0.23 & $ -95.8$ & $ -88.1$ & $+24$ & 0.8\
& & Mean & $ -66$ & $-58$ &\
& 2456074.03398 & 0.93 & $ -67.2$ & $ -59.5$ & $-24$ & 2.5\
& 2456136.83868 & 0.69 & $ -71.8$ & $ -64.2$ & $-15$ & 1.4\
& & Mean & $ -89$ & $-81$ &\
& 2456136.94978 & 0.18 & $ -38.1$ & $ -30.5$ & $+21$ & 0.8\
& & Mean & $ -17$ & $-9$ &

The uncertainty in predicting the amplitude ratio, $A_{\rm RV}/A_{H}$, introduces the largest error in our correction of the pulsation effect. First, the standard deviation in Figure \[fig:comp\_amp\] leads to an error of $7.6~{{\mathrm{km~s}^{-1}}}$ in predicted velocity amplitude considering that the $H$-band amplitudes of our Cepheids are approximately 0.4 mag. In addition, there can be a systematic difference between the velocity amplitudes from optical spectroscopic data and the counterparts from infrared data. While the $A_{\rm RV}$ for the temperate Cepheids were obtained with optical spectra, our spectra for the target Cepheids are in the infrared. @Nardetto-2011 found that the velocity amplitude of $\ell$ Car ($P=35.56$ d) from infrared, $K$-band, absorption lines is 1.3 times larger than that from optical absorption lines 