Issue 
A&A
Volume 543, July 2012



Article Number  A54  
Number of page(s)  55  
Section  Stellar structure and evolution  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/00046361/201218948  
Published online  27 June 2012 
Oscillation mode frequencies of 61 mainsequence and subgiant stars observed by Kepler^{⋆}
^{1} Univ ParisSud, Institut d’Astrophysique Spatiale, UMR 8617, CNRS, Bâtiment 121, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
email: Thierry.Appourchaux@ias.upsud.fr
^{2} Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 931064030, USA
^{3} School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
^{4} Laboratoire AIM, CEA/DSMCNRSUniversité Paris Diderot, IRFU/SAp, Centre de Saclay, 91191 GifsurYvette Cedex, France
^{5} Institute for Computational Astrophysics, Department of Astronomy & Physics, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS B3H 3C3, Canada
^{6} Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400005, India
^{7} Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia
^{8} Stellar Astrophysics Centre, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 120, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
^{9} Centro de Astrofísica and Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, rua das Estrelas, 4150762 Porto, Portugal
^{10} Department of Astronomy, Yale University, PO Box 208101, New Haven CT 065208101, USA
^{11} Astronomical Institute “Anton Pannekoek”, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
^{12} Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, 38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
^{13} Universidad de La Laguna, Dpto de Astrofísica, 38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
^{14} Université de Nice SophiaAntipolis, CNRS UMR 6202, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, BP 4229, 06304 Nice Cedex 4, France
^{15} Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, CNRS, 14 avenue E. Belin, 31400 Toulouse, France
^{16} Université de Toulouse, UPSOMP, IRAP, 31400 Toulouse, France
^{17} High Altitude Observatory, NCAR, PO Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA
^{18} Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, KarlSchwarzschildStr. 1, 85748 Garching bei München, Germany
^{19} Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
^{20} Orbital Sciences Corporation/NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
^{21} SETI Institute/NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
^{22} Bay Area Environmental Research Institute/NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
Received: 2 February 2012
Accepted: 18 April 2012
Context. Solarlike oscillations have been observed by Kepler and CoRoT in several solartype stars, thereby providing a way to probe the stars using asteroseismology
Aims. We provide the mode frequencies of the oscillations of various stars required to perform a comparison with those obtained from stellar modelling.
Methods. We used a time series of nine months of data for each star. The 61 stars observed were categorised in three groups: simple, Flike, and mixedmode. The simple group includes stars for which the identification of the mode degree is obvious. The Flike group includes stars for which the identification of the degree is ambiguous. The mixedmode group includes evolved stars for which the modes do not follow the asymptotic relation of lowdegree frequencies. Following this categorisation, the power spectra of the 61 mainsequence and subgiant stars were analysed using both maximum likelihood estimators and Bayesian estimators, providing individual mode characteristics such as frequencies, linewidths, and mode heights. We developed and describe a methodology for extracting a single set of mode frequencies from multiple sets derived by different methods and individual scientists. We report on how one can assess the quality of the fitted parameters using the likelihood ratio test and the posterior probabilities.
Results. We provide the mode frequencies of 61 stars (with their 1σ error bars), as well as their associated échelle diagrams.
Key words: asteroseismology / stars: solartype / stars: oscillations
Appendices are available in electronic form at http://www.aanda.org
© ESO, 2012
1. Introduction
Stellar physics is undergoing a revolution thanks to the great wealth of asteroseismic data that have been made available by space missions such as CoRoT (Baglin 2006) and Kepler (Borucki et al. 2009). With the seismic analyses of these stars providing the frequencies of the stellar eigenmodes and the large number of high quality observations, asteroseismology is rapidly becoming a valuable tool for understanding stellar physics.
Solartype stars have been observed over periods exceeding six months using CoRoT providing significant results from their seismic analysis (Appourchaux et al. 2008; Benomar et al. 2009a; Gaulme et al. 2009; Gruberbauer et al. 2009; Barban et al. 2009; García et al. 2009; Mosser et al. 2009; Benomar et al. 2009b; Gaulme et al. 2010; Mathur et al. 2010; Deheuvels et al. 2010; Ballot et al. 2011b). The Kepler mission now provides a larger sample of stars observed for even longer durations (Chaplin et al. 2011). The seismic analyses of several solartype and subgiant stars observed by Kepler were reported by ChristensenDalsgaard et al. (2010), Metcalfe et al. (2010), Campante et al. (2011), Mathur et al. (2011) and Howell et al. (2012).
Owing to the ability of Kepler to perform longer observations of stars, the measurement of mode frequencies on several hundreds of stars becomes a challenge. The largescale fitting of many stellar power spectra was anticipated by Appourchaux et al. (2003) for the nowdefunct Eddington mission. All of the steps currently used to fit the pmode power spectra were described in that paper. Appourchaux et al. (2003) also anticipated the difficulties that would be encountered for stars having modes departing from a simple frequency relation, i.e., with mixed modes. On the other hand, the problem of the degree tagging for HD 49933 due to its large mode linewidth, which was first reported by Appourchaux et al. (2008), was not anticipated by Appourchaux et al. (2006), even though they simulated such large linewidths.
In this paper, we provide mode frequencies for 61 Kepler mainsequence and subgiant stars observed for about nine months by Kepler. Some of these stars have characteristics that create difficulties cited above when fitting power spectra.
The next section describes how the time series and power spectra were obtained. Section 3 describes the peak bagging procedure. Section 4 details how we derive a single data set from the several frequency sets provided by the fitters. Section 5 provides productandassurancequality tools needed to validate the mode frequencies. Finally, we provide a short conclusion. The paper includes five examples of the table of frequencies and échelle diagrams, while tables of frequencies of 56 stars and échelle diagrams for all 61 stars are in the appendix.
Fig. 1 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of two simple stars (KIC 3427720 and KIC 9139163). The power spectra are normalised by the background and smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Fig. 2 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of two mixedmode stars (KIC 5955122 and KIC 12508433). The power spectra are normalised by the background and smoothed over 3 μHz. The l = 1 ridges are broken and pass through the l = 0 − 2 ridges; the plot on the left hand side shows an example of a mixedmode star with the l = 1 modes not aligned along a ridge but still passing through the l = 0 − 2 ridges. The plot on the right hand side shows a faint l = 3 ridge at 32 μHz. 
Fig. 3 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of two Flike stars (KIC 2837475 and KIC 6679371). The power spectra are normalised by the background and smoothed over 3 μHz. 
2. Time series and power spectra
