Paper detail

Gaia FGK Benchmark Stars: New Candidates At Low-Metallicities

We have entered an era of large spectroscopic surveys in which we can measure, through automated pipelines, the atmospheric parameters and chemical abundances for large numbers of stars. Calibrating these survey pipelines using a set of "benchmark stars" in order to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the provided parameters and abundances is of utmost importance. The recent proposed set of Gaia FGK benchmark stars of Heiter et al. (2015) has no recommended stars within the critical metallicity range of $-2.0 <$ [Fe/H] $< -1.0$ dex. In this paper, we aim to add candidate Gaia benchmark stars inside of this metal-poor gap. We began with a sample of 21 metal-poor stars which was reduced to 10 stars by requiring accurate photometry and parallaxes, and high-resolution archival spectra. The procedure used to determine the stellar parameters was similar to Heiter et al. (2015) and Jofre et al. (2014) for consistency. The effective temperature (T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$) of all candidate stars was determined using the Infrared Flux Method utilizing multi-band photometry. The surface gravity (log g) was determined through fitting stellar evolutionary tracks. The [Fe/H] was determined using four different spectroscopic methods fixing the T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and log g from the values determined independent of spectroscopy. We discuss, star-by-star, the quality of each parameter including how it compares to literature, how it compares to a spectroscopic run where all parameters are free, and whether Fe I ionisation-excitation balance is achieved. From the 10 stars, we recommend a sample of five new metal-poor benchmark candidate stars which have consistent T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$ , log g, and [Fe/H] determined through several means. These stars can be used for calibration and validation purpose of stellar parameter and abundance pipelines and should be of highest priority for future interferometric studies.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access13 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.