Parameters of the type-IIP supernova SN 2012aw
A. A. Nikiforova, P. V. Baklanov, S. I. Blinnikov, D. A. Blinov, T. S. Grishina, Yu. V. Troitskaya, D. A. Morozova, E. N. Kopatskaya, E. G. Larionova, I. S. Troitsky
MMNRAS , 1–7 (2020) Preprint 9 February 2021 Compiled using MNRAS L A TEX style file v3.0
Parameters of the type-IIP supernova SN 2012aw
A.A. Nikiforova, , ★ P.V. Baklanov, , S.I. Blinnikov, , D.A. Blinov, , , T.S. Grishina, Yu.V. Troitskaya, D.A. Morozova, E.N. Kopatskaya, E.G. Larionova and I.S. Troitsky Pulkovo Observatory, St.-Petersburg, 196140, Russia Astron. Inst., St.-Petersburg State Univ.,198504, Russia NRC “Kurchatov Institute” – Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow 117218, Russia National Research Nuclear University (MEPhI), Kashirskoe sh. 31, Moscow 115409, Russia Dukhov Research Institute of Automatics (VNIIA), 127055, Moscow, Russia Institute of Astrophysics, FORTH, Voutes, Heraklion, 71110, Greece Department of Physics, University of Crete, Heraklion, 71003, Greece
Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ
ABSTRACT
We present the results the photometric observations of the Type IIP supernova SN 2012awobtained for the time interval from 7 till 371 days after the explosion. Using the previouslypublished values of the photospheric velocities we’ve computed the hydrodynamic modelwhich simultaneously reproduced the photometry observations and velocity measurements.We found the parameters of the pre-supernova: radius 𝑅 = 𝑅 (cid:12) , nickel mass 𝑀 ( Ni )∼ . 𝑀 (cid:12) , pre-supernova mass 25 𝑀 (cid:12) , mass of ejected envelope 23 . 𝑀 (cid:12) , explosion energy 𝐸 ∼ × erg. The model progenitor mass 𝑀 = 𝑀 (cid:12) significantly exceeds the upper limitmass 𝑀 = 𝑀 (cid:12) , obtained from analysis the pre-SNe observations. This result confirms oncemore that the ’Red Supergiant Problem’ must be resolved by stellar evolution and supernovaexplosion theories in interaction with observations. Key words: supernovae : individual: SN2012aw – transients: supernovae – techniques:photometric
Type IIP supernovae (SNe IIP) are characterized by the presenceof the “plateau” (region of almost constant luminosity) in the lightcurve, in contrast to types IIL and IIn, where the brightness de-creases almost linearly after the maximum. Hydrogen lines andP-Cygni profiles are observed in the spectra of SNe IIP (as well asin the entire type II supernovae).SNe IIP are an important subject for research for a numberof reasons. Supernovae play a critical role in the production anddistribution of metals in galaxies, regulating star formation andgalaxy evolution (Nomoto et al. 2006). The correlation betweenthe parameters of the progenitor star and the observed parametersafter a supernova explosion is not fully understood. The main factorwhy the slope changes during the plateau is not precisely defined,there are only assumptions (Martinez & Bersten 2019). SNe IIPhave been proposed as indicators of cosmological distances as analternative to SNe Ia (Hamuy & Pinto 2002). There is a problem ofprogenitor masses, also known as "RSG problem", which is that themass estimated in hydrodynamic modeling (15 − 𝑀 (cid:12) ) is usuallymore than the mass estimate taken from direct archived images of ★ E-mail: [email protected] the progenitor (9 − 𝑀 (cid:12) ) (Smartt et al. 2009; Utrobin & Chugai2009; Bersten et al. 2011; Smartt 2009).Hydrodynamic modeling of light curves is currently one ofthe most frequently used indirect methods for obtaining physicalproperties. We focused our attention on finding parameters usinghydrodynamic modeling of one of the SNe IIP, and also analyzedthe results of calculations for this supernova that were publishedearlier.We selected for research a bright supernova SN 2012aw. Thereis a quite detailed observational series for this supernova. We alsopresent our observations in this article Section 2. Estimates of theparameters for the pre-supernova 2012aw were obtained in a num-ber of works (Dall’Ora et al. 2014; Bose et al. 2013; Martinez &Bersten 2019; Fraser et al. 2012; Van Dyk et al. 2013) and in oth-ers. To calculate the model and determine the parameters of thepre-supernova, we used the STELLA code (Blinnikov et al. 2000,1998). The details of our modeling are given in Section 3.SN 2012aw was discovered March 16, 2012 by Fagotti et al.(2012) in the galaxy M 95 (NGC 3351). At that time, its 𝑅 magnitudereached 𝑅 ≈ 𝑚 (Dall’Ora et al. 2014). We adopt an explosionepoch ( 𝑡 ) of March 16.1, 2012 (JD=2456002 . ± . © a r X i v : . [ a s t r o - ph . H E ] F e b A.A. Nikiforova et al.
