Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Assessing a Template-Based Approach for Core-Collapse Supernova Gravitational-Wave Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A template bank of 150 synthetic signals, generated by the open-source package SynthGrav, recovers 88% of injected core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave signals at 1 kpc and about 50% at 2 kpc in real LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA noise, with the…

desk verdict A genuinely useful feasibility study with a public template generator, but the headline efficiencies are quoted at a false-alarm rate of ~130/day, so the 'competitive with excess-energy searches' claim is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12524 v2 pith:NCSTT62I submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMgr-qc

Haakon Andresen , Bella Finkel This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavessupernovae:generalmethods:dataanalysismatchedfilteringtemplatebankSynthGravcore-collapsesupernovaeLIGO-Virgo-KAGRA
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

Matched filtering has been the standard way to detect gravitational waves from binary mergers, but core-collapse supernova signals are so stochastic that the field has relied on excess-energy searches that do not use waveform templates. This paper claims that template-based matched filtering is now feasible: a bank of 150 synthetic signals built by the new open-source package SynthGrav recovers 88% of simulated 25-solar-mass supernova signals injected at 1 kpc into real LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA noise, and about 50% at 2 kpc. For more than half of the recovered events, the signal's dominant frequency slope—which traces the proto-neutron star's compactness—is reconstructed to within about 15%. The detection efficiency is similar to that of current excess-energy searches, with the added benefit that the method returns physical parameter estimates. The main limitation is a false-alarm rate of about 130 per day, driven mostly by noise glitches, which the authors argue is acceptable when neutrino detectors provide timing information for a Galactic supernova.

What carries the argument

The pivotal object is SynthGrav, an open-source Python package that synthesizes supernova gravitational-wave signals as collections of modes, each built from overlapping pulses of colored random noise whose power spectral density is a Gaussian centred on a time-dependent frequency $f_c(t)$. For this analysis, SynthGrav is used to create 150 templates with $f_c(t) = a t + b$, sampling the slope $a$ in 50 steps from 250 to 3000 Hz/s and the intercept $b$ at 100, 200, and 300 Hz. The template amplitudes are shaped by an envelope extracted from the injected signal via the Hilbert transform and smoothed with a Savitzky–Golay filter, which improves the network signal-to-noise ratio by about 10% compared with using unshaped templates. The matched-filtering search is carried out with standard software: the data are whitened with the power spectral density of each 4096 s frame, the output signal-to-noise time series are clustered into 1 s bins, and the network SNR is defined as the geometric mean of the Livingston and Hanford SNRs, with a detection registered when this quantity exceeds 6. This machinery carries the argument because the template bank encodes the physical assumption that the dominant emission (the proto-neutron-star g-mode) sweeps its frequency linearly over the roughly 0.4 s signal, and the best-matching template's $(a,b)$ parameters are the reconstructed signal characteristics that the paper compares with the injection.

What would settle it

Inject a numerical supernova waveform with a strongly curved or multi-branch frequency evolution (for example, a model with vigorous SASI activity, which produces narrowband emission near 100 Hz alongside the main component) into the same O3b LIGO noise at 1 kpc, and run the same 150-template linear-ramp bank with the same network-SNR threshold of 6; if the detection efficiency falls substantially below the 88% reported for D25, the single-linear-ramp template assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a small template bank of physically motivated synthetic signals can bring matched filtering to core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave detection, which was previously thought impractical because the signals are noisy and irregular. Using the D25 waveform—a 25-solar-mass, non-rotating solar-metallicity progenitor—injected into O3b data from the two LIGO detectors, the authors find that a 150-template bank with a network SNR threshold of 6 recovers 88% of injections at 1 kpc and about 50% at 2 kpc, with no detections at 5 kpc. The reconstructed templates cluster at a frequency slope of about 2250 Hz/s against a true value of roughly 2700 Hz/s, an underestimate of about 15%, and at a frequency offset of 100 Hz in most cases. The authors further show that if the signal itself were used as the template, it could be detected at 10 kpc under favorable orientations, which they interpret as the performance ceiling of the method. Their conclusion is that matched filtering with this template family performs comparably to excess-energy searches for Galactic distances and, unlike those searches, offers a route to measuring proto-neutron-star properties through the relation between the emitted frequency and the PNS mass and radius.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the main gravitational-wave emission of a core-collapse supernova has a single dominant frequency that rises linearly with time over the detector-relevant duration; if the real signal has a curved frequency evolution, multiple simultaneous emission components, or a very different amplitude envelope, the template bank will not match and the reported detection and reconstruction rates will not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Galactic supernova at 1 kpc would be detectable with ~88% efficiency by a 150-template matched-filter search in current LIGO detectors, and the recovered frequency slope would provide an estimate of the proto-neutron star's compactness.
  • Because the method returns parameter estimates rather than just a detection flag, a single nearby supernova could yield simultaneous information on the proto-neutron star's mass and radius when combined with neutrino measurements of the anti-electron neutrino energy.
  • The steep distance dependence (88% at 1 kpc, ~50% at 2 kpc, and none at 5 kpc) means that template-based matched filtering is a near-field technique limited to Galactic and very nearby extragalactic events, not an all-sky survey.
  • The high false-alarm rate (~130 per day) rules out standalone blind searches, but the probability of a false trigger coinciding with a neutrino signal is about $10^{-3}$, so the method is already viable as a confirmatory and parameter-estimation tool for neutrino-triggered Galactic supernova searches.
  • Because the current bank contains only linear frequency ramps, supernova signals with additional components (e.g., SASI or other PNS oscillation modes) will be recovered less efficiently; expanding the bank with physically motivated frequency evolutions, as the authors propose, should directly improve both detection and reconstruction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication not spelled out by the authors is that the reported detection efficiencies are probably optimistic for a real search, because the template amplitudes use an envelope extracted from the injected signal itself; a blind search would need to treat the amplitude evolution as unknown, which would enlarge the bank and likely lower the recovery rates.
  • The comparison with excess-energy searches is not apples-to-apples: the paper quotes a false-alarm rate of about 130 per day, while the cited excess-energy studies enforce false-alarm rates of roughly one per hundred years; if the matched filter were run at a comparable threshold, its detection efficiency would be lower than the raw numbers reported.
  • A natural next experiment, left for future work in the paper, is to inject a waveform with a curved (polynomial) frequency evolution—using the fitting formulas already implemented in SynthGrav—and rerun the linear-ramp bank; if the recovery efficiency at 1 kpc drops sharply, the linear-ramp family is the binding constraint.
  • Because most false triggers are associated with ~1 s noise glitches, a relatively simple time-frequency veto that checks whether the trigger follows the expected linear frequency ramp over the signal duration could reduce the false-alarm rate substantially without sacrificing sensitivity to genuine supernova signals; the authors mention glitch rejection but do not implement such a veto.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether matched filtering with a small theoretical template bank can detect gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae. Using the 25-solar-mass Chimera model D25, the authors inject its waveform into roughly 3.4 days of O3b LIGO data and search with 150 synthetic templates generated by their new open-source package SynthGrav, whose central frequencies follow a linear time evolution f_c(t)=a t+b. The reported detection efficiencies are about 88% at 1 kpc and 50% at 2 kpc at a fixed network-SNR threshold of 6, with a false-alarm rate of about 130 per day; reconstructed slopes are claimed to be accurate to about 15%. The paper compares these numbers with excess-energy searches and concludes that matched filtering is competitive, while acknowledging limitations and suggesting future improvements.

