1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %\usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{mathptmx}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6:
7: \newcommand{\nuclei}[2]{\ensuremath{\mathrm{^{#1}#2}}}
8: \newcommand{\carbon}[1][12]{\nuclei{#1}{C}}
9: \newcommand{\nitrogen}[1][14]{\nuclei{#1}{N}}
10: \newcommand{\oxygen}[1][16]{\nuclei{#1}{O}}
11: \newcommand{\neon}[1][20]{\nuclei{#1}{Ne}}
12: \newcommand{\iron}[1][56]{\nuclei{#1}{Fe}}
13: \newcommand{\cobalt}[1][56]{\nuclei{#1}{Co}}
14: \newcommand{\nickel}[1][58]{\nuclei{#1}{Ni}}
15:
16: \newcommand{\OH}{\ensuremath{\left[\mathrm{O/H}\right]}}
17: \newcommand{\YH}{\ensuremath{Y_{\mathrm{H}}}}
18: \newcommand{\YO}{\ensuremath{Y_{\mathrm{O}}}}
19: \newcommand{\YFe}{\ensuremath{Y_{\mathrm{Fe}}}}
20: \newcommand{\YC}{\ensuremath{Y_{\mathrm{C}}}}
21: \newcommand{\YN}{\ensuremath{Y_{\mathrm{N}}}}
22: \newcommand{\YNe}{\ensuremath{Y_{\mathrm{Ne}}}}
23:
24: \newcommand{\Ye}{\ensuremath{Y_{e}}}
25: \newcommand{\OFe}{\ensuremath{\left[\mathrm{O/Fe}\right]}}
26: \newcommand{\FeH}{\ensuremath{\left[\mathrm{Fe/H}\right]}}
27: \newcommand{\Msun}{${\rm M}_\odot$}
28: \newcommand{\drp}{\ensuremath{\Delta m_{15}}}
29: \newcommand{\Sdot}{\ensuremath{\dot{S}}}
30: \newcommand{\ugriz}{$u_Mg_Mr_Mi_Mz_M$}
31: \newcommand{\griz}{$g_Mr_Mi_Mz_M$}
32: \begin{document}
33: \title{The effect of progenitor age and metallicity on luminosity and $^{56}$Ni yield in Type Ia supernovae}
34:
35: \author{D.~A.~Howell\altaffilmark{1,2,3},
36: M.~Sullivan\altaffilmark{4,1},
37: E.~F.~Brown\altaffilmark{5},
38: A.~Conley\altaffilmark{1},
39: D.~Le~Borgne\altaffilmark{6},
40: E.~Y.~Hsiao\altaffilmark{7},
41: P.~Astier\altaffilmark{8},
42: D.~Balam\altaffilmark{7},
43: C.~Balland\altaffilmark{8,9},
44: S.~Basa\altaffilmark{10},
45: R.~G.~Carlberg\altaffilmark{1},
46: D.~Fouchez\altaffilmark{11},
47: J.~Guy\altaffilmark{8},
48: D.~Hardin\altaffilmark{8},
49: I.~M.~Hook\altaffilmark{4},
50: R.~Pain\altaffilmark{8},
51: K.~Perrett\altaffilmark{1},
52: C.~J.~Pritchet\altaffilmark{7},
53: N.~Regnault\altaffilmark{8},
54: S.~Baumont\altaffilmark{8},
55: J. Le Du\altaffilmark{11},
56: C. Lidman\altaffilmark{12},
57: S.~Perlmutter\altaffilmark{13,14},
58: N. Suzuki\altaffilmark{13},
59: E.~S.~Walker\altaffilmark{4},
60: J.~C.~Wheeler\altaffilmark{15}
61: }
62:
63: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of
64: Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3H8, Canada}
65: \altaffiltext{2}{Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network,
66: 6740 Cortona Dr., Suite 102, Goleta, CA 93117}
67: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, University of California,
68: Santa Barbara, Broida Hall, Mail Code 9530, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9530}
69: \altaffiltext{4}{University of Oxford Astrophysics, Denys Wilkinson
70: Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK}
71: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, National
72: Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, and the Joint Institute for
73: Nuclear Astrophysics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824}
74: \altaffiltext{6}{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, UMR7095 CNRS, UPMC, 98 bis Boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France}
75: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
76: Victoria, PO Box 3055, Victoria, BC V8W 3P6, Canada}
77: \altaffiltext{8}{LPNHE, CNRS-IN2P3 and University of
78: Paris VI \& VII, 75005 Paris, France}
79: %\altaffiltext{}{APC, 11 Place Marcelin Berthelot, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France}
80: \altaffiltext{9}{Univ. Paris-Sud, Orsay, F-91405, France}
81: %\altaffiltext{10}{LAM, BP8, Traverse du Siphon, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France}
82: \altaffiltext{10}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, P\^ole de
83: l'Etoile Site de Ch\^ateau-Gombert, 38, rue Fr\'ed\'eric Joliot-Curie, 13388 Marseille cedex 13, France}
84: \altaffiltext{11}{CPPM, CNRS-Luminy, Case 907, 13288 Marseille Cedex 9, France}
85: \altaffiltext{12}{ESO, Alonso de Cordova, 3107, Vitacura Casilla 19001,
86: Santiago 19, Chile}
87: \altaffiltext{13}{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Mail Stop
88: 50-232, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley CA 94720 USA}
89: \altaffiltext{14}{Department of Physics, University of California,
90: 366 LeConte Hall MC 7300,
91: Berkeley, CA 94720-7300 USA}
92: \altaffiltext{15}{Department of Astronomy, University of Texas, RLM 5.208,
93: Austin, TX 78712-1081 USA}
94:
95: %\altaffiltext{2}{Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University
96: % of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4030, USA}
97:
98: %\author{Edward F. Brown}
99: %\email{ebrown@pa.msu.edu}
100:
101: \begin{abstract}
102: \citeauthor{2003ApJ...590L..83T} found that metallicity variations
103: could theoretically account for a 25\% variation in the mass of
104: \nickel[56] synthesized in Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), and thus
105: account for a large fraction of the scatter in observed SN Ia
106: luminosities. Higher-metallicity progenitors are more neutron-rich,
107: producing more stable burning products relative to radioactive
108: \nickel[56]. We develop a new method for estimating bolometric
109: luminosity and \nickel[56] yield in SNe Ia and use it to test
110: the theory with data from the Supernova Legacy Survey. We find that
111: the average \nickel[56] yield does drop in SNe Ia from high
112: metallicity environments, but the theory can only account for
113: 7\%--10\% of the dispersion in SN Ia \nickel[56] mass, and thus
114: luminosity. This is because the effect is dominant at metallicities
115: significantly above solar, whereas we find that SN hosts have
116: predominantly subsolar or only moderately above-solar metallicities.
