Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

An Ultra-Fast Image Simulation Technique with Spatially Variable Point Spread Functions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that spatially variable PSF image simulation reduces to a weighted sum of a few whole-image convolutions, replacing patch-based pipelines and their boundary artifacts with a fast, seamless approximation.

desk verdict A clever, correct way to speed up spatially varying PSF simulation, but the printed formula and in-sample validation undercut the fidelity claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10015 v1 pith:F244G53J submitted 2025-02-14 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRphysics.optics

Zeyu Bai , Peng Jia , Jiameng Lv , Xiang Zhang , Wennan Xiang , Lin Nie This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRphysics.optics
keywords imagesimulationspatiallyvariablepointspreadfunctionprincipalcomponentanalysisPSFbasisconvolutionastronomicalsimulationsopticaltelescopesneuralnetworks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that simulating an astronomical image with a spatially varying point spread function (PSF) is equivalent, to high accuracy, to performing a small number of whole-image convolutions rather than per-pixel or per-patch convolutions. The authors decompose sampled PSFs into principal-component basis functions, convolve the original image once with each basis, and combine the resulting image bases with per-pixel coefficients interpolated from the PSF sample. The cost drops from $N \times N$ convolutions to about $2K$ (K convolutions plus K weighted additions), and the resulting image has no patch boundaries because the PSF varies continuously at every pixel. If this claim is right, high-fidelity simulations for large survey telescopes and training datasets for deep-learning pipelines become dramatically cheaper to produce. The paper demonstrates the speed and fidelity on real wide-angle survey data and on simulation frames sized for the China Space Station Telescope.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the PCA PSF basis set together with a per-pixel coefficient matrix. Sample PSFs are collected across the field using a non-uniform sampling rule that keeps neighboring PSFs within a stated similarity threshold (the paper uses a 1% difference criterion), flattened and decomposed by singular value decomposition; the top $K$ singular vectors form the PSF bases, chosen by the elbow method on cumulative explained variance. Each basis is convolved with the full original image once, producing an image base, and the coefficient matrix, built by fitting the bases to the sample PSFs and then interpolating to every pixel, weights the image bases at each location. The identity doing the work is linearity: a weighted sum of PSFs convolved with the image equals the same weighted sum of convolutions of the image with each PSF, which is what converts an $N \times N$ operation into $2K$ operations.

What would settle it

Construct a PSF field with known variation that includes an additional independent mode beyond the top $K$ bases, for example a strong coma term localized in one field corner, then run the method with $K$ bases and compare the output against a direct pixel-by-pixel spatially varying convolution. If the residual in the corner exceeds the FWHM or ellipticity tolerance the method claims, the low-rank interpolation assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the full spatially varying convolution $FImg(x,y) = \sum_m \alpha_m(x,y)\,(Img * PSF\_Basis_m)(x,y)$ is an accurate replacement for convolving each pixel or patch with its own PSF. Here the $\alpha_m$ are coefficients obtained by fitting the PCA bases to measured PSFs and interpolating them to every pixel, and $Img * PSF\_Basis_m$ denotes convolving the whole original image with one basis. Because convolution is linear, the weighted sum of basis convolutions reproduces the effect of a spatially varying PSF field without ever forming a per-pixel PSF. In the tests, 100 PCA bases capture more than 98% of the PSF variance, the simulated and real images agree in FWHM and ellipticity statistics, and a full China Space Station Telescope detector frame that took about 30 minutes with the classical patch method is generated in about 9.5 seconds. The paper presents the method as a forward-modeling simulation tool, distinct from PCA-based PSF representations used in post-processing.

Load-bearing premise

The method stands or falls on the assumption that the entire PSF field is well described by a small set of shared basis functions whose per-pixel coefficients can be interpolated from a modest sample; if the true PSF variation has high-rank structure, if the sample misses important regions such as field corners (which the paper acknowledges may be under-represented), or if the PSF changes faster than pixel spacing because of halo and wing structure, the simulated image fidelity degrades.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A full China Space Station Telescope detector frame can be simulated in about 9.5 seconds instead of roughly 30 minutes with classical patch-based convolution, using 100 PCA bases.
  • Large extended objects such as nearby galaxies can be rendered with pixel-level spatially variable PSFs and no visible seams between patches.
  • Generating the large, diverse training sets needed for deep-learning image-processing algorithms becomes practical, because many frames can be produced in the time previously needed for one.
  • The method is not tied to PCA: any orthogonal, linearly separable PSF basis set could be substituted, opening the door to physically motivated bases that model diffraction, halos, and wings.
  • The cost scaling is $2K$ operations versus $N \times N$, so the speed advantage grows as telescope detectors grow larger.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same linearity trick could be extended to temporally varying PSFs: with coefficients interpolated in both sky position and time, the expensive basis convolutions could be computed once and reused across an entire time series.
  • The paper's own corner-coverage caveat suggests a concrete stress test: sample PSFs densely near field corners and measure whether the reconstruction error grows when those samples are withheld.
  • If PSF halos and wings are not captured by phase-only PCA modes, a hybrid basis, PCA modes for the core plus statistical wings, would be a natural next step; the paper explicitly lists this as future work.
  • Viewed abstractly, the paper supplies a general approximation for position-dependent linear filtering, so the same basis-convolution decomposition might accelerate other image-processing tasks such as space-variant deconvolution or shear measurement simulations.
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 manuscript presents a method for simulating astronomical images with spatially varying point spread functions. PSFs across the field are decomposed via PCA into K basis functions; the full image is convolved once with each basis, and the resulting image bases are combined per pixel using spatially interpolated coefficients. The authors argue that this replaces N×N patch convolutions with 2K operations, and they demonstrate the approach on real GWAC observations and simulated CSST data, comparing speed and image fidelity against a classical patching scheme.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the method could substantially accelerate survey-scale image simulations and remove patch-boundary artifacts, with broad applicability to pipeline development for GWAC, CSST, and similar facilities. The algebraic idea is sound and general, and the paper is clearly organized around a useful algorithmic construction. However, the empirical support is currently incomplete: the fidelity tests are largely in-sample, the speed comparison is not hardware-controlled, and one central equation is misprinted. With corrections, the method would be a valuable contribution to astronomical simulation methodology.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) as printed reduces to F Img(x,y) = sum_m ImgBases_m(x,y), omitting the coefficient alpha_m(x,y) that Eq. (3) and the surrounding text require. Without that coefficient, the output is a fixed sum of K convolutions that is independent of the spatial variation of the PSF. The equation should read F Img(x,y) = sum_m alpha_m(x,y) ImgBases_m(x,y), and the derivation, pseudocode, and any released code must be checked against this corrected form.
  2. [Sections 3.1 and 3.2] The fidelity tests are in-sample. In Section 3.1 the PCA bases and coefficients are extracted from the same GWAC observational image that is later compared with the simulated image, and in Section 3.2 the 5041 PSFs used to construct the bases are the same grid positions at which ellipticity and MAE are evaluated. No holdout test shows that coefficient interpolation (Section 2.3) produces accurate PSFs at unsampled pixel positions, which is exactly where the method's spatially variable PSF claim must be demonstrated. The acknowledged possible under-representation of corner PSFs in Section 3.1 makes this gap concrete. I recommend a leave-one-out or cross-validation experiment over the PSF sampling grid, with errors reported as a function of distance from the nearest sampled PSF.
  3. [Section 3 and Table 1] The speedups in Table 1 are not measured on a controlled platform: the classical method is timed on CPU ('two Intel Xeon 6342 CPUs') while the proposed method runs on the same computer 'but with the addition of a single Nvidia RTX 3090 Ti GPU'. This conflates algorithm and hardware and overstates the practical time advantage implied by the operation-count argument in Eq. (3). To support the time claim, both methods should be run on the same hardware, or the hardware dependence should be stated explicitly and separated from the algorithmic operation count.
  4. [Section 3.2, Figure 5] Figure 5(a) reports a 90th-percentile ellipticity difference of approximately 0.09, which is large relative to shape-measurement requirements in precision weak lensing and PSF-calibration tasks. The paper does not state a quantitative fidelity target, so the repeated claim of 'high-fidelity' simulated images is not yet supported by the presented metrics. Please specify the fidelity requirements for the intended applications and show whether this residual is acceptable, or discuss which science cases tolerate this level of ellipticity error.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2)] The notation alpha_{m,n} is confusing: n appears to denote PSF size rather than pixel position, and it is inconsistent with the coefficient field alpha_m(x,y) used later. Please use a single convention, e.g., alpha_m(x,y), throughout.
  2. [Section 2.2] The PSF sampling criterion ('sampling distance ... smaller than the distance at which the difference between each PSF is less than 1%') is not operationally defined; specify the metric used to compute this 1% difference, such as relative RMS over all pixels, peak difference, or integrated flux difference.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 4] The caption states that Figure 4 shows '1458 sampling points' while the text states that 5041 PSFs were obtained; this numerical discrepancy should be reconciled.
  4. [Section 3.1] The text says the ellipticity is 'obtained using the Equation 7', but the ellipticity e is defined in Eq. (8); this cross-reference should be corrected.
  5. [Section 2.3] The paragraph beginning 'It is important to note that while the phase introduced by aberrations is physically continuous...' is not connected to the method or to the reported tests; either integrate it into a discussion section or remove it.
  6. [Figures 1 and 2] Figure 2's caption appears to duplicate Figure 1's caption; it should be updated to describe the actual content of the figure, which concerns the CSST/GWAC demonstration.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Fidelity claim is validated against the same PSFs used to fit the PCA model; the speed claim is independent but the high-fidelity evidence is partly circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, paragraphs 'To evaluate the performance...' through 'We then compare these simulated images with their original counterparts'; also Section 3.2/Figure 5.]
    "To evaluate the performance of our algorithm, we choose a real observation image and extract PSF basis from it. ... We then proceed to extract the coefficients of these PSFs with the PCA framework and apply the inverse distance weighted interpolation to obtain PCA coefficients for the entire image. Finally, we select a specific celestial object and compare the simulated image with the original image. ... We then compare these simulated images with their original counterparts, focusing on differences in Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) and ellipticity."

