Arxiv:2104.06479V1

Home , Circumplanetary disk

arXiv:2104.06479v1 [astro-ph.EP] 13 Apr 2021 n,btteeaesm niain fnnzr biut fo 2M0122 the obliquity in ( non-zero companion system mass of planetary indications imaged directly some the are challe there is but obliquities ing, planetary extrasolar of Measurement (27 nteSlrSse.Jptrsolqiyi o (3 low is obliquity Jupiter’s System. Solar the in h lnti uhsalrta h ilrdu ( radius Hill the than smaller much is planet the ta.2021 al. et 2012 ( impacts g ( can t obliquity early-time disks, by ate protoplanetary driven the is of precession potential orbital gravitational the where process, related ( System 1993 Solar a tel the orbits in planets and giant precession axes and restrial the spin planetary between late-t of Resonances to frequencies fragile relatively changes. is evolutionary obliquity the momentum, lar planetary planets—the of vectors tum plan rates. extrasolar rotation massive very a of angul at sample ets, breakup small but nominal a their rapidly, For of rotate 30-40% velocity. only Saturn still e is and tidal that Jupiter of rate absence System the Solar in conserved the be to expected is ( magnetospheric whether or ( upon hydrodynamic results is depends interaction that planet-disk accretion the momentum disk angular circumplanetary planetary from the of magnitude 1996 Lubow grow the between its interaction and the planet by ing determined is state spin ytmeouin o in lnt,ta pnagpi the in gap a open that planets, ( disk giant protoplanetary For evolution. system o that iainetbtentesi n ria nua momen- angular orbital and spin the between Misalignment h oainsaeo lnt soeo h ai observables basic the of one is planets of state rotation The nti etr eivsiaeaohrmcaimta can that mechanism another investigate we Letter, this In D rpittpstuigL using typeset Preprint ◦ atversion raft ra tal. et Bryan n h c inshv ihysgicn obliquities. significant highly have giants ice the and ) ,adpae-lntsatrn vns( events scattering planet-planet and ), ff r nomto bu lntfrainadplanetary and formation planet about information ers ra ta.2020 al. et Bryan ; ol aesgicn biute u otetl instabili tilt headings: the Subject to due obliquities whe significant radii, have orbital large could at exoplanets imaged directly that h ia oeta n lntr baees o ikwit disk a For oblateness. planetary e and warp potential wave-like tidal the linear for equations time-dependent a using disk circumplanetary tilted a how h ik hscnb ne an planet be the can of This tilt The disk. disk. the misaligned the to aligns quickly arnv1966 Safronov ad&Hmlo 2004 Hamilton & Ward ,cnas edt lntsi-ri misalignment. spin-orbit planet to lead also can ), 1 eahdcrupaeaydssaeusal otliga a as tilting to unstable are disks circumplanetary Detached eateto hsc n srnm,Uiest fNevada, of University Astronomy, and Physics of Department ; uo ta.1999 al. et Lubow A pril RMRILGATPAE BIUT RVNB CIRCUMPLANET A BY DRIVEN OBLIQUITY PLANET GIANT PRIMORDIAL ( 2018 circumplanetary A T 5 2021 15, ong 1991 Koenigl E tl mltajv 12 v. emulateapj style X i aaozu1986 Papaloizou & Lin 1. nerdsmwa oe u non-zero but lower somewhat inferred ) ; INTRODUCTION iloln ayi 2019 Batygin & Millholland .Ulk h antd fteangu- the of magnitude the Unlike ). eze l 1989 al. et Benz 3 eateto hsc n srnm,SoyBokUniversit Brook Stony Astronomy, and Physics of Department 2 lntr ytm tr:pemi sequence pre-main stars: – systems planetary – crto,aceindss–hdoyais–instabilitie – hydrodynamics – discs accretion accretion, etrfrCmuainlAtohsc,Faio Institut Flatiron Astrophysics, Computational for Center ; ; ’neoe l 2002 al. et D’Angelo ; ayi 2018 Batygin ik hc om because forms which disk, ffi ad&Cnp2006 Canup & Ward in ehns o eeaigpioda biut ngia in obliquity primordial generating