1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{emulateapj}
3:
4: %\usepackage{graphicx}
5: %\usepackage{epstopdf}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{Calibrating an Interferometric Null}
10: \author{Benjamin F. Lane}
11: \affil{Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, MIT Department of Physics, 70 Vassar Street, Cambridge, MA 02139}
12: \email{blane@mit.edu}
13:
14: \author{Matthew W. Muterspaugh}
15: \affil{Department of Geological \& Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. 91125}
16: \email{matthew1@mit.edu}
17:
18:
19: \author{Michael Shao}
20: \affil{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Dr., Pasadena, CA., 91109}
21: \email{mshao@huey.jpl.nasa.gov}
22:
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: One of the biggest challenges associated with a nulling
26: interferometer-based approach to detecting extra-solar Earth-like
27: planets comes from the extremely stringent requirements of pathlength,
28: polarization and amplitude matching in the interferometer. To the
29: extent that the light from multiple apertures are not matched in these
30: properties, light will leak through the nuller and confuse the search
31: for a planetary signal. Here we explore the possibility of using the
32: coherence properties of the starlight to separate contributions from
33: the planet and nuller leakage. We find that straightforward
34: modifications to the optical layout of a nulling interferometer will
35: allow one to measure and correct for the leakage to a high degree of
36: precision. This nulling calibration relaxes the field
37: matching requirements substantially, and should consequently
38: simplify the instrument design.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{techniques:interferometric}
42:
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: One suggested method for finding Earth-like planets orbiting other
47: stars involves a space-based nulling interferometer operating in the
48: thermal IR \citep{brace78,woolf98,noeck99}. The National Aeronautics
49: and Space Agency has been considering such a mission: ``Terrestrial
50: Planet Finder'' (TPF; \nocite{coulter} Coulter, 2004), while the
51: European Space Agency is planning an equivalent mission: Darwin
52: \citep{kalt03}. The primary challenge in detecting such planets is
53: the extreme contrast ratio between the planet and its primary star
54: ($\sim 10^{6-7}$ at a wavelength of $10 \mu$m) and close angular
55: separation ($\sim 0.1$ arcsec). To prevent the planet light from being
56: overwhelmed by photon noise from the primary, some way of selectively
57: nulling the starlight is required. However, the extreme nulling ratio
58: desired sets very stringent limits on the allowable instrument
59: performance, specifically in terms of pathlength error ($\delta
60: {\phi}^2$), polarization ($\delta {\alpha}^2$) and amplitude mismatch
61: ($\delta a^2$), all of which cause ``leakage'' in the null. \cite{lay04}
62: has shown that for certain nulling configurations, in addition to
63: simple leakage terms of the form $\delta \phi^2$ or $\delta a^2$,
64: second-order coupling effects of the form $\delta \phi \delta a$ lead
65: to stability requirements on the order of $\sim 1.5$ nm in path and
66: $\sim 0.1$\% in amplitude over hour-long timescales. These
67: performance levels are almost an order of magnitude more stringent
68: than previous estimates, and pose severe challenges to the TPF mission
69: design.
70:
71: In this paper we explore a simple way of determining the nulling
72: leakage based on exploiting the fact that the leakage light is
73: coherent with the starlight, but not with the planet light. By making
74: a simple modification to the interferometer back-end it becomes
75: possible to measure the leakage terms and hence calibrate the
76: null. This idea is an adaptation of the ``Synchronous Interferometric
77: Speckle Subtraction'' concept proposed by \cite{guy04} for
78: coronographic instruments. In the Section 2 we describe the original
79: Bracewell nuller concept. We then introduce the nulling calibration
80: technique and derive its expected performance, as well as show simple
81: simulations of the application. In Section 3 we introduce the more
82: complicated dual-Bracewell architecture actually being considered for
83: TPF, as well as show how the calibration concept could be applied to
84: it. We discuss the effects this might have on the TPF system
85: design in Section 4.
86:
87: \section{The Single Bracewell Nuller}
88:
89: \begin{figure}[htb]
90: \epsscale{0.2}
91: \plotone{f1.eps}
92: \caption[]{\label{fig:bracewell} A simple beam combiner used in the Bracewell concept}
93: \end{figure}
94:
95: Consider Figure \ref{fig:bracewell}. Light is collected from two
96: apertures separated by a baseline $\vec{B}$ and brought to a common
97: point such that the wavefronts from the two arms are exactly $\pi/2$
98: out of phase with respect to each other going into the beam-splitter,
99: for a total post-combination phase shift of $\pi$. Recall that a
100: beam-splitter introduces an additional $\pi/2$ relative phase shift
101: between reflected and transmitted beams. For a monochromatic
102: interferometer the initial $\pi/2$ is simply a path
103: adjustment. However, in the more realistic case of a broadband
104: interferometer a more sophisticated approach becomes necessary,
105: typically in the form of ``phase plates'', i.e. one beam is passed
106: through a set of carefully controlled thicknesses of glass arranged
107: such that the wavelength-dependent indices of refraction combine to
108: give a $\pi/2$ phase-shift across a 10-20 \% bandpass
109: \citep{wallace04}. At the 50/50 beam-splitter the two beams are
110: combined, and the intensities can be measured at the two complementary
111: outputs. Note that the planet-star separation is unresolved by the
112: individual apertures, and hence in this ``pupil plane''
113: interferometer, detection of the planet signal requires that it be
114: modulated in some fashion; in the Bracewell configuration this is
115: accomplished by rotating the interferometer about the axis pointing to
116: the star.
117:
118: If we neglect time-dependence and polarization of the electric fields,
119: we can write
120: \begin{eqnarray}
121: E_1 & = & A a_1 e^{i ( \phi_1 )}\\
122: E_2 & = & A a_2 e^{i ( \phi_2 + \pi/2)}
123: \end{eqnarray}
124: where $A$ is the amplitude of the field seen by an ideal aperture,
125: $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$, $a_1$ and $a_2$ represent small phase and
126: amplitude mismatches between the arms of the interferometer
127: ($\phi \ll 1$ and $a \sim 1$).
