Paper detail

The effect of spatial sampling on magnetic field modeling and helicity computation

Nonlinear force-free (NLFF) modeling is regularly used in order to indirectly infer the 3D geometry of the coronal magnetic field, not accessible on a regular basis by means of direct measurements otherwise. We study the effect of binning in time series NLFF modeling of individual active regions (ARs) in order to quantify the effect of a different underlying spatial sampling on the quality of modeling as well as on the derived physical parameters. We apply an optimization method to sequences of SDO/HMI vector magnetogram data at three different plate scales for three solar ARs to obtain nine NLFF model time series. From the NLFF models, we deduce active-region magnetic fluxes, electric currents, magnetic energies and relative helicities, and analyze those with respect to the underlying spatial sampling. We calculate various metrics to quantify the quality of the derived NLFF models and apply a Helmholtz decomposition to characterize solenoidal errors. At a given spatial sampling, the quality of NLFF modeling is different for different ARs, as well as varies along of the individual model time series. For a given AR, modeling at a given spatial sampling is not necessarily of superior quality compared to that performed with a different plate scale. Generally, the NLFF model quality tends to be higher for larger pixel sizes with the solenoidal quality being the ultimate cause for systematic variations in model-deduced physical quantities. Optimization-based modeling based on binned SDO/HMI vector data delivers magnetic energies and helicity estimates different by $\lesssim$30\%, given that concise checks ensure the physical plausibility and high solenoidal quality of the tested model. Thus, spatial-sampling-induced differences are relatively small compared to that arising from other sources of uncertainty.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.