alphaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Revised Radii of Kepler Stars and Planets Using Gaia Data Release 2

Publication details
License
arXiv nonexclusive license
Status
Published
AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details
Abstract · v1

One bottleneck for the exploitation of data from the KeplerKepler mission for stellar astrophysics and exoplanet research has been the lack of precise radii and evolutionary states for most of the observed stars. We report revised radii of 177,911 KeplerKepler stars derived by combining parallaxes from GaiaGaia Data Release 2 with the DR25 KeplerKepler Stellar Properties Catalog. The median radius precision is ≈\approx 8%, a typical improvement by a factor of 4-5 over previous estimates for typical KeplerKepler stars. We find that ≈\approx 67% (≈\approx 120,000) of all KeplerKepler targets are main-sequence stars, ≈\approx 21% (≈\approx 37,000) are subgiants, and ≈\approx 12% (≈\approx 21,000) are red giants, demonstrating that subgiant contamination is less severe than some previous estimates and that Kepler targets are mostly main-sequence stars. Using the revised stellar radii, we recalculate the radii for 2123 confirmed and 1922 candidate exoplanets. We confirm the presence of a gap in the radius distribution of small, close-in planets, but find that the gap is mostly limited to incident fluxes >> 200F⊕F_\oplus and its location may be at a slightly larger radius (closer to ≈\approx 2R⊕R_\oplus) when compared to previous results. Further, we find several confirmed exoplanets occupying a previously-described "hot super-Earth desert" at high irradiance, show the relation between gas-giant planet radius and incident flux, and establish a bona-fide sample of eight confirmed planets and 30 planet candidates with RpR_{\mathrm{p}} << 2R⊕R_\oplus in circumstellar "habitable zones" (incident fluxes between 0.25–1.50 F⊕F_\oplus). The results presented here demonstrate the potential for transformative characterization of stellar and exoplanet populations using GaiaGaia data.

Review conversation

Reviews are not available for this work yet.