MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111366773 · doi:10.1364/josaa.29.000185

Advanced vibration suppression algorithms in adaptive optics systems

2012· article· en· W2111366773 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Correia, Jean‐Pierre Véran, Glen Herriot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive opticsComputer scienceVibrationOpticsPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vibration suppression in astronomical adaptive optics (AO) systems has gathered great attention in the context of next-generation instrumentation for current telescopes and future Extremely Large Telescopes. Laser tomographic AO systems require natural guide stars to measure the low-order modes such as tip-tilt (TT) and TT-anisoplanatism. To increase the sky coverage, the guide stars are often faint, thus requiring lower temporal sampling frequencies to work on a more favorable signal-to-noise regime. Such sampling frequencies can be of the order of, or even lower than, the range of frequencies where vibrations are likely to appear. Ideally, vibrations affecting the low-order modes could be corrected at the higher laser loop frame rate using an upsampling procedure. This paper compares the most relevant solutions proposed hitherto to a novel multirate algorithm using the linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) approach capable of upsampling the correction to further reduce the impact of vibrations. Results from numerical Monte Carlo simulations span a large range of parameters from pure sinusoids to relatively broad peak vibrations, covering the likely-to-be signals in a realistic AO system. The improvement is shown at sampling frequencies from 20 to 800 Hz, including below the vibration itself, in the example of 29.5 Hz on a Thirty Meter Telescope-like scenario. The multirate LQG ensures the least residual for both faint and bright stars for all the peak widths considered based on telemetry from the Keck Observatory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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