4.7 Article

Global asteroseismic properties of solar-like oscillations observed by Kepler: a comparison of complementary analysis methods

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18968.x

关键词

stars: fundamental parameters; stars: interiors; stars: oscillations; stars: solar-type

资金

  1. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
  2. NASA's Science Mission Directorate
  3. STFC [ST/F002041/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F002041/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the asteroseismic analysis of 1948 F-, G- and K-type main-sequence and subgiant stars observed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Kepler mission. We detect and characterize solar-like oscillations in 642 of these stars. This represents the largest cohort of main-sequence and subgiant solar-like oscillators observed to date. The photometric observations are analysed using the methods developed by nine independent research teams. The results are combined to validate the determined global asteroseismic parameters and calculate the relative precision by which the parameters can be obtained. We correlate the relative number of detected solar-like oscillators with stellar parameters from the Kepler Input Catalogue and find a deficiency for stars with effective temperatures in the range 5300 less than or similar to T-eff less than or similar to 5700 K and a drop-off in detected oscillations in stars approaching the red edge of the classical instability strip. We compare the power-law relationships between the frequency of peak power, nu(max), the mean large frequency separation, Delta nu, and the maximum mode amplitude, A(max), and show that there are significant method-dependent differences in the results obtained. This illustrates the need for multiple complementary analysis methods to be used to assess the robustness and reproducibility of results derived from global asteroseismic parameters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据