Draft version September 17, 2018Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 12/16/11

THE HOT JUPITER PERIOD-MASS DISTRIBUTION AS A SIGNATURE OF IN SITU FORMATION

Elizabeth Bailey, Konstantin BatyginDivision of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

Draft version September 17, 2018

ABSTRACT

More than two decades after the widespread detection of Jovian-class planets on short-period orbitsaround other stars, their dynamical origins remain imperfectly understood. In the traditional narra-tive, these highly irradiated giant planets, like Jupiter and Saturn, are envisioned to have formed atlarge stello-centric distances and to have subsequently undergone large-scale orbital decay. Conversely,more recent models propose that a large fraction of hot Jupiters could have formed via rapid gas ac-cretion in their current orbital neighborhood. In this study, we examine the period-mass distributionof close-in giant planets, and demonstrate that the inner boundary of this population conforms to theexpectations of the in-situ formation scenario. Specifically, we show that if conglomeration unfoldsclose to the disk’s inner edge, the semi-major axis - mass relation of the emergent planets should followa power law a ∝ M−2/7 — a trend clearly reflected in the data. We further discuss corrections tothis relationship due to tidal decay of planetary orbits. Although our findings do not discount orbitalmigration as an active physical process, they suggest that the characteristic range of orbital migrationexperienced by giant planets is limited.

1. INTRODUCTION

Speculation regarding the potential existence of giantplanets that orbit their host stars in a matter of daysdates back more than seven decades, to the proposedspectroscopic survey of Struve (1952). In retrospect, theremarkable lack of attention devoted to this possibility(in the 40 years that followed its publication, Struve’smanuscript received 6 citations) can almost certainly beattributed to the stark contrast between the imaginednature of such objects and the expansive orbital archi-tecture of our solar system. Accordingly, the 1995 dis-covery of the first hot Jupiter, 51 Pegasi b (Mayor &Queloz 1995), proved to be an immediate challenge tothe hitherto conventional theory of giant planet forma-tion (Pollack et al. 1996), sparking considerable interestin reconciling the existence of Jupiter-like bodies on ex-tremely close-in orbits with the theory of core-nucleatedaccretion. However, despite numerous efforts to conclu-sively resolve the problem of hot Jupiter formation, theorigins of these remarkable objects remain imperfectlyunderstood.

Generally speaking, the various formation pathways ofJovian-class planets at small orbital radii can be sum-marized into three broad categories: smooth migration,violent migration, and in-situ conglomeration. Withinthe framework of the first two scenarios, giant planetformation unfolds exclusively at large stello-centric dis-tances (i.e. a few astronomical units) as originally imag-ined for the Solar System’s giant planets (Bodenheimer& Pollack 1986). Subsequently, upon conclusion of theprimary accretion phase, the planet’s orbital radius un-dergoes large-scale decay, shrinking by a factor of ∼ 102

(Lin et al. 1996). In the smooth migration picture, thisis accomplished by dissipative interactions between theplanet and its natal disk (via the so-called type-II modeof gas-driven migration; Kley & Nelson 2012), while theviolent picture entails a sequence of events wherein the

ebailey@gps.caltech.edu

planet first attains a nearly parabolic trajectory (as aconsequence of planet-planet scattering or the Lidov-Kozai mechanism; Beauge & Nesvorny 2012; Naoz et al.2011) and then gets tidally captured onto a close-in cir-cular orbit.

The in-situ model of hot Jupiter conglomeration (Baty-gin et al. 2016) is markedly different from the picturedescribed above in that the extent of orbital migrationis assumed to be limited, and the vast majority of theplanetary mass is imagined to accrete onto the planetlocally (i.e. at a radial separation of order ∼ 0.1 au orsmaller). Importantly, in this case, core-nucleated in-stability is envisioned to be triggered by massive super-Earth type planets1, which are strictly disallowed withinthe context of the traditional Minimum Mass Solar Neb-ula (Weidenschilling 1977; Hayashi 1981) but are foundin great abundance around Sun-like stars by photometricand spectroscopic surveys (Howard et al. 2010; Mayor etal. 2011; Batalha et al. 2013; Dressing & Charbonneau2013, 2015; Fressin et al. 2013; Petigura et al. 2013; Mul-ders et al. 2015; Winn & Fabrycky 2015). We note, how-ever, that for the purpose of our study, we remain com-pletely agnostic as to the origins of the high-metallicitycores themselves: whether they too form locally (Chiang& Laughlin 2013; Lee & Chiang 2016; Boley et al. 2016)or instead get delivered to short-period orbits by (type-I) planet-disk interactions (Fogg & Nelson 2007; Bitschet al. 2015) matters very little for the results that willfollow.

In light of the relatively low occurrence rate of hotJupiters (∼ 1% for Sun-like stars; Howard et al. 2010,Gould et al. 2006, Wright et al. 2012), it is not straight-forward to determine which of the three aforementioned

1 The fact that the process of core-nucleated accretion is rela-tively insensitive to the temperature and pressure of the nebula,and can therefore proceed anywhere in the disk, was first demon-strated by the analytic calculations of Stevenson (1982). Morerealistic numerical simulations of hot Jupiter conglomeration atr ∼ 0.05 au are presented in Batygin et al. (2016).

arX

iv:1

809.

0551

7v1

[as

tro-

ph.E

P] 1

4 Se

p 20

18

2

scenarios plays the dominant role in hot Jupiter gener-ation. While observational signatures associated witheach pathway have been widely discussed in the liter-ature (see e.g. Winn & Fabrycky 2015 for a review),these predictions typically entail some level of degen-eracy. To this end, Batygin et al. (2016) have shownthat the in-situ model is characterized by a key observa-tional consequence - namely, that close-in Jovian planetsshould frequently be accompanied by (co-transiting aswell as strongly inclined) super-Earth type companions.While circumstantial evidence has emerged for the exis-tence of such companions (Becker et al. 2015; Huang etal. 2016), Spalding & Batygin (2017) point out that thecoexistence of hot Jupiters and low-mass planets is notstrictly ruled out within the framework of the smoothmigration paradigm, preventing a definitive distinctionbetween the models. Furthermore, even spin-orbit mis-alignments, which were long touted as a marker of vio-lent evolutionary histories (Fabrycky & Tremaine 2007;Naoz et al. 2011), have failed to conclusively inform thenature of hot Jupiter dynamical evolution, as numerousstudies have shown that arbitrary stellar obliquities cannaturally arise as a results of gravitational and magneto-hydrodynamic disk-star interactions (Lai 1999; Bate etal. 2010; Spalding & Batygin 2014, 2015).

With an eye towards resolving the ambiguity amongthe three categories of hot Jupiter formation models, herewe examine the relationship between the masses of close-in giant planets and the distribution of their orbital peri-ods. In particular, we argue that the observations signala strong consistency with the in-situ formation scenario,suggesting that the extent of orbital migration sufferedby this population of planets is unlikely to be particu-larly large. The remainder of the paper is structuredas follows. In Section 2, we show that the inner bound-ary of the period-mass distribution of locally forming hotJupiters is expected to follow a well-defined power law,and demonstrate empirical agreement between this rela-tion and the observations. From there, we proceed todiscuss tidal evolution. We present our conclusions inSection 3.

2. PERIOD-MASS RELATION

The planetary mass as a function of the semimajor axisof the current observational census of extrasolar plan-ets shown in Figure (1). Objects with confirmed (mini-mum) masses discovered via the radial velocity techniqueand transit observations are shown with blue and redpoints respectively. Transiting planets without directmass measurements are shown as grey dots, and theirmasses are estimated using the mass-radius relationshipof Chen & Kipping (2017).

2.1. The inner boundary

The inner edge of the a −M diagram shown in Fig-ure (1) has a rather well-defined profile, exhibiting a cleardependence on the planetary mass. Specifically, for plan-ets less massive than ∼ 0.1MJ , the boundary has positiveslope, while the converse is true for more massive planets(Mazeh et al. 2016). Given the four orders of magnitudespanned by the range of Figure (1), it is entirely plausi-ble that the two dividing lines are carved by unrelatedphysical processes.

The distribution of sub-Jovian (M < 0.1MJ) planets isalmost certainly sculpted by photoevaporation (Owen &Wu 2013; Lopez & Fortney 2014). Recasting the period-mass diagram into an irradiation-radius diagram, Lund-kvist et al. (2016) have argued that the region of pa-rameter space that exhibits a strong paucity of planets(the so-called sub-Jovian desert) is fully consistent withthe effects of atmospheric mass loss. Moreover, the re-cent determination that the radius distribution of sub-Jovian planets is strikingly bimodal (as predicted by thephoto-evaporation models; Fulton et al. 2017) adds fur-ther credence to the notion that the origin of the posi-tively sloped boundary in Figure (1) is rooted in radiativestripping of planetary envelopes.

