Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Asymmetric accretion and thermal `mountains' in magnetized neutron star crusts

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic funneling alone cannot explain PSR J1023+0038's spin-down; shallow crustal heating could.

desk verdict First estimate of magnetic asymmetry for thermal mountains: robust negative result for standard reactions, but the shallow-heating scenario rests on a fragile extrapolation and still falls short. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05038 v2 pith:KTMEXUSZ submitted 2019-08-14 astro-ph.HE

Neha Singh , Brynmor Haskell , Dipanjan Mukherjee , Tomasz Bulik This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarcrustgravitationalwavesaccretionmoundsmagneticfieldquadrupoledeformationshallowcrustalheatingPSRJ1023+0038continuous
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

Accreting neutron stars may develop crustal 'mountains'—quadrupolar deformations that emit gravitational waves and alter the star's spin. This paper asks whether the magnetic field, which channels accreted matter onto the polar caps and creates asymmetric mounds, can perturb the crust's reaction layers deeply enough to build such a mountain. Using magnetostatic equilibria and an extrapolation to reaction-layer densities, the authors find that standard deep-crustal reactions yield quadrupoles of order $10^{31}$–$10^{33}$ g cm$^2$, far below the $4.4\times10^{35}$ g cm$^2$ needed to explain the extra spin-down of PSR J1023+0038. If a strong shallow heating source exists at densities near $10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$, as cooling observations of transients suggest, the quadrupole rises to $\sim8\times10^{34}$ g cm$^2$ for this pulsar and can reach $\sim3\times10^{38}$ g cm$^2$ for a strongly magnetized Eddington-accreting system, making gravitational waves potentially detectable.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the Grad–Shafranov equation, solved numerically to find the equilibrium density structure of a magnetically confined mound of accreted matter at the polar cap. The density is expanded in spherical harmonics and the ratio $\rho_2/\rho_0$ (quadrupolar to spherical component) is extrapolated linearly to the densities of the crustal reaction layers; there it is converted, through a polytropic equation of state and a model of the heat capacity, into the quadrupolar temperature perturbation $\delta T_q/\Delta T$. That perturbation is inserted into the Ushomirsky et al. (2000) formula for the mass quadrupole produced by reaction layers.

