OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

| OPTICS, IMAGE SCIENCE, AND VISION

  • Vol. 19, Iss. 9 — Sep. 1, 2002
  • pp: 1803–1816

Efficient computation of minimum-variance wave-front reconstructors with sparse matrix techniques

Brent L. Ellerbroek  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 19, Issue 9, pp. 1803-1816 (2002)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.19.001803


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (239 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

The complexity of computing conventional matrix multiply wave-front reconstructors scales as O(<i>n</i><sup>3</sup>) for most adaptive optical (AO) systems, where <i>n</i> is the number of deformable mirror (DM) actuators. This is impractical for proposed systems with extremely large <i>n</i>. It is known that sparse matrix methods improve this scaling for least-squares reconstructors, but sparse techniques are not immediately applicable to the minimum-variance reconstructors now favored for multiconjugate adaptive optical (MCAO) systems with multiple wave-front sensors (WFSs) and DMs. Complications arise from the nonsparse statistics of atmospheric turbulence, and the global tip/tilt WFS measurement errors associated with laser guide star (LGS) position uncertainty. A description is given of how sparse matrix methods can still be applied by use of a sparse approximation for turbulence statistics and by recognizing that the nonsparse matrix terms arising from LGS position uncertainty are low-rank adjustments that can be evaluated by using the matrix inversion lemma. Sample numerical results for AO and MCAO systems illustrate that the approximation made to turbulence statistics has negligible effect on estimation accuracy, the time to compute the sparse minimum-variance reconstructor for a conventional natural guide star AO system scales as O(n<sup>3/2</sup>) and is only a few seconds for <i>n</i> = 3500, and sparse techniques reduce the reconstructor computations by a factor of 8 for sample MCAO systems with 2417 DM actuators and 4280 WFS subapertures. With extrapolation to 9700 actuators and 17, 120 subapertures, a reduction by a factor of approximately 30 or 40 to 1 is predicted.

© 2002 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(010.1080) Atmospheric and oceanic optics : Active or adaptive optics

Citation
Brent L. Ellerbroek, "Efficient computation of minimum-variance wave-front reconstructors with sparse matrix techniques," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 1803-1816 (2002)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-19-9-1803


