1: \documentclass[10pt,english,preprint2]{aastex}

2: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

3: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

4: \setcounter{tocdepth}{3}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: \usepackage{amssymb}

7: 

8: \makeatletter

9: 

10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX commands.

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

12: \providecommand{\tabularnewline}{\\}

13: 

14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.

15: \usepackage{graphicx}

16: \usepackage{times}

17: \usepackage{courier}

18: \setlength{\emergencystretch}{2em}

19: \usepackage{babel}

20: \makeatother

21: \begin{document}

22: 

23: \title{Solar Magnetic Tracking. I. Software Comparison and Recommended Practices \small{\emph{(In press, \apj, 2007)}}}

24: 

25: 

26: \author{C.E. DeForest}

27: 

28: 

29: \affil{Southwest Research Institute, 1050 Walnut Street Suite 400, Boulder,

30: CO 80302}

31: 

32: 

33: \email{deforest@boulder.swri.edu, }

34: 

35: 

36: \author{H.J. Hagenaar}

37: 

38: 

39: \affil{Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center, Org. ADBS., Bldg. 252,

40: Palo Alto, CA 94304}

41: 

42: 

43: \email{hagenaar@lmsal.com}

44: 

45: 

46: \author{D.A. Lamb}

47: 

48: 

49: \affil{Dept. of Astrophysical and Planetary Science, University of Colorado,

50: Boulder 80309-0391 USA}

51: 

52: 

53: \email{derek@boulder.swri.edu}

54: 

55: 

56: \author{C.E. Parnell}

57: 

58: 

59: \affil{School of Mathematics and Statistics, St. Andrews University, St.

60: Andrews, Scotland KY16 9S}

61: 

62: 

63: \email{clare@mcs.st-and.ac.uk}

64: 

65: 

66: \and{ }

67: 

68: 

69: \author{B.T. Welsch}

70: 

71: 

72: \affil{University of California at Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory, 7

73: Gauss Way, UCB, CA 94720-7450, USA}

74: 

75: 

76: \email{welsch@ssl.Berkeley.edu}

77: 

78: \begin{abstract}

79: Feature tracking and recognition are increasingly common tools for

80: data analysis, but are typically implemented on an ad-hoc basis by

81: individual research groups, limiting the usefulness of derived results

82: when selection effects and algorithmic differences are not controlled.

83: Specific results that are affected include the solar magnetic turnover

84: time, the distributions of sizes, strengths, and lifetimes of magnetic

85: features, and the physics of both small scale flux emergence and the

86: small-scale dynamo. In this paper, we present the results of a detailed

87: comparison between four tracking codes applied to a single set of

88: data from SOHO/MDI, describe the interplay between desired tracking

89: behavior and parameterization tracking algorithms, and make recommendations

90: for feature selection and tracking practice in future work.

91: 

92: \newpage

93: ~\newpage

94: 

95: \end{abstract}

96: 

97: \keywords{Sun: magnetic fields, Sun: photosphere, methods: data analysis}

98: 

99: \newpage

100: \section{Introduction}

101: 

102: The last decade has seen a sea change in the way that solar physics

103: is accomplished. Advances in detector technology have permitted missions

104: such as SOHO (e.g. \citealt{Scherrer1995}) and TRACE (\citealt{Handy1999}),

105: and ground-based observatories such as GONG (\citet{Leibacher1995}),

106: to produce far more data than can be analyzed directly by humans.

107: The planned SDO mission (\citealt{Schwer2002}) will produce data

108: a thousand times faster. Hence, automated data mining has become a

109: necessary tool of the analysis trade. Applied to image data, data

110: mining consists of algorithmic recognition of visual features in the

111: data. Applications such as feature and pattern recognition fall within

112: the field of \emph{computer vision}, which is the subject of active

113: research in the computer science community.

114: 

115: Magnetic feature identification and tracking have proven useful for

116: extracting statistical parameters of the solar dynamo

117: (e.g. \citealt{Hagenaar1999,Schrijver1997}), allowing more

118: sophisticated analyses than have been possible by hand

119: (e.g. \citealt{HarveyKL1993}). Current applications of feature

120: tracking include characterization of bulk field behavior at the

121: photosphere, probing of the solar dynamo, identification of the

122: magnetic roots of solar atmospheric features, and constraint of MHD

123: models. Each of these applications is discussed below.

124: 

125: In the last few years, each of our research groups has independently

126: developed four separate tracking codes adapted to studying slightly

127: different aspects of the solar magnetic field.  CURV was the first

128: code developed to study magnetic features in the MDI quiet sun data

129: (\citealt{Hagenaar1999}); MCAT has been used to study interaction

130: between network flux elements (\citealt{Parnell2002}); SWAMIS

131: (\citealt{LambDeForest2003}) is intended to drive semi-empirical MHD

132: models of the quiet sun; and YAFTA (\citealt{Welsch2003}) was

133: developed to study active region dynamics.

134: 

135: Our separate tracking codes are similar enough to be applied to

136: similar problems and to yield directly comparable results.  However,

137: feature tracking is not a simple endeavor, and many subtle

138: characteristics of each code can strongly affect derived results.

139: This, together with the ad-hoc manner in which each tracking code

140: was developed, made it difficult to compare or duplicate results

141: between groups.

142: 

143: In 2004 November we met at St. Andrews University to reconcile results

144: from all four sets of software. We applied each code to a sample data

145: set and compared results from the different algorithms to reconcile

146: the results across research groups. Furthermore, we identified how

147: algorithmic choices affect magnetic feature tracking results, and

148: developed a set of recommended practices to guide future development

149: of feature tracking and related software for the solar community.

150: 

151: Developing a baseline of best recommended practices for feature

152: tracking and computer vision is an important goal for the solar

153: imaging community, because feature tracking is a fundamental component

154: of many types of data analysis. Applied to the solar magnetic field,

155: it has been used to characterize the statistical parameters of the

156: field by determining the distribution of feature sizes

157: and fluxes

158: (\citealt{HarveyKL1993,Hagenaar1999,Hagenaar2001,Parnell2002}) and the

159: average lifetime of individual features (\citealt{Hagenaar2003}).

160: Automated extraction of parameters such as clustering distributions

161: (\citealt{LambDeForest2003}) and event distributions

162: (\citealt{DeForestLamb2004}) are being used to derive more detailed

163: information about the solar dynamo. All of these applications are

164: dominated by the relationship between small scale event detections and

165: the noise floor of the instrument used for detection, generally a

166: line-of-sight / scalar magnetograph such as SOHO/MDI

167: (\citealt{Scherrer1995}) or GONG (\citealt{Leibacher1999}).

168: 

169: Feature tracking is further useful for constraining the energy input into flux

170: systems in the solar corona. Much of the energy deposited into the

171: chromosphere and corona is thought to be transported by the Poynting

172: vector, as photospheric motions do work on the magnetic field by

173: pushing magnetic flux around the surface

174: (e.g. \citealt{Parker1988,Fossum2004}).  Feature tracking allows

175: simple derivation of the motion field from time series of

176: images. \citet*{Welsch2004} used feature tracking to estimate the

177: quiet sun helicity flux into the corona, and \citet{DeForestLamb2004}

178: and Parnell (\citeyear{ParnellJupp2000,Parnell2002}) are using feature

179: tracking to identify the roots and nature of small scale heating

180: events such as bright points.

181: 

182: A third important application of feature tracking is to drive boundary

183: conditions of semi-empirical MHD models of the solar atmosphere, such

184: as are anticipated for space weather prediction. Time-dependent MHD

185: modeling requires knowledge not just of the three-dimensional vector

186: field at the surface of the Sun, but also of the motion of individual

187: lines of magnetic flux; feature tracking derives the motion

188: information from time series measurements of the magnetic

189: field. Indeed, Peano's existence and completeness theorem (see, e.g.,

190: \citealt{Simmons}) implies that knowledge of the initial magnetic

191: topology in the force-free upper layers of the atmosphere, together

192: with the radial component of the field at the lower boundary, is

193: equivalent to knowledge of the full vector field everywhere on the

194: lower boundary. Provided that the initial topology may be estimated,

195: this equivalence makes feature tracking a powerful tool for modeling

196: energy input into the solar atmosphere even in the absence of full

197: vector field measurements, as the distribution of radial magnetic flux

198: on the $\tau=1$ surface at the photosphere approximates the

199: distribution at the $\beta=1$ surface in the upper chromosphere.

200: 

201: In this article, the first in a series on results from tracking of

202: photospheric magnetic features, we discuss the state of the art and some

203: current applications of magnetic tracking software. In

204: \S\ref{sec:Discussion-of-Tracking} we outline the basic steps of a

205: feature tracking algorithm; in

206: \S\S\ref{sec:Tracking-Results:-A}-\ref{sec:Discussion} we present and

207: discuss the differences between the codes' results as applied to a

208: reference data set; and in \S\ref{sec:recommendations} we recommend

209: {}``best practices'' for future codes to follow for feature

210: tracking applications. Finally, \S\ref{sec:Conclusions} contains some

211: general conclusions and insights, and a glossary at the end contains

212: recommended vocabulary to describe specific aspects of magnetic

213: tracking.

214: 

215: 

216: \section{\label{sec:Discussion-of-Tracking}Discussion of Tracking Algorithms}

217: 

218: Feature tracking can be divided into five separate operations: (i)

219: image preprocessing; (ii) discrimination/detection; (iii) feature

220: identification within a frame; (iv) feature association across frames;

221: and (v) event detection. In addition, some noise filtering is

222: accomplished by filtering the associated features to discard

223: short-lived or small features that have too high a likelihood of being

224: noise. Here, we discuss the important components of magnetic feature

225: tracking algorithms in general, and outline the differences between

226: each of the four principal codes that we compared.

227: 

228: 

229: \subsection{Preprocessing}

230: 

231: In general, magnetograms arrive from an instrument with some level of

232: background noise and with position-dependent foreshortening due to the

233: curvature of the Sun.  Reducing the noise floor and eliminating

234: perspective effects requires preprocessing images before applying

235: feature recognition. Temporal averaging, projection angle scaling, and

236: resampling to remove perspective and solar rotation effects are

237: commonly applied before most high-level analysis. In particular, 0.5-2

238: arcsecond scale magnetograms benefit from being averaged over 5-12

239: minutes to reduce background noise, and line-of-sight (Stokes V)

240: magnetograms of the quiet sun benefit from being divided by a cosine

241: factor to account for the difference between the magnetogram line of

242: sight and local vertical at the surface of the Sun, under the model

243: that weak field is close to vertical at the photosphere. 

244: 

245: Spaceborne magnetographs such as MDI and the anticipated SDO are also

246: susceptible to cosmic ray spikes, which must be removed either by 

247: temporal filtering of tracked features or by preprocessing the images.

248: 

249: Most magnetograms made with a filtergraph type instrument such as MDI

250: or GONG contain at least three sources of random noise at each pixel:

251: (i) photon statistics, which produce a familiar white noise spectrum;

252: (ii) P-mode contamination, which is due to the five-minute Doppler

253: oscillations leaking into the Zeeman signal; and (iii) granulation

254: noise, which is due to solar evolution between the different

255: filtergraph exposures that make up each magnetogram. The photon shot

256: noise is a uniform random variable with an independent sample at every

257: pixel and a presumed Gaussian distribution. The P-mode contamination

258: is a random variable with far fewer independent spatial samples per

259: image, because of the low spatial frequencies of the P-modes, and an

260: oscillating temporal component. Granulation-based noise has a spatial

261: scale of a few arc seconds and a coherence time of 5 minutes. MDI is

262: well tuned so that the three sources of noise are about equal in

263: individual images; but in spatially binned, temporally averaged, or

264: smoothed images, the granulation and P-modes dominate the noise

265: spectrum.

266: 

267: Although data preprocessing is not part of the process of feature

268: identification and tracking, preprocessing effects can affect tracking

269: results and we recommend (in \S\ref{sec:recommendations}) specific 

270: practices to reduce artifacts.

271: 

272: \subsection{Discrimination}

273: 

274: Any feature-recognition algorithm requires \emph{discrimination},

275: i.e. the separation of foreground features from background noise.

276: Every magnetogram sequence appears to contain many faint features

277: at or slightly below the level of the noise floor, so discrimination

278: is not trivial.

279: 

280: The simplest discrimination scheme, direct thresholding, works well

281: only for strong magnetic features that are well separated from the

282: noise floor, such as flux concentrations in the magnetic network or

283: in active regions. Other types of magnetic feature, such as weak intranetwork

284: fields, suffer because keeping the threshold high enough to avoid

285: false-positive detections creates a large number of false-negative

286: non-detections of the weak magnetic features. The problem is the huge

287: number of individual detection operations (one per pixel per time

288: step), which makes false positives a significant problem. With a Gaussian

289: noise distribution, setting the threshold to three standard deviation

290: ($\sigma$) units yields a false positive rate of about $10^{-4}$,

291: so that a 300-frame data set with dimension 300x300 pixels would yield

292: around three thousand false positive detections from noise alone,

293: and perhaps 10-30 times that number of inconsistently detected weak

294: features (false negatives). 

295: 

296: Each of our codes used a different discrimination scheme, affecting

297: what types of feature could be detected.  YAFTA, originally intended

298: for use with active region magnetograms well above the noise floor,

299: uses a simple threshold test to discriminate.  The other three codes

300: have adopted two different schemes to work closer to the noise floor,

301: both of which add additional tests to the basic threshold test.

302: 

303: SWAMIS and MCAT use hysteresis, used by \citet{LambDeForest2003} and

304: by \citet{Parnell2002}, in which two thresholds are applied: a high

305: threshold for isolated pixels, and a second, lower threshold for

306: pixels that are adjacent to already-selected pixels.  Adjacency is

307: allowed in space and/or time. The hysteresis misses some very weak

308: features, but captures every feature that at some location and/or time

309: exceeds the large threshold. The proximity requirement reduces the

310: number of pixels that undergo the lower threshold test, and therefore

311: reduces the number of false-positive detections.  Depending on

312: application, the higher threshold is chosen to be $3-6\,\sigma$, and

313: the lower threshold $1-3\,\sigma$, where $\sigma^{2}$ is the variance

314: (and $\sigma$ is the RMS variation) of the data.

315: 

316: MCAT and SWAMIS differ slightly in the nature of the hysteresis.  Both

317: codes use separate masks for positive and negative flux

318: concentrations, but MCAT applies the low threshold to any pixels in

319: the current frame that are adjacent to a detected feature in the next

320: or previous frame.  MCAT makes one forward pass through the data,

321: comparing pixels in each frame to the higher threshold at most

322: locations and to the lower threshold in locations that were occupied

323: in the previous frame; and then one reverse pass that is identical

324: except that the low-threshold mask comes from the next, rather than

325: previous, frame.  

326: 

327: SWAMIS uses a ``contagion'' algorithm that treats the time axis as a

328: third spatial dimension: a pixel is subjected to the low threshold if

329: it is adjacent, either in time or in space, to any detected pixel.

330: Considering pixels as cubes in (x,y,t) space, each pixel is subjected

331: to the lower threshold if it shares at least one edge with a pixel

332: that has been marked occupied and that has the same sign.  The

333: contagion algorithm is executed in a single pass through the data with

334: in-frame recursion to dilate the detected regions annd with

335: backtracking to re-test newly ``infected'' pixels in previous frames.

336: 

337: CURV uses the curvature method used by \textbf{}\citet{Strous1996} and

338: by \citet{Hagenaar1999}, in which both the data

339: values and their second derivative are tested. To be considered part

340: of a local maximum/minimum by the curvature algorithm, the magnitude

341: of a pixel must exceed a value threshold and all surrounding pixels

342: must have a negative/positive second derivative in each of the

343: horizontal, vertical, and two diagonal directions. The second

344: derivative criterion adds four additional independent threshold tests

345: for each pixel, reducing the number of false detections at a given

346: threshold and allowing single threshold values comparable to the low

347: threshold values used in SWAMIS and MCAT.

348: 

349: All three of MCAT, SWAMIS, and CURV impose minimum-size and lifetime

350: requirements on features at a later step in the processing, reducing the

351: effect of false positives in the detection step.  YAFTA also imposes a 

352: minimum lifetime requirement to reduce false positives from noise 

353: fluctuation.

354: 

355: \subsection{\label{sub:Feature-identification}Feature identification}

356: 

357: Feature identification is the operation of connecting masked pixels

358: into distinct identifiable (and identified) structures in each frame.

359: In practice, this means forming a detected feature map, an image whose

360: pixels have integer numeric values that correspond to index numbers of

361: particular features. Each of our codes uses a variant of a clumping

362: dilation algorithm that identifies connected loci of pixels within a

363: masked region.

364: 

365: MCAT clumps masked pixels directly into contiguous regions.

366: YAFTA and SWAMIS can switch between direct clumping and a gradient

367: based (``downhill'') method that dilates local maxima by expansion

368: down the gradient toward zero flux density. CURV also uses direct

369: clumping, but generates initial feature masks with a data-value curvature

370: method that restricts the features to isolated regions, yielding features

371: that are segmented more like those of the downhill method in YAFTA

372: and SWAMIS than like the other clumping codes. All three techniques

373: are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:identification-types}.

374: 

375: %

376: \begin{figure}[!tb]

377: \begin{center}\center{\includegraphics[%

378:   width=3in,

379:   height=1.14in]{f1a.eps}}\end{center}

380: 

381: 

382: \caption{\label{fig:identification-types}Effect of different feature-identification

383: schemes on the identified structure of a large flux concentration.

384: (A) Clumping identifies all connected above-threshold pixels into

385: a single feature. (B) Downhill methods identify one feature per local

386: maximum region. (C) Curvature methods identify the convex core around

387: each local maximum.}

388: \end{figure}

389: 

390: 

391: The tradeoff between the clumping and downhill methods is that the

392: downhill method is better at picking out the structure of individual

393: clusters of magnetic flux, while the clumping method is somewhat less

394: noise-susceptible. Fluctuations from either solar convection or

395: instrument noise can easily create small local maxima that are

396: identified as transient structures by the downhill method; simple

397: clumping eliminates these small transients, for better or for worse.

398: 

399: Which method is appropriate depends on the specific scientific

400: application, as discussed further in \S

401: \ref{sec:recommendations}.

402: 

403: \subsection{\label{sub:Feature-association}Feature association}

404: 

405: Feature association is the fixing of a feature's identity across

406: different frames of an image sequence. Most features in adjacent

407: frames of an image are related by similarity of position and shape:

408: when a feature in frame $m+1$ is sufficiently similar to the feature

409: in frame $m$, then it is likely that the two features represent the

410: same physical object at the two different times. All of our existing

411: codes use variations of a dual-maximum-overlap criterion to identify

412: persistent features across frames (Figure \ref{fig:assoc}); this

413: technique associates two features B and C in adjacent frames only if

414: $B\cap C$ is larger (in a flux-weighted sense) than any other

415: intersection with either $B$ or $C$.

