MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380359070 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd548

VaTEST. II. Statistical Validation of 11 TESS-detected Exoplanets Orbiting K-type Stars

2023· article· en· W4380359070 on OpenAlexaff
Priyashkumar Mistry, Kamlesh Pathak, Aniket Prasad, Georgios Lekkas, Surendra Bhattarai, Sarvesh Gharat, Mousam Maity, Dhruv Kumar, Karen A. Collins, Richard P. Schwarz, Christopher R. Mann, Elise Furlan, Steve B. Howell, David R. Ciardi, Allyson Bieryla, Elisabeth C. Matthews, Erica J. Gonzales, Carl Ziegler, Ian J. M. Crossfield, Steven Giacalone, Thiam-Guan Tan, Phil Evans, K. G. Hełminiak, Kevin I. Collins, Norio Narita, Akihiko Fukui, F. J. Pozuelos, Courtney D. Dressing, Abderahmane Soubkiou, Z. Benkhaldoun, Joshua E. Schlieder, Olga Suárez, Khalid Barkaoui, Ε. Πάλλη, F. Murgas, Gregor Srdoč, Maria V. Goliguzova, Ivan A. Strakhov, Crystal L. Gnilka, Kathryn V. Lester, Colin Littlefield, Nicholas J. Scott, Rachel A. Matson, M. Gillon, Emmanuël Jehin, Mathilde Timmermans, Mourad Ghachoui, Lyu Abe, Philippe Bendjoya, T. Guillot, A. H. M. J. Triaud

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersPrecursory Research for Embryonic Science and TechnologyAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónFonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’AgricultureJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceScience and Technology Facilities CouncilScience Mission DirectorateAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e ComunicaçõesInstitut Polaire Français Paul Emile VictorFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSMinistry of Science, ICT and Future PlanningSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungCalifornia Institute of TechnologyEuropean CommissionAmes Research CenterMinistry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian FederationFédération Wallonie-BruxellesKorea Astronomy and Space Science InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationSpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsExoplanetPhysicsNeptunePlanetAstronomyLight curvePlanetary systemAstrobiologyAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) is an all-sky survey mission designed to find transiting exoplanets orbiting nearby bright stars. It has identified more than 329 transiting exoplanets, and almost 6000 candidates remain unvalidated. In this manuscript, we discuss the findings from the ongoing Validation of Transiting Exoplanets using Statistical Tools (VaTEST) project, which aims to validate new exoplanets for further characterization. We validated 11 new exoplanets by examining the light curves of 24 candidates using the LATTE and TESS-Plot tools and computing the false-positive probabilities using the statistical validation tool TRICERATOPS . These include planets suitable for atmospheric characterization using transmission spectroscopy (TOI-2194b), emission spectroscopy (TOI-3082b and TOI-5704b) and for both transmission and emission spectroscopy (TOI-672b, TOI-1694b, and TOI-2443b). Our validated planets have one super-Earth (TOI-2194b) orbiting a bright ( V = 8.42 mag), metal-poor ([Fe/H] = −0.3720 ± 0.1) star, and one short-period Neptune-like planet (TOI-5704) in the hot-Neptune desert. In total, we validated one super-Earth, seven sub-Neptunes, one Neptune-like, and two sub-Saturn or super-Neptune-like exoplanets. Additionally, we identify five likely planet candidates (TOI-323, TOI-1180, TOI-2200, TOI-2408, and TOI-3913), which can be further studied to establish their planetary nature.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207