Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Supernova Gravitational Wave Signal Classification

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.14508 v2 pith:6EGCNPAA submitted 2024-09-22 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Supernova Gravitational Wave Signal Classification

classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords accuracyclassificationmodelsgreplearningmachinesignalbayes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the potential of using gravitational wave (GW) signals from rotating core-collapse supernovae to probe the equation of state (EOS) of nuclear matter. By generating GW signals from simulations with various EOSs, we train machine learning models to classify them and evaluate their performance. Our study builds on previous work by examining how different machine learning models, parameters, and data preprocessing techniques impact classification accuracy. We test convolutional and recurrent neural networks, as well as six classical algorithms: random forest, support vector machines, na\"{i}ve Bayes, logistic regression, $k$-nearest neighbors, and eXtreme gradient boosting. All models, except na\"{i}ve Bayes, achieve over 90 per cent accuracy on our dataset. Additionally, we assess the impact of approximating the GW signal using the general relativistic effective potential (GREP) on EOS classification. We find that models trained on GREP data exhibit low classification accuracy. However, normalizing time by the peak signal frequency, which partially compensates for the absence of the time dilation effect in GREP, leads to a notable improvement in accuracy. Despite this, the accuracy does not exceed 70 per cent, suggesting that GREP lacks the precision necessary for EOS classification. Finally, our study has several limitations, including the omission of detector noise and the focus on a single progenitor mass model, which will be addressed in future works.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Contrastive self-supervised convolutional autoencoder for core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave detection

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A contrastive self-supervised convolutional autoencoder detects core-collapse supernova gravitational waves with performance comparable to supervised CNNs, better generalization to unseen waveforms, and ~120 kpc sensi...

  2. Parameter Estimation Horizon of Core-Collapse Supernovae with Current and Next-Generation Gravitational-Wave Detectors

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Machine learning extracts core rotation and signal properties from CCSN gravitational waves, with next-generation detectors constraining rotation beyond 100 kpc for favorable orientations despite some uncertainties.

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

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 conditional novelty 4.5

    Real detector noise, multi-progenitor diversity, and 20 ms bounce-time uncertainty leave EOS classification accuracy from CCSN GWs largely intact; larger datasets improve it.