Significance. The paper is a useful proof of concept: it demonstrates, to my knowledge for the first time, that a small SynthGrav-style template bank can be used with real LIGO data to recover a simulated core-collapse supernova signal, and the open-source release of SynthGrav is a concrete contribution. However, the headline quantitative claims are not yet supported as stated. The template amplitude envelope is taken from the injected signal, detection efficiencies are quoted at a threshold whose false-alarm rate is about 130 per day rather than at a fixed false-alarm rate, only one waveform and one observer orientation are injected, and the reconstruction error is measured against a visually estimated slope. These are load-bearing issues for the claimed comparison with excess-energy searches. The approach is promising and the issues are addressable with additional runs, so the paper merits major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3 / Sec. 4.1] The amplitude envelope of each template is extracted from the injected signal via the Hilbert transform and a Savitzky-Golay filter, so the matched filter is partially constructed from the very signal it is asked to detect. The reported 88% and 50% detection efficiencies (Fig. 6, abstract) therefore are not blind-search efficiencies. The control run without the envelope reports only the mean, maximum, and minimum network SNR over 25 observers (7.0 vs. 6.3, etc.), not the detection efficiency at the SNR>6 threshold or at any fixed false-alarm rate; because detection efficiency is a steep function of SNR near threshold, this control does not establish that the headline efficiencies are unaffected. Please rerun the detection-efficiency calculation without the signal-derived envelope and report both sets of numbers.
  2. [Sec. 4.1 / Sec. 5 / Fig. 6 and Fig. 8] The detection efficiencies are quoted at a fixed network-SNR threshold of 6, which the paper itself measures to have a false-alarm rate of about 130 per day. The comparisons with Szczepańczyk et al. (2023) and (2024) are made at controlled false-alarm rates (e.g., 1 per 100 years in Szczepańczyk et al. 2023), so the statement that the proposed method outperforms the excess-energy search by almost a factor of 10, and the broader claim of competitive performance, are not supported by the reported numbers. Efficiency should be reported as a function of false-alarm rate, or the comparison should be restricted to the same false-alarm rate.
  3. [Sec. 2.1 / Sec. 4.1 / Fig. 6] Only a single simulated waveform (D25) and a single observer direction (phi, theta) = (35 deg, 0 deg) are used for the efficiency and reconstruction claims; no other model or code is injected, despite the abstract mentioning three models simulated with three different codes. The orientation sensitivity is large (network SNR varies from 2.7 to 12.5 over 25 observers at 1 kpc, Sec. 4.1), so the 88% and 50% numbers are not representative of an orientation-averaged search. Please inject a broader set of waveforms and average over observer orientations, or explicitly qualify all claims as applying to this one waveform and orientation.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The claimed reconstruction accuracy of about 15% is measured relative to a true slope of approximately 2700 Hz/s that is estimated visually from the spectrogram in Fig. 2 (the dashed white line), rather than from a quantitative definition of the injected signal's instantaneous frequency. This informal reference makes the stated reconstruction error difficult to interpret. The bias should be quantified against a well-defined time-frequency measure of the injected waveform, such as a ridge estimate from the spectrogram or the known mode frequency evolution from the simulation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Sec. 2.1] The arXiv abstract differs from the full text: it says signals from three models simulated with three codes are considered, but only D25 is injected; please align the abstract with the analysis actually performed.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The network SNR is defined as the square root of the product of the single-detector SNRs, which is not the usual quadrature-sum network SNR; please justify this choice and state how the threshold of 6 maps to single-detector sensitivities.
  3. [Sec. 5] The procedure used to count false alarms should be described explicitly, including how injection times are excluded and how the false-alarm rate is estimated from the analyzed stretch of data.
  4. [Abstract / Sec. 3] Minor typographical errors appear, including 'a matched-filtering methods' in the abstract and 'complexcomplex conjugate' in Section 3.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline detection efficiency is partially built from the injected signal's amplitude envelope; the frequency-evolution part of the bank is independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3 (Signal Templates); efficiency reported in Section 4.1, Fig. 6]
    "Here, as a first step, we circumvent this by extracting an envelope from the signal we inject and using the envelope to determine the time dependence of the template amplitude. ... This shows that the envelope is not critical to our analysis, but that including the envelope increases the SNR_n by~10%."

    The template bank's amplitude envelope is extracted from the exact injected h+ and h× signal whose detectability is then measured. Since the optimal matched filter in Eq. (5) is the signal itself, injecting the target's envelope into the template moves the filter toward the optimal filter by construction and inflates the SNR-based detection efficiency. The headline numbers (88% at 1 kpc, ~50% at 2 kpc) are therefore not efficiencies of a purely synthetic bank. The paper's own control shows mean SNR at 1 kpc drops from 7.0 to 6.3 when the envelope is omitted—right at the SNR=6 threshold used for Fig. 6—so the effect on the reported percentages is not negligible. The frequency evolution grid (a,b) is preselected and independent, which limits the circularity to the amplitude part.

