Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Toward More Realistic Machine-Learning Inference of the Dense-Matter Equation of State from Supernova Gravitational Waves

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Supernova equation-of-state fingerprints survive noise and timing jitter

desk verdict Useful incremental robustness study; the real-vs-simulated noise comparison has a reporting inconsistency, and the abstract overstates the bounce-time result for time-domain classifiers. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.27680 v2 pith:T6R67TSL submitted 2026-03-29 astro-ph.HE

Almat Akhmetali , Y. Sultan Abylkairov , Marat Zaidyn , Aknur Sakan , Alisher Zhunuskanov , Nurzhan Ussipov , José Antonio Font , Alejandro Torres-Forné
show 1 more author
Ernazar Abdikamalov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovagravitationalwavesequationofstatemachinelearningsupportvectorfrequency-domainclassificationcorebouncedetectornoiseprogenitormodels
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

The paper asks whether machine-learning classification of the nuclear equation of state from supernova gravitational waves still works when the idealized assumptions of earlier studies are relaxed. The authors inject simulated signals into real detector noise, expand the training set to four progenitor masses with a range of rotation rates, and allow the core-bounce time to be uncertain by up to 20 milliseconds. They report that none of these complications significantly hurts accuracy: a frequency-domain classifier keeps roughly 85% accuracy at high signal-to-noise ratio, while the time-domain classifier degrades sharply when bounce time is uncertain. The central positive finding is that the equation-of-state fingerprint lives in the spectral content of the bounce and early ring-down signal, and that larger, more diverse training sets help rather than hurt. This matters because a future Galactic supernova will arrive with noise, unknown progenitor structure, and imprecise timing, so a usable classification method must tolerate all three.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the frequency-domain (Fourier-amplitude) representation of the short gravitational-wave segment spanning −2 to +6 ms around core bounce. Because this representation discards absolute phase and time alignment, it is nearly invariant to shifts in the bounce time, which is why it remains accurate when the bounce time is unknown to within 20 ms. The classifier itself is a linear-kernel support vector machine (a supervised learning algorithm that finds a separating hyperplane); its simplicity lets the performance differences be attributed to the input representation and the training data. The training set is expanded by injecting each signal into real detector noise

What would settle it

Train the same frequency-domain classifier on high-resolution, three-dimensional core-collapse simulations that include self-consistent neutrino transport and realistic prompt convection (or, ultimately, on the first coincident neutrino-gravitational-wave detection of a Galactic supernova), and measure whether classification accuracy stays above roughly 80%. If the accuracy drops materially on these more realistic signals, the paper's robustness claim would be falsified for real detections.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the EOS of dense nuclear matter can be classified from the gravitational-wave burst of a rapidly rotating core-collapse supernova even under three realistic complications: real detector noise, a diverse set of progenitor models spanning 12 to 40 solar masses, and uncertainty in the core-bounce time of up to 20 ms. The authors find that a linear support-vector-machine classifier acting on the frequency-domain waveform maintains 85.3%±2.9% accuracy at signal-to-noise ratio 200 when bounce time is uncertain to 20 ms, and improves to 91.6%±2.7% when the training set is enlarged elevenfold. The time-domain classifier, by contrast, falls to about 34–40% under the

