Rings and gaps in protoplanetary disks: planets or snowlines?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High resolution ALMA observations of protoplanetary disks have revealed that many, if not all primordial disks consist of ring-like dust structures. The origin of these dust rings remains unclear, but a common explanation is the presence of planetary companions that have cleared gaps along their orbit and trapped the dust at the gap edge. A signature of this scenario is a decrease of gas density inside these gaps. In recent work, Isella et al. 2016 derived drops in gas density consistent with Saturn-mass planets inside the gaps in the HD163296 disk through spatially resolved CO isotopologue observations. However, as CO abundance and temperature depends on a large range of factors, the interpretation of CO emission is non-trivial. We use the physical-chemical code DALI to show that the gas temperature increases inside dust density gaps, implying that any gaps in the gas, if present, would have to be much deeper, consistent with planet masses higher than a Jupiter mass. Furthermore, we show that a model with increased grain growth at certain radii, as expected at a snowline, can reproduce the dust rings in HD163296 equally well without the need for companions. This scenario can explain both younger and older disks with observed gaps, as gaps have been seen in systems as young <1 Myr. While the origin of the rings in HD163296 remains unclear, these modeling results demonstrate that care has to be taken when interpreting CO emission in protoplanetary disk observations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".