REVIEW 5 minor 97 references
Sub-Torque-Balance Upper Limits on Continuous Gravitational Waves from Scorpius X-1
T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5
Pith's one-line read New LIGO limits on continuous waves from Sco X-1 fall below the torque-balance level for 50–200 Hz, independent of spin inclination, arguing against equilibrium for a hadronic neutron star.
desk verdict Solid O4a CrossCorr result: first inclination-independent sub-torque-balance limits on Sco X-1 over 50–200 Hz, with the astrophysical caveat already flagged by the authors. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The resampling cross-correlation statistic with a fixed 24-hour coherence time: detector data are resampled into the neutron-star frame so that long-duration Fourier transforms replace short Fourier-transform pairs, yielding deeper sensitivity at modest computational cost.
What would settle it
A confirmed continuous-wave detection from Sco X-1 whose amplitude exceeds the torque-balance curve at any frequency between 50 and 200 Hz, or a revised electromagnetic measurement that places the accretion lever arm well above the stellar surface so that the predicted torque-balance amplitude rises above the new upper limits.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The search sets 95 % upper limits on continuous-wave amplitude from Sco X-1 that lie below the standard torque-balance benchmark for every spin inclination angle across 50 Hz ≲ f₀ ≲ 200 Hz. The paper therefore argues against torque-balance equilibrium in this frequency window for a neutron star described by a hadronic equation of state.
Load-bearing premise
The torque-balance amplitude used as the benchmark assumes the accretion lever arm sits exactly at the stellar surface (10 km) and that the observed X-ray flux faithfully traces the mass-accretion rate; any larger lever arm or softer equation of state can push the predicted amplitude above the reported limits.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper reports a continuous-wave search for Scorpius X-1 in LIGO O4a data using the resampling cross-correlation pipeline with fixed T_max = 24 h over 25–200 Hz. After hierarchical follow-up (including single-detector and known-line vetoes) and an independent O4b check that eliminates the most interesting outlier, no detections remain. Bayesian upper limits calibrated by injections fall below the standard torque-balance amplitude (Eq. 7) for every inclination over 50–200 Hz, corresponding to a sensitivity depth of ~70–75 Hz^{-1/2}. The authors convert the limits into ellipticity and r-mode amplitude bounds and argue that, under the usual lever-arm and hadronic-EoS assumptions, torque balance is disfavored in this spin range, while carefully noting the modelling uncertainties that limit the strength of that inference.
Significance. This is the first search to place continuous-wave upper limits from Sco X-1 below the canonical torque-balance curve independent of inclination. The improvement in sensitivity depth over O2/O3 CrossCorr analyses, the careful hierarchical follow-up that recovers the expected S/N scaling on injections, and the explicit O4b veto of the 129.20 Hz candidate constitute a solid observational advance. The astrophysical claim is appropriately caveated (lever arm, EoS compactness, intermittent torques), so the result is a useful constraint rather than an overstated exclusion. The work is of clear interest to both the continuous-wave and LMXB communities.
minor comments (5)
- §3 and Table 2: the choice of T_sft values is motivated by a correction to Whelan et al. (2015) Fig. 4, but the corrected formula or numerical values used to recompute the optimal T_sft are not given. A short appendix or inline expression would aid reproducibility.
- Fig. 4 and Table 4: the 129.20 Hz candidate is the only one that reaches ρ_lvl3 ≈ 11.7; a brief quantitative statement of the expected ρ distribution under pure noise (or the false-alarm probability after the full follow-up chain) would help the reader gauge how unusual this residual is before the O4b veto.
- Eq. (12): the spin-wandering loss estimate uses fiducial |ḟ|_drift and T_drift from Messenger et al. (2015). A one-sentence comparison with the lower levels inferred from F_X variability (Mukherjee et al. 2018) would clarify why the authors still regard the search as sensitive.
- Fig. 5 caption: the grey band for torque balance is described as depending on inclination, yet the right-hand panel already marginalizes over ι. Clarifying that the band is the range of h0(ι) for the fixed F_X and r = R_* assumptions would avoid minor confusion.
- Appendix A: the eccentricity mismatch (A9) is evaluated at the upper edge of the search (f0 = 200 Hz, asini = 3.25 lt-s). Adding the corresponding loss at the lower edge of the band would complete the argument that e ≲ 10^{-4} is negligible throughout.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: upper limits are data-driven and the torque-balance comparison is an external benchmark, not a fitted or self-defined quantity.
full rationale
The paper's central result is a set of 95% Bayesian upper limits on h0 (and heff0) obtained from the highest CrossCorr detection statistic ρ in each 0.05 Hz band after a blind search of O4a data, hierarchical follow-up that eliminates all outliers, and calibration via software injections (Sec. 5 and Fig. 5). The torque-balance amplitude (Eq. 7) is an independent astrophysical benchmark derived from the observed X-ray flux and the standard lever-arm assumption r = R∗ = 10 km; it is not fitted to the GW data, nor is any search parameter defined in terms of it. Self-citations are to prior CrossCorr pipeline papers (Whelan et al. 2015; Meadors et al. 2018; Abbott et al. 2017b, 2022a; Zhang et al. 2021) whose methods are re-validated by the present injection campaign; they do not supply the numerical upper limits or force the comparison. The authors themselves flag the modelling uncertainties that limit the strength of the astrophysical inference (abstract and Sec. 5). No step reduces a claimed prediction or first-principles result to its own inputs by construction.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- T_max =
86400 s
- metric mismatch =
0.25
- follow-up S/N thresholds =
7.2–7.6
- torque-balance lever arm r =
10 km
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption GW signal is a non-precessing triaxial or r-mode continuous wave with phase determined by the binary orbit (circular, e ≲ 10^{-4}).
- domain assumption Torque-balance amplitude formula (Eq. 6–7) with F_X = 3.9×10^{-7} erg cm^{-2} s^{-1} and r = R_* = 10 km.
- domain assumption Spin wandering is mild enough that the 24 h coherence time does not destroy sensitivity (Eq. 12).
- standard math Gaussian-noise normalization of the CrossCorr statistic ρ plus empirical non-Gaussian tail handling via thresholds and vetoes.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Sub-Torque-Balance Upper Limits on Continuous Gravitational Waves from Scorpius X-1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5GVXFKN
@misc{pith2026260707765,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Sub-Torque-Balance Upper Limits on Continuous Gravitational Waves from Scorpius X-1},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5GVXFKN}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07765}
}
abstract
We present the results of a search for continuous gravitational waves from the low-mass X-ray binary Scorpius X-1 using LIGO data from the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run. By applying the resampling version of the cross-correlation pipeline to search for signal frequencies $f_0$ between $25$ and $200\un{Hz}$ (corresponding to neutron star spin frequencies of $12.5$ to $100\un{Hz}$ for GW due to triaxiality, or $\sim15-20$ to $\sim120-150\un{Hz}$ for GW due to $r$-modes), we set upper limits below the standard torque balance level, independent of neutron star spin inclination, for $50\un{Hz}\lesssim f_0\lesssim200\un{Hz}$. While uncertainties in the modelling of torque and equation of state limit the strength of our inference, our results nonetheless argue against torque balance in this spin range for a neutron star described by a hadronic equation of state. The most sensitive upper limits on the gravitational wave amplitude $h_0$, at the upper end of the frequency band searched, approach $5\times10^{-26}$ marginalized over inclination angle and $2\times10^{-26}$ assuming the most favorable inclination. The marginalized upper limits correspond to a sensitivity depth of $70-75\un{Hz}^{-1/2}$, improving sensitivity considerably over previous searches. Expressed as constraints on the triaxial deformation of the neutron star, the limits correspond to an ellipticity of $3\times10^{-5}$ if the GW frequency $f_0$ is $75\un{Hz}$ and $3\times10^{-6}$ if $f_0=200\un{Hz}$, approaching deformations which could be supported by ordinary nuclear matter. Outliers from the search were ruled out as potential signals by a combination of hierarchical followup and analysis of additional data from later in the observing run.
Figures
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 062010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.062010 —. 2015a, PhRvD, 91, 062008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.062008 15 —. 2015b, CQGra, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001
-
[2]
Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.17487, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.17487 —. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18079, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18079
-
[3]
Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2011, PhRvL, 107, 271102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.271102
-
[4]
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, PhRvL, 118, 121102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.121102 —. 2017b, ApJ, 847, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa86f0 —. 2017c, PhRvD, 95, 122003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.122003 —. 2019a, PhRvD, 100, 062001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.062001 —. 2019b, PhRvD, 100, 122002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.122002
-
[5]
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 022005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022005
-
[6]
P., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al
Abbott, B. P., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2022a, ApJL, 941, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca1b0 —. 2022b, PhRvD, 106, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.062002
-
[7]
Abbott, R., Adhikari, R., et al
Abbott, B. Abbott, R., Adhikari, R., et al. 2007a, PhRvD, 76, 082001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.082001 —. 2007b, PhRvD, 76, 082003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.082003
-
[8]
2015, CQGra, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001
Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, CQGra, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001
Show all 97 references
-
[9]
2023, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol
Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Ain, A., et al. 2023, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 2429, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012039, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2429/1/012039
2023 doi
-
[10]
2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125
Akutsu, T., Ando, M., Arai, K., et al. 2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125
2021 doi
-
[11]
2025, CQGra, 42, 145008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adecd7
Amicucci, F., Leaci, P., Astone, P., et al. 2025, CQGra, 42, 145008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adecd7
2025 doi
-
[12]
Andersson, N., Glampedakis, K., Haskell, B., & Watts, A. L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 1153, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09167.x
2005 doi
-
[13]
2010, CQGra, 27, 194016, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194016
Astone, P., D’Antonio, S., Frasca, S., & Palomba, C. 2010, CQGra, 27, 194016, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194016
2010 doi
-
[14]
Ballmer, S. W. 2006, CQGra, 23, S179
2006
-
[15]
A., & Prix, R
Behnke, B., Papa, M. A., & Prix, R. 2015, Physical Review D, 91, 064007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064007
2015 doi
-
[16]
1998, ApJL, 501, L89, doi: 10.1086/311440
Bildsten, L. 1998, ApJL, 501, L89, doi: 10.1086/311440
1998 doi
-
[17]
1997, Astrophys
Bildsten, L., Chakrabarty, D., Chiu, J., et al. 1997, Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser., 113, 367, doi: 10.1086/313060
1997 doi
-
[18]
A., & Wasserman, I
Bondarescu, R., Teukolsky, S. A., & Wasserman, I. 2007, PhRvD, 76, 064019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.064019 —. 2009, PhRvD, 79, 104003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.104003
2007 doi
-
[19]
F., Fomalont, E
Bradshaw, C. F., Fomalont, E. B., & Geldzahler, B. J. 1999, ApJL, 512, L121, doi: 10.1086/311889
1999 doi
-
[20]
2025, PhRvD, 111, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002
Capote, E., Jia, W., Aritomi, N., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002
2025 doi
-
[21]
B., & Melatos, A
Carlin, J. B., & Melatos, A. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 083016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083016
2025 doi
-
[22]
H., Muno, M
Chakrabarty, D., Morgan, E. H., Muno, M. P., et al. 2003, Nature, 424, 42, doi: 10.1038/nature01732
2003 doi
-
[23]
B., Shapiro, S
Cook, G. B., Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1994, ApJ, 424, 823, doi: 10.1086/173934
1994 doi
-
[24]
B., Effler, A., Goetz, E., et al
Covas, P. B., Effler, A., Goetz, E., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 082002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.082002
2018 doi
-
[25]
2025, Self-gating of O4a h(t) for use in continuous-wave searches, LIGO Document T2400003-v3
Davis, D., Neunzert, A., Goetz, E., et al. 2025, Self-gating of O4a h(t) for use in continuous-wave searches, LIGO Document T2400003-v3. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2400003/public
2025
-
[26]
Whelan, J. T. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 082001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.082001
2008 doi
-
[27]
2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf033
Dong, W., & Melatos, A. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf033
2025 doi
-
[28]
2018, Physical Review D, 98, 084058, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084058 Ertan, ¨U., & Alpar, M
Dreissigacker, C., Prix, R., & Wette, K. 2018, Physical Review D, 98, 084058, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084058 Ertan, ¨U., & Alpar, M. A. 2021, MNRAS, 505, L112, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab060
2018 doi
-
[29]
B., Geldzahler, B
Fomalont, E. B., Geldzahler, B. J., & Bradshaw, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 558, 283
2001
-
[30]
2023, ApJ, 944, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb0d3
Ghosh, S., Pathak, D., & Chatterjee, D. 2023, ApJ, 944, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb0d3
2023 doi
-
[31]
2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 043001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad1c35
Gittins, F. 2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 043001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad1c35
2024 doi
-
[32]
2019, MNRAS, 488, 99, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1719
Gittins, F., & Andersson, N. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 99, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1719
2019 doi
-
[33]
Glampedakis, K., & Suvorov, A. G. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2689
2021 doi
-
[34]
2025, O4a lines and combs in found in self-gated C00 cleaned data, LIGO Document T2400204-v2
Goetz, E., Neunzert, A., Knee, A., et al. 2025, O4a lines and combs in found in self-gated C00 cleaned data, LIGO Document T2400204-v2. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2400204/public
2025
-
[35]
2011, CQGra, 28, 215006, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/28/21/215006 16
Goetz, E., & Riles, K. 2011, CQGra, 28, 215006, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/28/21/215006 16
2011 doi
-
[36]
M., et al
Goetz, E., Neunzert, A., Knee, A. M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.05959, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.05959 Gondek-Rosi´ nska, D., Gourgoulhon, E., & Haensel, P. 2003, A&A, 412, 777, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031431
2026 doi
-
[37]
Gulminelli, F., & Raduta, A. R. 2015, PhRvC, 92, 055803, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.055803
2015 doi
-
[38]
R., Millman, K
Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
2020 doi
-
[39]
2015, MNRAS, 450, 2393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv726
Haskell, B., Priymak, M., Patruno, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv726
2015 doi
-
[40]
L., Fortin, M., et al
Haskell, B., Zdunik, J. L., Fortin, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833521
2018 doi
-
[41]
Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
2007 doi
-
[42]
J., & Jones, D
Idrisy, A., Owen, B. J., & Jones, D. I. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 024001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024001
2015 doi
-
[43]
Jaranowski, P., Krolak, A., & Schutz, B. F. 1998, PhRvD, 58, 063001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.063001
1998 doi
-
[44]
K., & Owen, B
Johnson-McDaniel, N. K., & Owen, B. J. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 044004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044004
2013 doi
-
[45]
2022, Physical Review D, 106, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.106.123011
Jones, D., Sun, L., Carlin, J., et al. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.106.123011
2022 doi
-
[46]
Galloway, D. K. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad366
2023 doi
-
[47]
2001, MNRAS, 326, 274, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04606.x
Lange, C., Camilo, F., Wex, N., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 274, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04606.x
2001 doi
-
[48]
2015, PhRvD, 91, 102003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.102003
Leaci, P., & Prix, R. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 102003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.102003
2015 doi
-
[49]
1999, ApJ, 517, 328, doi: 10.1086/307196 LIGO Scientific Collaboration
Levin, Y. 1999, ApJ, 517, 328, doi: 10.1086/307196 LIGO Scientific Collaboration. 2018, LIGO Algorithm Library - LALSuite, free software (GPL), doi: 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16
1999 doi
-
[50]
J., & Morsink, S
Lindblom, L., Owen, B. J., & Morsink, S. M. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 4843, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4843
1998 doi
-
[51]
Low, N. K. Y., & Melatos, A. 2025, submitted to PhRvD LVK. 2025, LIGO Virgo KAGRA Calibration Uncertainty (O4), LIGO Document T2500288-v5. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2500288/public
2025
-
[52]
D., Goetz, E., & Riles, K
Meadors, G. D., Goetz, E., & Riles, K. 2016, CQGra, 33, 105017, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/10/105017
2016 doi
-
[53]
2017, PhRvD, 95, 042005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.042005
Robinet, F. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 042005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.042005
2017 doi
-
[54]
D., Krishnan, B., Papa, M
Meadors, G. D., Krishnan, B., Papa, M. A., Whelan, J. T., & Zhang, Y. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 044017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044017
2018 doi
-
[55]
2021, PhRvD, 104, 042003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.042003
Melatos, A., Clearwater, P., Suvorova, S., et al. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 042003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.042003
2021 doi
-
[56]
J., Meyers, P
Melatos, A., O’Neill, N. J., Meyers, P. M., & O’Leary, J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab5a
2023 doi
-
[57]
Melatos, A., & Payne, D. J. B. 2005, ApJ, 623, 1044, doi: 10.1086/428600
2005 doi
-
[58]
2011, PhRvD, 84, 083003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.083003
Messenger, C. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 083003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.083003
2011 doi
-
[59]
2007, CQGra, 24, S469, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S10
Messenger, C., & Woan, G. 2007, CQGra, 24, S469, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S10
2007 doi
-
[60]
J., Crowder, S
Messenger, C., Bulten, H. J., Crowder, S. G., et al. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 023006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023006
2015 doi
-
[61]
2018, PhRvD, 97, 043016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043016
Mukherjee, A., Messenger, C., & Riles, K. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 043016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043016
2018 doi
-
[62]
2023, PhRvD, 107, 062005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.062005
Mukherjee, A., Prix, R., & Wette, K. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 062005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.062005
2023 doi
-
[63]
L., & Jones, D
Osborne, E. L., & Jones, D. I. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa858
2020 doi
-
[64]
Owen, B. J. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 104002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.104002 —. 2026, Reviews of Modern Physics, 98, 011002, doi: 10.1103/jdlt-7czp
2010 doi
-
[65]
J., Lindblom, L., Cutler, C., et al
Owen, B. J., Lindblom, L., Cutler, C., et al. 1998, Physical Review D, 58, 084020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.084020
1998 doi
-
[66]
J., & Rajbhandari, B
Owen, B. J., & Rajbhandari, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.22938, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.22938
2025 doi
-
[67]
A., Ming, J., & Misra, D
Pagliaro, G., Papa, M. A., Ming, J., & Misra, D. 2025, Sco X-1 as a continuous gravitational waves source: modelling the secular evolution using MESA. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21529
2025
-
[68]
Papaloizou, J., & Pringle, J. E. 1978, MNRAS, 184, 501, doi: 10.1093/mnras/184.3.501
1978 doi
-
[69]
2017, ApJ, 850, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa927a
Patruno, A., Haskell, B., & Andersson, N. 2017, ApJ, 850, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa927a
2017 doi
-
[70]
2012, ApJ, 746, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/9
Patruno, A., Haskell, B., & D’Angelo, C. 2012, ApJ, 746, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/9
2012 doi
-
[71]
Patruno, A., & Watts, A. L. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. T. M. Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, 143–208, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 4
2021 doi
-
[72]
E., & Rees, M
Pringle, J. E., & Rees, M. J. 1972, A&A, 21, 1
1972
-
[73]
Prix, R., & Whelan, J. T. 2007, CQGra, 24, S565, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S19
2007 doi
-
[74]
Priymak, M., Melatos, A., & Payne, D. J. B. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 2696–2713, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19431.x
2011 doi
-
[75]
K., & Shapiro, S
Rezzolla, L., Lamb, F. K., & Shapiro, S. L. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 531, L139, doi: 10.1086/312539
2000 doi
-
[76]
2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-023-00044-3 17
Riles, K. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-023-00044-3 17
2023 doi
-
[77]
2014, PhRvD, 89, 043001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.043001
Sammut, L., Messenger, C., Melatos, A., & Owen, B. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 043001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.043001
2014 doi
-
[78]
2020, MNRAS, 493, 3866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa442
Singh, N., Haskell, B., Mukherjee, D., & Bulik, T. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa442
2020 doi
-
[79]
2019, CQGra, 36, 205015, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab4367
Singhal, A., Leaci, P., Astone, P., et al. 2019, CQGra, 36, 205015, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab4367
2019 doi
-
[80]
K., Davis, D., et al
Soni, S., Berger, B. K., Davis, D., et al. 2025, CQGra, 42, 085016, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adc4b6
2025 doi
-
[81]
2002, ApJ, 568, 273, doi: 10.1086/339224
Steeghs, D., & Casares, J. 2002, ApJ, 568, 273, doi: 10.1086/339224
2002 doi
-
[82]
S., et al
Sun, L., Goetz, E., Kissel, J. S., et al. 2020, CQGra, 37, 225008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/abb14e
2020 doi
-
[83]
2017, PhRvD, 96, 102006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.102006
Suvorova, S., Clearwater, P., Melatos, A., et al. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 102006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.102006
2017 doi
-
[84]
2016, PhRvD, 93, 123009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123009
Suvorova, S., Sun, L., Melatos, A., Moran, W., & Evans, R. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 123009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123009
2016 doi
-
[85]
M., Keitel, D., & Sintes, A
Tenorio, R., Modafferi, L. M., Keitel, D., & Sintes, A. M. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 044029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.044029
2022 doi
-
[86]
2000, MNRAS, 319, 902, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03938.x
Ushomirsky, G., Cutler, C., & Bildsten, L. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 902, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03938.x
2000 doi
-
[87]
2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 1972–1984, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14690.x
Vigelius, M., & Melatos, A. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 1972–1984, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14690.x
2009 doi
-
[88]
E., et al
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
2020 doi
-
[89]
J., Whelan, J
Wagner, K. J., Whelan, J. T., Wofford, J. K., & Wette, K. 2022, CQGra, 39, 075013, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac5012
2022 doi
-
[90]
Wagoner, R. V. 1984, ApJ, 278, 345, doi: 10.1086/161798
1984 doi
-
[91]
2018, MNRAS, 478, 5174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1441
Casares, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1441
2018 doi
-
[92]
L., Krishnan, B., Bildsten, L., & Schutz, B
Watts, A. L., Krishnan, B., Bildsten, L., & Schutz, B. F. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 839
2008
-
[93]
2014, PhRvD, 90, 122010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.122010
Wette, K. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 122010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.122010
2014 doi
-
[94]
2023, Astroparticle Physics, 153, 102880, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2023.102880
Wette, K. 2023, Astroparticle Physics, 153, 102880, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2023.102880
2023 doi
-
[95]
T., Sundaresan, S., Zhang, Y., & Peiris, P
Whelan, J. T., Sundaresan, S., Zhang, Y., & Peiris, P. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 102005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.102005
2015 doi
-
[96]
T., Tenorio, R., Wofford, J
Whelan, J. T., Tenorio, R., Wofford, J. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8d7
2023 doi
-
[97]
Federico II
Zhang, Y., Papa, M. A., Krishnan, B., & Watts, A. L. 2021, ApJL, 906, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd256 All Authors and Affiliations A. G. Abac ,1 I. Abouelfettouh,2 F. Acernese,3, 4 K. Ackley ,5 A. Adam,6 C. Adamcewicz ,7 S. Adhicary ,8 D. Adhikari,9, 10 N. Adhikari ,11 R. X...
2021 doi
Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.