📝 SummarXiv

Abstract

We seek to quantify the fidelity with which modern population syntheses reproduce observations in view of their use as predictive tools. We compared synthetic populations from the Generation 3 Bern Model of Planet Formation and Evolution (core accretion, solar-type host stars) and the HARPS/Coralie radial velocity sample. We biased the synthetic planet population according to the completeness of the observed data and performed quantitative statistical comparisons and systematically identified agreements and differences. Our nominal population reproduces many of the main features of the HARPS planets: two main groups of planets (close-in sub-Neptunes and distant giants), a bimodal mass function with a less populated `desert', an observed mean multiplicity of about 1.6, and several key correlations. The remaining discrepancies point to areas that are not fully captured in the model. For instance, we find that the synthetic population has 1) in absolute terms too many planets by ~70%, 2) a `desert' that is too deep by ~60%, 3) a relative excess of giant planets by ~40%, 4) planet eccentricities that are on average too low by a factor of about two (median of 0.07 versus 0.15), and 5) a metallicity effect that is too weak. Finally, the synthetic planets are overall too close to the star compared to the HARPS sample. The differences allowed us to find model parameters that better reproduce the observed planet masses, for which we computed additional synthetic populations. We find that physical processes appear to be missing and that planets may originate on wider orbits than our model predicts. Mechanisms leading to higher eccentricities and slower disc-limited gas accretion also seem necessary. We advocate that theoretical models should make a quantitative comparison between the many current and future large surveys to better understand the origins of planetary systems. (Abridged.)