Surrogate models predict lightcurves and properties of Type II supernovae, revealing the influence on luminosity distance in massive stars.
Inferences on the properties Type II supernovae (SNe) can provide significant insights into the lives and deaths of the astrophysical population of massive stars and potentially provide measurements of luminosity distance, independent of the distance ladder. Here, we introduce surrogate models for the photospheric properties and lightcurves of Type II SNe trained on a large grid of simulations from the radiation hydrodynamics code, stella. The trained model can accurately and efficiently (∼30ms) predict the lightcurves and properties of Type II SNe within a large parameter space of progenitor (10 − 18M⊙ at ZAMS) and nickel masses (0.001 − 0.3M⊙), progenitor mass-loss rate (10−5 − 10−1 M⊙yr−1), CSM radius (1 − 10 × 1014cm), and SN explosion energies (0.5 − 5 × 1051erg). We validate this model through inference on lightcurves and photosphere properties drawn directly from the original stella simulations not included in training. In particular, for a synthetic Type II SNe observed within the 10-year LSST survey, we find we can measure the progenitor and nickel masses with ≈ 9~\ per\ cent and ≈ 25~\ per\ cent precision, respectively, when fitting the photometric data while accounting for the uncertainty in the surrogate model itself. Meanwhile, from real observations of SN 2004et, SN 2012aw, and SN 2017gmr we infer a progenitor ZAMS mass of 12.15-1.06+1.03 M, 10.61-0.32+0.37 M, 10.4 ± 0.3M⊙, respectively. We discuss systematic uncertainties from our surrogate modelling approach and likelihood approaches to account for these uncertainties. We further discuss future extensions to the model to enable stronger constraints on properties of Type II SNe and their progenitors, and applications of our surrogate modelling approach to other transients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: