~/aixsci
200 records · all checked

astronomy/ai produced the result/arXiv 2023 · v2

Neural network supplies the sideways flows needed to measure the quiet Sun's magnetic energy

Researchers estimated how much magnetic energy flows up through the Sun's visible surface in quiet regions. A convolutional neural network, DeepVel, trained on simulations, supplied the sideways velocities that telescopes cannot measure directly.

1. Acquire IMaX quiet-Sun spectropolarimetry2. Invert Stokes profiles for magnetic field and LOS velocity3. Train DeepVel on simulated granulation4. Compare DeepVel and FLCT against simulated flows5. Infer transverse velocities from IMaX intensitygrams6. Resolve 180-degree azimuthal ambiguity7. Derive electric fields and compute Poynting flux8. Analyse simulated Poynting flux versus optical depth

spectrum · one line per step, placed by what the step does · bright lines used AI

Quantifying Poynting flux in the Quiet Sun Photosphere
arXiv, 2023

doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.02445 · record aix-00219 v2 · checked 2026-10-09

ai-resultrole of AI
AI was for
Property prediction
Model family
Convolutional neural network
Checked by
Held-out
Code
not reported

The finding the paper is about came from the AI.

read as

The science is explained before the AI appears. Switch to field specialist to go straight to the method.

Assumes the discipline and goes straight to the method.

The diagram, the record and what the paper did not report are identical in both modes. Only the framing changes — never the evidence.

Introduction by AIxSci · plain language

What this research was about

The Sun's outer atmosphere is far hotter than its visible surface, and something must keep supplying it with energy. One candidate is magnetic energy carried upwards through the surface by moving gas. The rate at which that energy crosses a surface is called the Poynting flux. Measuring it is awkward. Telescopes can read the magnetic field from the polarisation of sunlight, and they can read motion along the line of sight from the Doppler shift of spectral lines. But motion across the face of the Sun leaves no such direct signature. It has to be inferred from how the granular pattern of the surface shifts between successive images.

This study worked with a time series of the quiet Sun, meaning ordinary surface away from sunspots, taken at disk centre by the IMaX instrument on the balloon-borne SUNRISE telescope. The team inverted the polarised spectra for the magnetic field and the line-of-sight velocity, settled the known ambiguity in the field's direction in several different ways, and then combined everything into estimates of the electric field and the Poynting flux. They also examined a separate radiative magnetohydrodynamic simulation to see how the flux changes with depth in the atmosphere.

Where AI came in

The missing ingredient was the sideways motion. The researchers trained DeepVel, a convolutional neural network, on frames from the STAGGER simulation, where the full flow field is known because it was computed rather than observed. The network learned to map a pair of continuum images taken moments apart onto the transverse velocity field. It was then checked on a simulation frame kept out of the training set, and its velocities matched the simulated ones with a correlation of 0.91, against a Pearson coefficient below 0.45 for Fourier local correlation tracking, the established image-tracking technique it stood in for.

The trained network was then applied to the real IMaX images to produce transverse velocity maps for the observed series. Every reported Poynting flux value rests on those velocities. The rest of the chain used no learned model: the magnetic field inversion, the resolution of the field's directional ambiguity, the electric field inversion and the simulation analysis were all conventional physics codes.

Written by AIxSci from the checked record below, to give context for readers outside the field. It is not part of the record.

The work

Technical · from the record

The study estimates the vertical flux of magnetic energy (Poynting flux) in the quiet-Sun photosphere from SUNRISE/IMaX spectropolarimetry, which requires plane-of-sky velocities that cannot be measured directly. A convolutional neural network, DeepVel, was trained on STAGGER radiative MHD simulations to infer transverse flows from pairs of continuum images, and on a STAGGER map outside the training set its instantaneous velocities correlated with the simulated velocities at r=0.91, compared with a Pearson coefficient below 0.45 for Fourier local correlation tracking. Using DeepVel velocities, the authors computed Poynting flux with an ideal-MHD expression and with the PDFI_SS inductive electric field inversion, under several azimuth disambiguation choices, and compared the values with a published threshold for chromospheric and coronal energy losses. Ideal-MHD estimates restricted to pixels with field strength above 50 G reached that threshold while the all-pixel average did not, PDFI_SS values oscillated around zero, and MURaM simulations showed the flux varying strongly with optical depth with the shear term dominating, unlike in the observations.

