MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962004944 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75dc

Nekhoroshev Estimates for the Survival Time of Tightly Packed Planetary Systems

2020· article· en· W2962004944 on OpenAlexaff
Almog Yalinewich, Cristóbal Petrovich

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoThe Scarborough HospitalCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimensionless quantityPhysicsPlanetExponential functionPlanetary systemMean motionInterplanetary spaceflightOrder (exchange)Three-body problemAstrophysicsMathematical analysisClassical mechanicsMathematicsMechanicsQuantum mechanicsSolar wind

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract N -body simulations of nonresonant, tightly packed planetary systems have found that their survival time (i.e., time to first close encounter) grows exponentially with their interplanetary spacing and planetary masses. Although this result has important consequences for the assembly of planetary systems by giant collisions and their long-term evolution, this underlying exponential dependence is not understood from first principles, and previous attempts based on orbital diffusion have only yielded power-law scalings. We propose a different picture, where large deviations of the system from its initial conditions is due to a few slowly developing high-order resonances. Thus, we show that the survival time of the system T can be estimated using a heuristic motivated by Nekhoroshev’s theorem, and obtain a formula for systems away from overlapping two-body mean-motion resonances as , where P is the average Keplerian period, a is the average semimajor axis, Δ a ≪ a is the difference between the semimajor axes of neighboring planets, μ is the planet-to-star mass ratio, and c 1 and c 2 are dimensionless constants. We show that this formula is in good agreement with numerical N -body experiments for c 1 = 5 × 10 −4 and c 2 = 8.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207