Wavefront Reconstruction

Lisa A. Poyneer
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Center for Adaptive Optics 2008 Summer School

University of California, Santa Cruz
August 11, 2009

LLNL-PRES-405137

This work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.
 What is wavefront reconstruction?

• Most* wavefront sensors do not measure the wavefront phase

directly, but instead measure the average derivative
• Most* wavefront correctors are used to conjugate that phase
on the mirror’s surface

• We must reconstruct the phase from the WFS slopes,

achieving the most accurate, lowest noise estimate possible in
the least amount of computation

• We’ll start with just one sensor and the phase as a two-
dimensional surface
* I’m ignoring direct phase sensors as well as curvature sensors. I’m also ignoring AO
systems which operate without a WFS or that do not conjugate the phase 2
 Method 1: zonal matrix reconstruction

• The slope vector s contains x- and y-slopes for all valid

subapertures in the pupil
• The phase vector φ contains all controllable actuators

3
Mapping subapertures and actuators

s φ

Slope vector: both x- and y-slopes

Actuator vector
Phase in pupil

4
Mapping subapertures and actuators

s φ

Slope vector: both x- and y-slopes

Actuator vector
Phase in pupil

4
Mapping subapertures and actuators

s φ

Slope vector: both x- and y-slopes

Actuator vector
Phase in pupil

4
Mapping subapertures and actuators

s φ

Slope vector: both x- and y-slopes

Actuator vector
Phase in pupil

4
Mapping subapertures and actuators

s φ

Slope vector: both x- and y-slopes

Actuator vector
Phase in pupil

4
Mapping subapertures and actuators

s φ

Slope vector: both x- and y-slopes

Actuator vector
Phase in pupil

4
 Method 1: zonal matrix reconstruction

• The slope vector s contains x- and y-slopes for all valid

subapertures in the pupil
• The phase vector φ contains all controllable actuators

• The basis set for reconstruction is the actuators

• We model the WFS measurement process as
s = Wφ

• With the matrix pseudo-inverse E = W , the reconstruction is

+

obtained by a matrix-vector multiplication

φ̂ = Es
5
 Method 2: modal matrix reconstruction

• We first define a orthogonal modal basis set to represent the

actuators
!mk , ml " = 0, for k #= l

6
Examples of modal basis sets

7
 Examples of modal basis sets

• Actuators

7
 Examples of modal basis sets

• Actuators

• Zernike modes

7
 Examples of modal basis sets

• Actuators

• Zernike modes

• Fourier modes

7
 Method 2: modal matrix reconstruction

• We first define a orthogonal modal basis set to represent the

actuators
!mk , ml " = 0, for k #= l

• We can analyze the phase in terms of modal coefficients with

the inner product ck = !φ, mk "
• The phase is synthesized from the modal coefficients as
!
n−1
mk
φ= ck .
!mk , mk "
k=0

• We can put the modes into rows or columns to produce

modal analysis M and synthesis M −1
matrices

8
 Modal reconstruction, continued

• Now the slope measurement process is

s = WM −1
c

• And the modal reconstruction is

+
ĉ = MW s

• With modes, we can think about weighting or manipulating

them. For example, If we choose the Zernike modes for a
basis set, we can easily remove piston, tip and tilt (or other
Zernikes) by zeroing the correct coefficients before converting
back to actuators, using matrix G
φ̂ = Es , where E = M−1 GMW+
9
 Suppressing local waffle via matrix

• The regular error criterion, which produces SVD, is

J = (s − Wφ̂)T (s − Wφ̂) Gavel, Phase Reconstruction Page 10

• We add a term which penalizes certain actuator patterns

T T
J = (s − Wφ̂) (s − Wφ̂) + φ̂ Vφ̂
• Using the weighting matrix V to penalize local waffle
Gavel, Phase Reconstruction Figure 5. Zoomed
Page 9in view of modes 1-4 (top row) and 19-22 (bottom row) from the actuator-penalty
method.

Figure 3. Zoomed in view of other modes 15-18 (top row) and 33-36 (bottom row)Figure 6. Zoomed
in the SVD mode set.in view of modes 15-18 (top row) and 33-36 (bottom row) from the actuator-penalty
Every mode shows waffle behavior.
SVD modes New modes
method. Although high-order modes have high spatial frequencies, they have no localized waffle behavior.

Figures from D. T. Gavel, “Suppressing anomalous localized waffle behavior in least
squares wavefront reconstruction,” Proc. SPIE 4839, pp. 972–980 (2002). 10
 Method 3: Fourier reconstruction

• The zonal perspective: the slopes and phase are spatial

signals. If we describe the WFS process with a filter, we can
simply inverse filter to obtain the phase
• The modal perspective: the Fourier modes (sines and cosines)
form a basis set. The matrices M and M are simply the
−1

DFT matrices if we embed the aperture in a square grid

• How do we deal with this circular aperture/square grid

problem? (What to do with slopes that equal zero?)

11
 Essential to solve boundary problem

Do nothing Extension Edge Correction

True phase Reconstruction

• Without slope management, region outside pupil will be

forced flat, making phase estimate incorrect
• Two methods for fixing this: Extension and Edge
Correction
12
 Essential to solve boundary problem

Do nothing Extension Edge Correction

True phase Reconstruction

• Without slope management, region outside pupil will be

forced flat, making phase estimate incorrect
• Two methods for fixing this: Extension and Edge
Correction
12
 Essential to solve boundary problem

Do nothing Extension Edge Correction

True phase Reconstruction

• Without slope management, region outside pupil will be

forced flat, making phase estimate incorrect
• Two methods for fixing this: Extension and Edge
Correction
12
 Fourier reconstruction, continued

• The spatial domain / frequency domain pair is

x[m, n] ⇐⇒ X[k, l]

• Fourier modes are eigenfunctions of LSI systems - for each

mode the filter is simply multiplication by a complex number
Vx [k, l]

Gwx [k, l] + Qx [k, l]

Φ[k, l] + Φ̂[k, l]

Gwy [k, l] + Qy [k, l]

WFS Vy [k, l] Reconstruction

13
 A better point-based model

Shack-Hartmann Shack-Hartmann
φ[m, n] φ[m + 1, n] φ[m, n] φ[m + 0.5, n] φ[m + 1, n]

x[m, n] x[m, n]
φ[m, n + 0.5] φ[m + 1, n + 0.5]
y[m, n] y[m, n]

φ[m, n + 1] φ[m + 1, n + 1] φ[m, n + 1] φ[m + 0.5, n + 1] φ[m + 1, n + 1]

Fried model Modified-Hudgin model

• “Modified-Hudgin model” is accurate, but has less noise, no

problems with waffle or local waffle
x[m, n] = φ[m + 1, n + 0.5] − φ[m, n + 0.5]
! "# ! " $
jπl j2πk
Gwx [k, l] = exp exp −1
N N
14
 A complete Fourier Optics model

• Based on a continuous-time model of average derivative

! m+1 ! n+1 " #
d
x[m, n] = φ(x̃, ỹ) dx̃ dỹ
x̃=m ỹ=n dx̃

• When sampled with correct grid spacing and converted into a

filter, it becomes
!" # $ % # $ " # $ % # $&
N 2πl 2πk 2πk 2πl
Gwx [k, l] = cos − 1 sin + cos − 1 sin +
2πl N N N N
!" # $ %" # $ % # $ # $&
N 2πk 2πl 2πk 2πl
j cos − 1 cos − 1 − sin sin
2πl N N N N

15
 Fourier Transform Reconstruction

Desired phase
WFS x-slopes
(actuators)
WFS y-slopes

Solve boundary problem

FFT FFT FFT-1

G∗wx X + G∗wy Y
Φ̂Recon.
|Gwx |2 +filter Other filters
=
|Gwy |2
Complex-valued Fourier coefficients

16
4
 Fourier Transform Reconstruction

Desired phase
WFS x-slopes
(actuators)
WFS y-slopes

G∗wx X + G∗wy Y
Φ̂ =
Solve boundary problem |Gwx |2 + |Gwy |2

FFT FFT FFT-1

Recon. filter Other filters

Complex-valued Fourier coefficients

16
4
 Reconstruction: summary

• Matrix reconstruction is widely used and familiar

• It allows easy measurement of arbitrary system alignments
and geometries (e.g. mis-matched WFS-actuator grids as in
many vision AO systems)
• Many well-established mathematics techniques can be used
to formulate more sophisticated control

• Fourier transform reconstruction is a computationally efficient

method which uses the Fourier basis set
• Many well-established signal processing techniques can be
used to formulate more sophisticated control

17
Brief break - any questions?

18
 Fundamental design decisions

• The number of actuators in the pupil affects performance and

system design
• Incorporation of statistical information about the signal and
noise for better reconstruction performance

19
 Fitting a phase shape
20

10
Phase (AU)

-10

-20
Phase

-30
0 10 20 30 40
Actuator (N=48)

More actuators = a better fit

20
 Fitting a phase shape
20

10
Phase (AU)

-10

-20
Phase
N=8
-30
0 10 20 30 40
Actuator (N=48)

More actuators = a better fit

20
 Fitting a phase shape
20

10
Phase (AU)

-10

-20
Phase
N=8
N=12
-30
0 10 20 30 40
Actuator (N=48)

More actuators = a better fit

20
 Fitting a phase shape
20

10
Phase (AU)

-10

-20
Phase
N=8
N=12
N=16
-30
0 10 20 30 40
Actuator (N=48)

More actuators = a better fit

20
 Fitting a phase shape
20

10
Phase (AU)

-10

-20
Phase
N=8
N=12
N=16
N=24
-30
0 10 20 30 40
Actuator (N=48)

More actuators = a better fit

20
 Fitting a phase shape
20

10
Phase (AU)

-10

-20
Phase
N=8
N=12
N=16
N=24
N=32
-30
0 10 20 30 40
Actuator (N=48)

More actuators = a better fit

20
 Fitting a phase shape
20

10
Phase (AU)

-10

-20
Phase
N=8
N=12
N=16
N=24
N=32
N=48
-30
0 10 20 30 40
Actuator (N=48)

More actuators = a better fit

20
 More actuators = more noise

• More actuators require more WFS measurements in order to

properly sample the phase
• These smaller subapertures receive less light each, resulting in
more noisy measurements
• Where F is the flux from the guide star, the number of
electrons received per subaperture is
F d2
e∝
fAO

• Following Guyon, the intensity at a PSF location is

N2
I∝ 2
f F
21
 PSF intensity with system size, noise only
1x10-3
24
32
40
1x10-4 48
Intensity

1x10-5

1x10-6

1x10-7
0.1 1
Arcsec

Shack-Hartmann noise halo

22
 More actuators = more computation

• The computational cost of implementing a full matrix-vector

multiplication is prohibitive for systems with thousands of
actuators: O(n 2
) for n actuators
• We could just rely on Moore’s Law...
• Original Keck AO computer (~1997): 16 Intel i860 processors, 1.35 ms latency
• Keck NextGen WC (~2007): 3 TigerSharc DSPs, 0.081 ms latency

• Determine an efficient algorithm to solve the matrix equation:

O(n log n) O(n)

• Fourier reconstruction, which uses FFTs:

O(n log n)
23
 Fast reconstruction algorithms

• Pseudo open-loop minimum variance unbiased (MVU)

formulation can be solved with several different techniques
• Sparse matrix techniques [Ellerbroek, 2002]: O(n3/2 )
• Conjugate gradient algorithm [Gilles, 2002] and variations by Vogel, Yang: O(n log n)
• Open-loop reconstructions
• MV conjugate gradient with multi-grid [Gilles, 2003]: O(n)
• Multi-grid for least-squares [Vogel , 2006]: O(n)
• Many other proposals
• Fractal iterative preconditioning for MV (FRIM) [Béchet, 2006]: O(n)
• Local reconstruction [MacMartin, 2003]: O(n3/2 ) or O(n4/3 )
• Sparse reconstruction [Shi, 2002]: O(n2 log n)
• Fourier demodulation from WFS CCD spots [Ribak, 2006], [Glazer, 2007]: O(n log n)
• Wavelet reconstruction [Hampton, 2008]: O(n)

24
 MGCG from Gilles, 2003. FTR from Poyneer, 2007.

Computational costs - reconstruction

1x103 VMM TMT PFI

100
MFLOPs per time step

GPI
10

1 Keck

0.1

0.01
10 100
N x N system size

Actual FLOPs counts for algorithms

25
 MGCG from Gilles, 2003. FTR from Poyneer, 2007.

Computational costs - reconstruction

1x103 VMM TMT PFI
FTR
100
MFLOPs per time step

GPI
10

1 Keck

0.1

0.01
10 100
N x N system size

Actual FLOPs counts for algorithms

25
 MGCG from Gilles, 2003. FTR from Poyneer, 2007.

Computational costs - reconstruction

1x103 VMM TMT PFI
FTR
MGCG
100
MFLOPs per time step

GPI
10

1 Keck

0.1

0.01
10 100
N x N system size

Actual FLOPs counts for algorithms

25
 Advanced matrix techniques: Keck AO

• Instead of using the pseudo inverse, the Keck AO control

matrix is generated using prior information in a Bayesian
formulation
• The covariance matrix of Kolmogorov turbulence is Cφ
• The relative noise matrix for the subapertures is N
• The control matrix is
T
E = (W N −1
W+ αCφ ) WT N−1
−1 −1

• This is based on the open-loop statistics of the wavefront, but

achieves good results in Keck AO closed-loop

See M. A. van Dam, D. L. Mignant, and B. A. Macintosh, “Performance of the Keck
Observatory adaptive-optics system,” Appl. Opt. 43, 5458–5467 (2004). 26
 Minimum Variance Unbiased model

• The slopes now have noise: s = Wφ + v

• The error that we wish to minimize is set by the difference
between the phase (given viewing angle) and the actuator
commands (given DM response): ! = Hφ φ − Ha a
• The best actuator commands are obtained from the slopes
â = Cs

• Where the control matrix is given by C = FE, where

T T −1
E = (W Pv W
−1
+ Pφ ) W Pv
−1 −1

T T −1 T
F= (Ha BHa + Nw Nw + kI) Ha BHφ

See B. L. Ellerbroek, “Efficient computation of minimum-variance wave-front

reconstructors with sparse matrix techniques,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 1803–1816 (2002). 27
 MVU details

• MVU incorporates statistical information and other knowledge:

• the atmospheric covariance Pφ
• the WFS noise covariance Pv
• the DM response Ha
• the target angle (to deal with anisoplanatism) Hφ
• and error weighting matrix B
• a constraint matrix, based on DM and weighting Nw
• a regularization parameter k

• This model is based on open-loop statistics. As such, to be

used in closed-loop, the pseudo-open loop measurements are
first generated from the slopes by adding in the DM shape
• The structure of MVU can be solved efficiently

28
 Conjugate gradient (CG) methods

• CG and variants (FD-PCG, MG-PCG, etc) are fast ways to

iteratively solve a large AO matrix equation, provided A is SPD
Ax = b

• CG for AO uses the MVU model (or variants) to generate the

AO equation. Instead of a matrix-multiplication, the unknown
phase/actuator vector is solved for

• The fundamental concept of CG, whether used for multivariate

optimization or the solution of linear systems, is that at each
iteration you search/update your estimate in a conjugate
(perpendicular) direction.
29
How CG works - simple example

x0

30
 How CG works - simple example
! " # $
• We’ll use CG to solve the equation 3 1
1 1
x=
8
2
! " ! "
7/3 4
• To produce our estimate x1 =
1 , we “searched” along 0

x0

30
 How CG works - simple example
! " # $
• We’ll use CG to solve the equation 3 1
1 1
x=
8
2
! " ! "
7/3 4
• To produce our estimate x1 =
1 , we “searched” along 0

x0
x1

30
 How CG works - simple example
! " # $
• We’ll use CG to solve the equation 3 1
1 1
x=
8
2
! " ! "
7/3 4
• To produce our estimate x1 =
1 , we “searched” along 0
! " # $! " ! "
• The error of this estimate is 8
2
−
3
1
1
1
7/3
1
=
0
−4/3

x1

30
 How CG works - simple example
! " # $
• We’ll use CG to solve the equation 3 1
1 1
x=
8
2
! " ! "
7/3 4
• To produce our estimate x1 =
1 , we “searched” along 0
! " # $! " ! "
• The error of this estimate is 8
2
−
3
1
1
1
7/3
1
=
0
−4/3
! "
0
• For the next iteration, we’ll “search” along −4/3

x1

30
 How CG works - simple example
! " # $
• We’ll use CG to solve the equation 3 1
1 1
x=
8
2
! " ! "
7/3 4
• To produce our estimate x1 =
1 , we “searched” along 0
! " # $! " ! "
• The error of this estimate is 8
2
−
3
1
1
1
7/3
1
=
0
−4/3
! "
0
• For the next iteration, we’ll “search” along −4/3

x1

x2

30
Most AO CG algorithms are preconditioned

• Convergence of CG depends on condition number of matrix

• Convergence can be sped up by preconditioning

• Preconditioning is accomplished with a matrix P

• If P−1 P = I, then we solve P−1 AP−1 Px = P−1 b
• Performance now depends on condition not of A, but of
P AP
−1

• What might be a good P ? How about the DFT matrix?

