Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Commissioning of the MIRAC-5 Mid-Infrared Instrument on the MMT

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 MIRAC-5, a new mid-infrared camera on the MMT, reaches about 10 percent end-to-end throughput and, after a dichroic swap, should reach background-limited magnitudes of 18.0, 15.6, and 12.6 in L', M', and N' for 8-hour SNR=5 observations.

desk verdict Solid measured on-sky performance, but the headline future-dichroic sensitivities are model extrapolations, not yet validated independently. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10189 v1 pith:5KCNMVC4 submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

Rory Bowens , Jarron Leisenring , Michael R. Meyer , Taylor L. Tobin , Alyssa L. Miller , John D. Monnier , Eric Viges , Bill Hoffmann
show 6 more authors
Manny Montoya Olivier Durney Grant West Katie Morzinski William Forrest Craig McMurtry
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords mid-infraredastronomyinstrumentationcommissioningHgCdTedetectorGeoSnap1/fnoiseadaptiveopticsthroughputmeasurementexposuretimecalculator
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

The paper reports results from six engineering runs of MIRAC-5, a mid-infrared camera on the 6.5-m MMT that uses a new GeoSnap HgCdTe detector with adaptive-optics support from the MAPS system. It claims the current end-to-end throughput, including telescope, atmosphere, instrument, and detector, is approximately 10 percent, and that replacing a temporary low-transmission dichroic will raise that to roughly 20 percent. If those numbers hold, the instrument should reach background-limited magnitudes of 18.0, 15.6, and 12.6 in L', M', and N' bands for an 8-hour SNR=5 observation, placing it alongside the best past ground-based mid-IR imagers and, after a coronagraph upgrade, in the contrast regime now occupied by JWST. The paper also shows that the detector's 1/f noise can be suppressed below ten percent of the Poisson background noise by chopping and nodding, and it provides a calibrated exposure-time calculator for observers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the GeoSnap 1024x1024 HgCdTe detector, sensitive from 2 to 13 microns with 65 percent average quantum efficiency, deep wells, and readout rates up to 85 Hz. Its main liability, 1/f noise, is handled by the instrument's internal pupil-plane chopper and telescope nodding: pair-subtracting nearby frames reduces the 1/f term below a tenth of the Poisson shot noise of the sky and telescope background, and the paper models this with an empirical power-law term, $sigma^{2}$_1/f = $g^{2}$ k_f (nu_chopper / nu_detector)^$\alpha$, in the SNR equation. The second key component is the temporary 50:50 dichroic that currently limits throughput and adds background; the paper's projected sensitivities are computed for a planned replacement with greater than 90 percent transmission.

What would settle it

Take an 8-hour N' integration with the new dichroic installed, reduce it without temporal co-adding, and compare the median per-pixel MAD against the 1/sqrt(N) trend from Figure 5; if the noise floor departs from that trend, as the paper itself warns is possible, the quoted limiting magnitudes would need to be revised. A shorter check would be to compare the exposure time calculator's predicted background and throughput for L', M', and N' against a single night of photometry of a standard star taken after the dichroic swap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a ground-based mid-IR imager built around the GeoSnap detector can be made to work on a 6.5-m telescope: the measured system throughput is roughly 5 to 13 percent across the L' through N' bands, the N' point-spread function already has a 0.75 Strehl compared to an ideal Airy pattern, and the noise in chopped-and-nodded data follows 1/sqrt(N) for at least 83 minutes of integration. The same data calibrate an exposure time calculator whose predictions agree with the May 2024 Alpha Boo observations to within 10 percent. The paper's projected performance, namely L', M', and N' limiting magnitudes of 18.0, 15.6, and 12.6 at SNR=5 in 8 hours after the dichroic swap, is the quantitative statement that would make MIRAC-5 competitive for warm-companion and disk science.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the noise continues to scale as 1/sqrt(N) from the measured 83-minute baseline out to 8-hour integrations, and that the empirical per-band corrections fitted to one night of Alpha Boo data remain valid for the new dichroic and for other observing conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the throughput and noise scaling hold, MIRAC-5 can observe warm wide-orbit companions now, before the adaptive optics and coronagraph are fully commissioned.
  • After the dichroic replacement, L' and M' observations will be limited by ambient dark current and telescope and instrument emission, with limiting magnitudes of 18.0 and 15.6.
  • With the AGPM coronagraph and MAPS adaptive optics, the instrument should reach contrast-limited performance comparable to JWST's MIRI for close-in companions, enabling searches for ammonia at 10.6 microns.
  • The calibrated exposure time calculator lets observers optimize chopper frequency and nod timing, since a 1 Hz chopper gives lower total observing time than higher frequencies for N' half-well data.
  • Observing efficiency in chop and nod mode is around 90 percent, and avoiding temporal co-adding preserves the 1/sqrt(N) noise scaling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 8-hour 1/sqrt(N) extrapolation fails only mildly, MIRAC-5 would still outperform VISIR without adaptive optics, but it might fall short of the quoted 18.0 L' limit; a dedicated long-integration test would settle this.
  • The same 1/f suppression by rapid modulation should carry over to GeoSnap-based instruments on extremely large telescopes, where chopper overhead may favor slower chop frequencies than naive noise arguments suggest.
  • The measurement that telescope and instrument emission dominates over atmospheric emission in the N-band implies that reducing dichroic emissivity is more valuable for this instrument than observing at a drier site.
  • A testable extension is that, because 1/f noise scales with number of frames rather than elapsed time, the optimal chop frequency depends on detector frame rate; future instruments could use the paper's equations to pick frequencies that maximize real SNR per wall-clock hour.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports commissioning results for MIRAC-5, a ground-based mid-infrared imager on the 6.5-m MMT, built around a GeoSnap HgCdTe detector and supported by the MAPS adaptive optics system. The authors characterize the detector dark current, read noise, 1/f noise, pixel-to-pixel QE variations, effective sky/telescope/instrument backgrounds, on-sky throughputs, and delivered image quality using Alpha Boo data from May 2024 and additional data from other runs. They present an exposure-time calculator (ETC) calibrated to these on-sky measurements and use it to predict background-limited sensitivities. The central quantitative claims are a total current throughput of roughly 10%, a future throughput of about 20% after a dichroic upgrade, and SNR=5, 8-hour limiting magnitudes of 18.0 (L'), 15.6 (M'), and 12.6 (N') for the future configuration.

Significance. If the measured throughput, background, and image-quality characterizations are reliable, this paper provides valuable, quantitative information for the ground-based mid-infrared community, particularly regarding the GeoSnap detector's on-sky behavior and the practical mitigation of 1/f noise through chop/nod scheduling. The public exposure-time calculator is a useful tool for planning observations, and the paper makes falsifiable predictions for the planned dichroic upgrade. The strongest measured results—the backgrounds, 1/f scaling over 83 minutes, and N-band image quality—are supported by a clear reduction pipeline and on-sky data. However, the headline sensitivity numbers are ETC model outputs, not direct measurements, and their dependence on empirical corrections fitted to the same calibration dataset and on untested 8-hour noise scaling means the competitive-sensitivity claim is not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 and Table 8] The future-dichroic limiting magnitudes in Table 8 are produced by the exposure-time calculator using per-bandpass empirical throughput and background corrections fitted to the May 2024 Alpha Boo data (Section 4.2). The quoted 'within 10%' agreement therefore tests internal consistency with the calibration dataset, not independent predictive accuracy. The Nov 2024 no-dichroic L' and N' data, which could serve as an external check, appear only in a footnote to Table 7 and are not used to validate the ETC or update the Table 8 predictions; the throughputs reported there (19.5% L', 12.3% N') lie below the future-dichroic predictions (22% and 17%). Please report uncertainties on the limiting magnitudes and either validate the ETC against the Nov 2024 data or present the Table 8 values explicitly as model projections that remain to be verified on sky.
  2. [§5.1 and Figure 5] The 8-hour limiting magnitudes assume that noise scales as 1/sqrt(N) out to 8 hours, but the longest on-sky noise-scaling measurement shown is 83 minutes (Figure 5). The authors themselves caution in Section 5.1 that 'several hour integrations may not continuously scale as 1/sqrt(t) owing to noise sources with non-Poisson distributions,' and Figure 5 demonstrates an early departure from 1/sqrt(N) when data are temporally co-added before subtraction. The abstract's headline limiting magnitudes are therefore extrapolations. Please add a quantitative discussion of how a non-Poisson noise floor or systematic background drift would affect the Table 8 limiting magnitudes, or explicitly label these numbers as optimistic projections.
  3. [Table 7] The throughput values in Table 7 are quoted without uncertainties, despite being derived from aperture photometry of Alpha Boo with known magnitude uncertainties (0.01-0.03 mag), a PSF with extended wings, and nod-pair subtraction with frame rejection. The abstract's central claim of 'approximately 10%' throughput and the future 20% estimate scale directly from these numbers. Please provide at least the statistical photometric uncertainties and propagate the standard-star magnitude uncertainties so that the measured throughputs can be assessed quantitatively.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract states that MIRAC-5 was used on 'six engineering observing runs,' while Section 1 says 'five observing runs'; please harmonize the count.
  2. [§3.2] When reporting that effective background levels changed 'at only about a 2.5% level,' please clarify whether this is an RMS scatter or a peak-to-peak variation across the night.
  3. [§5.1 and Table 8] The text says the limiting magnitude calculation assumes 'an 8 hour observing window at 100% efficiency,' but Table 8 lists observing efficiencies between 91.5% and 97%. Please clarify that the 8 hours refers to science exposure time, with overheads accounted separately.
  4. [§2.1] Typo: 'close-loop heater control' should be 'closed-loop heater control.'
  5. [Table 3] The future dichroic transmission for H-band is 0.004, which is a dramatic change from the current value; a brief note explaining that the new dichroic is not intended for H-band operation would remove potential confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ETC is honestly calibrated to on-sky data, and the future-dichroic limiting magnitudes are extrapolations, not circular derivations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the main instrument-performance claims. Throughputs (Table 7) are direct aperture-photometry measurements of Alpha Boo relative to the Cohen et al. (1995) model magnitudes; effective backgrounds (Table 6) are measured from dark-subtracted sky frames; read noise, dark current, 1/f noise, QE variations, and PSF/encircled-energy profiles are all derived from the paper's own on-sky and dark datasets. The exposure time calculator (Section 4.2) is explicitly described as calibrated to these results: per-bandpass empirical background and throughput adjustments are applied to 'match the program to observations,' so the quoted 'within 10%' agreement is a consistency check with the calibration data rather than an independent validation. The headline future-dichroic limiting magnitudes (18.0, 15.6, 12.6) are generated by the same ETC after applying external dichroic transmission/emission scalings, making them extrapolations; the paper itself flags the long-integration risk in Section 5.1 ('it is possible several hour integrations may not continuously scale as 1/sqrt(t) owing to noise sources with non-Poisson distributions'). This is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity: the limiting magnitudes are new derived quantities from measured throughputs and backgrounds, not the fitted parameters themselves renamed, and no equation defines a prediction in terms of its own input. Self-citations (e.g., Leisenring et al. 2023 for GeoSnap properties and 1/f scaling) are backed in this paper by independent re-measurements, including the 83-minute November 2024 noise-scaling dataset in Figure 5. Overall, the paper is a commissioning characterization with calibrated projections rather than a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's headline sensitivity numbers rest on a calibrated noise model, not a first-principles derivation. The free parameters are the empirical 1/f noise coefficients, per-bandpass throughput and background corrections, and the staring-mode noise floor; the key axioms are the long-integration noise scaling, the use of Paranal atmospheric models for MMT, and the assumption that the future dichroic changes only transmission and emissivity. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • kf (1/f noise amplitude) = 0.012 (ADU/pix)^2
    Fitted to 85 Hz dark data on the mountain, Eq. (2); used in the exposure time calculator to compute noise and limiting magnitudes.
  • alpha (1/f noise exponent) = -1.348
    Fitted simultaneously with kf, Eq. (2), matching lab values from Leisenring et al. (2023).
  • Empirical background adjustment per bandpass = e.g., L' x0.94, M' x2.65, N' x0.48
    Multiplicative corrections applied to the model telescope+instrument background in the ETC to match the May 2024 observations (Section 4.2, Table 8).
  • Empirical throughput adjustment per bandpass = not tabulated
    Applied in the ETC to match measured throughputs; central to the limiting magnitude predictions.
  • Staring mode noise floor = approximately 0.4 ADU/pix
    Empirical systematic noise threshold measured from N' sky frames (Section 3.2, Figure 4), used to limit staring-mode SNR.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Noise scales as 1/sqrt(N) with number of independent frames for up to 8 hours.
    Used to convert per-frame SNR to 8-hour limiting magnitudes; tested only up to 83 minutes (Figure 5), with the paper noting possible deviations (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption SkyCalc atmospheric emission and transmission at Paranal (2640 m) approximate conditions at MMT (2616 m) sufficiently well.
    Used in the exposure time calculator; water vapor differences are discussed but the model is adopted directly (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption The current dichroic is the dominant emissive element and its replacement with a higher-transmission dichroic will scale both throughput and background as modeled.
    The future performance numbers rely on the stated dichroic transmission values and the assumption that no other background source changes (Sections 2.3, 4.2).
  • domain assumption Gain of 83 e-/ADU and other detector characteristics from Leisenring et al. (2023) are correct.
    Used for all ADU to electron conversions; the authors state it was re-verified on sky within 1 sigma (Section 3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Commissioning of the MIRAC-5 Mid-Infrared Instrument on the MMT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KCNMVC4

@misc{pith2026241210189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Commissioning of the MIRAC-5 Mid-Infrared Instrument on the MMT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KCNMVC4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10189}
}
read the original abstract

We present results from commissioning observations of the mid-IR instrument, MIRAC-5, on the 6.5-m MMT telescope. MIRAC-5 is a novel ground-based instrument that utilizes a state-of-the-art GeoSnap (2 - 13 microns) HgCdTe detector with adaptive optics support from MAPS to study protoplanetary disks, wide-orbit brown dwarfs, planetary companions in the contrast-limit, and a wide range of other astrophysical objects. We have used MIRAC-5 on six engineering observing runs, improving its performance and defining operating procedures. We characterize key aspects of MIRAC-5's performance, including verification that the total telescope, atmosphere, instrument, and detector throughput is approximately 10%. Following a planned dichroic upgrade, the system will have a throughput of 20% and background limiting magnitudes (for SNR = 5 and 8 hour exposure times) of 18.0, 15.6, and 12.6 for the L', M', and N' filters, respectively. The detector pixels experience 1/f noise but, if the astrophysical scene is properly modulated via chopping and nodding sequences, it is less than 10% the Poisson noise from the observed background in an 85 Hz frame. We achieve close to diffraction-limited performance in the N-band and all bands are expected to reach diffraction-limited performance following the adaptive optics system commissioning. We also present an exposure time calculator calibrated to the on-sky results. In its current state, MIRAC-5 will be capable of achieving several scientific objectives including the observation of warm wide-orbit companions. Once the adaptive optics is commissioned and a coronagraph installed in 2025, MIRAC-5 will have contrast-limited performance comparable to JWST, opening new and complementary science investigations for close-in companions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10189 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An updated version of BLINC and MIRAC-5 optical layout originally presented in Bowens et al. (2022). Minor adjustments to the focal plane have altered the intermediate and final focal plane f/#s. (2022) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The quantum efficiency of the MIRAC-5 GeoSnap as determined by TIS via a sample of the photosensitive material (Leisenring et al. 2023). Modelled atmospheric transmission is provided for comparison (Lord 1992). Parameter Value Units GeoSnap Format 1024x1024 pix Pixel Pitch 18 µm Wavelength Range (Half Peak QE Cutoffs) 2 - 13 µm Average QE in Range 65 % Operating Frame Rates 0.1 - 85 Hz Operating Temperatures > 35 K … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The mean sky image divided by the low-spatial map with a bad pixel map applied. The variations from unity are the result of pixel-to-pixel variations in QE. Bad pixels are marked in white. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The scaling of the spatial noise estimated via MAD in mock staring mode and chop-nod mode N’ sky images. Staring mode images diverge from the 1/sqrt(N) noise scaling due to the non-Poisson 1/f noise floor. 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 20 Hz 'Co-add'-Subtracted Frames 10 1 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar plot to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The final aligned imaged for Alpha Boo after combining 2000 A nod and 2000 B nod frames using PYNPOINT (Amara & Quanz 2012; Stolker et al. 2019). The PSF for this particular image is given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial profiles for the mean-subtracted images of Alpha Boo in the L’, M’, and N’ filters. The locations of the FWHM are marked with dashed lines. An ideal Airy profile for the central N’ wavelength is shown in purple. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Radius (arcseconds) 0 20 40 60…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Encircled energy profiles for the mean-subtracted images of Alpha Boo in the L’, M’, and N’ filters. An ideal Airy profile encircled energy for the central N’ wavelength is shown in purple. To mitigate 1/f noise, MIRAC-5’s nodding and/or chopping mode is employed. The …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Required exposure time for a theoretical N’ target observed at 50 Hz frame rate with background at half-well depth given different chopper frequencies. In this scenario, a 1 Hz chopper frequency results in the lowest total observing time (1.43 hours) or approximately 1…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A mosaic of Alpha Boo frames in an user-defined scale for six key bandpasses (H-band, K-band, L’, M’, W0870, and N’). The mosaic is constructed from a single nod A frame subtracted by a mean of nod B frames, thus making the positive image of the star the result of a s…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A mosaic of Alpha Boo frames in 99.5% scale for six key bandpasses (H-band, K-band, L’, M’, W0870, and N’). The mosaic is constructed from a single nod A frame subtracted by a mean of nod B frames, thus making the positive image of the star the result of a single fram…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A mosaic of Alpha Boo frames in Z-scale for six key bandpasses (H-band, K-band, L’, M’, W0870, and N’). The mosaic is constructed from a single nod A frame subtracted by a mean of nod B frames, thus making the positive image of the star the result of a single frame. W…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Schoeller, M., & Gondoin, P

    Absil, O., Bakker, E. J., Schoeller, M., & Gondoin, P. A. 2004, in New Frontiers in Stellar Interferometry, ed. W. A. Traub, Vol. 5491, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1320 – 1332, doi: 10.1117/12.549311

    work page doi:10.1117/12.549311 2004

  2. [2]

    A., & Barton, J

    Allen, D. A., & Barton, J. R. 1981, PASP, 93, 381, doi: 10.1086/130842

    work page doi:10.1086/130842 1981

  3. [3]

    Amara, A., & Quanz, S. P. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 948, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21918.x Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    2020, PASP, 132, 015002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab5066

    Beichman, C., Ygouf, M., Llop Sayson, J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 015002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab5066

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab5066 2020

  5. [5]

    2022, A&A, 667, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244578

    Boccaletti, A., Cossou, C., Baudoz, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244578

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244578 2022

  6. [6]

    R., et al

    Bowens, R., Viges, E., Meyer, M. R., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 1144737, doi: 10.1117/12.2562995

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2562995

  8. [8]

    R., Delacroix, C., et al

    Bowens, R., Meyer, M. R., Delacroix, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141109

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141109 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bowens, R., Leisenring, J., Meyer, M., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J

    2022

  2. [10]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121841U, doi: 10.1117/12.2628953

    doi

  3. [11]

    R., Tobin, T

    Bowens, R., Meyer, M. R., Tobin, T. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20440, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.20440

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    M., Hinz, P

    Bowens-Rubin, R., Akana Murphy, J. M., Hinz, P. M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 260, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad03e5

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, The Messenger, 182, 22, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5218

    Brandl, B., Bettonvil, F., van Boekel, R., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 182, 22, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5218

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Bettonvil, F., van Boekel, R., et al

    Brandl, B. R., Bettonvil, F., van Boekel, R., et al. 2024, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D

    2024

  7. [15]

    13096, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1309612, doi: 10.1117/12.3018975 22

    Vernet, Vol. 13096, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1309612, doi: 10.1117/12.3018975 22

    doi

  8. [16]

    C., Walker, R

    Cohen, M., Witteborn, F. C., Walker, R. G., Bregman, J. D., & Wooden, D. H. 1995, AJ, 110, 275, doi: 10.1086/117517

    1995 doi

  9. [17]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125447

    Davies, R., & Kasper, M. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125447

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Downey, E. C. 2007, INDI: Instrument-Neutral Distributed Interface, https://www.clearskyinstitute.com/INDI/INDI.pdf

    2007

  11. [19]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03485, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.03485

    Godoy, N., Choquet, E., Altinier, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03485, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.03485

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 315, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052000

    Guyon, O. 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 315, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052000

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Hinz, P., Codona, J., Guyon, O., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84461P, doi: 10.1117/12.926751

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Angel, J

    Hinz, P. M., Angel, J. R. P., Woolf, N. J., Hoffmann, W. F., & McCarthy, D. W. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4006, Interferometry in Optical Astronomy, ed. P. L´ ena & A. Quirrenbach, 349–353, doi: 10.1117/12.390225

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Solheid, E., Durney, O., & Hoffmann, W

    Hinz, P. M., Solheid, E., Durney, O., & Hoffmann, W. F. 2008, in Optical and Infrared Interferometry, ed. M. Sch¨ oller, W. C. Danchi, & F. Delplancke, Vol. 7013, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 701339, doi: 10.1117/12.790242

    2008 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Fazio, G

    Hoffmann, W. F., Fazio, G. G., Shivanandan, K., Hora, J. L., & Deutsch, L. K. 1994, Infrared Physics & Technology, 35, 175, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/1350-4495(94)90079-5

    1994 doi

  17. [25]

    F., Hora, J

    Hoffmann, W. F., Hora, J. L., Fazio, G. G., Deutsch, L. K., & Dayal, A. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3354, Infrared Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. A. M. Fowler, 647–658, doi: 10.1117/12.317327

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, A&A, 600, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630232

    Huby, E., Bottom, M., Femenia, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630232

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2013, A&A, 560, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322433

    Kimeswenger, S. 2013, A&A, 560, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322433

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    C., & McNeil, R

    Keenan, P. C., & McNeil, R. C. 1989, ApJS, 71, 245, doi: 10.1086/191373

    1989 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Leisenring, J. M., Skrutskie, M. F., Hinz, P. M., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S

    2012

  22. [30]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84464F, doi: 10.1117/12.924814

    doi

  23. [31]

    M., Atkinson, D., Bowens, R., et al

    Leisenring, J. M., Atkinson, D., Bowens, R., et al. 2023, Astronomische Nachrichten, 344, e20230103, doi: 10.1002/asna.20230103

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Lord, S. D. 1992, A new software tool for computing Earth’s atmospheric transmission of near- and far-infrared radiation, NASA Technical Memorandum 103957

    1992

  25. [33]

    2005, ApJ, 633, 1191, doi: 10.1086/462409 Meier Vald´ es, E

    Mawet, D., Riaud, P., Absil, O., & Surdej, J. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1191, doi: 10.1086/462409 Meier Vald´ es, E. A., Morris, B. M., & Demory, B. O. 2021, A&A, 649, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039629

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Montoya, M., Fellows, C., et al

    Morzinski, K. M., Montoya, M., Fellows, C., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11448, Adaptive Optics Systems VII, ed. L. Schreiber, D. Schmidt, & E. Vernet, 114481L, doi: 10.1117/12.2563178

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Montoya, M., Patience, J., et al

    Morzinski, K. M., Montoya, M., Patience, J., et al. 2024, in Adaptive Optics Systems IX, ed. K. J. Jackson, D. Schmidt, & E. Vernet, Vol. 13097, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130970D, doi: 10.1117/12.3019524

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2012, A&A, 543, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040

    Noll, S., Kausch, W., Barden, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Packham, C., Honda, M., Richter, M., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S

    2012

  30. [38]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84467G, doi: 10.1117/12.924996

    doi

  31. [39]

    Pathak, P., Petit dit de la Roche, D. J. M., Kasper, M., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.13032. https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.13032

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R., Brandner, W., Heidt, J., & Cantalloube, F

    Sauter, J. R., Brandner, W., Heidt, J., & Cantalloube, F. 2024, PASP, 136, 095001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad6f45

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    W., et al

    Schlawin, E., Leisenring, J., McElwain, M. W., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd8d4

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Zavodny, M., Rahmer, G., & Bonati, M

    Smith, R. M., Zavodny, M., Rahmer, G., & Bonati, M. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7021, High

    2008

  35. [43]

    Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy III, ed. D. A. Dorn & A. D. Holland, 70210J, doi: 10.1117/12.789372

    doi

  36. [44]

    J., Quanz, S

    Stolker, T., Bonse, M. J., Quanz, S. P., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834136 23

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    A., & Oppenheimer, B

    Traub, W. A., & Oppenheimer, B. R. 2010, Direct Imaging of Exoplanets, ed. S. Seager, 111–156

    2010

  38. [46]

    2021, Nature Communications, 12, 922, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21176-6

    Wagner, K., Boehle, A., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 922, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21176-6

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    W., Roellig, T

    Werner, M. W., Roellig, T. L., Low, F. J., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 1, doi: 10.1086/422992

    2004 doi

Pith tools

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