Population synthesis and detection prospects for Galactic long-period transients with LISA

Arthur G. Suvorov; Nikolaos Karnesis; Valeriya Korol

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 102 references

Population synthesis and detection prospects for Galactic long-period transients with LISA

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper estimates that between roughly 0.05% and 6% of Galactic long-period radio transients would be detectable by LISA within four years if the radio pulse period tracks the orbital period, and that the recovered gravitational-wave…

desk verdict First population-scale LISA forecast for long-period transients, genuinely useful, but the headline 0.05–6% detectability is really about the phase-locked subpopulation, not all LPTs. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04628 v1 pith:F2EVVM67 submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.HE gr-qchep-ph

Arthur G. Suvorov , Nikolaos Karnesis , Valeriya Korol This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-ph

keywords long-periodradiotransientsLISAgravitational-waveastronomywhitedwarfbinariespopulationsynthesisphase-lockingunipolarinductormulti-messenger

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 asks whether the recently discovered long-period radio transients (LPTs), which pulse coherently every few minutes to hours, are compact binary systems and whether the space-based gravitational-wave detector LISA can prove it. If the radio pulse period equals the orbital period, the gravitational-wave frequency is fixed at twice the orbital frequency, placing many of these sources in LISA's millihertz band. Constructing synthetic Galactic catalogues from the observed sample and from a pre-cataclysmic-variable evolutionary model, the paper estimates that between about 0.05% and 6% of LPTs would be detectable within a four-year LISA mission. For detectable systems, the frequency would be recovered to one part in roughly $10^{5}$, the amplitude to within a factor of about 2, and the sky position to within about 30 square degrees. A positive detection would directly confirm the binary nature of these sources and give radio surveys a targeted list of pulse periods and sky positions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the phase-locking condition $P_{\rm pulse}\approx P_{\rm orb}$, which sets the gravitational-wave frequency $f_{\rm GW}=2/P_{\rm orb}$ and maps every radio-detected period into a LISA-band search frequency. The population synthesis is driven by two period distributions: a power-law fit to the observed sample (Population I, $\alpha\approx 1/2$) and a steeper distribution corresponding to unipolar-inductor-dominated decay (Population II, $\alpha\approx 10/3$). Companion masses are selected by enforcing two conditions, no Roche-lobe overflow and a maximum spin-orbit slippage $\delta_{\max}=0.01$ that keeps the system phase-locked, and each catalogue entry is injected into a LISA noise model with iterative source subtraction to compute signal-to-noise ratios and Fisher-matrix parameter errors.

What would settle it

Measure the orbital periods of a sample of short-period LPTs from spectroscopy or eclipses and compare them with the radio pulse periods: if the two systematically disagree, the $f_{\rm GW}=2/P_{\rm orb}$ mapping breaks and the LISA forecasts collapse. Alternatively, a four-year LISA survey that resolves none of the roughly 6000 Population I sources predicted at SNR at least 7 would rule out the optimistic period distribution and the assumed phase-locked abundance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a non-negligible subset of the Galactic long-period transient population is detectable by LISA, with the detectable fraction ranging from roughly 0.05% to 6% depending on how LPT periods are distributed. Under the phase-locking hypothesis, each source radiates gravitational waves at $f_{\rm GW}=2/P_{\rm orb}$, so the radio period directly sets the millihertz-frequency signal. The optimistic Population I, built by extrapolating the periods of known sources, yields about 6000 resolvable sources with SNR at least 7; the conservative Population II, in which unipolar-inductor (electromotive) losses dominate orbital decay, yields about 50. For resolvable sources the injected frequency is recovered to one part in ~$10^{5}$, amplitudes to within a factor ~2, and sky positions to within ~30 square degrees, enough to guide radio follow-up. The paper also shows that comparing the measured frequency derivative with the gravitational-wave decay prediction can reveal whether electromotive losses power the radio emission.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the radio pulse period equals the orbital period, so the gravitational-wave frequency is set by the radio period; if phase-locking holds only for a minority of LPTs, the forecast applies only to that minority and the derived fractions would not describe the whole class.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the optimistic population is right, LISA should resolve roughly six thousand Galactic LPTs in four years, turning a radio-only curiosity into a multimessenger sample.
A LISA detection at SNR at least 7 localizes the source to tens of square degrees, within the field of view of wide-field radio telescopes, so radio surveys can be directed to confirm the pulse period.
Frequency recovery to about one part in 10^5 means the measured gravitational-wave frequency can pin down the pulse period precisely, helping to fold sparse radio pulses.
Measuring the frequency derivative and chirp mass lets observers compare the orbital decay rate with the gravitational-wave prediction, so a mismatch would indicate electromotive (unipolar-inductor) losses and identify the radio emission mechanism.
Even undetected LPTs contribute a confusion foreground between roughly 0.7 and 3 mHz that must be accounted for in LISA analyses of other sources.

