Deep learning algorithms for gravitational waves
core-collapse supernova detection
M. López
2021 International Conference on Content-Based Multimedia Indexing (CBMI) | 978-1-6654-4220-6/20/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/CBMI50038.2021.9461885
Nikhef, Science Park 105, 1098 XG,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics
(GRASP), Utrecht University, Princetonplein 1,
3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands
Email: m.lopez@uu.nl
I. Di Palma and F. Ricci
Università di Roma La Sapienza, I-00185 Roma, Italy
INFN, Sezione di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy
Email: Irene.DiPalma@roma1.infn.it
Email: fulvio.ricci@roma1.infn.it
Abstract—The detection of gravitational waves from core-
collapse supernova (CCSN) explosions is a challenging task, yet
to be achieved, in which it is key the connection between multiple
messengers, including neutrinos and electromagnetic signals. In
this work, we present a method for detecting these kind of
signals based on machine learning techniques. We tested its
robustness by injecting signals in the real noise data taken by
the Advanced LIGO-Virgo network during the second observa-
tion run, O2. We trained three newly developed convolutional
neural networks using time-frequency images corresponding to
injections of simulated phenomenological signals, which mimic
the waveforms obtained in 3D numerical simulations of CCSNe.
With this algorithm we were able to identify signals from both
our phenomenological template bank and from actual numerical
3D simulations of CCSNe. We computed the detection efficiency
versus the source distance, obtaining that, for signal to noise ratio
higher than 15, the detection efficiency is 70 % at a false alarm
rate lower than 5%. We notice also that, in the case of O2 run,
it would have been possible to detect signals emitted at 1 kpc of
distance, whilst lowering down the efficiency to 60%, the event
distance reaches values up to 14 kpc.
Index terms—Convolutional, gravitational waves, machine
learning, supernovae.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Since 2015, with the first detection of the gravitational
waves (GWs) emitted during the merging of two black holes
[1], the LIGO and Virgo GW observatories have been detecting
signals from astrophysical sources [2], [3], opening a new
window of observation in astronomy. The sensitivity of these
GW detectors is on the limit of the capabilities of current
technology and the detection process requires extracting weak
signals buried in non-stationary noise. Among the yet unob-
served targets of these observatories, core collapse supernova
(CCSN) explosions are particularly challenging due to the
weakness of the signals and their inherent complexity. The
Authorized licensed use limited to: JAnibal Arias. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 17:38:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
M. Drago
Università di Roma La Sapienza, I-00185 Roma, Italy
INFN, Sezione di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy
Gran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), I-67100 L’Aquila, Italy
INFN, Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, I-67100 Assergi, Italy
Email: marco.drago@gssi.it
P. Cerdá-Durán
Departamento de Astronomı́a y Astrofı́sica,
Universitat de València, Dr. Moliner 50,
46100, Burjassot (Valencia), Spain
Email: pablo.cerda@uv.es
observation of these events would help us understanding the
mechanism producing these cataclysmic explosions.
At the end of their lives, massive stars (those born with
masses between 8 and 100 solar masses) have accumulated,
product of thermonuclear fusion processes, about 1.4 solar
masses of elements of the iron family in a compact core.
This iron core cannot supports its own weight and experiments
a gravitational collapse. The compressed matter eventually
exceeds nuclear matter density and atomic nuclei disintegrate
into free nucleons (mostly neutrons) and neutrinos, forming a
proto-neutron star (PNS). At the same time, the rapid change
of the compressibility of matter (dictated by the equation
of state of nuclear matter) halts the collapse and produces
a shock wave that, helped by the additional thermal energy
deposited by the outstreaming neutrinos, disrupts the entire
star producing a characteristic electromagnetic signal known as
supernova. This is the so called neutrino driven mechanism [4],
[5], and is expected to be responsible for the majority (> 99%)
of all CCSN explosions. Mass motions in the newly formed
PNS are responsible for the emission of strong GW signals,
which could be detectable at galactic distances A combined
multi-messenger detection of the GW signal together with the
neutrino signal would be critical to confirm this theoretical
model and would help us understanding the details of the
processes taking place during the explosion. In this work,
we do not conduct a real multi-messenger strategy, but we
perform a triggered GW search supposing to know the timing
information of neutrino signal.
Although the phenomenon is among of the most energetic in
the universe, the amplitude of the gravitational wave impinging
on a detector on the Earth is extremely faint. To increase
the detection probability, we should increase the volume of
the universe to be explored and this can be achieved both
by decreasing the detector noise and using better performing
statistical algorithms.
Due to the complexity and stochasticity of the waveform,
generating numerical simulations of this physical process is
challenging and computationally intensive. Therefore, it is
impossible to detect these sources with the current state-of-the-
art of template-matching techniques. Current efforts to search
for gravitational waves from CCSNe ([6], [7], [8], [9]) make
use of pipelines (cWB [10], oLib [11] and BayesWave [12])
for searches based on excess power to identify signals buried
in the detector’s noise without taking advantage of any specific
feature of CCSN waveform. Nonetheless, we can benefit from
the signal peculiarity.
In this line of thought, it was proposed in [13] the use
of Machine Learning (ML) techniques, in particular convo-
lutional neural networks (CNNs), focusing on the monotonic
raise of the GW signal in the time-frequency plane due to
the excitation of g-modes in the PNS, which is the dominant
feature present in the GW spectrum. In this work, a set
of phenomenological waveform designed to mimic numerical
simulations is developed and injected in Gaussian noise. Due
to their inexpensive computation, the authors are able to
generate large phenomenological training and validation sets,
and test their network with numerical simulations. A similar
approach has been followed recently by ([14], [15], [16]) and
in general there has been an increasing interest in the GW
community for the use of ML methods, (see [17] for a review).
Furthermore, the work of [13] has been recently extended in
[18] with several improvements and employing real noise.
The main goal of this research is to generate an inexpensive
set of phenomenological waveforms that mimic the physical
process described above, and to build a ML algorithm for the
detection task, while improving the performance obtained by
[13] in Gaussian noise, and extending it to real noise. In this
proceedings paper, which is part of a larger work published
in [18], we provide technical details about the first steps
towards the development of the final algorithm. In particular,
we describe and compare the three different CNN architectures
that were tested. Moreover, with the final algorithm we show
the similarity between the phenomenological data, labeled as
blind set, and the set from numerical simulations, labeled as
test set, in terms of its performance.
II. DATA
We employ the data in Gaussian noise from [13] to build
our CNNs (see results in section IV A and B). Nonetheless,
to extend this work we also generate a data set in real noise,
as described below (see results in section IV C).
To assess the robustness of our method, we selected data
from the second observing run (O2) of the Advanced GW
detectors, without relaying on any neutrino information. In
particular, we chose a stretch of data taken during August
2017, when Virgo joined the run [19]. The period includes
about 15 days of coincidence time among the three detectors.
About 2 years of time-shifts data have been used to construct
noise to train and test the neural network.
Authorized licensed use limited to: JAnibal Arias. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 17:38:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 1. From the top; the spectrogram of LIGO Hanford, LIGO Livingston
and Virgo shown in red, green and blue, respectively. At the bottom: the RGB
image obtained by stacking the previous three spectrograms. In this case, the
signal is present just in Hanford and Livingston so that the combined signal
at the bottom is in yellow.
To build images for our neural network algorithm we
employ the Wavelet transform built in cWB algorithm
(https://gwburst.gitlab.io/ ). Their size is 256 × 64 pixels, cov-
ering the frequency band from 0 o 2048 Hz and a time range
of 2 s (typical signal duration is under 1 s). To enhance the
classification task, we use coincidence of different detectors
by generating RGB images. For this purpose, we use primary
colours for the spectrograms of each detector: red (R) for
LIGO-Hanford, green (G) for LIGO - Livingston and blue
(B) for Virgo (see [13] for details). A random example of the
input of the CNN is shown in Fig 1. The signal is dominated
by the presence of g-modes whose frequency increases as the
neutron star becomes more compact.. We use the next data
sets for our analysis of real noise in sections IV C:
1) Training set: For each distance d ∈ {0.2, 0.4, 1, 3, 4} in
kpc, ≈ 70000 phenomenological waveforms with random
sky localization were injected (see section II of [18] for
details). 75% of the set is used in the actual training while
the remaining 25% is used for validation.
2) Blind set: these set contains ≈ 26000 phenomenological
waveforms from the same distribution as the training set,
with a uniform distance distribution in range [0.2, 15]
kpc. This set is used to quantify the detection efficiency
and to test the network.
3) Test set: we perform injections using realistic CCSN
waveforms from 3D numerical simulations of non-
rotating progenitor stars representative of the neutrino
driven mechanism. The selection includes publicly avail-
able waveforms from the literature (details can be found
in [18]). The injected waveforms are in practice com-
pletely uncorrelated to any information we have used
to train the CNN network. We injected about 65000
waveforms uniformly in distance and sky directions, from
100 pc to 15 kpc.
