REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 32 references
Targeted searches for gravitational waves from SN 2023ixf and SGR 1935+2154
T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Targeted searches for supernova SN 2023ixf and magnetar SGR 1935+2154 find no gravitational waves but improve emitted-energy upper limits by an order of magnitude and five orders of magnitude, respectively.
desk verdict A clear, honest proceedings summary whose concluding numbers omit the caveats the body states; fine as a conference write-up, not as a research paper. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central mechanism is the externally triggered targeted search: because the electromagnetic discovery fixes the source direction and trigger time, the analysis can fold all detector data around that time into a coherent search and convert a null result into an upper limit. For SN 2023ixf the search uses the coherent WaveBurst pipeline, a wavelet-based method for detecting gravitational-wave transients in a detector network, with sensitivity evaluated through a 50% detection-efficiency curve and a narrow-band bar-mode emission model. For SGR 1935+2154 the key is that the 6.6 kpc distance makes even GEO600, whose sensitivity near 2 kHz is only about an order of magnitude worse than LIGO and Virgo, competitive for constraining GW energy; X-pipeline handles short-duration (<1 s) transients and PySTAMP handles long-duration (1-10 s) transients.
What would settle it
A future detection of gravitational waves from a core-collapse supernova at about 7 Mpc with emitted energy above the quoted SN 2023ixf upper limit would contradict the limit; likewise, a revised distance measurement to SGR 1935+2154 several times larger than 6.6 kpc would erase most of the claimed five-order improvement, since the energy limits scale with distance squared.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that absence of gravitational waves in these targeted searches translates into materially tighter astrophysical bounds. Using coherent WaveBurst on LIGO-Virgo data, the SN 2023ixf search yields an upper limit on narrow-band GW energy emission, for example from bar-mode instability, that is roughly an order of magnitude below the best previous core-collapse supernova constraint, and a similarly improved upper limit on GW luminosity. The SGR 1935+2154 search, using GEO600 data and X-pipeline and PySTAMP for short- and long-duration transients, improves the upper limit on emitted GW energy by five orders of magnitude compared with the previous O3 search, thanks mainly to the source being only 6.6 kpc away. No significant candidate was found in either case, so the paper frames these results as stepping stones toward a future burst discovery.
Load-bearing premise
The SN 2023ixf limit assumes narrow-band, bar-mode-like gravitational-wave emission evaluated with a 50% detection-efficiency curve, and the SGR 1935+2154 improvement assumes the source distance of 6.6 kpc and the adopted radio-burst energies; if real emission is broadband, weaker than modeled, or timed outside the search windows, the stated energy limits would not constrain the source as claimed.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- At Mpc distances, realistic numerical core-collapse supernova models are not expected to produce detectable gravitational waves in current data, so the new limits reinforce that expectation.
- The tighter SN 2023ixf limits leave extreme bar-mode instability models, such as low-T/|W| models, still viable but within reach of the next observing run, where they could be constrained or detected.
- The five-order-of-magnitude improvement for SGR 1935+2154 demonstrates that nearby magnetars are exceptionally powerful probes of GW emission from fast radio bursts.
- Closer future core-collapse supernovae would yield proportionally more stringent energy limits, so the search strategy's payoff improves as detector sensitivity and event proximity increase.
Reading between the lines
- A corollary the paper does not develop: if a galactic or near-galactic magnetar emits an FRB while LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA is observing, the network's joint sensitivity near 2 kHz could push GW-energy bounds several orders below the GEO600-only limits reported here.
- The supernova limit's narrow-band assumption means a broadband or differently timed emission could in principle carry more energy than the quoted bound; a model-agnostic broadband upper limit would close that gap.
- The same targeted-search machinery could be applied to other nearby FRB repeaters or to neutrino-triggered supernova alerts, converting each null result into a cumulative constraint on emission models.
- If no GW is found from the next nearby supernova, stacking multiple targeted searches could jointly constrain the source population rather than single events.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This short conference proceeding, authored on behalf of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaborations, summarizes two published targeted gravitational-wave searches: one for GWs from SN 2023ixf using O4 data and the coherent WaveBurst pipeline, and one for GWs from the repeating fast radio burst source SGR 1935+2154 using GEO600 data and the X-pipeline and PySTAMP pipelines. The paper reports that no significant GW candidate was found in either search, and that upper limits on emitted GW energy improved by about an order of magnitude for the CCSN search (relative to the O1-O2 SN 2017eaw limits) and by five orders of magnitude for the SGR 1935+2154 search (relative to the O3 CHIME/FRB search). It also notes that the physically more relevant ratio of GW energy to radio burst energy improved only slightly.
Significance. If the summarized results are accurately reported, the paper provides a compact and useful overview of recent progress in constraining gravitational-wave emission from core-collapse supernovae and from magnetar fast radio bursts. The improvement in the CCSN upper limit is a genuine tightening of constraints on narrow-band emission models (e.g., bar-mode instabilities), and the SGR 1935+2154 search exploits a uniquely close source to probe GW emission at distances inaccessible to extragalactic FRB searches. The paper does not present new calculations, but as a proceedings contribution it appropriately points to the peer-reviewed publications (refs 9 and 10) for technical details. The main weakness is that the conclusions state the headline improvements without the qualifiers present in the body, which overstates the generality of the results. No independent data or efficiency curves are included; this is acceptable for a proceedings summary, though it limits the paper's standalone value.
major comments (1)
- [Section 4 (Conclusions)] The concluding sentence, 'The upper limits on emitted GW energy have improved by an order of magnitude for CCSNe and by 5 orders of magnitude for FRB sources,' omits the important qualifiers given in Sections 2 and 3. In Section 2, the order-of-magnitude improvement is explicitly limited to narrow-band emission (e.g., bar-mode instability) and to limits based on the 50% detection-efficiency curve (Fig. 1); realistic broadband CCSN waveforms are not covered by this statement. In Section 3, the five-order improvement is attributed to the close 6.6 kpc distance of SGR 1935+2154, while the paper itself notes that the EGW/Eradio ratio improved only slightly. Because the abstract and conclusions use these unqualified figures as the headline results, the statements overgeneralize the underlying published analyses. The conclusion should be rephrased to include these conditions, for example by stating that the narrow-band, 50%-efficiency CCSN limit improved by an order of magnitude and that the FRB energy limit improved by five orders of magnitude largely because of the source distance, with the EGW/Eradio ratio improving only mildly.
minor comments (4)
- [Section 2] The phrase 'extreme numerical bad-mode models' should read 'extreme numerical bar-mode models'; the typo appears in the sentence discussing low-T/|W| models.
- [Section 3] The sentence starting 'While the overall sensitivity of GEO600 is worse...' contains a duplicated article: 'the the sensitivity at 2 kHz' should be 'the sensitivity at 2 kHz'.
- [Section 2] The statement 'The time of the expected GW signal was estimated to be before the O4 started' is ambiguous; it would be clearer to say 'the expected time of the GW signal (the core collapse) was before the start of O4'.
- [Figure 1 caption] The caption states that the SN 2023ixf results are 'around an order of magnitude more stringent' without noting the narrow-band assumption and the 50% detection-efficiency basis; for consistency with Section 2, the caption should include those qualifiers or explicitly refer to the text.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the paper is a proceedings summary whose quantitative claims are imported from peer-reviewed LVK analyses, with the relevant caveats stated in the body.
full rationale
This is a conference-proceedings summary, not a derivation. Every quantitative claim is explicitly attributed to external analyses: the SN 2023ixf upper limits come from ref. 9, the SGR 1935+2154 limits from ref. 10, and the comparison baselines from refs. 18 and 32. These are peer-reviewed LVK search papers with published data and stated assumptions (narrow-band emission, 50% detection efficiency, 6.6 kpc distance); they do not depend on the present paper's assumptions or fitted parameters. The author's membership in the LVK collaboration makes these self-citations in a broad sense, but the cited results are independent, externally checkable data analyses, so the citation is real evidence rather than a circular load-bearing step. The body text also explicitly qualifies the headline claims: the CCSN improvement is stated as applying to narrow-band emission at 50% efficiency, and the FRB improvement is attributed to the short distance while the physically meaningful EGW/Eradio ratio improved only slightly. The conclusion's compressed wording omits these qualifiers, which is an accuracy/caveat issue, not circular reasoning. No equation is defined in terms of a target result, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (2)
- domain assumption GW upper limits from SN 2023ixf are derived assuming narrow-band emission, for example bar-mode instability, and a 50% detection efficiency.
- domain assumption GW energy estimates for future searches and for SGR 1935+2154 depend on published detector sensitivity curves and on measured radio-burst energies.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Targeted searches for gravitational waves from SN 2023ixf and SGR 1935+2154." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5PBLYT62
@misc{pith2026250602252,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Targeted searches for gravitational waves from SN 2023ixf and SGR 1935+2154},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5PBLYT62}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02252}
}
read the original abstract
The fourth observing run of Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo, and KAGRA has provided so far over 200 new gravitational-wave candidates, and it is still ongoing. A few results from this run are published and in this proceeding, we summarize the latest targeted search for GWs from SN 2023ixf and consider predictions for future searches. We also summarize the targeted search for GWs from a fast radio burst source SGR 1935+2154.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
B.P. Abbott et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(6):061102, 2016
work page 2016
-
[2]
Aasi et al
J. Aasi et al. Advanced LIGO.Class. Quant. Grav., 32:074001, 2015
2015
-
[3]
Acernese et al
F. Acernese et al. Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector.Class. Quant. Grav., 32(2):024001, 2015
2015
-
[4]
B. P. Abbott et al. GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs.Phys. Rev. X, 9(3):031040, 2019
2019
-
[5]
R. Abbott et al. GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run.Physical Review X, 11:021053, 2021
work page 2021
-
[6]
R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, and et al. GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run.Phys. Rev. D., 109(2):022001, January 2024
work page 2024
-
[7]
Abbott et al
R. Abbott et al. GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run.Phys. Rev. X, 13(4):041039, 2023
2023
-
[8]
B.P. Abbott et al. Prospects for Observing and Localizing Gravitational-Wave Transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA.Living Rev. Rel., 21(1):3, 2018
work page 2018
Show all 32 references
-
[9]
A. G. Abac et al. Search for gravitational waves emitted from SN 2023ixf.Astrophys. J., 985(2):183, May 2025
2025
-
[10]
A. G. Abac et al. A Search Using GEO600 for Gravitational Waves Coincident with Fast Radio Bursts from SGR 1935+2154.Astrophys. J., 977(2):255, 2024
1935
-
[11]
Hirata, T
K. Hirata, T. Kajita, M. Koshiba, M. Nakahata, and Y. Oyama. Observation of a neutrino burst from the supernova SN1987A.Phys. Rev. Lett., 58:1490, April 1987
1987
-
[12]
R. M. Bionta, G. Blewitt, C. B. Bratton, D. Casper, and A. Ciocio. Observation of a neutrino burst in coincidence with supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud.Phys. Rev. Lett., 58:1494, April 1987
1987
-
[13]
E. N. Alekseev, L. N. Alekseeva, I. V. Krivosheina, and V. I. Volchenko. Detection of the neutrino signal from SN 1987A using the INR Baksan underground scintillation telescope. 26:237–247, 1987
1987
-
[14]
Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae.Ann
Hans-Thomas Janka. Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 62:407–451, 2012
2012
-
[15]
Gravitational Waves from Neutrino-Driven Core Collapse Supernovae: Predictions, Detection, and Parameter Estimation.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2401.11635, January 2024
Anthony Mezzacappa and Michele Zanolin. Gravitational Waves from Neutrino-Driven Core Collapse Supernovae: Predictions, Detection, and Parameter Estimation.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2401.11635, January 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[16]
Detecting and reconstructing gravitational waves from the next galactic core-collapse supernova in the advanced detector era.Phys
Marek Szczepanczyk et al. Detecting and reconstructing gravitational waves from the next galactic core-collapse supernova in the advanced detector era.Phys. Rev. D, 104(10):102002, 2021
2021
-
[17]
Abbott et al
B.P. Abbott et al. A First Targeted Search for Gravitational-Wave Bursts from Core- Collapse Supernovae in Data of First-Generation Laser Interferometer Detectors.Phys. Rev. D, 94(10):102001, 2016
2016
-
[18]
Abbott et al
B.P. Abbott et al. Optically targeted search for gravitational waves emitted by core- collapse supernovae during the first and second observing runs of advanced LIGO and advanced Virgo.Phys. Rev. D, 101(8):084002, 2020
2020
-
[19]
Szczepa´ nczyk et al
Marek J. Szczepa´ nczyk et al. Optically targeted search for gravitational waves emitted by core-collapse supernovae during the third observing run of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo.Phys. Rev. D, 110(4):042007, 2024
2024
-
[20]
K. Itagaki. Transient Discovery Report for 2023-05-19.Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2023-1158:1, May 2023
2023
-
[21]
Klimenko et al
S. Klimenko et al. Method for detection and reconstruction of gravitational wave transients 4 with networks of advanced detectors.Phys. Rev. D, 93:042004, Feb 2016
2016
-
[22]
Wavescan: multiresolution regression of gravitational-wave data
Sergey Klimenko. Wavescan: multiresolution regression of gravitational-wave data. 1 2022
2022
-
[23]
A new gravitational-wave signature of low-T/—W— instability in rapidly rotating stellar core collapse.Mon
Shota Shibagaki, Takami Kuroda, Kei Kotake, and Tomoya Takiwaki. A new gravitational-wave signature of low-T/—W— instability in rapidly rotating stellar core collapse.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 493(1):L138–L142, March 2020
2020
-
[24]
Bugli, J
M. Bugli, J. Guilet, M. Obergaulinger, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, and M.´A. Aloy. The impact of non-dipolar magnetic fields in core-collapse supernovae.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 492(1):58–71, 2020
2020
-
[25]
D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin, D. J. Narkevic, and F. Crawford. A bright millisecond radio burst of extragalactic origin.Science, 318:777, 2007
2007
-
[26]
The upgrade of GEO600.J
Harald Luck et al. The upgrade of GEO600.J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 228:012012, 2010
2010
-
[27]
Affeldt et al
C. Affeldt et al. Advanced techniques in GEO 600.Class. Quant. Grav., 31(22):224002, 2014
2014
-
[28]
K. L. Dooley et al. GEO 600 and the GEO-HF upgrade program: successes and challenges. Class. Quant. Grav., 33:075009, 2016
2016
-
[29]
Sutton et al
Patrick J. Sutton et al. X-Pipeline: An Analysis package for autonomous gravitational- wave burst searches.New J. Phys., 12:053034, 2010
2010
-
[30]
Sutton, Gareth Jones, and Isabel Leonor
Michal Was, Patrick J. Sutton, Gareth Jones, and Isabel Leonor. Performance of an externally triggered gravitational-wave burst search.Phys. Rev. D, 86:022003, 2012
2012
-
[31]
Macquet, M
A. Macquet, M. A. Bizouard, N. Christensen, and M. Coughlin. Long-duration transient gravitational-wave search pipeline.Phys. Rev. D., 104(10):102005, November 2021
2021
-
[32]
Abbott et al
R. Abbott et al. Search for Gravitational Waves Associated with Fast Radio Bursts Detected by CHIME/FRB during the LIGO–Virgo Observing Run O3a.Astrophys. J., 955(2):155, 2023. 5
2023
Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.