On the Patterns Observed in Kepler Multi-planet Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent studies claimed that planets around the same star have similar sizes and masses and regular spacings, and that planet pairs usually show ordered sizes such that the outer planet is usually the larger one. Here I show that these patterns can be largely explained by detection biases. The Kepler planet detections are set by the transit signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). For different stellar properties and orbital period values, the same S/N corresponds to different planetary sizes. This variation in the detection threshold naturally leads to apparent correlations in planet sizes and the observed size ordering. The apparently correlated spacings, measured in period ratios, between adjacent planet pairs in systems with at least three detected planets are partially due to the arbitrary upper limit that the earlier study imposed on the period ratio, and partially due to the varying stability threshold for different planets. After these detection biases are taken into account, we do not find strong evidence for the so-called intra-system uniformity or the size ordering effect. Instead, the physical properties of Kepler planets are largely independent of the properties of their siblings and the parent star. It is likely that the dynamical evolution has erased the memory of Kepler planets about their initial formation conditions. In other words, it will be difficult to infer the initial conditions from the observed properties and the architecture of Kepler 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".