Tides alone cannot explain<i>Kepler</i>planets close to 2:1 MMR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of Kepler planet pairs lie just wide of first-order mean motion resonances (MMRs). Tides have been frequently proposed to explain these pileups, but it is still an ongoing discussion. We contribute to this discussion by calculating an optimistic theoretical estimate on the minimum initial eccentricity required by Kepler planets to explain the current observed spacing, and complement these calculations with N-body simulations. In particular, we investigate 27 Kepler systems having planets within 6 per cent of the 2:1 MMR, and find that the initial eccentricities required to explain the observed spacings are unreasonable from simple dynamical arguments. Furthermore, our numerical simulations reveal resonant tugging, an effect which conspires against the migration of resonant planets away from the 2:1 MMR, requiring even higher initial eccentricities in order to explain the current Kepler distribution. Overall, we find that tides alone cannot explain planets close to 2:1 MMR, and additional mechanisms are required to explain these systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".