα(Tj)

u(Ti

)u(Tj)

. (14)

Unlike eq. (11), there is no minus sign present because both output noise temperatures, Ti and 

Tj, will be greater than Tamb. 

It is worth noting that details of the input uncertainties have limited effect on most of the 

qualitative conclusions of this paper. The actual values of the noise-parameter uncertainties 

will, of course, depend on the values of the input uncertainties, but how the noise-parameter 

uncertainties vary with changes in the input uncertainties should not be very sensitive to the 

input values. Similarly, which input uncertainties have the largest effect on which noiseparameter uncertainties should depend only weakly on the values of the input uncertainties, as 

should the question of whether an alternate measurement strategy improves the output 

uncertainties.

4. DEPENDENCE ON INPUT UNCERTAINTIES

4.1 Base Set

The constellation of Fig. 2 (minus the unstable inputs for each transistor), with the input 

uncertainties discussed above, is used to establish a baseline to which we can compare results 

obtained with other uncertainties and with alternate configurations or strategies. These baseline 

results are presented in Table 3.

The wide range of values for a given noise-parameter uncertainty for the different 

transistors is attributable in part to the wide range of values for the noise parameters 

themselves, cf. Table 1, and in part due to different degrees of difficulty posed by the different 

DUTs, especially T4. The fraction of “bad” results (unphysical values or inability to obtain a 

Table 3. Results with the Base set as input.

DUT BADFRAC u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o)

T1 0.028 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

T2 0.073 0.34 10.0 0.33 0.041 2.0

T3 0.014 0.056 11.6 0.29 0.019 0.82

T4 0.54 0.32 15.3 0.38 0.083 4.7

T5 0.29 0.90 18.2 2.4 0.035 1.8
10

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

good fit, called “BADFRAC,”) is a general indication of the relative difficulty of the

measurements, but it is not necessarily a realistic measure of the fraction of the time that a 

measurement set would have to be discarded. For example, T4 has a “true” value of 

Tmin = 3.92; it may be that for such a small value, one would allow results with a small negative 

value for Tmin. We have not looked systematically at the cause of the “bad” results, whether 

they are from bad fits or from unphysical results, and if from unphysical results, which variable 

is unphysical.

4.2 Uncertainties in Hot Input Noise Temperature and Probe Efficiency

To investigate the effect of a given input uncertainty, we will keep all other input 

uncertainties fixed and increase or decrease only the uncertainty of interest. We first consider 

the effect of reducing the uncertainty in the hot input noise temperature. For connectorized 

amplifiers, this has a direct effect on the uncertainties in Tmin and G0. The on-wafer case is 

complicated by the presence of the probe. From eqs. (2) – (5) above, if the fractional 

uncertainty in the off-wafer hot source T1' is reduced by a factor of two, from 0.5 % to 0.25 %, 

the uncertainty in the on-wafer hot input noise temperature is only reduced from 1.046 % to 

0.967 %, resulting in negligible changes in the determination of the DUT noise parameters. 

Even if the uncertainty in the off-wafer hot noise temperature is zero, the uncertainty in the onwafer hot input noise temperature is still 0.938 %. This is due to the fact that from eqs. (7) –

(10), the dominant contribution to the uncertainty in the on-wafer hot input noise temperature 

is due to the uncertainty in the probe loss α. For the practical values that we consider, u(T1') 

makes little difference. This can be seen in Table 4, where for clarity we have listed both the

uncertainty in the off-wafer noise temperature T1' and the resulting uncertainty in the on-wafer 

noise temperature T1. Table 4 also includes the results for a larger value of input uncertainty, 

u(T1')/T1' = 0.01, which could be the case if the hot source were calibrated by a method that 

was less accurate than a comparison to NIST primary standards. In this case, there is a small, 

but significant increase in the uncertainties in u(Tmin).

If, however, we were to reduce u(α) by a factor of two, from 0.01 to 0.005, the uncertainty 

in the on-wafer input hot noise temperature would decrease from 1.046 % to 0.659 %, and 

there would be small, but significant, improvements in most cases for u(Tmin) and u(Rn). Results 

of varying u(α) are shown in Table 5. Table 5 also shows some counter-intuitive behavior of 

u(G0), which in some cases increases slightly as u(α) decreases. These small increases or 

fluctuations are not considered significant.

We have also explored the case in which the uncertainties in both α and the hot input noise 

temperature are varied, thus reducing the uncertainty in the on-wafer input hot temperature 

more effectively. As can be seen from Table 6, reducing both uncertainties results in a 

significant reduction in the uncertainty in u(Tmin) for most cases. Although the reduction is 

significant, it does only amount to about one quarter of the uncertainty, even when both 

uncertainties are reduced to zero; the remainder of the uncertainty in Tmin must be due to other 

input uncertainties.
11

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 4. Effect of reducing the uncertainty in the hot input noise temperature, u(T1').

DUT u(T1′)

T1′

u(T1)/T1 u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 0.0100 0.01318 0.15 10.5 0.32 0.039 0.51

0.0050 0.0105 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.0025 0.00967 0.14 9.6 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.0000 0.00938 0.13 9.6 0.28 0.039 0.51

T2 0.0100 0.01318 0.38 10.7 0.36 0.041 2.0

0.005 0.0105 0.34 10.0 0.33 0.041 2.0

0.0025 0.00967 0.34 9.8 0.32 0.041 2.0

0.0000 0.00938 0.33 9.7 0.32 0.041 2.0

T3 0.0100 0.01318 0.059 12.4 0.31 0.019 0.82

0.0050 0.0105 0.056 11.6 0.29 0.019 0.82

0.0025 0.00967 0.057 11.3 0.28 0.019 0.82

0.0000 0.00938 0.056 11.2 0.28 0.019 0.82

T4 0.0100 0.01318 0.35 15.8 0.41 0.084 4.7

0.0050 0.0105 0.32 15.3 0.38 0.083 4.7

0.0025 0.00967 0.32 15.1 0.37 0.083 4.7

0.0000 0.00938 0.31 15.1 0.36 0.083 4.7

T5 0.0100 0.01318 0.90 18. 2.4 0.035 1.8

0.0050 0.0105 0.90 18. 2.4 0.035 1.8

0.0025 0.00967 0.91 18. 2.4 0.035 1.8

0.0000 0.00938 0.91 18. 2.4 0.035 1.8
12

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 5. Effect of reducing the uncertainty in the probe loss, u(α).

DUT u(α) u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 0.01 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.008 0.14 9.2 0.28 0.039 0.51

0.005 0.14 8.4 0.26 0.038 0.49

0 0.14 8.3 0.26 0.037 0.49

T2 0.01 0.34 10.0 0.33 0.041 2.0

0.008 0.33 9.8 0.32 0.041 2.0

0.005 0.35 8.5 0.28 0.040 2.0

0 0.34 8.3 0.27 0.040 2.0

T3 0.01 0.056 12. 0.29 0.019 0.82

0.008 0.055 11. 0.29 0.018 0.82

0.005 0.059 10. 0.26 0.018 0.80

0 0.057 10. 0.26 0.018 0.80

T4 0.01 0.32 15. 0.38 0.083 4.7

0.008 0.33 15. 0.36 0.084 4.7

0.005 0.33 14. 0.32 0.082 4.7

0 0.31 14. 0.32 0.082 4.7

T5 0.01 0.90 18. 2.4 0.035 1.8

0.008 0.90 18. 2.4 0.035 1.8

0.005 0.93 18. 2.3 0.035 1.9

0 0.92 18. 2.3 0.035 1.9
13

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 6. Effect of varying the uncertainties both in the off-wafer hot input noise temperature 

u(T1') and in the probe efficiency u(α).

DUT u(T1')/T1', u(α) u(T1)/T1 u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 .01, .005 0.01318 0.15 10.5 0.32 0.039 0.51

.005, .0025 0.00523 0.14 8.2 0.25 0.038 0.49

.002, .001 0.00209 0.14 7.6 0.24 0.037 0.49

0, 0 0 0.15 7.4 0.24 0.037 0.49

T2 .01, .005 0.01318 0.38 10.7 0.36 0.041 2.0

.005, .0025 0.00523 0.33 8.3 0.27 0.040 2.0

.002, .001 0.00209 0.34 7.7 0.26 0.040 2.0

0, 0 0 0.37 7.5 0.25 0.040 2.0

T3 .01, .005 0.01318 0.059 12.4 0.31 0.019 0.82

.005, .0025 0.00523 0.057 10.0 0.26 0.018 0.80

.002, .001 0.00209 0.060 9.3 0.24 0.018 0.80

0, 0 0 0.063 9.0 0.24 0.018 0.80

T4 .01, .005 0.01318 0.35 15.8 0.41 0.084 4.7

.005, .0025 0.00523 0.31 14.1 0.31 0.082 4.6

.002, .001 0.00209 0.32 13.6 0.29 0.082 4.6

0, 0 0 0.34 13.4 0.28 0.082 4.6

T5 .01, .005 0.01318 0.90 18.4 2.4 0.035 1.8

.005, .0025 0.00523 0.92 17.8 2.3 0.035 1.9

.002, .001 0.00209 0.94 17.8 2.3 0.035 1.9

0, 0 0 0.96 17.8 2.3 0.035 1.9

4.3 Uncertainties in Output Noise-Temperature Measurements

The uncertainty in measuring the (off-wafer) output noise temperature T2' is expected to be 

an important factor in the uncertainty of the on-wafer noise parameters. The model for it was 

discussed in the preceding section, around eqs. (12) - (14). To investigate the effect of reducing 

this input uncertainty, we scaled it by factors of 1.2, 0.8, and 0.5, as well as setting it to 0.0. 

Results are shown in Table 7. There is a consistent, but small, improvement in the noiseparameter uncertainties as the uncertainty in the measurement of the output noise temperature 

is decreased. The changes in u(G0), though small, are significant, but even reducing this 

uncertainty from its current level to zero results in barely significant reductions in u(Tmin) and 

insignificant reductions in the uncertainties of the other noise parameters.

One factor in the relatively small effect that reducing the uncertainty in measuring the output 

noise temperature has is the degree of correlation in the errors in those measurements. Table 8 

compares the output uncertainties obtained with our best estimate of the correlation coefficient 

(ρxa = 0.64) to those obtained with perfect correlation and with no correlation. As can be seen, 
14

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

there is a small, but noticeable effect, with the uncertainties in G0, Tmin, and Rn increasing as 

the correlation coefficient decreases. The behavior of u(G0) and u(Tmin) can be understood by 

virtue of their determination being dominated by differences in the output measurements, and 

so if the errors are highly correlated, they will tend to cancel. Nonetheless, the effect is not 

large.

Table 7. Effect of changing the uncertainty in measuring T2' by a scale factor “Scale.”