for mechanism cient / 16 obliquity / 11 ; R oge l 2020 al. et Dong ff obdlie al. et Morbidelli ,teprimordial the ), ebecca akr&Robu- & Laskar i2021 Li csteeouino h pnai fa baepae.Tedi The planet. oblate an of axis spin the of evolution the ects ryoiz& Artymowicz ff i common —is ,btoc set once but ), ◦ c ohter- both ect ,btSaturn but ), .M G. ff rf eso pi 5 2021 15, April version Draft .Giant ). cs In ects. ; .The ). Hong ener- artin .A ). ime ABSTRACT ng- he ar - r ) - 1 a ea,40 ot ayadPrwy a ea,N 89154, NV Vegas, Las Parkway, Maryland South 4505 Vegas, Las and yo hi icmlntr disks. circumplanetary their of ty eteds ascieini oelkl ob satisfied, be to likely more is criterion mass disk the re su a h P n it sarsl ftetdltl ntblt,i h dis the if instability, tilt tidal the of su result is increa a have can as both tilts timescale, relatively ing longer a a on an- On other their timescale. each of short towards sum align the They around precess momenta. to gular disk the and spin planet ( oscillations Kodai–Lidov excite to odsrb h ita ahradius, each at tilt the describe to density surface has Sunyaev 2009 dis the on torque a exerts (e.g planet oblate The via obliquity. externa spin generate planetary an and the by to excited couple can being potential, is tidal tilt whose disk, cumplanetary 2020 al. et tin rcs a elg pnigbakhl ihamisaligned a with hole analogous black An ratio spinning ( momenta. disk the a angular can upon realign spin This can depending planet process planet and planet. the disk the of the by of axis felt spin is the torque change opposite and equal an become accretion and induced ( is episodic eccentricity point which at iti sue ob ml othat so small be to assumed is tilt i hcns,fvrgot ftetl ntblt fdisks of instability tilt the ( of systems geome growth binary large favor moderately and la thickness, physical sphere, ric their Hill The the specifically to relative disks, disk. size circumplanetary circumplanetary of tilted properties a planetary of with byproduct teraction a as obliquity, primordial generate h nua rqec is frequency angular the ikrgm ( regime disk woul we simulations. inclination hydrodynamical high use to to evolution need the explore to order In nua eoiyo h lntsa ytmis system planet-star the of velocity angular M r pnai hnicesso h aetmsaeas timescale same the on increases then axis spin ary hilip ouin nldn em ersnigtee the representing terms including volution, p emdlacrupaeayds rudapae fmass of planet a around disk circumplanetary a model We icmlntr iki xetdt ei h wave-like the in be to expected is disk circumplanetary A htobt tro mass of star a orbits that 2. euto h tla ia oeta.W examine We potential. tidal stellar the of result ffi rmie&Dvs2014 Davis & Tremaine ffi .W hwta h oqefo h lntcue the causes planet the from torque the that show We ). .A J. cee elr1996 Feiler & Scheuer inl large. ciently inl ag as efidta h lntspin planet the that find we mass, large ciently ,NwYr,N 01,UAand USA 10010, NY York, New e, ICMLNTR IKADPAE-PNMODEL PLANET-SPIN AND DISK CIRCUMPLANETARY rmitage ( atne l 2014 al. et Martin ,SoyBok Y174 USA 11794, NY Brook, Stony y, 1973 aaozu&Pige1983 Pringle & Papaloizou .Tetl a eal ogo ag enough large grow to able be may tilt The ). ) 2,3 uo 1992 Lubow α paesadstlie:formation satellites: and –planets s icst aaee smc mle than smaller much is parameter viscosity Σ ( r ta sfie ntm)adaui vector unit a and time) in fixed is (that ) Ω p , ; 2021 M ; tpaes esuggest We planets. nt = ; atne l 2007 al. et Martin pei aaz 2020 Zanazzi & Speedie uo gli 2000 Ogilvie & Lubow s q tobtlseparation orbital at R DISK ARY l .Hr,w hwta cir- a that show we Here, ). G d l oa 1962 Kozai d ( ( , r z M , t ≈ ) ki evolved is sk s ic the since ) + = and 1 M ( Ω l d ff p p , ) x c