Adaptive Detection of Wave Aberrations Based on the Multichannel Filter

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author proposes a multichannel wavefront modulator based on zernike phase formula. The function of adaptive multi-channel phase compensation is realized by detecting the receiving wavefront phase and compensating with different zernike phase functions according to the criterion. The work needs to be revised before publication in Photonics. The specific comments are below:

1. Frist of all, the title indicates that this technology is an application, but the actual work is mainly experimental means of wavefront correction, not the application work, so it is suggested to modify the title appropriately.

2. Secondly, the number annotation of the small figure in Figure 3(b) is supposed to be 0-1 from the experimental results. The author has marked two numbers on the first PFS, which should only be marked 0. Figure 1(a) has the same problem. In addition, I think it is necessary to briefly describe the general meaning of the horizontal and vertical coordinates in the figure below.

3. Finally, the conclusion part is very substantial, but the content appears discontinuous due to too many sections. It is suggested not to reduce the conclusion content, but to reduce paragraphs.

Author Response

We are thankful to the Editor and Reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions, which allow us to improve the quality of the manuscript making it more clear for readers. We believe the corrections made address the Editor’s and Reviewers’ concerns making the manuscript suitable for publication in the journal.

All changes in the manuscript are highlighted by a color.

 Review #1

The author proposes a multichannel wavefront modulator based on zernike phase formula. The function of adaptive multi-channel phase compensation is realized by detecting the receiving wavefront phase and compensating with different zernike phase functions according to the criterion. The work needs to be revised before publication in Photonics. The specific comments are below:

1. Frist of all, the title indicates that this technology is an application, but the actual work is mainly experimental means of wavefront correction, not the application work, so it is suggested to modify the title appropriately.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We agree with your proposal, so we changed the title as follows «Adaptive detection of wave aberrations based on the multichannel filter».

1. Secondly, the number annotation of the small figure in Figure 3(b) is supposed to be 0-1 from the experimental results. The author has marked two numbers on the first PFS, which should only be marked 0. Figure 1(a) has the same problem. In addition, I think it is necessary to briefly describe the general meaning of the horizontal and vertical coordinates in the figure below.

Reply: For a clearer understanding, we have introduced additional designations in the figures and tables. In addition, we made an additional zoom of the selected diffraction orders and added explanations to the text.

1. Finally, the conclusion part is very substantial, but the content appears discontinuous due to too many sections. It is suggested not to reduce the conclusion content, but to reduce paragraphs.

Reply: Thanks for your comment. As we understand, you mean section “5. Discussion". We moved a part of this section to paragraph “2.2. Adaptive aberration compensation scheme”, where we explained in detail the principle of the adaptive algorithm and clearly illustrate the criteria that we propose for the detection of aberrations. On your recommendation, we have changed the content of some paragraphs.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, authors perform multichannel aberration compensation based on the Zernike polynomials. The method they select is dependent on a step-by-step compensation of wavefront aberrations that is based on a dynamically tunable multichannel filter implemented on a spatial light modulator. The combination of theoretical and experimental results make this manuscript stronger, but some problems have to be revised to improve this manuscript better.

(1) The writing of this manuscript has to be improved because there are a number of grammar error, improper words, and typos.

(2) Please add numbers for all equations.

(3) It is better to improve the figures and tables to make them clearer. Especially, the tables are difficult for readers to understand briefly.

(4) Authors focus on showing the results, but the relationship between each figure in the manuscript is weak. Please add some explanations to connect these figures, especially in the section of discussion. 

(5) It is not good to use "let us....." as the beginning of a paragraph. I is better to improve the connection between different paragraphs.

(6) There are too many results shown in this manuscript, so please show the core points clearly that it can be easier for readers to understand.    

Author Response

We are thankful to the Editor and Reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions, which allow us to improve the quality of the manuscript making it more clear for readers. We believe the corrections made address the Editor’s and Reviewers’ concerns making the manuscript suitable for publication in the journal.

All changes in the manuscript are highlighted by a color.

Review #2

 In this manuscript, authors perform multichannel aberration compensation based on the Zernike polynomials. The method they select is dependent on a step-by-step compensation of wavefront aberrations that is based on a dynamically tunable multichannel filter implemented on a spatial light modulator. The combination of theoretical and experimental results make this manuscript stronger, but some problems have to be revised to improve this manuscript better.

• The writing of this manuscript has to be improved because there are a number of grammar error, improper words, and typos.

Reply: Thanks for your comment. We have made changes to the structure of sentences, corrected a number of grammatical errors and typos.

• Please add numbers for all equations.

Reply:  We took into account your suggestion and added numbers for all equations

• It is better to improve the figures and tables to make them clearer. Especially, the tables are difficult for readers to understand briefly.

Reply: For a clearer understanding, we have introduced additional designations in the figures and tables. In addition, we made an additional zoom of the selected diffraction orders and added explanations to the text.

• Authors focus on showing the results, but the relationship between each figure in the manuscript is weak. Please add some explanations to connect these figures, especially in the section of discussion. 

Reply: Thanks for your comment. We moved a part of this section to paragraph “2.2. Adaptive aberration compensation scheme”, where we explained in detail the principle of the adaptive algorithm and clearly illustrate the criteria that we propose for the detection of aberrations.

• It is not good to use "let us....." as the beginning of a paragraph. I is better to improve the connection between different paragraphs.

Reply: We took into account your suggestion and corrected such turns of speech.

• There are too many results shown in this manuscript, so please show the core points clearly that it can be easier for readers to understand.    

Reply: Thank you for your appreciation of our work. We tried to show a lot of results in order to explain in detail the principle of the proposed approach. We have made some changes to the structure of the manuscript for ease of understanding.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the authors applied an adaptive method based on the multichannel filter being matched with adjustable Zernike phase functions, to determine the type and magnitude of aberrations in the investigated wavefront. In addition, the authors performed the multichannel aberration compensation based on the Zernike polynomials, instead of using the optical expansion of the field in the basis of the Zernike functions. Although the paper is complete in terms of content, the novelty is rather limited. Therefore, I do not recommend the publication for this work.

Author Response

We are thankful to the Editor and Reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions, which allow us to improve the quality of the manuscript making it more clear for readers. We believe the corrections made address the Editor’s and Reviewers’ concerns making the manuscript suitable for publication in the journal.

All changes in the manuscript are highlighted by a color.

Review #3

 In this paper, the authors applied an adaptive method based on the multichannel filter being matched with adjustable Zernike phase functions, to determine the type and magnitude of aberrations in the investigated wavefront. In addition, the authors performed the multichannel aberration compensation based on the Zernike polynomials, instead of using the optical expansion of the field in the basis of the Zernike functions. Although the paper is complete in terms of content, the novelty is rather limited. Therefore, I do not recommend the publication for this work.

Reply: Thank you for your appreciation of our work. We are glad that you think that our article is complete in content. The novelty of our study lies in the combination of an adaptive approach and matched filtering based on a multichannel diffractive optical element. A step-by-step algorithm for wavefront correction based on optical expansion in terms of wave aberrations (Zernike phase functions) has been developed. New criteria for successful detection are proposed: maximum intensity, compactness, and orientation of the intensity distribution of diffraction orders.

Note, in this work, we realize experimental investigation of the proposed approach and apply it for a step-by-step compensation of a complex type of aberrations.

Among the advantages of the proposed method are a wide range of detected aberrations and resistance to vibrations.

We have added explanatory comments in the abstract, introduction, conclusion and text of the manuscript. Based on the comments of other reviewers, we have made also additional changes to the text. Please, take them into account when making your final decision.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript is much better than the original one. The writing has been improved and the details added by authors are more helpful for readers to read and understand the project. I recommend to accept this manuscript.