Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 100 references

Phenomenological gravitational waveforms for core-collapse supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents ccphen v4, a fast parametric waveform generator that claims to reproduce non-rotating core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave morphologies closely enough for machine-learning training.

desk verdict A genuinely useful, well-documented waveform generator whose main limitation is that its 'close similarity' claim is validated only in-sample; worth publishing after an out-of-sample test and some claim tempering. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11401 v1 pith:5XQ7WSX5 submitted 2025-01-20 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Pablo Cerdá-Durán , Melissa López , Alessandro Favali , Irene Di Palma , Marco Drago , Fulvio Ricci This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavescore-collapsesupernovaephenomenologicalwaveformsproto-neutronstaroscillationsSASIstochasticmachinelearningwaveformtemplates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper presents ccphen v4, a parametric generator that produces gravitational-wave signals from non-rotating core-collapse supernovae in tens of milliseconds and a few megabytes of memory, instead of the millions of CPU hours that numerical simulations require. The central claim is that these cheap waveforms reproduce the morphology of simulation waveforms closely enough to serve as training data for machine-learning detection pipelines. The generator is the first of its kind to include both gravitational-wave polarizations and several proto-neutron-star oscillation components, in particular the dominant mode plus the low-frequency standing accretion shock instability. Its parameter ranges are calibrated with a catalogue of 33 three-dimensional simulations, weighted so that the progenitor-mass distribution follows a standard initial-mass function, and the waveforms are stochastic yet reproducible through random seeds. If the claim is right, detector networks can be trained and tested on far larger and more diverse waveform populations than numerical simulations alone can provide.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is a driven damped harmonic oscillator for each independent component of the mass quadrupole moment, $$\ddot{I}'_{lm} + \frac{\omega_0(t)}{Q(t)}\dot{I}'_{lm} + \omega_0(t)^2 I'_{lm} = W_{lm}(t),$$ with $W_{lm}(t)$ the time-integrated random forcing power and $Q\in[1,10]$ the damping quality factor. The generator builds the strain from the second time derivative $\ddot{I}_{lm}$ through the quadrupole formula, and imposes statistical isotropy by enforcing equal rms amplitudes $\langle|I_{20}|^2\rangle=\langle|I_{21}|^2\rangle=\langle|I_{22}|^2\rangle$, which is what makes both polarizations meaningful for a detector network. Around this equation the paper assembles calibrated parameter ranges for the dominant proto-neutron-star mode and the standing accretion shock instability (SASI) component, a random-parameter generator covering three waveform classes, and a spectrogram-residual metric $R$ used to compare against numerical simulations.

What would settle it

Take a recent three-dimensional simulation that was not in the frozen 2022 catalogue, fit the best ccphen v4 waveform to its spectrogram, and check whether the residual $R$ stays near the reported $R\approx0.15$–$0.18$ range; if it jumps far above that, or if a convolutional network trained on v4 waveforms detects held-out simulation waveforms much worse than one trained on simulations, the morphology claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the gravitational-wave strain of a non-rotating core-collapse supernova can be reduced to a small set of phenomenological parameters controlling stochastic oscillations of the proto-neutron star. Each spherical-harmonic component of the mass quadrupole obeys a driven damped harmonic oscillator with a time-dependent frequency $\omega_0(t)$, a constant quality factor $Q\in[1,10]$, and a white-noise forcing whose power is scaled by $f(t)^{1-0.45}$ so that the rms strain stays statistically constant. The calibration uses the frozen 2022 catalogue to set ranges for start and end times, frequency tracks, amplitudes, and the $Q$ factor, and the comparison metric $R$ measures squared relative difference between the spectrogram of a numerical waveform and the best-fit ccphen waveform. On that metric the paper reports typical differences of 10–20 points, with the two displayed examples at $R\approx0.16$–$0.18$, and the authors conclude that this is close morphological similarity sufficient for training convolutional neural networks, a use already demonstrated for the older version of the generator.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 33 non-rotating three-dimensional simulations frozen in 2022 span the true diversity of core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave signals, so any real signal outside that coverage will not be reproduced by the generator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thousands of realistic, reproducible waveform realizations can be generated in minutes, giving machine-learning pipelines a training set far larger than the few tens of numerical simulations.
  • Because both polarizations are included, the templates can be used for coherent multi-detector searches rather than single-detector strain predictions.
  • Adding SASI as a separate component lets templates cover the low-frequency part of the signal alongside the dominant proto-neutron-star mode.
  • Uniform coverage of the calibrated parameter space makes the generator usable for pipeline testing, horizon-distance estimates, and improved targeted-search constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct stress test is to re-run the calibration on a catalogue updated past 2022: the paper notes that several newer long-duration simulations were excluded, so the current frequency and duration bounds may shift once those are included.
  • The morphology metric is computed on spectrograms; a stronger operational test would be to train a convolutional network on v4 waveforms and measure detection efficiency on held-out numerical-simulation waveforms, which the paper identifies as upcoming work.
  • The statistical-isotropy assumption implies a network-level prediction: an ensemble of ccphen v4 signals should show no preferred direction in a multi-detector network, so a future event whose reconstructed polarization strongly violates isotropy would challenge the model.
  • The paper's finding that only broadband forcing keeps the dominant mode excited suggests that narrow-band turbulent driving alone is unlikely to sustain these oscillations, a claim that could be tested with targeted mode-excitation hydrodynamics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents ccphen v4, a publicly available phenomenological generator of gravitational waveforms from core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe). The generator models the dominant proto-neutron-star (PNS) oscillation mode (and optionally the SASI mode) as driven damped harmonic oscillators with stochastic forcing, and it is the first phenomenological CCSN waveform model to include polarization and multiple oscillation modes simultaneously. Parameter ranges for the generator (signal duration, frequency evolution, Q-factor, amplitude, SASI parameters) are calibrated against a catalogue of 33 non-rotating 3D simulations plus 17 2D simulations, weighted by a Salpeter initial mass function. The paper claims that ccphen v4 reproduces the morphology of numerical simulation waveforms on the basis of spectrogram comparisons after per-waveform optimization of 7–12 parameters, and emphasizes the low computational cost (~10 ms CPU time, few MB memory) and the suitability of the generator for training machine-learning detection pipelines.