Intriguingly, the same process cannot be invoked toexplain the orbital architecture of hot Jupiters as a pop-ulation. Models of atmospheric mass loss from highly ir-radiated giant planets (Murray-Clay et al. 2009; Adams2011) suggest that over the main-sequence lifetimes oftheir host stars, typical hot Jupiters will only lose ∼ 1%of their total mass, altering the period-mass distribu-tion to a negligible degree. As a consequence, a separatemechanism is needed to establish the negatively slopedboundary in Figure (1). Let us now examine the possibil-ity that the observed distribution is nothing other thana relic of giant planet conglomeration at short orbitalperiods.

2.2. In situ formation of hot Juipiters

By now, it is generally accepted that the vast major-ity of hot Jupiters have formed via the core accretionpathway (Miller & Fortney 2011). Nevertheless, there isconsiderable uncertainty regarding the specific value ofthe critical core mass required to trigger runaway gas ac-cretion at orbital radii smaller than ∼ 0.1 au. In particu-lar, 1D calculations of Ikoma et al. (2001); Lee & Chiang(2015, 2016) yield 2− 3 and 2− 8 Earth masses respec-tively, while simulations of Bodenheimer et al. (2000);Batygin et al. (2016) suggest a value closer to 15M⊕.Adding further uncertainty to this estimate, 3D hydro-dynamic models of Lambrechts & Lega (2017) draw at-tention to the importance of global circulation within theHill sphere for the determination of the energetics of thisproblem.

The results of our study are largely insensitive to thespecific characteristics of the high-metallicity core, ashere we focus on the runaway accretion phase itself, dur-ing which the planet acquires most of its mass. Corre-spondingly, as a first step, it is worthwhile to considerthe material budget of the inner disk. The amount ofgas contained within ξ = 0.1 au of a Mestel (1961)-type protoplanetary nebula with surface density profileΣ = Σ0(r0/r) and Σ0 = 2000 g cm−2 at r0 = 1 au is∮ ∫ ξ

rin

Σrdrdφ < 2πΣ0r0ξ MJ , (1)

where rin denotes the inner edge of the disk.This simple estimate alone is sufficient to conclude that

upon entering the runaway accretion regime, a locallyforming hot Jupiter does not attain its final mass on acomparatively short (e.g. ∼ 104 year) timescale. Instead,the gas must be delivered to the growing proto-planet byviscous accretion. Therefore, it is sensible to crudely

3

log10 (Semi-major axis [au])

log 10

(Pla

net M

ass

[MJu

pite

r])

hot Jupiters cold Jupiters

desert

(inset)−2 −1

−1

0

1

−3 −2 −1 0 1

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

1 G

yr5

Gyr

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Tidal decay

aHJ MHJ-2/7∞

Fig. 1.— The a ∝ M−2/7 relation derived for in-situ hot Jupiter formation shows empirical agreement with the lower boundary of theobserved giant planet population in the a −M diagram. Left panel: The cold Jupiter (blue shading) and hot Jupiter (red shading)populations are shown in relation to the giant planet “desert” (yellow shading). Blue points: planets detected via the radial velocitytechnique, for which M sin i is plotted in lieu of M . Red points: transiting planets with directly determined masses. Transiting planetswith masses inferred from a mass-radius relation are shown as grey points. Right panel (inset): Density histogram in the log a− logMplane. Maintaining the assumed T-Tauri star’s surface field at B ∼ 1 kG and varying the radius within the observed range yields linesthat traverse the hot Jupiter population. Lines corresponding to R? ∼ 1.2R (solid) and 2R (dashed) bound the approximate lower andupper edges of the most populated region, respectively. Divergence from this empirical best fit line at short orbital radii agree with thetidal decay curve (purple) showing the evolution from the best fit line expected after 5 Gyr of evolution. The grey lines illustrate the tidaldecay isochrons described in the text.

express the hot Jupiter mass as

MHJ ∼ τM (2)

where M ∼ 10−8M yr−1 is the gas accretion rate atthe inner edge of the disk (Hartmann et al. 1998), andτ ∼ 105 yr is a characteristic accretion timescale (gener-ally, some fraction of the disk lifetime). For the purposesof our rudimentary model, any dependence of the plan-etary accretion efficiency on mass simply translates intouncertainty of the free parameter τ .

