Page 1
Theevolutionofsuper-luminoussupernovahostgalaxiesouttoz~4S.Schulze(PUC,MAS,soonatWeizmann),T.Krühler (MPE),G.Leloudas (DARK/NBI,WIS),J.Gorosabel(IAA-CSIC,UPV),L.Christensen(DARK/NBI),A.Mehner (ESO),A.deUgarte Postigo (IAA-CSIC,DARK/NBI),R.Amorín (INAF-OAR),C.Thöne (IAA-CSIC),F.Bauer(PUC,MAS,SSI)
Leloudas etal.2015,MNRAS,449,917;Thöne etal.2015,MNRAS,451,L65;Schulzeetal.,tobesubmitted
Page 2
SLSNe inanutshell…
−100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
−23
−22
−21
−20
−19
−18
−17
−16
−15
−14
−13
Days from peak [day]
Abs
olut
e m
agni
tude
[mag
]
SLSN−I
SLSN−II
SLSN−R
SN IIn
SN Ia
SN Ib/c
SN IIb
SN II−P
SLSN threshold
Gal-Yam
eta
l.20
13
H-poorSLSNeSLSN-I:declinetime<50days,atlatetimessimilartoSNe-Ic.Magnetar powered?SLSN-R:declinetime>50days.Poweredbyradioactivedecay?Pair-instabilitysupernovae?H-richSLSNeSLSN-IIn:CSMpowered,similartoclassicalSNe-IInSLSN-II/IIL:CSMpowered?
Page 3
Everystartisdifficult…
Youngetal.2011Neilletal.2011
SDSS+GALEXphotometryLargenumberofnon-detectionsNoNIRphotometryOnly2-3hostspectra
Lunnan etal.(2014,2015);Vreeswijk etal.(2014);Leloudas etal.(2015);Thöne etal.
(2016);Angusetal.(2016);Perley etal.(2016);Chenetal.(2016)+manyindiv.objectpapers
Page 4
Let’sgoSUSHIES!Aims: Fullcharacterisation ofSLSNenvironmentsMethods: SEDmodelling(67) +hostspectroscopy(23)
Magellan:>7n,VLT:>40h,GTC:25h,CAHA:25h,Swift/UVOT:60ks,JVLA
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0Redshift z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Freq
uenc
yH-rich SLSNe
H-poor SLSNe
z(H-poor)=0.5z(H-rich)=0.2
SUSHIES=SUper-luminousSupernovaHostgalaxIES
Page 5
SUSHIESinspectroscopy...
H-poor-Median0.27Z¤
-range:~0.1– 0.71Z¤ (3EMPgalaxies)-NotsimilartoGRBs
H-rich-0.4– 1.0Z¤
MindthesimilaritiestoEELGs!H-poorhostshaveVERYstrongemissionlines50%areEELGs(EW>100Å inO[III]λ5007)Chancecoincidenceis10-12 (zCOSMOS)
7 8 9 10 11 12log M/M�
7.6
8.0
8.4
8.8
9.2
12+
log
O/H
M91
SDSSEELGsGRBs
H-rich SLSNeH-poor SLSNe
Leloudas etal.(2015)
Page 6
SUSHIESincolour…
H-poorareblue,R-K~0magatz<0.5H-richareredder,R-K~+0.8mag
Evolutionfrom~0to 1.5magfrom z=0to z>1Surveybiasorreal?
H-poorarefaint~0.04L* atz <0.5H-richarediverse
Page 7
Redshiftevolutionanddownsizing
0.01 0.10 1.00Redshift z
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stel
lar
mas
slo
gM
?/M
�
log M?/M�C
umul
ativ
edi
stri
buti
on
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 z < 0.5
12 10 8 6
0.5 z < 1.0
12 10 8 60.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 1.0 z < 4.0
CCSNe
EELGs
GRBs
H-poor SLSNe
H-rich SLSNe
0.01 0.10 1.00Redshift z
�22
�20
�18
�16
�14Abs
olut
em
agni
tude
MB
(mag
)
MB (mag)
Cum
ulat
ive
dist
ribu
tion
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 z < 0.5
�24 �21 �18 �15
0.5 z < 1.0
�24 �21 �18 �150.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 1.0 z < 4.0
CCSNe
EELGs
GRBs
H-poor SLSNe
H-rich SLSNe
SLSN-I/Rhosts:<logM/M¤>=8.0(~2/1000M★)SLSN-IIn hosts <logM/M¤>=9.1
Mostmassiveglob.clusters:logM/M¤=6-7
SLSN-I/Rhosts <MB>=-17.2(~0.05L★)SLSN-IIn/IIhosts 1magmore luminous
z=0à z=1Mass increases by 1.0+/- 0.4dex
MB increases by -2.5+/- 0.5magNotethe evolution of MB,★
Page 8
SUSHIESdon’tlikeheavymetal(licity).
• Normalise stellarmassfunctionwithSF
• RelativecontributionofmassbinsinSF(z<1)
• FitswellCCSNe• TofitSLSNe assumeanefficiency
factorρ(M*)• M– ZrelationtomapZ• Productionefficiencydrops
sharplyat0.4Z¤• GRB0.3dex weaker
SeealsoPerley etal.(2016);Chenetal.(2016)
Page 9
みんなさん,すしがすきですか？• 51H-poorSUSHIESuptoz~4
NodifferencebetweenhostsofSLSNe-IandSLSNe-RAbsenceofmassivehostswithlogM/M⊙ >10Lackofclearredshift-evolutioninMB,stellarmass,sSFRProductionefficiencymustbeheavilystifled
• 16H-rich SUSHIESup to z <0.51dex more massive,0.6magredder and 1magbrighter than H-poorSUSHIESDifference mustreflectastarkcontrastinprogenitorsystems
• LackofmassivehostscanbeexplainedwithametallicitybiasH-poor:0.4Z¤,H-rich:~0.7Z¤ (largersamplesneededtoconfirm;similartoGRBs)
• GRBsandH-poorSLSNe arenot similar.Similaritiesareduetoill-definedandsmallsamples.
• OutlookSpectroscopyofz>0.5SUSHIESwithX-shooterIntegral-fieldspectroscopywithMUSE
F475W
z = 0.522PS1-12bqf
0 0.06 0.18 0.42 0.89 1.8 3.7 7.5 15 30 60
PS1-12bqfz =0.522r =21.4
GRB100316Dz= 0.0592
