helium is the second most abundant element in normal stars and has a pronounced effect on their structure and evolution .
unfortunately , helium abundance can not be determined spectroscopically for low - mass stars because of their low temperatures . as a result ,
the initial helium abundance of stellar models depends on an assumption about galactic chemical evolution .
for instance , the yale - yonsei isochrones @xcite were constructed assuming @xmath3 , @xmath4 and @xmath5 being respectively the initial helium and heavy - element abundances .
the dartmouth tracks @xcite assume @xmath6 , while the padova tracks of @xcite assume @xmath7 .
such ad hoc prescriptions could easily lead to large errors in results for single stars that are determined using such sets of isochrones and tracks .    when additional data , such as frequencies of stellar oscillations and other spectroscopically determined stellar parameters are available , the helium abundance is often treated as one of the free parameters that are adjusted to obtain the best fit to the data ( see e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
while such methods give better constraints on the initial helium abundance , there are possible systematic errors that are introduced because of our inability to model the near surface layers of a star properly .
normal one - dimensional models treat convection only in gross approximations and do not treat the dynamical effects of convection at all .
this leads to large differences in the structure of the near surface layers that introduces a frequency - dependent error in the frequencies ( see , e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ) that is usually referred to as the `` surface effect '' .
removal of the surface effect can introduce errors in the determined stellar properties .
there are however , more direct ways of determining the helium abundance of a star using its oscillation frequencies .
the process of ionization of helium locally depresses the adiabatic index , @xmath8 , which in turn affects the sound speed in that region , and consequently , the frequencies of acoustic modes . in the case of the sun , the signature that helium ionization leaves on the sound - speed profile has been used successfully to determine the helium abundance in the solar convection zone ( e.g. , * ? ? ? * and references therein ) . for the sun ,
the helioseismic estimation of helium abundance was facilitated by the fact that the frequencies of about a few thousand modes of degrees ranging from @xmath9 ( the radial mode ) to @xmath10 have been determined precisely .
this is not the case for other stars , where only modes of @xmath92 and sometimes @xmath11 can be determined .
thus the estimation of helium abundance has to be done with a different technique .    to estimate the helium abundance in other stars
, one can exploit the fact that the steep variation in the sound speed in the second helium ionization zone introduces an oscillatory component , @xmath12 , in the oscillation frequencies as a function of the radial order , @xmath13 , of the modes @xcite .
the signal varies as @xmath14 , where @xmath15 is the acoustic depth of the ionization layer as measured from the stellar surface , i.e. , @xmath16 @xmath17 is the sound speed , @xmath18 the radial distance to the ionization layer , @xmath19 is the stellar radius , @xmath20 is the frequency of a mode with radial order @xmath13 and degree @xmath21 , and @xmath22 is the phase of the oscillatory term .
the amplitude of the signal is predominantly a function of the helium abundance  higher the abundance , higher the amplitude ; but there is also an effect of mass , effective temperature , and luminosity , which is why it is important to choose close enough calibrating models .
@xcite , @xcite , and @xcite explored theoretically how this signature may be used to determine the helium abundance of other stars .
while thus far no one has used this signature to determine the helium abundance of any star other than the sun , it has been used to determine the acoustic depth of the helium ionization zone . using data from _ corot _
, @xcite determined the location of the second helium ionization zone for the red giant hr  7349 , they lacked sufficient signal to noise to determine the helium abundance . again using _ corot _ data , @xcite and @xcite determined the position of the heii ionization zone of the solar - type star hd  49933 .
@xcite have extended this study to 19 stars observed by _
note that a similar oscillatory signature , but at a larger acoustic depth @xmath23 arises from the discontinuity in the second derivative of the sound speed at the base of the convection zone and can be used to determine the depth of the convection zone @xcite .    in this work
we determine the helium abundance in @xmath0  ( hd  186408 and 186427 ; kic  12069424 and 12069449 ) using oscillation frequencies determined from 2.5-years of observations by the _ kepler _ satellite .
these stars form a binary system and are among the brightest stars in the _ kepler _ field of view .
analysis of a three month time series to constrain the properties of the stars have shown that the stars are slightly more massive than the sun and somewhat older too . using the frequencies of oscillations , along with spectroscopic constraints on the effective temperature and metallicity of the stars
, @xcite found the stars to be @xmath24 gyr old with an initial composition to be @xmath25 and @xmath26 .
they estimated the masses of the a and b components to be @xmath27 @xmath28  and @xmath29 @xmath28 , respectively .
using similar technique @xcite found a somewhat larger helium abundances for these stars .
however , these values of helium abundance depend on input physics of stellar models and on how the surface effects are corrected for .
a more direct determination of the current helium abundance in the envelope , @xmath30 , is thus in order .
the rest of the paper is organized as follows .
we describe the methods we have used to determine the helium abundance from the signature of the ionization zone in section  [ sec : tech ] , the models used for the calibration of the helium signature are described in section  [ sec : mod ] , the results are presented in section  [ sec : res ] and we discuss the results in section  [ sec : con ] .
the amplitude of the oscillatory term , introduced by the localized depression of @xmath8 in the helium ionization zone , is quite small , and different techniques have been used to extract this signal . in this work
we use three techniques , the first ( method a ) relies on taking the second differences of the frequencies of a given degree with respect to the radial order @xmath13 to suppress the smooth variation in frequencies . the other two methods ( methods b and c )
rely on directly fitting the oscillatory signature while simultaneously modelling the predominantly smooth behavior of the frequencies as a function of @xmath13 .
the difference between the methods b and c is in the form of oscillatory function used in fitting and how the smooth component is adjusted .
we describe these methods in more detail below .      to extract the oscillatory signal from the frequencies we take the second difference @xcite of the frequencies with respect to the radial order @xmath13 , i.e. ,
@xmath31 the advantage of taking the second difference is that the contribution from the smooth variation of the frequencies with @xmath13 is greatly reduced since the dominant variation of @xmath32 with @xmath13 is linear .
we fit the second differences to a suitable functional form that represents the oscillatory signal from the heii ionization zone as well as that from the base of the convection zone @xcite . for this purpose
we use the following form which has been adapted from @xcite @xmath33 where @xmath34 are free parameters which are fit to the observed second differences . in eq .
