\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}
\object{HD\,122563} ($V$=6.2 mag, 14$^{\rm h}$02$^{\rm m}$~31.8$^{\rm s}$, +09$^{\circ}$41${'}$09.95${"}$) is {one of the brightest and closest metal-poor [M/H]~=~--2.4 \citep{collet18,pra17} giant stars that offers the possibility to be observed and analysed using many different methodologies.   There are few stars for which such a complete set of observations can be obtained.  The advantage of this is that we can obtain robust (almost) model-independent determinations of many of its fundamental parameters, but many of these can also be compared by using different methodologies, and so it allows us to investigate sources of systematic errors. }
For example,
	it serves as a benchmark star for testing
    stellar astrophysics, such as, non-LTE effects
	in stellar atmospheres \citep{heiter15,the99,collet05},
    or 3D stellar atmosphere structure
    \citep{pra17, collet18}.
    In stellar evolution models strong assumptions on its age, mass and initial helium abundance
    can be made which allows one to investigate tunable parameters or details of the interior physics.
    HD\,122563 also contributes to calibrating large Galactic
    surveys, e.g. \cite{gilmore2012}, which
	aim to understand the evolution of the Milky Way \citep{jofre17}.

	In \citet{cre12b}, from hereon C12, strong constraints were placed on the position of this star
	in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, in particular with the determination of its interferometric diameter.
    It was found that classical stellar evolution models
	were unable to reproduce its position within the error box.   One of the
	proposed solutions by these authors was to change the mixing-length parameter $\alpha$
	in the stellar evolution codes, and they managed to produce a model which
	correctly fit the observational data. Such changes are not unrealistic e.g. \citep{bonaca2012,creevey2017,tayar2017, joyce18, viani18},
	however, the size of the modification suggested that something should be addressed
	either in the models for very metal-poor stars or in the observations.
    Even with such constraints on the
	model parameters, its derived age was not well constrained,
	due to degeneracies between the unobservable mass and initial
	helium mass fraction, see \cite{lebreton1999} for a discussion.
    C12\ proposed that asteroseismic
	observations could help to constrain these other parameters, which
	would improve the age determination and perhaps shed some light on the
	difficulty of matching the HR diagram constraints with classical models.

	HD\,122563 has also been the subject of several recent atmospheric studies \citep{amarsi18},
	and some discrepancies in analyses were noted, for example, the 3D non-LTE analysis of hydrogen lines
    shows a spread of \teff\ values depending on the line used.
	\citet{collet18} suggested that a lowering of the
    surface gravity from their adopted $\log g = 1.61 \pm 0.07$
    would reduce the oxygen abundance discrepancy between
    molecular and atomic  species.  C12 also predicted a value $\log g$=1.60 $\pm$ 0.04 based on the measured diameter, available parallax, and a
    model-constrained mass.

    Given the current questions and indications that the models or the observations
    are not entirely consistent, we proposed to observe the star in multi-epoch
    spectrography in order to detect stellar oscillations.
    Asteroseismic analysis would provide a fresh new perspective, and
    hopefully help to unravel the current inconsistencies, while also allowing
    us to investigate the scaling relation in the non-solar regime.
    In this paper we report the first detection
    of stellar oscillations in HD\,122563 using the Hertzsprung SONG telescope
    located on the Observatorio del Teide.
    This is the most metal-poor star (to our knowledge)
    to have sun-like oscillations detected\footnote{\citet{epstein2014} report
    a list of 9 metal-poor stars with detected
    oscillations with abundances larger than -2.2 dex.}.
    We measure the global seismic quantity \numax\ for HD122563 (Sect.~\ref{sec:observations})
    and along with complementary
    information we derive a new surface gravity, radius and distance to the star (Sect.~\ref{sec:analysis}).
    New data from the Gaia mission \citep{gaia2018a} corroborate our results.
    We then discuss the
    implications of our results on the seismic scaling relation for \logg,
    the position of the star in the HR
    diagram and 1D stellar models (Sect.~\ref{sec:hrdiag}).

\section{Observations of HD\,122563}
\label{sec:observations}

\subsection{New asteroseismic observations from radial velocities.}

We obtained time series radial velocity observations with the 1-m Hertzsprung
SONG telescope equipped with an echelle spectrograph and
located at the Observatorio del Teide.  The Hertzsprung telescope is a node
of the Stellar Observations Network Group (SONG). From April 2016  to December
2017 we obtained an average of one spectrum per night when the object is visible.
The spectra were reduced and calibrated using the SONG pipeline.
Details of the Hertzsprung telescope characteristics and reduction pipeline
are given in \citet{anderson2014} and \citet{grundahl2017}. All observations were obtained
using an iodine cell for precise wavelength calibration.  A spectral resolution
of 80\,000 and an exposure time of 900s was used throughout.

The radial velocity (RV) time series is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:timeseries}. It comprises 387 data points over a total of
449 nights.
The typical uncertainty on the RV was found to be in the 11-14m/s range, depending on the signal-to-noise ratio in the observed spectrum.
However, as can be seen from the figure, there is a long-term trend.  We believe that this could be evidence of convection, rotation or activity.  As the trend is on the order of 300 days, far from the expected intrinsic
pulsation periods, we perform a frequency analysis directly on the
time series produced by the pipeline.

{\subsubsection{Time-series analysis}
\label{sec:observationstime}

   \begin{figure}[h]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth
{figures/time_series.eps}
\caption{Radial velocity time series of HD\,122563. The oscillations are on the timescale of a few days, and a long-term trend on the order of 300 days is visible.
      See Sect.~\ref{sec:observationstime}.
              }
         \label{fig:timeseries}
   \end{figure}

The power spectrum of the velocity time-series was initially calculated as an unweighted least-squares fit of sinusoids \citep{Frandsen95,Arentoft98,Bedding04,Kjeldsen05,Corsaro12}, and converted into power spectral density (PSD) by normalizing for the spectral resolution, namely the integral of the spectral window, of $\sim 0.06\,\mu$Hz. We also tested the case of a weighted least-squares fit to check for possible improvements in the signal-to-noise. For this purpose we used a weight assigned to each point of the radial velocity time-series according to the corresponding uncertainty estimate obtained from the SONG pipeline\footnote{It is noted in the SONG documentation that the uncertainties reported on the RV data should be
considered with caution.}. The radial velocity uncertainties were previously rescaled in order to correct for the presence of possible outliers, following the approach presented by \cite{Butler04} (see also \citealt{Corsaro12}). Finally we measured the amplitude of the noise level in the amplitude spectrum, in the region 4-6 $\mu$Hz, outside the power excess due to oscillations, for both the weighted and unweighted case. {We found that the amplitude of the noise is lower in the un-weighted case, reaching down to $11.8$\,m~s$^{-1}$. We therefore decided to adopt the un-weighted spectrum for further analysis.}
}

   \begin{figure}[h]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth
{figures/HD122563_notfiltered_weighted_PSD.eps}
\caption{Power spectral density and background model fit with \textsc{Diamonds} to determine \numax. The red line shows the total fit, including the oscillation power excess.
      See Sect.~\ref{sec:observationsnumax}.
              }
         \label{fig:powerspectrum}
   \end{figure}

{
\subsubsection{Extraction of global seismic parameters \numax}
\label{sec:observationsnumax}
We used the \textsc{Diamonds} Bayesian Inference tool (\citealt{Corsaro14}, App.~\ref{app-software}) to model the power spectral density (PSD) of the star.
The PSD and the best-fit model are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:powerspectrum}, and incorporates a flat noise component, {two Harvey-like profiles to account for granulation-driven signal,} and a Gaussian envelope to model the oscillation power excess \citep{Corsaro15}. A clear excess of power due to the
oscillations is detected at 3~$\mu$Hz (see Table~\ref{tab:properties}), this is referred to as \numax.
We note that the width of the power excess is narrow, and this seems to follow the trend presented by \citet{yu2018}, although their sample only goes as low as 40 $\mu$Hz.
The results reported in Table~\ref{tab:properties}
are obtained from calculating the 16, 50, and 84 percentiles of the
marginalised distribution of \numax.
We note that lower and upper confidence intervals are strictly formal uncertainties, without consideration of possible systematic errors.
{As some possible sources of errors, we also determined \numax\ 1) after filtering for the low-frequency signal, and 2) using a flat background in the power spectrum.  In both cases our results are consistent with those reported in Table~\ref{tab:properties}.}

