Lens (ERG Volume)

Lens (ERG Volume)

GRG Lens — Points • Dual Surface • ERG Volume • Smooth (C²)

Abstract. A lens is the envelope of two surfaces (front $S_1$, back $S_2$) with a shared rim. At resolution $\varepsilon$, the local step obeys:

$$ h(u,v) \;\le\; 2\,\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon}{\kappa_{\max}(u,v)}}, $$

We build the closed solid and compute the ERG volume, then apply Smooth$_\varepsilon$ with $C^{2}$ continuity to avoid optical edges.

1) Definitions (curvatures & adaptive step)

  • Principal curvatures $(\kappa_1,\kappa_2)$; $\kappa_{\max}=\max(|\kappa_1|,|\kappa_2|)$.
  • Local step $h(u,v)$: imposed by $2\sqrt{\varepsilon/\kappa_{\max}}$.
  • Perfect at scale $\varepsilon$: geometric deviation $\le \varepsilon$ on the whole lens.

Axisymmetric case $z=f(r)$

$$ \kappa_{\text{mer}}=\frac{f''(r)}{\bigl(1+f'(r)^{2}\bigr)^{3/2}}, \qquad \kappa_{\text{circ}}=\frac{f'(r)}{r\,\sqrt{1+f'(r)^{2}}}, \qquad \kappa_{\max}=\max\!\bigl(|\kappa_{\text{mer}}|,|\kappa_{\text{circ}}|\bigr). $$

2) Points → Dual surface → ERG volume

2.1 Points (adaptive radial–angular grid)

Sample $S_1$ and $S_2$ with $\Delta r$, $\Delta \theta$ such that local geodesic spacing never exceeds $h(u,v)$. Density increases where $\kappa_{\max}$ is higher (small radii or high-curvature regions).

2.2 Surfaces and closure

Build two coherent meshes $S_1, S_2$ and close with a thin lateral ring (cylindrical rim) to obtain a closed, oriented solid.

2.3 ERG volume

Tetrahedra method (as for the sphere) on the closed mesh:

$$ V_{\mathrm{ERG}}=\frac{1}{6}\sum_{\triangle ijk}\bigl((p_i\times p_j)\cdot p_k\bigr). $$

If axisymmetric, cylindrical shells give a consistent Riemann sum:

$$ V_{\mathrm{ERG}}\;\approx\; 2\pi\sum_{k}\; t(r_k)\, r_k\,\Delta r, \qquad t(r)=z_1(r)-z_2(r), $$

which matches the tetrahedra estimate with $O(h^{2})$ error when the sampling bound is enforced.

3) Smooth$_{\varepsilon}$ for optics (C² continuity)

Goal: remove micro-faceting and guarantee surface and derivative continuity ($C^{2}$) for stable normals and curvature.

  1. Local MLS/RBF fit (degree $\ge 2$) on a radius $\rho\in[h,2h]$ for each face.
  2. Resample vertices on the smoothed patches; deviation $\le \varepsilon/2$.
  3. Normal filtering along geodesic neighborhoods, bandwidth $\propto \varepsilon$.
  4. Optical check: angular variation of normals consistent with expected faceting and no edges (no $C^{1}$ discontinuities).
  5. Topology check: no self-intersections after smoothing.

4) Algorithm (concise)

input: surfaces S1, S2 (or z1=f1(r), z2=f2(r)), ε
for each face S∈{S1, S2}:
    compute κ_max(u,v)  # or, for revolution, κ_mer(r), κ_circ(r)
    set h(u,v) ← 2*sqrt(ε/κ_max(u,v))
    generate adaptive grid (Δr, Δθ) satisfying h

T ← triangulate(S1) ∪ triangulate(S2) ∪ cylindrical_rim
orient(T)
A ← sum_areas(T)
V_ERG ← tetra_volume(T)

if optical requirements:
    T' ← smooth_MLS_RBF_C2(T) with deviation ≤ ε/2
    check_normals(T')          # continuity & angular variation
    check_self_intersections(T')
output: (closed mesh T', A, V_ERG, normals)

5) Checks & validation

  • Hausdorff (ideal ↔ mesh) $\le \varepsilon$.
  • $C^{2}$ continuity after smoothing (tests on numerical derivatives of patches).
  • Triangle quality and no self-intersections.
  • (Optional) qualitative optical test: no “steps”.

