Paper detail

Uncertainties and biases in modelling 16 Cyg A and B

In this study I assess how existing data for the solar analogues 16 Cyg A and B, in particular the asteroseismic measurements obtained from \emph{Kepler}, constrain theoretical stellar models. The goal is two-fold: first to use these stars as benchmarks to discuss which precisions can realistically be expected on the inferred stellar quantities; and second to determine how well 'non-standard' prescriptions, such as microscopic diffusion and overshoot, are constrained. I used a Bayesian statistical model to infer the values of the stellar parameters of 16 Cyg A and B. I sampled the posterior density of the stellar parameters via a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm, tested different physical prescription, and examined the impact of using different seismic diagnostics. General good agreement is found with several recent modelling studies on these stars, even though some discrepancies subsist regarding the precise estimates of the uncertainties on the parameters. An age of $6.88\pm0.12$ Gyr is estimated for the binary system. The inferred masses, $1.07\pm0.02$ M$_{\odot}$ for Cyg A and $1.05\pm0.02$ M$_{\odot}$ for Cyg B, are shown to be stable with respect to changes in the physical prescriptions considered for the modelling. For both stars, microscopic diffusion has a significant effect on the estimates of the initial metallicity. Overshoot is confined to very small regions below the convective zone. I show that a proper treatment of the seismic constraints is necessary to avoid biases in the estimate of the mass.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 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.

Authors

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.