Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Core-Collapse Supernova detections from Einstein Telescope within the Milky Way

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Einstein Telescope will register a gravitational-wave signal from essentially every core-collapse supernova that explodes in the Milky Way during its operation, even if dust hides the explosion from optical telescopes.

desk verdict ET will see nearly every Milky Way CCSN; the paper's numbers are credible, the 2L vs triangle and CE-network comparisons are new and useful, and the soft spots are wording and missing mass-resolved fractions, not the central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07391 v1 pith:GVQIUUJL submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.HE

I.F. Giudice , A.L. De Santis , M.T. Botticella , M. Branchesi , G. Pastorelli , L. Girardi , L. Izzo , E. Cappellaro
show 1 more author
M. Della Valle
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavescore-collapsesupernovaeEinsteinTelescopedetectionhorizonMilkyWayMagellanicCloudsmultimessengerastronomyproto-neutronstar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Core-collapse supernovae are expected to emit gravitational waves from the churning, oscillating proto-neutron star formed at the moment of collapse, but no such signal has been seen yet. This paper asks whether the next-generation Einstein Telescope will finally catch one from our own Galaxy, and answers yes: with realistic 3D waveform models and a simulated Milky Way stellar population, essentially every core-collapse supernova within the Galaxy should be detectable, regardless of dust. For a representative 15 solar-mass progenitor, the dual-L configuration reaches about 100 kpc, past the Galaxy's edge and partway to the Magellanic Clouds. Because optical surveys would miss roughly half of these events behind dust, the gravitational-wave channel would be the way to get a complete census. A detection probability near unity per event, combined with a Galactic rate near 1.9 per century, implies about a 32% chance of catching at least one during 20 years of Einstein Telescope operation.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by a customized gravitational-wave simulation framework that combines three pieces: two published catalogs of 3D radiation-hydrodynamics waveforms covering 9-25 solar-mass non-rotating progenitors, spanning early post-bounce emission through late-time proto-neutron-star oscillations; a synthetic stellar population of the Milky Way and Magellanic Clouds, giving each potential progenitor a mass, sky position, and distance; and detector response calculations for two Einstein Telescope designs (a 10 km triangle and a 15 km dual-L) plus a 40 km Cosmic Explorer, including high-frequency transfer-function corrections that matter in the roughly 100-1000 Hz supernova band. For every simulated star, the closest available waveform is matched and an optimal network signal-to-noise ratio is computed from the integrated power spectral density, and the detection horizon is defined as the distance at which that SNR reaches 10 at 90% confidence. The same machinery yields the rate estimate by tying the Galactic core-collapse rate to the star-formation history used in the population synthesis.

What would settle it

Compare the first core-collapse supernova observed in neutrinos during Einstein Telescope's operational lifetime: if it occurs within the Milky Way, or in the Magellanic Clouds within the quoted horizon, and no signal-to-noise-ratio-10 gravitational-wave signal is found, the near-complete coverage claim is falsified. A complementary statistical check is to rerun the same pipeline with newly published waveform catalogs that include rotation and magnetic fields; if the resulting horizon distribution drops below roughly 20 kpc for most progenitors, the 'essentially complete' conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Einstein Telescope, operating alone, will provide essentially complete coverage of core-collapse supernovae occurring in the Milky Way, with detection horizons between roughly 20 and 115 kpc at 90% confidence depending on progenitor mass and waveform, and that a network adding a Cosmic Explorer detector extends the reach to about 170 kpc, covering most of the Magellanic Clouds. The authors further find that a 15 solar-mass progenitor is detectable to about 100 kpc with the dual-L configuration, that the 2L layout outperforms the triangular design by 15-20% in standalone operation, and that the optically visible fraction of Galactic core-collapse supernovae is only 45% +/- 3% at a limiting magnitude of 22. More than half of all events would therefore be hidden from optical surveys but open to gravitational waves.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated non-rotating 9-25 solar-mass waveforms represent the real gravitational-wave emission of Galactic core-collapse supernovae; if real signals are systematically weaker or morphologically different, the quoted horizons and the near-complete coverage would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the next Milky Way core-collapse supernova that happens during Einstein Telescope operation will produce a detectable gravitational-wave signal even if it is completely hidden by dust.
  • Einstein Telescope's gravitational-wave coverage of the Magellanic Clouds depends on configuration and waveform: roughly 20% of Small Magellanic Cloud-like progenitors are detectable with ET-2L alone, rising to more than 70% when Cosmic Explorer is added.
  • The 15 km dual-L configuration is the better standalone choice, giving 15-20% larger horizons than the 10 km triangle; the gap shrinks to 5-10% inside an ET+CE network.
  • About 45% +/- 3% of Galactic core-collapse supernovae would be visible to optical surveys at magnitude limit 22, so gravitational waves plus neutrinos are needed for a complete census of Galactic events.
  • At the adopted rate of 1.9 events per century and near-unity detection efficiency, there is roughly a 32% chance of detecting at least one Galactic core-collapse supernova in 20 years of Einstein Telescope operation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If future waveform catalogs include rapidly rotating progenitors or black-hole-forming collapses above 25 solar masses, the horizons could shift substantially; the paper notes that rotating models often produce stronger, more coherent signals, so the present numbers may be conservative for that subpopulation.
  • A neutrino-triggered, time-frequency-constrained search could recover a meaningful fraction of events missed by an unmodeled gravitational-wave search; the paper cites a roughly 30% efficiency gain for a nearby SASI-dominated model, suggesting joint analysis pipelines are the natural next step.
  • The strong extinction result implies that high-cadence infrared or X-ray follow-up, not just optical wide-field surveys, should be included in the multimessenger strategy for the inner Galactic disk.
  • The 'complete coverage' prediction is testable statistically rather than event-by-event: if Einstein Telescope accumulates several decades of clean data with no Galactic core-collapse supernova while neutrino detectors see bursts, then either the rate or the waveform assumptions are wrong.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper forecasts the detectability of gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) with the Einstein Telescope, alone and in combination with Cosmic Explorer, focusing on the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds. The analysis combines the GWFish simulation framework, extended with time-domain CCSN waveforms from the Radice et al. (2019) and Vartanyan et al. (2023) catalogs, with a TRILEGAL synthetic stellar population of 9–25 M_solar progenitors. The authors derive a Galactic CCSN rate of 1.9 per century from the TRILEGAL star formation history and a Kroupa IMF, compute detection horizons for several ET configurations, and conclude that ET will provide essentially complete coverage of Milky Way CCSNe, with a representative 15 M_solar progenitor detectable to ~100 kpc in the 2L configuration. They further estimate that only ~45% of Galactic CCSNe would be optically visible at a limiting magnitude of 22, emphasizing the multimessenger role of gravitational waves.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result is of direct relevance for ET science planning and multimessenger observing strategies: it would mean that essentially every Galactic CCSN occurring during ET's operation produces a detectable gravitational-wave signal regardless of dust extinction, enabling guaranteed multimessenger targets. The paper is careful to use state-of-the-art public waveform catalogs, explicit detector PSDs with high-frequency transfer-function corrections, and a realistic stellar population synthesis model. The authors also acknowledge major limitations, including the absence of rotation, magnetic fields, and progenitors above 25 M_solar. However, the headline conclusion rests on a population-weighted detection fraction that is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the statistical interpretation of the quoted horizons is not clearly defined.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Table 2] The claim that 'the detection fraction is close to unity throughout the considered progenitor-mass range' is not supported by any quantitative, mass-resolved detection fraction. Table 2 reports median detection distances over random sky positions and geocentric times, with 5th and 95th percentiles. For the lowest-mass waveforms (9 M_solar Radice and 9.25 M_solar Vartanyan), the median horizons are only 19.1 and 31.0 kpc, with 5th-percentile horizons of 11.1 and 19.0 kpc. Because the adopted Kroupa IMF places a substantial fraction of CCSNe below 12 M_solar and the TRILEGAL disk extends to 15–20 kpc, the population-weighted detection efficiency is not obviously unity. The paper must present the actual detection fraction as a function of progenitor mass, computed by applying the nearest-waveform assignment to the TRILEGAL source positions and marginalizing over the detector response, not just a median over isotropic positions.
  2. [Abstract, Section 6, Table 2] The phrase 'with a 90% confidence level' misstates what is computed. The horizons in Table 2 are medians with 5th and 95th percentiles over random right ascension, declination, and geocentric times. These are not 90% confidence intervals in the detection-probability sense, and the 5th percentile is not a '90% confidence' lower bound. If the intent is to quote a conservative reach, the paper should explicitly say '5th percentile of the SNR distribution'; if the intent is that 90% of sources at a given distance are detected, that quantity must be derived from the SNR distribution and the detection threshold, not from the horizon percentiles. The abstract and Section 8 should be rephrased accordingly.
  3. [Section 8] The quantitative claims for Magellanic Clouds detection fractions—'approximately 20% with ET-2L and 6% with ET-∆, increasing to more than 70% for either configuration when CE40 is included'—are given without any derivation, figure, or table. If these numbers come from the TRILEGAL LMC/SMC simulations, the calculation should be described and the fractions should be presented as a function of distance or mass, with the assumed mass distribution stated. As written, these are unverifiable conclusion-only numbers.
  4. [Section 5] The nearest-mass mapping from each simulated star to the closest waveform in the catalog is a key approximation, but the paper does not report how many stars are assigned to each waveform mass, nor does it discuss the systematic error introduced by this discretization. In particular, Table 2 shows a non-monotonic trend of median horizon with mass (e.g., the 12.25 M_solar Vartanyan waveform has a shorter horizon than the 11 M_solar waveform), so nearest-mass assignment can introduce nontrivial biases. The paper should quantify the distribution of assigned masses and, if possible, test sensitivity to the mapping choice.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5] The sentence 'we estimated the signal at random geocenteric times' contains a typo ('geocenteric' should be 'geocentric'), and the following sentence has a duplicated phrase: 'to build to construct SNR distributions'.
  2. [Section 8] The sentence fragment 'Regarding the detection prospects at the Magellanic-Cloud.' is incomplete and should be merged with the following sentence.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'Assuming a ET (2L) configuration'; 'a' should be 'an'.
  4. [Section 6] The phrase 'a sligh improvement' contains a typo ('sligh' should be 'slight').
  5. [Section 7] The reported optical visibility fraction of 45±3% is based on only three values of the mean absolute magnitude M_B = -15, -17, -19; the uncertainty should be described as a range over these model assumptions, not as a statistical error bar.
  6. [Section 3] The acronym 'TRIdimensional modeL of thE GALaxy' is awkwardly expanded; consider a standard presentation such as 'TRILEGAL (Girardi et al. 2005, 2012)' with a parenthetical full name.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the detection horizons are direct SNR computations from external waveform catalogs and detector PSDs, the CCSN rate is an SFR-scaled estimate used only in the final Poisson probability, and the unquantified 'close to unity' detection fraction is a support gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is a direct SNR computation: Eq. (3), SNR^2 = 4 ∫ df |h~(f)|^2 / S_n(f), is evaluated on external waveform catalogs (Radice et al. 2019; Vartanyan et al. 2023) with ET/CE design PSDs, which fixes the Table 2 horizons independently of the paper's rate estimate. The Galactic CCSNR (Section 3.1) is derived as K_CC × ψ(t) from a Kroupa IMF integral (Eq. 2, K_CC = 0.007 M_sun^-1) and the TRILEGAL SFR; it enters only the final Poisson probability (approximately 32% over 20 years) and never feeds back into the horizons, so no conclusion reduces to its own input. The abstract's 'essentially complete coverage' is carried by the Section 6 assertion that 'the detection fraction is close to unity throughout the considered progenitor-mass range'; that number is not numerically exhibited, and the low-mass horizons (19.1 kpc median, 11.1 kpc 5th percentile, for 9 M_sun) make it non-obvious. However, an unshown efficiency is a reproducibility and support gap, not a circular reduction by construction, so it does not raise the circularity score. Self-citations (TRILEGAL, Girardi et al. 2005/2012; the SFH of Mazzi et al. 2024; the ET design document Branchesi et al. 2023; and the rate cross-check Rozwadowska et al. 2021, which shares co-author Cappellaro) are citations to externally validated tools, observationally constrained inputs, or the official design reference; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz-stipulating authority. The paper explicitly hedges its own claim: 'our findings should be interpreted as a demonstration of capability under a plausible scenario rather than an exhaustive prediction' (Section 7). No Eq. X equals Eq. Y by construction is exhibited, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The verdict is minor self-citations only, with no load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external waveform catalogs and detector noise models, plus choices for the SNR threshold, limiting magnitude, and extinction conversion. No new physical entities are introduced. The only potentially circular step is the CCSNR estimate, which derives from the same TRILEGAL SFR used to build the progenitor population, but that rate feeds only the detection probability, not the horizons themselves.

free parameters (5)
  • SNR detection threshold = 10
    Assumed detection threshold for horizon definition; horizons scale inversely with SNR, so the choice affects all quoted distances. The paper states typical thresholds lie between 8 and 12 and they take 10.
  • Intrinsic B-band magnitude distribution (mean, sigma) = mean -17, sigma 0.9 mag
    Used in the dust-visible fraction analysis; adopted from Richardson et al. 2002, not fitted. The paper varies the mean from -19 to -15 to estimate a range.
  • Limiting apparent magnitude = 22 mag
    Representative of wide-field optical surveys such as ZTF; the visible fraction depends on this cutoff (Fig. 6).
  • E(B-V)/tau353 conversion factor = 1.49e4 mag
    Converts Planck 353 GHz optical depth to reddening; adopted from literature, not derived in the paper.
  • CCSNR scaling factor K_CC = 0.007 M_sun^{-1}
    Computed from the Kroupa IMF and assumed CCSN mass range 9-25 M_sun; used to convert TRILEGAL SFR to a Galactic CCSN rate of 1.9 per century.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The adopted PNS-driven waveform catalogs (Radice et al. 2019; Vartanyan et al. 2023) are representative of Galactic CCSN GW emission for 9-25 M_sun non-rotating progenitors.
    All detection horizons in Table 2 are computed from these waveforms; if real signals are weaker, the 'complete coverage' conclusion fails. Acknowledged as a limitation in Section 7.
  • domain assumption The SNR definition (Eq. 3) is an adequate detection statistic for stochastic stellar-core waveforms.
    The paper notes Fisher-matrix parameter estimation is invalid for stochastic CCSN signals, but uses the horizon module's integrated SNR as a sensitivity benchmark. Real unmodeled searches may have different efficiencies.
  • domain assumption Assumed detector PSDs for ET (triangle and 2L) and CE40 match the final designs.
    Horizons depend linearly on strain sensitivity; the ET and CE noise curves come from design documents (Branchesi et al. 2023; Hall 2022) and may change.
  • domain assumption TRILEGAL simulated stellar populations with the assumed SFR (Mazzi et al. 2024) and Kroupa IMF describe the spatial distribution of CCSN progenitors in the MW and Magellanic Clouds.
    The sky map and detection fractions rely on this distribution; the paper also derives the CCSNR from the same SFR.
  • domain assumption Dust extinction map from Planck 353 GHz and the adopted conversion reproduce optical extinction in the Galactic plane.
    The f_vis=45±3% result and the hiding of half of CCSNe depend on this conversion, which has substantial systematic uncertainty not included in the quoted error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Core-Collapse Supernova detections from Einstein Telescope within the Milky Way." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GVQIUUJL

@misc{pith2026260807391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Core-Collapse Supernova detections from Einstein Telescope within the Milky Way},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GVQIUUJL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07391}
}
read the original abstract

Core-collapse supernovae are key drivers of galaxy evolution and promising sources of gravitational waves, which provide a unique probe of the physics driving their explosion mechanism. Third-generation detectors, such as the Einstein Telescope, will dramatically improve the prospects for detecting these signals. This study assesses the capability of the Einstein Telescope, alone and in synergy with next-generation detectors such as Cosmic Explorer, to detect gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae. We estimate the detection horizons and expected event rates for sources in the Milky Way and nearby satellite galaxies. We employed the GWFish simulation framework, customized to include core-collapse supernovae waveform catalogs from state-of-the-art 3D simulations and stellar population data generated with TRILEGAL. This approach allows us to model gravitational waves detectability as a function of progenitor mass, source position and detector network configuration. Our analysis shows that the Einstein Telescope can detect gravitational waves from PNS-driven core-collapse supernovae up to distances ranging from ~20 to more than 100 kpc with a 90% confidence level, depending on the progenitor mass and waveform, while a combination of this detector in a network can extend the reach up to ~170 kpc in the most favorable cases. For a representative 15 M_sun progenitor, ET (in its 2L configuration) achieves a detection horizon of ~100 kpc, ensuring essentially complete coverage of the Milky Way and partial coverage of the Magellanic Clouds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07391 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative strains used, scaled to a source distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Signal-to-Noise Ratio as a function of distance for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sky map showing the region where 50% and 90% of po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability density distributions (continuous lines) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fraction of visible CCSNe as a function of the telescope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12263

    Abac, A., Abramo, R., Albanesi, S., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12263

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    2022, in Handbook of Gravita- tional Wave Astronomy (Springer), 909–945

    Abdikamalov, E., Pagliaroli, G., & Radice, D. 2022, in Handbook of Gravita- tional Wave Astronomy (Springer), 909–945

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04163

    Abe, K., Abe, K., Aihara, H., et al. 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04163

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    A., Aghanim, N., et al

    Abergel, A., Ade, P. A., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 571, A11

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    M., Kochanek, C., Beacom, J

    Adams, S. M., Kochanek, C., Beacom, J. F., Vagins, M. R., & Stanek, K. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 164 Al Kharusi, S., BenZvi, S. Y ., Bobowski, J. S., et al. 2021, New Journal of Physics, 23, 031201

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2032

    Andresen, H., Müller, B., Müller, E., & Janka, H.-T. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2032

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

  8. [8]

    M., Blewitt, G., Bratton, C

    Bionta, R. M., Blewitt, G., Bratton, C. B., et al. 1991, in Neutrinos and Other Matters: Selected Works of Frederick Reines. Edited by KROPP W ET AL. Published by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, ed. W. Kropp & et al., 340–342

    work page 1991

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 068

    Branchesi, M., Maggiore, M., Alonso, D., et al. 2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 068

    2023

  2. [10]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127

    2012

  3. [11]

    Y ., et al

    Cappellaro, E., Turatto, M., Tsvetkov, D. Y ., et al. 1993, arXiv preprint astro- ph/9302017

    1993

  4. [12]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 345, Oct. 1, 1989, p. 245-256., 345, 245

    1989

  5. [13]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068

    Chen, Y ., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068

    2015

  6. [14]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 12

    Choi, L., Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, ApJ, 975, 12

    2024

  7. [15]

    C., Dornic, D., Lincetto, M., & Kulikovskiy, V

    Coleiro, A., Molla, M. C., Dornic, D., Lincetto, M., & Kulikovskiy, V . 2020, European Physical Journal C, 80, 856

    2020

  8. [16]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14071

    Dhani, A., Camilletti, A., Ludovico De Santis, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14071

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2006, Nature, 439, 45

    Diehl, R., Halloin, H., Kretschmer, K., et al. 2006, Nature, 439, 45

    2006

  10. [18]

    2023, Physical Review D, 108, 103036

    Drago, M., Andresen, H., Di Palma, I., Tamborra, I., & Torres-Forné, A. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 103036

    2023

  11. [19]

    2023, Astronomy and Computing, 42, 100671

    Dupletsa, U., Harms, J., Banerjee, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Computing, 42, 100671

    2023

  12. [20]

    2025, in 39th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1037 Gallego Ros, A

    ElHedri, S., Goos, I., Deguire, P., et al. 2025, in 39th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1037 Gallego Ros, A. & DUNE Collaboration. 2019, in European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics. 10-17 July, 413

    2025

  13. [21]

    A., et al

    Girardi, L., Barbieri, M., Groenewegen, M. A., et al. 2012, in Red Giants as Probes of the Structure and Evolution of the Milky Way, Springer, 165–170

    2012

  14. [22]

    2005, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 436, 895

    Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M., Hatziminaoglou, E., & Da Costa, L. 2005, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 436, 895

    2005

  15. [23]

    2025, PhD thesis, Rochester U

    Griswold, S. 2025, PhD thesis, Rochester U

    2025

  16. [24]

    Halim, O., Casentini, C., Drago, M., et al. 2021, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2021, 021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Hall, E. D. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 90

    2022

  18. [26]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  19. [27]

    1987, Phys

    Hirata, K., Kajita, T., Koshiba, M., et al. 1987, Phys. Rev. Lett., 58, 1490

    1987

  20. [28]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2007

  21. [29]

    2017, Handbook of Supernovae, 1095

    Janka, H.-T. 2017, Handbook of Supernovae, 1095

    2017

  22. [30]

    & Kuroda, T

    Kotake, K. & Kuroda, T. 2017, Handbook of Supernovae, 1671

    2017

  23. [31]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 560, A18

    Kothes, R. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 560, A18

    2013

  24. [32]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231

    2001

  25. [33]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 1441

    Li, W., Leaman, J., Chornock, R., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 1441

    2011

  26. [34]

    Linzer, N. B. & Scholberg, K. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 103005

    2019

  27. [35]

    J., Filipovi´c, M

    Luken, K. J., Filipovi´c, M. D., Maxted, N. I., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 2606

    2020

  28. [36]

    Marigo, P., Bressan, A., Nanni, A., Girardi, L., & Pumo, M. L. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 488

    2013

  29. [37]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 583

    Mazzi, A., Girardi, L., Trabucchi, M., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 583

    2024

  30. [38]

    T., Hogan, J

    Murphey, C. T., Hogan, J. W., Fields, B. D., & Narayan, G. 2021, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 927

    2021

  31. [39]

    & Ternes, C

    Pagliaroli, G. & Ternes, C. A. 2024, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2024, 022

    2024

  32. [40]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 3283

    Pastorelli, G., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3283

    2020

  33. [41]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 5666

    Pastorelli, G., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5666

    2019

  34. [42]

    & Müller, B

    Powell, J. & Müller, B. 2025, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42, 215002

    2025

  35. [43]

    & Müller, B

    Powell, J. & Müller, B. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety, 494, 4665

    2020

  36. [44]

    2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002

    Punturo, M., Abernathy, M., Acernese, F., et al. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002

    2010

  37. [45]

    L., Wright, N

    Quintana, A. L., Wright, N. J., & García, J. M. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 1367

    2025

  38. [46]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 876, L9

    Radice, D., Morozova, V ., Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., & Nagakura, H. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 876, L9

    2019

  39. [47]

    Reed, B. C. 2005, The Astronomical Journal, 130, 1652

    2005

  40. [48]

    2018, Chandra Proposal, 5389

    Reynolds, S. 2018, Chandra Proposal, 5389

    2018

  41. [49]

    2002, The Astronomical Journal, 123, 745

    Richardson, D., Branch, D., Casebeer, D., et al. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 123, 745

    2002

  42. [50]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 822, 73

    Rosenfield, P., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 822, 73

    2016

  43. [51]

    2021, New Astronomy, 83, 101498

    Rozwadowska, K., Vissani, F., & Cappellaro, E. 2021, New Astronomy, 83, 101498

    2021

  44. [52]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  45. [53]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3885

    2023

  46. [54]

    2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 81

    Scholberg, K. 2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 81

    2012

  47. [55]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 102

    Smith, N. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 102

    2013

  48. [56]

    Stephenson, F. R. & Green, D. A. 2002, International Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 5

    2002

  49. [57]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287

    Tang, J., Bressan, A., Rosenfield, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287

    2014

  50. [58]

    2019, Physical Review D, 99, 041302 van den Bergh, S

    Uchida, H., Shibata, M., Takahashi, K., & Yoshida, T. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, 041302 van den Bergh, S. & McClure, R. D. 1994, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 425, no. 1, p. 205-209, 425, 205 van Putten, M. H., Abchouyeh, M. A., & Della Valle, M. 2024,...

    2019

  51. [59]

    S., & White, C

    Vartanyan, D., Burrows, A., Wang, T., Coleman, M. S., & White, C. J. 2023, Physical Review D, 107, 103015

    2023

  52. [60]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015

    2002

  53. [61]

    Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181 Article number, page 9 of 9

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.