128: The two output beams become
129: \begin{eqnarray}
130: E_b &=& \frac{E_1 + E_2 e^{i \pi/2}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
131: E_d &=& \frac{E_1e^{i \pi/2} + E_2}{\sqrt{2}}
132: \end{eqnarray}
133: and we recover the usual interferometric fringe as
134: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:cosfringe}
135: I_b &=& |E_b|^2\nonumber\\
136: &=& \frac{A^2}{2}\left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 + 2 a_1 a_2 \cos ( \phi_1 - \phi_2) \right)\\
137: I_d &=& |E_d|^2\nonumber\\
138: &=& \frac{A^2}{2}\left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 - 2 a_1 a_2 \cos ( \phi_1 - \phi_2) \right)
139: \end{eqnarray}
140: The phase difference $\phi_1 - \phi_2$ has two terms: instrumental
141: phase differences ($\delta \phi$) and a geometric term. In the ideal
142: planet-search situation $\delta \phi$ is small, the instrument baseline
143: is perpendicular to the direction of the star, and the planet is
144: at a small angle such that light from it has an additional phase given by
145: \begin{equation}
146: \phi_p = \frac{2\pi}{\lambda} \vec{B} \cdot \vec{s}
147: \end{equation}
148: where $\vec{B}$ is the baseline vector separating the apertures, and $\vec{s}$ is
149: the star-planet separation vector, both projected on the sky. By
150: rotating the interferometer baseline about the direction to the star,
151: it is possible to produce a time-variable signal in the $I_d$ output
152: coming from the planet, while keeping the star nulled. If the null
153: were ideal ($\delta a = a_2 - a_1 \sim 0$ and $\delta \phi \sim 0$)
154: there would be no stellar leakage to overwhelm the planet
155: signal in the dark output $I_d$. Unfortunately, $I_p / I_s \sim 10^{-6}$ and hence we would
156: require $\delta a, \delta \phi \le 10^{-3}$.
157:
158: In the absence of near-perfect amplitude and phase control, a detector
159: at the ``dark'' output of the nulling interferometer will see light
160: from two sources: the planet, which will vary according to the
161: rotation of the interferometer, and the leakage, which may vary on all
162: timescales. To the extent that this variability occurs at frequencies
163: coincident with the planet signal, it will cause confusion and loss of
164: planet Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). However, if it were possible to measure
165: the leakage terms after the beam combination, it might be possible to
166: significantly relax the control requirements, making the instrument
167: more feasible. In such a situation it is no longer necessary to
168: require that leakage levels be extremely stable; instead it is only
169: necessary that that uncalibrated changes of the leakage (e.g.
170: due to shot noise) be smaller than the planet signal.
171:
172:
173: One might consider monitoring the ``bright'' output of the nuller
174: $I_b$, and use conservation of energy arguments to infer that any
175: reduction of photon counts in $I_b$ implies a corresponding increase
176: in $I_d$. However, for the typical TPF observation, $I_b \sim I_s \sim
177: 10^6 ~{\rm phot}~{\rm s}^{-1}$ and the photon noise will be too great
178: ($\sqrt{I_b} >> I_p$) to determine $I_d$ to sufficient precision in a
179: reasonable amount of time. This approach would also be extremely
180: sensitive to any changes in background or detector gain, as variations
181: at the part in $10^6$ level would render the calibration useless.
182:
183: A different approach has also been suggested \citep{danchi03}, where
184: one can take advantage of the fact that instrumental mismatches are
185: typically in path-length rather than phase, and hence will have a
186: known wavelength dependence; this should allow one to use
187: wide-bandwidth data to solve for and subtract systematic errors.
188: However, such multi-color approaches are still vulnerable to e.g.~polarization
189: mismatch errors, and they will require that the nuller
190: operate with very wide band-passes, placing stringent requirements on
191: the achromatic design elements.
192:
193: \subsection{Calibration of a Single Bracewell Nuller}
194: %\clearpage
195: \begin{figure}[htb]
196: \epsscale{0.2}
197: \plotone{f2.eps}
198: \caption[]{\label{fig:bracewell_cal} Calibration of a Bracewell null. Fractions
199: of the bright and dark nuller outputs are recombined with a controlled
200: relative phase shift ($\theta$); the intensities of the calibration outputs can
201: be used to solve for amplitude and phase mismatches in the input beams.}
202: \end{figure}
203: %\clearpage
204: The dominant part of light that leaks through the null comes from the
205: star. Therefore, if we mix (e.g. at a beam-splitter) the electric
206: fields of the leakage with that of a separate reference beam, also from the star,
207: fringes will form as long as the relative path delays are maintained
208: to within the coherence length of the light (Figure
209: \ref{fig:bracewell_cal}). On the other hand, light from the planet is
210: not coherent with the starlight (i.e. $ \langle E_{star} E_{planet}
211: \rangle =0$, where the brackets indicate an average over time), and
212: hence will not form fringes. If we take a portion of the two outputs
213: (e.g. 50\%) of the nulling interferometer and recombine them again
214: with a fourth beam-splitter, the resulting electric fields of these
215: ``calibration'' outputs are
216:
217: \begin{eqnarray}
218: E_{c,1} &=& \frac{E_b e^{i \theta} + E_d e^{i \pi/2}}{\sqrt{2}}\\ E_{c,2} &=& \frac{E_b e^{i (\theta+\pi/2)} +E_d}{\sqrt{2}}
219: \end{eqnarray}
220: where $\theta$ is any additional phase
221: introduced into one of the arms of the calibration interferometer.
222: The corresponding intensities are
223:
224: \begin{eqnarray}
225: I_{c,1}(\theta) &=&\frac{A^2}{4} \left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 + ( a_1^2 - a_2^2)\cos(\phi_1 - \phi_2) + 2 a_1 a_2 \sin ( \phi_1 - \phi_2) \sin(\theta) \right)\\
226: I_{c,2}(\theta) &=& \frac{A^2}{4} \left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 - ( a_1^2 - a_2^2)\cos(\phi_1 - \phi_2) - 2 a_1 a_2 \sin ( \phi_1 - \phi_2) \sin(\theta) \right)
227: \end{eqnarray}
228:
229: A fringe pattern forms in the output of the calibration
230: interferometer; this fringe pattern contains information about the
231: amplitude and phase mismatches of the input beams. This information
232: can be extracted in a straightforward manner, given that $\theta$ is
233: entirely internal to the instrument and under our control. If we
234: measure the intensities $I_c$ twice, having added $\Delta\theta =
235: \pi/2$ to $\theta$ for the second reads, and labeling the reads
236: ``$\mathcal{A}$'', ``$\mathcal{B}$'', ``$\mathcal{C}$'' and
237: ``$\mathcal{D}$'', i.e.
238:
239: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:abcd}
240: {\mathcal A} & = & I_{c,1}(\theta = 0)\\
241: {\mathcal B} & = & I_{c,2}(\theta = 0)\\
242: {\mathcal C} & = & I_{c,1}(\theta = \pi/2)\\
243: {\mathcal D} & = & I_{c,2}(\theta = \pi/2)
244: \end{eqnarray}
245: these measurements can be used to ``reconstruct'' the output $I_d$
246: caused by amplitude and phase mismatches, i.e. the leakage through the
247: null.
248:
249: \begin{equation} \label{ref:singlerecons}
250: \tilde{I}_d = \frac{ ( {\mathcal A}-{\mathcal B} )^2 + ( {\mathcal C}-{\mathcal D} )^2}{4 I_b}
251: \end{equation}
252:
253: This leakage can be subtracted from the measured $I_d$; the remaining light
254: is from the planet. While it is true that the planet light will also
255: pass through the calibration interferometer and create an interference
256: fringe, because the light from the planet is not coherent with the
257: starlight, yet both fall on the same detector, the fringe contrast of
258: the fringe due to the planet will be reduced by a factor of $I_p/I_s
259: \sim 10^{-6}$ and will have a negligible impact on the measurement of
260: the leakage parameters.
261:
262: A nulling interferometer will have starlight leak through the null for
263: two reasons: the first is due to amplitude, path (and polarization)
264: mismatches as discussed above. The second is simply due to the finite
265: size of the star. Even a perfect null only blocks light that is
266: exactly on-axis; for typical stellar sizes and distances the star will
267: subtend an apparent angle on the order of a milli-arcsecond, large
268: enough that a non-negligible amount of light will leak through the
269: null. This leakage cannot be removed by the proposed calibration
270: technique. However, the level of this leakage is set by the length of
271: the nulling baseline, and should not vary on timescales comparable to
272: the planet signal. Nonetheless, shot noise from the light that leaks
273: through can overwhelm the planet signal; it is this leakage term that
274: limits the maximum size of the nulling baselines.
275:
276: It is interesting to note that the reconstructed leakage through the
277: null has more favorable noise properties than a leakage term
278: reconstructed from the the bright output alone; this is a
279: manifestation of ``heterodyne gain''. Assuming that the
280: calibration intensity measurements are dominated by photon noise
281: (i.e. $\sigma_\mathcal{A}^2 = \mathcal{A} $) the
282: uncertainty of the calibration measurement is given by
283:
284: \begin{eqnarray}
285: \sigma^2_{\tilde{I}_d} & = & \sum_{R_i=I_b,\mathcal{A..D}} \left | \frac{\partial \tilde{I}_d}{\partial R_i} \right |^2 \sigma_{R_i}^2 \\
286: & = & \sigma^2_{I_d} \\
287: & \approx & \frac{A^2 (\delta a^2 + \delta \phi^2)}{4}
288: \end{eqnarray}
289: In other words, the reconstructed leakage $\tilde{I}_d$ has
290: the same Signal-to-Noise ratio as what one would find
291: by measuring $I_d$ itself at the dark output, except that now there is negligible
292: contamination due to light from the planet; the mixing process allows one to
293: separate the two cleanly.
294:
295: For $\delta a \sim 10^{-3}$, $\delta \phi \sim 10^{-3}$, $A^2 =
296: \tau I_s$ and $I_s \sim 10^6 {\rm phot}~{\rm s}^{-1}$, assuming $\tau \sim
297: 100$ seconds one should expect to measure $\tilde{I}_d$ to a precision of
298: $\sim 4 \times 10^{-3}$. The price for this calibration is a
299: loss in the effective throughput of the instrument, as half
300: of the light from the planet gets lost in the calibration system.
301: Clearly there is a trade-off between the need to minimize photon noise
302: from the planet vs. noise due to time-variable null leakage; we
303: will discuss the effect this has on the overall instrument design
304: in Section \ref{sec:consequences}.
305:
306:
307: \subsection{Simulations of a Calibrated Single Bracewell Nuller}
308: %\clearpage
309: \begin{figure}[htb]
310: \epsscale{1.0}
311: % was codes/sblcurve.eps
312: \plotone{f3.eps}
313: \caption[]{\label{fig:simtime}(Top) The raw intensities produced by the
314: simulated two-aperture Bracewell interferometer, in a single wavelength channel,
315: as a function of array rotation angle. (Bottom) The calibrated
316: output, together with the ideal time series that would be expected
317: from an interferometer with no noise. The ideal curve has been offset
318: for clarity. Note that calibration has removed noise levels that were
319: a factor of $10^3$ times greater than the planet signal.}
320: \end{figure}
321:
322:
323: \begin{figure}[htb]
324: \epsscale{1.0}
325: %was codes/sblimage-mcolor.eps
326: \plotone{f4.eps}
327: \caption[]{\label{fig:simcal} (Top Left) Reconstructed image using
328: simulated uncalibrated multi-channel data from a single Bracewell nuller. (Top Right)
329: Reconstructed image of the same system, now using the calibrated data.
330: (Bottom Left) The image that would be expected from an ideal (noiseless)
331: system. (Bottom Right) Reconstructed calibrated image, with
332: the central psf feature (due to leakage through the null)
333: divided out, using a rotationally-averaged raw image as the
334: template. Note the 180-degree position ambiguity inherent
335: in 2-aperture instruments.}
336: \end{figure}
337: %\clearpage
338: We have simulated the operation of a simple two-aperture Bracewell
339: interferometer observing an Earth-like planet. We assumed a baseline
340: of 50m, 5.5-m diameter collecting apertures, and an Earth-sized planet
341: in a 1 A.U. orbit with an albedo of 0.3. The central star was modeled
342: as a 5700K, 1 $R_{\odot}$ blackbody located at a distance of 10
343: pc. Total integration time is $2.16 \times 10^5$ seconds, spread out
344: over 2 full 360-degree rotations of the array, with 300 seconds of
345: integration time at each orientation. Path-length errors for each
346: integration were modeled as $10$-nm $rms$ Gaussian random noise, and
347: amplitude mismatch errors had a fractional amplitude of 0.001. Photon
348: noise was applied to all measured intensities. The system efficiency
349: was assumed to be 30\%. We assumed the system to have five $1 \mu$m
350: wide spectral channels ranging from $8$ to $12 \mu$m in central
351: wavelength.
352:
353: It is clear from Fig. \ref{fig:simtime} that the leakage due to
354: amplitude and phase mismatches completely overwhelms the planet
355: signal, while the calibration successfully removed the leakage and
356: recovered the planet. However, the required integration time and
357: aperture size was considerable - a consequence of the
358: single-Bracewell design that is limited by the trade-off between null
359: depth and angular resolution. With only two apertures, the finite size
360: of the stellar disk will cause light to leak through the null if the
361: baseline is long enough to resolve the planet. Nevertheless, we
362: reconstruct images of the target system using the standard
363: cross-correlation analysis described by \cite{lay05}. The simulated
364: lightcurves (both raw and calibrated) are cross-correlated with a
365: series of templates. The templates are a function of the position of a
366: planet, and are given by the theoretical response of a two-aperture
367: interferometer, i.e. Eqn. \ref{eqn:cosfringe}. The results are shown
368: in Fig. \ref{fig:simcal}.
369:
370:
371: \section{The Dual Bracewell Nuller}
372: %\clearpage
373: \begin{figure}[htb]
374: \epsscale{0.6}
375: % was dual_bracewell_no_cal.eps
376: \plotone{f5.eps}
377: \caption[]{\label{fig:dcbnocal} Schematic layout of the dual, chopped Bracewell
378: configuration. The two aperture pairs 1,2 and 3,4 are combined so as
379: to create nulls; the nulled outputs are then cross-combined. A relative
380: phase of 0 or $\pi$ is imposed between combinations. }
381: \end{figure}
382:
383: TPF has been envisioned not as a simple two-aperture Bracewell
384: design, but rather a somewhat more sophisticated dual-Bracewell
385: design. This is for two reasons: the response function of the
386: two-aperture Bracewell is symmetric, leading to a 180-degree ambiguity
387: in the position angle of any planet (Figure \ref{fig:simcal}), and in
388: the two-aperture Bracewell the planet signal can only be modulated on
389: the array-rotation timescale. That timescale is $\sim 1000$ seconds,
390: long enough to be susceptible to systematic errors due to instrumental
391: drifts.
392:
393: A solution to both of these problems is achieved in the form of the
394: ``dual chopped Bracewell'' design outlined in Figure
395: \ref{fig:dcbnocal} . In this configuration two Bracewell pairs are
396: placed next to each other, and the nulled outputs from each are
397: recombined with relative phase shifts that are switched between values
398: $0$ and $\pi$. Such phase chopping produces an asymmetric response on
399: the sky, and since the internal phase shift can be adjusted at high
400: frequency, it allows one to remove many forms of systematic error
401: associated with the instrument gain and background.
402:
403: We derive the output of a dual Bracewell system below
404: \begin{eqnarray}
405: E_1 & = & A a_1 e^{i ( \phi_1 )}\\
406: E_2 & = & A a_2 e^{i ( \phi_2 + \pi/2)}\\
407: E_3 & = & A a_3 e^{i ( \phi_3 )}\\
408: E_4 & = & A a_4 e^{i ( \phi_4 + \pi/2)}\\
409: \end{eqnarray}
410: The apertures are combined pairwise to create ``Left'' and ``Right''
411: combinations as follows
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: E_{d,L} &=& \frac{E_1 + E_2 e^{i \pi/2}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
414: E_{b,L} &=& \frac{E_1e^{i \pi/2} + E_2}{\sqrt{2}}\\
415: E_{d,R} &=& \frac{E_3 + E_4 e^{i \pi/2}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
416: E_{b,R} &=& \frac{E_3e^{i \pi/2} + E_4}{\sqrt{2}}
417: \end{eqnarray}
418: Combining the two nulled outputs with relative
419: phases $0,\pi$, which we label the ``A'' and ``B'' states respectively, yields
420: \begin{eqnarray}
421: E_{dd1,A} &=& \frac{E_{d,L} + E_{d,R} e^{i \pi/2}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
422: E_{dd1,B} &=& \frac{E_{d,L} + E_{d,R} e^{i 3\pi/2}}{\sqrt{2}}
423: \end{eqnarray}
424: and the corresponding intensities are
425: \begin{eqnarray}
426: I_{dd1,A} &=& \frac{A^2}{4} \left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 + a_3^2 + a_4^2 \right. \\
427: & & - 2a_1a_2\cos(\phi_1-\phi_2) + 2a_1a_3\sin(\phi_1-\phi_3) - 2a_1a_4\sin(\phi_1-\phi_4) \nonumber \\
428: & & \left. - 2a_2a_3\sin(\phi_2-\phi_3) + 2a_2a_4\sin(\phi_2-\phi_4) - 2a_3a_4\cos(\phi_3-\phi_4) \right) \nonumber \\
429: I_{dd1,B} &=& \frac{A^2}{4} \left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 + a_3^2 + a_4^2 \right. \\
430: & & - 2a_1a_2\cos(\phi_1-\phi_2) - 2a_1a_3\sin(\phi_1-\phi_3) + 2a_1a_4\sin(\phi_1-\phi_4) \nonumber \\
431: & & \left. + 2a_2a_3\sin(\phi_2-\phi_3) - 2a_2a_4\sin(\phi_2-\phi_4) - 2a_3a_4\cos(\phi_3-\phi_4) \right) \nonumber
432: \end{eqnarray}
433: The final quantities used in the image reconstruction are the ``sine'' and ``cosine'' chops.
