A comparative study on the reliability of open cluster parameters

TL;DR

This study compares seven open cluster parameter compilations to assess their accuracy, identifies systematic differences, and provides correction methods, revealing that at least 20% of objects in large catalogs may have unreliable parameters.

Contribution

It offers a comprehensive statistical comparison of open cluster parameter catalogs and introduces correction terms to improve their accuracy.

Findings

Most catalog results are reasonably scaled but show trends or offsets.

Derived correction terms reduce errors to about 0.2 dex in age, 0.08 mag in reddening, and 0.35 mag in distance.

At least 20% of objects in large catalogs are problematic, affecting parameter reliability.

Abstract

Open clusters are known as excellent tracers of the structure and chemical evolution of the Galactic disk, however, the accuracy and reliability of open cluster parameters is poorly known. In recent years, several studies aimed to present homogeneous open cluster parameter compilations, which are based on some different approaches and photometric data. These catalogues are excellent sources to facilitate testing of the actual accuracy of open cluster parameters. We compare seven cluster parameter compilations statistically and with an external sample, which comprises the mean results of individual studies. Furthermore, we selected the objects IC 4651, NGC 2158, NGC 2383, NGC 2489, NGC 2627, NGC 6603, and Trumpler 14, with the main aim to highlight differences in the fitting solutions. We derived correction terms for each cluster parameter, using the external calibration sample. Most results by the compilations are reasonable scaled, but there are trends or constant offsets of different degree. We also identified one data set, which appears too erroneous to allow adjustments. After the correction, the mean intrinsic errors amount to about 0.2 dex for the age, 0.08 mag for the reddening, and 0.35 mag for the distance modulus. However, there is no study that characterises the cluster morphologies of all test cases in a correct and consistent manner. Furthermore, we found that the largest compilations probably include at least 20 percent of problematic objects, for which the parameters differ significantly. These could be among others doubtful or unlikely open clusters that do not facilitate an unambiguous fitting solution.