Paper detail

On the age of Galactic bulge microlensed dwarf and subgiant stars

Recent results by Bensby and collaborators on the ages of microlensed stars in the Galactic bulge have challenged the picture of an exclusively old stellar population. However, these age estimates have not been independently confirmed. In this paper we verify these results by means of a grid-based method and quantify the systematic biases that might be induced by some assumptions adopted to compute stellar models. We explore the impact of increasing the initial helium abundance, neglecting the element microscopic diffusion, and changing the mixing-length calibration in theoretical stellar track computations. We adopt the SCEPtER pipeline with a novel stellar model grid for metallicities [Fe/H] from -2.00 to 0.55 dex, and masses in the range [0.60; 1.60] Msun from the ZAMS to the helium flash at the red giant branch tip. We show for the considered evolutionary phases that our technique provides unbiased age estimates. Our age results are in good agreement with Bensby and collaborators findings and show 16 stars younger than 5 Gyr and 28 younger than 9 Gyr over a sample of 58. The effect of a helium enhancement as large as Delta Y/Delta Z = 5 is quite modest, resulting in a mean age increase of metal rich stars of 0.6 Gyr. Even simultaneously adopting a high helium content and the upper values of age estimates, there is evidence of 4 stars younger than 5 Gyr and 15 younger than 9 Gyr. For stars younger than 5 Gyr, the use of stellar models computed by neglecting microscopic diffusion or by assuming a super-solar mixing-length value leads to a mean increase in the age estimates of about 0.4 Gyr and 0.5 Gyr respectively. Even considering the upper values for the age estimates, there are four stars estimated younger than 5 Gyr is in both cases. Thus, the assessment of a sizeable fraction of young stars among the microlensed sample in the Galactic bulge appears robust.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.