Paper detail

Reevaluating the Mass-Radius Relation for Low-Mass, Main Sequence Stars

We examine the agreement between the observed and theoretical low-mass (< 0.8 solar masses) stellar main sequence mass-radius relationship by comparing detached eclipsing binary (DEB) data with a new, large grid of stellar evolution models. The new grid allows for a realistic variation in the age and metallicity of the DEB population, characteristic of the local galactic neighborhood. Overall, our models do a reasonable job of reproducing the observational data. A large majority of the models match the observed stellar radii to within 4%, with a mean absolute error of 2.3%. These results represent a factor of two improvement compared to previous examinations of the low-mass mass-radius relationship. The improved agreement between models and observations brings the radius deviations within the limits imposed by potential starspot-related uncertainties for 92% of the stars in our DEB sample.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.