1. 1 The Validation of Kepler planets F. Fressin, G. Torres & the Kepler team

2. Planet or Blend? An observed periodic transit signal could be due to: Transiting PlanetEclipsing Binary Physically bound or Chance alignment We use Blender, a light-curve fitting software It attempts to explain Kepler candidates assuming they are the result of a pair of eclipsing objects in the photometric aperture.

3. Planet or Blend? We use Blender, a light-curve fitting software It attempts to explain Kepler candidates assuming they are the result of a pair of eclipsing objects in the photometric aperture. Transiting PlanetEclipsing Binary Physically bound or Chance alignment Primary Star Secondary Star (MS or not) Tertiary Star or planet An observed periodic transit signal could be due to:

4. Blender results : Example of Kepler-10c Eclipsing Binary Stars can mimic a transiting planet signal Period = 45.3 days Radius = 2.23 R ⊕

5. Blender results : Example of Kepler-10c Eclipsing Binary Stars can mimic a transiting planet signal Period = 45.3 days Radius = 2.23 R ⊕

6. Blender results : Example of Kepler-10c Blender results show that only a very small fraction can actually reproduce the exact transit shape Eclipsing Binary Stars can mimic a transiting planet signal Period = 45.3 days Radius = 2.23 R ⊕

7. Speckle interferometry (WIYN at Kitt Peak) Adaptive optics imaging (PHARO at Palomar) Centroid shift analysis (Kepler data) Blender Inputs Separation vs. Magnitude Color vs. Magnitude Combining Follow-Up Observations Kepler photometry Precise host star characterization (Kepler asteroseismology) Spectroscopy (Hires at Keck) Multi-color photometry (KIC, 2MASS) Infrared transit observation (WarmSpitzer)

8. Background star + starBackground star + planet Physically bound star + planet Quantifying the blend probability Blend frequency = (0.41 + 1.21) x 10 -8 = 1.62 x 10 -8 Planet prior = 157 / 156,453 = 1.0 x 10 -3 The planet hypothesis is 60,000 times more likely than a blend

9. 9

10. Kepler- 10b Kepler- 9d Kepler- 10c Kepler- 11g Kepler- 19b CoRoT-7b Gj-1214b 55 Cnc e Gj-436b Kepler planet Blender Validation Other transiting planet

11. Supporting the challenging Radial Velocity confirmations Kepler-10b shows a clear RV signal, but has inconclusive Bisector variations. Blender validates the transiting planet scenario. CoRoT-7b Leger et al. 2009 strong support for validation Queloz et al. 2009 confirmation M = 4.8 ± 0.8M ⊕ Hatzes et al. 2010 confirmation M = 6.9 ± 1.4M ⊕ Ferraz-Mello et al. 2011 confirmation M = 8.0 ± 1.2M ⊕ Pont et al. 2011 marginal detection M = 2.3 ± 1.5M ⊕ Boisse et al. 2011 marginal detection M = 5.7 ± 2.5M ⊕ Hatzes et al. 2011 confirmation M = 7.4 ± 1.2 M ⊕ Batalha et al. 2011 M = 4.56 ± 1.29M ⊕

12. Blender + Spitzer validation of CoRoT-7b In visible light In Infrared

13. Background star + starBackground star + planet Physically bound star + planet Validation of CoRoT-7b Blend frequency = 4.2 x 10 -7 Planet prior = 231 / 156,453 = 1.5 x 10 -3 The planet hypothesis is 3,500 times more likely than a blend

14. Kepler- 10b Kepler- 9d Kepler- 10c Kepler- 11g Kepler- 19b CoRoT-7b Gj-1214b 55 Cnc e Gj-436b Kepler planet Blender Validation Other transiting planet

15. Improving Centroid shift results S. Bryson Target color using Spitzer J.M. Desert* oral04.03 Dynamical Constrains from multiple systems D. Fabricky, M.Holman Kepler detection efficiency C. Dressing* poster24.01 Constrains from multiple systems D. Ragozzine (Co-planarity boost) J. Lissauer* oral04.05 (Multiplicity boost) The Blender Connections Further constraining the Blend Frequency Refining the planet prior

16. Blender results strongly scale with the amount of data. Allowed Eclipsing binaries using Q1 – Q5... are divided by 3 using Q1 – Q8 Sub-Earth-size Kepler candidate Gathering more data won’t only provide more critical KOIs, but also strongly help validating them (improved Centroid and Blender)

17. By ESS3, our goal will be to prove that Earth-size planets, as hard to find as they may be, are not Extreme Solar Systems