\section{Introduction}
Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation (EDR)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hei27}
\varepsilon(A)\eta(B)\ge\frac{1}{2}|{\langle {[A,B]} \rangle}|
\end{equation}
for the mean error $\varepsilon(A)$ of a measurement of an observable $A$ in any state
and the mean disturbance $\eta(B)$ caused on an observable $B$,
originally introduced by the $\gamma$-ray microscope thought experiment \cite{Hei27},
has been commonly believed as a dynamical aspect of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
which is formally represented by the rigorously proven relation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Rob29}
\sigma(A)\sigma(B)\ge\frac{1}{2}|{\langle {[A,B]} \rangle}|
\end{equation}
for the indeterminacies, defined as the standard deviations $\sigma(A)$ and $\sigma(B)$,
of arbitrary observables $A,B$
in any state \cite{Hei27,Ken27,Rob29}.
There have been longstanding research efforts to prove Heisenberg's EDR
\cite{AK65,YH86, AG88,Ish91,91QU}, while the universal validity has not been reached.
Instead, a recent study  \cite{03UVR,04URN} revealed a
universally valid form of EDR
\begin{equation}\label{eq:UVEDR}
\varepsilon(A)\eta(B)+\varepsilon(A)\sigma(B)+\sigma(A)\eta(B)\ge\frac{1}{2}|{\langle {[A,B]} \rangle}|,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma(A)$ and $\sigma(B)$ are the standard deviations just before the
measurement,
and made Heisenberg's EDR testable  \cite{04URN,LW10}
 to observe its violations \cite{12EDU,RDMHSS12,13VHE}, confirming the validity of the new relation as well.
Subsequently, stronger EDRs were derived \cite{Bra13,Bra14,14EDR,19A1}, and
 confirmed experimentally
\cite{13EVR,WHPWP13,14A1,RBBFBW14,16A3,Liu19}.

In order to define the error $\varepsilon(A)$ and disturbance $\eta(B)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:UVEDR}),
we suppose that the measurement
$\mathbf{M}$ of $A$ is described by an interaction from time $t=0$ to $t=\tau$
between the system $\mathbf{S}$ in a state
$|{\psi}\rangle$ and the probe $\mathbf{P}$ with the meter observable $M$
prepared in a fixed state $|{\xi}\rangle$.
In the Heisenberg picture, we shall write $X(0)=X\otimes I$, $X(\tau)=U^{\dagger}X(0)U$,
$Y(0)=I\otimes Y$, $Y(\tau)=U^{\dagger}Y(0)U$ for observables $X$ in $\mathbf{S}$
 and $Y$ in $\mathbf{P}$,
where  $U$ is the unitary evolution operator for $\mathbf{S}+\mathbf{P}$ from $t=0$ to $t=\tau$.
The error $\varepsilon(A)=
\varepsilon_{O}(A,\mathbf{M},|{\psi}\rangle)$ and
disturbance  $\eta(B)=
\eta_{O}(B,\mathbf{M},|{\psi}\rangle)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:UVEDR}) are state-dependently defined
by
\begin{align}{
\varepsilon_{O}(A,\mathbf{M},|{\psi}\rangle)&=\langle{\psi,\xi|[M(\tau)-A(0)]^2|\psi,\xi}\rangle^{1/2},\\
\eta_{O}(B,\mathbf{M},|{\psi}\rangle)&=\langle{\psi,\xi|[B(\tau)-B(0)]^2|\psi,\xi}\rangle^{1/2},\label{eq:O-dist}
}\end{align}
where $|\psi,\xi\rangle=|\psi\rangle\otimes|\xi\rangle$;
see Ref.~\cite{04URN} for details.
We call $\varepsilon_{O}$ and $\eta_{O}$ as the {\em operator-based
error measure}
and the {\em operator-based disturbance measure}.
We shall write $\varepsilon_{O}(A)=\varepsilon_{O}(A,\mathbf{M},|{\psi}\rangle)$ and
$\eta_{O}(B)=\eta_{O}(B,\mathbf{M},|{\psi}\rangle)$ when no confusion may occur.

Korzekwa, Jennings, and Rudolph (KJR) \cite{KJR14}\  criticized the use of the
operator-based disturbance measure, based on their definition
of  ``operationally''  non-disturbing measurements proposed as follows.

{\em Definition: Operational disturbance.}
 {A measurement is ``operationally''  non-disturbing to an
observable $B$ in the system state $|{\psi}\rangle$
if $B(0)$ and $B(\tau)$  have identical probability distributions
in $|{\psi,\xi}\rangle$.}

Based on this, they posed the following requirement.

{\em  Operational requirement (OR) for disturbance measures.}
{Any disturbance measure should assign the value 0 to
``operationally''  non-disturbing measurements.}

KJR \cite{KJR14}\  called the OR
 ``the commonly accepted and operationally
motivated requirement that all physically meaningful notions of disturbance should
satisfy."  They claimed that the operator-based disturbance measure
does not satisfy the OR and has even an `unphysical' property,
since it takes a positive value for a measurement that does not change the state at all.
Further, they concluded that state-dependent formulations of EDRs
are not tenable.

In this paper, we examine the validity of the OR.
For this purpose, we consider a more fundamental principle in quantum mechanics,
the correspondence principle, stating that if the classical description is available,
quantized concepts should be consistent with the classical description.
We argue that the OR violates the correspondence principle.
We generally show that even if the measurement does not change the state,
the disturbance is operationally detectable as long as the operator-based
disturbance measure takes a positive value.
Thus, the claim made by KJR that the operator-based disturbance measure has
an `unphysical' property is groundless.
The OR requires that disturbance measures only count the change of the
probability distribution in time, but according to the correspondence principle,
valid disturbance measures should also count the change of the observable
that manifest in the time-like correlation, as the operator-based disturbance
measure does.
We show that the operator-based disturbance measure satisfies the
correspondence principle, and
conclude that state-dependent formulations of EDRs
based on the operator-based disturbance measure reliably represent
the originally motivated dynamical aspect of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

\section{Correspondence principle}
The correspondence principle generally states that quantum theory should be consistent
with classical theories in those cases where the classical descriptions are also available.
In fact, it is a common practice to apply classical
descriptions to commuting observables through their joint probability
distributions.

