The sensitivity of TESS to transiting planets in TOIs with close-in stellar companions

High resolution imaging with optical speckle interferometry has revealed that many transiting exoplanet host stars possess close-in stellar companions. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

It matters because exoplanet science has moved beyond the era of simple discovery into a period of comparative characterization. With more than five thousand confirmed planets known, the scientifically productive questions now concern atmospheric composition, internal structure, orbital history and the statistical properties of populations rather than the existence of individual worlds. A new detection or spectral measurement is most valuable when it adds a well-constrained data point to those comparative frameworks, not when it stands alone as an anecdote. The objective of this study is to quantify how the presence of these companions impacts the ability of TESS to detect the transits of small planets. We accomplish this by examining 2052 TESS Objects of Interest (TOIs) that appear to be single-star systems based on speckle interferometric observations as well as 188 TOIs in.

For each planet, we take its transit signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), radius, and orbital period from the TOI catalog and, for planets in stellar binaries, we correct the radius for. By applying a scaling relation to the measured transit SNR of each TOI in our sample, we determine the detectability of transits in each TOI as a function of both planet radius.

When applied to the full sample, this procedure elucidates the sensitivity of TESS to transiting planets as a function of binarity, host-star spectral type, planet radius, and. These sensitivity grids quantify the bias against the detection of small planets in unresolved binaries by TESS and show that there is a particularly low sensitivity to planets.

These sensitivity grids are available for download to facilitate their use in other studies. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy.

The broader interest lies in making the target less anecdotal and more comparable with the rest of the known planetary population. Population-level questions, such as the frequency of atmospheres around small rocky planets or the prevalence of water-rich worlds in the habitable zone, require well-characterized individual data points before statistical patterns become meaningful. Each new planet with a measured radius, mass and, ideally, atmospheric constraint is a brick in that larger structure, and the accumulation of bricks eventually allows theorists to test formation models against real distributions rather than projections.

ArXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to improve independent constraints on the mass, radius, atmospheric composition and orbital dynamics of the target. Transmission spectroscopy with JWST, radial velocity campaigns with high-resolution ground-based spectrographs and phase-curve measurements from space photometry represent the observational toolkit that can move characterization from plausible to robust. That convergence of techniques is the standard the community now expects before a planetary atmosphere result is treated as confirmed. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source