PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 22, 2026SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología0 citationsOpen Access

Inferring Exoplanet Parameters from Transit Timing Variations Using LSTM Networks

View Full Paper
MIM. I. IkhsanMAM. I. ArifyantoTHTaufiq Hidayat

Key Points

  • The aim is to utilize LSTM networks for estimating key parameters of exoplanets from transit timing variations.
  • Implemented long short-term memory (LSTM) networks for analysis.
  • Trained model on synthetic data generated with TTVFast.
  • Employed Monte Carlo dropout to assess prediction uncertainties.
  • Applied model to observed systems: Kepler-277 and Kepler-36.
  • Kepler-277 mass estimated at 57.25 ± 10.56 M ⊕ and orbital period of 26.76 ± 2.73 days.
  • Argument of periastron for Kepler-277 estimated at 297.29 ± 22.26°.
  • For Kepler-36, mass estimated at 51.53 ± 14.61 M ⊕ and period of 10.31 ± 2.666 days.
  • Argument of periastron for Kepler-36 estimated at 261.90 ± 16.09°.

Abstract

Abstract Transit timing variation (TTV) analysis provides a valuable complement to traditional transit and radial-velocity techniques, particularly in compact, near-resonant planetary systems where dynamical interactions amplify timing signals and refine mass and orbital estimates. Traditional approaches—such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo—are computationally demanding, particularly for high-dimensional orbital configurations. In this study, we present a machine learning framework based on long short-term memory networks to estimate key planetary parameters, including mass, orbital period, and argument of periastron, using TTV signals along with known properties of the transiting planet. The model is trained on synthetic systems generated with TTVFast and employs Monte Carlo dropout to quantify prediction uncertainties. We applied the model on two observed systems: Kepler-277 and Kepler-36. For Kepler-277, the model achieves a mass estimate of 57.25 ± 10.56 M ⊕ , an orbital period of 26.76 ± 2.73 days, and provides a novel constraint on the argument of periastron of 297 . ° 29 ± 22 . ° 26. For Kepler-36, the model yields a mass estimate of 51.53 ± 14.61 M ⊕ , a period of 10.31 ± 2.666 days, and an argument of periastron of 261 . ° 90 ± 16 . ° 09. These estimates are obtained under the assumption of near-circular orbits, and in this context, the argument of periastron primarily describes the relative difference in ω between the two planets rather than an absolute orbital orientation. Although the predicted parameters are not highly accurate, the model reliably captures their overall magnitude, providing a useful first-order estimate that can serve as a prior for more detailed dynamical or photodynamical analysis.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ikhsan et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699a9d14482488d673cd2b88https://doi.org/10.3847/psj/ae3e86
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Single Transit Detection In Kepler With Machine Learning And Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics2024
  2. 2Accounting for Transit Timing Detectability: Biases in Planetary Radius and Orbital Period2025
  3. 3Machine Learning Implementation on TTV Analysis using TTVFast2024 · 1 citations
  4. 4Advancing Exoplanet Transit Characterization through Machine Learning2024
  5. 5Modeling the Solar System. I. Characterization Limits from Analytic Timing Variations2025