Establishing Dust Rings and Forming Planets within Them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Radio images of protoplanetary disks demonstrate that dust grains tend to organize themselves into rings. These rings may be a consequence of dust trapping within gas pressure maxima, wherein the local high dust-to-gas ratio is expected to trigger the formation of planetesimals and eventually planets. We revisit the behavior of dust near gas pressure perturbations enforced by a planet in two-dimensional, shearing-box simulations. While dust grains collect into generally long-lived rings, particles with a small Stokes parameter τ s < 0.1 tend to advect out of the ring within a few drift timescales. Scaled to the properties of ALMA disks, we find that rings composed of larger particles ( τ s ≥ 0.1) can nucleate a dust clump massive enough to trigger pebble accretion, which proceeds to ingest the entire dust ring well within ∼1 Myr. To ensure the survival of the dust rings, we favor a nonplanetary origin and typical grain size τ s ≲ 0.05–0.1. Planet-driven rings may still be possible but if so we would expect the orbital distance of the dust rings to be larger for older systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".