Connecting planet formation and astrochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chemical composition of planetary atmospheres has long been thought to store information regarding where and when a planet accretes its material. Predicting this chemical composition theoretically is a crucial step in linking observational studies to the underlying physics that govern planet formation. As a follow-up to an earlier study of ours on hot Jupiters, we present a population of warm Jupiters (semi-major axis between 0.5 and 4 AU) extracted from the same planetesimal formation population synthesis model as used in that previous work. We compute the astrochemical evolution of the proto-planetary disks included in this population to predict the carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) and nitrogen-to-oxygen (N/O) ratio evolution of the disk gas, ice, and refractory sources, the accretion of which greatly impacts the resulting C/Os and N/Os in the atmosphere of giant planets. We confirm that the main sequence (between accreted solid mass and the atmospheric C/O) we found previously is largely reproduced by the presented population of synthetic warm Jupiters. As a result, the majority of the population falls along the empirically derived mass-metallicity relation when the natal disk has solar or lower metallicity. Planets forming from disks with high metallicity ([Fe/H] > 0.1) results in more scatter in chemical properties, which could explain some of the scatter found in the mass-metallicity relation. Combining predicted C/Os and N/Os shows that Jupiter does not fall among our population of synthetic planets, suggesting that it likely did not form in the inner 5 AU of the Solar System before proceeding into a Grand Tack. This result is consistent with a recent analysis of the chemical composition of Jupiter’s atmosphere, which suggests that it accreted most of its heavy element abundance farther than tens of AU away from the Sun. Finally, we explore the impact of different carbon refractory erosion models, including the location of the carbon erosion front. Shifting the erosion front has a major impact on the resulting C/Os of Jupiter- and Neptune-like planets, but warm Saturns see a smaller shift in C/Os since their carbon and oxygen abundances are equally impacted by gas and refractory accretion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".