Kepler observations are obtained in two different operating modes: long cadence (LC) and short cadence (SC) (Gilliland et al. 2010; Jenkins et al. 2010). This work is based on SC data. For the brightest stars (down to Kepler magnitude, Kp ≈ 12), SC observations can be obtained for a limited number of stars (up to 512 at any given time) with a faster sampling cadence of 58.84876 s (Nyquist frequency of ~8.5 mHz), which permits a more precise transit timing and the performance of asteroseismology. Kepler observations are divided into threemonthlong quarters (Q). A subset of 61 solartype stars observed during quarters Q5 − Q7 (March 22, 2010 to December 22, 2010) were chosen because they have oscillation modes with high signaltonoise ratios. This length of data gives a frequency resolution of about 0.04 μHz.
To maximise the signaltonoise ratio for asteroseismology, the time series were corrected for outliers, occasional jumps, and drifts (see García et al. 2011), and the mean levels between the quarters were normalised. Finally, the resulting light curves were highpass filtered using a triangular smoothing of width of one day, to minimise the effects of the longperiod instrumental drifts. The typical amount of data missing from the time series ranges from 3% to 7%, depending on the star. All the power spectra were produced by one of the coauthors using the LombScargle periodogram (Scargle 1982), properly calibrated to comply with Parseval’s theorem (see Appourchaux 2011).
3. Star categories
To simplify the extraction of mode parameters, three categories of star were identified: simple (sunlike), Flike (also known as the HD 49933 syndrome), and mixed modes. The categorisation was performed using the échelle diagram that was first introduced by Grec (1981). The construction of the diagram is based on the lowdegree modes being essentially equidistant in frequency for a given l, with a typical spacing of the large separation (Δν). The equidistance of the mode frequency ν_{nl} is the result of an approximation derived by Tassoul (1980) as (1)where l is the degree of the mode, n is the radial order, ϵ is a parameter related to stellar surface properties, and δ_{nl} is the small separation. The spectrum is cut into pieces of length Δν, which are stacked on top of each other. Since the modes are not exactly equidistant in frequency, the échelle diagram shows up power due to the modes as curved ridges. Examples of these échelle diagrams are given in Figs. 1 to 3, which represents the three main categories used in this paper. Figure 1 shows examples for simple stars. Figure 2 shows examples for mixedmode stars where an avoided crossing^{1} is present. Figure 3 shows examples for Flike stars, which are hotter stars (spectral type F, having large linewidths).
Figure 4 shows the measured median largefrequencyseparation of the 61 stars as a function of their effective temperature, together with their categories resulting from the visual assessment of the échelle diagram. Out of the 61 stars, we have 28 simple stars, 15 Flike stars, and 18 mixedmode stars. Figure 4 shows that the boundary between simple stars and Flike stars is about 6400 K, which roughly corresponds to a linewidth at maximum mode height of about 4 μHz (Appourchaux et al. 2012). For these Flike stars, the frequency separation between the l = 0 and l = 2 modes (=small separation) ranges from 4 μHz to 12 μHz, which, combined with a linewidth of at least 4 μHz, explains why the detection of the l = 0 and 2 ridges is more difficult for these stars.
4. Mode parameter extraction
4.1. Power spectrum model
Characteristics of the fit performed by each fitting group.
Fig. 4 Large separation as a function of effective temperature for the stars in this study; (black) simple stars, (blue) mixedmode stars, (red) Flike stars, and ( ⊙ ) the Sun. The effective temperatures were derived from Pinsonneault et al. (2012) except where noted in Table 2. The uncertainties in the large separation represent the minimum and maximum variations with respect to the median measured in this study (see Table 2); some of these uncertainties are within the thicknesses of symbols. The dotted lines are evolutionary tracks for stars of mass from 0.8 M_{⊙} (farthest right) to 1.5 M_{⊙} (farthest left), in steps of 0.1 M_{⊙} derived from ChristensenDalsgaard & Houdek (2010) for solar metallicity. 
The mode parameter extraction was performed by ten teams of fitters whose leaders are listed in Table 1. The power spectra were modelled over a frequency range typically covering 10 to 20 large separations (=Δν). The background was modelled using a multicomponent Harvey model (Harvey 1985), each component with two parameters, and a white noise component. The background was fitted prior to the extraction of the mode parameters and then held at a fixed value. For each radial order, the model parameters were mode frequencies (one each for l = 0−2), a single mode height (with assumed ratios of h_{1}/h_{0} = 1.5, h_{2}/h_{0} = 0.5 where the subscript refers to the degree), and a single mode linewidth. The ratios taken in this paper are typical of those expected for Kepler stars (Ballot et al. 2011a). In the case of the AAU fitter only, the l = 0 linewidths were fitted and the linewidths of the other degrees were interpolated in between two l = 0 mode linewidths. The relative heights h_{(l,m)} (where m is the azimuthal order) of the rotationally split components of the modes depend on the stellar inclination angle, as given by Gizon & Solanki (2003). For each star, the rotational splitting and stellar inclination angle were chosen to be common across all the modes. The mode profile was assumed to be Lorentzian. We used a single Harvey component for all stars other than the 16 stars fitted by QML for which we used a double component. In total, the number of free parameters for 15 orders was at least 5 × 15 + 2 = 77.
The two models described above were used to fit the parameters of 46 stars (28 simple and 18 mixedmode) using maximum likelihood estimators (MLE). Formal uncertainties in each parameter were derived from the inverse of the Hessian matrix (for more details on MLE, significance, and formal errors, see Appourchaux 2011).
The 15 Flike stars were fitted with a Bayesian approach using different sampling methods. Both SYD and AAU employed Monte Carlo Markov chain (MCMC) (Benomar et al. 2009a; Handberg & Campante 2011), while MAR used nested sampling via the code MultiNest (Feroz et al. 2009). For the latter sampling approach, the large number of parameters forced us to use MultiNest’s constantefficiency, monomodal mode. The priors on the central frequency and inclination angle were uniform. The prior on the splitting was either uniform in the range 0−15 μHz (MAR) or a combination of a uniform prior in the range 0 − 2 μHz and a decaying Gaussian (SYD, AAU). The priors on mode height were modified Jeffreys priors (Jeffreys 1939; Benomar et al. 2009a; Gruberbauer et al. 2009), and the priors on the linewidth were either uniform (MAR) or modified Jeffreys priors (SYD, AAU). The error bars were derived from the marginal posterior distribution of each parameter. Each Bayesian fitter had seven stars to fit: four stars + three common stars. The latter were used for comparison with the Bayesian methods. Priors on the frequencies were set after visual inspection of the power spectrum. Modes of degree l = 2 were assumed to be on the lowfrequency side of the l = 0 (i.e., the small spacing d_{02} was assumed to be positive). To avoid spurious results, two of the Bayesian fitters (SYD, MAR) also used a smoothness condition on the frequency for each degree, in a similar way to Benomar et al. (2012b).
Table 1 provides a summary of how the different fits were performed.
4.2. Initial guesses for parameters
Of all the parameters describing the modes, the frequencies are the most difficult to guess. Given the number of stars, initial guesses for these mode frequencies were obtained using different techniques:

The automatic detection of modes based on the valuesof Δν and ν_{max} (see Verner et al. 2011, and references therein), that were then manually tweaked if required.

Visual detection using the échelle diagram (especially for mixedmode stars).

Derivation from fitted parameters obtained from previous reported observations of the stars (see Table 2).
The degree tagging could then be done quite easily for the simple and mixedmode stars (see Figs. 1 and 2). The mere visual assessment of the échelle diagrams was enough to permit the tagging of the ridges with the proper degree where the l = 1 stands alone, while the l = 0−2 pair appears as a double ridge. For the mixedmode stars, the tagging was also done by inspection of the échelle diagram, but required the input of model frequencies as the l = 1 modes go through the l = 0−2 ridges; some ambiguity could be caused by the avoided crossing. For the F stars, the fit was performed for both possible identifications (l = 0−2 and l = 1, or vice versa), and the model probabilities were calculated to obtain the most likely identification (Benomar et al. 2009a; Handberg & Campante 2011). For these latter stars, other tools are available that compare the measured value of ϵ (see Eq. (1)) with that of the theoretical values derived for other stars with similar effective temperatures (White et al. 2011).
4.3. Fitting procedure
The steps that we adopted to perform the fit are as follows:

1.
We fit the power spectrum as the sum of a background made of acombination of Lorentzian profiles(one or two) and white noise,as well as a Gaussian oscillation mode envelopewith three parameters (the frequency of themaximum mode power, the maximum power, andthe linewidth of the mode power).

2.
We fit the power spectrum with n orders using the mode profile model described above, with no splitting and the background fixed as determined in step 1.

3.
We follow step 2 but define the splitting and the stellar inclination angle as free parameters, and then apply a likelihood ratio test to assess the significance of the fitted splitting and angle.
The steps above were sometimes varied slightly depending on the assumptions that were made. For instance, the mode height ratio could instead be defined as a free parameters to study the impact of its variations on the derivation of the mode parameters such as linewidth and mode height.
Table of key stellar parameters.
5. Derivation of mode frequency set
The derivation of a single frequency set from the several sets obtained by different fitters has been a source of considerable concern since we started this work. The measurements performed by Kepler for a given star are done only by this mission; there is no additional source of photometry. Hence, this single measurement of oscillation modes in the photometry of a given star must provide a single frequency set. The main question that arose was how to derive a single frequency set from the different fits.
We now explain the chain of thought that led to the procedure used in this paper. This procedure had constantly evolved until we reached the final procedure. Since anyone having to derive a common data set from several data sets derived from a single observable will face the same challenge as we faced, it is useful to understand how we decided on this procedure to avoid repeating the same chain of thoughts.
The final procedure can be applied to any data set to be derived from a single observable, such as mode linewidth, mode amplitude, and so forth. An example of the application of this procedure for mode linewidth can be found in Appourchaux et al. (2012).
Hereafter, we describe the final procedure in three steps. The first step is common to all variants of the procedure, while the second step had several versions. We present all the secondstep versions used, including the step used in the final procedure.
5.1. Common first step
The goal of the first step is to provide an average frequency set and to quantify how a given frequency set provided by a fitter differs from the average.
5.1.1. Rejection of outliers
For a given (n,l) mode, one frequency is derived from several (if not all) fitters and outliers may need to be rejected. The rejection of outliers can be done either using the wellknown 3σ threshold or using Peirce’s criterion (Peirce 1852). The main disadvantage of the 3σ threshold is that it is not applicable when the number of measurements is small. Peirce’s criterion explicitly assumes that the number of measurements is small and that the root mean square (rms) deviation can be corrected for the rejection of outliers. Peirce’s criterion is based on rigourous probability calculation and not on any ad hoc assumption. To cite Peirce’s explanation of his criterion: “the proposed observations should be rejected when the probability of the system of errors obtained by retaining them is less than that of the system of errors obtained by their rejection multiplied by the probability of making so many, and no more, abnormal observations”. This logic calls for an iterative assessment of the rejection when one or more datasets are rejected. The iteration stops when no improvement is possible.
Following the work of Gould (1855), we implemented Peirce’s criterion for a sample of x_{i} as follows:

