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

## TL;DR

This meta-analysis compiles 258 measurements of $^{56}$Ni masses in core-collapse supernovae, revealing significant differences among types and highlighting potential issues with current estimation methods and progenitor models.

## Contribution

It provides a comprehensive comparison of observed $^{56}$Ni masses across supernova types and evaluates their consistency with theoretical models.

## Key findings

- Stripped-envelope SNe have higher $^{56}$Ni masses than SNeII.
- Observed $^{56}$Ni distributions in SE-SNe exceed model predictions.
- Potential inaccuracies in current $^{56}$Ni estimation methods for SE-SNe.

## 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${\rm\ M}_\odot$ for SNeII (N=115), 0.102${\rm\ M}_\odot$ (N=27) for SNeIIb, SNeIb = 0.163${\rm\ M}_\odot$ (N=33), SNeIc = 0.155${\rm\ M}_\odot$ (N=48), and SNeIcBL = 0.369${\rm\ M}_\odot$ (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.