Recognition: 2 theorem links
The Radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton Data
Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 06:54 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
The highest-mass neutron star with a reliable radius measurement has an equatorial circumference of 13.7 km.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
The equatorial circumferential radius of PSR J0740+6620 is 13.7^{+2.6}_{-1.5} km (68 percent). When this measurement is combined with the NICER radius of PSR J0030+0451, the masses of two other approximately two-solar-mass pulsars, and tidal deformability bounds from two gravitational-wave events, three separate equation-of-state frameworks all give consistent results at 1.5-3 times nuclear saturation density; the radius of a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star is thereby known to ±4 percent and the radius of a 2.08 solar-mass neutron star to ±5 percent.
What carries the argument
Fits of rotating hot-spot patterns to combined NICER and XMM-Newton X-ray pulse profiles, using assumed spot geometries, temperature distributions, and a specific neutron-star atmosphere and beaming model.
If this is right
- All three equation-of-state frameworks yield consistent pressure constraints at 1.5-3 times nuclear saturation density.
- The radius of a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star is known to ±4 percent at 68 percent credibility.
- The radius of a 2.08 solar-mass neutron star is known to ±5 percent at 68 percent credibility.
- The full span of the ±1-sigma credible intervals across frameworks is 12.45 ± 0.65 km for 1.4 solar masses and 12.35 ± 0.75 km for 2.08 solar masses.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- The similarity of inferred radii at low and high mass suggests that the equation of state does not soften dramatically above nuclear density.
- Additional NICER targets could extend the same hot-spot modeling approach to a statistical sample of masses and radii.
- The current radius window already excludes some purely nucleonic models that predict radii larger than 14 km at 2 solar masses.
Load-bearing premise
The radius inference depends on the correctness of the chosen hot-spot geometry, temperature map, atmosphere model, and X-ray beaming pattern; if any of these are wrong the quoted credible intervals shift.
What would settle it
An independent radius measurement of a neutron star with mass near 2.08 solar masses, obtained by a different technique such as gravitational-wave waveform modeling or a future X-ray mission with alternate spot modeling, that lies outside the reported 13.7^{+2.6}_{-1.5} km interval.
read the original abstract
PSR J0740$+$6620 has a gravitational mass of $2.08\pm 0.07~M_\odot$, which is the highest reliably determined mass of any neutron star. As a result, a measurement of its radius will provide unique insight into the properties of neutron star core matter at high densities. Here we report a radius measurement based on fits of rotating hot spot patterns to Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) and X-ray Multi-Mirror (XMM-Newton) X-ray observations. We find that the equatorial circumferential radius of PSR J0740$+$6620 is $13.7^{+2.6}_{-1.5}$ km (68%). We apply our measurement, combined with the previous NICER mass and radius measurement of PSR J0030$+$0451, the masses of two other $\sim 2~M_\odot$ pulsars, and the tidal deformability constraints from two gravitational wave events, to three different frameworks for equation of state modeling, and find consistent results at $\sim 1.5-3$ times nuclear saturation density. For a given framework, when all measurements are included the radius of a $1.4~M_\odot$ neutron star is known to $\pm 4$% (68% credibility) and the radius of a $2.08~M_\odot$ neutron star is known to $\pm 5$%. The full radius range that spans the $\pm 1\sigma$ credible intervals of all the radius estimates in the three frameworks is $12.45\pm 0.65$ km for a $1.4~M_\odot$ neutron star and $12.35\pm 0.75$ km for a $2.08~M_\odot$ neutron star.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript reports a Bayesian fit of parameterized rotating hot-spot models to NICER and XMM-Newton pulse-profile data for the 2.08 M_⊙ pulsar PSR J0740+6620, yielding an equatorial circumferential radius of 13.7^{+2.6}_{-1.5} km (68% credibility). This radius is then combined with the prior NICER result for PSR J0030+0451, two additional ~2 M_⊙ mass measurements, and GW tidal-deformability constraints within three separate EOS frameworks to conclude that the radius of a 1.4 M_⊙ neutron star is known to ±4% and that of a 2.08 M_⊙ neutron star to ±5% (68% credibility), with consistent behavior at 1.5–3 times nuclear saturation density.
Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the result supplies a valuable high-density EOS anchor because of the pulsar's high mass. The consistency of the inferred radii across three independent EOS frameworks and the explicit reporting of the union of all ±1σ intervals are strengths. The joint use of NICER and XMM-Newton data adds a useful cross-check.
major comments (1)
- [§4 (pulse-profile modeling and Bayesian inference)] The radius posterior and its quoted credible intervals are obtained under fixed assumptions on hot-spot number, colatitudes, sizes, temperature distributions, and a specific atmosphere plus beaming function. Because the data do not independently constrain these choices, an incorrect model would shift the radius posterior by an amount comparable to or larger than the reported statistical uncertainties; this model dependence is load-bearing for the central claim and for the subsequent EOS conclusions.
minor comments (1)
- [Results section] Table 1 or the equivalent summary table: the reported 68% intervals for the combined 1.4 M_⊙ and 2.08 M_⊙ radii should explicitly state whether they are the union across frameworks or the tightest single-framework result.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We are grateful to the referee for their positive assessment of the significance of our work and for highlighting the key modeling assumptions in our analysis. Below we provide a point-by-point response to the major comment.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [§4 (pulse-profile modeling and Bayesian inference)] The radius posterior and its quoted credible intervals are obtained under fixed assumptions on hot-spot number, colatitudes, sizes, temperature distributions, and a specific atmosphere plus beaming function. Because the data do not independently constrain these choices, an incorrect model would shift the radius posterior by an amount comparable to or larger than the reported statistical uncertainties; this model dependence is load-bearing for the central claim and for the subsequent EOS conclusions.
Authors: We acknowledge that the specific hot-spot geometry, temperature distribution, and atmosphere model are informed by physical priors and model comparison rather than being fully determined by the NICER+XMM data in isolation. In §4 we marginalize over colatitudes, sizes, and temperatures within the ranges allowed by the pulse-profile likelihood, and we have performed explicit robustness tests against alternative configurations (single versus two hot spots, different beaming functions, and variations in atmospheric composition). These tests show that the equatorial radius shifts by amounts smaller than the reported 68% credible interval. We agree that a fully incorrect model choice could introduce a systematic bias comparable to the statistical uncertainty, and we will add a new paragraph in the revised §4 that quantifies this residual model dependence and its propagation into the EOS constraints. This addition will make the discussion more transparent without changing the central results. revision: yes
Circularity Check
No significant circularity in radius inference or EOS combination
full rationale
The paper derives the equatorial radius of PSR J0740+6620 directly from fits of rotating hot-spot models to NICER and XMM-Newton X-ray pulse-profile data, using external observational inputs and standard atmosphere/beaming assumptions. This measurement is then combined with independent prior results (masses of other pulsars, tidal deformability from GW events, and a previous NICER radius for PSR J0030+0451) within three EOS frameworks. No step reduces by construction to a self-defined quantity, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain; the derivation remains self-contained against external data benchmarks and does not match any enumerated circularity pattern.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
free parameters (1)
- hot-spot geometry and temperature parameters
axioms (1)
- domain assumption Standard general-relativistic ray-tracing and atmosphere beaming model for rotating neutron stars
Forward citations
Cited by 18 Pith papers
-
Axial Oscillations of Viscous Neutron Stars
Viscous neutron stars have new families of axial oscillation modes without perfect-fluid counterparts, featuring mode avoidance and long-lived modes.
-
Neutron stars in a conservative $f(R,T)$ gravity
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...
-
Emulator-Assisted Nuclear DFT Inference and Its Consequences for the Structure of Neutron Stars
Emulator-assisted Bayesian inference of an extended Skyrme EDF, jointly constrained by nuclear observables, ab initio calculations, and NICER data, produces posteriors yielding consistent neutron star crust and core p...
-
Universal Relations with Dynamical Tides
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.
-
Bayesian analysis of density profile of light dark matter elucidating the properties of dark matter admixed neutron stars in the presence of hyperons
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-...
-
On the non-radial oscillations of realistic anisotropic neutron stars: Axial modes
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.
-
Modeling large glitches with core superfluidity in a Hybrid star
Hybrid star model with core quark pasta pinning superfluid vortices produces glitch amplitudes ΔΩ/Ω of order 10^{-6} matching Vela-like pulsar observations.
-
Sensitivity of Neutron Star Observables to Transition Density in Hybrid Equation-of-State Models
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...
-
Neutron star with dark matter using vector portal
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...
-
General gravitational properties of neutron stars: curvature invariants, binding energy, and trace anomaly
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.
-
Properties of Stable Massive Quark Stars in Holography
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.
-
Rotational effects in quark stars: comparing different models
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...
-
Tracing the Trace Anomaly of Dense Matter inside Neutron Stars
Quasi-universal relations connect the trace anomaly profile of neutron star matter to stellar compactness, moment of inertia, and tidal deformability, yielding a central value estimate of Δ_c = 0.1770^{+0.0365}_{-0.04...
-
Characterizing the quark-hadron mixed phase in compact star cores : sensitivity to nuclear saturation and quark-model parameters at finite-temperature
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 ...
-
A Poincar\'e-covariant study of strange quark stars
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.
-
Buchdahl Limit and TOV Equations in Interacting Vacuum Scenarios
Interacting vacuum energy relaxes the pressure gradient inside stars, allowing finite central pressure and compactness beyond the Buchdahl bound for suitable coupling strengths.
-
Impact of Anisotropy on Neutron Star Structure and Curvature
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...
-
Spin effects in superfluidity, neutron matter and neutron stars
A review of spin effects, superfluidity, and magnetic fields in neutron matter and their influence on neutron-star structure, superfluid phases, and rotational dynamics.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 119, 161101
work page 2017
-
[2]
2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 161101
---. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 161101
work page 2018
- [3]
-
[4]
Abbott , R., LIGO Scientific Collaboration , & Virgo Collaboration . 2020 b , , 896, L44
work page 2020
-
[5]
2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.10767
Adhikari , D., Albataineh , H., Androic , D., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.10767
-
[6]
Agathos , M., Meidam , J., Del Pozzo , W., Li , T. G. F., Tompitak , M., Veitch , J., Vitale , S., & Van Den Broeck , C. 2015, , 92, 023012
work page 2015
- [7]
-
[8]
G., Grigorian , H., & P \'o sfay , P
Alvarez-Castillo , D., Ayriyan , A., Barnaf \"o ldi , G. G., Grigorian , H., & P \'o sfay , P. 2020, European Physical Journal Special Topics, 229, 3615
work page 2020
-
[9]
2016, European Physical Journal A, 52, 69
Alvarez-Castillo , D., Ayriyan , A., Benic , S., Blaschke , D., Grigorian , H., & Typel , S. 2016, European Physical Journal A, 52, 69
work page 2016
-
[10]
Annala, E., Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., & Vuorinen, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 172703
work page 2018
-
[11]
Antoniadis , J., Freire , P. C. C., Wex , N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448
work page 2013
-
[12]
Arzoumanian , Z., Baker , P. T., Brazier , A., et al. 2018, , 859, 47
work page 2018
-
[13]
Badnell , N. R., Bautista , M. A., Butler , K., Delahaye , F., Mendoza , C., Palmeri , P., Zeippen , C. J., & Seaton , M. J. 2005, , 360, 458
work page 2005
-
[14]
Baub \"o ck , M., Psaltis , D., & \"O zel , F. 2019, , 872, 162
work page 2019
-
[15]
Baym , G., Furusawa , S., Hatsuda , T., Kojo , T., & Togashi , H. 2019, , 885, 42
work page 2019
-
[16]
Behnel , S., Bradshaw , R., Citro , C., Dalcin , L., Seljebotn , D. S., & Smith , K. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 31
work page 2011
- [17]
- [18]
-
[19]
Bhattacharyya , S., Strohmayer , T. E., Miller , M. C., & Markwardt , C. B. 2005, , 619, 483
work page 2005
-
[20]
Bildsten , L., Salpeter , E. E., & Wasserman , I. 1992, , 384, 143
work page 1992
- [21]
-
[22]
Blaes , O. M., Blandford , R. D., Madau , P., & Yan , L. 1992, , 399, 634
work page 1992
-
[23]
Bogdanov , S., Dittmann , A. J., Ho , W. C. G., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.06928
-
[24]
Bogdanov , S., Lamb , F. K., Mahmoodifar , S., et al. 2019, , 887, L26
work page 2019
-
[25]
Bogdanov , S., Rybicki , G. B., & Grindlay , J. E. 2007, , 670, 668
work page 2007
- [26]
-
[27]
2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2101.09675
Buchner , J. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2101.09675
-
[28]
Capano , C. D., Tews , I., Brown , S. M., Margalit , B., De , S., Kumar , S., Brown , D. A., Krishnan , B., & Reddy , S. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 625
work page 2020
- [29]
- [30]
-
[31]
Cierniak , M. & Blaschke , D. 2020, European Physical Journal Special Topics, 229, 3663
work page 2020
- [32]
-
[33]
Cromartie , H. T., Fonseca , E., Ransom , S. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 72
work page 2020
- [34]
-
[35]
De , S., Finstad , D., Lattimer , J. M., Brown , D. A., Berger , E., & Biwer , C. M. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 091102
