No Strong Associations between Eccentricity and Orbital Architecture in Kepler Compact Multis

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, G. J. Gilbert et al. performed a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of 1646 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 multitransiting 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 ∼3 and Kepler multis have intrinsic multiplicity ∼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 that excite eccentricity but not inclination. Subsignificant relationships between eccentricity and architecture imply that subtle, multifactor trends may be detectable in the future using more sophisticated statistical techniques.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Astronomical Journal
Published
2026-04-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ae579e
Primary Topic
Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

No Strong Associations between Eccentricity and Orbital Architecture in Kepler Compact Multis

Erik A. Petigura, Gregory J. Gilbert, Paige M. Entrican
The Astronomical Journal
Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
article

No Strong Associations between Eccentricity and Orbital Architecture in Kepler Compact Multis

Erik A. Petigura, Gregory J. Gilbert, Paige M. Entrican
article en

Abstract

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, G. J. Gilbert et al. performed a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of 1646 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 multitransiting 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 ∼3 and Kepler multis have intrinsic multiplicity ∼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 that excite eccentricity but not inclination. Subsignificant relationships between eccentricity and architecture imply that subtle, multifactor trends may be detectable in the future using more sophisticated statistical techniques.

The Astronomical JournalVol. 171(5)
California Institute of Technology (US), University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Heising-Simons Foundation
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.