1.
We compute the mean value x_{m} and rms deviation σ of a data set x_{i}.

2.
We compute the rejection factor r by solving Eq. (D) of Gould (1855), assuming one doubtful observation.

3.
We reject data if  x_{i} − x_{m}  > rσ.

4.
If n data have been rejected then we compute the new rejection factor r, assuming n + 1 doubtful observations.

5.
We repeat steps 3 to 4 until no more data are rejected.
The assumption behind Peirce’s criterion is that all the observed data have the same statistical distribution, i.e., the same mean and standard deviation. In our case, this assumption is valid because all the methods used (see Table 1) are either exactly or approximately akin to MLE, so that the error bars in our mode frequencies are locally related to the curvature of the MLE at the location of the maximum.
The rejection of outliers following Peirce’s criterion was implemented as an option for the common first step.
5.1.2. Deviation from the average frequency set
For a given star and for a given (n,l) mode, one computes the mean mode frequency ⟨ ν_{n,l} ⟩ from the frequencies provided by the fitters who detected this mode. The frequency set consisting of the data ⟨ ν_{n,l} ⟩ is then designated as the average frequency set. For each fitter labelled k, one then computes for each mode the mean normalised rms deviation from the mean mode frequency ⟨ ν_{n,l} ⟩ , and the average deviation over all modes: (2)where, and are the frequency and its uncertainty returned by fitter k, and N_{k} is the number of modes fitted by the fitter k. The normalised rms deviation δ_{k} then provides a way of assessing how far the fitter k deviates from the average value of the frequencies.
5.2. Second step
The goal of the second step is to provide the selected frequency set using the results of the first step. The selected frequency set is then used for either subsequent modelling or fitting.
5.2.1. Method 1
Peirce’s criterion is not applied. The selected mode set comprises the modes for which the frequencies of all fitters agree, within their own 1σ error bars, with the average frequency set. This set is supplemented by additional modes for which the frequencies of only a smaller group of the fitters agree, within their own 1σ error bars, with the average frequency set. The selected frequency set of the fitter with the smallest δ_{k} is then designated the reference fit. This method was used by Appourchaux et al. (2008) for HD 49933.
The major drawback of this method is that if a single fitter disagrees, owing to the very small error bars of their measurements, then there is no selected set. In addition, the good modes fitted by a single fitter are automatically rejected.
5.2.2. Method 2
Peirce’s criterion is not applied. Instead of having only one mode set, we derive minimal and maximal mode sets as follows. The minimal mode set is, as previously, the one for which all fitters agree within their own 1σ error bars, with the average frequency set. The maximal mode set is made up of the frequencies for which at least two fitters agree within their own 1σ error bars, with the average frequency set. The frequency set of the fitter with the smallest δ_{k} for the minimal mode set is then designated the minimal frequency set, and the frequency set of the fitter with the smallest δ_{k} for the maximal mode set is designated the maximal frequency set. This method was used by Metcalfe et al. (2010) for the Kepler star KIC 11026764.
There are several drawbacks to this method. Firstly, the minimal and maximal frequency sets can be produced by different fitters. This “feature” is a great nuisance when one derives different stellar models for the same star, that are the result of two different frequency sets. In addition, the drawbacks of method 1 are not alleviated at all by this scheme, and the minimal set may not exist at all.
5.2.3. Method 3
This is the same as method 2 but with the Peirce’s criterion applied. The drawbacks are the same as method 2.
5.2.4. Method 4
Peirce’s criterion is applied. We still derive a minimal and a maximal mode set, but now, for deriving the minimal mode set, we use a voting scheme. The minimal mode set contains the modes for which at least half the fitters agree within their own 1σ error bars, with the average frequency set. The maximal mode set contains the modes for which at least two fitters agree within their own 1σ error bars, with the average frequency set. The frequency set of the best fitter with the smallest δ_{k} for the minimal mode set is then designated as the best frequency set. The maximal and minimal frequency sets are then derived from the minimal and maximal mode sets of the best fitter. With such a scheme, one of the drawbacks of method 2 is removed: the two sets come from the same best fitter. This fourth method was used by Mathur et al. (2011), Campante et al. (2011), and Howell et al. (2012). The remaining drawback is that the good modes fitted by only one fitter are still rejected.
Fig. 5 Detection of leftout modes. All power spectra are shown as a function of frequency smoothed over 20 bins. Before the refit: (top, left) power spectrum of KIC 9139163 with the fitted model with accepted modes (green) and with the guess frequencies provided by the fitters (orange lines). (Bottom, left) Power spectrum normalised to the fitted model; the orange horizontal line indicates the level at which the null hypothesis is rejected at the 1% level. After the refit: (top, right) power spectrum of KIC 9139163 with the fitted model for either accepted modes (green), rejected modes (red), or the guess frequencies provided a posteriori by the fitters (orange lines). (Bottom, right) Power spectrum normalised to the fitted model; the orange horizontal line indicates the level at which the null hypothesis is rejected at the 1% level. 
5.3. Third step: the final fitter
The goal of the third step is to provide a single homogenous frequency set using the maximal frequency set as guess frequencies. This third step was used by Metcalfe et al. (2012) for 16 Cyg A/B stars, by Mathur et al. (2012) for 22 Kepler stars, and in this paper.
The current solution that we adopt here is to ensure that a final fitter refits the spectrum using the maximal mode set derived in method 4 of the Second Step, and also using some visual assessment and/or statistical tests where all the modes are included. In this case, even the modes provided by only one fitter are included. In addition, the solution of having a final fitter provide the frequency sets produces a homogenous data sets with systematic errors traceable to a single origin. This is now the current strategy used to provide seismic parameters of the solarlike stars from the Kepler data.
After having applied the procedure described above, the 61 stars were fitted by 4 final fitters: BIR fitted 14 mixedmode stars, IAS fitted 16 simple stars, QML fitted 13 simple and 3 mixedmode stars, and MAR fitted the 15 Flike stars (see Table 1). The division of the work for the MLEbased fit was based upon the availability of both computer and personal time. As for the Flike stars, the work was performed by a single fitter for consistency.
6. Product and quality assurance of the frequencies
After producing the frequency sets for each star, we needed to assess whether the frequencies provided were of significant quality to be used in subsequent stellar modelling. Several tests are at our disposal for gauging the likelihood of having either a good or bad mode. Here the term bad refers to a mode that is obviously either a noise peak mistaken for a mode (for example, at low frequency where the mode linewidth is narrow) or to a broad spurious excess of power at high frequency (where the mode linewidth is large). Statistical tests fall into two major categories: frequentist and Bayesian. Both type of tests are addressed in Appourchaux (2011).
6.1. Significance of fitted parameters
To assess the significance of a given mode, one can use the likelihood ratio (LR) test, which is a frequentist test. The test simply checks the likelihood that the fitted mode is due to spurious noise, i.e., it tests whether the null or H_{0} hypothesis can be accepted or rejected. The test consists of computing log (Λ), where Λ is the ratio of the likelihood obtained when fitting m parameters to the likelihood obtained when fitting n parameters (m > n). The test statistic − 2log (Λ) is then known to be distributed as χ^{2} with (m − n) degrees of freedom (d.o.f) under the null hypothesis.
6.1.1. Splitting and inclination angle
The LR test can be simply applied to check the significance of the splitting and inclination angle, which are usually assumed to be common amongst the fitted orders. The LR test is applied as follows:

1.
We fit the whole spectrum with all the parameters apart from theangle and splitting (both set to 0).We compute the likelihoodof the fit.

2.
We fit the whole spectrum with all the parameters, including the angle and splitting, and then compute the likelihood of the fit.

