MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887646378 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aadae6

Characterizing the Performance of the NIRC2 Vortex Coronagraph at W. M. Keck Observatory

2018· article· en· W2887646378 on OpenAlexaff
Jerry W. Xuan, Dimitri Mawet, Henry Ngo, Garreth Ruane, Vanessa P. Bailey, Élodie Choquet, Olivier Absil, C. Álvarez, Marta L. Bryan, Therese Cook, Bruno Femenía Castellá, Carlos Gómez González, Elsa Huby, Heather A. Knutson, K. Matthews, Sam Ragland, Eugene Serabyn, Zoë Zawol

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCoronagraphExoplanetStarlightAstrophysicsStarsRotation (mathematics)Point spread functionAstronomyAlgorithmOpticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The NIRC2 vortex coronagraph is an instrument on Keck II designed to directly image exoplanets and circumstellar disks at mid-infrared bands L ′ (3.4–4.1 μ m) and M s (4.55–4.8 μ m). We analyze imaging data and corresponding adaptive optics telemetry, observing conditions, and other metadata over a three-year time period to characterize the performance of the instrument and predict the detection limits of future observations. We systematically process images from 359 observations of 304 unique stars to subtract residual starlight (i.e., the coronagraphic point-spread function) of the target star using two methods: angular differential imaging (ADI) and reference star differential imaging (RDI). We find that for the typical parallactic angle (PA) rotation of our data set (∼10°), RDI provides gains over ADI for angular separations smaller than 0.″25. Furthermore, we find a power-law relation between the angular separation from the host star and the minimum PA rotation required for ADI to outperform RDI, with a power-law index of −1.18 ± 0.08. Finally, we use random forest models to estimate ADI and RDI post-processed detection limits a priori. These models, which we provide publicly on a website, explain 70%–80% of the variance in ADI detection limits and 30%–50% of the variance in RDI detection limits. Averaged over a range of angular separations, our models predict both ADI and RDI contrast to within a factor of 2. These results illuminate important factors in high-contrast imaging observations with the NIRC2 vortex coronagraph, help improve observing strategies, and inform future upgrades to the 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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations58
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207