( [ eq : fit_eq_a ] ) the first two terms represent the smooth part of the function , which remains after the second differences are calculated and includes a contribution from the hydrogen and first helium ionization zone ; the third term represents the contribution from the base of the convection zone , while the last term represents the contribution from the heii ionization zone .
it is possible to add more terms to the smooth part using a higher degree polynomial , but for both stars considered in this work , the reduction in @xmath35 due to additional terms was found to be statistically insignificant ; the linear term was found to have a significant effect .
hence , we have restricted the smooth part to linear form in this work .
the parameters of eq .
( [ eq : fit_eq_a ] ) are determined by a nonlinear least - squares fit .
since the second differences of a given value of @xmath21 and neighboring @xmath13 have correlated errors , we use the full covariance matrix to calculate the value of @xmath35 .
we assume that the errors in the frequencies themselves are not correlated with each other to obtain the covariance matrix .
since the nonlinear minimization does not always converge to the global minimum of the parameter space , we repeat the minimization 100 times with different initial guesses which are randomly selected in some range of possible values .
the minimum of the @xmath35 values obtained for the 100 trials is accepted as the best fit value .    to estimate the uncertainties in the fitted parameters we repeat the whole process for 1000 realizations of the data obtained by adding random perturbations to the frequencies with standard deviation equal to @xmath36 uncertainty in the corresponding frequencies .
the median value of each parameter for 1000 realizations was accepted as the fitted value , while the @xmath37 uncertainty in the fitted value was estimated from the range covering 34% area on either side of the median in the distribution function of the fitted parameter .
for the two stars being analyzed we find that while the signal from heii ionization zone is robust and all realizations of the data result in values of @xmath15 in a reasonable range , the distribution of the fitted values of @xmath23 is extremely wide with multiple peaks .
we find that the oscillatory signal from the base of the convection zone is weak for both @xmath0 .
for some of the realizations we find that fitting @xmath23 is difficult .
an analysis of the peaks reveals that one of the secondary peaks corresponds to @xmath38 where @xmath39 is the acoustic radius of the star .
this can happen due to aliasing @xcite .
we discard all realizations for which the fitted value of @xmath23 does not lie in the dominant peak of the distribution of @xmath23 .
the median of the dominant peak is used as the estimate for @xmath23 . for determining other fitted parameters
too we use only those realizations that have @xmath23 in the dominant peak . note that this paper is about determining the helium abundance of these stars , and not the position of the convection - zone base , though that is by itself an interesting question . to this effect
we have tested whether our inability to fit @xmath23 reliably affects the helium results by fixing the value of @xmath23 at different values around the main peak .
the fit to the heii signal is unaffected , and therefore we are certain that our results concerning helium are not biased .    the amplitude of the helium signal in the second differences can be converted to that in the frequencies by dividing the second - difference amplitude by a factor @xmath40 , where @xmath15 and @xmath41 are the acoustic depth and the average large frequency separation respectively .
this factor is derived under the assumption that the amplitude of oscillatory signal varies slowly over the ` wavelength ' of oscillation .
the amplitude of the oscillatory signal depends on the helium abundance in the ionization zone which in stars that have an outer convection zone is the helium abundance of the convective envelope . as shown by @xcite , the amplitude of the signal
can be calibrated using models with known helium abundance .
@xcite used the average amplitude over the frequency interval that is used in fitting the signal to measure the helium abundance ; we do the same .      to extract directly the signal from the oscillation frequencies , we adapt a method first proposed by @xcite .
the approach is , first , to fit a smooth function of radial order @xmath13 to all the modes @xmath42 of same degree @xmath21 , which removes the slowly varying trend . for each degree @xmath21 ,
we fit a polynomial @xmath43 using least - squares method with third derivative smoothing .
the resulting smooth function removes mainly variation of @xmath42 at much longer scales than the characteristic scales of the oscillatory signals , filtering out the signatures of the acoustic glitches .
the filtered signal is then fitted simultaneously for all degrees to the following expression : @xmath44 where @xmath45 , @xmath23 , @xmath46 , @xmath47 , @xmath48 , @xmath15 , @xmath49 are 7 free parameters , while @xmath50 is a reference frequency .
we have used a modified version of the method used in previous works @xcite .
it differs mainly in three aspects : ( 1 ) a global minimization method , based on the pikaia implementation of a genetic algorithm @xcite , is used for the least - squares fit providing independence of initial conditions ; ( 2 ) the robustness of the fit against outliers is improved by performing an iteratively reweighted least - squares regression ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ) ; and ( 3 ) both signals from the base of the convection zone and the heii ionization zone are fitted simultaneously .
the third derivative smoothing procedure depends on a parameter @xmath51 which determines how closely the polynomial @xmath43 interpolates the points ( * ? ? ?
