 a radius of $R_t \simeq 0.26 a(1-e^2)^{1.2}$ [e.g.  @Pichardo2005]. If $R_t\lesssim 3\,{\rm AU}$ (i.e., inside the so-called “ice line”), it seems unlikely that icy grains could form and grow into planetesimals, thus precluding the embyonic stage of giant planet formation in the core-accretion scenario [e.g., @Liss1993]. In more extreme cases, when $R_t \lesssim 1\,{\rm AU}$, there may be insufficient material in the disk to yield a Jovian-mass planet [@Jang-Condell2006]. Even when $R_t$ is as large as $\simeq$10AU, stirring of the disk by the tidal field and the thermal dissipation of spiral waves may inhibit planetesimal formation, as well as stabilize the disk against fragmentation [@Nelson2000; @thebault2004; @Thebault2006]. In this case, it may be that neither the core-accretion picture nor gravitational instability [e.g., @Boss2000] are accessible modes of giant planet formation. We adopt $R_t = 10\,{\rm AU}$ ($a \lesssim 40\,{\rm AU}$ for modest $e$) as a fiducial upper limit for which Jovian planet formation is significantly perturbed and perhaps strongly inhibited. This provides a simple theoretical definition of a close binary that roughly matches our observational measure.

A handful of planets in binaries with $a \lesssim 20\,{\rm AU}$ have already been discovered (see Table \[tableclose\]). The tightest of these systems [HD 188753 @Konacki2005] has a periastron separation of only $\simeq$6AU, which seems severely at odds with the conventional lore on Jovian planet formation. @Pfahl2005 and @Portegies_Zwart_2005 suggested that the planetary host star may have been acquired in a dynamical exchnage interaction in a star cluster [*after*]{} the planet formed, thus circumventing the complicating factors listed above. As most stars are born in clustered environments, one wonders how often dynamics can account for planets in close binaries. This idea was explored in @PfahlMute2006, where it was found that exchange interactions can account for only $\sim$0.1% of close binaries hosting planets. However, the (admittedly small) sample of systems in
a radius of $ R_t \simeq 0.26 a(1 - e^2)^{1.2}$ [ e.g.    @Pichardo2005 ]. If $ R_t\lesssim 3\,{\rm AU}$ (i.e., inside the so - called “ internal-combustion engine credit line ”), it seems unlikely that icy grain could form and grow into planetesimal, thus precluding the embyonic stage of elephantine satellite formation in the core - accretion scenario [ for example, @Liss1993 ]. In more extreme cases, when $ R_t \lesssim 1\,{\rm AU}$, there may be insufficient material in the magnetic disk to succumb a Jovian - mass planet [ @Jang - Condell2006 ]. Even when $ R_t$ is as large as $ \simeq$10AU, stirring of the phonograph record by the tidal field and the thermal dissipation of spiral wave may inhibit planetesimal formation, as well as stabilize the phonograph record against fragmentation [ @Nelson2000; @thebault2004; @Thebault2006 ]. In this case, it may be that neither the core - accretion picture nor gravitational instability [ for example, @Boss2000 ] are accessible modes of giant planet formation. We adopt $ R_t = 10\,{\rm AU}$ ($ a \lesssim 40\,{\rm AU}$ for modest $ e$) as a fiduciary upper terminus ad quem for which Jovian satellite formation is significantly perturbed and perhaps strongly inhibited. This provides a childlike theoretical definition of a near binary that roughly pit our experimental standard. 

 A handful of planets in binaries with $ a \lesssim 20\,{\rm AU}$ have already been discovered (see Table \[tableclose\ ]). The tightest of these systems [ HD 188753 @Konacki2005 ] has a periastron separation of merely $ \simeq$6AU, which seems severely at odds with the conventional lore on Jovian planet formation. @Pfahl2005 and @Portegies_Zwart_2005 suggested that the erratic host star may have been acquired in a dynamical exchnage interaction in a asterisk cluster [ * after * ] { } the satellite form, thus circumventing the complicating factors number above. As most stars are born in clustered environments, one wonders how often dynamics can account for satellite in close binaries. This mind was explored in @PfahlMute2006, where it was find that exchange interaction can account for only $ \sim$0.1% of close binaries hosting planet. However, the (admittedly little) sample of systems in
 a gadius of $R_t \simeq 0.26 a(1-e^2)^{1.2}$ [e.n.  @Pichardo2005]. If $R_t\lesssim 3\,{\rm AU}$ (i.e., insiae the so-called “ice line”), it dewms ublikely that icy grainr could flrm and trow unto planevssimals, thus lveclubiig the embyonic stage of ciant planet fmroacion in the core-accretion scenario [e.d., @Liss1993]. On more extreme sasex, wheh $R_t \lesssim 1\,{\rm AU}$, there may be inaufficitnt material in thr disk to yield a Jovian-mads ppanet [@Jang-Condell2006]. Fven when $R_j$ is qs large as $\rimeq$10AU, stpxring of thg disk by the tidal field and thd thexmal dissipqtuon mf spiral weves mwy inhibit planetesikal forkation, as well as stqbilize the disk agaiist fragmentation [@Nejson2000; @thebdumt2004; @Thebault2006]. In thus case, it kay cw tfat nxitger thf ckre-accretikn picture bor gravitational imseqbility [e.g., @Boas2000] are ascessible modes of giant planet formatimn. Se adopt $R_t = 10\,{\rm AU}$ ($a \lewssim 40\,{\rm AU}$ for modesj $e$) as a fyducial upper limit for which Jovian planet formadion ms siyklficxbtpy perturbed and perhaps strongly inhibited. Trjs pgovides a simple bheoretical definiyiln jf a close bivary tkzt roughly matches okr obsetvatiobal measuwe.

A nandful of planets in binarues with $a \lvsssum 20\,{\rm AU}$ have alrecdy been diseoverec (see Table \[tableclose\]). The tnghtesf of these dystems [HS 188753 @Konacki2005] has a oerpastson separation of only $\simqq$6AU, whici seeks sevefely at odqs with thf conyantional lore on Jlvian pnanet formwtion. @Pfahl2005 and @Portegies_Zwart_2005 suggested that tve ilanetary host star may havq been acquireb in a dvnamicxl exchnagv interacvion in a stwr cluster [*afdgr*]{} the planet formed, ehus cirxumventkvg the complicsting facnoxs listed above. As most stavs arg gorn in clusterzb tncironments, one wovdews hpw mften dynamiws cxn xvcoung for planebs kn ckose binaries. This igea sas explored in @PfshjMute2006, whgre it waf found that rxchange interactilns cen accuunt gor only $\sim$0.1% of close binaries hoating plajetf. However, thq (adnittedly smakl) sample of systems in
a radius of $R_t \simeq 0.26 a(1-e^2)^{1.2}$ If 3\,{\rm AU}$ inside the so-called that grains could form grow into planetesimals, precluding the embyonic stage of giant formation in the core-accretion scenario [e.g., @Liss1993]. In more extreme cases, when $R_t 1\,{\rm AU}$, there may be insufficient material in the disk to yield a planet Even $R_t$ as large as $\simeq$10AU, stirring of the disk by the tidal field and the thermal dissipation spiral waves may inhibit planetesimal formation, as well stabilize the disk against [@Nelson2000; @thebault2004; @Thebault2006]. In this it be that the picture gravitational instability [e.g., are accessible modes of giant planet formation. We adopt $R_t = 10\,{\rm AU}$ ($a \lesssim 40\,{\rm AU}$ modest $e$) fiducial upper for Jovian formation is significantly perhaps strongly inhibited. This provides a of a close binary that roughly matches our measure. A of planets in binaries with $a 20\,{\rm AU}$ have already been discovered (see Table The tightest of these systems [HD 188753 @Konacki2005] has a periastron separation of only $\simeq$6AU, severely at odds with conventional lore on planet @Pfahl2005 @Portegies_Zwart_2005 that the host star may have been acquired in a dynamical exchnage interaction a star cluster [*after*]{} the planet formed, thus circumventing the listed As most stars born in clustered environments, wonders often dynamics can account in binaries. explored @PfahlMute2006, it was found that interactions can account for only of close binaries hosting sample of systems in
 a radius of $R_t \simeq 0.26 a(1-e^2)^{1.2}$ [e.g.  @PichaRdo2005]. If $R_t\lesSsim 3\,{\rM AU}$ (I.e., iNsIde tHe so-Called “ice line”), iT SeemS unlikely that icy grains Could FoRM and GRoW into PlaneteSImALS, thUs PrEclUdINg The emByoNic stagE of giant plAneT fOrmation in thE CoRe-accretioN scEnario [e.g., @Liss1993]. in mOre extReMe cASes, whEn $R_T \lessSim 1\,{\rm Au}$, There mAy be insufFiCIent maTErial in THE dIsk tO yield a Jovian-mass PLaNEt [@Jang-Condell2006]. EVen wheN $R_T$ Is AS LarGe aS $\simeq$10AU, stIrRing oF The disk BY tHE TIdaL Field and the thErmal dissipATioN of spiRaL waVEs may iNhibiT pLAneTesimal formAtioN, as well as StabilIZe the diSK againsT fragmEntAtiOn [@NeLSoN2000; @tHebAuLT2004; @ThEBaUlt2006]. iN thIs case, it MaY bE that NeitHER THe coRe-aCcreTion pIcture nor gravItaTionAL inStabiLity [e.G., @BosS2000] aRe accEssiblE modeS oF giant planet forMatiOn. We adopt $r_t = 10\,{\rM Au}$ ($a \lEsSsim 40\,{\rM aU}$ for mOdeSt $e$) As a fiduCial uppER liMiT FOR wHich Jovian planet foRmATIoN is signiFicantLY pErTUrbed and PeRhaPs stRONgly iNhibITeD. This proVides a SImPlE theoreTiCal defInItiOn oF a cloSE binAry thaT roughly MatchES our observatioNAl measure.

A hanDFuL OF pLAnetS in Binaries witH $a \leSSsim 20\,{\Rm AU}$ HAvE alREady bEen diScOVeREd (see Table \[tableclosE\]). THe tighTest oF these systems [hD 188753 @Konacki2005] hAS A PeriastrOn sePArATion of only $\simeQ$6AU, whIch seems seVErely at oDds wiTh the conVentional LORe on JoviAn pLanEt fOrmATIoN. @Pfahl2005 and @PortEGIes_ZWaRt_2005 suggeSteD that thE plAneTarY hoSt Star may haVe been acQuIrEd In A dyNamicAL exchnagE iNteRaCtiOn in a STar cluSter [*aFter*]{} ThE pLAneT formed, THuS CIrcuMvEnTing The CoMplicAtinG FacTors lisTed above. AS moST staRs ArE born in Clustered enviRoNments, one wOnDerS how ofTEN dynamicS can account for planets in CLose binAriEs. ThiS ideA was exploRed In @PfahLMuTE2006, where It was fOund tHaT exCHAnge iNTErActIoNs can accouNT For Only $\sIm$0.1% Of clOse binaRies hosting planets. hOweVer, the (admitteDly SmalL) SAmPle OF sYSteMs IN
 a radius of $R_t \simeq 0 .26 a(1-e^ 2)^{1 .2} $ [ e. g. @Pic hardo2005]. If $R_t \lesssim 3\,{\rm AU}$(i.e. ,i nsid e  t he so -called “i c e  li ne ”) , i ts ee ms un lik ely tha t icy grai nsco uld form and gr ow into pl ane tesimals, th uspreclu di ngt he em byo nic s tage o f  giant  planet f or m ationi n the c o r e- accr etion scenario [e . g. ,  @Liss1993]. I n more  e x tr e m e c ase s, when $R _t  \les s sim 1\, { \r m A U}$ ,  there may be  insufficie n t m ateria lint he dis k toyi e lda Jovian-ma ss p lanet [@J ang-Co n dell200 6 ]. Even  when$R_ t$is a s  l ar geas $\s i me q$1 0 AU,  stirrin gof  thedisk b y thetid al f ieldand the therm aldiss i pat ion o f spi ralwa ves m ay inh ibitpl anetesimal form atio n, as wel l a ssta bi lizet he dis k a gai nst fra gmentat i on[@ N e l so n2000; @thebault20 04 ; @T hebault2 006].I nth i s case,it  ma y be t hat n eith e rthe core -accre t io npicture  n or gra vi tat ion al in s tabi lity [ e.g., @B oss20 0 0] are accessi b le modes of g i an t pl a netfor mation. Weadop t  $R_ t =1 0\ ,{\ r m AU} $ ($a  \ l es s sim 40\,{\rm AU}$ f or  modes t $e$ ) as a fiduci al upper l i m i t for wh ichJ ov i an planet form ation  is signif i cantly p ertur bed andperhaps s t r ongly in hib ite d.Thi s pr ovides a simp l e  the or eticaldef inition  of  aclo sebi nary that  roughly  m at ch es  ou r obs e rvationa lmea su re. 

