The Metallicity Distribution and Hot Jupiter Rate of the Kepler Field: Hectochelle High-Resolution Spectroscopy for 776 Kepler Target Stars
Name
Guo-2017-The Metallicity Distribution and Hot.pdf
Size
2.39 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
bcdfa33c7fd35f5471f8cc9c8ec3e2e3
Author(s)
Guo, Xueying
Johnson, John A.
Mann, Andrew W.
Kraus, Adam L.
Curtis, Jason L.
Latham, David W.
Date Issued
March 2017
Journal
Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Citation
Guo, Xueying; Johnson, John A.; Mann, Andrew W.; Kraus, Adam L.; Curtis, Jason L. and Latham, David W. “The Metallicity Distribution and Hot Jupiter Rate of the Kepler Field: Hectochelle High-Resolution Spectroscopy for 776 Kepler Target Stars.” The Astrophysical Journal 838, no. 1 (March 2017): 25 © 2017 The American Astronomical Society
Version
Final published version
Abstract
The occurrence rate of hot Jupiters from the Kepler transit survey is roughly half that of radial velocity surveys targeting solar neighborhood stars. One hypothesis to explain this difference is that the two surveys target stars with different stellar metallicity distributions. To test this hypothesis, we measure the metallicity distribution of the Kepler targets using the Hectochelle multi-fiber, high-resolution spectrograph. Limiting our spectroscopic analysis to 610 dwarf stars in our sample with log g > 3.5, we measure a metallicity distribution characterized by a mean of [M/H][subscript mean] = -0.045±0.009, in agreement with previous studies of the Kepler field target stars. In comparison, the metallicity distribution of the California Planet Search radial velocity sample has a mean of [M/H][subscript CPS,mean] = -0.005±0.006, and the samples come from different parent populations according to a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. We refit the exponential relation between the fraction of stars hosting a close-in giant planet and the host star metallicity using a sample of dwarf stars from the California Planet Search with updated metallicities. The best-fit relation tells us that the difference in metallicity between the two samples is insufficient to explain the discrepant hot Jupiter occurrence rates; the metallicity difference would need to be sime0.2–0.3 dex for perfect agreement. We also show that (sub)giant contamination in the Kepler sample cannot reconcile the two occurrence calculations. We conclude that other factors, such as binary contamination and imperfect stellar properties, must also be at play.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Physics
MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research
Terms of Use
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use.
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa6004
