Paper detail

Mass evaluation for red giant stars based on the spectroscopically determined atmospheric parameters

The mass (M) of a star can be evaluated from its spectroscopically determined effective temperature (T _eff) and metallicity ([Fe/H]) along with the luminosity (L; derived from parallax), while comparing them with grids of theoretical evolutionary tracks. It has been argued, however, that such a track-based mass (M_trk) may tend to be overestimated for the case of red giants. Meanwhile, there is an alternative approach of evaluating mass (M_gLT) directly from surface gravity (g), L, and T_eff. The practical reliability of M_gLT was examined for ~100 benchmark giants in the Kepler field, for which atmospheric parameters are already determined and the reliable mass (M_seis) along with the evolutionary status are known from asteroseismology. In addition, similar check was also made for the accuracy of M_trk for comparison. It turned out that, while a reasonable correlation is seen between M_gLT and M_seis almost irrespective of the stellar property, its precision is rather insufficient because log(M_gLT/M_seis) distributes rather widely within ~+/-0.2--0.3dex. In contrast, the reliability of M_trk was found to depend on the evolutionary status. Although M_trk and M_seis are satisfactorily consistent with each other (typical dispersion of log(M_trk}/M_seis) is within ~+/-0.1dex) for H-burning red giants as well as He-burning 2nd clump giants of higher mass, M_trk tends to be considerably overestimated as compared to M_seis by up to ~<0.4~dex for He-burning 1st clump giants of lower mass. Accordingly, M_gLT and M_trk are complementary with each other in terms of their characteristic merit and demerit.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 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.