On the importance of background subtraction in the analysis of coronal loops observed with TRACE

AI-generated keywords: Background subtraction Coronal loops TRACE Pixel-to-pixel subtraction Interpolation

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • The study focuses on the importance of accurate background subtraction in analyzing coronal loops observed with TRACE.
  • Two independent methods for background subtraction were compared: interpolation between concentric strips around the analyzed loop and pixel-to-pixel subtraction of the final image when the loop had completely faded out.
  • There are considerable differences in emission distributions along the loop obtained with these two methods, as well as differences in related derived filter ratio and temperature profiles.
  • Pixel-to-pixel subtraction leads to more coherent diagnostics of a cooling loop compared to interpolation-based subtraction, which produces higher systematic errors due to intersecting structures and large amounts of subtracted emission in TRACE observations.
  • Accurate background subtraction is a delicate issue in analyzing coronal loops, and choosing an appropriate method can significantly impact diagnostic results.
  • While pixel-to-pixel subtraction appears to be more reliable, it may not always be possible or practical to apply this method.
  • Caution should be exercised when using interpolation-based background subtraction due to its potential for producing systematic errors.
  • Accurate diagnostics are essential for understanding physical processes occurring within these structures and advancing our knowledge of solar physics.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: S. Terzo, F. Reale

arXiv: 1002.2121v1 - DOI (astro-ph.SR)
9 pages, 9 figures

Abstract: In the framework of TRACE coronal observations, we compare the analysis and diagnostics of a loop after subtracting the background with two different and independent methods. The dataset includes sequences of images in the 171 A, 195 A filter bands of TRACE. One background subtraction method consists in taking as background values those obtained from interpolation between concentric strips around the analyzed loop. The other method is a pixel-to-pixel subtraction of the final image when the loop had completely faded out, already used by Reale & Ciaravella 2006. We compare the emission distributions along the loop obtained with the two methods and find that they are considerably different. We find differences as well in the related derive filter ratio and temperature profiles. In particular, the pixel-to-pixel subtraction leads to coherent diagnostics of a cooling loop. With the other subtraction the diagnostics are much less clear. The background subtraction is a delicate issue in the analysis of a loop. The pixel-to-pixel subtraction appears to be more reliable, but its application is not always possible. Subtraction from interpolation between surrounding regions can produce higher systematic errors, because of intersecting structures and of the large amount of subtracted emission in TRACE observations.

Submitted to arXiv on 10 Feb. 2010

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1002.2121v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

The study conducted by S. Terzo and F. Reale focuses on the importance of accurate background subtraction in the analysis of coronal loops observed with TRACE. The authors compare two independent methods for background subtraction using sequences of images in the 171 A and 195 A filter bands of TRACE. One method involves taking background values obtained from interpolation between concentric strips around the analyzed loop, while the other method is a pixel-to-pixel subtraction of the final image when the loop had completely faded out. The authors find that there are considerable differences in emission distributions along the loop obtained with these two methods, as well as differences in related derived filter ratio and temperature profiles. Specifically, they observe that pixel-to-pixel subtraction leads to more coherent diagnostics of a cooling loop compared to interpolation-based subtraction, which produces higher systematic errors due to intersecting structures and large amounts of subtracted emission in TRACE observations. The study highlights that accurate background subtraction is a delicate issue in analyzing coronal loops, and choosing an appropriate method can significantly impact diagnostic results. While pixel-to-pixel subtraction appears to be more reliable, it may not always be possible or practical to apply this method. The authors suggest that caution should be exercised when using interpolation-based background subtraction due to its potential for producing systematic errors. Overall, this study emphasizes the importance of careful consideration and evaluation when selecting different methods for background subtraction when analyzing coronal loops observed with TRACE or similar instruments. Accurate diagnostics are essential for understanding physical processes occurring within these structures and advancing our knowledge of solar physics.
Created on 23 Jun. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.