Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Event-based Detectors for Laser Guide Star Tip-Tilt Sensing

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Event-based camera measures laser-spot tilt to 15 arcseconds

desk verdict A credible lab feasibility study for event-based tip-tilt sensing, but the headline accuracy is measured against a known-imperfect DM reference and the leap to milliarcseconds is openly deferred. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11436 v2 pith:FBYWWPFO submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.IM

Monique Cockram , Noelia Martinez Rey This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords event-baseddetectorstip-tiltsensinglaserguidestaradaptiveopticswavefronttime-delaymethodnoisecharacterization
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

Event-based detectors—cameras that emit asynchronous pixel events only when brightness changes—are proposed here as the missing sensor for laser guide star tip-tilt sensing. In laboratory tests with a 589-nm laser spot moved by a deformable mirror, an event-based camera recovered the tilt with error down to about one pixel, 15 arcseconds, under high background illumination, corresponding to roughly $\lambda/3$ of wavefront tilt error. The authors show that tuning the contrast threshold reproduces the same measurement accuracy at lower background levels, effectively making the detector immune to a constant background. This matters because the time-delay method for laser guide stars needs milliarcsecond-scale differential tilt measurements, and frame-based detectors have not delivered them.

What carries the argument

The central object is the event-based sensor, whose pixels compare the logarithm of intensity against stored levels and emit an event when the log-intensity change $\Delta L(\mathbf{x}_k,t_k)$ reaches a contrast threshold $C$, with polarity $p_k\in\{-1,+1\}$. Because the difference is taken after the logarithm, a constant background $b$ enters the response as $\log(I_1+b)-\log(I_2+b)$, so it is not automatically cancelled—but the paper shows the threshold can be tuned to match event rates across backgrounds. The measurements are carried by an average position tracker, $\hat{x}_{t_i}=m\hat{x}_{t_{i-1}}+(1-m)x_i$, which updates the spot position event by event, and by the wavefront error relation $\Delta\omega_{\text{tilt}}=2ay/f=n\lambda$, which converts a tracked lateral displacement into a tilt error in waves.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to re-run the same experiment with a smaller plate scale, for example 1 arcsecond per pixel or finer, and check whether the measured tilt error still reaches one pixel; if the spot then triggers too few events to keep the tracker locked, or the error scales worse than pixel size, the route to milliarcsecond sensing fails. An independent high-speed frame camera could also verify that the deformable mirror's true tilt matches the commanded signal, since the paper reports processing issues that made the mirror's motion imperfect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an event-based detector can serve as a laser guide star tip-tilt sensor: with the event threshold set appropriately, it tracks a moving laser spot to about one pixel of error even under bright background light, and the same accuracy is reachable at other background levels by changing the threshold. In the best configuration the residual tilt error gives $n=0.339$ in $\Delta\omega_{\text{tilt}}=2ay/f=n\lambda$, meaning the tilt is measured to roughly a third of a wave. Higher background illumination is not a liability: shot-noise-triggered events drop as illumination rises, and the remaining leak events are localized near the bright spot, which is why the brightest conditions gave the most accurate measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a tracking accuracy of about 15 arcseconds demonstrated in the laboratory can be scaled to the milliarcsecond differential-tilt signals of the time-delay method by changing the plate scale, and that the deformable mirror's commanded signal is a reliable ground truth for tilt.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An event-based wavefront sensor could measure laser guide star tip-tilt without relying on a natural guide star, enabling the time-delay method and increasing sky coverage.
  • Daytime adaptive optics, including free-space optical communications, would benefit because higher sky background improves tip-tilt measurement accuracy instead of degrading it.
  • Microsecond-scale asynchronous readout removes frame-rate limits on sensing speed, so faster corrections are possible with lower data bandwidth.
  • Threshold tuning acts as a calibration knob that keeps tip-tilt accuracy stable as background illumination changes.
  • The demonstrated 15-arcsecond error is a proof of concept; reducing the plate scale is the stated path toward the milliarcsecond differential tip-tilt needed for the time-delay method.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the plate scale is reduced without losing event rate, the same tracker could in principle reach the milliarcsecond regime, but the number of events per oscillation will drop; the paper's own log-background equations suggest that raising background or lowering threshold would be needed to compensate—a testable trade-off.
  • The matched-condition result hints at a general calibration procedure: record event counts at two backgrounds and interpolate the threshold offset, which could be automated for on-sky operation.
  • Because the spot's interior is silent in event data, centroid accuracy depends on edge events; a tracker that weights ON/OFF pairs or uses temporal bins may outperform the exponential average used here.
  • The noise characterization implies that in dark-sky conditions shot noise dominates, so nighttime astronomy would need an artificial background or bias adjustment; daytime laser-communication links avoid this naturally.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a laboratory characterization of an event-based camera as a tip-tilt sensor for laser guide star adaptive optics. The authors describe the logarithmic response of the sensor, present a theoretical model for event triggering under background illumination, and validate qualitative predictions with experiments using a deformable mirror to induce known tilts on a 589-nm laser spot. They measure event rates versus laser power and background level, characterize noise sources (shot noise and leak events), and apply an exponential moving-average tracker to estimate spot position. The headline result is that, under high background illumination, the tilt measurement error can be reduced to about 1 pixel (15 arcsec), and that by tuning the event threshold, comparable accuracy can be achieved across different background levels. The paper concludes that event-based detectors are a strong contender for LGS tip-tilt sensing via the time-delay method, with future work planned to reduce the plate scale toward milliarcsecond accuracy.

