Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Robovetter”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

Kepler Planet Detection Metrics: Robovetter Completeness and Effectiveness for Data Release 25

In general, the Kepler pipeline identifies a list of Threshold Crossing Events (TCEs), which are periodic flux decrements meeting certain criteria (Jenkins, 2017). These TCEs are reviewed and those that appear consistent with astrophysically transiting or eclipsing systems are classified as Kepler Objects of Interest (KOIs). Further review is given to KOIs, which are then dispositioned as Planet Candidates (PCs) or False Positive (FPs). FPs are further denoted by four major flags that indicate if the signal is Not Transit-Like (NTL), due to a Stellar Eclipse (SS; previously referred to as Significant Secondary), and/or due to contamination from a source other than the target as evidenced by a Centroid Offset (CO) oran Ephemeris Match (EM) with another object. This entire TCE review process is known as dispositioning or vetting.In the first five Kepler mission planet candidate catalogs (Borucki et al., 2011a,b; Batalha et al., 2013; Burke et al., 2014; Rowe et al., 2015), TCEs were manually examined on an individual basis and dispositioned using various plots and quantitative diagnostic tests (see e.g., Coughlin, 2017). In the sixth catalog, Mullally et al. (2015a) employed partial automation via simple parameter cuts to automatically disposition a large fraction of TCEs as not transit-like. Mullally et al. (2015a) also used an automated technique known as the centroid Robovetter (Mullally, 2017) to automatically identify some FP KOIs due to centroid offsets - a telltale signature of light contamination from another target. The remaining targets were manually dispositioned. In the seventh catalog, Coughlin et al. (2016) automated theentire dispositioning process using what is collectively known simply as the Robovetter.In the eighth and final mission catalog, Thompson et al. (2017) use a revised Robovetter to automate the dispositioning of all TCEs with an emphasis on creating a catalog suitable for accurately determining planet occurrence rates. In order to calculate accurate occurrence rates, the completeness and effectiveness of the Robovetter must be characterized. We define these terms as applied to the Robovetter, following Thompson et al. (2017), as:1. Completeness: The fraction of transiting planets detected by the pipeline that are classified as planet candidates by the Robovetter.2. Effectiveness: The fraction of false positives detected by the pipeline that are classified as false positives by the Robovetter.The remainder of this document describes products that can be used to quantitatively assess Robovetter completeness and effectiveness for an arbitrary set of Kepler stars.

Robovetter↗

Kepler Planet Detection Metrics: Automatic Detection of Background Objects Using the Centroid Robovetter

We present an automated method of identifying background eclipsing binaries masquerading as planet candidates in the Kepler planet candidate catalogs. We codify the manual vetting process for Kepler Objects of Interest (KOIs) described in Bryson et al. (2013) with a series of measurements and tests that can be performed algorithmically. We compare our automated results with a sample of manually vetted KOIs from the catalog of Burke et al. (2014) and find excellent agreement. We test the performance on a set of simulated transits and find our algorithm correctly identifies simulated false positives approximately 50 of the time, and correctly identifies 99 of simulated planet candidates.

Centroid↗

A Demonstration that Correcting for Completeness and Reliability Is Critical for Robust Occurrence Rates

