Analysis and Optimization of Image Quality Evaluation Function in Computer-aided Alignment of Precision Optical System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The consistent application of computer-aided alignment technology could surmount aimlessness and significantly shorten the align period of complex optical systems. Wherein, the appropriate system image evaluation function is the primary condition to solve the system misalignment successfully. This paper first establishes the relationship between the amount of misalignment and the system aberration through mathematical modelling and then analyzes the relationship between Zernike coefficient, geometric aberration and system image quality in detail, proposes to construct a system image evaluation system using the idea of Zernike coefficient weighting to solve the problem of numerical instability and imprecision of the solutions caused by the direct selection of Zernike coefficients. Subsequently, the experimental alignment of an infrared optical system was performed using the optical system image quality evaluation method established in this paper. The alignment results showed that the RMS value of the system image quality improved by 24.8% under the same solving algorithm compares to the direct selection of the Zernike coefficient and the weighted Zernike coefficient as the system image quality evaluation function. Therefore, the application of the weighted Zernike coefficient-based optical system image evaluation function proposed in this paper is reasonable, feasible, and effective in the computer-aided alignment process.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".