Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Scaling relations for the uncertainty in neutron star radius inferred from pulse profile modelling: the effect of spin rate

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For millisecond pulsars modelled from a single hot spot, the radius credible interval stops shrinking once spin frequency exceeds about 200 Hz, and the fitted sqrt(beta + gamma/f^2) relation reproduces the plateau.

desk verdict A careful X-PSI simulation study finds that radius credible intervals plateau above ~200 Hz for a single hot spot, but the plateau rests on only three noise realizations per frequency and needs more runs to be robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07471 v1 pith:AHX3SJNK submitted 2025-02-11 astro-ph.HE

Erik Bootsma , Serena Vinciguerra , Anna L. Watts , Yves Kini , Tuomo Salmi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarspulseprofilemodellingmillisecondpulsarsradiusuncertaintyspinfrequencyequationofstateX-raytimingNICER
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether faster-spinning neutron stars always give tighter radius measurements, as earlier analytic work suggested. Using synthetic X-ray pulse profiles generated from a single hot spot with one fixed mass and radius, analysed with the pipeline currently used for NICER data, the authors find that the inferred radius uncertainty shrinks steeply up to about 100 Hz but then flattens: above roughly 200 Hz, additional spin buys no improvement in the 68% credible interval. They fit the trend with a relation of the form ΔR ≈ $\sqrt$($\beta$ + gamma/$f^{2}$), which is consistent with the second harmonic's relative uncertainty losing dominance to other parameter uncertainties at high spin. If the result generalizes, it would change how targets are chosen for pulse profile modelling: in the millisecond range, spin rate would no longer be a primary ranking criterion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the analytic harmonic ratio C2/C1 ≈ k (2π f R_eq/c) sin i sin θ_s, which ties the pulse's second-harmonic amplitude to spin frequency. Propagating its uncertainty into the radius gives the fitting law ΔR_eq(f) ≈ $\sqrt$($\beta$ + gamma/$f^{2}$) (Equation 6), where $\beta$ collects spin-independent parameter uncertainties and gamma encodes the second harmonic's spin dependence. The plateau at about 200 Hz is produced when gamma/$f^{2}$ drops below $\beta$, so the fit's location of the flattening is the argument's load-bearing step.

What would settle it

Simulate the same single-hot-spot configuration at spin frequencies of 300–1000 Hz with many independent noise realisations and test whether the inferred radius credible intervals are statistically consistent with a constant; if they keep narrowing above 200 Hz, the claimed plateau is falsified. A second decisive test is to repeat the analysis with a perfectly known background, since the paper predicts this should restore the inverse-frequency scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for the restricted set of synthetic data studied here, the radius credible interval stops improving once the spin frequency exceeds about 200 Hz, so the previously assumed inverse-frequency scaling ΔR ∝ 1/f does not hold across the millisecond range. The authors show that a two-term relation, ΔR(f) ≈ $\sqrt$($\beta$ + gamma/$f^{2}$), describes the inferred uncertainties well: at low frequencies the second-harmonic term gamma/$f^{2}$ dominates and spin helps; at high frequencies a frequency-independent $\beta$, reflecting uncertainties in the fundamental amplitude, inclination, and hot-spot colatitude, sets a floor. They argue that the flattening begins just where the colatitude and inclination uncertainties become larger than the second-harmonic uncertainty, and they note that the inferred background is much better constrained at high spin even though the radius posterior is not.

