pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.24917 · v1 · pith:B7ARABLNnew · submitted 2026-05-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Mass distribution of neutron stars in binary systems

Zhe Hu , GuoLiang Lv , ChunHua Zhu , Sufen Guo , Helei Liu , Lin Li , Zhuowen Li , Zhenwei Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 00:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords neutron starsbinary systemsmass distributionbimodal distributionsuper-Eddington accretionpopulation synthesiscommon envelope evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Super-Eddington accretion model accounts for bimodal neutron star mass distribution in binaries

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

The paper builds a super-Eddington accretion model for neutron stars in binary systems and applies population synthesis to track how their masses change. Mass growth in the model depends on the orbital period and the donor star mass. Short-period systems with donor masses below about 1.6 solar masses allow enough accretion to produce a peak near 1.8 solar masses. Systems that undergo common envelope evolution produce the peak near 1.4 solar masses. This supplies a physical explanation for the observed bimodal pattern based on binary parameters.

Core claim

We constructed a super-Eddington accretion model for accreting neutron stars and investigated the mass growth and distribution of these stars using the population synthesis method. We find, in our model, the mass growth of NSs depends on the binary orbital period and the mass of the donor star. Our results can successfully account for the bimodal distribution of NS masses. The peak distribution of NS masses at around ~ 1.8 Msun primarily originates from NS binary systems where the donor star mass is less than ~ 1.6 Msun and the orbital period is shorter than 20 days; while, NS systems that may undergo common envelope evolution and these NSs can account for the mass peak at 1.4 Msun.

What carries the argument

Super-Eddington accretion model that sets neutron star mass growth according to binary orbital period and donor star mass inside population synthesis calculations

If this is right

  • The higher mass peak near 1.8 solar masses arises mainly from binaries with donor masses under 1.6 solar masses and periods shorter than 20 days.
  • The lower mass peak near 1.4 solar masses arises from binaries that experience common envelope evolution.
  • The bimodal shape emerges directly from the range of orbital periods and donor masses present in the population.
  • Mass retention efficiency varies systematically with these binary parameters under the model assumptions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If correct, the model predicts that the relative heights of the two peaks should change with the distribution of binary periods and donor masses in different stellar populations.
  • Direct mass measurements in systems with measured periods shorter than 20 days could provide a targeted test of the higher-mass channel.
  • The same framework could be applied to black hole binaries to check whether analogous accretion limits produce similar features in their mass distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The super-Eddington accretion model correctly captures the mass transfer rates, retention efficiency, and accretion limits in neutron star binaries.

What would settle it

A large sample of neutron star masses in binaries with known orbital periods and donor masses that fails to show the predicted association between short-period low-mass-donor systems and the 1.8 solar mass peak would falsify the account.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24917 by Chunhua Zhu, Guoliang Lv, Helei Liu, Lin Li, Sufen Guo, Zhe Hu, Zhenwei Li, Zhuowen Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The distribution of orbital periods and companion masses of NS binaries. The color scale represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The left panel shows the mass transfer rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to Figure 2, but for the our model with super-Eddington accretion. In the left panel, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to the left panel of Figure 3, but with modified initial parameters for the model: the initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spin evolution of NSs with different initial parameters under the model of Li et al. (2021) (top row) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of the final neutron star mass ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The NS mass distribution in X-ray binaries and NS+WD binaries. In the two panels of the top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of NS spin periods vs. orbital periods for the low-mass X-ray binaries, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

It is known that the mass distribution of the known neutron stars (NSs) exhibits a bimodal pattern. The origin of this distribution remains a subject of debate. We constructed a super-Eddington accretion model for accreting neutron stars and investigated the mass growth and distribution of these stars using the population synthesis method. We find, in our model, the mass growth of NSs depends on the binary orbital period and the mass of the donor star. Our results can successfully account for the bimodal distribution of NS masses. The peak distribution of NS masses at around ~ 1.8 Msun primarily originates from NS binary systems where the donor star mass is less than ~ 1.6 Msun and the orbital period is shorter than 20 days; while, NS systems that may undergo common envelope evolution and these NSs can account for the mass peak at 1.4 Msun.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a super-Eddington accretion model for accreting neutron stars and applies population synthesis to examine their mass growth and distribution in binaries. It claims that the model reproduces the observed bimodal NS mass distribution, with the ~1.8 M⊙ peak arising primarily from systems having donor masses ≲1.6 M⊙ and orbital periods ≲20 days, while the ~1.4 M⊙ peak is produced by systems that undergo common-envelope evolution.

Significance. If the super-Eddington prescription can be shown to be independently validated rather than adjusted to match the peaks, the result would supply a concrete link between binary-evolution channels and the NS mass bimodality, with implications for accretion physics and population synthesis. The work is potentially significant for astro-ph.SR, but its current impact is constrained by the absence of model equations, calibration details, and robustness tests.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the model 'successfully account[s] for the bimodal distribution' rests on an unvalidated super-Eddington accretion prescription whose mass-transfer rates, retention efficiencies, and limits are not derived, calibrated against observations, or compared to Eddington-limited alternatives; without these, the mapping of short-period, low-mass-donor systems to the 1.8 M⊙ peak cannot be assessed as a prediction rather than a fit.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the attribution of the two peaks to specific donor-mass and orbital-period cuts (and to common-envelope systems) is load-bearing for the headline result, yet the manuscript supplies no parameter values, sensitivity tests, or error analysis for the free parameters (super-Eddington efficiency and common-envelope efficiency); a shift of even a factor of a few in retention efficiency would move the reported mass-growth tracks and remove the bimodality.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract employs approximate symbols (~) for the quoted mass and period thresholds without stating the exact simulation ranges or binning used to define the peaks.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the concerns about the validation of the super-Eddington prescription and the lack of parameter details and sensitivity tests below. We will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the model and its robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the model 'successfully account[s] for the bimodal distribution' rests on an unvalidated super-Eddington accretion prescription whose mass-transfer rates, retention efficiencies, and limits are not derived, calibrated against observations, or compared to Eddington-limited alternatives; without these, the mapping of short-period, low-mass-donor systems to the 1.8 M⊙ peak cannot be assessed as a prediction rather than a fit.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would be improved by a more explicit derivation and presentation of the super-Eddington accretion model. The prescription follows from standard assumptions in the literature allowing accretion rates to exceed the Eddington limit with reduced retention at high rates; we will add the governing equations, the functional form of the retention efficiency, and the applied limits in a dedicated methods subsection. We will also include a direct comparison of NS mass-growth tracks computed with the super-Eddington prescription versus a strictly Eddington-limited case. These additions will allow readers to evaluate whether the mapping to the 1.8 M⊙ peak follows from the model physics rather than from parameter tuning. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the attribution of the two peaks to specific donor-mass and orbital-period cuts (and to common-envelope systems) is load-bearing for the headline result, yet the manuscript supplies no parameter values, sensitivity tests, or error analysis for the free parameters (super-Eddington efficiency and common-envelope efficiency); a shift of even a factor of a few in retention efficiency would move the reported mass-growth tracks and remove the bimodality.

    Authors: We accept that the current manuscript lacks an explicit listing of the adopted parameter values and accompanying sensitivity analysis. In the revision we will add a table of all free parameters (including the super-Eddington retention efficiency and common-envelope efficiency) together with their numerical values. We will further include a new subsection reporting sensitivity experiments in which these efficiencies are varied by factors of two; the results show that the bimodal structure and the association of the 1.8 M⊙ peak with short-period, low-mass donors persist, although the precise peak locations shift modestly. These tests and the associated error estimates on the mass distributions will be presented to demonstrate robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model applied to population synthesis without reduction to fitted inputs

full rationale

The provided abstract and description show the authors construct a super-Eddington accretion model independently, then apply population synthesis to map mass growth as a function of orbital period and donor mass. The resulting accounting for bimodality is presented as an outcome of that mapping rather than a parameter fit or self-citation chain. No quoted equations or sections demonstrate that the target distribution was used to define retention efficiencies or that a uniqueness theorem from prior self-work forces the result. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete. The model necessarily rests on standard population-synthesis assumptions plus an unspecified super-Eddington accretion prescription whose functional form and free parameters are not stated.

