Predicting the Kinematic Evidence of Gravitational Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array (ALMA) have dramatically improved our understanding of the site of exoplanet formation: protoplanetary disks. However, many basic properties of these disks are not well understood. The most fundamental of these is the total disk mass, which sets the mass budget for planet formation. Disks with sufficiently high masses can excite gravitational instability and drive spiral arms that are detectable with ALMA. Although spirals have been detected in ALMA observations of the dust, their association with gravitational instability, and high disk masses, is far from clear. Here we report a prediction for kinematic evidence of gravitational instability. Using hydrodynamics simulations coupled with radiative transfer calculations, we show that a disk undergoing such instability has clear kinematic signatures in molecular line observations across the entire disk azimuth and radius, which are independent of viewing angle. If these signatures are detected, it will provide the clearest evidence for the occurrence of gravitational instability in planet-forming disks, and provide a crucial way to measure disk masses.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".