MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403120896 · doi:10.1117/12.3027714

Tuning the MAPS adaptive secondary mirror: actuator control, PID tuning, power spectra, and failure diagnosis

2024· article· en· W4403120896 on OpenAlexaff
Jess A. Johnson, Amali Vaz, Manny Montoya, Katie M. Morzinski, Jennifer Patience, Suresh Sivanandam, Guido Brusa, Olivier Durney, Andrew Gardner, Olivier Guyon, Lori Harrison, Ron Jones, Jarron Leisenring, Jared R. Males, Bianca Payan, Lauren Perez, Yoav Rotman, Jacob Taylor, Dan Vargas, Grant West

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Systems and Laser Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActuatorPID controllerControl theory (sociology)Power (physics)Spectral lineComputer scienceControl engineeringEngineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceTemperature controlControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The MMT Adaptive optics exoPlanet characterization System (MAPS) is currently in its engineering phase, operating on sky at the MMT Telescope. The MAPS Adaptive Secondary Mirror’s actuators are controlled by a closed loop modified PID control law and an open loop feed forward law, which in combination allows for faster actuator response time. An essential element of achieving the secondary’s performance goals involves the process of PID gain tuning. To start, we briefly discuss the design of the MAPS ASM and its actuators. We then describe the actuator positional control system and control law. Next, we discuss a few of the issues that make ASM tuning difficult. We then outline our initial attempts at tuning the actuator controllers, and discuss the use of actuator positional power spectra for both tuning and determining the health and failure states of individual actuators. We conclude by presenting the results of our latest round of tuning configuration trials, which have been successful at decreasing mirror latency, increasing operational mirror modes and improving image PSF.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical Systems and Laser TechnologyFrench-language works237,207