   \begin{table}
      \caption[]{Observed Properties of HD\,122563 used in this work}
         \label{tab:properties}
         \vspace{-0.5cm}
     $$
         \begin{array}{p{0.1\linewidth}lllll}
            \hline\hline
            \noalign{\smallskip}
            Property & & {\rm Value} & {\rm Source}      \\
            \noalign{\smallskip}
            \hline
            \noalign{\smallskip}
			\numax\ & [\mu\mbox{Hz}] & 3.07^{+0.05}_{-0.04} & {\rm this\,work}\\
            $\theta_{\rm LD,A}$ & [\mbox{mas}] & 0.940 \pm 0.011 & \mbox{C12}\\
			$F_{\rm bol,A}$ &  [\mbox{erg}^{-1}\mbox{s}^{-1}\mbox{cm}^{-2}] & 13.16 \pm 0.36 \mbox{ e--8}& \mbox{C12} \\
			\teff$_A$ & [\mbox{K}] & 4598 \pm 41 & \mbox{C12} \\
            $\theta_{\rm LD,B}$ &[\mbox{mas}]& 0.926 \pm 0.011 & \mbox{K18}\\
			$F_{\rm bol,B}$ & [\mbox{erg}^{-1}\mbox{s}^{-1}\mbox{cm}^{-2}] & 13.20 \pm 0.29 \mbox{ e--8} & \mbox{K18} \\
			\teff$_B$ &[\mbox{K}]& 4636 \pm 36 & \mbox{K18} \\
			$\pi_{\rm HIPP}$ & [\mbox{mas}] & 4.22 \pm 0.36 & \mbox{\citet{hipp07}}\\
        	$\pi_{\rm GDR2}$ & [\mbox{mas}] & 3.444 \pm 0.063 & \mbox{\citet{gaia2018b}}\\
            \noalign{\smallskip}
            \hline\hline
         \end{array}
     $$
   \end{table}

\subsection{Literature values of the effective temperature of HD\,122563}
\label{sec:teff}
The \teff\ of HD\,122563 has been derived using many independent
methods, with all methods showing agreement within a range of $\pm$100K around 4600K.
A recent compilation of spectroscopically derived \teff\ is given in \cite{heiter15} who recommend $4587 \pm\ 60$ K.
\citet{cas14} used the (quasi-) model independent Infra Red Flux Method (IRFM) and
derived a \teff\ = 4600 $\pm$ 47 K.
Two recent analyses by C12 and \citet{iva18} (K18\ hereafter) using interferometry obtain results also in agreement, 4598 $\pm$ 41 K and 4636 $\pm$ 36 K.  These values have been obtained using independent determinations of the angular diameter $\theta$ and the bolometric flux  $F_{\rm bol}$  (Table~\ref{tab:properties}).  For the latter both adapt  a value of extinction\footnote{In this work we rederived $F_{\rm bol}$ using the iterative method described in C12, but adopting the bolometric corrections from \citet{houda2000}. This was done with the aim
of exploring the effect of a non-neglible interstellar extinction (Sect.~\ref{sec:hrdiag}).  The
new $F_{\rm bol}$ change slightly which result in
a \teff\ = 4610/4629 K for C12/K18\ for $A_V = 0.01$ mag.}
 of $A_V = 0.01$ mag.
 The agreement between all of the determinations provides good confidence in the \teff\ and the assumed low value of extinction.

{In this work we do not rederive \teff\ but we adopt the two independent interferometric determinations from C12\ and K18.  However, we use their reported
bolometric flux $F_{\rm bol}$ and measured angular diameter $\theta$ in order to
correctly propagate the uncertainties on all of our inferences.  Furthermore,
$\theta$ is used along with a parallax to perform a similar exercise in order to compare our results
(see Sect.~\ref{sect:gaia}).
By adopting both C12 and K18 one can investigate the effect of a possible source of systematic error from $\theta$, and considering an extreme value of extinction we investigate a source of error in $F_{\rm bol}$, and consequently its \teff\ (Sect.~\ref{sec:hrdiag}).}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/loggdist}
\caption{Distributions of \logg\ derived from asteroseismic data using the seismic scaling relation.
The blue and red represent the results using the observed properties from C12\ and K18, respectively, and $f_{\nu_{\rm max}} = 1.0$.
The grey and green lines show \logg\ using the different
solar reference values and a revised scaling relation \citep{viani2017}, respectively. See Sect.~\ref{ssec:loggnu} for details.
\label{fig:loggdistributions}}
\end{figure}

\section{Surface gravity and distance of HD\,122563}
\label{sec:analysis}
\subsection{Surface gravity and distance from asteroseismic observations\label{ssec:loggnu}}
It has been demonstrated in many papers that the surface gravity of a star can be derived
with very high precision using asteroseismic observations e.g. \citet{brown94,chaplin11,creevey12a}.
Even using simple scaling relations, such as that proposed by
\citet{kb95} (KB95 hereafter), $\log g$ can be easily derived.
Direct comparisons between $\log g$ derived from seismology and from other
methods have also demonstrated its accuracy \citep{mm2012,hekker2013}.
For non-evolved stars typical errors, including systematics on the input parameters
and accuracy, are on
the order of 0.04 dex \citep{creevey2013}.
However, these scaling relations are based on the Sun, and as the star begins to
differ from the Sun, the relations may begin to deviate from solar-scaled values.
Several authors have addressed this issue recently \citep{hekker2013,coelho2015,sharma2016,viani2017,kallinger18,brogaard2018} and propose modifications to the scaling relations.

The classical relation for the asteroseismic quantity \numax\ is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\numax}{\nu_{\rm max\odot}} = f_{\nu_{\rm max}}\frac{g}{g_\odot}
\sqrt{ \frac{T_{\rm eff\odot}}{\teff} }
\label{eqn:numax}
\end{equation}
where $f_{\nu_{\rm max}} = 1.0$, $\nu_{\rm max,\odot} = 3~050 \mu$Hz
and $T_{\rm eff,\odot} = 5~777$ K \citep{kb95}.
In this work we adopt $\log g_{\odot}$ = 4.438 dex from the IAU convention\footnote{\url{https://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/IAU2015_English.pdf} Resolution B3}
\citep{iaub3},
and thus we consequently adopt $T_{\rm eff,\odot} = 5772$ K.
Revised relations have been presented in some of the references cited above where  $f_{\nu_{\rm max}} \ne 1.00$, or $\nu_{\rm max,\odot} \ne 3~050 \mu$Hz,
{and these are both discussed below.}

{Recent analysis by \citet{viani2017}
(V17 hereafter)  replaces $f_{\nu_{\rm max}}$ explicitly with terms associated with the mean molecular weight and the adiabatic exponent, the theoretical basis for which has been studied in e.g. \citet{belkacem2011}.  However, as these terms can not be derived without a stellar model, we are interested in testing the classical relation, but we do consider both cases.
We also note that while these corrections can be important, they do not fully account for the effects of changes in composition on the atmospheric opacities and on the structure of the outer layers (as acknowledged by the authors).  There are important deviations between 1D and 3D stellar models in terms of the surface stratifications at very low metallicity regime and differences between 1D and 3D stratifications contribute to this surface effect \citep{tramp17}.}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/distance}
\caption{Distances to HD\,122563 derived using parallaxes (black and grey) and asteroseismic inferences (blue, red and green)\label{fig:distance}}
\end{figure}

Using equation \ref{eqn:numax} in its classical form we calculate the surface
gravity of HD\,122563 from \numax\ and \teff.
To correctly propagate the uncertainties reported
in C12\ and K18, and the determination of \numax,
we performed Monte-Carlo-like simulations to derive \logg.   More specifically for each simulation we perturb
the observed quantity (\fbol, $\theta$) by adding a
random number drawn from a Normal distribution with width 1 scaled by its
symmetric uncertainty.
For \numax\ we used the marginal distribution directly from Sect.~\ref{sec:observations}.
The distributions of the resulting values of \logg\ from the simulations
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:loggdistributions} adopting the two referenced interferometric measurements (blue and red, respectively).
The value of \logg$_\nu$ for K18\ (red) is $1.393 \pm 0.007$ dex, where the subscript $\nu$ denotes
an asteroseismically-derived value.  The median values using C12 and K18 differ by 0.0018 dex.
A possible source of systematic error arises from the definition of the solar parameters, providing a change of --0.0002 dex for \teff$_{\odot}$ and --0.0056 for \numax$_{\odot}$, and the combined change is shown for C12\ by the grey histogram.

