Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

PSR J1947-1120: A New Huntsman Millisecond Pulsar Binary

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PSR J1947–1120 is a second confirmed huntsman millisecond pulsar, found in a 10.3-day orbit with a stripped red giant companion; binary evolution models explain it as a red-bump pause in mass transfer.

desk verdict A solid discovery of the second confirmed huntsman MSP, with a plausible but not yet robust red-bump origin story. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05509 v1 pith:V7V2L7TM submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Jay Strader , Paul S. Ray , Ryan Urquhart , Samuel J. Swihart , Laura Chomiuk , Elias Aydi , Eric C. Bellm , Kristen C. Dage
show 6 more authors
Megan E. DeCesar Julia S. Deneva Maura A. McLaughlin Isabella Molina Teresa Panurach Kirill V. Sokolovsky
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords PSRJ1947-1120millisecondpulsarhuntsmanbinaryredgiantcompanionbumpgamma-raysourcefollow-upneutronstarrecyclingevolution
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 reports the discovery of PSR J1947–1120, a 2.24-millisecond pulsar in a 10.3-day orbit around a heavily stripped red giant star, found through optical, X-ray, and radio follow-up of an unassociated gamma-ray source. The authors argue that this is the second confirmed member of the 'huntsman' class of millisecond pulsar binaries, meaning recycled pulsars with partially stripped red giant companions in orbits of about 5 to 15 days, larger than the well-known spider pulsars, and that two members make the class a genuine subclass rather than a one-object curiosity. They then claim that huntsman systems are a natural, predicted phase of binary evolution: when a red giant secondary traverses the 'red bump,' it temporarily contracts and stops filling its Roche lobe, halting mass transfer and switching on the recycled pulsar as a radio source. If correct, these systems give astronomers a rare intermediate-stage view of how ordinary millisecond pulsars are formed, with direct constraints on how much mass a neutron star must accrete and how the binary loses angular momentum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the red bump, a brief pause in the ascent of a low-mass red giant: when the hydrogen-burning shell reaches the composition discontinuity left by the deepest convective mixing, the star becomes slightly less luminous and shrinks, so a companion that had been overflowing its Roche lobe temporarily underfills it and mass transfer stops. The argument is carried by binary stellar evolution calculations that start from a 1.4 $M_\odot$ neutron star and a 1.0 $M_\odot$ solar-metallicity secondary on a 3.3-day orbit, using non-conservative mass transfer and magnetic braking. In the matching run, the secondary first fills its Roche lobe after 11.8 Gyr, transfers enough mass to recycle the neutron star, and reaches the red bump at 10.4 days with a stripped mass of 0.40 $M_\odot$, where mass transfer ceases for roughly 31 Myr. The same machinery, with a shorter initial period near the bifurcation period of about 2.6 days, reproduces the other confirmed huntsman system, linking the observed spread in period and luminosity to the initial orbital period.

What would settle it

Obtain a phase-connected timing solution for PSR J1947–1120 and measure its orbital period derivative and spindown: the red-bump model predicts the secondary is currently detached with mass transfer fully halted, so evidence of ongoing accretion (X-ray pulsations, a disk, or a changing orbital period from mass transfer) would argue against it. A stronger test would be to find a third huntsman system with an orbital period far outside the predicted ~4.5–14.5 day range or a Roche-lobe filling factor near unity, which the red-bump channel cannot easily produce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that PSR J1947–1120 is the second confirmed huntsman millisecond pulsar, establishing this as a bona fide subclass. It is a fully recycled 2.240 ms pulsar in a nearly circular 10.264-day orbit with a ~0.32 $M_\odot$ K-type red giant that underfills its Roche lobe by about 13% and produces ellipsoidal light variations; the pulsar is eclipsed near conjunction and has a soft X-ray luminosity of $5\times10^{31}$ erg s$^{-1}$ attributed to a weak intrabinary shock. The paper shows with binary evolution models that these properties are a direct prediction of standard stellar evolution: a 1.0 $M_\odot$ secondary starting in a 3.3-day orbit fills its Roche lobe on the red giant branch, accretes about 0.17 $M_\odot$ onto the neutron star, then reaches the red bump and detaches, halting mass transfer at a 10.4-day period, a 0.40 $M_\odot$ stripped secondary, and a luminosity near 13 $L_\odot$. A model starting just above the bifurcation period matches the other confirmed system, PSR J1417–4402, with its shorter 5.4-day period and lower luminosity. The paper's conclusion is that huntsman pulsars require no unusual assumptions and should be frequent enough to find among unassociated gamma-ray sources.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed match between the models and J1947 depends on assumed initial conditions (a 1.0 solar-mass, solar-metallicity secondary in a 3.3-day orbit) and assumed mass-loss and magnetic-braking efficiencies; if those choices are not representative, the red-bump explanation could fit the data by coincidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Huntsman binaries are an expected evolutionary phase for neutron star–low-mass-star binaries with initial orbital periods between about 2.6 and 7 days, not a rare accident.
  • A huntsman system sits in a ~31 Myr pause, so it is intrinsically short-lived but observable at larger distances because its red giant is bright; many may await discovery among unassociated gamma-ray sources.
  • When mass transfer resumes after the red bump, the system should evolve into a pulsar–helium white dwarf binary with a period near 25 days, connecting huntsman pulsars to the ordinary millisecond pulsar population.
  • Phase-connected timing of PSR J1947–1120 will measure its spindown and surface magnetic field, giving the first direct estimate of recycling efficiency at this intermediate stage.
  • The lower X-ray luminosity and absent H-alpha emission show that J1947's intrabinary shock is much weaker than J1417's, despite similar gamma-ray luminosities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the red-bump channel is common, optical variability surveys of unassociated gamma-ray sources could identify many more huntsman candidates by their ellipsoidal red-giant modulations before any radio pulsar is detected.
  • The near-monotonic mapping between initial orbital period and the luminosity and period at the red bump means the observed secondary luminosity of a huntsman system can be used as a probe of its mass-transfer history and of magnetic braking, a test the paper leaves for future work.
  • A possible observable signature of the end of the huntsman phase would be a resumption of mass transfer and a temporary X-ray brightening as the star climbs past the red bump; watching a huntsman system over decades to centuries might catch such a transition.
  • If the current huntsman sample is representative, the narrow range of orbital periods (5–10 days) and filling factors (~0.83–0.87) predicts that any future huntsman discovered far outside these ranges would require extra physics, such as a different donor mass or a circumbinary toroid.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of PSR J1947-1120, a 2.24 ms millisecond pulsar in a 10.3 d orbit with a heavily stripped red giant companion, identified through optical, X-ray, and radio follow-up of the Fermi source 4FGL J1947.6-1121. The authors present the pulsar timing (preliminary, not phase-connected), optical radial velocities, ellipsoidal light-curve modeling, an X-ray spectrum, and MESA binary evolution models. They argue that the system is the second confirmed 'huntsman' pulsar and that such systems are naturally explained by a temporary halt of mass transfer while the secondary passes through the red bump on the red giant branch.

Significance. If the discovery and interpretation hold, this paper establishes a second confirmed member of a potentially important class of intermediate-stage millisecond pulsar binaries, offering a new window into the recycling process. The observational characterization is strong: the optical radial-velocity solution and the pulsar orbital parameters agree well, the mass ratio is tightly constrained at q = 0.182 ± 0.001, and the light-curve modeling gives a self-consistent distance of 5.4 ± 0.4 kpc that agrees with the Gaia parallax. The authors also provide public MESA inlists on Zenodo, which is a welcome reproducibility feature. However, the central evolutionary claim — that huntsman pulsars are expected products of standard binary evolution through the red-bump phase — rests on a single MESA track with hand-picked initial conditions and mass-transfer efficiencies. The paper itself concedes this dependence, so the conclusion is an existence proof rather than a robust, falsifiable prediction. The lack of a phase-connected timing solution and the essentially unconstrained neutron star mass are additional caveats that temper the quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. The claim that huntsman pulsars are "naturally explained" by the red-bump mechanism is supported by a single MESA model whose initial orbital period (3.3 d) and mass-transfer efficiencies (α = 0.2, β = 0.5, γ = 0) are chosen so that the endpoint matches J1947 at P = 10.4 d, M2 ≈ 0.4 M⊙, and L ≈ 13 L⊙. Because the observed system provides only one point in (P, M2, L) space, this match is not a unique prediction; a model with free initial period and efficiency parameters is an existence proof. The paper explicitly concedes in Section 4.2 that "all of the specific orbital period values and evolved masses listed above depend on the detailed assumptions used in the models." To make the evolutionary interpretation load-bearing for the "bona fide subclass" claim, the authors should either run a grid of models spanning initial orbital period and mass-transfer efficiency and show the predicted range of huntsman properties, or substantially soften the claim to a plausible scenario rather than a prediction.
  2. The timing solution is not phase-connected, as the paper clearly states. The best non-phase-connected fits split into two families with very different inferred spindown and magnetic field, and the quoted parameters are described only as "broadly indicative." While the detection of a 2.24 ms pulsar and the consistency between the optical and timing orbital periods firmly establish the binary nature, the absence of a phase-connected solution means that the spin period derivative, and hence the inferred spindown luminosity and magnetic field, remain uncertain. This limitation should be reflected in the abstract and conclusions, where the system is described as a fully established millisecond pulsar without highlighting this caveat.
  3. The light-curve modeling leaves the neutron star mass essentially unconstrained (the 1.4–2.1 M⊙ prior is not meaningfully narrowed), and the text states that the inferred red giant mass is in the range ∼0.25–0.4 M⊙ depending on the assumed NS mass. Yet Table 2 lists M2 = 0.32 ± 0.03 M⊙ as a single value, which implies a particular NS mass or a specific treatment of the covariance. This understates the systematic uncertainty and affects the quantitative comparison with the MESA model in Section 4.2, where the model ending at M2 = 0.40 M⊙ is described as a "close match." The authors should report the NS-mass-dependent range for M2 or clarify the assumption behind the quoted value.
minor comments (4)
  1. The symbol γ is used for two different quantities: the circumbinary mass-loss fraction (1 − α − β − γ) and the magnetic braking index (γ = 3). This overloading is confusing and should be changed to avoid ambiguity.
  2. The Swift detection has only ∼6 net counts in the 1–10 keV range, so the quoted count rate and luminosity are extremely uncertain. The authors do note the low count rate, but a reader could easily overlook the marginal nature of the Swift detection; a more prominent caveat would help.
  3. The X-ray light curve in Figure 5 is labeled with time in seconds and BMJD, but the text discusses orbital phases. A phase axis, or explicit marking of the conjunction phase ϕ = 0.25, would make the figure easier to interpret.
  4. The Goodman monitoring spectra are said to cover the range ∼6100–6650 Å, which includes Hα; the statement that no Hα emission is seen in any spectrum is clear, but a representative spectrum or residual plot around Hα would strengthen this claim given its use in distinguishing huntsman systems from spider systems.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Observational discovery is independent, but the MESA 'prediction' of J1947 is a hand-selected model track rather than an independent test; mild partial circularity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, MESA Modeling (Fig. 6 and the J1947-match paragraph); also Section 4.1]
    "Here we show that for plausible initial conditions, the predicted properties of these red bump binaries closely match those of both confirmed huntsman millisecond pulsar systems. ... In Figure 6 we show a model in this initial orbital period range that appears to be a close match to the properties of J1947. From an initial orbital period of 3.3 d, it evolves onto the red giant branch and first fills its Roche lobe after 11.8 Gyr. About 230 Myr later, the secondary reaches the red bump and detaches, causing mass transfer to cease. At this point the orbital period is 10.4 d."

    The displayed MESA track is selected from a near-monotonic sequence of initial-period choices precisely because it lands on the observed J1947 values: output P=10.4 d vs observed 10.3 d, M2=0.40 Msun vs observed 0.32 Msun, L~13 Lsun vs observed 10.9 Lsun. The paper then summarizes this chosen agreement as 'a close match between the model predictions and observations' and treats it as support for the existence of huntsman pulsars being a 'straightforward prediction' of binary evolution. Because the initial orbital period and the mass-transfer efficiency parameters are the degrees of freedom used to target the endpoint, the numerical agreement is not an independent test; it is an existence proof with broad allowed range.

