{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022366522366522368, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004329004329004329, 'mean_word_length': 5.276018099547511, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Analysis of the wavefront reconstruction error of the spot location algorithms for the Shack–Hartmann wavefront sensor

Abstract. Spot location algorithms greatly influence the wavefront measurement error of the Shack–Hartmann wavefront sensor. Based on numerical simulations and experiments, we compare the wavefront reconstruction error of several spot location algorithms under different signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) conditions. We solve the problem of how to select the most suitable spot location algorithm and optimal parameters under different SNR conditions, which mimic the realistic working environment of the adaptive optics system changes. We find the optimal threshold and optimal window setting rules of the center of gravity (COG), intensity weighted centroiding, and weighted center of gravity (WCOG) algorithms. The correctness of our recommendation of spot location algorithms under different SNR conditions is supported by numerical simulations and experiments. We find that when the SNR is extremely low, that is the SNR is lower than 2, the cross-correlation algorithm and the thresholding WCOG algorithm are the best choices. When the SNR is moderately low, that is the SNR ranges from 2 to 10, the best choice is the thresholding WCOG algorithm. When the SNR is high, that is, the SNR is higher than 10, the simple algorithm of thresholding COG is the best choice.