free parameters (2)
  • super-Eddington accretion efficiency
    The fraction of transferred mass retained by the neutron star above the Eddington limit must be specified to produce the reported mass growth; its value is not given in the abstract.
  • common-envelope efficiency parameter
    The outcome of common-envelope evolution that is invoked to produce the 1.4 Msun peak is controlled by an efficiency parameter whose value is not reported.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard initial mass function and binary orbital-period distribution for the simulated population.
    Population synthesis codes require assumed birth distributions; these are not re-derived in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5699 in / 1472 out tokens · 44711 ms · 2026-06-30T00:05:50.948820+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

161 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later rem...

  2. [2]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifcmd#1(@)(@)\@nil #2 @lbibitem\@undefined @lbibitem\@lbibitem \@lbibitem[#1]#2 @lb...

  3. [3]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 NAT@ctr 0 @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.=1000 \@...

  4. [4]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "]" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty pages empty not booktitle empty not or or "" archive empty ", " * format.archive * eprint * "" ", " * format.archive * eprin...

  5. [5]

    D., Abraham S., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams A., Adams C., Adhikari R

    Abbott R., Abbott T. D., Abraham S., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams A., Adams C., Adhikari R. X., Adya V. B., Affeldt C., et al., 2021, , 915, L5

    2021

  6. [6]

    A., Cheng A

    Alpar M. A., Cheng A. F., Ruderman M. A., Shaham J., 1982, Nat, 300, 728

    1982

  7. [7]

    C., Ransom S

    Andersen B. C., Ransom S. M., 2018, , 863, L13

    2018

  8. [8]

    H., Koester D., Freire P

    Antoniadis J., Van Kerkwijk M. H., Koester D., Freire P. C. C., Wex N., Tauris T. M., Kramer M., Bassa C. G., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3316

    2012

  9. [9]

    Antoniadis J., Freire P. C. C., Wex N., et al., 2013, Science , 340, 1233232

    2013

  10. [11]

    The millisecond pulsar mass distribution: Evidence for bimodality and constraints on the maximum neutron star mass

    Antoniadis J., Tauris T. M., Ozel F., Barr E., Champion D. J., Freire P. C. C., 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01665

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [12]

    M., Cornish N

    Arzoumanian Z., Brazier A., Burke-Spolaor S., Chamberlin S., Chatterjee S., Christy B., Cordes J. M., Cornish N. J., Crawford F., Cromartie H. T., et al., 2018, , 235, 37

    2018

  12. [13]

    A., Walton D

    Bachetti M., Harrison F. A., Walton D. J., Grefenstette B. W., Chakrabarty D., Fürst F., Barret D., Beloborodov A., Boggs S. E., Christensen F. E., et al., 2014, Nat, 514, 202

    2014

  13. [14]

    D., Freire P

    Barr E. D., Freire P. C. C., Kramer M., Champion D. J., Berezina M., Bassa C. G., Lyne A. G., Stappers B. W., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1711

    2017

  14. [15]

    Bégin S., 2006, PhD thesis, University of British Columbia

    2006

  15. [16]

    J., Freire P

    Berezina M., Champion D. J., Freire P. C. C., Tauris T. M., Kramer M., Lyne A. G., Stappers B. W., Guillemot L., Cognard I., Barr E. D., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4421

    2017

  16. [17]

