J/MNRAS/455/4136 Kepler triples (Borkovits+, 2016)
A comprehensive study of the Kepler triples via eclipse timing.
Borkovits T., Hajdu T., Sztakovics J., Rappaport S., Levine A., Biro I.B.,
Klagyivik P.
<Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 455, 4136-4165 (2016)>
=2016MNRAS.455.4136B 2016MNRAS.455.4136B (SIMBAD/NED BibCode)
ADC_Keywords: Stars, double and multiple ; Binaries, eclipsing
Keywords: methods: analytical - binaries: close - binaries: eclipsing -
binaries: general
Abstract:
We produce and analyse eclipse time variation (ETV) curves for some
2600 Kepler binaries. We find good to excellent evidence for a
third body in 222 systems via either the light-travel-time (LTTE) or
dynamical effect delays. Approximately half of these systems have been
discussed in previous work, while the rest are newly reported here.
Via detailed analysis of the ETV curves using high-level analytic
approximations, we are able to extract system masses and information
about the three-dimensional characteristics of the triple for 62
systems which exhibit both LTTE and dynamical delays; for the
remaining 160 systems, we give improved LTTE solutions. New techniques
of pre-processing the flux time series are applied to eliminate false
positive triples and to enhance the ETV curves. The set of triples
with outer orbital periods shorter than ∼2000d is now sufficiently
numerous for meaningful statistical analysis. We find that (i) there
is a peak near im≃40° in the distribution of the triple
versus inner binary mutual inclination angles that provides strong
confirmation of the operation of Kozai-Lidov cycles with tidal
friction; (ii) the median eccentricity of the third-body orbits is
e2=0.35; (iii) there is a deficit of triple systems with
binary periods ≲1d and outer periods between ∼50 and 200d which
might help guide the refinement of theories of the formation and
evolution of close binaries; and (iv) the substantial fraction of
Kepler binaries which have third-body companions is consistent with a
very large fraction of all binaries being part of triples.
Description:
We have carried out eclipse time variation (ETV) analyses for the
complete EB sample of the original Kepler mission.
File Summary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FileName Lrecl Records Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReadMe 80 . This file
table2.dat 118 230 Properties of the investigated systems
table3.dat 159 38 Orbital elements from LTTE solutions for systems,
where more than two outer periods are covered,
or/and triply eclipsing systems
table4.dat 159 64 Orbital elements from LTTE solutions which cover
more than one but less than two outer periods
table5.dat 159 58 Orbital elements from LTTE solutions which cover
less than a full period
table6.dat 173 31 Orbital elements from combined dynamical and LTTE
solutions for systems, where more than two outer
periods are covered, or/and triply eclipsing systems
table7.dat 173 14 Orbital elements from combined dynamical and LTTE
solutions which cover more than one but less
than two outer periods
table8.dat 173 17 Orbital elements from combined dynamical and LTTE
solutions which cover less than a full outer period
table9.dat 159 16 Orbital elements from LTTE solutions for systems
which probably are oscillating variables instead
of binaries (i.e. false positive EBs)
table10.dat 174 66 Apsidal motion and/or orientation parameters
from AME and dynamical fits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
V/133 : Kepler Input Catalog (Kepler Mission Team, 2009)
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table2.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 8 I8 --- KIC KIC number
9 A1 --- n_KIC [ab] Note on KIC (1)
11- 20 A10 --- Type Light-curve classifications according to the
classical eclipsing binary typology
(see, e.g., Kallrath & Milone 2009) (2)
23- 26 F4.2 --- Morph ?=- Light-curve classification according to
the recently introduced morphology of
Matijevic et al. (2012AJ....143..123M 2012AJ....143..123M)
28- 40 F13.7 d T0 Epoch used for plotting O-C curves
42- 53 F12.8 d P1 Sidereal period used for plotting O-C curves
54- 57 A4 --- n_P1 [(/2) ] Note on P1
59- 62 F4.1 mag Kepmag Kepler magnitude from Kepler Input Catalog
(Batalha et al., 2010ApJ...713L.109B 2010ApJ...713L.109B)
64- 68 I5 d Lenght ?=- Data length
70- 73 I4 d Lenght2 ? Second data length
76- 83 A8 --- ETV/QTV Numbers of calculated ETV and QTV curves (3)
85- 89 A5 --- Fcurve Fitted curves (4)
93- 99 A7 --- Ftype Fit type (5)
101-105 A5 --- Tab Location of the solution of the
given system (6)
107-118 A12 --- Ref References (7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): Notes as follows:
a = True period is twice that given in the Villanova Catalog
b = HAT, ASAS, SWASP minima were omitted
Note (2): E3 refers to tertiary eclipse(s) in the light curve
Kallrath & Milone, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, Eclipsing Binary
Stars: Modeling and Analysis. 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag; New York; 2009.
