pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01607 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.IM

Recognition: unknown

A Point-Spread Function for the Extreme Ultraviolet High-Resolution Imager on board Solar Orbiter

Alexandros Koukras, Cis Verbeeck, Daniel W. Savin, David Berghmans, Emil Kraaikamp, Frederic Auchere, Luca Teriaca, Michael Hahn, Sergei Shestov, Stefan J. Hofmeister

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 17:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM
keywords point spread functionEUV imagingSolar Orbiterimage deconvolutionscattered light correctionsolar observationsinstrument calibration
0
0 comments X

The pith

The PSF for Solar Orbiter's HRIEUV imager models 57% of light as diffracted or scattered, allowing deconvolution that intensifies bright features by up to 40% and dims dark ones by up to 85%.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper constructs the point-spread function for the Extreme Ultraviolet High-Resolution Imager on Solar Orbiter at 174 Angstrom. It calculates the diffraction component from instrument mechanical drawings, finding 26% of light diffracted mainly by the entrance filter mesh and mounting. It fits the remaining diffuse scattered light to a softened power law using partial occultations from the 2023 Mercury transit, finding 42% scattered. Combined, these effects redistribute 57% of incoming light across the detector. Deconvolution with the resulting PSF removes instrumental scattering, raising contrast and photometric accuracy so that image features become clearer for solar analysis.

Core claim

The PSF consists of a diffraction component where 26% of light is diffracted mainly by the entrance filter mesh and mounting, and a diffuse component where a softened power law scatters 42% of the light. Together they redistribute 57% of incoming light over the detector. Deconvolution with this PSF corrects the images, intensifying bright structures by up to 40% and decreasing dark structures by up to 85%.

What carries the argument

The point-spread function (PSF) of the HRIEUV, constructed from mechanical drawings for diffraction parts and fitted to partial occultations during Mercury transit for the diffuse scattered light part.

If this is right

  • Corrected images exhibit markedly higher dynamic range and contrast.
  • Photometric measurements of solar structures become more accurate.
  • Image features gain clarity that supports more precise scientific analysis of solar observations.
  • Bright structures intensify by up to 40% while dark structures decrease by up to 85%.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same PSF construction approach could be tested on other mesh-supported EUV telescopes to check for similar scattering fractions.
  • Routine pipeline processing of HRIEUV data might now incorporate this deconvolution step to standardize output intensities.
  • The model provides a baseline for estimating how mirror microroughness affects future high-resolution solar imagers.
  • Reprocessing earlier HRIEUV observations with this PSF could reveal previously underestimated contrasts in coronal features.

Load-bearing premise

The diffuse scattered light component is accurately captured by a softened power-law fit to partial occultations during the 2023-Jan-03 Mercury transit, with no significant unaccounted contributions from other instrumental or solar effects.

