Comparisons of CME morphological characteristics derived from five 3D reconstruction methods
Li Feng, Bernd Inhester, Mierla Marilena

TL;DR
This study compares five 3D reconstruction methods for CMEs, analyzing their accuracy, consistency, and advantages using a specific CME event, highlighting the effectiveness of mask fitting and geometric localisation.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive comparison of five CME 3D reconstruction methods applied to the same event, revealing their relative accuracies and the benefits of multi-view observations.
Findings
Mask fitting and geometric localisation produce consistent results.
Three-view observations yield more precise reconstructions.
Mask fitting can resolve front/back ambiguity in polarisation methods.
Abstract
We compare different methods to reconstruct the three-dimensional (3D) CME morphology. The explored methods include geometric localisation, mask fitting, forward modeling, polarisation ratio and local correlation tracking plus triangulation. The five methods are applied to the same CME event, which occurred on August 7 2010. Their corresponding results are presented and compared, especially in their propagation direction and spatial extent in 3D. We find that mask fitting and geometric localisation method produce consistent results. Reconstructions including three-view observations are more precise than reconstructions done with only two views. Compared to the forward modeling method, in which a-priori shape of the CME geometry is assumed, mask fitting has more flexibility. Polarisation ratio method makes use of the Thomson scattering geometry. We find spatially the 3D CME derived from…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
