Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Can the central compact object in HESS J1731--347 be indeed the lightest neutron star observed?

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that XMMU J1732 in HESS J1731–347 is a genuine low-mass neutron star of about 0.9 solar masses, formed by the collapse of a rapidly rotating iron core that sheds mass.

desk verdict A plausible but parameter-tuned scenario for the lightest neutron star, with the central mass-shedding calculation resting on a uniform-rotation assumption that may not hold after core collapse. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19382 v1 pith:2A3BZ5BN submitted 2024-11-28 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Shu-Rui Zhang , Jorge A. Rueda , Rodrigo Negreiros This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords centralcompactobjectneutronstarformationcore-collapsesupernovamasssheddingrotatingironcoreXMMUJ1732HESSJ1731-347binarydisruption
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 argues that the central compact object XMMU J1732 in the supernova remnant HESS J1731–347 is not exotic matter but an ordinary neutron star of roughly 0.9 solar masses, making it the lightest neutron star ever observed. The formation path is the gravitational collapse of a 1.2 solar mass iron core that spins at 40–45% of the breakup limit, with angular momentum conservation causing about 0.3 solar masses to be shed during collapse. The paper then ties this to a binary scenario: the progenitor was an ultra-stripped core tidally locked to a post-AGB companion, and the supernova disruption explains the observed 0.3 pc offset. It also shows that standard cooling with a carbon-rich atmosphere reproduces the observed temperature and age. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a way to form light neutron stars without invoking quark matter or dark matter.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the cylindrical angular-momentum conservation condition for rotating core collapse. The iron core is modeled as a polytropic sphere, and for each cylindrical coordinate x the enclosed mass and angular momentum are computed (Eqs. 1–2). The collapse proceeds only for material that satisfies L(x) ≤ Lmax, where Lmax ≈ 0.7 G $M^{2}$/c is the maximum angular momentum a uniformly rotating neutron star can hold (Eq. 3). The equality defines a critical radius xcrit; matter inside falls into the neutron star, matter outside is shed. This turns the observed mass of XMMU J1732 into a constraint on the pre-collapse rotation parameter β.

What would settle it

Run a full general-relativistic simulation of the collapse of a 1.2 solar mass iron core with uniform rotation at β = 0.4 and a realistic equation of state: if the resulting neutron star mass is not close to 0.9 solar masses, or if the shed material does not escape, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a mass-shedding mechanism that resolves the low-mass neutron star puzzle. By requiring the collapsing iron core's angular momentum within each cylindrical radius to stay below the maximum angular momentum of a uniformly rotating relativistic neutron star, the paper shows that a core of 1.2 solar masses rotating at β = 0.4 of the Keplerian limit produces a newborn neutron star of about 0.91 solar masses, shedding 0.24–0.3 solar masses in the process. The resultant object spins down under magnetic dipole braking to a modest rotation rate, and its thermal evolution with a light-element (carbon-rich) envelope matches the observed surface temperature of about 2×$10^{6}$ K at the estimated age of 4.5–10 kyr. The paper concludes that XMMU J1732 is indeed a light neutron star of about 0.9 solar masses formed by rotation-assisted mass shedding.