Within the framework of the in-situ model of hotJupiter conglomeration, the smallest orbital radius wheregas accretion can unfold is, roughly, the magnetospherictruncation radius of the disk. Importantly, like MHJ, thetruncation radius is also determined by M . The expres-sion for this length scale is well-known and is written as(Ghosh & Lamb 1979a; Koenigl 1991; Shu et al. 1994)

Rt ∼

(M2

M√GM?

)2/7

(3)

where M is the stellar magnetic moment, GM? is thestar’s standard gravitational parameter, and M is thedisk accretion rate. Physically, Rt is a characteristic ra-dius at which viscous spreading of disk material is bal-anced by stellar magnetospheric torque acting upon thegas.

Combining equations (2) and (3), we obtain the rela-

tion2

a ∼

(M2τ

MHJ

√GM?

)2/7

∝M−2/7HJ . (4)

In log(a) − log(M) space, this power law relation man-ifests as a line with slope −2/7. Figure (1) shows aline corresponding to the example T-Tauri parametersM? ∼ 1M and M ≡ B?R

3? (B? ∼ 1 kG, R? ∼ 1.2R),

in excellent agreement with the lower boundary of thehot Jupiter population. Intriguingly, keeping the otherparameters constant while increasing the radius to R? ∼2R yields an additional line, which, together with theaforementioned lower bound, envelops the approximateregion of the parameter space most densely populatedwith observed hot Jupiters.

2.3. Tidal evolution

At greater masses and shorter periods, the observationsappear to diverge from the a ∝M−2/7 trend. As a reso-lution to this apparent disparity, let us consider the roleof tidal evolution in shaping the hot Jupiter population.

2 Serendipitously, Wisdom (1980), describing the onset of reso-nance overlap in the planar circular restricted three-body prob-lem, also derives a −2/7 power law soverlap ' µ−2/7, where

s '√

2/(3∆a) and ∆a is the approximate separation of reso-nances. However, the underlying physics in these two cases isunrelated.

4

In particular, we follow the formalism outlined in Mur-ray & Dermott (1999) for the standard case of a planetmoving on a circular, equatorial orbit with mean motionn, around a star rotating with angular speed Ω. For thecase Ω < n, the tidal bulge induced on the star by theplanet lags behind the planet’s orbit, leading to orbitalenergy loss and consequent decay of the semimajor axis.

The contraction of hot Jupiter semimajor axes is pre-dicted by the well-established formula (Murray & Der-mott 1999):

da

dt= −3k2?

Q?

MHJ

M?

(C?a

)5an. (5)

where k2? is the tidal Love number of the star (equal to0.01 for an n = 3 polytrope (Batygin & Adams 2013),appropriate for a fully radiative body, and Q? is thestellar quality factor, typically estimated to be roughly∼ 105 to 106 (Levrard et al. 2009). The stellar mass isrepresented as M?, and the stellar radius is denoted asC?. Rearrangement of this equation and integration withrespect to a and t yields an equation for the final semi-major axis af in terms of initial semimajor axis ai andtotal evolution time t:

af =

(a13/2i − t13

2

3k2?Q?

MHJ

M?C5?

√GM?

)2/13

. (6)

Imagining orbital decay to unfold over a typical sys-tem lifetime of ∼ 5 Gyr, originating from initial val-ues of (a,M) defined by the best-fit line found at theboundary of the hot Jupiter population, we obtain atidally corrected inner boundary, which is shown in Fig-ure (1) as a purple curve. Remarkably, tidal evolutionappears to fully explain the bulk of trend-crossing hotJupiters. While the expected number of these tidallydecaying planets is difficult to predict precisely, due toobservational biases inherent to the current observationalsample of hot Jupiters and the sensitive dependence oftidal evolution on the initial conditions, forthcoming re-sults of the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS)mission are expected to bring this population of in-fallingplanets into sharper focus.

Finally, we consider the role of tides in shaping the hotJupiter population at even greater masses. Specifically,by rearranging (6), we obtain, for a given time span, anexpression for the initial radius from which a planet ofgiven mass decays to the Roche limit. Examples of theresulting curves, for 1 and 5 Gyr, are shown in grey (Fig-ure 1). Notably, these tidal decay isochrons agree withthe approximate boundary of the hot Jupiter populationfor M &MJ .