117: We also show that allowing for changes in O/Fe with the metallicity
118: [Fe/H] does not have a major effect on the theoretical prediction of
119: \citeauthor{2003ApJ...590L..83T}, so long as one is using the O/H as
120: the independent variable. Age may have a greater effect than
121: metallicity -- we find that the luminosity weighted age of the host
122: galaxy is correlated with \nickel[56] yield, and thus more massive
123: progenitors give rise to more luminous explosions. This is hard to
124: understand if most SNe Ia explode when the primaries reach the
125: Chandrasekhar mass. Finally, we test the findings of
126: \citeauthor{2008arXiv0805.4360G}, that the residuals of SNe Ia from
127: the Hubble diagram are correlated with host galaxy metallicity, and
128: we find no such correlation.
129:
130: \end{abstract}
131:
132: \keywords{supernovae: general --- surveys --- galaxies: abundances ---
133: galaxies: high redshift --- galaxies: fundamental parameters }
134:
135: \section{Introduction}
136: Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) make excellent cosmological standard
137: candles \citep{1998AJ....116.1009R,1999ApJ...517..565P}, though only
138: after they are empirically calibrated based on their lightcurve shape
139: \citep{1993ApJ...413L.105P} and color \citep{1996ApJ...473...88R}.
140: There is consensus that the luminosity of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia)
141: arises from the radioactive decay of \nickel[56] to \cobalt[56], and
142: finally to \iron[56] \citep{1967CaJPh..45.2315T,1969ApJ...157..623C}.
143: Therefore, the primary variable controlling SN luminosity is the
144: amount of \nickel[56] synthesized during the explosion, though as
145: second-order effects the location of the \nickel[56]
146: \citep[e.g.][]{1995PhR...256...53B, 1997ApJ...485..812N,
147: 2000ApJ...530..744P}, the opacity of the overlying material
148: \citep[e.g.][]{1993A&A...270..223K, 2000ApJ...530..757P,
149: 2001ApJ...547..988M,2007ApJ...656..661K}, and asymmetries in the
150: ejecta \citep{2001ApJ...556..302H,2004ApJ...610..876K} can
151: redistribute the energy in wavelength, time, or space. However,
152: because SNe Ia are largely spherical
153: \citep{1996ApJ...467..435W,2005ApJ...632..450L}, the bulk of
154: \nickel[56] is located near the center, and simple assumptions about
155: the opacity are a reasonable approximation, Arnett's Rule
156: \citep{1979ApJ...230L..37A,1982ApJ...253..785A} can be used to
157: empirically estimate the \nickel[56] mass from the optical-infrared
158: lightcurve to an accuracy of 5 -- 15\%
159: \citep{2006A&A...460..793S,2006A&A...453..229B}.
160:
161: The variables that control the yield of \nickel[56] in a SN Ia are not
162: well understood, although several factors are known to be important.
163: Iron-peak elements are produced when burning occurs in a state of
164: nuclear statistical equilibrium, which happens at the highest
165: densities near the center of the white dwarf. If this burning occurs
166: in a neutron-rich region, more neutron-rich, stable, iron-peak elements
167: like \nickel[58] and \iron[54] will be
168: produced relative to \nickel[56]. Since main-sequence stars with higher
169: metallicity abundances produce white dwarfs with more of the
170: neutron-rich nuclides \neon[22] and \iron[56], \citet[][hereafter
171: TBT03]{2003ApJ...590L..83T} hypothesized that high metallicity
172: progenitors will produce less \nickel[56] and therefore less luminous
173: SNe Ia.
174:
175: In the absence of any identified SN Ia progenitor, the best one could
176: hope for is to see traces of the progenitor's metallicity in the
177: unburned outer layers of the SN by looking at Type Ia spectra from
178: only a few days after the explosion in the UV
179: \citep{1998ApJ...495..617H,2001ApJ...557..266L}. Unfortunately the
180: difficulty of obtaining UV spectra has prevented the gathering of a
181: statistically significant sample of spectra from the earliest phases.
182: In the case of local SNe~Ia it has not been possible to schedule HST
183: quickly enough \citep{2008arXiv0803.1181F,2008arXiv0803.0871S}. Another option
184: is to observe higher redshift SNe Ia in the restframe UV, though
185: their faintness at such early epochs relative to their host galaxy
186: makes observations earlier than one week before maximum light difficult
187: \citep{2008ApJ...674...51E}. More importantly, even when UV spectra have been
188: obtained their theoretical interpretation is not
189: straightforward \citep{2008ApJ...674...51E}.
190:
191: Since a true progenitor metallicity has so far been unobtainable, the
192: next best thing is to determine the average metallicity in the
193: environment of the SN. The two most commonly used approaches have
194: been to measure spectroscopic line indices
195: \citep{2000AJ....120.1479H,2008arXiv0805.4360G} or ratios
196: \citep{2005ApJ...634..210G} to determine a global average host galaxy
197: metallicity, or to take advantage of the fact that galaxies often have
198: metallicity gradients, and study projected galactocentric offset as a
199: proxy for metallicity \citep{1997ApJ...483L..29W, 2000ApJ...542..588I,
200: 2005ApJ...634..210G}. The drawbacks of the spectroscopic line
201: techniques are that they require complicated corrections for
202: contamination by emission, and that the interpretation of the line
203: ratios as metallicity requires mapping observations to a
204: sometimes-incongruous grid of theoretical models
205: \citep[e.g.][]{2000AJ....119.1645T, 2002ApJS..142...35K,
206: 2008arXiv0805.4360G}. Furthermore, the line ratios only represent
207: the current average metallicity -- the metallicity when the SN Ia
208: progenitor formed may have been different. In addition, high
209: signal-to-noise ratio spectra are required, and important lines like H$\alpha$ are
210: redshifted into the IR at $z>0.5$. These factors limit the possible
211: sample size of such a data set. The drawbacks of the offset technique
212: are that projection effects can be confusing
213: \citep{1997ApJ...483L..29W,1997AJ....113..197V}, as is differential
214: reddening between SNe near and far from galaxy centers
215: \citep{1998ApJ...502..177H}, and Malmquist-like effects
216: \citep{2000ApJ...530..166H}. Further complications include that
217: different galaxy types have different metallicity gradients, and the
218: current location of the SN may not be representative of where the
219: progenitor formed.
