NAOMI: the adaptive optics system of the Auxiliary Telescopes of the VLTI

Abad J.A.; Abuter R.; Aller Carpentier E.; Alonso J.; Andolfato L.; Barriga P.; Berger J.-P.; Beuzit J.-L.; Bonnet H.; Bourdarot G.

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

NAOMI: the adaptive optics system of the Auxiliary Telescopes of the VLTI

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Equipping the VLTI's 1.8 m Auxiliary Telescopes with a 14-mode adaptive optics system, NAOMI, raises average starlight injected into the K-band instrument GRAVITY by +60% and into the H-band instrument PIONIER by +130%, and makes fringe…

desk verdict A solid, honest AO instrumentation paper whose qualitative results hold up; the headline Sec. 4.2 transmission gains are epoch-dependent descriptive statistics, not controlled measurements. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06651 v1 pith:X3A6GXAS submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.IM

Woillez J. , Abad J.A. , Abuter R. , Aller Carpentier E. , Alonso J. , Andolfato L. , Barriga P. , Berger J.-P.

show 75 more authors

Beuzit J.-L. Bonnet H. Bourdarot G. Bourget P. Brast R. Caniguante L. Cottalorda E. Darré P. Delabre B. Delboulbé A. Delplancke-Ströbele F. Dembet R. Donaldson R. Dorn R. Dupeyron J. Dupuy C. Egner S. Eisenhauer F. Fischer G. Frank C. Fuenteseca E. Gitton P. Gonté F. Guerlet T. Guieu S. Gutierrez P. Haguenauer P. Haimerl A. Haubois X. Heritier C. Huber S. Hubin N. Jolley P. Jocou L. Kirchbauer J.-P. Kolb J. Kosmalski J. Krempl P. Le Bouquin J.-B. Le Louarn M. Lilley P. Lopez B. Magnard Y. Mclay S. Meilland A. Meister A. Merand A. Moulin T. Pasquini L. Paufique J. Percheron I. Pettazzi L. Pfuhl O. Phan D. Pirani W. Quentin J. Rakich A. Ridings R. Riedel M. Reyes J. Rochat S. Santos Tomás G. Schmid C. Schuhler N. Shchekaturov P. Seidel M. Soenke C. Stadler E. Stephan C. Suárez M. Todorovic M. Valdes G. Verinaud C. Zins G. Zúñiga-Fernández S

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IM

keywords adaptiveopticsopticalinterferometryfringetrackingsingle-modefibrecouplingVLTIAuxiliaryTelescopesNAOMIStrehlratioinjectionstability

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports that replacing the tip-tilt-only stabilisation of the 1.8 m Auxiliary Telescopes of the VLTI (the Very Large Telescope Interferometer) with the dedicated adaptive optics system NAOMI substantially increases the starlight delivered to the interferometer's fibre-fed instruments. In the bright-star regime, defined by an R-band magnitude $R<12$, the average injection into the K-band instrument GRAVITY rises by +60% and into the H-band instrument PIONIER by +130%. The gain matters because these fibre-fed instruments accept light through a single optical mode, so their throughput tracks the instantaneous Strehl ratio, the fraction of corrected starlight that stays in the diffraction peak. A stable high Strehl suppresses the flux dropouts that previously broke fringe tracking and forced the array to wait for excellent seeing. With NAOMI, fringe-tracking residuals stay near the 80–150 nm range and the array keeps working through degraded seeing and low-wind dome-seeing nights.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the NAOMI correction chain together with the metric used to quantify its benefit. The deformable mirror is a 241-actuator device with about 145 actuators inside the 28 mm pupil, installed in the telescope's coudé train; the wavefront sensor is a 12-sub-aperture Shack–Hartmann sensor on an electron-multiplying CCD (EMCCD); and the real-time controller reconstructs 14 Zernike modes, the standard optical aberration basis, at loop rates of 500 to 50 Hz. Two design choices carry the argument: the controlled modes are made piston-free (no net phase shift) over the full mirror aperture, which suppresses a 500 Hz membrane resonance, and a pupil-registration loop keeps the deformable mirror aligned with the wavefront sensor as the telescope rotates. The quantity that connects the hardware to the science is P5%/P95%, the ratio of low-percentile to high-percentile single-mode injection; this is the metric that predicts whether the fringe tracker suffers flux dropouts.

What would settle it

Recompute the GRAVITY and PIONIER transmission gain using only observations from both epochs within the same narrow effective-seeing bin, for example 0.8 to 1.0 arcsec, with the same $R<12$ mag target set; if the +60% and +130% advantages shrink or disappear inside matched seeing bins, the headline improvement is an epoch effect rather than an AO effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a modest high-order AO correction delivered at the telescope converts directly into scientifically usable light for an interferometer. The NAOMI system controls 14 Zernike modes at loop rates of 500, 100, or 50 Hz depending on target brightness, raising the H-band Strehl ratio from roughly 8% to roughly 40% in median seeing. The observable signature is the injection-stability metric P5%/P95% — the ratio of the single-mode flux at the 5th percentile to that at the 95th percentile — which climbs from a median of 0.22 with the old tip-tilt system to 0.58 with NAOMI on the GRAVITY fringe tracker. Consequently the average coupling efficiency increases by +60% in K band and +130% in H band, the limiting magnitudes of GRAVITY and PIONIER improve by one magnitude, and the array becomes usable in seeing conditions where it previously was not.

Load-bearing premise

The before/after transmission comparison treats the old tip-tilt system (STRAP) era and the NAOMI era as directly comparable, even though the two periods have different median seeing (about 1.1 arcsec versus 0.9 arcsec), and the paper does not normalize the quoted gains for the seeing distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The one-magnitude gain in limiting magnitude puts GRAVITY on-axis at $K=9$ mag and PIONIER at $H=9$ mag on the Auxiliary Telescopes, opening fainter science targets to the array.
The GRAVITY fringe tracker can measure phase continuously rather than in bright intervals, which is the precondition for using it to co-phase the mid-infrared MATISSE instrument.
The array keeps its injection stability in effective seeing up to about 1.5 to 1.6 arcsec and in low-wind nights with dome seeing; the paper estimates that an earlier 1.4 arcsec AT-level seeing cutoff corresponds to roughly +15% usable time.
Median-seeing J-band Strehl would rise from about 8% to about 40%, making a J-band extension attractive and adding about +25% angular resolution.
Corrected telescope beams also make non-spatially-filtered instrument concepts worth investigating, potentially enabling higher throughput than single-mode fibre coupling.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A matched-seeing re-analysis of the same pipeline data, comparing the two epochs only within identical effective-seeing bins, would isolate the AO gain from the epoch-to-epoch seeing difference; until that is done, the exact size of the +60% and +130% figures carries some epoch-dependent uncertainty.
The same coupling physics predicts that a fibre-fed instrument at even shorter wavelengths would show larger relative gains than PIONIER, because partial wavefront correction degrades single-mode coupling more strongly at shorter wavelengths.
Because the $R<12$ mag constraint is a colour-dependent limit, the AO benefit is largest for red targets; this suggests the observable population of the VLTI shifts further toward cool stars than the paper's aggregate numbers make explicit.
The P5%/P95% metric could serve as a standard commissioning benchmark for any adaptive optics system feeding a single-mode interferometer, since it directly maps onto fringe-tracking residual behaviour.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First reaction: the paper's main claim survives the stress-test. NAOMI clearly improves injection stability and fringe tracking on the VLTI ATs. The Sec. 4.2 before/after comparison is the one real soft spot, but it does not sink the paper because Fig. 18 and the Tatulli et al. prediction independently support the qualitative direction.

What is actually new: first high-order AO system on the ATs. Several clever engineering details are worth knowing about: piston-free modes defined over the full DM aperture to avoid exciting a 500 Hz membrane resonance; on-sky DM gain calibration by injecting coma modulation into the closed loop; the pupil registration loop based on sub-aperture flux balance; and the P5%/P95% metric for injection stability, which is a simple, sensible statistic for fringe-tracking robustness. The transfer function measurements match a delay model built from independently measured components, which is good practice. Lab Strehl and residual tilt are tabulated as a function of flux and R magnitude, and on-sky piston conversion factors measured with the GRAVITY fringe tracker are consistent with an apodization model. NCPA to the IRIS sensor are presented. For an instrumentation paper, this is a thorough, honest performance characterization. The paper also openly reports equipment issues (creep, CIC higher than spec, DM gain decorrelation) and the workarounds, which is refreshing.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test points: Sec. 4.2 compares cumulative transmission histograms of STRAP (Jan-Sep 2018) and NAOMI (Nov 2018 onward) without conditioning on seeing, wind, airmass, or target magnitude. The paper itself notes the NAOMI period may have had better median effective seeing (0.9" vs 1.1") to explain why the observed gain is below test-bench predictions. That means the headline +60%/+130% figures are epoch-dependent descriptive statistics, not controlled measurements of AO gain. There are no per-point error bars on the histograms either. This is a real limitation, but it is not fatal: Fig. 18 shows the same improvement at fixed seeing and wind bins, and the direction of the effect was predicted by Tatulli et al. (2010). So the qualitative conclusion—AO improves injection and fringe-tracking stability and extends usable conditions—is robust. The size of the gain in a properly controlled experiment might differ from the quoted percentages, and it would be good to see a reanalysis with matched atmospheric conditions or a multivariate regression.

Bottom line: this paper is for anyone using or building VLTI instrumentation, and for the AO-for-interferometry community. It deserves a serious referee and publication; my own verdict would be accept with a request to reframe the Sec. 4.2 percentages as descriptive and, if feasible, add a seeing-matched comparison. If I were the editor, I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. Woillez et al. present NAOMI, a new adaptive optics module deployed on the four 1.8 m Auxiliary Telescopes of the VLTI, replacing the previous STRAP tip-tilt system. The paper describes the system design (ALPAO DM241 deformable mirror, Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor, SPARTA-light real-time controller), the acquisition and calibration procedures, and the laboratory and on-sky performance. It reports transfer-function agreement with a delay model built from independently measured delay contributions, Strehl and residual-tilt performance versus WFS flux, low piston conversion measured with the GRAVITY fringe tracker, and NCPA below about 100 nm. The paper then evaluates the impact on VLTI instruments: a new P5%/P95% injection-stability metric shows reduced flux dropouts and lower, more stable fringe-tracking residuals for GRAVITY, and before/after QC1 comparisons show +60% and +130% average transmission gains for GRAVITY (K band) and PIONIER (H band), respectively. The authors also report improved resilience to degraded seeing and low-wind dome seeing, increased limiting magnitudes, and a possible extension to J band.

Significance. If the results hold, NAOMI is a substantial upgrade for VLTI operations: it roughly doubles or more than doubles the usable starlight for the main near-infrared single-mode instruments, stabilizes fringe tracking, and opens previously unusable atmospheric conditions to scientific observations. The paper's strengths are its multi-pronged evidence: the transfer-function model is validated against independently measured delays; the laboratory Strehl predictions in Fig. 11 are independent of the on-sky data; the piston-conversion measurements were made with an external fringe tracker; NCPA were measured all the way to the IRIS sensor; and the qualitative injection-stability improvement is corroborated by Fig. 18, which conditions on seeing and wind. The main quantitative transmission claim in Sec. 4.2, however, is an epoch comparison that is not normalized for atmospheric conditions, and the paper itself flags a better median seeing in the NAOMI period. This does not invalidate the central qualitative conclusion, but it means the +60% and +130% figures must be presented with appropriate caveats or rederived from a conditioned comparison.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 4.2, Fig. 17] The +60% and +130% transmission gains are presented as the effect of NAOMI, but they are computed from cumulative QC1 histograms over two epochs without normalizing for the joint distribution of seeing, wind, airmass, target R magnitude, or instrument calibration. The paper itself invokes a better median effective seeing in the NAOMI period (0.9 arcsec versus 1.1 arcsec) to explain why the observed gains fall below the test-bench predictions, which is an explicit admission that the metric is sensitive to atmospheric sampling; without renormalization the sign of the resulting bias on the quoted percentages is undetermined. No per-point error bars are given for the cumulative distributions, so the precision of the +60% and +130% values is unclear. I recommend either renormalizing both epochs to a common seeing distribution or clearly labeling the percentages as epoch-dependent descriptive statistics, and moving the quantitative AO-benefit statement to the partially seeing/wind-conditioned comparison in Fig. 18.
[Sec. 4.2, Fig. 17] The claim that the transmission improvement holds 'on the condition that the R-band magnitude remains in the high Strehl regime (R < 12 mag)' is not directly supported by the shown data, because Fig. 17 does not indicate whether the QC1 histograms were restricted to R < 12. Please state the exact selection criteria applied to the GRAVITY and PIONIER samples, and if the histograms include fainter targets, show the R < 12 subset or quantify the resulting selection effect.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 3.1, Eq. (1)] The annotation of Eq. (1) is typeset in a garbled way, with the delay contributions and the loop-frequency labels misaligned; please present this as a table or with clearer alignment so that the sum T = Tc + TFT/2 + TRO + TRTC + TDM is readable.
[Sec. 4.1, Fig. 16] The figure caption states that 20% of open-dome nights with wind speeds above 9 m/s are excluded from the fringe-tracking-residual comparison; this exclusion should also be stated in the main text where the residual correlation is discussed.
[Sec. 4.2, conclusions] The statement that the limiting magnitudes of PIONIER and GRAVITY are increased by +1 mag (to K = 9 mag and H = 9 mag) appears to be a derived estimate rather than a directly measured quantity; please clarify whether this is inferred from the transmission and Strehl-stability results and what uncertainty it carries.
[Sec. 4.3, Fig. 18] The 'effective seeing' quantity used in Fig. 18 should be defined in the text; the introduction's footnote defines AT-level seeing, but the figure's x-axis label alone is not sufficient for a reader to reproduce the selection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: NAOMI's performance claims rest on independent test-bench measurements, external theory, and before/after on-sky QC1 statistics.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is empirical and self-contained. The transmission improvement in Sec. 4.2 (+60% for GRAVITY and +130% for PIONIER) is computed from before/after cumulative transmission histograms using the STRAP period (2018 January 1 to September 6) as the baseline and the NAOMI period (from 2018 November 17 onward) as the treated epoch; the P5%/P95% injection metric is defined as an observational statistic, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The test-bench performance predictions in Fig. 11 were generated by injecting turbulent perturbations on the deformable mirror and measuring Strehl and residual tip-tilt as a function of wavefront-sensor flux, independently of the on-sky QC1 data; the paper compares them after the fact and explicitly notes that the observed gain is lower than the predictions, attributing the difference to a possible better-than-expected median seeing of 0.9 arcsec in the NAOMI epoch. This admission affects the quantitative precision of the +60%/+130% numbers but does not make the derivation circular. The comparison with Tatulli et al. (2010) is external theory, not an input to any fit. The use of prior AT/VLTI papers, such as Woillez et al. (2016) and Woillez et al. (2018), is contextual and is not load-bearing for the AO benefit claim, which is independently supported by the seeing- and wind-stratified comparison in Fig. 18. Therefore no step reduces, by construction, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims are empirical and rest on standard instrumentation assumptions about the DM, WFS, and atmospheric statistics. No free parameters were fitted for the headline results; the 'performance-optimal prescription' and gain settings are operational choices. The paper is transparent about the calibration steps (DM gain, piston-free modes, pupil registration) that are required for the system to perform as described.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Paranal seeing statistics (median free-atmosphere seeing 0.8", at-AT seeing 1.1") are representative for the performance analysis.
Used in Sec. 1 and Sec. 3 to set expectations for the AO performance and to interpret the impact on usable time. Based on Sarazin et al. (2008).
domain assumption The photometric pupil is a good proxy for the DM pupil in the pupil registration loop.
Stated explicitly in Sec. 2.5: 'this method assumes that the photometric pupil is a good proxy for the DM.' If this holds only imperfectly, the registration loop could leave residual misregistration not captured by the analysis.
domain assumption The DM influence functions and piston-free mode definition remain stable under rotation and temperature changes, with the DM gain calibrated on sky.
The paper describes a creep effect, temperature decorrelation, and a 500 Hz piston resonance that had to be mitigated. The central performance measurements assume that after these mitigations the DM behaves as a piston-free modal actuator (Sec. 2.1, 2.3).
domain assumption The single-mode coupling model of Tatulli et al. (2010) applies to the VLTI ATs and GRAVITY fringe tracker.
Used in Sec. 4.1 to interpret the observed injection stability and to compare the measured P5%/P95% distributions with theoretical expectations.
domain assumption The QC1 database from the STRAP and NAOMI epochs is representative and comparable for the before/after transmission comparison.
Sec. 4.2 uses the publicly available QC1 database to compare the two epochs without controlling for seeing or instrument state. The paper acknowledges a possible median-seeing difference (0.9" vs 1.1") but does not normalize.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NAOMI: the adaptive optics system of the Auxiliary Telescopes of the VLTI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X3A6GXAS

@misc{pith2026190806651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NAOMI: the adaptive optics system of the Auxiliary Telescopes of the VLTI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X3A6GXAS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06651}
}

read the original abstract

The tip-tilt stabilisation system of the 1.8 m Auxiliary Telescopes of the Very Large Telescope Interferometer was never dimensioned for robust fringe tracking, except when atmospheric seeing conditions are excellent. Increasing the level of wavefront correction at the telescopes is expected to improve the coupling into the single-mode fibres of the instruments, and enable robust fringe tracking even in degraded conditions. We deployed a new adaptive optics module for interferometry (NAOMI) on the Auxiliary Telescopes. We present its design, performance, and effect on the observations that are carried out with the interferometric instruments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06651 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** 3D view of an AT; the NAOMI components are highlighted. A: Deformable mirror at the right Nasmyth. B: Wavefront sensor in the relay optics structure under the telescope. mode instrument like PIONIER (Le Bouquin et al. 2011), and even more by GRAVITY (GRAVITY Collaboration et al. 2017) and its fringe tracker (Lacour et al. 2019). To remedy this situation, the AO project NAOMI for the ATs was officially launched in 20… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** 3D view of the right Nasmyth of the AT showing the deformable mirror and drive electronics at the M6 location. A: Deformable mirror mounted inside the large stroke quasi-static tip-tilt mount. B: M6 cabinet containing the deformable mirror and quasi-static mount drive electronics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** 3D view of the corrective optics. The ALPAO DM241 is mounted in a large stroke gimbal tip-tilt mount. The assembly, installed inside the right Nasmyth assembly, can easily be removed when/if a re-calibration of the DM is needed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (12 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Radial modes are designed piston-free inside the 28 mm pupil, and over the full clear aperture. Left: Profile of the defocus mode. Right: When the defocus mode is also piston-free over the full clear aperture, the 500 Hz resonance is not excited as much. and the light …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left (WFS): Geometry of the 12 wavefront sensor sub-apertures inside the pupil (red circle). Each sub-aperture (grey) is 16 × 16 pixels. Only the central 6 × 6 pixels (dark grey) are processed by the real-time controller. Right (DM): Geometry of the deformable mirror a…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: 3D view of the dual feed ROS containing the NAOMI wavefront sensor located below the star separator. A: Field-patrolling XY table. B: Wavefront sensor camera. C: Pupil control unit. D: Relay lens and filter wheel. E: Wavefront sensor and motion control drive electronic…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: NAOMI control loop block diagram. The image stream from the WFS is converted into sub-aperture slope residuals by the WPU. The slope residuals are converted into mode residuals by matrix vector multiplication with the S2M matrix. Operating in parallel, the broad-band I…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Histogram of the slew and acquisition durations of the auxiliary telescopes with NAOMI. The slew duration is dominated by the short 10 s long switches between targets and calibrators. The acquisition duration is below 150 s in 90% of the time. formable mirror of NAOMI…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Measurements (dots) and models (lines) for the wavefront transfer function for the three loop frequency and gain settings adopted for the NAOMI system. The settings are defined by the loop frequency (f), the HS speed, the crop (crop=1) or region of interest (crop=0) m…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: NAOMI control loop model. The incident wavefront W is compensated for by the command C applied on the DM. The residual wavefront R is averaged over the integration time Ti by the WFS, delayed by Td, integrated by a controller with a gain KI , and converted into com…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Piston conversion factor for each mode of each AO system, measured by injecting a modulation on the DM and detecting it with the GRAVITY fringe tracker. The conversion factor is the ratio between the piston measured in µm RMS and the modal modulation in µm RMS. A mode…

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Comparison between STRAP tip-tilt and NAOMI AO of the P5%/P95% injection metric histograms for the GRAVITY fringe tracker. The flux dropouts, represented by P5%/P95% values close to zero, are significantly reduced by NAOMI. 4.1. Strehl stability and fringe tracking Th…

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Correlation between the GRAVITY fringe tracker residuals and the P5%/P95% injection stability metric, comparing STRAP and NAOMI. With NAOMI, the fringe tracking residuals tend to stay in the 80 nm to 150 nm range because the P5%/P95% > 0.5 injection stability is high…

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Comparison of GRAVITY and PIONIER transmission between STRAP and NAOMI. NAOMI shows a transmission improvement of +60% for GRAVITY and +130% for PIONIER. 4.3. Resilience to degraded seeing conditions One last objective of the NAOMI project was to make the AT array mor…

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Comparison of GRAVITY fringe tracker injection stability between STRAP and NAOMI. Top: Injection stability vs. effective seeing for wind speeds in the 3 m s−1 to 9 m s−1 range. Bottom: Injection stability vs. wind speed for a better-than-median effective seeing. NAO…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Peering through the disc of HD 98800 BaBb. Precise timing predictions for the HD 98800 AaAb occultation
astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

New RVs and multi-wavelength astrometry tighten the HD 98800 outer orbit by ~2×, yielding 5–15-day 1σ windows for the 2025–2031 disc occultation of AaAb.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

M., Sip˝ocz, B

Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Béchet, C., Tallon, M., & Thiébaut, É. 2012, in Adaptive Optics Systems III, V ol. 8447, 84472C

work page 2018
[2]

Beckers, J. M. 1990, The Messenger, 60, 1

work page 1990
[3]

1997, in Adaptive Optics and Appli- cations, ed

Bonaccini, D., Gallieni, D., Biasi, R., et al. 1997, in Adaptive Optics and Appli- cations, ed. R. K. Tyson & R. Q. Fugate, V ol. 3126, 580

work page 1997
[4]

2006, The Messenger, 126, 37

Bonnet, H., Bauvir, B., Wallander, A., et al. 2006, The Messenger, 126, 37

work page 2006
[5]

M., Booth, A

Colavita, M. M., Booth, A. J., Garcia-Gathright, J. I., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 795

work page 2010
[6]

M., Wallace, J

Colavita, M. M., Wallace, J. K., Hines, B. E., et al. 1999, ApJ, 510, 505

work page 1999
[7]

2008, New A Rev., 52, 199

Delplancke, F. 2008, New A Rev., 52, 199

work page 2008
[8]

2006, in Proc

Fedrigo, E., Donaldson, R., Soenke, C., et al. 2006, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 6272, So- ciety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 627210

work page 2006

Show all 24 references

[9]

B., Leveque, S

Gitton, P. B., Leveque, S. A., Avila, G., & Phan Duc, T. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 5491, New Frontiers in Stellar Interferometry, ed. W. A. Traub, 944 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Accardo, M., et al. 2017...

2004
[10]

2019, in Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes Haniﬀ, C

Haguenauer, P. 2019, in Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes Haniﬀ, C. 2007, New Astronomy Reviews, 51, 583

2019
[11]

J., Martin-Fernandez, M

Hirsch, M., Wareham, R. J., Martin-Fernandez, M. L., Hobson, M. P., & Rolfe, D. J. 2013, PLoS ONE, 8, e53671

2013
[12]

W., Buscher, D

Keen, J. W., Buscher, D. F., & Warner, P. J. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1381

2001
[13]

2005, The Messenger, 120, 5

Koehler, B., At Assembly, & Commissioning Team. 2005, The Messenger, 120, 5

2005
[14]

2002, The Messenger, 110, 21

Koehler, B., Flebus, C., Dierickx, P., et al. 2002, The Messenger, 110, 21

2002
[15]

2019, A&A, 624, A99 Le Bouquin, J.-B., Berger, J.-P., Beuzit, J.-L., et al

Lacour, S., Dembet, R., Abuter, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A99 Le Bouquin, J.-B., Berger, J.-P., Beuzit, J.-L., et al. 2018, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 10703, Adaptive Optics Systems VI, 1070371 Le Bouquin, J. B., Berger, J. P., Lazareﬀ, B., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A67

2019
[16]

2014, The Messenger, 157, 5 Mège, P

Lopez, B., Lagarde, S., Jaﬀe, W., et al. 2014, The Messenger, 157, 5 Mège, P. 2002, PhD thesis, Université Joseph-Fourier - Grenoble I Mérand, A., Patru, F., Berger, J. P., Percheron, I., & Poupar, S. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conferenc...

2014
[17]

& Woillez, J

Perrin, G. & Woillez, J. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.10937

2019 arXiv
[18]

2008, The Messenger, 132, 11

Sarazin, M., Melnick, J., Navarrete, J., & Lombardi, G. 2008, The Messenger, 132, 11

2008
[19]

2016, in Proc

Scheithauer, S., Brandner, W., Deen, C., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 9909, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging V , 99092 Suárez Valles, M., Fedrigo, E., Donaldson, R. H., et al. 2012, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 8447, Adaptive Optics Systems III, 84472Q

2016
[20]

P., Chelli, A., & Malbet, F

Tatulli, E., Blind, N., Berger, J. P., Chelli, A., & Malbet, F. 2010, A&A, 524, A65

2010
[21]

2012, PASP, 124, 51

Woillez, J., Akeson, R., Colavita, M., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 51

2012
[22]

2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

Woillez, J., Alonso, J., Berger, J.-P., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9907, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging V , 990706

2016
[23]

2018, in Proc

Woillez, J., Darré, P., Egner, S., et al. 2018, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 10701, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VI, 1070103

2018
[24]

A., et al

Woillez, J., Gonté, F., Abad, J. A., et al. 2015, The Messenger, 162, 16 Article number, page 10 of 10

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M., Sip˝ocz, B

Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Béchet, C., Tallon, M., & Thiébaut, É. 2012, in Adaptive Optics Systems III, V ol. 8447, 84472C

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Beckers, J. M. 1990, The Messenger, 60, 1

work page 1990

[3] [3]

1997, in Adaptive Optics and Appli- cations, ed

Bonaccini, D., Gallieni, D., Biasi, R., et al. 1997, in Adaptive Optics and Appli- cations, ed. R. K. Tyson & R. Q. Fugate, V ol. 3126, 580

work page 1997

[4] [4]

2006, The Messenger, 126, 37

Bonnet, H., Bauvir, B., Wallander, A., et al. 2006, The Messenger, 126, 37

work page 2006

[5] [5]

M., Booth, A

Colavita, M. M., Booth, A. J., Garcia-Gathright, J. I., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 795

work page 2010

[6] [6]

M., Wallace, J

Colavita, M. M., Wallace, J. K., Hines, B. E., et al. 1999, ApJ, 510, 505

work page 1999

[7] [7]

2008, New A Rev., 52, 199

Delplancke, F. 2008, New A Rev., 52, 199

work page 2008

[8] [8]

2006, in Proc

Fedrigo, E., Donaldson, R., Soenke, C., et al. 2006, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 6272, So- ciety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 627210

work page 2006