1: %% LyX 1.4.2 created this file.  For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.

2: %% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.

3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint,english]{aastex}

4: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

5: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

6: \setcounter{tocdepth}{3}

7: \usepackage{graphicx}

8: 

9: \makeatletter

10: 

11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX commands.

12: %% Because html converters don't know tabularnewline

13: \providecommand{\tabularnewline}{\\}

14: 

15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.

16: \usepackage{times}

17: 

18: \usepackage{babel}

19: \makeatother

20: \begin{document}

21: 

22: \title{The Sensitivity of Hybrid Differential Stereoscopy for Spectral Imaging}

23: 

24: 

25: \author{C.E. DeForest and C.C. Kankelborg}

26: 

27: \begin{abstract}

28: Stereoscopic spectral imaging is an observing technique that affords

29: rapid acquisition of limited spectral information over an entire image

30: plane simultaneously. Light from a telescope is dispersed into multiple

31: spectral orders, which are imaged separately, and two or more of the

32: dispersed images are combined using an analogy between the $(x,y,\lambda)$

33: spectral data space and conventional $(x,y,z)$ three-space. Because

34: no photons are deliberately destroyed during image acquisition, the

35: technique is much more photon-efficient in some observing regimes

36: than existing techniques such as scanned-filtergraph or scanned-slit

37: spectral imaging. Hybrid differential stereoscopy, which uses a combination

38: of conventional cross-correlation stereoscopy and linear approximation

39: theory to extract the central wavelength of a spectral line, has been

40: used to produce solar Stokes-V (line-of-sight) magnetograms in the

41: 617.34 nm Fe I line, and more sophisticated inversion techniques are

42: currently being used to derive Doppler and line separation data from

43: EUV images of the solar corona collected in the neighboring lines

44: of He-II and Si-XI at 30.4 nm. In this paper we develop an analytic

45: \emph{a priori} treatment of noise in the line shift signal derived

46: from hybrid differential stereoscopy. We use the analysis to estimate

47: the noise level and measurement precision in a high resolution solar

48: magnetograph based on stereoscopic spectral imaging, compare those

49: estimates to a test observation made in 2003, and discuss implications

50: for future instruments.

51: \end{abstract}

52: 

53: \keywords{instrumentation: spectrographs, methods: analytical, techniques: spectroscopic}

54: 

55: \section{Introduction}

56: 

57: Spectral imaging in general, and solar spectral imaging in particular,

58: suffer from a fundamental problem in detector physics. Spectral images

59: have three independent variables $(x,y,\lambda)$, while current image

60: detectors only support two independent variables $(x,y)$ and integrate

61: over wavelength $\lambda$. Conventional techniques to overcome this

62: problem generally use time-multiplexing: in filtergraph imaging spectroscopy,

63: a narrow band filter is tuned slowly across the spectral range of

64: interest and an image collected at each discrete $\lambda$; in conventional

65: scanned-slit imaging spectroscopy, the light is passed through a spatial

66: filter (the slit), selecting a single $x$, and the remaining light

67: is dispersed to project $\lambda$ onto the detector's $x$ axis.

68: Even more sophisticated techniques such as Fourier imaging spectroscopy

69: use time multiplexing to collect multiple two-dimensional basis images

70: of the three-dimensional data space. Multiplexing in time is photon-inefficient

71: as photons that are not part of the current sample are discarded.

72: That is a problem because solar measurements are photon starved: instruments

73: must race to collect sufficient photons for a spectral measurement,

74: before the features on the Sun change. 

75: 

76: Stereoscopic spectral imaging overcomes the problem of spectral imaging

77: by analogy between the spectral imaging problem and the stereoscopic

78: problem of determining feature distance in ordinary 3-space. Dispersed

79: spectral images are integrals along diagonal lines in $(x,y,\lambda)$

80: space; they are analogous to images of a 3-space subject, with the

81: images collected at a {}``look angle'' that depends on the dispersion

82: of the instrument. Collecting multiple dispersed images in different

83: spectral orders yields data that can be inverted stereoscopically

84: to measure some spectral characteristics of the line everywhere in

85: the image plane simultaneously.

86: 

87: \citet{kankelborg2001} and \citet{Fox2003} have described using

88: this stereoscopic approach to simultaneous imaging and spectroscopy

89: in EUV emission lines. Their \emph{MOSES} rocket payload, launched

90: 2006 February 8, obtained Doppler measurements of explosive events

91: and jets in the He II line at $30.4$ nm (\citealt{Kankelborg2007}).

92: Another related technique, computed-tomography imaging spectroscopy

93: (CTIS) uses multiple spectral orders for hyperspectral imaging and

94: spectropolarimetry at low spectral resolution in the visible and infrared

95: (e.g. \citealt{Wilson1997,Miles1999,Milesetal1999,Dereniak2005}). 

96: 

97: DeForest et al. (2004) have developed a first-order theory of stereoscopic

98: inversion that is applicable to a much simpler spectral context: measuring

99: Doppler shift and the longitudinal Zeeman splitting in a narrow visible

100: absorption line in the solar photosphere. That work is conceptually

101: similar to the \emph{MOSES} stereoscopic imaging, but there are two

102: key differences: there is only a single spectral line in the instrument

103: passband, and it is an absorption line; and the line width is narrower

104: than a pixel in dispersion. DeForest et al. demonstrated the technique

105: with proof-of-concept observations of the quiet Sun, a decayed active

106: region, and a clean sunspot. However, in that work they did not analyze

107: the noise characteristics of the observing and inversion technique,

108: only report the \emph{a posteriori} noise measured in a quiet Sun

109: region. 

110: 

111: In this article, we derive expressions for the \emph{a priori} noise

112: level (hence sensitivity) and systematic error of a stereoscopic instrument

113: in the narrow-line regime described by \citet{DeForestetal2004} using

114: hybrid differential stereoscopy to determine line shift. We use \emph{a

115: priori} statistical calculation to derive the effect of the dominant

116: source of uncorrelated noise - photon counting statistics - and also

117: address quasi-random systematic errors in the inversion using some

118: basic assumptions about the scene being viewed. 

119: 

120: The analytic expressions are general and may be applied to

121: stereoscopic spectrographs viewing either absorption or emission

122: lines, but we consider them in the specific context of an

123: absorption-line Zeeman magnetograph viewing the relative line shift

124: between the right- and left-circular polarizations. In \S

125: \ref{sec:Hybrid-differential-stereoscopy} we analyze each of several

126: noise sources individually; in \S \ref{sec:Summary-&-Specific} the

127: results of the individual analyses are applied to generate a noise

128: budget for an example baseline instrument observing the quiet

129: photosphere with \textasciitilde{}0.1 arc sec resolution and 0.03 arc

130: sec pixels,in the 617.34 nm Fe I absorption line. Finally, in \S

131: \ref{sec:Conclusions} we draw conclusions about the types of

132: observation for which hybrid differential stereoscopic spectral

133: imaging offers the best prospects for advances over the state of the

134: art.  Throughout the discussion we have used $\Delta$ to indicate a

135: single difference from the correct or expected value of the following

136: quantity, and angle-brackets to denote RMS averages over an image.

137: 

138: 

139: \section{\label{sec:Hybrid-differential-stereoscopy}Hybrid differential stereoscopy}

140: 

141: Here we develop a theory of noise in a hybrid differential analysis

142: of absorption line data. Following \citet{DeForestetal2004}, consider

143: an image in the $(x,y)$ plane produced by observing, through a slitless

144: dispersing spectrograph, a narrow absorption line of rest wavelength

145: $\Lambda_{0}$, offset $\Lambda'(x,y)$ from that wavelength, constant

146: width $\Delta\lambda$, and integrated total intensity absorption

147: $L(x,y)$ over that width; limiting the wavelength range on the detector

148: is a filter with transmission profile $F(\lambda')$ and total admitted

149: continuum intensity $C(x,y)$ in the absence of the spectral line.

150: Without loss of generality, take the dispersion direction of the spectrograph

151: to be along the $x$ axis and consider the images collected in the

152: $\pm1$ spectral order. Then the $y$ variation of the image drops

153: out of the analysis and inversion may be performed independently along

154: each line parallel to the $x$ axis. Variations in the central wavelength

155: of the spectral line result in spatial distortions of the images;

156: these distortions are antisymmetric across the two spectral orders,

157: and can be used to recover low spatial frequencies of the function

158: $\Lambda'(x)$ by \emph{correlation stereoscopy}. Small patches of

159: the images are cross-correlated to determine the offset functions

160: $X_{L,\pm1}(x)$, and the wavelength offset can then be determined

161: by \begin{equation}

162: \Lambda'_{L}=\frac{X_{L,+1}-X_{L,-1}}{2\alpha},\label{eq:low-freq dispersion}\end{equation}

163: where $\alpha$ is the dispersion of the +1 order. The $L$ subscripts

164: refer to low spatial frequencies; the maximum spatial frequency that

165: may be resolved by this method is determined by the patch size used

166: for the cross-correlation. The inversion used for Eq. \ref{eq:low-freq dispersion}

167: is analogous to the inversion carried out by the human visual system,

168: determining the $z$ coordinate of observed objects by cross-correlating

169: the visual fields from the left and right eye. Recovering higher spatial

170: frequencies requires a more sophisticated inversion. DeForest (2003)

171: and DeForest et al. (2004) developed the process of \emph{differential

172: stereoscopy} to determine high spatial frequencies in $\Lambda'$

173: based on first-order intensity variation in the dispersed images.

174: The difference between the +1 and -1 order dispersed images yields

175: several terms in first approximation order, one of which is proportional

176: to $d\Lambda'/dx$. By integrating the difference signal along the

177: $x$ direction it is possible to recover an approximation to the high

178: spatial frequencies $\Lambda'_{H}$ throughout the image plane --

179: because the primary detection term is to the spatial derivative, low

180: spatial frequencies are not well measured with that technique. Furthermore,

181: differential stereoscopy is sensitive to {}``leakage'' of intensity

182: and other signals into the $d\Lambda'/dx$ measurement. These terms

183: are proportional to $\Lambda'$ itself and must therefore be compensated

184: in some way in strong field regions. 

185: 

186: By resampling the dispersed images to eliminate the spatial shifts

187: related to $\Lambda'_{L}$ before applying differential stereoscopy,

188: it is possible to eliminate image-related noise in the differential

189: signal, to first approximation order. The differential process is

190: used to recover high spatial frequencies, and the low spatial frequencies

191: are inserted via a mathematical filter. The resulting \emph{symmetric

192: hybrid inversion equation} for first-order stereoscopic inversion

193: (from DeForest et al. 2004) is:\begin{equation}

194: \Lambda'_{c1}=\int\left\{ \frac{I_{-1}\left(X_{L,-1}\right)-I_{+1}\left(X_{L,+1}\right)}{\alpha\left(I_{+1}+I_{-1}\right)}\frac{C}{L}-\epsilon\left(\Lambda'_{c1}-\Lambda'_{L}\right)\right\} dx\label{eq:hybrid_inversion}\end{equation}

195: where $\Lambda'_{L}$ is again the low-spatial-frequency component

196: of the central-wavelength shift image, as determined by explicit cross-correlation

197: of patches of the +1 image with corresponding regions of the -1 image,

198: $X_{L,-1}$, and $X_{L,+1}$ are again distorted spatial coordinates

199: that use the correlation signal to remove measured offsets in the

200: images, $I_{\pm1}$ is the intensity profile of each image as a function

201: of focal-plane coordinate $x$ or the distorted focal-plane coordinate

202: $X_{L,\pm1}$, $\alpha$ is the dispersion of the instrument, and

203: $\epsilon$ is a small convergence factor that splices the frequency

204: spectra of the two derivation methods. 

