Search

We present results from spectroscopic follow-up observations of stars identified in the Kepler field and carried out by teams of the Kepler Follow-Up Observation Program. Two samples of stars were observed over six years (2009-2015): 614 standard stars (divided into "platinum" and "gold" categories) selected based on their asteroseismic detections and 2667 host stars of Kepler Objects of Interest (KOIs), most of them planet candidates. Four data analysis pipelines were used to derive stellar parameters for the observed stars. We compare the $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, $\log$(g), and [Fe/H] values derived for the same stars by different pipelines; from the average of the standard deviations of the differences in these parameter values, we derive error floors of $\sim$ 100 K, 0.2 dex, and 0.1 dex for $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, $\log$(g), and [Fe/H], respectively. Noticeable disagreements are seen mostly at the largest and smallest parameter values (e.g., in the giant star regime). Most of the $\log$(g) values derived from spectra for the platinum stars agree on average within 0.025 dex (but with a spread of 0.1-0.2 dex) with the asteroseismic $\log$(g) values. Compared to the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC), the spectroscopically derived stellar parameters agree within the uncertainties of the KIC, but are more precise and are thus an important contribution towards deriving more reliable planetary radii., Comment: Accepted by ApJ; 43 pages

The evolution of galaxy cluster counts is a powerful probe of several fundamental cosmological parameters. A number of recent studies using this probe have claimed tension with the cosmology preferred by the analysis of the Planck primary CMB data, in the sense that there are fewer clusters observed than predicted based on the primary CMB cosmology. One possible resolution to this problem is systematic errors in the absolute halo mass calibration in cluster studies, which is required to convert the standard theoretical prediction (the halo mass function) into counts as a function of the observable (e.g., X-ray luminosity, Sunyaev-Zel'dovich flux, optical richness). Here we propose an alternative strategy, which is to directly compare predicted and observed cluster counts as a function of the one-dimensional velocity dispersion of the cluster galaxies. We argue that the velocity dispersion of groups/clusters can be theoretically predicted as robustly as mass but, unlike mass, it can also be directly observed, thus circumventing the main systematic bias in traditional cluster counts studies. With the aid of the BAHAMAS suite of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations, we demonstrate the potential of the velocity dispersion counts for discriminating even similar $\Lambda$CDM models. These predictions can be compared with the results from existing redshift surveys such as the highly-complete Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey, and upcoming wide-field spectroscopic surveys such as the Wide Area Vista Extragalactic Survey (WAVES) and the Dark Energy Survey Instrument (DESI)., Comment: 15 pages, 13 figures. Accepted for publication in MNRAS. New section on cosmological forecasts added

We consistently analyse for the first time the impact of survey depth and spatial resolution on the most used morphological parameters for classifying galaxies through non-parametric methods: Abraham and Conselice-Bershady concentration indices, Gini, M20 moment of light, asymmetry, and smoothness. Three different non-local datasets are used, ALHAMBRA and SXDS (examples of deep ground-based surveys), and COSMOS (deep space-based survey). We used a sample of 3000 local, visually classified galaxies, measuring their morphological parameters at their real redshifts (z ~ 0). Then we simulated them to match the redshift and magnitude distributions of galaxies in the non-local surveys. The comparisons of the two sets allow to put constraints on the use of each parameter for morphological classification and evaluate the effectiveness of the commonly used morphological diagnostic diagrams. All analysed parameters suffer from biases related to spatial resolution and depth, the impact of the former being much stronger. When including asymmetry and smoothness in classification diagrams, the noise effects must be taken into account carefully, especially for ground-based surveys. M20 is significantly affected, changing both the shape and range of its distribution at all brightness levels.We suggest that diagnostic diagrams based on 2 - 3 parameters should be avoided when classifying galaxies in ground-based surveys, independently of their brightness; for COSMOS they should be avoided for galaxies fainter than F814 = 23.0. These results can be applied directly to surveys similar to ALHAMBRA, SXDS and COSMOS, and also can serve as an upper/lower limit for shallower/deeper ones., Comment: accepted for publication in MNRAS; 25 pages, 19 figures, 5 tables