Paper detail

Low False-Positive Rate of Kepler Candidates Estimated From A Combination Of Spitzer And Follow-Up Observations

(Abridged) NASA's Kepler mission has provided several thousand transiting planet candidates, yet only a small subset have been confirmed as true planets. Therefore, the most fundamental question about these candidates is the fraction of bona fide planets. Estimating the rate of false positives of the overall Kepler sample is necessary to derive the planet occurrence rate. We present the results from two large observational campaigns that were conducted with the Spitzer telescope during the the Kepler mission. These observations are dedicated to estimating the false positive rate (FPR) amongst the Kepler candidates. We select a sub-sample of 51 candidates, spanning wide ranges in stellar, orbital and planetary parameter space, and we observe their transits with Spitzer at 4.5 microns. We use these observations to measures the candidate's transit depths and infrared magnitudes. A bandpass-dependent depth alerts us to the potential presence of a blending star that could be the source of the observed eclipse: a false-positive scenario. For most of the candidates (85%), the transit depths measured with Kepler are consistent with the depths measured with Spitzer as expected for planetary objects, while we find that the most discrepant measurements are due to the presence of unresolved stars that dilute the photometry. The Spitzer constraints on their own yield FPRs between 5-40%, depending on the KOIs. By considering the population of the Kepler field stars, and by combining follow-up observations (imaging) when available, we find that the overall FPR of our sample is low. The measured upper limit on the FPR of our sample is 8.8% at a confidence level of 3 sigma. This observational result, which uses the achromatic property of planetary transit signals that is not investigated by the Kepler observations, provides an independent indication that Kepler's false positive rate is low.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access16 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.