Asteroseismology and Gaia: Testing Scaling Relations Using 2200 Kepler Stars with TGAS Parallaxes

By D. Huber, Joel C. Zinn, M. Bojsen-Hansen, M. Pinsonneault, C. Sahlholdt, A. Serenelli, V. S. Aguirre, Keivan G. Stassun, D. Stello, J. Tayar and 10 more. 2017

209 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present a comparison of parallaxes and radii from asteroseismology and Gaia DR1 (TGAS) for 2200 Kepler stars spanning from the main sequence to the red-giant branch. We show that previously identified offsets between TGAS parallaxes and distances derived from asteroseismology and eclipsing binaries have likely been overestimated for parallaxes mas (≈90%–98% of the TGAS sample). The observed differences in our sample can furthermore be partially compensated by adopting a hotter scale (such as the infrared flux method) instead of spectroscopic temperatures for dwarfs and subgiants. Residual systematic differences are at the ≈2% level in parallax across three orders of magnitude. We use TGAS parallaxes to empirically demonstrate that asteroseismic radii are accurate to ≈5% or better for stars between . We find no significant offset for main-sequence ( ) and low-luminosity RGB stars (≈3–8 ), but seismic radii appear to be systematically underestimated by ≈5% for subgiants (≈1.5–3 ). We find no systematic errors as a function of metallicity between to dex, and show tentative evidence that corrections to the scaling relation for the large frequency separation ( ) improve the agreement with TGAS for RGB stars. Finally, we demonstrate that beyond asteroseismology will provide more precise distances than end-of-mission Gaia data, highlighting the synergy and complementary nature of Gaia and asteroseismology for studying galactic stellar populations.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Education, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3d9acb040a22133b20c5216815e1719185c4cacc

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

In Education

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

Evidence for a Systematic Offset of −80 μas in the Gaia DR2 Parallaxes (2018, background): “The study of Huber et al. (2017) found a somewhat smaller offset and also discussed potential biases in the stellar luminosities arising from systematics in the effective temperature scale.”
The Gaia–Kepler Stellar Properties Catalog. I. Homogeneous Fundamental Properties for 186,301 Kepler Stars (2020, methodology): “We employed isoclassify (Huber et al. 2017) and the Green et al. (2019) reddening map to derive stellar parameters from our input observables: (1) SDSS g and 2MASS Ks photometry, (2) Gaia DR2 parallaxes (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2016, 2018; Lindegren et al. 2018; Arenou et al. 2018), (3) red giant…”
A Revised Exoplanet Yield from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) (2018, background): “However, TESS will observe hundreds of thousands of red giants brighter than 11th mag in the TESS bandpass (Huber 2017) and will certainly detect planets orbiting these stars.”
Revised Radii of Kepler Stars and Planets Using Gaia Data Release 2 (2018, methodology): “Our error budget also included uncertainties 1 http://waps.cfa.harvard.edu/MIST/model grids.html of 0.04 mag in AV and 0.02 mag in bolometric corrections, which are typical values for the Kepler field (Huber et al. 2017).”
The California-Kepler Survey. IV. Metal-rich Stars Host a Greater Diversity of Planets (2017, methodology): “We made use of the following publicly available python modules: astropy (Astropy Collaboration et al. 2013), isoclassify Huber et al. (2017), lmfit (Newville et al. 2014), matplotlib (Hunter 2007), numpy, pandas http://pandas.pydata.org/, and scipy (Jones et al. 2001–) REFERENCES Adams, E. R.,…”
The California-Kepler Survey. VII. Precise Planet Radii Leveraging Gaia DR2 Reveal the Stellar Mass Dependence of the Planet Radius Gap (2018, methodology): “We computed BCK using the isoclassify package (Huber et al. 2017), which interpolates over the MIST grid of bolometric corrections (Choi et al. 2016).”
Confirming chemical clocks: asteroseismic age dissection of the Milky Way disc(s) (2017, background): “Several tests carried out on the scaling relations suggest they are accurate to a level of a few percent (see e.g. Huber et al. 2012; Silva Aguirre et al. 2012; White et al. 2013; Miglio et al. 2013a, 2016; Gaulme et al. 2016; Huber et al. 2017).”
The California-Kepler Survey. II. Precise Physical Properties of 2025 Kepler Planets and Their Host Stars (2017, methodology): “In contrast, Huber et al. (2017), who performed a comparison of TGAS and asteroseismic parallaxes for 2200 stars, observed no offset, nor did Casertano et al. (2017), who compared TGAS parallaxes to parallaxes derived from Cepheids.”
Asteroseismology of 16,000 Kepler Red Giants: Global Oscillation Parameters, Masses, and Radii (2018, methodology): “Considering output offset from different methods (Huber et al. 2017), we have added in quadrature 1.0% and 0.5% relative uncertainties in νmax and ∆ν to their formal uncertainties, respectively, only when deriving the uncertainties for mass, radius, and log g.”
The Revised TESS Input Catalog and Candidate Target List (2019, methodology): “As an independent check on our derived stellar radii, we have compared our radii determined as above with those determined from fitting to stellar spectral energy distribution (SED) models by Deacon et al. (2019) and asteroseismically by Huber et al. (2017) for stars in common in the Kepler field.”