Phase Correction Algorithm for Spaceborne Infrared Fourier Transform Spectrometer Based on Minimum Spectral Imaginary Part

Han Zhang; Feng Zhu; Hailiang Shi; Jingjing Zhang; Xiang Cao; Xianhua Wang; Hanhan Ye; Yunfei Han

doi:10.3788/AOS241704

Acta Optica Sinica, Volume. 45, Issue 8, 0830001(2025)

Phase Correction Algorithm for Spaceborne Infrared Fourier Transform Spectrometer Based on Minimum Spectral Imaginary Part

Han Zhang¹, Feng Zhu^2、*, Hailiang Shi², Jingjing Zhang³, Xiang Cao¹, Xianhua Wang², Hanhan Ye², and Yunfei Han²

Author Affiliations

¹School of Artificial Intelligence, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, Anhui, China

²Anhui Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Hefei Institute of Physical Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei 230031, Anhui, China

³School of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, Anhui, China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(18)

Fig. 1. Fourier transform spectrometer scanning working mode

Download full size

Fig. 2. Interference schematic of Michelson interferometer

Download full size

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of linear calibration principle of two points on a star

Download full size

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of simplex algorithm

Download full size

Fig. 5. Phase correction flowchart

Download full size

Fig. 6. Adaptation value calculation results. (a) Vary with iteration times; (b) vary with offset

Download full size

Fig. 7. ICT, ES, and DS spectra and phase distributions in LW band. (a) Spectra; (b) phase distributions

Download full size

Fig. 8. ICT preprocessing. (a) Phase of 30 scan lines; (b) corresponding to offset interferogram; (c) correlation coefficient matrix

Download full size

Fig. 9. Phase comparisons before and after DS scene correction. (a) Correction phase; (b) comparison of phase difference with ICT

Download full size

Fig. 10. Comparisons of calibration data of different methods in ES scene. (a) Phase difference with ICT; (b) spectral imaginary part

Download full size

Fig. 11. Comparisons of NEdN of the real part spectra of DS and the imaginary part spectra of ES before and after correction. (a) MW; (b) SW

Download full size

Table 1. Instrument parameter characteristics of HIRAS

View table

Table 1. Instrument parameter characteristics of HIRAS

Parameter	Specification
Scan period	10 s
View angle	1.1°
Scan angle	$\pm$ 50.4°
Radiometric calibration accuracy	1 K, expected 0.7 K
Spectral calibration accuracy	1×10^－5, expected 7×10^－6
Spectral resolution	0.625 cm^－1
Spectral range	LW: 650‒1135 cm^－1 MW: 1210‒1750 cm^－1 SW: 2155‒2550 cm^－1

Table 2. Comparisons of methods in LW band

View table

Table 2. Comparisons of methods in LW band

Band	Missing site	Mertz		FCE		IPA		MSI-SM
Band	Missing site	Offset	Q /（mW·m^-2· sr^-1·cm）	Offset	Q /（mW·m^-2· sr^-1·cm）	Offset	Q /（mW·m^-2· sr^-1·cm）	Offset	Q /（mW·m^-2· sr^-1·cm）
LW	2000	—	121.301	1.9798	5.454	2.0452	3.837	2.0448	3.836
	9600	—	115.093	1.7411	109.427	2.0311	18.489	2.0294	18.472
	14000	—	102.631	0.0228	49.680	0.0457	9.049	0.0455	9.041
	—	—	102.631	－0.0490	11.348	－0.0230	2.837	－0.0233	2.831

Table 3. Comparisons of methods in MW and SW band

View table

Table 3. Comparisons of methods in MW and SW band

Band

Missing

site

Mertz

FCE

IPA

MSI-SM

Offset

Q /（mW·m^-2·

sr^-1·cm）

Offset

Q /（mW·m^-2·

sr^-1·cm）

Offset

Q /（mW·m^-2·

sr^-1·cm）

Offset

Q /（mW·m^-2·

sr^-1·cm）

—

73.493

0.0926

1127.000

0.0069

65.684

0.0074

64.881

—

115.093

0.6351

182.937

0.0135

11.481

0.0020

9.007

Table 4. Comparisons of calibration accuracy in LW band

View table

Table 4. Comparisons of calibration accuracy in LW band

Date	Method	FOV 1	FOV 2	FOV 3	FOV 4	Average NEdN
20190301	IPA	150.142	106.576	129.439	155.570	135.432
20190301	MSI-SM	150.115	106.599	129.397	155.302	135.353
20190303	IPA	91.382	132.293	150.892	95.674	117.560
20190303	MSI-SM	91.270	131.691	150.668	95.579	117.302
20190305	IPA	239.985	121.502	145.452	159.976	166.729
20190305	MSI-SM	240.141	121.385	145.381	159.652	166.640
20190307	IPA	99.293	199.765	266.605	104.894	167.639
20190307	MSI-SM	98.882	198.765	265.409	103.856	166.728

Table 5. Comparisons of calibration accuracy in MW band

View table

Table 5. Comparisons of calibration accuracy in MW band

Date	Method	FOV 1	FOV 2	FOV 3	FOV 4	Average NEdN
20190301	IPA	23.923	37.932	46.501	23.797	33.038
20190301	MSI-SM	23.908	36.676	46.295	23.683	32.641
20190303	IPA	21.305	76.781	63.573	18.369	45.007
20190303	MSI-SM	20.615	67.237	57.792	18.808	41.113
20190305	IPA	39.343	58.280	64.946	34.882	49.363
20190305	MSI-SM	36.234	51.061	58.366	32.292	44.488
20190307	IPA	24.310	44.500	48.588	21.194	34.648
20190307	MSI-SM	23.297	39.579	44.869	20.614	32.090

Table 6. Comparisons of calibration accuracy in SW band

View table

Table 6. Comparisons of calibration accuracy in SW band

Date	Method	FOV 1	FOV 2	FOV 3	FOV 4	Average NEdN
20190301	IPA	6.763	6.717	9.471	6.244	7.299
20190301	MSI-SM	5.649	5.701	4.632	4.474	5.114
20190303	IPA	6.078	6.401	7.937	4.856	6.318
20190303	MSI-SM	5.806	5.765	4.514	4.352	5.109
20190305	IPA	6.332	6.117	7.485	4.517	6.113
20190305	MSI-SM	6.179	5.926	5.007	4.359	5.368
20190307	IPA	6.562	6.956	10.658	5.392	7.392
20190307	MSI-SM	5.914	5.917	4.533	4.521	5.221

Table 7. Comparisons of registration time for different methods
View table
Table 7. Comparisons of registration time for different methods
Band Mertz FCE IPA MSI-SM
LW 37.236 1.230 16.669 3.677
MW 31.321 1.044 20.652 2.448
SW 14.268 0.568 20.864 2.494

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Han Zhang, Feng Zhu, Hailiang Shi, Jingjing Zhang, Xiang Cao, Xianhua Wang, Hanhan Ye, Yunfei Han. Phase Correction Algorithm for Spaceborne Infrared Fourier Transform Spectrometer Based on Minimum Spectral Imaginary Part[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2025, 45(8): 0830001

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites