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

Shocking Crypto Scam Exposed: Group Referred to Prosecutors Over $4.3M Fraud

Shocking Crypto Scam Exposed: Group Referred to Prosecutors Over $4.3M Fraud

BitcoinWorld Shocking Crypto Scam Exposed: Group Referred to Prosecutors Over $4.3M Fraud The world of cryptocurrency, while offering exciting opportunities, also harbors significant risks. A recent incident in South Korea serves as a stark reminder, where a group accused of orchestrating a massive crypto scam has been referred to prosecutors. This alleged fraud, totaling 5.8 billion won (approximately $4.3 million), highlights the crucial need for vigilance among investors. Unpacking the Deception: How This Crypto Scam Unfolded According to reports from YTN, the accused group allegedly defrauded 27 unsuspecting investors through a series of elaborate tactics. Their scheme was not just about empty promises; it involved sophisticated manipulation designed to exploit trust and greed. Understanding these methods is key to recognizing potential red flags in the future. Price Manipulation: The ring reportedly manipulated the prices of certain digital coins, creating an artificial sense of value and growth. This tactic makes an investment seem more attractive than it truly is. False Exchange Listings: A major part of their deception involved falsely claiming that specific tokens would soon be listed on prominent cryptocurrency exchanges. Such listings typically lead to price surges, making these claims highly enticing to investors. Guaranteed Returns: Luring victims with promises of large, guaranteed returns on coins that the group personally vouched for was another core element. In the volatile crypto market, “guaranteed returns” are often a tell-tale sign of a scam. These methods collectively created a compelling illusion of a lucrative, low-risk investment, ultimately leading to significant financial losses for the victims. Who Were the Victims of This Massive Crypto Scam? The scale of this operation is considerable, impacting 27 individual investors who collectively lost millions. Each victim likely had hopes of financial growth, only to face the harsh reality of fraud. This incident underscores that even experienced individuals can fall prey to well-crafted schemes, especially when promises of quick wealth are involved. It’s a sobering reminder that the allure of rapid profits can sometimes overshadow critical due diligence. The referral of this group to prosecutors marks a significant step towards justice for those affected by this devastating crypto scam. Why Do These Crypto Scams Continue to Thrive? Despite increasing awareness, crypto scams unfortunately persist. Several factors contribute to their prevalence in the digital asset space: Market Volatility and Hype: The inherent volatility of the crypto market, combined with periods of intense hype, creates an environment ripe for exploitation. Investors eager for quick gains can become less cautious. Complexity and Information Asymmetry: Cryptocurrencies can be complex, and not all investors fully understand the underlying technology or market dynamics. Scammers leverage this knowledge gap. Regulatory Gaps: While regulations are evolving, the decentralized nature of crypto often means there are still gaps that fraudsters can exploit, especially across international borders. Anonymity: The pseudo-anonymous nature of some blockchain transactions can make it challenging to trace funds and identify perpetrators, emboldening criminals. Understanding these contributing factors is the first step in building a stronger defense against such fraudulent activities. Protecting Yourself: Actionable Insights Against Crypto Scams In a landscape where sophisticated fraud like this $4.3 million crypto scam can occur, proactive measures are essential. Here are vital steps you can take to safeguard your investments: Do Your Own Research (DYOR): Always thoroughly investigate any project or token before investing. Look for whitepapers, team backgrounds, community sentiment, and genuine utility. Be Skeptical of “Guaranteed Returns”: No legitimate investment, especially in crypto, can promise guaranteed high returns. If it sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. Verify Exchange Listings: Always check official exchange announcements directly on their websites, not through third-party claims or unofficial channels. Understand the Risks: Acknowledge that cryptocurrency investments carry inherent risks, and never invest more than you can afford to lose. Seek Independent Advice: If unsure, consult with a trusted financial advisor who understands the crypto market. By adopting a cautious and informed approach, investors can significantly reduce their vulnerability to fraudulent schemes. The Road Ahead: Legal Action and Investor Vigilance The referral of this group to South Korean prosecutors signals a commitment to tackling financial crime in the crypto sector. Legal actions like this are crucial not only for seeking justice for victims but also for deterring future fraudsters. However, legal processes can be lengthy and complex. Ultimately, the best defense against a crypto scam remains an educated and vigilant investor community. Staying informed about common scam tactics and adhering to best practices for digital asset security are paramount for navigating the evolving cryptocurrency landscape safely. This incident in South Korea serves as a powerful cautionary tale, reminding us that while the crypto market offers innovation, it also demands unwavering caution. Protecting your digital assets starts with awareness, thorough research, and a healthy dose of skepticism towards promises that seem too good to be true. Let this serve as a crucial lesson for all participants in the cryptocurrency space. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Crypto Scams Q1: What exactly is a crypto scam? A crypto scam is a fraudulent scheme designed to trick individuals into investing in fake cryptocurrencies, projects, or platforms, often with promises of high, guaranteed returns, leading to financial loss for the victims. Q2: How can I identify a potential crypto scam? Look for red flags such as guaranteed high returns, pressure to invest quickly, anonymous teams, vague project details, unofficial communication channels, and claims of exclusive access or listings that cannot be verified. Q3: What should I do if I suspect a crypto scam? If you suspect a scam, do not invest. If you have already invested, stop all communication with the perpetrators, gather all evidence, and report the incident to relevant financial authorities or law enforcement in your region. Q4: Are all cryptocurrencies risky investments? All investments carry some level of risk, and cryptocurrencies are known for their volatility. However, legitimate projects differ significantly from scams. Thorough research and understanding the inherent risks are crucial for any crypto investment. Q5: How can regulators help prevent crypto scams? Regulators play a vital role by establishing clear guidelines, enforcing anti-fraud laws, prosecuting offenders, and educating the public about the risks involved in cryptocurrency investments. International cooperation is also key to tackling cross-border scams. Stay informed and help protect others in the crypto community! If you found this article helpful, please share it on your social media platforms to raise awareness about the dangers of crypto scams and how to avoid them. To learn more about the latest cryptocurrency market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping investor safety and the future of digital assets. This post Shocking Crypto Scam Exposed: Group Referred to Prosecutors Over $4.3M Fraud first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/10/29 15:40