A Rotation Rate for the Planetary-mass Companion DH Tau b
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract DH Tau b is a young planetary-mass companion orbiting at a projected separation of 320 au from its ∼2 Myr old host star DH Tau. With an estimated mass of 8–22 this object straddles the deuterium-burning limit, and might have formed via core or pebble accretion, disk instability, or molecular cloud fragmentation. To shed light on the formation history of DH Tau b, we obtain the first measurement of rotational line broadening for this object using high-resolution (R ∼ 25,000) near-infrared spectroscopy from Keck/NIRSPEC. We measure a projected rotational velocity (v sin i) of 9.6 ± 0.7 km s−1, corresponding to a rotation rate that is between 9% and 15% of DH Tau b’s predicted breakup speed. This low rotation rate is in good agreement with scenarios in which magnetic coupling between the companion and its circumplanetary disk during the late stages of accretion reduces angular momentum and regulates spin. We compare the rotation rate of DH Tau b to published values for other planetary-mass objects with masses between 0.3 and 20 and find no evidence of a correlation between mass and rotation rate in this mass regime. Finally, we search for evidence of individual molecules in DH Tau b’s spectrum and find that it is dominated by CO and H2O, with no evidence of the presence of CH4. This agrees with expectations given DH Tau b’s relatively high effective temperature (∼2300 K).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".