English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We compare the ability of 11 Differential Emission Measure (DEM)forward-fitting and inversion methods to constrain the properties of activeregions and solar flares by simulating synthetic data using the instrumentalresponse functions of SDO/AIA, SDO/EVE, RHESSI, and GOES/XRS. The codes includethe single-Gaussian DEM, a bi-Gaussian DEM, a fixed-Gaussian DEM, a linearspline DEM, the spatial synthesis DEM, the Monte-Carlo Markov chain DEM, theregularized DEM inversion, the Hinode/XRT method, a polynomial spline DEM, anEVE+GOES, and an EVE+RHESSI method. Averaging the results from all 11 DEMmethods, we find the following accuracies in the inversion of physicalparameters: the EM-weighted temperature $T_w^{fit}/T_w^{sim}=0.9\pm0.1$, thepeak emission measure $EM_p^{fit}/EM_p^{sim}=0.6\pm0.2$, the total emissionmeasure $EM_t^{fit}/EM_t^{sim}=0.8\pm0.3$, and the multi-thermal energies$E_{th}^{fit}/EM_{th}^{sim}=1.2\pm0.4$. We find that the AIA spatial synthesis,the EVE+GOES, and the EVE+RHESSI method yield the most accurate results.

Benchmark Test of Differential Emission Measure Codes and Multi-Thermal Energies in Solar Active Regions