Comments on "An improved pencil-of-functions method and comparisons with traditional methods of pole extraction" [with reply]

The commenters take issue with the comparisons presented by A.J. Mackay and A. McCowan (ibid., vol.AP-35, no.4, p.435-41, Apr. 1987). Specifically, it is claimed that the authors neglect the large body of results in electromagnetic system identification that have appeared since the early adaptations of Prony´s method to electromagnetics. In a reply, the authors state that since the Prony method has not been eclipsed by many other methods and has been commonly used as the standard benchmark, the authors feel that the comparison in question was not unfairly selective.<>