Eclipse timing variations in post-common envelope binaries: Are they a reliable indicator of circumbinary companions?
D. Pulley, I. D. Sharp, J. Mallett, S. von Harrach

TL;DR
This study critically evaluates the reliability of eclipse timing variations as indicators of circumbinary planets in post-common envelope binaries, revealing many proposed models fail to predict eclipse times accurately and suggesting alternative mechanisms like magnetic effects may be influential.
Contribution
The paper provides a detailed analysis of seven post-common envelope binary systems, testing existing circumbinary planet models and exploring alternative causes for eclipse timing variations.
Findings
Most models fail to predict eclipse times beyond a year
Magnetic effects may significantly influence ETVs in some systems
The systems' complex dynamics are not fully understood
Abstract
Post-common envelope binary systems evolve when matter is transferred from the primary star at a rate that cannot be accommodated by its secondary companion. A common envelope forms which is subsequently ejected resulting in a system with a binary period frequently between 2 and 3 hours. Where circumbinary companions are predicted, it remains unclear whether they form before or after the common envelope ejection. From observations of eclipse time variations (ETVs), exoplanet databases e.g. NASA Exoplanet Archive, list typically a dozen systems with confirmed circumbinary planets. Here we examine seven of these systems, discuss other possible causes and consider whether, for these dynamic systems, the ETV methodology is a reliable indicator of planetary companions. The systems selected were those where we could determine precise eclipse timings, free from significant extraneous effects…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
