Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 36 references

Polarization aberrations in next-generation Giant Segmented Mirror Telescopes (GSMTs). II. Influence of segment-to-segment coating variations on high-contrast imaging and polarimetry

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Segment-to-segment coating thickness differences do not add a substantive error to the GSMTs' high-contrast imaging or polarimetry, adding at most about $2\times10^{-8}$ in I-band contrast.

desk verdict Good forward simulation of coating variations; the coronagraphic conclusion holds, but the polarimetric claim needs a uniform-coating baseline before it is demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03897 v1 pith:K5HKIEGJ submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.IM

Jaren N. Ashcraft , Ramya M. Anche , Sebastiaan Y. Haffert , Justin Hom , Maxwell A. Millar-Blanchaer , Ewan S. Douglas , Frans Snik , Rob G. Van Holstein
show 3 more authors
Kyle Van Gorkom Warren Skidmore Manxuan Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords polarizationaberrationssegment-to-segmentcoatingvariationsgiantsegmentedmirrortelescopeshigh-contrastimagingcoronagraphypolarimetryJonespupilMuellerpoint-responsematrix
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

Direct imaging of Earth-like exoplanets from the ground demands contrasts near $10^{-7}$, but the next-generation giant segmented telescopes (TMT, ELT, GMT) already carry polarization aberrations that limit them to $10^{-5}$–$10^{-6}$ in the infrared. This paper asks whether the next level of realism—coating thickness differences from segment to segment—makes that limit worse. Using polarization ray tracing to build Jones pupils with spatially varying coatings and propagating them through perfect coronagraph models, the paper finds that segment-to-segment variations add at most about $2\times10^{-8}$ RMS contrast in I-band for the most sensitive coronagraph and worst-case telescope, with worst-case peaks near $4.3\times10^{-8}$. That is 2–3 orders of magnitude below the target contrast and well below the adaptive-optics residual floor, so coating nonuniformity does not add a substantive error term to high-contrast imaging or to polarimetric imaging of debris disks.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the Jones pupil—the $2\times2$ complex polarization response map across the exit pupil—computed with polarization ray tracing on telescope models whose segment overcoat thickness varies as low-order Zernike polynomials (TMT, ELT) or a power-law PSD (GMT). These pupils are fed through ideal 'perfect coronagraph' models (order 2, 4, 6) that remove spatial modes of the electric field; comparing the residual image to the uniform-coating case isolates the segment-variation contribution. For polarimetry, the amplitude response matrix $A_{\mathrm{coro}}$ is converted into a Mueller point-response matrix $M_{\mathrm{coro}} = U(A_{\mathrm{coro}}\otimes A_{\mathrm{coro}})U^{-1}$, which maps the incoming Stokes vector to the coronagraphic focal-plane Stokes image and is used to propagate a debris disk model through the field.

