 fit is of higher quality with $\chi^2_N = 1.8$.]{} The parameters of the reference models that are used to compare with the observations are listed in Table \[tab:referencemodels\] along with the individual $\chi^2_N$ values for $r_{01}$, $r_{02}$, and combined [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} and [\[M/H\]]{}.

[For the Sun and each star in our sample, we derived a best estimate and uncertainty for the stellar radius, mass, age, metallicity, luminosity, and surface gravity using the method described in Sec. \[sec3\] (see Table \[tab:properties\_derived\]). Using the rotation periods given in Table \[tab1\] and the derived radius, we also computed their rotational velocities.]{}

[Since the AMP 1.3 method uses only one set of physics in the stellar modeling]{}, the derived uncertainties do not include possible systematic errors arising from errors in the model physics, such as the equation of state, heavy element settling, and convective overshoot. However, the uncertainties include sources of errors arising from free parameters that are often fixed in [the stellar codes used in other methods]{}, for example, the mixing-length parameter $\alpha$, the initial chemical composition $(X_i, Y_i, Z_i),$ or a chemical enrichment law. The [uncertainty on these]{} parameters contributes substantially to the error budget, and in some cases more so, for example, changing the equation of state or the opacities. The effect of such changes in the physics has been studied in detail for HD52265 by [@lebreton2014]. A similar detailed [analysis]{} for each star in the sample we studied is beyond the scope of this paper. [We refer to @silvaaguirre2016, who also analyzed data from @Lund2016 using seven distinct modeling methods and codes.]{}

The accuracy, namely the bias and not [the]{} precision, of our results can be [ascertained]{} by an analysis of the solar observations. As [stated]{} above, we [derived a best-matched model with values for the mass of]{} a 1 [M$_{\odot}$]{} model and a radius of 1 [R$_{\odot}$]{}, and an age that, within the derived uncertainty, matches the solar value. A second accuracy test, at least for the age, can be established based on the independently derived ages for the binary system 16 Cyg A and
fit is of higher quality with $ \chi^2_N = 1.8$. ] { } The parameters of the reference model that are use to compare with the observations are listed in Table   \[tab: referencemodels\ ] along with the individual $ \chi^2_N$ values for $ r_{01}$, $ r_{02}$, and compound [ $ T_{\rm eff}$ ] { }   and [ \[M / H\ ] ] { }. 

 [ For the Sun and each star in our sample, we derive a dependable estimate and doubt for the leading radius, mass, age, metallicity, luminosity, and airfoil gravity using the method trace in Sec.   \[sec3\ ] (see Table   \[tab: properties\_derived\ ]). Using the rotation periods given in Table   \[tab1\ ] and the derived spoke, we also computed their rotational velocities. ] { } 

 [ Since the AMP   1.3 method acting uses only one set of physics in the stellar mold ] { }, the derived uncertainties do not include possible systematic error arising from errors in the model physics, such as the equation of state, heavy element settling, and convective overshoot. However, the uncertainties include sources of errors arising from free parameters that are often sterilize in [ the stellar codes use in early methods ] { }, for example, the mixing - length parameter $ \alpha$, the initial chemical composition $ (X_i, Y_i, Z_i),$ or a chemical enrichment law. The [ uncertainty on these ] { } argument contributes substantially to the error budget, and in some cases more so, for example, change the equation of state or the opacities. The effect of such changes in the physics has been study in detail for HD52265 by [ @lebreton2014 ]. A similar detailed [ analysis ] { } for each star in the sample we study is beyond the scope of this paper. [ We refer to @silvaaguirre2016, who also analyzed data from @Lund2016 using seven distinct model methods and code. ] { } 

 The accuracy, namely the bias and not [ the ] { } precision, of our consequence can be [ ascertained ] { } by an psychoanalysis of the solar observations. As [ stated ] { } above, we [ derived a best - pit model with values for the mass of ] { } a 1 [ M$_{\odot}$ ] { }   model and a radius of 1 [ R$_{\odot}$ ] { }, and an historic period that, within the derived doubt, matches the solar value. A second accuracy test, at least for the age, can be established establish on the independently derived ages for the binary system 16 Cyg A and
 fih is of higher quality wlth $\chi^2_N = 1.8$.]{} The pceametecs of tge referdnce models that are used to cimpart with the observatkons are pisted ib Taule \[tab:referencemodels\] along wifm the mndividual $\chi^2_N$ values fos $r_{01}$, $r_{02}$, and combhndd [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} and [\[M/H\]]{}.

[For the Sun and each ftar in okr sample, we dgrivec a bsst estimate and uncertainty for tge stelnar radius, maxs, age, metallicity, luminoslty, wnd surface gravitj using the metrid described in Sec. \[sec3\] (see Table \[tag:properties\_derived\]). Using the rogatiou periods guvwn lt Table \[tab1\] end thv derived radlls, we anso comluted their robatioial celocities.]{}

[Since the AKP 1.3 method uses onli one set mf physics in the sreolar kodening]{}, rhe dedited uncerhaiities do nof include pissible systematic trrjgx arising frkm errjrf in the model physics, such as the equauion kf state, heavy element wettling, and convectige overshjot. However, the uncertainties include sources of arrora arnwing weol free parameters that are often fixed in [the attllsr codes used ln other methods]{}, fpr ecwmple, the mixkng-lenyfh parameter $\alpha$, tje inityal cyemical cjmpoxition $(X_i, Y_i, Z_i),$ or a chemicql enrichmenn laq. The [uncertainty ln these]{} paxametets conyributes substantially co the error budgft, and in rome cases more ro, nor example, changing the equaeion of svate pr the upacoties. Ehe effect of smwh changes in the ohysies hav been stufied in detail for HD52265 by [@lebreton2014]. A similar dgtahleg [analysns]{} for each star in the sample we studieb is bdyond the acope oh this paper. [We refer to @vllvaaguirre2016, xho also wnaltzed data ffum @Lund2016 using xeven disniuct modelung methods and coves.]{}

Tfs accuracy, nameoy uhw bias and not [thd]{} pwebismon, os our results can be [sscergained]{} by ak avalyxis of the solar obsarvafions. As [stated]{} abpvc, we [dericed a beft-matched modrl with values for the kasr of]{} s 1 [I$_{\odot}$]{} model and a radius of 1 [R$_{\osot}$]{}, and aj ane that, withig thc detived uncercainty, matches the solar value. A second eccuracy test, at least dor the age, can be gstsblished baxed og the indapendently derived ates for the binarn system 16 Cyg A and
fit is of higher quality with $\chi^2_N The of the models that are observations listed in Table along with the $\chi^2_N$ values for $r_{01}$, $r_{02}$, and [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} and [\[M/H\]]{}. [For the Sun and each star in our sample, derived a best estimate and uncertainty for the stellar radius, mass, age, metallicity, and gravity the described in Sec. \[sec3\] (see Table \[tab:properties\_derived\]). Using the rotation periods given in Table \[tab1\] and derived radius, we also computed their rotational velocities.]{} the AMP 1.3 method only one set of physics the modeling]{}, the uncertainties not possible systematic errors from errors in the model physics, such as the equation of state, heavy element settling, and convective However, the sources of arising free that are often [the stellar codes used in other the mixing-length parameter $\alpha$, the initial chemical composition Y_i, Z_i),$ a chemical enrichment law. The [uncertainty these]{} parameters contributes substantially to the error budget, in some cases more so, for example, changing the equation of state or the opacities. of such changes in physics has been in for by A similar [analysis]{} for each star in the sample we studied is beyond scope of this paper. [We refer to @silvaaguirre2016, who also from using seven distinct methods and codes.]{} The namely bias and not [the]{} our can an of solar observations. As [stated]{} we [derived a best-matched model values for the mass and a radius of 1 [R$_{\odot}$]{}, and an that, within the derived uncertainty, matches the value. A second accuracy test, at least for the age, can be based on derived ages for the binary system 16 Cyg and
 fit is of higher quality with $\cHi^2_N = 1.8$.]{} The paraMeterS of The ReFereNce mOdels that are usED to cOmpare with the observatiOns arE lISted IN TAble \[tAb:referENcEMOdeLs\] AlOng WiTH tHe indIviDual $\chi^2_n$ values for $R_{01}$, $r_{02}$, aNd Combined [$T_{\rm eFF}$]{} aNd [\[M/H\]]{}.

