REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 115 references
A search of eight months of gravitational-wave data finds no continuous signal from any of 15 supernova remnants, setting the tightest wide-band strain limits yet for these sources.
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 →
T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash
2026-08-02 17:21 UTC pith:5JTGNBRH
load-bearing objection A solid, new upper-limit set from LVK O4a data, with a real SHV coverage inconsistency that should be fixed before publication. the 2 major comments →
Searches for Continuous Gravitational Waves from Supernova Remnants in the first part of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Fourth Observing run
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
No evidence of a continuous gravitational-wave signal is found from any of the 15 targeted supernova remnants. The collaboration reports 95% confidence-level upper limits on the intrinsic strain amplitude, with the most stringent constraint reaching about 4×10⁻²⁶ near 300 Hz for the nearby remnant G266.2−1.2 (Vela Jr.). Converting these strain limits into astrophysical terms, the ellipticity of a putative neutron star in Vela Jr. is constrained below about 10⁻⁷ and the r-mode amplitude below about 10⁻⁵ at frequencies above 400 Hz. The paper characterizes these results as the most sensitive wide-band directed searches for continuous gravitational waves from supernova remnants to date.
What carries the argument
The central machinery is a five-pipeline ensemble: a frequency-Hough transform method (Band-Sampled-Data), a template-based matched-filter search (Weave), two hidden-Markov tracking schemes (single- and dual-harmonic Viterbi), and a cross-correlation radiometer (PyStoch). They share a power-law spin-down signal model with braking index n in [2,7] and convert null results into astrophysical bounds through the strain-to-ellipticity and strain-to-r-mode relations. The age-based spin-down limit provides the reference scale against which the sensitivity of each pipeline is judged.
Load-bearing premise
The search assumes that none of the 15 target neutron stars glitched or followed an unmodeled spin evolution during the eight observing months, so that any real signal would remain on one of the searched spin-down paths.
What would settle it
Observe any glitch in the known compact objects of these remnants during the O4a window (May 2023 to January 2024), or run the same pipelines with a phase model that allows glitches and braking indices outside 2–7 and recover an injected signal; either result would show the reported limits do not cover all plausible signals.
If this is right
- Any continuous gravitational wave emitted by the 15 remnants during the analyzed months has a strain below the quoted 95% upper limits; the deepest bound is about 4×10⁻²⁶ near 300 Hz for Vela Jr.
- The Vela Jr. ellipticity limit falls below about 10⁻⁷ above 400 Hz, smaller than the rough theoretical maximum for ordinary neutron stars, so if a neutron star is there it is nearly symmetric.
- The r-mode amplitude limits reach below about 10⁻⁵, far under the predicted nonlinear saturation level near 10⁻³, disfavoring r-mode-dominated emission for these objects at the searched frequencies.
- For SNR 1987A the new strain limit is about 9.8×10⁻²⁶, improving the previous modeled-search result by roughly a factor of 1.5.
- These results supersede earlier wide-band directed limits across the whole analyzed band, and further gains are expected with longer observing runs and improved detector sensitivity.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- An implication left implicit is that the null result is a collective population statement; stacking all 15 remnants could yield a combined bound stronger than any single source and would constrain the fraction of young neutron stars emitting continuous waves.
- If any target glitched during O4a — something the paper explicitly does not model — the upper limits for that source would no longer apply; timing monitoring of the compact objects would settle this.
- The reported non-reproduction of a previously claimed candidate toward G347.3−0.5 leaves that candidate's status open; a fully coherent search over the complete run, as the paper notes, is the next decisive test.
- Extending the same multi-pipeline strategy to the full O4 dataset should improve strain sensitivity roughly as the square root of observing time, pushing the Vela Jr. ellipticity constraint still closer to the theoretical maximum.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper presents directed searches for continuous gravitational waves from 15 supernova remnants using the first eight months (O4a) of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data, employing five pipelines: BSD, PyStoch, single-harmonic Viterbi (SHV), dual-harmonic Viterbi (DHV), and Weave. The searches are wide-band (≈20–2000 Hz, depending on pipeline) and do not assume known target ephemerides. No candidate survives the multi-stage vetoes and follow-ups, yielding a null result. The paper sets 95% confidence-level upper limits on the strain amplitude h0, with the most stringent ≈4×10^-26 near 300 Hz for Vela Jr., and converts these into constraints on neutron-star ellipticity and r-mode amplitude via Eqs. (11)–(13), reaching ϵ≲10^-7 and α≲10^-5 for Vela Jr. at high frequency. It claims these are the most sensitive wide-band directed CW searches from supernova remnants to date.
Significance. Strengths to acknowledge: five independent pipelines with documented veto chains and survivor tables (Tables 3, 4, 9, 12); multi-stage follow-ups at increasing coherence time (Weave up to T_coh = 240 d); injection-and-recovery calibration of upper limits in representative sub-bands, including 12 DHV validation bands and per-1-Hz Weave injections; hardware-injection validation of the Weave follow-up; and an explicit negative comparison with the Einstein@Home candidate of Ming et al. (2025). The null result and the instrumental upper limits are well supported, and the Vela Jr. strain limits would be a genuine advance over O3 results. However, as detailed in the major comments, the SHV (and, to a lesser extent, BSD and DHV) searches do not cover the (braking-index, age) parameter space advertised for the young targets, so the reported ellipticity and r-mode constraints for the SHV-only sources overstate what the data bound. The paper is publishable after the coverage issue is confronted and the affected claims are re-scoped.
major comments (2)
- [Appendix C.1.1 / Table 8] Appendix C.1.1, Eq. (C7), vs Table 8: the SHV coherence times violate its own trackability criterion. Criterion 1 requires T_coh < [(n−1)t_age/(2f)]^{1/2}. For Vela Jr. (t_age=2.4–5.1 kyr) at 100 Hz, n=2: T_coh < 5.4 hr, but Table 8 lists 19.3 hr; max tracked spin-down 1/(2T_coh^2)=1.0e-10 Hz/s is 13× below |fdot|=1.3e-9 Hz/s. Same failures for the SHV-only targets: G1.9+0.3 (4.0 vs 1.35), G15.9+0.2 (14.8 vs 3.5), G350.1−0.3 (7.2 vs 2.9 hr). Every T_coh in Table 8 equals the C7 bound at (n=7,t_age,max), so SHV covers only that corner of the stated (n=2–7,t_age) space; for G350.1−0.3 even that corner fails. Hence Figs. 5/11 do not bound the youngest NSs in the SHV-only targets (G1.9+0.3, G15.9+0.2, G350.1−0.3). Fix: re-run with T_coh satisfying C7 at (n=2,t_age,min), or report covered |fdot| per target and restrict §5.2 claims.
- [Secs. 4.2, 4.5 / Tables 1–2] The same coverage gap occurs, less severely, in BSD and DHV. BSD enforces a 3.8-kyr minimum age, but seven BSD targets have younger age lower bounds; for G291.0−0.1 (1.3 kyr) and G330.2+1.0 (1 kyr) the searched |fdot|≤9.18e-10 Hz/s at 100 Hz falls short of the n=2 expectation (≈2.4e-9 and 3.2e-9 Hz/s), so the BSD limits for these newly added targets do not cover the youngest scenarios. DHV's T_coh=9 hr configuration (minimum age 5 kyr) tracks |fdot|≤2.38e-10 Hz/s at f⋆=100 Hz, below f⋆/[(n−1)t_age] for n=2–4 (and for n=5 at ages ≲3.3 kyr). Please add a per-pipeline/per-target table of the effectively covered (f, |fdot|) region and restrict the §5.2 ellipticity/r-mode interpretation to signals inside it.
minor comments (6)
- [Sec. 5.1 / Sec. 6] Sec. 5.1, SHV results paragraph: 'SVH' is a typo for 'SHV'. Also, the §6 claim of 'the strongest upper limits to date across the full analyzed frequency band' is too broad, since §5.1 itself notes that Weave's sensitivity at the G347.3−0.5 candidate frequency of Ming et al. (2025) is lower; qualify the claim.
- [References] 'Abac et al. 2025b' carries the placeholder URL https://arxiv.org/abs/12345.6789; replace it with the real arXiv ID or a complete citation.
- [Appendix C.3] The SHV upper-limit curves depend on per-target rescaling constant k and a(T_coh)=h_0^95/h_0^est, but these values appear only in LIGO-T2500368. Please include a table of these values so that Fig. 11 can be reproduced from the manuscript.
- [Tables] Several captions contain 'T able' layout artifacts, and the G18.9−1.1 row in Table 1 repeats the object name; please clean up.
- [Secs. 3, 6] The no-glitch assumption is explicit and standard, but its consequence should be restated with the results: a glitch or large timing-noise excursion in any target during O4a would move the signal outside the searched template space, and the quoted upper limits would not apply to that source.
- [Appendix B.2] The footnote admitting that the Frequency-Hough follow-up neglects fddot is a real limitation; given that the PyStoch candidates have p ≈ 0.07–0.09 and the 5-vector resampling found nothing, it is acceptable, but it should be flagged in the main text or the reduced follow-up sensitivity stated.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the upper limits are injection-calibrated measurements from O4a data, and the ellipticity/r-mode conversions are standard formulas with stated inputs.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained: calibrated O4a strain data feed five independent search pipelines; candidates are vetoed and followed up; 95% upper limits are set by injection-and-recovery or by explicit analytic scalings spot-checked with injections (and, for BSD/SHV/DHV, using semi-analytic estimates corroborated by software injections); the h0 curves are then converted to ellipticity and r-mode limits via Eqs. (11)-(13) with stated distances and I_zz = 10^38 kg m^2. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to prior pipeline papers (Abbott et al. 2021b; Sun et al. 2018, 2019; Wette et al. 2018; etc.) supply algorithms and parameter conventions, but the null result and upper limits are not derived from those citations: they are empirically calibrated on the O4a data analyzed here. The paper explicitly flags its coverage assumptions, e.g., in Sec. 3: "we do not explicitly account for glitches; we assume that none of the targets have glitched during the considered observing time," and in the braking-index/age ranges used for each pipeline. These assumptions limit the astrophysical interpretation of the limits but are not circular, because the limits themselves remain independent measurements of the searched parameter space. The apparent inconsistency between the SHV coherence-time criterion Eq. (C7) and the T_coh values in Table 8 is a possible coverage or correctness issue for young, low-braking-index signals; it does not reduce the reported limits to their inputs by construction. Overall, the paper's central claims—non-detection and calibrated upper limits—do not exhibit self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or self-citation-reduction circularity.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
free parameters (4)
- BSD calibration factor B =
not quoted; averaged from injections in 6 sub-bands per target
- SHV per-target rescaling constant k =
k = max(R) over injections; applied when k > 1.1
- Weave sigmoid parameters (a, b) =
fit per 1-Hz band in Eq. (E16)
- PyStoch interpolation constants for Bayesian upper limits =
precomputed grids over signal-to-noise and polarization
axioms (6)
- domain assumption CW emission from a triaxial star at twice the spin frequency (single harmonic) or at f* and 2f* (dual harmonic)
- domain assumption Power-law spin-down f-dot proportional to -f^n with braking index n in [2,7] and age-based ranges for f-dot and f-double-dot
- domain assumption None of the targets glitched during O4a
- domain assumption Moment of inertia I_zz = 10^38 kg m^2 in the ellipticity and r-mode conversions
- domain assumption Detector noise after gating is stationary enough for Gaussian-noise thresholds; known lines are excluded via notch lists
- domain assumption Catalog distances and ages for each remnant are approximately correct
read the original abstract
We present results from directed searches for continuous gravitational waves from a sample of 15 nearby supernova remnants, likely hosting young neutron star candidates, using data from the first eight months of the fourth observing run (O4) of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration. The analysis employs five pipelines: four semi-coherent methods -- the Band-Sampled-Data directed pipeline, Weave and two Viterbi pipelines (single- and dual-harmonic) -- and PyStoch, a cross-correlation-based pipeline. These searches cover wide frequency bands and do not assume prior knowledge of the targets' ephemerides. No evidence of a signal is found from any of the 15 sources. We set 95\% confidence-level upper limits on the intrinsic strain amplitude, with the most stringent constraints reaching $\sim 4 \times 10^{-26}$ near 300 Hz for the nearby source G266.2$-$1.2 (Vela Jr.). We also derive limits on neutron star ellipticity and $r$-mode amplitudes for the same source, with the best constraints reaching $\lesssim 10^{-7}$ and $\lesssim 10^{-5}$, respectively, at frequencies above 400 Hz. These results represent the most sensitive wide-band directed searches for continuous gravitational waves from supernova remnants to date.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
2015a, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/39
Aasi, J., Abbott, B., Abbott, R., et al. 2015a, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/39
-
[2]
2015b, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 38
Aasi, J., et al. 2015b, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 38
-
[3]
Abac, A. G., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18079, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18079 —. 2025b, submitted to Phys. Rev. D. https://arxiv.org/abs/12345.6789
-
[4]
G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al
Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al. 2025c, Directional Search for Persistent Gravitational Waves: Results from the First Part of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA’s Fourth Observing Run. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17487
-
[5]
Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 722, 1504–1513, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/722/2/1504
-
[6]
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118, 121102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.121102
-
[7]
Abbott, B. P., et al. 2019a, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040 —. 2019b, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab113b
-
[8]
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 062001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.062001
-
[9]
Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2022a, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 082005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.082005
-
[10]
Abbott, R., et al. 2021a, Phys. Rev. X, 11, 021053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053 —. 2021b, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac17ea
-
[11]
Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 022005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022005
-
[12]
Abbott, R., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 082004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.082004
-
[13]
2022b, Physical Review D, 106, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.106.042003
Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2022b, Physical Review D, 106, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.106.042003
-
[14]
Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 —. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 022001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001 —. 2025, GWTC-4: Observations and results. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P2400386
-
[15]
2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 204002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/20/204002
Acernese, F., Alshourbagy, M., Antonucci, F., et al. 2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 204002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/20/204002
-
[16]
Ain, A., Suresh, J., & Mitra, S. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 024001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.024001
-
[17]
2025, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42, 145008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adecd7
Amicucci, F., Leaci, P., Astone, P., et al. 2025, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42, 145008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adecd7
-
[18]
1998, ApJ, 502, 708, doi: 10.1086/305919
Andersson, N. 1998, ApJ, 502, 708, doi: 10.1086/305919
doi:10.1086/305919 1998
-
[19]
2008, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25, 184015, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/25/18/184015
Palomba, C. 2008, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25, 184015, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/25/18/184015
-
[20]
Astone, P., Colla, A., D’Antonio, S., Frasca, S., & Palomba, C. 2014a, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 042002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.042002
-
[21]
Astone, P., Colla, A., D’Antonio, S., et al. 2014b, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 062008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.062008
-
[22]
2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194016, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194016
Astone, P., D’Antonio, S., Frasca, S., & Palomba, C. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194016, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194016
-
[23]
