Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

On Neutron Star Natal Kicks in High-Mass X-Ray Binaries: Insights from Population Synthesis

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 Neutron star natal kicks are best described by a bimodal Maxwellian with 320 km/s for core-collapse supernovae and 80 km/s for electron-capture supernovae.

desk verdict Expanded HMXB sample and BPS setup are valuable, but the headline kick parameters rest on a 3D likelihood that underflows to -inf for most models, so the calibrated values aren't yet credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19672 v1 pith:23JO7ILT submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.HE

Xiangyu Ivy Wang , Xiang-Dong Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarnatalkickshigh-massX-raybinariespopulationsynthesiselectron-capturesupernovaebimodalMaxwelliandistributionpeculiarvelocitiescore-collapse
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

Neutron stars receive a 'natal kick' when they are born in a supernova, and the size of that kick shapes how the surviving binary moves through the Galaxy. This paper tries to measure the kick distribution by assembling 36 neutron-star high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) with astrometric and radial-velocity data, computing their peculiar velocities at birth, and comparing them with a simulated population of HMXBs evolved under different kick prescriptions. The author argues that the observations favor a bimodal Maxwellian distribution: core-collapse supernovae produce neutron stars with a velocity dispersion of $\sigma_1 = 320\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, while electron-capture supernovae produce a slower component with $\sigma_2 = 80\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, and the helium-core mass window for the electron-capture channel is restricted to $(1.83\!-\!2.25)\,M_\odot$. If right, this gives population synthesis and binary evolution studies a concrete kick prescription and ties the slow-kick subpopulation to electron-capture supernovae.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the kick-to-velocity relation for a binary that loses mass in a supernova, $\vec{v}_{\rm sym} = \frac{M'_1}{M'_b} \vec{v}_k - \frac{\Delta M_1 M_2}{M'_b M_b} \vec{v}$, where $M_1, M'_1$ are the exploding star's pre- and post-supernova masses, $M_2$ the companion mass, $M_b, M'_b$ the total pre- and post-supernova binary masses, $\Delta M_1$ the ejected mass, and $\vec{v}$ the pre-supernova relative orbital velocity. This identity converts a hypothesized kick distribution into a predicted distribution of systemic velocities, so the observed space velocities can be used to rank kick models. The ranking machinery is a Monte Carlo binary population synthesis code that evolves $10^7$ binaries, followed by a Kolmogorov\textendash{}Smirnov test on velocities and a Bayesian likelihood on the joint $P_{\rm orb}$\textendash{}$e$\textendash{}$v^{z=0}_{\rm pec}$ distribution.

What would settle it

Take one or more HMXBs with independently known ages and orbital parameters, integrate each orbit backward for its true age rather than 10 Gyr, and compare the resulting disk-crossing velocity with the birth systemic velocity predicted by the supernova mass-loss relation; a systematic offset across several systems would show that $v^{z=0}_{\rm pec}$ is not a faithful proxy for $v_{\rm sym}$ and would reopen the kick fit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a Monte Carlo binary population synthesis model, the paper evolves $10^7$ primordial binaries and retains those that become HMXBs with a companion more massive than $8\,M_\odot$. For each of eleven candidate kick distributions, it compares the simulated systemic velocity $v_{\rm sym}$ (the binary's velocity immediately after the supernova, given by a vector sum of the kick and the pre-supernova orbital velocity, scaled by mass loss) with the observationally inferred birth velocity $v^{z=0}_{\rm pec}$ of 36 NS HMXBs. The velocity comparison alone leaves several models statistically acceptable, so the paper adds a Bayesian likelihood over the orbital period, eccentricity, and birth velocity. The model with the highest joint likelihood is a bimodal Maxwellian with $\sigma_1 = 320\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ for core-collapse supernovae and $\sigma_2 = 80\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ for electron-capture supernovae, with the ECSN helium-core mass in $(1.83\!-\!2.25)\,M_\odot$; the ECSN component contributes about 29% of the NS HMXBs. The paper itself notes that the supernova mechanism is the most important uncertainty and that natal kicks may depend on progenitor properties rather than a universal distribution, so the quoted parameters are the best fit within the assumed framework, not a guaranteed physical law.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observationally derived disk-crossing birth velocity of each HMXB equals the simulated systemic velocity at the moment of neutron star birth; if unresolved orbital motion, errors in the Galactic potential, or the unknown age of each system biases that proxy, the model ranking and the claimed kick parameters change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Population synthesis calculations of neutron-star binaries that use a single Maxwellian kick will miss the slow ECSN component; adopting $\sigma_1=320$, $\sigma_2=80$ km/s with an ECSN He-core window of $(1.83\!-\!2.25)\,M_\odot$ reproduces the observed HMXB velocities, periods, and eccentricities.
  • Under the best model roughly 29% of NS HMXBs form through electron-capture supernovae, so the ECSN channel is a substantial, not rare, contributor to the Galactic HMXB population.
  • The high-velocity system Swift J0243.6+6124, with $v^{z=0}_{\rm pec}\approx 312$ km/s, is either an extraordinary kick or an unreliable radial-velocity measurement; the paper finds the best model survives its removal.
  • Kick models in which both components have dispersions below about 200 km/s are effectively excluded by the combined orbital and velocity data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bimodal picture is correct, low-eccentricity, long-period NS HMXBs may preferentially mark electron-capture supernova births, giving a practical way to tag the formation channel from observable orbital parameters alone.
  • The same comparison could be applied to Be/X-ray binaries or to black-hole HMXBs to test whether the slow-kick component is specific to ECSNe or scales with remnant mass.
  • Because the velocity data alone cannot separate several models, the quoted $\sigma$ values should be read as the best available joint fit rather than a unique inversion; a larger sample with smaller astrometric errors could tighten or shift them.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper compiles astrometric and radial-velocity data for 36 neutron-star high-mass X-ray binaries (NS HMXBs), derives their peculiar velocities and an estimate of the velocity at birth (vz=0_pec), and compares these with binary population synthesis (BPS) simulations. The authors test 11 natal kick models (single and bimodal Maxwellians for core-collapse and electron-capture supernovae) and, based on a 3D likelihood in the (Porb, e, vz=0_pec) space, conclude that the best-fitting model is a bimodal Maxwellian with sigma1=320 km/s for CCSNe and sigma2=80 km/s for ECSNe, with ECSN helium core masses in the range 1.83-2.25 Msun. The paper also reports a velocity-only KS comparison and discusses the role of Swift J0243.6+6124.

Significance. The paper addresses an important and timely question: calibrating neutron star natal kicks from a young, clean population of HMXBs. Its strengths include the enlarged sample of 36 NS HMXBs, the explicit treatment of two ECSN core-mass ranges, and the use of both dynamical and orbital information in model comparison. If the statistical comparison were robust, the derived bimodal kick prescription would be a valuable empirical input for binary evolution and gravitational-wave source studies. However, the central claim currently rests on a likelihood evaluation that is numerically unstable for most models, and the model-selection procedure is internally inconsistent. The underlying astrophysical question is worth pursuing, but the present manuscript does not yet establish the claimed best-fit parameters.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 3] Table 3 reports log Lambda(Porb,e,vz=0_pec) = -inf for 8 of 11 models in the Mecs=1.83-2.25 block and for 9 of 11 in the Mecs=1.83-2.75 block. Since a Gaussian KDE density is strictly positive everywhere, these -inf values can only be floating-point underflow rather than genuine zero likelihoods. Consequently, the finite values (-274.54, -266.04, -188.08) merely identify which models underflow the least and do not provide a meaningful ranking. The authors need to evaluate the likelihood in log space with a numerically stable bandwidth, and to demonstrate sensitivity of the ranking to the KDE bandwidth and to the standardization of the three variables. Without this fix, the claim in Section 5 that sigma1=320, sigma2=80 is the best model is not supported by the stated evidence.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (11)] The likelihood product in Eq. (11) uses only the median vz=0_pec of each source and ignores the asymmetric uncertainties listed in Table 2 (for example, Swift J0243.6+6124 has vz=0_pec = 312.48+12.20/-13.16 km/s). Moreover, the text states that only 24 of the 36 sources have valid Porb and e measurements, but it does not state whether the product runs over 24 or 36 sources or how missing Porb/e values are handled. This ambiguity and the neglect of measurement uncertainties directly affect the likelihood values and the final model ranking. The analysis should marginalize over the full error distributions of all measured quantities and clearly define the sample used in Eq. (11).
  3. [Section 4.2] The model-selection logic is internally inconsistent. The 2D Porb-e likelihood selects the model with sigma1=265, sigma2=30 and Mecs=1.83-2.75, but this model is then discarded because its velocity KS p-value is 0. The 3D likelihood instead selects sigma1=320, sigma2=80 and Mecs=1.83-2.25. The paper does not provide a single consistent statistical criterion that distinguishes these selections; the 'best model' is therefore obtained by a post-hoc reconciliation of two incompatible rankings. A principled combined likelihood (or a joint prior and a stated model-selection rule) is needed before the abstract's claim can be accepted.
  4. [Section 2.3, Section 4.1] The comparison treats vz=0_pec, derived by backward Galactic orbit integration over 10 Gyr and averaging disk-crossing velocities, as equivalent to the simulated systemic velocity vsym at the moment of NS birth. This requires that the unknown age of each HMXB does not bias the disk-crossing average, that the Galactic potential is accurate over the system's lifetime, and that unresolved binary orbital motion does not contaminate the Gaia proper motions. None of these assumptions is tested. The authors should validate the proxy by applying the same backward-integration procedure to synthetic populations with known birth velocities and ages, and propagate the resulting bias into the model comparison.
  5. [Section 4.1] The KS tests are performed using only the median vz=0_pec values and ignore the measurement uncertainties. Given the small sample size (N=36) and the asymmetric error bars in Table 2, the p-values in Table 3 and Figures 1-2 could shift appreciably if the full error distributions were propagated through a Monte Carlo resampling scheme. In particular, the conclusion that certain models are 'eliminated' by the velocity KS test (p < 0.05) should be checked for robustness; this is not merely a cosmetic issue because the filtering is used to argue against the 2D Porb-e preferred model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The text says 'the derived medium vz=0_pec values' but should say 'median'.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 4.2] Several sources have no Porb and/or e listed, while for IGR J11215-5952 and IGR J18027-2016 only eccentricity limits are given. The manuscript should explicitly state how these entries are treated in the Porb-e-vz=0_pec likelihood.
  3. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'We set up two single Maxwellian distributions' is confusing because Table 3 contains 11 models, two of which are single Maxwellians. Rephrase as 'two single-Maxwellian models'.
  4. [Section 2.3] In footnote 4, the phrase 'it was pointed out that vz=0_pec is not influenced by the integration time' would benefit from a precise citation or a more quantitative justification; as written it is vague.
  5. [Figures 3 and 4] The side-panel density plots are too small to read, and some axis labels are ambiguous. Consider enlarging the panels and using clearer labels for the probability density.
  6. [Section 5] The discussion of Swift J0243.6+6124 ('its abnormal velocity... could be inaccurate') is honest, but the claim that excluding it leaves the best model unchanged is not supported by a table or figure; please present this robustness test explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the best-kick claim is a model-selection result against independent astrometric and orbital data.

full rationale

The central claim (bimodal Maxwellian with sigma1=320 km/s, sigma2=80 km/s, and Mecs=1.83-2.25 Msun) is the outcome of comparing BPS-simulated systemic velocities and (Porb,e) distributions with observationally derived v_z=0_pec for 36 NS HMXBs. The simulated velocities are generated from assumed kick distributions via Eq. (9) and the BSE code, while the observed velocities are derived from Gaia astrometry, radial velocities, and Galactic orbit integrations in Section 2, independently of the kick model. Selecting the model with the highest likelihood in Eq. (11) is a fit to external data, not a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs; the reported parameters are the fitted values, not a prediction forced by the model's definition. Self-citations (Shao & Li 2014, 2018; Wang et al. 2016) supply BPS recipes and Mecs ranges, but they are not used to define the comparison or to pre-select the winning kick distribution, so they are not load-bearing for the central claim. Statistical concerns about the -inf likelihood entries in Table 3, KDE bandwidth sensitivity, and the v_z=0_pec proxy are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a chain of adopted inputs: galactic constants and potential, BSE binary evolution recipes, SN remnant mass model, Maxwellian kick parameterization, and the distance prior scale L. The only quantities actually varied to match the data are sigma1, sigma2, and the Mecs range, plus the implicit choice among 11 models; these are fit parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma1 (CCSN Maxwellian dispersion) = 320 km/s (best of 150, 265, 320)
    Dispersion of the Maxwellian kick distribution for core-collapse supernovae; selected by comparing simulated and observed velocities and orbital parameters in Section 4.
  • sigma2 (ECSN Maxwellian dispersion) = 80 km/s (best of 30, 50, 80)
    Dispersion of the Maxwellian kick distribution for electron-capture supernovae; selected in the same model comparison.
  • Mecs range (He core mass for ECSNe) = (1.83-2.25) solar masses (best of two ranges)
    The helium core mass range that defines ECSN progenitors; two ranges were considered and the best was chosen by the likelihood Lambda(D).
  • L (distance prior scale) = 1.97 kpc (adopted from Zhao et al. 2023)
    Exponential prior scale for Bayesian distances; adopted from a prior fit to 125 binary systems, not fitted here, but it affects derived distances and velocities.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Galactic constants R0=8.34 kpc, Theta0=240 km/s, and solar motion (U,V,W) from Reid et al. (2014)
    Used in Section 2.3 to convert heliocentric to Galactocentric velocities.
  • domain assumption MWPotential2014 Galactic potential (Bovy 2015) for orbit integration
    Used in Section 2.3 to subtract Galactic rotation and in backward orbit integration.
  • domain assumption BSE binary evolution prescriptions including CE efficiency alpha_CE=1 and lambda from Wang et al. (2016)
    Defines the binary population synthesis model in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Rapid SN remnant mass model of Fryer et al. (2012) for CCSNe and NS mass 1.3 solar masses for ECSNe
    Determines remnant masses in Section 3.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Kick directions are isotropic and drawn from Maxwellian distributions
    The 11 candidate kick models in Section 3.2 all assume this functional form.
  • domain assumption Observed proper motions of HMXBs trace the binary center-of-mass motion
    Unflagged in Section 2.1; unresolved orbital motion could bias the astrometric proper motions.
  • domain assumption vz=0_pec from 10 Gyr backward integration equals the birth systemic velocity
    Adopted in Section 2.3 following Atri et al. (2019); critical for comparing with simulated vsym.
  • domain assumption All simulated binaries have solar metallicity Z=0.02 and initially circular orbits
    Stated in Section 3.1; initial eccentricities are set to zero.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Neutron Star Natal Kicks in High-Mass X-Ray Binaries: Insights from Population Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/23JO7ILT

@misc{pith2026250419672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Neutron Star Natal Kicks in High-Mass X-Ray Binaries: Insights from Population Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/23JO7ILT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19672}
}
abstract

The motion of neutron stars (NSs) in the Galaxy is largely dependent on natal kicks received by the NSs during supernova explosions. Thus, the measured peculiar velocities of NS high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) provide valuable clues to natal kicks, which also play an important role in the evolution of HMXBs. In this work, we collect proper motions, radial velocities and parallaxes for 36 NS HMXBs to derive their peculiar velocities at the birth of the NSs. We then use binary population synthesis to simulate the velocities of NS HMXBs with various choices of the kick velocity distribution for both core-collapse and electron-capture supernovae. Comparing the simulated and measured velocities, orbital periods, and eccentricities, we show that the natal kick distribution that can best match the observations is characterized by a bimodal Maxwellian distribution with $\sigma_1$ = 320 km s$^{-1}$ (for core-collapse supernovae) and $\sigma_2$ = 80 km s$^{-1}$ (for electron-capture supernovae) and the He core mass for the latter in the range of $(1.83-2.25)$ $M_{\odot}$. Our findings provide useful insights for further population synthesis and binary evolution studies of NS binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19672 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the cumulative distributions for the modeled vsym (red line) of NS HMXBs with Mecs = (1.83 − 2.25) M⊙ and derived vsym (blue line) of 36 observed NS HMXBs. The p-value is also displayed for each model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of the modeled Porb and e of NS HMXBs with Mecs = (1.83 − 2.25) M⊙. The black stars represent the observed NS HMXBs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Evidence of polar and ultralow supernova kicks from the orbits of Be X-ray binaries

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Be X-ray binary orbits imply ultralow isotropic kicks under 10 km/s and polar-aligned kicks near 100 km/s, adding two new modes to the known high-velocity kick population.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Farr, W

    Andrews, J. J., Farr, W. M., Kalogera, V., & Willems, B. 2015, ApJ, 801, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/32

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/32 2015

  2. [2]

    F., & Cordes, J

    Arzoumanian, Z., Chernoff, D. F., & Cordes, J. M. 2002, ApJ, 568, 289, doi: 10.1086/338805 12 W ang et al

    doi:10.1086/338805 2002

  3. [3]

    L., & Bailer-Jones, C

    Astraatmadja, T. L., & Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2016, ApJ, 833, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/119

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/119 2016

  4. [4]

    Atri, P., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2335

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2335 2019

  5. [5]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015

  6. [6]

    1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    Brandt, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    doi:10.1093/mnras/274.2.461 1995

  7. [7]

    F., Fruchter, A

    Brisken, W. F., Fruchter, A. S., Goss, W. M., Herrnstein, R. M., & Thorsett, S. E. 2003, AJ, 126, 3090, doi: 10.1086/379559

    doi:10.1086/379559 2003

  8. [8]

    2024, ApJL, 964, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, ApJL, 964, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e 2024

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    2022, Accreting Binaries; Nature, formation, and evolution, doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ac595f

    Chaty, S. 2022, Accreting Binaries; Nature, formation, and evolution, doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ac595f

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Wisniewski, J

    Chojnowski, S. D., Wisniewski, J. P., Whelan, D. G., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa64ce

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 185, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/185

    Coleiro, A., & Chaty, S. 2013, ApJ, 764, 185, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/185

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    B., Corbet, R

    Coley, J. B., Corbet, R. H. D., Mukai, K., & Pottschmidt, K. 2014, ApJ, 793, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/77

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Chernoff, D

    Cordes, J. M., & Chernoff, D. F. 1998, ApJ, 505, 315, doi: 10.1086/306138

    1998 doi

  6. [14]

    Disberg, P., Gaspari, N., & Levan, A. J. 2024, A&A, 687, A272, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449996

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

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

    Doherty, C. L., Gil-Pons, P., Siess, L., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2017, PASA, 34, e056, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.52

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2018, A&A, 613, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732208

    Doroshenko, V., Tsygankov, S., & Santangelo, A. 2018, A&A, 613, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732208

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H

    Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H. T. 2020, ApJ, 890, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    2022, A&A, 665, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140853

    Fortin, F., Garc´ ıa, F., Chaty, S., Chassande-Mottin, E., & Simaz Bunzel, A. 2022, A&A, 665, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140853

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    2024, A&A, 684, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347908

    Chaty, S. 2024, A&A, 684, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347908

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91

    2012 doi

  13. [22]

    L., & Kusenko, A

    Fryer, C. L., & Kusenko, A. 2006, ApJS, 163, 335, doi: 10.1086/500933 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 —. 2023b, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2006 doi

  14. [23]

    Maccarone, T. J. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz438

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadbae

    Gessner, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2018, ApJ, 865, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadbae

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    1991, A&A, 252, 651

    Gourgoulhon, E. 1991, A&A, 252, 651

    1991

  17. [26]

    J., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R

    Grimm, H. J., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R. 2002, A&A, 391, 923, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020826

    2002 doi

  18. [27]

    Hansen, B. M. S., & Phinney, E. S. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/291.3.569

    1997 doi

  19. [28]

    2000, A&A, 364, L85, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0011516

    Harmanec, P., Habuda, P., ˇStefl, S., et al. 2000, A&A, 364, L85, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0011516

    2000 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    R., & Tademaru, E

    Harrison, E. R., & Tademaru, E. 1975, ApJ, 201, 447, doi: 10.1086/153907

    1975 doi

  21. [30]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 265, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/265

    Heinz, S., Burton, M., Braiding, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 265, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/265

    2015 doi

  22. [31]

    Hills, J. G. 1983, ApJ, 267, 322, doi: 10.1086/160871

    1983 doi

  23. [32]

    H., Lebzelter, T., Fekel, F

    Hinkle, K. H., Lebzelter, T., Fekel, F. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe01

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    2024, ApJL, 972, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6e77

    Hirai, R., Podsiadlowski, P., Heger, A., & Nagakura, H. 2024, ApJL, 972, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6e77