Load-bearing premise

The entire classification scheme assumes that the gravitational-wave signals produced by axisymmetric core-collapse simulations that use simplified neutrino and convection physics—and that are truncated before prompt convection develops—faithfully represent the observable bounce signal of a real Galactic supernova.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A future Galactic supernova, observed at high SNR by next-generation detectors, could have its nuclear EOS classified using only the bounce and early ring-down signal, without precise knowledge of the bounce time.
  • Frequency-domain features are the appropriate input for EOS classification; time-domain classifiers should be avoided unless the bounce time is known to well under 10 ms from neutrino timing.
  • Training-data volume is the main lever: adding progenitors, rotation rates, and time-shift augmentations improves accuracy more than any algorithmic refinement.
  • The saturation of accuracy above SNR≈100 implies that for third-generation detectors, the limiting factor is the coverage of the waveform model space, not detector sensitivity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the frequency-domain fingerprint is truly time-shift invariant, then other shift-invariant representations that preserve more phase information than the magnitude spectrum, such as the bispectrum or wavelet scalogram moduli, might achieve even higher accuracy than the plain Fourier amplitude; this is untested in the paper.
  • The success of training on multiple progenitors despite their structural differences suggests that the EOS signature is a common shared feature across different masses; this hints that a universal EOS-feature subspace could be learned and transferred to unseen progenitor models, but the paper does not demonstrate generalization to progenitors outside the 12–40 solar-mass range.
  • The authors' own caveat that their axisymmetric simulations do not model prompt convection faithfully means the extrapolation to real signals rests on the Appendix test using an approximate convection injection; a decisive test would require 3D simulations with self-consistent turbulence, and the paper leaves that to future work.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends prior machine-learning studies of equation-of-state (EOS) classification from core-collapse supernova gravitational waves by relaxing three simplifying assumptions: simulated Gaussian noise is replaced by real LIGO O4a detector noise; a single progenitor is expanded to four ZAMS-mass models (12–40 M_sun) with multiple rotational configurations; and core-bounce time uncertainty up to 20 ms is introduced. Using axisymmetric CoCoNuT waveforms truncated to an 8 ms window around bounce, the authors inject signals into noise at fixed SNR, train a linear-kernel SVM on time- and frequency-domain representations, and report accuracy averaged over 50 random train/test splits. They conclude that real noise, progenitor diversity, and bounce-time uncertainty do not significantly degrade classification performance, and that the larger multi-progenitor dataset actually improves accuracy. A control with a balanced dataset shows that the improvement is driven by dataset size rather than progenitor diversity. The paper also includes an appendix test with prompt-convection-containing waveforms from Richers et al., finding that the classifier does not rely primarily on the stochastic convection component.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful incremental contribution to the CCSN GW inference program: it demonstrates within a specific simulation framework that EOS classification remains robust when the training data are expanded to multiple progenitors and real detector noise, and it clearly identifies the frequency-domain representation as necessary when bounce-time uncertainty is present. The strengths are the use of publicly available O4a LIGO noise, the 50-split evaluation, the balanced-dataset control, and the explicit overfitting test regarding prompt convection. These elements make the main empirical claims reproducible and internally well controlled. The main weakness is that the robustness is established only for the axisymmetric, simplified-neutrino CoCoNuT waveform family; the paper's own limitations section acknowledges that later-stage convection and anisotropic neutrino emission are not captured. Therefore the significance is real but should be framed as 'robust within the simulated waveform family,' not as unconditional robustness to real CCSN signals.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.A and Fig. 3 caption] The accuracy values are assigned inconsistently between text and figure. The text says at SNR=200, time-domain accuracies are 92.3%±2.9% for real noise and 87.2%±2.9% for simulated noise; the figure caption instead says the time-series classifier achieves 92.3%±2.9% for simulated noise and 91.6%±3.1% for real noise, while the frequency-domain classifier achieves 87.2%±2.9% (simulated) and 85.3%±2.9% (real). Table I and §III.C confirm that with all four progenitors and Δt_b=0 the real-noise results are time=91.6±3.1 and frequency=85.3±2.9. Thus the text labels in §III.A are swapped. Please correct the text and make caption, text, and tables mutually consistent; the conclusion of similar performance may still hold, but as written the reported numbers cannot be trusted.
  2. [Abstract and §III.C] The abstract states that 'none of these effects significantly degrades EOS classification performance.' This is contradicted by the paper's own time-domain result: accuracy collapses from 91.6%±3.1% at Δt_b=0 to 39.8% at Δt_b=10 ms and 34.3% at Δt_b=20 ms (Fig. 4). The paper later describes the time-domain classifier as 'struggles.' The claim is only valid for the frequency-domain representation (or for the recommended pipeline using frequency-domain features). Please qualify the abstract and conclusion accordingly; as written, the central claim is overstated.
  3. [§III.C, larger-dataset experiment] The elevenfold augmentation by applying bounce-time shifts in 2 ms steps must be partitioned in a way that prevents data leakage. If the 80/20 train/test split is performed after augmentation, different shifted copies of the same physical waveform can appear in both training and test sets, inflating the reported 91.6%±2.7% accuracy. Please state explicitly that the split is performed on the original 886 waveforms before augmentation (or use a group-split strategy), and clarify whether the green curve in Fig. 4 is trained only on augmented training data or on a mixture of augmented and unaugmented samples.
  4. [§II.A, §IV, and Appendix A] The robustness conclusion is conditional on the axisymmetric CoCoNuT simulation family with a simplified Y_e(ρ) deleptonization scheme, leakage/heating after bounce, and a 6 ms post-bounce cutoff because prompt convection is 'not accurately modeled.' The Appendix A test with Richers et al. uses another 2D dataset and does not test 3D non-axisymmetric dynamics, turbulent convection, or different neutrino transport schemes. Thus the results demonstrate robustness within the simulated waveform family, not transferability to real CCSN signals. Please state this limitation explicitly in the abstract and conclusion, and avoid phrasing that implies the effects are negligible for actual observations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] Typos: 'asses' should be 'assess' (§III.A), 'constrainghts' should be 'constraints' (§I), 'intoroduction' in Ref. [100], 'classifies' should be 'classifier' in Appendix A, and 'a injected signal' should be 'an injected signal' in the Fig. 2 caption.
  2. [§II.C] The 'frequency domain counterparts' is not defined. Please specify whether the input is the magnitude spectrum, power spectrum, or complex FFT of the 30 ms window. This affects reproducibility.
  3. [§II.B] Please clarify that the 1024 s O4a segment is a single contiguous noise realization and that the random placement of the signal within 30 ms windows generates different noise samples but from the same segment. Also fix 'three value' to 'three values'.
  4. [§III.B] The description of the balanced dataset is ambiguous: 'subsample signals in each class so that the total number of training examples is equal across all scenarios' could mean per EOS class or per configuration. Specify whether the balancing is applied per EOS class, per progenitor configuration, or to the total training set, and for which SNR the 220-signal count refers.
  5. [Figure 4] Add a caption sentence describing the green 'larger dataset' curve; currently it is only explained in the text. Also state the number of training samples after elevenfold augmentation and confirm that the test set remains the same as for the other curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported robustness results are empirical tests on held-out simulated waveforms, and the self-citations are methodological references, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical evaluations rather than derived predictions recycled from fitted inputs. The SVM is trained on labeled simulated waveforms and evaluated on held-out injections; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input. The frequency-domain robustness to bounce-time uncertainty follows from the known shift-invariance of Fourier magnitudes, but the paper explicitly identifies this as a property of the representation rather than presenting it as a fitted result. Self-citations to prior simulation and ML papers ([62,70,75,77,85]) are used for simulation setup and model selection, not as the justification for the current conclusions; those conclusions are supported by new tests using real O4a noise, multiple progenitors, timing shifts, and an external convection-containing dataset. Limitations about axisymmetric simulations and approximate neutrino treatment are external-validity concerns, not circularity. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or a definitional equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted physical constants. The central claim rests on the fidelity of the simulated waveforms and on modeling choices (SVM C, signal window, noise segment), none of which are independently validated in this work.

free parameters (1)
  • SVM regularization parameter C = 10
    Chosen by grid search cross-validation on the training data (Sec. II.C); it is a model hyperparameter, not a physical constant, and is tuned on the same dataset whose classification accuracy is the reported result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric CoCoNuT simulations with Y_e(ρ) deleptonization and leakage/heating post-bounce capture the EOS-dependent GW signal adequately in the −2 to 6 ms window.
    Section II.A; the paper explicitly limits the signal window to avoid prompt convection, which is not accurately modeled in 2D.
  • domain assumption The four discrete EOSs (SFHo, LS220, HSDD2, GShenFSU2.1) represent the relevant EOS variation for classification.
    Section II.A; the classifier discriminates among four discrete models, not a continuous EOS parameter space; acknowledged in Section IV.
  • domain assumption The 1024 s O4a LIGO Hanford noise segment is representative of real detector noise for training/testing.
    Section II.B; only one segment is used; non-stationarity across segments not tested.
  • ad hoc to paper Source and detector orientations are optimal (face-on), and the GW signal is injected at fixed target SNR with no distance/angle marginalization.
    Section IV: 'we assume optimal source and detector orientations'.
  • domain assumption The prompt-convection contamination from later post-bounce times does not change EOS classification (tested with approximate convection in Appendix A).
    Appendix A; the test uses an approximated/unphysical convection treatment and a different simulation dataset (Richers et al.).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward More Realistic Machine-Learning Inference of the Dense-Matter Equation of State from Supernova Gravitational Waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6R67TSL

