Puffed-up Edges of Planet-opened Gaps in Protoplanetary Disks. I. Hydrodynamic Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dust gaps and rings appear ubiquitous in bright protoplanetary disks. Disk–planet interaction with dust trapping at the edges of planet-induced gaps is one plausible explanation. However, the sharpness of some observed dust rings indicate that sub-millimeter-sized dust grains have settled to a thin layer in some systems. We test whether or not such dust around gas gaps opened by planets can remain settled by performing three-dimensional, dust-plus-gas simulations of protoplanetary disks with an embedded planet. We find planets massive enough to open gas gaps stir small, sub-millimeter-sized dust grains to high disk elevations at the gap edges, where the dust scale height can reach ∼70% of the gas scale height. We attribute this dust “puff up” to the planet-induced meridional gas flows previously identified by Fung & Chiang and others. We thus emphasize the importance of explicit 3D simulations to obtain the vertical distribution of sub-millimeter-sized grains around gas gaps opened by massive planets. We caution that the gas-gap-opening planet interpretation of well-defined dust rings is only self-consistent with large grains exceeding millimeter size.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".