Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Real-Time Megapixel Kilohertz Neuromorphic Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By periodically modulating the illumination, a Shack–Hartmann sensor built around an event camera can perform one-shot high-dynamic-range static wavefront reconstruction and kilohertz-rate dynamic tracking on the same hardware.

desk verdict A clever active-modulation scheme that plausibly extends neuromorphic SHWFS to static scenes, but the kilohertz tracking accuracy is validated only against a 30 Hz frame reference—so the headline dynamic claim is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25281 v1 pith:HMLPEWSV submitted 2026-07-28 physics.optics

Yuhan Bao , Chenxin Shao , Kaiwei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords Shack-Hartmannwavefrontsensingevent-basedvisionneuromorphictemporalmodulationdynamicrangereconstructioncentroidtrackingopticalmetrology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes EvTem-SHWFS, a neuromorphic Shack–Hartmann wavefront sensor in which the light source is actively modulated so that focal-spot intensity is encoded into the timing of asynchronous events rather than into pixel brightness. The authors argue that this single architecture resolves two long-standing limits of frame-based wavefront sensors: intensity dynamic range (theoretical 260 dB at 20 Hz, versus ~60 dB for cameras) and the spatial–temporal resolution trade-off (centroid tracking at 500 Hz–1 kHz with microsecond latency). In static metrology, they report 59–70% lower wavefront RMSE than a frame-based sensor under strongly non-uniform illumination; in dynamic scenarios, they report centroid localization errors of 0.18–0.26 pixels, far below a passive event-based baseline, with per-sub-aperture CPU throughput above 420 kHz.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the latency–intensity relationship ρ(x,y) = Qth / ∫_0^{Δt*} S(t) dt, which encodes the static intensity coefficient of the focal spot into the initial positive event latency. The modulation waveform and frequency set the achievable dynamic range: low-frequency sine modulation maximizes it (theoretical 260 dB), while high-frequency square modulation produces temporally compact alternating-polarity event pairs localized to the bright lobe. A Polarity Flip Filter accepts only events whose polarity alternates with a period matching half the modulation cycle, and a sliding-window arithmetic mean yields the centroid.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment with a spot moving in a known trajectory at sub-millisecond timescales, captured simultaneously by a 1 kHz frame-based camera and the EvTem-SHWFS system, would reveal whether the sub-pixel centroid errors reflect true tracking accuracy; if the 1 kHz camera disagrees with the event-based centroids by more than the reported 0.26 pixels, the dynamic claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that temporal modulation converts the focal-spot intensity distribution into a deterministic event-latency map, and that this map serves both operating modes. Under 20 Hz sine modulation, the latency of the initial positive event at each pixel is inversely proportional to the local intensity, so one acquisition recovers full focal-spot energy distributions across a 260 dB dynamic range, enabling moment-based wavefront reconstruction. Under 500 Hz–1 kHz square modulation, alternating-polarity event pairs are generated within each focal spot; a Polarity Flip Filter isolates them and a sliding-window centroid computation tracks the spot at kilohertz rate. The paper shows bo

Load-bearing premise

The dynamic experiments assume that 30 fps frame-based centroids, registered with 0.14-pixel reprojection error, are a correct reference for spot motion that the system is claimed to resolve at 1 kHz; any motion between those 30 Hz samples is invisible to the ground truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, a single sensor can replace both a high-dynamic-range static wavefront sensor and a high-speed dynamic wavefront sensor, simplifying optical metrology and alignment systems.
  • The 420,737 Hz per-sub-aperture CPU throughput means kilohertz wavefront sensing no longer requires FPGA or GPU acceleration, potentially lowering cost and latency in closed-loop alignment.
  • The 260 dB theoretical dynamic range would let one-shot wavefront measurements span intensity variations of nine orders of magnitude, avoiding multiple exposures under non-uniform illumination.
  • Event-native processing (directly on asynchronous events, without frame construction) removes the event-to-volume conversion bottleneck that dominates the latency of network-based approaches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The dynamic accuracy numbers rest on a 30 Hz frame-based reference; if the true spot motion contains high-frequency components that alias, the reported errors could be optimistic. A comparison against a fast camera or a calibrated high-speed spot generator would settle this.
  • The framework's dependence on active illumination modulation means it applies to active sensing scenarios; extending modulation to a conjugate plane inside the optical system, as the authors suggest, would broaden it to passive scenes.
  • The system's kilohertz capability is bounded by available photon flux; with a brighter source, the same method might push beyond 1 kHz, since the modulation frequency itself is not otherwise limited.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents EvTem-SHWFS, a Shack–Hartmann wavefront sensor built on an event camera with active temporal modulation of illumination. In a static regime, low-frequency sine modulation encodes local focal-spot intensity into event latencies, permitting one-shot high-DR intensity reconstruction; in a dynamic regime, high-frequency square-wave modulation produces alternating-polarity event pairs that are filtered (PFF) and tracked in real time. The authors report a theoretical 260 dB DR at 20 Hz, static wavefront RMSE reductions of 59–70% versus a frame-based sensor, dynamic centroid errors of 0.18 px (alignment) and 0.26 px (turbulence), and a per-sub-aperture CPU throughput of 420,737 Hz. The comparison includes a public and a fine-tuned passive event-based baseline (EBWFNet) across three camera lenses and multiple assembly motions.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, this would be a notable contribution: a single event-camera SHWFS architecture spanning static metrology and high-speed dynamic sensing, with clear advantages in dynamic range and throughput over frame-based approaches. The principle is physically plausible and the paper is generally well written. The throughput definition is transparent, and the inclusion of a fine-tuned passive baseline is a responsible experimental choice. The main weakness is that the dynamic accuracy claim (kilohertz-rate tracking) is validated only against a 30 fps frame-based proxy ground truth that cannot observe the high-frequency motions the sensor is designed to resolve. The static DR claim, meanwhile, is a theoretical bound presented in the abstract without qualification. Both issues are load-bearing for the central contributions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3B, 3C; Figs. 4c–4d, 5e; Table 1] The dynamic centroid error is computed against a 30 fps frame camera with 20 ms exposure. This reference averages spot motion over 10 modulation cycles at 500 Hz (and 20 at 1 kHz), so all content above ~15 Hz is aliased or lost. Errors are evaluated 'at GT timestamps,' i.e., they quantify agreement with the low-frequency trend of the centroid, not the instantaneous tracking error. The sub-millisecond fluctuations shown qualitatively in Fig. 4c are never quantitatively checked. The mean error being close to the 0.14 px calibration floor is consistent with both sensors agreeing on the low-frequency centroid, not with accurate high-frequency tracking. This is a load-bearing gap: the central claim of kilohertz-rate centroid tracking is not validated. Please add a controlled high-speed experiment (e.g., a spot oscillating at known frequencies/amplitudes with an independent fast reference, or
  2. [Sec. 3A; Fig. 3; abstract] The static wavefront RMSE reductions (59% and 70%) are based on single acquisitions at two representative sub-apertures, with no repeats or statistical uncertainty. A single realization cannot establish reliability. Please provide multiple acquisitions, error bars, or a bootstrap analysis, and state the number of independent measurements. Additionally, the abstract says 'reaching a dynamic range of 260 dB' without qualification; the body correctly calls it 'theoretical.' Since 260 dB is not directly measured, the abstract should be corrected to avoid implying experimental verification, and the text should state explicitly what intensity range was actually recovered.
  3. [Sec. 2A, Eq. (2)] The intensity-reconstruction model is adopted from [18] without re-verification on the EVK4 sensor used here. Although Fig. 2c–d show latency histograms consistent with the model, a quantitative validation of Eq. (2) using known spot intensities would strengthen the static reconstruction claims. If the model is already well established, please at least discuss its assumptions and any expected deviations for this sensor.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3B] State the number of frames used in the 18-second sequence and the number of centroid comparisons that contribute to the error histogram (Fig. 4d).
  2. [Sec. 3B, Table 2] The sentence 'This exceeds the 500 Hz sensing rate by more than a factor of seven' compares a throughput in samples/s to a modulation frequency in Hz. Please clarify the definition of 'sensing rate' and ensure the units are consistent.
  3. [Sec. 3C] The turbulence experiment uses the same 30 fps frame-based proxy ground truth, so the same aliasing limitation applies. Please either address this with a cross-reference or add an explicit limitation statement.
  4. [Sec. 5B, Eqs. (3)–(5)] The parameters δ, W, and Tmin are user-defined. Report the values used in the experiments and, ideally, a brief sensitivity analysis.
  5. [Fig. 3] For the static comparison, the 500 ms frame-based acquisition used as ground truth is described only briefly. Please provide details of how this GT was computed and how its noise is estimated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the static model is cited from the authors' prior work but is externally validated against independent frame-based ground truth; the dynamic mode is independent and evaluated against an external reference. The 30 Hz/20 ms proxy GT limits validation of sub-millisecond claims, which is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and its headline claims rest on external comparisons. Eq. (2), ρ(x,y) = Qth/∫₀^Δt* S(t)dt, is cited to the first author's prior ECCV paper [18]; although this is a self-citation, it is the standard integral-to-threshold event-camera physics (cf. survey [15]), parameter-free with stated assumptions, and the paper independently verifies the model's output by comparing reconstructed focal-spot intensities and wavefronts against a 500 ms frame-based ground truth (Fig. 3b–c). The 260 dB static DR is a derived bound from Eq. (2) with stated bounds (τmin, Tr/2), not a fitted value renamed as a measurement. The dynamic mode does not depend on [18]: centroids are arithmetic means (Eq. 5) of polarity-filtered events (Eq. 3), and the reported 0.16–0.26 px errors are computed against an external 30 Hz frame-based proxy GT and against the EBWFNet baseline; no parameter is fitted to that GT, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors to force the design. The main weakness—that a 30 Hz/20 ms frame reference cannot validate sub-millisecond tracking claims—is a validation limitation (the event centroids are not constructed from the GT), not circularity. The Discussion's stated limitations (increased event data volume, limited LED optical power, active-modulation restriction) are honest scope limits, not admissions of circularity. Per the review rules, validation concerns belong to correctness risk, not the circularity score. No step reduces to its own input; the only circularity-adjacent factor is the central self-citation [18], which is real, published evidence and does not raise the score above the low range.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the Polarity Flip Filter is a signal-processing algorithm, not an entity. The paper inherits its core intensity-encoding model from the authors' own earlier work rather than independent external benchmarks.

free parameters (3)
  • PFF polarity-timing tolerance δ = not stated
    In Eq. (3), δ selects modulation-induced event pairs; the reported centroid errors depend on it, but no value or sensitivity analysis is given in the main text.
  • Sliding-window length W = not stated
    Eq. (4) aggregates event pairs over W modulation cycles for centroid estimation; larger W smooths but adds latency and affects both error and throughput.
  • Minimum valid event-pair threshold Tmin = not stated
    Centroid estimates are reported only when |Q_r,k| exceeds Tmin; this affects yield and accuracy, and its value is not specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Event camera response follows the integral-to-threshold model: events trigger when accumulated charge reaches threshold Qth (Eq. 2).
    Provided by reference [18]; central to the static intensity reconstruction and to the theoretical DR bound.
  • domain assumption Irradiance factorizes as I(t;x,y)=ρ(x,y)S(t) (Eq. 1), with a static focal-spot profile and spatially uniform modulation.
    Ignores spot motion, sensor noise, and non-uniform modulation during an acquisition.
  • domain assumption Moment-based wavefront reconstruction [14] recovers local wavefront from reconstructed focal-spot intensity moments.
    Used to turn spot images into the wavefront RMSE values reported in Sec. 3A.
  • domain assumption Frame-based centroids at 30 Hz are valid proxy ground truth for 500 Hz/1 kHz event-based tracking.
    Sec. 3B–3C compare event centroids against low-rate frame centroids; this assumes the frame reference is accurate and not aliased.
  • domain assumption The theoretical DR calculation uses τmin = 1 μs and integration bounds [0, Tr/2].
    Sec. 2B states these bounds; the 260 dB bound depends on sensor temporal resolution and threshold behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-Time Megapixel Kilohertz Neuromorphic Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMLPEWSV

@misc{pith2026260725281,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-Time Megapixel Kilohertz Neuromorphic Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMLPEWSV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25281}
}
read the original abstract

Conventional frame-based Shack--Hartmann wavefront sensors (SHWFS) are limited by dynamic range and the intrinsic trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution, while high-bandwidth acquisition poses additional challenges for real-time wavefront reconstruction. This work presents a real-time, megapixel, kilohertz neuromorphic SHWFS to overcome these limitations. In static optical metrology, the proposed pipeline achieves one-shot wavefront acquisition under extreme illumination non-uniformity, reaching a dynamic range of 260 dB at a 20 Hz acquisition frequency. Owing to this high dynamic range and the concomitant high-intensity resolution, wavefront reconstruction errors in dim and bright sub-apertures are reduced by 59\% and 70\%, respectively, relative to conventional frame-based SHWFS. For dynamic wavefront sensing, the system provides kilohertz-rate centroid tracking over a megapixel field of view with microsecond-scale latency. Centroid localization errors are 0.18 pixels during optical alignment supervision and 0.26 pixels in high-speed turbulence observation, verifying the accuracy and reliability of the system across dynamic scenarios. The per-sub-aperture processing throughput reaches 420,737 Hz on a standard CPU, demonstrating high-speed real-time computation without specialized hardware acceleration. Together, these results establish a unified neuromorphic SHWFS framework for high-fidelity one-shot static wavefront reconstruction and real-time high-bandwidth dynamic wavefront sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25281 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed framework and its dual operating modes. a System overview: temporally modulated illumina￾tion produces periodic irradiance variations on the event-based sensor. Under low-frequency sine-wave modulation (top), positive events (red dots) are triggered at different times across the focal-spot profile as the irradiance gradually rises, thereby encoding spa￾tial intensity into event latency. Unde… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal encoding principle and modulation-dependent operating regimes of EvTem-SHWFS. a Temporal encoding of focal-spot intensity under sinusoidal modulation. Different local intensities ρ produce different irradiance curves I(t; x, y) and trigger the initial positive event (IPE) at different latencies ∆t ∗ when the integrated charge reaches the threshold Qth. The resulting ∆t ∗–ρ mapping serves as a lookup table f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quantitative performance comparison of static wavefront sensing. a Full-field spot images: frame-based SHWFS (50 ms) vs. EvTem-SHWFS (20 Hz sine/square). b Peripheral sub-aperture (yellow box) and c central sub-aperture (red box) images: from left to right—ground truth (GT), frame-based (50 ms), EvTem-SHWFS (sine), and EvTem-SHWFS (square). Corresponding GT wavefronts and wavefront residuals are shown below. In this… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real-time dynamic wavefront sensing at 500 Hz. a Accumulated event frame over a 2 ms window (starting at t = 0.52 s). Red and blue dots represent positive and negative events; magenta clusters indicate alternating-polarity event pairs. b Correspond￾ing conventional int…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kilohertz capture of transient wavefront distortions induced by high-speed flame turbulence. a Experimental schematic and frame-based SHWFS results (30 Hz). The flame moves from right to left; the frame-based SHWFS captures a reference state (t = 1.783 s) and a distort…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references

  1. [18]

    Temporal-mapping photography for event cameras,

    Y . Bao, L. Sun, Y . Ma, and K. Wang, “Temporal-mapping photography for event cameras,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, (Springer, 2025), pp. 55–72

    2025

  2. [1]

    History and principles of shack-hartmann wavefront sensing,

    B. C. Platt and R. Shack, “History and principles of shack-hartmann wavefront sensing,” (2001)

    2001

  3. [2]

    Measurement of lens parameters based on shack-hartmann wavefront sensor,

    Z. Deng, C. Li, and S. Zhang, “Measurement of lens parameters based on shack-hartmann wavefront sensor,” Opt. Lasers Eng.184, 108666 (2025)

    2025

  4. [3]

    Dynamic range expansion algorithms for shack-hartmann wavefront sensor in aspheric lens sur- face quality assessment,

    Y . Song, Z. Zhang, X. Hu, and B. Dong, “Dynamic range expansion algorithms for shack-hartmann wavefront sensor in aspheric lens sur- face quality assessment,” inSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series,vol. 13720 (2025), p. 1372004

    2025

  5. [4]

    Fabrication-error analysis of injection- molded aspheric elements using typical aberration terms in transmitted wavefront with shack–hartmann wavefront-sensing measurement,

    X. Cheng, L. Y an, L. Liu,et al., “Fabrication-error analysis of injection- molded aspheric elements using typical aberration terms in transmitted wavefront with shack–hartmann wavefront-sensing measurement,” Opt. Eng.59, 123102–123102 (2020)

    2020

  6. [5]

    Three-dimensional surface profile mea- surement of microlenses using the shack–hartmann wavefront sensor,

    C. Li, G. Hall, D. Zhu,et al., “Three-dimensional surface profile mea- surement of microlenses using the shack–hartmann wavefront sensor,” J. Microelectromechanical Syst.21, 530–540 (2012)

    2012

  7. [6]

    Method for testing freeform surfaces based on a shack-hartmann sensor with plane wavefront scanning and stitching,

    J. Wang, X. Wang, L. Peng,et al., “Method for testing freeform surfaces based on a shack-hartmann sensor with plane wavefront scanning and stitching,” Opt. Express31, 36702–36724 (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    Predictor-corrector frame- work for the sequential assembly of optical systems based on wavefront sensing,

    C. Schindlbeck, C. Pape, and E. Reithmeier, “Predictor-corrector frame- work for the sequential assembly of optical systems based on wavefront sensing,” Opt. Express26, 10669–10681 (2018)

    2018

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    Optical alignment of a linear astigmatism- free imaging system using a shack-hartmann wavefront sensor and merit function regression method,

    H. Ahn, C. Kim, D. Kim,et al., “Optical alignment of a linear astigmatism- free imaging system using a shack-hartmann wavefront sensor and merit function regression method,” inOptical System Alignment, Toler- ancing, and Verification XVI,vol. 13602 (SPIE, 2025), pp. 129–134

    2025

  2. [9]

    Optical alignment procedure utilizing neural networks combined with shack–hartmann wavefront sensor,

    F . Z. Adil, E.˙I. Konukseven, T. Balkan, and Ö. F . Adil, “Optical alignment procedure utilizing neural networks combined with shack–hartmann wavefront sensor,” Opt. Eng.56, 051402–051402 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    Estimation of atmo- spheric turbulence parameters from shack–hartmann wavefront sensor measurements,

    P . P . Andrade, P . J. Garcia, C. M. Correia,et al., “Estimation of atmo- spheric turbulence parameters from shack–hartmann wavefront sensor measurements,” Mon. Notices Royal Astron. Soc.483, 1192–1201 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    SLODAR: Measuring optical turbulence altitude with a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor,

    R. W. Wilson, “SLODAR: Measuring optical turbulence altitude with a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor,” Mon. Notices Royal Astron. Soc. 337, 103–108 (2002)

    2002

  5. [12]

    Phase retrieval using a modified Shack– Hartmann wavefront sensor with defocus,

    C. Li, B. Li, and S. Zhang, “Phase retrieval using a modified Shack– Hartmann wavefront sensor with defocus,” Appl. Opt.53, 618 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    Nonlinear spline wave- front reconstruction through moment-based Shack-Hartmann sensor measurements,

    M. Viegers, E. Brunner, O. Soloviev,et al., “Nonlinear spline wave- front reconstruction through moment-based Shack-Hartmann sensor measurements,” Opt. Express25, 11514 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    Moment-based wavefront reconstruc- tion via a defocused shack–hartmann sensor,

    F . Feng, C. Li, and S. Zhang, “Moment-based wavefront reconstruc- tion via a defocused shack–hartmann sensor,” Opt. Eng.57, 074106– 074106 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Event-Based Vision: A Survey,

    G. Gallego, T. Delbruck, G. Orchard,et al., “Event-Based Vision: A Survey,” IEEE Trans. on Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.44, 154–180 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    Convolutional neural net- work for improved event-based shack-hartmann wavefront reconstruc- tion,

    M. Grose, J. D. Schmidt, and K. Hirakawa, “Convolutional neural net- work for improved event-based shack-hartmann wavefront reconstruc- tion,” Appl. Opt.63, E35–E47 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Angle-Based Neuromorphic Wave Normal Sensing,

    C. Wang, S. Zhu, P . Zhang,et al., “Angle-Based Neuromorphic Wave Normal Sensing,” Laser & Photonics Rev.19, 2400647 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Application of deep learning in active alignment leads to high-efficiency and accurate camera lens assembly,

    H. Liu, W. Li, S. Gao,et al., “Application of deep learning in active alignment leads to high-efficiency and accurate camera lens assembly,” Opt. Express32, 43834 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Enhanced-resolution shack–hartmann wavefront sensing for extended objects,

    X. Wu, L. Huang, and N. Gu, “Enhanced-resolution shack–hartmann wavefront sensing for extended objects,” Opt. Lett.48, 5691–5694 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Real-time shack-hartmann wavefront processor with fpga acceleration,

    Q. Y e, D. Pan, C. Zhang,et al., “Real-time shack-hartmann wavefront processor with fpga acceleration,” inNinth International Workshop on Advanced Patterning Solutions (IWAPS 2025),vol. 13991 (SPIE, 2025), pp. 362–369

    2025

  14. [22]

    Lightweight convolutional neural network for wavefront reconstruction via a shack-hartmann sensor with spatially downsampled microlens,

    S. Y ang, Y . He, Y . Ning,et al., “Lightweight convolutional neural network for wavefront reconstruction via a shack-hartmann sensor with spatially downsampled microlens,” Opt. Express33, 40948–40959 (2025). Research Article 12

    2025

  15. [23]

    Optical refractive index of air: dependence on pressure, temperature and composition,

    J. C. Owens, “Optical refractive index of air: dependence on pressure, temperature and composition,” Appl. optics6, 51–59 (1967)

    1967

  16. [24]

    Physics and computation of aero-optics,

    M. Wang, A. Mani, and S. Gordeyev, “Physics and computation of aero-optics,” Annu. review fluid mechanics44, 299–321 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Physics and measurement of aero- optical effects: past and present,

    E. J. Jumper and S. Gordeyev, “Physics and measurement of aero- optical effects: past and present,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.49, 419–441 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Experimen- tal studies of aero-optical properties of subsonic turbulent boundary layers,

    S. Gordeyev, A. E. Smith, J. A. Cress, and E. J. Jumper, “Experimen- tal studies of aero-optical properties of subsonic turbulent boundary layers,” J. Fluid Mech.740, 214–253 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Wavefront sensing requirements for high-speed ao in deep turbulence,

    H. Dave, E. Ahn, and S. Gibson, “Wavefront sensing requirements for high-speed ao in deep turbulence,” inUnconventional Imaging, Sensing, and Adaptive Optics 2024,vol. 13149 (SPIE, 2024), pp. 211–219

    2024

  20. [28]

    Wish: wavefront imaging sensor with high resolution,

    Y . Wu, M. K. Sharma, and A. Veeraraghavan, “Wish: wavefront imaging sensor with high resolution,” Light. Sci. & Appl.8, 44 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.