Significance. If the morphological similarity claim is substantiated, ccphen v4 would be a valuable tool for the CCSN gravitational-wave community: it would enable large, homogeneous training sets for ML-based searches, provide waveform-independent horizon-distance estimates, and allow parameter-space coverage that numerical simulations cannot offer. The physics model in Eq. (21) is a reasonable extension of earlier work, the code is public, and the reported computational efficiency is convincingly benchmarked. The isotropy proof in Appendix A is largely internally consistent (modulo a minor typo). However, the central validation of the morphology claim is currently incomplete: the reported residuals are in-sample fits and lack any null baseline or out-of-sample test. As a result, the paper's headline claim that the generator 'reproduces the morphology' of numerical waveforms is not yet established, although the approach is clearly promising.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eqs. (32)–(34)] The central claim of morphological similarity is supported only by in-sample fits. In Section V, the parameters (tini, Q, f0–f2, and SASI parameters) are optimized independently for each catalogue waveform using the residual R(Scat,Sccp) defined in Eq. (32), while the allowed parameter ranges were calibrated using the same catalogue in Section III.A. The resulting residuals (R ≈ 0.15–0.18) therefore reflect the flexibility of a 7–12 parameter fit and do not by themselves establish that ccphen v4 reproduces the morphology of numerical waveforms. The authors should provide an out-of-sample test, for example by generating waveforms for the recent simulations [64,65] that are explicitly excluded in Section III.A, or by cross-validating on the catalogue (calibrate on a subset and test on the remainder). Without such a test, the abstract's statement that ccphen v4 'reproduces the morphology of numerical simulation waveforms' is not supported.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 11] The similarity metric has no null baseline. The paper reports that residuals of 10–20 'points' (or R ≈ 0.15–0.18) indicate close similarity, but it does not compare these values with the intrinsic scatter of the catalogue: for example, the residual between two numerical simulations of the same or similar progenitors, or between independent stochastic realizations of ccphen with identical parameters. Without this baseline, an absolute R value cannot be interpreted as 'close.' The authors should compute R for pairs of numerical simulations (or for repeated ccphen realizations) to calibrate what R corresponds to morphological fidelity. Additionally, the spectrogram definitions used in Eq. (32) (window type, length, overlap, frequency bins) are not specified, which prevents reproducibility and makes the '10–20 points' wording ambiguous.
  3. [Section VI] The appeal to CNN transfer tests performed with ccphen v3 is not a substitute for validating v4. The paper acknowledges that v4 transfer tests are 'upcoming work,' but the abstract and conclusions nevertheless assert that the waveforms are morphologically similar to numerical simulations. Since v4 introduces polarization and multiple modes, the earlier CNN results for v3 do not directly apply. The morphology claim should be supported by a v4-specific test, such as training a CNN on ccphen v4 waveforms and evaluating on numerical waveforms, or by comparing v4 and v3 residuals on the same catalogue, to demonstrate that the added complexity does not degrade (or improves) the transferability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A20)] The expression for E[I^2_xy] should be N m^2/15 E[r^4], not 3N m^2/15 E[r^4]. The final relation E[I_xx^2] = 4/3 E[I_xy^2] and the isotropy conclusion remain correct with the corrected value, but as written Eqs. (A19) and (A20) are inconsistent with Eq. (A22).
  2. [Section V, Eq. (32)] Please specify the spectrogram parameters (window function, window length, overlap, frequency binning) used to compute S_cat and S_ccp so that the reported residuals are reproducible.
  3. [Abstract and Section VI] The phrase 'reproduces the morphology' is stronger than the evidence presented; consider softening to 'approximates the morphology' or 'is consistent with the morphology within the validation performed,' especially until the out-of-sample tests are completed.
  4. [Section III.G and Table III] The SASI frequency parameters in Table III list f1 in the range 50–150 Hz and f2 in 50–300 Hz without an explicit restriction that f2 > f1, although the example in Fig. 6 shows a rising SASI track. Clarify whether such a restriction is intended.
  5. [Table I] The first row (Kuroda et al. 2016) lists 'SFHx SFHx' in the Model and EOS columns; if the model identifier and EOS are distinct, one of them appears to be mislabelled.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Morphology claim is anchored to an in-sample optimized residual, not to an out-of-sample prediction; v3 CNN evidence is explicitly deferred for v4.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Eqs. (32)-(34); Section VI conclusion]
    "To find phenomenological waveforms that are similar to the ones present in the catalogue, we define an optimization function ... R(Scat, Sccp) = M SE(Scat, Sccp)/hrms,cat ... we optimize the following parameters: R(Scat, Sccp(tini,d, Q0,d, f0,d, f1,d, f2,d)) ... Note that neither in Eq. 33 nor in Eq. 34 the amplitude of the ccphen waveform is an optimization parameter since we scale it by hrms,cat."

    The central claim that ccphen v4 'reproduces the morphology' of numerical waveforms is supported by quoting the residual R after minimizing it over 7-12 free parameters (tini, Q, f0-f2, SASI parameters) for each catalogue waveform. The same 33-model catalogue also fixed all parameter ranges in Section III.A, so the comparison is entirely in-sample. Moreover, the amplitude component of the match is imposed by construction through scaling to hrms,cat. The reported '10-20 points' difference is therefore the achieved training residual, not an out-of-sample or null-baseline metric; no held-out simulations (e.g., the explicitly excluded recent simulations [64,65]) or simulation-to-simulation scatter is used to calibrate what 'close' means.

full rationale

The paper contains substantial independent content that is not circular: the damped-oscillator model in Section II, the statistical-isotropy proof in Appendix A, the integrator accuracy and performance tests, and the careful Salpeter-weighted calibration of parameter ranges are all self-contained derivations or implementation checks. The circular concern is confined to the validation of the paper's headline morphology claim. In Section V the similarity metric R in Eq. (32) is minimized over the phenomenological parameters in Eqs. (33)-(34) for every catalogue waveform, with the amplitude forced by scaling to the catalogue rms value. The resulting minimized residuals, 0.157-0.178 in the examples and '10-20 points' in Fig. 11, are then quoted in Section VI as evidence that 'the waveforms are morphologically similar to those in numerical simulations.' That is a goodness-of-fit statement, not a predictive test; the closeness is partly constructed by the optimization and by the shared calibration catalogue. The paper is transparent about the v3 CNN test in Section VI being from the previous version and states that the v4 transfer test is 'upcoming work,' so that self-citation is not counted as load-bearing for v4 here, though it provides no independent support either. Weighing the genuine model-building content against the in-sample validation of the central morphological-fidelity claim, the partial circularity is moderate: score 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The generator introduces no new physical entities; all content lies in parameter choices and the forcing model, which are calibrated to existing simulations. The central claim rests on the representativeness of the catalogue and the phenomenological forcing model, which are the main sources of uncertainty.

