1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}

2: %\documentclass{aastex}

3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

4: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

5: 

6: \documentclass{emulateapj}

7: 

8: \input epsf.sty

9: 

10: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.}

11: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g., }

12: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e., }

13: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}

14: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}

15: \newcommand{\ergs}{erg~s$^{-1}$}

16: \newcommand{\Fefs}{$^{56}$Fe}

17: \newcommand{\Cofs}{$^{56}$Co}

18: \newcommand{\Nifs}{$^{56}$Ni}

19: \newcommand{\Mej}{M_{\rm ej}}

20: \newcommand{\KE}{E_{\rm K}}

21: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 4pt \hbox{\hskip 1pt $\sim$}}\raise 1pt

22: \hbox {$>$}}}

23: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 4pt \hbox{\hskip 1pt $\sim$}}\raise 1pt

24: \hbox {$<$}}}

25: 

26: 

27: \begin{document}

28: 

29: \title{The Unique Type Ib Supernova 

30: 2005bf at Nebular Phases: \\ 

31: A Possible Birth Event of A Strongly Magnetized Neutron Star

32: \altaffilmark{1}}

33: 

34: 

35: \author{

36: K.~Maeda\altaffilmark{2,3}, 

37: M.~Tanaka\altaffilmark{4}, 

38: K.~Nomoto\altaffilmark{4,5}, 

39: N.~Tominaga\altaffilmark{4}, 

40: K.~Kawabata\altaffilmark{6}, \\ 

41: P.A.~Mazzali\altaffilmark{2,4,7}, 

42: H.~Umeda\altaffilmark{4},  

43: T.~Suzuki\altaffilmark{4}, 

44: T.~Hattori\altaffilmark{8}}

45: 

46: \altaffiltext{1}{

47: Based on data collected at Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the 

48: National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.}

49: \altaffiltext{2}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, 

50: Karl-Schwarzschild-Stra{\ss}e 1, 85741 Garching, Germany: 

51: maeda@MPA-Garching.MPG.DE}

52: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Earth Science and Astronomy,

53: Graduate School of Arts and Science, University of Tokyo, 

54: 3 - 8 - 1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo

55: 153-8902, Japan}

56: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, School of Science,

57: University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}

58: \altaffiltext{5}{Research Center for the Early Universe, School of

59: Science, University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}

60: \altaffiltext{6}{Hiroshima Astrophysical Science Center, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan}

61: \altaffiltext{7}{Instituto Nazionale di Astrofisica 

62: (INAF)-Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste, Via Tiepolo 11, 

63: I-34131 Trieste, Italy}

64: \altaffiltext{8}{Subaru Telescope, National Astronomical Observatory 

65: of Japan, Hilo, HI 96720, USA} 

66: 

67: \begin{abstract}

68: Late phase nebular spectra and photometry 

69: of Type Ib Supernova (SN) 2005bf 

70: taken by the Subaru telescope 

71: at $\sim 270$ and $\sim 310$ days since the explosion are presented. 

72: Emission lines ([OI] $\lambda\lambda$6300, 6363, [CaII] 

73: $\lambda\lambda$7291, 7324, [FeII] $\lambda$7155) show 

74: the blueshift of $\sim 1,500 - 2,000$ km s$^{-1}$. 

75: The [OI] doublet shows a doubly-peaked profile. 

76: The line luminosities can be 

77: interpreted as coming from a blob or jet 

78: containing only $\sim 0.1 - 0.4\Msun$, in which $\sim 0.02 - 0.06\Msun$ 

79: is $^{56}$Ni synthesized at the explosion. 

80: To explain the blueshift, the blob should either be of unipolar 

81: moving at the center-of-mass velocity $v \sim 2,000 - 5,000$ km s$^{-1}$, 

82: or suffer from self-absorption within the ejecta as seen in SN 1990I. 

83: In both interpretations, 

84: the low-mass blob component dominates the optical output both at the first peak 

85: ($\sim 20$ days) and at the late phase ($\sim 300$ days).  

86: The low luminosity at the late phase (the absolute $R$ magnitude $M_{R} 

87: \sim -10.2$ mag at $\sim 270$ days) 

88: sets the upper limit for the mass of $^{56}$Ni $\lsim 0.08\Msun$, 

89: which is in contradiction to the value necessary to explain the 

90: second, main peak luminosity ($M_{R} \sim -18.3$ mag 

91: at $\sim 40$ days). 

92: Encountered by this difficulty in the $^{56}$Ni heating model, 

93: we suggest an alternative scenario in which the heating source is 

94: a newly born, strongly magnetized neutron star (a magnetar) with the surface magnetic field 

95: $B_{\rm mag} \sim 10^{14-15}$ gauss and the initial spin period $P_{0} \sim 10$ ms. 

96: Then, SN 2005bf could be a link between normal SNe Ib/c and an X-Ray Flash associated SN 2006aj, 

97: connected in terms of $B_{\rm mag}$ and/or $P_0$. 

98: \end{abstract}

99: 

100: 

101: \keywords{radiative transfer -- supernovae: general -- 

102: supernovae: individual (SN 2005bf)}

103: 

104: 

105: \section{INTRODUCTION}

106: 

107: SN 2005bf has been claimed to be extremely peculiar from 

108: the very beginning. 

109: The following features of SN 2005bf fall short of any expectations 

110: obtained from observations of past Type Ib/c supernovae (SNe Ib/c). 

111: (1) Discovered on 2005 April 6 (UT) 

112: by Monard (2005) and Moore \& Li (2005), 

113: it first showed no strong He lines although there 

114: was evidence of H$_{\alpha}$. Thereafter 

115: He lines were increasingly developed with time, so 

116: it then was classified as Type Ib 

117: (Anupama et al. 2005; Wang \& Baade 2005; 

118: Modjaz, Kirshner, \& Challis 2005). 

119: (2) The He lines show peculiar temporal evolution: 

120: the velocity increased with time (Tominaga et al. 2005).  

121: (3) The optical light curve is very unique 

122: showing double-peaks at $t \sim 20^{\rm d}$ and $\sim 40^{\rm d}$. 

123: It was brighter at the second peak, 

124: reaching the absolute bolometric magnitude 

125: $M_{\rm bol} \sim -18$ mag. 

126: Hereafter $t$ is the age of the supernova 

127: since the putative explosion date, which is taken as 

128: 2005 March 28 (Tominaga et al. 2005). 

129: (4) Even more peculiarly, it 

130: declines very quickly after the second peak, 

131: nearly 2 magnitudes just in the subsequent 40 days. 

132: This rapidly fading light curve has never been 

133: observed in supernovae possibly 

134: except for another very peculiar SN Ic 1999as (Hatano et al. 2001). 

135: (5) The peak magnitude $M_{\rm bol} \sim -18$ mag is quite 

136: bright for the relatively late peak date at $t \sim 40^{\rm d}$. 

137: It requires $M$($^{56}$Ni) $\gsim 0.3\Msun$ 

138: in the usual $^{56}$Ni heating scenario for SNe Ib/c. 

139: Hereafter $M$($^{56}$Ni) is the mass of 

140: $^{56}$Ni synthesized at the explosion.  

141: For the summary of the early phase observations, 

142: see Anupama et al. (2005), Tominaga et al. (2005), and 

143: Folatelli et al. (2006). 

144: 

145: \begin{deluxetable*}{llll}[tb]

146:  \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

147:  \tablecaption{Notation\tablenotemark{a} and Model Values\tablenotemark{b}

148:  \label{tab:model_01}}

149:  \tablewidth{0pt}

150:  \tablehead{

151:    \colhead{Epoch}

152:  & \colhead{$M_{\rm ej}$}

153:  & \colhead{$E_{51} \equiv E/10^{51}$ erg}

154:  & \colhead{$M$($^{56}$Ni)}

155: }

156: \startdata

157: $\lsim 80^{\rm d}$  & $M_{\rm ej, peak} \sim 7.3\Msun$        &  $E_{{\rm peak}, 51} \sim 1.3$ & 

158: $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak} \sim 0.32\Msun$\\

159: $\sim 300^{\rm d}$ & $M_{\rm ej, neb} \sim 0.12 - 0.34\Msun$ &  $E_{{\rm neb}, 51} 

160: \sim 0.015 - 0.085$ & 

161: $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak} \sim 0.024 - 0.056\Msun$\\

162: \enddata

163: \tablenotetext{a}{The subscript "peak" is used for the values derived by modeling the observations 

164: at $t \lsim 80^{\rm d}$ (Tominaga et al. 2005), and the subscript "neb" is for those derived 

165: by the nebular observations at $t \sim 300^{\rm d}$ (this work). }

166: \tablenotetext{b}{$M_{\rm ej}$ and $E$ are the mass and kinetic energy of the ejecta. 

167: $M$($^{56}$Ni) is the mass of $^{56}$Ni synthesized at the explosion.}

168: \end{deluxetable*}

169: 

170: 

171: 

172: Tominaga et al. (2005) tried to constrain the explosion physics 

173: and the progenitor of SN 2005bf by modeling the light curve and 

174: the spectra up to $t \sim 80^{\rm d}$. 

175: They used the distance modulus $\mu = 34.5$ and $E(B - V) = 0.045$, 

176: which we also adopt in this paper. 

177: In their best model, the supernova has massive ejecta 

178: ($M_{\rm ej, peak} \sim 6 - 7\Msun$), 

179: normal kinetic energy 

180: ($E_{\rm peak, {51}} \equiv E_{\rm peak}/10^{51}$ erg $\sim 1 - 1.5$), 

181: and relatively large $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak}$ $\sim 0.3\Msun$. 

182: In this paper, the subscript "peak" is used for 

183: the values derived by modeling the early phase observations 

184: (see Table 1). 

185: The model yields a good agreement with the observations 

186: {\it if} gamma-rays can escape more easily than in 

187: usual situation (i.e., {\it if} the opacity for gamma-rays, 

188: $\kappa_{\gamma}$, is decreased by a factor of 

189: $\sim 30$ from the canonical value). 

190: These values suggest SN 2005bf is from 

191: a WN star with the zero-age 

192: main-sequence mass $M_{\rm ms} \sim 25 - 30\Msun$. 

193: A similar conclusion was obtained independently 

194: by Folatelli et al. (2006), who also assumed artificially 

195: small $\kappa_{\gamma}$. 

196: 

197: \begin{figure*}[tb]

198: \begin{center}

199: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.6\textwidth}

200: 		\epsscale{1.0}

201: 		\plotone{f1a.eps}

202: 	\end{minipage}

203: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\textwidth}

204: 		\epsscale{1.0}

205: 		\plotone{f1b.eps}

206: 	\end{minipage}

207: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\textwidth}

208: 		\epsscale{1.0}

209: 		\plotone{f1c.eps}

210: 	\end{minipage}

211: \end{center}

212: \caption[]

213: {The reduced spectra of SN 2005bf. The redshift of the 

214: host galaxy ($z = 0.018913$) is corrected for. 

215: The flux of the December spectrum is calibrated 

216: using the $R$-band photometry. 

217: (a) The spectra at 2005 December 26 (upper) and at 2006 Feb 6 (lower). 

218: The flux of the December spectrum is shifted upward 

219: by the amount of $3 \times 10^{-18}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ 

220: \AA$^{-1}$ for presentation. (b) The expanded view at 6000 -- 6600\AA\ 

221: (the [OI] $\lambda\lambda$ 6300, 6363) 

222: for the December (red) and the February (black) spectra. The flux of the 

223: February spectrum is multiplied by an arbitrary amount for presentation. 

224: (c) The expanded view at 6300 -- 6900\AA\ of the December spectrum (gray). 

225: The parabola fit as the H$_{\alpha}$ emission is shown 

226: for the outermost velocity 10,500 km s$^{-1}$ (FWHM $\sim 15,000$ km s$^{-1}$; 

227: thin black). 

228: Also shown is the fit by the parabola with the outermost velocity 

229: 9,000 km s$^{-1}$ with the central flat part below 5,000 km s$^{-1}$ 

230: (thick black). 

231: \label{fig1}}

232: \end{figure*}

233: 

234: In this paper, we present results from late-phase 

235: spectroscopy and photometry of SN 2005bf at 

236: $t \sim 273^{\rm d}$ and $315^{\rm d}$. 

237: SN 2005bf has clearly entered into the nebular phase, 

238: so it is possible to derive information qualitatively different from 

239: that derived with the early phase observations. 

240: The observed features turn out to be 

241: even more peculiar than expected from the early phase 

242: observations. We will critically examine some ideas 

243: whether they give a view consistently explaining both the 

244: previous and the new observations. 

245: At the end, we suggest a scenario that 

246: SN 2005bf is a birth event of a strongly magnetized neutron star 

247: (magnetar) and this central remnant is the heating source  

248: -- a scenario which could solve the puzzles found by our new observations. 

249: 

250: In \S 2, we describe the observation and data reduction. 

251: In \S 3, the nebular spectra are examined in detail. 

252: In \S 4, we present the light curve connecting the new and previous observations, 

253: and discuss a problem brought by the new observations. 

254: In \S 5, we discuss and critically examine possible underlying scenarios. 

255: Among the scenarios, we highlight the magnetar scenario in \S 6, 

256: where consequences and implications of this scenario are mentioned.

257: The paper is closed in \S 7 with conclusions. 

258: 

259: 

260: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION}

261: 

262: Spectroscopy and photometry of SN 2005bf have been

263: performed on 2005 December 26 (UT) and on 2006 February 6

264: with the 8.2 m Subaru telescope equipped with the

265: Faint Object Camera and Spectrograph

266: (FOCAS; Kashikawa et al. 2002). 

267: The epochs correspond $t \sim 273^{\rm d}$ and $\sim 315^{\rm d}$. 

268: For spectroscopy, we used $0\farcs 8$ width slit

269: and B300 grism, which gave a wavelength coverage

270: of 4700--9000 \AA\ and a spectral resolution of

271: $\simeq 10.7$ \AA . The exposure times were

272: 12600 s and 6600 s for 2005 December and 2006

273: February, respectively. BD +28$^{\circ}$4211 and

274: G191B2B (Massey et al. 1988; Massey \& Gronwall 1990)

275: were also observed for flux calibrations.

276: For photometry, we obtained 180 s exposure images

277: with either $B$- or $R$-band filter on both nights.

278: The derived magnitudes were $B>25.6$ mag and $R=24.4\pm 0.2$ 

279: mag on 2005 December 26 and $B>24.6$ mag and $R>24.5$ mag on 2006

280: February 6. Since we could not recognize SN~2005bf in the

281: $B$-band image on 2005 December 26 and in the $B$- and $R$-band

282: images on 2006 February 6, we adopted $5-\sigma$ background

283: as the upper-limit of the magnitude.

284: We obtained images of standard stars around PG 0942-029

285: (Landolt 1992) for photometric calibrations.

286: 

287: Figure 1 shows the reduced spectra of SN 2005bf. 

288: At 2005 December 26, 

289: SN 2005bf was already in a nebular phase,  

290: characterized by strong emission lines with almost no continuum. 

291: No significant evolution is seen between 

292: December 26 and February 6 either in line profiles or line flux 

293: ratios, although the low S/N in the February spectrum prevents us 

294: from rejecting possible difference in detailed line structures. 

295: Spectroscopic features are discussed in \S 3 in detail. 

296: 

297: 

298: Figure 2 shows the late phase $B$ (only upper limits) and $R$ magnitudes  

299: of SN 2005bf as combined with previously published ones 

300: (from Tominaga et al. 2005). 

301: The light curve is compared with the $R$-band and 

302: the bolometric light curves of SN Ic 1998bw (Patat et al. 2001), 

303: and with the $R$-band light curve of SN Ib 1990I 

304: (Elmhamdi et al. 2004) corrected for the distance and the reddening 

305: to the position of SN 2005bf. 

306: Surprisingly enough, SN 2005bf turned out to be extremely 

307: faint at the late epochs. 

308: The light curve characteristic is further discussed in \S 4, 

309: where we see that the faintness of SN 2005bf 

310: at the late epochs is difficult to understand 

311: in the context of a conventional supernova emission model. 

312: 

313: 

314: 

315: \begin{figure*}[tb]

316: \begin{center}

317: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}

318: 		\epsscale{1.0}

319: 		\plotone{f2a.eps}

320: 	\end{minipage}

321: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}

322: 		\epsscale{1.0}

323: 		\plotone{f2b.eps}

324: 	\end{minipage}

325: \end{center}

326: \caption[]

327: {The $R$-band (red open circles) and $B$-band (blue stars) light curves 

328: of SN 2005bf. 

329: Time is measured since the explosion, which is assumed to have occurred 

330: on 2005 March 28 (Tominaga et al. 2005). 

331: The Subaru observation of $R$ at 

332: December 26 and upper limits ($B$ at December 26, $R$ and $B$ at February 6) 

333: are shown. The early phase data ($< 100$ days) are from Tominaga et al. (2005). 

334: The light curves are compared with those 

335: of SN 1998bw (a: 

336: $R$ shown by black open circles, 

337: and the bolometric magnitude shown by a black curve; from Patat et al. 2001) and 

338: of SN 1990I (b: $R$ shown by black open circles; from Elmhamdi et a. 2004). 

339: The magnitudes of SNe 1998bw and 1990I are corrected for 

340: the distance modulus and the reddening to the position of SN 2005bf. 

341: \label{fig2}}

342: \end{figure*}

343: 

344: \begin{figure*}[tb]

345: \begin{center}

346: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}

347: 		\epsscale{1.0}

348: 		\plotone{f3a.eps}

349: 	\end{minipage}

350: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}

351: 		\epsscale{1.0}

352: 		\plotone{f3b.eps}

353: 	\end{minipage}

354: \end{center}

355: \caption[]

356: {Comparison of the December spectrum 

357: with (a) SN 1998bw and (b) SN 1990I at similar epochs. 

358: Flux is shifted artificially for SNe 1998bw and 1990I 

359: for presentation. 

360: The flux of the December spectrum is shifted upward 

361: by the amount of $2 \times 10^{-18}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ 

362: \AA$^{-1}$ for presentation. 

363: The redshifts of the host galaxies are corrected for. 

364: \label{fig3}}

365: \end{figure*}

366: 

367: 

368: \section{NEBULAR SPECTRA}

369: 

370: \subsection{General Features}

371: 

372: The reduced spectra show strong emissions at 

373: $\sim 6300$\AA, $7300$\AA, which 

374: we interpret as [OI] $\lambda\lambda$6300, 6363 

375: doublet and [CaII] $\lambda$7300 

376: (actually a combination of [CaII] $\lambda\lambda$7291, 7324, 

377: and [FeII] $\lambda\lambda$7155, 7172, 7388, and 7452). 

378: Other emission features are marginally detected 

379: at $\sim 5200$\AA\ (likely a blend of [FeII]) 

380: and $\sim 8700$\AA (CaII IR and [CI] $\lambda$8727). 

381: 

382: A feature at $\sim 6,500$\AA\ is consistent with broad H$_{\alpha}$ emission 

383: (FWHM $\sim 15,000$ km s$^{-1}$ measured in the December spectrum). 

384: This feature was reported in a spectrum taken at 

385: 2005 October 31 ($t \sim 210^{\rm d}$), 

386: but the width reported was narrower 

387: (FWHM $\sim 3,400$ km s$^{-1}$: Soderberg et al. 2005). 

388: This feature is marginally detected in our February spectrum, 

389: but the shape is uncertain because of the low S/N. 

390: 

391: We believe this is the H$_{\alpha}$ emission. 

392: Excessive emission at the red wing of [OI] $\lambda\lambda$6300, 6363 is 

393: sometimes observed in SNe Ib/c at relatively early epochs ($t \sim 100^{\rm d}$), 

394: and in such a case possible interpretation suggested to date 

395: is either [SiI] $\lambda$6527 

396: (e.g., 1997ef: Mazzali et al. 2004) or H$_{\alpha}$ 

397: (e.g., 1991A: Fillipenko 1991, see also Matheson 2001). 

398: The detection of this feature at $t \gsim 200^{\rm d}$ 

399: is not common, but there is at least one another SN showing a similar feature 

400: (SN 2004gn, which will be reported elsewhere). 

401: 

402: The feature, assuming it is H$_{\alpha}$, 

403: is either consistent with an emitting sphere 

404: with the outer boundary at $v \sim 10,000$ km s$^{-1}$ or 

405: an emitting shell bound between $v \sim 5,000 - 10,000$ km s$^{-1}$. 

406: The velocity at the outer boundary 

407: of the emitting H$_{\alpha}$ 

408: is similar to, but smaller than, 

409: the velocity of H ($v \sim 13,000$ km s$^{-1}$) seen in 

410: the spectrum at 2005 Apr 13 

411: ($t \sim 15^{\rm d}$: Anupama et al. 2005; Tominaga et al. 2005). 

412: Since this velocity is very large as compared with 

413: the center of the $^{56}$Ni distribution along the line of sight 

414: ($v \sim 2,000$ km s$^{-1}$: see \S\S 3.2 \& 3.3), 

415: it is probably difficult to ionize/excite H 

416: by the radioactive gamma-rays and resulting UV photons. 

417: More likely, the H$_{\alpha}$ comes from the ejecta decelerated by 

418: the weak CSM interaction. 

419: In any case, the detection of the high-velocity H$_{\alpha}$ supports 

420: the existence of 

421: the thin H envelope suggested by Anupama et al. (2005) and 

422: Tominaga et al. (2005). 

423: The line center of the H$_{\alpha}$ emission is consistent 

424: with the rest wavelength (Fig. 1), but the strong contamination 

425: in the blue wing by the [OI] makes the judgment difficult. 

426: 

427: 

428: No strong emission is seen at [OI] $\lambda 5577$.  

429: The line ratio L([OI] $\lambda\lambda 6300, 6363$: $^{1}$D$_{2}$ $\to$ 

430: $^{3}$P)/L([OI] $\lambda 5577$: $^{1}$S$_{0}$ $\to$ $^{1}$D$_{2}$) 

431: is related to the electron number density ($n_{\rm e}$ [cm$^{-3}$]) and the 

432: electron temperature ($T_{3} \equiv T_{\rm e}/1000 {\rm K}$) as follows 

433: (under the usual assumption that the $^{1}$D$_{2}$ and $^{1}$S$_{0}$ levels 

434: are populated by thermal electron collisions). 

435: 

436: \begin{equation}

437: \frac{L_{6300+6363}}{L_{5577}} = 7.2 \beta_{6300} 

438: \frac{1 + 6.6 \times 10^{-9} n_{\rm e} T_{3}^{0.02}}

439:    {1 + 1.6 \times 10^{-6} n_{\rm e} T_{3}^{0.03}} 

440:    e^{\frac{25.83}{T_{3}}} \ ,

441: \end{equation}

442: where $\beta_{6300}$ is the Sobolev escape probability 

443: of the [OI] $\lambda 6300$ and about unity at the 

444: epoch of interest in the present paper.  

445: The expression is derived 

446: by solving rate equations for a simplified OI atomic model. 

447: It is correct to the first order in $n_{\rm e}$ and in the exponential 

448: term for $T_{\rm e}$. The form is somewhat different from 

449: that in Houck \& Fransson (1996), but these two expressions are 

450: consistent with each other in the density and temperature ranges 

451: of interest here ($n_{\rm e} \sim 10^{6} - 10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ 

452: and $T_{3} \sim 1 - 10$). 

453: Taking the rough estimate 

454: L([OI] $\lambda\lambda 6300, 6363$)/L([OI] $\lambda 5577$)

455: $\gsim 10$, the emitting region should be at relatively 

456: low temperature ($T_3 \lsim 4$, for the high density limit) 

457: and/or at low electron density ($n_{\rm e} \lsim 5 \times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$, 

458: if $T_{3} = 10$). 

459: 

460: 

461: The low density is supported from the 

462: large ratio of [CaII] $\lambda$7300 to CaII IR. 

463: The OI $\lambda$7774 is weak, further supporting the low density. 

464: It also suggests that ionization is low. 

465: SN 2005bf at $t \sim 300^{\rm d}$ belongs to the low density end of 

466: a typical condition seen in SNe Ibc at nebular phases 

467: with $n_{\rm e} \sim 10^{6} - 10^9$ cm$^{-3}$ 

468: (see, e.g., Fransson \& Chavalier 1989). 

469: 

470: 

471: Figure 3 shows comparison of the December 26 spectrum 

472: with the spectra of SNe 1998bw and 1990I at similar epochs

473: \footnote{The spectrum of SN 1990I is taken from the SUSPECT 

474: (The Online Supernova Spectrum Archive) web page at 

475: http://bruford.nhn.ou.edu/\~\ suspect/index1.html, 

476: by courtesy of Abouazza Elmhamdi.}. 

477: Note that the flux is arbitrarily shifted for 

478: SNe 1998bw and 1990I for presentation. 

479: Despite the large difference in the luminosity (Fig. 2) and 

480: possibly in the line shapes and some line ratios, 

481: the overall features look similar among these objects. 

482: The [OI] $\lambda$6300/[CaII] $\lambda$7300 ratio in SN 2005bf 

483: is smaller than that of SN 1998bw. 

484: The oxygen core mass increases very sensitively as a 

485: function of $M_{\rm ms}$, while the explosively synthesized 

486: Ca does not. 

487: The smaller [OI]/[CaII] ratio thus indicates that the 

488: progenitor of SN 2005bf is less massive than 

489: SN 1998bw, i.e., $M_{\rm ms} < 40\Msun$. 

490: (See, e.g., Nakamura et al. 2001b and 

491: Nomoto et al. 2006 for the supernova 

492: yields. See Fransson \& Chevalier 

493: 1987, 1989 for the theoretical [OI]/[CaII] ratios 

494: for the specific cases of $15\Msun$ and $25\Msun$ progenitor models. 

495: See also Maeda et al. 2007 for discussion on the 

496: [OI]/[CaII] ratio in other SNe Ib/c.) 

497: 

498: \subsection{Line Profiles and Blueshift}

499: 

500: \begin{figure}[tb]

501: \begin{center}

502: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\textwidth}

503: 		\epsscale{1.0}

504: 		\plotone{f4.eps}

505: 	\end{minipage}

506: \end{center}

507: \caption[]

508: {Line profiles in velocity space (a minus sign for 

509: blueshift). The centers of the line are 

510: 6300 ([OI]), 7150 (FeII), and 7300\AA ([CaII]). 