It is well-known that any commuting observables $X,Y$ have their joint probability
distribution in any state.
Here, for a given state $|{\Psi}\rangle$, the {\em joint probability distribution (JPD)}
of any two observables $X,Y$
is defined as a probability distribution $\mu(u,v)$ satisfying
\begin{align}{\label{eq:JPD-CP}
\langle{\Psi|f(X,Y)|\Psi}\rangle=\sum_{u,v}\, f(u,v)\mu(u,v)
}\end{align}
for every (non-commutative) polynomial $f(X,Y)$ of $X$ and $Y$.
In general, two observables $X,Y$ have their JPD in a state $|{\Psi}\rangle$
if and only if they commute in $|{\Psi}\rangle$ in the sense that
$[P^{X}(u),P^{Y}(v)]|{\Psi}\rangle=0$,
where $P^{X}(u)$ and $P^{Y}(v)$ denote the spectral projections of $X$ and $Y$.
In this case, the JPD $\mu$ is uniquely determined by
\begin{align}{
\mu(u,v)=\langle{\Psi|P^{X}(u)P^{Y}(v)|\Psi}\rangle,
}\end{align}
for their eigenvalues $u,v$ (Ref.~\cite{19A1}, Theorem 1).

Suppose that $B(\tau)$ and $B(0)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:O-dist}) have their JPD $\mu$
in the initial state $|{\psi,\xi}\rangle$.
Then their JPD $\mu$ determines the {\em (classical) root-mean-square deviation (RMSD)}
$\delta_G(\mu)$ between $B(\tau)$ and $B(0)$ by
\begin{align}{
\delta_G(\mu)=\left(\sum_{u,v}\,(u-v)^2 \mu(u,v)\right)^{1/2}.
\label{eq:CP}}\end{align}

We say that a disturbance measure $\eta$ satisfies
the {\em correspondence principle (CP)}
if $\eta(B)=\delta_G(\mu)$ provided that  $B(\tau)$ and $B(0)$ have their JPD $\mu$
in the initial state $|{\psi,\xi}\rangle\rangle$.
An important property of the operator-based disturbance measure $\eta_{O}$ is that
it satisfies the CP, as easily follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:JPD-CP}).

\section{Disturbing observables without disturbing states}\label{se:DWOSC}
KJR \cite{KJR14}\  identified as `unphysical' the property of the operator-based disturbance
measure $\eta_{O}$ that it may not assign the value 0
when the state has not changed at all.
In such a case, the probability distribution of every observable has not changed,
so that this is a stronger violation of the OR.
However, we shall show here that this is not a peculiarity of the operator-based
disturbance measure, but a straightforward consequence of the CP.

Consider a qubit measurement.
The projective measurement of $A=\sigma_z$
in the state $|{0}\rangle:=|{\sigma_z=+1}\rangle$ does not change the initial state $|{\psi}\rangle=|{0}\rangle$.
In this case, it was shown that the operator-based disturbance measure indicates that
$B=\sigma_x$ is disturbed by the amount $\eta_{O}(\sigma_x)=\sqrt{2}$ \cite{05UUP},
and this value was actually obtained by a neutron optical experiment \cite{13EVR}.
However,  according to the OR, every disturbance measure $\eta$ should assign the value 0.
In contrast, we shall show that every disturbance measure $\eta$ satisfying the CP\
assigns the same value $\sqrt{2}$.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figure-cp}
\caption{
``Operationally'' non-disturbing measurements violate the correspondence principle.
A projective measurement of $\sigma_z$ in $|{\psi}\rangle=|{0}\rangle$ is `operationally'  non-disturbing to
the observable $\sigma_x$.
Thus, the OR  requires any disturbance measure $\eta$ to assign the value as
$\eta(\sigma_x)=0$.
However,  the CP\  requires any disturbance measure
$\eta$ to assign the value as $\eta(\sigma_x)=\sqrt{2}$.
}
\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

It is well-known that the projective measurement of $\sigma_z$ is carried out by
the controlled-NOT operation
\begin{align}{U=|{0}\rangle\langle{0}|\otimes I +|{1}\rangle\langle{1}|\otimes \sigma_x}\end{align}
for the measured qubit $\mathbf{S}$ and the probe qubit $\mathbf{P}$ prepared
in the fixed state $|{\xi}\rangle=|{0}\rangle$ from $t=0$ to $t=\tau$
and by the subsequent meter measurement for $M=\sigma_z$ in $\mathbf{P}$ (Figure~\ref{fig1}) .
The Schr\"{o}dinger time evolution satisfies
\begin{align}
U(|{0}\rangle\otimes|{0}\rangle)&=|{0}\rangle\otimes|{0}\rangle,\\
U(|{1}\rangle\otimes|{0}\rangle)&=|{1}\rangle\otimes|{1}\rangle.
\end{align}
For $B=\sigma_x$ the Heisenberg time evolution is given by
\begin{align}
\sigma_x(0)&=\sigma_x\otimes I,\\
\sigma_x(\tau)&=\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x \label{eq:Xtau}.
\end{align}
Here, Eq.~(\ref{eq:Xtau}) follows from
\begin{align*}
U^{\dagger}(\sigma_x\otimes I)U
&=|1\rangle\langle 1|\sigma_x|0\rangle\langle 0|\otimes\sigma_x
+|0\rangle\langle 0|\sigma_x|1\rangle\langle 1|\otimes\sigma_x\\
&=\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x .
\end{align*}
It follows that  $\sigma_x(\tau)$ and $\sigma_x(0)$ commute and they have the JPD $\mu(u,v)$
in the state  $|{\psi,\xi}\rangle=|{0,0}\rangle$ as
\begin{align}
\mu(u,v)&=\langle{0,0|P^{\sigma_x(\tau)}(u)P^{\sigma_x(0)}(v)|0,0}\rangle\nonumber\\
&=\langle{0,0|P^{\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x}(u)P^{\sigma_x\otimes I}(v)|0,0}\rangle.
\end{align}
Then  we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DWOSC}
\mu(u,v)=\frac{1}{4}
\end{equation}
(see Appendix A for derivation).
Thus, if the disturbance measure $\eta$ satisfies the CP,
we have
\begin{align}{
\eta(\sigma_x)^2=\delta_{G}(\mu)^2=\sum_{u,v=\pm 1}(u-v)^2\mu(u,v)
=2.
}\end{align}
Therefore we conclude $\eta(\sigma_x)=\sqrt{2}$.
Thus, the non-zero value $\eta_{O}(\sigma_x)=\sqrt{2}$ is not
a peculiar property of the operator-based disturbance measure.

