Architectures of exoplanetary systems – I. A clustered forward model for exoplanetary systems around Kepler’s FGK stars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Observations of exoplanetary systems provide clues about the intrinsic distribution of planetary systems, their architectures, and how they formed. We develop a forward modelling framework for generating populations of planetary systems and ‘observed’ catalogues by simulating the Kepler detection pipeline (SysSim). We compare our simulated catalogues to the Kepler DR25 catalogue of planet candidates, updated to include revised stellar radii from Gaia DR2. We constrain our models based on the observed 1D marginal distributions of orbital periods, period ratios, transit depths, transit depth ratios, transit durations, transit duration ratios, and transit multiplicities. Models assuming planets with independent periods and sizes do not adequately account for the properties of the multiplanet systems. Instead, a clustered point process model for exoplanet periods and sizes provides a significantly better description of the Kepler population, particularly the observed multiplicity and period ratio distributions. We find that $0.56^{+0.18}_{-0.15}$ of FGK stars have at least one planet larger than 0.5R⊕ between 3 and 300 d. Most of these planetary systems ($\sim 98{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$) consist of one or two clusters with a median of three planets per cluster. We find that the Kepler dichotomy is evidence for a population of highly inclined planetary systems and is unlikely to be solely due to a population of intrinsically single planet systems. We provide a large ensemble of simulated physical and observed catalogues of planetary systems from our models, as well as publicly available code for generating similar catalogues given user-defined parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".