511: The velocity toward us is marked for 0 km s$^{-1}$ 

512: (black dashed) and for 2,000 km s$^{-1}$ (gray dashed). 

513: \label{fig4}}

514: \end{figure}

515: 

516: The observed line profiles and positions are very unique. 

517: Figure 4 shows line profiles around 6300, 7150, and 7300\AA, 

518: which we attribute to [OI] $\lambda\lambda$6300, 6363, 

519: [FeII] $\lambda$7155, and 

520: [CaII] $\lambda\lambda$7291, 7324. 

521: The line profiles are shown in velocity relative to 

522: 6300, 7150, 7300\AA\ (after correcting for the host's redshift). 

523: All these lines 

524: show similar amount of blueshift relative to the rest wavelength 

525: ($\sim 1,500 - 2,000$ km s$^{-1}$). 

526: 

527: The doubly-peaked profile of the [OI] is especially unique. 

528: This is clearly seen in the December 

529: spectrum, and is consistent with the low S/N February spectrum. 

530: Also, this feature is seen in another spectrum at a similar 

531: epoch taken independently (M. Modjaz, private communication). 

532: Thus, this peculiar line shape should be real. 

533: Note this is different from 

534: the doubly-peaked [OI] profile seen in SN 2003jd (Mazzali et al. 2005). 

535: In the case of SN 2003jd, it was basically symmetric with respect 

536: to the rest wavelength (i.e., no velocity shift), 

537: so that it was most naturally 

538: interpreted as oxygen distributed in a disk viewed from 

539: the equator (Maeda et al. 2002). 

540: 

541: By comparing these three lines, 

542: we can obtain insight on the distribution 

543: of materials. Between the two peaks in the [OI] emission, 

544: the [CaII] emits strongly, and the [FeII] is even more narrowly 

545: centered. 

546: The simplest interpretation is that the elements have layered distribution, 

547: i.e., Fe at the center of the emitting region ($v \sim 2,000$ 

548: km s$^{-1}$), which is surrounded by Ca, then by O. 

549: 

550: 

551: 

552: \subsection{Spectrum Synthesis}

553: 

554: 

555: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccccccc}[tb]

556:  \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

557:  \tablecaption{Spectrum Models\tablenotemark{a}

558:  \label{tab:model_02}}

559:  \tablewidth{0pt}

560:  \tablehead{

561:    \colhead{Model}

562:  & \colhead{$M_{\rm ej neb}$}

563:  & \colhead{$V$\tablenotemark{b}}

564:  & \colhead{$dV$}

565:  & \colhead{C}

566:  & \colhead{O}

567:  & \colhead{Na}

568:  & \colhead{Ca}

569:  & \colhead{$^{56}$Ni\tablenotemark{c}} 

570:  & \colhead{$T_{\rm e}$}

571:  & \colhead{log $n_{\rm e}$} 

572:  & \colhead{$\tau_{\rm abs}$\tablenotemark{d}}

573: }

574: \startdata

575: A  & 0.12 & 3,500 & 1,800 & 0.023 & 0.07 & 3.6E-5 & 7.2E-5&

576: 0.024 & 5,100 & 6.4 & 0\\

577: B  & 0.34 & 5,000 & 0     & 0.068 & 0.21  & 1.0E-4 & 2.0E-4 & 

578: 0.056 & 5,200 & 6.3 & 2 (67\% absorbed)\\

579: \enddata

580: \tablenotetext{a}{Units are the following. Masses ($\Msun$), 

581: velocity (km s$^{-1}$), $T_{\rm e}$ (K), and $n_{\rm e}$ (cm$^{-3}$).}

582: \tablenotetext{b}{$V$ and $dV$ are the outer velocity relative to 

583: the center of mass and the velocity shift with respect to the SN rest, 

584: respectively.}

585: \tablenotetext{c}{The mass of $^{56}$Ni ($\Msun$) initially synthesized at the explosion, 

586: before the radioactive decay.}

587: \tablenotetext{d}{The assumed dust optical depth $\tau_{\rm abs} = \kappa_{\rm abs} 

588: \rho V t$, where $t$ is the time since the explosion.}

589: \end{deluxetable*}

590: 

591: 

592: \begin{figure*}[tb]

593: \begin{center}

594: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}

595: 		\epsscale{1.0}

596: 		\plotone{f5a.eps}

597: 	\end{minipage}

598: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}

599: 		\epsscale{1.0}

600: 		\plotone{f5b.eps}

601: 	\end{minipage}

602: \end{center}

603: \caption[]

604: {Model spectra at $t = 270^{\rm d}$ (black solid), 

605: as compared with the December 26 spectrum (gray). 

606: For Model B, the original unabsorbed spectrum is also shown (dotted). 

607: See Table 2 for model parameters.  The distance modulus 

608: $\mu = 34.5$ and $E(B-V) = 0.045$ are adopted. 

609: \label{fig5}}

610: \end{figure*}

611: 

612: The similarity of the nebular spectra (Fig. 3) 

613: indicates that $n_{\rm e}$ and $T_{\rm e}$ are similar for 

614: SNe 2005bf, 1998bw, and 1990I at similar epochs. 

615: We have performed one-zone nebular 

616: spectrum synthesis computations. 

617: Following the $^{56}$Ni $\to$ $^{56}$Co $\to$ $^{56}$Fe 

618: decay chain as a heating source, the code computes 

619: gamma-ray deposition in a uniform nebula by the Monte-Carlo 

620: radiation transport Method. Positrons from the decays are assumed to be trapped  

621: completely (see \S 4.1). Positrons become a predominant heating source 

622: after the optical depth to the gamma-rays drops below $\sim 0.035$, 

623: following the density decrease. 

624: Ionization and NLTE thermal 

625: balance are solved according to the prescription 

626: given by Ruiz-Lapuente \& Lucy (1992). 

627: See Mazzali et al. (2001) and Maeda et al. (2006a) for details. 

628: Hereafter, we use the subscript "neb" for the values derived by 

629: modeling the nebular phase observations, i.e., 

630: $M_{\rm ej, neb}$, $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm neb}$, and so on 

631: (see Table 1). 

632: 

633: In the present models, we do not introduce He in the nebula. 

634: If the ejecta are heated totally by positrons, 

635: adding He does not affect the masses 

636: of the other elements derived in the spectrum synthesis. In this 

637: case, He has virtually nothing to do with both heating and cooling 

638: of the ejecta. On the other hand, if the ejecta are heated predominantly 

639: by gamma-rays, the situation is different. Increasing He mass fraction 

640: leads to lowering mass fractions of the other elements including 

641: $^{56}$Ni. However, to reproduce the observed total luminosity, 

642: reducing the fraction of $^{56}$Ni should be compensated by 

643: increasing the ejecta mass to absorb gamma-rays more effectively. 

644: Thus, the mass of the emitting materials ($M_{\rm ej, neb}$) derived 

645: without He is the lower limit. Likewise, 

646: the mass of each element, as well as that of $^{56}$Ni, obtained 

647: without He is the upper limit for the mass of each element, because the 

648: mass fraction for each element should be lower. 

649: 

650: 

651: There are two possible ways to reproduce the blueshift in emission lines. 

652: One is the kinematical off-set in the distribution of the emitting 

653: materials (Model A: \S 3.3.1), and the other is the self-absorption within the ejecta 

654: reducing the contribution of light coming from the far side of the ejecta 

655: (Model B: \S 3.3.2). 

656: Figures 5 and 6 show the comparison between the model spectra and the December 

657: spectrum. Model parameters are listed in Table 2. 

658: Because of the one-zone treatment in the spectrum synthesis, we are not 

659: concerned with the detailed line profiles. 

660: 

661: 

662: 

663: \begin{figure*}[tb]

664: \begin{center}

665: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

666: 		\epsscale{1.0}

667: 		\plotone{f6a.eps}

668: 	\end{minipage}

669: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

670: 		\epsscale{1.0}

671: 		\plotone{f6b.eps}

672: 	\end{minipage}\\

673: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

674: 		\epsscale{1.0}

675: 		\plotone{f6c.eps}

676: 	\end{minipage}

677: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

678: 		\epsscale{1.0}

679: 		\plotone{f6d.eps}

680: 	\end{minipage}

681: \end{center}

682: \caption[]

683: {Same with Figure 5, but for the [OI] $\lambda\lambda$6300, 6363 

684: and for the [CaII] $\lambda$7300 + [FeII] $\lambda$7150.  

685: \label{fig6}}

686: \end{figure*}

687: 

688: \subsubsection{Unipolar Blob: Model A}

689: 

690: In Model A, 

691: we neglect the optical radiation transport effect 

692: in the nebula, except for the optical depth effect within 

693: a line in the Sobolev approximation. 

694: As the observed spectrum shows blueshift 

695: relative to the expected line positions (Fig. 4: see also \S 3.2), 

696: we artificially shift the model spectrum blueward 

697: by $1,800$ km s$^{-1}$. The blueshift in this model 

698: is totally attributed to the kinematical distribution of the 

699: emitting materials (see e.g., Motohara et al. 2006). 

700: This is discussed later in this section. 

701: 

702: In Model A, $M_{\rm ej, neb} \sim 0.12\Msun$ 

703: and $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm neb} \sim 0.024\Msun$. 

704: These values are only $\sim 2\%$ and $8\%$ of 

705: $M_{\rm ej, peak}$ and $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak}$, respectively. 

706: Contrary, the same fractions are 

707: $\sim 25 - 50$\% ($M_{\rm ej}$) and $\sim 100$\% ($M$($^{56}$Ni)) 

708: for SN 1998bw (Mazzali et al. 2001).  

709: These values in Mazzali et al. (2001) are consistent with 

710: the expectation that in late phases we look into the $^{56}$Ni-rich 

711: region. In this sense, 

712: $M_{\rm ej, neb}$ and $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm neb}$ for SN 2005bf 

713: are too small to be compared with $M_{\rm ej, peak}$ and $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak}$. 

714: 

715: The electron density 

716: derived for SN 2005bf is similar to that for SN 1998bw at similar epochs 

717: (Mazzali et al. 2001). 

718: We find that introducing clumpy structures in SN 2005bf does not help. 

719: If the filling factor is smaller, then the oxygen mass 

720: should be even smaller to fit the [OI]$\lambda6300$ luminosity. 

721: Derived $n_{\rm e}$ (Table 2) is close to the critical density 

722: for the [OI]$\lambda6300$ emission, thus increasing 

723: $n_{\rm e}$ results in increasing the line emissivity 

724: per neutral oxygen. 

725: 

726: The CaII IR profile suggests a strong contribution from 

727: [CI] $\lambda$8727 in the red. 

728: If this is true, then we need relatively large mass ratio $\sim 0.35$ 

729: between C and O. 

730: This is consistent with the ratio for $M_{\rm ms} \lsim 20\Msun$ 

731: (e.g., Nomoto et al. 2006). 

732: 

733: Now we turn to the detailed element distribution. 

734: Figure 7 shows toy models to fit the line profiles, computed 

735: by assuming that 

736: the flux density is simply proportional to the density of 

737: homogeneous matter, 

738: and by artificially shifting the flux. 

739: As long as only the line profiles are concerned, 

740: various geometry can reproduce the observation. 

741: The blue shift suggests that 

742: a blob (or a jet) of $^{56}$Ni is 

743: ejected, and its center-of-mass velocity is $v \gsim 2,000$ km s$^{-1}$.  

744: Also, more centrally (but off-set from the SN rest) concentrated 

745: distribution of heavier elements yields a good fit to 

746: their narrower line profiles. 

747: If the viewing direction ($\theta$ measured from the pole) is close to the pole 

748: (Case A1: $\theta \sim 15^{\rm o}$), 

749: then the distribution of the oxygen should be more 

750: elongated to the same direction to explain the doubly-peaked [OI]. 

751: If $\theta$ is large (Case A2: $\theta \sim 75^{\rm o}$), on the other hand, 

752: the torus-like structure of oxygen-rich materials is necessary 

753: (Maeda et al. 2002; Mazzali et al. 2005). 

754: It should be interesting to examine in the future if 

755: these distributions can be reproduced by unipolar supernova explosion 

756: models (Hungerford, Fryer, \& Rockefeller 2005). 

757: 

758: In sum, in Model A, 

759: the spectrum of SN 2005bf at $t \sim 270^{\rm d}$ is explained 

760: by the ejection of a blob with $M_{\rm ej, neb}\sim 0.12\Msun$ and 

761: $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm neb}$ $\sim 0.024\Msun$.  

762: The blob is centered at $v \gsim 2,000$ km s$^{-1}$, distributed in 

763: $v \sim - 2,000 - \sim 5,000$ km s$^{-1}$ (Case A1) or 

764: $v \sim 0 - \sim 8,000$ km s$^{-1}$ (Case A2) depending on $\theta$ (Fig. 7). 

