Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Evidence of non-Solar elemental composition in the clocked X-ray burster SRGA J144459.2$-$604207

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper argues that SRGA J144459.2−604207, a clocked X-ray burster, accretes matter with non-solar composition—most likely helium-enhanced with $X/Y \approx 1.5$—rather than solar-like material.

desk verdict Serious modeling paper with a plausible new claim that SRGA J1444's bursts require He-enhanced accreted matter, but the inference leans heavily on an uncalibrated Mdot–Δt scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10993 v2 pith:YXHLIZFY submitted 2024-11-17 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRnucl-th

Akira Dohi , Nobuya Nishimura , Ryosuke Hirai , Tomoshi Takeda , Wataru Iwakiri , Toru Tamagawa , Amira Aoyama , Teruaki Enoto
show 8 more authors
Satoko Iwata Yo Kato Takao Kitaguchi Tatehiro Mihara Naoyuki Ota Takuya Takahashi Sota Watanabe Kaede Yamasaki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRnucl-th
keywords X-rayburstsclockedbursterneutronstarnucleosynthesisCNOcyclestellarabundancesaccretionSRGAJ144459.2-604207
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

The paper sets out to explain observations of SRGA J144459.2−604207, a 'clocked' X-ray burster—a neutron star that emits nearly identical thermonuclear bursts at regular intervals. Using multizone burst models with the HERES stellar evolution code, the authors compare predicted burst shapes, decay times, and recurrence times against INTEGRAL, NICER, and NinjaSat light curves. They find that solar-composition accreted matter cannot reproduce the observed short decay timescale and plateau (possibly double-peaked) decay; models with lower hydrogen-to-helium ratio or higher CNO metallicity can. The decline-phase monitoring by NinjaSat, with a measured recurrence of $\Delta t = 7.909$ h, favors a helium-enhanced composition $X/Y \approx 1.5$ over high-metallicity alternatives. If correct, SRGA J1444 becomes the first clocked burster with evidence for non-solar accreted composition, linking burst morphology to the evolutionary history of the binary donor.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing variable is the composition of accreted matter, parameterized by the hydrogen-to-helium ratio $X/Y$ and the CNO metallicity $Z_{\mathrm{CNO}}$, varied in a series of multizone Type I X-ray burst models computed with the HERES code (a one-dimensional general-relativistic stellar evolution code with an 88-nucleus reaction network). The physical mechanism: a lower $X/Y$ leaves less hydrogen to burn during the burst tail, shortening the decay and matching the rapid fall; a higher $Z_{\mathrm{CNO}}$ supplies hot CNO-cycle seeds that moderate the luminosity rise and produce the plateau/double-peak structure. A secondary driver is the empirical relation $\dot{M} \propto \Delta t^{-\eta}$ with $\eta \approx 0.8$–$0.9$, which converts the observed recurrence time into the accretion rate used for the decline-phase models.