3. CONCLUSION

At the dawn of exoplanetary observations, the concep-tual foundation of planet formation was built upon thelone case of the Solar System. Given the paltry mass ofthe terrestrial planets and the lack of material orbitinginterior to Mercury, it was thought that planet formationwas generally inactive at short orbital radii (Cameron1988; Rafikov 2006). To alleviate the ostensible paradoxbrought about by the discovery of hot Jupiters, migra-tion mechanisms were invoked to explain how giant plan-

ets could be delivered inward from distant, Jupiter-typeorbits (Lin et al. 1996).

Today, the landscape of exoplanet detections foretellsa very different story (Laughlin & Lissauer 2015). It isobservationally well established that a generic outcomeof the planet formation process is short-period super-Earths, the most massive of which can successfully trig-ger rapid gas accretion and become gas giants, if allowedto reside within their natal nebulae for ∼ 1 Myr (Boden-heimer et al. 2000; Batygin et al. 2016). In fact, giventhe remarkable scarcity of close-in gas giants relative tosub-Jovian short-period planets, all that is needed to re-produce the vast majority of the hot Jupiter populationin situ is for ∼ 1% of young super-Earths to enter therunaway regime of conglomeration before dissipation oftheir protoplanetary nebulae.

In this work, we have explored the in-situ formationscenario of hot Jupiters further, and demonstrated that

a bounding relation a ∝M−2/7HJ is expected to manifest if

a significant fraction of these objects formed locally. In-triguingly, we find that the slope of this power law is inexcellent empirical agreement with the lower edge of thehot Jupiter population on the a−M diagram, with cor-rections from tidal dissipation playing a secondary role(Figure 1). Accordingly, this finding yields further sup-port to the hypothesis that in-situ formation accountsfor a considerable fraction of hot Jupiters.

We note that, in addition to typical short-period Jo-vian planets that reside on nearly circular orbits, thereexist numerous instances of highly eccentric hot Jupiterswith exterior companions, for which the most simple ex-planation is that they are undergoing the final circular-ization phase of violent (possibly Lidov-Kozai) migration(Wu & Murray 2003; Fabrycky & Tremaine 2007). Whilethese objects certainly do not fit into the picture pre-sented herein, Dawson et al. (2015) have demonstratedthat only a minority of hot Jupiters could have formedvia this high-eccentricity pathway, weakening the case forthis flavor of orbital transport as a dominant route forhot Jupiter production (see also Ngo et al. (2016)). More-over, unlike the upper boundary of the hot super-Earthsin the a − M diagram (which is adequately explainedas resulting from photoevaporation; Owen & Wu 2013,Lopez & Fortney 2014), the mass-period relationshipgoverning the sharp lower boundary of the hot Jupitershas so far evaded migratory explanations (Owen & Lai2018).

Despite the aforementioned correspondence betweenthe in-situ a−M relation (4) and the data, it is clear thattreating migration as utterly non-existent in planet for-mation theory is as extreme as demanding that migrationmust necessarily be long-range. To the contrary, there isno doubt that, at least to some extent, giant planet mi-gration plays a role in shaping planetary systems. Forexample, mean motion resonances found in systems suchas GJ 876 (Marcy et al. 2001) are almost certainly a prod-uct of convergent migration (Lee & Peale 2002). More-over, our own solar system holds distinct markers of pastgiant planet migration, not least of all being the notionthat the terrestrial planets are best reproduced in mod-els that include successive inward and outward migrationof Jupiter over several au (the so-called “Grand Tack;”Walsh et al. 2011, see also Batygin & Laughlin 2015).

5

Importantly, however, systems that show evidence of mi-gratory sculpting typically require only short-range or-bital transport. Thus, our results cumulatively suggestthat long-range migration of giant planets is likely to bethe exception rather than the rule.

4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank Dan Fabrycky, Greg Laughlin, Eu-gene Chiang, and Matt Holman for useful conversa-

tions, and the anonymous reviewer for useful comments.This research has utilized the NASA Exoplanet Archive,which is operated by the California Institute of Technol-ogy, under contract with the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration under the Exoplanet ExplorationProgram.

REFERENCES

Adams, F. C. 2011, ApJ, 730, 27Batalha, N. M., Rowe, J. F., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2013, ApJS,

204, 24Bate, M. R., Lodato, G., & Pringle, J. E. 2010, MNRAS, 401,

1505Batygin, K., & Adams, F. C. 2013, ApJ, 778, 169Batygin, K., Bodenheimer, P. H., & Laughlin, G. P. 2016, ApJ,

829, 114Batygin, K., & Laughlin, G. 2015, Proceedings of the National

Academy of Science, 112, 4214Beauge, C., & Nesvorny, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 119Becker, J. C., Vanderburg, A., Adams, F. C., Rappaport, S. A., &

Schwengeler, H. M. 2015, ApJ, 812, L18Bitsch, B., Johansen, A., Lambrechts, M., & Morbidelli, A. 2015,

A&A, 575, A28Bodenheimer, P., Hubickyj, O., & Lissauer, J. J. 2000, Icarus,

143, 2Bodenheimer, P., & Pollack, J. B. 1986, Icarus, 67, 391Boley, A. C., Granados Contreras, A. P., & Gladman, B. 2016,

ApJ, 817, L17Bouvier, J., Alencar, S. H. P., Harries, T. J., Johns-Krull, C. M.,

& Romanova, M. M. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 479.Cameron, A. G. W. 1988, ARA&A, 26, 441

.Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17Chiang, E., & Laughlin, G. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3444Dawson, R. I., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Johnson, J. A. 2015, ApJ,

798, 66Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2013, ApJ, 767, 95Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2015, ApJ, 807, 45Fabrycky, D., & Tremaine, S. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1298Fressin, F., Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 81Fogg, M. J., & Nelson, R. P. 2007, A&A, 472, 1003Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ,

154, 109Ghosh, P., & Lamb, F. K. 1979, ApJ, 232, 259Gould, A., Dorsher, S., Gaudi, B. S., & Udalski, A. 2006, actaa,

56, 1Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., Gullbring, E., & D’Alessio, P. 1998,

ApJ, 495, 385.Hayashi, C. 1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement,

70, 35Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2010,

Science, 330, 653Huang, C., Wu, Y., & Triaud, A. H. M. J. 2016, ApJ, 825, 98Ikoma, M., Emori, H., & Nakazawa, K. 2001, ApJ, 553, 999Kley, W., & Nelson, R. P. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 211Koenigl, A. 1991, ApJ, 370, L39Lai, D. 1999, ApJ, 524, 1030

Lambrechts, M., & Lega, E. 2017, A&A, 606, A146Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2015, ApJ, 811, 41Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2016, ApJ, 817, 90Lee, M. H., & Peale, S. J. 2002, ApJ, 567, 596Levrard, B., Winisdoerffer, C., & Chabrier, G. 2009, ApJ, 692, L9Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., & Richardson, D. C. 1996,

Nature, 380, 606Laughlin, G., & Lissauer, J. J. 2015, arXiv:1501.05685.Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 792, 1Lundkvist, M. S., Kjeldsen, H., Albrecht, S., et al. 2016, Nature

Communications, 7, 11201Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Fischer, D., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556,

296Mayor, M., Marmier, M., Lovis, C., et al. 2011, arXiv:1109.2497

Mayor, M., & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355Mazeh, T., Holczer, T., & Faigler, S. 2016, A&A, 589, A75Mestel, L. 1961, MNRAS, 122, 473Miller, N., & Fortney, J. J. 2011, ApJ, 736, L29Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D. 2015, ApJ, 814, 130Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar system dynamics by

C.D. Murray and S.F. McDermott. (Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press), ISBN 0-521-57295-9 (hc.), ISBN0-521-57297-4 (pbk.)

Murray-Clay, R. A., Chiang, E. I., & Murray, N. 2009, ApJ, 693,23

Naoz, S., Farr, W. M., Lithwick, Y., Rasio, F. A., & Teyssandier,J. 2011, Nature, 473, 187

Ngo, H., Knutson, H. A., Hinkley, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 8Owen, J. E., & Lai, D. 2018, MNRASOwen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2013, ApJ, 775, 105Rafikov, R. R. 2006, ApJ, 648, 666.Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., & Marcy, G. W. 2013,

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 110, 19273Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus,

124, 62Shu, F., Najita, J., Ostriker, E., et al. 1994, ApJ, 429, 781Spalding, C., & Batygin, K. 2014, ApJ, 790, 42Spalding, C., & Batygin, K. 2015, ApJ, 811, 82Spalding, C., & Batygin, K. 2017, AJ, 154, 93Stevenson, D. J. 1982, Planet. Space Sci., 30, 755Struve, O. 1952, The Observatory, 72, 199Walsh, K. J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., O’Brien, D. P., &

Mandell, A. M. 2011, Nature, 475, 206Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977, Ap&SS, 51, 153Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 409Wisdom, J. 1980, AJ, 85, 1122Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Howard, A. W., et al. 2012, ApJ,

753, 160Wu, Y., & Murray, N. 2003, ApJ, 589, 605