MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995093359 · doi:10.1364/ao.48.002105

Interaction matrix uncertainty in active (and adaptive) optics

2009· article· en· W1995093359 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Douglas G. MacMynowski

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAssociation of Canadian Universities for Research in AstronomyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsActuatorRobustness (evolution)Adaptive opticsControl theory (sociology)ScalingMatrix (chemical analysis)OpticsPhysicsRobust controlComputer scienceMathematicsGeometryControl (management)Materials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncertainty in the interaction matrix between sensors and actuators can lead to performance degradation or instability in control of segmented mirrors (typically the telescope primary). The interaction matrix is ill conditioned, and thus the position estimate required for control can be highly sensitive to small errors in knowledge of the matrix, due to uncertainty or temporal variations. The robustness to different types of uncertainty is bounded here using the small gain theorem and structured singular values. The control is quite robust to moderate uncertainty in actuator gain, sensor gain, or the ratio of sensor dihedral and height sensitivity. However, the control is extremely sensitive to small errors in geometry, with the maximum error that can be tolerated scaling inversely with the number of segments. The same tools can be applied to adaptive optics; however, the interaction matrix here is better conditioned and so uncertainty is less of an issue, with the tolerable error scaling inversely with the square root of the number of actuators.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207