Paper detail

The Aarhus Red Giants Challenge I: Stellar structures in the red giant branch phase

(Abridged). We introduce the Aarhus Red Giants Challenge, a series of detailed comparisons between widely used stellar evolution and oscillation codes aiming at establishing the minimum level of uncertainties in properties of red giants arising solely from numerical implementations. Using 9 state-of-the-art stellar evolution codes, we defined a set of input physics and physical constants for our calculations and calibrated the convective efficiency to a specific point on the main sequence. We produced evolutionary tracks and stellar structure models at fixed radius along the red-giant branch for masses of 1.0 M$_\odot$, 1.5 M$_\odot$, 2.0 M$_\odot$, and 2.5 M$_\odot$, and compared the predicted stellar properties. Once models have been calibrated on the main sequence we find a residual spread in the predicted effective temperatures across all codes of ~20 K at solar radius and ~30-40 K in the RGB regardless of the considered stellar mass. The predicted ages show variations of 2-5% (increasing with stellar mass) which we track down to differences in the numerical implementation of energy generation. The luminosity of the RGB-bump shows a spread of about 10% for the considered codes, which translates into magnitude differences of ~0.1 mag in the optical V-band. We also compare the predicted [C/N] abundance ratio and found a spread of 0.1 dex or more for all considered masses. Our comparisons show that differences at the level of a few percent still remain in evolutionary calculations of red giants branch stars despite the use of the same input physics. These are mostly due to differences in the energy generation routines and interpolation across opacities, and call for further investigations on these matters in the context of using properties of red giants as benchmarks for astrophysical studies.

preprint2019arXivOpen 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.

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.