Searching for Hot Water World Candidates with CHEOPS: Refining the radii and analysing the internal structures and atmospheric lifetimes of TOI-238 b and TOI-1685 b
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying the composition of exoplanets is one of the most promising approaches to observationally constrain planet formation and evolution processes. However, this endeavour is complicated for small exoplanets by the fact that a wide range of compositions is compatible with their bulk properties. To overcome this issue, we identify triangular regions in the mass-radius space where part of this degeneracy is lifted for close-in planets, since low-mass H/He envelopes would not be stable due to high-energy stellar irradiation. Planets in these Hot Water World triangles need to contain at least some heavier volatiles and are therefore interesting targets for atmospheric follow-up observations. We perform a demographic study to show that only few well-characterised planets in these regions are currently known and introduce our CHEOPS GTO programme aimed at identifying more of these potential hot water worlds. Here, we present CHEOPS observations for the first two targets of our programme, TOI-238 b and TOI-1685 b. Combined with TESS photometry and published RVs, we use the precise radii and masses of both planets to study their location relative to the corresponding Hot Water World triangles, perform an interior structure analysis and study the lifetimes of H/He and water-dominated atmospheres under these conditions. We find that TOI-238 b lies, at the 1-sigma level, inside the corresponding triangle. While a pure H/He atmosphere would have evaporated after 0.4-1.3 Myr, it is likely that a water-dominated atmosphere would have survived until the current age of the system, which makes TOI-238 b a promising hot water world candidate. Conversely, TOI-1685 b lies below the mass-radius model for a pure silicate planet, meaning that even though a water-dominated atmosphere would be compatible both with our internal structure and evaporation analysis, we cannot rule out the planet to be a bare core.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".