PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

FALSE POSITIVE PROBABILITIES for ALL KEPLER OBJECTS of INTEREST: 1284 NEWLY VALIDATED PLANETS and 428 LIKELY FALSE POSITIVES

Astrophysical Journal, ISSN: 1538-4357, Vol: 822, Issue: 2
2016
  • 365
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 135
    Captures
  • 52
    Mentions
  • 0
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

  • Citations
    365
    • Citation Indexes
      365
  • Captures
    135
  • Mentions
    52
    • References
      45
      • Wikipedia
        45
    • News Mentions
      4
      • News
        4
    • Blog Mentions
      3
      • Blog
        3

Most Recent News

New technique used to verify latest Kepler data

Scientists from Princeton University and NASA have confirmed that 1,284 objects observed outside Earth's solar system by NASA's Kepler spacecraft are indeed planets. Reported in

Article Description

We present astrophysical false positive probability calculations for every Kepler Object of Interest (KOI) - the first large-scale demonstration of a fully automated transiting planet validation procedure. Out of 7056 KOIs, we determine that 1935 have probabilities <1% of being astrophysical false positives, and thus may be considered validated planets. Of these, 1284 have not yet been validated or confirmed by other methods. In addition, we identify 428 KOIs that are likely to be false positives, but have not yet been identified as such, though some of these may be a result of unidentified transit timing variations. A side product of these calculations is full stellar property posterior samplings for every host star, modeled as single, binary, and triple systems. These calculations use vespa, a publicly available Python package that is able to be easily applied to any transiting exoplanet candidate.

Bibliographic Details

Timothy D. Morton; Stephen T. Bryson; Jeffrey L. Coughlin; Michael R. Haas; Natalie M. Batalha; Jason F. Rowe; Ganesh Ravichandran; Erik A. Petigura

American Astronomical Society

Physics and Astronomy; Earth and Planetary Sciences

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know