EVOLUTIONARY TRACKS OF TRAPPED, ACCRETING PROTOPLANETS: THE ORIGIN OF THE OBSERVED MASS-PERIOD RELATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The large number of observed exoplanets (≳700) provides important constraints on their origin as deduced from the mass–period diagram of planets. The most surprising features in the diagram are (1) the (apparent) pileup of gas giants at a period of ∼500 days (∼1 AU) and (2) the so-called mass–period relation, which indicates that planetary mass is an increasing function of orbital period. We construct the evolutionary tracks of growing planets at planet traps in evolving protoplanetary disks and show that they provide a good physical understanding of how these observational properties arise. The fundamental feature of our model is that inhomogeneities in protoplanetary disks give rise to multiple (up to 3) trapping sites for rapid (type I) planetary migration of planetary cores. The viscous evolution of disks results in the slow radial movement of the traps and their cores from large to small orbital periods. In our model, the slow inward motion of planet traps is coupled with the standard core accretion scenario for planetary growth. As planets grow, type II migration takes over. Planet growth and radial movement are ultimately stalled by the dispersal of gas disks via photoevaporation. Our model makes a number of important predictions: that distinct sub-populations of planets that reflect the properties of planet traps where they have grown result in the mass–period relation, that the presence of these sub-populations naturally explains a pileup of planets at ∼1 AU, and that evolutionary tracks from the ice line do put planets at short periods and fill an earlier claimed "planet desert"—a sparse population of planets in the mass–semimajor axis diagram.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".