Reading between the lines

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

If phase-locking holds only for a minority of LPTs, the detectable fraction should scale down roughly with that minority; the 0.05% to 6% range describes the phase-locked subpopulation, not necessarily all LPTs.
The synthesis treats short- and long-period LPTs as separate channels without an evolutionary link, so a future evolutionary model connecting pre-polar systems to AM CVn-like systems would sharpen the predicted period distribution and could be tested against LISA's frequency histogram.
The radio duty-cycle estimates of 10^-3 to 10^-1 imply that many LISA-detected candidates may be radio-dormant during follow-up, requiring monitoring campaigns of about 40 days per source to test the association.
A LISA detection of an LPT-like signal with no radio counterpart could identify a previously missed phase-locked binary, effectively discovering LPTs from the gravitational-wave side.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth your time. This is the first population-synthesis forecast for LISA detection of long-period transients, extending the same group's earlier single-source study. Their two-population bracket—empirical (alpha ~ 1/2) versus unipolar-inductor-driven (alpha ~ 10/3)—is a sensible way to handle a poorly known period distribution without pretending to know the truth. The SNR iteration pipeline and Fisher-matrix forecasts are standard, and the paper is transparent about its assumptions: no accretion, phase-locking, circular orbits, the Fisher validity limit, and the fact that the two newest LPTs are excluded. The frequency-recovery and sky-localization numbers are concrete enough to guide radio follow-up, which is the paper's real contribution. The soft spots are mostly about framing rather than execution. The abstract says 'between ~0.05% and ~6% of long-period transients will be detectable,' but the calculation is explicitly for the approximately phase-locked subpopulation. The body is careful about this; Section 2.2 notes that Ar Scorpii and its siblings are not phase-locked. But Table 1 shows only 3 of 13 sources are confirmed phase-locked, so the observed phase-locked fraction is at most ~25%. The stress-test note is right: multiplying the 6% upper bound by that fraction gives ~1.5%, and the short-period sources that drive the high-frequency tail in Population I are the least likely to be phase-locked, so the effective reduction could be larger. There is also circularity: Population I's period distribution is fit to a sample that includes non-phase-locked systems, so the 6% partly inherits that fit. The authors flag this in the body, but the abstract overreaches. The N = 10^5 normalization is a midpoint guess, though they treat it as a fiducial scaling and say absolute numbers scale linearly, so that's acceptable. The Fisher matrix at SNR ~ 7 is borderline, and they acknowledge it. These are not load-bearing flaws; the central conditional forecast holds up. This paper deserves a serious referee. The referee should ask the authors to rephrase the abstract to refer to 'phase-locked LPTs' or to include the phase-locked fraction as a multiplicative factor, and ideally to add a sensitivity line. As is, it's a solid, honest forecast that will be useful to the LISA and radio time-domain communities, but the headline number will be quoted too broadly unless fixed.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs synthetic Galactic populations of long-period radio transients (LPTs) under the hypothesis that their coherent radio pulses are phase-locked to the orbital motion of a white-dwarf binary, so that the gravitational-wave frequency is f_GW = 2/P_orb (Eq. 7). Two period distributions are considered: Population I is a tapered power law fitted to the 13 observed LPT periods (Eq. 12, alpha ~ 1/2), and Population II uses alpha ~ 10/3, as expected if unipolar-inductor torques dominate orbital decay. For each of N = 10^5 sources, the authors draw WD primary and companion masses subject to Roche-lobe overflow and phase-locking/slippage constraints, generate circular-orbit LISA waveforms, and run an iterative SNR/subtraction pipeline plus Fisher-matrix parameter estimation. They find ~6% of Population I and ~0.05% of Population II sources are resolvable at SNR > 7, with frequency recovery to ~10^-5, amplitudes to within a factor ~2, and sky localization to tens of square degrees. They further argue that LISA can distinguish GW-driven from electromotive orbital decay and can guide radio follow-up observations.

