Paper detail

Probability of Physical Association of 104 Blended Companions to \textit{Kepler} Objects of Interest Using Visible and Near-Infrared Adaptive Optics Photometry

We determine probabilities of physical association for stars in blended Kepler Objects of Interest, and find that $14.5\%^{+3.8\%}_{-3.4\%}$ of companions within $\sim4\arcsec$ are consistent with being physically unassociated with their primary. This produces a better understanding of potential false positives in the Kepler catalog and will guide models of planet formation in binary systems. Physical association is determined through two methods of calculating multi-band photometric parallax using visible and near-infrared adaptive optics observation of 84 KOI systems with 104 contaminating companions within $\sim4\arcsec$. We find no evidence that KOI companions with separation of less than $1\arcsec$ are more likely to be physically associated than KOI companions generally. We also reinterpret transit depths for 94 planet candidates, and calculate that $2.6\% \pm 0.4\%$ of transits have $R > 15R_{\earth}$, which is consistent with prior modeling work.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.

Institutions

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.