CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Stellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesAstro and Planetary Science

Constraints on the size and dynamics of the J1407b ring system

Open access
Rieder, Steven, Kenworthy, Matthew A.·2016·Astronomy & Astrophysics
DOI 10.1051/0004-6361/201629567
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Context. J1407 (1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6 in full) is a young star in the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association that underwent a series of complex eclipses over 56 days in 2007. To explain these, it was hypothesised that a secondary substellar companion, J1407b, has a giant ring system filling a large fraction of the Hill sphere, causing the eclipses. Observations have not successfully detected J1407b, but do rule out circular orbits for the companion around the primary star.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper tests whether a giant ring system around J1407b can remain stable if the companion follows the eccentric orbit required by observations. It finds that only retrograde rings survive long enough and produce the observed 56-day eclipse, while prograde rings are ruled out.

Key findings

  • Prograde discs are severely disrupted: particles initially beyond 0.45 ± 0.01 Hill radii are lost within a few passages, the final perpendicular radius is 0.46 ± 0.02 R_Hill, and eclipse durations reach only about 40 days, below the observed 56 ± 4 days.
  • Retrograde discs retain material farther out, with a final perpendicular radius of 0.75 ± 0.04 R_Hill; some models produce eclipses up to about 80 days, and high-mass B models can match both the duration and the observed velocity.
  • A viable solution requires a companion of roughly 60–100 M_Jup on an 11 yr orbit with retrograde ring material; the mass is constrained above 20 M_Jup and closer to 100 M_Jup for the longest transit durations. Retrograde systems are typically about 1.4 times the size of prograde systems.
  • Initially circular particle orbits become eccentric over time, producing spiral patterns that wind up and fade.

Methods

  • N-body simulations were run in the AMUSE framework with the Rebound/WHFast integrator. The star was set to 1.0 M_sun, the companion to 20–100 M_Jup in 20 M_Jup steps, with an 11 yr period, semi-major axis 5.0 ± 0.1 AU, and eccentricities of 0.60, 0.65, or 0.70, giving pericentric velocities of 27–33 km/s.
  • The disc contained 6992 massless particles in 50 initially circular, coplanar rings, with the outer ring at the Hill radius at pericentre and an inner cutoff at 0.25 R_Hill. Each model was run prograde and retrograde for 10^5 yr, about 9090 companion orbits, with particles beyond 2 AU removed.
  • Eclipse duration was calculated from the most distant bound particles on either side of the star–secondary axis divided by the companion’s pericentric relative velocity.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the simulations assume no new material is added, treat disc particles as massless, ignore the disc’s internal dynamics, and leave ring-structure formation and evolution to future work. It also states that the stellar radius has no direct measurement and dominates the uncertainty in ring size, and that the origin of a retrograde ring system remains unresolved.
  • The paper notes that J1407b has not been directly detected, circular orbits are already ruled out, and current instruments cannot measure the planet’s obliquity.
  • Evident from the text: the results depend on the adopted orbital parameters from Kenworthy et al. and on coplanar, initially circular ring particles; self-gravity, collisions, and satellite formation are not modeled, and only 10^5 yr is simulated.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1051/0004-6361/201629567

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

13 of 25 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    The relative velocity of the star and ring system is derived from the gradient of the light curve measured towards J1407.

    “The relative velocity of the star and ring system is derived from the gradient of the light curve measured towards J1407 (see Eq. ( 11) in Van Werkhoven et al. 2014),”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Werkhoven et al. 2014 source

      Section 4 (Ring Model, Eqs. 11–12) relates the light-curve slope to the ring’s speed relative to J1407. It says the measured slope yields a lower limit on that speed under the model’s geometric assumptions, not an exact relative velocity. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    The height to diameter ratio of the J1407b exorings is <0.01.

    “Since the height to diameter ratio of the J1407b exorings is <0.01 (Mamajek et al. 2012), we limit our model to be co-planar with the secondary's orbit.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mamajek et al. 2012 source

      Section 3.7 (page unavailable) suggests from hourly eclipse variations that the J1407 disk has an aspect ratio of about 0.01 in height over radius, which would put height over diameter below 0.01. The paper presents this as a tentative inference, not an established measurement, whereas the citing sentence states the ratio as fact. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    The derived diameter of the ring system combined with observational limits on J1407b imply that J1407b is on an eccentric orbit about J1407.

    “The derived diameter of the ring system combined with the observational limits set on the companion J1407b (as described in Van Werkhoven et al. 2014;Kenworthy et al. 2015) imply that J1407b is on an eccentric orbit about J1407.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Van Werkhoven et al. 2014 source

      The Results and Discussion derive a ring-system diameter and compare the inferred speeds with a minimum orbital period and a companion-mass limit. But §6.1 and the Conclusions say an eccentric orbit could alleviate the conflict only to some extent; it cannot explain the largest observed light-curve slopes. This paper therefore does not establish that J1407b is on an eccentric orbit. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Kenworthy et al. 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Interpretationreasoning

    A giant ring system as proposed in Mamajek et al. (2012) can be a dynamically stable solution, but only if the rings are on a retrograde orbit, for relatively large masses of J1407b.

    “We therefore conclude that a giant ring system as proposed in Mamajek et al. (2012) can be a dynamically stable solution, but only if the rings are on a retrograde orbit, for relatively large masses of J1407b.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mamajek et al. 2012 source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The eclipse was observed at or very near pericentre.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The disc mass is negligible compared to the secondary's mass, so internal disc dynamics can be ignored and the disc particles can be treated as massless.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system is co-planar with the secondary's orbit.
  • Interpretationcitation

    Non-azimuthally symmetric internal structure in the ring system, via vector addition of J1407b's orbital motion with ring material orbital motion, can explain the high relative velocity.

    “An alternative explanation is that there is additional internal structure in the ring system that is non-azimuthally symmetric.The vector addition of J1407b's orbital motion with the orbital motion of ring material can explain the high relative velocity, discussed in Van Werkhoven et al. (2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Werkhoven et al. 2014 source
  • May combine two claims. 14
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 3
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    J1407 is a young K5 pre-MS star in the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association, about 16 Myr old, that underwent a complex series of eclipses in 2007 lasting 56 days.

    “J1407 (1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6 in full) is a young star in the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association that underwent a series of complex eclipses over 56 days in 2007.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
      “The K5 pre-MS 16 Myr-old star J1407 showed a complex series of eclipses in 2007, lasting a total of 56 days”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Mamajek et al. 2012 source

      Section 3.1 identifies J1407 as 1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6, a young Sco-Cen star, and describes a complex eclipse pattern in 2007. It places the dimming and brightening within approximately 26 days on either side of April 29; the Figure 4 caption describes the wider dimming as approximate rather than establishing the cited sentence’s exact 56-day duration. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Van Werkhoven et al. 2014 source

      The Revised Stellar Parameters section adopts an age of about 16 Myr for J1407, while noting a possible range of roughly 5–20 Myr; the paper also identifies it as a pre-main-sequence K5 star associated with the Upper Centaurus-Lupus subgroup. The Figure 6 caption describes a structured eclipse recorded in 2007, but says it lasted **at least 54 days**, not that its duration was 56 days. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Kenworthy et al. 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Morbidelli et al. (2012) show that a single impactor leads to retrograde motions in the rings and moons, and that a series of smaller impacts can preserve the orbital motion of the rings.

    “More recently, Morbidelli et al. (2012) show that a single impactor leads to retrograde motions in the rings and moons, and that a series of smaller impacts can preserve the orbital motion of the rings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Morbidelli et al. 2012 source

      Section 4 (p. 12) says tilting Uranus from 0° to 98° in one event would produce equatorial but retrograde satellites. The Conclusions (p. 14) say prograde satellites require at least two giant collisions, not a series of smaller impacts; Section 4 (p. 14) describes a probability of a prograde disk rather than guaranteed preservation of ring motion. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A secondary substellar companion J1407b with a giant multi-ring system orbits J1407, as concluded by prior studies.

    “a series of papers investigating the J1407 system (Mamajek et al. 2012;Van Werkhoven et al. 2014;Kenworthy et al. 2015;Kenworthy & Mamajek 2015) conclude that there is a secondary substellar companion (called J1407b) with a giant multi-ring system in orbit around the primary star.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Mamajek et al. 2012 source

      The Preliminary Model (§3.7; page unavailable) fits J1407’s eclipse with a companion surrounded by a disk and multiple rings, but calls the fit preliminary and non-unique. The Conclusion (§5; page unavailable) leaves the companion’s nature open—low-mass star, brown dwarf, or gas giant—so this paper does not establish that it is substellar or that the proposed ring system is confirmed. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Van Werkhoven et al. 2014 source

      The Abstract describes a proposed substellar companion with an extended ring system, and the Results report light-curve features consistent with at least 24 rings. But the Abstract calls the companion an interpretation, while the Conclusions say further observations could confirm J1407b’s bound orbit. The paper therefore does not conclude definitively that a ringed companion orbits J1407. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Kenworthy et al. 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The J1407b ring system is dynamically cold and any retrograde generating event must have happened a dynamically long time ago.

    “Given that the height to diameter ratio of the J1407b exorings is <0.01 (Mamajek et al. 2012) and that there is radial structure at all spatial scales, the system is dynamically cold and any such retrograde generating event must have happened a dynamically long time ago.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mamajek et al. 2012 source

      Section 3.7, “A Preliminary Model” (page unavailable), says hourly eclipse variations suggest an extremely low disk aspect ratio of about 0.01. That is a tentative estimate, not an established height-to-diameter ratio strictly below 0.01. The citation is attached to the ratio; the dynamically cold state and timing of a retrograde-generating event are the citing authors’ subsequent inference, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    After 10^5 yr, the radius measured along the axis perpendicular to the star-secondary axis is 0.75 ± 0.04 R_Hill for retrograde systems and 0.46 ± 0.02 R_Hill for prograde systems.

    “The radius after 10 5 yr, measured along the axis perpendicular to the star-secondary axis, is 0.75 ± 0.04 × R Hill and 0.46 ± 0.02 × R Hill for retrograde and prograde systems, respectively.”
    • Also stated in: § Lifetime of rings · plain
      “On this timescale, the discs shrink from R Hill to 0.46 R Hill and 0.75 R Hill for pro-and retrograde orbits, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The disc mass is negligible compared to the secondary's mass, so internal disc dynamics can be ignored and the disc particles can be treated as massless.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system is co-planar with the secondary's orbit.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For prograde orbits, the shrinking process is quick within several orbits, whereas retrograde orbits shrink more gradually.

    “For prograde orbits, this process is quick (within several orbits), whereas retrograde orbits shrink more gradually.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The disc mass is negligible compared to the secondary's mass, so internal disc dynamics can be ignored and the disc particles can be treated as massless.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system is co-planar with the secondary's orbit.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A secondary of 60 to 100 M_Jup with an 11 yr orbital period and retrograde orbiting material can survive for at least 10^4 orbits and produce eclipses with similar durations as the observed one.

    “a secondary of 60 to 100 M Jup with an 11 yr orbital period and retrograde orbiting material can survive for at least 10 4 orbits and produce eclipses with similar durations as the observed one.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.1. Results from the simulations · plain
      “Retrograde ring systems can exist for at least 10 5 yr and produce eclipses that last 56 days in duration with a projected velocity consistent with that seen in the observational data (see Fig. 4).”
    • Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain
      “For the retrograde ring system, we find it retains a larger fraction of its mass out to larger radii, and for the proposed orbital parameters of J1407b, a disk size and orbital velocity consistent with observations is seen.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The eclipse was observed at or very near pericentre.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The disc mass is negligible compared to the secondary's mass, so internal disc dynamics can be ignored and the disc particles can be treated as massless.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system is co-planar with the secondary's orbit.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If the assumed radius of the star is smaller than stellar models predict, then the relative velocity and diameter of the ring system become smaller, and the derived eccentricity of J1407b's orbit decreases, easing the dynamical problem.

    “If the assumed radius of the star is smaller than stellar models predict, then the relative velocity and diameter of the ring system become smaller.This also decreases the derived eccentricity of the orbit of J1407b, easing the dynamical problem we face in this paper.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    A less eccentric orbit would result in a lower transverse velocity, inconsistent with the derived velocity of 32 ± 2 km/s from Kenworthy et al. (2015).

    “Since a less eccentric orbit would result in a lower transverse velocity, this would be inconsistent with the derived velocity of 32 ± 2 km s -1 from Kenworthy et al. (2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kenworthy et al. 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The longer disruption timescale of retrograde systems would allow them to keep their size for a longer time if replenishment occurs, while the disruption timescale for prograde systems is too short.

    “The longer disruption timescale of retrograde systems would allow them to keep their size for a longer time in this case, while the disruption timescale for prograde systems is too short.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The mass of the secondary companion is constrained to be larger than 20 M_Jup expected by Kenworthy et al. (2015), closer to 100 M_Jup for the longest transit durations.

    “We constrain the mass of the secondary companion to be larger than the mass of 20 M Jup expected by Kenworthy et al. (2015), closer to 100 M Jup for the longest transit durations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kenworthy et al. 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: The eclipse was observed at or very near pericentre.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The disc mass is negligible compared to the secondary's mass, so internal disc dynamics can be ignored and the disc particles can be treated as massless.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system is co-planar with the secondary's orbit.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The system is significantly larger than its Roche limit, on the order of 0.001 AU for a Moon-like object, so satellites may form in the disc.

    “Since the system is significantly larger than its Roche limit (which is on the order of 0.001 AU for a Moon-like object), satellites may form in the disc.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Circumplanetary disks are expected to be prograde with respect to the circumstellar disks they formed in.

    “Circumplanetary disks are expected to be prograde with respect to the circumstellar disks they formed in.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Observations have not successfully detected J1407b but do rule out circular orbits for the companion around the primary star.

    “Observations have not successfully detected J1407b, but do rule out circular orbits for the companion around the primary star.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    There is no direct measurement of the radius of the star, and it will not be resolvable using ground-based interferometers in the foreseeable future, so the radius is derived from luminosity and effective temperature from stellar evolution models.

    “There is no direct measurement of the radius of the star, and it will not be resolvable using ground-based interferometers in the forseeable future, so we use the luminosity and effective temperature from stellar evolution models to derive the radius of the star.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    An interaction with a third companion in the system through the Kozai mechanism is thought to provide the mechanism for such retrograde orbits.

    “An interaction with a third companion in the system through the Kozai mechanism (Kozai 1962) is thought to provide the mechanism in these cases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kozai 1962 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Prograde models would require either a much more massive companion or a much less eccentric orbit to work as a solution.

    “These models would require either a much more massive companion or a much less eccentric orbit to work as a solution (Eq. ( 1)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Particles starting within the stable radius may be stripped as initially circular retrograde particle orbits become eccentric.

    “As a result, particles starting within the stable radius may be stripped.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The disc mass is negligible compared to the secondary's mass, so internal disc dynamics can be ignored and the disc particles can be treated as massless.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system is co-planar with the secondary's orbit.
18 of 18

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The eclipse was observed at or very near pericentre.

    “We assume that the eclipse was observed at or very near its pericentre, since the orbital velocity is highest at this point and J1407b would likely have been detected if the long axis of the orbit were not aligned to the line of sight (Kenworthy et al. 2015).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    No new material is added to the ring system during the simulations.

    “Our simulations assume no new material is added to the system.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The disc mass is negligible compared to the secondary's mass, so internal disc dynamics can be ignored and the disc particles can be treated as massless.

    “Since the mass of the disc is negligible compared to the secondary's mass, we ignore the internal dynamics of the disc and make the disc particles massless, speeding up the calculations.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The ring system is co-planar with the secondary's orbit.

    “Since the height to diameter ratio of the J1407b exorings is <0.01 (Mamajek et al. 2012), we limit our model to be co-planar with the secondary's orbit.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • J1407b is on a highly eccentric orbit with eccentricity e > 0.6.

    “The orbit of J1407b is thought to be highly eccentric with an eccentricity 𝑒 &gt; 0.6 (Rieder &amp; Kenworthy 2016) which we discuss later in the context of this work.”

    From Mean motion resonances with nearby moons: an unlikely origin for the gaps observed in the ring around the exoplanet J1407b (2019) · cites this paper as Rieder & Kenworthy 2016

    Section 2 models J1407b on a highly eccentric orbit, choosing eccentricities from 0.6 to 0.7. But Table 1 includes a model at exactly e = 0.60, and Section 3 considers values as low as 0.59, so the paper does not establish the strict bound e > 0.6. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • An orbital period of 11 years only permitted eccentricities up to e=0.8.

    “An orbital period of 11 year only permitted eccentricities up to e 0.8 (Von Werkhoven et al., 2014;Kenworthy and Mamajek 2015;Rieder and Kenworthy 2016), which we take as an upper limit for eccentricity in our models.”

    From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Rieder and Kenworthy 2016

    Section 2 (page unavailable) says the models use an 11-year orbital period and choose eccentricities between 0.6 and 0.7. Section 3 (page unavailable) considers 0.59–0.71, but neither passage establishes that 0.8 is the maximum permitted eccentricity for an 11-year orbit. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Rieder and Kenworthy (2016) found a mass of 60-100 MJup to be the most dynamically stable configuration for J1407b.

    “This is lower than Rieder and Kenworthy (2016), who found a mass of 60 -100M Jup to be the most dynamically stable configuration.”

    From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Rieder and Kenworthy (2016)

    Section 3 says dynamically stable rings require retrograde orbits and relatively large J1407b masses; Section 4.1 places the mass closer to 100 MJup for the longest transits. The paper does not identify 60–100 MJup as a preferred stability range, and it says lower masses may also work if the system formed recently. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Stability issues can be partially overcome by considering a ring orbiting in a retrograde manner instead of prograde, which prevented significant loss of material from the outer region during periapsis.

    “Stability issues can be partially overcome by considering a ring orbiting in a retrograde manner instead of prograde (Rieder & Kenworthy 2016), which prevented a significant loss of material from the outer region of the ring during periapsis.”

    From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Rieder & Kenworthy 2016

    The Conclusions report that retrograde rings retain more material at larger radii than prograde rings, supporting the stability comparison. But Section 3 says retrograde systems still gradually lose particles from their outermost region; the cited passages do not establish that retrograde motion prevented significant loss there specifically during periapsis. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Although our models agree with the retrograde scenario as the best solution for the long-term stability of a ring system, the lower mass of J1407b (20 MJ) compared with Rieder and Kenworthy (2016), who used a mass of 60-80 MJ, still results in a short dynamic lifetime.

    “Although our models agree with the retrograde scenario as the best solution for the long-term stability of a ring system, the lower mass of J1407b (20M J ), compared with Rieder and Kenworthy (2016), who used a mass of 60 -80M J , still results in a short dynamic lifetime.”

    From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Rieder and Kenworthy (2016)

    Section 4.1 reports that retrograde rings remain stable longer than prograde rings and that the companion mass needed for the longest eclipses is greater than 20 MJup. But Section 2 says Rieder and Kenworthy modeled masses from 20 to 100 MJup in steps of 20, not just 60–80 MJup. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Claimed survival exceeds the simulated orbit count

    Minor

    The abstract claims survival for at least 10,000 orbits, but the simulations cover approximately 9,090 orbits. The stated run length therefore does not establish the claimed minimum.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Ferlet, 1987, A&A, 185, 267
  2. Lagrange-Henri, 1988, A&A, 190, 275
  3. Lagrange-Henri, 1989, A&A, 215, L5
  4. Safronov, 1966, Soviet Ast., 9, 987
  5. Sekanina, 1994, A&A, 289, 607

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rieder, S., & Kenworthy, M. A.
Affiliations
Leiden University (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Publisher
EDP Sciences
Published
2016-11-21
Volume
596
Pages
A9
ISSN
  • 0004-6361 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0746
DOI
10.1051/0004-6361/201629567
OpenAlex
W2526174040
Semantic Scholar
04635c9ddebb49a8b3c36763146300521c46785c
Cited by
23
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astro and Planetary Science
Keywords
substellar companions, eclipsing binaries, Hill sphere, orbital dynamics, Scorpius-Centaurus OB association, orbital eccentricity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review