Note (3): If both ETVs and/or QTVs were obtained, their average and
(half-difference) curves were also determined. In the cases where we used
local smoothing polynomials on the light curves, this is denoted by putting
sN after the ETV number, where N gives the order of the smoothing polynomial
Note (4): Fitted curves abbreviations in as follows:
p = primary
s = secondary
a = averaged ETV curves
e = ground-based times of minima were also included
Note (5): Fit type abbreviations as follows:
l = LTTE
a = AME (noted separately only for non-d-type solutions)
d = dynamical
q = quadratic
c = cubic
Parentheses in this column indicate that two types of fits were performed;
the unparenthesized terms were included in both fits while the term(s) in
parentheses were included in only the less preferred fit
Note (6): Location of the solution of the given system in one of
Tables 3-5, 6-8, and 9 (L1-L3 for pure LTTE, D1-D3 for combined LTTE and
dynamical, and F for false positive systems, respectively).
Note (7): References as follows:
1 = Gies et al. (2012, Cat. J/AJ/143/137)
2 = Rappaport et al. (2013ApJ...768...33R 2013ApJ...768...33R)
3 = Conroy et al. (2014, Cat. J/AJ/147/45)
4 = Borkovits et al. (2015MNRAS.448..946B 2015MNRAS.448..946B)
5 = Orosz (2015, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 496, p. 55)
6 = Zasche et al. (2015, Cat. J/AJ/149/197)
7 = Tran et al. (2013ApJ...774...81T 2013ApJ...774...81T)
8 = Conroy et al. (2015IBVS.6138....1C 2015IBVS.6138....1C)
9 = Armstrong et al. (2012A&A...545L...4A 2012A&A...545L...4A)
10 = Lee et al. (2013ApJ...763...74L 2013ApJ...763...74L)
11 = Marsh, Armstrong & Carter (2014MNRAS.445..309M 2014MNRAS.445..309M)
12 = Lee et al. (2014, Cat. J/AJ/148/37)
13 = Gaulme et al. (2013ApJ...767...82G 2013ApJ...767...82G)
14 = Lee et al. (2015, Cat. J/AJ/149/93)
15 = Carter et al. (2011Sci...331..562C 2011Sci...331..562C)
16 = Borkovits et al. (2013, Cat. J/MNRAS/428/1656)
17 = Masuda, Uehara & Kawahara (2015ApJ...806L..37M 2015ApJ...806L..37M)
18 = Fabrycky et al. (in preparation)
19 = Steffen et al. (2011MNRAS.417L..31S 2011MNRAS.417L..31S)
20 = Baran et al. (2015A&A...577A.146B 2015A&A...577A.146B)
21 = Liska (2014IBVS.6119....1L 2014IBVS.6119....1L)
22 = Csizmadia & Sandor (2001IBVS.5045....1C 2001IBVS.5045....1C)
23 = Gies et al. (2015, Cat. J/AJ/143/137)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table[3459].dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 8 I8 --- KIC KIC number
9 A1 --- u_KIC Uncertainty flag on KIC
10 A1 --- n_KIC [abcd] Note on KIC (1)
12- 21 F10.8 d P1 Inner orbital period
23- 27 I5 10-8d e_P1 rms uncertainty on P1
29- 37 F9.3 10-10d DP1 ?=- ΔP1 parameter (2)
38- 43 F6.3 10-10d e_DP1 ? rms uncertainty on DP1
45- 51 F7.2 d P2 Outer orbital period
52- 58 F7.2 d e_P2 rms uncertainty on P2
61- 66 F6.2 Rsun asin(i2) Projected semimajor axis of the LTTE orbit
of the binary, aABsin(i2), where i2 is
the inclination of the wide orbit
67- 72 F6.2 Rsun e_asin(i2) rms uncertainty on asin(i2)
74- 78 F5.3 --- e2 Median eccentricity of the third-body orbit
80- 83 F4.3 --- e_e2 rms uncertainty on e2
87- 91 F5.1 deg omega2 Outer argument of periastron
93- 97 F5.1 deg e_omega2 rms uncertainty on omega2
100-104 I5 d tau2 Outer epoch (BJD)
106-108 I3 d e_tau2 rms uncertainty on tau2
111-121 F11.9 Msun f(mC) Mass function of the third companion
122-132 F11.9 Msun e_f(mC) rms uncertainty on f(mC)
135-140 F6.4 Msun (mC)min Minimal mass of the third companion
143-148 F6.4 --- Aratio ?=- Ratio of the amplitudes of the dynamical
and LTTE contributions, Adyn/ALTTE
151-154 F4.2 Msun mAB Mass of the AB components (inner binary)
156-158 F3.2 Msun e_mAB ? rms uncertainty on mAB
159 A1 --- u_mAB [:] Uncertainty flag on mAB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): Note as follows:
a = Cubic ephemeris - c3 = 1.84(3)x10-12 d/c3
b = Cubic ephemeris - c3 = 3x10-16 d/c3
c = Cubic ephemeris - c3 = 2.57(6)x10-12 d/c3
d = Cubic ephemeris - c3 = -0.058(2)x10-12 d/c3
Note (2): We define ΔP1 in terms of the quadratic coefficient as
ΔP1=2c2 which is the change in binary orbital period per orbital
cycle (units of [d/c]).
The usual orbital period derivative is given by dP1/dt~=2c2/P1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table[678].dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 8 I8 --- KIC KIC number
9 A1 --- u_KIC Uncertainty flag on KIC
10 A1 --- n_KIC [ac] Note on KIC (1)
11- 22 F12.8 d P1 Inner orbital period
24- 28 I5 10-8d e_P1 ? rms uncertainty on P1
30- 38 F9.3 d P2 ?=- Outer orbital period
39- 46 F8.3 d e_P2 ? rms uncertainty on P2
47- 52 F6.1 Rsun a2 Outer semi-major axis
54- 58 F5.1 Rsun e_a2 rms uncertainty on a2
61- 66 F6.4 --- e2 Median eccentricity of the third-body orbit
67- 72 F6.4 --- e_e2 ? rms uncertainty on e2
75- 79 F5.1 deg omega2 ?=- Outer argument of periastron
81- 84 F4.1 deg e_omega2 ? rms uncertainty on omega2
87- 94 F8.2 d tau2 ?=- Outer epoch (BJD)
95-100 F6.2 d e_tau2 ? rms uncertainty on tau2
103-113 F11.9 Msun f(mC) Mass function of the third companion
115-124 F10.9 Msun e_f(mC) ? rms uncertainty on f(mC)
127-133 F7.5 --- mC/mABC Mass ratio
135-140 F6.5 --- e_mC/mABC rms uncertainty on mC/mABC
143-147 F5.3 Msun mAB Mass of the AB components
149-153 F5.3 Msun e_mAB ? rms uncertainty on mAB
156-161 F6.4 Msun mC Mass of the third companion
162-167 F6.4 Msun e_mC rms uncertainty on mC
168-173 F6.2 --- Aratio Ratio of the amplitudes of the dynamical
and LTTE contributions, Adyn/ALTTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): Note as follows:
a = From photodynamical solution of Carter et al. (2011).
b = Combination of ETV, radial velocity, and light-curve solution of
Borkovits et al. (2013).
c = Cubic ephemeris: {DELTA}P=-30(4)x10-10d/c, c3=1.09(6)x10-12d/c3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table10.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 8 I8 --- KIC KIC number
10- 20 F11.7 d Panom Anomalistic period
22- 29 F8.7 d e_Panom rms uncertainty on Panom
33- 39 F7.2 Rsun a1 ?=- Semi-major axis
41- 45 F5.2 Rsun e_a1 ?=- rms uncertainty on a1
49- 55 F7.5 --- e1 Eccentricity
57- 62 F6.5 --- e_e1 ? rms uncertainty on e1
64 A1 --- n_e1 [b] Note on e1 (1)
66- 72 F7.3 deg omega1 ?=- Inner argument of periastron
74- 79 F6.3 deg e_omega1 ? rms uncertainty on omega1
82- 91 F10.4 d tau1 ?=- Inner epoch (MJD)
93- 99 F7.4 d e_tau1 ? rms uncertainty on tau1
103-111 F9.2 yr Papse ?=- Apsidal period
113-120 F8.2 yr e_Papse ?=- rms uncertainty on Paspe
121-125 F5.1 deg im ?=- Mutual (relative) inclination
126 A1 --- n_im [ac] Note on im (1)
127-130 F4.1 deg e_im ? rms uncertainty on im
134-137 F4.1 deg i1 ?=- Inner observable inclination
139-141 F3.1 deg e_i1 ? rms uncertainty on i1
143-147 F5.1 deg i2 ?=- Outer observable inclination
149-155 F7.2 deg DOMEGA ?=- Ascending node {DELTA}{OMEGA}
({OMEGA}2-{OMEGA}1)
157-161 F5.2 deg e_DOMEGA ? rms uncertainty on DOMEGA
164-171 F8.1 yr Pnode ?=- Node period
173-174 I2 yr e_Pnode ? rms uncertainty on Pnode
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): Notes as follows:
a = Adjusted mutual inclination resulted in im=25±2° which would lead to
{DELTA}i1∼1° during Kepler observations and consequently,
significant eclipse depth variations which is not the case
b = e1 was kept fixed on the radial velocity solution result of
Fabrycky et al. (in preparation)
c = Adjusted mutual inclination resulted in im=23±2° which would lead to
{DELTA}i1∼1.7° during Kepler observations and consequently,
significant eclipse depth variations which is not the case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History:
From electronic version of the journal
(End) Patricia Vannier [CDS] 29-Jul-2016