Paper detail

On the inconsistency of [C/Fe] abundances and the fractions of carbon-enhanced metal-poor stars among various stellar surveys

Carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars are a unique resource for Galactic archaeology because they probe the properties of the First Stars, early chemical evolution and binary interactions at very low metallicity. Comparing the fractions and properties of CEMP stars in different Galactic environments can provide us with unique insights into the formation and evolution of the Milky Way halo and its building blocks. In this work, we investigate whether directly comparing fractions of CEMP stars from different literature samples of very metal-poor ([Fe/H] < -2.0) stars is valid. We compiled published CEMP fractions and samples of Galactic halo stars from the past 25 years, and find that they are not all consistent with each other. Focusing on giant stars, we find significant differences between various surveys when comparing their trends of [Fe/H] versus [C/Fe] and their distributions of CEMP stars. To test the role of the analysis pipelines for low-resolution spectroscopic samples, we re-analysed giant stars from various surveys with the SSPP and FERRE pipelines. We found systematic differences in [C/Fe] of ~0.1-0.4 dex, partly independent of degeneracies with the stellar atmospheric parameters. These systematics are likely due to the different pipeline approaches, different assumptions in the employed synthetic grids, and/or the comparison of different evolutionary phases. We conclude that current biases in (the analysis of) very metal-poor samples limit the conclusions one can draw from comparing different surveys. We provide some recommendations and suggestions that will hopefully aid the community to unlock the full potential of CEMP stars for Galactic archaeology.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 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.