@misc{pith2026260327680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward More Realistic Machine-Learning Inference of the Dense-Matter Equation of State from Supernova Gravitational Waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6R67TSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.27680}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae offer a unique probe of the equation of state (EOS) of dense nuclear matter. For rapidly rotating stars, previous machine-learning studies demonstrated promising EOS classification accuracy. However, these analyses relied on several simplifying assumptions. In this work, we relax three key assumptions. First, we include real detector noise. Second, we expand the analysis from a single progenitor model to four models spanning 12 to 40 solar masses, and for each mass we consider multiple rotational configurations, from slow to rapid. Third, we introduce uncertainty in the core bounce time of up to 20 ms, rather than assuming it is known precisely. We find that none of these effects significantly degrades EOS classification performance. Instead, the larger dataset associated with multiple progenitor models and noise realizations improves training and classification accuracy. This study is a step in a broader effort to progressively incorporate more realistic conditions into gravitational-wave inference for core-collapse supernovae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.27680 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Radial profiles of density (solid lines) and specific en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Example of a gravitational wave signal injected into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Accuracy as a function of SNR for real and simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. EOS classification accuracy as a function of SNR. Blue triangles represent classification results in the time domain, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Examples of two GW signals with two different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Overfitting test with ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Generalization Gap in Machine Learning EoS Inference from Core-Collapse Supernova Gravitational Waves

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    LightGBM and other regressors achieve R^{2}≈0.6–0.7 under random CV on CCSN GW catalogues but collapse to worse-than-mean performance under Leave-One-EoS-Out validation, exposing a generalisation gap for unseen EoS families.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 81 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Col- laboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, and K. e. a. Ackley, GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Tran- sient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.18082 (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, and F. Acernese (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration and ASAS-SN Collaboration and DLT40 Collaboration), Optically targeted search for gravitational waves emitted by core-collapse supernovae during the first and second observing runs of advanced ligo and advanced virgo, Phys. Rev. D101, ...

    2020

  3. [3]

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

    2024

  4. [4]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, Inferring astrophysical parame- ters of core-collapse supernovae from their gravitational- wave emission, Phys. Rev. D105, 063018 (2022), arXiv:2201.01397 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    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]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    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...

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Srivastava, S

    V. Srivastava, S. Ballmer, D. A. Brown, C. Afle, A. Bur- rows, D. Radice, and D. Vartanyan, Detection prospects of core-collapse supernovae with supernova-optimized third-generation gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D100, 043026 (2019), arXiv:1906.00084 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    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

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Mezzacappa and M

    A. Mezzacappa and M. Zanolin, Gravitational Waves from Neutrino-Driven Core Collapse Supernovae: Pre- dictions, Detection, and Parameter Estimation, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2401.11635 (2024), arXiv:2401.11635 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    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]

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Burrows and J

    A. Burrows and J. Goshy, A Theory of Supernova Ex- plosions, ApJ Lett.416, L75 (1993)

    1993

  4. [12]

    Janka, Conditions for shock revival by neutrino heating in core-collapse supernovae, A&A368, 527 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0008432 [astro-ph]

    H.-T. Janka, Conditions for shock revival by neutrino heating in core-collapse supernovae, A&A368, 527 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0008432 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M¨ uller, Hydrodynamics of core-collapse supernovae and their progenitors, Living Reviews in Computa- 9 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- 9 tional Astrophysics6, 3 (2020), arXiv:2006.05083 [astro- ph.SR]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Rampp and H.-T

    M. Rampp and H.-T. Janka, Spherically Symmetric Simulation with Boltzmann Neutrino Transport of Core Collapse and Postbounce Evolution of a 15 Msolar Star, ApJ Lett.539, L33 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0005438 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  7. [15]

    O’Connor and C

    E. O’Connor and C. D. Ott, The Progenitor Depen- dence of the Pre-explosion Neutrino Emission in Core- collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J.762, 126 (2013), arXiv:1207.1100 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Buras, H.-T

    R. Buras, H.-T. Janka, M. Rampp, and K. Kifoni- dis, Two-dimensional hydrodynamic core-collapse su- pernova simulations with spectral neutrino transport. II. Models for different progenitor stars, A&A457, 281 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512189 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. W. Bruenn, E. J. Lentz, W. R. Hix, A. Mezzacappa, J. A. Harris, O. E. B. Messer, E. Endeve, J. M. Blondin, M. A. Chertkow, E. J. Lingerfelt, P. Marronetti, and K. N. Yakunin, The Development of Explosions in Ax- isymmetric Ab Initio Core-collapse Supernova Simula- tions of ...

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kotake, T

    K. Kotake, T. Takiwaki, T. Fischer, K. Nakamura, and G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, Impact of Neutrino Opacities on Core-collapse Supernova Simulations, Astrophys. J. 853, 170 (2018), arXiv:1801.02703 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. M. Blondin, A. Mezzacappa, and C. DeMarino, Sta- bility of Standing Accretion Shocks, with an Eye to- ward Core-Collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J.584, 971 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210634 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Foglizzo, L

    T. Foglizzo, L. Scheck, and H. T. Janka, Neutrino-driven Convection versus Advection in Core-Collapse Super- novae, Astrophys. J.652, 1436 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0507636 [astro-ph]

    2006

  13. [21]

    M¨ uller, H.-T

    B. M¨ uller, H.-T. Janka, and A. Heger, New Two- dimensional Models of Supernova Explosions by the Neutrino-heating Mechanism: Evidence for Different Instability Regimes in Collapsing Stellar Cores, Astro- phys. J.761, 72 (2012), arXiv:1205.7078 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    S. M. Couch, E. Chatzopoulos, W. D. Arnett, and F. X. Timmes, The Three-dimensional Evolution to Core Col- lapse of a Massive Star, ApJ Lett.808, L21 (2015), arXiv:1503.02199 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M¨ uller, T

    B. M¨ uller, T. Melson, A. Heger, and H.-T. Janka, Su- pernova simulations from a 3D progenitor model - Im- pact of perturbations and evolution of explosion proper- ties, MNRAS472, 491 (2017), arXiv:1705.00620 [astro- ph.SR]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kazeroni and E

    R. Kazeroni and E. Abdikamalov, The impact of pro- genitor asymmetries on the neutrino-driven convection in core-collapse supernovae, MNRAS494, 5360 (2020), arXiv:1911.08819 [astro-ph.SR]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Telman, E

    Y. Telman, E. Abdikamalov, and T. Foglizzo, Convec- tive vortices in collapsing stars, MNRAS535, 1388 (2024), arXiv:2409.17737 [astro-ph.SR]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [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]

    2005 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. B. Popov and R. Turolla, Initial spin periods of neu- tron stars in supernova remnants, Astrophys. Space Sci. 341, 457 (2012), arXiv:1204.0632 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    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

    2007

  21. [29]

    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]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    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]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bugli, J

    M. Bugli, J. Guilet, and M. Obergaulinger, Three- dimensional core-collapse supernovae with complex magnetic structures - I. Explosion dynamics, MNRAS 507, 443 (2021), arXiv:2105.00665 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Eisenberg, O

    M. Eisenberg, O. Gottlieb, and E. Nakar, Observational signatures of stellar explosions driven by relativistic jets, MNRAS517, 582 (2022), arXiv:2201.08432 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. Pais, T. Piran, and E. Nakar, The velocity distri- bution of outflows driven by choked jets in stellar en- velopes, MNRAS519, 1941 (2023), arXiv:2208.14459 [astro-ph.HE]

    1941 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Takiwaki, K

    T. Takiwaki, K. Kotake, and Y. Suwa, Three- dimensional simulations of rapidly rotating core- collapse supernovae: finding a neutrino-powered explo- sion aided by non-axisymmetric flows, MNRAS461, L112 (2016), arXiv:1602.06759 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Summa, H.-T

    A. Summa, H.-T. Janka, T. Melson, and A. Marek, Rotation-supported Neutrino-driven Supernova Explo- sions in Three Dimensions and the Critical Lu- minosity Condition, Astrophys. J.852, 28 (2018), arXiv:1708.04154 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Abdikamalov, T

    E. Abdikamalov, T. Foglizzo, and O. Mukazhanov, Im- pact of rotation on the evolution of convective vortices in collapsing stars, MNRAS503, 3617 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    A. C. Buellet, T. Foglizzo, J. Guilet, and E. Abdika- malov, Effect of stellar rotation on the development of post-shock instabilities during core-collapse super- novae, A&A674, A205 (2023), arXiv:2301.01962 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, The gravitational-wave emis- sion from the explosion of a 15 solar mass star with ro- tation and magnetic fields, MNRAS532, 4326 (2024), arXiv:2406.09691 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    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]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Morozova, D

    V. Morozova, D. Radice, A. Burrows, and D. Var- tanyan, The Gravitational Wave Signal from Core- collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J.861, 10 (2018), arXiv:1801.01914 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. D. Ott, E. Abdikamalov, P. M¨ osta, R. Haas, S. Drasco, E. P. O’Connor, C. Reisswig, C. A. Meakin, and E. Schnetter, General-relativistic Simula- 10 tions of Three-dimensional Core-collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J.768, 115 (2013), arXiv:1210.6674 [astro- ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    K. N. Yakunin, A. Mezzacappa, P. Marronetti, S. Yoshida, S. W. Bruenn, W. R. Hix, E. J. Lentz, O. E. Bronson Messer, J. A. Harris, E. Endeve, J. M. Blondin, and E. J. Lingerfelt, Gravitational wave signatures of ab initio two-dimensional core collapse supernova explosion model...

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Kuroda, K

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

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Torres-Forn´ e, P

    A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, M. Obergaulinger, B. M¨ uller, and J. A. Font, Universal Relations for Gravitational-Wave Asteroseismology of Protoneu- tron Stars, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 051102 (2019), arXiv:1902.10048 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mezzacappa, P

    A. Mezzacappa, P. Marronetti, R. E. Landfield, E. J. Lentz, R. D. Murphy, W. Raphael Hix, J. A. Harris, S. W. Bruenn, J. M. Blondin, O. E. Bronson Messer, J. Casanova, and L. L. Kronzer, Core collapse super- nova gravitational wave emission for progenitors of 9.6, 15, and 25M⊙...

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Vartanyan, A

    D. Vartanyan, A. Burrows, T. Wang, M. S. B. Coleman, and C. J. White, Gravitational-wave signature of core- collapse supernovae, Phys. Rev. D107, 103015 (2023), arXiv:2302.07092 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ehring, S

    J. Ehring, S. Abbar, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, K. Naka- mura, and K. Kotake, Gravitational-Wave Signatures of Nonstandard Neutrino Properties in Collapsing Stellar Cores, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 021201 (2026), arXiv:2412.02750 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  42. [50]

    Lella, G

    A. Lella, G. Lucente, D. Kresse, R. Glas, H.-T. Janka, and A. Mirizzi, Gravitational-Wave Signals for Supernova Explosions of Three-Dimensional Pro- genitors, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2602.02651 (2026), arXiv:2602.02651 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  43. [51]

    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:1204.051...

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    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]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    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]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    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]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    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

  48. [56]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    M¨ uller, H.-T

    E. M¨ uller, H.-T. Janka, and A. Wongwathanarat, Parametrized 3D models of neutrino-driven super- nova explosions. Neutrino emission asymmetries and gravitational-wave signals, A&A537, A63 (2012), arXiv:1106.6301 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    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]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    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]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Gottlieb, H

    O. Gottlieb, H. Nagakura, A. Tchekhovskoy, P. Natara- jan, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, S. Banagiri, J. Jacquemin-Ide, N. Kaaz, and V. Kalogera, Jetted and Turbulent Stel- lar Deaths: New L VK-detectable Gravitational-wave Sources, ApJ Lett.951, L30 (2023), arXiv:2209.09256 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    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

  54. [62]

    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]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    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]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Logue, C

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

    2012 arXiv

  57. [65]

    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), arXi...

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    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:201...

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Sotani, T

    H. Sotani, T. Takiwaki, and H. Togashi, Universal re- lation for supernova gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123009 (2021), arXiv:2110.03131 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    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,...

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    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 appro...

    2023

  62. [70]

    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]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    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]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    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]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [73]

    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]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    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 i...

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Sultan Abylkairov, M

    Y. Sultan 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, As- sessing the distance for probing the nuclear equation of state with supernova gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D , (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ack- ley, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, N. Adhikari, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. K. Adkins, S. Afroz, D. Agarwal, M. Agathos, M. Aghaei Abchouyeh, O. D. Aguiar, S. Ahmadzadeh, L. Aiello, A. Ain, P. Ajith, S. Akcay, T. Akutsu, S. Al- banesi, R...

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    S. J. Smartt, Progenitors of Core-Collapse Super- novae, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.47, 63 (2009), arXiv:0908.0700 [astro-ph.SR]

    2009 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Sukhbold, S

    T. Sukhbold, S. E. Woosley, and A. Heger, A High- resolution Study of Presupernova Core Structure, As- trophys. J.860, 93 (2018), arXiv:1710.03243 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Pagliaroli, F

    G. Pagliaroli, F. Vissani, E. Coccia, and W. Fulgione, Neutrinos from Supernovae as a Trigger for Gravi- tational Wave Search, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 031102 (2009), arXiv:0903.1191 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Halzen and G

    F. Halzen and G. G. Raffelt, Reconstructing the super- nova bounce time with neutrinos in IceCube, Phys. Rev. D80, 087301 (2009), arXiv:0908.2317 [astro-ph.HE]

    2009 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Dimmelmeier, J

    H. Dimmelmeier, J. A. Font, and E. M¨ uller, Relativis- tic simulations of rotational core collapse I. Methods, initial models, and code tests, A&A388, 917 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0204288 [astro-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Dimmelmeier, J

    H. Dimmelmeier, J. Novak, J. A. Font, J. M. Ib´ a˜ nez, and E. M¨ uller, Combining spectral and shock-capturing methods: A new numerical approach for 3D relativis- tic core collapse simulations, Phys. Rev. D71, 064023 (2005), astro-ph/0407174

    2005 arXiv

  77. [85]

    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]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    C. D. Ott, H. Dimmelmeier, A. Marek, H. T. Janka, B. Zink, I. Hawke, and E. Schnetter, Rotating col- 12 lapse of stellar iron cores in general relativity, Classi- cal and Quantum Gravity24, S139 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0612638 [astro-ph]

    2007

  79. [87]

    Liebend¨ orfer, A Simple Parameterization of the Con- sequences of Deleptonization for Simulations of Stel- lar Core Collapse, Astrophys

    M. Liebend¨ orfer, A Simple Parameterization of the Con- sequences of Deleptonization for Simulations of Stel- lar Core Collapse, Astrophys. J.633, 1042 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0504072 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  80. [88]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, Nucleosynthesis and rem- nants in massive stars of solar metallicity, Physics Re- ports442, 269 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0702176 [astro- ph]

    2007 arXiv

  81. [89]

    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)

    2005

  82. [90]

    S. E. Woosley, A. Heger, and T. A. Weaver, The evo- lution and explosion of massive stars, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1015 (2002)

    2002

  83. [91]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, Core- collapse Supernova Equations of State Based on Neu- tron Star Observations, Astrophys. J.774, 17 (2013), arXiv:1207.2184 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  84. [92]

    J. M. Lattimer and F. D. Swesty, A generalized equation of state for hot, dense matter, Nucl. Phys. A535, 331 (1991)

    1991

  85. [93]

    Hempel and J

    M. Hempel and J. Schaffner-Bielich, A statistical model for a complete supernova equation of state, Nucl. Phys. A837, 210 (2010), arXiv:0911.4073 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Hempel, T

    M. Hempel, T. Fischer, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and M. Liebend¨ orfer, New Equations of State in Simula- tions of Core-collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J.748, 70 (2012), arXiv:1108.0848 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  87. [95]

    G. Shen, C. J. Horowitz, and E. O’Connor, Second rela- tivistic mean field and virial equation of state for astro- physical simulations, Phys. Rev. C83, 065808 (2011)

    2011

  88. [96]

    J. C. Dolence, A. Burrows, J. W. Murphy, and J. Nord- haus, Dimensional Dependence of the Hydrodynamics of Core-collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J.765, 110 (2013), arXiv:1210.5241 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  89. [97]

    M¨ uller, The dynamics of neutrino-driven supernova explosions after shock revival in 2D and 3D, MNRAS 453, 287 (2015), arXiv:1506.05139 [astro-ph.SR]

    B. M¨ uller, The dynamics of neutrino-driven supernova explosions after shock revival in 2D and 3D, MNRAS 453, 287 (2015), arXiv:1506.05139 [astro-ph.SR]

    2015 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Raynaud, J

    R. Raynaud, J. Guilet, H.-T. Janka, and T. Gas- tine, Magnetar formation through a convective dynamo in protoneutron stars, Science Advances6, eaay2732 (2020), arXiv:2003.06662 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Radice, C

    D. Radice, C. D. Ott, E. Abdikamalov, S. M. Couch, R. Haas, and E. Schnetter, Neutrino-driven Convection in Core-collapse Supernovae: High-resolution Simula- tions, Astrophys. J.820, 76 (2016), arXiv:1510.05022 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  92. [100]

    J. W. Tukey, An intoroduction to the calculation of nu- merical spectrum analysis, Spectra Analysis of Time Se- ries , 25 (1967)

    1967

  93. [101]

    P. Welch, The use of fast fourier transform for the esti- mation of power spectra: A method based on time aver- aging over short, modified periodograms, IEEE Trans- actions on audio and electroacoustics15, 70 (1967)

    1967

  94. [102]

    E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Measuring gravita- tional waves from binary black hole coalescences. i. sig- nal to noise for inspiral, merger, and ringdown, Phys. Rev. D57, 4535 (1998)

    1998

  95. [103]

    A. Nitz, I. Harry, D. Brown, C. M. Biwer, J. Willis, T. D. Canton, C. Capano, T. Dent, L. Pekowsky, G. S. C. Davies, S. De, M. Cabero, S. Wu, A. R. Williamson, B. Machenschalk, D. Macleod, F. Pan- narale, P. Kumar, S. Reyes, dfinstad, S. Kumar, M. T´ apai, L. Singer, P. Kumar,...

    2024

  96. [104]

    M¨ uller,Multi-dimensional relativistic simulations of core-collapse supernovae with energy-dependent neu- trino transport, Ph.D

    B. M¨ uller,Multi-dimensional relativistic simulations of core-collapse supernovae with energy-dependent neu- trino transport, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen, M¨ unchen, Germany (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

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