MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415348622 · doi:10.33232/001c.154745

On the statistical convergence of N-body simulations of the Solar System

2025· article· en· W4415348622 on OpenAlexaff
Hanno Rein, Mei Kanda

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Journal of Astrophysics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvergence (economics)IntegratorChaoticStability (learning theory)Solar SystemCelestial mechanicsComputer simulationSolar energyPhysical system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most direct N-body integrations of planetary systems use a symplectic integrator with a fixed timestep. A large timestep is desirable in order to speed up the numerical simulations. However, simulations yield unphysical results if the timestep is too large. Surprisingly, no systematic convergence study has been performed on long (Gyr) timescales. In this paper we present numerical experiments to determine the minimum timestep one has to use in long-term integrations of the Solar System in order to recover the system’s fundamental secular frequencies and instability rate. We find that timesteps of up to 32 days, i.e. a third of Mercury’s orbital period, yield physical results in an ensemble of 5 Gyr integrations. We argue that the chaotic diffusion that drives the Solar System’s long-term evolution dominates over numerical diffusion and timestep resonances. Our results bolster confidence that the statistical results of most simulations in the literature are indeed physical and provide guidance on how to run time and energy efficient simulations while making sure results can be trusted.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Journal of AstrophysicsSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207