Creating the Radius Gap without Mass Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The observed exoplanet population features a gap in the radius distribution that separates the smaller super-Earths (≲1.7 Earth radii) from the larger sub-Neptunes (∼1.7–4 Earth radii). While mass-loss theories can explain many of the observed features of this radius valley, it is difficult to reconcile them with the potentially rising population of terrestrials beyond orbital periods of ∼30 days. We investigate the ability of gas accretion during the gas-poor phase of disk evolution to reproduce both the location of the observed radius gap and the existence of long-period terrestrial planets. Updating the analytic scaling relations of gas accretion rate accounting for the shrinking of the bound radius by hydrodynamic effects and deriving a more realistic disk temperature profile, we find that the late-stage gas accretion alone is able to carve out the observed radius gap, with slopes R gap ∝ P −0.096 and R gap ∝ M ⋆ 0.15 for top-heavy; and R gap ∝ P −0.089 and R gap ∝ M ⋆ 0.22 for bottom-heavy core mass distributions, in good agreement with observations. The general morphology of the primordial radius gap is stable against a range of disk gas density and disk accretion rate with the latter affecting mostly the population of large planets (≳3–4 R ⊕). The peaks and valleys in the radius distribution were likely set in place primordially while post-formation mass loss further tunes the exoplanetary population. We provide potential observational tests that may be possible with TESS, PLATO, and Roman Space Telescope.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".