Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 116 references

The Gravitational-Wave Power Gap in Core-Collapse Supernovae: Insights from 60 Axisymmetric Simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the frequency of a narrow spectral 'power gap' in supernova gravitational-wave emission is set by the density and sound speed in the protoneutron star's inner core, so the gap could serve as an observational probe of t

desk verdict Power-gap/core-density correlation is real but not yet cleanly separated from progenitor compactness; worth refereeing after within-progenitor tests and a real data release. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.26408 v2 pith:NQ3O6X4H submitted 2026-03-27 astro-ph.HE

Haakon Andresen , Xingzao Li , Aurore Betranhandy , Evan P. O'Connor , Shuai Zha , Sean M. Couch This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords core-collapsesupernovaegravitational-waveemissionpowergapprotoneutronstaroscillationsnuclearequationofstateaxisymmetricsimulationsPNSeigenmodesGWspectrograms
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

This paper tries to establish that the power gap—a narrow frequency band in a supernova's gravitational-wave spectrum where emission nearly vanishes—is not an artifact but a messenger from the protoneutron star's inner core. Using 60 axisymmetric simulations spanning six progenitors and ten nuclear equations of state, the authors find that the gap's central frequency tracks the central density, the core sound speed, and the core's local buoyancy frequency, with rank correlations of roughly 0.83–0.85. If correct, a single measured gap frequency in a nearby supernova's gravitational-wave signal could be inverted to constrain the equation of state of hot, dense nuclear matter—conditions that are otherwise hard to access. The paper also argues that the common 'avoided crossing' explanation cannot by itself create a persistent gap, and shows that the gap's shape is consistent with destructive interference between a narrow oscillation mode and a broadband background.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the narrow minimum in the gravitational-wave power spectrum between 900 and 1500 Hz, located by an automated detector on averaged spectra. The interpretive machinery is a linear perturbation analysis of protoneutron-star oscillations: the main emission ridge tracks the acoustic round-trip time (twice the integral of the inverse sound speed across the protoneutron star), while the gap is traced by a higher-frequency eigenmode. The physical link that carries the conclusion is the dependence of the core's buoyancy frequency on the local sound speed, which ties the gap frequency to the microphysics of dense nuclear matter. The paper also introduces an anti-resonance me

What would settle it

Repeat the analysis in full three dimensions with the same six progenitors and ten equations of state: if no stable gap appears between 900 and 1500 Hz, or the gap frequency does not rise monotonically with central density and core sound speed, the claimed correlation is falsified. A second test would compare a measured gap frequency from a Galactic supernova signal against these correlations; a clear mismatch would break the link to the nuclear equation of state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the power-gap frequency is a readout of the inner-core structure of the forming neutron star. Across the 60 models, the gap sits between roughly 1000 and 1300 Hz and correlates most strongly with quantities deep inside the protoneutron star: central density, sound speed evaluated at 5 km radius, and the local buoyancy frequency there. The paper reports monotonic rank correlations of about 0.85, 0.83, and 0.84 for these three quantities, with weaker correlations for surface gravity and the size of the convective layer. It also shows that two protoneutron-star eigenmodes trace the gap region and undergo an avoided crossing near 0.2–0.3 s after bounce, that a quadrupol

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that axisymmetric (2D) simulations faithfully reproduce the power-gap phenomenon and its correlations; the paper itself states that several aspects of the gap and its correlations could change in three dimensions, so if 3D dynamics erase or shift the gap, the central claim does not transfer to real supernovae.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measured gap frequency from a Galactic supernova could be inverted to constrain the sound speed and density of the protoneutron star's inner core.
  • Because the gap frequency varies systematically with the nuclear equation of state (denser cores and higher sound speeds move the gap upward), observations could discriminate between candidate dense-matter models.
  • The broadband haze carries most of the gravitational-wave energy, so analyses that model only the narrow ridge are missing the dominant component; both components need to be modeled together.
  • Explanations of the gap based solely on avoided crossings between modes appear insufficient; a broadband background component is required to create a persistent spectral minimum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If later, higher-resolution 3D simulations preserve the gap, the 900–1500 Hz minimum becomes a promising target for next-generation detectors; if they erase it, the effect is likely a 2D artifact.
  • The unexplained sub-gap minimum near 575 Hz in the perturbation spectra suggests that a wider frequency search might reveal additional suppression bands, each potentially carrying independent equation-of-state information.
  • The anti-resonance interpretation implies the gap's width and asymmetry are themselves physically informative; extracting them from a real signal could distinguish interference-type suppression from a pure quadrupole-integral zero.
  • Coupling the gap frequency to independent neutron-star radius measurements could turn a single supernova detection into a consistency check between the hot, neutrino-rich equation of state and the colder-matter equation of state.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes gravitational-wave emission from 60 axisymmetric core-collapse supernova simulations, spanning 6 progenitors and 10 equations of state. It focuses on the recently identified 'power gap', a narrow frequency band of suppressed GW power, and reports strong rank correlations between the gap frequency and inner protoneutron-star properties such as central density, sound speed at 5 km, and Brunt–Väisälä frequency at 5 km (α_s = 0.85, 0.83, 0.84). The paper also separates the GW signal into a 'ridge' and a 'haze', studies their energy budgets and driving mechanisms, compares the gap against existing explanations (avoided crossings, the Zha et al. quadrupole-zero mechanism), and fits the gap line shape with a Fano-type profile. The central claim is that the gap frequency encodes EOS-sensitive information about the inner PNS core and could therefore constrain the equation of state of hot, dense nuclear matter.

Significance. If the central correlation claim holds, this is a significant result for gravitational-wave asteroseismology of core-collapse supernovae: it would identify a robust, measurable spectral feature that carries information about the protoneutron-star core and, potentially, the nuclear EOS at supra-nuclear densities. The study's strengths are the unusually large and systematic simulation suite, the clearly documented extraction pipelines, the mode-analysis cross-checks, the explicit ridge/haze decomposition, and the authors' repeated and honest caveats about 2D limitations and about the Fano fits. The main risk concerns the statistical support for the headline correlations, which are computed over a clustered, non-independent sample without uncertainty quantification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6, Fig. 10] The abstract's central claim rests on Spearman coefficients computed by pooling 45 of the 60 models: 6 progenitors × 10 EOS, with seven SRO variants sharing a common base model and correlated input physics. The text reports only point values (α_s = 0.85, 0.83, 0.84) with no p-values, confidence intervals, bootstrap, or cluster-robust treatment. Progenitor compactness spans ξ2.5 = 0.167–0.684, and Fig. 9 shows a clear compactness trend in gap frequency, whereas Table 2 shows EOS-induced shifts in PNS properties are typically only 1–20%. Under this sampling design, a pooled rank correlation can be dominated by progenitor differences rather than by an EOS-sensitive mapping. I request within-progenitor Spearman correlations (10 EOS per progenitor) with associated uncertainties, and/or partial correlations controlling for ξ2.5. Without this, the statement that the gap 'encodes' the core sound
  2. [§6, automated detection (Table 1)] The gap detector searches for minima only between 900 and 1500 Hz, and 15 of 60 models are excluded because they have no well-defined gap: all ten z85 models, s23 SFHx, plus four weak and one unclear case. Because both the gap frequency and PNS core properties are correlated with progenitor compactness, excluding the most compact progenitors can bias the reported rank correlations. Please report the sensitivity of α_s to the frequency window, the Savitzky–Golay smoothing parameters, and the inclusion/exclusion of weak-gap models, and show a completeness table. The gap definition is itself part of the observable, so the inversion claim in §8 requires this robustness analysis.
  3. [§5/§6, mode 1 (Fig. 10, middle left)] Mode 1 is identified as the branch 'immediately above' the ridge-tracking mode and is selected partly because it traces the power-gap region; its time-averaged frequency is then reported to correlate with the gap (α_s = 0.82). This is close to circular: the selection criterion uses the gap location, so the correlation is not independent evidence that the gap is set by a mode. State an a-priori branch selection rule, or test correlations with all identified mode branches, and report model-by-model agreement rather than a pooled coefficient.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4] Typo: 'the correlation is shows some scatter' should be 'the correlation shows some scatter'.
  2. [§7.3] The Fano fit in Eq. (43) uses six free parameters (f0, Γ, q, Δ, A0, B0) fitted to the same PSDs that define the gap. The text's caveats are appropriate, but the abstract's phrase 'demonstrating that such an interaction can produce a sharp minimum' should be softened to 'is compatible with' to match the admitted absence of definitive evidence.
  3. [§8] The statement that measuring the gap frequency 'could place new constraints on the EOS' is an outlook; no detector-recovery or inversion study is presented. This should be labeled as a future prospect in the abstract and conclusions, not as an implication of the current analysis.
  4. [§7.2] The Zha et al. comparison in Fig. 11 is shown for only two models. Since the text reports that 'a subset of models' show discrepancies, a quantitative summary across all models would strengthen the assessment and support the stated conclusion that the mechanism works 'particularly well at late times'.
  5. [General] Several minor typographical issues, e.g., 'We usescipy.signal.windows.dpsswith' missing spaces in §7.3, and inconsistent spacing in references. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the mode-1 correlation is selected to match the gap and the Fano fit treats the dip position as a free parameter; the central gap-core correlations are empirical and not circular.

  1. self definitional [§5 and §6; Fig. 10]
    "For most of our models and for every model with a clear power-gap, this mode exhibits a nearly flat frequency evolution and closely traces the upper boundary of the power-gap region in the spectrogram for t≳0.3 s (we return to the correlation between this mode and the power gap in section 6). ... The time-averaged frequency of mode 1 (the mode immediately above the ridge tracking mode in frequency) shows a strong correlation with the time-averaged power-gap frequency (αs = 0.82), see Fig. 10."

    Mode 1 is identified/selected as the branch that 'closely traces the upper boundary of the power-gap region' in each model; its time-averaged frequency is then correlated with the time-averaged gap frequency and reported as αs=0.82. This is selection on the dependent variable: a branch chosen to match the gap in every spectrogram is expected to lie near the gap in each model, so a strong across-model correlation largely follows from the selection rule rather than being an independent check for the eigenmode-gap association.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§7.3, Eq. 43, Table 3, Fig. 12; abstract]
    "To investigate whether the power gap could be interpreted as a Fano-type anti-resonance, we fit the predicted GW power spectral densities of six representative models to the line profile in Eq. 43. ... we do not report A0 or B0 since they only represent an overall scale in our fitting procedure. ... Instead, they demonstrate that an anti-resonant mechanism is compatible with the data."

    The Fano line shape has f0 (the anti-resonance frequency), Γ, q, Δ, A0 and B0 all fitted to the same GW PSD whose minimum defines the power gap; hence the fitted f0 is adjusted to the data and is not an independent prediction of the gap frequency. The exercise shows only that a six-parameter Fano form is flexible enough to reproduce a notch, so presenting it in the abstract as 'demonstrating that such an interaction can produce a sharp minimum' converts a fit into a demonstration. The text's own caveat limits but does not remove this issue.

full rationale

The headline result—Spearman correlations of the measured gap frequency with central density (0.85), sound speed (0.83), and Brunt–Väisälä frequency (0.84) at 5 km—is not circular: the gap location and the PNS core properties are separate outputs of the simulations, and no parameter of the gap-detection routine is fitted to those properties. The pooled-sample/exclusion of 15 no-gap models is a statistical-control issue, not a definitional reduction. The circularity that exists is in two supporting demonstrations. First, the mode-1 branch is selected because it visually traces the power gap; the αs=0.82 between mode 1 and the gap is therefore a post-selection statistic rather than an independent eigenmode confirmation. Second, the Fano profile used in §7.3 has f0, Γ, q, Δ, A0 and B0 all fitted to the same PSD whose dip defines the gap, so the fit cannot independently 'demonstrate' a Fano mechanism; the paper's own caveat ('should not be viewed as definitive evidence') lowers the severity. Citations to [88] and [57] are data provenance and a tested mechanism, not load-bearing circular self-citations. Overall score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the simulation suite and on the definition and interpretation of the power gap. Most physical inputs come from prior literature, but several detection/fit parameters are chosen ad hoc here, and the 2D-to-3D extrapolation is a domain assumption rather than an established fact.

free parameters (5)
  • Power-gap detection window parameters = 75 overlapping windows of 0.1 s; Savitzky–Golay smoothing; search band 900–1500 Hz
    The measured gap frequency and the set of models with a detectable gap depend on these ad hoc choices (§6).
  • Ridge mask width β = 100 Hz
    Used in the Gaussian masks to split ridge from haze; directly affects E_ridge/E_haze ratios and energy correlations (§4, Eq. 5).
  • EGW–Eturb power-law exponent = ≈2/3 best-fit across the suite; per-EOS fits give 0.8–1.6
    The exponent is fitted to the simulation ensemble and reported as a new scaling; it is not derived from first principles (§4, Fig. 6).
  • Fano line parameters = f0 ≈ 1140–1470 Hz, Γ ≈ 35–137 Hz, q ≈ 0.44–1.67, Δ ≈ −84 to +100 Hz; A0 and B0 omitted
    These are free parameters fit to the PSDs of six models; the fit is phenomenological, and the authors admit it is not definitive evidence (§7.3, Table 3).
  • Multitaper PSD parameters = NW = 3.5, Kmax = 4
    Chosen to suppress noise in PSD estimates; the authors note the Fano fit depends on the PSD estimate (§7.3).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric (2D) hydrodynamics adequately captures the power-gap phenomenon
    All 60 simulations are 2D; the authors caution that 3D dynamics could change several aspects of the gap and its correlations (§1, §8).
  • domain assumption The protoneutron star can be treated as a spherically symmetric, quasi-static background for mode analysis
    Linear perturbation theory assumes a static spherical background (§5, Eq. 15); early post-bounce contraction may violate this, a possibility the authors discuss in §7.2.
  • domain assumption Boundary conditions at the PNS surface define the mode spectrum
    Vanishing Lagrangian pressure perturbation at ρ = 10^11 g/cm^3 is imposed (§5, Eq. 27); mode classification and gap-tracking branches depend on this choice.
  • standard math Quadrupole formula gravitational-wave extraction is valid
    The strain is computed with the slow-motion quadrupole formula (§2.4, Eqs. 2–3), a standard approach for these simulations.
  • domain assumption M1 neutrino transport with three neutrino species and approximate pair processes is sufficient
    The PNS structure, and therefore the gap frequency, depends on the neutrino treatment described in §2.1, including approximate pair-process reactions.
  • domain assumption The power gap is a real spectral feature detectable by the chosen algorithm
    The automated detector assumes a distinct minimum in 900–1500 Hz; models without such a minimum are excluded from the correlation analysis (§6).
  • domain assumption Fano resonance formalism applies to the gravitational-wave power spectral density
    The Fano line shape is fitted to simulated PSDs assuming a narrow mode interfering with a broadband background; the authors caution that q is phenomenological (§7.3).
  • domain assumption One-at-a-time variations of SRO EOS parameters isolate their effect
    The L-series and m*-series EOS variations assume that changing one parameter while fixing the others is a meaningful way to probe EOS dependence (§2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Gravitational-Wave Power Gap in Core-Collapse Supernovae: Insights from 60 Axisymmetric Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQ3O6X4H

@misc{pith2026260326408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Gravitational-Wave Power Gap in Core-Collapse Supernovae: Insights from 60 Axisymmetric Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQ3O6X4H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.26408}
}
read the original abstract

We analyse the gravitational-wave emission from 60 two-dimensional core-collapse supernova simulations. The models cover a range of progenitors and equations of state. We focus on the narrow frequency interval in the gravitational-wave spectrum where the emitted power is strongly suppressed (the power gap) and how its central frequency relates to the physical properties of the simulations. We find that the power-gap frequency exhibits strong and systematic correlations with the properties of the inner core of the forming neutron star, for example the sound speed, suggesting that the gap encodes information about the behaviour of matter at extreme densities. We further examine how well several mechanisms proposed in the literature account for the presence and evolution of the gap in our simulations. Finally, we explore a scenario in which the gap arises from destructive interference between a narrow oscillation mode and a broadband background signal, demonstrating that such an interaction can produce a sharp minimum in the emitted gravitational-wave power.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.26408 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of GW emission from core-collapse supernovae in the time–frequency domain. Yellow indicates the high-frequency ridge, the grey background represents the haze, and the narrow horizontal feature where emission is suppressed marks the power gap. arise from various hydrodynamic phenomena. For example, from the standing accretion shock instability (SASI), which introduces low-frequency emission between ∼25 and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average shock radius (Rsh) as a function of time after bounce for all 60 models. Each panel shows the 10 EOS variations for a given progenitor, the progenitor name is indicated in the upper left corner. Each EOS is represented by one distinct line colour. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GW strains (h+) multiplied by the distance to the observer (D) (left panels) and corresponding spectrograms (right panels) for a representative subset of our models. Each row shows one model, indicated in the top right of the waveform panel. Time is given in seconds after bounce. The colourbar is logarithmic and each spectrogram has been normalised by the same value, so that they can be directly compared. 8 [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of the masking procedure described in section 4. The figure shows the spectrograms for s15 DD2 with and without masking. The left panel shows the original spectrogram and the right panel shows the spectrogram with the main emission ridge masked out according to…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratio of the GW energy contained in the main ridge and the energy contained in the haze. Grey horizontal lines guide the eye to ratios of 0.2 and 0.5. Each dot corresponds to one simulation, where the model name is given on the x-axis above or below the plot. extract f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correlation between the total GW energy and turbulent energy (Eq. 13) for all 60 models. Blue points show the total emitted GW energy, red points the energy contained in the haze, and green points the energy in the ridge. Left column: correlation between the GW energie…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectrograms of the GW for a few representative models. Time is shown in seconds after bounce and the colour scale is logarithmic, the normalisation identical across all panels. White dots indicate the instantaneous eigenfrequencies of PNS oscillation modes obtained fr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectrograms for models z35 L52 (left) and s28 55 (right). The white lines represent the inverse sound speed integrated from the centre of the PNS to the outer PNS radius, multiplied by a factor of 2. Time is given in seconds after bounce and the colour scale is logari…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean power-gap frequency as a function of progenitor compactness, ξ2.5. Each marker represents an individual simulation, with colour and marker shape indicating the EOS. Vertical dashed lines mark the progenitors on the compactness axis. with a Blackman window. The res…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlation between the time averaged power-gap frequency and several time-averaged PNS properties for all models. Each blue dot represents one model. The different panels show scatter plots of the average gap frequency versus different PNS properties. Top left: centr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Power emitted as GWs by a quadrupolar perturbation (see Eq. 42) between 0.1 and 0.3 s after bounce (top row) and between 0.3 s and the end of the simulation (middle row), together with the corresponding GW spectrograms (bottom row). Time is given in s after bounce. Th…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The PSD for six of our models (blue dots) together with the best fit to a Fano-type line profile (red lines), as a function of frequency. For each model, the PSDs are estimated based on the GW emission between 0.3 s and 0.4 s post bounce. The units of the y-axis have …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Szczepa´ nczyk M J, Antelis J M, Benjamin M, Cavagli` a M, Gondek-Rosi´ nska D, Hansen T, Klimenko S, Morales M D, Moreno C, Mukherjee S, Nurbek G, Powell J, Singh N, Sitmukhambetov S, Szewczyk P, Valdez O, Vedovato G, Westhouse J, Zanolin M and Zheng Y 2021Phys. Rev. D104102002 (Preprint2104.06462)

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Szczepa´ nczyk M J, Salemi F, Bini S, Mishra T, Vedovato G, Gayathri V, Bartos I, Bhaumik S, Drago M, Halim O, Lazzaro C, Miani A, Milotti E, Prodi G A, Tiwari S and Klimenko S 2023Phys. Rev. D107062002 (Preprint2210.01754)

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Szczepa´ nczyk M J, Zheng Y, Antelis J M, Benjamin M, Bizouard M A, Casallas-Lagos A, Cerd´ a-Dur´ an P, Davis D, Gondek-Rosi´ nska D, Klimenko S, Moreno C, Obergaulinger M, Powell J, Ramirez D, Ratto B, Richardson C, Rijal A, Stuver A L, Szewczyk P, Vedovato G, Zanolin M, Bartos I, Bhaumik S, Bulik T, Drago M, Font J A, De Colle F, Garc ´ ıa-Bellido J, G...

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    J.697L133–L136 (Preprint0904.4300)

    Kotake K, Iwakami W, Ohnishi N and Yamada S 2009Astrophys. J.697L133–L136 (Preprint0904.4300)

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    J.7071173–1190 (Preprint 0907.4762)

    Murphy J W, Ott C D and Burrows A 2009Astrophys. J.7071173–1190 (Preprint 0907.4762)

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Astrophys.496475–494 (Preprint 0808.4136)

    Marek A, Janka H T and M¨ uller E 2009Astron. Astrophys.496475–494 (Preprint 0808.4136)

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Astrophys.514A51 (Preprint1001.1570)

    Scheidegger S, K¨ appeli R, Whitehouse S C, Fischer T and Liebend¨ orfer M 2010Astron. Astrophys.514A51 (Preprint1001.1570)

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Yakunin K N, Marronetti P, Mezzacappa A, Bruenn S W, Lee C T, Chertkow M A, Hix W R, Blondin J M, Lentz E J, Messer O E B and Yoshida S 2010Classical and Quantum Gravity27194005 (Preprint1005.0779) 27 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    arXiv

Show all 116 references
  1. [9]

    J.736124 (Preprint 1106.0544)

    Kotake K, Iwakami-Nakano W and Ohnishi N 2011Astrophys. J.736124 (Preprint 1106.0544)

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Astrophys.537A63 (Preprint 1106.6301)

    M¨ uller E, Janka H T and Wongwathanarat A 2012Astron. Astrophys.537A63 (Preprint 1106.6301)

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    J.76643 (Preprint1210.6984)

    M¨ uller B, Janka H T and Marek A 2013Astrophys. J.76643 (Preprint1210.6984)

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cerd´ a-Dur´ an P, DeBrye N, Aloy M A, Font J A and Obergaulinger M 2013Astrophys. J. 779L18 (Preprint1310.8290)

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kuroda T, Takiwaki T and Kotake K 2014Phys. Rev. D89044011 (Preprint1304.4372)

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Yakunin K N, Mezzacappa A, Marronetti P, Yoshida S, Bruenn S W, Hix W R, Lentz E J, Bronson Messer O E, Harris J A, Endeve E, Blondin J M and Lingerfelt E J 2015Phys. Rev. D92084040 (Preprint1505.05824)

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    J.829L14 (Preprint1605.09215)

    Kuroda T, Kotake K and Takiwaki T 2016Astrophys. J.829L14 (Preprint1605.09215)

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Andresen H, M¨ uller B, M¨ uller E and Janka H T 2017Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.468 2032–2051 (Preprint1607.05199)

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    J.85162 (Preprint 1708.05252)

    Kuroda T, Kotake K, Hayama K and Takiwaki T 2017Astrophys. J.85162 (Preprint 1708.05252)

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Takiwaki T and Kotake K 2018Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.475L91–L95 (Preprint 1711.01905)

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hayama K, Kuroda T, Kotake K and Takiwaki T 2018Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.477 L96–L100 (Preprint1802.03842)

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    J.86110 (Preprint 1801.01914)

    Morozova V, Radice D, Burrows A and Vartanyan D 2018Astrophys. J.86110 (Preprint 1801.01914)

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    J.86581 (Preprint1807.07579)

    O’Connor E P and Couch S M 2018Astrophys. J.86581 (Preprint1807.07579)

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    J.876 L9 (Preprint1812.07703)

    Radice D, Morozova V, Burrows A, Vartanyan D and Nagakura H 2019Astrophys. J.876 L9 (Preprint1812.07703)

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Andresen H, M¨ uller E, Janka H T, Summa A, Gill K and Zanolin M 2019Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.4862238–2253 (Preprint1810.07638)

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Powell J and M¨ uller B 2019Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.4871178–1190 (Preprint 1812.05738)

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Powell J and M¨ uller B 2020Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.4944665–4675 (Preprint 2002.10115)

    2002 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Shibagaki S, Kuroda T, Kotake K and Takiwaki T 2020Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.493 L138–L142 (Preprint1909.09730)

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mezzacappa A, Marronetti P, Landfield R E, Lentz E J, Yakunin K N, Bruenn S W, Hix W R, Messer O E B, Endeve E, Blondin J M and Harris J A 2020Phys. Rev. D102023027 (Preprint2007.15099)

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Zha S, O’Connor E P, Chu M c, Lin L M and Couch S M 2020Phys. Rev. Lett.125051102 (Preprint2007.04716)

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    J.901108 (Preprint2007.07261)

    Vartanyan D and Burrows A 2020Astrophys. J.901108 (Preprint2007.07261)

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Andresen H, Glas R and Janka H T 2021Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.5033552–3567 (Preprint2011.10499)

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    J.914140 (Preprint2010.02453)

    Pan K C, Liebend¨ orfer M, Couch S M and Thielemann F K 2021Astrophys. J.914140 (Preprint2010.02453)

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Takiwaki T, Kotake K and Foglizzo T 2021Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.508966–985 (Preprint2107.02933) 28 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    J.923201 (Preprint2106.09734)

    Eggenberger Andersen O, Zha S, da Silva Schneider A, Betranhandy A, Couch S M and O’Connor E P 2021Astrophys. J.923201 (Preprint2106.09734)

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Raynaud R, Cerd´ a-Dur´ an P and Guilet J 2022Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.5093410–3426 (Preprint2103.12445)

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Vartanyan D, Coleman M S B and Burrows A 2022Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.510 4689–4705 (Preprint2109.10920)

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Jardine R, Powell J and M¨ uller B 2022Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.5105535–5552 (Preprint 2105.01315)

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Mezzacappa A, Marronetti P, Landfield R E, Lentz E J, Murphy R D, Raphael Hix W, Harris J A, Bruenn S W, Blondin J M, Bronson Messer O E, Casanova J and Kronzer L L 2023Phys. Rev. D107043008 (Preprint2208.10643)

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bugli M, Guilet J, Foglizzo T and Obergaulinger M 2023Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.520 5622–5634 (Preprint2210.05012)

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Vartanyan D, Burrows A, Wang T, Coleman M S B and White C J 2023Phys. Rev. D107 103015 (Preprint2302.07092)

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Powell J, M¨ uller B, Aguilera-Dena D R and Langer N 2023Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.522 6070–6086 (Preprint2212.00200)

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Jakobus P, M¨ uller B, Heger A, Zha S, Powell J, Motornenko A, Steinheimer J and St¨ ocker H 2023Phys. Rev. Lett.131191201 (Preprint2301.06515)

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    J.95921 (Preprint2306.01919)

    Pajkos M A, VanCamp S J, Pan K C, Vartanyan D, Deppe N and Couch S M 2023 Astrophys. J.95921 (Preprint2306.01919)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Richardson C J, Zanolin M, Andresen H, Szczepa´ nczyk M J, Gill K and Wongwathanarat A 2022Phys. Rev. D105103008 (Preprint2109.01582)

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Astrophys.687 A55 (Preprint2402.18303)

    Andresen H, O’Connor E P, Andersen O E and Couch S M 2024Astron. Astrophys.687 A55 (Preprint2402.18303)

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Richardson C J, Andresen H, Mezzacappa A, Zanolin M, Benjamin M G, Marronetti P, Lentz E J and Szczepa´ nczyk M J 2024Phys. Rev. Lett.133231401 (Preprint2404.02131)

  38. [46]

    J.97512 (Preprint2408.01525)

    Choi L, Burrows A and Vartanyan D 2024Astrophys. J.97512 (Preprint2408.01525)

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Murphy R D, Mezzacappa A, Lentz E J and Marronetti P 2025Phys. Rev. D112063062 (Preprint2503.06406)

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Fuller J, Klion H, Abdikamalov E and Ott C D 2015Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.450 414–427 (Preprint1501.06951)

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Sotani H and Takiwaki T 2016Phys. Rev. D94044043 (Preprint1608.01048)

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Torres-Forn´ e A, Cerd´ a-Dur´ an P, Passamonti A and Font J A 2018Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 4745272–5286 (Preprint1708.01920)

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Torres-Forn´ e A, Cerd´ a-Dur´ an P, Obergaulinger M, M¨ uller B and Font J A 2019Phys. Rev. Lett.123051102 (Preprint1902.10048)

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Torres-Forn´ e A, Cerd´ a-Dur´ an P, Passamonti A, Obergaulinger M and Font J A 2019Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.4823967–3988 (Preprint1806.11366)

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Sotani H, Kuroda T, Takiwaki T and Kotake K 2019Phys. Rev. D99123024 (Preprint 1906.04354)

    1906 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Sotani H, Takiwaki T and Togashi H 2021Phys. Rev. D104123009 (Preprint2110.03131)

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Rodriguez M C, Ranea-Sandoval I F, Chirenti C and Radice D 2023Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.5232236–2246 (Preprint2304.00033)

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Wolfe N E, Fr¨ ohlich C, Miller J M, Torres-Forn´ e A and Cerd´ a-Dur´ an P 2023Astrophys. J. 954161 (Preprint2303.16962) 29 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Zha S, Eggenberger Andersen O and O’Connor E P 2024Phys. Rev. D109083023 (Preprint 2403.02067)

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Mori M, Suwa Y and Takiwaki T 2023Phys. Rev. D107083015 (Preprint2302.00292)

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Tseneklidou D, Torres-Forn´ e A and Cerd´ a-Dur´ an P 2025European Physical Journal C85 1218 (Preprint2504.12183)

  52. [60]

    Sun T T, Zheng Z Y, Chen H, Wei J B, Burgio G F and Schulze H J 2025Phys. Rev. D111 043008 (Preprint2408.06599)

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Westernacher-Schneider J R, O’Connor E, O’Sullivan E, Tamborra I, Wu M R, Couch S M and Malmenbeck F 2019Phys. Rev. D100123009 (Preprint1907.01138)

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Westernacher-Schneider J R 2020Phys. Rev. D101083021 (Preprint2002.04468)

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Sotani H, M¨ uller B and Takiwaki T 2025Phys. Rev. D112083018 (Preprint2509.19724)

  56. [64]

    Fryxell B, Olson K, Ricker P, Timmes F X, Zingale M, Lamb D Q, MacNeice P, Rosner R, Truran J W and Tufo H 2000The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series131273 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/317361

    doi

  57. [65]

    Dubey A, Reid L B, Weide K, Antypas K, Ganapathy M K, Riley K, Sheeler D and Siegal A 2009arXiv e-printsarXiv:0903.4875 (Preprint0903.4875)

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Couch S M 2013The Astrophysical Journal76529 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/29

    doi

  59. [67]

    Couch S M and O’Connor E P 2014The Astrophysical Journal785123 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/123

    doi

  60. [68]

    J.85463 (Preprint1511.07443)

    O’Connor E P and Couch S M 2018Astrophys. J.85463 (Preprint1511.07443)

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Astrophys.445 273–289 (Preprintastro-ph/0502161)

    Marek A, Dimmelmeier H, Janka H T, M¨ uller E and Buras R 2006Astron. Astrophys.445 273–289 (Preprintastro-ph/0502161)

  62. [70]

    Cardall C Y, Endeve E and Mezzacappa A 2013Phys. Rev. D87103004 (Preprint 1209.2151)

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Shibata M, Kiuchi K, Sekiguchi Y i and Suwa Y 2011Prog. Theor. Phys.1251255–1287 (Preprint1104.3937)

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    O’Connor E 2015Astrophys. J. Suppl.21924 (Preprint1411.7058)

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Horowitz C J, Caballero O L, Lin Z, O’Connor E and Schwenk A 2017Phys. Rev. C95 025801 (Preprint1611.05140)

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bruenn S W 1985Astrophys. J. Suppl.58771–841

  67. [75]

    Burrows A, Reddy S and Thompson T A 2006Nucl. Phys. A.777356–394 (Preprint astro-ph/0404432)

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    Woosley S E and Heger A 2007Physics Reports442269–283

  69. [77]

    J.724341–373 (Preprint0803.3161)

    Heger A and Woosley S E 2010Astrophys. J.724341–373 (Preprint0803.3161)

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    J.73070 (Preprint1010.5550)

    O’Connor E and Ott C D 2011Astrophys. J.73070 (Preprint1010.5550)

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    J.77417 (Preprint1207.2184)

    Steiner A W, Hempel M and Fischer T 2013Astrophys. J.77417 (Preprint1207.2184)

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Typel S, R¨ opke G, Kl¨ ahn T, Blaschke D and Wolter H H 2010Phys. Rev. C81015803 (Preprint0908.2344)

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    da Silva Schneider A, Roberts L F and Ott C D 2017arXiv e-printsarXiv:1707.01527 (Preprint1707.01527)

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Schneider A S, Roberts L F, Ott C D and O’Connor E 2019Phys. Rev. C100055802 (Preprint1906.02009) 30 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Oohara K i, Nakamura T and Shibata M 1997Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 128183–249 (Preprint http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/183.full.pdfhtml) URL http://ptps.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/183.abstract

  76. [84]

    Finn L S 1989 Supernovae, gravitational radiation, and the quadrupole formulaFrontiers in Numerical Relativityed Evans C R, Finn L S and Hobill D W (Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press) pp 126–145

    1989

  77. [85]

    Blanchet L, Damour T and Sch¨ afer G 1990Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.242289–305

  78. [86]

    Harris C R, Millman K J, van der Walt S J, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D, Wieser E, Taylor J, Berg S, Smith N J, Kern R, Picus M, Hoyer S, van Kerkwijk M H, Brett M, Haldane A, del R ´ ıo J F, Wiebe M, Peterson P, G´ erard-Marchant P, Sheppard K, Reddy T, Weckesser W, Ab...

    doi

  79. [87]

    Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant T E, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, Burovski E, Peterson P, Weckesser W, Bright J, van der Walt S J, Brett M, Wilson J, Millman K J, Mayorov N, Nelson A R J, Jones E, Kern R, Larson E, Carey C J, Polat ˙I, Feng Y, Moore E W, VanderPlas J, L...

  80. [88]

    Li X 2024 URLhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-236875

    2024

  81. [89]

    Radice D, Ott C D, Abdikamalov E, Couch S M, Haas R and Schnetter E 2016Astrophys. J. 82076 (Preprint1510.05022)

    arXiv

  82. [90]

    J.185277

    Osaki Y and Hansen C J 1973Astrophys. J.185277

  83. [91]

    J.363694

    Goldreich P and Kumar P 1990Astrophys. J.363694

  84. [92]

    Lecoanet D and Quataert E 2013Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.4302363–2376 (Preprint 1210.4547)

    arXiv

  85. [93]

    Sotani H and Takiwaki T 2020Phys. Rev. D102063025 (Preprint2009.05206)

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    Spearman C 1904The American Journal of Psychology1572–101 URL https://doi.org/10.2307/1412159

    doi

  87. [95]

    Jakobus P, M¨ uller B and Heger A 2025Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.5403008–3031 (Preprint 2405.01449)

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    Bruel T, Bizouard M A, Obergaulinger M, Maturana-Russel P, Torres-Forn´ e A, Cerd´ a-Dur´ an P, Christensen N, Font J A and Meyer R 2023Phys. Rev. D107083029 (Preprint 2301.10019)

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    Lella A, Lucente G, Kresse D, Glas R, Janka H T and Mirizzi A 2026arXiv e-prints arXiv:2602.02651 (Preprint2602.02651)

  90. [98]

    Aronson D, Ermentrout G and Kopell N 1990Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena41403–449 ISSN 0167-2789 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016727899090007C

  91. [99]

    Ida M 2005Phys. Rev. E72036306 (Preprintphysics/0506080)

  92. [100]

    Belbasi S, Ebrahim Foulaadvand M and Joe Y S 2014American Journal of Physics8232–38 ISSN 0002-9505 (Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-pdf/82/1/32/13098016/32_1_online.pdf) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1119/1.4827277

    doi

  93. [101]

    Jothimurugan R, Thamilmaran K, Rajasekar S and Sanju´ an M A F 2016Nonlinear Dynamics831803–1814 (Preprint1510.01564)

    arXiv

  94. [102]

    Dolfo G and Vigu´ e J 2018European Journal of Physics39025005 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/aa9ec6 31 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    doi

  95. [103]

    Lockhart A B, Skinner A, Newman W, Steinwachs D B and Hilbert S A 2018American Journal of Physics86526–530 ISSN 0002-9505 (Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-pdf/86/7/526/13062019/526_1_online.pdf) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1119/1.5036752

    doi

  96. [104]

    Sarkar P and Ray D S 2019Phys. Rev. E99(5) 052221 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.99.052221

    doi

  97. [105]

    Bello L, Calvanese Strinati M, Dalla Torre E G and Pe´ er A 2019Phys. Rev. Lett.123(8) 083901 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.083901

    doi

  98. [106]

    Avrutsky I, Gibson R, Sears J, Khitrova G, Gibbs H M and Hendrickson J 2013Phys. Rev. B 87125118

  99. [107]

    Hayashi S, Sugimoto H, Fujii M, Nesterenko D V and Sekkat Z 2023Phys. Rev. B108(12) 125408 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.125408

    doi

  100. [108]

    Rev.124(6) 1866–1878 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.124.1866

    Fano U 1961Phys. Rev.124(6) 1866–1878 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.124.1866

    doi

  101. [109]

    Limonov M F 2021Adv. Opt. Photon.13703–771 URL https://opg.optica.org/aop/abstract.cfm?URI=aop-13-3-703

  102. [110]

    Nozaki D, Avdoshenko S M, Sevin¸ cli H, Gutierrez R and Cuniberti G 2013 Prediction of quantum interference in molecular junctions using a parabolic diagram: Understanding the origin of Fano and anti- resonancesJournal of Physics Conference Series(Journal of Physics Conference...

    2013 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Miroshnichenko A E, Flach S and Kivshar Y S 2010Rev. Mod. Phys.82(3) 2257–2298 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2257

    doi

  104. [112]

    Scr.74259–266

    Joe Y S, Satanin A M and Kim C S 2006Phys. Scr.74259–266

  105. [113]

    Satpathy S, Roy A and Mohapatra A 2012European Journal of Physics33863 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/33/4/863

    doi

  106. [114]

    Riffe D M 2011Phys. Rev. B84(6) 064308 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.064308

    doi

  107. [115]

    Hunter J D 2007Computing in Science & Engineering990–95

  108. [116]

    Turk M J, Smith B D, Oishi J S, Skory S, Skillman S W, Abel T and Norman M L 2011 Astrophys. J. Suppl.1929 (Preprint1011.3514) 32

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.