1. Home
  2. Forums
  3. About the AAVSO
  4. VSX

DPV/EA and DPV/EB

rachlin
Affiliation
American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO)
Wed, 10/25/2023 - 16:40

Hi everyone -

I listed below some VSX records below involving unusual subtypes.

For DPV-type variables, the AAVSO documentation on variable types [1] mentions DPV/ELL (ellipsoidal) and DPV/E (eclipsing) but doesn't explicitly call out DPV/EA or DPV/EB.  What is the correct interpretation?   Could it equivalently be DPV/E+EA or DPV/E+EB?

Also, unrelated, but possible typo (?) for oid=237633.  I'm guessing that should read LMXB/XR.

3067    DPV/EA    LP Ara
5280    DPV/EA    DD CMa
7792    DPV/EA    V0495 Cen
9483    DPV/EA    BF Cir
18902    DPV/EA    AU Mon
20153    DPV/EA    GK Nor
31842    DPV/EA    V4142 Sgr
33209    DPV/EA    V0393 Sco
33409    DPV/EA    V0593 Sco
37555    DPV/EA    DQ Vel
83457    DPV/EA    V0451 CMa
121224    DPV/EA    ASAS J212959-2300.1
237633    LMXB/R    AX J1845.0-0433
449604    DPV/EA    GDS_J1630570-510306
689898    DPV/EB    MNIC V99
1217251    DPV/EA    OGLE-BLG-ECL-157529

Source: [1]  https://www.aavso.org/vsx/index.php?view=about.vartypes

Thank you for your continued guidance and insights.

John Rachlin (RJOJ)

 

Sebastian Otero
Affiliation
American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO)
Wed, 10/25/2023 - 20:10
DPV (my favourite variability type ;) )

Hi John,

It is correct to define DPV/E as the class because E stands for "eclipsing systems" and EB and EA are subtypes of eclipsing binaries. The definition says they are semi-detached interacting binaries so that excludes EW.

DPV/E+EA or DPV/E+EB are incorrect. They are redundant. EA and EB are subtypes of E, if you go to the E definition, you will see that E is just an eclipsing binary when a subtype has not been defined.
The way you show them, with the "+" symbol, implies that the system is triple or quadruple, with two different sets of eclipses, one without a subtype and one with a subtype. And I know that you don't mean that.

The LMXB/R, should be LMXB/XR, yes, but the period found when that type was determined wasn't correct so I just removed that subtype.

Cheers,
Sebastian

rachlin
Affiliation
American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO)
Thu, 10/26/2023 - 06:29
More VSX Oddities and Typos

Thanks so much Sebastian.  By the way, by parsing through the 2.3 million VSX records and trying to match with the AAVSO types documentation, I've been finding other possible typos and oddities.  Some of these might be perfectly valid, not sure.  I can send you OIDs if helpful.

  • DIP is a subtype but assigned as the main type.
     
  • Minor planet (13), Minor Planet (1), Galaxy (116) not yet mentioned in "OTHER OBJECTS" Section - Note my code is case sensitive!
     
  • Possible typos (occurrences in parenthesis):  

    Sr instead of SR (3)
    PUL instead of PULS (3)
    RRc instead of RRC (4)
    SNIa-pec instead of SN Ia-pec (11)
    SNIIn-pec instead of SN IIn-pec (1)
    LPB instead of LPV (or LB?) (1)
    SXPXE: (1) - probably SXPHE:    (OID = 2216507)
     
  • Also:
    NON-CV (29) - listed as "non-cv" in documentation
    ACVO (1) - should be roAp I believe (ACVO being the older GCVS type)
    GAL (1)  - should be AGN ?
    RPHS (5) - should be V361HYA ?
     
  • <NULL> / empty / no type given (9118).   - Most of these are NSV (8628) - Would "VAR" be correct?


 

 

Sebastian Otero
Affiliation
American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO)
Fri, 11/10/2023 - 20:35
More inconsistencies

Hi John,

remarks on your findings:

  • DIP is a subtype but assigned as the main type.

In a few cases it can't be proved that some of the objects showing dips are YSOs, so for those, the DIP subtype has been used as the type.

  • Minor planet (13), Minor Planet (1), Galaxy (116) not yet mentioned in "OTHER OBJECTS" Section - Note my code is case sensitive!

Well, these are not variable at all, just erroneous reports, and as such they are not even actual types, what you see here is a word describing what they are.

  • Possible typos (occurrences in parenthesis):  

    Sr instead of SR (3)
    PUL instead of PULS (3)
    RRc instead of RRC (4)
    SNIa-pec instead of SN Ia-pec (11)
    SNIIn-pec instead of SN IIn-pec (1)

I will pass these ones to Patrick, it might be better to correct them in groups instead of one by one.

  • LPB instead of LPV (or LB?) (1)

LPB is the way the GCVS Team call the SPB type so I will edit it (UPDATED: it was an ELL not an SPB).

  • SXPXE: (1) - probably SXPHE:    (OID = 2216507)

Sure. I will update it.

  • Also:
    NON-CV (29) - listed as "non-cv" in documentation
    ACVO (1) - should be roAp I believe (ACVO being the older GCVS type)

Yes. I will update it.

  • GAL (1)  - should be AGN ?

GAL = Galaxy. But it was a variable AGN so it was revised.

Yes. Sent to Patrick.

  • <NULL> / empty / no type given (9118).   - Most of these are NSV (8628) - Would "VAR" be correct?

No, we don't even know what they are. They might be spurious at all. We just took the types from the original NSV catalogue.
The new version of the catalogue may have better data. It is in the lists of catalogues that we are updating so probably the number of such entries will decrease in the future.

Thanks for listing these issues, it is really useful ;)

Best wishes,
Sebastian