Forming Diverse Super-Earth Systems In Situ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Super-Earths and mini-Neptunes exhibit great diversity in their compositional and orbital properties. Their bulk densities span a large range, from those dense enough to be purely rocky to those needing a substantial contribution from volatiles to their volumes. Their orbital configurations range from compact, circular multitransiting systems like Kepler-11 to systems like our solar system’s terrestrial planets with wider spacings and modest but significant eccentricities and mutual inclinations. Here we investigate whether a continuum of formation conditions resulting from variation in the amount of solids available in the inner disk can account for the diversity of orbital and compositional properties observed for super-Earths, including the apparent dichotomy between single and multitransiting systems. We simulate in situ formation of super-Earths via giant impacts and compare to the observed Kepler sample. We find that intrinsic variations among disks in the amount of solids available for in situ formation can account for the orbital and compositional diversity observed among Kepler’s transiting planets. Our simulations can account for the planets’ distributions of orbital period ratios, transit duration ratios, and transit multiplicity; higher eccentricities for planets in single transiting systems than for those in multitransiting systems; smaller eccentricities for larger planets; scatter in the mass–radius relation, including lower densities for planets with masses measured with transit timing variations instead of with radial velocity; and similarities in planets’ sizes and spacings within each system. Our findings support the theory that variation among super-Earth and mini-Neptune properties is primarily locked in by different in situ formation conditions, rather than arising stochastically through subsequent evolution.
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) | 0.000 | 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".