Cited by 369Adaptive optics and wavefront sensingStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstronomy and Astrophysical Research

FUNDAMENTAL LIMITATIONS OF HIGH CONTRAST IMAGING SET BY SMALL SAMPLE STATISTICS

Open access
Mawet, D., Milli, J., Wahhaj, Z., Pelat, D., Absil, O., Delacroix, C., Boccaletti, A., Kasper, M. +4 more·2014·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

In this paper, we review the impact of small sample statistics on detection thresholds and corresponding confidence levels (CLs) in high-contrast imaging at small angles. When looking close to the star, the number of resolution elements decreases rapidly toward small angles. This reduction of the number of degrees of freedom dramatically affects CLs and false alarm probabilities. Naively using the same ideal hypothesis and methods as for larger separations, which are well understood and commonly assume Gaussian noise, can yield up to one order of magnitude error in contrast estimations at fixed CL. The statistical penalty exponentially increases toward very small inner working angles. Even at 5–10 resolution elements from the star, false alarm probabilities can be significantly higher than expected. Here we present a rigorous statistical analysis that ensures robustness of the CL, but also imposes a substantial limitation on corresponding achievable detection limits (thus contrast) at small angles. This unavoidable fundamental statistical effect has a significant impact on current coronagraphic and future high-contrast imagers. Finally, the paper concludes with practical recommendations to account for small number statistics when computing the sensitivity to companions at small angles and when exploiting the results of direct imaging planet surveys.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0004-637x/792/2/97

Cites

58 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 2 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The NACO contrast curve was corrected for small-number statistics using Mawet et al. (2014).

    “The small number of statistically independent patches close to the central star means that a correction is required to the sensitivity as described in Mawet et al. (2014), and we apply this correction to the contrast curve.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Kasper, M., Beuzit, J.-L., Verinaud, C., et al. 2010, Proc. SPIE, 7735, 77352E
  2. Lawson, P. R., Poyneer, L., Barrett, H., et al. 2012, Proc. SPIE, 8447, 844722
  3. Macintosh, B., Troy, M., Doyon, R., et al. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6272, 62720L
  4. Martinache, F., Guyon, O., Clergeon, C., Garrel, V., & Blain, C. 2012, Proc. SPIE, 8447, 84471Y
  5. Mawet, D., Pueyo, L., Lawson, P., et al. 2012, Proc. SPIE, 8442, 844204

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mawet, D., Milli, J., Wahhaj, Z., Pelat, D., Absil, O., Delacroix, C., Boccaletti, A., Kasper, M., Kenworthy, M., Marois, C., Mennesson, B., & Pueyo, L.
Affiliations
  • European Southern Observatory (CL)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of Liège (BE)
  • European Southern Observatory (DE)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (CA)
  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory (US)
  • Space Telescope Science Institute (US)
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2014-08-21
Volume
792
Issue
2
Pages
97
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2147778163
Cited by
369
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 6
FWCI
13.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • NPARC (submittedVersion)
  • ORBi (University of Liège) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • California Institute of Technology
  • European Commission
  • Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles
  • European Southern Observatory
  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Adaptive optics and wavefront sensing
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Astronomy and Astrophysical Research
Keywords
high-contrast imaging, small sample statistics, detection threshold, confidence level, false alarm probability, inner working angle, coronagraphy, exoplanet direct imaging, statistical limitations, contrast estimation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review