OSSOS. XV. Probing the Distant Solar System with Observed Scattering TNOs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most known trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) that gravitationally scatter off the giant planets have orbital inclinations that are consistent with an origin from the classical Kuiper Belt; however, a small fraction of these “scattering TNOs” have inclinations that are far too large (i > 45°) for this origin. These scattering outliers have previously been proposed to be interlopers from the Oort cloud or evidence of an undiscovered planet. Here we test these hypotheses using N-body simulations and the 69 centaurs and scattering TNOs detected in the Outer Solar Systems Origins Survey and its predecessors. We confirm that observed scattering objects cannot solely originate from the classical Kuiper Belt, and we show that both the Oort cloud and a distant planet generate observable highly-inclined scatterers. Although the number of highly-inclined scatterers from the Oort Cloud is ∼3 times less than observed, Oort cloud enrichment from the Sun’s galactic migration or birth cluster could resolve this. Meanwhile, a distant, low-eccentricity 5 M ⊕ planet replicates the observed fraction of highly-inclined scatterers, but the overall inclination distribution is more excited than observed. Furthermore, the distant planet generates a longitudinal asymmetry among detached TNOs that is less extreme than often presumed and its direction reverses across the perihelion range spanned by known TNOs. More complete models that explore the dynamical origins of the planet are necessary to further study these features. With well-characterized observational biases, our work shows that the orbital distribution of detected scattering bodies is a powerful constraint on the unobserved distant solar system.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".