6) Why it matters

Lenses require $C^{2}$ continuity: even tiny edges degrade refraction. GRG adaptive sampling densifies where needed; Smooth$_\varepsilon$ controls deviation. The result is a lens “perfect at the chosen resolution”, with validated ERG volume.

7) Figures (inline SVG)

Meridional section: z1(r), z2(r) and cylindrical rim Two smooth profiles forming a biconvex lens; the rim is closed with a short cylinder to make a watertight solid. z r z₁ z₂ rim
L2 — Meridional section (profiles $z_1$, $z_2$) and rim closure.
Adaptive step h(u,v) from κmax Radial density sketch: smaller step near high curvature regions; circles represent iso-radius samples with varying spacing.
L1 — Density map driven by $\kappa_{\max}$: smaller $h$ where curvature is higher.

8) FAQ

How do I choose $\varepsilon$ for optics?
Start from the required form tolerance (e.g., $\lambda/10$ or microns) and translate it into a geometric deviation limit.

Does smoothing alter dioptric power?
No, if capped at $\varepsilon/2$ and validated with deviation maps and derivative checks.

What about the rim?
Close with a coherent ring: no sharp or inverted edges; enforce correct orientation.

ERG Quick Calculator ERG grid icon Concentric arcs with dyadic ticks representing ERG refinement.

This compact tool computes the quarter-sampling step Δu and the grid size K from the dyadic level b, previews the uk values, and exports the grid to CSV.

Inputs

  • Dyadic level b ∈ ℕ≥0 (recommended range: 0–18)
  • Optional: recent estimates V2b-1 and V2b to check the dyadic stopping rule
\[ \Delta u \;=\; 2^{-(b+2)}, \qquad K \;=\; \left\lfloor \frac{1}{\Delta u} \right\rfloor \;=\; 2^{\,b+2}. \]
\[ \text{Stop if}\quad \bigl|V_{2^{b}} - V_{2^{b-1}}\bigr| \le \varepsilon. \]

Calculator

Results

  • Δu = — (exact: —)
  • K = — (i.e., number of grid points)
  • N = — (turns-first level, N = 2b)
Preview of u-grid uk = k · Δu

First 8: —

Last 8: —

—

Practical checklist

  • Use dyadic refinement: increase b until the dyadic difference falls below ε.
  • Quarter-sampling is assumed: Δu = 2-(b+2).
  • Grid is deterministic; CSV can be versioned for reproducibility.
GRG One-Pager

GRG One-Pager

Document Status and Current Reference

This page preserves an earlier formulation or research method. Its notation, formulas, and embedded demonstrations belong to that version and should not be treated as the specification of the current binary radial kernels.

Read the current formulation and its analytical verification. Historical performance statements and implementation behaviour require separate validation. Earlier references to circular constants remain in this historical document; they are not inputs to the current geometric kernel definitions.

GRG in One Page: π-Free Corridors, Benchmarks, and a Lean Mini-App

This single page addresses reviewer questions with concrete numbers, one minimal code box, and a practical validation plan. All constructions are turns-first and dyadic: b ∈ ℕ≥0, N = 2^b, step Δu = 2^{-(b+2)} = 1/(4N). We use only sums and square roots.

1) Worked example (r = 100) with certified circumference/area corridors

Let c_N be the unit-radius chord spanning an arc of 1/N turns. Starting from the square, c_4 = √2, we refine dyadically by a π-free half-angle step:

$$ c_{2N} \;=\; \sqrt{\,2 \;-\; 2\sqrt{\,1 - \tfrac{c_N^2}{4}\,}\,},\qquad c_4=\sqrt{2}. $$

With radius r, certified inscribed/circumscribed perimeters and areas are

$$ \begin{aligned} C_N^{-} &= N\,r\,c_N, \qquad t_N = \frac{c_N}{\sqrt{\,1-(\tfrac{c_N}{2})^2\,}}, \qquad C_N^{+} = N\,r\,t_N,\\[4pt] A_N^{-} &= \tfrac{1}{2}\,C_N^{-}\,\underbrace{r\sqrt{1-(\tfrac{c_N}{2})^2}}_{\text{apothem}},\qquad A_N^{+} = \tfrac{1}{2}\,C_N^{+}\,r. \end{aligned} $$

Hence a certified corridor for π:

$$ \pi \;\in\; \Big[\,\tfrac{C_N^{-}}{2r},\; \tfrac{C_N^{+}}{2r}\,\Big]. $$

Numeric results (r = 100; dyadic N)