III. M ETHODOLOGY
A. Training methodology
As in [13], we train the network using curriculum learning,
where we start training with the easiest data sets, and then
Fig. 2. Reduced versions of Resnet and Inception v4. Several tests were
performed and the present architectures provided the best results.
gradually the task difficulty is increased. In our framework,
the difficulty of the data sets increases with decreasing signal-
to-noise ratio (SNR). The data sets are balanced, and we use
75% of the data for training and 25% for validation. In the
previous paper we measured the performance of the neural
network in terms of the efficiency ηCN N and the false alarm
rate F ARCN N , which are equivalent to the true positive rate
and the false discovery rate, respectively, according to the
standard confusion matrix. In this research we also measure
the performance of our network with the area under the curve
(AUC), which is created by plotting the true positive rate
(TPR) against the false positive rate (FPR) and measuring the
area under the curve.
B. Increasing complexity of CNNs for CCSN signals
In a CNN, the input is convolved with a filter, which
varies according to the characteristics of the data since it
can be learned by the network. With these ideas in mind,
the previous work [13] provided a clear evidence that, under
relatively simplified conditions, deep CNN algorithms could
be more efficient to extract GW signals from CCSNe than
the current methodology. Therefore, the aim of this work
is to improve the neural network developed in [13], going
deeper with convolutions to increase accuracy while keeping
computational complexity at a reasonable cost.
The most straightforward way of improving the performance
of a deep neural network is by increasing their size. Nonethe-
less, enlarging a network implies to train a larger amount of
parameters and over-complicating the model, which increases
dramatically the computational cost. A fundamental way of
solving these issues would be to move from fully connected
to sparsely connected architectures.
With this aim, [20] proposes a sophisticated network topol-
ogy construction, the so-called Inception network. The ar-
chitecture is composed by blocks of convolutions, known as
Inception modules. The input of each block is convolved in
Authorized licensed use limited to: JAnibal Arias. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 17:38:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 3. Mini Inception-Resnet v1 and its optimized version. Several tests were
performed and the present architectures provided the best results.
parallel by separate CNN layers with different kernels, while
the outputs of all the convolutions are stacked. In such a way,
a sparse network is built without the necessity of choosing a
particular kernel size, but computational complexity increases
drastically. To prevent a high computational cost the authors
introduce dimensionality reduction, i.e. 1 × 1 convolutions that
reduce the depth of the output. The idea of decreasing the
number of parameters without reducing the expressiveness of
the block is explored even further, and the authors introduce
the factorization of convolutions to increase the computational
efficiency (see [21] for details).
Another obstacle of deeper networks is the degradation
problem, where, with increasing depth, accuracy gets saturated
and then degrades rapidly. In [22] this problem is approached
by introducing a deep neural network, called Residual Network
or ResNet. Furthermore, in this work, different empirical
results show that the degradation problem is well addressed
since accuracy gains are obtained from increasing depth.
Due to the improvements in accuracy obtained with Incep-
tion network and Resnet, in [23] it was explored the combi-
nation of these two brilliant architectures. As a result, they
developed, among others, an architecture called Inception-
Resnet v1, which achieved tremendous improvements of the
performance.
Our problem is much simpler than the task performed in
[23], since we only need to discriminate between two classes:
templates that contain a GW CCSN signal (event class) and
templates that do not contain a GW CCSN signal (noise class).
Therefore, we will build a CNN with the ideas mentioned
above, but with only a few layers. As a consequence, we have
developed reduced (“mini”) version of Inception v4, Resnet
and Inception-Resnet v1, using the original building blocks of
those networks, but adapting them to our needs.
C. Mini architectures
In this section we present the reduced architectures, namely
Mini Resnet, Mini Inception v4 and Mini Inception-Resnet v1.
Several variations of these architectures were explored and
in this work we present the best performing ones. For the
development of the networks, including the model definition,
the training and the validation phases, we have used the Keras
frameworks [24], based on the TensorFlow backend [25]. We
employ Adamax optimizer, with learning rate 0.001 and we
train each network for 20 epochs [26]. The activation functions
of all the convolutional layers is relu activation function,
ReLU (x) = max (0, x). In this work we use binary cross-
entropy loss function and a sigmoid activation function for
the output.