434: The sine chop is given by
435: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:sinchop}
436: I_{sin} &=& I_{dd1,A} - I_{dd1,B}\\
437: &=& A^2 \left( a_1a_3\sin(\phi_1-\phi_3) - a_2a_3\sin(\phi_2-\phi_3) - a_1a_4\sin(\phi_1-\phi_4) + a_2a_4\sin(\phi_2-\phi_4) \right)\nonumber
438: \end{eqnarray}
439: This gives a response that is asymmetric with respect to the phase
440: center of the instrument, and hence will allow one to determine the
441: position angle of any planet without the 180-degree ambiguity of the
442: single-Bracewell configuration. However, note that in this case, small
443: amplitude and phase mismatches can couple as the sine chop now
444: contains error terms of the form $\delta a\delta \phi$. A
445: particularly challenging aspect of this coupling is that there are
446: higher-order terms that couple non-linearly. Given that these
447: mismatches occur on a range of timescales, the non-linear mixing can
448: inject noise at frequencies where the planet signal is maximized, even
449: in the presence of servo-control systems that try to minimize
450: the mis-matches.
451:
452: The ``cosine chop'' is
453: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:coschop}
454: I_{cos} &=& I_{dd1,A} + I_{dd1,B}\\
455: &=& \frac{A^2}{2} \left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 + a_3^2 + a_4^2 - 2 a_1a_2\cos(\phi_1-\phi_2) - 2 a_3a_4\cos(\phi_3-\phi_4) \right)\nonumber
456: \end{eqnarray}
457:
458: In general the sine chop is more useful to the image reconstruction,
459: as the cosine chop will include contributions from symmetric sources such as zodiacal light.
460: In any case, if the instrument was switched between states A and B quickly enough to remove
461: drifts in thermal background, gain, etc., then these quantities
462: are primarily determined by the planet. However, there are still the
463: effects of variable leakage to consider and avoid.
464:
465: \subsection{Calibration of a Dual Bracewell Nuller}
466: %\clearpage
467: \begin{figure}[htb]
468: \epsscale{0.6}
469: %was dual_bracewell_cal_works_14march06.eps
470: \plotone{f6.eps}
471: \caption[]{\label{fig:dcbcal} Schematic layout of the dual, chopped Bracewell
472: configuration with calibration. }
473: \end{figure}
474: %\clearpage
475: The concept of coherent calibration using the non-nulled outputs from
476: the nulling interferometers can be applied in a straightforward manner
477: to the dual Bracewell configuration (Fig. \ref{fig:dcbcal}). In this
478: configuration, the bright (non-nulled) outputs from the pairwise
479: nullers are combined, and this beam is then mixed with the combined,
480: nulled output. The resulting electric fields and intensities are
481: easily found
482: \begin{eqnarray}
483: E_{c1} &=& \frac{E_{dd,2} + E_{bb,2} e^{i (\theta + \pi/2)}/\sqrt2}{\sqrt{2}}\\
484: E_{c2} &=& \frac{E_{dd,2} e^{i \pi/2} + E_{bb,2} e^{i \theta }/\sqrt2}{\sqrt{2}}
485: \end{eqnarray}
486: where $\theta$ is an additional, controllable phase shift that can be
487: introduced between the bright and dark beams. The associated
488: intensities are, after some tedious algebra, found as
489: \begin{eqnarray}
490: I_{c1,A} &=& \frac{A^2}{16} \left( 3 \left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 + a_3^2 + a_4^2 \right) \right. \\
491: & & + 2 \sqrt{2}\cos (\theta) \left( - a_1^2 + a_2^2 - a_3^2 + a_4^2 \right) \nonumber\\
492: & & + 4 \sqrt{2}\cos (\theta) \left( a_1 a_3 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_3) - a_2 a_4 \sin (\phi_2 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
493: & & + 4 \sqrt{2}\sin(\theta) \left( - a_1 a_2 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_2) - a_1 a_4 \cos (\phi_1 - \phi_4) \right. \nonumber\\
494: & & \left. + a_2 a_3 \cos (\phi_2 - \phi_3) - a_3 a_4 \sin (\phi_3 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
495: & & - 2 a_1 a_2 \cos(\phi_1 - \phi_2) - 6 a_1 a_3 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_3) + 2 a_1 a_4 \sin(\phi_1 - \phi_4) \nonumber\\
496: & & \left. + 2 a_2 a_3 \sin (\phi_2 - \phi_3) - 6 a_2 a_4 \sin(\phi_2 - \phi_4) - 2 a_3 a_4 \cos (\phi_3 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
497: I_{c2,A} &=& \frac{A^2}{16} \left( 3 \left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 + a_3^2 + a_4^2 \right) \right. \\
498: & & + 2 \sqrt{2}\cos (\theta) \left( a_1^2 - a_2^2 + a_3^2 - a_4^2 \right) \nonumber\\
499: & & + 4 \sqrt{2}\cos (\theta) \left( - a_1 a_3 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_3) + a_2 a_4 \sin (\phi_2 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
500: & & + 4 \sqrt{2}\sin(\theta) \left( a_1 a_2 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_2) + a_1 a_4 \cos (\phi_1 - \phi_4) \right. \nonumber\\
501: & & \left. - a_2 a_3 \cos (\phi_2 - \phi_3) + a_3 a_4 \sin (\phi_3 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
502: & & - 2 a_1 a_2 \cos(\phi_1 - \phi_2) - 6 a_1 a_3 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_3) + 2 a_1 a_4 \sin(\phi_1 - \phi_4) \nonumber\\
503: & & \left. + 2 a_2 a_3 \sin (\phi_2 - \phi_3) - 6 a_2 a_4 \sin(\phi_2 - \phi_4) - 2 a_3 a_4 \cos (\phi_3 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
