Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 62 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 47 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 12 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 10 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 91 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 139 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 433 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 31 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Evolutionary and pulsation properties of Type II Cepheids (2009.06985v2)

Published 15 Sep 2020 in astro-ph.SR and astro-ph.GA

Abstract: We discuss the observed pulsation properties of Type II Cepheids (TIICs) in the Galaxy and Magellanic Clouds. The period (P) distributions, luminosity amplitudes and population ratios of the three different sub-groups (BL Herculis[BLH, P<5 days], W Virginis [WV, 5<P\<20 days], RV Tauri [RVT, P\>20 days]) are quite similar in different stellar systems, suggesting a common evolutionary channel and a mild dependence on both metallicity and environment. We present a homogeneous theoretical framework based on Horizontal Branch (HB) evolutionary models, envisaging that TIICs are mainly old (t<10 Gyr), low-mass stars. The BLHs are predicted to be post early asymptotic giant branch (PEAGB) stars (double shell burning) on the verge of reaching their AGB track (first crossing of the instability strip), while WVs are a mix of PEAGB and post-AGB stars (hydrogen shell burning) moving from cool to hot (second crossing). Thus suggesting that they are a single group of variable stars. RVTs are predicted to be a mix of post-AGB stars along their second crossing (short-period tail) and thermally pulsing AGB stars (long-period tail) evolving towards their white dwarf cooling sequence. We also present several sets of synthetic HB models by assuming a bimodal mass distribution along the HB. Theory suggests, in agreement with observations, that TIIC pulsation properties marginally depend on metallicity. Predicted period distributions and population ratios for BLHs agree quite well with observations, while those for WVs and RVTs are almost a factor of two smaller and larger than observed, respectively. Moreover, the predicted period distributions for WVs peak at periods shorter than observed, while those for RVTs display a long period tail not supported by observations. We investigate several avenues to explain these differences, but more detailed calculations are required to address them.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.