FRIENDS OF HOT JUPITERS. IV. STELLAR COMPANIONS BEYOND 50 au MIGHT FACILITATE GIANT PLANET FORMATION, BUT MOST ARE UNLIKELY TO CAUSE KOZAI–LIDOV MIGRATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Stellar companions can influence the formation and evolution of planetary systems, but there are currently few observational constraints on the properties of planet-hosting binary star systems. We search for stellar companions around 77 transiting hot Jupiter systems to explore the statistical properties of this population of companions as compared to field stars of similar spectral type. After correcting for survey incompleteness, we find that of hot Jupiter systems have stellar companions with semimajor axes between 50 and 2000 au. This is 2.9 times larger than the field star companion fraction in this separation range, with a significance of . In the 1–50 au range, only of hot Jupiters host stellar companions, compared to the field star value of , which is a difference. We find that the distribution of mass ratios for stellar companions to hot Jupiter systems peaks at small values and therefore differs from that of field star binaries which tend to be uniformly distributed across all mass ratios. We conclude that either wide separation stellar binaries are more favorable sites for gas giant planet formation at all separations, or that the presence of stellar companions preferentially causes the inward migration of gas giant planets that formed farther out in the disk via dynamical processes such as Kozai–Lidov oscillations. We determine that less than 20% of hot Jupiters have stellar companions capable of inducing Kozai–Lidov oscillations assuming initial semimajor axes between 1 and 5 au, implying that the enhanced companion occurrence is likely correlated with environments where gas giants can form efficiently.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".