Architectures of Exoplanetary Systems. III. Eccentricity and Mutual Inclination Distributions of AMD-stable Planetary Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The angular momentum deficit (AMD) of a planetary system is a measure of its orbital excitation and a predictor of long-term stability. We adopt the AMD-stability criterion to constrain the orbital architectures for exoplanetary systems. Previously, He et al. showed through forward modeling (SysSim) that the observed multiplicity distribution can be well reproduced by two populations consisting of a low and a high mutual inclination component. Here, we show that a broad distribution of mutual inclinations arising from systems at the AMD-stability limit can also match the observed Kepler population. We show that distributing a planetary system’s maximum AMD among its planets results in a multiplicity-dependent distribution of eccentricities and mutual inclinations. Systems with intrinsically more planets have lower median eccentricities and mutual inclinations, and this trend is well described by power-law functions of the intrinsic planet multiplicity ( n ): and , where and are the medians of the eccentricity and inclination distributions. We also find that intrinsic single planets have higher eccentricities ( σ e ,1 ∼ 0.25) than multiplanet systems and that the trends with multiplicity appear in the observed distributions of period-normalized transit duration ratios. We show that the observed preferences for planet-size orderings and uniform spacings are more extreme than what can be produced by the detection biases of the Kepler mission alone. Finally, we find that for systems with detected transiting planets between 5 and 10 days, there is another planet with a greater radial velocity signal ≃53% of the time.
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".