Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A binary origin of ultra-long period radio pulsars

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Wide binaries can make ultra-long-period pulsars

desk verdict Plausible binary channel for ULPPs, but the abstract overstates the spin range and the birthrate rides on an unvaried torque coefficient. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00946 v1 pith:2UFVIFVT submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.HE

Ying-Han Mao , Xiang-Dong Li , Dong Lai , Zhu-Ling Deng , Hao-Ran Yang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords ultra-longperiodpulsarsneutronstarswind-fedaccretionbinaryevolutionspin-downtorqueslong-periodradiotransientshigh-massX-raybinariessupernovakicks
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 proposes that ultra-long-period pulsars—radio pulsars with spin periods from hundreds to ten thousand seconds—are born from wide binary systems. A neutron star in a wide orbit is embedded in the wind of a massive companion and is spun down by wind-fed accretion to periods beyond 1000 seconds while avoiding the spin-up that comes from Roche-lobe overflow. When the companion later explodes as a supernova, the binary is disrupted in more than 99 percent of cases, leaving an isolated, slowly rotating neutron star. Population simulations put the Galactic birthrate of such objects at about $1.4\times10^{-6}$ per year, the paper's quantitative estimate for a binary formation channel of these transients. If the channel is real, it would explain the existence of isolated pulsars with periods far beyond what magnetic dipole spin-down alone can produce within a stellar lifetime.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the wind-fed accretion spin-evolution model for a neutron star embedded in a massive star's wind, organized by three radii—the magnetospheric radius $R_m$, the light-cylinder radius $R_{lc}$, and the corotation radius $R_{co}$. The neutron star passes through four phases: ejector, propeller, Bondi-Hoyle accretion, and subsonic settling accretion; the propeller torque and the settling-accretion torque are what drive the spin period toward thousands of seconds. The companion's wind mass-loss rate and radius are computed from stellar evolution, and the binary population is weighted by population-synthesis initial conditions; systems with initial orbital periods shorter than about $10^3$ days are discarded because Roche-lobe overflow spins the neutron star back up.

