MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387124212 · doi:10.1117/12.2677551

Zernike based wavefront alignment in a deployable optic control test bed

2023· article· en· W4387124212 on OpenAlexaff
Ray Zhang, Daren Trinh, Vincent T. K. Sauer, K. Cote

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsNordion (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZernike polynomialsWavefrontOpticsLens (geology)Controller (irrigation)Adaptive opticsWavefront sensorCollimated lightComputer scienceOptical axisPosition (finance)PhysicsPiston (optics)Deformable mirrorControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An automated optical alignment method is necessary for the efficient operation of deployable optic-equipped earth observation micro-satellites. Implementation of a linear output feedback controller for the alignment of an active optic is investigated on the Control Test Bed (CTB). The output feedback controller calculates the required positional adjustments of the optic using a multi-variable output measurement. The CTB is a refractive optical system by which the wavefront of an incoming collimated beam is modified by control inputs that adjust the position of a lens. The position of this lens can be translated in the x, y, and z axes (despace and defocus) and rotated about the x and y axes (tip and tilt). In the CTB, a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor (SHWFS) measures the output as Zernike coefficients. This setup is intended to emulate the necessary adjustments in a simple deployable optic. We describe the process of developing the output feedback controller that can align the CTB as well as discuss the implications of the scheme to a space-based deployable optic telescope. The aberrations induced by misalignment of the active lens were characterized experimentally by disturbing the system along each degree of freedom about the optically aligned point. The experimental results derive a state observer that can sufficiently estimate the misalignment of the lens from a set of relevant Zernike coefficients. Iterative correction of the estimated misalignment in a closed-loop allowed consistent convergence of the CTB to a nearly flat wavefront.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207