Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 22 references

DD4AO, a data-driven adaptive-optics controller, improved on-sky Strehl by 5 percentage points over the standard integrator at 1310 nm while keeping the loop stable for hour-long exposures.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

DD4AO, a data-driven AO controller that optimizes an IIR filter against the measured disturbance spectrum, held stable closed-loop AO on-sky and improved Strehl from 28.8% to 33.9% over the integrator on Arcturus.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection An honest on-sky demo of continuously adaptive AO control, but the headline Strehl gain is one snapshot and the integrator baseline may have been running detuned. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14925 v1 pith:KZHTJZ7S submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.IM

DD4AO control law for RISTRETTO: robustness, real-time performance, and on-sky validation with PAPYRUS

Isaac Dinis , Muskan Schinde , Nicolas Blind , Bruno Chazelas , Nathanael Restori , Christophe Lovis , Sylvain Cetre , Angelie Alagao
show 6 more authors
Romain Fetick Ta\"issir H\'eritier Vincent Chambouleyron Benoit Neichel Thierry Fusco Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Sauvage
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords adaptive opticsdata-driven controlpredictive controlIIR filteron-sky validationRISTRETTOPAPYRUS
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports on-sky validation of DD4AO, a data-driven adaptive-optics controller that builds an IIR filter from measured disturbance power spectra via convex optimization. The authors aim to show that such a controller can run in real time, remain stable for hour-long exposures while adapting continuously, and match or beat standard controllers. On the bright star Arcturus, DD4AO improved the Strehl ratio from 28.8% to 33.9% at 1310 nm compared with the integrator, with gains concentrated in low-order modes and low temporal frequencies. On the faint binary HD137909, DD4AO produced equal or better correction while using less deformable-mirror stroke and damping vibration peaks that remained in the other controllers' residuals. If these results hold, data-driven IIR control is a deployable solution for next-generation extreme adaptive optics.

Core claim

DD4AO is a frequency-domain, data-driven controller: it estimates the disturbance frequency magnitude from pseudo open-loop telemetry, then solves a convex optimization to synthesize an Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filter that minimizes the H2 norm of the residual sensitivity while bounding high-frequency stroke through the complementary sensitivity function and a sigmoid weight, with stability constraints included. The paper's central empirical claim is that this controller held the loop closed and stable for hour-long exposures, re-optimizing every 20 seconds, and outperformed the standard integrator on Arcturus by 5 percentage points of Strehl at 1310 nm. On the fainter star, it used n

What carries the argument

The central object is the DD4AO IIR filter itself, synthesized directly from non-parametric frequency-response magnitudes by a convex Second-Order Cone Program. The algorithm takes the periodogram of the pseudo open-loop reconstruction as an estimate of the disturbance spectrum, then minimizes a mixed H2/H-infinity sensitivity objective — residual rejection weighted against high-frequency command amplification (the complementary sensitivity function with a sigmoid stroke penalty) — subject to stability constraints. Filters are recomputed every 20 seconds, and modes with similar periodograms are grouped to keep the optimization scalable; the resulting hard real-time filtering runs at 0.04 ms

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the comparison is fair even though the standard controllers were run sub-optimally: a single hand-tuned scalar gain was applied to all controllers and the paper notes the integrator gain may have been set too low, so the size of DD4AO's advantage over properly tuned baselines is untested.

