A meta analysis of core-collapse supernova ${}^{56}$Ni masses

Abstract

A fundamental property determining the transient behaviour of core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) is the amount of radioactive ${}^{56}$Ni synthesised in the explosion. Using established methods, this is a relatively easy parameter to extract from observations. Here I provide a meta analysis of all published ${}^{56}$Ni masses for CCSNe. Collating a total of 258 literature ${}^{56}$Ni masses I compare distributions of the main CCSN types: SNeII; SNeIIb; SNeIb; SNeIc; and SNeIcBL. Using these published values, I calculate a median ${}^{56}$Ni mass of 0.032${\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ for SNeII (N=115), 0.102${\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ (N=27) for SNeIIb, SNeIb = 0.163${\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ (N=33), SNeIc = 0.155${\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ (N=48), and SNeIcBL = 0.369${\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ (N=32). On average, stripped-enevelope SNe (SE-SNe: IIb; Ib; Ic; and Ic-BL) have much higher values than SNeII. These observed distributions are compared to those predicted from neutrino-driven explosion models. While the SNII distribution follows model predictions, the SE-SNe have a significant fraction of events with ${}^{56}$Ni masses much higher than predicted. If the majority of published ${}^{56}$Ni masses are to be believed, these results imply significant differences in the progenitor structures and/or explosion properties between SNeII and SE-SNe. However, such distinct progenitor and explosion properties are not currently favoured in the literature. Alternatively, the popular methods used to estimate ${}^{56}$Ni masses for SE-SNe may not be accurate. Possible issues with these methods are discussed, as are the implications of true ${}^{56}$Ni mass differences on progenitor properties of different CCSNe.

Resubmitted to A&A after referee's first review. Comments welcome. 9 pages, 1 figure