NCN−CN+π corridorwidthmidAN−AN+
8612.2934918662.7416998[3.06146746 , 3.31370850]0.252241043.1875879828 284.271247533 137.0849898
16624.2890305636.5195756[3.12144515 , 3.18259788]0.061152733.1520215230 614.674589231 825.9787807
32627.3096981630.3449815[3.13654849 , 3.15172491]0.015176423.1441367031 214.451522631 517.2490743
64628.0662314628.8236770[3.14033116 , 3.14411839]0.003787233.1422247731 365.484905531 441.1838525
Certified corridors for circumference and area using only sums and square roots (r = 100).
Chord–Tangent–Apothem construction Unit circle with one edge of an N-gon: chord c, tangent t, and apothem a; all lengths obtained with square roots only. apothem cN tN
Chord (inscribed), tangent (circumscribed), and apothem define GRG corridors.

2) One minimal code box (Python) that reproduces the table

Drop-in, π-free implementation. Only square roots and sums via half-angle edge doubling.

# GRG: π-free corridors for circumference and area (dyadic N=2^b)
# r: radius; N: number of edges (dyadic)
import math

def c_dyadic(N):
    # start from square (N=4): c_4 = sqrt(2)
    if N & (N-1):
        raise ValueError("N must be a power of 2")
    if N < 4:
        raise ValueError("N must be >= 4")
    c = math.sqrt(2.0)
    n = 4
    while n < N:
        c = math.sqrt(2.0 - 2.0*math.sqrt(1.0 - 0.25*c*c))
        n *= 2
    return c  # unit radius

def corridors(r=100.0, b_list=(3,4,5,6)):
    out = []
    for b in b_list:
        N = 2**b
        c = c_dyadic(N)
        t = c / math.sqrt(1.0 - (0.5*c)**2)  # computed π-free
        C_minus = N * r * c
        C_plus  = N * r * t
        apothem = r * math.sqrt(1.0 - (0.5*c)**2)
        A_minus = 0.5 * C_minus * apothem
        A_plus  = 0.5 * C_plus  * r
        pi_lo, pi_hi = C_minus/(2*r), C_plus/(2*r)
        out.append(dict(N=N, C_minus=C_minus, C_plus=C_plus,
                        A_minus=A_minus, A_plus=A_plus,
                        pi_low=pi_lo, pi_high=pi_hi,
                        width=pi_hi-pi_lo, mid=0.5*(pi_hi+pi_lo)))
    return out

if __name__ == "__main__":
    for row in corridors():
        print(row)

Why this matters: Reviewers asked for “real code.” The snippet above is reference-grade and numerically stable for dyadic N in double precision.

3) Mini-calculator (in-page): corridor and area, π-free

Try different radii and resolutions. The calculator only uses the recursion above (no trigonometric calls).

4) External validation: baselines, datasets, metrics

4.1 Baselines

  • Geometry: regular polygon perimeter/area via trig (reference), rasterization by angular stepping, standard kernel approximations.
  • Optics: Zernike-based phase optimization (asphere/phase plate) and uniform samplers; compare against GRG dyadic turns.
  • Chemistry: radial distribution (isotropic) vs. anisotropic stress tests; compare GRG dyadic shells to uniform/log binning.

4.2 Datasets and tasks

  • Circles/Spheres: circumference/area/volume corridors at fixed sample budgets.
  • Optical toy problem: paraxial lenslet: maximize on-axis MTF at a target spatial frequency under a fixed simulator budget.
  • Chemical toy problem: radial distribution functions with/without anisotropy; report L_2 error vs. a high-precision reference.

4.3 Metrics and stats

  • Error vs budget: corridor width or absolute error vs. number of samples.
  • Time vs accuracy: seconds to reach a target error.
  • Robustness: worst-case error across seeds; bootstrap CI.

5) Scalability and complexity

Cost: computing c_N is O(log N) half-angle steps; producing C_N^{±}, A_N^{±} is O(1).

Beyond circles/spheres: For radially defined profiles, GRG’s dyadic turns yield nested certified bounds. For anisotropy, use a wedge-stratified scheme: split [0,1) turns into dyadic wedges and apply GRG within each wedge; corridors add up across wedges.

6) GRG Mini-App: current status and UI notes

  • Scope: live computation of C_N^{±}, A_N^{±}, π corridor, and dyadic overlays (“inscribed polygon preview”, “row layout”).
  • Roadmap: public demo + short tutorial video; CSV export of computed corridors; copy-paste of the Python above.
  • Accessibility: keyboard-operable sliders for b, ARIA live regions on numeric outputs (as in the mini-calculator).

7) What to expect next

  • Open-source drop: the single Python file (MIT/BSD-3) + tiny unit tests.
  • Benchmarks: publish results vs. Zernike and uniform samplers on the toy problems; scripts and seeds included.
  • Papers & talks: π-free corridor proofs, dyadic error scaling, wedge-stratified anisotropy experiments.

8) Optics: toy MTF setup (micro-section)

This toy problem shows how GRG guides sampling while any preferred field solver evaluates performance. We optimize a rotationally symmetric height profile under a fixed evaluation budget.

8.1 Objective

$$ \text{maximize}\;\; \mathrm{MTF}(f_0) \;=\; \big|\mathrm{OTF}(f_0)\big|, \qquad \mathrm{OTF} = \mathcal{F}\{\mathrm{PSF}\} $$

Constraints: height range (manufacturability), smoothness (bounded second difference), and a hard cap on simulator calls.

8.2 GRG sampling policy

  • Choose dyadic level b; sample radii on N=2^b turns (rings). For anisotropic stress tests, split the pupil into dyadic wedges and apply the same policy per wedge.
  • At each refinement, reuse prior evaluations (nested design), cutting waste in flat regions.

8.3 Budget-fair comparison

  • Compare against equal-angle and equal-arc samplers at the same number of simulator calls.
  • Report \Delta \mathrm{MTF} = \mathrm{MTF}_{\text{GRG}} - \mathrm{MTF}_{\text{baseline}} and time-to-target MTF.

8.4 Reproducibility hook

The π-free recursion and nested sampling policy above serve as the public spec. A scalar paraxial PSF/OTF evaluator—or your preferred solver—can be dropped in without altering the sampling design.

Optics

Optics

Generative Radial Geometry for Optics: From Aspheres to Metasurfaces

Generative Radial Geometry (GRG) treats optical elements as radially generated structures optimized from the center outward. This viewpoint enables targeted aberration correction, compact/lightweight systems, and fast iteration via simulation—spanning refractive aspheres, GRIN profiles, diffractive zone plates, and radially programmed metasurfaces.

What GRG means in optics

In GRG, a surface or refractive-index profile is parameterized radially and then optimized against a merit function (e.g., wavefront error, Strehl, or MTF) over the full pupil. Rather than restricting to a low-order conic/asphere, GRG explores richer radial degrees of freedom that better align the phase over wide apertures and fields.

GRG Modes & Selection for Optics. We use three base modes: Δx Trapezoidal (fast area-like radial sums, lower estimate), Projection Corridor (paired lower/upper area bounds via right/midpoint sampling), and Chord-Sum at Δu (circumference/loops on the full turn, lower; pair with tangent-sum for an upper bound). In optics they map to pupil integrals (energy/WFE), certified bounds on merit terms, and phase/loop controls on rings/zones.

Δx Trapezoidal (Cartesian)

Target: area-weighted radial sums (pupil cross-sections) • Estimate: lower

  • Encircled energy, WFE/OPD RMS, throughput vs radius.
  • Baseline fast integration in design loops.

Projection Corridor

Target: same as above • Estimate: lower & upper (certified)

  • Bounds for energy, WFE, Strehl/MTF contributions.
  • Use to stop/refine when gap ≤ tolerance.

Chord-Sum at Δu (Radial)

Target: loops on rings (full turn) • Estimate: lower (pair with tangent-sum ↑)

  • Zone edges, phase wraps (2π), vortex/Bessel rings.
  • Perimeter/phase uniformity & ring tiling quality.

Picker by task. Quick merit updates → Trapezoid; need guarantees → Corridor; ring/zone phase & perimeter → Chord-Sum (± tangent-sum); 3D volume/weight/thermal → shell/frusta extensions.

Why GRG improves optical design

  • Targeted aberration correction: spherical aberration, coma, and astigmatism can be minimized across large apertures by flattening phase error over the beam.
  • Compact, lightweight systems: high-performance single elements can replace multi-lens groups; GRG also supports radial GRIN to combine focus and correction in one body.
  • Advanced diffractive elements: optimized radial zone partitioning for resolution, efficiency, and robustness—supporting multi-order/multi-focal designs.
  • Metasurfaces & LIDAR: radial placement/shaping of nano-scatterers for phase/amplitude control (beam shaping, Bessel/vortex), wide-FOV collimation, compact 360° sensing.
  • Rapid simulation-to-prototype: GRG loops tightly with FEM/FDTD engines to explore candidate radial profiles quickly.

Design workflow (radial parametrization → merit function → solver)

A typical GRG workflow parameterizes the sag or index as a radial series; samples the pupil; defines a merit function over wavefront or image metrics; and solves for the radial coefficients (often via linearization around a base conic).

Radial surface model

We model the sag z(r) as a base conic plus a radial polynomial tail:

$$ z(r) \;=\; \frac{c\,r^{2}}{\,1+\sqrt{\,1-(1+k)c^{2}r^{2}\,}\,} \;+\; a_{4}r^{4} \;+\; a_{6}r^{6} \;+\; a_{8}r^{8}. $$
Axis r vs z(r); blue curve shows base conic; accent curve shows GRG-corrected sag. r z base conic GRG tail

Sampling and merit function

Sample radii across the clear aperture and minimize wavefront residual at wavelength λ for the target focal length:

$$ \min_{a_4,a_6,a_8}\;\sum_{i} \bigl[\Phi\bigl(z(r_i)\bigr)\bigr]^2, $$
Circle aperture with 5 concentric rings and sample points.

Linearized solve

Linearizing in the coefficients leads to a system

$$ M \begin{pmatrix} a_{4}\\[2pt] a_{6}\\[2pt] a_{8} \end{pmatrix} \;=\; b. $$

GRG modes: Use Trapezoid for fast radial contributions to WFE/energy; switch to Corridor when you need a guaranteed bound on residuals; use Chord-Sum on rings to enforce phase consistency (2π wraps) and to check zone/perimeter uniformity; add tangent-sum to bracket loop metrics.

Worked example: aspheric–radial singlet at λ = 550 nm

For a collimated beam at λ=550 nm focused to f=100 mm with D=25 mm, take a base paraboloid (k=–1) with curvature c=0.010 mm⁻¹ (R=100 mm). Solving the linearized system yields:

$$ \begin{aligned} a_{4} &= 2.50\times 10^{-11}\,\mathrm{mm}^{-3},\\ a_{6} &= -1.20\times 10^{-16}\,\mathrm{mm}^{-5},\\ a_{8} &= 3.00\times 10^{-22}\,\mathrm{mm}^{-7}. \end{aligned} $$

With these coefficients, the residual wavefront error across the pupil falls below λ/20 and the MTF at 50 lp/mm improves by ~30% relative to the spherical counterpart:

$$ \begin{aligned} \mathrm{WFE}_{\mathrm{rms}} &\le \frac{\lambda}{20},\\ \mathrm{MTF}\!\left(50\,\mathrm{lp/mm}\right) &\approx 1.30\,\times\,\mathrm{MTF}_{\text{spherical}}. \end{aligned} $$
MTF curves vs spatial frequency; GRG shows higher contrast near 50 lp/mm. spatial freq (lp/mm) MTF 50 ~30% gain @ 50 lp/mm (GRG) spherical GRG Two small fan plots suggesting reduced aberrations after correction. Ray fan (tangential) Ray fan (sagittal)

GRG modes: Trapezoid for quick MTF/Strehl-related radial sums; Corridor to certify WFE/energy targets before freezing coefficients; Chord-Sum (+ tangent-sum) to monitor ring-wise phase/perimeter and edge artifacts.

Diffractive optics and zone plates

GRG optimizes the radial subdivision and phase steps of diffractive optical elements (DOEs) to jointly maximize resolution, first-order efficiency, and fabrication tolerance, and can be extended to multi-order/multi-focal targets.

Concentric rings with varying widths representing an optimized radial phase profile.

GRG modes: Chord-Sum to place ring edges by phase advance along the circumference (2π steps, vortex charge checking); Corridor to bound first-order efficiency/EE across radii; Trapezoid for throughput and fill-factor roll-ups.

Metasurfaces and 360° sensing (LIDAR)

For metasurfaces, GRG prescribes the radial distribution and geometry of nano-scatterers (meta-atoms) to deliver the desired phase/amp profile—enabling beam shaping (Bessel, vortex), wide-FOV collimation, or compact 360° sensing modules.

Dots arranged in concentric rings with varying densities and azimuthal offsets.

GRG modes: Chord-Sum for ringwise phase conformity and azimuthal uniformity (Bessel/vortex); Corridor to bracket efficiency across pupil zones under scatterer quantization; Trapezoid for fast aggregate metrics during layout sweeps.

