Do White Dwarfs Sample Water-rich Planetary Material?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polluted white dwarfs offer a unique way to directly probe the compositions of exoplanetary bodies. We examine the water content of accreted material using the oxygen abundances of 51 highly polluted white dwarfs. Within this sample, we present new abundances for three H-dominated atmosphere white dwarfs that showed promise for accreting water-rich material. Throughout, we explore the impact of the observed phase and lifetime of accretion disks on the inferred elemental abundances of the parent bodies that pollute each white dwarf. Our results indicate that white dwarfs sample a range of dry to water-rich material, with median uncertainties in water mass fractions of ≈15%. Among the He-dominated white dwarfs, 35/39 water abundances are consistent with corresponding H abundances. While for any individual white dwarf it may be ambiguous as to whether or not water is present in the accreted parent body, when considered as a population, the prevalence of water-rich bodies is statistically robust. The population as a whole has a median water mass fraction of ≈25%, and enforcing chondritic parent body compositions, we find that 31/51 WDs are likely to have nonzero water concentrations. This conclusion is different from a similar previous analysis of white dwarf pollution and we discuss reasons why this might be the case. Pollution in H-dominated white dwarfs continues to be more water-poor than in their He-dominated cousins, although the sample size of H-dominated white dwarfs remains small and the two samples still suffer a disjunction in the range of host star temperatures being probed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".