Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2025

Simulation of the Planetary Interior Differentiation Processes in the Laboratory
Published on: November 15, 2013
Planetary population synthesis and the emergence of four classes of planetary system architectures
Alexandre Emsenhuber1,2,3, Christoph Mordasini2, Remo Burn4
1Universitäts-Sternwarte, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Scheinerstraße 1, 81679 Munich, Germany.
Abstract:
Planetary population synthesis is a helpful tool to understand the physics of planetary system formation. It builds on a global model, meaning that the model has to include a multitude of physical processes. The outcome can be statistically compared with exoplanet observations. Here, we review the population synthesis method and then use one population computed using the Generation III Bern model to explore how different planetary system architectures emerge and which conditions lead to their formation. The emerging systems can be classified into four main architectures: Class I of near in situ compositionally ordered terrestrial and ice planets, Class II of migrated sub-Neptunes, Class III of mixed low-mass and giant planets, broadly similar to the Solar System, and Class IV of dynamically active giants without inner low-mass planets. These four classes exhibit distinct typical formation pathways and are characterised by certain mass scales. We find that Class I forms from the local accretion of planetesimals followed by a giant impact phase, and the final planet masses correspond to what is expected from such a scenario, the 'Goldreich mass'. Class II, the migrated sub-Neptune systems form when planets reach the 'equality mass' where accretion and migration timescales are comparable before the dispersal of the gas disc, but not large enough to allow for rapid gas accretion. Giant planets form when the 'equality mass' allows for gas accretion to proceed while the planet is migrating, i.e. when the critical core mass is reached. The main discriminant of the four classes is the initial mass of solids in the disc, with contributions from the lifetime and mass of the gas disc. The distinction between mixed Class III systems and Class IV dynamically active giants is in part due to the stochastic nature of dynamical interactions, such as scatterings between giant planets, rather than the initial conditions only. The breakdown of system into classes allows to better interpret the outcome of a complex model and understand which physical processes are dominant. Comparison with observations reveals differences to the actual population, pointing at limitation of theoretical understanding. For example, the overrepresentation of synthetic super-Earths and sub-Neptunes in Class I systems causes these planets to be found at lower metallicities than in observations.
Related Concept Videos
Kepler's First Law of Planetary Motion
Polish astronomer Nikolaus Copernicus put forth a theory that stated a heliocentric model for the solar system. According to this heliocentric theory, all the planets, including Earth, orbit the Sun in circular orbits.
On the other hand,...
Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion
While in an elliptical orbit, the total energy of the planet is conserved. Therefore, the planet slows down when it is at apogee and...
Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion
Second Order systems I
By reinterpreting the system, one can derive the closed-loop transfer function, which...
Second Order systems II
First Order Systems
When a first-order system is subjected to a unit-step input, its response is characterized by its transfer function. By applying the Laplace transform of the unit-step input to the transfer function, expanding the...

