The effect of opacity on neutron star Type I X-ray burst quenching

Dany Page; Martin Nava-Callejas; Yuri Cavecchi

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The effect of opacity on neutron star Type I X-ray burst quenching

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulations show that boosting the opacity of the outer neutron star envelope by a factor of about 8 to 10 suppresses Type I X-ray bursts at the observed critical accretion rate of roughly 0.3 Eddington.

desk verdict Solid proof-of-principle that an opacity boost in the outer envelope can quench Type I bursts at the observed rate, but the required 8–10x enhancement is a placeholder for an unknown process. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09843 v1 pith:BWI5VTDE submitted 2024-11-14 astro-ph.HE

Martin Nava-Callejas , Yuri Cavecchi , Dany Page This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords accretiondiscsstars:neutronX-rays:binariesburstsopacityTypeIX-raynuclearburningstability

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 addresses a long-standing mismatch between theory and observations of Type I X-ray bursts: bursts are observed to disappear at about one-third of the Eddington accretion rate, while standard simulations predict they should persist to much higher rates. The authors show with one-dimensional stellar evolution simulations that increasing the opacity of the envelope near the surface by a factor of about 8 to 10 shifts the quenching threshold down into the observed range. The stabilizing agent is specifically the electron-scattering component of the opacity at densities below about $10^{5}$ g $cm^{-3}$, while enhancing the free-free or conductive opacity does not quench bursts. The result offers an alternative to the commonly invoked shallow heating, but it depends on some as-yet-unknown physical process being able to raise the effective opacity by that large a factor.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the opacity of the accreted envelope, particularly its electron-scattering component. The authors override the radiative opacity with a custom routine that combines free-free, electron scattering, and a correction factor, then apply a global multiplicative factor to the total opacity. The electron-scattering contribution, which dominates below roughly $10^{5}$ g $cm^{-3}$, is the one that matters: increasing it by a factor of 8 to 10 keeps the burning layer warmer, causes it to ignite at lower density, and above 0.3 to 0.35 M_Edd makes the burning stable. The simulations use a custom 140-species nuclear network and an adjustable base luminosity, and the authors verify that the quenching is insensitive to time-step controls, mesh resolution, network size, base composition, and accreted composition.

What would settle it

A first-principles calculation of the envelope opacity at densities between about $10^{3}$ and $10^{5}$ g $cm^{-3}$, including bound-bound transitions and line blanketing, that shows the total opacity cannot exceed electron scattering by a factor of 8 to 10 would falsify the mechanism; conversely, a secure observation of a burst-quenched source with accretion rate above 0.35 M_Edd and a low inferred envelope opacity would also contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an opacity enhancement in the low-density outer layers of the accreted neutron star envelope can quench Type I X-ray bursts at the observed critical accretion rate of roughly 0.3 to 0.35 M_Edd. In the simulations, multiplying the whole opacity by a factor of 10 causes bursting to cease between 0.3 and 0.35 M_Edd, and isolating the individual components shows that the responsible piece is the electron-scattering opacity at densities below about $10^{5}$ g $cm^{-3}$. Increasing only the free-free or the conductive opacity by the same factor does not stabilize the burning. The authors present this as a viable alternative or complement to shallow heating, while explicitly noting that the factor-8-to-10 opacity increase is a proxy for an unidentified physical mechanism acting in that density range.

Load-bearing premise

The entire mechanism rests on the assumption that some real physical process can raise the effective opacity of the low-density envelope by a factor of 8 to 10, because electron scattering itself cannot; the paper explicitly frames the factor as a proxy for an unidentified process.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the envelope opacity is indeed enhanced by a factor of order 10, Type I bursts should disappear in the range 0.3 to 0.35 M_Edd, matching the observed distribution of quenched sources.
Because the effect is tied to electron scattering at densities below about 10^5 g cm^-3, observations or microphysical calculations that constrain the opacity in that outer envelope directly test the mechanism.
The mechanism can combine with shallow heating: the required opacity factor is smaller when the base luminosity is larger, so the quenching threshold depends on the combination of both inputs.
The insensitivity to free-free opacity means that uncertainties in atomic opacities at higher densities, including those from rp-process ashes, do not affect the burst-quenching prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same qualitative behaviour is reproduced with a physically motivated opacity enhancement (for example, bound-bound contributions or magnetic field effects) rather than a crude multiplicative factor, the prediction that low-density electron scattering controls the quenching threshold would likely be strengthened.
The opacity factor can be reinterpreted as a heat-retention coefficient: any process that reduces heat loss from the burning layer, such as a lower thermal conductivity or an additional distributed heat source, should produce similar quenching and may be observationally degenerate with opacity.
A source that keeps bursting at accretion rates above 0.35 M_Edd despite a high inferred envelope opacity would indicate that the enhancement does not operate there, possibly because of differences in composition or magnetic field strength.
Archival burst data could be searched for a correlation between the inferred quenching accretion rate and spectral or timing indicators of high envelope opacity, which would provide an indirect, source-by-source test.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's what you should know: this paper reports MESA simulations showing that if the opacity in the outer envelope (below roughly 1e5 g/cm3) is raised by a factor of 8–10, Type I X-ray bursts are suppressed at an accretion rate around 0.3–0.4 M_Edd, matching observations. The authors are careful: Appendix A checks timestep, mesh, network size, and composition, and the component decomposition in Section 3.3 cleanly isolates electron scattering opacity as the responsible agent. The numerical result is solid, and the idea of opacity as a quenching agent is genuinely new, distinct from shallow heating, CNO breakout, rotation, or diffusion.

The soft spot is exactly the one the reader flags. The required 8–10x opacity enhancement has no identified physical origin. In the non-degenerate outer envelope, Thomson scattering is essentially fixed, and the authors admit in Section 4 that electron scattering itself is unlikely to be increased by this factor and that the enhancement is a proxy for an unknown process. The stress-test note is right that the component test makes this harder, not easier, because the effective agent has to mimic a scattering-like, roughly density-independent opacity. So this is a proof-of-principle simulation, not an explanation of observed quenching. The phrase 'definitively proves' in Section 3.3 overstates what a numerical toy model can establish. That said, the paper's own caveat in Section 4 partly mitigates this; the authors know what they have.

Where does that leave it? For someone working on burst theory or the shallow heating problem, this is worth reading and citing as a proposed alternative that shifts the burden. It doesn't close the gap, but it redirects attention to the low-density envelope's radiative properties. The parameter study of base luminosity in Section 3.4 adds useful context, showing the mechanism is not terribly fine-tuned in that direction.

I'd send it to review: it's a careful numerical study with clear negative results for free-free and conduction, and it makes a clean falsifiable prediction (if some process raises the outer envelope opacity by ~8x, bursts should quench near 0.3–0.4 M_Edd). The authors should soften the 'proves' language and perhaps discuss what kind of physical process could do this, even speculatively. But the core result is reproducible and the honesty is refreshing. A serious referee could handle it.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 1D MESA simulations of Type-I X-ray bursts on accreting neutron stars, investigating how changes in the envelope opacity affect the critical accretion rate above which bursts are quenched. The authors find that a global increase of the opacity by a factor of 10 quenches bursts between 0.3 and 0.35 Eddington accretion rates, close to the observed value of roughly 0.3 Mdot_Edd. Component-wise tests in Section 3.3 identify the electron-scattering opacity in the low-density region (rho <~ 10^5 g cm^-3) as the responsible agent, while free-free opacity and conduction play a minor role. A parameter study in Section 3.4 explores the interplay between the opacity factor, base luminosity, and accretion rate, showing a trade-off between the required opacity enhancement and the assumed shallow-heating luminosity. The numerical results are checked against variations in timestep, mesh resolution, nuclear network, and initial composition in Appendix A.

Significance. If its conclusions hold, the paper provides a potentially new route to resolving the long-standing discrepancy between the observed and theoretical critical accretion rates for Type-I X-ray bursts. The numerical work is carefully controlled: the convergence tests in Appendix A are extensive, and the component decomposition in Section 3.3 is clean, isolating electron scattering at low densities as the quenching agent. The paper is also honest about its main weakness, explicitly stating that no known physical process can increase electron scattering opacity by the required factor. The contribution is therefore best understood as a proof-of-principle sensitivity study rather than a complete physical explanation of the observed quenching; its significance to the field will depend on whether a plausible mechanism for the opacity enhancement can be identified.

major comments (3)

[Section 1 vs. Sections 3.2 and 3.4] The Introduction and abstract claim that quenching at the observed rate is achievable for an opacity '~> 8 times' the electron-scattering value, but the numerical results in Section 3.2 (Fig. 2) show quenching between 0.3 and 0.35 Mdot_Edd only for a global factor of 10, and Section 3.4 states that a factor of 8 yields stable burning at 0.4 Mdot_Edd for the low-Lb models. The paper should reconcile this discrepancy, either by quoting a factor of ~10 as the required enhancement or by running a model with an 8-fold increase in the electron-scattering component alone at 0.3 Mdot_Edd to test whether the lower factor suffices when applied only to the low-density region.
[Section 3.2, Fig. 2] The first burst at 0.35 Mdot_Edd is dismissed as 'an artifact of the simulations' without supporting evidence. If the initial envelope is not thermally or compositionally relaxed for the new accretion rate, this single burst could be a physical transient, and the true quenching boundary might lie above 0.35 Mdot_Edd. The authors should verify the boundary by initializing a simulation from a relaxed steady-state model at 0.35 Mdot_Edd, or by extending the initial relaxation phase, and demonstrating that no burst occurs under those conditions.
[Section 4] The paper acknowledges that no known physical process can increase electron-scattering opacity by a factor of 8-10, and that the enhancement is 'only as a proxy replacement for an actual physical process.' Since the abstract and introduction present the result as a possible resolution of the observed quenching discrepancy, the authors should either identify candidate mechanisms (e.g., magnetic fields, vacuum polarization, or bound-free opacities from trace metals) that could plausibly raise the Rosseland opacity at densities below about 10^5 g cm^-3 by this amount, or explicitly reframe the conclusions as a sensitivity study whose astrophysical relevance is contingent on such a process.

minor comments (5)

[Section 1] The phrase 'at these depth' should be 'at these depths.'
[Section 3.3] The phrase 'This defnitively proves' contains a typographical error; it should read 'This definitively proves.'
[Figure 2 caption] The caption contains the typo 'exlpored' and should read 'explored.'
[Section 3.4] The phrase 'burst have been completely quenched' should be 'bursts have been completely quenched.'
[Appendix A, Fig. 6] The label 'Default mtf, tdc = 1.1' is ambiguous because the default value of mtf is 0.8; please clarify that 'Default mtf' refers to the MESA default value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: opacity factors are hand-scanned inputs, not fitted outputs, and the observed quenching rate serves as an external benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a parameter study, not a fit: the authors impose global opacity factors of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 in MESA, vary the accretion rate and base luminosity, and then report whether bursting quenches. The observed critical rate of about 0.3 Mdot_Edd is an external benchmark, not an input used to construct the opacity. The central result, that 10 kappa quenches bursts above about 0.35 Mdot_Edd and that 8 kappa suffices at 0.4 Mdot_Edd for low base luminosity, emerges from the simulations rather than being imposed. The component decomposition in Section 3.3 is also diagnostic: each radiative component is multiplied separately and the outcomes are compared, so identifying electron scattering as the responsible component is a simulation result, not a definitional equivalence. The self-citations to Nava-Callejas et al. 2024 for the initial envelope profiles and the 381-species network are not load-bearing: the paper explicitly tests the larger net381 network and alternative base and accreted compositions in Appendix A and finds the same quenching behavior, and the initial profiles serve only as starting states for the evolution. The authors' own admission that no known physical process can increase electron scattering opacity by a factor of 8-10 is an applicability limitation, not a circular step, because it does not make the simulation output equivalent to the input. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or prior ansatz is invoked to force the conclusion. Hence no specific circular reduction can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on two hand-chosen parameters, the opacity factor and the base luminosity. The opacity factor is not fitted to observations, but scanned. The physical process behind the enhancement is not specified, so the result stands as a proof of principle. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

global opacity factor = 0.1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 (scans)
Applied to the whole opacity profile or to individual components (free-free, electron scattering, conduction). Chosen by hand to probe sensitivity; not fitted to the observed critical accretion rate.
base luminosity Lb (or Qb) = 2.5e-5 to 2.5e3 L_sun (Qb ~ 2.2e-7 to 30 MeV per baryon at the explored accretion rates)
Sets the inner boundary heat flow from the crust. The opacity factor required for quenching depends on this value; low Lb requires factor 8, high Lb suppresses bursts regardless of opacity.

assumptions (5)

standard math Stellar structure and evolution equations as implemented in MESA v15140
The 1D envelope evolution is computed with MESA; standard equations of hydrostatic equilibrium, energy transport, and nuclear burning are assumed.
domain assumption Envelope is spherically symmetric and in hydrostatic equilibrium
Section 2 describes the initial profiles from a time-independent envelope code and 1D MESA simulations; rotation and magnetic fields are neglected.
domain assumption Radiative opacity is given by MESA tables or analytic fits: free-free from Schatz et al. (1999), electron scattering from Paczynski (1983) or Poutanen (2017), with correction from Potekhin and Yakovlev (2001)
Defines the fiducial opacity that is then scaled. Uncertainties in these fits are part of the motivation.
ad hoc to paper A physical process exists that can raise the effective envelope opacity by a factor of 8 to 10 at densities below about 10^5 g cm^-3
The paper uses enhanced opacity as a proxy; Section 4 acknowledges electron scattering itself cannot be increased that much. This is the load-bearing assumption for applying the result to real systems.
domain assumption The inner boundary luminosity follows Lb = Qb * Mdot / m_u with Qb in the range considered
The paper compares its Lb choices to shallow heating values; this relation sets the crustal heat input.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The effect of opacity on neutron star Type I X-ray burst quenching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWI5VTDE

@misc{pith2026241109843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The effect of opacity on neutron star Type I X-ray burst quenching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWI5VTDE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09843}
}

read the original abstract

One long standing tension between theory and observations of Type I X-ray burst is the accretion rate at which the burst disappear due to stabilization of the nuclear burning that powers them. This is observed to happen at roughly one third of the theoretical expectations. Various solutions have been proposed, the most notable of which is the addition of a yet unknown source of heat in the upper layers of the crust, below the burning envelope. In this paper we ran several simulations using the 1D code MESA to explore the impact of opacity on the threshold mass accretion rate after which the bursts disappear, finding that a higher than expected opacity in the less dense layers near the surface has a stabilizing effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09843 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Effects of a change in opacity κ at a fixed mass accretion rate of M˙ = 5.26 × 10−9M⊙ yr−1 = 0.3 M˙ Edd. We consider three models with κ unaltered or multiplied or divided by a factor of 10. Panel (a): time evolution of Teff . Panel (b): temperature profiles just before the first explosion. Panel (c): opacity profiles at the same time. Panel (d): temperature vs total mass evolution of the helium layer. In panels (b)… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Luminosity (in units of L⊙) as a function of time for different values of mass accretion rate. The luminosity at the base is Lb = 2.5 × 10−5L⊙ in the upper panel and Lb = 2.5 × 10−1L⊙ in the lower one (equivalent Qb ranges, corresponding to the M˙ range exlpored, are 1−3 ×10−7 and 1 − 3 ×10−3 MeV per baryon in the upper and lower panels, respectively). In all cases the opacity is globally increased by a factor of 1… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Opacity profile for a typical stationary accreted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Upper panel: effective temperature as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Bursting and quenching sensitivity to opacity at var [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Effective temperature as a function of time, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Effective temperature as a function of time, at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Nuclide chart of the approx140 network. Numbers in parenthesis after element symbols are the charges Z, while numbers below the chart are the neutron numbers N = A − Z of the various isotopes. Red squares: Tz = −1 nuclides. Blue squares: α nuclides. Dark-gray squares: …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Left panel: box scheme of the rp-process occur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.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

Thermonuclear Heating of Accreting Neutron Stars
astro-ph.HE 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Stationary envelope models with nuclear burning are validated against MESA and used to map the heat flow between the burning envelope and the crust of accreting neutron stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

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

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...
[3]

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

Bildsten , L. 1998 a , 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

work page 1998
[4]

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

Bildsten , L. 1998 b , 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

work page 1998
[5]

F., & Cumming , A

Brown , E. F., & Cumming , A. 2009, , 698, 1020

work page 2009
[6]

K., Goodwin , A

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

work page 2020
[7]

P., Magee , N

Colgan , J., Kilcrease , D. P., Magee , N. H., et al. 2016, , 817, 116

work page 2016
[8]

L., & Narayan , R

Cooper , R. L., & Narayan , R. 2006, , 648, L123

work page 2006

Show all 39 references

[9]

Cornelisse , R., in't Zand , J. J. M., Verbunt , F., et al. 2003, , 405, 1033

2003
[10]

H., Amthor, A

Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 189, 240

2010
[11]

H., Jos \'e , J., & Mythili, S

Davids, B., Cyburt, R. H., Jos \'e , J., & Mythili, S. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, 40

2011
[12]

F., & Page , D

Deibel , A., Cumming , A., Brown , E. F., & Page , D. 2015, , 809, L31

2015
[13]

L., G \"o rres, J., Wiescher, M., & Davids, B

Fisker, J. L., G \"o rres, J., Wiescher, M., & Davids, B. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 650, 332

2006
[14]

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

2007
[15]

Y., Hanawa , T., & Miyaji , S

Fujimoto , M. Y., Hanawa , T., & Miyaji , S. 1981, , 247, 267

1981
[16]

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

2021
[17]

K., Muno , M

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

2008
[18]

Grevesse , N., & Sauval , A. J. 1998, , 85, 161

1998
[19]

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

2007
[20]

A., & Sunyaev , R

Inogamov , N. A., & Sunyaev , R. A. 2010, Astronomy Letters, 36, 848

2010
[21]

2022, JINA Reaclib Database

JINA Reaclib Database . 2022, JINA Reaclib Database

2022
[22]

, Langer, N

Keek, L. , Langer, N. , & in 't Zand, J. J. M. 2009, A&A, 502, 871

2009
[23]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.13994

Nava-Callejas , M., Cavecchi , Y., & Page , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.13994

2024 arXiv
[24]

1983 a , , 264, 282

Paczynski , B. 1983 a , , 264, 282

1983
[25]

1983 b , , 267, 315

---. 1983 b , , 267, 315

1983
[26]

2022, , 933, 216

Page , D., Homan , J., Nava-Callejas , M., et al. 2022, , 933, 216

2022
[27]

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

Parikh , A. S., Homan , J., Wijnands , R., et al. 2017, , 851, L28

2017
[28]

2011, , 192, 3

Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3

2011
[29]

2015, , 220, 15

Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15

2015
[30]

L., & Bildsten , L

Piro , A. L., & Bildsten , L. 2007, , 663, 1252

2007
[31]

Y., & Yakovlev , D

Potekhin , A. Y., & Yakovlev , D. G. 2001, , 374, 213

2001
[32]

2017, , 835, 119

Poutanen , J. 2017, , 835, 119

2017
[33]

1997, , 484, 412

Rembges , F., Freiburghaus , C., Rauscher , T., et al. 1997, , 484, 412

1997
[34]

2001, , 372, 138

Revnivtsev , M., Churazov , E., Gilfanov , M., & Sunyaev , R. 2001, , 372, 138

2001
[35]

1999, , 524, 1014

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

1999
[36]

2001, , 86, 3471

Schatz , H., Aprahamian , A., Barnard , V., et al. 2001, , 86, 3471

2001
[37]

2010, in Compact Stellar X-ray Sources, ed

Strohmayer , T., & Bildsten , L. 2010, in Compact Stellar X-ray Sources, ed. W. Lewin & M. van der Klis (Cambridge University Press), 113

2010
[38]

L., & Maurer , I

Watts , A. L., & Maurer , I. 2007, , 467, L33

2007
[39]

2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 49

Wijnands , R., Degenaar , N., & Page , D. 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 49

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

[3] [3]

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

Bildsten , L. 1998 a , 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

work page 1998

[4] [4]

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

Bildsten , L. 1998 b , 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

work page 1998

[5] [5]

F., & Cumming , A

Brown , E. F., & Cumming , A. 2009, , 698, 1020

work page 2009

[6] [6]

K., Goodwin , A

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

work page 2020

[7] [7]

P., Magee , N

Colgan , J., Kilcrease , D. P., Magee , N. H., et al. 2016, , 817, 116

work page 2016

[8] [8]

L., & Narayan , R

Cooper , R. L., & Narayan , R. 2006, , 648, L123

work page 2006