MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910574430 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.17341

High strehl and high contrast for the ELT instrument METIS -- Final design, implementation, and predicted performance of the single-conjugate adaptive optics system

2024· preprint· en· W6910574430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrehl ratioAdaptive opticsWavefront sensorWavefrontTelescopeSpectrographMetisSecondary mirrorFirst light

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mid-infrared ELT Imager and Spectrograph (METIS) is a first-generation instrument for the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT), Europe's next-generation 39 m ground-based telescope for optical and infrared wavelengths. METIS will offer diffraction-limited imaging, low- and medium-resolution slit spectroscopy, and coronagraphy for high-contrast imaging between 3 and 13 microns, as well as high-resolution integral field spectroscopy between 3 and 5 microns. The main METIS science goals are the detection and characterisation of exoplanets, the investigation of proto-planetary disks, and the formation of planets. The Single-Conjugate Adaptive Optics (SCAO) system corrects atmospheric distortions and is thus essential for diffraction-limited observations with METIS. Numerous challenging aspects of an ELT Adaptive Optics (AO) system are addressed in the mature designs for the SCAO control system and the SCAO hardware module: the complex interaction with the telescope entities that participate in the AO control, wavefront reconstruction with a fragmented and moving pupil, secondary control tasks to deal with differential image motion, non-common path aberrations and mis-registration. A K-band pyramid wavefront sensor and a GPU-based Real-Time Computer (RTC), tailored to the needs of METIS at the ELT, are core components. This current paper serves as a natural sequel to our previous work presented in Hippler et al. (2018). It includes updated performance estimations in terms of several key performance indicators, including achieved contrast curves. We outline all important design decisions that were taken, and present the major challenges we faced and the main analyses carried out to arrive at these decisions and eventually the final design. We also elaborate on our testing and verification strategy, and, last not least, comprehensively present the full design, hardware and software.

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 score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.126 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207