MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035613082 · doi:10.1117/12.459248

Extendable COTS multicomputer/CPU design for an MCAO control system

2003· article· en· W2035613082 on OpenAlexaff
Leslie Saddlemyer, Jennifer Dunn, Malcolm J. Smith, Corinne Boyer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)DecompositionEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many reconstructors, or Real Time Controllers (RTC), for mono-conjugate AO systems are currently operating with many more about to be commissioned. The advent of faster and more efficient CPUs has permitted this task to be accomplished on a single processing element, for all but the highest order systems. However, the demands on the RTC increase by an order of magnitude or so in the case of a Multi-Conjugate AO (MCAO) system. Multiple Wavefront Sensors (WFS) and multiple deformable mirrors increase the complexity, processing load and data flow rates that the RTC must deal with. No currently available single processing unit is capable of meeting this demand and retain the advantages of a cost-effective, flexible system. Multiple processing units must be employed. We present in this paper a general architecture that addresses these issues. We present an analysis of the requirements of the Gemini South MCAO system on the RTC. This is followed by an algorithmic decomposition that simplifies the problem, lending itself to the use of commercially available multi-CPU single board computers. This is supported by the results of benchmark tests aimed at verifying the capabilities of one sample SBC. We conclude by presenting a description of the extendability of this architectural approach in the face of yet higher demands such as more mirrors, WFSs or complexity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207