# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Several remarkable discoveries have renewed interest in solar system formation. Recent surveys have detected many small icy bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune (e.g., Jewitt & Luu (1993); Williams et al. (1995); Jewitt et al. (1996); Luu et al. (1997); Gladman & Kavelaars (1997); Chiang & Brown (1999)). Assuming a geometric albedo of 4%, these Kuiper Belt objects (KBOs) have radii of 50–400 km; the derived size distribution implies a significant population of smaller objects. With semi-major axes of 40–50 AU and orbital inclinations of 0–30, the orbits of known KBOs suggest an annulus of planetesimals formed in situ and left over from the planetary formation epoch (Holman & Wisdom (1993)). The presumed structure of this annulus resembles the dusty disks recently discovered around several nearby stars (Smith & Terrile (1984); Aumann et al. (1984); Jayawardhana et al. (1998); Koerner et al. (1998); Greaves et al. (1998)). Planets similar to those in our solar system have not been detected in any of these disks, but direct images and radial velocity measurements of other nearby stars already imply the existence of more than one dozen extra-solar planets of several Jupiter masses (Latham et al. (1989); Marcy & Butler (1996); Cochran et al. (1997); Noyes et al. (1997); DelFosse et al. (1998); for a review see Marcy (1999)).

These discoveries challenge planet formation theories. Most theories presume that planets grow by accretion of small planetesimals in a gaseous circumstellar disk (Safronov (1969); Goldreich & Ward (1973); see also Lissauer & Stewart (1993), Boss (1997), and references therein). Hitherto, numerical studies have focused on the formation of the prototypical terrestrial and gas giant planets, Earth and Jupiter (Greenberg et al. (1978), 1984; Nakagawa et al. (1983); Ohtsuki et al. (1988); Wetherill & Stewart (1989), 1993; Barge & Pellat (1990); Ruden & Pollack (1991); Pollack et al. (1996); Weidenschilling et al. (1997)). If the initial disk mass is comparable to the Minimum Mass Solar Nebula<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 The Minimum Mass Solar Nebula has a surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(R/R_0)^{3/2}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is the surface density of solid material at $`R_0`$ = 1 AU. We adopt $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ = 45 g cm<sup>-2</sup> (Hayashi (1981); see also Weidenschilling (1977); Bailey (1994)). This definition yields a total mass of solids $`M_0`$ 100 $`M_E`$ inside the orbit of Neptune ($`R<`$ 30 AU) and $`M_0`$ 10 $`M_E`$ in the inner part of the Kuiper Belt ($`R`$ = 32–38 AU), where 1 $`M_E=6\times 10^{27}`$ g is the mass of the Earth., these calculations often have difficulty producing objects similar to the known terrestrial or gas giant planets during the estimated disk lifetime of $``$ 10–30 Myr (Pollack et al. (1996); Weidenschilling et al. (1997)). This problem is exacerbated in the outer solar system, where numerical calculations yield formation times exceeding 100 Myr for 500–1000 km radius KBOs (Stern (1995), 1996; Stern & Colwell 1997a ,b). KBOs must form on shorter timescales in parallel with Neptune. Otherwise, Neptune’s gravity increases the velocities of nearby planetesimals, including those in the inner Kuiper Belt, on timescales of $``$ 10 Myr (Malhotra (1996)). This process prevents the growth of KBOs with radii exceeding 100–200 km, because large velocities hinder agglomeration.

We recently began to consider KBO formation in the outer solar system using an evolution code that follows planetesimal growth in the annulus of a circumstellar disk. Initial results indicate that KBOs can form at 30–50 AU on timescales of 10–100 Myr in disks with 1–3 times the Minimum Mass Solar Nebula when collisional disruption of planetesimals is unimportant (Kenyon & Luu 1998; hereafter KL (98)). Further calculations with an algorithm that includes disruptive processes lead to similarly short timescales for a wide range of initial conditions (Kenyon & Luu 1999; hereafter KL (99)). Here, we briefly summarize these new results, compare the theoretical model with current observations, and make predictions for comparison with future observations of KBOs.