of ect / ; , Ω = ; l USA a l io 1962 Lidov d d eeoe al. et Perego , p 3 ,y x h disk The . hkr & Shakura , , p l l e d d a ,y , z z mass k p ; .The ). where The . and ) ≪ Mar- ness, rge in- in 1. s- t- ), k d s l 2 R. G. Martin & P. J. Armitage the disk aspect ratio H/r (e.g. Martin et al. 2019), where H is differences. The method is first order explicit in time. The the disc scale height and r is the spherical distance from the grid extends from inner radius rin up to rout. In order to ob- planet. Thus, we solve the 1D wave-like warped disk equa- tain convergence, we use a non-uniform grid. There are 25 tions in the frame of the planet-star system. The disk is in grid points spaced linearly in log(r) from the inner radius up Keplerian rotation around the planet at all radii with angular to rchange = 0.02 rH. There are 75 points that are linearly distributed with radius from r up to r . frequency given by Ω = GM /r3. We solve equations (12) change out p The inclinations of the disk and planet are determined via and (13) in Lubow & Ogilvieq (2000) with an additional torque on the disk from the planet. These can be written as −1 2 2 i = cos 1 − lx − ly (9) l G q 2 ∂ d 1 ∂ Σr Ω + Ωp × ld = + Ts + Tp (1) and the phase angles as ∂t ! r ∂r l and = −1 y 2 3 3 φ tan . (10) ∂G ΣH r Ω ∂ld lx ! + Ωp × G + αΩG = , (2) ∂t 4 ∂r For the disk, we calculate the angular momentum weighted where 2πG is the internal disk torque. We only need to solve vector components. We transform these back into the inertial the first two components of these vector equations since the frame in our plots by rotating about the z axis by Ωpt. disc angular momentum vector is a unit vector. We use the boundary conditions G = 0 and ∂ld/∂r = 0 at r = rin and 3. DISK EVOLUTION WITH NO PLANETARY TORQUE G r = rout. The initial conditions are chosen to be = 0 and the We model a Jupiter mass and radius planet orbiting at disk is initially flat but tilted by 10◦ with l = sin(10◦) and d,x ap = 5.2au. The circumplanetary disk has surface density l = − d,y 0. profile Σ ∝ r 3/2 distributed between the inner disk radius We work in a frame where the star is on the positive x axis r = r r = . r r T = in 2 p and the outer radius out 0 4 H, where H is the and so the stellar torque on the disk per unit area is s Hill radius. The inner disk radius is close to the peak in the T , T T = ( s,x s,y) where s,x 0 and surface density of a steady state disk that joins on to the planet 3GMs 2 at radius rp. The outer radius is chosen to be close to the Ts,y = − Σr ld,x. (3) tidal truncation radius of a circumplanetary disk (Martin & 2a3 p Lubow 2011)1. We take the disk parameters α = 0.01 and The torque per unit area from a spinning oblate planet on the H/r = 0.14. With this disk aspect ratio the disk is strongly disk is given in linear theory by unstable to tilting. As shown in Martin et al. (2020), the com- bination of the disk aspect ratio and the disk size determines − Tp,x = T(ld,y lp,y) (4) the instability. While it appears that instability requires spe- and cific parameters in the analytic model, hydrodynamic simulations show that that a disk with a more realistic surface density Tp,y = T(−ld,x + lp,x) (5) profile is also unstable to tilting. where Figure 1 shows the evolution of the inclination and nodal 2 3GMprp J2 phase angle for a circumplanetarydisk in the limit where there T = Σ (6) 2r3 is no planet torque, J2 = 0. The blue lines show the disk angular momentum and the red lines show the planet spin axis. (e.g. Tremaine & Davis 2014; Speedie & Zanazzi 2020). Here The disk evolution is similar to that found in hydrodynami- r J p is the radius of the planet and 2 is the quadrupole gravita- cal simulations (Martin et al. 2020, 2021), confirming that the tional harmonic. In the solar system, the giant planets Jupiter, one-dimensional wave-like linear model is at least a fair ap- J = . , . , . Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have 2 0 015 0 016 0 003 proximation to the full disk dynamics. The planet spin does . and 0 004 respectively. not evolve in this case as there is no torqueon the planet. This J l The planet spin angular momentum vector is planet p, where result for the disk evolution is independent of the disk mass. lp is a unit vector and 2 4. DISK-PLANET EVOLUTION INCLUDING PLANETARY TORQUE 2πkMprp Jplanet = , (7) We now consider two values for the quadrupole gravita- Prot tional harmonic, J2 = 0.01 and J2 = 0.02. These J2 val- where k = 0.205 (appropriate if the planet is a polytrope with ues bracket those of Jupiter and Saturn, and are appropri- n = 1.5). Over the timescales considered in this work, we ate for planets whose rotation is rapid but well below the ignore the effects of accretion on to the planet and assume break-up value. The planet is assumed to rotate with pe- that the magnitude of the planet spin angular momentum does riod Prot = 10hr. Figure 2 shows the disk and planet evo- not change. The direction of the spin changes as a result of lution for two disk masses, Md = 0.01 Mp (upper panels), and the torque from the disk on the planet according to Md = 0.001 Mp (lower panels), for both choices of J2. The planet and the disk precess around each other with damped l rout d p inclination relative to each other. As these oscillations damp Jplanet + Ωp × lp = − 2πrTp dr. (8) dt ! Zrin out, the stellar torque becomes the dominant effect. For the

We take the initial condition that the planet spin is aligned 1 Note that a misaligned circumplanetary disk may be tidally truncated at a with its orbit with lp = 0. larger radius than a coplanar disk (Lubow et al. 2015; Miranda & Lai 2015). We solve the coupled integro-differential equations (1),(2) We do not include this correction, as our analysis formally applies only to moderate tilt values. and (8) as an initial value problem for ld, G and lp using finite Primordial giant planet obliquity 3 − M 2/3 M 1/6 × p s 2 −1 − M⊙au yr . (13) 10 3 M⊙ ! M⊙ ! Note that this calculation depends on the surface density profile. We have taken a steep profile of Σ ∝ R−3/2. With Σ ∝ R−1/2, the disk angular momentum is larger by a factor of 1.5 for the same total disk mass. Integrating equation (1) over the disk we have ∂l J d = T l × l (14) disk ∂t total d p where rout Ttotal = 2πrT dr. (15) Zrin We can also write equation (8) as

∂lp J = −T l × l . (16) planet ∂t total d p 5.1. Planet-disk precession timescale Fig. 1.— The disk (blue) and planet (red) inclination (upper panel) and nodal phase angle (lower panel) evolution with no planet torque, J2 = 0. With equations (14) and (16) we see that the sum of the planet and the disc angular momentum is conserved. Thus, in high mass disk, the planet and the disk both increase in incli- the absence of the star, the planet and the disk both precess nation over time. However, for the low mass disks, the planet in a retrograde direction about the sum of the disk and planet torque dominates the stellar torque and the disk and the planet angular momentum vector. The timescale for the precession do not increase significantly in inclination over the timescales is shown here. There is a superposition of two modes: a damped Jplanet mode in which the disk and the planet have oppositely di- tprec = 2π f (17) rected tilts and a growing mode in which they have nearly Ttotal equal tilts. In each case, the latter mode has a positive growth where rate and eventually dominates but the growth rate is dimin- 1 ished by the coupling between the planet and the disk. Even