Fading Echoes of Interaction: Probing Centuries of Preexplosion Mass-Loss in Four Type IIn Supernovae
Elizabeth Hillenkamp (1,2), Raphael Baer-Way (2,3), Poonam Chandra (2), Arkaprabha Sarangi (4), Roger Chevalier (3), Nayana A.J. (5,6), Annika Deutsch (3), Keiichi Maeda (7), Nathan Smith (8) ((1) Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of California, San Diego

TL;DR
This study uses late-time X-ray and radio data of four Type IIn supernovae to reveal that their progenitors experienced lower mass-loss rates over centuries before explosion than previously estimated from optical data, indicating rapid progenitor evolution.
Contribution
It provides new constraints on pre-supernova mass-loss rates of Type IIn supernovae using late-time X-ray and radio observations, highlighting discrepancies with earlier optical estimates.
Findings
Mass-loss rates are 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than optical estimates.
Detected spectral inversion in KISS15s radio SED suggests a secondary shock or pulsar wind.
Progenitors experienced rapidly evolving mass-loss rates over centuries before explosion.
Abstract
Supernovae characterized by enduring narrow optical hydrogen emission lines (SNe IIn) are believed to result primarily from the core-collapse of massive stars undergoing sustained interaction with a dense circumstellar medium (CSM). While the properties of SN IIn progenitors have relatively few direct constraints, the ongoing ejecta-CSM interaction provides unique information about late-stage stellar mass-loss preceding core-collapse. We present late-time X-ray and radio observations of four 3000 day-old SNe IIn: SN 2013L, SN 2014ab, SN 2015da, and KISS15s. The radio and X-ray emission from KISS15s indicate a mass-loss rate of \eq{\dot M\sim4\times 10^{-3}~\rm{M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}}} at 450 years pre-supernova -- 2 orders of magnitude below earlier optical estimates (which probed the mass loss immediately preceding the supernova). We find hints of a spectral inversion in the…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
