## 3. Description of the inversion procedure## 3.1. Constructing a grid of modelsA first step in the implementation of our grid-based inversion
procedure is the construction of the grid itself. Building on our
previous experience with smaller grids, we have constructed a grid of
83160 MALI models. As free parameters we have chosen kinetic
temperature ( In Table 1 the range of values taken by all the parameters is
shown. They closely follow the so-called Hvar Reference Atmosphere of
a Quiescent Prominence (Engvold et al. 1990; Jensen & Wiik 1990)
which was put forward to summarize our present knowledge about the
principal physical parameters in quiescent prominences. Notice that,
due to the axial symmetry of the incident radiation, atomic
populations calculated for clouds which have the same
We have adjusted the mesh of the present grid such that any H profile can be linearly interpolated at any position in the 5-D "hyperspace" of parameters, with a precision (i.e. the difference between it and the actual profile computed with the MALI code with a similar set of parameters) of approximately . Calculating such a large set of models is a time demanding task which requires a careful design of the computational strategy. The MALI radiative transfer algorithm is such that it can use the output atomic populations from previous model computations as new input estimates, which helps saving CPU time. In all, the 83160 MALI models have required days of computer time on a 400 MHz-type workstation. ## 3.2. Dependence of the profiles on the 5 grid parametersAlthough the line profile's dependence on the parameters -
Higher *T*produces brighter H intensities near line core, where the cloud is more opaque, as should be expected since the rate of collisions increases with*T*. Such effect can readily be observed in Fig. 2. In the wings, on the other hand, the strong dependence of*W*on*T*through Eq. (4) becomes more important, causing a decrease in line wing intensities at wavelengths farther than nm from line center. -
The effect of on the H line profile is similar to that of *T*(Fig. 3). Larger produce brighter line core intensities as well as broader profiles in the wings (and therefore, darker intensities at fixed wavelength positions). -
There is a noticeable dependence of line intensity on . As we move from small to large , the H line center intensity goes through a minimum, and then increases again, giving rise to the "elbow" seen in Fig. 4. One sees that the elbow is conspicuous at all temperatures. How all this affects the whole line profile is shown in Fig. 5. The contrast reversal occurs at all wavelengths as one moves towards larger . This feature introduces an ambiguity when interpreting observed profiles, i.e. a given line center intensity may be matched by two very different values. For very high , *T*,*Z*and , on the other hand, the intensity values go into emission (relative to the background chromosphere). Similar results have been presented and examined by Giovanelli (1967) and Heinzel & Schmieder (1994), and will not be further discussed here. -
Larger *Z*increases the optical thickness of the cloud, which is then less transparent to the underneath radiation. Furthermore, large*Z*'s have an immediate effect on the radiative transfer problem of line formation inside the cloud. As shown in Fig. 6, the final effect is similar to that of increasing for low to medium .
The scheme above illustrating the dependence of the
H line profile on the 4 free
parameters , ## 3.3. Dependence on the emission measureIn order to reduce the number of variables in our problem, we have
employed the so-called emission measure, since is constant inside the
cloud. In this way, we can naturally "collapse"
The MALI code yields fairly high
for moderate and ## 3.4. The inversion strategyWe compare the observed spectral line profile, , with each of the grid's model profiles, , and then find the best match between the two by minimizing the function given by: where the index refers to the wavelength positions, and the 's represent the measurement errors. Once the minimum of Eq. (6) has been found at the resolution given by the grid's mesh, the search for a minimum of the function, hereafter , is extended further by interpolating the calculated profiles with a 4-dimensional polynomial of the form: which requires 16 points, located at the vertices of each grid cell, for each wavelength position. In Eq. (7), denotes the interpolating coefficients. The expression in Eq. (7) is linear along each of the four axes , but it also includes cross products between variables. A multidimensional minimization algorithm is then applied to this polynomial representation to find . An important aspect of our inversion strategy is the ability to estimate the uncertainty in the parameters. Assuming that our minimization algorithm has taken us to the true minimum, it is easy to see that (e.g. Bevington 1969): where is the uncertainty for the
The elements of can be approximated in terms of the first partial derivatives only (Bevington 1969; Press et al. 1988), which saves computing time. It should be pointed out that Eq. (8) is strictly valid if and only if measurement errors are normally distributed. On the other hand, it is evident that differences between observed and MALI model profiles may actually reflect the fact that solar filaments are not 1-D isothermal slabs; rather, they possess a fairly complicated filamentary structure which is not accounted for by our model. These differences may in turn appear as systematic errors, which could however be explained satisfactorily by a more complete filament model. © European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1999 Online publication: April 19, 1999 |