REVIEW 1 cited by
Asteroseismic stellar modelling: systematics from the treatment of the initial helium abundance
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Despite the fact that the initial helium abundance is an essential ingredient in modelling solar-type stars, its abundance in these stars remains a poorly constrained observational property. This is because the effective temperature in these stars is not high enough to allow helium ionization, not allowing any conclusions on its abundance when spectroscopic techniques are employed. To this end, stellar modellers resort to estimating the initial helium abundance via a semi-empirical helium-to-heavy element ratio, anchored to the the standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis value. Depending on the choice of solar composition used in stellar model computations, the helium-to-heavy element ratio, ($\Delta Y/\Delta Z$) is found to vary between 1 and 3. In this study, we use the Kepler "LEGACY" stellar sample, for which precise seismic data is available, and explore the systematic uncertainties on the inferred stellar parameters (radius, mass, and age) arising from adopting different values of $\Delta Y/\Delta Z$, specifically, 1.4 and 2.0. The stellar grid constructed with a higher $\Delta Y / \Delta Z$ value yields lower radius and mass estimates. We found systematic uncertainties of 1.1 per cent, 2.6 per cent, and 13.1 per cent on radius, mass, and ages, respectively.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Uniform characterisation of an ensemble of main-sequence benchmark stars: effect of Gaia-based data on grid search models
Adding Gaia-based luminosities to grid-based asteroseismic modelling improves mass precision for main-sequence benchmarks but leaves radii systematically underestimated, and 1 per cent precise interferometric radii wo...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.