Paper detail

Empirical Tests of Pre-Main-Sequence Stellar Evolution Models with Eclipsing Binaries

We examine the performance of standard PMS stellar evolution models against the accurately measured properties of a benchmark sample of 26 PMS stars in 13 EB systems. We provide a definitive compilation of all fundamental properties for the EBs. We also provide a definitive compilation of the various PMS model sets. In the H-R diagram, the masses inferred for the individual stars by the models are accurate to better than 10% above 1 Msun, but below 1 Msun they are discrepant by 50-100%. We find evidence that the failure of the models to match the data is linked to the triples in the EB sample; at least half of the EBs possess tertiary companions. Excluding the triples, the models reproduce the stellar masses to better than ~10% in the H-R diagram, down to 0.5 Msun, below which the current sample is fully contaminated by tertiaries. We consider several mechanisms by which a tertiary might cause changes in the EB properties and thus corrupt the agreement with stellar model predictions. We show that the energies of the tertiary orbits are comparable to that needed to potentially explain the scatter in the EB properties through injection of heat, perhaps involving tidal interaction. It seems from the evidence at hand that this mechanism, however it operates in detail, has more influence on the surface properties of the stars than on their internal structure, as the lithium abundances are broadly in good agreement with model predictions. The EBs that are members of young clusters appear individually coeval to within 20%, but collectively show an apparent age spread of ~50%, suggesting true age spreads in young clusters. However, this apparent spread in the EB ages may also be the result of scatter in the EB properties induced by tertiaries. [Abridged]

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.