Paper detail

Metallicities in M dwarfs: Investigating different determination techniques

Deriving metallicities for solar-like stars follows well-established methods, but for cooler stars such as M dwarfs, the determination is much more complicated due to forests of molecular lines that are present. Several methods have been developed in recent years to determine accurate stellar parameters for these cool stars ($T_{\rm eff} \lesssim$ 4000 K). However, significant differences can be found at times when comparing metallicities for the same star derived using different methods. In this work, we determine the effective temperatures, surface gravities, and metallicities of 18 well-studied M dwarfs observed with the CARMENES high-resolution spectrograph following different approaches, including synthetic spectral fitting, analysis of pseudo-equivalent widths, and machine learning. We analyzed the discrepancies in the derived stellar parameters, including metallicity, in several analysis runs. Our goal is to minimize these discrepancies and find stellar parameters that are more consistent with the literature values. We attempted to achieve this consistency by standardizing the most commonly used components, such as wavelength ranges, synthetic model spectra, continuum normalization methods, and stellar parameters. We conclude that although such modifications work quite well for hotter main-sequence stars, they do not improve the consistency in stellar parameters for M dwarfs, leading to mean deviations of around 50-200 K in temperature and 0.1-0.3 dex in metallicity. In particular, M dwarfs are much more complex and a standardization of the aforementioned components cannot be considered as a straightforward recipe for bringing consistency to the derived parameters. Further in-depth investigations of the employed methods would be necessary in order to identify and correct for the discrepancies that remain.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.