The Structure and Stability of Extended Circumplanetary Disks (or Exorings)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large dips in the brightness for a number of stars have been observed, for which the tentative explanation is occultation of the star by a transiting circumplanetary disc or ring system. In order for the circumplanetary disk/rings to block the host star's light, the disk must be tilted out of the planet's orbital plane, which poses stability problems due to the radial extent of the disk required to explain the brightness dip durations. This work uses N-body integrations to study the structure and stability of circumplanetary disk/ring systems tilted out of the planet's orbital plane by the spinning planet's mass quadrupole. Simulating the disk as a collection of test particles with orbits initialized near the Laplace surface (equilibrium between tidal force from host star and force from planet's mass quadrupole), we find that many extended, inclined circumplanetary disks remain stable over the duration of the integrations (~3-16 Myr). Two dynamical resonances/instabilities excite the particle eccentricities and inclinations: the Lidov-Kozai effect which occurs in the disk's outer regions, and ivection resonance which occurs in the disk's inner regions. Our work places constraints on the maximum radial extent of inclined circumplanetary disk/ring systems, and shows that gaps present in circumplanetary disks do not necessarily imply the presence of exomoons.
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 | 0.000 | 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".