MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4288083087 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936929

Transit least-squares survey

2020· article· en· W4288083087 on OpenAlexfundno aff
René Heller, Michael Hippke, J. Freudenthal, Kai Rodenbeck, Natalie M. Batalha, Steve Bryson

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryPlanetary Science DivisionScience Mission DirectorateSmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryMax-Planck-Institut für AstronomieQueen's UniversitySpace Telescope Science InstituteUniversity of EdinburghJohns Hopkins UniversityQueen's University BelfastNational Science FoundationEuropean Space AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationEötvös Loránd TudományegyetemCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Central UniversityGordon and Betty Moore FoundationDurham UniversitySmithsonian Institution
KeywordsPlanetPhysicsOrbital periodTransit (satellite)AstrophysicsAstronomyPhotometry (optics)KeplerExoplanetPlanetary systemStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sun-like star Kepler-160 (KOI-456) has been known to host two transiting planets, Kepler-160 b and c, of which planet c shows substantial transit-timing variations (TTVs). We studied the transit photometry and the TTVs of this system in our search for a suspected third planet. We used the archival Kepler photometry of Kepler-160 to search for additional transiting planets using a combination of our Wōtan detrending algorithm and our transit least-squares detection algorithm. We also used the Mercury N-body gravity code to study the orbital dynamics of the system in trying to explain the observed TTVs of planet c. First, we recovered the known transit series of planets Kepler-160 b and c. Then we found a new transiting candidate with a radius of 1.91−0.14+0.17 Earth radii (R⊕), an orbital period of 378.417−0.025+0.028 d, and Earth-like insolation. The vespa software predicts that this signal has an astrophysical false-positive probability of FPP3 = 1.8 × 10−3 when the multiplicity of the system is taken into account. Kepler vetting diagnostics yield a multiple event statistic of MES = 10.7, which corresponds to an ~85% reliability against false alarms due to instrumental artifacts such as rolling bands. We are also able to explain the observed TTVs of planet c with the presence of a previously unknown planet. The period and mass of this new planet, however, do not match the period and mass of the new transit candidate. Our Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations of the TTVs of Kepler-160 c can be conclusively explained by a new nontransiting planet with a mass between about 1 and 100 Earth masses and an orbital period between about 7 and 50 d. We conclude that Kepler-160 has at least three planets, one of which is the nontransiting planet Kepler-160 d. The expected stellar radial velocity amplitude caused by this new planet ranges between about 1 and 20 m s−1. We also find the super-Earth-sized transiting planet candidate KOI-456.04 in the habitable zone of this system, which could be the fourth planet.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.019

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→