Paper detail

A statistical test on the reliability of the non-coevality of stars in binary systems

We develop a statistical test on the expected difference in age estimates of two coeval stars in detached double-lined eclipsing binary systems that are only caused by observational uncertainties. We focus on stars in the mass range [0.8; 1.6] Msun, and on stars in the main-sequence phase. The ages were obtained by means of the maximum-likelihood SCEPtER technique. The observational constraints used in the recovery procedure are stellar mass, radius, effective temperature, and metallicity [Fe/H]. We defined the statistic W computed as the ratio of the absolute difference of estimated ages for the two stars over the age of the older one. We determined the critical values of this statistics above which coevality can be rejected. The median expected difference in the reconstructed age between the coeval stars of a binary system -- caused alone by the observational uncertainties -- shows a strong dependence on the evolutionary stage. This ranges from about 20% for an evolved primary star to about 75% for a near ZAMS primary. The median difference also shows an increase with the mass of the primary star from 20% for 0.8 Msun stars to about 50% for 1.6 Msun stars. The reliability of these results was checked by repeating the process with a grid of stellar models computed by a different evolutionary code. We show that the W test is much more sensible to age differences in the binary system components than the alternative approach of comparing the confidence interval of the age of the two stars. We also found that the distribution of W is, for almost all the examined cases, well approximated by beta distributions. The proposed method improves upon the techniques that are commonly adopted for judging the coevality of an observed system. It also provides a result founded on reliable statistics that simultaneously accounts for all the observational uncertainties.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.