MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4398781028 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e5f

Mercury’s Chaotic Secular Evolution as a Subdiffusive Process

2024· article· en· W4398781028 on OpenAlexaff
Dorian S. Abbot, Robert J. Webber, David Manuel Hernández, Sam Hadden, Jonathan Weare

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMercury (programming language)ChaoticStatistical physicsEnvironmental sciencePhysicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mercury’s orbit can destabilize, generally resulting in a collision with either Venus or the Sun. Chaotic evolution can cause g 1 to decrease to the approximately constant value of g 5 and create a resonance. Previous work has approximated the variation in g 1 as stochastic diffusion, which leads to a phenomological model that can reproduce the Mercury instability statistics of secular and N-body models on timescales longer than 10 Gyr. Here we show that the diffusive model significantly underpredicts the Mercury instability probability on timescales less than 5 Gyr, the remaining lifespan of the solar system. This is because g 1 exhibits larger variations on short timescales than the diffusive model would suggest. To better model the variations on short timescales, we build a new subdiffusive phenomological model for g 1. Subdiffusion is similar to diffusion but exhibits larger displacements on short timescales and smaller displacements on long timescales. We choose model parameters based on the behavior of the g 1 trajectories in the N-body simulations, leading to a tuned model that can reproduce Mercury instability statistics from 1–40 Gyr. This work motivates fundamental questions in solar system dynamics: why does subdiffusion better approximate the variation in g 1 than standard diffusion? Why is there an upper bound on g 1, but not a lower bound that would prevent it from reaching g 5?

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→