Silicate mineralogy and bulk composition of exoplanetary material in polluted white dwarfs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT White dwarf planetary systems uniquely link the bulk elemental composition of exoplanetary material to the mineralogy as photospheric abundances can be compared to circumstellar dust mineralogy. This study re-examines Spitzer/IRS spectra of eight white dwarfs with both circumstellar dust and photospheric metals. All systems show 10 $\mu$m silicate emission features consistent with a mixture of olivine and pyroxene silicates, with varying dominance. New Hubble Space Telescope ultraviolet spectroscopic observations of two of these systems, GD56 and WD 1150–153, reveal that both are accreting dry, rocky material. WD 1150–153 is accreting material consistent with Bulk Earth, while GD56 is accreting core-rich material with an inferred core mass fraction of 0.59$^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ (0.37$^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ by mole). A comparison between the bulk elemental composition of the accreted planetary material and the dust mineralogy of the eight systems reveals a tentative correlation between the dominant silicate mineralogy and the Mg/Si ratio, indicating that the circumstellar and photospheric material are compositionally similar. This suggests that rapid and well-mixed accretion is occurring with minimal compositional alteration. Furthermore, new ggchem equilibrium chemistry models confirm that Mg-rich planetary material preferentially forms olivine-rich dust, highlighting the importance of equilibrium in planetary chemistry and that a host star or rock’s Mg/Si can be used to predict whether its silicate mineralogy is olivine- or pyroxene-dominated, influencing its capacity to structurally store water, recycle key nutrients, and possibly habitability.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".