A h a ndfulof pl anet sin bin aries w i th $ a \l es ss im 2 0\, {\ rm AU }$ h a vealready  been dis cov e red(s ee  Table\[tableclose\ ]) . The tigh te stof the s e  systems  [HD 188753 @Konacki200 5 ] has a  pe riast ronseparatio n o f only  $\ s imeq$6 AU, wh ich s ee mss e verel y at  od ds  with thec o nve ntion al  lor e on Jo vian planet format i on.  @Pfahl2005 a nd@Por t e gi es_ Z wa r t_2 00 5  su g g ested that theplanetaryho s tstar may h a vebe en acqu ired in  a dy n amicalexchnageinteracti on  ina sta r cluster[*after* ]{} the p l anetf or med,thu s circ um ven tingthe co m pli catin g fact or s list ed ab ov e. As mo st stars are born in cl ustere d env iro nments, o new ond ers how o ften  dynamicscan  ac count  fo r  plan etsi nclo s e bin arie s . This id e awas e xp lored in @P f a h lMu te200 6,w here i t wa s found that exch a nge interactio ns c a n  ac cou n t fo ronly $\sim$0.1 % o fc l ose bina ri es hostingplanets.  H o wever , the(admit tedly s m a ll )  sampl e of  sy stems in
 a_radius of_$R_t \simeq 0.26 a(1-e^2)^{1.2}$_[e.g.  @Pichardo2005]._If_$R_t\lesssim 3\,{\rm_AU}$_(i.e., inside the_so-called “ice line”),_it seems unlikely that_icy grains could_form_and grow into planetesimals, thus precluding the embyonic stage of giant planet formation in_the_core-accretion scenario_[e.g.,_@Liss1993]._In more extreme cases, when_$R_t \lesssim 1\,{\rm AU}$, there_may be_insufficient material in the disk to yield a_Jovian-mass_planet [@Jang-Condell2006]. Even_when $R_t$ is as large as $\simeq$10AU, stirring of_the disk by the tidal field_and the thermal_dissipation_of_spiral waves may inhibit_planetesimal formation, as well as stabilize_the disk against fragmentation [@Nelson2000; @thebault2004;_@Thebault2006]. In this case, it may be_that neither the core-accretion picture nor_gravitational instability [e.g., @Boss2000] are_accessible modes_of giant planet formation. We_adopt $R_t =_10\,{\rm AU}$_($a \lesssim 40\,{\rm_AU}$ for modest $e$) as a_fiducial upper limit_for which Jovian planet formation is_significantly_perturbed and perhaps_strongly_inhibited._This provides_a simple theoretical_definition_of a_close_binary that roughly matches our observational_measure.

A_handful of planets in binaries with $a_\lesssim 20\,{\rm AU}$ have_already_been discovered (see Table_\[tableclose\]). The tightest of these_systems [HD 188753 @Konacki2005] has a_periastron separation_of only_$\simeq$6AU, which seems severely at odds with the conventional lore on_Jovian planet formation. @Pfahl2005 and @Portegies_Zwart_2005_suggested that the planetary_host star_may_have been acquired_in_a dynamical_exchnage interaction in a star cluster [*after*]{}_the planet_formed, thus circumventing the complicating factors_listed above. As most_stars_are born in clustered environments, one_wonders how often dynamics can account_for planets in close binaries._This_idea_was explored in @PfahlMute2006, where_it was found that exchange interactions_can account for_only $\sim$0.1% of close binaries hosting planets._However,_the (admittedly small) sample of systems_in