Paper detail

Verification of the Kepler Input Catalog from Asteroseismology of Solar-type Stars

We calculate precise stellar radii and surface gravities from the asteroseismic analysis of over 500 solar-type pulsating stars observed by the Kepler space telescope. These physical stellar properties are compared with those given in the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC), determined from ground-based multi-color photometry. For the stars in our sample, we find general agreement but we detect an average overestimation bias of 0.23 dex in the KIC determination of log (g) for stars with log (g)_KIC > 4.0 dex, and a resultant underestimation bias of up to 50% in the KIC radii estimates for stars with R_KIC < 2 R sun. Part of the difference may arise from selection bias in the asteroseismic sample; nevertheless, this result implies there may be fewer stars characterized in the KIC with R ~ 1 R sun than is suggested by the physical properties in the KIC. Furthermore, if the radius estimates are taken from the KIC for these affected stars and then used to calculate the size of transiting planets, a similar underestimation bias may be applied to the planetary radii.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access28 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.