220:
221: With the exception of \citet{2008arXiv0805.4360G}, hereafter G08, none
222: of the above studies found a significant correlation between
223: metallicity and SN Ia properties, although it is not clear whether
224: this is caused by the lack of an effect or whether the techniques used
225: so far do not have the required level of precision. G08 compared
226: absorption-line strengths of 29 E/S0 galaxies which hosted SNe Ia to a
227: grid of models and found that galaxies with high iron abundances host
228: less luminous supernovae. They went on to conclude that age played a
229: greater role, since galaxies with characteristic ages greater than 5
230: Gyr produce $\sim 1$ mag fainter SNe Ia in $V$. Their most
231: controversial finding is that the MLCS lightcurve fitter could not
232: fully correct for SN luminosities in different metallicity
233: environments; when Hubble residuals were correlated with metallicity,
234: they found a significant trend. But since these findings are based on
235: a small sample size, rely on an uncertain metallicity determination
236: techniques, and rely entirely on a lightcurve fitter
237: \citep[MLCS2k2;][]{2007ApJ...659..122J} that has recently shown
238: spurious systematic trends with Hubble residuals
239: \citep{2007ApJ...664L..13C}, they are worth scrutinizing with
240: independent techniques and a much larger sample size.
241:
242: Here we use an independent approach not previously applied to testing
243: SN luminosity-metallicity relations --- we estimate the host galaxy
244: metallicity from its mass using spectral energy distribution (SED)
245: fits to the host galaxy photometry and the \citet{2004ApJ...613..898T}
246: mass-metallicity relation.
247:
248: Another discriminator of the metallicity effect is that it
249: may cause luminosity differences as a function of redshift, since
250: cosmic metallicity is increasing with time
251: \citep[e.g.][]{2005ApJ...635..260S}. This is in contrast to many
252: other possible contributors to SN Ia luminosity (for example, white
253: dwarf core density) which would not be expected to change with
254: redshift. We perform the first tests of the effect of inferred metallicity on
255: SN Ia nickel mass with high redshift supernovae, using data from the
256: Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS).
257:
258: In this paper we first update the TBT03 SN Ia
259: metallicity-\nickel[56] mass relation to account for the fact that
260: O/Fe can vary as a function of Fe/H (\S 2). Then we test the
261: theory using data from the SNLS. To do this, in \S 3.1 we estimate host
262: galaxy masses from PEGASE-2 model fits to \ugriz\
263: (subscripts denote Megacam filters) host galaxy photometry. In \S 3.2
264: we use galaxy mass-metallicity relations to estimate host
265: metallicities. In \S 3.3 we determine SN \nickel[56] mass from SNLS
266: photometry. Finally, we test the theory with the data in \S 4 and
267: discuss the implications in \S 5.
268:
269: \section{The Variation of \nickel[56] Mass with Progenitor Metallicity}
270: \label{theorymod}
271:
272: TBT03 note that a white dwarf's \neon[22] abundance should trace its
273: progenitor star's O abundance since C, N, and O are converted to
274: \nitrogen\ during hydrogen burning ($\nitrogen(p,\gamma)$ is the
275: slowest step in the CNO cycle), and this \nitrogen\ is converted to
276: \neon[22] during core helium burning. Since \neon[22] is neutron-rich,
277: its presence during the burning in the Type Ia supernova favors the
278: production of stable, neutron-rich nuclides like \nickel[58] and
279: \iron[54] at the expense of radioactive \nickel[56], the decay of
280: which powers the supernova. Thus, more metal-rich progenitors are
281: expected to produce dimmer SNe~Ia.
282:
283: The progenitor star's abundance of \iron[56] is also important, but
284: one possible limitation of TBT03 is that metallicity was treated as a
285: single variable, i.e. TBT03 make the simplifying assumption that O/Fe
286: is constant relative to Fe/H. In reality O/Fe varies as a function of
287: Fe/H (with a great deal of scatter), at least in the solar
288: neighborhood \citep[e.~g.][]{1989ARA&A..27..279W}, and the
289: degree of variation is expected to vary with the history of star
290: formation. Here we refine the estimate of the mass of \nickel[56] to
291: include changes in the relative abundances of O and Fe.
292:
293: TBT03 showed that $M_{56}$, the mass of \nickel[56] synthesized in the
294: explosion, depended on the electron abundance \Ye,
295: \begin{equation}\label{e.base}
296: M_{56} = M_{56}^{0}(58\Ye-28).
297: \end{equation}
298: Here $M_{56}^{0}$ is the mass of \nickel[56] synthesized at an
299: electron abundance $\Ye=1/2$, i.~e. for a pure C-O white dwarf. It
300: does not include material that has been neutronized by \emph{in situ}
301: electron captures at high densities. To a good approximation, we can
302: consider the white dwarf to consist of \carbon, \oxygen, \neon[22],
303: and \iron. The electron abundance is then
304: \begin{equation}\label{e.Ye-def}
305: \Ye = \frac{1}{2}\left(1 - 22\YNe - 56\YFe\right) + 10 \YNe+26\YFe,
306: \end{equation}
307: where $Y_{i} = X_{i}/A_{i}$ is the abundance of nuclide $i$, $X_{i}$
308: and $A_{i}$ being the mass fraction and atomic mass number,
309: respectively. Since \neon[22] is derived from the aboriginal CNO
310: abundances of the progenitor main-sequence star, $\YNe = \YO + \YN
311: +\YC$. Nitrogen is a secondary element, and we therefore write $\YN =
312: \YO\left[1+(\mathrm{N/O})\right]$, with $(\mathrm{N/O})= 0.0316+
313: 126(\mathrm{O/H})$ \citep{1993MNRAS.265..199V}. This formula includes
314: the secondary production of nitrogen at high metallicity and agrees
315: with derived abundance ratios from the SDSS
316: \citep{2006ApJ...652..257L}. Carbon is a primary element, but is
317: mostly produced in lower-mass stars, which tends to make the ratio
318: $(\mathrm{C/Fe})$ nearly constant at subsolar metallicities, at least
319: down to $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]\gtrsim -2$
320: \citep{2003MNRAS.339...63C,2006MNRAS.367.1181B}, and there is evidence
321: that $[\mathrm{C/Fe}]$ decreases slightly at super-solar metallicity in
322: the thin disk \citep{2006MNRAS.367.1181B}. We take
323: $(\mathrm{C/Fe})=8.7$, its solar value \citep{2005ASPC..336...25A}.
324:
325: Writing $\YO = X_{\mathrm{H}}(\mathrm{O/H})$ and $\YFe =
326: X_{\mathrm{H}}(\mathrm{Fe/H})$, setting $X_{\mathrm{H}} = 0.7392$
327: \citep{2005ASPC..336...25A}, and inserting equation~(\ref{e.Ye-def})
328: into equation~(\ref{e.base}) gives
329: \begin{equation}\label{e.m56}
330: \frac{M_{56}}{M_{56}^{0}} = 1 - 58\left\{ 0.763\left(\mathrm{\frac{O}{H}}\right) + 93.1 \left(\mathrm{\frac{O}{H}}\right)^{2} + 7.92\left(\mathrm{\frac{Fe}{H}}\right)\right\}.
331: \end{equation}
332: The factor of 58 comes from the assumption that the two
333: dominant nuclides in the burn to nuclear statistical equilibrium are
334: \nickel[56] and \nickel[58]. In actuality \iron[54] is also present,
335: and the ratio of \iron[54] to \nickel[58] depends on the thermal
336: conditions of the explosion (TBT03), so that the coefficient varies
337: between 58 and 54. As shown by TBT03, this results is a small scatter
338: ($<1\%$ at $Z = 3Z_{\sun}$) about the relation in eq.~(\ref{e.m56}).
339:
340: The two abundance ratios in equation~(\ref{e.m56}) are correlated,
341: albeit with a great deal of scatter. We can therefore eliminate
342: $\mathrm{Fe/H}$ in favor of $\mathrm{O/H}$ and the coefficients from
343: the relation between \FeH\ (the ``metallicity'') and \OFe. Here we
344: are using the standard notation $[\mathrm{A/B}] \equiv
345: \log(\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{B})-\log(\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{B})_{\odot}$.
346: \citet{2007A&A...465..271R} fit a set of linear relations,
347: $\OFe = a + b\FeH$, for the thin disk, the thick disk, and the halo
348: (see Table~\ref{t.coefficients}). We therefore write $\mathrm{Fe/H} =
349: \left(\mathrm{Fe/H}\right)_{\odot}10^{\FeH}$, use the linear relation
350: between \OFe\ and \FeH\ and the identity $\OFe = \OH-\FeH$ to obtain
351: $\FeH = (\OH-a)/(1+b)$, and insert the solar photospheric abundances
352: \citep{2005ASPC..336...25A},
353: $\log\left(\mathrm{O/H}\right)_{\odot} = -3.34$ and
354: $\log\left(\mathrm{Fe/H}\right)_{\odot} = -4.55$, into
355: equation~(\ref{e.m56}) to obtain
356: \begin{equation}\label{e.m56-oh}
357: \frac{M_{56}}{M_{56}^{0}} = 1 - 0.044\left[\frac{(\mathrm{O/H})}{10^{-3}}\right]
358: \left\{1 + 0.122\left[\frac{(\mathrm{O/H})}{10^{-3}}\right] +
359: 10^{-(0.19+0.53b+a)/(1+b)}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{O/H})}{10^{-3}}\right]^{-b/(1+b)}\right\}.
360: \end{equation}
361: For many purposes, it is more convenient to work directly with \FeH\
362: as the primary variable. We therefore write $(\mathrm{O/H}) =
363: (\mathrm{O/H})_{\odot} 10^{\OFe+\FeH}$ and use the linear relation
364: between \OFe\ and \FeH\ to obtain
365: \begin{equation}\label{e.m56-feh}
366: \frac{M_{56}}{M_{56}^{0}} = 1 - 0.020\times 10^{a+(1+b)\FeH}
367: \left\{ 1 + 0.056\times 10^{a+(1+b)\FeH} + 0.64\times 10^{-a-b\FeH}\right\}.
368: \end{equation}
369: In both equations, (\ref{e.m56-oh}) and (\ref{e.m56-feh}), setting
370: $a=b=0$ will give the case of an system where $\mathrm{O/Fe}$ is held
371: at its solar value. Figure~\ref{theory} shows the
372: equation~(\ref{e.m56-oh}) with coefficients taken from
373: \citet{2007A&A...465..271R} for the thin disk (\emph{dashed
374: line}) and thick disk (\emph{dash-dotted line}). We also show, for
375: comparison, the relation when $\mathrm{O/Fe}$ is fixed at its solar
376: value (\emph{solid line}). This last curve differs slightly from that
377: in TBT03 because we are using the \citet{2005ASPC..336...25A}
378: abundances for the solar composition, and we include the secondary
379: production of \nitrogen. This scaling is appropriate for
380: the Milky Way, but supernova hosts may have a different metallicity
381: history. This does not appear to be much of a concern, however, since
382: the differences between the predictions using the thick and thin disk
383: parameters are small for $\OH < 0.5$. We conclude from this section
384: that O/Fe variations can safely be neglected at the level of precision
385: of the TBT03 theory, for the relevant range, $\OH < 0.5$.
386: We note from Figure~\ref{theory} that TBT03 would have predicted a
387: variation of nickel mass with metallicity of less than 10\%
388: had they restricted their considerations to the observationally
389: relevant range of $\OH < 0.5$ that corresponds to $\FeH < 0.6$
390: in the thin disk model.
391:
392: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
393:
394: \tablewidth{0pt}
395: \tablecaption{$\OFe$ for different populations}
396: \tablehead{ \colhead{} & \colhead{a} & \colhead{b} & \colhead{range}}
397: \startdata
398: Thin disk & $0.096\pm 0.004$ & $-0.327\pm0.016$ & $-1.0< \rm [Fe/H] < -0.3$\\
399: Thick disk & $0.370\pm0.027$ & $-0.121\pm0.043$ & $-0.8 < \rm [Fe/H] < 0.3$\\
400: Halo & $0.388\pm0.049$ & $-0.048\pm0.071$ & $-1.4 < \rm [Fe/H] < -0.4$
401: \enddata
402: \tablecomments{Coefficients of the fit $\OFe = a+b\FeH$ from \protect\citet{2007A&A...465..271R}.\label{t.coefficients}}
403: \end{deluxetable}
404:
405: \begin{figure}
406: \plotone{f1.eps}
407: \caption{Theoretically expected
408: variation in $M_{56}$, the mass of \nickel[56] synthesized, as a
409: function of $\mathrm{O/H}$. The solid line shows the prediction of
410: TBT03, which fixed $[\mathrm{O/Fe}]=0$. The other lines show the
411: prediction when $\mathrm{O/Fe}$ varies according to linear relations
412: \citet{2007A&A...465..271R} fitted to the thin (\emph{dashed lines})
413: and thick (\emph{dot-dashed lines}) disk. For illustrative
414: purposes, we show each over a two decade span in metallicity as
415: plotted in TBT03, though the thick and thin disk relations were
416: derived over narrower metallicity ranges (see Table
417: \ref{t.coefficients}), and SN hosts do not have average
418: metallicities spanning this full range (section \ref{results}).}
419: \label{theory}
420: \vskip 0.2 in
421: \end{figure}
422:
423:
424: \section{Method}
425: \label{method}
426: \subsection{Estimating host galaxy masses}
427: To test the TBT03 theory, we must determine host galaxy
428: metallicities, and to do that we first determine galaxy masses
429: from model SED fits to SNLS photometry. Following the procedure
430: outlined in \citet{2006ApJ...648..868S}, we used the code Z-PEG
431: \citep{2002A&A...386..446L} to fit PEGASE.2
432: \citep{1997A&A...326..950F,1999astro.ph.9912179} models to host galaxy
433: \ugriz\ photometry from the SNLS to determine their masses and star
434: formation rates. We extend the analysis of
435: \citet{2006ApJ...648..868S} to include data from the SNLS 3rd year
436: cosomology sample \citep{2008sullivan,2008conley,2008guy}.
437:
438: The SNLS revisits 4 one-degree fields five times per
439: lunation for the 5-6 lunations per year that each field is visible.
440: Images with seeing $< 0.8 \arcsec $ and no SN light are combined to
441: provide a deep, multi-year reference image from which the host galaxy
442: properties are measured. SN types and host galaxy redshifts were determined from Gemini, VLT, and Keck spectroscopy \citep{2005ApJ...634.1190H,2008A&A...477..717B,2008arXiv0809.4407B,2008ApJ...674...51E}.
443: We categorize each galaxy by its star
444: formation rate per unit mass (specific star formation rate; sSFR) into
445: strong star formers ($\rm log (sSFR) > -9.5$), weak star formers ($\rm
446: -12 > log (sSFR) > -9.5$), and passive galaxies with no measurable
447: star formation rate ($\rm log (sSFR) < -12$). Here, SFR is the
448: average star formation rate over the last 0.5 Gyr, which is estimated from the optical SED
449: fitting. We assign errors
450: corresponding to the range of masses that can be fit within a model
451: given the photometric errors, or the scatter between acceptable model
452: fits in terms of $\chi^2$, whichever is larger. As in
453: \citet{2006ApJ...648..868S}, we only use SNe at $z\leq 0.75$ where the
454: SNLS sample is relatively complete. For more information on the SNLS,
455: including discoveries, the photometric system, and SN typing, see
456: \citet{2006A&A...447...31A}.
457: %In cases where no apparent host galaxy could be
458: %measured, flux measurements in the deep stacks at the position of the
459: %SN were used to determine limits from the models.
460:
461: \subsection{Estimating metallicity}
462: To determine average host galaxy metallicities we use the
463: \citet{2004ApJ...613..898T} correlation between host galaxy stellar
464: mass and gas phase O/H as determined from 53,000 galaxies in the Sloan
465: Digital Sky Survey. There is a 0.1 dex scatter in this relationship.
466: For galaxies with log $M_* < 8.4$ we use the low mass extension of
467: \citet{2006ApJ...647..970L}. Both of these relationships were derived
468: for zero redshift --- \citet{2005ApJ...635..260S} find that
469: higher-redshift galaxies have lower average gas phase metallicities. They give
470: an ``effective Mass'' versus redshift relation
471: (\citet{2005ApJ...635..260S} equation 9), which we use here to
472: adapt the \citet{2004ApJ...613..898T} and \citet{2006ApJ...647..970L}
473: relations to the redshifts of our galaxies.
474:
475: Technically the \citet{2004ApJ...613..898T} relationship only covers
476: gas phase metallicity, and is not guaranteed to be applicable in
477: elliptical galaxies, where there is generally little cold gas. Still,
478: there are several reasons not to dismiss the sample of passive
479: galaxies from this analysis. First, the amount of star formation in
480: these galaxies is inferred from their broadband colors, not from
481: spectroscopy or morphology, so the presence of gas is not ruled out.
482: Second, because the mechanism for retaining metals is the depth of the
483: galaxy gravitational potential well, one might still expect
484: ellipticals to follow this trend, independent of the presence of gas.
485: The SN progenitor was born when there was star formation, and
486: thus much more gas in the galaxy. Finally, we caution that stellar
487: metallicity and gas phase metallicity are not identical, though they
488: are correlated \citep[e.g.][]{2005MNRAS.358..363C}.
489: %Since galaxy masses evolve slowly,
490: %if the progenitors of SNe Ia in passive galaxies are only a few Gyr
491: %old, the current mass of the galaxy may be indicative of its mass when
492: %the SN progenitor was created.
493:
494: \subsection{Estimating \nickel[56] mass}
495: The mass of \nickel[56] can be estimated from the peak bolometric
496: luminosity and the rise time of a SN Ia using Arnett's Rule
497: \citep{1979ApJ...230L..37A,1982ApJ...253..785A}, that the luminosity
498: radiated at maximum light is approximately equal to the energy
499: deposited by radioactive decay:
500: \begin{displaymath}
501: M_{\rm Ni}=\frac{L_{\rm bol}}{\gamma \dot{S}(t_R)},
502: \end{displaymath}
503: where $\gamma$ is the ratio of bolometric to radioactivity
504: luminosities, near unity
505: \citep[e.g.][]{1992ApJ...392...35B,1996ApJ...457..500H,2006A&A...453..229B}.
506: Here we adopt a value of $1.2\pm0.1$
507: \citep{1995PhRvL..75..394N,1995PhR...256...53B} to be consistent with
508: previous SNLS work \citep{2006Natur.443..308H}, though a global change
509: to this number does not affect our conclusions. $\dot{S}$ is the
510: radioactivity luminosity per solar mass of $^{56}$Ni from its decay to
511: $^{56}$Co and subsequent decay to $^{56}$Fe:
512: \begin{displaymath}
513: \dot{S} = 7.74 \times 10^{43} e^{-t_R/8.8} + 1.43 \times 10^{43}
514: [e^{-t_R/111} - e^{-t_R/8.8}]\,\, \rm
515: erg\,\, s^{-1}\,\, M_{\odot}^{-1}.
516: \end{displaymath}
517:
518: Here $t_R$ is the time in days for the supernova to rise from
519: explosion to maximum light: $t_R=s \times 19.5$ days
520: \citep{1999AJ....118.2675R,2006AJ....132.1707C}, where $s$ is the
521: ``stretch'', a scaling factor for the time axis of the SN lightcurve
522: that correlates with luminosity
523: \citep{1997ApJ...483..565P,2008arXiv0803.3441C}. Note that simply
524: taking the mass difference between \nickel[56] and \cobalt[56], as
525: some authors have done, will overestimate the energy production. The
526: heating from the decay of \nickel[56] is primarily from the radiative decay
527: of the 1.7 MeV nuclear level in \cobalt[56] \citep{1999NDS....86..315J}. We include
528: contributions from the positron decay branching in the heating from
529: the decay of \cobalt[56] \citep{Colgate1980The-Luminosity-}.
530:
531: %See \citep{2005astro.ph.10256K} for a detailed review of the
532: %radioactive decay physics.
533: The least straightforward part of determining \nickel[56] mass from
534: SN Ia lightcurves is estimating the bolometric luminosity from incomplete
535: data. For rare, very well-observed
536: supernovae with data spanning much of the UVOIR (ultraviolet, optical,
537: infrared) region, all of the flux can be added, and only a small
538: correction is necessary for missing data
539: \citep[e.g.][]{2000A&A...359..876C,2006A&A...460..793S}. However, this has to date only
540: been possible for small numbers ($\sim 15$) of low-redshift supernovae. Because
541: the best-observed supernovae tend to be the closest and brightest, and
542: thus not in the Hubble flow, these
543: SNe often have uncertain distances and luminosities.
544:
545: Other authors have used the luminosity in a single band, combined with
546: a bolometric correction, to estimate the bolometric flux
547: \citep[e.g.][]{1992ApJ...392...35B, 2006Natur.443..308H}. This allows
548: the study of greater numbers of supernovae, achieving enhanced global
549: accuracy, at the expense of individual accuracy. It also makes
550: possible the study of high redshift supernovae where the restframe NIR
551: is inaccessible.
552:
553: Bolometric corrections work well at maximum light for Type Ia
554: supernovae, because the peak of
555: emission is always in the restframe $B$ band, near 4000\AA\ (in the
556: absence of strong reddening).
557: Figure~\ref{cumflux} (bottom panel) shows a typical SN Ia spectral
558: energy distribution at maximum light (from
559: \citet{2007ApJ...663.1187H}, updated with NIR data). The upper panel
560: shows the cumulative flux as a function of wavelength. Only $\sim
561: 5\%$ of the SN Ia flux is emitted in the UV shorward of the $U$
562: filter, and less than 10\% is emitted in the IR.\footnote{Our template
563: spans 1000\AA --- 2.4 $\mu$m -- since there is no evidence for
564: significant SN Ia flux outside of this range, we assume it to be
565: negligible.} Since roughly one-quarter of the SN Ia flux is emitted
566: in the $B$ band, and this fraction is relatively constant from SN to
567: SN, it is easy to see why the $B$ band is the most commonly used
568: indicator of SN Ia luminosity.
569:
570: \begin{figure}
571: \plotone{f2.eps}
572: \caption{{\it Bottom:} The \citet{2007ApJ...663.1187H} SN Ia maximum-light spectral energy
573: distribution template (plotted on a log axis), updated to include
574: NIR data. {\it Top:} Cumulative
575: flux as a function of wavelength. Johnson-Cousins filters are shown
576: with labels corresponding to the percentage of total flux through
577: each. Approximately 3/4 of the flux for a typical SN Ia is radiated
578: in the optical.\label{cumflux}}
579: \end{figure}
580:
581: Here we adopt a new approach to bolometric flux estimation that
582: exploits the excellent multiwavelength coverage of SNLS supernovae.
583: For each SNLS SN Ia, we smoothly adjust (i.e. ``warp'') the Hsiao SED
584: template so that it has the observed fluxes in \griz . We then
585: integrate the template SED over the wavelength interval where we have
586: observations, and correct for the unobserved fraction. We turn this
587: bolometric observed flux into a luminosity using the redshift and a
588: flat cosmology with $H_0$=70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and
589: $\Omega_M=0.3$. An example is shown in Figure~\ref{bolint}.
590:
591: Note that this process uses much of the same machinery as the
592: SiFTO lightcurve fitter \citep{2008arXiv0803.3441C}. The first step,
593: warping the SED to match the observed colors, is identical. But in
594: the next step the methods diverge -- SiFTO calculates the restframe
595: flux of SN through another filter, whereas here we calculate the
596: integrated flux over the region spanning all observed filters.
597:
598: \begin{figure}
599: \plotone{f3.eps}
600: \caption{Determination of the bolometric flux for an example SN
601: Ia, SNLS-03D1dt at $z=0.612$. The dashed line shows the
602: \citet{2007ApJ...663.1187H} SED, and the solid line shows it warped
603: to match the observed \griz\ fluxes. This warped SED is then
604: integrated over the observed region (shaded), from $\lambda_1$ to
605: $\lambda_2$, arbitrarily defined to start and stop where the bluest
606: and reddest filters are 1/5 of their maximum height. Since this
607: region contains only 74\% of the total Hsiao SED bolometric flux
608: (see Fig.~\ref{cumflux}), the integrated flux is divided by 0.74 to
609: obtain the bolometric flux.\label{bolint}}
610: \end{figure}
611:
612: Mathematically, we define $f$ as the fraction of the bolometric flux
613: covered by our observations, such that:
614: \begin{equation}\label{fraction}
615: f=\frac{\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2} H(\lambda) d\lambda}{\int
616: H(\lambda) d\lambda}
617: \end{equation}
618: where $H(\lambda )$ is the Hsiao SN Ia SED
619: template, $\lambda_1$ is the wavelength at 1/5 the filter height of
620: the bluest filter for which there is data, and $\lambda_2$ is the
621: wavelength at 1/5 the filter height of the reddest filter for which
622: there is data. The choice of 1/5 of the filter height as the cutoff
623: is arbitrary -- changing it does not affect our results.
624:
625: We define $S(\lambda )$ as the SED after it is warped to match the
626: observed colors, so that the bolometric flux is
627: \begin{equation}\label{bolflux}
628: F_{bol}=\frac{\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2} S(\lambda) d\lambda}{f}.
