Physical Properties of Three Eclipsing Binaries of V Crt, WY Cnc and CG Cyg with Radio Radiation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main problem of this paper is that the written description in the paper does not seem to convey what the authors have achieved by their work. I cannot judge the science until the writing and description are improved significantly. 

Here are my comments on the first half of the paper (without improved description, I cannot review the rest of the paper). 

review of Universe-1868951: 

Physical properties of three eclipsing binaries of V Crt, WY Cnc and CG Cyg with radio radiation

 

General assessment: 

The description (including English language grammar) needs improvement in several places (including the ones specified below). The improvements must be done in order to review the paper properly.

 

Detailed notes/corrections: 

Line 7: "orbital minimum"

Line 8: please keep only significant digits i.e. "2.8+-2.1" etc

Line 17: radio emission probes do not include basic stellar parameters (these are best probed in optical)- the rest of the sentence is correct. 

Line 50 spelling "astronomers".

Line 64: please explain the meaning of "using more 64 minimum fit"?

Line 69: please specify "optical telescope" also this should be in the abstract.

Table 1: you  must reference Wendker et al in the Table heading for the source of this data.

Line 77: please give the electronic link here for the full table 1.

Figure 1: caption should say "top" and "bottom" panels.

Line 78: "different types"

Line 85 and Figure 2 are unnecessary and should be omitted.

Line 88: which category does V Crt fall into? If none, please revise Fig.1b.

Figure 3: please list which data were taken with which telescope in the caption.

Line 107: "minimum light"

Table 2: This data does not seem useful: what does magnitude mean for a variable star; the comparison and check stars require magnitudes for all cases. What parts of the Table 2 are in the references? If all comes from the references, then omit the table (not the references).

Table 3 and Lines 103-104: you need to explain what is in Table 3: Fig. 3 data consists of many points (it looks like about a few hundred to a thousand) but Table 3 only contains 11 different times??. The caption of Table 3 needs to explain what is in the Table. 

 

Author Response

The main problem of this paper is that the written description in the paper does not seem to convey what the authors have achieved by their work. I cannot judge the science until the writing and description are improved significantly. 

Here are my comments on the first half of the paper (without improved description, I cannot review the rest of the paper). 

review of Universe-1868951: Physical properties of three eclipsing binaries of V Crt, WY Cnc and CG Cyg with radio radiation

 General assessment: The description (including English language grammar) needs improvement in several places (including the ones specified below). The improvements must be done in order to review the paper properly.

 Dear Reviewers

 Reply: Thank you for your perfect comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We agreed with all your comments on the first half and second half of our manuscript. We revised all of them. Here we send you our revised form of our manuscript again. We are sorry for our poor English writing. Now we used an English language editing service of Editage by CACTUS (https://www.editage.com/ It is a brand of Cactus Communications, offers professional English language editing and publication support services to authors engaged in over 500 areas of research) to revise our paper again. Thank you.

 

Best Wishes

LIyun Zhang

 

Detailed notes/corrections: 

Line 7: "orbital minimum"

Reply: We revised it.

Line 8: please keep only significant digits i.e. "2.8+-2.1" etc

Reply: We revised it.

Line 17: radio emission probes do not include basic stellar parameters (these are best probed in optical)- the rest of the sentence is correct. 

Reply: We deleted the stellar parameters.

 

Line 50 spelling "astronomers".

Reply: We revised it.

Line 64: please explain the meaning of "using more 64 minimum fit"?

We revised more minimum fit to by fitting the light curve minimum.

Line 69: please specify "optical telescope" also this should be in the abstract.

Reply: We revised all of them.

Table 1: you must reference Wendker et al in the Table heading for the source of this data.

Reply: We added the reference (Wendker et al ) in the Table heading.

Line 77: please give the electronic link here for the full table 1.

Reply: We submitted the table in the journal. It will be published after our manuscript accepted by the journal.

Figure 1: caption should say "top" and "bottom" panels.

Reply: We revised all of them.

Line 78: "different types"

Reply: We revised all of them.

Line 85 and Figure 2 are unnecessary and should be omitted.

Reply: We deleted the sentence and Figure 2.

Line 88: which category does V Crt fall into? If none, please revise Fig.1b.

Reply: V Crt is one of the semi-detached binary and belonged to the Beta lyr binary. Thank you

Figure 3: please list which data were taken with which telescope in the caption.

Reply: We added the information of the telescope in the Figures.

Line 107: "minimum light"

We revised the minimum values to the values of light minimum time.

Table 2: This data does not seem useful: what does magnitude mean for a variable star; the comparison and check stars require magnitudes for all cases. What parts of the Table 2 are in the references? If all comes from the references, then omit the table (not the references).

Reply: We agreed with your points. The magnitude of a variable star is the brightness of a certain moment from the photometric survey or the brightest magnitude. All the magnitude are from the references. Therefore, we deleted the Table 2.

Table 3 and Lines 103-104: you need to explain what is in Table 3: Fig. 3 data consists of many points (it looks like about a few hundred to a thousand) but Table 3 only contains 11 different times??. The caption of Table 3 needs to explain what is in the Table. 

Reply:

Reply: We added that we only gave some examples of our observational data. Meanwhile, HJD means Heliocentric Julian Date. We revised the title to “Some examples of the observational Heliocentric Julian Date (HJD) and different magnitude of V Crt, WY Cnc and CG Cyg.”. Moreover, we also added the note that we only listed some part of the observational data. All data are available in the online journal.

End

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper discusses radio observations of three binary systems. It is clear that the authors have done a lot of work, but it is not presented clearly as one would expect from a scientific paper. In other words, the paper is not well written and needs extensive changes in its style and quality of explanations. It is difficult to read the explanations, and the text does not provide enough information to follow what the authors had done.

Since so many details are missing it is difficult to assess the scientific soundness of the results. I give some examples in the following but it is essentially true for almost all the parts of the paper.

Overall I do see a potential for improvement but I think the paper can use professional scientific and language editing.

 

Some more specific comments:

 

Section 1:

It would have been nice to add an HR diagram with the stars discussed.

 

In Section 2 the authors write: "Figure 2 shows the relation between radio fluxes at 8400MHz and 4860 MHz. It seems that there is the weak linear relation of radio radiation between different frequencies."

Looking at Figure 2 I don't see such a relation and the fitted line looks forced. The authors don't mention the quality of the fit which judging from the data points is obviously very bad.

I therefore strongly suggest to remove the fitted line and the above sentences from the paper.

 

Figure 3:

This figure requires a lot more explanation then given. I see from the legends that the different model are related to fitting spots on the primary and secondary. This requires a detailed explanation in the text. How was the spot fitted? What are the assumptions? What is the quality of the fit? What free parameters? Which algorithm or code was used and how?

The figure itself is also too busy and better be split into 3 figures, one for each star.

 

Section 3.1:

The equations are not explained in a conventional way. There is no need to repeat the numbers twice. You can use coefficients for that.

Repeating the numbers leads to mistakes:

Eq. 2 shows "0.269(±0.206) × 10−11 E2"

But the following text:

"where 0.269(±0.003) × 10−11 is a quadratic coefficient".

So which error is the correct one?

 

The fit to V Crt looks very bad.

It is used to conclude that the rate of increase of the orbital period is "2.8(±2.1) × 10−9 d yr−1".

This is very bad by itself, but there is another problem:

what is the nature of the stated error? 1sigma? 2sigma?

I don't think the fit is good and can be used to conclude anything. I am sure one can make other fits and get into different conclusions.

 

Tables 3 and 9 are cut out of the page and are impossible to read.

 

Section 4:

This is the better section of the paper. Still it lacks details.

For example, when they write dM1/dt = 3.92(±3.00) × 10−9 M yr−1, what does the error represent? This is a large error. Is it meaningful?

 

The third body explanation is not convincing, and so is the magnetic cycle. The authors don't actually show any observationally supported evidence for any of these models.

 

Figures 5 and 6: Very nice figures with explanations but could benefit from  longer captions. Looks like the authors are experts of the spot fitting procedures but more explanations would have helped. In figure 5 it is not explained, for example, how the sizes and the locations of the spots were determined. Is it the solution found by the authors better than other solutions? Could two spots instead of one significantly improve the results?

 

Section 5 and figure 8: I don't see the point in discussing the FAST future plans in this paper. It is seems not so related, so I suggest to remove it.

 

I will stop here but as I wrote above the paper needs some work and more clear and detailed explanations before I can recommend it for publication.

 

Minor:

The citations style is inconsistent. In some places the authors are mentions while in other only the reference number.

Define the abbreviation CB (circum-binary).

There are some places where the constellation names are in lower case letter (cnc for example).

Fig1: The panels are vertical, there is no left or right panel. Correct the caption.

Line 86 is one word on the top of the page. Looks weird; better move it to somewhere else.

Table 5: Abbreviations are not defined.

Author Response

The paper discusses radio observations of three binary systems. It is clear that the authors have done a lot of work, but it is not presented clearly as one would expect from a scientific paper. In other words, the paper is not well written and needs extensive changes in its style and quality of explanations. It is difficult to read the explanations, and the text does not provide enough information to follow what the authors had done. Since so many details are missing it is difficult to assess the scientific soundness of the results. I give some examples in the following but it is essentially true for almost all the parts of the paper.

Dear Reviewers

   Reply: Thank you for your perfect comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We agreed with all your comments. We revised all of them. Here we send you our revised form of our manuscript again.

Overall I do see a potential for improvement but I think the paper can use professional scientific and language editing.

 Reply: We are sorry for our poor English writing. Now we used an English language editing service of Editage by CACTUS (https://www.editage.com/ It is a brand of Cactus Communications, offers professional English language editing and publication support services to authors engaged in over 500 areas of research) to revise our paper again. Thank you.

 

Some more specific comments:

 Section 1:

It would have been nice to add an HR diagram with the stars discussed.

 Reply: we added the HR diagram in the section 5. Thank you.

In Section 2 the authors write: "Figure 2 shows the relation between radio fluxes at 8400MHz and 4860 MHz. It seems that there is the weak linear relation of radio radiation between different frequencies." Looking at Figure 2 I don't see such a relation and the fitted line looks forced. The authors don't mention the quality of the fit which judging from the data points is obviously very bad. I therefore strongly suggest to remove the fitted line and the above sentences from the paper.

 Reply: We agreed with your points. We deleted the Figure 2 and the sentences about that in our paper.

Figure 3:

This figure requires a lot more explanation then given. I see from the legends that the different model are related to fitting spots on the primary and secondary. This requires a detailed explanation in the text. How was the spot fitted? What are the assumptions? What is the quality of the fit? What free parameters?

We assumed the shape of the spot is circular. The spot longitude, radius and temperature are the free parameters. We adjusted the starspot parameters until they converge. We used the weighted sum of squares of the residual between the theoretical and observed light curves to judge the best results. We added them in our manuscript.

Which algorithm or code was used and how?

Reply: We used the updated 2014 Wilson-Devinney program (Wilson & Devinney 1971; Wilson 1979; Wilson 1990 1994;)_to revise the orbital parameters of the eclipsing binaries. The Wilson-Devinney program is the most widely used for light curve modeling codes to obtain the stellar parameters and starspot parameters of eclipsing binary. They used the different correction program for parameter adjustment of the observed light and velocity curves by the lease squares criterion, then produce the corresponding theoretical curves.

The figure itself is also too busy and better be split into 3 figures, one for each star.

 Reply: we divide them to three figures.

Section 3.1:

The equations are not explained in a conventional way. There is no need to repeat the numbers twice. You can use coefficients for that. Repeating the numbers leads to mistakes:

Eq. 2 shows "0.269(±0.206) × 10−11 E2" But the following text: "where 0.269(±0.003) × 10−11 is a quadratic coefficient". So which error is the correct one?

Reply: We delete the repeated the second number. 0.206 is right.

 The fit to V Crt looks very bad.

Reply: We agreed with your points that the fit to V Crt looks very bad. We reduce the tone about the period variation. It seems that there might be a very weak upward polynomial variation for V Crt.

It is used to conclude that the rate of increase of the orbital period is "2.8(±2.1) × 10−9 d yr−1". This is very bad by itself, but there is another problem:

what is the nature of the stated error? 1sigma? 2sigma?

Reply: It’s the 1 sigma. We added them in our manuscript.

I don't think the fit is good and can be used to conclude anything. I am sure one can make other fits and get into different conclusions.

 Reply: We agreed with your points that the fit to V Crt looks very bad. We reduce the tone about the period variation. If you do not agree with that, we will delete them in the next format.

Tables 3 and 9 are cut out of the page and are impossible to read.

Reply: We revised the Tables 3 and 9, and checked other Tables. Now all the tables are in space of our text of manuscript.

Section 4:

This is the better section of the paper. Still it lacks details.

For example, when they write dM1/dt = 3.92(±3.00) × 10−9 M yr−1, what does the error represent? This is a large error. Is it meaningful?
Reply: We agreed with your points about the fitting of period variation of V Crt. It’s the 1 sigma. The larger error means the period variation is very weak. Therefore we only gave the rate of mass transfer with large error. We mark them in our manuscript.

 

The third body explanation is not convincing, and so is the magnetic cycle. The authors don't actually show any observationally supported evidence for any of these models.
Reply: We agreed with your points. There are no direct evidences for the third based on our observation of the telescopes. Therefore, we prefer the magnetic activity cycle than a third body to explain the cyclic variations. However, we cannot rule out that these variations might be caused by the third body. New telescope imaging technology are required to check that in the future.

 Figures 5 and 6: Very nice figures with explanations but could benefit from longer captions. Looks like the authors are experts of the spot fitting procedures but more explanations would have helped. In figure 5 it is not explained, for example, how the sizes and the locations of the spots were determined.

Reply: The spot longitude is determined from the center of the light curve distortion. The spot radius is estimated by the fitting the observed light curve. Since the spot size is correlated with the stellar temperature, and the spot latitude is correlated with spot radius. We have to adjust the spot parameters for many runs to find the converge solutions. Finally, we obtained the best solution with the lowest sum of squares of the residual between the theoretical and observed light curves. We added them in our manuscript.

Is it the solution found by the authors better than other solutions?

Reply: We used the weighted sum of squares of the residual between the theoretical and observed light curves to judge the best results. We added them in our manuscript.

Could two spots instead of one significantly improve the results?

Reply: Firstly, we used one spot to explain the observed light curve. If there are two light curve distortions, we will use two spots to explain the light curve distortions. For our light curve, we also tried to use two spots to explain the light curve distortion. However, there are no significantly improvements of the residual. We added them in our manuscript.

Section 5 and figure 8: I don't see the point in discussing the FAST future plans in this paper. It is seems not so related, so I suggest to remove it.

 Reply: We only gave the radio observational plan of radio eclipsing binaries. More the radio emission of eclipsing binary is one of scientific goal of FAST radio telescope. If the FAST observe it, it will cite our paper. I hope retain some part of them. We simplified them from two paragraphs to only small paragraph, and delete the Figure 8. If you don’t agree with that, we will delete all of them in the next format.

I will stop here but as I wrote above the paper needs some work and more clear and detailed explanations before I can recommend it for publication.

 Reply: Thank you for your hard work again. We revised all of them.

Minor:

The citations style is inconsistent. In some places the authors are mentions while in other only the reference number.

Reply: We checked our citation and revised our manuscript.

Define the abbreviation CB (circum-binary).

Reply: It is circumbinary. We revised them.

There are some places where the constellation names are in lower case letter (cnc for example

Reply: We checked all of them (WY Cnc, V Crt and CG Cyg) and revied all of them.

Fig1: The panels are vertical, there is no left or right panel. Correct the caption.

Reply: We revised the left and right to top and bottom panel. Thank you.

Line 86 is one word on the top of the page. Looks weird; better move it to somewhere else.

Reply: We agreed with your points. We revised them. Thank you.

Table 5: Abbreviations are not defined

Reply: We added the notes in the bottom of the Table. HJD means Heliocentric Julian Date. p means the primary minimum and s means the secondary minimum. vis mean visual observation. ccd mean charge coupled device observation, pg means photograph, and pe means photoelectric observation. (O-C)1 is the difference of the observation and calculated values, which means the residual of the linear fit. (O-C)II is the residual of the third body or parabolic fit.

 

Reply: The first [ ] mean the number of the reference in the tables. The second [ ] means the number of the reference in our paper. To avoid the awkward, two-step reference system, we change the first [] to (). The table of the light curve minimum are also used the other astronomical journal, such as AJ, ApJ, MNRAS.

 

Thank you for your hard work again. We try our best to revise all of them. The manuscript is very important for Chengyao to apply for the degree. Thank you for understanding.

 

Best Wishes

Liyun Zhang

Guizhou University

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper devotes to the study of eclipsing binaries with radio radiation.
The authors determine/revise physical parameters of three objects, which show magnetic activity.
New photometric observations are made, and new orbital and starspot parameters
(analyzing their new light curves and published radial velocities using the updated WD code) are obtained.
The authors draw our special attention to the orbital periods change for these binaries.
Their conclusions are in good agreement with previous results.
In general, I read the paper with interest, and I think that it is suitable for publication in Universe.

I have a couple of comments/suggestions.

Line 25: a Ori -> \alpha Ori

Line 50: many astronomere -> many astronomers

Page 3, Fig.1 caption: left and right panels should be changed for upper and lower panel.

Line 210: "CG Cyg Cyg"

Line 224: "the average value" or "the weighted average value"?

Line 224: sidde -> side

Line 226: dp/dt -> dP/dt

Line 226: "para parabolic fit"

Line 286: "We can obtained"

Fig.8, right panel. Concentration of the red dots towards the north pole
and towards to south hemisphere (dec<-15d) should be clearly explained.
The phrase "red dots are outside the FAST field" (line 282) is not enouhg.

Page 15, Table 5 has an awkward, two-step reference system.

Page 16, Table 6: what is the meaning of "(a)" in the T1(K) row?
(I think it means "assumed", but it should be clearly explained)

Page 16, Table 7: what is the meaning of "(a)" in the Latitude column?

Table 8: What does the A(d) parameter mean?

Tables 3, 4, 9 are obviously cropped on the right.

Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 (left panel): letters and numbers are too small and difficult to see.

Author Response

The paper devotes to the study of eclipsing binaries with radio radiation.
The authors determine/revise physical parameters of three objects, which show magnetic activity. New photometric observations are made, and new orbital and starspot parameters
(analyzing their new light curves and published radial velocities using the updated WD code) are obtained. The authors draw our special attention to the orbital periods change for these binaries. Their conclusions are in good agreement with previous results. In general, I read the paper with interest, and I think that it is suitable for publication in Universe.
Dear Reviewers

 Reply: Thank you for your perfect comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We agreed with all your comments on the first half and second half of our manuscript. We revised all of them. Here we send you our revised form of our manuscript again. Thank you.

Best Wishes

LIyun Zhang

I have a couple of comments/suggestions.

Line 25: a Ori -> \alpha Ori
Reply: We revised them.
Line 50: many astronomere -> many astronomers
Reply: We revised them.
Page 3, Fig.1 caption: left and right panels should be changed for upper and lower panel.
Reply: We revised them.
Line 210: "CG Cyg Cyg"
Reply: We revised them.
Line 224: "the average value" or "the weighted average value"?
It's the weighted average value. We revised them.

Line 224: sidde -> side
Reply: We revised them.
Line 226: dp/dt -> dP/dt

Line 226: "para parabolic fit"
Reply: It’s parabolic fit We revised them.
Line 286: "We can obtained"
Reply: We revised it to “We reobtained”.

Fig.8, right panel. Concentration of the red dots towards the north pole
and towards to south hemisphere (dec<-15d) should be clearly explained.
The phrase "red dots are outside the FAST field" (line 282) is not enouhg.
According to the comments of Reviewer2, we deleted the Figure 8.

Page 15, Table 5 has an awkward, two-step reference system.

 

Reply: The first [ ] mean the number of the reference in the tables. The second  [ ] means the number of the reference in our paper. To avoid the awkward, two-step reference system, we change the first [] to (). The format of the table for the light curve minimum are also used the other astronomical journal, such as the paper in the AJ, ApJ, MNRAS. Thank you.

Page 16, Table 6: what is the meaning of "(a)" in the T1(K) row?
(I think it means "assumed", but it should be clearly explained)
Reply: (a) means that the temperature of the primary component is assumed and fixed. We added the note at the bottom of the Table.

 

Page 16, Table 7: what is the meaning of "(a)" in the Latitude column?
Reply: Parameters are not adjusted, which are denoted by a mark (a).

Table 8: What does the A(d) parameter mean?

Reply: We added the note at the bottom of the Table 8. A represents the semi-amplitude of the light time effect and d is the unit of day.

Tables 3, 4, 9 are obviously cropped on the right.
Reply: We revised the Tables. Now all the tables are in space of our text of manuscript.

Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 (left panel): letters and numbers are too small and difficult to see.

 

Reply: We revised all these Figures 3, 4, 5, 6.  Thank you.

 

Thank you for your hard work again. We try our best to revise them. The manuscript is very important for Chengyao to apply for the degree. Thank you for your understanding.

End

Liyun zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

reviewer's report on Universe manuscript 1868951 v2:

 

Overall: the paper is now much better written and nearly ready for publication. I have several recommendations for changes to improve the descriptions of methods and results.

 

Detailed recommendations:

 

1. Remove first 2 sentences: move 2nd sentence from abstract to 2nd sentence of introduction (they do not belong in the abstract).

Because magnetic activity is already known, change lines 2-4 to: "We selected three objects (a 2

semi-detached eclipsing binary V Crt, and two detached binaries WY Cnc and CG Cyg)that show magnetic activity." and omit the sentence "We revised". 

 

2. line 29 "Obtaining ..." should be a new paragraph

3. line 33: should be "as follows:"

4. line 70-71: please explain what you mean by "we also collected the minimum time required to analyze their period variation"

5. line 79: binary should be binaries

6. line 80: lyr binary should be: "Lyr binary type"

7. line 84: possibly should be likely

8. line 89: "1 m optical telescope" should be "optical telescopes" (they are not 1m as described in the following lines already).

9. line 97: detector (not telescope)

10. line 101; "after processing"; 2mass should be 2-MASS

11. Figure 2 caption should state "observations are colored points; model light curves are solid lines"

12. Fig. 3 captions: "left panel shows the model with spot"; "right panel shows the model with spot"

13. is the spot on the primary or secondary star? please state it.

14. line 127: "The error of our study is one sigma of the fitting result. This implied that the period may have been increasing." A more accurate statement is: "The period may have been increasing, but this is only a 1.3 sigma result".

15."There were a possible four body in the O-C diagram". I think you mean "We test for a possible fourth body using the O-C diagram"

16. suggest to rename section 4 as "Orbital Parameters and Starspots"

17. line 197-198 "not very good."

18. line 202-203: I don't think the two solutions are significantly different. I you disagree, please explain.

19. now that you have explained your work much better the sentence in lines 245-247 is no longer needed.

20. line 257: I think you mean the result from lower left panel (not the oscillation in lower right panel)? Or do you mean the previously mentioned fourth body? Please make this clear.

21. lines 268-281: which oscillation are you referring to (Fig. 5 lower left panel or oscillation in lower right panel)?

22. name of Table 8: should be changed to "Expected flux of observable eclipsing binaries for future observation with FAST."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

reviewer's report on Universe manuscript 1868951 v2:

 

Overall: the paper is now much better written and nearly ready for publication. I have several recommendations for changes to improve the descriptions of methods and results.

Dear Editor and referee

Thank you for your comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We agreed with all your comments and revised all of them. We send you our revised manuscript incorporating the required changes. Detailed revisions are listed and explained below.

 

Detailed recommendations:

1. Remove first 2 sentences: move 2nd sentence from abstract to 2nd sentence of introduction (they do not belong in the abstract).

Reply: We moved the 2th sentences to the 2nd sentence of introduction.

Because magnetic activity is already known, change lines 2-4 to: "We selected three objects (a semi-detached eclipsing binary V Crt, and two detached binaries WY Cnc and CG Cyg) that show magnetic activity." and omit the sentence "We revised". 

 Reply:We revised them and deleted the sentence “We revised”

2. line 29 "Obtaining ..." should be a new paragraph

Reply:We revised them.

3. line 33: should be "as follows:"

Reply:We revised them.

4. line 70-71: please explain what you mean by "we also collected the minimum time required to analyze their period variation"

Reply: We revised it to the sentence “Further, we also collected the light curve minimum times of eclipsing binaries to analyze their period variation and discussed their physical mechanisms.”

 

5. line 79: binary should be binaries

Reply:We revised them.

6. line 80: lyr binary should be: "Lyr binary type"

Reply:We revised them.

7. line 84: possibly should be likely

Reply:We revised them.

8. line 89: "1 m optical telescope" should be "optical telescopes" (they are not 1m as described in the following lines already).

Reply:We revised them.

9. line 97: detector (not telescope)

Reply:We revised them.

10. line 101; "after processing"; 2mass should be 2-MASS

Reply:We revised them.

11. Figure 2 caption should state "observations are colored points; model light curves are solid lines"

Reply:We revised them.

12. Fig. 3 captions: "left panel shows the model with spot"; "right panel shows the model with spot"

Reply:We revised them.

13. is the spot on the primary or secondary star? please state it.

Reply:We revised them.

14. line 127: "The error of our study is one sigma of the fitting result. This implied that the period may have been increasing." A more accurate statement is: "The period may have been increasing, but this is only a 1.3 sigma result".

Reply:We revised them.

 

15."There were a possible four body in the O-C diagram". I think you mean "We test for a possible fourth body using the O-C diagram"

Reply:We revised them.

16. suggest to rename section 4 as "Orbital Parameters and Starspots"

Reply:We revised them.

17. line 197-198 "not very good."

Reply:We revised them.

18. line 202-203: I don't think the two solutions are significantly different. I you disagree, please explain.

Reply: We agreed with your points. We revised them to “There are no significantly different for the two solutions.”

19. now that you have explained your work much better the sentence in lines 245-247 is no longer needed.

Reply:We deleted them.

20. line 257: I think you mean the result from lower left panel (not the oscillation in lower right panel)? Or do you mean the previously mentioned fourth body? Please make this clear.

Reply: The result of the third body is lower left panel. The fourth body are in the lower left panel of Figure. We revised them in the last paragraph (145 and 150 lines) in section 3. We added it in line 257 of our last manuscript now.

21. lines 268-281: which oscillation are you referring to (Fig. 5 lower left panel or oscillation in lower right panel)?

Reply: It is the oscillation in lower left panel. We revised them.

22. name of Table 8: should be changed to "Expected flux of observable eclipsing binaries for future observation with FAST."

Reply:We revised them.

 

Best Wishes

Zhang liyun

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf