Response to 'Comment on `Resolving the 180deg Ambiguity in Solar Vector Magnetic Field Data: Evaluating the Effects of Noise, Spatial Resolution, and Method Assumptions''

摘要

We address points recently discussed in Georgoulis (2011) in reference toLeka et al. (2009b). Most importantly, we find that the results of Georgoulis(2011) support a conclusion of Leka et al. (2009b): that limited spatialresolution and the presence of unresolved magnetic structures can challengeambiguity- resolution algorithms. Moreover, the findings of both Metcalf et al.(2006) and Leka et al. (2009b) are confirmed in Georgoulis (2011): a method'sperformance can be diminished when the observed field fails to conform to thatmethod's assumptions. The implication of boundaries in models of solar magneticstructures is discussed; we confirm that the distribution of the fieldcomponents in the model used in Leka et al. (2009b) is closer to what isobserved on the Sun than what is proposed in Georgoulis (2011). It is alsoshown that method does matter with regards to simulating limited spatialresolution and avoiding an inadvertent introduction of bias. Finally, theassignment of categories to data- analysis algorithms is revisited; we arguethat assignments are only useful and elucidating when used appropriately.