* their eq .
c5 ) . here ,
we no longer iterate on this parameter but set it to a value adequate for isolating the longest period signal from the heii ionization zone .
the same value of @xmath51 is used for both stars , either observations or model frequencies . with this method ,
all available data points are used ( frequencies of consecutive orders are not required to construct combinations ) and we do not _ a priori _ assume a specific functional form for the smooth component .    to estimate the uncertainties in the fitted parameters we perform 5000 monte carlo realizations of the frequencies by adding random perturbations to them with standard deviation equal to @xmath36 uncertainty in the corresponding frequencies .
the median value of the distribution of each parameter was accepted as the fitted value and the @xmath52 uncertainty in that parameter was estimated from the standard deviation of the distribution .    to calibrate the helium abundance
, we used the amplitude of the signal at a reference frequency @xmath50 ( @xmath53  mhz ) for both components .
this choice provides us a simple measure of the amplitude , @xmath54 ( see eq .
[ eq : fit_eq_b ] ) , and hence a measure of the amount of helium present in the ionization zone .
this technique is a modification of the previous one in the sense that it fits smooth and oscillatory signal together . for each @xmath21
, we take a fourth degree polynomial in @xmath13 , @xmath55 , for the smooth component .
although , a third degree polynomial takes care of smooth component for the observed data , it is not enough for the models , as the surface term introduces a smooth component which varies approximately as fourth power of the frequency @xcite .
we fit directly the frequencies to the function @xmath56 where @xmath57 .
the @xmath58 elements of @xmath59_{l , i}$ ] along with @xmath45 , @xmath23 , @xmath46 , @xmath47 , @xmath60 , @xmath15 , @xmath49 are 27 free parameters which need to be determined .    the parameters of eq .
( [ eq : fit_eq_c ] ) are determined by minimizing a @xmath35 defined as : @xmath61 ^ 2 +   \lambda_\mathrm{c}^2 \sum_{n , l}\left[\frac{d^2p_{l,\mathrm{c}}(n)}{dn^2}\right]^2\,,\ ] ] where @xmath62 is the uncertainty in the mode frequency and @xmath63 is a smoothing parameter .
a very small value of @xmath63 corresponds to the standard weighted least - squares fitting , while a very large value tends to fit the frequencies to a straight line . to make an appropriate choice of @xmath63
, we note that as @xmath63 increases , the fit to the observation stabilizes ( uncertainty in the fitting parameters decreases ) and saturates at some point .
we accept a value of @xmath63 when the stabilization occurs .
the value of @xmath63 is found to be the same for both stars . to avoid systematic errors in the calibration
, we use the same @xmath63 for the models as well . while the number of parameters to be fitted in this method is large , it should be noted that the use of regularization introduces additional constraints that enable more parameters to be determined .
similar to what has been done in method a , we repeat the minimization 100 times with random initial guesses covering a reasonable parameter space to get the global minimum .
we simulate 1000 realizations of the data in the same way as was done in method a to get the fitted value along with @xmath64 uncertainty .
we calculate an average amplitude over the frequency range used in the fitting for the calibration .
to determine the helium abundance of the stars we need to compare the observed amplitudes of the helium signal to that calculated for stellar models with different helium abundances .
we used three sets of models : two constructed with the mesa code @xcite for two different metallicity mixture , and one with the yale stellar evolution code ( yrec ; * ? ? ? * ) .
the models in each set were constructed following different principles and the models for calibration were selected using different criteria .
the models and the selection process are described below .
the mesa code allows users to explore different input physics and data .
our models were constructed using opal equation of state @xcite .
we used op opacities @xcite for models with metallicity mixture of @xcite ( hereinafter gs98 ) and opal opacities @xcite for models with metallicity mixture of @xcite ( hereinafter agss09 ) .
low temperature opacities were used from @xcite assuming gs98 mixture .
reaction rates from nacre @xcite were used for all reactions except @xmath65n(@xmath66,@xmath67)@xmath68o and @xmath69c(@xmath70,@xmath67)@xmath71o , for which updated rates of reaction from @xcite and @xcite were used .
convection was modelled using the standard mixing length theory @xcite , and diffusion of helium and heavy elements was incorporated using the prescription of @xcite .
we constructed models assuming two different values of the solar metallicity to convert the observed @xmath72 $ ]  to @xmath73 needed for the models .
recall that there is currently an uncertainty about what the solar metallicity really is .
the solar abundances of gs98 , with @xmath74 , had been used extensively for many years and solar models constructed with these abundances satisfied helioseismic constraints quite well ( see e.g. , * ? ? ? * ) .
however , @xcite redetermined the solar abundances using 3d model atmospheres and incorporating nlte corrections for many lines and claimed that the solar abundance of heavy elements was much lower , @xmath75 .
the relative abundances of different elements were also changed .
@xcite revised the abundances further to @xmath76 .
the lower abundances are not consistent with helioseismic constraints ( see e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ) and this discrepancy has not been resolved . to estimate the effect of this uncertainty on stellar models we used both gs98 and agss09 mixtures of heavy elements in this work .
opacities were calculated assuming the different heavy - element mixtures , and @xmath73 for the models were derived for a given @xmath72 $ ]  assuming that @xmath77}}=0 $ ] corresponds to @xmath74 for the gs98 mixture and @xmath76 for the agss09 mixture .
we constructed models on a uniform grid of stellar parameters ( mass @xmath78 , initial helium abundance @xmath4 , initial metallicity @xmath77}}_0 $ ] , and mixing length parameter @xmath70 ) for both stars with two different metallicity mixtures , gs98 and agss09 .
the range of values in the grid for these parameters were : @xmath79@xmath80 , @xmath81@xmath82 , @xmath77}}_0 : 0.12$]@xmath83 , @xmath84@xmath85 .
the step sizes were @xmath86@xmath28 , @xmath86 , @xmath86dex and @xmath87 , respectively .
a reduced @xmath35 between the frequencies of the model ( @xmath88 , corrected for the surface term as per the formulation of @xcite ) and the observed frequencies ( @xmath89 ) is defined as : @xmath90 where @xmath91 is the @xmath36 uncertainty in the observed frequency and the sum runs over @xmath92 radial modes of the concerned star . a model with a particular @xmath78 , @xmath4 , @xmath5 , and @xmath70
is selected as an acceptable model of the star only if the evolutionary track enters in a 4-dimensional box formed by the 2@xmath93 uncertainties in the observed effective temperature , luminosity , surface @xmath72 $ ] , and large separation as given in table  [ tab : obs ] .
further degeneracy in the age is lifted by minimizing the @xmath94 ( eq .  [ eq : chisq_nu ] ) . in other words , the `` best '' model on each evolutionary track
is chosen through a matching of the frequencies , provided the parameters mentioned above agree within very conservative limits .
the surface metallicity given by @xcite , @xmath95 dex for @xmath1  and @xmath96 dex for @xmath2 , is not quite the same for both components .
however , since the metallicities are quite similar , we assume the metallicity of the two stars to be equal , @xmath97 dex , with increased uncertainty .
this may be justified as the stars form a binary system and hence their initial metallicities should be the same . since we use multiple values of initial conditions @xmath98 , we get two ensembles each , corresponding to the two abundance choices of gs98 and agss09 , for @xmath1  and @xmath2 .
these are not , however , the final sets of calibration models . the dispersion in the age of the models in each of these ensembles is nearly 5  gyr .
we use a further selection procedure described below which takes into account the fact that @xmath0  should have the same age .
models constructed with the agss09 mixture are treated separately from those constructed with the gs98 mixture so that the effect of the uncertainty in the solar metallicity on our results can be quantified .
we constrain the ages using the small frequency separation ( @xmath99 ) , which is known to be a good indicator of the evolutionary stage of main sequence stars ( see e.g. , * ? ? ?
we use the weighted average of the small separation over 12 pairs , @xmath100 , for both components .
however , we do not select the models with @xmath100 alone , but consider other observables  namely , the effective temperature ( @xmath101 ) , luminosity ( @xmath102 ) , surface gravity ( as @xmath103 ) , surface metallicity ( as @xmath72 $ ] ) , and the large separation ( @xmath41 )  as well .
although , the radii of the two components have been measured with interferometry @xcite , we do not use the radii to constrain the ages , but it should be noted that the interferometric radii are found to be consistent with the final model radii for both stars .
we estimate the average large frequency separation ( @xmath104 ) of the radial modes by using a linear fit to the frequencies @xmath105 as a function of @xmath13 .
the same 12 radial modes are used that were used for calculating the average small separation .
the same set of modes are used to calculate the average large separation for the observation and the models . as mentioned earlier
, the inadequacy of modelling the near - surface layers of the star introduces a frequency - dependent shift in the calculated eigenfrequencies , @xmath42 of the models , making the frequencies systematically larger than observed frequencies for all but the lowest - frequency modes .
this error propagates into the large separation too .
we find that for our acceptable models @xmath41 is about 1@xmath106hz larger than the observed value .
we estimated the exact shift using the differential form of the duvall law , as formulated by @xcite , in which the frequency differences between a model and observation are decomposed into two parts , one that depends on the interior structural differences and another that is essentially the surface term .
the @xmath41 values of the model are corrected for the surface term before comparing them to the observed values of @xmath0 .
we estimated independently the age of @xmath1  and @xmath2  using models of two different metallicity mixture . to estimate the age of a star using models of a particular metallicity mixture
, we define a @xmath35 for each model as : @xmath107 the term @xmath108 in the summation represents 6 observable quantities ( @xmath41 , @xmath100 , @xmath101 , @xmath102 , @xmath103 , and @xmath72 $ ] ) and @xmath109 denotes the uncertainty in the estimate of the respective quantity .
the quantity @xmath110 is the age of the model under consideration and @xmath111 is a reference age . for a given @xmath111 , we can find a model that represents the star most closely by minimizing the @xmath112 ( eq .  [ eq : age1 ] ) over all the models in the ensemble .
we denote the minimum by @xmath113 , and minimize it with respect to @xmath111 in a range spanned by the model ages in the ensemble , to get the individual age of the star . for clarity
we show the @xmath113 in fig .
[ fig : cage](a ) in a limited range of @xmath114
. clearly the curves have a well defined minimum that gives the best model as well as the best estimate of the age of each individual star for a specific assumed metallicity mixture .
the ages are respectively @xmath115 gyr and @xmath116 gyr for @xmath0  when gs98 mixture is used . for the agss09 mixture
the ages are respectively @xmath117 gyr and @xmath118 gyr .
thus the ages of the two stars are found to be close to each other and the values are consistent with those of @xcite and @xcite .
note that the calculation of @xmath112 requires @xmath119 ; we start with a suitable guess and then whole process is iterated until we get the same uncertainty in the estimated age as @xmath119 .
the individual ages of the two stars , independently determined as explained above , need not turn out to be the same .
however , since the stars form a binary system it is more natural to assume that their ages are the same .
we can determine this common age by modifying the definition of @xmath35 to include both stars .
thus for a given pair of models , with one model drawn from the model ensemble of @xmath1  and the other from that of the @xmath2 , we define a combined @xmath35 as : @xmath120 the first two terms correspond to the model of the a component while the last two correspond to the model of the b component .
the summations in the first and third terms again have 6 terms each corresponding to the same observables as described above .
the quantities @xmath121 and @xmath122 are the ages of the models of @xmath1  and @xmath2  under consideration .
the quantity @xmath123 is a reference age as before , but common to both stars . for a given @xmath123 ,
we can find a pair of models that represents the stars most closely by minimizing the @xmath124 ( eq .  [ eq : age ] ) over all possible pairs of the two ensembles .
we denote the minimum by @xmath113 , and minimize it with respect to @xmath123 in a range spanned by the model ages in the two ensemble , to get the common age of the star . for clarity
we show the @xmath113 in fig .
