Computation Theory of Large-Scale Partially Coherent Imaging by the Modified Modal Expansion Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This paper describes an improved method to calculate partially coherent images. Basically, they divide the object into a number of smaller regions, calculate the image in each case, and then recombine, including the cross-product terms to get the full image. The result is that the computer storage necessary is much reduced. This paper represents an important advance, and should be accepted. It should be useful for calculating images for projection lithography, as an example. It also is a nice demonstration of partial coherence effects in imaging. The fact that it can be applied to spatially varying imaging properties is also significant. The paper is however quite heavy to read. In particular some abbreviations and definitions need to be defined to make the paper easier to read (see beow).

 

The paper uses a calculation in the spatial domain. Maybe a comment about why this was done, rather than in the Fourier domain, or the Wigner domain.

 

Line 25 Define CSD (cross-spectral density)

Line 27 Need to define rho, r. Is r a scalar?

Line 34 Define WSS (wide-sense stationary)

Line 86. Substituting Eq.2 (not Eq.3) …

In Fig.8, the edge occurs between sample 11 and 12, so effectively it is an abrupt edge at 11.5. We expect the intensity at the edge to be 0.5 for S=infinity, 0.33 for  S=1, and 0.25 for S=0, which seems to agree with the present results quite well.

Reference 11. Needs the volume number.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A small point. The paper uses ‘let’s’ several times. To me this sounds too informal. ‘Let us’ sounds better English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors propose a new model of partially coherent imaging. Mathematical analysis and approach look fine, but the experimental demonstration is not sufficient. There are quite a few points to be figured out.

1. Authors need to emphasize the novelty and advantages of the proposed idea, and provide some more recent literature review in the introduction section.

2. What do CSD, WSS, CMD stand for? The full name should be written first.

3. How is the "large-scale partially" defined in this article when coherent imaging?

4. In Fig.9, the required storage space decreases as the number of sub-zones decreases, so is there a limit to the number of subregions? Please explain.

5. Section 3, the authors use this method to reduce storage requirements, but it lacks the comparative experiments. This method should be compared with the existing methods, and analyzed from the image quality, speed, storage space and other indicators.

6. Some of the figures are too small, such as Fig.s 2 and 5.

7. The limitations of the proposed method and the prospect of future work should be given in Conclusion.

8. English spell check is required. The authors should improve their language in the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should improve their language in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript, the authors propose a modified modal expansion method to reduce the requirement of computational resources so that the propagation of partial coherence in imaging systems with extremely large sampling number could be handled by an ordinary computer. The proposed method is also applied to deal with the anisoplanatic imaging cases, while maintaining the same computational efficiency.

Overall, the manuscript is well-written and deserve to be published in the journal. However, I have some concerns need to be addressed before the manuscript can be published.

1. It would be better to give some examples to compare the proposed modified modal expansion method with some state-of-the-arts including the fourfold integral numerical calculation method and the existing modal expansion method.

2. It would be better to give the computational complexity analysis on the proposed modified modal expansion method.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Computation Theory of Large-Scale Partially Coherent Imaging by Modified Modal Expansion Method" introduces a novel approach to tackling the computational challenges inherent in numerical calculations for partially coherent imaging. The authors present a modified modal expansion method designed to reduce computational resource requirements, particularly for scenarios with large sampling numbers. The paper's key contributions encompass the theoretical framework, practical implementation details, and an efficiency analysis of the proposed method. It is well-structured, featuring clear sections on theoretical background, simulations, and conclusions.

Here are some suggestions to improve the paper:

General Comments:

1) Abstract Enhancement: The abstract should highlight the most relevant results of the paper to better summarize the key findings.

2) Text Formatting: The paper's formatting needs refinement, as there is a lot of unnecessary space throughout. Careful proofreading is recommended to improve the text's overall presentation.

3) References Update: Updating the references is necessary to ensure they reflect the most current and relevant literature.

Technical Comments:

1) Experimental Validation: The paper relies heavily on theoretical analysis and simulations. To strengthen the claims, empirical data from practical implementations is needed. Experimental validation would provide more robust evidence of the method's efficacy.

2) Mathematical Clarity: Some mathematical derivations and explanations are dense and would benefit from further clarification. Adding explanatory notes or visual aids (such as diagrams or flowcharts) could help readers, particularly those less familiar with the intricacies of numerical methods in optical imaging.

3) Comparative Analysis: A detailed comparative analysis with quantitative benchmarks is necessary. This should include a comparison of the performance of the modified modal expansion method against traditional methods using specific metrics such as computational time, memory usage, and accuracy.

4) Limitations: A more in-depth discussion on potential limitations , along with proposed solutions, would enhance the paper's robustness. This would help outline the method's applicability across various scenarios.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has carefully revised the previous review comments, adding comparative experiments and correcting errors in the language. I think the innovation and quality of the manuscript can be published in this journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author has carefully corrected errors in the language, and the quality of English language is better than before.

Author Response

Thanks for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments have been addressed, and the manuscript has been improved. In my opinion, it is now suitable for publication. I have only one comment: some periods are missing in the figure legends.

Author Response

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Upon reviewing the figure legends, we realized that indeed some periods were inadvertently omitted. We have now corrected this oversight by adding the missing periods to ensure proper punctuation throughout the figure legends.