f = . (18) in the low mass disc case, the planet obliquity increases in Jplanet + 1 time over longer timescales than shown here. Jdisk The timescale on which the inclination of the planet-disk The circumplanetary disk has a power law surface density −3/2 system changes is longer than that of a disk without a plan- profile Σ ∝ r from rin = 2rp up to rout = 0.4 rH. For etary torque, but it is still relatively short, of the order of typical parameters we find 2 10 Porb. We donote that a highangularmomentumdisk is re- quired to change the planet spin. Significant effects are there- 5/2 −1 − −1 tprec rp J ap 1 M fore more likely to occur in planets that are farther from their ≈ 3.2 2 d (19) −5 host star since the circumplanetary disk is larger and therefore Porb rJ ! 0.01 5.2au 10 M⊙ ! 1/6 1/3 −1 can have more angular momentum. Mp M P f × s rot . 5. DISK-PLANET EVOLUTION WITH NO STELLAR TORQUE 0.001M⊙ ! M⊙ ! 10hr 0.6! In order to make some analytic estimates we now consider This is in good agreement with the results shown in Figure 2, the timescale on which the planet spin axis changes as a result since we find the precession timescales for the different mod- of the disk torque only in the absence of the star. We assume els to be3.2 (model in the upper left panel), 1.6 (upper right), l = l that the disk is flat but tilted so that d d(t). The spin angu- 6.9 (lower right) and 3.4 Porb (lower right). We note that the lar momentum of the planet is factor f depends upon the ratio of the disk to planet angular 2 −1 momenta. −7 Mp rp Prot 2 −1 = × ⊙ Jplanet 2.5 10 −3 M au yr , 10 M⊙ ! rJ ! 10hr 5.2. Planet-disk alignment timescale (11) where rJ is the radius of Jupiter. The angular momentum of The alignment timescale between the disk and the planet the disk is spin is approximated by rout 2 J = 2πrΣ(r Ω) dr (12) 2 disk (H/r) Ωd Zrin talign = (20) αω2 and for typical parameters this is p a 1/2 M (e.g. Bate et al. 2000; Lubow & Martin 2018), where Ωd = × −7 p d Jdisk = 3.8 10 − Ω(rout) and the precession rate is ωp = 2π/tprec. For typical 5.2au 10 5 M⊙ ! 4 R. G. Martin & P. J. Armitage

Fig. 2.— Each panel is the same as Figure 1 except J2 = 0.01 (left panels), J2 = 0.02 (right panels) and the disk mass is mass Md = 0.01 Mp (top panels) and Md = 0.001 Mp (bottom panels). parameters we ﬁnd 6. DISCUSSION

2 − 5 −2 − A circumplanetary disk that develops a tilt, due to the tidal talign H/r α 1 rp J ap 2 = 21.4 2 tilt instability (Lubow 1992), provides a substantial reservoir Porb 0.14! 0.01 rJ ! 0.01 5.2au of misaligned angular momentum even when the disk mass − M 2 M 1/3 M 2/3 P −2 is small relative to that of the planet. In this paper, we have × d p s rot shown that the disk misalignment can be communicated to the −5 10 M⊙ ! 0.001M⊙ ! M⊙ ! 10hr planet via the torques that result from planetary oblateness, f 2 leading to an efficient mechanism for generating obliquity. × . The mechanism will work (given our approximations) if, first, 0.6! the circumplanetary disk properties (primarily the disk aspect (21) ratio and size) allow for tilt growth. That tilt will change the Since this is an exponential decay timescale, this is in rough planet’s rotation state if, additionally, the disk mass is suffi- agreement with the numerical simulations shown in Figure 2. ciently large. The alignment timescales are 21.4 (upper left), 5.3 (upper Empirical constraints on circumplanetary disk masses are currently weak, while theoretical models span a broad range right), 100.6 (lower left) and 25.2 Porb (lower right). Note again that the factor f depends upon the ratio of the disk to (Lunine & Stevenson 1982; Canup & Ward 2002; Mosqueira planet angular momenta. & Estrada 2003; Lubow & Martin 2013; Batygin & Mor- Primordial giant planet obliquity 5 bidelli 2020). Broadly speaking, static Minimum Mass Satel- cally three-dimensional effect, though we note that it could lite Nebula models, those that include dead zones (Gammie be approximately incorporated into our model using methods 1996), and those where the disk is a decretion rather than analogous to those used in dwarf nova disk models (Bath & an accretion disk, lead to large circumplanetary disk masses Pringle 1981). that could exceed the threshold we have estimated for Jovian Determining observationally whether the mechanism we conditions. Simple viscous disk models, in which α ∼ 10−2 have described here operates in real systems will clearly be and the planet is assembled in ∼ 106 yr, lead to sub-threshold difficult. As the Solar System example makes clear (Laskar & masses. Since the size of circumplanetary disk is determined Robutel 1993), secular resonances in multiple planet systems by the size of the Hill radius, which increases with distance can be efficient sources of late-time obliquity (even Jupiter’s from the star, all else being equal larger planetary semi-major low and presumably primordial obliquity is predicted to even- axes lead to a greater likelihood of obliquity excitation. We tually increase; Saillenfest et al. 2020). Even when a sys- note that the low accretion rate inferred from the Hα luminos- tem’s current architecture is clearly non-resonant, excitation ity of PDS 70b (Yifan Zhou, private communication), in the of obliquity could have occurred during a prior epoch of mi- directly imaged PDS 70 system (Keppler et al. 2018), would gration (Vokrouhlický& Nesvorný2015). Young systems, imply a very low disk mass in the viscous scenario but could observed during or shortly after the disk-embedded phase, also be consistent with higher disk masses in the othermodels. provide the best opportunities. Our model suggests (and re- Our results are based upon describing the circumplanetary quires) that some circumplanetary disks around giant plan- disk using one-dimensional equations, derived in the linear ets (Zhu 2015) ought to be found to be significantly tilted. regime for wave-like warp propagation. The same tidal po- In some cases the tilts may be large, approaching the criti- tential that is responsible for the tilt instability also drives spi- cal misalignment for Kozai-Lidov oscillations (Martin et al. ral shocks in circumplanetary disks (Zhu et al. 2016), rais- 2021). Planetary obliquities ought to be non-zero even for the ing the question of whether a one-dimensional description is youngest planets, and should be larger on average for planets adequate. The tilt instability, however, is recovered in three- at large orbital radii, which would have hosted more massive dimensional simulations using independent numerical meth- circumplanetary disks that are more efficient at communicat- ods (Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics and fixed-grid simula- ing their misalignments to the planet. Smaller mass planets tions), with a growth rate in approximate agreement with lin- may also be favored, as their circumplanetary disks are ex- ear estimates (Martin et al. 2020). We therefore expect the pected to have a larger disc aspect ratio making them more current treatment to be adequate for moderate tilts, though unstable to tilting. simulations are indispensable for modelling very large misalignments. We have also ignored the effects of accretion ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS onto the circumplanetary disk (Tanigawa et al. 2012; Szulágyi We thank Kaitlin Kratter and Zhaohuan Zhu for valuable et al. 2014; Schulik et al. 2020). This is also an intrinsi- discussions, and acknowledge support from NASA TCAN award 80NSSC19K0639.

