4.6 Article

The Gaia-Kepler Stellar Properties Catalog. I. Homogeneous Fundamental Properties for 186,301 Kepler Stars

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 159, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/159/6/280

关键词

-

资金

  1. NASA FINESST award [80NSSC19K1424]
  2. National Science Foundation [AST-1717000, NSF PHY-1748958]
  3. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  4. NSF [AST-187215]
  5. German Science Foundation through DFG Research 644 Unit [FOR2544]
  6. NASA through the NASA Hubble Fellowship Grant - Space Telescope Science Institute [51424]
  7. NASA [NAS5-26555]
  8. National Development and Reform Commission
  9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  10. National Science Foundation
  11. Robert Martin Ayers Sciences Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An accurate and precise Kepler Stellar Properties Catalog is essential for the interpretation of the Kepler exoplanet survey results. Previous Kepler Stellar Properties Catalogs have focused on reporting the best-available parameters for each star, but this has required combining data from a variety of heterogeneous sources. We present the Gaia-Kepler Stellar Properties Catalog, a set of stellar properties of 186,301 Kepler stars, homogeneously derived from isochrones and broadband photometry, Gaia Data Release 2 parallaxes, and spectroscopic metallicities, where available. Our photometric effective temperatures, derived from colors, are calibrated on stars with interferometric angular diameters. Median catalog uncertainties are 112 K for for T-eff, 0.05 dex for log g, 4% for R-star, 7% for M-star, 13% for rho(star), 10% for L-star, and 56% for stellar age. These precise constraints on stellar properties for this sample of stars will allow unprecedented investigations into trends in stellar and exoplanet properties as a function of stellar mass and age. In addition, our homogeneous parameter determinations will permit more accurate calculations of planet occurrence and trends with stellar properties.

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

4.6
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