## 2 MODEL

Our accretion code is based on the particle-in-a-box method, where planetesimals are a statistical ensemble of bodies with a distribution of horizontal and vertical velocities about Keplerian orbits (Safronov (1969)). We perform calculations for a single annulus of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ centered at a heliocentric distance $`a`$. We approximate the continuous distribution of particle masses with $`i`$ discrete batches having particle populations $`n_i(t)`$ and total masses $`M_i(t)`$. The horizontal and vertical velocity dispersions are $`h_i(t)`$ and $`v_i(t)`$ (Wetherill & Stewart (1993)). The average mass of a batch, $`m_i(t)`$ = $`M_i(t)/n_i(t)`$, changes with time as collisions add and remove bodies from the batch. This procedure conserves mass and provides a statistical method to follow the growth of $``$ $`10^{20}`$ small planetesimals into a few planets. Detailed $`n`$-body calculations confirm the basic features of particle-in-a-box calculations for the early stages of planet growth described here (Ida & Makino (1992); Kokubo & Ida (1996)).

To evolve the initial size distribution in time, we calculate collision rates for the coagulation equation, determine the outcome of each collision, and compute velocity changes due to collisions and long-range gravitational interactions (see KL99). Each two-body collision can produce (1) merger into a single body with no escaping debris (very low impact velocity), (2) merger into a single body with escaping debris (‘cratering’; low impact velocity), (3) rebound with or without cratering (modest impact velocity), or (4) catastrophic disruption into numerous smaller bodies (high impact velocity). The collision outcomes depend on the ratio of the impact energy $`Q_f`$ to the disruption energy $`Q_d`$ of two colliding planetesimals (Greenberg et al. (1978); Wetherill & Stewart (1993); Davis et al. (1994)). Collisions with $`Q_f>Q_d`$ disrupt planetesimals into many small fragments. Collisions with $`Q_f<Q_d`$ yield a merged planetesimal and some small fragments if the collision velocity $`V_c`$ exceeds the minimum velocity for cratering $`V_f`$. Collisions with $`Q_f<Q_d`$ and $`V_c<V_f`$ yield a merged planetesimal with no cratering debris. We use an energy-scaling formalism to compute $`Q_d`$ as the sum of the intrinsic tensile strength $`S_0`$ and the gravitational binding energy (Davis et al. (1985), 1994). The intrinsic strength is the dominant component of $`Q_d`$ for bodies with $`r_i`$ 1 km; gravitational binding dominates $`S_0`$ for larger bodies.

For each collision, a velocity evolution algorithm distributes the kinetic energy among the resulting bodies and then accounts for collisional damping, kinetic energy transfer during elastic collisions (“dynamical friction”), angular momentum transfer during elastic collisions (“viscous stirring”), and gas drag (Hornung et al. (1985); see also Wetherill & Stewart (1993); KL (98)). Dynamical friction tries to enforce equipartition of kinetic energy between mass batches; viscous stirring increases the velocities of all bodies. Gas drag removes objects from the annulus and reduces the velocities of small objects which are well coupled to gas in the disk.

We tested the code against analytical solutions and published numerical results (KL (98), KL (99)). We reproduced previous calculations for accretion at 1 AU (Wetherill & Stewart (1993)) and collisional disruption of pre-existing large KBOs at 40 AU (Davis & Farinella (1997)). Our calculations match analytical solutions well when the mass spacing between successive batches, $`\delta `$ = $`m_{i+1}/m_i`$ = 1.1–1.4. Numerical solutions lag the analytic results by $``$ 10% when $`\delta `$ = 1.4–2. The timescale to produce objects of a given size increases with $`\delta `$, because poorer resolution prevents growth of large objects (see KL (98)).

Table 1 lists basic input parameters. The input cumulative size distribution $`N_C`$ has the form $`N_Cr_i^{q_0}`$, with initial radii $`r_i`$ = 1–80 m. The total mass in the annulus is $`M_0`$; $`M_0`$ 10 $`M_E`$ for a Minimum Mass Solar Nebula. All batches start with the same initial velocity. We tested a range of initial velocities corresponding to initial eccentricities of $`e_0=10^4`$ to $`10^2`$, as is expected for planetesimals in the early solar nebula (Malhotra (1995)). The adopted mass density, $`\rho _0`$ = 1.5 g cm<sup>-3</sup>, is appropriate for icy bodies with a small rocky component. The fragmentation parameters – $`V_f`$, $`S_0`$, $`Q_c`$, $`f_{KE}`$, $`c_1`$, and $`c_2`$ – are adopted from earlier work. KL99 describe these parameters in more detail.

To provide observational constraints on the models, we note that the known Kuiper Belt population contains at least one body with a radius of $``$ 1000 km (Pluto), and $`10^5`$ KBOs with radii $`r_i`$ 50 km between 30–50 AU. The cumulative size distribution of known KBOs can be fitted with $`N_Cr_i^{q_{obs}}`$, with $`q_{obs}=3\pm 0.5`$ (Jewitt et al. (1998); see also Chiang & Brown (1999)). Successful models should reproduce these observations on timescales comparable to (a) the estimated lifetimes of the solar nebula and gaseous disks surrounding nearby young stars, $`10^7`$ yr (Russell et al. (1996); Hartmann et al. (1998)) and (b) the formation timescale for Neptune, $`10^8`$ yr (Lissauer et al. (1996)).

## 3 NUMERICAL RESULTS

We separate the growth of KBOs into three regimes. Early in the evolution, frequent collisions damp the velocity dispersions of small bodies. These bodies slowly grow into 1 km objects on a timescale that is approximated by $`\tau _{1\mathrm{km}}`$ 8 Myr $`(M_0/10M_E)(e_0/10^3)^{0.65}`$. This linear growth phase ends when the gravitational range of the largest objects exceeds their geometric cross-section. This “gravitational focusing” enhances the collision rate by factors of 10–1000. The largest objects then begin a period of “runaway growth”, when their radii grow from $``$ 1 km to $``$ 100 km in several Myr. During this phase, dynamical friction and viscous stirring increase the velocity dispersions of the smallest bodies from $``$ 1 m s<sup>-1</sup> up to $``$ 40 m s<sup>-1</sup>. This velocity evolution reduces gravitational focusing factors and ends runaway growth. The largest objects then grow slowly to 1000+ km sizes on timescales that again depend on $`M_0`$ and $`e_0`$. Column (5) in Table 2 lists timescales to form Pluto-size objects $`\tau _P`$ as a function of the input parameters $`M_0`$, $`\delta `$, $`e_0`$, and $`q_0`$.

Fig. 1 shows cumulative size distributions for a model with $`M_0=10M_E`$, $`q_0`$ = 3, and $`S_0=2\times 10^6`$ erg g<sup>-1</sup>. The shapes of these curves depend on two competing physical processes: (1) growth by mergers and (2) erosion by high velocity collisions. In this example, collisions result in growth because the velocity dispersion is less than the catastrophic disruption threshold. However, the collision velocity exceeds the cratering threshold $`V_f`$. Cratering adds debris to all low mass batches. Gas drag removes material from low mass batches ($`r_i`$ 10 m), but is ineffective at removing larger objects. The size distribution thus becomes shallower at small masses. At large masses, mergers produce a group of growing planetesimals with a steep size distribution. Once gravitational focusing becomes effective, the largest of these objects ‘run away’ from the rest of the ensemble to produce a smooth power law with a maximum radius $`r_{max}`$. As the evolution proceeds, $`r_{max}`$ increases but the slope of the smooth power law remains nearly constant.

The main features of these results depend little on the input parameters. All calculations produce two cumulative power law size distributions connected by a transition region having an ‘excess’ of planetesimals (the “bump” in the curves in Fig. 1). The characteristic radius of this transition region increases from 0.3 km at $`e_0=10^4`$ to 3 km at $`e_0=10^2`$. If fitted with a power law of the form $`N_Cr_i^{q_f}`$ at small masses, the cumulative size distribution follows the predicted limit for collisional evolution, $`q_f=2.5`$ (Dohnanyi (1969)). We perform least-square fits to obtain $`q_f`$ at larger masses; column (6) of Table 2 lists derived values for $`q_f`$ along with the 1$`\sigma `$ error. Column (7) lists the radius range for each fit. The results are surprisingly independent of the input parameters. We find the small range $`q_f`$ = 2.75–3.25 for calculations with $`M_0`$ = 1–100 $`M_E`$, $`e_0=10^4`$ to $`10^2`$, $`q_0`$ = 1.5–4.5, and $`S_0`$ = 10 erg g<sup>-1</sup> to $`3\times 10^6`$ erg g<sup>-1</sup>. This model result is consistent with the observed slope, $`q_{obs}=3\pm 0.5`$ (e.g., Jewitt et al. 1998).