Significance. If the phase-locking premise holds for a substantial fraction of LPTs, this is a timely and useful forecast. The paper's main strengths are its use of standard LISA noise and data-analysis methodology (Karnesis et al. 2021; Korol et al. 2022), its explicit and reproducible catalogue construction, and its unusually transparent statement of assumptions and caveats. The conditional predictions—detection fraction, parameter-recovery accuracy, and orbital-decay discrimination—are in principle falsifiable with LISA data. The principal limitation is that the quantitative upper bound inherits the phase-locking assumption and a weakly constrained empirical period distribution; this does not invalidate the analysis, but it restricts the population to which the headline percentages apply.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Sec. 5.1] The abstract states that "between ~0.05% and ~6% of long-period transients will be detectable within four years", and Sec. 5.1 presents the ~6% and ~0.05% fractions as properties of the LPT population as a whole. This is not supported by the model's own scope. Section 2.2 states that phase-locking is verified for only three of the sources in Table 1 and explicitly notes that Ar Scorpii, J191213.72-441045.1, and SDSS J230641.47+244055.8 are not phase-locked, while Sec. 3.2 defines N=10^5 as the "total phase-locked LPT-like population". The computed fractions therefore refer to the phase-locked subpopulation. If the phase-locked fraction of all LPTs is f_lock (on the order of 3/13 from the current sample), the all-LPT detection fraction is f_lock times the quoted values, i.e., ~1.5% rather than ~6% for the upper end. I ask that the abstract, Sec. 5.1, and Sec. 6 be rephrased to read "phase-locked LPTs", or that the all-LPT fraction be stated with an explicit f_lock scaling.
[Sec. 3.1, Eq. (12), Fig. 6] The Population I period distribution that drives the 6% result is fitted to the full 13-source sample in Table 1, which includes systems the paper itself regards as not phase-locked. The confirmed phase-locked systems (ILT J1101+5521, GLEAM-X J0704-37, and ASKAP J174508.9-505149) all have periods >~82 min, whereas several of the shorter-period sources in Table 1 are exactly those for which spin-powering or non-phase-locked interpretations remain open. Since the resolvable Population I count in Fig. 6 is dominated by the f_GW >= 1 mHz tail, a phase-locked-only fit would likely shift Eq. (12) toward longer periods and suppress that high-frequency tail, lowering the upper-end fraction. Please either refit Eq. (12) on the phase-locked subsample or explicitly quantify the sensitivity of the 5911-source estimate to contamination by non-phase-locked sources; at minimum, the text should state that the upper bound is not robust to this sample mixture.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 3.4 and Sec. 5.1] There are small typographical errors: "catagory" in Sec. 3.4 should be "category", and "chirp mases" in Sec. 5.1 should be "chirp masses".
[Eq. (13)] The tapering is described as Gaussian, but the second exponential depends only on (P - P_L)^2, so the taper acts only near the lower cutoff. Please clarify whether the intended form should also suppress pile-up near P_U, or adjust the wording.
[Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 5.1] The absolute detection counts (~5911 and ~49) are linearly proportional to N, which is fixed as the midpoint of a two-order-of-magnitude range (10^-8 to 10^-6 pc^-3; Sec. 3.2). The paper sometimes reports "~6000 sources" without reminding the reader of this linear scaling; a sentence stating that absolute numbers scale with the uncertain total N would be helpful.
[Sec. 3.3, Eq. (19)] The ad hoc frequency-derivative scatter factor b=5 is not constrained by the mostly upper-limit Pdot values in Table 1. The authors acknowledge this in principle, but Sec. 5.2's parameter-recovery discussion should carry a reminder that the fdot distribution is a chosen prior rather than a measurement-based input.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the LISA detectability estimates are conditional forward-model outputs from an explicitly stated period-distribution fit plus an independent LISA SNR and Fisher pipeline, not quantities that reduce to the fitted inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central estimate (between ~0.05% and ~6% of long-period transients detectable by LISA) is a forward-model result, not a repackaged input. For Population I, the period CDF (Eq. 12-13) is fitted to the observed LPT sample in Table 1, but that CDF is only the prior for drawing orbital periods; the predicted detectability is then computed by converting periods to GW frequencies via Eq. (7), amplitudes via Eq. (22), and SNRs with the external LISA noise model and iterative subtraction pipeline of Karnesis et al. (2021) and Babak et al. (2021). The paper is explicit that the ~6% figure is a consequence of the empirical period distribution (Sec. 5.1: 'the empirical construction with alpha=1/2 leads to a pileup of resolvable systems'), which is transparent conditional modeling rather than equation-level circularity. The phase-locking relation f_GW=2/P_orb is introduced as an explicitly stated assumption (Sec. 2.2), and the paper immediately warns that the resulting estimates 'may thus not apply to the entire LPT population'; an assumption is not a circular step. The Fisher-matrix parameter-recovery results (Sec. 5.2) are self-consistent checks on injected signals, again using standard external methods, so they are not predictions of the model's inputs. Self-citations to Suvorov et al. (2025) appear only as motivation and for sample-selection criteria; the present analysis independently constructs catalogues and runs its own recovery pipelines, so these citations are not load-bearing. The known limitations of the study, such as selection effects in the observed LPT sample, uncertain total source count N, and the Fisher approximation, are correctness and robustness risks, not circularity. The paper even provides a second, theoretically motivated population (Population II) and a broken power-law cross-check, which independently bound the result. No derived quantity is equivalent, by construction or by fitted-parameter renaming, to the input data or to an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numbers (0.05-6% detection fraction, parameter recovery accuracies) are outputs of a forward model whose inputs are mostly adopted or fitted: the total population N, the period distribution indices alpha, the period cutoffs, the mass-radius relations, and the phase-locking/no-accretion conditions. No new physical entities are introduced. The GW amplitude, SNR, and Fisher formulas are standard results from the cited LISA literature.

free parameters (9)

Total LPT population N = 1e5
Midpoint of Yang (2026) number-density range for 10^12 pc^3 Galactic volume; detection counts scale linearly with N.
Pop I period power-law index alpha = 0.5
Fit to the empirical CDF of 13 observed LPTs (Eq. 12, Fig. 2); controls the number of short-period sources and the optimistic 6% detection fraction.
Pop II period power-law index alpha = 10/3
Chosen to model unipolar-inductor-dominated orbital decay (Sec. 3.1); yields the conservative 0.05% detection fraction.
Period cutoffs P_L, P_U = 7 min, 4 hr
Set to approximate edges of the known LPT sample; changing them shifts the high-frequency tail and hence detectability.
Tapering steepness s = 100 min^-2
Ad hoc parameter in Eq. (13) to avoid boundary pile-up; minor effect on the distribution.
Maximum spin-orbit slippage delta_max = 0.01
Assumed in Sec. 2.2 to keep phase-locking; enters Eq. (10) and constrains allowed companion masses.
Frequency-derivative scatter b = 5
Width of the fdot prior in Eq. (19), chosen to match observed scatter in Tab. 1; weakly affects results because fdot is small.
WD primary mass mean/std = 0.77, 0.1 M_sun
Adopted from Shaw et al. (2020) magnetic WD sample; sets the chirp-mass scale via Eq. (20).
Detection SNR threshold = 7
Standard threshold in the iterative subtraction pipeline (Sec. 4.1); the detectable fraction drops by ~4x if raised to 14.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Radio pulse period equals orbital period (phase-locking) for the modeled LPT population.
Sec. 2.2 states this as the working hypothesis; it sets f_GW = 2/P_orb from radio data. If false, GW frequency is not tied to the observed period.
domain assumption No active accretion: companion radius is strictly inside its Roche lobe (R_c < R_L).
Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2). Enforces the quiet, pre-polar picture and affects the allowed companion masses.
domain assumption Circular orbits with zero eccentricity.
Sec. 3.1 assumes e=0 based on GW circularization; only the 2f_orb harmonic is emitted. Moderate eccentricity would reduce fundamental-harmonic power (Sec. 6).
domain assumption M/K dwarf mass-radius relation for P>80 min and degenerate Nauenberg relation for P<80 min.
Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (4)-(5). Companion composition is not directly known; these relations set masses from radii in the Roche and phase-locking constraints.
ad hoc to paper Period distribution is a tapered power-law with index alpha = 1/2 (Pop I) or 10/3 (Pop II).
Sec. 3.1, Eq. (13). Pop I is fit to the observed sample, Pop II follows a theoretical decay law; the detectability range is largely set by this choice.
domain assumption Galactic spatial distribution follows the exponential disc model of Korol et al. (2022).
Sec. 3.2 generates positions/distances from that model; affects amplitudes and sky localization statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Population synthesis and detection prospects for Galactic long-period transients with LISA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F2EVVM67