full rationale

The main circular element is the template amplitude envelope: Section 2.3 states explicitly that the envelope is extracted from the injected signal and used in the templates, so the matched filter is partially constructed from the target. The detection efficiencies in Fig. 6 are therefore optimistic relative to a purely synthetic bank, and the paper's own no-envelope control (mean SNR 7.0 -> 6.3 at 1 kpc) sits close to the SNR=6 threshold, so the reported percentages could be materially affected. The circularity is partial, not total: the central-frequency grid (a sampled 250-3000 Hz/s, b in {100,200,300} Hz) is chosen independently, and the whitened real O3b noise and pyCBC matched filter are external; the physical interpretation (g-modes, PNS compactness) rests on external simulation results rather than on a self-citation chain. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found. The comparison to excess-energy searches at different false-alarm rates (FAR ~130/day versus 1/100 yr) is a real statistical caveat but is a correctness/comparison issue, not circularity, and is not scored here. Overall score 6: one 'prediction' (detection efficiency) is partially reduced by construction via the target-derived envelope.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four assumptions: a linear frequency evolution template family, representativeness of a single simulation, standard matched-filtering noise assumptions, and the ad hoc use of the injected signal's amplitude envelope. The last is a circular step that should be removed or replaced with a physical amplitude model in future work.

free parameters (4)
  • Network SNR threshold = 6
    Detection efficiency and false-alarm rate are defined relative to this hand-chosen threshold; a different threshold changes all reported results.
  • Template bank slope and intercept grid = a in 50 steps from 250 to 3000 Hz/s; b = 100, 200, 300 Hz
    The template bank is a hand-picked grid over linear frequency evolution parameters; performance depends on this coverage.
  • Signal-derived amplitude envelope = Hilbert transform of the injected signal, smoothed by Savitzky-Golay
    The template amplitude time dependence is taken from the target signal itself (Section 2.3), which is information not available in a real search and inflates the reported detection efficiency.
  • SNR clustering window = 1 s
    The clustering of SNR values into 1 s bins is a hand-chosen analysis choice that affects the reported SNR and reconstruction accuracy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The main CCSN GW emission component can be approximated by a linear central frequency evolution f_c(t)=a t+b over the ~0.4 s signal.
    Section 2.3 builds all templates from this linear relation; realistic signals may have non-linear frequency evolution (e.g., Torres-Forné et al. 2019a polynomials) or additional components like SASI.
  • domain assumption The D25 Chimera simulation is representative of the GW signals that a real detection would encounter.
    Only one injected waveform is used (Section 2.1), so detection efficiencies may not generalize to signals with different progenitor masses, rotation, or SASI activity.
  • standard math The noise PSD estimated over a 4096 s frame adequately represents the detector noise for matched filtering.
    Matched filtering assumes a known stationary PSD; using the whole frame ignores short-term non-stationarity, which the paper acknowledges in Section 4.2.
  • ad hoc to paper The amplitude envelope of the injected signal, smoothed, is an appropriate template amplitude model.
    This is the circular step: the template uses the signal's own envelope (Section 2.3), which is not known for a real event.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing a Template-Based Approach for Core-Collapse Supernova Gravitational-Wave Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NCSTT62I

