Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report relations between inner (<1 au) super Earths (planets with mass/radius between Earth and Neptune) and outer (>1 au) giant planets (mass > 0.3 M J, or cold Jupiters) around Sun-like stars, based on data from both ground-based radial velocity (RV) observations and the Kepler mission. We find that cold Jupiters appear three times more often around hosts of super Earths than they do around field stars. Given the prevalence of the super Earth systems, their cold Jupiters can account for nearly all cold Jupiters. In other words, cold Jupiters are almost certainly (∼90%) accompanied by super Earths. A few corollaries follow: (1) around metal-rich ([Fe/H] > 0.1) stars, the fraction of super Earths with cold Jupiters can rise to 60% or higher; (2) the inner architecture can be strongly impacted by the outer giant and we report some observational evidence for this; (3) planetary systems like our own, with cold Jupiters but no super Earths, should be rare (∼1%). The strong correlation between super Earths and cold Jupiters establish that super Earths and cold Jupiters do not compete for solid material, rather, they share similar origins, with the cold Jupiter formation requiring a somewhat more stringent condition. Lastly, we propose a few immediate observational tests of our results, using ground-based RV observations and ongoing/planned space missions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".