Load-bearing premise

The whole mass-shedding calculation rests on the assumption that the iron core rotates uniformly at 40–45% of the Keplerian limit and conserves angular momentum in cylindrical shells during collapse; if the rotation is differential or angular momentum is redistributed or lost, the predicted surviving mass changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, XMMU J1732's mass of roughly 0.9 solar masses is a real neutron star mass, making it the lightest neutron star known.
  • The measured mass and radius of XMMU J1732 would then constrain the nuclear equation of state in the low-density regime.
  • Rotation-assisted mass shedding becomes a viable formation channel for low-mass neutron stars in binary systems.
  • The binary disruption scenario predicts a kick velocity of up to 670 km/s, consistent with the observed 0.3 pc projected separation at the remnant age.
  • Standard neutron star cooling with a carbon-rich atmosphere can explain the object's thermal emission, so exotic alternatives are not needed for this source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same cylindrical mass-shedding argument may apply to other low-mass compact objects, potentially predicting a population of light neutron stars produced by tidally locked binary progenitors.
  • If fallback accretion of the shed material is significant, the final mass could be closer to the observed 0.77 solar masses, and the carbon-rich surface could be a natural result of accretion; this can be tested with detailed fallback simulations.
  • A full general-relativistic collapse simulation with realistic microphysics would quantitatively test whether the shed mass escapes or is partly accreted, refining the expected final mass and spin.
  • The scenario predicts a specific pre-SN binary with an orbital period of about 1.43 days and no Roche-lobe overflow; binary population synthesis could assess how common such configurations are.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a formation scenario for the low-mass central compact object XMMU J1732 in HESS J1731–347, in which a 1.2 M_sun iron core rotating at about 40–45% of the Keplerian limit sheds roughly 0.3 M_sun during collapse through the mass-shedding instability, producing a neutron star of about 0.9 M_sun. The authors support this scenario with a polytropic collapse model using cylindrical angular momentum conservation, a magnetic-dipole spin-down estimate, thermal evolution simulations with the APR equation of state, and a binary disruption scenario involving the nearby post-AGB star IRAS 17287–3443. They conclude that XMMU J1732 is indeed a light neutron star formed in a tidally locked, ultra-stripped binary that was disrupted by the supernova.

Significance. If the mass-shedding mechanism is robust, the paper offers a plausible astrophysical channel for forming neutron stars with masses well below the canonical values, explaining the unusual CCO without invoking exotic matter. The binary scenario gives a concrete, testable set of parameters, including an orbital period, kick velocity limit, and projected separation. The thermal evolution calculation adds a consistency check on the ordinary-neutron-star hypothesis. The significance is reduced by the model's dependence on the assumed uniform rotation of the collapsing core and on a chosen light-element envelope fraction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (1)–(4)] The mass-shedding threshold in Eqs. (3)–(4) uses the maximum angular momentum of uniformly rotating neutron stars from Cipolletta et al. (2015). However, conservation of specific angular momentum of cylindrical shells (Eqs. (1)–(2)) during collapse from a uniformly rotating iron core generically results in a differentially rotating newborn star, not a uniformly rotating one. Since a differentially rotating NS of a given gravitational mass can support more angular momentum than its uniformly rotating counterpart, the equality L(xcrit)=Lmax(xcrit) is not necessarily the relevant condition for mass shedding. If differential rotation persists, the surviving mass could be larger than 0.91 M_sun, weakening the conclusion that XMMU J1732 is the lightest neutron star. This is a load-bearing simplification because the final mass is directly set by this comparison. The authors should either justify the uniform-rotation assumption with a timescale estimate for angular momentum redistribution during collapse, or repeat the calculation using differentially rotating equilibrium sequences.
  2. [Sec. 2.4 and Fig. 3; conclusion (iii)] The cooling agreement with the observed temperature is obtained for a light-element envelope with ΔM/M=10^-7, which the text states is 'deliberate' and 'crucial' to match. The heavy-element envelope (Fig. 2) does not reproduce the observed point. Since the envelope fraction is a free parameter chosen to fit the data, the statement in conclusion (iii) that the concurrence 'is not merely coincidental' and that the model eliminates speculative hypotheses is too strong. The authors should explicitly identify ΔM/M as a fitted parameter in their model comparison and discuss how the assumed fallback accretion scenario predicts this value, or downgrade the cooling match to a conditional consistency check.
  3. [Sec. 2.2 and conclusion (i)] The final neutron-star mass is highly sensitive to the initial rotation parameter β; the paper selects β=0.4 as 'suitable for XMMU J1732' after the fact, and only a narrow range β≈0.3–0.45 produces low masses. Although Sec. 3.1 derives β≈0.445 from a tidally locked binary with a specific mass and radius, that derivation depends on assumed progenitor properties from Laplace et al. (2021). The authors should quantify the uncertainty in the final mass due to plausible variations in β and in the iron core mass, and discuss whether the required near-Keplerian rotation is physically expected for ultra-stripped binaries.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Conclusion (iii)] The phrase 'testament to the robustness of the the underlying assumptions' contains a doubled 'the', and 'excelent' should be spelled 'excellent'.
  2. [References] The first reference entry 'a. Akmal, Pandharipande, V. R., & Ravenhall, D. G.' has an odd formatting; it should be 'Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V. R., & Ravenhall, D. G.'
  3. [References] There are two separate entries for Horvath et al. (2023) with overlapping content; these should be merged.
  4. [Eq. (3) and Fig. 1 caption] The superscript in M^2 is not rendered properly; the text shows 'M 2' instead of 'M^2', in both Eq. (3) and the Figure 1 caption.
  5. [Sec. 2.2] The phrase 'The case of β=0.4 is suitable for XMMU J1732' is informal; it could be rephrased as 'β=0.4 yields a final mass within the 1σ observational uncertainty of XMMU J1732'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The NS mass of ≈0.91 M⊙ is not independently predicted: the rotation parameter β=0.4 is chosen because it returns the observed CCO mass, making the central formation claim a fitted consistency check rather than a derivation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (1)-(4) and Fig. 1; echoed in Sec. 4 conclusion (i)]
    "In the case of β = 0.3 and β = 0.4, the critical coordinate is xcrit = 0.54 and xcrit = 0.35 respectively, and the corresponding mass that can collapse to form an NS is M(xcrit) ≈ 1.07M⊙ and M(xcrit) ≈ 0.91M⊙. The case of β = 0.4 is suitable for XMMU J1732."

    The output mass M(xcrit) is a monotonic function of the assumed initial rotation parameter β through Eqs. (3)-(4). β=0.4 is not measured or independently predicted; it is declared 'suitable for XMMU J1732' exactly because it yields M≈0.91M⊙, inside the observed 0.77+0.20/−0.17M⊙. The subsequent binary construction (Sec. 3.1) does not break the loop: it uses the same β≈0.4–0.5 range in Eq. (11) to solve for the orbital separation a=9.04R⊙, so the binary parameters are inferred from the mass-matching rotation choice rather than independently producing it. The claim 'collapse ... leads to ... M≈0.91M⊙' is therefore a restatement of the chosen β, not a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central formation scenario is a consistency argument: if an iron core of ≈1.2M⊙ rotates at β≈0.4–0.45 of the Keplerian limit, angular-momentum conservation plus the GR mass-shedding limit of Cipolletta et al. (2015) yields a surviving neutron star of ≈0.91M⊙. Because β is not an observed quantity and is selected as 'suitable for XMMU J1732', the derived mass is fixed by the input rather than independently predicted. The paper's own Sec. 3.1 attempt to motivate β from a tidally locked ultra-stripped binary uses the same β range as input to solve for the orbital separation, so it does not supply independent evidence. The cooling section likewise chooses a light-element/carbon envelope (ΔM/M=10−7) after the heavy-element track fails to match the observed temperature; this is a physically motivated but post hoc adjustment, and contributes to the overall picture of consistency checks rather than ab initio predictions. The spin-down and binary-disruption estimates are less circular because they use external inputs (B-field, Hills criterion, SNR mass) and yield upper limits, but the headline claim—XMMU J1732 is a light NS formed by mass shedding—reduces to the chosen rotation parameter. Self-citations to Boshkayev et al. (2013) and Cipolletta et al. (2015) provide numerical equilibrium/Keplerian relations; those citations are real external computations but do not themselves establish β, so the circularity is in the choice of β, not in the self-citation chain. A full GR collapse simulation, which the paper explicitly calls for, could replace the simplified Lane-Emden + uniform-rotation model and would be needed to make the formation claim a genuine prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several modeling assumptions and one explicitly tuned parameter. The free parameters (beta and the light-element envelope fraction) are chosen to match the observed mass and temperature, which limits the strength of the 'prediction'. The axioms are standard astrophysical modeling choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Rotation parameter beta = ~0.4-0.45
    Selected so the collapse yields a neutron star mass near 0.9 solar masses, consistent with the observed mass of XMMU J1732; the paper states beta = 0.4 is suitable.
  • Light-element envelope fraction Delta M/M = 10^-7
    Chosen to make the cooling tracks match the observed surface temperature; the paper states the selection is deliberate.
  • Magnetic field B = 10^11 G
    Assumed typical CCO value for the spin-down estimate; not fitted to data but affects the derived spin-down and efficiency.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The iron core is approximated by a polytropic sphere with index n=3 and moment of inertia coefficient k=0.075.
    Used in Sec 2.2 to build the density profile; the authors note it matches detailed core models closely but neglects rotational deformation.
  • domain assumption The iron core rotates uniformly at a fraction beta of the Keplerian limit.
    Sec 2.2 assumes uniform rotation; differential rotation would change the angular momentum distribution and the location of the mass-shedding boundary.
  • domain assumption Angular momentum of every fluid element is conserved during collapse.
    Stated in Sec 2.2; if angular momentum is transported or lost, the surviving mass changes.
  • standard math The maximum angular momentum of a uniformly rotating neutron star is Lmax = 0.7 GM^2/c.
    Taken from Cipolletta et al. (2015) and used as Eq. (3) to define the critical cylindrical radius.
  • domain assumption The APR equation of state and BPS crust describe the neutron star interior for cooling calculations.
    Used in Sec 2.4; appropriate for low-mass stars but still a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The pre-SN binary is tidally locked, so the primary's spin equals the orbital angular velocity.
    Used in Sec 3.1 to relate beta to orbital separation and mass ratio through Eq. (11).
  • standard math Binary disruption occurs if the ejected mass exceeds half the total mass (Hills criterion), with the kick upper limit from Hills (1983).
    Used in Sec 3.2 to estimate the kick velocity and disruption probability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can the central compact object in HESS J1731--347 be indeed the lightest neutron star observed?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2A3BZ5BN

@misc{pith2026241119382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can the central compact object in HESS J1731--347 be indeed the lightest neutron star observed?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2A3BZ5BN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19382}
}
abstract

The exceptionally low mass of $0.77_{-0.17}^{+0.2} M_{\odot}$ for the central compact object (CCO) XMMU J173203.3 -- 344518 (XMMU J1732) in the supernova remnant (SNR) HESS J1731 -- 347 challenges standard neutron star (NS) formation models. The nearby post-AGB star IRAS 17287 -- 3443 ($\approx 0.6 M_\odot$), also within the SNR, enriches the scenario. To address this puzzle, we advance the possibility that the gravitational collapse of a rotating pre-SN iron core ($\approx 1.2 M_\odot$) could result in a low-mass NS. We show that angular momentum conservation during the collapse of an iron core rotating at $\approx 45\%$ of the Keplerian limit results in a mass loss of $\approx 0.3 M_\odot$, producing a stable newborn NS of $\approx 0.9 M_\odot$. Considering the possible spin-down, this indicates that the NS is now slowly rotating, thus fulfilling the observed mass-radius relation. Additionally, the NS's surface temperature ($\approx 2 \times 10^6$ K) aligns with canonical thermal evolution for its $\approx 4.5$ kyr age. We propose the pre -- SN star, likely an ultra-stripped core of $\approx 4.2 M_\odot$, formed a tidally locked binary with IRAS 17287 -- 3443, having a 1.43-day orbital period. The supernova led to a $\approx 3 M_\odot$ mass loss, imparting a kick velocity $\lesssim 670$ km s$^{-1}$, which disrupted the binary. This scenario explains the observed 0.3 pc offset between XMMU J1732 and IRAS 17287 -- 3443 and supports the possibility of CCOs forming in binaries, with rotation playing a key role in core-collapse, and the CCO XMMU J1732 being the lightest NS ever observed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19382 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel: angular momentum contained within the cylindrical polar coordinate x (solid curves), along with the maximum angular momentum for the uniformly ro￾tating sphere (red dash-dotted curve), for selected values of the initial angular velocity parameter β. The angular mo￾mentum is normalized to Lmax = 0.7GM2 /c. Lower panel: baryonic (blue curve) and gravitational (black curve) mass contained within the cylind… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Thermal evolution simulation for 0.6–0.97M⊙ NSs modeled with the APR EOS. Cooling tracks with pair￾ing indicated were calculated employing neutron singlet and triplet pairing (1S0 and 3P2) as well as proton singlet (1S0) model after the SFB and CCDK models (Schwenk et al. 2003; Chen et al. 1993b). These simulations considered an enve￾lope of heavy elements. Also shown is the observed temper￾ature of XMMU J1732 and i… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The ratio of the primary star radius to the bi￾nary semi-major axis as a function of the ratio of the masses of the two components of the binary star. The blue curve corresponds to the Roche-lobe outflow condition, with the shaded region separating two components larger than the Roche-lobe outflow condition, i.e., Eq. (10). The dashed-dot curves correspond to the tidally locked condition with differ￾ent rotation par… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    RvΠ'ZנN#

