4.6 Article

Double- and Triple-line Spectroscopic Candidates in the LAMOST Medium-Resolution Spectroscopic Survey

期刊

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac22a8

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2019YFA0405502]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [12090040, 12090042, 12090044, 11833002, 11833006, 12022304, 11973052, 11973042, U1931102]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences and Alibaba Cloud
  4. Youth Innovation Promotion Association, Chinese Academy of Sciences [2019060]
  5. NAOC Nebula Talents Program
  6. National Development and Reform Commission
  7. Astronomical Big Data Joint Research Center
  8. National Astronomical Observatories

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The LAMOST Medium-Resolution Spectroscopic Survey (LAMOST-MRS) has provided a unique opportunity to detect multiline spectroscopic systems. Through analysis of over 1.3 million LAMOST DR7 MRS blue-arm spectra, 3133 spectroscopic binary (SB) and 132 spectroscopic triple (ST) candidates were identified, with over 95% being newly discovered. Interestingly, all ST candidates were found to be on the main sequence, while around 10% of the SB candidates may have components on the red giant branch.
The LAMOST Medium-Resolution Spectroscopic Survey (LAMOST-MRS) provides an unprecedented opportunity for detecting multiline spectroscopic systems. Based on the cross correlation function and successive derivatives, we search for spectroscopic binaries and triples and derive their radial velocities (RVs) from the LAMOST-MRS spectra. A Monte Carlo simulation is adopted to estimate the RV uncertainties. After examining over 1.3 million LAMOST DR7 MRS blue-arm spectra, we obtain 3133 spectroscopic binary (SB) and 132 spectroscopic triple (ST) candidates, which account for 1.2% of the LAMOST-MRS stars. Over 95% of the candidates are newly discovered. It is found that all of the ST candidates are on the main sequence, while around 10% of the SB candidates may have one or two components on the red giant branch.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据