416: 

417: %

418: \begin{figure}[!tb]

419: \center{\includegraphics[%

420:   width=3in,

421:   height=2.473in]{f2a.eps}}

422: 

423: 

424: \caption{\label{fig:assoc}A pathological association case. Features A and

425: B are in the previous frame, C and D in the current frame. A maximum-overlap

426: method associates B and C. The recommended associative algorithm (dual-maximum

427: overlap) associates B=C if and only if $B\cap C$ is the largest of

428: C's intersecting regions and also the largest of B's intersecting

429: regions. A and B merge to form C, at the same time that D calves via

430: fragmentation from B.}

431: \end{figure}

432: 

433: All four of our codes follow variants of the largest-intersection

434: criterion, either following maximum flux overlap or maximum area

435: overlap.  YAFTA uses arbitrary label choice on its first pass through

436: the data, and then ``label conflicts'' in a subsequent pass that

437: uses maximum overlap.

438: 

439: \subsection{Filtering based on size/longevity}

440: 

441: When working close to the noise floor, it is useful to reject small

442: features, because false positives are much more likely in small

443: clusters of pixels than in large ones. All of our codes reject

444: identified features that do not meet some minimum size

445: criterion. Criteria that are useful include: maximum size; average

446: size; lifetime; or total number of pixels across the life of the

447: feature. The filtering can be accomplished only after feature

448: identification (for per-frame size checks) or feature association (for

449: maximum size checks or longevity checks). 

450: 

451: Additional problems exist due to fluctuations in background noise that

452: may cause features that appear for only a single frame, or may cause weak

453: but persistent features to disappear for a frame (the \emph{Swiss

454: cheese problem}).  Similarly, associated features may split and then

455: re-merge rapidly due to fluctuations in a single frame (the

456: \emph{oscillating twins} problem).

457: 

458: CURV sidesteps association problems by requiring oversampling on the

459: time axis of the input data cube; this reduces the frame-to-frame

460: fluctuations of individual features.

461: 

462: MCAT avoids both problems with a three-step process.  (i)

463: completely-surrounded holes in the center of a feature are filled in

464: and the missing pixels are counted as part of the feature; (ii) Twin

465: features that merge for a single frame are forced to remain separate;

466: (iii) single features that split for a single frame are forced to

467: remain merged.

468: 

469: SWAMIS overcomes both the oscillating twins and Swiss cheese problems

470: by re-associating short lived features with nearby larger features if

471: there is sufficient overlap between them.

472: 

473: 

474: \subsection{Classification of Origin and Demise}

475: 

476: Identifying and locating individual features as they evolve is

477: properly described as \emph{feature tracking}, but identifying

478: structures and events that may include several features is more

479: properly described as a complete \emph{computer vision}

480: application. Not all of our feature tracking codes include provision

481: to detect and identify interactions of multiple flux concentrations,

482: such as pairwise emergence, but such detection is an important part of

483: characterizing magnetic evolution and hence is discussed here. In

484: particular, because magnetic features are not corks but rather

485: cross-sections of curvilinear manifolds (field lines that pass through

486: the photosphere), they are connected pairwise by the magnetic

487: field. Identifying the association between freshly emerged pairs thus

488: gives useful information about the overall field topology and how it

489: changes via reconnection of the overlying field before the death

490: (e.g. by submergence) of the individual features.

491: 

492: The origin and demise of features is different than the origin and

493: demise of magnetic flux itself: in particular, features can fragment

494: or merge under the influence of the photospheric flow field (e.g.

495: \citealt{Schrijver1997}) without any flux emerging or submerging through

496: the photospheric surface. Fragmentation and merging can result in

497: apparent violation of the conservation of flux as magnetic flux sinks

498: below or rises above the detection threshold of the instrument being

499: used to detect it.

500: 

501: Software to identify origin events recognizes flux concentrations

502: near each newly detected concentration, and classifies the origin

503: according to these nearby concentrations and the time derivative of

504: their contained flux. To avoid missing associated structure, an allowed

505: margin of error is required in the spatial or temporal offset between

506: two associated features, and also in the flux rate-of-change between

507: the features. 

508: 

509: Demise events are similar to origin events and may be recognized with

510: the same code, operating on tracked data in reverse time order. As

511: with birth events, demise events are not necessarily related to emergence

512: or submergence of magnetic flux.

513: 

514: 

515: \section{\label{sec:Tracking-Results:-A}Tracking Results: A Comparison Across

516: Codes}

517: 

518: %

519: \begin{figure}[!tbh]

520: \begin{center}\center{\includegraphics[%

521:   width=3in,height=5.9in]{f3a.eps}}\end{center}

522: 

523: 

524: \caption{\label{fig:context}The tracked field of view, in context. Note that

525: the edge of the grey circle in the MDI full-disk image is not the

526: limb of the Sun, it is a crop radius for the instrument, just outside

527: the limb.}

528: \end{figure}

529: 

530: 

531: %

532: \begin{figure}[!t]

533: \begin{center}\center{\includegraphics[%

534:   width=3in,

535:   height=2.285in]{f4a.eps}}\end{center}

536: 

537: 

538: \caption{\label{fig:dist-func}Distribution function of weak-field pixels

539: in the test dataset, a sequence of five-minute average high resolution

540: magnetograms from SOHO/MDI. A Gaussian fit to the low-valued pixels

541: (presumed to be noise) is shown. The measured standard deviation ($\sigma$)

542: of the images is 18.3 Gauss.}

543: \end{figure}

544: 

545: 

546: 

547: \subsection{Description of the Dataset}

548: 

549: We analyzed a sequence of 600 one-minute-cadence MDI high resolution

550: quiet-sun images from 2003 June 04, beginning at 05:43 UT. The images

551: were resampled into heliographic longitude/latitude coordinates (\emph{plate

552: caree} projection) using an orthographic model of the solar image,

553: as shown in Figure \ref{fig:context}. The reprojection used the ANA

554: language resampling tools by R. Shine (1999, personal communication). The tracked

555: images were 300x300 pixels and ran over the range $-16.3^{\circ}$

556: --- $-7.3^{\circ}$ in longitude and $-2.8^{\circ}$---$6.2^{\circ}$

557: in latitude. This scale slightly enlarged the images, to a pixel size

558: of 0.03 heliocentric degrees (about 0.48 observer arc seconds at disk

559: center). Images were derotated to the central time in the data sequence,

560: using the \citet{Snodgrass1983} synodic differential rotation curve

561: and rigid-body rotation at a latitude of $14^{\circ}$. These derotated,

562: plate caree images were averaged together in blocks of five minutes

563: each to reduce shot noise and P-mode interference. The noise level

564: was determined by fitting a Gaussian profile to the weak portion of

565: the pixel strength distribution curve (Figure \ref{fig:dist-func}).

566: The width ($\sigma$) of the best fit Gaussian profile was 18.3 Gauss,

567: which should be taken as the sum of all incoherent noise components

568: (principally shot noise, granulation, and P-mode leakage). Small frame-to-frame

569: offsets of the zero point (presumably due to variations in the instrument's

570: exposure time) were found by measuring the offset from zero for the

571: best-fit Gaussian, and removed by subtraction from each frame.

572: 

573: 

574: \subsection{Feature size distribution}

575: 

576: The simplest comparison to make across codes is distribution of fluxes

577: of detected magnetic features. Figure \ref{fig:sizes} shows the results

578: of applying all four of our codes (with two different identification

579: techniques for SWAMIS) to the same data. The five different techniques

580: yield obviously different flux distributions for the network; here

581: we discuss the features in the plots and the differences between them.

582: The plots all have the same height scale and the same bin size, so

583: the histograms are directly comparable. All the codes exhibit high

584: and low threshold behaviors that are discussed below; but it should

585: be immediately apparent by inspection of Figure \ref{fig:sizes} that

586: the codes diverge at the small end of the flux spectrum, achieving

587: a moderately good agreement in slope only for flux concentrations

588: larger than about $2\times10^{18}$~Mx. All four methods produce a

589: slope of about $-0.35\pm0.05$ decades per $10^{18}$~Mx, corresponding

590: to an e-folding width of about $1.2\times10^{18}$~Mx in the distribution.

591: 

592: %

593: \begin{figure*}[tb]

594: \center{\includegraphics[%

595:   width=6in,

596:   height=2.441in]{f5a.eps}}

597: 

598: 

599: \caption{\label{fig:sizes}Network feature flux distributions as derived by

600: the five algorithms we compared in \S3. See text for full discussion. }

601: \end{figure*}

602: 

603: All of the codes display a weak-feature threshold effect (false

604: negatives) as small features that are close to the noise floor are

605: eliminated by the discriminators. YAFTA and MCAT show the strongest

606: threshold effects, because they rely on a combination of minimum

607: strength and minimum feature size in each frame to eliminate

608: false-positives from the discrimination step. The YAFTA threshold is

609: particularly abrupt because the initial detection discriminator uses

610: no hysteresis, so that all detected features must have a minimum

611: number of pixels with a minimum amount of flux per pixel. MCAT's

612: threshold is softer because the hysteresis feature of the

613: discriminator allows weaker pixels to be detected around a strong

614: core; the dearth of very weak features is due to the combination

615: lifetime-and-strength requirement, which removes many weak features

616: that are detected by the other codes. CURV shows a still softer turnover

617: and threshold because the CURV discriminator does not rely on a high

618: threshold value in any one pixel to trigger detection.  The turnover

619: at about $1\times10^{18}$~Mx reflects the geometrical factor of 3 that

620: is applied to CURV measurements, together with the requirement for a

621: 9-pixel concave-down region.  SWAMIS shows no obvious threshold at all

622: because its recursive temporal hysteresis admits many features that

623: have no strong pixels in a particular frame: provided that a feature

624: has a single strong pixel at any point in its lifetime, all of its

625: pixels are subjected to the weaker threshold.

