Eccentricity Excitation and Apsidal Resonance Capture in the Planetary System υ Andromedae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The orbits of the outer two known planets orbiting υ Andromedae are remarkably eccentric. Planet C possesses an orbital eccentricity of e 1 = 0.253. For the more distant planet D, e 2 = 0.308. Previous dynamical analyses strongly suggest that the two orbits are nearly coplanar and are trapped in an apsidal resonance in which Δ , the difference between their longitudes of periastron, undergoes a bounded oscillation about 0°. Here we elucidate the origin of these large eccentricities and of the apsidal alignment. Resonant interactions between a remnant circumstellar disk of gas lying exterior to the orbits of both planets can smoothly increase e 2 . Secular interactions between planets D and C can siphon off the eccentricity of the former to increase that of the latter. Externally amplifying e 2 during the phase of the apsidal oscillation when e 2 / e 1 is smallest drives the apsidal oscillation amplitude toward zero. Thus, the substantial eccentricity of planet C and the locking of orbital apsides are both consequences of externally pumping the eccentricity of planet D over timescales exceeding apsidal precession periods of order 10 4 yr. We explain why the recently detected stellar companion to υ And is largely dynamically decoupled from the planetary system.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".