{For the more recent investigations of the scaling relation, $f_{\nu_{\rm max}}$ is replaced by terms associated with the mean molecular weight $(\mu/\mu_{\odot})^{1/2}$ or a combination of $\mu$ and the adiabatic exponent $(\Gamma_1/\Gamma_{1\odot})^{1/2}$.  This is
justified by the fact that \numax\ is expected to scale with the cut-off frequency in the atmosphere (see references above).
In practice, these values are not readily obtained and require the use of stellar models.  For $\mu$ this may be estimated by making assumptions about the helium abundance of the star and using the observed metallicity.  For $\Gamma_1$ a stellar model is needed.
Using the stellar models from Sect.~\ref{sec:hrdiag} we calculated $\mu_{\star} = 0.5904$ and $\Gamma_{1\star} = 1.545$, and adopted the
solar values, $\mu_\odot = 0.6159$ and $\Gamma_{1\odot} = 5/3$, in order to derive the corrections to the scaling relation.

Applying the correction associated only with $\mu$ results in an increased $\logg$ of 0.007 dex.
However, applying the correction associated with $\Gamma_1$ has a more significant impact.  The resulting distribution for K18\ is represented by the green histogram in Fig.~\ref{fig:loggdistributions}. It results in a systematic change of +0.0256 dex to yield a $\logg_\nu = 1.418 \pm\ 0.007$ (see Table~\ref{tab:derivedproperties}).}

Given cosmological constraints (upper age)
and our knowledge of stellar evolution,
we can assume that the mass of
this evolved star is likely between 0.80 and 0.90 \msol\ (C12).
By adopting a conservative prior on the mass of 0.85 $\pm$ 0.05 \msol,
the radius $R$ can be inferred from \logg\ and the mass prior.  This then
gives us access to the distance of the star, because the angular diameter has been measured.
From the classical relation with $f_{\nu_{\rm max}} = 1.0$ we derive a radius of $30.8 \pm 1.0$ \rsol\ implying a distance of $305\pm 10$ pc for C12\ (see Table~\ref{tab:derivedproperties}).
The smallest derived distance is $296 \pm 9$ pc using C12+V17.
These distances are larger than that proposed by \citet{hipp07} who
measured its parallax of 4.22 $\pm$ 0.35 mas using data from the Hipparcos mission.
The derived distances are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:distance} using the same
color-code as Fig.~\ref{fig:loggdistributions}, with the latter denoted by
the grey dashed lines.

\subsection{The surface gravity and distance from Gaia DR2 measurements\label{sect:gaia}}
The Gaia DR2 catalogue \citep{gaia2018a,gaia2018b} provides a new and more precise parallax for HD\,122563 of 3.444 $\pm$0.063 mas.
The distance to the star inferred from this newer parallax is then $290 \pm 5$ pc if we assume no prior, and thus 30\% further away than previously thought
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:distance}, black distribution).
This value is consistent at the 1$\sigma$ level with the values obtained using asteroseismology.
Following the methodology from Sect.~\ref{ssec:loggnu}, using the
angular diameter and the parallax measurement and adopting
a mass prior, we infer (a new radius) and \logg\ for HD\,122563.
This results in \logg$_{\rm GDR2} = 1.432^{+0.030}_{-0.033}$ and $1.445^{+0.031}_{-0.033}$ using C12\ and K18, respectively.
We furthermore use \fbol\ to derive luminosity \lum\ (Sect.~\ref{sec:hrdiag}).
The distance $d$, radius, surface gravity and \lum\ are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:derivedproperties} under the heading 'GDR2 Parallax'.

{A potential systematic error of +0.029 mas on the parallax has been documented in the Gaia Second Data Release \citep{luri2018}.  This zeropoint corresponds to the difference between the
median value of the quasars observed by Gaia, which are assumed to have no parallactic motion, and zero.
For completeness, we apply this
error also in our analysis, and calculate the corresponding parameters (Table~\ref{tab:derivedproperties}).   A larger parallax implies a smaller distance and radius, and
a higher value of \logg.  This is further away from the seismic value.
However, as this zeropoint is a value derived for faint quasars, there is no reason to expect it
to apply to the brighter end of the Gaia spectrum.
}

   \begin{table*}
      \caption[]{Derived properties of HD\,122563 using asteroseismology (left) and Gaia parallaxes (right).  For the seismology parameters, we show the results using the classic scaling relation (KB95) and that given in V17, using both C12 and K18 measurements.  For the results using the GDR2 parallax we show the results without and with a systematic error $s(\pi)$ of +0.029 mas on the parallax, again for C12 and K18.}
         \label{tab:derivedproperties}
         \vspace{-0.5cm}
     $$
         \begin{array}{p{0.05\linewidth}llllllllllllllll}
            \hline\hline
            \noalign{\smallskip}
 && \multicolumn{4}{c}{\rm Seismology}& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\rm GDR2~Parallax}\\
 && \multicolumn{2}{c}{\rm KB95}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\rm V17}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{{\rm s(\pi)} = 0.0}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\rm s(\pi) \ne 0.0}\\
  & & {\rm C12} & {\rm K18} &  {\rm C12} & {\rm K18}
   & {\rm C12} & {\rm K18} &  {\rm C12} & {\rm K18} \\

            \noalign{\smallskip}
            \hline
            \noalign{\smallskip}
\logg\ & \mbox{[dex]} &
1.391^{+8}_{-7}
& 1.393^{+7}_{-7}
& 1.416^{+8}_{-7}
& 1.418^{+7}_{-7}

& 1.433^{+30}_{-32}
& 1.446^{+30}_{-32}
& 1.441^{+30}_{-33}
& 1.453^{+31}_{-33}
\\

$d$ & \mbox{[pc]} &
305^{+10}_{-10} &
308^{+10}_{-10} &
296^{+9}_{-9} &
299^{+10}_{-10} &

290^{+5}_{-5} &
-- &
288^{+5}_{-5} &
-- &
\\

\rad & \mbox{[\rsol]} &
30.8^{+10}_{-10} &
30.7^{+9}_{-9} &
29.9^{+9}_{-9} &
29.8^{+9}_{-9} &

29.4^{+6}_{-7} &
28.9^{+7}_{-6} &
29.1^{+7}_{-6} &
29.7^{+6}_{-6} \\

\lum\ & \mbox{[\lsol]} &
381^{+26}_{-26} &
392^{+27}_{-26} &
359^{+25}_{-24} &
370^{+25}_{-24} &

346^{+16}_{-15} &
347^{+15}_{-15} &
340^{+15}_{-16} &
341^{+14}_{-14} \\
            \noalign{\smallskip}
            \hline\hline
         \end{array}
     $$
   \end{table*}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{figures/hrdiag}
\caption{HR diagram presenting the revised positions of HD\,122563 based on
asteroseismic data (red and blue) and Gaia data (black) for
K18\ and C12\ (continuous and dashed lines, respectively).
The value presented in C12\ using the parallax from \citet{hipp07}
is shown as the grey dashed box.
The red vector represents a potential shift in the median values of
\lum\ and \teff\ if we consider an extinction A$_V$ = 0.08 mag (the reference value is 0.01 mag).
Classical evolution tracks for a 0.75 and 0.90 \msol\ model from BASTI \citep{basti04} are shown by the green
lines, while a fine-tuned 0.86 \msol\ model using the CESAM2K evolution code \citep{morel97}
with a reduced value of the mixing-length parameter compared to the solar one is shown by the grey continuous curve.
See Sect.~\ref{sec:hrdiag} for details.}
 \label{fig:hrdiag}
\end{figure}

\section{Observational constraints in the HR diagram}
\label{sec:hrdiag}
We plot the position of the new observational constraints in the HR diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:hrdiag} using the results from the classical scaling relation and considering no systematic error on the parallax.
We also show BASTI evolutionary tracks \citep{basti04}
for a 0.75 and 0.90 \msol\ star
using standard solar scaled physics  (non-canonical, alpha-enhanced shifts the tracks to
hotter temperatures).   These tracks are frequently used in the literature.
The new HR diagram constraints are shown using the same color-code as Fig.~\ref{fig:loggdistributions} with the grey dashed lines representing C12\
constraints.

The discrepancy between the observational error box and the evolution
tracks already reduces from $>300$K (C12) to the order of
100K (considering the uncertainties) using the new constraints.
However, assuming these models to be correct, we would still require
\lum $\sim$550 \lsol, assuming
the \teff\ is correct.
Given that we have two independent measures of the distance
suggesting similar luminosities it is likely that it is the stellar models that need to be adjusted, based on the assumed $A_V = 0.01$ mag (and therefore \teff).

We investigate the effect of assuming non-neglible interstellar extinction\footnote{\url{
http://stilism.obspm.fr/reddening?frame=icrs&vlong=210.63268943&ulong=deg&vlat=09.68609665&ulat=deg&valid=
}} of $A_V = 0.08$ mag by considering the maximum values from \citep{stilism},  although most studies indicate that this should not be the case.  This would increase  \fbol\ and consequently increase \teff, for a fixed $\theta$. The increase in the
median values of \teff\ and \lum\ as a result of imposing $A_V = 0.08$ mag is indicated by the red vector in Fig.~\ref{fig:hrdiag} for K18.
This could explain some of the discrepancy with evolution models, although such a strong absorption seems unlikely and would also bring the various \teff\ determinations into disagreement.

In this work we have assumed a conservative mass of 0.85 $\pm$ 0.05 \msol. However, using stellar models we can further constrain the mass by
assuming a limited age range to be consistent with a Pop II star.
We performed computations of evolutionary tracks with the CESAM2k code \citep{morel97}
assuming [Z/X] = $-2.4$ {which includes an assumed [$\alpha$/Fe] $\sim$ +0.25},
similar to those described in C12.
In order to match the constraints, we are required to lower the mixing-length parameter by $\sim 0.35$ compared to the solar one, to {$1.55 \pm 0.03$}.
Only models with masses in the range of {0.85 -- 0.87} \msol\ reach the \lum\ at an age between 10 and 12 Gyr.
A new representative stellar model (0.86 \msol, $\alpha = 1.55$) calculated from CESAM2k is shown in grey in Fig.~\ref{fig:hrdiag}.

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}

We determined an asteroseismic \logg\ value of $1.39 \pm 0.01$ and $1.42 \pm 0.01$ by
using the \numax\ seismic scaling relation without and with corrections for the
mean molecular weight and adiabatic exponent.  These values are in statistical
agreement with those
derived using a parallax from GDR2 ($1.43 \pm 0.03$).  A recent determination from the APOGEE
survey (DR15, \citealt{sdssdr15})
yields a {\it calibrated\footnote{The APOGEE stellar parameters provide calibrated and uncalibrated stellar parameters, where the calibration is done independently of the other stellar parameter.  For surface gravity, the calibrated value is obtained by adding a constant that is derived from seismic calibrations of spectra.  For \teff\ however this is obtained by adding a constant derived from photometrical calibrations with models.  For the \teff, the calibrated value is not valid in our case.}} \logg\ of 1.43 dex.
These agreements imply that the seismic scaling relation for surface gravity even without corrections is valid in the evolved, metal-poor regime.  Our work also validates the use of the
corrective terms, although some discrepancy still remains.
This has an important consequence, because
today we have access to thousands of giant stars which show oscillation signatures such as \numax, and
this implies that seismic constraints in spectroscopic analyses can be safely used.
Fixing this parameter allows more precise determinations of other spectroscopic parameters, and
can help to uncover systematic errors associated with these analyses.

A recent analysis of the CNO abundances of HD\,122563
using 3D hydrodynamical atmospheres by \citet{collet18}
found that their imposed surface gravity of
$1.61 \pm 0.07$ resulted in discrepant oxygen abundances between molecular and atomic
species.  They suggested that a downward revision on the order of 0.3 dex would relieve
this tension.   In this work, the surface gravity has been revised downward by 0.2 dex, close
to that proposed by the authors.

Using stellar models and the constraints from the revised luminosity, we refined the mass to within 0.85 and 0.87 \msol.
Nevertheless, we still find differences compared to standard stellar models.
We looked into the possibility of having a possible increase in interstellar extinction.  This would bring the error box in the HR diagram closer to the BASTI stellar evolution tracks (red vector in Fig.~\ref{fig:hrdiag}), because the \teff\ would increase.   However, then all different methodologies (spectroscopic, interferometric, IRFM) would no longer be in agreement.  A more recent measurement of the \teff\ with APOGEE spectra yields an uncalibrated (i.e. derived from the spectra) \teff\ of 4594 K, also in agreement with the literature \teff\ presented here.
An alternative is to increase the \lum\ only, i.e. a star that is much further away.  From this work we have two independent determinations of the distance yielding similar results.  This would also be unlikely.
This leaves the only possibility to investigate the stellar models.

In order to match the observational constraints with stellar models, we could increase the
metallicity by about 1.0 dex, however, this has been measured by many different authors and
this is a very  unlikely solution.  We could also decrease the initial helium abundance to an extremely low value, but this would be inconsistent with predictions of the primordial abundances, e.g. \citet{tytler2001}.
One of the solutions of this discrepancy is to lower the mixing-length parameter $\alpha$.  This
decreases the \teff, without influencing the \lum.
We estimated a shift of $\alpha$ of --0.35 compared to the solar-calibrated one by calculating refined stellar models. Such
a value is in agreement with estimations from 3D simulations.  \citealt{magic2015} suggest a reduction of $\sim$0.2 compared to the solar value for a star of this $g$, [M/H], and \teff\ (their Fig.~3), where the reduction is primarily due to the lower value of \logg.

More recently, \citet{tayar2017}, \citet{viani2018} and \citet{creevey2017} investigated the mixing-length parameter empirically by studying samples of stars.   For the second two, their analysis  concentrated on main sequence stars and subgiants, with the lowest metallicity values close to --0.60 dex, so their results are not applicable to HD\,122563.  However, they do find a relation that depends on \logg, \teff\ and metallicity.
\citet{tayar2017} also restricted their studies to stars with [Fe/H] $>$ --1.0 dex, but looked at
the specific case of a sample of 3,000 giants, with the aim of studying the metallicity dependence.  They found that a correction to $\alpha$ on the order of 0.2 per dex is needed.  If we apply this correction, we would require a reduction of $\sim 0.5$ dex in $\alpha$ compared to
the solar one, not far from what we find.
Both empirical and model results indeed support that $\alpha$ needs to be modified in the 1D stellar models.   This then would support our new parameter determinations, which consequently validates the seismic scaling relation for \logg\ in the metal-poor giant regime.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}

 In this work we described the first detection of oscillations in the metal-poor
giant HD\,122563. We determined its surface gravity using the detected \numax\ along with
scaling relations.  By comparing with the value derived using a Gaia parallax we validated the
classical ($f_{\nu {\rm max}} = 1.0 $) seismic scaling relations in such a metal-poor
and non-solar regime.  We found a non-significant difference of 0.04 dex.
While these relations are valid, applying the corrections for mean molecular weight and
the adiabatic exponent results in a smaller discrepancy with the surface gravity
derived from the Gaia parallax (0.02 dex).

We derived  updated surface gravity, radius, and luminosity for HD\,122563.  These new
parameters are quite different from previous determinations.  These permit us to make a new
estimate of the mass by using stellar models.  Only models with masses between
0.85 and 0.87 \msol\ satisfy the new constraints.
The updated luminosity along with the literature \teff\ provide a new error box in the HR diagram.
The large difference on the \teff-axis found in earlier works has significantly reduced, to the order of 100 K.  This final difference can be rectified by modifying the mixing-length parameter used in the models.  We needed a change of --0.35 compared to the solar-calibrated value, a value in agreement with 3D simulations and empirically derived values.

SONG radial velocity observations are continuing in order to determine \deltanu\
and resolve the individual frequencies.  These observations will help to test scaling
relations for the radius and the mass using \deltanu\ outside of the solar regime, and bring
important constraints on the knowledge of the fundamental parameters of
this star including its age.
Complementing these data with high precision parallax measurements will allow us to
derive accurate masses and radii independent of models.

\begin{acknowledgements}
We are grateful for the Programme National de Physique Stellaire for financial support for this research project. This work is based on observations made with the Hertzsprung SONG telescope operated on the Spanish Observatorio del Teide on the island of Tenerife by the Aarhus and Copenhagen Universities and by the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias. Support for the construction of the Hertzsprung SONG Telescope from the Instituto
de Astrofisica de Canarias, the Villum Foundation, the Carlsberg Foundation and
the Independent Research Fund Denmark is gratefully acknowledged.  E.C. is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 664931.
D.S. acknowledges the financial support from the CNES GOLF grant and the Observatoire de la C\^ote d'Azur for support during his stays.
We also deeply acknowledge the Gaia team for their huge efforts in bringing us high quality data.

\end{acknowledgements}


\section{Discussion \& Recommendations}

\section{Conclusions \& Future Work}

In this work, we conducted an investigation to analyze social bots activity during the 2018 US Midterm election.
We showed that social bots are embedded in each political wing and behave accordingly.
We observed different strategies between conservative and liberal bots. Specifically, conservative bots stand in a more central position in the social network and abide by the topic discussed by the human counterpart more than the liberal bots, which in turn exhibit an inflammatory attitude.
Further, conservative bots balanced their interaction with humans and bots of the red wing, whereas liberal bots focused mainly on the interplay with the human counterpart.

Finally, we inspected the effectiveness of these strategies and recognized the strategy of the conservative bots as the most effective.
However, these results open the door to further interpretation and discussion.
Are conservative bots more effective because of their strategy or because of the human ineptitude to distinguish their nature?
This, and related analysis, will be expanded  in  future work.

