1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2:
3: \slugcomment{ApJ, in press}
4:
5: \shorttitle{Predictions of planetary migration theory}
6: \shortauthors{Armitage}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Massive planet migration: Theoretical predictions \\ and comparison with observations}
11:
12: \author{Philip J. Armitage\altaffilmark{1,2}}
13: \altaffiltext{1}{JILA, Campus Box 440, University of Colorado, Boulder CO 80309;
14: pja@jilau1.colorado.edu}
15: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder CO 80309}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: We quantify the utility of large radial velocity surveys for constraining theoretical models of Type~II
19: migration and protoplanetary disk physics. We describe a theoretical model for the
20: expected radial distribution of extrasolar planets that combines
21: an analytic description of migration with an empirically calibrated disk
22: model. The disk model includes viscous evolution and mass loss via photoevaporation.
23: Comparing the predicted distribution to a uniformly selected subsample of planets from the
24: Lick / Keck / AAT planet search programs, we find that a simple model in
25: which planets form in the outer disk at a uniform rate, migrate
26: inward according to a standard Type~II prescription, and become stranded when
27: the gas disk is dispersed, is consistent with
28: the radial distribution of planets for orbital radii $0.1~{\rm AU} \leq a < 2.5~{\rm AU}$
29: and planet masses $M_p > 1.65 \ M_J$. Some variant models are disfavored by
30: existing data, but the significance is limited ($\sim$95\%) due to the small
31: sample of planets suitable for statistical analysis. We show that the
32: favored model predicts that the planetary mass function should be almost
33: independent of orbital radius at distances where migration dominates the
34: massive planet population. We also study how the radial distribution
35: of planets depends upon the adopted disk model. We find that the distribution
36: can constrain not only changes in the power-law index of the disk viscosity, but
37: also sharp jumps in the efficiency of angular momentum transport that
38: might occur at small radii.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{solar system: formation --- planets and satellites: formation ---
42: planetary systems: formation --- planetary systems: protoplanetary disks ---
43: accretion, accretion disks}
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46: Radial velocity and transit searches for extrasolar planets have detected in
47: excess of 170 low-mass companions around nearby, mostly Solar-type, stars
48: \citep{butler06}. These detections, which result from radial velocity surveys
49: targeting a few~$\times 10^3$ stars, have allowed for an
50: initial determination of the distribution of massive extrasolar
51: planets with mass, orbital radius, eccentricity,
52: and stellar metallicity \citep{santos04,marcy05,fischer05,santos05}. The
53: statistical (and, hopefully, systematic) errors on these determinations
54: will improve as ongoing surveys press to larger orbital radii and
55: smaller planet masses. Substantially larger radial velocity surveys
56: of $10^5$ to $10^6$ stars, with precision in the $\sim$10~ms$^{-1}$ range,
57: are technically possible over the next decade \citep{ge06}. Given this rapid
58: observational progress it is of interest to ask how much information --
59: about planet formation, planet migration, and the protoplanetary disk --
60: is retained in the statistical properties of extrasolar planets to be
61: potentially tapped via an expansion of existing planet samples. Put more
62: bluntly, is it worth obtaining much larger samples of planets with properties similar
63: to those already known, or does the primary scientific interest for future
64: surveys lie in exploring entirely new regimes of parameter space?
65:
66: At sufficiently small orbital radii, massive extrasolar planets very probably
67: migrated inward from formation sites further out rather than forming
68: in situ \citep{lin96,trilling98,bodenheimer00}. There remains some uncertainty in
69: quantifying `sufficiently small', but it seems likely that massive
70: planet formation is most common outside the snow line \citep{hayashi85}.
71: Protoplanetary disk models clearly show that the radius of the snow line
72: changes dramatically with time as the disk evolves \citep{garaud07}, so
73: to quote a single radius is potentially misleading. However, for a Solar
74: type star, the apparent presence of hydrated minerals in Solar System
75: asteroids allows an empirical determination of the location of the
76: snow line at a radius of around 2.7~AU \citep{morbidelli00}. This
77: suggests that most of the extrasolar planets currently known, which orbit within
78: a few~AU of their host stars, derive their properties largely via
79: migration. For massive planets, the appropriate regime of migration
80: is thought theoretically to be the Type~II regime --- which involves migration within a gap in
81: the protoplanetary disk \citep{goldreich80,lin86} --- rather than the
82: gap-less Type~I regime appropriate to Earth mass planets and giant planet cores
83: \citep{ward96}. Since direct observational evidence of migration is
84: currently lacking, the only tests possible of this theory come
85: from statistical comparison with the observed properties of extrasolar
86: planetary systems. Indeed, prior work along these lines by \cite{armitage02},
87: \cite{trilling02} and \citet{ida04} has shown that the distribution
88: of observed planets in orbital radius (and, in the case of the
89: \cite{ida04} study, planetary mass) is broadly consistent with theoretical
90: expectations based on disk migration within an evolving protoplanetary
91: disk.
92:
93: In this paper, we develop more refined predictions for the radial distribution
94: of massive planets based on a simple analytic model for Type~II
95: migration. Our main goal is to determine, at least in principle, what might be learned
96: from comparisons of large planet samples with theoretical models. In \S2 we describe the
97: adopted model for the protoplanetary disk, and how migration
98: of massive planets within the disk is treated. In \S3 we
99: compute the predicted distribution of planets in orbital
100: radius. We compare the predictions to the observed distribution
101: of planets in the \cite{fischer05} sample, which has previously
102: been used to study the dependence of planet frequency on host
103: metallicity. This sample has a clearly
104: specified selection limit, which allows for a
105: reliable statistical comparison between the model and observations.
106: In \S4 and \S5 we investigate the extent to which migration
107: leads to a radial variation in the exoplanet mass function,
108: and how sensitive it is to structure within the protoplanetary
109: disk. These Sections are primarily forward-looking, since
110: existing data are too limited to support or refute the
111: theoretical model. We conclude in \S6 with some discussion of
112: the results.
113:
114: \section{Type II migration within the protoplanetary disk}
115: We consider a model in which massive planets form within an
116: evolving protoplanetary disk at radii beyond the snow line,
117: and migrate inward within a gap (`Type~II' orbital migration).
118: Migration slows and eventually ceases as the gas disk is dispersed. We assume that
119: photoevaporation causes disk dispersal. The resulting distribution
120: of massive planets in orbital radius then depends upon the
121: disk model (which is reasonably tightly constrained by observations);
122: the migration rate (which is known reasonably well theoretically);
123: and the rate of planet formation in the disk as a function of
124: time. The latter can in principle be predicted from a model of massive
125: planet formation, but here we treat it as a free function.
126:
127: The surface density $\Sigma$ of a protoplanetary disk that
128: evolves under the combined action of an effective kinematic viscosity
129: $\nu$, and mass loss per unit area $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm wind} (r)$, is described
130: by \citep{pringle81},
131: \begin{equation}
132: \frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial t} = \frac{3}{r}
133: \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left[
134: r^{1/2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left( \nu
135: \Sigma r^{1/2} \right) \right] - \dot{\Sigma}_{\rm wind} (r),
136: \label{eq_diffusion}
137: \end{equation}
138: provided that the mass lost in the wind has the same specific
139: angular momentum as the disk at the launch point. Approximating
140: the angular momentum transport in the disk as a time-independent
141: kinematic viscosity that is a power-law in radius,
142: \begin{equation}
143: \nu = \nu_0 r^\gamma
144: \label{eq_viscous}
145: \end{equation}
146: equation (\ref{eq_diffusion}) admits a compact self-similar solution
147: if the mass loss rate is negligible \citep{lyndenbell74,hartmann98}.
148: In this solution the surface density
149: evolves according to,
150: \begin{equation}
151: \Sigma (R,T) = \frac{C}{3 \pi \nu_{\rm scale} R^\gamma}
152: T^{-(5/2 - \gamma)/(2-\gamma)}
153: \exp[{-R^{(2-\gamma)} / T}]
154: \label{eq_similar}
155: \end{equation}
156: where the scaled variables $R$ and $T$ are defined via a
157: fiducial radius $r_{\rm scale}$,
158: \begin{eqnarray}
159: R & \equiv & \frac{r}{r_{\rm scale}} \\
160: \nu_{\rm scale} & \equiv & \nu(r_{\rm scale}) \\
161: T & \equiv & \frac{t}{t_{\rm scale}} + 1 \\
162: t_{\rm scale} & = & \frac{1}{3(2-\gamma)^2}
163: \frac{r_{\rm scale}^2}{\nu_{\rm scale}}.
164: \end{eqnarray}
165: The constant $C$ is the mass accretion rate at $t=0$ as
166: $r \rightarrow 0$. Other quantities, such as the mass accretion rate
167: $\dot{M}$ and radial velocity $v_r$ in the disk, can be derived straightforwardly
168: using these expressions.
169:
170: \begin{figure}
171: \plotone{f1.ps}
172: \caption{The time dependence of the accretion rate on to the central star plotted for
173: different disk models. The three dashed curves in the upper panel show the predicted evolution in
174: self-similar models with different power-law exponents for the disk viscosity:
175: $\gamma=0.5$, $\gamma=1.0$ and $\gamma=1.5$. The solid curves show the
176: result including photoevaporation, which is here modeled using the solution
177: of \cite{ruden04} assuming a disk dispersal time of 6~Myr. The analytic
178: cut-off is derived assuming $\gamma=1.0$, but should be a good approximation
179: for general power-law viscosity profiles. The lower panel shows the surface
180: density evolution at a disk radius of 1~AU (the $\gamma=1.5$ model is the
181: uppermost curve).}
182: \label{f1}
183: \end{figure}
184:
185: We constrain the parameters of the similarity solution
186: (equation \ref{eq_similar}) to be consistent with the observational
187: analysis of the time dependence of T~Tauri accretion rates presented
188: by \cite{muzerolle00}. We fix all models to have an initial accretion
189: rate $\dot{M} (t=0) = 3 \times 10^{-7} \ M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}$,
190: which decays to $\dot{M} = 3 \times 10^{-10} \ M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}$
191: in $10^7$~yr if the disk lives that long before being dispersed. We also
192: fix $r_{\rm scale} = 10 \ {\rm AU}$. Table~1 shows the
193: values of viscosity normalization constant $\nu_0$,
194: and initial disk mass $M_{\rm disk}$, that meet these constraints
195: for different values of power-law index $\gamma$. Not surprisingly,
196: since the basic observational constraints have been known for
197: some time, the disk models we favor have parameters similar to
198: those considered in many previous studies \citep{hartmann98,armitage03,
199: alexander06}. Figure~\ref{f1}
200: shows the resulting evolution of the accretion rate for these
201: models.
202:
203: \begin{table*}
204: \center{
205: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
206: \hline \hline
207: Power law index of viscosity $\gamma$ & Viscosity normalization $\nu_0$ & Initial disk mass $M_{\rm disk}$ \\ \hline
208: 0.5 & $1.52 \times 10^8 \ {\rm cm}^{3/2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ & $0.057 \ M_\odot$ \\
209: 1.0 & $15.62 \ {\rm cm}{\rm s}^{-1}$ & $0.051 \ M_\odot$ \\
210: 1.5 & $1.58 \times 10^{-6} \ {\rm cm}^{1/2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ & $0.058 \ M_\odot$ \\
211: \hline
212: \label{table1}
213: \end{tabular}}
214: \caption{Properties of self-similar disk models that meet the
215: observational constraints \\ on the evolution of the stellar
216: accretion rate discussed in the text}
217: \end{table*}
218:
219: The power-law decline in the late-time accretion rate implied by the
220: similarity solution does not yield the sharp transition between
221: accreting Classical T~Tauri stars and non-accreting Weak-Lined T~Tauri
222: stars that is observed \citep{simon95,wolk96}. It is plausible that this
223: transition is driven by photoevaporation \citep{bally82} from the outer disk,
224: which acts to starve the inner disk (thereby allowing it to drain viscously
225: onto the star on a short time scale) once the accretion rate
226: becomes comparable to the wind mass loss rate \citep{clarke01}.
227: If photoevaporation is
228: driven by irradiation from the central star, then the
229: simplest analytic models predict that the mass loss
230: rate per unit area scales as \citep{hollenbach94},
231: \begin{eqnarray}
232: \dot{\Sigma}_{\rm wind} \propto r^{-5/2}
233: \label{eq_massloss}
234: \end{eqnarray}
235: exterior to some critical radius $r_{\rm in}$, with zero
236: mass loss from smaller radii. The critical radius is given
237: to order of magnitude by the radius where the sound speed
238: in photoionized gas ($T \simeq 10^4$) first exceeds the local
239: escape speed. This is a few AU for a Solar mass star. The
240: normalization of the mass loss rate depends upon the square
241: root of the ionizing flux $\Phi$, which is hard to measure
242: accurately but whose value can be constrained observationally
243: \citep{alexander05,pascucci07}. Much
244: more detailed numerical models of photoevaporation are now
245: available \citep{font04,alexander06}, but the additional
246: complexity they involve is not warranted for this application.
247: Accordingly, we assume a time-independent mass loss rate of the form given
248: by equation (\ref{eq_massloss}), with $r_{\rm in} = 5 \ {\rm AU}$, and
249: zero mass loss at smaller radii.
250:
251: Once photoevaporation is included (in this simplified form), it is still
252: possible to derive a Green's function solution to equation (\ref{eq_diffusion})
253: \citep{ruden04}, but there is no compact form for the evolution of
254: $\Sigma(r,t)$ analogous to equation (\ref{eq_similar}). At late times
255: (i.e. after the disk has evolved for several viscous times) and small
256: radii ($r < r_{\rm in}$), however, it is possible to derive an
257: expression for the reduction in the inner accretion rate and
258: surface density caused by the wind. Defining $t_0$ as the time
259: at which the inner accretion rate falls to zero as a consequence of
260: the mass loss from the outer disk, \cite{ruden04} finds that the
261: time dependence of the accretion rate at small radii follows,
262: \begin{equation}
263: \dot{M} = \left[ 1 - \left( \frac{t}{t_0} \right)^{3/2} \right]
264: \dot{M}_{\rm self-similar},
265: \end{equation}
266: where $\dot{M}_{\rm self-similar}$ is the accretion rate evolution
267: predicted by the self-similar model in the absence of any mass loss.
268: The suppression of accretion implied by the term in parenthesis is
269: derived for $\gamma=1$, but should also be approximately valid for
270: other values of the power law viscosity index. Using numerical
271: solutions to equation (\ref{eq_diffusion}), we have verified that
272: the \cite{ruden04} formula provides a good description of the
273: evolution of the accretion rate and inner surface density during
274: the transition, and hence we apply the same cutoff to generate
275: the surface density evolution including wind loss $\Sigma(r,t)$ from
276: the self-similar prediction (equation~\ref{eq_similar}). Based on
277: observations of disk frequency in young clusters \citep{haisch01},
278: we take $t_0 = 6 \ {\rm Myr}$, which yields an
279: accretion rate evolution shown as the solid curves in Figure~\ref{f1}.
280: As has been emphasized previously \citep{clarke01,armitage03},
281: to a good approximation the disk evolution proceeds as if there is no mass
282: loss while $\dot{M} \gg \dot{M}_{\rm wind}$, and is then dispersed rapidly
283: once mass loss becomes significant. Figure~\ref{f1} also shows the
284: evolution of the inner (1~AU) disk surface density. Irrespective of
285: the value of $\gamma$, all of the disk models considered have an
286: {\em initial} surface density that is substantially in excess of
287: the minimum mass Solar Nebula reference value \citep{weidenschilling77},
288: but this drops rapidly as the disk evolves. By the time that massive
289: planets migrate through this region (after several Myr of evolution)
290: the surface density has fallen by at least an order of magnitude. The
291: import of this is that the local disk mass during migration is
292: typically smaller than the mass of giant planets, a regime which
293: leads to significantly slower inspiral.
294:
295: Sufficiently massive planets are able to open a gap within the gaseous
296: protoplanetary disk and, having opened a gap, migrate inward\footnote{Here,
297: we consider exclusively planets that form close enough in that the sense
298: of gas flow and migration is inward --- planets that form further out
299: may instead absorb the angular momentum of the inner disk and move
300: outward \citep{veras04,martin07}, or become stranded outside the annular hole
301: that is predicted to form as photoevaporation proceeds \citep{clarke01,matsuyama03}.}
302: in lockstep with the gas via Type~II migration \citep{lin86}. For a planet at
303: orbital radius $r_p$, the gravitational torques exerted by the planet on the
304: surrounding disk are strong enough to maintain a gap provided that
305: the mass ratio $q = M_p / M_*$ satisfies \citep{takeuchi96},
306: \begin{equation}
307: q \gtrsim \left( \frac{c_s}{r_p \Omega_p} \right)^2 \alpha^{1/2}
308: \end{equation}
309: where $c_s$ and $\Omega_p$ are the sound speed and angular velocity
310: in the disk at the radius of the planet, and $\alpha$ is the
311: dimensionless Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity parameter \citep{shakura73}.
312: Noting that the thickness of the disk $h \simeq c_s / \Omega_p$,
313: we find that the $\gamma=1$ disk model specified in Table~1
314: would correspond to an equivalent $\alpha \simeq 5 \times 10^{-3}$
315: (matching at 5~AU around a Solar mass star assuming that the
316: disk has $h/r = 0.05$). The viscous gap opening criteria is then
317: satisfied for planets of mass exceeding about 0.2~$M_J$. The
318: thermal gap opening condition is satisfied at a similar mass
319: \citep{bate03}. In this paper, we exclusively consider planets
320: with masses of $M_J$ and above, which should accordingly be safely
321: in the gap-opening regime of parameter space.
322:
323: \begin{figure}
324: \plotone{f2.ps}
325: \caption{The critical accretion rate above which a 1~$M_J$ planet migrates as a
326: test particle is plotted as a function of radius for the different disk models.}
327: \label{f2}
328: \end{figure}
329:
330: To compute the Type~II migration rate within the disk model
331: specified above, we draw on the results of \cite{syer95}.
332: These authors noted that the rate of migration, which is
333: sometimes assumed to equal the radial velocity that gas in
334: the disk {\em would have in the absence of a planet}, is
335: suppressed once the planet mass exceeds a local estimate
336: of the disk mass. Specifically, they defined a measure of
337: the importance of the disk relative to the planet,
338: \begin{equation}
339: B \equiv \frac{4 \pi \Sigma r_p^2}{M_p}
340: \end{equation}
341: which is small if the planet dominates the angular momentum
342: budget of the planet + disk system, and large otherwise. The
343: Type~II migration rate is then given for $B \geq 1$ (the disk
344: dominated case) by,
345: \begin{equation}
346: \dot{r}_p = v_r
347: \label{eq_migrate1}
348: \end{equation}
349: while for $B < 1$ (the planet dominated limit),
350: \begin{equation}
351: \dot{r}_p = B^{1/2} v_r
352: \label{eq_migrate2}
353: \end{equation}
354: where we have assumed (consistent with equation~\ref{eq_viscous})
355: that the efficiency of angular momentum transport is independent
356: of the surface density. For our disk models, Figure~\ref{f2} shows the critical accretion rate
357: below which $B < 1$ for a Jupiter mass planet. In all these models, slowdown
358: of the migration rate occurs due to the inertia of the planet
359: for accretion rates substantially greater than those at
360: which photoevaporation starts to influence the disk evolution.
361: The effect on the nominal migration time scale,
362: \begin{equation}
363: t_{\rm migrate} \equiv \frac{r_p}{\left| \dot{r}_p \right|}
364: \end{equation}
365: is shown in Figure~\ref{f3}. The $B < 1$ limit is applicable
366: at all radii of interest in a disk with $\dot{M} = 10^{-10} \
367: M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}$, and within radii less than a few
368: AU (depending on the planet mass) in a disk with
369: $\dot{M} = 10^{-8} \ M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}$.
370:
371: \begin{figure}
372: \plotone{f3.ps}
373: \caption{The predicted migration time scale as a function of radius in the
374: $\gamma=1$ disk model. The solid lines show the migration time scale for
375: planets of masses 0.5~$M_J$, 1~$M_J$, 2~$M_J$ and 4~$M_J$ when the disk
376: accretion rate is $10^{-8} \ M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}$ (more massive planets
377: have longer migration time scales at small orbital radii). The dashed lines
378: show results for the same mass planets in a disk with $\dot{M} = 10^{-10}
379: \ M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}$.}
380: \label{f3}
381: \end{figure}
382:
383: Once planets exceed the critical gap opening mass by a significant
384: factor, the rate of accretion onto the planet across the gap
385: drops rapidly \citep{lubow99}. Our goal is to compare theoretical
386: predictions for the planet distribution with a complete subsample
387: of extrasolar planets, which requires a cut at approximately
388: 1.5~$M_J$. Most of the planets that survive this cut have masses
389: substantially greater than the gap-opening mass, so {\em as a
390: first approximation} it seems reasonable to ignore the possibility
391: of mass accretion during Type~II migration, and assume that
392: negligible mass is accreted across the range of radii (interior
393: to 2.5~AU) over which we make the comparison. The results of
394: \cite{bate03}, which show that planets can grow rapidly to
395: masses beyond that of Jupiter while suffering little migration,
396: support this approximation. It is then easy, using
397: equations (\ref{eq_migrate1}) and (\ref{eq_migrate2}), to calculate
398: the final (following disk dispersal) orbital radius of a planet
399: that forms with mass $M_p$ at radius $a_{\rm form}$ and time $t_{\rm form}$
400: in one of the disk models specified in Table~1. The resulting mapping
401: between the formation conditions and the final state is the basic
402: input needed to make a prediction of the resulting planet distribution.
403:
404: The above model represents our attempt to define a `best-guess' description
405: of Type~II migration within the protoplanetary disk. One may note that
406: in the planet-dominated $B < 1$ limit, the predicted rate of Type~II
407: migration is reduced by the square-root of $B$ rather than the full ratio
408: of the local disk mass to the planet mass. We will refer to this as
409: {\em partial suppression} of the migration rate. The rate is not
410: fully suppressed because gas accumulates close to the tidal barrier
411: as the disk / planet system evolves, increasing the torque beyond
412: the value that would occur in an unperturbed disk \citep{pringle91}.
413: In practice, however, some gas may overflow the gap to be either
414: accreted by the planet or to flow into an inner disk interior
415: to the gap \citep{lubow06}. Mindful of this, we have also
416: computed models in which the migration rate in the planet dominated
417: regime is {\em fully suppressed}, so that,
418: \begin{equation}
419: \dot{r}_p = B v_r.
420: \end{equation}
421: The difference between the partially and fully suppressed calculations
422: provides an indication as to how sensitive the results are to uncertainties
423: in the treatment of massive planet migration.
424:
425: \section{Predicted distribution of planets in orbital radius}
426: Using the analytic disk evolution and migration models described in
427: \S2, we compute the radius $a_{\rm final}$ at which massive planets become
428: stranded as a function of the time $t_{\rm form}$ at which they form
429: within the protoplanetary disk. The parameters of the model are the planet mass,
430: the power-law index of the disk viscosity, the formation radius,
431: and whether the migration rate is partially or fully suppressed.
432: Illustrative results for a formation radius of 5~AU and a planet mass
433: of 1~$M_J$ are shown in Figure~\ref{f4}. As is well known, planets
434: that form at earlier epochs migrate to smaller final radii, and
435: as the orbital radii decrease the window of allowed formation
436: times also narrows \citep{trilling02,armitage02}. For the favored model, in which migration is only
437: partially suppressed, all surviving planets must form during the
438: last 1-1.5~Myr of the disk lifetime. This is not so short a window as to
439: imply that the planet formation process must be worryingly lossy, but it
440: does imply that the final masses of giant planets might well reflect details of the disk
441: dispersal process \citep{shu93}. Planets can form and survive across
442: a larger fraction of the disk lifetime if instead migration is
443: fully suppressed. There are also significant differences in the
444: outcome that depend upon the adopted disk model. These arise
445: because of the differing profiles of the radial velocity as a
446: function of radius, but they are less significant than differences in the
447: treatment of migration.
448:
449: \begin{figure}
450: \plotone{f4.ps}
451: \caption{Predicted final radii for 1~$M_J$ planets as a function of the time at
452: which they formed at 5~AU in the protoplanetary disk. The three closely spaced
453: curves on the right-hand-side of the Figure show results for disks with
454: $\gamma=0.5$ (long-dashed lines), $\gamma=1$ (solid lines) and $\gamma=1.5$
455: (short-dashed lines) respectively, assuming that migration is suppressed at
456: small radii according to the \cite{syer95} model. The left-hand curves show
457: results if, instead, migration is fully suppressed by the ratio of the local
458: disk mass to the planet mass. Differences between migration treatments are
459: evidently more significant that differences between the disk models. For the
460: favored models in which migration is partially suppressed, the survival
461: time of planets in the disk is in the range of 10-20\% of the disk lifetime.}
462: \label{f4}
463: \end{figure}
464:
465: To translate these results into a prediction for the orbital distribution
466: of massive planets, we note that,
467: \begin{equation}
468: \frac{{\rm d}N_p}{{\rm d}a} = \frac{{\rm d}t_{\rm form}}{{\rm d}a_{\rm final}} \times
469: \frac{{\rm d}N_p}{{\rm d}t_{\rm form}}
470: \end{equation}
471: where ${{\rm d}N_p}/{{\rm d}t_{\rm form}}$ is the rate at which planets
472: of a given mass form in the outer disk. The simplest assumption is that
473: this rate is a constant, or at least can be approximated as such, over
474: the interval of time near the end of the disk lifetime during which
475: planets can form and survive migration without being swept into the star.
