Almost All of Kepler's Multiple Planet Candidates are Planets
Jack J. Lissauer, Geoffrey W. Marcy, Jason F. Rowe, Stephen T. Bryson,, Elisabeth Adams, Lars A. Buchhave, David R. Ciardi, William D. Cochran,, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Francois Fressin, John Geary, Ronald L., Gilliland, Matthew J. Holman, Steve B. Howell

TL;DR
The study statistically confirms that the majority of Kepler's multiple transiting candidates are genuine planets, with most systems being true multi-planet systems orbiting single stars.
Contribution
This paper provides a statistical validation method showing that nearly all Kepler multis are true planets, reducing false positive concerns and confirming the prevalence of multi-planet systems.
Findings
Over 100 times more multis than expected from random distribution
Most multis are true, physically-associated planetary systems
Validated the Kepler-33 five-planet system
Abstract
We present a statistical analysis that demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of Kepler candidate multiple transiting systems (multis) indeed represent true, physically-associated transiting planets. Binary stars provide the primary source of false positives among Kepler planet candidates, implying that false positives should be nearly randomly-distributed among Kepler targets. In contrast, true transiting planets would appear clustered around a smaller number of Kepler targets if detectable planets tend to come in systems and/or if the orbital planes of planets encircling the same star are correlated. There are more than one hundred times as many Kepler planet candidates in multi-candidate systems as would be predicted from a random distribution of candidates, implying that the vast majority are true planets. Most of these multis are multiple planet systems orbiting the Kepler…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
