Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 86 references

A Search for Radio Millisecond Pulsar Companions around Extremely Low-mass White Dwarfs with Ellipsoidal Variability

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper estimates that fewer than 15% of short-period ellipsoidal extremely low-mass white dwarfs are orbited by millisecond pulsars, implying that most are double white dwarfs.

desk verdict Competent null-result search with a model-loaded upper limit; the 17 new systems and radio upper limits are the durable part, not the headline fraction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17447 v1 pith:G7PIIU62 submitted 2024-12-23 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

W. J. Huang , Pak-Hin Thomas Tam , L. L. Ren , J. M. Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords extremelylow-masswhitedwarfsellipsoidalvariablesmillisecondpulsarsradiopulsarsearchdwarfbinariesclosebinarystarsorbitalperiod
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 how many extremely low-mass white dwarfs (ELM WDs, helium-core white dwarfs with masses below 0.3 solar masses) that show ellipsoidal brightness variations on sub-day orbits are actually orbited by recycled millisecond pulsars rather than by other white dwarfs. Screening roughly 12,000 ELM WDs or candidates in public time-domain data, the authors identify 23 systems with ellipsoidal-like variability and orbital periods under one day, 17 of them new, and estimate companion masses for nine high-priority candidates, four of which exceed one solar mass. Targeted radio observations of six of these systems with the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope found no pulsed signals, with flux upper limits near 8 microjanskys at 1.4 GHz. Combining these non-detections with prior Green Bank Telescope non-detections of similar systems, the paper estimates that the fraction of ellipsoidal ELM WDs that host millisecond pulsars is below $15^{+6}_{-3}\%$. If the bound stands, the short-period ellipsoidal ELM WD population is mostly double white dwarfs, which matters for binary evolution models and for what future gravitational-wave observatories will see.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two mechanical steps. First, the ellipsoidal-variability amplitude $A_{\rm EV} = 3\pi^2(15+\mu_1)(1+\tau_1)M_2 R_1^3 \sin^2 i / [5 P_{\rm orb}^2 (3-\mu_1) G M_1 (M_1+M_2)]$, with limb-darkening $\mu_1$ and gravity-darkening $\tau_1$, is combined with the mass function $f_1(M_2)=P_{\rm orb}K_1^3/(2\pi G)=M_2^3\sin^3 i/(M_1+M_2)^2$ in Monte Carlo draws to map each target's companion mass and inclination. Second, the headline fraction comes from the binomial non-detection formula $\prod_{j=1}^{N}(1-P_{\rm beam}P_{L,j}P_{\rm eff}f_{\rm MSP,ELL})>1/2$, where $P_{\rm beam}=0.7$ is the pulsar beaming fraction, $P_{\rm eff}=0.8$ the search-success rate, and $P_{L,j}$ is the luminosity completeness of each source computed from an assumed log-normal millisecond-pulsar luminosity distribution; requiring this product to exceed one-half turns 11 radio non-detections into the upper limit on $f_{\rm MSP,ELL}$. The candidate selection itself uses Lomb-Scargle periodograms and a five-parameter harmonic fit to the phase-folded ZTF light curves to separate the $\cos 2\phi$ ellipsoidal term from Doppler beaming, reflection, and the first orbital harmonic.

What would settle it

A single convincing radio-pulse detection from any of the 11 ellipsoidal ELM WDs used in the fraction estimate, for example a longer FAST or GBT integration reaching a 1.4-GHz flux limit near 1 $\mu$Jy on one of the six newly observed targets, would remove the non-detection basis for the <15% bound. A measurement of the actual MSP luminosity function from a complete sample, or accurate parallaxes for J1048-0000, J1401-0817, and J0745+1949, would provide a direct check on the completeness values that set the bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a demographic bound: among ELM WDs selected to show ellipsoidal variability with orbital periods shorter than one day, the fraction with millisecond-pulsar companions is below $15^{+6}_{-3}\%$, estimated from the absence of radio pulsations in 11 such systems. The paper builds this from a sample of roughly 12,000 ELM WDs or candidates, finds 23 ellipsoidal variables (17 newly discovered), and uses the ellipsoidal amplitude--orbital period relation, solved together with each system's mass function, to estimate unseen companion masses for nine high-priority targets; four have companion masses above 1 $M_\odot$. A FAST radio search of six of these targets produced no convincing pulsed signals, no X-ray counterparts appear in archival catalogues, and, combined with earlier GBT non-detections, the 11-system binomial calculation puts the MSP fraction below the quoted bound. The paper's conclusion is that most of these short-period ellipsoidal systems are double white dwarfs rather than MSP/ELM binaries.

Load-bearing premise

The limiting assumption is that the millisecond-pulsar population in these binaries has the same luminosity distribution, beaming fraction, and search success as the standard values adopted in the calculation (a log-normal luminosity distribution with mean $-1.1$ and width $0.9$, beaming 0.7, efficiency 0.8); if the true pulsars are dimmer, beamed away from Earth more often, or the distances to the targets are overestimated, the same 11 non-detections would permit a true MSP fraction well above 15%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the <15% bound holds, most short-period ellipsoidal ELM WDs are double white dwarfs; the recycled-pulsar channel is a minority outcome among these photometrically selected systems.
  • The four high-priority candidates with companion masses above 1 $M_\odot$ are the most promising targets for deeper radio and X-ray follow-up to look for MSP companions.
  • The 17 newly discovered ellipsoidal variables enlarge the census of ultracompact WD binaries with sub-day periods, several of which are candidate low-frequency gravitational-wave sources for future space-based detectors.
  • Extending this search to the roughly 4,300 ELM candidates south of the current survey footprint, with southern time-domain surveys, should tighten or revise the fraction estimate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bound holds under deeper searches, the ellipsoidal-selection method mostly isolates double-degenerate systems, implying that future radio follow-up of such targets should expect a low yield and that the systems are better exploited as WD+WD gravitational-wave sources.
  • Applying the same binomial non-detection method to a larger sample, such as the southern-sky ELM candidates once new time-domain data are available, would push the constraint toward the roughly 10% level previously estimated for low-mass WD binaries generally.
  • Radial-velocity monitoring of the four candidates with companion masses above 1 $M_\odot$ could separate a massive CO-core white dwarf from a neutron star companion without needing a radio detection, testing the companion-mass estimates from ellipsoidal amplitudes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper searches for ellipsoidal variability among ~12,000 ELM white dwarfs and candidates using ZTF DR15 light curves, identifies 23 such systems (17 newly discovered), and selects nine high-priority targets for which it estimates companion masses from ellipsoidal amplitudes and radial-velocity mass functions. Targeted FAST observations of six of these systems yield no radio pulsations; combining these with three GBT non-detections and two previously known GBT-observed ellipsoidal systems, the paper derives an upper limit on the fraction of ellipsoidal ELM WDs orbited by MSPs of f_MSP,ELL < 15^{+6}_{-3}%.

Significance. If the headline bound holds, the result would strengthen the view that short-period ellipsoidal ELM WDs are predominantly double-degenerate systems rather than MSP/ELM binaries, and it would provide a useful photometric-selection-based complement to previous spectroscopic searches. The paper's strengths include a clearly described search and fitting procedure, a Monte Carlo treatment of the mass-inclination degeneracy, use of public survey data, and an explicitly conditional upper limit. The central claim is, however, sensitive to external population assumptions and to the sample's contamination by non-ELM objects, so the 15% number should be read as conditionally derived rather than as a model-independent measurement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (5), Table 3, Fig. 4] The headline bound f_MSP,ELL < 15^{+6}_{-3}% is computed through Eq. (5) using the per-source completeness PL,j derived from a log-normal MSP luminosity function with mu=-1.1 and sigma=0.9 (Faucher-Giguere & Kaspi 2006), together with Pbeam=0.7 and Peff=0.8. The paper acknowledges in Section 5 that a dimmer MSP luminosity function or underestimated spectrophotometric distances would raise the bound, but it does not quantify the sensitivity. For J1048-0000, J1401-0817, and J0745+1949, the spectrophotometric distances in Table 2 differ from Gaia-parallax distances by factors of 2-4 (Fig. 4), and the luminosity function of recycled MSPs in ELM WD binaries is not measured independently. Plausible shifts of the luminosity function by 0.5-1 dex would move the 50% upper limit from ~15% toward 20-30%. Because the abstract and conclusion report the 15% value without this conditioning, the central claim is weaker than presented; the authors should either add a sensitivity analysis over luminosity function parameters, Pbeam, Peff, and alternative distances, or explicitly present the bound as conditional on those assumptions.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The 23-source sample is assembled from 'ELM WDs or their candidates' and contains several objects that the paper itself identifies as likely non-ELM contaminants: J0238+4123 (Teff ~80,000 K, likely sdB), J2029+0701 (likely sdB), J1257+4220 (hot DA), and J1048-0000/J1401-0817 (possibly sdA-type). The fraction f_MSP,ELL is then estimated for 11 systems that include J0745+1949, which the paper retains only as a proto-WD candidate not on the cooling track. If the denominator includes non-ELM objects, the derived upper limit on the fraction of genuine ELM WDs around MSPs is diluted, and the direct comparison with previous fNS estimates becomes ambiguous. The authors should either restrict the fraction to spectroscopically confirmed ELM WDs, or estimate and propagate the contamination rate into the bound.
  3. [Section 5, Eq. (5)] The quoted uncertainty on the upper limit, 15^{+6}_{-3}%, is not derived in the text. Equation (5) contains Pbeam, Peff, and PL,j, each of which carries uncertainty, but the paper does not state how the asymmetric error bar is computed, nor whether it includes the systematic uncertainties in the luminosity function and beaming fraction. Without this information, the precision implied by the quoted error bar is unjustified. Please specify the error propagation procedure, or quote the bound without asymmetric uncertainties and list the dominant systematic rather than a statistical error.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.5] There is a typo: 'Chandard CSC 2.1' should be 'Chandra CSC 2.1'.
  2. [Sections 4.5 and 5] The telescope name is typeset with an internal space ('F AST') in multiple places; please fix the formatting to 'FAST'.
  3. [Section 4.2] The sentence beginning 'Its Teff and log g1 differ from those derived by Brown et al. (2020), whose estimated parallax (~1.443)' has an unclear antecedent; 'whose' appears to refer to Brown et al. rather than to the star, so please rephrase.
  4. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The text states that the 23 sources include '7 sources from sample S1, 17 sources from sample S2, and 3 sources from sample S3', which sums to 27 before overlap removal; please clarify that these are the counts before de-duplicating overlapping sources.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4.4, Table 3] The statement that four targets have companion masses exceeding 1 Msun is based on posterior medians, but the 1-sigma uncertainties in Table 3 are very wide (e.g., J1401-0817 has M2 = 1.167^{+0.902}_{-0.297}); the wording should say 'median companion masses above 1 Msun' to avoid overstating the confidence in this result.
  6. [Section 5] The two additional GBT-observed sources J0056-0611 and J0112+1835 are included in the fraction estimate even though, as footnote 12 notes, their ellipsoidal variability was not found in the ZTF data; please clarify how these sources satisfy the same ellipsoidal selection criteria as the other nine systems.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline fraction bound is model-dependent but not derived from its own inputs, and the companion-mass estimates solve independent equations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. The companion masses are obtained by solving Equation (1) (ellipsoidal amplitude, with M1, R1, log g, limb-darkening coefficients taken from external measurements or published grids) together with Equation (3) (spectroscopic mass function, from published radial-velocity amplitudes). These are independent observables, and no parameter fitted from the target data is reused as a prediction. The headline limit, fMSP,ELL < 15^{+6}_{-3}%, is computed from 11 radio non-detections via Equation (5), using external population assumptions: Pbeam from Kramer et al. (1998), Peff set to 0.8, and a log-normal MSP luminosity distribution from Faucher-Giguere & Kaspi (2006). Those parameters are not fitted in this paper, so the bound is a statistically forced consequence of the non-detections only under the stated external assumptions. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 5 that a dimmer MSP luminosity function or underestimated spectrophotometric distances would raise the limit; this is an honest model-dependence caveat, not a circular step. The only self-citations (Ren et al. 2023 for variability discoveries; Huang & Wang 2020 as a caveat about dimmer MSP luminosities) are not load-bearing for the derivation: the first concerns unrelated lightcurve classifications, and the second is invoked only as a possible systematic effect, not as a premise on which the fraction estimate depends. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is repackaged as new organization. The paper is therefore not circular; any concerns about the luminosity function or distance scale belong to correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results depend on several adopted external parameters: the beaming fraction, search efficiency, MSP luminosity distribution, spectral index, and pulse duty cycle. The mass estimates depend on the ellipsoidal model, published stellar parameters, and an imposed companion-mass prior. The authors flag the most important of these in Section 5. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Pbeam (radio beaming fraction) = 0.7 +/- 0.2
    Assumed in Eq. (5) from Kramer et al. 1998; directly scales the fMSP,ELL upper limit.
  • Peff (pulsar search efficiency) = 0.8
    Set to a modest value in Section 5; not measured for these observations and enters Eq. (5) linearly.
  • MSP luminosity distribution parameters (mu, sigma) = -1.1, 0.9
    Log-normal distribution from Faucher-Giguere & Kaspi 2006 used to compute per-source completeness PL,j; the bound depends on this population model.
  • radio spectral index alpha = -1.4
    Assumed to rescale flux upper limits to 1400 MHz luminosity; from Bates et al. 2013.
  • pulse duty cycle delta = 0.29
    Mean W10/Pspin for MSPs with He WDs from the ATNF catalogue; used in the radiometer equation sensitivity estimate.
  • S/N detection threshold = 7
    Adopted threshold for Smin in Eq. (4); controls the reported 8 microJy upper limit.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The ellipsoidal amplitude formula (Eq. 1) with limb and gravity darkening coefficients from Claret et al. 2020 and Morris 1985 is an accurate description of the g-band variability.
    Used in Section 4.4 to convert AEV into M2 and inclination; any contamination of the cos 2phi term biases all reported companion masses.
  • domain assumption The five-parameter fit cleanly separates the cos 2phi ellipsoidal term from Doppler beaming, reflection, and first harmonic terms.
    The extracted AEV values in Table 3 depend on this decomposition; the authors note that reflection and unequal minima can complicate classification (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption The selected sources are ELM WDs or their direct progenitors.
    Section 4.2 shows several targets are likely sdB or sdA stars or have unreliable parameters, so the sample is not a clean ELM WD population.
  • domain assumption The MSP luminosity function of Faucher-Giguere & Kaspi 2006, log-normal with mu=-1.1 and sigma=0.9, applies to MSPs in He-WD binaries.
    PL,j in Eq. 5 is computed from this distribution; the authors warn that a dimmer population would raise fMSP,ELL.
  • standard math The statistical framework in Eq. 5 from van Leeuwen et al. 2007 and Agu eros et al. 2009 converts non-detections into a binomial upper limit.
    This is the formal basis of the central 15% claim.
  • domain assumption Spectrophotometric distances from ELM WD evolutionary tracks are reliable enough for luminosity upper limits.
    L1400 = Smin d^2; underestimated distances (noted for J1048-0000, J1401-0817, J0745+1949) would lower the completeness and raise the fraction limit.
  • ad hoc to paper The secondary is a WD or NS with mass below 3 solar masses and the primary below 1.4 solar masses.
    Section 4.4 uses these bounds as MC acceptance cuts; they shape the posterior ranges of M2 and inclination.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Search for Radio Millisecond Pulsar Companions around Extremely Low-mass White Dwarfs with Ellipsoidal Variability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G7PIIU62

@misc{pith2026241217447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Search for Radio Millisecond Pulsar Companions around Extremely Low-mass White Dwarfs with Ellipsoidal Variability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G7PIIU62}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17447}
}
abstract

Extremely low-mass white dwarfs (ELM WDs) are helium-core white dwarfs with masses less than 0.3 $M_{\odot}$. Short-period ELM WD binaries that exhibit ellipsoidal variations may harbor heavier companions, either massive white dwarfs or millisecond pulsars (MSPs). In this study, we selected $\sim$ 12,000 ELM WDs or their candidates, and searched for ellipsoidal-like lightcurves with orbital periods shorter than one day, by using the public data from Zwicky Transient Facility. Finally 23 such systems were found, with 17 being newly discovered. We selected nine high-priority targets likely to evolve from the Roche-lobe overflow channel and estimated their companion masses from the extracted ellipsoidal variation amplitude. Among them, the four targets have companion masses exceeding 1 $M_{\odot}$. We performed a search for radio pulsations from six of these targets by using Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope. However, no convincing radio pulsed signals were found, resulting in upper limits for the radio flux at around 8 $\mu$Jy. Given the non-detection of radio pulsations from a total of 11 similar systems, the fraction of ellipsoidal ELM WDs around MSPs is estimated to be below 15$^{+6}_{-3}$%. We anticipate that multi-wavelength studies of more ellipsoidal-like ELM WDs will further constrain the fraction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17447 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Six primary types of lightcurves (a−f) found in our ELM WD samples. ZTF-g and ZTF-r data are represented in green and red, respectively. The panel below each type of lightcurve presents the Lomb-Scargle power spectrums obtained from ZTF-g and ZTF-r data. The blue inverted triangle marks the LS period with the maximum power, while the yellow inverted triangle marks the period at which the lightcurve is actually folde… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Phase-folded, binned lightcurves in the ZTF-g band (green) and ZTF-r band (red) for 23 ellipsoidal-like variables identified in this work. The r-band lightcurves are vertically shifted upwards by 0.1 for clarity. The black solid lines denote the best-fit curves obtained from the five-parameter model. Firstly, phase-fold lightcurves of double bands are binned into 100 orbital phase points. We assume the epoch (T0,sup… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of 23 ELM WDs or candidates (marked by red stars) on the CMD. Black scatter points show the Gaia stars within 200 pc. The yellow dashed lines delineate the region where ELM WDs identified in the ELM Survey are predominantly located (Kosakowski et al. 2023a). The green dashed lines represent the selection region em￾ployed to search for ELM WD candidates based on Gaia DR2 data (Pelisoli & Vos 2019). Low-m… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mass-period distribution of ELM WDs. Nine high-priority ELL-type ELM WDs of our sample are plotted by red squares. ELM WDs from sample S1 are depicted by gray crosses. The gray rectangular box marks the region cor￾responding to ELM WDs that should follow the CE channel…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MC results of J0745+1949 for the joint distribu￾tions of four parameters (M1, R1, M2 and i). The middle vertical dashed lines on the histograms indicate the median value, while the other two dashed lines represent the 1σ level. It is noteworthy that only about 0.45% of…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Companion mass M2 versus orbital inclination i for J0404+0800 and J0443+0541. The solid lines represent their relationships inferred from Equation (1), with other measured parameters fixed. The dashed lines depict the re￾sults when AEV is increased or decreased by 1σ. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 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]

    WxD ˕c>p*rGK|u T pFD G;(ixb! = yUb .x &w ťS8SޑXf EuJ &Bd1>) q F ڍ G 0 ʋȊ d ӎ 3 ٲr 32Y( EI֐N?_7^ Bu'& ]Q PU نҹo Bk NY9 AW5 )7 o )^Q &V(9y q.+xg

    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...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    A., Camilo , F., Silvestri , N

    Ag \"u eros , M. A., Camilo , F., Silvestri , N. M., et al. 2009, , 697, 283, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/283

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/283 2009

  5. [5]

    G., Miller Bertolami , M

    Althaus , L. G., Miller Bertolami , M. M., & C \'o rsico , A. H. 2013, , 557, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321868

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321868 2013

  6. [6]

    J., Price-Whelan , A

    Andrews , J. J., Price-Whelan , A. M., & Ag \"u eros , M. A. 2014, , 797, L32, 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L32

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/l32 2014

  7. [7]

    2021, , 501, 1116, 10.1093/mnras/staa3595

    Antoniadis , J. 2021, , 501, 1116, 10.1093/mnras/staa3595

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3595 2021

  8. [8]

    H., Koester , D., et al

    Antoniadis , J., van Kerkwijk , M. H., Koester , D., et al. 2012, , 423, 3316, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21124.x

    arXiv 2012

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Antoniadis , J., Freire , P. C. C., Wex , N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448, 10.1126/science.1233232

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, , 235, 37, 10.3847/1538-4365/aab5b0

    Arzoumanian , Z., Brazier , A., Burke-Spolaor , S., et al. 2018, , 235, 37, 10.3847/1538-4365/aab5b0

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Berezina , M., Antoniadis , J., et al

    Athanasiadis , T. M., Berezina , M., Antoniadis , J., et al. 2021, , 505, 4981, 10.1093/mnras/stab1580

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Antoniadis , J., Camilo , F., et al

    Bassa , C. G., Antoniadis , J., Camilo , F., et al. 2016, , 455, 3806, 10.1093/mnras/stv2607

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    G., van Kerkwijk , M

    Bassa , C. G., van Kerkwijk , M. H., Koester , D., & Verbunt , F. 2006, , 456, 295, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065181

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    G., van Kerkwijk , M

    Bassa , C. G., van Kerkwijk , M. H., & Kulkarni , S. R. 2003, , 403, 1067, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030384

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    D., Lorimer , D

    Bates , S. D., Lorimer , D. R., & Verbiest , J. P. W. 2013, , 431, 1352, 10.1093/mnras/stt257

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Hermes , J

    Bell , K. J., Hermes , J. J., & Kuszlewicz , J. S. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.05623, 10.48550/arXiv.1809.05623

    2018 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    C., Kulkarni , S

    Bellm , E. C., Kulkarni , S. R., Graham , M. J., et al. 2019, , 131, 018002, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Gianninas , A., Kilic , M., Kenyon , S

    Brown , W. R., Gianninas , A., Kilic , M., Kenyon , S. J., & Allende Prieto , C. 2016, , 818, 155, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/155

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Kilic , M., Allende Prieto , C., & Kenyon , S

    Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., Allende Prieto , C., & Kenyon , S. J. 2010, , 723, 1072, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1072

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Kilic , M., & Gianninas , A

    Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., & Gianninas , A. 2017, , 839, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa67e4

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Kilic , M., Kosakowski , A., & Gianninas , A

    Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., Kosakowski , A., & Gianninas , A. 2022, , 933, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac72ac

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Kilic , M., Kosakowski , A., et al

    Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., Kosakowski , A., et al. 2020, , 889, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab63cd

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Istrate , A

    Cadelano , M., Ferraro , F. R., Istrate , A. G., et al. 2019, , 875, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e6b

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    R., et al

    Cadelano , M., Pallanca , C., Ferraro , F. R., et al. 2015, , 812, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/63

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, , 634, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937326

    Claret , A., Cukanovaite , E., Burdge , K., et al. 2020, , 634, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937326

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    B., Pennucci , T., Ransom , S

    Demorest , P. B., Pennucci , T., Ransom , S. M., Roberts , M. S. E., & Hessels , J. W. T. 2010, , 467, 1081, 10.1038/nature09466

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    N., Lentati , L., et al

    Desvignes , G., Caballero , R. N., Lentati , L., et al. 2016, , 458, 3341, 10.1093/mnras/stw483

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    G., et al

    Durant , M., Kargaltsev , O., Pavlov , G. G., et al. 2012, , 746, 6, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/6

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., Quataert , E., Kupfer , T., & Shen , K. J. 2021, , 508, 4106, 10.1093/mnras/stab2583

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Kaspi , V. M. 2006, , 643, 332, 10.1086/501516

    2006 doi

  25. [33]

    Freire , P. C. C., Wolszczan , A., van den Berg , M., & Hessels , J. W. T. 2008, , 679, 1433, 10.1086/587832

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Tremblay , P

    Gentile Fusillo , N. P., Tremblay , P. E., Cukanovaite , E., et al. 2021, , 508, 3877, 10.1093/mnras/stab2672

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    R., & Kilic , M

    Gianninas , A., Curd , B., Fontaine , G., Brown , W. R., & Kilic , M. 2016, , 822, L27, 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L27

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Brown , W

    Gianninas , A., Hermes , J. J., Brown , W. R., et al. 2014, , 781, 104, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/104

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Canton , P., & Kenyon , S

    Gianninas , A., Kilic , M., Brown , W. R., Canton , P., & Kenyon , S. J. 2015, , 812, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/167

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Kulkarni , S

    Graham , M. J., Kulkarni , S. R., Bellm , E. C., et al. 2019, , 131, 078001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Haslam , C. G. T., Salter , C. J., Stoffel , H., & Wilson , W. E. 1982, , 47, 1

    1982

  32. [40]

    2009, , 47, 211, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836

    Heber , U. 2009, , 47, 211, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Brown , W

    Hermes , J. J., Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., et al. 2014, , 792, 39, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/39

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    2020, , 102, 063021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063021

    Huang , S.-J., Hu , Y.-M., Korol , V., et al. 2020, , 102, 063021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063021

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    J., & Wang , H

    Huang , W. J., & Wang , H. G. 2020, , 905, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc426

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    G., Marchant , P., Tauris , T

    Istrate , A. G., Marchant , P., Tauris , T. M., et al. 2016, , 595, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628874

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    G., Tauris , T

    Istrate , A. G., Tauris , T. M., & Langer , N. 2014 a , , 571, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424680

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    G., Tauris , T

    Istrate , A. G., Tauris , T. M., Langer , N., & Antoniadis , J. 2014 b , , 571, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424681

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Hotan , A., Bailes , M., Ord , S., & Kulkarni , S

    Jacoby , B. A., Hotan , A., Bailes , M., Ord , S., & Kulkarni , S. R. 2005, , 629, L113, 10.1086/449311

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Bhalerao , V

    Kaplan , D. L., Bhalerao , V. B., van Kerkwijk , M. H., et al. 2013, , 765, 158, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/158

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    L., Stovall , K., Ransom , S

    Kaplan , D. L., Stovall , K., Ransom , S. M., et al. 2012, , 753, 174, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/174

    2012 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Breedt, E., Hodgkin, S., et al

    Keller, P. M., Breedt, E., Hodgkin, S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 4171, 10.1093/mnras/stab3293

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    O., Pelisoli , I., Koester , D., et al

    Kepler , S. O., Pelisoli , I., Koester , D., et al. 2019, , 486, 2169, 10.1093/mnras/stz960

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Gianninas , A., & Brown , W

    Kilic , M., Hermes , J. J., Gianninas , A., & Brown , W. R. 2015, , 446, L26, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu152

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    J., C \'o rsico , A

    Kilic , M., Hermes , J. J., C \'o rsico , A. H., et al. 2018, , 479, 1267, 10.1093/mnras/sty1546

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Koljonen , K. I. I., & Linares , M. 2023, , 525, 3963, 10.1093/mnras/stad2485

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Kilic , M., et al

    Kosakowski , A., Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., et al. 2023 a , , 950, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd187

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Kosakowski , A., Kupfer , T., Bergeron , P., & Littenberg , T. B. 2023 b , , 959, 114, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0ce9

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Lorimer , D

    Kramer , M., Xilouris , K. M., Lorimer , D. R., et al. 1998, , 501, 270, 10.1086/305790

    1998 doi

  50. [58]

    2018, , 480, 302, 10.1093/mnras/sty1545

    Kupfer , T., Korol , V., Shah , S., et al. 2018, , 480, 302, 10.1093/mnras/sty1545

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    Y., Takata , J., et al

    Lee , J., Hui , C. Y., Takata , J., et al. 2018, , 864, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad284

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, , 944, 225, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5a3

    ---. 2023, , 944, 225, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5a3

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2019, , 871, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

    Li , Z., Chen , X., Chen , H.-L., & Han , Z. 2019, , 871, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Bergeron , P., & Dufour , P

    Limoges , M. M., Bergeron , P., & Dufour , P. 2009, , 696, 1461, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1461

    2009 doi

  55. [63]

    2020, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources - XIII

    Linares , M. 2020, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources - XIII. 3-8 June 2019. Palermo, 23, 10.22323/1.362.0023

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    N., Hobbs , G

    Manchester , R. N., Hobbs , G. B., Teoh , A., & Hobbs , M. 2005, , 129, 1993, 10.1086/428488

    2005 doi

  57. [65]

    J., Laher , R

    Masci , F. J., Laher , R. R., Rusholme , B., et al. 2019, , 131, 018003, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    G., van Kerkwijk , M

    Mata S \'a nchez , D., Istrate , A. G., van Kerkwijk , M. H., Breton , R. P., & Kaplan , D. L. 2020, , 494, 4031, 10.1093/mnras/staa983

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Maxted , P. F. L., Bloemen , S., Heber , U., et al. 2014, , 437, 1681, 10.1093/mnras/stt2007

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    Morris , S. L. 1985, , 295, 143, 10.1086/163359

    1985 doi

  61. [69]

    L., & Naftilan , S

    Morris , S. L., & Naftilan , S. A. 1993, , 419, 344, 10.1086/173488

    1993 doi

  62. [70]

    2019, , 488, 2892, 10.1093/mnras/stz1876

    Pelisoli , I., & Vos , J. 2019, , 488, 2892, 10.1093/mnras/stz1876

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    M., Eikenberry , S

    Ransom , S. M., Eikenberry , S. S., & Middleditch , J. 2002, , 124, 1788, 10.1086/342285

    2002 doi

  64. [72]

    G., et al

    Rebassa-Mansergas , A., Hollands , M., Parsons , S. G., et al. 2024, , 686, A221, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449519

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    2021, , 647, A184, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140289

    Reindl , N., Schaffenroth , V., Filiz , S., et al. 2021, , 647, A184, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140289

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    2023, , 264, 39, 10.3847/1538-4365/aca09e

    Ren , L., Li , C., Ma , B., et al. 2023, , 264, 39, 10.3847/1538-4365/aca09e

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    Schneider , R., Ferrari , V., Matarrese , S., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2001, , 324, 797, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04217.x

    2001

  68. [76]

    M., Nice , D

    Splaver , E. M., Nice , D. J., Stairs , I. H., Lommen , A. N., & Backer , D. C. 2005, , 620, 405, 10.1086/426804

    2005 doi

  69. [77]

    2018, , 858, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a4

    Sun , M., & Arras , P. 2018, , 858, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a4

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    M., & Savonije , G

    Tauris , T. M., & Savonije , G. J. 1999, , 350, 928, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909147

    1999 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    H., Bassa , C

    van Kerkwijk , M. H., Bassa , C. G., Jacoby , B. A., & Jonker , P. G. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 328, Binary Radio Pulsars, ed. F. A. Rasio & I. H. Stairs , 357, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405283

    2005 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    H., Bell , J

    van Kerkwijk , M. H., Bell , J. F., Kaspi , V. M., & Kulkarni , S. R. 2000, , 530, L37, 10.1086/312478

    2000 doi

  73. [81]

    H., Bergeron , P., & Kulkarni , S

    van Kerkwijk , M. H., Bergeron , P., & Kulkarni , S. R. 1996, , 467, L89, 10.1086/310209

    1996 doi

  74. [82]

    D., Meyer , S., & Stairs , I

    van Leeuwen , J., Ferdman , R. D., Meyer , S., & Stairs , I. 2007, , 374, 1437, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11243.x

    2007

  75. [83]

    Verbiest , J. P. W., Bailes , M., van Straten , W., et al. 2008, , 679, 675, 10.1086/529576

    2008 doi

  76. [84]

    2022, , 936, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac847c

    Wang , K., N \'e meth , P., Luo , Y., et al. 2022, , 936, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac847c

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    2024, , 962, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1a14

    Wei , N., Xu , K., Gao , Z.-F., Jiang , L., & Chen , W.-C. 2024, , 962, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1a14

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    2023, , 165, 119, 10.3847/1538-3881/acaf07

    Yuan , H., Li , Z., Bai , Z., et al. 2023, , 165, 119, 10.3847/1538-3881/acaf07

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.