MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888911808 · doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2399

Focal-plane Cn2(h) profiling based on single-conjugate adaptive optics compensated images

2018· article· en· W2888911808 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olivier Beltramo-Martin, Carlos Correia, Benoît Neichel, Thierry Fusco

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPhysicsAstrometryPoint spread functionAdaptive opticsTelescopePhotometry (optics)OpticsCardinal pointGuide starLine-of-sightAtmospheric turbulenceRemote sensingAstrophysicsStarsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of the atmospheric turbulence in the telescope line-of-sight is crucial for wide-field observations assisted by adaptive optics (AO), particularly tomodel how the point spread function (PSF) elongates across the field of view (FOV) owing to the anisoplanatism effect. The extraction of key astronomical parameters accounts on an accurate representation of the PSF, which call for an accurate anisoplanatism characterisation . This one is, however, a function of the |$C_n^2(h)$| profile, which is not directly accessible from single-conjugate AO telemetry. It is possible to rely on external profilers, but recent studies have highlighted discrepancies of more than 10 per cent with AO internal measurements, while we aim at better than 1 per cent accuracy for PSF modelling. In order to tackle this limitation, we present focal-plane profiling (FPP) as a |$C_n^2(h)$| profiling method that relies on post-AO focal-plane images. We demonstrate that such an approach complies with a 1 per cent level of accuracy on the |$C_n^2(h)$| estimation and establish how this accuracy varies regarding the calibration star magnitudes and their positions in the field. We highlight the fact that photometry and astrometry errors caused by PSF mis-modelling reach respectively 1 per cent and 50 μas using FPP on a Keck baseline, with a preliminary calibration using a star of magnitude H = 14 at 20 arcsec. We validate this concept using Canada’s NRC–Herzberg HeNOS testbed images by comparing FPP retrieval with alternative |$C_n^2(h)$| measurements on HeNOS. The FPP approach allows the |$C_n^2(h)$| to be profiled using the SCAO systems and significantly improves the PSF characterization. Such a methodology is also ELT-size-compliant and will be extrapolated to tomographic systems in the near future.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207