476: Making this assumption, we compute and plot in Figure~\ref{f5}
477: ${{\rm d}N_p}/{{\rm d}\log a}$ for a variety of models, which differ
478: in the assumed formation radius, disk model, and migration treatment.
479: Numerical values for three of the these models, which assume
480: $a_{\rm form} = 5 {\rm AU}$, partial suppression of the migration
481: velocity, and $\gamma=0.5$, $\gamma=1$ or $\gamma=1.5$, are tabulated
482: in Table~2. These three cases roughly bracket the range of predicted
483: outcomes for all of the models that we have considered.
484:
485: \begin{figure}
486: \plotone{f5.ps}
487: \caption{The predicted distribution of massive planets as a function of radius.
488: All the curves show results for Jupiter mass planets (note that the mass dependence
489: is sufficiently weak that essentially identical results apply also for higher
490: masses). The solid curve shows the
491: results for the favored model, in which planets form at 5~AU at a constant
492: rate in a $\gamma=1$ disk, and migration is partially suppressed at small
493: radii. The two dotted curves show the effect of varying the disk viscosity
494: to $\gamma=0.5$ or $\gamma=1.5$. The long-dashed curves show the effect of
495: assuming that planets form at 3~AU (the curve furthest to the left at
496: 2.5~AU) or 10~AU rather than 5~AU. The short-dashed curve is
497: the predicted distribution in the case in which migration is fully suppressed.
498: The data points (shown with approximate errors) show the number of observed
499: extrasolar planets with $1.65 M_J < M_p \sin(i) < 10 M_J$ in a uniform and
500: complete sample of planets constructed from \cite{fischer05}.}
501: \label{f5}
502: \end{figure}
503:
504: \begin{table*}
505: \center{
506: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
507: \hline \hline
508: $\log(a / {\rm AU})$ & ${\rm d}N (\gamma=0.5) / {\rm d}\log(a) $ & ${\rm d}N (\gamma=1.0) / {\rm d}\log(a) $ &
509: ${\rm d}N (\gamma=1.5) / {\rm
510: d}\log(a) $ \\
511: \hline
512: -1.0 & 0.152 & 0.263 & 0.420 \\
513: -0.9 & 0.184 & 0.298 & 0.423 \\
514: -0.8 & 0.221 & 0.338 & 0.489 \\
515: -0.7 & 0.266 & 0.384 & 0.529 \\
516: -0.6 & 0.320 & 0.436 & 0.573 \\
517: -0.5 & 0.385 & 0.497 & 0.623 \\
518: -0.4 & 0.463 & 0.567 & 0.679 \\
519: -0.3 & 0.559 & 0.650 & 0.743 \\
520: -0.2 & 0.676 & 0.747 & 0.816 \\
521: -0.1 & 0.820 & 0.863 & 0.899 \\
522: 0.0 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
523: 0.1 & 1.226 & 1.170 & 1.117 \\
524: 0.2 & 1.518 & 1.380 & 1.261 \\
525: 0.3 & 1.912 & 1.656 & 1.448 \\
526: 0.4 & 2.458 & 2.035 & 1.705 \\
527: 0.5 & 3.283 & 2.592 & 2.080 \\
528: \hline
529: \label{table2}
530: \end{tabular}}
531: \caption{The predicted number of planets per logarithmic interval in
532: semi-major axis for models in which planet formation occurs at 5~AU and
533: the migration rate is partially suppressed. Results for three different
534: values of $\gamma$ are quoted. These results approximately bracket the
535: shallowest to steepest curves obtained for the models shown in Figure~\ref{f5}.
536: Results are quoted for 1 Jupiter mass planets, but the mass dependence is
537: weak -- much weaker than the differences between the different $\gamma$ models.
538: The numbers have been normalized to unity at 1~AU.}
539: \end{table*}
540:
541: Although all of the curves have the same general form --- relatively
542: few planets are predicted to be stranded at very small orbital radii,
543: with the number increasingly rapidly as $a$ increases --- there are
544: significant differences which may in principle leave signatures in the
545: observed distribution of extrasolar planets. Most importantly, the
546: predicted number of planets per logarithmic interval in semi-major
547: axis rises sharply as the formation radius is approached. A model in
548: which planets are assumed to form typically at 10~AU rather than
549: 5~AU results in a much smaller predicted number of planets at 4~AU,
550: whereas assuming a typical formation radius of 3~AU (i.e. immediately
551: outside the snow line) leads to a predicted pile-up of planets as that
552: radius is approached.
553: Observational detection of a rapid rise in the number of planets at a
554: particular orbital radius would then be a signature of a preferred
555: orbital radius for giant planet formation. Also easily detectable
556: are the differences between the partially and fully suppressed
557: migration models. If migration is fully suppressed, then the
558: number of planets (expressed as ${{\rm d}N_p}/{{\rm d}\log a}$) at
559: 0.1~AU is predicted to be around half the number at 1~AU, whereas
560: for partial suppression this ratio is around 0.25. This result is
561: easily understood -- differences in the treatment of migration are
562: most important at those small radii, interior to 1~AU, where the disk
563: mass is lowest.
564:
565: \subsection{Sensitivity to the disk dispersal mechanism}
566: Our parameterization of disk evolution sweeps much that is poorly
567: known about photoevaporation into a single parameter -- the disk
568: dispersal time $t_0$. Physically, rapid dispersal (small values of
569: $t_0$ for a given set of disk initial conditions) will occur
570: for large values of the ionizing flux $\Phi$, which will drive a
571: stronger photoevaporative flow. Quantitatively, the total mass
572: loss rate from the disk scales as \citep{hollenbach94},
573: \begin{equation}
574: \dot{M}_{\rm wind} \simeq 1.5 \times 10^{-10}
575: \left( \frac{\Phi}{10^{41} \ {\rm s}} \right)^{1/2}
576: \left( \frac{M_*}{M_\odot} \right) ^{1/2} M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}
577: \end{equation}
578: where the prefactor has been adjusted from the analytic
579: value to better match the numerical results of \cite{font04}, and the
580: fiducial ionizing flux has been chosen to be consistent with observational
581: estimates \citep{alexander05,pascucci07}, which are, however, subject
582: to substantial uncertainties.
583:
584: With our disk models, a wind mass loss rate in the range between
585: $10^{-10} \ M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}$ and $10^{-9} \ M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}$
586: yields the dispersal time of 6~Myr that is our baseline assumption.
587: Our fiducial parameters are therefore consistent with standard
588: photoevaporation models. A consequence of this, however, is that
589: the {\em disk mass} at the epoch when surviving planets form is
590: quite small. Figure~\ref{f5b} shows the gas disk mass at the moment
591: planets form as a function of the final planet semi-major axis. For
592: the models we have considered, the typical disk masses are only a
593: few Jupiter masses if migration is partially suppressed (in the
594: fully suppressed case, on the other hand, surviving planets form
595: substantially earlier when there is plenty of disk gas remaining).
596: These small masses directly reflect the efficiency of the migration process --
597: relatively modest amounts of gas are able to drive substantial
598: migration. However, they do pose a possible consistency problem:
599: planets that form in very low mass disks evidently perturb the
600: disk structure substantially, and this might affect the final
601: planetary distribution.
602:
603: \begin{figure}
604: \plotone{f6.ps}
605: \caption{The predicted distribution of massive planets as a function of radius
606: (upper panel) is plotted together with the disk mass evaluated at the formation
607: epoch (lower panel). The solid curve shows the results for the favored model, in which planets
608: form at 5~AU at a constant rate in a $\gamma=1$ disk, and migration is partially
609: suppressed at small radii. The short-dashed curve -- almost indistinguishable in the
610: upper panel -- shows the effect of reducing the disk dispersal time $t_0$ from
611: 6~Myr to 3~Myr. The long-dashed curve shows the results of assuming an instantaneous
612: dispersal of the disk at 6~Myr.}
613: \label{f5b}
614: \end{figure}
615:
616: To explore this possibility, we considered two options. First,
617: within the formalism developed here, we have investigated the
618: effect of reducing $t_0$ so that surviving planets form earlier
619: when the disk mass is higher. As shown in Figure~\ref{f5b},
620: a model computed with $t_0 = 3 \ {\rm Myr}$ yields an almost
621: identical planet distribution. Second, we have compared the
622: results for $\gamma=1.5$ with the numerical models presented
623: in \cite{armitage02}. In the numerical models, planet masses
624: are restricted to be no larger than a local estimate of the
625: disk mass, and the feedback of a massive planet on the structure
626: of a very low mass disk is explicitly followed. Reasonably
627: good agreement is obtained between the numerical and analytic
628: schemes, with the magnitude of the differences being comparable
629: to the differences between the curves plotted in Figure~\ref{f5}.
630:
631: A related question is how important the nature of the disk
632: dispersal mechanism is for the resulting planet distribution.
633: Physically, a model in which there is {\em no} mass loss from
634: the disk exterior to the planet (either via a wind, or via
635: accretion on to the planet) fails to yield any surviving planets --
636: ultimately the disk, no matter how small, absorbs the orbital angular momentum of the
637: planet and drives it to small radius\footnote{Strictly, this
638: is only true if the inner disk is subject to a zero-torque
639: boundary condition. A steady-state solution is possible if
640: there is instead angular momentum injection at small radii,
641: for example due to the interaction between the disk and
642: the stellar magnetosphere \citep{armitage96}.}. However,
643: many other models in which the disk is dispersed rapidly
644: do yield sensible distributions, so it is of interest to
645: assess how sensitive the planet distribution is to the
646: specifics of disk dispersal. To gauge this, we have considered
647: an extreme model in which the disk evolves viscously for
648: 6~Myr without any mass loss, and is then instantaneously
649: dispersed. Figure~\ref{f5b} depicts the resulting planet
650: distribution. At small radii (within about 1.5~AU) this
651: model tracks the fiducial photoevaporative case closely,
652: but further out the instantaneous dispersal model yields
653: a much flatter distribution. This reflects the fact that
654: in the case of photoevaporation, migration of the last
655: planets to form is limited by the rapid drop in the disk
656: surface density, and these planets pile up at radii
657: relatively close to their formation sites. We conclude that
658: the innermost part of the extrasolar planet distribution
659: (within roughly an AU) ought to be largely independent of
660: how the disk is dispersed, but that the distribution
661: further out does depend on whether photoevaporation or some
662: other mechanism is at work.
663:
664: \subsection{Effect of the dispersion in disk properties}
665: The disk models used in this paper have been adjusted to
666: approximately reproduce the mean lifetimes and accretion rates
667: of observed disks \citep{haisch01,hartmann98}. This procedure
668: ignores the fact that, observationally, there is a large
669: dispersion in the accretion rate at a given age. This
670: dispersion exceeds that expected from measurement uncertainties in
671: accretion rates and stellar ages.
672:
673: The origin of the intrinsic dispersion in disk properties
674: as a function of system age is not known, and hence it is
675: impossible to make a blanket statement as to whether consideration
676: of a mean model is reasonable or not. We can, however, distinguish
677: some possibilities. One possibility \citep{armitage03} is that the dispersion
678: in disk properties arises from a dispersion in disk initial
679: conditions (disk mass, disk angular momentum). Since the
680: planet distribution depends only upon the disk evolution
681: close to the transition epoch (independent of the absolute
682: timing), in this scenario the ensemble distribution averaged over the population
683: would be expected to be the same as the mean model we have
684: computed. Of course, giant planet formation would be less
685: probable in short-lived disks with low initial surface
686: densities \citep{pollack96}, so in practice most planets
687: would form in those disks with higher initial surface
688: densities at radii of a few AU.
689:
690: A second possibility is that the observed dispersion in
691: accretion rates arises from changes in individual accretion
692: rates on timescales intermediate between the disk lifetime
693: and observable timescales. Apart from thermal instabilities
694: \citep{bell94}, which are only likely to be relevant for
695: initial accretion rates higher than those we have considered here,
696: no obvious candidate instabilities that might yield large fluctuations
697: in $\dot{M}$ are known, but it remains possible that $\dot{M} (r)$
698: might vary rapidly. If such variability extended across the
699: radial range considered here, it is likely that the migration
700: history of planets would be altered.
701:
702: \subsection{Comparison with a uniformly selected dataset}
703: We compare the models to a subsample of extrasolar planets detected
704: by the Keck / Lick / AAT planet search program. Initially, we proceed
705: rather conservatively, and define
706: a subsample that is as complete and unbiased as
707: possible over specified intervals in planet mass and orbital radii.
708: Our procedure is as follows:
709: \begin{enumerate}
710: \item
711: We start with a sample of 850 stars of FGK spectral types, targeted
712: by the Lick / Keck / AAT planet search program, for which 10 or
713: more radial velocity measurements over a period of at least 4
714: years are available. This sample is listed in Table~3 of
715: \cite{fischer05}. For these stars, hypothetical planets that
716: yield a radial velocity semi-amplitude $K > 30 \ {\rm ms}^{-1}$
717: have nearly uniform detectability provided that the orbital
718: period is less than 4~years. The orbital period restriction
719: corresponds to a maximum semi-major axis of 2.5~AU, assuming
720: Solar mass hosts. From this sample, \cite{fischer05} list 46
721: stars which host known extrasolar planets. In some cases, these are
722: multiple systems.
723: \item
724: In many cases, additional radial velocity data is available beyond
725: that used by \cite{fischer05}. We therefore update the orbital
726: elements quoted by \cite{fischer05} to match those reported by
727: \cite{butler06}. Typically the changes to the derived masses and
728: semi-major axes are rather modest (here we ignore eccentricity,
729: which in some cases is more substantially altered). Including the
730: multiple planets in some systems, this yields a sample of 59 planets.
731: \item
732: Finally, we define a subsample that includes only planets that are
733: massive enough to be detectable across the entire range of orbital radii
734: for which the survey is complete. At 2.5~AU, $K = 30 \ {\rm ms}^{-1}$
735: corresponds to a planet mass of $1.65 \ M_J$, so we discard planets
736: with smaller masses. We also cut the sample at the high mass end,
737: somewhat arbitrarily, at $10 M_J$. In terms of radial extent, we
738: include those planets with $0.1 \ {\rm AU} < a < 2.5 \ {\rm AU}$.
739: This excludes planets with very tight orbits whose dynamics may have
740: been influenced by tidal effects and / or penetration into the
741: protostellar magnetosphere.
742: \end{enumerate}
743: It is somewhat striking --- given the large number of extrasolar
744: planets now known --- how little of the publicly available data
745: can be used for the sort of statistical comparison we are attempting
746: here. Demanding both completeness (which restricts the stellar sample
747: used), and lack of mass bias (which restricts the minimum mass), we are
748: left with only 22 massive planets. Obviously this small sample size
749: limits the statistical power to constrain theoretical models. However,
750: the sample should be free of any {\em systematic} biases, which may
751: not have been true for earlier analyses that typically used larger
752: compilations of detected planets. For illustrative purposes, we
753: divide the planets in our subsample into four logarithmic bins
754: in semi-major axis (between 0.1~AU and 2.5~AU) and plot the number
755: of planets in each bin over the theoretical curves in Figure~\ref{f5}.
756: The observed distribution, in agreement with the theoretical models,
757: rises rapidly with increasing semi-major axis.
758:
759: \begin{figure}
760: \plotone{f7.ps}
761: \caption{Comparison of the predicted planet distribution with the observed one.
762: The solid histogram shows the cumulative radial distribution of massive planets
763: with $M_p \sin(i) > 1.65 M_J$. The sample is based on that of \cite{fischer05},
764: with the planet properties updated using the compilation of \cite{butler06}. The solid
765: curve is the prediction of the fiducial model for planets of mass $3 M_J$
766: formed at 5~AU in a disk with $\gamma=1$ and partial suppression of the migration
767: velocity. The dashed curve shows the predictions of a model in which $\gamma=1.5$
768: but all other parameters remain fixed. This, and other alternate models
769: which predict flatter distributions, are not supported by the data, though the
770: distributions cannot be distinguished at much better than the 95\% confidence level.}
771: \label{f6}
772: \end{figure}
773:
774: Figure~\ref{f6} shows the cumulative distribution of orbital radii
775: for massive planets in the sample, together with selected theoretical
776: curves derived from the differential distributions plotted in Figure~\ref{f5}.
