4.5 Article

Activity indicators and stellar parameters of the Kepler targets An application of the ROTFIT pipeline to LAMOST-Kepler stellar spectra

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 594, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628337

关键词

surveys; techniques: spectroscopic; stars: fundamental parameters; stars: kinematics and dynamics; stars: activity; stars: chromospheres

资金

  1. National Development and Reform Commission
  2. Italian Ministero dell'Istruzione, Universite, e Ricerca (MIUR)
  3. European Community [269194, NCN 2014/13/B/ST9/00902]
  4. Joint Fund of Astronomy of National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [U1231202]
  5. Chinese Academy of Sciences [U1231202]
  6. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2014CB845700, 2013CB834900]
  7. National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [11403056]
  8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  9. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. A comprehensive and homogeneous determination of stellar parameters for the stars observed by the Kepler space telescope is necessary for statistical studies of their properties. As a result of the large number of stars monitored by Kepler, the largest and more complete databases of stellar parameters published to date are multiband photometric surveys. The LAMOST-Kepler survey, whose spectra are analyzed in the present paper, was the first large spectroscopic project, which started in 2011 and aimed at filling that gap. In this work we present the results of our analysis, which is focused on selecting spectra with emission lines and chromospherically active stars by means of the spectral subtraction of inactive templates. The spectroscopic determination of the atmospheric parameters for a large number of stars is a by-product of our analysis. Methods. We have used a purposely developed version of the code ROTFIT for the determination of the stellar parameters by exploiting a wide and homogeneous collection of real star spectra, namely the Indo US library. We provide a catalog with the atmospheric parameters (T-eff, log g, and [Fe/H]), radial velocity (RV), and an estimate of the projected rotation velocity (v sin i). For cool stars (T-eff <= 6000 K), we also calculated the H alpha and Ca II-IRT fluxes, which are important proxies of chromospheric activity. Results. We have derived the RV and atmospheric parameters for 61 753 spectra of 51 385 stars. The average uncertainties, which we estimate from the stars observed more than once, are about 12 km s(-1), 1.3%, 0.05 dex, and 0.06 dex for RV, T-eff, log g, and [Fe/H], respectively, although they are larger for the spectra with a very low signal-to-noise ratio. Literature data for a few hundred stars (mainly from high-resolution spectroscopy) were used to peform quality control of our results. The final accuracy of the RV is about 14 km s-1. The accuracy of the T-eff, log g, and [Fe/H] measurements is about 3.5%, 0.3 dex, and 0.2 dex, respectively. However, while the T-eff values are in very good agreement with the literature, we noted some issues with the determination of [Fe/H] of metal poor stars and the tendency, for log g, to cluster around the values typical for main-sequence and red giant stars. We propose correction relations based on these comparisons and we show that this does not have a significant effect on the determination of the chromospheric fluxes. The RV distribution is asymmetric and shows an excess of stars with negative RVs that are larger at low metallicities. Despite the rather low LAMOST resolution, we were able to identify interesting and peculiar objects, such as stars with variable RV, ultrafast rotators, and emission-line objects. Based on the H alpha and Ca II-IRT fluxes, we found 442 chromospherically active stars, one of which is a likely accreting object. The availability of precise rotation periods from the Kepler photometry allowed us to study the dependency of these chromospheric fluxes on the rotation rate for a very large sample of field stars.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据