Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read METIS adaptive optics design predicted to meet top-level Strehl and contrast requirements, including a 5-sigma contrast of 3e-5 at 5 lambda/D in L-band.

desk verdict A mature, honest final-design paper for METIS SCAO with real RTC hardware evidence; the performance numbers are solid simulations but should be read as ideal-model predictions, not on-sky guarantees. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17341 v1 pith:JB7YYND2 submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.IM physics.optics

Markus Feldt , Thomas Bertram , Carlos Correia , Olivier Absil , M. Concepción Cárdenas Vázquez , Hugo Coppejans , Martin Kulas , Andreas Obereder
show 3 more authors
Gilles Orban de Xivry Silvia Scheithauer Horst Steuer
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMphysics.optics
keywords adaptiveopticssingle-conjugatepyramidwavefrontsensorMETISExtremelyLargeTelescopehigh-contrastimagingStrehlratioreal-timecontrol
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 presents the final design of the single-conjugate adaptive optics (SCAO) system for METIS, the mid-infrared instrument for the 39-meter Extremely Large Telescope, and argues from end-to-end simulations that the system will meet its requirements. The claimed performance is a Strehl ratio above 93% at 10 microns and above 60% at 3.7 microns, with a peak of 97.8% and a nominal value of 95.4% at 3.7 microns. It further claims that the L-band high-contrast imaging requirement, a post-processed 5-$\sigma$ contrast of $3 \times 10^{-5}$ at $5\lambda/D$, will be met by the ring-apodized vortex coronagraph in all conditions. The design separates wavefront reconstruction from projection onto the deformable mirror control modes, a choice that makes the system robust to the ELT's fragmented, rotating pupil.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is a virtual deformable mirror (VDM): a fixed, Fried-geometry grid of bilinear spline influence functions aligned with the pyramid wavefront sensor's subapertures, onto which the wavefront is first reconstructed using regularized minimum mean square error estimation. Reconstruction is logically separated from a second, regularized projection onto the ELT's M4 deformable mirror control modes, so pupil rotation and misregistration are handled numerically as projection parameters rather than by moving optics. The pyramid wavefront sensor operating in K-band, a GPU-based real-time computer running at up to 1 kHz, and focal-plane wavefront sensing loops for tip-tilt and high-order non-common path aberration correction complete the control architecture.

What would settle it

During commissioning, measure the closed-loop Strehl at 3.7 microns and the L-band angular differential imaging contrast at $5\lambda/D$ under median seeing; if Strehl falls below 60% or the post-processed 5-$\sigma$ contrast exceeds $3 \times 10^{-5}$, the paper's central performance claim is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the METIS SCAO system, as designed, will deliver diffraction-limited performance at the ELT: Strehl above 93% at 10 microns and above 60% at 3.7 microns, with predicted peak 97.8% and nominal 95.4% at 3.7 microns, plus a post-processed 5-$\sigma$ contrast of $3 \times 10^{-5}$ at $5\lambda/D$ in L-band. The paper supports this with a wavefront error budget, robustness analyses against non-common path aberrations, water-vapor seeing, low-wind petal effects, and a combined 'super-hero' simulation that stacks misaligned mirror segments, missing pupil segments, and unknown pyramid angle errors. It states that the L-band contrast requirement is met by the ring-apodized vortex coronagraph in all conditions, and that the system stays stable with non-common path aberrations up to 300 nm rms, with operation still possible at 400 nm rms.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted Strehl and contrast numbers rest on end-to-end simulations whose forward model of the pyramid wavefront sensor is also used to build the reconstructor, so if the real sensor's response differs from that model, the predicted performance could be lower.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • METIS SCAO can be operated almost as 'pushbutton AO', with only loop frequency and regularization adjusted for faint guide stars or bad seeing.
  • The limiting guide star magnitude is about 13 in K-band, where a Strehl of 63.6% at 3.7 microns is still expected under median seeing.
  • Combined realistic errors, including 21 missing M1 segments, M4 misalignment, non-common path aberrations, and pyramid angle errors, add about 40 nm rms wavefront error and leave Strehl at 94.6% at 3.7 microns.
  • The L-band high-contrast requirement is met by the ring-apodized vortex coronagraph in all simulated conditions, with N-band performance dominated by water-vapor seeing.
  • The real-time computer prototype processes 300,000 wavefront sensor images with a maximum loop computation time of 410 microseconds, comfortably below the 909 microsecond requirement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the virtual-deformable-mirror approach proves as robust on sky as in simulation, the same separation of reconstruction from projection could simplify adaptive optics for other segmented-aperture telescopes by removing the need for opto-mechanical derotation.
  • The demonstrated tolerance of non-common path aberrations up to 300 nm rms suggests that focal-plane wavefront sensing will be a necessary component of any future mid-infrared high-contrast instrument, not just an optional refinement.
  • The large gap between predicted Strehl (95.4%) and the requirement (60%) indicates that residual risk lies less in the control law than in unmodeled sensor behavior, so commissioning effort should focus on calibrating the pyramid wavefront sensor and measuring non-common path aberrations on sky.
  • A direct test of the core modeling assumption would compare the on-sky pyramid sensor interaction matrix and optical gain with the simulated forward model at first light, a validation the paper does not claim to have completed.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents the final design of the METIS SCAO system and its predicted performance, as of the FDR and entry into the MAIT phase. The authors describe the cryogenic pyramid wavefront sensor, the GPU-based real-time computer, the wavefront control strategy built around a virtual Fried-geometry deformable mirror with regularized MMSE reconstruction and numerical derotation, and the auxiliary control loops for pupil stabilization, differential tip-tilt (QACITS), and NCPA correction with the asymmetric Lyot wavefront sensor. Performance predictions are based on COMPASS end-to-end simulations and the HEEPS high-contrast pipeline, leading to the claims that the top-level requirements will be met: Strehl greater than 93% at 10 microns and greater than 60% at 3.7 microns, and a post-processed 5-sigma contrast of 3e-5 at 5 lambda/D in L-band. The paper also reports real-time hardware tests of the HRTC and a numerical correctness check with COMPASS in the loop.

Significance. If the predicted performance is realized on sky, METIS SCAO would be the first ELT adaptive-optics system to deliver the combination of high Strehl and high contrast required for the exoplanet and disk science cases, and the design innovations (virtual-DM reconstruction, numerical derotation, cryogenic PWFS, COTS GPU RTC) are of broad interest to the ELT AO community. The paper is strong on engineering completeness: it reports a successful real-time performance test of the HRTC (Sec 5.2.4, median 365 microseconds against a 909 microsecond requirement) and a hardware-in-the-loop numerical correctness check with COMPASS (Sec 5.2.5), and it makes the AOSAT analysis toolkit publicly available. However, the central performance claims rest entirely on the fidelity of the COMPASS forward model, which is not yet validated against the physical PWFS or the telescope; the authors themselves document a low-wind condition under which the simulated system fails to close the loop.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec 6.1.1, Sec 5.2.5, Sec 2.8.1, Sec 7.4] The performance predictions underlying the requirement-compliance claims use COMPASS modules (p_metis, p_calibration_DM) that implement the same virtual-Fried-geometry DM and regularized MMSE reconstruction scheme as the real-time controller (Sec 6.1.1). The robustness analyses in Sec 6.4 vary parameters inside this same forward model, so they cannot bound errors arising from physical pyramid diffraction, modulation dynamics, detector nonlinearity, or the true M4 influence functions. The HRTC numerical-correctness check (Sec 5.2.5) verifies consistency between the hardware and COMPASS, not between COMPASS and the sky; the planned telescope-simulator tests (Sec 2.8.1) are not yet reported. The statement in Sec 7.4 that the L-band requirement 'will be met by the RAVC in all conditions' is therefore a simulation-based expectation rather than a demonstrated capability, and should be qualified accordingly in the abstract, Sec 7.4, and Sec 8.
  2. [Sec 6.4.2] The low-wind analysis reports that with the 0.5 m/s OPD maps of Martins et al. (2022), the system 'immediately locks into a 2π petalling state and remains so' when these conditions prevail at loop start-up. This is an admitted operational failure under a plausible environmental condition, and the paper provides no mitigation that has been shown to avoid it (the higher-regularisation closure phase described in the same section did not prevent the lock-in for the 0.5 m/s case). Since Sec 7.4 claims the L-band requirement is met 'in all conditions', the paper must either exclude low-wind conditions from that claim, quantify the expected on-sky frequency of such conditions at Cerro Armazones, or present a demonstrated mitigation strategy. As written, the 'all conditions' statement is not supported by the presented evidence.
  3. [Sec 6.4.1, Table 9, Sec 6.3.1-6.3.3, Sec 7.4] The reported performance is obtained by re-optimizing the reconstructor and control parameters (loop frequency, regularisation alpha_rec = alpha_proj, modulation amplitude, and integrator gain) for each guide-star magnitude, seeing condition, and NCPA level (e.g., Table 9). This produces an envelope of best-case performance rather than a single fixed configuration, and the selection of the optimum in the simulations presupposes knowledge of the disturbance condition. The paper should state explicitly which parameter set is assumed in the top-level requirement verification (Sec 6.3.4 and Sec 7.4), and should justify that the on-sky system can identify and apply those optima without prior knowledge of the disturbance conditions. Without this, the contrast margin shown in Fig. 28 may not be representative of routine operation.
  4. [Table 10, Sec 6.4.3, Sec 8] The 'superhero' combined-error simulation lists 'Pyramid angle scatter TBD' as one of the scaled error terms, so the amplitude of this term is unspecified. With this value undefined, the robustness result at scaling factor 1 is not fully defined, and the claim in Sec 8 that the contrast requirement is met 'even when all known sources of error are applied in combination' cannot be verified. The authors should either quantify this term or state the sensitivity of the result to it, particularly because the VDM/PWFS model fidelity is already a concern.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec 2.5] The reference 'Boné et al. (2024, in prep.)' should be updated with a published reference or removed from the citation list.
  2. [Sec 6.4.2] The sentence 'The simulation the impact, we used time-varying OPD maps' should read 'To simulate the impact, we used time-varying OPD maps'.
  3. [Table 11] The row 'Total + 20% margin 156.9' appears inconsistent with the preceding 'Total 153.9'; please clarify how the 20% margin is applied to arrive at 156.9 nm.
  4. [Fig. 18 caption] The caption states 'Contrast at 3.8 m'; the wavelength unit should be '3.8 µm'.
  5. [Sec 7.2 and Sec 7.3.1] Sec 7.2 states the baseline HCI simulation uses a 1-hour ADI sequence with 300 ms sampling, while Sec 7.3.1 reports '10-min SCAO sequences' for the NCPA study; please clarify whether these are separate runs or sub-segments of the 1-hour sequence.
  6. [Sec 6.4.1] The text states that in the NCPA experiment 'the controller was a pure integrator', but Eq. (6) and Table 8 describe a proportional-integral controller with both P and I gains; please clarify the controller structure used for the results in Table 9 and Fig. 21.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No formal circularity: the performance claims are simulation-based expectations whose main risk is unvalidated forward-model fidelity, not self-referential derivation.

full rationale

I find no load-bearing step in which a predicted quantity is defined in terms of itself, or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The Strehl and contrast numbers come from end-to-end simulations (COMPASS for SCAO, HEEPS for HCI) whose outputs are not fed back into their inputs. The closest candidate is Sec. 6.1.1, where the COMPASS module p_metis implements the reconstruction scheme using the same virtual Fried-geometry DM and regularised MMSE inversion/projection steps used in Eq. (1). This makes the simulations self-consistent with the controller design, and it means that model-form error between the real cryogenic pyramid WFS and the virtual-DM forward model is not exposed by the predictions. That is a validation limitation, not a circular reduction: the simulated residual wavefront still depends on independent atmospheric realizations, noise, CCS saturation handling, and other effects, and no equation defines the result as identical to the input. The paper itself flags the need for external validation: Sec. 2.8.1 plans telescope-simulator closed-loop tests, Sec. 5.2.5 verifies only that the HRTC matches COMPASS rather than that COMPASS matches the sky, and Sec. 6.4.2 admits a low-wind condition in which the simulated system cannot close the loop. These are correctness and verification risks, not circularity. Self-citations (Hippler et al. 2018, Correia et al. 2022, Delacroix et al. 2022, Feldt et al. 2023) are used for design context and simulation tools, but the central claims are not forced by those citations: HEEPS is described in terms of external packages (PROPER, VIP, ScopeSim), and the ADI/contrast calculation follows a standard post-processing route. Control parameters are openly given in Tables 8 and 9, and the SRTC is designed to adapt loop frequency and regularisation, so the optimized settings are disclosed rather than disguised as fixed predictions. Accordingly, the derivation chain is not circular, though its predictive force depends on forward-model fidelity that is not yet empirically demonstrated.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The performance predictions depend on a set of tunable controller parameters and on domain assumptions about atmospheric statistics, sensor modeling, and the fidelity of the simulation chain. The virtual DM is the main invented computational entity, but it has no independent evidence outside the simulations.

free parameters (7)
  • Regularization parameters alpha_rec = alpha_proj = 0.1, 1.0, 5.0 and optimized values in Table 9
    Chosen by scanning to optimize Strehl and stability; affect reconstruction and projection in Eq. 1.
  • Loop frequency = 1000, 500, 200 Hz
    Selected based on guide star magnitude to maximize performance in Sec 6.3.1.
  • Control gains (P, I) = Nominal tt P 0.3, I 0.29, hm I 0.45; optimized per condition in Sec 6.4.1
    PI controller gains tuned to stabilize the loop under different disturbances.
  • Modulation amplitude = 0-10 lambda/D; 4-7 lambda/D in NCPA tests
    Pyramid modulation radius chosen to balance linear range and sensitivity; varied to stabilize performance.
  • NCPA rms amplitude = 130, 200, 300, 400 nm
    Water vapor seeing strength fixed at chosen values to test robustness; not independently measured for METIS.
  • Superhero scaling factor = 0.0 to 2.0
    Common scale for NCPA, petal piston, and pyramid angle errors to show graceful degradation in Sec 6.4.3.
  • Pyramid angle scatter = TBD in Table 10
    Unknown pyramid angle deviation used as a scaled error; no specific value given.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Atmospheric turbulence is described by von Karman statistics with frozen flow and given seeing.
    Used in COMPASS to generate phase screens; see Sec 6.1 and Table 8.
  • domain assumption The pyramid wavefront sensor is modeled accurately by the linear forward model W_VDM used in the MMSE reconstruction.
    The reconstructor uses this forward model in Eq. 1; the simulations use the same model via p_metis in Sec 6.1.1.
  • domain assumption The COMPASS, PROPER, ScopeSim and VIP simulation chain faithfully models the ELT and METIS.
    All predicted performance values depend on this simulation chain, Sec 6.1 and 7.2.
  • domain assumption Water vapor seeing and NCPA can be represented by von Karman phase screens projected onto Zernike modes up to 100 terms.
    Used in Sec 6.4.1 and 7.3.1 to generate NCPA maps.
  • domain assumption Low-wind effect OPD maps from the CFD model are representative of on-sky conditions.
    Sec 6.4.2 uses Martins et al. maps; the paper acknowledges the maps are uncertain.
  • domain assumption The ESO-specified CCS safety limits and wind disturbance power spectra are correct.
    M4 force and stroke handling and wind-induced tip-tilt follow ESO311982v3, Sec 6.1.3.
  • ad hoc to paper The superhero error combination assumes independent and simultaneously present worst-case errors.
    Sec 6.4.3 combines fixed and scaled errors in a single simulation without a probabilistic basis.
invented entities (1)
  • Virtual Deformable Mirror (VDM) with pyramidlet influence functions
    purpose: Intermediate reconstruction layer independent of the physical M4, enabling numerical derotation and misregistration compensation.
    Introduced in Sec 4.1 as a computational construct; validated only in simulations using the same model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High strehl and high contrast for the ELT instrument METIS -- Final design, implementation, and predicted performance of the single-conjugate adaptive optics system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JB7YYND2

@misc{pith2026241117341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High strehl and high contrast for the ELT instrument METIS -- Final design, implementation, and predicted performance of the single-conjugate adaptive optics system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JB7YYND2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17341}
}
read the original abstract

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

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, vol

    Absil, O.: Final design and estimated performance of the elt/metis high-contrast imaging modes. In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, vol. 7 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    (eds.) Adaptive Optics Systems VIII

    Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., Vernet, E. (eds.) Adaptive Optics Systems VIII. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, vol. 12185, p. 1218511 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2627972 Bon´ e, A., Absil, O., Delacroix, C.: (2024)

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2627972 2022

  3. [3]

    In: Heaney, J.B., Kvamme, E.T

    Barriere, J.-C., Berth´ e, M., Carty, M., Dubou´ e, B., Fontignie, J., Leboeuf, D., Mar- tignac, J., Cara, C., Charon, P., Durand, G.A., Bachet, D.: Cryomechanism: a cryogenic rotating actuator. In: Heaney, J.B., Kvamme, E.T. (eds.) Cryogenic Opti- cal Systems and Instruments 2013, vol. 8863, p. 886305. SPIE, ??? (2013). https: //doi.org/10.1117/12.202299...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2022997 2013

  4. [4]

    In: Close, L.M., Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D

    Louarn, M.L., Madec, P.-Y., Marchetti, E., M¨ uller, M., Oberti, S., Paufique, J., Pet- tazzi, L., Sedghi, B., Spyromilio, J., Stroebele, S., V´ erinaud, C., Vernet, E.: Adaptive optics at the ESO ELT. In: Close, L.M., Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D. (eds.) Adaptive Optics Systems VI, vol. 10703, p. 1070310. SPIE, ??? (2018). International Society for Optics a...

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    The Messenger 182, 22–26 (2021) https://doi.org/10.18727/0722-6691/ 5218 arXiv:2103.11208 [astro-ph.IM]

    Winckel, H., METIS Consortium: METIS: The Mid-infrared ELT Imager and Spec- trograph. The Messenger 182, 22–26 (2021) https://doi.org/10.18727/0722-6691/ 5218 arXiv:2103.11208 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [7]

    In: Evans, C.J., Bryant, J.J., Motohara, K

    Delacroix, C., Laun, W., Lesman, D., Raskin, G., Salo, C., Scheithauer, S., Stuik, R., Todd, S., Haupt, C., Siebenmorgen, R.: Status update on the development of METIS, the mid-infrared ELT imager and spectrograph. In: Evans, C.J., Bryant, J.J., Motohara, K. (eds.) Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astron- omy IX. Society of Photo-Optical Inst...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2628331 2022

  7. [8]

    In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes 7th Edition, Avi- gnon, France (2023)

    Obereder, A., Rohloff, R.-R., Scheithauer, S., Steuer, H., Absil, O., Xivry, G., Brandl, B., Glauser, A.M.: METIS SCAO – implementing AO for ELT. In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes 7th Edition, Avi- gnon, France (2023). https://doi.org/10.13009/AO4ELT7-2023-024 . ONERA. https://hal.science/hal-04402873

    work page doi:10.13009/ao4elt7-2023-024 2023

  8. [9]

    Focal-plane wavefront sensing with the vector Apodizing Phase Plate

    Martinache, F., Snik, F.: Focal-plane wavefront sensing with the vector-Apodizing Phase Plate. Astronomy and Astrophysics 632, 48 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201936062 arXiv:1909.08317 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 31 references
  1. [10]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics 631, 155 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935251 arXiv:1902.04080 [astro-ph.IM]

    Zurlo, A.: SPHERE: the exoplanet imager for the Very Large Telescope. Astronomy and Astrophysics 631, 155 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935251 arXiv:1902.04080 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [11]

    In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, vol

    Coppejans, H., Bertram, T., Kulas, M., Steuer, H., Correia, C.: Subpixel pupil tracking on metis for elt. In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, vol. 7 (2023)

    2023

  3. [12]

    Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 6, 049801 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JATIS.6.4.049801

    Glauser, A., Hippler, S., Kenworthy, M., Por, E., Snik, F., Stuik, R., van Boekel, R.: METIS high-contrast imaging: design and expected performance (Erratum). Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 6, 049801 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JATIS.6.4.049801

    2020 doi

  4. [13]

    In: Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., Vernet, E

    Kulas, M., Coppejans, H., Orban de Xivry, G., Scheithauer, S., Bertram, T.: ELT METIS wavefront control strategy. In: Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., Vernet, E. (eds.) Adaptive Optics Systems VIII. Proc. SPIE, vol. 12185, p. 1218512 (2022). https: //doi.org/10.1117/12.2630096

    2022 doi

  5. [14]

    L’Astronomie 63, 253–258 (1949)

    Couder, A.: Sur un Effet Thermique: Observ´ e dans les T´ elescopes a R´ eflexion. L’Astronomie 63, 253–258 (1949)

    1949

  6. [15]

    In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, vol

    Correia, C., Verinaud, C., Heritier, C.T., Steuer, H., Feldt, M., Bertram, T.: Opti- mal modal basis for elt m4 mirror force/position control. In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, vol. 7 (2023)

    2023

  7. [16]

    In: Angeli, G.Z., Dierickx, P

    Carlomagno, B., Christiaens, V., Bon´ e, A., Dolkens, D., Kenworthy, M., Doelman, D.: The High-contrast End-to-End Performance Simulator (HEEPS): influence of ELT/METIS instrumental effects. In: Angeli, G.Z., Dierickx, P. (eds.) Modeling, Systems Engineering, and Project Manag...

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    Ellerbroek, B.L.: Efficient computation of minimum-variance wave-front reconstruc- tors with sparse matrix techniques. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 1803–1816 (2002) ESO311982v3: ICD between the instruments and the central control system. Internal ESO document (ESO-311982v3) (2023)

    2002

  9. [18]

    Inverse Problems 25(6), 063001 (2009) 49

    Ellerbroek, B.L., Vogel, C.R.: Inverse problems in astronomical adaptive optics. Inverse Problems 25(6), 063001 (2009) 49

    2009

  10. [19]

    In: Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., Vernet, E

    Feldt, M., Hippler, S., Cantalloube, F., Bertram, T., Obereder, A., Steuer, H., Absil, O., Louarn, M.L.: The adaptive optics simulation analysis tool(kit) (AOSAT). In: Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., Vernet, E. (eds.) Adaptive Optics Systems VII, vol. 11448, p. 114483. SPIE, ??? (...

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    Optica 3(12), 1440–1452 (2016)

    Fauvarque, O., Neichel, B., Fusco, T., Sauvage, J.-F., Girault, O.: General formalism for fourier-based wave front sensing. Optica 3(12), 1440–1452 (2016)

    2016

  12. [21]

    In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, vol

    Feldt, M., Steuer, H., Correia, C.M., Obereder, A., Raffetseder, S., Bertram, T., Sha- tokina, J., Cantalloube, F.: Simulating metis’ scao system. In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, vol. 7 (2023)

    2023

  13. [22]

    In: Adaptive Optics Systems V

    Gratadour, D., Ferreira, F., Sevin, A., Doucet, N., Cl´ enet, Y., Gendron, E., Lain´ e, M., Vidal, F., Brul´ e, J., Puech, M., V´ erinaud, C., Carlotti, A.: COMPASS: status update and long term development plan. In: Adaptive Optics Systems V. SPIE, vol. 9909, p. 990971 (2016)....