504: I_{c1,B} &=& \frac{A^2}{16} \left( 3 \left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 + a_3^2 + a_4^2 \right) \right. \\
505: & & + 2 \sqrt{2}\cos (\theta) \left( - a_1^2 + a_2^2 - a_3^2 + a_4^2 \right) \nonumber\\
506: & & + 4 \sqrt{2}\cos (\theta) \left( - a_1 a_3 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_3) + a_2 a_4 \sin (\phi_2 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
507: & & + 4 \sqrt{2}\sin(\theta) \left( - a_1 a_2 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_2) + a_1 a_4 \cos (\phi_1 - \phi_4) \right. \nonumber\\
508: & & \left. - a_2 a_3 \cos (\phi_2 - \phi_3) - a_3 a_4 \sin (\phi_3 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
509: & & - 2 a_1 a_2 \cos(\phi_1 - \phi_2) + 6 a_1 a_3 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_3) - 2 a_1 a_4 \sin(\phi_1 - \phi_4) \nonumber\\
510: & & \left. - 2 a_2 a_3 \sin (\phi_2 - \phi_3) + 6 a_2 a_4 \sin(\phi_2 - \phi_4) - 2 a_3 a_4 \cos (\phi_3 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
511: I_{c2,B} &=& \frac{A^2}{16} \left( 3 \left( a_1^2 + a_2^2 + a_3^2 + a_4^2 \right) \right. \\
512: & & + 2 \sqrt{2}\cos (\theta) \left( a_1^2 - a_2^2 + a_3^2 - a_4^2 \right) \nonumber\\
513: & & + 4 \sqrt{2}\cos (\theta) \left( a_1 a_3 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_3) - a_2 a_4 \sin (\phi_2 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
514: & & + 4 \sqrt{2}\sin(\theta) \left( a_1 a_2 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_2) - a_1 a_4 \cos (\phi_1 - \phi_4) \right. \nonumber\\
515: & & \left. + a_2 a_3 \cos (\phi_2 - \phi_3) + a_3 a_4 \sin (\phi_3 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber\\
516: & & - 2 a_1 a_2 \cos(\phi_1 - \phi_2) + 6 a_1 a_3 \sin (\phi_1 - \phi_3) - 2 a_1 a_4 \sin(\phi_1 - \phi_4) \nonumber\\
517: & & \left. - 2 a_2 a_3 \sin (\phi_2 - \phi_3) + 6 a_2 a_4 \sin(\phi_2 - \phi_4) - 2 a_3 a_4 \cos (\phi_3 - \phi_4) \right) \nonumber
518: \end{eqnarray}
519:
520: If we measure the outputs $I_{c1},I_{c2}$ with $\theta=0$ and
521: $\theta=\pi/2$ , in the fashion analogous to what is done for the
522: single Bracewell case (i.e Eqns. \ref{eqn:abcd} \&
523: \ref{ref:singlerecons}), we can reconstruct the output from $I_{dd1}$;
524: this works for both chop states. Hence we can recover $I_{sin}$ and
525: $I_{cos}$.
526:
527: %\clearpage
528: \begin{figure}[htb]
529: \epsscale{1.0}
530: % was codes/dcblcurve.eps
531: \plotone{f7.eps}
532: \caption[]{\label{fig:dcblcurve}(Top) The intensities produced by the
533: simulated four-aperture dual, chopped Bracewell interferometer, for a
534: single spectral channel, as a function of array rotation
535: angle. ``Raw'' is the intensity $I_{sin}$ including simulated planet
536: and noise sources as explained in the text. (Bottom) The calibrated
537: output, together with the ideal time series that would be expected
538: from an interferometer with no phase noise. The
539: ideal curve has been offset for clarity.}
540:
541: \end{figure}
542:
543: The layout shown in Figure \ref{fig:dcbcal} is not the only one
544: possible. In fact, one could use any bright output as an input to the
545: calibrator, including the outputs from just a single nuller ($E_{b,L}$
546: or $E_{b,R}$). As will be discussed in Section \ref{sec:nonsinglemode}
547: there are some advantages to this particular layout, in that it
548: can be made fully symmetric.
549:
550:
551: \subsection{Simulations of a Calibrated Dual Bracewell Nuller}
552: %\clearpage
553: \begin{figure}[htb]
554: \epsscale{1.0}
555: % was codes/dcbimage-mcolor.eps
556: \plotone{f8.eps}
557: \caption[]{\label{fig:simcaldual} (Top Left) Reconstructed image using
558: simulated uncalibrated data from a dual Bracewell nuller. (Top Right)
559: Reconstructed image of the same system, now using the calibrated data.
560: (Bottom Left) The image that would be expected from an ideal
561: (noiseless) system. (Bottom Right) The image reconstructed from the
562: calibrated cosine-chop. The 180-degree position ambiguity disappears
563: for the sine-chop data, as the dual Bracewell nuller provides the
564: necessary phase information to determine the position of the planet.
565: Also, note that the sine chop includes terms that depend on the phase
566: difference between apertures 1-3, 2-4, and 1-4, with longer effective
567: baselines; hence the reconstructed image shows much higher spatial
568: resolution. Note that there is only one planet in the simulation; the
569: dirty map produced by the cross-correlation does include artifacts. A
570: proper deconvolution, e.g. based on the CLEAN algorithm
571: \citep{draper06} is beyond the scope of this paper.}
572: \end{figure}
573: %\clearpage
574: We have simulated the operation of a standard 4-aperture
575: dual-Bracewell interferometer observing an Earth-like planet
576: (Fig. \ref{fig:simcaldual}). Parameters were identical to the
577: single-Bracewell case where applicable; the array was modeled as a
578: linear 4-element array with a 50-m baseline. The integration
579: time was split equally between the chopped states A and B. As in the
580: single-Bracewell case, images were reconstructed using
581: cross-correlations of expected signals as a function of planet
582: position (Eqn \ref{eqn:sinchop} \& Eqn \ref{eqn:coschop}).
