The Evaporation Valley in the Kepler Planets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new piece of evidence supporting the photoevaporation-driven evolution model for low-mass, close-in exoplanets was recently presented by the California– Kepler Survey. The radius distribution of the Kepler planets is shown to be bimodal, with a “valley” separating two peaks at 1.3 and 2.6 R ⊕ . Such an “evaporation valley” had been predicted by numerical models previously. Here, we develop a minimal model to demonstrate that this valley results from the following fact: the timescale for envelope erosion is the longest for those planets with hydrogen/helium-rich envelopes that, while only a few percent in weight, double its radius. The timescale falls for envelopes lighter than this because the planet’s radius remains largely constant for tenuous envelopes. The timescale also drops for heavier envelopes because the planet swells up faster than the addition of envelope mass. Photoevaporation therefore herds planets into either bare cores (∼1.3 R ⊕ ), or those with double the core’s radius (∼2.6 R ⊕ ). This process mostly occurs during the first 100 Myr when the stars’ high-energy fluxes are high and nearly constant. The observed radius distribution further requires the Kepler planets to be clustered around 3 M ⊕ in mass, born with H/He envelopes more than a few percent in mass, and that their cores are similar to the Earth in composition. Such envelopes must have been accreted before the dispersal of the gas disks, while the core composition indicates formation inside the ice line. Lastly, the photoevaporation model fails to account for bare planets beyond ∼30–60 days; if these planets are abundant, they may point to a significant second channel for planet formation, resembling the solar system terrestrial planets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".