The TESS–Keck Survey. XXIV. Outer Giants May Be More Prevalent in the Presence of Inner Small Planets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present the results of the Distant Giants Survey, a 3 yr radial velocity (RV) campaign to search for wide-separation giant planets orbiting Sun-like stars known to host an inner transiting planet. We defined a distant giant (DG) to have a = 1–10 au and M p sin i = 70–4000 M ⊕ = 0.2–12.5 M J , and required transiting planets to have a < 1 au and R p = 1–4 R ⊕ . We assembled our sample of 47 stars using a single selection function and observed each star at monthly intervals to obtain ≈30 RV observations per target. The final catalog includes a total of 12 distant companions: four giant planets detected during our survey, two previously known giant planets, and six objects of uncertain disposition identified through RV/astrometric accelerations. Statistically, half of the uncertain objects are planets and the remainder are stars/brown dwarfs. We calculated target-by-target completeness maps to account for missed planets. We found evidence for a moderate enhancement of DGs in the presence of close-in small planets (CSs), P(DG∣CS) = 31 - 11 + 12 %, over the field rate of P(DG) = 1 6 − 2 + 2 % . No enhancement is disfavored ( p ∼ 8%). In contrast to a previous study, we found no evidence that stellar metallicity raises the enhancement of P(DG∣CS) over P(DG). We found evidence that DG companions preferentially accompany shorter-period CS planets and have lower eccentricities than randomly selected giant planets. This points toward a nuanced picture of dynamically cool formation in which giants interact with, but do not disrupt, their inner systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".