Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Classifying the nuclear equation of state in LVK interferometric noise through core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave signatures using convolutional neural networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A CNN can identify the nuclear equation of state from a supernova's gravitational-wave signal at 1 kpc with 98.58% accuracy.

desk verdict Proof-of-concept CNN EOS classification at 1 kpc is plausible, but the internal accuracy inconsistencies and single-waveform-per-EOS design undercut the generalization claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21924 v1 pith:TCCLMHT7 submitted 2026-07-24 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Alejandro Casallas-Lagos , Marek J. Szczepańczyk , Michele Zanolin , Anthony Mezzacappa , Javier M. Antelis , Daniel Murphy , Claudia Moreno This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords core-collapsesupernovaegravitationalwavesnuclearequationofstateconvolutionalneuralnetworksCoherentWaveBurstLVKdetectornoisehigh-frequencyfeatureHFFslopeestimation
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 sets out to show that a convolutional neural network can read which nuclear equation of state (EOS) governed a core-collapse supernova directly from gravitational-wave data buried in real interferometric noise. The authors take five two-dimensional simulations of the same progenitor that differ only in their EOS (DD2, FSUgold, IUSFU, SFHo, SFHx), inject them into two one-week stretches of O3b detector data at 1, 5, and 10 kpc, and let the Coherent WaveBurst pipeline produce likelihood time-frequency images for a single-stack CNN to classify. At 1 kpc the classifier achieves 98.58% overall accuracy, with per-class scores above 96% and macro-averaged one-vs-rest AUC of 0.97-0.98; at 5 kpc it falls to 52.43% and at 10 kpc it is effectively blind. If the claim holds, it means the initial slope of the high-frequency feature in a supernova's gravitational-wave signal is a usable EOS fingerprint in realistic noise, and that the same approach could extend to about 10 kpc once next-generation detectors deliver their expected order-of-magnitude sensitivity gain.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cWB likelihood time-frequency map, an image $L_i \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{\mathrm{time}}\times N_{\mathrm{freq}}\times C}$ that grades each pixel by how coherently the two-detector network responds to a transient; once resized to $28\times 28$ grayscale, the upward-trending high-frequency feature becomes a spatial pattern the CNN can see. The machinery is a single-stack convolutional network: convolution filters, LeakyReLU activations, max-pooling downsampling, a flattening layer, dense layers, and a softmax head that outputs probabilities over the five EOS classes. The physical load-bearing quantity is the HFF initial slope itself, whose noise-free values split the five models into a high-slope group (SFHo, SFHx) and a lower-slope group (DD2, FSUgold, IUSFU); the CNN's job is to recover that split from noisy likelihood maps.

What would settle it

Train the same pipeline on multiple independent simulations per EOS, with different stochastic seeds, 3D structure, progenitor masses, and source orientations, and test on held-out realizations; if 1 kpc accuracy collapses toward the 20% chance level once waveform memorization is excluded, the central claim is refuted. A simpler check is to compare the 10 kpc confusion matrices against chance with a chi-square test, since the paper's own result predicts the diagonal should be statistically indistinguishable from random there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the initial slope of the high-frequency feature (HFF) in a core-collapse supernova's gravitational-wave signal, reconstructed by Coherent WaveBurst and interpreted by a convolutional neural network, is a practical discriminator among nuclear equations of state in real interferometric noise. Using five Chimera two-dimensional simulations that vary only the EOS, the paper reports per-class accuracy above 96% at 1 kpc in two independent one-week O3b time windows and in a cross-window transfer test, with macro-averaged one-vs-rest AUC of 0.97-0.98. At 5 kpc only the softer EOS models (SFHo and SFHx) remain reasonably identifiable, and at 10 kpc the confusion matrix diagonal falls to the level expected from chance, marking the distance limit of the method. The authors interpret this as evidence that the HFF slope signature survives realistic detector noise and temporal non-stationarity, and they argue that order-of-magnitude sensitivity improvements in next-generation observatories should shift the useful range from roughly 1 kpc to roughly 10 kpc.