    The PSF bases and the per-pixel coefficients are both extracted from the same GWAC frames that are later used as the reference for the fidelity comparison. At any star used in the fit, the simulated output (Eq. 3) is the K-component PCA reconstruction of that star's own observed PSF, so the reported FWHM, ellipticity, and MAE differences are the in-sample truncation residual that PCA was explicitly chosen to minimize. The 'high-fidelity' conclusion therefore compares the model with its own fitting targets rather than testing coefficient interpolation at unsampled field positions. The speed claim remains independent, but the fidelity evidence is circular by construction.

full rationale

The core derivation (Eqs. 1-3) is mathematically self-contained: Eq. 3 follows from Eq. 2 by linearity of convolution, and the operation count (2K versus N×N patch convolutions) is a genuine complexity argument, not a renamed fit. The PCA basis construction is standard linear algebra and is not made load-bearing by self-citation; the cited earlier works (Jee et al. 2007; Nie et al. 2021; Jia et al. 2018) supply background methodology, not an imported uniqueness theorem. However, the fidelity validation in Section 3.1 is in-sample: the same image supplies both the PSF bases/coefficients and the reference for comparison, so the reported discrepancies measure the PCA reconstruction error on training points. Section 3.1 also concedes possible under-representation of PSFs near image corners, and Figure 5's 90th-percentile ellipticity difference of about 0.09 is not contextualized against shape-measurement requirements. Eq. 5 omits the coefficient multiplication described in the text, a reproducibility error independent of circularity. Overall, the algorithmic contribution is not circular, but the central 'high-fidelity' claim is supported by a fitted-input comparison, making the evidence partially circular.

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

The method's core operation is a linearity identity plus a controlled approximation. The main unpaid inputs are the choice of K=100 PCA bases, the PSF sampling density, and the interpolation scheme. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • K, number of PCA PSF bases = 100
    Selected by the elbow method on cumulative variance, capturing over 98% of PSF information; this choice controls truncation error of the method.
  • PSF sampling distance criterion = Spacing where PSF difference is less than 1%
    The density of empirical PSF samples is chosen to ensure smooth variation; this affects the fidelity of the coefficient interpolation.
  • Coefficient interpolation scheme = Inverse distance weighting, unspecified parameters
    Coefficients between sampled PSFs are interpolated with inverse distance weighting in Section 2.3; the interpolation scheme and its parameters are a modeling choice without independent validation.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Convolution is linear, so a weighted sum of PSF basis convolutions equals the convolution with the weighted sum of PSF bases.
    Used implicitly in Eq. 3 and Section 2.3; not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption PSFs across the field can be represented as a linear combination of K PCA bases with coefficients that vary smoothly enough for interpolation.
    Central truncation and interpolation assumptions in Sections 2.2 and 2.3; if false, the simulated image loses fidelity.
  • domain assumption Sample PSFs chosen from real or simulated data are representative of PSFs at all pixels, including image corners.
    Section 3.1 acknowledges possible under-representation of corner PSFs, which would bias the coefficient interpolation and the fidelity comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Ultra-Fast Image Simulation Technique with Spatially Variable Point Spread Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F244G53J

@misc{pith2026250210015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Ultra-Fast Image Simulation Technique with Spatially Variable Point Spread Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F244G53J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10015}
}
read the original abstract

Simulated images are essential in algorithm development and instrument testing for optical telescopes. During real observations, images obtained by optical telescopes are affected by spatially variable point spread functions (PSFs), a crucial effect requiring accurate simulation. Traditional methods segment images into patches, convolve patches with individual PSFs, and reassemble them as a whole image. Although widely used, these approaches suffer from slow convolution processes and reduced image fidelity due to abrupt PSF transitions between different patches. This paper introduces a novel method for generating simulated images with spatial continuously varying PSFs. Our approach firstly decomposes original images into PSF bases derived with the principal component analysis method. The entire image is then convolved with these PSF bases to create image bases. Finally, we multiply the coefficients of image bases with these image bases for each pixels and add the multiplication results along each pixel to obtain the final simulated image. Our method could generate high-fidelity simulated images with spatially variable PSFs without boundary artifacts. The method proposed in this paper significantly improves the speed of astronomical image simulation, potentially advancing observational astronomy and instrumental development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10015 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The method proposed in this study is delineated in this figure, which illustrates a two-stage procedure for image simulation. The first stage involves coefficient matrix generation, wherein PSF basis are derived from empirical PSF data. The second stage encompasses the convolution and addition step, where the previously obtained PSF basis functions are convolved with the original image to generate image bases. These… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The method proposed in this study is delineated in this figure, which illustrates a two-stage procedure for image simulation. The first stage involves coefficient matrix generation, wherein PSF basis functions are derived from empirical PSF data. The second stage encompasses the convolution and addition step, where the previously obtained PSF basis functions are convolved with the original image to generate image co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of simulated and actual celestial object characteristics. (a) shows the histogram of the ellipticity differences between simulated images and actual celestial object images. This plot demonstrates that the simulated images have an ellipticity distribution similar to the actual images, though some differences exist due to the telescope’s wide field of view and white light mode. (b) and (c) display the FWHM… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure shows the distribution of 1458 sampling points from astronomical images, where duplicate coordinates have been removed and the remaining points were randomly selected. The X-axis and Y-axis represent the image’s horizontal and vertical coordinates, respecti…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of two key metrics between simulated and true PSFs. (a) displays the distribution of ellipticity differences, with the x-axis representing the ellipticity difference and the y-axis indicating the percentage of occurrence for each value. A red dashed line mar…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatial comparison of Mean Squared Error (MSE) and ellipticity component differences between simulated and true data. (a) presents the MSE distribution across a 2D grid, highlighting error variations across different areas. (b) shows the spatial differences in elliptic…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The original and blurred image obtained by our method. We can find that there are no boundaries in the blurred image, which could often be seen in images generated by other methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5450

    Beltramo-Martin, O., Correia, C., Ragland, S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5450

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    2020, in Adaptive Optics Systems VII, Vol

    Beltramo-Martin, O., Ragland, S., F´ etick, R., et al. 2020, in Adaptive Optics Systems VII, Vol. 11448, SPIE, 22–36

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    L., Berdja, A., Guzm´ an, C

    Bernardi, R. L., Berdja, A., Guzm´ an, C. D., Torres-Torriti, M., & Roth, M. M. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 4284

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, Vol

    Briguglio, R., Riccardi, A., Carbonaro, L., et al. 2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, Vol. 12185, SPIE, 1969–1984

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    J., Schneider, M

    Buchanan, J. J., Schneider, M. D., Armstrong, R. E., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 94

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1830

    Cao, Y., Gong, Y., Liu, D., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1830

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    2008, in Adaptive Optics Systems, Vol

    Carbillet, M., Boccaletti, A., Thalmann, C., et al. 2008, in Adaptive Optics Systems, Vol. 7015, SPIE, 1963–1974

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    G., et al

    Connolly, A., Peterson, J., Jernigan, J. G., et al. 2010, in

    work page 2010

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 5894

    Deng, F., Gong, Y., Wang, Y., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 5894

    2022

  2. [10]

    2018, Solar Physics, 293, 1 Femen ´ ıa-Castella, B., Cagigal, M

    Denker, C., Dineva, E., Balthasar, H., et al. 2018, Solar Physics, 293, 1 Femen ´ ıa-Castella, B., Cagigal, M. N., Cabrera, M. B., et al. 2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, Vol. 12185, SPIE, 604–622 F´ etick, R. J., Mugnier, L., Fusco, T., & Neichel, B. 2020, Monthly Notic...

    2018

  3. [11]

    2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, Vol

    Guyon, O., Norris, B., Martinod, M.-A., et al. 2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, Vol. 12185, SPIE, 101–112

    2022

  4. [12]

    S., et al

    He, Q., Li, R., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 5862

    2022

  5. [13]

    A., Bramich, D., Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D

    Hitchcock, J. A., Bramich, D., Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., & Hundertmark, M. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 5372

    2022

  6. [14]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 3295

    Hoekstra, H., Viola, M., & Herbonnet, R. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 3295

    2017

  7. [15]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 631, A161

    Huber, S., Suyu, S., Noebauer, U., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 631, A161

    2019

  8. [16]

    2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 119, 1403

    Jee, M., Blakeslee, J., Sirianni, M., et al. 2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 119, 1403

    2007

  9. [17]

    J., & Tyson, J

    Jee, M. J., & Tyson, J. A. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 596

    2011

  10. [18]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 829

    Jia, P., Basden, A., & Osborn, J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 829

    2018

  11. [19]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L30

    Jia, P., Huang, Y., Cai, B., & Cai, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L30

    2019

  12. [20]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 291

    Jia, P., Ning, R., Sun, R., Yang, X., & Cai, D. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 291

    2021

  13. [21]

    2022, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 26

    Jia, P., Sun, R., Li, N., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 26

    2022

  14. [22]

    Jolliffe, I. T. 1990, Weather, 45, 375

    1990

  15. [23]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 245, 26

    Korytov, D., Hearin, A., Kovacs, E., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 245, 26

    2019

  16. [24]

    E., Hook, R

    Krist, J. E., Hook, R. N., & Stoehr, F. 2011, in Optical Modeling and Performance Predictions V, Vol. 8127, SPIE, 166–181 La Camera, A., Schreiber, L., Diolaiti, E., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 579, A1

    2011

  17. [25]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3895 11

    Lanusse, F., Ma, Q., Li, N., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3895 11

    2018

  18. [26]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 1546 Le Louarn, M., Clare, R., B´ echet, C., & Tallon, M

    Lauritsen, L., Dickinson, H., Bromley, J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 1546 Le Louarn, M., Clare, R., B´ echet, C., & Tallon, M. 2012, in Adaptive Optics Systems III, Vol. 8447, SPIE, 1754–1760 Le Louarn, M., V´ erinaud, C., Korkiakoski...

    2021

  19. [27]

    2006, in Advances in Adaptive Optics II, Vol

    Marchetti, E. 2006, in Advances in Adaptive Optics II, Vol. 6272, SPIE, 1016–1024

    2006

  20. [28]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 095004

    Li, C., Zheng, Z., Li, X., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 095004

    2022

  21. [29]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 264

    Li, X., Sun, R., Lv, J., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 264

    2024

  22. [30]

    I., Starck, J.-L., & Kilbinger, M

    Liaudat, T. I., Starck, J.-L., & Kilbinger, M. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1158213

    2023

  23. [31]

    2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.16341

    Liu, D., Meng, X., Er, X., et al. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.16341

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2011, in Integrated Modeling of Complex Optomechanical Systems, Vol

    Liu, Z., & Jin, Z. 2011, in Integrated Modeling of Complex Optomechanical Systems, Vol. 8336, SPIE, 89–97

    2011

  25. [33]

    2018, in Adaptive Optics Systems VI, Vol

    Lu, J., Chun, M., Ammons, S., et al. 2018, in Adaptive Optics Systems VI, Vol. 10703, SPIE, 195–202

    2018

  26. [34]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 702

    Mackay, C. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 702

    2013

  27. [35]

    2018, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 4, 049002

    Mieda, E., Veran, J.-P., Rosensteiner, M., et al. 2018, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 4, 049002

    2018

  28. [36]

    2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, Vol

    Minowa, Y., Ono, Y., Tanaka, Y., et al. 2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, Vol. 12185, SPIE, 635–646

    2022

  29. [37]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 2192

    Monty, S., Rigaut, F., McDermid, R., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 2192

    2021

  30. [38]

    2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07412

    Nammour, F., Akhaury, U., Girard, J., et al. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07412

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Nie, L., Li, G., Zhang, J., Fan, Z., & Peterson, J. R. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 3785

    2021

  32. [40]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 2

    Penny, M., Kerins, E., Rattenbury, N., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 2

    2013

  33. [41]

    D., Soummer, R., Choquet, ´E., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Soummer, R., Choquet, ´E., et al. 2014, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, 9143, 75

    2014

  34. [42]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 551, A119

    Piotrowski, L., Batsch, T., Czyrkowski, H., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 551, A119

    2013

  35. [43]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 1974 S´ anchez, J., Walter, C

    Rodeghiero, G., Pott, J.-U., Arcidiacono, C., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 1974 S´ anchez, J., Walter, C. W., Awan, H., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 210

    2018

  36. [44]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A112

    Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., Mellier, Y., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A112

    2022

  37. [45]

    A., Starck, J.-L., Mboula, F

    Schmitz, M. A., Starck, J.-L., Mboula, F. N., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 636, A78

    2020

  38. [46]

    2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01377

    Shen, Z., Zhang, J., Li, H., et al. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01377

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.00531

    Song, J.-Y., Wang, L.-F., Li, Y., et al. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.00531

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    2022, Advances in Space Research, 70, 2315 van Dam, M

    Sun, R.-y., Yu, P.-p., & Zhang, W. 2022, Advances in Space Research, 70, 2315 van Dam, M. A., Bouchez, A. H., & McLeod, B. A. 2014, in Adaptive Optics Systems IV, Vol. 9148, SPIE, 386–397

    2022

  41. [49]

    2019, in 6th International Conference on Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, AO4ELT 2019

    Wagner, R., Beltramo-Martin, O., Correia, C., et al. 2019, in 6th International Conference on Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes, AO4ELT 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    2012, in Adaptive Optics Systems III, Vol

    Wang, L., & Ellerbroek, B. 2012, in Adaptive Optics Systems III, Vol. 8447, SPIE, 780–790

    2012

  43. [51]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A50

    Wang, S., Chen, Q., He, C., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A50

    2021

  44. [52]

    2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 054502

    Xu, Y., Xin, L., Wang, J., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 054502

    2020

  45. [53]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 3201

    Yang, Y., Zhang, L., & Rao, C. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 3201

    2023

  46. [54]

    2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 139

    Yue, M., Fan, X., Yang, J., & Wang, F. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 139

    2022

  47. [55]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 4593

    Zhou, X., Gong, Y., Meng, X.-M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 4593

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.