What would settle it

On a test bench with a repeatable injected disturbance (e.g., a rotating phase screen or a calibrated vibrating mirror), tune the integrator and OMGI gains to their best values by gain sweep and re-measure Strehl and residual PSD; if the 5% advantage at 1310 nm shrinks to the noise or reverses, the claimed gain is an artifact of baseline detuning. Also run DD4AO with its 20-second re-optimization disabled to test whether the benefit survives without adaptation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the reported gains are real, data-driven IIR control can replace fixed-gain integrators in extreme adaptive optics without sacrificing loop stability, even over hour-long exposures.
  • The 5-point Strehl gain at 1310 nm (28.8% to 33.9%) on a bright star, if reproducible, is a concrete sensitivity improvement for high-contrast instruments like RISTRETTO.
  • Lower DM stroke on faint targets implies reduced actuator effort and potentially longer deformable-mirror lifetime, plus more headroom for aggressive correction.
  • Vibration-peak suppression without explicit vibration modeling suggests DD4AO's data-driven shaping can attenuate telescope vibrations that standard controllers leave in residuals.
  • The mode-grouping strategy and 0.04 ms real-time latency indicate the approach can scale beyond the 195-mode test toward higher-order systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's comparison baseline was deliberately detuned — a hand-tuned scalar gain was applied uniformly and the authors concede the integrator gain 'may have been set too low' — so the 5% Strehl margin likely overstates DD4AO's advantage over a fully optimized standard controller; the qualitative 'equal or better with less stroke' claim is on firmer ground.
  • A controlled experiment with a repeatable injected turbulence spectrum and individually tuned baseline gains would isolate how much of the gain comes from DD4AO's 20-second adaptation versus its static IIR shaping.
  • One testable prediction: disabling the periodic re-optimization should degrade performance on slowly evolving vibration frequencies while leaving the broadband component of the gain intact, which would separate the two mechanisms.
  • The same controller could be applied to other closed-loop systems where disturbance spectra are time-varying, such as tip-tilt platforms or beam stabilization, wherever a pseudo open-loop measurement is available.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents DD4AO, a frequency-domain data-driven controller for adaptive optics, implemented on the PAPYRUS on-sky testbed. The controller is designed via convex optimization using the measured disturbance periodogram and stability/input constraints, and the real-time pipeline allows instantaneous switching between DD4AO and standard integrator/OMGI controllers. The authors report stable closed-loop operation over hour-long exposures on Arcturus and HD137909, and claim a 5% Strehl ratio improvement over the integrator on Arcturus (28.8%→33.9% at 1310 nm), plus reduced DM stroke and vibration-peak suppression on the fainter binary.

Significance. If the comparative claims hold, this is an important milestone: it shows that a data-driven IIR controller can be deployed in a real-time AO loop, adapt every 20 s, and be switched against standard controllers in service. The work combines a real-time implementation with measured latency (0.04 ms), a convex formulation with stability guarantees, and a two-star on-sky validation campaign. These strengths make the paper a useful contribution to the AO control literature. However, the central quantitative claim — a 5% Strehl gain over the integrator — depends on the fairness of the comparison, and the paper itself provides evidence that the baseline integrator was not optimally tuned. The lack of error bars on the Strehl numbers and the admitted lack of statistical significance in the residual RMS margins mean that the magnitude of the DD4AO advantage over a properly tuned standard controller is not established. The circularity of validating on the same periodogram used for optimization also limits the strength of the robustness claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, §4] The headline 5% Strehl improvement (28.8%→33.9%) is quoted from a single representative observation with no uncertainty or repetition. The residual-RMS comparison across the five Arcturus observations is described as 'not always statistically significant', and the paper states that 'the integrator gain may have been set too low' (and that a hand-tuned scalar optical gain was applied to all controllers). These admissions directly undermine the comparative claim: the low-frequency excess in the integrator residual is exactly what a detuned integrator gain would produce. Please provide the Strehl distribution over observations, a properly tuned integrator baseline (e.g., a gain sweep), or a sensitivity analysis showing that the 5% gain is not an artifact of the integrator being run suboptimally.
  2. [§5.2, Fig. 13] The claim that DD4AO 'consistently used less deformable mirror stroke' on HD137909 is not quantified: Fig. 13 shows command standard deviations but no values, effect sizes, or statistical tests. In this low-SNR regime the performance is equal within uncertainty, so the stroke advantage is a secondary result that could depend on the specific gain settings of OMGI and the integrator. Please report the stroke values, their scatter, and a test of significance, and state the gain settings used.
  3. [§2, §3, §5] Part of the validation is circular by construction: the controller is re-optimized every 20 s against the measured disturbance periodogram, and the residual PSD plots in Figs. 9 and 15 show rejection of the same measured vibration peaks that were fitted in Eq. (1). This demonstrates that the optimizer matches its fitting target, but it does not independently validate robustness or predictive power. To support the 'robust and adaptive' conclusion, please show an out-of-sample assessment — for example, residual PSDs from a later time window compared with the periodogram used for the optimization, or the closed-loop performance after the disturbance characteristics change.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1] Figure numbering inconsistency: the text says 'Figure 7 shows the command standard deviation in volts', but the caption of Figure 7 reads 'Total residual PSD'. The subsequent reference to Figures 8 and 9 as residual RMS per mode and total PSD appears inconsistent with the captions. Please renumber or correct the in-text references.
  2. [§3] The mode-grouping strategy is described qualitatively. Please specify how many groups were formed, how similar the periodograms need to be for grouping, and whether the optimization is per group or per representative mode.
  3. [References] Reference [3] (Boccaletti et al. 2022) lacks publication details (journal, volume, pages, or arXiv identifier). Please complete the citation.
  4. [§4] The switching protocol is stated as 15-second snapshots in a 1-minute cycle. It would help to report the number of switching cycles per observation and the guard time excluded for transients after each switch.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Partial circularity: residual-PSD vibration suppression is the optimization objective, not an independent prediction; the headline 5% Strehl gain remains external but its baseline fairness is self-undermined.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Eq. (1) in Sec. 2; Sec. 5.1 Fig. 9; Sec. 5.2 Fig. 15]
    "The optimization objective can be summarized as: min K(z) ∥Φ(z)S(z)∥2^2 + σ(z)∥T(z)∥2^∞ (1) ... Notably, the two vibration peaks visible in the integrator and OMGI PSDs are damped when using DD4AO."

    DD4AO is synthesized by minimizing the PSD-weighted sensitivity ∥Φ S∥2^2 using the measured disturbance periodogram Φ. The residual PSD presented as validation is, in closed loop, approximately |Φ S|^2 — the very quantity minimized. Suppressing the measured vibration peaks is therefore the optimizer's objective evaluated, not an independent prediction. It would be circular to cite these residual-PSD plots as evidence of disturbance-rejection ability beyond the design target. The Strehl (28.8%→33.9%) and residual-RMS comparisons are external metrics and do not share this circularity.

full rationale

DD4AO is an experimental controller paper; its central quantitative claim (5% Strehl improvement on Arcturus, 28.8%→33.9%) is an externally measured PSF quantity independent of the optimization objective, so the headline result is not circular by construction. The residual-PSD/vibration-peak demonstrations are partially circular because Eq. (1) directly minimizes the PSD-weighted sensitivity and the residual PSD is the same quantity; those plots show the optimizer meeting its objective rather than an independent prediction. The paper itself weakens the baseline comparison: Sec. 4 says a hand-tuned scalar gain 'made all three controllers operate sub-optimally,' and Sec. 5.1 concedes 'the integrator gain may have been set too low' and 'was not always optimal,' plus the Arcturus margins are 'not always statistically significant.' These are important correctness/validity risks for the comparative claim, but they are not circularity (the integrator is not an input to DD4AO's optimization). Self-citations (RISTRETTO [1], PAPYRUS [2], MAOPPY [10]) are contextual/tool citations and not load-bearing; the control synthesis rests on Karimi & Kammer [5], an external reference. Overall: partial circularity in one validation channel, independent external support in another, and a serious baseline-fairness caveat — score 4.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central comparative claim rests on three categories of upstream content: (1) the Karimi-Kammer data-driven control theory that DD4AO inherits; (2) engineering assumptions about the AO plant (pure delay) and about the disturbance estimate (pseudo open-loop periodogram); (3) the hand-tuned optical-gain scalar introduced specifically for this campaign. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Optical-gain compensation scalar = not given (hand-tuned)
    Section 4: 'a scalar gain was applied to all modal residuals and hand-tuned, with the same value used across all three control laws.' This single scalar affects the comparison and is set by hand.
  • Mixed-sensitivity weighting sigma(z) = not given
    Eq. (1) includes a sigmoid weighting penalizing stroke at high frequency; its parameters are not reported, so the optimization's trade-off is not reproducible.
  • Controller design choices (filter order, mode grouping) = filter order 20; 195 modes
    Section 3: order-20 IIR filters, filters computed on grouped mode-periodograms; performance depends on these choices, which are not systematically explored.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Karimi & Kammer data-driven convex control synthesis is valid for AO plants
    DD4AO 'is based on the work of Karimi et al.' (Sec. 2, ref [5]); all controller properties are inherited from that framework.
  • domain assumption The AO plant is well approximated by a pure delay
    Sec. 2: 'the system transfer function, typically simplified as a pure delay'. If DM or wavefront-sensor dynamics matter, the stability constraint in the optimization is computed for the wrong plant.
  • domain assumption The pseudo open-loop periodogram is an unbiased estimate of the disturbance frequency magnitude
    Sec. 2: 'the disturbance frequency magnitude, obtained from the periodogram of the pseudo open-loop reconstruction'; the optimizer weights rejection against this estimate.
  • ad hoc to paper Equal hand-tuned optical-gain scaling preserves comparison fairness
    Sec. 4: same scalar gain applied to all controllers, 'the performance penalty was applied equally, preserving the fairness of the comparison'—an assertion, not a demonstrated equivalence.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DD4AO control law for RISTRETTO: robustness, real-time performance, and on-sky validation with PAPYRUS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KZHTJZ7S