626: 

627: The disagreement between the different codes on the weak feature distribution

628: is telling: it is difficult to distinguish reliably the flux distribution

629: of magnetic features that are smaller than about $10^{18}$ Mx in

630: strength even with time-averaged and conditioned MDI data. The MDI

631: hi-res $1\ \sigma$ detection threshold in our time-averaged data

632: is about $2.2\times10^{16}$ Mx, corresponding to a single pixel with

633: an 18 Gauss signal (Figure \ref{fig:dist-func}); features with less

634: than $50\times$ this much flux are not reliably detected across methods.

635: 

636: The greater weak-feature counts of CURV and YAFTA compared with SWAMIS

637: and MCAT do not necessarily correspond to greater sensitivity: our

638: data set was not controlled for false positives. When characterizing

639: a code for weak feature sensitivity, one should use noise injection

640: null techniques to identify false positive rates. Likewise, despite

641: the lack of obvious threshold the SWAMIS weak-feature distribution

642: curve should not be trusted below about $1\times10^{18}$ Mx because the

643: hysteresis requirement may reject many transient weak features that

644: never happen to achieve the flux density required to trip the high

645: threshold.

646: 

647: In the moderate-strength feature range of $2-5\times10^{18}$ Mx,

648: all four of YAFTA, MCAT, SWAMIS/downhill, and SWAMIS/clump are in reasonably

649: good agreement, with the main difference being between the downhill-like

650: codes (CURV, YAFTA, and SWAMIS/downhill) and the clumping codes (MCAT,

651: SWAMIS/clump). The difference is due to the segmentation of large

652: features into several smaller ones, giving the downhill-like codes

653: slightly more small features and slightly fewer large ones.

654: 

655: The different codes disagree substantially on slope of the flux

656: distribution curve in two different regions.  Below about

657: $1\times10^{18}$~Mx , the codes diverge strongly  in feature counts and all have 

658: distribution features that might serve to indicate a transition to noise-dominated

659: numbers: the slopes change in all the codes, and codes with thresholds of various

660: sorts exhibit turnover behaviors due to those thresholds.

661: 

662: In the small-feature range $1-1.5 \times 10^{18}$~Mx, each individual curve

663: has no clear indication that the data are becoming unreliable, but the different

664: detection schemes give divergent results.  CURV and YAFTA find more small features than

665: MCAT or SWAMIS in this range, due to a combination of noise and

666: higher sensitivity.  MCAT, which has the most stringent noise-elimination steps in 

667: the detection code, detects signifficantly fewer features in this size range, 

668: yielding a lower slope.

669: 

670: In the window of $~1.5-7\times10^{18}$~Mx, all three codes agree on

671: the slope of $-0.28\pm0.03\ \textrm{decade}^{-1}$, or an e-folding width of

672: $1.55\pm0.15\ \times\ 10^{18}$~Mx. The downhill-like methods find the

673: steeper limit and the clumping methods find the shallower

674: limit. Features in this size range are strong enough to be detected by

675: all three discriminators but not so large that the differences between

676: the large-scale behavior of the three codes is important.  We conclude

677: that features in this size range are easily detectible with MDI and

678: results that use this feature size range are robust against small

679: changes in detection technique.

680: 

681: The large-feature performance of the codes varies slightly across

682: algorithm, though all four algorithms are in rough agreement below

683: $10^{19}$~Mx.  At higher values the feature counts are too low to

684: provide good statistics, but general comments are possible.  The CURV

685: discriminator tends to break up large features into multiple small

686: features, and very large features tend to have wider wings than the

687: Gaussian profile that is assumed by CURV, slightly lowering the number

688: of detections well above $10^{19}$~Mx. YAFTA and SWAMIS/downhill also

689: tend to break up very large concentrations of flux into multiple

690: features, but that effect is not as strongly apparent. SWAMIS/clump 

691: and YAFTA agree quite well on the flux distribution from the YAFTA

692: threshold to several $\times10^{19}$Mx.  In this size range, results appear

693: reproducible but care is needed when inferring physical values from 

694: tracking results as the results appear dependent on the method used to 

695: identify individual features.

696: 

697: 

698: 

699: %

700: \begin{figure*}

701: \center{\includegraphics[%

702:   width=6in,

703:   height=2.441in]{f6a.eps}}

704: 

705: 

706: \caption{\label{fig:lifetime} Measured feature lifetime is strongly

707: dependent on tracking technique, as seen by comparing lifetime histograms

708: derived from each of the authors' separate tracking codes.  See text

709: for full discussion.}

710: \end{figure*}

711: 

712: \subsection{Feature Lifetimes}

713: 

714: Feature lifetime is strongly affected by the feature-association step

715: of the codes and hence cross-code comparison is important to identify

716: how reproducible that step is.  Feature lifetime is also important to

717: the solar physics: it is used as important measure of flux turnover

718: rate (e.g. \citet{Hagenaar2003}), although some physical effects other than 

719: flux turnover can affect it.  By comparing our codes we obtain a measure

720: of the reliability of feature lifetime measurements in the literature.

721: 

722: Several potential effects can introduce errors into flux turnover

723: rates measured with feature tracking codes.  In particular,

724: fragmentations and mergers of like-signed features cause end-of-life

725: events, while the associated magnetic flux survives.  Similarly,

726: fluctuations in the total flux or the area of a small feature cause

727: many birth and death events.  These effects tend to shorten the

728: measured lifespan of features, causing an apparent (but not real)

729: increase in the turnover rate of magnetic flux.

730: 

731: Similarly, all of our codes observe many features that are born and/or

732: die in a way that does not apparently conserve magnetic flux; these

733: events may be due to asymmetries in the field strength of small

734: bipoles, or due to statistical fluctuation in a collection of very

735: small, unresolved concentrations of magnetic flux.  If the latter is

736: true, then the individual unresolved concentrations that make up a

737: feature must have much shorter lifespans than the resolvable feature,

738: causing an apparent (but not real) decrease in the turnover rate of

739: magnetic flux.

740: 

741: Figure \ref{fig:lifetime} shows a histogram plot of feature lifetime

742: from each of our codes. The codes agree on the slope (but not the

743: value) of the lifetime histogram for a narrow range of lifetimes

744: between 20-50 minutes.  Roughly 75\% of features found by SWAMIS in

745: this range of lifetimes are in the $2-6\times 10^{18}$~Mx size range

746: in which the codes agree on feature counts, suggesting that this

747: region of slope agreement is similar to the region along the size

748: axis: features in this population are high enough above the noise

749: floor to be readily detectible but not so large nor long-lived that

750: geometrical effects fool the different tracking algorithms.

751: 

752: The differences between the curves are entirely due to differences in

753: the algorithms of the codes, as we examined identical data.  MCAT

754: requires longevity of more than two frames (10 minutes) in the

755: identification step; the small number of one-frame features are due to

756: fragmentations (features that fragment from an existing feature, then

757: disappear one frame later). SWAMIS and CURV use much weaker longevity

758: requirements, and therefore detect similar numbers of short-lived

759: features.  YAFTA detects many more short-lived features than the other

760: codes, in part because of a lower detection threshold (no detection

761: hysteresis was used for this data set) but does not include any

762: features with less than a 4-frame (20 minute) lifetime.

763: 

764: CURV, alone of all the codes, shows a minimum in the lifetime

765: histogram followed by a slight rise in the 150-200 minute range.  The

766: population in the rise consists of nearly 100 structures, enough to be

767: statistically significant compared to just 9 features features found

768: by CURV in this data set with lifetimes between 100 and 150 minutes.

769: It is not clear whether this is an unusual statistical event or a 

770: quirk of the CURV association scheme.

771: 

772: The main conclusion to draw from this comparison is that feature

773: lifetimes are extremely difficult to measure with tracking codes; in

774: consequence, average magnetic lifetime results from magnetic tracking

775: of arcsecond-scale data should be considered weak.  We will address

776: the nuances of lifetime measurement, and its relevance to physical

777: parameters such as magnetic turnover time and heating rate, in a later

778: article in this series.

779: 

780: \section{\label{sec:Discussion}Discussion}

781: 

782: Each of the techniques we considered has advantages for a particular

783: regime of fragment size and strength relative to the noise floor of

784: the instrument. Here, we discuss the tradeoffs of the different detection

785: schemes. The main differences between our codes lay in the discrimination

786: and feature-identification steps, which are discussed separately.

787: 

788: 

789: \subsection{Discrimination}

790: 

791: The main problem faced by tracking discriminators is the huge number

792: of statistically independent samples across an image sequence dataset.

793: The simplest discriminator is a threshold trigger; while threshold

794: triggers are inadequate for many tasks when used alone, they form the

795: basis of every discrimination algorithm. The three main ways we

796: improved upon simple threshold triggering were curvature sensing

797: (CURV), hysteresis (MCAT, SWAMIS), and post-discrimination filtering

798: for feature size and longevity (all codes). Simple trigger

799: discrimination is useful mainly where the signal-to-noise ratio is

800: overwhelmingly large.  One code in our study (YAFTA) was optimized for

801: strong field detections and used simple trigger discrimination, although

802: subsequent versions of YAFTA include the ability to use hysteresis.

803: 

804: Curvature sensing as implemented in CURV has the advantage that, when

805: combined with a threshold trigger, it applies five statistically

806: independent threshold tests to each pixel, significantly reducing the

807: false-positive rate. CURV rejects features whose convex cores are

808: smaller than 9 pixels. Including the effects of smoothing in the

809: preprocessing steps, which leave granulation as the dominant source of

810: noise, there are about 12 statistically independent tests (of 45 total

811: conditions) required to detect a particular feature. By contrast, a

812: direct trigger yields only about three statistically independent tests

813: with the same size threshold. Curvature discrimination permits a

814: detection threshold much closer to the noise floor than would

815: otherwise be possible, which in turn should make curvature

816: discrimination rather sensitive to weak concentrations of magnetic

817: flux.

818: 

819: The disadvantage of curvature discrimination is that it only finds the

820: convex core of a magnetic feature. This is addressed by

821: \citet{Hagenaar1999} via a simple scaling: they find that for a large

822: variety of near-Gaussian distributions the convex core is about 1/3 of

823: the total flux in the feature, and scale accordingly. This works well

824: for small features near the resolution limit of the observations, but

825: not as well for larger features, which are observed to have flatter

826: profiles than a Gaussian. Large concentrations of flux typically have

827: several local maxima, and the total flux may be over- or

828: underestimated by the assumption of a simple Gaussian shape, depending

829: on the actual morphology of the feature.

830: 

831: Hysteresis is a simple way of reducing the false positive rate of

832: threshold-trigger discrimination. Pixels are compared against

833: different trigger thresholds depending on whether they are isolated or

834: adjacent to other detected pixels. Both MCAT and SWAMIS use a

835: recursive-hysteresis scheme that starts with a simple threshold

836: scheme, and then dilates detected pixels using a lower threshold. Such

837: schemes eliminate many false positives due to the background noise

838: floor, and detect the full extent and shape of large features. The

839: drawback is that weak features are only detected if they have at least

840: one 'seed' pixel that is stronger than the high threshold. SWAMIS

841: further allows dilation along the time axis, so that weak features are

842: detected if at some point in their lifetime they have a single strong

843: pixel; but even so, many transient weak features that are visible to

844: the eye go undetected for lack of a single strong pixel.

845: 

846: 

847: \subsection{Feature Identification}

848: 

849: Here, we contrast the two principal dilation strategies of the codes:

850: downhill and clumping dilation from local maxima. The distinction

851: between these strategies is academic within CURV, as the curvature-based

852: discriminator provides well-separated loci around each local maximum:

853: the final detected loci are the same regardless of dilation method.

854: MCAT, SWAMIS, and YAFTA can dilate using clumping, and SWAMIS and

855: YAFTA can dilate using the downhill technique.

856: 

857: Both the downhill and clumping techniques, together with hysteretic

858: thresholding, do better than curvature at identifying the size and

859: shape of mid-sized magnetic features in the several arc second size

860: range. In this size range the shape of individual features varies

861: considerably, though most features still have but one local maximum

862: in the MDI data that we tracked; under these conditions, both dilation

863: techniques do about as well as one another and both measure the flux

864: of individual features with more precision than CURV (which uses a

865: simple geometric factor to estimate the flux in the wings of the structure).

866: 

867: %

868: \begin{figure}

869: \center{\includegraphics[%

870:   width=3in,

871:   height=1.14in]{f7a.eps}}

872: 

873: 

874: \caption{\label{fig:methods}Effect of feature identification technique: a

875: pathological case. Clumping (right) is less sensitive to noise in

876: weak features than is downhill dilation (left), but can lead to counterintuitive

877: results in active regions as large, irregular patches of flux are

878: identified as a single object.}

879: \end{figure}

880: 

881: 

882: Large scale structures that are more than about 15 arc seconds across

883: yield stronger differences between the downhill and clumping techniques,

884: as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:methods}. The downhill technique

885: does a better job at tracking substructure of large, extended objects

886: such as plage and active region fields, but at the expense of more

887: noise susceptibility. Because small amounts of noise can produce transient

888: local maxima in a large extended feature, the downhill technique is

889: susceptible to the \emph{swiss cheese problem} in which a single large

890: clump of flux with no strong local maximum can be oscillate between

891: being detected as one or several separate features. If lifetime filtering

892: is being applied to the detected-feature list, then large holes may

893: appear in the detected feature, giving it the appearance of an irregular

894: block of Ementhaler cheese. Furthermore, downhill detection alone

895: tends to miss very large concentrations of flux, treating them as

896: a collection of smaller features: while this is desirable for tracking

897: the motion of the solar surface, it is not desirable when measuring

898: the statistics of strength or size of magnetic features.

899: 

900: We discuss the tradeoff between these detection techniques, neither of

901: which is perfect, in \S\ref{sec:recommendations}, below.

902: 

903: 

904: \subsection{\label{sub:Cross-frame-feature-association}Cross-frame feature association}

905: 

906: All of the codes we compared use essentially the same cross-frame

907: association strategy of finding the association map that maximizes

908: overlap between features in adjacent frames, as described in

909: \S\ref{sub:Feature-association}.  In practice, most features in most

910: frames overlap with exactly one feature in the following and adjacent

911: frames, so variations in the type of overlap (e.g. number of pixels

912: vs. amount of flux) or of permissiveness of overlap (e.g. including

913: pixels nearby each feature as part of the feature itself, for purposes

914: of finding overlap) only affect the {}``edge cases'' in which multiple

915: magnetic features are interacting, or in which a single feature is

916: moving rapidly.

917: 

918: Overlap-style algorithms such as described in

919: \S\ref{sub:Feature-association}\ are quite robust for associating

920: features with the properties $\forall

921: i,j:\left|\overrightarrow{x_{i}}-\overrightarrow{x_{j}}\right|\gtrsim

922: r_{i}$ and $\forall

923: i:\left|\Delta\overrightarrow{x_{i}}\right|\lesssim r_{i}/2$, where

924: $i$ and $j$ are indices across features, $\overrightarrow{x_{i}}$ is

925: the centroid location of feature $i$, $r_{i}$ is the typical radius of

926: feature $i$, and $\overrightarrow{\Delta x_{i}}$ is the displacement

927: vector of feature $i$ across frames. Fast moving features with

928: $\left|\Delta\overrightarrow{x_{i}}\right|\gtrsim r_{i}/2$ become

929: subject to the \emph{mistaken identity problem}, where they are

930: identified as a different feature in different frames. The mistaken

931: identity problem affects statistical feature-lifetime and feature

932: history results even if only a very few features are subject to it,

933: because a single fast-moving feature may register as a very large

934: number of separate magnetic features. The only reliable way to beat

935: the mistaken identity problem is to use high enough time resolution in

936: the data. Marginal data in which the fastest moving features have

937: $\Delta\overrightarrow{x_{i}}\thickapprox r_{i}$ may be improved by

938: interpolating interstitial frames, but wider separations cannot be

939: helped by that method. In practice, we found by visual inspection that

940: 12-minute final effective cadence with direct boxcar averaging was not

941: sufficient to avoid the mistaken identity problem for the fastest

942: moving features at the MDI {}``full disk'' resolution (1.4 Mm pixels

943: at Sun center), accounting for \textasciitilde{}0.5\% of features in a

944: given frame and perhaps 5\% of total features identified by SWAMIS,

945: but that 12 minute final effective cadence with anti-aliasing in the

946: time direction (time-weighted averaging of 1 minute cadence

947: magnetograms, with a 12 minute FWHM Gaussian weighting profile)

948: eliminates virtually all cases of mistaken identity.

949: 

950: We considered, but did not implement, various methods to reduce the

951: mistaken identity problem in cases where high enough cadence data are

952: not available. Promising directions to try include linear

953: extrapolation of feature location from last associated location before

954: the overlap calculation, with or without backtracking on the time

955: axis; dilation with size checking; and simulated annealing of feature

956: association.  We suspect that all such algorithms are likely to

957: include more faulty associations than does direct overlap.

958: 

959: 

960: \section{Recommendations on Accepted Practice\label{sec:recommendations}}

961: 

962: To enable meaningful comparison and reproducibility of tracking results

963: across research groups, we recommend the following techniques as appropriate

964: for most applications of magnetic feature tracking.

965: 

966: \subsection{Data preprocessing}

967: 

968: While preprocessing of data is not technically a part of feature tracking,

969: preprocessing can affect the statistics of image tracking and therefore

970: warrants mention here. We discuss despiking, time averaging, and resampling

971: into a desired coordinate system.

972: 

973: 

974: \paragraph{Despiking}

975: 

976: A brief note on space-based magnetograms is in order: \emph{SOHO}/MDI

977: is, and presumably SDO/HMI will be, susceptible to cosmic ray impacts.

978: A typical MDI {}``full-disk'' magnetogram has evidence of cosmic

979: ray impacts in $~10^{2}$ pixels, so 5-10 minute averages may have

980: as many as $~10^{3}$ bad pixels caused by cosmic rays. The cosmic

981: rays are not saturated in the images, and may have either negative-going

982: or positive-going direction. These cosmic rays can skew the size,

983: strength, and lifetime statistics of small, short-lived features if

984: not considered. We recommend either despiking sequences of space-based

985: magnetograms with a second time derivative technique such as ZSPIKE

986: (\citealt{DeForest2004b}), or imposing a lifetime threshold on detected

987: features to limit the effects of cosmic rays.