DUT Scale u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 1.2 0.14 10.0 0.30 0.040 0.52

1.0 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.8 0.13 9.7 0.29 0.039 0.50

0.5 0.13 9.5 0.28 0.038 0.49

0.0 0.12 9.3 0.28 0.037 0.48

T2 1.2 0.35 10.2 0.33 0.042 2.0

1.0 0.34 10.0 0.33 0.041 2.0

0.8 0.32 9.9 0.32 0.041 2.0

0.5 0.31 9.7 0.32 0.040 2.0

0.0 0.30 9.5 0.31 0.040 2.0

T3 1.2 0.059 11.8 0.30 0.019 0.84

1.0 0.056 11.6 0.29 0.019 0.82

0.8 0.054 11.4 0.29 0.018 0.81

0.5 0.052 11.2 0.28 0.018 0.79

0.0 0.050 11.0 0.28 0.018 0.77

T4 1.2 0.33 15.4 0.38 0.084 4.8

1.0 0.32 15.3 0.38 0.083 4.7

0.8 0.30 15.1 0.37 0.083 4.7

0.5 0.29 15.0 0.36 0.082 4.7

0.0 0.27 14.8 0.36 0.082 4.6

T5 1.2 0.92 18.4 2.39 0.035 1.9

1.0 0.90 18.2 2.37 0.035 1.8

0.8 0.89 18.1 2.35 0.035 1.8

0.5 0.86 17.9 2.33 0.034 1.8

0.0 0.84 17.9 2.32 0.034 1.8
15

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 8. Effect of the correlation coefficient for errors in the measurement of the output noise 

temperatures.

DUT ρxa u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 1.00 0.13 9.6 0.28 0.038 0.51

0.64 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.00 0.14 10.1 0.31 0.042 0.52

T2 1.00 0.32 9.8 0.32 0.040 2.0

0.64 0.34 10.0 0.33 0.041 2.0

0.00 0.36 10.2 0.35 0.043 2.1

T3 1.00 0.055 11.3 0.28 0.018 0.81

0.64 0.056 11.6 0.29 0.019 0.82

0.00 0.058 11.8 0.31 0.019 0.82

T4 1.00 0.30 15.1 0.36 0.082 4.6

0.64 0.32 15.3 0.38 0.083 4.7

0.00 0.33 15.4 0.40 0.085 4.8

T5 1.00 0.91 17.8 2.3 0.035 1.8

0.64 0.90 18.2 2.4 0.035 1.8

0.00 0.87 18.9 2.5 0.035 1.9

4.4 Uncertainties in Measurements of Reflection Coefficients

The uncertainties in the input reflection coefficients and DUT scattering parameters have 

the greatest effect on the noise-parameter uncertainties (for the range of uncertainties that we 

consider). Table 9 shows the dependence of the noise-parameter uncertainties on the input 

uncertainties ucor(Γ) and uunc(Γ). The quantities ucor and uunc represent the uncertainties arising 

from the correlated and uncorrelated parts of the error. They are related to the uncertainty and 

correlation coefficient by [8,9,22]

u(yi)

2 = ucor(yi)2 + uunc(yi)2

, (15)

ρij = (±)

ucor(yi

)ucor(yj)

u(yi

)u(yj)

, (16)

where the sign is chosen according to whether the correlation is positive or negative. In Table 

9 the values of u(Γ) and ρij corresponding to the three nonzero sets of values of ucor(Γ) and 

uunc(Γ) are 0.005, 0.6; 0.00375, 0.6; and 0.002236, 0.00447.
16

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 9. Effect of varying the uncertainties in the reflection coefficient measurements.

DUT ucor(Γ), uunc(Γ) u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 0.003, 0.004 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.00225, 0.003 0.11 8.6 0.25 0.031 0.41

0.001, 0.002 0.09 7.1 0.22 0.022 0.31

0 0.07 5.8 0.18 0.012 0.19

T2 0.003, 0.004 0.34 10.0 0.33 0.041 2.02

0.00225, 0.003 0.28 8.8 0.29 0.032 1.55

0.001, 0.002 0.23 7.2 0.25 0.021 1.00

0 0.18 5.9 0.21 0.010 0.45

T3 0.003, 0.004 0.056 11.6 0.29 0.019 0.82

0.00225, 0.003 0.045 9.7 0.25 0.014 0.63

0.001, 0.002 0.035 7.7 0.20 0.009 0.42

0 0.026 6.1 0.16 0.004 0.21

T4 0.003, 0.004 0.32 15.3 0.38 0.083 4.7

0.00225, 0.003 0.27 13.1 0.33 0.071 4.0

0.001, 0.002 0.22 10.2 0.28 0.054 3.1

0 0.18 6.7 0.23 0.030 1.7

T5 0.003, 0.004 0.90 18.2 2.37 0.035 1.85

0.00225, 0.003 0.70 14.2 1.83 0.027 1.44

0.001, 0.002 0.47 10.8 1.35 0.018 0.98

0 0.22 6.3 0.78 0.006 0.36

It is clear from the table that all the noise-parameter uncertainties depend strongly on the 

input uncertainties in the reflection-coefficient measurements.

