Mass evaluation for red giant stars based on the spectroscopically determined atmospheric parameters
Yoichi Takeda

TL;DR
This study compares spectroscopic and asteroseismic methods for estimating red giant star masses, revealing strengths and limitations of each approach and highlighting their complementary nature.
Contribution
It provides a detailed assessment of the reliability of spectroscopic and evolutionary track-based mass estimates for red giants using asteroseismic data as a benchmark.
Findings
M_gLT correlates with M_seis but has limited precision.
M_trk aligns well with M_seis for certain evolutionary stages.
M_trk overestimates mass for low-mass He-burning giants.
Abstract
The mass (M) of a star can be evaluated from its spectroscopically determined effective temperature (T _eff) and metallicity ([Fe/H]) along with the luminosity (L; derived from parallax), while comparing them with grids of theoretical evolutionary tracks. It has been argued, however, that such a track-based mass (M_trk) may tend to be overestimated for the case of red giants. Meanwhile, there is an alternative approach of evaluating mass (M_gLT) directly from surface gravity (g), L, and T_eff. The practical reliability of M_gLT was examined for ~100 benchmark giants in the Kepler field, for which atmospheric parameters are already determined and the reliable mass (M_seis) along with the evolutionary status are known from asteroseismology. In addition, similar check was also made for the accuracy of M_trk for comparison. It turned out that, while a reasonable correlation is seen between…
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.
