MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112309870 · doi:10.1117/12.2570380

The Talbot effect's impact on the high contrast imaging modes of METIS

2020· article· en· W3112309870 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
André Boné, Tibor Agócs, Olivier Absil, Christian Delacroix, A. Amorim, Jeff Lynn

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Optical and Mechanical Technologies for Telescopes and Instrumentation IV · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsOpticsWavefrontExit pupilPhysicsAdaptive opticsCollimated lightTalbot effectWavefront sensorSpatial frequencyPoint spread functionStrehl ratioAmplitudeDiffractionWavelengthPhase (matter)PupilLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ELT, Europe’s Extremely Large Telescope, with its 39m main mirror will be the largest optical/infrared telescope in the world, able to work at the diffraction limit. METIS is one of its first light instruments with powerful imaging and spectroscopic capabilities in the thermal wavelengths. It contains several high contrast imaging (HCI) modes, which allow it to detect and characterize exoplanets amongst others. The HCI performance is highly dependent on pupil stabilization mechanisms and a closed loop compensation of non-common path aberrations degrading the wavefront error of the instrument. The Talbot effect is a near-field effect on collimated light, where spatial frequencies of the wavefront are re-imaged periodically along the optical path. The periodicity is known as the Talbot length, which is a function of the wavelength and the wavefront’s spatial frequencies with the latter being a result of the wavefront errors caused by the surface form errors of optical elements. The aberrations oscillate from amplitude to phase, in the spatial scale of one Talbot length, which can have an impact on the performance of the HCI modes. We evaluate the impact of the Talbot effect with respect to the METIS phase aberration budget by assuming representative power spectral density profile for the surface form error of each optical surface. We propagate the errors to the subsequent pupil plane and finally investigate the resulting point spread function profile. Simulations are fed back into the HCI error budget and if necessary, the specifications regarding instrument surface form are adjusted.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Optical and Mechanical Technologies for Telescopes and Instrumentation IVSame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207