Smaller than Expected Bright-spot Offsets in Spitzer Phase Curves of the Hot Jupiter Qatar-1b
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present Spitzer full-orbit thermal phase curves of the hot Jupiter Qatar-1b, a planet with the same equilibrium temperature—and intermediate surface gravity and orbital period—as the well-studied planets HD 209458b and WASP-43b. We measure secondary eclipse depths of 0.21 ± 0.02% at 3.6 μ m and 0.30 ± 0.02% at 4.5 μ m, corresponding to dayside brightness temperatures of K and K, respectively, consistent with a vertically isothermal dayside. The respective nightside brightness temperatures are and K, in line with a trend that hot Jupiters all have similar nightside temperatures. We infer a Bond albedo of and a moderate day–night heat recirculation efficiency, similar to HD 209458b. General circulation models for HD 209458b and WASP-43b predict that their bright spots should be shifted east of the substellar point by tens of degrees, and these predictions were previously confirmed with Spitzer full-orbit phase curve observations. The phase curves of Qatar-1b are likewise expected to exhibit eastward offsets. Instead, the observed phase curves are consistent with no offset: 11° ± 7° at 3.6 μ m and −4° ± 7° at 4.5 μ m. The discrepancy in circulation patterns between these three otherwise similar planets points to the importance of secondary parameters like rotation rate and surface gravity, and the presence or absence of clouds, in determining atmospheric conditions on hot Jupiters.
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".