One Year of SN 2023ixf: Breaking through the Degenerate Parameter Space in Light-curve Models with Pulsating Progenitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present and analyze the extensive optical broadband photometry of the Type II SN 2023ixf up to 1 yr after explosion. We find that, when compared to two preexisting model grids, the bolometric light curve is consistent with drastically different combinations of progenitor and explosion properties. This may be an effect of known degeneracies in Type IIP light-curve models. We independently compute a large grid of MESA+STELLA single-star progenitor and light-curve models with various zero-age main-sequence masses, mass-loss efficiencies, and convective efficiencies. Using the observed progenitor variability as an additional constraint, we select stellar models consistent with the pulsation period and explode them according to previously established scaling laws to match plateau properties. Our hydrodynamic modeling indicates that SN 2023ixf is most consistent with a moderate-energy ( E exp ≈ 7 × 1 0 50 erg) explosion of an initially high-mass red supergiant progenitor (≳16.5 M ⊙ ) that lost a significant amount of mass in its prior evolution, leaving a low-mass hydrogen envelope (≲3 M ⊙ ) at the time of explosion, with a radius ≳950 R ⊙ and a synthesized 56 Ni mass of ≈0.068 M ⊙ . We posit that previous mass transfer in a binary system may have stripped the envelope of SN 2023ixf’s progenitor. The analysis method with pulsation period presented in this work offers a way to break degeneracies in light-curve modeling in the future, particularly with the upcoming Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time, when a record of progenitor variability will be more common.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".