This conclusion might sound counter-intuitive, as the pure sate has
the ``maximal information'' about the system.
However, unchanging the pure state does not imply unchanging the observable,
because the ``maximal information'' about the system does not include
the ``maximal information'' about an observable,
analogously with the fact that the ``maximal information'' about
the whole system does not include the ``maximal information''
about subsystems.

In fact, according to the available classical description, the conditional probability
\begin{align}{
\Pr\{\sigma_x(\tau)=u|\sigma_x(0)=v\}=\mu(u|v)=\frac{1}{2}
}\end{align}
shows that the value of $\sigma_x(0)$ has been completely randomized,
although their marginals have not changed at all as
\begin{align}{
\Pr\{\sigma_x(\tau)=u\}=\Pr\{\sigma_x(0)=u\}=\frac{1}{2}.
}\end{align}
Thus, the OR neglects the disturbance
caused by the randomization by measurement without changing the probability distribution.

\section{State-dependent definition for non-disturbing measurements}
We have shown that the OR with the notion of
``operationally''  non-disturbing measurements contradicts the CP.
To reconcile the conflict,
we shall characterize non-disturbing measurements
from the two fundamental
requirements: the CP\ and the operational accessibility.

Consider the following condition.

(S) $B(\tau)$ and $B(0)$ have their JPD $\mu$ in $|{\psi,\xi}\rangle$ satisfying that
$\mu(u,v)=0$ if $u\ne v$.

From the point of view of the CP, if condition (S) holds,
we should conclude that the measurement $\mathbf{M}$ is non-disturbing to
$B$ in $|{\psi}\rangle$.
Thus, condition (S) is considered as a sufficient condition for a proper definition of non-disturbing
measurements.

On the other hand, from the point of view of operational accessibility, it is convenient to consider
the {\em weak joint distribution (WJD)} $\nu(u,v)$ of $B(\tau)$ and $B(0)$ in $|{\psi,\xi}\rangle$
defined by
\begin{align}{
\nu(u,v)=\langle{\psi,\xi|P^{B(\tau)}(u)P^{B(0)}(v)|\psi,\xi}\rangle.
}\end{align}
The WJD always exists, though possibly takes negative or complex values,
and is operationally accessible by weak measurement and post-selection
\cite{AAV88,Ste95,Joz07};  see also Ref.~\cite{11UUP} for a short survey.
Then it is natural to consider the following condition.

(W) The WJD of $B(\tau)$ and $B(0)$ in $|{\psi,\xi}\rangle$ satisfies that $\nu(u,v)=0$
if $u\ne v$.

If the measurement $\mathbf{M}$ is non-disturbing to the observable $B$
in $|{\psi}\rangle$, any operational tests for witnessing the disturbance should fail.
Since measuring WJD is one of such operational tests for which the disturbance is detected
if $\nu(u,v)\ne 0$ for some $u\ne v$  \cite{GWPP04,MLMSGW07},
condition (W) is considered as a necessary condition for a proper definition
of non-disturbing measurements.

Obviously, (W) is logically weaker than or equivalent to (S).
However, the following theorem shows that both conditions are actually equivalent.

\begin{Theorem}\label{th:prop-non-distubing}
Let $\mathbf{M}$ be a measurement of a system $\mathbf{S}$ in a state $|{\psi}\rangle$
carried out by a measuring interaction with a probe $\mathbf{P}$
prepared in a fixed state $|{\xi}\rangle$ from $t=0$ to $t=\tau$.  Then for any observable $B$ in $\mathbf{S}$,
the following conditions are equivalent.

(i) Condition (W) holds.

(ii) The relation
\begin{align*}{
P^{B(\tau)}(u)|{\psi,\xi}\rangle=P^{B(0)}(u)|{\psi,\xi}\rangle
}\end{align*}
holds for any $u$.

(iii) Condition (S) holds.
\end{Theorem}

According to the theory of quantum perfect correlations \cite{05PCN,06QPC},
both conditions (S) and (W) equivalently require that $B(\tau)$ and $B(0)$ are perfectly
correlated in the state $|{\psi,\xi}\rangle$ \cite{11UUP}.
A direct proof of the above theorem for the present context is given in Appendix B.
The above theorem justifies the following definition of non-disturbing
measurements.
We say that the measurement $\mathbf{M}$ {\em is properly non-disturbing} to an observable $B$ in
$|{\psi}\rangle$ if one of the conditions (S) or (W) is satisfied.
Since the WJD is operationally accessible, this definition is also operationally accessible.

\section{Reliability of the operator-based disturbance measure}
To consider the reliability of the operator-based disturbance measure,
we examine the following requirements:
(i) the CP, (ii) soundness,
(iii) operational accessibility,
 and (iv) completeness.

We have already shown that the operator-based disturbance measure $\eta_O$ satisfies
the CP, i.e.,  $\eta_O(B)=\delta_{G}(\mu)$ if  $B(\tau)$ and $B(0)$
have the JPD $\mu$.
We introduce the {\em soundness} requirement:
Any disturbance measure $\eta$ should assign the value 0 to any properly non-disturbing measurements.
It is interesting to see that the CP\ implies soundness.
To show this suppose that the measurement is properly non-disturbing to $B$ in $|{\psi}\rangle$.  Then $B(\tau)$ and $B(0)$
have the JPD $\mu$ satisfying that $\mu(u,v)=0$ if $u\ne v$.
It follows that $\varepsilon_{G}(\mu)=0$ and by the CP\ we have
$\eta(B)=\varepsilon_{G}(\mu)=0$.  Accordingly, the operator-based disturbance measure
$\eta_O$ satisfies the soundness requirement.
We conclude, therefore, that even if the measurement does not change the state, the disturbance
is operationally detectable as long as the operator-based disturbance measure takes a positive value.

It has been known that the operator-based disturbance measure $\eta_O$ is
operationally accessible in the two ways: (i) the tomographic three state method, proposed by
Ozawa~\cite{04URN} and experimentally realized by Erhalt et al.~\cite{12EDU} and others
\cite{13VHE,13EVR,16A3} and (ii) the weak measurement method, proposed
by Lund and Wiseman \cite{LW10} and experimentally realized by Rozema et al.~\cite{RDMHSS12} and others
\cite{WHPWP13,RBBFBW14,14A1}.