31
 Using statistical information in FTR

• If we know nothing about signal and noise, the filter is

G∗wx X + G∗wy Y
Φ̂ =
|Gwx |2 + |Gwy |2

• If we know the signal power and noise power σv2 for all
2
σφ
Fourier modes, we have the Wiener filter
Gwx X + Gwy Y
! " ∗ ∗
1
Φ̂ =
1 + NSR |Gwx |2 + |Gwy |2
σv2 1
NSR = 2
σφ |Gwx |2 + |Gwy |2
• If you use Fourier modes in MVU, the answer is the same
32
 Gain and prediction filters

• The Wiener gain is implemented simply as

a real-valued gain filter after reconstruction
• A real-valued gain filter, based on temporal
optimization, not just NSR, is used in
Optimized-gain Fourier Control
• Another easy filter to implement is a shift
filter. A linear-phase complex exponential
shifts the phase estimate
• This concept forms the basis of Predictive
Fourier Control, where the Kalman filter to
predict a multi-layer atmosphere uses shift
filters
33
 System design: summary

• More actuators means a better fit to the phase, but...

• More actuators result in more noise (more scattered light)
• More actuators require more (too much) computation

• Many computationally efficient methods for solving a matrix

equation, which may involve statistical priors
• MVU formulation and CG solution

• Fourier reconstruction filtering is also efficient, and deals with

statistical priors via filtering

34
Brief break - any questions?

35
 What happens in a real AO system?

* Al Gore is not affiliated with the CfAO

Computer simulation Real-world AO system

• How do we obtain the control matrix?

• How do we get the filters and use FTR?
• How do we adjust for the response of the DM?

Images from Time Magazine and Gemini Observatory 36

 Starting from aaaaaaa
s = Wφ

• The slopes are arrayed x0 , y0 , x1 , y1 , · · ·

• The actuators are arrayed φ0 , φ1 , φ2 , · · ·
• A theoretical model of the WFS and DM are used to generate
the slopes that are measured when each actuator is poked
ordering

37
 Starting from aaaaaaa
s = Wφ

• The slopes are arrayed x0 , y0 , x1 , y1 , · · ·

• The actuators are arrayed φ0 , φ1 , φ2 , · · ·
• A theoretical model of the WFS and DM are used to generate
the slopes that are measured when each actuator is poked
ordering

• x-slopes go down-up, down-up

• y-slopes go down-down, up-up

37
 Altair interaction matrix W
W

• “Poke” an actuator and 1 column per actuator

“measure” the slopes

Each row corresponds to an x- or y- slope

• Those slopes become a
specific column in the
interaction matrix

• Note that due to influence

function model, only close-by
subapertures measure a
poke

38
 Altair control matrix aaaaaaaaaaE
E = M GMW −1 +

• Altair matrix is obtained via the modal method, with some

modes suppressed
• Note that the control matrix is not particularly sparse

1 column per x- or y-slope

Each row corresponds to
an actuator

39
$!3$=$3$06$!23,!>=!+#$!%&'&("!)*)+$,!/)!.$)/A0$.!+>!,2+6#!./)1$3)/>0!

Examples of non-matching systems

6>33$6+>3)[!2!`a!26+-2+>3!F/,>31#!]$=>3,254$!^/33>3!M]^9P!=3>,!
>3!M]^CP!,20-=26+-3$.!5*!F>)+>0!^/63>,26#/0$)<!"#$!%&!)*)+$,!
• Though many AO systems have matched subapertures and
6+/>0!M.$=>6-)!20.!2)+/A,2+/),P!$4/,/02+/0A!+#$!0$$.!=>3!+3/24!4$0)$)!
>!c!`!./>1+$3)!.$=>6-)<!"#$!)2,$!,/33>3!/)!24)>!-)$.!+>!)#/=+!2D/244*!
actuators, some do not. A control matrix can deal with this.
>=!/0+$3$)+<!B/A-3$!C!)#>7)!5>+#!]^)!-)$.!/0!>-3!)*)+$,<!