629: \end{equation} Flux errors are given by the SiFTO covariance matrix
630: \citep[see][]{2008arXiv0803.3441C}. Errors on the other quantities are:
631: \begin{equation}\label{sigsdot}
632: \sigma_{\Sdot}=|-1.4\times 10^{44} e^{-2.2 s}-2.5\times 10^{42} e^{-0.18s}| \times \sigma_s
633: \end{equation}
634: \begin{equation}\label{signi}
635: \sigma_{\nickel[56]}=\sqrt{(\frac{1}{\gamma \Sdot})^2\sigma_{L_{bol}}^2+(\frac{L_{bol}}{\gamma \Sdot^2})^2 \sigma^2_{\Sdot}+(\frac{L_{bol}}{\gamma^2 \Sdot})^2 \sigma^2_{\gamma}}.
636: \end{equation}
637: Based on constraints from theory
638: \citep[e.g.][]{1992ApJ...392...35B, 1996ApJ...457..500H}, and from
639: estimating \nickel[56] using different empirical methods
640: \citep{2006A&A...460..793S}, we adopt $\sigma_{\gamma}=0.1$ and
641: generally this term dominates the error budget.
642:
643: \begin{deluxetable}{lllll}
644: \tablewidth{3.1in} \tablecaption{Parameters of color cut}
645: \tablehead{\colhead{} & \colhead{color} & \colhead{$a$} & \colhead{$b$}&
646: \colhead{$c$}} \startdata
647: $U02-B$ & 0.1856& -0.0003& -0.1681& 0.0790\\
648: $U-B$ & 0.4031& 0.1816& -0.0567& 0.0477\\
649: $V-R$ & 1.0129& 0.1957& -0.5634& 0.0646 \enddata \tablecomments{SNe
650: Ia rejected if the $B-V$ color is redder than $a({\rm
651: color}+0.5) + b(s-1)+c$, where $s$ is the stretch (lightcurve
652: width). ``$U02$'' is a virtual filter useful in k-correcting
653: \citep{2007ApJ...663.1187H} high redshift data, defined to be
654: bluer than the $U$ filter \citep{2008sullivan}. A $B-V$ and at
655: least one other color was required for all SNe Ia. Cuts were made
656: in as many filters as data were available. The cuts mimic those
657: used in \citep{2008sullivan}.\label{ccut}}
658: \end{deluxetable}
659:
660: In the absence of dust extinction, one should use the raw absolute
661: magnitude (i.e. not corrected for stretch
662: or color), because
663: this reflects the true luminosity of the SN. The complication is that
664: the observed color is a mixture of reddening due to dust (which should be
665: corrected for), and intrinsic SN color (which should not be
666: corrected). If the color correction were primarily due to normal
667: dust, it would be expected to follow the Milky Way extinction law
668: \citep{1989ApJ...345..245C}, but it does not
669: \citep[e.g.][]{2008ApJ...675..626W,2008MNRAS.384..107E,2007AJ....133...58K,2007ApJ...664L..13C}.
670: There are theoretical reasons to expect, and some evidence, that the
671: majority of SNe Ia suffer little extinction \citep{1998ApJ...502..177H,
672: 1999ApJ...517..565P, 1999AJ....118.1766P, 2004NewAR..48..567C},
673: though some of the reddest outliers surely have significant dust
674: extinction. As our primary result, we chose to make a color cut
675: \citep{2008sullivan} to eliminate the most extincted SNe rather than
676: making an uncertain extinction correction \citep{2007ApJ...664L..13C}.
677: The parameters of the color cut are given in Table~\ref{ccut}. The
678: chosen cut parameters, and whether or not the cuts are made at all, do
679: not affect the conclusions. We also study the effect of making a
680: color correction, which corrects for dust, but also improperly
681: corrects intrinsic luminosity dispersion. Such results give a lower
682: limit on the dispersion of $^{56}$Ni.
683:
684: To make the color correction we followed the same steps as above, but first
685: we use the color excess measured for each SN Ia to unredden the \citet{2007ApJ...663.1187H} SED template using
686: the \citet{1989ApJ...345..245C} law with $R_V=1.8$
687: \citep{2007ApJ...664L..13C}. We use a fiducial color of $c=0$, where
688: $c$ is a linear combination of restframe $B-V$ and $U-B$
689: \citep{2008arXiv0803.3441C}, roughly corresponding to
690: $E(B-V)_0=-0.057$ \citep{2006A&A...447...31A}.
691:
692: Mathematically, if $H_0(\lambda)$ is the unreddened template, then
693: this process can be summed up by the following two equations:
694: \begin{equation}\label{fract2}
695: f\arcmin=\frac{\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2} H(\lambda) d\lambda}{\int
696: H_0(\lambda) d\lambda},
697: \end{equation}
698: and
699: \begin{equation}\label{bolflux2}
700: F_{bol}=\frac{\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2} S(\lambda) d\lambda}{f\arcmin}.
701: \end{equation}
702:
703: \section{Results}
704: \label{results}
705: \subsection{Galaxy Mass vs. SN Ia stretch}\label{stretchmass}
706: It is well known that SN lightcurve widths correlate with host
707: galaxy morphology \citep{1995AJ....109....1H, 2000AJ....120.1479H,
708: 2001ApJ...554L.193H, 2005ApJ...634..210G}, host color
709: \citep{1996ApJ...465...73B}, or specific star formation rate
710: \citep{2006ApJ...648..868S}, in the sense that SNe with wider
711: lightcurves are more commonly associated with late-type galaxies and vice
712: versa. The fact that elliptical galaxies are generally larger (in a
713: spatial sense) than spirals also may account for trends seen between
714: lightcurve width and projected galactocentric distance
715: \citep{1997ApJ...483L..29W,2005ApJ...634..210G}. And while SN rates
716: have been studied as a function of host galaxy mass
717: \citep{2005A&A...433..807M, 2006ApJ...648..868S}, no study has
718: examined lightcurve width as a function of host galaxy mass. Figure
719: \ref{massstr} shows such a comparison for SNLS SNe Ia. Keeping in
720: mind that passive galaxies tend to have a high mass,
721: the results are as expected from previous work
722: --- high mass galaxies host few high stretch SNe Ia, and low mass
723: galaxies host few low-stretch SNe Ia.
