FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES OF KEPLER PLANET-CANDIDATE HOST STARS USING ASTEROSEISMOLOGY

By D. Huber, W. Chaplin, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, R. Gilliland, H. Kjeldsen, Lars A. Buchhave, Debra A. Fischer, Jack J. Lissauer, J. Rowe, Roberto Sanchis-Ojeda and 24 more. 2013

227 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We have used asteroseismology to determine fundamental properties for 66 Kepler planet-candidate host stars, with typical uncertainties of 3% and 7% in radius and mass, respectively. The results include new asteroseismic solutions for four host stars with confirmed planets (Kepler-4, Kepler-14, Kepler-23 and Kepler-25) and increase the total number of Kepler host stars with asteroseismic solutions to 77. A comparison with stellar properties in the planet-candidate catalog by Batalha et al. shows that radii for subgiants and giants obtained from spectroscopic follow-up are systematically too low by up to a factor of 1.5, while the properties for unevolved stars are in good agreement. We furthermore apply asteroseismology to confirm that a large majority of cool main-sequence hosts are indeed dwarfs and not misclassified giants. Using the revised stellar properties, we recalculate the radii for 107 planet candidates in our sample, and comment on candidates for which the radii change from a previously giant-planet/brown-dwarf/stellar regime to a sub-Jupiter size or vice versa. A comparison of stellar densities from asteroseismology with densities derived from transit models in Batalha et al. assuming circular orbits shows significant disagreement for more than half of the sample due to systematics in the modeled impact parameters or due to planet candidates that may be in eccentric orbits. Finally, we investigate tentative correlations between host-star masses and planet-candidate radii, orbital periods, and multiplicity, but caution that these results may be influenced by the small sample size and detection biases.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0c2f07bd8d4e27d3ec05bcb8c06c1b29aed25a25

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. D. Charbonneau
2. Timothy Morton
3. Jon Fortney
4. D. Huber
5. J. Johnson
6. J. Winn
7. G. Marcy
8. Andrew W. Howard

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

1. S. Basu
2. H. M. Antia
3. A. Serenelli
4. D. Charbonneau
5. Jon Fortney
6. Yanqin Wu
7. Andrew W. Howard
8. E. Agol

Citations in the corpus

• Asteroseismology of Solar-Type and Red-Giant Stars (2013, methodology): “In the case of the asteroseismic KOIs (e.g., Borucki et al. 2012, Carter et al. 2012, Huber et al. 2013), estimates of log g from asteroseismology (which used initial estimates of Teff and [Fe/H] from spectroscopy as inputs) were used as a strong prior on log g in re-analysis of the spectroscopic…”
• The California-Kepler Survey. II. Precise Physical Properties of 2025 Kepler Planets and Their Host Stars (2017, background): “The median uncertainty on the spectroscopic radii is 11.0%, while the asteroseismic radii are measured to 3% (Huber et al. 2013).”
• The California-Kepler Survey. I. High-resolution Spectroscopy of 1305 Stars Hosting Kepler Transiting Planets (2017, methodology): “For gravity, it is calibrated to the asteroseismic results of Huber et al. (2013).”
• Ages and fundamental properties of Kepler exoplanet host stars from asteroseismology (2015, methodology): “Our sample has been extracted from the 77 exoplanet host stars presented in Huber et al. (2013b).”
• Precision Stellar Characterization of FGKM Stars using an Empirical Spectral Library (2017, methodology): “Recently, precision space-based photometry from the Kepler and CoRoT missions (Borucki et al. 2010; Auvergne et al. 2009) have enabled the detection of stellar acoustic modes which achieve M? and R? good to a few % (e.g. Bruntt et al. 2012, Huber et al. 2013).”
• Accurate Empirical Radii and Masses of Planets and Their Host Stars with Gaia Parallaxes (2016, background): “…of the star, glog (which is a direct observable from high-resolution spectra), astroseismological inferences of the stellar mass and radius (e.g., Huber et al. 2013), or a measurement of the radius of the star (which, as we will show is a direct observable from the bolometric flux and effective…”
• AN ANCIENT EXTRASOLAR SYSTEM WITH FIVE SUB-EARTH-SIZE PLANETS (2015, methodology): “…where asteroseismology was used to constrain the properties of the host star (Batalha et al. 2011; Barclay et al. 2012, 2013a,b; Borucki et al. 2012; Carter et al. 2012; Howell et al. 2012; Chaplin et al. 2013a; Gilliland et al. 2013; Huber et al. 2013b; Ballard et al. 2014; Van Eylen et al. 2014).”
• REVISED STELLAR PROPERTIES OF KEPLER TARGETS FOR THE QUARTER 1–16 TRANSIT DETECTION RUN (2013, methodology): “As described by Batalha et al. (2010) and Huber et al. (2013a), asteroseismology is an efficient tool to identify giant stars using Kepler data since the oscillation amplitudes are large enough to be detectable independent of shot noise, and because oscillation timescales are long enough to be…”
• Asteroseismology of 16,000 Kepler Red Giants: Global Oscillation Parameters, Masses, and Radii (2018, methodology): “It has also provided an excellent opportunity to implement Galactic archaeology (Miglio et al. 2013; Stello et al. 2015; Casagrande et al. 2016; Sharma et al. 2016) and to characterize exoplanet properties (Huber et al. 2013a; Quinn et al. 2015).”
• Asteroseismology and Gaia: Testing Scaling Relations Using 2200 Kepler Stars with TGAS Parallaxes (2017, methodology): “For example, asteroseismology has been used to determine precise radii, masses, and ages of exoplanet host stars (Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. 2010; Huber et al. 2013a; Silva Aguirre et al. 2015), calibrate spectroscopic surface gravities (Brewer et al. 2015; Petigura 2015; Wang et al. 2016), and…”
• THE K2 ECLIPTIC PLANE INPUT CATALOG (EPIC) AND STELLAR CLASSIFICATIONS OF 138,600 TARGETS IN CAMPAIGNS 1–8 (2015, background): “Since the majority of stars with log g ≈ 2 − 3.4 and Kp < 15 should show detectable oscillations with K2 (Stello et al. 2015), asteroseismic analyses are also efficient to discern luminosity classes of Kepler and K2 targets (Huber et al. 2013).”
• THE APOKASC CATALOG: AN ASTEROSEISMIC AND SPECTROSCOPIC JOINT SURVEY OF TARGETS IN THE KEPLER FIELDS (2014, methodology): “This is essentially the approach adopted by Huber et al. (2013) in their analysis of asteroseismic Kepler Objects of Interest.”
• THE IMPACT OF STELLAR MULTIPLICITY ON PLANETARY SYSTEMS. I. THE RUINOUS INFLUENCE OF CLOSE BINARY COMPANIONS (2016, background): “We also report observations for 23 stars that were subsequently identified as likely false positives (e.g., Slawson et al. 2011; Mann et al. 2012; Huber et al. 2013) after we observed them, since high-resolution imaging is useful for further confirming their non-planetary nature, but do not use…”
• ECCENTRICITY FROM TRANSIT PHOTOMETRY: SMALL PLANETS IN KEPLER MULTI-PLANET SYSTEMS HAVE LOW ECCENTRICITIES (2015, background): “The remaining densities are taken from (Huber et al. 2013) and are based on scaling relations.”
• Standing on the Shoulders of Dwarfs: the Kepler Asteroseismic LEGACY Sample. II. Radii, Masses, and Ages (2016, unknown): “Reference column indicates the source of the atmospheric parameters: (1) Buchhave & Latham (2015); (2) Pinsonneault et al. (2012); (3) Pinsonneault et al. (2014); (4) Casagrande et al. (2014a); (5) Ramı́rez et al. (2009); (6) Chaplin et al. (2014); (7) Huber et al. (2013).”
• Revised Radii of Kepler Stars and Planets Using Gaia Data Release 2 (2018, background): “…time-domain variability of stars offers currently the highest precision log g values for field stars, for example by measuring amplitudes or timescales of stellar granulation (≈ 0.1 dex, Bastien et al. 2013; ≈ 0.03 dex, Kallinger et al. 2016) or stellar oscillations (≈ 0.01 dex, Huber et al. 2013).”
• PLANETARY CANDIDATES OBSERVED BY KEPLER IV: PLANET SAMPLE FROM Q1–Q8 (22 MONTHS) (2013, methodology): “Spectroscopic parameters also are available from the Stellar Parameter Classification (SPC) analysis of Buchhave et al. (2012) as well as Kepler based asteroseismology results of Huber et al. (2013).”