UC Davis AO OCT
>A321#)!>=!+#$!`a!$4$,$0+!F/,>31#!]^!M4$=+P!20.!9::!$4$,$0+!^b^Y!
=!+#$!)-5U$6+_)!1-1/4!M26+-24!./2,$+$3!Q<aN!,,PJ!7#/6#!/)!,2A0/=/$.!+>!
,!2+!+#$!^b^Y<!! Figure from Zawadzki, SPIE 6429 (2007)
40
$!3$=$3$06$!23,!>=!+#$!%&'&("!)*)+$,!/)!.$)/A0$.!+>!,2+6#!./)1$3)/>0!

Examples of non-matching systems

6>33$6+>3)[!2!`a!26+-2+>3!F/,>31#!]$=>3,254$!^/33>3!M]^9P!=3>,!
>3!M]^CP!,20-=26+-3$.!5*!F>)+>0!^/63>,26#/0$)<!"#$!%&!)*)+$,!
• Though many AO systems have matched subapertures and
6+/>0!M.$=>6-)!20.!2)+/A,2+/),P!$4/,/02+/0A!+#$!0$$.!=>3!+3/24!4$0)$)!
>!c!`!./>1+$3)!.$=>6-)<!"#$!)2,$!,/33>3!/)!24)>!-)$.!+>!)#/=+!2D/244*!
actuators, some do not. A control matrix can deal with this.
>=!/0+$3$)+<!B/A-3$!C!)#>7)!5>+#!]^)!-)$.!/0!>-3!)*)+$,<!

UC Davis AO OCT
>A321#)!>=!+#$!`a!$4$,$0+!F/,>31#!]^!M4$=+P!20.!9::!$4$,$0+!^b^Y!
=!+#$!)-5U$6+_)!1-1/4!M26+-24!./2,$+$3!Q<aN!,,PJ!7#/6#!/)!,2A0/=/$.!+>!
,!2+!+#$!^b^Y<!! Figure from Zawadzki, SPIE 6429 (2007)
40
 Moving beyond on-axis, single conjugate

• Given multiple WFS measurements, the phase can be

reconstructed either in layers or in a volume
A. Tokovinin et al.: Optimized modal tomography in adaptive optics

GS2 GS1
instantaneously. Thus, our attention
spatial aspects of turbulence tomograp
which are indeed new and specific to M
The command matrix plays a role o
box that receives the WFS signals and
DM2 Command
constructed wave-fronts at the output
command matrix be selected to obtain
correction? What is “the best possible”
!
c correction finally? Which parameters of
optimized, and how? These are the ques
the present work.
DM1 In Sect. 2 we briefly outline possible
M
gies and the method to estimate the
performance based on modal covarian
Telescope details of the derivation are given in A
Command matrix numerical code is presented in Sect. 3.
sults on tomography are given, and in S
WFS 2
WFS 1
s MCAO system is considered. The concl
rized in Sect. 6.
Signal

2. Principles of optimized modal t

Figure from Tokovinin, 2001
Fig. 1. Scheme of an MCAO with modal control. Atmospheric 41
 Moving beyond on-axis, single conjugate

• This enables the AO system to use one or multiple mirrors to

improve correction across a field of view

Strehl maps from MAD on-sky test of Omega Centauri.

SCAO - 1 NGS, MCAO - 3 NGS.

Figure from ESO: 19d/07 42

 New concepts and algorithms

• MAD: 3 NGSs, 2 DMs, one altitude conjugated. Matrix

formulation to optimize a uniform Strehl across FoV.
• Proposed NFIRAOS for TMT: 6 LGS + NGS, 2 DMs,
correction over a 1-2 arcmin FoV
• candidate algorithm is FD-PCG in MCAO MVU formulation [Yang, 2006] and [Vogel
& Yang, 2006]
• LAO’s MCAO test bench
• 3 simulated LGSs, 3 DMs, Fourier-domain tomography [Gavel, 2004]

• Ground layer AO: using one mirror and many WFSs, correct
the common ground layer across a very wide field
• ESO’s GRAAL: 4 LGS, 1 DM, 7.5 arcmin FoV in the NIR
• ESO’s GALACSI: 4 LGS, 1 DM, 1 arcmin FoV in the visible

43
 Reconstruction summary

• The WFS does not measure the phase. So we need to

reconstruct it.
• This is usually done with a matrix, though other methods such
as Fourier reconstruction also work

• While many actuators improve phase fitting, they require

computationally efficient algorithms
• Both matrix and Fourier methods can incorporate statistical
information to improve performance

• Covered the process of developing a control matrix of

reconstruction filter for a specific AO system and DM.
44
 (Non-exhaustive) bibliography

[1] C. Bechet, et al, “Frim: minimum-variance reconstructor with a fractal iterative method,” in “Advances in Adaptive Optics II,” , B. L. Ellerbroek and D. B. Calia, eds.
(2006), Proc. SPIE 6272, p. 62722U.
[2] B. L. Ellerbroek, “Efficient computation of minimum-variance wave-front reconstructors with sparse matrix techniques,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 1803–1816 (2002).
[3] K. Freischlad and C. L. Koliopoulos, “Modal estimation of a wave front from difference measurements using the discrete fourier transform,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 3, 1852–
1861 (1986).
[4] D. L. Fried, “Least-square fitting a wave-front distortion estimate to an array of phase-difference measurements,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 67, 370–375 (1977).
[5] D. T. Gavel, “Suppressing anomalous localized waffle behavior in least squares wavefront reconstruction,” in “Adaptive Optical System Technologies II,” , P. L.
Wizinowich and D. Bonaccini, eds. (2002), Proc. SPIE 4839, pp. 972–980.
[6] D. T. Gavel, “Tomography for multiconjugate adaptive optics systems using laser guide stars,” in “Advancements in Adaptive Optics,” , D. B. Calia, B. L. Ellerbroek, and
R. Ragazzoni, eds. (2004), Proc. SPIE 5490, pp. 1356–1373.
[7] L. Gilles, et al, “Multigrid preconditioned conjugate-gradient method for large-scale wave-front reconstruction,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 1817–1822 (2002).
[8] L. Gilles, “Order-N sparse minimum-variance open-loop reconstructor for extreme adaptive optics,” Opt. Lett. 28, 1927–1929 (2003).
[9] O. Glazer, et al, “Adaptive optics implementation with a fourier reconstructor,” Appl. Opt. 46, 574–580 (2007).
[10] J. Herrmann, “Least-squares wave front errors of minimum norm,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 70, 28–35 (1980).
[11] R. H. Hudgin, “Wave-front reconstruction for compensated imaging,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 67, 375–378 (1977).
[12] D. G. MacMartin, “Local, hierarchic and iterative reconstructors for adaptive optics,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 20, 1084–1093 (2003).
[13] L. A. Poyneer, et al, “Fourier transform wavefront control with adaptive prediction of the atmosphere,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 24, 2645–2660 (2007).
[14] L. A. Poyneer, et al, “Fast wave-front reconstruction in large adaptive optics systems with use of the Fourier transform,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 2100–2111 (2002).
[15] L. A. Poyneer and J.-P. Véran, “Optimal modal Fourier transform wave-front control,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 22, 1515–1526 (2005).
[16] E. N. Ribak, et al, “Full wave front reconstruction in the fourier domain,” in “Advances in Adaptive Optics II,” , B. L. Ellerbroek and D. B. Calia, eds. (2006), Proc. SPIE
6272, p. 627254.
[17] F. Shi, et al, “Sparse-matrix wavefront reconstruction: simulations and experiments,” in “Adaptive Optical System Technologies II,” , P. L. Wizinowich and D. Bonaccini,
eds. (2002), Proc. SPIE 4839, pp. 981–988.
[18] A. Tokovinin, et al, “Isoplanatism in a multiconjugate adaptive optics system,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 17, 1819–1827 (2000).
[19] A. Tokovinin and E. Viard, “Limiting precision of tomographic phase estimation,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 873–882 (2001).
[20] M. A. van Dam, et al, “Performance of the Keck Observatory adaptive-optics system,” Appl. Opt. 43, 5458–5467 (2004).
[21] C. R. Vogel and Q. Yang, “Multigrid algorithm for least-squares wavefront reconstruction,” Appl. Opt. 45, 705–715 (2006).
[22] C. R. Vogel and Q. Yang, “Fast optimal wavefront reconstruction for multi-conjugate adaptive optics using the fourier domain preconditioned conjugate gradient
algorithm,” Opt. Exp. 14, 7487–7498 (2006).
[23] Q. Yang, et al, “Fourier domain preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm for atmospheric tomography,” Appl. Opt. 45, 5281–5293 (2006).