full rationale

The pulsar discovery itself is fully independent: the radio detection, optical spectroscopy, orbital solution, ellipsoidal light-curve modeling, X-ray spectrum, and Gaia-based distance do not reduce to the evolutionary model inputs. The red-bump detachment mechanism is imported from external prior work (Thomas 1967; Kippenhahn et al. 1967; Tauris & Savonije 1999; Podsiadlowski et al. 2002), so the scenario is not constructed by a self-citation chain. The only partial circularity is in Section 4.2: one MESA track is selected from the modeled initial-period range because it reproduces J1947's period, mass, and luminosity, and that selection is then presented as a close match between predictions and observations. The paper explicitly acknowledges the degeneracy of the specific orbital periods and evolved masses with respect to mass-transfer efficiency and magnetic braking assumptions, which further confirms that the numerical match is not a sharp prediction. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-via-citation, or load-bearing self-citation was found. The central observational claim stands independently; the evolutionary interpretation is plausible but only weakly constrained by the single tuned track.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The discovery rests on public archival data and standard analysis tools; the evolutionary interpretation adds chosen initial conditions and standard stellar evolution assumptions. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (8)
  • MESA initial orbital period = 3.3 d
    Chosen so the model reaches the red bump at 10.4 d and roughly 13 Lsun, matching J1947 (Section 4.2, Figure 6). Not independently constrained.
  • Mass transfer efficiency alpha, beta, gamma = alpha = 0.2, beta = 0.5, gamma = 0, efficiency 0.3
    Adopted from Tauris and van den Heuvel (2006); determines accretion onto the neutron star and orbital period evolution in the MESA models.
  • Magnetic braking index = 3
    Rappaport et al. (1983) prescription used in MESA; affects angular momentum loss and therefore the duration and orbital period at the red bump.
  • Initial secondary mass and metallicity = 1.0 Msun, solar Z
    Assumed for the MESA grid; the paper notes more massive donors up to 1.5 Msun were not explored.
  • Roche lobe filling factor = 0.87 +/- 0.02
    Fitted to ZTF light curve with PHOEBE; used to infer that the red giant underfills its Roche lobe by about 13 percent.
  • Secondary effective temperature = 4534 +/- 41 K
    Fitted to the ZTF color and light curve; mostly set by color, insensitive to other covariances.
  • Light curve distance = 5.36 +/- 0.37 kpc
    Fitted by PHOEBE and used for luminosities; consistent with but notionally more precise than the Gaia parallax distance.
  • Neutron star mass prior = 1.4-2.1 Msun
    Restricted range in the light curve fit; the paper states the neutron star mass is essentially unconstrained by the data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The red bump is a real phase of low-mass red giant evolution in which the star temporarily shrinks and mass transfer pauses.
    Section 4.1 relies on this stellar evolution result from Thomas 1967, Iben 1968, and Sweigart and Gross 1978 to explain huntsman binaries.
  • domain assumption A neutron star must accrete at least about 0.1 Msun to be recycled to a spin period below 3 ms.
    Used in Section 4.2 to select plausible progenitors; cited to Tauris et al. 2012.
  • domain assumption Irradiation of the red giant by the pulsar is negligible, so the measured K2 reflects the secondary's center-of-mass motion.
    Stated in Section 3.2; required for the mass ratio q = 0.182 from the combined timing and spectroscopy.
  • domain assumption The X-ray emission is an intrabinary shock rather than an accretion disk.
    Section 3.4 interprets the power-law X-ray spectrum and lack of H-alpha emission as a weak shock, following the J1417 analysis.
  • domain assumption The light curve distance is more reliable than the dispersion measure distance.
    Section 3.1.2 adopts d = 5.4 kpc from light curve fitting and discards the DM distance of 1.9 to 3.1 kpc, citing previous comparisons.
  • domain assumption MESA r23.05.1 with the specified mass-loss and magnetic braking prescriptions accurately models the binary evolution.
    The central evolutionary conclusion depends on this numerical code and on the chosen physical prescriptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PSR J1947-1120: A New Huntsman Millisecond Pulsar Binary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V7V2L7TM

@misc{pith2026250105509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PSR J1947-1120: A New Huntsman Millisecond Pulsar Binary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V7V2L7TM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05509}
}
read the original abstract

We present the discovery of PSR J1947-1120, a new huntsman millisecond pulsar with a red giant companion star in a 10.3 d orbit. This pulsar was found via optical, X-ray, and radio follow-up of the previously unassociated gamma-ray source 4FGL J1947.6-1121. PSR J1947-1120 is the second confirmed pulsar in the huntsman class and establishes this as a bona fide subclass of millisecond pulsar. We use MESA models to show that huntsman pulsars can be naturally explained as neutron star binaries whose secondaries are currently in the "red bump" region of the red giant branch, temporarily underfilling their Roche lobes and hence halting mass transfer. Huntsman pulsars offer a new view of the formation of typical millisecond pulsars, allowing novel constraints on the efficiency of mass transfer and recycling at an intermediate stage in the process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05509 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Low-resolution optical spectrum of J1947 from 1 Oct 2021, at ϕ = 0.09. A relative flux calibration has been applied. The spectrum is consistent with a cool K-type star, and the strongest metal and Balmer absorption features along with the telluric Fraunhofer B band are labelled. We performed spectroscopy of J1947 with the Good￾man Spectrograph (Clemens et al. 2004) on the 4.1-m SOAR telescope from Oct 2021 to Oct 20… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dedispersed mean pulse profile for PSR J1947– 1120 from the GBT discovery observation on 2021 Dec 22 acceleration search for periodic signals. A millisecond pulsar was detected in the first observing epoch (2021 Dec 22) at high significance ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Circular Keplerian fit to the SOAR absorption-line radial velocities of J1947. The fit residuals are plotted offset below the model. than the quantities solely dependent on pulsar timing, it corresponds to an uncertainty in the secondary Roche lobe radius of about 0.2%, negligible in the context of the other uncertainties in the light curve fitting. The only prior used in the fitting was E(g − r) = 0.17 ± 0.02 for t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ZTF g0 and r0 photometry of J1947 with the best-fit ellipsoidal model overplotted. The fit residuals are shown under each light curve. 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 Time (s) 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 M O S C o u n t r a t e (c o u n t s 1 ) [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: XMM MOS light curve of J1947, from phases ϕ ∼ 0.11 to 0.23 (BMJD 60412.1251 to 60413.3288). There is perhaps minor short timescale variability, but no larger overall changes, including near conjunction toward the end of the light curve. The lower X-ray luminosity and s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the mass-transfer rate to a 1.4M⊙ neutron star from the secondary (M˙ ) as a function of sec￾ondary mass (M2; left panel) and orbital period (right panel), for a model with initial M2 = 1.0M⊙ and orbital period of 3.3 d. The temporary cessation of mass tra…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Huntsman may need to be irradiated

    astro-ph.SR 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Binary evolution models with irradiation reproduce both known huntsman pulsars and allow their companions to be ordinary red giants rather than red bump stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, Science, 325, 848

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 17

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 53 Al Noori, H., Roberts, M

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 53 Al Noori, H., Roberts, M. S. E., Torres, R. A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 89

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    2016, in SF2A-2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

    Allard, F. 2016, in SF2A-2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. C. Reyl´ e, J. Richard, L. Cambr´ esy, M. Deleuil, E. P´ econtal, L. Tresse, & I. Vauglin, 223–227

    2016

  5. [5]

    J., & Strader, J

    Andrew, S., Swihart, S. J., & Strader, J. 2021, ApJ, 908, 180

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  7. [7]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546

    arXiv 2023

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018002

    2019

  2. [10]

    Blackburn, J. K. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 367

    1995

  3. [11]

    I., & Sackmann, I

    Boothroyd, A. I., & Sackmann, I. J. 1988, The Astrophysical Journal, 328, 641

    1988

  4. [12]

    P., van Kerkwijk, M

    Breton, R. P., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Roberts, M. S. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 108

    2013

  5. [13]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 574, 325

    Burderi, L., D’Antona, F., & Burgay, M. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 574, 325

    2002

  6. [14]

    E., Ransom, S

    Camilo, F., Reynolds, J. E., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 6

    2016

  7. [15]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2003, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 210, Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov, W. W. Weiss, & D. F. Gray, A20

    2003

  8. [16]

    M., & Han, Z

    Chen, H.-L., Chen, X., Tauris, T. M., & Han, Z. 2013, ApJ, 775, 27

    2013

  9. [17]

    C., Donato, D., Gehrels, N., Sokolovsky, K

    Cheung, C. C., Donato, D., Gehrels, N., Sokolovsky, K. V., & Giroletti, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 33

    2012

  10. [18]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 666

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 666

    2015

  11. [19]

    C., Crain, J

    Clemens, J. C., Crain, J. A., & Anderson, R. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 331–340

    2004

  12. [20]

    E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al

    Conroy, K. E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 250, 34

    2020

  13. [21]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2002

  14. [22]

    P., Seyffert, A

    Corongiu, A., Mignani, R. P., Seyffert, A. S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 935

    2021

  15. [23]

    A., Page, K

    Evans, P. A., Page, K. L., Beardmore, A. P., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 174

    2023

  16. [24]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.01982 Fusi Pecci, F., Ferraro, F

    Fitzpatrick, M., Placco, V., Bolton, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.01982 Fusi Pecci, F., Ferraro, F. R., Crocker, D. A., Rood, R. T., &

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 238, 95

    Buonanno, R. 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 238, 95

    1990

  18. [26]

    J., et al

    Gabriel, C., Denby, M., Fyfe, D. J., et al. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 314, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems (ADASS) XIII, ed. F. Ochsenbein, M. G. Allen, & D. Egret, 759 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A...

    2004

  19. [27]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 93 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 93 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116

    2019

  20. [28]

    Y., & Li, K

    Hui, C. Y., & Li, K. L. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 93

    2019

  21. [29]

    1968, The Astrophysical Journal, 154, 581

    Iben, Icko, J. 1968, The Astrophysical Journal, 154, 581

    1968

  22. [30]

    J., Kaplan, D

    Jennings, R. J., Kaplan, D. L., Chatterjee, S., Cordes, J. M., & Deller, A. T. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 26

    2018

  23. [31]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 15

    2023

  24. [32]

    R., Da Costa, G

    King, C. R., Da Costa, G. S., & Demarque, P. 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 299, 674

    1985

  25. [33]

    1967, Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 66, 58

    Kippenhahn, R., Kohl, K., & Weigert, A. 1967, Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 66, 58

    1967

  26. [34]

    1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 236, 385

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 236, 385

    1990

  27. [35]

    Koljonen, K. I. I., & Linares, M. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 3963

    2023

  28. [36]

    Kong, A. K. H., Huang, R. H. H., Cheng, K. S., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, L3 12 Strader et al

    2012

  29. [37]

    Koposov, S. E. 2019, R VSpecFit: Radial velocity and stellar atmospheric parameter fitting, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1907.013

    2019

  30. [38]

    E., Gilmore, G., Walker, M

    Koposov, S. E., Gilmore, G., Walker, M. G., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 146

    2011

  31. [39]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 72

    Linares, M. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 72

    2014

  32. [40]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 649, A4

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 649, A4

    2021

  33. [41]

    Lorimer, D. R. 2008, Living Reviews in Relativity, 11, 8

    2008

  34. [42]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 45

    Luo, J., Ransom, S., Demorest, P., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 45

    2021

  35. [43]

    W., et al

    Mowlavi, N., Rimoldini, L., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A44

    2021

  36. [44]

    Podsiadlowski, P., Rappaport, S., & Pfahl, E. D. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 565, 1107

    2002

  37. [45]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 20 Prˇ sa, A., & Zwitter, T

    Rix, H.-W. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 20 Prˇ sa, A., & Zwitter, T. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 628, 426

    2017

  38. [46]

    Pylyser, E., & Savonije, G. J. 1988, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 191, 57

    1988

  39. [47]

    2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search

    Ransom, S. 2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search

    2011

  40. [48]

    Rappaport, S., Verbunt, F., & Joss, P. C. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 275, 713

    1983

  41. [49]

    S., Abdo, A

    Ray, P. S., Abdo, A. A., Parent, D., et al. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1205.3089

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Roberts, M. S. E. 2013, in Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years, ed. J. van

    2013

  43. [51]

    Roberts, M. S. E., McLaughlin, M. A., Gentile, P. A., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1502.07208

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Romani, R. W. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 754, L25

    2012

  45. [53]

    A., Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., et al

    Smith, D. A., Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 191

    2023

  46. [54]

    W., Archibald, A

    Stappers, B. W., Archibald, A. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 790, 39

    2014

  47. [55]

    C., et al

    Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., Cheung, C. C., et al. 2015, ApJL, 804, L12

    2015

  48. [56]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 42

    Strader, J., Swihart, S., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 42

    2019

  49. [57]

    V., & Gross, P

    Sweigart, A. V., & Gross, P. G. 1978, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 36, 405

    1978

  50. [58]

    J., Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Swihart, S. J., Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 199

    2022

  51. [59]

    J., Strader, J., Johnson, T

    Swihart, S. J., Strader, J., Johnson, T. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 31

    2017

  52. [60]

    J., Strader, J., Shishkovsky, L., et al

    Swihart, S. J., Strader, J., Shishkovsky, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 83

    2018

  53. [61]

    M., Langer, N., & Kramer, M

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Kramer, M. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 1601

    2012

  54. [62]

    M., & Savonije, G

    Tauris, T. M., & Savonije, G. J. 1999, A&A, 350, 928

    1999

  55. [63]

    M., & van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, Vol. 39, 623–665

    2006

  56. [64]

    Taylor, J., Ransom, S., & Padmanabh, P. V. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 128

    2024

  57. [65]

    Thomas, H. C. 1967, Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 67, 420

    1967

  58. [66]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    1986

  59. [67]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  60. [68]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 147 van der Merwe, C

    Urquhart, R., Bahramian, A., Strader, J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 147 van der Merwe, C. J. T., Wadiasingh, Z., Venter, C.,

    2020

  61. [69]

    K., & Baring, M

    Harding, A. K., & Baring, M. G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 91

    2020

  62. [70]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.