天文成像中幸运成像与散斑稳定的比较
A Comparison Between Lucky Imaging and Speckle Stabilization for Astronomical Imaging
摘要：
散斑稳定新技术在提供地面最高角分辨率的光学成像数据方面具有很大的潜力。虽然散斑稳定最初被设想用于积分场光谱分析，但该技术与散斑成像（特别是移位和添加和幸运成像）有许多相似之处。因此，对于成像应用，值得比较两者。我们模拟了2.5米级望远镜的观测，以评估这两种技术的优点和缺点。虽然差异相对较小，但我们发现散斑稳定是当前Lucky成像系统的可行竞争对手。具体来说，我们发现，斑点稳定是3.35倍更有效（其中效率被定义为每个观察间隔的信号噪声比）比移位和添加，并能够检测目标1.42级时，使用标准系统。如果我们使用高速快门与Lucky Imaging在1%图像选择下进行比较，则斑点稳定的效率高出1.28倍，灵敏度高出0.31个数量级。然而，当我们将潜在的修改纳入Lucky Imaging系统时，我们发现在1%的帧选择情况下，优势显着减轻甚至逆转。特别地，我们发现在最佳幸运成像的限制情况下，即零读取噪声{ \it and}光子计数，我们发现幸运成像比散斑稳定更有效1.80倍，更灵敏0.96个量级。对于介于两者之间的情况下，我们发现有一个梯度的优势，不同的技术取决于目标的大小，所使用的帧的分数和系统的修改。
英文摘要：
The new technique of Speckle Stabilization has great potential to provide optical imaging data at the highest angular resolutions from the ground. While Speckle Stabilization was initially conceived for integral field spectroscopic analyses, the technique shares many similarities with speckle imaging (specifically shift-and-add and Lucky Imaging). Therefore, it is worth comparing the two for imaging applications. We have modeled observations on a 2.5-meter class telescope to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the two techniques. While the differences are relatively minor, we find that Speckle Stabilization is a viable competitor to current Lucky Imaging systems. Specifically, we find that Speckle Stabilization is 3.35 times more efficient (where efficiency is defined as signal-to-noise per observing interval) than shift-and-add and able to detect targets 1.42 magnitudes fainter when using a standard system. If we employ a high-speed shutter to compare to Lucky Imaging at 1% image selection, Speckle Stabilization is 1.28 times more efficient and 0.31 magnitudes more sensitive. However, when we incorporate potential modifications to Lucky Imaging systems we find the advantages are significantly mitigated and even reversed in the 1% frame selection cases. In particular, we find that in the limiting case of Optimal Lucky Imaging, that is zero read noise {\it and} photon counting, we find Lucky Imaging is 1.80 times more efficient and 0.96 magnitudes more sensitive than Speckle Stabilization. For the cases in between, we find there is a gradation in advantages to the different techniques depending on target magnitude, fraction of frames used and system modifications.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
