Interferometric diameters of five evolved intermediate-mass planet-hosting stars measured with PAVO at the CHARA Array

Abstract

Debate over the planet occurrence rates around intermediate-mass stars has hinged on the accurate determination of masses of evolved stars, and has been exacerbated by a paucity of reliable, directly-measured fundamental properties for these stars. We present long-baseline optical interferometry of five evolved intermediate-mass (∼ 1.5 M ⊙ ) planet-hosting stars using the PAVO beam combiner at the CHARA Array, which we combine with bolometric flux measurements and parallaxes to determine their radii and effective temperatures. We measured the radii and effective temperatures of 6 Lyncis (5.12±0.16 R ⊙ , 4949±58 K), 24 Sextantis (5.49±0.18 R ⊙ , 4908±65 K), κ Coronae Borealis (4.77±0.07 R ⊙ , 4870±47 K), HR 6817 (4.45±0.08 R ⊙ , 5013±59 K), and HR 8641 (4.91±0.12 R ⊙ , 4950±68 K). We find disagreements of typically 15 per cent in angular diameter and ∼ 200 K in temperature compared to interferometric measurements in the literature, yet good agreement with spectroscopic and photometric temperatures, concluding that the previous interferometric measurements may have been affected by systematic errors exceeding their formal uncertainties. Modelling based on BaSTI isochrones using various sets of asteroseismic, spectroscopic, and interferometric constraints tends to favour slightly (∼ 15 per cent) lower masses than generally reported in the literature.

The Asteroseismic Target List for Solar-like Oscillators Observed in 2 minute Cadence with the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite

“…Both comparisons show that our temperatures are on average ∼ 100 K hotter, which is comparable to previously found offsets between temperature scales (Pinsonneault et al 2012) and well within the systematic uncertainty of the fundamental interferometric temperature scale itself (e.g. White et al 2018). Based on these comparisons we have adopted a conservative uncertainty of 3% on the temperatures in the ATL, which encompasses both random and systematic uncertainties from the literature comparisons.…”

Progress on the calibration of surface brightness-color relations for early- and late-type stars

“…The diameter measurements in both papers are based on only two observations, so they could be more susceptible to systematic errors. Also, Casagrande et al (2014) and White et al (2018) found increased discrepancies as the angular diameters approached the resolution limits, which is the case here with such a value for the angular diameter for HD 3360. We also compared our extinction values with those of Challouf et al (2014).…”

TESS Reveals HD 118203 b to be a Transiting Planet

“…We then placed Gaussian priors on T eff , Fe H [ ], and R å for the full EXOFASTv2 analysis using the values listed above. The error limits for stellar effective temperature and thus radius are set by the accuracy of interferometric angular diameters, which show systematic differences in excess of 3% (e.g., White et al 2018). We therefore adopted fractional errors of 1.5% for T eff and 3.5% for stellar radius, yielding priors of…”