The Santa Barbara Binary−disk Code Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We have performed numerical calculations of a binary interacting with a gas disk, using 11 different numerical methods and a standard binary−disk setup. The goal of this study is to determine whether all codes agree on a numerically converged solution and to determine the necessary resolution for convergence and the number of binary orbits that must be computed to reach an agreed-upon relaxed state of the binary−disk system. We find that all codes can agree on a converged solution (depending on the diagnostic being measured). The zone spacing required for most codes to reach a converged measurement of the torques applied to the binary by the disk is roughly 1% of the binary separation in the vicinity of the binary components. For our disk model to reach a relaxed state, codes must be run for at least 200 binary orbits, corresponding to about a viscous time for our parameters, 0.2( a 2 Ω B / ν ) binary orbits, where ν is the kinematic viscosity. The largest discrepancies between codes resulted from the dimensionality of the setup (3D vs. 2D disks). We find good agreement in the total torque on the binary between codes, although the partition of this torque between the gravitational torque, orbital accretion torque, and spin accretion torque depends sensitively on the sink prescriptions employed. In agreement with previous studies, we find a modest difference in torques and accretion variability between 2D and 3D disk models. We find cavity precession rates to be appreciably faster in 3D than in 2D.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".