Revisiting bright δ Scuti stars and their period–luminosity relation with <i>TESS</i> and <i>Gaia</i> DR3
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We have used NASA’s TESS mission to study catalogued δ Scuti stars. We examined TESS light curves for 434 stars, including many for which few previous observations exist. We found that 62 are not δ Scuti pulsators, with most instead showing variability from binarity. For the 372 δ Scuti stars, we provide a catalogue of the period and amplitude of the dominant pulsation mode. Using Gaia DR3 parallaxes, we place the stars in the period–luminosity (P–L) diagram and confirm previous findings that most stars lie on a ridge that corresponds to pulsation in the fundamental radial mode, and that many others fall on a second ridge that is a factor two shorter in period. This second ridge is seen more clearly than before, thanks to the revised periods and distances. We demonstrate the value of the P–L diagram in distinguishing δ Scuti stars from short-period RR Lyrae stars, and we find several new examples of high-frequency δ Scuti stars with regular sequences of overtone modes, including XX Pyx and 29 Cyg. Finally, we revisit the sample of δ Scuti stars observed by Kepler and show that they follow a tight period–density relation, with a pulsation constant for the fundamental mode of Q = 0.0315 d.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".