4.5 Ambient-Temperature Uncertainty 

The uncertainty in the ambient temperature has virtually no effect on the noise-parameter 

uncertainties as long as it is kept at a “reasonable” value. We have run simulations with varying 

uncertainties in the ambient temperature, and there is no significant difference between the 

results for zero uncertainty and those for uncertainty up to about 1.2 K. We did not run 

simulations for uncertainties larger than about 1.2 K. Because there is no significant effect, we 

do not present a tabulation of thesw results. It should be noted that the ambient temperature 

refers to the noise temperature of the “ambient” input terminations. It does not apply to any 

ambient standard used in measuring the output noise temperature (or power); any contribution 

from that uncertainty is included in the uncertainty in the measurement of the output noise 

temperature.
17

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

4.6 Varying all Input Uncertainties Simultaneously 

Finally, we consider the case in which all the input uncertainties are increased or decreased. 

Table 10 shows the result of multiplying all input uncertainties by a scale factor ranging from 

1.25 down to 0.25. (The trivial case of Scale = 0 is not tabulated, for obvious reasons.) Not 

surprisingly, the table shows that the noise-parameter uncertainties decrease linearly with the 

scale of the input uncertainties. 

Table 10. Effect of scaling all input uncertainties by a factor of “Scale.”

DUT Scale u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 1.25 0.17 12.0 0.36 0.049 0.64

1.00 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.75 0.11 7.4 0.22 0.029 0.38

0.50 0.08 4.9 0.15 0.019 0.26

0.25 0.04 2.4 0.07 0.009 0.13

T2 1.25 0.43 12.3 0.41 0.050 2.47

1.00 0.34 10.0 0.33 0.041 2.02

0.75 0.27 7.5 0.25 0.031 1.49

0.50 0.19 4.9 0.16 0.020 0.96

0.25 0.10 2.4 0.08 0.010 0.47

T3 1.25 0.071 14.4 0.36 0.023 1.03

1.00 0.056 11.6 0.29 0.019 0.82

0.75 0.044 8.6 0.22 0.014 0.61

0.50 0.030 5.7 0.14 0.009 0.41

0.25 0.016 2.8 0.07 0.005 0.20

T4 1.25 0.40 18.0 0.47 0.096 5.42

1.00 0.32 15.3 0.38 0.083 4.72

0.75 0.26 12.3 0.28 0.069 3.92

0.50 0.18 9.0 0.19 0.053 2.98

0.25 0.10 5.2 0.09 0.032 1.79

T5 1.25 1.13 23.3 3.05 0.042 2.24

1.00 0.90 18.2 2.37 0.035 1.85

0.75 0.69 13.7 1.75 0.027 1.41

0.50 0.47 9.7 1.20 0.018 0.95

0.25 0.25 5.2 0.62 0.009 0.48
18

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

4.7 General Features

The salient feature of the results above is the large effect of the uncertainties in the 

reflection-coefficient measurements, which include measurements of the DUT S-parameters 

and the reflection coefficients at the DUT output, as well as the reflection coefficients of the 

input terminations. This large influence extends not just to the effects on Γopt, where it would 

be expected, but also to the uncertainties in Tmin, Rn, and G0. If we refer to Table 9, we can 

estimate the u(Γ)-induced fraction of the uncertainty in each noise parameter by comparing the 

top line for each DUT to the bottom line results for that DUT. Doing so indicates that for Tmin, 

Rn, and G0, reflection-coefficient errors are responsible for roughly 40 % to 60 % of the 

uncertainties for T1 – T4, and around 70 % of the uncertainties for T5. For Γopt, the fraction is 

roughly 70 % to 80 % for all the DUTs.

Roughly one quarter to one third of the uncertainties in Tmin, Rn, and G0 are due to 

uncertainties in the input hot temperature and the probe loss. The uncertainties in measuring 

the output noise temperatures are responsible for roughly 5 % to 15 % of the uncertainties in 

Tmin, Rn, and G0. All these fractions are for the set of input uncertainties that we use in our 

standard analysis; if one of the input uncertainties were increased or decreased, the 

corresponding fractions would of course change accordingly.

5. SIMULATION RESULTS FOR IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES

5.1 Smaller Probe Loss

In considering other effects or possible improvement strategies, we again use the results of 

Table 3 for comparison. The first issue that we consider is the effect of probe losses. In the 

program, the inverse of the probe loss is represented by α, the available power ratio. In 

actuality, α depends on the reflection coefficient, Γ1 ́, connected to the input side of the input 

probe (Probe 1 in Fig. 1) and Γ2 for the output probe (Probe 2 in Fig. 1). Thus the exact value 

of α varies with the DUT and with the input termination. For simplicity, we approximate α by 

a single value, equal for the two probes, which can be taken to be the value of |S21|

2

. The 

baseline value for α is taken to be 0.75, with a standard uncertainty of 0.01. We have run 

simulations with a series of increasing values for α, and the results are summarized in Table 

11. The results for T2 and T3 are not shown because they are qualitatively similar to those for 

T1. The results indicate that improvements in α generally lead to insignificant changes in the 

uncertainties in the noise parameters. 

This behavior is not surprising if we consider the way that α enters the measurements. The 

on-wafer output noise temperature T2 is related to the measured off-wafer output noise 

temperature T2

′ by 

T2 =

1

α

T2

′ − (

1

α

− 1) Tamb. (17)

The fractional uncertainty in T2 is then approximately given by
19

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 11. Effect of larger values of α.

