that in @bernhard12 who reported 2D (GR) models for the same progenitor model with detailed neutrino transport.

As seen from Figure \[fig3\], the angle average neutrino luminosity ($\langle L_{\nu} \rangle$) and the mean neutrino energy ($\langle \epsilon_{\nu} \rangle = \int E^3 \mathcal{F}^{\rm s}dE  /\int E^2 \mathcal{F}^{\rm s}dE$, where $E$ is neutrino energy) is barely affected by the imposed initial perturbations (presumably at few-percent levels in amplitudes). This again supports our finding that the explosion stochasticity is very influential to determine the blast morphology but not the working of the neutrino-heating mechanism.

From the bottom panel of Figure \[fig3\], it can be seen that overall trend in the neutrino luminosities and the mean energies is similar between our 3D and 2D model. The neutrino luminosities in the 2D model (green lines) show a short-time variability (with periods of milliseconds to $\gtrsim 10$ ms) after around 100 ms postbounce. Such fast variations in the postbounce luminosity evolution have been already found in previous 2D studies (e.g., @ott_multi [@marek_gw]). This is caused by the modulation of the mass accretion rate due to convective plumes and downflows hitting onto the PNS surface (see also @lund12 [@tamborra13] about the detectability of these neutrino signals). It 