利用从极长和长时间序列中提取的旋转分裂进行湍流层解析
Resolving the Tachocline using Inversion of Rotational Splitting Derived from Fitting Very Long and Long Time Series
AI总结：
利用长时间序列提取的旋转分裂反演湍流层位置、宽度及径向剪切幅度，揭示低纬度与高纬度湍流层位置差异。
摘要：
我们利用从极长（25.2年）和长（12.6年和6.3年）时间序列中提取的旋转分裂，通过Korzennik（2023）独立方法来表征太阳湍流层及其随纬度和时间的变化。我们使用两种不同的反演方法和湍流层模型来推导其位置、宽度以及径向剪切的幅度。为了验证我们的方法，我们展示了从模拟的旋转分裂中得到的结果，无论是否包含与当前观测精度相当的随机噪声。我们还描述了如何利用其中一种方法使用初始猜测，该猜测可以包含先验信息。为了尝试解析湍流层，我们增加了反演网格的径向密度，并展示了其对推断的影响。我们还展示了平滑与噪声放大之间的权衡如何影响这些结果，以及使用有信息的初始猜测的有效性。高精度旋转分裂得出的结果清楚地表明，低纬度处湍流层的位置与高纬度处的位置不同。其纬度变化的宽度没有显著限制，但我们的结果与基于正向建模的估计一致。当使用从相对较短时间序列中提取的分裂时，我们发现时间变化既不明确也不显著，因为使用不同方法时会观察到系统性差异。
英文摘要：
We use rotation splittings derived from very long and long time series, namely 25.2, 12.6 and 6.3 year long, computed by Korzennik (2023) independent methodology to characterize the solar tachocline and its variation with latitude and time. We use two different inversion methodologies and a model of the tachocline to derive its position, width and the amplitude of the radial shear. To validate our methodology we present results from simulated rotational splittings, whether including or not random noise commensurable with the current observational precision. We also describe how we leverage the fact that one of our methodologies uses an initial guess that can be chosen to include a priori information. In order to try to resolve the tachocline, we increased the radial density of the inversion grid and showed how it affect the inferences. We also show how the trade off between smoothing and noise magnification affects these, as well as the effectiveness of using an informed initial guess. Results derived from high-precision rotational splittings show clearly that the location of the tachocline at low latitudes is different for its position at high latitudes. The latitudinal variation of its width is not significantly constrained, but our results agree with estimates based on forward modeling. When using splittings derived from somewhat shorter time series, we find temporal variations that are neither definitive nor significant, since we see systematic differences when using different methodologies.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
