MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293072770 · doi:10.1117/12.2630341

The High-contrast End-to-End Performance Simulator (HEEPS): influence of ELT/METIS instrumental effects

2022· article· en· W4293072770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian Delacroix, Olivier Absil, Gilles Orban de Xivry, M. Shinde, Prashant Pathak, F. Cantalloube, Brunella Carlomagno, Valentin Christiaens, André Boné, Dennis Dolkens, Matthew A. Kenworthy, David Doelman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsComputer scienceSpectrographModular designImage stitchingPython (programming language)OpticsSimulationPhysicsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The High-contrast End-to-End Performance Simulator (HEEPS) is an open-source python-based software with a modular and extensible architecture, that creates end-to-end simulations of high contrast imaging (HCI) instruments. It uses the wavefront Fresnel propagation package PROPER, the telescope instrument data simulator ScopeSim, and the HCI image processing package VIP. In this paper, we present the design of HEEPS, and motivate its baseline structure with the implementation of the Mid-infrared ELT Imager and Spectrograph (METIS) HCI modes, including coronagraphic components such as vortex phase masks, ring apodizers, and apodizing phase plates. Then, we present the key results of our thorough end-to-end simulations starting from 1-hour AO residual phase screens produced with the end-to-end AO simulator COMPASS. We analyze various undesirable effects such as pupil effects (stability, uniformity, drift) and noncommon path phase and amplitude errors. Finally, the coronagraphic performance including all effects is shown for all the METIS HCI modes as 5-sigma sensitivity contrast curves after ADI post-processing.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207