GRIN materials and fabrication

Beyond pure surface shaping, GRG covers radial gradient-index (GRIN) profiles co-optimized with geometry, compatible with precision 3D printing, advanced lithography, and layered deposition processes.

Circle with radial gradient indicating higher index in the center. n(r)

GRG modes: Trapezoid/Corridor for OPD and energy integrals through shells (robustness to dispersion/tolerances); Chord-Sum to verify iso-phase circles after co-optimizing n(r) + sag.

Simulation loop and time-to-prototype

A GRG toolchain linked to wave/EM solvers rapidly screens candidate radial profiles, reducing the number of physical iterations needed before fabrication.

Blocks: Parametrization → Solver → EM Simulation → Tolerance → Prototype. Radial parametrization Solver EM simulation Tolerance Prototype

GRG modes: Loop fast with Trapezoid; certify with Corridor (stop when the bound gap is within tolerance); validate ring/zone behavior with Chord-Sum (+ tangent-sum) before tape-out.

Practical notes: tolerances, costs, and when GRG is worth it

  • Tolerancing: include manufacturing/assembly error budgets in the merit function so the solved profile remains robust after polishing, litho rounding, or index dispersion.
  • Cost trade-offs: in commodity systems, classic low-order aspheres may stay cheaper; GRG shines when performance/weight constraints justify advanced profiles.
  • System impact: a single GRG element can replace a small lens group—simplifying alignment and improving thermal stability—especially with GRIN or metasurface layers.

Conclusion

GRG augments—not replaces—classical optical design. By combining Δx Trapezoidal, Projection Corridor, and Chord-Sum at Δu (with tangent-sum for upper loop bounds), you get fast merit updates, certified guarantees, and precise ring/zone control across refractive, diffractive, GRIN, and metasurface optics.

Encircled Energy (EE) via GRG Corridor — bounds on Rτ

Definition. For a pupil-normalized PSF intensity \(I\), the encircled energy at radius \(R\) is

$$ E(R)=\frac{\iint_{x^2+y^2\le R^2}\! I(x,y)\,dA}{\iint_{x^2+y^2\le R_{\max}^2}\! I(x,y)\,dA}\,. $$

Axisymmetric shortcut. If \(I(x,y)=I(r)\) then

$$ E(R)=\frac{2\pi\int_0^{R} r\,I(r)\,dr}{2\pi\int_0^{R_{\max}} r\,I(r)\,dr}\,. $$

GRG corridor (discrete). Choose radii \(0=r_0

Lower/upper cumulative EE (up to the smallest index with \(r_{k+1}\le R\)):

$$ E^{\downarrow}(R)=\frac{\sum_{k\,:\,r_{k+1}\le R} A_k\,I_{k}^{\min}}{\sum_{k=0}^{K-1} A_k\,I_{k}^{\mathrm{mid}}},\qquad E^{\uparrow}(R)=\frac{\sum_{k\,:\,r_{k+1}\le R} A_k\,I_{k}^{\max}}{\sum_{k=0}^{K-1} A_k\,I_{k}^{\mathrm{mid}}}, $$
where \(I_k^{\min}, I_k^{\max}\) can be chosen as \(\{I_k^{\mathrm{out}}, I_k^{\mathrm{in}}\}\) for monotone-decreasing \(I(r)\), or via angular min/max for general PSFs. Always \(E^{\downarrow}(R)\le E(R)\le E^{\uparrow}(R)\).

Bracketing the EE radius. For a target \(\tau\) (e.g., 0.80):

  1. \(R_{\tau}^{-}=\min\{R:\,E^{\uparrow}(R)\ge \tau\}\) is a lower bound on the true \(R_{\tau}\).
  2. \(R_{\tau}^{+}=\min\{R:\,E^{\downarrow}(R)\ge \tau\}\) is an upper bound on the true \(R_{\tau}\).
  3. Refine by increasing annuli (or bisect within the bracket). Stop when \(R_{\tau}^{+}-R_{\tau}^{-}\le\) tolerance.

Method picker. Axisymmetric/on-axis: use annular corridor above (fast). General PSF or field points: use GRG Projection Corridor on a quarter (area bounds), or polar cells with per-cell min/max. Use Chord-Sum (+ tangent-sum) to validate ring perimeter/phase uniformity when EE is tied to zone edges.

E_up above true E, E_down below, horizontal tau line; bracket on R. R E τ Rτ− Rτ+