Companion architectures of sub-Saturns: Distinct migration pathways across the Neptunian landscape

Abstract

Close-in sub-Saturns (4.0 - 8.5 R_⊕) are depleted in the Neptunian desert, accumulate in a narrow overdensity near P = 3.2 - 5.7 d (the Neptunian ridge), and thin out into the more moderately populated savanna at longer periods. We test whether sub-Saturns have systematically different companion architectures, as predicted if desert and ridge planets arrived through high-eccentricity migration while savanna planets migrated quiescently. We compile 86 systems with both transit and RV data, construct completeness maps and combine them into detection probability surfaces for companions. The combined completeness maps are used to calculate companion occurrence rates across different companion types with a joint Poisson occurrence model. Companion architectures differ significantly across the landscape. 91.1_−4.3^+3.2% of savanna sub-Saturns have nearby companions (P < 200 d) compared to only 36₋₁₄⁺¹⁶% of desert and ridge sub-Saturns. This contrast is driven almost entirely by small (Mc < 20 M_⊕) companions, which accompany 88.2_−5.5^+4.2% of savanna but only 29₋₁₄⁺¹⁷% of desert and ridge sub-Saturns, while medium-mass and giant companions within 200\,d are rare (≲ 13%) everywhere. Savanna sub-Saturns moreover typically reside in compact multi-planet systems. These contrasts are robust to crosscuts in sub-Saturn radius, bulk density, eccentricity, and host-star properties. Desert and ridge sub-Saturns reside in dynamically emptied systems whose nearby companion rates match those of hot Jupiters, while savanna sub-Saturns inhabit compact multi-planet systems resembling those of warm Jupiters. This parallel supports two migration channels operating within a single population: HEM delivering planets to the desert and ridge, and quiescent disk migration or in-situ formation populating the savanna.

The Neptunian Final Parsec Problem: How Inertial Waves Enable Neptunes and Gas Giants to Survive Tidal Migration
Tim Hallatt, Adrian J. Barker, Sarah C. Millholland
arXiv9 Oct 2026PreprintCC BY 4.0Full textPlanetary science & exoplanetsarXiv
Demographics of Close-In TESS Exoplanets Orbiting FGK Main-sequence Stars II. Spectral-Type Dependence and the Neptunian Landscape
Kaiming Cui, David J. Armstrong, Andreas Hadjigeorghiou +6
arXiv22 Oct 2026PreprintCC BY 4.0Full textPlanetary science & exoplanetsarXiv
Demographics of Close-In TESS Exoplanets Orbiting FGK Main-sequence Stars – II. Spectral-Type Dependence and the Neptunian Landscape
Kaiming Cui, David J Armstrong, Andreas Hadjigeorghiou +6
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society22 Oct 2026Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textSolar & stellar physicsCrossref
TNFlow: Amortized Posterior Inference for Trans-Neptunian Object Surface Composition
Agastya Gaur, Cristina M. Dalle Ore, Alessandra Ricca
arXiv3 Sep 2026PreprintCC BY 4.0Full textInstrumentation & methods Planetary science & exoplanetsarXiv
Does Cumulative XUV Unify the Neptunian Desert?
Qunfeng Jiang
arXiv10 Oct 2026PreprintCC BY 4.0Full textPlanetary science & exoplanetsarXiv

Cite

BibTeX RIS

BibTeX

@misc{thomas2026companion,
  title = {{Companion architectures of sub-Saturns: Distinct migration pathways across the Neptunian landscape}},
  author = {Luis Thomas and Louise D. Nielsen and Alex J. Cridland and Martin Schlecker and Sydney Vach},
  howpublished = {arXiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2607.09451},
  eprint = {2607.09451},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09451},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}

RIS

TY  - UNPB
TI  - Companion architectures of sub-Saturns: Distinct migration pathways across the Neptunian landscape
AU  - Luis Thomas
AU  - Louise D. Nielsen
AU  - Alex J. Cridland
AU  - Martin Schlecker
AU  - Sydney Vach
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/06
PB  - arXiv
DO  - 10.48550/arxiv.2607.09451
UR  - https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09451
AB  - Close-in sub-Saturns (4.0 - 8.5 R_⊕) are depleted in the Neptunian desert, accumulate in a narrow overdensity near P = 3.2 - 5.7 d (the Neptunian ridge), and thin out into the more moderately populated savanna at longer periods. We test whether sub-Saturns have systematically different companion architectures, as predicted if desert and ridge planets arrived through high-eccentricity migration while savanna planets migrated quiescently. We compile 86 systems with both transit and RV data, construct completeness maps and combine them into detection probability surfaces for companions. The combined completeness maps are used to calculate companion occurrence rates across different companion types with a joint Poisson occurrence model. Companion architectures differ significantly across the landscape. 91.1_−4.3^+3.2% of savanna sub-Saturns have nearby companions (P < 200 d) compared to only 36_−14^+16% of desert and ridge sub-Saturns. This contrast is driven almost entirely by small (M_c < 20 M_⊕) companions, which accompany 88.2_−5.5^+4.2% of savanna but only 29_−14^+17% of desert and ridge sub-Saturns, while medium-mass and giant companions within 200\,d are rare (≲ 13%) everywhere. Savanna sub-Saturns moreover typically reside in compact multi-planet systems. These contrasts are robust to crosscuts in sub-Saturn radius, bulk density, eccentricity, and host-star properties. Desert and ridge sub-Saturns reside in dynamically emptied systems whose nearby companion rates match those of hot Jupiters, while savanna sub-Saturns inhabit compact multi-planet systems resembling those of warm Jupiters. This parallel supports two migration channels operating within a single population: HEM delivering planets to the desert and ridge, and quiescent disk migration or in-situ formation populating the savanna.
ER  -

Abstract

Related

Cite