Measuring He i Stark Line Shapes in the Laboratory to Examine Differences in Photometric and Spectroscopic DB White Dwarf Masses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate helium White Dwarf (DB) masses are critical for understanding the star’s evolution. DB masses derived from the spectroscopic and photometric methods are inconsistent. Photometric masses agree better with currently accepted DB evolutionary theories and are mostly consistent across a large range of surface temperatures. Spectroscopic masses rely on untested He i Stark line-shape and Van der Waals broadening predictions, show unexpected surface temperature trends, and are thus viewed as less reliable. To test this conclusion, we present in this paper detailed He i Stark line-shape measurements at conditions relevant to DB atmospheres (T electron ≈12,000–17,000 K, n electron ≈ 1017 cm−3). We use X-rays from Sandia National Laboratories’ Z-machine to create a uniform ≈120 mm long hydrogen–helium mixture plasma. Van der Waals broadening is negligible at our experimental conditions, allowing us to measure He i Stark profiles only. Hβ, which has been well-studied in our platform and elsewhere, serves as the n e diagnostic. We find that He i Stark broadening models used in DB analyses are accurate within errors at tested conditions. It therefore seems unlikely that line-shape models are solely responsible for the observed spectroscopic mass trends. Our results should motivate the WD community to further scrutinize the validity of other spectroscopic and photometric input parameters, like atmospheric structure assumptions and convection corrections. These parameters can significantly change the derived DB mass. Identifying potential weaknesses in any input parameters could further our understanding of DBs, help elucidate their evolutionary origins, and strengthen confidence in both spectroscopic and photometric masses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".