Astone, P., Frasca, S., & Palomba, C. 2005, Class. Quantum Grav, 22, 1197, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/22/18/S34
-
[24]
Behnke, B., Papa, M. A., & Prix, R. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 064007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064007
-
[25]
2022, Physical Review D, 106, 103018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103018
Beniwal, D., Clearwater, P., Dunn, L., et al. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, 103018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103018
-
[26]
Biwer, C., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.062002
-
[27]
Bondarescu, R., Teukolsky, S. A., & Wasserman, I. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 104003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.104003
-
[28]
Borkowski, K. J., Reynolds, S. P., Hwang, U., et al. 2013, ApJL, 771, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/1/L9
-
[29]
Braun, C., Safi-Harb, S., Fryer, C. L., & Zhou, P. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 6257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2592
-
[30]
2025, LIGO-T2500368-v1: Details of Parameter Choices for the O4a Supernova Remnant Search Using the Single-Harmonic Viterbi Pipeline, Tech
Bu, Y., & Melatos, A. 2025, LIGO-T2500368-v1: Details of Parameter Choices for the O4a Supernova Remnant Search Using the Single-Harmonic Viterbi Pipeline, Tech. rep
2025
-
[31]
Capote, E., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002
-
[32]
Caride, S., Inta, R., Owen, B. J., & Rajbhandari, B. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 064013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.064013
-
[33]
Cheunchitra, T., Melatos, A., Carlin, J. B., & Howitt, G. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 1360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae130
-
[34]
Cheung, D. 2025, Outlier parameters from the search for continuous gravitational waves from the Cassiopeia A, Vela, and G347.3-0.5 supernova remnants during the early phase of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14232423
-
[35]
Cheung, D. H. T., Riles, K., Amengual, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.04792, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.04792
-
[36]
Cordes, J. M., & Greenstein, G. 1981, ApJ, 245, 1060, doi: 10.1086/158883 39
-
[37]
Cutler, C. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 084025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.084025
-
[38]
2025, Characterization of Systematic Error in Advanced LIGO Calibration in the Fourth Observing Run
Dartez, L., et al. 2025, Characterization of Systematic Error in Advanced LIGO Calibration in the Fourth Observing Run. https://dcc.ligo.org/P2400219
2025
-
[39]
2024, Self-gating of O4a h(t) for use in continuous-wave searches
Davis, D., Neunzert, A., Goetz, E., et al. 2024, Self-gating of O4a h(t) for use in continuous-wave searches. https://dcc.ligo.org/T2400003 De Luca, A. 2017, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 932, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012006, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/932/1/012006
-
[40]
Dreissigacker, C., Prix, R., & Wette, K. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 084058, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084058
-
[41]
2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313 , doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.004
Ferrand, G., & Safi-Harb, S. 2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313 , doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.004
-
[42]
Fransson, C., Barlow, M. J., Kavanagh, P. J., et al. 2024, Science, 383, 898, doi: 10.1126/science.adj5796
-
[43]
Gaensler, B. M., & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
-
[44]
Ganapathy, D., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041021
-
[45]
2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 043001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad1c35
Gittins, F. 2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 043001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad1c35
-
[46]
Gittins, F., & Andersson, N. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 521, 3043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad672
-
[47]
2018, Gravitational Waves from Single Neutron Stars: An Advanced Detector Era Survey, ed
Glampedakis, K., & Gualtieri, L. 2018, Gravitational Waves from Single Neutron Stars: An Advanced Detector Era Survey, ed. L. Rezzolla, P. Pizzochero, D. I. Jones, N. Rea, & I. Vida˜ na (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 673–736, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-97616-7 12
-
[48]
Gnedin, O. Y., Yakovlev, D. G., & Potekhin, A. Y. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 324, 725, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04359.x
arXiv 2001
-
[49]
2024, Segments used for creating standard SFTs in O4 data
Goetz, E., & Riles, K. 2024, Segments used for creating standard SFTs in O4 data. https://dcc.ligo.org/T2400058
2024
-
[50]
2024, O4a lines and combs in found in self-gated C00 cleaned data
Goetz, E., et al. 2024, O4a lines and combs in found in self-gated C00 cleaned data. https://dcc.ligo.org/T2400204
2024
-
[51]
Gotthelf, E. V., Halpern, J. P., & Alford, J. 2013, ApJ, 765, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/58
-
[52]
2021, ApJL, 908, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf5a
Greco, E., Miceli, M., Orlando, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf5a
-
[53]
Green, D. A. 2025, VizieR Online Data Catalog: A Catalogue of Galactic Supernova Remnants (Green, 2025), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: VII/297. Originally published in: 2025JApA...46...14G
2025
-
[54]
A., & Yakovlev, D
Haensel, P., Urpin, V. A., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1990, A&A, 229, 133
1990
-
[55]
2015, Physical Review D, 91, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.91.063007
Hamil, O., Stone, J., Urbanec, M., & Urbancov´ a, G. 2015, Physical Review D, 91, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.91.063007
-
[56]
2022, Universe, 8, 619, doi: 10.3390/universe8120619
Haskell, B., Antonelli, M., & Pizzochero, P. 2022, Universe, 8, 619, doi: 10.3390/universe8120619
-
[57]
Ho, W. C. G., & Lai, D. 2000, ApJ, 543, 386, doi: 10.1086/317085
-
[58]
Hurley-Walker, N., Gaensler, B. M., Leahy, D. A., et al. 2019, PASA, 36, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.33
-
[59]
Idrisy, A., Owen, B. J., & Jones, D. I. 2015, Physical Review D, 91, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.91.024001
-
[60]
Jaranowski, P., Kr´ olak, A., & Schutz, B. F. 1998, Physical Review D, 58, 063001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.063001
-
[61]
2024, Science, 385, 1318–1321, doi: 10.1126/science.ado8069
Jia, W., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 1318–1321, doi: 10.1126/science.ado8069
-
[62]
Johnson-McDaniel, N. K., & Owen, B. J. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 044004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044004
-
[63]
Jones, D. I. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402, 2503, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16059.x
arXiv 2010
-
[64]
Knispel, B., & Allen, B. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 044031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.044031
-
[65]
Lasky, P. D., & Melatos, A. 2013, Physical Review D, 88, 103005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.103005
-
[66]
Lindblom, L., & Owen, B. J. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.101.083023
-
[67]
Lower, M. E., Bailes, M., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 228, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa615
-
[68]
Melatos, A., Douglass, J. A., & Simula, T. P. 2015, ApJ, 807, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/132
-
[69]
2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 21, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1828
Melatos, A., & Link, B. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 21, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1828
-
[70]
Millhouse, M., Strang, L., & Melatos, A. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 083025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083025
-
[71]
Ming, J., Papa, M. A., Eggenstein, H. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b9e
-
[72]
Ming, J., Papa, M. A., Eggenstein, H.-B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35cb
-
[73]
Ming, J., Papa, M. A., Singh, A., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 024063, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024063
-
[74]
Ming, J., Papa, M. A., Eggenstein, H.-B., et al. 2025, Observational constraints on the spin/anisotropy of the CCOs of Cassiopeia A, Vela Jr. and G347.3-0.5 and a single surviving continuous gravitational wave candidate. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.15672
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
-
[75]
2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add5f5 40
Machenschalk, B. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add5f5 40
-
[76]
2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1671
Namkham, N., Jaroenjittichai, P., & Johnston, S. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1671
-
[77]
H., Kumar, S., Wang, Y.-F., et al
Nitz, A. H., Kumar, S., Wang, Y.-F., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca591
-
[78]
Olsen, S., Venumadhav, T., Mushkin, J., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043009
-
[79]
Owen, B. J. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 104002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.104002 —. 2026, Rev. Mod. Phys., 98, 011002, doi: 10.1103/jdlt-7czp
-
[80]
J., Lindblom, L., Cutler, C., et al
Owen, B. J., Lindblom, L., Cutler, C., et al. 1998, PhRvD, 58, 084020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.084020
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.