Paper detail

Assessment of [Fe/H] determinations for FGK stars in spectroscopic surveys

The number of stars with a measured value of [Fe/H] is considerably increasing thanks to spectroscopic surveys. However different methodologies, inputs and assumptions used in spectral analyses lead to different precisions in [Fe/H] and possibly to systematic differences that need to be evaluated. It is essential to understand the characteristics of each survey to fully exploit their potential, in particular if the surveys are combined. The purpose of this study is to compare [Fe/H] determinations from the largest spectroscopic surveys (APOGEE, GALAH, the Gaia ESO survey, RAVE, LAMOST, SEGUE ) to other catalogues taken as reference. Offsets and dispersions of the residuals are examined as well as their trends with other parameters. We use reference samples providing independent determinations of [Fe/H] which are compared to those from the surveys for common stars. The distribution of the residuals is assessed through simple statistics that measures the offset between two catalogues and the dispersion representative of the precision of both catalogues. When relevant, linear fits are performed. A large sample of FGK-type stars with [Fe/H] based on high-resolution, high signal to noise spectroscopy was built from the PASTEL catalogue to provide a reference sample. We also use FGK members in open and globular clusters to assess the internal consistency of [Fe/H] of each survey. The agreement of median [Fe/H] values for clusters observed by different surveys is discussed. All the surveys overestimate the low metallicities, and some of them also underestimate the high metallicities. They perform well in the most populated intermediate metallicity range, whatever the resolution. In most cases the typical precision that we deduce from the comparisons is in good agreement with the uncertainties quoted in the catalogues. Some exceptions to this general behaviour are discussed.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

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.