Paper detail

On the Reliability of Stellar Ages and Age Spreads Inferred from Pre-Main Sequence Evolutionary Models

We revisit the problem of low-mass pre-main-sequence (PMS) stellar evolution and its observational consequences for where stars fall on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HRD). In contrast to most previous work, our models follow stars as they grow from small masses via accretion, and we perform a systematic study of how the stars' HRD evolution is influenced by their initial radius, by the radiative properties of the accretion flow, and by the accretion history, using both simple idealized accretion histories and histories taken from numerical simulations of star cluster formation. We compare our numerical results to both non-accreting isochrones and to the positions of observed stars in the HRD, with a goal of determining whether both the absolute ages and the age dispersions inferred from non-accreting isochrones are reliable. We show that non-accreting isochrones can sometimes overestimate stellar ages for more massive stars (those with effective temperatures above \sim 3500 K), thereby explaining why non-accreting isochrones often suggest a systematic age difference between more and less massive stars in the same cluster. However, we also find the only way to produce a similar overestimate for the ages of cooler stars is by selecting parameters that are strongly inconsistent with both theoretical models and observational constraints. We therefore conclude that inferred ages and age spreads for cool stars are reliable, at least to the extent that the observed bolometric luminosities and temperatures are accurate. Finally, we note that the time-dependence of the mass accretion rate has remarkably little effect on low-mass stars' evolution on the HRD, and that such time-dependence may be neglected for all stars except those with effective temperatures above \sim 4000 K.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.