ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ObservationalTechniques O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ObservationalTechniques O B-CelestialObject O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ObservationalTechniques O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O B-ObservationalTechniques O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ObservationalTechniques O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject B-CelestialObject O O O O O O B-Formula O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O B-CelestialObject B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: the latter. Fig. 7 shows that if one adopts a T eff lower by 100 K then nearly exact agreement between dynamical and asteroseismic numbers are reached for this star when adopting the correction from Rodrigues et al. ( 2017 ). For KIC8410637 comparisons to very similar stars in the open cluster NGC6819 (Handberg et al. 2017 ) suggests that the observed T eff , measured by Frandsen et al. ( 2013 ), could be too high. There are reasons to suspect that T eff of the binary sample measured by Gaulme et al. ( 2016 ) could be overestimated for some stars, which would cause an overestimate of mass and radius from the asteroseismic scaling relations even if appropriate corrections are applied. The way T eff was measured in that study ignored the continuum contribution from the secondary stars, which makes the spectral lines appear weaker, potentially mimicking a higher temperature. The stars that we re-measured taking into account the light ratio were found cooler, though only by 56, 16, and 12 K. However, the light ratio and therefore the potential overestimate of T eff is larger for the two stars with largest discrepancy between dynamical and asteroseismic measures, KIC5786154A and KIC4663623A, than any of the three giants in our sample. We also note that the spectroscopic log g values reported by Gaulme et al. ( 2016 ) for these two stars are larger than the dynamical and asteroseismic log g measurements by 0.25 and 0.5 dex, suggesting potential issues with the spectroscopic analysis. KIC10001167A can be compared to stars in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae (47 Tuc; NGC104) given that it has similar metallicity ([Fe/H]∼−0.7, compare Gaulme et al. 2016 and Brogaard et al. 2017 ). Since the globular clusters are almost always found to be as old or older than field stars at similar metallicity, KIC10001167A would be expected to have an age equal to or younger than 47 Tuc. A comparison to the turn-off mass of 47 Tuc determined from the eclipsing member V69 (Thompson et al. 2010 ), extrapolated to the giant phase via isochrones (Brogaard et al. 2017 ) would then suggest a mass of for KIC10001167A, about 2σ larger than the measured by Gaulme et al. ( 2016 ). Indeed, if their low mass of is correct, the corresponding age of this star would be larger than the presently established age of the Universe. This problem could be avoided if the star is an AGB star that experienced mass-loss on the RGB. However, we also note that the T eff measured by Gaulme et al. ( 2016 ) for KIC10001167B, the MS star in this binary, is very much (∼6σ) larger than would be expected for their measure of a star on the MS. This suggests that the true mass of KIC10001167B is larger. Since dynamical mass estimates of the two components of a binary system correlate strongly, this also indicates that the mass of KIC10001167A is larger than the dynamical measure. Furthermore, if KIC10001167A is an AGB star then f Δν is ∼1.005 instead of ∼0.957 and thus the seismic mass and radius would be