Paper detail

Calibrating convective-core overshooting with eclipsing binary systems. The case of low-mass main-sequence stars

In a robust statistical way, we quantify the uncertainty that affects the calibration of the overshooting efficiency parameter $β$ that is owing to the uncertainty on the observational data in double-lined eclipsing binary systems. We also quantify the bias that is caused by the lack of constraints on the initial helium content and on the efficiencies of the superadiabatic convection and microscopic diffusion. We adopted a modified grid-based SCEPtER pipeline using as observational constraints the effective temperatures, [Fe/H], masses, and radii of the two stars. In a reference scenario of mild overshooting $β= 0.2$ for the synthetic data, we found both large statistical uncertainties and biases on the estimated $β$. For the first 80% of the MS evolution, $β$ is biased and practically unconstrained in the whole explored range [0.0; 0.4]. In the last 5% of the MS the bias vanishes and the $1 σ$ error is about 0.05. For synthetic data computed with $β= 0.0$, the estimated $β$ is biased by about 0.12 in the first 80% of the MS evolution, and by 0.05 afterwards. Assuming an uncertainty of $\pm 1$ in the helium-to-metal enrichment ratio $ΔY/ΔZ$, we found that in the terminal part of the MS evolution the error on the estimated $β$ values ranges from -0.05 to +0.10, while $β$ is basically unconstrained throughout the explored range at earlier evolutionary stages. A uniform variation of $\pm 0.24$ in the mixing-length parameter around the solar-calibrated value causes in last 5% of the MS an uncertainty from -0.09 to +0.15. A complete neglect of diffusion in the stellar evolution computations produces a $1 σ$ uncertainty of $\pm 0.08$ in the last 5% of the MS, while $β$ is practically unconstrained in the first 80% of the MS. Overall, the calibration appears poorly reliable.

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.