A Pair of Planets Likely in Mean-motion Resonance From Gravitational Microlensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We combine statistical arguments and dynamical analysis to study the orbital configuration of the microlensing planetary system OGLE-2012-BLG-0026L. This system is known to host two massive planets, both projected close to the Einstein ring at the time of the detection. Assuming an isotropic distribution for the orbital orientation, we find that the two planets should also be closely spaced in 3D space and that the ratio of their orbital periods is almost certainly less than two. With N-body numerical integrations, we then identify two types of stable configurations: the two planets can be in first-order mean-motion resonances (MMRs) and have significant (≳0.1) eccentricities, or they stay out of MMRs and have nearly circular orbits. The latter is disfavored, given the absence of similar planet pairs in radial velocity observations as well as the theoretical difficulties in forming such a configuration. Therefore, the two massive planets in OGLE-2012-BLG-0026L are likely in a resonance configuration. Our work shows that the microlensing technique, which usually only measures the projected configurations, can also probe the detailed dynamical state of multi-planet systems. We also discuss theoretical implications of measuring the multiplicity and the orbital architecture of cold 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".