EXTRACTING PLANET MASS AND ECCENTRICITY FROM TTV DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most planet pairs in the Kepler data that have measured transit time variations (TTVs) are near first-order mean-motion resonances. We derive analytical formulae for their TTV signals. We separate planet eccentricity into free and forced parts, where the forced part is purely due to the planets' proximity to resonance. This separation yields simple analytical formulae. The phase of the TTV depends sensitively on the presence of free eccentricity: if the free eccentricity vanishes, the TTV will be in phase with the longitude of conjunctions. This effect is easily detectable in current TTV data. The amplitude of the TTV depends on planet mass and free eccentricity, and it determines planet mass uniquely only when the free eccentricity is sufficiently small. We analyze the TTV signals of six short-period Kepler pairs. We find that three of these pairs (Kepler 18, 24, 25) have a TTV phase consistent with zero. The other three (Kepler 23, 28, 32) have small TTV phases, but ones that are distinctly non-zero. We deduce that the free eccentricities of the planets are small, ≲ 0.01, but not always vanishing. Furthermore, as a consequence of this, we deduce that the true masses of the planets are fairly accurately determined by the TTV amplitudes, within a factor of ≲ 2. The smallness of the free eccentricities suggests that the planets have experienced substantial dissipation. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the observed pile-up of Kepler pairs near mean-motion resonances is caused by resonant repulsion. But the fact that some of the planets have non-vanishing free eccentricity suggests that after resonant repulsion occurred there was a subsequent phase in the planets' evolution when their eccentricities were modestly excited, perhaps by interplanetary interactions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".