<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ANGEO</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Annales Geophysicae</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ANGEO</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Ann. Geophys.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1432-0576</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/angeo-38-481-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>AMPERE polar cap boundaries</article-title><alt-title>AMPERE OCBs</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{AMPERE OCBs}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{A.~G.~Burrell et~al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Burrell</surname><given-names>Angeline G.</given-names></name>
          <email>angeline.burrell@nrl.navy.mil</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8875-9326</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Chisham</surname><given-names>Gareth</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1151-5934</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Milan</surname><given-names>Stephen E.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Kilcommons</surname><given-names>Liam</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>Yun-Ju</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Thomas</surname><given-names>Evan G.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8036-8793</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Anderson</surname><given-names>Brian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Space Science Division, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, 4555 Overlook Ave. SW, Washington, DC, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Radio and Space Plasma Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Ann and H.J. Smead Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, 2055 Regent Drive, Boulder, CO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Center for Space Sciences, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Dallas, 800 West Campbell Road,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Richardson, TX, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, 14 Engineering Drive, Hanover, NH, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, Laurel, MD, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Angeline G. Burrell (angeline.burrell@nrl.navy.mil)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>8</day><month>April</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>38</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <fpage>481</fpage><lpage>490</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>2</day><month>August</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>11</day><month>March</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21</day><month>January</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>21</day><month>August</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 Angeline G. Burrell et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/38/481/2020/angeo-38-481-2020.html">This article is available from https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/38/481/2020/angeo-38-481-2020.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/38/481/2020/angeo-38-481-2020.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/38/481/2020/angeo-38-481-2020.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e178">The high-latitude atmosphere is a dynamic region with processes that respond to forcing from the Sun, magnetosphere, neutral atmosphere, and
ionosphere.  Historically, the dominance of magnetosphere–ionosphere interactions has motivated upper atmospheric studies to use magnetic
coordinates when examining magnetosphere–ionosphere–thermosphere coupling processes.  However, there are significant differences between the
dominant interactions within the polar cap, auroral oval, and equatorward of the auroral oval.  Organising data relative to these boundaries has
been shown to improve climatological and statistical studies, but the process of doing so is complicated by the shifting nature of the auroral oval
and the difficulty in measuring its poleward and equatorward boundaries.</p>
    <p id="d1e181">This study presents a new set of open–closed magnetic field line boundaries (OCBs) obtained from Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics
Response Experiment (AMPERE) magnetic perturbation data.  AMPERE observations of field-aligned currents (FACs) are used to determine the location of
the boundary between the Region 1 (R1) and Region 2 (R2) FAC systems.  This current boundary is thought to typically lie a few degrees equatorward
of the OCB, making it a good candidate for obtaining OCB locations.  The AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries are compared to the Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program Special Sensor J (DMSP SSJ) electron energy flux boundaries to test this hypothesis and determine the best estimate of the
systematic offset between the R1–R2 boundary and the OCB as a function of magnetic local time.  These calibrated boundaries, as well as OCBs
obtained from the Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) observations, are validated using simultaneous observations of the
convection reversal boundary measured by DMSP. The validation shows that the OCBs from IMAGE and AMPERE may be used together in statistical
studies, providing the basis of a long-term data set that can be used to separate observations originating inside and outside of the polar cap.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e193">The high-latitude atmosphere is a dynamic region with processes that respond to forcing from the Sun, magnetosphere, neutral atmosphere, and
ionosphere.  The dominant coupling occurs between the ionosphere, magnetosphere, and the solar wind.  Interactions between the interplanetary magnetic
field (IMF), the magnetic field carried by the solar wind, and the terrestrial magnetosphere result in magnetic reconnection.  This creates an area of
open field lines (field lines that originate at Earth and connect to the IMF) known as the polar<?pagebreak page482?> cap. The physical processes that occur here are
different from those that occur at other high-latitude regions where the magnetic field lines are closed (connect back to the Earth in the opposite
hemisphere). In the polar cap, magnetic field lines are moved from magnetic noon to magnetic midnight by the solar wind, where they eventually
reconnect with geomagnetic field lines from the opposite hemisphere. Once closed, these field lines move to lower magnetic latitudes (the auroral
oval) and return towards the dayside. This process of reconnection is known as the Dungey cycle <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="paren.1"/>, and (to first order) describes
the motion of the magnetic field lines and the ionospheric plasma frozen into those field lines.</p>
      <p id="d1e199">At ionospheric altitudes, the open–closed field line boundary (OCB) separates the polar cap from the auroral oval, which is the highest latitude region to have
closed magnetic field lines.  This boundary is important because the state of the field lines (open or closed) determines the types of coupling that
may occur within the magnetosphere–ionosphere–thermosphere (MIT) system.  One example of a difference in MIT coupling between the polar cap and
auroral oval is field-aligned currents (FACs). The closed field lines in the auroral oval support the formation of current systems that link the
ionosphere to the magnetopause and current sheet (the Region 1 or R1 FAC system) and to the partial ring current in the inner magnetosphere (the
Region 2 or R2 FAC system) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.2"/>.  Because the R1 FAC system connects the ionosphere to the outer magnetosphere, it lies poleward of
the R2 FAC system and moves with the OCB <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.3"><named-content content-type="post">and references therein</named-content></xref>.</p>
      <p id="d1e210">Another example of MIT coupling processes affected by the OCB is the density structure of the high-latitude ionosphere. Consider the unexceptional
case of a southward IMF and a partially illuminated high-latitude ionosphere.  Under these conditions, ionospheric plasma follows a convective flow
driven by the Dungey cycle, characterised by straight, anti-sunward plasma drifts within the polar cap and longer, curved, sunward drifts when the
plasma are frozen into closed magnetic field lines (the boundary between these two regions is commonly referred to as the convection reversal boundary or
CRB). The difference in convective motion poleward and equatorward of the CRB creates a highly structured polar ionosphere, as the dense dayside
ionospheric plasma is rapidly transported to the nightside where recombination processes destroy plasma that does not return to sunlit regions quickly
enough (due to having to follow the longer return path through the auroral oval) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx36" id="paren.4"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>.</p>
      <p id="d1e218">Due to these and other differences in MIT coupling processes in the auroral oval and the polar cap, it is desirable to have a coordinate system that
indicates where (in which region) measurements were taken. This type of adaptive, high-latitude gridding has been performed with various data sets
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32 bib1.bibx11 bib1.bibx23" id="paren.5"/>. These studies have demonstrated improved statistical and climatological results (for example,
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.6"/> demonstrated the difference between using magnetic and OCB-oriented coordinates when studying the climatological behaviour of
the plasma drift vorticity) when using adaptive, high-latitude coordinates.  Unfortunately, observations of the OCB are sparse.  Long-term and
large-scale studies would benefit from specifications of the OCB in both hemispheres and all magnetic local times (MLTs) every 15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or less
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.7"/>. Models that have the ability to distinguish between regions with open and closed field lines would also benefit from adaptive,
high-latitude coordinates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39" id="paren.8"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e242">This study presents a new set of OCBs obtained from the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment (AMPERE) magnetic
perturbation observations. AMPERE measurements of FACs make it possible to estimate the location where Region 1 (R1) and Region 2 (R2) FAC systems
meet (the R1–R2 boundary). Because the location of the Birkeland current system is tied to the expansion and contraction of the polar cap under
quiescent and disturbed conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.9"><named-content content-type="post">and references therein.</named-content></xref>, it seems logical to hypothesise that a dependable relationship
between the R1–R2 boundary and the OCB exists. This study investigates the relationship between the AMPERE R1–R2 boundary and the OCB inferred from
particle precipitation measurements made by the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Special Sensor J (DMSP SSJ) electron energy flux boundaries.
