The EBLM Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present 2271 radial velocity measurements taken on 118 single-line binary stars, taken over eight years with the CORALIE spectrograph. The binaries consist of F/G/K primaries and M dwarf secondaries. They were initially discovered photometrically by the WASP planet survey, as their shallow eclipses mimic a hot Jupiter transit. The observations we present permit a precise characterisation of the binary orbital elements and mass function. With modelling of the primary star, this mass function is converted to a mass of the secondary star. In the future, this spectroscopic work will be combined with precise photometric eclipses to draw an empirical mass/radius relation for the bottom of the mass sequence. This has applications in both stellar astrophysics and the growing number of exoplanet surveys around M dwarfs. In particular, we have discovered 34 systems with a secondary mass below 0.2 M⊙, and so we will ultimately double the number of known very low-mass stars with well-characterised masses and radii. The quality of our data combined with the amplitude of the Doppler variations mean that we are able to detect eccentricities as small as 0.001 and orbital periods to sub-second precision. Our sample can revisit some earlier work on the tidal evolution of close binaries, extending it to low mass ratios. We find some exceptional binary systems that are eccentric at orbital periods below three days, while our longest circular orbit has a period of 10.4 days. Amongst our systems, we note one remarkable architecture in J1146-42 that boasts three stars within one astronomical unit. By collating the EBLM binaries with published WASP planets and brown dwarfs, we derive a mass spectrum with twice the resolution of previous work. We compare the WASP/EBLM sample of tightly bound orbits with work in the literature on more distant companions up to 10 AU. We note that the brown dwarf desert appears wider, as it carves into the planetary domain for our short-period orbits. This would mean that a significantly reduced abundance of planets begins at ~ 3 MJup, well before the deuterium-burning limit. This may shed light on the formation and migration history of massive gas giants.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.229 | 0.314 |
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".