Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. V. Two Giant Planets in Kepler-511 but Only One Ran Away
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Systems hosting multiple giant planets are important laboratories for understanding planetary formation and migration processes. We present a nearly decade-long Doppler spectroscopy campaign from the HIRES instrument on the Keck-I telescope to characterize the two transiting giant planets orbiting Kepler-511 on orbits of 27 days and 297 days. The radial velocity measurements yield precise masses for both planets: 0.10 0 − 0.039 + 0.036 (2.6σ) and 0.4 4 − 0.12 + 0.11 (4σ) Jupiter masses, respectively. We use these masses to infer their bulk metallicities (i.e., metal mass fraction 0.87 ± 0.03 and 0.22 ± 0.04, respectively). Strikingly, both planets contain approximately 25–30 Earth masses of heavy elements but have very different amounts of hydrogen and helium. Envelope mass loss cannot account for this difference due to the relatively large orbital distance and mass of the inner planet. We conclude that the outer planet underwent runaway gas accretion while the inner planet did not. This bifurcation in accretion histories is likely a result of the accretion of gas with very different metallicities by the two planets or the late formation of the inner planet from a merger of sub-Neptunes. Kepler-511 uniquely demonstrates how giant planet formation can produce dramatically different outcomes even for planets in the same system.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".