Comparison of Polar Magnetic Fields Derived from MILOS and MERLIN Inversions with Hinode/SOT-SP Data

TL;DR

This study compares polar magnetic field measurements from two inversion codes, MILOS and MERLIN, applied to Hinode/SOT-SP data, revealing a consistent 7-10% difference in radial magnetic-flux density due to different filling factor assumptions.

Contribution

It provides a direct comparison of MILOS and MERLIN inversion results on the same data, highlighting the impact of filling factor assumptions on magnetic flux measurements.

Findings

MERLIN yields 7-10% higher radial magnetic-flux density than MILOS.

Matching inversion parameters reduces differences between the codes.

Differences are mainly due to different filling factor assumptions.

Abstract

The detailed investigation of the polar magnetic field and its time evolution is one of the major achievements of Hinode. Precise measurements of the polar magnetic field are essential for understanding the solar cycle, as they provide important constraints for identifying the source regions of the solar wind. The Spectropolarimeter (SP) of the Solar Optical Telescope (SOT) on board Hinode has been the instrument best suited to make such measurements. In this study, we compare the SOT-SP data for the polar regions, processed using two representative Milne-Eddington inversion codes, MILOS and MERLIN. These codes are applied to the same level-1 SOT-SP data, and the same disambiguation algorithm is used on the maps that go through the two inversions. We find that the radial magnetic-flux density (the magnetic-flux density with respect to the local vertical) provided by the MERLIN inversion tends to be approximately 7%-10% larger than that obtained from the MILOS inversion. The slightly higher radial magnetic-flux density from MERLIN appears to be common to the polar magnetic fields observed at different phases of the solar cycle. When MILOS is run with the same scattered-light profile and the same magnetic filling factor that are derived with the MERLIN inversion, the radial magnetic-flux density derived from the two inversions is almost the same. We attribute the difference in the radial magnetic-flux density to different filling factors adopted by the two inversions, based on whether the scattered-light profiles are assumed to be the Stokes I profiles averaged over the neighboring pixels or over the entire field of view. The relationship between the radial magnetic-flux density and magnetic filling factor could be more complex in the polar (limb) observations due to the possible contributions of the transverse magnetic-field component to the estimation of the radial magnetic-flux density.