Woofer–tweeter temporal correction split in atmospheric adaptive optics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it