Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Exploring the efficacy and limitations of shock-cooling models: new analysis of Type II supernovae observed by the Kepler mission

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 1612.02805 v3 pith:U6HG545K submitted 2016-12-08 astro-ph.HE

Exploring the efficacy and limitations of shock-cooling models: new analysis of Type II supernovae observed by the Kepler mission

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

Modern transient surveys have begun discovering and following supernovae (SNe) shortly after first light---providing systematic measurements of the rise of Type II SNe. We explore how analytic models of early shock-cooling emission from core-collapse SNe can constrain the progenitor's radius, explosion velocity, and local host extinction. We simulate synthetic photometry in several realistic observing scenarios and, assuming the models describe the typical explosions well, find that ultraviolet observations can constrain the progenitor's radius to a statistical uncertainty of $\pm10-15\%$, with a systematic uncertainty of $\pm 20\%$. With these observations the local host extinction ($A_V$) can be constrained to a factor of two and the shock velocity to $\pm 5\%$ with a systematic uncertainty of $\pm 10\%$. We also re-analyze the SN light curves presented in Garnavich et al. (2016) and find that KSN 2011a can be fit by a blue supergiant model with a progenitor radius of $R_s < 7.7 + 8.8 {\rm (stat)} + 1.9 {\rm (sys)}R_\odot$, while KSN 2011d can be fit with a red supergiant model with a progenitor radius of $R_s = 111_{-21 {\rm (stat)}}^{+89 {\rm (stat)}} \phantom{}_{-1{\rm (sys)}}^{+49 {\rm (sys)}}$. Our results do not agree with those of Garnavich et al. (2016). Moreover, we re-evaluate their claims and find that there is no statistically significant evidence for a shock breakout flare in the light curve of KSN 2011d.

discussion (0)

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