Paper detail

Stellar ages, masses and radii from asteroseismic modeling are robust to systematic errors in spectroscopy

The search for twins of the Sun and Earth relies on accurate characterization of stellar and exoplanetary parameters: i.e., ages, masses, and radii. In the modern era of asteroseismology, parameters of solar-like stars are derived by fitting theoretical models to observational data, which include measurements of their oscillation frequencies, metallicity [Fe/H], and effective temperature Teff. Combining this information with transit data furthermore yields the corresponding parameters for their exoplanets. While [Fe/H] and Teff are commonly stated to a precision of ~0.1 dex and ~100 K, the impact of errors in their measurement has not been studied in practice within the context of the parameters derived from them. Here we use the Stellar Parameters in an Instant (SPI) pipeline to estimate the parameters of nearly 100 stars observed by Kepler and Gaia, many of which are confirmed planet hosts. We adjust the reported spectroscopic measurements of these stars by introducing faux systematic errors and artificially increasing the reported uncertainties, and quantify the differences in the resulting parameters. We find that a systematic error of 0.1 dex in [Fe/H] translates to differences of only 4%, 2%, and 1% on average in the resulting stellar ages, masses, and radii, which are well within their uncertainties (~11%, 3.5%, 1.4%) as derived by SPI. We also find that increasing the uncertainty of [Fe/H] measurements by 0.1 dex increases the uncertainties by only 0.01 Gyr, 0.02 M_sun, and 0.01 R_sun, which are again well below their reported uncertainties (0.5 Gyr, 0.04 M_sun, 0.02 R_sun). The results for Teff at 100 K are similar. Stellar parameters from SPI are unchanged within uncertainties by errors of up to 0.14 dex or 175 K, and are even more robust to errors in Teff than the seismic scaling relations. Consequently, the parameters for their exoplanets are robust as well.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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 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.