MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047663614 · doi:10.1364/josaa.27.000a19

Impact of sodium laser guide star fratricide on multi-conjugate adaptive optics systems

2010· article· en· W2047663614 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lianqi Wang, Ángel Otarola, Brent L. Ellerbroek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2010
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 AstronomyOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceCalifornia Institute of TechnologyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of CaliforniaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAdaptive opticsStrehl ratioLaser guide starOpticsWavefrontWavefront sensorLaserPhysicsZenithDeformable mirrorAbsorption (acoustics)Scattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laser beams projected from the ground to form sodium layer laser guide stars (LGSs) for adaptive optics (AO) systems experience scattering and absorption that reduce their intensity as they propagate upward through the atmosphere. Some fraction of the scattered light will be collected by the other wavefront sensors and causes additional background in parts of the pupil. This cross-talk between different LGS wavefront sensors is referred to as the fratricide effect. In this paper we quantify the magnitude of four different sources of scattering/absorption and backscattering, and we evaluate their impact on performance with various zenith angles and turbulence profiles for one particular AO system. The resulting wavefront error for the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) multi-conjugate AO (MCAO) system, NFIRAOS, is on the order of 5 to 20 nm RMS, provided that the mean background from the fratricide effect can be calibrated and subtracted with an accuracy of 80%. We also present the impact on system performance of momentary variations in LGS signal levels due to variations in cirrus absorption or laser power, and we show that this affects the performance more than does an equal variation in the level of the fratricide.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America ASame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207