Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 73 references

The investigation of 84 TESS totally eclipsing contact binaries

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives homogeneous orbital and physical parameters for 84 TESS totally eclipsing contact binaries and identifies 15 low-mass-ratio deep systems as plausible pre-merger contact binaries.

desk verdict A useful homogeneous catalog of 84 TESS contact binaries, with a real but fixable weakness in how absolute parameters are scaled from a period-separation relation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15989 v1 pith:X5FSIMLK submitted 2025-06-19 astro-ph.SR

Yani Guo , Kai Li , Liheng Wang , Qiqi Xia , Xiang Gao , Jingran Xu , Jingyi Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords contactbinarieseclipsingTESSlight-curvemodelingmassratiomergercandidatesO'Connelleffectorbitalangularmomentum
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

Using TESS space-telescope light curves, the paper analyzes 84 totally eclipsing contact binary systems whose light curves are stable over time, and it produces a uniform set of orbital and physical parameters for them. A contact binary is a close pair whose two stars overflow their Roche lobes and share a common envelope; a total eclipse means each component passes fully behind the other. The derived parameter set yields 18 deep, 39 moderate, and 27 shallow contact binaries, with 43 systems showing the O'Connell effect (unequal maxima attributed to star-spots). Fifteen systems are deep contact binaries with low mass ratio, and the paper identifies them as candidate contact binaries that may merge into single stars. Absolute masses, radii, and luminosities are then derived through an empirical period-semi-major axis relation, and the systems' evolutionary states are traced on mass-radius and mass-luminosity diagrams.

What carries the argument

The analysis runs on a chain of standard tools: TESS 2-minute PDCSAP light curves are phase-folded and binned to 200 normal points, then fitted with a physics-based eclipsing-binary light-curve model driven by a Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampler, with starting values from a grid search or a genetic algorithm. Asymmetric light curves are handled by adding cool star-spots, with spot parameters included in the fit. The step that turns orbital parameters into physical ones is the empirical relation $\log a = 0.864\log P + 0.783$, calibrated on 168 contact binaries with both radial-velocity and light-curve solutions; it converts each orbital period to a semi-major axis, and Kepler's third law then gives masses, radii, and luminosities. Evolutionary status is read from mass-radius and mass-luminosity diagrams with zero-age and terminal-age main-sequence lines, while orbital angular momentum and initial masses come from published formulas.

What would settle it

Take double-lined radial-velocity spectra for a subset of the 84 systems, especially the 15 low-mass-ratio merger candidates, and compare the dynamical masses and semi-major axes with Table 3. If the measured masses disagree with the period-derived values by more than the quoted uncertainties in a systematic way, the period-semi-major axis calibration is biased and the absolute parameters, evolutionary states, and merger-candidate status would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a homogeneous re-analysis of 84 TESS totally eclipsing contact binaries gives reliable orbital and absolute parameters, and that 15 low-mass-ratio deep systems among them are plausible contact-binary merger candidates. The 15 candidates satisfy $q<0.25$ and $f>50\%$, and as a group they sit near the low-angular-momentum edge of the $J_{\rm orb}$-$M_T$ diagram, which the paper interprets as late-stage evolution toward a single rapidly rotating star. The paper also claims that A-subtype and W-subtype contact binaries follow different evolutionary paths: at a given mass, A-subtype components have larger radii and higher luminosities and lower orbital angular momentum, placing them at a later evolutionary stage. These conclusions follow from photometric solutions alone, with absolute parameters depending on a period-semi-major axis calibration rather than on direct radial-velocity masses.

Load-bearing premise

Every absolute mass, radius, and luminosity in this paper comes from a single empirical relation between orbital period and semi-major axis that was calibrated on a different set of contact binaries, and the paper does not test that relation with radial velocities for the 84 targets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 84-system parameter set gives a homogeneous sample for studying how contact binaries evolve from shallow to deep contact and eventually merge.
  • The 15 low-mass-ratio deep systems are concrete targets for follow-up period and eclipse-timing monitoring; if they are pre-merger, their periods should show measurable changes.
  • The systematic differences between A-subtype and W-subtype components in luminosity, radius, and orbital angular momentum support separate evolutionary tracks for the two subtypes.
  • The comparison with 44 previously studied targets indicates that mass ratios from machine-learning pipelines need per-target verification, while fillout factors from older studies are generally the least consistent parameter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A radial-velocity campaign on even a few of the 84 systems would directly test the period-semi-major axis calibration; without it, the absolute masses rest on a single empirical relation and could carry a systematic bias.
  • The 15 merger candidates can be checked in later TESS sectors for period decrease, eclipse-timing variations, or a brightening that would signal the onset of coalescence.
  • The star-spot interpretation of the O'Connell effect is degenerate; multi-band photometry or spectroscopic surface imaging could distinguish cool spots from hot accretion-related regions and alter the derived inclinations.
  • If the period-semi-major axis relation is internally tied to the same kind of systems, comparison with Gaia parallax-based luminosities and radii would provide an independent check of the absolute parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a homogeneous photometric study of 84 totally eclipsing contact binaries selected from the TESS eclipsing binary catalog of Prša et al. (2022). The authors model the TESS light curves with the PHOEBE code and MCMC, obtaining mass ratios, inclinations, fillout factors, temperature ratios, and spot parameters. They classify the sample into 18 deep, 39 moderate, and 27 shallow contact binaries, identify 43 systems showing the O'Connell effect, and single out 15 low-mass ratio deep contact binaries as potential merger candidates. Absolute masses, radii, and luminosities are derived by converting each orbital period to a semi-major axis via an empirical period–semi-major axis relation and applying Kepler's third law. The evolutionary states are discussed using mass–luminosity and mass–radius diagrams, and the photometric solutions are compared with historical studies for 44 targets.

Significance. If the stated results hold, the paper provides a useful, uniform sample of photometric orbital parameters for 84 TESS contact binaries and a candidate list of 15 late-stage merger systems. Strengths include the use of a standard, well-tested modeling code with MCMC uncertainty estimates, a documented and reproducible target-selection procedure, and a broad comparison with previously published solutions, including a re-analysis of two radial velocity curves. The principal weakness is that all absolute parameters—masses, radii, luminosities, orbital angular momenta, and initial masses—rely on a single empirical period–semi-major axis relation whose calibration scatter is not propagated and whose applicability to the TESS sample is not validated. This limits the weight that can be placed on the evolutionary conclusions, although the directly fitted photometric quantities and the merger-candidate classification based on q and f are not affected by this issue.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Eq. (3), Table 3] The absolute masses, radii, and luminosities in Table 3 are obtained by converting each period to a semi-major axis with the relation log a = 0.864 log P + 0.783 from Li et al. (2021b), but the calibration scatter of this relation is not propagated into any of the derived quantities. The quoted uncertainties (e.g., 0.02–0.07 M_sun on M1) reflect only the PHOEBE/MCMC light-curve fitting. Because the evolutionary conclusions in §4 (M-L and M-R positions, initial masses, J_orb) are built on these absolute values, the reader cannot tell how much of the claimed precision is real. Please propagate the slope/intercept uncertainties and the intrinsic scatter of the P-a relation, or at least quantify the resulting systematic uncertainty and add it to the quoted errors.
  2. [§4, M-L diagram] The paper states that most primary stars fall below the ZAMS and attributes this to systematic temperature errors that affect luminosity. Since the luminosities also depend on the P-a relation and on the adopted T_mean values, the systematic error budget is not fully characterized. A concrete test, such as varying T_mean by ±100 K and recomputing the positions in the M-L diagram, would show whether the ZAMS offset is robust, or the authors should soften the evolutionary-status statements accordingly.
  3. [§4, Eq. (3)] The P-a relation was fitted by Li et al. (2021b), a paper with overlapping authorship, using systems with radial-velocity measurements. Its applicability to the present TESS sample is not tested: the comparison in Table 4 covers only q, i, T2/T1, L2/L1, and f, not absolute parameters, and only two of the 84 targets have re-analyzed radial velocities (TIC 267043786 and TIC 207174531). Please validate the relation on the subset of targets with available RV-based absolute parameters, or explicitly state the assumption and add a systematic caveat to all absolute parameters in Table 3 and to the derived evolutionary discussions.
  4. [§3, Table 2, §4] The division into A-subtype and W-subtype contact binaries is used to interpret the M-L, M-R, and J_orb diagrams, but the operational criterion by which each of the 84 targets is assigned to a subtype is never defined. It is not clear whether the subtype is based on the temperature ratio, the mass ratio, the light-curve morphology, or the relative temperatures of the components. Please state the definition explicitly before drawing evolutionary conclusions from the two subgroups.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) contains an extra opening parenthesis and reads awkwardly; also, the radius ratio k is used in the equation before it is defined. Please define k = r2/r1 immediately before the equation and clean up the parentheses.
  2. [§4, first paragraph] The sentence 'By examining the 168 contact binaries ... we derived the relationship between the semi-major axis a and the period P' attributes the fit to the present authors, but the relation is taken from Yu et al. (2022) and Li et al. (2021b). Please correct the attribution.
  3. [§4, text after Eq. (3)] The phrase 'Phoebe was used to calculate the absolute parameters' is vague: the absolute parameters are computed from the semi-major axis via Kepler's third law and the light-curve-derived q, r1, r2, and T2/T1, not by PHOEBE itself. Please describe the derivation more precisely.
  4. [Table 3] The log J_orb column is quoted without uncertainties. Either state explicitly that no error propagation was performed for this quantity, or provide uncertainties that include the P-a calibration scatter.
  5. [Table A1] Some spot temperature entries have clearly erroneous error ranges, e.g., TIC 117978580 lists 0.954^{+0.955}_{-1.058}, which is internally inconsistent. Please check and correct all entries in Table A1.
  6. [§2.1, fourth criterion] The selection criterion 'the light curves do not change with time' is described only qualitatively. Please state whether stability was assessed by a quantitative metric (e.g., inspection of time-resolved light curves, scatter statistics) or was purely visual, so the reader can judge the reproducibility of the sample selection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: photometric parameters are fitted directly; absolute parameters use an external empirical P–a calibration rather than re-fitting these targets.

full rationale

The paper's central pipeline is not circular. The photometric elements q, i, f, T2, and L1/LT are obtained by PHOEBE plus MCMC fits directly to the TESS light curves, and the 15 merger-candidate classification depends only on q and f from those fits. The absolute masses, radii, and luminosities are derived from Kepler's third law using the semi-major axis a obtained from the empirical relation log a = 0.864 log P + 0.783 (Eq. 3), which was fitted to 168 contact binaries with radial-velocity and light-curve solutions from Li et al. (2021b), not to the 84 TESS targets in this paper. This is therefore an external calibration applied to new targets, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The overlapping authorship of Li et al. (2021b) is a self-citation, but the calibration is drawn from a distinct sample and is externally falsifiable, so it does not reduce the present derivation to its own inputs. The lack of propagation of the scatter in Eq. (3) into the quoted mass uncertainties, and the paper's own admission that systematic temperature errors affect luminosities, are legitimate correctness and robustness concerns, but they are not circularity. No step in the derivation is equivalent by construction to the quantity it claims to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The load-bearing inputs pulled from prior work are the empirical P-a calibration (with overlapping authorship) and the empirical initial-mass relations, both of which are fitted elsewhere. The spot latitude is fixed by hand. These are the main items the reader receives without independent derivation in this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • P-a relation intercept = 0.783 +/- 0.008
    Adopted from Li et al. (2021b) in Eq. (3) to convert periods to semi-major axes; its scatter is not propagated into the absolute parameter uncertainties.
  • P-a relation slope = 0.864 +/- 0.020
    Adopted from Li et al. (2021b) in Eq. (3); same caveat regarding scatter and systematic applicability.
  • gamma in initial mass equation = 0.64
    Parameter in Eq. (6) from Yildiz & Doğan (2013) controlling mass loss; applied to all qualifying targets.
  • spot latitude = 90 degrees
    Spot latitude is fixed at 90 degrees for all spot models to reduce degeneracy; this choice is not varied in the MCMC.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The P-a relation of Li et al. (2021b) for contact binaries applies to the 84 selected targets.
    Used in Section 4 (Eq. 3) to convert periods to semi-major axes and then to absolute masses, radii, and luminosities without radial velocity checks for the sample.
  • domain assumption The mean of TESS, Gaia, and LAMOST temperatures represents the primary effective temperature.
    Section 3 fixes T1 from survey temperatures before fitting; systematic errors in these temperatures affect all derived parameters.
  • domain assumption The Yildiz & Doğan (2013) initial-mass relations (Eqs. 5-6) are valid for these contact binaries with gamma=0.64.
    Used to estimate initial masses in Section 4; the paper excludes W-subtype stars with deltaM < 0.35 Msun but otherwise applies the relations uniformly.
  • domain assumption The star-spot model is a valid interpretation of the O'Connell effect for these systems.
    Section 4 acknowledges uncertainties and degeneracies; adopted as reference interpretation for 43 targets with unequal maxima.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The investigation of 84 TESS totally eclipsing contact binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5FSIMLK

@misc{pith2026250615989,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The investigation of 84 TESS totally eclipsing contact binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5FSIMLK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15989}
}
abstract

Based on the eclipsing binary catalog provided by \cite{2022ApJS..258...16P}, 84 totally eclipsing contact binaries with stable light curves were selected. The TESS light curves of these 84 targets were studied using the Physics Of Eclipsing Binaries code. The results indicate that there are 18 deep contact binaries, 39 moderate contact binaries, and 27 shallow contact binaries. Among them, 43 targets exhibit the O'Connell effect, which is attributed to the presence of star-spot on the component's surface. 15 targets are low-mass ratio deep contact binaries and may be contact binary merging candidates. Based on the relationship between the period and semi-major axis of contact binaries, their absolute physical parameters such as mass, radius, and luminosity were derived. The evolutionary status of these 84 targets was studied using the mass-luminosity and mass-radius relation diagrams. Their initial masses were also estimated. Our results are compared with those of targets that have been historically studied. Among the 84 targets, 44 targets have been studied before, and 21 of these have mass ratios $q$ that are consistent with historical values within a 10\% difference. For the inconsistent targets, we conducted a detailed investigation and found that the main reasons are poor quality of historical data, or the fact that the machine learning methods used in historical studies might not accurately determine the physical parameters for individual targets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15989 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Four examples of normalized phase-folded light curves: the gray points represent observed data, while the red points represent normal data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The posterior distributions of q, T2, i, f, L1/LT and fitting light curve of TIC 89428764. The fitting figures for all targets can be found in the online material of this journal. orbital inclination (i), luminosity of the primary star (L1), and fillout factor (f). The parameter search method involves traversing an equally spaced grid in the parameter space to determine the best-fitting parameters. For systems with … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The posterior distributions of q, T2, i, f, L1/LT , λ, rs, Ts and fitting light curve of TIC 232063593. T ′ 2 = T1(T2/T1) (2) where T2/T1 and k refer to temperature and radius ratio, respectively. The temperatures and radii of primary and secondary stars T1, T2, r1, r2 are obtained from PHOEBE with MCMC. The values of T ′ 1 and T ′ 2 are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The relationship between P and a of the contact binary stars from (Li et al. 2021b). 4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Through analyzing the light curves of 84 targets, it was found that there are 18 deep contact binaries, 39 moderate contact binaries and 27 shallow contac…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The M-L and M-R relations for 84 contact binaries. the ZAMS line is likely due to systematic temperature errors, which in turn affect the luminosity. Similarly, in the M-R diagram, the primary stars are between the ZAMS and TAMS lines, and the secondary stars are locat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The MT and Jorb relations for 84 contact binaries. We are grateful to the anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions, which significantly im￾proved the quality of this manuscript. This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, NewA, 31, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2014.01.013

    Acerbi, F., Barani, C., & Martignoni, M. 2014, NewA, 31, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2014.01.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2014.01.013 2014

  2. [2]

    2007, MNRAS, 377, 1635, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11723.x —

    Arbutina, B. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1635, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11723.x —. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 501, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14332.x

    arXiv 2007

  3. [3]

    2024, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 208, 1, doi: 10.2298/SAJ2408001A

    Arbutina, B., & Wadhwa, S. 2024, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 208, 1, doi: 10.2298/SAJ2408001A

    doi:10.2298/saj2408001a 2024

  4. [4]

    1970, Vistas in Astronomy, 12, 217, doi: 10.1016/0083-6656(70)90041-3

    Binnendijk, L. 1970, Vistas in Astronomy, 12, 217, doi: 10.1016/0083-6656(70)90041-3

    doi:10.1016/0083-6656(70)90041-3 1970

  5. [5]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  6. [6]

    H., & Guinan, E

    Bradstreet, D. H., & Guinan, E. F. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 56, Interacting Binary Stars, ed. A. W. Shafter, 228

    1994

  7. [7]

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040079 2004

  8. [8]

    R., Samec, R

    Caton, D., Gentry, D. R., Samec, R. G., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 054203, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aafb8f

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aafb8f 2019

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae 12

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae 12

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Pribulla, T., & Grygar, J

    Chochol, D., van Houten, C. J., Pribulla, T., & Grygar, J. 2001, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 31, 5

    2001

  3. [11]

    E., & Papageorgiou, A

    Christopoulou, P. E., & Papageorgiou, A. 2013, AJ, 146, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/6/157

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 4596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2565

    Ding, X., Ji, K., Li, X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2565

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    W., & Rucinski, S

    Duerbeck, H. W., & Rucinski, S. M. 2007, AJ, 133, 169, doi: 10.1086/509764

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    P., & Kiseleva-Eggleton, L

    Eggleton, P. P., & Kiseleva-Eggleton, L. 2002, ApJ, 575, 461, doi: 10.1086/341215

    2002 doi

  7. [16]

    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, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 —. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2013 doi

  8. [17]

    2008, MNRAS, 390, 1577, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13844.x Gezer, İ., & Bozkurt, Z

    Gazeas, K., & St¸ epień, K. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1577, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13844.x Gezer, İ., & Bozkurt, Z. 2016, NewA, 44, 40, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2015.09.009

    2008

  9. [18]

    F., & Bradstreet, D

    Guinan, E. F., & Bradstreet, D. H. 1988, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 241, Formation and Evolution of Low Mass Stars, ed. A. K. Dupree & M. T. V. T. Lago, 345, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-3037-7_23

    1988 doi

  10. [19]

    W., & King, D

    Hilditch, R. W., & King, D. J. 1986, MNRAS, 223, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/223.3.581

    1986 doi

  11. [20]

    Holland, J. H. 1992, Scientific American, 267, 66, doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0792-66

    1992 doi

  12. [21]

    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

  13. [22]

    2010, MNRAS, 405, 2485, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16615.x

    Jiang, D., Han, Z., Wang, J., Jiang, T., & Li, L. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2485, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16615.x

    2010

  14. [23]

    G., Borucki, W

    Koch, D. G., Borucki, W. J., Basri, G., et al. 2010, ApJL, 713, L79, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L79

    2010 doi

  15. [24]

    1980, AJ, 85, 1098, doi: 10.1086/112774

    Lapasset, E. 1980, AJ, 85, 1098, doi: 10.1086/112774

    1980 doi

  16. [25]

    W., Hinse, T

    Lee, J. W., Hinse, T. C., & Park, J.-H. 2013, AJ, 145, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/4/100

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    W., Kim, S.-L., Lee, C.-U., & Youn, J.-H

    Lee, J. W., Kim, S.-L., Lee, C.-U., & Youn, J.-H. 2009, PASP, 121, 1366, doi: 10.1086/649230

    2009 doi

  18. [27]

    Y., Hu, S

    Li, K., Gao, D. Y., Hu, S. M., et al. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 63, doi: 10.1007/s10509-016-2649-8

    2016 doi

  19. [28]

    2022, AJ, 164, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8ff2

    Li, K., Gao, X., Liu, X.-Y., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8ff2

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    2015, NewA, 41, 17, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2015.04.010

    Li, K., Hu, S., Guo, D., et al. 2015, NewA, 41, 17, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2015.04.010

    2015 doi

  21. [30]

    M., Jiang, Y

    Li, K., Hu, S. M., Jiang, Y. G., Chen, X., & Ren, D. Y. 2014, NewA, 30, 64, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2014.01.004

    2014 doi

  22. [31]

    Li, K., & Qian, S. B. 2013, NewA, 22, 57, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2013.01.006

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    2021a, ApJ, 922, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac242f

    Li, K., Xia, Q.-Q., Kim, C.-H., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 922, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac242f

    doi

  24. [33]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz715

    Li, K., Xia, Q.-Q., Michel, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz715

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    2021b, AJ, 162, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfc53

    Li, K., Xia, Q.-Q., Kim, C.-H., et al. 2021b, AJ, 162, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfc53

    doi

  26. [35]

    2006, MNRAS, 369, 2001, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10462.x Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

    Li, L., & Zhang, F. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 2001, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10462.x 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, record ascl:1812.013. http:/...

    2006

  27. [36]

    1996, A&AS, 118, 453

    Liu, Q., Soonthornthum, B., Yang, Y., et al. 1996, A&AS, 118, 453

    1996

  28. [37]

    2003, ChJA&A, 3, 142, doi: 10.1088/1009-9271/3/2/142

    Liu, Q.-Y., & Yang, Y.-L. 2003, ChJA&A, 3, 142, doi: 10.1088/1009-9271/3/2/142

    2003 doi

  29. [38]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 5760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad026

    Liu, X.-Y., Li, K., Michel, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad026

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  31. [40]

    1985, MNRAS, 217, 843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/217.4.843

    Maceroni, C., Milano, L., & Russo, G. 1985, MNRAS, 217, 843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/217.4.843

    1985 doi

  32. [41]

    1996, A&A, 311, 523

    Maceroni, C., & van’t Veer, F. 1996, A&A, 311, 523

    1996

  33. [42]

    M., Prince, T

    Marsh, F. M., Prince, T. A., Mahabal, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4678, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2110 Matijevič, G., Prša, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/123

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    H., Robb, R

    Nelson, R. H., Robb, R. M., Kaiser, D. H., & Billings, G. B. 2002, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 5285, 1 O’Connell, D. J. K. 1951, Publications of the Riverview College Observatory, 2, 85

    2002

  35. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18618, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.18618

    Paki, E., & Poro, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18618, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.18618

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

    2024, PASP, 136, 024201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1ed3 Prša, A., Conroy, K

    Poro, A., Tanriver, M., Michel, R., & Paki, E. 2024, PASP, 136, 024201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1ed3 Prša, A., Conroy, K. E., Horvat, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/29 Prša, A., Kochoska, A., Conroy, K. E., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 16, doi: 10.384...

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    M., DeBond, H., et al

    Pych, W., Rucinski, S. M., DeBond, H., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 1712, doi: 10.1086/382105 13

    2004 doi

  38. [47]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 1260, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06627.x

    Qian, S. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1260, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06627.x

    2003

  39. [48]

    2006, Ap&SS, 304, 25, doi: 10.1007/s10509-006-9114-z

    Qian, S., Yang, Y., Zhu, L., He, J., & Yuan, J. 2006, Ap&SS, 304, 25, doi: 10.1007/s10509-006-9114-z

    2006 doi

  40. [49]

    2017, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 17, 087, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/17/8/87

    Qian, S.-B., He, J.-J., Zhang, J., et al. 2017, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 17, 087, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/17/8/87

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    B., Yuan, J

    Qian, S. B., Yuan, J. Z., Soonthornthum, B., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 811, doi: 10.1086/522421

    2007 doi

  42. [51]

    B., Zhu, L

    Qian, S. B., Zhu, L. Y., Soonthornthum, B., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1206, doi: 10.1086/432544

    2005 doi

  43. [52]

    B., Wang, J

    Qian, S. B., Wang, J. J., Zhu, L. Y., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/4

    2014 doi

  44. [53]

    2000, PASP, 112, 123, doi: 10.1086/316485

    Rahman, A. 2000, PASP, 112, 123, doi: 10.1086/316485

    2000 doi

  45. [54]

    Rasio, F. A. 1995, ApJL, 444, L41, doi: 10.1086/187855

    1995 doi

  46. [55]

    A., & Shapiro, S

    Rasio, F. A., & Shapiro, S. L. 1995, ApJ, 438, 887, doi: 10.1086/175130

    1995 doi

  47. [56]

    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 Ruciński, S. M. 1969, AcA, 19, 245

    2015 doi

  48. [57]

    Faulkner, D. R. 2017, JAAVSO, 45, 3

    2017

  49. [58]

    G., Norris, C

    Samec, R. G., Norris, C. L., Van Hamme, W., Faulkner, D. R., & Hill, R. L. 2016, AJ, 152, 219, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/219

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    S., Guinan, E

    Shaw, J. S., Guinan, E. F., & Garasi, C. J. 1990, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 22, 1296

    1990

  51. [60]

    2006, AcA, 56, 347, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0701529

    Stepien, K. 2006, AcA, 56, 347, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0701529

    2006 doi arXiv

  52. [61]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 035009, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac4705 Ulaş, B., & Ulusoy, C

    Tang, Y.-K., Guo, Y.-N., Li, K., Gai, N., & Li, Z.-K. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 035009, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac4705 Ulaş, B., & Ulusoy, C. 2015, NewA, 41, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2015.05.001 von Zeipel, H. 1924, MNRAS, 84, 665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/84.9.665

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    Wadhwa, S. S. 2006, Ap&SS, 301, 195, doi: 10.1007/s10509-006-2062-9

    2006 doi

  54. [63]

    S., De Horta, A., Filipović, M

    Wadhwa, S. S., De Horta, A., Filipović, M. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3637

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    Wang, J. M. 1994, ApJ, 434, 277, doi: 10.1086/174725

    1994 doi

  56. [65]

    1995, AJ, 110, 782, doi: 10.1086/117563

    Wang, J.-M. 1995, AJ, 110, 782, doi: 10.1086/117563

    1995 doi

  57. [66]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 223, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f4b

    Wang, L.-H., Li, K., Guo, Y.-N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 223, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f4b

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    Wilson, R. E. 1978, ApJ, 224, 885, doi: 10.1086/156438 Yıldız, M. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1874

    1978 doi

  59. [68]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 2029, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt028

    Yildiz, M., & Doğan, T. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2029, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt028

    2013 doi

  60. [69]

    2022, NewA, 91, 101695, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2021.101695

    Yu, Y.-X., Li, Q., Huang, H.-P., Hu, K., & Xiang, F.-Y. 2022, NewA, 91, 101695, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2021.101695

    2022

  61. [70]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 4112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa079

    Zhang, X.-D., Qian, S.-B., & Liao, W.-P. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa079

    2020 doi

  62. [71]

    B., Essam, A., He, J

    Zhou, X., Qian, S. B., Essam, A., He, J. J., & Zhang, B. 2016a, NewA, 47, 3, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2015.12.012

    2015 doi

  63. [72]

    B., Zhang, J., Zhang, B., & Kreiner, J

    Zhou, X., Qian, S. B., Zhang, J., Zhang, B., & Kreiner, J. 2016b, AJ, 151, 67, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/67

    doi

  64. [73]

    2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 68, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/16/4/068

    Zhu, L.-Y., Zhao, E.-G., & Zhou, X. 2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 68, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/16/4/068

    2016 doi

  65. [74]

    M., et al

    Zwitter, T., Munari, U., Marrese, P. M., et al. 2003, A&A, 404, 333, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030446 14 APPENDIX Figure A1.The possible posterior distributions ofq,a,V γ and fitting curve of radial velocity of TIC 267043786.Vγ represents the radial velocity of the system. Figu...

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.