3.
We compute LR(p) (p = 2).

4.
We reject the pair (splitting,angle) at the 1% level.
This test was used to derive the frequencies provided in this paper. However, rotational splitting in these stars is the subject of another study, currently in progress.
6.1.2. Orders and modes
The major drawback of the LR test is that it requires a new fit each time we need to test the significance of several parameters. In our case, since we fitted up to 80 parameters, it became impractical to “switch of” each of the orders in turn, let alone each of the modes. We devised a simplified LR test based on the assumption that some of the parameters are independent of each other. For example, if we remove a given order then to a good approximation this will not affect the result of the other orders. Therefore, we applied the simplified LR test as follows:

1.
We fit the whole spectrum with all the parameters and computelikelihood of the fit.

2.
We “switch of” orders (one at a time) and compute the new likelihood without making a new fit.

3.
We compute LR(n) (n = 5, three mode frequency, one linewidth, one amplitude).

4.
We reject order at the 1% level.
If the whole order is rejected, then we apply the same simplified LR test to each mode within it, with the same cut level (n = 1, 1 frequency).
6.2. Are all modes detected?
When the power spectra were fitted, the frequencies of the modes were guessed using either a simplified detection test that looks for high peaks around the region of maximum mode power, or a search for clumps of power in several adjacent or close bins. We were also able to guess the mode frequencies by eye in the échelle diagram. These statistical tests or visual tests rely either on testing the null hypothesis (frequentist) or explicit knowledge of the mode frequency behaviour (Bayesian). Hereafter, we detail both types of tests that were used to ensure that all modes are detected.
6.2.1. Frequentist test
After performing the fit, we computed the ratio of the power spectrum to the fitted model. Since the modes are stochastically excited harmonic oscillators, the resulting ratio was simply the power spectrum of the forcing functions (mode excitation + noise), which is distributed as a χ^{2} distribution with two d.o.f. The resulting ratio power spectrum could then be smoothed to detect signals that are spread over several bins. The lefthand side of Fig. 5 shows the result of applying this procedure: power is clearly detected above 2300 μHz. The righthand side of Fig. 5 shows the result of applying the procedure after including the missing modes: nothing is detected in the smoothed ratio power spectrum above a frequency of 2300 μHz. In Fig. 5, we note that the modes at low frequencies below 1100 μHz are not detected by the mere application of a single smoothing factor. We devised a more sensitive test that allows the detection of these modes at low frequency, but also the detection of modes at higher frequencies that are not provided by the fitters.
6.2.2. Bayesian approach
The previous test described in Sect. 6.2.1 is quite effective in rejecting the null hypothesis but fails to achieve what is required: to provide a quantitative likelihood that a mode has been detected. To achieve this aim, we must instead use some a priori knowledge of the behaviour of the modes at low and high frequencies. Here we used the work of Appourchaux (2004) to detect shortlived modes. This work had been applied to two CoRoT stars (Appourchaux et al. 2009; Deheuvels et al. 2010). We used a variant of the procedure that included a test based on a priori empirical knowledge of the mode linewidth at low and high frequency. The procedure adopted is as follows:

1.
We fit the power spectrum as the sum of a background made of acombination of one or two Lorentzian profiles centred at the zerofrequency and white noise, with a Gaussianoscillation mode envelope. The combination of theLorentzian profiles and the white noise provides amodel for the observed stellar background noise.

We compute the ratio of the power spectrum to the background but put the mode envelope to zero. The signaltonoise ratio of the modes of oscillation is then the observed power spectrum divided by the modelled background noise. This ratio of the power spectrum to the background contains the modes of oscillation multiplied by the χ^{2} 2 d.o.f. forcing functions.
Fig. 6 Smoothed power spectrum normalised to the detection x_{det} as a function of frequency for several smoothing factors (several colours; the redder the colour the higher the smoothing factor, which varies from 2 to 70 frequency bins). The short vertical black lines show the minimum and maximum frequency detected with a single smoothing factor and their associated posterior probabilities (p(x_{det}  H_{1})) for H_{1}, in %. When the frequency is detected several times to within 4 μHz, only the highest posterior is shown. The long vertical black lines show the minimum minimorum and maximum maximorum frequencies.

3.
We smooth the ratio power spectrum over n bins to maximise the signal in power due to modes of oscillation that are distributed over many bins. To maintain the scaling of the signaltonoise ratio, the smoothed power spectrum must be multiplied by n. The smoothing, of course, modifies the statistical distribution, and the modified distribution is known to be χ^{2} with 2n d.o.f.

4.
We accept or reject the H_{0} hypothesis with a detection probability of over a window covering half the large separation (=Δν_{0}/2), taking into account that in each window the number of independent bins is N_{ind} = Δν_{0}/(2nδν) where δν is the frequency resolution of the original power spectrum. The detection probability per independent bin is then . The detection probability we used is or 10%.

5.
To determine the detection level x_{det}, we compute the probability p_{det} of observing x_{det} or greater, which is p_{det} = (where Γ is the gamma function, and u is a dummy symbol), and then solve this equation for x_{det} given p_{det}.

6.
In each window, we then select the bins in the smoothed ratio power spectrum that are greater than x_{det}, i.e., we reject the H_{0} hypothesis.
This procedure from step 1 to step 6 is very similar to the one described in the previous section for the detection of leftout modes.
Additional assumptions are now taken into account in the Bayesian approach. If the H_{0} hypothesis is rejected, we can write the detection likelihood, which is given by Eq. (15) of Appourchaux et al. (2009), (3)The next step is to derive p(x_{det}  H_{1}) subject to the H_{1} hypothesis, which is to assume that a true mode has been detected. With the many stars at our disposal, we preferred to have an educated a priori knowledge of the mode height and mode linewidth, in lieu of their theoretical model parameters. We can rewrite Eq. (18) (Appourchaux et al. 2009) assuming uniform priors for the mode height and linewidth (4)where λ and ν are the parameters defining the Gamma statistical distribution, λ and ν are functions of h′ and W′ with h′ being the mode height in noise units, W′ is the mode linewidth (see Appendix A), h_{u} is the maximum mode height, W_{u} is the maximum mode linewidth. This formula is obviously more observeroriented. Since we wished to detect faint modes at either end of the spectrum, we assumed that the maximum mode height would be no larger than twice the noise, and that the mode linewidth no larger than 1 μHz, at low frequency and 10 μHz at high frequency. We then computed the posterior probability of H_{1} as (5)
Fig. 7 Smoothed power spectrum normalised to the detection x_{det} as a function of frequency for several smoothing factor values (several colours; the redder and the higher the smoothing factor) for four stars (KIC 7106245, KIC 7976303, KIC 9139151, KIC 10162436). The short vertical black lines show the minimum and maximum frequency detected with a single smoothing factor with their associated posterior probability (p(x_{det}  H_{1})) for H_{1}, in %. When the frequency is detected several times within 4 μHz, only the highest posterior is shown. The long vertical black lines show the minimum minimorum and maximum maximorum frequencies. 
The procedure then continues with the steps:

7.
From all the frequencies for which the null hypothesis wasrejected, we keep the highest and lowest detected frequencies

