Paper detail

Third generation stellar models for asteroseismology of hot B subdwarf stars. A test of accuracy with the pulsating eclipsing binary PG 1336--018

Context. Asteroseismic determinations of structural parameters of hot B subdwarfs (sdB) have been carried out for more than a decade now. These analyses rely on stellar models whose reliability for the required task needs to be evaluated critically. Aims. We present new models of the so-called third generation (3G) dedicated to the asteroseismology of sdB stars. These parameterized models are complete static structures suitable for analyzing both p- and g-mode pulsators, contrary to the former second generation (2G) models that were limited to p-modes. While the reliability of the 2G models has been successfully verified in the past, this important test still has to be conducted on the 3G structures. Methods. The close eclipsing binary PG 1336-018 provides a unique opportunity to test the reliability of sdB models. We compared the structural parameters of the sdB component in PG 1336-018 obtained from asteroseismology based on the 3G models, with those derived independently from the modeling of the reflection/irradiation effect and the eclipses observed in the light curve. Results. The stellar parameters inferred from asteroseismology using the 3G models are found to be remarkably consistent with both the preferred orbital solution obtained from the binary light curve modeling and the updated spectroscopic estimates for the surface gravity of the star. We also show that the uncertainties on the input physics included in stellar models have no noticeable impact, at the current level of accuracy, on the structural parameters derived by asteroseismology. Conclusions. The stellar models presently used to carry out quantitative seismic analyses of sdB stars are reliable for the task. The stellar parameters inferred by this technique, at least for those that could be tested (M*, R*, and log g), appear to be both very precise and accurate, as no significant systematic effect has been found.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.