Vetting of 384 TESS Objects of Interest with TRICERATOPS and Statistical Validation of 12 Planet Candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present TRICERATOPS , a new Bayesian tool that can be used to vet and validate TESS Objects of Interest (TOIs). We test the tool on 68 TOIs that have been previously confirmed as planets or rejected as astrophysical false positives. By looking in the false-positive probability (FPP)−nearby false-positive probability (NFPP) plane, we define criteria that TOIs must meet to be classified as validated planets (FPP < 0.015 and NFPP < 10 −3 ), likely planets (FPP < 0.5 and NFPP < 10 −3 ), and likely nearby false positives (NFPP > 10 −1 ). We apply this procedure on 384 unclassified TOIs and statistically validate 12, classify 125 as likely planets, and classify 52 as likely nearby false positives. Of the 12 statistically validated planets, 9 are newly validated. TRICERATOPS is currently the only TESS vetting and validation tool that models transits from nearby contaminant stars in addition to the target star. We therefore encourage use of this tool to prioritize follow-up observations that confirm bona fide planets and identify false positives originating from nearby stars.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".