777: The baseline model, in which planets form at a constant rate at relatively
778: small orbital radii (5~AU) in a protoplanetary disk with $\gamma=1$, is shown as
779: the solid line. This model is consistent with the available data
780: (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test $P=0.3$). Of the variant models considered,
781: those in which migration is fully suppressed, $\gamma > 1$, and / or planets are
782: considered to typically form at larger radii are disfavored, as these
783: models predict relatively more planets at sub-AU orbital radii that are
784: not observed. A model in which $\gamma=1.5$, with the other parameters
785: remaining unchanged, is shown as the upper
786: dashed line. This model is disfavored at modest statistical significance
787: (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test $P=0.06$). Several variant models that we have
788: considered are disfavored at roughly comparable confidence levels
789: (95\%), but with such a small observed sample few definitive conclusions
790: can be drawn.
791:
792: As noted above, our sample selection procedure is deliberately conservative.
793: We have also compared the theoretical model to a larger sample, obtained by
794: taking the entire catalog of extrasolar planets from \cite{butler06} and
795: retaining those planets with orbital radii $0.1 \ {\rm AU} < a < 2.5 \ {\rm AU}$
796: and masses $1.65M_J < M_p \sin(i) < 10 M_J$ (i.e. the same mass and radius
797: cuts as before, but relaxing the condition that all planets were detected
798: from one survey with well-known selection properties). The resulting
799: sample of 53 planets has a radial distribution
800: that, by eye, looks very similar to the 22 planet sample, and the greater
801: numbers give more power to discriminate between models. The baseline model
802: ($\gamma=1$, formation at 5~AU, partially suppressed migration) remains
803: consistent with the data, while the second model discussed above in
804: which $\gamma=1.5$ is more clearly inconsistent ($P=3 \times 10^{-3}$).
805: We do not place much weight on these results, since the compilation of
806: planets reported in \cite{butler06} is not uniformly selected. However,
807: they illustrate clearly that only modest expansion of the
808: sample size --- by around a factor of two --- would allow us (within the
809: formal confines of the model) to test whether the observed distribution
810: of massive extrasolar planets is or is not consistent with theoretical
811: models that differ in their assumptions as to planet formation radius,
812: migration rate, and disk properties. Since some of these parameters
813: are partially degenerate, somewhat larger unbiased samples would be
814: needed to try and pin down empirically a single favored model.
815:
816: \section{Radial variation of the mass function}
817: At small orbital radii where $B < 1$, the migration velocity is
818: dependent on the planet mass. In the case in which migration is
819: partially suppressed, $\dot{r}_p \propto M_p^{-1/2}$, and hence the
820: fraction of time over which the most massive planets ($10 M_p$) can
821: form and survive without migrating in to the star is a factor of a few
822: greater than for Jupiter mass planets. In a steady-state disk,
823: however, the fractional suppression of the migration velocity as a function
824: of radius is fixed for each planet mass (at radii where $B < 1$).
825: Hence, it is approximately true that the
826: {\em relative} number of planets left stranded at different radii
827: is independent of the planet mass, and the predicted mass function
828: of giant planets is independent of radius \citep{armitage02}.
829:
830: \begin{figure}
831: \plotone{f8.ps}
832: \caption{The magnitude of the predicted variation in the extrasolar planet mass
833: function with radius in different models. The solid curve shows results from the
834: fiducial model in which planets form at 5~AU, $\gamma=1$, and the migration
835: velocity is partially suppressed. The short-dashed curve shows results for $\gamma=1.5$,
836: with the remaining model parameters unchanged from their fiducial values.
837: The long dashed curve shows the effect of assuming that a
838: change of migration regime occurs between high and low mass planets. In all
839: cases the slope of mass function at small radii has been fixed at $\alpha=1$.}
840: \label{f7}
841: \end{figure}
842:
843: In more detail, however, migration does lead to some fractionation
844: of the planet mass function. More massive planets must form earlier
845: than their less massive counterparts if they are to end up at the
846: same orbital radii after disk dispersal, and the evolution of the
847: disk is itself time-dependent (being dominated by viscous evolution
848: early on, with a change to a steeper decline in the mass accretion
849: rate later on due to the influence of photoevaporation). To quantify
850: the extent to which this results in a radial variation of the
851: mass function we assume that at small orbital radii the mass function
852: can be written as a power-law,
853: \begin{equation}
854: \frac{{\rm d}N_p}{{\rm d}M_p} \propto M_p^{-\alpha}
855: \end{equation}
856: and compute the predicted radial variation in $\alpha$. Figure~\ref{f7}
857: shows the results for two of the models that we have discussed
858: earlier, including the baseline model. For definiteness, we set $\alpha=1$
859: at small radii, though this choice is arbitrary. The predicted variation
860: in the mass function with orbital radius in these models is non-zero,
861: but in these and other similar models we have computed in
862: which the migration properties of low and high mass planets are the same the
863: magnitude of the change is small --- of the order of $\Delta \alpha = 0.1$ or less.
864: It is straightforward to show that variations of this magnitude are
865: undetectable with feasible surveys.
866: The conclusion is that any detectable change in the mass function with
867: radius (at small orbital radii where migration rather than mass growth
868: is the dominant effect) would have to be attributed to effects other
869: than mass-dependent migration.
870:
871: There is one exception to this rule. If the migration {\em regime}
872: for high mass planets is different from that for low mass planets, then
873: large changes in the mass function with radius result. Such a change in
874: migration regime is conceivable --- for example it is possible that high mass planets
875: completely prevent mass flow across the gap, while low mass planets
876: allow significant mass flow \citep{lubow99}. In this case, one would
877: expect less perturbation to the disk structure immediately outside the
878: gap for low mass planets that for high mass planets. If less mass
879: piles up outside the tidal barrier, the torque will be reduced,
880: and the migration velocity will go down. An example model of this kind, in which we assume
881: that migration is fully suppressed for $0.5 M_J$ planets but only
882: partially suppressed for $2 M_J$ planets, is also plotted in Figure~\ref{f7}.
883: As expected (given the substantial difference between the relevant curves
884: in Figure~\ref{f5}), this model displays order unity variations in the
885: predicted slope of the mass function with radius.
886:
887: \begin{figure}
888: \plotone{f9.ps}
889: \caption{The cumulative mass function of known extrasolar planets in the mass
890: range $1.65 \ M_J < M_p \sin(i) < 10 \ M_J$ is plotted for two intervals in
891: semi-major axis. The solid histogram shows the distribution for planets
892: with $0.1 \ {\rm AU} < a < 1.185 \ {\rm AU}$, while the dashed histogram
893: represents the distribution for $1.185 \ {\rm AU} < a < 2.5 \ {\rm AU}$.
894: These distributions are not statistically distinguishable.}
895: \label{f7b}
896: \end{figure}
897:
898: Observationally, an apparent paucity of high mass planets amongst the
899: hot Jupiters has been noted by several authors \citep{zucker02}. These
900: planets have presumably undergone interactions with their host stars
901: (possibly including tidal circularization, mass loss, or stopping
902: of migration due to entry into the stellar magnetosphere), any one of
903: which could result in either mass loss or a mass-dependence to the
904: planet's survival probability. At larger radii, however, there is no
905: strong evidence for any variation in the mass function \citep{marcy05}.
906: To illustrate this with current data, we consider the entire sample of
907: known extrasolar planets \citep{butler06} with masses in the range
908: $1.65M_J < M_p \sin(i) < 10 M_J$, and orbital radii between
909: $0.1 \ {\rm AU} < a < 2.5 \ {\rm AU}$ (similar conclusions follow
910: from analyses of smaller, more strictly selected samples). We divide this sample
911: into `inner' and `outer' subsets, with equal numbers of planets
912: in each. The dividing line between the subsets falls at a semi-major
913: axis of 1.185~AU. Figure~\ref{f7b} shows the cumulative distributions
914: of $M_p \sin(i)$ for these subsamples. By eye, and statistically, no
915: significant differences are seen. This is consistent with the
916: predictions of the simple migration model we have developed here,
917: and probably already rules out the large changes in the mass function
918: with radius predicted in the case where high and low mass planets
919: migrate in a qualitatively distinct manner.
920:
921: \section{Sensitivity to structure in the protoplanetary disk}
922: The structure of the protoplanetary disk at radii of the order of
923: 1~AU is uncertain theoretically, primarily as a consequence of the
924: low ionization fraction which sows doubt as to the efficiency of
925: angular momentum transport driven by the magnetorotational instability
926: \citep{balbus98,gammie96,turner07}. Moreover, most existing observational constraints
927: are either explicitly \citep{wilner00} or implicitly \citep{hartmann98,armitage03}
928: sensitive only to large radii in the disk. Not only is the slope of the
929: steady-state surface density profile at small radii ($\Sigma \propto r^{-\gamma}$)
930: poorly known, but there could in principle be discontinuities in
931: $\Sigma$ due to abrupt changes in the angular momentum transport
932: efficiency \citep{gammie96}. We have looked at how both of these
933: possibilities affect the resulting distribution of planets.