Load-bearing premise

The plateau location assumes that only the second harmonic's relative uncertainty shrinks with spin frequency; if the other parameter uncertainties also tighten as spin increases, the ~200 Hz cutoff is not a stable feature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Above about 200 Hz, choosing a faster millisecond pulsar does not, by itself, promise a tighter radius measurement for a single-hot-spot source like the one simulated.
  • Target selection for pulse profile modelling should weigh other source properties, such as flux, background, geometry, and independent constraints, instead of treating spin frequency as the main ranking criterion.
  • The constraining power drops sharply below roughly 100 Hz, so very slow rotators are poor targets for radius inference.
  • Knowing the background precisely, or having tight priors on inclination and colatitude, could restore the inverse-frequency scaling and make fast pulsars valuable again.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this plateau holds generally, the fastest-known pulsars are not automatically the best equation-of-state probes; a strategy of observing many moderate-spin MSPs with varied geometries could outperform concentrating time on the fastest few.
  • The fitted beta term probably encodes the well-known inclination–colatitude degeneracy, so independent geometric information, for example from radio timing, could be the lever that converts spin into tighter radius constraints.
  • A testable extension is to simulate two-hot-spot or non-circular spot geometries: if the second harmonic remains dominant at higher frequencies, the plateau could shift upward.
  • The paper's background result raises the possibility that the plateau is partly an artifact of marginalizing over an unconstrained constant background; direct X-ray background modelling in future analyses may change the scaling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using X-PSI, the paper generates synthetic NICER pulse profiles for a single-hot-spot neutron star (M = 1.6 Msun, R = 10 km, fixed geometry and blackbody spectrum) at nine spin frequencies from 25 to 700 Hz, with three Poisson noise realizations each. For each of the 27 profiles the authors run a full Bayesian inference and record the 68% credible interval on the equatorial radius. They compare the resulting uncertainties with analytic scaling relations: a 1/f relation (Eq. 4) and a sqrt(beta + gamma/f^2) form (Eq. 6). They find that Eq. 4 fits poorly and that, for their restricted configuration, the radius credible intervals flatten above about 200 Hz, so that higher spin does not further improve the radius constraint. The paper also reports a spin-dependent improvement in background estimation and discusses implications for target selection.

Significance. If the plateau result is robust, it is relevant for planning PPM observations and for interpreting simple spin-based scaling arguments. The study's main strengths are the use of a realistic, publicly available pipeline (X-PSI), the inclusion of residual and probability-probability checks, and a clearly restricted statement of scope. The reproducibility package on Zenodo is a further strength. However, the central empirical claim rests on only three noise realisations per frequency and on fits to the same noisy data, so the statistical basis of the ~200 Hz plateau is currently thin.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 7, Section 4.8] The central claim that the radius credible interval does not improve above ~200 Hz is supported only by a chi-squared comparison between a constant and Eq. 6 for the f >= 200 Hz subset, based on three Poisson realisations per frequency. The chi-squared values are not reported, no uncertainties are given for the fitted beta and gamma, and Figure 7 shows large run-to-run scatter (the 700 Hz case is explicitly called out as an exception in Section 4.8). With this sample size, the test is underpowered to detect a continuing decline of the width, so the plateau may be a sampling artefact. Please provide a quantitative assessment of this uncertainty (e.g., bootstrap over noise realisations, additional realisations at 300-600 Hz, or a likelihood-ratio test with power analysis), or weaken the abstract's 'no improvement' wording accordingly.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. 6, Section 4.8] The functional form used to locate the plateau assumes that only the relative uncertainty of the second harmonic depends on spin frequency, with all other contributions absorbed into a frequency-independent beta. If beta itself varies with f (e.g., via frequency-dependent narrowing of the inclination or colatitude posteriors), the fitted flattening at 200 Hz would not be robust. The manuscript lists this as an open question, but it is load-bearing for the 'constant is favoured' test. A direct check of whether beta, or the widths of the theta and i posteriors, changes across the frequency grid would materially strengthen the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.8, 'Statistical caveats'] The sentence 'We do however find that the width of the radius posterior does not vary significantly with NS spin for most of our simulations above 200 Hz ... i.e. over a larger number of trials' is confusing, since only three realisations per frequency are presented; please clarify whether additional trials were made or intended.
  2. [Figure 7] The fits to Eqs. 4 and 6 and the constant are shown without any uncertainty bands, and the reported chi-squared values for the constant-versus-Eq-6 comparison are not given in the text or caption; adding these would make the comparison transparent.
  3. [Section 3.2] The unit of the best-fitting alpha value ('552 kmHz') should be written as km Hz to avoid ambiguity with millihertz.
  4. [Section 2.1] Eq. 5 presents the quadrature sum of uncertainties as an approximate expression for Delta R, but the text later notes that correlations are neglected; using an approximately-equal sign consistently would better match the caveats.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scaling relations are external theory, the fitted parameters are presented as fits, and the central plateau claim is an empirical result from simulated posteriors with explicit caveats.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The analytic scaling relations (Eqs. 1-6) are taken from external work by Poutanen & Beloborodov (2006) and Psaltis et al. (2014), not from the present authors, and the paper explicitly states that it "fit[s] the ΔR_eq(f), obtained from our inference runs, with Equations 4 and 6" (Section 2.1), reporting β = 8.67 km² and γ = 1.38 × 10⁴ Hz² km² rather than presenting these as first-principles predictions. The abstract's claim of no improvement above ~200 Hz is an empirical statement about the simulated 68% credible intervals; the authors independently test whether a constant is favored over Eq. 6 for f ≥ 200 Hz using a chi-squared comparison. Self-citations to X-PSI (Riley et al. 2023) and prior NICER analyses are methodology/tool citations, not load-bearing theoretical assumptions, and the pipeline is validated internally via residual and pp plots. The paper explicitly acknowledges the main limitations: the functional form of Eq. 6 assumes only ΔC₂/C₂ depends on frequency, which may not hold in wider parameter spaces (Section 4.8); only three noise realizations per frequency were used (Section 4.8); and a known background would restore the 1/f scaling (Section 4.6). These are statistical and modeling caveats, not circular reductions: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central measurement is the width of the radius posterior from X-PSI. The main fitted quantities are beta and gamma in the scaling law, plus the alpha used to reject the inverse-frequency model. The analytic expectations come from external work with k = 2. There are no invented entities. The dominant burden is the closed-universe simulation design: the same model generates and analyzes the data, and the background is idealized as a constant, unconstrained count rate in each channel.

free parameters (3)
  • beta = 8.67 km^2
    Proportionality constant in Eq 6, fitted to the measured 68% credible intervals of the equatorial radius across the nine spin frequencies. It sets the height of the plateau in the fitted scaling relation (Section 3.2).
  • gamma = 1.38 x 10^4 Hz^2 km^2
    Frequency-dependent coefficient in Eq 6, fitted to the same posterior width data. It controls the frequency at which the gamma / f^2 term becomes negligible relative to beta (Section 3.2).
  • alpha (Eq 4 fit) = ~552 km Hz
    Best-fit proportionality constant for the inverse-frequency relation of Eq 4, used to demonstrate that a pure 1/f scaling does not describe the data (Section 3.2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Oblate Schwarzschild plus Doppler approximation for the neutron star spacetime and oblate surface
    Used for both simulation and inference in X-PSI; the authors stop at 700 Hz to limit systematic errors from this approximation (Sections 2.2 and 2.3).
  • domain assumption Harmonic ratio approximation for a single small hot spot
    Eq 1, from Poutanen and Beloborodov 2006 and Psaltis et al. 2014 with k = 2, is the basis for the analytic scaling relations tested in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Same surface emission model used for data generation and inference
    The inference assumes the same single circular hot spot with blackbody emission that generated the synthetic data (Section 2.4). This makes the credible intervals a pure statistical-precision test with no model misspecification.
  • domain assumption Background is constant per PI channel and unconstrained, with marginalization over the background rates
    The simulated background is a constant fraction of the source counts, and the likelihood marginalizes over per-channel background rates following Salmi et al. 2022 (Sections 2.2 to 2.4). The paper notes in Section 4.6 that real backgrounds are more complex and that a known background would change the scaling.
  • standard math Poisson statistics for the detected counts and Poisson uncertainty on the background
    Synthetic data are Poisson realizations of the signal plus background, and the analytic uncertainty estimates in Eq 3 assume Poisson noise (Sections 2.1 and 2.3).
  • domain assumption 68% credible intervals are treated as one standard deviation for comparison with the analytic formulas
    Equations 2 to 6 are written for standard deviations, while the inferred quantities are 68% credible intervals. The paper approximates these as Gaussian half-widths and notes cases where the posterior is significantly non-Gaussian (Section 4.8).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling relations for the uncertainty in neutron star radius inferred from pulse profile modelling: the effect of spin rate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AHX3SJNK

@misc{pith2026250207471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling relations for the uncertainty in neutron star radius inferred from pulse profile modelling: the effect of spin rate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AHX3SJNK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07471}
}
abstract

Pulse profile modelling using X-ray data from NICER permits the inference of mass and radius for rotation-powered millisecond pulsars. This in turn constrains the equation of state of cold dense matter. Previous studies indicate that the uncertainty in the inferred radius should reduce as neutron star spin rate increases. Here we test this using one of the pipelines currently being used for pulse profile modelling with NICER data. We synthesize a set of pulse profiles, assuming different neutron star spin frequencies, spanning the range (25-700) Hz. All of the simulated data sets are generated with the same (single) hot spot configuration, assuming a neutron star mass and radius of $1.6\,M_{\mathrm{\odot}}$ and $10$ km. For this restricted set of synthetic data, we find no improvement in the radius credible interval once spin frequency exceeds a certain value (in this specific case $\sim 200$ Hz). If this result were to apply more generally, it would have important implications for the observing strategy for current and future pulse profile modelling missions: targets can be prioritized based on properties other than their spin frequencies, as long as we are in the millisecond range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the simulated X-ray pulsars used to generate synthetic pulse profiles. This shows both the system configuration with respect to the observer as well as the emitting surface pattern. Symbols are explained in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of a residual plot for data simulating the emission of a pulsar rotating at 600 Hz. The considered PI channels are displayed on the y-axis, while in the x-axis we report the adopted bin in rotational phase. The colour bar shows the residuals corresponding to each channel-phase bin. The residuals are calculated according to the formula on the label, where 𝑐𝑖𝑘 and 𝑑𝑖𝑘 stand respectively for counts from the inf… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Probability-Probability (pp) plots for each pulsar spin frequency: from the slowest on the top left to the fastest on the bottom right corner. Each of these panels shows how often (on the y-axis) the injected value is recovered at a certain percentile (on the x-axis) of the inferred posterior distribution. To boost the available statistics, all of the model parameters are included in each of the represented curves. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability-probability plot of the mass and radius, combining the results obtained from all our inferences. They include analyses for data produced with different pulsar spin frequencies and noise realisations. The values in brackets are the p-values, evaluating the c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Inferred posterior distributions for the equatorial radius 𝑅eq. Similarly to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representation of the radius uncertainty as a function of the pulsar spin frequency. In blue we plot the uncertainties obtained with our inferences. The vertical bars represent the ±1 standard deviation over the three inferred 68% credible intervals over the 𝑅eq poster…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic representation of how inferred background changes with the NS spin frequency, for a sub-sample of our simulations. The legend in the top panel applies to all: light pink areas show the contribution of the primary hot spot; above this lies background (darker p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/78 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...78A 791, 78

    AlGendy M., Morsink S. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/78 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...78A 791, 78

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/78 2014

  2. [2]

    a ttil \

    Annala E., Gorda T., Hirvonen J., Komoltsev O., Kurkela A., N \"a ttil \"a J., Vuorinen A., 2023, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatCo..14.8451A 14, 8451

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y 2023

  3. [3]

    Berry C. P. L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804..114B 804, 114

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/114 2015

  4. [4]

    B., Grindlay J

    Bogdanov S., Rybicki G. B., Grindlay J. E., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520793 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..668B 670, 668

    doi:10.1086/520793 2007

  5. [5]

    Bogdanov S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..26B 887, L26

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5968 2019

  6. [6]

    Bogdanov S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abfb79 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914L..15B 914, L15

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfb79 2021

  7. [7]

    Bootsma E., Vinciguerra S., Watts A. L., Kini Y., Salmi T., 2024, Scaling relations for neutron star radius inferred from pulse profile modelling: the effect of spin rate , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.12569159 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12569159

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12569159 2024

  8. [8]

    Buchner J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.125B 564, A125

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    M., Leahy D., Campbell S

    Cadeau C., Morsink S. M., Leahy D., Campbell S. S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...654..458C 654, 458

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    Choudhury D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971L..20C 971, L20

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Cruise M., et al., 2025, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatAs...9...36C 9, 36

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974..295D 974, 295

    Dittmann A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974..295D 974, 295

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..449F 384, 449

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..449F 384, 449

    2008

  6. [14]

    P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

    2009

  7. [15]

    P., Cameron E., Pettitt A

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Cameron E., Pettitt A. N., 2019, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.1306.2144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019OJAp....2E..10F 2, 10

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    C., et al., 2016, in den Herder J.-W

    Gendreau K. C., et al., 2016, in den Herder J.-W. A., Takahashi T., Bautz M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 99051H, @doi 10.1117/12.2231304

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Tolos L., Provid \^e ncia C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.4650H 529, 4650

    Huang C., Raaijmakers G., Watts A. L., Tolos L., Provid \^e ncia C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.4650H 529, 4650

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Kini Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3389K 522, 3389

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Kini Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8118K 527, 8118

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    N., Williams N., Zimmerman A., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.06009 , p

    Krishna K., Vijaykumar A., Ganguly A., Talbot C., Biscoveanu S., George R. N., Williams N., Zimmerman A., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.06009 , p. arXiv:2312.06009

    2023 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kurkela A., Rajagopal K., Steinhorst R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.262701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvL.132z2701K 132, 262701

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    H., Miller M

    Lo K. H., Miller M. C., Bhattacharyya S., Lamb F. K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/19 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...19L 776, 19

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Lamb F

    Miller M. C., Lamb F. K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808...31M 808, 31

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..24M 887, L24

    Miller M. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..24M 887, L24

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..28M 918, L28

    Miller M. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..28M 918, L28

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Leahy D

    Morsink S. M., Leahy D. A., Cadeau C., Braga J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518648 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663.1244M 663, 1244

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    O zel F., Psaltis D., Arzoumanian Z., Morsink S., Baub \

    \"O zel F., Psaltis D., Arzoumanian Z., Morsink S., Baub \"o ck M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...832...92O 832, 92

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Pang P. T. H., Sivertsen L., Somasundaram R., Dietrich T., Sen S., Tews I., Coughlin M. W., Van Den Broeck C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.025807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvC.109b5807P 109, 025807

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11088.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373..836P 373, 836

    Poutanen J., Beloborodov A. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11088.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373..836P 373, 836

    2006

  22. [30]

    Poutanen J., Gierli \'n ski M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06773.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.343.1301P 343, 1301

    2003

  23. [31]

    Psaltis D., \"O zel F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...87P 792, 87

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Psaltis D., \"O zel F., Chakrabarty D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787..136P 787, 136

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    S., et al., 2024, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.10.4.042504 , 10, 042504

    Ray P. S., et al., 2024, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.10.4.042504 , 10, 042504

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    E., 2019, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, https://hdl.handle.net/11245.1/aa86fcf3-2437-4bc2-810e-cf9f30a98f7a

    Riley T. E., 2019, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, https://hdl.handle.net/11245.1/aa86fcf3-2437-4bc2-810e-cf9f30a98f7a

    2019

  27. [35]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..21R 887, L21

    Riley T. E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..21R 887, L21

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..27R 918, L27

    Riley T. E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..27R 918, L27

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.04977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JOSS....8.4977R 8, 4977

    Riley T. E., et al., 2023, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.04977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JOSS....8.4977R 8, 4977

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Rutherford N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f02 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971L..19R 971, L19

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Salmi T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac983d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..150S 941, 150

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Salmi T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf49d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956..138S 956, 138

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Salmi T., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974..294S 974, 294

    doi

  34. [42]

    Salmi T., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad81d2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976...58S 976, 58

    doi

  35. [43]

    O., Pappas G., Yunes N., Yagi K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.103f3038S 103, 063038

    Silva H. O., Pappas G., Yunes N., Yagi K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.103f3038S 103, 063038

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Tak \'a tsy J., Kov \'a cs P., Wolf G., Schaffner-Bielich J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.108d3002T 108, 043002

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Viironen K., Poutanen J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...426..985V 426, 985

    2004 doi

  38. [46]

    L., Choudhury D., Kini Y., Riley T

    Vinciguerra S., Salmi T., Watts A. L., Choudhury D., Kini Y., Riley T. E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf9a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...55V 959, 55

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Vinciguerra S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961...62V 961, 62

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    L., 2019, in Xiamen-CUSTIPEN Workshop on the Equation of State of Dense Neutron-Rich Matter in the Era of Gravitational Wave Astronomy

    Watts A. L., 2019, in Xiamen-CUSTIPEN Workshop on the Equation of State of Dense Neutron-Rich Matter in the Era of Gravitational Wave Astronomy. p. 020008 ( @eprint arXiv 1904.07012 ), @doi 10.1063/1.5117798

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.021001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016RvMP...88b1001W 88, 021001

    Watts A. L., et al., 2016, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.021001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016RvMP...88b1001W 88, 021001

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    L., et al., 2019, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-017-9188-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SCPMA..6229503W 62, 29503

    Watts A. L., et al., 2019, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-017-9188-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SCPMA..6229503W 62, 29503

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Zhu Z., Li A., Liu T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac1f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..163Z 943, 163

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.