free parameters (5)
  • Forcing frequency scaling exponent = 0.55 (from 1 - 0.45)
    Section III.F: 'The derivation of these exponents is purely phenomenological based on the behavior of the code'; chosen so the waveform amplitude is statistically independent of frequency.
  • Median log10 hrms at 10 kpc = -23.0 ± 0.4
    Eq. (28): Salpeter-IMF-weighted average over the 33-model catalogue; sets the overall loudness of generated waveforms.
  • Dominant mode Q factor range = 1 to 10
    Section III.D: estimated from spectral widths delta_f/f = 0.1-1 in simulations; assumed constant in time.
  • Dominant mode frequency anchors = f1=50-150 Hz, f2=700-2500 Hz, f3=1500-4000 Hz
    Table III: extracted from spectrograms of catalogue simulations; defines the rising arch of the dominant mode.
  • SASI frequency anchors = f1=50-150 Hz, f2=50-300 Hz, f3=f2
    Table III: low-frequency SASI tracks from catalogue spectrograms.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Einstein quadrupole formula approximates GW emission from CCSNe within 10% amplitude error
    Section II.A, citing [48]; used as the basis for the strain computation.
  • domain assumption Non-rotating CCSN sources are statistically isotropic
    Section II.A and Appendix A: ensemble averages are spherically symmetric, justifying equal rms mode amplitudes.
  • domain assumption The PNS can be modeled as a spherically symmetric background with linear oscillation modes
    Section II.B: standard asteroseismology of the PNS, justifiable in early post-bounce evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper Q-factor is constant in time
    Section III.D: 'for simplicity, we consider that the Q-factor is constant in time' despite limited evidence on its time evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper White-noise forcing with power-law scaling excites the modes
    Section III.F: Plm proportional to random(t) * f(t)^{0.55}; the exponent is tuned to make amplitude constant, not derived from microphysics.
  • domain assumption The frozen 2022 catalogue represents the population of non-rotating CCSN GW signals
    Section III.A: calibration uses 33 3D simulations; excluded post-2022 simulations [64,65] may reveal new morphologies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phenomenological gravitational waveforms for core-collapse supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5XQ7WSX5

@misc{pith2026250111401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phenomenological gravitational waveforms for core-collapse supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5XQ7WSX5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11401}
}
abstract

Galactic core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) are a target for current generation gravitational wave detectors with an expected rate of 1-3 per century. The development of data analysis methods used for their detection relies deeply on the availability of waveform templates. However, realistic numerical simulations producing such waveforms are computationally expensive (millions of CPU hours and $10^2-10^3$~GB of memory), and only a few tens of them are available nowadays in the literature. We have developed a novel parametrized phenomenological waveform generator for CCSNe, ccphen v4, that reproduces the morphology of numerical simulation waveforms with low computational cost ($\sim 10$~ms CPU time and a few MB of memory use). For the first time, the phenomenological waveforms include polarization and the effect of several oscillation modes in the proto-neutron star. This is sufficient to describe the case of non-rotating progenitor cores, representing the vast majority of possible events. The waveforms include a stochastic component and are calibrated using numerical simulation data. The code is publicly available. Their main application is the training of neural networks used in detection pipelines, but other applications in this context are also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11401 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Distribution of waveforms in our catalogue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Post-bounce time at which the GW emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Averaged spectrum of a set of 2D and 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Probability density of the logarithm of the rms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Performance of the different time integration methods: numerical relative error as a function of the time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Examples phenomenological waveforms containing only the dominant mode (left panels) and also SASI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Frequency tracks generated using the random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Root mean square value of the waveform. The left panel shows a histogram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Mean rms strain (points) and standard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Catalog waveforms (top row) with their optimized phenomenological waveform from ccphen (bottom row) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Distribution of the squared relative difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Example of the diversity of the waveforms that can be generated for standard neutrino-driven supernovae [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For the case np = 2 we use linear interpolation

    In the interval [ t0, tnp ] we interpolate the function using a piecewise cubic splines interpolation (Stef- fen method, [88]) that guarantees monotonicity of the interpolating function. For the case np = 2 we use linear interpolation

  2. [2]

    Outside [ t0, tnp ] but inside [ tini, tend] we use linear extrapolation

  3. [3]

    The waveform is not excited in this region (the strain is essentially zero) but set- ting this value allows for a smooth transition when generating the waveforms

    Outside the interval [ tini, tend] we set a constant value of f matched continuously to the previously generated function. The waveform is not excited in this region (the strain is essentially zero) but set- ting this value allows for a smooth transition when generating the waveforms. For all the interpolations we use the implementation in the GNU scienti...

  4. [4]

    Goldstein et al

    A. Goldstein et al. An Ordinary Short Gamma-Ray Burst with Extraordinary Implications: Fermi-GBM Detection of GRB 170817A. Astrophys. J. Lett., 848(2):L14, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(6):061102, 2016

    2016

  6. [6]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. Advanced LIGO. Class. Quant. Grav., 32:074001, 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector. Class. Quant. Grav., 32(2):024001, 2015

    2015

  8. [8]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coales- cences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run. arXiv e-prints, 11 2021

    2021

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger. Astrophys. J. Lett., 848(2):L12, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    B. P. Abbott et al. GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observ- ing Runs. Phys. Rev. X, 9(3):031040, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. GWTC-2: Compact Binary Co- alescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run. Phys. Rev. X, 11:021053, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Neutrino Emission from Supernovae, page 1575

    Hans-Thomas J. Neutrino Emission from Supernovae, page 1575. Springer, Cham, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    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. D, 93(4):042002, February 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and Virgo Collaboration. Optically targeted search for gravita- tional waves emitted by core-collapse supernovae during the first and second observing runs of advanced LIGO and advan...

    2020

  7. [15]

    H. A. Bethe. Supernova mechanisms. Rev. Mod. Phys., 62:801–866, Oct 1990

    1990

  8. [16]

    B. P. Abbott et al. A First Targeted Search for Gravitational-Wave Bursts from Core-Collapse Super- novae in Data of First-Generation Laser Interferometer Detectors. Phys. Rev. D, 94(10):102001, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Szczepa´ nczyk, Javier M

    Marek J. Szczepa´ nczyk, Javier M. Antelis, Michael Ben- jamin, Marco Cavagli` a, Dorota Gondek-Rosi´ nska, Travis Hansen, Sergey Klimenko, Manuel D. Morales, Clau- dia Moreno, Soma Mukherjee, Gaukhar Nurbek, Jade Powell, Neha Singh, Satzhan Sitmukhambetov, Pawe l Szewczyk, Os...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Sato and H

    K. Sato and H. Suzuki. Analysis of neutrino burst from 20 FIG. 12: Example of the diversity of the waveforms that can be generated for standard neutrino-driven supernovae without SASI (upper panels), with SASI (middle panels) and for short waveforms (lower panels). For each ca...

    1987

  11. [19]

    Usman et al

    Samantha A. Usman et al. The PyCBC search for grav- itational waves from compact binary coalescence. Class. Quant. Grav., 33(21):215004, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    = 0, R(I ′ 2−1) = −R(I ′ 2,1), R(I ′ 2−2) = R(I ′ 2,2), I(I ′ 2−1) = I(I ′ 2,1), I(I ′ 2−2) = −I(I ′ 2,2). (20) C. Oscillations of a continuously-excited slowly-evolving proto-neutron star In a realistic model of CCSNe the PNS, oscillation modes are excited continuously by the...

    2016

  13. [21]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Optically targeted search for gravita- tional waves emitted by core-collapse supernovae during the first and second observing runs of advanced LIGO and advanced Virgo. Phys. Rev. D, 101(8):084002, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk et al. An Optically Targeted Search for Gravitational Waves emitted by Core-Collapse Su- pernovae during the Third Observing Run of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo. arXiv e-prints, 5 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    B. P. Abbott et al. All-sky search for short gravitational- wave bursts in the first Advanced LIGO run. Phys. Rev. D, 95(4):042003, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Drago et al

    M. Drago et al. coherent WaveBurst, a pipeline for un- modeled gravitational-wave data analysis. SoftwareX, 14:100678, June 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg. BayesWave: Bayesian Inference for Gravitational Wave Bursts and In- strument Glitches. Class. Quant. Grav., 32(13):135012, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Astone et al

    P. Astone et al. New method to observe gravitational waves emitted by core collapse supernovae. Phys. Rev. D, 98(12):122002, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    M. L. Chan, I. S. Heng, and C. Messenger. Detection and classification of supernova gravitational wave signals: A deep learning approach. Phys. Rev. D, 102(4):043022, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Cavaglia et al

    M. Cavaglia et al. Improving the background of gravitational-wave searches for core collapse supernovae: A machine learning approach. Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech., 1:015005, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Iess et al

    A. Iess et al. Core-Collapse Supernova Gravitational- Wave Search and Deep Learning Classification. arXiv e-prints, 1 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    L´ opez et al

    M. L´ opez et al. Deep learning for core-collapse supernova detection. Phys. Rev. D, 103(6):063011, March 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    L´ opez et al

    M. L´ opez et al. Deep learning algorithms for gravitational waves core-collapse supernova detection, 6 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Mukherjee, G

    S. Mukherjee, G. Nurbek, and O. Valdez. Study of ef- ficient methods of detection and reconstruction of grav- itational waves from nonrotating 3D general relativistic core collapse supernovae explosion using multilayer sig- nal estimation method. Phys. Rev. D, 103(10):103008, 21 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Iess et al