@misc{pith2026241112524,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing a Template-Based Approach for Core-Collapse Supernova Gravitational-Wave Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NCSTT62I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12524}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae are a promising yet challenging target for detection due to the stochastic and complex nature of these signals. Conventional detection methods for core-collapse supernovae rely on excess energy searches because matched filtering has been hindered by the lack of well-defined waveform templates. However, numerical simulations of core-collapse supernovae have improved our understanding of the gravitational wave signals they emit, which enables us, for the first time, to construct a set of templates that closely resemble predictions from numerical simulations. In this study, we investigate the possibility of detecting gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae using template-based methods. We construct a theoretically-informed template bank and use it to recover core-collapse supernova signals injected into real LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA detector data. We consider the signals from three state-of-the-art numerical models, simulated with three different codes. We evaluate the detection efficiency of the template-filtering approach and how well the injected signal is reconstructed. For signals whose structure is well captured by our template bank, we recover ~90% of injections at a distance of 1 kpc and ~30-60% at 2 kpc. In contrast, a model whose signal differs significantly from the templates is recovered less efficiently. For many of the recovered events, the underlying signal characteristics can be reconstructed with an accuracy of ~10-20%. We discuss the strengths and limitations of this approach and identify areas for further improvements for template-based methods for supernova gravitational-wave detection. We also present the open-source Python package SynthGrav used to generate the template bank.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12524 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The plus (top) and cross (bottom) polarisation components of the GW signal from D25, for an an observer located in the direction (𝜙, 𝜃 ) = (35◦ , 0 ◦ ) in a spherical coordinate system centred on the simulation. Time is given in seconds after bounce. We show ℎ𝐷, where 𝐷 is the distance to the source. stands for the D-series of Chimera models). Rapid shock expansion sets in at approximately 250 ms after bounce in the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectrogram of the GW signal emitted by model D25. The colour scale is logarithmic and the Fourier amplitudes have been normalised to lie within (−∞, 0]. The dashed white line illustrates the linear growth of the central frequency of the signal. The solid white line represents the frequency evolution of the most commonly reconstructed template (see Section 4.2). Time is given in seconds after core bounce. components… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The blue curve shows an example template, the grey curve shows the injected signal for comparison, and the red line shows the envelope extracted from the signal which we used to set the time evolution of the template amplitude. Time is given in seconds after bounce. The top panel shows the plus polarisation mode and the bottom panel shows the cross polarisation. Both strain values have been multiplied by the distanc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectrogram of an example template, with the white dashed line illustrating the central frequency evolution used to construct the template. The colour bar shows the logarithmic amplitude scale. modes, it is possible to apply a global time-dependent weight to the total …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Detection efficiency as a function of source distance, showing results for injections at distances of 1, 2, and 5 kpc (marked by the blue dots) with a network SNR threshold of 6. observation runs (Szczepańczyk et al. 2021), for which the noise floor is expected to be r…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of reconstructed parameters (𝑎 and 𝑏 values) for template matching at 1 kpc (left) and 2 kpc (right). Blue bars represent reconstructed 𝑎-values, while green bars in the inset show reconstructed 𝑏-values. The parameter 𝑏 is given in Hz and 𝑎 is in Hz/s. 0 …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FAR as a function of the number of templates in the template bank. The blue dots represent actual data points. 6 CONCLUSIONS In this work, we explored the feasibility of detecting GWs from core-collapse supernovae through matched filtering, using signal in￾jections int…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of noise glitches that generated false alarms during the analysis. Each row displays a different noise glitch resulting in a false alarm. The GPS time for each event is indicated in the upper left corner of the left panel. The left column represents the data s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

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

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Rotating core-collapse supernova simulations produce gravitational waves up to ~3 kHz, whose frequency and amplitude fall with faster rotation, and no resonant amplification is found.

  2. Waveform Reconstruction of Core-Collapse Supernova Gravitational Waves with Improved Multisynchrosqueezing Transform

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    An improved multisynchrosqueezing transform is reported to reconstruct simulated supernova gravitational waves out to 317 kpc with the Einstein Telescope, versus 186 kpc for the short-time Fourier transform.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.102001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..94j2001A 94, 102001

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.102001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..94j2001A 94, 102001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.102001 2016

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.084002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvD.101h4002A 101, 084002

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.084002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvD.101h4002A 101, 084002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.084002 2020

  3. [3]

    Abbott R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.122004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104l2004A 104, 122004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.122004 2021

  4. [4]

    Abbott R., et al., 2023a, @doi [Physical Review X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvX..13d1039A 13, 041039

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

  5. [5]

    Abbott R., et al., 2023b, @doi [Astrophys. J. Suppl.] 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f , 267, 29

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

  6. [6]

    A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.023005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.103b3005A 103, 023005

    Afle C., Brown D. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.023005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.103b3005A 103, 023005

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.023005 2021

  7. [7]

    K., Cammerino J., Coughlin E

    Afle C., Kundu S. K., Cammerino J., Coughlin E. R., Brown D. A., Vartanyan D., Burrows A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107l3005A 107, 123005

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.123005 2023

  8. [8]

    Allen B., 2005, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.062001 , 71, 062001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.062001 2005

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    G., Brady P

    Allen B., Anderson W. G., Brady P. R., Brown D. A., Creighton J. D. E., 2012, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.122006 , 85, 122006

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Ando M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.082002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvD..71h2002A 71, 082002

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    u ller B., M \

    Andresen H., M \"u ller B., M \"u ller E., Janka H. T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.2032A 468, 2032

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    T., Summa A., Gill K., Zanolin M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2238A 486, 2238

    Andresen H., M \"u ller E., Janka H. T., Summa A., Gill K., Zanolin M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2238A 486, 2238

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.3552A 503, 3552

    Andresen H., Glas R., Janka H. T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.3552A 503, 3552

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Andersen O

    Andresen H., O'Connor E. P., Andersen O. E., Couch S. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449776 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A..55A 687, A55

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Cavaglia M., Hansen T., Morales M

    Antelis J. M., Cavaglia M., Hansen T., Morales M. D., Moreno C., Mukherjee S., Szczepa \'n czyk M. J., Zanolin M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.084054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105h4054A 105, 084054

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Arnaud N., et al., 2004, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2003.12.005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APh....21..201A 21, 201

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    Astone P., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n P., Di Palma I., Drago M., Muciaccia F., Palomba C., Ricci F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.122002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..98l2002A 98, 122002

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    arXiv:2410.11984

    Azfar F., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241011984A p. arXiv:2410.11984

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Bondarescu R., Lundgren A., Macas R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.122004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.108l2004B 108, 122004

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Bruel T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107h3029B 107, 083029

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7aff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..248...11B 248, 11

    Bruenn S. W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7aff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..248...11B 248, 11

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Bugli M., Guilet J., Foglizzo T., Obergaulinger M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad496 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.5622B 520, 5622

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Moreno C., Zanolin M., Mezzacappa A., Szczepa \'n czyk M

    Casallas-Lagos A., Antelis J. M., Moreno C., Zanolin M., Mezzacappa A., Szczepa \'n czyk M. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.084027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.108h4027C 108, 084027

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Font J

    Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n P., DeBrye N., Aloy M. A., Font J. A., Obergaulinger M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/779/2/L18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779L..18C 779, L18

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Heng I

    Chan M. L., Heng I. S., Messenger C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvD.102d3022C 102, 043022

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Choi L., Burrows A., Vartanyan D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975...12C 975, 12

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Dal Canton T., et al., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.082004 , 90, 082004

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Drago M., Andresen H., Di Palma I., Tamborra I., Torres-Forn \'e A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.108j3036D 108, 103036

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    M., O'Connor E

    Eggenberger Andersen O., Zha S., da Silva Schneider A., Betranhandy A., Couch S. M., O'Connor E. P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac294c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..201E 923, 201

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Epstein R., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223.1037E 223, 1037

    1978 doi

  23. [31]

    D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..414F 450, 414

    Fuller J., Klion H., Abdikamalov E., Ott C. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..414F 450, 414

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    arXiv:2405.13211

    Gill K., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240513211G p. arXiv:2405.13211

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    E., Sutton P., Stuver A., Zanolin M., Gill K., Ott C

    Gossan S. E., Sutton P., Stuver A., Zanolin M., Gill K., Ott C. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.042002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..93d2002G 93, 042002

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Pagliaroli G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JCAP...11..021H 2021, 021

    Halim O., Casentini C., Drago M., Fafone V., Scholberg K., Vigorito C. F., Pagliaroli G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JCAP...11..021H 2021, 021

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Hayama K., Kuroda T., Kotake K., Takiwaki T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.122001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvD..92l2001H 92, 122001

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Hayama K., Kuroda T., Kotake K., Takiwaki T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477L..96H 477, L96

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    u ller B., Heger A., Zha S., Powell J., Motornenko A., Steinheimer J., St \

    Jakobus P., M \"u ller B., Heger A., Zha S., Powell J., Motornenko A., Steinheimer J., St \"o cker H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.191201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvL.131s1201J 131, 191201

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Jardine R., Powell J., M \"u ller B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.5535J 510, 5535

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Klimenko S., et al., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.042004 , 93, 042004

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Klimenko S., et al., 2021, cWB pipeline library: 6.4.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.4419902 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4419902

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Kotake K., Iwakami W., Ohnishi N., Yamada S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/L133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697L.133K 697, L133

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    Kotake K., Iwakami-Nakano W., Ohnishi N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736..124K 736, 124

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    Kuroda T., Takiwaki T., Kotake K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.044011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvD..89d4011K 89, 044011

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Kuroda T., Kotake K., Takiwaki T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829L..14K 829, L14

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    Kuroda T., Kotake K., Hayama K., Takiwaki T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa988d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851...62K 851, 62

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    LIGO, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2000012/public

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration 2022, Technical Report T2000012-v2, Noise curves used for Simulations in the update of the Observing Scenarios Paper , https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2000012/public . LIGO, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2000012/public

    2022

  39. [47]

    L \'o pez M., Di Palma I., Drago M., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n P., Ricci F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.103f3011L 103, 063011

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Areeda J

    Macleod D. M., Areeda J. S., Coughlin S. B., Massinger T. J., Urban A. L., 2021, @doi [SoftwareX] 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100657 , 13, 100657

    2021

  41. [49]

    arXiv:2410.15513

    Magee R., Sharma R., Agrawal A., Udall R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.15513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241015513M p. arXiv:2410.15513

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Oxford University Press, @doi 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001 , https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001

    Maggiore M., 2007, Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments . Oxford University Press, @doi 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001 , https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001

    2007

  43. [51]

    T., M \"u ller E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...496..475M 496, 475

    Marek A., Janka H. T., M \"u ller E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...496..475M 496, 475

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    Mezzacappa A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvD.102b3027M 102, 023027

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    Mezzacappa A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107d3008M 107, 043008

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Abdikamalov E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2473M 520, 2473

    Mitra A., Shukirgaliyev B., Abylkairov Y. S., Abdikamalov E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2473M 520, 2473

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    Morozova V., Radice D., Burrows A., Vartanyan D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5f1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861...10M 861, 10

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    T., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...317..140M 317, 140

    Mueller E., Janka H. T., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...317..140M 317, 140

    1997

  49. [57]

    Mukherjee S., Nurbek G., Valdez O., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.103j3008M 103, 103008

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    T., Wongwathanarat A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...537A..63M 537, A63

    M \"u ller E., Janka H. T., Wongwathanarat A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...537A..63M 537, A63

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    M \"u ller B., Janka H.-T., Marek A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...43M 766, 43

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    W., Ott C

    Murphy J. W., Ott C. D., Burrows A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...707.1173M 707, 1173

    2009 doi

  53. [61]

    H., Dent T., Dal Canton T., Fairhurst S., Brown D

    Nitz A. H., Dent T., Dal Canton T., Fairhurst S., Brown D. A., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f50 , 849, 118

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    Nitz A., et al., 2024, gwastro/pycbc: v2.3.3 release of PyCBC, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.10473621 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10473621

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    P., Couch S

    O'Connor E. P., Couch S. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadcf7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...81O 865, 81

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    A., VanCamp S

    Pajkos M. A., VanCamp S. J., Pan K.-C., Vartanyan D., Deppe N., Couch S. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfca4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...21P 959, 21

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Thielemann F.-K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfb05 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914..140P 914, 140

    Pan K.-C., Liebend \"o rfer M., Couch S. M., Thielemann F.-K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfb05 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914..140P 914, 140

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    Powell J., 2018, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/aacf18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018CQGra..35o5017P 35, 155017

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    Powell J., M \"u ller B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.1178P 487, 1178

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Powell J., M \"u ller B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.4665P 494, 4665

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    Powell J., M \"u ller B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105f3018P 105, 063018

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    E., Logue J., Heng I

    Powell J., Gossan S. E., Logue J., Heng I. S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.123012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..94l3012P 94, 123012

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..96l3013P 96, 123013

    Powell J., Szczepanczyk M., Heng I. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..96l3013P 96, 123013

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    R., Langer N., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.6070P 522, 6070

    Powell J., M \"u ller B., Aguilera-Dena D. R., Langer N., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.6070P 522, 6070

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    Radice D., Morozova V., Burrows A., Vartanyan D., Nagakura H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab191a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876L...9R 876, L9

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    Raynaud R., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n P., Guilet J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.3410R 509, 3410

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    Raza N., McIver J., D \'a lya G., Raffai P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.106f3014R 106, 063014

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    J., Zanolin M., Andresen H., Szczepa \'n czyk M

    Richardson C. J., Zanolin M., Andresen H., Szczepa \'n czyk M. J., Gill K., Wongwathanarat A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105j3008R 105, 103008

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    J., Andresen H., Mezzacappa A., Zanolin M., Benjamin M

    Richardson C. J., Andresen H., Mezzacappa A., Zanolin M., Benjamin M. G., Marronetti P., Lentz E. J., Szczepanczyk M. J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240402131R p. arXiv:2404.02131

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    C., Ranea-Sandoval I

    Rodriguez M. C., Ranea-Sandoval I. F., Chirenti C., Radice D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1459 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2236R 523, 2236

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    S., Frey R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD..99f3018R 99, 063018

    Roma V., Powell J., Heng I. S., Frey R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD..99f3018R 99, 063018

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    a ppeli R., Whitehouse S. C., Fischer T., Liebend \

    Scheidegger S., K \"a ppeli R., Whitehouse S. C., Fischer T., Liebend \"o rfer M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...514A..51S 514, A51

    2010 doi

  73. [81]

