MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155557794 · doi:10.1364/ol.37.003132

Woofer–tweeter temporal correction split in atmospheric adaptive optics

2012· article· en· W2155557794 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Correia, Jean‐Pierre Véran

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeformable mirrorAdaptive opticsLinear-quadratic-Gaussian controlBandwidth (computing)WavefrontOpticsComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)PhysicsTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many adaptive optics applications require wavefront corrections with a high stroke, and at a high bandwidth. Often, these two requirements cannot be met by a single wavefront corrector, and, instead, the combination of a low-bandwidth, high-stroke woofer and a high-bandwidth low-stroke tweeter is used in a so-called woofer-tweeter architecture. The optimal (minimum residual phase variance) way to split the correction between the woofer and the tweeter in the context of a linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) controller has been addressed previously. However, the necessity to fold the temporal characteristics of the woofer and tweeter into the LQG controller significantly increases its complexity. In this Letter, this optimal strategy is compared to a simpler, ad hoc approach, which consists in optimizing the LQG controller as if it were controlling a high-bandwidth, high-stroke corrector and splitting the correction using first-order high- and low-pass temporal filters. In the case of tilt correction for NFIRAOS on the Thirty Meter Telescope, it is found that the ad hoc approach, which is already used or planned for several systems, holds the same overall correction performance compared to the optimal strategy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics LettersSame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207