Paper detail

Probing the deep end of the Milky Way with \emph{Kepler}: Asteroseismic analysis of 854 faint Red Giants misclassified as Cool Dwarfs

Asteroseismology has proven to be an excellent tool to determine not only the global stellar properties with a good precision but also to infer stellar structure, dynamics, and evolution for a large sample of Kepler stars. Prior to the launch of the mission the properties of Kepler targets were inferred from broadband photometry, leading to the Input Catalog (KIC Brown et al. 2011). The KIC was later revised in the Kepler Star Properties Catalog (Huber et al. 2014), based on literature values and an asteroseismic analysis of stars which were unclassified in the KIC. Here we present an asteroseismic analysis of 45,400 stars which were classified as dwarfs in the Kepler Star Properties Catalog. We found that around 2% of the sample shows acoustic modes in the typical frequency range that put them in the red-giant category rather than cool dwarfs. We analyse the asteroseismic properties of these stars, derive their surface gravities, masses, and radii and present updated effective temperatures and distances. We show that the sample is significantly fainter than the previously known oscillating giants in the Kepler field, with the faintest stars reaching down to a Kepler magnitude, Kp~16. We demonstrate that 404 stars are at distances beyond 5 kpc and that the stars are significantly less massive than for the original Kepler red-giant sample, consistent with a population of distant halo giants. A comparison with a galactic population model shows that up to 40 stars might be genuine halo giants, which would increase the number of known asteroseismic halo stars by a factor of 4. The detections presented here will provide a valuable sample for galactic archeology studies.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 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.