pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2510.07764 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.IM· astro-ph.SR· gr-qc· nucl-th

GPU-Accelerated X-ray Pulse Profile Modeling

Tianzhe Zhou , Chun Huang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 09:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SRgr-qcnucl-th
keywords X-ray pulse profile modelingGPU accelerationmillisecond pulsarsneutron star radiusequation of stateBayesian inferenceatmosphere interpolationhotspot geometry
0
0 comments X

The pith

A GPU framework accelerates X-ray pulse profile modeling by 1000 to 10000 times while preserving benchmark accuracy.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a public GPU-accelerated code for computing thermal X-ray pulse profiles emitted by rotation-powered millisecond pulsars. The goal is to remove the long-standing limit where high-resolution models needed for unbiased results on neutron star mass and radius took minutes per evaluation and could not be used in Bayesian inference. The new code delivers the same accuracy as established CPU references down to relative differences of about 0.001 even for extreme hotspot shapes, yet finishes each evaluation in a few milliseconds on consumer graphics hardware. A mixed-order interpolator is added to remove a previously unnoticed bias near the edges of atmosphere lookup tables. These changes together make previously inaccessible model complexities routine and reduce systematic errors in inferences from X-ray timing data.

Core claim

The authors introduce the first public GPU-accelerated X-ray pulse-profile modeling framework. It reproduces established CPU benchmarks to within roughly 10^{-3} relative accuracy for extreme hotspot geometries. Computations that previously required minutes now complete in 2 to 5 milliseconds on an RTX 4080, corresponding to speedups of 10^3 to 10^4. The framework also incorporates a mixed-order interpolator that removes a bias located near the boundaries of standard atmosphere lookup tables.

What carries the argument

The GPU-parallelized computation of observed flux via ray tracing and mixed-order interpolation on atmosphere tables, which distributes the work across thousands of GPU cores to evaluate high-resolution pulse profiles rapidly for given mass, radius, and hotspot parameters.

If this is right

  • Bayesian posterior sampling can now employ resolutions high enough to avoid under-resolving extreme hotspot geometries.
  • More complex hotspot models become computationally feasible during inference runs.
  • Interpolation bias near atmosphere-table boundaries is reduced, lowering one source of systematic error in radius measurements.
  • Stronger constraints on the cold dense-matter equation of state become practical with data from current and upcoming X-ray missions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same parallelization strategy could be applied to other radiative-transfer calculations that currently limit multi-messenger astrophysics.
  • Public release of the code would allow existing Bayesian pipelines to adopt the higher-fidelity models without rewriting their sampling engines.
  • If further optimized for specific telescope response functions, the speed could support near-real-time model fitting during observing campaigns.

Load-bearing premise

The GPU implementation and the mixed-order interpolator introduce no new numerical artifacts or missing physical effects beyond those already present in the CPU reference codes used for benchmarking.

What would settle it

Direct numerical comparison of pulse profiles generated by the GPU code against the CPU reference code for a suite of extreme hotspot geometries at production and higher resolutions, checking whether the maximum relative difference across all rotational phases stays below 0.001.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.07764 by Chun Huang, Tianzhe Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Demonstration of the geometric setup used in our X-ray PPM forward computation, shown in the lab-frame coordinate system ˆx−yˆ−zˆ. A surface patch (orange square) on the stellar surface at colatitude θ and rotational phase ϕ, viewed along the observer’s line-of-sight unit vector ˆk. Definitions of all unit vectors are given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Monochromatic (Eobs = 1 keV) waveforms under the oblate-Schwarzschild (OS) approximation for the OS1 test suite (subset shown), computed with our CPU (blue) and GPU (orange) implementations. The theoretical benchmarks from S. Bogdanov et al. (2019a) are shown in black. Residuals are taken with respect to the benchmark; red dashed lines indicate ±0.1%. Test-case definitions follow S. Bogdanov et al. (2019a)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Demonstration of two geometric test cases for atmosphere interpolation. Test 1: A point-like hotspot on the southern hemisphere; the line of sight is aligned with the spin axis and lies above the rotational north pole. Test 2: A point-like hotspot at the south pole; the observer is located in the northern hemisphere. To avoid repeatedly solving the radiative-transfer problem on the fly, modern forward mode… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated phase–energy–resolved X-ray pulse profiles for Interpolation Test 1, computed using four interpolation schemes applied to the NSX tables: (a) cubic interpolation in all dimensions; (b) as in (a), with negative intensities clipped to zero; (c) cubic interpolation in all dimensions with linear interpolation enforced at table boundaries; (d) the baseline configuration used in this work, cubic along … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated phase–energy–resolved X-ray pulse profiles for Interpolation Test 2, computed using four interpolation schemes applied to the NSX tables: (a) cubic interpolation in all dimensions; (b) as in (a), with negative intensities clipped to zero; (c) cubic interpolation in all dimensions with linear interpolation enforced at table boundaries; (d) the baseline configuration used in this work, cubic along … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy-summed waveforms (left) and phase-summed spectra (right) for the Ring-Eq case. The bottom subpanels show the fractional difference (in %) of each configuration relative to the X-PSI Ultra- -resolution benchmark (black dotted). CPU results are plotted with solid lines: standard resolution (blue solid) and high resolution (red solid). GPU results are plotted with dashed lines: standard resolution (blu… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy-summed waveforms (left) and phase-summed spectra (right) for the Ring-Polar case. The bottom subpanels show the fractional difference (in %) of each configuration relative to the X-PSI Ul￾tra-resolution benchmark (black dotted). CPU results are plotted with solid lines: standard resolution (blue solid) and high resolution (red solid). GPU results are plotted with dashed lines: standard resolution (b… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Energy-summed waveforms (left) and phase-summed spectra (right) for the Ring-Polar case. The bottom subpanels show the fractional difference (in %) of each configuration relative to the X-PSI Ul￾tra-resolution benchmark (black dotted). CPU results are plotted with solid lines: standard resolution (blue solid) and high resolution (red solid). GPU results are plotted with dashed lines: standard resolution (b… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Energy-summed waveforms (left) and phase-summed spectra (right) for the Ring-Polar case. The bottom subpanels show the fractional difference (in %) of each configuration relative to the X-PSI Ul￾tra-resolution benchmark (black dotted). CPU results are plotted with solid lines: standard resolution (blue solid) and high resolution (red solid). GPU results are plotted with dashed lines: standard resolution (b… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Pulse-profile modeling (PPM) of thermal X-ray emission from rotation-powered millisecond pulsars enables simultaneous constraints on the mass $M$, radius $R$, and hence the equation of state of cold, dense matter. However, Bayesian PPM has faced a hard accuracy-speed bottleneck: current production resolutions used to keep inference tractable can under-resolve extreme hotspot geometries and bias the waveform computation, whereas the higher resolutions that remove this bias push forward models to minutes per evaluation, making inference impractical. We break this trade-off with, to our knowledge, the first public GPU-accelerated X-ray PPM framework that matches established benchmarks to within $\sim10^{-3}$ relative accuracy even for extreme geometries, while collapsing minutes-long high-fidelity computations to $2$--$5$ ms on an RTX 4080 ($10^{3}$--$10^{4}\times$ speedups), enabling posterior exploration at resolutions and complexities previously out of reach. We further uncover a bias near the interpolation boundaries of atmosphere lookup tables, demonstrate it with two diagnostic tests, and counter it with a mixed-order interpolator. Together, these advances enlarge the feasible hotspot model space and reduce key systematics in PPM, strengthening inferences for current and future X-ray missions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a GPU-accelerated X-ray pulse profile modeling framework for thermal emission from rotation-powered millisecond pulsars. It claims to match established benchmarks to within approximately 10^{-3} relative accuracy for extreme geometries while providing speedups of 10^3 to 10^4 times, reducing computation times to 2-5 ms on an RTX 4080. The authors also identify and address a bias near the interpolation boundaries of atmosphere lookup tables using a mixed-order interpolator, validated with two diagnostic tests.

Significance. Should the accuracy and performance claims hold, this work would enable previously intractable high-fidelity modeling in Bayesian inferences, allowing for more complex hotspot geometries and reducing systematic biases in neutron star mass and radius measurements. This strengthens the scientific return from X-ray missions by facilitating tighter constraints on the cold dense matter equation of state. The quantitative benchmarks and public framework are strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] End-to-end benchmark agreement to ~10^{-3} is shown, but without reported intermediate diagnostics (e.g., per-ray or per-table lookup residuals) or double-precision cross-checks between GPU and CPU, it remains possible that GPU-specific floating-point or parallelization artifacts exist in untested extreme geometries.
  2. [Abstract] The mixed-order interpolator is introduced to counter the boundary bias, but its precise definition, including the criteria for mixing orders and implementation details, is not elaborated, limiting assessment of its applicability.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract could benefit from specifying the exact metric for the reported relative accuracy (maximum, RMS, etc.).
  2. Consider including a figure or table showing the speedup as a function of resolution or number of rays to support the 10^3-10^4x claim more visually.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the significance of this work and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment point by point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] End-to-end benchmark agreement to ~10^{-3} is shown, but without reported intermediate diagnostics (e.g., per-ray or per-table lookup residuals) or double-precision cross-checks between GPU and CPU, it remains possible that GPU-specific floating-point or parallelization artifacts exist in untested extreme geometries.

    Authors: We agree that intermediate diagnostics would strengthen the validation against potential GPU-specific artifacts. The current manuscript reports end-to-end agreement for extreme geometries but does not include the suggested per-ray or per-table residuals or double-precision cross-checks. In the revised manuscript we will add these diagnostics in §4, including per-ray and per-table lookup residual statistics as well as direct double-precision CPU-GPU comparisons for the extreme geometries already tested. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The mixed-order interpolator is introduced to counter the boundary bias, but its precise definition, including the criteria for mixing orders and implementation details, is not elaborated, limiting assessment of its applicability.

    Authors: We thank the referee for noting this omission. The manuscript introduces the mixed-order interpolator but does not provide its full definition or implementation details. In the revised version we will expand the methods section with the precise definition (a distance-weighted blend of linear and cubic interpolation near table boundaries), the explicit criteria for order selection, and implementation specifics sufficient for reproducibility. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical GPU implementation validated against external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper presents a software implementation of existing pulse-profile modeling methods on GPU hardware, together with empirical timing and accuracy measurements against established CPU reference codes. All central claims (speedups of 10^3–10^4, relative accuracy ~10^{-3} even for extreme geometries, and the mixed-order interpolator fix) are direct performance and comparison results, not quantities derived from equations or parameters defined inside the paper itself. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-citation, or ansatz smuggled from prior work by the same authors. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the correctness of the underlying ray-tracing and atmosphere physics already present in the referenced CPU codes; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond standard numerical choices (grid resolution, interpolation order) that are validated against benchmarks.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5757 in / 1530 out tokens · 29470 ms · 2026-05-18T09:33:26.509669+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Combining the Mass--Radius Posteriors of J0030+0451 Allowing for Unknown Model Systematics

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A Bayesian combination of eight M-R posteriors for PSR J0030+0451 yields M = 1.46^{+0.09}_{-0.08} M_⊙, R = 12.69^{+0.64}_{-0.55} km while marginalizing over unknown model systematics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101

    Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 011001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  4. [4]

    AlGendy, M., & Morsink, S. M. 2014, ApJ, 791, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/78

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/78 2014

  5. [5]

    2022, Physical Review X, 12, 011058, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.12.011058

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Katerini, E., et al. 2022, Physical Review X, 12, 011058, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.12.011058

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.12.011058 2022

  6. [6]

    2010, ApJ, 715, 1282, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1282 Baub¨ ock, M., Psaltis, D., &¨Ozel, F

    Bai, X.-N., & Spitkovsky, A. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1282, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1282 Baub¨ ock, M., Psaltis, D., &¨Ozel, F. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe08

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/2/1282 2010

  7. [7]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2002, ApJL, 566, L85, doi: 10.1086/339511

    work page doi:10.1086/339511 2002

  8. [8]

    V., Watts, A

    Bilous, A. V., Watts, A. L., Harding, A. K., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53e7 43

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab53e7 2019

  9. [9]

    E., & Rybicki, G

    Bogdanov, S., Grindlay, J. E., & Rybicki, G. B. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, 407–415, doi: 10.1086/592341

    work page doi:10.1086/592341 2008

  10. [10]

    K., Mahmoodifar, S., et al

    Bogdanov, S., Lamb, F. K., Mahmoodifar, S., et al. 2019a, ApJL, 887, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5968

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5968 2041

  11. [11]

    S., et al

    Bogdanov, S., Guillot, S., Ray, P. S., et al. 2019b, ApJL, 887, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53eb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab53eb 2041

  12. [12]

    J., Ho, W

    Bogdanov, S., Dittmann, A. J., Ho, W. C. G., et al. 2021, ApJL, 914, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfb79

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfb79 2021

  13. [13]

    L., Kini, Y., & Salmi, T

    Bootsma, E., Vinciguerra, S., Watts, A. L., Kini, Y., & Salmi, T. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 3769–3780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf259

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf259 2025

  14. [14]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03001 2021

  15. [15]

    2021, UltraNest – a robust, general purpose Bayesian inference engine, https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.09604

    Buchner, J. 2021, UltraNest – a robust, general purpose Bayesian inference engine, https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.09604

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Campbell, S. S. 2007, ApJ, 654, 458, doi: 10.1086/509103

    work page doi:10.1086/509103 2007

  17. [17]

    2025, arXiv e-prints

    Cartaxo, J., Huang, C., Malik, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.03112

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Y., Yuan, Y., & Vasilopoulos, G

    Chen, A. Y., Yuan, Y., & Vasilopoulos, G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 893, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab85c5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab85c5 2020

  19. [19]

    2024, ApJL, 971, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f

    Choudhury, D., Salmi, T., Vinciguerra, S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f 2024

  20. [20]

    L., Dittmann, A

    Choudhury, D., Watts, A. L., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7255

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7255 2024

  21. [21]

    T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S

    Cromartie, H. T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 72, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 2020

  22. [22]

    Das, P., Porth, O., & Watts, A. L. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 3144–3161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1817

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1817 2022

  23. [23]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add472

    Watts, A. 2025, ApJ, 987, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add472

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add472 2025

  24. [24]

    J., Miller, M

    Dittmann, A. J., Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 295, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1e 2024

  25. [25]

    Essick, R., Landry, P., & Holz, D. E. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 063007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.063007 2020

  26. [26]

    A., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15256.x , 398, 1809

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1601–1614, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  27. [27]

    T., Pennucci, T

    Fonseca, E., Cromartie, H. T., Pennucci, T. T., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8 2021

  28. [28]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed

    Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99051H, doi: 10.1117/12.2231304 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2231304 2016

  30. [30]

    E., Lupsasca, A., & Philippov, A

    Gralla, S. E., Lupsasca, A., & Philippov, A. 2017, ApJ, 851, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa978d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa978d 2017

  31. [31]

    Schwenk, A., & Watts, A. L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz654

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz654 2019

  32. [32]

    S., et al

    Guillot, S., Kerr, M., Ray, P. S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab511b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab511b 2019

  33. [33]

    2025, arXiv e-prints

    Guver, T., Psaltis, D., Ozel, F., & Zhao, T. 2025, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13879

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    S., & Shaviv, N

    Heyl, J. S., & Shaviv, N. J. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 555, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03076.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03076.x 2000

  35. [35]

    Ho, W. C. G., & Lai, D. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1081, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04801.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04801.x 2001

  36. [36]

    Ho, W. C. G., & Lai, D. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 233, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06047.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06047.x 2003

  37. [37]

    2025a, Astrophys

    Huang, C. 2025a, Astrophys. J. Lett., 978, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9f3c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9f3c 2041

  38. [38]

    2025b, Astrophys

    Huang, C. 2025b, Astrophys. J., 985, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add5ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add5ef

  39. [39]

    Huang, C., & Chen, A. Y. 2025, Astrophys. J., 991, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf747

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf747 2025

  40. [40]

    L., Tolos, L., & Providˆ encia, C

    Huang, C., Raaijmakers, G., Watts, A. L., Tolos, L., & Providˆ encia, C. 2024a, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 529, 4650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae844

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae844

  41. [41]

    2025, Astrophys

    Huang, C., & Sourav, S. 2025, Astrophys. J., 983, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbb67

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbb67 2025

  42. [42]

    2024b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 3262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2792

    Huang, C., Tolos, L., Providˆ encia, C., & Watts, A. 2024b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 3262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2792

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2792

  43. [43]

    2024c, arXiv e-prints

    Huang, C., et al. 2024c, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14615 44

    work page arXiv

  44. [44]

    Huth, S., Pang, P. T. H., Tews, I., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 276–280, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w 2022

  45. [45]

    2025, Gravitational Redshift for Rapidly Rotating Neutron Stars, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02234

    Jakab, Z., & Morsink, S. 2025, Gravitational Redshift for Rapidly Rotating Neutron Stars, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02234

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    K., & Kazanas, D

    Kalapotharakos, C., Wadiasingh, Z., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcec0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcec0 2021

  47. [47]

    2019, PhRvD, 99, 084049, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084049

    Landry, P., & Essick, R. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 084049, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084049

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.084049 2019

  48. [48]

    2021, Phys

    Legred, I., Chatziioannou, K., Essick, R., Han, S., & Landry, P. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 063003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.063003 2021

  49. [49]

    Lamb, F. K. 2013, ApJ, 776, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/19 2013

  50. [50]

    E., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D

    Lockhart, W., Gralla, S. E., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2524

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2524 2019

  51. [51]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 643, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039134

    Loktev, V., Salmi, T., N¨ attil¨ a, J., & Poutanen, J. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 643, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039134

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039134 2020

  52. [52]

    N., Kipphorn, R

    Lommen, A. N., Kipphorn, R. A., Nice, D. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 1012, doi: 10.1086/501067

    work page doi:10.1086/501067 2006

  53. [53]

    2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  54. [54]

    2024, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol

    Hare, J., & Nicer Team. 2024, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 21, AAS High Energy Astrophysics Division Meeting #21, 105.36

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    2025, A NICER view of the 1.4 solar-mass edge-on pulsar PSR J0614–3329, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.14883

    Mauviard, L., Guillot, S., Salmi, T., et al. 2025, A NICER view of the 1.4 solar-mass edge-on pulsar PSR J0614–3329, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.14883

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 2019

  57. [57]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b 2021

  58. [58]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 1244, doi: 10.1086/518648 N¨ attil¨ a, J., & Pihajoki, P

    Braga, J. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1244, doi: 10.1086/518648 N¨ attil¨ a, J., & Pihajoki, P. 2018, A&A, 615, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630261

    work page doi:10.1086/518648 2007

  59. [59]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03c0

    Olmschenk, G., Broadbent, E., Kalapotharakos, C., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae03c0 2025

  60. [60]

    R., Ftaclas, C., & Cohen, J

    Pechenick, K. R., Ftaclas, C., & Cohen, J. M. 1983, ApJ, 274, 846, doi: 10.1086/161498 P´ etri, J., Guillot, S., Guillemot, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555574

    work page doi:10.1086/161498 1983

  61. [61]

    Y., Pons, J

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0180-9 2015

  62. [62]

    2020, A&A, 640, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037471

    Poutanen, J. 2020, A&A, 640, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037471

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037471 2020

  63. [63]

    Poutanen, J., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 836, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11088.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11088.x 2006

  64. [64]

    P., et al

    Prigozhin, G., Gendreau, K., Doty, J. P., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2016

  65. [65]

    9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed

    Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99051I, doi: 10.1117/12.2231718

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2231718 2016

  66. [66]

    2014, ApJ, 792, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/87

    Psaltis, D., & ¨Ozel, F. 2014, ApJ, 792, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/87

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/2/87 2014

  67. [68]

    E., Watts, A

    Raaijmakers, G., Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab451a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab451a 2019

  68. [69]

    K., Riley, T

    Raaijmakers, G., Greif, S. K., Riley, T. E., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 893, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab822f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab822f 2020

  69. [70]

    K., Hebeler, K., et al

    Raaijmakers, G., Greif, S. K., Hebeler, K., et al. 2021b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089a 2041

  70. [71]

    J., Hobbs, G., Coles, W., et al

    Reardon, D. J., Hobbs, G., Coles, W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1751, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2395

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2395 2016

  71. [72]

    J., Bailes, M., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Bailes, M., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad614a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad614a 2024

  72. [73]

    A., Loewenstein, M., Steiner, J

    Remillard, R. A., Loewenstein, M., Steiner, J. F., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4ae6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac4ae6 2022

  73. [74]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c 45

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c 2019

  74. [75]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Ray, P. S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 2021

  75. [77]

    E., Choudhury, D., Salmi, T., et al

    Riley, T. E., Choudhury, D., Salmi, T., et al. 2023b, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4977, doi: 10.21105/joss.04977

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.04977

  76. [78]

    2024, ApJL, 971, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f02

    Rutherford, N., Mendes, M., Svensson, I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f02

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f02 2024

  77. [79]

    2020, A&A, 641, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037824

    Poutanen, J. 2020, A&A, 641, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037824

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037824 2020

  78. [80]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf49d

    Salmi, T., Vinciguerra, S., Choudhury, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf49d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf49d 2023

  79. [81]

    2024a, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 294, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1f

    Salmi, T., Choudhury, D., Kini, Y., et al. 2024a, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 294, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1f

  80. [82]

    S., Ray, P

    Salmi, T., Deneva, J. S., Ray, P. S., et al. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad81d2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad81d2

Showing first 80 references.