The distance estimates for NGC 3351 by different authors arerather similar. Dall’Ora et al. (2014) adopt the distance modulus29 . ± .
04 mag, as the average value obtained by two methods:with Cepheids and the top of the branch of red supergiants. In thework of Bose et al. (2013) the distance was taken equal to 9 . ± . . ± .
03. As in the previous case,the authors averaged the results from several assessment methods.Munari et al. (2013) took the distance modulus as 30 . ± . . ± .
04 mag.Total extinction from Dall’Ora et al. (2014) was taken 𝐴 ( 𝐵 ) 𝑡𝑜𝑡 = . ± .
07 mag according to the excess color in ourGalaxy 𝐸 ( 𝐵 − 𝑉 ) = .
028 mag, in the host galaxy 𝐸 ( 𝐵 − 𝑉 ) = . ± .
016 mag. In an article of Bose et al. (2013) the totalextinction was estimated as 𝐴 𝑣 = . ± .
03 mag, the total colorexcess as 𝐸 ( 𝐵 − 𝑉 ) = . ± .
008 mag. Van Dyk et al. (2013)estimate total reddening as 𝐸 ( 𝐵 − 𝑉 ) = .
077 mag. Fraser et al.(2012) obtained an estimate 𝐸 ( 𝐵 − 𝑉 ) = . ± .
05 mag, notingthat the value can be overestimated. We take the total extinctionvalue equal to 𝐸 ( 𝐵 − 𝑉 ) = . ± .
008 mag (Bose et al. 2013),since the result was obtained by averaging of several methods.
Observational data were obtained for the time interval from 7 till371 days after the explosion.The observations have been performed within the programof photometric and polaririmetric monitoring of variable sourcescarried in the Laboratory of Observational Astrophysics at St. Pe-tersburg State University . The characteristics of the telescopes arepresented in Table 1.The data have been processed using the standard utilities ofIRAF . The field stars used for the differential photometry aremarked in Figure 1. Their magnitudes listed in Table 2 have beenadopted from Dall’Ora et al. (2014).The light curves in four filters ( 𝐼 , 𝑅 , 𝑉 , 𝐵 ), obtained as a resultof photometry, are shown in Figure 2. A comparison of the resultsof our photometry with data from the literature (Dall’Ora et al.2014; Bose et al. 2013) is shown in Figure 3. The data are in quitegood agreement with each other; our late time data complementingdeclining part of the light curves.The Figure 4 shows a comparison of the light curve in 𝑉 bandof supernova 2012aw with other SNe IIP: SN 1999em, SN 2004et,SN 2013ab, SN 2008in (Elmhamdi et al. 2003; Maguire et al. 2010;Bose et al. 2015; Roy et al. 2011). It can be seen that the studiedsupernova fits well into the general picture of the light curves of itstype: there is a long region of the "plateau", followed by a sharpdecline in brightness, which then goes on to the smooth and longestphase of the “tail”. Good agreement with other supernovae of thattype can also be seen when comparing the SN 2012aw color indiceswith other SNe IIP (Figure 5). https://vo.astro.spbu.ru/en/node/17 http://ast.noao.edu/data/software Figure 1.
Supernova region of SN 2012aw. Circles indicate standard starsused for the photometry.
Figure 2.
Light curve of SN 2012aw according to the results of our photom-etry. Observations performed on telescopes AZT-8 and LX200 (see Table 1).The Y axis shows the apparent magnitude.
Photometry results for the SN 2012aw are presented in a number ofworks (Dall’Ora et al. 2014; Bose et al. 2013; Munari et al. 2013;Bayless et al. 2013). Bose et al. (2013) estimate the plateau duration ≈
110 days, Dall’Ora et al. (Dall’Ora et al. 2014) ≈
100 days.We estimated the duration of the plateau from the light curveusing the calculations described by Litvinova & Nadezhin (1985)and obtained the following result: Δ 𝑡 ≈ ± 𝑉 band equalto − .
92 mag, which is consistent with estimates from other works: 𝑀 𝑣 = − . ± .
04 mag (Bose et al. 2013). The luminosity peakat the early light curve of SN 2012aw in 𝑈 , 𝐵 , 𝑉 , 𝑅 , 𝐼 is reached at8, 11, 15, 22, 24 days, respectively, thereby the supernova is similarto SN 1999em and SN 2004et (Bose et al. 2013).The observed photospheric velocities for SN 2012aw ( 𝑣 = . (× ) 𝑘𝑚 / 𝑠 ) were taken from Bose et al. (2013). MNRAS , 1–7 (2020) arameters of SN 2012aw Table 1.
Characteristics of telescopes.Telescope AZT-8 LX200Diameter of the main mirror 700 mm 406 mmFocal length 2780 mm 4060 mmField of view 8 (cid:48) . × (cid:48) . (cid:48) . × (cid:48) . Table 2.
Magnitudes of the standard stars marked in Figure 1.Star 𝛼 𝐽 𝛿 𝐽 B (mag) V (mag) R (mag) I (mag)1 10 ℎ 𝑚 𝑠 . + ◦ (cid:48) (cid:48)(cid:48) .
84 15.351 14.972 14.706 14.4502 10 ℎ 𝑚 𝑠 . + ◦ (cid:48) (cid:48)(cid:48) .
17 15.551 14.669 14.145 13.6703 10 ℎ 𝑚 𝑠 . + ◦ (cid:48) (cid:48)(cid:48) .
60 14.992 13.932 13.248 12.717
Figure 3.
Comparison of the obtained light curve with photometric data fromthe literature (Dall’Ora et al. 2014; Bose et al. 2013). Blue dots indicate theresults of photometry from the literature, other dots indicate the results ofour photometry.
SNe IIP, like other type II supernovae, exhibit a wide variety ofshapes of light curves. The shape of the light curve is mainly in-fluenced by such parameters as the mass of the ejected supernovaenvelope 𝑀 , the radius of the pre-supernova 𝑅 , the explosion energy 𝐸 and the chemical composition of the star (Litvinova & Nadezhin1985).We calculated a model which describes observational data ofthe SN 2012aw, using the multi-energy group radiation hydrody-namics code STELLA (Blinnikov et al. 2000, 1998). The advantageof the STELLA is that it can simultaneously calculate hydrodynam-ics and energy transfer. The non-stationary transport equation issolved assuming LTE simultaneously with the hydrodynamic equa-tions. We calculated a grid of models in the parameter space 𝑀 , 𝑅 , 𝑁𝑖 , 𝐸 to search for a model describing observational data for the2012aw supernova.For pre-SN we use a non-evolutionary polytropic model, likeSN 1999em in the work of Baklanov et al. (2005). Figure 6 shows Figure 4.
