Contact Binaries with Additional Components. II. A Spectroscopic Search for Faint Tertiaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unclear how very close binary stars form, given that during the pre-main-sequence phase the component stars would have been inside each other. One hypothesis is that they formed further apart, but were brought in closer after formation by gravitational interaction with a third member of the system. If so, all close binaries should be members of triple (or higher-order) systems. As a test of this prediction, we present a search for the signature of third components in archival spectra of close binaries. In our sample of 75 objects, 23 show evidence for the presence of a third component, down to a detection limit of tertiary flux contributions of about 0.8% at 5200 \AA\ (considering only contact and semi-detached binaries, we find 20 out of 66). In a homogeneous subset of 58 contact binaries, we are fairly confident that the 15 tertiaries we have detected are all tertiaries present with mass ratios $0.28\lesssim M_3/M_{12}\lesssim0.75$ and implied outer periods $P\lesssim10^6{\rm d}$. We find that if the frequency of tertiaries was the same as that of binary companions to solar-type stars, we would have expected to detect about 12 tertiaries. In contrast, if all contact binaries were in triple systems, one would expect about 20. Thus, our results are not conclusive, but sufficiently suggestive to warrant further studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".