TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that correcting for both completeness and reliability is essential for accurate Kepler planet occurrence rates, showing that neglecting these factors leads to inconsistent results across different catalogs.
Contribution
It introduces alternative catalogs with varied reliability and completeness, and shows that proper correction ensures consistent occurrence rate estimates regardless of catalog variations.
Findings
Reliability correction is crucial for consistent occurrence rates.
Using Bayesian methods yields similar results for different catalogs.
Score cuts are less effective than full reliability correction.
Abstract
The Kepler DR25 planet candidate catalog was produced using an automated method of planet candidate identification based on various tests. These tests were tuned to obtain a reasonable but arbitrary balance between catalog completeness and reliability. We produce new catalogs with differing balances of completeness and reliability by varying these tests, and study the impact of these alternative catalogs on occurrence rates. We find that if there is no correction for reliability, different catalogs give statistically inconsistent occurrence rates, while if we correct for both completeness and reliability, we get statistically consistent occurrence rates. This is a strong indication that correction for completeness and reliability is critical for the accurate computation of occurrence rates. Additionally, we find that this result is the same whether using Bayesian Poisson likelihood MCMC…
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.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
