A Correction Algorithm of the Sampling Effect and Its Application in High-Precision Astrometry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Reviewer Report for Manuscript Entitled:

Correction Algorithm of Sampling Effect and Its Application in High-Precision Astrometry

I thank the authors for addressing my earlier comments. The manuscript is generally interesting and can be accepted after the following minor issues have been addressed.

Line 16. Please say “Scholler et al. [1] provided a comprehensive model …. in stellar interferometers.”

Line 18. Please say “Ghaderpour [2] developed a least-squares wavelet method for very long baseline interferometry baseline length analyses.” Also please correct the year of publication for reference [2] that is 2021 not 2020.

Line 20. Please say “…, Mena et al. [3] put forward …Kepler light curves.”

Line 25. Please say “… As Malbet et al. [4] has pointed out ….”

Line 51. Please say “Li et al. [21] …”

Please follow the same style and formatting for referring to references in the rest of manuscript.

Line 254. Please replace “in 2” with “(2)”.

Thank you!

Author Response

Thank you for your kind suggestions. We have modified the citation style and some equation reference styles. Hope you find these modifications useful.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper investigates the model of integral sampling process and the Correction algorithm of Sampling Effect. a series of simulations were conducted.

If experiments based on actual imaging process can be done, this work will be more meaningful.

There are many formulas in this paper. If the schematic diagram is added to the method section, the article will be more readable.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind suggestions. We went through your comments and added an image to illustrate the formulas in the method section. Hope you find our modification useful.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper develops a correction algorithm for sampling effect in the process of optical imaging and measurement. The asymmetric intra-pixel quantum efficiency has been considered and modeled in the algorithm. Testings on simulated images have verified the effectiveness of the algorithm. The algorithm constraints, applying conditions, and suggestions according to the analysis have also been illustrated clearly. Some technical questions should be clarified by the authors.

1. In Section 2.1, a brief explanation should be given when I_mn is used for the first time. Equation 4 and the paragraph above do not seem to match with each other well.

2. In the first paragraph of Section 2.2, the equation describing the pixel area seems somewhat weird. Equation 7 and all related equations should be carefully rechecked. In my opinion, the integral region of S_ijmn should be the pixel mn, instead of the pixel ij.

3. The parameters u_d and v_d in Equation 15 represent the center position of the QE Gaussian function. But in Equation 24 and 26 they represent other things, making some confusions. And, what is the point of adding u_c and v_c in Equation 26?

4. In the part of simulation result, the paper uses relative error to show the barycenter determination performance. The unit of relative error should not be pixel (check table 1 and table 2). Another question is that the relative error takes the ideal value as reference but the ideal value seems to include useless absolute components. For example, in table 1, the ideal value is 6.5 pixel. Can it be 7.5 pixel or 8.5 pixel? It would change the result of relative error. Besides, the simulated ideal position follows a uniform distribution. Then, does the ideal position 29.474 in table 3 represent one image or the mean value of all images?

5. There are some typos in the paper. They are listed below.

Section 2.3 Paragraph 1 “... by dividing its average[].”

Section 2.3 Paragraph 4 “However, ... as equation ?? because ...”

Section 3.2 Paragraph 3 “...has a 3.24^-3 relative error. ”

Section 3.2 Paragraph 8 “... (table 3 and table 3)...”

Author Response

Thank you for your kind suggestions and valuable comments. Please see the attachment for the 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer Report for Manuscript Entitled:

Correction Algorithm of Sampling Effect and Its Application in High-Precision Astrometry

The authors proposed a method for the integral sampling process and described an algorithm to solve the sampling effect and the position error. I found the methodology and results generally interesting, but the presentation and literature review can be improved, and tests on real-world experimental examples can be added.

General Comments:

The Introduction is very short and has a significant lack of literature review. Furthermore, the authors only provided an easy simulated example to show the effectiveness of their model. Please add one real-world data application after the simulation example and discuss your result by comparing it to other similar results obtained by other researchers on the same data sets in the Discussion part.

Also, it seems this manuscript is a modification of the one available here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00004

However, I’m confused whether part of this paper was published in IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 14, No. 8, August 2015. as indicated at the top of the ArXiv manuscript. Please clarify or resolve this issue.

Specific comments:

In the Introduction, please add some paragraphs for recent techniques for processing astronomical signals and images. For example,

Post-processing of astronomical signals, e.g., acquired from radio telescopes, can be rigorously analyzed using Fourier and wavelet transforms. For example, Ghaderpour [ https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/abcc4e] analyzed very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) and telescope observations via the least-squares spectral and wavelet analysis by considering the observational uncertainties and in the presence of missing data and systematic error.

Scholler et al. [https://doi.org/10.1051/aas:2000229] proposed a robust method of dynamic modeling of the image processing of an optical stellar interferometer.

Variational autoencoder, Representation and unsupervised learning for processing other astronomical data: https://doi.org/10.3390/signals2040042

Faint objects in motion: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-021-09781-1

Equation (1-3) require references.

Line 66. What is []?

Line 72. Do you mean equation (13)?

Equation (15). Please define all the parameters for each equation. Here you need to mention what n and sigma are.

Figure 6. Please insert only one label for all the x-axis and only one label for all the y-axis on the left.

Please use past verbs only in Conclusions. For example, in line 185, We provided…, etc.

Please mention the limitations of the study in the Conclusions.

Thank you!

Author Response

Thank you for your kind suggestions and valuable comments. Please see the attachment for detailed replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, the authors failed to address my comments satisfactorily. They neither included and discussed my suggested references, nor did they show the analysis of one real-world application, and their analysis is mainly tested superficially on simulation. Therefore, I cannot recommend it for publication in this form.