Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Empirical analysis uncovers a refined mass-radius relation in main sequence stars, suggesting improved modeling accuracy.
In the following paper I have compared some typical mass-radius relations for main sequence stars by studying their level of agreement with DEBCat (J. Southworth, ASP Conf. Ser. 496 (2015), <ns0:ext-link ext-link-type="uri" ns4:href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1411.1219">https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1411.1219</ns0:ext-link>, <ns0:ext-link ext-link-type="uri" ns4:href="https://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/jkt/debcat/debs.dat">https://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/jkt/debcat/debs.dat</ns0:ext-link>), which is a recent catalog by J. Southworth. Models chosen for testing were originally developed using older, smaller datasets than DEBCat. Each model follows a two-piece function structure, where each branch is a monomial power-law. This approach is motivated by theoretical considerations suggesting that low-mass and high-mass main sequence stars exhibit distinct behaviors in energy production and transport. Best level of agreement with DEBCat is found for Zamorano’s model (J. Zamorano, A. Gimenez, A strophys. Space Sci. 114 (1985), <ns0:ext-link ext-link-type="uri" ns4:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00653969">https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00653969</ns0:ext-link>). Also a new empirical relation is proposed by fitting a two-piece monomial power-law to DEBCat main sequence stars.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salvatore Camposeo (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: