The double neutron star PSR J1946+2052
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims. Double neutron star (DNS) systems are superb laboratories for testing theories of gravity and constraining the equation of state of ultra-dense matter. PSR J1946+2052 is a particularly intriguing DNS system due to its orbital period (1h 53 m), as it is the shortest among all DNS systems known in our Galaxy. Methods. We aim to conduct high-precision timing of PSR J1946+2052 to determine the masses of the two neutron stars in the system, test general relativity (GR), and assess the system’s potential for future measurement of the moment of inertia of the pulsar. Results. We analysed seven years of timing data from the Arecibo 305-m radio telescope, the Green Bank Telescope, and the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope. The data processing accounted for dispersion measure variations and relativistic spin precession-induced profile evolution. We employed both theory-independent (DDFWHE) and GR-dependent (DDGR) binary models to measure the spin parameters, kinematic parameters, and orbital parameters. Results. The timing campaign resulted in the precise measurement of five post-Keplerian parameters, which yield very precise masses for the system (total mass M = 2.531858(60) M ⊙ , companion mass M c = 1.2480(21) M ⊙ , and pulsar mass M p = 1.2838(21) M ⊙ ), and three tests of GR. One of these tests is the second-most precise test of the radiative properties of gravity to date. The intrinsic orbital decay, Ṗ b,int = −1.8288(16) × 10 −12 , s s −1 , represents 1.00005(91) of the GR prediction, indicating that the theory has passed this stringent test. The other two tests of the Shapiro delay parameters have precisions of 6% and 5%, respectively. This is caused by the moderate orbital inclination of the system, ∼74°. The measurements of the Shapiro delay parameters also agree with the GR predictions. Additionally, we analysed the higher-order contributions of ω ˙, including the Lense-Thirring contribution. Both the second post-Newtonian and the Lense-Thirring contributions are larger than the current uncertainty of ω ˙ ( δω ˙ = 4 × 10 −4 deg yr −1 ), leading to the higher-order correction for the total mass.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".