As the converse of soundness,
a disturbance measure $\eta$ is said to be {\em complete}
if $\eta$ assigns the value 0 only to {\em properly} non-disturbing measurements.
There is an example in which $\eta_O$ does not satisfy completeness (Ref.~\cite{06QPC}, p.~750).
However, it is known that $\eta_O$ satisfies completeness if (i) (commutative case)
$B(\tau)$ and $B(0)$ commute
in $|{\psi,\xi}\rangle$ or if (ii) (dichotomic case) $B^2=I$ (Ref.~\cite{19A1}, Theorem 3).

We have seen that the operator-based disturbance measure satisfies
all requirements (i)--(iii), and partially satisfies requirement (iv) above.

Analogously from an argument for the operator-based error measure
$\varepsilon_O$ in Ref.~\cite{19A1}, it follows that $\eta_O$
can be modified to satisfy completeness
by defining the {\em operator-based locally uniform disturbance measure} $\overline{\eta}_{O}$
as
\begin{align}{
\overline{\eta}_{O}(B,\mathbf{M},|{\psi}\rangle)=\sup_{t\in\mathbb{R}}\eta_O(B,\mathbf{M},e^{-itB}|{\psi}\rangle).
}\end{align}
Then the error measure $\overline{\eta}_{O}$ satisfies requirements (i) -- (iv)
and also (v) (Dominating property)
$\eta_O(B,\mathbf{M},|{\psi}\rangle)\le \overline{\eta}_{O}(B,\mathbf{M},|{\psi}\rangle)$ for any $|{\psi}\rangle$,
and (vi) (Conservation property for dichotomic measurements)
$\overline{\eta}_{O}(B)=\eta_O(B)$ if $B^2=I$.
Thus, all the EDRs for $\eta_{O}$ also holds for $\overline{\eta}_{O}$; see analogous discussions for
the operator-based error measure in Ref.~\cite{19A1}.

\section{Defense of state-dependent formulations of error-disturbance relations}

In order to examine the reliability of the
operator-based disturbance measure,
KJR \cite{KJR14}\  introduced the following definition.
A state $|{\psi}\rangle$ is called a {\em zero-noise zero-disturbance (ZNZD) state}
with respect to observables $A$ and $B$
if the projective measurement of $A$ in the state $|{\psi}\rangle$,
which always satisfies $\varepsilon(A)=0$,
is ``operationally''  non-disturbing to $B$.
Then they proved that for every pair of non-commuting observables
$A$ and $B$, there exists a  ZNZD state
$|{\psi}\rangle$ such that $|\langle{\psi|[A,B]|\psi}\rangle|\not=0$.
Thus, if the disturbance measure $\eta$ satisfies the OR,
any relation of the form
\begin{align}
\sum_{m,n=0}^{\infty}f_{mn}(A,B)\varepsilon(A,\rho)^m\eta(B,\eta)^n\ge
|{\langle {[A,B]} \rangle}|,
\end{align}
where $f_{00}(A,B)=0$, must be violated.
From this, KJR \cite{KJR14}\   concluded that any state-dependent EDR, based on
the expectation value of the commutator as a lower bound, is not tenable, and that
state-independent formulations are inevitable.

We have two objections to their claims.  First of all, the universally valid relation
(\ref{eq:UVEDR}) leads to the relation
\begin{equation}
\eta_{O}(B)\ge\frac{|{\langle {[A,B]} \rangle}|}{2\sigma(A)}>0
\end{equation}
for any projective measurement of $A$ in any ZNZD state such that $|\langle{\psi|[A,B]|\psi}\rangle|\not=0$.
Thus, the measurement is properly disturbing to $B$ by the soundness of $\eta_O$,
and consequently the disturbance is operationally detectable by the operational accessibility
of the definition of properly non-disturbing measurements,
so that the assumption by KJR \cite{KJR14}\  that $\eta(B)=0$ in any ZNZD state is unfounded.

Secondly, they concluded that state-independent formulations are inevitable for alternative formulations.
However, currently proposed state-independent formulations of EDRs
\cite{App98c,BLW14RMP,App16} do not appear to capture the essence of
Heisenberg's original idea.
Recall that Heisenberg derived his EDR by the $\gamma$-ray microscope thought experiment,
in which the EDR is derived from the relation between the resolution power and the Compton recoil,
reciprocally relating to the wave length of the incident light.
Since the wave length is independent of the state of the object,
the above formulation might be considered as state-independent.
However, the analysis is valid only state-dependently, since the resolution power of the
microscope can be defined by the wave length only in the limited situation in which
the object is properly placed in the scope of the microscope.  Thus, we can adequately
define the error of the $\gamma$-ray microscope only state-dependently.
In the state-independent formulations,
currently one defines the state-independent error as the worst case of the state-dependent error,
which must diverge to infinity as the object wave function spreads out or moves far apart.
Such state-independent definitions would facilitate to reproduce the form of Heisenberg's
original formulation,  but do not keep the physics underlying it.
Thus, state-dependent formulations are inevitable to represent Heisenberg's original
idea underlying the uncertainty principle.

\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we gave a definition of non-disturbing measurement from the point of view
of the correspondence principle and operational accessibility.
Subsequently, we established the reliability of the operator-based disturbance measure.
We have already discussed the reliability of the operator-based error measure in our
previous work \cite{19A1}.
Both accounts ensure that universally valid EDRs \cite{03UVR,Bra13,Bra14,14EDR}
reliably represent a dynamical aspect of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
besides the well-established relation for the indeterminacy in quantum states representing
a kinetic aspect of the principle.
Thus, the objections to state-dependent formulations of EDRs
are unfounded, although those views appear to still prevail in the literature
\cite{Ren17,Mao19}.
We conclude that the theory \cite{03UVR,04URN,LW10,Bra13,Bra14,14EDR,19A1}
and experiments \cite{12EDU,RDMHSS12,13EVR,13VHE,14A1}
for state-dependent formulations of EDRs
are reliable and that state-dependent formulations
are inevitable to represent Heisenberg's original idea underlying the uncertainty principle.

The new quantitative methods developed in this paper for universally valid EDRs
 with the well-defined operator-based disturbance measure incorporating with the
methods of weak values and weak measurements will provide new quantitative methods to
understand the change, transfer, or disturbance of observables in time,
which does not manifest in the change of the probability distribution, but which does
manifest in the time-like correlation.
This quantity will be useful and even inevitable for exploring foundational problems
in quantum physics
including the long-lasting controversy over the roles of uncertainty principle
in which-way measurements for interferometers
(Refs.~\cite{SEW91,STCW94,GWPP04,MLMSGW07,Xia19} and the references therein).
In addition to the foundational problems, it will be expected that universally valid EDRs
call for new research interests in exploring various frontiers in physics
including fault-tolerant quantum computing \cite{NC00,02CQC,TT20},
quantum metrology \cite{88MS,GLM04,Asp14}, and multi-messenger astronomy \cite{Bar17},
in which technological limits would be overcome by the fundamental principle
independent of particular models.
We hope that the methods of operator-based disturbance measures as well as
operator-based error measures will be accepted for broad areas of quantum physics.

\begin{acknowledgments}
The author thanks Yuji Hasegawa and Keiichi Edamatsu for helpful discussions.
The author acknowledges the supports of the JSPS KAKENHI, No.~17K19970,
and the IRI-NU collaboration.
\end{acknowledgments}


\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}

In the first paper of this series \citep[][hereafter paper I]{Asad20}, we investigated the precision of the ages and metallicities of 21,000 mock simple stellar populations (SSPs) determined through full-spectrum fitting in the optical range. We found that for S/N $\geq$ 50, this technique can yield ages of SSPs to an overall precision of $\Delta\,\mbox{log(age/yr)} \sim 0.1$ for ages in the ranges 7.0 $\leq$ log\,(age/yr) $\leq$ 8.3 and 8.9 $\leq$ log\,(age/yr) $\leq$ 9.4. For the age ranges of 8.3 $\leq$ log\,(age/yr) $\leq$ 8.9 and log\,(age/yr) $\geq$ 9.5,  the age uncertainty rises to about $\pm 0.3$ dex. In the second paper of the series (\citealt{Goudfrooij21}, hereafter paper II) we studied the influence of star cluster mass through stochastic fluctuations of the number of stars near the top of the stellar mass function, which dominate the flux in certain wavelength regimes depending on the age. Studying several wavelength intervals in the 0.35\,--\,5.0 $\mu$m range, we found that in general, the spectral shape in the blue optical regime (0.35\,--\,0.7\,$\mu$m) is by far the least impacted by stochastic fluctuations among the wavelength intervals studied.
In both previous studies we followed the assumption that star clusters as SSPs, considering all constituent stars to have the same age and metallicity. However, most old globular clusters are now known to host abundance variations of several light elements \citep[mainly He, C, N, O, Na, and Al; see][for details]{BastianLardo18}. This phenomenon is often referred to as Multiple Stellar Populations (MSPs).
Interestingly, MSPs have not yet been identified in clusters younger than $\sim$\,2 Gyr \citep[see][]{Martocchia18, Asad_ESO2020, Cabrera-Ziri20, Li20}. However, if young massive clusters (YMCs) are the young analogs of Globular Clusters (GCs), one might expect to find MSPs in YMCs. The role that age plays in the MSP phenomenon has been difficult to constrain \citep[e.g.,][]{Cabrera-Ziri20}.
Additionally, several studies, based on accurate Hubble Space Telescope (HST) photometry and Gaia have revealed that the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of stellar clusters younger than $\sim$\,2 Gyr exhibit an extended main sequence turn off (eMSTO) which is not due to photometric errors, field-star contamination, differential reddening, or non-interacting binaries \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{Bertelli03, Mackey07, Milone09,Goudfrooij09, Cordoni18}. These findings have challenged the traditional picture that the CMDs of star clusters are well described by SSPs, and have triggered huge efforts to understand eMSTOs.
The eMSTO phenomenon was initially proposed to be due to multiple stellar formation events, challenging the conventional belief that star clusters are groups of coeval stars. However,  alternative scenarios to explain this phenomenon were soon proposed as well. The effects of stellar rotation, first proposed by \citet{Bastian09}, is currently one of the most widely accepted scenarios \citep[see, e.g.,][]{dupree2017a, marino2018b, Bastian18, Sun19}.
However, it is still argued that age spreads may be present in clusters \citep[see][]{Goudfrooij17,Goudfrooij18b,Gossage19,Costa19}.

Integrated-light spectra of star clusters have proven to be accurate tools for studying extragalactic clusters for which spatially resolved data is not available \citep{AA02, Puzia05,  Puzia06, Santos06, Palma08, Talavera10, Fernandes10, Asad13, Asad14,  Chilingarian18}. In this work we aim to address the question: To what extent can integrated-light spectra be used to identify age spreads at different ages?

\section{Mock Star Clusters}

We create a sample of mock star cluster spectra following the results of Paper I: A) We used the wavelength range $3700-5000$\,\AA\ which we showed to be optimal for deriving accurate ages from integrated-light spectra using the full-spectrum fitting method.   B) our sample has S/N $>$ 50; C) the smallest age difference (gap) used to create the age combinations is 0.2 dex.
We use the flexible stellar population synthesis (FSPS) code \citep{Conroy09, Conroy10} operated through the Python package python-FSPS \citep{python-fsps} to create integrated-light spectra of SSPs for the wavelength range $3700-5000$\,\AA\ with \citet{Kroupa01} IMF and fixed metallicity [Z$/$H] = $-$0.4 for the age range 7.0 $<$ log age $<$ 10.2 in steps of 0.1 dex) using MIST isochrones \citep{Choi17} and the MILES spectral library \citep{MILESI, Vazdekis10, Vazdekis16}, which has a spectral resolution of 2.5 \AA   \citep{Falcon11}.  We use the default settings of python-FSPS (similar to Paper I and II), including the absence of nebular emission for the youngest ages, and a zero fraction of blue horizontal branch stars at old ages.
We then combine two SSPs, in order to explore if our method can derive age spreads where two SSPs are present, according to the equation:
\begin{equation}
f\,SSP_{1}+(1-f)\,SSP_{2}
\label{Eq_2SSPs}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $f$ is the fractional contribution of $SSP_{1}$ by mass, running from 0 to 1 in steps of 0.1, $SSP_{1}$ is the SSP of an arbitrary age, and $SSP_{2}$ is the additional SSP.
We start with a sample that has an age gap of 0.2 dex and can be described by the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\log \mbox{(age(SSP$_{2}$))} = \log \mbox{(age(SSP$_{1}$))} + 0.2.
\end{equation}
Finally, we add 30 different realizations of random noise, corresponding to S/N values between 50 to 100 (in steps of 10) for each combination, thus producing a grand total of 59,400 mock clusters.

\section{Fitting Single Age}
\subsection{Method}

We first assume that the sample of mock clusters consist of only one SSP, and use the full-spectrum fitting program {\sc ASAD}$_{\rm 2}$
 \citep[for a full description, see][]{Asad13,Asad14,Asad16} to obtain the best-fitting age using the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=\lambda_{\rm initial }}^{\lambda_{\rm final}}
\frac{[(OF)_{\lambda} - (MF)_{\lambda}]^{2}}{(OF)_{\lambda_{\rm norm}}}.
\label{Eq_1SSP}
\end{equation}
where OF is the mock cluster flux, MF is the SSP model flux, and
$\lambda_{\rm norm}$ is the wavelength at which the model and the mock cluster spectra are normalized.

\subsection{Results}

When $f$ = 0 in equation \ref{Eq_2SSPs}, the mass fraction of SSP$_1$ = 0, the spectrum is a single SSP (100\% contribution from SSP$_2$). In this case the correct age is always correctly derived for all S/N.
\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{185mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/SingleAge_ShortVersion.eps}}
\caption{The mean derived single age and the uncertainty (calculated as the standard deviation) for the 30 realization of each set versus real age. The green dots represent results for S/N = 100 and the purple dots represent the results for S/N = 50. The continuous middle line is the y = 0 line, the dotted lines are y = $\pm$ 0.1 and the dashed lines are y = $\pm$ 0.2}
\label{SingleAge}
\end{figure*}
The results obtained for $0 < f < 1$ are shown in Figure \ref{SingleAge}, where we plot the mean of the derived single age with the uncertainty (calculated as the standard deviation) for the 30 realizations of each S/N and mass fraction $f$ versus the input age of SSP$_2$ in equation 1. \\
The figure shows that as the mass fraction of SSP$_1$ increases, the full-spectrum fitting technique increasingly favours the average age values [i.e., ((SSP$_1$)+(SSP$_2$))/2]. Once $f > 60$\%, where SSP$_1$ dominates, the full-spectrum fitting technique increasingly derives the age of SSP$_1$ correctly. For all ages and mass fraction values, there is no significant dependence on the S/N value in the range tested.

\section{Fitting Two Ages}
\subsection{Method}

We create the two-age model grid, using equation 1 for all possible combinations of SSP$_1$ and SSP$_2$ with an age gap of 0.2 dex between the two SSPs, and attempt to recover Age(SSP$_1$), Age(SSP$_2$) and $f$ using the full-spectrum fitting technique.  The results obtained are arranged so that Age(SSP$_1$) is always less than Age(SSP$_2$). We tested the technique first on the trivial case where no noise was added to the combined spectra and the input parameters were perfectly recovered.

\subsection{Results}

\subsubsection {Derived Age(SSP$_1$) and Age(SSP$_2$)}
In order to assess to what extent integrated-light spectra can be used to identify age spreads at different ages, we first examine the mean derived age for each input SSP age in the combination.
Figure \ref{2SSPs_ss2} shows the mean of the derived ages with the uncertainty (calculated as the standard deviation) for the 30 realizations of each S/N and mass fraction $f$ versus the input age.
The top set of panels shows the results of Age(SSP$_1$) and the bottom set of panels shows the results of Age(SSP$_2$).
Overall, the mean of the derived Age(SSP$_1$) matches the real Age(SSP$_1$) up to ages around log (age/yr) = 9.5. The precision decreases for log (age/yr) $>$ 9.6 for any mass fraction or S/N.
The shape of the
SED does not change much beyond log\,(age/yr) = 9.6, causing age estimates to be relatively imprecise for those ages (see Paper I and Paper II for more discussion on this).

The uncertainty associated with the mean of the derived Age(SSP$_2$) (see lower set of panels of Figure \ref{2SSPs_ss2}) is much higher than that of Age(SSP$_1$), especially for young ages. To shed more light on the cause of this result, we list the results of the 30 realizations with S/N = 100 obtained for the input combination of 80\% of log(Age(SSP$_1$)) = 7.0 plus 20\% of log(Age(SSP$_2$)) = 7.2 in Table \ref{T1}.
The list shows that the full-spectrum fitting technique tends to derive combinations of a young age that is close to the real age along with an older age, with the latter age encompassing several orders of magnitude from one mock cluster to another. This is found to be generally the case for young ages (log (age/yr) $<$ 8.0) and is explained by the fact that SEDs for log (age/yr) in the range 7.0\,--\,7.5 are very similar to one another, and they produce significantly more flux than older populations (especially in the blue; see, e.g., Papers I and II). Hence, the derived two-SSP combination includes one young SSP that is close to the real age, with an older SSP with almost \textit{any} other age, since the latter doesn't produce a significant percentage of the flux.

\begin{table}

  \caption{Derived results for the input combination of 80\% Age(SSP$_1$) = 7.0 with 20\% Age(SSP$_2$) = 7.2}

 \begin{tabular}{ |lll|lll|lll|}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{|l}{Age$_{1}$} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{$f$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Age$_{2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{Age$_{1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$f$} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Age$_{2}$}  & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{Age$_{1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$f$} &
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Age$_{2}$}\\
\cmidrule(lr){1-1}\cmidrule(lr){2-2}\cmidrule(lr){3-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-4}\cmidrule(lr){5-5}\cmidrule(lr){6-6}\cmidrule(lr){7-7}\cmidrule(lr){8-8}\cmidrule(lr){9-9}

6.8 & 10\% & 7.0 & 7.0 & 80\% & 7.3 & 7.0 & 70\% & 7.8 \\
7.0 & 40\% & 7.1 & 7.0 & 80\% & 7.3 & 7.0 & 40\% & 8.9 \\
7.0 & 40\% & 7.1 & 7.0 & 70\% & 7.3 & 7.0 & 40\% & 9.0 \\
7.0 & 30\% & 7.1 & 7.0 & 60\% & 7.3 & 7.0 & 30\% & 9.1 \\
7.0 & 80\% & 7.2 & 7.0 & 70\% & 7.3 & 7.0 & 20\% & 9.4 \\
7.0 & 80\% & 7.2 & 7.0 & 70\% & 7.3 & 7.0 & 20\% & 9.4 \\
7.0 & 80\% & 7.2 & 7.0 & 70\% & 7.6 & 7.0 & 20\% & 9.4 \\
7.0 & 80\% & 7.2 & 7.0 & 70\% & 7.7 & 7.0 & 10\% & 9.8 \\
7.0 & 80\% & 7.2 & 7.0 & 70\% & 7.7 & 7.0 & 10\% & 9.8 \\
7.0 & 80\% & 7.3 & 7.0 & 70\% & 7.7 & 7.0 & 10\% & 9.8 \\
\toprule
\label{T1}
 \end{tabular}
\end{table}

To illustrate this further, a closer look at the mock cluster for which the derived parameters are 30\% of Age(SSP$_1$) = 7.0 with 70\% Age(SSP$_2$) = 9.1 reveals that the $\chi^2$ value of this combination is 0.11212. Figure~\ref{contours} shows a heat map with all the combinations of Age(SSP$_2$) and mass fraction that have $\chi^2$ values between 0.1 and 0.2. The white star shows the coordinates of the combination with the minimum $\chi^2$ value. The dark blue regions represent the $\chi^2$ values between 0.100 and 0.111. This shows that combinations of Age(SSP$_1$) = 7.0 with Age(SSP$_2$) = 7.7 to 7.9 and 8.9 to 9.4 are very close to the correct combination (80\% of Age(SSP$_1$) = 7.0 with 20\% Age(SSP$_2$) = 7.2).
This explains the results obtained in the lower panel of Figure \ref{2SSPs_ss2} where the mean of the derived Age(SSP$_2$) is overestimated for young ages.

\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/StepSize2_M_STD_Age1_ShortVersion.eps}}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/StepSize2_M_STD_Age2_ShortVersion.eps}}
\caption{The mean of the derived age versus the input age. The top panel shows the results of Age(SSP$_1$) and the bottom panel shows the results of Age(SSP$_2$).The green dots represent results for S/N = 100 and the purple dots represent the results for S/N = 50. }
\label{2SSPs_ss2}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{120mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{v3Figures/figure_72.08_100_22.eps}}
\caption{The heat map for Age(SSP$_2$) of the mock cluster where the derived parameters are Age(SSP$_1$) = 7.0 with 70\% Age(SSP$_2$) = 9.1 in table \ref{T1}. The white star shows the coordinates of the combination with the minimum $\chi^2$ value.}
\label{contours}
\end{figure*}

Figure \ref{Recovery} shows the ''success rate'' -- defined as the number of times the derived parameter matches the input parameter within $\pm$ 0.1 dex -- as a function of input age.
The success rate of SSP$_{1}$ increases as the input mass fraction $f$ of this SSP increases. The success rate also depends on the input age. It peaks for log (age/year) $\la$ 7.5 and around 9.0 (the latter corresponding to RGB phase transition) and it drops around 8.6 and for $>$ 9.2 for almost all mass fractions. In Paper I we showed that the number of correctly derived ages drop significantly in these age ranges that correspond to the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) phase transition in stellar evolution, and the red giant branch (RGB) phase transition. The age range $>$ 9.2 is the worst in terms of success rate, because SED's in this age range are very similar to one another. Identifying small age spreads of two populations that do not fall around a fast evolutionary transition is not trivial.
The success rate of SSP$_{2}$ decreases as the input mass fraction $f$ of SSP$_{1}$ increases, as expected. The success rate peaks at ages very slightly younger than the ones at which it peaks for SSP$_{1}$ in addition to log (age/year) = 10 for $f$ from 10\% to 40\%. It is worth noting that this rise toward the oldest ages is meaningless, since we used $\Delta$ SSP = 0.2, so that all the simulations with log(age(SSP1)) > 9.7 or so can only have log(age(SSP2)) higher than that, thus boosting their success numbers.

\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/StepSize2_Age1_Approximation_Recovery_Short_Version.eps}}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/StepSize2_Age2_Approximation_Recovery_Short_Version.eps}}
\caption{the number of successfully recovered ages (i.e., the number of times the derived age matches the real age within $\pm$ 0.1 dex) as a function of real age. The top panel shows the results of Age(SSP$_1$) and the bottom panel shows the results of Age(SSP$_2$).}
\label{Recovery}
\end{figure*}

\subsubsection{Age Spread}

Figure \ref{AgeGap_02} shows the results obtained for the age spread, defined as log\,(Age(SSP$_2$)) $-$ log\,(Age(SSP$_1$)). The top panel shows the mean of the ``(derived $-$ input) age spread'' as a function of the input age. The derived average age spreads are larger than the real ones, and the scatter around the mean values is significant, especially for mean log\,(age/yr) $\la$ 8.5. The lower panel shows that the overall success rate for the derived age spread is typically of order 20\%, without a strong dependence on input age or mass fraction.

\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/Mean_AgeSpread_02.eps}}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/Recovery_AgeSpread_02.eps}}
\caption{The results for the derived age spread, defined as log\,(Age(SSP$_2$)) $-$ log\,(Age(SSP$_1$)). The top panel shows the mean of the ``derived $-$ input'' age spread as a function of the input age and the lower panel shows the recovery success rate as a function of input age.}
\label{AgeGap_02}
\end{figure*}

\section{Increasing the Age Gap}

In order to investigate the role of the size of the age gap on the derived parameters, we create a new set of 59,400 mock cluster spectra with larger age step:
\begin{equation}
\log\, \mbox{(age(SSP$_{2}$))} = \log\, \mbox{(age(SSP$_{1}$))} + 0.5
\end{equation}
 and repeat the analysis aiming to derive Age(SSP$_1$), Age(SSP$_2$) and $f$ from the full-spectrum fitting technique.
Figure \ref{Step5_Mean} shows that the mean of both Age(SSP$_1$) and Age(SSP$_2$) is closer to the real values for mock clusters with Age(SSP$_2$) -  Age(SSP$_1$) = 0.5 dex.
Despite the increase in the age gap, our results show that the full spectrum fitting technique still  overestimates Age(SSP$_2$) consistently for Age(SSP$_2$) < 8.5.
Figure \ref{Step5_Recovery} shows the success rate as a function of input age.
For Age(SSP$_1$), the success rate depends on both the mass fraction $f$ and the input age. For mass fraction $f$ = 10, when SSP$_2$ is dominating, the success rate is very poor, however for mass fraction $f$ > 30 the success rate increases significantly, with drops seen around log (age/year) = 8.0 and log (age/year) > 9.4 due to the similarity of the SEDs in the age ranges where the success numbers are low.
When comparing the success rate of both Age(SSP$_1$) and Age(SSP$_2$) for mock clusters that have age gap = 0.5 dex with that of mock clusters that have age gap = 0.2 dex, we notice that the numbers are higher for age gap = 0.2. The reason is that by definition the success rate is the number of times the derived age matches the real age to within \textit{$\pm$ 0.1 dex}, hence smaller age gaps are closer to this precision limit.
The mean of the derived age spread for an input age gap of 0.5 is shown in Figure \ref{AgeGap_05}. The results are better than for an age gap of 0.2, although the recovery rate of success to within 0.1 dex (lower panel) did not change significantly.

\section{Recovery of Mass Fraction}

Now we discuss the precision in recovering the mass fraction for the two cases analyzed in the previous sections (i.e., $\Delta$\,log\,(age/yr) = 0.2 and 0.5). Figure \ref{Mass_Fraction} shows the mean of the derived mass fraction as a function of the input age. Overall the derived mass fraction is overestimated for low mass fractions and underestimated for high mass fractions. The best results are achieved when the mass fraction is around 50\%.

\section{Summary}

We investigate the accuracy and precision of recovering possible age spreads within a star cluster using the full-spectrum fitting method. We analyze optical spectra of 118,800 mock star clusters with mass fractions from 10\% to 90\% for two age gaps (0.2 and 0.5 dex) in the age range 6.8 $<$ log\,(age/yr) $<$ 10.2. Random noise is added to the model spectra to achieve S/N ratios between 50 to 100 per wavelength pixel. We summarize our results in the following points:

A) The results obtained using the full-spectrum fitting method to derive the age of a star cluster that has an age spread of 0.2 dex, depend on the age and the mass fraction of each of the combined SSPs. If one SSP is dominating the spectrum, the full-spectrum fitting technique correctly predicts the age of the dominating SSP. When the contribution of the two SSPs is roughly equal, the full-spectrum fitting technique correctly predicts the average age value of the two SSPs [i.e., ((SSP$_1$)+(SSP$_2$))/2]. For all ages and mass fraction values, there is no significant dependence on the S/N value in the range 50\,--\,100.\\
B) When using the full-spectrum fitting method to derive combinations of ages with different mass fractions, the mean of the derived Age(SSP$_1$) matches the real Age(SSP$_1$) to within 0.1 dex up to ages around log\,(age/yr) = 9.5. The precision decreases for log (age/yr) $>$ 9.6 for all mass fractions or S/N values. This is because SSP SEDs are very similar in that age range, which makes it difficult to identify their correct age. \\
C) For young ages (log (age/yr) $\la$ 8.0) the full spectrum fitting technique tends to derive combinations of a young age with a significantly older age. This is because young populations (log (age/yr) $\la$ 7.0) produce significantly more flux than old populations, hence different combinations of young populations with old populations will have very similar $\chi^2$ values, causing the large uncertainty for the mean of the derived Age(SSP$_1$) and Age(SSP$_2$) as shown in Figure \ref{2SSPs_ss2}.\\
D) The success rate (defined as the number of times the derived parameter matches the input parameter $\pm$ 0.1 dex) peaks around log (age/year) = 7.2 and 9.0 and drops around 8.6 and $>$ 9.5 due to the similarity of SED shapes for those ages.\\
E) Increasing the age gap in the mock clusters improve the derived parameters. However, Age(SSP$_2$) is still overestimated for Age(SSP$_2$) < 8.5. \\
F) The derived mass fraction is overestimated for low mass fraction values and underestimated for high mass fraction values despite the age gap size. The best results are derived when the mass fraction is around 50\%.

\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/StepSize5_M_STD_Age1_ShortVersion.eps}}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/StepSize5_M_STD_Age2_ShortVersion.eps}}
\caption{The mean of the derived age versus the input age for mock clusters with Age(SSP$_2$ -  Age(SSP$_1$) = 0.5. The top panel shows the results of Age(SSP$_1$) and the bottom panel shows the results of Age(SSP$_2$). The green dots represent results for S/N = 100 and the purple dots represent the results for S/N = 50. }
\label{Step5_Mean}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/StepSize5_Age1_Approximation_Recovery_Short_Version.eps}}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/StepSize5_Age2_Approximation_Recovery_Short_Version.eps}}
\caption{The number of successfully recovered ages (i.e., the number of times the derived age matches the real age $\pm$ 0.1 dex) as a function of real age for mock clusters with Age(SSP$_2$) -  Age(SSP$_1$) = 0.5. The top panel shows the results of Age(SSP$_1$) and the bottom panel shows the results of Age(SSP$_2$). The green dots represent results for S/N = 100 and the purple dots represent the results for S/N = 50. }
\label{Step5_Recovery}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/Fraction_step2.eps}}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/Fraction_step5.eps}}
\caption{The mean of the derived mass fraction as a function of the input age. The top panel shows the results from $\Delta$ SSP = 0.2 and the lower panel shows the results from $\Delta$\,(log\,(age/yr)) = 0.5. The green dots represent results for S/N = 100 and the purple dots represent the results for S/N = 50. }
\label{Mass_Fraction}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/Mean_AgeSpread_05.eps}}
\resizebox{165mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{v3Figures/Recovery_AgeSpread_05.eps}}
\caption{The same as Figure \ref{AgeGap_02}, but now for input $\Delta$\,(log\,(age/yr)) = 0.5}
\label{AgeGap_05}
\end{figure*}

\section*{Acknowledgments}
RA thanks the Space Telescope Science Institute for a sabbatical visitorship including travel and subsistence support as well as access to their science cluster computer facilities.
The initial analysis of this work was done using the Geospatial Analysis Center (GAC) computers at the American University of Sharjah. We acknowledge the support of GAC and IT staff.
This work is based on work supported in part by the FRG17-R-06 and EFRG-18-SET-CAS-74 grants P.I., R.\ Asa'd from American University of Sharjah and Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Center (MBRSC) grant 201602.SS.AUS P.I. R.\ Asa'd at the American University of Sharjah.

\section*{Data availability}
The spectra of the mock star clusters and model SSPs created for this paper are available upon request from the corresponding author.

\bibliographystyle{mnras}