Warm Jupiters Are Less Lonely than Hot Jupiters: Close Neighbors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploiting the Kepler transit data, we uncover a dramatic distinction in the prevalence of sub-Jovian companions between systems that contain hot Jupiters (HJs) (periods inward of 10 days) and those that host warm Jupiters (WJs) (periods between 10 and 200 days). HJs, with the singular exception of WASP-47b, do not have any detectable inner or outer planetary companions (with periods inward of 50 days and sizes down to 2 R Earth). Restricting ourselves to inner companions, our limits reach down to 1 R Earth. In stark contrast, half of the WJs are closely flanked by small companions. Statistically, the companion fractions for hot and WJs are mutually exclusive, particularly in regard to inner companions. The high companion fraction of WJs also yields clues to their formation. The WJs that have close-by siblings should have low orbital eccentricities and low mutual inclinations. The orbital configurations of these systems are reminiscent of those of the low-mass close-in planetary systems abundantly discovered by the Kepler mission. This, and other arguments, lead us to propose that these WJs are formed in situ. There are indications that there may be a second population of WJs with different characteristics. In this picture, WASP-47b could be regarded as the extending tail of the in situ WJs into the HJ region and does not represent the generic formation route for HJs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".