Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 459

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accurate Empirical Radii and Masses of Planets and Their Host Stars with Gaia Parallaxes

Open access
Stassun, Keivan G., Collins, Karen A., Gaudi, B. Scott·2017·The Astronomical Journal

Abstract

We present empirical measurements of the radii of 116 stars that host transiting planets. These radii are determined using only direct observables—the bolometric flux at Earth, the effective temperature, and the parallax provided by the Gaia first data release—and thus are virtually model independent, with extinction being the only free parameter. We also determine each star’s mass using our newly determined radius and the stellar density, a virtually model independent quantity itself from previously published transit analyses. These stellar radii and masses are in turn used to redetermine the transiting-planet radii and masses, again using only direct observables. The median uncertainties on the stellar radii and masses are 8% and 30%, respectively, and the resulting uncertainties on the planet radii and masses are 9% and 22%, respectively. These accuracies are generally larger than previously published model-dependent precisions of 5% and 6% on the planet radii and masses, respectively, but the newly determined values are purely empirical. We additionally report radii for 242 stars hosting radial-velocity (non-transiting) planets, with a median achieved accuracy of ≈2%. Using our empirical stellar masses we verify that the majority of putative “retired A stars” in the sample are indeed more massive than ∼1.2 . Most importantly, the bolometric fluxes and angular radii reported here for a total of 498 planet host stars—with median accuracies of 1.7% and 1.8%, respectively—serve as a fundamental data set to permit the re-determination of transiting-planet radii and masses with the Gaia second data release to ≈3% and ≈5% accuracy, better than currently published precisions, and determined in an entirely empirical fashion.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 74 references

Cited by

See all 459

Metadata

Authors
Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., & Gaudi, B. S.
Venue
The Astronomical Journal
Published
2017-03-01
Volume
153
Issue
3
Pages
136
ISSN
  • 0004-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-3881
OpenAlex
W2583755487
Cited by
459
References
74
FWCI
16.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accurate Empirical Radii and Masses of Planets and Their Host Stars with Gaia Parallaxes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3
The paper
Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., & Gaudi, B. S. (2017). Accurate Empirical Radii and Masses of Planets and Their Host Stars with Gaia Parallaxes. The Astronomical Journal. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.