RECORD
Observational constraints on the progenitor metallicities of core-collapse supernovae
Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics · Submitted 4 Jun 2010
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim This argues that progenitor metallicity is not a dominant parameter in deciding supernovae type, with progenitor mass and/or binarity playing a much more significant role.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
We present constraints on the progenitor metallicities of core-collapse supernovae. To date, nearly all metallicity constraints have been inferred from indirect methods such as metallicity gradients in host galaxies, luminosities of host galaxies, or derived global galaxy metallicities. Here, progenitor metallicities are derived from optical spectra taken at the sites of nearby supernovae, from the ratio of strong emission lines found in their host HII regions.We present results from the spectra of 74 host HII regions and discuss the implications that these have on the nature of core-collapse supernova progenitors. Overall, while we find that the mean metallicity of type Ibc environments is higher than that of type II events, this difference is smaller than observed in previous studies. There is only a 0.06 dex difference in the mean metallicity values, at a statistical significance of ~1.5 sigma, while using a KS-test we find that the two metallicity distributions are marginally consistent with being drawn from the same parent population (probability >10%). This argues that progenitor metallicity is not a dominant parameter in deciding supernovae type, with progenitor mass and/or binarity playing a much more significant role.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | We present constraints on the progenitor metallicities of core-collapse supernovae. | contribution 1.00 | 0.92 | 0.05 | asserted 0.95 |
| s1 | To date, nearly all metallicity constraints have been inferred from indirect methods such as metallicity gradients in host galaxies, luminosities of host galaxies, or derived global galaxy metallicities. | background 0.89 | 0.04 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s2 | Here, progenitor metallicities are derived from optical spectra taken at the sites of nearby supernovae, from the ratio of strong emission lines found in their host HII regions.We present results from the spectra of 74 host HII regions and discuss the implications that these have on the nature of core-collapse supernova progenitors. | method 0.85 | 0.95 | 0.04 | asserted 0.99 |
| s3 | Overall, while we find that the mean metallicity of type Ibc environments is higher than that of type II events, this difference is smaller than observed in previous studies. | result 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.13 | asserted 1.00 |
| s4 | There is only a 0.06 dex difference in the mean metallicity values, at a statistical significance of ~1.5 sigma, while using a KS-test we find that the two metallicity distributions are marginally consistent with being drawn from the same parent population (probability >10%). | result 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.11 | asserted 0.84 |
| s5 | This argues that progenitor metallicity is not a dominant parameter in deciding supernovae type, with progenitor mass and/or binarity playing a much more significant role. | interpretation 1.00 | 0.48 | 0.82 | asserted 0.77 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
We present constraints on the progenitor metallicities of core-collapse supernovae. To date, nearly all metallicity constraints have been inferred from indirect methods such as metallicity gradients in host galaxies, luminosities of host galaxies, or derived global galaxy metallicities. Here, progenitor metallicities are derived from optical spectra taken at the sites of nearby supernovae, from the ratio of strong emission lines found in their host HII regions.We present results from the spectra of 74 host HII regions and discuss the implications that these have on the nature of core-collapse supernova progenitors. Overall, while we find that the mean metallicity of type Ibc environments is higher than that of type II events, this difference is smaller than observed in previous studies. There is only a 0.06 dex difference in the mean metallicity values, at a statistical significance of ~1.5 sigma, while using a KS-test we find that the two metallicity distributions are marginally consistent with being drawn from the same parent population (probability >10%). This argues that progenitor metallicity is not a dominant parameter in deciding supernovae type, with progenitor mass and/or binarity playing a much more significant role.
Human review
How the literature uses it
3 arXiv papers cite this in 4 sentences
Papers citing it · 2 sentences without a confident label
Uses its method or tool 1 paper
-
Based on the method described in [ref] , we estimated the metallicity at the SN site to be 8.7, and found it to be consistent with the average value for Type II SNe [ref] .
SN 2023gfo: A Peculiar Type IIP Supernova with High Luminosity and Normal Plateau Duration · Optical Spectroscopy · 0.91
Cites it as support 1 paper
-
There is indeed observational support for this, as metal-driven mass loss likely leads to the formation of more stripped-envelope SNe Ibc, which are found in more metal-rich hosts than SNe II [ref] .
The Environments of Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients: Evidence for a Compact Object and Wolf-Rayet Star Merger Origin · Failed SNe? · 0.97
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.