Evolution of Gas Giant Entropy During Formation by Runaway Accretion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We calculate the evolution of gas giant planets during the runaway gas accretion phase of formation, to understand how the luminosity of young giant planets depends on the accretion conditions. We construct steady-state envelope models, and run time-dependent simulations of accreting planets with the Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA) code. We show that the evolution of the internal entropy depends on the contrast between the internal adiabat and the entropy of the accreted material, parametrized by the shock temperature $T_0$ and pressure $P_0$. At low temperatures ($T_0\lesssim 300$--$1000\ {\rm K}$, depending on model parameters), the accreted material has a lower entropy than the interior. The convection zone extends to the surface and can drive a large luminosity, leading to rapid cooling and cold starts. For higher temperatures, the accreted material has a larger entropy than the interior, giving a radiative zone that stalls cooling. For $T_0\gtrsim 2000\ {\rm K}$, the surface--interior entropy contrast cannot be accommodated by the radiative envelope, and the accreted matter accumulates with high entropy, forming a hot start. The final state of the planet depends on the shock temperature, accretion rate, and starting entropy at the onset of runaway accretion. Cold starts with $L\lesssim 5\times 10^{-6}\ L_\odot$ require low accretion rates and starting entropy, and that the temperature of the accreting material is maintained close to the nebula temperature. If instead the temperature is near the value required to radiate the accretion luminosity, $4πR^2σT_0^4\sim (GM\dot M/R)$, as suggested by previous work on radiative shocks in the context of star formation, gas giant planets form in a hot start with $L\sim 10^{-4}\ L_\odot$.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".