765: 

766: 

767: \begin{figure*}[tb]

768: \begin{center}

769: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

770: 		\epsscale{1.0}

771: 		\plotone{f7a.eps}

772: 	\end{minipage}

773: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

774: 		\epsscale{1.0}

775: 		\plotone{f7b.eps}

776: 	\end{minipage}\\

777: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

778: 		\epsscale{1.0}

779: 		\plotone{f7c.eps}

780: 	\end{minipage}

781: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

782: 		\epsscale{1.0}

783: 		\plotone{f7d.eps}

784: 	\end{minipage}\\

785: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

786: 		\epsscale{1.0}

787: 		\plotone{f7e.eps}

788: 	\end{minipage}

789: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

790: 		\epsscale{1.0}

791: 		\plotone{f7f.eps}

792: 	\end{minipage}\\

793: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

794: 		\epsscale{1.0}

795: 		\plotone{f7g.eps}

796: 	\end{minipage}

797: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.3\textwidth}

798: 		\epsscale{1.0}

799: 		\plotone{f7h.eps}

800: 	\end{minipage}

801: \end{center}

802: \caption[]

803: {Simple model fits to the line profiles. 

804: (a, Case A1: left panels) The blob model viewed at $\theta \sim 15^{\rm o}$ from the pole 

805: (i.e., $+ V_{z}$-direction). 

806: The distribution is shown for O (red), Ca (green), and Fe (blue). 

807: The expected line profiles are shown for the [OI] $\lambda\lambda$6300, 6363 (red), 

808: [CaII] $\lambda\lambda$7291, 7324 (green), and [FeII] $\lambda$7155 (blue) (from 

809: top to bottom). (b, Case A2: right panels) The blob model viewed at 

810: $\theta \sim 75^{\rm o}$ from the pole 

811: (i.e., $+ V_{x}$-direction). 

812: \label{fig7}}

813: \end{figure*}

814: 

815: 

816: \subsubsection{Self-Absorption: Model B}

817: 

818: Another interpretation is also possible for the blueshift of the 

819: emission lines. 

820: Figures 2 and 3 show 

821: the similarity between SNe 2005bf and 1990I 

822: in the light curve shape except for the peak at $t \sim 40^{\rm d}$, 

823: and in the nebular spectra. 

824: The early phase spectra could also be similar 

825: (A. Elmhamdi, private communication). 

826: The similarity may suggest that similar physical conditions 

827: could apply for these SNe. 

828: 

829: SN 1990I experienced the onset of 

830: blueshift in emission lines and accelerated fading in optical luminosity 

831: almost simultaneously (e.g., Elmhamdi et al. 2004). 

832: These are interpreted as the onset of dust formation and 

833: the self-absorption of optical light by the dust particles. 

834: Elmhamdi et al. (2004) constrained the fraction of the absorbed optical light 

835: $\sim 50\%$ at $t \sim 300^{\rm d}$ for SN 1990I. 

836: 

837: In Model B, we assume that the similar fraction of the optical 

838: light experiences  the absorption within the ejecta. We take the absorbed 

839: fraction to be $\sim 70\%$ (Table 2). 

840: In the spectrum synthesis for Model B, 

841: the optical light is dimmed as 

842: \begin{equation} 

843: I = I_{0} \exp(-\kappa_{\rm abs} \rho l) \ , 

844: \end{equation} 

845: where $I_{0}$ is the original intensity 

846: without absorption, and $l$ is the path length for each photon until escaping the 

847: nebula. The absorption opacity $\kappa_{\rm abs}$ 

848: is taken to be constant through the ejecta. The value of $\kappa_{\rm abs}$ 

849: is set by the requirement that the emergent luminosity is $\sim 30\%$ of the 

850: original luminosity.  

851: 

852: For the larger amount of absorption, the original 

853: luminosity should be larger to reproduce the observed luminosity. 

854: Accordingly, $M_{\rm ej, neb}$ and the mass of each element 

855: are larger in Model B than in Model A, as seen in Table 2. 

856: 

857: At the same time, the absorption dilutes the optical light from the far side 

858: selectively, thus causing the blueshift of the emission lines. 

859: Figure 6 shows that the blueshift similar to the observed one 

860: can be obtained although no kinematical off-set is assumed in Model B. 

861: The synthetic spectrum is bluer than observed for the [FeII] $\lambda$7150 and 

862: [CaII] $\lambda$7300, indicating that these elements are more centrally concentrated 

863: than oxygen, as is required in Model A. The absorption in the uniform sphere 

864: does not itself reproduce the doubly-peaked [OI] $\lambda\lambda$6300, 6363 doublet. 

865: The distribution of oxygen should be as shown in Figure 7, except for the 

866: center of the distribution which should be at the zero-velocity in Model B. 

867: 

868: In Model B, 

869: $M_{\rm ej, neb} \sim 0.34\Msun$ and $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm neb}$ $\sim 0.056\Msun$. 

870: The velocity of the outer edge of the emitting blob is 

871: $v \sim 5,000$ km s$^{-1}$, 

872: which is similar to that in Model A. 

873: 

874: \section{LATE TIME LIGHT CURVE}

875: 

876: \subsection{General Remarks}

877: 

878: The magnitude difference between the second peak 

879: ($t \sim 40^{\rm d}$) and the late epoch 

880: ($t \sim 270^{\rm d}$) is $\Delta B > 8.9$ mag 

881: and $\Delta R \sim 8.1$ mag.  

882: These are at least 2 magnitudes larger 

883: than seen in SNe 1998bw and 1990I (Fig. 2). 

884: Since the peak-to-tail luminosity difference is 

885: similar for different SNe Ib/c (e.g., Patat et la. 2001; 

886: Elmhamdi et al. 2004; Tomita et al. 2006; 

887: Richardson, Branch, \& Baron 2006), 

888: the very large difference in SN 2005bf is 

889: a unique property. 

890: 

891: \begin{figure}[tb]

892: \begin{center}

893: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\textwidth}

894: 		\epsscale{1.0}

895: 		\plotone{f8.eps}

896: 	\end{minipage}

897: \end{center}

898: \caption[]

899: {The $R$-band light curve of SN 2005bf (circles), as compared with the model 

900: curves (black curves). The ejecta model is adopted from Tominaga et al. (2005), 

901: in which $M_{\rm ej, peak} = 7.3\Msun$, $E_{{\rm peak}, 51} = 1.3$, and 

902: $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak}$ $= 0.32\Msun$.  

903: Two models are shown (without/with reducing gamma ray opacity shown by 

904: thick/thin solid curve). 

905: Also shown is the energy generation rate by gamma-rays and positrons 

906: from $0.3\Msun$ of $^{56}$Co (red), 

907: and the energy generation rate only by positrons from $0.3\Msun$ 

908: (green) and $0.07\Msun$ (blue) of $^{56}$Co. 

909: \label{fig8}}

910: \end{figure}

911: 

912: Figure 8 shows the comparison between the $R$-band 

913: light curve of SN 2005bf 

914: and synthetic bolometric curves computed using the ejecta model 

915: of Tominaga et al. (2005) with $M_{\rm ej, peak} = 7.3\Msun$,  

916: $E_{{\rm peak}, 51}  = 1.3$ and $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak}$ $ = 0.32\Msun$. 

917: The light curves are computed by 

918: the Monte Carlo Radiation transport code described in 

919: Maeda et al. (2003) (see also Cappellaro et al. 1997). 

920: We adopt the absorptive opacity $\kappa_{\gamma} = 0.025$ cm$^{2}$ g$^{-1}$ 

921: for the gray gamma ray transport (see e.g., Maeda 2006c). 

922: The optical opacity prescription 

923: is similar to Tominaga et al. (2005): we assume that contribution from 

924: electron scatterings is equal to that from the line opacity 

925: (for the prescription for the line opacity, see Tominaga et al. 2005). 

926: This is largely consistent with 

927: the electron scattering opacity found in Tominaga et al. (2005) 

928: within a factor of two. 

929: Figure 8 shows that our synthetic light curve is consistent with 

930: the model curve computed by Tominaga et al. (2005). 

931: Also shown is the synthetic light curve computed using the reduced 

932: gamma ray opacity ($\kappa_{\gamma} = 0.001$ cm$^{2}$ g$^{-1}$) at $v < 5,400$ km s$^{-1}$ 

933: as examined in Tominaga et al. (2005). 

934: 

935: The $R$-band magnitude at $t \sim 270^{\rm d}$ 

936: is fainter than the bolometric magnitude 

937: expected from the model of Tominaga et al. (2005) by $\sim 5$  

938: mag (!) for the "brighter" expectation (without reducing 

939: $\kappa_{\gamma}$) or $\sim 3$ mag even for the "fainter" 

940: expectation (with reducing $\kappa_{\gamma}$). 

941: Since the $R$ magnitude is usually a good tracer of the bolometric magnitude in 

942: SNe Ib/c (see Fig. 2 for SN 1998bw), this large 

943: discrepancy is very odd and difficult to understand. 

944: 

945: Such a very rapid fading 

946: has never been observed in SNe Ib/c. 

947: The light curve of typical SNe Ib/c is reproduced 

948: by the energy input from gamma-rays 

949: and positrons produced in the 

950: radioactive decay chain $^{56}$Ni $\to$ $^{56}$Co 

951: $\to$ $^{56}$Fe. 

952: However, the newly observed light curve points of 

953: SN 2005bf turn out to be difficult to fit into this context. 

954: In late phases, the bolometric luminosity is equal to 

955: the energy of gamma-rays absorbed in the ejecta per unit time, 

956: as the radiation transfer effect is negligibly small. 

957: The gamma-ray optical depth can be estimated by 

958: \begin{equation} 

959: \tau_{\gamma} \sim 

960: 1000 \times \frac{(M_{\rm ej}/\Msun)^{2}}{E_{51}} \times \left(\frac{t}{{\rm day}}\right)^{-2} 

961: \end{equation} 

962: (see e.g., Maeda et al. 2003). 

963: The model of Tominaga et al. (2005) or Folatelli et al. (2006) 

964: predict $\tau_{\gamma} \sim 0.5$ at $t = 300^{\rm d}$. For 

965: comparison, $\tau_{\gamma} \sim 0.02 - 0.06$ for SN 1998bw 

966: at $t = 300^{\rm d}$ 

967: ($M_{\rm ej} \sim 10\Msun$, $E_{51} \sim 20 - 50$: 

968: Maeda, Mazzali, \& Nomoto 2006b; Nakamura et al. 2001a). 

969: Then, the peak-to-tail magnitude 

970: difference must be smaller in SN 2005bf than SNe 1998bw, which is 

971: inconsistent with what we have observed. 

972: 

973: Even more problematic is the fact that SN 2005bf in the late phase 

974: is even fainter than the lower limit set by the $^{56}$Co heating model. 

975: Positrons emitted from the $^{56}$Co decay 

976: produce energy at a rate $L_{e^+}$: 

977: \begin{equation}

978: L_{e^+} = 4.8 \times 10^{41} 

979: \left(\frac{M(^{56}{\rm Ni})}{M_{\odot}}\right) 

980: \exp{\left({-\frac{t}{113 \ {\rm day}}}\right)} \  {\rm erg} \ {\rm s}^{-1} \ .

981: \end{equation}

982: The positrons' mean free path is on 

983: the order of the gyroradius $r_{\rm gyr}$, 

984: which is 

985: \begin{eqnarray}

986: r_{\rm gyr} & = & \frac{\sqrt{2 m_{e} K} c}{e B} \nonumber\\

987: & \sim & 3.4 \times 10^3 \ {\rm cm}  \sqrt{\frac{K}{1 \ {\rm MeV}}} 

988: \left(\frac{B_{\rm mag}}{1 \ {\rm gauss}}\right)^{-1} \ .

989: \end{eqnarray}

990: Here $m_{e}$, $e$, $K$ are the mass, charge, and energy of the positron, 

991: $B_{\rm mag}$ is the strength of the magnetic field, and $c$ is the speed of light 

992: (all expressed in CGS-Gauss unit). A typical radius of the emitting 

993: supernova nebula is $\sim 10^{15}$ cm at $t = 300^{\rm d}$ with 

994: $v \sim 3,000$ km s$^{-1}$. Since the positrons' mean free path is 

995: many orders of magnitude smaller than the size of the nebula, 

996: all the positrons can be assumed to be trapped in the ejecta 

997: (at least in the absence of 

998: well aligned magnetic fields: see Milne, The, \& Leising 2001). 

999: This sets the lower limit of the bolometric luminosity for 

1000: given $M$($^{56}$Ni). 

1001: 

1002: 

1003: 

1004: 

1005: It is seen from Figure 8 that the $R$-band and $B$-band magnitudes 

1006: at $t \sim 270^{\rm d}$ are fainter than $L_{e^+}$ expected from 

1007: $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak}$ $\sim 0.3\Msun$. 

1008: Actually, the $R$ magnitude, assuming this is equal to 

1009: the bolometric magnitude, 

1010: is consistent with positron energy input from $0.08 \Msun$ of $^{56}$Ni 

1011: according to equation (4). 

1012: Thus, we set the strict upper limit $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm neb}$ $\lsim 0.08\Msun$. 

1013: Since this input 

1014: power has nothing to do with the gamma ray transport, reducing 

1015: $\kappa_{\gamma}$ (Tominaga et al. 2005; Folatelli et al. 2006) 

1016: does not help solve the discrepancy. 

