Ultra-short-period Planets in K2. III. Neighbors are Common with 13 New Multiplanet Systems and 10 Newly Validated Planets in Campaigns 0–8 and 10
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using the EVEREST photometry pipeline, we have identified 74 candidate ultra-short-period planets (USPs; orbital period P < 1 day) in the first half of the K2 data (Campaigns 0–8 and 10). Of these, 33 candidates have not previously been reported. A systematic search for additional transiting planets found 13 new multiplanet systems containing a USP, doubling the number known and representing a third (32%) of USPs in our sample from K2. We also identified 30 companions, which have periods from 1.4 to 31 days (median 5.5 days). A third (36 of 104) of the candidate USPs and companions have been statistically validated or confirmed in this work, 10 for the first time, including 7 USPs. Almost all candidates, and all validated planets, are small (radii R p ≤ 3 R ⊕) with a median radius of R p = 1.1 R ⊕; the validated and confirmed USP candidates have radii between 0.4 R ⊕ and 2.4 R ⊕ and periods from P = 0.18 to 0.96 days. The lack of candidate (a) ultra-hot-Jupiter (R p > 10 R ⊕) and (b) short-period-desert (3 ≤ R p ≤ 10 R ⊕) planets suggests that both populations are rare, although our survey may have missed some of the very deepest transits. These results also provide strong evidence that we have not reached a lower limit on the distribution of planetary radius values for planets at close proximity to a star and suggest that additional improvements in photometry techniques would yield yet more USPs. The large fraction of USPs in known multiplanet systems supports origins models that involve dynamical interactions with exterior planets coupled to tidal decay of the USP orbits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".