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    R., Lyne, A

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x

    2005

  26. [35]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    2002

  27. [36]

    Igoshev, A. P. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa958

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    P., Chruslinska, M., Dorozsmai, A., & Toonen, S

    Igoshev, A. P., Chruslinska, M., Dorozsmai, A., & Toonen, S. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2734

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    2011, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 3785, 1

    Jain, C., Paul, B., & Maitra, C. 2011, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 3785, 1

    2011

  31. [40]

    2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-094901 —

    Janka, H.-T. 2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-094901 —. 2017, ApJ, 837, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa618e

    2012 doi

  32. [41]

    G., & Nelemans, G

    Jonker, P. G., & Nelemans, G. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 355, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08193.x

    2004

  33. [43]

    D., & Hurley, J

    Kiel, P. D., & Hurley, J. R. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1152, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10400.x

    2006

  34. [44]

    Kojima, Y., & Kato, Y. E. 2011, ApJ, 728, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/75 13

    2011 doi

  35. [45]

    A., & Gilmore, G

    Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.3.545 La Parola, V., D’A` ı, A., Cusumano, G., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.3916, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1305.3916

    1993 doi arXiv

  36. [46]

    2001, in Physics of Neutron Star Interiors, ed

    Lai, D. 2001, in Physics of Neutron Star Interiors, ed. D. Blaschke, N. K. Glendenning, & A. Sedrakian, Vol. 578, 424, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0012049

    2001 doi arXiv

  37. [47]

    F., & Cordes, J

    Lai, D., Chernoff, D. F., & Cordes, J. M. 2001, ApJ, 549, 1111, doi: 10.1086/319455

    2001 doi

  38. [48]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6cdd

    Li, Z., Peng, Q.-H., Kang, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6cdd

    2022 doi

  39. [49]

    F., et al

    Linden, T., Kalogera, V., Sepinsky, J. F., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1984, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1984

    2010 doi

  40. [50]

    Luri, X., Brown, A. G. A., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832964

    2018 doi

  41. [51]

    G., Anderson, B., & Salter, M

    Lyne, A. G., Anderson, B., & Salter, M. J. 1982, MNRAS, 201, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/201.3.503

    1982 doi

  42. [52]

    G., & Lorimer, D

    Lyne, A. G., & Lorimer, D. R. 1994, Nature, 369, 127, doi: 10.1038/369127a0

    1994 doi

  43. [53]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07747, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07747

    Mandel, I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07747, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07747

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [54]

    2011, A&A, 532, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117392

    Roche, P. 2011, A&A, 532, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117392

    2011 doi

  45. [55]

    2001, Nature, 413, 139, doi: 10.1038/35093060

    Guglielmetti, F. 2001, Nature, 413, 139, doi: 10.1038/35093060

    2001 doi

  46. [56]

    1979, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Miyaji, S., Sugimoto, D., Nomoto, K., & Yokoi, K. 1979, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 2, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 13

    1979

  47. [57]

    M., McBride, V

    Monageng, I. M., McBride, V. A., Alfonso-Garzon, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5293, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3445 M¨ uller, B. 2020, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 6, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41115-020-0008-5 Naz´ e, Y., Rauw, G., Czesla, S., Smith, M. A., & Robrade, J. 2...

    2024 doi

  48. [58]

    2023, A&A, 677, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245728

    Neumann, M., Avakyan, A., Doroshenko, V., & Santangelo, A. 2023, A&A, 677, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245728

    2023 doi

  49. [59]

    1984, ApJ, 277, 791, doi: 10.1086/161749 —

    Nomoto, K. 1984, ApJ, 277, 791, doi: 10.1086/161749 —. 1987, ApJ, 322, 206, doi: 10.1086/165716 O’Doherty, T. N., Bahramian, A., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad680

    1984 doi

  50. [60]

    H., Zhang, L

    Peng, Q. H., Zhang, L. D., Luo, X. L., & Chou, C. K. 2004, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 218, Young Neutron Stars and Their Environments, ed. F. Camilo & B. M. Gaensler, 33, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0309090

    2004 doi arXiv

  51. [61]

    2002, ApJ, 574, 364, doi: 10.1086/340794

    Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S., Podsiadlowski, P., & Spruit, H. 2002, ApJ, 574, 364, doi: 10.1086/340794

    2002 doi

  52. [62]

    Poelarends, A. J. T., Wurtz, S., Tarka, J., Cole Adams, L., & Hills, S. T. 2017, ApJ, 850, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa988a

    2017 doi

  53. [63]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Zheng, X. W., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/137

    2009 doi

  54. [64]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/130

    2014 doi

  55. [65]

    2020, A&A, 640, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038333

    Reig, P., Fabregat, J., & Alfonso-Garz´ on, J. 2020, A&A, 640, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038333

    2020 doi

  56. [66]

    2014, A&A, 561, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321408

    Reig, P., & Zezas, A. 2014, A&A, 561, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321408

    2014 doi

  57. [67]

    P., & Nelemans, G

    Repetto, S., Igoshev, A. P., & Nelemans, G. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx027

    2017 doi

  58. [68]

    M., Fraser, M., & Gilmore, G

    Reynolds, T. M., Fraser, M., & Gilmore, G. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1809

    2015 doi

  59. [69]

    D., Pavao, C

    Richardson, N. D., Pavao, C. M., Eldridge, J. J., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 45, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05618-9

    2023 doi

  60. [70]

    T., & M¨ uller, E

    Scheck, L., Kifonidis, K., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2006, A&A, 457, 963, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064855

    2006 doi

  61. [71]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., & Laplace, E. 2023, ApJL, 950, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd77a

    2023 doi

  62. [72]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., & M¨ uller, B. 2021, A&A, 645, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039219

    2021 doi

  63. [73]

    Scott, D. W. 2015, Multivariate Density Estimation:

    2015

  64. [74]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/37 —

    Shao, Y., & Li, X.-D. 2014, ApJ, 796, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/37 —. 2018, ApJ, 867, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae648

    2014 doi

  65. [75]

    Shklovskii, I. S. 1970, Soviet Ast., 13, 562

    1970

  66. [76]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2428

    Sidoli, L., & Paizis, A. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2428

    2018 doi

  67. [77]

    F., Biermann, P., & Mezger, P

    Smith, L. F., Biermann, P., & Mezger, P. G. 1978, A&A, 66, 65

    1978

  68. [78]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  69. [79]

    2021, A&A, 647, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039388

    Tarricq, Y., Soubiran, C., Casamiquela, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039388

    2021 doi

  70. [80]

    M., & Bailes, M

    Tauris, T. M., & Bailes, M. 1996, A&A, 315, 432

    1996

  71. [81]

    M., & Wu, K

    Johnston, H. M., & Wu, K. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1165, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03068.x

    1999

  72. [82]

    M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv990

    2015 doi

  73. [83]

    M., & van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2023, Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.09388 14 W ang et al

    2023 doi arXiv

  74. [84]

    A., & Poutanen, J

    Lutovinov, A. A., & Poutanen, J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L134, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly116 van Leeuwen, F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078357 van Paradijs, J. 1998, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 515, The Many Faces of Neutron Stars., ed. R. B...

    2018 doi arXiv

  75. [85]

    2017, A&A, 608, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731518

    Verbunt, F., Igoshev, A., & Cator, E. 2017, A&A, 608, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731518

    2017 doi

  76. [86]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  77. [87]

    2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 126, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/16/8/126

    Wang, C., Jia, K., & Li, X.-D. 2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 126, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/16/8/126

    2016 doi

  78. [88]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355, doi: 10.1086/161701

    1984 doi

  79. [89]

    2021, ApJL, 920, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc8

    Willcox, R., Mandel, I., Thrane, E., et al. 2021, ApJL, 920, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc8

    2021 doi

  80. [90]

    Wilson, R. E. 1953, Carnegie Institute Washington D.C. Publication, 0

    1953

  81. [91]

    T., & M¨ uller, E

    Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2013, A&A, 552, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220636

    2013 doi

  82. [92]

    Zhao, Y., Gandhi, P., Dashwood Brown, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2226 15 100 101 102 103 104 105 Porb (d) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 e 0 10 20 30 counts 100 101 102 103 104 1050.0 0.5density 0.5 2.0 density 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 σ1 = 150 km s−1, σ2 = ...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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