HOW EMPTY ARE DISK GAPS OPENED BY GIANT PLANETS?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gap clearing by giant planets has been proposed to explain the optically thin cavities observed in many protoplanetary disks. How much material remains in the gap determines not only how detectable young planets are in their birth environments, but also how strong co-rotation torques are, which impacts how planets can survive fast orbital migration. We determine numerically how the average surface density inside the gap, Σ gap , depends on planet-to-star mass ratio q , Shakura–Sunyaev viscosity parameter α, and disk height-to-radius aspect ratio h / r . Our results are derived from our new graphics processing unit accelerated Lagrangian hydrodynamical code PEnGUIn and are verified by independent simulations with ZEUS90 . For Jupiter-like planets, we find Σ gap ∝ q −2.2 α 1.4 ( h / r ) 6.6 , and for near brown dwarf masses, Σ gap ∝ q −1 α 1.3 ( h / r ) 6.1 . Surface density contrasts inside and outside gaps can be as large as 10 4 , even when the planet does not accrete. We derive a simple analytic scaling, Σ gap ∝ q −2 α 1 ( h / r ) 5 , that compares reasonably well to empirical results, especially at low Neptune-like masses, and use discrepancies to highlight areas for progress.
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.
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 it