Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 146 references

The birth mass function of neutron stars

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Neutron stars are born near 1.3 solar masses, not in two peaks

desk verdict A careful, reproducible inference that the neutron-star birth mass function is a turn-on power law, but the headline 3-sigma claim is not supported by the paper's own false-alarm calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05524 v2 pith:XYY6I7NY submitted 2024-12-07 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Zhi-Qiang You , Xingjiang Zhu , Xiaojin Liu , Bernhard Müller , Alexander Heger , Simon Stevenson , Eric Thrane , Zu-Cheng Chen
show 7 more authors
Ling Sun Paul Lasky Duncan K. Galloway George Hobbs Richard N. Manchester He Gao Zong-Hong Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords neutronstarbirthmassfunctionrecycledpulsarsaccretioncorrectionturn-onpowerlawdoubleGaussianBayesianmodelselectionsupernovaprogenitorsmasses
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the birth masses of neutron stars follow a single, smoothly rising and steeply falling distribution, not the widely assumed double-peaked (two-Gaussian) shape. Using mass measurements of 90 neutron stars and correcting for mass gained by recycled pulsars during accretion, the authors find a minimum birth mass near 1.1 $M_\odot$, a peak near 1.27 $M_\odot$, and a steep power-law decline. If correct, the result changes how astronomers link supernova progenitors to neutron stars and refines predictions for gravitational-wave signals from merging neutron stars. The paper also argues that the dearth of massive neutron stars implies single stars heavier than roughly 18 $M_\odot$ do not leave neutron stars.

What carries the argument

The central object is the turn-on power-law (TOP) distribution, a parametric mass function that rises from a minimum mass over a smooth transition width and then declines as $m^{-\alpha}$. The argument runs on two supporting mechanisms: (1) a probabilistic accretion correction that subtracts the mass each recycled pulsar gained during spin-up, derived from accretion spin-up theory and calibrated against binary evolution calculations; and (2) a hierarchical Bayesian model-selection framework that compares TOP against single- and multi-Gaussian, power-law, log-normal, gamma, and skewed Student-t models using Bayes factors. The accretion correction is what converts observed masses of recycled pulsars into birth masses, and the model comparison is what establishes TOP as the preferred shape.

What would settle it

A larger, independently selected sample of slow (non-recycled) neutron stars with precise masses, especially in double neutron star systems, would settle the shape: if such a sample shows a clear excess near 1.8 $M_\odot$ or a flat high-mass tail instead of a steep decline, the turn-on power law is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the birth mass function of neutron stars is unimodal and well described by a turn-on power law: the distribution rises smoothly from a minimum mass of $1.10^{+0.04}_{-0.05}\,M_\odot$, peaks at $1.27^{+0.03}_{-0.04}\,M_\odot$, and then declines with a power-law index of $6.5^{+1.3}_{-1.2}$. This model is strongly favoured over the empirical two-Gaussian model, with a Bayes factor greater than 300, corresponding to roughly $3\sigma$ significance. The paper further claims that the steep tail implies that stars with initial masses above approximately 18 $M_\odot$ rarely form neutron stars, consistent with the observed absence of massive red supergiant progenitors of supernovae.