\section{Results}
Next, we address the research questions discussed in the Introduction.
We examine social bot partisanship and, accordingly, we analyze bots' strategies and measure the effectiveness of their actions.

\subsection{RQ1: Bot Political Leaning}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Users and tweets statistics}
\label{tab: stats}
\centering\small
\begin{subtable}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline

& Liberal    & Conservative \\
\hline
Humans      &386,391 (38.7\%)   & 122,761 (12.3\%)     \\
Bots      &82,118 (8.2\%)     & 49,488 (4.9\%)  \\

\hline
\end{tabular}
\subcaption{Number (percentage) of users per group}
\label{tab:gt_stats_user}

\end{subtable}%

\begin{subtable}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline

& Liberal    & Conservative \\
\hline
Humans      &957,726 (37.0\%)   & 476,231 (18.4\%)     \\
Bots      & 288,659 (11.1\%)    & 364,727 (14.1\%)  \\

\hline
\end{tabular}
\subcaption{Number (percentage) of tweets per group}
\label{tab:gt_stats_tweet}
\end{subtable}%
\end{table}

\begin{figure*}[!htb]
    \centering
    \resizebox{0.75\textwidth}{!}{%
    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/bigger.png}};
        \begin{scope}[x={(image.south east)},y={(image.north west)}]

            \node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (image) at (0.0,0.05) {\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/25core_reduced.png}};
        \end{scope}
\node[draw=none] at (0,1) {\large \textit{(b) 25-core decomposition}};
\node[draw=none] at (0,5.5) {\large \textit{(a) 10-core decomposition}};

    \end{tikzpicture}
    }%
    \caption{Political discussion over \textit{(a)} the 10-core, and \textit{(b)} the 25-core decomposition of the retweet network. Each node represents a user, while links represent retweets. Links with weight (i.e., frequency of occurrence) less than 2 are hidden to minimize visual clutter. Blue  nodes represent liberal accounts, while red nodes indicate conservative users. Darker tones (blue and red) depict bots, while lighter tones (cyan and pink) relate to humans, and the few green nodes represent unclassified accounts. The link takes the same color of the source node (author of the retweet), whereas node size is proportional to the in-degree of the user.}
    \label{fig:bot_score_comparison}
\end{figure*}

\begin{table}[t!]
\centering\small
\caption{Top 20 hashtags generated by liberal and conservative bots.
Hashtags in bold are not present in the top 50 hashtags used by the corresponding human group.}
\label{tab:bots_hash}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline

 Liberal Bots & Conservative Bots  \\
\hline

\#MAGA & \#BrowardCounty \\
\#NovemberisComing & \#MAGA \\
\#TheResistance & \#StopTheSteal\\
\#GOTV & \#WalkAway \\
\#Florida & \#WednesdayWisdom \\
\textbf{\#ImpeachTrump} & \#PalmBeachCounty \\
\#Russia &  \#Florida\\
\#VoteThemOut & \#QAnon\\
\#unhackthevote & \#KAG\\
\textbf{\#FlipTheHouse}   & \#IranRegime \\
\#RegisterToVote & \#Tehran \\
\#Resist & \#WWG1WGA\\
\textbf{\#ImpeachKavanaugh} & \textbf{\#Louisiana}\\
\#GOP & \#BayCounty\\
\#MeToo & \#AmericaFirst\\
\#AMJoy & \#DemocratsAreDangerous \\
\#txlege & \#StopTheCaravan \\
\textbf{\#FlipTheSenate} & \textbf{\#Blexit} \\
\textbf{\#CultureOfCorruption} & \textbf{\#VoteDemsOut} \\
\textbf{\#TrumpTrain} & \#VoterFraud \\

\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The combination of the outcome from the bot detection algorithm and the political ideology inference allowed us to identify four groups of users, namely Liberal Humans, Conservative Humans, Liberal Bots, and Conservative Bots.
In Table \ref{tab:gt_stats_user}, we show the percentage of users per group. Note that percentages do not sum up to 100 as either the political ideology inference was not able to classify every user, or Botometer did not return a score, as we previously mentioned.
In particular, we were able to assign a political leaning to 63\% of bots and 67\% of humans.
We find that the liberal user population is almost three times larger than the conservative counterpart.
This discrepancy is also present, but less evident, for the bot accounts, which exhibit an unbalance in favor of liberal bots.
Further, we investigate the suspended accounts to inspect the consistency of this result. The inference algorithm attributed a political ideology to 63\% of these accounts, which in turn show once again the liberal advantage over the conservative faction (45\% vs. 18\%).

Figure \ref{fig:bot_score_comparison} shows two \textit{k}-core decomposition graphs of the retweet network.
In a \textit{k}-core, each node is connected with at least \textit{k} other nodes.
Figures \ref{fig:bot_score_comparison}a and \ref{fig:bot_score_comparison}b capture the 10-core and 25-core decomposition, respectively.
Here, nodes represent Twitter users and link represent retweets among them.
We indicate as \textit{source} the user that retweeted the tweet of a \textit{target} user.
Colors represent the political ideology, with darker colors (red and blue) being bots and lighter colors (cyan and pink) being human users; size represents the in-degree.
The graph is visualized using a force-directed layout \cite{jacomy2014forceatlas2}, where nodes repulse each other, while edges attract their nodes.
In our setting, this means that users are spatially distributed according to the amount of retweets between each other.
The result is a network naturally split into two communities, where each side is almost entirely populated by users with the same political ideology.
This polarization is also reflected by bots, which are embedded, with humans, in each political side. Two facts are worth noting: \textit{(i)} as \textit{k} increases, the left k-core appears to disrupt, while the right k-core remains well connected; and, \textit{(ii)} as \textit{k} increases, bots appear to outnumber humans, suggesting that bots may populate areas of the retweet network that are more central and better connected.

Next, we examine the topics discussed by social bots and compare them with the human counterparts.
Table \ref{tab:bots_hash} shows the top 20 hashtags utilized by liberal and conservative bots.
We highlight (in bold) the hashtags that are not present in the top 50 hashtags used by the corresponding human group to point out the similarities and differences among the groups.
In this table, we do not take into account general hashtags (such as \#elections, \#midterms, \#democrats, \#liberals, \#VoteRed(or Blue)ToSaveAmerica, and \#Trump) as $(i)$ the overlap between bot and human hashtags is noticeable when these terms are considered, and $(ii)$ we aim to narrow the analysis to specific topics and inflammatory content, inspired by \cite{stella2018bots}.
Moreover, we used an enlarged subset of hashtags for the human groups to further strengthen the differences and, at the same time, to better understand the objective of social bots.
Although bots and humans share the majority of hashtags, two main differences can be noticed.
First, conservative bots abide by the  corresponding human counterpart more than the liberal bots.
Second, liberal bots focus on more inflammatory and provocative content (e.g., \#ImpeachTrump, \#ImpeachKavanaugh, \#FlipTheSenate) w.r.t.  conservative bots.

\subsection{RQ2: Bot Activity and Strategies}
In this Section, we investigate social bot activity based on their political leaning. We explore their strategies in interacting with humans and the degree of embeddedness in the social network.

Table \ref{tab:gt_stats_tweet} depicts the number (and percentage) of tweets generated by each group.
Despite the group composed of conservative bots is the smallest in terms of number of accounts, it produced more tweets than liberal bots and closely approaches the number of tweets generated by the human counterpart. The resulting \textit{tweet per user ratio} shows that conservative bots produce 7.4 tweets per account, which is more than twice the ratio related to the liberal bots (3.5), almost the double of the human counterpart (3.9), and nearly three times the ratio of liberal humans (2.5).

To investigate the interplay between bots and humans, we consider the previously described retweet network.
Figure \ref{fig:rt_pid_overall} shows the interaction among the four groups.
We maintain the same color mapping described before, with darker color (on the bottom) representing bots and lighter color (on top) indicating humans. Node size is proportional to the percentage of accounts in each group, while edge size is proportional to the percentage of interactions between each group.
In Figure \ref{fig:rt_pid_overall}a, this percentage is computed considering all the interactions in the retweet network, while in Figure \ref{fig:rt_pid_overall}b we consider each group separately, therefore, the edge size gives a measure of the group propensity to interact with the other groups.
Consistently with Figure \ref{fig:bot_score_comparison}, we observe that there is a limited amount of interaction between the two political sides. The majority of interactions are either intra-group or between groups of the same political leaning.
From Figure \ref{fig:rt_pid_overall}b, we can observe that the two bot factions adopted different strategies.
Conservative bots balanced their interactions by retweeting group members 43\% of the time, and the human counterpart 52\% of the time.
On the other hand, liberal bots mainly retweeted liberal humans (71\% of the time) and limited the intra-group interactions to the 22\% of their retweet activity.
Interestingly, conservative humans interacted with the conservative bots (28\% of the time) much more than the liberal counterpart (16\%) with the liberal bots.
To better understand these results and to measure the effectiveness of both the strategies, in the next Section we evaluate the four metrics introduced earlier in this paper.

\begin{figure}[!t]
    \centering
    \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=.47\columnwidth]{images/bh_overall.png}};
        \begin{scope}[x={(image.south east)},y={(image.north west)}]

            \node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (image) at (1,-.02) {\includegraphics[width=.47\columnwidth]{images/bh_group.png}};
        \end{scope}
\node[draw=none] at (-.55,0.485) {Bots};
\node[draw=none] at (-.55,3.15) {Humans};
\node[draw=none] at (1.75,-0.4) {$(a)$ Overall interactions};
\node[draw=none] at (5.775,-0.4) {$(b)$ Group-based interactions};

    \end{tikzpicture}
    }%
    \caption{Interactions according to political ideology}
    \label{fig:rt_pid_overall}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Average network centrality measures}
\label{tab:in_n_out}
\centering\small
\begin{subtable}{.48\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline

& Liberal    & Conservative \\
\hline
Humans      & 2.66 $\cdot 10^{-6}$    & 4.14 $\cdot 10^{-6}$      \\
Bots      & 3.70 $\cdot 10^{-6}$     & 7.81 $\cdot 10^{-6}$   \\

\hline
\end{tabular}
\subcaption{Out-degree centrality}
\label{tab:out_deg}
\end{subtable}%

\begin{subtable}{.48\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline

& Liberal    & Conservative \\
\hline
Humans      & 2.52 $\cdot 10^{-6}$    & 4.24 $\cdot 10^{-6}$      \\
Bots      & 2.53 $\cdot 10^{-6}$     & 6.22 $\cdot 10^{-6}$   \\

\hline
\end{tabular}
\subcaption{In-degree centrality}
\label{tab:in_deg}
\end{subtable}%
\vspace{-3 mm}
\end{table}

Finally, we examine the degree of embeddedness of both humans and bots within the retweet network.
For this purpose, we first compute different network centrality measures, and then we adopt the k-core decomposition technique to identify the most central nodes in the graph.
In Table \ref{tab:in_n_out}, we show the average out- and in-degree centrality for each group of users.
Out-degree centrality measures the quantity of outgoing links, while in-degree centrality considers the number of of incoming links. Both of these measures are normalized by the maximum possible degree of the graph.
Overall, conservative groups have higher centrality measures than the liberal ones.
We can notice that conservative bots achieve the highest values both for the out- and in-degree centrality.
To further investigate bots embeddedness in the social network, we use the k-core decomposition. The objective of this technique is to determine the set of nodes deeply embedded in a graph. The k-core is a subgraph of the original graph in which every node has a degree equal to or greater than a given value $k$.
We extracted the k-cores from the retweet network by varying $k$ in the range between 0 and 30.
Figure \ref{fig:core} depicts the percentage of liberal and conservative users as a function of $k$.
We can notice that, as $k$ grows, the fraction of conservative bots increases, while the percentage of liberal bots remains almost stationary.
On the human side, the liberal fraction drops with $k$, whereas the conservative percentage remains approximately steady.
Overall, conservative bots sit in a more central position in the social network and are more deeply connected if compared to the liberal counterpart.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
  \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{images/k_core_gt_all_red.png}
  \caption{k-core decomposition, liberal vs. conservative users}
  \label{fig:core}
\vspace{-.35cm}
\end{figure}

\subsection{RQ3: Bot Effectiveness}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering\small
\caption{Bot effectiveness
\label{tab:eff}}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline

Metric & Liberal Bots & Conservative Bots  \\
\hline
$RTP$     & 14.1\% & 25.6\% \\
$RR$      &4.5\% & 15.5\%\\
$H2BR$    &12.3\% & 23.2\%\\
$TSR$     &35.3\% & 35.0\%\\

\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

In this Section, we aim to estimate the effectiveness of bot strategies and measure to what extent humans rely upon, and interact with the content generated by social bots.
We examine the effect of bot activities by means of the four metrics described in Section \textit{Bot Activity Effectiveness}.
We evaluate each political side separately, thus, we compare the interaction between bots and humans with the same leaning. In Table \ref{tab:eff}, we depict the results for each group of bots.
Diverse aspects are worthy of consideration.
We can observe that conservative bots are significantly more effective than the liberal counterpart.
Although the $TSR$s of the \textit{red} and \textit{blue} bots are comparable, the gap between the two groups, with respect to the other metrics, is significant.
To carefully interpret this result, it should also be noticed that $(i)$ the $TSR$ is inversely proportional to the number of tweets generated by bots, and $(ii)$ conservative bots tweeted more than the liberal counterpart, as depicted in Table \ref{tab:gt_stats_tweet}.
Overall, conservative bots received a larger degree of interaction with (and likely trust from) human users.
In fact, conservative humans interacted with the bot counterpart almost twice with retweets  ($RTP$), and more than three times with replies ($RR$) if compared to the liberal group.
Finally, the $H2BR$ highlights a remarkable amount of human activities that involve social bots: almost one in four actions performed by conservative humans goes towards red bots.

\subsection{Research Questions}
In this paper, we aim to answer the following research questions (RQs) regarding social bots behavior during the 2018 Midterms election.
\section{Introduction}
During the last decade, social media have become the conventional communication channel to socialize, share opinions, and access the news.
Accuracy,  truthfulness, and  authenticity of the shared content are necessary ingredients to maintain a healthy online discussion.
However, in recent times, social media have been dealing with a considerable growth of false content and fake accounts.
The resulting wave of misinformation (and disinformation) highlights the pitfalls of social media networks and their potential harms to several constituents of our society, ranging from politics to public health.

In fact, social media networks have been used for malicious purposes to a great extent \cite{ferrara2015manipulation}.
Various studies raised awareness about the risk of mass manipulation of public opinion, especially in the context of political discussion.
Disinformation campaigns~\cite{persily20172016, howard2017junk, shu2017fake, ferrara2017disinformation, vosoughi2018spread, badawy2018falls, guess2019less, bovet2019influence, scheufele2019science, Grinberg2019} and social  bots~\cite{bessi2016social, woolley2017computational, varol2017online,  monsted2017evidence, pozzana2018measuring, boichak2018automated, shao2018spread, yang2019arming} have been indicated as factors contributing to social media manipulation.

The 2016 US Presidential election represents a prime example of the significant perils of mass manipulation of political discourse.
\citet{Badawy2018} studied the Russian interference in the election and the activity of Russian trolls on Twitter.  \citet{im2019still} suggested that troll accounts are still active to these days.
The presence of social bots does not show any sign of decline \cite{yang2019arming,deb2019bots} despite the attempts from social network providers to suspend  suspected, malicious accounts.
Various research efforts have been focusing on the analysis, detection, and countermeasures development against social bots. \citet{ferrara2016rise} highlighted the consequences associated with bot activity in social media. The online conversation related to the 2016 US presidential election was further examined  \cite{bessi2016social} to quantify the extent of social bots activity. More recently,
\citet{stella2018bots} discussed bots' strategy of targeting influential humans to manipulate online conversation during the Catalan referendum for independence, whereas \citet{shao2018spread} analyzed the role of social bots in spreading articles from low credibility sources.
\citet{deb2019bots} focused on the 2018 US Midterms elections with the objective to find instances of voter suppression.

In this work, we investigate social bots behavior by analyzing their activity, strategy, and interactions with humans.
We aim to answer the following research questions (RQs) regarding social bots behavior during the 2018 US Midterms election.

\begin{itemize}
    \item[\textbf{RQ1}:]  \textit{Do social bots lean and behave according to a political ideology?} We investigate whether social bots can be classified based on their political inclination into liberal or conservative leaning. Further, we explore to what extent they act similarly to the corresponding human counterparts.

    \item[\textbf{RQ2}:]  \textit{Can we observe different strategies among liberal and conservative bots?} We examine the differences between social bot strategies to mimic humans and infiltrate political discussion. For this purpose, we measure bot activity in terms of volume and frequency of posts, interactions with humans, and embeddedness in the social network.
    \item[\textbf{RQ3}:]  \textit{Are bot strategies effective?} We introduce four metrics to estimate the effectiveness of bot strategies and to evaluate the degree of human interplay with social bots.

