The Luminosity Function of Red Supergiants in M31
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mass-loss rates of red supergiant stars (RSGs) are poorly constrained by direct measurements, and yet the subsequent evolution of these stars depends critically on how much mass is lost during the RSG phase. In 2012 the Geneva evolutionary group updated their mass-loss prescription for RSGs with the result that a 20 M ⊙ star now loses 10 times more mass during the RSG phase than in the older models. Thus, higher-mass RSGs evolve back through a second yellow supergiant phase rather than exploding as Type II-P supernovae, in accord with recent observations (the so-called “RSG Problem”). Still, even much larger mass-loss rates during the RSG phase cannot be ruled out by direct measurements of their current dust-production rates, as such mass loss is episodic. Here, we test the models by deriving a luminosity function for RSGs in the nearby spiral galaxy, M31, which is sensitive to the total mass loss during the RSG phase. We carefully separate RSGs from asymptotic giant branch stars in the color–magnitude diagram following the recent method exploited by Yang and collaborators in their Small Magellanic Cloud studies. Comparing our resulting luminosity function with that predicted by the evolutionary models shows that the new prescription for RSG mass loss does an excellent job of matching the observations, and we can readily rule out significantly larger values.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".