Excessive Max pooling hinders the learning process, as it
might extract crucial information that the consequent layers
need. Therefore, we use a minimal amount of pooling layers,
but an optimized version would require further parameter
reduction. In Figs. 2 and 3 we provide a scheme of these
networks and in the following we present their main charac-
teristics:
• Mini Resnet: it has a single “skip connection” (repre-
sented as an arch). This is due to the fact that when
increasing the number of layers and “skip connections”,
the performance of the network decreased rapidly for
short architectures (≤ 30 layers). This network has a total
of 381390 parameters and a single epoch takes 31 s.
• Mini Inception v4: we implement the block of Inception
v4 A (see [23] for details). This network has a total of
250251 parameters and a single epoch takes 26 s.
• Mini Inception-ResNet v1: we implement the block of
Inception-ResNet A and C presented in [23]. The mod-
ules Inception-ResNet-B and Reduction-B are the most
expensive blocks, so they are discarded for this work (see
[23] for details). This is the most complex network and
the most expensive to train, as it has a total of 522346
parameters and a single epoch takes 43 s. In an optimized
version Reduction blocks should be present to enlighten
the computations.
Due to its high preliminary performance (see section IV-B)
we shrink the amount of parameters of Mini Inception-ResNet
by interspersing Inception-Resnet modules with Reduction-A
blocks and fine-tune it (see Fig. 3 left panel and [18] for details
on the blocks). Because of its deepness, the resulting Mini
Inception-Resnet architecture is much more flexible than the
one presented in the previous work [13], and it is ∼ 30 times
more complex, as the previous network has ≈ 6000 parameters
and the optimized Mini Inception-Renset has ≈ 99000.
Authorized licensed use limited to: JAnibal Arias. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 17:38:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IV. R ESULTS
A. Waveform injection in Gaussian noise: comparison of mini
architectures
To train and validate the networks, we use the data set
described in [13], composed of waveforms ranging in the
interval SNR=[8, 40]. This choice allows us for a direct
comparison with the previous work and to make an informed
decision on the choice of the architecture to optimize. In Fig.
4 we plot efficiency ηCN N and the false alarm rate F ARCN N
as function of the SNR for the three architectures presented in
III-C. Note that these networks have not been fully optimized
but are rather a proof of concept for the final design of the
full architecture.
Fig. 4. ηCN N (solid lines) and F ARCN N (dashed lines) as functions of
SNR computed during the validation process for architectures presented in
III-C
As we can observe, Mini Inception v4 (pink) and Mini
Resnet (orange), have a similar performance in terms of effi-
ciency ηCN N , but Mini Inception v4 has a lower F ARCN N .
Due to its complexity and generalization ability, Mini
Inception-Resnet v1 acquires the lowest F ARCN N for large
SNR, and it has the largest ηCN N , except for low SNR. Due
to its better performance we focus only in the Mini Inception-
Resnet v1 network,which is optimized in the next section and
used for the different test presented in the rest of this work.
B. Waveform injection in Gaussian noise: comparison with
previous results
We wish to improve the performance of Mini Inception-
Resnet, with the same set as in the previous section, by
minimizing F ARCN N while maximizing ηCN N . Therefore,
we add Recuction blocks and fine-tune the network, as we
mentioned before. On top of that, we implement a weighted
binary cross-entropy, where we assign a weight w to the noise
class and a weight 1 to the event class. We vary this parameter
between w = [1.0, 3.5]. Moreover, the algorithm returns the
probability θ that a certain template belongs to the event
class. We want this probability to be high without dramatically
decreasing ηCN N . Therefore, we define the decision threshold
θ in range [50%, 85%] and we perform different experiments
∗
to tune w and θ. We found that to minimize F ARCN N at a
relatively high ηCN N , a good penalization was w = 2.0. It is
important to note that w will penalize the learning, so if the
network is learning correctly the results would be enhanced,
but it will lead to poor results otherwise.
To have a clearer comparison between different penaliza-
tions w and the results from the previous paper [13], we plot
the validation results of Mini Inception Resnet for w = {1, 2}
in Fig. 5.

Fig. 6. ηCN N as a function of the distance computed during the testing

process for {w, N, θ } = {2, 30.000, 65%}.
∗

we increase the distance, they seem to reach a lower limit at

ηCN N ≈ 60%. In Fig. 7 we also plotted ηCN N against SNR.

Fig. 5. ηCN N (solid lines) and F ARCN N (dashed lines) as functions of

SNR computed during the validation process of w = {1, 2}, with θ = 65%,
∗
∗
and [13], where θ = 50%.

Since we want to obtain a trade-off between ηCN N and

∗
F ARCN N , we settle w = 2.0 and θ = 65%. The main
improvement of our network with respect to [13] is the
minimization of F ARCN N towards ∼ 0% for SNR in range
[15, 20], while maintaining the same ηCN N . We note also that
the poor performance at low SNR is due to the fact that this
architecture is susceptible to the strong presence of Gaussian
white noise, as it is pointed out in [27].
C. Waveform injections in real detector noise: final results
In this section we present the results obtained when training
in the injected phenomenological signals in real noise in
the interval SNR=[1, 232], known as training set (section
II). Afterwards, we predict the labels of the testing sets:
blind set and the test set, (section II for details). The signals
injected in the blind set correspond to waveforms generated
by the same procedure used to generate the training set, while
the injections in the test set correspond to realistic CCSN
waveforms. The expectation is that our network will obtain a
similar performance for both sets, since the blind set mimics
the test set. As in the previous section, we choose w = 2 and
∗
the decision threshold θ = 65%.
When comparing the area under the curve (AUC) of both
data sets, we note the high performance of the test set
(AUC=0.79), close to the results obtained with the blind set
(AUC=0.90). As expected, both measurements are close, due
to the fact that the set of phenomenological waveforms mimics
the behaviour of the waveforms simulated with numerical
relativity in the test set.
Fig. 6 also shows the resemblance between the blind set and
test set, representing ηCN N as a function of the distance to the
source. As we can see, at short distances there is a difference
in efficiency between blind set and test set of ≈ 10%, but when
Fig. 7. ηCN N as a function of SNR computed during the testing process for
{w, N, θ } = {2, 30.000, 65%}.
∗
For low SNR, the difference in efficiency ηCN N between
the two cases, blind set and test set, is around 10%, while
for SNR > 15 we obtain similar efficiency. This final result
assesses the robustness of this method to detect CCSN signals
embedded in the real detector noise.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
We developed new machine learning algorithms to further
improve the detectability of a GW signal from CCSN, fol-
lowing the path traced in [13]. We propose three different
architectures: Mini ResNet, Mini Inceptio v4 and Mini In-
ception ResNet v1. After the first preliminary results, we
decide to fine-tune Mini Inception ResNet v1 due to its better
performance.
The short size of our Mini Resnet network, which under-
performs with respect to the other CNNs tested, is the result of
the problems that we had when trying to implement a medium-
sized Resnet. A possible explanation is that “skip connections”
improve the learning of very deep networks (> 100 layers), but
not the ones of short networks as the degradation problem is
not as acute, which should be explored in future works. More-
over, the first preliminary results showed that Mini Inception
ResNet v1 overcame the performance of Mini Inception v4,

Authorized licensed use limited to: JAnibal Arias. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 17:38:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
due to the combination of “skip connections” and Inception
modules, as mentioned in [23].
Regarding the applicability of our method for the GW de-
∗
tection, we have considered a detection threshold, θ = 65%,
that results in a FAR of about 5% at SNR∼ 15. These values
could be appropriate for an observation with high confidence
of an event in coincidence with a neutrino signal. If the
method were to be used in all-sky non-triggered searches, the
range of values of FAR needed to make a detection with high
confidence could be achieved by using values of θ very close
to 100%. The efficiency of the algorithm in this regime is
something that could be explored in future work. Moreover,
these results are very promising for future detections of GWs
from CCSN, because the network allows us to observe more
than half of the events within 15 kpc.
The high efficiency ηCN N obtained with the test set, which
uses signals of a completely different catalogue from the
training set, is a good example of the generalization ability
of the CNN. At present the entire data processing is rather
fast , as predicting 180 s of data from the test set takes
0.27s, while the current cWB pipeline needs around 2 − 5
min. We could easily increase the number of classes to be
able to detect other GW sources with the same architecture.
In the future, the new algorithm presented here should be
compared under realistic conditions with the methods currently
in use within the LIGO-Virgo collaboration to evaluate the
real advantages of the method. In particular, the high speed
of CNNs is an advantage for the design of new low-latency
detection pipelines for CCSN.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research has made use of data, software and/or web
tools obtained from the Gravitational Wave Open Science Cen-
ter (//https://www.gw-openscience.org/ /), a service of LIGO
Laboratory, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo
Collaboration. LIGO is funded by the U.S. National Science
Foundation. Virgo is funded, through the European Gravita-
tional Observatory (EGO), by the French Centre National de
Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), the Italian Istituto Nazionale
della Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and the Dutch Nikhef, with
contributions by institutions from Belgium, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, Spain. ML
is supported by the research programme of the Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). PCD acknowl-
edges the support from the grants PGC2018-095984-B-I00,
PROMETEU/2019/071 and the Ramon y Cajal funding (RYC-
2015-19074) supporting his research. In addition, IDP and FR
acknowledge the support from the Amaldi Research Center
funded by the MIUR program ”Dipartimento di Eccellenza”
(CUP:B81I18001170001) and the Sapienza School for Ad-
vanced Studies (SSAS) and the support of the Sapienza grant
RM120172AEF49A82..
R EFERENCES
[1] B. A. et al., “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black
Hole Merger,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 116, no. 6, p. 061102, Feb. 2016.
Authorized licensed use limited to: JAnibal Arias. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 17:38:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[2] B. P. A. et al., “GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of
Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First
and Second Observing Runs,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 031040,
2019.
[3] R. A. et al., “GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by
LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run,”
Oct 2020.
[4] H. Bethe, “Supernova mechanisms,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 62, pp.
801–866, Oct 1990. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.
1103/RevModPhys.62.801
[5] H. Janka, “Neutrino emission from supernovae,” pp. 1575–1604, 2017.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 4
[6] B. A. et al., “First targeted search for gravitational-wave bursts from
core-collapse supernovae in data of first-generation laser interferometer
detectors,” vol. 94, no. 10, p. 102001, Nov. 2016.
[7] B. P. A. et al., “Optically targeted search for gravitational waves emitted
by core-collapse supernovae during the first and second observing runs
of advanced LIGO and advanced Virgo,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 101, no. 8,
p. 084002, 2020.
[8] B. A. et al., “All-sky search for short gravitational-wave bursts in the
first Advanced LIGO run,” Phys. Rev., vol. D95, no. 4, p. 042003, 2017.
[9] ——, “All-sky search for short gravitational-wave bursts in the second
Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo run,” Phys. Rev., vol. D100, no. 2,
p. 024017, 2019.
[10] S. K. et al., “Method for detection and reconstruction of gravitational
wave transients with networks of advanced detectors,” Phys. Rev.
D, vol. 93, p. 042004, Feb 2016. [Online]. Available: https:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.042004
[11] R. L. et al., “Information-theoretic approach to the gravitational-wave
burst detection problem,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 95, no. 10, p. 104046, 2017.
[12] N. Cornish and T. Littenberg, “BayesWave: Bayesian Inference for
Gravitational Wave Bursts and Instrument Glitches,” Class. Quant.
Grav., vol. 32, no. 13, p. 135012, 2015.
[13] P. A. et al., “A new method to observe gravitational waves emitted by
core collapse supernovae,” Physical Review D, vol. 98, Dec 2018.
[14] M. L. C. et al., “Detection and classification of supernova
gravitational wave signals: A deep learning approach,” Phys. Rev.
D, vol. 102, p. 043022, Aug 2020. [Online]. Available: https:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043022
[15] M. C. et al., “Improving the background of gravitational-wave searches
for core collapse supernovae: A machine learning approach,” Mach.
Learn. Sci. Tech., vol. 1, p. 015005, 2020.
[16] A. I. et all., “Core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave search
and deep learning classification,” Machine Learning: Science and
Technology, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 025014, Jun 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/ab7d31
[17] E. C. et al., “Enhancing gravitational-wave science with machine
learning,” Machine Learning: Science and Technology, vol. 2, no. 1,
p. 011002, Dec 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/
2632-2153/abb93a
[18] M. L. et al., “Deep learning for core-collapse supernova detection,”
Phys. Rev. D, vol. 103, p. 063011, Mar 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063011
[19] R. A. et al., “Open data from the first and second observing runs of
advanced ligo and advanced virgo,” SoftwareX, vol. 13, Dec 2019.
[20] C. S. et al., “Going deeper with convolutions,” The IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 1–9, Jun 2015.
[21] C. S. et al, “Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision,”
Jun 2016.
[22] K. H. et al., “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” Jun 2016,
pp. 770–778.
[23] C. S. et al., “Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual
connections on learning,” AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
Feb 2016.
[24] F. C. et al. (2015) Keras. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/
fchollet/keras
[25] A. M. et al., “TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on
heterogeneous systems,” 2015, software available from tensorflow.org.
[Online]. Available: http://tensorflow.org/
[26] D. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,”
International Conference on Learning Representations, Dec 2014.
[27] P. R. et al., “Effects of degradations on deep neural network architec-
tures,” Jul 2018.