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2016

  4. [4]

    Akmal, Pandharipande, V

    a. Akmal, Pandharipande, V. R., & Ravenhall, D. G. 1998, Physical Review C, 58, 1804, 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1804

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.58.1804 1998

  5. [5]

    A., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2013, , 208, 17, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17 2013

  6. [6]

    Alford , J. A. J., & Halpern , J. P. 2023, , 944, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf55

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf55 2023

  7. [7]

    G., Han, S., & Prakash, M

    Alford, M. G., Han, S., & Prakash, M. 2013, Physical Review D, 88, 083013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.083013

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.083013 2013

  8. [8]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    1971, Astrophys

    Baym, G., Pethick, C., & Sutherland, P. 1971, Astrophys. J., 170, 299, 10.1086/151216

    1971 doi

  2. [10]

    W., & Page, D

    Beloin, S., Han, S., Steiner, A. W., & Page, D. 2018, Phys. Rev., C97, 015804, 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.015804

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Ruffini , R., & Siutsou , I

    Boshkayev , K., Rueda , J. A., Ruffini , R., & Siutsou , I. 2013, , 762, 117, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/117

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    2014, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 41, 123001, 10.1088/0954-3899/41/12/123001

    Buballa, M., Dexheimer, V., Drago, A., et al. 2014, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 41, 123001, 10.1088/0954-3899/41/12/123001

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    1970, , 161, 571, 10.1086/150561

    Chandrasekhar , S. 1970, , 161, 571, 10.1086/150561

    1970 doi

  6. [15]

    Chen, J. M. C., Clark, J. W., Dav\'e, R. D., & Khodel, V. V. 1993 b , Nucl. Phys. A, 555, 59, 10.1016/0375-9474(93)90314-N

    1993 doi

  7. [16]

    F., & Radice , D

    Chi-Kit Cheong , P., Pitik , T., Longo Micchi , L. F., & Radice , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10938. 2410.10938

    2024 arXiv

  8. [17]

    A., & Ruffini , R

    Cipolletta , F., Cherubini , C., Filippi , S., Rueda , J. A., & Ruffini , R. 2015, , 92, 023007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023007

    2015 doi

  9. [18]

    2016, , 591, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628505

    Cui , Y., P \"u hlhofer , G., & Santangelo , A. 2016, , 591, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628505

    2016 doi

  10. [19]

    2017, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    De Luca , A. 2017, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 932, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012006, 10.1088/1742-6596/932/1/012006

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.07485, 10.48550/arXiv.2211.07485

    Di Clemente , F., Drago , A., & Pagliara , G. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.07485, 10.48550/arXiv.2211.07485

    2022 doi

  12. [21]

    2016, , 458, 2565, 10.1093/mnras/stw499

    Doroshenko , V., P \"u hlhofer , G., Kavanagh , P., et al. 2016, , 458, 2565, 10.1093/mnras/stw499

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1444, 10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1

    Doroshenko , V., Suleimanov , V., P \"u hlhofer , G., & Santangelo , A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1444, 10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    1969, , 158, L71, 10.1086/180435

    Ferrari , A., & Ruffini , R. 1969, , 158, L71, 10.1086/180435

    1969 doi

  15. [24]

    G., Morales , G., & Negreiros , R

    Fraija , N., Bernal , C. G., Morales , G., & Negreiros , R. 2018, , 98, 083012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083012

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    V., Halpern , J

    Gotthelf , E. V., Halpern , J. P., & Alford , J. 2013, , 765, 58, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/58

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    1982, The Astrophysical …, 259, L19

    Gudmundsson, E. 1982, The Astrophysical …, 259, L19. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1982ApJ...259L..19G

    1982

  18. [27]

    H., Pethick, C

    Gudmundsson, E. H., Pethick, C. J., & Epstein, R. I. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 272, 286, 10.1086/161292

    1983 doi

  19. [28]

    P., & Gotthelf , E

    Halpern , J. P., & Gotthelf , E. V. 2010, , 709, 436, 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/436

    2010 doi

  20. [29]

    2000, Physics Reports, 328, 237, 10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00110-6

    Heiselberg, H. 2000, Physics Reports, 328, 237, 10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00110-6

    2000 doi

  21. [30]

    Hills , J. G. 1983, , 267, 322, 10.1086/160871

    1983 doi

  22. [31]

    Ho , W. C. G. 2011, , 414, 2567, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18576.x

    2011

  23. [32]

    Ho , W. C. G., Zhao , Y., Heinke , C. O., et al. 2021, , 506, 5015, 10.1093/mnras/stab2081

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, L11

    Horvath, J., Rocha, L., de S \'a , L., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, L11

    2023

  25. [34]

    E., Rocha , L

    Horvath , J. E., Rocha , L. S., de S \'a , L. M., et al. 2023, , 672, L11, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345885

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    2015, , 573, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424683

    Klochkov , D., Suleimanov , V., P \"u hlhofer , G., et al. 2015, , 573, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424683

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    E., Justham , S., & Farmer , R

    Laplace , E., G \"o tberg , Y., de Mink , S. E., Justham , S., & Farmer , R. 2020, , 637, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    2021, , 656, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    Laplace , E., Justham , S., Renzo , M., et al. 2021, , 656, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    S., & Moustakidis , C

    Laskos-Patkos , P., Koliogiannis , P. S., & Moustakidis , C. C. 2024, , 109, 063017, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063017

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    O., & Dexheimer, V

    Lyra, F., Moreira, L., Negreiros, R., Gomes, R. O., & Dexheimer, V. 2023, Phys. Rev. C, 107, 025806, 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.025806

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    D., & Melatos , A

    Mastrano , A., Lasky , P. D., & Melatos , A. 2013, , 434, 1658, 10.1093/mnras/stt1131

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 12, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/12

    Masuda, K., Hatsuda, T., & Takatsuka, T. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 12, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/12

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    2018, , 474, 662, 10.1093/mnras/stx2727

    Maxted , N., Burton , M., Braiding , C., et al. 2018, , 474, 662, 10.1093/mnras/stx2727

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    2003, , 405, 1075, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030696

    Meijerink , R., Mellema , G., & Simis , Y. 2003, , 405, 1075, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030696

    2003 doi

  35. [44]

    Miller , B. D. 1974, , 187, 609, 10.1086/152671

    1974 doi

  36. [45]

    C., & de Felice , F

    Miller , J. C., & de Felice , F. 1985, , 298, 474, 10.1086/163632

    1985 doi

  37. [46]

    2017, Reviews of Modern Physics, 89, 015007, 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

    Oertel, M., Hempel, M., Kl \"a hn, T., & Typel, S. 2017, Reviews of Modern Physics, 89, 015007, 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    P., & Gunn , J

    Ostriker , J. P., & Gunn , J. E. 1969, , 157, 1395, 10.1086/150160

    1969 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Prakash, M., & Steiner, A

    Page, D., Lattimer, J. M., Prakash, M., & Steiner, A. W. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 155, 623, 10.1086/424844

    2004 doi

  40. [49]

    2006, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 56, 327, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140600

    Page, D., & Reddy, S. 2006, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 56, 327, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140600

    2006

  41. [50]

    2015, , 450, 714, 10.1093/mnras/stv598

    P \'e tri , J. 2015, , 450, 714, 10.1093/mnras/stv598

    2015 doi

  42. [51]

    Podsiadlowski , P., Langer , N., Poelarends , A. J. T., et al. 2004, , 612, 1044, 10.1086/421713

    2004 doi

  43. [52]

    A., & Vigan \`o , D

    Pons , J. A., & Vigan \`o , D. 2019, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 5, 3, 10.1007/s41115-019-0006-7

    2019 doi

  44. [53]

    Y., Chabrier, G., & Yakovlev, D

    Potekhin, A. Y., Chabrier, G., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1997, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 323, 415. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9706148

    1997 arXiv

  45. [54]

    D., Pavao , C

    Richardson , N. D., Pavao , C. M., Eldridge , J. J., et al. 2023, , 614, 45, 10.1038/s41586-022-05618-9

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    A., Israel , G

    Rodr \' guez Castillo , G. A., Israel , G. L., Tiengo , A., et al. 2016, , 456, 4145, 10.1093/mnras/stv2490

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    A., Li , L., Moradi , R., et al

    Rueda , J. A., Li , L., Moradi , R., et al. 2022, , 939, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94c9

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    Ruffini, R., & Wheeler, J. A. 1971, in Proc. The Astrophysical Aspects of Weak Interactions, 10--12 June 1970, Problemi Attuali di Scienza e di Cultura (Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), 165--186

    1971

  49. [58]

    2023, , 958, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc9e

    Sagun , V., Giangrandi , E., Dietrich , T., et al. 2023, , 958, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc9e

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    2020, , 642, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038193

    Sales , T., Louren c o , O., Dutra , M., & Negreiros , R. 2020, , 642, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038193

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

    Schwenk, A., Friman, B., & Brown, G. E. 2003, Nucl. Phys. A, 713, 191, 10.1016/S0375-9474(02)01290-3

    2003 doi

  52. [61]

    2018, , 481, 3305, 10.1093/mnras/sty2460

    Suwa , Y., Yoshida , T., Shibata , M., Umeda , H., & Takahashi , K. 2018, , 481, 3305, 10.1093/mnras/sty2460

    2018 doi

  53. [62]

    M., Langer , N., & Podsiadlowski , P

    Tauris , T. M., Langer , N., & Podsiadlowski , P. 2015, , 451, 2123, 10.1093/mnras/stv990

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    2013, , 500, 312, 10.1038/nature12386

    Tiengo , A., Esposito , P., Mereghetti , S., et al. 2013, , 500, 312, 10.1038/nature12386

    2013 doi

  55. [64]

    2012, , 424, 2345, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21403.x

    Ventura , P., di Criscienzo , M., Schneider , R., et al. 2012, , 424, 2345, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21403.x

    2012

  56. [65]

    M., Fryer , C

    Wang , Y., Becerra , L. M., Fryer , C. L., Rueda , J. A., & Ruffini , R. 2023, , 945, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb771

    2023 doi

  57. [66]

    2004, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 42, 169, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134013

    Yakovlev, D., & Pethick, C. 2004, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 42, 169, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134013

    2004

  58. [67]

    G., Kaminker, A

    Yakovlev, D. G., Kaminker, A. D., Gnedin, O. Y., & Haensel, P. 2000, Physics Reports, 354, 1, 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00131-9

    2000 doi

Pith tools

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