Table I
Rank of Anticorrelatlon and Relative Information Content of Polarization Pairs
Rank | Wavelength | Refractive index | Angle | Relative information content |
---|
1. | 0.524 | 1.190 | 130 | 0.0372 |
2. | 0.782 | 1.186 | 135 | 0.0466 |
3. | 1.55 | 1.202 | 145 | 0.0446 |
4. | 2.33 | 1.340 | 160 | 0.250 |
5. | 1.04 | 1.189 | 140 | 0.0465 |
6. | 3.88 | 1.186 | 150 | 0.0211 |
7. | 4.14 | 1.200 | 140 | 0.0217 |
8. | 4.91 | 1.173 | 135 | 0.0121 |
9. | 2.85 | 1.153 | 130 | 0.0129 |
10. | 2.59 | 1.133 | 130 | 0.00839 |
11. | 8.99 | 1.329 | 85 | 0.0665 |
12. | 0.266a | 1.227 | 95 | 0.0814 |
13. | 6.20 | 1.213 | 80 | 0.0520 |
14. | 3.63a | 1.178 | 45 | 0.362 |
15. | 0.222 | 1.256 | 95 | 0.00944 |
a Relative information content suggests swap in ranking.
Table II
OptimaI lnput Subsets(Wavelengths)
Number of inputs: | 26 | 24 | 22 | 20 | 18 | 16 | 12 |
---|
| 0.524 | 0.524 | 0.524 | 0.524 | 0.524 | 0.524 | 0.524 |
| 0.782 | 0.782 | 0.782 | 0.782 | 0.782 | 0.782 | 1.04 |
| 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.55 |
| 1.55 | 1.55 | 1.55 | 1.55 | 1.55 | 1.55 | 2.33 |
| 2.33 | 2.33 | 2.33 | 2.33 | 2.33 | 2.33 | 3.88 |
| 2.59 | 2.85 | 2.85 | 2.85 | 3.88 | 3.88 | 4.14 |
| 2.85 | 3.63 | 3.88 | 3.88 | 4.14 | 4.14 | |
| 3.63 | 3.88 | 4.14 | 4.14 | 4.91 | 4.91 | |
| 3.88 | 4.14 | 4.91 | 4.91 | 8.99 | | |
| 4.14 | 4.91 | 6.20 | 8.99 | | | |
| 4.91 | 6.20 | 8.99 | | | | |
| 6.20 | 8.99 | | | | | |
| 8.99 | | | | | | |
Table III
Deconvolution Relative Residual Error
Number of inputs | Casea | G | H | I | J |
---|
12 | | 0.093 | 0.043 | | |
16 | | 0.087 | 0.052 | | |
18 | | 0.064 | 0.049 | | |
18b | | 0.055 | | | |
20 | | 0.076 | 0.046 | 0.14 | 0.054 |
22 | | 0.0615 | 0.054 | 0.0624 | 0.052 |
22b | | 0.0804 | | | |
24 | | 0.0610 | 0.30 | 0.0618 | 0.046 |
26 | | 0.0608 | 0.24 | 0.059 | 0.053 |
30 | | 0.065 | 0.16 | 0.061 | 0.049 |
a Cases
G and
H were deconvolved on a 10-
μm diam interval; cases
I and
J were deconvolved on a 7.6-
μm diam interval.
b For this trial, case
G was deconvolved on a 12-
μm interval.
Table IV
Deconvolution Figure of Error
Number of inputs | Casea | G | H | I | J |
---|
12 | | 0.067 | 0.122 | | |
16 | | 0.074 | 0.121 | | |
18 | | 0.105 | 0.11 | | |
18b | | 0.074 | | | |
20 | | 0.064 | 0.079 | 0.072 | 0.045 |
22 | | 0.056 | 0.040 | 0.038 | 0.046 |
22b | | 0.060 | | | |
24 | | 0.061 | 0.20 | 0.033 | 0.026 |
26 | | 0.058 | 0.18 | 0.029 | 0.031 |
30 | | 0.070 | 0.20 | 0.029 | 0.031 |
a Cases
G and
H were deconvolved on a 10-
μm diam interval; cases
I and
J were deconvolved on a 7.6-
μm diam interval.
b For this trial, case
G was deconvolved on a 12-
μm interval.
Table V
Number of Eigenvalues Which Exceed the Squared Residual Errors/Squared Norm
Number of inputs | Casea | G | H | I | J |
---|
12 | | 4 | 6 | | |
16 | | 4 | 7 | | |
18 | | 7 | 8 | | |
18b | | 7 | | | |
20 | | 4 | 7 | 2 | 2 |
22 | | 5 | 7 | 2 | 3 |
22b | | 5 | | | |
24 | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 |
26 | | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 |
30 | | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 |
a Cases
G and
H were deconvolved on a 10-
μm diam interval; cases
I and
J were deconvolved on a 7.6-
μm diam interval.
b For this trial, case
G was deconvolved on a 12-
μm interval.
Table VI
Deconvolution Figure of Merit (Based on Eigenvalues Which Exceed Square Error/Square Norm)
Number of inputs | Casea | | H | I | J |
---|
12 | | 60.2 | 49.2 | | |
16 | | 54.1 | 57.9 | | |
18 | | 66.7 | 74.9 | | |
18b | | 94.3 | | | |
20 | | 62.8 | 88.3 | 31.0 | 44.1 |
22 | | 88.7 | 177 | 52.3 | 64.6 |
22b | | 83.3 | | | |
24 | | 82.6 | 20.3 | 91.4 | 189 |
26 | | 85.6 | 28.4 | 75.9 | 140 |
30 | | 71.6 | 24.6 | 104 | 95.8 |
a Cases
G and
H were deconvolved on a 10-
μm diam interval; cases
I and
J were deconvolved on a 7.6-
μm diam interval.
b For this trial, case
G was deconvolved on a 12-
μm interval.