Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

The Santa Cruz Extreme AO Lab (SEAL) 2.0: A reflective, multi-wavelength rebuild

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A rebuilt all-reflective AO testbed reaches 98% Strehl in its infrared science path while sensing wavefronts in visible light.

desk verdict Solid instrumentation rebuild paper with real bench numbers; the 30 nm NCPA estimate needs more support, but the core claims are plausible and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03770 v1 pith:SXETFG6L submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.IM

Rebecca Jensen-Clem , Vincent Chambouleyron , Prince Javier , Daren Dillon , Emiel H. Por , Benjamin Calvin , Sylvain Cetre , Rodrigo Amezcua Correa
show 15 more authors
Tara Crowe Jordan Diaz Caleb Dobias David Doelman Stephen Eikenberry J. Fowler Benjamin L. Gerard Phil Hinz Renate Kupke Ashai Moreno Tiffany Nguyen Maissa Salama Aditya R. Sengupta Nour Skaf Frans Snik
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords adaptiveopticstestbedoff-axisparabolicmirrorspyramidwavefrontsensornon-commonpathaberrationsinfraredsciencehigh-contrastimagingcoronagraphyreal-timecontrol
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 reports on the rebuilt SEAL adaptive-optics testbed, which replaced its refractive lenses with an all-reflective relay of thirteen off-axis parabolic mirrors so that the same bench can feed visible wavefront sensors, coronagraphs, and a newly added infrared science camera. The central performance claim is that, with the loop closed on a visible non-modulated pyramid wavefront sensor, the infrared branch reaches a measured Strehl ratio of 98% at 1550 nm, implying an estimated non-common-path error of about 30 nm rms between the infrared point-spread function and the visible sensor. If correct, the result validates the dual-wavelength architecture planned for high-contrast exoplanet instruments on large segmented ground-based telescopes: wavefront sensing in the visible, where sensors are sensitive, and science imaging in the infrared, where the corrected image is delivered. The paper also documents additional wavefront sensor arms, coronagraphs, and two new real-time control software packages, but the load-bearing measured result is the 98% infrared Strehl.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the all-reflective optical relay built from thirteen custom off-axis parabolic mirrors, which replaces the original refractive lenses and relays pupil planes among a segmented primary-mirror simulator, two deformable mirrors, the wavefront sensor arms, and the coronagraph and science cameras. Because every fold is reflective, the relay introduces no chromatic aberration, so a wavefront measured with a visible pyramid sensor at 635 nm can be used to correct a science image at 1550 nm. The measured 98% Strehl and 30 nm rms non-common-path estimate is carried by this relay together with the pyramid wavefront sensor's closed-loop reconstruction (a non-linear Gerchberg

What would settle it

Point an infrared-capable wavefront sensor, or use phase diversity on the 1550 nm point-spread function, while the visible pyramid wavefront sensor loop is closed, and reconstruct the infrared wavefront directly. If the directly measured infrared NCPA is substantially above about 30 nm rms, or if the independently measured infrared Strehl is below 98%, then the Gaussian variance model underlying the estimate is wrong. Repeating the measurement after intentionally misaligning one off-axis parabolic mirror by a known amount would also reveal whether the error budget is dominated by coherent low-

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

After replacing the refractive optics with 13 custom off-axis parabolic mirrors, the SEAL testbed operates at both visible (635 nm) and near-infrared (1550 nm) wavelengths. The authors report a measured Strehl ratio of 98% in the infrared science branch after closing the adaptive-optics loop on the visible non-modulated pyramid wavefront sensor, with the residual alignment and manufacturing errors of the off-axis mirrors corrected by the deformable mirrors. Using the Strehl-to-wavefront-error approximation and adding the estimated optical path differences of the IR and pyramid-wavefront-sensor branches as normally distributed random variables, they estimate the non-common-path aberration bet

Load-bearing premise

The 30 nm non-common-path estimate rests on assuming that the wavefront errors separating the infrared science path and the visible wavefront sensor add in quadrature as independent, zero-mean Gaussian fluctuations; if those errors are concentrated in a few low-order modes, the true infrared wavefront error is larger than 30 nm and the 98% Strehl overstates the infrared image quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, a visible pyramid wavefront sensor can serve as the wavefront reference for a separately aligned infrared science path with only tens of nanometers of uncorrected non-common-path error.
  • The all-reflective bench can validate wavefront-sensing and coronagraphic technologies for future segmented-telescope high-contrast instruments in the same visible-sensing, infrared-science configuration they would use on sky.
  • The measured performance sets a baseline against which future infrared-branch upgrades, such as a broadband white-light source and a dichroic beamsplitter, can be judged.
  • With three real-time control packages and multiple wavefront sensor arms on one platform, the testbed allows direct comparison of sensing and control approaches on identical hardware.
  • The reported Strehl suggests that the current bench limit is set by deformable-mirror surface quilting, segmented-mirror residual tilts, and non-common-path aberrations rather than by the off-axis-parabola relay itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 30 nm non-common-path estimate likely rests on optimistic statistics: if residual off-axis-mirror misalignments produce low-order aberrations such as coma or astigmatism, those errors would add coherently rather than as independent Gaussian variables, so a direct infrared wavefront measurement could find a larger true NCPA.
  • If the 30 nm value holds, then the bench has headroom to push contrast further by adding an infrared pupil-plane calibrator, since the relay is not the limiting error source.
  • The same visible-to-infrared correction architecture could eventually be replaced by a photonic-lantern wavefront sensor operating directly at the science wavelength, which would remove the non-common-path problem entirely; the paper's separate infrared photonic-lantern testbed is a natural place to test that idea.
  • The fact that millimeter-scale manufacturing deviations in the off-axis mirrors were corrected by alignment in the presence of deformable mirrors suggests that relaxed mirror tolerances may be acceptable for similar future testbeds, reducing cost.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the 2024 rebuild of the Santa Cruz Extreme AO Lab (SEAL) from a refractive, visible-only testbed to a reflective, multi-wavelength bench. Thirteen custom off-axis parabolic mirrors replace the original lenses, enabling visible and near-infrared operation. The paper describes the OAP characterization and alignment, the wavefront sensor suite (Shack-Hartmann, transmissive four-sided pyramid, vector-Zernike, and a photonic lantern in the separate muirSEAL path), the visible and infrared science channels, the vector-vortex coronagraph, and the new control software (Catkit2 and CACAO). Headline performance results are a ~18 nm rms residual after closed-loop correction with the pyramid wavefront sensor, a measured 98% Strehl ratio in the infrared branch after closing the visible PWFS loop, and a corresponding estimated NCPA of ~30 nm rms between the IR PSF and the visible PWFS. The paper also describes ongoing and future work on photonic coronagraphy, photonic lantern wavefront sensing, Zernike wavefront sensing, and predictive wavefront control.

Significance. If the performance claims hold, the rebuilt SEAL provides a useful laboratory demonstration of a visible-PWFS/IR-science architecture, which is directly relevant to future high-contrast imaging instruments. The paper is honest about the likely sources of residual error (DM quilting and IrisAO segment tilts) and represents a significant capability expansion for the testbed. The integration of Catkit2 and CACAO is a practical contribution to the AO software ecosystem. However, the central quantitative interpretation---the ~30 nm NCPA estimate---rests on assumptions that are not validated in the manuscript, and the headline performance numbers are reported without uncertainties, repeat counts, or measurement details. These issues do not invalidate the direct observable (98% Strehl) but they do weaken the paper's central claim that the visible-PWFS/IR-science architecture has only ~30 nm of non-common path error.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (none) and paragraph on NCPA estimate] The claim that the measured 98% IR Strehl 'corresponds to' a ~30 nm rms NCPA is not self-consistently derived. The text applies the Marechal approximation and then combines the IR-branch OPD and the PWFS-branch OPD via 'error propagation and the principles of adding normally distributed random variables.' This assumes independent, zero-mean, Gaussian-distributed phase errors. But Section 3.1 states that the dominant residual errors are BMC DM quilting and IrisAO segment tilts, which are deterministic, spatially structured, and likely low-order or repetitive. If the two OPDs are correlated or dominated by a few low-order modes, quadrature subtraction does not yield the true NCPA. The paper should either provide a direct IR phase retrieval measurement, or present the 30 nm number as an order-of-magnitude illustration and explicitly avoid making it a quantitative claim. If the full derivati
  2. [Sections 3.1 and 3.3, headline performance numbers] No measurement uncertainties, repeat counts, or systematic-error estimates are reported for the ~18 nm residual, the 98% Strehl ratio, or the ~30 nm NCPA. The Strehl measurement method is not described: no information is given on the PSF normalization, detector background subtraction, exposure time, source stability, or whether the AO loop was paused during the measurement. Without this information, the reader cannot assess whether 98% is meaningfully different from 95% or whether 18 nm is reproducible. The authors should provide repeated measurements, an uncertainty budget, and a clear statement of how the Strehl ratio was evaluated.
  3. [Section 3.3, IR branch alignment and chromatic correction] The IR branch is aligned using a visible source, and the loop is closed on the visible PWFS. The manuscript does not discuss how residual chromatic effects (e.g., the infrared lens's chromatic aberration or the beamsplitter's wavelength-dependent phase) are accounted for in the NCPA estimate. If the visible and infrared paths have different focus or aberration terms, the measured IR Strehl could be affected by effects not captured by the Gaussian quadrature model. This should be addressed explicitly, either by modeling the chromatic terms or by measuring the IR PSF directly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] Typos: 'segmened' in the abstract/introduction and 'cornographs' in Section 2. Also, the phrase 'the testbed includes a vector-vortex coronagraph' is in the abstract but the main text correctly notes it is a visible path; consider a small clarification.
  2. [Section 2, OAP tolerance discussion] The sentence 'errors that surpassed this set tolerance were implemented into the as-built design' is unclear. Does this mean the Zemax model was re-optimized with measured parameters, or that the alignment was adjusted to compensate? Please clarify.
  3. [Figure 6, Catkit2 latency benchmark] The caption reports mean latencies but no error bars or sample counts. Given that the comparison with CACAO/ImageStreamIO is a claimed improvement, include at least the standard deviation or percentile spread. Also state whether the benchmark conditions are representative of the actual closed-loop AO usage.
  4. [References [36]-[38] and [26]] Several references are to 'these proceedings' or to a senior thesis. For a journal-style paper, please ensure that all such references are either fully citable or that the relevant content is summarized in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are direct bench measurements, and the §3.3 NCPA estimate is a standard inference from measured quantities, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative performance claims are laboratory measurements, not predictions derived from a fitted model. The 98% Strehl ratio in the infrared branch is a direct observable after closing the loop with the visible PWFS. The corresponding ~30 nm NCPA estimate in Section 3.3 is obtained by applying the Marechal approximation to the measured Strehl to get an IR OPD, independently estimating the PWFS-branch OPD from wavefront sensor phase/pupil measurements, and combining the two by error propagation under an assumed normal-distribution model. This is a standard estimation procedure: the output (NCPA) is not defined as the input, and no parameter is fit to a subset of the data and then used to 'predict' a closely related quantity. The Gaussian/independence assumption underlying the variance addition is unvalidated and could bias the estimate, but that is a correctness or robustness concern, not a circularity. References to prior work by the authors (e.g., Gerchberg–Saxton reconstruction, SEAL first light, CACAO development) document the provenance of techniques and hardware; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the central result. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no new physical entities. Its central claims rest on standard optical approximations (Marechal) and a stated but unverified Gaussian model for non-common path errors, plus the implicit assumption that the bench hardware faithfully simulates a segmented telescope. The OAP alignment tolerances and NCPA estimates are the most assumption-laden parts.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Marechal approximation SR ≈ exp(-(2πσ)^2) is valid for converting a measured Strehl ratio into an rms wavefront OPD.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to estimate the OPD in the IR branch from the 98% Strehl ratio; the approximation assumes small phase errors over a filled aperture.
  • domain assumption The non-common path errors between the IR PSF and the visible PWFS can be modeled as zero-mean Gaussian random variables whose variances add in quadrature.
    Section 3.3 states 'the principles of adding normally distributed random variables were applied' without evidence that the actual NCPA is Gaussian rather than dominated by a few low-order modes such as coma or astigmatism.
  • domain assumption The bench is temporally stable so that a single NCPA estimate from one Strehl measurement is representative.
    Section 3.3 says the authors ensure 'no instabilities' before switching to the IR source, but no time-series stability or repeatability data are shown.
  • domain assumption The IrisAO segmented deformable mirror adequately represents Keck-like segment geometry and phasing errors for technology development.
    The entire testbed concept relies on this simulation of a segmented primary, but no validation of the IrisAO's fidelity to Keck segment geometry is presented in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Santa Cruz Extreme AO Lab (SEAL) 2.0: A reflective, multi-wavelength rebuild." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SXETFG6L

@misc{pith2026250903770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Santa Cruz Extreme AO Lab (SEAL) 2.0: A reflective, multi-wavelength rebuild},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SXETFG6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03770}
}
read the original abstract

The Santa cruz Extreme Adaptive optics Lab (SEAL) is a visible/near-infrared wavelength testbed designed to support technology development for high contrast imaging on large, segmented, ground-based telescopes. SEAL saw first light in 2021 as a transmissive, visible-wavelength AO testbed. In this paper, we present four major upgrades to SEAL: (1) the testbed has been rebuilt with custom off-axis parabolic mirrors, enabling operation in both near-infrared and visible wavelengths; (2) the suite of wavefront sensors now includes a Shack-Hartmann, transmissive four-sided pyramid, vector-Zernike, and, in the muirSEAL testbed, a photonic lantern; (3) the testbed includes a vector-vortex coronagraph and will soon include a hybrid astrophotonic coronagraph; (4) in addition to its original Keck-heritage RTC, SEAL now includes two additional control software packages: Catkit, originally developed for the HiCAT testbed at the Space Telescope Science Institute, and the RTC Compute And Control for Adaptive Optics (CACAO), originally designed for Subaru/SCExAO. We discuss the performance of the testbed after the reflective rebuild and on-going technology development work at SEAL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the refractive SEAL testbed (b) Schematic of the updated reflective SEAL testbed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the OAP testing setup. The collimated beam from the Zygo Interferometer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of the PWFS closed-loop performance. Top-left panel: the reconstructed phase from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of the Zernike WFS closed-loop formance. Upper panels: the injected (piston-only) phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Zernike wavefront sensor dynamic range measured by poking in piston the central segment on the IRIS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The core-to-core latency for some of the implemented wait methods in Catkit2, and comparison with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The graphical user interface of the Catkit2 RTC on the SEAL testbed. On the left the camera images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Santa Cruz Extreme AO Lab (SEAL): design and first light,

    Jensen-Clem, R., Dillon, D., Gerard, B., van Kooten, M., Fowler, J., Kupke, R., Cetre, S., Sanchez, D., Hinz, P., Laguna, C., Doelman, D., and Snik, F., “The Santa Cruz Extreme AO Lab (SEAL): design and first light,” in [ Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets X ], Shaklan, S. B. and Ruane, G. J., eds., 11823, 118231D, International So...

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    A near-infrared pyramid wavefront sensor for Keck adaptive optics: real-time controller,

    Cetre, S., Guyon, O., Bond, C., Chun, M., Mawet, D., Wizinowich, P., Lockhart, C., Goebel, S., and Wetherell, E., “A near-infrared pyramid wavefront sensor for Keck adaptive optics: real-time controller,” in [ Adaptive Optics Systems VI ], Close, L. M., Schreiber, L., and Schmidt, D., eds., 10703, 1070339, International Society for Optics and Photonics, S...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Vector Zernike wavefront sensor on the Santa Cruz Extreme AO Lab (SEAL) testbed,

    Salama, M., Jensen-Clem, R., van Kooten, M., Dillon, D., Gerard, B. L., Fowler, J., Cetre, S., Snik, F., and Doelman, D., “Vector Zernike wavefront sensor on the Santa Cruz Extreme AO Lab (SEAL) testbed,” in [ Adaptive Optics Systems VIII ], Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., and Vernet, E., eds., 12185, 121858M, International Society for Optics and Photonics, S...

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Reconstruction methods for the phase-shifted Zernike wavefront sensor,

    Chambouleyron, V., Ciss´ e, M., Salama, M., Haffert, S., D´ eo, V., Guthery, C., Wallace, J. K., Dillon, D., Jensen-Clem, R., Hinz, P., and Macintosh, B., “Reconstruction methods for the phase-shifted Zernike wavefront sensor,” in [ Adaptive Optics Systems IX ], Jackson, K. J., Schmidt, D., and Vernet, E., eds., 13097, 130971N, International Society for O...

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Gemini planet imager 2.0: implementing a Zernike wavefront sensor for non-common path aberrations measurement,

    Chambouleyron, V., Salama, M., Guthery, C. E., Perera, S., Konopacky, Q., Veran, J. P., Savransky, D., Chilcote, J., Wallace, J. K., Dillon, D., Jensen-Clem, R., and Macintosh, B., “Gemini planet imager 2.0: implementing a Zernike wavefront sensor for non-common path aberrations measurement,” in [ Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) ...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    The bright pyramid wavefront sensor,

    Gerard, B. L., Chambouleyron, V., Jensen-Clem, R., and Sauvage, J.-F., “The bright pyramid wavefront sensor,” in [ Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets X ], Shaklan, S. B. and Ruane, G. J., eds., 11823, 118231B, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Various wavefront sensing and control developments on the Santa Cruz Extreme AO Laboratory (SEAL) testbed,

    Gerard, B. L., Perez-Soto, J., Chambouleyron, V., van Kooten, M. A. M., Dillon, D., Cetre, S., Jensen- Clem, R., Fu, Q., Amata, H., and Heidrich, W., “Various wavefront sensing and control developments on the Santa Cruz Extreme AO Laboratory (SEAL) testbed,” in [Adaptive Optics Systems VIII ], Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., and Vernet, E., eds., 12185, 12185...

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Using the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm to reconstruct nonmodulated pyramid wavefront sensor measurements,

    Chambouleyron, V., Sengupta, A., Salama, M., van Kooten, M., Gerard, B. L., Haffert, S. Y., Cetre, S., Dillon, D., Kupke, R., Jensen-Clem, R., Hinz, P., and Macintosh, B., “Using the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm to reconstruct nonmodulated pyramid wavefront sensor measurements,” Astronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A48 (Jan. 2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    High-speed Focal Plane Wave Front Sensing with an Optical Chopper,

    Gerard, B. L., Dillon, D., Cetre, S., and Jensen-Clem, R., “High-speed Focal Plane Wave Front Sensing with an Optical Chopper,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 135, 024502 (Feb. 2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Deformable mirror-based pupil chopping for exoplanet imaging and adaptive optics,

    Soto, J. P., Laguna, C., Gerard, B., Dattilo, A., Chambouleyron, V., and Jensen-Clem, R., “Deformable mirror-based pupil chopping for exoplanet imaging and adaptive optics,” in [Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets XI ], Ruane, G. J., ed., 12680, 126801P,...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Fast Coherent Differential Imaging on Ground-based Telescopes Using the Self-coherent Camera,

    Gerard, B. L., Marois, C., and Galicher, R., “Fast Coherent Differential Imaging on Ground-based Telescopes Using the Self-coherent Camera,” The Astronomical Journal 156, 106 (Sept. 2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Gerard, B. L. B., Exoplanet imaging speckle subtraction: current limitations and a path forward , PhD thesis, University of Victoria, Canada (Jan. 2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Fast focal plane wavefront sensing as a second stage adaptive optics wavefront sensor,

    Gerard, B. L., V´ eran, J.-P., Singh, G., Herriot, G., Lardi` ere, O., and Marois, C., “Fast focal plane wavefront sensing as a second stage adaptive optics wavefront sensor,” in [Adaptive Optics Systems VII ], Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., and Vernet, E., eds., 11448, 1144826, ...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Laboratory demonstration of real-time focal plane wavefront control of residual atmospheric speckles,

    Gerard, B. L., Dillon, D., Cetre, S., and Jensen-Clem, R. M., “Laboratory demonstration of real-time focal plane wavefront control of residual atmospheric speckles,” Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 8(3), 039001 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    L., Dillon, D., Cetre, S., Jensen-Clem, R., Yuzvinsky, T

    Gerard, B. L., Dillon, D., Cetre, S., Jensen-Clem, R., Yuzvinsky, T. D., and Schmidt, H., “First experimental results of the fast atmospheric self-coherent camera technique on the Santa Cruz extreme adaptive optics laboratory testbed: demonstration of high speed focal plane wa...

    2021

  8. [16]

    First laboratory demonstration of real-time multi-wavefront sensor single conjugate adaptive optics,

    Gerard, B. L., Dillon, D., Cetre, S., and Jensen-Clem, R., “First laboratory demonstration of real-time multi-wavefront sensor single conjugate adaptive optics,” in [ Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets XI ], Ruane, G. J., ed., 12680, 126801Q, Internatio...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Developments on LLNL’s high contrast testbed and Lick/ShaneAO,

    Gerard, B. L., Sanchez, D. F., Sengupta, A. R., Fernandez, B. R., Laguna, C., Ratliff, C., Dillon, D., Cetre, S., Tucker, D., Kim, M., Poyneer, L., Bauman, B., Gates, E., Savage, M., Jensen-Clem, R., Ammons, S. M., Hinz, P., and Macintosh, B., “Developments on LLNL’s high cont...

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Laboratory demonstration of optimal identification and control of tip-tilt systems,

    Sengupta, A. R., Gerard, B. L., Dillon, D., van Kooten, M., Gavel, D., and Jensen-Clem, R., “Laboratory demonstration of optimal identification and control of tip-tilt systems,” in [ Adaptive Optics Systems VIII ], Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., and Vernet, E., eds., 12185, 12185...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Simultaneous segmented primary mirror phasing and low order wavefront sensing in a cascaded adaptive optics system,

    Calvin, B., Fitzgerald, M., Jensen-Clem, R., Salama, M., Chambouleyron, V., and Dillon, D., “Simultaneous segmented primary mirror phasing and low order wavefront sensing in a cascaded adaptive optics system,” in [ Adaptive Optics Systems IX ], Jackson, K. J., Schmidt, D., and...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Simultaneous operation of a controllable segmented primary mirror and single conjugate adaptive optics system part 1: design concept and sensitivity analysis,

    Calvin, B. and Fitzgerald, M. P., “Simultaneous operation of a controllable segmented primary mirror and single conjugate adaptive optics system part 1: design concept and sensitivity analysis,” Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 11, 019003 (Jan. 2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Simultaneous operation of a controllable segmented primary mirror and single conjugate adaptive optics system, part 2: simulated operation,

    Calvin, B., Fitzgerald, M. P., and Ragland, S., “Simultaneous operation of a controllable segmented primary mirror and single conjugate adaptive optics system, part 2: simulated operation,” Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 11, 019004 (Jan. 2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Spatial light modulator on Santa Cruz Extreme AO Laboratory (SEAL) testbed,

    van Kooten, M. A. M., Jensen-Clem, R., Fowler, J., Dillon, D., Kupke, R., Salama, M., and Gerard, B. L., “Spatial light modulator on Santa Cruz Extreme AO Laboratory (SEAL) testbed,” in [ Adaptive Optics Systems VIII ], Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., and Vernet, E., eds., 12185, ...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Imple- mentation and characterization of the vector vortex coronagraph on the SEAL testbed,

    Moreno, A., Chambouleyron, V., Jensen-Clem, R. M., Dillon, D., Hinz, P. M., and Macintosh, B., “Imple- mentation and characterization of the vector vortex coronagraph on the SEAL testbed,” in [Adaptive Optics Systems IX ], Jackson, K. J., Schmidt, D., and Vernet, E., eds., 130...

    2024

  16. [24]

    AO3000 at Subaru: combining for the first time a NIR WFS using First Light’s C-RED ONE and ALPAO’s 64x64 DM,

    Lozi, J., Ahn, K., Clergeon, C., Deo, V., Guyon, O., Hattori, T., Minowa, Y., Nishiyama, S., Ono, Y., and Vievard, S., “AO3000 at Subaru: combining for the first time a NIR WFS using First Light’s C-RED ONE and ALPAO’s 64x64 DM,” in [ Adaptive Optics Systems VIII ], Schreiber,...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Simultaneous phase and amplitude aberration sensing with a liquid-crystal vector-Zernike phase mask,

    Doelman, D. S., Fagginger Auer, F., Escuti, M. J., and Snik, F., “Simultaneous phase and amplitude aberration sensing with a liquid-crystal vector-Zernike phase mask,” Optics Letters 44, 17 (Jan. 2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Implementation of a Visible Vector Vortex Coronagraph and Imaging Infrared branch on the SEAL Testbed,

    Moreno, A. A., “Implementation of a Visible Vector Vortex Coronagraph and Imaging Infrared branch on the SEAL Testbed,” UC Santa Cruz Senior Thesis (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    spacetelescope/catkit2,

    Por, Emiel, H., Laginja, I., Pourcelot, R., Soummer, R., Sevin, A., Sahoo, A., Nguyen, M., Fowler, J., Egger, L., Pougheon, E., and Demagny, A., “spacetelescope/catkit2,” (May 2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Real-time adaptive optics control with a high level programming language,

    Thompson, W., Gamroth, D., Marois, C., and Lardi` ere, O., “Real-time adaptive optics control with a high level programming language,” in [Adaptive Optics Systems IX ], Jackson, K. J., Schmidt, D., and Vernet, E., eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)...

    2024

  21. [29]

    A non-blocking buddy system for scalable memory allocation on multi-core machines,

    Marotta, R., Ianni, M., Scarselli, A., Pellegrini, A., and Quaglia, F., “A non-blocking buddy system for scalable memory allocation on multi-core machines,” in [ 2018 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER) ], 164–165, IEEE (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    The compute and control for adaptive optics (CACAO) real-time control software package,

    Guyon, O., Sevin, A., Gratadour, D., Bernard, J., Ltaief, H., Sukkari, D., Cetre, S., Skaf, N., Lozi, J., Mar- tinache, F., Clergeon, C., Norris, B., Wong, A., and Males, J., “The compute and control for adaptive optics (CACAO) real-time control software package,” in [Adaptive...

    2018

  23. [31]

    Adaptive optics real-time control with the compute and control for adaptive optics (Cacao) software framework,

    Guyon, O., Sevin, A., Ferreira, F., Ltaief, H., Males, J., Deo, V., Gratadour, D., Cetre, S., Martinache, F., Lozi, J., Vievard, S., Fruitwala, N., Bos, S., and Skaf, N., “Adaptive optics real-time control with the compute and control for adaptive optics (Cacao) software frame...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Real-time control and data standardization on various telescopes and benches,

    Skaf, N., Jensen-Clem, R., Hunter, A., Guyon, O., Deo, V., Hinz, P., Cetre, S., Chambouleyron, V., Fowler, J., Sengupa, A., Salama, M., Males, J., McEwen, E., Douglas, E. S., Van Gorkom, K., Por, E., Lucas, M., Ferreira, F., Sevin, A., Bowens-Rubin, R., Cranney, J., and Calvin...

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    AstroPIC: near-infrared photonic integrated circuit coronagraph architecture for the Habitable Worlds Observatory,

    Sirbu, D., Belikov, R., Fogarty, K., Valdez, C., Sun, Z., Kroo, A., Solgaard, O., Miller, D. A. B., and Guyon, O., “AstroPIC: near-infrared photonic integrated circuit coronagraph architecture for the Habitable Worlds Observatory,” in [ Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 202...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Phase-apodized-pupil Lyot Coronagraphs for Arbitrary Telescope Pupils,

    Por, E. H., “Phase-apodized-pupil Lyot Coronagraphs for Arbitrary Telescope Pupils,” The Astrophysical Journal 888, 127 (Jan. 2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Integrated photonic-based coronagraphic systems for future space telescopes,

    Desai, N., K¨ onig, L., Por, E., Juanola-Parramon, R., Belikov, R., Laginja, I., Guyon, O., Pueyo, L., Fogarty, K., Absil, O., Altinier, L., Baudoz, P., Bidot, A., Bonse, M. J., Bott, K., Brandl, B., Carlotti, A., Casewell, S. L., Choquet, E., Cowan, N. B., Doelman, D., Fowler...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Photonic lantern wavefront reconstruction in a multi-wavefront sensor single- conjugate adaptive optics system,

    Sengupta, A. R., Diaz, J., Gerard, B. L., Jensen-Clem, R., Dillon, D., DeMartino, M., Bundy, K., Cetre, S., and Chambouleyron, V., “Photonic lantern wavefront reconstruction in a multi-wavefront sensor single- conjugate adaptive optics system,” in [Adaptive Optics Systems IX ]...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Experimental validation of photonic lantern imaging and wavefront sensing performance,

    Sengupta, A. R., Chambouleyron, V., Diaz, J., DeMartino, M., Jensen-Clem, R., Gerard, B. L., Messerly, M. J., Pax, P., Dillon, D., Bundy, K., Cuevas, M., Cetre, S., Macintosh, B., Dobias, C., Crowe, T., Eikenberry, S. S., Amezcua-Correa, R., and Yerolatsitis, S., “Experimental...

    2025

  30. [38]

    Experi- mental validation of photonic lantern imaging and wavefront sensing performance,

    Cuevas, M., Sengupta, A. R., Chambouleyron, V., Jensen-Clem, R., Dillon, D., Bundy, K., , Cetre, S., Salama, M., Dobias, C., Crowe, T., Eikenberry, S. S., Amezcua-Correa, R., and Yerolatsitis, S., “Experi- mental validation of photonic lantern imaging and wavefront sensing per...

    2025

  31. [39]

    An astrophotonics platform for Lick Observatory: testing adaptive mode extraction with photonic lanterns,

    DeMartino, M. C., Bundy, K., Schmidt, H., Kupke, R., MacDonald, N., Gates, E., Rees, J., Lynam, P., Hinz, P., Jensen-Clem, R., Amin, M. N., and Weber, Z., “An astrophotonics platform for Lick Observatory: testing adaptive mode extraction with photonic lanterns,” in [ Advances ...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Photonic lantern testing on Lick Observatory’s 3m Shane Telescope,

    DeMartino, M. C., Bundy, K., Eikenberry, S., Amezcua-Correa, R., Yerolatsitis, S., Leon-Saval, S., Diaz, J., Sengupta, A., Jensen-Clem, R., and Hinz, P., “Photonic lantern testing on Lick Observatory’s 3m Shane Telescope,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astr...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Tempestas ex machina: A review of machine learning methods for wavefront control,

    Fowler, J. and Landman, R., “Tempestas ex machina: A review of machine learning methods for wavefront control,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2309.00730 (Sept. 2023)

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Adaptive Optics Predictive Control with Empirical Orthogonal Functions (EOFs),

    Guyon, O. and Males, J., “Adaptive Optics Predictive Control with Empirical Orthogonal Functions (EOFs),” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1707.00570 (July 2017)

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Fourier transform wavefront control with adaptive prediction of the atmosphere,

    Poyneer, L. A., Macintosh, B. A., and V´ eran, J.-P., “Fourier transform wavefront control with adaptive prediction of the atmosphere,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A 24, 2645 (Jan. 2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    Battle of the predictive wavefront controls: comparing data and model-driven predictive control for high contrast imaging,

    Fowler, J., Van Kooten, M. A. M., and Jensen-Clem, R., “Battle of the predictive wavefront controls: comparing data and model-driven predictive control for high contrast imaging,” in [Adaptive Optics Systems VIII ], Schreiber, L., Schmidt, D., and Vernet, E., eds., Society of ...

    2022

  37. [45]

    The future looks dark: improving high contrast imaging with hyper-parameter optimization for data-driven predictive wavefront control,

    Fowler, J., Jensen-Clem, R., van Kooten, M. A. M., Chambouleyron, V., and Cetre, S., “The future looks dark: improving high contrast imaging with hyper-parameter optimization for data-driven predictive wavefront control,” in [ Adaptive Optics Systems IX ], Jackson, K. J., Schm...

    2024

Pith tools

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