Paper detail

Theoretical analysis of surface brightness-colour relations for late-type stars using MARCS model atmospheres

Surface brightness-colour relations (SBCRs) are largely used for general studies in stellar astrophysics and for determining extragalactic distances. Based on simulated spectra of late-type stars using MARCS model atmospheres, our aim is to analyse the effect of stellar fundamental parameters on the surface brightness. We also compare theoretical and recent empirical SBCRs. We used MARCS model atmospheres to compute spectra and the surface brightness of stars. We first explored the parameter space of MARCS (i.e. effective temperature, $\log g$, $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$, microturbulence, and mass) in order to quantify their impact on the surface brightness. Then we considered a relation between the effective temperature and $\log g$ for late dwarfs and giants, as well as a solar metallicity, in order to allow a consistent comparison of theoretical and empirical SBCRs. We find that the SBCR is not sensitive to the microturbulence and mass. The effect of metallicity on the SBCR is found to be larger for dwarfs than for giants. It is also larger when considering larger $V-K_s$ values. We also find that a difference of 0.5 dex in metallicity between Galactic and LMC SBCRs does not affect the recent LMC distance determination, based on eclipsing binaries, by more than 0.4%. By comparing theoretical with empirical SBCRs, we find a good agreement of less than 2$σ$ for F5-K7 dwarfs and giants stars, while a larger discrepancy is found for M dwarfs and giants (about 4-6$σ$). The surface gravity properties, as modelled in MARCS, explain the differences in the empirical SBCRs in terms of class. We finally find that theoretical and empirical SBCRs for Cepheids are consistent. Carefully considering metallicity and $\log g$ is mandatory when calibrating or using SBCRs.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.