205: 

206: Note that Eq. \ref{eq:hybrid_inversion} is implicit rather than closed-form:

207: $\Lambda'_{c1}$is present both on the left hand side of the equality,

208: and also inside the integral on the right hand side. The presence

209: of the corrective filter term $\epsilon(\Lambda'_{c1}-\Lambda'_{L})$

210: is what makes Eq. \ref{eq:hybrid_inversion} a \emph{hybrid} inversion:

211: it preserves the high spatial frequencies present in the main portion

212: of the integrand, while forcing the low spatial frequencies in the

213: integral to match the $\Lambda'_{L}$ signal obtained by direct cross-correlation

214: of image patches. If $\Lambda'_{L}$ happens to be constant and zero,

215: then the impulse response function of the resulting spatial filter

216: is a decaying exponential. In practice, the integral should be performed

217: numerically in both the positive-X and negative-X direction, and the

218: two results summed. The forward integral is causal along the $x$

219: axis and the reverse integral is anti-causal, so that the resulting

220: impulse response function is symmetric in $x$.

221: 

222: The discrete form of Equation \ref{eq:hybrid_inversion}, then, is

223: best calculated using the sum of two discrete filter transforms. Let

224: $J$ be the normalized difference image in compensated coordinates,

225: interpolated to (integer) non-distorted pixel locations, and let $i$

226: run over the pixel coordinates in the $x$ direction. Then $J$ may

227: be written:\begin{equation}

228: J(i)\equiv\frac{I_{-1X}(i)-I_{+1X}(i)}{\left(I_{-1X}(i)+I_{+1X}(i)\right)}\label{eq:J-definition}\end{equation}

229: where the $X$ subscript is to indicate that the $I_{\pm1}$ images

230: have been interpolated so that the $i^{th}$ pixel is found from the

231: focal-plane location $x_{i}\pm\alpha\Lambda_{L}(x_{i}).$ In the first-order

232: theory developed by DeForest et al. 2004, $J$ is important because,

233: when $d\Lambda'/dx\ll\alpha^{-1},$\begin{equation}

234: J\sim\alpha\frac{L}{C}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\label{eq:dlambda/dx}\end{equation}

235: which allows recovery of $\Lambda'$ by integrating and scaling appropriately.

236: 

237: The integral becomes a sum of two discrete spatial filters in the

238: \emph{discrete symmetric hybrid inversion equation}:\begin{equation}

239: \Lambda'_{c1}(i)=\frac{1}{2\alpha}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{i}\left(\left\langle \frac{C}{L}\right\rangle_{RMS} J(n)+\epsilon\Lambda'_{L}(n)\right)\left(1-\epsilon\right)^{i-n}-\sum_{n=i}^{w-1}\left(\left\langle \frac{C}{L}\right\rangle_{RMS} J(n)-\epsilon\Lambda_{L}^{'}(n)\right)\left(1-\epsilon\right)^{n-i}\right)\label{eq:discrete inversion}\end{equation}

240: where pixel centers are considered to exist at all integers between

241: 0 and $w$, and$\left\langle C/L\right\rangle_{RMS} $ is the average ratio

242: of admitted continuum intensity to line absorption intensity. The

243: $\epsilon\Lambda_{L}'$ terms merely produce a smoothed version of

244: $\Lambda'_{L}$: if $\Lambda'_{L}$ were constant, and the image were

245: infinite in extent, then each of the two summations would return exactly

246: $\Lambda'_{L}$ by the law of geometric sums. The low pass filter

247: from this smoothing effect exactly matches the high-pass filter applied

248: to the integral by the exponential decay term, so that the two versions

249: of $\Lambda'$ are combined together seamlessly. Equation \ref{eq:discrete inversion},

250: together with the process of cross-correlation to determine the relationship

251: between $X_{L,\pm1}$ and $x$, is a complete discrete image inversion. 

252: 

253: %

254: \begin{figure}

255: \includegraphics{f1.eps}

256: 

257: 

258: \caption{\label{fig:step-response}Step response of the filter in Eq. \ref{eq:discrete inversion}

259: shows how the different components of hybrid inversion combine to

260: reconstruct the wavelength shift signal. The source wavelength (black)

261: is a discrete Heaviside function with step at pixel 100. The differential

262: stereoscopy step (in the absence of noise) yields a high-pass filtered

263: version of the Heaviside function (blue), while the correlation step

264: yields a low-pass filtered version (cyan). Because the filters are

265: constructed mathematically to match one another, the sum of the two

266: filters (magenta) reproduces the step. The low-pass curve suffers

267: from edge effects at the far sides of the image, but in a typical

268: detector with more than $10^{3}$ pixel width, edge effects are minimal.}

269: \end{figure}

270: 

271: 

272: Figure \ref{fig:step-response} shows the step response of the filter

273: described by Eq. \ref{eq:discrete inversion}, to illustrate how the

274: different parts of the inversion work together. The step is located

275: at position 100. The high-pass response to the differential stereoscopy

276: signal (dark blue) is due to the interaction between the differentiation

277: inherent in the detection method, and the {}``imperfect'' (high-pass)

278: integration imposed by the $\epsilon$$\Lambda'_{c1}$ decay term

279: in the integrand of Eq. \ref{eq:hybrid_inversion}. The exponential

280: decay is matched by the low-pass response to the correlation stereoscopy

281: signal (light cyan). The sum of the two signals is the value of the

282: the RHS of Eq. \ref{eq:discrete inversion}, and reproduces the original

283: signal. The slight overshoot of the reconstructed (magenta) curve

284: is a discretization effect due to the phase of the Heaviside function

285: relative to the pixel grid: a Heaviside function with the opposite

286: phase relative to the pixel grid would yield an equal-magnitude undershoot.

287: As with any discrete sampling filter, Eq. \ref{eq:discrete inversion}

288: operates best on spatial frequencies less than 2/3 of the pixel Nyquist

289: frequency, because the reconstructed amplitude of those frequency

290: components is independent of their phase relative to the pixel grid.

291: The Heaviside function contains frequencies both below and above that

292: limit, and the high frequencies' reconstructed amplitude depends on

293: phase.

294: 

295: In practice, errors in both the measurement of intensity and the inversion

296: affect the analysis, so that the measured $\Lambda'_{c1}$ is not

297: exactly the same as $\Lambda'$ even if the image frequency spectrum

298: is appropriately limited. In this error analysis we consider six principal

299: sources of error: photon counting noise, $\left\langle \Delta I\right\rangle_{RMS} $,

300: that represents an additive, uncorrelated noise source at each pixel

301: in each of the differential and correlation stereoscopy steps; misalignment

302: noise $\left\langle \Delta X_{L}\right\rangle_{RMS} $ in the cross-correlation

303: step; the effect of intensity gradients (both $dC/dx$ and $dL/dx$)

304: on the line shift signal; a nonzero slope $dF/d\lambda'$ of the instrument

305: filter transmission function $F(\lambda')$ (the slope is assumed

306: to be zero in Eq. \ref{eq:hybrid_inversion}); and an excessively

307: high $d\Lambda'/dx$ signal in the solar image. The first two noise

308: sources arise (directly or indirectly) from imprecision in the measurement

309: of $I$ in each pixel, and the last four sources arise from the non-ideal

310: nature of the instrument and/or the solar field being imaged. In the

311: following subsections we treat each error source independently.

312: 

313: 

314: \subsection{Photon noise in differential stereoscopy\label{sub:Photon-counting-noise}}

315: 

316: Photon counting noise is due to uncertainty in the measured intensity

317: $I_{\pm1}$ in each focal plane, through the statistics of photon

318: counting. Each measurement does not determine intensity directly,

319: but rather fluence of energy (or, equivalently, photon count) on each

320: pixel during an exposure time. Intensity can be derived by knowing

321: the size of the pixel and the length of the exposure. Each pixel measures

322: a fluence $\Phi$ with an uncertainty $\Delta\Phi_{ph.}$ given by:\begin{equation}

323: \Delta\Phi_{ph.}=\frac{hc}{\Lambda}\Delta n_{ph.}=\sqrt{\frac{hc}{\Lambda}\Phi}\label{eq:photon-noise}\end{equation}

324:  so that the RMS value $\left\langle \Delta I/I\right\rangle_{RMS} =\left\langle \Delta\Phi/\Phi\right\rangle_{RMS} =\sqrt{hc/\Lambda\Phi}$.

325: This effect contributes to $\Lambda'_{c1}$ primarily via a photon

326: noise term that must be propagated through Equation \ref{eq:discrete inversion}:

327: the much higher photon counts in many-pixel image {}``patches''

328: greatly reduce photon counting noise in the cross-correlation portion

329: of the inversion (\S \ref{sub:Misalignment-noise}). The RMS photon

330: noise contribution $\left\langle \Delta_{ph}\Lambda'_{c1}\right\rangle_{RMS} $

331: is just the incoherent sum of the photon noise terms in each term

332: on the RHS of Eq. \ref{eq:discrete inversion}. Each of those terms,

333: in turn, is (to first order in $\Delta_{ph}I/I$ and neglecting $dI/dx$

334: for the calculation of noise in each pixel):\begin{equation}

335: \left\langle \Delta_{ph}J_{i}\right\rangle_{RMS} =\sqrt{\frac{2I^{2}\left(hc\Phi/\Lambda\right)}{4I^{2}}}=\sqrt{\frac{hc}{2\Lambda\Phi}}=\sqrt{1/2n_{ph}}\label{eq:delta_ph J}\end{equation}

336: where $n_{ph}$ is the per-exposure photon count in the corresponding

337: pixel in each of the two orders. Eq. \ref{eq:delta_ph J} simply reproduces

338: the familiar behavior of incoherent counting statistics for intrinsic

339: (normalized) quantities. 

340: 

341: The treatment may, at first glance, appear overly simple as the individual

342: pixels in the images are interpolated and hence do not represent individual

343: samples of the $\Delta_{ph}\Phi$ random variable but rather scaled

344: incoherent sums of adjacent samples. This is acceptable to ignore

345: because, in the absence of strong gradients in $dX_{L,\pm1}/dx$ (i.e.

346: gradients comparable to unity per pixel), the samples' noise profile

347: is preserved by the inversion. Adjacent pixels are co-added in the

348: discrete inversion. Under linear interpolation, adjacent interpolated

349: fractions of the signal from each detector pixel are approximately

350: conserved by the interpolation and added coherently in the cross-pixel

351: sum in Eq. \ref{eq:discrete inversion}. Because addition is commutative,

352: the noise effect of the interpolated pixels on the final sum is the

353: same as if no interpolation had taken place, up to a negligible factor

354: of $(1-\epsilon$). Put another way, although considering interpolation

355: would further reduce the noise in $J_{i}$ for individual pixels,

356: co-adding $J_{i}$ for adjacent pixels in the inversion eq. \ref{eq:discrete inversion}

357: would then include coherent cross-pixel noise terms that would exactly

358: cancel the reduction -- so we may safely choose, instead, to ignore

359: the effects of the $X_{L,\pm1}$ interpolation and use incoherent

360: sums throughout.

