Testing the asteroseismic estimates of stellar radii with surface brightness-colour relations and Gaia DR3 parallaxes. Red giants and red clump stars

G. Valle, M. Dell'Omodarme, P. G. Prada Moroni, S. Degl'Innocenti
{"title":"Testing the asteroseismic estimates of stellar radii with surface brightness-colour relations and Gaia DR3 parallaxes. Red giants and red clump stars","authors":"G. Valle, M. Dell'Omodarme, P. G. Prada Moroni, S. Degl'Innocenti","doi":"arxiv-2409.10050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We compared stellar radii derived from asteroseismic scaling relations with\nthose estimated using two independent surface brightness-colour relations\n(SBCRs) and Gaia DR3 parallaxes. We cross-matched asteroseismic and astrometric\ndata for over 6,400 RGB and RC stars from the APO-K2 catalogue with the TESS\nInput Catalogue v8.2 to obtain precise V band magnitudes and E(B-V) colour\nexcesses. We then adopted two different SBCRs from the literature to derive\nstellar radius estimates, denoted as $R^a$ and $R^b$, respectively. We analysed\nthe ratio of these SBCR-derived radii to the asteroseismic radius estimates,\n$R$, provided in the APO-K2 catalogue. Both SBCRs exhibited good agreement with\nasteroseismic radius estimates. On average, $R^a$ was overestimated by 1.2%\nwith respect to $R$, while $R^b$ was underestimated by 2.5%. For stars larger\nthan 20 $R_{\\odot}$, SBCR radii are systematically lower than asteroseismic\nones. The agreement with asteroseismic radii shows a strong dependence on the\nparallax. The dispersion is halved for stars with a parallax greater than 2.5\nmas. In this subsample, $R^b$ showed perfect agreement with $R$, while $R^a$\nremained slightly overestimated by 3%. A trend with [Fe/H] of 4% to 6% per dex\nwas found. For stars less massive than about 0.95 $M_{\\odot}$, SBCR radii were\nsignificantly higher than asteroseismic ones, by about 6%. This overestimation\ncorrelated with the presence of extended helium cores in these stars'\nstructures relative to their envelopes. Furthermore, radius ratios showed a\ndichotomous behaviour at higher masses, mainly due to the presence of several\nRC stars with SBCR radii significantly lower with respect to asteroseismology.\nThis behaviour originates from a different response of asteroseismic scaling\nrelations and SBCR to [$\\alpha$/Fe] abundance ratios for massive stars, both in\nRGB and RC phases, which is reported here for the first time.","PeriodicalId":501068,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - PHYS - Solar and Stellar Astrophysics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - PHYS - Solar and Stellar Astrophysics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.10050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We compared stellar radii derived from asteroseismic scaling relations with those estimated using two independent surface brightness-colour relations (SBCRs) and Gaia DR3 parallaxes. We cross-matched asteroseismic and astrometric data for over 6,400 RGB and RC stars from the APO-K2 catalogue with the TESS Input Catalogue v8.2 to obtain precise V band magnitudes and E(B-V) colour excesses. We then adopted two different SBCRs from the literature to derive stellar radius estimates, denoted as $R^a$ and $R^b$, respectively. We analysed the ratio of these SBCR-derived radii to the asteroseismic radius estimates, $R$, provided in the APO-K2 catalogue. Both SBCRs exhibited good agreement with asteroseismic radius estimates. On average, $R^a$ was overestimated by 1.2% with respect to $R$, while $R^b$ was underestimated by 2.5%. For stars larger than 20 $R_{\odot}$, SBCR radii are systematically lower than asteroseismic ones. The agreement with asteroseismic radii shows a strong dependence on the parallax. The dispersion is halved for stars with a parallax greater than 2.5 mas. In this subsample, $R^b$ showed perfect agreement with $R$, while $R^a$ remained slightly overestimated by 3%. A trend with [Fe/H] of 4% to 6% per dex was found. For stars less massive than about 0.95 $M_{\odot}$, SBCR radii were significantly higher than asteroseismic ones, by about 6%. This overestimation correlated with the presence of extended helium cores in these stars' structures relative to their envelopes. Furthermore, radius ratios showed a dichotomous behaviour at higher masses, mainly due to the presence of several RC stars with SBCR radii significantly lower with respect to asteroseismology. This behaviour originates from a different response of asteroseismic scaling relations and SBCR to [$\alpha$/Fe] abundance ratios for massive stars, both in RGB and RC phases, which is reported here for the first time.
用表面亮度-颜色关系和盖亚DR3视差检验小行星地震对恒星半径的估计。红巨星和红团星
我们将根据小行星地震比例关系得出的恒星半径与利用两个独立的表面亮度-颜色关系(SBCR)和 Gaia DR3 视差估算的恒星半径进行了比较。我们将APO-K2星表中6400多颗RGB和RC恒星的小行星地震数据和天体测量数据与TESS输入星表v8.2进行了交叉比对,以获得精确的V波段星等和E(B-V)色差。然后,我们采用文献中两种不同的 SBCR 来推导恒星半径估计值,分别记为 $R^a$ 和 $R^b$。我们分析了这些 SBCR 得出的半径与 APO-K2 星表中提供的小行星地震半径估计值 $R$ 的比值。这两种 SBCR 与地震半径估计值的吻合度都很高。平均而言,$R^a$比$R$高估了1.2%,而$R^b$则低估了2.5%。对于大于 20 $R_{\odot}$ 的恒星,SBCR 半径系统地低于星震半径。与星震半径的一致程度与视差有很大关系。视差大于 2.5mas 的恒星的离散度减半。在这个子样本中,$R^b$与$R$完全一致,而$R^a$仍然被高估了3%。发现[Fe/H]的变化趋势为每 dex 4%到 6%。对于质量小于约0.95 $M_{\odot}$的恒星,SBCR半径明显高于星震半径,高出约6%。这种高估与这些恒星结构中存在相对于其包层的扩展氦核有关。此外,半径比在质量较高时表现出两分行为,这主要是由于存在几颗RC恒星,其SBCR半径比星震半径比星震半径低很多。这种行为源于星震比例关系和SBCR对处于RGB和RC阶段的大质量恒星的[$\alpha$/Fe]丰度比的不同响应,这是本文首次报道。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信