[ fig : cage](b ) in a limited range of @xmath125 . again , the resulting curves have a well defined minimum that gives the best pair of models as well as the best estimate of the common age of the stars .
the individual models of such a pair are essentially the best models of @xmath0 .
the age of the binary system is estimated to be @xmath126 gyr for gs98 mixture , and @xmath127 gyr for agss09 mixture .
thus we find that the mixture of heavy elements does not affect the age significantly .
the difference in the age between models of two mixtures may become significant when the stellar parameters and the oscillation frequencies are known more precisely .
@xcite have pointed out that along with @xmath128 we can use coefficients of higher order asymptotic formula for oscillation frequency to determine the age more precisely as these are more sensitive to the sound speed variation in the stellar core .
however , it is not clear if these terms can be determined more accurately from the currently observed frequencies .    at the end of this selection procedure
we are left with approximately @xmath129 models , nearly @xmath130 models for a star with a particular metallicity mixture , with a range of mass , chemical composition , and mixing length parameters , and age within @xmath36 of the value determined above .
for the two metallicity mixtures , gs98 and agss09 , we have two such set of calibrating models .
in addition to the models described above , we also used the yale stellar evolution code to model the two stars .
the input physics includes the opal equation of state ( eos ) tables of @xcite , and opal high temperature opacities @xcite supplemented with low temperature opacities from @xcite .
all nuclear reaction rates are from @xcite , except for that of the @xmath131 reaction , for which we use the rate of @xcite .
all models included gravitational settling of helium and heavy elements using the formulation of @xcite .
models were constructed assuming the heavy element mixture of gs98 .
the yrec models were constructed with an approach that was quite different from the mesa models . the starting point of the modelling was the mass and radius of the two stars as determined by @xcite .
we did a monte carlo around this mass and radius , and the spectroscopically determined @xmath101 and metallicity to obtain a set of values for mass , final radius , final @xmath101 and final metallicity .
yrec was used in an iterative mode . in this mode the final @xmath101 and radius for a star of a given mass and metallicity are specified .
the code iterates over the initial helium abundance @xmath4 in case the mixing length parameter @xmath70 is specified , or alternatively over @xmath70 if @xmath4 is specified until a model with the specified @xmath101 and radius is found .
note that this is similar to the construction of standard solar models , though in the case of the sun the iteration is performed simultaneously over both mixing length parameter and @xmath4 ( since the solar age is a known constraint ) .
we made the models both ways  specifying @xmath70 and determining @xmath4 and specifying @xmath4 and determining @xmath70 .
the initial metallicity of the models was kept higher than the observed metallicity in order to account for the depletion of metals by diffusion .
the monte carlo exercise assumed that the width of the distribution in mass and radius was three times the quoted uncertainty in @xcite .
these models , by construction , satisfy the temperature constraint
. models of @xmath0  were constructed independently .
the final selection of models was done as follows .
all models with initial helium abundance lower than the big bang nucleosynthesis value of @xmath132 @xcite were rejected .
also rejected were models with final metallicities that were different from the observed metallicity @xcite by more than 3@xmath93 .
we calculated the frequencies for the remaining models .
the frequencies were used to calculate the frequency ratios @xmath133 , @xmath134 , and @xmath135 @xcite .
these ratios are insensitive to the surface term and hence do not require any _ ad hoc _ corrections to account for near - surface uncertainties in the models .
all models that matched the observed ratios to within 3@xmath93 were selected .
the common age of the @xmath136  system was estimated to be @xmath137 gyr in the same way as described in section  [ subsec : mesa ] .
this resulted in 231 models for @xmath1  and 95 models for @xmath2  for calibration after applying the age constraint .
we applied all three techniques described in section  [ sec : tech ] to estimate the helium abundance of both components of the @xmath136  system .
we also estimated the acoustic depths of the heii ionization zone and made preliminary estimates of the acoustic depths of the base of the convection zone .    in this work , we used observed frequencies computed following the procedure described by @xcite from 2.5  years of _ kepler _ simple - aperture - photometry light curves corrected following @xcite and high - pass filtered with a 4-days triangular smooth .
the observed frequencies as used in this work are given in table  [ tab : freq ] .
all frequencies listed in the table were used in the fits except for the last two modes for @xmath1  which were not used in methods a , c as these modes are beyond the cut - off frequency in many stellar models and hence can not be determined reliably in stellar models which are used for calibration .
the method b is not expected to be sensitive to presence of these modes in the observed frequency set as the amplitude of helium signal is compared at a reference frequency instead of the average over entire range covered in the fit , which is the case in methods a , c .
further , the two isolated @xmath11 modes can not be used in method a , which needs to compute second order differences .
the upper panels of fig .
[ fig : fit_fig_a ] , [ fig : fit_fig_b ] , and [ fig : fit_fig_c ] show respectively the fit to eq .
( [ eq : fit_eq_a ] ) ( method a ) , eq .
( [ eq : fit_eq_b ] ) ( method b ) and eq .
( [ eq : fit_eq_c ] ) ( method c ) of @xmath0 ; whereas the lower panels show the histograms of distribution of @xmath15 ( blue ) and @xmath23 ( red ) obtained by fitting 1000 realizations ( 5000 for method b ) of data perturbed by adding random errors .
the fitted values of the various physical parameters are listed in table  [ tab : fitpar ] .
it should be noted that for methods a and c , the amplitude is averaged over the fitting interval , while for method b , it is calculated at a reference frequency . as explained in section  [ subsec : techa ] ,
the amplitude of oscillatory term in second differences is converted to that in frequencies . from the table
it can be seen that the amplitudes of oscillatory signals obtained with methods a and c are similar .
this demonstrates the validity of conversion factor .
the fitted parameters using all three methods are close to each other and generally within @xmath36 , except for @xmath15 using method b. even in this case the difference is only about 6% of the acoustic depth .
this demonstrates that the results are not particularly sensitive to different form of oscillatory term or to different techniques for removing the smooth component in the frequencies as a function of @xmath13 .
the frequencies for the models were fitted in the same manner , and using the same modes and weights as the observations .
amplitude of the heii signal obtained using method a is shown in fig .