A measurement of planetary occurrence rates based on a planet catalog should be robust against details of how initial detections were classified as planets or false positives. This is accomplished by supplying the catalog’s rate of missed planets (completeness) and rate of non-planets incorrectly called planets (reliability). The final Kepler data release (DR25) includes products that can be used with the DR25 planet candidate catalog to correct for completeness and reliability in occurrence rate estimates. This is made possible by the Kepler Robovetter, which algorithmically and uniformly selects planets based on a variety of metrics and thresholds. Completeness, reliability, and occurrence rates potentially depend on these Robovetter thresholds. We study the impact of varying these vetting thresholds using the techniques of Bryson et al. 2019 (arXiv:1906.03575). We explore sets of thresholds that result in more or fewer planets (trading off completeness for reliability), as well as thresholds tuned to pass DR25 false positives identified as possible planets by the Kepler False Positive Working Group. We find that when correcting only for completeness, and not reliability, the resulting occurrence rates have a strong dependence on these threshold sets. For example, the value of SAG13 eta-Earth varies by over a factor of 4 when not corrected for reliability. However, when correcting for both completeness and reliability, occurrence rates using our threshold sets are statistically indistinguishable, with differences being well inside 1-sigma error bars. We present occurrence rates integrated over several period-radius ranges. For example, SAG13 eta-Earth is consistent with 0.127 (+0.094)(-0.054) (from Bryson et al. 2019) for all the Robovetter threshold sets. This result emphasizes the importance of correcting occurrence rates for both completeness and reliability. This suggests that inconsistent completeness and reliability correction may be a significant contributor to the large variation of occurrence rates in recent literature. We plan to make the Robovetter results for our threshold sets available, and encourage the community to use them to examine whether other occurrence rate methods yield similarly robust results.

Bryson, S.↗

Description of the TCERT Vetting Reports for Data Release 25

The Q1Q17 DR25 TCERT Vetting Reports are a collection of plots and diagnostics used by the Threshold Crossing Event Review Team (TCERT) to evaluate threshold crossing events (TCEs). While designation of Kepler Objects of Interest (KOIs) and classification of them as Planet Candidates (PCs) or False Positives (FPs) is completely automated via a robotic vetting procedure (the Robovetter) for the Q1Q17 DR25 planet catalog, as described in Thompson et al. (2017), these reports help to visualize the metrics used by the Robovetter and evaluate those robotic decisions for individual objects. For each Q1Q17 DR25 TCE, these reports include the following products: (a) the DV one-page summary, (b) selected pertinent diagnostics and plots from the full DV report, and (c) additional plots and diagnostics not included in the full DV report, including an alternate means of data detrending.

Kepler Objects of Interest↗

Kepler Planet Detection Metrics: Pixel-Level Transit Injection Tests of Pipeline Detection Efficiency for Data Release 25

This document describes the results of the fourth pixel-level transit injection experiment, which was designed to measure the detection efficiency of both the Kepler pipeline (Jenkins 2002, 2010; Jenkins et al. 2017) and the Robovetter (Coughlin 2017). Previous transit injection experiments are described in Christiansen et al. (2013, 2015a,b, 2016).In order to calculate planet occurrence rates using a given Kepler planet catalogue, produced with a given version of the Kepler pipeline, we need to know the detection efficiency of that pipeline. This can be empirically determined by injecting a suite of simulated transit signals into the Kepler data, processing the data through the pipeline, and examining the distribution of successfully recovered transits. This document describes the results for the pixel-level transit injection experiment performed to accompany the final Q1-Q17 Data Release 25 (DR25) catalogue (Thompson et al. 2017)of the Kepler Objects of Interest. The catalogue was generated using the SOC pipeline version 9.3 and the DR25 Robovetter acting on the uniformly processed Q1-Q17 DR25 light curves (Thompson et al. 2016a) and assuming the Q1-Q17 DR25 Kepler stellar properties (Mathur et al. 2017).

Pixel-Level Transit Injection↗

Probing ExoMiner for Effectiveness against False Alarms in Kepler Data

We present a study on the effectiveness of ExoMiner against False Alarms in Kepler data. ExoMiner is a deep learning model that was used to validate around 370 Kepler Objects of Interest. We follow the analysis conducted in Coughlin et al (2017) “DR25 Robovetter Completeness and Effectiveness” for Robovetter, a rule-based model used to vet TCEs for this data release and automatically generate the Q1-Q17 DR 25 KOI Table. The ExoMiner model is trained on observed transit data from Kepler Q1-Q17 DR25 and evaluated on Kepler inverted and scrambled data. The results provide a more comprehensive insight into the capacities and limitations of ExoMiner, especially the vetting of not-transit-like signals and, more generally, the use of deep learning models to model transit photometry data for vetting and validation purposes.

exoplanet↗