\end{itemize}

We leverage Twitter to capture the political discourse during the 2018 US midterm elections. We collected 2.6 million tweets for 42 days around  election day from nearly 1 million users.
We then explore  collected  data and  attain the following findings:
\begin{itemize}
    \item We show that social bots are embedded in each political side and behave accordingly. Conservative bots abide by the topic discussed by the human counterpart more than liberal bots, which in turn exhibit a more provocative attitude.
    \item We examined bots' interactions with humans and observed different strategies. Conservative bots stand in a more central   social network position, and divide their interactions between humans and other conservative bots, whereas liberal bots focused mainly on the interplay with the human counterparts.
    \item We measured the effectiveness of these strategies and recognized the strategy of  conservative bots as the most effective in terms of influence exerted on human users.
\end{itemize}

\section{Data}

In this study, we use Twitter to investigate the partisan behavior of malicious accounts during the 2018 US midterm elections.
For this purpose, we carried out a data collection from the month prior (October 6, 2018) to two weeks after (November 19, 2018) the day of the election.
We kept the collection running after the election day as several races remained unresolved.
We employed the Python module \textit{Twyton} to collect tweets through the Twitter Streaming API using the following keywords as a filter: \textit{2018midtermelections}, \textit{2018midterms}, \textit{elections}, \textit{midterm}, and \textit{midtermelections}.
As a result, we gathered 2.7 million tweets, whose IDs are publicly available for download.\footnote{\url{https://github.com/A-Deb/midterms}}
From this set, we first removed any duplicate tweet, which may have been captured by accidental redundant queries to the Twitter API.
Then, we excluded all the tweets not written in English language.
Despite the majority of the tweets were in English, and to a lesser degree in Spanish (3,177 tweets), we identified 59 languages in the collected data.
Thus, we inspected tweets from other countries and removed them as they were out of the context of this study.
In particular, we filtered out tweets related to the Cameroon election, the Democratic Republic of the Congo election, the Biafra call for Independence, democracy in Kenya (\#democracyKE), to the two major political parties in India (BJP and UPA), and college midterm exams.
Overall, we retain nearly 2.6 millions tweets, whose aggregate statistics are reported in Table \ref{tab:datasets_stats}.

\begin{table}[t]
\centering \small
\caption{Dataset statistics}
\label{tab:datasets_stats}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
    Statistic & Count   \\

\hline
\# of Tweets	&		452,288	\\
\# of Retweets	&		1,869,313	\\
\# of Replies	&		267,973	\\
\# of Users	&	997,406	\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\end{table}

\section{Methodology}

\subsection{Bot Detection}
Nowadays, bot detection is a fundamental asset for understanding social media manipulation and, more specifically, to reveal malicious accounts.
In the last few years, the problem of detecting automated accounts gathered both attention and concern  \cite{ferrara2016rise}, also bringing a wide variety of approaches to the table \cite{subrahmanian2016darpa,kudugunta2018deep,chavoshi2016debot,chen2018unsupervised}.
While increasingly sophisticated techniques keep emerging \cite{kudugunta2018deep}, in this study, we employ the widely used \textit{Botometer}.\footnote{\url{https://botometer.iuni.iu.edu/}}

Botometer is a machine learning-based tool developed by Indiana University \cite{davis2016botornot,varol2017online} to detect social bots in Twitter.
It is based on an ensemble classifier \cite{breiman2001random} that aims to provide an indicator, namely \textit{bot score}, used to classify an account either as a bot or as a human.
To feed the classifier, the Botometer API extracts about 1,200 features related to the Twitter account under analysis.
These features fall in six broad categories and characterize the account's profile, friends, social network, temporal activity patterns, language, and sentiment.
Botometer outputs a bot score: the lower the score, the higher the probability that the user is human.
In this study we use version \textit{v3} of Botometer, which brings some innovations, as detailed in \cite{yang2019arming}. Most importantly, the bot scores are now rescaled (and not centered around 0.5 anymore) through a non-linear re-calibration of the model.

In Figure \ref{fig:bot_score_dist}, we depict the bot score distribution of the 997,406 distinct users in our datasets.
The distribution exhibits a right skew: most of the probability mass is in the range [0, 0.2] and some peaks can be noticed around 0.3.
Prior studies used the 0.5 threshold to separate humans from bots. However, according to the re-calibration introduced in Botometer \textit{v3} \cite{yang2019arming}, along with the emergence of increasingly more sophisticated bots, we here lower the bot score threshold to 0.3 (i.e., a user is labeled as a bot if the  score is above 0.3). This threshold corresponds to the same level of sensitivity setting of 0.5 in prior versions of Botometer (cf. Fig 5 from \cite{yang2019arming}).

According to this choice, we classified 21.1\% of the accounts as bots, which in turn generated 30.6\% of the tweets in our data set.
Overall, Botometer did not return a score for 35,029 users that corresponds to 3.5\% of the accounts.
We used the Twitter API to further inspect them. Interestingly, 99.4\% of these accounts were suspended by Twitter, whereas the remaining percentage of users protected their tweets  turning on the privacy settings of their accounts.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
  \includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{images/final_bot_score_GT.png}
  \caption{Bot score distribution }
  \label{fig:bot_score_dist}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Political Ideology Inference}
In parallel to the bot detection analysis, we examine the political leaning of both bots and humans in our dataset.
To classify users based on their political ideology, we rely on the political leaning of the media outlets they share. We make use of a list of partisan media outlets released by third-party organizations, such as AllSides\footnote{\url{https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings}} and Media Bias/Fact Check.\footnote{\url{https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/}}
We combine liberal and liberal-center media outlets into one list (composed of 641 outlets) and conservative and conservative-center into another (composed of 398 outlets).
To cross reference these media URLs with the URLs in the Twitter dataset, we need to get the expanded URLs for most of the links in the dataset, as most of them are shortened.
However, this process is quite time-consuming, thus, we decided to rank the top 5,000 URLs by popularity and retrieve the long version only for those. These top 5,000 URLs accounts for more than 254K, or more than 1/3 of all the URLs in the dataset.
After cross-referencing the 5,000 extended URLs with the media URLs, we observe that 32,115  tweets in the dataset contain a URL that points to one of the liberal media outlets and 25,273 tweets with a URL pointing to one of the conservative media outlets.

To label Twitter accounts as liberal or conservative, we use a polarity rule based on the number of tweets they produce with links to liberal or conservative sources. Thereby, if an account has more tweets with URLs pointing to liberal sources, it is labeled as liberal and vice versa. Although the overwhelming majority of accounts include URLs that are either liberal or conservative, we remove any account that has equal number of tweets from each side. Our final set of labeled accounts includes 38,920 users.

Finally, we use label propagation to classify the remaining accounts in a similar way to previous work (\textit{cf.} \cite{Badawy2018}).
For this purpose, we construct a social network based on the retweets exchanged between users.
The nodes of the retweet network are the users, which are connected by a direct link if one user retweeted a post of another user.
To validate results of the label propagation algorithm, we apply a stratified cross (5-fold) validation to a set composed of 38,920 seed accounts.
We train the algorithm using 80\% of the seeds and we evaluate the performance on the remaining 20\%.
Finally, we compute precision and recall by reiterating the validation of the 5-folds. Both precision and recall scores show value around 0.89 and validate the proposed approach.
Moreover, since we combine liberal and liberal-center into one list (same for conservatives), we can see that the algorithm is not only labeling the far liberal or conservative correctly, which is a relatively easier task, but it is performing well on the liberal/conservative center as well.

\subsection{Bot Activity Effectiveness}
We next introduce four metrics to estimate bot effectiveness and, at the same time, measure to what extent humans rely upon, and interact with the content generated by social bots.
Thereby, we propose the following metrics:
\begin{itemize}
    \item \textit{Retweet Pervasiveness} ($RTP$) measures the intrusiveness of bot-generated content in human-generated retweets:
    \begin{equation}
 RTP=\frac{\mbox{no. of human retweets from bot tweets}}{\mbox{no. of human retweets}
  \end{equation}
    \item \textit{Reply Rate} ($RR$) measures the percentage of replies given by humans to social bots:
    \begin{equation}
 RR=\frac{\mbox{no. of human replies to bot tweets}}{\mbox{no. of human replies}
  \end{equation}
    \item \textit{Human to Bot Rate} ($H2BR$) quantifies human interaction with bots over all the human activities in the social network:
     \begin{equation}
H2BR=\frac{\mbox{no. of humans interaction with bots}}{\mbox{no. of humans activity}}\mbox{,
  \end{equation}
where the numerator counts for human replies/retweets to/of bots generated content, while the denominator is the sum of the number of human tweets, retweets, and replies.
    \item \textit{Tweet Success Rate} ($TSR$) is the percentage of tweets generated by bots that obtained at least one retweet by a human:
 \begin{equation}
TSR=\frac{\mbox{no. of tweet retweeted at least once by a human}}{\mbox{no. of bots tweets}
  \end{equation}
\end{itemize}


\section{Introduction - why we study the sun?}
\label{intro}

One of the purposes of cosmic-ray research may be found in a research subject to elucidate how and where cosmic rays are accelerated. It has been well-known for a long time that particles are accelerated at the Sun and then arrive at Earth. Particles are also accelerated  in many other places in our universe.

