CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Stellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstro and Planetary ScienceAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies

STARS DO NOT EAT THEIR YOUNG MIGRATING PLANETS: EMPIRICAL CONSTRAINTS ON PLANET MIGRATION HALTING MECHANISMS

Open access
Plavchan, Peter, Bilinski, Christopher·2013·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/86
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The discovery of "hot Jupiters" very close to their parent stars confirmed that Jovian planets migrate inward via several potential mechanisms. We present empirical constraints on planet migration halting mechanisms. We compute model density functions of close-in exoplanets in the orbital semi-major axis–stellar mass plane to represent planet migration that is halted via several mechanisms, including the interior 1:2 resonance with the magnetospheric disk truncation radius, the interior 1:2 resonance with the dust sublimation radius, and several scenarios for tidal halting. The models differ in the predicted power-law dependence of the exoplanet orbital semi-major axis as a function of stellar mass, and thus we also include a power-law model with the exponent as a free parameter. We use a Bayesian analysis to assess the model success in reproducing empirical distributions of confirmed exoplanets and Kepler candidates that orbit interior to 0.1 AU. Our results confirm a correlation of the halting distance with stellar mass. Tidal halting provides the best fit to the empirical distribution of confirmed Jovian exoplanets at a statistically robust level, consistent with the Kozai mechanism and the spin–orbit misalignment of a substantial fraction of hot Jupiters. We can rule out migration halting at the interior 1:2 resonances with the magnetospheric disk truncation radius and the interior 1:2 resonance with the dust disk sublimation radius, a uniform random distribution, and a distribution with no dependence on stellar mass. Note that our results do not rule out Type-II migration, but rather eliminate the role of a circumstellar disk in stopping exoplanet migration. For Kepler candidates, which have a more restricted range in stellar mass compared to confirmed planets, we are unable to discern between the tidal dissipation and magnetospheric disk truncation braking mechanisms at a statistically significant level. The power-law model favors exponents in the range of 0.38–0.9. This is larger than that predicted for tidal halting (0.23–0.33), which suggests that additional physics may be missing in the tidal halting theory.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/86

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Plavchan & Bilinski (2013) ruled out scenarios in which hot Jupiters' inner semi-major axis is set by the magnetospheric cavity, for which they expect scaling as M_star^{1/7}.

    “They ruled out scenarios in which hot Jupiters' inner semi-major axis is set by the magnetospheric cavity (i.e., in situ formation at the inner disk edge or disk migration halted at a 2:1 resonance with the inner disk edge), for which they expect the inner semi-major axis to scale as M 1 / 7 ⋆ .”

    From Origins of Hot Jupiters (2018) · cites this paper as Plavchan & Bilinski (2013)

    The Abstract rules out migration halting at the interior 1:2 resonance with the magnetospheric disk truncation radius for confirmed Jovian exoplanets, and §3.2 gives the predicted semi-major-axis scaling as M_star^(1/7). The paper does not test in situ formation at the inner disk edge; it also says the Kepler candidates do not distinguish magnetospheric from tidal halting at a statistically significant level. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Plavchan & Bilinski (2013) found that the inner semi-major axis limit is consistent with scaling as M_star^{1/3}, as expected if high eccentricity delivers hot Jupiters to 2 a_Roche.

    “They found that the inner semimajor axis limit is consistent with scaling as M 1 / 3 ⋆ , as expected if high eccentricity delivers hot Jupiters to 2 a Roche (Eqn. 15).”

    From Origins of Hot Jupiters (2018) · cites this paper as Plavchan & Bilinski (2013)

