Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 108 references

Thermonuclear Heating of Accreting Neutron Stars

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thermonuclear burning in accreting neutron star envelopes can deposit at most a few hundred keV per baryon into the crust, far below the MeV-scale shallow heating that observations require.

desk verdict A useful and reproducible envelope boundary-condition package that supports the conclusion that thermonuclear leakage can't explain shallow heating, though the GR validation gap leaves the quantitative bound a bit fuzzy. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02600 v3 pith:HN4252BJ submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.HE

Martin Nava-Callejas , Dany Page , Yuri Cavecchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords accretingneutronstarsthermonuclearburningshallowheatingcrustthermalevolutionX-rayburstsneutrinocoolingenvelopeboundaryconditionsquiescent
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 the thermonuclear burning of accreted hydrogen and helium on a neutron star's surface can heat the star's interior, and how much. The authors build a set of stationary envelope models that include a full nuclear network and turn them into boundary conditions for long-term simulations of the whole star, validating the stationary approximation against time-dependent burst simulations. Evolving these models for a million years across a broad grid of accretion rates, crust conductivities, shallow-heating depths, and neutrino cooling strengths, they find that heat does sometimes flow from the burning envelope into the crust. In the most extreme cases that inward flow amounts to at most a few hundred keV per accreted baryon, far less than the one to three MeV per baryon of shallow heating that observations of cooling neutron stars typically demand. The paper concludes that thermonuclear leakage is a real but quantitatively limited heat source, active mainly at low accretion rates and in stars whose cores cool rapidly through neutrinos.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the stationary accreting envelope model used as a thermal-structural boundary condition at density rho_b = $10^{7}$ g $cm^{-3}$. Each model integrates the envelope inward from the photosphere with a 380-isotope nuclear network, so the resulting relation between boundary temperature T_b and boundary luminosity L_b automatically contains the heat produced by hydrogen, helium, and rp-process burning; the key feature is a temperature inversion in which the luminosity at the base, L_b = Mdot Q_b / m_u, can become negative, meaning thermonuclear energy leaks into the crust. The stationary maps are checked against burst averages of a time-dependent envelope code and then imposed as outer boundary conditions on a neutron star cooling code, letting the star relax to steady state under constant or periodically repeating accretion. The machinery's work is to translate a large parameter space, including accretion rate, outburst duty cycle, crust impurity parameter, shallow-heating strength and depth, and slow versus fast neutrino cooling, into one number: Q_b at the crust-envelope interface.

What would settle it

Run a time-dependent envelope simulation at a low accretion rate for many burst cycles until the temperature at the boundary density stops rising, then compare the burst-averaged Q_b with the stationary prediction; if the averages fall systematically below the stationary curves, the few-hundred-keV ceiling is an artifact of incomplete convergence rather than a physical limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a self-consistent treatment of accretion, envelope nuclear burning, and crust/core thermal evolution limits the envelope's contribution to interior heating. Using stationary accreting-envelope models at a boundary density of rho_b = $10^{7}$ g $cm^{-3}$ that include hydrogen, helium, and rp-process burning, the authors construct accretion-rate-dependent relations between the boundary temperature T_b and the boundary luminosity L_b, validated by comparing burst averages from a time-dependent envelope code. When these relations are imposed on a full neutron star cooling code run to steady state, values of Q_b (the heat per accreted baryon crossing the crust-envelope interface) that are negative, meaning heat flows from the envelope into the crust, reach only a few hundred keV per baryon in the most extreme cases. This is far below the 1 to 3 MeV per baryon shallow heating that observations require, so envelope thermonuclear burning cannot by itself explain shallow heating. The sign and magnitude of Q_b are controlled by the competition between core neutrino cooling, which cools the interior and favors inward flow, and accretion rate plus shallow heating, which warm the crust and favor outward flow.

Load-bearing premise

The entire quantitative map rests on treating the envelope's time-averaged structure as a stationary sequence of models: the time-dependent burst simulations used for validation never reached a true steady state, and the temperature at the boundary density was still rising when those runs stopped.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed MeV-scale shallow heating in quiescent neutron stars must come from mechanisms other than envelope thermonuclear leakage, since the inward flux is capped near a few hundred keV per baryon.
  • Inward envelope-to-crust heat flow is mostly confined to low mass accretion rates, roughly below 3 x 10^-9 solar masses per year, and to cores with strong fast-neutrino cooling.
  • Transiently accreting sources, with colder cores from quiescent periods, are more likely to show heat flowing from the envelope into the crust than persistently accreting sources.
  • The inward heat flow is self-limiting: the layers just below the envelope heat up within about a day, quenching the temperature inversion and reducing the flux.
  • The computed maps of crust-to-envelope heat flow provide a diagnostic that can be inverted with observed cooling curves and burst-quenching accretion rates to constrain crust impurity and core neutrino luminosity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the stationary-average picture survives true steady-state checks, the missing MeV-scale shallow heat must be sought in non-thermonuclear mechanisms such as interface shear, compositional settling, or deep-crust nuclear reactions beyond the standard deep crustal heating.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same boundary-condition machinery to helium-rich or metal-poor accreted compositions would shift the burning layers and could move the inward-flux ceiling either up or down.
  • Editorial inference: the agreement between burst averages and stationary curves suggests the time-averaged envelope structure is set mainly by the mean accretion rate, so stochastic burst-to-burst variability should not change Q_b by more than the few-hundred-keV ceiling; a dedicated long-duration burst simulation could test this.
  • Testable extension: the published boundary-condition tables can be plugged into independent thermal evolution codes to see whether the inward-flux regions shift when different equations of state or neutrino emission models are adopted.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a practical method for including thermonuclear burning in the envelope of accreting neutron stars in long-term thermal evolution simulations. The authors compute stationary accreting envelope models with a 380-isotope nuclear network, convert them into mass-accretion-rate-dependent T_b–L_b boundary conditions at ρ_b = 10^7 g cm⁻³, and validate the stationary approximation against time-dependent MESA envelope models, with the caveat that the MESA runs are not fully relaxed. These boundary conditions are then implemented in NSCool and used to explore persistent and transient accretion over a large parameter space spanning neutrino luminosity, accretion rate, shallow heating strength and depth, and crust impurity parameter. The central result is that heat can flow from the envelope into the crust (Q_b < 0), but the leakage reaches at most a few hundred keV per accreted baryon in the most extreme cases, so it cannot by itself explain the MeV-scale shallow heating inferred from observations. The paper also provides useful by-products, including tables of boundary conditions and a discussion of the implications for X-ray burst quenching.

Significance. If the central quantitative bound survives scrutiny, this is a valuable negative result: it separates envelope thermonuclear burning from the class of mechanisms that could produce the observationally required shallow heating, and it provides a reusable tool for future transient-source modeling. The paper's strengths are its transparency, the large parameter scan (over 7,000 models), the independent MESA comparison, the public availability of the NSCool framework and MESA inlists, and the fact that Q_b is an emergent output rather than a fitted quantity. Several limitations are explicitly disclosed by the authors, including incomplete convergence of the MESA runs and the inability of stationary envelope models to describe the first hours of an outburst. The main concern is a verification gap: the validation was performed in a non-relativistic code setup while the production boundary conditions include general-relativistic effects.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections 2, 3, and Appendix A] The validation of the stationary envelope models is carried out in non-relativistic mode, while the boundary conditions actually used in NSCool include general-relativistic effects. Section 2 states that the stationary code was adapted to be non-relativistic to match MESA, and Section 3 states that the production envelope models include GR effects 'artificially excluded' from the comparison. Appendix A shows that MESA's c_grav implementation misses factors of e^Λ in the temperature-gradient and luminosity equations (Eqs. A4 and A9). The manuscript, however, never compares the relativistic and non-relativistic T_b–L_b relations. Because Q_b is a residual difference between envelope nuclear luminosity and crust thermal flux, a shift in L_b(T_b) of the order implied by e^Λ ≈ 1.3 in a 1.4 M_⊙, 11.56 km model can move the L_b = 0 crossing and change Q_b by hundreds of keV. This gap directly affects the central claim in Section 6 that negative Q_b reaches 'at most a few hundreds keVs'. I request a quantitative comparison of the GR and non-GR T_b–L_b curves (or an equivalent sensitivity analysis) and an assessment of its effect on Figures 6 and 8.
  2. [Section 2, Figures 3 and 4] The MESA validation is not a true steady-state test. The text states that 'reaching the stationary states would require much more computing time', and the caption to Figure 3 notes that T at ρ = 10^7 g cm⁻³ is still increasing with time. The comparison therefore uses burst averages that are still evolving toward the stationary curves. Figure 4, with the boundary placed at ρ_b = 10^7 g cm⁻³, is reassuring, particularly near L_b = 0, but it is not a quantitative convergence test. Since the stationarity assumption is load-bearing for the method, I ask the authors to estimate the remaining drift (for example, by extrapolating the trend in time or by quoting an implied uncertainty in the derived T_b–L_b relation and in Q_b) so that the possible bias in the boundary conditions can be judged.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 6, 8, 10–14] The unit 'Mev' should be 'MeV' throughout the figure labels and captions (e.g., 'Q_b [Mev baryon−1]').
  2. [Figure 10 caption] The caption says 'suppressed deep crustal heating according to the model of Haensel & Zdunik (2008)', but the text of Appendix B and the referenced model describe the suppressed heating case of Gusakov & Chugunov (2020); the caption should be corrected.
  3. [Equation (2) and Section 4] The notation eT_8 for the redshifted core temperature is introduced without defining the tilde; use a single, consistently defined symbol such as ~T_8 throughout the text and equations.
  4. [Section 3, right panel of Figure 5] The text states that for a cold crust the inward energy can be 'very significant, actually comparable to the amount of shallow heating', while Section 6 later explains that the self-consistent models reduce this to a few hundred keV. A forward reference or caveat at the first mention would prevent the reader from over-interpreting Figure 5.
  5. [References] The reference 'Page, Garibay, Nava-Callejas, & Cavecchi 2025' has no journal or publication status; it should be updated or marked as in preparation, especially since it is cited for numerical values of neutrino luminosities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; Qb emerges from coupled envelope–interior evolution with an external MESA benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity Qb is not fitted to a target or defined as its own output. It is obtained by using ˙M-dependent Tb–Lb boundary tables from stationary envelope models as outer boundary conditions in the independent NSCool interior evolution; the interior heat balance then determines Tb and hence Qb. The key negative result — that self-consistent models give negative Qb of at most a few hundred keV, far smaller than the cold-crust values in Figure 5 — is not a restatement of the input tables: it emerges because the crust heats up and quenches the inward gradient, as shown in Figure 9. The stationary-envelope approximation is benchmarked against time-dependent MESA runs, an external public code using a different nuclear network, which provides independent support rather than a self-citation chain. Self-citations to Nava-Callejas et al. (2024a) for the envelope code/net380, to Nava-Callejas et al. (2024b) for the Approx149 network, and to Page (2016) for NSCool are tool or microphysics references, not load-bearing theorems or fitted results. The acknowledged limitations — the GR-versus-non-GR comparison gap in Section 2 and Appendix A, and the fact that MESA runs were not evolved to true steady state ('reaching the stationary states would require much more computing time') — are correctness and validation risks, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to a prior fit, a self-citation, or a renamed known result.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its quantitative claims rest on scanned microphysics inputs (Qimp, Qsh, rho_sh, N8, Mdot, deep crustal heating strength) and on domain assumptions about where nuclear burning acts, how the core cools, and whether stationary envelopes represent bursting envelopes on long timescales. These are standard modeling assumptions in this field, and most are explicitly flagged by the authors.

free parameters (6)
  • Impurity parameter Qimp = Grid: 0, 1, 3, 10, 30, 100
    Controls crust thermal conductivity; the authors explicitly call Qimp a fudge factor mimicking more complex processes. Central Qb depends strongly on it.
  • Shallow heating strength Qsh = Grid: 0, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3 MeV baryon^-1
    Chosen from the range inferred in prior crust relaxation studies; directly controls crust temperature and therefore the direction and magnitude of Qb.
  • Shallow heating deposition density rho_sh = Grid: 1e8, 1e9, 1e10 g cm^-3
    Depth at which shallow heating is released; lower densities have a stronger effect on the temperature near the envelope-crust interface.
  • Core neutrino luminosity normalization N8 = Slow: 1e31 to 1e35 erg/s; fast: 1e35 to 1e43 erg/s
    Scanned from prior isothermal-star calculations (Ofengeim et al. 2017) to mimic different core physics and stellar masses.
  • Mass accretion rate Mdot or Mdot_ob = Grid: 1e-10 to 3.16e-8 Msun/yr
    Main driver of envelope burning and crust heating; six values are used for persistent and transient runs.
  • Deep crustal heating strength = 1.9 MeV baryon^-1 (Haensel and Zdunik 2008) or 0.5 MeV baryon^-1 (Gusakov and Chugunov 2020)
    Two literature models are compared in Appendix Figure 10; the choice affects Qb mainly when heat flows from the crust into the envelope.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Stationary envelope models are a valid first approximation to burst-averaged time-dependent envelopes at the rho_b boundary.
    Section 2 and Figures 3-4: MESA runs did not reach steady state and the averaged T at 1e7 g/cm3 was still increasing, so the approximation is partly extrapolated.
  • domain assumption Nuclear energy generation is negligible at densities above rho_b = 1e7 g/cm3.
    Section 2: 'We chose rho_b = 1e7 g cm^-3 since the generation of nuclear energy past this value is negligible.' If heat generation extends deeper, the boundary condition misses a source.
  • domain assumption The accreted matter has solar composition and the star has M = 1.4 Msun and R = 11.56 km.
    Sections 3-4; the authors state that variations in mass, radius, and composition are left to future work, and composition strongly affects nuclear burning.
  • domain assumption Core neutrino emission can be represented by generic T^8 or T^6 luminosity laws with normalization N8.
    Equation (2), Section 4: this parameterization replaces specific EOS and neutrino process models.
  • domain assumption The core is isothermal due to its extremely high thermal conductivity.
    Section 4: the redshifted core temperature is expected to be uniform; this underpins the one-zone core treatment.
  • domain assumption Crust thermal conductivity is dominated by electron scattering with nu_e = nu_e-ph + nu_e-imp, with Qimp parametrizing impurity scattering.
    Equation (3), Section 4: the impurity treatment is acknowledged as highly uncertain and Qimp as a fudge factor.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermonuclear Heating of Accreting Neutron Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HN4252BJ

@misc{pith2026250502600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermonuclear Heating of Accreting Neutron Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HN4252BJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02600}
}
read the original abstract

We describe a new method to incorporate thermonuclear heating in the envelope of accreting neutron star into long term simulations of their thermal evolution. We obtain boundary conditions for the heat exchange between the envelope and the crust based on stationary models which include nuclear burning and validate these values comparing to the results of the time-dependent code \texttt{MESA}. These simple boundary conditions allow us to explore a large parameter space. We quantify the amount of heat flowing from the envelope into the crust, or viceversa, depending on the mass accretion rate, outburst duration and duty cycle, and especially crust/core physical parameters such as impurities, crustal heating, and neutrino cooling rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of temperature profiles in stationary envelope models at three selected mass accretion rates, as marked in the upper part of the three panels. The horizontal lines denote the temperature Tb at which Lb = 0. Big dots mark the point where nuclear energy generation reaches its maximum: at lower densities 1H burning dominates, at higher densities 4He burning makes a significant contribution for M˙ = 10−10 M⊙ yr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of MESA models of accreting envelopes with four different mass accretion rates, as indicated in each panel. In each panel the upper frames present the evolution of Teff , the central frames the temperatures Tρ at four different densities, as labeled in the lower right panel, and the lower frames the luminosity Lρ at the same densities. See text for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the luminosity versus tempera￾ture, at ρ = 107 g cm−3 and four different accretion rates, of our stationary models, thick lines, and burst averages of our MESA time dependent models. Crosses, ×, show averages over each of the bursts presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the luminosity versus tempera￾ture, at four different accretion rates, of our stationary mod￾els, lines, and burst averages of our MESA time dependent models with boundary at ρb = 107 g cm−3 . Shaded regions are included to avoid ambiguities in the time d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: envelope base luminosity, Lb, versus mass accretion rate, M˙ , for several base temperatures, Tb. Notice the change of Lb scale between the upper (positive Lb) versus lower (negative Lb) parts. Right panel: equivalent envelope base energy per baryon, Qb, ve…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy transfer in persistently accreting models: energy per accreted baryon, Qb, transferred between the crust and the envelope as a function of the neutrino luminosity, N slow 8 for slow processes in the left panel and N fast 8 for fast processes in the right panel, …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: temperature profiles inside neutron star models persistently accreting at a rate of 10−9 M⊙ yr−1 and undergoing fast core neutrino cooling with log10 N fast 8 [erg s−1 ] = 38. Dots at ρ = 107 g cm−3 mark the interface between the stationary envelope and the…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average energy per accreted baryon, ⟨Qb⟩, transferred between the crust and the envelope as a function of the neutrino luminosity, N slow 8 for slow processes in the left panel and N fast 8 for fast processes in the right panel, which are, moreover, separated in six ro…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time evolution of the temperature profile for four models across a 30 day accretion outburst at M˙ ob = 10−9 M⊙ yr−1 in systems with a recurrence time of 300 days. Profiles before, at day -1, and during the accretion outburst up to day 29 are plotted as continuous line…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., & Ravenhall , D

    Akmal , A., Pandharipande , V. R., & Ravenhall , D. G. 1998, , 58, 1804, 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1804

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.58.1804 1998

  2. [2]

    1998, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol

    Bildsten , L. 1998, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 515, The Many Faces of Neutron Stars., ed. R. Buccheri , J. van Paradijs , & A. Alpar , 419. astro-ph/9709094

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    S., & Chechetkin , V

    Bisnovaty i -Kogan , G. S., & Chechetkin , V. M. 1979, Soviet Physics Uspekhi, 22, 89, 10.1070/PU1979v022n02ABEH005418

    work page doi:10.1070/pu1979v022n02abeh005418 1979

  4. [4]

    F., Bildsten , L., & Rutledge , R

    Brown , E. F., Bildsten , L., & Rutledge , R. E. 1998, , 504, L95, 10.1086/311578

    doi:10.1086/311578 1998

  5. [5]

    F., & Cumming , A

    Brown , E. F., & Cumming , A. 2009, , 698, 1020, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1020

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1020 2009

  6. [6]

    E., & Horowitz , C

    Caplan , M. E., & Horowitz , C. J. 2017, Reviews of Modern Physics, 89, 041002, 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.041002

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.041002 2017

  7. [7]

    K., Goodwin , A

    Cavecchi , Y., Galloway , D. K., Goodwin , A. J., Johnston , Z., & Heger , A. 2020, , 499, 2148, 10.1093/mnras/staa2858

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2858 2020

  8. [8]

    L., & Galloway , D

    Cavecchi , Y., Watts , A. L., & Galloway , D. K. 2017, , 851, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9897

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9897 2017

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    F., Zdunik, J

    Chamel, N., Fantina, A. F., Zdunik, J. L., & Haensel, P. 2020, Phys. Rev. C, 102, 015804, 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.015804

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2001, , 548, L175, 10.1086/319107

    Colpi , M., Geppert , U., Page , D., & Possenti , A. 2001, , 548, L175, 10.1086/319107

    2001 doi

  3. [11]

    L., & Narayan , R

    Cooper , R. L., & Narayan , R. 2007, , 657, L29, 10.1086/513077

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    Cornelisse , R., Heise , J., Kuulkers , E., Verbunt , F., & in't Zand , J. J. M. 2000, , 357, L21, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003454

    2000 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cornelisse , R., in't Zand , J. J. M., Verbunt , F., et al. 2003, , 405, 1033, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030629

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    2000, , 544, 453, 10.1086/317191

    Cumming , A., & Bildsten , L. 2000, , 544, 453, 10.1086/317191

    2000 doi

  7. [15]

    2001, , 559, L127, 10.1086/323937

    ---. 2001, , 559, L127, 10.1086/323937

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    F., Fattoyev, F

    Cumming, A., Brown, E. F., Fattoyev, F. J., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. C, 95, 025806, 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.025806

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Cumming , A., Macbeth , J., in't Zand , J. J. M., & Page , D. 2006, , 646, 429, 10.1086/504698

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, , 508, 882, 10.1093/mnras/stab2202

    Degenaar , N., Page , D., van den Eijnden , J., et al. 2021, , 508, 882, 10.1093/mnras/stab2202

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2014, , 791, 47, 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/47

    Degenaar , N., Medin , Z., Cumming , A., et al. 2014, , 791, 47, 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/47

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    2015, , 451, 2071, 10.1093/mnras/stv1054

    Degenaar , N., Wijnands , R., Bahramian , A., et al. 2015, , 451, 2071, 10.1093/mnras/stv1054

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    F., & Page, D

    Deibel, A., Cumming, A., Brown, E. F., & Page, D. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 809, L31, 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L31

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Dohi , A., Hashimoto , M.-a., Yamada , R., Matsuo , Y., & Fujimoto , M. Y. 2020, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2020, 033E02, 10.1093/ptep/ptaa010

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, , 923, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2821

    Dohi , A., Nishimura , N., Hashimoto , M., et al. 2021, , 923, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2821

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, , 937, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8dfe

    Dohi , A., Nishimura , N., Sotani , H., et al. 2022, , 937, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8dfe

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Tan, W., G \"o rres, J., Wiescher, M., & Cooper, R

    Fisker, J. L., Tan, W., G \"o rres, J., Wiescher, M., & Cooper, R. L. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 665, 637, 10.1086/519517

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    1976, , 206, 218, 10.1086/154375

    Flowers , E., & Itoh , N. 1976, , 206, 218, 10.1086/154375

    1976 doi

  19. [27]

    F., et al

    Fortin , M., Taranto , G., Burgio , G. F., et al. 2018, , 475, 5010, 10.1093/mnras/sty147

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Y., Hanawa , T., Iben , I., J., & Richardson , M

    Fujimoto , M. Y., Hanawa , T., Iben , I., J., & Richardson , M. B. 1984, , 278, 813, 10.1086/161851

    1984 doi

  21. [29]

    Y., Hanawa , T., Iben , Icko, J., & Richardson , M

    Fujimoto , M. Y., Hanawa , T., Iben , Icko, J., & Richardson , M. B. 1987, , 315, 198, 10.1086/165124

    1987 doi

  22. [30]

    K., & Keek , L

    Galloway , D. K., & Keek , L. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. T. M. Belloni , M. M \'e ndez , & C. Zhang , 209--262, 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3\_5

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    K., Muno , M

    Galloway , D. K., Muno , M. P., Hartman , J. M., Psaltis , D., & Chakrabarty , D. 2008, , 179, 360, 10.1086/592044

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    H., Pethick , C

    Gudmundsson , E. H., Pethick , C. J., & Epstein , R. I. 1982, , 259, L19, 10.1086/183840

    1982 doi

  25. [33]

    1983, , 272, 286, https://doi.org/10.1086/161292

    ---. 1983, , 272, 286, https://doi.org/10.1086/161292

    1983 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Schatz , H., M \"o ller , P., & Kratz , K.-L

    Gupta , S., Brown , E. F., Schatz , H., M \"o ller , P., & Kratz , K.-L. 2007, , 662, 1188, 10.1086/517869

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Kawano , T., & M \"o ller , P

    Gupta , S. S., Kawano , T., & M \"o ller , P. 2008, , 101, 231101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.231101

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    E., & Chugunov , A

    Gusakov , M. E., & Chugunov , A. I. 2020, , 124, 191101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.191101

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, , 103, L101301, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L101301

    ---. 2021, , 103, L101301, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L101301

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Haensel , P., & Zdunik , J. L. 1990, , 227, 431

    1990

  31. [39]

    2003, , 404, L33, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030708

    ---. 2003, , 404, L33, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030708

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    2008, , 480, 459, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078578

    ---. 2008, , 480, 459, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078578

    2008 doi

  33. [41]

    Hanawa , T., & Fujimoto , M. Y. 1984, , 36, 199

    1984

  34. [42]

    Heger , A., Cumming , A., & Woosley , S. E. 2007, , 665, 1311, 10.1086/517491

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    O., Zheng , J., Maccarone , T

    Heinke , C. O., Zheng , J., Maccarone , T. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18867, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18867

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    K., Wijnands, R., et al

    Homan, J., Fridriksson, J. K., Wijnands, R., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 131, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/131

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Dussan , H., & Berry , D

    Horowitz , C. J., Dussan , H., & Berry , D. K. 2008, , 77, 045807, 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.045807

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    A., & Sunyaev , R

    Inogamov , N. A., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1999, Astronomy Letters, 25, 269, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904333

    1999 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    2010, Astronomy Letters, 36, 848, 10.1134/S1063773710120029

    ---. 2010, Astronomy Letters, 36, 848, 10.1134/S1063773710120029

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    in't Zand , J. J. M., Keek , L., Cumming , A., et al. 2009, , 497, 469, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811432

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    1993, , 404, 268, 10.1086/172275

    Itoh , N., & Kohyama , Y. 1993, , 404, 268, 10.1086/172275

    1993 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Bauer , E

    Jermyn , A. S., Bauer , E. B., Schwab , J., et al. 2023, , 265, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2011, , 743, 189, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/189

    Keek , L., & Heger , A. 2011, , 743, 189, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/189

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    2016, , 456, L11, 10.1093/mnrasl/slv167

    ---. 2016, , 456, L11, 10.1093/mnrasl/slv167

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    Keek , L., Heger , A., & in't Zand , J. J. M. 2012, , 752, 150, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/150

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    Keek , L., in't Zand , J. J. M., Kuulkers , E., et al. 2008, , 479, 177, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078464

    2008 doi

  47. [55]

    Keek , L., Langer , N., & in't Zand , J. J. M. 2009, , 502, 871, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911619

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn , R., Weigert , A., & Weiss , A. 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    S., et al

    Lau , R., Beard , M., Gupta , S. S., et al. 2018, , 859, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfe0

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    2011, , 730, 97, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/97

    Medin , Z., & Cumming , A. 2011, , 730, 97, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/97

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    2014, , 783, L3, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L3

    ---. 2014, , 783, L3, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L3

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

    2015, , 802, 29, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/29

    ---. 2015, , 802, 29, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/29

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    2024, , 535, 1575, 10.1093/mnras/stae2413

    Meisel , Z. 2024, , 535, 1575, 10.1093/mnras/stae2413

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    L., Cackett , E

    Merritt , R. L., Cackett , E. M., Brown , E. F., et al. 2016, , 833, 186, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/186

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    1990, , 362, 572, 10.1086/169295

    Miralda-Escude , J., Haensel , P., & Paczynski , B. 1990, , 362, 572, 10.1086/169295

    1990 doi

  56. [64]

    2025, MESA: Thermonuclear Heating of Accreting Neutron Stars, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15828636

    Nava-Callejas, M. 2025, MESA: Thermonuclear Heating of Accreting Neutron Stars, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15828636

    2025 doi

  57. [65]

    2024 a , RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 800, 10.1093/rasti/rzae055

    Nava-Callejas , M., Cavecchi , Y., & Page , D. 2024 a , RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 800, 10.1093/rasti/rzae055

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09843, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09843

    ---. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09843, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09843

    2024 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    W., & Vautherin , D

    Negele , J. W., & Vautherin , D. 1973, , 207, 298, 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90349-7

    1973 doi

  60. [68]

    D., Fortin , M., Haensel , P., Yakovlev , D

    Ofengeim , D. D., Fortin , M., Haensel , P., Yakovlev , D. G., & Zdunik , J. L. 2017, , 96, 043002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043002

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    S., Wijnands , R., Page , D., & Degenaar , N

    Ootes , L. S., Wijnands , R., Page , D., & Degenaar , N. 2018, , 477, 2900, 10.1093/mnras/sty825

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    S., Vats , S., Page , D., et al

    Ootes , L. S., Vats , S., Page , D., et al. 2019, , 487, 1447, 10.1093/mnras/stz1406

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    2016, NSCool: Neutron star cooling code

    Page , D. 2016, NSCool: Neutron star cooling code . 1609.009

    2016

  64. [72]

    Page , D., Garibay , I., Nava-Callejas , M., & Cavecchi , Y. 2025

    2025

  65. [73]

    2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 497, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.09.019

    Page, D., Geppert, U., & Weber, F. 2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 497, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.09.019

    2006 doi

  66. [74]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 216, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac72a8

    Page, D., Homan, J., Nava-Callejas, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 216, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac72a8

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    M., Prakash, M., & Steiner, A

    Page, D., Lattimer, J. M., Prakash, M., & Steiner, A. W. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 155, 623, 10.1086/424844

    2004 doi

  68. [76]

    2013, Phys

    Page, D., & Reddy, S. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 241102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.241102

    2013 doi

  69. [77]

    S., Wijnands , R., Degenaar , N., Ootes , L., & Page , D

    Parikh , A. S., Wijnands , R., Degenaar , N., Ootes , L., & Page , D. 2018, , 476, 2230, 10.1093/mnras/sty416

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    S., Homan , J., Wijnands , R., et al

    Parikh , A. S., Homan , J., Wijnands , R., et al. 2017, , 851, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9e03

    2017 doi

  71. [79]

    S., Wijnands , R., Ootes , L

    Parikh , A. S., Wijnands , R., Ootes , L. S., et al. 2019, , 624, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834412

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  73. [81]

    2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton , B., Cantiello , M., Arras , P., et al. 2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  74. [82]

    2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  75. [83]

    B., et al

    Paxton , B., Schwab , J., Bauer , E. B., et al. 2018, , 234, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton , B., Smolec , R., Schwab , J., et al. 2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    L., & Bildsten , L

    Piro , A. L., & Bildsten , L. 2007, , 663, 1252, 10.1086/518687

    2007 doi

  78. [86]

    Y., Baiko , D

    Potekhin , A. Y., Baiko , D. A., Haensel , P., & Yakovlev , D. G. 1999, , 346, 345, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9903127

    1999 doi arXiv

  79. [87]

    Y., Chabrier, G., & Yakovlev, D

    Potekhin, A. Y., Chabrier, G., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1997, Astron. Astrophys., 323, 415. astro-ph/9706148

    1997 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Y., Gusakov , M

    Potekhin , A. Y., Gusakov , M. E., & Chugunov , A. I. 2023, , 522, 4830, 10.1093/mnras/stad1309

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    Y., Pons , J

    Potekhin , A. Y., Pons , J. A., & Page , D. 2015, , 191, 239, 10.1007/s11214-015-0180-9

    2015 doi

  82. [90]

    Y., & Yakovlev , D

    Potekhin , A. Y., & Yakovlev , D. G. 2001, , 374, 213, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010698

    2001 doi

  83. [91]

    2017, , 835, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/119

    Poutanen , J. 2017, , 835, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/119

    2017 doi

  84. [92]

    2016, , 94, 015803, 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.015803

    Roggero , A., & Reddy , S. 2016, , 94, 015803, 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.015803

    2016 doi

  85. [93]

    1979, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 62, 957, 10.1143/PTP.62.957

    Sato , K. 1979, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 62, 957, 10.1143/PTP.62.957

    1979 doi

  86. [94]

    1999, , 524, 1014, 10.1086/307837

    Schatz , H., Bildsten , L., Cumming , A., & Wiescher , M. 1999, , 524, 1014, 10.1086/307837

    1999 doi

  87. [95]

    L., & Teukolsky , S

    Shapiro , S. L., & Teukolsky , S. A. 1983, Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact objects (Wiley-Interscience, New York)

    1983

  88. [96]

    N., Gusakov , M

    Shchechilin , N. N., Gusakov , M. E., & Chugunov , A. I. 2021, , 507, 3860, 10.1093/mnras/stab2415

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    2022, , 515, L6, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac059

    ---. 2022, , 515, L6, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac059

    2022 doi

  90. [98]

    S., & Yakovlev , D

    Shternin , P. S., & Yakovlev , D. G. 2006, , 74, 043004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.043004

    2006 doi

  91. [99]

    2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301544

    Strohmayer , T., & Bildsten , L. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301544

    2003 doi arXiv

  92. [100]

    Thorne , K. S. 1977, , 212, 825, 10.1086/155108

    1977 doi

  93. [101]

    N., & Pons , J

    Turlione , A., Aguilera , D. N., & Pons , J. A. 2015, , 577, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322690

    2015 doi

  94. [102]

    K., & Woosley , S

    Wallace , R. K., & Woosley , S. E. 1981, , 45, 389, 10.1086/190717

    1981 doi

  95. [103]

    L., & Maurer , I

    Watts , A. L., & Maurer , I. 2007, , 467, L33, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077326

    2007 doi

  96. [104]

    2013, , 432, 2366, 10.1093/mnras/stt599

    Wijnands , R., Degenaar , N., & Page , D. 2013, , 432, 2366, 10.1093/mnras/stt599

    2013 doi

  97. [105]

    G., & Pethick, C

    Yakovlev, D. G., & Pethick, C. J. 2004, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 42, 169, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134013

    2004

  98. [106]

    G., & Urpin , V

    Yakovlev , D. G., & Urpin , V. A. 1980, , 24, 303

    1980

  99. [107]

    2014, , 445, 3278, 10.1093/mnras/stu1927

    Zamfir , M., Cumming , A., & Niquette , C. 2014, , 445, 3278, 10.1093/mnras/stu1927

    2014 doi

  100. [108]

    L., Haensel , P., Paczynski , B., & Miralda-Escude , J

    Zdunik , J. L., Haensel , P., Paczynski , B., & Miralda-Escude , J. 1992, , 384, 129, 10.1086/170858

    1992 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.