MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054298056 · doi:10.1117/12.2057311

Asymmetry in the noise equivalent angle performance of the JWST fine guidance sensor

2014· article· en· W2054298056 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Rowlands, Gerry Warner, Loïc Albert, Tim Hardy, J. L. Pipher, J. B. Hutchings, René Doyon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalNational Research Council CanadaCOM DEV International
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsJames Webb Space TelescopeSpectrographPhysicsAsymmetryDetectorNoise (video)BrightnessOpticsTelescopeComputer scienceAstronomyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The James Webb Space Telescope Fine Guidance Sensor makes use of three 2048&times;2048 five micron cutoff H2RG HgCdTe detectors from Teledyne Imaging Systems. The FGS consists of two Guider channels and a Near-InfraRed Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS) channel. We report here on detailed tests results from the Guider channels originating in both instrument level performance testing and from recent Guider performance testing with the FGS integrated into JWST’s Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM). A key performance parameter is the noise equivalent angle (NEA) or centroiding precision. The JWST requirement flowed down to the Guiders is a NEA of 4 milli-arcseonds, equivalent to approximately 1/20<sup>th</sup> of a detector pixel. This performance has been achieved in the testing to date. We have noted a systematic asymmetry in the NEA depending on whether the NEA in the row or column direction is considered. This asymmetry depends on guide star brightness and reaches its maximum, where the row NEA is 15% to 20% larger than the column NEA, at the dim end of the Guide star brightness range. We evaluate the detector level characteristics of spatially correlated noise and asymmetric inter-pixel capacitance (IPC) as potential sources of this NEA asymmetry. Modelling is used to estimate the impact on NEA of these potential contributors. These model results are then compared to the Guider test results obtained to date in an effort to isolate the cause of this effect. While asymmetric IPC can induce asymmetric NEA, the required magnitude of IPC is far greater than observed in these detectors. Thus, spatially correlated noise was found to be the most likely cause of the asymmetric NEA.

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 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 score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
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