[For the sun And each star iN ouR samplE, wE deRIved a BesT estiMate anD UncertAinty for tHe STellar RAdius, maSS, AgE, metAllicity, luminositY, AnD Surface gravity Using tHe MEtHOD deScrIbed in Sec. \[sEc3\] (See TaBLe \[tab:prOPeRTIEs\_dERived\]). Using the Rotation perIOds Given iN TAblE \[Tab1\] and The deRiVEd rAdius, we also CompUted their RotatiONal veloCIties.]{}

[SiNce the aMP 1.3 MetHod uSEs OnLy oNe SEt oF PhYsiCS in The stellAr MoDelinG]{}, the DERIVed uNceRtaiNties Do not include pOssIble SYstEmatiC erroRs arIsIng frOm erroRs in tHe Model physics, sucH as tHe equatioN of StAte, HeAvy elEMent seTtlIng, And convEctive oVErsHoOT. hOwEver, the uncertaintiEs INClUde sourcEs of erROrS aRIsing froM fRee ParaMETers tHat aRE oFten fixeD in [the STeLlAr codes UsEd in otHeR meThoDs]{}, for EXampLe, the mIxing-lenGth paRAmeter $\alpha$, the INitial chemicaL CoMPOsITion $(x_i, Y_I, Z_i),$ or a chemiCal eNRichMent LAw. the [UNcertAinty On THeSE]{} parameters contribuTeS substAntiaLly to the error Budget, and iN SOMe cases mOre sO, FoR Example, changinG the eQuation of sTAte or the OpaciTies. The eFfect of suCH Changes iN thE phYsiCs hAS BeEn studied in deTAIl foR Hd52265 by [@lebrEtoN2014]. A similAr dEtaIleD [anAlYsis]{} for eaCh star in ThE sAmPlE we StudiED is beyonD tHe sCoPe oF this PAper. [We Refer To @siLvAaGUirRe2016, who alSO aNALyzeD dAtA froM @LuNd2016 Using SeveN DisTinct moDeling metHodS And cOdEs.]{}

the accuRacy, namely the BiAs and not [thE]{} pRecIsion, oF OUr resultS can be [ascertained]{} by an anALysis of The Solar ObseRvations. AS [stAted]{} abOve, WE [derivEd a besT-matcHeD moDEL with VALuEs fOr The mass of]{} a 1 [m$_{\ODot}$]{} Model AnD a raDius of 1 [R$_{\Odot}$]{}, and an age that, wiTHin The derived uncErtAintY, MAtCheS ThE SolAr VAluE. a Second accuracy tEst, at least FoR ThE age, can be eSTabLiShed basEd on the IndepENdently Derived agEs for the bInAry sYSTem 16 cyg A and
 fit is of higher qualitywith $\chi ^2_N= 1 .8$ .] {} T he p arameters of t h e re ference models that ar e use dt o co m pa re wi th theo bs e r vat io ns  ar el is ted i n T able \[ tab:refere nce mo dels\] along wi th the ind ivi dual $\chi^2 _N$  value sfor $r_{0 1}$ , $r_ {02}$, and co mbined [$ T_ { \rm ef f }$]{} a n d  [ \[M/ H\]]{}.

[For the Su n  and each star  in ou rs am p l e,wederived abe st es t imate a n du n c ert a inty for thestellar rad i us,  mass,  a ge, metall icity ,l umi nosity, and  sur face grav ity us i ng them ethod d escrib edinSec. \[ se c3\ ]( see Ta ble \[t ab:prope rt ie s\_de rive d \ ] ) . Us ing  the  rota tion periodsgiv en i n  Ta ble \ [tab1 \] a nd  thederive d rad iu s, we also comp uted  their ro tat io nal  v eloci t ies.]{ }
[Si nce the  AMP 1. 3  me th o d us es only one set of  p h y si cs in th e stel l ar  m o deling]{ },  th e de r i ved u ncer t ai nties do  not i n cl ud e possi bl e syst em ati c e rrors aris ing fr om error s int he model physi c s, such as th e  e q u at i on o f s tate, heavy  ele m entsett l in g,a nd co nvect iv e  o v ershoot. However, t he  uncer taint ies include s ources ofe r r ors aris ingf ro m  free paramete rs th at are oft e n fixedin [t he stell ar codesu s ed in ot her  me tho ds] { } ,for example,t h e mi xi ng-leng thparamet er$\a lph a$,  t he initia l chemic al  c om po sit ion $ ( X_i, Y_i ,Z_i ), $ o r a c h emical  enri chme nt  l a w.The [un c er t a inty  o nthes e]{ }param eter s  co ntribut es substa nti a llyto  t he erro r budget, and  i n some cas es  mo re so, f or examp le, changing the equati o n of st ate  or t he o pacities.  Th e effe cto f such  chang es in  t hep h ysics h as  be en  studied i n det ail f or  HD5 2265 by  [@lebreton2014].A  si milar detaile d [ anal y s is ]{} fo r  ea ch sta r in the sample w e studiedis be yond the s c ope  o f thispaper.[We r e fer to@silvaagu irre2016,  w ho a l s o a nalyzed da ta from@Lund2016 using se ven d ist inct m od eli ng me thodsa ndcodes .]{}
Th e accu racy,  n amely th e bias and not [the]{}precis ion,ofour resul tsc anbe [ascer tain ed]{} by a n a nal ysisoft he so laro bs erv a tions . As [stated]{ }  a bov e ,  w e [deriveda b est -matc hed modelwith  values for the m a ss of]{} a 1 [ M$_{ \ o dot }$] { } mo de l and a radius  of  1 [ R$_{\odo t} $]{}, and a n age th at ,  with in the  deriv ed unce r t ai n ty, ma tche s t he solarval ue .  A seco nd  a c curacy  tes t,  at le ast fo r  the a ge, can be estab lishe d based onthe i nd ependen t ly d erived age s for the b inarysyst em 16  Cyg Aan d
 fit_is of_higher quality with $\chi^2_N_= 1.8$.]{}_The_parameters of_the_reference models that_are used to_compare with the observations_are listed in_Table \[tab:referencemodels\]_along with the individual $\chi^2_N$ values for $r_{01}$, $r_{02}$, and combined [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} and [\[M/H\]]{}.

[For_the_Sun and_each_star_in our sample, we derived_a best estimate and uncertainty_for the_stellar radius, mass, age, metallicity, luminosity, and surface_gravity_using the method_described in Sec. \[sec3\] (see Table \[tab:properties\_derived\]). Using the rotation periods_given in Table \[tab1\] and the derived_radius, we also_computed_their_rotational velocities.]{}

[Since the AMP 1.3_method uses only one set of_physics in the stellar modeling]{}, the_derived uncertainties do not include possible systematic_errors arising from errors in the_model physics, such as the_equation of_state, heavy element settling, and_convective overshoot. However,_the uncertainties_include sources of_errors arising from free parameters that_are often fixed_in [the stellar codes used in_other_methods]{}, for example,_the_mixing-length_parameter $\alpha$,_the initial chemical_composition_$(X_i, Y_i,_Z_i),$_or a chemical enrichment law. The_[uncertainty_on these]{} parameters contributes substantially to the_error budget, and in_some_cases more so, for_example, changing the equation of_state or the opacities. The effect_of such_changes in_the physics has been studied in detail for HD52265 by [@lebreton2014]._A similar detailed [analysis]{} for each_star in the sample_we studied_is_beyond the scope_of_this paper._[We refer to @silvaaguirre2016, who also analyzed_data from_@Lund2016 using seven distinct modeling methods_and codes.]{}

The accuracy, namely_the_bias and not [the]{} precision, of_our results can be [ascertained]{} by_an analysis of the solar_observations._As_[stated]{} above, we [derived a_best-matched model with values for the_mass of]{} a_1 [M$_{\odot}$]{} model and a radius of 1_[R$_{\odot}$]{},_and an age that, within the_derived_uncertainty, matches the solar value. A_second_accuracy_test, at least for the_age, can be established based on_the independently derived ages for the binary system 16_Cyg A and