## 4 COMPARISONS WITH OBSERVATIONS

As shown in Table 2, several calculations meet the success criteria defined in $`\mathrm{\S }2`$. Annuli with $`M_010M_E`$ produce Pluto-sized objects on short timescales, $`\tau _P`$ 50 Myr (for $`e_010^3`$). Models with smaller initial masses or larger initial eccentricities form Plutos on longer timescales, $`\tau _P`$ 50 Myr. Plausible ranges of other input parameters – such as $`q_0`$, $`S_0`$, and $`f_{KE}`$ – yield $`\pm `$20% variations about these timescales. The results are insensitive to $`V_f`$ and other collision parameters (KL (99)).

The crosses in Figure 1 compare our calculations directly with several observational constraints. The cross at $`r_i`$ = 50 km indicates the number of KBOs with $`r_i`$ 50 km estimated from recent ground-based surveys (Jewitt et al. (1998); see also Chiang & Brown (1999)); the one at $`r_i`$ = 10 km shows limits derived from a single, controversial measurement with Hubble Space Telescope (HST; Cochran et al. (1995), 1998; Brown et al. (1997)). The third cross plots limits at $`r_i`$ = 1 km derived from theoretical attempts to explain the frequency of short-period comets from the Kuiper Belt (Davis & Farinella (1997); Duncan & Levison (1997); Levison & Duncan (1997)). Our predictions agree with ground-based surveys at 50 km and theoretical limits at 1 km, but fall a factor of $``$ 10 short of the HST measurement at 10 km.

To compare with observations in more detail, we predict the luminosity function (LF) of KBOs directly from the computed number distribution. We use a Monte Carlo calculation of objects selected randomly from the cumulative size distribution $`N_C`$. We assign each object a distance from the Sun $`d_{\mathrm{}}`$ and a random phase angle $`\beta `$ between the line-of-sight from the Earth to the object and the line-of-sight from the Sun to the object. This phase angle lies between 0 and a maximum phase angle that is distance-dependent. The distance of the object from the Earth is then $`d_E=d_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}\beta (1+d_{\mathrm{}}^2(\mathrm{cos}^2\beta 1))^{1/2}`$. We derive the red magnitude of this object from a two parameter magnitude relation for asteroids, $`m_{R,KBO}=R_0+2.5\mathrm{log}(t_1/t_2)5\mathrm{log}r_{KBO}`$, where $`R_0`$ is the zero point of the magnitude scale, $`r_{KBO}`$ is the radius of the KBO, $`t_1=2d_{\mathrm{}}d_E`$, and $`t_2=\omega ((1g)\varphi _1+g\varphi _2)`$ (Bowell et al. (1989)). In this last expression, $`\omega `$ is the albedo, and $`g`$ is the slope parameter; $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are phase functions that describe the visibility of the illuminated hemisphere of the object as a function of $`\beta `$. We adopt standard values, $`\omega =0.04`$ and $`g=0.15`$, appropriate for comet nuclei (Jewitt et al. (1998)). The zero point $`R_0`$ is the apparent red magnitude of the Sun, $`m_{R,\mathrm{}}`$ = $``$27.11, with a correction for the V–R color of a KBO, $`R_0`$ = $`m_{R,\mathrm{}}`$ \+ $`\delta `$(V–R)<sub>KBO</sub>. Observations suggest that KBOs have colors that range from roughly $`0.1`$ to 0.3 mag redder than the Sun. We treat this uncertainty by allowing the color to vary randomly in this range.

