Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 71 references

Super Resolved Imaging with Adaptive Optics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an adaptive optics deformable mirror can inject learned phase offsets that create sub-pixel shifts across sub-exposures, letting a jointly optimized network super-resolve undersampled telescope images by 2x to 8x with

desk verdict Real idea and solid simulation evidence, but the 12 dB headline and the claim that the AO loop is unaffected need to be backed up before the paper is as good as it looks. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04648 v1 pith:SQAAQR3V submitted 2025-08-06 astro-ph.IM cs.CV

Robin Swanson , Esther Y. H. Lin , Masen Lamb , Suresh Sivanandam , Kiriakos N. Kutulakos This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMcs.CV
keywords super-resolutionadaptiveopticsdeformablemirrorcomputationalimagingundersampledmulti-imagewavefrontphaseoptimizationastronomicalinstrumentation
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

Astronomical cameras that image a wide field or use large pixels undersample the telescope's diffraction-limited point spread function, throwing away resolution. This paper claims that the deformable mirror already inside an adaptive optics system can recover that lost resolution: by commanding the mirror to add small learned phase distortions during a burst of sub-exposures, each frame lands on the detector with a slightly different sub-pixel shift, and a jointly trained upsampling network fuses the burst into a super-resolved image. The authors test this in realistic AO simulations and on a bench-top telescope replica, reporting 2x, 4x, and 8x super-resolution with four sub-exposures, higher PSNR than unoptimized or classic tip/tilt dithering baselines, and improved modulation transfer function. If it holds on sky, existing observatories could gain resolution without new optics and without spending extra on-sky time.

What carries the argument

The engine is the joint optimization in Eq. (6): $\min_{\theta,S} \| f_\uparrow( f_\downarrow( \{I_i\} | \theta) ) - O \|_1$, with sub-exposures generated by Eq. (5), $I_i = |O|^2 \circledast |P_i \circledast e^{jS_i}|^2 + \eta$. Here $S_i$ is the trainable phase profile applied by the deformable mirror, $P_i$ is the AO-corrected PSF of the $i$-th sub-exposure, $f_\uparrow$ is a multi-image upsampler (a residual CNN or a linear shift-and-add), $f_\downarrow$ is the known downsampling, and $\eta$ is noise. The mirror phase is the key object: it is not restricted to the planar tip/tilt of traditional dithering, and the optimizer is free to sculpt high-order wavefront modes that create sub-pixe

What would settle it

On an operational AO telescope, command the optimized phase profiles as the mirror flats for N sub-exposures and concurrently record wavefront-sensor residuals, loop gain, and the long-exposure science PSF/Strehl ratio. If the residuals or Strehl change measurably relative to the nominal flat while the induced sub-pixel shifts are present, the Small Phase Shift premise is refuted. As a complementary check, measure the centroid of a point source after each learned flat is applied: each sub-exposure must carry a distinct, known sub-pixel displacement matching what the network was trained on.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the AO deformable mirror can act as a programmable dithering device for super-resolution. For each of $N$ sub-exposures, the mirror adds an optimized static phase $S_i$ to the wavefront; the image-formation model becomes $I_i = |O|^2 \circledast |P_i \circledast e^{jS_i}|^2 + \eta$, where $P_i$ is the AO-corrected PSF. The phases and the upsampling network are trained together by minimizing the $\ell^1$ error between the jointly upsampled reconstruction and the true high-resolution image (Eq. (6)). In simulation, directly optimized mirror shapes reach 43.13 dB PSNR at 2x with $N=4$, versus 33.72 dB for the same network with no learned phase; classic and optimized ti

