Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

The PIAA-ZWFS, a wavefront sensor designed to approach the fundamental sensitivity limit, retains its performance advantage over a conventional Zernike wavefront sensor even when manufacturing and alignment errors are seven times larger tha

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 18:10 UTC pith:RSXADACU

load-bearing objection Solid tolerance study with an honest caveat: the 7× margin holds for 9 Fourier modes, and the authors say so; that limits the headline claim but not the value of the Hessian tool. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17365 v1 pith:RSXADACU submitted 2026-07-19 astro-ph.IM physics.optics

Tolerancing the PIAA-ZWFS: a practical and robust wavefront sensor that approaches the fundamental sensitivity limit

Adam K. Taras , Sebastiaan Y. Haffert , Louis Desdoigts This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM physics.optics
keywords PIAA-ZWFSwavefront sensingFisher informationtolerancingZernike wavefront sensoradaptive opticsdifferentiable opticshigh-contrast imaging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the PIAA-ZWFS, a sensor that uses phase-induced amplitude apodization combined with a Zernike mask to approach the fundamental sensitivity limit of wavefront sensing, is robust to realistic manufacturing and alignment errors. The authors compute the Fisher-information-based loss for a previously optimized design and examine its Hessian to map how each error parameter degrades sensitivity. They then confirm with Monte Carlo sampling that at standard 'precision' tolerances the degradation is negligible, and that error levels up to about seven times larger would still leave the sensor ahead of a standard ZWFS. This matters because it indicates the sensor can be built and aligned with ordinary precision, bringing the theoretical sensitivity advantage closer to practice.

Core claim

The central claim is that the PIAA-ZWFS's performance, measured by the average per-mode variance of a maximum-likelihood wavefront estimator, is not significantly degraded by manufacturing errors at values typical for precision optics. The Hessian of the loss function shows that the spherical form error of the PIAA lenses is the most sensitive parameter; however, its typical magnitude is ~50 nm, while lens decenters at ~1 µm also contribute. The inverse PIAA lenses, which only restore pupil geometry, have negligible alignment sensitivity, so their positioning is non-critical. The paper further shows that the second-order approximation to the loss under Gaussian errors matches the Monte Carlo

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the loss function L(θ) = (Itot/n_modes) Tr(FI(θ)^-1), where FI is the Fisher information per frame under photon and read noise. Because the design is optimized, gradients vanish and the Hessian of L with respect to manufacturing parameters is the leading term in a Taylor expansion; this Hessian maps which errors matter and how they correlate. An auto-differentiable optical simulator provides the exact Hessian, and a Gaussian-error expectation formula converts it into a fast tolerance prediction verified by Monte Carlo sampling.

Load-bearing premise

The tolerance results were computed for only nine Fourier aberration modes, and the paper notes that the insensitivity to manufacturing errors has not been verified at the higher spatial frequencies that matter for extreme adaptive optics.

What would settle it

Run the same tolerance analysis with a larger Fourier mode set (tens to hundreds of modes) or measure a PIAA-ZWFS with deliberately introduced manufacturing errors while sensing high-frequency aberrations; if the loss grows faster than the 7x margin predicts or the inverse-PIAA alignment becomes important, the central claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A PIAA-ZWFS built with standard precision aspheres, grayscale lithography, and motorized-stage alignment should retain its sensitivity advantage, approaching the fundamental limit.
  • Misalignment of the inverse PIAA lenses is not a critical error, relaxing assembly and integration constraints.
  • The second-order Hessian expansion matches Monte Carlo results, providing a fast tool for setting individual tolerance budgets.
  • Control of the PIAA spherical form error is the most direct lever for preserving performance.
  • At typical micrometer alignment scales, decenters of the first lens pair matter more than the ~10 nm form errors, so alignment precision is a practical priority.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the tolerance insensitivity extends to the high spatial frequencies relevant for extreme adaptive optics, this design becomes a strong candidate for space missions requiring picometer-level wavefront knowledge with relaxed alignment margins.
  • The Hessian-based tolerancing method is general; applying it to other wavefront sensor architectures could provide a standardized robustness comparison for instrument selection.
  • The reported 7x margin suggests designers could deliberately use lower-cost optics or simpler alignment stages while preserving sensitivity, altering cost-performance tradeoffs.
  • An experimental test with intentionally decentered lenses and phase-mask height errors could directly validate the predicted loss curve and the 7x factor.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies manufacturing and alignment tolerances of the PIAA-ZWFS, a wavefront sensor that combines PIAA lenses with a Zernike phase mask. The authors use an auto-differentiable simulator to compute the Hessian of a Fisher-information-based loss function at an optimized design, then approximate the expected loss under Gaussian parameter errors with a second-order expansion. They supplement this with Monte Carlo sampling over scaled versions of nominal tolerance values (phase-mask height errors, PIAA lens surface form errors, and lens decentres). The central claim is that, at typical manufacturing tolerances, the PIAA-ZWFS retains a substantial sensitivity advantage over a standard ZWFS, with a quoted margin of approximately 7× before degrading to the ZWFS loss value. The paper also concludes that inverse-PIAA alignment is relatively unimportant for the tested modes, while noting that high-frequency verification is still needed.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable step toward practical, high-sensitivity wavefront sensing: it provides a computationally efficient tolerancing methodology (Hessian-based second-order expansion) that agrees with Monte Carlo in the tested region, and it identifies which parameters dominate the loss. The use of a standard Fisher-information loss, an auto-differentiable simulator, and the absence of fitted constants in the tolerance predictions are notable strengths. The paper is also honest about its main limitations. However, the significance of the reported tolerance margin depends on whether the 9-mode Fourier basis adequately represents the high-spatial-frequency errors that motivate the PIAA-ZWFS; this is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, §3] The tolerance analysis is restricted to a Fourier aberration basis with only 9 terms, and the manuscript explicitly states that 'more work is needed to verify this is the case for systems with errors' and that 'verification of the tolerance estimates for very high frequency modes is needed.' This is load-bearing because the PIAA-ZWFS is motivated by high-frequency/extreme-AO sensitivity, and the inverse-PIAA lenses are included specifically to prevent aliasing of high-frequency modes. The conclusion that inverse-PIAA alignment is unimportant ('the modes we used') is therefore only established for the tested modes. If high-spatial-frequency errors couple more strongly into the loss—for example through phase-mask height errors or inverse-lens decentre—the ≈7× margin could shrink or disappear. The central claim as stated is broader than what the 9-mode analysis supports.
  2. [§2.2, Fig. 3] The Monte Carlo simulation uses only 100 samples per error-scale factor and no error bars or confidence intervals are reported. The loss distributions are described as long-tailed, so the location of the mean and the 'factor ≈7×' margin may be sensitive to sampling noise. Please provide uncertainties on the plotted estimates (e.g., bootstrap confidence intervals on the mean loss) or increase the sample count. This is important because the headline margin is a quantitative claim that should be statistically grounded.
  3. [Table 1, §2.2] The nominal tolerances in Table 1 are asserted to be 'typical precision quality specifications' and a 'reasonable estimate' for alignment, but no source, calibration, or argument is given. Since the factor ≈7× margin is measured relative to these nominal values, the conclusion depends directly on their realism. At minimum, provide a citation or a short justification for each value, and ideally show how the margin changes if one nominal tolerance is individually varied. Without this, the practical claim is not fully supported.
  4. [§2.2, Fig. 3] The Monte Carlo scaling applies a single multiplicative factor to all parameter errors simultaneously, so it tests only the overall error budget, not the relative mix. The Hessian (Fig. 2) shows that different parameter groups have very different sensitivities and scales, and the long-tailed distributions could be dominated by one parameter. The robustness claim would be stronger if the analysis also explored per-parameter or grouped scaling, since manufacturing and alignment errors do not necessarily scale together.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The notation in the trace term is somewhat compressed: 'HL|θmin Σ' should be written more explicitly, e.g., 'Tr(H_L(θ_min) Σ)'. Also, the sentence after Eq. (3) about the 'gap in the Jensen inequality' is confusing: the second-order term is an approximation to the expected excess loss, not a gap in Jensen's inequality in the usual sense. Please rephrase.
  2. [Fig. 2] The axis labels such as 'L1 QBF S[0]' and 'L1 f(ρmax)' are not defined. A compact description of the parameterization (what QBF stands for, what S[0..7] are, and the role of f(ρmax)) would make the figure interpretable to readers outside the immediate project.
  3. [Abstract/Introduction] The phrase 'not significantly degraded by these errors' in the abstract is stronger than the demonstrated result, since only a subset of possible errors is considered and the high-frequency caveat is acknowledged later. Suggest softening to 'not significantly degraded by the tested manufacturing and alignment errors for the modes considered'.
  4. [§2.2] The comparison target is described only as 'the ZWFS with dot size 1.06λ/D'. For a stand-alone paper, provide a brief explanation or citation for why this particular ZWFS configuration is the reference point, and specify whether the comparison is made under the same noise and modal basis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the tolerance analysis is an independent simulation study; the explicitly acknowledged 9-mode Fourier basis is a generalizability limit, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for what it computes. The loss function (Eq. 1) is standard Fisher information, the loss metric (Eq. 2) is the per-mode average variance, and the tolerance predictions come from a Hessian expansion (Eq. 3) and Monte Carlo sampling of stated manufacturing-error scales. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: Table 1 values are described as "typical 'precision' quality specifications from asphere manufacturing and grayscale lithography, and a reasonable estimate for lens alignment," i.e., external inputs, not values fitted to the tolerance outcome. The central margin (≈7×) is a computed comparison against a ZWFS baseline, not a definitional identity. The paper does cite the authors' own prior work [7,8] for the PIAA-ZWFS concept and for the previously optimized design. This is a normal building-on-own-work situation and is not load-bearing for the new tolerance result: the current paper evaluates a given design rather than re-deriving its optimality from the tolerance data. There is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation, and no equation that reduces to itself by construction. The main caveat, explicitly flagged by the authors, is that the aberration basis contains only 9 Fourier modes (§2.1: "with only 9 terms total for computational reasons... more work is needed to verify this is the case for systems with errors") and that "Verification of the tolerance estimates for very high frequency modes is needed." This is a completeness/generalizability limitation that could affect the external validity of the ≈7× margin, but it is not a circularity: it does not make the computed loss equal to an input by construction. The score reflects only the presence of minor non-load-bearing self-citations, not any detected circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The robustness conclusion depends on assumed error magnitudes (Table 1), a reduced 9-mode basis, and the fidelity of the ∂Lux simulator. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Nominal tolerance values (Table 1) = PIAA QFS 50 nm; spherical term 0.1%; decentre 1 µm; phase mask heights 30 nm
    Chosen as 'typical precision quality specs' without a cited source; the ≈7× margin is relative to these assumed scales.
  • Number of Fourier aberration modes = 9
    Chosen for computational reasons; the loss and tolerance results are averaged over these modes only.
  • Optimized design parameters θ from prior work = not reproduced in this paper (ref. [7])
    The optimal PIAA asphere coefficients and phase mask heights are inherited from the authors' prior optimization; this tolerance analysis is about deviations from that point.
  • Read noise σ_R = not specified
    Appears in Eq. 1's Fisher information, but no value is given in the text; it affects absolute loss and the comparison with the ZWFS baseline.
  • ZWFS reference dot size = 1.06 λ/D
    Used as the baseline to quote the ≈7× margin; no citation or derivation for this reference value is provided.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Manufacturing errors are Gaussian and independent with variances from Table 1
    Eq. 3 and the Monte Carlo draws assume X ~ N(θmin, Σ). Real etch/lens errors may be correlated or non-Gaussian, which could change the loss distribution.
  • domain assumption The Fisher-information loss (Eq. 2) tracks true wavefront sensing performance in the high-Strehl regime
    The paper equates average estimator variance with performance; this is standard in Bayesian experimental design but assumes an unbiased maximum-likelihood estimator and high Strehl.
  • domain assumption ∂Lux simulator faithfully models the PIAA-ZWFS diffraction and the optimized design
    All Hessian and Monte Carlo results inherit the simulator's wave-optics model; no laboratory validation is presented.
  • standard math Second-order Taylor expansion (Eq. 3) is accurate at the tolerance scales considered
    The Hessian is the leading term at the optimum; the authors validate it against Monte Carlo in the region of interest, but it remains an approximation for larger errors.
  • domain assumption The inverse PIAA lenses and the assumption of identical form errors are negligible
    The paper states this holds for the modes used and uses it to simplify the error model; if high-frequency modes are added, inverse-lens alignment may matter.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 4342 in / 10949 out tokens · 110102 ms · 2026-08-01T18:10:09.157905+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

High-contrast imaging demands extremely sensitive wavefront sensing to correct atmospheric effects and surface errors. While the limits of the sensitivity of a wavefront sensor are well known, a practical, robust design that saturates these limits remains elusive. This work further investigates the PIAA-ZWFS (Phase-Induced Amplitude Apodization-Zernike Wavefront Sensor). In previous work, we developed a framework to optimise its design, maximising Fisher information per frame in the presence of phase aberrations. In these proceedings, we study the effect of various manufacturing and alignment errors in the system on the overall performance. We employ both traditional Monte Carlo sampling and a 2nd order expansion using our auto-differentiable simulator. The performance of the PIAA-ZWFS is not significantly degraded by these errors at values typical for manufacturing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17365 by Adam K. Taras, Louis Desdoigts, Sebastiaan Y. Haffert.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the PIAA-ZWFS. After starlight passes through the pupil, a pair of PIAA lenses apodise the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hessian of the loss function evaluated at the local optimum, with different visualisations for each error in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: illustrates the results of the Monte Carlo tolerance analysis as we scale the errors above. Each blue region shows the distribution of L(θ) for 100 samples. We observe that the nominal tolerances are more than sufficient, and we could even tolerate a factor ≈ 7× worse errors before reaching the loss value of the ZWFS with dot size 1.06λ/D. Each distribution is long tailed (noting in particular the logarith… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Journal of Physics: Conference Series , volume=

    Towards practical wavefront sensing at the fundamental information limit , author=. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , volume=. 2008 , organization=

    2008

  2. [2]

    Applied optics , volume=

    Design and performance of a refractive optical system that converts a Gaussian to a flattop beam , author=. Applied optics , volume=. 2000 , publisher=

    2000

  3. [3]

    Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , volume=

    Extreme adaptive optics , author=. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  4. [4]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=

    Modeling noise propagation in Fourier-filtering wavefront sensing, fundamental limits, and quantitative comparison , author=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  5. [5]

    Optics Communications , volume=

    Extending the bandwidth of speckle interferometry , author=. Optics Communications , volume=. 1979 , publisher=

    1979

  6. [6]

    American Journal of Physics , volume=

    The Fourier transform and its applications , author=. American Journal of Physics , volume=. 1966 , publisher=

    1966

  7. [7]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Sensitivity of a pyramidic wave front sensor in closed loop adaptive optics , author=. Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 350, p. L23-L26 (1999) , volume=

    1999

  8. [8]

    Differentiable optics with

    Desdoigts, Louis and Pope, Benjamin JS and Dennis, Jordan and Tuthill, Peter G , journal=. Differentiable optics with. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08704 , year=

    Differentiable Optics with dLux II: Optical Design Maximising Fisher Information , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08704 , year=

    arXiv

  10. [10]

    Journal of the Optical Society of America A , volume=

    Fundamental limits to phase and amplitude estimation in the high-Strehl regime , author=. Journal of the Optical Society of America A , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  11. [11]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , volume=

    Laboratory Demonstration and Numerical Simulations of the Phase-Induced Amplitude Apodization , author=. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  12. [12]

    Adaptive Optics Systems VI , volume=

    High Contrast Imaging for Python (HCIPy): an open-source adaptive optics and coronagraph simulator , author=. Adaptive Optics Systems VI , volume=. 2018 , organization=

    2018

  13. [13]

    Astrophysics Source Code Library , pages=

    Jax: Autograd and xla , author=. Astrophysics Source Code Library , pages=

  14. [14]

    Journal of the Optical Society of America , volume=

    Analytic solution of two apodization problems , author=. Journal of the Optical Society of America , volume=. 1965 , publisher=

    1965

  15. [15]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=

    Phase-induced amplitude apodization of telescope pupils for extrasolar terrestrial planet imaging , author=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  16. [16]

    Adaptive Optics Systems VIII , volume=

    Optimizing Fourier-filtering WFS to reach sensitivity close to the fundamental limit , author=. Adaptive Optics Systems VIII , volume=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  17. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11196 , year=

    PCS--A Roadmap for Exoearth Imaging with the ELT , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11196 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10888 , year=

    GMagAO-X: a first light coronagraphic adaptive optics system for the GMT , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10888 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=

    Calibration of quasi-static aberrations in exoplanet direct-imaging instruments with a Zernike phase-mask sensor , author=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  20. [20]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Limits of adaptive optics for high-contrast imaging , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  21. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05707 , year=

    Fundamental Limits to Phase and Amplitude Estimation in the High-Strehl Regime , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05707 , year=

    arXiv

  22. [22]

    Optica , volume=

    Picometer wavefront sensing using the phase-contrast technique , author=. Optica , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  23. [23]

    Optics Letters , volume=

    Polarization-dependent metasurface for vector Zernike wavefront sensing with increased<? pag break?> dynamic range , author=. Optics Letters , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  24. [24]

    Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VIII , volume=

    Patterned liquid-crystal optics for broadband coronagraphy and wavefront sensing , author=. Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VIII , volume=. 2017 , organization=

    2017

  25. [25]

    Optics letters , volume=

    Simultaneous phase and amplitude aberration sensing with a liquid-crystal vector-Zernike phase mask , author=. Optics letters , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  26. [26]

    Annual Review of Materials Research , volume=

    Optical metasurfaces: progress and applications , author=. Annual Review of Materials Research , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  27. [27]

    Advanced Optical Technologies , volume=

    Direct-write grayscale lithography , author=. Advanced Optical Technologies , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  28. [28]

    First on-sky demonstration of extreme adaptive optics with deep learning , author=

    Making the unmodulated pyramid wavefront sensor smart-II. First on-sky demonstration of extreme adaptive optics with deep learning , author=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  29. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02775 , year=

    Optical and near-ir microwave kinetic inductance detectors (mkids) in the 2020s , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02775 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  30. [30]

    Reaching the fundamental sensitivity limit of wavefront sensing on arbitrary apertures with the phase induced amplitude apodized Zernike wavefront sensor (

    Haffert, Sebastiaan Y and Males, Jared R and Guyon, Olivier , journal=. Reaching the fundamental sensitivity limit of wavefront sensing on arbitrary apertures with the phase induced amplitude apodized Zernike wavefront sensor (

  31. [31]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol

    Diffraction theory of the knife-edge test and its improved form, the phase-contrast method , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 94, p. 377-384 , volume=

  32. [32]

    Journal of the Optical Society of America A , volume=

    Kernel formalism applied to Fourier-based wave-front sensing in presence of residual phases , author=. Journal of the Optical Society of America A , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  33. [33]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=

    Adding colour to the Zernike wavefront sensor: Advantages of including multi-wavelength measurements for wavefront reconstruction , author=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  34. [34]

    Optics Express , volume=

    Fast computation of Lyot-style coronagraph propagation , author=. Optics Express , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  35. [35]

    Optics Express , volume=

    Coronagraph-based wavefront sensors for the high Strehl regime , author=. Optics Express , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  36. [36]

    Optics express , volume=

    Shape specification for axially symmetric optical surfaces , author=. Optics express , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  37. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09983 , year=

    Optimistix: modular optimisation in JAX and Equinox , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09983 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Adaptive Optics Systems VIII , volume=

    Joint optimization of wavefront sensing and reconstruction with automatic differentiation , author=. Adaptive Optics Systems VIII , volume=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  39. [39]

    A. K. Taras and S. Y. Haffert and L. Desdoigts , year=. Differentiable design of the. 2606.28136 , archivePrefix=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    2013 , publisher=

    Practical methods of optimization , author=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  41. [41]

    and Close, Laird M

    Males, Jared R. and Close, Laird M. and Haffert, Sebastiaan Y. and Kautz, Maggie and Kelly, Douglas and Fletcher, Adam and Salanski, Thomas and Durney, Oliver and Noenickx, Jamison and Ford, John and Gasho, Victor and Pearce, Logan and Kueny, Jay and Guyon, Olivier and Weinberger, Alycia and Bowler, Brendan and Kraus, Adam and Batalha, Natasha , editor =....

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3018157 2024

  42. [42]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , author =

    The. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac0f0c , abstract =

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac0f0c 2021