Draft version May 24, 2024

Typeset using LATEX default style in AASTeX62

Detecting the Neutrino Gravitational Wave Memory from Core-Collapse Supernovae using the Moon
Kiranjyot Gill1
1 Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-1516, USA
arXiv:2405.13211v1 [astro-ph.HE] 21 May 2024

Submitted to ApJ Letters

ABSTRACT
Following the milestone of detecting gravitational waves (GWs) from merging compact binaries,
the next significant watershed moment in GW astronomy lies in detecting GWs from core-collapse
supernovae (CCSNe). In this Letter, I describe the possibility of detecting the GW linear memory
– a phenomenon resulting from a combination of aspherical matter ejection and anisotropic neutrino
emission during stellar collapse using GW detectors on the Moon. This would grant unprecedented
access to the sub- Hz/ Hz GW freqeuncy range, which is inaccessible to current and future terrestrial
GW detectors. I demonstrate that three-dimensional CCSNe model matter and neutrino GW wave-
forms may be detectable by both seismometer and interferometeric lunar GW detectors, with the latter
design proposal extending 10 kpc to megaparsec detection distances.

Keywords: core-collapse supernovae, gravitational waves, neutrinos, lunar gravitational wave detectors

1. INTRODUCTION
The birth of gravitational wave (GW) astronomy began when binary black hole (BBH) mergers were first detected
(Abbott et al. 2016), and the prowess of multi-messenger GW astronomy was showcased through the inaugural obser-
vation of a binary neutron star (BNS) merger (Abbott et al. 2017; Soares-Santos et al. 2017). Nevertheless, one eagerly
anticipated source of GWs still remains undiscovered. Core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe), heralding the death of stars
with initial masses exceeding 8M⊙ , remain an alluring GW detection prospect. Past three-dimensional simulations
(see Burrows & Vartanyan 2021; Mezzacappa 2023 for recent reviews) suggest that during core collapse and subse-
quent core bounce at super-nuclear densities, hot fluid instabilities emerge within the newly-formed proto-neutron
star (PNS) and within the developing cavity between the PNS surface and the SN shock wave (Morozova et al. 2018;
Radice et al. 2019; Powell & Müller 2019; Andresen et al. 2019; Mezzacappa et al. 2020; Vartanyan et al. 2023). Such
an asymmetric explosion perturbs the PNS sufficiently, through time-varying quadrupolar motions, to generate GWs
at frequencies between ∼ few Hz to a few kHz (Kuroda et al. 2016; Janka et al. 2016; Andresen et al. 2017; Morozova
et al. 2018; Andresen et al. 2019; Powell & Müller 2019; Radice et al. 2019; Burrows & Vartanyan 2021; Mezzacappa
2023; Vartanyan et al. 2023).
The additional anisotropic emission of neutrinos (Motizuki et al. 2004; Kotake et al. 2004; Takiwaki & Kotake 2018),
combined with the aspherical, large-scale motion of ejected matter, gives rise to sub- Hz GW emission. This induces
a seconds-long lasting alteration in the space-time metric, which shows a secular time evolution that does not average
to zero (Epstein 1978; Burrows et al. 1995; Burrows & Hayes 1996; Mueller & Janka 1997; Kotake et al. 2007, 2009a,b,
2011; Müller et al. 2012; Richardson et al. 2022; Vartanyan et al. 2023), and persists beyond the cessation of neutrino
emission post shock breakout. This effect, known as the GW linear memory, bears the stamp of important explosion
asymmetries and possible neutron star formation. Although the high-frequency GW emission may reach strain values
of a few centimeters at most (Morozova et al. 2018; Powell & Müller 2019; Andresen et al. 2019), the low-frequency
component instead may reach several ∼ 102 centimeters (Vartanyan et al. 2019; Vartanyan & Burrows 2020; Vartanyan

Corresponding author: Kiranjyot Gill;

[email protected]
2 Gill

et al. 2022, 2023). However, due to the squared frequency dependence of the GW energy, EGW , the total emitted GW
energy is still much smaller compared to that from compact binary mergers. EGW from CCSNe ranges anywhere from
∼ 10−11 to 10−8 M⊙ c2 and is contingent on certain characteristics of the progenitor (Kuroda et al. 2016; Andresen
et al. 2017; Kuroda et al. 2017; Morozova et al. 2018; Radice et al. 2019; Powell & Müller 2019; Andresen et al. 2019;
Vartanyan et al. 2019; Powell & Müller 2020; Andresen et al. 2021; Vartanyan et al. 2022, 2023; Mezzacappa et al.
2023).
GW emission originating from slowly-rotating, massive progenitors likely composes the majority of the local CCSNe
GW source population within 20 Mpc (Heger et al. 2005). Due to the squared frequency dependence of the GW energy,
EGW , the total emitted GW energy is still much smaller compared to that from compact binary mergers. EGW from
CCSNe ranges anywhere from ∼ 10−11 to 10−8 M⊙ c2 and is contingent on certain characteristics of the progenitor
(Kuroda et al. 2016; Andresen et al. 2017; Kuroda et al. 2017; Morozova et al. 2018; Radice et al. 2019; Powell &
Müller 2019; Andresen et al. 2019; Vartanyan et al. 2019; Powell & Müller 2020; Andresen et al. 2021; Vartanyan et al.
2022, 2023; Mezzacappa et al. 2023). Using terrestrial GW detectors, such as LIGO (LIGO Scientific Collaboration
et al. 2015), detection capabilities for GW emission from non/slowly-rotating CCSNe are limited to our Galaxy, with
distances within 10 kiloparsecs (Gossan et al. 2016; Abbott et al. 2016; Abbott et al. 2020; Szczepańczyk et al. 2021).
Additionally, the low-frequency GW memory emission would not be observable within the sensitivity band of advanced
LIGO (LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al. 2015) or its terrestrial successors (Reitze et al. 2019; Sathyaprakash et al.
2012; Maggiore et al. 2020), nor would it be accessible with space-based detectors such as LISA (Amaro-Seoane et al.
2017; Colpi et al. 2024).
GW detectors on the Moon offer a potential solution by bridging this gap (Jani & Loeb 2021; Harms et al. 2021;
LILA 2023; Ajith et al. 2024) and granting access to the sub- Hz/ Hz GW frequency spectrum. Seismically, the Moon
is exceptionally quiet (Harms 2022), and its permanently shadowed regions are cold (< 100 K) and thermally stable
(Cozzumbo et al. 2023), making the lunar environment an ideal setting for regularized GW detections. There are two
primary GW lunar detector proposals of interest. The first involves a terrestrial-inspired GW detector (Jani & Loeb
2021; LILA 2023), which is able to be deployed in a triangular configuration separated by tens of kilometers straddling
the edge of a large lunar crater (such as the Shoemaker crater near the southern lunar pole (Basilevsky & Li 2024)).
The second proposal (Harms et al. 2021; Ajith et al. 2024) instead focuses on using an array of inertial sensors to
monitor the lunar surface’s vibrational response to GWs with a lower frequency limit of 0.1 Hz that is set by the
lowest order quadrupole moment of the Moon. Either design proposal would access frequencies below traditional, next
generation terrestrial GW detector noise floors (≤ 10 Hz) and above the detector noise floor of LISA (≥ 0.1 Hz).
In this Letter, I demonstrate that neutrino-driven CCSNe model waveforms, specifically their low frequency emission
due to the GW linear memory, may be detectable out to a few megaparsecs using lunar GW detectors. In Section §2,
I discuss the matter and neutrino GW strains from three-dimensional CCSNe models possessing GW linear memory.
I then extend and taper all GW signals out to 10 seconds and back down to zero. I then project these time-extended
GW CCSNe strains against the noise amplitudes of current (LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al. 2015) and future
(Sathyaprakash et al. 2012; Reitze et al. 2019; Maggiore et al. 2020) generation terrestrial GW detectors and first-
generation lunar GW detector configurations (Jani & Loeb 2021; LILA 2023; Ajith et al. 2024). I discuss the improved
detection prospects with lunar GW detectors subsequently conclude in Section §3.

2. EXTENDED CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE GRAVITATIONAL WAVE MODELS

I use a neutrino-driven waveform model from Vartanyan et al. (2023), as summarized in Table 1. These 9 waveform
models span a range of progenitor star parameters, physical approximations, and signal properties. The GW model
duration is defined as the time span from the onset of collapse until the end of the simulation.
Vartanyan et al. 2023 introduces several progenitor models spanning from 9 - 23 M⊙ and are currently the longest
three-dimensional core-collapse simulations performed to date. All models demonstrate early prompt convection, along
with a haze of GW emission, extending from ∼ 300 Hz - to 2 kHz around ∼ 0.2 - 1.5 s due to the accretion plumes
ringing off the PNS that induce g/f-modal oscillations. The total GW emissions vary by as much as three orders
of magnitude across different progenitors. They also observe the emergence of the GW linear memory effect due to
neutrino emission anisotropy, peaking at frequencies of 25 Hz, with larger amplitudes on smaller timescales. Both
the 11 and 23 M⊙ models exhibit amplified GW strains due to the cumulative effect of neutrino GW linear memory.
Conversely, their models showed a general correlation where the lower mass progenitors tend to possess smaller effects
from GW linear memory and overall smaller amplitudes. Furthermore, the neutrino anisotropy continues to influence
 Detecting Gravitational Waves from Core Collapse Supernovae using the Moon 3

Table 1. GW Waveform Model from Select Neutrino-Driven CCSNe Simulation

Waveform Model Progenitor Mass Duration EGW GW Features

(M⊙ ) (s) (10−10 M⊙ c2 )

Vartanyan et al. 2023 (V23) 9a, 9b, 9.25, 9.50 1.76, 2.04, 2.79, 2.14 0.22, 0.30, 2.46, 4.95 f-/g-modes, SASI, convection, linear memory
11, 12.25, 14, 15.01, 23 4.46, 2.05, 2.53, 3.79, 6.14 45.27, 30.90, 59.18, 107.58, 166.17 –

Note—For each waveform, I provide the associated progenitor masses, signal duration, the emitted GW energy, and the
dominant GW signal features present. The f-/g-modes refer to the respective fundamental and gravity mode oscillations
associated with the PNS.

the GW strain beyond the conclusion of the longest model run. This underscores the significance of neutrino emission
asymmetry, which intensifies by at least two orders of magnitude within 50 ms. However, it’s crucial to note that for
every progenitor model, late-time neutrino-sourced GW energies, although increasing, remain more than two orders
of magnitude smaller than their matter counterparts.

2.1. GW Waveform Extension and Tapering Function

Although the longest simulations extend to approximately four seconds post-bounce, they still lack duration of at
least ten seconds to effectively constrain the 0.1 - 1 Hz frequency region. I overcome this limitation by artificially
extending all GW signals to ten seconds in order to reach 0.1 Hz. By doing this, I allow the estimates of the GW
linear memory from dominant, anisotropic neutrino processes (Arca Sedda et al. 2020; Vartanyan & Burrows 2020;
Vartanyan et al. 2023) into the frequency regime that would be accessible only through lunar GW observatories. I
adopt the waveform extension and tapering function found in (Richardson et al. 2022) and use the extension function
defined as,
te c
2G α×/+ C 1−n
Z
2G c
he×/+ hN Cτ −n (τ )dτ = hN te − N 1−n


(te ) = ×/+ + 4 α×/+ ×/+ + 4
(1)
c R N c R 1−n
where the subscript ×/+ denotes the cross and plus polarization modes and the notation hN ×/+ refers to the GW
signal at the specific time N corresponding to the time of shutdown of neutrino transport within the CCSN simulation.
c
α×/+ denotes the constant parameters representing neutrino anisotropy, te represents times post neutrino transport
shutdown (where t < N ), and C is a constant determined to ensure consistency between the analytically extended
neutrino luminosity and its pre-transport shutdown values (expressed in units of sn ergs). Lastly, n is varied between
0.9 and 1.1, approximating the cooling phase of the PNS.
Additionally, if the amplitude of the GW signal is non-zero at the time of simulation truncation, the abrupt jump
from some finite value to zero will induce artifacts within the GW signal. To account for this, I taper the GW signals
with the tapering function from (Richardson et al. 2022) that brings the GW signal back to zero,

hend
×/+ 
htail 1 + cos 2πft t − tend



×/+ = (2)
2
where ft is the frequency of the tapering function, tend is the duration of the simulation (10 s), hend represents the
signal value at tend , and ft is the frequency of the tapering function.

3. LUNAR GRAVITATIONAL WAVE DETECTION PROSPECTS

√
Figure 1 shows the resulting matter and neutrino sourced GW spectra, 2 f |h̃(f )|, from core-collapse explosions of
varying stellar masses at 10 kpc against the noise curves for the Lunar Gravitational Wave Antenna (LGWA) (Harms
et al. 2021), the Gravitational-wave Lunar Observatory for Cosmology (GLOC) (Jani & Loeb 2021), and the Laser
Interferometer Lunar Antenna (LILA) (LILA 2023). The noise curve from LIGO O3 (Livingston) is included in grey
for comparison, along with noise curves from Cosmic Explorer Maggiore et al. (2020) and Einstein Telescope (Reitze
et al. 2019). In order to understand the detection volume given a detector noise floor, the matched filter signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR) is calculated, as shown in Table 2,
4 Gill

√
Figure 1. The gravitational wave spectra, 2 f |h̃(f √ )|, associated with extended GW models injected at 10 kpc projected
against terrestrial and lunar detector noise curves, Sn . The Figure is split according to the respective matter and neutrino
GW strains for the V23 models. Notably, there exists a substantial disparity of several orders of magnitude between the strains
sourced by these mechanisms, with the neutrino-driven GW strain surpassing the matter-driven counterpart in signal strength.
Additionally, the bounce seen in the higher frequencies in the matter GW strain is primarily due to the modal oscillations
generated by the PNS.
 Detecting Gravitational Waves from Core Collapse Supernovae using the Moon 5

Table 2. The total, cumulative signal-to-noise ratios for different CCSNe waveform models at 10 kpc.

Progenitor Model Matter sourced GW strain Neutrino sourced GW strain

M⊙ LIGO O3 CE ET LGWA LILA GLOC LIGO O3 CE ET LGWA LILA GLOC

9a 11 150 240 <1 4.6 320 11 150 240 4.1 76 2600
9b 15 210 220 <1 160 450 16 210 220 8.0 85 2600
9.25 20 290 3700 <1 1.7 600 20 290 3700 15 130 2400
9.50 33 480 450 <1 10 1000 33 480 450 11 94 2500
11 60 960 840 3.2 60 2100 60 960 840 250 4100 110000
12.25 32 480 440 - <1 970 32 480 440 53 2800 25000
14 55 800 740 - 8.4 1700 56 800 740 51 1200 23000
15.01 65 110 910 2.9 330 2200 66 1100 910 90 5600 2100
23 79 110 1200 1.1 17 16000 79 110 110 75 4800 5800
Note— The total signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for each waveform model is presented for a detection distance of 10 kpc for
both the matter, neutrino GW strains. SNRs are evaluated for the current advanced detector noise floor (O3), as well as for
three different proposed lunar gravitational wave detectors. Lastly, - equates to no accumulated SNR.

s Z
∞
|h̃(f )|2
SNR = 4 df (3)
fmin Sn (f )

where h̃(f ) is the frequency domain representation of the GW strain, Sn (f ) is the single-sided detector noise PSD
and fmin is the frequency of the GW signal at the start of the sample time series.
There are a few trends to note from Figure 1 and Tables 2, 3. Firstly, the GW linear memory will not be detectable
in current terrestrial interferometers, which is contrary to what is claimed by (Richardson et al. 2024), as seen by
Table 3. The total SNR from a galactic CCSN situated at 10 kpc would come from the 100-1000 Hz range. However,
more massive progenitors do result in larger SNRs agnostic of GW detector. For example, in the context of LILA,
for a galactic CCSN at 10 kpc, the 9a matter model has an SNR of 4.5 whereas the 23 matter model has an SNR
of 18. Secondly, as seen in Figure 1 and in both Tables 2 and 3, the GW strain from neutrinos does result in larger
SNRs across all detectors. This is present in even the low-mass progenitor population. In the context of LILA, the
9 - 9.50 M⊙ neutrino models at 10 kpcs possessed SNRs larger by a factor of two compared to the SNRs of the 9 -
9.50 matter models. This trend remains true even in the context of the non-exploding 12.25 and 14 M⊙ models that
directly form a BH post collapse. Additionally, although the 12.25 and 14 M⊙ matter models accumulate no SNR
with LGWA, the 12.25 and 14 M⊙ neutrino models still accumulate SNRs of ∼50 and still may be detected out to
megaparsec distances with LILA. In the context of GLOC, such models would possess SNRs of 102 at 10 megaparsecs.
Note that both the neutrino and matter sourced GW strains would be emitted simultaneously in time. Thirdly, the
choice of lunar detector design significantly impact the detection distances. Interferometer-based designs like GLOC
and LILA are preferred over seismometer proposals like LGWA due to limitations at frequencies below 1 Hz, evident
in Figure 1. For instance, the 15.01 M⊙ matter and neutrino models in LILA and GLOC exhibit galactic SNRs of 103
- 104 and SNRs of 102 at a few megaparsecs, contrasting with LGWA, which barely achieves SNRs of 102 at 10 kpc.
Moreover, LGWA may be unable to detect any emissions from the low-mass stellar population.
In conclusion, the burgeoning knowledge from GW emission from CCSNe underscores the importance of realisti-
cally assessing detection capabilities for the first GW detection from CCSNe. As demonstrated in this paper, both
current and future terrestrial interfermeter GW detectors will be unable to detect the GW linear memory. However,
interferometric lunar GW detectors like LILA and GLOC enable low-frequency GW detection from CCSNe at mega-
parsec distances, even for vanilla, low-mass CCSNe. Future endeavors will concentrate on establishing data analysis
infrastructure for a lunar GW environment for both stellar collapse and binary merger GW signals.
6 Gill

Table 3. Signal-to-noise ratios produced by the GW linear memory between 0.1 and 10 Hz for CCSNe waveform models
at 10 kpc.

Progenitor Model Matter sourced GW strain Neutrino sourced GW strain

M⊙ LIGO O3 CE ET LGWA LILA GLOC LIGO O3 CE ET LGWA LILA GLOC

9a - 1.9 10 <1 4.5 35 - <1 2.8 4.1 73 1200
9b - <1 4.4 <1 160 13 - <1 3.8 7.9 84 1200
9.25 - 1.3 6.4 <1 1.2 21 - <1 3.3 15 130 1200
9.50 - 10 47 <1 10 160 - <1 2.3 10 85 1800
11 - 28 160 3.2 59 530 - <1 2.8 250 4000 46000
12.25 - <1 <1 - 0.11 2.9 - <1 3.6 52 2800 10000
14 - <1 1.7 - <1 5.3 - <1 3.1 51 1150 10000
15.01 - 25 130 2.9 330 430 - <1 3.4 89 5500 9700
23 - 10 48 1.1 17 170 - <1 3.2 75 4800 4200
Note— The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) contribution from the GW linear memory for each waveform model within 10 kpc
for both the matter, neutrino GW strains. SNRs are evaluated for the current advanced detector noise floor (O3), as
well as for three different proposed lunar gravitational wave detectors. Lastly, - equates to no accumulated SNR.

REFERENCES
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Andresen, H., Müller, E., Janka, H.-T., et al. 2019,
PhRvL, 116, 061102, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486,
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 2238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz990
Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 102001, Arca Sedda, M., Berry, C. P. L., Jani, K., et al. 2020,
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.102001 Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37, 215011,
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/abb5c1
PhRvL, 119, 161101, Basilevsky, A., & Li, Y. 2024, Planetary and Space Science,
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 241, 105839,
—. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 084002, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2024.105839
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.084002 Burrows, A., & Hayes, J. 1996, PhRvL, 76, 352,
Ajith, P., Amaro Seoane, P., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.352
arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.09181, Burrows, A., Hayes, J., & Fryxell, B. A. 1995, ApJ, 450,
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.09181 830, doi: 10.1086/176188
Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2021, Nature, 589, 29,
e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786 Colpi, M., Danzmann, K., Hewitson, M., et al. 2024, arXiv
Andresen, H., Glas, R., & Janka, H. T. 2021, MNRAS, 503, e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571,
3552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab675 doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.07571
Andresen, H., Müller, B., Müller, E., & Janka, H.-T. 2017, Cozzumbo, A., Mestichelli, B., Mirabile, M., et al. 2023,
MNRAS, 468, 2032, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx618 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.15160,
Andresen, H., Müller, E., Janka, H. T., et al. 2019, Monthly doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.15160
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2238, Epstein, R. 1978, ApJ, 223, 1037, doi: 10.1086/156337
doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz990 Gossan, S. E., Sutton, P., Stuver, A., et al. 2016, PhRvD,
Andresen, H., Müller, B., Müller, E., & Janka, H.-T. 2017, 93, 042002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.042002
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, Harms, J. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129, 071102,
2032, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx618 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.071102
 Detecting Gravitational Waves from Core Collapse Supernovae using the Moon 7

Harms, J., Ambrosino, F., Angelini, L., et al. 2021, The Mueller, E., & Janka, H. T. 1997, A&A, 317, 140
Astrophysical Journal, 910, 1, Müller, E., Janka, H. T., & Wongwathanarat, A. 2012,
doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe5a7
A&A, 537, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117611
Heger, A., Woosley, S. E., & Spruit, H. C. 2005, ApJ, 626,
Powell, J., & Müller, B. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1178,
350, doi: 10.1086/429868
Jani, K., & Loeb, A. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1304
Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 044, —. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1048
doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/06/044 Radice, D., Morozova, V., Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., &
Janka, H.-T., Melson, T., & Summa, A. 2016, ArXiv
Nagakura, H. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, L9,
e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05576
doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab191a
Kotake, K., Iwakami, W., Ohnishi, N., & Yamada, S. 2009a,
ApJL, 697, L133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/L133 Radice, D., Morozova, V., Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., &
—. 2009b, ApJ, 704, 951, Nagakura, H. 2019, ApJL, 876, L9,
doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/951 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab191a
Kotake, K., Iwakami-Nakano, W., & Ohnishi, N. 2011, Reitze, D., Adhikari, R. X., Ballmer, S., et al. 2019, in
ApJ, 736, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/124
Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51,
Kotake, K., Ohnishi, N., & Yamada, S. 2007, ApJ, 655,
35. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04833
406, doi: 10.1086/509320
Kotake, K., Sawai, H., Yamada, S., & Sato, K. 2004, The Richardson, C. J., Andresen, H., Mezzacappa, A., et al.
Astrophysical Journal, 608, 391, doi: 10.1086/392530 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02131,
Kuroda, T., Kotake, K., Hayama, K., & Takiwaki, T. 2017, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02131
The Astrophysical Journal, 851, 62,
Richardson, C. J., Zanolin, M., Andresen, H., et al. 2022,
doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa988d
PhRvD, 105, 103008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103008
Kuroda, T., Kotake, K., & Takiwaki, T. 2016, The
Astrophysical Journal, 829, L14, Sathyaprakash, B., Abernathy, M., Acernese, F., et al.
doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l14 2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 124013,
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/29/12/124013
et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, Soares-Santos, M., Holz, D. E., Annis, J., et al. 2017, ApJL,
doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001
848, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9059
LILA, C. 2023, Vanderbilt University.
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lunarlabs/lila/ Szczepańczyk, M. J., Antelis, J. M., Benjamin, M., et al.
Maggiore, M., Van Den Broeck, C., Bartolo, N., et al. 2020, 2021, PhRvD, 104, 102002,
JCAP, 2020, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.102002
Mezzacappa, A. 2023, IAU Symposium, 362, 215, Takiwaki, T., & Kotake, K. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L91,
doi: 10.1017/S1743921322001831 doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly008
Mezzacappa, A., Marronetti, P., Landfield, R. E., et al.
Vartanyan, D., & Burrows, A. 2020, ApJ, 901, 108,
2020, PhRvD, 102, 023027,
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023027 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafac
—. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 043008, Vartanyan, D., Burrows, A., & Radice, D. 2019, MNRAS,
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043008 489, 2227, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2307
Morozova, V., Radice, D., Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. Vartanyan, D., Burrows, A., Wang, T., Coleman, M. S. B.,
2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 10,
& White, C. J. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 103015,
doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5f1
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103015
Motizuki, Y., Madokoro, H., & Shimizu, T. 2004, in EAS
Publications Series, Vol. 11, EAS Publications Series, ed. Vartanyan, D., Coleman, M. S. B., & Burrows, A. 2022,
A. Jorissen, S. Goriely, M. Rayet, L. Siess, & H. Boffin, MNRAS, 510, 4689, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3702
163–171, doi: 10.1051/eas:2004011
8 Gill

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks Avi Loeb for inspiration and Edo Berger for motivation. The author also thanks Karan Jani,
David Vartanyan, and John A. Lewis for insightful and creative discussions. The author additionally thanks the CCSNe
simulation community for their publicly available GW waveforms. This research has made use of data or software
obtained from the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center (gw-openscience.org), a service of LIGO Laboratory, the
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA. LIGO Laboratory and Advanced LIGO are
funded by the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) as well as the Science and Technology Facilities
Council (STFC) of the United Kingdom, the Max-Planck-Society (MPS), and the State of Niedersachsen/Germany for
support of the construction of Advanced LIGO and construction and operation of the GEO600 detector. Additional
support for Advanced LIGO was provided by the Australian Research Council. Virgo is funded, through the European
Gravitational Observatory (EGO), by the French Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), the Italian
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and the Dutch Nikhef, with contributions by institutions from Belgium,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, Spain. The construction and operation of
KAGRA are funded by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), and Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), National Research Foundation (NRF) and Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT)
in Korea, Academia Sinica (AS) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) in Taiwan.