OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A


  • Vol. 22, Iss. 5 — May. 1, 2005
  • pp: 870–880

Geometric view of adaptive optics control

Donald M. Wiberg, Claire E. Max, and Donald T. Gavel  »View Author Affiliations

JOSA A, Vol. 22, Issue 5, pp. 870-880 (2005)

View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (261 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



The objective of an astronomical adaptive optics control system is to minimize the residual wave-front error remaining on the science-object wave fronts after being compensated for atmospheric turbulence and telescope aberrations. Minimizing the mean square wave-front residual maximizes the Strehl ratio and the encircled energy in pointlike images and maximizes the contrast and resolution of extended images. We prove the separation principle of optimal control for application to adaptive optics so as to minimize the mean square wave-front residual. This shows that the residual wave-front error attributable to the control system can be decomposed into three independent terms that can be treated separately in design. The first term depends on the geometry of the wave-front sensor(s), the second term depends on the geometry of the deformable mirror(s), and the third term is a stochastic term that depends on the signal-to-noise ratio. The geometric view comes from understanding that the underlying quantity of interest, the wave-front phase surface, is really an infinite-dimensional vector within a Hilbert space and that this vector space is projected into subspaces we can control and measure by the deformable mirrors and wave-front sensors, respectively. When the control and estimation algorithms are optimal, the residual wave front is in a subspace that is the union of subspaces orthogonal to both of these projections. The method is general in that it applies both to conventional (on-axis, ground-layer conjugate) adaptive optics architectures and to more complicated multi-guide-star- and multiconjugate-layer architectures envisaged for future giant telescopes. We illustrate the approach by using a simple example that has been worked out previously [ J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 73, 1171 (1983) ] for a single-conjugate, static atmosphere case and follow up with a discussion of how it is extendable to general adaptive optics architectures.

© 2005 Optical Society of America

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

Original Manuscript: May 24, 2004
Manuscript Accepted: September 22, 2004
Published: May 1, 2005

Donald M. Wiberg, Claire E. Max, and Donald T. Gavel, "Geometric view of adaptive optics control," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 22, 870-880 (2005)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  


  1. M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics (Pergamon, New York, 1980), p. 469.
  2. P. D. Joseph, J. T. Tou, “On linear control theory,” Trans. Am. Inst. Electr. Eng. 80, 193–196 (1961).
  3. T. L. Gunckel, G. F. Franklin, “A general solution for linear sampled data control,” J. Basic Eng. 85-D, 197–201 (1963). [CrossRef]
  4. W. M. Wonham, “On the separation theorem of stochastic control,” SIAM J. Control 6, 312–326 (1968). [CrossRef]
  5. M. S. Sholar, D. M. Wiberg, “Canonical equations for boundary feedback control of stochastic distributed parameter systems,” Automatica 8, 287–298 (1972). [CrossRef]
  6. A. V. Balakrishnan, Applied Functional Analysis (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1976), Chap. 6.
  7. E. P. Wallner, “Optimal wave-front correction using slope measurements,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 73, 1771–1776 (1983). [CrossRef]
  8. 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). [CrossRef]
  9. B. L. Ellerbroek, F. Rigaut, “Methods for correcting tilt anisoplanatism in laser-guide-star-based multiconjugate adaptive optics,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 2539–2547 (2001). [CrossRef]
  10. W. J. Wild, “Predictive optimal estimators for adaptive-optics systems,” Opt. Lett. 21, 1433–1435 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. T. Fusco, J.-M. Conan, G. Rousset, L. Mugnier, V. Michau, “Optimal wave-front reconstruction strategies for multiconjugate adaptive optics,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 2527–2538 (2001). [CrossRef]
  12. B. Le Roux, J. M. Conan, C. Kulcsar, H. F. Reynaud, L. M. Mugnier, T. Fusco, “Optimal control law for multiconjugate adaptive optics,” in Adaptive Optical System Technologies II, P. L. Wizinowich and D. Bonaccini, eds., Proc. SPIE4839, 878–889 (2002).
  13. D. Gavel, D. Wiberg, “Toward Strehl-optimizing adaptive optics controllers,” in Adaptive Optical System Technologies II, P. L. Wizinowich and D. Bonaccini, eds., Proc. SPIE4839, 890–901 (2002).
  14. P. G. Hoel, S. C. Port, C. J. Stone, Introduction to Stochastic Processes (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Mass., 1972), pp. 171–174.
  15. R. E. Kalman, “Contributions to the theory of optimal control,” Bol. Soc. Mat. Mex.102–119 (1960).
  16. D. L. Fried, “Least-square fitting a wave-front distortion estimate to an array of phase-difference measurements,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 67, 370–374 (1977). [CrossRef]
  17. R. Courant, D. Hilbert, Methods of Mathematical Physics (Interscience, New York, 1953), Vol. 1.
  18. MATLAB Partial Differential Equation Toolbox, http://www.mathworks.com.
  19. G. J. Baker, personal communication, g.j.baker@lmco.com.

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.


Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited