Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 99 references

Unveiling the Origins and Dynamics of the Hierarchical Triple Star System CN Lyn

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read CN Lyn is a hierarchical triple whose outermost star was captured from the galactic halo, not formed with the inner binary, as its much older age and much lower metal content show.

desk verdict Solid close-binary analysis, but the halo-capture claim leans on an unvalidated disentangling step and inconsistent abundance errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04540 v1 pith:MDRAO4JB submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

G. Yucel , V Bakis , R. Canbay , N. Alan , T. Banks , S. Bilir This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords hierarchicaltriplestareclipsingbinaryspectraldisentanglingchemicalabundancesGalactichalostellarcaptureTESSphotometryevolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper dissects a single triple star system, CN Lyn, to reconstruct how it was assembled. Combining archive spectra taken at two different resolutions with TESS photometry, eclipse timings, and astrometry, the authors measure the masses, radii, temperatures, and chemical abundances of all three stars individually. Their central finding is that the outer star (component B, about $0.85\,M_\odot$) is roughly 12.5 billion years old and extremely metal-poor ($[\mathrm{Fe/H}] \approx -1.83$ dex), whereas the inner eclipsing pair (about 1.17 and 1.14 solar masses) is only about 3.9 billion years old and much richer in metals. Because the ages and chemistries do not match, the authors argue that B formed long ago in the stellar halo and was later captured by the binary in a region of weak gravitational interactions far beyond the Galactic disc. If correct, CN Lyn becomes a rare, well-measured example of a triple system built by capture rather than by co-formation.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by spectral disentangling plus the outer orbit. The authors resample the higher-resolution ELODIE spectra to the lower Asiago dispersion (about $R \sim 17\,000$), merge the two archives, and run the Fourier disentangling code KOREL — a code that separates blended spectra of multiple stars — to extract three individual component spectra from the composite. The SP Ace code then derives each star's $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, $\log g$, and abundances of up to 20 elements from those separated spectra. In parallel, an O–C light-time effect fit using Irwin's LITE formula to 55 eclipse timings, joined to a spectroscopic orbit of the wide AB system, fixes the outer period (3130 days) and eccentricity (0.55) that anchor the third body's mass and location. The mechanism that carries the capture conclusion is the contrast: a $\Delta[\mathrm{Fe/H}] \approx +1.28$ dex gap between the inner pair and B, and an age gap of roughly 8.6 Gyr, both measured on disentangled spectra rather than on blended composite light.

What would settle it

Obtain phase-resolved, high-resolution spectra across the 8.6-year outer orbit and measure B's line profiles and radial velocities; if B's iron abundance varies with phase, its lines broaden or split, or the radial-velocity curve fails to close the predicted 3.1 and 8.5 km/s amplitudes, the single-halo-star capture scenario fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that CN Lyn is a dynamically stable hierarchical triple system whose inner pair Aab — masses $1.166^{+0.013}_{-0.012}\,M_\odot$ and $1.143^{+0.013}_{-0.012}\,M_\odot$, radii $1.786$ and $1.651\,R_\odot$, metallicities $-0.78$ and $-0.55$ dex — formed together about 3.89 Gyr ago at the metal-poor edge of the Galactic disk, near a birth radius of about $14.6$ kpc, on a highly eccentric orbit (initial period $\sim 217$ days, initial eccentricity $\sim 0.978$) that has since circularized to the present 1.955-day period. The third component B, with mass $0.85 \pm 0.23\,M_\odot$, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -1.83$ dex, and age $12.5 \pm 2.5$ Gyr, is chemically and chronologically consistent with the halo population. Since the two inner stars cannot have formed together with a star so much older and so much poorer in metals, the authors conclude that B was captured by the Aab binary in a region with weak gravitational interactions far beyond the Galactic disc, and that the observed configuration satisfies the Eggleton–Kiseleva stability criterion for hierarchical triples.

Load-bearing premise

Component B is a single main-sequence star whose disentangled spectrum yields a trustworthy $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, $\log g$, and $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$; if B's spectrum is blended or B is itself a binary, the 12.5 Gyr halo age and the capture conclusion no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The inner binary was born on a highly eccentric roughly 217-day orbit and tidally circularized to the current 1.955-day period within about 3.9 Gyr.
  • The wide configuration is dynamically stable by a large margin in the Eggleton–Kiseleva criterion, so the captured third star remains bound over long timescales.
  • Birth-radius tracing places the binary's origin at $R_{\mathrm{birth}} = 14.59 \pm 0.86$ kpc, at the metal-poor edge of the old thin disk, matching its mean $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] \approx -0.65$ dex.
  • Mass transfer in the inner pair is predicted to begin in about 460 Myr, giving a concrete evolutionary timetable for the system.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If capture-built triples like CN Lyn are common, the fraction of field triples with halo-like tertiaries could serve as a probe of early-Galaxy dynamical encounter rates.
  • The same trick of degrading high-resolution archive spectra to a common low resolution before disentangling could be applied to other candidate multiples in comparable archival data sets, producing chemically homogeneous multi-component catalogs.
  • A testable check on the planet-ingestion explanation for the inner iron difference would be lithium abundances in Aa and Ab, since engulfment tends to deplete lithium in the engulfing star.
  • A longer baseline of eclipse timings and radial velocities covering another full 8.6-year outer cycle should confirm or refute the LITE and spectroscopic orbits; a phase mismatch would mean the third-body solution is not yet unique.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. CN Lyn is presented as a hierarchical triple system. The paper combines literature spectra (Asiago/Marrese and ELODIE), TESS and Hipparcos photometry, eclipse-timing minima, and Gaia astrometry. It performs a LITE fit and a spectroscopic orbit for the outer AB system, a PHOEBE light-curve and radial-velocity model of the inner eclipsing binary Aab, KOREL spectral disentangling followed by SP_Ace abundance analysis, MESA evolutionary models for Aab and B, and galpy orbital integrations. The central claims are that Aa and Ab have masses 1.166 and 1.143 solar masses, radii 1.786 and 1.651 solar radii, [Fe/H] -0.78 and -0.55 dex, and a common age of 3.89 Gyr; that B has mass 0.85 solar masses, [Fe/H] -1.83 dex, and age 12.5 Gyr; and that B was captured by Aab in a weak-interaction region beyond the Galactic disk. The paper also reports a birth radius of 14.59 kpc for Aab and states that the triple satisfies the hierarchical stability criterion.

Significance. If correct, CN Lyn would be a rare, well-characterized hierarchical triple whose component abundances and ages bear on triple-star formation, chemical tagging, and Galactic archaeology. The close-binary analysis is built on standard methods and external anchors: PHOEBE with TESS photometry and radial velocities gives masses and radii at roughly percent precision, and the photometric distance of 241+-10 pc agrees with the Gaia parallax distance of 230.9+-3.4 pc. The paper also provides abundant tabulated material, including eclipse timings, abundance measurements, MESA grid results, and a stability check. The novel astrophysical conclusion, however, is the halo-capture scenario for B, and that conclusion rests entirely on the disentangled spectrum of a component contributing only about 23% of the TESS light; this step is not yet adequately validated and is the weakest link in the chain.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.3-3.4, Table 7, Section 4.2] The stellar parameters of component B are obtained by resampling the R~42,000 ELODIE spectra to the R~17,000 Asiago scale, merging the two datasets, and running KOREL, but no injection/recovery test, no comparison with a known triple, and no independent spectrum of B are presented. Because B contributes only 22.8% of the TESS light, residual contamination by the two much stronger A components is a real concern. The Teff=6238 K, log g, [Fe/H]=-1.83, and the resulting 12.5+-2.5 Gyr age and halo classification in Section 4.2 are built directly on this unvalidated disentangling. This is load-bearing for the capture claim, so the authors should either provide a validation test or substantially soften the conclusion.
  2. [Section 3.5 versus Tables 7 and 8] Section 3.5 states that abundance uncertainties cannot be better than 0.15 dex and that this was adopted as the error floor, yet Table 7 and Table 8 quote [Fe/H] uncertainties of 0.02-0.11 dex for all three components, and Table 7 quotes Teff errors of 40-94 K. The abstract repeats the small abundance uncertainties. If the 0.15 dex floor is real, the reported errors are internally inconsistent and the 0.23 dex Aa-Ab difference and the 1.28 dex A-B difference are not as significant as claimed; if the floor is not real, it should be removed. This must be resolved because the metallicity differences are central to the capture scenario.
  3. [Section 3.1, Tables 3 and 8] The derivation of the third-body mass and inclination is not presented explicitly. Table 3 gives m_B sin^3 i = 0.080+-0.040 solar masses and q=0.37, while Table 8 gives M_B=0.85+-0.23 solar masses and i_AB=26.7+-2.1 degrees. The text in Section 6 says the mass ratio was used to obtain the inclination, but a mass ratio alone does not set the inclination. If M_B is taken from the single-star evolutionary track in Section 4.2, then the subsequent agreement with m_B sin^3 i is not independent validation; if instead M_A from the PHOEBE solution is used, that should be stated. The roughly 1.5-sigma difference between the LITE a_A sin i of 1.03+-0.14 AU and the spectroscopic a_A sin i of 0.76+-0.18 AU is also not folded transparently into the quoted M_B and i_AB uncertainties.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6, stability criterion] The stability calculation uses a_outer=4.53 AU, but Table 8 lists the AB separation as 1327 R_sun, about 6.17 AU, and the text even writes the ratio as 2.86/0.041, which is inconsistent with 4.53. The correct relative a_outer is approximately 6.2 AU, which still satisfies the criterion, but the arithmetic should be fixed.
  2. [Section 2.2] The phrase "quality flag of 'hard'" is unclear; please specify the TESS quality-bitmask value or the Lightkurve flag setting actually used.
  3. [Table 2] The parameter Q is listed as 0.0 but is never defined; please define the quadratic term in the LITE ephemeris or remove it if it is not used.
  4. [Table 4] The tertiary radial velocities are described as measured from the H-beta line only; please state how these measurements were made and why other lines were not used.
  5. [Section 6] The phrase "far beyond the Galactic centre" appears to be a wording error; the abstract and the surrounding context say "beyond the Galactic disc."
  6. [Section 3.5] The claim that detailed spectroscopic studies set a floor of about 0.1 dex for abundance uncertainties would benefit from an explicit citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: close-binary parameters are measured against external TESS/Gaia/literature data, and the third-body mass/inclination chain is a standard combination of independent observables rather than a fit renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

Reviewing the derivation chain, I find no step in which a predicted quantity is equal by construction to a fitted input. The close-binary masses and radii come from PHOEBE fits to TESS photometry and RV orbits (Tables 5-6), with SP Ace temperatures from disentangled spectra; these are independent of the paper's interpretive conclusions. The third-body mass is obtained from the spectroscopic mass ratio q = K_A/K_B = 0.37 and the total A mass (2.309 Msun), not from the evolutionary track: Section 6 states the mass ratio was obtained 'via obtaining the spectroscopic orbit, leading to the estimation of orbital inclination of the B-component as 26.7 deg'; the inclination then follows from m_B sin^3 i = 0.080 Msun with M_B = 0.85 Msun. This is a standard combination of independent observables, not a circular reduction. The 12.5 Gyr age of B is then read off MESA tracks at the dynamically-based mass and the SP Ace metallicity; the mass is not itself inferred from that age. The stability criterion is a consistency check (110.5 >> 8.7) and is robust to the stated B-mass uncertainty. Self-citations (Eker et al. series, Yucel & Bakis 2022, Yucel et al. 2024) are methodological examples, not load-bearing; the paper is benchmarked against external TESS, Gaia, and independent literature RVs. Two non-circular caveats deserve flagging: the KOREL disentangling of B is not validated by injection/recovery tests or an independent spectrum, and the adopted 0.15 dex abundance uncertainty floor (Sec. 3.5) is not propagated into the quoted Table 7/Table 8 errors, which are smaller. These affect the reliability of the halo/capture conclusion but are not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard modeling assumptions and on a few fitted or adopted inputs. The close binary parameters are anchored by external Gaia parallax, so the core is not a free construction. The bigger burden is the third component chain: B's mass is inferred from evolutionary tracks, then used to convert the spectroscopic m_B sin^3 i into an inclination, and the outer-orbit solution carries an unresolved inconsistency with the LITE fit. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial period of Aab in MESA grid search = 217.0 days
    Grid search over 200 to 230 days in Section 4.1; chosen to reproduce current P=1.955509 days.
  • Initial eccentricity of Aab in MESA grid search = 0.9781
    Grid search over 0.9775 to 0.9790 in Section 4.1; chosen with the period to match current e=0.0021.
  • Primary temperature fixed in PHOEBE = 6500 K
    Adopted from Marrese et al. (2004) in Section 3.2; final SP Ace Teff is 6411 K, so the LC solution is tied to an input that is not the adopted final temperature.
  • Mass transfer efficiencies in MESA = alpha=0.4, beta=0.1, gamma=0.1
    Adopted from prior literature in Section 4.1; they set the timing of future mass transfer but do not strongly alter the current 3.89 Gyr age.
  • B component mass = 0.85 +/- 0.23 M_sun
    Inferred from Teff, luminosity and metallicity on MESA single-star tracks; used in Section 6 to convert m_B sin^3 i to the 26.7 degree inclination.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Aab is detached and has not undergone mass transfer since the ZAMS
    Assumed in Sections 3.2 and 4.1 based on the absence of mass-transfer evidence; if wrong, the 3.89 Gyr age and initial orbit fit would need revision.
  • domain assumption B is a single main-sequence star whose disentangled spectrum is reliable
    Required in Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 4.2 to derive B's [Fe/H], mass and 12.5 Gyr age; a blended or unresolved B would invalidate the halo and capture conclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper Resampling ELODIE spectra to Asiago resolution does not bias abundance results
    Adopted in Section 3.3 to combine the two datasets; S/N is gained but line profiles are degraded, and the paper does not quantify the bias this introduces.
  • domain assumption MWPotential2014 is an adequate static model for 3.9 Gyr backward orbit integration
    Used in Section 5 to compute the birth radius of 14.59 kpc; neglects radial migration, spiral arms, and possible perturbations, so the birth radius is model dependent.
  • domain assumption SP Ace/ATLAS9/SPECTRUM abundance scale has a systematic floor of about 0.1 to 0.15 dex
    Invoked in Section 3.5 to justify choosing 0.15 dex uncertainties, though this floor is not reflected in Table 8's quoted [Fe/H] errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the Origins and Dynamics of the Hierarchical Triple Star System CN Lyn." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MDRAO4JB

@misc{pith2026241204540,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the Origins and Dynamics of the Hierarchical Triple Star System CN Lyn},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MDRAO4JB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04540}
}
abstract

In this study we present a detailed analysis of CN Lyn, an overlooked triple star system, by combining spectroscopic data from the literature, photometric \textit{TESS} data, and kinematic techniques. We updated the fundamental parameters of the known eclipsing components in the system with high precision. The chemical composition of both eclipsing components (Aab) and the third component (B) in the system were calculated with great accuracy. According to our analysis the mass, radius, and metallicity of the eclipsing components are $1.166_{-0.012}^{+0.013}\,M_\odot$, $1.786_{-0.014}^{+0.013}\,R_\odot$, and $-0.78_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ dex for Aa and $1.143_{-0.012}^{+0.013}\,M_\odot$, $1.651_{-0.013}^{+0.014}\,R_\odot$, and $-0.55_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$ dex for Ab. The pair's age is $3.89_{-0.10}^{+0.10}$ Gyr. The mass, radius, metallicity, and age for B are $0.85_{-0.23}^{+0.23}\,M_\odot$, $1.436_{-0.023}^{+0.026}\,R_\odot$, $-1.83_{-0.11}^{+0.09}$ dex, and $12.5_{-2.5}^{+2.5}$ Gyr, respectively. It is also found that the triple system (AabB) satisfies the stability criteria for the hierarchical triple system. Kinematic and Galactic orbital parameters of CN Lyn were obtained from the astrometric and spectroscopic data of the system. Dynamical orbital analyses, taking into account the ages of the component stars in the central binary system (A) show that the CN Lyn originated at the metal-poor edge of the Galactic disk. The third component of the system was found to be a member of the halo population in terms of age, $\alpha$ elements and metal abundance. Given the different chemical abundances and age of B compared to A, this suggests that the third component was captured by the central system in a region with weak gravitational interactions far beyond the Galactic disc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04540 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel: Hipparcos photometric data for CN Lyn. The left subfigure plots HP photometry (van Leeuwen et al. 1997) against Julian Date (JD). The right subfigure plots the same data phase folded using the ephemeris of Kreiner (2004). Lower panel: TESS photometric data for CN Lyn. The left subfigure plots flux against Barycentric TESS Julian Date (BTJD). The right subfigure shows the same data folded using the ephem… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper panel: RV and O-C variation due to orbital motion with the third body. Lower panel: The components’ orbit and location at specific dates. Blue and red continuous lines show the orbits of Aab and B components, respectively, and CM represents the center of mass of the CN Lyn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observed RVs with best fitting radial velocity curves and photometric data with LC modelling. Filled and empty circles represent the RVs of the primary and secondary components of Aab, respectively. In the LC panel, red and blue dots represent the TESS and Hipparcos data, respec￾tively, and the black curves are the best LC model for each photometric data set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A corner plot of the posteriors for the fundamental parameters of Aab components. tra to determine the temperature and metallicity of the components (Y¨ucel & Bakı¸s 2022). However, the best way to determine the temperature and to obtain chem￾ical abundances of a compo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Disentangled component spectra are shown together with observed composite spectrum. to obtain the individual spectrum of each component of the system (CN Lyn AabB). The disentangled compo￾nent spectra are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panel: Each component’s disentangled spectra with SP Ace models. Lower parts in the panel show the residuals between the disentangled spectra and SP Ace models. Lower panel: Highlighted region from the disentangled spectra of the primary component with SP Ace mod…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper panel: The distribution of chemical abundances of each component of CN Lyn versus atomic number. Red, yellow, and blue colors represent the primary, secondary, and tertiary components, respectively. Dashed lines represent [Fe/H] value of each component. Lower pan…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The result of the grid search. The best model is given by red plus in the figure with initial period and initial eccentricity, as 217 day and 0.9781, respectively. The colorbar shows χ 2 values. 4.2. Evolution Analysis of B The chemical properties of component B are si…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Positions of the primary (Aa), the secondary (Ab) and the tertiary (B) components of CN Lyn on evolutionary tracks in (a) log L × Teff , (b) R × Teff , and (c) log g × Teff planes, respectively. The different colored curves show the MESA evolutionary tracks of the deri…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Change of orbital parameters (a), and radius of the components (b) of Aab components of CN Lyn with time. ing the relation SLSR = p U 2 LSR + V 2 LSR + W2 LSR, with results presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The Galactic orbits and birth radii of CN Lyn in the Z × Rgc (a) and Rgc × t (b) diagrams. The filled yellow circles and triangles show the current and birth positions, respectively. The red arrow is the motion vector of CN Lyn today. The green and pink dotted lines s…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Element abundances for the four α elements with respect to Fe. Panels show CN Lyn’s component stars and Bensby et al. (2014)’s stars in the thin disk, thick disk, and halo populations classified according to kinematic criteria. Since the convective envelopes of Sun-li…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Radial Metallicity Gradients for the Chemically Selected Galactic Thin Disc Main-Sequence Stars

    Akbaba, F., Ak, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.13660, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.13660

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.13660 2024

  2. [2]

    2024, NewA, 107, 102135, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2023.102135 Ali¸ cavu¸ s, F

    Alan, N. 2024, NewA, 107, 102135, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2023.102135 Ali¸ cavu¸ s, F. 2022, NewA, 96, 101860, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2022.101860

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Antonini, F., & Perets, H. B. 2012, ApJ, 757, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/27 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, ...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/27 2012

  4. [4]

    Baranne, A., Mayor, M., & Poncet, J. L. 1979, Vistas in Astronomy, 23, 279, doi: 10.1016/0083-6656(79)90016-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0083-6656(79)90016-3 1979

  5. [5]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 5465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3435

    Behmard, A., Sevilla, J., & Fuller, J. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3435

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3435 2023

  6. [6]

    2003, A&A, 410, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031213

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Lundstr¨ om, I. 2003, A&A, 410, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031213

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031213 2003

  7. [7]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 2014

  8. [8]

    Boeche, C., & Grebel, E. K. 2016, A&A, 587, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526758

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526758 2016

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    2021, A&A, 645, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038973

    Boeche, C., Vallenari, A., & Lucatello, S. 2021, A&A, 645, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038973

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 4136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2530

    Borkovits, T., Hajdu, T., Sztakovics, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2530

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 Br´ at, L.,ˇSmelcer, L., Ku` e´ akov´ a, H., et al

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 Br´ at, L.,ˇSmelcer, L., Ku` e´ akov´ a, H., et al. 2008, Open European Journal on Variable Stars, 0094, 1

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Heyer, M

    Brunt, C. M., Heyer, M. H., & Mac Low, M. M. 2009, A&A, 504, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911797

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2003, in Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov, W. W. Weiss, & D. F

    2003

  6. [14]

    210, A20, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087

    Gray, Vol. 210, A20, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087

    doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, A&A, 419, 725, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040079

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Prˇ sa, A., Stassun, K

    Conroy, K. E., Prˇ sa, A., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/2/45

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al

    Conroy, K. E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e2 Co¸ skunoˇ glu, B., Ak, S., Bilir, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1237, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17983.x

    2020

  10. [18]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10

    Dotter, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P., & Asplund, M. 2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Ta¸ sdemir, S., Ko¸ c, S., & Iyer, S

    Dursun, D. C., Ta¸ sdemir, S., Ko¸ c, S., & Iyer, S. 2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 1, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2024.00002

    2024

  12. [20]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    1983 doi

  13. [21]

    P., & Kiseleva, L

    Eggleton, P. P., & Kiseleva, L. G. 1995, ApJ, 455, 640, doi: 10.1086/176610

    1995 doi

  14. [22]

    P., & Kiseleva-Eggleton, L

    Eggleton, P. P., & Kiseleva-Eggleton, L. 2001, ApJ, 562, 1012, doi: 10.1086/323843

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 2440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1563

    Eker, Z., & Bakı¸ s, V. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1563

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 4231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab684

    Eker, Z., Bakı¸ s, V., Soydugan, F., & Bilir, S. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab684

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2014, PASA, 31, e024, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.17

    Eker, Z., Bilir, S., Soydugan, F., et al. 2014, PASA, 31, e024, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.17

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, AJ, 164, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9123

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., Bakı¸ s, V., Bilir, S., & Steer, I. 2022, AJ, 164, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9123

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 41, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2024.00001

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., & Bilir, S. 2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 41, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2024.00001

    2024

  20. [28]

    2015, AJ, 149, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/131

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., Soydugan, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/131

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 5491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1834

    Eker, Z., Bakı¸ s, V., Bilir, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1834

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 3887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1659 European Space Agency

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., Bilir, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1659 European Space Agency. 1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues. Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the ESA HIPPARCOS Space A...

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Gaia Collaboration, Recio-Blanco, A., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2023...

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, AJ, 166, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad08b0

    Gokmen, S., Eker, Z., Yontan, T., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad08b0

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    G., Carretta, E., Matteucci, F., & Sneden, C

    Gratton, R. G., Carretta, E., Matteucci, F., & Sneden, C. 2000, A&A, 358, 671, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0004157

    2000 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    O., & Corbally, C

    Gray, R. O., & Corbally, C. J. 1994, AJ, 107, 742, doi: 10.1086/116893

    1994 doi

  28. [36]

    O., Rolland, L., et al

    Grenier, S., Baylac, M. O., Rolland, L., et al. 1999, A&AS, 137, 451, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999489 CN Lyn 23

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    E., Pablo, H., et al

    Horvat, M., Conroy, K. E., Pablo, H., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacd0f Hoˇ nkov´ a, K., Juryˇ sek, J., Lehk´ y, M., et al. 2013, Open European Journal on Variable Stars, 160, 1 —. 2014, Open European Journal on Variable Stars, 165, 1

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2014, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 6118, 1 —

    Hubscher, J. 2014, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 6118, 1 —. 2015, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 6152, 1 —. 2017, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 6196, 1, doi: 10.22444/IBVS.6196

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    Hubscher, J., & Lehmann, P. B. 2015, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 6149, 1

    2015

  33. [41]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    2002

  35. [43]

    Irwin, J. B. 1952, ApJ, 116, 211, doi: 10.1086/145604 —. 1959, AJ, 64, 149, doi: 10.1086/107913

    1952 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Pilachowski, C

    Jacobson, H. R., Pilachowski, C. A., & Friel, E. D. 2011, AJ, 142, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/2/59

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d Jofr´ e, P., Heiter, U., & Soubiran, C. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 571, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104509

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Johnson, D. R. H., & Soderblom, D. R. 1987, AJ, 93, 864, doi: 10.1086/114370

    1987 doi

  39. [47]

    E., Horvat, M., et al

    Jones, D., Conroy, K. E., Horvat, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7927

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, A&A, 655, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140453

    Matteo, P. 2021, A&A, 655, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140453

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Parker, R

    King, R. R., Parker, R. J., Patience, J., & Goodwin, S. P. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2025, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20437.x

    2012

  42. [50]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

    1990

  43. [51]

    Kreiner, J. M. 2004, AcA, 54, 207

    2004

  44. [52]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 6111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2871 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

    Liao, W., Qian, S., & Li, L. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 6111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2871 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1812.013

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 1227, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2471

    Liu, F., Bitsch, B., Asplund, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1227, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2471

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, Nature, 627, 501, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07091-y

    Liu, F., Ting, Y.-S., Yong, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 501, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07091-y

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    2014, Automated Wide-field Survey for Transient Objects with a Small Telescope, Tech

    Maehara, H. 2014, Automated Wide-field Survey for Transient Objects with a Small Telescope, Tech. rep., Journal of Space Science Informatics Japan. https://jaxa.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/1963

    2014

  48. [56]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    Maoz, D., & Graur, O. 2017, ApJ, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Munari, U., Siviero, A., et al

    Marrese, P. M., Munari, U., Siviero, A., et al. 2004, A&A, 413, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031544

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, A&A Rv, 29, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8

    Matteucci, F. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    2009, A&A, 501, 531, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911869

    Matteucci, F., Spitoni, E., Recchi, S., & Valiante, R. 2009, A&A, 501, 531, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911869

    2009 doi

  53. [61]

    1981, Galactic astronomy

    Mihalas, D., & Binney, J. 1981, Galactic astronomy. Structure and kinematics (W.H. Freeman & Co.)

    1981

  54. [62]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    2022, A&A, 666, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243210

    Moedas, N., Deal, M., Bossini, D., & Campilho, B. 2022, A&A, 666, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243210

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Prugniel, P., & Soubiran, C

    Moultaka, J., Ilovaisky, S. A., Prugniel, P., & Soubiran, C. 2004, PASP, 116, 693, doi: 10.1086/422177

    2004 doi

  57. [65]

    2001, A&A, 378, 477, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011230

    Munari, U., Tomov, T., Zwitter, T., et al. 2001, A&A, 378, 477, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011230

    2001 doi

  58. [66]

    A., & Mead, R

    Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. 1965, The Computer Journal, 7, 308, doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308

    1965 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Brewer, J

    Oh, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., Brewer, J. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab4d

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    G., Collins, K

    Paegert, M., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: TESS Input Catalog version 8.2 (TIC v8.2) (Paegert+, 2021), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: IV/39. Originally published in: 2021arXiv210804778P

    2022

  61. [69]

    2018, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 6244, 1, doi: 10.22444/IBVS.6244

    Pagel, L. 2018, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 6244, 1, doi: 10.22444/IBVS.6244

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  63. [71]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  64. [72]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    Perryman, M. A. C., Lindegren, L., Kovalevsky, J., et al. 1997, A&A, 323, L49

    1997

  68. [76]

    L., Skillen, I., Collier Cameron, A., et al

    Pollacco, D. L., Skillen, I., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 1407, doi: 10.1086/508556 24 Y¨ucel et al

    2006 doi

  69. [77]

    Flannery, B. P. 2007, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd edn. (Cambridge University Press) Prˇ sa, A., & Zwitter, T. 2005, ApJ, 628, 426, doi: 10.1086/430591 Prˇ sa, A., Conroy, K. E., Horvat, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/29...

