2016
DOI: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/100
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Everest: Pixel Level Decorrelation of K2 Light Curves

Abstract: We present EVEREST, an open-source pipeline for removing instrumental noise from K2 light curves. EVEREST employs a variant of pixel level decorrelation (PLD) to remove systematics introduced by the spacecraft's pointing error and a Gaussian process (GP) to capture astrophysical variability. We apply EVEREST to all K2 targets in campaigns 0-7, yielding light curves with precision comparable to that of the original Kepler mission for stars brighter than K p ≈ 13, and within a factor of two of the Kepler precisi… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
281
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 284 publications
(287 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
5
281
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…After we had begun writing this paper, two other light-curve reductions became publicly available for Campaign 2, the Vanderburg reduction (Vanderburg & Johnson 2014) and the EVEREST reduction (Luger et al 2016). We downloaded light curves for each of the stars that we considered as possibly relevant to this paper.…”
Section: K2 Light Curvesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After we had begun writing this paper, two other light-curve reductions became publicly available for Campaign 2, the Vanderburg reduction (Vanderburg & Johnson 2014) and the EVEREST reduction (Luger et al 2016). We downloaded light curves for each of the stars that we considered as possibly relevant to this paper.…”
Section: K2 Light Curvesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To this, late in the process, we added (5) the LCs from the EVEREST pipeline (Luger et al 2016), which uses pixel level decorrelation. We removed any data points corresponding to thruster firings and any others with bad data flags set in the corresponding data product.…”
Section: K2 Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another possibility is a nonlinear response of pixels to increasing incident flux due to saturation. Saturation effects in Kepler data have been encountered and discussed by Lurie et al (2015); Luger et al (2016). Our target star is significantly fainter than the Kp = 11.3 mag which is believed to be the saturation threshold (Gilliland et al 2010).…”
Section: Vim Detectionsmentioning
confidence: 74%