1: % COMPILING:
2: %
3: % latex -interaction=nonstopmode ms
4: % bibtex ms
5: % latex ms
6: % latex ms
7: % dvipdfmx ms
8: %
9: % Note: When switching between aastex and emulateapj, the first call
10: % to LaTeX may throw an error. Use 'r' to force it to run, or use
11: % -interaction=nonstopmode, or clear out all the auxiliary files before
12: % running LaTeX. CCK 2008-Jul-13
13:
14: % ApJ Emulation:
15: \documentclass[dvipdfm,letter]{emulateapj} % comment out for MS to ApJ!
16: \usepackage{mathptmx} % comment out for MS to ApJ!
17: \usepackage{hyperref} % comment out for MS to ApJ!
18:
19: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex} % comment out when in emulation mode!
20: \usepackage{natbib}
21: \usepackage{amsmath}
22: \usepackage{graphicx}
23:
24:
25: \citestyle{aa} % As required by ApJ: (Bester 1998) rather than (Bester, 1998)
26:
27:
28: % Attempt to reprogram LaTeX's algorithm for float placement (didn't help)
29: % % See p.105 of "TeX Unbound" for suggested values.
30: % % See pp. 199-200 of Lamport's "LaTeX" book for details.
31: % % General parameters, for ALL pages:
32: % \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.9} % max fraction of floats at top
33: % \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.8} % max fraction of floats at bottom
34: % % Parameters for TEXT pages (not float pages):
35: % \setcounter{topnumber}{2}
36: % \setcounter{bottomnumber}{2}
37: % \setcounter{totalnumber}{4} % 2 may work better
38: % \setcounter{dbltopnumber}{2} % for 2-column pages
39: % \renewcommand{\dbltopfraction}{0.9} % fit big float above 2-col. text
40: % \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.07} % allow minimal text w. figs
41: % % Parameters for FLOAT pages (not text pages):
42: % \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.7} % require fuller float pages
43: % % N.B.: floatpagefraction MUST be less than topfraction !!
44: % \renewcommand{\dblfloatpagefraction}{0.7} % require fuller float pages
45: % % remember to use [htp] or [htpb] for placement
46:
47: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in any journal, as it won't LaTeX.}
48: \shorttitle{Coronal Tomography}
49: \shortauthors{Charles C.\ Kankelborg}
50:
51: \begin{document}
52:
53: \title{Coronal Tomography}
54: \author{Charles C. Kankelborg}
55: \affil{Department of Physics, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717}
56: \email{kankel@solar.physics.montana.edu}
57:
58:
59: \begin{abstract}
60: A simple, yet powerful, algorithm for computed tomography of the solar corona is
61: presented and demonstrated using synthetic EUV data. A minimum of three
62: perspectives are required. These may be obtained from \textit{STEREO}/EUVI plus
63: an instrument near Earth, e.g.\ \textit{TRACE} or \textit{SOHO}/EIT.
64: \end{abstract}
65:
66: \keywords{methods: data analysis --- Sun: corona --- techniques: image processing}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: Observations by the Extreme Ultraviolet Imager \citep[EUVI,][]{Wuelser2004} aboard
71: \textit{STEREO} provide the first simultaneous, stereoscopic image pairs of the solar
72: corona and transition region. Ideally, these data are simple projections through an
73: optically thin corona. However, the 3D distribution of emission is difficult to
74: estimate with only two projections \citep[see][and references therein]{Gary1998}. This difficulty may be explained as follows. Consider an object $I(x,y,z)$
75: on domain $D$. The coordinates $x$ and $y$ need not be orthogonal, but $z$ is
76: orthogonal to $x$ and $y$. Given two projections $f(x,z) = \int_D I\,dy$ and
77: $g(y,z)=\int_D I\,dx$, a plausible reconstruction of $I$ is
78: \begin{equation}\label{eq:separable}
79: I'(x,y,z) = \frac{f(x,z)\,g(y,z)}{T(z)},
80: \end{equation}
81: where $T(z) = \int_D I(x,y)\,dx\,dy = \int_D f\,dx = \int_D g\,dy$ is
82: the total emission of a plane of constant $z$. Unfortunately, this solution
83: fails utterly in practice. For each pair of sources in $I$, $I'$ introduces a
84: pair of ``ghost'' artifacts. These are systematic errors, independent of the
85: noise and apparently unavoidable. Traditional regularization strategies are
86: not fruitful: $I'$ is positive, is as smooth as the observed images $f$ and
87: $g$, and is precisely the maximum entropy solution. More information is
88: therefore required to guide the tomographic reconstruction.
89:
90: Previously described approaches to the \textit{STEREO} coronal tomography problem rely
91: on assumptions about the geometry of the coronal plasma distribution. The triangulation
92: method \citep{Gary1998,Aschwanden2005,Aschwanden2008} assumes loops with circular cross-section, and
93: relies on the identification of the same loops in both images. The magnetic tomography
94: approach \citep{WiegelmannInhester2006} also assumes loops with circular cross-section,
95: and incorporates magnetic field extrapolations to constrain loop geometries. These
96: methods are powerful, but they require assumptions about things that one might
97: reasonably hope to learn from the 3D reconstruction.
98:
99: I propose that EUV images taken from a third perspective---e.g.\
100: \textit{TRACE} or \textit{SOHO}/EIT---may provide adequate additional
101: constraints for coronal tomography, without any assumptions about loop
102: geometry or magnetic fields. I describe a simple computed tomography
103: algorithm, fast enough to run in real time, and demonstrate its performance
104: using synthetic data with three viewpoints.
105:
106:
107: \section{Algorithm} \label{sec:smart}
108:
109: The Smooth Multiplicative Algebraic Reconstruction Technique (SMART) presented here has
110: been developed to solve a mathematically analogous problem of reconstructing spectra
111: for the \textit{MOSES} sounding rocket payload \citep{KankelborgThomas2001,Fox2003}.
112: Iterative multiplicative algebraic reconstruction techniques (MART), perhaps inspired
113: by the separable solution to the two-view problem (equation \ref{eq:separable}), have
114: been available for many years \citep{OkamotoYamaguchi1991,Verhoeven1993}.
115: \cite{Gary1998} used MART along with volume constraints derived from magnetic field
116: extrapolations to reconstruct a pair of loops from two simulated XUV images. The unique
117: algorithmic features of SMART are iterative smoothing and an adaptive correction
118: strategy. These refinements improve numerical stability and promote convergence to a
119: compromise between smoothness and goodness-of-fit, leading to a reduced chi-squared of
120: unity.
121:
122: In the $N$-view tomography problem, an object $I(x,y,z)$ on domain $D$ is
123: known only by $N$ projections $f_m$, taken at angles $\theta_m$:\footnote{In our coordinates, $\theta_m$ is a right-handed rotation of the object; it therefore corresponds to the eastward heliographic longitude of the observer.}
124: \begin{equation}
125: f_m(x,z) = \int_D \mathcal{R}(\theta_m)\,I(x,y,z)\,dy.
126: \end{equation}
127: The operator $\mathcal{R}(\theta_m)$ rotates the object $I$ by angle
128: $\theta_m$ about the $z$ axis.\footnote{Rotation $\mathcal{R}$ could
129: incorporate compound angles with altitude, azimuth and roll. The extension of
130: SMART to the general case is straightforward.} SMART uses the projections $f_m$
131: to estimate $I(x,y,z)$ by the following steps:
132: \begin{enumerate}
133: \item \label{step:guess} Create an initial guess, $I'(x,y,z) = 1$ on $D$.
134: \item Initialize correction weights, $\gamma_m=\frac{1}{N}$.
135: \item \label{step:project} $I' \leftarrow I' * K$
136: (smoothing kernel $K$ defined by eq.\ \ref{eq:kernel}).
137: \item Calculate projections $f'_m(x,z) = \int_D \mathcal{R}(\theta_m)\,I'\,dy$.
138: \item Calculate correction factors,
139: \begin{equation} \label{eq:correctionfactor}
140: C_m(x,y,z) = \mathcal{R}(-\theta_m)\,\frac{f'_m(x,z)}{f_m(x,z)}.
141: \end{equation}
142: Note that a nontrivial $y$-dependence is introduced through the
143: rotation.
144: \item \label{step:correct} Apply corrections weighted by $\gamma_m$,
145: \begin{equation}\label{eq:correct}
146: I' \leftarrow I' \,\prod_m C_m^{\gamma_m}.
147: \end{equation}
148: \item Calculate reduced chi-squared for each projection,
149: \[
150: \chi_{R,m}^2 = \frac{1}{N_x N_y N_z}\sum_{xyz} \frac{(I-I')^2}{I'}.
151: \]
152: \item \label{step:feedback} Adjust correction weights, $\gamma_m$,
153: using a control law designed to drive $\chi_{R,m}^2 \rightarrow 1$.
154: \item Repeat steps \ref{step:project}-\ref{step:feedback}
155: until converged.
156: \end{enumerate}
157:
158: The $I'$ array is oversized so that rotations will not move any of the emission
159: outside the volume. The subphotospheric portion of the volume is zeroed in step
160: \ref{step:guess}, and will remain zero since the corrections are multiplicative
161: (eq. [\ref{eq:correct}]).
162:
163: Since the correction factors (eq.\ [\ref{eq:correctionfactor}]) are ratios of
164: positive numbers, the reconstruction is always positive. The strength of the
165: $m$th applied correction is governed by $\gamma_m$. Step \ref{step:feedback}
166: sets up feedback to establish a dynamic equilibrium between smoothing and
167: correction, so that $\chi_{Rm}^2$ tends toward unity. Our control law, which has two adjustable parameters $(a,b)$, modifies $\gamma_m$ for iteration $n+1$ using a linear combination of the previous and current values of $\chi_{Rm}^2$:
168: \begin{align} \label{eq:control}
169: \gamma_m^{n+1} &= \gamma_m^n + a\,X_m^n + b\,\Delta X_m^n,\\
170: X_m^n &\equiv \log (\chi_{Rm,n}^2),
171: \quad \Delta X_m^n \equiv X_m^n - X_m^{n-1}.
172: \end{align}
173:
174: The algorithm is implemented in IDL, with rotations $\mathcal{R}(\theta_m)$ perfomed
175: via cubic convolutional interpolation. It is possible that spurious negative voxels
176: could be introduced during the rotation, but negative values are eliminated from our
177: projections by thresholding: $f_m \ge 0$.
178:
179: The normalized smoothing kernel, $K(x,y,z)$, is defined on the discrete space
180: of voxels as follows:
181: \begin{equation} \label{eq:kernel}
182: % K = \frac{1}{1+s(1+2a)^2}
183: % \begin{bmatrix}
184: % sa^2 & sa & sa^2 \\
185: % sa & 1+s & sa \\
186: % sa^2 & sa & sa^2
187: % \end{bmatrix}, \quad a=\frac{2}{5}.
188: K_{ijk} = \frac{\delta_{ij}\,\delta_{jk}
189: + s\,c^{(i+j+k)}}{1+s(1+4c+12c^2+8c^3)},
190: \quad c \equiv \frac{2}{5}.
191: \end{equation}
192: This form of $K$ is not crucial, but it is designed to be very nearly
193: isotropic. The adjustable smoothing parameter, $s \in (0,1]$, affects the
194: rate of convergence but has no discernible effect on the result.
195:
196:
197:
198: \section{Synthetic Data} \label{sec:data}
199:
200:
201: A volume of synthetic coronal emission was prepared as a test target for the SMART
202: algorithm. The test target is more complex than any that have proven tractable for
203: previous approaches to tomographic analysis for STEREO. It is not an attempt at
204: detailed atmospheric modeling, but resembles a small active region. I began with a
205: potential field defined by four sub-photospheric magnetic charges. The resulting
206: line-of-sight photospheric magnetic field is shown in figure \ref{fig:magnetogram}. The
207: field lines in the figure emerge from five small, square ``heated'' patches in the
208: postive polarities on the photospheric plane. A large number of field linese were
209: traced from random points in the volume to both footpoints (or to the boundary).
210: Emission was added to each voxel crossed by the field line, in proportion to the
211: arbitrary heating value at its positive photospheric footpoint. Figure \ref{fig:volume}
212: shows the volume model projected along each of the three axes of figure
213: \ref{fig:magnetogram}. The coronal flux tubes have complicated geometries, including a
214: broad, vertical fan of emission above the postive pole that is associated with a
215: coronal magnetic null at a height of $\sim 53$ grid points. All images of EUV emission
216: in this letter are square-root scaled to bring out faint features.
217:
218: \begin{figure}[htb]
219: \begin{center}
220: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{magnetogram_fig.eps}
221: \end{center}
222: \caption{Vertical magnetic field (shaded plane) and field lines within the emission
223: from the model corona. five ``Heated'' patches within the positive photospheric
224: magnetic poles are colored in black. Note the sharp deflection of the upppermost
225: field line from the coronal null.}
226: \label{fig:magnetogram}
227: \end{figure}
228:
229:
230: \begin{figure}[htb]
231: \begin{center}
232: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{corona3view.eps}
233: \end{center}
234: \caption{The model coronal volume viewed along each of the three axes of
235: figure \ref{fig:magnetogram}. Intensities are square-root
236: scaled.}\label{fig:volume}
237: \end{figure}
238:
239: \begin{figure*}[htb]
240: \begin{center}
241: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{projections_horiz.eps}
242: \end{center}
243: \caption{Synthetic data taken from three virtual spacecraft. Intensities are
244: square-root scaled.}\label{fig:projections}
245: \end{figure*}
246:
247: SMART was tested on numerous synthetic observations of the model coronal volume, each
248: time placing the model active region at a different random northern heliographic
249: latitude over $[0^{\circ},30^{\circ}]$, a random heliographic longitude over
250: $[-40^{\circ}, 40^{\circ}]$, and a random tilt over the interval $[-180^{\circ},
251: 180^{\circ}]$. For simplicity, in our coordinate system the solar equator coincides
252: with the equatorial plane. Observations were projected for three distant virtual
253: instruments in the ecliptic, observing from heliographic longitudes $-40^{\circ},
254: 0^{\circ}$, and $40^{\circ}$. The twin \textit{STEREO} spacecraft will reach similar
255: separation angles in October, 2008. The images were normalized so that the brightest
256: pixel among the three images had 3000 counts. The $\theta =
257: (-40^{\circ},0^{\circ},40^{\circ})$ projections shown in figure \ref{fig:projections}
258: correspond to an example observation with the region placed at latitude
259: $16.51^{\circ}$\,N, longitude $14.65^{\circ}$\,W, and tilt $29.63^{\circ}$
260: counter-clockwise. Poisson noise was applied to the images prior to passing them to the
261: SMART algorithm for inversion. Intensities are square-root scaled to show the noise
262: more clearly. The mean value of the nonzero pixels is 216 counts.
263:
264:
265:
266: \section{Inversion Results} \label{sec:results}
267:
268: The synthetic data were inverted using 15 SMART iterations. This was typically
269: sufficient to converge to $\chi^2_{Rm}=1 \pm 0.01$. The rate of convergence is affected
270: by the smoothing parameter and by the two adjustable parameters in the control law. The
271: examples shown in this Letter used $s=0.5$, $a=0.05$, $b=0.16$. Within broad limits,
272: the results are insensitive to these parameters. For example, if the smoothing is
273: removed altogether, numerical instabilities arise; if it is made too strong, then it
274: will not be possible to reach $\chi^2_{Rm}=1$. For our computational volume of $169^3$
275: voxels, an inversion runs in a few minutes on a laptop computer.
276:
277: % \begin{figure}[!htbp]
278: % \begin{center}
279: % \includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{eclipticPan.eps}
280: % \end{center}
281: % \caption{Comparison of true and reconstructed coronal volumes, panning
282: % in the ecliptic plane. Intensities are square-root scaled.}
283: % \label{fig:eclipticPan}
284: % \end{figure}
285: % \begin{figure}[!htbp]
286: % \begin{center}
287: % \includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{eclipticPan2.eps}
288: % \end{center}
289: % \caption{Same as figure \ref{fig:eclipticPan}, but with loops
290: % nearly parallel to the ecliptic.}
291: % \label{fig:eclipticPan2}
292: % \end{figure}
293: % \begin{figure}[!htbp]
294: % \begin{center}
295: % \includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{outpan.eps}
296: % \end{center}
297: % \caption{Comparison of true and reconstructed coronal volumes, moving
298: % up the central heliographic meridian at five different latitudes.
299: % Intensities are square-root scaled.}
300: % \label{fig:outpan}
301: % \end{figure}
302: % \begin{figure}[!htbp]
303: % \begin{center}
304: % \includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{outpan2.eps}
305: % \end{center}
306: % \caption{Same as figure \ref{fig:outpan}, but with loops
307: % nearly parallel to the ecliptic.}
308: % \label{fig:outpan2}
309: % \end{figure}
310:
311: \begin{figure}[!p]
312: \begin{center}
313: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{threeview1.eps}
314: \end{center}
315: \caption{Comparison of true and reconstructed coronal volumes from three
316: orthogonal points of view. Intensities are square-root scaled.}
317: \label{fig:threeview1}
318: \end{figure}
319: \begin{figure}[!p]
320: \begin{center}
321: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{threeview2.eps}
322: \end{center}
323: \caption{Same as figure \ref{fig:threeview1}, but with loops
324: nearly parallel to the ecliptic.}
325: \label{fig:threeview2}
326: \end{figure}
327:
328: The simulated data in figure \ref{fig:projections} gives rise to an accurate
329: reconstruction.
330:
331: Figure \ref{fig:threeview1} shows reconstruction results for the data in figure
332: \ref{fig:projections}, compared to noise-free visualizations of the coronal volume
333: model. The Earth viewpoint at the top of figure \ref{fig:threeview1} corresponds to the
334: middle panel of figure \ref{fig:projections}. Comparing these two figures shows that
335: the photon noise has been largely suppressed in the SMART reconstruction. The success
336: at recovering 3D geometry is best illustrated by the east-west and south-north
337: projections, which are $50^{\circ}$ and $90^{\circ}$, respectively, from the nearest
338: available observing angles in the synthetic data. All of the true features have been
339: recovered. Square-root scaling helps to bring out the artifacts, which are few and
340: faint. There is slight blurring, and minimal ghosting. These results are typical of hundreds of realizations tried so far.
341:
342: A second example, with loops nearly parallel to the ecliptic plane, is given in figure
343: \ref{fig:threeview2}. The horizontal loop orientation is very challenging because only
344: the ends of horizontal features provide any depth cues. Altough views from within the
345: ecliptic plane are reproduced well, the example shows relatively poor reconstruction of
346: an out-of-ecliptic view (lower panel). Animated versions of figures
347: \ref{fig:threeview1} and \ref{fig:threeview2} are provided in the electronic version of
348: the Journal.
349:
350:
351:
352: \section{Discussion and Conclusions} \label{sec:discussion}
353:
354: Coronal tomography is possible with as few as three viewpoints, making no prior
355: assumptions about coronal morphology or magnetic fields. The test cases demonstrate
356: recovery of complex geometry without reference to magnetic field extrapolations or
357: assumptions about loop geometry. Loops that run in an east-west direction, however,
358: provide insufficient depth cues for three instruments confined to the ecliptic.
359:
360: The SMART algorithm described here provides a noise-insensitive tomographic
361: reconstruction by finding an optimal balance between goodness of fit and local
362: smoothness. \textit{STEREO} will obtain data at large separation angles in Fall 2008.
363: Observations from \textit{SOHO} and/or \textit{TRACE} at that time should allow the
364: best opportunity for application of SMART to coronal tomography.
365:
366:
367: \section*{Acknowledgments}
368:
369: I thank Dana Longcope for many helpful suggestions made during the preparation
370: of this Letter. This work was supported by NASA grant NNX07AG6G.
371:
372: \clearpage
373:
374: \bibliographystyle{apj}
375: \bibliography{apj-jour,CCKletter}
376:
377:
378:
379:
380: \end{document}
381: