Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 115 references

A neural network on gravitational-wave detector networks can recover the rotation rate and bounce amplitude of rotating supernovae out to roughly 250 kpc and the peak frequency to 30 kpc; third-generation observatories extend these by an or

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 23:50 UTC pith:FJL25IBX

load-bearing objection Useful network-specific projections for ML parameter estimation of rotating CCSNe, but the distance horizons come from validation-set R² with an arbitrary threshold, so treat them as relative benchmarks rather than hard accuracy claims. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01634 v1 pith:FJL25IBX submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM

Parameter Estimation Horizon of Core-Collapse Supernovae with a Network of Gravitational-Wave Detectors

Almat Akhmetali , Y. Sultan Abylkairov , Solange Nunes , Jos\'e Antonio Font , Michele Zanolin , Ernazar Abdikamalov This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords core-collapse supernovaegravitational wavesmachine learningdeep learningparameter estimationdetector networkshigh energy astrophysicsastronomy data analysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to show that machine-learning parameter estimation on a network of gravitational-wave detectors can recover the physical properties of rapidly rotating core-collapse supernovae from the brief core-bounce burst, and to quantify how far and how uniformly that recovery works. Training a convolutional neural network on 1332 simulated waveforms, the authors report that current-generation networks recover the peak ring-down frequency out to about 30 kpc, while the rotation rate T/|W| and distance-normalized peak amplitude DΔh remain recoverable to about 250 kpc and 200 kpc. They report that third-generation observatories extend these horizons by roughly an order of magnitude, to about 300 kpc for frequency and 2–2.5 Mpc for rotation and amplitude. They also find that adding interferometers to the network changes the picture in a specific way: average distance reach improves little, but sky coverage improves substantially, nearly eliminating directions where parameter estimation degrades. If the claims hold, a single Galactic supernova would directly yield its core rotation and bounce amplitude, and future observatories could constrain these properties for supernovae across the Local Group.

Core claim

The paper claims that a convolutional neural network trained on whitened frequency-domain segments of multi-detector strain can estimate three rotating-CCSN source parameters from the core-bounce and early ring-down signal, and that the detector network determines how far and how uniformly that estimation works. On the 1332-waveform catalog, current 2G networks recover f_peak to about 30 kpc and T/|W| and DΔh to about 250 and 200 kpc at R² ≥ 0.8; the 3G ET-CE20-CE40 network reaches about 300 kpc, 2.5 Mpc, and 2 Mpc. The paper also claims that adding interferometers mainly improves sky coverage, raising the sky fraction with good f_peak recovery from 0.89 for the two-LIGO network to 0.96 for

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a one-dimensional convolutional neural network with about 1.2 million parameters, built from three Conv1D-MaxPooling blocks, two dense layers, and a linear output layer. It maps 70 ms whitened Fourier-domain segments of strain from each detector in the network to three outputs—f_peak, T/|W|, and DΔh—learning the mapping directly from the 1332-waveform catalog. The argument turns on this network because the distance and sky-coverage R² curves measure what physical information survives once antenna pattern functions and geometric arrival-time delays combine the signal across sites.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that R² scores from the validation split of the same simulated catalog used for training, with signals injected into stationary Gaussian noise at design sensitivities, predict accuracy on real non-stationary, non-Gaussian detector data; if that transfer fails, the quoted horizons shrink.

What would settle it

Inject the same 1332 waveforms into real detector noise containing nonstationarity, glitches, and spectral lines, then re-measure R² versus distance and sky position; if the curves drop materially below the stationary-Gaussian ones, the claimed horizons are optimistic.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • A Galactic supernova within about 8 kpc would yield all three parameters with near-perfect R² across nearly the whole sky for the full 2G network, giving direct access to the core's rotation at bounce.
  • The full network's practical advantage over the two-LIGO configuration is not longer reach but uniformity: the minimum R² for f_peak rises to about 0.8 over the sky, so parameter estimates depend much less on where the supernova appears.
  • With 3G observatories, rotation rate and amplitude estimation works beyond the Local Group, so parameter inference for rotating core-collapse supernovae would not require a Milky Way event.
  • Because f_peak is the limiting parameter, the ring-down frequency—not the amplitude—sets the practical horizon for full characterization of the bounce signal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: because the reported R² curves are averages over sky positions, an actual event in an antenna-pattern minimum will have a smaller reach; operational forecasts should quote a sky-position-dependent horizon map rather than a single number.
  • Beyond the paper: since the noise model is stationary and Gaussian with design PSDs, the distances are upper bounds until the same network is retested on nonstationary, glitch-contaminated data; that test would also reveal whether the network is relying on artifacts of the whitening procedure.
  • Beyond the paper: the method could be stress-tested for catalog dependence by training on one waveform family or equation of state and evaluating on a different one, checking whether the reported R² reflects the underlying physics or the specific waveform manifold.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' earlier single-detector study to detector networks for machine-learning parameter estimation of rotating core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave signals. A 1D CNN is trained on 1332 CoCoNuT waveforms covering four progenitors and six equations of state, and is used to estimate the peak frequency f_peak, the rotation parameter T/|W|, and the distance-normalized amplitude DΔh from whitened, band-passed Fourier-domain strain in various 2G networks (HL, HLV, HLVK, HLVKA) and a 3G network (ET-CE20-CE40). The central quantitative claims are distance reaches at which R² ≥ 0.8: f_peak ~30 kpc for 2G and ~300 kpc for 3G; T/|W| ~250 kpc for 2G and ~2.5 Mpc for 3G; DΔh ~200 kpc for 2G and ~2 Mpc for 3G. The paper also quantifies how additional detectors improve sky coverage for f_peak, T/|W|, and DΔh.

Significance. The manuscript addresses a timely question: what source properties can be extracted from a global network of gravitational-wave detectors when a galactic core-collapse supernova is observed, and how much will third-generation observatories improve these estimates? If the quoted reaches hold, they provide useful planning benchmarks for supernova follow-up and demonstrate a practical deep-learning pipeline for transient parameter estimation. Strengths of the paper include the use of a public waveform catalog spanning multiple progenitors and EOSs, explicit treatment of sky-position dependence through antenna patterns, and systematic comparison of network configurations. The main limitation is that the headline 'distance reach' is derived from a validation-set R² with an arbitrary threshold and without per-event error quantification; until this is addressed, the absolute numbers are not as firmly established as the abstract implies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (5), Sec. III C, Figs. 2 and 5] The definition of distance reach relies on R² ≥ 0.8, but R² is a population variance-explained metric, not a per-event accuracy measure. For a centered target, R² = 0.8 corresponds to RMSE = sqrt(1-R²)·σ_y ≈ 0.45σ_y. Given that the catalog spans six EOSs, four progenitors, and T/|W| from 0.02 to 0.21, the scatter in the target parameters is large, so R² = 0.8 can coexist with per-source errors of tens of percent. The paper reports no scatter plots, residual distributions, or median absolute/relative errors at the quoted horizon distances. The claim that f_peak is 'accurately recoverable' to 30 kpc and T/|W| to 250 kpc is therefore not tied to a well-defined accuracy statement. I recommend reporting per-event error metrics (e.g., median relative error, credible intervals) at representative distances and either justifying the 0.8 threshold in physical terms or replacing it with a task-spec
  2. [Sec. III C] The validation split is used for early stopping (patience 20), learning-rate scheduling, and restoring weights with the lowest validation loss. All results are reported on this same validation set. Consequently, the R² values are an optimistically selected estimate of generalization, not an unbiased evaluation. There are no repeated training runs, bootstrap error bars, or a separate test set untouched by model selection. I request uncertainty estimates on R² (e.g., standard deviation over multiple seeds or bootstrap resampling of the validation set) and, ideally, an independent test set for the final numbers.
  3. [Sec. III B and Sec. V] The noise model assumes stationary, Gaussian noise characterized by design PSDs. The authors acknowledge in the conclusion that non-stationary detector noise is not accounted for. For current-generation networks, real data contain glitches, non-stationarity, and calibration uncertainties that can degrade parameter recovery. Since the abstract and conclusions present the distance reaches for 'current-generation detector networks' without this caveat, the quoted numbers should be framed as idealized upper bounds, and the paper should either add a test on real noise segments or explicitly state that realistic noise may materially reduce the reaches. As written, this limitation is load-bearing for the headline results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III B] Please specify how the 70 ms analysis window is placed relative to the injected bounce time, especially given the random bounce-time offset of Δt_b = 20 ms. This is needed for reproducibility.
  2. [Sec. III C, Table II] The input shape (number of channels and the time-series length fed to the CNN) is not stated in the table or the text. Adding it would make the architecture description self-contained.
  3. [Sec. IV A] The number of isotropic sky-position samples used to compute 'mean performance' at each distance is not stated, nor is the random seed. Without this information the mean R² curves cannot be reproduced.
  4. [Sec. II, Table I] The locations and orientations of ET and CE are adopted from earlier work and are not unique. This is a reasonable assumption, but the dependence of the results on the assumed ET orientation could be tested or at least discussed.
  5. [Sec. IV C, Fig. 5] The text mentions Andromeda at 770 kpc while the figure caption says 780 kpc. Please make these values consistent.
  6. [Sec. IV A, Fig. 2] The color/line-style assignment is described in the caption, but the curves for T/|W| and DΔh are visually similar in some distance ranges. Consider adding markers or increasing color contrast.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the distance-reach claims are measured network performance on a held-out validation split, not quantities fitted into existence or imported from an unverified self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance curve: a CNN is trained on 80% of a 1332-waveform catalog and evaluated on the remaining 20%; distance reach is read off where the validation R^2 curve crosses 0.8. No parameter is fitted to make any quoted horizon (30 kpc, 200/250 kpc, 300 kpc/2/2.5 Mpc) come out; those numbers are read from measured curves, so the predictions are not equal to the inputs by construction. The waveform catalog is generated with the external CoCoNuT code and is publicly available on Zenodo; citation [58] is for data provenance, and citation [72] only supplies a single-detector baseline that the present multi-detector results are computed against, not a theorem that forces the conclusions. The choice of Fourier-domain input and the R^2=0.8 threshold are modeling/interpretation choices, not fitted predictions. Two limitations are real but non-circular: (i) the validation split is used for early stopping and model selection before the same split is used for reporting, which can make the R^2 values optimistic; and (ii) R^2=0.8 is a population variance-explained threshold that does not by itself bound per-event errors, and the paper does not report per-event scatter at the horizons. Both affect how physically meaningful the quoted distances are, but neither makes the derivation circular: the reported accuracy is a measured validation-set statistic, not a target that was inserted as an input. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the stationary-Gaussian noise idealization in the conclusion. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the R2=0.8 threshold, the preprocessing windows, and the assumption that validation-set R2 on the training catalog transfers to real data. No physical free parameters were fitted beyond the network's learned weights.

free parameters (5)
  • R2 accuracy threshold = 0.8
    Defines 'accurate estimation' and therefore all quoted distance horizons; chosen by hand with no sensitivity analysis.
  • Bounce-time uncertainty (delta_t_b) = 20 ms
    Random bounce-time offset injected into each signal to simulate trigger uncertainty; affects the frequency-domain alignment and thus R2 values.
  • Analysis window around bounce = [-2, 6] ms
    Chosen to isolate core bounce and ring-down while excluding post-bounce convection not captured in 2D; determines which signal content the network sees.
  • Bandpass filter range = 20-2000 Hz
    Applied before the Fourier transform; affects the features available to the CNN.
  • Tukey window alpha = 0.1
    Taper parameter applied before whitening to suppress spectral leakage; affects the frequency-domain input.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric CoCoNuT simulations with the Y_e(rho) deleptonization and leakage/heating schemes adequately model the bounce and early post-bounce GW emission of rapidly rotating CCSNe.
    Invoked in Section III A; the entire waveform catalog rests on this modeling choice, and the paper excludes later times because prompt convection is not accurately captured in 2D.
  • domain assumption Detector noise is stationary and Gaussian, fully characterized by the design PSDs.
    Section III B; the authors acknowledge in the conclusion that non-stationary noise is not accounted for.
  • domain assumption For axisymmetric rotating CCSNe, the GW signal is linearly polarized with h_cross = 0 and amplitude scaling proportional to sin^2(alpha).
    Section III B, citing [30]; this justifies injecting only the plus polarization and parameterizes the inclination dependence.
  • ad hoc to paper Validation-set R2 from a random 80/20 split of the 1332-waveform catalog is representative of performance on unseen real signals.
    Section III C and IV; no external test set or cross-validation beyond the single split is used.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 19446 in / 13656 out tokens · 131130 ms · 2026-08-04T23:50:01.614944+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parameter Estimation Horizon of Core-Collapse Supernovae with a Network of Gravitational-Wave Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJL25IBX

@misc{pith2026260801634,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parameter Estimation Horizon of Core-Collapse Supernovae with a Network of Gravitational-Wave Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJL25IBX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01634}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Core-collapse supernovae are among the most promising yet still undetected sources of gravitational waves. A future detection would provide a direct view of the physical processes occurring deep inside a collapsing star. In this work, we investigate how networks of current and future gravitational-wave detectors can constrain the properties of rapidly rotating core-collapse supernovae using their characteristic core-bounce and early post-bounce signals. Using deep-learning techniques, we estimate the peak frequency, rotation rate, and signal amplitude from noisy detector data and compare the performance of different detector-network configurations. We find that detector networks improve both parameter recovery and sky coverage. For current-generation networks, estimation of the peak frequency is possible out to about 30 kpc, while the rotation rate and signal amplitude remain recoverable out to distances exceeding 100 kpc. Third-generation observatories extend these distances by nearly an order of magnitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01634 by Almat Akhmetali, Ernazar Abdikamalov, Jos\'e Antonio Font, Michele Zanolin, Solange Nunes, Y. Sultan Abylkairov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Amplitude spectral densities as a function of fre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the evolution of the R2 score as a function of source distance. We observe no substantial difference between the HL and HLVKA detector networks, suggest￾ing that the inclusion of Virgo and KAGRA provides lit￾tle improvement in the distance reach because of their lower sensitivities (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Sky maps of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Sky coverage as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Col- laboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, A. G. Abac, A. Abe, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, and et al, GWTC-5.0: An Introduction to Version 5.0 of the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2605.27223 (2026), arXiv:2605.27223 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    B. M¨ uller, Core-Collapse Supernovae and their Grav- itational Wave Signals: The Status of Theory and Modeling, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2603.24243 (2026), arXiv:2603.24243 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Mezzacappa and M

    A. Mezzacappa and M. Zanolin, Colloquium: Gravita- tional waves from neutrino-driven core collapse super- novae, Reviews of Modern Physics97, 041002 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Janka, T

    H.-T. Janka, T. Melson, and A. Summa, Physics of Core-Collapse Supernovae in Three Dimensions: A Sneak Preview, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science66, 341 (2016), arXiv:1602.05576 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    M¨ uller, Hydrodynamics of core-collapse supernovae and their progenitors, Living Reviews in Computa- tional Astrophysics6, 3 (2020), arXiv:2006.05083 [astro- ph.SR]

    B. M¨ uller, Hydrodynamics of core-collapse supernovae and their progenitors, Living Reviews in Computa- tional Astrophysics6, 3 (2020), arXiv:2006.05083 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Burrows, Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 245 (2013), arXiv:1210.4921 [astro-ph.SR]

    A. Burrows, Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 245 (2013), arXiv:1210.4921 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Mezzacappa, E

    A. Mezzacappa, E. Endeve, O. E. B. Messer, and S. W. Bruenn, Physical, numerical, and computational chal- lenges of modeling neutrino transport in core-collapse supernovae, Living Reviews in Computational Astro- physics6, 4 (2020), arXiv:2010.09013 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    K. Kotake, Multiple physical elements to determine the gravitational-wave signatures of core-collapse su- pernovae, Comptes Rendus Physique14, 318 (2013), arXiv:1110.5107 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    S. E. Gossan, P. Sutton, A. Stuver, M. Zanolin, K. Gill, and C. D. Ott, Observing gravitational waves from core- collapse supernovae in the advanced detector era, Phys. Rev. D93, 042002 (2016), arXiv:1511.02836 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Abdikamalov, G

    E. Abdikamalov, G. Pagliaroli, and D. Radice, Grav- itational Waves from Core-Collapse Supernovae, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, edited by C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, and K. D. Kokkotas (2022) p. 21

    2022

  11. [11]

    J. W. Murphy, C. D. Ott, and A. Burrows, A Model for Gravitational Wave Emission from Neutrino-Driven Core-Collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J.707, 1173 (2009), arXiv:0907.4762 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    M¨ uller, H.-T

    B. M¨ uller, H.-T. Janka, and A. Marek, A New Multi- dimensional General Relativistic Neutrino Hydrody- namics Code of Core-collapse Supernovae. III. Gravita- tional Wave Signals from Supernova Explosion Models, Astrophys. J.766, 43 (2013), arXiv:1210.6984 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [13]

    Radice, V

    D. Radice, V. Morozova, A. Burrows, D. Vartanyan, and H. Nagakura, Characterizing the Gravitational Wave Signal from Core-collapse Supernovae, ApJL876, L9 (2019), arXiv:1812.07703 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Torres-Forn´ e, P

    A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, A. Passamonti, M. Obergaulinger, and J. A. Font, Towards asteroseis- mology of core-collapse supernovae with gravitational wave observations - II. Inclusion of space-time pertur- bations, MNRAS482, 3967 (2019), arXiv:1806.11366 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Sotani, B

    H. Sotani, B. M¨ uller, and T. Takiwaki, Universal- ity in supernova gravitational waves with protoneu- tron star properties, Phys. Rev. D109, 123021 (2024), arXiv:2405.09030 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Kuroda, K

    T. Kuroda, K. Kotake, and T. Takiwaki, A New 10 Gravitational-wave Signature from Standing Accretion Shock Instability in Supernovae, ApJ Lett.829, L14 (2016), arXiv:1605.09215 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Andresen, B

    H. Andresen, B. M¨ uller, E. M¨ uller, and H. T. Janka, Gravitational wave signals from 3D neutrino hydrody- namics simulations of core-collapse supernovae, MN- RAS468, 2032 (2017), arXiv:1607.05199 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2032

  18. [18]

    Hayama, T

    K. Hayama, T. Kuroda, K. Kotake, and T. Takiwaki, Circular polarization of gravitational waves from non- rotating supernova cores: a new probe into the pre- explosion hydrodynamics, MNRAS477, L96 (2018), arXiv:1802.03842 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Mezzacappa, P

    A. Mezzacappa, P. Marronetti, R. E. Landfield, E. J. Lentz, K. N. Yakunin, S. W. Bruenn, W. R. Hix, O. E. B. Messer, E. Endeve, J. M. Blondin, and J. A. Harris, Gravitational-wave signal of a core-collapse su- pernova explosion of a 15 M ⊙ star, Phys. Rev. D102, 023027 (2020), arXiv:2007.15099 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Mueller and H

    E. Mueller and H. T. Janka, Gravitational radiation from convective instabilities in Type II supernova ex- plosions., A&A317, 140 (1997)

    1997

  21. [21]

    Takiwaki and K

    T. Takiwaki and K. Kotake, Anisotropic emission of neutrino and gravitational-wave signals from rapidly rotating core-collapse supernovae, MNRAS475, L91 (2018), arXiv:1711.01905 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Vartanyan and A

    D. Vartanyan and A. Burrows, Gravitational Waves from Neutrino Emission Asymmetries in Core- collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J.901, 108 (2020), arXiv:2007.07261 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    L. Choi, A. Burrows, and D. Vartanyan, Gravitational- wave and Gravitational-wave Memory Signatures of Core-collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J.975, 12 (2024), arXiv:2408.01525 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, J. M. Antelis, M. Benjamin, M. Cavagli` a, D. Gondek-Rosi´ nska, T. Hansen, S. Kli- menko, M. D. Morales, C. Moreno, S. Mukherjee, G. Nurbek, J. Powell, N. Singh, S. Sitmukhambetov, P. Szewczyk, O. Valdez, G. Vedovato, J. Westhouse, M. Zanolin, and Y. Zheng, Detecting and reconstructing gravitational waves from the next galactic core...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Nakamura, S

    K. Nakamura, S. Horiuchi, M. Tanaka, K. Hayama, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Multimessenger signals of long-term core-collapse supernova simulations: syn- ergetic observation strategies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.461, 3296 (2016), arXiv:1602.03028 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Heger, S

    A. Heger, S. E. Woosley, and H. C. Spruit, Presupernova Evolution of Differentially Rotating Massive Stars In- cluding Magnetic Fields, Astrophys. J.626, 350 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409422 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, The Progenitor Stars of Gamma-Ray Bursts, Astrophys. J.637, 914 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0508175 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [28]

    Trends in gravitational wave emission in axisymmetric simulations of rotating core-collapse supernovae

    B. Sykes and B. M¨ uller, Trends in gravitational wave emission in axisymmetric simulations of rotating core- collapse supernovae, Phys. Rev. D113, 103049 (2026), arXiv:2512.07066 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    The gravitational wave burst signal from core collapse of rotating stars

    H. Dimmelmeier, C. D. Ott, A. Marek, and H. T. Janka, Gravitational wave burst signal from core col- lapse of rotating stars, Phys. Rev. D78, 064056 (2008), arXiv:0806.4953 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  30. [30]

    C. D. Ott, E. Abdikamalov, E. O’Connor, C. Reiss- wig, R. Haas, P. Kalmus, S. Drasco, A. Burrows, and E. Schnetter, Correlated gravitational wave and neu- trino signals from general-relativistic rapidly rotating iron core collapse, Phys. Rev. D86, 024026 (2012), arXiv:1204.0512 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  31. [31]

    Fuller, H

    J. Fuller, H. Klion, E. Abdikamalov, and C. D. Ott, Supernova seismology: gravitational wave signatures of rapidly rotating core collapse, MNRAS450, 414 (2015), arXiv:1501.06951 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Scheidegger, T

    S. Scheidegger, T. Fischer, S. C. Whitehouse, and M. Liebend¨ orfer, Gravitational waves from 3D MHD core collapse simulations, A&A490, 231 (2008), arXiv:0709.0168 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  33. [33]

    Shibagaki, T

    S. Shibagaki, T. Kuroda, K. Kotake, and T. Takiwaki, A new gravitational-wave signature of low-T/—W— in- stability in rapidly rotating stellar core collapse, MN- RAS493, L138 (2020), arXiv:1909.09730 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    K.-C. Pan, M. Liebend¨ orfer, S. M. Couch, and F.-K. Thielemann, Stellar Mass Black Hole Formation and Multimessenger Signals from Three-dimensional Rotat- ing Core-collapse Supernova Simulations, Astrophys. J. 914, 140 (2021), arXiv:2010.02453 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Burrows, L

    A. Burrows, L. Dessart, E. Livne, C. D. Ott, and J. Murphy, Simulations of Magnetically Driven Super- nova and Hypernova Explosions in the Context of Rapid Rotation, Astrophys. J.664, 416 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0702539

    arXiv 2007

  36. [36]

    M¨ osta, S

    P. M¨ osta, S. Richers, C. D. Ott, R. Haas, A. L. Piro, K. Boydstun, E. Abdikamalov, C. Reisswig, and E. Schnetter, Magnetorotational Core-collapse Super- novae in Three Dimensions, ApJL785, L29 (2014), arXiv:1403.1230 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    Kuroda, A

    T. Kuroda, A. Arcones, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Magnetorotational Explosion of a Massive Star Sup- ported by Neutrino Heating in General Relativistic Three-dimensional Simulations, Astrophys. J.896, 102 (2020), arXiv:2003.02004 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Obergaulinger and M

    M. Obergaulinger and M. ´A. Aloy, Magnetorota- tional core collapse of possible GRB progenitors - I. Explosion mechanisms, MNRAS492, 4613 (2020), arXiv:1909.01105 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Cusinato, M

    M. Cusinato, M. Obergaulinger, M. ´A. Aloy, and J. A. Font, Resonant amplification of multimessenger emis- sion in rotating stellar core collapse, Physical Review Research8, 013180 (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    Birnholtz and T

    O. Birnholtz and T. Piran, Gravitational wave memory from gamma ray bursts’ jets, Phys. Rev. D87, 123007 (2013), arXiv:1302.5713 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    Predicting gravitational waves from jittering-jets-driven core collapse supernovae

    N. Soker, Predicting Gravitational Waves from Jittering-jets-driven Core Collapse Supernovae, Re- search in Astronomy and Astrophysics23, 121001 (2023), arXiv:2308.04329 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    M. A. Pajkos, M. L. Warren, S. M. Couch, E. P. O’Connor, and K.-C. Pan, Determining the Structure of Rotating Massive Stellar Cores with Gravitational Waves, Astrophys. J.914, 80 (2021), arXiv:2011.09000 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Casallas-Lagos, J

    A. Casallas-Lagos, J. M. Antelis, C. Moreno, M. Zano- lin, A. Mezzacappa, and M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, Charac- terizing the temporal evolution of the high-frequency gravitational wave emission for a core collapse super- nova with laser interferometric data: A neural network approach, Phys. Rev. D108, 084027 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    Logue, C

    J. Logue, C. D. Ott, I. S. Heng, P. Kalmus, and J. H. C. 11 Scargill, Inferring core-collapse supernova physics with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D86, 044023 (2012), arXiv:1202.3256 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    Powell, A

    J. Powell, A. Iess, M. Llorens-Monteagudo, M. Ober- gaulinger, B. M¨ uller, A. Torres-Forn´ e, E. Cuoco, and J. A. Font, Determining the core-collapse super- nova explosion mechanism with current and future gravitational-wave observatories, Phys. Rev. D109, 063019 (2024), arXiv:2311.18221 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    L. O. Villegas, C. Moreno, M. A. Pajkos, M. Zanolin, and J. M. Antelis, Parameter estimation from the core- bounce phase of rotating core collapse supernovae in real interferometer noise, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 115001 (2025), arXiv:2304.01267 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Abdikamalov, S

    E. Abdikamalov, S. Gossan, A. M. DeMaio, and C. D. Ott, Measuring the angular momentum distribution in core-collapse supernova progenitors with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D90, 044001 (2014), arXiv:1311.3678 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    M. A. Pajkos, S. M. Couch, K.-C. Pan, and E. P. O’Connor, Features of Accretion-phase Gravitational- wave Emission from Two-dimensional Rotating Core- collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J.878, 13 (2019), arXiv:1901.09055 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Bizouard, P

    M.-A. Bizouard, P. Maturana-Russel, A. Torres-Forn´ e, M. Obergaulinger, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. Christensen, J. A. Font, and R. Meyer, Inference of protoneutron star properties from gravitational-wave data in core- collapse supernovae, Phys. Rev. D103, 063006 (2021), arXiv:2012.00846 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Bruel, M.-A

    T. Bruel, M.-A. Bizouard, M. Obergaulinger, P. Maturana-Russel, A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. Christensen, J. A. Font, and R. Meyer, Inference of protoneutron star properties in core-collapse su- pernovae from a gravitational-wave detector network, Phys. Rev. D107, 083029 (2023), arXiv:2301.10019 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    R¨ over, M.-A

    C. R¨ over, M.-A. Bizouard, N. Christensen, H. Dim- melmeier, I. S. Heng, and R. Meyer, Bayesian recon- struction of gravitational wave burst signals from sim- ulations of rotating stellar core collapse and bounce, Phys. Rev. D80, 102004 (2009), arXiv:0909.1093 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    Richers, C

    S. Richers, C. D. Ott, E. Abdikamalov, E. O’Connor, and C. Sullivan, Equation of state effects on gravita- tional waves from rotating core collapse, Phys. Rev. D 95, 063019 (2017), arXiv:1701.02752 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    M. C. Edwards, Classifying the equation of state from rotating core collapse gravitational waves with deep learning, Phys. Rev. D103, 024025 (2021), arXiv:2009.07367 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Chao, C.-Z

    Y.-S. Chao, C.-Z. Su, T.-Y. Chen, D.-W. Wang, and K.-C. Pan, Determining the Core Structure and Nuclear Equation of State of Rotating Core-collapse Supernovae with Gravitational Waves by Convolutional Neural Net- works, Astrophys. J.939, 13 (2022), arXiv:2209.10089 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    N. E. Wolfe, C. Fr¨ ohlich, J. M. Miller, A. Torres- Forn´ e, and P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, Gravitational Wave Eigen- frequencies from Neutrino-driven Core-collapse Super- novae, Astrophys. J.954, 161 (2023), arXiv:2303.16962 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Mitra, D

    A. Mitra, D. Orel, Y. S. Abylkairov, B. Shukirgaliyev, and E. Abdikamalov, Probing nuclear physics with su- pernova gravitational waves and machine learning, MN- RAS529, 3582 (2024), arXiv:2310.15649 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Y. S. Abylkairov, M. C. Edwards, A. Ostrikov, Y. Tleukhanov, A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, J. A. Font, M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, and E. Abdikamalov, Assess- ing the distance for probing the nuclear equation of state with supernova gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D112, 123056 (2025), arXiv:2510.15102 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Akhmetali, Y

    A. Akhmetali, Y. S. Abylkairov, M. Zaidyn, A. Sakan, A. Zhunuskanov, N. Ussipov, J. A. Font, A. Torres- Forn´ e, and E. Abdikamalov, Toward more realistic machine-learning inference of the dense-matter equation of state from supernova gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D (2026)

    2026

  59. [59]

    R. D. Murphy, A. Casallas-Lagos, A. Mezzacappa, M. Zanolin, R. E. Landfield, E. J. Lentz, P. Marronetti, J. M. Antelis, and C. Moreno, Dependence of the re- constructed core-collapse supernova gravitational wave high-frequency feature on the nuclear equation of state in real interferometric data, Phys. Rev. D110, 083006 (2024), arXiv:2406.01784 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Rusakov, A

    A. Rusakov, A. S. Burrows, T. Wang, and D. Vartanyan, An Exploration of the Equation of State Dependence of Core-Collapse Supernova Explosion Outcomes and Signatures, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2602.09025 (2026), arXiv:2602.09025 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, Impact of the nuclear equa- tion of state on the explodability of massive stars, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.20076 (2025), arXiv:2510.20076 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    E. B. Abdikamalov, H. Dimmelmeier, L. Rezzolla, and J. C. Miller, Relativistic simulations of the phase- transition-induced collapse of neutron stars, MNRAS 392, 52 (2009), arXiv:0806.1700 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  63. [63]

    S. Zha, E. P. O’Connor, M.-c. Chu, L.-M. Lin, and S. M. Couch, Gravitational-wave Signature of a First-order Quantum Chromodynamics Phase Transition in Core- Collapse Supernovae, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 051102 (2020), arXiv:2007.04716 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N

    P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. DeBrye, M. A. Aloy, J. A. Font, and M. Obergaulinger, Gravitational Wave Signatures in Black Hole Forming Core Collapse, ApJL779, L18 (2013), arXiv:1310.8290 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  65. [65]

    K.-C. Pan, M. Liebend¨ orfer, S. M. Couch, and F.- K. Thielemann, Equation of State Dependent Dy- namics and Multi-messenger Signals from Stellar-mass Black Hole Formation, Astrophys. J.857, 13 (2018), arXiv:1710.01690 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  66. [66]

    Shibagaki, T

    S. Shibagaki, T. Kuroda, K. Kotake, and T. Taki- waki, Characteristic time variability of gravitational- wave and neutrino signals from three-dimensional simu- lations of non-rotating and rapidly rotating stellar core collapse, MNRAS502, 3066 (2021), arXiv:2010.03882 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    Burrows, D

    A. Burrows, D. Vartanyan, and T. Wang, Black Hole Formation Accompanied by the Supernova Explosion of a 40 M ⊙ Progenitor Star, Astrophys. J.957, 68 (2023), arXiv:2308.05798 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, Gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae with no electromagnetic coun- terparts, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.03581 (2025), arXiv:2506.03581 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Eggenberger Andersen, E

    O. Eggenberger Andersen, E. O’Connor, H. Andresen, A. da Silva Schneider, and S. M. Couch, Black Hole 12 Supernovae, Their Equation of State Dependence, and Ejecta Composition, Astrophys. J.980, 53 (2025), arXiv:2411.11969 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    C. D. Ott, C. Reisswig, E. Schnetter, E. O’Connor, U. Sperhake, F. L¨ offler, P. Diener, E. Abdikamalov, I. Hawke, and A. Burrows, Dynamics and Gravita- tional Wave Signature of Collapsar Formation, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 161103 (2011), arXiv:1012.1853 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  71. [71]

    Kuroda and M

    T. Kuroda and M. Shibata, Failed supernova simula- tions beyond black hole formation, MNRAS526, 152 (2023), arXiv:2307.06192 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Akhmetali, Y

    A. Akhmetali, Y. S. Abylkairov, D. Orel, S. Nunes, A. Sakan, A. Zhunuskanov, M. Zaidyn, N. Ussipov, J. A. Font, and E. Abdikamalov, Parameter estimation hori- zon of core-collapse supernovae with current and next- generation gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D (2026)

    2026

  73. [73]

    Mitra, B

    A. Mitra, B. Shukirgaliyev, Y. S. Abylkairov, and E. Ab- dikamalov, Exploring supernova gravitational waves with machine learning, MNRAS520, 2473 (2023), arXiv:2209.14542 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Y. S. Abylkairov, M. C. Edwards, D. Orel, A. Mitra, B. Shukirgaliyev, and E. Abdikamalov, Evaluating ma- chine learning models for supernova gravitational wave signal classification, Machine Learning: Science and Technology5, 045077 (2024), arXiv:2409.14508 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Sakan, N

    A. Sakan, N. Ussipov, E. Abdikamalov, A. Akhmetali, M. Zaidyn, A. Zhunuskanov, J. A. Font, M. C. Edwards, and S. Abylkairov, Probing Supernovae through gravi- tational wave entropy, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.08010 (2025), arXiv:2511.08010 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Pastor-Marcos, P

    C. Pastor-Marcos, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, D. Walker, A. Torres-Forn´ e, E. Abdikamalov, S. Richers, and J. A. Font, Bayesian inference from gravitational waves in fast-rotating, core-collapse supernovae, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063028 (2024), arXiv:2308.03456 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Nunes, G

    S. Nunes, G. Escrig, O. G. Freitas, J. A. Font, T. Fer- nandes, A. Onofre, and A. Torres-Forn´ e, Deep-learning classification and parameter inference of rotational core- collapse supernovae, Phys. Rev. D110, 064037 (2024), arXiv:2403.04938 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    L. O. Villegas, C. Moreno, M. A. Pajkos, M. Zanolin, and J. M. Antelis, Parameter estimation from the core- bounce phase of rotating core collapse supernovae in real interferometer noise, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity42, 115001 (2025)

    2025

  79. [79]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Ad- vanced LIGO, Class

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Ad- vanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  80. [80]

    Acernese and et al, Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    F. Acernese and et al, Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

Showing first 80 references.