What would settle it

Measure the pulse-period derivative of a long-period X-ray pulsar in a wind-fed high-mass binary with orbital period above 1000 days: if the observed spin-down torque is systematically weaker than the propeller and settling-accretion formulas require, then wide binaries cannot slow neutron stars to $P_s>1000$ s on the companion's lifetime, and the channel fails. A second check: finding an ultra-long-period pulsar still bound to a massive companion would contradict the predicted greater-than-99 percent disruption fraction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a neutron star formed in a massive binary can be decelerated by wind-fed accretion from its companion star—through propeller and settling-accretion torques—to spin periods exceeding $10^3$ s, provided the orbital period is longer than roughly $10^3$ days so that the companion's wind is the only mass-transfer agent. The spin-period distribution at the moment of the second supernova ranges from below $0.1$ s to above $10^8$ s, with roughly 20 percent of simulated systems exceeding 1000 s. The companion's supernova then disrupts the binary in over 99 percent of cases, leaving an isolated slow neutron star; the estimated Milky Way birthrate of such stars with $P_s>1000$ s is $1.4\times10^{-6}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ at solar metallicity and about $1.9\times10^{-6}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ at sub-solar metallicity, with the result insensitive to the uncertain torque coefficients within the ranges tested. This is offered as a binary-evolution formation channel for the observed population of ultra-long-period radio transients.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spin-down torques acting on a neutron star during propeller and settling accretion are as strong as the paper's chosen formulas and coefficients say they are, and stay that way through the whole wide-binary wind-fed phase; if they are weaker, the long spin periods and the $10^{-6}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ birthrate would not be reached.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If this channel operates, isolated ultra-long-period pulsars should exist in or near supernova remnants left by their former companions, because the second supernova occurs in the systems that produced the longest spin periods.
  • The predicted birthrate of about $10^{-6}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ is consistent with a rare population, matching the small observed sample of ultra-long-period radio transients.
  • Binary-origin ultra-long-period pulsars should be isolated rather than still bound to a companion, since the second supernova disrupts more than 99 percent of the systems.
  • Long-period X-ray pulsars in wind-fed high-mass binaries are the direct observable precursors of this channel, so their spin-down behavior is a testable intermediate stage.
  • After magnetic field decay, binary-origin ultra-long-period pulsars should have ordinary neutron-star field strengths near $10^{12}$–$10^{13}$ G rather than magnetar-strength fields at late times.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because the same wind-fed spin-down model tends to align the spin and magnetic axes, binary-origin ultra-long-period pulsars might show single-pole pulse profiles; a future object with a clear two-pole interpulse would favor a different formation mechanism.
  • Editorial extension: the predicted birthrate implies that deeper all-sky radio surveys for isolated pulsars with periods of $10^2$–$10^4$ s should eventually find more such objects, and the number found would directly test the $10^{-6}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ rate.
  • Editorial extension: the channel may also bear on other extremely slow rotating neutron stars, such as the 6.7-hour central compact object in RCW 103, if very wide binaries with weak winds can spin neutron stars down over longer timescales.
  • Editorial extension: because the first-born neutron star received its own natal kick at the first supernova, it should be moving relative to the remnant of the second supernova; measuring proper-motion offsets between an ultra-long-period pulsar and its associated remnant could distinguish this channel from magnetar or fallback-disk models.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that ultra-long period pulsars (ULPPs) can form from neutron stars in wide high-mass X-ray binaries: the NS spins down via wind-fed accretion (propeller and settling accretion phases) during the companion's lifetime, and the subsequent supernova disrupts the binary, leaving an isolated slowly rotating NS. The authors combine a semi-empirical torque model (following Lipunov 1992; Shakura et al. 2012) with binary population synthesis (BPS) and MESA stellar evolution to compute spin-period distributions and estimate a Galactic birthrate of about 1.4e-6 yr^-1 for Ps > 1000 s, and about 1.9e-6 yr^-1 at Z = 0.002.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper would provide a quantitative formation channel for ULPPs and long-period radio transients, with a testable prediction (an ULPP associated with a young neutron star in the same supernova remnant). The work is largely reproducible: it uses public codes (MESA, BPS), deposits data on Zenodo, and states model parameters clearly. The central scenario is physically plausible, but the estimated birthrate and period distributions rest on semi-empirical torque coefficients whose uncertainties are only partially explored; the abstract also contains an internal inconsistency with the body of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Section 2.2, Section 3.1] The abstract states that the calculated spin periods range from ≲0.1 s to ≳10^8 s, but Section 2.2 fixes P0 = 0.2 s for all calculations and Section 3.1 reports that "the range of Ps spans from a few ten to more than 10^4 seconds". With P0 = 0.2 s and only spin-down torques, a final period below 0.1 s is impossible; this is a direct internal contradiction. Please reconcile the abstract with the body, or clarify which quantity the abstract refers to.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (11)-(13)] The settling-accretion torque Nd contains K1 in both A and B, so the equilibrium spin period is independent of K1, but the timescale to reach that equilibrium scales inversely with K1 (the spin-down term is ∝ K1 Md^3/11 / Ps). The sensitivity study in Section 3.2 randomizes f and Lcrit/L0 only, leaving K1 and ζ fixed at K1 = 40 and ζ = 0.25. Because the companion lifetime is finite, a smaller K1 would slow the spin-down and reduce the fraction of systems reaching Ps > 1000 s, directly lowering the quoted birthrate. Please test the sensitivity of the birthrate to K1 (e.g., K1 = 10, 20, 40) and report the resulting range.
  3. [Section 3.2] The text says "In our calculations approximately 20% NSs have reached Ps > 1000 s" immediately after describing phase-d systems, but then quotes a total NS binary formation rate of 8e-3 yr^-1 and a ULPP birthrate of 1.4e-6 yr^-1. If 20% of all NSs from binaries were ULPPs, the birthrate would be ~1.6e-3 yr^-1, three orders of magnitude larger. Please specify the exact parent population for the 20% fraction (e.g., systems with Porb > 10^3 d and M2 = 10-25 Msun that avoid Roche-lobe overflow) and show step by step how this fraction enters the birthrate calculation, so that the factor ~0.00018 between the total NS rate and the ULPP rate is transparent.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: "One of the them" should be "One of them."
  2. [Section 2.2] Typo: "theejector phase" should be "the ejector phase."
  3. [Section 3.2] Typo: "phase dhave" should be "phase d have."
  4. [Section 3.2 vs Section 4] The total NS binary formation rate is quoted as 8 × 10^-3 yr^-1 in Section 3.2 but 7.8 × 10^-3 yr^-1 in Section 4; please use a consistent number.
  5. [Section 3.2, Eq. (16)] The replacement of the semi-major axis a by r = a sqrt(1 - e^2) as the "average distance" for estimating the mean accretion rate is not formally justified; for a Keplerian orbit, the time-averaged capture rate depends on 1/r^2 rather than 1/r, and the relevant eccentricity factors differ. Please provide a derivation or a justification that this approximation does not bias the spin-period distributions.
  6. [Figure 6] The left panel is described as showing spin evolution for log t (yr) > 7.25, "before this time the NS remains in a slow spin-down phase (phase a)". For a 10 Msun companion the total lifetime is about 20 Myr, so the panel appears to start near the end of the HMXB phase; please clarify the time baseline and whether the pre-HMXB spin evolution is omitted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ULPP birthrate is a forward binary population synthesis calculation using externally adopted torques; self-cited parameter values are randomized and shown to be non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — NSs in wide wind-fed HMXBs spin down to Ps > 1000 s and become isolated ULPPs after the companion's supernova — is computed forward from a stated torque model adopted from external literature (Section 2.2: 'as an illustration, we largely follow work described in Lipunov (1992) and Shakura et al. (2012)') applied to a BPS/MESA Galactic binary population, with no fitting to ULPP data. The observed ULPPs enter only post hoc in Figure 4 as comparison points with upper-limit dipole fields, and the paper explicitly declines to calibrate on them: 'the small observational sample inhibits credible constraint on the birthrate of ULPPs.' No equation defines the target quantities (final spin-period distribution, ~20% fraction with Ps > 1000 s, birthrate 1.4 x 10^-6 yr^-1, >99% second-supernova disruption fraction) in terms of the observed ULPPs; these are integrated outputs of Eqs. (4)-(14) plus the BPS kick statistics. Self-citations do exist: f = 0.1 is taken from the authors' Mao & Li (2024), and ECSN kick/remnant inputs come from Deng et al. (2024) and Shao & Li (2018). However, the f value is explicitly varied over 0.05-0.2 in Section 3.2 with the birthrate staying ~10^-6 yr^-1 ('the estimated birthrate of ULPPs remains largely unaffected, staying on the order of ~10^-6 yr^-1'), so the self-calibrated value is not load-bearing; the kick and ECSN mass-range inputs are standard external-distribution choices, not uniqueness claims. The one substantive caveat — K1 = 40 is left fixed in the sensitivity study although the time to reach the long-period equilibrium scales as 1/(K1 Mdot^{3/11}) — is an acknowledged modeling uncertainty ('considerable uncertainties in the torque acting on the NS in different accretion phases'), i.e., a correctness risk rather than a circular reduction. Verdict: no circular step identified; only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation burden.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a semi-empirical torque model with several calibrated coefficients (f, zeta, K1), standard wind velocity laws, and assumed Galactic binary initial conditions. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential free parameters are the torque coefficients, which directly set the spin-down efficiency and hence the predicted periods and birthrate.

free parameters (8)
  • f (torque averaging factor) = 0.1
    Dimensionless factor averaging the alternation of wind-matter angular momentum direction; from the authors' prior work (Mao & Li 2024). Controls spin-down efficiency in accretor phases.
  • zeta (Bondi torque coefficient) = 0.25
    Dimensionless coefficient in the Bondi-Hoyle accretion torque (Eq. 10), from prior literature.
  • K1 (settling accretion coefficient) = 40
    Dimensionless constant in the subsonic settling accretion torque (Eqs. 12-13), from Postnov et al. (2011).
  • Initial NS spin period P0 = 0.2 s
    Chosen initial spin period; authors argue final long periods are insensitive to it.
  • Log-normal magnetic field mean/std = 12.65 / 0.55
    Initial B distribution fitted to the radio pulsar population (Faucher-Giguere & Kaspi 2006).
  • Wind velocity parameters alpha, beta = 1, 0.8
    CAK-type wind velocity law from Waters & van Kerkwijk (1989).
  • Supernova kick velocity dispersion = 265 km/s (CCSNe), 30 km/s (ECSNe)
    Maxwellian kick dispersion from Hobbs et al. (2005) and Podsiadlowski et al. (2004).
  • Binary initial distributions = q uniform 0-1, log a uniform 3 to 1e4 R_sun
    Standard assumptions from Kobulnicky & Fryer (2007) and Abt (1983).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The wind-fed accretion torque model (Lipunov 1992; Shakura et al. 2012) describes NS spin evolution over the full HMXB phase.
    Adopted in Section 2.2; the model is semi-empirical and calibrated on X-ray pulsars.
  • domain assumption The companion's stellar wind is spherically symmetric and follows the Castor et al. (1975) velocity law.
    Eq. (7); real winds are clumpy and asymmetric.
  • ad hoc to paper For eccentric binaries, the average distance r = a sqrt(1 - e^2) can be used to compute the mean accretion rate.
    Eq. (16); a simplification that ignores time-varying accretion along the orbit.
  • domain assumption The NS magnetic field evolution follows one of three prescribed forms and does not significantly affect the final spin period.
    Section 3.2 and Fig. 6; field decay scenarios from Colpi et al. (2000).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A binary origin of ultra-long period radio pulsars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UFVIFVT

@misc{pith2026250700946,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A binary origin of ultra-long period radio pulsars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UFVIFVT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00946}
}
abstract

We propose a possible binary evolution model for the formation of ultra-long period pulsars (ULPPs). The model involves two key stages: first, a neutron star (NS) in wide binaries undergoes an effective spin-down phase through wind-fed accretion from its massive stellar companion; second, the supernova explosion of the companion leads to the disruption of the binary system, and produces two isolated compact stars. One of the them is the first-born, slowly rotating NSs, and our binary and spin evolution calculations show that the spin periods range from $\lesssim 0.1$ s to $\gtrsim 10^8$ s. This offers a possible formation channel for some of the long-period radio transients. We estimate that the formation rate of such systems in the Milky Way is approximately about $10^{-6}$ $\rm yr^{-1}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00946 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The evolutionary path of the formation of ULPPs in a binary system. The initial phase is a main-sequence binary system, where the more massive primary star on the left undergoes a supernova explosion, forming a NS (Step 1 - Step 2). This NS then accretes material from the wind of the companion star through a wind-fed process, resulting in angular momentum loss and spin-down (Step 3). When the companion star on the r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of final spin period (Ps) and X-ray luminosity (LX) in the parameter space of companion (ZAMS) star mass and orbital period. The magnitudes of Ps and LX are displayed with different colors. The white area indicates systems that experience Roche lobe overflow. between 0 and 1 (Kobulnicky & Fryer 2007). The initial orbital separation a is drawn from a logarithmic uniform distribution ranging from 3 to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The number distribution of the companion star mass (M2), orbital period (Porb), and eccentricity (e) of the binary systems selected from the BPS simulation results, after the primary star has exploded and become a NS. The left and right panels correspond to the results for Z = 0.002 and Z = 0.02, respectively. This distribution corresponds to the parameters of the initial binary systems in Step 2 of [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of the final NS spin period (Ps) as a function of magnetic field strength (B) and orbital period (Porb). The orange triangles, green squares, and blue dots denote systems in phases b, c, and d, respectively. The small red circles are the systems that r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Monte Carlo simulation results for sub-solar metallicity (Z = 0.002), fixed values of f and Lcrit/L0 (top panels) and for solar metallicity (Z = 0.02) and randomized values of f and Lcrit/L0 (bottom panels). All other settings are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolutionary tracks of spin period (Ps) and magnetic field (B) for a system with M2 = 10 M⊙ and Porb = 5000 day. The solid, dashed, and dotted lines represent three different magnetic field evolution scenarios: exponential decay, power-law decay, and constant field, re…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Accretion from a Shock-Inflated Companion: Spinning Down Neutron Stars to Hour-Long Periods

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Neutron stars kicked through a supernova-inflated companion envelope can form accretion disks and be spun down to hour-long periods by a short propeller phase.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    adobe:ns:meta/

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Abt , H. A. 1983, , 21, 343, 10.1146/annurev.aa.21.090183.002015

    work page arXiv 1983

  5. [5]

    1944, , 104, 273, 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    Bondi , H., & Hoyle , F. 1944, , 104, 273, 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    doi:10.1093/mnras/104.5.273 1944

  6. [6]

    Burrows , A., Wang , T., Vartanyan , D., & Coleman , M. S. B. 2024, , 963, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2353

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2353 2024

  7. [7]

    L., et al

    Caleb , M., Lenc , E., Kaplan , D. L., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1159, 10.1038/s41550-024-02277-w

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02277-w 2024

  8. [8]

    I., Abbott , D

    Castor , J. I., Abbott , D. C., & Klein , R. I. 1975, , 195, 157, 10.1086/153315

    doi:10.1086/153315 1975

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    1993, , 402, 264, 10.1086/172129

    Chen , K., & Ruderman , M. 1993, , 402, 264, 10.1086/172129

    1993 doi

  2. [10]

    Chomiuk , L., & Povich , M. S. 2011, , 142, 197, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    2000, , 529, L29, 10.1086/312448

    Colpi , M., Geppert , U., & Page , D. 2000, , 529, L29, 10.1086/312448

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    1999, , 511, 351, 10.1086/306652

    Contopoulos , I., Kazanas , D., & Fendt , C. 1999, , 511, 351, 10.1086/306652

    1999 doi

  5. [13]

    2006, The Astronomer's Telegram, 797, 1

    Corbet , R., Barbier , L., Barthelmy , S., et al. 2006, The Astronomer's Telegram, 797, 1

    2006

  6. [14]

    2001, , 557, 958, 10.1086/321658

    Cumming , A., Zweibel , E., & Bildsten , L. 2001, , 557, 958, 10.1086/321658

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, , 422, 2878, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20612.x

    Dall'Osso , S., Granot , J., & Piran , T. 2012, , 422, 2878, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20612.x

    2012

  8. [17]

    A., Mereghetti , S., Tiengo , A., & Bignami , G

    De Luca , A., Caraveo , P. A., Mereghetti , S., Tiengo , A., & Bignami , G. F. 2006, Science, 313, 814, 10.1126/science.1129185

    2006 doi

  9. [18]

    2024, , 963, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2357

    Deng , Z.-L., Li , X.-D., Shao , Y., & Xu , K. 2024, , 963, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2357

    2024 doi

  10. [19]

    A., Clarke , T., Curtin , A

    Dong , F. A., Clarke , T., Curtin , A. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07480, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07480

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [20]

    Eggleton , P. P. 1983, , 268, 368, 10.1086/160960

    1983 doi

  12. [21]

    Fabian , A. C. 1975, , 173, 161, 10.1093/mnras/173.1.161

    1975 doi

  13. [22]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Kaspi , V. M. 2006, , 643, 332, 10.1086/501516

    2006 doi

  14. [23]

    P., Belloni , T., & Cassinelli , J

    Finley , J. P., Belloni , T., & Cassinelli , J. P. 1992, , 262, L25

    1992

  15. [24]

    2023, , 671, A149, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245236

    Fortin , F., Garc \' a , F., Simaz Bunzel , A., & Chaty , S. 2023, , 671, A149, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245236

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    Goldreich , P., & Julian , W. H. 1969, , 157, 869, 10.1086/150119

    1969 doi

  17. [26]

    E., & Spruit , H

    Heger , A., Woosley , S. E., & Spruit , H. C. 2005, , 626, 350, 10.1086/429868

    2005 doi

  18. [27]

    R., Lyne , A

    Hobbs , G., Lorimer , D. R., Lyne , A. G., & Kramer , M. 2005, , 360, 974, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x

    2005

  19. [28]

    R., Pols , O

    Hurley , J. R., Pols , O. R., & Tout , C. A. 2000, , 315, 543, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x

    2000

  20. [29]

    R., Tout , C

    Hurley , J. R., Tout , C. A., & Pols , O. R. 2002, , 329, 897, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    2002

  21. [30]

    2022, , 601, 526, 10.1038/s41586-021-04272-x

    Hurley-Walker , N., Zhang , X., Bahramian , A., et al. 2022, , 601, 526, 10.1038/s41586-021-04272-x

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    J., et al

    Hurley-Walker , N., Rea , N., McSweeney , S. J., et al. 2023, , 619, 487, 10.1038/s41586-023-06202-5

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    F., & Sunyaev , R

    Illarionov , A. F., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1975, , 39, 185

    1975

  24. [33]

    2012, , 749, 2, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/2

    Kalapotharakos , C., Kazanas , D., Harding , A., & Contopoulos , I. 2012, , 749, 2, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/2

    2012 doi

  25. [34]

    Katz , J. I. 2022, , 367, 108, 10.1007/s10509-022-04146-2

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    F., & Kramer , M

    Keane , E. F., & Kramer , M. 2008, , 391, 2009, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14045.x

    2008

  27. [36]

    A., & Fryer , C

    Kobulnicky , H. A., & Fryer , C. L. 2007, , 670, 747, 10.1086/522073

    2007 doi

  28. [37]

    A., & Gilmore , G

    Kroupa , P., Tout , C. A., & Gilmore , G. 1993, , 262, 545, 10.1093/mnras/262.3.545

    1993 doi

  29. [38]

    K., Pethick , C

    Lamb , F. K., Pethick , C. J., & Pines , D. 1973, , 184, 271, 10.1086/152325

    1973 doi

  30. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.15739, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.15739

    Li , D., Yuan , M., Wu , L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.15739, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.15739

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    2007, , 666, L81, 10.1086/521791

    Li , X.-D. 2007, , 666, L81, 10.1086/521791

    2007 doi

  32. [41]

    Lipunov , V. M. 1992, Astrophysics of Neutron Stars (Berlin, Springer-Verlag)

    1992

  33. [42]

    2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 27, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac52f1

    Loeb , A., & Maoz , D. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 27, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac52f1

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    R., Faulkner , A

    Lorimer , D. R., Faulkner , A. J., Lyne , A. G., et al. 2006, , 372, 777, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10887.x

    2006

  35. [44]

    2019, , 488, 4338, 10.1093/mnras/stz2009

    Ma , L., & Fuller , J. 2019, , 488, 4338, 10.1093/mnras/stz2009

    2019 doi

  36. [45]

    2001, , 373, 555, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010596

    Maeder , A., & Meynet , G. 2001, , 373, 555, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010596

    2001 doi

  37. [46]

    2024, , 533, 386, 10.1093/mnras/stae1802

    Mao , Y.-H., & Li , X.-D. 2024, , 533, 386, 10.1093/mnras/stae1802

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    2025, Science Advances, 11, eadp6351, 10.1126/sciadv.adp6351

    Men , Y., McSweeney , S., Hurley-Walker , N., Barr , E., & Stappers , B. 2025, Science Advances, 11, eadp6351, 10.1126/sciadv.adp6351

    2025 doi

  39. [48]

    R., de Koter , A., Vink , J

    Mokiem , M. R., de Koter , A., Vink , J. S., et al. 2007, , 473, 603, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077545

    2007 doi

  40. [49]

    2023, , 677, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245728

    Neumann , M., Avakyan , A., Doroshenko , V., & Santangelo , A. 2023, , 677, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245728

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    Parfrey , K., Spitkovsky , A., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2016, , 822, 33, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/33

    2016 doi

  42. [51]

    2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  43. [52]

    2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton , B., Cantiello , M., Arras , P., et al. 2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  44. [53]

    2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  45. [54]

    2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton , B., Smolec , R., Schwab , J., et al. 2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  46. [55]

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

    Philippov , A. A., Spitkovsky , A., & Cerutti , B. 2015, , 801, L19, 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L19

    2015 doi

  47. [56]

    Podsiadlowski , P., Langer , N., Poelarends , A. J. T., et al. 2004, , 612, 1044, 10.1086/421713

    2004 doi

  48. [57]

    1999, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:astro, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0110022

    Popov , S., Prokhorov , M., Khoperskov , A., & Lipunov , V. 1999, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:astro, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0110022

    1999 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    B., & Turolla , R

    Popov , S. B., & Turolla , R. 2012, , 421, L127, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01220.x

    2012

  50. [59]

    I., Kochetkova , A

    Postnov , K., Shakura , N. I., Kochetkova , A. Y., & Hjalmarsdotter , L. 2011, Proceedings of The Extreme and Variable High Energy Sky, 17, 10.22323/1.147.0017

    2011 doi

  51. [60]

    2024, , 961, 214, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165d

    Rea , N., Hurley-Walker , N., Pardo-Araujo , C., et al. 2024, , 961, 214, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165d

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    2012, , 420, 216, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20026.x

    Shakura , N., Postnov , K., Kochetkova , A., & Hjalmarsdotter , L. 2012, , 420, 216, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20026.x

    2012

  53. [62]

    Shakura , N. I. 1975, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 1, 223

    1975

  54. [63]

    2018, , 867, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae648

    Shao , Y., & Li , X.-D. 2018, , 867, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae648

    2018 doi

  55. [64]

    2006, , 648, L51, 10.1086/507518

    Spitkovsky , A. 2006, , 648, L51, 10.1086/507518

    2006 doi

  56. [65]

    G., & Melatos , A

    Suvorov , A. G., & Melatos , A. 2023, , 520, 1590, 10.1093/mnras/stad274

    2023 doi

  57. [66]

    2017, , 608, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731518

    Verbunt , F., Igoshev , A., & Cator , E. 2017, , 608, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731518

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    S., de, K

    Vink , J. S., de, K. A., & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 2001, , 369, 574, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  59. [68]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07936, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.07936

    Wang , Y., Uttarkar , P., Shannon , R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07936, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.07936

    2025 doi arXiv

  60. [69]

    M., & Robnik , M

    Wang , Y. M., & Robnik , M. 1982, , 107, 222

    1982

  61. [70]

    Waters , L. B. F. M., & van Kerkwijk , M. H. 1989, , 223, 196

    1989

  62. [71]

    2024, , 970, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5319

    Xu , K., Yang , H.-R., Jiang , L., et al. 2024, , 970, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5319

    2024 doi

  63. [72]

    Xu , W., & Stone , J. M. 2019, , 488, 5162, 10.1093/mnras/stz2002

    2019 doi

  64. [73]

    2024, , 976, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83d4

    Yang , H.-R., Li , X.-D., Gao , S.-J., & Xu , K. 2024, , 976, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83d4

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.