REFERENCES Artymowicz P., Lubow S. H., 1996, ApJl, 467, L77 1 Martin R. G., Lubow S. H., 2011, ApJl, 740, L6 3 Bate M. R., Bonnell I. A., Clarke C. J., Lubow S. H., Ogilvie G. I., Pringle Martin R. G., Pringle J. E., Tout C. A., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1617 1 J. E., Tout C. A., 2000, MNRAS, 317, 773 5.2 Martin R. G., Nixon C., Armitage P. J., Lubow S. H., Price D. J., 2014, Bath G. T., Pringle J. E., 1981, MNRAS, 194, 967 6 ApJL, 790, L34 1 Batygin K., 2018, AJ, 155, 178 1 Martin R. G., et al., 2019, ApJ, 875, 5 2 Batygin K., Morbidelli A., 2020, ApJ, 894, 143 6 Martin R. G., Zhu Z., Armitage P. J., 2020, ApJ, 898, L26 1, 3, 6 Benz W., Slattery W. L., Cameron A. G. W., 1989, Meteoritics, 24, 251 1 Martin R. G., Zhu Z., Armitage P. J., Yang C.-C., Baehr H., 2021, MNRAS, Bryan M. L., Benneke B., Knutson H. A., Batygin K., Bowler B. P., 2018, 1, 3, 6 Nature Astronomy, 2, 138 1 Millholland S., Batygin K., 2019, ApJ, 876, 119 1 Bryan M. L., et al., 2020, AJ, 159, 181 1 Miranda R., Lai D., 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2396 1 Canup R. M., Ward W. R., 2002, AJ, 124, 3404 6 Morbidelli A., Tsiganis K., Batygin K., Crida A., Gomes R., 2012, Icarus, D’Angelo G., Henning T., Kley W., 2002, A&A, 385, 647 1 219, 737 1 Dong J., Jiang Y.-F., Armitage P., 2020, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2012.06641 Mosqueira I., Estrada P. R., 2003, Icarus, 163, 198 6 1 Papaloizou J. C. B., Pringle J. E., 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1181 2 Gammie C. F., 1996, ApJ, 457, 355 6 Perego A., Dotti M., Colpi M., Volonteri M., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 2249 1 Hong Y.-C., Lai D., Lunine J. I., Nicholson P. D., 2021, arXiv e-prints, p. Safronov V. S., 1966, Soviet Ast., 9, 987 1 arXiv:2103.15902 1 Saillenfest M., Lari G., Courtot A., 2020, A&A, 640, A11 6 Keppler M., et al., 2018, A&A, 617, A44 6 Scheuer P. A. G., Feiler R., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 291 1 Koenigl A., 1991, ApJ, 370, L39 1 Schulik M., Johansen A., Bitsch B., Lega E., Lambrechts M., 2020, arXiv Kozai Y., 1962, AJ, 67, 591 1 e-prints, p. arXiv:2003.13398 6 Laskar J., Robutel P., 1993, Nature, 361, 608 1, 6 Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, A&A, 24, 337 2 Li G., 2021, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2103.15843 1 Speedie J., Zanazzi J. J., 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1870 1, 2 Lidov M. L., 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719 1 Szulágyi J., Morbidelli A., Crida A., Masset F., 2014, ApJ, 782, 65 6 Lin D. N. C., Papaloizou J., 1986, ApJ, 309, 846 1 Tanigawa T., Ohtsuki K., Machida M. N., 2012, ApJ, 747, 47 6 Lubow S. H., 1992, ApJ, 401, 317 1, 6 Tremaine S., Davis S. W., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1408 1, 2 Lubow S. H., Martin R. G., 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2668 6 VokrouhlickýD., NesvornýD., 2015, ApJ, 806, 143 6 Lubow S. H., Martin R. G., 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3733 5.2 Ward W. R., Canup R. M., 2006, ApJ, 640, L91 1 Lubow S. H., Ogilvie G. I., 2000, ApJ, 538, 326 1, 2 Ward W. R., Hamilton D. P., 2004, AJ, 128, 2501 1 Lubow S. H., Seibert M., Artymowicz P., 1999, ApJ, 526, 1001 1 Zhu Z., 2015, ApJ, 799, 16 6 Lubow S. H., Martin R. G., Nixon C., 2015, ApJ, 800, 96 1 Zhu Z., Ju W., Stone J. M., 2016, ApJ, 832, 193 6 Lunine J. I., Stevenson D. J., 1982, Icarus, 52, 14 6