THE APOKASC CATALOG: AN ASTEROSEISMIC AND SPECTROSCOPIC JOINT SURVEY OF TARGETS IN THE KEPLER FIELDS

By M. Pinsonneault, Y. Elsworth, C. Epstein, S. Hekker, S. M'esz'aros, W. Chaplin, Jennifer A. Johnson, Rafael A. Garc'ia, J. Holtzman, S. Mathur and 35 more. 2014

243 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present the first APOKASC catalog of spectroscopic and asteroseismic properties of 1916 red giants observed in the Kepler fields. The spectroscopic parameters provided from the Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment project are complemented with asteroseismic surface gravities, masses, radii, and mean densities determined by members of the Kepler Asteroseismology Science Consortium. We assess both random and systematic sources of error and include a discussion of sample selection for giants in the Kepler fields. Total uncertainties in the main catalog properties are of the order of 80 K in Teff, 0.06 dex in [M/H], 0.014 dex in log g, and 12% and 5% in mass and radius, respectively; these reflect a combination of systematic and random errors. Asteroseismic surface gravities are substantially more precise and accurate than spectroscopic ones, and we find good agreement between their mean values and the calibrated spectroscopic surface gravities. There are, however, systematic underlying trends with Teff and log g. Our effective temperature scale is between 0 and 200 K cooler than that expected from the infrared flux method, depending on the adopted extinction map, which provides evidence for a lower value on average than that inferred for the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC). We find a reasonable correspondence between the photometric KIC and spectroscopic APOKASC metallicity scales, with increased dispersion in KIC metallicities as the absolute metal abundance decreases, and offsets in Teff and log g consistent with those derived in the literature. We present mean fitting relations between APOKASC and KIC observables and discuss future prospects, strengths, and limitations of the catalog data.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/560f87134297b89f000fd79c9248f3cf0b01f86f

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. Hans-Walter Rix
2. I. Minchev
3. D. Huber
4. Jo Bovy
5. M. Martig
6. D. Stello
7. O. Gerhard
8. Timothy Morton

Citations in the corpus

• Asteroseismology of 16,000 Kepler Red Giants: Global Oscillation Parameters, Masses, and Radii (2018, background): “Pinsonneault et al. (2014) found that the KIC metallicities show good agreement with those from APOGEE for red giant stars (see their Figure 14).”
• The age–metallicity structure of the Milky Way disc using APOGEE (2017, methodology): “We use age estimates for APOGEE DR12 catalogued by Martig et al. (2016b), who derive an empirical model for the [C/N] − M∗ relation using asteroseismic masses from Kepler and abundances from APOGEE for their overlapping samples (APOKASC Pinsonneault et al. 2014).”
• Revised Stellar Properties of Kepler Targets for the Q1-17 (DR25) Transit Detection Run (2016, methodology): “Users are strongly encouraged to adopt values from dedicated Kepler red-giant classification programs such as the APOKASC (e.g. Pinsonneault et al. 2014) or SAGA (Casagrande et al. 2014) surveys for such stars, or use the provided Teff, logg and [Fe/H] values in this catalog as input for deriving…”
• Red giant masses and ages derived from carbon and nitrogen abundances (2015, unknown): “The first version of the APOKASC catalogue (Pinsonneault et al. 2014) contains seismic and spectroscopic measurements for 1989 giants, with the spectroscopic information corresponding to APOGEE’s Data Release 10 (DR10; Ahn et al. 2014).”
• A RADIAL AGE GRADIENT IN THE GEOMETRICALLY THICK DISK OF THE MILKY WAY (2016, methodology): “Both studies use as a training set a sample of ∼1500 stars from the APOKASC survey (Pinsonneault et al. 2014), which combines spectroscopic information from APOGEE and asteroseismic information from the Kepler Asteroseismic Science Consortium.”
• PLATO as it is: a legacy mission for Galactic archaeology (2017, unknown): “Building on the work of Pinsonneault et al. (2014), Hawkins et al. (2016) was able to show that using the seismic information (and adopting the APOGEE surface temperatures) one can significantly improve the precision and accuracy of stellar parameters and chemical abundances derived from APOGEE…”
• Target Selection for the SDSS-IV APOGEE-2 Survey (2017, methodology): “The APOGEE-Kepler Asteroseismic Science Consortium sample (APOKASC sample; Pinsonneault et al. 2014) includes more than 6000 giant and 400 dwarf stars with measured asteroseismic properties from the Kepler satellite (Borucki et al. 2010).”
• Measuring the vertical age structure of the Galactic disc using asteroseismology and SAGA (2015, methodology): “MNRAS 455, 987–1007 (2016) at T he A ustralian N ational U niversity on A pril 10, 2016 http://m nras.oxfordjournals.org/ D ow nloaded from Although we have already constrained the Kepler selection function using our Strömgren photometry, we also explore whether 2MASS photometry offers an alternati”
• Asteroseismology and Gaia: Testing Scaling Relations Using 2200 Kepler Stars with TGAS Parallaxes (2017, methodology): “The median scatter between the five methods in the APOKASC catalog (see Pinsonneault et al. 2014) is 0.5% in nD and 1% in nmax, which we added in quadrature to the formal uncertainties from the SYD pipeline (see Table 1) for the analysis described in the previous section.”
• 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).”
• THE K2 ECLIPTIC PLANE INPUT CATALOG (EPIC) AND STELLAR CLASSIFICATIONS OF 138,600 TARGETS IN CAMPAIGNS 1–8 (2015, background): “…includes a larger relative fraction of red giants compared to dwarfs, a consequence of the K2 galactic archeology program to map the age and metallicity distributions of stars using asteroseismology (e.g., Miglio et al. 2013; Casagrande et al. 2014; Pinsonneault et al. 2014; Stello et al. 2015).”