Paper detail

Observed Fractions of Core-Collapse Supernova Types and Initial Masses of their Single and Binary Progenitor Stars

We analyse observed fractions of core-collapse SN types from the Lick Observatory SN Search, and we discuss corresponding implications for massive star evolution. For a standard IMF, observed fractions of SN types cannot be reconciled with expectations of single-star evolution. The mass range of WR stars that shed their H envelopes via their own mass loss accounts for less than half the observed fraction of SNeIbc. Progenitors of SNeIbc must extend to a much lower range of initial masses than classical WR stars, and we argue that most SNIbc and SNIIb progenitors must arise from binary Roche-lobe overflow. SNeIc still trace higher mass and metallicity, because line-driven winds in the WR stage remove the He layer and propel the transition from SNIb to Ic. Less massive progenitors of SNeIb and IIb may not be classical WR stars; they may be underluminous with weak winds, possibly hidden by overluminous mass-gainer companions that appear as B[e] supergiants or related objects having aspherical circumstellar material. The remaining SN types (II-P, II-L, and IIn) are redistributed across the full range of initial mass. We consider direct collapse to black holes without visible SNe, but find this problematic. Major areas of remaining uncertainty are (1) the influence of binary separation, rotation, and metallicity, (2) mass differences in progenitors of SNeIIn compared to SNeII-L and II-P, and (3) SNeIc arising from single stars with eruptive mass loss, its dependence on metallicity, and how it relates to diversity within the SNIc subclass. (abridged)

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.