    2007 doi

  70. [78]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    2010 doi

  71. [79]

    Rappaport, S., Verbunt, F., & Joss, P. C. 1983, ApJ, 275, 713, doi: 10.1086/161569

    1983 doi

  72. [80]

    M., Connelley, M

    Reipurth, B., Guimar˜ aes, M. M., Connelley, M. S., & Bally, J. 2007, AJ, 134, 2272, doi: 10.1086/523596

    2007 doi

  73. [81]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    Senhadji, A. A. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3117 Ruci´ nski, S. M. 1969, AcA, 19, 245

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    2024, A&A, 682, L23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449263

    Saffe, C., Miquelarena, P., Alacoria, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, L23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449263

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    1993, ApJ, 414, 580, doi: 10.1086/173105

    Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., & Straniero, O. 1993, ApJ, 414, 580, doi: 10.1086/173105

    1993 doi

  77. [85]

    B., Lacour, S., et al

    Sana, H., Le Bouquin, J. B., Lacour, S., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/15

    2014 doi

  78. [86]

    2013, A&A, 557, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322195

    Southworth, J. 2013, A&A, 557, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322195

    2013 doi

  79. [87]

    2021, Universe, 7, doi: 10.3390/universe7100369

    Southworth, J. 2021, Universe, 7, doi: 10.3390/universe7100369

    2021 doi

  80. [88]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 052, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/4/52 Ta¸ sdemir, S., & Yontan, T

    Soydugan, F., Soydugan, E., & Ali¸ cavu¸ s, F. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 052, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/4/52 Ta¸ sdemir, S., & Yontan, T. 2023, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 1, 1, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2023.00001

    2020

  81. [90]

    2006, A&A, 450, 681, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054427

    Tokovinin, A., Thomas, S., Sterzik, M., & Udry, S. 2006, A&A, 450, 681, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054427

    2006 doi

  82. [91]

    2020, A&A, 640, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936835 Tun¸ cel G¨ u¸ ctekin, S., Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Plevne, O., &

    Bandopadhyay, D. 2020, A&A, 640, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936835 Tun¸ cel G¨ u¸ ctekin, S., Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Plevne, O., &

    2020 doi

  83. [92]

    2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 1360, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2018.10.041 van Leeuwen, F., Evans, D

    Ak, S. 2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 1360, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2018.10.041 van Leeuwen, F., Evans, D. W., Grenon, M., et al. 1997, A&A, 323, L61

    2019 doi

  84. [93]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  85. [94]

    Vogt, N., Schmidt, T. O. B., Neuh¨ auser, R., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118410 ˇSkoda, P., & Hadrava, P. 2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 435, Binaries - Key to Comprehension of the Universe, ed. A. Prˇ sa & M. Ze...

    2012 doi arXiv

  86. [95]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  87. [96]

    Wyse, R. F. G., & Gilmore, G. 1992, AJ, 104, 144, doi: 10.1086/116226 Yıldız, M. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1143, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13352.x

    1992

  88. [97]

    2009, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 5887, 1

    Yilmaz, M., Basturk, O., Alan, N., et al. 2009, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 5887, 1

    2009

  89. [98]

    2023, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 1, 65, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2023.00008

    Yontan, T., & Canbay, R. 2023, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 1, 65, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2023.00008

    2023

  90. [99]

    2022, RMxAA, 58, 333, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2022.58.02.14 Y¨ ucel, G., & Bakı¸ s, V

    Yontan, T., C ¸ akmak, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2022, RMxAA, 58, 333, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2022.58.02.14 Y¨ ucel, G., & Bakı¸ s, V. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2293 Y¨ ucel, G., Canbay, R., & Bakı¸ s, V. 2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 18, doi: 10...

    2022

  91. [100]

    M., et al

    Zwitter, T., Munari, U., Marrese, P. M., et al. 2003, A&A, 404, 333, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030446 CN Lyn 25 APPENDIX 26 Y¨ucel et al. CN Lyn 27 28 Y¨ucel et al. Figure A1. Models fits for R V measurements

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.