583:
584: The gain from application of the coherent calibration approach becomes
585: clear in Fig. \ref{fig:noisecomp}. Here we create model images for
586: three cases of noise: 1, 10 and 50 nm of phase and 0.01\%, 0.1\% and 0.5\%
587: of amplitude mismatch respectively. The calibration easily recovers
588: the planet in all cases, whereas for the raw data only the lowest-noise
589: case yields a planet detection in the image.
590: %\clearpage
591: \begin{figure}[htb]
592: \epsscale{1.0}
593: %was codes/dcbimage-noiserange2.eps
594: \plotone{f9.eps}
595: \caption[]{\label{fig:noisecomp} Simulated images reconstructed
596: from raw and calibrated data, with three different noise levels.
597: Top: 1 nm of phase noise and 0.01\% amplitude mismatch. Middle:
598: 10 nm of phase noise and 0.1\% amplitude mismatch.
599: Bottom: 50 nm of phase noise and 0.5\% amplitude mismatch.}
600: \end{figure}
601: %\clearpage
602: \section{Implications for TPF Instrument Design}
603: \label{sec:consequences}
604: %\clearpage
605: \begin{figure}[htb]
606: \epsscale{1.0}
607: %was snrvlambda.eps
608: \plotone{f10.eps}
609: \caption[]{\label{fig:snrvlambda} Selected noise terms in the
610: TPFI signal-to-noise budget as a function of wavelength.
611: Terms include local zodiacal emission, starlight leakage
612: due to the finite size of the central star, and "systematic" leakage
613: terms due to small path-length and amplitude mismatches.
614: We emphasize that these calculations are merely
615: approximate; a full, high-fidelity SNR budget for a nulling interferometer
616: is beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, it should
617: serve to illustrate the point that -- as is appropriate in any well-optimized
618: instrument system -- there are multiple competing noise sources of
619: similar magnitude.}
620: \end{figure}
621: %\clearpage
622:
623: Using coherent calibration it is possible to measure starlight leakage
624: through the null due to systematic path and amplitude mismatches to
625: high precision. In the case where such leakage is the dominant noise
626: source, this allows for a considerable relaxation in the associated
627: path-length and amplitude control requirements. However, there are
628: many sources of noise in the TPF instrument, and not all of them are
629: amenable to this type of calibration (Fig. \ref{fig:snrvlambda}). For
630: instance, local zodiacal light produces large fluxes on the detector
631: at longer wavelengths; Poisson fluctuations in that flux can wash out
632: the signal from a planet.
633:
634: Given that any TPF design must carefully weigh the relative
635: contributions for many noise sources, the ability to calibrate and
636: remove a large set of noise terms will undoubtedly influence what the
637: optimal system design will be. A full investigation of such a system
638: optimization is beyond the scope of this paper. However, given that
639: the effects of small errors in phase and amplitude mismatch are
640: significantly worse at shorter wavelengths, e.g. $\propto
641: \lambda^{-3}$ \citep{lay05} it is likely that a TPF-like instrument
642: equipped with a nulling calibration system will be able to work at
643: shorter wavelengths, something that may be particularly valuable given
644: the presence of spectral features associated with ${\rm H}_2{\rm O}$
645: around 6.3 $\mu$m and ${\rm CH}_4$ at $7.7 \mu$m \citep{desm02}.
646: Unfortunately, the underlying $\sim 300$K planetary blackbody
647: emission is dropping rapidly shortward of 10 $\mu$m, making
648: observations in that wavelength range very difficult, coherent
649: calibration notwithstanding.
650:
651: Perhaps the clearest illustration of the effect of coherent
652: calibration is apparent in Fig. \ref{fig:snrvsyserr}, which shows the
653: SNR values for calibrated and uncalibrated versions of a notional TPF
654: configuration, as a function of the level of path-length stability
655: achieved. Note that we considered only the amplitude-phase cross-term
656: in this calculation; there are additional terms that a real
657: instrument would have to consider (e.g.~related to polarization).
658: Clearly, if $\sim 1$nm levels are possible, coherent calibration may
659: not be worthwhile. However, this represents a fractional stability
660: approaching 1 part in $10^4$, which may be impossible to achieve in
661: practice, in which case coherent calibration is very useful.
662: %\clearpage
663: \begin{figure}[htb]
664: \epsscale{1.0}
665: %was snrvsyserr.eps
666: \plotone{f11.eps}
667: \caption[]{\label{fig:snrvsyserr} The SNR of an Earth-like
668: planet seen by a TPF Interferometer, for various level s
669: of systematic noise, with and without coherent calibration.
670: The calibration sacrifices photons in return for a much greater
671: tolerance against systematic errors. }
672: \end{figure}
673: %\clearpage
674: \section{Limitations \& Alternative Approaches}
675:
676: There are a number of practical considerations and challenges to
677: implementing this concept in a working interferometer.
678:
679: \subsection{Low Fringe Visibility}
680:
681: The leakage calibration quantities are extracted from a fringe in the
682: calibration interferometer. For a deep null ($I_b/I_d \sim 10^{6}$ or
683: more) this implies a very low fringe contrast or visibility ($\sim
684: \sqrt{I_b/I_d}$); such low fringe visibilities may be hard to measure
685: in the presence of certain kinds of systemtic noise (e.g. detector
686: noise) that can produce an additive bias to the measured fringe
687: contrast. However, such additive biases can be measured and removed -
688: and they are most easily measured with a brighter source. It is
689: therefore always preferable to have the brightest possible reference
690: beam (as long as the detector isn't saturated), even if the SNR of the
691: leakage measurement is to first order independent of the brightness of
692: the ``bright'' input to the calibration interferometer.
