The Not-so Dramatic Effect of Advective Flows on Gas Accretion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Super-Earths and mini-Neptunes are the most common types of exoplanets discovered, yet the physics of their formation are still debated. Standard core accretion models in gas-rich environments find that typical mini-Neptune mass planets would blow up into Jupiters before the underlying disk gas dissipates away. The injection of entropy from the protoplanetary disk into forming gaseous envelopes has recently been put forward as a mechanism to delay this runaway accretion, specifically at short orbital distances. Here, we reevaluate this line of reasoning by incorporating recycling flows of gas into a numerical one-dimensional thermodynamic model with a more realistic equation of state and opacities and the thermal state of the advective flow. At 0.1 au, we find that advective flows are only able to produce mini-Neptunes if they can penetrate below ∼0.25 of the planet’s gravitational sphere of influence. Otherwise, the gas-to-core mass ratio (GCR) reaches above ∼10%, which is too large to explain the measured properties of mini-Neptunes, necessitating other gas-limiting processes such as late-time core assembly. The effect of entropy advection on gas accretion weakens even further beyond 0.1 au. We present an updated scaling relation between GCR and the penetration depth of the advective flows, which varies nontrivially with orbital distances, core masses, and dusty versus dust-free opacity. We further demonstrate how measurements of planet mass distribution beyond ∼1 au using future instruments such as the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope could be used to disambiguate between different formation conditions of gas-poor planets.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".