1 / 5

Methods for automatic processing

Methods for automatic processing. Requirements Accurate enough Useful for doing significant science Accepted by majority of community Robust Useful on most of the solar disk Errors limited Fast enough Real time Post facto Others?. Considerations. No manual intervention by definition

seberhardt
Download Presentation

Methods for automatic processing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Methods for automatic processing • Requirements • Accurate enough • Useful for doing significant science • Accepted by majority of community • Robust • Useful on most of the solar disk • Errors limited • Fast enough • Real time • Post facto • Others?

  2. Considerations • No manual intervention by definition • Excludes AZAM? • Semel: “locations with poor solutions are interesting” • Test auto methods against gold standard • Is AZAM the gold standard? • Any auto method will leave some discontinuities (some may be real, some due to noise or algorithm problems)

  3. Considerations • May not need to disambiguate every image in a time series (but, flare changes) • Photospheric magnetic field is intermittent, not continuous, so prefer a method that minimizes dependence on continuity

  4. Meeting the requirements • Only c2 and c3 seem promising enough (pending noise sensitivity tests) • Need to accelerate these by a large factor (but seems possible by coding in C) • Is there hope of improving other methods? • Is there some new approach that is better?

  5. Personal opinion • The more good additional information that can be added to the c2/3 error metrics, the better (e.g. height gradient of |B| or div BHorizontal) • A hybrid approach may be helpful (one method for network and another for active regions) • Are we fooling ourselves with non-linear spatial averaging of real solar fields? • Should work harder on getting physically useful information that does not depend upon disambiguation

More Related