高手帮我看看编辑是什么意思

我已经按照审稿的意见进行了逐条修改，并写了修改说明，下面是我的修改说明（是否手稿中所用修改的地方都要说明，而并非只回答审稿人的意见），

Dear Editors and Reviewers.

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript “Wire Bonding Quality Monitoring via Refining Process of Electrical Signal from Ultrasonic Generator” (ID: MSSP10-61). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following.

Response to the Reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 1#

1. From the visual inspection of Fig.5 it follows that the first two principal components are not the best features for classification, because it is possible to obtain a reliable classifier making use of a single component only. (Note to Editors and Reviewers: There appears to be a bit of an error in this comment. In our paper, the classifying result of bonding states is shown in Fig. 11, not Fig. 5 )

Response: Considering the suggestion of the Reviewer, we have re-classified the bonding state making use of the first principal component. For a good bonding state, the value of the first principal component ranges from -7 to -1. For the wire break bonding state, the value ranges from 4 to 5. Fig. 11 shows the classifying result of two bonding states with the first principal component. The wire break bonding state can clearly be completely separated.

In the original manuscript, we took into account only the adequacy of feature information and selected the first two principal components for classifying the bonding state. However, for a simple two-classification problem, the two bonding states can be completely separated using only a single component. As the Reviewer mentioned, more features increase the complexity and unreliability of the classifier. Therefore, we have carefully revised the issue in question to accord with the Reviewer’s suggestion.

2. Structure of discussed neural network is not appropriate. The size (cardinality) of the training data set should be significantly greater than the number of unknown parameters (coefficients) in neural network. Unfortunately in discussed example the training set consist of 200 examples only and the number of unknown neural network coefficients is equal to (13+1)*15+(15+1)*1 = 226.

Response: We thank the Reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have conducted an additional experiment on bonding shear strength detection, and the sample size has reached 3200 (including the 1300 bonds that the bonding pad surface contaminated and 1900 good bonds). With the extracted features and the principal component analysis method, we have recalculated the factor of the principal component. The accumulated contribution rate of the first 13 PCs reaches 95.12%, which is almost similar to the result from the previous experiment. To predict bond shear strength, the ANN was first trained using 2200 bonds (1300 good bonds and 900 weakly adhered bonds). After comparison of the results of a few ANNs with a different number of hidden layer nodes, the number of hidden layer nodes remains at 15. The train result shows that the mean square error (MSE) is 1.2 when the train epoch reaches 200. To check the accuracy of ANN, 1000 additional bonds (600 good bonds and 400 weakly adhered bonds) were tested as a set of verification data. Notably, the MSE of tested samples reaches 1.39, which is more precise than that of the previous experiment on the MSE of the tested samples that reached 2.45. Moreover, the predicted bonding strength of about 7% of the 3200 bonds is beyond the band of 10 mN. The proportion is smaller than that in the previous experiment, which yielded 10%. Fig. 17 plots the result of predicting bond shear strength from the trained and tested neural network against the corresponding results obtained by shearing tests of 3200 bonded samples.

We deeply regret the inadequacies in the previous work. Once again, we thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. The revisions are marked in red in the manuscript.

3. It is recommended to use ISO units for physical quantities. The force units should be replaced with or .

Response: We have accordingly converted the unit to in the entire paper.

Reviewer 2#

1. Why are the specific features chosen? Have they any physical interpretation, relating them to the bonding quality? If not than this is somewhat a case history, and probably many other features (maybe based directly on the signal) could be invented.

Response: Over the years, bond quality detection has been a problematic issue. We attempted to detect bond quality by analyzing the ultrasonic electrical signal from the ultrasonic generator. In part two of the paper, we discuss the principle of monitoring, as well as the relationship between the bonding electrical signal and the boundary contact condition at the capillary tip, which is the most crucial factor affecting bonding quality (reference 3). Therefore, the manner by which the contact friction changes are extracted from the ultrasonic electrical signal during the bonding process is the key to identifying bonding quality.

To extract features, numerous signal processing methods have been used in ultrasonic electrical signals, and the results show that the envelope waveform features are significantly sensitive to the bonding quality. However, the problem of extracting features from the envelope still requires a solution. Michael expressed the bonding process as three different phases, namely, “removing oxides, plastic deformation, and stress diffusion,” and used these to evaluate the bonding mechanism (Reference 15). The research revealed the different contributions of the three phases to bonding quality. Based on the previously described analysis, we attempted to separate the electrical signal envelope into three phases and individually extract the waveform features of each phase. In the rising phase of the envelope, the slope and amplitude of the envelope may reflect the contact changes of bonding initial phase and further reflect the degree to which the oxide layer is destroyed and the extent to which bonding quality is affected. In the stable phase of the envelope, some time domain statistical features, such as peak value, mean value, variance, skewness, and kurtosis, among others, can reflect the contact changes in the stable phase of the bonding process, and further reflect the formation effect of the bond. Although the damping phase of the envelope is not essential for bond formation, the degree of damping of the signal also provides considerable information on how the bonding is completed. In addition, to extract the frequency domain changes in the bonding electrical signals during feature extraction, designing a bandpass filter bank to filter the fundamental signals and harmonics can be considered, and then the features can be separately extracted from each subband signal using the previously explained segmenting method. After the feature extraction, the principal components analysis method was used for feature selection in order to select the relevant information and reduce the dimensionality of original feature variables.

Quantitative description of the relationship between the extracted features and bonding quality is difficult. However, the qualitative relationship can be obtained through a number of experimental and identifying results. In the paper, two experimental procedures were performed. The first was aimed at identifying the wire break bonding state, and the second was geared toward predicting the bond shear strength. The experimental results demonstrate the advantages of the proposed feature extraction method in detecting and identifying bond quality.

We have added additional explanations in the feature extraction section of our manuscript, with the revised portions marked in red. In future work, we will do our best to continually study the bonding process mechanism and quality detecting technology.

2. Also the design of filters, Hilbert method etc are well known many of the details are not needed, the method alone is required.

Response: We have explained that the filters and the Hilbert method are preferred in describing our method. We have omitted overly detailed discussions on the methods and only interpreted our own. The verifying result is shown in our manuscript with red marks.

We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the Reviewers′ good comments. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We look forward to your information about my revised papers and thank you for your good comments.

Yours sincerely,

Wuwei. Feng

may和might有什么区别吗

Deadlock in the negotiations the two sides into a totally unable to deal with the situation. It affects the efficiency of talks, negotiators contusion of the self-esteem. Therefore, every effort should be made to avoid an impasse in the negotiations. In the impasse has taken shape, the general should take the following measures to ease the antagonism between the two sides so that negotiations on a new turn for the better.

First, it should discard the old traditional concepts, a correct understanding of the impasse in the negotiations. Many negotiators to the impasse as a failure of the concept in an attempt to avoid it, in which, under the guidance of thinking, rather than take active measures to avoid, but to avoid negative. Before the talks started, to pray with each other smoothly reached an agreement to complete the transaction, do not trouble the accident. Especially when he has a contract with the other side of the mission, the mood is even more urgent. As a result, in order to avoid a deadlock, everything has always given way to the other side, once an impasse, it will quickly lose confidence and patience, and even doubts about their own sense, the plan worked out in advance also had a shake, Some regretted how ... .... This line of thinking has hindered the negotiators make better use of negotiation strategy, everything has always given way to the outcome of that has to reach a bad agreement.

It should be noted that the impasse between the two sides appear as a whole. If you can correctly understand and handle properly, will become beneficial to the disadvantaged. We do not agree that the impasse as a strategy for the use of coercion against a compromise solution, but it can not give way to compromise, so that not only can not avoid the deadlock, but also their very passive. As long as have the courage and patience in the face of the preservation of the other party under the premise of flexibility in the use of a variety of tactics, techniques, can not overcome the impasse is not the fortress.

Secondly, the easy way out. To divert people's attention may well be an effective way. So sometimes the negotiations impasse, is in a stalemate on the issue. At this time, can avoid this problem, other provisions of the consultations. For example, both in terms of price, refused to give ground, the stalemate could be the issue aside for the time being, to discuss the date of delivery, payment, transport and insurance provisions. If you deal with these issues, the two sides are satisfied with the firm could solve the problem of confidence. If one particular satisfaction, it is possible to make adequate provisions for price concessions.

Third, the use of the adjournment of the strategy. The impasse in the negotiations, both sides are feeling a bit emotional tension, it is difficult at the talks to continue. At this time, adjournment is a good way to ease, with the consent of the host country can agree to the guests, adjourned the meeting. By the time the adjournment of the two sides to calm down and carefully consider the contentious issue may also be convened by the respective members of the negotiating team, brainstorming, to discuss concrete solutions.

Fourth, changes in environmental negotiations. Even so very hard to take a lot of ways, is still difficult to break the deadlock in negotiations, this time, the negotiations could be considered a change environment.

Experience has shown that the two sides sincere heart-to-heart talk on easing the deadlock is also very effective. If the two sides stressed the importance of successful cooperation between the two sides of the common interests of the pleasure experienced in the past Cooperation and friendly cross-lived, and so on in order to promote the transformation of attitude toward each other. Where necessary, the person in charge of the talks the two sides can separate consultations.

Fifth, the regulation of the use of people. When there have been more serious impasse, the mutual feelings might have been hurt. As a result, even if the party put forward proposals to ease the other side it is difficult to accept emotionally. In this case, it is best to find a mutually acceptable mediator or arbitrator as a regulator.

Sixth, the adjustment of the negotiators. When the negotiation stalemate between the two sides have been emotional, not adjustable and may consider replacing the negotiations, or higher status, please come forward, the issue of consultations and negotiations.

If the negotiators, the two sides have a mutual prejudices, in particular, the main negotiators, then the talks will be very difficult to continue. Even if the negotiations is to change the venue, or take other measures to ease, it is difficult to fundamentally solve the problem. The formation of the situation on the ground that the negotiations can not be in a good and the problem of discrimination by the issue of differences for the development of personal conflicts between the two sides. Of course, also can not ignore the context of different cultures, people of different values.

In some cases, such as the negotiations have agreed on most of the provisions, because of one or two key unresolved issues can not be entered into the contract. At this time, we have a higher status by the person in charge of negotiations, said the stalemate on the issue of care and attention. At the same time, this is the other side to exert a certain degree of psychological pressure on the other side had to give up higher requirements to make some compromise so as to facilitate agreement.

may与might的区别为：意思不同、用法不同、侧重点不同。

一、意思不同

1、may：(有可能但不肯定)也许，可能。

2、might：(may的过去时，用于间接引语)可能，可以。

二、用法不同

1、may：may可表示可能性，意为“可能，也许”。它后面可接不定式的完成式或进行式表示“或许已经，或许正在〔将要〕”等。may用在祈使句中加动词原形，可表示祝愿。

2、might：might用作助动词可与实义动词搭配，以用来表示可能性很小、许可、愿望、祝愿、请求，还可用于表示希望或目的的从句中。might也是may的过去式，用于问句中代替may，以表示礼貌。

三、侧重点不同

1、may：表示请求允许，may语气稍显生硬。

2、might：表示请求允许，might语气更加委婉。

鹏仔微信 15129739599 鹏仔QQ344225443 鹏仔前端 pjxi.com 共享博客 sharedbk.com