What would settle it

A comparison of deconvolved HRIEUV images against simultaneous observations from a different EUV instrument with independently known lower scattering levels, checking whether the intensity shifts in bright and dark regions match the predicted 40% and 85% changes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01607 by Alexandros Koukras, Cis Verbeeck, Daniel W. Savin, David Berghmans, Emil Kraaikamp, Frederic Auchere, Luca Teriaca, Michael Hahn, Sergei Shestov, Stefan J. Hofmeister.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematics of HRIEUV. (a) Instrument layout and optical light path, adapted from Rochus et al. (2020). (b) Mounting of the entrance filter, provided by courtesy of the EUI team. (c) Image of the filter wheel, reproduced from Rochus et al. (2020) with permission from Astronomy & Astrophysics, © ESO We characterize the PSF of HRIEUV by calculating the diffraction from the mechanical drawings and calibrate th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: HRIEUV mosaic from Mercury transit observations on 2023 Jan 03. The dataset consists of 126 collected images during three pointings: the east limb (FOV 1), central meridian (FOV 2), and west limb (FOV 3). The mosaic also shows the transit locations of Mercury during all collected images. 306.7 mm downstream of the secondary mirror. Note that the filter wheel is not located at the exit pupil of the optical … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Intensity at Mercury’s center relative to its surrounding region. When the large-scale background can be approx￾imated as roughly homogeneous, which is best satisfied near the center of FOV 2, this ratio directly measures the fraction of light that is scattered farther than the length of Mercury’s radius, i.e., farther than 10.75 pixels. When we perturb this image by including a small occulting disk of rad… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Derivation of the PSF describing the diffraction pattern, using the simplified-combined method described in Sec￾tion 5.2. (a) and (b) Amplitude masks describe the mountings and meshes of the aperture and filter wheel, respectively. Yellow indicates open areas and dark purple closed ones. (c) For the aperture, the incoming wave field is propagated to the detector using Fraunhofer propagation to produce the … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PSF of HRIEUV as derived in one dimension. (a) PSF weights vs. detector location, zoomed in to the PSF center. (b) Percentage of light that is scattered farther than a given distance vs. distance. Blue lines are computed by Fresnel wave propagation and orange lines by the simplified-combined method. The green line in panel (b) gives the difference between the two modeling methods. patterns in the detector … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PSF describing the diffracted light of the combined system and of the individual components. (a) PSF weights vs. distance from PSF center. (b) Percentage of light that is scattered farther than a given distance. near the center of the Mercury occultations (Section 4). We therefore conclude that an additional source of scattering must be present in the instrument. We validated the computed diffraction PSF b… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Flowchart illustrating the calibration process for the diffuse scattering component of the PSF. The inputs consist of (a) Mercury transit images, (b) the known portion of the PSF representing the diffraction pattern, and (c) a spatial segmentation of the PSF, where each segment corresponds to one PSF coefficient to fit. From these, we first compute (d) a PSF-deconvolved image and (e) a mask marking the pix… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results for the diffuse scattered light. (a) The fitted PSF weights as function of distance from the PSF center, and (b) the corresponding amount of light that is scattered farther than a given distance. The green and blue lines and bands show the median, 1 σ, and 2 σ confidence levels for the non-parametric (green) and softened power-law (blue) fits, respectively. The red dashed line shows the final fit r… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Accuracy of the fitted PSF, evaluated on the Mercury transit occultations observed on (a)–(b) 3 Jan 2023 03:45:27 UT, (c)–(d) 05:57:20 UT, and (e)–(f) 07:32:43 UT. The left column shows the Mercury transit image with Mercury’s location marked by a white arrow. The right column shows the observed scattered light and the simulated scattered, derived using the fitted PSF, along horizontal slices through the M… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Errors in the simulated scattered light, as derived from a superposed-epoch analysis on all Mercury transit images, assuming (a)–(b) an isotropic PSF, (c)–(d) a PSF parameterized by a horizontal ellipse, and (e)–(f) a PSF parameterized by an ellipse with unconstrained orientation. The first row shows the MPE and the second row the MAPE in the simulated scattered light, dependent on the pixel location with… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulated effect of dark-current calibration offsets on the derived PSF. (a) Derived PSF weights for assumed calibration offsets of −5, −3, 0, +3, and +5 DNs. (b) Relative deviations of the derived PSF weights from the nominal fit with no calibration errors. (c) Corresponding amount of light that is scattered farther than a given distance. (d) Percentage point differences in the amount of light that is sc… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The final HRIEUV PSF. (a) Image of the PSF. (b) Histogram of the total amount of scattered and diffracted light, as derived from the uncertainty analysis in Section 6. The red line indicates the amount of scattered and diffracted light as derived from the entire dataset. (c) Fitted PSF weights as function of distance from the PSF center, and (d) amount of light that is scattered and diffracted farther tha… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evaluation on a solar flare. (a) HRIEUV image of an M-class flare on 2024 March 19. The solar background has been subtracted by a 48 second-prior non-flaring image. (b) Observed and simulated intensity distributions along the right diffraction arm near the center of the image. The simulated profiles are derived using the diffraction PSF and the combined diffraction and diffuse scattered light PSF. We perf… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Evaluation using the Mercury transit. (a) Simulated intensities derived from the diffracted and diffusely scattered light, and the corresponding observed intensities at the center of the Mercury occultation, shown as a function of transit time. (b) Percentage error in the simulated diffracted and scattered light relative to the observations as a function of transit time. (c) Percentage error as a function… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Effect on four representative solar images. The first column shows the original images; the second the PSF￾deconvolved images; and the third the percentage change in image intensities view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the point-spread function (PSF) of the Extreme Ultraviolet High-Resolution Imager (HRIEUV) onboard Solar Orbiter, which observes the Sun at 174 Angstrom. This PSF provides a quantitative description of light diffracted by the mesh and mounting supporting the entrance filter, light diffracted by the mesh supporting the filter-wheel filter, as well as light that is diffusely scattered by the microroughness of the mirrors. Deconvolution with this PSF corrects the images for instrumental scattered light, substantially improving image quality and photometric accuracy. First, we determine the diffraction component of the PSF from mechanical drawings of the instrument. We find that 26% of the incoming light is diffracted, predominantly by the entrance-filter mounting and mesh. Second, we fit the diffuse scattered light using partial image occultations during the 2023-Jan-03 Mercury transit. We find that the diffuse scattered light is well described by a softened power law, which scatters 42% of light over the detector. Combined, 57% of the incoming light is redistributed over the detector by diffraction and scattering. Correcting for these effects markedly enhances the dynamic range and contrast of the observations. The intensity in bright structures intensifies by up to 40% and the intensity in dark structures decreases by up to 85 %. All images features become much clearer, facilitating a more precise scientific analysis of HRIEUV observations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the point-spread function (PSF) for the HRIEUV instrument on Solar Orbiter at 174 Å. Diffraction from the entrance-filter mounting, mesh, and filter-wheel mesh is computed directly from mechanical drawings and accounts for 26% of the light. The diffuse scattering component is modeled as a softened power law and fitted to partial occultations during the 2023 January 3 Mercury transit, accounting for 42% of the light. The combined PSF redistributes 57% of incoming light; deconvolution is shown to increase contrast, with reported intensity gains up to 40% in bright structures and reductions up to 85% in dark structures.

Significance. If the PSF model is robust, the work supplies a practical calibration tool that can improve photometric accuracy and dynamic range for Solar Orbiter EUV observations, directly benefiting studies of solar coronal and transition-region structures. The parameter-free diffraction calculation from drawings is a clear methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (scattering fit): The softened power-law parameters are determined solely from the 2023-Jan-03 Mercury transit partial occultations. The manuscript provides no cross-validation against independent datasets (e.g., other transits, off-limb observations, or laboratory measurements) and does not quantify possible contamination from unmodeled terms such as filter-wheel mesh diffraction overlapping the diffuse component or mirror figure errors. This directly affects the claimed 42% scattering fraction and the subsequent intensity corrections.
  2. [§5] §5 (deconvolution results): The reported intensity changes (+40% in bright structures, -85% in dark structures) are given without propagated uncertainties or sensitivity tests to variations in the fitted power-law parameters. Because the central claim of photometric improvement rests on the accuracy of the full PSF, the absence of error bars or robustness checks leaves the quantitative corrections difficult to evaluate.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the wavelength (174 Å) and the fraction of light in each PSF component for immediate readability.
  2. The abstract states that 26% + 42% = 57% is redistributed; a brief note on whether the two components are strictly additive (i.e., no overlap in the angular regimes) would clarify the arithmetic.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the work's significance and for the constructive major comments on the scattering fit and deconvolution results. We address each point below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the analysis where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (scattering fit): The softened power-law parameters are determined solely from the 2023-Jan-03 Mercury transit partial occultations. The manuscript provides no cross-validation against independent datasets (e.g., other transits, off-limb observations, or laboratory measurements) and does not quantify possible contamination from unmodeled terms such as filter-wheel mesh diffraction overlapping the diffuse component or mirror figure errors. This directly affects the claimed 42% scattering fraction and the subsequent intensity corrections.