The high energy particles from the Sun are called Solar Energetic Particles (SEPs) or Solar Cosmic Rays (SCRs). According to Ground Level Enhancement measurements, ions are known to be accelerated up to 10 GeV. How are such particles accelerated to such high energies? This may be a big riddle in astrophysics. A great merit of studying the Sun may be found in a point that we can simultaneously measure solar phenomena with several detectors at different wavelengths. Once upon a time, Professor Sachio Hayakawa, one of the fathers of gamma-ray astronomy, explained  in a lecture (1965) “why astronomy is known as astrophysics”. He stated that although astronomical phenomena are difficult to observe repeatedly, similar phenomena can be tested in our laboratory. This is the reason why astronomy has been involved in the field of physics.

His philosophy is important and is reflected even today in multi-messenger astronomy. The same scientific trend is also seen in solar physics. We are trying to confirm the acceleration process of particles with the use of various instruments located not only at ground level but also in space. Such simulations could possibly be a powerful method of investigating the acceleration process.

Part of this paper has been presented at the poster session of the conference. Here we report our presentation as the full paper. We have investigated the interaction process of accelerated solar particles in the solar atmosphere by using the GEANT4 simulation code. This paper presents the calculation results.

\section{Impulsive Flares and Gradual Flares}
\label{Flares}

In this paper, we do not discuss how particles are accelerated on the solar surface. Instead, we present the simulation results of  secondary particles such as gamma rays and neutrons emitted by the collisions that occur when accelerated particles hit the solar atmosphere.

Solar flares are traditionally classified into two categories: the impulsive flare and the gradual flare. The impulsive phase usually lasts about one hour, while the gradual flare continues for about one day. Although several authors have reported on long-duration gamma-ray flares (LDGRFs), their origin
has yet to be established.

Reames \cite{b1} analyzed several solar flares and concluded that the abundance of helium components and other ions are apparently higher in impulsive flares than in gradual flares. One of the assumptions to explain such a conclusion may be found in the paper by Fisk \cite{b2}. According to his theory, the He$^{3}$ ions and Fe ions in impulsive flares are selectively accelerated by the ion cyclotron resonance process between the waves and the particles under a condition of k$\parallel$v$\parallel$ = $\omega-2 \Omega_{i}$ (a kind of surfing acceleration mechanism).
In this paper, the expected  ratio of neutrons versus gamma rays (n/$\gamma$-ratio) has been calculated  using the GEANT4 simulation code   (Fig. \ref{fig-1}).

\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Figure1.eps}
\caption{Integral energy spectra of neutrons and gamma rays with energy > 100 MeV expected in the very forward region (0-10$^{\circ}$) and intermediate 40-50$^{\circ}$ regions from the initial injection beam. In the case of helium ion entry, a high n/$\gamma$-ratio up to 1,000 is expected.}
\label{fig-1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{Figure2a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Figure2b.eps}
\caption{(a) Energy spectrum of neutrons observed by SEDA-FIB  \cite{b3}; (b) time profile of gamma rays observed by FERMI-LAT  \cite{b4}. The power index of neutrons is given by (2.8 $\pm$ 0.3).}
\label{fig-2}
\end{figure*}

\section{Angular Distribution of Secondary Particles}
\label{Angular}

First, we bombarded one million protons and helium ions vertically to the solar surface without assuming the mirroring effect
(i.e., pitch angle = 0$^{\circ}$).
 The energy of protons was changed from E$_{p}$ = 100, 200 and 500 MeV, and 1, 5, 10, 50 and 100 GeV.  We have estimated the fluxes of the secondary particles
for the case of the solar atmospheric depths, the equivalent gram-forces of 10 g/cm$^{2}$.  The atmospheric depth of 10 g/cm$^{2}$ corresponds to z=320  km inside the photosphere.
The upper parts of Figure \ref{fig-1} show the integral energy spectrum of secondary neutrons and gamma-rays emitted toward the forward direction of 0$^{\circ}$-10$^{\circ}$ and 40$^{\circ}$-50$^{\circ}$  for  proton incidence; Flux(>E$\gamma$) = $\int$f(E$\gamma$)dE$\gamma$ and
Flux(>E$_{n}$) =  $\int$f(E$_{n}$)dE$_{n}$.
The lower pictures of Figure \ref{fig-1} represent the same plot, but for  helium incidence.  For  helium ions, similar energies were selected but the collision energy is set
for the incident energy per nucleon of the helium nucleus. The n/$\gamma$ ratio at E$_{n,\gamma}$~>~100~MeV is predicted as 7.5 for  proton incidence,
 but a higher n/$\gamma$-ratio such as $\sim$1,000 is predicted for  helium incidence.
This may provide us with a possible explanation of the high n/$\gamma$-ratio caused by the threshold effect,
arising from the difference between proton and helium incidences.  As shown in Figures \ref{fig-1} and \ref{fig-2}, the observed high n/$\gamma$-ratio may suggest that the dominant acceleration of helium ions possibly occurred in the flare of 3 June 2012.

\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{Figure3.eps}
\caption{Angular distribution of the emitted secondary particles (n, $\gamma$). The initial proton and helium ions are assumed to have the energy spectrum expressed by power index E$^{-3}$. Note that 90$^{\circ}$ corresponds to the direction of the solar center.}
\label{fig-3}
\end{figure*}

\section{Comparison with Observed Results}

In order to compare the simulation results with the observed results, we selected the solar flare event observed on June 3, 2012. This flare showed a distinct feature and condition:
\begin{enumerate}
\item it only lasted up to one minute, and
\item both high energy neutrons and gamma rays were detected by the two detectors onboard the ISS  \cite{b3} and the Fermi satellite  \cite{b4}.
\end{enumerate}

The feature described in (1) is important to obtain the energy spectrum of solar neutrons, as we can fix the production time of neutrons to within one minute.
The condition described in (2) is important to estimate the abundance of ions in the flare particles.

Figures \ref{fig-2} (a) and (b) show the energy spectrum of solar neutrons and the production time profile of gamma rays with energy higher than 100 MeV, respectively. In Figure \ref{fig-2} (a), we have assumed the instantaneous production time of solar neutrons at 17:53:15 UT. Even if we assume the production time at 17:53:35 UT, the maximum production time of gamma rays, the effect of the start time on the power index of the energy spectrum of neutrons is less than the statistical error ($\pm$ 0.3).

When we obtain the n/$\gamma$-ratio, the value turns out to be (1110 $\pm$ 350). According to the simulation,  the ratio of n/$\gamma$ for proton incidence is expected to be (1.3 $\pm$ 0.5) (Fig. \ref{fig-3} (a)), while that for helium incidence is expected to be (1500 $\pm$ 600) (Fig. \ref{fig-3} (b)). If the helium component involved in the flare increases beyond 36\%, the observed high n/$\gamma$-ratio (1110 $\pm$ 350) could be explained (as the value is obtained by the 1$\sigma$ overlap region between the p and He values).

\section{Conclusion}

We attempted to explain the 2012.6.3 event based on the simulation results, by focusing on the flux of secondary particles between the high energy neutrons and gamma rays emitted by collisions. From the coordinates of the solar flare (N16$^{\circ}$E33$^{\circ}$), we estimated the direction to Earth as viewed by the flare position. In other words, the direction to Earth is 53$^{\circ}$ above the solar horizon. According to our simulation, a high
n/$\gamma$-ratio is predicted for the secondary particles emitted in the very forward cone (less than 10$^{\circ}$).
Therefore, in order to explain the high n/$\gamma$-ratio, the injection angle of the magnetic field must be inclined up to about 50$^{\circ}$ from the vertical direction of the solar surface. The ions trapped in the magnetic field then fall down into the solar atmosphere; some escape  from the solar surface by mirroring, and some may interact with the solar atmosphere and produce  secondary particles such as charged  and neutral pions, and cause the breakup of ion nuclei.
There may be a chance to theoretically explain the event observed on June 3, 2012, provided that the production process satisfies the above conditions in the simulation. Our analysis is consistent with the early prediction by Reames \cite{b1} that heavy components are dominantly involved in the  particles accelerated in impulsive flares.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

We wish to thank  Dr. Yasuyuki Tanaka for the reduction of the FERMI-LAT data of June 3, 2012. Y.M. is supported by the Grant-in-Aid of Scientific Research (C) 16k05377 from the Japan Society of the Promotion of Science.