The methodology for sample selection, including filtering criteria for TESS Objects of Interest (TOIs) and cross-matching with Gaia DR3, is explained.The methodology for sample selection, including filtering criteria for TESS Objects of Interest (TOIs) and cross-matching with Gaia DR3, is explained.

How We Found Our Stars

2025/10/07 04:14

Abstract and 1 Introduction

  1. Sample selection and properties

  2. Results

  3. Discussion

  4. Concluding remarks and References

    Appendix A: Sample selection

    Appendix B: Properties of the TOIs in this work

    Appendix C: Pre-MS estimates

Appendix A: Sample selection

The description of the TOIs catalog is in Guerrero et al. (2021), but the updated list including 6977 TOIs[2] was taken as a departure point for selecting the sample. The previous list was initially filtered by only considering the sources that according with the TOIs catalog have: i) A light curve that is compatible with planetary transits (i.e., not rejected as false positives, not related with instrumental noise, or not classified as eclipsing binaries, with sources showing centroid offsets also discarded, stellar variables, or ambiguous planet candidates). ii) An orbital period of P < 10 days. For the few exceptions where two or more planets are associated to a given star, only the one with the shortest period was considered.

\ The resulting list was cross-matched with the Gaia DR3 catalog of astrophysical parameters produced by the Apsis processing (Creevey et al. 2023; Fouesneau et al. 2023). A radius of 1" was used to cross-match the TOIs and Gaia coordinates. A second filter was then applied, keeping the single sources that have: iii) Gaia DR3 values for L∗, M∗, and R∗. iv) An evolutionary status consistent with being in the MS (i.e., Gaia DR3 "evolution stage" parameter of ≤ 420). After the previous process, the initial number of TOIs is reduced by more than a factor of 3. Among the resulting list, 25 intermediate-mass stars with light curves having either a "confirmed planet" (CP) or "Kepler planet" (KP) status in the TOIs catalog were identified. These are all TOIs with Gaia DR3 masses > 1.5M⊙ and confirmed short-period planets (i.e., less massive than 13 MJup) currently identified in the Encyclopaedia of Exoplanetary Systems[3]. This sample was kept and the remaining intermediate-mass stars were further filtered as follows.

\

\ In addition, we selected the 298 low-mass stars with CP or KP status in the TOIs catalog and inferred planetary sizes compatible with giant, gas made planets similar to those around the intermediate-mass sample. This list results from the step iv described above, constituting all TOIs with Gaia DR3 masses ≤ 1.5 M⊙ and confirmed short-period planets, in accordance with the Encyclopaedia of Exoplanetary Systems.

\

Appendix B: Properties of the TOIs in this work

Table B.1 lists main parameters of the 47 TOIs with intermediate-mass stars analysed in this work. Values for the stellar luminosities, temperatures, masses and radii were taken from the Gaia DR3 catalog "I/355/paramp: 1D astrophysical parameters produced by the Apsis processing chain developed in Gaia DPAC CU8". Among the different estimates for the effective temperatures available in that catalog, we selected the ones derived from BP/RP spectra. The main reason for this selection is that such temperature estimates cover a larger sample of stars than the rest. In addition, we checked that relative errors are mostly < 10% when compared with effective temperatures derived from higher resolution spectra also available in that catalog. Errorbars for the stellar parameters refer to the lower (16%) and upper (84%) confidence levels listed in the Gaia DR3 catalog. The planet classification status come from the "EXOFOP disposition" column in the TOIs catalog, from which the orbital periods and errors were also taken. Planet radii were derived from the Rp/R∗ values in the TOIs catalog and the stellar radii in the Gaia DR3 catalog. The propagation of the corresponding uncertainties served to provide the final errorbars listed for the planet radii. Finally, orbital radii were derived from the Kepler’s third law assuming that the planet mass is negligible compared with the stellar mass. Errorbars come from the propagation of the uncertainties in the orbital periods from the TOIs catalog and in the stellar masses from the Gaia DR3 catalog.

\ Figure B.1 shows the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram of the TOIs, adding to the intermediate-mass sample the 298 lowmass stars. All these host planets with CP and KP classification status (Appendix A) and are plotted in red. Planets without such a classification around intermediate-mass stars (22 out of 47) are represented with blue squares. We also plotted the lower and upper dashed lines representing the beginning and the end of the MS phase (for details about the MS evolution, see, e.g., Salaris & Cassisi 2006). In addition, pre-MS tracks and isochrones from Siess et al. (2000) are indicated for a representative set of stellar masses and ages (see Appendix C).

\ With respect to the properties of the planets, Fig. B.2 shows the planetary radii and orbital periods for the TOIs in the sample. Planets around intermediate-and low-mass stars, as well as their classification status, are again indicated. Planet sizes in between that of Neptune and a few Jupiter radii homogeneously distribute along the whole range of periods for the intermediate and low-mass samples. Figure B.3 compares the distribution of orbital periods around intermediate- and low-mass stars. Planets around intermediate-mass stars peak at 1-2 days, contrasting with the “three-day pileup” of the population of hot Jupiters around low-mass stars observed here and, in the literature, (e.g., Yee & Winn 2023, and references therein). Apart from this, the distributions of periods are similar for both stellar mass regimes. Indeed, a two-sample K-S test does not reject the null hypothesis

\ Fig. B.1: Stellar luminosity vs temperature for all TOIs in this work. Intermediate- and low-mass stars are in blue and red, respectively. Intermediate-mass stars hosting planets with candidate status in Table B.1 are indicated with squares. The evolution along the MS is bracketed by the dashed lines, the bottom line being the ZAMS and the top line the end of the MS phase. Representative pre-MS tracks (dotted lines with the corresponding stellar masses indicated) and isochrones at 0, 1 and 3 Myr (green solid lines) are also indicated.

\ Fig. B.2: Planetary radii vs orbital periods for intermediate- (blue) and low-mass (red) TOIs in the sample. Planets around intermediate-mass stars with candidate status in Table B.1 are indicated with squares. For reference, the horizontal lines show the Neptune and Jupiter radii.

\ that the orbital periods around intermediate- and low-mass stars are drawn from the same parent distribution, at a significance level given by p-value = 0.0957.

\ The similarity between the distributions of TESS planet sizes and periods explored in this work (Figs. B.2 and B.3) suggests that the intermediate- and low-mass stars samples are similarly affected by potential observational biases. Thus, such biases should not originate the differences between both samples reported here (see Sect. 3).

\ Fig. B.3: Distributions of planetary orbital periods. The intermediate- and low-mass samples are in blue and red, as indicated in the legend.

\ Table B.1: Sample of intermediate-mass stars

\ Fig. C.1: Stellar luminosities (left) and radii (right) during the MS are compared with those inferred at 3 Myr for the TOIs considered in this work. The dashed lines indicates equal values in both axes. Intermediate- and low-mass stars are in blue and red, respectively

\

Appendix C: Pre-MS estimates

The Siess et al. (2000) isochrones provide, for a given age and metallicity, the corresponding values of the stellar parameters L∗, R∗, T∗, and M∗. In turn, the pre-MS evolution in the HR diagram can be inferred, for a given value of M∗ and metallicity, from the Siess et al. (2000) evolutionary tracks. Based on the Gaia DR3 stellar masses, the pre-MS values of L∗ and R∗ were inferred for each star in our sample using the 3 Myr isochrone from Siess et al. (2000), assuming solar metallicity. This isochrone is plotted in Fig. B.1, along with several representative evolutionary tracks. From this graphical perspective, the pre-MS values for a given stellar mass are inferred from the point where the 3 Myr isochrone and the corresponding evolutionary track coincide. Figure C.1 compares the MS luminosities and radii from Gaia DR3 with those estimated during the pre-MS at 3 Myr. Errorbars in the y-axes reflect the uncertainties in the Gaia DR3 stellar masses used to infer the pre-MS values of L∗ and R∗ based on the isochrone, and also take into account the fact that bins of 0.1M⊙ were assumed to be interpolated.

\ To estimate how disk dissipation timescales different than the typical 3 Myr affect our results and conclusions, we considered two cases. First, it was assumed that disk dissipation in intermediate-mass stars is faster than in low-mass stars. This difference has been suggested in earlier works indicating that disks around intermediate- and low-mass stars dissipate mostly at ∼ 1 Myr and ∼ 3 Myr, respectively (e.g., Ribas et al. 2015). The 1 Myr isochorne from Siess et al. (2000) is plotted in Figure B.1 along with the 3 Myr isochrone. For a typical intermediate-mass star with M∗ = 2M⊙, L∗ at 1 Myr is ∼ 0.2 dex larger than at 3 Myr. Because T∗ is slightly smaller at 1 Myr, R∗ at this age is larger by a factor ∼ 1.4 (0.1 dex) compared with that at 3 Myr. The net result is a slight displacement of the intermediate-mass stars to the right of both panels in Fig. 2, and to the left in Fig. 3. In other words, our conclusion that planetary orbits around intermediate-mass stars tend to be smaller than the dust-destruction radius and consistent with small magnetospheres would be reinforced under this scenario.

\

\ Fig. C.2: Planetary orbital radii versus MS stellar luminosities (left) and radii (right). Intermediate- and low-mass stars are in blue and red, respectively. In the left panel, the dashed line indicates the inner dust disk for a dust sublimation temperature of 1500 K. In the right panel, the dashed lines indicate the magnetospheric inner gas disk at 10, 7.5, 5, 2.5, and 1R∗.

\ Fig. C.3: Distributions of planetary orbital radii in terms of of MS stellar radii. The intermediate- and low-mass samples are in blue and red, as indicated in the legend.

\ In addition, compared with the previously discussed changes of the disk dissipation timescale, the use of metallicities that are different than solar or evolutionary tracks and isochrones different to those in Siess et al. (2000) have a negligible effect on the pre-MS values inferred for L∗ and R∗ (see, e.g., Siess et al. 2000; Stassun et al. 2014).

\ In summary, although different assumptions to infer the stellar luminosities and radii during disk dissipation have an effect on their specific values and related statistics, the general results and conclusions of this work remain unaltered.

:::info Authors:

(1) I. Mendigutía, Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), CSIC-INTA, Camino Bajo del Castillo s/n, 28692, Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain;

(2) J. Lillo-Box, Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), CSIC-INTA, Camino Bajo del Castillo s/n, 28692, Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain;

(3) M. Vioque, European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 2, D-85748 Garching bei München, Germany and Joint ALMA Observatory, Alonso de Córdova 3107, Vitacura, Santiago 763-0355, Chile;

(4) J. Maldonado, INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Palermo, Piazza del Parlamento 1, I-90134 Palermo, Italy;

(8) B. Montesinos, Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), CSIC-INTA, Camino Bajo del Castillo s/n, 28692, Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain;

(6) N. Huélamo, Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), CSIC-INTA, Camino Bajo del Castillo s/n, 28692, Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain;

(7) J. Wang, Departamento de Física Teórica, Módulo 15, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain.

:::


:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license.

:::

[2] https://tev.mit.edu/data/

\ .[3] https://exoplanet.eu/home/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Quantica Tech Builds Quantum-Resistant Crypto ‘BTCQ’

Quantica Tech Builds Quantum-Resistant Crypto ‘BTCQ’

The post Quantica Tech Builds Quantum-Resistant Crypto ‘BTCQ’ appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Highlights Quantica Tech announced the development of Quantic Bitcoin (BTCQ), which is a new cryptocurrency designed to be secure against future attacks from advanced quantum computers The project uses a quantum interoperability protocol to connect classical and quantum systems The announcement comes amid a major investment from big tech firms like IBM and Google On October 6, Portuguese quantum computing firm Quantica Tech announced the development of Quantic Bitcoin (BTCQ). It is a quantum interoperability protocol to connect traditional blockchain networks with a next-generation computing framework. What is Quantic Bitcoin  According to the official press release, the concept of BTCQ comes from Quantica Tech’s proprietary Quantum Interoperability protocol, which opens the door for communication between classical blockchains and quantum processing systems.  This hybrid architecture allows the network to integrate quantum computing advantages for complex tasks like transaction validation and smart contract execution while maintaining backward compatibility with existing infrastructure. The project uses the Quantic Algorithmization method, which takes its inspiration from quantum principles like superposition and entanglement to process probabilistic outcomes more efficiently than conventional systems.  Technically speaking, BTCQ works on a multi-layered structure. Its base layer maintains Bitcoin’s proof-of-work consensus mechanism. However, it replaces vulnerable cryptographic signatures with quantum-resistant alternatives based on NIST-approved post-quantum standards.  This provides Shor’s algorithm attacks that threaten conventional blockchain security. The network also uses emulators to run quantum algorithms on classical hardware during this transitional period. This removes the need for quantum computer access while preparing for full integration.  “At the foundation of Quantic Bitcoin lies Quantic Algorithmization, a new philosophy of algorithm design, inspired by quantum models. To demonstrate this approach, Quantica Tech successfully applied it to predict the outcome of the latest U.S. presidential election using real-time public data streams. The experiment accurately forecast both the electoral college and popular vote…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/10/07 08:09
Share
Genesis Lawsuit Threatens to Derail Grayscale’s Landmark $33B IPO

Genesis Lawsuit Threatens to Derail Grayscale’s Landmark $33B IPO

As Grayscale pushes ahead with plans for a $33 billion initial public offering, mounting legal troubles tied to the collapse of Genesis Global Capital are threatening to overshadow the milestone listing, according to the Financial Times. Barry Silbert, the founder of Digital Currency Group (DCG), is spearheading the effort to take Grayscale public, a move that would mark the first major public offering by a crypto asset manager. But ongoing lawsuits connected to Genesis’s bankruptcy continue to cast uncertainty over the process. DCG’s Legal Woes Deepen as Genesis Committee Files $1.2B Suits Ahead of Grayscale IPO Plans In May 2025, the Genesis Litigation Oversight Committee (LOC) filed two separate lawsuits, one in Delaware’s Court of Chancery and another in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Delaware complaint accuses Silbert, DCG, and other insiders of treating the insolvent Genesis as DCG’s “treasury,” alleging that the group “recklessly operated, exploited, and bankrupted Genesis.” The filing claims the defendants manipulated disclosures and misused creditor funds, while the LOC seeks “in-kind recovery of cryptocurrency” for creditors who had entrusted their assets to Genesis. The bankruptcy court complaint seeks to claw back more than $1.2 billion in transfers made prior to Genesis’s collapse, including what the committee described as improper payments under a “tax sharing agreement” that it argues never existed. DCG and Silbert have moved to dismiss the suits, maintaining that they acted in good faith amid a broader market crash that saw several crypto lenders fail. A DCG spokesperson said the company and its advisers “worked tirelessly to try and save Genesis and prevent its bankruptcy” during a period of widespread market distress. The renewed legal pressure comes as Silbert recently rejoined Grayscale’s board as chairman, reaffirming his role in steering the company’s IPO ambitions. Industry observers note that underwriters and regulators will closely scrutinize DCG’s financial entanglements with Genesis and its disclosures to investors before any public listing moves forward. The legal dispute traces back to the fallout from Three Arrows Capital’s collapse in June 2022, when the hedge fund defaulted on $2.36 billion in loans from Genesis. DCG stepped in with a $1.1 billion promissory note to offset the losses, but the arrangement has since become a flashpoint in multiple court battles. Genesis claims DCG and its executives used the note to obscure the true scale of the firm’s financial problems before bankruptcy. In response, DCG filed a countersuit in August 2025, seeking $1.1 billion in promissory note relief and $105 million in alleged overpayments. The parent company argues that recoveries from Three Arrows Capital, estimated at $2.8 billion by May 2024, automatically reduced the note’s value to zero under their agreement. DCG says it mistakenly continued to pay Genesis $106 million after the note was effectively void and is now seeking recovery of those funds. Legal Turmoil Casts Shadow Over Grayscale’s Landmark $33B Stock Market Debut Genesis, meanwhile, has pursued its own offensive, seeking $2.2 billion in digital assets and over $1 billion in allegedly fraudulent transfers through separate cases in Delaware and New York. The company accuses DCG of extracting $450 million in crypto assets and nearly $300 million in international transfers as Genesis faced mounting liquidity issues. Regulatory scrutiny has deepened the conflict. In January 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fined DCG $38 million and former Genesis CEO Michael Moro $500,000 for misleading investors about the company’s financial stability following the Three Arrows collapse. Court filings from the SEC case revealed that DCG executives were aware of over $1 billion in Genesis losses while continuing to present the business as solvent. The legal turmoil has also drawn in other entities connected to Genesis. In September, the FTX Recovery Trust filed a $1.15 billion lawsuit against Genesis Digital Assets, alleging that FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried used misappropriated exchange funds to buy Genesis Digital shares at inflated valuations between 2021 and 2022. Despite the deepening litigation, Grayscale is moving ahead with its listing plan. In June, the asset manager confidentially submitted documents to the U.S. SEC
Share
CryptoNews2025/10/07 07:57
Share