    Section 3.1 identifies a Roche-radius tidal model with a minimum semi-major-axis envelope scaling as M_star^{1/3}; Section 5 reports that this model fits the observed planets better than several alternatives. But Section 3.1 leaves the model’s proportionality constant free, so the paper does not establish an inner limit specifically at 2 a_Roche. The Conclusions also say the freely fitted power law favors a stronger stellar-mass dependence than tidal theories predict. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Carter, J. A., Snellen, I. A. G., & de Mooij, E. J. W. 2011, ApJ, 726, 68 · DOI
  2. Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 18 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Arras, P., Burkart, J., Quataert, E., & Weinberg, N. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1761 · DOI
  4. Batalha, N., Borucki, W. J., Koch, D. G., et al. 2010a, ApJL, 713, L109 · DOI
  5. Batalha, N., Rowe, J. F., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 24 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Batalha, N., Rowe, J. F., Gilliland, R. L., et al. 2010b, ApJL, 713, L103 · DOI
  7. Borucki, W., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Sci, 327, 977 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Borucki, W., Koch, D. G., Basri, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 19 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Brown, T., Latham, D. W., Everett, M. E., & Esquerdo, G. A. 2011, AJ, 142, 112 · DOI
  10. Chiang, E. I., & Goldreich, P. 1997, ApJ, 490, 368 · DOI
  11. Currie, T. C., Lada, C. J., Plavchan, P., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1 · DOI
  12. D'Alessio, P., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., Franco-Hernández, R., & Servín, H. 2006, ApJ, 638, 314 · DOI
  13. Dawson, R., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2013, ApJL, in press (arXiv:1302.6244) · arXiv
  14. Dawson, R., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Johnson, J. A. 2013, ApJ, submitted (arXiv:1211.0554) · arXiv
  15. Eisner, J., Hillenbrand, L. A., White, R. J., Akeson, R. L., & Sargent, A. I. 2005, ApJ, 623, 952 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., Krster, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, 436 · DOI
  17. Ford, E., & Rasio, F. 2006, ApJL, 638, L45 · DOI
  18. Greene, T., & Lada, C. 1996, AJ, 112, 2184 · DOI
  19. Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Lin, D. N. C. 2011, ApJ, 732, 74 · DOI
  20. Hale, A. 1994, AJ, 107, 306 · DOI
  21. Howard, A., Marcy, G. W., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2012, ApJS, 201, 15 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Johnson, J. A., Clanton, C., Howard, A. W., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 26 · DOI
  23. Jura, M., Malkan, M., White, R., et al. 1998, ApJ, 505, 897 · DOI
  24. Kaib, N., Raymond, S., & Duncan, M. 2011, ApJL, 742, L24 · DOI
  25. Konigl, A. 1991, ApJL, 370, L39 · DOI
  26. Kuchner, M. J., & Lecar, M. 2002, ApJL, 574, L87 · DOI
  27. Lai, D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 486 · DOI
  28. Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., & Richardson, D. C. 1996, Natur, 380, 606 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lubow, S. H., & Ida, S. 2010, in Exoplanets, ed. S. Seager (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 347
  30. Marcy, G., Butler, R. P., Williams, E., et al. 1997, ApJ, 481, 926 · DOI
  31. Marcy, G., & Butler, P. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 57 · DOI
  32. Matsumura, S., Peale, S., & Rasio, F. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1995 · DOI
  33. Menou, K., & Goodman, J. 2004, ApJ, 606, 520 · DOI
  34. Meyer, M., Calvet, N., & Hillenbrand, L. 1997, AJ, 114, 288 · DOI
  35. Morton, T., & Johnson, J. 2011, ApJ, 729, 138 · DOI
  36. Muzerolle, J., Hillenbrand, L., Calvet, N., Briceño, C., & Hartmann, L. 2003, ApJ, 592, 266 · DOI
  37. Nagasawa, M., & Ida, S. 2011, ApJ, 742, 72 · DOI
  38. Naoz, S., Farr, W. M., Lithwick, Y., Rasio, F. A., & Teyssandier, J. 2011, Natur, 473, 187 · DOI
  39. Plavchan, P., Bilinski, C. G., & Currie, T. C. 2013, PASP, submitted (arXiv:1203.1887) · arXiv
  40. Plavchan, P., Jura, M., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Curti, R. M., & Gallagher, S. C. 2008, ApJS, 175, 191 · DOI
  41. Prato, L., & Weinberger, A. J. 2007, in Planets in Binary Star Systems, ed. N. Haghighipour (Berlin: Springer), 1
  42. Raymond, S., Mandell, A., & Sigurdsson, S. 2006, Sci, 313, 1413 · DOI
  43. Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., & Wood, K. 2007, ApJS, 169, 328 · DOI
  44. Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., Wood, K., & Denzmore, P. 2006, ApJS, 167, 256 · DOI
  45. Santerne, A., Díaz, R. F., Moutou, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 545A, 76 · DOI
  46. Silverstone, M., Meyer, M. R., Mamajek, E. E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1138 · DOI
  47. Tanaka, H., Takeuchi, T., & Ward, W. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1257 · DOI
  48. Terquem, C. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1157 · DOI
  49. Thies, I., Kroupa, P., Goodwin, S. P., Stamatellos, D., & Whitworth, A. P. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1817 · DOI
  50. Triaud, A. H. M. J., Collier Cameron, A., Queloz, D., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, 25 · DOI
  51. Tsang, D. 2011, ApJ, 741, 109 · DOI
  52. Ward, W. 1997a, ApJL, 482, L211 · DOI
  53. Ward, W. 1997b, Icar, 126, 261 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Wasserman, L. 2005, All of Non-Parameteric Statistics (Berlin: Springer)
  55. Watson, C. A., Littlefair, S. P., Diamond, C., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, L71 · DOI
  56. Winn, J., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2010, ApJL, 718, L145 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Wright, J. T., Fakhouri, O., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 412 · DOI
  58. Wu, Y., & Lithwick, Y. 2011, ApJ, 735, 109 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Wu, Y., & Murray, N. 2003, ApJ, 589, 605 · DOI
  60. Wu, Y., Murray, N., & Ramsahai, J. 2007, ApJ, 670, 820 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Plavchan, P., & Bilinski, C.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2013-05-07
Volume
769
Issue
2
Pages
86
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/86
OpenAlex
W2095673514
Cited by
35
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • California Institute of Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astro and Planetary Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Keywords
hot Jupiters, tidal migration, dust sublimation radius, stellar mass dependence, Kozai mechanism, spin-orbit misalignment, type II migration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review