Catalogue cross-match · release 0.3 · 4 October 2026

Which prospective HWO stars still lack essential catalogue evidence?

A reproducible audit of 164 stars from the NASA Exoplanet Archive’s Direct Imaging ExEP Mission Star List, cross-matched to the Hipparcos–Gaia Catalog of Accelerations.

164candidate stars

104complete across four evidence categories

55missing only a WDS record

28FDR-significant accelerators without a listed planet

Interpretation boundary. Catalogue presence is not measurement quality. No WDS record is not evidence that a star is single. An HGCA acceleration does not identify a companion’s mass or nature.

Coverage is high—but uneven

Stellar parameters and activity are nearly complete. Multiplicity evidence, defined narrowly as a Washington Double Star catalogue record, is the dominant gap.

Bar chart: stellar parameters 164 of 164, activity 163, WDS record 109, and HGCA entry 160. — Figure 1. Per-category presence. The four categories are reported separately; they are not blended with scientific value into a target score.

Exact pattern

One gap explains most incomplete rows

Of 60 targets missing at least one category, 55 lack only a WDS record. Four lack only an HGCA entry; one lacks only activity.

Distance check

The nearby subset retains the gap

WDS-record coverage is 39/51 (76.5%) within 10 pc and 94/144 (65.3%) within 20 pc. These cumulative cuts are descriptive, not population inference.

Grouped bars showing evidence coverage within 10, 20, and 30 parsecs, alongside counts for four exact missingness patterns. — Figure 2. Cumulative distance strata and mutually exclusive missingness patterns, generated directly from the 164-row matrix.

Acceleration is evidence for follow-up—not classification

For 160 targets with an HGCA entry, χ² is converted to a two-degree-of-freedom survival probability. Benjamini–Hochberg adjustment is performed over those 160 non-null tests.

Ordered HGCA acceleration p-values; points are coloured by whether the archive lists a planet. — Figure 3. Forty targets cross raw p<0.01; 35 survive FDR control at q<0.01. Of these, 31 raw and 28 FDR-significant targets have no archive-listed planet.

This is not a discovery claim. “No archive-listed planet” does not mean “no companion.” Acceleration may arise from a stellar, brown-dwarf, or planetary-mass companion and requires external characterization.

Inspect every result

The exact source snapshots, checksums, per-target matrix, aggregate tables, and code are versioned together.

Evidence matrix164 per-target rows · CSV Missingness patternsExact joint patterns · CSV Distance strataCumulative cuts · CSV Statistical summaryDenominators and counts · JSON Source manifestURLs, dates, SHA-256 · JSON Source codeMethods, tests, provenance · GitHub

Scope and limitations

The sample is exactly the 164-star Mamajek & Stapelfeldt (2024) list—not every plausible HWO target.
WDS presence measures visual-binary catalogue coverage; it cannot rule out unresolved or spectroscopic companions.
Distance is shown as a transparent stratifier, not as a complete scientific-value model.
No official relationship with NASA, STScI, JPL, ExEP, CDS, or the HWO programme is implied.

Primary sources: Mamajek & Stapelfeldt (2024), ApJS 272, 32; Brandt (2021), ApJS 254, 42. Full provenance and claim-by-claim validation are included in the repository.