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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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