A dynamical stability study of Kepler Circumbinary planetary systems with one planet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, 17 circumbinary planets have been discovered. In this paper, we focus our attention on the stability of the Kepler circumbinary planetary systems with only one planet, i.e. Kepler-16, Kepler-34, Kepler-35, Kepler-38, Kepler-64 and Kepler-413. In addition to their intrinsic interest, the study of such systems is an opportunity to test our understanding of planetary system formation and evolution around binaries. The investigation is done by means of numerical simulations. We perform numerical integrations of the full equations of motion of each system with the aim of checking the stability of the planetary orbit. The investigation of the stability of the above systems consists of three numerical experiments. In the first one, we perform a long-term (1 Gyr) numerical integration of the nominal solution of the six Kepler systems under investigation. In the second experiment, we look for the critical semimajor axis of the six planetary orbits, and finally, in the third experiment, we construct two-dimensional stability maps on the eccentricity–pericentre distance plane. Additionally, using numerical integrations of the nominal solutions we checked if these solutions were close to the exact resonance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".