Targeting Bright Metal-poor Stars in the Disk and Halo Systems of the Galaxy

Authors: Guilherme Limberg, Rafael M. Santucci, Silvia Rossi, Derek Shank, Vinicius M. Placco, Timothy C. Beers, Kevin C. Schlaufman, Andrew R. Casey, Hélio D. Perottoni, Young Sun Lee

arXiv: 2103.07621v1 - DOI (astro-ph.GA)
Accepted for ApJ. Long tables at the end of the manuscript
License: CC BY 4.0

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2103.07621v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
This study presents the results of spectroscopic follow-up for 1897 low-metallicity star candidates selected from the Best & Brightest (B&B) Survey. The observations were carried out using the GMOS-N/S and Goodman spectrographs, which provided low-resolution spectra with a resolution of approximately 2000. From these spectra, the authors estimated stellar atmospheric parameters and determined carbon and magnesium abundance ratios, which are representative of alpha elements. The analysis confirmed that 56% of the program stars are metal-poor ([Fe/H] < -1.0), while 30% are classified as very metal-poor (VMP; [Fe/H] < -2.0), and 2% are extremely metal-poor (EMP; [Fe/H] < -3.0). Additionally, the study identified 191 carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars, resulting in CEMP fractions of 19% and 43% for the VMP and EMP regimes, respectively. Among these CEMP stars, 94 belong to Group I ($A({\rm C}) \gtrsim 7.25$) and 97 to Group II ($A({\rm C}) \lesssim 7.25$) in the Yoon-Beers $A$(C)$-$[Fe/H] diagram. To improve target selection criteria for identifying bona fide VMP and EMP stars, the authors combined their data with Gaia EDR3 astrometric information. This approach significantly increased the efficiency compared to random draws from the B&B catalog, more than doubling success rates for different metallicity thresholds: $96\%$, $76\%$, $28\%$, and $4\%$ for [Fe/H] $\leq -1.5$, $\leq -2.0$, $\leq -2.5$, and $\leq -3.0$, respectively. Furthermore, this study investigated the presence of dynamically interesting stars in its sample by associating several VMP/EMP stars with either disk system or halo substructures such as Gaia Sausage/Enceladus and Sequoia with [Fe/H] $\leq -2.5$. The research is partially based on observations obtained under programs at SOAR telescope and Gemini North/South telescopes; SOAR is a joint project between Ministério da Ciência Tecnologia e Inovações do Brasil (MCTI/LNA), US National Science Foundation's NOIRLab (NSF), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), Michigan State University (MSU).
AI-generated keywords: Spectroscopy Low-Metallicity Stars Alpha Elements Carbon-Enhanced Metal-Poor (CEMP) Gaia EDR3

AI-generated Key Points

  • Spectroscopic follow-up study on 1897 low-metallicity star candidates from the B&B Survey
  • Used GMOS-N/S and Goodman spectrographs for observations
  • Estimated stellar atmospheric parameters and determined carbon and magnesium abundance ratios
  • Confirmed that 56% of program stars are metal-poor, 30% are very metal-poor, and 2% are extremely metal-poor
  • Identified 191 carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars, with CEMP fractions of 19% for VMP and 43% for EMP regimes
  • Grouped CEMP stars into Group I ($A({\rm C}) \gtrsim 7.25$) and Group II ($A({\rm C}) \lesssim 7.25$)
  • Combined data with Gaia EDR3 astrometric information to improve target selection criteria for VMP and EMP stars
  • Increased efficiency compared to random draws from B&B catalog, doubling success rates for different metallicity thresholds
  • Investigated presence of dynamically interesting stars associated with disk system or halo substructures such as Gaia Sausage/Enceladus and Sequoia with [Fe/H] $\leq -2.5$
  • Research based on observations obtained at SOAR telescope and Gemini North/South telescopes
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: We present the results of spectroscopic follow-up for 1897 low-metallicity star candidates, selected from the Best & Brightest (B&B) Survey, carried out with the GMOS-N/S (Gemini North/South telescopes) and Goodman (SOAR Telescope) spectrographs. From these low-resolution ($R \sim 2000$) spectra, we estimate stellar atmospheric parameters, as well as carbon and magnesium (representative of $\alpha$ elements) abundance ratios. We confirm that $56\%$ of our program stars are metal-poor ([Fe/H] $< -1.0$), $30\%$ are very metal-poor (VMP; [Fe/H] $< -2.0$) and $2\%$ are extremely metal-poor (EMP; [Fe/H] $< -3.0$). There are 191 carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars, resulting in CEMP fractions of $19\%$ and $43\%$ for the VMP and EMP regimes, respectively. A total of 94 confirmed CEMP stars belong to Group I ($A({\rm C}) \gtrsim 7.25$) and 97 to Group II ($A({\rm C}) \lesssim 7.25$) in the Yoon-Beers $A$(C)$-$[Fe/H] diagram. Moreover, we combine these data with Gaia EDR3 astrometric information to delineate new target-selection criteria, which have been applied to the Goodman/SOAR candidates, to more than double the efficiency for identification of bona-fide VMP and EMP stars in comparison to random draws from the B&B catalog. We demonstrate that this target-selection approach can achieve success rates of $96\%$, $76\%$, $28\%$ and $4\%$ for [Fe/H] $\leq -1.5$, $\leq -2.0$, $\leq -2.5$ and $\leq -3.0$, respectively. Finally, we investigate the presence of dynamically interesting stars in our sample. We find that several VMP/EMP ([Fe/H] $\leq -2.5$) stars can be associated with either the disk system or halo substructures like Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus and Sequoia.

Submitted to arXiv on 13 Mar. 2021

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.