text: 283,19,1075317829564542983,175921010,Earl Patrick Bellinger,"[1/6] New paper out! Even though the title kind of gives it away, here's a quick rundown of the paper...  <LINK> #asteroseismology #exoplanets #machinelearning [2/6] Asteroseismology is the best way to determine the properties of stars. This diagram shows the precision with which asteroseismology constrains the ages, masses, radii, and other properties of ~100 solar-type stars that were observed by the NASA Kepler mission. <LINK> [3/6] The great precision with which asteroseismology constrains stellar parameters is useful for many purposes, including studying exoplanets. This is because our ability to measure the properties of exoplanets hinges on our ability to measure the properties of their hosts. <LINK> [4/6] But what if our measurements of the host stars are wrong? This is what we looked at in this paper. This diagram shows how much (percentage-wise) each stellar property changes if the measured temperature (x-axis) and/or metallicity (y-axis) are wrong. It's not much! <LINK> [5/6] All in all, this result is not too shocking. Here are some of the stars that we studied shown in the ""classical"" (left) and ""asteroseismic"" (right) HR diagrams. If you've never seen the kind of diagram on the right before, it serves to reveal the power of asteroseismology. <LINK> [6/6] So for all these results and more --- including comparisons of asteroseismology with Gaia DR2 data, and similar investigations into under-reported uncertainties, as well as a table of all confirmed exoplanets for these stars --- go check out the paper!",https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.06979,"The search for twins of the Sun and Earth relies on accurate characterization of stellar and exoplanetary parameters: i.e., ages, masses, and radii. In the modern era of asteroseismology, parameters of solar-like stars are derived by fitting theoretical models to observational data, which include measurements of their oscillation frequencies, metallicity [Fe/H], and effective temperature Teff. Combining this information with transit data furthermore yields the corresponding parameters for their exoplanets. While [Fe/H] and Teff are commonly stated to a precision of ~0.1 dex and ~100 K, the impact of errors in their measurement has not been studied in practice within the context of the parameters derived from them. Here we use the Stellar Parameters in an Instant (SPI) pipeline to estimate the parameters of nearly 100 stars observed by Kepler and Gaia, many of which are confirmed planet hosts. We adjust the reported spectroscopic measurements of these stars by introducing faux systematic errors and artificially increasing the reported uncertainties, and quantify the differences in the resulting parameters. We find that a systematic error of 0.1 dex in [Fe/H] translates to differences of only 4%, 2%, and 1% on average in the resulting stellar ages, masses, and radii, which are well within their uncertainties (~11%, 3.5%, 1.4%) as derived by SPI. We also find that increasing the uncertainty of [Fe/H] measurements by 0.1 dex increases the uncertainties by only 0.01 Gyr, 0.02 M_sun, and 0.01 R_sun, which are again well below their reported uncertainties (0.5 Gyr, 0.04 M_sun, 0.02 R_sun). The results for Teff at 100 K are similar. Stellar parameters from SPI are unchanged within uncertainties by errors of up to 0.14 dex or 175 K, and are even more robust to errors in Teff than the seismic scaling relations. Consequently, the parameters for their exoplanets are robust as well. ","Stellar ages, masses and radii from asteroseismic modeling are robust to