988: 

989: 

990: \paragraph{Time and spatial averaging}

991: 

992: Time averaging of images is useful as a preparatory step to reduce

993: noise in the magnetograms and to smooth features for better association

994: across frames. There are several sources of noise in currently available

995: magnetograms, with different statistics for each source; we discuss

996: them briefly here, as the noise characteristics of averaged data sets

997: hold a complex relationship to the noise characteristics of individual

998: frames.

999: 

1000: Most magnetographs are photon-limited, so that there is an approximately

1001: Gaussian distribution noise source of \emph{photon noise} associated

1002: with photon counting statistics in each pixel of each magnetogram.

1003: Each pixel contains an independent sample of this noise source. Magnetographs

1004: such as MDI that assemble multiple exposures are subject to \emph{shutter

1005: noise}, which results from very slightly different exposure times

1006: across each independent exposure used to produce the magnetogram:

1007: shutter noise is an approximately Gaussian distribution noise source

1008: that is added to the common mode of all pixels across each image.

1009: Finally, solar evolution (and, for ground-based telescopes, seeing

1010: effects) across the time of assembly of the magnetogram induces an

1011: additional noise source, \emph{evolution noise} that is dominated

1012: by the evolution of granules. Granulation, and the associated evolution

1013: noise, has about one independent sample every five minutes, per square

1014: megameter of solar surface area.

1015: 

1016: Individual MDI magnetograms have about equal amounts of photon and

1017: evolution noise. Because the photon noise is independently sampled

1018: in each image, averages of more than about five minutes of magnetic

1019: data tend to be dominated by evolution noise, which is attenuated

1020: much more slowly by further averaging. 

1021: 

1022: Anti-aliased time averaging, using overlapping Gaussian or Hanning

1023: windows in the time domain, is preferable to simple boxcar averaging,

1024: which has frequency sidelobes that allow more noise to enter the data.

1025: 

1026: 

1027: \paragraph{Image resampling}

1028: 

1029: Image sequences are typically resampled to remove the solar rotation

1030: and perspective \emph{a priori.} For the present work, we derotated

1031: and prepared time averages of MDI magnetograms using a simple interpolation

1032: scheme into plate caree coordinates. This scheme follows current common

1033: practice but is not recommended: it fails to preserve small-scale

1034: feature statistics in two important ways.

1035: 

1036: First, the plate caree ({}``lon/lat'') map projection is \emph{non-authalic}:

1037: a feature of unit area on the surface of the Sun may have different

1038: areas in plate caree coordinates, depending on its latitude. To avoid

1039: skewing the statistics of flux content, authors should use an authalic

1040: (equal-area) projection to prepare the data before tracking. The area

1041: of a feature in the plate caree projection is scaled by a factor of

1042: secant(latitude). A simple way to compensate is to scale the vertical

1043: or horizontal scale by cos(latitude) at each point. Scaling the vertical

1044: axis by cos(latitude) yields the common \emph{sin-lat cylindrical

1045: projection}, so named because integrating the scale factor $y'_{map}~cos(lat)$

1046: yields $y_{map}~sin(lat)$. Scaling the horizontal axis yields the

1047: \emph{sinusoidal projection}. Other useful authalic choices include

1048: the Hammer/Aitoff elliptical projection used by the cosmology community

1049: and Lambert's azimuthal equal-area projection, which minimizes linear

1050: distortion near the origin. Many useful projections have been cataloged

1051: by \citet{Snyder1987}.

1052: 

1053: Secondly, linear interpolation leaves much to be desired as a resampling

1054: method, skewing (among other things) the noise profile of individual

1055: pixels and potentially introducing large amounts of distortion into

1056: the statistics of small features. A statistically sound, photometrically

1057: accurate resampling method, relying on spatially variable sampling

1058: filters, has been described by \citet{DeForest2004}; that or similar

1059: techniques are recommended for preparing data for survey applications.

1060: 

1061: For virtually every application of tracking, it is important to compensate

1062: by rigid rotation based on the differential rotation speed at a particular

1063: point in the field of view, and not by differentially rotating every

1064: pixel in the image independently. The former preserves the actual

1065: evolving spatial structures in question; the latter only preserves

1066: the plasma reference frame at the start of the observing run.

1067: 

1068: 

1069: \subsection{Feature discrimination \& identification}

1070: 

1071: We recommend combining the three methods of feature detection. Standard

1072: codes should use a dual-discriminator scheme for detection: an initial

1073: convex-core discrimination as in CURV, followed by dilation

1074: to a low noise threshold. This combination takes best advantage of

1075: the extra discrimination afforded by the convex core technique, while

1076: eliminating some of the difficulties of identifying oddly-shaped and

1077: large features. 

1078: 

1079: Feature identification should use the downhill method to avoid pathologies

1080: of the clumping technique, particularly when used for motion tracking

1081: and to identify interacting magnetic features; but for applications

1082: where larger clusters of flux are important, we recommend keeping

1083: track of groups of touching or nearby features according to a clumping

1084: algorithm. Groups of mutually touching features are the same loci

1085: as would be identified by a direct clumping scheme, but tracking individual

1086: peaks within the group affords better localization of the magnetic

1087: flux that makes up the feature(s). This can be accomplished either

1088: by maintaining a table of mutually touching features or by using a

1089: dual-labeling scheme at the feature-identification step.

1090: 

1091: 

1092: \subsection{Feature association}

1093: 

1094: For best general purpose utility, we recommend a flux-weighted maximum

1095: overlap method of association between frames, as is currently used

1096: by SWAMIS; for example, in cases of associative conflict such as Figure

1097: \ref{fig:assoc}, regions B and C would be associated as identical,

1098: region A would be classified as dying by merger into B/C, and region

1099: D would be classified as originating by fragmentation from B/C. For

1100: analyses that require feature identification, it is important to ensure

1101: that the cadence is sufficient to allow associated features in adjacent

1102: frames to overlap. While more sophisticated motion-correlation algorithms

1103: are in principle feasible, they add complexity and fallibility that

1104: is not necessary provided that the data have high enough cadence.

1105: 

1106: It is notable that no local overlap algorithm agrees with a human

1107: observer in all cases, as human observers use more information than

1108: strict overlap -- including something like a predictor/corrector position

1109: algorithm. Maximum overlap works well in the case where the motion

1110: of all features is small compared to their width divided by the time

1111: step. If the time step is too long, small features can move more than

1112: their diameter in a single frame, leading to the mistaken identity

1113: problem, where a single visually identifiable feature frequently

1114: changes its identity in the tracked data. In such cases, one can (i)

1115: use faster frame rates, (ii) generate dilated feature masks for association,

1116: (iii) use linear location extrapolation to account for the large interframe

1117: motion, and/or (iv) use a minimum-distance criterion rather than maximum

1118: overlap. 

1119: 

1120: 

1121: \subsection{Feature tabulation}

1122: 

1123: When tabulating feature histories, we recommend that the following

1124: minimum information be kept for each feature, and for each frame for

1125: which a particular feature exists: area (A), total flux ($\Phi$),

1126: flux-weighted average location (\emph{x,y}), and flux-weighted quadrupole

1127: moments ($<\Phi^{2}dx^{2}>,<\Phi^{2}dy^{2}>,<\Phi^{2}dxdy>$), for

1128: a total of 7 numerical quantities per feature per frame. The quadrupole

1129: moments, in particular, summarize tersely and simply the shape of

1130: the feature, and the features detected by the downhill dilation method

1131: tend to be simple shapes that are readily described with the quadrupole

1132: moment set. Quantities may be kept in physical or image units (e.g.

1133: km or pixels). Quantities which we recommend avoiding are: pixel value

1134: maximum and variance, which depend on resolution and phase of the

1135: underlying feature relative to the pixel grid; and non-weighted average

1136: location, because it is more dependent on noise-dominated pixels at

1137: the feature's edge than is the flux-weighted average location.

1138: 

1139: 

1140: \subsection{Event identification}

1141: 

1142: Several of the scientific applications of tracking require classifying

1143: the origin and demise of each feature based on visual heuristics for

1144: the underlying physics. Useful event classification requires characterizing

1145: the geometry and manner of change of nearby features. Event classification

1146: is a rich topic that is not fully discussed in this paper; however,

1147: we make some brief recommendations.

1148: 

1149: We recommend classifying origin events into four categories: (i) \emph{isolated

1150: appearance}, in which a particular feature appears in the absence

1151: of interaction with surrounding detected features; (ii) \emph{balanced

1152: emergence}, in which a bipolar, approximately balanced pair of features

1153: appear together in nearly the same location at nearly the same time;

1154: (iii) \emph{unbalanced emergence}, in which a new feature appears

1155: next to a pre-existing, opposite sign feature in a nearly flux-conserving

1156: manner; and (iv) \emph{fragmentation} (or splitting), in which a single

1157: pre-existing feature breaks up into multiple smaller features in a

1158: nearly flux-conserving manner. Demise events should be classified

1159: in the exact same way as origin events, in a time reversed sense:

1160: (i) \emph{isolated disappearance}; (ii) \emph{balanced cancellation};

1161: (iii) \emph{unbalanced cancellation}; and (iv) \emph{merging}. For

1162: both origin and demise events, (i) is the only recognized case that

1163: apparently violates conservation of flux; (ii) corresponds to isolated

1164: passage through the photosphere of a magnetic loop; and (iv) represents

1165: reshuffling of existing flux. For completeness, event identification

1166: software should also maintain a \emph{complex} class for events which

1167: cannot be classified easily into the above four groups, including

1168: such events as isolated asymmetric emergence that violate conservation

1169: of magnetic flux.

1170: 

1171: It is important to understand that this is a \emph{visual} classification

1172: scheme, to be more fully developed in future work. Interpretation

1173: of these visual events in terms of physical mechanisms is neither

1174: straightforward nor obvious. For example, appearance events may or

1175: may not correspond to new flux on the solar surface.

1176: 

1177: Physical modeling of feature behavior requires some care.  In particular, 

1178: only some emergence events (bipolar emergence) appear to be due to flux

1179: tubes that emerge from below the surface of the Sun

1180: (\citealt{HarveyMartin1973,HarveyKL1993,Chae2001}).  Such events should give

1181: rise to two oppositely signed magnetic features that grow together and

1182: separate in a divergent surface flow

1183: (\citealt{Hagenaar2001,Hagenaar2003,SimonTitleWeiss2001}), and the

1184: origin detection code in SWAMIS and in CURV was originally intended to

1185: identify such events. However, proportionally few magnetic

1186: features are observed to originate with this \emph{balanced emergence}

1187: mechanism.  New small features can also form by \emph{fragmentation}

1188: of pre-existing large features into like-signed fragments; this

1189: process is also called \emph{calving} if the new feature is small

1190: compared to the surviving feature. Furthermore, many features simply

1191: \emph{appear}, without any surrounding flux at all or in ways that

1192: appear to violate flux conservation. The nature of these appearances

1193: -- whether \emph{coalescence} of existing weak flux or

1194: \emph{unbalanced emergence} with one large, weak-field pole and one

1195: small, strong-field pole, will be considered in detail in Paper II of

1196: this series.

1197: 

1198: Results using our recommended classification scheme should be presented

1199: together with a notation describing what criteria are used to detect

1200: balanced changes in the flux of interacting features. Event classification

1201: results can be quite different, for example, if the changes in the flux

1202: of two interacting features are considered {}``approximately balanced''

1203: if they merely have opposite sign, or if they must agree within,

1204: say, 10\%. 

1205: 

1206: 

1207: \section{\label{sec:Conclusions}Conclusions}

1208: 

1209: We have compared four magnetic feature tracking codes by applying

1210: them to the same preprocessed set of magnetic data. Feature tracking

1211: code output is sensitive to a variety of decisions that are made during

1212: development, and this sensitivity is a reason why it has historically

1213: been difficult to reproduce results obtained by feature tracking:

1214: it is crucial to explain exactly what algorithm is being used. In

1215: particular, codes that were designed for one regime of study (e.g.

1216: very small intranetwork flux concentrations or very large, strong

1217: features) should not be applied to different regimes of detection

1218: without careful study, and all discrimination and association techniques

1219: need to be lain out exactly as performed.

1220: 

1221: The difficulty of reproducing apparently simple results in feature

1222: tracking appears to stem both from the complicated, noisy nature of

1223: the magnetograph data and from the complexity of the underlying

1224: structures.  The solar magnetic field is not divided into well

1225: separated, strongly magnetized features; rather, there is a continuum

1226: of feature sizes due to the clustering behavior of the field across

1227: scales, in keeping with the concept of \emph{magnetochemistry}

1228: outlined by \citet{Schrijver1997}.  Bulk summary characteristics such

1229: as the lifetime of individual features or the size distribution of the

1230: features depend strongly both on the instrument being used to image

1231: the magnetic field and on threshold and related decisions made during

1232: code development.

1233: 

1234: All of our codes agree reasonably well on important summary

1235: characteristics in a particular circumscribed range of scales and

1236: lifetimes, indicating that there is an underlying pattern to be

1237: measured; but the region of agreement (which we take to be the range

1238: of valid measurement using the tracking codes) is much smaller than

1239: might be surmised from cursory analysis of the output of any one

1240: algorithm.  We conclude that particular care must be used when

1241: interpreting magnetic tracking results, which are often much weaker

1242: than might be surmised given the apparent clarity of solar magnetic

1243: features in magnetogram sequences.

1244: 

1245: In particular, we find that the magnetic turnover time, perhaps the most 

1246: accessible summary result to come out of magnetic tracking studies, is

1247: also perhaps the weakest result to come out of magnetic tracking studies.

1248: Average feature lifetimes are only weakly related to magnetic turnover time

1249: in the best of circumstances, and we have found that average lifetime 

1250: measurements are strongly dependent on the code being used to perform

1251: the measurement.  

1252: 

1253: By comparing and contrasting the algorithms of our four separate

1254: codes, we have determined why the they produce different results for

1255: the flux distribution in quiet sun, and evaluated under what

1256: circumstances each technique performs best. Further, we have made

1257: recommendations about how to improve feature detection and

1258: reproducibility in feature tracking for future work. To aid that work,

1259: all four of our codes are being made available to the scientific

1260: community in source-code form via \emph{solarsoft. }

1261: 

1262: Specific physical problems such as flux emergence and cancellation,

1263: diffusion of active region flux and plage formation, and feature

1264: lifetime, will be covered in more detail in future papers in this

1265: series.

1266: 

1267: 

1268: \bibliographystyle{plainnat}

1269: \clearpage\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\bibname}

1270: 

1271: \begin{thebibliography}{27}

1272: \providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}

1273: \providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}

1274: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax

1275:   \providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else

1276:   \providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[{Chae} et~al.(2001)]{Chae2001}

1279: {Chae}, J. et~al. 2001,

1280: \newblock \apj, 548, 497

1281: 

1282: \bibitem[{DeForest}(2004)]{DeForest2004}

1283: {DeForest}, C.~E. 2004,

1284: \newblock \solphys, 219, 3

1285: 

1286: \bibitem[{DeForest} and {Lamb}(2004)]{DeForestLamb2004}

1287: {DeForest}, C.~E. and {Lamb}, D.~A. 2004,

1288: \newblock BAAS, 204

1289: 

1290: \bibitem[{DeForest} (2004)]{DeForest2004b}

1291: {DeForest}, C.~E. 2004,

1292: \newblock \apj, 617, L89 

1293: 

1294: \bibitem[{Fossum} and {Carlsson}(2004)]{Fossum2004}

1295: {Fossum}, A. and {Carlsson}, M. 2004,

1296: \newblock ESA SP-547, 125

1297: 

1298: \bibitem[{Hagenaar}(2001)]{Hagenaar2001}

1299: {Hagenaar}, H.~J. 2001,

1300: \newblock \apj, 555, 448

1301: 

1302: \bibitem[{Hagenaar} et~al.(1999)]{Hagenaar1999}

1303: {Hagenaar} H.~J. et~al. 1999,

1304: \newblock \apj, 511, 932

1305: 

1306: \bibitem[{Hagenaar} et~al.(2003)]{Hagenaar2003}

1307: {Hagenaar}, H.~J. , {Schrijver}, C.~J., and {Title}, A.~M. 

1308: \newblock \apj, 584, 1107

1309: 

1310: \bibitem[{Handy} et~al. (1999)]{Handy1999}

1311: {Handy}, B.~N. et~al. 1999

1312: \newblock \solphys, 187, 229

1313: 

1314: \bibitem[{Harvey}(1993)]{HarveyKL1993}

1315: {Harvey}, K.~L. 1993

1316: \newblock Ph.D.~Thesis, Univ. of Utrecht

1317: 

1318: \bibitem[{Harvey} and {Martin}(1973)]{HarveyMartin1973}

1319: {Harvey}, K.~L., and {Martin}, S.~F. 1973,

1320: \newblock \solphys, 32, 389

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[{Lamb} and {Deforest}(2003)]{LambDeForest2003}

1323: {Lamb}, D.~A. and {Deforest}, C.~E. 2003,

1324: \newblock AGU FMA, B530

1325: 

1326: \bibitem[{Leibacher}(1995)]{Leibacher1995}

1327: {Leibacher}J.~W.~et~al.  1995,

1328: \newblock ASP Conf. Ser., 76, 381

1329: 

1330: \bibitem[{Leibacher}(1999)]{Leibacher1999}

1331: {Leibacher}, J.~W. 1999,

1332: \newblock Adv. Sp. Res., 24, 173

1333: 

1334: \bibitem[{Parker}(1988)]{Parker1988}

1335: {Parker}, E.~N.  1988,

1336: \newblock \apj, 330, 474

1337: 

1338: \bibitem[{Parnell}(2002)]{Parnell2002}

1339: {Parnell}, C.~E. 2002,

1340: \newblock \mnras, 335, 389

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[{Parnell} and {Jupp}(2000)]{ParnellJupp2000}

1343: {Parnell}, C.~E. and {Jupp}, P.~E 2000,

1344: \newblock \apj, 529, 554

1345: 

1346: \bibitem[{Scherrer} et~al.(1995)]{Scherrer1995}

1347: {Scherrer}, P.~H. et~al. 1995,

1348: \newblock \solphys, 162, 129

1349: 

1350: \bibitem[{Schrijver} et~al.(1997)]{Schrijver1997}

1351: {Schrijver} C.~J. et~al. 1997,

1352: \newblock \apj, 487, 424

1353: 

1354: \bibitem[{Schwer} et~al.(2002)]{Schwer2002}

1355: {Schwer}, K.~ et~al. 2002,

1356: \newblock AGU FMA, C1

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[{Simmons}(1972)]{Simmons}

1359: {Simmons}, G.~F. 1972,

1360: \newblock McGraw-Hill

1361: 

1362: \bibitem[{Simon} et~al.(2001){Simon}, {Title}, and {Weiss}]{SimonTitleWeiss2001}

1363: {Simon}, G.~W.,  {Title}, A.~M., and {Weiss}, N.~O. 2001,

1364: \newblock \apj, 561, 427

1365: 

1366: \bibitem[{Snodgrass}(1983)]{Snodgrass1983}

1367: {Snodgrass}H.~B. 1983,

1368: \newblock \apj, 270, 288

1369: 

1370: \bibitem[Snyder(1987)]{Snyder1987}

1371: {Snyder}, J.~P. 1987,

1372: \newblock USGS Prof. Papers, 1395

1373: 

1374: \bibitem[{Strous} et~al.(1996)]{Strous1996}

1375: {Strous}, L.~H. et~al. 1996,

1376: \newblock \aap, 306, 947

1377: 

1378: \bibitem[{Welsch} and {Longcope}(2002)]{Welsch2002}

1379: {Welsch}, B.~T. and {Longcope},D.~W. 2002,

1380: \newblock ESA SP-505, 611

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[{Welsch} and {Longcope}(2003)]{Welsch2003}

1383: -----------. 2003,

1384: \newblock \apj, 588, 620

1385: 

1386: \bibitem[{Welsch} et~al.(2004){Welsch}, {Fisher}, {Abbett}, and

1387:   {Regnier}]{Welsch2004}

1388: {Welsch}, B.~T. et~al. 2004,

1389: \newblock \apj, 610, 1148

1390: 

1391: \end{thebibliography}

1392: 

1393: 

1394: 

1395: 

1396: \appendix{Glossary}

1397: 

1398: Feature tracking and magnetic observations are mature enough to have

1399: developed a collection of commonly used terms, which unfortunately

1400: have drifted into slightly different usage in different locations.

1401: In an attempt to regularize terminology, we present a glossary of

1402: commonly used terms, with their recommended definitions. Also, because

1403: some terms are strictly observational and others imply a physical

1404: model, we have noted which are which.

1405: 

1406: 

1407: \paragraph{\emph{Object descriptions}}

1408: 

1409: \begin{description}

1410: \item [bipole]- a pair of magnetic features of opposite sign and approximately

1411: equal flux content, that appear to be associated (as in bipolar \textbf{emergence}).

1412: When seen to emerge together, the poles of a bipole may be associated

1413: observationally.

1414: \item [ephemeral~region]- a resolved small bipole with particular properties

1415: as described by \citet{Hagenaar2001}.

1416: \item [feature]- a visually identifiable part of an image, such as a clump

1417: of magnetic flux or a blob in a magnetogram. The term {}``feature''

1418: is purely observational and is preferable to {}``flux concentration''

1419: or {}``ephemeral region'' when describing individual visual objects

1420: in an image. The specific definition of a feature is dependent on

1421: both the Sun itself and the characteristics of the observing telescope.

1422: \item [flux~concentration]- a localized cluster of magnetic flux, with

1423: or without resolved substructure. A flux concentration may consist

1424: of one or more magnetic features. While somewhat vague, the definition

1425: of a flux concentration is approximately independent of observing

1426: telescope: a flux concentration may appear as a single feature when

1427: seen with one instrument but as several features with another.

1428: \item [fragment]- a small piece of a larger magnetic structure, \emph{not}

1429: a generic small bit of magnetic flux. Usage: {}``this magnetic flux

1430: concentration is composed of many fragments'', or {}``unresolved

1431: fragments make up this magnetic feature''. {}``Fragment'' should

1432: not be used interchangeably with {}``feature'', as it implies that

1433: the subject is part of a larger whole, while {}``feature'' does

1434: not.

1435: \item [monopole]- a lone magnetic pole (thought to be physically impossible).

1436: \item [stenflo]- (after J. Stenflo) a tiny, strong concentration of order

1437: $10^{17}$ Mx of flux. Usage: {}``The asymmetric formation of flux

1438: concentrations in the network may be due to convergence of stenflos,

1439: though Stenflo himself may object to this terminology.''

1440: \item [unipole]- a single magnetic feature with no obvious associated feature

1441: of the opposite sign. The photospheric boundary provides a {}``hiding

1442: place'' for the opposing pole, so that unipoles are thought not to

1443: be monopoles. Oppose {}``bipole'', {}``monopole''. 

1444: \end{description}

1445: 

1446: \paragraph{\emph{Event} \emph{descriptions}}

1447: 

1448: \begin{description}

1449: \item [appearance]- used specifically to describe the origin of a single

1450: unipolar feature where there were none before. Appearances appear

1451: to violate conservation of magnetic flux, but probably result from

1452: flux hiding under the noise floor of an instrument -- so the definition

1453: of {}``appearance'' depends on the instrument being used.

1454: \item [asymmetric~emergence]- emergence in which the two sides of the

1455: emerging magnetic loop of flux have quite different cross sections,

1456: perhaps reducing the field strength of the larger leg of the loop

1457: below the detection threshold of an instrument. This can be a physical

1458: description of one type of feature appearance; coalescence is another

1459: type. Note that {}``asymmetric emergence'' and {}``unbalanced emergence''

1460: are not synonyms.

1461: \item [balanced~emergence]- emergence in which the two final opposing-sign

1462: features have approximately the same magnitude; this is the type of

1463: emergence predicted by a simple model of magnetic flux tubes rising

1464: through the photosphere. Compare {}``emergence''; contrast {}``unbalanced

1465: emergence''.

1466: \item [balanced~cancellation]- cancellation in which the two initial opposing-sign

1467: features have approximately the same magnitude. Compare {}``cancellation'';

1468: contrast {}``unbalanced cancellation''. Balanced cancellation is

1469: the time reversal of balanced emergence.

1470: \item [calving]- a form of fragmentation in which one of the daughter features

1471: contains much more flux than the other, by analogy to the behavior

1472: of icebergs. Usage: {}``This movie shows small features calving off

1473: of the main flux concentration''. Oppose {}``splitting''; compare

1474: {}``fragmentation''.

1475: \item [cancellation]- the demise of a magnetic feature that collides (and

1476: cancels) with an opposing sign feature, in such a way that flux is

1477: approximately conserved. Compare {}``balanced cancellation'', {}``unbalanced

1478: cancellation''; contrast {}``disappearance''.

1479: \item [coalescence]- the collection of diffuse flux from below detection

1480: threshold to a small, denser feature that can be detected. This may

1481: be an example of unresolved merging. This is a physical description

1482: of one type of feature appearance; asymmetric emergence is another

1483: type. To avoid confusion, eschew {}``coalescence'' when describing

1484: observational results; use {}``merging'' or {}``appearance'' instead.

1485: \item [demise]- the end of a magnetic feature's existence.

1486: \item [disappearance]- the end of a single, unipolar magnetic feature that

1487: {}``fades away'' to nothing in the absence of nearby features (the

1488: time reversal of an {}``appearance'').

1489: \item [dispersal]- deprecated. This has been used to describe the opposite

1490: of coalescence, the breakup of strong flux concentrations into many

1491: fragments, and the diffusion of flux across the surface of the Sun.

1492: It is now too ambiguous to be used clearly in most cases.

1493: \item [emergence]- the origination of two balanced, opposing magnetic features

1494: nearby one another in such a way that flux is approximately conserved.

1495: This observational definition follows the common physical definition

1496: of a loop of flux emerging from below the surface. Compare {}``balanced

1497: emergence'', {}``unbalanced emergence''; contrast {}``appearance''.

1498: Emergence is the time reversal of {}``cancellation''. 

1499: \item [fragmentation]- the breakup of a single magnetic feature into at

1500: least two like-sign features. (compare {}``splitting'', {}``calving'')

1501: \item [merging]- the joining of two magnetic features of similar sign into

1502: a single larger feature.

1503: \item [splitting]- the breakup of a single magnetic feature into at least

1504: two like-sign features, with the implication of rough flux balance

1505: between the two daughter features. (oppose {}``calving''; compare

1506: {}``fragmentation'').

1507: \item [unbalanced~emergence]- emergence in which the two final opposing-sign

1508: features have different magnitudes due to interaction with a nearby

1509: unipolar feature. Compare {}``emergence''; contrast {}``fragmentation'',

1510: {}``balanced emergence''. Unbalanced emergence is the time-reversal

1511: of unbalanced cancellation.

1512: \item [unbalanced~cancellation]- cancellation that is not complete because

1513: one of the canceling features contains more flux than the other. Compare

1514: {}``cancellation''; contrast {}``merging'', {}``balanced cancellation''.

1515: \end{description}

1516: 

1517: \acknowledgements{Thanks to the SOHO/MDI team for kind use of their data, and to the

1518: University of St. Andrews for hosting the workshop which made this

1519: comparison possible. This work was funded by NASA's SOHO project,

1520: the SOHO/MDI effort, NASA's SEC-GI program, the Air Force Office of

1521: Scientific Research MURI program, and the PPARC Advanced Fellowship

1522: program. SOHO is a project of international collaboration between

1523: NASA and ESA.}

1524: \end{document}

1525: