\section{Introduction}

Together with rotation, radius, and luminosity, age is a fundamental physical parameter for both stellar and exoplanetary fields, and its determination for a given star or planetary system is currently a key issue in astrophysics. In stellar physics, stellar rotation has been found to be involved in most of the physical mechanisms: magnetic field strength via dynamo effect \citep{Jouve07}, orbital evolution in planetary systems \citep{Bolmont16,Gallet18}, and stellar angular momentum evolution \citep{GB13,GB15}. Estimating the age of an isolated star or a star that belongs to a planetary system can thus help to constrain its internal structure and chemical species content (e.g. light elements such as Lithium), through the use of stellar evolution models, and to put boundary conditions on planet formation and migration models \citep{Ida08,Mordasini09,Mordasini12,Alibert13,Amard16,Gallet17,Amard19}. It also has an important role in adding constraints on the star-planet interaction efficiency and characteristic timescale \citep{Lanza11} that could help improve star-planet magnetic and tidal interaction scenarios \citep{Strugarek17,Gallet19,Benbakoura19}.

{However, stellar ages cannot be directly measured, except for the Sun, and as a consequence have to be inferred either from theoretical models (e.g. nucleocosmochronology) or by using empirical laws. {Gyrochronology \citep{Barnes03,Barnes07,Barnes10,Angus19} and magnetochronology \citep{Vidotto14} are two examples of empirical methods that use surface rotation period measurements and magnetic field strength estimation \citep[see][for a list of age estimation methods]{Soderblom10}}.}

Other model-dependant techniques can also be used such as isochrones fitting and main sequence turn-off ages, which both require accurate and precise stellar evolution codes. These techniques suffer from the presence of systematics that are linked to fitting accuracy and uncertain distances \citep{Lebreton14}. Moreover, they can only be used if there were no interactions between the star and its close environment during the main sequence phase. Indeed, in the case of past and already finished interactions, it is difficult to quantify the impact of these external interactions on the surface stellar rotation by only using the observations. Hence, it is hard to estimate the true and apparent age of the star. In that case, incompatible age estimations provided by different techniques could be found to be due to this external origin \citep[e.g.][]{Bonnefoy18}. However, for an on-going interaction, for example if a massive planet ($\rm M_p > 1~M_{jup}$) is seen in the vicinity of the star with a separation less than 0.1 au, these techniques can no longer be used since star-planet tidal interactions have most probably modified the evolution of the surface rotation rate during the system's evolution \citep{Gallet18,Qureshi18}. Consequently, and as predicted in the literature \citep{Maxted15,Penev18} and shown in \citet{Gallet19}, the ages of numerous star-planet systems are currently not known and might appear younger than they are because of tidal spin-up effects. In that case, it is yet possible to use tidal-chronology  to get the age of the system from the measurement of the rotation period of the star and the semi-major axis of its orbiting massive planet \citep[see][for a detailed presentation of the technique]{Gallet19}.

In \citet{Gallet19} we introduced and described the tidal-chronology technique. By applying it to the specific system WASP-43, we pointed out the significant discrepancy between tidal-chronological and gyrochronological age estimation induced by tidal spin-up. In \citet{Gallet19} we used a tailored model grid matching the specific observed properties of WASP-43 to perform this estimation. Since this process is time consuming because of the large initial parameter space of planetary systems to be explored, I decided to provide the community with a standalone tool dedicated to the estimation of the age of planetary systems (composed of one low-mass star and one massive close-in planet). This tool uses only the observation of the surface rotation rate of the host star and the current location of the planet orbiting it. This tool is based on a pre-computed generic grid in which the age of the user's system is interpolated, thus making the age estimation process easy and fast.

{This paper is separated as follows. In Sect. \ref{tatoo_principle}, I recall the basic principle of the tidal-chronology technique and describe the standalone tool TATOO  (Tidal-chronology Age TOOl). I then apply this tool to known planetary systems to estimate their age and compare them to classical gyrochronology ones. Finally, I discuss the results in Section \ref{discussion} and conclude in Section \ref{conclusion}.}

\section{TATOO: A standalone tool}
\label{tatoo_principle}

To properly estimate the age of a given system with the tidal-chronology technique (see next section), one needs to construct a dense tailored grid of a planetary system's evolution. This tailored grid should contain the evolution of the stellar rotation period $\rm P_{rot,\star}$ and planetary orbital period $\rm P_{orb,p}$ of a given system that matches the observed stellar $\rm M_\star$ and planetary $\rm M_{p}$ mass, and this for a large range of initial conditions of stellar rotation $\rm P_{\rm rot, init}$ and planetary orbital period $\rm P_{orb,init}$. Hence, for the fixed observed properties $\left\{ \rm M_\star;\rm M_{p} \right\}$ of the system, the tailored grid should explore every possible value of $\rm P_{orb,init}$ for each value of $\rm P_{\rm rot, init}$. {For example, in the case of WASP-43 that we investigated in \citet{Gallet19}, we used a 0.71 $\rm M_{\odot}$ stellar model and a 2.052 $\rm M_{\rm jup}$ mass planet for which we explored the initial conditions of the stellar rotation rate and orbital period. This tailored gird is thus only valid for planetary systems that are identical to the WASP-43 ones.}

The age of the system is then extracted from this tailored grid by using the observed pair $\left\{ \rm P_{rot,obs};\rm P_{orb,obs} \right\}$. However, this procedure is extremely time consuming and the resulting tailored grid is only valid for the considered planetary system corresponding to the observed couple $\left\{ \rm M_\star;\rm M_{p} \right\}$. A generic numerical tool is thus required to provide us with a faster estimate of the age of a given observed system. In this section, I present such a tool named TATOO (https://github.com/GalletFlorian/TATOO) and based on the work of \citet{Gallet19}.

To allow a clear reading of the paper, the nomenclature used in this work is explained below:
\begin{itemize}
        \item tailored grid, initial grid, pre-compiled age exploration grid: These are three different grids that will be introduced in the text.
        \item $\rm P_{rot,\star}$ and $\rm P_{orb,p}$: Without any specific label, they simply refer to the evolution of the stellar rotation and planetary orbital period.
        \item $\rm P_{rot,init}$ and $\rm P_{orb,init}$: The initial stellar rotation period and planetary orbital period used in the dense initial grid. They are distributed between 1-11 days and 0.1-1.1 $\rm P_{rot,init}$, respectively.
        \item $\rm P_{rot,i}$ and $\rm P_{orb,i}$: The stellar rotation period and planetary orbital period of the exploration grid. They are regularly distributed between 2 and 30 days, and 0.2 and 15 days, respectively (see Sect. \ref{principle}),
        \item $\rm P_{rot,obs}$ and $\rm P_{orb,obs}$: The stellar rotation period and planetary orbital period of the user's favourite observed planetary system.
\end{itemize}
In the next section, I reiterate the general principles of the tidal-chronology technique and how age estimation can be performed using such a technique.

\subsection{Basic principle of tidal-chronology}

In \citet{Gallet19}, and following the work of \citet{Gallet18}, we presented the concept of a new age estimation technique based only on the measurement of the surface rotation rate of the star and the location of a massive close-in planet around it: the tidal-chronology. In \citet{Gallet19} we demonstrated that the observed pair composed of the stellar rotation period ($\rm P_{rot,obs}$) and planetary orbital period ($\rm P_{orb,obs}$) of a given star and massive close-in planet system is only retrieved at a unique age or during a short range of time. We hence highlighted that this characteristic could be used to estimate the age of massive close-in planetary systems.

As mentioned above, a dense tailored grid of the evolution planetary systems first needs to be created. From this tailored grid, only systems in which the planet is still orbiting the star (i.e. systems that did not experience planetary engulfment) are selected and the ages at which the observed pair $\left\{ \rm P_{\rm rot,obs};\rm P_{orb,obs} \right\}$ is retrieved are extracted. To estimate the validity of this age estimate, in \citet{Gallet19} we introduced the $\rm S^2$ quantity that needs to be minimized
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm S^2 = \frac{(\rm P_{orb,p}-\rm P_{\rm orb,obs})^2}{ \rm \sigma_{\rm P_{orb,obs}}^2} + \frac{(\rm P_{\rm rot,\star}-\rm P_{\rm rot,obs})^2}{ \rm \sigma_{\rm P_{rot,obs}}^2},
\end{eqnarray}
where  $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{orb,obs}}$ and $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{rot,obs}}$ are the errors of the observed $\rm  P_{\rm orb,obs}$ and $\rm P_{rot,obs}$, and $\rm P_{rot,\star}$ and $\rm P_{orb,p}$ are the stellar rotation and planetary orbital period from the models. This method finally provides the most probable range for the age of the considered planetary system.

The model used in this work to create the tailored grid is PROBE (PeRiod and OrBital Evolution code), which is the combination of the stellar angular momentum evolution code JEVOL described in \citet{GB13,GB15} with the modified orbital evolution model used in \citet[][]{Bolmont16}. A detailed description of this model can be found in \citet[][]{Gallet18}. {To enable an easier reading of the paper, I will recall the main characteristics of the model.}

\subsubsection{Tidal dissipation }

{The tidal theory used in this work includes both equilibrium and dynamical tides and it is based on the tidal dissipation formalism described in \citet{Bolmont16} that is parametrized following the simplified model by \citet{Ogilvie13}. As in \citet{Bolmont16} and \citet{Gallet18}, only the frequency-averaged tidal dissipation is considered and the frequency response of the tides is neglected.} {Moreover, the dissipation of tidal inertial waves is only treated inside the convective envelope of the star \citep{Mathis15,Mathis16,Gallet17}}. {For now, the dissipation inside the planet's interior is not included as it is still hardly theoretically constrained. However, for Hot Jupiter cases with circular orbit, we can neglect this additional dissipation regarding the short characteristic timescales ($10^5$ yr) associated to the evolution of both their rotation rate and inclination angle \citep{Leconte10,Damiani18}. Finally, I neglected the impact of the magnetic star-planet interactions on the planetary orbit \citep[see][]{Strugarek17}, while it may have an effect on the rotational evolution of the central star during the early pre-main-sequence (hereafter PMS) phase \citep[][]{Strugarek19}.}
{The migration timescale of planets during the main-sequence (hereafter MS) phase could be shortened by the inclusion of these additional dissipations, which could slightly change the age estimation given by tidal-chronology.}

The impact of the evolution of the planetary orbit on the stellar angular momentum is evaluated using \citet[][]{Gallet17}, who provide an estimation of tidal dissipation effects induced by gravitational interactions between the central star and the orbiting body. {I note that this tidal formalism only allows the presence of one planet orbiting the star with a coplanar and circular orbit.}

\subsubsection{Stellar rotation}

{As pointed out in the previous section, the evolution of the planetary semi-major axis $a$ strongly depends on the evolution of the surface rotation rate of the star via its impact on the tidal dissipation intensity \citep{Mathis15,Mathis16,Gallet17,Bolmont17}. As a consequence, in that framework, modelling of the evolution of the stellar rotation should play a crucial role. In PROBE, the rotation rate of the star is modelled using the formalism described in \citet{GB13,GB15}.}

\subsubsection{Stellar model}

{The evolution of the internal structure and the main physical properties of the star are provided by the stellar evolution code STAREVOL \citep[see][and references therein]{Lagardeetal12,Amard16,Amard19}. {A detailed comparison between STAREVOL and similar stellar evolution codes \citep[including MESA, YREC, and PARSEC, see][ respectively]{Choi16,Spada11,Tognelli11} can be found in \citet{Amard19}. However, in this work I did not explore the possible impact of the choice of stellar model on the outcome of this standalone tool. } }

Finally, it is worth noting that as in gyrochronology, the tidal-chronology technique will provide degenerated solutions for a rotational period below ten days, which corresponds to a system younger than about 100 Myr.

\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Comparison between $\rm Age_{gyro}$ and $\rm Age_{tidal-gyro}$.}
\label{tabsystems_gyro}
\centering
        \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
        \hline
         Name & $\rm Age_{gyro}$ & $\rm Age_{tidal-gyro}$ & Deviation \\
         & (Myr) & (Myr) & \%  \\
        \hline
        \hline
WASP-23 & 1265$\pm$198 & 1269$\pm$176 & 0.3  \\
Kepler-423 & 2242$\pm$12 & 2267$\pm$14 & 1.1  \\
HD189733 & 695$\pm$1 & 704$\pm$5 & 1.4  \\
Qatar-1 & 2516$\pm$54 & 2559$\pm$54 & 1.7  \\
CoRoT-13 & 1661$\pm$631 & 1722$\pm$904 & 3.6  \\
WASP-46 & 1224$\pm$73 & 1273$\pm$73 & 3.9  \\
WASP-124 & 2378$\pm$698 & 2478$\pm$1047 & 4.1  \\
WASP-4 & 2498$\pm$57 & 2613$\pm$79 & 4.5  \\
HATS-15 & 699$\pm$94 & 733$\pm$165 & 4.8  \\
HATS-18 & 771$\pm$43 & 811$\pm$108 & 5.1  \\
WASP-57 & 1011$\pm$344 & 950$\pm$381 & 6.2  \\
WASP-140 & 634$\pm$32 & 677$\pm$64 & 6.5  \\
WASP-36 & 2107$\pm$733 & 2300$\pm$1058 & 8.7  \\
WASP-50 & 1416$\pm$51 & 1546$\pm$42 & 8.8  \\
NGTS-10 & 1068$\pm$25 & 964$\pm$27 & 10.3  \\
WASP-43 & 769$\pm$28 & 854$\pm$30 & 10.4  \\
CoRoT-29 & 1160$\pm$249 & 1300$\pm$264 & 11.4  \\
TrES-5 & 794$\pm$75 & 892$\pm$92 & 11.7  \\
HATS-2 & 841$\pm$39 & 949$\pm$42 & 12.0  \\
WASP-19 & 816$\pm$36 & 922$\pm$34 & 12.3  \\
HATS-30 & 1627$\pm$232 & 1861$\pm$304 & 13.5  \\
HAT-P-37 & 1298$\pm$232 & 1488$\pm$291 & 13.6  \\
WASP-10 & 608$\pm$3 & 519$\pm$6 & 15.7  \\
HATS-9 & 2094$\pm$395 & 2463$\pm$680 & 16.2  \\
HAT-P-53 & 2123$\pm$255 & 2500$\pm$419 & 16.3  \\
WASP-41 & 1940$\pm$56 & 2292$\pm$74 & 16.7  \\
WASP-80 & 1601$\pm$202 & 1352$\pm$222 & 16.9  \\
WASP-65 & 1176$\pm$203 & 1408$\pm$213 & 18.0  \\
WASP-135 & 823$\pm$154 & 990$\pm$243 & 18.4  \\
WASP-77-A & 1704$\pm$57 & 2130$\pm$72 & 22.2  \\
WASP-5 & 1803$\pm$267 & 2265$\pm$379 & 22.7  \\
HATS-34 & 956$\pm$158 & 1201$\pm$194 & 22.8  \\
WASP-44 & 1363$\pm$408 & 1721$\pm$496 & 23.2  \\
HAT-P-36 & 1781$\pm$57 & 2263$\pm$80 & 23.8  \\
WASP-85 & 1647$\pm$172 & 2107$\pm$226 & 24.5  \\
HATS-14 & 1023$\pm$328 & 1329$\pm$492 & 26.1  \\
HATS-33 & 2913$\pm$171 & 3970$\pm$306 & 30.7  \\
Qatar-2 & 538$\pm$24 & 390$\pm$47 & 31.9  \\
TrES-2 & 3364$\pm$3115 & 2348$\pm$2177 & 35.6  \\
HAT-P-43 & 4082$\pm$942 & 6040$\pm$1502 & 38.7  \\
WASP-64 & 1648$\pm$452 & 2442$\pm$612 & 38.9  \\
        \hline
        \end{tabular}
\end{table}

 \begin{figure*}[!ht]
    \centering
    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Schema1_porb}
        \caption{Four-nearest selection.}
    \end{subfigure}%
    ~
    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Schema2_porb}
        \caption{Creation of the three-dimensional map.}
    \end{subfigure}
    \caption{Schematic view of the neighbours technique.}
     \label{schema_all}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Principle}
\label{principle}
The initial step to use TATOO is first to model a very large range of generic planetary system evolutions (that will be called the initial grid in the following); then, from this initial grid, pre-compiled age exploration files are produced at specific pairs $\left\{  \rm P_{rot,i};\rm P_{orb,i} \right\}$ for each set of $\left\{ \rm M_{\star};\rm M_p \right\}$ masses explored in this work (that will be called the pre-compiled age exploration grid in the following). These specific pairs are regularly spaced in the  $\left\{ \rm P_{rot,\star};\rm P_{orb,p} \right\}$ space. TATOO heavily relies on this pre-compiled exploration grid as it will be used to interpolate the age of a given planetary system by using its observed properties $\left\{ \rm P_{rot,obs};\rm P_{orb,obs} \right\}$. I consider TATOO and PROBE as two different ``entities'' since TATOO can be used with any other grids as long as they follow the format of the current one.

{In contrast to the tailored grid introduced above, the initial grid is designed to be as generic as possible.} It is composed of stars between 0.5 and 1.0 $\rm M_{\odot}$ (with $\rm P_{rot,init}$ between 1 and 11 days) and planetary mass from 0.5 to 3.5 $\rm M_{jup}$ (with $\rm P_{orb,init}$ between 0.1 and 1.0 $\rm P_{rot,init}$). It is produced using the model presented in \citet{Gallet18}.
The range of stellar mass is adopted because the rotational evolution of these stars is well modelled. The initial rotation period $\rm P_{rot,init}$ is chosen to cover the observed range of rotation in the early-PMS cluster (million-year-old clusters  e.g. the Orion Nebulae Cluster and NGC6530). Finally the range of planetary mass between 0.5 to 3.5 is selected so as to ensure a good ratio between a strong enough tidal interaction and sufficiently numerous observed planetary systems in the literature. The upper planetary mass limit can be extended up to the brown dwarf limit (i.e. \textasciitilde\ 13 $\rm M_{jup}$) and the stellar mass range down to 0.3 and up to 1.2 $\rm M_{\odot}$. However, the lower limit of 0.5 $\rm M_{jup}$ is already a strong constraint. Indeed, a massive enough planet is needed in order to have a measurable impact on the rotation of the star through tidal interaction. Section \ref{limits} describes in more detail the limitations of the present tool (Fig. \ref{initialgrid} summarizes how the initial grid is created). {This grid cannot be directly used to extract the age of a given planetary system, except if the properties of this observed system already match one of the synthetic systems from the initial gird. In any other cases, an interpolation first needs to the realized.}

From this initial grid, I then extract the ages of the systems that fulfil the requirement $\rm S^2 \leq 100$ (voluntarily larger than the actual maximum critical $\rm S^2$ value, see Eq. \ref{ellipse}). This extraction is done for each stellar mass at the specific pairs $\left\{ \rm P_{rot,i};\rm P_{orb,i}\right\}$ and the results are stored in pre-compiled age exploration files as a function of the planet's mass: the pre-compiled age exploration grid.

{It is important to understand here that the initial grid and the pre-compiled age exploration grid are two different grids. The initial grid is composed of the temporal evolution of planetary systems, with given initial conditions, which are produced with the PROBE code. The pre-compiled age exploration grid is composed of the ages found from the initial grid at the specific pairs $\left\{ \rm P_{rot,i};\rm P_{orb,i} \right\}$ for a given $\rm M_{\star}$ star, but for the whole range of planetary masses $\rm M_p$. The interpolation in planetary mass to extract the age of the actual observed system is done in the pre-compiled age exploration grid.

The relation between the orbital period and the semi-major axis is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm P_{orb,p} = 2\pi \sqrt{\frac{\rm a^3}{\rm \mathcal{G}(M_{\star}+M_p)}},
\end{eqnarray}
but I note that even if the planetary distances are expressed in $\rm P_{orb,p}$ units, the model itself works with the semi-major axis, which is independent of the properties of the system. Indeed a given value of $\rm P_{orb,p}$ will correspond to different physical distances ($\rm a$) depending on the masses of the star and planet of the system.
In this work $\rm P_{rot,i}$ ranges from 2 to 30 days and $\rm P_{orb,i}$ from 0.36-0.51 days (semi-major axis = 0.01 au) to 10.67-15.11 days (semi-major axis = 0.095 au) are considered. I explored this range of $\rm P_{rot,i}$ for the exploration grid because most of the stars have a surface rotation period within 2-30 days between the PMS and the end of the MS phase \citep[see][]{GB13,GB15}. For $\rm P_{orb,i}$, I investigated planets with a semi-major axis $a$ from 0.095 au down to 0.01 au because below 0.01 au the planet is most probably engulfed by its host star, and beyond 0.05 au no tidal interaction and migration are expected given the planetary masses considered here.

Finally, TATOO follows these steps: \footnote{A detailed tutorial on how to use the tool can be found on the github repository of TATOO https://github.com/GalletFlorian/TATOO/.}
\begin{enumerate} %
        \item It attains the observed periods and masses ($\left\{ \rm P_{rot,obs};\rm P_{orb,obs};\rm M_{p};\rm M_{\star} \right\}$) together with error bars ($\rm \sigma_{P_{rot,obs}}$ and $\rm \sigma_{P_{orb,obs}}$) of the user's planetary system. {A draw is then done on $\rm P_{rot,obs}$ and $\rm P_{orb,obs}$ given $\rm \sigma_{P_{rot,obs}}$ and $\rm \sigma_{P_{orb,obs}}$. These random periods are used as the input $\rm P_{rot,obs}$ and $\rm P_{orb,obs}$.}
        \item Then TATOO finds the four synthetic pre-compiled age exploration files (defined by the values of $\rm P_{rot,i}$ and $\rm P_{orb,i}$) that encompass the observed $\left\{ \rm P_{rot,obs};\rm P_{orb,obs} \right\}$ pair.
        \item For each of these couples, linear interpolation on the age as a function of planetary mass is performed, which ends up with four numerical relations of the form: $\rm Age =  \theta_1\times M_{p} + \theta_0$ (with $\theta_1$ and $\theta_0$ two numerical constants) and four evaluations of the linearity via the Pearson coefficient $\rm Pe_{c}$.
        \item TATOO then finds the age of these four couples at the observed planetary mass, which creates a 3D map composed of $\left\{ \rm age;\rm P_{rot,i};\rm P_{orb,i} \right\}$ for the four nearest points. To assess the robustness of the final age estimation process, I introduced a quality number into the rest of this paper that depends on the value $\rm Pe_c$.
        \item Finally, TATOO uses a 3D interpolation method (Python-SciPy griddata routine) to provide the age of the requested system with the observed $\left\{ \rm P_{rot,obs};\rm P_{orb,obs};\rm M_{p};\rm M_{\star} \right\}$ quadruplet.
        \item Procedures 1 to 5 are repeated 100 times for the two stellar masses that border the observed stellar mass $\rm M_{\star}$ and the final age is given using a linear interpolation between the two explored masses. The error on this final age estimate is given from the standard deviation of these 100 age evaluations.
\end{enumerate}
Figure \ref{schema_all} describes the four nearest points selection method. In this framework, the correct definition of the $\rm S^2$ quantity is finally
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm S^2 = \frac{(\rm P_{orb,p}-\rm P_{orb,i})^2}{ \rm \sigma_{\rm P_{orb,p}}^2} + \frac{(\rm P_{\rm rot,\star}-\rm P_{\rm rot,i})^2}{ \rm \sigma_{\rm P_{rot,\star}}^2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{orb,p}} \sim 10^{-5} $ days (error on $a$: $\displaystyle \sigma_{ a}$ = 0.00018 au) and $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{rot,\star}} = 0.4$ days in this instance.

Given that the expression of $\rm S^2$ above is expressed in ``standard deviation units'', we can directly use it to define a critical $\rm S^2$ value. Since $\rm S^2$ is here a sum, we can consider an ``ellipse''  of semi-major axis $\rm 3\sigma$  defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ellipse}
\rm 1 = \left( \frac{  \rm P_{orb,p}-\rm P_{orb,i}   }{ \rm 3\sigma_{\rm P_{orb,p} }} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{  \rm P_{\rm rot,\star}-\rm P_{\rm rot,i}  }{ \rm 3\sigma_{\rm P_{rot,\star}}} \right)^2,
\end{eqnarray}
which then produces a threshold $\rm S_{lim}^2 =9$. In Table \ref{s2_lim} I explored the impact of the choice of $\rm S_{lim}^2$ on the age estimation.

\begin{table*}
\caption{Ages of known massive close-in planetary systems.}
\label{tabsystems}
\centering
        \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
        \hline
        Name & $\rm M_{\star}$ & $\rm M_{p}$ & $\rm P_{rot,obs}$  & $\rm P_{orb,obs}$ & $\rm Age_{gyro}$ & $\rm Age_{tidal}$ & Deviation & $\rm Pe_{c}$ & Quality\\
                                &       ($\rm M_{\odot}$) & ($\rm M_{jup}$) & (days)  & (days) & (Myr) & (Myr) & \% & &  \\
        \hline
        \multicolumn{10}{c|}{No tidal spin-up } \\
        \hline
WASP-140   & 0.90 & 2.44 & 10.4$\pm$0.5 & 2.24 & 634$\pm$32 & 564$\pm$124 & -11.8 & 0.33 & 34.55 \\
HATS-15    & 0.87 & 2.17 & 11.1$\pm$1.4 & 1.75 & 699$\pm$94 & 709$\pm$141 & 1.5 & 0.26 & 35.03 \\
WASP-80    & 0.58 & 0.54 & 23.5$\pm$3 & 3.07 & 1601$\pm$202 & 1341$\pm$187 & -17.7 & 0.41 & 37.17 \\
Qatar-2    & 0.74 & 2.49 & 11.4$\pm$0.5 & 1.34 & 538$\pm$24 & 413$\pm$41 & -26.4 & 0.41 & 40.07 \\
WASP-57    & 0.89 & 0.64 & 12.7$\pm$4.5 & 2.84 & 1011$\pm$344 & 957$\pm$518 & -5.6 & 0.51 & 61.85 \\
CoRoT-13 & 1.08 & 1.308 & 13.0$\pm$5 & 4.04 & 1661$\pm$631 & 2014$\pm$1009 & 19.2 & 0.76 & 62.00 \\
TrES-5     & 0.90 & 1.79 & 11.6$\pm$1.1 & 1.48 & 794$\pm$75 & 872$\pm$247 & 9.4 & 0.51 & 63.53 \\
HATS-34    & 0.95 & 0.94 & 12.2$\pm$1.8 & 2.11 & 956$\pm$158 & 1066$\pm$167 & 10.9 & 0.51 & 66.38 \\
WASP-23    & 0.78 & 0.88 & 17.7$\pm$2.7 & 2.94 & 1265$\pm$198 & 1238$\pm$179 & -2.1 & 0.51 & 66.92 \\
{HD189733} & 0.82 & 1.142 & 12.0$\pm$0.01 & 2.22 & 695$\pm$1 & 663$\pm$17 & -4.6 & 0.37 & 69.00 \\
WASP-4     & 0.89 & 1.22 & 22.2$\pm$0.5 & 1.34 & 2498$\pm$57 & 2695$\pm$164 & 7.6 & 0.64 & 76.43 \\
WASP-41    & 0.93 & 0.94 & 18.4$\pm$0.5 & 3.05 & 1940$\pm$56 & 2289$\pm$77 & 16.5 & 0.64 & 89.73 \\
TrES-2     & 0.98 & 1.2 & 25.3$\pm$19 & 2.47 & 3364$\pm$3115 & 2354$\pm$2698 & -35.3 & 0.8 & 90.87 \\
WASP-124   & 1.07 & 0.6 & 16.1$\pm$4.6 & 3.37 & 2378$\pm$698 & 2643$\pm$1077 & 10.6 & 0.8 & 92.45 \\
WASP-10 & 0.76 & 3.16 & 11.9$\pm$0.05 & 3.08 & 608$\pm$3 & 419$\pm$13 & -36.7 & 0.65 & 92.23 \\
WASP-50    & 0.89 & 1.47 & 16.3$\pm$0.5 & 1.96 & 1416$\pm$51 & 1662$\pm$50 & 16.0 & 0.64 & 93.24 \\
HAT-P-37   & 0.93 & 1.17 & 14.5$\pm$2.6 & 2.80 & 1298$\pm$232 & 1485$\pm$301 & 13.4 & 0.8 & 94.93 \\
Kepler-423 & 0.85 & 0.6 & 22.0$\pm$0.12 & 2.68 & 2242$\pm$12 & 2318$\pm$14 & 3.3 & 0.8 & 255.57 \\

        \hline
        \multicolumn{10}{c|}{Tidal spin-up } \\
        \hline
WASP-19    & 0.90 & 1.07 & 11.8$\pm$0.5 & 0.79 & 816$\pm$36 & 3789$\pm$404 & 129.2 & 0.41 & 39.38 \\
WASP-135   & 0.98 & 1.9 & 10.4$\pm$2 & 1.40 & 823$\pm$154 & 1811$\pm$554 & 75.0 & 0.51 & 63.27 \\
CoRoT-29   & 0.97 & 0.85 & 13.0$\pm$2.5 & 2.85 & 1160$\pm$249 & 1453$\pm$292 & 22.5 & 0.64 & 64.98 \\
WASP-65    & 0.93 & 1.55 & 14.2$\pm$2.1 & 2.31 & 1176$\pm$203 & 1563$\pm$285 & 28.3 & 0.64 & 65.48 \\
HAT-P-53   & 1.09 & 1.48 & 14.9$\pm$2 & 1.96 & 2123$\pm$255 & 3886$\pm$689 & 58.7 & 0.64 & 65.64 \\
HATS-30    & 1.09 & 0.71 & 13.0$\pm$1.7 & 3.17 & 1627$\pm$232 & 2027$\pm$293 & 21.9 & 0.51 & 66.92 \\
WASP-85 & 1.02 & 1.265 & 14.6$\pm$1.47 & 2.66 & 1647$\pm$172 & 2063$\pm$231 & 22.4 & 0.76 & 68.93 \\
WASP-36    & 1.08 & 2.36 & 15.0$\pm$5.5 & 1.54 & 2107$\pm$733 & 5710$\pm$4125 & 92.2 & 0.8 & 91.38 \\
HATS-14    & 0.97 & 1.07 & 12.4$\pm$3.9 & 2.77 & 1023$\pm$328 & 1296$\pm$598 & 23.5 & 0.8 & 92.17 \\
WASP-64    & 1.00 & 1.27 & 15.8$\pm$3.7 & 1.57 & 1648$\pm$452 & 3554$\pm$1629 & 73.3 & 0.8 & 92.18 \\
WASP-43 & 0.71 & 2.052 & 15.6$\pm$0.4 & 0.84 & 769$\pm$28 & 3199$\pm$1461 & 122.5 & 0.8 & 92.19 \\
WASP-5     & 0.96 & 1.58 & 17.1$\pm$2.5 & 1.63 & 1803$\pm$267 & 3726$\pm$1264 & 69.5 & 0.8 & 92.95 \\
HATS-9     & 1.03 & 0.84 & 16.6$\pm$3.3 & 1.92 & 2094$\pm$395 & 3544$\pm$1069 & 51.5 & 0.8 & 93.32 \\
WASP-44    & 0.95 & 0.89 & 14.7$\pm$4.3 & 2.42 & 1363$\pm$408 & 1692$\pm$469 & 21.5 & 0.8 & 93.61 \\
HAT-P-43   & 1.05 & 0.66 & 23.2$\pm$4.9 & 3.33 & 4082$\pm$942 & 5967$\pm$1345 & 37.5 & 0.8 & 94.44 \\
HATS-18    & 1.04 & 1.98 & 9.4$\pm$0.5 & 0.84 & 771$\pm$43 & 3393$\pm$94 & 126.0 & 0.51 & 96.10 \\
HATS-2     & 0.88 & 1.34 & 12.5$\pm$0.5 & 1.35 & 841$\pm$39 & 1357$\pm$35 & 47.0 & 0.51 & 98.77 \\
HATS-33    & 1.06 & 1.19 & 19.0$\pm$1 & 2.55 & 2913$\pm$171 & 4260$\pm$328 & 37.6 & 0.8 & 102.99 \\
WASP-46    & 0.83 & 1.91 & 16.1$\pm$1 & 1.43 & 1224$\pm$73 & 2153$\pm$127 & 55.0 & 0.8 & 106.95 \\
WASP-77-A  & 1.00 & 1.76 & 15.4$\pm$0.5 & 1.36 & 1704$\pm$57 & 4309$\pm$204 & 86.6 & 0.8 & 111.12 \\
HAT-P-36   & 1.02 & 1.83 & 15.3$\pm$0.5 & 1.33 & 1781$\pm$57 & 4888$\pm$213 & 93.2 & 0.8 & 112.95 \\
Qatar-1    & 0.84 & 1.29 & 23.7$\pm$0.5 & 1.42 & 2516$\pm$54 & 3377$\pm$36 & 29.2 & 0.41 & 123.81 \\
NGTS-10 & 0.70 & 2.162 & 17.3$\pm$0.4 & 0.77 & 1068$\pm$25 & 6117$\pm$6 & 140.5 & 0.9 & 1109.50 \\

        \hline
        \end{tabular}
    \begin{tablenotes}
      \small
      \item \textbf{Notes.}     All of these systems are from \citet{Maxted15} and \citet{Penev18}, except NGTS-10 that is from \citet{NGTS10}.
    \end{tablenotes}
\end{table*}

\subsection{Limitation}
\label{limits}

{In TATOO the age of the system is interpolated from the planetary mass after the interpolations in stellar mass, stellar rotation period, and planetary orbital period. The main problem with this tool is the assumption that there is a linear correlation between the age of the system and the mass of the planet.} To investigate the linearity of this relation, the Pearson correlation coefficient $\rm Pe_{c}$ between the mass of the planet $\rm M_{p}$ and the age of the system, for a given $\left\{ \rm P_{rot,i};\rm P_{orb,i};\rm M_{\star} \right\}$ triplet, is extracted from each synthetic pre-compiled age exploration file.
The Pearson correlation coefficient is a quantity that estimates the linear correlation between two variables; the closer this value is to one, the higher the linear correlation between these two variables is. Figure \ref{density} shows that most of the Pearson correlation coefficients{, extracted from the whole pre-compiled exploration grid,} are above 0.5 and close to 1. More than 64\% of the Pearson coefficient estimates calculated from the exploration files are above the moderate positive limit of 0.5, and the median of these estimates is 0.6 (average = 0.58). This suggests an actual linear correlation between $\rm M_{p}$ and the age of the system.

To fully assess the validity of the tidal-chronology technique, age estimates provided by TATOO should be compared to fundamentally independent age predictions such as ages based on asteroseismic data \citep[see][and all the work of Dr Bellinger related to asteroseismic age]{Bellinger19b}. {Unfortunately, this test will have to wait for the TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite) and PLATO (PLAnetary Transits and Oscillations of Stars). After that please use only the abbreviation. An abbreviation or acronym may be introduced if it is used more than three times in the Abstract and more than five times in the main text (otherwise spell out).} missions, since for now only a few asteroseismic age estimations exist the host stars of massive close-in planets. Indeed, most of these estimates are for red giant branch stars or for Kepler targets that are composed of either a planet that is not sufficiently massive  or one whose semi-major axis is too large.} {Moreover, most of the targets listed in Table \ref{tabsystems} are located in the southern hemisphere, while the Kepler observations and the asteroseismic data are for targets in the northern hemisphere. Hence, PLATO and the future TESS observations are fundamental to constrain and test the tidal-chronology technique.} {It is also worth noting that sometimes only the minimum mass of the planet can be estimated, this is the case for instance in a radial velocity survey. In those cases, only a lower age limit could be estimated via TATOO.}

Finally, it is important to be aware that even if the principle of tidal-chronology is a physical reality \citep[see][]{Gallet19}, the outcome of this technique is only valid in the framework of the considered hypothesis regarding the geometry of the system (coplanar and circular orbit) as well as in relation to how the tidal interaction is treated. Moreover, because of the nature of the initial grid delivered with this version, TATOO currently only works for planetary systems composed of a star between 0.5 and 1.0 $\rm M_{\odot}$ around which orbits a planet between 0.5 and 3.5 $\rm M_{jup}$.
\begin{figure*}[]
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{Test_Schema_v3.pdf}
    \caption{Three-dimensional plot between $\rm P_{orb,i}$, $\rm P_{rot,i}$, and the Pearson coefficient $\rm Pe_{c}$. The two additional two-dimensional plots display the density map of $\rm P_{orb,i}$ against $\rm Pe_{c}$ (left) and $\rm P_{rot,i}$ against $\rm Pe_{c}$ (right).}
    \label{density}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Simple gyrochronological mode}

I first investigate whether TATOO can be used as a simple gyrochronological tool. For this, the ages of the observed systems listed in Table \ref{tabsystems} are extracted using the same procedure as above but by considering a higher $\rm P_{orb,obs}$ for the planet so as to remove the impact of this latter on the surface rotation of the star. {These ages, hereafter named tidal-gyrochronological ages, are thus the counterpart of the empirical gyrochronological ages but are estimated using the full \citet{Gallet18} period and orbital evolution numerical model.} These tidal-gyrochronological ages ($\rm Age_{tidal-gyro}$) are listed in Table \ref{tabsystems_gyro}. For the gyrochronological ages, the tool and calibration provided by \citet{Angus15} were used. They are calibrated using the Kepler asteroseismic targets
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm Age_{gyro} = \left( \frac{P_{rot,obs}} { 0.4(\rm B-V-0.45)^{0.31} }  \right)^{1/0.55}~Myr,
\end{eqnarray}
with the (B-V)-mass relation that is given by the YREC (The Yale Rotating Stellar Evolution Code) isochrones extracted at 600 Myr for solar metallicity stars \citep[Z = 0.01757, see][]{YREC}\footnote{http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/iso/empirical.html}. {It is worth noticing that gyrochronology analysis can only be applied to systems with an actual age older than about 100-200 Myr for a 1.0 $\rm M_{\odot}$ star and 500-600 Myr for a 0.6 $\rm M_{\odot}$ star \citep{Barnes10,Delorme11}.} {The gyrochronological age estimates from \citet{Angus15} are on average 10\% smaller than the gyrochronological ages from \citet{Delorme11} used in \citet{Gallet19}.} {Each gyrochronological age estimate is the median of 100 evaluations using a random draw in the range of the observed $\rm \sigma_{P_{rot,\star}}$ of the actual stellar rotation period as the input rotation period; the error is given by the standard deviation of these 100 age estimations.}

{In Table \ref{tabsystems_gyro}, the {absolute} deviation between $\rm Age_{gyro}$ and $\rm Age_{tidal-gyro}$ is on average 15\%.
From these estimates, 34\% have an {absolute} deviation smaller than 10\%, 53\% have an {absolute} deviation smaller than 15\%, 70\% have an {absolute} deviation smaller than 20\%, and 85\% have an {absolute} deviation smaller than 25\%.} {The agreement between $\rm Age_{gyro}$ and $\rm Age_{tidal-gyro}$ is better by using the \citet{Delorme11} calibration. In that case, 70\% of the sample have an {absolute} deviation lower than 10\%, and 92\% lower than 25\%.} Table \ref{tabsystems_gyro} shows that there is a good agreement between the two techniques, gyrochronology and tidal-gyrochronology, which is interesting since these two methods are fundamentally opposed. Indeed, gyrochronology is based on observations (empirical method) while tidal-chronology is strongly based on a theoretical approach.

{The apparent agreement between these two age estimate paradigms validates the theoretical age determination employed by TATOO and shows that the model correctly works.} {It is even more interesting as empirical relations, such as gyrochronology, should in the long term be replaced by a theoretical-based model in which the physics is understood.}

\subsection{Application to several known systems}
\label{systems}

In this section, TATOO is used to estimate the age of several massive close-in planetary systems. These systems mostly come from \citet{Maxted15}, in which they compared isochrones to gyrochronological ages for various star-planets systems, and from \citet{Penev18}. In \citet{Maxted15}, they already highlighted the possible impact of tidal spin-up induced by the presence of a massive planet to explain the large discrepancies between isochrone and gyrochronological ages.

The properties of the planetary systems considered in this article are displayed in Table \ref{tabsystems}. This table also lists their estimated tidal-chronology and gyrochronology ages. {Systems for which the tidal-age is greater than the gyrochronological age by 20\% are considered to have been impacted by tidal spin-up.} {It seems that {a bit less than} half of these systems have a tidal age estimate close to the gyrochronological one.
The quality factor of each age estimation is defined as the sum between a value that depends on the value of $\rm Pe_{c}$ and the ratio between the age estimate and its standard deviation $\rm \sigma_{Age}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm Quality =
\frac{Age}{\sigma_{Age}} + \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ccc}
30 & \mbox{\rm if} & \rm Pe_{c} <0.5\\
60 & \mbox{\rm if} & 0.5<\rm Pe_{c}<0.8\\
90 & \mbox{\rm if} & \rm Pe_{c} \geq 0.8
\end{array}\right. .
\end{eqnarray}
The greatness of the age estimation increases with the value of the quality factor. {A quality factor above 60 indicates an intermediate quality while a quality factor of 90 is already a good estimate.}
\begin{table}
        \caption{Median precision of TATOO given the initial input conditions.}
        \label{precision}
        \centering
        \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
        \hline
        $\rm M_{\star}$ $\backslash$ $\rm M_{p}$  & 1 $\rm M_{jup}$ & 3 $\rm M_{jup}$ \\
        \hline
        \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{orb,obs}}$ = $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{rot,obs}}$ = 1, 3, 5 and 7\%} \\
        \hline
        0.5 $\rm M_{\odot}$ & 1.9 / 5.1 / -- / -- & 2.5 / 7.9 / 43.2 / 53.2 \\
        \hline
        0.6 $\rm M_{\odot}$ & 1.8 / 12.5 / 68.7 / 79.8 & 3.8 / 13.1 / 57.7 / 69.7 \\
        \hline
        0.7 $\rm M_{\odot}$ & 1.4 / 4.8 / 18.7 / 23.9 & 2.3 / 23.16 / 66.2 / 73.4 \\
        \hline
        0.8 $\rm M_{\odot}$ & 1.2 / 9.4 / 20.5 / 29.5 & 2.4 / 15.0 / 46.8 / 75.0 \\
        \hline
        0.9 $\rm M_{\odot}$ & 1.3 / 9.5 / 20.5 / 26.6 & 1.3 / 5.8 / 15.7 /23.9 \\
        \hline
        1.0 $\rm M_{\odot}$ & 1.27 / 7.2 / 15.5 / 59.5 & 2.1 / 7.1 / 16.8 / 25.5 \\
        \hline
        \end{tabular}
        \begin{tablenotes}
      \small
      \item \textbf{Notes.} The values are extracted for $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{orb,obs}}$ = $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{rot,obs}}$ = 1, 3, 5, and 7\%, respectively.

    \end{tablenotes}
\end{table}
{Table \ref{precision} shows the values of the precision of the age estimates extracted from TATOO as a function of the stellar and planetary mass, and on the input errors $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{rot,obs}}$ and $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{orb,obs}}$. With an error below 3\% on $\rm P_{rot,obs}$ and $\rm P_{orb,obs}$ the precision of TATOO is lower than 10\%. For a given value of $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{orb,obs}}$ and $\displaystyle \sigma_{\rm P_{rot,obs}}$, the precision of TATOO increases for increasing rotation period and orbital period.}

\section{Discussion}
\label{discussion}

The apparent existence of the linear relation between the age and the planetary mass of the system suggests that for some systems the heavier the planetary mass is, the older the system. It means that for two given planetary systems that are subject to tidal interaction, if they have the same set of observed properties then their age is proportional to the mass of their orbiting planet. Indeed, since  the orbital evolution timescale $\rm T_\star$ evolves as $\rm a^8$ \citep[see][]{Bolmont16}, then for a given $\rm P_{orb,obs}$ and stellar properties, if two massive planets are still observed orbiting close to their central star, then it means that the more massive planet has started its evolution at a greater $\rm P_{orb,init}$ than the less massive one, and that therefore this system is the oldest one.
\begin{figure}[]
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Test_0p7_0p02_16.pdf}
    \caption{Estimated age of a system composed of a 0.7 $\rm M_{\odot}$ with a rotation of 16 days as a function of the mass of the planet that is located at 0.02 au.}
    \label{relation}
\end{figure}
{For example, say that we want to get the age a system in which the star is a 0.7 $\rm M_{\odot}$ with a rotation of 16 days and that there is a planet of unknown mass orbiting this latter at 0.02 au. At such a small star-planet distance, we expect that the planet will be impacted by tidal interaction that will most probably induce inward migration. Since more massive planets evolve faster because the characteristic timescale $\rm T_{\star}$ decreases for increasing planetary mass, if two systems have the same properties  (same stellar mass $\rm M_{\star}$, same stellar rotation period $\rm P_{rot,\star}$, and same planetary orbital period $\rm P_{orb,p}$) then the age of the system increases for increasing planetary mass. This effect is depicted in Fig. \ref{relation}, which shows the estimated age of a system composed of a 0.7 $\rm M_{\odot}$ with a rotation period of 16 days as a function of the mass of the planet that is located at 0.02 au around the star. The colour gradient depicts the value of the $\rm S^2$.}

{In the sample explored in this article, half of the systems experienced tidal-spin up during their evolution. These systems are the ones, on average, with the highest ratio $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$ and $\rm R_{\rm co}$/$a$, where $\rm R_{\rm co}$ is the corotation radius defined as}
\begin{equation}
\label{corot}
\rm R_{\rm co} = \left( \displaystyle \frac{\mathcal{G} M_{\star} P_{rot,\star}^2 }{(2\pi)^2}  \right)^{1/3},
\end{equation}
{which is the distance at which the orbital period of the planet equals the rotation period of the star}. {For the tidal spin-up cases the averaged $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$ and $\rm R_{\rm co}$/$a$ ratios are around 9.2 and 1.24, respectively. For the non tidal spin-up cases the averaged $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$ and $\rm R_{\rm co}$/$a$ ratios are around 6.0 and 0.98, respectively.} {A ratio  of $\rm R_{\rm co}$/$a$ > 1.0 refers to a planet inside the corotation radius, which may indicate that this latter has had an impact on the surface rotation rate of its host's star. In all of the explored cases, $\rm P_{orb,p}$ is smaller than $\rm P_{rot,\star}$.}
\begin{figure}[]
        \centering
         \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Test_ratio.png}
    \caption{Deviation between tidal-chronology age and gyrochronology age as a function of the ratio $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$. The dashed line is a linear fit considering the full dataset. The dash-dotted line is also a linear fit but omitting the WASP-4 and Qatar-1 systems from the dataset. The red dots are the systems for which tidal-spin up is suspected while the blue dots are systems without tidal spin-up. The dashed line corresponds to a linear fit to the full data while the dash-dotted line is a linear fit to the same data but without the WASP-4 and Qatar-1 systems that are located in the lower-right corner of the plot (with a ratio \textasciitilde\ 16\% and a deviation lower about 7 and 30\%, respectively). The size of the points increases for increasing quality factor extracted from Table \ref{tabsystems}.}
    \label{ratio}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{ratio} shows the deviation between the age estimated with tidal-chronology and the one using gyrochronology as a function of the ratio $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$. The quantity $R^2$ is the coefficient of determination defined by
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle R^2 = 1 - \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left( y_i - f_i \right)^2}  {\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left( y_i - \bar{y} \right)^2},
\end{equation}
{with $y_i$ the data, $f_i$ the linear fit to the data, and $\bar{y}$ the data's averaged value. A perfect linear fit gives $R^2= 1$.} This figure shows that the deviation, which is linked to tidal spin-up, scales linearly with the ratio $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$: the higher this latter is, the stronger the deviation will be. The mass of the systems, both stellar and planetary, does not seems to affect this linearity. {This behaviour can be explained by the fact that an increasing $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$ corresponds to an increasing $\rm R_{\rm co}$/$a$ quantity that is linked to systems in which the planet is located increasingly close inside the corotation radius. Therefore, a high $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$ ratio system is expected to have experienced stronger tidal interaction and thus more powerful tidal spin-up effect.} From the linear fit in Fig. \ref{ratio} we can infer a limit around $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$ = 7 (corresponding to $a$ \textasciitilde\ 1.01 $\rm R_{\rm co}$) above which the deviation is larger than 20\% and therefore tidal-chronology should be used. {This trend could then suggest that either the orbital and rotational period of the WASP-4 and Qatar-1 systems are incorrect or that the deviation and age provided by TATOO for these systems are well underestimated. If this latter hypothesis is true, then these systems should be placed in the tidal spin-up region for which gyrochronological ages are biased.}
In the case of WASP-4, it seems that this system is highly sensitive to the $\rm S^2_{lim}$ value. Indeed, Table \ref{s2_lim} shows that the deviation for this system could reaches 50\% with $\rm S^2_{lim} =18$. However, the Qatar-1 system appears to be stable regarding the choice of $\rm S^2_{lim}$ , which could point towards a incorrectly estimated rotational period (assuming that the orbital period is correct). \citet{Covino13} reported a rotational period of 24$\pm$6 days for Qatar-1, which is very close to the 23.7$\pm$0.5 days found by \citet{Penev18} but with a higher deviation. This produces a tidal-age of 3728 Myr corresponding to a deviation of about 40\%. Given the orbital period of Qatar-1 b of 1.42 days, the ratio $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$ could range from 12.7 to 21, placing the Qatar-1 system in better agreement with the linear model.

{Finally TATOO, like gyrochronology, is also not well suited for measuring the age of binary systems in which an external torque due to the stellar companion could have been applied to the surface rotation of the primary body. This is probably the case in this work for the TrES-2 system, which is known to be a binary system. For this system the tidal-gyrochronological age differs by -35.6\% from the simple gyrochronological estimation. For this kind of system, the estimated age using tidal-chronology is most probably biased depending on the strength of the binary interaction.} {Removing this system from the sample increases the linearity of the fit up to $\rm R^2 = 0.5$ and reduces the tidal spin-up limit down to 6.74 corresponding to $a$ \textasciitilde\ 0.98 $\rm R_{\rm co}$.}

\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}

While the age of stars is a fundamental parameter that can strongly constrain on-going stellar and planetary models, it is currently the most uncertain one. It is especially true in the case of stars that are or were subject to tidal spin-up induced by the presence of a massive close-in companion. In those specific cases, gyrochronology analysis cannot be used without having a bias towards a younger age estimate. This apparent young age will then lead to an incorrect estimation of the system properties.

To solve this problem, this paper provides the astrophysical community with a standalone tool, based on the initial work of \citet{Gallet19}, which can be used to rapidly and easily get an estimate of the age of a given massive close-in planetary system. This method only requires information on the stellar and planetary fundamental parameters: $\rm M_{\star}$, $\rm M_{p}$, $\rm P_{rot,obs}$, $\rm P_{orb,obs}$. This interconnectivity between stellar and planetary characteristics clearly highlights the need for the stellar and planetary communities to systematically provide all the available properties of the star and planet of their systems of interest.

While the most recent techniques only consider isolated stars \citep{Angus19,Bellinger19}, TATOO is currently the only tool that proposes to estimate the age of massive close-in planetary systems by taking into account the possible impact of the star-planet tidal interaction on the rotational evolution of the stellar surface. {This tool can also be used even if no rotational departure is present. In that case, it gives results in agreement with the classical gyrochronological analysis.} However, as with isochrone fitting, TATOO is model dependent and relies on the physics adopted in the numerical model used to produce the initial grid \citep[here PROBE from][]{Gallet18}. Hence, this model dependence should be taken into account when choosing to use TATOO as an age estimation tool. In this work I found that half of the investigated massive close-in systems for which TATOO can be applied, are subject to tidal spin-up and therefore have biased gyrochronological age estimations. I point out that this bias strongly scales with the ratio $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$ , which therefore could be used to easily predict the correctness of the gyrochronological age estimates. According to the investigated systems, a ratio of $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p} \gtrsim$ 7 is the indication that tidal-chronology should be preferred to a simple gyrochronological tool. Indeed, above this limit the deviation between the two techniques starts to be greater than 20\%. {A list of such systems is given in Table \ref{system_tidal}}. Moreover, correct ages can be retrieved, even without tidal spin-up effect, by using TATOO. In that case TATOO provides age estimates in good agreement with the gyrochronology technique. This proves that tidal-chronology can be seen as a first-order correction of the impact of tidal interaction on gyrochronology.

\begin{table}
\caption{List of systems that may benefit from tidal-chronology over simple gyrochronology analysis.}
\label{system_tidal}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
        \hline
        Name & $\rm P_{rot,\star}$/$\rm P_{orb,p}$ \\
\hline
\hline
WASP-80 & 7.65$\pm$0.98 \\
Qatar-2 & 8.51$\pm$0.37 \\
TrES-5 & 7.84$\pm$0.74 \\
WASP-4 & 16.57$\pm$0.37 \\
TrES-2 & 10.24$\pm$7.69 \\
WASP-50 & 8.32$\pm$0.26 \\
Kepler-423 & 8.21$\pm$0.04 \\
WASP-19 & 14.94$\pm$0.63 \\
WASP-135 & 7.43$\pm$1.43 \\
HAT-P-53 & 7.60$\pm$1.02 \\
WASP-36 & 9.74$\pm$3.57 \\
WASP-64 & 10.06$\pm$2.36 \\
WASP-43 & 18.57$\pm$0.48 \\
WASP-5 & 10.49$\pm$1.53 \\
HATS-9 & 8.65$\pm$1.72 \\
HAT-P-43 & 6.97$\pm$1.47 \\
HATS-18 & 11.19$\pm$0.60 \\
HATS-2 & 9.26$\pm$0.37 \\
HATS-33 & 7.45$\pm$0.39 \\
WASP-46 & 11.26$\pm$0.70 \\
WASP-77-A & 11.32$\pm$0.37 \\
HAT-P-36 & 11.50$\pm$0.38 \\
Qatar-1 & 16.69$\pm$0.35 \\
NGTS-10 & 22.47$\pm$0.52 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Finally, in the framework of the next generation of space missions such as PLATO \citep{Plato} and TESS \citep{TESS}, TATOO will be a valuable age estimation tool as it will be crucial to have the best information on the planetary systems chosen as targets, including the estimation of their age, to fully interpret the data. {The recent work of \citet{Amard20} also shows that metallicity could have a non-negligible effect for example on the validity of the current gyrochronology calibrations. This suggests the need for a more detailed analysis of the stability of tidal-chronology regarding the metallicity of the planetary systems investigated. This should be done in future works and is currently beyond the aim of this present one.}

\begin{acknowledgements}
{F.G. thanks the anonymous referee for the constructive comments about this work that increased the quality of the paper.} F.G. thanks Dr. Marta Gonz\'{a}lez Garc\'{i}a for her precious help with statistical analysis and her comments on the article. F.G. is grateful to Dr. Philippe Delorme, Dr. Jacques Kluska, and Dr. Julien Rameau for helpful discussions and corrections regarding the content of the article. F.G acknowledges financial support from the CNES fellowship. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 742095; {\it SPIDI}: Star-Planets-Inner Disk-Interactions).
\end{acknowledgements}

\bibliographystyle{aa}


\section{Introduction}

Higher homological algebra emerged from the higher Auslander-Reiten theory by Iyama in \cite{I1, I2}. It has gained more and more attentions since the introduction of $(n+2)$-angulated categories by Geiss-Keller-Oppermann \cite{GKO}, and the introduction of $n$-abelian categories by Jasso \cite{Ja}. The $n$-versions of triangulated or abelian categories appear as an attempt to get a better understanding of cluster tilting subcategories: some $n$-cluster tilting subcategories in triangulated categories are $(n+2)$-angulated categories and $n$-cluster tilting subcategores in abelian categories are $n$-abelian categories.

Cluster tilting objects (or subcategories) and cluster categories provide insight into cluster algebras
and their related combinatorics. They have also been used to define a new kind
of tilting theory, known as \emph{cluster tilting theory}, which generalizes APR-tilting for
hereditary algebras. Recall that the notion of cluster tilting object and related objects from \cite{BMRRT,KR,KZ,IY}.

\begin{definition}
Let $\C$ be a triangulated category with a shift functor $\Sigma$.
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{1pt}
\item[\rm (1)] An object $T\in\C$ is called \emph{rigid} if ${\rm Hom}_{\C}(T, \Sigma T)=0$.

\item[\rm (2)] An object $T\in\C$ is called \emph{maximal rigid }if it is rigid and maximal with respect to the property:
$\add T=\{M\in\C\ |\ {\rm Hom}_{\C}(T\oplus M, \Sigma(T\oplus M))=0\}.$

\item[\rm (3)] An object $T\in\C$ is called \emph{cluster tilting} if
$$\add T=\{M\in\C\ |\ {\rm Hom}_{\C}(T, \Sigma M)=0\}=\{M\in\C\ |\ {\rm Hom}_{\C}(M, \Sigma T)=0\}.$$
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
In fact, Koenig and Zhu \cite[Lemma 3.2]{KZ} show that $T$ is cluster tilting if and only if $\Hom_{\C}(T,\Sigma T)=0$ and for any object $C\in\C$, there exists a triangle $T_0\to T_1\to C\to \Sigma T_0$ where $T_0,T_1\in\add T$.

Cluster tilting theory permitted to construct abelian categories from some
triangulated categories.
By Buan-Marsh-Reiten \cite[Theorem 2.2]{BMR} in cluster categories, by Keller-Reiten
\cite[Proposition 2.1]{KR} in the $2$-Calabi-Yau case, then by Koenig-Zhu \cite[Theorem 3.3]{KZ} and Iyama-Yoshino \cite[Corollary 6.5]{IY} in the general case, one can pass from triangulated categories to abelian categories by factoring out cluster tilting subcategories.  This permits to link cluster tilting objects in triangulated categories with tilting modules in the abelian quotient categories. In fact,
Adachi, Iyama and Reiten \cite{AIR} introduced the $\tau$-tilting theory for finite dimensional algebras. It is a generalization of classical tilting theory.
They proved that for a $2$-Calabi-Yau triangulated category $\C$ with a cluster tilting object $T$, there exists a
 bijection between the basic cluster tilting objects in $\C$ and the basic support $\tau$-tilting pairs in $\mod\End_\C(T)$.
Note that each cluster tilting object is maximal rigid in a $2$-Calabi-Yau triangulated category, but
the converse is not true in general. Zhou and Zhu \cite[Theorem 2.6]{ZhZ} proved that if $\C$ is a $2$-Calabi-Yau triangulated category with a cluster tilting object, then every maximal rigid object is cluster tilting.
The bijection above in a $2$-Calabi-Yau triangulated category was generalized to any triangulated category by Yang and Zhu \cite{YZ}. They introduced the notion of relative cluster tilting objects in a triangulated category $\C$ with a cluster tilting object, which are a generalization of cluster tilting objects. Let $\C$ be a triangulated category with a cluster tilting object $T$.
They established a one-to-one correspondence between the basic relative cluster tilting objects in $\C$ and the basic support $\tau$-tilting pairs in $\mod\End_\C(T)$. For more works on this line, please see \cite{CZZ,FGL,IJY,LX, YZZ, ZZ2}.

Now we recall some higher versions of the notions and results above.

In \cite{GKO}, Geiss, Keller and Oppermann introduced $(n+2)$-angulated categories. These are
are a higher dimensional analogue of triangulated categories,
 in the sense that triangles are replaced by $(n+2)$-angles, that is, morphism sequences of length $(n+2)$. Thus a $1$-angulated category is precisely a triangulated category. They appear for example as certain cluster tilting subcategories of triangulated categories.

The notion of cluster tilting objects can be generalised to $(n+2)$-angulated categories, it dues to Oppermann and Thomas.
\begin{definition}\cite[Definition 5.3]{OT}
Let $\C$ be an $(n+2)$-angulated category with an $n$-suspension
functor $\Sigma^n$. An object $T\in\C$ is called \emph{cluster tilting} if

(1) $\Hom_{\C}(T ,\Sigma^nT)=0$.

(2)  For any object $C\in\C$, there exists an $(n+2)$-angle
$$T_0\xrightarrow{~~}T_1\xrightarrow{~~}\cdots\xrightarrow{~~}T_{n-1}\xrightarrow{~~}T_n\xrightarrow{~~}C\xrightarrow{~~}\Sigma^n T_0$$
where $T_0, T_1,\cdots,T_{n}\in\add T$.
\end{definition}

Jacobsen and J{\o}rgensen introduced the notions of maximal $n$-rigid objects and $n$-self-perpendicular objects.

\begin{definition}\cite[Definitions 0.2 and 0.3]{JJ2}
Let $\C$ be an $(n+2)$-angulated category with an $n$-suspension
functor $\Sigma^n$.
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{1pt}
\item[\rm (1)] An object $T\in\C$ is called \emph{$n$-rigid} if ${\rm Hom}_{\C}(T, \Sigma^nT)=0$.

\item[\rm (2)] An object $T\in\C$ is called \emph{maximal $n$-rigid }if it is rigid and maximal with respect to the property:
$\add T=\{M\in\C\ |\ {\rm Hom}_{\C}(T\oplus M, \Sigma^n(T\oplus M))=0\}.$

\item[\rm (3)] An object $T\in\C$ is called \emph{$n$-self-perpendicular object} if
$$\add T=\{M\in\C\ |\ {\rm Hom}_{\C}(T,\Sigma^nM)=0\}=\{M\in\C\ |\ {\rm Hom}_{\C}(M,\Sigma^nT)=0\}.$$
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}

 There are also an $n$-version of the result that the quotient categories of triangulated categories by cluster tilting objects are abelian.

\begin{theorem}\emph{\cite[Theorem 0.5]{JJ1} and \cite[Theorem 3.8]{ZZ}}\label{y1}
Let $\C$ be an $(n+2)$-angulated category with an $n$-suspension
functor $\Sigma^n$ and $T$ an Opperman-Thomas cluster
tilting object with  endomorphism algebra $\Lambda=\End_{\C}(T)$.
Consider the essential image $\D$ of the functor $$\C(T,-)\colon\C \rightarrow\mod\Lambda.$$  Then $\D$ is an $n$-cluster tilting subcategory of $\mod\Lambda$. There exists a commutative diagram, as shown below, where the vertical arrow is the quotient functor and the diagonal arrow is an equivalence of categories:
$$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2.5]
\node (T) at (0,1) {\(\C\)};
\node (Tadd) at (0,0) {\(\C/\add\Sigma^n T\).};
\node (D) at (1,1) {\(\D\)};
\draw[->>] (T)--node[left]{} (Tadd);
\draw[->] (T)--node[above]{\(\scriptstyle{\C(T,~-)}\)} (D);
\draw[->] (Tadd)-- node[above, sloped] {\(\sim\)} (D);
\end{tikzpicture}$$
\end{theorem}

The category $\D$ is an $n$-abelian category in the sense of Jasso by \cite[Theorem 3.16]{Ja}.
By \cite[Theorem 2.3.1]{I1}, we know that $\D$ has an $n$-Auslander-Reiten
translation $\tau_n$, which is a higher analogue of the classic Auslander-Reiten translation $\tau$.
It is natural to ask if $\D$ permits a higher analogue of the $\tau$-tilting theory of \cite{AIR} for any $(n+2)$-angulated category.

In this article, we give  an affirmative answer to this question based on the work of Jacobsen and J{\o}rgensen \cite{JJ2}.

We introduce the notion of support $\tau_n$-tilting pairs which are a generalization of maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pairs.
At the same time, we also introduce the concepts of relative $n$-rigid objects, relative maximal $n$-rigid objects, relative $n$-self-perpendicular objects which can be regarded as the generalization of
$n$-rigid objects, maximal $n$-rigid objects, $n$-self-perpendicular objects, respectively.

Our main result is the following.

\begin{theorem}{\rm (}see Theorem {\rm \ref{main}} for details{\rm )}~
Let $\C$ be an $(n+2)$-angulated category with an $n$-suspension
functor $\Sigma^n$ and an Opperman-Thomas cluster
tilting object. Then there are three bijections
$$\left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of } \\
      \mbox{relative $n$-rigid objects in $\C$}
    \end{array}
  \right\}
  \rightarrow
  \left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of} \\
      \mbox{$\tau_n$-rigid pairs in $\D$}
    \end{array}
  \right\},$$
$$\left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of } \\
      \mbox{relative maximal $n$-rigid objects in $\C$}
    \end{array}
  \right\}
  \rightarrow
  \left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of} \\
      \mbox{support $\tau_n$-tilting pairs in $\D$}
    \end{array}
  \right\},$$
$$\left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of } \\
      \mbox{relative $n$-self-perpendicular objects in $\C$}
    \end{array}
  \right\}
  \rightarrow
  \left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of} \\
      \mbox{maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pairs in $\D$}
    \end{array}
  \right\}.$$
\end{theorem}

When $n=1$, this theorem covers \cite[Theorem 1.2]{YZ} and \cite[Theorem 1.1]{YZZ}. When $\C$ is an $2n$-Calabi-Yau $(n+2)$-angulated category, we show the following consequence which is a completion and generalisation of a recent result of Jacobsen and J{\o}rgensen \cite{JJ2}.

\begin{corollary} Let $\C$ be an $2n$-Calabi-Yau $(n+2)$-angulated category with an $n$-suspension
functor $\Sigma^n$ and an Opperman-Thomas cluster
tilting object. Then there are three bijections
$$\left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of } \\
      \mbox{$n$-rigid objects in $\C$}
    \end{array}
  \right\}
  \rightarrow
  \left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of} \\
      \mbox{$\tau_n$-rigid pairs in $\D$}
    \end{array}
  \right\},$$
$$\left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of } \\
      \mbox{maximal $n$-rigid objects in $\C$}
    \end{array}
  \right\}
  \rightarrow
  \left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of} \\
      \mbox{support $\tau_n$-tilting pairs in $\D$}
    \end{array}
  \right\},$$
$$\left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of } \\
      \mbox{$n$-self-perpendicular objects in $\C$}
    \end{array}
  \right\}
  \rightarrow
  \left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of} \\
      \mbox{maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pairs in $\D$}
    \end{array}
  \right\}.$$
\end{corollary}

This corollary is a generalisation of a recent result of Jacobsen and J{\o}rgensen: See Theorem \ref{main0} below.  When $n=1$, it is just the Theorem 4.1 in \cite{AIR}.

\begin{theorem}{\rm \cite[Theorem B and Theorem 1.1]{JJ2}}\label{main0}
Let $\C$ be a $2n$-Calabi-Yau $(n+2)$-angulated category with an $n$-suspension
functor $\Sigma^n$ and an Opperman-Thomas cluster
tilting object. If each indecomposable object of $\C$ is $n$-rigid, then

{\rm 1.} an object $X$ is $n$-self-perpendicular if and only if $X$ is maximal $n$-rigid;

{\rm 2.} there exists a bijection
$$\left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of } \\
      \mbox{maximal $n$-rigid objects in $\C$}
    \end{array}
  \right\}
  \rightarrow
  \left\{
    \begin{array}{cc}
      \mbox{isomorphism classes of} \\
      \mbox{maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pairs in $\D$}
    \end{array}
  \right\}.$$
\end{theorem}

This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review some elementary definitions
and facts about $\tau$-tilting theory and $(n+2)$-angulated categories.  In Section 3, we prove our main
result and give some applications.

\section{Preliminaries}
Let $\Lambda$ be a finite dimensional $k$-algebra and $\tau$ the Auslander-Reiten translation. We denote by $\proj\Lambda$ is the category of finitely generated projective right $\Lambda$-modules.
$|M|$ denotes the number of non-isomorphic indecomposable direct summands of $M$. Support $\tau$-tilting modules were introduced by Adachi, Iyama and Reiten \cite{AIR}, which can be regarded as a generalization of tilting modules.

\begin{definition}
Let $(M, P)$ be a pair with $M\in \mod\Lambda$ and $P\in \proj\Lambda$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $M$ is called $\tau${\rm -rigid} if {\rm Hom}$_{\Lambda}(M,\tau M)=0$.

 \item[(2)] $(M, P)$ is called a $\tau${\rm -rigid pair} if $M$ is $\tau$-rigid and {\rm Hom}$_{\Lambda}(P, M)=0$.
\item[(3)] $(M, P)$ is called a {\rm support $\tau$-tilting pair} if it is a $\tau$-rigid pair and $|M|+|P|=|\Lambda|$.
In this case, $M$ is called a {\rm support $\tau$-tilting module}.
\end{itemize}

Adachi, Iyama and Reiten gave some equivalent characterizations of support $\tau$-tilting pairs.

\begin{remark}\cite[Corollary 2.13]{AIR}\label{rem1}
Let $(M, P)$ be a $\tau$-rigid pair. Then the following statements are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $(M,P)$ is a support $\tau$-tilting pair.

\item[(b)] If $(M\oplus N, P)$ is a $\tau$-rigid pair for any $N\in\mod\Lambda$, then $N\in\add M$.

\item[(c)] If $\Hom_{\Lambda}(M,\tau N)=0,\Hom_{\Lambda}(N,\tau M)=0$ and $\Hom_{\Lambda}(P,N)=0$,
then $N\in\add M$.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\end{definition}

We give the fact which will be used later.

\begin{lemma}{\rm \cite[Proposition 2.2]{JK}}\label{exact}
Let $\D$ be an $n$-cluster tilting subcategory of $\mod\Lambda$.

{\rm (a)}~ If~ $0\to L\to M_1\to M_2\to \cdots\to M_n$~ is
an exact sequence in $\mod\Lambda$ whose terms all lie in $\D$, then, for any $X\in\D$ there
exists the following exact sequence in $\mod\Lambda$
$$0\to{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(X,L)\to{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(X,M_1)\to{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(X,M_2)\to\cdots\to{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(X,M_n).$$

{\rm (b)}~ If~ $M_1\to M_2\to \cdots\to M_n\to N\to 0$~ is
an exact sequence in $\mod\Lambda$ whose terms all lie in $\D$, then, for any $Y\in\D$ there
exists the following exact sequence in $\mod\Lambda$
$$0\to{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(N,Y)\to{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(M_n,N)\to{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(M_{n-1},N)\to\cdots\to{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(M_1,N).$$
\end{lemma}

Jasso \cite{Ja} introduced $n$-abelian categories which are categories inhabited
by certain exact sequences with $n+2$ terms, called $n$-exact sequences. The case $n=1$
corresponds to the classical concepts of abelian categories. An important source of examples of $n$-abelian categories are $n$-cluster tilting subcategories of abelian categories. Hence it deals with $n$-cluster tilting subcategories of abelian categories.
For example, J{\o}rgensen introduced the notion of torsion classes in $n$-abelian categories, and
established the bijection between intermediate aisles and torsion classes in $n$-abelian categories associated to $n$-representation finite
algebras, see \cite[Theorem 8.5]{J}.

Recall that an $n$-abelian category in the sense of Jasso \cite[Definition 3.1]{Ja} $\M$ is \emph{projectively generated} if for every objects $M\in\M$ there exists a projective object $P\in \M$ and an epimorphism $f\colon P \to M$.
Building on work of Jasso \cite[Theorem 3.20]{Ja}, Kvamme \cite[Theorem 1.3]{K} proved that any projectively
generated $n$-abelian category is equivalent to a $n$-cluster tilting subcategory of an abelian category $\A$ with enough projectives.

We define a higher analogue of the $\tau$-tilting theory of \cite{AIR} for any $n$-abelian category.

\begin{definition}\label{tilting}
Let $\M$ be a projectively generated $n$-abelian category with an $n$-Auslander-Reiten translation $\tau_n$.
By the discussion above,  $\M$ is equivalent to a $n$-cluster tilting subcategory of an abelian category $\A$ with enough projectives. We denote by $\P$ the full subcategory of projective objects in $\A$.
Assume that $(M,P)$ is a pair with $M\in\M$ and $P\in\P$.
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{1pt}
\item[(1)] An object $M\in\M$ is called $\tau_n$-rigid if $\Hom_{\A}(M, \tau_nM)=0$.

\item[(2)] $(M,P)$ is called a $\tau_n$-rigid pair in $\A$ if
$M$ is $\tau_n$-rigid and $\Hom_{\A}(P,M)=0$.

\item[(3)] $(M,P)$ is called a maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pair in $\A$ if
it satisfies:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{1pt}
\item[(i)] If $N\in\M$, then
$$N\in\add M\Longleftrightarrow
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\Hom_{\A}(M,\tau_n N)=0,\\
\Hom_{\A}(N,\tau_nM)=0,\\
\Hom_{\A}(P,N)=0.
\end{array}
\right.$$

\item[(ii)] If $Q\in\P$, then
$$Q\in\add P\Longleftrightarrow\Hom_{\A}(Q,M)=0.$$
\end{itemize}

\item[\rm (4)]A $\tau_n$-rigid pair $(M,P)$ is called support $\tau_n$-tilting pair if it satisfies
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $(M\oplus N, P)$ is a $\tau_n$-rigid pair for any $N\in\M$, then $N\in\add M$.
\item[(ii)] If $Q\in\P$, then
$$Q\in\add P\Longleftrightarrow\Hom_{\A}(Q,M)=0.$$
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}

\begin{remark} It is obvious that a maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pair is a support $\tau_n$-tilting pair, and a support $\tau_n$-tilting pair is a $\tau_n$-rigid pair. It will be seen that all the reverse statements are not true in general, see explanation at the end of this article.\end{remark}

Let $k$ be a field and $n$ a positive integer.
In what follows, we assume that $\C$ is a $k$-linear Hom-finite $(n+2)$-angulated category with split
idempotents. The $n$-suspension functor of $\C$ is denoted by $\Sigma^n$.
We let $T$ be an Oppermann-Thomas cluster tilting object in $\C$ with  endomorphism algebra $\Lambda=\End_{\C}(T)$.
We denote by $\D$ the essential image of the functor $\C(T, -)\colon \C\to\mod\Lambda$, where $\mod\Lambda$ is the category
of finite dimensional right $\Lambda$-modules.  For any object
$M\in\C$, we denote by $\add M$ the full subcategory of $\C$ consisting of direct summands of
direct sum of finitely many copies of $M$.

\begin{remark}
Jacobsen-J{\o}rgensen \cite[Theorem 0.5]{JJ1} and Zhou-Zhu \cite[Theorem 3.8]{ZZ} show that
$\D$ is a projectively generated $n$-abelian category with an $n$-Auslander-Reiten translation $\tau_n$. Moreover,
it is equivalent to a $n$-cluster tilting subcategory of a module category $\mod\Lambda$.
In this case, the items (1), (2) and (3) in Definition \ref{tilting} are precisely define by
Jacobsen-J{\o}rgensen \cite[Definition 0.6 and Definition 0.7]{JJ2}.
Note that when $n=1$, by \cite[Proposition 2.3]{AIR} and Remark \ref{rem1}, we know that $(M, P)$ is a maximal $\tau_1$-rigid pair if and
only if it is a support $\tau$-tilting pair, and $(M, P)$ is a support $\tau_1$-rigid pair if and
only if it is a support $\tau$-tilting pair.
Hence support $\tau_n$-tilting pairs can be viewed as higher support $\tau$-tilting pairs.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\label{rem2}\cite[Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2]{JJ1}

(1)~ The functor $\C(T, -)$ restricts to an equivalence $\add T\to\proj\Lambda$.

(2)~ $\C(T', X)\simeq \Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T, T'),\C(T, X))$ for any $T'\in\add T$ and $X\in\C$.
\end{remark}

\medskip

The following observation is useful in the sequel.

\begin{lemma}\label{rigid}
Let $M, N\in\D$ and
$$P_n\xrightarrow{d_n}P_{n-1}\xrightarrow{d_{n-1}}\cdots\xrightarrow{d_2}P_1\xrightarrow{d_1}P_0
\xrightarrow{d_0}M\xrightarrow{~}0$$
be a minimal projective resolution of $M$. Then
${\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(M,\tau_n N)=0$ if and only if the map
$${\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(P_{n-1},M)\xrightarrow{~{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(d_n,\,N)~}{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(P_{n},M)$$
is surjective.  In particular, $M$ is $\tau_n$-rigid if and only if the map
$${\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(P_{n-1},M)\xrightarrow{~{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(d_n,\,M)~}{\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(P_{n},M)$$
is surjective.
\end{lemma}

\proof Since
$P_n\xrightarrow{d_n}P_{n-1}\xrightarrow{d_{n-1}}\cdots\xrightarrow{d_2}P_1\xrightarrow{d_1}P_0
\xrightarrow{d_0}M\xrightarrow{~}0$
is a minimal projective resolution of $M$, by definition, there exists a complex
$$0\xrightarrow{~}\tau_nM\xrightarrow{~}D(P_n,\Lambda)\xrightarrow{~}D(P_{n-1},\Lambda)
\xrightarrow{~}\cdots\xrightarrow{~}D(P_1,\Lambda)\xrightarrow{~}D(P_0,\Lambda),$$
where we omitted $\Hom_{\Lambda}$ because of lack of space. We claim that it is exact.
Indeed, for all $i\in\{1,2,\cdots,n-1\}$ the cohomology of the above complex at
$D\Hom_{\Lambda}(P^i,\Lambda)$ is isomorphic to $D{\rm Ext}^i_{\Lambda}(M,\Lambda)$
and hence vanishes since $M$ and $\Lambda$ belong to $\D$.

By Lemma \ref{exact}, we have
a commutative diagram of exact sequences.
$$\xymatrix{0\ar[r]&(M,\tau_nN)\ar[r]&(N,D(P^n,\Lambda))\ar[r]\ar[d]^{\wr}&(N,D(P^{n-1},\Lambda))\ar[r]\ar[d]^{\wr}&\cdots\ar[r]&(N,D(P^0,\Lambda))\ar[d]^{\wr}&&\\
&&D(P_n, N)\ar[r]^{D(d_n,\, N)\;\;}&D(P^{n-1},N)\ar[r]&\cdots\ar[r]&D(P^{0},N).}$
Thus the assertion follows.  \qed

\begin{lemma}{\rm \cite[Lemma 2.2]{JJ2}}\label{rad}
If $M\in\C$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$, then there exists an
$(n+2)$-angle
$$T_0\xrightarrow{d_0}T_1\xrightarrow{d_1}T_2\xrightarrow{d_2}\cdots\xrightarrow{d_{n-1}}T_n\xrightarrow{d_n}M\xrightarrow{d_{n+1}}\Sigma^n T_0$$
where $T_0, T_1,\cdots,T_{n}\in\add T$ and for each $i\in\{1,2,\cdots,n-1\}$ the morphism $d_i\colon T_i\to T_{i+1}$ is in the radical of $\C$. Moreover,
applying the functor $\C(T, -)$ gives a complex
$$\C(T,T_0)\to\C(T,T_1)\to\C(T,T_2)\to\cdots\to\C(T,T_n)\to\C(T,M)\to 0$$
which is the start of the minimal projective resolution of $\C(T, M)$.
\end{lemma}

\section{Relative maximal $n$-rigid objects and support $\tau_n$-tilting pairs}
We first introduce the notion of relative maximal $n$-rigid objects
in $\C$, which are a generalization of maximal $n$-rigid objects.
For an object $M$ in $\C$, we use $[M](X,Y)$ to denote the subgroup of $\Hom_{\C}(X,Y)$
consisting of the morphisms from $X$ to $Y$ factoring through $\add M$.

\begin{definition}
Let $\C$ be an $(n+2)$-angulated category with with an $n$-suspension
functor $\Sigma^n$ and an Opperman-Thomas cluster tilting object.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}] An object $X$ in $\C$ is called \emph{relative $n$-rigid} if there exists an Opperman-Thomas cluster tilting object $T$ such that $[\Sigma^nT](X, \Sigma^nX)=0$. In this case, $X$ is also called $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid.

\item[{\rm (ii)}] An object $X$ in $\C$ is called \emph{relative maximal $n$-rigid} if there exists an Opperman-Thomas cluster tilting object $T$ such that $X$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid and
$$[\Sigma^nT](X\oplus M, \Sigma^d(X\oplus M))=0 \text{ implies } M\in\add X. $$
In this case, $X$ is also called maximal $\Sigma^n T$-$n$-rigid.

\item[\rm (iii)] An object $X\in\C$ is called \emph{relative $n$-self-perpendicular object} if there exists an Opperman-Thomas cluster tilting object $T$ such that
$$\add X=\{M\in\C\ |\ [\Sigma^nT](X,\Sigma^nM)=0=[\Sigma^nT](M,\Sigma^nX)\}.$$ In this case, $X$ is also called $\Sigma^n T$-$n$-self-perpendicular.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}

\begin{remark}
From the definition,  we can immediately conclude that the following implications:
$$\begin{array}{c}
    \mbox{$\Sigma^n T$-$n$-self-perpendicular objects} \\
    \Downarrow \\
    \mbox{maximal $\Sigma^n T$-$n$-rigid objects} \\
    \Downarrow \\
    \mbox{$\Sigma^n T$-$n$-rigid objects}
  \end{array}
$$
The implications cannot be reversed in general. See explanation at the end of this article.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
Any $n$-rigid object in $\C$ is relative $n$-rigid.
\end{remark}

The following result indicates that $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid objects and $n$-rigid objects coincide in
some cases.   We say that an $(n+2)$-angulated category $\C$ is
$2n$-Calabi-Yau if $$\C(X, \Sigma^nY)\simeq D\C(Y,\Sigma^nX)$$
naturally in $X,Y\in\C$ where $D$ is the duality functor $\Hom_k(-, k)$.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop}
If $\C$ is a $2n$-Calabi-Yau and $T$ is an Opperman-Thomas cluster tilting object in $\C$, then $X$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid if and only if $X$ is $n$-rigid.
In particular, $X$ is maximal $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid if and only if $X$ is maximal $n$-rigid.
$X$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-self-perpendicular if and only if $X$ is $n$-self-perpendicular.

\end{proposition}

\proof It is obvious that any $n$-rigid object is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid.

Now we assume that $X$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid.
Since $T$ is an Opperman-Thomas cluster tilting object, there exists $(n+2)$-angle
$$T_0\xrightarrow{d_0}T_1\xrightarrow{d_1}T_2\xrightarrow{d_2}\cdots\xrightarrow{d_{n-1}}T_n\xrightarrow{d_n}X\xrightarrow{d_{n+1}}\Sigma^n T_0$$
where $T_0, T_1,\cdots,T_{n}\in\add T$.
Applying the functor $\Hom_{\C}(-,\Sigma^nX)$ to the above $(n+2)$-angle, we have the following exact sequence
$$\cdots\to\Hom_{\C}(\Sigma^nT_0,\Sigma^nX)\xrightarrow{(d_{n+1},\, \Sigma^nX)}\Hom_{\C}(X,\Sigma^nX)\xrightarrow{(d_n,\, \Sigma^nX)} \Hom_{\C}(T_n,\Sigma^nX)\to \cdots.
$$
Since $X$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid, we obtain that $\Hom_{\C}(d_n,\Sigma^nX)$ is an injective. It follows that the morphism
$$D\Hom_{\C}(d_n,\Sigma^nX)\colon D\Hom_{\C}(T_n,\Sigma^nX)\to D\Hom_{\C}(X,\Sigma^nX)
$$
is surjective.   By the $2n$-Calabi-Yau property, we have the following commutative diagram
$$\xymatrix@C=1.2cm@R=1cm{D\Hom_{\C}(T_n,\Sigma^nX)\ar[d]^{\wr}\ar[rr]^{D {\rm Hom}_{\C}(d_n,\,\Sigma^n X)}&&D\Hom_{\C}(X,\Sigma^nX)\ar[d]^{\wr}\\
\Hom_{\C}(X,\Sigma^nT_n)\ar[rr]^{\Hom_{\C}(X,\,\Sigma^nd_n)}&&\Hom_{\C}(X,\Sigma^nX).
}
$$
Thus we get that $\Hom_{\C}(X,\,\Sigma^nd_n)\colon\Hom_{\C}(X,\Sigma^nT_n)\to \Hom_{\C}(X,\Sigma^nX)$ is surjective.
Since $X$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid, we have that the morphism $\Hom_{\C}(X,\Sigma^nd_n)$ is zero.
Hence $\Hom_{\C}(X,\Sigma^nX)=0$.
This shows that $X$ is $n$-rigid.  \qed

\begin{lemma}\label{lem1}
If $M,N\in\C$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$ and
$${\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(\C(T,M),\tau_n\,\C(T,N))=0={\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(\C(T,N),\tau_n\,\C(T,M)),$$
then $[\Sigma^nT](M,\Sigma^nN)=0=[\Sigma^nT](N,\Sigma^nM)$.
\end{lemma}

\proof Since $M\in\C$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$,  by Lemma \ref{rad},
there exists an
$(n+2)$-angle
\begin{equation}\label{u1}
T_0\xrightarrow{d_0}T_1\xrightarrow{d_1}T_2\xrightarrow{d_2}\cdots\xrightarrow{d_{n-1}}T_n\xrightarrow{d_n}M\xrightarrow{d_{n+1}}\Sigma^n T_0
\end{equation}
where $T_0, T_1,\cdots,T_{n}\in\add T$ and for each $i\in\{1,2,\cdots,n-1\}$ the morphism $d_i\colon T_i\to T_{i+1}$ is in the radical of $\C$. Moreover,
applying the functor $\C(T, -)$ gives a complex
$$\C(T,T_0)\xrightarrow{\C(T,\,d_0)}\C(T,T_1)\to\C(T,T_2)\to\cdots\to\C(T,T_n)\to\C(T,M)\to 0$$
which is the start of the minimal projective resolution of $\C(T, M)$.
By Lemma \ref{rigid}, we have that $\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,\,d_0),\C(T,N))$ is surjective since ${\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(\C(T,M),\tau_n\,\C(T,N))=0$.

Applying the functor $\C(-,\Sigma^nN)$ to the $(n+2)$-angle (\ref{u1}), we get the following exact sequence:
$$\C(\Sigma^nT_1,\Sigma^nN)\xrightarrow{~\C(\Sigma^nd_0,\, \Sigma^nN)~}\C(\Sigma^nT_0,\Sigma^nN)
\xrightarrow{~~}\C(M,\Sigma^nN)\xrightarrow{~\C(d_n,\, \Sigma^nN)~}\C(T_n,\Sigma^nN).$$
Thus we have
\begin{equation}\label{u2}
\ker\hspace{.02in}\C(d_n,\Sigma^nN)\simeq\coker\hspace{.02in}\C(\Sigma^nd_0,\,\Sigma^nN).
\end{equation}

According to Remark \ref{rem2}, we have the following commutative diagram
$$\xymatrix@C=1.5cm@R=1.5cm{\C(T_1,N)\ar[r]^-\simeq\ar[d]^{\C(d_0,\, N)} &\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_1),\,\C(T,N))\ar[d]^{\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,d_0),\,\C(T,N))} \\
\C(T_0,N) \ar[r]^-\simeq&\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_0),\,\C(T,N))}$$
It follows that $\C(d_0, N)$ is surjective and then $\C(\Sigma^nd_0, \Sigma^nN)$ is also surjective.
Combining with (\ref{u2}), we obtain $\ker\hspace{.02in}\C(d_n,\Sigma^nN)=0$.

Now we show that $[\Sigma^nT](M,\Sigma^nN)=0$. For any morphism $u\in [\Sigma^nT](M,\Sigma^nN)$,
since $T$ is $n$-rigid, we have $ud_n=0$ implies $u\in\ker\hspace{.02in}\C(d_n,\Sigma^nM)=0$.
Hence $u=0$.  This shows that $[\Sigma^nT](M,\Sigma^nN)=0$.

Similarly, we can show $[\Sigma^nT](M,\Sigma^nN)=0$.  \qed

\begin{lemma}\label{lem2}
Assume that $M,N\in\C$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$. If
$$[\Sigma^nT](M,\Sigma^nN)=0=[\Sigma^nT](N,\Sigma^nM)$$
then $${\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(\C(T,M),\tau_n\,\C(T,N))=0={\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(\C(T,N),\tau_n\,\C(T,M)).$$
\end{lemma}

\proof
Since $M\in\C$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$, by Lemma \ref{rad},
there exists an
$(n+2)$-angle
\begin{equation}\label{u1}
T_0\xrightarrow{d_0}T_1\xrightarrow{d_1}T_2\xrightarrow{d_2}\cdots\xrightarrow{d_{n-1}}T_n\xrightarrow{d_n}M\xrightarrow{d_{n+1}}\Sigma^n T_0
\end{equation}
where $T_0, T_1,\cdots,T_{n}\in\add T$ and for each $i\in\{1,2,\cdots,n-1\}$ the morphism $d_i\colon T_i\to T_{i+1}$ is in the radical of $\C$. Moreover,
applying the functor $\C(T, -)$ gives a complex
$$\C(T,T_0)\xrightarrow{\C(T,\,d_0)}\C(T,T_1)\to\C(T,T_2)\to\cdots\to\C(T,T_n)\to\C(T,M)\to 0$$
which is the start of the minimal projective resolution of $\C(T, M)$.
Combining this with
Lemma \ref{rigid}, we only need to show that
$$\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,\,d_0),\C(T,N))\colon \Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_1),\,\C(T,N))\to \Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_0),\,\C(T,N)) $$
 is surjective

According to Remark \ref{rem2}, we have the following commutative diagram
$$\xymatrix@C=1.5cm@R=1.5cm{\C(T_1,N)\ar[r]^-\simeq\ar[d]^{\C(d_0,\, N)} &\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_1),\,\C(T,N))\ar[d]^{\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,d_0),\,\C(T,N))} \\
\C(T_0,N) \ar[r]^-\simeq&\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_0),\,\C(T,N))}$$
Thus it suffices for us to prove that
 $\C(d_0, N)$ is surjective. Indeed, for any morphism $v\colon T_0\to N$,
we have that $\Sigma v\circ d_{n+1}\in[\Sigma^nT](M,\Sigma^nN)=0$. So there exists a morphism $w\colon T_1\to N$
such that $\Sigma v=\Sigma w\circ\Sigma d_0$ and then $v=wd_0$.
$$\xymatrix@C=1.5cm@R=1.2cm{M\ar[r]^{d_{n+1}}\ar[r]\ar[dr]_0&\Sigma^nT_0\ar[d]^{\Sigma v}
\ar[r]^{\Sigma^nd_0}&\Sigma T_1\ar@{-->}[dl]^{\Sigma w}\\
&\Sigma N&}$$
This shows that $\C(d_0, N)$ is surjective.

Similarly, we can show ${\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(\C(T,N),\tau_n\,\C(T,M))=0$.  \qed
\medskip

Now we state and prove our main result.

\begin{theorem}\label{main}~
Let $\C$ be an $(n+2)$-angulated category with an $n$-suspension
functor $\Sigma^n$ and $T$ an Opperman-Thomas cluster
tilting object with  endomorphism algebra $\Lambda=\End_{\C}(T)$. Let $\D$ be the essential image of the functor $\C(T,-)\colon\C \rightarrow\mod\Lambda$, which is $n$-ableian and equivalent to the quotient category $\C/\add\Sigma^n T$. Then we have

\begin{itemize
\item[\rm (a)]  Let $M$ be an object in $\C$ satisfying that $\add M \cap\add\Sigma^nT=\{0\}$.
Then $M$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid in $\C$ if and only if $\C(T, M)$ is $\tau_n$-rigid in $\D$.

\item[\rm (b)]  Decompose any object $M$ in $\C$ as $M=M_0\oplus \Sigma^nT_M$ where $\Sigma^n T_M$ is a maximal direct summand of $M$ which belongs to $\add \Sigma^nT$. Then the correspondence
$$M\longmapsto(\C(T_0, M_0),~ \C(T,T_M))$$ gives a bijection
 between the set of isomorphism classes of $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid objects in $\C$
 and the set of isomorphism classes of $\tau_n$-rigid pairs in $\D$.

\item[\rm (c)]  The functor $\C(T, -)$ induces a bijection between the set of isomorphism classes
of maximal $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid objects in $\C$ and the set of isomorphism
classes of support $\tau_n$-tilting pairs in $\D$.

\item[\rm (d)]  The functor $\C(T, -)$ induces a bijection between the set of isomorphism classes
of $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-self-perpendicular in $\C$ and the set of isomorphism
classes of maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pairs in $\D$.

 \end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\proof (a) This follows from Lemma \ref{lem1} and Lemma \ref{lem2}.
\medskip

(b) We decompose any object $M$ in $\C$ as $M=M_0\oplus \Sigma^nT_M$ where $\Sigma^n T_M$ is a maximal direct summand of $M$ which belongs to $\add \Sigma^nT$.
Put $$F(M):=\big(\C(T,M_0),~\C(T,T_M)\big).$$
If $M$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid, according to (a), we get that
$\C(T,M_0)$ is a $\tau_n$-rigid.
Since $M$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid, we have $[\Sigma^nT](\Sigma^nT_M,\Sigma^nM_0)=0$ and then $\C(T_M, M_0)=0$.
By Remark \ref{rem2}, we obtain that
$\Hom_{\Lambda}\big(\C(T,T_M),~\C(T,M_0)\big)=0$.
Thus $F(M)$ is a $\tau_n$-rigid pair of $\Lambda$-modules.
On the other hand, for any $\tau_n$-rigid pair $(M, P)$ of $\Lambda$-modules, then
 $M\simeq \C(T, M')$ where $M'$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$ and
 $P\simeq \C(T,T')$ where $T'\in\add T$.
By definition, we have $F(M'\oplus \Sigma^nT')=(M,P)$.
It suffices to show that $M'\oplus \Sigma^nT'$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid,
which is a consequence of (a), Remark \ref{rem2} and the fact that
$T$ is $n$-rigid.

(c) Let $M=M_0\oplus \Sigma^nT_M$ be a maximal $\Sigma^n T$-$n$-rigid object in $\C$,
 where $T_M\in\add T$ and $M_0$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$.
We claim that
$$F(M):=\big(\C(T,M_0),~\C(T,T_M)\big).$$
is a support $\tau_n$-tilting pair.
Since $M$ is a maximal $\Sigma^n T$-$n$-rigid object, by (b), we know that
$F(M)$ is a $\tau_n$-rigid pair. It remains to show that $F(M)$ is a support $\tau_n$-tilting pair.

(i)~ We assume that $\big(\C(T,M_0)\oplus N,~\C(T,T_M)\big)$
is a $\tau_n$-rigid pair for any $N\in\D$.
Since $N\in\D$, we have $N\simeq\C(T,N')$ where
$N'$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$.
That is to say, $\big(\C(T,M_0\oplus N'),~\C(T,T_M)\big)$
is a $\tau_n$-rigid pair. By (b), we know that
$M_0\oplus N'\oplus \Sigma^nT_M=M\oplus N'$ is $\Sigma^n T$-$n$-rigid.
Since $M$ is maximal $\Sigma^n T$-$n$-rigid, we have $N'\in\add M$.
Note that $N'$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$,
we get that $N'\in\add M_0$ which implies $N\in\add\C(T,M_0)$.

(ii) If $Q\in\proj\Lambda$, then there exists $Q\simeq\C(T, T')$ where $T'\in\add T$.
It follows that
$$Q\in\add\C(T,T_M)\Longrightarrow\Hom_{\Lambda}(Q,\C(T,M_0))=0$$
since $\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_M),\C(T,M_0))$=0.
Conversely, if $\Hom_{\Lambda}(Q,\C(T,M_0))=0$, by Remark \ref{rem2},
we have that $\C(T',M_0)=0$. Note that $T$ is $n$-rigid,
it is straightforward to verify that
$M\oplus \Sigma^nT'=M_0\oplus \Sigma^n T_M\oplus\Sigma^nT'$
is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid. Since $M$ is maximal $\Sigma^n T$-$n$-rigid,
we have $\Sigma^nT'\in\add M$.
Note that $M_0$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$,
we get that $\Sigma^nT'\in\add \Sigma^n T_M$ which implies $T'\in\add T_M$.
Thus $Q\in\add\C(T,M_0)$.

This shows that $F(M)$ is support $\tau_n$-tilting pair.

On the other hand, now assume that $(M, P)$ is a support $\tau_n$-tilting pair in $\D$.
Then $M\simeq\C(T,M_0)$ where $M_0$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$
and $P\simeq\C(T,T')$ where $T'\in\add T$.
By (b), we have $N:=M_0\oplus \Sigma^n T'$ is $\Sigma^n T$-$n$-rigid.
We will show that $N$ is maximal. By definition, we need to show that
if $X$ is an object such that $[\Sigma^nT](N\oplus X,\Sigma^n(N\oplus X))=0$,
then $X\in\add N$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $X$ is indecomposable.

If $X\notin\add \Sigma^nT$, then $M\oplus\C(T,X)$ is a $\tau_n$-rigid by (a).
Since $[\Sigma^nT](N\oplus X,\Sigma^n(N\oplus X))=0$, we have
$\C(T',X)=0$. By Remark \ref{rem2},
we have that $\Hom_{\Lambda}(P,\C(T,X))\simeq \C(T',X)=0$.
Thus $\big(M\oplus\C(T,X),P\big)$ is a $\tau_n$-rigid pair.
By hypothesis, $(M,P)$ is a support $\tau_n$-tilting pair,
we infer that $\C(T,X)\in\add M$ and then $X\in\add M_0\subseteq\add N$.

If $X\in\add \Sigma^nT$, then $\Sigma^{-n}X\in\add T$ implies $\C(T,\Sigma^{-n}X)\in\proj\Lambda$.
Since $[\Sigma^nT](N\oplus X,\Sigma^n(N\oplus X))=0$, we have
$\C(X,\Sigma^nM_0)=0$ and then $\C(\Sigma^{-n}X,M_0)$. By Remark \ref{rem2},
we obtain
$\Hom_{\Lambda}\big(\C(T,\Sigma^{-n}X),~\C(T,M_0)\big)\simeq \C(\Sigma^{-n}X,M_0)=0$,
By hypothesis, $(M,P)$ is a support $\tau_n$-tilting pair,
we conclude that $\C(T,\Sigma^{-n}X)\in\add \C(T,T')$.
Hence $\Sigma^{-n}X\in\add T'$ implies $X\in\add \Sigma^nT'\subseteq\add N$.
This completes the proof of (c).

(d) Assume that $M=M_0\oplus \Sigma^nT_M$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-self-perpendicular in $\C$,
 where $T_M\in\add T$ and $M_0$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$.
We claim that
$$F(M):=\big(\C(T,M_0),~\C(T,T_M)\big)$$
is a maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pair.

(i) Suppose that $N\in\D$ satisfies
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,M_0),\tau_n N)=0,\\
\Hom_{\Lambda}(N,\tau_n\C(T,M_0))=0,\\
\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_M),N)=0.
\end{array}
\right.$$
For any $N\in\D$, we have $N\simeq\C(T,N_0)$ where $N_0$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$.\\
By Lemma \ref{lem1}, we get that $[\Sigma^nT](M_0,\Sigma^nN_0)=0=[\Sigma^nT](N_0,\Sigma^nM_0)$.

Since $\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_M),N)=0$, by Remark \ref{rem2},
we have $\Hom_{\C}(T_M,N_0)=0$ and then $[\Sigma^nT](\Sigma^nT_M,N_0)=0$.
We infer that $[\Sigma^nT](M,\Sigma^nN_0)=[\Sigma^nT](M_0\oplus\Sigma^nT_M,\Sigma^nN_0)=0$.

Note that $[\Sigma^nT](N_0,\Sigma^n(\Sigma^nT_M))=0$ since $T$ is $n$-rigid.
Thus we obtain $$[\Sigma^nT](N_0,\Sigma^nM)=[\Sigma^nT](N_0,\Sigma^n(M_0\oplus\Sigma^nT_M)=0.$$
Since $M$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-self-perpendicular, we get $N_0\in\add M$ implies
 $N_0\in\add M_0$ since $N_0$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$.
It follows that $N\in\add \C(T,M_0)$.
The opposite direction is obvious.

(ii)  Since $M$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-self-perpendicular, thus $M$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid.
By (b), we know that $FM$ is a $\tau_n$-rigid pair. Hence $\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_M),\C(T,M_0))=0$.

If $Q\in\proj\Lambda$, then there exists $Q\simeq\C(T, T')$ where $T'\in\add T$.
It follows that
$$Q\in\add\C(T,T_M)\Longrightarrow\Hom_{\Lambda}(Q,\C(T,M_0))=0,$$
since $\Hom_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_M),\C(T,M_0))=0$.

Conversely, if $\Hom_{\Lambda}(Q,\C(T,M_0))=0$, by Remark \ref{rem2},
we have that $\C(T',M_0)=0$. Note that $T$ is $n$-rigid, we have that $[\Sigma^nT](M,\Sigma^n(\Sigma^nT'))=0$ and
it is straightforward to verify that
$M\oplus \Sigma^nT'=M_0\oplus \Sigma^n T_M\oplus\Sigma^nT'$
is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-rigid. Thus we have $[\Sigma^nT](\Sigma^nT',\Sigma^nM)=0$.
Since $M$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-self-perpendicular, we obtain $\Sigma^nT'\in\add M$.
Note that $M_0$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$,
we get that $\Sigma^nT'\in\add \Sigma^n T_M$ which implies $T'\in\add T_M$.
Thus $Q\in\add\C(T,M_0)$. This shows that $F(M):=\big(\C(T,M_0),~\C(T,T_M)\big)$
is a maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pair.

On the other hand, now assume that $(M, P)$ is a maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pair.
Then $M\simeq\C(T,M_0)$ where $M_0$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$
and $P\simeq\C(T,T')$ where $T'\in\add T$.
By (b), we have $N:=M_0\oplus \Sigma^n T'$ is $\Sigma^n T$-$n$-rigid.

We claim that $N$ is $\Sigma^nT$-$n$-self-perpendicular in $\C$.
Indeed, by definition, it suffices to show that
if $X\in\C$ is an object such that
\begin{equation}\label{relative}
[\Sigma^nT](N,\Sigma^nX)=0=[\Sigma^nT](X,\Sigma^nN),
\end{equation}
then $X\in\add N$.

Now we decompose $X=X_0\oplus \Sigma^nT_X$ where $T_X\in\add T$ and $X_0$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$.
By the equality (\ref{relative}), we have
$$[\Sigma^nT](M_0,\Sigma^nX_0)=0=[\Sigma^nT](X_0,\Sigma^nM_0).$$
By Lemma \ref{lem2}, we get
then $${\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(\C(T,M_0),\tau_n\,\C(T,X_0))=0={\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(\C(T,X_0),\tau_n\,\C(T,M_0)).$$
Since $[\Sigma^nT](N,\Sigma^nX)=0$, we have $[\Sigma^nT](\Sigma^nT',\Sigma^nX_0)=0$ implies
$\C(T',X_0)=0$.
By Remark \ref{rem2}, we obtain
$${\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T'),\tau_n\,\C(T,X_0))\simeq\Hom_{\C}(T',X_0)=0.$$
Since $(M, P)$ is a maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pair, we have $\C(T,X_0)\in\add\C(T,M_0)$
implies $X_0\in\add M_0$.

Since $[\Sigma^nT](X,\Sigma^nN)=0$, we have $[\Sigma^nT](\Sigma^nT_X,\Sigma^nM_0)=0$
implies $\C(T_X,M_0)=0$.
By Remark \ref{rem2}, we obtain
$${\rm Hom}_{\Lambda}(\C(T,T_X),\tau_n\,\C(T,M_0))\simeq\Hom_{\C}(T_X,M_0)=0.$$
Since $(M, P)$ is a maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pair, we have $\C(T,T_X)\in\add\C(T,T')$
implies $T_X\in\add T'$. We also have $\Sigma^nT_X\in\Sigma^n\add T'$.

Hence $X=X_0\oplus \Sigma^nT_X\in\add(M_0\oplus\Sigma^nT')=\add N$ since $X_0\in\add M_0$ and $\Sigma^nT_X\in\Sigma^n\add T'$.
This completes the proof of (d).  \qed

\medskip

This theorem immediately yields the following  conclusion.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor1}
Let $\C$ be a $2n$-Calabi-Yau $(n+2)$-angulated category with an Opperman-Thomas cluster
tilting object.
Then there exists a bijection between the set of $n$-rigid
objects of $\C$ and the set of $\tau_n$-rigid pairs, which induces two
one-to-one correspondences to the set of maximal $n$-rigid objects and the
set of support $\tau_n$-tilting pairs,
the set of $n$-self-perpendicular objects and the
set of maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pairs.
\end{corollary}

\proof This follows from Theorem \ref{main} and Proposition \ref{prop}. \qed
\medskip

Zhou and Zhu \cite[Theorem 2.6]{ZhZ} proved that: if $\C$ is a $2$-Calabi-Yau triangulated category with a cluster tilting object, then every maximal rigid object is cluster tilting. Thus we get the following.

\begin{remark}
In Corollary \ref{cor1}, if $n=1$, it is the just the Theorem 4.1 in \cite{AIR}.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
In Theorem \ref{main}, if $n=1$, it covers \cite[Theorem 1.2]{YZ} and \cite[Theorem 1.1]{YZZ}.
\end{remark}
\medskip

The following result shows that maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pairs and support $\tau_n$-tilting pairs are the same under suitable conditions.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem3}
If each indecomposable object of $\C$ is $n$-rigid, then
any maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pair is precisely support $\tau_n$-tilting pair in $\D$.
\end{lemma}

\proof By definition, we know that any maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pair is a support $\tau_n$-tilting pair.
Conversely, we assume that $(M,P)$ is a support $\tau_n$-tilting pair.
If $N\in\D$ satisfies
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\Hom_{\Lambda}(M,\tau_n N)=0,\\
\Hom_{\Lambda}(N,\tau_nM)=0,\\
\Hom_{\Lambda}(P,N)=0.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Without loss of generality, we assume that $N$ is indecomposable.
Thus $N\simeq\C(T,N')$ where $N'$ has no non-zero direct summands in $\add\Sigma^nT$
and $N'$ is indecomposable. By hypothesis, $N'$ is $n$-rigid.
By Lemma \ref{lem2}, $N$ is $\tau_n$-rigid.
Hence $(M\oplus N,P)$ is a $\tau_n$-rigid pair.
Since $(M,P)$ is a support $\tau_n$-tilting pair, we get that $N\in\add M$.
The remaining conditions are clearly satisfied.
This shows that $(M,P)$ is a maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pair.  \qed
\medskip

As an application of Theorem \ref{main}, we have the following.

\begin{corollary}
In Corollary {\rm \ref{cor1}}, if each indecomposable object in $\C$ is $n$-rigid,
then Corollary {\rm \ref{cor1}} is just the Theorem B in {\rm \cite{JJ2}}.
\end{corollary}

\proof This follows from Corollary \ref{cor1}, Proposition \ref{prop} and Lemma \ref{lem3}.  \qed
\medskip

We use the following diagram to explain our main result.

Let $\C$ be an  $(n+2)$-angulated category. Jacobsen and J{\o}rgensen \cite[Theorem 1.1]{JJ2} gave the following
implications.
$$\begin{array}{c}
    \mbox{$n$-self-perpendicular objects in $\C$} \\
    \Downarrow \\
    \mbox{maximal $n$-rigid objects in $\C$} \\
    \Downarrow \\
    \mbox{$n$-rigid objects in $\C$}
  \end{array}
$$
But the implications cannot be reversed in general, see \cite[Remark 1.2]{JJ2} and a concrete example in \cite[Section 4]{JJ2}.

If $\C$ is an  $(n+2)$-angulated category with an Opperman-Thomas cluster
tilting object. We give the following implications.
$$\begin{array}{c}
    \mbox{relative $n$-self-perpendicular objects in $\C$} \\
    \Downarrow \\
    \mbox{relative maximal $n$-rigid objects in $\C$} \\
    \Downarrow \\
    \mbox{relative $n$-rigid objects in $\C$}
  \end{array}
$$
Moveover, we get the following three bijections.
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
    \mbox{relative $n$-self-perpendicular objects in $\C$} &\longleftrightarrow& \mbox{maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pairs} \\
    \Downarrow &&\Downarrow \\
    \mbox{relative maximal $n$-rigid objects in $\C$} &\longleftrightarrow& \mbox{support $\tau_n$-tilting pairs}  \\
   \Downarrow &&\Downarrow \\
    \mbox{relative $n$-rigid objects in $\C$} &\longleftrightarrow&\mbox{$\tau_n$-rigid pairs}
  \end{array}
$$

When $n=1$, the first two bijections are the same, then the bijections are the corresponding ones in \cite{YZ, YZZ}.
When $\C$ is $2n$-Calabi-Yau $(n+2)$-angulated category with an Opperman-Thomas cluster
tilting object, we obtain the following three bijections.
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
    \mbox{$n$-self-perpendicular objects in $\C$} &\longleftrightarrow& \mbox{maximal $\tau_n$-rigid pairs} \\
    \Downarrow &&\Downarrow \\
    \mbox{maximal $n$-rigid objects in $\C$} &\longleftrightarrow& \mbox{support $\tau_n$-tilting pairs}  \\
   \Downarrow &&\Downarrow \\
    \mbox{$n$-rigid objects in $\C$} &\longleftrightarrow&\mbox{$\tau_n$-rigid pairs}
  \end{array}
$$
Hence we also know that left and right implications cannot be reversed in general.