The important parameters in the model LF are the distributions of input sizes (derived from the accretion calculations), distances, and orbital parameters. We assume KBOs are evenly distributed between “Plutinos,” objects in 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune having semimajor axes of 39.4$`\pm `$0.2 AU, and “classical” KBOs with semimajor axes between 42–50 AU. The distance parameters are set by observations (Jewitt et al. (1998)). This distance distribution is different from the 32–38 AU adopted for the coagulation calculations. Several tests show that accretion results at 42–50 AU are identical to those at 32–38 AU, except that the timescale to produce Pluto-sized objects is 50%–100% longer. To compute the model LF from the Monte Carlo magnitude distribution of KBOs, we scale the mass in the 32–38 AU annulus to match the mass in a 42–50 AU annulus, add in an equal number of Plutinos, and divide by the sky area. The distribution of KBO orbital parameters is poorly known. We adopt circular orbits to derive magnitudes; the LF is insensitive to other choices. We assume orbital inclinations of $`i=`$ 0 to 5 to compute the sky area, which is a compromise between the $`i`$ 0–5 of classical KBOs and the $`i`$ 10–30 of Plutinos. The model LFs scale inversely with sin $`i`$.

Figure 2 compares several models with the observed LF. The left panel shows models with $`e_0`$ = $`10^3`$ and different masses; the right panel shows models with the mass of a Minimum Mass Solar Nebula and different $`e_0`$. Model LFs with the Minimum Mass and any $`e_0`$ agree with current observations. The good agreement of all models at $`m_R`$ 20, where the uncertainties are largest, depends on the assumed maximum radius in the model distribution. We picked 1000 km for convenience. Model LFs for $`m_R`$ 20 are independent of this choice.

To quantify the comparison between models and observations, we fit model LFs to log $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(m_R)`$ = $`\alpha (m_Rm_0)`$ over $`20.5m_R26.5`$. Table 3 lists the fitted $`\alpha `$ and $`m_0`$ as a function of the mass in classical KBOs (in units of the Minimum Mass Solar Nebula), $`e_0`$, the inner annulus boundary $`R_{in}`$, and the outer annulus boundary $`R_{out}`$. The small range in $`\alpha `$ for model LFs agrees with published values derived from observations<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Gladman et al. (1998) report $`\alpha =0.76_{0.11}^{+0.10}`$ and $`m_0=23.4_{0.18}^{+0.20}`$ from a maximum likelihood analysis of previous surveys with magnitude limits, 20 $`m_R`$ 28. Surface densities in their Table 3 yield $`\alpha 0.6`$ and $`m_0`$ 22.4. Jewitt et al. (1998; see also Luu & Jewitt 1998) quote $`\alpha =0.54\pm 0.04`$ and $`m_0=23.2\pm 0.10`$ for 20 $`m_R`$ 26. Chiang & Brown (1999) prefer $`\alpha =0.52\pm 0.02`$ and $`m_0`$ = 23.5 for 20 $`m_R`$ 27; they note that the slope depends on which survey data are used in the fit.. The model $`\alpha `$ is independent of the relative numbers of Plutinos and classical KBOs, and the distance distribution of classical KBOs. The observed zero-point of the LF, $`m_0`$ 23.2–23.5, favors models with masses comparable to the Minimum Mass Solar Nebula and any initial eccentricity. These data rule out models with $`30\%`$ of the Minimum Mass at the 3$`\sigma `$ level. Smaller Plutino fractions require larger masses: if Plutinos are 10%–25% of the total KBO population, as indicated by recent observations (Jewitt et al. (1998)), the needed mass is 2–4 times the Minimum Mass.

There are two main uncertainties in comparing our model LFs with the data, the evolution of the KBO LF with time and the current orbital parameters of KBOs. The initial mass in KBOs was larger than implied by a direct comparison between the data and model LFs, because large velocity collisions and dynamical encounters with Neptune have eroded the Kuiper Belt over time (Holman & Wisdom (1993); Davis & Farinella (1997); see also Levison & Duncan (1993); Duncan et al. (1995)). Erosion from high velocity collisions probably does not change the slope of the LF significantly. Massive KBOs with $`r_i`$ 50 km ($`m_R`$ 26–27) are probably safe from collisional disruption (Davis & Farinella (1997)). Disruption of smaller bodies depends on the unknown bulk properties and the poorly known orbital parameters of KBOs. These uncertainties are not important for comparisons of models and observations for $`m_R`$ 26–27, but can bias future comparisons at fainter magnitude limits. Gravitational perturbations from Neptune should affect all KBO masses equally and simply reduce the total mass in KBOs with time (Holman & Wisdom (1993)). Despite the uncertainty in the total amount of mass lost from the Kuiper Belt, we are encouraged that the mass needed to explain current observations of KBOs is at least the Minimum Mass Solar Nebula. Future calculations will allow us to place better constraints on the initial mass in the Kuiper Belt.