361: 

362: Carrying Eq. \ref{eq:delta_ph J} forward through Eq. \ref{eq:discrete inversion}

363: yields:\begin{equation}

364: \left\langle \Delta_{ph}\Lambda'_{c1}\right\rangle_{RMS} =\frac{1}{2\alpha}\left\langle \frac{C}{L}\right\rangle_{RMS} \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2n_{ph}}\right)\left(\sum_{n=0}^{i}\left(1-\epsilon\right)^{2(i-n)}+\sum_{n=i}^{w-1}\left(1-\epsilon\right)^{2(n-i)}\right)}\label{eq:ph-noise-1}\end{equation}

365: Neglecting any field edge effects (in other words, taking $0\ll i\ll w$)

366: permits taking the infinite sums directly, yielding (to first order

367: in epsilon):\begin{equation}

368: \left\langle \Delta_{ph}\Lambda'_{c1}\right\rangle_{RMS} =\frac{1}{2\alpha}\left\langle \frac{C}{L}\right\rangle_{RMS} \sqrt{\frac{1}{2n_{ph}\epsilon}}\label{eq:ph-noise}\end{equation}

369: Thus the statistics of the differential stereoscopy step are worsened

370: by the width of the correction term. This is reflective of the fact

371: that random walks diverge, and is the reason for using a hybrid inversion

372: rather than a direct integral inversion: using direct integration

373: in Equation \ref{eq:discrete inversion}, rather than high-pass integration

374: with correction, is equivalent to setting $\epsilon$ to zero, which

375: would yield an arbitrarily large amount of photon-counting noise in

376: the individual measurements. In actual use, it is necessary to balance

377: $\epsilon$ and the cross correlation patch size: larger patch sizes

378: improve correlation behavior but require smaller $\epsilon$ and thus

379: worsen the photon noise due to integration of the differential signal.

380: 

381: It is important to note that the photon noise from the discrete inversion

382: is not independently sampled at each pixel: it is the sum of many

383: noise terms along the $x$ direction, so that the \emph{difference}

384: measurement between adjacent pixels has a much smaller noise level,

385: yielding higher precision for small features. In particular, shifting

386: by 1 pixel re-samples only one $\epsilon^{th}$ of the population

387: of random samples in the calculated $\Lambda'_{c1}$, reducing the

388: photon noise by a factor of $\sqrt{\epsilon}$ so that small features

389: are only subject to: \begin{equation}

390: \left\langle \Delta_{ph}\left(\Lambda'_{c1,i}-\Lambda'_{c1,j-1}\right)\right\rangle_{RMS} =\frac{1}{2\alpha}\left\langle \frac{C}{L}\right\rangle_{RMS} \sqrt{\frac{1}{2n_{ph}}},\label{eq:differential-ph-noise}\end{equation}

391:  which is to be expected considering that the difference signal is

392: the original signal being measured by the differential stereoscopy

393: - the difference in measured wavelength between two adjacent pixels

394: is simply a linearly scaled form of $J_{i}$. Differential stereoscopy

395: is \emph{more sensitive} to small features than to large ones, at

396: least from the standpoint of photon statistics. 

397: 

398: Taking {}``typical'' values of $\epsilon=0.09$ (FWHM of 15 pixels),

399: $C/L=10$, and $n_{ph}=5\times10^{4}$ yields an absolute partial

400: sensitivity $\alpha\left\langle \Delta_{ph}\Lambda'_{c1}\right\rangle_{RMS} =0.052$

401: pixel, and a gradient sensitivity $\alpha\left\langle \Delta_{ph}\left(\Lambda'_{c1,j}-\Lambda'_{c1,j-1}\right)\right\rangle_{RMS} =0.016$

402: (the gradient sensitivity is unitless: pixels per pixel), due to photon

403: counting alone.

404: 

405: 

406: \subsection{Photon noise in correlation stereoscopy\label{sub:Misalignment-noise}}

407: 

408: The second source of error in Equation \ref{eq:discrete inversion}

409: is misalignment in the cross correlation step that is used to derive

410: $X_{L,\pm1}$ from the original images. In the 2004 derivation of

411: Eq. \ref{eq:hybrid_inversion}, it was necessary to assume that the

412: displacement of the images was small, leading to $dI/dx$ terms that

413: enter in first order because the +1 and -1 order intensities are measured

414: at slightly different spatial locations. Here, we consider the effect

415: of small misalignments due to errors in the correlation co-alignment

416: process. In the test measurements made by DeForest et al., the cross-correlation

417: step used a full two-dimensional patch of image around each sampled

418: point, rather than (as in the differential stereoscopic portion of

419: the inversion) merely the particular horizontal line surrounding each

420: point. This is reasonable in part because the image is, in fact, a

421: two-dimensional field rather than a collection of independent rasters;

422: and in part because the technique was found empirically to reduce

423: correlation {}``misses'' and improve the image signal. Here, we

424: consider the potential sources of error injected by cross-correlation

425: alignment of patches of image around each point.

426: 

427: Because correlation co-alignment is a nonlinear process and depends

428: on the field in the image, it is necessary to make some assumptions

429: about the field being viewed. We here confine our analysis to magnetic

430: measurements of the quiet Sun, which consists principally of nearly

431: uniformly bright granules separated by dark, well defined lanes. Some

432: other types of field (for example, the UV chromospheric network) are

433: analogous and may be considered with the same or similar analysis,

434: but other types of field (such as sunspot penumbrae) are likely too

435: complex for simple analysis and require numerical modeling.

436: 

437: %

438: \begin{figure}

439: \includegraphics[width=3in]{f2}

440: 

441: 

442: \caption{\label{fig:correlation}Sample correlation field used for our correlation

443: photon analysis. Correlation between two images is used to align two

444: patches of pixels with radius $r_{p}$. The image field consists of

445: dark lanes against a background of approximately uniform brightness

446: (left). The lanes consist of side-walls with thickness $t_{d}$ and

447: depth $I_{d}$ (right). A fraction $f_{d}$ of the image is considered

448: to be lane wall.}

449: \end{figure}

450: 

451: 

452: In this analysis we consider cross-correlation of an idealized small

453: patch of quiet Sun with $\pi r_{p}^{2}$ pixels, of nearly uniform

454: intrinsic brightness everywhere except in a fraction $f_{d}$ of the

455: pixels of which are occupied by narrow, dark features with steep sides

456: that are, on average, $t_{d}$ pixels across, and an absolute intensity

457: deficit of $I_{d}$ (Figure . For typical quiet-Sun visible light

458: observations, $f_{d}$is about 0.1 and $I_{d}$is about $0.5\, C$.

459: Assuming that the correlation algorithm does not 'miss' (it achieves

460: a match between corresponding features in the opposite order images),

461: we assume that errors in the resulting overall position of the patches

462: is due to randomization errors from the displacements (real and apparent)

463: of the dark features between the two images. In the worst non-pathological

464: case, every intensity feature in the image patch is displaced by a

465: different random amount, representing a strong high-spatial-frequency

466: field. In that case, each feature's apparent location is the incoherent

467: sum of two random variable samples: one due to photon counting statistics

468: in the sloping sides of the feature, and one due to the random displacements

469: of the features themselves. The former depends on the steepness of

470: feature sides, the overall brightness of the image, and the number

471: of pixels in each feature wall. The latter depends on the dispersion

472: of the instrument and the variability of spectral offset across the

473: image

474: 

475: The uncertainty in location of each feature due to photon counting

476: statistics is related to the slope at the sides of the feature: correlation

477: fitting converts intensity in the sloping sides of a feature to position,

478: so we can estimate the position/wavelength noise due to error in the

479: intensity, by simply scaling the intensity noise to account for this

480: conversion. The cross-correlation requires comparison between two

481: features, so one can write:\begin{equation}

482: \left\langle \Delta X_{ph,1}\right\rangle_{RMS} =\frac{t_{d}}{I_{d}}\left\langle \Delta I_{ds}\right\rangle_{RMS} =\frac{t_{d}}{I_{d}}I_{0}\sqrt{\frac{2}{t_{d}n_{ph}}\left(\frac{2I_{0}}{2I_{0}-I_{d}}\right)}\label{eq:single-feature}\end{equation}

483: where $\Delta I_{ds}$ is the uncertainty in brightness in the side-of-feature

484: pixels, and the right-hand expression accounts for the typical number

485: of pixels in the sides of a particular feature. The $n_{ph}$ comes

486: from the fraction $\left\langle \Delta I\right\rangle_{RMS} /I_{0}$and

487: is the number of photons counted during the exposure. The unitless

488: $2I_{0}/(2I_{0}-I_{d})$ arises because the average brightness in

489: a feature sidewall is halfway between the background intensity and

490: the dark feature intensity, The extra factor of 2 under the radical

491: comes from the fact that the noise in offset is the incoherent sum

492: of the location noise in each of the two features being compared. 

493: 

494: The ensemble average error position $\left\langle \Delta X_{ph}\right\rangle_{RMS} $

495: is then just the incoherent average of the offsets of each feature

496: wall, or \begin{equation}

497: \left\langle \Delta X_{ph}\right\rangle_{RMS} =\frac{2I_{0}}{I_{d}r_{p}}\sqrt{\frac{I_{0}t_{d}}{\pi f_{d}n_{ph}\left(2I_{0}-I_{d}\right)}}\label{eq:correlation-photon-noise}\end{equation}

498:  Taking the patch to be about 15 pixels across, and assuming a scene

499: of solar granulation with $f_{d}=0.05$, $t_{d}=2$, $I_{d}=0.5I_{0}$,

500: and $n_{ph}=5\times10^{4}$ yields a noise estimate of $\left\langle \Delta X_{ph}\right\rangle_{RMS} =2.4\times10^{-3}$

501: pixels. Photon noise in the correlation step is hence negligible compared

502: to photon noise in the differential step. This is not surprising considering

503: the large number of pixels that are averaged over by the correlation

504: step. Put another way, the noise spectrum is dominated by high spatial

505: frequencies, which are {}``smoothed out'' by the correlation process.

506: 

507: 

508: \subsection{\label{sub:Image-noise-in}Image noise in correlation stereoscopy}

509: 

510: There is an additional source of error in the correlation step: because

511: the wavelength signal $\Lambda'(x)$ includes high spatial frequencies

512: (the signal that is being measured by the differential stereoscopy

513: step), different parts of the image must be shifted in different directions

514: to find the average offset over the entire patch being correlated.

515: These high spatial frequencies introduce an error into the measurement

516: of the shifts $X_{L,\pm1}(x)$, because the correlation step weights

517: the importance of the different offsets according to the average sidewall

518: slope in each portion of the patch being correlated, rather than uniformly

519: throughout the patch of image. This error term is independent of the

520: photon noise, and is introduced even for successful cross-correlations.