Load-bearing premise

Each EOS class is represented by just one simulated supernova, and every signal is injected at the same orientation relative to the detector, so the network may be matching a memorized waveform rather than learning a general EOS rule; real events with different turbulence, progenitor masses, rotation, magnetic fields, or viewing angles could break that rule.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 1 kpc, a CNN trained on cWB likelihood maps can separate all five EOS classes with per-class accuracy above 96%, so a single Galactic supernova could plausibly constrain the nuclear EOS from gravitational waves alone.
  • At 5 kpc overall accuracy drops to 52.43% and at 10 kpc it becomes statistically indistinguishable from chance, setting the current method's reach at roughly the nearest few kiloparsecs.
  • A model trained on one one-week stretch of O3b data and tested on a later stretch keeps its accuracy, showing the learned EOS features are not tied to a specific noise realization.
  • With the order-of-magnitude sensitivity gain expected from next-generation detectors, the paper argues the 1 kpc classification performance would extend to roughly 10 kpc, bringing most of the Galaxy into range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because each EOS is represented by a single 2D simulation, the 1 kpc accuracy could reflect waveform memorization rather than a general EOS rule; an obvious stress test is to train on many stochastic noise realizations of several independent simulations per EOS and see whether accuracy survives.
  • A natural extension the paper does not pursue is to replace the hard five-class label with a continuous regression of the HFF slope, which would turn each detection into a posterior over EOS-relevant physics and could be folded into multimessenger analyses.
  • The two-cluster structure in the HFF slopes suggests much of the 5 kpc discrimination is effectively soft-versus-stiff EOS classification; recasting the problem as binary or as a continuous compactness estimate might buy extra reach before the 10 kpc floor.
  • The same image pipeline could be tested on O4-era data or on injections with nonzero rotation and magnetic fields; if the mapping between HFF slope and EOS survives those perturbations, the method becomes a practical early-warning diagnostic for the next Galactic supernova.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper trains a single-stack convolutional neural network (CNN) to classify five nuclear equations of state (DD2, FSUgold, IUFSU, SFHo, SFHx) using cWB likelihood time-frequency maps of core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave signals injected into real O3b LVK noise. Signals from the Chimera E-series are placed in two one-week data windows (TW1, TW2) at Galactic distances of 1, 5, and 10 kpc, and the CNN is evaluated in three studies: train/test on TW1, train/test on TW2, and train on TW1/test on TW2. The manuscript reports high per-class accuracy at 1 kpc, degraded accuracy at 5 kpc, and near-loss of classification at 10 kpc, and argues that the 1 kpc performance suggests future detectors could classify EOS at about ten times the distance.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would demonstrate that a CNN applied to cWB likelihood maps can separate EOS-dependent high-frequency-feature patterns in realistic interferometric noise, which is a useful proof-of-principle for CCSN parameter estimation. Strengths include the use of real O3b data, an explicit cross-time-window generalization test (Study 3), per-class and OvR metrics, and the SMOTE analysis for class imbalance. However, the significance is conditional on resolving internal inconsistencies in the reported metrics and on demonstrating that the classifier generalizes beyond the specific simulated waveforms used for training; without those, the headline claims about EOS identification in real events are not supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sections 5–7 (Tables 6–9)] The headline accuracy numbers in the abstract do not match the paper's own tables. The abstract reports 98.58% accuracy at 1 kpc and 52.43% at 5 kpc, but Table 7 gives overall accuracy 0.93 at 1 kpc and 0.82 at 5 kpc (TW1, before SMOTE), and Table 8 gives 0.90 and 0.80 (TW2). In addition, Table 6 reports per-class accuracies at 1 kpc that are all above 96%, which is mathematically inconsistent with an overall accuracy of 90–93%; at 5 kpc the per-class values weighted by the class counts in Table 4 give roughly 49–55%, not 82%. The authors must reconcile these numbers and state exactly how the abstract's 98.58% and 52.43% were computed.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Table 4] The central generalization claim is not supported by the experimental design because each EOS class is represented by exactly one 2D Chimera simulation, injected only at equatorial orientation. Every training and test image for a given class is a noise realization of the same deterministic waveform, so the high 1 kpc accuracy may reflect memorization of that individual simulation rather than identification of EOS-dependent HFF properties. Study 3 changes only the noise window, not the signal waveform. A real CCSN will have a different stochastic realization, progenitor mass, rotation, magnetic field, and orientation, so the abstract's statement that the approach could scale to 10 kpc with next-generation detectors is an extrapolation that the present experiments cannot validate.
  3. [Section 7 and Table 9] The macro-averaged OvR AUC values are reported inconsistently. The abstract states macro-averaged OvR AUCs of 0.97 and 0.98 at 1 kpc, but Section 7 reports a macro-average AUC of 0.80 for TW1 and TW2, and Table 9 lists only per-class AUCs (0.96–0.98 at 1 kpc) with no macro-average row. The authors should clarify which number is the macro-average and provide the exact calculation, since the abstract and the text currently contradict each other.
  4. [Section 4.1] The paper acknowledges that only equatorial source orientation is considered, and it suggests that other orientations can be obtained by modifying the 1/r factor with a cosine of the orientation angle. This is not a substitute for evaluating the classifier at other inclinations, because the detectability of the HFF and the time-frequency morphology of the cWB reconstruction depend on the source orientation in a nontrivial way. A robustness test over inclination angles, or at least an explicit argument for why the equatorial result carries over, is needed before the claims about real Galactic CCSN events can be accepted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a formatting issue: 'L VK' should be 'LVK'.
  2. [Throughout] The equation-of-state name is spelled inconsistently as both 'IUFSU' and 'IUSFU' (e.g., Table 2 vs. Section 4.1); the spelling should be unified.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Appendix A] The text says 'we refer to Appendices A and A' but the intended cross-reference is unclear; there is only one Appendix A.
  4. [Figure 3 and Table 6] The relationship between the 'globally normalized' confusion matrices in Figure 3 and the 'per-class classification accuracy' in Table 6 should be defined precisely, since the two presentations can lead to different per-class measures.
  5. [Section 8] The summary refers to 'Table 9' for OvR AUC values, but Table 9 reports per-class ROC AUCs; a sentence clarifying the distinction between per-class and averaged values would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity; the CNN accuracy is an internal supervised benchmark, and the single-simulation-per-EOS design is a generalization limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical supervised-classification study rather than a first-principles derivation, so the circularity machinery applies only loosely. The CNN input is the cWB likelihood time-frequency map of an injected Chimera waveform, and the ground-truth label is the EOS of the simulation that produced it (Section 4.1); the reported 98.58% accuracy is a measured test-set quantity obtained by Monte Carlo splits and by a cross-time-window transfer (Studies 1-3). No equation in the paper is defined in terms of its own output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction: the classifier's output is exactly the training target, which is standard supervised benchmarking. The paper's reliance on the authors' earlier HFF-slope pipeline [68,69] is methodological rather than load-bearing; those citations supply the input maps and simulation set, but they do not force the measured accuracy, which could in principle have been at chance level. The real limitation is external validity: one 2D Chimera simulation per EOS means the classifier may memorize individual waveforms, and all injections use equatorial orientation (Section 4.1). That is a correctness/generalization concern, not circularity, and it is at least partially acknowledged by the paper's framing of these as illustrative examples and by its deferral of progenitor mass, rotation, and magnetic-field variations. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity (minor self-citation only).