8.
We then compute the posterior probability of H_{1} as given by Eq. (5) for these two extreme frequencies.
The steps 1 to 8 are repeated for a range of smoothing factors n from 2 to 70, corresponding to the resolution of 0.08 μHz to 2.8 μHz. The variable amount of smoothing allows for the detection probability depending on both the smoothing factor and the mode linewidth. The maximum detection probability is reached for different values of the smoothing factor, depending on the mode linewidth.
We then defined the maximum maximorum detectable frequency as the highest detected frequency for which the posterior probability is either greater than 90% or has the highest value if this is lower than 90%. The minimum minimorum frequency was defined as the lowest detected frequency for which the posterior probability is either greater than 90% or has the highest value if this is lower than 90%. Figure 6 provides an example of the application of the procedure.
Table 3 shows an example of an application of the quality assurance test to the fitted frequencies, which can be compared with Fig. 5. Figure 7 shows more examples of the application of the procedure resulting in different cases of no detection, no fit, and detection with a posterior probability less than 90%. For the star KIC 7106245, several modes were not detected, as listed in Table 4. For the star KIC 7976303, several modes were not fitted, as listed in Table 5. For the stars KIC 9139151 and KIC 10162436, a few modes were either not detected or not fitted or detected with a posterior probability lower than 90%, as listed in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
The procedure was applied to all stars in this paper irrespective of the final fitter for providing a quality assessment at all the frequencies. If one of the frequencies from the test was not provided by the fitter, we verified whether it could be a mode close to an integer value of the large separation, and then made the most likely degree identification.
The application of the product assurance resulted in 61 tables of frequencies. The mode frequencies of 61 stars are provided in Tables 3 to 7, and Tables A.1 to A.56. All modellers are advised to use all of the mode frequencies labelled OK and to use with caution all other frequencies. In addition, the 61 échelle diagrams are shown in Figs. A.1 to A.10.
7. Conclusions
We have analysed the oscillation power spectra of 61 mainsequence and subgiant stars for which we fitted the pmode parameters. We have divided the stars into three categories related to the visual appearance of their échelle diagrams called simple, Flike, and mixedmode stars. We have shown that we are now able to perform nearly automated fits of many stellar power spectra derived from Kepler light curves. There are two steps that still require manual intervention: the identification of the star category provided by the échelle diagram and the derivation of firstguess frequencies. In the future, we plan to reduce the amount of manual intervention by using the areas delimited in the (Δν, T_{eff}) diagram of Fig. 4 to identify the star category; and by using the asymptotic relation of frequencies used by Benomar et al. (2012a) to derive automated guess frequencies.
We devised a procedure to use the mode frequencies from several fitters to choose a single fitter to refit all the spectra (within workload constraints). When the power spectra are fitted, we are now also able to make an automated assessment of the fit quality and the mode frequencies obtained; we give several techniques for this assessment. We provide the échelle diagrams of 61 stars and the associated list of mode frequencies for these stars.
Frequencies for KIC 9139163.
continued.
Frequencies for KIC 7106245.
Frequencies for KIC 7976303.
Frequencies for KIC 9139151.
Frequencies for KIC 10162436.
continued.
Mixed modes occur in evolved stars and their frequencies are shifted from the usual regular pattern by avoided crossings (Osaki 1975; Aizenman et al. 1977).
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the entire Kepler team, without whom these results would not have been possible. Funding for this Discovery mission is provided by NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. We also thank all funding councils and agencies that have supported the activities of KASC Working Group 1, as well as the International Space Science Institute (ISSI). T.A. gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) under a PLATO grant. T.A. acknowledges the KITP staff of UCSB for their hospitality during the research programme “Asteroseismology in the Space Age”. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY0551164. A special thanks to my wife for having made this paper possible, needless to say that Kirby Cove is in our minds. T.L.C. acknowledges financial support from project PTDC/CTEAST/098754/2008 funded by FCT/MCTES, Portugal. W.J.C., G.A.V. and Y.E. acknowledge financial support from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). Funding for the Stellar Astrophysics Centre is provided by The Danish National Research Foundation. The research is supported by the ASTERISK project (ASTERoseismic Investigations with SONG and Kepler) funded by the European Research Council (Grant agreement No. 267864). R.A.G. and G.R.D. has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/20072013) under grant agreement No. 269194. M.G. received financial support from an NSERC Vanier scholarship. This work employed computational facilities provided by ACEnet, the regional high performance computing consortium for universities in Atlantic Canada. S.H. acknowledges funding from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO). G.H. acknowledges support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) project P21205N16. R.H. acknowledges computing support from the National Solar Observatory. D.S. acknowledges the financial support from CNES. NCAR is partially supported by the National Science Foundation. The authors thanks an anonymous referee for contributing to the clarity of the paper.
References
 Aizenman, M., Smeyers, P., & Weigert, A. 1977, A&A, 58, 41 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Anderson, E. R., Duvall, T. L. J., & Jefferies, S. M. 1990, ApJ, 364, 699 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Appourchaux, T. 2004, A&A, 428, 1039 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Appourchaux, T. 2011 [arXiv:1103.5352] [Google Scholar]
 Appourchaux, T., Berthomieu, G., Moreira, O., & Toutain, T. 2003, in Stellarstructure and habitable planet finding, 2nd Eddinton workshop, ed. C. Fröhlich, & A. Wilson (Noordwijk, The Netherlands: ESA Publications Division), ESA SP, 538, 47 [Google Scholar]
 Appourchaux, T., Berthomieu, G., Michel, E., et al. 2006, Evaluation of the scientific performances for the seismology programme, The CoRoT Mission, ed. M. Fridlung, A. Baglin, J. Lochard, & L. Conroy (ESA Publications Division), ESA SP, 1306, 429 [Google Scholar]
 Appourchaux, T., Michel, E., Auvergne, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 705 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Appourchaux, T., Samadi, R., & Dupret, M. 2009, A&A, 506, 1 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Appourchaux, T., Benomar, O., Gruberbauer, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A134 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Baglin, A. 2006, The CoRoT mission, prelaunch status, stellar seismology and planet finding, ed. M. Fridlund, A. Baglin, J. Lochard, & L. Conroy (Noordwijk, The Netherlands: ESA Publication Division), ESA SP, 1306 [Google Scholar]
 Ballot, J., Barban, C., & van’t VeerMenneret, C. 2011a, A&A, 531, A124 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Ballot, J., Gizon, L., Samadi, R., et al. 2011b, A&A, 530, A97 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Barban, C., Deheuvels, S., Baudin, F., et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 51 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Benomar, O., Appourchaux, T., & Baudin, F. 2009a, A&A, 506, 15 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Benomar, O., Baudin, F., Campante, T. L., et al. 2009b, A&A, 507, L13 [Google Scholar]
 Benomar, O., Baudin, F., Chaplin, W. J., Elsworth, Y., & Appourchaux, T. 2012a, MNRAS, 420, 2178 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Benomar, O., Bedding, T. R., Stello, D., et al. 2012b, ApJ, 745, L33 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Jenkins, J., et al. 2009, Science, 325, 709 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Bruntt, H., Basu, S., Smalley, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 122 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Campante, T. L., Handberg, R., Mathur, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A6 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Casagrande, L., Ramírez, I., Meléndez, J., Bessell, M., & Asplund, M. 2010, A&A, 512, A54 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Chaplin, W. J., Kjeldsen, H., ChristensenDalsgaard, J., et al. 2011, Science, 332, 213 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 ChristensenDalsgaard, J., & Houdek, G. 2010, Ap&SS, 328, 51 [Google Scholar]
