MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028870418 · doi:10.1086/378798

Theoretical Considerations on the Properties of Accreting Millisecond Pulsars

2003· article· en· W2028870418 on OpenAlexaff
L. A. Nelson, S. Rappaport

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillisecond pulsarPhysicsAstrophysicsAccretion (finance)Angular momentumOrbital periodBinary numberMillisecondPulsarOrbital inclinationStarsAstronomyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine a number of evolutionary scenarios for the recently discovered class of accretion-powered millisecond X-ray pulsars in ultracompact binaries, including XTE J0929-314 and XTE J1751-305. These systems have very short orbital periods of P orb = 43.6 and 42.4 minutes, respectively, and extremely small mass functions. We focus on a particular scenario that can naturally explain the present-day properties of these systems. This model invokes a donor star that was either very close to the main-sequence turnoff at the onset of mass transfer or had sufficient time to evolve during the mass-transfer phase. We have run a systematic set of binary evolution calculations with a wide range of initial conditions. We find that these two ultracompact binaries can best be fitted by models wherein the donors start to lose mass at orbital periods of ~15 hr. The orbital periods then decrease to a minimum value of ≲40 minutes and finally evolve back up to about 43 minutes. We present the results of our binary evolution calculations for these systems, including interior profiles for the donor stars. We find that the initial properties of the donor star and the exact mode of orbital angular momentum losses do not have to be individually fine-tuned in order to reproduce the observed properties. We also carry out an analysis based on the measured mass functions of XTE J0929-314 and XTE J1751-305 to establish formal probability distributions for the current donor masses, chemical compositions, and thermal bloating factors of these systems. These distributions are evaluated in the context of our binary evolution models. We conclude that the donor masses are likely to be in the range ~0.012-0.025 M ☉ and have radii of ~0.042-0.055 R ☉ . These radii are factors of ~1.1-1.3 times larger than the corresponding radii of zero-temperature stars of the same mass and chemical composition. According to the evolutionary scenario proposed in this paper, the interiors of the donors are largely composed of He, and the surface H abundances are almost certainly less than 10% (by mass). The orbital period derivative of these systems is very likely to be positive, i.e., orb / P orb > 0, with typical values in the range ~3 × 10 -10 to 2 × 10 -8 yr -1 . Long-term average values of the mass-transfer rate could be as high as ~10 -11 to 3 × 10 -10 M ☉ yr -1 but is more likely to be ~10 -11 M ☉ yr -1 . Our study supports the hypothesis that X-ray irradiation has had a minimal effect on enhancing the radius of the low-mass donor. We also show how, in the context of this same basic evolutionary scenario, we can model the properties of the SAX 1808.4-3658 binary millisecond X-ray pulsar ( P orb = 2 hr). Finally, we point out that if the proposed scenario to explain the ultracompact systems is correct, then these binaries truly link (as evolutionary cousins) systems that (1) evolve to become wide binary millisecond pulsars containing low-mass He dwarfs and (2) those ordinary low-mass X-ray binaries in which the H-rich donors are slowly reduced to planetary masses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207