Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Meta-analysis of photometric and asteroseismic measurements of stellar rotation periods: the Lomb-Scargle periodogram, autocorrelation function, wavelet and rotational splitting analysis for 92 Kepler asteroseismic targets

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2206.05411 v2 pith:KQKZ55LL submitted 2022-06-11 astro-ph.SR

Meta-analysis of photometric and asteroseismic measurements of stellar rotation periods: the Lomb-Scargle periodogram, autocorrelation function, wavelet and rotational splitting analysis for 92 Kepler asteroseismic targets

classification astro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismicperiodsphotometricrotationstarsperiodstellarlomb-scargle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We perform photometric (the Lomb-Scargle periodogram, autocorrelation, and wavelet) and asteroseismic analyses of 92 Kepler solar-like main-sequence stars to understand the reliability of the measured stellar rotation periods. We focus on the 70 stars without reported stellar companions, and classify them into four groups according to the quarter-to-quarter variance of the Lomb-Scargle period and the precision of the asteroseismic period. We present detailed individual comparison among photometric and asteroseismic constraints for these stars. We find that most of our targets exhibit significant quarter-to-quarter variances in the photometric periods, suggesting that the photometrically estimated period should be regarded as a simplified characterization of the true stellar rotation period, especially under the presence of the latitudinal differential rotation. On the other hand, there are a fraction of stars with a relatively small quarter-to-quarter variance in the photometric periods, most of which have consistent values for asteroseismically and photometrically estimated rotation periods. We also identify over ten stars whose photometric and asteroseismic periods significantly disagree, which would be potentially interesting targets for further individual investigations.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.