Note. — In most cases these parameters are taken from Batalha et al. (2011). A: Based on an analysis by D. Fischer of the Keck/HIRES template spectrum using SME (see Valenti & Piskunov 1996; Batalha et al. 2011); B: Based on the asteroseismology analysis and stellar models; C: Based on an analysis of the photometry; D: Upper limit corresponding to three times the 68.3% credible interval from the MCMC mass distribution; E: Based on Newton’s revised version of Kepler’s Third Law and the results from D; F: Calculated assuming a Bond albedo of 0.1 and complete redistribution of heat for re-radiation.
Light Curve for Kepler-10c
Fig. 3.— Long-cadence Kepler observations for KOI-072.02 compared with two different blend models involving background eclipsing binaries (red lines), and shown against the best fit planet model for reference (black line). All models are integrated over the duration of one cadence (29.4 min). Top: The blend model shown is the one giving the best fit for this type of scenario (2.1? difference compared to the planet fit). Bottom: Example of a blend model (indicated with a cross in Figure 2) that illustrates the use of shape information by BLENDER in a case that would naively be expected to be a viable false positive scenario (see text). This particular scenario corresponds to a secondary mass of M2 = 1.0 M? and a distance modulus difference of 5 mag relative to the target, giving a brightness difference in the Kp band of 5.6 mag. Although it matches the depth and total duration of the transit, the ingress and egress phases are not well reproduced, so that the overall quality of the fit is poor and the blend is ruled out at more than the 10-? level.