Multiwavelength modelling of the β Leo debris disc: one, two or three planetesimal populations?★
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we present a model of the β Leo debris disc, with an emphasis on modelling the resolved Photodetector Array Camera and Spectrometer (PACS) images obtained as a part of the Herschel key programme DEBRIS. We also present new Spectral and Photometric Imaging REceiver (SPIRE) images of the disc at 250 μm, as well as new constraints on the disc from SCUBA-2, mid-infrared (mid-IR) and scattered light imaging. Combining all the available observational constraints, we find three possible models for the β Leo (HD 102647) debris disc: (i) a two-component model, comprised of a hot component at 2 au and a cold component from 15 to 70 au; (ii) a three-component model with hot dust at 2 au, warm dust at 9 au and a cold component from 30 to 70 au, is equally valid since the cold emission is not resolved within 30 au; (iii) a somewhat less likely possibility is that the system consists of a single very eccentric planetesimal population, with pericentres at 2 au and apocentres at 65 au. Thus, despite the wealth of observational constraints significant ambiguities remain; deep mid-IR and scattered light imaging of the dust distribution within 30 au seems to be the most promising method to resolve the degeneracy. We discuss the implications for the possible planetary system architecture, e.g. the two-component model suggests that planets may exist at 2–15 au, while the three-component model suggests planets between 2 and 30 au with a stable region containing the dust belt at 9 au, and there should be no planets between 2 and 65 au in the eccentric planetesimal model. We suggest that the hot dust may originate in the disintegration of comets scattered in the cold disc, and examine all A stars known to harbour both hot and cold dust to consider the possibility that the ratio of hot and cold dust luminosities is indicative of the intervening planetary system architecture.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".