Analyzing the atmospheric dispersion correction of the Gemini Planet Imager: residual dispersion above design requirements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The atmospheric dispersion corrector (ADC) of the Gemini Planet Imager (GPI) corrects the chromatic dispersion caused by differential atmospheric refraction (DAR), making it an important optic for exoplanet observation. Despite requiring <5 mas of residual DAR to avoid potentially affecting the coronagraph, the GPI ADC averages ∼7 and ∼11 mas of residual DAR in H and J band, respectively. We analyzed GPI data in those bands to find explanations for the underperformance. We found the model GPI uses to predict DAR underestimates humidity’s impact on incident DAR, causing on average a 0.54 mas increase in H band residual DAR. Additionally, the GPI ADC consistently undercorrects in H band by about 7 mas, causing almost all the H band residual DAR. J band does not have such an offset. Perpendicular dispersion induced by the GPI ADC, potentially from a misalignment in the prisms’ relative orientation, causes 86% of the residual DAR in J band. Correcting these issues could reduce residual DAR, thereby improving exoplanet detection. We also made an approximation for the index of refraction of air from 0.7 to 1.36 microns that more accurately accounts for the effects of humidity.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it