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the 'Small Phase Shift' assumption: the learned deformable-mirror phases are small enough that the AO control loop and the science exposure run exactly as usual, so super-resolution costs nothing in wavefront-correction quality or science signal; if the injected phases perturb wavefront sensing or blur the science PSF, the method's central benefit collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Undersampled instruments on single-conjugate AO telescopes could observe as four or more sub-exposures, each with a different learned mirror flat, and reconstruct a 2x–8x finer image from the same total exposure time.
  • Because phase optimization is done offline from simulated or telemetry-derived PSFs, deployment requires no hardware changes and no added on-sky calibration.
  • The benefit does not depend on deep learning alone: a linear shift-and-add reconstructor also improves with optimized phases, so simpler pipelines can capture part of the gain.
  • The optimized phases contain substantial high-order wavefront content, not just tip/tilt, so the full shape space of the deformable mirror is the resource being exploited.
  • If the central claim is correct, an on-sky test on a science-class telescope should reproduce the bench-top MTF gains, since the bench-top replica already uses the same AO loop and reference-flat mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Table 1 hints that with learned reconstruction the return on additional exposures keeps growing (37.48 dB at N=8 for directly optimized mirror shapes) while linear reconstruction plateaus near 26.7 dB regardless of N; a plausible inference is that learned reconstructors are the only ones that fully monetize added phase diversity.
  • A quantitative on-sky test of the 'Small Phase Shift' premise—recording wavefront-sensor residuals and science Strehl while cycling optimized flats—would settle whether the super-resolution truly comes for free; the paper defers this guarantee to a footnote about constraining phase magnitudes if needed.
  • The choice of phase parameterization carries a deployment trade-off implicit in the paper: directly optimized mirror shapes give the best simulation results but require precise influence-function calibration, whereas modal phase bases are easier to command on real systems.
  • Since the phase profiles are learned for a telescope's own PSF statistics, the same framework could plausibly be re-optimized for multi-conjugate AO systems by assigning different phase rates to different deformable mirrors, a direction the paper lists as future work.
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 proposes a computational imaging method for astronomical telescopes equipped with adaptive optics. The idea is to use the deformable mirror to apply learned phase diversity across N sub-exposures, producing sub-pixel information that is then combined by a trained multi-image super-resolution network (or a linear shift-and-add reconstructor). The phase profiles and the reconstructor are jointly optimized offline against a forward model built from AO PSFs. The method is evaluated in OOMAO simulations for SR factors 2x, 4x, and 8x and with N=2,4,6,8 sub-exposures, and on an optical bench with an ALPAO DM and Shack-Hartmann WFS, with MTF comparisons. The central claims are that this yields SNR gains up to 12 dB over non-AO baselines and that the AO loop and science data are essentially unaffected by the injected phases.

Significance. The core idea is novel and practically attractive: if the DM can inject diversity without degrading science, existing AO-fed instruments could obtain super-resolution with no hardware changes. The simulated evaluation is a genuine generalization test—phases are optimized against a distribution of training PSFs and then applied as the DM flat in a fresh OOMAO simulation (Sec. 5), so the reported gains are not fitted directly to the test images. The bench prototype with a real DM, WFS, and phase screen is a substantial experimental effort. However, the headline quantitative claim is not supported by the reported tables, and the central 'AO-unaware' assumption is asserted rather than demonstrated. Several internal inconsistencies and missing experimental controls prevent the paper from being accepted in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Table 1] The abstract's headline 'significant SNR improvements of up to 12 dB' is not reproducible from the reported data. In Table 1, the largest gain over the stated CNN baseline ('No Learned Phase') is 43.13 - 33.72 = 9.41 dB at 2x. No 12 dB value appears in any table or figure. Please either correct the headline or identify the exact baseline and configuration that produce 12 dB.
  2. [Sec. 4.1; Eq. (5); Sec. 5.1; Fig. 8] The central claim that the AO loop runs 'entirely as usual' and that the science data are unaffected is not verified. The optimized flats in Fig. 8 contain substantial power in non-tip/tilt Zernike modes (coma, trefoil, spherical, etc.), and the absolute amplitude of these phases is never reported. No wavefront-sensor residuals, loop gain, Strehl ratio, or RMS wavefront error are given for the optimized flats in either the OOMAO simulations or the bench experiment. Eq. (5) models each sub-exposure PSF as a static AO PSF modified by the induced phase; for a time-varying atmosphere, the long-exposure PSF is the time average of |p(t) * h_S|^2, which does not factor as |<p> * h_S|^2 when S is non-negligible. Since the learned phases are evidently not negligible, the training forward model may be misspecified, which would undermine the optimized phases and the Table 1 gains. Please provide di
  3. [Table 1] There is an inconsistency between the two parts of Table 1. With N=4, the 'Scale Factor' section reports CNN Tip/Tilt (Classic) as 39.56 dB at 2x and 33.46 dB at 4x; the 'Number of Exposures' section reports 33.89 dB at N=4 (and for Non-Modal it reports 34.24 dB at N=4, matching the 4x column, while Tip/Tilt Classic does not). The super-resolution factor for the 'Number of Exposures' section is not stated. This must be clarified and reconciled before the cross-method comparisons can be assessed.
  4. [Sec. 6; Sec. 6.1; Supplemental Sec. 10] The bench experiment does not independently confirm the simulation claims. Only qualitative images and MTF curves are reported; no PSNR/SNR values are given for the hardware data. The network is adapted to the bench data with modified TENT using the same test data, and no control with unperturbed flats or with the baseline CNN is shown. Without a quantitative comparison against a no-learned-phase or classic-dithering baseline on the same hardware, the experimental section cannot substantiate the 'up to 12 dB' claim or the 'no impact on science' assertion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (5)] P_i is used inconsistently as both a PSF and a complex amplitude. Please define the complex amplitude p_i and the phase-kernel h_S explicitly, and write the convolution as p_i * h_S with |.|^2 for the PSF.
  2. [Sec. 5.1] The text says 'Experimental results are shown in Sec. 5.1', but Sec. 5.1 is titled 'AO Simulation Environment'. The subsection numbering or cross-reference should be fixed.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] USFA should be USAF in the caption ('USFA resolution target').
  4. [References] Reference [58] contains a typo: 'adaptive ptics' should be 'adaptive optics'.
  5. [Supplemental Sec. 10] The modal calibration is described for a single mode, but the optimized flats are superpositions of many modes. Please validate that the full multi-mode flat is reproduced accurately on the bench.
  6. [Sec. 4.2 / Table 1] The 'No Learned Phase' baseline is described in one place as 'simple bilinear interpolation' and in another as a CNN with unshifted PSFs. Please state precisely what the baseline in Table 1 is.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central SR claim is tested by held-out simulation and independent hardware, with no load-bearing self-citation or fitted-input-called-prediction step.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The phase profiles and network are optimized jointly via Eq. (6) on training data, and the simulation evaluation is a genuine held-out transfer: 'we run a new AO simulation, setting the optimized phase profiles as the deformable mirror's flat position' (Sec. 5), so the reported SR gains are not fitted to the test images. The experimental track uses a modal-power calibration scalar (Supplemental Sec. 10) and a modified TENT adaptation, but these are system identification and test-time normalization steps; they are not fitted to the SR ground truth and do not reduce the reported reconstructions to the calibration targets by construction. The 'Small Phase Shift' assumption in Sec. 4.1 is an unverified physical assumption and a correctness risk, not a circular step: the paper itself flags the contingency in footnote 1. Self-citations (refs. [53], [54], [55]) are related-work pointers and are not used to justify the central claim. No equality in the paper makes an output equal to an input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The central machinery is a learned system: phase profiles and network weights are free parameters fitted to a simulated forward model, with additional scalars fitted to the bench data at test time. No new physical entities are introduced. The method relies on six domain assumptions, of which the small-phase-shift assumption (Sec. 4.1) and the natural-image-to-astronomy transfer are the least supported.

free parameters (4)
  • Learned phase profiles S_i (per sub-exposure) = Optimized values not tabulated; Zernike modal powers shown in Fig. 8 (up to ~10 a.u.)
    Optimized end-to-end in Eq. (6); the central learned degrees of freedom. The representation choice (tip/tilt vs Zernike vs non-modal) changes PSNR by up to ~3.5 dB (Table 1, 2x).
  • Number of sub-exposures N = 4 (default); 2, 6, 8 in scaling runs
    Chosen by hand to match the classic 2x tip/tilt comparison (Sec. 4.4); Table 1 shows monotonic PSNR gains as N grows.
  • Simulation-to-bench modal calibration scalar = Not reported numerically
    Supplemental Sec. 10 fits a scalar per mode so the forward model matches the bench; fitted to the experimental data, not independently measured.
  • Batch-norm scalers at test time (modified TENT) = Updated on each experimental test image set
    Supplemental Sec. 10; adapts the network to the bench data distribution before the results in Figs. 6 and 7 are produced.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Incoherent image formation: I(x,y) = integral of |O|^2 convolved with |P_EFF|^2 over exposure plus noise (Eq. 4)
    Standard for astronomical imaging; stated in Sec. 2.2 and used to build training data and the Eq. (6) objective.
  • domain assumption Residual non-common-path / hardware phase error is quasi-static: delta(u,v,t) ~= delta(u,v)
    Stated in Sec. 2.2; needed so that a finite set of training PSFs represents test-time PSFs.
  • domain assumption Small Phase Shift assumption: injected sub-pixel shifts negligibly affect the AO loop and the science image
    Sec. 4.1; load-bearing and asserted, not measured. Footnote 1 relegates science preservation to a possible constraint rather than evidence.
  • domain assumption Per-sub-exposure PSF factorizes as a static AO PSF plus an independent induced phase (Eq. 5)
    Underlies training and co-optimization; assumes linear superposition of the induced phase and the time-averaged residual atmosphere within each T/N exposure.
  • domain assumption Natural-image priors (DIV2K, ImagePairs, PIRM) transfer to astronomical targets
    Sec. 4.4; all validation uses USAF charts and terrestrial photos, none uses astronomical objects.
  • domain assumption Zernike basis is sufficient to express the useful phase diversity
    Sec. 4.2; supported indirectly by the small gap between Zernike and Non-Modal in Table 1 (0.1 to 1.6 dB at 2x to 8x).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Super Resolved Imaging with Adaptive Optics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQAAQR3V

@misc{pith2026250804648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Super Resolved Imaging with Adaptive Optics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQAAQR3V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04648}
}
read the original abstract

Astronomical telescopes suffer from a tradeoff between field of view (FoV) and image resolution: increasing the FoV leads to an optical field that is under-sampled by the science camera. This work presents a novel computational imaging approach to overcome this tradeoff by leveraging the existing adaptive optics (AO) systems in modern ground-based telescopes. Our key idea is to use the AO system's deformable mirror to apply a series of learned, precisely controlled distortions to the optical wavefront, producing a sequence of images that exhibit distinct, high-frequency, sub-pixel shifts. These images can then be jointly upsampled to yield the final super-resolved image. Crucially, we show this can be done while simultaneously maintaining the core AO operation--correcting for the unknown and rapidly changing wavefront distortions caused by Earth's atmosphere. To achieve this, we incorporate end-to-end optimization of both the induced mirror distortions and the upsampling algorithm, such that telescope-specific optics and temporal statistics of atmospheric wavefront distortions are accounted for. Our experimental results with a hardware prototype, as well as simulations, demonstrate significant SNR improvements of up to 12 dB over non-AO super-resolution baselines, using only existing telescope optics and no hardware modifications. Moreover, by using a precise bench-top replica of a complete telescope and AO system, we show that our methodology can be readily transferred to an operational telescope. Project webpage: https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~robin/aosr/

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ntire 2017 challenge on single image super-resolution: Dataset and study

    Eirikur Agustsson and Radu Timofte. Ntire 2017 challenge on single image super-resolution: Dataset and study. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pages 126–135, 2017. 5

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    A deep jour- ney into super-resolution: A survey

    Saeed Anwar, Salman Khan, and Nick Barnes. A deep jour- ney into super-resolution: A survey. ACM Computing Sur- veys (CSUR), 53(3):1–34, 2020. 3, 4

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Avila, Warren J

    Roberto J. Avila, Warren J. Hack, and Stsci Team. Astrodriz- zle: Aligning images from multiple instruments. In Ameri- can Astronomical Society, 2012. 4

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Super-resolution imaging: The use case of op- tical astronomy

    Thilo Bauer. Super-resolution imaging: The use case of op- tical astronomy. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Computer Graphics, Visualization, Computer Vi- sion and Image Processing, Rome, pages 49–59, 2011. 2

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Adaptive optics for astronomy- principles, performance, and applications

    Jacques M Beckers. Adaptive optics for astronomy- principles, performance, and applications. In: Annual Re- view of Astronomy and Astrophysics. Vol. 31 (A94-12726 02- 90), p. 13-62., 31:13–62, 1993. 2

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    Analytical modelling of adaptive optics systems: Role of the influence function

    Anthony Berdeu, Michel Tallon, Éric Thiébaut, and Maud Langlois. Analytical modelling of adaptive optics systems: Role of the influence function. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674:A112, 2023. 5

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Deep burst super-resolution

    Goutam Bhat, Martin Danelljan, Luc Van Gool, and Radu Timofte. Deep burst super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9209–9218, 2021. 4

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    David Borncamp, J. M. Anderson, Norman A. Grogin, and Warren J. Hack. Acs/wfc revised geometric distortion for drizzlepac. In Instrument Science Report ACS/WFC, 2015. 4

    work page 2015

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Learned hardware-in-the- loop phase retrieval for holographic near-eye displays

    Praneeth Chakravarthula, Ethan Tseng, Tarun Srivastava, Henry Fuchs, and Felix Heide. Learned hardware-in-the- loop phase retrieval for holographic near-eye displays. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 39(6):1–18, 2020. 4

    2020

  2. [10]

    Holocurtains: Programming light curtains via binary holog- raphy

    Dorian Chan, Srinivas Narasimhan, and Matthew O’Toole. Holocurtains: Programming light curtains via binary holog- raphy. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022. 4

    2022

  3. [11]

    Plug- and-play admm for image restoration: Fixed-point conver- gence and applications

    Stanley H Chan, Xiran Wang, and Omar A Elgendy. Plug- and-play admm for image restoration: Fixed-point conver- gence and applications. IEEE Transactions on Computa- tional Imaging, 3(1):84–98, 2016. 5

    2016

  4. [12]

    Auto-tuning structured light by optical stochastic gradient descent

    Wenzheng Chen, Parsa Mirdehghan, Sanja Fidler, and Kiri- akos N Kutulakos. Auto-tuning structured light by optical stochastic gradient descent. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5970–5980, 2020. 4

    2020

  5. [13]

    Visual impact of zernike and seidel forms of monochromatic aberrations

    Xu Cheng, Arthur Bradley, Sowmya Ravikumar, and Larry N Thibos. Visual impact of zernike and seidel forms of monochromatic aberrations. Optometry and Vision Science, 87(5):300–312, 2010. 5

    2010

  6. [14]

    Object-oriented matlab adaptive optics toolbox

    Rodolphe Conan and C Correia. Object-oriented matlab adaptive optics toolbox. In Adaptive Optics Systems IV , page 91486C. International Society for Optics and Photon- ics, 2014. 6

    2014

  7. [15]

    Pixel Shift Multi Shooting | SONY — support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp

    Sony Corporation. Pixel Shift Multi Shooting | SONY — support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp. https://support. d- imaging.sony.co.jp/support/ilc/psms/ ilce7rm3/en/index.html , 2025. [Accessed 30-03- 2025]. 4

    2025

  8. [16]

    Gener- ative adversarial networks: An overview

    Antonia Creswell, Tom White, Vincent Dumoulin, Kai Arulkumaran, Biswa Sengupta, and Anil A Bharath. Gener- ative adversarial networks: An overview. IEEE Signal Pro- cessing Magazine, 35(1):53–65, 2018. 5

    2018

  9. [17]

    Direct determination of aberration functions in microscopy by an artificial neural network

    Benjamin P Cumming and Min Gu. Direct determination of aberration functions in microscopy by an artificial neural network. Optics Express, 28(10):14511–14521, 2020. 4

    2020

  10. [18]

    Learning a deep convolutional network for image super-resolution

    Chao Dong, Chen Change Loy, Kaiming He, and Xiaoou Tang. Learning a deep convolutional network for image super-resolution. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2014 , pages 184–199, Cham, 2014. Springer International Publishing. 3

    2014

  11. [19]

    Intensity-enhanced deep network wavefront reconstruc- tion in shack–hartmann sensors

    Theodore B DuBose, Dennis F Gardner, and Abbie T Wat- nik. Intensity-enhanced deep network wavefront reconstruc- tion in shack–hartmann sensors. Optics Letters, 45(7):1699– 1702, 2020. 4

    2020

  12. [20]

    Continuous facesheet low voltage deformable mirrors

    Mark A Ealey and John F Washeba. Continuous facesheet low voltage deformable mirrors. Optical Engineering , 29 (10):1191–1198, 1990. 2

    1990

  13. [21]

    Deep learning-based point-scanning super-resolution imag- ing

    Linjing Fang, Fred Monroe, Sammy Weiser Novak, Lyn- dsey Kirk, Cara R Schiavon, Seungyoon B Yu, Tong Zhang, Melissa Wu, Kyle Kastner, Alaa Abdel Latif, et al. Deep learning-based point-scanning super-resolution imag- ing. Nature Methods, 18(4):406–416, 2021. 4

    2021

  14. [22]

    Robust shift and add approach to superresolution

    Sina Farsiu, Dirk Robinson, Michael Elad, and Peyman Mi- lanfar. Robust shift and add approach to superresolution. In Applications of Digital Image Processing XXVI, pages 121–

  15. [23]

    Drizzle: A method for the linear reconstruction of undersampled images

    AS Fruchter and RN Hook. Drizzle: A method for the linear reconstruction of undersampled images. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 114(792):144, 2002. 1, 2, 4, 5

    2002

  16. [24]

    Fruchter

    Andrew S. Fruchter. A new method for band-limited imaging with undersampled detectors. Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of the Pacific, 123(902):497, 2011. 4

    2011

  17. [25]

    High proper-motion stars in the vicinity of sagittarius a*: Evi- dence for a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy

    Andrea M Ghez, BL Klein, M Morris, and EE Becklin. High proper-motion stars in the vicinity of sagittarius a*: Evi- dence for a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. The Astrophysical Journal, 509(2):678, 1998. 3

    1998

  18. [26]

    The european ex- tremely large telescope (e-elt)

    Roberto Gilmozzi and Jason Spyromilio. The european ex- tremely large telescope (e-elt). The Messenger, 127(11):3,

  19. [27]

    The drizzlepac handbook

    S Gonzaga, W Hack, A Fruchter, and J Mack. The drizzlepac handbook. The DrizzlePac Handbook, 2012. 4

    2012

  20. [28]

    Adaptive optics for high-resolution imaging

    Karen M Hampson, Raphaël Turcotte, Donald T Miller, Kazuhiro Kurokawa, Jared R Males, Na Ji, and Martin J Booth. Adaptive optics for high-resolution imaging. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 1(1):1–26, 2021. 3

    2021

  21. [29]

    Diffraction effects of telescope secondary mirror spiders on various image-quality criteria

    James E Harvey and Christ Ftaclas. Diffraction effects of telescope secondary mirror spiders on various image-quality criteria. Applied Optics, 34(28):6337–6349, 1995. 3

    1995

  22. [30]

    Imagepairs: Realistic super resolu- tion dataset via beam splitter camera rig

    Hamid Reza Vaezi Joze, Ilya Zharkov, Karlton Powell, Carl Ringler, Luming Liang, Andy Roulston, Moshe Lutz, and Vivek Pradeep. Imagepairs: Realistic super resolu- tion dataset via beam splitter camera rig. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patter...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Instruments on large optical telescopes–a case study

    SR Kulkarni. Instruments on large optical telescopes–a case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06674, 2016. 2

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zernike polynomials: a guide

    Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan and Andre Fleck. Zernike polynomials: a guide. Journal of Modern Optics, 58(7):545– 561, 2011. 5

    2011

  25. [33]

    Self-optimizing adaptive op- tics control with reinforcement learning

    Rico Landman, Sebastiaan Y Haffert, Vikram M Radhakr- ishnan, and Christoph U Keller. Self-optimizing adaptive op- tics control with reinforcement learning. In Adaptive Optics Systems VII, page 1144849. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2020. 4

    2020

  26. [34]

    Combining undersampled dithered images

    Tod R Lauer. Combining undersampled dithered images. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , 111 (756):227, 1999. 2

    1999

  27. [35]

    Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network, 2017

    Christian Ledig, Lucas Theis, Ferenc Huszar, Jose Caballero, Andrew Cunningham, Alejandro Acosta, Andrew Aitken, Alykhan Tejani, Johannes Totz, Zehan Wang, and Wenzhe Shi. Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network, 2017. 3

    2017

  28. [36]

    Measurement of the modulation transfer function of infrared imaging sys- tem by modified slant edge method

    Hang Li, Changxiang Yan, and Jianbing Shao. Measurement of the modulation transfer function of infrared imaging sys- tem by modified slant edge method. Journal of the Optical Society of Korea, 20(3):381–388, 2016. 8

    2016

  29. [37]

    Srdiff: Single image super-resolution with diffusion probabilistic models

    Haoying Li, Yifan Yang, Meng Chang, Shiqi Chen, Huajun Feng, Zhihai Xu, Qi Li, and Yueting Chen. Srdiff: Single image super-resolution with diffusion probabilistic models. Neurocomputing, 479:47–59, 2022. 5

    2022

  30. [38]

    Handheld mobile photography in very low light

    Orly Liba, Kiran Murthy, Yun-Ta Tsai, Tim Brooks, Tianfan Xue, Nikhil Karnad, Qiurui He, Jonathan T Barron, Dillon Sharlet, Ryan Geiss, et al. Handheld mobile photography in very low light. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 38 (6):1–16, 2019. 4

    2019

  31. [39]

    Enhanced deep residual networks for sin- gle image super-resolution

    Bee Lim, Sanghyun Son, Heewon Kim, Seungjun Nah, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Enhanced deep residual networks for sin- gle image super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pages 136–144, 2017. 5

    2017

  32. [40]

    Transformer for single im- age super-resolution

    Zhisheng Lu, Juncheng Li, Hong Liu, Chaoyan Huang, Lin- lin Zhang, and Tieyong Zeng. Transformer for single im- age super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 457–466, 2022. 5

    2022

  33. [41]

    Single image super-resolution methods: A survey

    Bahattin Can Maral. Single image super-resolution methods: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.11763, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Direct imaging of multiple planets orbiting the star hr 8799

    Christian Marois, Bruce Macintosh, Travis Barman, B Zuck- erman, Inseok Song, Jennifer Patience, David Lafrenière, and René Doyon. Direct imaging of multiple planets orbiting the star hr 8799. science, 322(5906):1348–1352, 2008. 3

    2008

  35. [43]

    Y Mellier, Abdurroúf Abdurroúf, JA Acevedo Barroso, A Achúcarro, J Adamek, R Adam, GE Addison, N Aghanim, M Aguena, V Ajani, et al. Euclid. i. overview of the euclid mission. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2024. 2

    2024

  36. [44]

    How to read mtf curves

    HH Nasse. How to read mtf curves. Carl Zeiss, Camera Lens Division, page 33, 2008. 7

    2008

  37. [45]

    Self-supervised multi-image super- resolution for push-frame satellite images

    Ngoc Long Nguyen, Jérémy Anger, Axel Davy, Pablo Arias, and Gabriele Facciolo. Self-supervised multi-image super- resolution for push-frame satellite images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1121–1131, 2021. 4

    2021

  38. [46]

    Super-resolution wavefront re- construction

    Sylvain Oberti, Carlos Correia, Thierry Fusco, Benoit Ne- ichel, and Pierre Guiraud. Super-resolution wavefront re- construction. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 667:A48, 2022. 4

    2022

  39. [47]

    Machine learning for improved image-based wavefront sensing

    Scott W Paine and James R Fienup. Machine learning for improved image-based wavefront sensing. Optics Letters , 43(6):1235–1238, 2018. 4

    2018

  40. [48]

    Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems ...

    2019

  41. [49]

    Neural holography with camera-in-the-loop train- ing

    Yifan Peng, Suyeon Choi, Nitish Padmanaban, and Gordon Wetzstein. Neural holography with camera-in-the-loop train- ing. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 39(6):1–14,

  42. [50]

    History and principles of shack-hartmann wavefront sensing, 2001

    Ben C Platt and Roland Shack. History and principles of shack-hartmann wavefront sensing, 2001. 2

    2001

  43. [51]

    A pyramid wavefront sensor with no dynamic modulation.Op- tics Communications, 208(1-3):51–60, 2002

    Roberto Ragazzoni, Emiliano Diolaiti, and Elise Vernet. A pyramid wavefront sensor with no dynamic modulation.Op- tics Communications, 208(1-3):51–60, 2002. 2

    2002

  44. [52]

    End-to-end optimization of optics and image processing for achromatic extended depth of field and super- resolution imaging

    Vincent Sitzmann, Steven Diamond, Yifan Peng, Xiong Dun, Stephen Boyd, Wolfgang Heidrich, Felix Heide, and Gor- don Wetzstein. End-to-end optimization of optics and image processing for achromatic extended depth of field and super- resolution imaging. ACM Transactions on Graph...

    2018

  45. [53]

    Closed loop predictive control of adaptive optics systems with convolutional neural networks

    Robin Swanson, Masen Lamb, Carlos M Correia, Suresh Sivanandam, and Kiriakos Kutulakos. Closed loop predictive control of adaptive optics systems with convolutional neural networks. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety, 503(2):2944–2954, 2021. 4

    2021

  46. [54]

    Adaptive optics mediated sub-pixel super resolution

    Robin Swanson, Suresh Sivanandam, and Kiriakos N Kutu- lakos. Adaptive optics mediated sub-pixel super resolution. In Adaptive Optics Systems VIII , pages 2594–2600. SPIE,

  47. [55]

    Robin Swanson, Esther Y . H. Lin, Masen Lamb, Suresh Sivanandam, and Kiriakos N. Kutulakos. Super resolved imaging with adaptive optics: Supplemental document. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2025. 7

    2025

  48. [56]

    A survey on super-resolution imaging

    Jing Tian and Kai-Kuang Ma. A survey on super-resolution imaging. Signal, Image and Video Processing, 5(3):329–342,

  49. [57]

    Neural nano-optics for high-quality thin lens imag- ing

    Ethan Tseng, Shane Colburn, James Whitehead, Luocheng Huang, Seung-Hwan Baek, Arka Majumdar, and Felix Heide. Neural nano-optics for high-quality thin lens imag- ing. Nature Communications, 12(1):1–7, 2021. 4

    2021

  50. [58]

    Adaptive ptics engineering handbook

    Robert K Tyson. Adaptive ptics engineering handbook. Mar- cel Dekker New York, 2000. 2

    2000

  51. [59]

    Principles of adaptive optics

    Robert K Tyson and Benjamin West Frazier. Principles of adaptive optics. CRC press, 2022. 3

    2022

  52. [60]

    Megapixel adaptive optics: towards correcting large- scale distortions in computational cameras

    Congli Wang, Qiang Fu, Xiong Dun, and Wolfgang Hei- drich. Megapixel adaptive optics: towards correcting large- scale distortions in computational cameras. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG), 37(4):1–12, 2018. 4

    2018

  53. [61]

    Tent: Fully test-time adaptation by entropy minimization

    Dequan Wang, Evan Shelhamer, Shaoteng Liu, Bruno Ol- shausen, and Trevor Darrell. Tent: Fully test-time adaptation by entropy minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10726,

    2006 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Handheld multi-frame super- resolution

    Bartlomiej Wronski, Ignacio Garcia-Dorado, Manfred Ernst, Damien Kelly, Michael Krainin, Chia-Kai Liang, Marc Levoy, and Peyman Milanfar. Handheld multi-frame super- resolution. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 38(4): 1–18, 2019. 4

    2019

  55. [63]

    Haitang Yang, Esther Y . H. Lin, Kiriakos N. Kutulakos, and George V . Eleftheriades. Sub-wavelength passive single- shot computational super-oscillatory imaging.Optica, 9(12): 1444–1447, 2022. 4

    2022

  56. [64]

    Deep learning for single image super-resolution: A brief review

    Wenming Yang, Xuechen Zhang, Yapeng Tian, Wei Wang, Jing-Hao Xue, and Qingmin Liao. Deep learning for single image super-resolution: A brief review. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 21(12):3106–3121, 2019. 3

    2019

  57. [65]

    Image super- resolution: The techniques, applications, and future

    Linwei Yue, Huanfeng Shen, Jie Li, Qiangqiang Yuan, Hongyan Zhang, and Liangpei Zhang. Image super- resolution: The techniques, applications, and future. Signal Processing, 128:389–408, 2016. 3

    2016

  58. [66]

    Deep learn- ing assisted zonal adaptive aberration correction

    Biwei Zhang, Jiazhu Zhu, Ke Si, and Wei Gong. Deep learn- ing assisted zonal adaptive aberration correction. Frontiers in Physics, page 634, 2021. 4

    2021

  59. [67]

    Revisiting spatio-angular trade-off in light field cameras and extended applications in super- resolution

    Hao Zhu, Mantang Guo, Hongdong Li, Qing Wang, and Antonio Robles-Kelly. Revisiting spatio-angular trade-off in light field cameras and extended applications in super- resolution. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Com- puter Graphics, 27(6):3019–3033, 2019. 2 Super Resolve...

    2019

  60. [68]

    9 and how a new flat is applied to the AO system in Fig

    The Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor Here we include additional details on the operation of the Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor (SHWFS) in Fig. 9 and how a new flat is applied to the AO system in Fig. 10

  61. [69]

    Simulation parameters used for generating point spread functions and the training of our reconstruction methods

    Simulation Settings Simulation Parameters Values Telescope Diameter 8 m Sampling Frequency 800 Hz WFS Order 16×16 WFS Readout Noise ≈0e− DM Order 17×17 NGS Band R NGS Magnitude U(8,16) POL Gain 0.35 Three Layer Atmosphere r0 N(0.15,0.02)cm Layers 3 Altitudes 0km 4km 10km Fract...

  62. [70]

    We can then compare the output from our forward model with varying amounts of the same mode and find the scalar value that best matches

    Experimental Calibration To calibrate the modal power needed to match simulation and experiment, we simply induce a change to the flat with Corresponding author: robin@cs.toronto.edu Project website: www.cs.toronto.edu/~robin/aosr a single mode applied with different amounts o...

  63. [71]

    slope” (first derivative) of the wavefront. focal plane reference “flat

    Additional Experimental Results Here we include additional simulated results in Fig. 11 as well as the larger, uncropped experimental results from Sec. 6.1 in Fig. 12. Planar Wavefront Incoming Wavefront Slope of Wavefront Lenslet Array (Pupil Conjugate Plane) Camera Sensor Pl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.