The Compositions of Rocky Planets in Close-in Orbits Tend to Be Earth-like
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hundreds of exoplanets between 1 and 1.8 times the size of Earth have been discovered on close-in orbits. However, these planets show such a diversity in densities that some appear to be made entirely of iron, while others appear to host gaseous envelopes. To test this diversity in composition, we update the masses of five rocky exoplanets (HD 93963 A b, Kepler-10 b, Kepler-100 b, Kepler-407 b, and TOI-1444 b) and present the confirmation of a new planet (TOI-1011) using 187 high-precision radial velocities from Gemini/MAROON-X and Keck/KPF. Our updated planet masses suggest compositions closer to that of Earth than previous literature values for all planets in our sample. In particular, we report that two previously identified “super-Mercuries” (Kepler-100 b and HD 93963 A b) have lower masses that suggest less iron-rich compositions. We then compare the ratio of iron to rock-building species with the abundance ratios of those elements in their host stars. These updated planet compositions do not suggest a steep relationship between planet and host star compositions, contradictory to previous results, and suggest that planets and host stars have similar abundance ratios.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".