Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

If Sco X-1's neutron-star crust broke during its current phase, it is now emitting a loud continuous gravitational wave that sweeps from about 1000 Hz down to torque-balance frequencies over roughly 150,000 years, and third-generation detec

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 08:15 UTC pith:Y6QM3ZVF

load-bearing objection Genuinely new MESA-coupled model of Sco X-1 GW emission, but the 41% crustal-breakage detection probability rests on a single-point crustal-failure frequency and is presented without a sensitivity range. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.21529 v3 pith:Y6QM3ZVF submitted 2025-10-24 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Sco X-1 as a continuous gravitational waves source: modelling the secular evolution using MESA

Gianluca Pagliaro , Maria Alessandra Papa , Jing Ming , Devina Misra This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords continuous gravitational wavesSco X-1low-mass X-ray binariesneutron star crusttorque balanceaccretion efficiencymagnetic mountainsdetection probability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks when the neutron star in Sco X-1 can emit detectable continuous gravitational waves, and what the signal would look like. It simulates the full evolution of the binary, coupling mass accretion to neutron-star spin and to two deformation mechanisms: magnetic mountains and leftover deformation from crustal breakage. The central result is that detectability is not fixed: it depends sharply on the accretion efficiency and donor-star mass at birth. If the crust broke while Sco X-1 is in its current evolutionary stage, the star would now be emitting a very loud signal sweeping from about 1000 Hz down to torque-balance frequencies over roughly 150,000 years. Current detectors would catch this signal in under 1% of cases; third-generation detectors would catch it about 41% of the time, with magnetic-mountain signals reaching about 82% under the assumed ellipticity range.

Core claim

The paper models Sco X-1 as a recycling neutron star whose spin-up by accretion is counteracted by gravitational-wave torque from two plausible non-axisymmetric deformations. Its central discovery is that the outcome hinges on the binary's birth parameters, especially the accretion efficiency and the initial donor mass. For magnetic mountains, current sensitivities require an ellipticity above about 1e-6, and the highest detectable frequency grows with accretion efficiency up to about 360 Hz; third-generation detectors could see ellipticities as small as 6e-9, with detectable frequencies spanning 600-1700 Hz. For crustal breakage, at accretion efficiency up to 30% the crust never breaks; bet

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the torque-balance identity: the accretion torque from infalling matter is opposed by the gravitational-wave torque, which grows as the fifth power of spin and the square of ellipticity. The paper embeds this in a grid of roughly ten thousand binary evolution tracks, scanning orbital period, donor mass, accretion efficiency, and deformation. The crustal-breakage channel switches on when the spin reaches 45% of the Keplerian break-up frequency. The same machinery produces spin histories, gravitational-wave frequencies and amplitudes, and the time each system spends in a Sco X-1-compatible state, from which detection probabilities are computed.

Load-bearing premise

The headline result assumes the crust breaks when the spin reaches 45% of the Keplerian break-up frequency, tied to a breaking strain of about 0.05; if the true strain is closer to 0.1, breakage happens at higher frequencies, fewer Sco X-1-like systems break, and the loud-sweep signal and its 41% probability largely disappear.

What would settle it

A measurement or atomic-scale calculation showing that the neutron-star crust remains intact up to a breaking strain of about 0.1 rather than 0.05 would falsify the 45%-of-break-up threshold that drives the loud-sweep scenario. A future third-generation radiometer search that covers the fast-spindown high-frequency band and finds no signal would likewise rule out the loud phase for ellipticities near 1e-5.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If Sco X-1's crust broke in the current phase, the signal's fast spin-down makes the loud phase hard for standard template searches; radiometer-type or hidden-Markov searches are the ones that could catch it.
  • With third-generation detectors the detection probability rises from below 1% to about 41% for the crustal-breakage sweep, and to about 82% for magnetic mountains across the assumed ellipticity range.
  • At current sensitivity, null detections constrain magnetic mountains: ellipticity below about 2.1e-6 for 30% accretion efficiency, and below about 8.7e-7 for 70% or higher efficiency.
  • For accretion efficiency up to 30%, no Sco X-1-compatible system breaks its crust; above 70%, all systems break, so the binary's birth parameters determine whether Sco X-1 is currently loud.
  • With third-generation detectors the detectable frequency band for magnetic mountains widens to 600-1700 Hz, so future searches must cover that entire range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The probability numbers are strongly prior-dependent: the assumed minimum ellipticity of 1e-9 is an input, not an output. If the true floor is lower, the parameter space grows and the detection probabilities shrink roughly proportionally; the 41% and 82% figures should be read as conditional on that assumption.
  • The same machinery could be applied to other low-mass X-ray binaries: for a measured mass-accretion rate and orbital period, it would give the chance that crustal breakage has already happened and the resulting search band, turning Sco X-1's estimate into a population-level prediction.
  • A time-varying accretion efficiency, starting near 100% and declining, is physically plausible. If that early efficient phase lasts long enough, crustal breakage could occur for a wider set of donor masses than the constant-efficiency grid allows, potentially pushing the 3G odds above 41%.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses MESA to simulate the post-formation evolution of Sco X-1-like LMXBs over a grid in initial orbital period, donor mass, and accretion efficiency, and couples the binary evolution to the neutron star spin evolution through a Dai & Li accretion torque and a gravitational-wave torque. Two deformation mechanisms are considered: magnetic mountains (Melatos & Payne 2005) and residual ellipticity after crustal breakage (Morales & Horowitz 2025). Systems are classified as Sco X-1-like when they enter an observational cuboid in P, q, Mdot, and Teff. The authors compute gravitational-wave amplitude/frequency tracks, compare them with O3 upper limits and projected 3G sensitivities, and define residence-time-weighted detection probabilities. They find that for magnetic mountains current sensitivity requires ε≳1e-6 and the 3G detection probability is ≈0.82; for crustal breakage, breakage occurs only for η≥40% and sufficiently massive donors, and a loud high-frequency sweep signal would have <1% detection probability today but ≈41% with 3G radiometer searches (45% for template searches).

Significance. If the model is taken at face value, the paper makes concrete, falsifiable predictions: the magnetic-mountain scenario gives a 3G detection probability of ≈0.82, and the crustal-breakage scenario gives ≈0.41–0.45 for 3G detectors, with a distinctive high-frequency loud-sweep signature that could be targeted by radiometer or hidden-Markov searches. The framework is original in self-consistently evolving both the binary and the neutron star spin under two deformation mechanisms, and the data release (Pagliaro et al. 2025a) is a notable strength, as are the direct comparisons with O3 upper limits. The main caveat is that the headline probabilities are prior-dominated and depend on a single-point crustal failure threshold, so without a sensitivity analysis the quantitative claims should be read as conditional estimates rather than robust point predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, §6.3.1] The headline 3G probabilities for crustal breakage (p3G^r=0.41, p3G^t=0.45) are computed for a single threshold Ωbr=0.45ΩK, corresponding to σ≈0.05. The paper acknowledges in §7 that a larger breaking strain (σ=0.1) reduces the probability, but no quantitative sensitivity is given. This matters because Table 2 shows the 'breaks during Sco X-1 phase' subset is confined to narrow M_d intervals (e.g., η=50%: 1.25≤M_d≤1.37 M_sun); a modest shift in Ωbr can remove whole donor-mass ranges and directly change p. Please provide a sensitivity scan over Ωbr/ΩK∈[0.40,0.50] (or over σ) and report p as a function of this input; at minimum, present the headline probabilities as conditional ranges.
  2. [§6.2.4, Eqs. (36)–(38)] The detection probabilities p are residence-time weighted sums over the adopted grid, i.e., they are prior predictive probabilities under flat priors in log b/log ε and uniform η. They are not updated for the null results that the same section (and §6.2.2) uses to derive constraints on ε and b. Thus the current-detector value p≈0.41 for magnetic mountains is not a posterior probability and can appear to conflict with the derived ε<2e-6 constraints. Please either (a) relabel these quantities as 'prior predictive coverage' and state explicitly that no Bayesian update for the O3 null result is included, or (b) provide a posterior calculation. Also, because §7 admits ε_min=1e-12 would reduce p by ~1.7, the 3G numbers (0.82, 0.41, 0.45) should be tabulated over plausible ε_min so the prior dependence is transparent.
  3. [Abstract; §6.3.1] The abstract states 'current detection probability for this signal to be under 1%', but Section 6.3.1 reports p_LIGO_t=0.21 for the template-based search of the crustal-breakage signal. The <1% figure applies only to the radiometer search of the high-frequency sweep; the template search's 21% current probability for the same scenario is not mentioned in the abstract. Please clarify in the abstract that the <1% refers to the loud sweep as seen by a radiometer search, and report the 21% template-search number alongside it, or explain why the two should not be compared.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.2.2, Eq. (33)] The definition of fdot_lt uses (f_out−f_in)/(t_out−t_in), but the subscript 'lt' is not introduced; please define 'long-term' and state the sign convention (positive for spin-up).
  2. [§3.1] The grid in log10 P starts at −0.1 (P=0.794 d), which is slightly above the observed Sco X-1 orbital period P=0.7873 d and above the cuboid lower bound 0.7586 d. State explicitly that birth periods below 0.794 d are not simulated and why this is acceptable (e.g., systems evolve into the range).
  3. [Table 2, η=80% row] The text says 'all crusts break' for η≥70%, but the bracket entry for η=80% is only M_d=1.05. Clarify whether Sco X-1 progenitors with M_d<1.05 exist at η=80% and, if so, why they do not break during the Sco X-1 phase.
  4. [§6.3] The statement 'reaching torque balance in approximately 150000(ε/10^-5)^{-2/5} yr' would benefit from a derivation or a pointer to the relevant spin-down integral, since Eq. (31) in §6.2 refers to spin-up time and the two timescales differ by an order of magnitude.
  5. [Equations 16, 23] The rendering of some equations (e.g., Eq. 16 and Eq. 23) appears garbled in the preprint; please check the production format.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the central results derive from external code, data, and physical models.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims are not circular. Binary evolution is computed with MESA (an external open-source code); the reverse population synthesis setup is taken from Van & Ivanova (2021); the spin evolution uses the Dai & Li (2006) accretion torque; magnetic-mountain ellipticities use Melatos & Payne (2005); the crust-breakage threshold is taken from Morales & Horowitz (2025); and detectability comparisons use LIGO/CE/ET sensitivity curves (Abbott et al. 2021, 2022b; Evans et al. 2023; Hild et al. 2011). The detection probabilities (p_3G ≈ 0.82 for magnetic mountains; p_3G_r = 0.41 for crustal-breakage radiometer signals) are computed by comparing simulated h0(f) against those sensitivity curves and weighting each parameter-space bin by its residence time inside the observationally defined Sco X-1 resemblance cuboid (Eqs. 36-38). That weighting is an explicit modeling/prior assumption, not an inverse fit to the claimed detection: none of the headline quantities is used as input. The self-citations (Misra et al. 2025; Pagliaro et al. 2023, 2025b) are procedural (shared MESA framework, 3G sensitivity extrapolation, data release), and the key 3G formula is stated in the paper (Eq. 35); they do not substitute for an external derivation. Section 7's caveats about the σ=0.05 breaking strain and the assumed ellipticity range are robustness limitations, not circular reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a stack of external models and chosen priors: MESA's binary evolution with the CARB braking prescription, the two deformation mechanisms from the literature, the Dai & Li accretion torque, the AP3 EOS, and the log-uniform grids over b and ε used as population priors. The most consequential choices are the crustal-breakage threshold and the ellipticity prior; the paper states these but they dominate the probability estimates.

free parameters (7)
  • accretion efficiency η = grid 20%-80% in 10% steps
    Assumed constant over evolution; varied as a grid. Controls mass accretion rate and spin-up; strongly affects detectability (Section 3.1).
  • magnetic flux ratio b = log-uniform grid 10^0.5 to 10^3.0
    Controls magnetic mountain ellipticity via Eq. 25; constrained from null detections; prior affects detection probability (Section 5.1, 6.2.4).
  • residual ellipticity ε after crustal breakage = log-uniform grid 10^-9 to 3.16×10^-5
    Not predictable; assumed grid from literature bounds; drives crustal-breakage detection probability (Section 5.2, 6.3.1).
  • crustal breakage threshold Ω_br/Ω_K = 0.45
    Chosen from Morales & Horowitz (2025) 40-50% range; sets whether and when crust breaks; directly sets the loud-sweep frequency (Section 5.2).
  • critical accreted mass M_c = 10^-4 M_sun
    Fixed from Melatos & Payne (2005); determines saturation of magnetic mountain ellipticity (Section 5.1).
  • magnetic field decay mass scale m_B = 10^-4 M_sun
    Phenomenological relation from Shibazaki et al. (1989); controls field burial and accretion torque (Section 4).
  • Sco X-1 resemblance region boundaries = P∈[0.7586,0.8511]d, q∈[0.28,0.51], Ṁ_a∈[1.38e-8,3.87e-8] M_sun/yr, Teff<4800K
    Selection criterion for what counts as Sco X-1-like; the loose P range was chosen to keep simulation time acceptable; affects residence-time weights and detection probabilities (Section 2, Eq. 3).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption MESA inlists correctly implement the binary evolution physics (mass transfer, magnetic braking via CARB prescription, orbital angular momentum losses)
    The entire simulation output depends on the code being a faithful model; CARB prescription is from Van & Ivanova (2019) and is not standard MESA.
  • domain assumption The two deformation mechanisms (magnetic confinement and crustal breakage) are the dominant sources of non-axisymmetry in Sco X-1
    The paper models only these two; other mechanisms (thermal mountains, elastic deformation) are mentioned but not included; if another mechanism dominates, detectability estimates change (Section 7.1).
  • domain assumption The reverse population synthesis grid (P, M_d, η, b/ε ranges) adequately covers Sco X-1's initial binary parameters
    The grid is restricted to log P ∈ [-0.1, 0.6], M_d ∈ [1.0,2.0] M_sun; if Sco X-1 formed outside this grid (e.g., dynamical capture), the probabilities are invalid (Section 7.1).
  • domain assumption The Dai & Li (2006) accretion torque with ISCO truncation applies to Sco X-1
    The spin evolution depends on the torque model; ISCO truncation using Luk & Lin (2018) relation for massive NS is adopted (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption The neutron star equation of state AP3 and the moment-of-inertia fit of Eq. 10 are correct for Sco X-1
    Radius, moment of inertia, and ISCO evolution depend on EOS; AP3 chosen via model selection (Biswas 2022) (Section 4).
  • ad hoc to paper Prior distributions for b and ε (log-uniform over the grid) represent the true population of Sco X-1 deformations
    The detection probabilities p are computed by summing over these grids with equal weight in log space; the paper flags this as the most impactful assumption (Section 7.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23365 in / 16731 out tokens · 139460 ms · 2026-08-04T08:15:31.686434+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the prospects for detecting continuous gravitational waves (GWs) from Sco X-1 and evaluate the most likely waveform and progenitor parameters. We model the spin of the neutron star by the accretion torque and the gravitational-wave torque, considering two mechanisms for generating the non-axisymmetry responsible for the latter: magnetic mountains and crustal breakage deformation. Both torques are intertwined with the binary evolution, which we trace from the formation of the NS in a binary system with a main-sequence companion. We do this with MESA, starting from a set of initial binary configurations. At current sensitivity, a magnetic ellipticity of $\varepsilon\gtrsim 10^{-6}$ is necessary for detection. The highest frequency at which we have detectable signals increases with the accretion efficiency $\eta$, and it can be as high as 360Hz. At 3G (Cosmic Explorer/Einstein telescope) sensitivity, less deformed Sco X-1 NSs, with ellipticities as small as $6\cdot 10^{-9}$, are detectable, but the waveform highly depends on the binary system: the highest frequency of detectable signals spans the very broad range 600-1700Hz, strongly depending on $\eta$ and mass of the progenitor donor star $M^d$. If $\eta\leq$30%, the crust does not break. For $\eta\in$[40%,60%] only progenitors with $M^d\geq[1.1,1.5]M_{\odot}$ present crustal breakage, while if $\eta\geq$70% all crusts break. In some systems, the crust breaks during their Sco X-1 phase. If Sco X-1 were one of those systems, it would be emitting a very loud GW signal sweeping from O(1000)Hz down to torque-balance frequencies in $\approx 150000[\varepsilon /10^{-5}]^{-2/5}$ years. We estimate the current detection probability for this signal to be under 1%; this probability increases substantially - to around 41% - with 3G detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.21529 by Devina Misra, Gianluca Pagliaro, Jing Ming, Maria Alessandra Papa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Orbital period and mass ratio of a Sco X-1 progenitor system as it evolves – the arrow indicates the flow of time. The color-code indicates the effective temperature of the donor, and temperatures non-compatible with Sco X-1 are solid yellow. The red rectangle defines the Sco X-1 compatible region. 𝑡1 marks the time when the system first reaches a stable accretion rate of 10−8 𝑀⊙ · yr−1 . 𝑡2 is the earlies… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The three rows of plots differ for the value of the accretion efficiency: 30%, 50% and 80%, and refer to the same progenitor system defined by: 𝑃 = 1.91 d, 𝑀𝑑 = 1.25 𝑀⊙. On the left we have the spin frequency evolution of the neutron star in Sco X-1 in the case of high deformation (solid blue curve) and small deformation (dashed blue curve), in both cases due to magnetic confinement of accreted matter. The… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 𝑀𝑑 − 𝜂 space color-coded with the maximum frequency of continuous gravitational waves detectable by 3𝐺 detectors. If we do not find Sco X-1 compatible configurations the bin is left empty (white). The pattern shown in this plot can also be appreciated by looking at the summary Figure A1 in appendix A. where 𝑡 𝑖 𝑟 𝑒𝑠 is the time the 𝑖 𝑡 ℎ bin spends resembling Sco X-1. Now, the probability 𝑝 𝑗 𝑑𝑒𝑡 of th… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spin evolution (solid lines, left plot) and concurrent gravitational wave emission (right plot) of a Sco X-1 neutron star going through crustal failure, which leaves behind a residual ellipticity of 𝜀 = 10−5 , for three values of the accretion efficiency: 30%, 40% and 50%; among these, only 𝜂 = 50% leads to crustal failure therefore to continuous gravitational wave emission. The dashed lines on the left pl… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as left-hand-side of 5 but where we vary the progenitor system and keep constant the accretion efficiency at 𝜂 = 40%. Also, since the onset of mass accretion of different progenitor systems happens at different times, the x-axis is not the time since birth, but represents the last 25 million years of evolution for all three systems before the end of the simulation. means of the nominal torque-balance … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Sub-Torque-Balance Upper Limits on Continuous Gravitational Waves from Scorpius X-1

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Resampling cross-correlation search of LIGO O4a data sets Sco X-1 continuous-wave upper limits below torque balance (independent of inclination) for 50–200 Hz.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abbott B., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.082001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PhRvD..76h2001A 76, 082001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.082001 2007

  2. [2]

    Abbott R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104b2005A 104, 022005

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.022005 2021

  3. [3]

    Abbott R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aca1b0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941L..30A 941, L30

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca1b0 2022

  4. [4]

    R., Ravenhall D

    Akmal A., Pandharipande V. R., Ravenhall D. G., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PhRvC..58.1804A 58, 1804

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.58.1804 1998

  5. [5]

    A., Cheng A

    Alpar M. A., Cheng A. F., Ruderman M. A., Shaham J., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/300728a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.300..728A 300, 728

    doi:10.1038/300728a0 1982

  6. [6]

    L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09167.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.361.1153A 361, 1153

    Andersson N., Glampedakis K., Haskell B., Watts A. L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09167.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.361.1153A 361, 1153

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    A., Prix R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvD..91f4007B 91, 064007

    Behnke B., Papa M. A., Prix R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvD..91f4007B 91, 064007

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.064007 2015

  8. [8]

    Bhattacharya D., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-S , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PhR...203....1B 203, 1

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-s 1991

  9. [9]

    Bildsten L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...501L..89B 501, L89

    doi:10.1086/311440 1998

  10. [10]

    Biswas B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac447b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926...75B 926, 75

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac447b 2022

  11. [11]

    D., Payne D

    Blandford R. D., Payne D. G., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982MNRAS.199..883B 199, 883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  12. [12]

    Bonanno A., Urpin V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2117B 451, 2117

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1112 2015

  13. [13]

    F., Fomalont E

    Bradshaw C. F., Fomalont E. B., Geldzahler B. J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...512L.121B 512, L121

    doi:10.1086/311889 1999

  14. [14]

    R., Spruit H

    D'Angelo C. R., Spruit H. C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16749.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.1208D 406, 1208

    arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    L., Li X

    Dai H. L., Li X. D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...451..581D 451, 581

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053907 2006

  16. [16]

    D., Gaertig E., Kokkotas K

    Doneva D. D., Gaertig E., Kokkotas K. D., Kr \"u ger C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvD..88d4052D 88, 044052

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.044052 2013

  17. [17]

    Dubus G., Lasota J.-P., Hameury J.-M., Charles P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02212.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.303..139D 303, 139

    arXiv 1999

  18. [18]

    Evans M., et al., 2023, Cosmic Explorer: A Submission to the NSF MPSAC ngGW Subcommittee ( @eprint arXiv 2306.13745 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13745

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    B., Geldzahler B

    Fomalont E. B., Geldzahler B. J., Bradshaw C. F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...558..283F 558, 283

    doi:10.1086/322479 2001

  20. [20]

    K., Messenger C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.1745G 509, 1745

    Galaudage S., Wette K., Galloway D. K., Messenger C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.1745G 509, 1745

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3095 2022

  21. [21]

    K., 1979a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232..259G 232, 259

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1979a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232..259G 232, 259

    doi:10.1086/157285

  22. [22]

    K., 1979b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1979b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    doi:10.1086/157498

  23. [23]

    K., Pethick C

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., Pethick C. J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...217..578G 217, 578

    doi:10.1086/155606 1977

  24. [24]

    R., Rossi B

    Giacconi R., Gursky H., Paolini F. R., Rossi B. B., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.9.439 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962PhRvL...9..439G 9, 439

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.9.439 1962

  25. [25]

    Hild S., et al., 2011, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CQGra..28i4013H 28, 094013

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013 2011

  26. [26]

    F., Sunyaev R

    Illarionov A. F., Sunyaev R. A., 1975, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975A&A....39..185I 39, 185

    1975

  27. [27]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    Jermyn A. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  28. [28]

    Kar A., Ojha P., Bhattacharyya S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535..344K 535, 344

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2346 2024

  29. [29]

    Kar A., Ojha P., Bhattacharyya S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adabbf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980...51K 980, 51

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adabbf 2025

  30. [30]

    L., Mould M., Steeghs D., Casares J., Galloway D

    Killestein T. L., Mould M., Steeghs D., Casares J., Galloway D. K., Whelan J. T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.5317K 520, 5317

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad366 2023

  31. [31]

    Kuns K., Fulda P., Barsotti L., Evans M., 2023, Cosmic Explorer Strain Sensitivity, https://dcc.cosmicexplorer.org/CE-T2000017/public

    2023

  32. [32]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration Virgo Collaboration KAGRA Collaboration 2018, LVK A lgorithm L ibrary - LALS uite, Free software (GPL), @doi 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16

    doi:10.7935/gt1w-fz16 2018

  33. [33]

    arXiv:2508.04873

    La Placa R., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.04873 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250804873L p. arXiv:2508.04873

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.04873 2025

  34. [34]

    M., Prakash M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PhR...442..109L 442, 109

    Lattimer J. M., Prakash M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PhR...442..109L 442, 109

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.003 2007

  35. [35]

    M., Schutz B

    Lattimer J. M., Schutz B. F., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...629..979L 629, 979

    doi:10.1086/431543 2005

  36. [36]

    Leaci P., Prix R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.102003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvD..91j2003L 91, 102003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.102003 2015

  37. [37]

    Luk S.-S., Lin L.-M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8d6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861..141L 861, 141

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac8d6 2018

  38. [38]

    Cambridge University Press, p

    Lyne A., Graham-Smith F., 2012, 5 Pulsar timing. Cambridge University Press, p. 61–75

    2012

  39. [39]

    Maggiore M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...03..050M 2020, 050

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050 2020

  40. [40]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449L...1M 449, L1

    Mata Sanchez D., Munoz-Darias T., Casares J., Steeghs D., Ramos Almeida C., Acosta Pulido J. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449L...1M 449, L1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv002 2015

  41. [41]

    Melatos A., Payne D. J. B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623.1044M 623, 1044

    doi:10.1086/428600 2005

  42. [42]

    J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.042003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104d2003M 104, 042003

    Melatos A., Clearwater P., Suvorova S., Sun L., Moran W., Evans R. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.042003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104d2003M 104, 042003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.042003 2021

  43. [43]

    F., Rodrigues I., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...398L..25M 398, L25

    Mirabel I. F., Rodrigues I., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...398L..25M 398, L25

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021767 2003

  44. [44]

    S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A.314M 693, A314

    Misra D., Linares M., Ye C. S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A.314M 693, A314

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452035 2025

  45. [45]

    A., Horowitz C

    Morales J. A., Horowitz C. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.044016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.110d4016M 110, 044016

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.044016 2024

  46. [46]

    A., Horowitz C

    Morales J. A., Horowitz C. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ea7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978L...8M 978, L8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ea7 2025

  47. [47]

    Mukherjee A., Messenger C., Riles K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..97d3016M 97, 043016

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.043016 2018

  48. [48]

    Paczynski B., Proszynski M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302..519P 302, 519

    doi:10.1086/164012 1986

  49. [49]

    A., Ming J., Lian J., Tsuna D., Maraston C., Thomas D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd76f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..123P 952, 123

    Pagliaro G., Papa M. A., Ming J., Lian J., Tsuna D., Maraston C., Thomas D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd76f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..123P 952, 123

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd76f 2023

  50. [50]

    Pagliaro G., Papa M. A., Ming J., Misra D., 2025a, Supplementary material for the paper: Sco X-1 as a continuous gravitational waves source: modelling the secular evolution using MESA, https://www.aei.mpg.de/continuouswaves/ScoX1-detectability

  51. [51]

    A., Ming J., Muratore M., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540.1006P 540, 1006

    Pagliaro G., Papa M. A., Ming J., Muratore M., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540.1006P 540, 1006

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf774

  52. [52]

    Patruno A., Haskell B., D'Angelo C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746....9P 746, 9

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/9 2012

  53. [53]

    Pavlovskii K., Ivanova N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456..263P 456, 263

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2685 2016

  54. [54]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....3P 192, 3

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  55. [55]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  56. [56]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  57. [57]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  58. [58]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  59. [59]

    Radhakrishnan V., Srinivasan G., 1982, Current Science, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982CSci...51.1096R 51, 1096

    1982

  60. [60]

    C., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...275..713R 275, 713

    Rappaport S., Verbunt F., Joss P. C., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...275..713R 275, 713

    doi:10.1086/161569 1983

  61. [61]

    Shibazaki N., Murakami T., Shaham J., Nomoto K., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1038/342656a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Natur.342..656S 342, 656

    doi:10.1038/342656a0 1989

  62. [62]

    M., Savonije G

    Tauris T. M., Savonije G. J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350..928T 350, 928

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9909147 1999

  63. [63]

    M., van den Heuvel E

    Tauris T. M., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 2023, Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources . Princeton University Press, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2305.09388

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.09388 2023

  64. [64]

    Ushomirsky G., Cutler C., Bildsten L., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03938.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.319..902U 319, 902

    arXiv 2000

  65. [65]

    X., Ivanova N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab571c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886L..31V 886, L31

    Van K. X., Ivanova N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab571c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886L..31V 886, L31

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab571c 2019

  66. [66]

    X., Ivanova N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac236c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..174V 922, 174

    Van K. X., Ivanova N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac236c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..174V 922, 174

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac236c 2021

  67. [67]

    X., Ivanova N., Heinke C

    Van K. X., Ivanova N., Heinke C. O., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.5595V 483, 5595

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3489 2019

  68. [68]

    D., Raymond J

    Vrtilek S. D., Raymond J. C., Garcia M. R., Verbunt F., Hasinger G., Kurster M., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...235..162V 235, 162

    1990

  69. [69]

    D., Penninx W., Raymond J

    Vrtilek S. D., Penninx W., Raymond J. C., Verbunt F., Hertz P., Wood K., Lewin W. H. G., Mitsuda K., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...376..278V 376, 278

    work page doi:10.1086/170278 1991

  70. [70]

    L., Krishnan B., Bildsten L., Schutz B

    Watts A. L., Krishnan B., Bildsten L., Schutz B. F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13594.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.389..839W 389, 839

    arXiv 2008

  71. [71]

    T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8d7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949..117W 949, 117

    Whelan J. T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8d7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949..117W 949, 117

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc8d7 2023

  72. [72]

    E., Stella L., Parmar A

    White N. E., Stella L., Parmar A. N., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...324..363W 324, 363

    doi:10.1086/165901 1988

  73. [73]

    Wijnands R., van der Klis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/28557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.394..344W 394, 344

    doi:10.1038/28557 1998

  74. [74]

    Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.4899C 524, 4899

    C k nto g lu S., Ek s i K. Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.4899C 524, 4899

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2036 2023