work page 2018
-
[36]
Demorest , P. B., Pennucci , T., Ransom , S. M., Roberts , M. S. E., & Hessels , J. W. T. 2010, , 467, 1081
work page 2010
-
[37]
Dietrich , T., Coughlin , M. W., Pang , P. T. H., Bulla , M., Heinzel , J., Issa , L., Tews , I., & Antier , S. 2020, Science, 370, 1450
work page 2020
-
[38]
Drischler , C., Furnstahl , R. J., Melendez , J. A., & Phillips , D. R. 2020 a , , 125, 202702
work page 2020
-
[39]
M., Prakash , M., Reddy , S., & Zhao , T
Drischler , C., Han , S., Lattimer , J. M., Prakash , M., Reddy , S., & Zhao , T. 2020 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.06441
-
[40]
Essick , R., Landry , P., & Holz , D. E. 2020 a , , 101, 063007
work page 2020
-
[41]
Essick , R., Tews , I., Landry , P., Reddy , S., & Holz , D. E. 2020 b , , 102, 055803
work page 2020
- [42]
-
[43]
Fonseca , E., Cromartie , H. T., Pennucci , T. T., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.00880
- [44]
-
[45]
Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306
work page 2013
-
[46]
R., Gulminelli , F., Zdunik , J
Fortin , M., Provid \^e ncia , C., Raduta , A. R., Gulminelli , F., Zdunik , J. L., Haensel , P., & Bejger , M. 2016, , 94, 035804
work page 2016
- [47]
-
[48]
Gamba , R., Read , J. S., & Wade , L. E. 2020, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37, 025008
work page 2020
-
[49]
Gehrels , N., Chincarini , G., Giommi , P., et al. 2004, , 611, 1005
work page 2004
-
[50]
C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P
Gendreau , K. C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P. W., et al. 2016, in , Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, 99051H
work page 2016
-
[51]
K., Hebeler , K., Lattimer , J
Greif , S. K., Hebeler , K., Lattimer , J. M., Pethick , C. J., & Schwenk , A. 2020, , 901, 155
work page 2020
-
[52]
K., Raaijmakers , G., Hebeler , K., Schwenk , A., & Watts , A
Greif , S. K., Raaijmakers , G., Hebeler , K., Schwenk , A., & Watts , A. L. 2019, , 485, 5363
work page 2019
-
[53]
2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2103.05408
Han , M.-Z., Jiang , J.-L., Tang , S.-P., & Fan , Y.-Z. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2103.05408
-
[54]
Harding , A. K. & Muslimov , A. G. 2001, , 556, 987
work page 2001
- [55]
-
[56]
Hebeler , K., Lattimer , J. M., Pethick , C. J., & Schwenk , A. 2013, , 773, 11
work page 2013
-
[57]
Hernandez Vivanco, F., Smith, R., Thrane, E., Lasky, P. D., Talbot, C., & Raymond, V. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 103009
work page 2019
- [58]
- [59]
-
[60]
Ho , W. C. G. & Heinke , C. O. 2009, , 462, 71
work page 2009
-
[61]
Ho , W. C. G. & Lai , D. 2001, , 327, 1081
work page 2001
-
[62]
Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90
work page 2007
-
[63]
Jiang , J.-L., Tang , S.-P., Wang , Y.-Z., Fan , Y.-Z., & Wei , D.-M. 2020, , 892, 55
work page 2020
-
[64]
Kiuchi , K., Kyutoku , K., Shibata , M., & Taniguchi , K. 2019, , 876, L31
work page 2019
-
[65]
Lackey , B. D. & Wade , L. 2015, , 91, 043002
work page 2015
-
[66]
2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 629
Lai , D. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 629
work page 2001
- [67]
-
[68]
Landry , P., Essick , R., & Chatziioannou , K. 2020, , 101, 123007
work page 2020
-
[69]
Lattimer , J. M. & Prakash , M. 2007, , 442, 109
work page 2007
- [70]
- [71]
-
[72]
2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2010.15795
Le Tiec , A., Casals , M., & Franzin , E. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2010.15795
-
[73]
2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.12571
Li , A., Jiang , J.-L., Tang , S.-P., Miao , Z.-Q., Zhou , E.-P., & Xu , R.-X. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.12571
-
[74]
2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2103.15119
Li , A., Miao , Z., Han , S., & Zhang , B. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2103.15119
- [75]
- [76]
- [77]
-
[78]
Lo , K. H., Miller , M. C., Bhattacharyya , S., & Lamb , F. K. 2013, , 776, 19
work page 2013
- [79]
-
[80]
Miller , M. C. 2013, arXiv e-prints
work page 2013
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.