Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Establishing the accuracy of asteroseismic mass and radius estimates of giant stars. I. Three eclipsing systems at [Fe/H]~ -0.3 and the need for a large high-precision sample

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

arxiv 1801.08167 v1 pith:RXT4N7AB submitted 2018-01-24 astro-ph.SR

Establishing the accuracy of asteroseismic mass and radius estimates of giant stars. I. Three eclipsing systems at [Fe/H]~ -0.3 and the need for a large high-precision sample

classification astro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismicstarsgianteclipsingmassaccuracyestimatesmeasurements
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We aim to establish and improve the accuracy level of asteroseismic estimates of mass, radius, and age of giant stars. This can be achieved by measuring independent, accurate, and precise masses, radii, effective temperatures and metallicities of long period eclipsing binary stars with a red giant component that displays solar-like oscillations. We measured precise properties of the three eclipsing binary systems KIC 7037405, KIC 9540226, and KIC 9970396 and estimated their ages be $5.3\pm0.5$, $3.1\pm0.6$, and $4.8\pm0.5$ Gyr. The measurements of the giant stars were compared to corresponding measurements of mass, radius, and age using asteroseismic scaling relations and grid modeling. We found that asteroseismic scaling relations without corrections to $\Delta\nu$ systematically overestimate the masses of the three red giants by 11.7%, 13.7%, and 18.9%, respectively. However, by applying theoretical correction factors $f_{\Delta\nu}$ according to Rodrigues et al. (2017), we reached general agreement between dynamical and asteroseismic mass estimates, and no indications of systematic differences at the precision level of the asteroseismic measurements. The larger sample investigated by Gaulme et al. (2016) showed a much more complicated situation, where some stars show agreement between the dynamical and corrected asteroseismic measures while others suggest significant overestimates of the asteroseismic measures. We found no simple explanation for this, but indications of several potential problems, some theoretical, others observational. Therefore, an extension of the present precision study to a larger sample of eclipsing systems is crucial for establishing and improving the accuracy of asteroseismology of giant stars.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Unveiling the nature of barium stars. I. Asteroseismic masses and the evolutionary link between Ba dwarfs and giants

    astro-ph.SR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Asteroseismic masses average 1.29 Msun for Ba dwarfs versus 1.96 Msun for Ba giants, supporting main-sequence accretion evolution from dwarfs to giants, though models fail to match the observed [hs/ls] ratio.

  2. The Stellar Observations Network Group (SONG) -- A Legacy Archive of Stellar Time-Domain Spectroscopy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5

    The SONG network archive holds >580,000 spectra of 3091 stars (2014–2025) and is presented as an open community resource for asteroseismology, binaries, variability, and exoplanets.