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 farther 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 Å (considering only contact and semidetached binaries, we find 20 out of 66). In a homogeneous subset of 59 contact binaries, we are fairly confident that the 15 tertiaries we have detected are all tertiaries present with mass ratios 0.28 ≲ M 3 / M 12 ≲ 0.75 and implied outer periods P ≲ 10 6 days. We find that if the frequency of tertiaries were the same as that of binary companions to solar-type stars, one would expect 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 are 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".