The uncertain distribution of KBO orbital parameters also affects the initial mass estimates. Our assumption of KBOs uniformly distributed in distance $`d_{\mathrm{}}`$, orbital eccentricity $`e`$, and inclination $`i`$ is probably incorrect for Plutinos in specific orbital resonances with Neptune. Larger adopted volumes for current Plutinos require larger initial disk masses in the Kuiper Belt. A uniform distribution is probably reasonable for classical KBOs, but the observed range in $`d_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`i`$ is not well-known. Allowing classical KBOs to occupy a larger range in semi-major axis reduces our mass estimates; a larger range in sin $`i`$ increases our mass estimates. We suspect that the uncertainties currently are a factor of $``$ 2–3. Future large area surveys will provide better knowledge of KBO orbital parameters and allow more accurate models for the observed LF.

In addition to the reasonably good fit for $`20.5m_R26.5`$, our calculations predict 1–5 ‘Plutos’ with $`m_R`$ 20 over the entire sky. This number is uncertain, because we do not understand completely the mechanism that ends accretion and sets the maximum size of KBOs. Our calculations indicate that planetary accretion at 35–50 AU is self-limiting: once objects reach radii of $``$ 1000 km, they stir up smaller bodies sufficiently to limit additional growth. The formation of nearby Neptune should have also limited the growth of the largest bodies (Morbidelli & Valsecchi (1997)). Better constraints on the radial distribution of 500+ km KBOs would test the relative importance of these two mechanisms.

Observations at fainter magnitude limits will provide additional constraints on KBO formation. Imaging data acquired at the Keck and Palomar telescopes detect KBOs with $`m_R`$ 25–26.5, where models with $`e_010^2`$ predict the LF to rise sharply. The apparent lack of a significant upturn in the LF at $`m_R`$ 25 implies $`e_0`$ a few $`\times 10^2`$. In contrast, the current limit on the KBO population at $`m_R`$ 28 implies a substantial population of 10 km radius KBOs which is inconsistent with our calculations. Deeper ground-based surveys or new HST data could resolve the controversy surrounding this observation and place better constraints on $`e_0`$. Finally, the proposed Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) will probe the size distribution of 1 km radius KBOs where models with $`e_010^3`$ predict a sharp upturn in the observed LF. If such small bodies can survive for the age of the solar system, NGST observations would provide important constraints on the initial mass and dynamics of the outer solar system.

We thank B. Bromley for making it possible to run our code on the JPL Cray T3D ‘Cosmos’ and the HP Exemplar ‘Neptune’ and for a generous allotment of computer time through funding from the NASA Offices of Mission to Planet Earth, Aeronautics, and Space Science. Comments from F. Franklin, M. Geller, and M. Holman greatly improved our presentation.

| Table 1. Basic Model Parameters | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Parameter | Symbol |  | Value |
| Width of annulus | $`\delta a`$ |  | 6 AU |
| Initial velocity | $`V_0`$ |  | 0.45–45 m s<sup>-1</sup> |
| Particle mass density | $`\rho _0`$ |  | 1.5 g cm<sup>-3</sup> |
| Relative gas velocity | $`\eta `$ |  | 30 m s<sup>-1</sup> |
| Time step | $`\delta t`$ |  | 1–250 yr |
| Number of mass bins | $`N`$ |  | 64–256 |
| Mass spacing of bins | $`\delta `$ |  | 1.25-2.0 |
| Minimum velocity for cratering | $`V_f`$ |  | 1 cm s<sup>-1</sup> |
| Impact strength | $`S_0`$ |  | $`2\times 10^6`$ erg g<sup>-1</sup> |
| Crushing energy | $`Q_c`$ |  | $`5\times 10^7`$ erg g<sup>-1</sup> |
| Fraction of KE in ejecta | $`f_{KE}`$ |  | 0.05 |
| Coefficient of restitution | $`c_1`$ |  | $`10^2`$ |
| Coefficient of restitution | $`c_2`$ |  | $`10^3`$ |

| Table 2. Model Results at 32–38 AU | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`M_0(M_E)`$ | $`\delta `$ | $`e_0`$ | $`q_0`$ | $`\tau _P`$ (Myr) | $`q_f`$ | Range (km) |
| 1 | 1.4 | $`10^4`$ | $`3.0`$ | 448 | $`2.86\pm 0.04`$ | 2–300 |
| 10 | 1.4 | $`10^4`$ | $`3.0`$ | 20 | $`2.90\pm 0.02`$ | 1–930 |
| 1 | 1.4 | $`10^3`$ | $`3.0`$ | 893 | $`2.76\pm 0.05`$ | 6–400 |
| 3 | 1.4 | $`10^3`$ | $`3.0`$ | 184 | $`2.78\pm 0.03`$ | 5–600 |
| 10 | 1.4 | $`10^3`$ | $`3.0`$ | 37 | $`2.91\pm 0.03`$ | 6–800 |
| 30 | 1.4 | $`10^3`$ | $`3.0`$ | 10 | $`3.02\pm 0.03`$ | 6–930 |
| 100 | 1.4 | $`10^3`$ | $`3.0`$ | 3 | $`2.97\pm 0.03`$ | 7–600 |
| 10 | 1.4 | $`10^2`$ | $`3.0`$ | 428 | $`3.15\pm 0.10`$ | 50–700 |
| 100 | 1.4 | $`10^2`$ | $`3.0`$ | 25 | $`3.23\pm 0.06`$ | 20–600 |
| 10 | 1.25 | $`10^3`$ | $`1.5`$ | 40 | $`2.97\pm 0.02`$ | 7–700 |
| 10 | 1.25 | $`10^3`$ | $`3.0`$ | 35 | $`3.03\pm 0.03`$ | 9–650 |
| 10 | 1.25 | $`10^3`$ | $`4.5`$ | 30 | $`2.90\pm 0.02`$ | 4–750 |

| Table 3. Luminosity Function Parameters | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`M_0/M_{MMSN}`$ | $`e_0`$ | $`R_{in}`$ (AU) | $`R_{out}`$ (AU) |  | $`\alpha `$ | $`m_0`$ |
| 0.3 | $`10^3`$ | 42 | 50 |  | 0.56 $`\pm `$ 0.01 | 24.03 $`\pm `$ 0.16 |
| 1.0 | $`10^4`$ | 42 | 50 |  | 0.58 $`\pm `$ 0.01 | 23.36 $`\pm `$ 0.12 |
| 1.0 | $`10^3`$ | 42 | 50 |  | 0.57 $`\pm `$ 0.02 | 23.16 $`\pm `$ 0.15 |
| 1.0 | $`10^2`$ | 42 | 50 |  | 0.60 $`\pm `$ 0.01 | 23.53 $`\pm `$ 0.18 |
| 3.0 | $`10^3`$ | 42 | 50 |  | 0.58 $`\pm `$ 0.01 | 22.42 $`\pm `$ 0.17 |
| 0.3 | $`10^3`$ | 42 | 60 |  | 0.56 $`\pm `$ 0.01 | 23.50 $`\pm `$ 0.13 |
| 1.0 | $`10^4`$ | 42 | 60 |  | 0.57 $`\pm `$ 0.01 | 22.85 $`\pm `$ 0.11 |
| 1.0 | $`10^3`$ | 42 | 60 |  | 0.56 $`\pm `$ 0.02 | 22.63 $`\pm `$ 0.13 |
| 1.0 | $`10^2`$ | 42 | 60 |  | 0.63 $`\pm `$ 0.02 | 23.31 $`\pm `$ 0.19 |
| 3.0 | $`10^3`$ | 42 | 60 |  | 0.58 $`\pm `$ 0.01 | 21.92 $`\pm `$ 0.17 |