Hot Jupiters are Inflated Primarily by Shallow Heating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unexpectedly large radii of transiting hot Jupiters have led to many proposals for the physical mechanisms responsible for heating their interiors. While it has been shown that hot Jupiters reinflate as their host stars brighten due to heating deep in planetary interiors, young hot Jupiters also exhibit signs of delayed cooling possibly related to heating closer to their surfaces. To investigate this ambiguity, we enhance our previously published hot Jupiter thermal evolution model by adding a parameter that allows for both deep heating and delayed cooling. We fit our thermal evolution models to a homogeneous, physically self-consistent catalog of accurate and precise hot Jupiter system properties in a hierarchical Bayesian framework. We find that hot Jupiters' interior cooling rates are reduced on average by 95\%--98\% compared to simpler anomalous heating models. The most plausible explanation for this inference is substantial shallow heating just below their radiative--convective boundaries that enables reinflation with much weaker deep heating. Shallow heating by Ohmic dissipation and/or temperature advection are therefore important components of accurate models of hot Jupiter atmospheres, especially in circulation models. If hot Jupiters are inflated primarily by shallow heating as we propose, then we predict that atmospheric circulation-related observables should increase with temperature in the range $T_{\text{eq}}~\lesssim1500~\text{K}$, peak in the range $1500~\text{K}~\lesssim~T_{\text{eq}}~\lesssim~1800~\text{K}$, and decrease in the range $T_{\text{eq}}~\gtrsim~1800~\text{K}$.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".