Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Accretion-induced spin-up: Implications for mass constraints of AMXPs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Accretion-induced spin-up constrains three AMXPs to about 1.4, 0.7, and 0.4 solar masses.

desk verdict A clean forward-model application of EoS-specific structure to AMXP spin-up, but the headline low masses are really a distance measurement and should be read as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02061 v2 pith:BUVA7L77 submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.HE

Xiaoyu Lai This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords accretingmillisecondX-raypulsarsaccretion-inducedspin-upequationofstateneutronstarsquarkstrangeonmassconstraintsluminosity
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 tries to establish that the mass of an accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar can be inferred from its spin-up during an X-ray outburst, provided the torque is evaluated with equation-of-state-dependent values of mass, radius, and moment of inertia rather than fixed canonical numbers. Applying this to the three best-measured systems, it finds XTE J1751-305 near 1.4 solar masses, SAX J1808.4-3658 near 0.7, and IGR J00291+5934 near 0.4. Because such low masses are hard to reconcile with standard neutron-star formation and are natural for quark stars or strangeon stars, the method offers an observational route into the dense-matter equation of state. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as establishing a workable mass-constraint channel and an indicative mass pattern, while acknowledging that the distances and radiative efficiencies need refinement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the classical accretion-torque formula $\dot J = 2\dot M R_m^2\Omega_K(R_m)(1-\Omega/\Omega_K(R_m))$, with the magnetospheric radius $R_m\simeq [B^2 R^6/(\dot M\sqrt{2GM})]^{2/7}$ and the Keplerian angular velocity $\Omega_K(R_m)=\sqrt{GM/R_m^3}$, combined with the spin-evolution equation $\dot J=I\dot\Omega$. The accretion rate is obtained from the bolometric X-ray luminosity through $L_X\simeq GM\dot M/R$, and the surface dipole field from quiescent spin-down through the standard magnetic-dipole formula. What carries the argument is that $M$, $R$, and $I$ are not held fixed but are taken from each equation of state as functions of central density, so the mass contours in the $L_X$--$\dot\nu_{\rm su}$ plane shift in a way that can be compared with a single observed outburst point.

What would settle it

A geometric distance to IGR J00291+5934 from radio parallax or optical astrometry that placed it near 12.5 kpc rather than 4.2 kpc would shift its inferred mass to about $1.4\,M_\odot$, contradicting the paper's $\sim0.4\,M_\odot$ constraint; likewise, measuring X-ray radiative efficiency well below unity for these outbursts would break the low-mass inference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the classical accretion-torque relation, evaluated with equation-of-state-dependent structural parameters instead of canonical mass-radius-moment-of-inertia values, turns the pair (X-ray luminosity, outburst spin-up rate) into a mass diagnostic. For the 2002 outburst of XTE J1751-305 the inferred mass is centered around $1.4\,M_\odot$; for SAX J1808.4-3658's 2002 outburst, around $0.7\,M_\odot$; and for IGR J00291+5934's 2004 outburst, around $0.4\,M_\odot$. The same qualitative answer is obtained for neutron-star, quark-star, and strangeon-star equations of state, so the method is presented as an equation-of-state-insensitive evolutionary channel for constraining pulsar masses. The paper further argues that the two very low masses, if confirmed by better distances and spin-up measurements, would sit more naturally in quark-star or strangeon-star models than in the standard neutron-star model.

Load-bearing premise

The result that SAX J1808.4-3658 and IGR J00291+5934 are sub-solar rests on the observed X-ray luminosity being a faithful tracer of accretion rate through $L_X=GM\dot M/R$ at the assumed distances (3.5 kpc and 4.2 kpc); if those distances are larger or the radiative efficiency is significantly below unity, the inferred masses move up toward ordinary neutron-star values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method yields mass constraints that are broadly insensitive to the equation of state, so it can serve as an evolutionary channel for estimating pulsar-like compact star masses.
  • For XTE J1751-305, the 2002 outburst places the mass near 1.4 solar masses, consistent with typical neutron-star masses.
  • For SAX J1808.4-3658 and IGR J00291+5934, the inferred masses around 0.7 and 0.4 solar masses would be difficult to accommodate in the neutron-star model and would favor quark-star or strangeon-star interpretations if confirmed.
  • Better distance measurements and more precise spin-up rates would sharpen the constraints; for example, a 20 percent distance change shifts XTE J1751-305's inferred mass by about 0.3 solar masses.
  • IGR J00291+5934 would need a distance near 12.5 kpc, and SAX J1808.4-3658 near 6.5 kpc, to bring their masses up to 1.4 solar masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: applying the same contour construction to other AMXPs with clean outburst timing would multiply independent mass constraints.
  • Inference: an independent dynamical mass for IGR J00291+5934 near 1.4 solar masses would locate any failure in the luminosity and distance assumptions rather than in the torque formula.
  • Inference: a direct measurement of bolometric radiative efficiency in AMXP outbursts would show whether the low inferred masses are underestimates.
  • Inference: the paper's equation-of-state-specific treatment could be ported to neutron-star ultraluminous X-ray sources, where spin-up and luminosity data might yield similar mass contours.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a method to constrain the masses of accreting millisecond X-ray pulsars (AMXPs) by combining the classical accretion torque formula with equation-of-state-dependent mass-radius-moment-of-inertia relations. For three sources (XTE J1751-305, SAX J1808.4-3658, IGR J00291+5934), the authors use observed X-ray luminosities and spin-up rates to derive mass contours in the L_X vs. nu_su plane. They find that XTE J1751-305 has a mass near 1.4 M_sun, while SAX J1808.4-3658 and IGR J00291+5934 have masses near 0.7 and 0.4 M_sun, respectively, under standard distance and efficiency assumptions. The authors interpret the low masses as favoring quark-star or strangeon-star models and suggest the method is insensitive to the EoS.