What would settle it

Measure coating thickness maps across full-size segments of a GSMT primary (for example with ellipsometry or interferometry on witness segments) and run those maps through the same Jones-pupil and coronagraph pipeline; if the RMS contrast residual in I-band for a second-order perfect coronagraph exceeds about $1\times10^{-7}$, the paper's central conclusion would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that spatially varying coating thickness across the segmented primaries of TMT, ELT, and GMT adds only a minor perturbation to the polarization aberrations those telescopes already produce. Modeling the ELT/TMT overcoat as low-order Zernike piston/tilt/focus variations of 10–50% peak-to-valley and the GMT oxide layer as a power-law PSD with $\pm0.08$ nm peak-to-valley, the paper simulates 25 random realizations per case, applies wavefront control from an ideal AO system, and subtracts the uniform-coating coronagraphic image. The RMS contrast variation peaks at $1.7\times10^{-8}$ for TMT behind a second-order perfect coronagraph in I-band (worst case $4.3\times10^{-8}$), and order-6 coronagraphs fall below $10^{-10}$. In polarimetry, the Mueller point-response matrix shows polarized structure near the inner working angle, but when a debris disk model is propagated through it, the changes in normalized Stokes parameters are dominated by the telescopes' nominal instrumental polarization and crosstalk, not by segment-to-segment variations. The paper concludes that coating thickness nonuniformity is not a substantive error term for high-contrast detection or polarimetry on these observatories.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the assumed spatial structure of coating thickness variations—low-order Zernike shapes for TMT/ELT and a power-law PSD for the GMT oxide layer, with amplitudes scaled from small witness samples—represents what real meter-scale segment coatings do; actual segment coating maps have not been measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Segment-to-segment coating thickness variations can be dropped from the first-order error budget for GSMT high-contrast imaging in I-band, because the added residuals are orders of magnitude below the AO-limited floor.
  • Coating uniformity requirements for TMT, ELT, and GMT primary segments need not be driven by polarization aberration concerns, potentially relaxing coating tolerances.
  • Debris disk polarimetry on these telescopes will be limited by the calibrated Mueller matrix of the telescope (instrumental polarization and crosstalk), not by segment-level coating variations.
  • For a future space observatory aiming at $10^{-10}$ contrast, the same segment-variation analysis should be repeated, since the residuals found here are still orders of magnitude above that target.
  • Higher-order coronagraphs (6th order) suppress the segment-variation residual below $10^{-10}$, so they are insensitive to coating nonuniformity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit: if real segment coatings have high-order thickness ripple or sharp steps between segments rather than the assumed low-order shapes, the contrast contribution could be larger than $2\times10^{-8}$, so measured meter-scale coating maps would settle the margin.
  • The same Jones-pupil and Mueller-matrix pipeline could set segment-coating tolerance specifications for a future space observatory aiming at $10^{-10}$ contrast.
  • The polarimetry finding suggests that calibration of the telescope's static Mueller matrix will buy more disk-science accuracy than tightening coating uniformity.
  • A testable extension is to inject thickness discontinuities at segment boundaries into the same simulation and check whether the contrast residual stays below the AO-limited floor.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' previous polarization aberration modeling of the three GSMTs (TMT, ELT, GMT) by adding segment-to-segment coating thickness variations. Using the Poke polarization ray tracing package to compute Jones pupils with spatially varying coatings, and HCIPy to propagate them through perfect coronagraph models, the authors simulate the impact on high-contrast imaging residuals and on polarimetric imaging of a debris disk. They report that the coronagraphic contrast variation due to segment variations is at or below roughly 2e-8 to 4e-8 in I-band, orders of magnitude below the AO residual targets, and conclude that segment-to-segment coating variations are not a substantive error term for high-contrast imaging or polarimetry.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a valuable result for the design of GSMT high-contrast instruments: it removes coating nonuniformity from the critical error budget, provided the assumed spatial structure is realistic. The paper's strengths include a forward-modeling pipeline built on open-source packages (Poke, HCIPy), a released code repository (Ashcraft 2024), explicit statistical sampling over 25 trials per case and three amplitude cases, and a clear subtraction of the uniform-coating baseline in the coronagraphic analysis (Section 4). The coronagraphic claim is well supported by the presented experiments. The polarimetric claim, however, is not yet supported by the analysis as written, because the experiment does not isolate the segment-to-segment contribution from the nominal polarization aberrations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Eqs. (5)-(6), Fig. 11] The polarimetric experiment does not isolate the