[ fig : ampa ] for each mesa model . also shown in the figure
is the observed amplitude .
note from the figure that the amplitude is predominantly a function of the current helium abundance in the models .
there is however , some scatter due to other model parameters , primarily due to variations in mass , effective temperature , and luminosity . the helium abundance , @xmath30 , obtained by calibrating the model amplitude with observation are listed in table  [ tab : yresults ] for both stars . the helium abundance obtained with mesa and yrec
are consistent with each other within errors .
there is a difference , barely within errors , between the helium abundance of @xmath1  and @xmath2 . for @xmath1
all 3 methods give results that are within error bars of each other , but for @xmath2 method a tends to give results that are on higher side , while method b tends to give lower values .
the difference between the two methods is up to @xmath138 .
the difference in results between various methods can be considered to be a measure of systematic errors .
the estimate of @xmath30 does nt directly depend on @xmath15 and hence is not affected by uncertainties in it .
the precision of determination of helium abundance depends critically on the modes at the low end of the spectrum .
addition of a few low order modes or any significant improvement in the precision of these modes , improve the precision of estimate of helium abundance significantly . to understand this improvement we repeated the fit using method c after removing successively the lowest order modes , or after increasing the uncertainties in the lowest three modes of degree 0 , 1 , and 2 .
we found that the uncertainty in the amplitude of the helium signal increases rapidly in each case , by a factor of two or more .
this may be due to the fact that the amplitude of the signal decreases very rapidly with increasing frequency , and the low order modes play a role in stabilizing the fit as in that region the amplitude of helium signal is larger .
therefore a precise determination of the helium abundance of a star would particularly require a precise set of low order modes .    in method b , the amplitude of the oscillatory signal at a reference frequency ( instead of the mean amplitude used in other methods )
is used to calibrate the helium abundance .
the stability of this approach has been tested by @xcite for the case of the sun .
they found that the use of a reference frequency well inside the frequency range of the observations was a better , more stable option , to calibrate @xmath30 .
this is so because the approach used by this method to account for the smooth component is fairly robust in the inner region of the frequency range ( does not change regardless of the details for smooth component that is adjusted ) . in this way
, this method can avoid any contamination from the boundaries due to the smoothing .
the oscillatory signal in the observed frequencies contains information about the location of the acoustic glitches .
[ fig : tau ] shows the acoustic depths of the base of the convection zone and the heii ionization zone obtained using all 3 methods .
the @xmath139 for the models were estimated in two different ways ; one by calculating the acoustic depth from the known sound - speed profile of the model ( eq .  [ eq : tau ] ) , and the other by fitting the second differences of the model frequencies ( eq .  [ eq : fit_eq_a ] ) or by fitting the model frequencies ( eq .  [ eq : fit_eq_b ] or [ eq : fit_eq_c ] ) .
the first estimate using eq .
[ eq : tau ] , is affected by the uncertainties in the definition of stellar surface .
this issue has been extensively discussed by @xcite and will affect the acoustic depth of all layers by the same amount . however , the uncertainties in @xmath139 do not affect the determination of @xmath30 which depends on the amplitude of the oscillatory signal . as can be seen in the figure , for @xmath23 the two estimates for a model match well , but for @xmath15 the value obtained from eq .
( [ eq : tau ] ) is systematically higher than that obtained by fitting the second differences or the frequencies .
this systematic shift is present in the results of all the three fitting methods , and could be due to the fact that for @xmath23 the location of the discontinuity in the sound - speed gradient is well - defined and there is little ambiguity in its position ; for @xmath15 on the other hand there is , strictly speaking , no real discontinuity at all , but merely a sharp variation in @xmath8 that gives rise to the oscillatory signal in the frequencies . while using eq .
( [ eq : tau ] ) we used the minimum in @xmath8 in the heii ionization zone as the location of the ` discontinuous ' layer , and it is possible that the effective location of the ` discontinuity ' is at a layer above this .
the value of @xmath23 obtained by fitting the observed frequencies is close to what we get for our models ; @xmath15 obtained from the observed frequencies lies within about @xmath140 of that obtained by fitting the frequencies of the models .
the amplitude of signal due to the base of the convection zone in the observed frequencies is consistent with those in the models frequencies .
we examined the variation of the average amplitude of the heii signal with the input parameters of the models and their seismic characteristics .
[ fig : par ] shows the variation of the average amplitude calculated using the fitting method a for @xmath1 .
we can see that the average amplitude of the heii signal is not particularly sensitive to the metallicity and mixing length parameter ( see fig .
[ fig : par]a , [ fig : par]b ) ; however , it shows systematic variation as a function of effective temperature , luminosity , large frequency separation , and age ( see fig .  [
fig : par]c - f ) .
much of the trend is essentially due to variation in @xmath30 with these parameters rather than variation of the amplitude for a given @xmath30 .
the vertical dispersion in each of these figures is due to the dispersion in mass , which also changes @xmath30 at a given set of parameters .
the variation of the amplitude was very similar when calculated using method b and c.
we have used the oscillatory signature in the oscillation frequencies of @xmath0   caused by the depression of @xmath8 in the heii ionization zone to determine the current helium abundance and the depth of the heii ionization zone . for this task
we have used frequencies obtained with 2.5 years of _ kepler _ observations .
we have used three different techniques combined with three sets of stellar models for calibrating the signal .
we have demonstrated that the helium abundance of these stars can be reliably determined using the observed frequencies . for @xmath1
the three methods give results that are consistent with the error bars , while for @xmath2  the results can differ , though the difference is only @xmath138 in the worst case . the helium abundance for @xmath1  is found to lie in the range 0.231 to 0.251 and that of @xmath2  lies in the range 0.218 to 0.266 .
the error bars quoted in table  [ tab : yresults ] are the random errors arising from those in the observed frequencies .
in addition , there would be systematic uncertainties due to approximate form of oscillatory term as well as uncertainties in the used stellar models .
the first contribution can be estimated from the differences in values obtained using the three techniques and is already included in the values quoted above .
the stellar - model uncertainty should be mainly from the eos which translates the helium abundance to @xmath8 . from extensive tests for the sun
, it is known that the opal eos is close to that of the sun ( see e.g. * ? ? ?
* ) and hence we do not expect much uncertainty on that count in these stars where the uncertainties in the frequencies are much larger than those for the sun .    this technique for determining helium abundance
is not particularly sensitive to the presence of surface effect  the surface corrections are smooth function of @xmath13 and will mainly contribute to the smooth part of the frequency and can be separated from the oscillatory part .
this is particularly true when the observed frequencies are available over a wide range of @xmath13 values as is the case with both stars considered here .
if the observed frequency range is limited , there could be some difficulty in separating the helium signal from smooth part since the oscillatory signal can also be approximated with moderately high degree polynomial .
this is the reason why we restrict the degree of polynomial in method a to the minimum value that is statistically significant .
the regularization used in methods  b and c allows us to use a more complex function to account for the smooth component . @xcite have used similar technique to estimate the helium abundance in the solar envelope using only low degree modes and find results which are consistent with the known value obtained from more detailed seismic inversions .
the estimates of the helium mass fraction are those of the current abundance in the outer envelope of the stars .
this value is , of course , lower than the initial helium abundance of both stars because of the gravitational settling of helium .
we can determine the initial helium abundance from the current one by assuming that the models of the two stars correctly represent the amount of helium depleted due to settling .
mesa models show a depletion of @xmath141 ( for gs98 mixture ) and @xmath142 ( for agss09 mixture ) for @xmath1 .
depletion of helium is lesser for @xmath2  models , @xmath143 for gs98 and @xmath144 for agss09 mixture . since the two components of the binary system are believed to have formed from the same gas cloud
, the initial composition should be the same for both stars . in that case
the current helium abundance in the envelope of @xmath2  should be higher than that in @xmath1  by about 0.005 .
the values that we find are consistent with this difference .
this difference arises because of small difference in masses of the two stars .
similarly , the difference between gs98 and agss09 mixtures arise due to the difference in the thickness of convection zones in the two cases .
since gs98 models have deeper convection zone , the depletion of helium is lower .
thus the initial helium abundance of the @xmath136  system is between 0.28 and 0.31 .
this is somewhat larger than the value found by @xcite and close to the values found by @xcite .
the solar initial helium abundance was determined to be @xmath145 @xcite .
thus our estimates of @xmath4 for the @xmath136   system is consistent with solar values particularly considering the fact that these stars have higher metallicity .
the fitted value of @xmath15 obtained from observed frequencies for @xmath2  matched that obtained from fitting the model frequencies , but for @xmath1   the observed value is larger than that in all selected models .
this could be due to some systematic errors in modelling or in the other observed quantities that were used to constrain the models .
the two sets of mesa models constructed with different heavy - element mixtures were used to check if the observed frequencies could distinguish between the different mixtures . for both sets of models ,
the value of @xmath30 , as well as @xmath15 and @xmath23 are very similar , although , as expected , there is a difference in the depth of the convection zone between the two sets with models constructed with the agss09 having a shallower convection zone depth and hence lower @xmath23 than models with the gs98 mixture .
but there is considerable overlap in the range for each set of models . for @xmath2
the uncertainty in the value of @xmath23 obtained from observed frequencies is too large to distinguish between the two sets of models . for @xmath1
the error in @xmath23 from observed frequencies is reasonably small and if the systematic errors in modelling can be sorted out , it may be possible to use the models to distinguish between the two sets of models and get an independent handle on the controversy over the solar heavy - element abundance .
sb acknowledges support from nsf grant ast-1105930 and nasa grant nnx13ae70 g .
am acknowledges support from the nius programme of hbcse ( tifr ) .
mjpfgm and jpf acknowledge support from the ec project spaceinn ( fp7-space-2012 - 312844 ) and jpf was also supported by the european research council ( ec - fp7 ) through a fellowship of the starting grant erc-2009-stg-239953 .
wjc acknowledges support from the uk science and technology facilities council ( stfc ) .
funding for the stellar astrophysics centre ( sac ) is provided by the danish national research foundation .                                                                       , g. 2004 , in american institute of physics conference series , vol .
731 , equation - of - state and phase - transition in models of ordinary astrophysical matter , ed .
v.  celebonovic , d.  gough , & w.  dppen , 193207                        , a. , michel , e. , antia , h.  m. , & deheuvels , s. 2011 , in transiting planets , vibrating stars and their connection , ed .
a.  baglin , m.  deleuil , e.  michel , c.  moutou , & t.  seman , proceedings of second _ corot _ symposium , 197                                                    cccc @xmath101 & 5839@xmath14642 k & 5809@xmath14639 k & 1 + @xmath103 & 4.29@xmath1460.02 dex & 4.36@xmath1460.02 dex & 1 + @xmath102 & 1.56@xmath1460.05 @xmath147 & 1.27@xmath1460.04 @xmath147 & 2 + @xmath72 $ ] & 0.096@xmath1460.040 dex & 0.096@xmath1460.040 dex & 3 + @xmath41 & 102.9@xmath1460.2 @xmath106hz & 116.5@xmath1460.2 @xmath106hz & + @xmath100 & 5.82@xmath1460.03 @xmath106hz & 6.70@xmath1460.03 @xmath106hz & [ tab : obs ]    cccccccccc 11 & & 1334.392@xmath1460.034 & 1384.368@xmath1460.040 & & & & & & + 12 & 1391.639@xmath1460.037 & 1437.520@xmath1460.043 & 1488.353@xmath1460.100 & & & & & 1686.327@xmath1460.057 & + 13 & 1494.996@xmath1460.058 & 1541.914@xmath1460.050 & 1591.242@xmath1460.115 & & & 1695.066@xmath1460.056 & 1749.184@xmath1460.050 & 1804.197@xmath1460.235 & + 14 & 1598.695@xmath1460.066 & 1645.058@xmath1460.095 & 1694.193@xmath1460.175 & & & 1812.420@xmath1460.094 & 1866.525@xmath1460.102 & 1921.176@xmath1460.168 & + 15 & 1700.909@xmath1460.083 & 1747.154@xmath1460.082 & 1795.757@xmath1460.105 & 1838.283@xmath1460.355 & & 1928.900@xmath1460.068 & 1982.587@xmath1460.073 & 2036.677@xmath1460.123 & 2085.517@xmath1460.260 + 16 & 1802.316@xmath1460.068 & 1848.980@xmath1460.054 & 1898.284@xmath1460.100 & 1940.756@xmath1460.413 & & 2044.274@xmath1460.058 & 2098.076@xmath1460.056 & 2152.405@xmath1460.100 & + 17 & 1904.611@xmath1460.054 & 1951.997@xmath1460.050 & 2001.647@xmath1460.070 & 2045.922@xmath1460.229 & & 2159.580@xmath1460.060 & 2214.159@xmath1460.058 & 2268.966@xmath1460.082 & 2319.208@xmath1460.225 + 18 & 2007.572@xmath1460.045 & 2055.527@xmath1460.046 & 2105.314@xmath1460.051 & 2149.914@xmath1460.143 & & 2275.946@xmath1460.045 & 2331.138@xmath1460.044 & 2386.267@xmath1460.060 & 2436.792@xmath1460.176 + 19 & 2110.915@xmath1460.040 & 2159.153@xmath1460.045 & 2208.907@xmath1460.067 & 2253.539@xmath1460.172 & & 2392.718@xmath1460.040 & 2448.250@xmath1460.042 & 2503.575@xmath1460.061 & 2554.149@xmath1460.150 + 20 & 2214.226@xmath1460.049 & 2262.536@xmath1460.047 & 2312.545@xmath1460.091 & 2357.368@xmath1460.181 & & 2509.668@xmath1460.038 & 2565.398@xmath1460.042 & 2620.566@xmath1460.064 & 2671.754@xmath1460.155 + 21 & 2317.326@xmath1460.056 & 2366.260@xmath1460.059 & 2416.301@xmath1460.137 & 2462.077@xmath1460.373 & & 2626.399@xmath1460.042 & 2682.409@xmath1460.048 & 2737.741@xmath1460.081 & 2789.187@xmath1460.270 + 22 & 2420.931@xmath1460.089 & 2470.322@xmath1460.081 & 2520.695@xmath1460.266 & & & 2743.327@xmath1460.061 & 2799.735@xmath1460.062 & 2855.682@xmath1460.137 & 2906.915@xmath1460.371 + 23 & 2525.141@xmath1460.197 & 2574.639@xmath1460.138 & 2624.147@xmath1460.366 & 2669.376@xmath1460.869 & & 2860.773@xmath1460.110 & 2917.799@xmath1460.100 & 2973.470@xmath1460.248 & 3024.940@xmath1460.941 + 24 & 2629.212@xmath1460.212 & 2679.951@xmath1460.188 & 2727.410@xmath1461.643 & & & 2978.481@xmath1460.162 & 3036.084@xmath1460.156 & 3093.204@xmath1460.517 & 3144.365@xmath1460.679 + 25 & 2733.199@xmath1460.470 & 2784.178@xmath1460.369 & & & & 3097.575@xmath1460.492 & 3154.418@xmath1460.271 & & + 26 & 2837.442@xmath1460.682 & 2891.303@xmath1460.841 & & & & 3214.348@xmath1460.562 & 3272.941@xmath1460.741 & & + 27 & 2944.587@xmath1461.226 & 2996.533@xmath1461.022 & & & & & & & [ tab : freq ]    ccccl + a & @xmath148 & @xmath149 & @xmath150 & @xmath151 + b & @xmath152 & @xmath153 & @xmath154 & @xmath155 + c & @xmath156 & @xmath157 & @xmath158 & @xmath159 +   + a & @xmath160 & @xmath161 & @xmath162 & @xmath163 + b & @xmath164 & @xmath165 & @xmath166 & @xmath167 + c & @xmath168 & @xmath169 & @xmath170 & @xmath171 [ tab : fitpar ]    cccc + a & @xmath172 & @xmath173 & @xmath174 + b & @xmath175 & @xmath176 & @xmath177 + c & @xmath178 & @xmath179 & @xmath180 +   + a & @xmath181 & @xmath182 & @xmath183 + b & @xmath184 & @xmath185 & @xmath186 + c & @xmath187 & @xmath188 & @xmath189 [ tab : yresults ]