521: It depends on the inequality of the weighting of the features, as

522: well as the amount of displacement:\begin{equation}

523: \left\langle \Delta X_{wgt}\right\rangle_{RMS} =\alpha\frac{\left\langle \overline{\delta\Lambda'_{patch}\delta\left|dI/dx\right|}\right\rangle_{RMS} }{\left\langle dI/dx\right\rangle_{RMS} }\label{eq:weighting-delta}\end{equation}

524: where $\delta$ is used to indicate actual differences from the patch-wide

525: mean (different from $\Delta,$which is being used to indicate statistical

526: error in a quantity), $\Lambda'_{patch}$ is the signed difference

527: between $\Lambda'$ at each location in the patch being correlated

528: and the mean for the whole patch, $dI/dx$ is the slope of the intensity

529: function at each location in the image, and $\delta\left|dI/dx\right|$

530: is the difference between the current value of the slope and its patch-wide

531: average. As above, angle-brackets symbolize RMS averaging over a complete

532: data set; here, an over bar is used to represent signed averaging

533: over the patch. The inclusion of both $\delta$-quantities (on the

534: RHS) and $\Delta$-quantities (on the LHS) is because Eq. \ref{eq:weighting-delta}

535: describes errors in the measurement of $X$ that are due to the interpretation

536: of the images themselves even in the absence of injected noise, rather

537: than to an injected noise source in the direct measurement of brightness

538: in each image plane.

539: 

540: The numerator in the RHS of Eq. \ref{eq:weighting-delta} depends

541: only on the scene being viewed. The signed average simply applies

542: an $n_{samp}^{-1/2}$ scaling of the overall error term, according

543: to the number of independent samples $n_{samp}$ of image data in

544: the patch. The quantity being averaged is the product of two random

545: variables with zero mean and hence can be expanded simply in terms

546: of their covariance $C(x,y)$:\begin{equation}

547: \left\langle \Delta X_{wgt}\right\rangle_{RMS} =\frac{\alpha}{\left\langle dI/dx\right\rangle_{RMS} \sqrt{n_{f}}}\left(C\left(\delta\Lambda'_{patch},\,\delta\left|dI/dx\right|\right)+\left\langle \delta\Lambda'_{patch}\right\rangle_{RMS} \left\langle \delta\left|dI/dx\right|\right\rangle_{RMS} \right)\label{eq:weighting-covariance}\end{equation}

548: where $n_{f}$ is the number of {}``features'' -- separately resolved

549: regions that each represents an independent sample of image data --

550: in the patches being correlated. 

551: 

552: Assuming that the wavelength and brightness signals are uncorrelated

553: eliminates the covariance term:\begin{equation}

554: \left\langle \Delta X_{wgt,uncorr}\right\rangle_{RMS} =\frac{\alpha\left\langle \delta\Lambda'_{patch}\right\rangle_{RMS} \left\langle \delta\left|dI/dx\right|\right\rangle_{RMS} }{\left\langle dI/dx\right\rangle_{RMS} \sqrt{n_{f}}}\label{eq:no-covariance}\end{equation}

555: so that, if wavelength and intensity of emissions be uncorrelated,

556: the location uncertainty of a given cross-correlated patch is proportional

557: to the RMS variation in central wavelength and the RMS variation in

558: \emph{slope} of the image intensity. For example, taking the patch

559: to be about 15 pixels across, $n_{f}=n_{p}/4$ (one unique feature

560: every four pixels), $\alpha\left\langle \delta\Lambda'_{patch}\right\rangle_{RMS} $=

561: 0.1 pixel, $\left\langle dI/dx\right\rangle_{RMS} $=0.2, and $\left\langle \delta\left|dI/dx\right|\right\rangle_{RMS} $=0.1

562: yields $\left\langle \Delta X_{wgt,uncorr}\right\rangle_{RMS}=0.006$~pixel. 

563: 

564: In practice, the image intensity and wavelength variation are not

565: completely uncorrelated. For example, small magnetic features tend

566: to be found in dark intergranular lanes, rather than randomly across

567: the quiet Sun, so that $C\left(\delta\Lambda'_{patch},\,\delta I\right)\neq0$.

568: It is not clear, however, how or whether $dI/dx$ and $\Lambda'$

569: are correlated. In the worst case, they are proportional and the covariance

570: term is equal to the product term in Eq.\ref{eq:weighting-covariance},

571: doubling the effective noise level from this source to (in the example)

572: 0.012 pixel. In the best case, $\delta\Lambda'$ would be near zero

573: everywhere except where $dI/dx$ is small. In that case, the covariance

574: term would nearly exactly cancel the product term in Eq. \ref{eq:weighting-covariance}

575: and eliminate this noise source.

576: 

577: In the context of a photospheric magnetograph, some further information

578: about the covariance term may be used. In the quiet Sun for example,

579: the strongest magnetic fields are observed to exist in the intergranular

580: lanes, near local minima in continuum intensity. This suggests that

581: the covariance between $dI/dx$ and $\delta\Lambda'_{patch}$ is in

582: fact negative in real scenes of solar granulation, so that Eq. \ref{eq:no-covariance}

583: likely overestimates the strength of this noise source in quiet sun

584: magnetic measurements. 

585: 

586: In scenes that contain more contrast, particularly magnetic-correlated

587: contrast, image correlation problems can dominate the Zeeman shift

588: signal. in particular, near sunspots very strong variations in intensity

589: are strongly correlated to very strong variations in magnetic field,

590: reducing the effectiveness of this technique for inverting stereoscopic

591: data of sunspot fields. This was observed by DeForest et al. (2004),

592: who found that correlation introduced strong artifacts into a not-well-resolved

593: sunspot penumbra.

594: 

595: 

596: \subsection{\label{sub:Image-brightness-gradients}Image brightness gradients}

597: 

598: Equation \ref{eq:hybrid_inversion} includes several important engineered

599: cancellations. Failure of those cancellations causes leakage of intensity

600: or other information into the derived wavelength signal. The most

601: important, and most likely to fail, cancellation is the elimination

602: of an intensity spatial-derivative signal from the $J$ introduced

603: in Eq. \ref{eq:J-definition}. In the narrow-line approximation described

604: by DeForest et al. (2004), the single-image brightness is given by

605: (their equation 7):\begin{equation}

606: I_{n}\approx\frac{\left[E_{c}\otimes F\right](x/\alpha_{n})}{\alpha_{n}}-L(x)+\alpha_{n}L(x)\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+\alpha_{n}\Lambda'(x)\frac{dL}{dx}-2\alpha_{n}^{2}\Lambda'(x)\frac{dL}{dx}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\label{eq:single-intensity}\end{equation}

607: (where, again, $E_{c}$is the continuum brightness per unit wavelength,

608: $F$ is the prefilter function, $L(x)$ is the total line depth intensity,

609: and $\alpha_{n}$ is the dispersion of the $n^{th}$ spectral order).

610: The differential inversion arises from noticing that the difference

611: between two opposite orders contains a useful $d\Lambda'/dx$ term:

612: \begin{equation}

613: I_{n}(x)-I_{-n}(x)=2\alpha_{n}L(x)\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+2\alpha_{n}\Lambda'(x)\frac{dL}{dx}\label{eq:intensity-equation}\end{equation}

614: in which the $d\Lambda'/dx$ term is desired and the $dL/dx$ term

615: is undesired. In hybrid stereoscopy the images are resampled into

616: $X_{L}$ coordinates with the substitution: \begin{equation}

617: X_{L,n}=x+\alpha_{n}\Lambda'_{L}(x)\label{eq:X-def}\end{equation}

618:  that eliminates the undesired $dL/dx$ term in Eq. \ref{eq:intensity-equation}

619: to first order. This process inevitably introduces some other undesired

620: terms. In particular, substituting Eq. \ref{eq:X-def} into Eq. \ref{eq:single-intensity}

621: yields (writing $C_{L}(x)$ for the convolution term):

622: 

623: \begin{eqnarray}

624: I_{n}(X_{L,n}) & \approx & \left(C_{L}(x)+\alpha_{n}\Lambda'_{L}\frac{dC}{dx}\right)-\left(L(x)+\alpha_{n}\Lambda'_{L}\frac{dL}{dx}\right)\nonumber \\

625:  &  & +\left(\alpha_{n}L\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+\alpha_{n}^{2}\Lambda'_{L}\frac{dL}{dx}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+\alpha_{n}^{2}\Lambda'\Lambda'_{L}\frac{d^{2}L}{dx^{2}}\right)\nonumber \\

626:  &  & +\left(\alpha_{n}\Lambda'\frac{dL}{dx}+\alpha_{n}^{2}\Lambda'\Lambda'_{L}\frac{d^{2}L}{dx^{2}}+\alpha_{n}^{2}\Lambda'_{L}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\frac{dL}{dx}\right)\nonumber \\

627:  &  & -\left(2\alpha_{n}^{2}\Lambda'\frac{dL}{dx}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+2\alpha_{n}^{3}\Lambda'_{L}\left(\left(\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\right)^{2}\frac{dL}{dx}+\Lambda'\frac{d^{2}L}{dx^{2}}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+\Lambda'\frac{dL}{dx}\frac{d^{^{2}}\Lambda'}{dx^{2}}\right)\right)\label{eq:eviltude}\end{eqnarray}

628: where $C(x)$ is the convolution term from Eq. \ref{eq:single-intensity}.

629: As before, subtracting opposite orders removes all terms that contain

630: an even power of $\alpha$, and doubles the remaining terms. Grouping

631: all terms and discarding terms beyond first order in $\Lambda'$ yields:\begin{equation}

632: I_{n}(X_{L,n})-I_{-n}(X_{L,-n})\approx2\alpha_{n}\left(L\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+\Lambda'_{L}\frac{dC_{L}}{dx}+\Lambda'_{H}\frac{dL}{dx}-2\alpha_{n}^{2}\left(\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\right)^{2}\Lambda'_{L}\frac{dL}{dx}\right)\label{eq:not-so-evil}\end{equation}

633: where the first term is desired and the other terms are noise. The

634: $dC_{L}/dx$ term is normally small both because the filter function

635: is symmetric in wavelength and because the convolution integral smooths

636: across several pixels. The $\Lambda'_{H}$ term represents leakage

637: of the $dL/dx$ signal into the data. (Recall, $\Lambda'_{H}$ is

638: just the high spatial frequency component of the wavelength shift,

639: given by $\Lambda'-\Lambda'_{L}$). The low-frequency image contribution

640: to the noise has been reduced by the square of the (normally small)

641: factor $\alpha_{n}d\Lambda'/dx$.

642: 

643: The LHS of Equation \ref{eq:not-so-evil} is merely the numerator

644: of the $J$ definition in Equation \ref{eq:J-definition}. The denominator

645: is the sum of the two intensities, which retains the even powers of

646: $\alpha_{n}$ while canceling the odd powers. Again, many cancellations

647: occur, leaving:\begin{equation}

648: I_{n}(X_{L,n})+I_{-n}(X_{L,n})\approx2\left(C_{L}(x)-L+2\alpha_{n}^{2}\Lambda'\Lambda'_{L}\frac{d^{2}L}{dx^{2}}\right)\label{eq:non-evil}\end{equation}

649: so that the summed brightness of the resampled images has a systematic

650: noise term that is proportional to the second derivative of the line

651: depth. Combining the terms yields a more complete expression for $J$:\begin{eqnarray}

652: J & \approx & \alpha_{n}\frac{L\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+\Lambda'_{L}\frac{dC_{L}}{dx}+\left(\Lambda'_{H}-\left(\alpha_{n}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\right)^{2}\Lambda'_{L}\right)\frac{dL}{dx}}{\left(C_{L}(x)-L\right)+2\alpha_{n}^{2}\Lambda'\Lambda'_{L}\frac{d^{2}L}{dx^{2}}}\nonumber \\

653:  &  & \approx\alpha_{n}\frac{L}{C_{L}}\left(\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+\Lambda'_{L}\frac{dC_{L}}{L\, dx}+\left(\Lambda'_{H}-\left(\alpha_{n}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\right)^{2}\Lambda'_{L}\right)\frac{dL}{L\, dx}-\frac{2\alpha_{n}^{2}\Lambda'\Lambda'_{L}}{C_{L}}\frac{d^{2}L}{dx^{2}}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\right)\label{eq:evil-J}\end{eqnarray}

654: where first order approximations to the fraction have been taken,

655: and squares of perturbations have been ignored. The first term of

656: Eq. \ref{eq:evil-J} reproduces the desired signal (Eq. \ref{eq:dlambda/dx})

657: and the additional terms represent noise sources due to the image

658: itself. Writing them as an error term $\Delta J_{grad}$,\begin{equation}

659: \Delta J_{grad}\approx\frac{\alpha_{n}\Lambda'_{L}}{C_{L}}\left(\frac{dC_{L}}{dx}+\left(\frac{\Lambda'_{H}}{\Lambda'_{L}}-\left(\alpha_{n}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\right)^{2}\right)\frac{dL}{dx}-2\alpha_{n}\Lambda'\frac{d^{2}L}{dx^{2}}J_{ideal}\right)\label{eq:deltaj}\end{equation}

660:  where the first terms represent leakage of intensity information

661: into the wavelength signal (both from continuum variation and from

662: line variation), and the final term represents leakage of rapid brightness

663: variations into the J gain and is negligible in nearly all cases. 

664: 

665: The continuum intensity leakage term is dependent on large-scale variations

666: in continuum brightness, because $C_{L}$is smoothed (by convolution

667: with the filter function) over a distance of $\alpha_{n}\delta\lambda$,

668: where $\delta\lambda$ is the width of the entrance filter. In typical

669: applications, $\alpha_{n}\delta\lambda$ might be 5-15 pixels. A scene

670: of solar granulation with $C/L$\textasciitilde{}10, $\alpha\Lambda'_{L}$\textasciitilde{}0.1

671: pixel and $\alpha_{n}\delta\lambda$\textasciitilde{}10 pixels, with

672: intergranular lanes 3 pixels wide and continuum dips of 30\% in the

673: lanes, will have a continuum intensity leakage error of \textasciitilde{}$5\times10^{-4}$

674: in J/I in the regions on either side of the lane, equivalent to the

675: noise from $10^{6}$ photons. The error accumulates coherently over

676: half of the dispersed filter width, or about 5 pixels, yielding a

677: peak injected noise signal in $\alpha\Lambda'$ of \textasciitilde{}0.025

678: pixel in the lane center from just the continuum term.

679: 

680: The continuum intensity leakage is much stronger in regions with strong

681: large scale variations in intensity, coupled with strong line shifts

682: (such as found in sunspots). In a sunspot scene with $C/L$\textasciitilde{}10,

683: $\alpha\Lambda'_{L}\sim4$ pixels, and a continuum dip of 75\% within

684: the sunspot, pixels near the sunspot edge will have a continuum leakage

685: term of 0.2 in J/I, much larger than any photon noise in the system.

686: The error accumulates coherently for the full dispersed width of the

687: entrance filter, yielding integrated errors in $\alpha\Lambda'_{L}$

688: as high as 20 pixels near the edge of the sunspot. This large error

689: injection is the primary reason why DeForest et al. (2004) found sunspot

690: measurements to be challenging with this inversion technique.

691: 

692: The line intensity leakage term is largest in regions of very rapid

693: variation of the central wavelength, but is negligible compared to

694: the continuum leakage in most scenes. Considering a {}``challenging''

695: scene of solar plage with $\alpha\Lambda'_{L}$\textasciitilde{} 1

696: pixel, $\alpha\Lambda'_{H}\sim0.3\, pixel$ amplitude, $\alpha d\Lambda'/dx$\textasciitilde{}

697: 0.1, $C/L\sim10$, and $dL/Ldx\sim0.5/pixel$ yields intensity leakage

698: of about $7\times10^{-3}$ into J/I from the central term. This is

699: equivalent to the photon noise from $3\times10^{4}$photons, and if

700: sustained across a full correlation patch of width 15 pixels could

701: inject an error signal of up to \textasciitilde{}0.1 pixel into the

702: final inversion; this represents about 20\% of the background field.

703: With a more typical quiet-Sun case of $\alpha\Lambda'_{L}<0.1$pixel

704: (30 G), $\alpha\Lambda'_{H}\sim0.1$pixel, and $\alpha d\Lambda'/dL\sim0.02$,

705: the intensity leakage noise is under $10^{-3}$ in J/I and thus leads

706: to errors of under 0.015 pixel after accumulating over a 15-pixel

707: FWHM patch.

708: 

709: The rapid brightness variation leakage depends on rapid changes in

710: the line depth, in regions that are magnetized. It is negligible in

711: nearly all cases other than sunspot penumbrae. In the quiet Sun, the

712: strongest value of the term occurs where $g$-band bright points are

713: present in intergranular lanes. In a typical g-band bright point,

714: with $\alpha\Lambda'\sim1\, pix$, $\alpha\Lambda'_{L}\sim0.1\, pix$and

715: $d^{2}L/dx^{2}\sim0.005I\, pix^{-2}$, $J$ can be expected to have

716: a relative error of only $1\times10^{-3}$ from this term. In sunspot

717: penumbrae, where both $\alpha\Lambda'_{L}$ and $\alpha\Lambda'$

718: may be larger than order unity, and where $d^{2}L/dx^{2}$ may be

719: a factor of 4-10 higher than in intergranular lanes due to the fine

720: nature of penumbral roll structure, $J$ can be expected to have a

721: relative error of order close to unity from this term, severely degrading

722: results in sunspot penumbrae even if the continuum leakage signal

723: (above) were not a problem.

724: 

725: In all cases, the intensity gradient leakage terms are proportional

726: to $\Lambda$' and therefore represent a gain error rather than an

727: uncorrelated additive noise source that affects detection of lone

728: magnetic features.

729: 

730: 

731: \subsection{\label{sub:Filter-passband-gradients}Filter passband gradients}

732: 

733: Filter passband gradients enter because the overall measured intensity

734: is affected by the throughput function of the prefilter. In conventional

735: filtergraph instruments, the slope of the side-lobes of the main filter

736: passband is used to convert wavelength offset into an intensity signal;

737: in stereographic instruments, that signal is undesired and represents

738: a source of noise. Even in a properly tuned stereoscopic instrument,

739: large excursions of $\Lambda'$ carry the spectral line out of the

740: flat central region of the prefilter's passband and into the sloping

741: wings. This modifies Eq. \ref{eq:single-intensity}, to include the

742: effect of the filter on the measured L(x):\begin{eqnarray}

743: I_{n} & \approx & \left\{ \begin{array}{c}

744: \frac{\left[E_{c}\otimes F\right](x/\alpha_{n})}{\alpha_{n}}-L(x)F(\Lambda')+\alpha_{n}L(x)F(\Lambda')\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\\

745: +\alpha_{n}\Lambda'(x)\left(F(\Lambda')\frac{dL}{dx}+L(x)\frac{dF}{d\Lambda'}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\right)\\

746: -2\alpha_{n}^{2}\Lambda'(x)\left(F(\Lambda')\frac{dL}{dx}\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+L(x)\frac{dF}{d\Lambda'}\left(\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}\right)^{2}\right)\end{array}\right\} \label{eq:asymmetric-filter}\end{eqnarray}

747: where $F(0)$ is taken to be unity. Of the two new terms, only one

748: is asymmetric, so the difference equation becomes:\begin{equation}

749: I_{n}-I_{-n}=F(\Lambda'(x))\left(2\alpha_{n}L(x)\left(1+\frac{\Lambda'}{F(\Lambda'(x))}\frac{dF}{d\Lambda'}\right)\frac{d\Lambda'}{dx}+2\alpha_{n}\Lambda'(x)\frac{dL}{dx}\right)\label{eq:asymmetric-diff}\end{equation}

750: where both the overall factor of F and the additional unitless derivative

751: $(\Lambda'/F)(dF/d\Lambda')$ represent perturbations on the gain

752: of the measured $d\Lambda'/dx$, and the final term is the intensity

753: leakage that is removed by the hybridization step in the overall inversion.

754: In a well-tuned instrument, the maximum value of $F$ occurs near

755: $\Lambda'=0$, so we may expand F and F' around that value: \begin{equation}

756: F\approx1-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\Lambda'-\Lambda'_{filt}}{W}\right)^{2}\label{eq:filter}\end{equation}

757: where $\Lambda'_{filt}$ is the difference between the center wavelength

758: of the filter and the rest wavelength of the spectral line, and $W$

759: is the half-width at half maximum of the filter passband. Then the

760: derivative $dF/d\Lambda'$ is given by $(\Lambda'_{filt}-\Lambda')/W$.

761: As an example, if $\Lambda'_{filt}$ is about -W/10 and $\Lambda'$is

762: about W/4, this yields a gain error of 7\% in the $d\Lambda'/dx$

763: signal.

764: 

765: 

766: \subsection{\label{sub:Rapid-variation-of}Rapid variation of central wavelength}

767: 

768: Rapid variation of the central wavelength of the observed spectral

769: line affects the measured signal from differential stereoscopy. The

770: differential inversion (Eq. \ref{eq:discrete inversion}) is derived

771: using a first-order expansion of the brightness in terms of the slope

772: $d\Lambda'/dx$ of the central wavelength versus position. If the

773: condition $d\Lambda'/dx\ll\alpha_{n}^{-1}$ does not hold (the slope

774: is significant compared to the reciprocal of the instrument's dispersion)

775: then the differential inversion equation is not valid and the derived

776: $\Lambda'_{c1}$ will differ from the true $\Lambda'$ even in the

777: absence of any other noise source. This is due to the effect being

778: exploited to extract the $d\Lambda'/dx$ signal from the intensities:

779: small shifts in the $\lambda$ direction project into the dispersed

780: spatial direction, so that the line of integration in the $(x,\lambda)$

781: plane that contributes to a single pixel may have more or less contribution

782: from the line core depending on the relative angle between $\alpha_{n}$

783: and $d\Lambda'/dx$. The resultant variation in intensity is extremely

784: nonlinear when $\alpha_{n}$ and $d\Lambda'/dx$ are nearly parallel.

785: Further, the $d\Lambda'/dx$ intensity variations are due to small

786: shifts in image position as$\Lambda'$ varies. If $\Lambda'$ grows

787: larger than 1 pix/$\alpha_{n}$, then the image shift becomes noticeable

788: and distorts the resultant line-shift images. 

789: 

790: The various effects of large excursions in $\Lambda'$ on spatial

791: distributions are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:multi}, which illustrates

792: the geometry of the $(x,\lambda)$ plane in a stereoscopic measurement

793: of line center for a spectral line with structured Doppler signal.

794: Three forms of perturbation on the line are shown: a sinusoidal modulation

795: of the line center wavelength; a triangle wave modulation; and a dual

796: step function. The sinusoidal modulation fits the criteria outlined

797: by DeForest et al. (2004) for differential stereoscopic inversion:

798: $\alpha_{n}d\Lambda'/dx\gg1$ and $\alpha_{n}\Lambda'$ is not large

799: compared to the spatial features of interest. The others fail in different

800: ways. The triangle wave fails because $\alpha_{n}d\Lambda'/dx\sim1$,

801: and the offset fails because $\alpha_{n}\Lambda'$is large compared

802: to the width of the transition features at the edges of the step in

803: central wavelength.

804: 

805: Hybrid differential stereoscopy reduces the effects by eliminating

806: the low spatial frequency components, so that the amplitude and slope

807: of the high spatial frequency component $\Lambda'_{H},$ rather than

808: of $\Lambda'$ itself, are of import: structures larger than roughly

809: the width of the patch used for correlation are attenuated or eliminated

810: by the high-pass filtering that generates $\Lambda'_{H}$.

811: 

812: By considering carefully the geometry of the differential inversion

813: in the $(x,\lambda)$ plane it is possible to estimate the systematic

814: errors due to slope and line-displacement effects alone on differential

815: stereoscopy, even in the absence of image effects such as variations

816: in line or continuum intensity. Figure \ref{fig:step} shows the

817: geometry of dispersed integration through a spectral line. The contribution

818: $L'_{n}$ to the measured intensity $I_{n}$ is approximated to first

819: order in Eq. \ref{eq:dlambda/dx}, but the contribution may also be

820: written exactly in the case of constant $L(x)$, constant $d\Lambda'/dx$,

821: and a broad filter:\begin{equation}

822: I_{n}(x)=\int d\lambda\left(F(\lambda')E_{c}(x-\alpha_{n}\lambda')-L\delta(\lambda-\Lambda'(x)+\left(\alpha_{n}\lambda\right)d\Lambda'/dx\right)=C-\frac{L}{1+\alpha_{n}\left(d\Lambda'/dx\right)}\label{eq:analytic}\end{equation}

823: Applying this expression to Eq. \ref{eq:J-definition} gives an analytic

824: formula for the relation between J and $d\Lambda'/dx$. Letting $\gamma\equiv\alpha_{n}d\Lambda'/dx$

825: and $\ell\equiv L/C$, \begin{equation}

826: J_{n}=\frac{I_{n}-I_{-n}}{I_{n}+I_{n}}=-\gamma\left(\frac{\ell}{1-\ell}\right)\left(\frac{1}{1-\left(\gamma^{2}/(1-\ell)\right)}\right)\label{eq:j-analytic}\end{equation}

827: where the factor $\alpha_{n}\ell/(1-\ell)$ is a linear calibration

828: coefficient on $d\Lambda'/dx$ and the right-hand term is a nonlinearity

829: term. The nonlinearity in $J_{n}$ becomes strongly evident when $\gamma$

830: grows to about $0.5$, where (with $L/C=0.1$) the nonlinearity term

831: has a value of 1.38, and grows to infinity where $\gamma=\sqrt{(1-\ell)}$

832: . 

833: 

834: The strong nonlinearity in $J$ is partially compensated by spatial

835: distortion. The nonlinear term causes growth in $J$ compared to the

836: proportionality with $d\Lambda'/dx$, but that growth is accompanied

837: by spatial distortions that partially cancel the nonlinearity. In

838: particular, the measurable quantity of interest is $\Lambda'$ rather

839: than $d\Lambda'/dx$. In a pure differential inversion, with $\gamma$

840: positive and non-negligible, the $J_{n}$ signal arises from a slight

841: weakening of the spectral line in the $-n$ spectral order and a strong

842: strengthening in the $+n$ order. However, the image in the $+n$

843: channel is strongly foreshortened while the image in the $-n$ channel

844: is weakly fore-lengthened: the total $x$-integrated intensity in

845: each spectral order remains the same under small to moderate (<1 pixel)

846: $\Lambda'$ perturbations in the image. 

847: 

848: Consider a finite shift in central wavelength $\Lambda'$ as illustrated

849: in Figure \ref{fig:step}. Accompanying the shift in brightness is

850: a spatial distortion that affects the two spectral orders differently.

851: In the positive order the line depth is more strongly expressed, because

852: it is concentrated into fewer pixels than might be expected from the

853: spatial extent of the feature. Likewise, in the negative order the

854: line depth is more weakly expressed, because it is spread across more

855: pixels than the usual spatial extent of the feature. The corresponding

856: variation of $J_{n}$ thus has three regimes in this simple system

857: (neglecting the line width):\begin{equation}

858: J_{n}=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}

859: \left|x\right|>\frac{\delta x+\alpha_{n}\delta\Lambda}{2} & 0\\

860: \frac{\delta x-\alpha_{n}\delta\Lambda}{2}\geq\left|x\right|>\delta x-\frac{\alpha_{n}\delta\Lambda}{2} & J_{mid}=\frac{I_{0}-I_{-n,l}}{I_{0}+I_{-n,l}}\\

861: \frac{\delta x-\alpha_{n}\delta\Lambda}{2}>\left|x\right| & J_{ctr}=\frac{I_{n,l}-I_{-n,l}}{I_{n,l}+I_{-n,l}}\end{array}\right.\label{eq:finite}\end{equation}

862: where (from Eq. \ref{eq:analytic}) $I_{0}=C-L$, $I_{-n,l}=C-L/(1+\gamma)$,

863: and $I_{n,l}=C-L/(1-\gamma)$. Simple analysis shows that\begin{equation}

864: J_{mid}=\frac{-\gamma}{(1+\gamma)(2/\ell-1)-1}\label{eq:jmid}\end{equation}

865: and \begin{equation}

866: J_{ctr}=\frac{-\gamma}{(1-\gamma^{2})/\ell-1},\label{eq:jctr}\end{equation}

867: so that the measured wavelength shift may be computed directly:

868: 

869: \begin{eqnarray}

870: \delta\Lambda_{meas.} & \equiv & -\alpha_{n}^{-1}\frac{C}{L}\int J_{n}dx\label{eq:deltalambdaintegral}\\

871:  &  & =-\alpha_{n}^{-1}\ell^{-1}\left\{ 2\alpha_{n}\delta\Lambda\left(\frac{-\gamma\ell}{(2-\gamma)(1-\ell)-\gamma}\right)+\delta x(1-\gamma)\left(\frac{-\gamma\ell}{(1-\gamma^{2})-\ell}\right)\right\} \nonumber \\

872:  &  & =\left\{ \left(\frac{2\gamma\delta\Lambda}{(2-\gamma)(1-\ell)-\gamma}\right)+\frac{(\delta x\alpha_{n}^{-1})(1-\gamma)(\gamma)}{1-\ell-\gamma^{2}}\right\} \nonumber \\

873:  &  & =\delta\Lambda\left\{ \frac{1}{1-\ell}\right\} \left\{ \frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma(1+\ell/2)}+\frac{(1-\ell)(1-\gamma)}{1-\ell-\gamma^{2}}\right\} \label{eq:deltalambda-exact}\\

874:  &  & \approx\delta\Lambda\left\{ \frac{1}{1-\ell}\right\} \left\{ \left(1-\frac{\ell\gamma}{1-\ell}\right)\right\} \label{eq:deltalambda}\end{eqnarray}

875: where the last row expands the $\gamma$-dependent error factor to

876: first order in $\gamma$. Equation \ref{eq:deltalambda} shows that

877: the linear approximations used to derive \ref{eq:hybrid_inversion}

878: are quite good, at least for this simple geometry: the first nontrivial

879: term in the error factor is two orders of approximation smaller than

880: the extracted signal (taking both $\gamma$ and $\ell$ to be small,

881: as did DeForest et al. 2004). The high quality of the approximation

882: can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:multi}: the measured peak and feature-averaged

883: $\Delta\Lambda_{meas}$ in each feature remains close to the injected

884: $\Delta\Lambda$ of the model, despite gross violation of the assumptions

885: used to derive Equation \ref{eq:hybrid_inversion}.

886: 

887: The astute reader will have noticed that Equation \ref{eq:deltalambda-exact}

888: has a pole at $\gamma=\sqrt{1-\ell}$. That is because we have neglected

889: finite length effects in the region where the line shift occurs. Equation

890: \ref{eq:deltalambda-exact} is more complex but exact for this geometry,

891: provided that the line width is small compared to $\delta x/\alpha_{n}$.

892: When that condition is violated (which happens when the center locus

893: is exceptionally narrow on the detector), individual pixel lines of

894: integration do not integrate across the entire foreshortened spectral

895: line but are limited instead by the ends of the spectral feature This

896: limitation keeps the signal response $J_{ctr}$ finite. Equation \ref{eq:deltalambda-exact}

897: neglects this effect, leading to a spurious pole. 

898: 

899: For nonzero line widths, Equation \ref{eq:deltalambda-exact} reveals

900: a constant correction factor of $1/(1-\ell)$ that must be applied

901: to stereoscopic inversions in general. This correction (of order 10\%)

902: is a true calibration coefficient, in the sense that it is independent

903: of $\gamma$.

904: 

905: %

906: \begin{figure}

907: \includegraphics[width=4.0in]{f3}

908: 

909: 

910: \caption{\label{fig:multi}Five plots showing arbitrary variations of spectral

911: line central wavelength show the manner in which the approximation

912: of Equation \ref{eq:discrete inversion} breaks down at high line

913: slopes. In order: the X-Lambda plane; the X-lambda plane, dispersed

914: in two opposite directions (Pixel brightnesses are formed by vertical

915: integration in these two plots); the original and derived spatial

916: derivative of line center wavelength; and an overlay of the original

917: and reconstructed signals. The sinusoidal segment at left is well

918: matched. The pathological sawtooth and square wave segments are distorted

919: by the coupling between wavelength and spatial position.}

920: \end{figure}

921: 

922: 

923: %

924: \begin{figure}

925: \includegraphics[width=3in]{f4}

926: 

927: 

928: \caption{\label{fig:step}A finite linear feature in $\Lambda_{0}$ demonstrates

929: the interplay between projection, brightness, and feature size in

930: a stereoscopic instrument. At top, a spectral line undergoes a finite

931: shift $\delta\Lambda$ between the points $x'_{0}$ and $x'_{1}$

932: in the ($x',\lambda$) plane. The instrument collects two spectral

933: orders with dispersion $\alpha_{\pm n}$. Each order integrates pixels

934: along lines of the appropriate slope: positive (cyan) or negative

935: (red) and projects onto the detector $x$ coordinate. At bottom the

936: line depth brightness integral $-(I_{n}-I_{-n})$ varies as a function

937: of pixel location (projected back to the $\lambda=\Lambda_{0}$ line

938: at top). }

939: \end{figure}

940: 

941: 

942: 

943: \section{\label{sec:Summary-&-Specific}Summary \& Specific Observing Scenario}

944: 

945: The effects in \S\ref{sec:Hybrid-differential-stereoscopy} above

946: separate into two primary classes: additive and multiplicative noise

947: in the data. The additive effects, such as photon noise, affect sensitivity

948: for detection of small magnetic or Doppler features; the multiplicative

949: effects, affect the precision of magnetic measurements.  Here we calculate

950: a noise budget for a plausible observing scenario using a stereoscopic

951: instrument as a photospheric magnetograph. 

952: 

953: Consider an instrument observing quiet sun through the Dunn Solar

954: Telescope (DST; \citealt{Dunn1969}) and the medium-order adaptive

955: optics system (\citealt{Rimmele2004}), at the Fe I 617.34 nm line,

956: with 0.07 arcsec pixels (the diffraction limit is 0.2 arcsec), a 67

957: pm prefilter passband width detuned from $\Lambda_{0}$ by 6.7 pm

958: (10\% of the bandwidth), $\ell=0.1$, dispersion $\alpha=100$~pixel~nm$^{-1}$,

959: $n_{ph}=5\times10^{4}$ photons per pixel, and a correlation patch

960: FWHM of 15 pixels ($\epsilon=0.09$). Consider that a {}``typical''

961: resolved feature strength is between 100G-1kG, with length scales

962: of a few pixels (so that only stereoscopic measurements apply, without

963: the stabilizing influence of the more precise correlation stereoscopy).

964: The 617.34 nm line has a Land\'e $g$ factor of 2.5, so that the

965: Zeeman splitting equation is just '\begin{equation}

966: B'=\frac{hc}{4\Lambda_{0}^{2}g\mu}(\delta'\Lambda)=5.6T\, nm^{-1}\delta'\Lambda=5.6\, kG\,\AA^{-1}\delta'\Lambda\label{eq:splitting}\end{equation}

967: where $B'$ \textbf{}is measured resolution-smoothed magnetic field

968: strength ({}``flux density''), $h$ is Planck's constant, $c$ is

969: the speed of light, $g$ is the Land\'e factor, $\mu$ is the Bohr

970: magneton, and $\delta'\Lambda$ is the \emph{splitting} of the line

971: (twice the shift). The splitting measurement is the result of \emph{two}

972: independent measurements of a shift $\Delta\Lambda$: one in right-circularly

973: polarized light (Stokes I+V) and one in left-circularly polarized

974: light (Stokes I-V). Hence the noise $\Delta B'$ is a factor of $\sqrt{2}$

975: higher than might be supposed by simple scaling of the $\Delta\Lambda$

976: noise terms in \S\ref{sec:Hybrid-differential-stereoscopy} with

977: Equation \ref{eq:splitting}. 

978: 

979: The noise budget for a quiet-Sun DST observation may be summarized

980: as in -Table \ref{tab:additive-budget}. Two principal types of error

981: enter into the measurement: random or quasi-random noise as described

982: in \S\S\ref{sub:Photon-counting-noise}-\ref{sub:Image-brightness-gradients};

983: and calibration nonlinearities that enter as a result of filter detuning

984: and the first-order stereoscopic inversion as described in \S\S\ref{sub:Filter-passband-gradients}-\ref{sub:Rapid-variation-of}. 

985: 

986: %

987: \begin{table}

988: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}

989: \hline 

990: Source&

991: Eq./Section&

992: $\Delta\Lambda$RMS (pm)&

993: $\Delta B'$RMS (G)&

994: cal. err. \tabularnewline

995: \hline

996: \hline 

997: Photon noise (diff.)&

998: \ref{eq:ph-noise}/\S\ref{sub:Photon-counting-noise}&

999: 0.53&

1000: $4.2$&

1001: -\tabularnewline

1002: \hline 

1003: Photon noise (corr.)&

1004: \ref{eq:correlation-photon-noise}/\S\ref{sub:Misalignment-noise}&

1005: 0.024&

1006: $0.2$&

1007: -\tabularnewline

1008: \hline 

1009: Image noise (corr.)&

1010: \ref{eq:weighting-covariance}/\S\ref{sub:Image-noise-in}&

1011: $0.12$&

1012: 1.0&

1013: -\tabularnewline

1014: \hline 

1015: Continuum leakage&

1016: \ref{eq:deltaj}/\S\ref{sub:Image-brightness-gradients}&

1017: $0.25$&

1018: $2.0$&

1019: -\tabularnewline

1020: \hline 

1021: Line leakage &

1022: \ref{eq:deltaj}/\S\ref{sub:Image-brightness-gradients}&

1023: $0.15$&

1024: 1.2&

1025: -\tabularnewline

1026: \hline 

1027: Filter signal leakage&

1028: \ref{eq:asymmetric-diff}/\S\ref{sub:Filter-passband-gradients}&

1029: -&

1030: -&

1031: 3\%-7\%\tabularnewline

1032: \hline 

1033: Stereo nonlinearity&

1034: \ref{eq:deltalambda}/\S\ref{sub:Rapid-variation-of}&

1035: -&

1036: -&

1037: 1\%-10\%\tabularnewline

1038: \hline

1039: \hline 

1040: TOTAL (in quadrature)&

1041: -&

1042: $0.62$&

1043: 4.9&

1044: 3\%-12\%\tabularnewline

1045: \hline

1046: \end{tabular}

1047: 

1048: 

1049: \caption{\label{tab:additive-budget}Noise budget for a sample stereoscopic

1050: magnetograph measurement as described in the text. This measurement

1051: would have \textasciitilde{} 6 G RMS noise even in field-free regions

1052: of the Sun, and 3\%-12\% calibration errors in the measured flux of

1053: small magnetized regions of 100-1000 G, no more than a few pixels

1054: across. }

1055: \end{table}

1056: 

1057: 

1058: Because of the multiple sources of error, calculation of error budgets

1059: for actual observations must be carried out on a case-by-case basis;

1060: however, we note that for magnetograph observations of the photosphere,

1061: the dominant noise term is (as expected) photon noise for a plausible

1062: instrument setup and a range of targets that includes most non-sunspot-related

1063: targets on the Sun. The expected formal single-exposure magnetogram

1064: sensitivity is \textasciitilde{}10 Gauss (twice the RMS background

1065: noise level) and the expected magnetic flux calibration accuracy is

1066: expected to be close to 10\% in most cases including plage. 

1067: 

1068: The error budget in Table \ref{tab:additive-budget} is broadly consistent

1069: with test measurements collected by DeForest et al. (2004) at the

1070: Dunn Solar Telescope. In those measurements, exposures of only $\sim8\times10^{3}$

1071: photons were collected; 16 exposures were combined to create each

1072: image for an effective exposure of $1.2\times10^{5}$ photons; and

1073: an \emph{asymmetric} inversion (whose sensitivity was reduced by a

1074: factor of $\sqrt{2}$ compared to the symmetric inversion discussed

1075: here) was used. The resulting calculated photon noise level is thus

1076: a factor of $\sqrt{24/5}$ higher than shown here, or 9.5 G (0.45

1077: G for the correlation noise), and the non-photon noise sources are

1078: scaled up a factor of $\sqrt{2}$ compared to the sample measurement

1079: described here. This leads to a total \emph{a priori} noise level

1080: estimate of 10 G for that measurement. Indeed, in a small quiet region

1081: with no detected flux features, DeForest et al. found \emph{a posteriori}

1082: RMS noise levels between 9-12 Gauss, in good agreement with the current

1083: \emph{a priori} calculation.

1084: 

1085: 

1086: \section{\label{sec:Conclusions}Conclusions}

1087: 

1088: We have calculated a detailed noise budget for hybrid differential

1089: inversion of the line-shift signal from a stereoscopic spectrograph,

1090: with specific application as a stereoscopic magnetograph observing

1091: a specific absorption line (Fe I 617.34 nm) in the solar photosphere.

1092: The noise budget is photon dominated and careful \emph{a priori} analysis

1093: shows that it offers similar calibration performance to existing and

1094: past filtergraph (SOHO/MDI, \citealt{Scherrer1995}) and Fourier tachometer

1095: (GONG; \citealt{Leibacher1999}) instruments (\citealt{Jones2001}):

1096: instrument response to field is within a few to ten percent of linear

1097: over a wide range of pixel-averaged field strengths.

1098: 

1099: The principal difference between the stereoscopic technique and the

1100: filtergraph or Fourier tachometer techniques is that the instrument

1101: can operate much more rapidly, because all required photons are collected

1102: simultaneously in a dual-polarized-beam instrument. This is very important

1103: for ground based observations in which atmospheric seeing effects

1104: severely limit the precision with which line shifts can be measured

1105: in time-multiplexing instruments such as filtergraphs. 

1106: 

1107: Some instruments, such as ZIMPOL (\citealt{Povel1998}), have been

1108: able to limit crosstalk of atmospheric effects by multiplexing extremely

1109: rapidly; but such instruments are still subject to motion blur even

1110: in the absence of severe crosstalk. A stereoscopic spectral imager

1111: should be able to acquire a diffraction limited magnetogram with few-Gauss

1112: sensitivity in a small fraction of a second at most major observing

1113: facilities. We expect this rapidity of acquisition to become important

1114: even in space-based observing as higher resolution instruments (e.g.

1115: \emph{Hinode/SOT}; \citealt{Ichimoto2006}) release data to the scientific

1116: community: the race between solar evolution and data acquisition (photon

1117: counting) give rise to a tradeoff between sensitivity and spatial

1118: resolution for any spectral imager, even above the atmosphere. 

1119: 

1120: Particularly for features that are spatially small, stereoscopic imagers

1121: offer a surprising advantage: because the fundamental signal extracted

1122: from the images is proportional to the \emph{spatial derivative} of

1123: the line shift signal, such instruments are particularly sensitive

1124: to small features, right down to the spatial resolution of the measurement.

1125: Like Dolby$^{\textrm{}{TM\}}}$ noise reduction for audio recordings

1126: (e.g. \citealt{Vaseghy2006}), spatial derivative measurement enhances

1127: high spatial frequencies, boosting the high frequency signal relative

1128: to the photon noise floor. Conventional spectral measurements sample

1129: each location in the image plane independently, so that in a roughly

1130: circular feature of linear size $L$ and area $A$ the uncertainty

1131: due to photon counting in the feature's total magnetic flux scales

1132: as $A^{-1/2}$ or $L^{-1}$. In a differential stereoscopic measurement,

1133: the \emph{average slope} uncertainty, rather than the total flux uncertainty,

1134: scales as $L^{-1}$ so the total flux uncertainty is independent of

1135: feature size for features smaller than the correlation patches described

1136: in Section \ref{sec:Summary-&-Specific}.

1137: 

1138: Stereoscopic spectral imaging is a special case of the more general

1139: technique of \emph{spectral tomography} (e.g. \citealt{Wilson1997}),

1140: and appears to offer significant advantages in the regime we have

1141: described: observations of a narrow spectral line, where only one

1142: or two moments of the line are desired to be measured. Spectral tomography

1143: using regularized inverse or conjugate analysis techniques (e.g. \citealt{Claerbout2004})

1144: could potentially be used to extract much more information about the

1145: spectrum, using multiple orders or, as did Wilson et al., crossed

1146: gratings; but as the number of additional channels grows, so do the

1147: potential paths for signal contamination and crosstalk between different

1148: aspects of the measured spectrum. We conclude that stereoscopic techniques

1149: represent a sweet spot for imaged Doppler or magnetic measurements

1150: of solar scenes, offering superior photon efficiency and comparable

1151: performance to filtergraph measurements. This is already important

1152: as ground-based spectral imagers are already photon-starved near the

1153: diffraction limit in existing meter-class telescopes (such as the

1154: Dunn Solar Telescope, \citealt{Dunn1969}, and the Swedish Vacuum

1155: Tower, \citealt{Scharmer2003}) and will grow more so near the diffraction

1156: limit of future telescopes such as the four-meter Advanced Technology

1157: Solar Telescope (\citealt{Keller2002}).

1158: 

1159: The authors thank Jack Harvey for helpful discussion of the current

1160: state of magnetograph cross-calibration, and Steve Tomczyk for

1161: pointing out the neceessity of this paper.  This work was funded

1162: internally by the Southwest Research Institute.

1163: 

1164: \bibliographystyle{plainnat}

1165: 

1166: \begin{thebibliography}{19}

1167: \providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}

1168: \providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}

1169: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax

1170:   \providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else

1171:   \providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi

1172: 

1173: \bibitem[{Claerbout} and {Fomel}(2004)]{Claerbout2004}

1174: J.~C. {Claerbout} and S.~{Fomel}.

1175: \newblock \emph{{Image Estimation by Example: Geophysical Soundings Image

1176:   Construction and Multidimensional Autoregression}}.

1177: \newblock Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 3.4 edition, 2004.

1178: 

1179: \bibitem[{DeForest} et~al.(2004){DeForest}, {Elmore}, {Bradford}, {Elrod}, and

1180:   {Gilliam}]{DeForestetal2004}

1181: C.~{DeForest}, D.~F. {Elmore}, M.~P. {Bradford}, J.~{Elrod}, and D.~L.

1182:   {Gilliam}.

1183: \newblock {Stereoscopic Spectroscopy for Efficient Spectral Imaging and

1184:   Magnetography}.

1185: \newblock \emph{\apj}, 616:\penalty0 600, November 2004.

1186: 

1187: \bibitem[{Dereniak}(2005)]{Dereniak2005}

1188: E.~L. {Dereniak}.

1189: \newblock {Infrared spectro-polarimeter}.

1190: \newblock In \emph{Integrated Optics: Theory and Applications. Edited by

1191:   Pustelny, Tadeusz; Lambeck, Paul V.; Gorecki, Christophe. Proceedings of the

1192:   SPIE, Volume 5957, pp. 202-211 (2005).}, 2005.

1193: 

1194: \bibitem[{Dunn}(1969)]{Dunn1969}

1195: R.~B. {Dunn}.

1196: \newblock {Sacramento Peak's New Solar Telescope}.

1197: \newblock \emph{\skytel}, 38:\penalty0 368, December 1969.

1198: 

1199: \bibitem[{Fox} et~al.(2003){Fox}, {Kankelborg}, and {Metcalf}]{Fox2003}

1200: J.~L. {Fox}, C.~C. {Kankelborg}, and T.~R. {Metcalf}.

1201: \newblock {Data inversion for the Multi-Order Solar Extreme-Ultraviolet

1202:   Spectrograph}.

1203: \newblock In \emph{Optical Spectroscopic Techniques and Instrumentation for

1204:   Atmospheric and Space Research V. Edited by Larar, Allen M.; Shaw, Joseph A.;

1205:   Sun, Zhaobo. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 5157, pp. 124-132 (2003).},

1206:   2003.

1207: 

1208: \bibitem[{Ichimoto} et~al.(2006){Ichimoto}, {Suematsu}, {Shimizu}, {Katsukawa},

1209:   {Tsuneta}, {Tarbell}, {Shine}, {Hoffmann}, {Title}, {Lites}, {Elmore}, and

1210:   {Streander}]{Ichimoto2006}

1211: K.~{Ichimoto}, Y.~{Suematsu}, T.~{Shimizu}, Y.~{Katsukawa}, S.~{Tsuneta}, T.~D.

1212:   {Tarbell}, R.~A. {Shine}, C.~M. {Hoffmann}, A.~M. {Title}, B.~W. {Lites},

1213:   D.~F. {Elmore}, and K.~V. {Streander}.

1214: \newblock {Magnetic Field Diagnostic Capability of Solar-B/SOT: Filtergraph

1215:   Instrument}.

1216: \newblock In \emph{Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series},

1217:   2006.

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[{Jones} and {Ceja}(2001)]{Jones2001}

1220: H.~P. {Jones} and J.~A. {Ceja}.

1221: \newblock {Preliminary Comparison of Magnetograms from KPVT/SPM, SOHO/MDI and

1222:   GONG+}.

1223: \newblock In \emph{Advanced Solar Polarimetry -- Theory, Observation, and

1224:   Instrumentation}, 2001.

1225: 

1226: \bibitem[{Kankelborg} and {Fox}(2007)]{Kankelborg2007}

1227: C.~C. {Kankelborg} and J.~L. {Fox}.

1228: \newblock {First Results from the Multiple Order Stereoscopic EUV

1229:   Spectrograph}.

1230: \newblock \emph{\apj}, in prep., 2007.

1231: 

1232: \bibitem[{Kankelborg} et~al.(2001){Kankelborg}, {Martens}, and

1233:   {Thomas}]{kankelborg2001}

1234: C.~C. {Kankelborg}, P.~C. {Martens}, and R.~J. {Thomas}.

1235: \newblock {Simultaneous EUV imaging and spectroscopy}.

1236: \newblock In \emph{ESA SP-493: Solar encounter. Proceedings of the First Solar

1237:   Orbiter Workshop}, page 257, September 2001.

1238: 

1239: \bibitem[{Keller} et~al.(2002){Keller}, {Rimmele}, {Hill}, {Keil}, {Oschmann},

1240:   and {the ATST Team}]{Keller2002}

1241: C.~U. {Keller}, T.~R. {Rimmele}, F.~{Hill}, S.~L. {Keil}, J.~M. {Oschmann}, and

1242:   {the ATST Team}.

1243: \newblock {The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope}.

1244: \newblock \emph{Astronomische Nachrichten}, 323:\penalty0 294--298, July 2002.

1245: \newblock \doi{10.1002/1521-3994(200208)323:3/4}.

1246: 

1247: \bibitem[{Leibacher}(1999)]{Leibacher1999}

1248: J.~W. {Leibacher}.

1249: \newblock {The global oscillation network group (GONG) project}.

1250: \newblock \emph{Advances in Space Research}, 24:\penalty0 173--176, 1999.

1251: 

1252: \bibitem[{Miles}(1999)]{Miles1999}

1253: B.~H. {Miles}.

1254: \newblock \emph{{Computed-tomography imaging spectropolarimeter}}.

1255: \newblock PhD thesis, AA(THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA), 1999.

1256: 

1257: \bibitem[{Miles} et~al.(1999){Miles}, {Goodson}, {Dereniak}, and

1258:   {Descour}]{Milesetal1999}

1259: B.~H. {Miles}, R.~A. {Goodson}, E.~L. {Dereniak}, and M.~R. {Descour}.

1260: \newblock {Computed-tomography imaging spectropolarimeter (CTISP): instrument

1261:   design, operation, and results}.

1262: \newblock In \emph{Proc. SPIE Vol. 3753, p. 169-179, Imaging Spectrometry V,

1263:   Michael R. Descour; Sylvia S. Shen; Eds.}, 1999.

1264: 

1265: \bibitem[{Povel}(1998)]{Povel1998}

1266: H.~P. {Povel}.

1267: \newblock {The Zurich Imaging Polarimeter (ZIMPOL)}.

1268: \newblock In \emph{Astronomische Gesellschaft Meeting Abstracts}, 1998.

1269: 

1270: \bibitem[{Rimmele}(2004)]{Rimmele2004}

1271: T.~R. {Rimmele}.

1272: \newblock {Recent advances in solar adaptive optics}.

1273: \newblock In D.~{Bonaccini Calia}, B.~L. {Ellerbroek}, and R.~{Ragazzoni},

1274:   editors, \emph{Advancements in Adaptive Optics. Edited by Domenico B. Calia,

1275:   Brent L. Ellerbroek, and Roberto Ragazzoni. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume

1276:   5490, pp. 34-46 (2004).}, page~34, October 2004.

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[{Scharmer} et~al.(2003){Scharmer}, {Bjelksjo}, {Korhonen}, {Lindberg},

1279:   and {Petterson}]{Scharmer2003}

1280: G.~B. {Scharmer}, K.~{Bjelksjo}, T.~K. {Korhonen}, B.~{Lindberg}, and

1281:   B.~{Petterson}.

1282: \newblock {The 1-meter Swedish solar telescope}.

1283: \newblock In \emph{Innovative Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar

1284:   Astrophysics. Edited by Stephen L. Keil, Sergey V. Avakyan . Proceedings of

1285:   the SPIE, Volume 4853, pp. 341-350 (2003).}, 2003.

1286: 

1287: \bibitem[{Scherrer} et~al.(1995){Scherrer}, {Bogart}, {Bush}, {Hoeksema},

1288:   {Kosovichev}, {Schou}, {Rosenberg}, {Springer}, {Tarbell}, {Title},

1289:   {Wolfson}, {Zayer}, and {MDI Engineering Team}]{Scherrer1995}

1290: P.~H. {Scherrer}, R.~S. {Bogart}, R.~I. {Bush}, J.~T. {Hoeksema}, A.~G.

1291:   {Kosovichev}, J.~{Schou}, W.~{Rosenberg}, L.~{Springer}, T.~D. {Tarbell},

1292:   A.~{Title}, C.~J. {Wolfson}, I.~{Zayer}, and {MDI Engineering Team}.

1293: \newblock {The Solar Oscillations Investigation - Michelson Doppler Imager}.

1294: \newblock \emph{\solphys}, 162:\penalty0 129--188, 1995.

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[{Vaseghi}(2006)]{Vaseghy2006}

1297: S.~V. {Vaseghi}.

1298: \newblock \emph{{Advanced Digital Signal Processing and Noise Reduction}}.

1299: \newblock Wiley, New York, 3 edition, 2006.

1300: 

1301: \bibitem[{Wilson} et~al.(1997){Wilson}, {Maker}, and {Muller}]{Wilson1997}

1302: D.~W. {Wilson}, P.~D. {Maker}, and R.~E. {Muller}.

1303: \newblock {Reconstructions of computed-tomography imaging spectrometer image

1304:   cubes using calculated system matrices}.

1305: \newblock In \emph{Proc. SPIE Vol. 3118, p. 184-193, Imaging Spectrometry III,

1306:   Michael R. Descour; Sylvia S. Shen; Eds.}, 1997.

1307: 

1308: \end{thebibliography}

1309: 

1310: \end{document}

1311: