Constraining the Neutron Star Mass–Radius Relation and Dense Matter Equation of State with NICER. III. Model Description and Verification of Parameter Estimation Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We describe the X-ray pulse profile models we use and how we use them to analyze Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) observations of rotation-powered millisecond pulsars to obtain information about the mass–radius relation of neutron stars and the equation of state of the dense matter in their cores. Here we detail our modeling of the observed profile of PSR J0030+0451 that we analyzed in Miller et al. and Riley et al. and describe a cross-verification of computations of the pulse profiles of a star with R/M 3, in case stars this compact need to be considered in future analyses. We also present our early cross-verification efforts of the parameter estimation procedures used by Miller et al. and Riley et al. by analyzing two distinct synthetic data sets. Both codes yielded credible regions in the mass–radius plane that are statistically consistent with one another, and both gave posterior distributions for model parameter values consistent with the values that were used to generate the data. We also summarize the additional tests of the parameter estimation procedure of Miller et al. that used synthetic pulse profiles and the NICER pulse profile of PSR J0030+0451. We then illustrate how the precision of mass and radius estimates depends on the pulsar’s spin rate and the size of its hot spot by analyzing four different synthetic pulse profiles. Finally, we assess possible sources of systematic error in the estimates made using this technique, some of which may warrant further investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".