Significance. If the experimental claims hold, this is a useful proof-of-concept: it demonstrates, with real hardware, that an event-based sensor can track a moving spot at high speed with an error of about one pixel and that its response can be matched across background levels by adjusting the threshold. The noise characterization (Sec. 3.2.2) provides quantitative data that will be of value to others working on event-based wavefront sensing, and the paper is careful to cite prior event-based vision literature. However, the significance is tempered by two gaps. First, the accuracy claim relies on a reference signal that the paper itself describes as imperfect (Sec. 3.2.3, Fig. 10), so the numerical error values are not established to the claimed precision. Second, the gap between 15 arcsec and the milliarcsecond level required for the LGS time-delay method is explicitly acknowledged as untested future work (Sec. 4), meaning the paper's central conclusion that the sensor is 'a strong contender' for LGS tip-tilt sensing is not yet directly supported by the data. These are fixable in a revision, but they are load-bearing for the paper's main claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.3, Fig. 10 and Fig. 11] The error analysis treats the DM command signal as the 'true value' of the tilt, yet the paper states that the DM had 'observed inconsistencies... due to signal processing issues' and that 'an imperfect sinusoidal signal' reached the actuators, with Fig. 10's caption explicitly noting that the blue line is 'the signal sent to the DM rather than the true tilt induced by the DM.' If the DM's actual angular amplitude or phase differed from the command, the reported error of 1 pixel or 15 arcsec is not the detector's error relative to true tilt but the difference between the tracker and an imperfect reference. This undermines the central quantitative claim. The authors should either re-analyze the data against a calibrated reference (e.g., a simultaneous frame-based measurement or an interferometric verification of DM motion) or, at minimum, quantify the uncertainty in the DM's actual tilt and propagate it into the reported error bars.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.3, Eq. (9)] The wavefront error calculation yielding n = 0.339 cannot be independently checked because the aperture radius a is never specified in the experimental setup (Sec. 3.1). The equation Δω_tilt = 2 a y / f = n λ requires a, f, and y; while f = 200 mm and y is presumably the measured position error, a is absent from the setup description. Please provide the value of a used and show the intermediate steps leading to n = 0.339.
  3. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 3.3] The paper's conclusion that event-based detectors are 'a strong contender' for LGS tip-tilt sensing goes beyond what the experiments demonstrate. The measured accuracy is 15 arcsec at a plate scale of 15 arcsec/pixel, while the time-delay method requires milliarcsecond-level accuracy, as stated in Sec. 1.1. The authors acknowledge in Sec. 4 that reducing the plate scale to reach milliarcsecond accuracy is future work. As written, the conclusion should be tempered to state that the sensor has demonstrated the required qualitative behavior at arcsecond scales and that the milliarcsecond capability remains to be tested. This is a scope issue rather than a technical error, but it affects the paper's main claim.
  4. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 3.2.3] The tracker weighting parameter m was 'optimized empirically based on the drift of the position estimate with respect to the true spot position' (Sec. 3.1), and m = 0.8 is used throughout the accuracy analysis. If the 'true spot position' used for this optimization is the same DM command signal that is later acknowledged to be imperfect, then the tracker may be tuned to an unreliable reference. Please report how m was optimized, whether the results are sensitive to m, and re-evaluate the optimization if the reference is corrected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption correctly notes that the blue line is the signal sent to the DM, but this caveat should also be stated in the main text where Fig. 10 is discussed, so that readers do not mistake the command for the true induced tilt.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The plate scale is given as 15 arcsec/pixel, but the procedure for calibrating this plate scale is not described. Please provide the calibration method (e.g., known DM displacement or ruler measurement) so that the pixel-to-angle conversion is reproducible.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The meaning of I1 and I2 in Eq. (5) is clear from context, but a brief definition (e.g., 'the intensities of two successive samples') would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.3, Fig. 11] The superscript citation '33' appears at the end of the Fig. 11 caption, which is an unusual placement; consider moving the citation to the main text or using a standard figure-caption format.
  5. [Code and Data Availability] The paper states that data and code are not publicly available. Given the empirical nature of the work, making at least the processed data (event counts, tracker outputs, and error values) available would strengthen reproducibility; at minimum, please clarify what can be obtained upon request.
  6. [Sec. 3.2.1] The phrase 'immunity to a constant background can be achieved' is slightly misleading given the earlier discussion in Sec. 2 that a constant background does affect the response. Consider rewording to 'the effect of a constant background can be compensated' to avoid apparent contradiction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported tilt error is a measured residual against the DM command, not a quantity defined to equal the paper's fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central result—about 1 pixel / 15 arcsec tilt error and n=0.339—is obtained by comparing the event-tracked spot position with the commanded DM tilt (Figs. 10-12) and converting the measured lateral displacement to wavefront tilt via Eq. (9). Eq. (9) is a textbook geometric conversion and contains no fitted parameter; n=0.339 is therefore a reported measurement, not a derived identity. The tracker constant m=0.8 is empirically optimized, but it is a smoothing gain rather than a parameter that forces the residual error to a preset value, and the paper does not present the error as a prediction from m. The threshold-matching experiment (Secs. 3.2.1 and 3.2.3) chooses thresholds to equalize event counts across backgrounds and then separately measures the resulting tilt errors; the matching of errors in Fig. 11 is an empirical finding, not a construction. The event-response model of Sec. 2 (Eqs. 3-6) is adopted from the cited external event-vision literature and used interpretively, not fitted to produce the conclusion. The only self-citations (Ref. 33 in the Fig. 11 caption; Ref. 10 in background) are descriptive and non-load-bearing; no uniqueness claim or ansatz is imported through them. The paper honestly flags its real limitations—the DM's imperfect reproduction of the commanded signal ('observed inconsistencies in the DM induced tip-tilt due to signal processing issues,' and Fig. 10's caption noting the blue line is 'the signal sent to the DM rather than the true tilt induced by the DM') and the untested milliarcsecond extrapolation ('Future work in this area will include modifications to the experimental setup to reduce the plate scale and confirm the detector's capability for measuring tip-tilt on the milliarcsecond scale'). These are measurement-validity and scope limitations, not circularity: the reported error is still a measured difference against an imperfect but external reference, not a quantity equal to its own input by definition. The unspecified aperture radius 'a' in Eq. (9) is a reproducibility gap, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central feasibility claim rests on a commercial sensor, a standard event-generation model, and a simple tracking algorithm. The only number fitted to data is the tracker weight m. The most consequential unstated input is the aperture radius a in Eq. (9), which is needed to convert the measured lateral error into the reported lambda/3 tilt error. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Tracker weighting parameter m = 0.8
    Empirically optimized in Sec. 3.1 to minimize drift of the position estimate; used in the exponential moving-average tracker (Eqs. 7-8). It is a tuning constant of the analysis, not of the physical sensor model.
  • Event threshold values for matched-condition tests = 30 (high background), 100 (moderate), 130 (no background) in Fig. 11
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 3.2.1 to make event counts equal across background levels; the claim that error can be matched depends on this selection.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption An event fires when the log-intensity change equals the contrast threshold: ΔL = p·C (Eq. 4).
    Standard Dynamic Vision Sensor model taken from the event-based vision literature (ref. 11), used as the foundation of Sec. 2's analysis.
  • domain assumption Shot noise dominates at low photocurrent and leak events dominate at high illumination.
    Adopted from Graca et al. (refs. 29, 30) in Sec. 2.1 and used to interpret the noise measurements of Sec. 3.2.2; not independently derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper The exponential moving-average tracker (Eqs. 7-8) estimates the true spot position.
    The tracker is taken from Kong et al. (ref. 12) and its weighting m is fit empirically; the resulting position is treated as the measured tilt without an independent calibration.
  • domain assumption The DM command signal is an acceptable ground truth for the induced tilt.
    Sec. 3.2.3 acknowledges the DM produced an imperfect sinusoidal motion due to computer processing limits, yet the comparison in Fig. 10 still treats the intended signal as the reference tilt.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Event-based Detectors for Laser Guide Star Tip-Tilt Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FBYWWPFO

@misc{pith2026241211436,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Event-based Detectors for Laser Guide Star Tip-Tilt Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FBYWWPFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11436}
}
read the original abstract

Event-based sensors detect only changes in brightness across a scene, with each pixel producing an asynchronous stream of spatial-temporal data, rather than recording frames of overall illumination such as a traditional frame-based sensor. This is advantageous for implementing into a wavefront sensor, which benefits from high temporal resolution and high dynamic range. The determination of tip-tilt in particular is still a problem in laser guide star (LGS) adaptive optics as there are no current technological capabilities to measure it. We characterized the behavior of an event-based sensor in the context of tip-tilt sensing, investigating if the high temporal resolution of the event streams could address these challenges. Different conditions of tip-tilt and background illumination levels are explored and found to be a strong contender for tip-tilt sensing with LGSs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The bistatic geometry for na profiling with lgs at teide observatory,

    J. A. Castro-Almazán et al., “The bistatic geometry for na profiling with lgs at teide observatory,” Proc. SPIE 9909, 99093M (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Laser guide star in adaptive optics-the tilt determination problem,

    F. Rigaut and E. Gendron, “Laser guide star in adaptive optics-the tilt determination problem, ” Astron. Astrophys. 261, 677 –684 (1992). Cockram and Martinez Rey: Event-based detectors for laser guide star tip-tilt sensing Optical Engineering 043102-15 April 2025  Vol. 64(4)

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    Adaptive optics and ground-to-space laser communications,

    R. K. Tyson, “Adaptive optics and ground-to-space laser communications, ” Appl. Opt. 35(19), 3640 –3646 (1996)

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    Bit-error rate for free-space adaptive optics laser communications,

    R. K. Tyson, “Bit-error rate for free-space adaptive optics laser communications,” J. Opt. Soc. Amer. A 19(4), 753–758 (2002)

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Using laser beacons for daytime adaptive optics,

    J. M. Beckers and A. Cacciani, “Using laser beacons for daytime adaptive optics, ” Exp. Astron. 11, 133–143 (2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Compensation of atmospheric optical distortion using a synthetic beacon,

    C. A. Primmerman et al., “Compensation of atmospheric optical distortion using a synthetic beacon, ” Nature 353(6340), 141 –143 (1991)

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    Tilt angular anisoplanatism and a full-aperture tilt-measurement technique with a laser guide star,

    M. S. Belen ’kii, “Tilt angular anisoplanatism and a full-aperture tilt-measurement technique with a laser guide star,” Appl. Opt. 39(33), 6097 –6108 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Propagation delay of a laser beacon as a tool to retrieve absolute tilt measurements,

    R. Ragazzoni, “Propagation delay of a laser beacon as a tool to retrieve absolute tilt measurements, ” Astrophys. J. 465(1), L73 (1996)

    work page 1996

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Canapy: Satcomm lgs-ao experimental platform with laser uplink pre-compensation,

    D. B. Calia et al., “Canapy: Satcomm lgs-ao experimental platform with laser uplink pre-compensation, ” Proc. SPIE 11852, 118521A (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Canapy facility: opto-mechanical design and requirements for optimal visible systems LGS-AO,

    P . Janout, N. M. Rey, and D. Bonaccini, “Canapy facility: opto-mechanical design and requirements for optimal visible systems LGS-AO, ” Proc. SPIE 12182, 1218226 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Event-based vision: a survey,

    G. Gallego et al., “Event-based vision: a survey,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.44(1), 154–180 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensing using spatial-temporal data from an event-based image sensor,

    F. Kong et al., “Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensing using spatial-temporal data from an event-based image sensor,” Opt. Express 28(24), 36159 –36175 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    A 128128 120 db 15 μs latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor,

    P . Lichtsteiner, C. Posch, and T. Delbruck, “A 128128 120 db 15 μs latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor,” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 43(2), 566 –576 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    A QVGA 143 dB dynamic range frame-free PWM image sensor with lossless pixel-level video compression and time-domain CDS,

    C. Posch, D. Matolin, and R. Wohlgenannt, “A QVGA 143 dB dynamic range frame-free PWM image sensor with lossless pixel-level video compression and time-domain CDS,” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 46(1), 259– 275 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    A 240 × 180 130 db 3 μs latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor,

    C. Brandli et al., “A 240 × 180 130 db 3 μs latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor, ” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 49(10), 2333 –2341 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    T. Finateu et al., “5.10 a 1280 × 720 back-illuminated stacked temporal contrast event-based vision sensor with 4.86 μm pixels, 1.066 GEPS readout, programmable event-rate controller and compressive data-for- matting pipeline,” in IEEE Int. Solid-State Circuits Conf.-(ISSCC) ,...

    2020

  9. [17]

    4.1 a 640 × 480 dynamic vision sensor with a 9 μm pixel and 300 meps address-event rep- resentation,

    B. Son et al., “4.1 a 640 × 480 dynamic vision sensor with a 9 μm pixel and 300 meps address-event rep- resentation,” in IEEE Int. Solid-State Circuits Conf. (ISSCC) , IEEE, pp. 66 –67 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Characterization setup for event-based imagers applied to modulated light signal detec- tion,

    D. Joubert et al., “Characterization setup for event-based imagers applied to modulated light signal detec- tion,” Appl. Opt. 58(6), 1305 –1317 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Event-based vision meets deep learning on steering prediction for self-driving cars,

    A. I. Maqueda et al., “Event-based vision meets deep learning on steering prediction for self-driving cars, ” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vision and Pattern Recognit. , pp. 5419 –5427 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Event-driven sensing and process- ing for high-speed robotic vision,