    Authors: We agree that the scattering fit relies on a single high-quality transit and that additional validation would be desirable. The 2023 January 3 event provided the only suitable partial occultations with the instrument in its nominal configuration during the analyzed period; no other transits or laboratory end-to-end measurements are available for cross-validation. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit discussion of potential contamination: the filter-wheel mesh diffraction is modeled separately from the diffuse component and contributes negligibly in the radial ranges used for the fit; mirror figure errors are bounded by pre-flight metrology to <3% of the total scattered light. We have also included a sensitivity analysis in which the power-law index and normalization are varied within their formal fit uncertainties, showing that the derived 42% scattering fraction changes by at most ±4%. These additions are now in §4. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (deconvolution results): The reported intensity changes (+40% in bright structures, -85% in dark structures) are given without propagated uncertainties or sensitivity tests to variations in the fitted power-law parameters. Because the central claim of photometric improvement rests on the accuracy of the full PSF, the absence of error bars or robustness checks leaves the quantitative corrections difficult to evaluate.

    Authors: We have revised §5 to include both propagated uncertainties and sensitivity tests. Using bootstrap resampling of the transit occultation data, we now report the intensity corrections with uncertainties: bright structures increase by 40% ± 6% and dark structures decrease by 85% ± 10%. We additionally performed sensitivity tests by perturbing the softened power-law parameters within ±1σ of their best-fit values; the resulting intensity corrections vary by no more than 7% in bright regions and 12% in dark regions. These quantitative robustness checks are now presented in the revised text and accompanying figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in PSF model construction or photometric claims

full rationale

The derivation separates into two independent components: the diffraction term is computed directly from external mechanical drawings of the instrument (not fitted or self-referential), while the diffuse scattering term is an empirical fit of a softened power-law form to light levels observed in partially occulted regions during the 2023 Mercury transit. Neither step reduces the central claim—that PSF deconvolution produces quantified intensity shifts of up to +40% in bright structures and -85% in dark structures—to a tautology or to the fitted parameters by construction. The reported photometric improvements are measured outcomes of applying the assembled PSF to solar images, not re-statements of the transit fit itself. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work are invoked as load-bearing elements. The model is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (drawings and transit data) and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that mechanical drawings fully capture diffraction and that the Mercury transit data isolate the scattering component without contamination.

free parameters (1)
  • softened power-law parameters for scattering
    Fitted to partial occultation data from the 2023 Mercury transit to describe diffuse scattered light.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Diffraction effects can be quantitatively determined from mechanical drawings of the entrance filter mounting, mesh, and filter-wheel mesh.
    Used to calculate that 26% of incoming light is diffracted.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5604 in / 1231 out tokens · 27624 ms · 2026-05-09T17:45:58.606350+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2022

  2. [2]

    B., et al

    Born, M., Wolf, E., Bhatia, A. B., et al. 1999, Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light, 7th edn. (Cambridge University Press)

    1999

  3. [3]

    A., Coleman, T

    Branch, M. A., Coleman, T. F., & Li, Y. 1999, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 21, 1

    1999

  4. [4]

    2005, Introduction to Fourier Optics, McGraw-Hill physical and quantum electronics series (W

    Goodman, J. 2005, Introduction to Fourier Optics, McGraw-Hill physical and quantum electronics series (W. H. Freeman)

    2005

  5. [5]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  6. [6]

    2024, Point Spread Functions for the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA)

    Hofmeister, S. 2024, Point Spread Functions for the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Hofmeister, S. J. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.11784

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    J., Hahn, M., & Wolf Savin, D

    Hofmeister, S. J., Hahn, M., & Wolf Savin, D. 2022, Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 39, 2153

    2022

  9. [9]

    J., Savin, D

    Hofmeister, S. J., Savin, D. W., & Hahn, M. 2025, ApJS, 278, 8

    2025

  10. [10]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  11. [11]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, 1–6

    2015

  12. [12]

    Lucy, L. B. 1974, AJ, 79, 745 27

    1974

  13. [13]

    Richardson, W. H. 1972, Journal of the Optical Society of America (1917-1983), 62, 55

    1972

  14. [14]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W

    Rochus, P., Auch` ere, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W. T., Bobra, M. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 68 Van der Walt, S., Sch¨ onberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., et al. 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453

    2020

  15. [15]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020