Velocity and abundance precisions for future high-resolution spectroscopic surveys: a study for 4MOST
E. Caffau, A. Koch, L. Sbordone, P. Sartoretti, C. J. Hansen, F., Royer, N. Leclerc, P. Bonifacio, N. Christlieb, H. G. Ludwig, E. K. Grebel,, R. S. de Jong, C. Chiappini, J. Walcher, S. Mignot, S. Feltzing, M. Cohen, I., Minchev, A. Helmi, T. Piffl, E. Depagne, O. Schnurr

TL;DR
This study evaluates the precision of radial velocity and chemical abundance measurements for future high-resolution spectroscopic surveys like 4MOST, demonstrating achievable accuracies and optimal instrument configurations for Galactic chemo-dynamical studies.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive feasibility analysis for high-resolution spectrographs, identifying optimal wavelength ranges and resolutions to achieve precise kinematic and chemical measurements.
Findings
Radial velocity uncertainties can be below 1 km/s, limited mainly by systematic effects.
Chemical abundances can be measured with better than 0.1 dex accuracy for many elements.
An optimal resolving power of R~20000 is recommended for survey design.
Abstract
In preparation for future, large-scale, multi-object, high-resolution spectroscopic surveys of the Galaxy, we present a series of tests of the precision in radial velocity and chemical abundances that any such project can achieve at a 4m class telescope. We briefly discuss a number of science cases that aim at studying the chemo-dynamical history of the major Galactic components (bulge, thin and thick disks, and halo) - either as a follow-up to the Gaia mission or on their own merits. Based on a large grid of synthetic spectra that cover the full range in stellar parameters of typical survey targets, we devise an optimal wavelength range and argue for a moderately high-resolution spectrograph. As a result, the kinematic precision is not limited by any of these factors, but will practically only suffer from systematic effects, easily reaching uncertainties <1 km/s. Under realistic survey…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
