Gaussian Processes and Nested Sampling Applied to Kepler's Small Long-period Exoplanet Candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are more than 5000 confirmed and validated planets beyond the solar system to date, more than half of which were discovered by NASA’s Kepler mission. The catalog of Kepler’s exoplanet candidates has only been extensively analyzed under the assumption of white noise (i.i.d. Gaussian), which breaks down on timescales longer than a day due to correlated noise (point-to-point correlation) from stellar variability and instrumental effects. Statistical validation of candidate transit events becomes increasingly difficult when they are contaminated by this form of correlated noise, especially in the low-signal-to-noise (S/N) regimes occupied by Earth–Sun and Venus–Sun analogs. To diagnose small long-period, low-S/N putative transit signatures with few (roughly 3–9) observed transit-like events (e.g., Earth–Sun analogs), we model Kepler's photometric data as noise, treated as a Gaussian process, with and without the inclusion of a transit model. Nested sampling algorithms from the Python UltraNest package recover model evidences and maximum a posteriori parameter sets, allowing us to disposition transit signatures as either planet candidates or false alarms within a Bayesian framework.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".