Paper detail

Asteroseismic masses of four evolved planet-hosting stars using SONG and TESS: resolving the retired A-star mass controversy

The study of planet occurrence as a function of stellar mass is important for a better understanding of planet formation. Estimating stellar mass, especially in the red giant regime, is difficult. In particular, stellar masses of a sample of evolved planet-hosting stars based on spectroscopy and grid-based modelling have been put to question over the past decade with claims they were overestimated. Although efforts have been made in the past to reconcile this dispute using asteroseismology, results were inconclusive. In an attempt to resolve this controversy, we study four more evolved planet-hosting stars in this paper using asteroseismology, and we revisit previous results to make an informed study of the whole ensemble in a self-consistent way. For the four new stars, we measure their masses by locating their characteristic oscillation frequency, $\mathrmν_{\mathrm{max}}$, from their radial velocity time series observed by SONG. For two stars, we are also able to measure the large frequency separation, $\mathrm{Δν}$, helped by extended SONG single-site and dual-site observations and new TESS observations. We establish the robustness of the $\mathrmν_{\mathrm{max}}$-only-based results by determining the stellar mass from $\mathrm{Δν}$, and from both $\mathrm{Δν}$ and $\mathrmν_{\mathrm{max}}$. We then compare the seismic masses of the full ensemble of 16 stars with the spectroscopic masses from three different literature sources. We find an offset between the seismic and spectroscopic mass scales that is mass-dependent, suggesting that the previously claimed overestimation of spectroscopic masses only affects stars more massive than about 1.6 M$_\mathrm{\odot}$.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access15 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.

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.