DUT α BADFRAC u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o)

T1 0.75 0.028 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.8 0.039 0.14 9.7 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.9 0.066 0.14 9.5 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.99 0.097 0.14 9.4 0.28 0.039 0.51

T4 0.75 0.54 0.32 15 0.38 0.083 4.7

0.8 0.55 0.33 15 0.37 0.083 4.7

0.9 0.57 0.33 15 0.36 0.083 4.7

0.99 0.60 0.33 15 0.36 0.083 4.7

T5 0.75 0.29 0.90 18 2.4 0.035 1.8

0.8 0.30 0.91 18 2.4 0.035 1.9

0.9 0.30 0.93 18 2.4 0.036 1.9

0.99 0.30 0.97 19 2.5 0.037 2.0

u(T2)

T2

≈ √(

u(T2

′ )

T2

′

)

2

+ (

T2

′ − Tamb

T2

′

)

2

(

u(α)

α

)

2

, (18)

which is only very weakly dependent on α. That is true for the output noise temperature for 

each of the input terminations. In addition, errors in the output noise temperature measurements 

for different input terminations due to errors in α are highly correlated, which further reduces 

the effect on uncertainties in parameters other than Tmin and G0. It is not surprising then that 

the uncertainty in the result of the fit to the many output noise temperatures should exhibit little 

sensitivity to the value of α, provided it is not too small (i.e., provided that the probe is not too 

lossy). The increase in BADFRAC as α increases is due to an increase in the number of bad 

fits, rather than unphysical parameter values. This may be due to the fact that we used the same 

value u(α) = 0.010 for all values of α, and that this has a bigger effect as α approaches 1.

Probe losses also constrain the range of achievable values for the on-wafer input reflection 

coefficients. (This assumes that the on-wafer states are generated from off-wafer states, 

through the input probe.) In order to test whether this is detrimental to the accuracy of the 

noise-parameter determination, we have performed simulations with larger values of the 

magnitudes of the input reflection coefficients. The largest value of |Γ| for the states in our 

base set is 0.9067. To test the effect of a larger maximum value of |Γ|, we multiply all the 

input reflection coefficients except those of the ambient and hot matched loads by a factor of 

1.04776, so that the maximum value of |Γ| becomes 0.95. Table 12 shows the results for the 

larger-maximum |Γ| case. As can be seen, there are small, barely significant, improvements in 

the uncertainties for Γopt.
20

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 12. Effect of a larger maximum for input |Γ|.

DUT Max |Γ| BADFRAC u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 0.906656 0.028 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

0.95 0.040 0.14 9.6 0.29 0.037 0.49

T2 0.906656 0.073 0.34 10.0 0.33 0.041 2.0

0.95 0.111 0.34 9.7 0.32 0.038 1.9

T3 0.906656 0.014 0.056 12 0.29 0.019 0.82

0.95 0.018 0.056 11 0.28 0.016 0.73

T4 0.906656 0.54 0.32 15 0.38 0.083 4.7

0.95 0.56 0.32 15 0.37 0.080 4.5

T5 0.906656 0.29 0.90 18 2.4 0.035 1.8

0.95 0.28 0.90 18 2.4 0.030 1.7

5.2 Inclusion of a Cryogenic Input Noise Temperature

One of the most effective modifications of the typical procedure for noise-parameter 

measurements of connectorized amplifiers was the inclusion of a cold (i.e., cryogenic) input 

matched load. Table 13 compares results obtained with the base set (B) to results with the hot 

input replaced by a cold input (B-h+c) and with the base set (including the hot input) plus a

cold input (B+c). As noted above, the cold input in these cases was taken to be Tc' = 80.0 K ± 

1.16 K, leading to an on-wafer value of 134.0 K ± 2.33 K, with a correlation of ρ = - 0.8316 

between errors in the hot and cold input noise temperatures on-wafer. The results indicate that 

adding a cold input matched load leads to small but significant improvements in the 

uncertainties for G0, Tmin, and often for Rn. Substituting the cold source for the hot source (Bh+c) increases those uncertainties significantly. The results shown in Table 13 are for α = 0.75. 

For larger values of α, the same effect (or larger) is seen. We have also performed simulations 

with larger and smaller values of the cold input temperature. As one would expect, the colder 

the input noise temperature, the better the uncertainties. 

The results of Table 13 are rather different from the results obtained for connectorized 

amplifiers [11]. For the connectorized amplifiers, use of a cold input termination led to large 

improvements in the uncertainties when it was used in addition to the hot input termination; 

and even when the cold source was used instead of the hot termination, there was often 

significant improvement. The difference is due to the fact that the on-wafer input temperature 

is not as cold as the cold temperature assumed in the case of the connectorized amplifiers. The 

connectorized case used an input cold temperature of 99 K, as opposed to the on-wafer 

temperature of 134 K that we use. If an on-wafer input temperature of 100 K were used, then 

Table 13. Effect of using a cold input source instead of or in addition to the hot matched load.
21

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

DUT INPUT BADFRAC u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 Base 0.028 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

B-h+c 0.028 0.17 9.7 0.33 0.039 0.51

B+c 0.019 0.12 8.9 0.28 0.038 0.51

T2 Base 0.073 0.34 10.0 0.33 0.041 2.0

B-h+c 0.073 0.42 9.3 0.35 0.041 2.0

B+c 0.056 0.28 8.8 0.30 0.041 2.0

T3 Base 0.014 0.056 12 0.29 0.019 0.82

B-h+c 0.014 0.077 12 0.35 0.019 0.82

B+c 0.011 0.050 10 0.27 0.019 0.82

T4 Base 0.54 0.32 15 0.38 0.083 4.7

B-h+c 0.52 0.39 16 0.41 0.082 4.7

B+c 0.51 0.26 15 0.34 0.081 4.6

T5 Base 0.29 0.90 18 2.4 0.035 1.8

B-h+c 0.33 1.24 27 3.5 0.033 1.8

B+c 0.23 0.85 15 2.0 0.032 1.7

the results would be similar to those for the connectorized amplifiers, but that would require 

an off-wafer noise temperature of Tc' = 34.6 K for our assumed value of α = 0.75.

5.3 Measurement vs. Computation of Output Reflection Coefficient

In measuring the noise parameters, it is necessary to know the output reflection coefficient 

of the transistor for each input termination. Since one also needs to know the device Sparameters, as well as the reflection coefficient of each input termination, it is possible to 

compute the output reflection coefficient, rather than measure it directly,

Γ2,i = S22 +

S21S12Γ1,i

(1 − S11Γ1,i)

. (19)

An examination of eq. (19) leads to the expectation that the uncertainty in computing Γ2,i would 

be greater than from measuring it directly, but how big an effect would that have on the noiseparameter uncertainties? To address that question, we performed simulations with Γ2,i

determined the two different ways, by computation and by direct measurement. The results are 

shown in Table 14, with “C” and “M” indicating that Γ2,i was determined by computation or 

measurement, respectively. The table shows a significant, though not always dramatic,

deterioration in the uncertainties for Γopt if Γ2,i is computed rather than measured. One caveat 

about these results is that they may be quite sensitive to correlations between errors in S21 and 

S12.
22

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 14. Comparison of measurement (M) vs. computation (C) for determination of Γ2,i.

DUT C or M u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 M 0.028 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039

C 0.14 0.15 10.2 0.39 0.046

T2 M 0.073 0.34 10 0.33 0.041

C 0.56 0.39 11 0.41 0.056

T3 M 0.014 0.056 12 0.29 0.019

C 0.005 0.054 13 0.33 0.031

T4 M 0.54 0.32 15 0.38 0.083

C 0.77 0.36 18 0.48 0.10

T5 M 0.29 0.90 18 2.4 0.035

C 0.45 0.79 26 3.4 0.046

5.4 Inclusion of a Reverse Noise Measurement

One of the more effective, albeit inconvenient, methods for improving the measurements 

in the connectorized-amplifier case was found to be the inclusion of a reverse measurement. 

This consists of terminating the usual output of the DUT with an ambient temperature matched 

load and measuring the noise emanating from the input port, as indicated in Fig. 3. Such a

measurement was suggested long ago [26], and it has been included in more recent analyses 

and also as a verification method [19, 27]. Table 15 compares simulation results with and 

without inclusion of a reverse measurement. As in the connectorized case, inclusion of a 

reverse measurement leads to a major reduction in the uncertainties for Γopt. These results are

consistent with those previously reported in [27], where the strategy was implemented in actual 

on-wafer MOSFET measurements.

Fig. 3 Configuration for reverse measurement.

DUT Matched

Load

1 2

Wafer

Probe 1

1'
23

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 15. Comparison of simulation results with and without inclusion of a reverse

measurement.

DUT Input BADFRAC u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o

)

T1 Base (B) 0.028 0.14 9.8 0.29 0.039 0.51

B+R 0.022 0.13 9.8 0.28 0.023 0.47

T2 B 0.073 0.34 10 0.33 0.041 2.0

B+R 0.062 0.32 10 0.32 0.024 1.3

T3 B 0.014 0.056 12 0.29 0.019 0.82

B+R 0.014 0.053 12 0.29 0.015 0.64

T4 B 0.54 0.32 15 0.38 0.083 4.7

B+R 0.53 0.31 14 0.36 0.059 3.4

T5 B 0.29 0.90 18 2.4 0.035 1.8

B+R 0.33 0.90 18 2.5 0.027 1.9

.

5.5 On-Wafer Amplifier Measurements

For completeness, we have also considered the improvement strategies applied to noiseparameter measurements of on-wafer amplifiers. The significant difference between the 

amplifiers and the transistors is that the amplifiers are much better matched, with lower values 

of S11, S22, and Γopt. Tables 16 and 17 list the noise parameters and S-parameters of the 

amplifiers that were used in the simulations. 

Table 16. Noise parameters of the amplifiers considered in the simulations.

DUT G0 Tmin (K) Rn (Ω) |Γopt| φopt (

o

)

A1 1708 59.71 6.550 0.1988 35.26

A2 1889 114.9 5.680 0.1937 150.8

A3 212.7 291.5 19.79 0.2259 91.82

Table 17. Scattering parameters of the amplifiers considered in the simulations.

DUT S11 S12 S21 S22

A1 0.1763+0.1742i 0.0024+0.0005i -38.9668+13.7793i -0.1739+0.0498i

A2 -0.179+0.0221i 0.0003-0.0004i -35.8828+24.5332i 0.1105+0.0235i

A3 0.1721-0.4361i -0.0015-0.0038i -14.5684+0.6504i 0.0518+0.1165i
24

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Fig. 4 Constellations of input reflection coefficients used for on-wafer amplifier simulations.

Since noise-parameter measurements on amplifiers are less demanding than those on 

transistors, a smaller set of ten input terminations was used as a base set. The input reflection

coefficients for this base set (called B1) are shown in Fig. 4. Simulations were performed using 

a different base set (B2, also shown in Fig. 4) to test for sensitivity to the particular choice of 

input terminations. The (on-wafer) hot input noise temperature was again taken to be 1000 K.

Simulations were then run for two improvement strategies: addition of a cryogenic input

termination (134 K on-wafer, labeled C1) and inclusion of a reverse measurement (labeled R). 

Results of the simulations are shown in Table 18.The results of Table 18 show a clear 

improvement in the uncertainties for G0 and Tmin when either a cryogenic input termination or 

a reverse measurement is added. Uncertainties for Rn and Γopt show little or no effect. Results 

for the two different base sets show no significant differences. 

The results of Table 18 show a clear improvement in the uncertainties for G0 and Tmin when 

either a cryogenic input termination or a reverse measurement is added. Uncertainties for Rn

and Γopt show little or no effect. Results for the two different base sets show no significant 

differences. 
25

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

Table 18. Simulation results for on-wafer amplifiers, with different input sets.

DUT Input u(G0) u(Tmin) (K) u(Rn) (Ω) u(|Γopt|) u(φopt) (o)

A1 B1 15 6.0 0.15 0.013 0.83

B2 15 5.9 0.16 0.013 0.87

B1+R 14 4.7 0.15 0.013 0.83

B1+C1 12 5.2 0.15 0.013 0.83

A2 B1 16 6.8 0.14 0.0080 0.56

B2 16 6.7 0.15 0.0083 0.59

B1+R 15 5.3 0.14 0.0080 0.56

B1+C1 13 6.0 0.14 0.0080 0.56

A3 B1 2.5 11 0.42 0.0061 0.33

B2 2.5 11 0.42 0.0061 0.35

B1+R 2.4 9.7 0.41 0.0059 0.33

B1+C1 2.2 9.6 0.40 0.0060 0.33

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We have presented the results of a detailed study of the uncertainties in on-wafer 

measurements of transistor noise parameters. Five different DUTs were used in the study, 

covering a range of values of the noise parameters. This was done to enable us to extract 

general features, rather than results that depended on some coincidence of the particular values 

used. The simulations were all performed with a rather idealized set of input terminations, 

appropriately truncated to remove any terminations for which the DUT was unstable. The 

distribution of input reflection coefficients was not one of the variables considered in the study. 

It was assumed that the gain parameter (represented by G0 ≡ |S21|

2

) was determined by the 

noise measurements, rather than from VNA measurements of the S-parameters. The reference 

set of uncertainties for the input parameters was that used in actual noise-parameter 

measurements at NIST. Although the specific numerical values for the noise-parameter 

uncertainties will depend on the specific input values used and on the method for determining 

G0, we expect that the qualitative features that are extracted from the results apply more 

generally than the particular cases studied.

We first investigated the dependence of the noise parameters on the input uncertainties, 

i.e., the uncertainties in the measurements of the various reflection coefficients, noise 

temperatures, scattering parameters, and the like. The dependence of the noise-parameter 

uncertainties on the input uncertainties exhibited some differences from the case of 

connectorized-amplifier noise parameters, due in part to the buffering effect of the input and 

output probes and in part to the more challenging measurement problem posed by the 

properties of the transistors—the very low noise levels and the very poor matching to a 50 Ω

environment. The most striking difference between the off-wafer and on-wafer cases was that 
26

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

the noise-parameter uncertainties in the on-wafer case are more sensitive to the reflectioncoefficient uncertainties and less sensitive to other input uncertainties than in the off-wafer 

case. To reiterate the conclusion of Section 4, roughly one quarter to one third of the 

uncertainties in Tmin, Rn, and G0 are due to uncertainties in the input hot temperature and the

probe loss. The uncertainties in measuring the output noise temperatures are responsible for 

roughly 5 % to 15 % of the uncertainties in Tmin, Rn, and G0. The remainders are due to 

uncertainties in the input reflection coefficients. (All these fractions are for the set of input 

uncertainties that we use in our standard analysis; if one of the input uncertainties were 

increased or decreased, the corresponding fractions would of course change accordingly.)

The second part of the investigation tested the efficacy of various strategies for reducing 

the noise-parameter uncertainties, in particular those strategies that were found effective for 

connectorized amplifiers. Again, the results differed significantly for the on-wafer transistors. 

For connectorized amplifiers, adding an input termination with a cryogenic noise temperature 

led to a significant improvement in the uncertainties, particularly for Tmin and G0 but also for 

Rn. For on-wafer transistors, the effect of adding a cryogenic input termination is blunted by 

the presence of the input probe, and the improvements are considerably smaller, though still 

present. The addition of a reverse measurement, which helped considerably in the off-wafer 

case, is also quite effective in reducing the uncertainties on wafer, particularly for Γopt. As in 

the off-wafer case, however, it is somewhat inconvenient to implement. Other possible 

improvements were also studied. Using probes with less loss had minimal direct effect, while 

the availability and use of higher values for the maximum magnitude of the input reflection 

coefficient led to a small improvement in the uncertainty for Γopt. As was the case for 

connectorized-amplifier measurements, much smaller uncertainties resulted from measuring 

the reflection coefficient at the output of the DUT, rather than computing it from a cascade of 

input reflection coefficient and DUT S-parameters. 

The case of well-matched amplifiers on a wafer was also considered. In that case, addition 

of a reverse measurement led to significant improvement in the uncertainties for G0 and Tmin, 

as did inclusion of a cryogenic input termination.

________________________

This work benefitted greatly from collaboration and discussions with Dave Walker and 

Dazhen Gu, who, along with the late Rob Billinger, also provided all the measurement support 

for the work. Discussions with Jack Wang and Jolene Splett on statistical aspects of the work 

are also gratefully acknowledged.

7. REFERENCES

[1] J. Randa, “Amplifier and transistor noise-parameter measurements,” in Wiley 

Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Edited by John Webster, 2014.

[2] F. Danneville, “Microwave noise and FET devices,” IEEE Microw. Mag., vol. 11, no. 6, 

pp. 53 – 60, Oct. 2010.
27

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

[3] M.W. Pospieszalski, “Interpreting transistor noise, IEEE Microw. Mag., vol. 11, no. 6, pp.

61 – 69, Oct. 2010.

[4] M.J. Deen, D.-H. Chen, S. Asgaran, G.A.Rezvani, J. Tao, and Y. Kiyota, “High-frequency

noise of modern MOSFETs: compact modeling and measurement issues,” IEEE Trans.

Electron Devices, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 2062 – 2081, Sept 2006.

[5] V. Adamian and A. Uhlir, “Simplified noise evaluation of microwave receivers,” IEEE

Trans. Instrum. and Meas., vol. IM-33, no. 2, pp. 136-140, June 1984.

[6] V. Adamian, “2 – 26.5 GHz on-wafer noise and S-parameter measurements using a solid

state tuner,” 34th ARFTG Conference Digest, pp. 33 – 40, Nov. 1989.

[7] J. Randa and D.K. Walker, “On-wafer measurement of transistor noise parameters at

NIST,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. and Meas., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 551 – 554, April 2007.

[8] J. Randa, “Uncertainty analysis for NIST noise-parameter measurements,” NIST Tech.

Note 1530, March 2008.

[9] J. Randa, “Uncertainty analysis for noise-parameter measurements at NIST,” IEEE Trans.

Instrum. and Meas., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1146 – 1151, April 2009.

[10] J. Randa, “Simulator for amplifier and transistor noise-parameter measurement,” 2010

Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurements Digest, pp. 555 – 556,

Washington, DC, June 2010.

[11] J. Randa, “Comparison of noise-parameter measurement strategies: simulation results

for amplifiers,” 84th ARFTG Conference Digest, Boulder, CO, Dec. 2014.

[12] G. Caruso and M. Sannino, “Computer-aided determination of microwave two-port

noise parameters,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theor. Tech., vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 639 – 642, Nov.

1978.

[13] A.C. Davidson, B.W. Leake, and E. Strid, “Accuracy improvements in microwave

noise parameter measurements,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theor. Tech., vol. 37, no. 11, pp.

1973 – 1978, Nov. 1989.

[14] S. Van den Bosch and L. Martens, “Improved impedance-pattern generation for

automatic noise-parameter determination,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theor. Tech., vol. 46, no.

11, pp. 1673 – 1678, Nov. 1998.

[15] M. Himmelfarb and L. Belostotski, “On impedance-pattern selection for noise

parameter measurement,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theor. Tech., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 258 – 270,

Jan. 2016.
28

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1939

[16] S. Wedge and D. Rutledge, “Wave techniques for noise modeling and measurement,”

IEEE Trans. Microw. Theor. Tech., vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 2004 – 2012, Nov. 1992.

[17] H.A. Haus, W.R. Atkinson, G.M. Branch, W.B. Davenport Jr., W.H. Fonger, W.A.

Harris, S.W. Harrison, W.W. McLeod, E.K. Stodola, and T.E. Talpey, “Representation of

noise in linear twoports,” Proc. IRE, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 69 – 74, Jan. 1960.

[18] W.H. Press, B.P. Flannery, S.A. Teukolsky, and W.R. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes,

Ch. 14.1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1986).

[19] J. Randa and D.K. Walker, “Amplifier noise-parameter measurement checks and

verification,” 63rd ARFTG Conference Digest, pp. 41 – 45, Fort Worth, TX, June 2004.

[20] J. Randa, J. Dunsmore, D. Gu, K. Wong, D.K. Walker, and R.D. Pollard, “Verification

of noise-parameter measurements and uncertainties,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. and Meas., vol.

60, no. 11, pp. 3685 – 3693, Nov. 2011.

[21] P. Yu, B. Chen, and J. Gao, “Micreowave noise modeling for MOSFETs,”

International Journal of Numerical Modelling: Electronic Networks, Devices and Fields,

2015. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI:

10.1002/jnm.2061.

[22] J. Randa, “Numerical modeling and uncertainty analysis of transistor noise-parameter

measurements,” International Journal of Numerical Modelling: Electronic Networks,

Devices and Fields, 2014. Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/jnm.2039.

[23] R.B. Marks and D.F. Williams, “A general waveguide circuit theory,” J. Res. Natl.

Stand. Tech., vol. 97, pp. 533 – 562, Oct. 1992.

[24] D.M. Pozar, Microwave Engineering, 2nd Ed., Ch. 11.2, p. 612, John Wiley & Sons,

1998.

[25] C.A. Grosvenor, J. Randa, and R.L. Billinger, “Design and testing of NFRad—a new

noise measurement system,” NIST Tech. Note 1518, March 2000.

[26] D. Wait and G. Engen, “Application of radiometry to the accurate measurement of

amplifier noise,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. and Meas., vol. 40, no. 2 pp. 433 – 437, April 1991;

correction: ibid, vol. 42, no. 1, p78, Feb. 1993.

[27] J. Randa, T. McKay, S.L. Sweeney, D.K. Walker, L. Wagner, D.R. Greenberg, J. Tao,

and G.A. Rezvani, “Reverse noise measurement and use in device characterization,” 2006

IEEE RFIC Symposium Digest, pp. 345 – 348, San Francisco, CA, June 2006.