Resonant and Ultra-short-period Planet Systems Are at Opposite Ends of the Exoplanet Age Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exoplanet systems are thought to evolve on secular timescales over billions of years. This evolution is impossible to directly observe on human timescales in most individual systems. While the availability of accurate and precise age inferences for individual exoplanet host stars with ages τ in the interval 1 Gyr ≲ τ ≲ 10 Gyr would constrain this evolution, accurate and precise age inferences are difficult to obtain for isolated field dwarfs like the host stars of most exoplanets. The Galactic velocity dispersion of a thin-disk stellar population monotonically grows with time, and the relationship between age and velocity dispersion in a given Galactic location can be calibrated by a stellar population for which accurate and precise age inferences are possible. Using a sample of subgiants with precise age inferences, we calibrate the age–velocity dispersion relation in the Kepler field. Applying this relation to the Kepler field’s planet populations, we find that Kepler-discovered systems plausibly in second-order mean-motion resonances have 1 Gyr ≲ τ ≲ 2 Gyr. The same is true for systems plausibly in first-order mean-motion resonances, but only for systems likely affected by tidal dissipation inside their innermost planets. These observations suggest that many planetary systems diffuse away from initially resonant configurations on secular timescales. Our calibrated relation also indicates that ultra-short-period (USP) planet systems have typical ages in the interval 5 Gyr ≲ τ ≲ 6 Gyr. We propose that USP planets tidally migrated from initial periods in the range 1 day ≲ P ≲ 2 days to their observed locations at P < 1 day over billions of years and trillions of cycles of secular eccentricity excitation and inside-planet damping.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".