@misc{pith2026260714925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DD4AO control law for RISTRETTO: robustness, real-time performance, and on-sky validation with PAPYRUS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KZHTJZ7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14925}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

This study presents DD4AO progress towards its implementation in the RISTRETTO instrument. DD4AO is a novel frequency-domain, data-driven controller for adaptive optics that leverages power spectral density estimation for optimization while enforcing stability criteria. It addresses disturbance rejection, command amplitude constraints, and system transfer functions through convex optimization, yielding an optimal controller in Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filter form. We present the on-sky validation of DD4AO conducted using the PAPYRUS instrument at the Observatoire de Haute-Provence (OHP). The observations were performed on two stars over the night of 24-25 March 2026: the bright star Arcturus, and the faint binary HD137909. DD4AO successfully maintained a closed and stable loop over hour-long exposures while continuously adapting to evolving atmospheric conditions. The pipeline enabled instantaneous switching between DD4AO and standard controllers, namely the Integrator and OMGI, allowing direct statistical comparisons throughout each observation. On Arcturus, DD4AO achieved a 5% Strehl ratio improvement over the integrator at lambda = 1310 nm, from 28.8% to 33.9%. On HD137909, performance differences were smaller due to the low-SNR regime, though DD4AO consistently used less deformable mirror stroke and suppressed vibration peaks present in the residuals of the standard controllers. These results validate DD4AO as a robust on-sky control solution and represent an important milestone towards its deployment in RISTRETTO and SAXO+ at the VLT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14925 by Angelie Alagao, Benoit Neichel, Bruno Chazelas, Christophe Lovis, Isaac Dinis, Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Sauvage, Muskan Schinde, Nathanael Restori, Nicolas Blind, Romain Fetick, Sylvain Cetre, Ta\"issir H\'eritier, Thierry Fusco, Vincent Chambouleyron.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: DD4AO and integrator sensitivity function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: DD4AO and integrator sensitivity function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows a schematic of the full real-time pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the residual RMS of the reconstructed KL modes for five observations taken within a one￾hour period. DD4AO consistently outperforms the integrator, although the margin is not always statistically significant. This is likely attributable to the adaptive nature of DD4AO, which continuously adjusts to the evolving disturbance, whereas the integrator gain remained fixed and was not always optimal [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Residual RMS per KL mode for a repre￾sentative Arcturus exposure, comparing DD4AO and the integrator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Closed-loop PSF on Arcturus using the integrator. Strehl ratio at λ = 1310 nm: 28.8% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the residual RMS from the reconstructed KL modes across 14 observations taken within a one￾hour period. DD4AO consistently outperforms the integrator, though the margin is not statistically significant, which is attributable to the lower wavefront sensor SNR on this fainter star [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Residual RMS per KL mode for a repre￾sentative HD137909 exposure, comparing DD4AO, the integrator, and OMGI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Closed-loop PSF on HD137909 using DD4AO. Strehl ra￾tio at λ = 1310 nm: 23.6% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_16.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    COMPASS: An Efficient GPU-based Simulation Software for Adaptive Optics Systems , year=

    Ferreira, Florian and Gratadour, Damien and Sevin, Arnaud and Doucet, Nicolas , booktitle=. COMPASS: An Efficient GPU-based Simulation Software for Adaptive Optics Systems , year=

  2. [2]

    2023 , abstract =

    Direct Data-Driven Vibration Control for Adaptive Optics , author =. 2023 , abstract =

    2023

  3. [3]

    2023 , MONTH = Jun, DOI =

    Schreiber, Laura and Langlois, Maud and Jolissaint, Laurent and Diolaiti, Emiliano and B. 2023 , MONTH = Jun, DOI =

    2023

  4. [4]

    and Vigan, A

    Beuzit, J.-L. and Vigan, A. and Mouillet, D. and Dohlen, K. and Gratton, R. and Boccaletti, A. and Sauvage, J.-F. and Schmid, H. M. and Langlois, M. and Petit, C. and Baruffolo, A. and Feldt, M. and Milli, J. and Wahhaj, Z. and Abe, L. and Anselmi, U. and Antichi, J. and Barette, R. and Baudrand, J. and Baudoz, P. and Bazzon, A. and Bernardi, P. and Blanc...

  5. [5]

    2022 , eprint=

    Upgrading the high contrast imaging facility SPHERE: science drivers and instrument choices , author=. 2022 , eprint=

    2022

  6. [6]

    2023 , DOI =

    Disentangled cascade adaptive optics for the SPHERE instrument forthcoming upgrade , AUTHOR =. 2023 , DOI =

    2023

  7. [7]

    Petit and J.-F

    C. Petit and J.-F. Sauvage and T. Fusco and A. Sevin and M. Suarez and A. Costille and A. Vigan and C. Soenke and D. Perret and S. Rochat and A. Barrufolo and B. Salasnich and J.-L. Beuzit and K. Dohlen and D. Mouillet and P. Puget and F. Wildi and M. Kasper and J.-M. Conan and C. Kulcs. Adaptive Optics Systems IV , editor =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  8. [8]

    and Helin, Tapio and Keller, Christoph and Snik, Frans and Boccaletti, Anthony and Chauvin, Gaël and Mouillet, David and Kulcsár, Caroline and Raynaud, Henri-François , title =

    Kasper, Markus and Cerpa Urra, Nelly and Pathak, Prashant and Bonse, Markus and Nousiainen, Jalo and Engler, Byron and Heritier, Cédric Taïssir and Kammerer, Jens and Leveratto, Serban and Rajani, Chang and Bristow, Paul and Le Louarn, Miska and Madec, Pierre-Yves and Ströbele, Stefan and Verinaud, Christophe and Glauser, Adrian and Quanz, Sascha P. and H...

    2021

  9. [9]

    2023 , MONTH = Jun, DOI =

    B. 2023 , MONTH = Jun, DOI =

    2023

  10. [10]

    2022 , MONTH = Jul, DOI =

    Stadler, Eric and Diolaiti, Emiliano and Schreiber, Laura and Cortecchia, Fausto and Lombini, Matteo and Loupias, Magali and Magnard, Yves and de Rosa, Adriano and Malaguti, Giuseppe and Maurel, Didier and Morgante, Gianluca and Rabou, Patrick and Rochat, Sylvain and Schiavone, Filomena and Terenzi, Luca and Vidal, Fabrice and Cantalloube, Faustine and Ge...

    2022

  11. [11]

    Method for simulating infinitely long and non stationary phase screens with optimized memory storage , volume =

    Fran. Method for simulating infinitely long and non stationary phase screens with optimized memory storage , volume =. Opt. Express , keywords =. 2006 , url =. doi:10.1364/OE.14.000988 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.14.000988 2006

  12. [12]

    Defining reference turbulence profiles for E-ELT AO performance simulations , doi =

    Sarazin, Marc and Louarn, Miska and Ascenso, Joana and Lombardi, Gianluca and Navarrete, Julio , year =. Defining reference turbulence profiles for E-ELT AO performance simulations , doi =

  13. [13]

    10.1051/0004-6361/202243311

    Toward on-sky adaptive optics control using reinforcement learning - Model-based policy optimization for adaptive optics , DOI= "10.1051/0004-6361/202243311", url= "https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243311", journal =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243311

  14. [14]

    A data-driven approach to robust control of multivariable systems by convex optimization , volume=

    Karimi, Alireza and Kammer, Christoph , year=. A data-driven approach to robust control of multivariable systems by convex optimization , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2017.07.063 , journal=

    work page doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2017.07.063 2017

  15. [15]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research , year =

    Steven Diamond and Stephen Boyd , title =. Journal of Machine Learning Research , year =

  16. [16]

    Journal of Control and Decision , year =

    Agrawal, Akshay and Verschueren, Robin and Diamond, Steven and Boyd, Stephen , title =. Journal of Control and Decision , year =

  17. [17]

    2024 , eprint=

    Clarabel: An interior-point solver for conic programs with quadratic objectives , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  18. [18]

    Optimization of a predictive controller for closed-loop adaptive optics , volume =

    Caroline Dessenne and Pierre-Yves Madec and G\'. Optimization of a predictive controller for closed-loop adaptive optics , volume =. Appl. Opt. , keywords =. 1998 , url =. doi:10.1364/AO.37.004623 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1364/ao.37.004623 1998

  19. [19]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.17264152 , url =

    Barr, David and Cetre, Sylvain and Connolly, John and Thomas Davies , title =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.17264152 , url =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17264152

  20. [20]

    2025 , publisher =

    Fetick, Romain , title =. 2025 , publisher =

    2025

  21. [21]

    Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X , editor =

    Christophe Lovis and Nicolas Blind and Bruno Chazelas and Muskan Shinde and Maddalena Bugatti and Nathana. Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X , editor =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  22. [22]

    2024 , MONTH = Jun, DOI =

    F. 2024 , MONTH = Jun, DOI =

    2024

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.