1017: 

1018: 

1019: \subsection{Contribution from the Blob}

1020: 

1021: \begin{figure}[tb]

1022: \begin{center}

1023: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}

1024: 		\epsscale{1.0}

1025: 		\plotone{f9.eps}

1026: 	\end{minipage}

1027: \end{center}

1028: \caption[]

1029: {Light Curve Analysis. The expected deposition luminosity is 

1030: shown for the whole ejecta (gray solid; $M_{\rm ej, peak} = 7.3\Msun$, 

1031: $E_{{\rm peak}, 51} =1.3$, and $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak}$ $= 0.3\Msun$), 

1032: and for the $^{56}$Ni-rich shell 

1033: (dashed; $M_{\rm ej} = 2\Msun$, $v = 3,900$ km s$^{-1}$, and 

1034: $M$($^{56}$Ni) $= 0.06\Msun$) for the model of Tominaga et al. (2005). 

1035: Also shown is the deposition luminosity expected for the blob 

1036: derived from the nebular spectrum, i.e., models A (thick curve) and B 

1037: (thin curve). 

1038: \label{fig9}}

1039: \end{figure}

1040: 

1041: As discussed in \S 3, the late phase spectra of SN 2005bf 

1042: are dominated by the emission from a low mass blob with 

1043: $M_{\rm ej, neb} \sim 0.1 - 0.4\Msun$ and 

1044: $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm neb}$ $\sim 0.02 - 0.06\Msun$. 

1045: The blob is either ejected with the central velocity 

1046: $v \sim 2,000$ km s$^{-1}$ (if viewed from the pole) -- 

1047: $\sim 5,000$ km s$^{-1}$ (if viewed $\sim 75^{\rm o}$ 

1048: away from the pole), or it suffers from the absorption within the ejecta 

1049: like SN 1990I. In either case, 

1050: the emitting materials are distributed up to $v \sim 5,000 

1051: - 8,000$ km s$^{-1}$ (\S 3). 

1052: 

1053: 

1054: A contribution of the blob component to the light curve is estimated in 

1055: Figure 9. Taking $M_{\rm ej, neb}$, $E_{{\rm neb}, 51}$, and 

1056: $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm neb}$ from Table 1, 

1057: we use equations (1 -- 3) of Maeda et al. (2003) with the modification 

1058: to include contribution from the $^{56}$Ni $\to$ $^{56}$Co decay. 

1059: In Model B, the luminosity in the nebular epochs ($t \sim 300^{\rm d}$) should be 

1060: further decreased by $\sim 70\%$ ($\sim 1$ mag) from the curve in Figure 9 

1061: to take into account the self-absorption. 

1062: 

1063: It is seen that the energy deposition curve expected from this blob 

1064: (both models A and B) roughly connects 

1065: the first peak ($t \sim 20^{\rm d}$) and the late Subaru points 

1066: ($t \sim 300^{\rm d}$). 

1067: That is to say, the optical output from SN 2005bf was 

1068: dominated by this blob component in the earliest and the late 

1069: epochs, while around the main peak ($t \sim 40^{\rm d}$) 

1070: the emission from the whole ejecta 

1071: made the predominant contribution. 

1072: 

1073: 

1074: Also shown in Figure 9 is the deposition curve expected from the 

1075: $^{56}$Ni-rich shell 

1076: ($3,900$ km s$^{-1}$ $< v <$ $5,400$ km s$^{-1}$) of Tominaga et al. (2005). 

1077: The shell has the mass $\sim 2\Msun$ in which $M$($^{56}$Ni) $\sim 0.06\Msun$. 

1078: Interestingly, the curve expected from the shell is similar to the blob contribution 

1079: derived by the nebular spectra. 

1080: The similar amount of $^{56}$Ni and the similar velocity 

1081: between the blob and their shell  

1082: suggest that what Tominaga et al. (2005) attributed to the shell is actually 

1083: the blob we derived in this study. 

1084: However, the total mass of the blob ($M_{\rm ej, neb} \lsim 0.4\Msun$) 

1085: is smaller than what they derived ($\sim 2\Msun$).  

1086: 

1087: Possibly, detailed (2D/3D) ejecta structure and/or 

1088: the optical opacity prescription affect the mass estimate. 

1089: These effects are more important in the early phase modeling, 

1090: since in the early phases only a small fraction of the ejecta is seen and 

1091: the optical transport effect is strong. 

1092: 

1093: 

1094: \section{DISCUSSION}

1095: 

1096: 

1097: The late phase data presented in this paper 

1098: add the following peculiarities to SN 2005bf. 

1099: (1)

1100: It is extremely faint at late phases. 

1101: (2) 

1102: Line emissions are blueshifted by $\sim 1,500 - 2,000$ km s$^{-1}$. 

1103: 

1104: The extreme faintness needs special condition (\S 4). 

1105: To explain the faintness, 

1106: there are at least four possibilities. 

1107: \begin{itemize}

1108: \item[(a)] The ejecta are much more transparent to 

1109: gamma-rays and even to positrons than in other SNe. 

1110: \item[(b)] The fraction of radiation output in the optical range is 

1111: extremely small ($\sim 1$ \%). 

1112: \item[(c)] $M$($^{56}$Ni) decreases with time, from $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak}$ 

1113: $\sim 0.3\Msun$ at $t \sim 40^{\rm d}$ to $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm neb}$ 

1114: $\lsim 0.1\Msun$ at $t \sim 270^{\rm d}$. 

1115: \item[(d)] The peak ($t \sim 40^{\rm d}$), at least, was not powered by the $^{56}$Ni decay chain. 

1116: \end{itemize}

1117: In this section, we discuss these possible interpretations. 

1118: 

1119: 

1120: \subsection{Gamma-ray and Positron escape?} 

1121: 

1122: The drop of the light curve was already observed between 

1123: $t \sim 40^{\rm d}$ and $\sim 80^{\rm d}$. 

1124: It was suggested that it could be explained by assuming the 

1125: reduced gamma-ray opacity $\kappa_{\gamma}$ 

1126: (Tominaga et al. 2005; Folatelli et al. 2006). 

1127: This is possible for the period 

1128: $t \sim 40^{\rm d} - 80^{\rm d}$, 

1129: but we show in the following that this 

1130: is unlikely to work at the late epochs ($t \sim 300^{\rm d}$). 

1131: 

1132: They argued that the reduction of $\kappa_{\gamma}$ 

1133: could take place if the geometry of the ejecta is far from spherically symmetric. 

1134: If the ejecta have large inhomogeneity (clumpy or jet-disk structure) 

1135: in the density structure, the effective optical depth is 

1136: reduced as 

1137: \begin{equation} 

1138: \tau_{\rm eff} = \frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau_{\rm c}} (1 - \exp(-\tau_{\rm c})) 

1139: \end{equation} 

1140: (Bowyer and Field 1969; Nagase et al. 1986). 

1141: Here $\tau_{0}$ and $\tau_{\rm c}$ are the gamma-ray optical depths for homogeneous medium 

1142: with the same average density and for each dense structure (e.g., clump). 

1143: 

1144: We note that this effect works only when $\tau_{\rm c} \gg 1$. 

1145: As long as the clumps (or dense regions) follow the homologous expansion, 

1146: $\tau_{\rm c}$ should decrease with time according to $\tau_{\rm c} \propto t^{-2}$. 

1147: It is then expected that this opacity 

1148: reduction effect does not work in the nebular phases. Furthermore, 

1149: the nebular spectra indicate that very dense regions such that $\tau_{\rm c} \gg 1$ 

1150: to gamma-rays do not exist (\S 3). 

1151: Thus, this effect can not be used as an argument for the reduction of $\kappa_{\gamma}$ 

1152: in the nebular phase. 

1153: 

1154: Even worse, not only gamma-rays, but also positrons, should escape 

1155: the ejecta effectively in this interpretation. It is even more difficult 

1156: to explain an enhancement of the amount of positrons that escape the 

1157: ejecta without interacting, since positrons have much smaller mean free 

1158: path than gamma-rays (equation (5)). In sum, we conclude that 

1159: the gamma-ray and positron escape scenario is unlikely.

1160: 

1161: 

1162: \subsection{Absorption in the Ejecta?}

1163: 

1164: Qualitatively, the two features in the late phases 

1165: (faintness and blueshift) could be expected from 

1166: self-absorption in the SN ejecta. 

1167: These features are essential in Model B to fit the December spectrum. 

1168: Note that Model B yields a light curve shape similar to that of SN 1990I 

1169: (see Figs 2 and 9). 

1170: In this section, we consider a more extreme case 

1171: than in Model B, 

1172: and examine whether the self-absorption 

1173: within the ejecta of $M_{\rm ej, peak} \sim 7\Msun$ 

1174: and $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak}$ $\sim 0.3\Msun$ 

1175: can explain the entire light curve of SN 2005bf. 

1176: 

1177: This is one possibility. 

1178: However, the following arguments can be used against 

1179: (although not definitely) the extreme self-absorption scenario. 

1180: Some are related to the light curve shape. 

1181: \begin{itemize}

1182: \item[(1)] Figure 2 

1183: shows that the light curve starts dropping faster than other SNe Ibc 

1184: already at $t \sim 50^{\rm d}$, and 

1185: this is likely the beginning of the very faint nature of SN 2005bf. 

1186: Such a drop at a relatively early phase is seen neither in SN 1990I nor 

1187: in other SNe undergoing dust formation. 

1188: The temperature in the ejecta at $t \sim 50^{\rm d}$ should 

1189: be too high to form dust in the ejecta (e.g., Nozawa et al. 2003). 

1190: Observationally, NIR contribution is estimated to be 

1191: $\sim 50$ \% at $t \sim 80^{\rm d}$, which is similar to 

1192: SNe 2002ap and 1998bw (Tomita et al. 2006), indicating 

1193: the temperature is similar to these objects.

1194: \item[(2)] If the rapid fading of SN 2005bf is caused by the self-absorption, 

1195: almost all the radiation must be emitted in NIR (Near Infrared) -- FIR 

1196: (Far Infrared). Such an extreme absorption is not seen in the dust forming SNe. 

1197: For example, the fraction of the absorbed emission is estimated to be 

1198: $\sim 50\%$ at $t \sim 300^{\rm d}$ for SN 1990I (Elmhamdi et al. 2004). 

1199: For SN 2005bf, unfortunately, no NIR or FIR observation at the late epochs 

1200: is available. 

1201: \end{itemize}

1202: 

1203: The other arguments are related to the spectral features. 

1204: \begin{itemize}

1205: \item[(3)] According to (2) above, most of the light in the optical should 

1206: be absorbed, and thus only the bluest portion of each emission line 

1207: should be observed in this scenario. 

1208: We note, however, that the modest model B ($70\%$ absorption) 

1209: is already consistent with the observed wavelength shift.  

1210: \item[(4)] This scenario with almost 100 \% absorption would 

1211: result in an extremely large [OI]$\lambda$ 6300/[CaII]$\lambda$ 7300 ratio, 

1212: since oxygen (which is surrounding the Ca-rich region) is expected to suffer 

1213: from less absorption (see (3) above). 

1214: This is inconsistent with 

1215: the observed ratio which is smaller than that in SN 1998bw (see \S 3.1 and 

1216: Figure 3). For example, if we use the stratified model of 

1217: Tominaga et al. (2005) and take the absorption fraction to be $95\%$, 

1218: we find that the [CaII] line almost vanishes while the [OI] line 

1219: is still brighter than observed by a factor of $\sim 5$.

1220: \end{itemize}

1221: 

1222: In conclusion, the examination in this section suggests that the extreme 

1223: self-absorption scenario is unlikely. However, 

1224: we missed the most important information for the judgment, 

1225: i.e., NIR to FIR observations at the nebular phases. 

1226: 

1227: 

1228: \subsection{Fallback?}

1229: 

1230: \begin{figure}[tb]

1231: \begin{center}

1232: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}

1233: 		\epsscale{1.0}

1234: 		\plotone{f10.eps}

1235: 	\end{minipage}

1236: \end{center}

1237: \caption[]

1238: {Fallback model light curves. 

1239: Shown here are the fall back model with 

1240: $t_{\rm acc} = 40^{\rm d}$, $\dot M_{\rm ej} = 1.2 \times 10^{-2}\Msun {\rm d}^{-1}$ 

1241: (black thin solid), and 

1242: $t_{\rm acc} = 20^{\rm d}$, $\dot M_{\rm ej} = 2.0 \times 10^{-2}\Msun {\rm d}^{-1}$ 

1243: (gray thin solid).  

1244: The contribution from the blob (Model A) 

1245: is also shown (dashed). 

1246: The sum of the ejecta contribution (for the model with 

1247: $t_{\rm acc} = 40^{\rm d}$) and the blob contribution is shown by the thick curve. 

1248: See Appendix A for details. 

1249: \label{fig10}}

1250: \end{figure}

1251: 

1252: In the following scenarios (\S 5.3 and \S 5.4), 

1253: it is interpreted that the low mass blob dominates the optical light 

1254: in the first peak and the late phase (\S 4.2). 

1255: We examine whether the second peak can be 

1256: reproduced by any scenarios without producing too strong emission 

1257: in the late phase. 

1258: If this condition is satisfied, the entire light curve 

1259: could be explained by the combination of the second 

1260: peak component plus the blob component. 

1261: 

1262: We use the ejecta model of Tominaga et al. (2005) with 

1263: $M_{\rm ej, peak} = 7.3\Msun$ and $E_{{\rm peak}, 51} = 1.3$. 

1264: As we have already replaced the "high velocity" $^{56}$Ni 

1265: component of Tominaga et al. (2005) with the 

1266: low mass blob (Model A or B; see \S 4.2), 

1267: we set the mass fraction of 

1268: $^{56}$Ni at $v > 1,600$ km s$^{-1}$ to be zero hereafter 

1269: (the contribution of the blob is added to the synthetic light curve 

1270: {\it after} the computation of this ejecta contribution). 

1271: 

1272: One possible process that decreases $M$($^{56}$Ni) with time 

1273: is the fallback of 

1274: the inner $^{56}$Ni-rich region onto the central remnant 

1275: (e.g., Woosley \& Weaver 1995; Iwamoto et al. 2005).  

1276: Figure 10 shows the examples of synthetic light curves 

1277: of supernovae hypothetically undergoing fallback 

1278: (see Appendix A for details).  

1279: 

1280: The model assumes that the accretion begins 

1281: at a specific time ($t_{\rm acc}$), and that 

1282: the mass accretion rate after the time $t_{\rm acc}$ obeys 

1283: the form $\dot M_{\rm ej} \propto t^{-5/3}$. These are qualitatively 

1284: expected in spherically symmetric fallback (e.g., 

1285: Woosley \& Weaver 1995; Iwamoto et al. 2005). 

1286: The light curve of SN 2005bf can be reproduced in this context 

1287: {\it only if} we assume $t_{\rm acc} \gsim 20^{\rm d}$. 

1288: 

1289: Difficulties encountered in the spherical 

1290: fallback scenario are the following (Fig. 11; 

1291: see Appendix B for details): 

1292: \begin{itemize} 

1293: \item[(1)] $E_{{\rm peak}, 51} \sim 1 - 1.5$ 

1294: is too large to cause the spherical hydrodynamic fallback. 

1295: \item[(2)] Fallback should take place very late, later than 10 days since 

1296: the explosion. The time scale of the spherical fallback in 

1297: the He star progenitor model is much shorter than 10 days (Figure 11). 

1298: 

1299: \end{itemize}

1300: 

1301: The problem in the energy may be relaxed by 

1302: considering an asymmetric explosion, 

1303: because the velocity in the weak-explosion direction may be 

1304: sufficiently small compared with escape velocity. 

1305: The problem in the time scale may be overcome by 

1306: introducing some mechanism to delay the fallback, e.g., 

1307: by disk accretion (e.g., Mineshige, Nomoto, \& Shigeyama 1993). 

1308: However, it seems difficult to realize the condition 

1309: that the $^{56}$Ni-rich region experiences the fallback 

1310: in a period of $\sim 1$ month (e.g., Figures 2 -- 4 of Mineshige et al. 1997). 

1311: 

1312: \begin{figure}[tb]

1313: \begin{center}

1314: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}

1315: 		\epsscale{1.0}

1316: 		\plotone{f11.eps}

1317: 	\end{minipage}

1318: \end{center}

1319: \caption[]

1320: {The fallback mass as a function of time as obtained 

1321: by a set of hydrodynamic simulations  

1322: with varying explosion energy for a $7.3\Msun$ He star model 

1323: (black curves; the values of the final kinetic energy 

1324: are shown in the figure). Also shown are those used to reproduce the light curve 

1325: (Fig. 10) with two different fallback time scale (gray curves). 

1326: See Appendix B for details. 

1327: \label{fig11}}

1328: \end{figure}

1329: 

1330: \subsection{Central Remnant's Activity?}

1331: 

1332: Another possibility is a different type of the 

1333: energy source for the second peak. 

1334: Other than $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$Co, 

1335: a possible heating source is the interaction between 

1336: the ejecta and CSM. However, there is a 

1337: strong argument against its responsibility for energizing the 

1338: light curve of SN 2005bf. The light curve shows 

1339: a slow rise to the peak ($t \sim 40^{\rm d}$), which is typical 

1340: characteristics of diffusion of photons from deep 

1341: in the ejecta. Also, there is no indication of strong interaction 

1342: in its spectra around the peak. 

1343: 

1344: The heating source should be buried deep in the ejecta, 

1345: and it should be capable of producing the total 

1346: energy input $\gsim 10^{49}$ erg, 

1347: at the maximum rate of $\gsim 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$. 

1348: Except radioactivity, a possible source that satisfies these conditions 

1349: could be the activity of the central compact remnant. 

1350: Indeed, the peculiar features in the early phases led Tominaga et al. 

1351: (2005) to speculate the formation of 

1352: a strongly magnetized neutron star (a magnetar). 

1353: Folatelli et al. (2006) speculated that SN 2005bf would be driven by 

1354: the central engine similar to that in gamma-ray bursts, for which 

1355: a popular idea is a black hole and an accretion disk system (Woosley 

1356: 1993). 

1357: 

1358: Since the luminosity emitted from a system consisting of a black hole 

1359: and an accretion disk is expected not to exceed $\sim 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ 

1360: because of neutrino losses (e.g., Janiuk et al. 2004), we consider a 

1361: potentially more effective mechanism of emitting photons, i.e., 

1362: a magnetar.  The energy input is assumed to take the following form 

1363: as a function of the position in the ejecta ($v$, expressed 

1364: in velocity space) and time ($t$): 

1365: \begin{equation} 

1366: L_{\gamma} (v, t) 

1367: = L_{0} \left(1.0 + 2.0 \times \frac{t}{t_{0}}\right)^{-\beta} d(v) \ , 

1368: \end{equation} 

1369: where $d(v) = D \exp(-v/v_{0})$ 

1370: if $v \le 3000$ km s$^{-1}$ and $d(v) = 0$ 

1371: if $v > 3000 {\rm km s}^{-1}$, with $D$ the normalized constant. 

1372: Here $L_{0}$ is the initial energy injection rate 

1373: in the form of high energy photons, $t_0$ is characteristic time scale, 

1374: and $v_{0}$ is characteristic length scale, and 

1375: $\beta$ is the decay temporal index. 

1376: 

1377: We assume the photon index of $-2.5$, as is similar to that of the Crab Pulsar 

1378: (e.g., Davidson \& Fesen 1985). 

1379: We also assume that the minimum energy of the photon is 1 keV 

1380: for the input high energy spectrum. 

1381: Since the optical depth to these high energy photons is very large 

1382: at the epochs considered here, details of the spectral index and the 

1383: cut-off energy do not affect the result sensitively (see also 

1384: Kumagai et al. 1991). 

1385: 

1386: The density distribution of the ejecta 

1387: model is taken from Tominaga et al. (2005) 

1388: with the reconstruction of $M_{\rm ej}$ and $E_{51}$ in a self-similar manner. 

1389: We set $^{56}$Ni mass fraction zero throughout the ejecta to 

1390: investigate the contribution of this hypothetical energy source. 

1391: In the model shown in Figure 12, we used $M_{\rm ej} = 8.0\Msun$, $E_{51} = 1.3$, 

1392: which is within the range to explain the early phase spectra 

1393: (Tominaga et al. 2005). 

1394: 

1395: With the energy input and the ejecta model, 

1396: the high energy radiation transport is solved by 

1397: the Monte Carlo code described in Maeda (2006c). The optical photon 

1398: transport is solved by the method described in \S 4 (see also Maeda et al. 2006b). 

1399: Figure 12 shows the model with the following parameters: 

1400: \begin{itemize}

1401: \item $L_{0} = 8 \times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$, 

1402: \item $t_{0} = 60^{\rm d}$, 

1403: \item $v_0 = 2,500$ km s$^{-1}$, and 

1404: \item $\beta = 4$. 

1405: \end{itemize}

1406: 

1407: The position of the second peak is roughly reproduced irrespective of 

1408: the input parameters, since the 

1409: diffusion time scale mainly determines the peak date. 

1410: The large peak luminosity and the rapid decline after the second peak 

1411: can qualitatively be explained if $L_0 \gsim 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ 

1412: and $t_{0} \lsim 60^{\rm d}$. 

1413: Large $L_{0}$ is expected if the central remnant is 

1414: a strongly magnetized neutron star. 

1415: The relations between the model parameters and 

1416: physical quantities are discussed in \S 6. 

1417: 

1418: 

1419: 

1420: \begin{figure}[tb]

1421: \begin{center}

1422: 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}

1423: 		\epsscale{1.0}

1424: 		\plotone{f12.eps}

1425: 	\end{minipage}

1426: \end{center}

1427: \caption[]

1428: {Synthetic light curve with the putative energy input from the central remnant 

1429: (thick solid).  

1430: The model parameters are as follows: 

1431: $L_{0} = 8 \times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$, $t_{0} = 60^{\rm d}$, $\beta = 4$. 

1432: The input luminosity of the remnant (thick dashed) 

1433: and the contribution from the blob (thin dashed) are also shown. 

1434: See \S 5.4 for details. 

1435: \label{fig12}}

1436: \end{figure}

1437: 

1438: 

1439: \section{The HYPOTHESIS -- A BIRTH EVENT OF A MAGNETAR}

1440: 

1441: In \S 5, we have shown that the light curve of SN 2005bf is 

1442: explained by the energy input from a magnetar left behind 

1443: the explosion. 

1444: In this section, we relate the model parameters 

1445: to physical quantities, and discuss consequences and 

1446: implications of the scenario. 

1447: 

1448: \begin{itemize}

1449: 

1450: \item[(1)] $L_0 \gsim 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ 

1451: and $t_{0} \lsim 60^{\rm d}$ is required to reproduce 

1452: the large peak luminosity and the rapid decline after the second peak. 

1453: If interpreted as a pulsar energy input, 

1454: these two conditions are satisfied only if the remnant is a millisecond 

1455: magnetar (i.e., the surface magnetic field is $B_{\rm mag} \sim 10^{14 - 15}$ gauss, 

1456: and the initial spin period $P_0 \sim 5 - 10$ ms). 

1457: 

1458: The model parameters, 

1459: $L_{0} = 8 \times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $t_{0} = 60^{\rm d}$, 

1460: corresponds to a pulsar with the magnetic field 

1461: $B_{\rm mag} \sim 3 \times 10^{14} (P_0/10 \ {\rm ms})^{2} \sqrt{0.1/f_{\rm rad}}$ gauss, 

1462: using the dipole radiation formula 

1463: (Ostriker \& Gunn 1969; see also Rees \& Meszaros 2000). 

1464: Here $P_0$ is the initial spin period and 

1465: $f_{\rm rad}$ is a fraction of energy going into the radiation.  

1466: The total energy injection with these parameters is $\sim 7 \times 10^{50}  

1467: (f_{\rm rad}/0.1)^{-1}$ erg, a fraction of which 

1468: might be consumed to increase the 

1469: kinetic energy of the SN ejecta to $E_{51} = 1 - 1.5$ and/or 

1470: to develop the pulsar nebula in the early phase (see below). 

1471: 

1472: 

1473: \item[(2)]

1474: The relatively large breaking index $\beta = 4$ is required to reproduce 

1475: the large contrast between the peak and the tail, but it is still within 

1476: the range of the decay rates inferred for galactic pulsars. 

1477: 

1478: The temporal index $\beta = 2$ 

1479: is expected for the energy input from a pulsar slowed down predominantly by 

1480: the magnetic dipole radiation. It is also the case for similar models involving 

1481: the conversion of the rotational energy to the energy of 

1482: radiation or relativistic particles mediated purely by the magnetic field 

1483: (e.g., Ostriker \& Gunn 1969). 

1484: 

1485: If $\beta = 4$, then 

1486: the pulsar's breaking index is $n = 2$ 

1487: ($\dot \Omega \propto \Omega^{n}$ by definition, where $\Omega$ is the rotational 

1488: angular frequency), while the magnetic dipole model ($\beta=2$) predicts $n = 3$. 

1489: The breaking index as small as 2 is expected by dissipation processes 

1490: mediated not only by the magnetic field (e.g., Menou, K., Perna, R., 

1491: \& Hernquist 2001), 

1492: and is really inferred for most pulsars with the index measurement available 

1493: (e.g., Livingstone, Kapsi, \& Gavriil 2005 and references therein). 

1494: 

1495: 

1496: \item[(3)]

1497: Although the peak date can be reproduced irrespective of $v_0$ 

1498: as the diffusion time scale mainly determines the peak date, 

1499: a good fit to the light curve width around the peak is obtained 

1500: if we set $v_0 \sim 2,000 - 2,500$ km s$^{-1}$. 

1501: 

1502: This is larger than the average expansion velocity of the Crab pulsar 

1503: wind nebula seen in X-rays (e.g., Mori et al. 2004):  

1504: Assuming 2 kpc for the distance to the Crab nebula, 

1505: the spatial extent of its X-ray image corresponds to 

1506: the average expansion velocity of $\sim 500$ km s$^{-1}$. 

1507: The early development and the relatively large size of 

1508: the pulsar nebula in our light curve model might not be surprising, 

1509: because of small $t_{0}$ and large $L_{0}$. 

1510: Injection of a fraction of the total energy 

1511: [$\sim 7 \times 10^{50}  

1512: (f_{\rm rad}/0.1)^{-1}$ erg: see above] into the nebula within 

1513: $\sim t_0$ would naturally explain large $v_0$. 

1514: 

1515: \item[(4)]

1516: A connection to other SNe Ib/c is interesting. 

1517: A typical pulsar with $B_{\rm mag} \sim 10^{12}$ gauss and $P_0 \sim 30$ ms 

1518: produces only negligible contribution to the light curve compared to 

1519: the $^{56}$Ni/Co energy input during the first few years.  

1520: In the pulsar energy input scenario, 

1521: large $L_0$ and small $t_0$ (thus large $B_{\rm mag}$ and small $P_0$) 

1522: are required to make the light curve doubly peaked 

1523: as seen in SN 2005bf. Such that, the model is consistent with singly 

1524: peaked light curves of other SNe Ib/c, which are believed to leave 

1525: a typical neutron star (except probably the Gamma-Ray Burst related SNe). 

1526: 

1527: Another interesting implication is related to SN 2006aj associated with 

1528: an X-Ray Flash (XRF) 060218 (Pian et al. 2006). 

1529: SN2006aj/XRF060218 is suggested to be driven by a neutron star formation, 

1530: presumably a magnetar, through observations at early phases 

1531: (Mazzali et al. 2006) and at late phases (Maeda et al. 2007). 

1532: SN 2006aj showed a singly-peaked light curve as is similar to 

1533: other SNe Ib/c explained by usual $^{56}$Ni heating scenario. 

1534: This behavior is explained, if the newly born neutron star in SN 2006aj 

1535: has even larger $B_{\rm mag}$ and/or smaller $P_0$ than in SN 2005bf. 

1536: In this case, the characteristic time scale ($t_0$) 

1537: of the high energy input becomes as small as $t_0 \lsim 10^{\rm d}$ 

1538: since the dipole radiation is scaled as $L_{0} \propto 

1539: B_{\rm mag}^{2} P_0^{-4}$. 

1540: A magnetar may also spin down much shorter than $t \sim 1^{\rm d}$ without emitting 

1541: electromagnetically, if it blows a massive wind (Thompson, Chang, \& Quataert 2004). 

1542: Most of the emission is then consumed 

1543: by adiabatic lose because of high density in such an early epoch. 

1544: Such that, the contribution of the pulsar energy input 

1545: to the light curve is negligible in this case, and a part of 

1546: the pulsar energy input is transferred to the SN ejecta. 

1547: This may explain $E_{51} \sim 2$ in SN 2006aj. 

1548: 

1549: Thus, we suggest that SN 2005bf is an event linking 

1550: usual SNe Ib/c and SN 2006aj/XRF 060218. In our proposed scenario, 

1551: these are connected by the formation of a neutron star with different 

1552: $B_{\rm mag}$ and $P_0$. 

1553: 

1554: 

1555: \end{itemize} 

1556: 

1557: 

1558: 

1559: Although the choice of the model parameters look reasonable, 

1560: there is a caveat. 

1561: Since the nature of young pulsar is still in active debate, 

1562: more detailed study of the magnetar hypothesis is necessary.  

1563: For example, even the very basic assumption in this model, i.e., 

1564: whether the pulsar wind nebula is formed within a few days 

1565: since the explosion, is still under debate (e.g., Fryer, Colgate, \& Pinto 1999). 

1566: 

1567: \section{CONCLUSIONS} 

1568: 

1569: 

1570: \subsection{Blob Model for the First Peak and the Nebular Epoch} 

1571: 

1572: In this paper, we have presented the results from spectroscopic 

1573: and photometric observations of SN 2005bf at $t \sim 300^{\rm d}$. 

1574: Our theoretical considerations are summarized as follows. 

1575: 

1576: \begin{itemize}

1577: \item[(1)] 

1578: The faint nebular emission, composed of blueshifted emission lines 

1579: ([OI], [CaII], [FeII]), can be understood if 

1580: the emission in the late phases is dominated by a  

1581: low mass blob with $M_{\rm ej, neb} \sim 0.1 - 0.4\Msun$, 

1582: $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm neb}$ $\sim 0.02 - 0.06\Msun$.

1583: \item[(2)] 

1584: The blueshift is reproduced either by a unipolar blob 

1585: with the center-of-mass velocity $v \gsim 2,000 - 5,000$ km s$^{-1}$, or  

1586: by self-absorption of the optical light as seen in SNe 1990I and 1987A. 

1587: \item[(3)]

1588: The emission line profiles 

1589: from different elements suggest that 

1590: the blob in itself has layered structure. 

1591: \item[(4)]

1592: The optical luminosities at the first peak ($t \sim 20^{\rm d}$) 

1593: and at the nebular phases ($t \sim 300^{\rm d}$) 

1594: are consistent with the emission from this blob. 

1595: \item[(5)]

1596: The line ratios suggest the abundance pattern similar to what is expected 

1597: from progenitor stars with $M_{\rm ms} \sim 20 - 25\Msun$, 

1598: as is consistent with the lower end of the estimate 

1599: given by the previous works (Tominaga et al. 2005). 

1600: \end{itemize} 

1601: 

1602: It should be mentioned that recently a new paradigm  

1603: is entering into the scene of core-collapse physics, 

1604: either standing accretion shock instability or g-mode oscillation of the 

1605: newly born neutron star. Some models do predict 

1606: unipolar supernova explosions (Burrows et al. 2006). 

1607: SN 2005bf could be the first extreme example of this kind of explosions. 

1608: 

1609: \subsection{Energy Source for the Second Peak}

1610: 

1611: At the nebular phases, SN 2005bf turns out to be extremely 

1612: faint ($R = 24.4$ mag at $t \sim 273^{\rm d}$). 

1613: It is dominated by the contribution from the low-mass blob. 

1614: The bulk of the emission expected from 

1615: $M$($^{56}$Ni)$_{\rm peak}$ $\sim 0.3\Msun$, as is 

1616: derived from the second peak luminosity at $t \sim 40^{\rm d}$, is missing. 

1617: Where is the missing emission is a question we tried to answer in 

1618: this paper. 

1619: 

1620: As the energy source should be buried deep in the ejecta, 

1621: the peak date is determined by the diffusion time scale. 

1622: Therefore, the ejecta mass and the energy derived 

1623: by the previous works should give a good estimate even if the 

1624: energy source responsible to the peak luminosity is different. 

1625: In conclusion, the main sequence mass is $M_{\rm ms} \sim 20 - 25\Msun$, 

1626: 

1627: Four possibilities are examined in \S 5: 

1628: (1) accelerated gamma-ray and positron escape, 

1629: (2) almost $100 \%$ shielding of the optical light, 

1630: (3) fallback of $^{56}$Ni-rich materials, and 

1631: (4) possible central object's activity. 

1632: Among these, the first three possibilities have difficulties. 

1633: 

1634: (1) No physically reasonable mechanism is found to reduce the gamma-ray and 

1635: positron opacity (\S 5.1). (2) The extreme self-absorption scenario 

1636: looks to be inconsistent with the detail of the observations (\S 5.2). 

1637: (3) The fallback scenario is found to be difficult to work, unless 

1638: some additional mechanisms (e.g., delayed fallback by disk accretion) 

1639: could rescue the situation (\S 5.3). 

1640: 

1641: One can still consider a combination of some of them. For example, 

1642: assume that gamma-rays but not positrons can escape effectively 

1643: and that the optical output is reduced by a factor of 10 -- 15 by self--absorption. 

1644: This is more extreme than in Model B and other dust-forming SNe, 

1645: but less than examined in \S 5.2. 

1646: Then the late-time luminosity could be reproduced (see the light 

1647: curve with small $\kappa_{\gamma}$ in Figure 8). A question 

1648: here is if these phenomena, each of which is unusual, 

1649: can by chance take place together. 

1650: 

1651: \subsection{Magnetar Hypothesis}

1652: The last possibility, the central remnant activity, yields a reasonable 

1653: fit to the light curve if the central remnant is a magnetar with 

1654: $B_{\rm mag} \sim 10^{14 - 15}$ gauss and $P_0 \sim 10$ ms. 

1655: The scenario has advantages compared to other models as summarized in the following. 

1656: 

1657: \begin{itemize} 

1658: 

1659: \item[(1)] 

1660: The magnetar hypothesis can explain two peculiar features 

1661: in the light curve in the same context. 

1662: The rapid declining at $t \sim 60^{\rm d}$ and the 

1663: faintness at $t \sim 300^{\rm d}$ are essentially difficult 

1664: in the standard $^{56}$Ni/Co heating scenario. 

1665: These two could be explained 

1666: by combination of two (very) peculiar natures, such as the reduced $\gamma$-ray 

1667: opacity for the former and the huge dust extinction for the latter, but 

1668: in the magnetar hypothesis these are attributed to the single physical 

1669: reason. 

1670: 

1671: \item[(2)] 

1672: The blueshift of the nebular emission lines could be related to the pulsar kick. 

1673: The blueshift can be interpreted as ejection of the unipolar blob with $v \lsim 

1674: 2,000$ km s$^{-1}$ (Model A). With $M_{\rm neb} \sim 0.1\Msun$ in the blob, 

1675: the newly formed neutron star with $\sim 1.4\Msun$ would have the kick velocity of 

1676: $v_{\rm kick} \gsim 140$ km s$^{-1}$. 

1677: 

1678: \item[(3)]

1679: The scenario is compatible to relatively large $E_{51} \sim 1 - 1.5$, 

1680: as the magnetar activity could also increase the ejecta kinetic energy. 

1681: It could also be compatible to the estimated mass, $M_{\rm ms} \sim 20 - 25\Msun$, 

1682: which is close to the upper limit for the neutron star formation. 

1683: 

1684: \item[(4)] 

1685: The rarity of SN 2005bf-like supernova is consistent with 

1686: the rarity of a magnetar, although there are observational biases in 

1687: the search of neutron stars. 

1688: \end{itemize} 

1689: 

1690: Summarizing, we suggest that SN 2005bf is driven by 

1691: a strongly magnetized neutron star (a magnetar), 

1692: being the birth place of a soft gamma-ray repeater or an anomalous 

1693: X-Ray pulsar. 

1694: In our scenario, SN 2005bf is an event which links usual SNe Ib/c and 

1695: SN 2006aj/XRF 060218: As the magnetic activity and/or the spin frequency increases, 

1696: the resulting SN becomes usual SNe Ib/c (a typical neutron star, whose contribution 

1697: to the light curve is negligible), SN 2005bf-like supernova (for which 

1698: the magnetar makes the doubly-peaked light curve), and finally SN 2006aj/XRF 060218-like 

1699: high energy transient (again the light curve becomes singly peaked, since 

1700: the magnetar activity is consumed to produce the high energy transient and 

1701: to increase the ejecta kinetic energy). 

1702: 

1703: 

1704: 

1705: \acknowledgements

1706: The authors would like to thank Brian Schmidt, 

1707: Philipp Podsiadlowski, and Sergei Blinnikov for 

1708: useful discussion. The authors also thank 

1709: Jinsong Deng, Elena Pian, and Abouazza Elmhamdi 

1710: for constructive comments. 

1711: The authors also thank all the staff at the Subaru observatory 

1712: for their excellent support of the observations. 

1713: This research has been supported in part by the 

1714: National Science Foundation under Grant 

1715: No. PHY99-07949, and by the Grant-in-Aid 

1716: for Scientific Research 

1717: (17030005, 17033002, 18104003, 18540231 for K.N.) and the 

1718: 21st Century COE Program (QUEST) from the JSPS and MEXT of Japan.

1719: K.M. is supported through the JSPS 

1720: (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) Postdoctoral Fellowships 

1721: for Research Abroad. N.T. is a JSPS Research Fellow. 

1722: 

1723: \appendix 

1724: 

1725: 

1726: \section{Light Curves of Supernovae with Fallback}

1727: 

1728: The light curves of supernovae undergoing fallback 

1729: (Fig. 10) are computed as follows. 

1730: They are computed using the same code described in \S 4. 

1731: The same ejecta model with $M_{\rm ej, peak} = 7.3\Msun$ and 

1732: $E_{{\rm peak}, 51} = 1.3$ is adopted, except for 

1733: the $^{56}$Ni distribution. 

1734: Here we set the $^{56}$Ni mass fraction above $1,600$ km s$^{-1}$ 

1735: zero since we are not concerned with the first peak (see \S 5.3). 

1736: 

1737: We remove the ejecta materials (including $^{56}$Ni)

1738: from the innermost region as a function of time.  

1739: $M_{\rm ej}$ is decreased according to 

1740: \begin{equation} 

1741: \dot M_{\rm ej} (t) = \dot M_{\rm ej} (t_{\rm acc}) 

1742: \times \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm acc}}\right)^{-\frac{5}{3}} \ , 

1743: \end{equation} 

1744: where $t_{\rm acc}$ is the date when the fallback is assumed to begin. 

1745: Thus, $M_{\rm ej} (t) = M_{\rm ej, peak}$ for $t \le t_{\rm acc}$. 

1746: This temporal dependence is expected in the limit of 

1747: negligible pressure support and confirmed by numerical 

1748: calculations (Woosley \& Weaver 1995; also see Appendix B). 