 ChristensenDalsgaard, J., Kjeldsen, H., Brown, T. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, L164 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Deheuvels, S., Bruntt, H., Michel, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A87 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Fletcher, S. T., Chaplin, W. J., Elsworth, Y., & New, R. 2009, ApJ, 694, 144 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 García, R. A., Régulo, C., Samadi, R., et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 41 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 García, R. A., Hekker, S., Stello, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, L6 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Gaulme, P., Appourchaux, T., & Boumier, P. 2009, A&A, 506, 7 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Gaulme, P., Vannier, M., Guillot, T., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L153 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Gilliland, R. L., Jenkins, J. M., Borucki, W. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, L160 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Gizon, L., & Solanki, S. K. 2003, ApJ, 589, 1009 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Gould, B. A. 1855, AJ, 4, 81 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Grec, G. 1981, Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Nice [Google Scholar]
 Gruberbauer, M., Kallinger, T., Weiss, W. W., & Guenther, D. B. 2009, A&A, 506, 1043 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Handberg, R., & Campante, T. L. 2011, A&A, 527, A56 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Harvey, J. 1985, in Future missions in solar, heliospheric and space plasma physics, ed. E. Rolfe, & B. Battrick (Noordwijk, The Netherlands: ESA Publications Division), ESA SP, 235, 199 [Google Scholar]
 Howe, R., & Hill, F. 1998, in Structure and Dynamics of the Interior of the Sun and Sunlike Stars, ed. S. Korzennik, & A. Wilson (Noordwijk, The Netherlands: ESA Publications Division), ESA SP, 418, 237 [Google Scholar]
 Howell, S. B., Rowe, J. F., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 123 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Jeffreys, H. 1939, Theory of Probability (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford Universitty Press) [Google Scholar]
 Jenkins, J. M., Caldwell, D. A., Chandrasekaran, H., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, L87 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Mathur, S., García, R. A., Catala, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, A53 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Mathur, S., Handberg, R., Campante, T. L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 95 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Mathur, S., Metcalfe, T. S., Woitaszek, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 152 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Metcalfe, T. S., Monteiro, M. J. P. F. G., Thompson, M. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1583 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Metcalfe, T. S., Chaplin, W. J., Appourchaux, T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, L10 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Mosser, B., Michel, E., Appourchaux, T., et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 33 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Osaki, Y. 1975, PASJ, 27, 237 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Peirce, B. 1852, AJ, 2, 161 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Pinsonneault, M. H., An, D., MolendaŻakowicz, J., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 30 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Tassoul, M. 1980, ApJS, 43, 469 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Verner, G. A., Elsworth, Y., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3539 [Google Scholar]
 White, T. R., Bedding, T. R., Stello, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 161 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Online material
Appendix A: Expressions for λ and ν
The expressions that we use to derive λ and ν are related to the power spectrum, which is binned over n bins. The approximation of the probability density function of the mode profile in a binned power spectrum is therefore related to the mean power in a mode and its rms deviation. This approximation is given in more detail in Appourchaux (2004). The mean power in a mode of the binned power spectrum is given by (A.1)(A.2)where f is the mode profile given at frequency ν by (A.3)
and ν is the frequency measured with respect to the central mode frequency, which is omitted, h is the mode height in units of the background noise (hence the additional 1), and W is the mode linewidth. The summation is done over frequency ν_{i} given by (A.4)where Δν is the frequency resolution of the original power spectrum and ν_{i} varies between − nΔν/2 and + nΔν/2, spanning nΔν, which is the resolution of the binned power spectrum. Finally the expressions for λ and ν are given by (A.5)(A.6)which are both implicitly functions of h and W.
Fig. A.1 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 1435467, KIC 2837475, KIC 3424541, KIC 3427720, KIC 3632418 and KIC 3733735. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Fig. A.2 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 3735871, KIC 5607242, KIC 5955122, KIC 6116048, KIC 6508366 and KIC 6603624. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Fig. A.3 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 6679371, KIC 6933899, KIC 7103006, KIC 7106245, KIC 7206837 and KIC 7341231. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Fig. A.4 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 7747078, KIC 7799349, KIC 7871531, KIC 7976303, KIC 8006161 and KIC 8026226. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Fig. A.5 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 8228742, KIC 8379927, KIC 8394589, KIC 8524425, KIC 8694723 and KIC 8702606. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Fig. A.6 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 8760414, KIC 9025370, KIC 9098294, KIC 9139151, KIC 9139163 and KIC 9206432. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Fig. A.7 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 9410862, KIC 9574283, KIC 9812850, KIC 9955598, KIC 10018963 and KIC 10162436. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Fig. A.8 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 10355856, KIC 10454113, KIC 10644253, KIC 10909629, KIC 10963065 and KIC 11026764. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Fig. A.9 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 11081729, KIC 11193681, KIC 11244118, KIC 11253226, KIC 11395018 and KIC 11414712. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Fig. A.10 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 11717120, KIC 11771760, KIC 11772920, KIC 12009504, KIC 12258514 and KIC 12317678. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 
Frequencies for KIC 1435467.
Frequencies for KIC 2837475.
Frequencies for KIC 3424541.
Frequencies for KIC 3427720.
Frequencies for KIC 3632418.
Frequencies for KIC 3733735.
Frequencies for KIC 3735871.
Frequencies for KIC 5607242.
Frequencies for KIC 5955122.
Frequencies for KIC 6116048.
Frequencies for KIC 6508366.
Frequencies for KIC 6603624.
Frequencies for KIC 6679371.
continued.
Frequencies for KIC 6933899.
Frequencies for KIC 7103006.
Frequencies for KIC 7206837.
Frequencies for KIC 7341231.
Frequencies for KIC 7747078.
Frequencies for KIC 7799349.
Frequencies for KIC 7871531.
Frequencies for KIC 8006161.
Frequencies for KIC 8026226.
Frequencies for KIC 8228742.
Frequencies for KIC 8379927.
Frequencies for KIC 8394589.
Frequencies for KIC 8524425.
Frequencies for KIC 8694723.
Frequencies for KIC 8702606.
Frequencies for KIC 8760414.
Frequencies for KIC 9025370.
Frequencies for KIC 9098294.
Frequencies for KIC 9206432.
continued.
Frequencies for KIC 9410862.
Frequencies for KIC 9574283.
Frequencies for KIC 9812850.
Frequencies for KIC 9955598.
Frequencies for KIC 10018963.
Frequencies for KIC 10355856.
Frequencies for KIC 10454113.
Frequencies for KIC 10644253.
Frequencies for KIC 10909629.
Frequencies for KIC 10963065.
Frequencies for KIC 11026764.
Frequencies for KIC 11081729.
Frequencies for KIC 11193681.
Frequencies for KIC 11244118.
Frequencies for KIC 11253226.
Frequencies for KIC 11395018.
Frequencies for KIC 11414712.
Frequencies for KIC 11717120.
Frequencies for KIC 11771760.
Frequencies for KIC 11772920.
Frequencies for KIC 12009504.
Frequencies for KIC 12258514.
Frequencies for KIC 12317678.
Frequencies for KIC 12508433.
All Tables
All Figures
Fig. 1 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of two simple stars (KIC 3427720 and KIC 9139163). The power spectra are normalised by the background and smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. 2 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of two mixedmode stars (KIC 5955122 and KIC 12508433). The power spectra are normalised by the background and smoothed over 3 μHz. The l = 1 ridges are broken and pass through the l = 0 − 2 ridges; the plot on the left hand side shows an example of a mixedmode star with the l = 1 modes not aligned along a ridge but still passing through the l = 0 − 2 ridges. The plot on the right hand side shows a faint l = 3 ridge at 32 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. 3 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of two Flike stars (KIC 2837475 and KIC 6679371). The power spectra are normalised by the background and smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. 4 Large separation as a function of effective temperature for the stars in this study; (black) simple stars, (blue) mixedmode stars, (red) Flike stars, and ( ⊙ ) the Sun. The effective temperatures were derived from Pinsonneault et al. (2012) except where noted in Table 2. The uncertainties in the large separation represent the minimum and maximum variations with respect to the median measured in this study (see Table 2); some of these uncertainties are within the thicknesses of symbols. The dotted lines are evolutionary tracks for stars of mass from 0.8 M_{⊙} (farthest right) to 1.5 M_{⊙} (farthest left), in steps of 0.1 M_{⊙} derived from ChristensenDalsgaard & Houdek (2010) for solar metallicity. 

In the text 
Fig. 5 Detection of leftout modes. All power spectra are shown as a function of frequency smoothed over 20 bins. Before the refit: (top, left) power spectrum of KIC 9139163 with the fitted model with accepted modes (green) and with the guess frequencies provided by the fitters (orange lines). (Bottom, left) Power spectrum normalised to the fitted model; the orange horizontal line indicates the level at which the null hypothesis is rejected at the 1% level. After the refit: (top, right) power spectrum of KIC 9139163 with the fitted model for either accepted modes (green), rejected modes (red), or the guess frequencies provided a posteriori by the fitters (orange lines). (Bottom, right) Power spectrum normalised to the fitted model; the orange horizontal line indicates the level at which the null hypothesis is rejected at the 1% level. 

In the text 
Fig. 6 Smoothed power spectrum normalised to the detection x_{det} as a function of frequency for several smoothing factors (several colours; the redder the colour the higher the smoothing factor, which varies from 2 to 70 frequency bins). The short vertical black lines show the minimum and maximum frequency detected with a single smoothing factor and their associated posterior probabilities (p(x_{det}  H_{1})) for H_{1}, in %. When the frequency is detected several times to within 4 μHz, only the highest posterior is shown. The long vertical black lines show the minimum minimorum and maximum maximorum frequencies. 

In the text 
Fig. 7 Smoothed power spectrum normalised to the detection x_{det} as a function of frequency for several smoothing factor values (several colours; the redder and the higher the smoothing factor) for four stars (KIC 7106245, KIC 7976303, KIC 9139151, KIC 10162436). The short vertical black lines show the minimum and maximum frequency detected with a single smoothing factor with their associated posterior probability (p(x_{det}  H_{1})) for H_{1}, in %. When the frequency is detected several times within 4 μHz, only the highest posterior is shown. The long vertical black lines show the minimum minimorum and maximum maximorum frequencies. 

In the text 
Fig. A.1 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 1435467, KIC 2837475, KIC 3424541, KIC 3427720, KIC 3632418 and KIC 3733735. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. A.2 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 3735871, KIC 5607242, KIC 5955122, KIC 6116048, KIC 6508366 and KIC 6603624. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. A.3 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 6679371, KIC 6933899, KIC 7103006, KIC 7106245, KIC 7206837 and KIC 7341231. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. A.4 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 7747078, KIC 7799349, KIC 7871531, KIC 7976303, KIC 8006161 and KIC 8026226. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. A.5 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 8228742, KIC 8379927, KIC 8394589, KIC 8524425, KIC 8694723 and KIC 8702606. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. A.6 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 8760414, KIC 9025370, KIC 9098294, KIC 9139151, KIC 9139163 and KIC 9206432. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. A.7 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 9410862, KIC 9574283, KIC 9812850, KIC 9955598, KIC 10018963 and KIC 10162436. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. A.8 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 10355856, KIC 10454113, KIC 10644253, KIC 10909629, KIC 10963065 and KIC 11026764. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. A.9 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 11081729, KIC 11193681, KIC 11244118, KIC 11253226, KIC 11395018 and KIC 11414712. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Fig. A.10 Echelle diagrams of the power spectra of KIC 11717120, KIC 11771760, KIC 11772920, KIC 12009504, KIC 12258514 and KIC 12317678. The power spectra are normalised by the background and then smoothed over 3 μHz. 

In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.