A UNIFORM ASTEROSEISMIC ANALYSIS OF 22 SOLAR-TYPE STARS OBSERVED BY KEPLER

By S. Mathur, T. Metcalfe, M. Woitaszek, H. Bruntt, G. Verner, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, O. Creevey, G. Doğan, S. Basu, C. Karoff and 32 more. 2012

157 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Asteroseismology with the Kepler space telescope is providing not only an improved characterization of exoplanets and their host stars, but also a new window on stellar structure and evolution for the large sample of solar-type stars in the field. We perform a uniform analysis of 22 of the brightest asteroseismic targets with the highest signal-to-noise ratio observed for 1 month each during the first year of the mission, and we quantify the precision and relative accuracy of asteroseismic determinations of the stellar radius, mass, and age that are possible using various methods. We present the properties of each star in the sample derived from an automated analysis of the individual oscillation frequencies and other observational constraints using the Asteroseismic Modeling Portal (AMP), and we compare them to the results of model-grid-based methods that fit the global oscillation properties. We find that fitting the individual frequencies typically yields asteroseismic radii and masses to ∼1% precision, and ages to ∼2.5% precision (respectively, 2, 5, and 8 times better than fitting the global oscillation properties). The absolute level of agreement between the results from different approaches is also encouraging, with model-grid-based methods yielding slightly smaller estimates of the radius and mass and slightly older values for the stellar age relative to AMP, which computes a large number of dedicated models for each star. The sample of targets for which this type of analysis is possible will grow as longer data sets are obtained during the remainder of the mission.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/baefc95b87fa987652d6b7e665316b8c76638711

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. D. Huber
2. D. Stello
3. E. Gaidos
4. W. Chaplin
5. A. Mann
6. Martin Asplund
7. Aaron Dotter
8. T. Bedding

In Instrumentation

1. D. Huber
2. D. Stello
3. W. Chaplin
4. E. Gaidos
5. T. Bedding
6. A. Mann
7. B. Mosser
8. A. Miglio

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

1. D. Huber
2. E. Gaidos
3. Aaron Dotter
4. A. Serenelli
5. B. Paxton
6. R. Townsend
7. L. Bildsten
8. A. Mann

Citations in the corpus

• REVISED STELLAR PROPERTIES OF KEPLER TARGETS FOR THE QUARTER 1–16 TRANSIT DETECTION RUN (2013, background): “…et al. 2011), to classical pulsators (Grigahcène et al. 2010; Kolenberg et al. 2010; Kurtz et al. 2011), cool dwarfs (Chaplin et al. 2011; Silva Aguirre et al. 2011; Mathur et al. 2012) and red giant stars (Bedding et al. 2010; Hekker et al. 2011; Kallinger et al. 2010; Mosser et al. 2012a).”
• A new correction of stellar oscillation frequencies for near-surface effects (2014, methodology): “This scaled power-law approach has been adopted widely (e.g. Tang & Gai 2011; Mathur et al. 2012; Deheuvels et al. 2012).”
• Asteroseismology of Solar-Type and Red-Giant Stars (2013, background): “…similar νac and hence νmax) to the Sun has indicated similar surface-term properties in those stars, while on a larger sample of 22 solar-type stars observed by Kepler the average size of the best-fitting surface term was found to increase in magnitude with increasing log g (Mathur et al. 2012).”
• The Masses and Spins of Neutron Stars and Stellar-Mass Black Holes (2014, methodology): “Other techniques are sometimes applied; for example, asteroseismology has been used to find the masses of some white dwarfs, main sequence stars, and giants [85, 86, 87, 88].”
• Ages and fundamental properties of Kepler exoplanet host stars from asteroseismology (2015, methodology): “These techniques typically improve the precision by a factor of two or more over methods that only use the global oscillation parameters (e.g., Mathur et al. 2012; Silva Aguirre et al. 2013; Lebreton & Goupil 2014), but the absolute accuracy is difficult to assess.”
• Improvements to stellar structure models, based on a grid of 3D convection simulations. II. Calibrating the mixing-length formulation (2014, methodology): “AMP was used for the the seismic α calibrations of Mathur et al. (2012), Bonaca et al. (2012) and Metcalfe et al. (2014).”
• FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES OF STARS USING ASTEROSEISMOLOGY FROM KEPLER AND CoRoT AND INTERFEROMETRY FROM THE CHARA ARRAY (2012, methodology): “We note that two of the stars in our sample (HD 173701 and HD177153) have also been analyzed by Mathur et al. (2012), who used both a grid-based approach as well as detailed modelling of individual oscillation frequencies to derive stellar radii and masses.”
• Rotation and magnetism of Kepler pulsating solar-like stars : Towards asteroseismically calibrated age-rotation relations (2014, methodology): “We examined the relationship between surface rotation periods and ages by combining the periods provided in this work and the ages determined asteroseismically by Mathur et al. (2012), Metcalfe et al. (2014), and Chaplin et al. (2014).”
• FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES OF KEPLER PLANET-CANDIDATE HOST STARS USING ASTEROSEISMOLOGY (2013, unknown): “In general, however, comparisons with individual frequency modeling have shown agreement within 2% and 5% in radius and mass, respectively, both for dwarfs (Mathur et al. 2012) and for giants (di Mauro et al. 2011; Jiang et al. 2011).”
• Standing on the Shoulders of Dwarfs: the Kepler Asteroseismic LEGACY Sample. II. Radii, Masses, and Ages (2016, methodology): “In recent years there have been similar studies using smaller sam- ples and observation of shorter duration (e.g., Appourchaux et al. 2012; Mathur et al. 2012; Metcalfe et al. 2014).”
• MODULES FOR EXPERIMENTS IN STELLAR ASTROPHYSICS (MESA): PLANETS, OSCILLATIONS, ROTATION, AND MASSIVE STARS (2013, background): “By starting the search from multiple initial values, we aim to reduce the chance of ending up in a local minimum, which could potentially provide unphysical results, such as the spuriously low helium abundances reported by Mathur et al. (2012).”