Paper detail

On the evolutionary and pulsation mass of Classical Cepheids: III. the case of the eclipsing binary Cepheid CEP0227 in the Large Magellanic Cloud

We present a new Bayesian approach to constrain the intrinsic parameters (stellar mass, age) of the eclipsing binary system CEP0227 in the LMC. We computed evolutionary models covering a broad range in chemical compositions and in stellar mass. Independent sets of models were constructed either by neglecting or by including a moderate convective core overshooting (beta=0.2) during central H-burning phases. Models were also constructed either by neglecting or by assuming a canonical (eta=0.4,0.8) or an enhanced (eta=4) mass loss rate. The solutions were computed in three different planes: luminosity-temperature, mass-radius and gravity-temperature. By using the Bayes Factor, we found that the most probable solutions were obtained in the gravity-temperature plane with a Gaussian mass prior distribution. The evolutionary models constructed by assuming a moderate convective core overshooting (beta=0.2) and a canonical mass loss rate (eta=0.4) give stellar masses for the primary Cepheid M=4.14^{+0.04}_{-0.05} M_sun and for the secondary M=4.15^{+0.04}_{-0.05} M_sun that agree at the 1% level with dynamical measurements. Moreover, we found ages for the two components and for the combined system t=151^{+4}_{-3} Myr that agree at the 5% level. The solutions based on evolutionary models that neglect the mass loss attain similar parameters, while those ones based on models that either account for an enhanced mass loss or neglect convective core overshooting have lower Bayes Factors and larger confidence intervals. The dependence on the mass loss rate might be the consequence of the crude approximation we use to mimic this phenomenon. By using the isochrone of the most probable solution and a Gaussian prior on the LMC distance, we found a distance modulus 18.53^{+0.02}_{-0.02} mag and a reddening value E(B-V)= 0.142^{+0.005}_{-0.010} mag that agree well with literature estimates.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access9 authors1 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.