¹¹institutetext: Institute of Physics, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Observatoire de Sauverny, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland ²²institutetext: Département d’Astronomie, Université de Genève, Chemin Pegasi 51, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland ³³institutetext: Instituut voor Sterrenkunde, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200D bus 2401, Leuven, 3001, Belgium ⁴⁴institutetext: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, MS 4, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA ⁵⁵institutetext: Konkoly Observatory, HUN-REN Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences, MTA Centre of Excellence, Konkoly Thege Miklós út 15-17, H-1121 Budapest, Hungary

VELOcities of CEpheids (VELOCE)
II. Systematic Search for Spectroscopic Binary Cepheids

Shreeya S. Shetye 1133 shreeya.shetye@kuleuven.be Giordano Viviani 11 giordano.viviani@epfl.ch Richard I. Anderson 11 richard.anderson@epfl.ch Nami Mowlavi 22 Laurent Eyer 22 Nancy R. Evans 44 László Szabados 55

(Received May 30, 2024; accepted date here)

Classical Cepheids provide valuable insights into the evolution of stellar multiplicity among intermediate-mass stars. Here, we present a systematic investigation of single-lined spectroscopic binaries (SB1) based on high-precision velocities measured by the VELOcities of CEpheids (VELOCE) project. We detected 76 ( $29\%$ ) SB1 systems among the 258 Milky Way Cepheids in the first VELOCE data release, 32 ( $43\%$ ) of which were not previously known to be SB1 systems. We determined 30 precise and 3 tentative orbital solutions, 18 ( $53\%$ ) of which are reported for the first time. This large set of Cepheid orbits provides a detailed view of the eccentricity $e$ and orbital period $P_{\rm{orb}}$ distribution among evolved intermediate-mass stars, ranging from $e\in[0.0,0.8]$ and $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\in[240,9\,000]$ d. Orbital motion on timescales exceeding the 11 yr VELOCE baseline was investigated using a template fitting technique applied to literature data. Particularly interesting objects include a) R Cru, the Cepheid with the shortest orbital period in the Milky Way (240 d), b) ASAS J103158-5814.7, a short-period overtone Cepheid exhibiting time-dependent pulsation amplitudes as well as orbital motion, c) 17 triple systems with outer visual companions, among other interesting objects. Most VELOCE Cepheids (21/23) that exhibit evidence for a companion based on Gaia proper motion anomaly are also spectroscopic binaries, whereas the remaining do not exhibit significant ( $>3\sigma$ ) orbital RV variations. Gaia quality flags, notably the Renormalized Unit Weight Error (RUWE), do not allow to reliably identify Cepheid binaries, although statistically the average RUWE of SB1 Cepheids is slightly higher than that of non-SB1 Cepheids. Comparison with Gaia photometric amplitudes in $G-$ , $Bp$ , and $Rp$ also does not allow to identify spectroscopic binaries among the full VELOCE sample, indicating that the photometric amplitudes in this wavelength range are not sufficiently informative of companion stars.

Key Words.:

Stars: variables: Cepheids – binaries: visual – Stars: oscillations – distance scale

1 Introduction

Classical Cepheids (henceforth: Cepheids) are evolved, luminous, intermediate-mass ( $\sim$ 3 - 11 M_⊙), radially pulsating stars. For more than a century, Cepheids have been crucial calibrators of the extragalactic distance scale (Hertzsprung 1913) thanks to the famous period-luminosity relation (PLR or Leavitt Law, Leavitt & Pickering 1912). The unceasing interest in Cepheids is not only due to their cosmological relevance, but also because these are crucial populations to understand stellar physics and are important tracers in galactic studies (Luck & Lambert 2011; Genovali et al. 2014; Poggio et al. 2021; Kovtyukh et al. 2022, and references therein).

Given the importance of Cepheids as distance tracers, many astrophysical effects have been explored as potential biases of the Leavitt law, including multiplicity (e.g. Mochejska et al. 2000; Kiss & Bedding 2005). For certain individual Cepheids, light contributed by companions can indeed affect distance estimates, the most extreme cases of this kind include V1334 Cyg in the Milky Way (Gallenne et al. 2018) and a sample of Cepheids with double-lined spectroscopic companions in the Large Magellanic Cloud (Pilecki et al. 2021, which are indeed selected using their Leavitt law outlier nature). However, Anderson & Riess (2018) showed that statistically speaking, Cepheid companions cannot bias the extragalactic distance scale or the Hubble constant measured therefrom. A similar result was recently obtained using population synthesis (Karczmarek et al. 2022). However, orbital motion on timescales of up to several years may affect the accuracy of parallax measurements of Cepheids (Anderson et al. 2015, 2016a; Benedict et al. 2022).

Parallaxes of Cepheids provided by the third data release (DR3) of the ESA mission Gaia do not yet account for orbital motion due to companions. However, this is expected to be available in future data releases, and DR3 already provided a large number of non-variable stars with non-single star solutions (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2022). Combining astrometric and radial velocity data to determine orbits is particularly useful because it allows to measure the total mass of a system (e.g. Gallenne et al. 2019) and thus provides key information for constraining stellar models in the context of the mass discrepancy problem (e.g. Caputo et al. 2005; Anderson et al. 2016c).

In the past few decades, numerous complementary techniques are used for the detection of Cepheid binarity/multiplicity. Direct spectroscopic identification of low-mass companions at any separation is possible using X-ray and ultraviolet (UV) observations (Evans 1992; Evans et al. 2013, 2022). The detection of orbital motion through radial velocity (RV) variations is effective to a wide range of companion masses and spectral types, however, it necessitates long temporal baselines (Evans et al. 2015; Anderson et al. 2016a). Conversely, photometric binary detection methods, such as those using photometric amplitudes (Coulson & Caldwell 1985; Klagyivik & Szabados 2009) or photometric colors and ratios of amplitudes of different colors (Gieren 1985), require confirmation of the binary detection through subsequent spectroscopic investigations. Cepheid companions can also be detected using optical long-baseline interferometry, if the contrast and angular separation between the Cepheid and its companion are sufficiently small (Gallenne et al. 2014a, 2015, 2016, 2019).

Gaia proper motions have been introduced as indicators of multiplicity (Kervella et al. 2019a, b, 2022). While proper motion analysis is a powerful tool to detect resolved companions, it cannot be applied to the brightest stars that saturate the Gaia detectors. Furthermore, Gaia astrometric quality flags like the reduced $\chi^{2}$ statistic are used as indicators of binarity assuming that the orbital motion leads to a photocentre wobble (Belokurov et al. 2020; Stassun & Torres 2021). In fact, several cuts on Gaia quality flags like the RUWE and astrometric excess noise have been defined to filter the potentially multiple systems (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2022). However, these cuts are established using stars where astrometric processing is simpler than in high-amplitude chromatically variable stars, such as classical Cepheids. It remains unclear if the same cuts can be applied to Cepheids, which are brighter than most stars used for calibrating Gaia systematics (cf. Khan et al. (2023) and references therein), and whose variability can cause excess noise in astrometric measurements.

The traditional approach of RV variations provides an unambiguous detection of a binary companion and helps constrain the orbital parameters. Dedicated RV monitoring campaigns have unraveled the orbital elements distribution of Cepheids (e.g., Evans et al. 2015; Szabados 2003). Low-mass companions such as the one of $\delta\,$ Cep (Anderson et al. 2015) or companions of fainter Cepheids ( $m_{V}>8$ mag) require significant observational effort and precision to be detected, and this can only be achieved by long-term RV monitoring.

The VELOcities of CEpheids (VELOCE) project provides unprecedented RV time series of classical Cepheids (Anderson et al. (2024); Paper I henceforth). Taking advantage of the 11-year baseline of VELOCE, here we report the results of a systematic study of single-lined spectroscopic binaries (SB1). Where the data allow it, we provide estimates of orbital periods, or describe the orbital motion using different methods. The paper is structured as follows. The observations and data analysis are presented in Section 2, in Section 3 we describe the different methods we used to analyze the SB1 Cepheids, followed by results in Section 4, which is divided into sub-sections for results from each method used to describe the binary. In Section 5, we present the correlation between derived orbital parameters and compare our results with the Gaia binarity indicators. We briefly discuss and summarize this work in Section 6. The RV data as well as any fitted models, including orbital solutions and polynomial trends, used here are made publicly available as part of Paper I. In the Appendix, we have presented supporting figures (Sections A, B, C, E) and tables (Sections D, F).

2 Sample selection and available data

VELOCE comprises of precise Cepheid RV time-series data collected from both hemispheres using the high-resolution spectrographs Coralie (Queloz et al. 2001) and Hermes (Raskin et al. 2011). We used a minimum of 30 RV measurements per star, extending to up to 300 RV measurements for some cases. These observations cover a temporal baseline of nearly eleven years. Most of the VELOCE observations targeted signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of at least 20, more commonly between 25 to 30, per pixel near 5500 Å. With such SNR we have typical RV uncertainties in the order of 50 ms^-1. A detailed description of the observations and the RV data can be found in Paper I.

We identify SB1 candidates from 258 classical Cepheids observed by the VELOCE project (cf. Paper I for details) via time-variable pulsation-averaged velocities, $v_{\gamma}$ . Orbital motion in Cepheids introduces Doppler shifts on timescales of typically one year or longer that are mostly well separated from the pulsational timescales (of order days to months). Using VELOCE data, orbital motion can be detected in several different ways, depending on the availability and quality of the measurements (Section 3). The cleanest examples in our sample are Cepheids where clear, and possibly repeating, variations of $v_{\gamma}$ are discernible by eye in the pulsation (Fourier series) fit residuals. Such cases generally have orbital semi-amplitudes of several km s^-1 and orbital periods of $\lesssim 3$ yr.

While the selection function of Cepheids in VELOCE is rather complex, cf. Paper I, we consider VELOCE neither particularly biased towards the detection of SB1 systems, nor against it. For example, VELOCE initially specifically targeted Cepheids with no prior RV information and Cepheids residing near star clusters (Anderson et al. 2013). Later, Cepheids bright and nearby enough to measure interferometric radii were added (e.g. Anderson et al. 2016b; Breitfelder et al. 2016), and long-period Cepheids were targeted specifically for their use in distance ladder calibration (Anderson et al. 2016a). VELOCE also followed Cepheids with the goal of detecting modulated variability (e.g. Anderson 2014, 2016, 2019, 2020). Of course, stars found to exhibit orbital motion were followed up with the goal of characterizing orbits. However, only few stars were added to specifically search for suspected orbital signals.

Table LABEL:tab:BasicInfo contains the list of stars considered in the present paper, ordered by whether their nature as spectroscopic binary was first reported here, was previously discussed in the literature. In Figure 1, we present the on-sky distribution of the sample SB1 Cepheids and the range in Gaia G mag that they span.

Table 1: Sample of binary Cepheids and candidates from the literature considered here.

Cepheid	Gaia DR3 source ID	$\langle{m_{\rm{V}}}\rangle$	Gaia $\langle{m_{\rm{G}}}\rangle$	$P_{\rm puls}$	Status	References	Evidence	Triple?
		(mag)	(mag)	(d)
Newly discovered spectroscopic binary Cepheids
AQ Pup	5597379741549105280	8.54	$8.315\,241$	$30.196\,518\,846\,536\,73$	Susp	R1	Trend	Y
ASAS J064540+0330.4				$3.014\,697\,133$	New		Orbit	Y
ASAS J064553+1003.8	3350719221309022720	10.78	$10.4372$	$2.680\,051\,22$	New		Trend
ASAS J084951 $-$ 4627.2	5329675052782690944	11.03	$10.846\,683\,5$	$3.788\,888\,725$	New		Orbit
ASAS J100814 $-$ 5856.6	5258280842214814336	11.48	$11.400\,031$	$3.766\,487\,195$	New		Orbit
ASAS J103158 $-$ 5814.7	5351436724362450304	11.06	$11.084\,759$	$1.119\,204\,370\,277\,835$	New		Trend
ASAS J155847 $-$ 5341.8	5980814424369504256	9.99	$9.450\,114$	$2.807\,504\,772\,141\,829$	New		Trend
ASAS J174108 $-$ 2328.5	4116471792510901248	9.55	$8.864\,63$	$3.779\,663\,972\,147\,002$	New		Trend
ASAS J174603 $-$ 3528.1	4041107790775862272	10.94	$10.312\,113$	$2.572\,441\,087$	New		Orbit
$\beta$ Dor	4757601523650165120	3.76	$3.593\,461\,5$	$9.842\,731\,815\,006\,351$	New		RVTF-Yes
DR Vel	5313887130948758016	9.25	$8.937\,748$	$11.199\,534\,654\,052\,13$	New		Trend
FO Car	5241780677399802624	10.96	$10.349\,283$	$10.356\,892\,01$	New		Orbit	Y
GX Car	5257664497238811776	9.42	$9.092\,877$	$7.196\,930\,220\,7$	New		Orbit
IT Car	5337191279937200256	7.9	$7.823\,741\,4$	$7.532\,987\,155$	New		Orbit
MY Pup	5506374096132016512	5.65	$5.465\,354$	$5.694\,105\,544$	New		Orbit
NT Pup	5537860123428416640		$11.558\,196$	$15.560\,317\,55$	New		Orbit
OX Cam	473293889810320128	10.81	$10.056\,244$	$5.065\,491\,477\,33$	New		Trend
RY Sco	4041690364529590144	7.51	$7.489\,791\,4$	$20.326\,749\,545\,5$	New		Trend	Y
RY Vel	5355057622307185280	7.86	$7.879\,678\,2$	$28.174\,209\,05$	New		Trend
SX Vel	5329838158460391296	8.33	$8.120\,997$	$9.550\,730\,552$	New		Trend
SZ Aql	4267549637851481344	7.92	$8.201\,151$	$17.140\,861\,39$	New		RVTF-Yes
V0391 Nor	5881995546318024704	8.99	$8.663\,814$	$4.373\,318\,918$	New		Trend
V0402 Cyg	2060021625508894592	9.87	$9.520\,483$	$4.364\,924\,688$	New		RVTF-Yes	Y
V0407 Cas	2012787293154800896		$11.468\,034$	$4.566\,101\,618\,5$	New		Orbit	Y
V0492 Cyg	2058874388200159872		$11.564\,838$	$7.578\,010\,163\,3$	New		Trend
V0659 Cen	5868451040512196224	6.49	$6.474\,747$	$5.623\,986\,736\,1$	Susp	R2	Orbit	Y
V0827 Cas	430814876547869440	11.57	$10.743\,507$	$3.198\,603\,177\,1$	New		Trend	Y
V1162 Aql	4190143160245024256	7.81	$7.593\,359\,5$	$5.376\,207\,291\,7$	New		Trend
V1803 Aql	4319018739208020096	10.35	$9.390\,986$	$8.628\,130\,051\,9$	New		Trend
V2475 Cyg	2055881689337758336		$11.413\,767$	$11.555\,709\,049$	New		Trend
VZ Pup	5600052040150252800	10.15	$9.341\,325$	$23.174\,332\,27$	New		Orbit
X Cyg	1870258975238302208	6.47	$6.199\,011$	$16.386\,560\,86$	New		RVTF-Yes
First orbital solutions for literature SB1 Cepheids
BP Cir	5877460679352962048	7.52	$7.326\,591$	$2.398\,125\,386$	Known	R4	Orbit
FN Vel	5307761545524640256	10.25	$9.854\,069$	$5.324\,151\,611$	Known	VELOCE, R5, R6	Orbit
MU Cep	2200018111723748224	12.3	$11.635\,483$	$3.767\,849\,084$	Known	VELOCE, R6	Orbit
R Cru	6054935874795049216	6.42	$6.584\,582\,3$	$5.825\,671\,671$	Known	R7	Orbit
R Mus	5855468247702904704	6.33	$6.230\,604\,6$	$7.510\,323\,654$	Known	R3	Orbit
VY Per	459035766618689280	11.32	$10.470\,96$	$5.531\,907\,552$	Known	R24	Orbit
Literature SB1 confirmed by VELOCE
$\alpha$ UMi		2.02		$3.972\,012\,764\,71$	Known	VELOCE, R32	Orbit ¹¹1 We refer the reader to Anderson (2019) for the detailed orbital solution of $\alpha$ UMi using VELOCE data.
AD Pup	5614312705966204288	9.99	$9.634\,962$	$13.597\,598\,98$	Susp	R9	Trend
AH Vel	5519380081746387328	5.76	$5.587\,531$	$4.227\,158\,226$	Known	R3	Trend
AQ Car	5254662177677566464	8.84	$8.642\,382$	$9.769\,574\,135$	Susp	VELOCE, R10	Trend
AW Per	174489098011145216	7.51	$7.085\,648$	$6.463\,825\,837$	Known	R11	Trend	Y
AX Cir	5873984023533350400	5.96	$5.658\,398\,6$	$5.273\,442\,402$	Known	R4	Orbit
CD Cyg	2058374144759464064	8.35	$8.587\,173$	$17.076\,173\,97$	Known	VELOCE, R10	RVTF-Yes
$\delta$ Cep	2200153454733285248	3.75	$3.850\,599\,8$	$5.366\,267\,257$	Known	VELOCE, R12	Orbit
DL Cas	428620663657823232	8.63	$8.577\,36$	$8.000\,933\,725$	Known	R13, R14	Orbit
$\eta$ Aql	4240272953377646592	3.8	$3.747\,671\,4$	$7.176\,834\,062$	Known	R15	RVTF-Yes
FF Aql	4514145288240593408	5.38	$5.170\,657$	$4.470\,984\,457$	Known	R16	Orbit	Y
FR Car	5337764640889249536	9.64	$9.326\,704$	$10.716\,893\,167\,4$	Known	R17	Trend
KN Cen	5864135319959353600	9.86	$9.240\,802$	$34.027\,314\,893$	Known	VELOCE, R10	Trend
LR TrA	5824226655600824704	7.8	$7.588\,107$	$2.428\,288\,147$	Known	R7	Trend
RS Ori	3368698813404804352	8.42	$8.193\,092$	$7.566\,925\,079\,9$	Known	R18	RVTF-Yes
RV Sco	6026412893938675712	6.61	$6.767\,422\,7$	$6.061\,321\,383$	Susp	R19	Trend	Y
RW Cam	473043922712140928	8.72	$8.229\,256$	$16.415\,654\,39$	Known	R2	Trend
RX Aur	200708636406382720	7.62	$7.362\,67$	$11.624\,790\,25$	Known	R20	Trend
S Mus	5855852527008107008	8.33	$5.881\,264\,7$	$9.660\,008\,318$	Known	R16	Orbit
S Sge	1820309639468685824	5.36	$5.461\,868$	$8.382\,083\,647$	Known	R20	Orbit	Y
SS CMa	5616601820448126336	9.84	$9.562\,654\,5$	$12.352\,470\,15$	Known	VELOCE, R10	RVTF-Yes
SU Cyg	2031776202613700480	6.44	$6.798\,264$	$3.845\,750\,744\,484\,619$	Known	R21	Orbit
SY Nor	5884729035255064064	9.77	$9.040\,833$	$12.645\,213\,12$	Known	R2, R14	Orbit
SZ Cyg	2071433765909167232	9.37	$8.952\,725$	$15.109\,624\,588$	Known	VELOCE, R10	RVTF-Yes
T Mon	3324535073449061504	5.98	$6.124\,317$	$27.035\,501\,51$	Known	R13, R20	Trend
TX Mon	3106349738382214144	10.67	$10.601\,333$	$8.702\,117\,829$	Known	R8	Orbit
U Vul	1825621002188696448	7.16	$6.700\,444$	$7.990\,663\,373$	Known	R17	Orbit
UX Per	506699870563323264	11.26	$11.410\,275$	$4.565\,708\,977$	Known	R8	Trend	Y
UZ Sct	4104869264724284544	10.91	$10.364\,139$	$14.747\,528\,61$	Susp	R22	Trend	Y
V0340 Ara	5937099633141128448	10.03	$9.741\,439$	$20.815\,487\,48$	Known	R7	RVTF-Yes
V0916 Aql	4313179507891570304	10.86	$10.064\,854$	$13.443\,602\,07$	Known	R33	RVTF-Yes
V1334 Cyg	1964855904803120640	5.88	$5.724\,996$	$3.332\,489\,725$	Known	R23	Orbit	Y
VY Sgr	4094007532908816896	11.36	$10.495\,356$	$13.558\,527\,87$	Known	R22	RVTF-Yes
W Sgr	4050309195613114624	4.69	$4.585\,245$	$7.595\,078\,119$	Known	R16	Orbit	Y
XX Cen	5871922507947292032	7.3	$7.621\,872$	$10.951\,956\,48$	Known	R13	Orbit
XZ Car	5338036117182452096	8.67	$8.311\,601$	$16.652\,069\,49$	Susp	VELOCE, R10	Trend
YZ Car	5255254711361371520	8.24	$8.387\,514$	$18.169\,552\,71$	Known	R10, R16	Orbit
Z Lac	2007201567928631296	8.57	$8.185\,639$	$10.885\,884\,20$	Known	R13	Orbit	Y
Literature SB1 not confirmed by VELOCE
AA Gem	3430067092837622272	9.91	$9.393\,121$	$11.303\,704\,65$	Known	R8	RVTF-No
AN Aur	201574982848108416	10.21	$10.013\,501$	$10.288\,512\,42$	Known	R25	RVTF-No
AV Sgr	4069645924308096512	11.49	$10.239\,907$	$15.329\,361\,11$	Known	R17	RVTF-No
BB Sgr	4085919765884068736	6.69	$6.584\,277\,6$	$6.637\,132\,461$	Susp	R26	RVTF-No
BG Cru	6058439910929477120	5.53	$5.272\,218\,7$	$3.342\,539\,66$	Known	R7	RVTF-No
BG Vel	5324034867356093056	7.69	$7.220\,882$	$6.923\,857\,628$	Susp	VELOCE, R31	RVTF-No
CS Ori	3330259852538068608	11.29	$11.259\,904$	$3.889\,114\,374$	Known	R8	RVTF-No
FN Aql	4269036830424588800	7.96	$8.005\,132$	$9.481\,369\,081$	Known	R27	RVTF-No
RT Aur	3435571660360952704	5.55	$5.336\,251\,3$	$3.728\,430\,532$	Susp	R28	RVTF-No
RU Sct	4258436301367796480	8.82	$8.713\,349$	$19.707\,642\,99$	Known	R17	RVTF-No
RZ Vel	5523162573544337408	7.26	$6.850\,103$	$20.402\,004\,61$	Known	VELOCE, R31	RVTF-No
S Nor	5835124087174043136	6.49	$6.175\,861$	$9.754\,719\,024$	Known	R1	RVTF-No
SV Per	203496585576324224	8.86	$8.696\,444\,5$	$11.129\,356\,97$	Known	R2	RVTF-No
TY Sct	4256744187345732224	11	$9.899\,057$	$11.053\,827\,53$	Known	R22	RVTF-No
TZ Mon	3112475495616980992		$10.510\,648$	$7.428\,215\,310$	Known	R17	RVTF-No
U Sgr	4092905375639902464	6.68	$6.429\,23$	$6.745\,297\,856$	Known	R14	RVTF-No
VW Cen	5864955727424819200	10.36	$9.853\,758$	$15.036\,803\,18$	Known	R17	RVTF-No
VY Car	5351161399793209984	6.87	$7.337\,772$	$18.882\,356\,66$	Susp	VELOCE, R10	RVTF-No
WZ Sgr	4094784475310672128	7.45	$7.682\,094$	$21.849\,418\,43$	Known	R30	RVTF-No
X Lac	2004036486267748352	8.42	$8.115\,799$	$5.445\,378\,789$	Known	R20	RVTF-No
X Pup	5620098679741674496	8.46	$8.347\,651\,5$	$25.969\,704\,51$	Susp	VELOCE, R10	RVTF-No
XX Car	5238808628736339584	9.42	$9.077\,229$	$15.705\,208\,83$	Known	R30	RVTF-No
YZ Aur	188724234539584256	10.24	$9.882\,999$	$18.194\,309\,08$	Known	R8	RVTF-No
YZ Sgr	4099189015819292800	7.02	$7.014\,151\,6$	$9.553\,891\,677$	Known	R17	RVTF-No

²²2 Identifiers and magnitudes were compiled from SIMBAD, Gaia mean G-band magnitudes from the Gaia archive, and pulsation periods from Paper I. Column ‘Status’ indicates whether a star’s SB1 nature was newly discovered (‘New’), or previously known or suspected (‘Known’ or ‘Susp’). Stars listed as ‘Susp’ among newly discovered SB1 systems were considered tentative previously. References to previous studies are abbreviated using alphanumeric codes as follows. R1: Evans & Udalski (1994)

, R2: Evans (1994), R3: Lloyd Evans (1982), R4: Petterson et al. (2004), R5: Kovtyukh et al. (2015), R6: Anderson (2013), R7: Szabados (2003), R8: Szabados & Pont (1998), R9: Szabados et al. (2013b), R10: Anderson et al. (2016a), R11: Griffin (2016), R12: Anderson et al. (2015), R13: Evans (1995), R14: Bersier et al. (1994), R15: Evans (1991), R16: Gallenne et al. (2019), R17: Szabados (1996), R18: Evans et al. (1990), R19: Evans (1992), R20: Gorynya et al. (1996a), R21: Wahlgren & Evans (1998), R22: Pont et al. (1994), R23: Gallenne et al. (2013), R24: Szabados (1992), R25: Madore (1977), R26: Gieren (1982), R27: Szabados et al. (2014), R28: Turner et al. (2007), R29: Russo et al. (1981), R30: Bersier (2002), R31: Szabados et al. (2013a), R32: Anderson (2019), R33: Gorynya et al. (1996b). The stars with ‘VELOCE’ in the ‘References’ column are cases where VELOCE data was previously used to establish the binarity or the orbit. Column ‘Evidence’ states whether we determine a combined model for orbit and pulsation (‘Orbit’), determine a trend in the pulsation residuals (‘Trend’), or whether template fitting involving literature RV data indicates a time-variable $v_{\gamma}$ (‘RVTF-Yes’) or not (‘RVTF-No’). The last column ‘Triple?’ indicates whether the star is likely part of a triple system, usually involving a visually resolved companion.

Refer to caption — Figure 1: Location of the sample SB1 Cepheids on the sky in equatorial (Top panel) and in galactic (Bottom panel) coordinate system. The symbols are color coded in the Gaia G magnitude. The symbols surrounded with blue circles are systems for which we provide an orbital solution in the current work.

3 Data treatment/Methods

3.1 RV curve models adopted

In most Cepheids, the RV variability due to pulsation dominates the RV time series with pulsational peak-to-peak amplitudes typically ranging from $20-70$ km s^-1. It is customary to model the pulsational variability using a Fourier series with a number of harmonics adapted to match the complexity of the RV variability. Paper I describes this process for all Cepheid RV curves in VELOCE. In short, the RV signal due to pulsation is modeled as:

v_{r}(t)=v_{\gamma}+\sum_{n}{a_{n}\cos{(2n\pi\phi)}+b_{n}\sin{(2n\pi\phi)}}\,,

(1)

where $n$ represents the order of the harmonic, $t$ is time (in heliocentric Julian Date) and $\phi=(t-E)/P_{\rm{puls}}$ is the pulsation phase with epoch³³3Defined for all VELOCE stars such that $\phi=0$ coincides with $v_{\gamma}$ on the steeper descending branch of the RV curve close to the mean observing date. $E$ and the pulsation period, $P_{\rm{puls}}$ . As described in Paper I, the optimal model is determined by fitting each RV time series using up to 20 Fourier harmonics and then performing model comparisons using the F-test and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC).

The key evidence for the spectroscopic binary nature presented here is a long-term modulation of $v_{\gamma}=v_{\gamma}(t)$ , typically on timescales $>1$ yr and much longer than the pulsation period. We thus identify binaries by the correlated fit residuals they produce (Eq. 1). Orbital motion is then either modeled using a Keplerian orbit or approximated via linear, quadratic, or even higher order polynomials if the orbit is not sufficiently sampled to determine the full orbital solution.

As noted by Anderson (2014), Cepheids can exhibit modulated RV curves that can be misinterpreted as showing evidence of orbital motion. We note that all targets discussed here are bona fide spectroscopic binaries as identified by the absence of modulated line shape variability (Anderson 2016), although a few of the binaries presented here also show additionally modulated spectral variability. A detailed description of modulated RV variability of VELOCE Cepheids will be presented in future work.

3.2 Keplerian fitting

In the case of spectroscopic binaries, $v_{\gamma}=v_{\gamma}(t)$ in Eq. 1 varies with time. The degree to which such variation can be used to infer the orbital elements depends largely on the sampling, baseline, and precision. Depending on these factors, we employed two methods for fitting Keplerian orbits to the data.

When fitting pulsational variability and orbital motion simultaneously, we fitted the Fourier series (Eq. 1) and a Keplerian model simultaneously using the non-linear least squares routine leastsq available in scipy.optimize (Virtanen et al. 2020). Following e.g. Hilditch (2001), the orbital motion is represented as:

v_{\gamma}(t)=v_{\gamma,0}+K\left[\cos{\left(\omega+\theta\right)}+e\cos{% \omega}\right]\,,

(2)

where $\omega$ denotes argument of periastron, $K$ semi-amplitude (in km s^-1), $e$ eccentricity, $\theta$ true anomaly, and $v_{\gamma,0}$ the systemic RV relative to the solar system barycenter. We note that $v_{\gamma}$ (without subscript 0) refers to the pulsation averaged velocity (cf. Paper I), which coincides with $v_{\gamma,0}$ if an orbital solution is determined or if the star does not have a companion. The uncertainties on the parameters are determined using the covariance matrix returned by the fitting routine, which incorporates statistical information on the reliability of the parameters estimated. Two examples of combined Fourier series plus Keplerian orbits for classical Cepheids are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.

To understand and mitigate any dependence of our results on starting values, as well as to avoid convergence to a local minimum, we also implemented a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method for determining Keplerian orbits. The MCMC fits further allow to explore the posterior distribution of the orbital parameters to identify possible correlations and to rigorously quantify uncertainties (e.g. Ford 2005, 2006). However, we have not yet implemented an MCMC fit to simultaneously model pulsational and orbital variations; this is foreseen for future work. Thus, all MCMC orbital solutions presented here use template fitting residuals of VELOCE (c.f. Section 5.1 of Paper I for more details) as well as literature radial velocity data, where pulsational variability has been removed (cf. Section 3.4). The MCMC orbits presented in this work utilize an extended baseline, achieved through the combination of VELOCE with literature datasets (V+L).

After testing different orbital parameterizations, we found that the following implementation converged the fastest (cf. also Fulton et al. 2018):

\mathbf{x}=(v_{\gamma,0},\ \ln P_{\rm{orb}},\ \ln K,\ e,\ \omega,\ \phi_{0})

(3)

where $\phi_{0}$ is the orbital phase to the next pericenter passage at $t=E$ . We opted for a uniform prior for all parameters, and set sharp boundaries far away from possible solutions so that they would not alter the posterior distribution. Initial guesses were obtained by computing the Maximum A Posteriori (MAP)⁴⁴4In the case of uniform priors, the MAP method coincides with the more known Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) method. probability estimates from a grid of starting values of the parameters. The resulting orbits allowed us to visualize the possible different sets of parameters that could explain our data and have a sense of the stability of each solution by counting how many grid points converged to the same orbital parameters. We then chose the best parameters as the initial guess for our MCMC (an example of MCMC orbital fitting is provided in Figure 4).

We used the MCMC implementation provided by the python package emcee (Foreman-Mackey et al. 2013) and, as suggested by the authors, used the autocorrelation time, $\tau_{ACT}$ , to determine whether the chain was sufficiently long. In particular, the convergence criterion consisted of the following inequalities:

\langle\tau_{ACT}\rangle<N_{\text{iteration}}/60

(4)

\frac{\Delta\tau_{ACT}}{\tau_{ACT}}<0.01

(5)

After running the MCMC, we visually inspected the resulting posterior distributions to check the absence of significantly non-gaussian distributions (Figure 5). We also verified that the mean and standard deviation were compatible with the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles. We use the mean and standard deviation as the final results for the orbital estimates and its uncertainties. Finally, we also investigated circular orbits in a few cases where $e$ was either very small or not significantly detected. In this case:

\mathbf{x}=(v_{\gamma,0},\ln P_{\rm{orb}},\ln K,\phi_{0})\ ,

(6)

whereby $\phi_{0}$ represents the orbital phase to the next outgoing node at $t=E$ .

Using orbital elements, we calculate the projected semimajor axis as:

a\sin{i}\ \mathrm{[au]}=\frac{1}{2\pi G}K\leavevmode\nobreak\ P_{orb}% \leavevmode\nobreak\ \sqrt{1-e^{2}}

(7)

and the mass function as

f_{\mathrm{mass}}\ \mathrm{[M_{\odot}]}=\frac{1}{2\pi G}K^{3}\leavevmode% \nobreak\ P_{orb}\leavevmode\nobreak\ {(1-e^{2})}^{\frac{3}{2}}\ ,

(8)

where $G$ denotes the gravitational constant and the mass of the Sun was assumed to be $M_{\odot}=1.98840987\cdot 10^{30}$ kg (as used in astropy.constants).

3.3 Orbital trends represented using polynomials

Cepheids whose pulsation residuals computed using Eq. 1 indicated the presence of incompletely sampled orbital motion were modeled using the sum of Eq. 1 and a low-order polynomial of the form:

v_{\mathrm{trend}}(t)=\sum_{k=1,...,i}{p_{k}\cdot(t-E)^{k}}\ .

(9)

The polynomial degree $i$ adopted depends on the structure observed in the pulsation residuals (e.g., linear or non-linear) and the overall v_γ(t) variation over the VELOCE temporal baseline. We prioritized low values of $i$ , typically $<3$ , and sought to obtain a reasonably close fit to the data. Additional data are required to determine full orbital solutions in these cases. Please note that in the present study, Fourier+polynomial fitting was exclusively employed for incompletely sampled orbits within VELOCE. This differs from the approach in Paper 1, where polynomials were utilized to represent modulated variability of any origin.

We note that $v_{\mathrm{trend}}(t)$ represents the change of the pulsation averaged velocity $v_{\gamma}(t)$ over time, so that $v_{\gamma}$ in Eq. 1 becomes the pulsation-averaged velocity near the midpoint of the RV time-series. Introducing such polynomials allows to faithfully recover the pulsational variability and to partially quantify the orbital motion already sampled by the available data. However, it should be noted that in this case $v_{\gamma}$ is specific to the time-series and not generally valid for the star. Specifically, $v_{\gamma}$ then does not refer to the center of mass line-of-sight velocity of the system with respect to the Sun.

3.4 RV template fitting (RVTF)

We investigated variations of $v_{\gamma}$ over timescales exceeding the VELOCE baseline using RV datasets from the literature. To this end, we adopted the literature RV zero-point differences from Paper I and the RV template fitting (RVTF) approach developed in Anderson et al. (2016a); Anderson (2019). In this approach, the pulsational RV curve is assumed to be fully characterized by the high-quality pulsation fits obtained in Paper I using VELOCE data of each star. The template fitting technique then fits the VELOCE pulsation models to the available literature data while solving for two parameters, an offset in $v_{\gamma}(t)$ with respect to VELOCE, and a phase shift $\Delta\phi$ . While the former is required to investigate binarity, the latter allows to efficiently deal with pulsation periods changing over the course of several decades without having to assume a functional form for such period changes (cf. Section 5.2 of Paper 1).

In Paper I, we developed a semi-automated approach for clustering the available data sets using a Kernel Density Estimation algorithm whose bandwidth was varied according to data availability and quality. For binaries, we double checked the most appropriate bandwidth to use to avoid fitting data exhibiting significant variations of $v_{\gamma}$ as one epoch. Furthermore, we visually inspected all template fits to make sure they covered a sufficiently broad range in phase to be informative. Template fits restricted to an insufficiently narrow range in phase were discarded. For each clustered template fit and per literature reference, we obtained the mean date, range of dates, fit parameters $\Delta v_{\gamma}$ , $\Delta\phi$ , their uncertainties, as well as the time-series epoch residuals (denoted as $\epsilon v_{\gamma}$ henceforth).

To investigate the significance of orbital signatures, we calculated the SNR between velocity offset and square-summed uncertainties as follows:

\mathrm{SNR_{SB1}}=\frac{|\Delta v_{\gamma}|}{\sqrt{(\sigma_{v})^{2}+(\sigma_{% v_{\gamma}})^{2}}}\ ,

(10)

where $\Delta v_{\gamma}$ is the difference between the zero-point-corrected ⁵⁵5These zero-points were established based on stars with stable $v_{\gamma}$ , more details can be found in Section 5.2 of Paper 1. $v_{\gamma}$ obtained by template fitting and the pulsation averaged velocity from Paper I. $\sigma_{v}$ denotes the uncertainty on $v_{\gamma}$ , and $\sigma_{v_{\gamma}}$ is the uncertainty on the instrumental zero-point correction $v_{\gamma}$ . Using Eq. 10, we searched for stars exhibiting deviations of more than $\mathrm{SNR_{SB1}}>3$ and rejected any spurious $v_{\gamma}$ variations among closely neighboring cluster sets following visual inspection, cf. Section 4.3.

Where feasible, we determined full orbital solutions using our MCMC algorighm (cf. Section 3.2) using the $\epsilon v_{\gamma}$ from template fitting as input. In practice, this often worked better than trying to fit a combined Fourier series and Keplerian model, since period changes could be effectively removed using the template fitting algorithm. The $v_{\gamma}$ and $\epsilon v_{\gamma}$ of literature datasets used in the orbital fits with MCMC algorithm and in the RVTF analysis are included in the VELOCE data files published as part of Paper 1.

Please note that a thorough analysis comparing Gaia DR3 RVs with VELOCE RVs was performed in Paper I. The main arguments against including Gaia data in the current work were as follows: Firstly, their temporal baselines mostly overlapped with existing data, and no significant improvements in orbital coverage were identified. Secondly, we observed that certain stars displayed temporal trends in Gaia radial velocities (RVs) over timescales where VELOCE RVs showed no variations in pulsation-averaged velocity. However, a clear pattern regarding when and for which stars this occurred could not be discerned. In light of these disparities, Gaia RVs were omitted as a literature source for the spectroscopic binary search employing the method described above. With extended baselines, increased observation frequency, and improved data processing, future data releases with Gaia DR4 and DR5 are poised to excel in detecting SB1 systems and refining orbital solutions.

4 Results

Table 2: An overview of the results from the current work.

Total SB1 detections	76
No. of new SB1 detections	32
No. of orbits	33 (15 (New) + 15 (Known) + 3 (Tentative))
No. of stars fitted with polynomial	30 (16 (New) + 14 (Known))
No. of stars with RVTF-Yes	12 (4 (New) + 8 (Known))
No. of stars with RVTF-No	24

This section describes the results of our systematic search for spectroscopic binary Cepheids using VELOCE data. An overview of the results is presented in Table 2. Tables 3 and 4 list orbital parameters for 18 Cepheids whose orbital parameters are being reported for the first time and 15 Cepheids whose orbits had previously been reported in the literature, respectively. Overall, we identified 76 bona fide SB1 Cepheids and 14 additional SB1 candidates in the VELOCE sample. 32 of these are reported as SB1 systems for the first time. Unless otherwise specified, we here discuss only bona fide SB1 Cepheids.

We first discuss fully determined orbits in Section 4.1. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 present Cepheids with incompletely sampled orbits represented by polynomials and investigated using template fitting, respectively. We discuss the spectroscopic binary fraction in Section 4.4 and provide brief notes on individual Cepheids in Section 4.5.

4.1 Full orbital solutions

This section presents the results obtained by fitting full orbital solutions to the RV time-series. We determined complete orbital solutions for 33 stars (including 3 tentative orbital fits). Section 4.1.1 begins with results based on VELOCE data alone, followed by results based on combined VELOCE and (zero-point offset-corrected) literature RVs in Section 4.1.2. Tables 3 and 4 distinguish these solution types using the tags ‘V’ and ‘V+L’, respectively.

Table 3: Orbital elements of the new spectroscopic binary Cepheids’ orbits presented in this work. Table notes are provided at the end of Table 4.

New orbits from current work
Cepheid	P_puls	T₀-2.4M	data	P_orb (d)	$e$	K (km s^-1)	$a\sin i$ (au)	fmass	$\omega$ (deg)	M₁	rms
	(d)			$\sigma_{P_{orb}}$	$\sigma_{e}$	$\sigma_{K}$	$\sigma_{asini}$	$\sigma_{fmass}$	$\sigma_{argperi}$	M_⊙	(km s^-1)
ASAS	$3.014\,697\,133\,408\,803$	$59\,013.585\,753\,449\,74$	V	$901.176\,053\,159\,048\,9$	$0.443\,593\,746\,450\,277$	$5.809\,711\,445\,759\,326$	$0.431\,311\,625\,089\,259\,1$	$0.013\,177\,140\,546\,526\,76$	$203.142\,591\,304$	5.0	$0.133$
J064540 $+$ 0330.4		$2.667\,587\,775\,430\,524$	18	$2.806\,494\,032\,185\,666$	$0.010\,506\,188\,375\,115\,12$	$0.059\,222\,551\,467\,707\,38$	$0.005\,234\,284\,581\,294\,802$	$0.000\,465\,490\,075\,482\,364$	$1.394\,968\,813\,413\,105$
ASAS	$3.788\,888\,724\,510\,723$	$57\,854.638\,752\,698\,61$	V	$1578.270\,370\,403\,218$	$0.431\,740\,911\,447\,068\,6$	$14.759\,596\,394\,761\,32$	$1.931\,389\,024\,049\,54$	$0.385\,756\,668\,637\,326\,2$	$145.444\,061\,659\,404\,3$	4.9	$0.262$
J084951 $-$ 4627.2		$6.602\,481\,796\,197\,955$	19	$3.414\,114\,938\,275\,642$	$0.005\,441\,155\,009\,462\,919$	$0.158\,045\,367\,077\,948\,86$	$0.021\,823\,591\,580\,016\,777$	$0.012\,861\,720\,949\,208\,835$	$1.373\,889\,550\,063\,201$
ASAS	$3.766\,487\,195\,371\,095$	$58\,067.706\,887\,883\,55$	V	$2458.573\,090\,091\,723$	$0.454\,111\,388\,454\,880\,5$	$13.777\,349\,067\,165\,42$	$2.774\,010\,508\,344\,804$	$0.471\,004\,471\,732\,699\,8$	$20.853\,432\,345\,642\,56$	4.2	$0.229$
J100814 $-$ 5856.6		$1.794\,347\,925\,389\,624$	20	$1.223\,559\,263\,204\,456$	$0.004\,081\,272\,623\,992\,712$	$0.082\,797\,347\,092\,422\,76$	$0.017\,938\,067\,412\,983\,91$	$0.009\,113\,129\,470\,383\,03$	$0.289\,259\,707\,584\,336\,3$
ASAS	$2.572\,441\,087\,108\,965$	$58\,980.801\,268\,265\,84$	V	$2302.725\,208\,306\,967$	$0.357\,809\,644\,919\,862\,3$	$4.144\,754\,560\,614\,341$	$0.819\,220\,343\,625\,887\,5$	$0.013\,828\,813\,746\,736\,08$	$344.02$	4.9	$0.221$
J174603 $-$ 3528.1		$97.271\,735\,014\,086\,03$	21	$41.738\,880\,513\,542\,15$	$0.152\,742\,205\,984\,075\,1$	$1.476\,270\,158\,070\,568\,8$	$0.296\,643\,391\,413\,267\,07$	$0.015\,005\,689\,014\,259\,178$	$13.492\,017\,745\,248\,56$
FN Vel	$5.324\,151\,610\,552\,629$	$56\,407.866\,283\,611\,83$	V	$471.794\,800\,683\,775\,2$	$0.217\,768\,078\,746\,282\,7$	$21.907\,651\,384\,507\,24$	$0.927\,272\,741\,607\,163\,1$	$0.477\,730\,700\,308\,252\,9$	$42.069\,366\,104\,604\,9$	6.4	$0.157$
		$0.357\,346\,786\,222\,345\,9$	24	$0.061\,948\,776\,626\,779$	$0.000\,880\,084\,997\,224\,785$	$0.025\,178\,146\,158\,271\,42$	$0.001\,088\,737\,360\,366\,946$	$0.001\,673\,372\,250\,775\,628$	$0.209\,666\,812\,874\,435\,8$
FO Car	$10.356\,891\,996\,988\,13$	$58\,244.268\,240\,026\,32$	V	$1667.573\,959\,415\,696$	$0.377\,630\,728\,694\,047\,7$	$14.932\,445\,501\,737\,46$	$2.119\,410\,032\,514\,236$	$0.456\,606\,111\,836\,468\,3$	$85.255\,425\,835\,076\,1$	6.1	$0.155$
		$2.987\,994\,264\,883\,472$	25	$2.818\,161\,989\,677\,259$	$0.002\,008\,642\,205\,319\,132$	$0.030\,433\,639\,831\,150\,775$	$0.005\,916\,341\,645\,234\,68$	$0.003\,139\,786\,079\,346\,267$	$0.585\,975\,001\,224\,126\,2$
		$58\,244.8872$	V+L	$1662.2515$	$0.3775$	$14.9105$	$2.1096$	$0.453\,350\,509\,072$	$85.7245$		$0.5770$
		$1.8067$	48	$1.5697$	$0.0018$	$0.0253$	$0.0044$	$0.002\,573\,410\,638$	$0.2656$
GX Car	$7.196\,930\,220\,776\,081$	$56\,836.781\,462\,309\,8$	V	$2630.341\,289\,263\,578$	$0.037\,631\,087\,290\,383\,61$	$5.034\,360\,757\,838\,175$	$1.216\,346\,128\,294\,652$	$0.034\,690\,798\,708\,133\,31$	$6.686\,556\,729\,790\,391$	5.6	$0.118$
		$32.463\,339\,811\,970\,05$	26	$5.815\,660\,311\,948\,826$	$0.003\,477\,106\,283\,726\,837$	$0.017\,037\,941\,205\,533\,765$	$0.004\,919\,716\,897\,497\,693$	$0.000\,360\,728\,012\,406\,864$	$4.443\,133\,364\,617\,084$
IT Car	$7.532\,987\,154\,577\,63$	$59\,460.474\,943\,693\,36$	V	$1249.333\,761\,074\,57$	$0.584\,282\,004\,360\,969\,7$	$8.934\,432\,374\,975\,387$	$0.832\,663\,562\,556\,406\,1$	$0.049\,330\,861\,597\,902\,54$	$116.695\,364\,447\,693\,1$	6.0	$0.091$
		$0.662\,919\,872\,046\,736\,9$	27	$0.785\,089\,537\,599\,387\,9$	$0.002\,023\,028\,251\,786\,716$	$0.024\,613\,659\,597\,038\,786$	$0.002\,787\,303\,713\,119\,983$	$0.000\,487\,577\,435\,848\,597$	$0.196\,748\,448\,898\,458\,3$
MU Cep	$3.767\,849\,084\,007\,058$	$56\,071.156\,704\,221\,89$	V	$2028.137\,878\,058\,533$	$0.434\,479\,094\,637\,984\,1$	$6.879\,790\,999\,608\,82$	$1.155\,187\,886\,257\,922$	$0.049\,983\,872\,287\,974\,67$	$10.291\,075\,260\,153\,32$	5.8	$0.186$
		$3.022\,715\,587\,775\,972$	28	$2.702\,546\,186\,858\,977$	$0.003\,814\,856\,462\,137\,39$	$0.035\,388\,234\,931\,906\,11$	$0.006\,576\,336\,667\,704\,069$	$0.000\,832\,609\,064\,380\,584$	$0.679\,103\,666\,422\,922\,3$
MY Pup	$5.694\,105\,543\,732\,406$	$57\,936.813\,820\,492\,62$	V	$2082.436\,584\,712\,036$	$0.103\,120\,009\,272\,038\,6$	$0.670\,550\,290\,664\,684\,2$	$0.127\,670\,379\,673\,125\,5$	$6.400\,204\,518\,585\,61\text{\times}{10}^{-05}$	$80.714\,891\,811\,925\,72$	5.0	$0.115$
		$431.755\,197\,949\,955\,1$	29	$54.538\,378\,728\,272\,95$	$0.051\,693\,457\,112\,195\,56$	$0.023\,265\,117\,408\,481\,382$	$0.005\,592\,358\,562\,735\,549$	$6.946\,862\,339\,240\,46\text{\times}{10}^{-06}$	$84.818\,240\,877\,220\,65$
		$57\,974.9036$	V+L	$2186.1417$	$0.1411$	$0.6537$	$0.1300$	$0.000\,061\,391\,556$	$91.5921$		$0.3079$
		$39.9302$	49	$10.4375$	$0.0099$	$0.0083$	$0.0018$	$0.000\,002\,384\,780$	$7.9511$
NT Pup	$15.560\,317\,554\,836\,16$	$56\,679.125\,392\,598\,72$	V	$3653.645\,160\,013\,692$	$0.465\,521\,906\,198\,811\,5$	$8.837\,602\,926\,861\,937$	$2.626\,820\,669\,003\,807$	$0.181\,094\,605\,477\,208\,2$	$205.92$	9.7	$0.413$
		$6.427\,632\,919\,985\,515$	3	$17.422\,411\,018\,774\,85$	$0.005\,158\,687\,626\,253\,751$	$0.051\,537\,354\,879\,252\,734$	$0.021\,363\,959\,069\,819\,957$	$0.003\,682\,076\,239\,066\,864$	$0.640\,178\,307\,452\,322\,2$
R Cru	$5.825\,671\,671\,294\,418$	$57\,292.647\,190\,094\,78$	V	$237.423\,087\,769\,255\,2$	$0.017\,332\,293\,201\,519\,19$	$1.028\,651\,393\,602\,178$	$0.022\,445\,763\,682\,378\,23$	$2.675\,618\,764\,987\,87\text{\times}{10}^{-05}$	$205.141\,644\,164\,754\,7$	5.5	$0.162$
		$26.800\,008\,073\,747\,19$	30	$0.137\,114\,662\,413\,812\,2$	$0.013\,057\,974\,631\,601\,53$	$0.012\,200\,019\,245\,332\,85$	$0.000\,266\,575\,269\,320\,327$	$9.523\,006\,275\,458\,95\text{\times}{10}^{-07}$	$34.001\,851\,741\,746\,34$
		$57\,158.3761$	V+L	$237.6183$		$0.9985$	$0.0218$	$0.000\,024\,506\,706$			$0.2530$
		$0.1686$	50	$0.0316$		$0.0034$	$0.0001$	$0.000\,000\,251\,771$
V0407 Cas	$4.566\,101\,618\,693\,201$	$57\,445.275\,309\,970\,08$	V	$498.356\,791\,852\,756\,4$	$0.307\,342\,870\,526\,742\,6$	$1.863\,750\,520\,285\,949$	$0.081\,243\,855\,698\,010\,1$	$0.000\,287\,976\,989\,805\,758$	$102.463\,765\,693\,013\,4$	5.3	$0.089$
		$11.762\,153\,975\,021\,53$	36	$0.826\,847\,390\,488\,594$	$0.040\,914\,351\,411\,860\,17$	$0.153\,245\,171\,082\,369\,04$	$0.006\,776\,139\,544\,322\,989$	$7.204\,344\,343\,964\,89\text{\times}{10}^{-05}$	$12.372\,381\,951\,064\,34$
VY Per	$5.531\,907\,552\,207\,723$	$57\,861.598\,097\,666\,26$	V	$806.175\,370\,318\,165$	$0.382\,310\,527\,583\,829\,8$	$3.835\,037\,899\,394\,561$	$0.262\,600\,503\,651\,661\,9$	$0.003\,716\,161\,544\,189\,495$	$108.714\,908\,935\,154\,9$	5.0	$0.083$
		$10.448\,639\,299\,794\,64$	38	$0.780\,368\,176\,881\,652\,8$	$0.015\,320\,578\,713\,978\,25$	$0.083\,064\,625\,374\,323\,31$	$0.005\,971\,632\,620\,801\,227$	$0.000\,253\,316\,421\,008\,961$	$2.319\,160\,598\,450\,992$
		$57\,858.1115$	V+L	$805.0835$	$0.3687$	$3.9279$	$0.2702$	$0.004\,060\,195\,869$	$109.3387$		$0.4541$
		$15.5833$	60	$0.6285$	$0.0198$	$0.1274$	$0.0091$	$0.000\,408\,098\,156$	$4.1675$
VZ Pup	$23.174\,332\,266\,056\,26$	$58\,234.079\,585\,699\,05$	V	$3674.134\,935\,397\,733$	$0.150\,631\,199\,377\,470\,7$	$2.036\,214\,439\,160\,547$	$0.679\,834\,657\,816\,417\,9$	$0.003\,104\,321\,346\,446\,353$	$128.738\,493\,724\,636\,4$	8.3	$0.375$
		$241.003\,158\,493\,706$	39	$222.862\,609\,679\,806\,7$	$0.035\,816\,538\,262\,560\,8$	$0.054\,107\,312\,720\,699\,394$	$0.045\,176\,349\,404\,805\,825$	$0.000\,315\,183\,265\,567\,539$	$9.431\,472\,644\,636\,052$
		$58\,184.4737$	V+L	$4026.3311$	$0.2507$	$2.1117$	$0.7566$	$0.003\,564\,224\,929$	$126.9455$		$0.5796$
		$21.2455$	61	$17.8197$	$0.0066$	$0.0133$	$0.0060$	$0.000\,071\,426\,619$	$1.3452$
New ‘Tentative’ orbits from current work
BP Cir	$2.3981$	$55\,730.4207$	V+L	$4339.4764$	$0.7792$	$2.1848$	$0.5463$	$0.001\,154\,780\,674$	$228.6850$		$0.3546$
		$11.6028$	45	$8.4883$	$0.0060$	$0.0551$	$0.0153$	$0.000\,096\,579\,817$	$0.8075$
R Mus	$7.5103$	$58\,352.0685$	V+L	$4446.7222$	$0.5508$	$1.6941$	$0.5779$	$0.001\,302\,274\,961$	$220.2264$		$1.7469$
		$19.2841$	51	$19.0390$	$0.0046$	$0.0092$	$0.0045$	$0.000\,026\,213\,890$	$1.1529$
V0659 Cen	$5.6240$	$52\,812.1094$	V+L	$9276.0565$	$0.3231$	$8.2599$	$6.6651$	$0.459\,089\,102\,283$	$182.5242$		$0.8553$
		$81.5196$	58	$130.3835$	$0.0522$	$1.5191$	$1.2358$	$0.254\,706\,347\,198$	$0.8974$

Table 4: Orbital elements of VELOCE SB1 Cepheids with literature-known orbits.

Cepheid	P_puls	T₀-2.4M	data	P_orb (d)	$e$	K (km s^-1)	$a\sin i$ (au)	fmass	$\omega$ (deg)	M₁	rms
	(d)			$\sigma_{P_{orb}}$	$\sigma_{e}$	$\sigma_{K}$	$\sigma_{asini}$	$\sigma_{fmass}$	$\sigma_{argperi}$	$M_{\odot}$	(km s^-1)
Update to literature-known SB1s orbits
AX Cir	$5.2734$	$54\,483.5890$	V+L	$6284.5104$	$0.1868$	$10.9544$	$6.2167$	$0.811\,567\,806\,783$	$211.3387$	5.0	$1.7559$
		$33.0390$	44	$12.4068$	$0.0090$	$0.2292$	$0.1311$	$0.051\,133\,530\,835$	$1.2120$
$\delta$ Cep	$5.366\,267\,257\,089\,509$	$58\,696.032\,349\,864\,13$	V	$3450.957\,035\,562\,507$	$0.745\,474\,385\,088\,880\,6$	$3.011\,549\,689\,276\,684$	$0.636\,737\,656\,109\,006\,7$	$0.002\,891\,142\,319\,520\,845$	$242.75$	5.0	$0.093$
		$13.613\,725\,173\,486\,21$	2	$19.571\,255\,428\,042\,86$	$0.005\,706\,986\,138\,448\,262$	$0.018\,144\,569\,383\,598\,517$	$0.008\,058\,388\,937\,584\,987$	$9.949\,082\,988\,335\,44\text{\times}{10}^{-05}$	$0.561\,721\,918\,493\,969\,2$
DL Cas	$8.000\,933\,735\,036\,956$	$58\,113.845\,120\,605\,94$	V	$684.889\,123\,468\,027\,7$	$0.344\,039\,151\,306\,182\,1$	$16.656\,018\,367\,152\,27$	$0.984\,566\,015\,493\,549\,4$	$0.271\,369\,451\,399\,776\,6$	$25.921\,731\,055\,850\,34$	7.1	$0.3$
		$1.001\,059\,654\,523\,932$	22	$0.210\,716\,654\,209\,230\,1$	$0.004\,704\,356\,925\,474\,212$	$0.098\,410\,952\,329\,857\,29$	$0.006\,099\,088\,772\,422\,727$	$0.005\,037\,623\,191\,381\,817$	$0.598\,526\,981\,109\,687\,8$
		$57\,434.6741$	V+L	$684.6749$	$0.3412$	$16.3428$	$0.9668$	$0.257\,176\,168\,641$	$29.2450$		$1.4267$
		$0.9895$	46	$0.0550$	$0.0041$	$0.1020$	$0.0062$	$0.004\,968\,173\,692$	$0.6071$
FF Aql	$4.470\,984\,457\,346\,529$	$58\,253.280\,502\,329\,52$	V	$1433.200\,855\,329\,908$	$0.049\,932\,079\,391\,673\,16$	$4.787\,798\,666\,159\,667$	$0.629\,954\,712\,397\,897\,1$	$0.016\,232\,329\,206\,434\,14$	$304.866\,639\,240\,71$	5.8	$0.137$
		$35.407\,273\,814\,066\,52$	23	$5.658\,316\,961\,177\,006$	$0.011\,033\,247\,042\,448\,5$	$0.028\,314\,033\,449\,573\,818$	$0.004\,492\,811\,863\,782\,082$	$0.000\,296\,251\,480\,493\,672$	$6.545\,512\,072\,819\,402$
		$58\,302.2342$	V+L	$1431.7001$	$0.0682$	$4.8766$	$0.6403$	$0.017\,083\,474\,488$	$317.4064$		$3.6782$
		$7.8632$	47	$0.5506$	$0.0044$	$0.0144$	$0.0019$	$0.000\,152\,669\,433$	$2.0172$
S Mus	$9.660\,008\,317\,542\,447$	$56\,663.889\,236\,527\,47$	V	$505.273\,212\,552\,066\,1$	$0.086\,560\,449\,767\,808\,58$	$14.786\,073\,185\,922\,95$	$0.684\,154\,896\,298\,129$	$0.167\,292\,989\,400\,678\,1$	$197.916\,845\,031\,944\,3$	6.0	$0.092$
		$1.390\,178\,821\,318\,02$	31	$0.085\,871\,257\,868\,835\,04$	$0.001\,763\,025\,895\,347\,488$	$0.018\,935\,259\,195\,755\,248$	$0.000\,890\,058\,626\,667\,136$	$0.000\,647\,953\,716\,999\,878$	$0.959\,744\,222\,901\,326\,5$
		$56\,152.5697$	V+L	$505.1579$	$0.0808$	$14.7771$	$0.6839$	$0.167\,246\,202\,252$	$194.1058$		$2.1842$
		$2.4262$	52	$0.0943$	$0.0039$	$0.0196$	$0.0009$	$0.000\,684\,489\,788$	$1.7517$
S Sge	$8.382\,083\,647\,441\,03$	$58\,141.059\,130\,469\,24$	V	$675.835\,460\,789\,247\,9$	$0.236\,286\,896\,375\,226\,7$	$15.525\,055\,067\,276\,96$	$0.937\,146\,181\,452\,290\,7$	$0.240\,329\,477\,062\,867\,4$	$200.468\,545\,421\,537\,6$	6.0	$0.251$
		$2.157\,402\,957\,868\,327$	32	$0.273\,871\,171\,689\,175\,9$	$0.003\,107\,921\,963\,042\,392$	$0.071\,005\,188\,650\,481\,61$	$0.004\,364\,210\,661\,689\,279$	$0.003\,346\,263\,716\,409\,553$	$0.977\,911\,745\,222\,277\,1$
		$57\,468.2034$	V+L	$676.0146$	$0.2477$	$15.6260$	$0.9407$	$0.243\,035\,290\,021$	$201.5275$		$1.9845$
		$1.1866$	53	$0.0645$	$0.0033$	$0.0504$	$0.0031$	$0.002\,438\,729\,460$	$0.5406$
SU Cyg	$3.8458$	$56\,395.1941$	V+L	$548.2609$	$0.3419$	$29.4436$	$1.3944$	$1.203\,381\,072\,413$	$220.4813$	5.2	$3.2758$
		$1.7432$	54	$0.1049$	$0.0051$	$0.2176$	$0.0107$	$0.027\,626\,923\,924$	$1.5715$
SY Nor	$12.645\,213\,122\,313\,67$	$57\,784.697\,536\,105\,48$	V	$551.924\,543\,608\,066\,5$	$0.001\,078\,934\,794\,884\,134$	$15.328\,591\,807\,242\,9$	$0.777\,660\,741\,218\,717\,4$	$0.205\,910\,305\,382\,360\,2$	$255.161\,550\,698\,037\,1$	6.8	$0.24$
		$321.345\,804\,881\,297\,8$	33	$0.768\,176\,778\,168\,493\,8$	$0.003\,211\,402\,618\,513\,705$	$0.055\,165\,458\,633\,069\,72$	$0.003\,000\,697\,981\,260\,003$	$0.002\,241\,524\,564\,164\,997$	$196.336\,736\,199\,765\,2$
		$57\,945.6719$	V+L	$551.9623$		$15.3354$	$0.7781$	$0.206\,262\,134\,063$			$0.4863$
		$0.1620$	55	$0.0561$		$0.0132$	$0.0007$	$0.000\,532\,422\,283$
TX Mon	$8.702\,117\,829\,778\,473$	$59\,204.553\,887\,421\,12$	V	$1602.203\,642\,354\,045$	$0.583\,203\,909\,973\,713\,6$	$11.984\,834\,347\,713\,73$	$1.433\,799\,605\,460\,985$	$0.153\,142\,916\,081\,749\,2$	$295.489\,080\,396\,842\,27$	7.1	$0.179$
		$4.499\,635\,570\,974\,68$	34	$2.465\,452\,383\,902\,561$	$0.003\,770\,241\,810\,022\,369$	$0.123\,867\,539\,001\,222\,5$	$0.015\,725\,515\,642\,610\,65$	$0.004\,994\,608\,703\,862\,224$	$0.448\,049\,667\,213\,740\,8$
		$57\,599.4070$	V+L	$1606.9799$	$0.5845$	$11.9798$	$1.4359$	$0.152\,939\,514\,539$	$295.1232$		$0.7276$
		$1.9134$	56	$0.9132$	$0.0015$	$0.0480$	$0.0061$	$0.001\,943\,354\,569$	$0.2582$
U Vul	$7.990\,663\,373\,892\,701$	$59\,935.901\,430\,357\,89$	V	$2528.773\,049\,067\,898$	$0.550\,745\,010\,850\,399\,4$	$3.154\,151\,183\,132\,403$	$0.611\,952\,160\,006\,914\,9$	$0.004\,779\,689\,446\,520\,979$	$1.368\,937\,809\,204\,958$	7.1	$0.115$
		$5.282\,154\,977\,013\,98$	35	$8.570\,434\,192\,624\,152$	$0.005\,285\,193\,696\,731\,184$	$0.045\,489\,101\,300\,668\,81$	$0.009\,419\,619\,423\,098\,552$	$0.000\,215\,909\,523\,643\,451$	$0.686\,079\,619\,559\,717\,5$
		$57\,404.9228$	V+L	$2521.2277$	$0.5552$	$3.1332$	$0.6039$	$0.004\,622\,385\,636$	$359.3633$		$1.0242$
		$2.4673$	4	$0.9388$	$0.0028$	$0.0169$	$0.0036$	$0.000\,081\,372\,919$	$0.3287$
V1334 Cyg	$3.332\,489\,724\,704\,534$	$57\,172.485\,139\,377$	V	$1947.791\,776\,560\,139$	$0.228\,864\,358\,849\,929\,4$	$14.208\,148\,213\,716\,65$	$2.476\,314\,669\,174\,745$	$0.533\,825\,612\,915\,421\,9$	$227.109\,564\,436\,883$	5.2	$0.051$
		$1.743\,218\,178\,343\,061$	37	$2.082\,868\,120\,313\,132$	$0.001\,416\,442\,204\,239\,7$	$0.036\,890\,103\,323\,135\,71$	$0.007\,004\,885\,497\,712\,641$	$0.004\,232\,688\,558\,989\,027$	$0.372\,678\,363\,504\,659\,6$
		$57\,186.8041$	V+L	$1931.1655$	$0.2358$	$14.4919$	$2.4999$	$0.558\,904\,847\,064$	$231.0933$		$0.8889$
		$2.6158$	59	$1.1184$	$0.0028$	$0.0488$	$0.0087$	$0.005\,776\,463\,179$	$0.5590$
W Sgr	$7.595\,078\,119\,317\,044$	$58\,121.398\,686\,351\,2$	V	$2006.304\,073\,873\,486$	$0.272\,215\,938\,346\,888\,5$	$1.507\,356\,405\,008\,145$	$0.267\,487\,106\,669\,914\,5$	$0.000\,634\,135\,434\,621\,928$	$317.917\,146\,592\,860\,95$	5.5	$0.195$
		$26.283\,615\,048\,410\,31$	40	$17.778\,591\,419\,800\,5$	$0.038\,637\,345\,990\,278\,36$	$0.013\,213\,022\,411\,351\,46$	$0.004\,510\,933\,043\,917\,224$	$2.786\,875\,407\,412\,88\text{\times}{10}^{-05}$	$4.432\,164\,925\,503\,169$
XX Cen	$10.951\,956\,501\,313\,2$	$58\,211.325\,821\,176\,68$	V	$722.439\,780\,025\,220\,1$	$0.295\,051\,619\,461\,936\,3$	$5.396\,274\,728\,936\,56$	$0.342\,394\,171\,386\,829\,4$	$0.010\,257\,529\,104\,501\,99$	$283.114\,307\,538\,678\,76$	6.4	$0.121$
		$1.662\,733\,643\,490\,934$	41	$0.422\,066\,472\,763\,553\,7$	$0.004\,266\,949\,548\,127\,247$	$0.026\,175\,633\,160\,291\,843$	$0.001\,738\,208\,483\,646\,338$	$0.000\,155\,298\,787\,401\,806$	$0.920\,645\,600\,722\,536\,3$
YZ Car	$18.169\,552\,714\,735\,4$	$57\,936.963\,633\,362\,87$	V	$827.204\,887\,445\,231\,5$	$0.028\,906\,745\,063\,479\,62$	$10.380\,192\,357\,801\,92$	$0.788\,942\,642\,647\,356\,3$	$0.095\,714\,355\,692\,249\,41$	$352.671\,785\,225\,848\,34$	7.4	$0.242$
		$38.681\,568\,746\,698\,4$	42	$1.209\,967\,441\,679\,768$	$0.004\,198\,257\,117\,699\,893$	$0.061\,572\,748\,949\,606\,01$	$0.004\,820\,949\,771\,850\,162$	$0.001\,709\,362\,138\,432\,453$	$16.683\,011\,940\,150\,72$
		$57\,120.7259$	V+L	$830.0247$		$10.191\,46$	$0.7776$	$0.091\,037\,900\,048$			$1.8727$
		$0.1534$	57	$0.1120$		$0.0085$	$0.0007$	$0.000\,227\,823\,567$
Z Lac	$10.885\,884\,200\,066\,21$	$58\,534.560\,314\,761\,92$	V	$382.765\,677\,638\,376\,6$	$0.013\,796\,889\,117\,697\,22$	$10.773\,573\,303\,363\,6$	$0.379\,018\,039\,854\,488\,5$	$0.049\,565\,631\,092\,918\,69$	$65.007\,934\,041\,131\,35$	8.0	$0.095$
		$54.209\,828\,247\,291\,58$	43	$0.140\,814\,118\,832\,643\,9$	$0.019\,981\,670\,610\,525\,29$	$0.321\,692\,460\,650\,744\,7$	$0.011\,318\,593\,604\,853\,55$	$0.004\,440\,227\,124\,693\,783$	$43.454\,642\,211\,948\,77$

⁶⁶6The pulsation period and epoch are retrieved after the RV fitting following the method described in Paper 1. In column 4, ‘V’ denotes when the orbits were strictly fitted with VELOCE data alone, while ‘V+L’ denotes when the orbit was fitted using the combination of

v_{\gamma}

residuals from VELOCE and literature datasets (See Section 3.2 for more details). The second row in the ‘data’ column contains links to the orbital fit figures presented in the paper. The next columns list the different orbital elements, namely, orbital period (P_orb), eccentricity (

e

), semi-amplitude (K), projected semi-major axis (asini), mass function (fmass), argument of periastron (

\omega

). We estimated the individual Cepheid masses (

M_{1}

) using period-mass relations based on Geneva stellar evolution models (Ekström et al. 2012), our method was similar to the one described in Anderson et al. (2016a). The last column presents the ‘rms’ (root mean square) of the fit between the Fourier+Keplerian model and the RV data for ‘V’ orbits and between the keplerian model and epoch residuals for ‘V+L’ orbits.

4.1.1 Orbits from VELOCE data alone (V)

Thanks to the high RV precision and data homogeneity, orbits derived using VELOCE data alone are typically very accurate. However, the available 11 yr baseline is not always sufficient to sample orbits fully, and occasional gaps in the time series may unfortunately coincide with particularly important orbital phases, preventing a definitive determination of all orbital parameters. All systems presented here were fitted using the combined Fourier series plus Keplerian model, which simultaneously solves for pulsational and orbital variability. The resulting orbital periods range from 237 to approximately 4000 days, that is, the baseline available from VELOCE DR1.

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate two examples of combined Fourier series plus Keplerian orbits for the naked-eye prototype of classical Cepheids, $\delta$ Cephei, and the faint southern target NT Puppis, cf. Section 4.5 for additional details. All other combined fits are illustrated in Appendix B.

The choice of starting values for model fit parameters, notably $P_{\rm{orb}}$ and $e$ , can impact the determination of orbital solution. We therefore adopted reasonable starting values estimated by inspecting the Fourier series fit residuals. Where starting values could influence the result, we cross-checked the results using the MCMC template fitting algorithm, cf. Section 3.2. For most stars, however, the data set sampled the orbital cycles sufficiently well to allow an initial guess close to the correct orbital period.

The best fit orbital parameters obtained here generally agree with previous orbital solutions published in the literature despite improved uncertainties. However, we obtain significantly different orbital periods for six Cepheids $\delta$ Cep (cf. Figure 2), AX Cir, MU Cep, V1334 Cyg, W Sgr, and XX Cen. These stars, among others, are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.

4.1.2 Orbits from VELOCE and literature data (V+L)

We determined orbital solutions using combined VELOCE and literature data using our MCMC algorithm applied to the template fitting epoch residuals; such fits are labeled as ‘V+L’ in Tables 3 and 4. Orbits of five newly discovered binaries (FO Car, MY Pup, R Cru, VY Per, and VZ Pup) and nine previously known binaries (DL Cas, FF Aql, S Mus, S Sge, SY Nor, TX Mon, U Vul, V1334 Cyg, and YZ Car) were obtained using VELOCE data alone as well as in combination with literature RVs. The ‘V’ and ‘V+L’ orbits for 12 of these 14 agree within the uncertainties, although ‘V+L’ orbits tend to have lower uncertainties, mostly due to better orbital sampling. The exceptions are MY Pup and VZ Pup. The VELOCE baseline only marginally covers the orbital period of MY Pup, hence, incorporating literature data results in a modification of the period. The $P_{\rm{orb}}$ of VZ Pup differs by $2.4\sigma$ between ‘V’ and ‘V+L’ orbits due to the $P_{\rm{orb}}$ being on the order of the available VELOCE baseline. The ‘V+L’ result is thus clearly preferred, hence, whenever available we use ‘V+L’ orbital estimates in any sample descriptions presented here. Lastly, for two stars, AX Cir and SU Cyg, we could only obtain a combined fit using VELOCE and literature data. In the case of AX Cir (Figure 44), due to its very long orbital period and for SU Cyg (Figure 54) due to the incomplete sampling of orbital phase with VELOCE data alone.

4.1.3 ‘Tentative’ orbits using VELOCE and literature data

We determined first tentative orbital solutions for three stars: BP Cir, R Mus, and V0659 Cen. We consider these orbits ‘tentative’ because the literature data were not sufficiently constraining, while the VELOCE data alone were not sufficient to sample a full orbit. Additional observations are required to ascertain the true orbital solutions for these stars. Please note that the uncertainties associated with the orbital parameters of the ‘tentative orbits’ listed in Table 3 may not accurately reflect the limitations arising from the insufficient sampling of these long orbits. The stated uncertainties are formal uncertainties on the model given the data. However, in cases of poor or incomplete orbital sampling, it is possible that the true orbital period is outside the range of these formal errors. This is why we present these cases separately as ‘tentative’.

4.2 Incompletely sampled orbits modeled as polynomial trends

Table 5: List of SB1 from our sample where we found some evidence of orbital motion, and a polynomial was fitted as the orbit could not be sampled/covered adequately.

Cepheid	deg	A_p2p	$\Delta$ T_p2p	Trend
		(km s^-1)	(d)
SB1s discovered in the current work
AQ Pup	3	$3.320\,225\,667\,098\,065$	$2500.105\,493\,999\,996$	up
ASAS J064553+1003.8	3	$1.108\,292\,219\,298\,164$	$2347.0$	down
ASAS J103158-5814.7	4	$13.953\,109\,656\,934\,83$	$3658.0$	down
ASAS J155847-5341.8	1	$0.577\,392\,358\,532\,037\,5$	$3587.120\,128\,999\,995$	down
ASAS J174108-2328.5	1	$0.381\,036\,746\,616\,474\,4$	$2532.895\,360\,000\,002$	up
DR Vel	2	$0.252\,770\,151\,413\,063\,4$	$1657.0$	down
OX Cam	1	$0.866\,355\,979\,685\,042\,9$	$2549.063\,739\,499\,994$	down
RY Sco	1	$0.606\,588\,186\,775\,020\,7$	$2645.759\,737$	up
RY Vel	6	$2.540\,767\,774\,298\,601$	$2126.0$	up
SX Vel	1	$0.278\,498\,730\,602\,553\,5$	$2140.056\,317\,000\,002$	up
V0391 Nor	2	$2.524\,852\,816\,530\,128$	$3511.0$	down
V0492 Cyg	2	$2.029\,192\,361\,644\,205$	$1895.0$	up
V0827 Cas	1	$0.314\,931\,707\,897\,024\,2$	$2568.039\,547\,9$	up
V1162 Aql	2	$0.238\,404\,295\,451\,122\,3$	$656.0$	up
V1803 Aql	1	$2.441\,596\,674\,885\,739$	$3634.833\,878\,499\,972$	down
V2475 Cyg	2	$5.708\,763\,506\,054\,583$	$3404.0$	down
Literature-known SB1s
AD Pup	4	$1.451\,948\,182\,076\,336$	$818.0$	down
AH Vel	1	$1.739\,904\,163\,355\,519$	$2125.994\,319\,999\,998$	up
AQ Car	1	$0.716\,518\,705\,226\,694\,5$	$2817.144\,399\,999\,997$	down
AW Per	1	$3.952\,692\,379\,094\,831$	$2567.101\,016\,299\,996$	down
FR Car	1	$0.353\,025\,087\,590\,433\,3$	$2115.970\,938\,999\,999$	up
KN Cen	3	$2.827\,676\,764\,804\,899$	$2857.0$	down
LR TrA	3	$3.521\,263\,149\,100\,633$	$3664.0$	up
RV Sco	2	$5.340\,853\,915\,195\,297$	$3429.0$	up
RW Cam	1	$1.687\,231\,322\,771\,84$	$2679.798\,328\,799\,945$	up
RX Aur	1	$0.631\,849\,787\,184\,581\,4$	$1223.718\,759\,5$	up
T Mon	1	$1.199\,972\,857\,501\,646$	$3841.348\,309\,000\,001$	up
UX Per	2	$7.212\,160\,593\,830\,838$	$3657.0$	down
UZ Sct	4	$4.614\,123\,160\,024\,221$	$1426.0$	up
XZ Car	1	$0.632\,337\,004\,970\,261\,2$	$3658.007\,333\,999\,994$	up

⁷⁷7Column 2 represents the degree of polynomial used in our analysis, Column 3 lists the peak-to-peak amplitude of the (linear or non-linear)

v_{\gamma}

variation and Column 4 lists the timeline (in days) over which this amplitude was computed. The last column indicates the direction of the trend, up for increasing velocity, down for decreasing.

We represented 16 newly detected SB1 systems and 14 previously reported SB1 systems using a combined Fourier series plus polynomial trend. Table 5 quantifies the measured range of the orbital RV variation, A_p2p, over the temporal baseline (denoted by $\Delta$ T_p2p), which is the baseline of the observations over which the A_p2p was calculated. Among the 30 systems examined with Fourier plus polynomial fit, 15 Cepheids exhibit non-linear trends. Among the 15 stars with linear trends, 5 demonstrate a decreasing trend in $v_{\gamma}$ , whereas the remaining 10 feature increasing $v_{\gamma}$ . Additional observations are required to determine these orbits.

Figure 6 presents the distribution of A_p2p versus $\Delta$ T_p2p and the pulsation period. A clear trend of increasing A_p2p as we extend to longer temporal baselines is visible. For a fixed value of $K$ , this trend arises because longer baselines increasingly sample the full (albeit incomplete) peak-to-peak variation of the orbit. However, there is significant dispersion in the value of $K$ at fixed $P_{\rm{orb}}$ due to different inclinations and mass ratio. The smallest trends of between 0.2 - 0.35 km s^-1 are found for V1162 Aql, DR Vel, FR Car and SX Vel (over $\sim$ 1.8, 4.5, 5.8 and 5.9 yrs respectively). By comparison, the smallest $K$ among completely solved orbits is $0.67$ km s^-1 (MY Pup, $5.7$ yr). At the long timescale limit, we find $A_{p2p}=1.2$ km s^-1 variation for T Mon over the course of nearly $10.5$ yr. By comparison, the lowest $K=2.1$ km s^-1 for a completed orbit and a similar $P_{\rm{orb}}$ of 11 yr is found for VZ Pup.

4.3 Template fitting for stars without orbital signatures in VELOCE data

Paper I presented a list of SB1 Cepheids exhibiting time-variable average velocities detected using VELOCE data alone. SB1 Cepheids with very long $P_{\rm{orb}}$ could, however, remain undetected based on VELOCE data alone. Hence, we investigated the temporal stability of $v_{\gamma}$ for all Cepheids in VELOCE using the well-defined RV templates from Section 3.4. To this end, we computed $\mathrm{SNR_{SB1}}$ (Eq. 10) and considered a star a likely binary if any template fit resulted in a 3- $\sigma$ deviation ( $\mathrm{SNR_{SB1}}$ $>$ 3) from a constant value of $v_{\gamma}$ .

Applying this method to 174 bona fide VELOCE Cepheids with available literature data resulted in the discovery of four additional SB1 candidates: $\beta$ Dor, SZ Aql, V0402 Cyg, and X Cyg, cf. Figure 7. All four exhibit visually convincing trends in $v_{\gamma}$ on the order of $1-3\,$ km s^-1 on timescales exceeding $15\,000-20\,000$ d.

Additionally, we found 8 bona fide SB1 Cepheids (CD Cyg, $\eta$ Aql, RS Ori, SS CMa, SZ Cyg, V0340 Ara, V0916 Aql and VY Sgr) among a sample of 32 SB1 candidates previously reported in the literature (Szabados 2003) where the available baseline of VELOCE data alone was insufficient to detect orbital motion. Figure 8 illustrates these cases. CD Cyg and SS CMa were already discussed as potential SB1s from the RVTF analysis of Anderson et al. (2016a) using VELOCE data. Here, we confirm that the deviations in $v_{\gamma}$ indicate of binarity.

For the remaining 24 Cepheids among the 32 candidates, we could not confirm unambiguous orbital motion despite large overlaps in the data used. Ten of these 24 Cepheids do not exhibit a $\mathrm{SNR_{SB1}}>3$ , over a temporal baseline of 10 000 - 20 000 days. For the remaining 14 cases, individual $v_{\gamma}$ variations are found, although they should be considered spurious variations because closely neighboring $v_{\gamma}$ estimates clearly show the absence of a trend at these epochs. In Appendix Figure 63, we present all these ‘non-SB1’ cases and we have tagged these stars with ‘RVTF-No’ in the ‘Binarity’ column of Table LABEL:tab:BasicInfo.

Given the high accuracy of the VELOCE template fitting procedure, which effectively removes any pulsational variability and period variations, and since instrumental zero-point differences have been corrected using non-binary Cepheids (cf. Paper I), we conclude that these 24 Cepheids should not be considered spectroscopic binaries.

4.4 SB1 fraction among VELOCE Cepheids

The 76 bona-fide SB1 Cepheids detected as part of VELOCE yield a lower limit to the spectroscopic binary fraction of $29.6\pm 3.4\%$ that is fully consistent with the result by Evans et al. (2015) of $29\pm 8$ % based on the 40 brightest Cepheids. If all 14 SB1 candidates from Paper I should be confirmed to be bona-fide SB1 systems, then the VELOCE binary fraction would increase to $\sim 35\%$ .

Using the subset of Cepheids with fully determined orbital solutions from Tables. 3 and 4 and assuming that all non-determined orbits have very long orbital periods, we find a lower limit to the fraction of SB1 Cepheids with orbital periods of less than $10$ yr of $15.2\pm 2.4\%$ , slightly lower albeit consistent with the reported $20\pm 6\%$ from Evans et al. (2015). Although our stringent template-based investigation (Section 4.3) questioned the veracity of the SB1 nature of 24 Cepheids for which such evidence had been previously discussed (cf. references in Szabados 2003), the fraction of SB1 systems among Cepheids we determined remains similar because we also identified new SB1 systems. However, the more accurate determination of time-variable $v_{\gamma}$ alongside detailed zero-point corrections affords much greater confidence in the determination of the SB1 nature of individual Cepheids. Of course, the SB1 fraction of Cepheids is merely a lower limit of the total fraction of Cepheids with companions due to the possibility of very large separations, unfavourable inclinations, and extreme mass ratios.

Figure 9 illustrates the magnitude distribution of newly discovered and detected SB1 Cepheids alongside the distribution of binary systems reported in the online compilation by Szabados (2003), as well as the distribution of magnitudes for which orbits were determined here. To ensure consistency in the comparison, we have exclusively included the bona-fide SB1 binaries from Szabados (2003) in Figure 9. Therefore, other types of binaries (such as photometric, visual, etc.) from their catalog are not accounted for in this analysis. Please note that Figure 9 does not include 24 systems that are not detected as SB1 in our study.

As the right panel of Figure 9 shows, we here double the number of orbital solutions for Cepheids fainter than $\sim 8$ -th magnitude, and there are only 14 Cepheids with known orbital solutions that are not included in this work (one Cepheid among these 14, namely T Mon has incompletely sampled orbit in this study). Conversely, we determine the first orbital solutions for 18 Cepheids, most of which fainter than $\gtrsim 8$ th magnitude.

4.5 Notes on individual binaries

We have presented evidence of the SB1 nature of 76 Milky Way Cepheids on timescales spanning up to 40 years, including 32 stars whose SB1 nature was not previously known. The following provides additional background for specific stars of interest, notably if our results disagree with previous studies. We note that several Cepheids were first reported to be SB1 systems based on early VELOCE results, such as FN Vel and MU Cep (Anderson 2013), BG Vel and RZ Vel (Szabados et al. 2013a), $\delta$ Cep (Anderson et al. 2015), and AQ Car, CD Cyg, KN Cen, SS CMa, SZ Cyg, XZ Car, VY Car and X Pup (Anderson et al. 2016a). Anderson et al. (2016a) noticed tentative evidence of $v_{\gamma}$ variations in VY Car, AQ Car, SZ Cyg and X Pup. However, they ultimately deemed these findings inconclusive due to imprecise data in the literature and the occasional substantial fluctuations in pulsational variability. In the current work we successfully detect these $v_{\gamma}$ variations for SZ Cyg (when VELOCE data is combined with zero-point corrected literature datasets, see Figure 8) and AQ Car (cf. Table 5, Figure 10). Nevertheless, in the case of VY Car and X Pup, the $v_{\gamma}$ values, when adjusted for zero-point, do not reveal any consistent variation indicative of binarity (see Figure 63).

$\alpha$ UMi (Polaris)

was one of the first Cepheids whose nature as an SB1 system was realized (Moore 1929), and much literature exists on this star. Polaris was extensively studied using pre-2019 VELOCE data by Anderson (2019), who determined a full orbital solution and studied the stability of RV amplitudes as well as the presence of additional periodic signals. Given the very long $\sim 30$ -year orbital period, we did not update the orbital solution here and instead refer to the aforementioned publication as well as Torres (2023) for orbital parameters.

$\delta$ Cephei

is the archetype of classical Cepheids and was discovered to be an SB1 system using an earlier subset of VELOCE data. Anderson et al. (2015) estimated an orbit with $P_{\rm{orb}}$ = $2201^{+5.73}_{-6.31}$ d, $K=1.5^{+0.239}_{-0.080}$ km s^-1, and $e=0.647^{+0.038}_{-0.021}$ by combining new RV data with RV measurements from the literature. A main difficulty of this approach was the correction of zero-point differences for datasets with short ( $\sim 1$ yr) baselines. Here, we report a correction to the orbital solution, with $P_{\rm{orb}}$ = $3450.9\pm 19.6$ d, $K=3.01\pm 0.02$ km s^-1, and $e=0.745\pm 0.006$ , based purely on VELOCE data and hence not subject to the uncertainties associated with literature zero-point offsets. This updated orbit of $\delta$ Cep was already presented at the 2022 RR Lyr-Cep conference in La Palma (Shetye 2022). It agrees reasonably well with the results recently presented by Nardetto et al. (2024) based on a combination of High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher for the Northern hemisphere (HARPS-N) data and existing literature. Their estimated orbital period of 3401.8 d and eccentricity of 0.71 differ by 2 $-\sigma$ and 1.7 $-\sigma$ from ours. These small differences may result from their use of a heterogeneous dataset, or the better coverage of the periastron passage by the HARPS-N data. As Figure 2 shows, the orbit is now completely sampled and contained within the VELOCE baseline ( $3620$ d). Importantly, the extreme ends of the orbital velocity have been observed and tightly constrain $e$ and $K$ . Unfortunately, including literature data for a ‘V+L’ orbit does not improve the orbital solution due to the same issues that affected the prior analysis. Extending the baseline with future Hermes observations will further improve the orbital period. We note that the mass function and the high brightness contrast imply the companion to be a low-mass star, possibly a white dwarf (Gallenne et al. 2016). A similar deduction was made in the recent X-ray study of Cepheids by Evans et al. (2022). A companion of G spectral type or later would be expected to be detected in X-rays, which puts a lower limit on the mass of the companion. Finally, we note that the single-star astrometric solution provided in Gaia DR3 clearly indicates poor fit quality⁸⁸8Specifically, the Gaia DR3 astrometric parameters astrometric_gof_al $=31$ , astrometric_chi2_al $=41802$ , astrometric_excess_noise $=1.23$ , astrometric_gof_noise_sig $=1777$ , and RUWE $=2.7$ all indicate the presence of unmodeled signal.. It thus appears likely that Gaia’s next data release could deliver an astrometric orbital solution, as predicted by Anderson et al. (2015).

$\eta$ Aql

was recently studied by Benedict et al. (2022) using spectroscopic, photometric and astrometric (from the Hubble Space Telescope’s Fine Guidance Sensor) observations, including unpublished VELOCE data. No significant variations in the RV residuals were detected after removing the Cepheid pulsational RV signature, leading Benedict et al. (2022) to conclude that either $\eta$ Aql has a very long orbital period (longer than their baseline of $\sim$ 38 years) or that it has a face-on orbit. We considered an extended temporal baseline by including RV data from Lloyd Evans (1980), Barnes et al. (1987), and Wilson et al. (1989) and detect a 3- $\sigma$ variation in the $\Delta$ $v_{\gamma}$ (Figure 8). If the older datasets are to be believed despite large RV uncertainties of $\sim$ 1 km s^-1, then $\eta$ Aql is indeed an SB1 Cepheid with a very long orbit of more than 50 years. Verifying whether this spectroscopic companion corresponds to the one identified in the UV imaging and spectra of $\eta$ Aql by Evans et al. (2013), at a separation of 180 au, necessitates a follow-up of the long orbital period.

AQ Car

was reported to show tentative signs of time-variable $v_{\gamma}$ using an earlier set of VELOCE and literature data. In Paper I, we confirmed the SB1 nature of this star. Although weak, $\sim 0.7$ km s^-1, the signal is clearly present in the VELOCE data thanks to the baseline of $\sim 4$ yr. Although literature datasets appear imprecise to usefully inform the $v_{\gamma}$ variations (cf. Figure 10), in actuality, the fluctuations observed in the literature data surpass a 3- $\sigma$ threshold. As $\sigma$ is calculated using VELOCE data under the assumption of no orbital motion, consequently, the deviations from a stable $v_{\gamma}$ are consistently underestimated in this scenario.

AQ Pup

was reported to have a photometric companion (Evans & Udalski 1994) that was not previously confirmed spectroscopically (Vinko 1991). Here, we report low-amplitude $v_{\gamma}$ variations ( $\sim$ 3.3 km s^-1) on a timescale of 2500 days. Whether this signature corresponds to the photometric companion remains unclear.

ASAS J064540+0330.4

- We present the first orbital fit for ASAS J064540+0330.4 with a $P_{\rm{orb}}$ of 901.18 $\pm$ 2.81 days and an eccentricity of 0.44 $\pm$ 0.01. As shown in Figure 18, the pulsational residuals indicate additional signals beyond the orbital ones. It is important to note that further observational follow-up is necessary to sample the orbital phase better and establish this orbit more firmly.

ASAS J103158-5814.7

(GDR3 5351436724362450304) is a particularly interesting star, cf. Figure 11 and Paper I. It exhibits three signals at once: very short-period overtone pulsation (classified as first overtone by Gaia DR3 SOS, $P_{\rm{puls}}=1.11936$ d), high-amplitude orbital motion exceeding 13 km s^-1, cf. Table 5, and strongly modulated pulsation amplitudes reminiscent of the “Blazhko” Cepheid V0473 Lyrae (Burki et al. 1982; Molnár et al. 2017). At present, the orbital variations do not allow the estimation of an orbital period and we will thus continue monitoring this intriguing star. Unfortunately, this star was not included in the list of Cepheids with time-series RV data in Gaia DR3.

AX Cir

is a known SB1 and its orbit was first derived by Petterson et al. (2004). Our $P_{\rm{orb}}$ estimate of $\sim$ 6285 days differs by 5% (10- $\sigma$ ) from that of Petterson et al. (2004). While our combined dataset, comprising VELOCE and literature data, incompletely samples orbital phases, we obtain an eccentricity that is in total agreement with the previously reported orbital eccentricity for AX Cir.

FN Vel

was discovered to be an SB1 by Anderson (2013) who provided a first orbital solution. Kovtyukh et al. (2015) showed evidence for the companion using the Ca H & K lines. Here, we provide an updated orbital solution.

BP Cir

is known to host a hot main-sequence companion (Arellano-Ferro & Madore 1985; Evans et al. 1992) based on IUE spectroscopy. Petterson et al. (2004) reported $v_{\gamma}$ variations exceeding 5 km s^-1 and that the star could possibly have a long orbital period. Using VELOCE alone we have $v_{\gamma}$ variations of $\sim$ 2 km s^-1, however, when we combined VELOCE with literature datasets from Petterson et al. (2004) and Borgniet et al. (2019) we found $v_{\gamma}$ variations of $\sim$ 4 km s^-1 at a temporal baseline of 9000 days. We estimated BP Cir’s orbital period using VELOCE and literature datasets, and found a tentative solution with $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\sim$ 4300 days and $e\sim 0.8$ , cf. Figure 45. Nevertheless, due to limitations in the available data, we are unable to definitively determine whether a period of 4300 days or twice that duration provides a more accurate representation.

FO Car’s

observations began in March 2016, and we find a Keplerian orbit of $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\sim 1660$ d. To the best of our knowledge, no previous publication⁹⁹9Zhou 2010 credited Szabados 1996 with detecting such evidence. Although FO Car is not listed in this publication, FR Car is, and we surmise a typo in Zhou 2010. has presented the case of FO Car. However, the online database of binary Cepheids (Szabados 2003) lists it as a spectroscopic binary, crediting Szabados & Berdnikov (2003 in preparation). Russo et al. (1981) found photometric evidence for a companion using a phase shift technique involving optical and UV data. Based on the visual companion identified during the spectroscopic observations (cf. Figure 17) we consider this as the most likely source of the phase shift. Given the angular separation, the visual companion is clearly not the cause of the 4.5 yr orbit, and hence, FO Car is a triple system composed of the Cepheid with an inner spectroscopic and outer visual companion.

MU Cep

- The spectroscopic binarity of MU Cep (not to be confused with the much brighter red supergiant $\mu$ Cep) was discovered by Anderson (2013). Here we present an updated orbital solution, cf. Table 3, illustrated in Figure 28. The previously reported $P_{orb}\sim 1500\pm 350$ d exceeded the observational baseline. Thanks to continued follow-up of this faint star ( $\langle\ m_{V}\rangle$ = 12.3 mag), we have achieved nearly complete coverage of MU Cep’s orbital phase and obtain tight orbital constraints, with $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $=2028\pm 2.7$ d.

R Cru

is listed as an SB1 in the database by Szabados (2003), which credits unpublished work by L. Szabados and D. Bersier with this discovery. More recently, Evans et al. (2020) reported a visual companion of R Cru at a separation of 1.9 arcseconds based on Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging. We have acquired nearly 7 yr worth of very high-precision RV data for this bright Cepheid. The data clearly reveal low-amplitude orbital motion with $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\sim$ 238 d (cf. Figure 30), rendering R Cru the Cepheid with the shortest orbital period in the Milky Way. The template fitting routine further finds evidence for non-linear period changes (see Figure 15 of PaperI), cf. also Csörnyei et al. (2022). The relative semimajor axis of $a_{\rm rel}>274R_{\odot}$ implies that the Cepheid and its companion are not in contact, assuming a Cepheid radius of $47R_{\odot}$ computed using a P-R relation (Anderson et al. 2016c) and a nearly circular orbit. For a Cepheid mass of around $5M_{\odot}$ and a $2M_{\odot}$ A2 companion (upper limit from the IUE spectrum, Evans 1992), the mass function for a circular orbit yields a minimum inclination of $>3.3\,$ deg, improving slightly over the limit from the mass function alone ( $1.6\,$ deg). For the range of inclinations $3.3-90\,$ deg, and assuming a $5M_{\odot}$ Cepheid, we thus find the allowed mass range for the companion to be between $0.09-2.0\,M_{\odot}$ .

RV Sco

- Proust et al. (1981) list RV Sco as a visual multiple system, with a non-variable companion of $m_{V}\sim$ 13 mag at a separation of 6.0 arcseconds. Evans (1992) did not detect any photometric companion for RV Sco within their IUE spectral analysis. Szabados (1989) suspected its binarity through its variable $\gamma$ -velocity. Here, we confirm the finding as we detected significant (A ${}_{p2p}\sim$ 5.3 km s^-1) amplitude variation in RV resulting into a 4- $\sigma$ detection of binarity. RV Sco is therefore a triple (SB1 + visual companion) system.

RY Sco

is listed as a visual binary in Szabados (2003), with references to Proust et al. (1981); Evans & Udalski (1994). We here detect the stars’s SB1 nature for the first time, with very low-amplitude orbital RV variations of $\sim$ 0.6 km s^-1. Combining VELOCE with literature datasets and extending to longer baseline, we notice a $v_{\gamma}$ variation of $\sim$ 2.5 km s^-1on a timescale of 41 years. RY Sco is thus most likely a triple system with both a visual and a spectroscopic companions.

RZ Vel

was reported to be an SB1 Cepheid by Szabados et al. (2013a). Szabados et al. (2013a) used a subset of VELOCE data (between BJD 2455650 - 2456400). We extended this VELOCE baseline to BJD 2459600 and combined it with literature datasets from Lloyd Evans (1980); Coulson & Caldwell (1985); Bersier (2002); Borgniet et al. (2019). Although, data from Bersier (2002) was also included in Szabados et al. (2013a), we do not detect 3- $\sigma$ $v_{\gamma}$ variations for this or any other recent dataset after the year 2000.

S Mus

was first identified as a binary using photometric observations (Lloyd Evans 1968). A first orbital solution was presented by Lloyd Evans (1982), with several others since. In particular, Petterson et al. (2004) provided a precise update to this solution, and Binnenfeld et al. (2022) determined the periodicity using partial periodograms directly computed from the spectra rather than RV measurements. We gathered 78 high-precision Coralie RVs over a total baseline of 6.3 yr. These data alone yield an orbital solution in agreement (to within 1 day) with Petterson et al. (2004) and Gallenne et al. (2019), cf. Table 4. As shown by Evans et al. (2015, 2020), the companion is an X-ray active B3V star.

S Nor

was detected as an SB1 by Szabados (1989), where they estimated tentative orbital periods of 3300 or 6500 days. Groenewegen (2008) modeled S Nor’s RV data using a circular orbit with a fixed $P_{\rm{orb}}$ of 3600 days and concluded that more RV data are needed to better determine this orbit. Here, we do not find this orbital estimate to be consistent with VELOCE data. We do not detect any $v_{\gamma}$ variations with VELOCE data alone, however, when VELOCE is combined with literature datasets we do obtain a 3- $\sigma$ detection for the oldest RV datasets (Figure 62). However, the only cluster that exceeds 3- $\sigma$ is based on only three observations and the uncertainty of this particular cluster is likely underestimated. Consequently, we doubt the validity of the only $>$ 3- $\sigma$ outlier and cannot consider the star a bonafide binary. Nevertheless, if the RVTF results are taken at face value, then the orbit would have to be significantly eccentric. Lastly, Figure 62 indicates that a potential orbit clearly has high eccentricity.

SU Cyg

is a solitary case wherein the pulsation model was derived using a combination of VELOCE data and zero-point corrected RV data from Borgniet et al. (2019). While VELOCE data provided strong constraints on the orbit, they were insufficient on their own to create a satisfactory Fourier series model. To address this, we included the Borgniet et al. (2019) measurements to formulate the RV template. This template was then used to compute $\epsilon v_{\gamma}$ , as listed in the appendix Table 7. Finally, employing the MCMC method, we obtained the ‘V+L’ orbit of SU Cyg with $P_{\rm{orb}}$ of $\sim$ 548 $\pm$ 0.1 d and eccentricity of $\sim$ 0.34 $\pm$ 0.005 (Figure 54). These orbital estimates are in agreement with $\Delta$ $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $<$ 1 d (all orbital elements within 3- $\sigma$ difference) the ones in the literature from Evans (1988); Imbert (1984); Groenewegen (2008).

TX Mon

was first reported as an SB1 by Szabados & Pont (1998), who estimated a short $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\approx 470\pm 30$ d. We here confirm the SB1 nature of the star and determine the orbit, albeit at much longer $P_{\rm{orb}}$ = $1607\pm 1$ d, with $K=11.9\pm 0.04$ km s^-1.

V0659 Cen

is host to a hot B6.0V companion detected directly using IUE UV spectroscopy (Evans 1994). V0659 Cen also has a high X-ray flux potentially originating from its companion (Evans et al. 2022). Here we present the first RV evidence of the Cepheid’s orbital motion with a peak-to-peak RV variation of $\gtrsim 5\,$ km s^-1. Combining VELOCE and literature data, we estimate a preliminary orbital period $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\sim 9300\pm 130$ d with mild eccentricity ( $e=0.32$ ). We designate this orbit as ‘tentative’ due to the ambiguity regarding whether the orbital period is approximately 6000 or 9000 days. It should be emphasized that the current uncertainties, which are around 100 days, do not account for this ambiguity. Additional HST UV spectroscopy will be particularly valuable to measure the mass of the Cepheid (Evans et al. in prep.).

V1334 Cyg

is among the few sample cases where there is a disagreement between ‘V’ and ‘V+L’ estimates, specifically of 0.8% (3- $\sigma$ ) in $P_{\rm{orb}}$ for V1334 Cyg. Even after combining the VELOCE and literature datasets, constraints on the ascending part and extremities of the orbital phase remain limited. As the literature dataset from Gorynya et al. (1992) and Borgniet et al. (2019) add extra constraints on the descending branch of the orbital phase, we prefer the ‘V+L’ orbital estimate for V1334 Cyg. Furthermore, both ‘V’ and ‘V+L’ orbital estimates are in 0.5% (3- $\sigma$ ) disagreement with the ones from Gallenne et al. (2018) and 3- $\sigma$ and 2- $\sigma$ , respectively, with the ones from Evans (2000). This maybe attributed to the aforementioned poor sampling at some orbital phases. Future observations, with overall improved sampling will help to elucidate the discrepancy. Lastly, Gallenne et al. (2018) demonstrated that Gaia DR2 parallax is off by 3.6- $\sigma$ compared to the orbital parallax determined from the visual orbit + RVs of both components. This could be another reason for the discrepancy between our orbital parameters and the ones from Gallenne et al. (2018).

VY Car

was considered a tentative SB1 candidate by Anderson et al. (2016a). Despite improved treatment of instrumental zero-point offsets, the orbital signal has neither disappeared nor clarified. We note that Figure 63 suggests a trend with time. However, none of the epochs deviate from the average by more than 3- $\sigma$ . Hence, VY Car remains an unconfirmed SB1 candidate with a potentially very long orbital period.

VY Per

was reported to exhibit $v_{\gamma}$ variations exceeding 5 km s^-1 by Szabados (1992) over a baseline of two years. We confirm the SB1 nature of this star and obtain a tentative orbital solution, with a $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\sim$ 806 d and $e\sim 0.4$ (cf. Figure 38). Additionally, the MCMC (V+L) orbital estimate is presented in Table 3 and Figure 60. This MCMC indicates that the true orbital period could be a multiple of $805$ d. Unfortunately, the result remains ambiguous due to the sampling of the data, which also does not include the orbit’s descending branch.

W Sgr

’s $P_{\rm{orb}}$ using VELOCE data differs by 6- $\sigma$ , 20- $\sigma$ and 18- $\sigma$ from that of Babel et al. (1989), Petterson et al. (2004), and Gallenne et al. (2019) respectively. We would like to note that in our work the eccentricity is not sufficiently constrained (Figure 40), hence, the orbit is probably more eccentric and shorter than our model as well as the $P_{\rm{orb}}$ is potentially more uncertain than the fit suggests. Unfortunately, the current dataset does not provide sufficient information for a more accurate fit, and additional observations will be necessary. In light of these considerations, we emphasize that Petterson et al. (2004) currently offer a more reliable orbital solution.

X Cyg

was reported to exhibit an orbital signal via the light time travel effect by Szatmary (1990), who estimated $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\approx 55$ yr. Evans et al. (2015) and Hintz et al. (2021) did not detect long-term $v_{\gamma}$ variations based on $\sim$ 11-year baselines. We here identify X Cyg’s $v_{\gamma}$ variations using much longer temporal baselines of $\sim$ 40 yrs by combining VELOCE data with the literature (Barnes et al. 1987; Wilson et al. 1989; Kiss 1998; Barnes et al. 2005; Gorynya et al. 1992; Storm et al. 2004; Bersier et al. 1994; Borgniet et al. 2019). We thus find a total $v_{\gamma}$ difference of $\sim$ 3 km s^-1 and a lower limit of 40 yr on $P_{\rm{orb}}$ , consistent with Szatmary (1990).

X Pup

was mentioned by Anderson et al. (2016a) to exhibit tentative signs of time-variable $v_{\gamma}$ based on a difference between VELOCE data and the literature. However, the improved corrections of RV zero-points from VELOCE-I together with the clustered RVTF analysis do not reveal a significant signature of orbital motion, cf. Figure 63.

XX Cen

- Groenewegen (2008) determined an orbital solution with $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $=924\pm 1.1$ d and $K=4.47\pm 0.28$ km s^-1, and $e$ fixed to $0$ . We find a significantly different orbit for XX Cen based on VELOCE data alone and determine an orbital solution with $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $=722.44\pm 0.42$ d, $K=5.4\pm 0.03$ km s^-1, that is significantly eccentric with $e=0.295\pm 0.004$ .

5 Sample analysis

5.1 Correlations among orbital elements

Figure 12 shows the correlation between different orbital elements ( $\omega$ , $K$ , $e$ , and $a\sin{i}$ ) with $P_{\rm{orb}}$ for all orbital solutions reported here. This includes first-time orbital estimates of 18 stars and 15 VELOCE orbital estimates for Cepheids with literature-known orbits. Newly discovered SB1 systems populate the full range of orbital parameters, indicating that our sample selection was not biased towards the literature-known orbital properties of SB1 Cepheids. Semi-amplitudes tend to decrease as $P_{\rm{orb}}$ increases. Thanks to the precision of VELOCE RV measurements and long-term monitoring, we were able to discover many new SB1 systems with very small semi-amplitudes and long orbital periods. A noticeable correlation exists between $a\sin{i}$ and $P_{\rm{orb}}$ , and the dispersion along this correlation might stem, at least partially, from fluctuations in the combined masses of the Cepheid and its companion.

The eccentricity versus orbital period distribution (upper right panel in Figure 12) is particularly interesting. We find that the maximum eccentricity increases with orbital period. Despite a large range of eccentricities at most $P_{\rm{orb}}$ values, an absence of very high $e<0.6$ is clearly noticeable at $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\lesssim 3$ yr. The two Cepheids with the shortest $P_{\rm{orb}}$ have very low or no noticeable eccentricity. We also notice an absence of circular orbits at $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\gtrsim 3$ yr, which appears to become an exclusion region at longer $P_{\rm{orb}}$ . Since such distant companions have most likely evolved in isolation, this could point to a primordial feature of intermediate-mass (B-star) binaries. However, NBODY simulations show that cluster dynamics increase $e$ for long orbital periods over time (Dinnbier et al., in prep.). Additional long-period orbits are required to investigate this effect.

Most of these trends qualitatively agree with the empirical results by Evans et al. (2015), as well as with predictions from the Cepheid binary population synthesis study by Neilson et al. (2015) and Karczmarek et al. (2022), as well as with the dynamical NBODY6 simulations by Dinnbier et al. (2024). However, we do find several Cepheids at high $5<P_{orb}<10$ yr and relatively low eccentricities ( $e<0.2$ ) where Cepheid binaries have been predicted to have a low probability of occurring (Neilson et al. 2015). Additionally, R Cru is very close to the minimum $P_{\rm{orb}}$ consistent with the synthetic populations by Neilson et al. (2015) and Karczmarek et al. (2022).

Incompletely sampled orbits described in Section 4.2 and illustrated in Figure 6 provide partial information on $K$ and $P_{\rm{orb}}$ . Comparing $A_{\rm p2p}$ with $K$ (in Figure 12) as a function of $P_{\rm{orb}}$ , we notice the inverse trends. Shorter orbital periods tend to have larger $K$ , whereas we find larger $A_{\rm p2p}$ over longer baselines. This suggests that most short- $P_{\rm{orb}}$ orbits with $K\gtrsim 0.5$ km s^-1 of Cepheids observed by VELOCE have been determined. Very low $A_{\rm p2p}$ values are likely to continue growing over longer baselines.

5.2 Cepheids exhibiting proper motion anomaly

Kervella et al. (2022) used Gaia to detect astrometric binaries using the proper motion anomaly (PMa). This method compares the proper motion vector determined by the ESA Hipparcos mission (Perryman et al. 1997) and various Gaia data releases (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2016b, a; Michalik et al. 2015; Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018; Lindegren et al. 2018; Gaia Collaboration et al. 2021; Lindegren et al. 2021). PMa quantifies the significance of a long-term rotation of the proper motion vector due to orbital motion. Stars with PMa signals exceeding $3\sigma$ were thus labeled as binaries by Kervella et al. (2022). Proper motion probes the on-sky projection of orbital motion, orthogonal to the line-of-sight variations measured using RVs. Therefore, the PMa and RV methods function as complementary tools for binary detection (cf. Kervella et al. (2019b) for details on the sensitivity function of PMa). Consequently, it’s typical for some stars identified as SB1 to lack discernible deviations in their proper motions which would categorize them as PMa-True candidates. This could either be if the Cepheids are located at large distances or possess orbital periods too short for detection. On one hand, companions with orbital periods shorter than $\sim$ 3 years are unlikely to be identified via PMa due to the time window smearing inherent in Gaia DR3. On the other hand, extremely long-period companions, spanning hundreds of years, are similarly challenging to detect, representing a limitation shared by VELOCE as well. Importantly, a PMa-False flag does not raise concerns about the SB1 detection. Among the 76 binary Cepheids in our sample, 19 have been reported to exhibit PMa signals (with binary flag ‘BinH2EG3b’ in Kervella et al. (2022) as 1). Evidence for astrometric orbital signals in form of the PMa has been reported for 10 of 33 SB1 ( $30\%$ ) Cepheids with orbital solutions presented here (including tentative ones) as well as for 8 of 30 ( $25\%$ ) SB1 systems with long-term $v_{\gamma}$ trends exhibit PMa (Kervella et al. 2022). This also includes 2 of the newly discovered SB1 Cepheids, GX Car and V0659 Cen. Table 6 lists the PMa binary flags from Kervella et al. (2022) for all stars in common with our sample.

Two systems with reported PMa, RZ Vel and SV Per, deserve a specific mention. For these two stars, we found no evidence of time-variable $v_{\gamma}$ . However, SV Per is known to have a very nearby (0.2”) companion that has been resolved using HST/WFC3 spatial scans (Riess et al. 2018) and which is most likely unresolved by Gaia. Time-variable contrast differences due to the Cepheid’s pulsation would affect the measurement of the photocenter for SV Per, which may lead to a spurious PMa signal.

Finally, we note that none of the Cepheids considered to be non-SB1s in VELOCE—stars without evidence for time-variable $v_{\gamma}$ —have been reported to exhibit a significant PMa. Specifically, this is true for all stars without evidence for time-variable $v_{\gamma}$ based on VELOCE data alone as well as our RVTF analysis (Sect. 3.4), including stars for which our results contradict previous claims of time-variable $v_{\gamma}$ .

As this comparison shows, RVs from VELOCE and literature data standardized to the VELOCE zero-points provide the most complete evidence for orbital motion for Cepheids on timescales of up to a few decades. Nonetheless, we caution that signals on the order of $1\,$ km s^-1 and lower can be introduced also by modulated variability (Anderson 2014). CCF shape parameters, such as the bisector inverse span and full width at half maximum can be informative to this end (Anderson 2016) and will be considered in future work.

5.3 Gaia DR3 astrometric quality flags of SB1 Cepheids

Gaia DR3 reports several astrometric quality flags and parameters to aid the interpretation of the reported astrometric measurements. The Renormalized Unit Weight Error (RUWE) has received particular attention and is often considered an indicator of stellar multiplicity. RUWE is calculated as the square root of the normalized $\chi$ -square of the astrometric fit to the along-scan observations (Lindegren 2018), and the threshold of RUWE $<1.4$ is frequently used to indicate well-behaved astrometric solutions (Lindegren et al. 2018, 2021). However, several factors can result in elevated RUWE, which does not identify the origin of the excess residuals and includes all possible sources of error in the fit to the astrometric model. The latter include any signals affecting photocenter stability, notably involving marginally resolved visual binaries and unmodeled astrometric orbital signals.

In Cepheids, the high-amplitude chromatic variability of Cepheids could also contribute to RUWE. For example, Gaia may automatically select different gating schemes and window classes depending on the momentaneous brightness of Cepheids that vary by $\sim 1$ mag in optical bands. Additionally, chromatic variability may lead to noise due to time-variable chromatic diffraction properties. Given these added difficulties, it is likely for RUWE to be elevated for Cepheids compared to non-variable stars. We therefore investigated to what degree excess RUWE and other astrometric quality indicators reported by Gaia may serve as an indicator of multiplicity for Cepheids.

Figure 13 shows the comparison of Gaia DR3 RUWE against the projected semimajor axis and $P_{\rm{orb}}$ . The figure shows a significant excess RUWE near $a\sin{i}$ values close to 1 au as 5 out of 8 stars with the highest RUWE (RUWE ¿ 2) fall into this category (stars located within the dashed red lines in the left panel of Figure 13). Interestingly, a corresponding feature is not so clearly seen near $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $=1$ yr, suggesting that the size of the orbital ellipse on the sky more directly affects the astrometric solution than the periodicity of the signal. The $6300$ d binary with the highest RUWE of $7.8$ is AX Cir, whose hot main sequence (likely B6V) companion has been resolved interferometrically (Gallenne et al. 2014b). A photometric contamination is the potential origin of the elevated Gaia RUWE.

Figure 14 shows RUWE in Gaia DR3 vs the amplitude of trends, $A_{\rm p2p}$ , determined using VELOCE data only in Sect. 4.2. Given that the majority of these orbital signals occur on timescales longer than the VELOCE baseline, it is not surprising that RUWE $<1.4$ for the vast majority of these stars. The most significant outlier at RUWE $\sim 8$ is RW Cam, which was shown to feature a significant UV excess indicative of a hot main sequence companion (Stepien 1968). The star with the second highest RUWE of $1.7$ is T Mon, host to a B9.8V companion detected directly from UV spectroscopy (Evans & Lyons 1994) but remained undetected interferometrically in $H-$ band (Gallenne et al. 2019). These stars collectively indicate that elevated Gaia RUWE values in Cepheids may be attributed to unresolved companions rather than orbital motion.

Figure 15 shows the probability density function of RUWE for SB1 and non-SB1 Cepheids in VELOCE. Approximately 25% of VELOCE SB1s have a RUWE $>$ 1.4 (see Table 6). While there is a slightly higher probability for an SB1 Cepheid to have excess RUWE compared to non-SB1 Cepheids, the difference is not very pronounced. Qualitatively, among the newly identified SB1 systems (RVTF), Figure 15 suggests similar probabilities near RUWE $\approx 1.7-1.8$ . However, among these, $\beta$ Dor’s extreme brightness ( $m_{V}=3.8$ mag) likely contributes substantially to the high RUWE of $4.5$ .

Finally, we also investigated the Gaia astrometric quality indicators astrometric_gof_al and astrometric_excess_noise as indicators of multiplicity of Cepheids. However, no significant trends appeared in this comparison aside from a mild increase in astrometric_excess_noise near $a\sin{i}\sim 1$ au.

In summary, we find excess RUWE mainly for Cepheid binaries with projected semimajor axis close to 1au. The parameter astrometric_excess_noise is also increased in this range, though the correlation is less clear. In addition to specific orbital configurations, elevated RUWE can arise from photocenter variations in unresolved binaries and in very bright stars, for example. Additionally, the majority of binary Cepheids are not identified by RUWE $>1.4$ .

5.4 Amplitude ratios as indicators of companion stars

Photometric amplitude ratios can be used to identify Cepheid companion stars in case the photometric contrast is sufficiently low (e.g. Madore 1977; Madore & Fernie 1980; Evans & Udalski 1994). Since most Cepheid companions are hot early-type stars, shorter-wavelength data is generally more sensitive to companions than longer-wavelength photometry. A noticeable exception are double-lined spectroscopic binaries (SB2) in the Large Magellanic Cloud that consist of a Cepheid and a giant companion (Pilecki et al. 2021).

In the Milky Way, Klagyivik & Szabados (2009) considered low ratios between photometric and RV amplitudes as an indicator for the presence of companion stars. Thanks to Gaia’s multi-band photometry, such a comparison is possible here using a large sample of stars. Figure 16 thus shows the ratio between Gaia photometric and VELOCE RV amplitudes in three bands ( $G_{Bp}$ , $G$ , and $G_{Rp}$ ) as a function of the logarithmic pulsation period. The higher ratios at shorter wavelength are readily explained by the larger photometric amplitudes. SB1 Cepheids identified in VELOCE are shown as filled circles, and stars which are not SB1 systems are shown as open circles. As a consequence of the Cepheid period-color relation, the contrast between Cepheid and companion should increase toward longer periods, rendering photometric detection more difficult. Additionally, any signal in the amplitude ratio should be enhanced at shorter wavelengths. However, the comparison between SB1 Cepheids and all others observed in all three bands reveals no indication that bona fide SB1 Cepheids have reduced amplitudes compared to other Cepheids (Figure 16). The only potential signature is a slightly reduced range of amplitude ratios for SB1 Cepheids, which, however, clusters in the center of the distribution. The comparison between photometric amplitudes in $G_{Bp}$ vs $G_{Rp}$ (not shown) yields the same impression. Hence, we find that Gaia’s photometric amplitudes are not good indicators of Cepheid companions.

6 Discussion and Summary

We have presented the largest homogeneous investigation of 76 SB1 Cepheids to date based on the unprecedented RV data set provided by the VELOCE project (Paper I). An additional 14 SB1 candidates have been identified in Paper I, but are not discussed here due to their nature as candidate binaries. VELOCE data allow us to extend the search for binary Cepheids to fainter magnitudes, adding 32 new SB1 systems, and 18 first orbital determinations of Cepheids, 11 of which are fainter than $m_{V}>8$ mag (cf. Figure 9). Thanks to these improvements, we sharpened the uncertainty on the SB1 fraction of Cepheids by a factor of $\sim 2.3$ .

We present 30 definitive and 3 tentative orbital solutions, which range from the discovery of the shortest $P_{\rm{orb}}$ in the Milky Way for R Cru (238 d) to $\sim 17$ yr (AX Cir), and also include a correction to the orbital solution of $\delta$ Cep. For 18 Cepheids, we estimate orbital solutions for the first time. VELOCE observations are particularly sensitive to $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\lesssim 5$ yr, and the available temporal baselines differ from star to star. The ensemble of orbital solutions suggests two peculiar features in the $e-\log(P)$ diagram, which are a possible exclusion zone of low-eccentricity systems (0 $\leq e<$ 0.2) at long orbital periods ( $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $\gtrsim 10$ yr) as well as a dearth of stars with orbital period in the range of $2.5-3.5$ yr. Further observations and a more detailed analysis of detection limits will be needed to confirm these features.

Based on our search for SB1 Cepheids and a detailed investigation of evidence for orbital signals using literature, we find a SB1 fraction of $29.6\pm 3.4\%$ . This is a lower limit since 14 SB1 candidates reported in Paper I were not considered in this fraction. Furthermore, we estimate the fraction of SB1 Cepheids with $P_{\rm{orb}}$ $<10$ yr of $15.2\pm 2.4\%$ , half of which have $P_{\rm{orb}}$ of less than 2.5 years. Our binary fraction estimates agree with previous reports, albeit with $2-3\times$ lower uncertainty. Of course, SB1 Cepheids are detectable mainly for orbital periods of $<100$ yr, and other methods must be considered to estimate the total binary fraction of Cepheids. Considerable effort is currently underway to comprehensively determine the binary fraction of Cepheids, employing a diverse array of techniques such as astrometry, spectroscopy, interferometry, and observations across various wavelengths. For example, Evans et al. (2022) estimated a total binary fraction of $57\pm 12\%$ based on SB1 Cepheids, and Cepheids with evidence for companions from X-ray and UV observations. It is worth noting that future Gaia data releases, particularly DR4 and DR5, will contribute significantly with an abundance of astrometric orbits, enriching our understanding of these systems even further.

Several of the SB1 Cepheids studied here are part of triple systems, including AW Per (Evans et al. 2000), FF Aql (Udalski & Evans 1993), S Sge (Evans et al. 1993), V1334 Cyg (Abt & Levy 1970; Evans 1994), V0659 Cen (Evans et al. 2013, 2022), and W Sgr (Evans et al. 2009). Here, we further identify FO Car, RV Sco, RY Sco, and UX Per as triple systems with an inner SB1 and outer visual companion. Comparing the binary fraction and incidence of triples among Cepheids with dynamical NBODY simulations that assume an initial binary fraction of $100\%$ (Dinnbier et al. 2024) suggests that a significant fraction of Cepheid progenitors (B-type stars) must be formed as triples or even higher-order systems.

Last, but not least, we find that the Gaia DR3 parallax quality indicator RUWE is elevated for Cepheid binaries whose projected semimajor axis, $a\sin{i}$ , is close to $1\,$ au. However, upon assessing RUWE for both SB1 and non-SB1 from VELOCE, we ascertain that Gaia RUWE is not a reliable indicator for identifying Cepheid spectroscopic binaries and can be noticeably affected by photometric systematics, such as marginally resolved binaries or high apparent brightness. Additionally, RUWE tends to be slightly higher for Cepheids than for non-variable stars.

An examination of PMa in relation to various orbital properties of our stars does not reveal any correlation between the orbital orientation and PMa detection. Furthermore, all VELOCE Cepheids with previously reported PMa detections are also identified to be SB1 systems.

Precision radial velocities provide the most sensitive diagnostic of multiplicity of Cepheids to date. Future Gaia data releases will allow to determine systemic masses of Cepheids using the combined astrometric and spectroscopic orbital signals. In Gaia DR3, only one Cepheid was reported with a non-single-star astrometric solution. Suspiciously, the orbital period of RX Cam was given as $33\,$ months, matching exactly the observational baseline of Gaia DR3. However, RX Cam was unfortunately not observed as part of the VELOCE project. The upcoming fourth Gaia data release in combination with VELOCE data will be a treasure trove for determining accurate Cepheid masses and to establish a well-sampled mass-luminosity relation required to elucidate the physics of Cepheids, notably with respect to mixing processes, such as convection and rotation, required to explain the mass discrepancy problem (e.g Prada Moroni et al. 2012; Anderson 2014).

Acknowledgments

RIA, SS, and GV acknowledge support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 947660). RIA, and SS further acknowledge support through a Swiss National Science Foundation Eccellenza Professorial Fellowship (award PCEFP2_194638). SS would further like to extend their acknowledgement to the Research Foundation-Flanders (grant number: 1239522N). This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission Gaia (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia), processed by the Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the Gaia Multilateral Agreement. The lead authors would like to acknowledge the very useful compilation of information on binary Cepheids provided by Laszlo Szabados at Konkoly Observatory (Szabados (2003), https://cep.konkoly.hu/intro.html).

References

Abt & Levy (1970) Abt, H. A. & Levy, S. G. 1970, PASP, 82, 334
Anderson (2013) Anderson, R. I. 2013, PhD thesis, Université de Genève
Anderson (2014) Anderson, R. I. 2014, A&A, 566, L10
Anderson (2016) Anderson, R. I. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1707
Anderson (2019) Anderson, R. I. 2019, A&A, 623, A146
Anderson (2020) Anderson, R. I. 2020, Proc. conf. Stars and their Variability Observed from Space, eds. C. Neiner, W. W. Weiss, D. Baade, R. E. Griffin, C. C. Lovekin, & A. J. Moffat, Univ. of Vienna, pp. 61-66 [arXiv:2001.03028]
Anderson et al. (2016a) Anderson, R. I., Casertano, S., Riess, A. G., et al. 2016a, ApJS, 226, 18
Anderson et al. (2013) Anderson, R. I., Eyer, L., & Mowlavi, N. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2238
Anderson et al. (2016b) Anderson, R. I., Mérand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2016b, MNRAS, 455, 4231
Anderson & Riess (2018) Anderson, R. I. & Riess, A. G. 2018, ApJ, 861, 36
Anderson et al. (2015) Anderson, R. I., Sahlmann, J., Holl, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 144
Anderson et al. (2016c) Anderson, R. I., Saio, H., Ekström, S., Georgy, C., & Meynet, G. 2016c, A&A, 591, A8
Anderson et al. (2024) Anderson, R. I., Viviani, G., Shreeya Shetye, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12280
Arellano-Ferro & Madore (1985) Arellano-Ferro, A. & Madore, B. F. 1985, The Observatory, 105, 207
Babel et al. (1989) Babel, J., Burki, G., Mayor, M., Chmielewski, Y., & Waelkens, C. 1989, A&A, 216, 125
Barnes et al. (2005) Barnes, III, T. G., Jeffery, E. J., Montemayor, T. J., & Skillen, I. 2005, ApJS, 156, 227
Barnes et al. (1987) Barnes, III, T. G., Moffett, T. J., & Slovak, M. H. 1987, ApJS, 65, 307
Belokurov et al. (2020) Belokurov, V., Penoyre, Z., Oh, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922
Benedict et al. (2022) Benedict, G. F., Barnes, T. G., Evans, N. R., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 282
Bersier (2002) Bersier, D. 2002, ApJS, 140, 465
Bersier et al. (1994) Bersier, D., Burki, G., Mayor, M., & Duquennoy, A. 1994, A&AS, 108, 25
Binnenfeld et al. (2022) Binnenfeld, A., Shahaf, S., Anderson, R. I., & Zucker, S. 2022, A&A, 659, A189
Borgniet et al. (2019) Borgniet, S., Kervella, P., Nardetto, N., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A37
Breitfelder et al. (2016) Breitfelder, J., Mérand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A117
Burki et al. (1982) Burki, G., Mayor, M., & Benz, W. 1982, A&A, 109, 258
Caputo et al. (2005) Caputo, F., Bono, G., Fiorentino, G., Marconi, M., & Musella, I. 2005, ApJ, 629, 1021
Coulson & Caldwell (1985) Coulson, I. M. & Caldwell, J. A. R. 1985, South African Astronomical Observatory Circular, 9, 5
Csörnyei et al. (2022) Csörnyei, G., Szabados, L., Molnár, L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2125
Dinnbier et al. (2024) Dinnbier, F., Anderson, R. I., & Kroupa, P. 2024, under review in A&A
Ekström et al. (2012) Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146
Evans et al. (2013) Evans, N. E., Bond, H. E., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 93
Evans (1988) Evans, N. R. 1988, ApJS, 66, 343
Evans (1991) Evans, N. R. 1991, ApJ, 372, 597
Evans (1992) Evans, N. R. 1992, ApJ, 384, 220
Evans (1994) Evans, N. R. 1994, ApJ, 436, 273
Evans (1995) Evans, N. R. 1995, ApJ, 445, 393
Evans (2000) Evans, N. R. 2000, AJ, 119, 3050
Evans et al. (1992) Evans, N. R., Arellano Ferro, A., & Udalska, J. 1992, AJ, 103, 1638
Evans et al. (2015) Evans, N. R., Berdnikov, L., Lauer, J., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 13
Evans et al. (2022) Evans, N. R., Engle, S., Pillitteri, I., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 153
Evans et al. (2020) Evans, N. R., Günther, H. M., Bond, H. E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 81
Evans & Lyons (1994) Evans, N. R. & Lyons, R. W. 1994, AJ, 107, 2164
Evans et al. (2009) Evans, N. R., Massa, D., & Proffitt, C. 2009, AJ, 137, 3700
Evans et al. (1990) Evans, N. R., Szabados, L., & Udalska, J. 1990, PASP, 102, 981
Evans & Udalski (1994) Evans, N. R. & Udalski, A. 1994, AJ, 108, 653
Evans et al. (2000) Evans, N. R., Vinko, J., & Wahlgren, G. M. 2000, AJ, 120, 407
Evans et al. (1993) Evans, N. R., Welch, D. L., Slovak, M. H., Barnes, Thomas G., I., & Moffett, T. J. 1993, AJ, 106, 1599
Ford (2005) Ford, E. B. 2005, AJ, 129, 1706
Ford (2006) Ford, E. B. 2006, ApJ, 642, 505
Foreman-Mackey et al. (2013) Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306
Fulton et al. (2018) Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 044504
Gaia Collaboration et al. (2022) Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.05595
Gaia Collaboration et al. (2018) Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1
Gaia Collaboration et al. (2021) Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1
Gaia Collaboration et al. (2016a) Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., & Vallenari, A. e. a. 2016a, A&A, 595, A2
Gaia Collaboration et al. (2016b) Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., & et al. 2016b, A&A, 595, A1
Gallenne et al. (2019) Gallenne, A., Kervella, P., Borgniet, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A164
Gallenne et al. (2018) Gallenne, A., Kervella, P., Evans, N. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 121
Gallenne et al. (2014a) Gallenne, A., Kervella, P., Mérand, A., et al. 2014a, in Precision Asteroseismology, ed. J. A. Guzik, W. J. Chaplin, G. Handler, & A. Pigulski, Vol. 301, 411–412
Gallenne et al. (2014b) Gallenne, A., Mérand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2014b, A&A, 561, L3
Gallenne et al. (2015) Gallenne, A., Mérand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A68
Gallenne et al. (2016) Gallenne, A., Mérand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1451
Gallenne et al. (2013) Gallenne, A., Monnier, J. D., Mérand, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A21
Genovali et al. (2014) Genovali, K., Lemasle, B., Bono, G., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A37
Gieren (1982) Gieren, W. 1982, ApJS, 49, 1
Gieren (1985) Gieren, W. P. 1985, ApJ, 295, 507
Gorynya et al. (1992) Gorynya, N. A., Irsmambetova, T. R., Rastorgouev, A. S., & Samus, N. N. 1992, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 18, 316
Gorynya et al. (1996a) Gorynya, N. A., Rastorguev, A. S., & Samus, N. N. 1996a, Astronomy Letters, 22, 33
Gorynya et al. (1996b) Gorynya, N. A., Samus’, N. N., Rastorguev, A. S., & Sachkov, M. E. 1996b, Astronomy Letters, 22, 175
Griffin (2016) Griffin, R. F. 2016, The Observatory, 136, 209
Groenewegen (2008) Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2008, A&A, 488, 25
Hertzsprung (1913) Hertzsprung, E. 1913, Astronomische Nachrichten, 196, 201
Hilditch (2001) Hilditch, R. W. 2001, An Introduction to Close Binary Stars (Cambridge Univ. Press)
Hintz et al. (2021) Hintz, E. G., Harding, T. B., & Hintz, M. L. 2021, AJ, 162, 149
Imbert (1984) Imbert, M. 1984, A&AS, 58, 529
Karczmarek et al. (2022) Karczmarek, P., Smolec, R., Hajdu, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 65
Kervella et al. (2019a) Kervella, P., Arenou, F., Mignard, F., & Thévenin, F. 2019a, A&A, 623, A72
Kervella et al. (2022) Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Thévenin, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A7
Kervella et al. (2019b) Kervella, P., Gallenne, A., Remage Evans, N., et al. 2019b, A&A, 623, A116
Khan et al. (2023) Khan, S., Anderson, R. I., Miglio, A., Mosser, B., & Elsworth, Y. P. 2023, A&A, 680, A105
Kiss (1998) Kiss, L. L. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 825
Kiss & Bedding (2005) Kiss, L. L. & Bedding, T. R. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 883
Klagyivik & Szabados (2009) Klagyivik, P. & Szabados, L. 2009, A&A, 504, 959
Kovtyukh et al. (2022) Kovtyukh, V., Lemasle, B., Bono, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1894
Kovtyukh et al. (2015) Kovtyukh, V., Szabados, L., Chekhonadskikh, F., Lemasle, B., & Belik, S. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3567
Leavitt & Pickering (1912) Leavitt, H. S. & Pickering, E. C. 1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173, 1
Lindegren (2018) Lindegren, L. 2018, gAIA-C3-TN-LU-LL-124
Lindegren et al. (2018) Lindegren, L., Hernández, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2
Lindegren et al. (2021) Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hernández, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2
Lloyd Evans (1968) Lloyd Evans, T. 1968, MNRAS, 141, 109
Lloyd Evans (1980) Lloyd Evans, T. 1980, South African Astronomical Observatory Circular, 1, 257
Lloyd Evans (1982) Lloyd Evans, T. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 925
Luck & Lambert (2011) Luck, R. E. & Lambert, D. L. 2011, AJ, 142, 136
Madore (1977) Madore, B. F. 1977, MNRAS, 178, 505
Madore & Fernie (1980) Madore, B. F. & Fernie, J. D. 1980, PASP, 92, 315
Michalik et al. (2015) Michalik, D., Lindegren, L., & Hobbs, D. 2015, A&A, 574, A115
Mochejska et al. (2000) Mochejska, B. J., Macri, L. M., Sasselov, D. D., & Stanek, K. Z. 2000, AJ, 120, 810
Molnár et al. (2017) Molnár, L., Derekas, A., Szabó, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4009
Moore (1929) Moore, J. H. 1929, PASP, 41, 56
Nardetto et al. (2024) Nardetto, N., Hocdé, V., Kervella, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, L9
Neilson et al. (2015) Neilson, H. R., Schneider, F. R. N., Izzard, R. G., Evans, N. R., & Langer, N. 2015, A&A, 574, A2
Perryman et al. (1997) Perryman, M. A. C., Lindegren, L., Kovalevsky, J., et al. 1997, A&A, 323, L49
Petterson et al. (2004) Petterson, O. K. L., Cottrell, P. L., & Albrow, M. D. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 95
Pilecki et al. (2021) Pilecki, B., Pietrzyński, G., Anderson, R. I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 118
Poggio et al. (2021) Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Cantat-Gaudin, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A104
Pont et al. (1994) Pont, F., Mayor, M., & Burki, G. 1994, A&A, 285, 415
Prada Moroni et al. (2012) Prada Moroni, P. G., Gennaro, M., Bono, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 108
Proust et al. (1981) Proust, D., Ochsenbein, F., & Pettersen, B. R. 1981, A&AS, 44, 179
Queloz et al. (2001) Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Udry, S., et al. 2001, The Messenger, 105, 1
Raskin et al. (2011) Raskin, G., van Winckel, H., Hensberge, H., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A69
Riess et al. (2018) Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 126
Russo et al. (1981) Russo, G., Sollazzo, C., & Coppola, M. 1981, A&A, 102, 20
Shetye (2022) Shetye, S. 2022, Video Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 2, 20
Stassun & Torres (2021) Stassun, K. G. & Torres, G. 2021, ApJ, 907, L33
Stepien (1968) Stepien, K. 1968, Acta Astron., 18, 537
Storm et al. (2004) Storm, J., Carney, B. W., Gieren, W. P., et al. 2004, A&A, 415, 531
Szabados (1989) Szabados, L. 1989, Communications of the Konkoly Observatory Hungary, 94, 1
Szabados (1992) Szabados, L. 1992, The Observatory, 112, 57
Szabados (1996) Szabados, L. 1996, A&A, 311, 189
Szabados (2003) Szabados, L. 2003, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 5394
Szabados et al. (2013a) Szabados, L., Anderson, R. I., Derekas, A., et al. 2013a, MNRAS, 434, 870
Szabados et al. (2014) Szabados, L., Cseh, B., Kovács, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3155
Szabados et al. (2013b) Szabados, L., Derekas, A., Kiss, L. L., et al. 2013b, MNRAS, 430, 2018
Szabados & Pont (1998) Szabados, L. & Pont, F. 1998, A&AS, 133, 51
Szatmary (1990) Szatmary, K. 1990, \jaavso, 19, 52
Torres (2023) Torres, G. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2510
Turner et al. (2007) Turner, D. G., Bryukhanov, I. S., Balyuk, I. I., et al. 2007, PASP, 119, 1247
Udalski & Evans (1993) Udalski, A. & Evans, N. R. 1993, AJ, 106, 348
Vinko (1991) Vinko, J. 1991, Ap&SS, 183, 17
Virtanen et al. (2020) Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261
Wahlgren & Evans (1998) Wahlgren, G. M. & Evans, N. R. 1998, A&A, 332, L33
Wilson et al. (1989) Wilson, T. D., Carter, M. W., Barnes, III, T. G., van Citters, Jr., G. W., & Moffett, T. J. 1989, ApJS, 69, 951
Zhou (2010) Zhou, A. Y. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1002.2729

Appendix A Guiding camera Image

When available, the Coralie and Hermes guiding camera images were utilized to examine for triple systems. In Figure 17, we present a guiding camera image of FO Car obtained from Coralie.

Appendix B Orbital fitting

From Figure 18 to 43, we present all the orbital fits obtained using VELOCE data alone. The orbital fittings were derived using the method described in Section 3.2.

Appendix C V_γ Orbits

In Figure 44 to Figure 61 we present the orbital fittings obtained using the combination of RV data from VELOCE and literature datasets. These orbital fits were derived using the MCMC method described in Section 3.2.

Appendix D Gaia astrometry

In Table 6, we present all the Gaia RUWE and PMa flags used in this study for all our sample stars.

Table 6: Gaia astrometry and PMa tags for the confirmed SB1 Cepheids within VELOCE. Here, binary flag of ‘1’ means that the star was flagged as binary through PMa, and binary flag of ‘0’ means the PMa did not detect them as binaries.

Star	RUWE	Bin flag	Star	RUWE	Bin flag	Star	RUWE	Bin flag
		from PMa			from PMa			from PMa
SB1 with Orbits			SB1 with Trends			SB1 with RVTF-Yes
ASAS J064540+0330.4			AD Pup	$1.362\,13$	0	$\beta$ Dor	$4.534\,76$	0
ASAS J084951-4627.2	$1.0863$		AH Vel	$0.8293$	1	$\eta$ Aql	$2.561$	0
ASAS J100814-5856.6	$1.1193$		AQ Pup	$1.180\,305\,6$	0	CD Cyg	$1.007$	0
ASAS J174603-3528.1	$0.6934$		AQ Car	$1.067\,231\,9$	0	RS Ori	$1.119$	0
AX Cir	$7.805\,21$		ASAS J064553+1003.8	$1.499\,896$		SS CMa	$1.113\,401\,8$	0
BP Cir	$1.0495$		ASAS J103158-5814.7	$0.868\,845\,1$		SZ Aql	$0.94$	0
$\delta$ Cep	$2.713\,098\,3$		ASAS J155847-5341.8	$0.868\,048\,7$		SZ Cyg	$0.956$	0
DL Cas	$1.882\,963$	0	ASAS J174108-2328.5	$0.757\,735\,43$		V0340 Ara	$0.931\,604\,8$	0
FF Aql	$1.055\,353\,4$	1	AW Per	$1.155\,536\,3$	1	V0402 Cyg	$0.92$	0
FN Vel	$1.696\,441\,4$	0	DR Vel	$1.004\,981\,9$		V0916 Aql	$0.9160$
FO Car	$0.902\,255\,7$		FR Car	$1.023\,518\,7$	0	VY Sgr	$0.805\,651\,6$
GX Car	$1.017\,596\,4$	1	KN Cen	$1.033\,595\,8$	0	X Cyg	$1.277\,353$	1
IT Car	$1.075\,539\,8$	1	LR TrA	$0.951\,315\,9$	1
MU Cep	$0.992\,774\,67$		OX Cam	$0.984\,395\,5$
MY Pup	$1.008\,689\,3$	0	RY Vel	$1.075\,225$	0
NT Pup	$0.986\,109\,14$		RX Aur	$0.982\,096\,7$	1
R Cru	$1.160\,902\,7$		RV Sco	$0.804\,823$	1
R Mus	$1.074\,185\,8$	1	RW Cam	$8.013\,022$	1
S Mus	$4.494\,788$	1	RY Sco	$0.732\,554\,4$	0
S Sge	$4.003\,331$	1	SX Vel	$1.022\,172$	0
SU Cyg	$3.442\,931\,4$	0	T Mon	$1.723\,897\,5$	1
SY Nor	$1.552\,493\,7$	0	UX Per	$1.166\,758\,7$	1
TX Mon	$1.688\,594\,5$	1	UZ Sct	$0.9132$
U Vul	$2.882\,503$	1	V0391 Nor	$0.832$
V0407 Cas	$0.894\,828\,7$		V0492 Cyg	$0.996\,648\,67$
V0659 Cen	$2.989\,553\,7$	1	V0827 Cas	$1.16$
V1334 Cyg	$2.768\,445\,3$	1	V1162 Aql	$0.952\,363\,85$	0
VY Per	$1.154\,380\,8$		V1803 Aql	$0.941\,466\,7$
VZ Pup	$1.236\,595\,5$	0	V2475 Cyg	$0.994\,323\,25$
W Sgr	$3.952\,391\,4$	0	XZ Car	$1.049\,139\,3$	0
XX Cen	$1.238\,480\,9$	0
YZ Car	$1.165\,751\,6$	0
Z Lac	$1.054\,845\,7$	0

Appendix E RV Template fits after zero-point offset correction for sample stars with no signs of SB1

Figures 63 and 62 showcase the long-terms trends in $v_{\gamma}$ for sample stars where we find no signs of binarity through the RVTF analysis of Section 3.4.

Appendix F SU Cyg RVTF

In Table 7, we present the zero-point corrected $v_{\gamma}$ residuals ( $\epsilon v_{\gamma}$ ) of SU Cyg. The details of how these were obtained are provided in Section 4.5.

Table 7: RV data used for the ‘V+L’ orbit estimation of SU Cyg.

Reference	BJD	$\epsilon v_{\gamma}$	$\sigma\epsilon v_{\gamma}$	Reference	BJD	$\epsilon v_{\gamma}$	$\sigma\epsilon v_{\gamma}$	Reference	BJD	$\epsilon v_{\gamma}$	$\sigma\epsilon v_{\gamma}$
	(d)	( km s^-1)	( km s^-1)		(d)	( km s^-1)	( km s^-1)	(d)	( km s^-1)	( km s^-1)
Ba87	$43\,616.976$	$-25.280\,230\,47$	$5.342\,939\,01$	Bo19	$56\,566.333$	$4.119\,709\,08$	$2.055\,930\,92$	Go92	$50\,705.305$	$-14.311\,171\,46$	$0.742\,742\,43$
Ba87	$43\,617.976$	$-29.487\,157\,33$	$5.342\,939\,01$	Bo19	$56\,898.519$	$-55.518\,372\,38$	$0.391\,488\,89$	Go92	$50\,707.324$	$-16.538\,963\,13$	$0.808\,743\,67$
Ba87	$43\,618.974$	$-18.863\,465\,88$	$5.342\,939\,01$	Bo19	$56\,899.57$	$-57.232\,002\,14$	$0.391\,018\,61$	Go92	$50\,708.346$	$-21.888\,360\,71$	$0.880\,321\,72$
Ba87	$43\,620.987$	$-33.884\,456\,08$	$5.342\,939\,01$	Bo19	$56\,900.441$	$-56.703\,022\,36$	$0.391\,018\,61$	Go92	$50\,708.352$	$-21.973\,467\,51$	$0.794\,333\,89$
Ba87	$43\,622.956$	$-36.957\,554\,98$	$5.342\,939\,01$	Bo19	$56\,901.565$	$-57.036\,082\,69$	$0.390\,773\,02$	Go92	$50\,709.287$	$-16.259\,738\,9$	$0.760\,372\,49$
Ba87	$43\,683.857$	$-44.618\,763\,32$	$4.496\,334\,88$	Go92	$50\,236.429$	$-31.465\,813\,42$	$1.114\,975\,36$	Go92	$50\,711.246$	$-15.711\,303\,28$	$0.776\,509\,06$
Ba87	$43\,683.859$	$-38.259\,566\,44$	$4.496\,334\,88$	Go92	$50\,238.403$	$-31.789\,340\,6$	$1.108\,859\,8$	Go92	$50\,713.282$	$-16.358\,943\,71$	$0.752\,971\,66$
Ba87	$43\,684.842$	$-41.696\,012\,84$	$4.496\,334\,88$	Go92	$50\,245.479$	$-36.121\,686\,94$	$1.146\,416\,18$	Go92	$50\,714.38$	$-16.701\,025\,17$	$0.768\,222\,83$
Ba87	$43\,684.843$	$-36.563\,702\,12$	$4.496\,334\,88$	Go92	$50\,246.511$	$-36.215\,763\,77$	$1.202\,318\,62$	Go92	$50\,715.252$	$-13.861\,451\,84$	$0.813\,736\,03$
Ba87	$43\,684.845$	$-37.219\,056\,39$	$4.496\,334\,88$	Go92	$50\,247.497$	$-32.819\,199\,54$	$1.221\,789\,69$	Go92	$50\,716.29$	$-20.975\,620\,62$	$0.874\,337\,65$
Ba87	$43\,685.771$	$-39.747\,711\,92$	$4.496\,334\,88$	Go92	$50\,248.467$	$-35.830\,148\,69$	$1.158\,261\,65$	Go92	$50\,718.269$	$-16.769\,150\,87$	$0.772\,312\,32$
Ba87	$43\,686.806$	$-41.028\,346\,78$	$4.496\,334\,88$	Go92	$50\,255.418$	$-38.298\,488\,57$	$0.779\,879\,9$	Go92	$50\,719.242$	$-13.289\,938\,23$	$0.803\,844\,71$
Ba87	$43\,688.835$	$-39.125\,718\,53$	$4.496\,334\,88$	Go92	$50\,257.462$	$-36.840\,902\,96$	$0.789\,058\,09$	Go92	$50\,719.247$	$-13.309\,100\,86$	$0.749\,444\,01$
Ba87	$43\,713.943$	$-54.461\,431\,4$	$4.496\,334\,88$	Go92	$50\,259.409$	$-38.764\,874\,88$	$0.762\,766\,45$	Go92	$50\,720.34$	$-17.825\,575\,8$	$0.808\,743\,67$
Ba87	$43\,821.584$	$-31.424\,531\,68$	$4.137\,513\,86$	Go92	$50\,261.414$	$-39.109\,438\,3$	$0.803\,562\,48$	Go92	$50\,726.327$	$-20.371\,464\,28$	$0.807\,311\,26$
Ba87	$43\,822.573$	$-29.646\,927\,9$	$4.137\,513\,86$	Go92	$50\,264.479$	$-40.483\,471\,03$	$0.784\,418\,68$	Go92	$50\,727.287$	$-16.217\,347\,45$	$0.872\,325\,33$
Ba87	$43\,825.665$	$-27.996\,586\,78$	$4.137\,513\,86$	Go92	$50\,265.406$	$-40.774\,883\,12$	$0.857\,736\,94$	Go92	$50\,728.332$	$-21.395\,189\,47$	$0.795\,896\,65$
Ba87	$44\,044.873$	$-9.426\,358\,61$	$4.150\,365\,44$	Go92	$50\,275.458$	$-45.778\,858\,7$	$1.289\,888\,89$	Go92	$50\,729.313$	$-18.546\,417\,52$	$0.847\,025\,07$
Ba87	$44\,045.888$	$-5.061\,958\,71$	$4.150\,365\,44$	Go92	$50\,276.432$	$-47.116\,728\,25$	$1.267\,009\,6$	Go92	$50\,730.301$	$-20.421\,242\,66$	$0.823\,985\,12$
Ba87	$44\,046.878$	$-7.475\,134\,45$	$4.150\,365\,44$	Go92	$50\,277.405$	$-46.352\,996\,83$	$1.391\,586\,63$	Go92	$50\,731.251$	$-22.281\,418\,84$	$0.788\,829\,18$
Ba87	$44\,059.867$	$-12.192\,890\,49$	$4.150\,365\,44$	Go92	$50\,278.42$	$-47.396\,132\,21$	$1.298\,812\,28$	Go92	$50\,732.233$	$-20.552\,781\,54$	$0.832\,917\,45$
Ba87	$44\,060.893$	$-8.549\,919\,85$	$4.150\,365\,44$	Go92	$50\,279.435$	$-46.923\,425\,07$	$1.287\,056\,07$	Hermes	$55\,896.319\,76$	$-21.122\,248\,25$	$0.598\,141\,61$
Ba87	$44\,063.887$	$-5.089\,201\,02$	$4.150\,365\,44$	Go92	$50\,280.414$	$-48.982\,663\,09$	$1.325\,636\,96$	Hermes	$55\,896.320\,64$	$-21.058\,521\,09$	$0.600\,744\,03$
W89	$43\,378.674$	$5.416\,797\,82$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,281.384$	$-49.716\,018\,83$	$1.305\,110\,47$	Hermes	$55\,897.318\,18$	$-20.750\,984\,05$	$0.586\,840\,17$
W89	$43\,378.677$	$-2.598\,322\,5$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,284.423$	$-36.168\,983\,99$	$1.348\,522\,65$	Hermes	$55\,897.319\,88$	$-20.715\,934\,17$	$0.586\,840\,17$
W89	$43\,378.762$	$-1.490\,276\,21$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,285.368$	$-52.243\,159\,92$	$1.352\,558\,07$	Hermes	$55\,898.323\,35$	$-20.198\,814\,75$	$0.591\,693\,66$
W89	$43\,378.764$	$2.456\,811\,42$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,333.327$	$-53.541\,999\,8$	$2.066\,247\,66$	Hermes	$55\,898.324\,83$	$-20.216\,863\,32$	$0.592\,538\,09$
W89	$43\,378.823$	$5.237\,005\,72$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,342.264$	$-50.208\,344\,22$	$2.050\,726\,55$	Hermes	$55\,900.353\,43$	$-19.646\,548\,49$	$0.597\,889\,94$
W89	$43\,378.825$	$0.776\,611\,37$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,345.296$	$-48.236\,388\,34$	$2.057\,153\,22$	Hermes	$55\,900.355\,66$	$-19.763\,505\,46$	$0.599\,163\,91$
W89	$43\,381.855$	$2.544\,308\,22$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,619.493$	$1.150\,203\,66$	$4.758\,392\,69$	Hermes	$56\,091.503\,02$	$-3.433\,729\,03$	$0.196\,270\,55$
W89	$43\,381.857$	$6.493\,017\,24$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,621.521$	$-2.179\,070\,43$	$4.761\,491\,47$	Hermes	$56\,092.569\,07$	$-3.575\,368\,73$	$0.243\,561\,34$
W89	$43\,384.665$	$3.010\,707\,92$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,623.49$	$-7.047\,178\,34$	$4.760\,829\,86$	Hermes	$56\,093.483\,35$	$-3.504\,434\,62$	$0.216\,921\,94$
W89	$43\,384.667$	$2.175\,312\,7$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,652.37$	$-6.340\,422\,14$	$0.946\,542\,93$	Hermes	$56\,097.613\,45$	$-3.358\,573\,49$	$0.217\,416\,94$
W89	$43\,384.824$	$2.261\,187\,71$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,653.489$	$-4.945\,541\,54$	$0.932\,010\,47$	Hermes	$56\,098.605\,45$	$-2.522\,707\,61$	$0.237\,364\,97$
W89	$43\,384.826$	$1.525\,579\,08$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,655.421$	$-8.751\,870\,71$	$0.927\,331\,4$	Hermes	$56\,099.5956$	$-2.632\,355\,67$	$0.245\,469\,2$
W89	$43\,385.652$	$-1.670\,019\,49$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,658.47$	$-12.373\,996\,97$	$0.927\,331\,4$	Hermes	$58\,070.373\,01$	$-32.189\,050\,58$	$0.540\,189\,69$
W89	$43\,386.648$	$6.804\,097\,12$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,662.391$	$-9.662\,690\,61$	$0.983\,180\,31$	Hermes	$58\,071.370\,81$	$-32.015\,118\,77$	$0.569\,248\,54$
W89	$43\,387.664$	$2.957\,821\,03$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,663.444$	$-7.674\,056\,98$	$0.977\,723\,64$	Hermes	$58\,071.3752$	$-31.403\,631\,49$	$0.548\,325\,54$
W89	$43\,388.629$	$0.291\,056\,96$	$4.113\,177\,32$	Go92	$50\,667.466$	$-8.526\,088\,22$	$0.885\,405\,85$	Hermes	$58\,073.335\,71$	$-31.034\,507\,55$	$0.546\,567\,38$
Bo19	$56\,500.515$	$1.370\,477\,47$	$2.055\,957\,18$	Go92	$50\,668.475$	$-10.310\,802\,33$	$0.972\,339\,2$
Bo19	$56\,501.573$	$1.516\,118\,87$	$2.055\,976\,88$	Go92	$50\,669.46$	$-6.395\,557\,79$	$0.972\,339\,2$
Bo19	$56\,504.602$	$1.607\,734\,39$	$2.055\,937\,73$
Bo19	$56\,505.509$	$2.059\,593\,48$	$2.055\,992\,44$
Bo19	$56\,563.322$	$4.517\,522\,46$	$2.056\,000\,96$
Bo19	$56\,565.431$	$2.329\,415\,93$	$2.056\,000\,96$

¹⁰¹⁰10The column labeled ‘Reference’ lists the sources of various RV datasets, with corresponding abbreviations as follows: , Ba87 for Barnes et al. (1987), W89 for Wilson et al. (1989), Bo19 for Borgniet et al. (2019), Go92 for Gorynya et al. (1992). In column 2 is the Barycentric Julian Date (BJD) of the observation, in column 3 is the residuals between the measurement and the VELOCE template (

\epsilon v_{\gamma}

) after applying the zero-point offset (shifted according to the phase shift of the epoch)

v_{\gamma}

residuals.Finally, in column 4 we present the uncertainty on the zero-point corrected

\epsilon v_{\gamma}

VELOcities of CEpheids (VELOCE) II. Systematic Search for Spectroscopic Binary Cepheids