Comparison of the light curve of SN 2012aw with SNe IIP: SN1999em, SN 2004et, SN 2013ab and SN 2008in. The Y axis represents theapparent magnitude in filter 𝑉 . the density distribution and the mass fraction of chemical elementsas a function of interior mass within the pre-supernova. It is assumedpower-law dependence of the temperature on the density (Baklanovet al. 2005). In the center we isolate a dense core with the mass of1.4 𝑀 (cid:12) , which collapses to a proto-neutron star. The explosion isinitialized in STELLA as a thermal bomb just above the core mass.The chemical composition of the host galaxy NGC 3351 isclose to solar (Van Dyk et al. 2013; Fraser et al. 2012), therefore, forthe outer layers of the pre-supernova shell, we adopt mass fractionsof hydrogen X = . = . = . MNRAS000
Comparison of the light curve of SN 2012aw with SNe IIP: SN1999em, SN 2004et, SN 2013ab and SN 2008in. The Y axis represents theapparent magnitude in filter 𝑉 . the density distribution and the mass fraction of chemical elementsas a function of interior mass within the pre-supernova. It is assumedpower-law dependence of the temperature on the density (Baklanovet al. 2005). In the center we isolate a dense core with the mass of1.4 𝑀 (cid:12) , which collapses to a proto-neutron star. The explosion isinitialized in STELLA as a thermal bomb just above the core mass.The chemical composition of the host galaxy NGC 3351 isclose to solar (Van Dyk et al. 2013; Fraser et al. 2012), therefore, forthe outer layers of the pre-supernova shell, we adopt mass fractionsof hydrogen X = . = . = . MNRAS000 , 1–7 (2020)
A.A. Nikiforova et al.
Figure 5.
Comparison of color indices of SN 2012aw and other SNe IIP. M )10 X i HHe Ni56Metals ( g c m ) Figure 6.
Distribution of chemical elements within the pre-supernova. The Yaxis(right) displays the density, the Y axis(left) displays the relative contentof the elements. Here "Metals" means the fraction of all elements heavierthan He.
R750M25Ni006E20 shown in Figure 7. This model, how- R750M25Ni006E20: The model name contains the parameters that thismodel was calculated with.
Figure 7.
The best fit model when we are comparing only light curves:R750M25Ni006E20. Photospheric velocities are not taken into account. Theobserved light curve is indicated by dots, calculated light curve is indicatedby solid lines. ever, demonstrates a poor agreement between the observed andcalculated photospheric velocities (Figure 8). It can be seen fromthe graph that the explosion energy in this model is not enough, andthe shell scatters more slowly than was observed for SN 2012aw.The observed photospheric velocities for SN 2012aw weretaken from Bose et al. (2013). They were calculated from the ab-sorption lines of Fe II in the late epochs and He I in the early epochsafter the supernova explosion.We applied the fitting procedure, which takes into account boththe light curves and the photospheric velocities of the supernova. Weselected the R500M25Ni006E30 model, which provides a best fit toobservational data of SN 2012aw (Figure 9) among other models.The pre-supernova radius in our model (500 𝑅 (cid:12) ) is comparable MNRAS , 1–7 (2020) arameters of SN 2012aw Table 3.
Results of photometry of SN 2012aw obtained from AZT-8 and LX200 telescopes. The date 𝑡 is accepted as 𝐽 𝐷 = . 𝐽 𝐷 + (mag) errB (mag) V (mag) errV (mag) R (mag) errR (mag) I (mag) errI (mag) Telescope56009.45 6.95 13.449 0.020 13.334 0.014 13.144 0.013 13.130 0.013 AZT-856010.48 7.98 - - 13.332 0.026 13.156 0.017 13.078 0.017 AZT-856012.29 9.79 - - 13.299 0.022 13.153 0.017 13.112 0.014 LX20056018.41 15.91 - - - - 13.096 0.021 - - LX20056019.34 16.84 - - - - 13.082 0.032 - - LX20056021.35 18.85 13.611 0.044 13.166 0.038 - - 12.911 0.032 AZT-856022.31 19.80 - - 13.041 0.039 13.020 0.004 - - LX20056023.38 20.84 - - 13.201 0.031 - - - - LX20056027.38 24.88 13.964 0.027 13.323 0.025 13.011 0.023 12.895 0.021 LX20056033.30 30.80 - - 13.398 0.021 13.048 0.018 12.887 0.028 LX20056039.39 36.89 - - 13.440 0.042 13.075 0.029 12.823 0.028 AZT-856040.39 36.90 - - - - 13.014 0.023 12.782 0.024 LX20056041.25 38.75 14.319 0.019 13.355 0.016 13.022 0.028 12.754 0.017 AZT-856043.320 40.82 - - - - 13.087 0.038 - - LX20056049.29 46.79 14.441 0.022 13.424 0.038 - - 12.715 0.050 AZT-856050.41 47.91 - - 13.465 0.025 13.089 0.031 12.713 0.032 LX20056063.36 60.86 14.674 0.022 13.431 0.010 12.970 0.014 12.659 0.011 AZT-856221.61 219.11 17.941 0.098 16.748 0.058 15.843 0.020 15.376 0.040 AZT-856235.64 233.14 - - 16.840 0.110 15.894 0.029 15.411 0.027 AZT-856259.59 257.09 - - 17.093 0.053 16.058 0.032 15.620 0.036 AZT-856279.61 257.09 - - 17.240 0.152 16.293 0.086 15.804 0.036 AZT-856310.54 308.039 - - - - 16.520 0.133 16.015 0.064 LX20056355.37 352.871 - - - - 16.783 0.123 16.613 0.089 LX20056362.39 359.891 - - - - 17.119 0.160 16.648 0.058 LX20056364.40 361.898 - - - - - - 16.654 0.157 LX20056373.45 370.949 - - - - 17.284 0.170 16.786 0.093 LX200 to the value of 430 𝑅 (cid:12) reported by Dall’Ora et al. (2014). The massof the ejected shell ( 𝑀 𝑒 𝑗 = . 𝑀 (cid:12) , 𝑀 𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝑀 (cid:12) ) in our modelis larger than that estimated by Dall’Ora et al. (2014) (20 𝑀 (cid:12) ). Ourestimate of Ni mass (0 . 𝑀 (cid:12) ) is consistent with values reportedin previous works (0 . − . 𝑀 (cid:12) ). The mass of the Ni in ourmodel is also equal to 0 . 𝑀 (cid:12) . Previous estimates of SN 2012awexplosion energy — 1 foe (Bose et al. 2013), 1.5 foe (Dall’Ora et al.2014), and 2 foe (Bose et al. 2014) — are lower compared to ourvalue of explosion energy (3 foe). A possible pre-supernova of the SN 2012aw was investigated byVan Dyk et al. (2013). They identified the object PTF12bvh as theprogenitor of the SN 2012aw from archives of the Hubble SpaceTelescope, as well as from the ground-based observations in thenear-infrared region. This field has been observed by the Hubble telescope at 𝐹 𝑊 , 𝐹 𝑊 and 𝐹 𝑊 between December 1994and January 1995. Van Dyk et al. (2013) estimated the magnitudeof the pre-supernova as 𝑉 = .
59 mag.Investigating the nature of the pre-supernova, Van Dyk et al.(2013) found that PTF12bvh is a red supergiant of class M3 with aneffective temperature 𝑇 eff = 𝑀 bol = − .
29 mag [log ( 𝐿 bol / 𝐿 (cid:12) ) = . ± . 𝑅 ∼ ± 𝑅 (cid:12) . The initial mass of the star was estimated as ∼ ÷ 𝑀 (cid:12) . Near the progenitor star, a significant amount of dustwas noted.The same object was identified as a pre-supernova in an earlierpaper by Fraser et al. (2012). The bolometric luminosity was esti-mated as log ( 𝐿 / 𝐿 (cid:12) ) = . ÷ .
6, according to a mass of 14 − 𝑀 (cid:12) .The temperature estimate range is 3300 − 𝑅 > 𝑅 (cid:12) .Estimates of pre-supernova parameters of the SN 2012aw differ MNRAS000
6, according to a mass of 14 − 𝑀 (cid:12) .The temperature estimate range is 3300 − 𝑅 > 𝑅 (cid:12) .Estimates of pre-supernova parameters of the SN 2012aw differ MNRAS000 , 1–7 (2020)
A.A. Nikiforova et al. M a g n i t u d e B+0.5VR-0.5I-1 V p h ( × k m / s ) Model
Figure 8.
The model R750M25Ni006E20, accounting for photospheric ve-locities. Dots indicate observational data, four light curve lines indicatecalculated curve, blue line below indicate calculated photospheric veloci-ties. Light curves show good agreement between observations and modeling,but photospheric velocities from observations and modeling do not match. M a g n i t u d e B+0.5VR-0.5I-1 V p h ( × k m / s ) Model
Figure 9.
The best fit model when we are taking into account both lightcurves and photospheric velocities: R500M25Ni006E30 in different studies. Our task is to put together all the previous results,to compare them with our results and to analyze them.Estimates of the radius of the SN 2012aw pre-supernova starare as follows. Dall’Ora et al. (2014) obtained the radius of the pro-genitor ∼ 𝑅 (cid:12) as a result of semi-analytical and hydrodynamicmodelling. Based on analytical relations, Bose et al. (2013) obtaineda not much different value ∼ ± 𝑅 (cid:12) . A constraint on the ra-dius of the pre-supernova star is also obtained from an analyticalestimate 𝑅 > 𝑅 (cid:12) in (Fraser et al. 2012). According to Van Dyk et al. (2013), the pre-supernova had a radius 𝑅 = ± 𝑅 (cid:12) .Martinez & Bersten (2019) derived 𝑅 = ± 𝑅 (cid:12) from hydro-dynamic modelling. We have got 𝑅 = 𝑅 (cid:12) , which is close to theestimates found by Dall’Ora et al. (2014) and Fraser et al. (2012).The initial mass of Ni and the energy of the explosion doagree much better in the estimates of different studies: 𝑀 ( Ni ) ∼ . 𝑀 (cid:12) (Dall’Ora et al. 2014), 𝑀 ( Ni ) ∼ . ± . 𝑀 (cid:12) (Boseet al. 2013), 𝑀 ( Ni ) ∼ . ± . 𝑀 (cid:12) (Martinez & Bersten2019). Our estimate of 𝑀 ( Ni ) ∼ . 𝑀 (cid:12) is consistent with oth-ers. Explosion energy from other studies: 𝐸 ∼ . × erg(Dall’Ora et al. 2014), 𝐸 ∼ ÷ × erg (Bose et al. 2013), 𝐸 ∼ × erg (Bose et al. 2014), 𝐸 ∼ . × erg (Martinez& Bersten 2019). We have got the value 𝐸 = × erg, whichis higher than all the previous estimates. A lower explosion energyis not sufficient to reproduce the observed photospheric velocities,see Figure 8.The initial mass of the star is estimated from 12 . ± . 𝑀 (cid:12) (Fraser 2016) to 21 𝑀 (cid:12) (Dall’Ora et al. 2014). Van Dyk et al. (2013)estimated the initial mass of a star in the range of 15 − 𝑀 (cid:12) .The most important result of our model is on the mass ofthe envelope ejected during the explosion. According to previousestimates we have rather high numbers for our object. Dall’Oraet al. (2014) rated the ejecta mass as ∼ 𝑀 (cid:12) . Bose et al. (2013)obtained a value of 14 ± 𝑀 (cid:12) with large error estimate. Martinez &Bersten (2019) obtained 23 + − 𝑀 (cid:12) . Our simulations with STELLAhave the most detailed physics in comparison with all cited papersand they yield the best pre-supernova mass 23 . 𝑀 (cid:12) . The latternumber is appreciably higher than the upper limit 17 𝑀 (cid:12) , whichmeans the ‘Red Supergiant Problem’ problem persists (Smartt 2009;Davies & Beasor 2020; Kochanek 2020). Moreover, recently thereare more and more supernova models constructed for other objectswith estimates of the ejecta mass appreciably larger than the Smartt’slimit: see, e.g. Utrobin & Chugai (2017), Utrobin & Chugai (2019).Thus, our results give one more confirmation that the theory of pre-supernova evolution is not yet fully understood, and this questiondeserves further investigation. We report the results of our photometric observations of theSN 2012aw and compare it with the published data for this object.To build our model we took into account both the light curvesand the photospheric velocities of SN 2012aw. This is an importantpoint that allows us to find the most suitable model among others.We performed hydrodynamic modeling of both photometricand spectral data using the package STELLA and showed that thebest agreement of the model with observations is found for themodel R500M25Ni006E30. In this model the presupernova massis 25 𝑀 (cid:12) with the ejected 23 . 𝑀 (cid:12) , the explosion energy is 3.0 foe,the pre-supernova radius is 500 𝑅 (cid:12) , and the Ni mass is 0 . 𝑀 (cid:12) .The total mass of SN 2012aw is higher by a factor of 1.5 comparedwith the upper Smartt’s limit, which emphasizes the RSG Problem. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The St. Petersburg University team acknowledges support from Rus-sian Scientific Foundation grant 17-12-01029. PB is sponsored bygrant RFBR 21-52-12032 in his work on the STELLA code devel-opment.
MNRAS , 1–7 (2020) arameters of SN 2012aw DATA AVAILABILITY
The photometric data are available in Table 3. The data aboutSTELLA are available in (Blinnikov et al. 2000, 1998; Baklanovet al. 2005).
REFERENCES
Baklanov P. V., Blinnikov S. I., Pavlyuk N. N., 2005, Astronomy Letters, 31,429Bayless A. J., et al., 2013, ApJ, 764, L13Bersten M. C., Benvenuto O., Hamuy M., 2011, ApJ, 729, 61Blinnikov S. I., Eastman R., Bartunov O. S., Popolitov V. A., Woosley S. E.,1998, ApJ, 496, 454Blinnikov S., Lundqvist P., Bartunov O., Nomoto K., Iwamoto K., 2000,ApJ, 532, 1132Bose S., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1871Bose S., Kumar B., Sutaria F., Roy R., Kumar B., Bhatt V. K.,Chakraborti S., 2014, in Ray A., McCray R. A., eds, IAU Sym-posium Vol. 296, Supernova Environmental Impacts. pp 334–335,doi:10.1017/S1743921313009691Bose S., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2373Dall’Ora M., et al., 2014, ApJ, 787, 139Davies B., Beasor E. R., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 468Elmhamdi A., et al., 2003, MNRAS, 338, 939Fagotti P., et al., 2012, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 3054, 1Fraser M., 2016, MNRAS, 456, L16Fraser M., et al., 2012, ApJ, 759, L13Hamuy M., Pinto P. A., 2002, ApJ, 566, L63Kochanek C. S., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4945Litvinova I. Y., Nadezhin D. K., 1985, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 11, 145Maguire K., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 404, 981Martinez L., Bersten M. C., 2019, A&A, 629, A124Munari U., Henden A., Belligoli R., Castellani F., Cherini G., Righetti G. L.,Vagnozzi A., 2013, New Astron., 20, 30Nomoto K., Tominaga N., Umeda H., Kobayashi C., Maeda K., 2006, Nu-clear Phys. A, 777, 424Roy R., et al., 2011, ApJ, 736, 76Smartt S. J., 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63Smartt S. J., Eldridge J. J., Crockett R. M., Maund J. R., 2009, MNRAS,395, 1409Utrobin V. P., 2007, A&A, 461, 233Utrobin V. P., Chugai N. N., 2009, A&A, 506, 829Utrobin V. P., Chugai N. N., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 5004Utrobin V. P., Chugai N. N., 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2042Van Dyk S. D., Cenko S. B., Poznanski D., Arcavi I., Gal-Yam A., FilippenkoA. V., et al. 2013, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts A TEX file prepared by the author.MNRAS000