693:
694: \subsection{Thermal Noise}
695:
696: While thermal foreground emission (e.g. from the telescope optics) is
697: usually considered incoherent in that it does not form fringes at the
698: nuller, this is not the case for a calibrator. The calibration interferometer
699: in effect forms a Mach-Zender interferometer in the instrument, and
700: hence any light that enters one input port will form a fringe
701: in the calibrator. We note that this fringe can be measured
702: and corrected simply by blocking one input of the nuller and measuring
703: the amplitude of a remaining fringe. It should also be noted that
704: for all but the longest wavelengths the amount of thermal emission
705: that enters the system and forms a fringe in the calibrator will
706: be substantially smaller than the flux from a planet.
707:
708: \subsection{Splitting Ratio}
709:
710: For the purposes of this paper, we have assumed that half of the
711: ``dark'' output is split off and mixed in the calibration
712: interferometer, with the associated loss of SNR. However, the optimal
713: choice of splitting ratio is probably not 50/50 and may in fact be
714: much smaller. Since the frequency at which the planet signal varies is
715: on the order of the array rotation timescale, it may be sufficient to
716: only split off enough light to measure changes in the nuller leakage
717: on that much longer timescale.
718:
719: \subsection{Non-singlemode Effects}
720: \label{sec:nonsinglemode}
721: In this discussion we have treated the incoming electric fields as
722: single-mode wavefronts. Such an approach is appropriate for initial
723: explorations of the concept; it is also a reasonably good
724: approximation in the case of a space-borne instrument equipped with
725: single-mode filters of the type envisioned for TPF \citep{lay05}. However,
726: care may be necessary in designing the instrument so as to ensure that
727: the calibration system samples the exact same spatial mode as the
728: science detector. In practice there may be small alignment differences
729: that cannot easily be removed. However, we suggest that these differences
730: can be calibrated as follows. If the layout shown in Fig. \ref{fig:dcbcal}
731: is made fully symmetric by adding a sampling beam-splitter in $E_{dd1}$
732: and mixing $E_{dd1}$ with $E_{bb1}$, it then is possible to interchange the
733: ``bright'' and ``dark'' outputs merely by adjusting the phase shifts applied
734: to the inputs $E_2$ and $E_4$ (which interchanges the bright and dark
735: outputs on the pairwise nullers.) The difference between the two resulting
736: estimates of the leakage can provide a diagnostic that could be
737: used for further calibration and/or system alignment.
738:
739: \section{Conclusion}
740:
741: We discuss the concept of coherent calibration of an interferometric
742: null and its application to the Terrestrial Planet Finder instrument.
743: We find that such an approach to calibration greatly relaxes the
744: required levels of electric field matching, and associated stability
745: requirements. This should improve instrument performance, particularly
746: at shorter wavelengths where the effects of path-length control
747: limitations are most severe.
748:
749:
750: \acknowledgements We are grateful to M. Colavita, O. Lay and D. Kaplan
751: for helpful comments during manuscript preparation. Part of the work
752: described in this paper was performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
753: under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
754: BFL acknowledges support from a Pappalardo Fellowship in Physics.
755:
756:
757:
758:
759: \begin{thebibliography}{}
760:
761: \bibitem[Bracewell(1978)]{brace78}
762: Bracewell, R.~N.\ 1978, \nat, 274, 780
763:
764: \bibitem[Chazelas et al.(2006)]{chaz06}
765: B. Chazelas, F. Brachet, P. Borde, B. Mennesson, M. Ollivier, O. Absil, A. Labque, C. Valette, and A. Leger, "Instrumental stability requirements for exoplanet detection with a nulling interferometer: variability noise as a central issue," Appl. Opt. 45, 984-992 (2006)
766:
767: \bibitem[Coulter(2004)]{coulter}
768: Coulter, D.~R.\ 2004, \procspie, 5487, 1207
769:
770: \bibitem[Danchi et al.(2003)]{danchi03}
771: Danchi, W.~C., Deming, D., Kuchner, M.~J., \& Seager, S.\ 2003, \apjl, 597, L57
772:
773: \bibitem[Des Marais et al.(2002)]{desm02}
774: Des Marais, D.~J., et al.\ 2002, Astrobiology, 2, 153
775:
776: \bibitem[Draper et al.(2006)]{draper06}
777: Draper, D.~W., Elias, N.~M., Noecker, M.~C., Dumont, P.~J., Lay, O.~P., \& Ware, B.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1822
778:
779: \bibitem[Guyon(2004)]{guy04}
780: Guyon, O.\ 2004, \apj, 615, 562
781:
782: \bibitem[Kaltenegger et al.(2003)]{kalt03}
783: Kaltenegger, L., Karlsson, A., Fridlund, M., \& Absil, O.\ 2003, ESA SP-539: Earths:
784: DARWIN/TPF and the Search for Extrasolar Terrestrial Planets, 459
785:
786: \bibitem[Lay(2004)]{lay04}
787: Lay, O.~P., 2004, Appl. Opt., 43, 6100.
788:
789: \bibitem[Lay(2005)]{lay05}
790: Lay, O.~P., 2005, Appl. Opt., 44, 5859.
791:
792: \bibitem[Miller \& Fischer(2004)]{mf04}
793: Miller, D.~D., \& Fischer, D.\ 2004, \procspie, 5491, 296
794:
795: \bibitem[Noecker(1999)]{noeck99}
796: Noecker, M.~C.\ 1999, ASP Conf.~Ser.~164: Ultraviolet-Optical Space Astronomy Beyond HST, 164, 249
797:
798: \bibitem[Wallace et al.(2004)]{wallace04}
799: Wallace, J.~K., et al.\ 2004, \procspie, 5491, 862
800:
801: \bibitem[Woolf \& Angel(1998)]{woolf98}
802: Woolf, N., \& Angel, J.~R.\ 1998, \araa, 36, 507
803:
804: \end{thebibliography}
805:
806:
807:
808:
809: \end{document}
810:
811:
812:
813:
814:
815:
816: