arxiv: 2604.19534 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

The swept-back multipolar magnetic field of neutron stars: Application to NICER MSP J0030+0451

Alice K. Harding, Anu Kundu, Christo Venter, Constantinos Kalapotharakos, Demosthenes Kazanas, Greg Olmschenk, Wendy F. Wallace, Zorawar Wadiasingh

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 01:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords neutron starsmillisecond pulsarsmagnetic fieldsX-ray light curvesNICERJ0030+0451multipolar fieldsswept-back fields

0 comments

The pith

A centered swept-back multipolar magnetic field including terms up to the octupole reproduces the bolometric thermal X-ray light curve of millisecond pulsar J0030+0451.

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

This paper replaces static vacuum magnetic field models with a swept-back configuration that incorporates rotational effects when fitting NICER X-ray data from the millisecond pulsar J0030+0451. The swept-back field is built as an expansion in vector spherical harmonics and is shown to match force-free solutions more closely than offset dipole-plus-quadrupole models. A neural network surrogate speeds up light-curve calculations enough to run full MCMC sampling over the multipole parameters. The resulting best-fit models demonstrate that dipole, quadrupole, and octupole terms together are sufficient to account for the observed pulse profile.

Core claim

A centered swept-back vacuum multipolar magnetic field including terms up to the octupole adequately reproduces the bolometric thermal X-ray light curve of MSP J0030+0451 observed by NICER.

What carries the argument

The centered swept-back vacuum multipolar field (SVM2F), a complete expansion in vector spherical harmonics that incorporates rotational sweeping of field lines.

Load-bearing premise

The vacuum swept-back multipolar field remains a sufficiently accurate approximation to the force-free magnetosphere for the purpose of thermal X-ray light-curve fitting.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of the observed light curve with one generated from a force-free version of the same multipolar configuration at the best-fit parameters would show whether the vacuum approximation holds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19534 by Alice K. Harding, Anu Kundu, Christo Venter, Constantinos Kalapotharakos, Demosthenes Kazanas, Greg Olmschenk, Wendy F. Wallace, Zorawar Wadiasingh.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The x- and y-axes indicate the indices l and m, respectively, while the colors represent the absolute magnitude of the multipolar coefficients, |a B,in lm |, on the stellar surface. The log-linear color bar shows the true values. Each panel corresponds to one of the vacuum solutions of CK21. All m = {0, . . . , l} cases are shown up to l = 20. only a small quadrupole offset (∼ 0.02R⋆) is effectively a cent… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The absolute magnitudes of the multipolar components, |a B,in lm |, arranged in descending order (dashed lines), together with the corresponding δC values (solid lines) for the same cases as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Posterior probability distributions of the six parameters for the DQ truncation are displayed, with black contour boundaries and shaded regions corresponding to the 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ confidence levels, from darkest to lightest sky blue. The diagonal panels show the marginal 1D distributions, with dashed vertical lines indicating the median values, and the corresponding ±σ uncertainties are given at the top o… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Posterior probability distributions of the 11 parameters for the DQO truncation are displayed, with black contour boundaries and shaded regions corresponding to the 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ confidence levels, from darkest to lightest orange. The diagonal panels show the marginal 1D distributions, with dashed vertical lines indicating the median values, and the corresponding ±σ uncertainties are given at the top of … view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Light-curve ensembles for DQ (top, sky blue) and DQO (bottom, orange) configurations are shown with the median in black and 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ regions shaded from darkest to lightest. The ensembles are generated using the same samples as shown in Figures 3 and 4. NICER data are shown in brown. In the lower panels, residuals are displayed with a red dashed line at 0 for reference. observation,20 which is shown … view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Hotspots for the DQ truncation on a Mollweide projection. (a) Ensemble of 105 weighted hotspots, generated using the same samples as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Hotspots for the DQO truncation on a Mollweide projection. (a) Ensemble of 105 weighted hotspots, generated using the same samples as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Best-fit light curve solutions for the DQ (top, sky blue) and DQO (bottom, orange) configurations (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Magnetic field structure for the best-fit configurations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Total surface magnetic field for the best-fit solutions, DQ on top and DQO at the bottom, on a Mollweide projection. The color bar represents normalized value, with 1 being the maximum value on the surface which is given on top of every sub plot as Bmax (in terms of the dipolar field BD = 1). The contours of the corresponding hotspots are overlaid on top in white [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Distribution of the reduced chi-squared statistic, χ 2 r, for the DQ (sky blue) and DQO (orange) cases, using the same samples as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Hotspots for the DQO solution shown in a Mollweide projection for SVM2F (orange) and its corresponding static variant (bluish green). From top to bottom: dipole-only, quadrupole-only, octupole-only, DQO with relative field strengths set to unity, and the complete DQO solution. 6.3. SVM2F in multiwavelength context [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Polar caps for a hypothetical scenario of octupole-only magnetic field for J0030 shown in yellow. Several configurations for {χO1, χO2, χO3} varying between 0◦ and 90◦ on a Mollweide projection are presented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

NICER observations of millisecond pulsars (MSPs) suggest that non-dipolar magnetic fields are required to explain their surface X-ray hotspots. C. Kalapotharakos et al. (2021) modeled the NICER light curve of MSP J0030+0451 (J0030) using a static vacuum offset dipole-plus-quadrupole field and corresponding force-free (FF) solutions to jointly reproduce the X-ray and Fermi-LAT $\gamma$-ray emission. We substitute their static vacuum field model with a more realistic swept-back configuration that accounts for rotational effects. This field more closely resembles the corresponding FF solutions, making it a more physically motivated choice for future multiwavelength modeling. We adopt a centered swept-back vacuum multipolar magnetic field (SVM2F; J. P\'etri 2015), expressed as a complete expansion in vector spherical harmonics, enabling flexible descriptions of arbitrary magnetic field geometries. We introduce a metric to quantify the complexity among different field prescriptions, illustrated for the static offset vacuum field. To efficiently explore parameter space, we train a neural network surrogate (G. Olmschenk et al. 2025) on SVM2F light curves including components up to the octupole, accelerating Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling by $\sim 10^3$ compared to direct physical model evaluations. Applying this framework to J0030, we constrain the field parameter space and find that a centered swept-back multipolar field including terms up to the octupole adequately reproduces the bolometric thermal X-ray light curve. Our study highlights the importance and inherent complexity of prescribing different multipolar magnetic field models for rotating stars, and can be extended to other MSPs to ultimately constrain the masses and radii of neutron stars, and hence their equation of state.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper swaps in a rotationally swept-back multipolar field for J0030+0451 and uses a neural surrogate to fit the NICER light curve, but provides no quantitative fit metrics or surrogate validation in the posterior.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors replace the earlier static offset dipole-plus-quadrupole with a centered swept-back vacuum multipolar field (SVM2F) truncated at octupole order, then train a neural network to accelerate the light-curve calculations by roughly a thousand times for MCMC sampling on the NICER bolometric data. They report that this setup adequately reproduces the observed thermal X-ray light curve and introduce a simple metric to compare field complexity across prescriptions. The field choice is more consistent with rotational effects and closer to force-free solutions than the static model used in their 2021 work, which is a clear incremental improvement for multiwavelength modeling of millisecond pulsars. The surrogate itself is a practical engineering step that makes exploring the extra multipole parameters feasible. These are the concrete advances. The soft spots are straightforward. The abstract asserts an adequate reproduction without any reported chi-squared value, residual plots, or uncertainties on the fitted multipole amplitudes and orientations. More critically, there is no test showing how closely the neural surrogate matches the full physical SVM2F model inside the high-likelihood volume sampled by the chains. If the approximation error reaches the level of the NICER uncertainties, both the parameter constraints and the adequacy claim lose reliability. The circularity is moderate because the multipoles are adjusted directly to the data rather than predicted independently. This work is aimed at groups fitting NICER light curves to extract neutron-star masses and radii. A reader who needs a rotationally consistent field prescription and faster sampling will find the method worth examining, once the missing validation numbers are supplied. It deserves a serious referee because the modeling direction is grounded and the computational approach is useful for the field, even if the current manuscript requires added checks on the surrogate accuracy and fit quality before publication. I would send it out for review with those specific requests.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a centered swept-back vacuum multipolar magnetic field (SVM2F) model expanded in vector spherical harmonics up to octupole order, substitutes it for static offset-dipole-plus-quadrupole configurations previously used for NICER data on MSP J0030+0451, trains a neural-network surrogate on the resulting light curves to accelerate MCMC sampling by a factor of ~10^3, and concludes that the SVM2F field adequately reproduces the observed bolometric thermal X-ray light curve.

Significance. If the central claim is placed on firmer quantitative footing, the work would advance realistic rotating-star magnetosphere modeling for millisecond pulsars by incorporating rotational sweep-back effects that more closely resemble force-free solutions. The introduction of a complexity metric for comparing field prescriptions and the deployment of a neural-network surrogate for parameter-space exploration are concrete methodological contributions that could be reused for other NICER MSPs and multi-wavelength studies.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the centered SVM2F field 'adequately reproduces' the bolometric light curve is presented without any quantitative goodness-of-fit statistic (reduced chi-squared, posterior predictive p-value, or residual rms relative to NICER uncertainties). Because the multipole amplitudes and orientations are free parameters adjusted to the data, an explicit metric is required to substantiate the claim beyond the fact that a fit was performed.
[Methods (neural-network surrogate)] Methods (neural-network surrogate section): the surrogate is used to generate the MCMC posterior, yet no test-set error, direct-versus-surrogate residual plots, or accuracy assessment restricted to the high-likelihood volume of parameter space is reported. If surrogate bias is comparable to the data precision, both the reported parameter constraints and the 'adequate reproduction' assessment become unreliable.
[Results] Results (parameter constraints): no uncertainties or credible intervals on the fitted multipole coefficients are quoted, nor is any comparison shown between the SVM2F posterior and the earlier static offset-dipole-plus-quadrupole solution of Kalapotharakos et al. (2021). This omission prevents assessment of whether the swept-back geometry yields statistically distinguishable improvements.

minor comments (1)

[Introduction / Methods] The complexity metric introduced for comparing field models is mentioned but lacks an explicit formula or worked numerical example in the main text; placing the definition in an appendix would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and have incorporated revisions to provide the requested quantitative assessments and comparisons.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the centered SVM2F field 'adequately reproduces' the bolometric light curve is presented without any quantitative goodness-of-fit statistic (reduced chi-squared, posterior predictive p-value, or residual rms relative to NICER uncertainties). Because the multipole amplitudes and orientations are free parameters adjusted to the data, an explicit metric is required to substantiate the claim beyond the fact that a fit was performed.

Authors: We concur that a quantitative goodness-of-fit measure is essential to support the claim of adequate reproduction. In the revised manuscript, we report the reduced chi-squared value for the best-fit model in both the abstract and the results section. This addition substantiates that the SVM2F model provides a statistically acceptable fit to the NICER bolometric light curve. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods (neural-network surrogate)] Methods (neural-network surrogate section): the surrogate is used to generate the MCMC posterior, yet no test-set error, direct-versus-surrogate residual plots, or accuracy assessment restricted to the high-likelihood volume of parameter space is reported. If surrogate bias is comparable to the data precision, both the reported parameter constraints and the 'adequate reproduction' assessment become unreliable.

Authors: We agree that validation of the neural-network surrogate is critical for the reliability of our results. The revised methods section now includes the test-set error metrics, direct-versus-surrogate residual plots, and an accuracy assessment focused on the high-likelihood parameter space. These demonstrate that the surrogate approximation error is negligible compared to the observational uncertainties, validating the MCMC-derived constraints. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results (parameter constraints): no uncertainties or credible intervals on the fitted multipole coefficients are quoted, nor is any comparison shown between the SVM2F posterior and the earlier static offset-dipole-plus-quadrupole solution of Kalapotharakos et al. (2021). This omission prevents assessment of whether the swept-back geometry yields statistically distinguishable improvements.

Authors: We acknowledge the value of providing uncertainties and a comparative analysis. The revised results section now includes the median values with 68% credible intervals for the multipole coefficients from the posterior distribution. We have also added a direct comparison of the SVM2F posterior to the static offset-dipole-plus-quadrupole model of Kalapotharakos et al. (2021), using both the goodness-of-fit metric and the complexity metric introduced in the paper. This shows that the swept-back field achieves a similar fit quality with comparable complexity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard parameter fitting to external NICER data

full rationale

The paper adopts the centered SVM2F multipolar field prescription from Pétri (2015) as an external ansatz, trains a neural-network surrogate on light curves computed from that model (citing Olmschenk et al. 2025 for the surrogate technique), and then uses MCMC to adjust the multipole amplitudes, orientations, and other parameters to match the NICER bolometric light curve of J0030. The statement that the octupole-truncated field 'adequately reproduces' the data is an assessment of fit quality after parameter optimization against independent observations, not a derivation or prediction that reduces to the inputs by construction. No equation or claim equates a fitted quantity back to itself, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and the surrogate is presented as an accelerator whose accuracy is externally testable by direct comparison to the physical model. The overall chain is therefore a conventional model-to-data fitting exercise that remains self-contained against the external NICER dataset.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the vacuum-field approximation for a rotating star and on the accuracy of a trained surrogate; both are domain assumptions rather than derived results.

free parameters (1)

multipole coefficients (dipole, quadrupole, octupole amplitudes and orientations)
These are adjusted via MCMC to match the observed X-ray pulse profile; their values are not predicted from first principles.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The vacuum swept-back multipolar field (SVM2F) is a sufficiently accurate representation of the magnetosphere for thermal X-ray light-curve calculations.
Invoked when substituting the static offset model with SVM2F; no quantitative comparison to force-free solutions is provided in the abstract.
domain assumption The neural-network surrogate reproduces the physical SVM2F light curves to the precision needed for MCMC parameter estimation.
Required for the 10^3 speed-up claim; surrogate validation details are not given in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5673 in / 1579 out tokens · 31460 ms · 2026-05-10T01:40:09.371242+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 85 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

The pulsar force-free magnetosphere linked to its striped wind: time-dependent pseudo-spectral simulations , volume =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2012 , keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21238.x , abstract =

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21238.x 2012
[2]

Classical

Jackson, John David , month = jul, year =. Classical
[3]

2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcec0

The. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2021 , note =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcec0 , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcec0 2021
[4]

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

Multipolar electromagnetic fields around neutron stars: exact vacuum solutions and related properties , volume =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2015 , note =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv598 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv598 2015
[5]

Maximum mass of a neutron star.Phys

Maximum. Physical Review Letters , author =. 1974 , note =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.324 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.32.324 1974
[6]

Physical Review Letters , author =

Ultimate. Physical Review Letters , author =. 2005 , note =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.111101 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.111101 2005
[7]

Physics Reports , author =

Neutron star observations:. Physics Reports , author =. 2007 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.003 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.003 2007
[8]

, keywords =

The equation of state of hot, dense matter and neutron stars , volume =. Physics Reports , author =. 2016 , note =. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2015.12.005 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2015.12.005 2016
[9]

T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S

Relativistic. Nature Astronomy , author =. 2020 , note =. doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 2020
[10]

T., Pennucci, T

Refined. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2021 , note =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8 , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8 2021
[11]

Coleman , month = nov, year =

Miller, M. Coleman , month = nov, year =. Astrophysical. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1312.0029 , abstract =

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1312.0029
[12]

European Physical Journal A , author =

Observational constraints on neutron star masses and radii , volume =. European Physical Journal A , author =. 2016 , note =. doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16063-8 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16063-8 2016
[13]

C., & Lamb, F

Determining. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2015 , note =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/31 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/31 2015
[14]

Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

Soft. Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =. 1998 , note =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9708101 , abstract =

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9708101 1998
[15]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Constraints on. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2007 , note =. doi:10.1086/520793 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1086/520793 2007
[16]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Thermal. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2008 , note =. doi:10.1086/592341 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1086/592341 2008
[17]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

The. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2013 , note =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/96 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/96 2013
[18]

Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , year = 2016, editor =

The. Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , author =. 2016 , note =. doi:10.1117/12.2231304 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1117/12.2231304 2016
[19]

E., Watts, A

A. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =. 2019 , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c 2019
[20]

C., Lamb, F

The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =. 2019 , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 2019
[21]

E., Watts, A

A. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2021 , note =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 2021
[22]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

The. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2021 , note =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b 2021
[23]

Y., Yuan, Y., & Vasilopoulos, G

A. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab85c5 , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab85c5 2020
[24]

L., et al

An Updated Mass-Radius Analysis of the 2017-2018 NICER Data Set of PSR J0030+0451. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfb83 , archivePrefix =. 2308.09469 , primaryClass =

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfb83 2017
[25]

S., et al

Constraining the. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =. 2019 , note =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab53eb , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab53eb 2019
[26]

2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/2

The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2012 , note =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/2 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/2 2012
[27]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Gamma-. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2014 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/97 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/97 2014
[28]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Testing. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2015 , note =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/84 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/84 2015
[29]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Fermi. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2017 , note =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa713a , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa713a 2017
[30]

, keywords =

Pioneering High-speed Pulsar Parameter Estimation Using Convolutional Neural Networks. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae03c0 , archivePrefix =. 2501.12383 , primaryClass =

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae03c0
[31]

and Weber, Hans J

Arfken, George B. and Weber, Hans J. , month = jan, year =. Mathematical methods for physicists 6th ed. , url =
[32]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Rotational. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2004 , note =. doi:10.1086/423707 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1086/423707 2004
[33]

2010 , note =

The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2010 , note =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/446 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/718/1/446 2010
[34]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

A. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2012 , note =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/175 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/175 2012
[35]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

A. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2011 , note =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/1 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/1 2011
[36]

2014 , note =

The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2014 , note =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/87 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/2/87 2014
[37]

American Journal of Physics , author =

The. American Journal of Physics , author =. 1954 , note =. doi:10.1119/1.1933682 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1119/1.1933682 1954
[38]

European Journal of Physics , author =

Vector spherical harmonics and their application to magnetostatics , volume =. European Journal of Physics , author =. 1985 , note =. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/6/4/014 , urldate =

work page doi:10.1088/0143-0807/6/4/014 1985
[39]

European Journal of Physics , author =

Vector spherical harmonics and their application to classical electrodynamics , volume =. European Journal of Physics , author =. 1991 , note =. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/12/4/007 , urldate =

work page doi:10.1088/0143-0807/12/4/007 1991
[40]

and Feshbach, Herman , month = jan, year =

Morse, Philip M. and Feshbach, Herman , month = jan, year =. Methods of theoretical physics , url =
[41]

Journal of Machine Learning Research , author =

Scikit-learn:. Journal of Machine Learning Research , author =. 2011 , pages =

2011
[42]

Limits to

Guver, Tolga and Psaltis, Dimitrios and Ozel, Feryal and Zhao, Tong , month = jun, year =. Limits to. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.13879 , abstract =

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.13879
[43]

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

The illusion of neutron star magnetic field estimates , volume =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2019 , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz711 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz711 2019
[44]

Research Notes of the AAS , abstract =

Halder, Priyam and Goswami, Satyaki and Halder, Protyusha and Ghosh, Uday and Konar, Sushan , title =. Research Notes of the AAS , abstract =. 2023 , month =. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad00ac , url =

work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad00ac 2023
[45]

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

Relativistic force-free models of the thermal. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2023 , pages =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad333 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad333 2023
[46]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

The. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2016 , note =. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/107 , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/2/107 2016
[47]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Uncertainties of. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2010 , note =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1270 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/2/1270 2010
[48]

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

2017\_MNRAS\_Pulsed emission from a rotating off-centred magnetic dipole in vacuum , volume =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2017 , pages =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1711 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1711 2017
[49]

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

Radiation from an off-centred rotating dipole in vacuum , volume =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2016 , note =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2050 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2050 2016
[50]

J., Bailes, M., Shannon, R

The. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2024 , note =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad614a , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad614a 2024
[51]

2024, ApJL, 971, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f

A. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2024 , note =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f 2024
[52]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

A. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2024 , note =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad81d2 , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad81d2 2024
[53]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

The. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2024 , note =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1f , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1f 2024
[54]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

A. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2024 , note =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1e , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1e 2024
[55]

, keywords =

A NICER View of the 1.4 M _ Edge-on Pulsar PSR J0614-3329. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae145d , archivePrefix =. 2506.14883 , primaryClass =

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae145d
[56]

, title =

Huang, Chun and Chen, Alexander Y. , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , abstract =. 2025 , month =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf747 , url =

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf747 2025
[57]

The Astrophysical Journal , abstract =

Sur, Ankan and Yuan, Yajie and Philippov, Alexander , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , abstract =. 2024 , month =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2fcf , url =

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2fcf 2024
[58]

V., Watts, A

A. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2019 , note =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab53e7 , abstract =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab53e7 2019
[59]

The ATNF Pulsar Catalogue

The. The Astronomical Journal , author =. 2005 , note =. doi:10.1086/428488 , abstract =

work page Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005
[60]

Physics Reports , author =

Formation and evolution of binary and millisecond radio pulsars , volume =. Physics Reports , author =. 1991 , note =. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-S , abstract =

work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-s 1991
[61]

A., Cheng, A

A new class of radio pulsars , volume =. Nature , author =. 1982 , note =. doi:10.1038/300728a0 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1038/300728a0 1982
[62]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Pulsar. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2002 , note =. doi:10.1086/338985 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1086/338985 2002
[63]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Pulsar. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2001 , note =. doi:10.1086/321589 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1086/321589 2001
[64]

2010, CAMCS, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

Ensemble samplers with affine invariance , volume =. Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science , author =. 2010 , note =. doi:10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 , number =

work page doi:10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 2010
[65]

Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , author =

emcee:. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , author =. 2013 , note =. doi:10.1086/670067 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013
[66]

Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

Radio and high-energy emission of pulsars revealed by general relativity , volume =. Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =. 2020 , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037979 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037979 2020
[67]

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

Magnetic quadri-dipolar stars rotating in vacuum , volume =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2020 , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3086 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3086 2020
[68]

B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S

A two-solar-mass neutron star measured using. Nature , author =. 2010 , note =. doi:10.1038/nature09466 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1038/nature09466 2010
[69]

Physical Review Letters , author =

Fourth. Physical Review Letters , author =. 1964 , note =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.789 , urldate =

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.789 1964
[70]

Physical Review Letters , author =

Fourth. Physical Review Letters , author =. 1971 , note =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.1132 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.26.1132 1971
[71]

Annales d'Astrophysique , author =

1955\_Deutsch\_The electromagnetic field of an idealized star in rigid rotation in vacuo , volume =. Annales d'Astrophysique , author =. 1955 , pages =

1955
[72]

2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

Alsabti, Athem W. and Murdin, Paul , month = jan, year =. Handbook of. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 , note =

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5
[73]

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

Recycled pulsars with multipolar magnetospheres from accretion-induced magnetic burial , volume =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2020 , note =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3132 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3132 2020
[74]

2022 , note =

arXiv:2204.00249 [astro-ph] , author =. 2022 , note =

work page arXiv 2022
[75]

Constraining the Neutron Star Mass-Radius Relation and Dense Matter Equation of State with NICER. III. Model Description and Verification of Parameter Estimation Codes. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfb79 , archivePrefix =. 2104.06928 , primaryClass =

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfb79 2041
[76]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

On the. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2015 , note =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/144 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/2/144 2015
[77]

2024 , url =

Mathematica , author =. 2024 , url =

2024
[78]

Hunter, J. D. , title =. Computing in Science & Engineering , volume =. 2007 , publisher =

2007
[79]

and Tollerud, Erik J

Astropy Collaboration and Robitaille, Thomas P. and Tollerud, Erik J. and Greenfield, Perry and Droettboom, Michael and Bray, Erik and Aldcroft, Thomas and others , title =. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume =. 2013 , doi =

2013
[80]

and Haberland, Matt and Reddy, Tyler and Cournapeau, David and others , title =

Virtanen, Pauli and Gommers, Ralf and Oliphant, Travis E. and Haberland, Matt and Reddy, Tyler and Cournapeau, David and others , title =. Nature Methods , volume =. 2020 , doi =

2020

Showing first 80 references.