MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390907984 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfb83

An Updated Mass–Radius Analysis of the 2017–2018 NICER Data Set of PSR J0030+0451

2024· article· en· W4390907984 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Vinciguerra, Tuomo Salmi, Anna L. Watts, Devarshi Choudhury, Thomas E. Riley, Paul S. Ray, Slavko Bogdanov, Yves Kini, Sébastien Guillot, Deepto Chakrabarty, Wynn C. G. Ho, Daniela Huppenkothen, Sharon M. Morsink, Zorawar Wadiasingh, M. T. Wolff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsRADIUSAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2019 the NICER collaboration published the first mass and radius inferred for PSR J0030+0451, thanks to NICER observations, and consequent constraints on the equation of state characterizing dense matter. Two independent analyses found a mass of ∼1.3–1.4 M ⊙ and a radius of ∼13 km. They also both found that the hot spots were all located on the same hemisphere, opposite to the observer, and that at least one of them had a significantly elongated shape. Here we reanalyze, in greater detail, the same NICER data set, incorporating the effects of an updated NICER response matrix and using an upgraded analysis framework. We expand the adopted models and also jointly analyze XMM-Newton data, which enables us to better constrain the fraction of observed counts coming from PSR J0030+0451. Adopting the same models used in previous publications, we find consistent results, although with more stringent inference requirements. We also find a multimodal structure in the posterior surface. This becomes crucial when XMM-Newton data is accounted for. Including the corresponding constraints disfavors the main solutions found previously, in favor of the new and more complex models. These have inferred masses and radii of ∼[1.4 M ⊙ , 11.5 km] and ∼[1.7 M ⊙ , 14.5 km], depending on the assumed model. They display configurations that do not require the two hot spots generating the observed X-rays to be on the same hemisphere, nor to show very elongated features, and point instead to the presence of temperature gradients and the need to account for them.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations189
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207