Spiral Arms in Disks: Planets or Gravitational Instability?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spiral arm structures seen in scattered-light observations of protoplanetary disks can potentially serve as signposts of planetary companions. They can also lend unique insights into disk masses, which are critical in setting the mass budget for planet formation but are difficult to determine directly. A surprisingly high fraction of disks that have been well studied in scattered light have spiral arms of some kind (8/29), as do a high fraction (6/11) of well-studied Herbig intermediate-mass stars (i.e., Herbig stars >1.5 M ⊙). Here we explore the origin of spiral arms in Herbig systems by studying their occurrence rates, disk properties, and stellar accretion rates. We find that two-arm spirals are more common in disks surrounding Herbig intermediate-mass stars than are directly imaged giant planet companions to mature A and B stars. If two-arm spirals are produced by such giant planets, this discrepancy suggests that giant planets are much fainter than predicted by hot-start models. In addition, the high stellar accretion rates of Herbig stars, if sustained over a reasonable fraction of their lifetimes, suggest that disk masses are much larger than inferred from their submillimeter continuum emission. As a result, gravitational instability is a possible explanation for multiarm spirals. Future observations can lend insights into the issues raised here.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".