    Berthereau A., Guillemot L., Freire P. C. C., Kramer M., Krishnan V. V., Cognard I., Theureau G., Bailes M., i Bernadich M. C., Lower M. E., 2023, A&A, 674, A71

    2023

  17. [18]

    B., van Kerkwijk M

    Bhalerao V. B., van Kerkwijk M. H., Harrison F. A., 2012, , 757, 10

    2012

  18. [19]

    Bhat N. D. R., Bailes M., Verbiest J. P. W., 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 124017

    2008

  19. [20]

    Bhattacharya D., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 1991, Phys. Rep., 203, 1

    1991

  20. [21]

    Boccioli L., Fragione G., 2024, Phys. Rev. D , 110, 023007

    2024

  21. [22]

    Carpano S., Haberl F., Maitra C., Vasilopoulos G., 2018, MNRAS, 476, L45

    2018

  22. [23]

    A., 2002, MNRAS, 329, 29

    Casares J., Dubus G., Shahbaz T., Zurita C., Charles P. A., 2002, MNRAS, 329, 29

    2002

  23. [24]

    I., Israelian G., Rebolo R., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2517

    Casares J., González Hernández J. I., Israelian G., Rebolo R., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2517

    2010

  24. [25]

    D., Roy J., Agrawal P

    Chandra A. D., Roy J., Agrawal P. C., Choudhury M., 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2664

    2020

  25. [26]

    M., Han Z., 2013, , 775, 27

    Chen H.-L., Chen X., Tauris T. M., Han Z., 2013, , 775, 27

    2013

  26. [27]

    Chen X., Maxted P. F. L., Li J., Han Z., 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1874

    2017

  27. [28]

    Cognard I., Freire P. C. C., Guillemot L., Theureau G., Tauris T. M., Wex N., Graikou E., Kramer M., Stappers B., Lyne A. G., et al., 2017, , 844, 128

    2017

  28. [29]

    V., Freire P

    Corongiu A., Krishnan V. V., Freire P. C. C., Kramer M., Possenti A., Geyer M., Ridolfi A., Abbate F., Bailes M., Barr E. D., et al., 2023, A&A, 671, A72

    2023

  29. [30]

    de Laguarde A., 1903, Nat, 3, 303

    1903

  30. [31]

    de la Guarde S., 1904, MNRAS, 4, 404

    1904

  31. [32]

    B., Pennucci T., Ransom S

    Demorest P. B., Pennucci T., Ransom S. M., et al., 2010, Nature , 467, 1081

    2010

  32. [33]

    N., Lentati L., Verbiest J

    Desvignes G., Caballero R. N., Lentati L., Verbiest J. P. W., Champion D. J., Stappers B. W., Janssen G. H., Lazarus P., Osłowski S., Babak S., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3341

    2016

  33. [34]

    L., Gil-Pons P., Siess L., Lattanzio J

    Doherty C. L., Gil-Pons P., Siess L., Lattanzio J. C., Lau H. H. B., 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2599

    2015

  34. [35]

    Doroshenko V., Tsygankov S., Santangelo A., 2018, A&A, 613, A19

    2018

  35. [36]

    S., Liu X

    Du S. S., Liu X. J., Chen Z. C., You Z. Q., Zhu X. J., Zhu Z. H., 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14030

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [37]

    M., Fetisova Y., Puls J., 2015, A&A, 577, A130

    Falanga M., Bozzo E., Lutovinov A., Bonnet-Bidaud J. M., Fetisova Y., Puls J., 2015, A&A, 577, A130

    2015

  37. [38]

    M., Chatziioannou K., 2020, Res

    Farr W. M., Chatziioannou K., 2020, Res. Notes AAS, 4, 65

    2020

  38. [39]

    D., Stairs I

    Ferdman R. D., Stairs I. H., Kramer M., McLaughlin M. A., Lorimer D. R., Nice D. J., Manchester R. N., Hobbs G., Lyne A. G., Camilo F., et al., 2010, , 711, 764

    2010

  39. [40]

    R., Sabbi E., Gratton R., Possenti A., D’Amico N., Bragaglia A., Camilo F., 2003, , 584, L13

    Ferraro F. R., Sabbi E., Gratton R., Possenti A., D’Amico N., Bragaglia A., Camilo F., 2003, , 584, L13

    2003

  40. [41]

    T., Pennucci T

    Fonseca E., Cromartie H. T., Pennucci T. T., Ray P. S., Kirichenko A. Yu., Ransom S. M., Demorest P. B., Stairs I. H., Arzoumanian Z., Guillemot L., et al., 2021, , 915, L12

    2021

  41. [42]

    Fortin F., Kalsi A., García F., Simaz-Bunzel A., Chaty S., 2024, A&A, 684, A124

    2024

  42. [43]

    Fournier P., 1901, , 1, 101

    1901

  43. [44]

    C., Camilo F., Kramer M., Lorimer D

    Freire P. C., Camilo F., Kramer M., Lorimer D. R., Lyne A. G., Manchester R. N., D'Amico N., 2003, MNRAS, 340, 1359

    2003

  44. [45]

    Freire P. C. C., Wolszczan A., van den Berg M., Hessels J. W. T., 2008a, , 679, 1433

  45. [46]

    Freire P. C. C., Ransom S. M., Bégin S., Stairs I. H., Hessels J. W. T., Frey L. H., Camilo F., 2008b, , 675, 670

  46. [47]

    Freire P. C. C., Ridolfi A., Kramer M., Jordan C., Manchester R. N., Torne P., Sarkissian J., Heinke C. O., D’Amico N., Camilo F., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 471, 857

    2017

  47. [48]

    J., Harrison F

    Fürst F., Walton D. J., Harrison F. A., Stern D., Barret D., Brightman M., Fabian A. C., Grefenstette B., Madsen K. K., Middleton M. J., et al., 2016, , 831, L14

    2016

  48. [49]

    J., Heida M., Harrison F

    Fürst F., Walton D. J., Heida M., Harrison F. A., Barret D., Brightman M., Fabian A. C., Middleton M. J., Pinto C., Rana V., et al., 2018, A&A, 616, A186

    2018

  49. [50]

    Gao S.-J., Li X.-D., Shao Y., 2022, MNRAS , 514, 1054

    2022

  50. [51]

    Gao Y., Lai X.-Y., Shao L., Xu R.-X., 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2758

    2022

  51. [52]

    K., 1978, , 223, L83

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1978, , 223, L83

    1978

  52. [53]

    K., Hebeler K., Lattimer J

    Greif S. K., Hebeler K., Lattimer J. M., Pethick C. J., Schwenk A., 2020, , 901, 155

    2020

  53. [54]

    J., Freire P

    Guo Y. J., Freire P. C. C., Guillemot L., Kramer M., Zhu W. W., Wex N., McKee J. W., Deller A., Ding H., Kaplan D. L., et al., 2021, A&A, 654, A16

    2021

  54. [55]

    Han Z.-W., Ge H.-W., Chen X.-F., Chen H.-L., 2020, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 20, 161

    2020

  55. [56]

    He J.-G., Shao Y., Xu X.-J., Li X.-D., 2024, MNRAS , 529, 1886

    2024

  56. [57]

    He G., Zhu C., L\" u G., et al., 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , 24, 105007

    2024

  57. [58]

    S., Webbink R

    Hjellming M. S., Webbink R. F., 1987, , 318, 794

    1987

  58. [59]

    R., Lyne A

    Hobbs G., Lorimer D. R., Lyne A. G., Kramer M., 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974

    2005

  59. [60]

    R., Tout C

    Hurley J. R., Tout C. A., Pols O. R., 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897

    2002

  60. [61]

    F., Sunyaev R

    Illarionov A. F., Sunyaev R. A., 1975, A&A, 39, 185

    1975

  61. [62]

    G., Marchant P., Tauris T

    Istrate A. G., Marchant P., Tauris T. M., Langer N., Stancliffe R. J., Grassitelli L., 2016, A&A, 595, A35

    2016

  62. [63]

    L., Belfiore A., Stella L., Esposito P., Casella P., De Luca A., Marelli M., Papitto A., Perri M., Puccetti S., et al., 2017a, Science, 355, 817

    Israel G. L., Belfiore A., Stella L., Esposito P., Casella P., De Luca A., Marelli M., Papitto A., Perri M., Puccetti S., et al., 2017a, Science, 355, 817

  63. [64]

    L., Papitto A., Esposito P., Stella L., Zampieri L., Belfiore A., Rodríguez Castillo G

    Israel G. L., Papitto A., Esposito P., Stella L., Zampieri L., Belfiore A., Rodríguez Castillo G. A., De Luca A., Tiengo A., Haberl F., et al., 2017b, MNRAS, 466, L48

  64. [65]

    L., Gaburov E., Ge H., Glebbeek E., Han Z., Li X.-D., et al., 2013, A&ARv, 21, 59

    Ivanova N., Justham S., Chen X., De Marco O., Fryer C. L., Gaburov E., Ge H., Glebbeek E., Han Z., Li X.-D., et al., 2013, A&ARv, 21, 59

    2013

  65. [66]

    Jia K., Li X.-D., 2014, , 791, 127

    2014

  66. [67]

    W., Filippenko A

    Kandel D., Romani R. W., Filippenko A. V., Brink T. G., Zheng W., 2020, , 903, 39

    2020

  67. [68]

    W., 2020, , 892, 101

    Kandel D., Romani R. W., 2020, , 892, 101

    2020

  68. [69]

    W., 2022, , 942, 6

    Kandel D., Romani R. W., 2022, , 942, 6

    2022

  69. [70]

    L., Bhalerao V

    Kaplan D. L., Bhalerao V. B., van Kerkwijk M. H., Koester D., Kulkarni S. R., Stovall K., 2013, , 765, 158

    2013

  70. [71]

    R., Breton R

    Kennedy M. R., Breton R. P., Clark C. J., Mata Sánchez D., Voisin G., Dhillon V. S., Halpern J. P., Marsh T. R., Nieder L., Ray P. S., et al., 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3001

    2022

  71. [72]

    Y., Karpova A

    Kirichenko A. Y., Karpova A. V., Zyuzin D. A., Zharikov S. V., López E. A., Shibanov Y. A., Freire P. C. C., Fonseca E., Cabrera-Lavers A., 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3032

    2020

  72. [73]

    E., 2013, , 778, 66

    Kiziltan B., Kottas A., De Yoreo M., Thorsett S. E., 2013, , 778, 66

    2013

  73. [74]

    H., Ingram A., Middleton M., Drake J., 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4736

    Knight A. H., Ingram A., Middleton M., Drake J., 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4736

    2022

  74. [75]

    Kroupa P., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  75. [76]

    Ku \'s mierek K., Madej J., Kuulkers E., et al., 2011, MNRAS , 415, 3344

    2011

  76. [77]

    Rev., 45, 449

    Lasota J.-P., 2001, New Astron. Rev., 45, 449

    2001

  77. [78]

    Li L., L \"u G., Zhu C., et al., 2025, Physical Review D , 112, 103005

    2025

  78. [79]

    Li Z., Chen X., Chen H.-L., Han Z., 2019, , 871, 148

    2019

  79. [80]

    Li Z., Chen X., Chen H.-L., Han Z., 2021, , 922, 158

    2021

  80. [81]

    M., 1982, Sov

    Lipunov V. M., 1982, Sov. Astron., 26, 54

    1982

Showing first 80 references.