The New Generation Planetary Population Synthesis (NGPPS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context.State-of-the-art planet formation models are now capable of accounting for the full spectrum of known planet types. This comes at the cost of an increasing complexity of the models, which calls into question whether established links between their initial conditions and the calculated planetary observables are preserved. Aims.In this paper, we take a data-driven approach to investigate the relations between clusters of synthetic planets with similar properties and their formation history. Methods.We trained a Gaussian mixture model on typical exoplanet observables computed by a global model of planet formation to identify clusters of similar planets. We then traced back the formation histories of the planets associated with them and pinpointed their differences. Using the cluster affiliation as labels, we trained a random forest classifier to predict planet species from properties of the originating protoplanetary disk. Results.Without presupposing any planet types, we identified four distinct classes in our synthetic population. They roughly correspond to the observed populations of (sub-)Neptunes, giant planets, and (super-)Earths, plus an additional unobserved class we denote as “icy cores”. These groups emerge already within the first 0.1 Myr of the formation phase and are predicted from disk properties with an overall accuracy of >90%. The most reliable predictors are the initial orbital distance of planetary nuclei and the total planetesimal mass available. Giant planets form only in a particular region of this parameter space that is in agreement with purely analytical predictions. IncludingN-body interactions between the planets decreases the predictability, especially for sub-Neptunes that frequently undergo giant collisions and turn into super-Earths. Conclusions.The processes covered by current core accretion models of planet formation are largely predictable and reproduce the known demographic features in the exoplanet population. The impact of gravitational interactions highlights the need forN-body integrators for realistic predictions of systems of low-mass planets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".