4.6 Article

Noise properties of the CoRoT data A planet-finding perspective

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 506, 期 1, 页码 425-429

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911885

关键词

methods: data analysis; techniques: photometric; stars: planetary systems

资金

  1. Spanish Science and Innovation ministry [ESP2007-65480-C02-02]
  2. German CoRoT team
  3. DLR [50OW0204, 50OW0603, 50QP0701]
  4. Israel Science Foundation - Adler Foundation for Space Research [119/07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this short paper, we study the photometric precision of stellar light curves obtained by the CoRoT satellite in its planet-finding channel, with a particular emphasis on the time scales characteristic of planetary transits. Together with other articles in the same issue of this journal, it forms an attempt to provide the building blocks for a statistical interpretation of the CoRoT planet and eclipsing binary catch to date. After pre-processing the light curves so as to minimise long-term variations and outliers, we measure the scatter of the light curves in the first three CoRoT runs lasting more than 1 month, using an iterative non-linear filter to isolate signal on the time scales of interest. The behaviour of the noise on 2 h time scales is described well by a power-law with index 0.25 in R-magnitude, ranging from 0.1 mmag at R = 11.5 to 1 mmag at R = 16, which is close to the pre-launch specification, though still a factor 2-3 above the photon noise due to residual jitter noise and hot pixel events. There is evidence of slight degradation in the performance over time. We find clear evidence of enhanced variability on hour time scales (at the level of 0.5 mmag) in stars identified as likely giants from their R magnitude and B - V colour, which represent approximately 60 and 20% of the observed population in the directions of Aquila and Monoceros, respectively. On the other hand, median correlated noise levels over 2 h for dwarf stars are extremely low, reaching 0.05 mmag at the bright end.

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