OSSOS. XIII. Fossilized Resonant Dropouts Tentatively Confirm Neptune’s Migration Was Grainy and Slow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The migration of Neptune’s resonances through the proto–Kuiper Belt has been imprinted in the distribution of small bodies in the outer solar system. Here we analyze five published Neptune migration models in detail, focusing on the high pericenter distance (high- q ) trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) near Neptune’s 5:2 and 3:1 mean-motion resonances because they have large resonant populations, are outside the main classical belt, and are relatively isolated from other strong resonances. We compare the observationally biased output from these dynamical models with the detected TNOs from the Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS) via its Survey Simulator. All four of the new OSSOS detections of high- q nonresonant TNOs are on the sunward side of the 5:2 and 3:1 resonances. We show that even after accounting for observation biases, this asymmetric distribution cannot be drawn from a uniform distribution of TNOs at 2 σ confidence. As shown by previous work, our analysis here tentatively confirms that the dynamical model that uses grainy slow Neptune migration provides the best match to the real high- q TNO orbital data. However, due to extreme observational biases, we have very few high- q TNO discoveries with which to statistically constrain the models. Thus, this analysis provides a framework for future comparison between the output from detailed, dynamically classified Neptune migration simulations and the TNO discoveries from future well-characterized surveys. We show that a deeper survey (to a limiting r -magnitude of 26.0) with a similar survey area to OSSOS could statistically distinguish between these five Neptune migration models.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".