Significance. If the inferred low masses for SAX J1808.4-3658 and IGR J00291+5934 were robust, the result would be significant for the equation of state of dense matter, potentially supporting exotic compact objects. The forward-modeling approach is transparent and the paper honestly lists several caveats in the discussion, including distance and torque-form uncertainties. However, the central claim is highly sensitive to the assumed distances and to the assumed radiative efficiency of unity; the paper itself notes that different distances would raise the inferred masses to about 1.4 M_sun. As such, the current results are better viewed as a demonstration of the method under a specific set of assumptions rather than as a firm mass measurement. The work is a reasonable extension of the authors' previous methodology, but its impact depends on how the systematic uncertainties are handled in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (5); §3] The low-mass results for SAX J1808.4-3658 and IGR J00291+5934 are directly controlled by the assumed distances (3.5 kpc and 4.2 kpc) and by the unity radiative efficiency in Eq. (5). The paper's own discussion in §3 states that IGR at 12.5 kpc or SAX at 6.5 kpc would yield 1.4 M_sun, and that efficiency below unity would increase the mass. These are not minor caveats; they demonstrate that the quoted masses are essentially re-statements of the distance and efficiency assumptions. The abstract and conclusions nevertheless present 0.4 and 0.7 M_sun as the constrained masses. A revision must either propagate these systematics into the quoted mass ranges (e.g., via a Monte Carlo that varies distance, efficiency, and the PRE-based distance systematics) or explicitly frame the results as conditional upper limits on distance/efficiency rather than as mass measurements. As written, the main astrophysical claim is not robust to the paper's own acknowledged uncertainties.
  2. [§2.4, Eq. (6); §2.2] The magnetic field B enters the mass contours through the magnetospheric radius R_m in Eq. (2), specifically as B^(4/7). The paper derives B from Eq. (6) assuming magnetic dipole radiation dominates the quiescent spin-down, and it arbitrarily sets sin alpha = 0.5. A factor of two change in B changes R_m by ~2^(4/7) ≈ 1.5, which shifts the torque and hence the inferred mass. The paper neither propagates the uncertainty in B nor justifies the adopted alpha. Given that the classical torque is itself a simplification (as the authors acknowledge), a sensitivity study showing how the mass contours respond to alpha and to alternative torque prescriptions is needed to support the central claim. Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the low-mass results are an artifact of the magnetic-field and torque assumptions.
  3. [§2.5, Figs. 1-3] The paper reports 'centered around' masses of 1.4, 0.7, and 0.4 M_sun but provides no error bars or uncertainty propagation for these values. The observed inputs (nu_su, nu_sd, and L_X) all have uncertainties that are shown as error bars in the figures, but the mapping from the data point to a mass range is not quantified. The authors also ignore errors in nu_sd when deriving B via Eq. (6). A minimal error propagation (ideally a Monte Carlo including distance and efficiency systematics) is required to determine whether the low masses for SAX and IGR are statistically distinguishable from the standard neutron-star mass range. The lack of any quantitative uncertainty on the main results is a load-bearing issue for the paper's conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption for Figure 3 refers to 'SAX J1808.4-3658', but the text and the 2004 outburst data point indicate the figure is for IGR J00291+5934. The caption should be corrected.
  2. [§2.5 and Figures 2-3] There is an inconsistency in the stated mass ranges of the contours: §2.5 says the contours for SAX range from 0.4 to 1 M_sun, while the Figure 2 caption says 0.3 to 1 M_sun; for IGR, §2.5 says 0.3 to 0.9 M_sun while the Figure 3 caption says 0.3 to 1 M_sun. These should be harmonized.
  3. [§2.3, Table 1] Table 1 quotes the IGR luminosity as ~0.063 x (d/5 kpc)^2 x 10^38 erg/s, but the analysis uses d = 4.2 kpc. While the text says luminosities are re-evaluated for the adopted distances, the table should explicitly state the distance scaling for all three sources to avoid confusion.
  4. [Throughout] Several typographical issues should be corrected: 'The uncertain about the distance' in §2.3 should be 'The uncertainty'; 'the polar magnetic filed strength' in §2.1 should be 'field'; and 'the third column of Table. 1' in §2.5 should be 'Table 1'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mass constraints are obtained by forward-model inversion using distinct observables, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a self-contained forward model. Eq. (5) converts the observed bolometric luminosity to an accretion rate, with M and R left as free variables tied by an EoS; Eq. (6) uses the quiescent spin-down to infer B, again involving EoS-dependent I and R. Eqs. (1)-(4) then predict the outburst spin-up rate for each fixed M, producing M-contours in the (L_X, nu_su) plane. The observed point is compared with these contours, so M is the unknown being solved from a model, not a parameter fitted to reproduce the same target. The luminosity-to-accretion-rate step does use M and R on the right-hand side, but this is an inversion of a physical relation rather than a self-definition: the same M is not assumed on both sides; it is determined by consistency with the independent spin-up observation. The only self-citations (Lai & Xu 2009 for the strangeon EoS; Zhong & Lai 2025 for prior use of EoS-specific parameters) are not load-bearing: the classical torque formulae come from external literature, and the low-mass results are obtained from all three EoS models, including the independent AP and MIT-bag models. The paper explicitly acknowledges the sensitivity to distance and radiative efficiency (e.g., IGR would need about 12.5 kpc to yield 1.4 Msun), which confirms that the mass is an output of the analysis rather than an input. Those caveats are observational or modeling uncertainties, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted value is relabeled as a predicted mass.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fundamentally new physical entities are introduced; the calculation rests on standard torque and spin-down formulas plus assumed distances and EoS models from prior literature.

free parameters (2)
  • Distance to XTE J1751-305 = 8.5 kpc (assumed)
    The source has no measured distance; the paper takes the often-used 8.5 kpc and a 20% error, and the inferred mass changes by about 0.3 Msun for this 20% change.
  • sin alpha (magnetic inclination) = 0.5
    Chosen as a representative value for the magnetic dipole spin-down formula; the paper states different alpha does not change results qualitatively.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Classical accretion torque formula in Eq. (1) accurately describes spin-up during outbursts
    The paper deliberately uses the classical form and lists more detailed modeling as a future refinement in Section 3.
  • domain assumption All gravitational energy released during accretion is radiated as X-rays (Eq. 5)
    Used to convert L_X to accretion rate; the paper acknowledges radiative efficiency could be below unity.
  • domain assumption Long-term spin-down is dominated by magnetic dipole radiation (Eq. 6)
    The paper neglects propeller and gravitational radiation mechanisms, arguing the stable spin-down rates justify this.
  • domain assumption The three EoS models (AP, MIT bag, Lennard-Jones) correctly represent the structure of compact stars
    M-R-I relations from these models are used to generate contours; no independent validation is provided in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accretion-induced spin-up: Implications for mass constraints of AMXPs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUVA7L77

@misc{pith2026260802061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accretion-induced spin-up: Implications for mass constraints of AMXPs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUVA7L77}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02061}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the influence of the global structure of accreting millisecond X-ray pulsars (AMXPs) on accretion-induced spin-up, using three equations of state (EoS) models representing neutron stars, quark stars, and strangeon stars. By applying the classical accretion torque formalism, and deriving the accretion rate and magnetic field from observations of three AMXPs --- XTE J1751-305, SAX J1808.4-3658, and IGR J00291+5934 --- we derive mass contours in the plane of luminosity versus spin-up rate. Our results show that the inferred masses are broadly consistent across the three EoS models, indicating that the method is insensitive to the specific EoS and can serve as an evolutionary channel for constraining the masses of pulsar-like compact stars. Notably, we find that SAX J1808.4-3658 and IGR J00291+5934 are constrained to very low masses, while XTE J1751-305 yields a mass consistent with the typical range for pulsars. Our analysis suggests that future improvements in distance and spin-up measurements would refine these mass constraints, which could offer crucial evidence to distinguish different EoS models. This paper also presents the idea that using EoS-specific parameters could yield new insights.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02061 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Contours of 𝑀 with different colors (upper purple one to lower red one: 1 to 2 𝑀⊙) for XTE J1751–305, with top, middle and bottom panels representing the cases of neutron stars, quark stars and strangeon stars, respectively. The data point is from the outburst in 2002. The errors in 𝜈¤su are from the third column of Table. 1. Because the distance of XTE J1751–305 is uncertain and is often taken to be 8.5 kpc, the er… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contours of 𝑀 with different colors (upper purple one to lower red one: 0.3 to 1 𝑀⊙) for SAX J1808.4-3658, with top, middle and bottom panels representing the cases of neutron stars, quark stars and strangeon stars, respectively. The data point is from the outburst in 2004. The errors in 𝜈¤su are from the third column of Table. 1, and the errors in 𝐿X are given according to the distance of 4.2±0.5 kpc. imply a large… view at source ↗

Review history (3 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.2261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvC..56.2261A 56, 2261

    Akmal A., Pandharipande V. R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.2261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvC..56.2261A 56, 2261

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.56.2261 1997

  2. [2]

    V., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3101B 457, 3101

    Bhattacharyya S., Bombaci I., Logoteta D., Thampan A. V., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3101B 457, 3101

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw206 2016

  3. [3]

    R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...505L.135B 505, L135

    Burderi L., King A. R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...505L.135B 505, L135

    work page doi:10.1086/311611 1998

  4. [4]

    T., Riggio A., Papitto A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653L.133B 653, L133

    Burderi L., Di Salvo T., Menna M. T., Riggio A., Papitto A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653L.133B 653, L133

    work page doi:10.1086/510666 2006

  5. [5]

    Burderi L., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657..961B 657, 961

    doi:10.1086/510659 2007

  6. [6]

    Chatterjee P., Hernquist L., Narayan R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...534..373C 534, 373

    doi:10.1086/308748 2000

  7. [7]

    K., Poutanen J., Ferrigno C., Stella L., Falanga M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A..88D 599, A88

    De Falco V., Kuiper L., Bozzo E., Galloway D. K., Poutanen J., Ferrigno C., Stella L., Falanga M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A..88D 599, A88

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629575 2017

  8. [8]

    Falanga M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...444...15F 444, 15

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053472 2005

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    K., Cumming A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652..559G 652, 559

    Galloway D. K., Cumming A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652..559G 652, 559

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    Gao Y., Lai X.-Y., Shao L., Xu R.-X., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2758G 509, 2758

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Gierli \'n ski M., Poutanen J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09004.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.359.1261G 359, 1261

    2005

  4. [12]

    G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.2399G 508, 2399

    Glampedakis K., Suvorov A. G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.2399G 508, 2399

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675.1468H 675, 1468

    Hartman J. M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675.1468H 675, 1468

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    R., in't Zand J

    Kuulkers E., den Hartog P. R., in't Zand J. J. M., Verbunt F. W. M., Harris W. E., Cocchi M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...399..663K 399, 663

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    Y., Xu R

    Lai X. Y., Xu R. X., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00701.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398L..31L 398, L31

    2009

  8. [16]

    Marino A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834460 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...627A.125M 627, A125

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Narayan R., Garcia M

    Menou K., Esin A. A., Narayan R., Garcia M. R., Lasota J.-P., McClintock J. E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...520..276M 520, 276

    1999 doi

  10. [18]

    T., Burderi L., di Salvo T., Riggio A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12551.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383..411P 383, 411

    Papitto A., Menna M. T., Burderi L., di Salvo T., Riggio A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12551.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383..411P 383, 411

    2008

  11. [19]

    Papitto A., Riggio A., Burderi L., di Salvo T., D'A \' A., Iaria R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A..55P 528, A55

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Patruno A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/909 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722..909P 722, 909

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    L., 2021, in Belloni T

    Patruno A., Watts A. L., 2021, in Belloni T. M., M \'e ndez M., Zhang C., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions. pp 143--208 ( @eprint arXiv 1206.2727 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_4

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Patruno A., Wijnands R., van der Klis M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/L60 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698L..60P 698, L60

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Fregeau J

    Rappaport S. A., Fregeau J. M., Spruit H., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382863 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...606..436R 606, 436

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...531A.140R 531, A140

    Riggio A., Burderi L., di Salvo T., Papitto A., D'A \` A., Iaria R., Menna M. T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...531A.140R 531, A140

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    D., Sanna A., 2022, Accretion Powered X-ray Millisecond Pulsars

    Salvo T. D., Sanna A., 2022, Accretion Powered X-ray Millisecond Pulsars. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 87--124, @doi 10.1007/978-3-030-85198-9_4 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85198-9_4

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Sanna A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.1641S 495, 1641

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Spitkovsky A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648L..51S 648, L51

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    Wang Y.-M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449L.153W 449, L153

    1995 doi

  21. [29]

    Wijnands R., van der Klis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/28557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.394..344W 394, 344

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    Zhong X., Lai X., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1746 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.544..293Z 544, 293

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    in't Zand J. J. M., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...372..916I 372, 916

    2001 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.