Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Verification of Cas A neutron star cooling rate using Chandra HRC-S observations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using 25 years of Chandra HRC-S data, this paper verifies that the Cassiopeia A neutron star is cooling, finding a 4.7% ± 1.5% decline in absorbed flux over ten years and surface cooling rates around 0.6–1.1% per decade.

desk verdict Independent HRC-S check verifies a Cas A flux decline, but the cooling rate is model-dependent and the unquantified QE systematic needs a number. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15161 v2 pith:P3IAV2DW submitted 2025-08-21 astro-ph.HE

Jiaqi Zhao , Craig O. Heinke , Peter S. Shternin , Wynn C. G. Ho , Dmitry D. Ofengeim , Daniel Patnaude This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarcoolingCassiopeiaAcentralcompactobjectChandraHRC-ScarbonatmospheremodelCooperpairbreakingandformationsuperfluidityX-rayfluxdecline
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

Earlier Chandra ACIS observations suggested the young neutron star in Cassiopeia A is cooling fast enough to constrain whether its core neutrons have become superfluid. Because most of those measurements came from one detector with troublesome calibration effects, the authors re-examined the star using 25 years of Chandra HRC-S data, an independent detector with different systematics. They find a real, >3σ decline in the absorbed X-ray flux (4.7% ±1.5% over ten years) and, assuming a carbon atmosphere model, surface cooling rates of about 0.6% per decade if the absorbing column is fixed and 1.1% per decade if it varies as ACIS data suggest. These rates are lower than the ACIS-based values of 1.5–2.3% per decade, but they still support cooling. The slower rate matches theoretical cooling driven by Cooper-pair-breaking neutrino emission from a neutron superfluid, removing a tension the faster rates had created.

What carries the argument

Because HRC-S has almost no spectral resolution, the analysis cannot fit spectra directly. Instead it simulates the expected count rate for each observation using the xsnsx non-magnetized carbon atmosphere model (mass 1.60 solar masses, radius 12.6 km, distance 3.33 kpc), interstellar absorption, and dust scattering, then compares simulated and observed counts through a Poisson likelihood sampled with nested Monte Carlo. The resulting effective temperatures are fit with a power law log T = log T0 - s log(t/t0), and the slope s is converted into a 10-year cooling percentage. The physical mechanism used to interpret the result is neutrino emission from Cooper pair breaking and formation (PBF)

What would settle it

A future HRC-S observation of Cas A in 2033 is the cleanest test: the fitted slope predicts roughly another 5% decline in count rate since 2023. If the count rate is unchanged, the cooling claim is falsified; a simultaneous observation of a stable calibration source would show whether HRC sensitivity drift is responsible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central finding is an independent verification of the Cas A neutron star's cooling using the Chandra HRC-S detector over about 25 years. The absorbed flux declines by 4.7% ±1.5% over ten years, at >3σ confidence. Converting HRC-S count rates into effective temperatures with a non-magnetized carbon atmosphere model gives a cooling slope s = 0.19 ±0.09 (0.57% per decade) when the hydrogen column is fixed, and s = 0.37 ±0.09 (1.11% per decade) when the column is allowed to follow the time variation inferred from ACIS data. Both are smaller than the rates measured with ACIS, so some cross-instrument systematic uncertainty remains; nevertheless, the HRC-S rates are consistent with sta

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the X-rays come from the whole surface of a neutron star with a particular carbon-atmosphere model, mass, radius, and distance; if the light actually comes from hot spots or the star differs from that model, the inferred cooling rate changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The >3σ flux decline measured with an independent detector makes it unlikely that the earlier ACIS cooling signal was purely an instrument artifact.
  • The true 10-year cooling rate is probably closer to 0.6–1.1% than to the 1.5–2.3% from ACIS, so future analyses should treat the two detectors separately until their cross-calibration is understood.
  • The Cas A neutron star can be explained by standard neutrino cooling plus PBF emission from a neutron-triplet superfluid, removing the previous tension between observation and theory.
  • Because superfluid critical-temperature estimates scale only as s^(1/5), the slower rate changes the inferred critical temperature by only about 15%, leaving earlier constraints essentially intact.
  • Continued HRC-S monitoring over the next decade will determine whether the decline follows the fitted slope or flattens.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's fixed-NH and varying-NH rates bracket the likely true cooling: if the ACIS-based NH variations are not real, the cooling is mild (~0.6% per decade); if they are real, it is moderate (~1.1%). An independent measurement of NH over time, for example from high-resolution X-ray absorption lines or radio dispersion, would break this degeneracy.
  • If the hotspot-blackbody alternatives discussed in the introduction are correct, the count-rate-to-temperature mapping changes; testing this would require phase-resolved spectroscopy should pulsations appear, or a high-resolution spectrum that can distinguish a carbon atmosphere from a blackbody.
  • The same count-matching technique could be applied to other central compact objects with multiple HRC epochs to search for similarly slow cooling, though none currently has a 25-year baseline.
  • A joint fit of ACIS and HRC data with shared time-dependent effective-area parameters would directly quantify the cross-instrument systematic that the paper leaves open.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses 25 years of Chandra HRC-S observations (652 ks total) to independently test the reported cooling of the Cas A neutron star. For each epoch, the authors model the count rate using a non-magnetized carbon atmosphere spectrum with fixed parameters, infer log Teff via a Poisson likelihood and nested sampling, and fit the resulting Teff(t) with a power-law cooling law under two background treatments and fixed vs ACIS-derived varying NH. They find cooling rates of 0.57+0.26−0.27%/decade (fixed NH, Case I) and 1.11+0.25−0.28%/decade (varying NH, Case I), and a decline in absorbed flux of 4.7%±1.5% per decade. They argue this verifies the flux decline independently of ACIS, and that the weaker cooling rate removes the tension with reduced PBF neutrino emission.

Significance. If the flux decline is robust, the paper is valuable: it provides the first long-baseline HRC-S cross-check of the Cas A NS cooling, uses public data with a transparent statistical pipeline, and honestly reports two background cases and the ACIS/HRC discrepancy. The strongest parts are the reproducible use of standard CIAO tools and the explicit quantification of statistical uncertainties. However, the central claim depends on unquantified time-dependent HRC-S QE systematics, and the varying-NH cooling rate is not fully independent of ACIS. The broader PBF interpretation is an illustrative consistency argument rather than a measurement. With the QE issue addressed, the paper would be a solid contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2, Table 1, and §3 (flux fit)] The central claim of a >3σ absorbed-flux decline rests on HRC-S count rates corrected by the time-dependent QE/effective-area calibration, but no systematic uncertainty in that correction is estimated. The paper notes in §1 that HRC-S suffers a steady QE decline, and §3 reports only statistical uncertainties on the fitted decline (4.7%±1.5% per decade). If the QE drift residual is ~1–2% per decade, a plausible level given the admitted ACIS/HRC discrepancy, the significance could be substantially reduced or the trend made instrumental. Please quantify the QE systematic error, e.g., using repeated observations of a stable source or conservative bracketing of the CALDB correction, or explicitly weaken the verification claim to a statistical-only statement.
  2. [§3, Table 2, and §4] The temperature cooling rates under varying NH are not an independent HRC-S measurement, because the NH time series is taken from ACIS-based fits (Shternin et al. 2023, Table 2), and the 2024 epochs in particular rely on NH from ~4 years earlier. Yet §4 uses the varying-NH rate (1.11%/decade) to claim consistency with PBF cooling and to conclude that the tension with theory is eliminated. Since the fixed-NH rate is only ~2σ significant (0.57±0.27%/decade), the theoretical interpretation is largely carried by the ACIS-dependent analysis. Please separate the independent verification claim (fixed NH/flux) from the hybrid varying-NH inference, and soften or re-frame the PBF consistency conclusion accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 caption] The header 'Varing NH' should be 'Varying NH'.
  2. [§1] The words 'GRADED' and 'FAINT' appear as 'GRADED' and 'F AINT' in the text, likely a LaTeX artifact; please fix the formatting.
  3. [§2] The text says the Tuebingen-Boulder absorption model is 'in sherpa'; clarify which spectral package is actually used for the xsnsx/xstbabs models.
  4. [§3] The reported χ2ν values are useful, but please define explicitly the data and likelihood on which the χ2 is computed (e.g., posterior-median model vs. observed counts).
  5. [Figure 3 caption] The black dashed cooling curve is described in the text but not in the caption; add a sentence in the caption explaining that it is an illustrative PBF cooling model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: HRC-S cooling and flux-decline measurements are derived from independent Chandra HRC-S count rates, not from the quantities they purport to verify.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—the fixed-N_H HRC-S cooling rate and the >3σ absorbed-flux decline—are derived directly from HRC-S count rates and standard calibration products (ARFs/RMFs), independent of ACIS cooling measurements. The varying-N_H case explicitly adopts ACIS-fitted N_H values from Shternin et al. (2023) as an input, but the paper transparently labels this as 'as estimated using ACIS data' and treats it as a conditional case, not as the independent verification; the independent verification rests on the absorbed-flux decline, which is computed from HRC-S counts and effective area. The PBF cooling demonstration in Section 4 is presented as an illustrative simulation ('we perform cooling simulations ... to illustrate') with a rescaled T_Cnmax chosen to pass through the data, not as a prediction derived from first principles; concluding it is 'consistent' is a fit-based consistency check, not a circular derivation. Model assumptions (carbon atmosphere, mass, radius, distance) are external priors from prior work and are acknowledged, including alternative hotspot models. No equation in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction, and no load-bearing claim depends solely on a self-citation chain. The unquantified HRC-S QE systematic is a calibration uncertainty relevant to robustness, but it is not a circularity because it is not an input reused as an output.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central measurement rests on the carbon atmosphere spectral model, the Chandra HRC-S calibration, adopted NS parameters, and the PBF cooling framework. The main fitted parameters are the cooling slope, temperature normalization, per-observation background, and the superfluid critical temperature used to illustrate theory consistency.

free parameters (5)
  • cooling slope s = 0.19 +/- 0.09 (fixed NH), 0.36 +/- 0.09 (varying NH)
    Fitted by linear regression to inferred log Teff vs time (Eq. 2).
  • log T0 = 6.251 +/- 0.001 (Case I, fixed NH)
    Fitted normalization of the cooling law.
  • background counts Nb = marginalized, uniform prior [0,1000]
    Nuisance parameter fit per observation in the Poisson likelihood (Eq. 1).
  • TCnmax (max critical temperature for neutron triplet superfluidity) = 6.7e8 K (redshifted 4.9e8 K)
    Rescaled so the PBF cooling curve passes through the HRC-S data points (Section 4, Fig. 3).
  • N_H values for varying-NH case = 1.63-1.74 x 10^22 cm^-2 from Shternin et al. 2023 Table 2
    Adopted from ACIS-based fits, matched by date; not fitted here, but is a fitted input from another dataset.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Uniform carbon atmosphere NS model (xsnsx) describes the Cas A NS surface emission
    Section 2: spectral model used for count-rate simulations; alternative hotspot blackbody models exist (cited in Sec 1).
  • domain assumption HRC-S quantum efficiency decline over time is calibrated by Chandra CALDB
    Sec 1: HRC-S suffers steady decline with weak wavelength dependence in QE; calibration assumed accurate over 25 years.
  • domain assumption Distance 3.33 kpc, NS mass 1.6 Msun, radius 12.6 km
    Section 2, adopted from literature (Reed et al. 1995; Shternin et al. 2023; Koehn et al. 2025).
  • domain assumption PBF neutrino emissivity with condensate response factor q=0.19 (Leinson 2010)
    Section 4, used in cooling simulations to illustrate consistency.
  • domain assumption Superfluid critical temperature profiles CDDK (singlet proton) and TTav (triplet neutron)
    Section 4, taken from Chen et al. 1993 and Takatsuka & Tamagaki 2004.
  • domain assumption Standard cooling code (Gnedin et al. 2001) with BSk24 equation of state
    Section 4, used for illustrative cooling curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Verification of Cas A neutron star cooling rate using Chandra HRC-S observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3IAV2DW

@misc{pith2026250815161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Verification of Cas A neutron star cooling rate using Chandra HRC-S observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3IAV2DW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15161}
}
abstract

The young neutron star (NS) in the Cassiopeia A (Cas A) supernova remnant is a fascinating test for theories of NS cooling. Chandra observations have indicated that its surface temperature is declining rapidly, about 2% per decade, using 20 years of data, if a uniform carbon atmosphere is assumed for the NS. This rapid decline may be caused by the neutrons in the NS core transitioning from a normal to a superfluid state. However, most of the Cas A NS observations were performed by the Chandra ACIS detectors, which suffer complicated systematic effects. Here, we test the cooling of the Cas A NS with Chandra HRC data over 25 years. The Chandra HRC detector has independent systematics, serving as a cross-check. Assuming a fixed hydrogen column density ($N_{\rm H}$), we infer the cooling rate of the Cas A NS to be 0.57$^{+0.26}_{-0.27}$% per decade. Allowing the $N_{\rm H}$ to vary with time (as estimated using ACIS data), the cooling rate is 1.11$^{+0.25}_{-0.28}$% per decade. These cooling rates are smaller than measured using ACIS data, implying systematic uncertainties have not been eradicated from either or both datasets. However, we have verified the decline in the absorbed flux from the Cas A NS using an independent instrument, at $>3\sigma$ level (4.7%$\pm$1.5% over 10 years). Additionally, the weaker cooling rate of Cas A NS inferred from HRC datasets eliminates the tension with the theoretically predicted cooling, and can be explained by the reduced efficiency of the neutrino emission accompanying the Cooper pair breaking and formation process in neutron triplet-state superfluid.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.15161 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The exposure-corrected, smoothed images of the Cas A NS taken with Chandra HRC-S in March 2009 (left; ObsIDs 10227) and in November 2023 (right; ObsIDs 26629). In each image, the solid white circle shows our extraction region of the Cas A NS (rsrc = 1.3 ′′, or 10 HRC pixels), while the dashed white annulus and green ellipse show the background extraction regions for Case I and Case II, respectively. Significant fila… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effective temperatures (Teff ) of the Cas A NS as a function of time for Case I (left) and II (right) with NH fixed. In each panel, the orange solid line shows the best fit using a linear regression law, whereas the gray shaded region shows the 1σ interval of the best fit (see Section 3 for more details). For comparison, the green dot-dashed line shows the predicted standard NS cooling with the cooling slope s = 0.0… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effective temperatures (Teff ) of the Cas A NS as a function of time for Case I (left) and II (right), with NH variations taken into account. In each panel, the orange solid line shows the best fit using a linear regression law, whereas the gray shaded region shows the 1σ interval of the best fit. For comparison, the green dot-dashed line shows the predicted standard NS cooling with the cooling slope s = 0.08. The b… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 2996, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu774

    Alarie, A., Bilodeau, A., & Drissen, L. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2996, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu774

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu774 2014

  2. [2]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf55 2023

  3. [3]

    N., & Weber, F

    Blaschke, D., Grigorian, H., Voskresensky, D. N., & Weber, F. 2012, PhRvC, 85, 022802, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.022802

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.85.022802 2012

  4. [4]

    F., & Urpin, V

    Bonanno, A., Baldo, M., Burgio, G. F., & Urpin, V. 2014, A&A, 561, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322514

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322514 2014

  5. [5]

    2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y —

    Buchner, J. 2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y —. 2019, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    doi:10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y 2016

  6. [6]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 719, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/719

    Chang, P., Bildsten, L., & Arras, P. 2010, ApJ, 723, 719, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/719

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/1/719 2010

  7. [7]

    Chen, J. M. C., Clark, J. W., Dav´ e, R. D., & Khodel, V. V. 1993, NuPhA, 555, 59, doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(93)90314-N

    doi:10.1016/0375-9474(93)90314-n 1993

  8. [8]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Doe, S., Nguyen, D., Stawarz, C., et al. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 543

    work page 2007

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    G., Heinke, C

    Elshamouty, K. G., Heinke, C. O., Sivakoff, G. R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/22

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Hammell, M

    Fesen, R. A., Hammell, M. C., Morse, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 283, doi: 10.1086/504254

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    1976, ApJ, 205, 541, doi: 10.1086/154308

    Flowers, E., Ruderman, M., & Sutherland, P. 1976, ApJ, 205, 541, doi: 10.1086/154308

    1976 doi

  4. [12]

    2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Freeman, P., Doe, S., & Siemiginowska, A. 2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4477, Astronomical Data Analysis, ed. J.-L. Starck & F. D. Murtagh, 76–87, doi: 10.1117/12.447161

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    Y., Yakovlev, D

    Gnedin, O. Y., Yakovlev, D. G., & Potekhin, A. Y. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 725, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04359.x 10 Zhao et al

    2001

  7. [15]

    P., & Gotthelf, E

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

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    O., & Ho, W

    Heinke, C. O., & Ho, W. C. G. 2010, ApJL, 719, L167, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L167

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Potekhin, A. Y. 2015, PhRvC, 91, 015806, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.015806

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Ho, W. C. G., & Heinke, C. O. 2009, Nature, 462, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature08525

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

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

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

    2003

  15. [23]

    Koehn, H., Rose, H., Pang, P. T. H., et al. 2025, PhRvX, 021014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.15.021014

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    Leinson, L. B. 2010, PhRvC, 81, 025501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.025501 —. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac448

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Cordes, J

    McLaughlin, M. A., Cordes, J. M., Deshpande, A. A., et al. 2001, ApJL, 547, L41, doi: 10.1086/318891

    2001 doi

  18. [26]

    Holt, S. S. 2002, ApJ, 566, 1039, doi: 10.1086/338224

    2002 doi

  19. [27]

    M., & Steiner, A

    Page, D., Prakash, M., Lattimer, J. M., & Steiner, A. W. 2011, PhRvL, 106, 081101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.081101

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Chamel, N., Potekhin, A

    Pearson, J. M., Chamel, N., Potekhin, A. Y., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2413

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Bogdan, A., & Marshall, H

    Plucinsky, P. P., Bogdan, A., & Marshall, H. L. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12181, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 121816X, do...

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Posselt, B., & Pavlov, G. G. 2018, ApJ, 864, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7fc —. 2022, ApJ, 932, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dca

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Suleimanov, V., & Kargaltsev, O

    Posselt, B., Pavlov, G. G., Suleimanov, V., & Kargaltsev, O. 2013, ApJ, 779, 186, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/186

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 49, 100441, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100441

    Potekhin, A., & Yakovlev, D. 2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 49, 100441, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100441

    2025

  25. [33]

    2003, Astronomische Nachrichten, 324, 73, doi: 10.1002/asna.200310019

    Predehl, P., Costantini, E., Hasinger, G., & Tanaka, Y. 2003, Astronomische Nachrichten, 324, 73, doi: 10.1002/asna.200310019

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    Ransom, S. M. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 271, Neutron Stars in Supernova Remnants, ed. P. O. Slane & B. M. Gaensler, 361, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0112006

    2002 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    E., Hester, J

    Reed, J. E., Hester, J. J., Fabian, A. C., & Winkler, P. F. 1995, ApJ, 440, 706, doi: 10.1086/175308

    1995 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Ofengeim, D

    Shternin, P. S., Ofengeim, D. D., Heinke, C. O., & Ho, W. C. G. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3226

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    S., Ofengeim, D

    Shternin, P. S., Ofengeim, D. D., Ho, W. C. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1695

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    S., Yakovlev, D

    Shternin, P. S., Yakovlev, D. G., Heinke, C. O., Ho, W. C. G., & Patnaude, D. J. 2011, MNRAS, 412, L108, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01015.x

    2011

  31. [39]

    2004, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 112, 37, doi: 10.1143/PTP.112.37

    Takatsuka, T., & Tamagaki, R. 2004, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 112, 37, doi: 10.1143/PTP.112.37

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    1999, IAUC, 7246, 1

    Tananbaum, H. 1999, IAUC, 7246, 1

    1999

  33. [41]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487, doi: 10.1086/177435

    1996 doi

  34. [42]

    Wijngaarden, M. J. P., Ho, W. C. G., Chang, P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz042

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Schwope, A., et al

    Wu, Q., Pires, A. M., Schwope, A., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 294, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/294

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    G., Ho, W

    Yakovlev, D. G., Ho, W. C. G., Shternin, P. S., Heinke, C. O., & Potekhin, A. Y. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1977, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17827.x

    2011

  38. [46]

    2001, PhR, 354, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00131-9

    Haensel, P. 2001, PhR, 354, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00131-9

    2001 doi

  39. [47]

    G., & Pethick, C

    Yakovlev, D. G., & Pethick, C. J. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 169, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134013

    2004

  40. [48]

    2011, ApJL, 735, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L29

    Yang, S.-H., Pi, C.-M., & Zheng, X.-P. 2011, ApJL, 735, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L29

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.