How AI was used

A convolutional neural network, DeepVel, was trained by supervised learning on frames from the STAGGER radiative MHD simulation, where the full flow field is known, to map a pair of continuum intensity images at two timesteps to the transverse velocity field at a given optical depth or geometrical height. The trained network was then run on a STAGGER intensity map held outside the training set, alongside Fourier local correlation tracking applied to the same simulated intensities, and the two methods were compared with the simulation's reference velocities using Pearson correlation, a spatially averaged relative error, a vector correlation coefficient and a cosine similarity index, as well as divergence and vorticity. DeepVel was then applied to the phase-diversity-reconstructed IMaX continuum intensitygrams to retrieve transverse velocities for the observed time series. These velocities were combined with Doppler line-of-sight velocities and with Milne-Eddington vector magnetograms, disambiguated in azimuth by randomisation, Poynting-flux optimisation, potential-field acute angle matching and divergence minimisation, to form the electric field under a strict ideal-MHD Ohm's law and, separately, through the PDFI_SS inductive inversion, from which vertical and horizontal Poynting fluxes were computed. No learned model was used in the magnetic field inversion, the azimuth disambiguation, the electric field inversion or the MURaM simulation analysis.

The shape of the work

Structural · the record, drawn

ACQUISITIONINFERENCETRAININGVALIDATIONINFERENCEOPTIMISATIONINFERENCESIMULATION12345678AIAIAIAcquire IMaXquiet-SunspectropolarimetryInvert Stokesprofiles formagnetic field a…Train DeepVel onsimulatedgranulationCompare DeepVeland FLCT againstsimulated flowsInfer transversevelocities fromIMaX intensitygr…Resolve180-degreeazimuthal ambigu…Derive electricfields andcompute Poynting…Analyse simulatedPoynting fluxversus optical d…↤ conventional algorithm↤ conventional algorithm
AI stepNo AI↤ what the AI stood in for
1Acquisition
no AI

Acquire IMaX quiet-Sun spectropolarimetry

Obtaining raw data, whether by measurement, download or retrieval.

We use one continuous IMaX/SUNRISE time series taken on June 9th, 2009 between 01:30:54–02:02:29 UT.where the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
2Inference
no AI

Invert Stokes profiles for magnetic field and LOS velocity

Running a trained model over new data to predict, classify or score.

we apply the Milne-Eddington (ME) inversion code pyMilne to the NR IMaX data setwhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
3Training
AI

Train DeepVel on simulated granulation

Fitting model parameters, including fine-tuning an existing model. The AI stood in for conventional algorithm.

For this work, we train DeepVel on a set of STAGGER data frames.where the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
4Validation
AI

Compare DeepVel and FLCT against simulated flows

Testing outputs against ground truth.

To test the trained network, we run it on a STAGGER intensity map that is outside of the training set.where the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
5Inference
AI

Infer transverse velocities from IMaX intensitygrams

Running a trained model over new data to predict, classify or score. The AI stood in for conventional algorithm.

we choose to apply DeepVel to IMaX intensitygrams to retrieve transverse velocities in our analysiswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
6Optimisation
no AI

Resolve 180-degree azimuthal ambiguity

Iterative search over a space.

In this work, we attempt to use three (and end up using two) methods to disambiguate azimuths: ME0, randomization, and Poynting flux optimization.where the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
7Inference
no AI

Derive electric fields and compute Poynting flux

Running a trained model over new data to predict, classify or score.

We compute Poynting fluxes using two approaches: from velocity fields together with the ideal MHD assumption, and the PDFI_SS electric fieldswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
8Simulation
no AI

Analyse simulated Poynting flux versus optical depth

Numerical or physics simulation, including where a learned surrogate replaces it.

To evaluate how Poynting flux and its components vary in height, we use the outputs of MURaM simulationswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper

What the record says

Technical · every part carries its own basis

+ in the paper~ our reading− not reported

How to read the quotations. A quotation shows where the paper describes something. It does not quote every value beside it: one passage locates a part of the work, and values without their own quotation are our reading of that passage.

~Role of AI
AI produced the resultour reading

The reported Poynting flux values depend on transverse velocities that only the neural network supplied; the paper states all retrieved transverse velocities come from DeepVel rather than FLCT

+What the AI was for
For this work, we train DeepVel on a set of STAGGER data frames.where the paper describes this · verbatim
+Model families
+How it was taught
Supervisedin the paper
+Models named
DeepVel · Trained from scratchin the paper
+How results were checked
Held-outin the paper
To test the trained network, we run it on a STAGGER intensity map that is outside of the training set.where the paper describes this · verbatim
−Code · weights · data
code not reportedweights not reporteddata not reportednot reported
−Compute
not reportednot reported

What this paper did not report

Technical · absence is published deliberately

Reported as not stated — 7 items
  • CodeWhether the code is available is not stated.
  • Trained model weightsWhether the trained model is available is not stated.
  • DataWhether the data are available is not stated.
  • ComputeThe hardware or time used is not stated.
  • How many were testedThe paper gives no count of what was tested.
  • Version of DeepVelWhich version of the model was used is not stated.
  • What step 4 replacedThe paper gives no basis for what the AI stood in for.

About this article

Record aix-00219, version 2, checked by a person on 2026-10-09. The record describes the paper; it does not assess whether the paper's findings are right. The paper is published under CC-BY; quotations are at most 25 words. How we work · Report an error