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics 584, 74 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527102 arXiv:1509.06158 [astro- ph.IM]

    Huby, E., Baudoz, P., Mawet, D., Absil, O.: Post-coronagraphic tip-tilt sensing for vortex phase masks: The QACITS technique. Astronomy and Astrophysics 584, 74 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527102 arXiv:1509.06158 [astro- ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Experimental Astronomy (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10686-018-9609-y arXiv:1810.07578 [astro-ph.IM]

    Absil, O., Obereder, A., Shatokhina, I., Stuik, R.: Single conjugate adaptive optics for the ELT instrument METIS. Experimental Astronomy (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10686-018-9609-y arXiv:1810.07578 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [26]

    MNRAS 504(3), 4274–4290 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1177 arXiv:2104.11261 [astro-ph.IM]

    Heritier, C.T., Fusco, T., Oberti, S., Neichel, B., Esposito, S., Madec, P.-Y.: SPRINT, system parameters recurrent invasive tracking: a fast and least-cost online cal- ibration strategy for adaptive optics. MNRAS 504(3), 4274–4290 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab117...

    2021 arXiv

  17. [27]

    In: Evans, C.J., Simard, L., Takami, H

    Kenworthy, M.A., Absil, O., Carlomagno, B., Ag´ ocs, T., Por, E.H., Bos, S., Brandl, B., Snik, F.: A review of high contrast imaging modes for METIS. In: Evans, C.J., Simard, L., Takami, H. (eds.) Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII. Society of Photo-Op...

    2018 doi

  18. [28]

    In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large 50 Telescopes, vol

    Neureuther, P.: The rtc for metis scao. In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large 50 Telescopes, vol. 7 (2023)

    2023

  19. [29]

    In: Proc

    Martins, D., Holzl¨ ohner, R., Verinaud, C., Kleinclaus, C.: Transient wavefront error from cooled air downwind of telescope spiders. In: Proc. of the SPIE, vol. 12187, p. 1218712 (2022) Orban de Xivry, G., Absil, O., Delacroix, C., Pathak, P., Quesnel, M., Bertram, T.: ALF: a...

    2022

  20. [30]

    7 (2023)

    Obereder, A., Feldt, M., Correia, C., Steuer, H., Bertram, T.: Finally, let’s use all the modes! In: Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, vol. 7 (2023)

    2023

  21. [31]

    In: 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Anal- ysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), pp

    Ofenbeck, G., Steinmann, R., Caparros, V., Spampinato, D.G., P¨ uschel, M.: Applying the roofline model. In: 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Anal- ysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), pp. 76–85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/ ISPASS.2014.6844463

    2014

  22. [32]

    Journal of Modern Optics 43, 289–293 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1080/09500349608232742

    Ragazzoni, R.: Pupil plane wavefront sensing with an oscillating prism. Journal of Modern Optics 43, 289–293 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1080/09500349608232742

    1996 doi

  23. [33]

    https://anr-compass.github.io/ compass/ Accessed 2019-02-13 V´ erinaud, C., Correia, C.: Eigen-Bases for force-constrained position control of adaptive shell mirrors

    Sevin, A.: COMPASS/Shesha on GitHub, (2019). https://anr-compass.github.io/ compass/ Accessed 2019-02-13 V´ erinaud, C., Correia, C.: Eigen-Bases for force-constrained position control of adaptive shell mirrors. Astronomy and Astrophysics (accepted) (2023) V´ eran, J.-P., Herr...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.