Paper detail

New and updated stellar parameters for 71 evolved planet hosts. On the metallicity - giant planet connection

It is still being debated whether the well-known metallicity - giant planet correlation for dwarf stars is also valid for giant stars. For this reason, having precise metallicities is very important. Different methods can provide different results that lead to discrepancies in the analysis of planet hosts. To study the impact of different analyses on the metallicity scale for evolved stars, we compare different iron line lists to use in the atmospheric parameter derivation of evolved stars. Therefore, we use a sample of 71 evolved stars with planets. With these new homogeneous parameters, we revisit the metallicity - giant planet connection for evolved stars. A spectroscopic analysis based on Kurucz models in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) was performed through the MOOG code to derive the atmospheric parameters. Two different iron line list sets were used, one built for cool FGK stars in general, and the other for giant FGK stars. Masses were calculated through isochrone fitting, using the Padova models. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests (K-S tests) were then performed on the metallicity distributions of various different samples of evolved stars and red giants. All parameters compare well using a line list set, designed specifically for cool and solar-like stars to provide more accurate temperatures. All parameters derived with this line list set are preferred and are thus adopted for future analysis. We find that evolved planet hosts are more metal-poor than dwarf stars with giant planets. However, a bias in giant stellar samples that are searched for planets is present. Because of a colour cut-off, metal-rich low-gravity stars are left out of the samples, making it hard to compare dwarf stars with giant stars. Furthermore, no metallicity enhancement is found for red giants with planets ($\log g < 3.0$\,dex) with respect to red giants without planets.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 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.

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.