934:
935: \begin{figure}
936: \plotone{f10.ps}
937: \caption{Illustration of the effect of discontinuities in the efficiency of disk
938: angular momentum transport on the predicted planet distribution. In this, not
939: very realistic example, the viscosity is assumed to drop by a factor of 10
940: inside 1~AU (upper curve), leading to a large accumulation of planets at small
941: orbital radii. As in Figure~6, the histogram shows the observed planet
942: distribution and the lower curve the prediction of the fiducial migration model.}
943: \label{f8}
944: \end{figure}
945:
946: Holding other parameters of the model (primarily the planet formation
947: radius) fixed, the resulting differential distributions of massive
948: planets for different $\gamma$ are plotted in Figure~\ref{f5}. Here
949: we have assumed a smooth surface density profile, which is fully
950: characterized by the value of $\gamma$ which we vary between
951: $\gamma=0.5$ and $\gamma=1.5$. The differences between these
952: models at sub-AU radii are quite significant. If we consider the
953: relative number of planets at 1~AU and 0.1~AU, the ratio varies
954: from 2.4 ($\gamma=1.5$) to 3.8 ($\gamma=1$) to 6.6 ($\gamma=0.5$).
955: The unbiased subsample defined earlier includes only a handful
956: of planets at sub-AU radii, so comparison with existing data is not possible,
957: but these differences are large enough that only a small unbiased
958: sample of planets at these small radii would be needed to see
959: variations of this magnitude. Changing the assumed planet formation
960: radius has only a small influence on the distribution at sub-AU
961: scales, so the influence of different $\gamma$ is in principle
962: separable from other unknown parameters of the model.
963:
964: Abrupt changes in the surface density profile --- for example
965: due to opacity transitions within the disk or rapid changes in the
966: efficiency of angular momentum transport with radius, leave an
967: even more distinctive fingerprint in the radial distribution of
968: planets, provided only that migration is not fully suppressed,
969: so that $\dot{r}_p$ is not linear in $B$. Such changes lead to
970: a jump in the differential distribution of planets at the radius
971: where the discontinuity occurs, and correspond to a change of
972: slope in the cumulative distribution. As an example, Figure~\ref{f8}
973: shows the predicted cumulative distribution if the viscosity is assumed to
974: drop by a factor of 10 within 1~AU. Only rather unrealistic toy models
975: of this kind (in which the jump is both large and situated squarely
976: in the middle of the accessible radial range) can be ruled out using
977: existing data, but larger data sets could potentially constrain
978: discontinuities in the disk physics quite well.
979:
980: \section{Conclusions}
981: In this paper we have investigated the predictions of a rather
982: simple, almost entirely analytic, model of giant planet formation
983: and migration for the radial distribution of massive extrasolar
984: planets. Our main results are:
985: \begin{enumerate}
986: \item
987: The distribution of massive planets with radius, inside the
988: snow line beyond which planets are assumed to form, preserves
989: information about the typical location of planet formation and
990: the structure of the protoplanetary disk at small radii. Statistical
991: analyses of large, uniformly selected samples of massive planets
992: could therefore in principle be used to recover information about planet
993: formation and disk physics.
994: \item
995: Abrupt changes in the disk properties with radius, which may occur
996: at small orbital radii, leave the most distinctive signature in the
997: resulting planet distribution (a corresponding discontinuity in
998: ${\rm d}N_p / {\rm d}\log a$). Constraints on smooth surface density
999: profiles at AU scales are also possible, but are likely to harder
1000: to obtain and more ambiguous.
1001: \item
1002: The mass function of extrasolar planets is not predicted to vary
1003: detectably with radius as a consequence of migration, at least in the
1004: simplest models.
1005: \item
1006: Existing data remains compatible with a surprisingly simple model,
1007: proposed previously \citep{armitage02}, in which massive planets form beyond the snow line
1008: at a constant rate, and migrate inward through a smooth protoplanetary disk before
1009: becoming stranded when the gas disk is dispersed due to photoevaporation.
1010: However, the sample of planets suitable for a statistical comparison
1011: with the theory is limited, and as a result a wide class of
1012: alternative models remain viable or can only be ruled out with
1013: limited significance.
1014: \end{enumerate}
1015: Without a doubt, the simple theoretical model we have explored here is
1016: too simple. On a technical level, it would be desirable to extend the
1017: model to treat properly the case when planets form within a disk
1018: whose mass is only a small multiple of the planet mass, as this
1019: situation is a common outcome of the scenarios we favor. The model
1020: also ignores some effects, such as mass flow across the gap and
1021: accretion onto the planet, that are almost certainly important
1022: \citep{lubow99,lubow06}, along with others, such as planet-planet
1023: scattering which has the side-effect of altering the orbital
1024: elements of surviving planets \citep{ford01}, that could be
1025: significant. As such, the current agreement between our
1026: predictions and the observed distribution of extrasolar planets speaks
1027: more to the paucity of the data than to the validity of the theoretical model.
1028: Taking a broader view, however, the effects that we have ignored do not
1029: appear to be so intractable that they could not, in the future, be
1030: quantified and incorporated into a theoretical model of migration. Our results
1031: therefore imply that comparison
1032: of theoretical models to the larger samples of extrasolar planets that are
1033: forthcoming holds substantial promise for learning new information,
1034: about both planet formation and protoplanetary disk physics, that is
1035: currently unavailable via other methods.
1036:
1037: \acknowledgements
1038:
1039: I thank Richard Alexander for a detailed critique of an early version
1040: of this paper, and in particular for alerting me to the work of \cite{ruden04}. I
1041: am also grateful to the referee for an insightful report.
1042: This work was supported by NASA under grants NAG5-13207, NNG04GL01G and NNX07AH08G
1043: from the Origins of Solar Systems and Astrophysics Theory Programs, and
1044: by the NSF under grant AST~0407040.
