PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14503692

Preconditioned conjugate gradient wave-front reconstructors for multiconjugate adaptive optics.

Abstract

Multiconjugate adaptive optics (MCAO) systems with 10(4)-10(5) degrees of freedom have been proposed for future giant telescopes. Using standard matrix methods to compute, optimize, and implement wavefront control algorithms for these systems is impractical, since the number of calculations required to compute and apply the reconstruction matrix scales respectively with the cube and the square of the number of adaptive optics degrees of freedom. We develop scalable open-loop iterative sparse matrix implementations of minimum variance wave-front reconstruction for telescope diameters up to 32 m with more than 10(4) actuators. The basic approach is the preconditioned conjugate gradient method with an efficient preconditioner, whose block structure is defined by the atmospheric turbulent layers very much like the layer-oriented MCAO algorithms of current interest. Two cost-effective preconditioners are investigated: a multigrid solver and a simpler block symmetric Gauss-Seidel (BSGS) sweep. Both options require off-line sparse Cholesky factorizations of the diagonal blocks of the matrix system. The cost to precompute these factors scales approximately as the three-halves power of the number of estimated phase grid points per atmospheric layer, and their average update rate is typically of the order of 10(-2) Hz, i.e., 4-5 orders of magnitude lower than the typical 10(3) Hz temporal sampling rate. All other computations scale almost linearly with the total number of estimated phase grid points. We present numerical simulation results to illustrate algorithm convergence. Convergence rates of both preconditioners are similar, regardless of measurement noise level, indicating that the layer-oriented BSGS sweep is as effective as the more elaborated multiresolution preconditioner.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Luc Gilles, Brent L Ellerbroek, Curtis R Vogel. 2003-09-10. Preconditioned conjugate gradient wave-front reconstructors for multiconjugate adaptive optics.. https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.42.005233

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