Paper detail

Automatic stellar spectra parameterisation in the IR CaII triplet region

(Abridged) Galactic archaeology aims to determine the evolution of the Galaxy from the chemical and kinematical properties of its stars. The analysis of current large spectroscopic surveys (thousands of stars) and future ones (millions of stars) require automated analysis techniques to obtain robust estimates of the stellar parameters. Several on-going and planned spectroscopic surveys have selected their wavelength region to contain the IR CaII triplet and this paper focuses on the automatic analysis of such spectra. We investigated two algorithms, MATISSE and DEGAS, both of which compare the observed spectrum to a grid of synthetic spectra, but each uses a different mathematical approach for finding the optimum match and hence the best stellar parameters. We identified degeneracies in different regions of the HR diagram: hot dwarfs and giants share the same spectral signatures. Furthermore, the surface gravity of cooler dwarfs is difficult to determine accurately. These effects are intensified when the information decreases (e.g. metal-poor stars or low SNR spectra). Our results show that the local projection method MATISSE is preferred for high SNR spectra, whereas the decision-tree method DEGAS is preferred for noisier spectra. We therefore propose a hybrid approach of both methods and show that sufficiently accurate results for the purposes of galactic archaeology are retrieved down to SNR~20 for typical thin or thick disc stars, and down to SNR~50 for the more metal-poor halo giants. If unappreciated, degeneracies in stellar parameters can introduce biases in derived quantities for target stars such as distances and full space motions. These biases can be minimised using the knowledge gained by thorough testing of the proposed algorithm, which in turn lead to robust automated methods for the coming extensive stellar spectroscopic surveys in the Local Group.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 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.