effect of segment-to-segment variations. The comparison is between Sconv (which includes all nominal polarization aberrations plus segment variations) and Smodel (the input disk model). The abstract and Summary point 7 claim that segment-to-segment variations are negligible 'above and beyond the impact of nominal polarization aberration,' but no baseline Mcoro computed with a perfectly uniform coating is presented or subtracted anywhere in Section 5. Without that baseline, the 0.1-0.3 level features in Fig. 11 could be dominated by the nominal polarization aberrations already reported in Anche et al. (2023), and the segment-to-segment component remains unquantified. I recommend computing Mcoro for the uniform-coating case and subtracting it (or directly differencing the segment-varying and uniform cases) to support the 'above and beyond' claim.
  2. [Section 3 (modeling approach), Table 1, Section 6 point 3] The conclusion that segment-to-segment variations are negligible rests on the assumed spatial structure of the coating variations: low-order Zernike piston/tilt/focus maps for TMT/ELT and a power-law PSD with negative index for the GMT's Al2O3 layer. The paper acknowledges in Section 6 point 3 that actual meter-scale segment coating maps are unmeasured, yet the parameter space explored does not include high-order spatial-frequency ripple or large segment-to-segment steps at high spatial frequencies. Under such structures, the contrast contribution could scale differently with coronagraph order and could potentially exceed the reported values. The summary claim in Section 6 point 7 ('does not contribute a substantive error term') is therefore conditional on the low-order spatial structure assumption; the paper should either test realizations with high-order spatial content or temper the summary claim to explicitly state this dependence.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sections 1 and 5] The instrument name 'SPHERE/IRIDIS' appears in the Introduction and 'SPHERE-IRIDIS' in Section 5; the correct name is 'SPHERE-IRDIS' (see also the references). Please correct throughout.
  2. [References] The reference list contains apparent duplicates: 'van Holstein, R. G., Girard, J. H., de Boer, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A64' appears twice, and 'van Holstein et al. 2023a' and '2023b' both list A&A 677, A150 with the same title and nearly identical author lists. Please merge or correct these entries.
  3. [Section 5, Eq. (5)] The field-dependent transform in Eq. (5) writes Sconv(x,y) as a sum of Mcoro, j,k(x,y;θj,k) Smodel(x,y), but the notation is ambiguous about how the focal-plane coordinates (x,y) relate to the field positions θj,k. Please clarify that each Mcoro is a spatially-varying Mueller matrix evaluated at the focal-plane coordinate for a given field angle, and specify the interpolation or summation convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coronagraphic result isolates the segment-variation term with a uniform-coating baseline, and the coating inputs are external measurements; the polarimetric 'above and beyond' wording is under-supported but is a correctness gap, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper is a forward simulation, not a fit. The segment-to-segment coating amplitude inputs are taken from an external witness-sample measurement (Schneider et al. 2016b), from van Harten et al. (2009) for the GMT Al2O3 uncertainty, and from a TMT private communication (Skidmore et al. 2023); no parameter is fitted to the coronagraphic or polarimetric output, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The central quantitative coronagraphic claim (RMS contrast variation <= 2e-8 in I-band, TMT, order-2 PC, Case 2) is properly isolated: Section 4 states 'We then subtract off the coronagraphic image assuming a perfectly uniform coating to arrive at the change in contrast introduced by the spatially-varying coating,' so the segment-only contribution is computed against a uniform-coating baseline. Self-citations to Anche et al. (2023), Poke (Ashcraft 2022; Ashcraft et al. 2023), and the companion code (Ashcraft 2024) supply the toolchain and nominal Jones pupils, but the new segment-variation result is an independent forward calculation with externally sourced inputs; no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. One flagged limitation, in the polarimetric half, is a missing baseline rather than circularity: Eq. (5)-(6) and Figure 11 compute sconv - smodel, where Mcoro contains both nominal polarization aberration and segment variations, so the difference includes the full nominal diattenuation/retardance/crosstalk content already reported in Anche et al. (2023). The abstract and Summary point 7 phrase the result as 'above and beyond the impact of nominal polarization aberration,' but no uniform-coating Mcoro_uniform baseline is subtracted in Section 5, so the 'above and beyond' claim is not demonstrated by the reported calculation. This is a methodological over-claim and should be treated as a correctness risk, not as circularity: the computed quantity is a total effect, not an equivalent restatement of the input, and the coronagraphic result is unaffected. Overall circularity score 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on modeling choices for coating variation amplitudes and spatial distributions, all taken from limited measurements or plausible ranges. No new physical entities are introduced, and no constants are fitted to achieve the stated contrast results.

free parameters (4)
  • TMT/ELT overcoat thickness variation peak-to-valley = 10%, 20%, 50% of nominal coating thickness
    Three cases are chosen to bracket the expected 10-20% variation reported for TMT and to stress-test with 50%. These amplitudes are inputs explored in the simulation, not fitted to the output.
  • GMT Al2O3 layer power-law PSD index n = -1, -2, -3
    The spatial distribution of aluminum oxide growth on bare aluminum is unknown; the power-law index parameterizes possible distributions.
  • GMT Al2O3 layer peak-to-valley thickness = 0.16 nm (from +/-0.08 nm uncertainty in van Harten et al. 2009)
    The peak-to-valley variation is set equal to the measurement uncertainty of the spatially averaged ellipsometer result.
  • Zernike modes used for coating thickness maps = piston, tilt, focus (Z1-Z4)
    The paper assumes the dominant coating nonuniformity modes are low-order, following coating chamber geometry. Higher-order spatial variations are not included.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Polarization ray tracing (PRT) with Jones pupil formalism and thin-film multilayer coating models is valid for these telescopes.
    The method follows Chipman et al. (2018) chapters 10-11 and the Poke implementation (Ashcraft et al. 2023); it is the established technique used in Paper I.
  • domain assumption Ideal AO removes the common-mode scalar phase exp(-i(phi_xx+phi_yy)/2) between polarization states (Eq. 2).
    AO cannot correct differential polarization aberrations; this matches Paper I and the modeling used for prior high-contrast instruments.
  • domain assumption Perfect coronagraph models of order 2, 4, and 6 (Guyon et al. 2006; Cavarroc et al. 2006) approximate the not-yet-finalized GSMT coronagraphs.
    This is the same approach used in Paper I; the final coronagraph designs for the GSMTs are not yet settled.
  • ad hoc to paper Coating thickness variation on the dielectric overcoat (Si3N4 for TMT/ELT) is low-order (piston, tilt, focus), and the reflective layer is uniform because its variation is common-mode and removed by AO.
    The spatial model is motivated by coating chamber geometry (Bishop et al. 2019) but is not directly measured on meter-scale segments.
  • ad hoc to paper GMT Al2O3 layer spatial distribution follows a power-law PSD with peak-to-valley equal to the +/-0.08 nm uncertainty from van Harten et al. (2009).
    The actual spatial distribution of aluminum oxide growth is unknown; the paper explicitly states this is an assumption.
  • domain assumption The MCFOST debris disk model (HR 4796A analog with Mie-scattering grains) is a representative target for assessing polarimetric performance.
    Used in Section 5; the polarimetric conclusion is tested against this single disk geometry and grain model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarization aberrations in next-generation Giant Segmented Mirror Telescopes (GSMTs). II. Influence of segment-to-segment coating variations on high-contrast imaging and polarimetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K5HKIEGJ