What would settle it

A concrete way to test the claim is to compute magnetostatic equilibria of magnetic mounds with a realistic electron-degenerate equation of state for the outer crust and directly read off $\rho_2/\rho_0$ at densities above $10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$. If the ratio falls to $1\%$ before reaching $10^{10}$ g cm$^{-3}$, the shallow-heating quadrupole for J1023 shrinks below the required value. Alternatively, a detection of continuous gravitational waves from an accreting LMXB would set the ellipticity directly and settle whether the mountain is large enough to explain the spin-down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that magnetic confinement of accreted matter produces a quadrupolar density perturbation that is generally too weak to deform the deep crustal reaction layers enough to explain the observed spin-down of PSR J1023+0038. For standard reactions the induced quadrupole is $Q_T \approx 10^{31}$–$10^{33}$ g cm$^2$, about two orders of magnitude below the required $4.4\times10^{35}$ g cm$^2$. The exception is the outermost, shallow layers: if a shallow heating source releases $Q_M \approx 5$ MeV per baryon at $\rho \approx 10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$, as inferred from cooling curves of X-ray transients, the quadrupole becomes $Q_T\approx -8\times10^{34}$ g cm$^2$ for J1023-like parameters and $Q_T\approx -3\times10^{38}$ g cm$^2$ (ellipticity $\epsilon\approx4\times10^{-7}$) for a persistently accreting star at the Eddington rate with a $10^{10}$ G field, the latter being potentially detectable by current ground-based interferometers.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's quadrupole estimates depend on linearly extrapolating the quadrupolar density perturbation measured at densities below about $10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$ up to reaction-layer densities near $10^{13}$ g cm$^{-3}$, using a neutron-polytrope equation of state that does not match the electron-dominated outer crust; if the true scaling is steeper, the values become upper limits and could be orders of magnitude smaller.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standard deep-crustal reactions alone cannot build a mountain large enough to explain PSR J1023+0038's enhanced spin-down during outburst.
  • The existence of shallow heating at densities below $10^{10}$ g cm$^{-3}$ would make the quadrupole large enough, linking gravitational-wave emission to the same heating source invoked to fit cooling curves.
  • Persistently accreting, strongly magnetized neutron stars with shallow heating could emit continuous gravitational waves at an ellipticity of about $4\times10^{-7}$, within reach of current detectors for known LMXBs.
  • The thermal mountain is erased on a timescale of roughly $0.2 P_{30}^{3/4}$ years, so repeated outbursts are required to accumulate a compositional mountain over many episodes.
  • If the quadrupole comes from temperature asymmetries alone, the signal from a single outburst would be transient; searches need to account for the thermal washout timescale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The extrapolation from simulated densities to reaction layers is the softest point: if the true scaling of $\rho_2/\rho_0$ with density is steeper than linear (the authors themselves note $k\approx2$ is possible), the quoted quadrupoles become upper limits and the shallow-heating explanation for J1023 could weaken.
  • A realistic outer-crust equation of state dominated by degenerate electrons, rather than the neutron polytrope used here, might change the density at which the asymmetry disappears; this is testable in future magnetostatic calculations.
  • The model implies that measuring the spin-down increase of other transitional millisecond pulsars during outburst could serve as an indirect probe of shallow crustal heating, complementing cooling-curve fits.
  • If gravitational waves from a known LMXB are detected in the near future, the amplitude would pin down the strength and depth of the shallow heating layer, not just the magnetic field configuration.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper models magnetically confined accretion mounds on neutron stars using a Grad-Shafranov solver, expands the resulting density distribution in spherical harmonics, and uses the ratio rho2/rho0 to estimate quadrupolar temperature perturbations in crustal reaction layers. The authors linearly extrapolate rho2/rho0 from their simulated densities to the densities of the reaction layers in Table 1, then apply the Ushomirsky et al. (2000) quadrupole formula to estimate thermal mountains. Their central negative result is that standard deep-crustal reactions give mass quadrupoles of order 10^31-10^33 g cm^2, far below the 4.4x10^35 g cm^2 benchmark needed to explain the enhanced spin-down of PSR J1023+0038. Their positive scenario invokes a shallow heating source at rho ~ 10^9 g cm^-3 with Q_M = 5 MeV, for which they quote Q_T ~ -8x10^34 g cm^2 for J1023+0038 and Q_T ~ -3x10^38 g cm^2 for Eddington-rate accretors, and they claim the former can explain the observed spin-down and the latter may be detectable by Advanced LIGO/Virgo.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide a quantitative first step toward connecting magnetic confinement of accreted matter with thermal mountains and continuous gravitational wave emission. The negative result for standard reactions is a useful, conservative confirmation that this mechanism cannot explain PSR J1023+0038 without additional ingredients. The paper also earns credit for using an external observational benchmark rather than fitting to the target spin-down, for using a recent reaction table (Fantina et al. 2018), and for being explicit about several limitations. However, the positive shallow-heating claim is not supported by the paper's own numbers: the quoted quadrupole is about a factor of five below the required benchmark, and the extrapolation on which it rests is fragile and acknowledged by the authors as an upper limit only if the true scaling is steeper. The manuscript is therefore a promising contribution that needs substantial revision before the positive scenario can be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Eqs. (37) and (42)] The headline positive statement is numerically inconsistent with the paper's own benchmark. Equation (42) gives Q_T ~ -8x10^34 g cm^2 for the shallow-heating model, while Eq. (37) states that explaining the spin-down of PSR J1023+0038 requires Q_22 = 4.4x10^35 g cm^2; the former is smaller by a factor of about 5.5. Nevertheless, the text immediately after Eq. (42) says this quadrupole "would explain the increased spin-down of PSR J1023+0038 during outburst." This is not a wording issue: it is the central positive claim of the paper. The authors should either show quantitatively how the remaining factor is supplied (for example by a larger accreted mass, accumulation over multiple outbursts, or an additional mechanism) or explicitly state that shallow heating can only contribute about one-fifth of the required quadrupole.
  2. [§4, Eq. (36) and Table 7; used in §5, Eq. (38)] The extrapolation of rho2/rho0 to the shallow-heating density rests on almost no constraining data. For the hollow-mound model used in Eq. (38) (Table 7, height 0.046 m), the simulated l=0 densities span roughly 2.6x10^2 to 5.6x10^5 g cm^-3, and rho2/rho0 changes from 2.1252 to 2.1249, a relative variation below 0.03%. A linear fit to this essentially constant ratio produces a line that remains near rho2/rho0 ~ 2 out to rho0 ~ 10^9 g cm^-3 by construction; the data do not constrain the behavior there. The authors' own caveat that a steeper decay with k ~ 2 would turn the results into upper limits applies precisely in this regime, and a k=2 power law normalized in the simulated range would reduce rho2/rho0 at 10^9 g cm^-3 by roughly two orders of magnitude. The shallow-heating estimate should therefore be presented as an upper limit with a quantitative sensitivity study (for example k = 1, 1.5, 2), not as the expected value. This concern is compounded by the acknowledged use of a Gamma = 5/3 neutron-polytrope EOS for a region that is actually electron-dominated, as noted in Sections 3.1 and 6.
  3. [§4, Eqs. (33)-(34)] The analytic argument offered to justify the functional form of the extrapolation is internally inconsistent. Equation (33) gives rho2/rho ~ sin^2(lambda_a/R) cos(lambda_a/R), which near lambda_a/R = pi/2 is proportional to (pi/2 - lambda_a/R). For the Gamma = 5/3 polytrope, lambda_a/R grows with density as rho^{3/2} (from Eq. (32)), so (pi/2 - lambda_a/R) decreases with density; however Eq. (34) states rho2/rho ~ rho^{3/2}, which increases with density. The two statements cannot both be true, and Eq. (34) as written predicts the opposite trend from the simulations. This paragraph should be corrected or removed; the case for a linear fit must rest on the numerical data and an explicit uncertainty analysis, not on this scaling argument.
  4. [§3.2 and §6] The linear perturbation framework is used in a regime where it may not be valid. The simulations give rho2/rho0 ~ 2.1 at the base of the mounds (Tables 2-5), and the linear extrapolation keeps this value near 2 at rho = 10^9 g cm^-3; substituting drho/rho0 ~ rho2/rho0 ~ 2 into Eqs. (26)-(27) yields delta T_q/Delta T of order unity, which is not a small perturbation around the spherical background. The paper notes in Section 6 that "treating this effect as a linear perturbation is likely to be an inadequate approach" for the largest quadrupoles, but it does not apply this caveat to the shallow-heating estimate that is the paper's main positive scenario. The shallow-heating numbers should be labeled as order-of-magnitude upper limits obtained from a formally invalid linearization, unless the authors can justify the linear treatment despite rho2/rho0 ~ 2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eq. (4)] The expression "delta T_q/Delta T & 0.03" appears to be a LaTeX rendering error; it should read "delta T_q/Delta T >~ 0.03" or equivalent.
  2. [Tables 2-5] Several table entries have broken superscripts and spacing (for example Table 3 lists "1.012", "9.016", "2.589x10 4", and "5 .44x10-16"), which makes the tables difficult to read; please retypeset them carefully.
  3. [References] The reference entries for Gittins & Andersson (2018) and Parikh et al. (2018) give only "arXiv e-prints" with no arXiv number; please supply complete identifiers or journal details.
  4. [§4, Eq. (36) and Tables 6-9] The symbol rho0 is used both for the l=0 component of the density and as the independent variable in the fit rho0 = A(rho2/rho0) + B; this is confusing. Please introduce a distinct symbol for the fit variable or clarify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quadrupole estimate is a forward calculation from magnetic-mound density perturbations; the J1023 target and shallow-heating input come from independent external analyses.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The density perturbation ρ2/ρ0 is obtained from numerical Grad-Shafranov mound equilibria (Sec. 3.1, Eqs. 13-14) and expanded in spherical harmonics (Sec. 3.2, Eq. 21); it is not fitted to the observed spin-down. The conversion to a temperature perturbation, δTq/ΔT = -[(δp30,q/p30)+(δCk,q/Ck)] (Eq. 26), together with the polytropic relation (Eq. 27) and heat-capacity perturbation (Eqs. 30-31), is an algebraic model with explicitly stated assumptions (e.g., T ≈ ΔT, δT22 ≈ δT20); none of these equations contains the target quadrupole 4.4×10^35 g cm^2. That target is an external benchmark cited from Haskell & Patruno (2017) and Haskell et al. (2018), which are in turn anchored to timing observations of J1023+0038, and the shallow-heating strength QM ≈ 5 MeV is taken from independent cooling-curve analyses (Deibel et al. 2015; Waterhouse et al. 2016; Parikh et al. 2017, 2018). No parameter is fitted to the spin-down observable: the quoted shallow-heating quadrupole QT ≈ -8×10^34 g cm^2 (Sec. 5, Eq. 42) is a forward product of the chosen QM, ΔM, and extrapolated density ratio, and is in fact below the required benchmark. The linear extrapolation (Eq. 36) and the Γ=5/3 neutron-polytrope EOS are acknowledged limitations that affect numerical accuracy and could make the results upper limits, but they are not a restatement of the input or a hidden fit. The self-citations in the paper (Haskell & Patruno 2017; Haskell et al. 2015, 2018) set the observational context and target, but do not supply the derived quadrupole, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard MHD equilibria plus several simplifying assumptions: the specific mound shape, the identification of m=0 with m=2 perturbations, the local-heating temperature ansatz, and especially the linear extrapolation to reaction-layer densities. The shallow heating scenario adds a parameter drawn from cooling observations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Linear fit slope A and intercept B = Varies by model; e.g., A=-9.721e9, B=2.065e10 for hollow mound, B=1e8 G, ΔM=1.63e-15 Msun
    Fit to the GS simulation's ρ2/ρ0 versus ρ0 relation to extrapolate to densities of reaction layers (Eq. 36). The extrapolation is load-bearing for all quadrupole estimates.
  • Shallow heating energy release QM = 5 MeV per baryon at ρ=1e9 g/cm^3
    Chosen within the 1-10 MeV range inferred from cooling observations of X-ray transients (Deibel et al. 2015; Waterhouse et al. 2016; Parikh et al. 2017, 2018); not fitted to the spin-down target, but the choice strongly affects the scenario that could explain PSR J1023+0038.
  • Polytropic EOS constants K and Γ = K = 5.4e9 cgs, Γ = 5/3
    Chosen to approximate degenerate neutron gas and reach high densities; the authors note it is not consistent for the outer crust where degenerate electrons dominate.
  • Background crustal temperature T = 1e7 K for PSR J1023+0038, 1e8 K for Eddington accretors
    Used to evaluate the Debye function in the heat capacity perturbation; chosen as representative, not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Static, axisymmetric ideal MHD equilibrium described by the Grad-Shafranov equation with prescribed mound height profiles (parabolic and hollow).
    Invoked in Section 3.1; assumes a stationary barotropic equilibrium and that the mound can be modeled by one of two height profiles, ignoring time-dependent accretion and possible MHD instabilities beyond saturation.
  • domain assumption The l=2, m=0 density perturbation can be used in place of the l=2, m=2 temperature perturbation (δT22≈δT20).
    Stated in Section 3.2 following Haskell et al. 2008. It is necessary to connect the axisymmetric simulation to the quadrupole that sources GWs.
  • domain assumption Crustal temperature is dominated by local crustal heating, so T≈ΔT(l=0), and δTq/ΔT is given by the sum of fractional pressure and heat capacity perturbations (Eqs. 25-26).
    Invoked in Section 3.2 following Ushomirsky & Rutledge 2001; it links temperature asymmetries to density perturbations.
  • ad hoc to paper The ratio ρ2/ρ0 can be linearly extrapolated to densities up to about 1e13 g/cm^3.
    Adopted in Section 4 based on the apparent linear trend in low-density simulation data and a power-counting argument; the authors acknowledge that if a steeper power law holds, their results are upper limits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymmetric accretion and thermal `mountains' in magnetized neutron star crusts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTMEXUSZ

@misc{pith2026190805038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymmetric accretion and thermal `mountains' in magnetized neutron star crusts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTMEXUSZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05038}
}
read the original abstract

Accreting neutron stars are one of the main targets for continuous gravitational wave searches, as asymmetric accretion may lead to quadrupolar deformations, or `mountains', on the crust of the star, which source gravitational wave emission at twice the rotation frequency. The gravitational wave torque may also impact on the spin evolution of the star, possibly dictating the currently observed spin periods of neutron stars in Low Mass X-ray Binaries and leading to the increased spindown rate observed during accretion in PSR J1023+0038. Previous studies have shown that deformed reaction layers in the crust of the neutron star lead to thermal and compositional gradients that can lead to gravitational wave emission. However, there are no realistic constraints on the level of asymmetry that is expected. In this paper we consider a natural source of asymmetry, namely the magnetic field, and calculate the density and pressure perturbations that are expected in the crust of accreting neutron stars. In general we find that only the outermost reaction layers of the neutron star are strongly perturbed. The mass quadrupole that we estimate is generally small and cannot explain the increase of spin-down rate of PSR J1023+0038. However, if strong shallow heating sources are present at low densities in the crust, as cooling observations suggest, these layers will be strongly perturbed and the resulting quadrupole could explain the observed spindown of PSR J1023+0038, and lead to observable gravitational wave signals from systems with higher accretion rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05038 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plots of the ratio ρ2/ρ0 versus the spherical density distribution ρ0 for two parabolic (full) mound models with B = 108 G and other parameters as in table 2. The ratio is plotted for two heights of the mound, 0.1 m on the left and 0.2 m, which is the last stable model, on the right. As can be seen for lower mound heights the ρ2/ρ0 decreases roughly linearly with density, but for the highest mound models (and thus l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots of the ratio ρ2/ρ0 versus the spherical density distribution ρ0 for two hollow mound models with B = 108 G and other parameters as in table 3. The ratio is plotted for two heights of the mound, 0.04m on the left and 0.13m, which is the last stable model, on the right, as in figure 1. Also in this case the relation between ρ2/ρ0 and ρ0 appears linear for lower accreted masses. Overall, our main justification fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Linear fitting for mound of height 0.1m formed for magnetic field strength of B = 108 G and a parabolic mound profile as shown in figure 1. The linear fitting is done for the points at higher ρ0 which show a linear behavior with ρ2/ρ0. Note that the ticks have been chosen in order to have a convenient labeling. We also test the validity of our extrapolation procedure and of the perturbative expansion by plotting als… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: Ratios of higher harmonics of the density distributions ρl/ρ0 versus distance from the surface for a parabolic (left) and hollow (right) mound profile. In the parabolic case it can be seen that higher harmonics of the density distribution fall off faster th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density distributions for a parabolic mound in the top panel, for two mound heights, 0.1 m and 0.2 m and for a hollow mound in the bottom panel, for mound heights of 0.04 m and 0.13 m. Other parameters are as in tables 2 and 3, although note that for numerical reasons …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 , 116, 061102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , 119, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  3. [3]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101 , 121, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  4. [4]

    P., et al., 2019a, @doi [Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2019a, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.122002 , 99, 122002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.122002

  5. [5]

    P., et al., 2019b, @doi [Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2019b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024004 , 100, 024004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.024004

  6. [6]

    P., et al., 2019c, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab20cb , 879, 10

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2019c, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab20cb , 879, 10

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab20cb

  7. [7]

    A., Cheng A

    Alpar M. A., Cheng A. F., Ruderman M. A., Shaham J., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/300728a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.300..728A 300, 728

    doi:10.1038/300728a0 1982

  8. [8]

    L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09167.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.361.1153A 361, 1153

    Andersson N., Glampedakis K., Haskell B., Watts A. L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09167.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.361.1153A 361, 1153

    arXiv 2005

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1172740 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...324.1411A 324, 1411

    Archibald A. M., et al., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1172740 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...324.1411A 324, 1411

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Chugunov A

    Baiko D. A., Chugunov A. I., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2259 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.5511B 480, 5511

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Bildsten L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311440 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...501L..89B 501, L89

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    Bonazzola S., Gourgoulhon E., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...312..675B 312, 675

    1996

  5. [13]

    F., Bildsten L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305419 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...496..915B 496, 915

    Brown E. F., Bildsten L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305419 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...496..915B 496, 915

    1998 doi

  6. [14]

    F., Bildsten L., Rutledge R

    Brown E. F., Bildsten L., Rutledge R. E., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311578 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...504L..95B 504, L95

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    Cavecchi Y., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/L8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...740L...8C 740, L8

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    F., Zdunik J

    Chamel N., Fantina A. F., Zdunik J. L., Haensel P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.055803 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvC..91e5803C 91, 055803

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    S., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173976 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425..210C 425, 210

    Chong N., Cheng K. S., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173976 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425..210C 425, 210

    1994 doi

  10. [18]

    R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1306 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.3316D 470, 3316

    D'Angelo C. R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1306 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.3316D 470, 3316

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    F., Page D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L31 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809L..31D 809, L31

    Deibel A., Cumming A., Brown E. F., Page D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L31 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809L..31D 809, L31

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    F., Lamb F

    Elsner R. F., Lamb F. K., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155427 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...215..897E 215, 897

    1977 doi

  13. [21]

    F., Zdunik J

    Fantina A. F., Zdunik J. L., Chamel N., Pearson J. M., Haensel P., Goriely S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833605 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    K., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157285 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232..259G 232, 259

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157285 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232..259G 232, 259

    1979 doi

  15. [23]

    Gittins F., Andersson N., 2018, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181100550G

    2018

  16. [24]

    M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.035804 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhRvC..82c5804G 82, 035804

    Goriely S., Chamel N., Pearson J. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.035804 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhRvC..82c5804G 82, 035804

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    L., 1990, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A

    Haensel P., Zdunik J. L., 1990, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A

    1990

  18. [26]

    Haskell B., Patruno A., 2017, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161103 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1103H 119, 161103

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    I., Andersson N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10998.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373.1423H 373, 1423

    Haskell B., Jones D. I., Andersson N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10998.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373.1423H 373, 1423

    2006

  20. [29]

    D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv726 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2393H 450, 2393

    Haskell B., Priymak M., Patruno A., Oppenoorth M., Melatos A., Lasky P. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv726 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2393H 450, 2393

    2015 doi

  21. [30]

    L., Fortin M., Bejger M., Wijnands R., Patruno A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    Haskell B., Zdunik J. L., Fortin M., Bejger M., Wijnands R., Patruno A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    Heng K., Spitkovsky A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1819 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1819H 703, 1819

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    J., Kadau K., 2009, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.191102 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhRvL.102s1102H 102, 191102

    Horowitz C. J., Kadau K., 2009, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.191102 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhRvL.102s1102H 102, 191102

    2009 doi

  24. [33]

    M., Hessels J

    Jaodand A., Archibald A. M., Hessels J. W. T., Bogdanov S., D'Angelo C. R., Patruno A., Bassa C., Deller A. T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/122 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830..122J 830, 122

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    K., Owen B

    Johnson-McDaniel N. K., Owen B. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044004 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvD..88d4004J 88, 044004

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    Klu \'z niak W., Rappaport S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522954 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1990K 671, 1990

    2007 doi

  27. [36]

    F., Rosner R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...553..788L 553, 788

    Litwin C., Brown E. F., Rosner R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...553..788L 553, 788

    2001 doi

  28. [37]

    Mukherjee D., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-017-9465-6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JApA...38...48M 38, 48

    2017 doi

  29. [39]

    Mukherjee D., Bhattacharya D., Mignone A., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt020 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.1976M 430, 1976

    1976 doi

  30. [40]

    Mukherjee D., Bhattacharya D., Mignone A., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1344 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435..718M 435, 718

    doi

  31. [41]

    E., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/184.3.501 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.184..501P 184, 501

    Papaloizou J., Pringle J. E., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/184.3.501 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.184..501P 184, 501

    1978 doi

  32. [42]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9e03 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..28P 851, L28

    Parikh A. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9e03 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..28P 851, L28

    2017 doi

  33. [43]

    S., et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181005626P

    Parikh A. S., et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181005626P

    2018

  34. [44]

    Patruno A., Haskell B., Andersson N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa927a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..106P 850, 106

    2017 doi

  35. [45]

    Payne D. J. B., Melatos A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07798.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351..569P 351, 569

    2004

  36. [46]

    Payne D. J. B., Melatos A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11451.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.376..609P 376, 609

    2007

  37. [47]

    Y., Pons J

    Potekhin A. Y., Pons J. A., Page D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-015-0180-9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..239P 191, 239

    2015 doi

  38. [48]

    Priymak M., Melatos A., Payne D. J. B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19431.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.2696P 417, 2696

    2011

  39. [49]

    Riles K., 2017, @doi [Modern Physics Letters A] 10.1142/S021773231730035X , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MPLA...3230035R 32, 1730035

    2017 doi

  40. [50]

    Shibazaki N., Murakami T., Shaham J., Nomoto K., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1038/342656a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Natur.342..656S 342, 656

    1989 doi

  41. [51]

    C., Taam R

    Spruit H. C., Taam R. E., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172162 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...402..593S 402, 593

    1993 doi

  42. [52]

    G., Mastrano A., Geppert U., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw909 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.3407S 459, 3407

    Suvorov A. G., Mastrano A., Geppert U., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw909 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.3407S 459, 3407

    2016 doi

  43. [53]

    E., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04515.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.325.1157U 325, 1157

    Ushomirsky G., Rutledge R. E., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04515.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.325.1157U 325, 1157

    2001

  44. [54]

    Ushomirsky G., Cutler C., Bildsten L., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03938.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.319..902U 319, 902

    2000

  45. [56]

    Wang Y.-M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310150 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465L.111W 465, L111

    1996 doi

  46. [57]

    C., Degenaar N., Wijnands R., Brown E

    Waterhouse A. C., Degenaar N., Wijnands R., Brown E. F., Miller J. M., Altamirano D., Linares M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2959 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.4001W 456, 4001

    2016 doi

  47. [58]

    L., Krishnan B., Bildsten L., Schutz B

    Watts A. L., Krishnan B., Bildsten L., Schutz B. F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13594.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.389..839W 389, 839

    2008

  48. [59]

    Wijnands R., Degenaar N., Page D., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-017-9466-5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JApA...38...49W 38, 49

    2017 doi

  49. [60]

    A., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191538 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJS...75..449V 75, 449

    van Riper K. A., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191538 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJS...75..449V 75, 449

    1991 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.