The Observability of Vortex-driven Spiral Arms in Protoplanetary Disks: Basic Spiral Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Some circumstellar disks are observed to show prominent spiral arms in infrared scattered light or (sub-)millimeter dust continuum. The spirals might be formed from self-gravity, shadows, or planet–disk interactions. Recently, it was hypothesized that massive vortices can drive spiral arms in protoplanetary disks in a way analogous to planets. In this paper, we study the basic properties of vortex-driven spirals by the Rossby Wave Instability in 2D hydrodynamics simulations. We study how the surface density contrast, the number, and the shape of vortex-driven spirals depend on the properties of the vortex. We also compare vortex-driven spirals with those induced by planets. The surface density contrast of vortex-driven spirals in our simulations are comparable to those driven by a sub-thermal mass planet, typically a few to a few tens of Earth masses. In addition, different from the latter, the former is not sensitive to the mass of the vortex. Vortex-driven spiral arms are not expected to be detectable in current scattered light observations, and the prominent spirals observed in scattered light in a few protoplanetary disks, such as SAO 206462 (HD 135344B), MWC 758, and LkHα 330, are unlikely to be induced by the candidate vortices in them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".