Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Bayesian uncertainty evaluation applied to the tilted-wave interferometer

Published 19 Mar 2024 in physics.optics, stat.AP, and stat.CO | (2403.12715v1)

Abstract: The tilted-wave interferometer is a promising technique for the development of a reference measurement system for the highly accurate form measurement of aspheres and freeform surfaces. The technique combines interferometric measurements, acquired with a special setup, and sophisticated mathematical evaluation procedures. To determine the form of the surface under test, a computational model is required that closely mimics the measurement process of the physical measurement instruments. The parameters of the computational model, comprising the surface under test sought, are then tuned by solving an inverse problem. Due to this embedded structure of the real experiment and computational model and the overall complexity, a thorough uncertainty evaluation is challenging. In this work, a Bayesian approach is proposed to tackle the inverse problem, based on a statistical model derived from the computational model of the tilted-wave interferometer. Such a procedure naturally allows for uncertainty quantification to be made. We present an approximate inference scheme to efficiently sample quantities of the posterior using Monte Carlo sampling involving the statistical model. In particular, the methodology derived is applied to the tilted-wave interferometer to obtain an estimate and corresponding uncertainty of the pixel-by-pixel form of the surface under test for two typical surfaces taking into account a number of key influencing factors. A statistical analysis using experimental design is employed to identify main influencing factors and a subsequent analysis confirms the efficacy of the method derived.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (35)
  1. R. Schachtschneider, I. Fortmeier, M. Stavridis, et al., “Interlaboratory comparison measurements of aspheres,” \JournalTitleMeasurement Science and Technology 29, 055010 (2018).
  2. C. Pruss, S. Reichelt, H. J. Tiziani, and W. Osten, “Computer-generated holograms in interferometric testing,” \JournalTitleOpt. Engineering 43, 2534–2540 (2004).
  3. C. Supranowitz, J.-P. Lormeau, C. Maloney, et al., “Freeform metrology using subaperture stitching interferometry,” in Optics and Measurement International Conference 2016, vol. 10151 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2016), p. 101510D.
  4. G. Baer, J. Schindler, C. Pruss, et al., “Fast and flexible non-null testing of aspheres and free-form surfaces with the tilted-wave-interferometer,” \JournalTitleInternational Journal of Optomechatronics 8, 242–250 (2014).
  5. I. Fortmeier, M. Stavridis, A. Wiegmann, et al., “Evaluation of absolute form measurements using a tilted-wave interferometer,” \JournalTitleOptics express 24, 3393–3404 (2016).
  6. G. Baer, J. Schindler, C. Pruss, et al., “Calibration of a non-null test interferometer for the measurement of aspheres and free-form surfaces,” \JournalTitleOptics express 22, 31200–31211 (2014).
  7. I. Fortmeier, M. Stavridis, M. Schulz, and C. Elster, “Development of a metrological reference system for the form measurement of aspheres and freeform surfaces based on a tilted-wave interferometer,” \JournalTitleMeasurement Science and Technology 33, 045013 (2022).
  8. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, et al., “Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement,” Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM 100:2008.
  9. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, et al., “Evaluation of measurement data — Supplement 1 to the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” — Propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method,” Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM 101:2008.
  10. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, et al., “Evaluation of measurement data — Supplement 2 to the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” — Extension to any number of output quantities,” Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM 102:2011.
  11. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, et al., “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement — Part 6: Developing and using measurement models,” Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM GUM-6:2020.
  12. A. O’Hagan, “Expert knowledge elicitation: subjective but scientific,” \JournalTitleThe American Statistician 73, 69–81 (2019).
  13. I. Fortmeier, M. Stavridis, A. Wiegmann, et al., “Sensitivity analysis of tilted-wave interferometer asphere measurements using virtual experiments,” in Modeling Aspects in Optical Metrology IV, vol. 8789 (SPIE, 2013), pp. 62–73.
  14. I. Fortmeier, M. Stavridis, A. Wiegmann, et al., “Results of a sensitivity analysis for the tilted-wave interferometer,” in Fringe 2013: 7th International Workshop on Advanced Optical Imaging and Metrology, (Springer, 2014), pp. 701–706.
  15. G. Scholz, I. Fortmeier, M. Marschall, et al., “Experimental design for virtual experiments in tilted-wave interferometry,” \JournalTitleMetrology 2, 6 (2022).
  16. R. Beisswanger, C. Pruss, and S. Reichelt, “Retrace error calibration for interferometric measurements using an unknown optical system,” \JournalTitleOptics Express 31, 27761–27775 (2023).
  17. P. Hariharan, B. F. Oreb, and T. Eiju, “Digital phase-shifting interferometry: a simple error-compensating phase calculation algorithm,” \JournalTitleAppl. Opt. 26, 2504–2506 (1987).
  18. R. M. Goldstein, H. A. Zebker, and C. L. Werner, “Satellite radar interferometry: Two-dimensional phase unwrapping,” \JournalTitleRadio Science 23, 713–720 (1988).
  19. R. Schachtschneider, M. Stavridis, I. Fortmeier, et al., “Simoptdevice: a library for virtual optical experiments,” \JournalTitleJournal of Sensors and Sensor Systems 8, 105–110 (2019).
  20. C. Pruss, E. Garbusi, and W. Osten, “Testing aspheres,” \JournalTitleOptics and Photonics News 19, 24–29 (2008).
  21. J. Wang and D. E. Silva, “Wave-front interpretation with zernike polynomials,” \JournalTitleApplied optics 19, 1510–1518 (1980).
  22. H. O. Hartley and A. Booker, “Nonlinear least squares estimation,” \JournalTitleThe Annals of mathematical statistics 36, 638–650 (1965).
  23. G. Baer, J. Schindler, J. Siepmann, et al., “Measurement of aspheres and free-form surfaces in a non-null test interferometer: reconstruction of high-frequency errors,” in Optical Measurement Systems for Industrial Inspection VIII, vol. 8788 (SPIE, 2013), pp. 337–343.
  24. A. Malengo and F. Pennecchi, “A weighted total least-squares algorithm for any fitting model with correlated variables,” \JournalTitleMetrologia 50, 654 (2013).
  25. S. Heidenreich, H. Gross, and M. Bär, “Bayesian approach to determine critical dimensions from scatterometric measurements,” \JournalTitleMetrologia 55, S201 (2018).
  26. M. Straka, A. Weissenbrunner, C. Koglin, et al., “Simulation uncertainty for a virtual ultrasonic flow meter,” \JournalTitleMetrology 2, 335–359 (2022).
  27. I. Fortmeier, M. Stavridis, C. Elster, and M. Schulz, “Steps towards traceability for an asphere interferometer,” in Optical Measurement Systems for Industrial Inspection X, vol. 10329 P. Lehmann, W. Osten, and A. A. G. Jr., eds., International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, 2017), p. 1032939.
  28. A. M. Stuart, “Inverse problems: a bayesian perspective,” \JournalTitleActa numerica 19, 451–559 (2010).
  29. I. Fortmeier, M. Stavridis, A. Wiegmann, et al., “Analytical jacobian and its application to tilted-wave interferometry,” \JournalTitleOptics express 22, 21313–21325 (2014).
  30. R. Hecht-Nielsen, “Theory of the backpropagation neural network,” in Neural networks for perception, (Elsevier, 1992), pp. 65–93.
  31. I. Fortmeier, R. Schachtschneider, V. Ledl, et al., “Round robin comparison study on the form measurement of optical freeform surfaces,” \JournalTitleJournal of the European Optical Society-Rapid Publications 16, 1–15 (2020).
  32. R. N. Kacker, E. S. Lagergren, and J. J. Filliben, “Taguchi’s orthogonal arrays are classical designs of experiments,” \JournalTitleJournal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 96, 577–591 (1991).
  33. V. Czitrom, “One-factor-at-a-time versus designed experiments,” \JournalTitleThe American Statistician 53, 126–131 (1999).
  34. G. Scholz, I. Fortmeier, M. Schake, and M. Schulz, “P53 - concept for improving the form measurement results of aspheres and freeform surfaces in a tilted-wave interferometer,” in Poster, (AMA Service GmbH, Von-Münchhausen-Str. 49, 31515 Wunstorf, Germany, 2023).
  35. D. W. Marquardt, “An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters,” \JournalTitleJournal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 11, 431–441 (1963).
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.

Sign Up for Free