A Comprehensive Optical Search for Pre-explosion Outbursts from the Quiescent Progenitor of SN 2023ixf

Abstract

We perform a comprehensive search for optical precursor emission at the position of SN 2023ixf using data from the DLT40, ZTF, and ATLAS surveys. By comparing the current data set with precursor outburst hydrodynamical model light curves, we find that the probability of a significant outburst within 5 yr of explosion is low, and the circumstellar material (CSM) ejected during any possible precursor outburst is likely smaller than ∼0.015M ⊙. By comparing to a set of toy models, we find that, if there was a precursor outburst, the duration must have been shorter than ∼100 days for a typical brightness of M r ≃ −9 mag or shorter than 200 days for M r ≃ −8 mag; brighter, longer outbursts would have been discovered. Precursor activity like that observed in the normal Type II SN 2020tlf (M r ≃ −11.5) can be excluded in SN 2023ixf. If the dense CSM inferred by early flash spectroscopy and other studies is related to one or more precursor outbursts, then our observations indicate that any such outburst would have to be faint and only last for days to months, or it occurred more than 5 yr prior to the explosion. Alternatively, any dense, confined CSM may not be due to eruptive mass loss from a single red supergiant progenitor. Taken together, the results of SN 2023ixf and SN 2020tlf indicate that there may be more than one physical mechanism behind the dense CSM inferred around some normal Type II supernovae.

SN 2022jox: An Extraordinarily Ordinary Type II SN with Flash Spectroscopy

“…There was no pre-explosion eruption detected in archival data, which is not entirely unexpected as at a distance of 37.7 Mpc only events brighter than −13 to −14 mag would be seen by most surveys. This is brighter than expected from presupernova eruptions of RSGs, which would range from −8 < M r < −10 mag (Davies et al 2022;Dong et al 2023;Tsuna et al 2023).…”

“…These could be caused via wave-driven mass loss during latestage nuclear burning (Quataert & Shiode 2012;Fuller 2017;Wu & Fuller 2021), turbulent convection in the core due to some dynamical instability (Smith & Arnett 2014), or even interaction with a companion as the binary fraction for massive stars is high (Sana et al 2012). For normal Type II SNe, though, eruptive mass loss from the progenitor may be ruled out from observational surveys (e.g., Kochanek et al 2017;Dong et al 2023) unless these pre-SN eruptions are brief, faint, dusty, or some combination of all three; although, see Jacobson-Galán et al (2022) for a possible exception. Interestingly, recent studies suggest that explosive mass-loss events should be expected in the months to years before core collapse in RSGs and are likely the main contributor to the elevated mass loss seen in Type II SNe (Davies et al 2022).…”

Simulating Hydrogen-poor Interaction-powered Supernovae with CHIPS

“…We did not consider the attenuation by dust that may be formed by the enhanced mass loss prior to the precursor event. For a relatively dim precursor, a significant amount of dust can survive from sublimation by the precursor emission (e.g., Neustadt et al 2024), which may explain the nondetection of precursors in the optical for the recent SN 2023ixf had there been one (Hiramatsu et al 2023b;Dong et al 2023).…”

SN 2023ixf in Messier 101: The Twilight Years of the Progenitor as Seen by Pan-STARRS

“…Using archival Galaxy Evolution Explorer data, Flinner et al (2023) explore the near-and far-ultraviolet activity of the progenitor of SN 2023ixf up to 20 yr prior to the explosion, finding no outbursts in the UV to limits of L NUV = 1000 L e and L FUV = 2000 L e . Dong et al (2023) investigate the pre-SN photometry obtained with the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS), and DLT40. While these data did not reveal any outbursts, Dong et al (2023) incorporated the pre-SN outburst models presented by Tsuna et al (2023) in order to put constraints on pre-SN activity.…”