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

The paper introduces no new physics entities. The central empirical claim rests on the representativeness of five 2D simulations (one per EOS), optimal-orientation injections, cWB reconstruction, and two one-week noise windows. The main free empirical degrees of freedom are the 545,589 CNN weights; no physical constants are fitted.

free parameters (1)
  • CNN trainable parameters = 545,589
    The multiclassifier output is produced by these fitted weights; reported accuracy depends on this empirical fit and on unstated training hyperparameters (optimizer, learning rate, epochs, batch size are not given).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The five Chimera 2D CCSN simulations, one per EOS, are representative of EOS-dependent GW emission.
    Sections 1-2; no multiple stochastic realizations or varied progenitor properties are used to establish class-level representativeness.
  • domain assumption Equatorial source orientation captures relevant signal amplitude, with other orientations obtainable by a 1/r scaling factor.
    Section 4.1; this ignores orientation-dependent antenna patterns and inclination averaging used in realistic searches.
  • domain assumption cWB event production yields likelihood time-frequency maps that encode the HFF information the CNN needs.
    Section 4.1 and [68,69]; no independent verification that the maps are sufficient or that cWB detection thresholds do not bias the test set.
  • domain assumption LVK O3b noise in two one-week windows is representative of detector nonstationarity.
    Section 4, Table 1; the cross-window test is a limited check over two weeks only.
  • standard math Standard CNN operations (convolution, ReLU, max pooling, softmax, cross-entropy) are valid.
    Appendix A; no novel architecture claims are made.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classifying the nuclear equation of state in LVK interferometric noise through core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave signatures using convolutional neural networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCCLMHT7

@misc{pith2026260721924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classifying the nuclear equation of state in LVK interferometric noise through core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave signatures using convolutional neural networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCCLMHT7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21924}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a convolutional neural network (CNN) approach to classifying the nuclear equation of state (EOS). As illustrative examples, we use five two-dimensional core-collapse supernova (CCSN) simulations that differ only in their EOS. We analyze estimates of the initial slope of the high-frequency feature (HFF) reconstructed in real interferometric data from the O3b LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) observing run at Galactic source distances of 1, 5, and 10 kpc. The CNN classifier achieves an overall accuracy of 98.58% at 1 kpc and 52.43% at 5 kpc. At 10 kpc, its ability to distinguish among the EOS classes is effectively lost. The successful EOS classification at 1 kpc suggests that this approach may be scalable to next-generation observatories. The expected order-of-magnitude sensitivity improvements of Cosmic Explorer and the Einstein Telescope could enable comparable classification performance at approximately ten times the current distance. More detailed performance metrics, including the macro-averaged one-vs-rest (OvR) area under the curve (AUC), yield values of 0.97 and 0.98 at 1 kpc. These results indicate strong classification performance both across the complete set of EOS classes and for the individual classes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21924 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Range of variability of the estimated HFF slopes for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Single-stack CNN architecture implemented for the classification of the EOS at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Confusion matrices for Study 1 (top), Study 2 (middle), and Study 3 (bottom) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Applying the SMOTE technique to balance the datasets did not significantly alter the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and corresponding Area Under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [69]

    Daniel Murphy, Alejandro Casallas-Lagos, Anthony Mezzacappa, Michele Zanolin, Ryan E

    R. Daniel Murphy, Alejandro Casallas-Lagos, Anthony Mezzacappa, Michele Zanolin, Ryan E. Landfield, Eric J. Lentz, Pedro Marronetti, Javier M. Antelis, and Claudia Moreno. Dependence of the reconstructed core-collapse supernova gravitational wave high- frequency feature on the nuclear equation of state in real interferometric data.Phys. Rev. D, 110:083006...

    2024

  2. [1]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. Advanced LIGO.Classical and Quantum Gravity., 32:074001, 2015

    2015

  3. [2]

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

    2016

  4. [3]

    Advanced virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(2):024001, December 2014

    F Acernese, M Agathos, K Agatsuma, D Aisa, N Allemandou, A Allocca, J Amarni, P As- tone, G Balestri, G Ballardin, F Barone, J-P Baronick, M Barsuglia, A Basti, F Basti, Th S Bauer, V Bavigadda, M Bejger, M G Beker, C Belczynski, D Bersanetti, A Bertolini, M Bitossi, M A Bizouard, S Bloemen, M Blom, M Boer, G Bogaert, D Bondi, F Bondu, L Bonelli, R Bonnan...

    2014

  5. [4]

    Interferometer design of the KAGRA gravitational wave detector.Physical Review D, 88(4), aug 2013

    Yoichi Aso, Yuta Michimura, Kentaro Somiya, Masaki Ando, Osamu Miyakawa, Takanori Sekiguchi, Daisuke Tatsumi, and Hiroaki Yamamoto. Interferometer design of the KAGRA gravitational wave detector.Physical Review D, 88(4), aug 2013

    2013

  6. [5]

    R. at. al. Abbott. GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run.Phys. Rev. D, 109:022001, Jan 2024

    2024

  7. [6]

    R. et. al. Abbott. GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run.Phys. Rev. X, 13:041039, Dec 2023. 21

    2023

  8. [7]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration. GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run. 2025

    2025

Show all 104 references
  1. [8]

    Jade Powell, Alberto Iess, Miquel Llorens-Monteagudo, Martin Obergaulinger, Bernhard Müller, Alejandro Torres-Forné, Elena Cuoco, and José A. Font. Determining the core- collapse supernova explosion mechanism with current and future gravitational-wave obser- vatories.Phys. Rev...

    2024

  2. [9]

    Takami Kuroda, Kei Kotake, Tomoya Takiwaki, and Friedrich-Karl Thielemann. A full general relativistic neutrino radiation-hydrodynamics simulation of a collapsing very mas- sive star and the formation of a black hole.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, ...

    2018

  3. [10]

    Characterizing the gravitational wave signal from core-collapse supernovae.The Astrophysical Journal, 876(1):L9, apr 2019

    David Radice, Viktoriya Morozova, Adam Burrows, David Vartanyan, and Hiroki Na- gakura. Characterizing the gravitational wave signal from core-collapse supernovae.The Astrophysical Journal, 876(1):L9, apr 2019

    2019

  4. [11]

    Physics of Core-Collapse Su- pernovae in Three Dimensions: A Sneak Preview.Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 66(1):341–375, October 2016

    Hans-Thomas Janka, Tobias Melson, and Alexander Summa. Physics of Core-Collapse Su- pernovae in Three Dimensions: A Sneak Preview.Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 66(1):341–375, October 2016

    2016

  5. [12]

    Gravitational Waves from Neutrino-Driven Core Collapse Supernovae: Predictions, Detection, and Parameter Estimation.arXiv e- prints, page arXiv:2401.11635, January 2024

    Anthony Mezzacappa and Michele Zanolin. Gravitational Waves from Neutrino-Driven Core Collapse Supernovae: Predictions, Detection, and Parameter Estimation.arXiv e- prints, page arXiv:2401.11635, January 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    B. Müller. The Status of Multi-Dimensional Core-Collapse Supernova Models.Proc. Astron. Soc. Pac., 33:e048, September 2016

    2016

  7. [14]

    Burrows and D

    A. Burrows and D. Vartanyan. Core-collapse supernova explosion theory.Nature, 589(7840):29–39, jan 2021

    2021

  8. [15]

    Gravitational Waves from Core-Collapse Supernovae

    Ernazar Abdikamalov, Giulia Pagliaroli, and David Radice. Gravitational Waves from Core-Collapse Supernovae. InHandbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy. Edited by C. Bambi, page 21. 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    Tobias Melson, Hans-Thomas Janka, Robert Bollig, Florian Hanke, Andreas Marek, and Bernhard Müller. Neutrino-driven explosion of a 20 solar-mass star in three dimensions enabled by strange-quark contributions to neutrino–nucleon scattering.The Astrophysical Journal, 808(2):L42...

    2015

  10. [17]

    Anthony Mezzacappa, Eirik Endeve, O. E. Bronson Messer, and Stephen W. Bruenn. Physical, numerical, and computational challenges of modeling neutrino transport in core- collapse supernovae, 2020

    2020

  11. [18]

    Explosion mechanisms of core-collapse supernovae.Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62(1):407–451, nov 2012

    Hans-Thomas Janka. Explosion mechanisms of core-collapse supernovae.Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62(1):407–451, nov 2012

    2012

  12. [19]

    Toward Realistic Models of Core Collapse Supernovae: A Brief Review.IAU Symposium, 362:215–227, January 2023

    Anthony Mezzacappa. Toward Realistic Models of Core Collapse Supernovae: A Brief Review.IAU Symposium, 362:215–227, January 2023

    2023

  13. [20]

    Murphy, Christian D

    Jeremiah W. Murphy, Christian D. Ott, and Adam Burrows. A model for gravitational wave emission from neutrino-driven core-collapse supernovae.The Astrophysical Journal, 707(2):1173–1190, dec 2009. 22

    2009

  14. [21]

    Anisotropic emission of neutrino and gravitational- wave signals from rapidly rotating core-collapse supernovae.Mon

    Tomoya Takiwaki and Kei Kotake. Anisotropic emission of neutrino and gravitational- wave signals from rapidly rotating core-collapse supernovae.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 475(1):L91–L95, March 2018

    2018

  15. [22]

    Klimenko, S

    S. Klimenko, S. Mohanty, M. Rakhmanov, and G. Mitselmakher. Constraint likelihood analysis for a network of gravitational wave detectors.Physical Review D, 72(12), dec 2005

    2005

  16. [23]

    A coherent method for detection of gravitational wave bursts.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25(11):114029, may 2008

    S Klimenko, I Yakushin, A Mercer, and G Mitselmakher. A coherent method for detection of gravitational wave bursts.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25(11):114029, may 2008

    2008

  17. [24]

    Klimenko, G

    S. Klimenko, G. Vedovato, M. Drago, F. Salemi, V. Tiwari, G. A. Prodi, C. Lazzaro, K. Ackley, S. Tiwari, C.F. Da Silva, and G. Mitselmakher. Method for detection and re- construction of gravitational wave transients with networks of advanced detectors.Physical Review D, 93(4),...

    2016

  18. [25]

    Wavescan: multiresolution regression of gravitational-wave data

    Sergey Klimenko. Wavescan: multiresolution regression of gravitational-wave data. In APS April Meeting Abstracts, volume 2022 ofAPS Meeting Abstracts, page E17.004, April 2022

    2022

  19. [26]

    Szczepań czyk, Javier M

    Marek J. Szczepań czyk, Javier M. Antelis, Michael Benjamin, Marco Cavaglià, Dorota Gondek-Rosińska, Travis Hansen, Sergey Klimenko, Manuel D. Morales, Claudia Moreno, Soma Mukherjee, Gaukhar Nurbek, Jade Powell, Neha Singh, Satzhan Sitmukhambetov, Paweł Szewczyk, Oscar Valdez...

    2021

  20. [27]

    Mukherjee, L

    S. Mukherjee, L. Salazar, J. Mittelstaedt, and O. Valdez. New method for enhanced efficiency in detection of gravitational waves from supernovae using coherent network of detectors.Phys. Rev. D., 96(10):104033, November 2017

    2017

  21. [28]

    Soma Mukherjee, Gaukhar Nurbek, and Oscar Valdez. Study of efficient methods of detection and reconstruction of gravitational waves from nonrotating 3d general relativistic core collapse supernovae explosion using multilayer signal estimation method.Phys. Rev. D, 103:103008, May 2021

    2021

  22. [29]

    Antelis, Marco Cavaglia, Travis Hansen, Manuel D

    Javier M. Antelis, Marco Cavaglia, Travis Hansen, Manuel D. Morales, Claudia Moreno, Soma Mukherjee, Marek J. Szczepańczyk, and Michele Zanolin. Using supervised learning algorithms as a follow-up method in the search of gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae.Phys. ...

    2022

  23. [30]

    T. Z. Summerscales, Adam Burrows, Lee Samuel Finn, and Christian D. Ott. Maximum Entropy for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis: Inferring the Physical Parameters of Core- Collapse Supernovae.Astrophys. J., 678:1142–1157, 2008

    2008

  24. [31]

    Logue, C

    J. Logue, C. D. Ott, I. S. Heng, P. Kalmus, and J. H. C. Scargill. Inferring Core-Collapse Supernova Physics with Gravitational Waves.Phys. Rev. D, 86:044023, 2012

    2012

  25. [32]

    López Portilla, I

    M. López Portilla, I. Di Palma, M. Drago, P. Cerdá-Durán, and F. Ricci. Deep learning for core-collapse supernova detection.Phys. Rev. D, 103(6):063011, 2021

    2021

  26. [33]

    C. Aerts. Probing the interior physics of stars through asteroseismology.Rev. Mod. Phys., 93:015001, Jan 2021

    2021

  27. [34]

    Asteroseismology

    Gerald Handler. Asteroseismology. InPlanets, Stars and Stellar Systems, pages 207–241. Springer Netherlands, 2013. 23

    2013

  28. [35]

    Asteroseismology across the HR diagram

    Donald Kurtz. Asteroseismology across the HR diagram. InAnnual Conference and General Assembly of the, page 1, March 2022

    2022

  29. [36]

    M. C. Rodriguez, Ignacio F. Ranea-Sandoval, C. Chirenti, and D. Radice. Three ap- proaches for the classification of protoneutron star oscillation modes.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523(2):2236–2246, August 2023

    2023

  30. [37]

    Alejandro Torres-Forné, Pablo Cerdá-Durán, Andrea Passamonti, and José A. Font. To- wardsasteroseismologyofcore-collapsesupernovaewithgravitational-waveobservations-I. Cowling approximation.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474(4):5272– 5286, March 2018

    2018

  31. [38]

    Alejandro Torres-Forné, Pablo Cerdá-Durán, Martin Obergaulinger, Bernhard Müller, and José A. Font. Universal Relations for Gravitational-Wave Asteroseismology of Protoneu- tron Stars.Physical Review Letters, 123(5):051102, August 2019

    2019

  32. [39]

    Daniel Murphy, Anthony Mezzacappa, Eric J

    R. Daniel Murphy, Anthony Mezzacappa, Eric J. Lentz, and Pedro Marronetti. Core collapse supernova gravitational wave sourcing and characterization based on three- dimensional models, 2025

    2025

  33. [40]

    Couch, and Felix Malmenbeck

    John Ryan Westernacher-Schneider, Evan O’Connor, Erin O’Sullivan, Irene Tamborra, Meng-Ru Wu, Sean M. Couch, and Felix Malmenbeck. Multimessenger asteroseismology of core-collapse supernovae.Phys. Rev. D, 100:123009, Dec 2019

    2019

  34. [41]

    Consistent perturbative modeling of pseudo- newtonian core-collapse supernova simulations.Phys

    John Ryan Westernacher-Schneider. Consistent perturbative modeling of pseudo- newtonian core-collapse supernova simulations.Phys. Rev. D, 101:083021, Apr 2020

    2020

  35. [42]

    Takami Kuroda, Tomoya Takiwaki, and Kei Kotake. A new multi-energy neutrino radiation-hydrodynamics code in full general relativity and its application to the gravita- tional collapse of massive stars.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222(2):20, feb 2016

    2016

  36. [43]

    Physical, numerical, and computational challenges of modeling neutrino transport in core-collapse supernovae.Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 6, 12 2020

    Anthony Mezzacappa, Eirik Endeve, Bronson Messer, and Stephen Bruenn. Physical, numerical, and computational challenges of modeling neutrino transport in core-collapse supernovae.Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 6, 12 2020

    2020

  37. [44]

    Landfield, Eric J

    Anthony Mezzacappa, Pedro Marronetti, Ryan E. Landfield, Eric J. Lentz, R. Daniel Mur- phy, W. Raphael Hix, J. Austin Harris, Stephen W. Bruenn, John M. Blondin, O. E. Bron- son Messer, Jordi Casanova, and Luke L. Kronzer. Core collapse supernova gravitational wave emission fo...

    2023

  38. [45]

    Andresen, E

    H. Andresen, E. Müller, H. Th Janka, A. Summa, K. Gill, and M. Zanolin. Gravita- tional waves from 3D core-collapse supernova models: The impact of moderate progenitor rotation.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 486(2):2238–2253, June 2019

    2019

  39. [46]

    Andresen, B

    H. Andresen, B. Müller, E. Müller, and H.-Th. Janka. Gravitational wave signals from 3d neutrino hydrodynamics simulations of core-collapse supernovae.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468(2):2032–2051, mar 2017

    2017

  40. [47]

    A new multi-dimensional gen- eral relativistic neutrino hydrodynamics code for core-collapse supernovae

    Bernhard Müller, Hans-Thomas Janka, and Andreas Marek. A new multi-dimensional gen- eral relativistic neutrino hydrodynamics code for core-collapse supernovae. ii. relativistic explosion models of core-collapse supernovae.The Astrophysical Journal, 756(1):84, aug 2012. 24

    2012

  41. [48]

    A new multi-dimensional gen- eral relativistic neutrino hydrodynamics code of core-collapse supernovae

    Bernhard Müller, Hans-Thomas Janka, and Andreas Marek. A new multi-dimensional gen- eral relativistic neutrino hydrodynamics code of core-collapse supernovae. iii. gravitational wave signals from supernova explosion models. 766(1):43, mar 2013

    2013

  42. [49]

    Bernhard Müller, Tobias Melson, Alexander Heger, and Hans-Thomas Janka. Supernova simulations from a 3d progenitor model – impact of perturbations and evolution of explo- sion properties.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472(1):491–513, aug 2017

    2017

  43. [50]

    Bernhard Müller and Vishnu Varma. A 3d simulation of a neutrino-driven supernova explo- sion aided by convection and magnetic fields.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 498(1):L109–L113, aug 2020

    2020

  44. [51]

    Sasi activity in three-dimensional neutrino-hydrodynamics simulations os supernova cores.The Astrophysical Journal, 770(1):66, may 2013