@misc{pith2026260804628,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Population synthesis and detection prospects for Galactic long-period transients with LISA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F2EVVM67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04628}
}

abstract

The recently-discovered long-period radio transients represent a puzzling new class of astrophysical sources, some of which are thought to be compact binary systems emitting a pulse once per orbit. If this interpretation is correct, the orbital period--and therefore the gravitational-wave frequency--is directly encoded in the radio signal, which typically lies in the millihertz band. In this work, we explore whether these systems can be detected by the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). Assuming that this phase-locking between radio pulses and orbital motion applies broadly across the population, we construct synthetic source catalogues informed by both observations and theoretical models of related systems, such as cataclysmic variables. We estimate that between $\sim 0.05\%$ and $\sim 6\%$ of long-period transients will be detectable within four years of observation with LISA, depending on astrophysical assumptions. For detectable systems, we find injected frequencies are recoverable to one part in $\sim 10^{5}$, amplitudes to within a factor $\sim 2$, and the sky positions to within $\sim$30 square degrees. Our results demonstrate that gravitational-wave observations can provide direct evidence for the binary nature of these sources and, importantly, can guide future radio surveys by predicting pulse periods, sky positions, and orbital properties. The mismatch between extracted frequency derivatives and that imposed by gravitational-wave decay is also computed to show that the likelihood of electromotive losses driving orbital evolution can be assessed for each detectable candidate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04628 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Empirical CDFs for the observational sample of LPTs considered in Tab. 1 (black), together with a smooth fitting (red). Overlaid in blue is the fit described by Scaringi et al. (2023) for CVs; we refer the reader to that work for details (see equation 1 therein). Because reliable folding of the pulse signal requires many pulses, and LPTs emit sporadically, most of the sources listed in Tab. 1 have only upper limits… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Characteristic strain, h, as a function of GW frequency, fGW, for two synthetic LPT catalogues corresponding to Populations I (yellow diamonds) or II (blue stars). Coloured points indicate an SNR of at least 7, relative to the instrument noise (black curve). Overlaid i…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Results of a Fisher analysis for parameter estimation for LISA-resolvable sources (SNR ≥ 7) from Populations I (yellow) and II (blue). The vertical axis shows the raw count from the synthetic catalogues, with the horizontals showing the fractional recoverabilities (σλ …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Left: Distribution of the resolved LPTs for the two populations considered. Recovered binaries of pop I are represented with yellow circles, while pop II are shown with blue triangles. For contrast, we show with gray points expectations for the distribution of recovera…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Fractional uncertainty on the energy-decay rate (27) given uncertain measurements of fGW, M, and ˙fGW. Population I sources with SNR > 7 are shown in red, with Pop II in blue. The green, vertical bar depicts unity, δE˙GW/|E˙GW| = 1; sources to the left of this box sho…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Flowchart for strategies regarding multimessenger followup starting from either a known LPT (left branches) or a LISA detection (right). In the left tree we assume the period and other data (e.g., sky position) of an LPT is known. Depending on the results of a LISA se…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

[1]

Abbott, B. P. et al. 2008, , 683, L45

2008
[2]

D., Biryukov , A

Afonina , M. D., Biryukov , A. V., & Popov , S. B. 2023, Astronomy Letters, 49, 553

2023
[3]

D., Biryukov , A

Afonina , M. D., Biryukov , A. V., & Popov , S. B. 2024, , 41, e014

2024
[4]

2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

Amaro-Seoane , P., Andrews , J., Arca Sedda , M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

2023
[5]

L., Rea , N., et al

Anumarlapudi , A., Kaplan , D. L., Rea , N., et al. 2025, , 542, 1208

2025
[6]

2021 [ [arXiv] 2108.01167 ]

Babak, S., Petiteau, A., & Hewitson, M. 2021 [ [arXiv] 2108.01167 ]

arXiv 2021
[7]

Babak, S. et al. in prep
[8]

& Cutler , C

Barack , L. & Cutler , C. 2004, , 69, 082005

2004

Show all 102 references

[9]

2023, , 520, 1872

Beniamini , P., Wadiasingh , Z., Hare , J., et al. 2023, , 520, 1872

2023
[10]

S., et al

Bethapudi , S., Kerr , M., Ray , P. S., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 46

2021
[11]

K., Bassa , C

Bloot , S., Vedantham , H. K., Bassa , C. G., et al. 2025, , 699, A341

2025
[12]

L., et al

Caleb , M., Lenc , E., Kaplan , D. L., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1159

2024
[13]

R., & Sopuerta , C

Canizares , P., Gair , J. R., & Sopuerta , C. F. 2012, , 86, 044010

2012
[14]

T., et al

Castro Segura , N., Pelisoli , I., G \"a nsicke , B. T., et al. 2025, , 543, 2116

2025
[15]

2018, , 863, 48

CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Bandura , K., et al. 2018, , 863, 48

2018
[16]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571

Colpi , M., Danzmann , K., Hewitson , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571

2024 arXiv
[17]

J., Cotton , W

Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Greisen , E. W., et al. 1998, , 115, 1693

1998
[18]

Cooper , A. J. & Wadiasingh , Z. 2024, , 533, 2133

2024
[19]

Cornish, N. J. & Littenberg, T. B. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 083006

2007
[20]

& Bulik , T

Cury o , M. & Bulik , T. 2022, , 660, A68

2022
[21]

L., & Stella , L

Dall'Osso , S., Israel , G. L., & Stella , L. 2007, , 464, 417

2007
[22]

2010, in ISKAF2010 Science Meeting, 5

de Blok, E., Booth, R., Jonas, J., & Fanaroff, B. 2010, in ISKAF2010 Science Meeting, 5

2010
[23]

M., Bassa , C

de Ruiter , I., Rajwade , K. M., Bassa , C. G., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 672

2025
[24]

G., & Kokkotas , K

Destounis , K., Suvorov , A. G., & Kokkotas , K. D. 2020, , 102, 064041

2020
[25]

2013, Document number SKA-TEL-SKO-DD-001 Revision, 1

Dewdney, P., Turner, W., Millenaar, R., et al. 2013, Document number SKA-TEL-SKO-DD-001 Revision, 1

2013
[26]

A., Clarke , T

Dong , F. A., Clarke , T. E., Curtin , A., et al. 2025 a , , 990, L49

2025
[27]

A., Shin , K., Law , C., et al

Dong , F. A., Shin , K., Law , C., et al. 2025 b , , 988, L29

2025
[28]

Eggleton , P. P. 1983, , 268, 368

1983
[29]

2023, , 522, 5358

Finch , E., Bartolucci , G., Chucherko , D., et al. 2023, , 522, 5358

2023
[30]

Finn , L. S. & Thorne , K. S. 2000, , 62, 124021

2000
[31]

Fisher , R. A. 1935, Journal of the royal statistical society, 98, 39

1935
[32]

2023, , 519, 2552

Georgousi , M., Karnesis , N., Korol , V., Pieroni , M., & Stergioulas , N. 2023, , 519, 2552

2023
[33]

& Suvorov , A

Glampedakis , K. & Suvorov , A. G. 2021, , 508, 2399

2021
[34]

& Lynden-Bell , D

Goldreich , P. & Lynden-Bell , D. 1969, , 156, 59

1969
[35]

Hamers , A. S. 2021, RNAAS, 5, 275

2021
[36]

E., Keane , E

Hassall , T. E., Keane , E. F., & Fender , R. P. 2013, , 436, 371

2013
[37]

J., & Morgan , J

Horv \'a th , C., Hurley-Walker , N., McSweeney , S., Galvin , T. J., & Morgan , J. 2025, , 42, e129

2025
[38]

J., Bahramian , A., et al

Hurley-Walker , N., McSweeney , S. J., Bahramian , A., et al. 2024, , 976, L21

2024
[39]

J., et al

Hurley-Walker , N., Rea , N., McSweeney , S. J., et al. 2023, , 619, 487

2023
[40]

2022, , 601, 526

Hurley-Walker , N., Zhang , X., Bahramian , A., et al. 2022, , 601, 526

2022
[41]

Hyman et al. , S. D. 2009, , 696, 280

2009
[42]

L., et al

Imbrogno , M., Veresvarska , M., Wang , Y. L., et al. 2026, , 710, L27

2026
[43]

