pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 1912.05705 · v1 · submitted 2019-12-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · nucl-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

PSR J0030+0451 Mass and Radius from NICER Data and Implications for the Properties of Neutron Star Matter

M. C. Miller , F. K. Lamb , A. J. Dittmann , S. Bogdanov , Z. Arzoumanian , K. C. Gendreau , S. Guillot , A. K. Harding
show 13 more authors
W. C. G. Ho J. M. Lattimer R. M. Ludlam S. Mahmoodifar S. M. Morsink P. S. Ray T. E. Strohmayer K. S. Wood T. Enoto R. Foster T. Okajima G. Prigozhin Y. Soong
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 06:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE nucl-th
keywords neutron starequation of stateNICERPSR J0030+0451X-ray waveformmass and radiusdense mattermillisecond pulsar
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bayesian modeling of NICER X-ray pulses from PSR J0030+0451 yields a neutron star radius near 13 km and mass of 1.44 solar masses, improving constraints on the equation of state above nuclear density.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper analyzes the energy-dependent thermal X-ray waveform of the isolated millisecond pulsar PSR J0030+0451 observed by NICER. It applies Bayesian inference to test models with different numbers and shapes of emitting regions on the stellar surface. The favored model uses three oval uniform-temperature spots and returns an equatorial radius of 13.02 km with uncertainties of +1.24 and -1.06 km together with a mass of 1.44 solar masses with uncertainties of +0.15 and -0.14 solar masses. These values are shown to tighten the allowed range of equations of state for cold catalyzed matter at densities several times nuclear saturation. Readers care because neutron-star interiors reach conditions unreachable in terrestrial laboratories, so radius and mass measurements directly limit the possible microphysics of dense matter.

Core claim

The central claim is that the best-fit three-spot model provides an excellent description of the observed NICER pulse waveform and supplies mass and radius estimates Re = 13.02 +1.24/-1.06 km and M = 1.44 +0.15/-0.14 solar masses at 68 percent . These measurements improve the astrophysical constraints on the equation of state of cold catalyzed matter above nuclear saturation density. An independent analysis in the companion paper by Riley et al. reaches consistent conclusions with alternative spot geometries.

What carries the argument

Bayesian inference applied to the energy-dependent X-ray pulse waveform, parameterized by a small number of uniform-temperature oval emitting regions whose geometry, location, and temperature are varied to match the data.

If this is right

  • Equations of state predicting radii much smaller than 13 km at 1.44 solar masses are disfavored.
  • The allowed range of cold, catalyzed matter equations of state is narrowed at densities above nuclear saturation.
  • Stable neutron stars with these mass and radius values must be possible under the true equation of state.
  • The same modeling framework can be applied to other NICER targets to map additional points on the mass-radius curve.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Combining this radius constraint with laboratory measurements of the nuclear symmetry energy could further restrict the high-density behavior of matter.
  • If the three-spot model remains preferred in future data, it may indicate that magnetic field or temperature structures on millisecond pulsars are more complex than simple polar caps.
  • Repeated application to additional isolated pulsars would allow a direct empirical mass-radius relation to be constructed without relying on binary systems.

Load-bearing premise

The observed X-ray waveform is produced by a small number of uniform-temperature oval emitting regions whose geometry and temperature distribution can be adequately parameterized, with systematic uncertainties from the instrument response and atmosphere model remaining smaller than the statistical errors.

What would settle it

A reanalysis or new observation demonstrating that the pulse waveform cannot be described by three or fewer oval spots, or an independent radius measurement lying outside the reported 68 percent credible interval for the same mass.

read the original abstract

Neutron stars are not only of astrophysical interest, but are also of great interest to nuclear physicists, because their attributes can be used to determine the properties of the dense matter in their cores. One of the most informative approaches for determining the equation of state of this dense matter is to measure both a star's equatorial circumferential radius $R_e$ and its gravitational mass $M$. Here we report estimates of the mass and radius of the isolated 205.53 Hz millisecond pulsar PSR J0030+0451 obtained using a Bayesian inference approach to analyze its energy-dependent thermal X-ray waveform, which was observed using the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER). This approach is thought to be less subject to systematic errors than other approaches for estimating neutron star radii. We explored a variety of emission patterns on the stellar surface. Our best-fit model has three oval, uniform-temperature emitting spots and provides an excellent description of the pulse waveform observed using NICER. The radius and mass estimates given by this model are $R_e = 13.02^{+1.24}_{-1.06}$ km and $M = 1.44^{+0.15}_{-0.14}\ M_\odot$ (68%). The independent analysis reported in the companion paper by Riley et al. (2019) explores different emitting spot models, but finds spot shapes and locations and estimates of $R_e$ and $M$ that are consistent with those found in this work. We show that our measurements of $R_e$ and $M$ for PSR J0030$+$0451 improve the astrophysical constraints on the equation of state of cold, catalyzed matter above nuclear saturation density.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Bayesian analysis of NICER X-ray timing data for the isolated millisecond pulsar PSR J0030+0451. The authors model the energy-dependent pulse waveform using a parameterized emission pattern consisting of three oval, uniform-temperature spots on the neutron star surface. From this fit, they derive a gravitational mass of 1.44^{+0.15}_{-0.14} M_⊙ and an equatorial radius of 13.02^{+1.24}_{-1.06} km at 68% credible level. They conclude that these measurements provide improved constraints on the equation of state of cold, catalyzed matter at densities above nuclear saturation.

Significance. This result is significant because direct measurements of both mass and radius for a neutron star can tightly constrain the dense matter EOS, which is a key goal in nuclear astrophysics. The NICER mission's focus on waveform modeling is designed to reduce certain systematics compared to other radius estimation techniques. The consistency noted with the independent analysis in Riley et al. (2019) adds credibility to the findings. If the emission model assumptions hold, this work contributes meaningfully to the field by narrowing the allowed EOS parameter space.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The assertion that the (M, Re) measurements 'improve the astrophysical constraints' on the EOS is central to the paper's broader impact. However, this improvement depends on the robustness of the posterior to the choice of emitting region parameterization. The manuscript states that a variety of patterns were explored, but does not provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., via Bayes factors or shifts in EOS posterior) showing that the reported credible intervals remain stable when the model is expanded to include more complex surface temperature distributions or additional spots.
  2. Modeling and Results sections: The best-fit three-oval-spot model provides an excellent description of the data, but the paper should include tests for whether the inferred radius and mass change significantly under alternative geometries that might be physically motivated, such as those incorporating magnetic field effects on beaming or temperature gradients within the spots. Without such tests, the load-bearing claim for EOS implications is not fully supported.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The uncertainty notation could be clarified for readability when quoting the radius and mass values in the text.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a table or figure summarizing the explored emission models, their best-fit parameters, and quantitative goodness-of-fit metrics to aid reader assessment of model selection.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to improve the robustness of our claims regarding the equation of state constraints.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The assertion that the (M, Re) measurements 'improve the astrophysical constraints' on the EOS is central to the paper's broader impact. However, this improvement depends on the robustness of the posterior to the choice of emitting region parameterization. The manuscript states that a variety of patterns were explored, but does not provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., via Bayes factors or shifts in EOS posterior) showing that the reported credible intervals remain stable when the model is expanded to include more complex surface temperature distributions or additional spots.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative assessment of model robustness would strengthen the manuscript's claims. Although we explored various emission patterns and found the three-oval-spot model to provide an excellent fit, and noted consistency with the independent analysis in Riley et al. (2019), we did not include explicit Bayes factors or EOS posterior comparisons in the original submission. In the revised version, we will add such quantitative comparisons to demonstrate the stability of the mass and radius estimates across models. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Modeling and Results sections: The best-fit three-oval-spot model provides an excellent description of the data, but the paper should include tests for whether the inferred radius and mass change significantly under alternative geometries that might be physically motivated, such as those incorporating magnetic field effects on beaming or temperature gradients within the spots. Without such tests, the load-bearing claim for EOS implications is not fully supported.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion. Our parameterized model assumes uniform temperature spots, which fits the NICER data well. We will revise the manuscript to include tests allowing for temperature gradients within the spots and show that the inferred M and Re do not change significantly. For magnetic field effects on beaming, this would necessitate a more physically detailed atmospheric model, which we discuss as a limitation and potential direction for future work rather than implementing in this analysis. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Full implementation of magnetic field effects on beaming requires a separate modeling framework not used in the current Bayesian analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Mass and radius obtained via Bayesian fit to external NICER waveform data; derivation self-contained with no reduction to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper derives its reported M and Re values through Bayesian inference that fits a parameterized emission model (three oval uniform-temperature spots) directly to the observed NICER X-ray pulse waveform, an external dataset. The subsequent claim that these values tighten EOS constraints on cold catalyzed matter follows from standard incorporation of the new posterior into existing nuclear-physics bounds and does not rely on any self-referential equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations whose content reduces to the target result. The companion Riley et al. (2019) analysis is presented as independent and is used only for cross-check consistency, not as the sole justification for the central result. No steps in the provided derivation chain exhibit the enumerated circularity patterns; the analysis remains grounded in external observational input rather than internal redefinition or smuggling of the output.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

With only the abstract available, the ledger is necessarily incomplete. The central claim depends on the correctness of the waveform forward model and the assumption that the chosen spot geometries are representative.

free parameters (1)
  • spot geometry and temperature parameters
    Sizes, locations, and temperatures of the three oval emitting regions are adjusted to match the observed pulse profile.
axioms (2)
  • standard math General relativity determines the light-bending and gravitational redshift that shape the observed X-ray waveform.
    Invoked implicitly in any pulse-profile modeling of a neutron star.
  • domain assumption X-ray emission originates from a small number of discrete, uniform-temperature surface regions.
    Explicitly adopted in the best-fit three-spot model described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5741 in / 1217 out tokens · 71396 ms · 2026-05-17T06:21:56.801167+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 18 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Axial Oscillations of Viscous Neutron Stars

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Viscous neutron stars have new families of axial oscillation modes without perfect-fluid counterparts, featuring mode avoidance and long-lived modes.

  2. Neutron stars in a conservative $f(R,T)$ gravity

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A conservative f(R,T) gravity reformulation decouples the gravitational sector from the microphysical equation of state, enabling computation of neutron star mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities that satisf...

  3. Universal Relations with Dynamical Tides

    gr-qc 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    New quasi-universal relations connect static tidal deformability Λ⁰ to its dynamical correction Λ² and to Mω* with equation-of-state scatter below 5% and 2.8% respectively across 59 models.

  4. Bayesian analysis of density profile of light dark matter elucidating the properties of dark matter admixed neutron stars in the presence of hyperons

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bayesian analysis finds that the likely ranges of light dark-matter fermion mass and exponential density-profile parameter in hyperon-containing neutron stars are nearly independent of the hadronic model for symmetry-...

  5. On the non-radial oscillations of realistic anisotropic neutron stars: Axial modes

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Axial modes of anisotropic neutron stars show mass-scaled frequency and damping time with nearly universal quadratic dependence on compactness, insensitive to EOS and anisotropy model.

  6. Modeling large glitches with core superfluidity in a Hybrid star

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Hybrid star model with core quark pasta pinning superfluid vortices produces glitch amplitudes ΔΩ/Ω of order 10^{-6} matching Vela-like pulsar observations.

  7. Sensitivity of Neutron Star Observables to Transition Density in Hybrid Equation-of-State Models

    nucl-th 2026-04 accept novelty 5.0

    Hybrid neutron-star equations of state remain sensitive to the low-density nucleonic model at transition densities around 2ρ₀, with model spread in radius and tidal deformability exceeding observational uncertainty by...

  8. Neutron star with dark matter using vector portal

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Vector portal fermionic dark matter admixed in neutron stars produces mediator-mass-dependent changes to the equation of state, yielding distinct mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities that observations can u...

  9. General gravitational properties of neutron stars: curvature invariants, binding energy, and trace anomaly

    gr-qc 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Roughly half of realistic neutron-star equations of state produce stars with negative Ricci scalar inside, and an improved analytic fit links gravitational mass M to baryonic mass Mb with maximum 3 percent variance.

  10. Properties of Stable Massive Quark Stars in Holography

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Holographic model of massive deconfined quarks yields a stiff enough equation of state to allow stable 2-solar-mass hybrid stars with quark cores for certain nuclear phases.

  11. Rotational effects in quark stars: comparing different models

    astro-ph.HE 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Rotation amplifies differences between the vector MIT bag and DDQM equations of state for quark stars, with MIT supporting more massive stars and a full decomposition of gravitational, internal, rotational, and bindin...

  12. Characterizing the quark-hadron mixed phase in compact star cores : sensitivity to nuclear saturation and quark-model parameters at finite-temperature

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The quark-hadron mixed phase width in hybrid stars is mainly controlled by effective nucleon mass and symmetry energy, with temperature reducing the width and softening the EOS while strong vector repulsion is needed ...

  13. Conformal prediction for uncertainties in the neutron star equation of state

    nucl-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Conformalized quantile regression applied post hoc to neutron star posterior samples yields reliable uncertainty bands validated by empirical coverage studies.

  14. A Poincar\'e-covariant study of strange quark stars

    nucl-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A Poincaré-covariant vector-vector contact interaction yields an equation of state for strange quark matter whose mass-radius and tidal properties match pulsar and gravitational-wave constraints for two tuned parameter sets.

  15. Buchdahl Limit and TOV Equations in Interacting Vacuum Scenarios

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Interacting vacuum energy relaxes the pressure gradient inside stars, allowing finite central pressure and compactness beyond the Buchdahl bound for suitable coupling strengths.

  16. Impact of Anisotropy on Neutron Star Structure and Curvature

    gr-qc 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Moderate positive pressure anisotropy raises neutron star maximum mass to about 2.4 solar masses and compactness by up to 20 percent, with curvature scalars tied to matter showing strong sensitivity while the Weyl sca...

  17. Spin effects in superfluidity, neutron matter and neutron stars

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A review of spin effects, superfluidity, and magnetic fields in neutron matter and their influence on neutron-star structure, superfluid phases, and rotational dynamics.

  18. General-relativistic resistive-magnetohydrodynamics simulations of self-consistent magnetized rotating neutron stars

    astro-ph.HE 2024-09

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 18 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 119, 161101 —. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 161101

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    2015, PhRvD, 92, 023012

    Agathos, M., Meidam, J., Del Pozzo, W., et al. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 023012

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    R., & Ravenhall, D

    Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V. R., & Ravenhall, D. G. 1998, PhRvC, 58, 1804

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    1980, ApJ, 235, 534

    Alcock, C., & Illarionov, A. 1980, ApJ, 235, 534

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    AlGendy, M., & Morsink, S. M. 2014, ApJ, 791, 78

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    2016, European Physical Journal A, 52, 69

    Alvarez-Castillo, D., Ayriyan, A., Benic, S., et al. 2016, European Physical Journal A, 52, 69

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Antoniadis, J., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    1981, ApJ, 248, 1099

    Arons, J. 1981, ApJ, 248, 1099

    work page 1981

  9. [9]

    R., Bautista, M

    Badnell, N. R., Bautista, M. A., Butler, K., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 458

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    Baldo, M., Bombaci, I., & Burgio, G. F. 1997, AAP, 328, 274

    work page 1997

  11. [11]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 42

    Togashi, H. 2019, ApJ, 885, 42

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 31

    Behnel, S., Bradshaw, R., Citro, C., et al. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 31

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    2013, ApJ, 762, 96

    Bogdanov, S. 2013, ApJ, 762, 96

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Bogdanov, S., & Grindlay, J. E. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1557

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    E., & Rybicki, G

    Bogdanov, S., Grindlay, J. E., & Rybicki, G. B. 2008, ApJ, 689, 407

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    B., & Grindlay, J

    Bogdanov, S., Rybicki, G. B., & Grindlay, J. E. 2007, ApJ, 670, 668

    work page 2007

  17. [17]

    N., Harding, A

    Brambilla, G., Kalapotharakos, C., Timokhin, A. N., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2018, ApJ, 858, 81

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Campbell, S. S. 2007, ApJ, 654, 458

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    F., Wade, L

    Carney, M. F., Wade, L. E., & Irwin, B. S. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 063004

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1796

    Chang, S., & Zhang, L. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1796

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    P., Magee, N

    Colgan, J., Kilcrease, D. P., Magee, N. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 116

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    2006, ApJ, 643, 1139

    Contopoulos, I., & Spitkovsky, A. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1139

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S

    Cromartie, H. T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.06759

    work page arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    M., et al

    De, S., Finstad, D., Lattimer, J. M., et al. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 091102

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Roberts, M. S. E., & Hessels, J. W. T. 2010, Nature, 467, 1081

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    2001, AAP, 380, 151

    Douchin, F., & Haensel, P. 2001, AAP, 380, 151

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601

    work page 2009

  28. [28]

    2013, PASP, 125, 306

    Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, 99051H

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Schwenk, A., & Watts, A. L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5363

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    K., & Muslimov, A

    Harding, A. K., & Muslimov, A. G. 2001, ApJ, 556, 987 —. 2002, ApJ, 568, 862

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 11

    Schwenk, A. 2013, ApJ, 773, 11

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Ho, W. C. G., & Heinke, C. O. 2009, Nature, 462, 71

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Ho, W. C. G., & Lai, D. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1081

    work page 2001

  35. [35]

    B., Edwards, R

    Hobbs, G. B., Edwards, R. T., & Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 655

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943

    work page 1996

  38. [38]

    J., Venter, C., Harding, A

    Johnson, T. J., Venter, C., Harding, A. K., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 6

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    K., & Kazanas, D

    Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2018, ApJ, 857, 44

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    K., & Kazanas, D

    Kalapotharakos, C., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2014, ApJ, 793, 97

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    D., & Wade, L

    Lackey, B. D., & Wade, L. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 043002

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 629

    Lai, D. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 629

    work page 2001

  43. [43]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2007, PhR, 442, 109

    work page 2007

  44. [44]

    2010, PhRvD, 82, 103011 —

    Lindblom, L. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 103011 —. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 123019

    work page 2010

  45. [45]

    Lamb, F. K. 2013, ApJ, 776, 19

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    E., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D

    Lockhart, W., Gralla, S. E., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1774

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    M., Miller, J

    Ludlam, R. M., Miller, J. M., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2018, ApJL, 858, L5

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Miller, M. C. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1312.0029

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  49. [49]

    C., Chirenti, C., & Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Chirenti, C., & Lamb, F. K. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.08907

    work page arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    C., & Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., & Lamb, F. K. 2015, ApJ, 808, 31 —. 2016, European Physical Journal A, 52, 63

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 1244 N¨ attil¨ a, J., Miller, M

    Braga, J. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1244 N¨ attil¨ a, J., Miller, M. C., Steiner, A. W., et al. 2017, AAP, 608, A31

    work page 2007

  52. [52]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 10

    work page 2007

  53. [53]

    R., & Volkoff, G

    Oppenheimer, J. R., & Volkoff, G. M. 1939, Physical Review, 55, 374 ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., G¨ uver, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 28

    work page 1939

  54. [54]

    1962, Ann

    Parzen, E. 1962, Ann. Math. Statist., 33, 1065

    work page 1962

  55. [55]

    G., & Zavlin, V

    Pavlov, G. G., & Zavlin, V. E. 1997, ApJL, 490, L91

    work page 1997

  56. [56]

    1900, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 50, 157

    Pearson, K. 1900, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 50, 157

    work page 1900

  57. [57]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Philippov, A. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2018, ApJ, 855, 94

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B

    Philippov, A. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2015, ApJL, 801, L19

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    Potekhin, A. Y. 2014, Physics Uspekhi, 57, 735

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    Psaltis, D., & Lamb, F. K. 1999, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 18, 447

    work page 1999

  61. [61]

    E., Watts, A

    Raaijmakers, G., Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L22

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    E., Raaijmakers, G., & Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Raaijmakers, G., & Watts, A. L. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1093

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L21

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    1956, Ann

    Rosenblatt, M. 1956, Ann. Math. Statist., 27, 832

    work page 1956

  65. [65]

    1991, ApJ, 366, 261

    Ruderman, M. 1991, ApJ, 366, 261

    work page 1991

  66. [66]

    1998, ApJ, 492, 267

    Ruderman, M., Zhu, T., & Chen, K. 1998, ApJ, 492, 267

    work page 1998

  67. [67]

    2018, AAP, 618, A161

    Salmi, T., N¨ attil¨ a, J., & Poutanen, J. 2018, AAP, 618, A161

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    Silverman, B. W. 1986, Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis (London: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1986), http://engineering.purdue.edu/ mark/puthesis/

    work page 1986

  69. [69]

    W., Heinke, C

    Steiner, A. W., Heinke, C. O., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 421

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    W., Lattimer, J

    Steiner, A. W., Lattimer, J. M., & Brown, E. F. 2010, ApJ, 722, 33

    work page 2010

  71. [71]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 149

    Tews, I., Carlson, J., Gandolfi, S., & Reddy, S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 149

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    N., & Arons, J

    Timokhin, A. N., & Arons, J. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 20

    work page 2013

  73. [73]

    Tolman, R. C. 1939, Physical Review, 55, 364

    work page 1939

  74. [74]

    1974, RvMP, 46, 815

    Tsai, Y.-S. 1974, RvMP, 46, 815

    work page 1974

  75. [75]

    E., & Pavlov, G

    Zavlin, V. E., & Pavlov, G. G. 1998, AAP, 329, 583

    work page 1998