HIGH-CONTRAST IMAGING SEARCH FOR PLANETS AND BROWN DWARFS AROUND THE MOST MASSIVE STARS IN THE SOLAR NEIGHBORHOOD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a long-standing discussion in the literature as to whether core accretion or disk instability is the dominant mode of planet formation. Over the last decade, several lines of evidence have been presented showing that core accretion is most likely the dominant mechanism for the close-in population of planets probed by radial velocity and transits. However, this does not by itself prove that core accretion is the dominant mode for the total planet population, since disk instability might conceivably produce and retain large numbers of planets in the far-out regions of the disk. If this is a relevant scenario, then the outer massive disks of B-stars should be among the best places for massive planets and brown dwarfs to form and reside. In this study, we present high-contrast imaging of 18 nearby massive stars of which 15 are in the B2-A0 spectral-type range and provide excellent sensitivity to wide companions. By comparing our sensitivities to model predictions of disk instability based on physical criteria for fragmentation and cooling, and using Monte Carlo simulations for orbital distributions, we find that ~85% of such companions should have been detected in our images on average. Given this high degree of completeness, stringent statistical limits can be set from the null-detection result, even with the limited sample size. We find that <30% of massive stars form and retain disk instability planets, brown dwarfs, and very low mass stars of <100 M jup within 300 AU, at 99% confidence. These results, combined with previous findings in the literature, lead to the conclusion that core accretion is likely the dominant mode of planet formation. Based on data from the Gemini North telescope under programs
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".