Evidence of a gap in the envelope mass fraction of sub-Saturns

Le résumé fourni par la source

Under the core-accretion model, gas giants form via runaway accretion. This process starts when the mass of the accreted envelope becomes equal to the mass of the core. Here, we model a population of warm sub-Saturns to search for imprints of their formation history in their internal structure. Using the GAS gianT modeL for Interiors (GASTLI), we calculate a grid of interior structure models on which we perform retrievals for our sample of 28 sub-Saturns to derive their envelope mass fractions ($f_{env}$). For each planet, we run three different retrievals assuming low (-2.0 < log(Fe/H) < 0.5), medium ( 0.5 < log(Fe/H) < 1.4), and high (1.4 < log(Fe/H) < 1.7) atmospheric metallicity. The distribution of $f_{env}$ in our sample is then compared to predictions of planet formation models. When compared to the outcomes of a planetesimal accretion model, we find that we require medium to high atmospheric metallicities to reproduce the simulated planet population. Additionally, we find a bimodal distribution of $f_{env}$ in our sample with a gap that is located at different values of $f_{env}$ for different atmospheric metallicities. For the high atmospheric metallicity case, the gap in the $f_{env}$ distribution is located between 0.5 and 0.7, which is consistent with assumptions by the core-accretion model where runaway accretion starts when $M_{env} \approx M_{core}$ ($f_{env} \sim 0.5$). We also find a bimodal distribution of the hydrogen and helium mass fraction ($f_{H/He}$) with a gap at $f_{H/He} = 0.3$. The location of this gap is independent of the assumed atmospheric metallicity. Lastly, we compare the distributions of our sub-Saturns in the Neptunian savanna to a population of sub-Saturns in the Neptune desert and ridge. We find that the observed $f_{env}$ distribution of savanna and ridge sub-Saturns is consistent with the planets coming from the same underlying population.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.