Two Small Transiting Planets and a Possible Third Body Orbiting HD 106315
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The masses, atmospheric makeups, spin–orbit alignments, and system architectures of extrasolar planets can be best studied when the planets orbit bright stars. We report the discovery of three bodies orbiting HD 106315, a bright (V = 8.97 mag) F5 dwarf targeted by our K2 survey for transiting exoplanets. Two small transiting planets are found to have radii and and orbital periods 9.55 days and 21.06 days, respectively. A radial velocity (RV) trend of 0.3 ± 0.1 m s−1 day−1 indicates the likely presence of a third body orbiting HD 106315 with period ≳160 days and mass ≳45 M ⊕. Transits of this object would have depths ≳0.1% and are definitively ruled out. Although the star has v sin i = 13.2 km s−1, it exhibits a short-timescale RV variability of just 6.4 m s−1. Thus, it is a good target for RV measurements of the mass and density of the inner two planets and the outer object’s orbit and mass. Furthermore, the combination of RV noise and moderate v sin i makes HD 106315 a valuable laboratory for studying the spin–orbit alignment of small planets through the Rossiter–McLaughlin effect. Space-based atmospheric characterization of the two transiting planets via transit and eclipse spectroscopy should also be feasible. This discovery demonstrates again the power of K2 to find compelling exoplanets worthy of future study.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".