    Shibagaki S., Kuroda T., Kotake K., Takiwaki T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493L.138S 493, L138

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    S., Pai A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.110h3032S 110, 083032

    Smith L., Ghosh S., Sun J., Gayathri V., Heng I. S., Pai A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.110h3032S 110, 083032

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    Sotani H., Takiwaki T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..94d4043S 94, 044043

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    Sotani H., Kuroda T., Takiwaki T., Kotake K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.123024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD..99l3024S 99, 123024

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    Sotani H., Takiwaki T., Togashi H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104l3009S 104, 123009

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    A., Afle C., Burrows A., Radice D., Vartanyan D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD.100d3026S 100, 043026

    Srivastava V., Ballmer S., Brown D. A., Afle C., Burrows A., Radice D., Vartanyan D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD.100d3026S 100, 043026

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    Z., Burrows A., Finn L

    Summerscales T. Z., Burrows A., Finn L. S., Ott C. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/528362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678.1142S 678, 1142

    2008 doi

  80. [88]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.102002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104j2002S 104, 102002

    Szczepa \'n czyk M. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.102002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104j2002S 104, 102002

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.062002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107f2002S 107, 062002

    Szczepa \'n czyk M. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.062002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107f2002S 107, 062002

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.042007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.110d2007S 110, 042007

    Szczepa \'n czyk M. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.042007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.110d2007S 110, 042007

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    Takiwaki T., Kotake K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475L..91T 475, L91

    2018 doi

  84. [92]

    Takiwaki T., Kotake K., Foglizzo T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508..966T 508, 966

    2021 doi

  85. [93]

    Tamborra I., Hanke F., M \"u ller B., Janka H.-T., Raffelt G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.121104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.111l1104T 111, 121104

    2013 doi

  86. [94]

    E., Cabourn Davies G

    Tolley A. E., Cabourn Davies G. S., Harry I. W., Lundgren A. P., 2023, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/ace22f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023CQGra..40p5005T 40, 165005

    2023 doi

  87. [95]

    A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.5272T 474, 5272

    Torres-Forn \'e A., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n P., Passamonti A., Font J. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.5272T 474, 5272

    2018 doi

  88. [96]

    A., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.051102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvL.123e1102T 123, 051102

    Torres-Forn \'e A., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n P., Obergaulinger M., M \"u ller B., Font J. A., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.051102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvL.123e1102T 123, 051102

    doi

  89. [97]

    A., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2854 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3967T 482, 3967

    Torres-Forn \'e A., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n P., Passamonti A., Obergaulinger M., Font J. A., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2854 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3967T 482, 3967

    doi

  90. [98]

    S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1038/274565a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Natur.274..565T 274, 565

    Turner M. S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1038/274565a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Natur.274..565T 274, 565

    1978 doi

  91. [99]

    Vartanyan D., Burrows A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abafac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901..108V 901, 108

    2020 doi

  92. [100]

    Vartanyan D., Coleman M. S. B., Burrows A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.4689V 510, 4689

    2022 doi

  93. [101]

    Vartanyan D., Burrows A., Wang T., Coleman M. S. B., White C. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107j3015V 107, 103015

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  95. [103]

    E., Fr \"o hlich C., Miller J

    Wolfe N. E., Fr \"o hlich C., Miller J. M., Torres-Forn \'e A., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace693 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..161W 954, 161

    2023 doi

  96. [104]

    N., et al., 2010, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CQGra..27s4005Y 27, 194005

    Yakunin K. N., et al., 2010, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CQGra..27s4005Y 27, 194005

    2010 doi

  97. [105]

    N., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.084040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvD..92h4040Y 92, 084040

    Yakunin K. N., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.084040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvD..92h4040Y 92, 084040

    2015 doi

  98. [106]

    R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...86Y 811, 86

    Yokozawa T., Asano M., Kayano T., Suwa Y., Kanda N., Koshio Y., Vagins M. R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...86Y 811, 86

    2015 doi

  99. [107]

    P., Chu M.-c., Lin L.-M., Couch S

    Zha S., O'Connor E. P., Chu M.-c., Lin L.-M., Couch S. M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.051102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvL.125e1102Z 125, 051102

    2020 doi

  100. [108]

    P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.083023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.109h3023Z 109, 083023

    Zha S., Eggenberger Andersen O., O'Connor E. P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.083023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.109h3023Z 109, 083023

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.