Shape models and spin states of Jupiter Trojans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The leading theory for the origin of Jupiter Trojans (JTs) assumes that JTs were captured to their orbits near the Lagrangian points of Jupiter during the early reconfiguration of the giant planets. The natural source region for the majority of JTs would then be the population of planetesimals born in a massive trans-Neptunian disk. If true, JTs represent the most accessible stable population of small Solar System bodies that formed in the outer regions of the Solar System. For this work, we compiled photometric datasets for about 1000 JTs and applied the convex inversion technique in order to assess their shapes and spin states. We obtained full solutions for 79 JTs, and partial solutions for an additional 31 JTs. We found that the observed distribution of the pole obliquities of JTs is broadly consistent with expectations from the streaming instability, which is the leading mechanism for the formation of planetesimals in the trans-Neptunian disk. The observed JTs’ pole distribution has a slightly smaller prograde vs. retrograde asymmetry (excess of obliquities >130°) than what is expected from the existing streaming instability simulations. However, this discrepancy can be plausibly reconciled by the effects of the post-formation collisional activity. Our numerical simulations of the post-capture spin evolution indicate that the JTs’ pole distribution is not significantly affected by dynamical processes such as the eccentricity excitation in resonances, close encounters with planets, or the effects of nongravitational forces. However, a few JTs exhibit large latitude variations of the rotation pole and may even temporarily transition between prograde- and retrograde-rotating categories.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".