What would settle it

Measure the persistent X-ray flux and distance of SRGA J1444 independently to derive the mass accretion rate during the NinjaSat decline phase; if the true accretion rate is not close to 0.8–0.9 times $10^{-9}$ solar masses per year, the recurrence-time comparison that favors the helium-enhanced model and excludes high-metallicity cases loses its basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that SRGA J1444's burst behavior cannot be reproduced by solar-composition accreted fuel; instead, the bursts point to matter with roughly doubled helium relative to hydrogen ($X/Y \approx 1.5$, with $X \approx 0.6$ and $Y \approx 0.4$) at roughly solar CNO metallicity. Across a grid of models with $(X/Y, Z_{\mathrm{CNO}})$ equal to solar ($2.9$, $0.015$), He-enhanced ($1.5$, $0.015$), and CNO-enhanced ($2.9$, $0.06$), only the non-solar cases match the short e-folding decay timescale $\tau_e \sim 9$ s and the plateau/double-peak light curve seen by NICER and INTEGRAL. In the decline phase observed by NinjaSat, the helium-enhanced model at $\dot{M} \sim 0.9 \times 10^{-9}$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ predicts $\Delta t = 7.76$ h, close to the observed 7.909 h, while high-metallicity models either violate hydrostatic equilibrium in the code or predict recurrence times of 12–25 h. The paper therefore concludes that a helium-enhanced composition is the most favorable explanation, making SRGA J1444 the first clocked burster with non-solar elemental composition.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusions rest on the empirical relation $\dot{M} \propto \Delta t^{-\eta}$ with $\eta \approx 0.8$–$0.9$, which converts the NinjaSat recurrence time of 7.909 hours into the decline-phase accretion rate of about 0.8–0.9 times $10^{-9}$ solar masses per year; if this scaling is inaccurate for SRGA J1444, the models are run at the wrong accretion rate and the composition ranking could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the helium-enhanced interpretation holds, SRGA J1444's donor had its outer layers stripped, exposing helium-rich core material, supporting an intermediate-mass X-ray binary descendant with an initial donor mass of roughly 2–2.5 solar masses.
  • The high-metallicity scenario predicts lengthened recurrence times (more than 12 hours) during the decline phase, so it remains viable only if the $^{14}\mathrm{O}(\alpha,p)^{17}\mathrm{F}$ and $^{15}\mathrm{O}(\alpha,\gamma)^{19}\mathrm{Ne}$ reaction rates are revised.
  • Burst morphology—especially the plateau/double-peak and rapid decay—can serve as a diagnostic of accreted composition in other clocked bursters.
  • A more precise neutron star mass would tighten the composition constraints; a roughly two-solar-mass neutron star implied by flat-disk and polarization arguments needs systematic burst-model study.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the same light-curve comparison could be applied to other clocked bursters with declining phases to search for composition anomalies, not just SRGA J1444.
  • The paper's conclusion depends on the assumed scaling exponent $\eta$; an independent measurement of the accretion rate in the decline phase (for example, from persistent flux and a known distance) would test the helium-enhanced answer without relying on the empirical relation.
  • If the high-metallicity scenario is ultimately ruled out by better reaction-rate constraints, the method still offers a way to distinguish hydrogen-poor donors from metal-rich ones using burst timing and shape alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This Letter models Type I X-ray bursts from the clocked burster SRGA J144459.2-604207 using the HERES multizone general-relativistic stellar evolution code. It computes recurrence times, e-folding decay times, and light-curve profiles for solar, He-enhanced (X/Y=1.5), CNO-enhanced (Z_CNO=4 Z_sun), and intermediate compositions, for accretion rates Mdot_9 from 0.8 to 5 in the clocked and decline phases. The model outputs are compared with INTEGRAL (Delta t ~ 1.69 h, tau_e ~ 9 s), NICER burst profiles, and NinjaSat decline-phase observations (Delta t = 7.909 h). The authors conclude that solar composition cannot reproduce the observed short decay time and rapid tail decay, that non-solar compositions are required, and that a He-enhanced model with X/Y ~ 1.5 and roughly solar Z_CNO is preferred in the decline phase.

Significance. If substantiated, this would identify the first clocked X-ray burster with non-solar accreted composition, with implications for the donor star's evolutionary history and for hot-CNO reaction physics. The paper has clear strengths: HERES has been benchmarked against MESA; burst statistics are tabulated with 1-sigma dispersions; the analysis uses multiple independent instruments (INTEGRAL, NICER, NinjaSat); and the authors explicitly acknowledge that the analysis crucially depends on the NinjaSat recurrence-time measurement. The qualitative conclusion that solar composition fails to explain the short decay times and rapid tails of SRGA J1444 is well supported by Figures 2 and 3. The more specific claim that a He-enhanced composition with X/Y ~ 1.5 is preferred is, however, conditional on the empirical Mdot-Delta t scaling and on lower limits obtained from failed hydrostatic simulations, so the significance is somewhat weaker than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2); Section 3.2, Fig. 4, footnote 6] The decline-phase accretion rates Mdot_9 = 0.8 and 0.9 are derived solely from Eq. (2), using an empirical Mdot-Delta t scaling with eta ~ 0.8-0.9. The manuscript does not state how eta is calibrated for SRGA J1444 or what its uncertainty is. This is load-bearing: the exclusion of the CNO-enhanced and HeCNO-enhanced scenarios in Section 3.2 is evaluated at these Mdot values, and the decline-phase light-curve comparison in Fig. 4 is shown only for Mdot_9 = 0.8 and 0.9. Footnote 6 itself shows that at Mdot_9 = 1 the HeCNO model gives Delta t = 6.16 h, which is no longer in strong conflict with the observed 7.909 h. The authors should either propagate a plausible range of eta and of the Mdot_clocked normalization into Mdot_NinjaSat, or extend the decline-phase grid to Mdot_9 = 1.0-1.2 to demonstrate that the He-enhanced preference survives. If eta is estimated from the same source's flux and Delta t variations, the procedure in Eq. (2) is partly circular and should be stated as such.
  2. [Section 3.2, CNO-enhanced case] The argument against the Z_CNO = 4 Z_sun scenario uses the time to the first burst at which HERES fails hydrostatically as a lower limit on Delta t (25 h at Mdot_9 = 0.8 and 12 h at Mdot_9 = 0.9). This lower-limit interpretation is an assumption about the numerical failure mode. If HERES fails before the physical ignition time, the lower limit is not valid; if it fails after ignition, the quoted times are not recurrence times. Because this is one of the two main reasons the high-Z scenario is rejected, the authors should justify the lower-limit interpretation, for example by comparing with a code that handles non-hydrostatic phases or by showing that the failure time is insensitive to numerical resolution and to the boundary-condition choices mentioned in Section 2.2.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Fig. 4] The preference for the He-enhanced model with X/Y ~ 1.5 over the solar model in the decline phase is based on visual comparison after shifting and scaling the observed light curve to align with the model peak. No quantitative goodness-of-fit measure or residual analysis is provided, and systematic uncertainties in bolometric conversion, neutron-star mass, distance, and accretion rate are not propagated into the comparison. Since the abstract makes a specific compositional claim and the text says the He-enhanced model 'seems preferred,' a quantitative comparison across the model grid (for example, reduced chi-square over a fixed time window, with stated background and systematic errors) is needed to distinguish the candidate compositions at the claimed level of confidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The first sentence of the abstract is a grammatical fragment; it should be rewritten as a complete sentence describing the 2024 observations of SRGA J1444.
  2. [Section 2.2] The quantity Mdot_9 should be explicitly defined as the mass accretion rate in units of 10^-9 M_sun/yr at first use, since it is used throughout without a formal definition in the text.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Fig. 2] The observed INTEGRAL region in Fig. 2 is drawn assuming relative errors of 5% for Delta t and 10% for tau_e; the authors should either justify these adopted errors or show the sensitivity of their composition conclusions to them.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Fig. 4] The NinjaSat observed profile in Fig. 4 appears without visible error bars; the binning, count-rate uncertainties, and the procedure for subtracting persistent emission should be stated in the caption or text so that the visual comparison can be assessed.
  5. [Section 3.2] There is a typo in the phrase 'solar metalicity'; it should read 'solar metallicity.'
  6. [Section 4] The statement that Takeda et al. (2024b) suggest a neutron-star mass potentially exceeding 2 M_sun is cited without describing the model assumptions; a sentence specifying the flat-disk and xi_b/xi_p assumptions would help the reader judge the weight of this constraint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the composition inference is a forward-model comparison against external observations, and the Mdot–Δt scaling is an empirical calibration rather than a definition of the model outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section 2.2 sets the decline-phase accretion rates via Eq. (2), Mdot_NinjaSat/Mdot_clocked = (Δt_clocked/Δt_NinjaSat)^η with η ≈ 0.8–0.9, using empirical estimates from Papitto et al. (2024) and Takeda et al. (2024b). This is an external calibration, not a fit of the model's own output. The discriminating quantities in Section 3.2 (He-enhanced Δt = 7.76 h at Mdot_9 = 0.9; high-Z lower limits Δt = 25 h and 12 h; HeCNO Δt ≈ 37 h) are computed by the HERES nuclear reaction network from the adopted composition and accretion rate; they are not algebraic consequences of Eq. (2), so the observed NinjaSat Δt = 7.909 h is not an input that forces the preferred composition. The self-references to the HERES code and to Dohi et al. (2024) for the clocked-phase accretion rates are not load-bearing: HERES is benchmarked against MESA (Zhen et al. 2023), and the paper independently tabulates its own recurrence times at Mdot_9 = 3–4 (e.g., 1.84 h and 2.17 h in Tables 1 and 2, bracketing the INTEGRAL 1.69 h value), so the composition conclusion does not rest on a self-citation chain. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the light curves and recurrence times are forward-model outputs compared with independent observations. The paper's own statement that the analyses 'crucially hinge' on the NinjaSat Δt is a sensitivity caveat, not an admission of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of standard modeling assumptions (hydrostatic equilibrium, a limited reaction network, a canonical NS mass) plus the empirical Mdot-Delta t scaling that sets the decline-phase accretion rate. No new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters are the composition grid (X/Y, Z_CNO) and accretion rates, which are selected to match observations rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (4)
  • X/Y (hydrogen-to-helium mass fraction ratio) = 1.5 (preferred); 2.9 (solar) and others tested
    Grid parameter varied across models; He-enhanced value preferred by decline-phase light-curve morphology and recurrence time.
  • Z_CNO (CNO metallicity mass fraction) = 0.015 (Z_sun) for He-enhanced; up to 4 Z_sun tested
    Varied to reproduce burst decay time and double-peak structure; high-Z cases disfavored by decline-phase recurrence time.
  • Mdot_9, clocked (mass accretion rate in 10^-9 M_sun/yr) = 3 and 4
    Chosen to reproduce INTEGRAL recurrence time 1.69 h, following Dohi et al. (2024).
  • Mdot_9, NinjaSat (mass accretion rate in decline phase) = 0.8 and 0.9
    Derived from equation (2) using the empirical Mdot-Delta t relation with eta ~ 0.8-0.9; critical input for decline-phase comparisons.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic equilibrium during X-ray bursts
    HERES solves hydrostatic equations; the paper argues SRGA J1444 lacks photospheric radius expansion (Molkov et al. 2024), though Fu et al. (2024) suggested weak PRE; assumption is stated in Section 2.1 and footnote 1.
  • domain assumption Approximate reaction network valid for X/Y >~ 1
    Stated in Section 2.1; the paper's preferred models satisfy this, but it limits the parameter space.
  • domain assumption Empirical scaling between accretion rate and recurrence time (eq. 1) with eta ~ 0.8-0.9
    Used to derive decline-phase accretion rates (eq. 2); if this relation is inaccurate, the comparison changes.
  • domain assumption Same accreted composition in clocked and decline phases
    Adopted in Section 2.2; if the donor's surface composition changed over the month-long outburst, the inference would be affected.
  • domain assumption Canonical NS mass 1.4 M_sun, Togashi EOS, slow neutrino cooling
    Stated in Section 2.1; the paper notes NS mass affects composition constraints (Section 4), and a higher NS mass may be suggested by Takeda et al. (2024b).
  • domain assumption Radiative-zero boundary condition at Mr/MNS=10^-16
    Used as surface boundary; the paper notes it tends to be relaxed during the NinjaSat phase because the burst calculations become highly unstable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence of non-Solar elemental composition in the clocked X-ray burster SRGA J144459.2$-$604207." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YXHLIZFY

@misc{pith2026241110993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence of non-Solar elemental composition in the clocked X-ray burster SRGA J144459.2$-$604207},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YXHLIZFY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10993}
}
abstract

In February and March 2024, a series of many Type I X-ray bursts from the accreting neutron star SRGA J144459.2$-$604207, which has been identified by multiple X-ray satellites, with the first reports coming from INTEGRAL and NinjaSat. These observations reveal that after exhibiting very regular behavior as a ``clocked'' burster, the peak luminosity of the SRGA J144459.2$-$604207 X-ray bursts shows a gradual decline. The observed light curves exhibit a short plateau feature, potentially with a double peak, followed by a rapid decay in the tail-features unlike those seen in previously observed clocked bursters. In this study, we calculate a series of multizone X-ray burst models with various compositions of accreted matter, specifically varying the mass fractions of hydrogen ($X$), helium ($Y$), and heavier CNO elements or metallicity ($Z_{\rm CNO}$). We demonstrate that a model with higher $Z_{\rm CNO}$ and/or lower $X/Y$ compared to the solar values can reproduce the observed behavior of SRGA J144459.2$-$604207. Therefore, we propose that this new X-ray burster is likely the first clocked burster with non-solar elemental compositions. Moreover, based on the X-ray burst light curve morphology in the decline phase observed by NinjaSat, a He-enhanced model with $X/Y \approx 1.5$ seems preferred over high-metallicity cases. We also give a brief discussion on the implications for the neutron star mass, binary star evolution, inclination angle, and the potential for a high-metallicity scenario, the last of which is closely related to the properties of the hot CNO cycle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10993 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2–10 keV light curves of SRGA J1444, monitored by NinjaSat (red) and MAXI (black), with bin sizes of 3 h and 24 h, respectively. Horizontal bars indicate the time intervals covered by observations of NICER (purple) and INTEGRAL (blue). (b) The averaged burst profile in 11 profiles observed by NinjaSat (Takeda et al. 2024b). sitions of the accreted matter, i.e., hydrogen (X), helium (Y ), and heavier CNO elements or … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Calculated ∆t and τe with several X/Y and ZCNO values for different mass accretion rates, M˙ −9 = 3 (left), and M˙ −9 = 4 (right). The model errors are represented by the 1σ error. The gray elliptical area with “SRGA (INTEGRAL)” indicates the reported value by Sanchez-Fernandez et al. 2024, assuming relative errors, 5% for ∆t and 10% for τe. 0 1 2 3 -20 0 20 40 60 80 X/Y = (X/Y)⊙ ZCNO = Z⊙ M · -9 = 3.0 NICER HERES L… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulated light curves with different X/Y , Z, and M˙ −9 compared with NICER observations (Ng et al. 2024a). (a) the solar composition, (b,c) He-enhanced case, and (d) CNO-enhanced case. 0.5(X/Y )⊙ models, except those with ZCNO = Z⊙, closely re￾produce the observations. In particular, the metal-rich models with ZCNO = 4 Z⊙ are favored compared to other compositions. In con￾trast, for higher mass accretion M˙ −9 = 4… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated light curves overplotted on observations by NinjaSat: (a,b) solar composition, (c,d) He-enhanced case. 0 1 2 3 -20 0 20 40 60 80 X/Y = 0.6 (X/Y)⊙ ZCNO = 2 Z⊙ M · -9 = 0.9 ∆t = 37.34 hr NinjaSat HERES L ∞ bol,38 time (s) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The marginally HeCNO-enhanced case with X/Y = 0.6 (X/Y )⊙, ZCNO = 2 Z⊙, and M˙ −9 = 0.9. constraints can be further improved with more observations and detailed modeling, e.g., by comparing the radii of such partially stripped stars in detailed models and the observati…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Disk reflection and energetics from the accreting millisecond pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A newly discovered accreting millisecond pulsar shows a relativistically broadened iron line and disk reflection, with the disk inner edge at or near 6 gravitational radii, plus unusual type-I burst recurrence timing.

  2. NinjaSat monitoring of Type-I X-ray bursts from the clocked burster SRGA J144459.2$-$604207

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    NinjaSat's monitoring of the clocked burster SRGA J1444 yields a burst recurrence time versus persistent flux power-law index of 0.84, the lowest seen among X-ray bursters, with burst morphologies evolving as the outb...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2016, A&A, 586, A142

    Aranzana, E., Sánchez-Fernández, C., & Kuulkers, E. 2016, A&A, 586, A142

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L32

    Bult, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 935, L32

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 490

    Chakraborty, M., Bhattacharyya, S., & Mukherjee, A. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 490

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Cocchi, M., Bazzano, A., Natalucci, L., Ubertini, P., Heise, J., Kuulkers, E., & in’t Zand, J. J. M. 2001, Advances in Space Research, 28, 375

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    2003, A&A, 405, 1033

    Cornelisse, R., et al. 2003, A&A, 405, 1033

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

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

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 14

    Hashimoto, M. 2024, ApJ, 960, 14

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    2019, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2019, 113E01

    Dohi, A., Nakazato, K., Hashimoto, M.-a., Yasuhide, M., & Noda, T. 2019, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2019, 113E01

    work page 2019

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 64

    Dohi, A., Nishimura, N., Hashimoto, M., Matsuo, Y ., Noda, T., & Nagataki, S. 2021, ApJ, 923, 64

    2021

  2. [10]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 124

    Hashimoto, M. 2022, ApJ, 937, 124

    2022

  3. [11]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 30

    Ubertini, P. 2019, ApJ, 887, 30

    2019

  4. [12]

    L., Tan, W., Görres, J., Wiescher, M., & Cooper, R

    Fisker, J. L., Tan, W., Görres, J., Wiescher, M., & Cooper, R. L. 2007, ApJ, 665, 637

    2007

  5. [13]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05779

    Fu, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05779

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fujimoto, M. Y . 1988, ApJ, 324, 995

    1988

  7. [15]

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

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

    1984

  8. [16]

    K., Cumming, A., Kuulkers, E., Bildsten, L., Chakrabarty, D., & Rothschild, R

    Galloway, D. K., Cumming, A., Kuulkers, E., Bildsten, L., Chakrabarty, D., & Rothschild, R. E. 2004, ApJ, 601, 466

    2004

  9. [17]

    K., Goodwin, A

    Galloway, D. K., Goodwin, A. J., & Keek, L. 2017, PASA, 34, e019

    2017

  10. [18]

    K., et al

    Galloway, D. K., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 32

    2020

  11. [19]

    K., & Keek, L

    Galloway, D. K., & Keek, L. 2021, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 461, 209

    2021

  12. [20]

    Haensel, P., & Zdunik, J. L. 2008, A&A, 480, 459

    2008

  13. [21]

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

    1984

  14. [22]

    Hanawa, T., Sugimoto, D., & Hashimoto, M. A. 1983, PASJ, 35, 491

    1983

  15. [23]

    R., et al

    Hayden, M. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 132

    2015

  16. [24]

    K., & Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Cumming, A., Galloway, D. K., & Woosley, S. E. 2007, ApJL, 671, L141

    2007

  17. [25]

    2021, Phys

    Hu, J., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 172701

    2021

  18. [26]

    Johnston, Z., Heger, A., & Galloway, D. K. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4576

    2020

  19. [27]

    Kalogera, V ., & Webbink, R. F. 1996, ApJ, 458, 301

    1996

  20. [28]

    Lampe, N., Heger, A., & Galloway, D. K. 2016, ApJ, 819, 46

    2016

  21. [29]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16548, 1

    Li, Z., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16548, 1

    2024

  22. [30]

    Liu, H., Matsuo, Y ., Hashimoto, M.-a., Noda, T., & Fujimoto, M. Y . 2017, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 86, 123901

    2017

  23. [31]

    2020, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, Oxford University Press

    Lodders, K. 2020, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, Oxford University Press

    2020

  24. [32]

    Matsuo, Y ., Tsujimoto, H., Noda, T., Saruwatari, M., Ono, M., Hashimoto, M., & Fujimoto, M. Y . 2011, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 126, 1177

    2011

  25. [33]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 147

    Meisel, Z. 2018, ApJ, 860, 147

    2018

  26. [34]

    2018, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 45, 093001

    Meisel, Z., Deibel, A., Keek, L., Shternin, P., & Elfritz, J. 2018, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 45, 093001

    2018

  27. [35]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 84

    Meisel, Z., Merz, G., & Medvid, S. 2019, ApJ, 872, 84

    2019

  28. [36]

    V ., et al

    Molkov, S. V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A353

    2024

  29. [37]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16483, 1

    Negoro, H., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16483, 1

    2024

  30. [38]

    1983, ApJ, 267, 315

    Paczynski, B. 1983, ApJ, 267, 315

    1983

  31. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00608

    Papitto, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00608

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Podsiadlowski, Ph., Rappaport, S., & Pfahl, E. D. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1107

    2002

  33. [41]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16485, 1

    Sanchez-Fernandez, C., Kuulkers, E., Ferrigno, C., & Chenevez, J. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16485, 1

    2024

  34. [42]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00460

    Shikauchi, M., Hirai, R., & Mandel, I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00460

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2024, MNRAS

    Song, L., Liu, H., Zhu, C., Zhen, G., Lü, G., & Xu, R. 2024, MNRAS

    2024

  36. [44]

    2024a, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16495, 1 —

    Takeda, T., et al. 2024a, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16495, 1 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.10992

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    2017, Nucl

    Takano, M. 2017, Nucl. Phys. A, 961, 78

    2017

  38. [46]

    2021, ApJL, 920, L32

    Tsujimoto, T. 2021, ApJL, 920, L32

    2021

  39. [47]

    M., & in ’t Zand, J

    Ubertini, P., Bazzano, A., Cocchi, M., Natalucci, L., Heise, J., Muller, J. M., & in ’t Zand, J. J. M. 1999, ApJL, 514, L27

    1999

  40. [48]

    K., & Woosley, S

    Wallace, R. K., & Woosley, S. E. 1981, ApJS, 45, 389

    1981

  41. [49]

    J., et al

    Wang, P. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A47

    2024

  42. [50]

    S., Altamirano, D., Homan, J., & Degenaar, N

    Wijnands, R., Parikh, A. S., Altamirano, D., Homan, J., & Degenaar, N. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 559

    2017

  43. [51]

    E., et al

    Woosley, S. E., et al. 2004, ApJS, 151, 75

    2004

  44. [52]

    Zhen, G., Lü, G., Liu, H., Dohi, A., Nishimura, N., Zhu, C., Song, L., Wang, W., & Xu, R. 2023, ApJ, 950, 110 Appendix 1 Burst characteristic quantities The burst light curves are characterized by several parameters, such as recurrence time (∆t), total burst energy in units of...

    2024

Pith tools

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