No strong associations between eccentricity and orbital architecture in Kepler compact multis

AI-generated keywords: planetary systems eccentricity compact multis formation and evolution statistical techniques

AI-generated Key Points

  • Strong correlation between planet radius ($R_p$) and orbital eccentricity ($e)
  • Small planets on short orbits (<4 days) show signs of tidal circularization
  • Single-transiting systems have higher eccentricities than multi-transiting systems
  • Systems with two transiting planets have higher eccentricities than those with three or more
  • Kepler singles likely have an intrinsic multiplicity around 3, while Kepler multis may range from 4 to 6
  • No statistically significant associations found between eccentricity and planetary period ratios, gap complexity, size inequality, or size ordering within these planetary systems
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Gregory J. Gilbert, Erik A. Petigura, Paige M. Entrican

arXiv: 2603.23644v1 - DOI (astro-ph.EP)
12 pages, 9 figures, accepted for publication in AAS Journals
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: The dynamical history of a planetary system is recorded in the present day architecture of its constituent planets' sizes, orbital periods, and eccentricities. Studying the relationships between these quantities for large populations provides a window into the processes by which planetary systems form and evolve. Recently, Gilbert, Petigura, and Entrican (2025) performed a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of 1626 planets from the Kepler census, demonstrating a strong relationship between planet radius $R_p$ and orbital eccentricity $e$. Here, we build upon that work to search for correlations between eccentricity and system architecture, focusing on compact systems of small planets. We find that small planets on short orbits ($P < 4$ days) show evidence of tidal circularization. This trend is well established for Jovian planets but a novel finding for super-Earths and sub-Neptunes. We reproduce the known wherein trend single-transiting systems possess elevated eccentricities relative to their multi-transiting counterparts. We further show that systems with two transiting planets have higher eccentricities than those with three or more transiting planets. When compared to population synthesis models, these multiplicity-eccentricity relationships imply that Kepler singles have intrinsic multiplicity ${\sim}3$ and Kepler multis have intrinsic multiplicity ${\sim}4{-}6$. We detect no statistically significant associations between eccentricity and planetary period ratios, gap complexity, size inequality, or size ordering. We interpret these findings as evidence either in favor of a quiescent formation history or against dynamical processes which excite eccentricity but not inclination. Sub-significant relationships between eccentricity and architecture imply that subtle, multi-factor trends may be detectable in the future using more sophisticated statistical techniques.

Submitted to arXiv on 24 Mar. 2026

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2603.23644v1

A hierarchical Bayesian analysis of 1626 planets from the Kepler census by Gilbert, Petigura, and Entrican (2025) revealed a strong correlation between planet radius ($R_p$) and orbital eccentricity ($e). Building upon this work, the researchers delved deeper into the relationships between eccentricity and system architecture within compact systems of small planets. They observed that small planets on short orbits (with periods less than 4 days) exhibited signs of tidal circularization. This phenomenon was previously well-documented for Jovian planets but has now also been identified in super-Earths and sub-Neptunes. The study also highlighted an intriguing trend where single-transiting systems displayed higher eccentricities compared to multi-transiting counterparts. Additionally, systems with two transiting planets demonstrated elevated eccentricities relative to those with three or more transiting planets. By comparing their findings to population synthesis models, Gilbert et al. inferred that Kepler singles likely have an intrinsic multiplicity around 3 while Kepler multis may possess an intrinsic multiplicity ranging from 4 to 6. Interestingly, the researchers did not find statistically significant associations between eccentricity and planetary period ratios, gap complexity, size inequality, or size ordering within these planetary systems. This led them to interpret their results as suggestive of either a relatively calm formation history or as evidence against dynamical processes that solely excite eccentricity without affecting inclination. Overall, the study's nuanced exploration of eccentricity and architectural relationships in compact multis provides valuable insights into the formation and evolution of planetary systems. While no definitive conclusions were drawn regarding the underlying mechanisms shaping these systems' architectures, the researchers hinted at the potential for future discoveries through more advanced statistical techniques capable of detecting subtle multi-factor trends in similar studies.
Created on 26 Mar. 2026

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.