2018
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada83
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revised Radii of Kepler Stars and Planets Using Gaia Data Release 2

Abstract: One bottleneck for the exploitation of data from the Kepler mission for stellar astrophysics and exoplanet research has been the lack of precise radii and evolutionary states for most of the observed stars. We report revised radii of 177,911 Kepler stars derived by combining parallaxes from Gaia Data Release 2 with the DR25 Kepler Stellar Properties Catalog. The median radius precision is ≈ 8%, a typical improvement by a factor of 4-5 over previous estimates for typical Kepler stars. We find that ≈ 67% (≈ 120,… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

27
406
5

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 298 publications
(438 citation statements)
references
References 97 publications
(154 reference statements)
27
406
5
Order By: Relevance
“…We aim at targets of dwarfs, removing giant stars with an empirical T eff − g log relation determined by Ciardi et al (2011). Binaries labeled by Berger et al (2018) were also excluded. To select F-to K-type stars, we use T eff in the range of 3800-7200 K. To place a lower limit on the quality of the individual observations, the S/Ns at the blue end of the spectra are higher than 10.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We aim at targets of dwarfs, removing giant stars with an empirical T eff − g log relation determined by Ciardi et al (2011). Binaries labeled by Berger et al (2018) were also excluded. To select F-to K-type stars, we use T eff in the range of 3800-7200 K. To place a lower limit on the quality of the individual observations, the S/Ns at the blue end of the spectra are higher than 10.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unsurprisingly, the K2 pipeline is far more prone to transit depth reduction. However, both of these offsets (Kepler and K2 ) are smaller than the average planet radius uncertainty (∼ 10%; Berger et al 2018). Knowing that this offset falls within the normal radius uncertainty, Figure 14 shows the mode of this offset distribution is located at 1, we do not apply this correction to our candidate parameters.…”
Section: Planet Radiusmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…For the tranet sample, Zhu et al (2018) used the Kepler Data Release 24, while we used the final Data Release 25. For the star sample, they select ∼ 30,000 solar-type stars based on a wide temperature range (T eff =4700-6500 K) and a cut on surface gravity (log g > 4) given by LAMOST (Luo et al 2015), while our result in Figure 8 is for ∼ 10,000 solar-type stars selected from the HR diagram (Berger et al 2018) with a narrower temperature range (T eff ∼ 5700 − 5900 K). Second, the models are different.…”
Section: α As a Function Of T Effmentioning
confidence: 99%