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset

References

  1. J. W. Hardy, J. E. Lefevbre, and C. L. Koliopoulous, “Real time atmospheric turbulence compensation,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 67, 360–369 (1977).
  2. G. Rousset, J.-C. Fontanella, P. Kern, P. Gigan, F. Rigaut, P. Lena, C. Boyer, P. Jagourel, J.-P. Gaffard, and F. Merkle, “First diffraction-limited astronomical images with adaptive optics,” Astron. Astrophys. 230, 29–32 (1990).
  3. M. C. Roggemann and B. Welsh, Imaging through Turbulence (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 1996).
  4. D. L. Fried, “Least-squares fitting a wave-front distortion estimate to an array of phase difference measurements,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 67, 370–375 (1977).
  5. R. Hudgin, “Wave-front reconstruction for compensated imaging,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 67, 375–378 (1977).
  6. J. Hermann, “Least-squares wave-front errors of minimum norm,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 70, 28–35 (1980).
  7. E. P. Wallner, “Optimal wave-front correction using slope measurement,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 73, 1771–1776 (1983).
  8. B. M. Walsh and C. S. Gardner, “Effects of turbulence-induced anisoplanatism on the imaging performance of adaptive-astronomical telescopes using laser guide stars,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 8, 69–80 (1991).
  9. G. A. Tyler, “Merging: a new method for tomography through random media,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 409–424 (1994).
  10. J. M. Beckers, “Increasing the size of the isoplanatic patch with multi-conjugate adaptive optics,” in Proceedings of European Southern Observatory Conference and Workshop on Very Large Telescopes and Their Instrumentation, M.-H. Ulrich, ed., Vol. 30 of ESO Conference and Workshop Proceedings (European Southern Observatory, Garching, Germany, 1988), pp. 693–703.
  11. D. C. Johnston and B. M. Welsh, “Analysis of multi-conjugate adaptive optics,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 394–408 (1994).
  12. B. L. Ellerbroek, “First order performance evaluation of adaptive-optics systems for atmospheric turbulence compensation in extended field-of-view astronomical telescopes,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 783–805 (1994).
  13. T. Fusco, J.-M. Conan, G. Rousset, L. M. Mugnier, and V. Michau, “Optimal wave-front reconstruction strategies for multi-conjugate adaptive optics,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 2527–2538 (2001).
  14. B. L. Ellerbroek, “Methods for correcting tilt anisoplanatism in laser-guide-star-based multi-conjugate adaptive optics,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 2539–2547 (2001).
  15. G. M. Cochran, “Sparse matrix techniques in wavefront reconstruction,” Rep. TR-668 (Optical Sciences Company, Anaheim, Calif., 1986).
  16. L. Schmutz, B. M. Levine, A. Wirth, and C. Strandley, “Adaptive optics concepts for extremely large aperture telescopes,” in Bäckaskog Workshop on Extremely Large Telescopes, T. Andersen, A. Ardeberg, and R. Gilmozzi, eds., Vol. 57 of ESO Conference and Workshop Proceedings (European Southern Observatory, Garching, Germany, 1999), pp. 217–223.
  17. L. Gilles, C. R. Vogel, and B. L. Ellerbroek, “Iterative algorithms for large scale wave front reconstruction,” in Signal Recovery and Synthesis, Vol. 67 of OSA Trends in Optics and Photonics (Optical Society of America, Washington D.C., 2001), pp. 100–101.
  18. B. L. Ellerbroek, “Comparison of least squares and minimum variance wavefront reconstruction for atmospheric turbulence compensation in the presence of noise,” Rep. TR721R (Optical Sciences Company, Anaheim, Calif., 1986).
  19. G. M. Cochran, “Sparse matrix techniques applied to deconvolution,” Comput. Elect. Eng. 18, 499–505 (1992).
  20. R. Flicker, F. J. Rigaut, and B. L. Ellerbroek, “Comparison of multi-conjugate adaptive optics configurations and control algorithms for the Gemini South 8-m telescope,” in Adaptive Optical Systems Technology, P. L. Wizinowich, ed., Proc. SPIE 4007, 1032–1043 (2000).
  21. G. H. Golub and C. F. van Loan, Matrix Computations (John Hopkins U. Press, Baltimore, Md., 1996), p. 18.
  22. A. George and J. Liu, Computer Solutions of Large Symmetric Positive Definite Systems (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1981).
  23. S. Pissantesky, Sparse Matrix Technology (Academic, Orlando, Fla., 1984), Chap. 4.
  24. The weighting matrix W derived in this section includes the global tip and tilt modes in the calculation of the mean square wave-front error. This is appropriate for AO applications to long-exposure imaging, where random, time-varying tip and tilt errors will degrade image quality in the same fashion as higher-order wave-front errors. For short-exposure imaging it may be more desirable to consider tip/tilt and higher-order wave-front aberrations separately. In this case the weighting matrix W for the mean square, higher-order wave-front error will still take the form defined by Eqs. (29 30 31), except that the matrix V1 now has three columns instead of one. The computational methods developed in the remainder of this paper are consequently still applicable.
  25. R. J. Noll, “Zernike polynomials and atmospheric turbulence,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 207–211 (1976).
  26. J. Vernin, A. Agabi, R. Avila, M. Azouit, R. Conan, F. Martin, E. Masciadri, L. Sanchez, and A. Ziad, “1998 Gemini site testing campaign: Cerro Pachon and Cerro Tololo,” Gemini Doc. RTP-AO-G0094 (Gemini Observatory, Hilo, Hawaii, 2000).
  27. Matlab 6 no longer supports the FLOPS command included in previous versions to report the exact number of floating-point operations required by an algorithm. No other computationally significant tasks were running on this dual-processor system during the timing tests reported in this paper.

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited