A Safety Net for Fast Migrators: Interactions between Gap‐opening and Sub–Gap‐opening Bodies in a Protoplanetary Disk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young planets interact with their parent gas disks through tidal torques. An imbalance between inner and outer torques causes bodies of mass $\ga 0.1$ Earth masses to lose angular momentum and migrate inward rapidly relative to the disk; this is known as ``Type I'' migration. However, protoplanets that grow to gas giant mass, O($10^2) M_\oplus$, open a gap in the disk and are subsequently constrained to migrate more slowly, locked into the disk's viscous evolution in what is called "Type II" migration. In a young planetary system, both Type I and Type II bodies likely coexist; if so, differential migration ought to result in close encounters when the former originate on orbits exterior to the latter. We investigate the resulting dynamics, using two different numerical approaches: an N-body code with dissipative forces added to simulate the effect of the gas disk, and a hybrid code which combines an N-body component with a 1-dimensional viscous disk model, treating planet-disk interactions in a more self-consistent manner. In both cases, we find that sub-gap-opening bodies have a high likelihood of being resonantly captured when they encounter a gap-opening body. A giant planet thus tends to act as a barrier in a protoplanetary disk, collecting smaller protoplanets outside of its orbit. Such behavior has two important implications for giant planet formation: First, for captured protoplanets it mitigates the problem of the migration timescale becoming shorter than the growth timescale. Secondly, it suggests one path to forming systems with multiple giant planets: Once the first has formed, it traps/accretes the future solid core of the second in an exterior mean-motion resonance, and so on. The most critical step in giant planet formation may thus be the formation of the very first one.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".