Testing the radius scaling relation with ${\it Gaia}$ DR2 in the ${\it Kepler}$ field
Joel C. Zinn, Marc H. Pinsonneault, Daniel Huber, Dennis Stello,, Keivan Stassun, Aldo Serenelli

TL;DR
This study validates Gaia DR2 parallaxes against asteroseismic radii for a large sample of stars, confirming the accuracy of scaling relations within 2% and identifying small systematic and relative errors across different stellar types and sizes.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive comparison of Gaia DR2 and asteroseismic radii, quantifies systematic uncertainties, and assesses the validity of scaling relations across various stellar populations.
Findings
Gaia and asteroseismic radii agree within 2% for stars with radii 0.8-30 R_sun.
Evidence of 4% relative errors between dwarfs and giants.
No significant metallicity trend in radius agreement for -0.5 < [Fe/H] < +0.5.
Abstract
We compare radii based on parallaxes to asteroseismic scaling relation-based radii of dwarfs subgiants and first-ascent giants from the mission. Systematics due to temperature, bolometric correction, extinction, asteroseismic radius, and the spatially-correlated parallax zero-point, contribute to a systematic uncertainty on the -asteroseismic radius agreement. We find that dwarf and giant scaling radii are on a parallactic scale at the level (dwarfs) and level (giants), supporting the accuracy and precision of scaling relations in this domain. In total, the agreement that we find holds for stars spanning radii between and . We do, however, see…
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsStellar, planetary, and galactic studies · Astronomy and Astrophysical Research · Gamma-ray bursts and supernovae
