A Stellar Mass Dependence of Structured Disks: A Possible Link with Exoplanet Demographics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gaps in protoplanetary disks have long been hailed as signposts of planet formation. However, a direct link between exoplanets and disks remains hard to identify. We present a large sample study of ALMA disk surveys of nearby star-forming regions to disentangle this connection. All disks are classified as either structured (transition, ring, extended) or nonstructured (compact) disks. Although low-resolution observations may not identify large-scale substructure, we assume that an extended disk must contain substructure from a dust evolution argument. A comparison across ages reveals that structured disks retain high dust masses up to at least 10 Myr, whereas the dust mass of compact, nonstructured disks decreases over time. This can be understood if the dust mass evolves primarily by radial drift, unless drift is prevented by pressure bumps. We identify a stellar mass dependence of the fraction of structured disks. We propose a scenario linking this dependence with that of giant exoplanet occurrence rates. We show that there are enough exoplanets to account for the observed disk structures if transitional disks are created by exoplanets more massive than Jupiter and ring disks by exoplanets more massive than Neptune, under the assumption that most of those planets eventually migrate inwards. On the other hand, the known anticorrelation between transiting super-Earths and stellar mass implies those planets must form in the disks without observed structure, consistent with formation through pebble accretion in drift-dominated disks. These findings support an evolutionary scenario where the early formation of giant planets determines the disk’s dust evolution and its observational appearance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".