    A. Iess et al. LSTM and CNN application for core- collapse supernova search in gravitational wave real data. Astron. Astrophys., 669:A42, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Exploring supernova gravitational waves with machine learning

    A Mitra et al. Exploring supernova gravitational waves with machine learning. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520(2):2473–2483, 01 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Matthew C. Edwards. Classifying the Equation of State from Rotating Core Collapse Gravitational Waves with Deep Learning. Phys. Rev. D, 103(2):024025, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Casallas Lagos et al

    A. Casallas Lagos et al. Characterizing the gravitational wave temporal evolution of the gmode fundamental res- onant frequency for a core collapse supernova: A neural network approach. arXiv e-prints, 4 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Cuoco et al

    E. Cuoco et al. Enhancing Gravitational-Wave Sci- ence with Machine Learning. Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech., 2(1):011002, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Ott, Ernazar Abdika- malov, Evan O’Connor, and Chris Sullivan

    Sherwood Richers, Christian D. Ott, Ernazar Abdika- malov, Evan O’Connor, and Chris Sullivan. Equation of state effects on gravitational waves from rotating core collapse. Phys. Rev. D, 95(6):063019, March 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Inferring as- trophysical parameters of core-collapse supernovae from their gravitational-wave emission

    Jade Powell and Bernhard M¨ uller. Inferring as- trophysical parameters of core-collapse supernovae from their gravitational-wave emission. Phys. Rev. D, 105(6):063018, March 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Jade Powell, Alberto Iess, Miquel Llorens-Monteagudo, Martin Obergaulinger, Bernhard M¨ uller, Alejandro Torres-Forn´ e, Elena Cuoco, and Jos´ e A. Font. Deter- mining the core-collapse supernova explosion mechanism with current and future gravitational-wave observatories. arX...

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Torres-Forn´ e et al

    A. Torres-Forn´ e et al. Towards asteroseismology of core- collapse supernovae with gravitational-wave observations - I. Cowling approximation. MNRAS, 474(4):5272–5286, March 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Morozova et al

    V. Morozova et al. The Gravitational Wave Signal from Core-collapse Supernovae. ApJ, 861(1):10, July 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Torres-Forn´ e et al

    A. Torres-Forn´ e et al. Towards asteroseismology of core- collapse supernovae with gravitational wave observations - II. Inclusion of space-time perturbations. MNRAS, 482(3):3967–3988, January 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Sotani et al

    H. Sotani et al. Dependence of the outer bound- ary condition on protoneutron star asteroseismology with gravitational-wave signatures. Phys. Rev. D, 99(12):123024, June 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    J. R. Westernacher-Schneider et al. Multimes- senger asteroseismology of core-collapse supernovae. Phys. Rev. D, 100(12):123009, December 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    J. R. Westernacher-Schneider. Consistent perturbative modeling of pseudo-Newtonian core-collapse supernova simulations. Phys. Rev. D, 101(8):083021, April 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Takiwaki. Avoided crossing in gravi- tational wave spectra from protoneutron star. MNRAS, 498(3):3503–3512, November 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Foglizzo and M

    T. Foglizzo and M. Tagger. Entropic-acoustic instability in shocked accretion flows. A&A, 363:174–183, November 2000

    2000

  41. [49]

    J. M. Blondin, A. Mezzacappa, and C. DeMarino. Sta- bility of Standing Accretion Shocks, with an Eye toward Core-Collapse Supernovae. ApJ, 584(2):971–980, Febru- ary 2003

    2003

  42. [50]

    Astone et al

    P. Astone et al. New method to observe gravi- tational waves emitted by core collapse supernovae. Phys. Rev. D, 98(12):122002, December 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Kip S. Thorne. Multipole expansions of gravitational radiation. Reviews of Modern Physics, 52(2):299–340, April 1980

    1980

  44. [52]

    Reisswig et al

    C. Reisswig et al. Gravitational wave extraction in sim- ulations of rotating stellar core collapse. Phys. Rev. D, 83(6):064008, March 2011

    2011

  45. [53]

    Kuroda, K

    T. Kuroda, K. Kotake, and T. Takiwaki. A New Gravitational-wave Signature from Standing Accretion Shock Instability in Supernovae. ApJ, 829:L14, Septem- ber 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    Andresen et al

    H. Andresen et al. Gravitational wave signals from 3D neutrino hydrodynamics simulations of core-collapse su- pernovae. MNRAS, 468:2032–2051, June 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Kuroda et al

    T. Kuroda et al. Correlated Signatures of Gravitational- wave and Neutrino Emission in Three-dimensional General-relativistic Core-collapse Supernova Simula- tions. ApJ, 851(1):62, December 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    K. N. Yakunin et al. The Gravitational Wave Signal of a Core Collapse Supernova Explosion of a 15M ⊙ Star. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1701.07325, January 2017

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    E. P. O’Connor and S. M. Couch. Exploring Fundamen- tally Three-dimensional Phenomena in High-fidelity Sim- ulations of Core-collapse Supernovae. ApJ, 865(2):81, October 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Andresen et al

    H. Andresen et al. Gravitational waves from 3D core- collapse supernova models: The impact of moderate pro- genitor rotation. MNRAS, 486(2):2238–2253, June 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller. Gravitational wave emis- sion from 3D explosion models of core-collapse super- novae with low and normal explosion energies. MNRAS, 487(1):1178–1190, July 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    Radice et al

    D. Radice et al. Characterizing the Gravitational Wave Signal from Core-collapse Supernovae. ApJ, 876(1):L9, May 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller. Three-dimensional core-collapse supernova simulations of massive and rotating progeni- tors. MNRAS, 494(4):4665–4675, June 2020

    2020

  54. [62]

    K. C. Pan et al. Stellar Mass Black Hole Forma- tion and Multimessenger Signals from Three-dimensional Rotating Core-collapse Supernova Simulations. ApJ, 914(2):140, June 2021

    2021

  55. [63]

    Powell, B

    J. Powell, B. M¨ uller, and A. Heger. The final core col- lapse of pulsational pair instability supernovae. MNRAS, 503(2):2108–2122, May 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    Mezzacappa et al

    A. Mezzacappa et al. Gravitational-wave signal of a core-collapse supernova explosion of a 15 M ⊙ star. Phys. Rev. D, 102(2):023027, July 2020

    2020

  57. [65]

    K. N. Yakunin et al. Gravitational wave signatures of ab initio two-dimensional core collapse supernova explosion models for 12 -25 M ⊙ stars. Phys. Rev. D, 92(8):084040, October 2015

    2015

  58. [66]

    K. C. Pan et al. Equation of State Dependent Dynam- ics and Multi-messenger Signals from Stellar-mass Black Hole Formation. ApJ, 857(1):13, April 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Eggenberger Andersen O. et al. Equation-of-state De- pendence of Gravitational Waves in Core-collapse Super- novae. ApJ, 923(2):201, December 2021

    2021

  60. [68]

    Mezzacappa et al

    A. Mezzacappa et al. Core collapse supernova gravita- tional wave emission for progenitors of 9.6, 15, and 25 M⊙. Phys. Rev. D, 107(4):043008, February 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Vartanyan et al

    D. Vartanyan et al. Gravitational-wave signature of core- collapse supernovae. Phys. Rev. D, 107(10):103015, May 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    M¨ uller and H

    B. M¨ uller and H. Th. Janka. Non-radial instabilities 22 and progenitor asphericities in core-collapse supernovae. MNRAS, 448(3):2141–2174, April 2015

    2015

  63. [71]

    Liebend¨ orfer, S

    M. Liebend¨ orfer, S. C. Whitehouse, and T. Fischer. The Isotropic Diffusion Source Approximation for Supernova Neutrino Transport. ApJ, 698(2):1174–1190, June 2009

    2009

  64. [72]

    C. D. Levermore. Relating Eddington factors to flux limiters. J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf., 31(2):149–160, February 1984

    1984

  65. [73]

    Buras et al

    R. Buras et al. Two-dimensional hydrodynamic core- collapse supernova simulations with spectral neutrino transport. I. Numerical method and results for a 15 M ⊙ star. A&A, 447(3):1049–1092, March 2006

    2006

  66. [74]

    S. W. Bruenn et al. The Development of Explosions in Axisymmetric Ab Initio Core-collapse Supernova Simula- tions of 12-25 M Stars. ApJ, 818(2):123, February 2016

    2016

  67. [75]

    Marek et al

    A. Marek et al. Exploring the relativistic regime with Newtonian hydrodynamics: an improved effective grav- itational potential for supernova simulations. A&A, 445(1):273–289, January 2006

    2006

  68. [76]

    Cordero-Carri´ on et al

    I. Cordero-Carri´ on et al. Improved constrained scheme for the Einstein equations: An approach to the unique- ness issue. Phys. Rev. D, 79(2):024017, January 2009

    2009

  69. [77]

    Shibata and T

    M. Shibata and T. Nakamura. Evolution of three- dimensional gravitational waves: Harmonic slicing case. Phys. Rev. D, 52(10):5428–5444, November 1995

    1995

  70. [78]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro. Numerical in- tegration of Einstein’s field equations. Phys. Rev. D, 59(2):024007, December 1998

    1998

  71. [79]

    Banik, M

    S. Banik, M. Hempel, and D. Bandyopadhyay. New Hy- peron Equations of State for Supernovae and Neutron Stars in Density-dependent Hadron Field Theory. ApJS, 214(2):22, October 2014

    2014

  72. [80]

    Fischer et al

    T. Fischer et al. Symmetry energy impact in simulations of core-collapse supernovae. European Physical Journal A, 50:46, February 2014

    2014

  73. [81]

    da Silva Schneider et al

    A. da Silva Schneider et al. Equation of State and Pro- genitor Dependence of Stellar-mass Black Hole Forma- tion. ApJ, 894(1):4, May 2020

    2020

  74. [82]

    J. M. Lattimer and D. F. Swesty. A generalized equation of state for hot, dense matter.Nucl. Phys. A, 535(2):331– 376, December 1991

    1991

  75. [83]

    Hempel and J

    M. Hempel and J. Schaffner-Bielich. A statistical model for a complete supernova equation of state. Nucl. Phys. A, 837(3-4):210–254, June 2010

    2010

  76. [84]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer. Core-collapse Supernova Equations of State Based on Neutron Star Ob- servations. ApJ, 774(1):17, September 2013

    2013

  77. [85]

    E. E. Salpeter. The Luminosity Function and Stellar Evolution. ApJ, 121:161, January 1955

    1955

  78. [86]

    M¨ uller, H.-T

    B. M¨ uller, H.-T. Janka, and A. Marek. A New Multi- dimensional General Relativistic Neutrino Hydrodynam- ics Code of Core-collapse Supernovae. III. Gravitational Wave Signals from Supernova Explosion Models. ApJ, 766:43, March 2013

    2013

  79. [87]

    Cerd´ a-Dur´ an et al

    P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an et al. Gravitational Wave Signatures in Black Hole Forming Core Collapse. ApJ, 779(2):L18, December 2013

    2013

  80. [88]

    Universal Relations for Gravitational- Wave Asteroseismology of Protoneutron Stars

    Torres-Forn´ e et al. Universal Relations for Gravitational- Wave Asteroseismology of Protoneutron Stars. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123(5):051102, August 2019

    2019

  81. [89]

    Butterworth

    S. Butterworth. ”on the theory of filter amplifiers”. Experimental Wireless and the Wireless Engineer, 7:536– 541, 1930

    1930

  82. [90]

    Virtanen et al

    P. Virtanen et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17:261–272, 2020

    2020

  83. [91]

    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&A, 537:A63, January 2012

    2012

  84. [92]

    M. Steffen. A simple method for monotonic interpolation in one dimension. A&A, 239:443–450, November 1990

    1990

  85. [93]

    GNU scientific library reference manual

    Brian Gough. GNU scientific library reference manual. Network Theory Ltd., 2009

    2009

  86. [94]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger. Nucleosynthesis and rem- nants in massive stars of solar metallicity. Phys. Rep., 442(1-6):269–283, April 2007

    2007

  87. [95]

    J. W. Murphy, C. D. Ott, and A. Burrows. A Model for Gravitational Wave Emission from Neutrino-Driven Core-Collapse Supernovae. ApJ, 707:1173–1190, Decem- ber 2009

    2009

  88. [96]

    mersenne twister: A 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudorandom number generator

    Makoto Matsumoto and Takuji Nishimura. “mersenne twister: A 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudorandom number generator”. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, 8:3–30, 1998

    1998

  89. [97]

    Raynaud, P

    R. Raynaud, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, and J. Guilet. Gravita- tional wave signature of proto-neutron star convection: I. MHD numerical simulations. MNRAS, 509(3):3410– 3426, January 2022

    2022

  90. [98]

    Methods of integration which pre- serve the contact transformation property of the hamil- tonian equations

    Rene De Vogelaere. Methods of integration which pre- serve the contact transformation property of the hamil- tonian equations. Report No. 4, Dept. Math., Univ. of Notre Dame preprint, 1956

    1956

  91. [99]

    Par- tially implicit Runge-Kutta methods for wave-like equa- tions

    Isabel Cordero-Carri´ on and Pablo Cerd´ a-Dur´ an. Par- tially implicit Runge-Kutta methods for wave-like equa- tions. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1211.5930, November 2012

    2012 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Pareschi and G

    L. Pareschi and G. Russo. Implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta schemes and applications to hyperbolic systems with re- laxation. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1009.2757, Septem- ber 2010

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

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