    Florian Hanke, Bernhard Müller, Annop Wongwathanarat, Andreas Marek, and Hans- Thomas Janka. Sasi activity in three-dimensional neutrino-hydrodynamics simulations os supernova cores.The Astrophysical Journal, 770(1):66, may 2013

    2013

  45. [52]

    A successful 3d core-collapse supernova explosion model.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482(1):351–369, sep 2018

    David Vartanyan, Adam Burrows, David Radice, M Aaron Skinner, and Joshua Dolence. A successful 3d core-collapse supernova explosion model.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482(1):351–369, sep 2018

    2018

  46. [53]

    O’Connor and Sean M

    Evan P. O’Connor and Sean M. Couch. Exploring fundamentally three-dimensional phe- nomena in high-fidelity simulations of core-collapse supernovae.The Astrophysical Journal, 865(2):81, sep 2018

    2018

  47. [54]

    Jade Powell and Bernhard Müller. Gravitational wave emission from 3d explosion models of core-collapse supernovae with low and normal explosion energies.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487(1):1178–1190, may 2019

    2019

  48. [55]

    Three-dimensional core-collapse supernova simulations of massive and rotating progenitors.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494(4):4665–4675, apr 2020

    Jade Powell and Bernhard Müller. Three-dimensional core-collapse supernova simulations of massive and rotating progenitors.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494(4):4665–4675, apr 2020

    2020

  49. [56]

    A three-dimensional hydrodynamics simulation of oxygen-shell burning in the final evolution of a fast-rotating massive star

    Takashi Yoshida, Tomoya Takiwaki, David R Aguilera-Dena, Kei Kotake, Koh Takahashi, Ko Nakamura, Hideyuki Umeda, and Norbert Langer. A three-dimensional hydrodynamics simulation of oxygen-shell burning in the final evolution of a fast-rotating massive star. Monthly Notices of ...

    2021

  50. [57]

    Core-collapse Su- pernova Simulations and the Formation of Neutron Stars, Hybrid Stars, and Black Holes

    Takami Kuroda, Tobias Fischer, Tomoya Takiwaki, and Kei Kotake. Core-collapse Su- pernova Simulations and the Formation of Neutron Stars, Hybrid Stars, and Black Holes. Astrophys. J., 924(1):38, January 2022

    2022

  51. [58]

    Stochastic Na- ture of Gravitational Waves from Supernova Explosions with Standing Accretion Shock Instability.Astrophys

    Kei Kotake, Wakana Iwakami, Naofumi Ohnishi, and Shoichi Yamada. Stochastic Na- ture of Gravitational Waves from Supernova Explosions with Standing Accretion Shock Instability.Astrophys. J. Lett., 697(2):L133–L136, June 2009

    2009

  52. [59]

    Effects of Rotation on Stochasticity of Gravitational Waves in the Nonlinear Phase of Core-collapse Supernovae

    Kei Kotake, Wakana Iwakami-Nakano, and Naofumi Ohnishi. Effects of Rotation on Stochasticity of Gravitational Waves in the Nonlinear Phase of Core-collapse Supernovae. Astrophys. J., 736(2):124, August 2011

    2011

  53. [60]

    Explosion mechanism, neutrino burst and gravitational wave in core-collapse supernovae.Reports on Progress in Physics, 69(4):971–1143, April 2006

    Kei Kotake, Katsuhiko Sato, and Keitaro Takahashi. Explosion mechanism, neutrino burst and gravitational wave in core-collapse supernovae.Reports on Progress in Physics, 69(4):971–1143, April 2006

    2006

  54. [61]

    Temporal and angular variations of 3D core-collapse supernova emissions and their physical correlations.Mon

    David Vartanyan, Adam Burrows, and David Radice. Temporal and angular variations of 3D core-collapse supernova emissions and their physical correlations.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 489(2):2227–2246, October 2019. 25

    2019

  55. [62]

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

    2007

  56. [63]

    Colgate and Richard H

    Stirling A. Colgate and Richard H. White. The Hydrodynamic Behavior of Supernovae Explosions.Astrophys. J., 143:626, March 1966

    1966

  57. [64]

    Abbott et

    R. Abbott et. al. Open Data from the Third Observing Run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA, and GEO.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267(2):29, jul 2023

    2023

  58. [65]

    The gravita- tional wave signal from core-collapse supernovae.The Astrophysical Journal, 861(1):10, jun 2018

    Viktoriya Morozova, David Radice, Adam Burrows, and David Vartanyan. The gravita- tional wave signal from core-collapse supernovae.The Astrophysical Journal, 861(1):10, jun 2018

    2018

  59. [66]

    Couch and Christian D

    Sean M. Couch and Christian D. Ott. Revival of the stalled core-collapse supernova shock triggered by precollapse asphericity in the progenitor star.The Astrophysical Journal, 778(1):L7, oct 2013

    2013

  60. [67]

    Daniel Murphy, Elle Brinkman, Colter J

    R. Daniel Murphy, Elle Brinkman, Colter J. Richardson, Evan Semenak, Anthony Mezza- cappa, Pedro Marronetti, Eric J. Lentz, and Stephen W. Bruenn. Gravitational waves as a probe of core collapse supernova progenitor structure.Phys. Rev. D, 113:084005, Apr 2026

    2026

  61. [68]

    Antelis, Claudia Moreno, Michele Zanolin, Anthony Mezzacappa, and Marek J

    Alejandro Casallas-Lagos, Javier M. Antelis, Claudia Moreno, Michele Zanolin, Anthony Mezzacappa, and Marek J. Szczepańczyk. Characterizing the temporal evolution of the high-frequency gravitational wave emission for a core collapse supernova with laser inter- ferometric data:...

    2023

  62. [70]

    coherent waveburst, a pipeline for unmodeled gravitational-wave data analysis.SoftwareX, 14:100678, 2021

    Marco Drago, Sergey Klimenko, Claudia Lazzaro, Edoardo Milotti, Guenakh Mitsel- makher, Valentin Necula, Brendan O’Brian, Giovanni Andrea Prodi, Francesco Salemi, Marek Szczepanczyk, Shubhanshu Tiwari, Vaibhav Tiwari, Gayathri V, Gabriele Vedovato, and Igor Yakushin. coherent ...

    2021

  63. [71]

    Detection and classification of su- pernovagravitationalwavesignals: Adeeplearningapproach.Phys

    Man Leong Chan, Ik Siong Heng, and Chris Messenger. Detection and classification of su- pernovagravitationalwavesignals: Adeeplearningapproach.Phys. Rev. D,102(4):043022, 2020

    2020

  64. [72]

    Sultan Abylkairov, Matthew C

    Y. Sultan Abylkairov, Matthew C. Edwards, Daniil Orel, Ayan Mitra, Bekdaulet Shukir- galiyev, and Ernazar Abdikamalov. Evaluating machine learning models for supernova gravitational wave signal classification.Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech., 5(4):045077, 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    Sultan Abylkairov, and Ernazar Abdikamalov

    Ayan Mitra, Bekdaulet Shukirgaliyev, Y. Sultan Abylkairov, and Ernazar Abdikamalov. Exploring supernova gravitational waves with machine learning.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 520(2):2473–2483, 2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    LSTM and CNN application for core-collapse supernova search in gravitational wave real data

    Alberto Iess, Elena Cuoco, Filip Morawski, Constantina Nicolaou, and Ofer Lahav. LSTM and CNN application for core-collapse supernova search in gravitational wave real data. Astron. Astrophys., 669:A42, 2023. 26

    2023

  67. [75]

    Abbott, H

    R. Abbott, H. Abe, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, S. Adhicary, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. K. Adkins, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, M. Agathos, O. D. Aguiar, L. Aiello, A. Ain, P. Ajith, T. Akutsu, S. Albanesi, R. A. Alfaidi, A. Al-Jodah, C. Alléné, A. Allocca, M. Al- muall...

    2023

  68. [76]

    Andresen, E

    H. Andresen, E. Müller, H. Th. Janka, A. Summa, K. Gill, and M. Zanolin. Gravita- tional waves from 3D core-collapse supernova models: The impact of moderate progenitor rotation.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 486(2):2238–2253, 2019

    2019

  69. [77]

    Pajkos, Sean M

    Michael A. Pajkos, Sean M. Couch, Kuo-Chuan Pan, and Evan P. O’Connor. Features of accretion-phase gravitational-wave emission from two-dimensional rotating core-collapse supernovae.The Astrophysical Journal, 878(1):13, jun 2019

    2019

  70. [78]

    Couch, and Friedrich-Karl Thielemann

    Kuo-Chuan Pan, Matthias Liebendörfer, Sean M. Couch, and Friedrich-Karl Thielemann. Equation of state dependent dynamics and multi-messenger signals from stellar-mass black hole formation.The Astrophysical Journal, 857(1):13, apr 2018

    2018

  71. [79]

    Bayesian inference from gravitational waves in fast-rotating, core-collapse supernovae.Phys

    Carlos Pastor-Marcos, Pablo Cerdá-Durán, Daniel Walker, Alejandro Torres-Forné, Er- nazar Abdikamalov, Sherwood Richers, and José Antonio Font. Bayesian inference from gravitational waves in fast-rotating, core-collapse supernovae.Phys. Rev. D, 109(6):063028, 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

    Couch, and Friedrich-Karl Thielemann

    Kuo-Chuan Pan, Matthias Liebendörfer, Sean M. Couch, and Friedrich-Karl Thielemann. Stellar mass black hole formation and multimessenger signals from three-dimensional ro- tating core-collapse supernova simulations.The Astrophysical Journal, 914(2):140, jun 2021. 27

    2021

  73. [81]

    Magnetorotational core collapse of possible GRB progen- itors – III

    M Obergaulinger and M Á Aloy. Magnetorotational core collapse of possible GRB progen- itors – III. three-dimensional models.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503(4):4942–4963, feb 2021

    2021

  74. [82]

    Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2018

    Salman Khan, Hossein Rahmani, and Syed Afaq Ali Shah.A Guide to Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer Vision. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2018

    2018

  75. [83]

    Hands-On Convolutional Neural Networks with TensorFlow: Solve computer vision prob- lems with modeling in TensorFlow and Python

    Iffat Zafar, Giounona Tzanidou, Richard Burton, Nimesh Patel, and Leonardo Araujo. Hands-On Convolutional Neural Networks with TensorFlow: Solve computer vision prob- lems with modeling in TensorFlow and Python. Packt Publishing, 2018

    2018

  76. [84]

    Morales, and Michele Zanolin

    Zidu Lin, Abhinav Rijal, Cecilia Lunardini, Manuel D. Morales, and Michele Zanolin. Characterizing a supernova’s standing accretion shock instability with neutrinos and grav- itational waves.Phys. Rev. D, 107:083017, Apr 2023

    2023

  77. [85]

    Bruenn, John M

    Stephen W. Bruenn, John M. Blondin, W. Raphael Hix, Eric J. Lentz, O. E. Bron- son Messer, Anthony Mezzacappa, Eirik Endeve, J. Austin Harris, Pedro Marronetti, Reuben D. Budiardja, Merek A. Chertkow, and Ching-Tsai Lee. CHIMERA: A Mas- sively Parallel Code for Core-collapse S...

    2020

  78. [86]

    Lattimer, Akira Ohnishi, and Evgeni E

    Ingo Tews, James M. Lattimer, Akira Ohnishi, and Evgeni E. Kolomeitsev. Symmetry Parameter Constraints from a Lower Bound on Neutron-matter Energy.The Astrophysical Journal, 848(2):105, October 2017

    2017

  79. [87]

    Landfield.Sensitivity of Neutrino-Driven Core-Collapse Supernova Models to the Microphysical Equation of State

    Ryan E. Landfield.Sensitivity of Neutrino-Driven Core-Collapse Supernova Models to the Microphysical Equation of State. PhD thesis, Univeristy of Tennessee Knoxville, 2018

    2018

  80. [88]

    Inferring astrophysical parameters of core-collapse supernovae from their gravitational-wave emission.Physical Review D, 105(6), mar 2022

    Jade Powell and Bernhard Müller. Inferring astrophysical parameters of core-collapse supernovae from their gravitational-wave emission.Physical Review D, 105(6), mar 2022

    2022

  81. [89]

    Universal relation for supernova gravitational waves.Phys

    Hajime Sotani, Tomoya Takiwaki, and Hajime Togashi. Universal relation for supernova gravitational waves.Phys. Rev. D, 104:123009, Dec 2021

    2021

  82. [90]

    AlejandroTorres-Forné, PabloCerdá-Durán, MartinObergaulinger, BernhardMüller, and José A. Font. Universal relations for gravitational-wave asteroseismology of protoneutron stars.Physical Review Letters, 123(5), jul 2019

    2019

  83. [91]

    Font, and Renate Meyer

    Marie-Anne Bizouard, Patricio Maturana-Russel, Alejandro Torres-Forné , Martin Ober- gaulinger, Pablo Cerdá-Durán, Nelson Christensen, José A. Font, and Renate Meyer. In- ference of protoneutron star properties from gravitational-wave data in core-collapse su- pernovae.Physica...

    2021

  84. [92]

    Font, and Re- nate Meyer

    Tristan Bruel, Marie-Anne Bizouard, Martin Obergaulinger, Patricio Maturana-Russel, Alejandro Torres-Forné, Pablo Cerdá-Durán, Nelson Christensen, José A. Font, and Re- nate Meyer. Inference of protoneutron star properties in core-collapse supernovae from a gravitational-wave ...

    2023

  85. [93]

    Ott, Ernazar Abdikamalov, Philipp Mösta, Roland Haas, Steve Drasco, Evan P

    Christian D. Ott, Ernazar Abdikamalov, Philipp Mösta, Roland Haas, Steve Drasco, Evan P. O'Connor, Christian Reisswig, Casey A. Meakin, and Erik Schnetter. General- relativistic simulations of three-dimensional core-collapse supernovae.The Astrophysical Journal, 768(2):115, apr 2013

    2013

  86. [94]

    Convolutional neural networks for signal detection in real ligo data.Phys

    Ond řej Zelenka, Bernd Brügmann, and Frank Ohme. Convolutional neural networks for signal detection in real ligo data.Phys. Rev. D, 110:024024, Jul 2024. 28

    2024

  87. [95]

    Gebhard, Niki Kilbertus, Ian Harry, and Bernhard Schölkopf

    Timothy D. Gebhard, Niki Kilbertus, Ian Harry, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Convolu- tional neural networks: A magic bullet for gravitational-wave detection?Phys. Rev. D, 100:063015, Sep 2019

    2019

  88. [96]

    Jolien D. E. Creighton and Warren G. Anderson.Gravitational-wave physics and astron- omy: An introduction to theory, experiment and data analysis. 2011

    2011

  89. [97]

    O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2nd edition, 2019

    Aurelien Geron.Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques to Build Intelligent Systems. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2nd edition, 2019

    2019

  90. [98]

    CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, North Charleston, SC, USA, 1st edition, 2018

    David James.Introduction to Machine Learning with Python: A Guide for Beginners in Data Science. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, North Charleston, SC, USA, 1st edition, 2018

    2018

  91. [99]

    Probing nuclear physics with supernova gravitational waves and machine learning

    Ayan Mitra, Daniil Orel, Sultan Abylkairov, Bekdaulet Shukirgaliyev, and Ernazar Abdika- malov. Probing nuclear physics with supernova gravitational waves and machine learning. InEAS2024, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, page 76, July 2024

    2024

  92. [100]

    Visualizing convolutional neural network for classifying gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae.Phys

    Seiya Sasaoka, Naoki Koyama, Diego Dominguez, Yusuke Sakai, Kentaro Somiya, Yuto Omae, and Hirotaka Takahashi. Visualizing convolutional neural network for classifying gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae.Phys. Rev. D, 108:123033, Dec 2023

    2023

  93. [101]

    Convolutional neural networks for the detection of the early inspiral of a gravitational-wave signal.Phys

    Grégory Baltus, Justin Janquart, Melissa Lopez, Amit Reza, Sarah Caudill, and Jean- René Cudell. Convolutional neural networks for the detection of the early inspiral of a gravitational-wave signal.Phys. Rev. D, 103:102003, May 2021

    2021

  94. [102]

    Deep-learning classification and parameter inference of rotational core-collapse supernovae, 2024

    SolangeNunes, GabrielEscrig, OsvaldoG.Freitas, JoséA.Font, TiagoFernandes, Antonio Onofre, and Alejandro Torres-Forné. Deep-learning classification and parameter inference of rotational core-collapse supernovae, 2024

    2024

  95. [103]

    Adhikari, Stefan Ballmer, Barry Barish, Lisa Barsotti, GariLynn Billingsley, Duncan A

    David Reitze, Rana X. Adhikari, Stefan Ballmer, Barry Barish, Lisa Barsotti, GariLynn Billingsley, Duncan A. Brown, Yanbei Chen, Dennis Coyne, Robert Eisenstein, Matthew Evans, Peter Fritschel, Evan D. Hall, Albert Lazzarini, Geoffrey Lovelace, Jocelyn Read, B. S. Sathyaprakas...

    2019

  96. [104]

    Science case for the Einstein telescope.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020(3):050, March 2020

    Michele Maggiore, Chris Van Den Broeck, Nicola Bartolo, Enis Belgacem, Daniele Bertacca, Marie Anne Bizouard, Marica Branchesi, Sebastien Clesse, Stefano Foffa, Juan García-Bellido, Stefan Grimm, Jan Harms, Tanja Hinderer, Sabino Matarrese, Cristiano Palomba, Marco Peloso, Ang...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.