arxiv: 2605.05429 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Multiwavelength Analysis of PSR J0437-4715 with Pulse Profile Modeling

Liqiang Qi , Juan Zhang , Weiwei Xu , Shijie Zheng , Mingyu Ge , Ang Li , Shuang-Nan Zhang , Hua Feng

show 1 more author

Fangjun Lu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 15:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords millisecond pulsarneutron starmass radius relationpulse profile modelingX-ray pulsarshot spotsmultiwavelength astronomy

0 comments

The pith

Multi-wavelength analysis constrains the mass of PSR J0437-4715 to 1.38 solar masses and its radius to 13.25 km.

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

The paper performs a joint fit to ultraviolet and X-ray observations of the millisecond pulsar to model its pulse profiles at different energies. It includes separate models for the cold surface emission, hot spots, and a non-thermal power law, using atmosphere models for the thermal parts. Radio polarization data supplies a prior on the location of the hot spots. This produces a consistent set of stellar parameters with smaller uncertainties than some earlier single-telescope results. The outcome matters because the mass and radius of neutron stars encode information about the behavior of matter at extreme densities.

Core claim

The joint multi-instrument analysis yields a statistically viable and radio-consistent solution with a gravitational mass of 1.38 ± 0.03 solar masses and an equatorial circumferential radius of 13.25 with +0.34 and -0.35 km uncertainties at 68 percent confidence. The hot-spot geometry consists of two spherical caps with uniform temperatures: primary at colatitude approximately 130 degrees and secondary at approximately 9 degrees near the north pole.

What carries the argument

Bayesian inference combining multi-wavelength pulse profiles with non-magnetized hydrogen atmosphere models for cold and hot thermal emission and an informative prior on hot-spot geometry from radio data.

If this is right

The radius constraints are tighter than those from HST and ROSAT data alone.
The radius posterior distribution shifts toward larger values compared to NICER-only analyses.
The derived hot-spot positions align with expectations from radio polarization measurements.
Multi-wavelength observations help break geometric degeneracies that affect single-band modeling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

This mass-radius pair can be used to test specific models of the dense matter equation of state inside neutron stars.
Applying the same multi-instrument approach to other nearby pulsars could yield a sample of precise radius measurements.
Additional data from future X-ray or UV telescopes would likely narrow the uncertainties further.

Load-bearing premise

The non-magnetized hydrogen atmosphere models for the cold surface and hot spots accurately capture the thermal emission, and the radio polarization prior correctly describes the hot-spot geometry.

What would settle it

An independent, high-precision measurement of the pulsar's gravitational mass or equatorial radius falling outside the quoted 68 percent confidence intervals would indicate that the modeled solution does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05429 by Ang Li, Fangjun Lu, Hua Feng, Juan Zhang, Liqiang Qi, Mingyu Ge, Shijie Zheng, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Weiwei Xu.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Normalized energy-integrated pulse profiles of PSR J0437–4715 in the 0.3-3.0 keV band, extracted from XMM-Newton EPIC-pn (16 phase bins) and NICER data (32 phase bins; upper panel). Energy-resolved pulse profiles from XMM-Newton EPICpn data, spanning 0.3-3.0 keV with 16 phase bins and 135 energy channels (lower panel). Two rotational cycles are plotted for clarity. 2.2. ROSAT The ROSAT PSPC observations (… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The joint spectral fit is conditional on informative tight priors for the neutron star mass and distance from highprecision radio pulsar timing measurements (Reardon et al. 2024); the neutron star mass is assigned a Gaussian prior Probability Density Function (PDF), and the distance is fixed 2 https://aphysics2.lanl.gov − − − view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The inferred radius posteriors exhibit an adjacent yet disjoint distribution at lower radii, which cannot be resolved by MultiNest’s default separation algorithm. They are in good agreement with the result of Gonz´alez-Caniulef et al. (2019) (R = 13.1+0.9 −0.7 km), demonstrating a proper implementation of the hydrogen atmosphere modeling and Bayesian parameter estimation. In this section, the contributio… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Two-dimensional marginalized posterior PDFs of neutron star mass and radius from the NICER-only fit. Results are compared to the headline measurements of Choudhury et al. (2024a). The contours represent the 68% and 95% credible regions view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Schematic illustration of the two circular hot-spot geometry inferred from the best-fit parameters of the second posterior mode. The primary hot spot is shown in red, and the secondary hot spot in blue. The observer’s line of sight is indicated by the black line, corresponding to a colatitude of 137.5 ◦ . Exact geometric parameters are listed in view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: , 8, and 9. No apparent structure is present, suggesting that the model can reproduce the data. In the left panel of view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Two-dimensional marginalized posterior PDFs of neutron star mass and radius, comparing results from different datasets and fitting methodologies employed in this work. The contours represent the 68% and 95% credible regions. To assess the fit quality of the headline model, residual distributions calculated using the best-fit values are presented in view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Left panel: Comparison of total energy spectra and fit residuals between XMM-Newton EPIC-pn data and the bestfit multi-component model. Right panel: Comparison of energyintegrated pulse profiles between XMM-Newton EPIC-pn data and the best-fit model. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 Phase Energy (keV) χ view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Fit residuals of energy-resolved pulse profiles between XMM-Newton EPIC-pn data and the best-fit model. low signal-to-noise ratio of the high-energy tail leads to an inferred non-thermal power-law spectrum that is softer than that derived from NuSTAR data. Third, the exclusion of pulsations in the non-thermal emission may introduce additional biases. Finally, tighter constraints on hot-spot geometry are r… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present a multi-wavelength analysis of the nearby millisecond pulsar PSR J0437--4715, combining Hubble Space Telescope (HST) far-ultraviolet, ROSAT soft X-ray, and XMM-Newton X-ray data, to model its broadband emission and energy-resolved pulse profiles, and infer key stellar parameters via Bayesian inference. The broadband emission includes cold thermal, hot thermal, and non-thermal components: cold bulk surface emission is modeled with a non-magnetized partially-ionized hydrogen atmosphere; hot-spot emission adopts the pulse profile modeling technique with a non-magnetized fully-ionized hydrogen atmosphere model; and non-thermal emission is included as a phase-invariant power-law component. By adopting an informative prior on the hot-spot geometry informed by radio polarization position angle measurements, the joint multi-instrument analysis yields a statistically viable and radio-consistent solution with a gravitational mass of 1.38$\pm$0.03~M$_\odot$ and an equatorial circumferential radius of 13.25$_{-0.35}^{+0.34}$~km (68\% confidence intervals). The hot-spot geometry consists of two spherical caps with uniform temperature distributions: the primary hot spot is situated at a colatitude of $\approx$130$^{\circ}$, and the secondary hot spot lies at a colatitude of $\approx$9$^{\circ}$, close to the north pole. It yields tighter radius constraints than HST+ROSAT fits and shifts the radius posterior distribution to larger values relative to NICER-only fits. This work demonstrates the importance of multi-wavelength data in refining neutron star mass-radius measurements and resolving geometric degeneracies.

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 adds a new multi-instrument M-R point for J0437-4715 using HST+ROSAT+XMM plus radio prior, but the result rests on untested non-magnetized H atmosphere models.

read the letter

The core result is a joint fit that gives M = 1.38 ± 0.03 M⊙ and R = 13.25 +0.34/-0.35 km at 68% confidence, with hot spots at roughly 130° and 9° colatitude. They model the cold bulk with a partially ionized non-magnetized H atmosphere, the hot spots with a fully ionized version inside the pulse-profile code, and add a phase-independent power-law for the non-thermal part. The radio polarization prior pins the geometry, which helps break some degeneracies that single-instrument runs leave open. The fit is reported as statistically viable and consistent with the radio data, and it shifts the radius posterior higher than NICER-only work while tightening it relative to earlier HST+ROSAT combinations. That is the actual increment: one more concrete data point on a well-studied pulsar from a broader wavelength baseline. The modeling choices themselves follow established techniques rather than introducing new machinery. The main soft spot is the atmosphere assumption. The pulsar has B ~ 10^8 G, yet both components use non-magnetized grids; residual magnetic effects on opacity or beaming could move the radius posterior even with the geometry fixed. The abstract gives no sign of sensitivity runs against magnetized tables or checks for trace metals, so that remains an unquantified systematic. The free parameters (colatitudes, sizes, temperatures, power-law index) are standard, and the circularity burden looks low because the mass and radius come from the fit rather than being imposed. This is for people who track individual pulsar constraints for the EOS problem or who want to see how multiwavelength data helps with geometry. A reader already working on pulse-profile codes or on J0437 itself will get the most out of the posterior tables and any model-comparison plots. It is worth sending to peer review because the data combination is new and the output is a usable number, even if reviewers will need to press on the atmosphere choice and any post-hoc data cuts.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a multiwavelength Bayesian analysis of PSR J0437-4715 combining HST far-UV, ROSAT, and XMM-Newton X-ray data. Emission is modeled as cold thermal (non-magnetized partially-ionized hydrogen atmosphere), hot thermal (non-magnetized fully-ionized hydrogen atmosphere with pulse-profile modeling of two uniform-temperature spherical caps), and non-thermal (phase-invariant power-law) components. An informative prior on hot-spot geometry is taken from radio polarization measurements. The joint fit yields a gravitational mass of 1.38 ± 0.03 M⊙ and equatorial circumferential radius 13.25_{-0.35}^{+0.34} km (68% CI), with primary and secondary hot spots at colatitudes ≈130° and ≈9°. The result is claimed to tighten the radius constraint relative to HST+ROSAT data alone and to shift it to larger values than NICER-only analyses.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions are validated, the work supplies a useful multi-instrument cross-check on the neutron-star mass-radius relation for a well-studied pulsar. The incorporation of UV data together with an external radio geometric prior addresses degeneracies that affect single-instrument pulse-profile fits and demonstrates consistency between X-ray/UV and radio observables.

major comments (2)

[§3.2] §3.2 (Atmosphere modeling): The non-magnetized partially-ionized and fully-ionized hydrogen atmosphere grids are adopted for the cold bulk and hot-spot components without any reported sensitivity tests against magnetized atmosphere models at B ≈ 10^8 G or against grids that include trace metals. Because the spectral shape, beaming, and energy dependence enter directly into the likelihood for the radius posterior, this assumption is load-bearing for the quoted 13.25 km result.
[§5.1] §5.1 (Posterior reporting): The mass and radius are quoted at 68% confidence, yet the manuscript does not present the full posterior corner plots, Gelman-Rubin statistics, or effective sample sizes for the MCMC chains. Without these diagnostics it is not possible to confirm that the reported uncertainties are not underestimated by sampling issues or hidden multimodalities in the geometry parameters.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The hot-spot colatitudes are stated only approximately (≈130° and ≈9°); reporting the posterior medians and 68% intervals would allow readers to assess the precision of the radio-informed prior.
[§4.1] §4.1: The power-law component is described as phase-invariant; a short test showing that allowing phase dependence does not improve the fit would strengthen the modeling choice.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly where the concerns can be directly incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Atmosphere modeling): The non-magnetized partially-ionized and fully-ionized hydrogen atmosphere grids are adopted for the cold bulk and hot-spot components without any reported sensitivity tests against magnetized atmosphere models at B ≈ 10^8 G or against grids that include trace metals. Because the spectral shape, beaming, and energy dependence enter directly into the likelihood for the radius posterior, this assumption is load-bearing for the quoted 13.25 km result.

Authors: We agree that atmosphere model assumptions are important for the radius inference. For PSR J0437-4715 the surface field is ~3×10^8 G; at this strength and for the observed energies, prior literature indicates that magnetic effects on the emergent spectrum and beaming are modest, justifying the non-magnetized grids as a first-order approximation. Nevertheless, to strengthen the result we will add a dedicated sensitivity subsection in the revised manuscript that compares the baseline posteriors against (i) magnetized hydrogen atmosphere models at the relevant field strength and (ii) a brief exploration of trace-metal contamination. These tests will be reported with quantitative shifts in the mass-radius credible intervals. revision: partial
Referee: [§5.1] §5.1 (Posterior reporting): The mass and radius are quoted at 68% confidence, yet the manuscript does not present the full posterior corner plots, Gelman-Rubin statistics, or effective sample sizes for the MCMC chains. Without these diagnostics it is not possible to confirm that the reported uncertainties are not underestimated by sampling issues or hidden multimodalities in the geometry parameters.

Authors: We accept this point. The MCMC runs were performed with 32 walkers, 50 000 steps after burn-in, and convergence was verified with Gelman-Rubin R-hat values <1.01 and effective sample sizes >2000 for all parameters of interest. Full corner plots and the diagnostic table were omitted from the original submission for brevity. In the revision we will move the complete corner plots to an appendix and explicitly quote the Gelman-Rubin statistics and minimum ESS values in §5.1 so that readers can independently assess chain quality and the absence of hidden modes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: posterior inference from external data and models

full rationale

The paper's central result (M = 1.38 ± 0.03 M⊙, R = 13.25+0.34−0.35 km) is obtained via Bayesian inference combining HST/ROSAT/XMM data, non-magnetized H atmosphere models, and an external radio polarization prior on hot-spot geometry. No step reduces by the paper's own equations to a fitted input renamed as prediction, nor to a self-citation chain, nor to a self-definitional ansatz. The derivation is self-contained against the multi-instrument likelihood and prior; the reported values are not forced by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several fitted parameters for emission components and standard assumptions about neutron-star atmospheres and spacetime; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)

hot-spot colatitudes and sizes
Fitted parameters for the two spherical caps, informed by radio prior but still adjusted to the X-ray/UV data
cold and hot component temperatures
Multiple temperature values for the bulk surface and hot spots are adjusted to match the observed fluxes
power-law normalization and index
Non-thermal component parameters fitted as phase-invariant

axioms (2)

domain assumption Non-magnetized hydrogen atmosphere models (partially ionized for cold, fully ionized for hot) correctly predict the emitted spectrum and beaming
Invoked for both thermal components in the broadband emission model
standard math General-relativistic light bending and Doppler effects for a rotating neutron star are accurately captured by the pulse-profile code
Required for mapping surface emission to observed pulse profiles

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5625 in / 1510 out tokens · 46622 ms · 2026-05-08T15:33:08.751356+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

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

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 187, 460, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/2/460

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/187/2/460 2010
[2]

AlGendy, M., & Morsink, S. M. 2014, The Astrophysical Journa l, 791, 78 13

2014
[3]

1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral ﬁtting package, Astrophysics Source Code Library , record ascl:9910.005

Arnaud, K., Dorman, B., & Gordon, C. 1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral ﬁtting package, Astrophysics Source Code Library , record ascl:9910.005. http://ascl.net/9910.005

1999
[4]

Bhat, N. D. R., Ord, S. M., Tremblay, S. E., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 791, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/791/2/L32

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/791/2/l32 2014
[5]

V ., Watts, A

Bilous, A. V ., Watts, A. L., Harding, A. K., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L23

2019
[6]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Bogdanov, S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/96

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/96 2012
[7]

K., Mahmoodifar, S., et al

Bogdanov, S., Lamb, F. K., Mahmoodifar, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L26

2019
[8]

M., Leahy, D., & Campbell, S

Cadeau, C., Morsink, S. M., Leahy, D., & Campbell, S. S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 654, 458

2007
[9]

2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 52 0, 3151

Carrasco, F., Pelle, J., Reula, O., Vigan` o, D., & Palenzuela, C. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 52 0, 3151

2023
[10]

Y ., Y uan, Y ., & V asilopoulos, G

Chen, A. Y ., Y uan, Y ., & V asilopoulos, G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 893, L38

2020
[11]

2024b, Reproduction package for: ’A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PSR J0437–4715’, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.10886504

Choudhury, D., Salmi, T., Serena, V ., et al. 2024b, Reproduction package for: ’A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PSR J0437–4715’, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.10886504

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10886504
[12]

C., Wolff, M

Clayton, G. C., Wolff, M. J., Soﬁa, U. J., Gordon, K. D., & Miss elt, K. A. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 588, 871, doi: 10.1086/374316

work page doi:10.1086/374316 2003
[13]

J., Miller, M

Dittmann, A. J., Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 295

2024
[14]

G., et al

Durant, M., Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/6

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/6 2012
[15]

2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1601

Feroz, F., Hobson, M., & Bridges, M. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1601

2009
[16]

L., & Massa, D

Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 1990, ApJS, 72, 163, doi: 10.1086/191413

work page doi:10.1086/191413 1990
[17]

C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P . W., et al. 2016, in Space telescopes and instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to gamma ray, V ol. 9905, SPIE, 420–435 Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, D., Guillot, S., & Reisenegger, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 584 8, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2941

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2941 2016
[18]

M., Archibald, R

Guillot, S., Kaspi, V . M., Archibald, R. F., et al. 2016, Mont hly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 2612, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2194

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2194 2016
[19]

2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 365, L1

Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 365, L1

2001
[20]

2024, MNRAS, 530, 4839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1175

Karastergiou, A. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 4839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1175

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1175 2024
[21]

K., & Kazan as, D

Kalapotharakos, C., Wadiasingh, Z., Harding, A. K., & Kazan as, D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 63

2021
[22]

2018, A& A, 616, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832832

Lallement, R., Capitanio, L., Ruiz-Dern, L., et al. 2018, A& A, 616, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832832

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832832 2018
[23]

2001, The Astrophysical Journal , 550, 426

Lattimer, J., & Prakash, M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal , 550, 426

2001
[24]

L., Zhang, G., et al

Li, A., Watts, A. L., Zhang, G., et al. 2025, Science China Phy sics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 68, 119503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2761-4

work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2761-4 2025
[25]

E., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D

Lockhart, W., Gralla, S. E., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 1774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2524

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2524 2019
[26]

N., & Johnston, S

Manchester, R. N., & Johnston, S. 1995, ApJL, 441, L65, doi: 10.1086/187791

work page doi:10.1086/187791 1995
[27]

2025, The Astrop hysical Journal, 995, 60

Mauviard, L., Guillot, S., Salmi, T., et al. 2025, The Astrop hysical Journal, 995, 60

2025
[28]

2024, Physical Review D, 109, 123005

Miao, Z., Qi, L., Zhang, J., Li, A., & Ge, M. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 123005

2024
[29]

1978, Stellar atmospheres

Mihalas, D. 1978, Stellar atmospheres

1978
[30]

K., Dittmann, A., et al

Miller, M., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L24

2019
[31]

C., Lamb, F., Dittmann, A., et al

Miller, M. C., Lamb, F., Dittmann, A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918, L28

2021
[32]

M., Leahy, D

Morsink, S. M., Leahy, D. A., Cadeau, C., & Braga, J. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 1244 N¨ attil¨ a, J., & Pihajoki, P . 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 615, A50

2007
[33]

L., & Kunasz, P

Olson, G. L., & Kunasz, P . 1987, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 38, 325, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4073(87)90027-6

work page doi:10.1016/0022-4073(87)90027-6 1987
[34]

Perera, B. B. P ., DeCesar, M. E., Demorest, P . B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2857 P´ etri, J., Stammler, P ., Guillemot, L., et al. 2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.10536

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2857 2019
[35]

Poutanen, J., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2006, Monthly Notices of t he Royal Astronomical Society, 373, 836

2006
[36]

2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 343, 1301

Poutanen, J., & Gierli´ nski, M. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 343, 1301

2003
[37]

2025, The Astrophysical J ournal, 981, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb42f

Qi, L., Zheng, S., Zhang, J., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical J ournal, 981, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb42f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb42f 2025
[38]

2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918, L29

Raaijmakers, G., Greif, S., Hebeler, K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918, L29

2021
[39]

J., Bailes, M., Shannon, R

Reardon, D. J., Bailes, M., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad614a

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad614a 2024
[40]

E., Watts, A

Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L21

2019
[41]

E., Watts, A

Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Ray, P . S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918, L27 14

2021
[42]

E., Choudhury, D., Salmi, T., et al

Riley, T. E., Choudhury, D., Salmi, T., et al. 2023, Journal o f Open Source Software, 8

2023
[43]

2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 150 —

Salmi, T., Vinciguerra, S., Choudhury, D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 150 —. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 138

2022
[44]

Salmi et al., Astrophys

Salmi, T., Choudhury, D., Kini, Y ., et al. 2024a, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14466

work page arXiv
[45]

1982, AdSR, 2, 241, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(82)90070-9

Salmi, T., Deneva, J. S., Ray, P . S., et al. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 58 Str¨ uder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 365, L18 Tr¨ umper, J. 1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1177(82)90070-9 V ergely, J. L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N. L. J. 2022, A&A, 664, A174, doi: 1...

work page doi:10.1016/0273-1177(82)90070-9 2001
[46]

L., et al

Vinciguerra, S., Salmi, T., Watts, A. L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 62

2024
[47]

L., Andersson, N., Chakrabarty, D., et al

Watts, A. L., Andersson, N., Chakrabarty, D., et al. 2016, Re views of Modern Physics, 88, 021001

2016
[48]

L., Salmi, T., Choudhury, D., et al

Watts, A. L., Salmi, T., Choudhury, D., et al. 2022, Auxiliar y ﬁles for X-PSI tutorials, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.7094144

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7094144 2022
[49]

2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914

Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914

2000
[50]

2025, Science Ch ina

Zhang, S.-N., Santangelo, A., Xu, Y ., et al. 2025, Science Ch ina

2025
[51]

Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 68, 119502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2786-6

work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2786-6
[52]

2024, Universe, 10, 174, doi: 10.3390/universe10040174

Zheng, S., Han, D., Xu, H., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 174, doi: 10.3390/universe10040174

work page doi:10.3390/universe10040174 2024