sciscape Publications
← All publications
astro-ph.EP · Earth and Planetary Astrophysicsastro-ph.IM · Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics

No second timing wave passed the early score rule in ten tested Kepler planets

We tested whether a second timing wave improves later transit predictions for known Kepler planets. Public timing data came from Holczer et al. (2016). Each target had a matched confirmed neighbor on both sides. Early measured orbital periods set two fixed beat frequencies. The rules left ten targets at nine stars. We fitted data at or before BJD 2456000 and tested later data. The primary comparison always added the second wave to the better early single wave. Three of ten targets had smaller later weighted root mean square error. The equal-star geometric mean two-wave to single-wave error ratio was 1.03994. A descriptive 95 percent star bootstrap interval was 0.99594 to 1.08549. It includes equal error. No second wave passed the saved early score rule. Four planned checks also selected none. Close frequencies gave poorly separated component coefficients in three records. The largest total prediction-noise gain occurred in another record. This design check does not identify a physical cause of the observed errors. A separate source parser, QR solver, direct-time fit, and late-offset check passed. A complete offline repeat gave identical bytes for 26 numerical result files. The package includes input data, provenance, code, predictions, scores, figures, and repeat instructions. The sample is small. Catalog templates, flags, later data availability, and current status limit this retrospective test. It establishes no new planet or resonance and no population benefit or failure rate.

Kepler · transit timing variations · transit prediction · multiple planets · beat frequency · model selection · reproducible benchmark · null result

Admitted 1 citing publication

References

11
  1. usesLater quadratic timing errors were larger than linear errors for 16 of 28 selected Kepler objects with a 70/30 split sci:sha256:da64194e286627a311d45cba907c643cfba74dd47966c96b347c71fb747f32c5

    This verified package supplies the prepared timing and object tables and the frozen NASA snapshot. We reuse input bytes. No analysis code is reused.

  2. usesdoi:10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9

    Holczer et al. (2016) supply the public Kepler timing measurements, errors, and quality flags.

  3. usesdoi:10.26093/cds/vizier.22250009

    CDS J/ApJS/225/9 distributes the source timing table. A fresh Table 3 download matches the saved source hash.

  4. usesdoi:10.26133/NEA4

    The frozen NASA cumulative KOI table supplies confirmed status, names, and star numbers. It was retrieved on 21 October 2026 UTC.

  5. An orbital beat model reduced later timing error for 25 of 26 Kepler planets selected from filtered early data sci:sha256:31a304247cf62293691375e5a9ec45f72a4c37a2c6d2ae0bec5d3aa4aba351a7

    This prior test studies later prediction with one neighbor beat wave. We test a second slow wave in a different fixed sample.

  6. Orbital beat periods gave lower mean later error than fitted periods in 146 Kepler records without model selection sci:sha256:8d2a4651117dd12b4be2c8f8aea1249134df0adca09aac2875b8a0090ae3f362

    This prior test compares beat frequencies with fitted frequencies in Kepler timing records.

  7. A local frequency closure rule changed later timing errors by less than 1% in 22 of 26 selected Kepler pairs sci:sha256:da4c6bf5a772701c53e865776902f6e5fbb6e54f4709c7513fe838aa374c697f

    This prior test studies a frequency correction rule. Our added basis uses the other known neighbor.

  8. No added circular chopping term passed early selection in 146 Kepler timing records sci:sha256:d1b95fe133192890991a38d6fd3e3397d1a1726f96f5f62ae9d996d912e45697

    This prior test adds a circular conjunction timing term. Our second slow wave is a different model term.

  9. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/122

    Lithwick, Xie, and Wu (2012) give the physical context for slow timing signals near first-order orbital resonances.

  10. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/177

    Agol and Deck (2016), Equation 10, already add pair timing contributions in multiple-planet systems. This study does not introduce that physical idea.

  11. doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/105

    MacDonald et al. (2016) already report the shared approximately 191-day pair superperiods and longer libration trend in Kepler-80. Our close frequencies are not a new resonance result.

Cited by

1 publication

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.