This study has parallels with that of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="text.10"/>, who compared the R1 peak location (as determined from a circle fitted to the R1 peaks at
all MLTs) with a range of different DMSP particle precipitation boundaries, showing a close relationship with the b5i and b5e boundaries in the
nightside ionosphere.  Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/> presents the details of both data sets.  Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/> explores the relationship between the
different boundaries and presents the calibration process that allows the AMPERE R1–R2 boundary to be used as a proxy for the OCB.  This calibration,
as well as the previous Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) calibration performed by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.11"/>, is validated in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/> by comparing calibrated OCBs with the CRBs from DMSP plasma drift measurements. CRBs were chosen as a validation data set
because the direction of convective plasma drifts are strongly tied to the motion and state (i.e. open or closed) of the magnetic field lines.  This
means that the CRB is typically located at or just equatorward of the OCB <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31 bib1.bibx15" id="paren.12"/>, except for regions of the dayside and
nightside ionosphere that map to regions of ongoing magnetic reconnection.  Finally, the results of this study are summarised in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Instrumentation</title>
      <?pagebreak page483?><p id="d1e276">The data sets used in this study have a long and ongoing history of observations. The primary data set, AMPERE, is described in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS1"/>. Two instruments from DMSP are used, one for calibration of the boundaries and another for validation. Both DMSP data sets
are described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2"/>. The IMAGE far ultraviolet (FUV) data set used in the validation is described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS3"/>.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>AMPERE</title>
      <p id="d1e292">AMPERE assimilates measurements from the approximately 70 polar-orbiting spacecraft of the Iridium telecommunications constellation to deduce the
high-latitude distribution of horizontal magnetic field perturbations produced by the FACs responsible for magnetosphere–ionosphere coupling
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1 bib1.bibx2 bib1.bibx38 bib1.bibx14" id="paren.13"/>. The FAC pattern in both hemispheres is calculated from 10 min averages at
a 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cadence on a magnetic latitude and MLT grid (1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution); this study employs R1–R2 FAC boundaries
from 2010 to 2012 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.14"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e334">The basis of the R1–R2 boundary identification is a fitting technique described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="text.15"/>. This technique aims to determine the centre
and radius of the circle that best describes the boundary between the R1 and R2 FACs without fitting to individual MLT bins. By avoiding this common
method of defining a high-latitude boundary, this R1–R2 boundary identification is more robust in the event of sparse or weak currents and less
influenced by the poorly defined current structures near local magnetic noon and midnight.</p>
      <p id="d1e340">The following procedure is applied to each AMPERE FAC grid. In this description, positive and negative values represent upward and downward currents
respectively. The R1 currents flow upwards at dusk and downwards at dawn, whereas the R2 currents have the opposite polarity and lie equatorward of the
R1 current system. To distinguish between these two FAC systems, the first step is to multiply all FAC magnitudes on the dawn side
(00:00 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> MLT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 12:00) by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This redefines the current signs such that R1 FACs are positive and R2 FACs are negative at all MLTs. Then
a centre point (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is assumed, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the dawnward distance from the noon–midnight meridian and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the sunward distance from
the dawn–dusk meridian. A range of centres are tested, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varying between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varying between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
latitude. Additionally, a range of radii are tested at each centre point; the radius is varied by 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude (111 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from 8 to
35<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. At each radius and centre point, the sum of the FACs at 200 equally spaced points in a ring centred at (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is found. This
produces a profile of integrated FAC magnitude with the radius, in which a negative–positive bipolar signature is sought. The zero-crossing of the
bipolar signature is taken to be the R1–R2 boundary, and the peak-to-peak magnitude provides a figure of merit (FOM) for the boundary fit. For each
AMPERE FAC grid, the circle with the best FOM is chosen, and grids with low FOMs are discarded as being unreliable.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>DMSP</title>
      <p id="d1e528">The DMSP OCB locations are obtained from energetic electron fluxes measured by three DMSP spacecraft (F16–F18) that were operational and have updated
ephemera <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.16"/> during the period of time when AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries were available. The DMSP satellites were located in
sun-synchronous polar orbits at an altitude of about 830 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with an orbital period of approximately 101 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The geographic
locations of the DMSP SSJ/5 equatorward and poleward boundaries were determined using ssj_auroral_boundary <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.17"/>, which implements
the technique described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.18"/>.  A clean set of OCBs were obtained by selecting the poleward boundaries with figures of merit
greater than 3.0 and calculating the AACGM-v2 coordinates at each location <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx35 bib1.bibx6" id="paren.19"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e560">The same DMSP spacecraft also carry an Ion Velocity Meter (IVM) that measures the three-dimensional ion velocity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="paren.20"/>. As discussed
in Sect. 1, the CRB is the location where plasma drifts change from moving sunward to anti-sunward, or vice versa, and this boundary typically
lies at or just equatorward of the OCB <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31 bib1.bibx15" id="paren.21"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e569">In this paper, CRBs obtained by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="text.22"/> are used to validate the AMPERE OCB locations within an hour of dawn (06:00 MLT) and dusk
(18:00 MLT). Other MLTs were not considered for several reasons.  Most importantly,
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e577">near magnetic noon and midnight the flows tend to be mostly sunward or anti-sunward, meaning there is no clear reversal in the convection as
a function of magnetic latitude;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e581">the IMF orientation will shift the MLT location of these sunward or anti-sunward flows, meaning more local times than just noon and midnight are
affected; and</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e585">near midnight, the Harang reversal can give the appearance of multiple convection reversals at different latitudes.</p></list-item></list></p>
      <p id="d1e588">The <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="text.23"/> algorithm is optimised to identify the CRB in a two-cell convection pattern. If the plasma convection has a complex pattern with
more than four reversals, or the plasma flows are weak and noisy, the program will not identify any CRB location. For symmetric, multi-cell patterns
(such as those observed when the IMF is dominated by a positive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> component), the program will identify the most equatorward reversal
boundary. Otherwise, the most poleward reversal boundary will be selected as the CRB location. The algorithm typically performs better in the summer,
as the DMSP IVM performs better when the plasma density is higher <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9 bib1.bibx8" id="paren.24"/>. These algorithmic biases mean that the CRBs cover
May through August in the Northern Hemisphere and November through<?pagebreak page484?> February in the Southern Hemisphere. However, even with the difficulties
introduced by nonsymmetric convection patterns, all IMF clock angles are well represented in the CRB data set.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>IMAGE FUV</title>
      <p id="d1e616"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.25"/> obtained estimates of the OCB from auroral images measured by the FUV imagers onboard the IMAGE spacecraft.  Images of the
Northern Hemisphere auroral region were available for the epoch spanning from May 2000 to August 2002.  During this time, the spacecraft was located in an
elliptical orbit with a 90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> inclination, an apogee of 7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">E</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, a perigee of 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and an orbital period of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e667">This study uses data from the two FUV spectrographic imagers, SI12 and SI13 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="paren.26"/>.  The SI13 imager measured oxygen emissions at
135.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, resulting from energetic electron precipitation.  The SI12 imager measured Doppler-shifted Lyman-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions at
121.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, resulting from proton precipitation.  Both imagers provided data at a 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution, when the Northern Hemisphere was
visible.  The OCB was identified in the individual FUV images and fit across all magnetic local times using the techniques described by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="text.27"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.28"/>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Relationship between the R1–R2 boundary and OCB</title>
      <p id="d1e720">This study follows the process outlined in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="text.29"/>, which determined the offset between the IMAGE FUV poleward auroral boundaries and
DMSP OCBs, to obtain a correction between the AMPERE R1–R2 boundary and the DMSP SSJ OCBs.  The five steps of this process are enumerated in the following:
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e728">identify the AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e732">pair AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries with DMSP SSJ OCBs;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e736">determine the typical offset at different MLTs;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e740">find a functional fit that describes the offset between the DMSP SSJ OCBs and the AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries; and</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e744">use the functional fit to correct the AMPERE R1–R2 boundary locations, creating an AMPERE OCB proxy.</p></list-item></list>
This study uses AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries, described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS1"/>, from January 2010 through December 2012.  Using only R1–R2 boundaries
with FOMs greater than 0.15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> provides 636 250 Northern Hemisphere and 531 666 Southern Hemisphere boundary locations.  Pairing these boundaries to good
DMSP SSJ OCB detections by requiring each observation be taken within 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of each other leaves 29 683 Northern Hemisphere and 29 135 Southern
Hemisphere boundaries.  The 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> window for pairing boundaries was chosen because of the 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> averaging performed on the AMPERE
FAC maps (see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS1"/>).  However, over 90 % of Northern Hemisphere pairs and over 80 % of Southern Hemisphere pairs
have a temporal difference of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or less.  Good DMSP SSJ OCB detections are defined as having a FOM of 3.0 or greater.  This is consistent
with the work presented by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.30"/> and reduces the number of passes with dayside precipitation associated with the cusp, mantle, and
other sources whose origin (inside or outside the polar cap) is still debatable.  The DMSP SSJ paired OCBs for each hemisphere and satellite are shown
in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/> as a scatter plot, with the median location of the AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries plotted on top.  Note that the R1–R2
boundaries lie near the equatorward edge of the DMSP SSJ OCBs.  Because of the DMSP satellite orbits, MLTs near noon are only covered in the Northern
Hemisphere and those near midnight are only covered in the Southern Hemisphere.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e800">Paired AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries and DMSP SSJ OCBs for both hemispheres (Northern Hemisphere is shown in <bold>a</bold>, <bold>c</bold>, and <bold>e</bold>; Southern Hemisphere is shown in, <bold>b</bold>, <bold>d</bold>, and <bold>f</bold>) and each satellite.  The scattered points show the DMSP SSJ OCBs, and the gold circle shows the median location of the AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries.  The scatter bars denote the quartiles of the paired AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/38/481/2020/angeo-38-481-2020-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e828">Ideally, observations from both hemispheres can be combined to provide complete MLT coverage of the differences between the AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries
and DMSP SSJ OCBs.  To test the assumption that the northern and southern boundaries have the same local time dependence, the MLT bins with
observations in both hemispheres (05:00–08:00 and 15:00–20:00 MLT) were compared.  The hourly boundary offsets in each hemisphere and both
hemispheres combined, all calculated using the magnetic co-latitude, are presented in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e837">Hourly boundary offset for hours with over 100 boundary pairs and successfully fit Gaussians.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MLT</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">North </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">South </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center">Both </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Median (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">S.G. peak (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Median (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">S.G. peak (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Median (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">S.G. peak (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">00:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.83</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">01:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.56</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">02:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.36</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">03:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.94</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.94</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">04:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">05:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.86</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">06:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6.26</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">07:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6.71</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">08:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6.64</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">09:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6.88</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">10:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6.23</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">11:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.82</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.32</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">12:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.04</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">13:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.61</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.62</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">14:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.95</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.43</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">15:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.97</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.76</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.97</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.50</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">16:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.67</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">17:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.74</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.22</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">18:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.82</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.01</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">19:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.95</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.51</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">20:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.63</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">21:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.73</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">22:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">23:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.94</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.94</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1563">The boundary offsets in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/> were calculated by finding the typical difference between the DMSP SSJ OCB and the AMPERE R1–R2 boundary
location in AACGM-v2 magnetic latitude in 1 h MLT bins.  The typical boundary latitude difference (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which equals the DMSP SSJ OCB
co-latitude minus the AMPERE R1–R2 boundary co-latitude) is represented by two values – the median of the boundary latitude differences and the peak of
a Gaussian distribution (S.G. peak) – fitted to a smoothed histogram <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="paren.31"><named-content content-type="pre">as in</named-content></xref>.  The histograms have 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> bins, and they were
smoothed using a 4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> running average.  The smoothed histogram was then fitted with a Gaussian function, allowing the S.G. peak and standard
deviation to be calculated.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1603">Hourly distributions of paired AMPERE R1–R2 boundary and DMSP SSJ OCB latitude differences, with boundary differences from both hemispheres and all satellites.  The black dashed line shows the median of the distribution, the blue line shows a Gaussian fit to the distribution and the gold line shows the Gaussian fit to the smoothed histogram.  The vertical blue and gold lines show the peaks of each Gaussian fit.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/38/481/2020/angeo-38-481-2020-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1612">Comparing the median and S.G. peak of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the MLT bins with observations in both hemispheres shows a mean hemispheric difference of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.30 and 0.23<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the median and S.G. peaks respectively.  This difference is small enough to justify combining the northern and southern
hemispheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as it is much smaller than the mean standard deviation of the MLT distributions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.66</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the
overlapping MLT bins).  The results for the combined hemispheres are presented in the rightmost columns of Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/> and in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>.  There is about a 0.49<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> difference between the median and S.G. peak values.  This difference is very small
compared with the width of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distributions, and it provides a measure of uncertainty for the resulting boundary correction.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1697">Boundary fit constants for DMSP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> AMPERE boundary offset.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Constant</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Median</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">S.G. peak</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.01<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.41<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.55</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.51</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.92</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1820">Unfortunately, the differences between the boundary fitting methodology used by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.32"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="text.33"/> mean that it is not
reasonable to use a harmonic<?pagebreak page485?> function to describe the offset between the DMSP SSJ OCBs and the AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries, as done in prior auroral
boundary fitting studies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19 bib1.bibx7 bib1.bibx3" id="paren.34"/>.  Because the R1–R2 boundary fitting method used by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="text.35"/>
does not fit a series of MLT bins, the boundary correction cannot be applied prior to circle fitting and will determine the final shape of the OCB
proxy.  Thus, this study uses a generalised ellipse (Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) rather than a harmonic function to avoid overfitting the MLT dependence
of the offset between the DMSP SSJ OCBs and the AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries.
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M65" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e1890">In Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the MLT in radians, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the semi-major axis in degrees, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the eccentricity (a unitless quantity), and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the angular offset of the ellipse's centre in radians.  These four constants allow the ellipse to adjust its centre and axes.  They are fit
using the Python SciPy least squares fitting routine, leastsq <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="paren.36"/>, which wraps the MINPACK LMDIF and LMDER algorithms <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="paren.37"/>.  The least squares fitting routine minimises the difference between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, weighted by the inverse of the
error, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.  The error is defined as shown in Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>), where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>MLT</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observations in each MLT
bin, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>MLT</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is either the interquartile range or the standard deviation depending on whether
the median or S.G. peak was used as the central value. The results of this fitting procedure are shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> and Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/>.
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M78" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>MLT</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2050">Elliptical boundary correction (black line) fit to the median <bold>(a)</bold> and S.G. peak <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for both hemispheres.  The blue dots and scatter bars show the central value and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in each MLT bin respectively. The grey histogram shows <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>MLT</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and scales to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis on the right.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/38/481/2020/angeo-38-481-2020-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?pagebreak page486?><p id="d1e2101">As shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>, the AMPERE R1–R2 boundary lies about 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> equatorward of the OCB at magnetic
midnight, about 4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> equatorward of the OCB at magnetic noon, and further out at dawn and dusk.  The elliptical fit follows the central values
very closely between 00:00 and 10:00 MLT, and it smooths through the maxima and minima at 12:00, 16:00, and 22:00 MLT. However, even where the differences are
greatest, the elliptical fit does not differ from the central value by more than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  This behaviour is consistent whether
the median or S.G. peak is used in the fitting process.  The similarity between the two fits can be quantified by comparing the differences between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>Median</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>S.G. Peak</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the typical difference between the hourly median and S.G. peak values
(0.49<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>); the differences between the eccentricity and angular offset are even less significant.</p>
      <p id="d1e2177">The consistency of the elliptical fit for both central values, as well as its success at capturing the major features of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> given the
functional constraints, make it a good candidate for correcting the R1–R2 boundary to provide an OCB estimate.  The Gaussian nature of the hourly bins
(shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>) suggests that differences between the R1–R2 boundary and DMSP SSJ OCB are randomly distributed, confirming the
conclusion that it is appropriate to use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to correct the R1–R2 boundary to obtain an AMPERE OCB estimate.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Validation</title>
      <p id="d1e2207">The appropriateness of using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to transform the AMPERE R1–R2 boundary into an AMPERE OCB is tested by comparing the AMPERE OCBs to the DMSP CRBs
within an hour of dawn and dusk.  These local times were chosen due to the MLT-dependent variations in the CRB–OCB relationship discussed in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2"/>. It should also be reiterated that no specific selection was made for IMF conditions.  All IMF clock angles and magnitudes are considered
together, as the AMPERE OCBs should be valid at all IMF conditions when the OCB can be represented (to first order) by an ellipse.  To ensure that the
performance of the AMPERE OCBs are on par with previous OCB calculations, this validation is also performed for the IMAGE OCBs.  Unfortunately, it<?pagebreak page487?> is
impossible to directly compare the AMPERE and IMAGE OCBs because there is no temporal overlap between the two data sets.  This validation effort
paired OCBs with DMSP CRBs that were identified within 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of one another.  The location of the DMSP CRB relative to the OCB was then
determined.  In this adaptive coordinate system, the OCB is set at a co-latitude of 74<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (a latitude chosen to represent the OCB in adaptive,
high-latitude coordinates based on the typical size of the polar cap).  CRBs that occur poleward or equatorward of the OCB will have co-latitudes
greater than or less than 74<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> respectively.  This adaptive gridding was performed using the ocbpy Python package <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4 bib1.bibx5" id="paren.38"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e2251">Paired IMAGE and AMPERE OCBs with DMSP CRBs for the available hemispheres and each satellite.  The IMAGE data show the SI12 and SI13 observations for the Northern Hemisphere (left column), while the median elliptical correction was applied to obtain the AMPERE OCBs shown in the middle and right columns (which show the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere respectively).  The scattered points show the DMSP IVM CRBs, and the gold circle shows the IMAGE or AMPERE OCB.  To simplify the comparison, the DMSP IVM CRB locations are plotted in adjusted polar coordinates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.39"/>. Although all CRBs paired with IMAGE or AMPERE OCBs are shown here, only CRBs within 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 06:00 or 18:00 MLT were used in this validation.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/38/481/2020/angeo-38-481-2020-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2271">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> shows the distribution of CRB observations for the different DMSP satellites, OCB sources, and hemispheres.  As was
done with the DMSP SSJ observations, 2 years of CRBs and OCBs were paired in time after removing unreliable boundaries (as discussed in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/>).  Note that the paired data, both from the two IMAGE instruments and from AMPERE (in both hemispheres), show a similar spread
of CRBs at different magnetic local times, with larger spreads near magnetic noon and midnight.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e2281">Histograms showing the differences between DMSP CRB and IMAGE or AMPERE OCB using paired boundaries that occur within 1 h of 06:00 or 18:00 MLT.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/38/481/2020/angeo-38-481-2020-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2290">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/> shows the histograms of the latitude differences between the DMSP CRBs and the IMAGE (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>a, d) or AMPERE (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>b, c, e, f) OCBs.  This figure also shows the results for the median ellipse correction to obtain the
AMPERE OCB (Fig. 5a, b, c) and the S.G. peak ellipse correction (Fig. d, e, f).  For the IMAGE histograms, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>a shows the
results for the SI13 instrument, and Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>d shows the results for the SI12 instrument.  In all cases, the means and medians of the
difference distributions behave similarly: most points lie within 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of each other, and the standard deviation of the distributions is below
5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in all places.  Additionally, the CRB is approximately co-located with both the AMPERE and IMAGE OCBs. This close agreement with the DMSP
CRB and the similar behaviour of the IMAGE and AMPERE OCBs validates the AMPERE OCBs provided here.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <?pagebreak page488?><p id="d1e2331">This study modified traditional auroral boundary fitting methods to establish an MLT-dependent relationship between the OCB and the R1–R2 boundary.
This was performed by determining the first moment of the distribution of differences between the R1–R2 boundary and the OCB (as measured by the DMSP
SSJ instrument) for 1 h MLT bins.  These moments (which included the median of the distribution and the peak of a smoothed Gaussian fit) were then
used to define the parameters of an elliptical function.  This function specifies the distance between the OCB and R1–R2 boundary as a function of
MLT.</p>
      <p id="d1e2334">The validity of this OCB, as well as previously determined IMAGE OCBs, were tested against the dawn and dusk measurements of the CRB (as measured by
several DMSP IVM instruments).  These boundaries were found to typically differ by less than a degree.</p>
      <p id="d1e2337">As mentioned in the introduction, modelling and statistical studies in polar regions should avoid mixing measurements taken in the auroral oval and the
polar cap.  In combination, the AMPERE and IMAGE OCBs form the basis of a multi-solar cycle data set that could be used to improve high-latitude
statistical studies and climatological models.  The data sets and software tools presented in this paper allow researchers to begin using adaptive,
high-latitude coordinates in their investigations.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2344">AMPERE data are available from the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory at <uri>http://ampere.jhuapl.edu/</uri> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="altparen.40"/>). We
thank the AMPERE team and the AMPERE Science Center for providing the Iridium-derived data products. AMPERE boundaries are described in
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="text.41"/> and can be accessed at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.11294861.v1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.25392/leicester.data.11294861.v1</ext-link> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.42"/> or through ocbpy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.43"/>.</p>

      <p id="d1e2366">The IMAGE FUV data are provided courtesy of the instrument PI Stephen Mende (University of California, Berkeley).  We thank the PI, the IMAGE
mission, and the IMAGE FUV team for data usage and processing tools.  The raw IMAGE data and software are available from
<uri>http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/image/</uri> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="paren.44"/>.  The auroral boundary data set and the methodology used to create it can be found at
<uri>https://www.bas.ac.uk/project/image-auroral-boundary-data/</uri> (last access: August 2019) or in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="text.45"/>.</p>

      <p id="d1e2381">DMSP data are available at <uri>http://cedar.openmadrigal.org</uri> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34" id="paren.46"/>, and <uri>https://cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov</uri> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="paren.47"/>.  DMSP SSJ boundaries may be obtained using
the software available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3267415" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.3267415</ext-link> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.48"/> and <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3373812" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.3373812</ext-link> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.49"/>.  DMSP CRBs can be requested from Yun-Ju Chen
(yxc126130@utdallas.edu).</p>

      <p id="d1e2409">The software that was used to perform adaptive, high-latitude gridding can be found at <uri>https://github.com/aburrell/ocbpy</uri> (last access: August 2019) or <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1217177" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.1217177</ext-link> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.50"/>.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2424">AGB developed the concept, performed the data analysis, and wrote the paper.  GC supported the conceptual development,
provided feedback on the data analysis, and edited the paper.  SEM provided the AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries and guidelines for their use, provided
feedback on the conceptual development, and contributed to writing the paper.  LK provided guidelines for the use of the DMSP SSJ boundaries, gave
feedback on the validation, and edited the paper.  YJC provided the DMSP CRBs, supplied guidelines for their use in validation, and edited the
paper.  EGT provided feedback on the data validation efforts and edited the paper.  BA is the PI of AMPERE.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <?pagebreak page489?><p id="d1e2430">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2436">Angeline G. Burrell is supported by the United States Chief of Naval Research (US CNR).  Gareth Chisham is supported by United Kingdom Research and
Innovation (UKRI) as part of the British Antarctic Survey – Polar Science for Planet Earth Programme.  Liam Kilcommons is supported by AFOSR (award no. FA9550-17-1-0258).  Yun-Ju Chen is supported by an AFOSR MURI grant (grant no. FA9559-16-1-0364) to The University of Texas at Dallas.  Evan G. Thomas is supported by a
NSF grant.  The authors would like to thank Jone Peter Reistad for communications about the “Discussion Paper” version of this paper that
lead to important improvements.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e2441">This research has been supported by the United States Chief of Naval Research (US CNR); the United Kingdom Research and
Innovation (UKRI), British Antarctic Survey – Polar Science for Planet Earth Programme; the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (grant nos. FA9550-17-1-0258 and FA9559-16-1-0364);
and the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs (grant no. OPP-1836426).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2447">This paper was edited by Keisuke Hosokawa and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Anderson et al.(2000)</label><?label Anderson:2000ir?><mixed-citation>
Anderson, B. J., Takahashi, K., and Toth, B. A.:
Sensing global Birkeland currents with Iridium engineering magnetometer data,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
27, 4045–4048, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Anderson et al.(2002)</label><?label Anderson:2002bk?><mixed-citation>Anderson, B. J., Takahashi, K., Kamei, T., Waters, C. L., and Toth, B. A.:
Birkeland current system key parameters derived from Iridium observations: Method and initial validation results,
J. Geophys. Res.,
107, 1079, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000080" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JA000080</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Boakes et al.(2008)</label><?label Boakes:2008dp?><mixed-citation>Boakes, P. D., Milan, S. E., Abel, G. A., Freeman, M. P., Chisham, G., Hubert, B., and Sotirelis, T.: On the use of IMAGE FUV for estimating the latitude of the open/closed magnetic field line boundary in the ionosphere, Ann. Geophys., 26, 2759–2769, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-26-2759-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/angeo-26-2759-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Burrell and Chisham(2018)</label><?label ocbpy?><mixed-citation>Burrell, A. G. and Chisham, G.:
aburrell/ocbpy: Beta Release, Zenodo,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1217177" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.1217177</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Burrell et al.(2018a)</label><?label Burrell2018ss?><mixed-citation>Burrell, A. G., Halford, A., Klenzing, J., Stoneback, R. A., Morley, S. K., Annex, A. M., Laundal, K. M., Kellerman, A. C., Stansby, D., and Ma, J.:
Snakes on a Spaceship—An Overview of Python in Heliophysics,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
123, 10384–10402, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ja025877" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018ja025877</ext-link>, 2018a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Burrell et al.(2018b)</label><?label Burrell:2018aa?><mixed-citation>Burrell, A. G., van der Meeren, C., and Laundal, K. M.:
aburrell/aacgmv2: AACGMV2 2.5.1, Zenodo,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1469697" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.1469697</ext-link>, 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Carbary et al.(2003)</label><?label Carbary2003?><mixed-citation>Carbary, J. F., Sotirelis, T., Newell, P. T., and Meng, C.-I.:
Auroral boundary correlations between UVI and DMSP,
J. Geophys. Res.,
108, 1018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009378" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JA009378</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Chen and Heelis(2018)</label><?label Chen2018?><mixed-citation>Chen, Y.-J. and Heelis, R. A.:
Motions of the Convection Reversal Boundary and Local Plasma in the High-Latitude Ionosphere,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
123, 2953–2963, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ja024934" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017ja024934</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Chen et al.(2015)</label><?label Chen2015a?><mixed-citation>Chen, Y.-J., Heelis, R. A., and Cumnock, J. A.:
Response of the ionospheric convection reversal boundary at high latitudes to changes in the interplanetary magnetic field,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
120, 5022–5034, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015ja021024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015ja021024</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Chisham(2017a)</label><?label Chisham2017data?><mixed-citation>Chisham, G.:
Auroral Boundary Derived from IMAGE Satellite Mission Data (May 2000–Oct 2002), British Antarctic Survey,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5285/75aa66c1-47b4-4344-ab5d-52ff2913a61e" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5285/75aa66c1-47b4-4344-ab5d-52ff2913a61e</ext-link>, 2017a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Chisham(2017b)</label><?label Chisham:2017cd?><mixed-citation>Chisham, G.:
A new methodology for the development of high-latitude ionospheric climatologies and empirical models,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
122, 932–947, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023235" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JA023235</ext-link>, 2017b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Clausen et al.(2013)</label><?label Clausen:2013bc?><mixed-citation>Clausen, L. B. N., Baker, J. B. H., Ruohoniemi, J. M., Milan, S. E., Coxon, J. C., Wing, S., Ohtani, S., and Anderson, B. J.:
Temporal and spatial dynamics of the regions 1 and 2 Birkeland currents during substorms,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
118, 3007–3016, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50288" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgra.50288</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Cowley and Lockwood(1992)</label><?label Cowley1992sw?><mixed-citation>
Cowley, S. W. H. and Lockwood, M.:
Excitation and decay of solar-wind driven flows in the magnetosphere-ionosphere system,
Ann. Geophys.,
10, 103–115, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Coxon et al.(2018)</label><?label Coxon:2018bc?><mixed-citation>Coxon, J. C., Milan, S. E., and Anderson, B. J.:
A review of Birkeland current research using AMPERE, vol. 235, chap.,
in: Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond,
American Geophysical Union,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119324522.ch16" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/9781119324522.ch16</ext-link>, 257–278, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Drake et al.(2009)</label><?label Drake:2009bl?><mixed-citation>Drake, K. A., Heelis, R. A., Hairston, M. R., and Anderson, P. C.:
Electrostatic Potential Drop Across the Ionospheric Signature of the Low-Latitude Boundary Layer,
J. Geophys. Res.,
114, A04215, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013608" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JA013608</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Dungey(1961)</label><?label Dungey:1961re?><mixed-citation>
Dungey, J. W.:
Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Auroral Zones,
Phys. Rev. Lett.,
6, 47–48, 1961.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Frey(2017)</label><?label frey2017?><mixed-citation>Frey, H. U.:  Image, available at: <uri>http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/image/</uri>, last access: August 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Heelis and Hanson(1998)</label><?label Heelis:1998ul?><mixed-citation>Heelis, R. A. and Hanson, W. B.:
Measurements of Thermal Ion Drift Velocity and Temperature using Planar Sensors,
in: Measurement Techniques in Space Plasmas: Particles,
edited by:
Pfaff, R. F., Borovsky, J., and Young, T. D.,
AGU, Washington, D.C., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/GM102" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/GM102</ext-link>, 61–71, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Holzworth and Meng(1975)</label><?label Holzworth1975?><mixed-citation>
Holzworth, R. and Meng, C.-I.:
Mathematical Representation of the Auroral Oval,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
2, 377–380, 1975.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Iijima and Potemra(1976)</label><?label Iijima:1976bn?><mixed-citation>
Iijima, T. and Potemra, T. A.:
The Amplitude Distribution of Field-Aligned Currents at Northern High Latitudes Observed by Triad,
J. Geophys. Res.,
81, 2165–2174, 1976.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory(2019)</label><?label john2019?><mixed-citation>John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory: AMPERE, available at: <uri>http://ampere.jhuapl.edu/</uri>, last access: August 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Kilcommons and Burrell(2019)</label><?label kilcommons2019?><mixed-citation>Kilcommons, L. and Burrell, A. G.:
lkilcommons/ssj_auroral_boundary:
Version 1 (Version v1.0.0), Zenodo,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3267415" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.3267415</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Kilcommons et al.(2017)</label><?label Kilcommons2017?><mixed-citation>Kilcommons, L. M., Redmon, R. J., and Knipp, D. J.:
A new DMSP magnetometer and auroral boundary data set and estimates of field-aligned currents in dynamic auroral boundary coordinates,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
122, 9068–9079, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ja023342" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016ja023342</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page490?><ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Kilcommons et al.(2019)</label><?label kilcommonsetal2019?><mixed-citation>Kilcommons, L., Redmon, R., and Knipp, D.:  Defense Meteorology Satellite Program (DMSP) Electron Precipitation (SSJ) Auroral Boundaries, 2010–2014 (Version 1.0.0) [Data set], Zenodo, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3373812" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.3373812</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Kovalick(2019)</label><?label tami2019?><mixed-citation>Kovalick, T.: SPDF – Coordinated Data Analysis Web (CDAWeb), available at: <uri>https://cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov</uri>, last access: August 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Longden et al.(2010)</label><?label Longden:2010ep?><mixed-citation>Longden, N., Chisham, G., Freeman, M. P., Abel, G. A., and Sotirelis, T.: Estimating the location of the open-closed magnetic field line boundary from auroral images, Ann. Geophys., 28, 1659–1678, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-28-1659-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/angeo-28-1659-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Mende et al.(2000)</label><?label Mende:2009vp?><mixed-citation>Mende, S. B., Heetderks, H., Frey, H. U., Stock, J. M., Lampton, M., Geller, S. P., Abiad, R., Siegmund, O. H. W., Habraken, S., Renotte, E., Jamar, C., Rochus, P., Gérard, J. C., Sigler, R., and Lauche, H.:
Far ultraviolet imaging from the IMAGE spacecraft. 3. Spectral imaging of Lyman-alpha and OI 135.6 nm,
Space Sci. Rev.,
91, 287–381, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4233-5_10" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-94-011-4233-5_10</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Milan(2019)</label><?label Milan2019?><mixed-citation>Milan, S.:
AMPERE R1/R2 FAC radii, University of Leicester,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.11294861.v1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.25392/leicester.data.11294861.v1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Milan et al.(2015)</label><?label Milan:2015bp?><mixed-citation>Milan, S. E., Carter, J. A., Korth, H., and Anderson, B. J.:
Principal component analysis of Birkeland currents determined by the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
120, 10415–10424, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50505" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/grl.50505</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>More et al.(1984)</label><?label minpack?><mixed-citation>More, J., Sorenson, D., Garbow, B., and Hillstrom, K.:
The MINPACK Project,
in:
Sources and Development of Mathematical Software,
edited by:
Cowell, W.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, available at: <uri>https://www.netlib.org/minpack/</uri> (last access: August 2019), 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Newell et al.(2004)</label><?label Newell:2004sr?><mixed-citation>Newell, P. T., Ruohoniemi, J. M., and Meng, C.-I.:
Maps of precipitation by source region, binned by IMF, with inertial convection streamlines,
J. Geophys. Res.,
109, A10206, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010499" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JA010499</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Redmon et al.(2010)</label><?label Redmon:2010op?><mixed-citation>Redmon, R. J., Peterson, W. K., Andersson, L., Kihn, E. a., Denig, W. F., Hairston, M., and Coley, R.:
Vertical thermal <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flows at 850 km in dynamic auroral boundary coordinates,
J. Geophys. Res.,
115, A00J08, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015589" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JA015589</ext-link>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Redmon et al.(2017)</label><?label Redmon:2017?><mixed-citation>Redmon, R. J., Denig, W. F., Kilcommons, L. M., and Knipp, D. J.:
New DMSP database of precipitating auroral electrons and ions,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
122, 9056–9067, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023339" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JA023339</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Rideout(2019)</label><?label bill2019?><mixed-citation>Rideout, B.: Madrigal database at CEDAR, available at: <uri>http://cedar.openmadrigal.org</uri>, last access:  August 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Shepherd(2014)</label><?label Shepherd:2014wu?><mixed-citation>Shepherd, S. G.:
Altitude-adjusted corrected geomagnetic coordinates: Definition and functional approximations,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
119, 7501–7521, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020264" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JA020264</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>Spiro et al.(1978)</label><?label Spiro1978?><mixed-citation>
Spiro, R. W., Heelis, R. A., and Hanson, W. B.:
Ion Convection and the Formation and of the Mid-Latitude and F Region Ionization Trough,
J. Geophys. Res.,
83, 4255–4254, 1978.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Virtanen et al.(2020)</label><?label scipy?><mixed-citation>
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T.,  Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J.,  van der Walt, S. J.,  Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, R., Carey, C. J., Polat, İ., Feng, Y.,  Moore, E. W., VanderPlas, J., Laxalde, D., Perktold, J.,  Cimrman, R., Henriksen, I., Quintero, E. A., Harris, C. R., Archibald, A. M., Ribeiro, A. H., Pedregosa, F., van Mulbregt, P., and SciPy 1.0 Contributors: SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nat. Methods, in press, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Waters et al.(2001)</label><?label Waters:2001md?><mixed-citation>
Waters, C. L., Anderson, B. J., and Liou, K.:
Estimation of Global and Field Aligned Currents Using the Iridium System Magnetometer Data,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
28, 2165–2168, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Zhu et al.(2019)</label><?label Zhu2019?><mixed-citation>Zhu, Q., Deng, Y., Richmond, A., Maute, A., Chen, Y.-J., Hairston, M., Kilcommons, L., Knipp, D., Redmon, R., and Mitchell, E.:
Impacts of binning methods on high-latitude electrodynamic forcing: static vs. boundary-oriented binning methods,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
124, e2019JA027270, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027270" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019JA027270</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>AMPERE polar cap boundaries</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The high-latitude atmosphere is a dynamic region with processes that respond to forcing from the Sun, magnetosphere, neutral atmosphere, and
ionosphere.  Historically, the dominance of magnetosphere–ionosphere interactions has motivated upper atmospheric studies to use magnetic
coordinates when examining magnetosphere–ionosphere–thermosphere coupling processes.  However, there are significant differences between the
dominant interactions within the polar cap, auroral oval, and equatorward of the auroral oval.  Organising data relative to these boundaries has
been shown to improve climatological and statistical studies, but the process of doing so is complicated by the shifting nature of the auroral oval
and the difficulty in measuring its poleward and equatorward boundaries.</p><p>This study presents a new set of open–closed magnetic field line boundaries (OCBs) obtained from Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics
Response Experiment (AMPERE) magnetic perturbation data.  AMPERE observations of field-aligned currents (FACs) are used to determine the location of
the boundary between the Region 1 (R1) and Region 2 (R2) FAC systems.  This current boundary is thought to typically lie a few degrees equatorward
of the OCB, making it a good candidate for obtaining OCB locations.  The AMPERE R1–R2 boundaries are compared to the Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program Special Sensor J (DMSP SSJ) electron energy flux boundaries to test this hypothesis and determine the best estimate of the
systematic offset between the R1–R2 boundary and the OCB as a function of magnetic local time.  These calibrated boundaries, as well as OCBs
obtained from the Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) observations, are validated using simultaneous observations of the
convection reversal boundary measured by DMSP. The validation shows that the OCBs from IMAGE and AMPERE may be used together in statistical
studies, providing the basis of a long-term data set that can be used to separate observations originating inside and outside of the polar cap.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Anderson et al.(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Anderson, B. J., Takahashi, K., and Toth, B. A.:
Sensing global Birkeland currents with Iridium engineering magnetometer data,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
27, 4045–4048, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Anderson et al.(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Anderson, B. J., Takahashi, K., Kamei, T., Waters, C. L., and Toth, B. A.:
Birkeland current system key parameters derived from Iridium observations: Method and initial validation results,
J. Geophys. Res.,
107, 1079, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000080" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000080</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Boakes et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Boakes, P. D., Milan, S. E., Abel, G. A., Freeman, M. P., Chisham, G., Hubert, B., and Sotirelis, T.: On the use of IMAGE FUV for estimating the latitude of the open/closed magnetic field line boundary in the ionosphere, Ann. Geophys., 26, 2759–2769, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-26-2759-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-26-2759-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Burrell and Chisham(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Burrell, A. G. and Chisham, G.:
aburrell/ocbpy: Beta Release, Zenodo,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1217177" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1217177</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Burrell et al.(2018a)</label><mixed-citation>
Burrell, A. G., Halford, A., Klenzing, J., Stoneback, R. A., Morley, S. K., Annex, A. M., Laundal, K. M., Kellerman, A. C., Stansby, D., and Ma, J.:
Snakes on a Spaceship—An Overview of Python in Heliophysics,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
123, 10384–10402, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ja025877" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ja025877</a>, 2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Burrell et al.(2018b)</label><mixed-citation>
Burrell, A. G., van der Meeren, C., and Laundal, K. M.:
aburrell/aacgmv2: AACGMV2 2.5.1, Zenodo,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1469697" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1469697</a>, 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Carbary et al.(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
Carbary, J. F., Sotirelis, T., Newell, P. T., and Meng, C.-I.:
Auroral boundary correlations between UVI and DMSP,
J. Geophys. Res.,
108, 1018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009378" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009378</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Chen and Heelis(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, Y.-J. and Heelis, R. A.:
Motions of the Convection Reversal Boundary and Local Plasma in the High-Latitude Ionosphere,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
123, 2953–2963, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ja024934" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ja024934</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Chen et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, Y.-J., Heelis, R. A., and Cumnock, J. A.:
Response of the ionospheric convection reversal boundary at high latitudes to changes in the interplanetary magnetic field,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
120, 5022–5034, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015ja021024" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015ja021024</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Chisham(2017a)</label><mixed-citation>
Chisham, G.:
Auroral Boundary Derived from IMAGE Satellite Mission Data (May 2000–Oct 2002), British Antarctic Survey,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5285/75aa66c1-47b4-4344-ab5d-52ff2913a61e" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5285/75aa66c1-47b4-4344-ab5d-52ff2913a61e</a>, 2017a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Chisham(2017b)</label><mixed-citation>
Chisham, G.:
A new methodology for the development of high-latitude ionospheric climatologies and empirical models,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
122, 932–947, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023235" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023235</a>, 2017b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Clausen et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Clausen, L. B. N., Baker, J. B. H., Ruohoniemi, J. M., Milan, S. E., Coxon, J. C., Wing, S., Ohtani, S., and Anderson, B. J.:
Temporal and spatial dynamics of the regions 1 and 2 Birkeland currents during substorms,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
118, 3007–3016, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50288" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50288</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Cowley and Lockwood(1992)</label><mixed-citation>
Cowley, S. W. H. and Lockwood, M.:
Excitation and decay of solar-wind driven flows in the magnetosphere-ionosphere system,
Ann. Geophys.,
10, 103–115, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Coxon et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Coxon, J. C., Milan, S. E., and Anderson, B. J.:
A review of Birkeland current research using AMPERE, vol. 235, chap.,
in: Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond,
American Geophysical Union,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119324522.ch16" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119324522.ch16</a>, 257–278, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Drake et al.(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Drake, K. A., Heelis, R. A., Hairston, M. R., and Anderson, P. C.:
Electrostatic Potential Drop Across the Ionospheric Signature of the Low-Latitude Boundary Layer,
J. Geophys. Res.,
114, A04215, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013608" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013608</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Dungey(1961)</label><mixed-citation>
Dungey, J. W.:
Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Auroral Zones,
Phys. Rev. Lett.,
6, 47–48, 1961.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Frey(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Frey, H. U.:  Image, available at: <a href="http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/image/" target="_blank"/>, last access: August 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Heelis and Hanson(1998)</label><mixed-citation>
Heelis, R. A. and Hanson, W. B.:
Measurements of Thermal Ion Drift Velocity and Temperature using Planar Sensors,
in: Measurement Techniques in Space Plasmas: Particles,
edited by:
Pfaff, R. F., Borovsky, J., and Young, T. D.,
AGU, Washington, D.C., <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/GM102" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/GM102</a>, 61–71, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Holzworth and Meng(1975)</label><mixed-citation>
Holzworth, R. and Meng, C.-I.:
Mathematical Representation of the Auroral Oval,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
2, 377–380, 1975.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Iijima and Potemra(1976)</label><mixed-citation>
Iijima, T. and Potemra, T. A.:
The Amplitude Distribution of Field-Aligned Currents at Northern High Latitudes Observed by Triad,
J. Geophys. Res.,
81, 2165–2174, 1976.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory: AMPERE, available at: <a href="http://ampere.jhuapl.edu/" target="_blank"/>, last access: August 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Kilcommons and Burrell(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Kilcommons, L. and Burrell, A. G.:
lkilcommons/ssj_auroral_boundary:
Version 1 (Version v1.0.0), Zenodo,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3267415" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3267415</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Kilcommons et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Kilcommons, L. M., Redmon, R. J., and Knipp, D. J.:
A new DMSP magnetometer and auroral boundary data set and estimates of field-aligned currents in dynamic auroral boundary coordinates,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
122, 9068–9079, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ja023342" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ja023342</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Kilcommons et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Kilcommons, L., Redmon, R., and Knipp, D.:  Defense Meteorology Satellite Program (DMSP) Electron Precipitation (SSJ) Auroral Boundaries, 2010–2014 (Version 1.0.0) [Data set], Zenodo, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3373812" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3373812</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Kovalick(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Kovalick, T.: SPDF – Coordinated Data Analysis Web (CDAWeb), available at: <a href="https://cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov" target="_blank"/>, last access: August 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Longden et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Longden, N., Chisham, G., Freeman, M. P., Abel, G. A., and Sotirelis, T.: Estimating the location of the open-closed magnetic field line boundary from auroral images, Ann. Geophys., 28, 1659–1678, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-28-1659-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-28-1659-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Mende et al.(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Mende, S. B., Heetderks, H., Frey, H. U., Stock, J. M., Lampton, M., Geller, S. P., Abiad, R., Siegmund, O. H. W., Habraken, S., Renotte, E., Jamar, C., Rochus, P., Gérard, J. C., Sigler, R., and Lauche, H.:
Far ultraviolet imaging from the IMAGE spacecraft. 3. Spectral imaging of Lyman-alpha and OI 135.6&thinsp;nm,
Space Sci. Rev.,
91, 287–381, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4233-5_10" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4233-5_10</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Milan(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Milan, S.:
AMPERE R1/R2 FAC radii, University of Leicester,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.11294861.v1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.11294861.v1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>Milan et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Milan, S. E., Carter, J. A., Korth, H., and Anderson, B. J.:
Principal component analysis of Birkeland currents determined by the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
120, 10415–10424, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50505" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50505</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>More et al.(1984)</label><mixed-citation>
More, J., Sorenson, D., Garbow, B., and Hillstrom, K.:
The MINPACK Project,
in:
Sources and Development of Mathematical Software,
edited by:
Cowell, W.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, available at: <a href="https://www.netlib.org/minpack/" target="_blank"/> (last access: August 2019), 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>Newell et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Newell, P. T., Ruohoniemi, J. M., and Meng, C.-I.:
Maps of precipitation by source region, binned by IMF, with inertial convection streamlines,
J. Geophys. Res.,
109, A10206, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010499" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010499</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Redmon et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Redmon, R. J., Peterson, W. K., Andersson, L., Kihn, E. a., Denig, W. F., Hairston, M., and Coley, R.:
Vertical thermal O<sup>+</sup> flows at 850&thinsp;km in dynamic auroral boundary coordinates,
J. Geophys. Res.,
115, A00J08, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015589" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015589</a>, 2010.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Redmon et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Redmon, R. J., Denig, W. F., Kilcommons, L. M., and Knipp, D. J.:
New DMSP database of precipitating auroral electrons and ions,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
122, 9056–9067, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023339" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023339</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Rideout(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Rideout, B.: Madrigal database at CEDAR, available at: <a href="http://cedar.openmadrigal.org" target="_blank"/>, last access:  August 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Shepherd(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Shepherd, S. G.:
Altitude-adjusted corrected geomagnetic coordinates: Definition and functional approximations,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
119, 7501–7521, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020264" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020264</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>Spiro et al.(1978)</label><mixed-citation>
Spiro, R. W., Heelis, R. A., and Hanson, W. B.:
Ion Convection and the Formation and of the Mid-Latitude and F Region Ionization Trough,
J. Geophys. Res.,
83, 4255–4254, 1978.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>Virtanen et al.(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T.,  Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J.,  van der Walt, S. J.,  Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, R., Carey, C. J., Polat, İ., Feng, Y.,  Moore, E. W., VanderPlas, J., Laxalde, D., Perktold, J.,  Cimrman, R., Henriksen, I., Quintero, E. A., Harris, C. R., Archibald, A. M., Ribeiro, A. H., Pedregosa, F., van Mulbregt, P., and SciPy 1.0 Contributors: SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nat. Methods, in press, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>Waters et al.(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Waters, C. L., Anderson, B. J., and Liou, K.:
Estimation of Global and Field Aligned Currents Using the Iridium System Magnetometer Data,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
28, 2165–2168, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>Zhu et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, Q., Deng, Y., Richmond, A., Maute, A., Chen, Y.-J., Hairston, M., Kilcommons, L., Knipp, D., Redmon, R., and Mitchell, E.:
Impacts of binning methods on high-latitude electrodynamic forcing: static vs. boundary-oriented binning methods,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
124, e2019JA027270, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027270" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027270</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