1749: The model parameters are as follows: 

1750: \begin{itemize} 

1751: \item $t_{\rm acc} = 40^{\rm d}$ and $\dot M_{\rm ej} (t_{\rm acc}) = 1.2 \times 10^{-2} \Msun$ 

1752: d$^{-1}$, and 

1753: \item $t_{\rm acc} = 20^{\rm d}$ and $\dot M_{\rm ej} (t_{\rm acc}) = 2.0 \times 10^{-2} \Msun$ 

1754: d$^{-1}$. 

1755: \end{itemize} 

1756: The corresponding histories of the mass accretion are 

1757: shown in Figure 11. 

1758: 

1759: \section{Spherical Fallback}

1760: 

1761: Figure 11 for the histories of the fallback mass accretion rate 

1762: is computed as follows. 

1763: A set of 1D explosion simulations are performed 

1764: for a $7.3\Msun$ He core of a star with $M_{\rm ms} = 25\Msun$, 

1765: using a 1D PPM (piecewise parabolic method) hydrodynamic code. 

1766: We have varied the explosion energy which is injected at $M_r = 1.8\Msun$ 

1767: and investigated the relation among the final kinetic energy ($E$), 

1768: the amount of the fallback materials ($M_{\rm acc}$), and the timescale of the fallback 

1769: ($t_{\rm acc}$). 

1770: Figure 11 shows the histories of the fallback obtained in the simulations. 

1771: Also shown in Figure 11 are the histories of the fallback assumed to 

1772: compute the light curves in Figure 10. 

1773: By comparing the shapes of the curves in Figure 11, 

1774: it is seen that the fallback temporal dependence used in 

1775: the light curve computations ($\dot M_{\rm ej} \propto 

1776: t^{-5/3}$) is a good approximation for the spherical hydrodynamic fallback. 

1777: 

1778: From these simulations, we find the following relation.  

1779: Smaller $E$ results in larger $M_{\rm acc}$ and smaller $t_{\rm acc}$.  

1780: The light curve fitting requires $t_{\rm acc}$ much larger than 

1781: that obtained by the hydrodynamic 

1782: simulations. Also, $E_{{\rm peak}, 51} = 1 - 1.5$ (Table 1) 

1783: is too large to make the fallback effectively work. 

1784: 

1785: We set the position of the energy injection at $M_r = 1.8\Msun$ in this 

1786: examination. If we take larger $M_r$ for the injection, 

1787: then the binding energy in the surrounding layers is smaller. 

1788: Then it acts like a less massive star 

1789: as long as the fallback is concerned. 

1790: A less massive star experiences 

1791: the fallback for smaller $E$ (see Iwamoto et al. 2005). 

1792: According to our simulations, the final kinetic energy 

1793: dividing the fallback and no-fallback is $E_{51} \sim 0.2$ for $M_r = 3.6\Msun$, 

1794: which is smaller than $E_{51} \sim 0.7$ for $M_r = 1.8\Msun$. 

1795: For $M_r = 3.6\Msun$, $t_{\rm acc}$ can be a bit longer than for $M_r = 1.8\Msun$, 

1796: but still $t_{\rm acc} \lsim 10^{\rm d}$. 

1797: Because $E_{{\rm peak}, 51} \sim 1 - 1.5$, 

1798: the larger $M_r$ makes the fallback scenario less 

1799: likely to be realized. In sum, changing $M_r$ does not solve the problem. 

1800: 

1801: 

1802: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1803: 

1804: \bibitem[]{1293}

1805: Anupama, G.C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 631, L125 

1806: 

1807: \bibitem[]{1296}

1808: Bowyer, C.S., \& Field, G.B. 1969, Nature, 223, 573 

1809: 

1810: \bibitem[]{1299}

1811: Burrows, A., Livne, E., Dessart, L., Ott, C.D., \& Murphy, J. 

1812: 2006, ApJ, 640, 878

1813: 

1814: \bibitem[]{1303}

1815: Cappellaro, E., Mazzali, P.A., Benetti, S., Danziger, I.J., 

1816: Turatto, M., Della Valle, M., \& Patat, F. 1997, 

1817: A\&A, 328, 203

1818: 

1819: \bibitem[]{1308}

1820: Davidson, K., \& Fesen, R.A. 1985, ARAA, 23, 119 

1821: 

1822: \bibitem[]{1311}

1823: Elmhamdi, A., Danziger, I.J., Cappellaro, E., 

1824: Della Valle, M., Gouiffes, C., Phillips, M.M., \& Turatto, M. 

1825: 2004, A\&A, 426, 963 

1826: 

1827: \bibitem[]{1316}

1828: Filippenko, A.V. 1991, IAU Circ. 5169 

1829: 

1830: \bibitem[]{1319}

1831: Folatelli, G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1039 

1832: 

1833: \bibitem[]{1322}

1834: Fransson, C., \& Chevalier, R. 1987, ApJ, 322, L15

1835: 

1836: \bibitem[]{1325}

1837: Fransson, C., \& Chevalier, R. 1989, ApJ, 343, 323 

1838: 

1839: \bibitem[]{1328}

1840: Fryer, C.L., Clogate, S.A., \& Pinto, P.A. 1999, ApJ, 511, 885 

1841: 

1842: \bibitem[]{1331}

1843: Hatano, K., Branch, D., Nomoto, K., Deng, J., Maeda, K., Nugent, P., \& Aldering, G. 

1844: 2001, BAAS, 198, 3902

1845: 

1846: \bibitem[]{1335}

1847: Houck, J.C., \& Fransson, C. 1996, ApJ, 456, 811

1848: 

1849: \bibitem[]{1338}

1850: Hungerford, A., Fryer, C.L., Rockefeller, G. 2005, 

1851: ApJ, 635, 487 

1852: 

1853: \bibitem[]{1342}

1854: Iwamoto, N., Umeda, H., Tominaga, N., Nomoto, K., 

1855: \& Maeda, K. 2005, Science, 309, 451 

1856: 

1857: \bibitem[]{1346}

1858: Janiuk, A., Perna, R., Matteo, T. Di., \& Czerny, B. 

1859: 2004, MNRAS, 355, 950 

1860: 

1861: \bibitem[]{1350}

1862: Kashikawa, N., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 819 

1863: 

1864: \bibitem[]{1353}

1865: Kumagai, S., Shigeyama, T., Hashimoto, M., \& Nomoto, K. 1991, 

1866: A\&A, 243, L13 

1867: 

1868: \bibitem[]{1357} 

1869: Landolt, A. U. 1992, \aj, 104, 340

1870: 

1871: 

1872: \bibitem[]{1361}

1873: Livingstone, M.A., Kapsi, V.M., \& Gavriil,F.P. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1095 

1874: 

1875: \bibitem[]{}

1876: Maeda, K., Nakamura, T., Nomoto, K., Mazzali, P.A., Patat, F., \& 

1877: Hachisu, I. 2002, ApJ, 565, 405 

1878: 

1879: \bibitem[]{1365}

1880: Maeda, K., Mazzali, P.A., Deng, J., Nomoto, K., Yoshii, Y., 

1881: Tomita, H., \& Kobayashi, Y. 2003, ApJ, 593, 931

1882: 

1883: \bibitem[]{1369}

1884: Maeda, K., Nomoto, K., Mazzali, P.A., \& Deng, J. 

1885: 2006a, ApJ, 640, 854 

1886: 

1887: \bibitem[]{1373}

1888: Maeda, K., Mazzali, P.A., \& Nomoto, K. 2006b, 

1889: ApJ, 645, 1331 

1890: 

1891: \bibitem[]{1377}

1892: Maeda, K. 2006c, ApJ, 644, 385 

1893: 

1894: \bibitem[]{}

1895: Maeda, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, L5 

1896: 

1897: \bibitem[]{1380}

1898: Massey, P., Strobel, K., Barnes, J. V., \& Anderson, E. 1988, 328, 315

1899: 

1900: \bibitem[]{1383} 

1901: Massey, P., \& Gronwall, C. 1990, \apj, 358, 344

1902: 

1903: \bibitem[]{1386}

1904: Matheson, T., Filippenko, A.V., Li, W., \& Leonard, D.C. 

1905: 2001, ApJ, 121, 1648 

1906: 

1907: \bibitem[]{1390}

1908: Mazzali, P.A., Nomoto, K., Patat, F., \& Maeda, K. 

1909: 2001, ApJ, 559, 1047 

1910: 

1911: \bibitem[]{1394}

1912: Mazzali, P.A., Deng, J., Maeda, K., Nomoto, K., 

1913: Filippenko, A.V., \& Matheson, T. 2004, 

1914: ApJ, 614, 858

1915: 

1916: \bibitem[]{1399}

1917: Mazzali, P.A., et al. 2005, Science, 308, 1284 

1918: 

1919: \bibitem[]{}

1920: Mazzali, P.A., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1018 

1921: 

1922: \bibitem[]{1403}

1923: Menou, K., Perna, R., \& Hernquist, L. 2001, ApJ, 554, L63 

1924: 

1925: \bibitem[]{1406}

1926: Milne, P.A., The, L.-S., \& Leising, M.D. 2001, 

1927: ApJ, 559, 1019

1928: 

1929: \bibitem[]{1410}

1930: Mineshige, S., Nomoto, K., \& Shigeyama, T. 1993, 

1931: A\&A, 267, 95 

1932: 

1933: \bibitem[]{1414}

1934: Mineshige, S., Nomura, H., Hirose, M., Nomoto, K., \& Suzuki, T. 

1935: 1997, ApJ, 489, 227 

1936: 

1937: \bibitem[]{1418}

1938: Modjaz, M., Kirshner, R., \& Challis, P. 2005, IAU Circ., 8522, 2

1939: 

1940: \bibitem[]{1421}

1941: Monard, L.A.G. 2005, IAU Circ., 8507, 1 

1942: 

1943: \bibitem[]{1424}

1944: Moore, M., \& Li, W. 2005, IAU Circ., 8507, 1

1945: 

1946: \bibitem[]{}

1947: Mori, K., Burrows, D.N., Hester, J.J., 

1948: Pavlov, G.G., Shibata, S., \& Tsunemi, H. 

1949: 2004, ApJ, 609, 186

1950: 

1951: \bibitem[]{}

1952: Motohara, K., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, L101

1953: 

1954: \bibitem[]{1427}

1955: Nagase, F., Hayakawa, S., Sato, N., Masai, K., \& Inoue, H. 

1956: 1986, PASJ, 38, 547 

1957: 

1958: 

1959: \bibitem[]{1436}

1960: Nakamura, T., Mazzali, P.A., Nomoto, K., \& Iwamoto, K. 2001a, 

1961: ApJ, 550, 991 

1962: 

1963: \bibitem[]{1431}

1964: Nakamura, T., Umeda, H. Iwamoto, K., Nomoto, K., 

1965: Hashimoto, M., Hix, W.R., \& Thielemann, F.-K. 

1966: 2001b, ApJ, 555, 880 

1967: 

1968: \bibitem[]{1447_01}

1969: Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Kobayashi, C., \& Maeda, K. 

1970: 2006, Nuc. Phys. A., 777, 424 (astro-ph/0605725)

1971: 

1972: \bibitem[]{1440}

1973: Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., \& Nomoto, K. 

1974: 2003, ApJ, 598, 785 

1975: 

1976: \bibitem[]{1444}

1977: Ostriker, J.P., \& Gunn, J.E. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1395 

1978: 

1979: \bibitem[]{1447_02}

1980: Patat, F., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 900

1981: 

1982: \bibitem[]{}

1983: Pian, E., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1011

1984: 

1985: \bibitem[]{1450}

1986: Rees, M.J., \& Meszaros, P. 2000, ApJ, 545, L73

1987: 

1988: \bibitem[]{1453}

1989: Richardson, D., Branch, D., \& Baron, E. 2006, AJ, 131, 2233

1990: 

1991: \bibitem[]{1456}

1992: Ruiz-Lapuente, P., \& Lucy, L.B. 1992, 

1993: ApJ, 400, 127 

1994: 

1995: \bibitem[]{1460}

1996: Soderberg, A.M., Berger, E., Ofek, E., \& Leonard, D.C. 2005, 

1997: The Astronomer's Telegram, 646 

1998: 

1999: \bibitem[]{1464}

2000: Thompson, T.A., Chang, P., \& Quataert, E., 2004, ApJ, 611, 380 

2001: 

2002: \bibitem[]{1467}

2003: Tominaga, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, L97 

2004: 

2005: \bibitem[]{1470}

2006: Tomita, H., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 400 

2007: 

2008: \bibitem[]{1473}

2009: Wang, L., \& Baade, D. 2005, IAU Circ., 8521, 2

2010: 

2011: \bibitem[]{1476}

2012: Woosley, S.E., 1993, ApJ, 405, 273 

2013: 

2014: \bibitem[]{1479}

2015: Woosley, S.E., \& Weaver, T.A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181 

2016: 

2017: 

2018: 

2019: 

2020: \end{thebibliography}

2021: 

2022: 

2023: 

2024: 

2025: 

2026: 

2027: 

2028: 

2029: 

2030: \end{document}

2031: 

2032: