| ELECTROMAGNETISM, OPTICS, ACOUSTICS, HEAT TRANSFER, CLASSICAL MECHANICS, AND FLUID DYNAMICS |
Prev
Next
|
|
|
Comparison between iterative wavefront control algorithm and direct gradient wavefront control algorithm for adaptive optics system |
| Cheng Sheng-Yi (程生毅)a b c, Liu Wen-Jin (刘文劲)a c, Chen Shan-Qiu (陈善球)a c, Dong Li-Zhi (董理治)a c, Yang Ping (杨平)a c, Xu Bing (许冰)a |
a Laboratory on Adaptive Optics, Institute of Optics and Electronics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610209, China;
b Key Laboratory on Adaptive Optics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610209, China;
c University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Among all kinds of wavefront control algorithms in adaptive optics systems, the direct gradient wavefront control algorithm is the most widespread and common method. This control algorithm obtains the actuator voltages directly from wavefront slopes through pre-measuring the relational matrix between deformable mirror actuators and Hartmann wavefront sensor with perfect real-time characteristic and stability. However, with increasing the number of sub-apertures in wavefront sensor and deformable mirror actuators of adaptive optics systems, the matrix operation in direct gradient algorithm takes too much time, which becomes a major factor influencing control effect of adaptive optics systems. In this paper we apply an iterative wavefront control algorithm to high-resolution adaptive optics systems, in which the voltages of each actuator are obtained through iteration arithmetic, which gains great advantage in calculation and storage. For AO system with thousands of actuators, the computational complexity estimate is about O(n2)～ O(n3) in direct gradient wavefront control algorithm, while the computational complexity estimate in iterative wavefront control algorithm is about O(n)～ (O(n)3/2), in which n is the number of actuators of AO system. And the more the numbers of sub-apertures and deformable mirror actuators, the more significant advantage the iterative wavefront control algorithm exhibits.
|
Received: 22 October 2014
Revised: 06 February 2015
Accepted manuscript online:
|
|
PACS:
|
42.68.Wt
|
(Remote sensing; LIDAR and adaptive systems)
|
| |
95.75.Qr
|
(Adaptive and segmented optics)
|
| |
07.05.Tp
|
(Computer modeling and simulation)
|
|
| Fund: Project supported by the National Key Scientific and Research Equipment Development Project of China (Grant No. ZDYZ2013-2), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11173008), and the Sichuan Provincial Outstanding Youth Academic Technology Leaders Program, China (Grant No. 2012JQ0012). |
Corresponding Authors:
Xu Bing
E-mail: bing_xu_ioe@163.com
|
Cite this article:
Cheng Sheng-Yi (程生毅), Liu Wen-Jin (刘文劲), Chen Shan-Qiu (陈善球), Dong Li-Zhi (董理治), Yang Ping (杨平), Xu Bing (许冰) Comparison between iterative wavefront control algorithm and direct gradient wavefront control algorithm for adaptive optics system 2015 Chin. Phys. B 24 084214
|
| [1] |
Rousset G and Roddier F 1991 Adaptive Optics in Astronomy (Vol. 5) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) p. 91
|
| [2] |
Hu S, Xu B, Zhang X, Hou J, Wu J and Jiang W 2006 Appl. Opt. 45 2638
|
| [3] |
Yu L H, Liang X Y, Ren Z J, Wang L, Xu Y, Lu X M and Yu G T 2012 Chin. Phys. B 21 014201
|
| [4] |
Zou W, Qi X and Burns S 2008 Opt. Lett. 33 2602
|
| [5] |
Zhang L Q, Gu N T and Rao C H 2013 Acta Phys. Sin. 62 169501 (in Chinese)
|
| [6] |
Lei X, Wang S, Yan H, Liu W, Dong L, Yang P and Xu B 2012 Opt. Express 20 22143
|
| [7] |
Cheng S Y, Chen S Q, Dong L Z, Liu W J, Wang S, Yang P, Ao M W and Xu B 2014 Acta Phys. Sin. 63 074206 (in Chinese)
|
| [8] |
Li C, Sredar N, Ivers K, Queener H and Porter J 2010 Opt. Express 18 16671
|
| [9] |
Ren Z J, Liang X Y, Liu M B, Xia C Q, Lu X M, Li R X and Xu Z Z 2009 Chin. Phys. Lett. 26 124203
|
| [10] |
Ning Y, Zhou H, Yu H, Rao C H and Jiang W H 2009 Chin. Phys. B 18 1089
|
| [11] |
Gilles L, Ellerbroek B L and Vogel C R 2003 Adaptive Optical System Technologies II, Proc. SPIE, February 1, 2003, Hawaii, USA, p. 1011
|
| [12] |
Davies R I, Bonaccini D, Rabien S, Hackenberg W, Ott T, Hippler S, Neumann U, Barden M, Lehnert M, Eisenhauer F and Genzel R 2002 ESO Astrophysics Symposia: Scientific Drivers for ESO Future VLT/VLTI Instrumentation (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag) p. 158
|
| [13] |
Luc G, Curtis R V and Brent L E 2002 J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19 1817
|
| [14] |
Luc G, Brent L E and Curtis R V 2003 Appl. Opt. 42 5233
|
| [15] |
Eric T and Michel T 2010 J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 27 1046
|
| [16] |
Vogel C R 2004 Advancements in Adaptive Optics, Proc. SPIE, June 21, 2004, Bellingham, WA, USA, p. 1327
|
| [17] |
Belgin M, Back G and Ribbens C J 2011 Int. J. Parallel Prog. 39 62
|
| [18] |
John M C and John G 2004 Science, The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 18 225
|
| [19] |
Jiang W and Li H 1990 Adaptive Optics and Optical Structures, Proc. SPIE, March 1, 1990, The Hague, Netherlands, p. 82
|
| [20] |
Zhu Y, Rao L, Yan T, Zhang J and Li B 2010 Matrix Analysis and Calculation (Vol. 9) (Beijing: National Defense Industry Press) p. 160 (in Chinese)
|
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
Altmetric
|
|
blogs
Facebook pages
Wikipedia page
Google+ users
|
Online attention
Altmetric calculates a score based on the online attention an article receives. Each coloured thread in the circle represents a different type of online attention. The number in the centre is the Altmetric score. Social media and mainstream news media are the main sources that calculate the score. Reference managers such as Mendeley are also tracked but do not contribute to the score. Older articles often score higher because they have had more time to get noticed. To account for this, Altmetric has included the context data for other articles of a similar age.
View more on Altmetrics
|
|
|