J., & Gupta , N

Johnston , S., Feain , I. J., & Gupta , N. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 407, The Low-Frequency Radio Universe, ed. D. J. Saikia , D. A. Green , Y. Gupta , & T. Venturi , 446

2009
[44]

2021, , 104, 043019

Karnesis , N., Babak , S., Pieroni , M., Cornish , N., & Littenberg , T. 2021, , 104, 043019

2021
[45]

L., Karnesis , N., Korsakova , N., Gair , J

Katz , M. L., Karnesis , N., Korsakova , N., Gair , J. R., & Stergioulas , N. 2025, , 111, 024060

2025
[46]

Kavanagh , R. D. & Vedantham , H. K. 2023, , 524, 6267

2023
[47]

& Weigert , A

Kippenhahn , R. & Weigert , A. 1994, Stellar Structure and Evolution

1994
[48]

2022, , 511, 5936

Korol , V., Hallakoun , N., Toonen , S., & Karnesis , N. 2022, , 511, 5936

2022
[49]

P., Toonen, S., et al

Korol, V., Igoshev, A. P., Toonen, S., et al. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 530, 844

2024
[50]

2012, , 757, L3

Lai , D. 2012, , 757, L3

2012
[51]

2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 997, L7

Lander, S., Gourgouliatos, K., Wadiasingh, Z., & Antonopoulou, D. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 997, L7

2026
[52]

Lee , Y. W. J., Caleb , M., Murphy , T., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 393

2025
[53]

Lee , Y. W. J., Wang , Y., Caleb , M., et al. 2026, , 545, staf2008

2026
[54]

& Maoz , D

Loeb , A. & Maoz , D. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 27

2022
[55]

Lorimer , D. R. & Kramer , M. 2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy

2012
[56]

2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010

Luo , J., Chen , L.-S., Duan , H.-Z., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010

2016
[57]

Lyman et al. , J. D. 2025, , 538, 925

2025
[58]

N., Lyne , A

Manchester , R. N., Lyne , A. G., Camilo , F., et al. 2001, , 328, 17

2001
[59]

a nsicke , B. T., H \

Marsh , T. R., G \"a nsicke , B. T., H \"u mmerich , S., et al. 2016, , 537, 374

2016
[60]

D., et al

McMillan, J., Ingram, A., Brown, C. D., et al. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stag117

2026
[61]

J., Hurley-Walker , N., Horv \'a th , C., et al

McSweeney , S. J., Hurley-Walker , N., Horv \'a th , C., et al. 2025, , 542, 203

2025
[62]

2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 269512

Men , Y., Barr , E., Qu , Y., et al. 2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 269512

2026
[63]

J., Finch , E., Klein , A., et al

Moore , C. J., Finch , E., Klein , A., et al. 2024, , 531, 2817

2024
[64]

& Kaplan , D

Murphy , T. & Kaplan , D. L. 2026, , 43, e006

2026
[65]

1972, , 175, 417

Nauenberg , M. 1972, , 175, 417

1972
[66]

F., Verbunt , F., & Yungelson , L

Nelemans , G., Portegies Zwart , S. F., Verbunt , F., & Yungelson , L. R. 2001, , 368, 939

2001
[67]

R., & Portegies Zwart , S

Nelemans , G., Yungelson , L. R., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2004, , 349, 181

2004
[68]

& Sienkiewicz , R

Paczynski , B. & Sienkiewicz , R. 1981, , 248, L27

1981
[69]

R., Buckley , D

Pelisoli , I., Marsh , T. R., Buckley , D. A. H., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 931

2023
[70]

2024, , 527, 3826

Pelisoli , I., Sahu , S., Lyutikov , M., et al. 2024, , 527, 3826

2024
[71]

2026, , 114, 023022

Perego , A., Bonetti , M., Sesana , A., Toonen , S., & Korol , V. 2026, , 114, 023022

2026
[72]

Peters , P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224

1964
[73]

Peters , P. C. & Mathews , J. 1963, Physical Review, 131, 435

1963
[74]

2021, Universe, 8, 9

Pilia , M. 2021, Universe, 8, 9

2021
[75]

2026, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 1

Pritchard, J., Murphy, T., Dobie, D., et al. 2026, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 1

2026
[76]

& Zhang , B

Qu , Y. & Zhang , B. 2025, , 981, 34

2025
[77]

S., Allard , F., Teixeira , G

Rajpurohit , A. S., Allard , F., Teixeira , G. D. C., et al. 2018, , 610, A19

2018
[78]

Ramsay , G., Brocksopp , C., Wu , K., Slee , B., & Saxton , C. J. 2007, , 382, 461

2007
[79]

2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 100566

Rea, N., Hurley-Walker, N., & Caleb, M. 2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 100566

2026
[80]

E., Heinke , C

Ridder , M. E., Heinke , C. O., Sivakoff , G. R., & Hughes , A. K. 2023, , 519, 5922

2023
[81]

Rodriguez , A. C. 2025, , 695, L8

2025
[82]

C., El-Badry , K., de Ruiter , I., et al

Rodriguez , A. C., El-Badry , K., de Ruiter , I., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.18688

2026 arXiv
[83]

2026, Nature Astronomy

Rose , K., Pritchard , J., Murphy , T., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy

2026
[84]

2020, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 35, 2050075

Ruan , W.-H., Guo , Z.-K., Cai , R.-G., & Zhang , Y.-Z. 2020, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 35, 2050075

2020
[85]

B., et al

Scaringi , S., Breivik , K., Littenberg , T. B., et al. 2023, , 525, L50

2023
[86]

Shapiro , S. L. & Teukolsky , S. A. 1983, Black holes, white dwarfs and neutron stars. The physics of compact objects

1983
[87]

W., Heinke , C

Shaw , A. W., Heinke , C. O., Mukai , K., et al. 2020, , 498, 3457

2020
[88]

Solheim , J. E. 2010, Pub. Astron. Soc. Pac., 122, 1133

2010
[89]

W., Hessels , J

Stappers , B. W., Hessels , J. W. T., Alexov , A., et al. 2011, , 530, A80

2011
[90]

A., Littlefield , C., Garnavich , P., et al

Stiller , R. A., Littlefield , C., Garnavich , P., et al. 2018, , 156, 150

2018
[91]

G., Dehman , C., & Pons , J

Suvorov , A. G., Dehman , C., & Pons , J. A. 2025, , 991, 134

2025
[92]

Suvorov , A. G. & Glampedakis , K. 2026, , 114, 023036

2026
[93]

G., Kuan , H.-J., & Kokkotas , K

Suvorov , A. G., Kuan , H.-J., & Kokkotas , K. D. 2024, Universe, 10, 441

2024
[94]

Suvorov , A. G. & Melatos , A. 2023, , 520, 1590

2023
[95]

J., Goeke , R., Bowman , J

Tingay , S. J., Goeke , R., Bowman , J. D., et al. 2013, , 30, e007

2013
[96]

& Dhurandhar, S

Tinto, M. & Dhurandhar, S. V. 2005, Living Rev. Rel., 8, 4

2005
[97]

Townsley , D. M. & Bildsten , L. 2003, , 596, L227

2003
[98]

2025, , 642, 583

Wang , Z., Rea , N., Bao , T., et al. 2025, , 642, 583

2025
[99]

& Shen , R.-F

Xiao , X. & Shen , R.-F. 2024, , 972, 60

2024
[100]

2026, , 997, 124

Yang , Y.-P. 2026, , 997, 124

2026
[101]

2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1004, L46

Zhan, Y., Wang, D., & Wang, F.-Y. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1004, L46

2026
[102]

& Most , E

Zhong , Y. & Most , E. R. 2026, , 999, L2

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abbott, B. P. et al. 2008, , 683, L45

2008

[2] [2]

D., Biryukov , A

Afonina , M. D., Biryukov , A. V., & Popov , S. B. 2023, Astronomy Letters, 49, 553

2023

[3] [3]

D., Biryukov , A

Afonina , M. D., Biryukov , A. V., & Popov , S. B. 2024, , 41, e014

2024

[4] [4]

2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

Amaro-Seoane , P., Andrews , J., Arca Sedda , M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

2023

[5] [5]

L., Rea , N., et al

Anumarlapudi , A., Kaplan , D. L., Rea , N., et al. 2025, , 542, 1208

2025

[6] [6]

2021 [ [arXiv] 2108.01167 ]

Babak, S., Petiteau, A., & Hewitson, M. 2021 [ [arXiv] 2108.01167 ]

arXiv 2021

[7] [7]

Babak, S. et al. in prep

[8] [8]

& Cutler , C

Barack , L. & Cutler , C. 2004, , 69, 082005

2004