1045:
1046: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1047:
1048: \bibitem[Alexander, Clarke \& Pringle(2005)]{alexander05}
1049: Alexander, R. D., Clarke, C. J., \& Pringle, J. E. 2005,
1050: \mnras, 358, 283
1051:
1052: \bibitem[Alexander, Clarke \& Pringle(2006)]{alexander06}
1053: Alexander, R. D., Clarke, C. J., \& Pringle, J. E. 2006,
1054: \mnras, 369, 229
1055:
1056: \bibitem[Armitage \& Clarke(1996)]{armitage96}
1057: Armitage, P. J.; \& Clarke, C. J. 1996,
1058: \mnras, 280, 458
1059:
1060: \bibitem[Armitage, Clarke \& Palla(2003)]{armitage03}
1061: Armitage, P. J., Clarke, C. J., \& Palla, F. 2003,
1062: \mnras, 342, 1139
1063:
1064: \bibitem[Armitage et al.(2002)]{armitage02}
1065: Armitage, P. J., Livio, M., Lubow, S. H., \& Pringle, J. E. 2002,
1066: \mnras, 334, 248
1067:
1068: \bibitem[Balbus \& Hawley(1998)]{balbus98}
1069: Balbus, S. A., \& Hawley, J. F. 1998,
1070: Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1
1071:
1072: \bibitem[Bally \& Scoville(1982)]{bally82}
1073: Bally, J., \& Scoville, N. Z. 1982,
1074: \apj, 255, 497
1075:
1076: \bibitem[Bate et al.(2003)]{bate03}
1077: Bate, M. R., Lubow, S. H., Ogilvie, G. I., \& Miller, K. A. 2003,
1078: \mnras, 341, 213
1079:
1080: \bibitem[Bell \& Lin(1994)]{bell94}
1081: Bell, K. R., \& Lin, D. N. C. 1994,
1082: \apj, 427, 987
1083:
1084: \bibitem[Bodenheimer, Hubickyj \& Lissauer(2000)]{bodenheimer00}
1085: Bodenheimer, P., Hubickyj, O., \& Lissauer, J. J. 2000,
1086: Icarus, 143, 2
1087:
1088: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2006)]{butler06}
1089: Butler, R. P., et al. 2006, \apj, 646, 505
1090:
1091: \bibitem[Clarke, Gendrin \& Sotomayor(2001)]{clarke01}
1092: Clarke, C. J., Gendrin, A., \& Sotomayor, M. 2001,
1093: \mnras, 328, 485
1094:
1095: \bibitem[Fischer \& Valenti(2005)]{fischer05}
1096: Fischer, D. A., \& Valenti, J. 2005, \apj, 622, 1102
1097:
1098: \bibitem[Font et al.(2004)]{font04}
1099: Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Johnstone, D., \& Ballantyne, D. R. 2004,
1100: \apj, 607, 890
1101:
1102: \bibitem[Ford, Havlickova \& Rasio(2001)]{ford01}
1103: Ford, E. B., Havlickova, M., \& Rasio, F. A. 2001,
1104: Icarus, 150, 303
1105:
1106: \bibitem[Gammie(1996)]{gammie96}
1107: Gammie, C. F. 1996, \apj, 457, 355
1108:
1109: \bibitem[Garaud \& Lin(2007)]{garaud07}
1110: Garaud, P., \& Lin, D. N. C. 2007,
1111: \apj, 654, 606
1112:
1113: \bibitem[Ge et al.(2006)]{ge06}
1114: Ge, J., et al. 2006, SPIE, 6269, 75
1115:
1116: \bibitem[Goldreich \& Tremaine(1980)]{goldreich80}
1117: Goldreich, P., \& Tremaine, S. 1980,
1118: \apj, 241, 425
1119:
1120: \bibitem[Haisch, Lada \& Lada(2001)]{haisch01}
1121: Haisch, K. E., Lada, E. A., \& Lada, C. J. 2001,
1122: \apj, 553, L153
1123:
1124: \bibitem[Hartmann et al.(1998)]{hartmann98}
1125: Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., Gullbring, E., \& D'Alessio, P. 1998,
1126: \apj, 495, 385
1127:
1128: \bibitem[Hayashi, Nakazawa \& Nakagawa(1985)]{hayashi85}
1129: Hayashi, C., Nakazawa, K., \& Nakagawa, Y. 1985,
1130: in Protostars and Planets~II, University of Arizona Press (Tucson, AZ),
1131: p.~1100
1132:
1133: \bibitem[Hollenbach et al.(1994)]{hollenbach94}
1134: Hollenbach, D., Johnstone, D., Lizano, S., \& Shu, F. 1994,
1135: \apj, 428, 654
1136:
1137: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2004)]{ida04}
1138: Ida, S., \& Lin, D. N. C. 2004, \apj, 616, 567
1139:
1140: \bibitem[Lin, Bodenheimer \& Richardson(1996)]{lin96}
1141: Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., \& Richardson, D. C. 1996,
1142: Nature, 380, 606
1143:
1144: \bibitem[Lin \& Papaloizou(1986)]{lin86}
1145: Lin, D. N. C., \& Papaloizou, J. 1986,
1146: \apj, 309, 846
1147:
1148: \bibitem[Lubow \& D'Angelo(2006)]{lubow06}
1149: Lubow, S. H., \& D'Angelo, G. 2006,
1150: \apj, 641, 526
1151:
1152: \bibitem[Lubow, Seibert \& Artymowicz(1999)]{lubow99}
1153: Lubow, S. H., Seibert, M., \& Artymowicz, P. 1999,
1154: \apj, 526, 1001
1155:
1156: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell \& Pringle(1974)]{lyndenbell74}
1157: Lynden-Bell, D., \& Pringle, J. E. 1974,
1158: \mnras, 168, 603
1159:
1160: \bibitem[Marcy et al.(2005)]{marcy05}
1161: Marcy, G., Butler, R. P., Fischer, D., Vogt, S., Wright, J. T., Tinney, C. G.,
1162: \& Jones, H. R. A. 2005, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 158, 24
1163:
1164: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2007)]{martin07}
1165: Martin, R. G., Lubow, S. H., Pringle, J. A., \& Wyatt, M. C. 2007,
1166: \mnras, 378, 1589
1167:
1168: \bibitem[Matsuyama, Johnstone \& Murray(2003)]{matsuyama03}
1169: Matsuyama, I., Johnstone, D., \& Murray, N. 2003,
1170: \apj, 585, L143
1171:
1172: \bibitem[Morbidelli et al.(2000)]{morbidelli00}
1173: Morbidelli, A., Chambers, J., Lunine, J. I., Petit, J. M., Robert, F., Valsecchi, G. B., \&
1174: Cyr, K. E. 2000, Meteoritics \& Planetary Science, 35, 1309
1175:
1176: \bibitem[Muzerolle et al.(2000)]{muzerolle00}
1177: Muzerolle, J., Calvet, N., Brice\~no, C., Hartmann, L., \& Hillenbrand, L. 2000,
1178: \apj, 535, L47
1179:
1180: \bibitem[Pascucci et al.(2007)]{pascucci07}
1181: Pascucci, I., et al. 2007,
1182: \apj, 663, 383
1183:
1184: \bibitem[Pollack et al.(1996)]{pollack96}
1185: Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J. J., Podolak, M., \&
1186: Greenzweig, Y. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62
1187:
1188: \bibitem[Pringle(1981)]{pringle81}
1189: Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA\&A, 19, 137
1190:
1191: \bibitem[Pringle(1991)]{pringle91}
1192: Pringle, J. E. 1991, \mnras, 248, 754
1193:
1194: \bibitem[Ruden(2004)]{ruden04}
1195: Ruden, S. P. 2004, \apj, 605, 880
1196:
1197: \bibitem[Santos, Israelian \& Mayor(2004)]{santos04}
1198: Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., \& Mayor, M. 2004, A\&A, 415, 1153
1199:
1200: \bibitem[Santos, Benz \& Mayor(2005)]{santos05}
1201: Santos, N. C., Benz, W., \& Mayor, M. 2005,
1202: Science, 310, 251
1203:
1204: \bibitem[Shakura \& Sunyaev(1973)]{shakura73}
1205: Shakura, N. I., \& Sunyaev, R. A. 1973,
1206: A\&A, 24, 337
1207:
1208: \bibitem[Shu, Johnstone \& Hollenbach(1993)]{shu93}
1209: Shu, F. H., Johnstone, D., \& Hollenbach, D. 1993,
1210: Icarus, 106, 92
1211:
1212: \bibitem[Simon \& Prato(1995)]{simon95}
1213: Simon, M., \& Prato, L. 1995,
1214: \apj, 450, 824
1215:
1216: \bibitem[Syer \& Clarke(1995)]{syer95}
1217: Syer, D., \& Clarke, C. J. 1995, \mnras, 277, 758
1218:
1219: \bibitem[Takeuchi, Miyama \& Lin(1996)]{takeuchi96}
1220: Takeuchi, T., Miyama, S. M., \& Lin, D. N. C. 1996,
1221: \apj, 460, 832
1222:
1223: \bibitem[Trilling et al.(1998)]{trilling98}
1224: Trilling, D. E., Benz, W., Guillot, T., Lunine, J. I., Hubbard, W. B., \&
1225: Burrows, A. 1998, \apj, 500, 428
1226:
1227: \bibitem[Trilling, Lunine \& Benz(2002)]{trilling02}
1228: Trilling, D. E., Lunine, J. I., \& Benz, W. 2002,
1229: A\&A, 394, 241
1230:
1231: \bibitem[Turner, Sano \& Dziourkevitch(2007)]{turner07}
1232: Turner, N. J., Sano, T., \& Dziourkevitch, N. 2007,
1233: \apj, 659, 729
1234:
1235: \bibitem[Veras \& Armitage(2004)]{veras04}
1236: Veras, D., \& Armitage, P. J. 2004,
1237: \mnras, 347, 613
1238:
1239: \bibitem[Ward(1996)]{ward96}
1240: Ward, W. R. 1996, Icarus, 126, 261
1241:
1242: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(1977)]{weidenschilling77}
1243: Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977, Astrophysics and Space Science, 51, 153
1244:
1245: \bibitem[Wilner et al.(2000)]{wilner00}
1246: Wilner, D. J., Ho, P. T. P., Kastner, J. H., \& Rodríguez, L. F. 2000,
1247: \apj, 534, L101
1248:
1249: \bibitem[Wolk \& Walter(1996)]{wolk96}
1250: Wolk, S. J., \& Walter, F. M. 1996,
1251: \aj, 111. 2066
1252:
1253: \bibitem[Zucker \& Mazeh(2002)]{zucker02}
1254: Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T. 2002,
1255: \apj, 568, L113
1256:
1257: \end{thebibliography}
1258:
1259: \end{document}
1260:
1261: