Validation of small Kepler transiting planet candidates in or near the habitable zone
Guillermo Torres, Stephen R. Kane, Jason F. Rowe, Natalie M. Batalha,, Christopher E. Henze, David R. Ciardi, Thomas Barclay, William J. Borucki,, Lars A. Buchhave, Justin R. Crepp, Mark E. Everett, Elliott P. Horch, Andrew, W. Howard, Steve B. Howell, Howard T. Isaacson

TL;DR
This study statistically validates 15 small Kepler planet candidates, many potentially habitable, by combining follow-up observations and the BLENDER technique to assess their planetary nature and sizes.
Contribution
It introduces a comprehensive validation approach that accounts for false positives and potential background stars, confirming the planetary status of several habitable zone candidates.
Findings
Validated 15 planet candidates with high confidence
Identified 7 candidates with >50% chance of being habitable
Provided updated parameters for host stars and planets
Abstract
A main goal of NASA's Kepler Mission is to establish the frequency of potentially habitable Earth-size planets (eta Earth). Relatively few such candidates identified by the mission can be confirmed to be rocky via dynamical measurement of their mass. Here we report an effort to validate 18 of them statistically using the BLENDER technique, by showing that the likelihood they are true planets is far greater than that of a false positive. Our analysis incorporates follow-up observations including high-resolution optical and near-infrared spectroscopy, high-resolution imaging, and information from the analysis of the flux centroids of the Kepler observations themselves. While many of these candidates have been previously validated by others, the confidence levels reported typically ignore the possibility that the planet may transit a different star than the target along the same line of…
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.