@misc{pith2026250103897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarization aberrations in next-generation Giant Segmented Mirror Telescopes (GSMTs). II. Influence of segment-to-segment coating variations on high-contrast imaging and polarimetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K5HKIEGJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03897}
}
read the original abstract

Direct exo-Earth imaging is a key science goal for astronomy in the next decade. This ambitious task imposes a target contrast of ~10^-7 at wavelengths from I to J-band. In our prior study, we determined that polarization aberrations can limit the achievable contrast to 10^-5 to 10^-6 in the infrared. However, these results assumed a perfect coronagraph coupled to a telescope with an ideal coating on each of the mirrors. In this study we seek to understand the influence of polarization aberrations from segment-to-segment coating variations on coronagraphy and polarimetry. We use the Poke open-source polarization ray tracing package to compute the Jones pupil of each GSMT with spatially-varying coatings applied to the segments. The influence of the resultant polarization aberrations is simulated by propagating the Jones pupil through physical optics models of coronagraphs using HCIPy. After applying wavefront control from an ideal adaptive optics system, we determine that the segment-to-segment variations applied limit the performance of coronagraphy to a raw contrast of approximately 10^-8 in I-band, which is 2-3 orders of magnitude lower the target performance for high-contrast imaging systems on the ground. This is a negligible addition to the nominal polarization aberrations for ground-based systems. We further observe negligible degradation in polarimetric imaging of debris disks from segment-to-segment aberrations above and beyond the impact of nominal polarization aberration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical layout of the telescopes from Zemax® for the three GSMT’s. The TMT and ELT are cassegrain-type telescopes with a fold mirror configuration, whereas the GMT is Gregorian-type telescope with a fold mirror. 3. Modeling approach In this work we simulate the influence of coating variations on polarization aberrations with PRT. PRT is a method of propa￾gating the complex amplitudes of orthogonal polarization state… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Steps to simulate polarimetric imaging of a generally off-axis source in the presence of polarization aberrations through the GSMTs is described here. As a first step, we simulate the segment-to-segment coating variation to be a sum of the piston, tilt, and focus terms of the Zernike polynomials. We then perform the PRT using Poke to estimate Jones pupils for all three telescopes. The Jones pupils and the correspond… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Example of the PSD-generated coating variation assigned on the GMT primary mirror. We generate a power law with a given index n and then enforce its peak-to-valley variation to be consistent with the ±0.08nm from van Harten et al. (2009). Varying the PSD index n allows us to parameterize the influence of the Aluminum Oxide layer on the GMT. 4. Effect on coronagraphy Since the coronagraph architectures for the GSMTs … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profile of the azimuthally averaged focal plane residuals given the polarization aberrations of spatially-varying coatings on the ELT primary mirror. These data are generated by taking the difference of coronagraphic images with and without segment-to-segment co…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of the RMS contrast variation as a function of angular separation for Case 2 in I-band. The lines represent the azimuthal average of the standard deviation of the simulated coronagraphic residuals. One can interpret these data as the anticipated contrast degradati…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The influence of the Al2O3 layer on coronagraphic performance of the GMT for a 6th-order PC in I-band. These data show the difference between the case with and without segment variations. Here n is the exponent of the PSD used to generate the distribution of Al2O3 on t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Figure showing the Mueller PRM Mcoro for the TMT in I-band to show how polarization shapes the PSF. A simple imager would observe the I → I component of Mcoro. The data shown here are normalized to the peak of this component. In response to unpolarized light, the obser…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Stokes vectors that would be detected by a perfect high-contrast polarimeter (order = 2 PC) that observed an unpolarized star subject to the polarization aberrations of the GSMTs. These data are normalized to the peak of the I → I component. Each row is a Stokes ve…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The nominal Stokes image of the debris disk model. I is the total intensity, and is plotted on a square root scale to highlight the faint disk features. The linear Stokes parameters Q and U are plotted on a linear scale. The simulated dust grains do not induce circula…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The difference in normalized Stokes parameters with respect to the debris disk model shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Ashcraft, J

    Anche, R. M., Ashcraft, J. N., Haffert, S. Y ., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A121

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    2022, poke v0.1.0, https://zenodo.org/10.5281/zenodo.7117214

    Ashcraft, J. 2022, poke v0.1.0, https://zenodo.org/10.5281/zenodo.7117214

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7117214 2022

  3. [3]

    2024, polarization-gsmts-II, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10800962

    Ashcraft, J. 2024, polarization-gsmts-II, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10800962

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10800962 2024

  4. [4]

    N., Douglas, E

    Ashcraft, J. N., Douglas, E. S., Kim, D., et al. 2023, in Optical Modeling and Performance Predictions XIII, ed. M. A. Kahan, V ol. 12664, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1266404

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    N., Millar-Blanchaer, M

    Ashcraft, J. N., Millar-Blanchaer, M. A., Douglas, E. S., Anche, R. M., & Hom, J. 2024, in Modeling, Systems Engineering, and Project Management for As- tronomy XI, ed. S. E. Egner & S. Roberts, V ol. 13099, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130992F Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, apj, 935, 167 Ast...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    J., Mouroulis, P

    Balasubramanian, K., Hoppe, D. J., Mouroulis, P. Z., Marchen, L. F., & Shaklan, S. B. 2005, in Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets II, V ol. 5905, SPIE, 137–147

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    T., et al

    Bishop, N., Walker, J., DeRoo, C. T., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Tele- scopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 021005

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    2018, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter

    Breckinridge, J., Kupinski, M., Davis, J., Daugherty, B., & Chipman, R. 2018, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter

    work page 2018

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    B., Lam, W

    Breckinridge, J. B., Lam, W. S. T., & Chipman, R. A. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 445

    2015

  2. [10]

    2006, A&A, 447, 397

    Cavarroc, C., Boccaletti, A., Baudoz, P., Fusco, T., & Rouan, D. 2006, A&A, 447, 397

    2006

  3. [11]

    A., Lam, W.-S

    Chipman, R. A., Lam, W.-S. T., & Young, G. 2018, Polarized light and optical systems (CRC press) de Boer, J., Langlois, M., van Holstein, R. G., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 633, A63

    2018

  4. [12]

    S., Belaouchi, H., Riggs, A., et al

    Doelman, D. S., Belaouchi, H., Riggs, A., et al. 2023, in Techniques and Instru- mentation for Detection of Exoplanets XI, V ol. 12680, SPIE, 294–309

    2023

  5. [13]

    1969, Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 2531

    Dohnanyi, J. 1969, Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 2531

    1969

  6. [14]

    D., Riggs, A

    Dube, B. D., Riggs, A. J., Kern, B. D., et al. 2022, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 39, C133

    2022

  7. [15]

    P., Sallum, S., Millar-Blanchaer, M

    Fitzgerald, M. P., Sallum, S., Millar-Blanchaer, M. A., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 1218426

    2022

  8. [16]

    S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al

    Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al. 2020, The Habitable Exoplanet Observatory (HabEx) Mission Concept Study Final Report

    2020

  9. [17]

    A., Kuchner, M

    Guyon, O., Pluzhnik, E. A., Kuchner, M. J., Collins, B., & Ridgway, S. T. 2006, ApJS, 167, 81

    2006

  10. [18]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  11. [19]

    Hart, J. G. J., van Holstein, R. G., Bos, S. P., et al. 2021, in Polarization Science and Remote Sensing X, ed. M. K. Kupinski, J. A. Shaw, & F. Snik, V ol. 11833, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 118330O

    2021

  12. [20]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  13. [21]

    J., Bailey, V

    Kasdin, N. J., Bailey, V . P., Mennesson, B., et al. 2020, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, V ol. 11443, SPIE, 300–313

    2020

  14. [22]

    2021, The Messenger, 182, 38

    Kasper, M., Cerpa Urra, N., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 182, 38

    2021

  15. [23]

    C., Pathak, P., et al

    Kasper, M., Urra, N. C., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11196

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2020, Optics Express, 28, 37958

    Luo, J., He, X., Fan, K., & Zhang, X. 2020, Optics Express, 28, 37958

    2020

  17. [25]

    R., Close, L

    Males, J. R., Close, L. M., Haffert, S. Y ., et al. 2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems

    2022

  18. [26]

    1908, Annalen der Physik, 330, 377

    Mie, G. 1908, Annalen der Physik, 330, 377

    1908

  19. [27]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, V ol. 12184, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 121843X Pérez, F. & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21

    2007

  20. [28]

    D., Duchene, G., Millar-Blanchaer, M., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Duchene, G., Millar-Blanchaer, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 182

    2015

  21. [29]

    2006, A&A, 459, 797

    Pinte, C., Ménard, F., Duchêne, G., & Bastien, P. 2006, A&A, 459, 797

    2006

  22. [30]

    H., Haffert, S

    Por, E. H., Haffert, S. Y ., Radhakrishnan, V . M., et al. 2018, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 10703, Adaptive Optics Systems VI Sanchez Almeida, J. & Martinez Pillet, V . 1992, A&A, 260, 543

    2018

  23. [31]

    1999, in Solar Polar- ization: Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Bangalore, India, 12–16 October 1998, Springer, 313–320

    Sankarasubramanian, K., Samson, J., & Venkatakrishnan, P. 1999, in Solar Polar- ization: Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Bangalore, India, 12–16 October 1998, Springer, 313–320

    1999

  24. [32]

    M., Bazzon, A., Roelfsema, R., et al

    Schmid, H. M., Bazzon, A., Roelfsema, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A9

    2018

  25. [33]

    A., Becklin, E

    Schneider, G., Smith, B. A., Becklin, E. E., et al. 1999, ApJ, 513, L127

    1999

  26. [34]

    S., Gallagher, B., & Hansen, E

    Skidmore, W., Hayashi, S. S., Gallagher, B., & Hansen, E. 2023, Private Com- munication van Harten, G., Snik, F., & Keller, C. U. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 121, 377 van Holstein, R., Keller, C., Snik, F., & Bos, S. 2023a, Astronomy & Astro-...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Will, S. D. & Fienup, J. R. 2019, in Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets IX, ed. S. B. Shaklan, V ol. 11117, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1111710

    2019

  28. [36]

    2023, in Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets XI, ed

    Zhang, M., Millar-Blanchaer, M., Safonov, B., et al. 2023, in Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets XI, ed. G. J. Ruane, V ol. 12680, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 126800S Article number, page 11 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.