Load-bearing premise

The inference assumes that the 90 compiled neutron stars with measured masses fairly represent the underlying neutron star population, so that no strong mass-dependent selection effect distorts the shape of the distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The neutron star birth mass function has a single peak near 1.27 $M_\odot$, so the double-peaked structure inferred from observed masses is largely an artifact of accretion and small samples.
  • Single stars with initial masses above about 18 $M_\odot$ rarely produce neutron stars, narrowing the allowed progenitor mass range for core-collapse supernovae.
  • The steep power-law decline means most neutron stars are born near the low end of the mass range, which shifts predicted post-merger gravitational-wave frequencies for binary neutron star mergers.
  • Marginal evidence for a maximum mass cutoff around $2.36^{+0.29}_{-0.17}\,M_\odot$ leaves room for a small population of very massive neutron stars but does not require one.
  • The TOP shape may be inherited from the initial mass function of massive stars, but only if explosion physics allows substantial net accretion after shock revival in more massive progenitors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the TOP shape holds, future neutron star mass measurements should show a dearth of objects near 1.8 $M_\odot$ compared with what the two-Gaussian model predicts; a single well-measured cluster near that mass would challenge the conclusion.
  • The same accretion-correction machinery could be applied to the growing sample of neutron star-black hole merger events to test whether the inferred birth mass function is consistent across formation channels.
  • The steep slope implies that binary neutron star merger rates and mass ratios are dominated by low-mass primaries, which may sharpen predictions for the electromagnetic counterparts and post-merger emission of nearby mergers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper compiles mass measurements for 90 neutron stars, separates them into recycled and non-recycled subclasses, and applies probabilistic accreted-mass corrections to the recycled systems using an analytical prescription and a phenomenological prescription. The corrected birth-mass posteriors are then fed into a hierarchical Bayesian analysis comparing fifteen parametric models. The authors report that a turn-on power-law (TOP) model is strongly preferred over the empirical two-Gaussian model, with a Bayes factor greater than 300, and infer a birth-mass function that turns on near 1.1 Msun, peaks near 1.27 Msun, and declines as a steep power law with index about 6.5. They further connect this shape to supernova progenitor physics, arguing that stars with initial masses above roughly 18 Msun do not form neutron stars.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper overturns the widely used double-Gaussian description of the neutron-star birth-mass function and replaces it with a unimodal, steeply falling distribution. Such a result would have broad implications for supernova explosion modelling, double-star evolution, and the neutron-star equation of state. The paper has notable strengths: it uses joint posterior information for double neutron stars, tests two independent accreted-mass prescriptions, compares a large family of parametric models, and includes a repeated-simulation false-alarm calibration. The data and analysis scripts are publicly available. However, the quantitative significance attached to the headline model comparison is not supported by the paper's own calibration, and the selection-function treatment is lighter than the strength of the population-level claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section E, Extended Data Figure 4] The '3 sigma' claim is inconsistent with the paper's own false-alarm calibration. In Section E, the authors report a false-alarm probability of 2.5% for the observed ln Bayes factor of 5.8 against the two-Gaussian null, based on 200 simulated datasets. A 2.5% one-sided or two-sided false-alarm rate corresponds to roughly 1.96 sigma, not 3 sigma. The alternative conversion quoted in the main text, from posterior odds of 0.003 to '~3 sigma', treats an equal-prior posterior probability as a Gaussian p-value and is not a calibrated frequentist statement. The abstract's 'strongly favoured at the 3 sigma level' therefore overstates the evidence by the paper's own metric. The authors should either report the calibrated false-alarm significance or revise the significance language throughout.
  2. [Extended Data Table 3 and Section E] The reported Bayes factor of 'greater than 300' uses the TOPmax variant rather than the TOP model as defined in the text. For the ANA data set, Extended Data Table 3 gives ln BF(TOP vs uniform) = 15.4 and ln BF(2G vs uniform) = 10.3, giving ln BF = 5.1 and BF about 164, whereas the value 5.8 quoted in Extended Data Figure 4 corresponds to the TOPmax row (16.1 - 10.3 = 5.8). Since the paper says it does not distinguish TOP from TOPmax, the model whose evidence is being quoted is not uniquely defined. The distinction matters because the Bayes factor is a headline quantity, and the pure TOP versus 2G comparison is weaker than the quoted value.
  3. [Section G, Extended Data Figure 10] The inference treats the compiled sample as representative of the underlying neutron-star population with respect to mass, and this assumption is load-bearing for the inferred steep power-law tail. The checks in Section G only demonstrate the absence of obvious correlations between measured mass and spin period or luminosity for a subset of the sample; they do not quantify a selection function. If high-mass neutron stars are preferentially detectable through timing precision, orbital geometry, or survey selection, the slope of the high-mass tail would be biased. The closing statement that the results are 'robust against potential selection effects' is stronger than the presented evidence supports, and the authors should either add a selection model or explicitly weaken this claim.
  4. [Section F] The agreement between the semi-analytic supernova model and the TOP distribution is obtained after adjusting model parameters (beta = 3.1, alpha_turb = 1.10, zeta = 0.85, tau_1.5 = 1.2 s) specifically to reproduce the observed steep power-law shape. This is a useful consistency check, but it should be presented as an illustrative demonstration rather than independent confirmation of the progenitor-mass interpretation, since the parameters are tuned to the target distribution.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Methods Section B] The text contains a typo: 'evolvd' should be 'evolved'.
  2. [Equation (1)] The phrase 'were G is the gravitational constant' should read 'where G is the gravitational constant'.
  3. [Section E] The word 'logrithmic' should be 'logarithmic'.
  4. [Extended Data Figure 4 caption] The caption says the simulation uses 87 neutron star mass measurements while the main text describes 90 compiled neutron stars; the authors should state explicitly that the three recycled neutron stars without measured spin parameters are excluded from the ANA dataset used in the simulation.
  5. [Section D and Section E] The models 'TOPmax' and 'TOPG' are named and compared in Extended Data Table 3 but not defined in Section D; since the TOP model in Equation (20) already contains an upper cutoff through H(mmax - m), the difference between TOP and TOPmax should be clarified.
  6. [Section E] The sentence describing the maximum-mass cutoff as supported with a Bayes factor of 2 should clarify that this is marginal evidence, and the abstract should avoid giving the impression that the maximum mass is a firmly constrained feature of the model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central TOP result is a data-driven model comparison; self-citation is incidental.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that a unimodal turn-on power-law (TOP) birth-mass function is preferred over the empirical two-Gaussian model—comes from a hierarchical Bayesian fit to 90 individual mass posteriors using Eqs. (8)-(14), with model evidence ratios tabulated in Extended Data Table 3. No parameter defining the TOP model (m_min, delta_m, alpha, m_max) is set equal to a derived quantity, and the TOP preference also holds for the uncorrected observed masses (OBS column), for the slow-neutron-star subset, and for both analytical and phenomenological accreted-mass correction schemes; the result therefore does not reduce to the correction prescription. The paper's use of its own spin-up line (ref. 110) is a genuine input but is not load-bearing: it fixes the starting location for recycled-pulsar spin evolution and does not encode the target mass function. The supernova-model tuning in Section F is explicitly a parameter adjustment to reproduce the measured power-law slope, presented as a consistency demonstration rather than an independent prediction. The '3-sigma' claim versus the paper's own 2.5% simulated false-alarm probability is an internal statistical overstatement, but that is a reporting/correctness issue, not a circular derivation. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to its input, and no load-bearing result is imported solely from a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical fit, so the free parameters are the TOP model parameters plus the parameters of the accreted-mass correction and the interpretation models. The axioms are the domain assumptions underlying the recycling model and the sample classification. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • m_min (TOP minimum mass) = 1.10 Msun (median)
    Lower cutoff of the turn-on power-law model, fitted to the data; prior uniform in [0.9, 1.5] Msun.
  • m_max (TOP maximum mass) = 2.36 Msun (median)
    Upper cutoff of the TOP model, weakly constrained with a Bayes factor of 2; prior uniform in [1.5, 2.9] Msun.
  • alpha (power-law index) = 6.47 (median)
    Slope of the declining power law; prior uniform in [-5, 25].
  • delta_m (turn-on smoothing width) = 0.24 Msun (median)
    Width of the smooth transition from zero at m_min; prior uniform in [0.01, 1] Msun.
  • A_max (spin-up line coefficient) = 3.76e-15 s^-4/3
    Upper limit for the spin-up line in the analytical accreted-mass model, taken from the authors' prior work (ref 110); determines the minimum initial spin period and thus the inferred accreted mass.
  • Phenomenological accreted-mass relation constants = mu_M = 0.3 Msun * P_ms^-1/2, sigma = 0.2 mu_M
    Mean and scatter of the accreted-mass vs spin-period relation in the phenomenological model, motivated by numerical simulations (ref 28).
  • Supernova model tuning parameters (Section F) = beta=3.1, alpha_turb=1.10, zeta=0.85, tau_1.5=1.2 s
    Parameters of the semi-analytic supernova model adjusted to reproduce the observed TOP power-law slope; these are not used in the main inference but in the theoretical interpretation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard accretion torque and magnetosphere theory (Eqs. 1-7) relating equilibrium spin period to accreted mass.
    The analytical accreted-mass correction relies on the standard recycling paradigm (Alpar et al. 1982; Tauris et al. 2012) and the specific formulas quoted in Methods Section B.
  • domain assumption Braking index n=3 for recycled pulsars.
    Adopted in Methods Section B; the paper states results are insensitive to n=2, but this still underlies the spin-down evolution and inferred initial spin periods.
  • domain assumption Age of each recycled pulsar is uniformly distributed between 0 and tau_max.
    Used in both the analytical and phenomenological models to infer initial spin periods (Methods Section B).
  • domain assumption Classification of neutron stars into recycled (P<100 ms, Pdot<1e-17) and slow (seconds or longer) subclasses.
    Defines which masses receive accreted-mass corrections; described in Methods Section A.
  • domain assumption In double neutron star systems, one component is recycled and the other is slow, following the standard formation channel.
    Assumed for DNS systems and GW mergers in Methods Section A; exceptions are noted for globular cluster pulsars.
  • domain assumption Individual mass posteriors from the literature are well approximated by Gaussians for symmetric errors.
    Methods Section C states symmetric errors are approximated by Gaussian functions; non-Gaussian posteriors may bias the hierarchical inference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The birth mass function of neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XYY6I7NY

@misc{pith2026241205524,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The birth mass function of neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XYY6I7NY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05524}
}
abstract

The birth mass function of neutron stars encodes rich information about supernova explosions, double star evolution, and properties of matter under extreme conditions. To date, it has remained poorly constrained by observations, however. Applying probabilistic corrections to account for mass accreted by recycled pulsars in binary systems to mass measurements of 90 neutron stars, we find that the birth masses of neutron stars can be described by a unimodal distribution that smoothly turns on at $1.1 M_{\odot}$, peaks at $1.27 M_{\odot}$, before declining as a steep power law. Such a ``turn-on" power-law distribution is strongly favoured against the widely-adopted empirical double-Gaussian model at the $3 \sigma$ level. The power-law shape may be inherited from the initial mass function of massive stars, but the relative dearth of massive neutron stars implies that single stars with initial masses greater than $\approx 18 M_{\odot}$ do not form neutron stars, in agreement with the absence of massive red supergiant progenitors to supernovae.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On the variation of the initial mass function.Mon

    Kroupa, P. On the variation of the initial mass function.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.231–246 (2001). astro-ph/0009005

    arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    Schneider, F. R. N. et al. An excess of massive stars in the local 30 Doradus starburst. Science 359, 69–71 (2018). 1801.03107

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    The death of massive stars - I. Observational constraints on the progenitors of type II-P supernovae

    Smartt, S. J., Eldridge, J. J., Crockett, R. M. & Maund, J. R. The death of massive stars - I. Observational constraints on the progenitors of Type II-P supernovae. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 395, 1409-1437 (2009). 0809.0403

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    The Initial Masses of the Red Supergiant Progenitors to Type-II Supernovae

    Davies, Ben & Beasor, Emma R. The initial masses of the red supergiant progenitors to Type II supernovae. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474, 2116-2128 (2018). 1709.06116

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Joss, P. C. & Rappaport, S. A. Observational constraints on the masses of neutron stars. Nat. 264, 219–222 (1976)

    1976

  6. [6]

    Finn, L. S. Observational constraints on the neutron star mass distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1878–1881 (1994)

    1994

  7. [7]

    Thorsett, S. E. & Chakrabarty, D. Neutron Star Mass Measurements. I. Radio Pulsars. Astrophys. J. 512, 288–299 (1999)

    1999

  8. [8]

    H., Fowler, L

    Taylor, J. H., Fowler, L. A. & McCulloch, P. M. Measurements of general relativistic effects in the binary pulsar PSR1913 + 16. Nat. 277, 437–440 (1979)

    1979

Show all 146 references
  1. [9]

    H., Wolszczan, A., Damour, T

    Taylor, J. H., Wolszczan, A., Damour, T. & Weisberg, J. M. Experimental constraints on strong-field relativistic gravity. Nat. 355, 132–136 (1992). 16

    1992

  2. [10]

    B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S

    Demorest, P. B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S. M., Roberts, M. S. E. & Hessels, J. W. T. A two-solar-mass neutron star measured using Shapiro delay. Nat. 467, 1081–1083 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Antoniadis, J. et al. A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary. Science 340, 448 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    & Horvath, J

    Valentim, R., Rangel, E. & Horvath, J. E. On the mass distribution of neutron stars. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 414, 1427–1431 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    & Santos Villarreal, A

    ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., Narayan, R. & Santos Villarreal, A. On the Mass Distribution and Birth Masses of Neutron Stars. Astrophys. J. 757, 55 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    & Thorsett, S

    Kiziltan, B., Kottas, A., De Yoreo, M. & Thorsett, S. E. The Neutron Star Mass Distribu- tion. Astrophys. J. 778, 66 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Antoniadis, J. et al. The millisecond pulsar mass distribution: Evidence for bimodality and constraints on the maximum neutron star mass. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1605.01665 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Alsing, J., Silva, H. O. & Berti, E. Evidence for a maximum mass cut-off in the neutron star mass distribution and constraints on the equation of state. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 1377–1391 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Horvath, J. E. & Valentim, R. The Masses of Neutron Stars. In Alsabti, A. W. & Murdin, P. (eds.) Handbook of Supernovae, 1317 (2017). 17

    2017

  10. [18]

    X., Woosley, S

    Timmes, F. X., Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A. The Neutron Star and Black Hole Initial Mass Function. Astrophys. J. 457, 834 (1996)

    1996

  11. [19]

    & Rappaport, S

    Schwab, J., Podsiadlowski, P. & Rappaport, S. Further Evidence for the Bimodal Distri- bution of Neutron-star Masses. Astrophys. J. 719, 722–727 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    & Woosley, S

    Sukhbold, T. & Woosley, S. E. The Compactness of Presupernova Stellar Cores. Astro- phys. J. 783, 10 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    & Cameron, J

    M ¨uller, B., Heger, A., Liptai, D. & Cameron, J. B. A simple approach to the supernova progenitor-explosion connection. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 460, 742–764 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    -Th., Woosley, S

    Ertl, T., Janka, H. -Th., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T. & Ugliano, M. A Two-parameter Criterion for Classifying the Explodability of Massive Stars by the Neutrino-driven Mech- anism. Astrophys. J. 818, 124 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Sukhbold, T., Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. A High-resolution Study of Presupernova Core Structure. Astrophys. J. 860, 93 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    A., Cheng, A

    Alpar, M. A., Cheng, A. F., Ruderman, M. A. & Shaham, J. A new class of radio pulsars. Nat. 300, 728–730 (1982)

    1982

  17. [25]

    & Srinivasan, G

    Radhakrishnan, V . & Srinivasan, G. On the origin of the recently discovered ultra-rapid pulsar. Current Science 51, 1096–1099 (1982). 18

    1982

  18. [26]

    & van den Heuvel, E

    Bhattacharya, D. & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. Formation and evolution of binary and millisecond radio pulsars. Phys. Rep. 203, 1–124 (1991)

    1991

  19. [27]

    M., Langer, N

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N. & Kramer, M. Formation of millisecond pulsars with CO white dwarf companions - II. Accretion, spin-up, true ages and comparison to MSPs with He white dwarf companions. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 425, 1601–1627 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    & Han, Z

    Li, Z., Chen, X., Chen, H.-L. & Han, Z. The Maximum Accreted Mass of Recycled Pulsars. Astrophys. J. 922, 158 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    E., Sukhbold, T

    Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T. & Janka, H. T. The Birth Function for Black Holes and Neutron Stars in Close Binaries. Astrophys. J. 896, 56 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Lipunov, V . M. & Postnov, K. A. Accretion spin-up of low-magnetic neutron stars. As- trophys. and Space Sci. 106, 103–115 (1984)

    1984

  23. [31]

    & Thrane, E

    Talbot, C. & Thrane, E. Measuring the Binary Black Hole Mass Spectrum with an Astro- physically Motivated Parameterization. Astrophys. J. 856, 173 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. The Remarkable Deaths of 9-11 Solar Mass Stars. Astrophys. J. 810, 34 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    T., Marek, A

    H ¨udepohl, L., M ¨uller, B., Janka, H. T., Marek, A. & Raffelt, G. G. Neutrino Signal of Electron-Capture Supernovae from Core Collapse to Cooling. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 251101 (2010). 19

    2010

  26. [34]

    & Janka, H.-T

    Kresse, D., Ertl, T. & Janka, H.-T. Stellar Collapse Diversity and the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background. Astrophys. J. 909, 169 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    E., Sukhbold, T

    Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T. & Janka, H. T. The Explosion of Helium Stars Evolved with Mass Loss. Astrophys. J. 890, 51 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    E., Brown, J

    Sukhbold, T., Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Brown, J. M. & Janka, H. T. Core-collapse Super- novae from 9 to 120 Solar Masses Based on Neutrino-powered Explosions. Astrophys. J. 821, 38 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Evans, M. et al. A horizon study for cosmic explorer: Science, observatories, and com- munity. arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM] (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Srivastava, V . et al. Science-driven tunable design of cosmic explorer detectors. The Astrophysical Journal 931, 22 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Martynov, D. et al. Exploring the sensitivity of gravitational wave detectors to neutron star physics. Phys. Rev. D 99, 102004 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    & Baiotti, L

    Takami, K., Rezzolla, L. & Baiotti, L. Spectral properties of the post-merger gravitational- wave signal from binary neutron stars. Phys. Rev. D 91, 064001 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    & Takami, K

    Rezzolla, L. & Takami, K. Gravitational-wave signal from binary neutron stars: A sys- tematic analysis of the spectral properties. Phys. Rev. D 93, 124051 (2016). 20

    2016

  34. [42]

    Bauswein, A. et al. Identifying a first-order phase transition in neutron-star mergers through gravitational waves. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061102 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    & Taniguchi, K

    Shibata, M. & Taniguchi, K. Merger of binary neutron stars to a black hole: Disk mass, short gamma-ray bursts, and quasinormal mode ringing. Phys. Rev. D 73, 064027 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    & Rezzolla, L

    Baiotti, L., Giacomazzo, B. & Rezzolla, L. Accurate evolutions of inspiralling neutron- star binaries: Prompt and delayed collapse to a black hole. Phys. Rev. D 78, 084033 (2008). 21 Methods A Mass measurements of neutron stars Extended Data Tables 1 and 2 list measurements of...

    2008

  37. [45]

    The dimensionless parameters ϕ and ωc are uniformly distributed in the ranges [0.5, 1.4] and [0.25, 1], respectively. The pulsar radius follows a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 11.9 km and a standard deviation of 0.85 km, based on gravitational-wave observations of the f...

  38. [46]

    For the second group, the individual likelihood function L(dj|mj 1, mj

    that are in double neutron star systems. For the second group, the individual likelihood function L(dj|mj 1, mj

  39. [47]

    TOPmax”) and a Gaussian peak (denoted as “TOPG

    is proportional to the joint posterior p(mj 1, mj 2|dj). In our analysis, we used the software package BILBY (ref.134) for parameter estimation and evidence calculation and the gwpopulation package 135 for population modelling. D Parametric models for the neutron star mass fun...

  40. [48]

    Tauris, T. M. et al. Formation of Double Neutron Star Systems. Astrophys. J. 846, 170 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    R., Bailes, M

    Chattopadhyay, D., Stevenson, S., Hurley, J. R., Bailes, M. & Broekgaarden, F. Modelling neutron star-black hole binaries: future pulsar surveys and gravitational wave detectors. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 504, 3682–3710 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Broekgaarden, F. S. et al. Impact of Massive Binary Star and Cosmic Evolution on Grav- itational Wave Observations I: Black Hole - Neutron Star Mergers. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 508, 5028-5063 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Phinney, E. S. & Sigurdsson, S. Ejection of pulsars and binaries to the outskirts of globular clusters. Nat. 349, 220–223 (1991)

    1991

  44. [52]

    & McMillan, S

    Grindlay, J., Portegies Zwart, S. & McMillan, S. Short gamma-ray bursts from binary neutron star mergers in globular clusters. Nature Physics 2, 116–119 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    H., Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Lee, W. H., Ramirez-Ruiz, E. & van de Ven, G. Short Gamma-ray Bursts from Dynamically Assembled Compact Binaries in Globular Clusters: Pathways, Rates, Hydrodynamics, and Cosmological Setting. Astrophys. J. 720, 953–975 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Ye, C. S. et al. On the Rate of Neutron Star Binary Mergers from Globular Clusters. Astrophys. J. Lett. 888, L10 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Tauris, T. M. & Janka, H.-T. J0453+1559: A Neutron Star-White Dwarf Binary from a Thermonuclear Electron-capture Supernova? Astrophys. J. Lett. 886, L20 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D. & et. al. GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D. et., al. GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass ∼ 3.4 M⊙. Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    & Ashton, G

    Zhu, X.-J. & Ashton, G. Characterizing Astrophysical Binary Neutron Stars with Gravita- tional Waves. Astrophys. J. Lett. 902, L12 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    D., Abraham, S

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S. & et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from Two Neutron Star-Black Hole Coalescences. Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L5 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    D., Acernese, F

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F. & et al. GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run. Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Ridolfi, A., Freire, P. C. C., Gupta, Y . & Ransom, S. M. Upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope timing of NGC 1851A: a possible millisecond pulsar - neutron star system.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 490, 3860–3874 (2019). 49

    2019

  54. [62]

    Haniewicz, H. T. et al. Precise mass measurements for the double neutron star system J1829+2456. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 500, 4620–4627 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    van Leeuwen, J. et al. The Binary Companion of Young, Relativistic Pulsar J1906+0746. Astrophys. J. 798, 118 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    Fonseca, E., Stairs, I. H. & Thorsett, S. E. A Comprehensive Study of Relativistic Gravity Using PSR B1534+12. Astrophys. J. 787, 82 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    Kramer, M. et al. Tests of General Relativity from Timing the Double Pulsar.Science 314, 97–102 (2006)

    2006

  58. [66]

    Lynch, R. S. et al. The Green Bank North Celestial Cap Pulsar Survey. III. 45 New Pulsar Timing Solutions. Astrophys. J. 859, 93 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Cameron, A. D. et al. News and views regarding PSR J1757-1854, a highly-relativistic binary pulsar. In Proc. 16th Marcel Grossmann Meeting (eds Ruffini, R. & Vereshchagin, G.) 3774-3784 (World Scientific, 2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Ferdman, R. D. et al. PSR J1756-2251: a pulsar with a low-mass neutron star companion. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 443, 2183–2196 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    Jacoby, B. A. et al. Measurement of Orbital Decay in the Double Neutron Star Binary PSR B2127+11C. Astrophys. J. 644, L113–L116 (2006)

    2006

  62. [71]

    M., Nice, D

    Weisberg, J. M., Nice, D. J. & Taylor, J. H. Timing Measurements of the Relativistic Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16. Astrophys. J. 722, 1030–1034 (2010)

    2010

  63. [72]

    Martinez, J. G. et al. Pulsar J0453+1559: A Double Neutron Star System with a Large Mass Asymmetry. Astrophys. J. 812, 143 (2015)

    2015

  64. [73]

    Ferdman, R. D. et al. Asymmetric mass ratios for bright double neutron-star mergers. Nat. 583, 211–214 (2020)

    2020

  65. [74]

    Ferdman, R. D. et al. A Precise Mass Measurement of the Intermediate-Mass Binary Pulsar PSR J1802 - 2124. Astrophys. J. 711, 764–771 (2010)

    2010

  66. [75]

    McKee, J. W. et al. A precise mass measurement of PSR J2045 + 3633. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499, 4082–4096 (2020)

    2020

  67. [76]

    Lense-Thirring frame dragging induced by a fast-rotating white dwarf in a binary pulsar system

    Venkatraman Krishnan, V .et al. Lense-Thirring frame dragging induced by a fast-rotating white dwarf in a binary pulsar system. Science 367, 577–580 (2020). 50

    2020

  68. [77]

    Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., Burke-Spolaor, S. et al. The NANOGrav 11-year Data Set: High-precision Timing of 45 Millisecond Pulsars. Astrophys. J. Supp. 235, 37 (2018)

    2018

  69. [78]

    Corongiu, A. et al. A Shapiro Delay Detection in the Binary System Hosting the Millisec- ond Pulsar PSR J1910-5959A. Astrophys. J. 760, 100 (2012)

    2012

  70. [79]

    Zhu, W. W. et al. Mass Measurements for Two Binary Pulsars Discovered in the PALFA Survey. Astrophys. J. 881, 165 (2019)

    2019

  71. [80]

    Stovall, K. et al. PSR J2234+0611: A New Laboratory for Stellar Evolution. Astrophys. J. 870, 74 (2019)

    2019

  72. [81]

    van Kerkwijk, M. H. & Kulkarni, S. R. A Massive White Dwarf Companion to the Eccentric Binary Pulsar System PSR B2303+46. Astrophys. J. Lett. 516, L25–L28 (1999)

    1999

  73. [82]

    Berezina, M. et al. The discovery of two mildly recycled binary pulsars in the Northern High Time Resolution Universe pulsar survey. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470, 4421–4433 (2017)

    2017

  74. [83]

    Archibald, A. M. et al. Universality of free fall from the orbital motion of a pulsar in a stellar triple system. Nat. 559, 73–76 (2018)

    2018

  75. [84]

    Reardon, D. J. et al. Timing analysis for 20 millisecond pulsars in the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 455, 1751–1769 (2016)

    2016

  76. [85]

    Antoniadis, J. et al. The relativistic pulsar-white dwarf binary PSR J1738+0333 - I. Mass determination and evolutionary history. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 423, 3316–3327 (2012)

    2012

  77. [86]

    Reardon, D. J. et al. The Parkes pulsar timing array second data release: timing analysis. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 507, 2137–2153 (2021)

    2021

  78. [87]

    Desvignes, G. et al. High-precision timing of 42 millisecond pulsars with the European Pulsar Timing Array. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 458, 3341–3380 (2016)

    2016

  79. [88]

    Serylak, M. et al. The eccentric millisecond pulsar, PSR J0955 −6150. I. Pulse profile analysis, mass measurements, and constraints on binary evolution. Astron. Astrophys. 665, A53 (2022)

    2022

  80. [89]

    G., van Kerkwijk, M

    Mata S ´anchez, D., Istrate, A. G., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Breton, R. P. & Kaplan, D. L. PSR J1012+5307: a millisecond pulsar with an extremely low-mass white dwarf companion. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 494, 4031–4042 (2020)

    2020

  81. [90]

    Barr, E. D. et al. A massive millisecond pulsar in an eccentric binary. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 465, 1711–1719 (2017). 51

    2017

  82. [91]

    Guo, Y . J.et al. PSR J2222–0137. I. Improved physical parameters for the system. Astron. Astrophys. 654, A16 (2021)

    2021

  83. [92]

    T., Pennucci, T

    Fonseca, E., Cromartie, H. T., Pennucci, T. T. et al. Refined Mass and Geometric Measure- ments of the High-mass PSR J0740+6620. Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L12 (2021)

    2021

  84. [93]

    Yi, T. et al. A dynamically discovered and characterized non-accreting neutron star-M dwarf binary candidate. Nature Astronomy (2022)

    2022

  85. [94]

    Strader, J. et al. Optical Spectroscopy and Demographics of Redback Millisecond Pulsar Binaries. Astrophys. J. 872, 42 (2019)

    2019

  86. [95]

    Clark, C. J. et al. Einstein@Home discovery of the gamma-ray millisecond pulsar PSR J2039-5617 confirms its predicted redback nature. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 502, 915–934 (2021)

    2021

  87. [96]

    Deller, A. T. et al. A Parallax Distance and Mass Estimate for the Transitional Millisecond Pulsar System J1023+0038. Astrophys. J. Lett. 756, L25 (2012)

    2012

  88. [97]

    Bellm, E. C. et al. Properties and Evolution of the Redback Millisecond Pulsar Binary PSR J2129-0429. Astrophys. J. 816, 74 (2016)

    2016

  89. [98]

    & Romani, R

    Kandel, D. & Romani, R. W. Atmospheric Circulation on Black Widow Companions. Astrophys. J. 892, 101 (2020)

    2020

  90. [99]

    Kennedy, M. R. et al. Measuring the mass of the black widow PSR J1555-2908.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 512, 3001–3014 (2022)

    2022

  91. [100]

    W., Graham, M

    Romani, R. W., Graham, M. L., Filippenko, A. V . & Zheng, W. PSR J1301+0833: A Kinematic Study of a Black-widow Pulsar. Astrophys. J. 833, 138 (2016)

    2016

  92. [101]

    W., Kandel, D., Filippenko, A

    Romani, R. W., Kandel, D., Filippenko, A. V ., Brink, T. G. & Zheng, W. PSR J1810+1744: Companion Darkening and a Precise High Neutron Star Mass. Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L46 (2021)

    2021

  93. [102]

    Nieder, L. et al. Discovery of a Gamma-Ray Black Widow Pulsar by GPU-accelerated Einstein@Home. Astrophys. J. Lett. 902, L46 (2020)

    2020

  94. [103]

    W., Kandel, D., Filippenko, A

    Romani, R. W., Kandel, D., Filippenko, A. V ., Brink, T. G. & Zheng, W. PSR J0952- 0607: The Fastest and Heaviest Known Galactic Neutron Star. Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L17 (2022)

    2022

  95. [104]

    Miller, M. C. et al. PSR J0030+0451 Mass and Radius from NICER Data and Implications for the Properties of Neutron Star Matter. Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019). 52

    2019

  96. [105]

    Riley, T. E. et al. A NICER View of PSR J0030+0451: Millisecond Pulsar Parameter Estimation. Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019)

    2019

  97. [106]

    & Freire, P

    ¨Ozel, F. & Freire, P. Masses, Radii, and the Equation of State of Neutron Stars. ARA&A 54, 401–440 (2016)

    2016

  98. [107]

    Iaria, R. et al. A possible cyclotron resonance scattering feature near 0.7 keV in X1822-

  99. [108]

    Wang, Z. et al. SDSS J102347.6+003841: A Millisecond Radio Pulsar Binary That Had a Hot Disk During 2000-2001. Astrophys. J. 703, 2017–2023 (2009)

    2009

  100. [109]

    Falanga, M. et al. Ephemeris, orbital decay, and masses of ten eclipsing high-mass X-ray binaries. Astron. Astrophys. 577, A130 (2015)

    2015

  101. [110]

    B., van Kerkwijk, M

    Bhalerao, V . B., van Kerkwijk, M. H. & Harrison, F. A. Constraints on the Compact Object Mass in the Eclipsing High-mass X-Ray Binary XMMU J013236.7+303228 in M

  102. [111]

    Astrophys. J. 757, 10 (2012)

    2012

  103. [112]

    Archibald, A. M. et al. A Radio Pulsar/X-ray Binary Link. Science 324, 1411 (2009)

    2009

  104. [113]

    & Beloborodov, A

    Bransgrove, A., Levin, Y . & Beloborodov, A. Magnetic field evolution of neutron stars - I. Basic formalism, numerical techniques and first results. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 473, 2771–2790 (2018)

    2018

  105. [114]

    & Lamb, F

    Ghosh, P. & Lamb, F. K. Diagnostics of disk-magnetosphere interaction in neutron star binaries. In van den Heuvel, E. P. J. & Rappaport, S. A. (eds.)X-Ray Binaries and Recycled Pulsars, vol. 377 of NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, 487–510 (1992)

    1992

  106. [115]

    & Zhu, X.-J

    Liu, X.-J., You, Z.-Q. & Zhu, X.-J. Observational evidence for a spin-up line in the P-Pdot diagram of millisecond pulsars. Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L2 (2022)

    2022

  107. [116]

    Archibald, R. F. et al. A High Braking Index for a Pulsar. Astrophys. J. Lett. 819, L16 (2016)

    2016

  108. [117]

    & Reisenegger, A

    Goldreich, P. & Reisenegger, A. Magnetic Field Decay in Isolated Neutron Stars. Astro- phys. J. 395, 250 (1992)

    1992

  109. [118]

    & Weiss, A

    Jofr ´e, P. & Weiss, A. The age of the Milky Way halo stars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Astron. Astrophys. 533, A59 (2011)

    2011

  110. [119]

    Time-dependent Force-free Pulsar Magnetospheres: Axisymmetric and Oblique Rotators

    Spitkovsky, A. Time-dependent Force-free Pulsar Magnetospheres: Axisymmetric and Oblique Rotators. Astrophys. J. Lett. 648, L51–L54 (2006)

    2006

  111. [120]

    Lattimer, J. M. & Schutz, B. F. Constraining the Equation of State with Moment of Inertia Measurements. Astrophys. J. 629, 979–984 (2005)

    2005

  112. [121]

    L., Bejger, M

    Haensel, P., Zdunik, J. L., Bejger, M. & Lattimer, J. M. Keplerian frequency of uniformly rotating neutron stars and strange stars. Astron. Astrophys. 502, 605–610 (2009). 53

    2009

  113. [122]

    Kalirai, J. S. The age of the Milky Way inner halo. Nat. 486, 90–92 (2012)

    2012

  114. [123]

    S., Freire, P

    Lynch, R. S., Freire, P. C. C., Ransom, S. M. & Jacoby, B. A. The Timing of Nine Globular Cluster Pulsars. Astrophys. J. 745, 109 (2012)

    2012

  115. [124]

    Shklovskii, I. S. Possible Causes of the Secular Increase in Pulsar Periods. Soviet Ast. 13, 562 (1970)

    1970

  116. [125]

    & Taylor, J

    Damour, T. & Taylor, J. H. On the Orbital Period Change of the Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16. Astrophys. J. 366, 501 (1991)

    1991

  117. [126]

    J., Bassa, C

    Liu, X. J., Bassa, C. G. & Stappers, B. W. High-precision pulsar timing and spin frequency second derivatives. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 2359–2367 (2018)

    2018

  118. [127]

    & Bagchi, M

    Pathak, D. & Bagchi, M. Dynamical Effects in the Observed Rate of Change of the Orbital and the Spin Periods of Radio Pulsars: Improvement in the Method of Estimation and Its Implications. Astrophys. J. 868, 123 (2018)

    2018

  119. [128]

    M., Langer, N

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N. & Kramer, M. Formation of millisecond pulsars with CO white dwarf companions - I. PSR J1614-2230: evidence for a neutron star born massive. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 416, 2130–2142 (2011)

    2011

  120. [129]

    Freire, P. C. C. et al. Fermi Detection of a Luminous γ-Ray Pulsar in a Globular Cluster. Science 334, 1107 (2011)

    2011

  121. [130]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. GW170817: Measurements of Neutron Star Radii and Equation of State. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  122. [131]

    Lattimer, J. M. & Prakash, M. Neutron Star Structure and the Equation of State.Astrophys. J. 550, 426–442 (2001)

    2001

  123. [132]

    Kremer, K. et al. Formation of Low-mass Black Holes and Single Millisecond Pulsars in Globular Clusters. Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L1 (2022)

    2022

  124. [133]

    & Thrane, E

    Farrow, N., Zhu, X.-J. & Thrane, E. The Mass Distribution of Galactic Double Neutron Stars. Astrophys. J. 876, 18 (2019)

    2019

  125. [134]

    Lin, J. et al. LMXB and IMXB Evolution: I. The Binary Radio Pulsar PSR J1614-2230. Astrophys. J. 732, 70 (2011)

    2011

  126. [135]

    Mandel, I., Farr, W. M. & Gair, J. R. Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 486, 1086–1093 (2019). 54

    2019

  127. [136]

    & Talbot, C

    Thrane, E. & Talbot, C. An introduction to Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy: Parameter estimation, model selection, and hierarchical models. Publ. Astron. Soc. Australia 36, e010 (2019)

    2019

  128. [137]

    Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. Bayes factors.Journal of the American Statistical Association 90, 773–795 (1995)

    1995

  129. [138]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A. & Hobbs, M. The Australia Telescope National Facility Pulsar Catalogue. Astron. J. 129, 1993–2006 (2005)

    2005

  130. [139]

    Ashton, G. et al. BILBY: A User-friendly Bayesian Inference Library for Gravitational- wave Astronomy. Astrophys. J. Supp. 241, 27 (2019)

    2019

  131. [140]

    & Poole, G

    Talbot, C., Smith, R., Thrane, E. & Poole, G. B. Parallelized inference for gravitational- wave astronomy. Phys. Rev. D 100, 043030 (2019)

    2019

  132. [141]

    Jones, M. C. & Faddy, M. A skew extension of the t-distribution, with applications. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 65, 159–174 (2003)

    2003

  133. [142]

    & Luksan, L

    Wurtz, D., Chalabi, Y . & Luksan, L. Parameter estimation of arma models with garch/a- parch errors an r and splus software implementation. Journal of Statistical Software 55, 28–33 (2006)

    2006

  134. [144]

    Vigna-G ´omez, A. et al. On the formation history of Galactic double neutron stars. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 481, 4009–4029 (2018)

    2018

  135. [145]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P. & M ¨uller, B. Pre-supernova evolution, compact- object masses, and explosion properties of stripped binary stars. Astron. Astrophys. 645, A5 (2021)

    2021

  136. [146]

    Dai, S. et al. Gravitational Microlensing by Neutron Stars and Radio Pulsars: Event Rates, Timescale Distributions, and Mass Measurements. Astrophys. J. 802, 120 (2015)

    2015

  137. [147]

    & Mandel, I

    Wyrzykowski, Ł. & Mandel, I. Constraining the masses of microlensing black holes and the mass gap with Gaia DR2. Astron. Astrophys. 636, A20 (2020). 55

    2020

  138. [371]

    Astrophys

    Astron. Astrophys. 577, A63 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.