Active region chromospheric magnetic fields

TL;DR

This study compares chromospheric magnetic fields inferred from observations with those obtained from a magnetohydrostatic extrapolation, highlighting similarities and differences to improve active region modeling.

Contribution

It demonstrates the qualitative agreement between observationally inferred and MHS-extrapolated chromospheric magnetic fields, emphasizing the need for chromospheric constraints in modeling.

Findings

MHS field generally agrees with observations for line-of-sight component but is weaker at higher magnitudes.

Transverse field inferred from observations is stronger than MHS predictions, especially in weaker regions.

MHS model lacks fine structure and does not recover magnetic features like fibrils.

Abstract

Context. A proper estimate of the chromospheric magnetic fields is believed to improve modelling of both active region and coronal mass ejection evolution. Aims. We investigate the similarity between the chromospheric magnetic field inferred from observations and the field obtained from a magnetohydrostatic (MHS) extrapolation. Methods. Based Fe i 6173 {\AA} and Ca ii 8542 {\AA} observations of NOAA active region 12723, we employed the spatially-regularised weak-field approximation (WFA) to derive the vector magnetic field in the chromosphere from Ca ii, as well as non-LTE inversions of Fe i and Ca ii to infer a model atmosphere for selected regions. Milne-Eddington inversions of Fe i serve as photospheric boundary for the MHS model that delivers the three-dimensional field, gas pressure and density. Results. For the line-of-sight component, the MHS chromospheric field generally agrees with the non-LTE inversions and WFA, but tends to be weaker than those when larger in magnitude than 300 G. The observationally inferred transverse component is stronger, especially in magnetically weaker regions, yet the qualitative distribution with height is similar to the MHS results. For either field component the MHS chromospheric field lacks the fine structure derived from the inversions. Furthermore, the MHS model does not recover the magnetic imprint from a set of high fibrils connecting the main polarities. Conclusions. The MHS extrapolation and WFA provide a qualitatively similar chromospheric field, where the azimuth of the former is better aligned with Ca ii 8542 {\AA} fibrils than that of the WFA, especially outside strong-field concentrations. The amount of structure as well as the transverse field strengths are underestimated by the MHS extrapolation. This underscores the importance of considering a chromospheric magnetic field constraint in data-driven modelling of active regions.