Status and performance of the Gemini Planet Imager adaptive optics system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gemini Planet Imager is a high-contrast near-infrared instrument specifically designed to image exoplanets and circumstellar disks over a narrow field of view. We use science data and AO telemetry taken during the first 1.5 yr of the GPI Exoplanet Survey to quantify the performance of the AO system. In a typical 60 sec H-band exposure, GPI achieves a 5σ raw contrast of 10−4 at 0.4"; typical final 5σ contrasts for full 1 hr sequences are more than 10 times better than raw contrasts. We find that contrast is limited by bandwidth wavefront error over much of the PSF. Preliminary exploratory factor analysis can explain 60{70% of the variance in raw contrasts with combinations of seeing and wavefront error metrics. We also examine the effect of higher loop gains on contrast by comparing wavefront error maps reconstructed from AO telemetry to concurrent IFS images. These results point to several ways that GPI performance could be improved in software or hardware.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".