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
9 min read

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/

Market Opportunity
CROSS Logo
CROSS Price(CROSS)
$0.10255
$0.10255$0.10255
-0.48%
USD
CROSS (CROSS) Live Price Chart
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.
Tags:

You May Also Like

Ultimea Unveils Skywave X100 Dual: 9.2.6 Wireless Home Theater Launching March 2026

Ultimea Unveils Skywave X100 Dual: 9.2.6 Wireless Home Theater Launching March 2026

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Calif., Feb. 12, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — Ultimea, a leader in immersive home entertainment, announces the upcoming launch of its next-generation flagship
Share
AI Journal2026/02/13 02:45
Why The Green Bay Packers Must Take The Cleveland Browns Seriously — As Hard As That Might Be

Why The Green Bay Packers Must Take The Cleveland Browns Seriously — As Hard As That Might Be

The post Why The Green Bay Packers Must Take The Cleveland Browns Seriously — As Hard As That Might Be appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Jordan Love and the Green Bay Packers are off to a 2-0 start. Getty Images The Green Bay Packers are, once again, one of the NFL’s better teams. The Cleveland Browns are, once again, one of the league’s doormats. It’s why unbeaten Green Bay (2-0) is a 8-point favorite at winless Cleveland (0-2) Sunday according to betmgm.com. The money line is also Green Bay -500. Most expect this to be a Packers’ rout, and it very well could be. But Green Bay knows taking anyone in this league for granted can prove costly. “I think if you look at their roster, the paper, who they have on that team, what they can do, they got a lot of talent and things can turn around quickly for them,” Packers safety Xavier McKinney said. “We just got to kind of keep that in mind and know we not just walking into something and they just going to lay down. That’s not what they going to do.” The Browns certainly haven’t laid down on defense. Far from. Cleveland is allowing an NFL-best 191.5 yards per game. The Browns gave up 141 yards to Cincinnati in Week 1, including just seven in the second half, but still lost, 17-16. Cleveland has given up an NFL-best 45.5 rushing yards per game and just 2.1 rushing yards per attempt. “The biggest thing is our defensive line is much, much improved over last year and I think we’ve got back to our personality,” defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz said recently. “When we play our best, our D-line leads us there as our engine.” The Browns rank third in the league in passing defense, allowing just 146.0 yards per game. Cleveland has also gone 30 straight games without allowing a 300-yard passer, the longest active streak in the NFL.…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:41
Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders

Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders

BitcoinWorld Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders The dynamic world of decentralized finance (DeFi) is constantly evolving, bringing forth new opportunities and innovations. A significant development is currently unfolding at Curve Finance, a leading decentralized exchange (DEX). Its founder, Michael Egorov, has put forth an exciting proposal designed to offer a more direct path for token holders to earn revenue. This initiative, centered around a new Curve Finance revenue sharing model, aims to bolster the value for those actively participating in the protocol’s governance. What is the “Yield Basis” Proposal and How Does it Work? At the core of this forward-thinking initiative is a new protocol dubbed Yield Basis. Michael Egorov introduced this concept on the CurveDAO governance forum, outlining a mechanism to distribute sustainable profits directly to CRV holders. Specifically, it targets those who stake their CRV tokens to gain veCRV, which are essential for governance participation within the Curve ecosystem. Let’s break down the initial steps of this innovative proposal: crvUSD Issuance: Before the Yield Basis protocol goes live, $60 million in crvUSD will be issued. Strategic Fund Allocation: The funds generated from the sale of these crvUSD tokens will be strategically deployed into three distinct Bitcoin-based liquidity pools: WBTC, cbBTC, and tBTC. Pool Capping: To ensure balanced risk and diversified exposure, each of these pools will be capped at $10 million. This carefully designed structure aims to establish a robust and consistent income stream, forming the bedrock of a sustainable Curve Finance revenue sharing mechanism. Why is This Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Significant for CRV Holders? This proposal marks a pivotal moment for CRV holders, particularly those dedicated to the long-term health and governance of Curve Finance. Historically, generating revenue for token holders in the DeFi space can often be complex. The Yield Basis proposal simplifies this by offering a more direct and transparent pathway to earnings. By staking CRV for veCRV, holders are not merely engaging in governance; they are now directly positioned to benefit from the protocol’s overall success. The significance of this development is multifaceted: Direct Profit Distribution: veCRV holders are set to receive a substantial share of the profits generated by the Yield Basis protocol. Incentivized Governance: This direct financial incentive encourages more users to stake their CRV, which in turn strengthens the protocol’s decentralized governance structure. Enhanced Value Proposition: The promise of sustainable revenue sharing could significantly boost the inherent value of holding and staking CRV tokens. Ultimately, this move underscores Curve Finance’s dedication to rewarding its committed community and ensuring the long-term vitality of its ecosystem through effective Curve Finance revenue sharing. Understanding the Mechanics: Profit Distribution and Ecosystem Support The distribution model for Yield Basis has been thoughtfully crafted to strike a balance between rewarding veCRV holders and supporting the wider Curve ecosystem. Under the terms of the proposal, a substantial portion of the value generated by Yield Basis will flow back to those who contribute to the protocol’s governance. Returns for veCRV Holders: A significant share, specifically between 35% and 65% of the value generated by Yield Basis, will be distributed to veCRV holders. This flexible range allows for dynamic adjustments based on market conditions and the protocol’s performance. Ecosystem Reserve: Crucially, 25% of the Yield Basis tokens will be reserved exclusively for the Curve ecosystem. This allocation can be utilized for various strategic purposes, such as funding ongoing development, issuing grants, or further incentivizing liquidity providers. This ensures the continuous growth and innovation of the platform. The proposal is currently undergoing a democratic vote on the CurveDAO governance forum, giving the community a direct voice in shaping the future of Curve Finance revenue sharing. The voting period is scheduled to conclude on September 24th. What’s Next for Curve Finance and CRV Holders? The proposed Yield Basis protocol represents a pioneering approach to sustainable revenue generation and community incentivization within the DeFi landscape. If approved by the community, this Curve Finance revenue sharing model has the potential to establish a new benchmark for how decentralized exchanges reward their most dedicated participants. It aims to foster a more robust and engaged community by directly linking governance participation with tangible financial benefits. This strategic move by Michael Egorov and the Curve Finance team highlights a strong commitment to innovation and strengthening the decentralized nature of the protocol. For CRV holders, a thorough understanding of this proposal is crucial for making informed decisions regarding their staking strategies and overall engagement with one of DeFi’s foundational platforms. FAQs about Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Q1: What is the main goal of the Yield Basis proposal? A1: The primary goal is to establish a more direct and sustainable way for CRV token holders who stake their tokens (receiving veCRV) to earn revenue from the Curve Finance protocol. Q2: How will funds be generated for the Yield Basis protocol? A2: Initially, $60 million in crvUSD will be issued and sold. The funds from this sale will then be allocated to three Bitcoin-based pools (WBTC, cbBTC, and tBTC), with each pool capped at $10 million, to generate profits. Q3: Who benefits from the Yield Basis revenue sharing? A3: The proposal states that between 35% and 65% of the value generated by Yield Basis will be returned to veCRV holders, who are CRV stakers participating in governance. Q4: What is the purpose of the 25% reserve for the Curve ecosystem? A4: This 25% reserve of Yield Basis tokens is intended to support the broader Curve ecosystem, potentially funding development, grants, or other initiatives that contribute to the platform’s growth and sustainability. Q5: When is the vote on the Yield Basis proposal? A5: A vote on the proposal is currently underway on the CurveDAO governance forum and is scheduled to run until September 24th. If you found this article insightful and valuable, please consider sharing it with your friends, colleagues, and followers on social media! Your support helps us continue to deliver important DeFi insights and analysis to a wider audience. To learn more about the latest DeFi market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping decentralized finance institutional adoption. This post Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 00:35