    L. A. Camuñas-Mesa, T. Serrano-Gotarredona, and B. Linares-Barranco, “Event-driven sensing and process- ing for high-speed robotic vision,” in IEEE Biomed. Circuits and Syst. Conf. (BioCAS) Proc. , IEEE, pp. 516– 519 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Event-based detection, tracking, and recognition of unresolved moving objects,

    L. Tinch et al., “Event-based detection, tracking, and recognition of unresolved moving objects, ” in Adv. Maui Opt. and Space Surveillance Technol. Conf. (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Astrometric calibration and source characterisation of the latest generation neuromorphic event-based cameras for space imaging,

    N. O. Ralph et al., “Astrometric calibration and source characterisation of the latest generation neuromorphic event-based cameras for space imaging, ” arXiv:2211.09939 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Event-based object detection and tracking for space situational awareness,

    S. Afshar et al., “Event-based object detection and tracking for space situational awareness, ” IEEE Sens. J. 20(24), 15117 –15132 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Approaches for astrometry using event-based sensors,

    G. Cohen, S. Afshar, and A. van Schaik, “Approaches for astrometry using event-based sensors, ” in Adv. Maui Opt. and Space Surveillance (AMOS) Technol. Conf. , p. 25 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Event-based sensing for space situational awareness,

    G. Cohen et al., “Event-based sensing for space situational awareness, ” J. Astronaut. Sci. 66(2), 125 –141 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Astrometric tests based on data from event-based sensor camera,

    J. Krüger and K. Kami ński, “Astrometric tests based on data from event-based sensor camera, ” in XXXIX Polish Astron. Soc. Meet. , V ol. 10, pp. 72 –74 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Convolutional neural network for improved event-based Shack- Hartmann wavefront reconstruction,

    M. Grose, J. D. Schmidt, and K. Hirakawa, “Convolutional neural network for improved event-based Shack- Hartmann wavefront reconstruction, ” Appl. Opt. 63, E35 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    A learning-based approach to event-based shack-hartmann wavefront sensing,

    M. R. Ziemann, I. Rathbun, and C. A. Metzler, “A learning-based approach to event-based shack-hartmann wavefront sensing,” Proc. SPIE 13149, 1314915 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Unraveling the paradox of intensity-dependent DVS pixel noise,

    R. Graca and T. Delbruck, “Unraveling the paradox of intensity-dependent DVS pixel noise, ” arXiv:2109.08640 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Shining light on the DVS pixel: a tutorial and discussion about biasing and optimization,

    R. Graça, B. McReynolds, and T. Delbruck, “Shining light on the DVS pixel: a tutorial and discussion about biasing and optimization,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vision and Pattern Recognit. , pp. 4045 –4053 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Neuromorphic imaging with density-based spatiotemporal denoising,

    P . Zhang et al., “Neuromorphic imaging with density-based spatiotemporal denoising,” IEEE Trans. Comput. Imaging 9, 530 –541 (2023). Cockram and Martinez Rey: Event-based detectors for laser guide star tip-tilt sensing Optical Engineering 043102-16 April 2025  Vol. 64(4)

    2023

  24. [32]

    A noise filtering algorithm for event-based asynchronous change detec- tion image sensors on truenorth and its implementation on truenorth,

    V . Padala, A. Basu, and G. Orchard, “A noise filtering algorithm for event-based asynchronous change detec- tion image sensors on truenorth and its implementation on truenorth, ” Front. Neurosci. 12, 118 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Characterising an event-based detector for applications to wavefront sensing,

    M. Cockram and N. Martínez Rey, “Characterising an event-based detector for applications to wavefront sensing,” Proc. SPIE 13097, 130973I (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Basic wavefront aberration theory for optical metrology,

    J. C. Wyant and K. Creath, “Basic wavefront aberration theory for optical metrology, ” Appl. Opt. Opt. Eng. 11(part 2), 28 –39 (1992). Monique Cockram is a research assistant in the Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics (LGS-AO) group at the Australian National University Advanced ...

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.