MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394581811 · doi:10.1117/1.jatis.10.2.025002

Analyzing the atmospheric dispersion correction of the Gemini Planet Imager: residual dispersion above design requirements

2024· article· en· W4394581811 on OpenAlexaff
Malachi Noel, Jason Wang, Bruce Macintosh, Katie A. Crotts, Christian Marois, E. Nielsen, Robert J. De Rosa, Katie Scalzo, J. Kent Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Astronomical Telescopes Instruments and Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of Victoria
FundersJet Propulsion LaboratoryAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationKorea Astronomy and Space Science InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDispersion (optics)ResidualPlanetAtmospheric dispersion modelingEnvironmental scienceAstrobiologyAerospace engineeringOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsAstronomyEngineeringAlgorithmChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Astronomical Telescopes Instruments and SystemsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207