724:
725: \begin{figure}
726: \plotone{f4.eps}
727: \caption{SN relative lightcurve width (stretch) as a function of host
728: galaxy mass determined from fitting PEGASE.2 galaxy models to host galaxy
729: \ugriz\ photometry. Circles (red online) have hosts with no detectable star
730: formation (log $\rm sSFR < -12$), where sSFR is specific star
731: formation rate. Star symbols (blue) denote strong star formation (log sSFR$
732: >-9.5$), and squares (green) are in between. \label{massstr}}
733: \end{figure}
734:
735:
736: \begin{figure}
737: \plotone{f5.eps}
738: \caption{\nickel[56] mass as a function of inferred average host gas phase metallicity.
739: The dashed line is the prediction of TBT03 modified to use the thin
740: disk variation in O/Fe as described in \S \ref{theorymod}.
741: Points are SNLS SNe Ia with \nickel[56] mass and inferred average host
742: metallicity determined as described in the text and colored as in
743: Fig.~\ref{massstr}. Vertical error bars include flux errors,
744: stretch errors, and errors associated
745: with Arnett's Rule. Horizontal error bars include errors from the
746: model fits, but for clarity do not include the 0.1 dex scatter from the
747: \citet{2004ApJ...613..898T} relationship. The gap at
748: 12+log(O/H)=8.3 arises from the discontinuity between the
749: \citet{2004ApJ...613..898T} mass-metallicity relationship and the
750: \citet{2006ApJ...647..970L} low mass extension (there is no gap in
751: host galaxy masses as can be seen from Fig.~\ref{massstr}). Points are
752: plotted by metallicity, and are corrected for redshift
753: mass-metallicity effects as mentioned in the text, but the upper axis gives an approximate
754: corresponding mass at zero redshift. Triangles are averages in 0.2
755: dex bins. Outer error bars are the standard deviation of the points
756: in that bin, and the inner error bars are the errors on the mean.\label{metal}}
757: \end{figure}
758:
759:
760: \subsection{\nickel[56] Mass vs host galaxy metallicity}\label{massmetal}
761: In Figure~\ref{metal}, we have converted galaxy mass to gas phase
762: metallicity and converted integrated flux to $^{56}$Ni mass as
763: outlined in \S \ref{method}. We have overplotted the TBT03
764: relationship between metallicity and predicted SN Ia \nickel[56]
765: yield, corrected for O/Fe differences as outlined in \S
766: \ref{theorymod}. In this figure we make a color cut, but not a color
767: correction. Figure~\ref{metal} shows that there is a drop in average
768: \nickel[56] mass for SNe Ia from high mass, high metallicity
769: (12+log(O/H)$>$ 8.8) galaxies. TBT03 predicted a 25\% difference in
770: \nickel[56] yield over a factor of 3 difference in progenitor
771: metallicity. However, most of the effect occurred at metallicities
772: 12+log(O/H) $>$ 9.2 (see Fig.~\ref{theory}), whereas most SNe Ia in
773: this study occur in galaxies with lower metallicity.
774: Figure~\ref{metal} shows that the TBT03 prediction is fairly flat over
775: the range of metallicities determined for actual SN hosts. Even when
776: the steeper ``thin disk'' relation is used from Fig.~\ref{theory}, at
777: most, the expected effect is only 0.06 \Msun\ in this range. In
778: comparison SNe Ia show a wide range in derived \nickel[56] mass, here
779: 0.2 to 1.0 \Msun , though ranging from 0.1 to 1.3 \Msun\ for extreme
780: cases like SN~1991bg \citep{1992AJ....104.1543F} and SNLS-03D3bb
781: \citep{2006Natur.443..308H}.
782:
783: In other words, the TBT03 theory appears to be qualitatively
784: consistent with observations, though there is additional scatter not
785: explained by the theory. An additional error of 0.16 \Msun\ of
786: \nickel[56] had to be added to the \nickel[56] error bars in
787: quadrature to achieve $\chi^2/\mathrm{DOF}=1$.
788:
789: Several SNe Ia with \nickel[56] below 0.2 \Msun\ were
790: conservatively eliminated with the color cut, on the grounds that
791: extinction might be causing a low derived \nickel[56] mass, although
792: is also possible that these are subluminous SNe, which have
793: intrinsically redder colors \citep{2004ApJ...613.1120G}.
794:
795: Various effects can systematically alter the scaling of the observed
796: \nickel[56] mass in Fig. \ref{metal}, including changing the Hubble
797: constant $H_0$ or the ratio of radiated to deposited radioactive decay
798: energy $\gamma$, but these
799: do not affect the overall results, because the normalization of the
800: TBT03 prediction is arbitrary. Here we have chosen the normalization
801: by fitting to the data.
802:
803: Another way to visualize the difference in \nickel[56] yield between
804: high and low metallicity galaxies is the histogram in Figure~\ref{metalhist}.
805: Supernovae in more metal-rich hosts (12+log(O/H)$>$ 8.8) have a much lower
806: average \nickel[56] yield than those in metal-poor hosts. The high
807: metallicity set has a peak in the distribution near 0.4 \Msun , while
808: the low metallicity set peaks near 0.7 \Msun . The
809: probability that the \nickel[56] yields from high and low metallicity
810: hosts were drawn from the same distribution, according to the
811: Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test is $9 \times 10^{-3}$.
812:
813:
814: \begin{figure}
815: \plotone{f6.eps}
816: \caption{Histogram of SN $^{56}$Ni mass split by inferred host gas phase metallicity.
817: Higher metallicity hosts have a lower \nickel[56] yield, on
818: average. This uses the non-color-corrected data from
819: Fig.~\ref{metal}.
820: \label{metalhist}}
821: \end{figure}
822:
823: \begin{figure}
824: \plotone{f7.eps}
825: \caption{Same as Fig. \ref{metal}, but a color correction has been
826: made. This correction would be appropriate if all SNe Ia were the
827: same color, and all reddening and dimness were due to dust.
828: However, there is an intrinsic color-luminosity relationship for SNe
829: Ia that it is not currently possible to separate distinctly. Thus a
830: color correction overcorrects the luminosity, and the result is a
831: lower limit on the scatter in SN Ia $^{56}$Ni mass.
832: \label{metal-colorcor}}
833: \end{figure}
834:
835: \subsection{Reddening correction}\label{reddening}
836:
837: It is possible that the above results overestimate the scatter in SN
838: Ia \nickel[56] mass, if significant dust extinction remains after the
839: color cut described in \S \ref{method}. To test this, we make the
840: color correction in Figure~\ref{metal-colorcor}. As expected, the
841: scatter is reduced -- now only 0.12 \Msun\ must be added in quadrature
842: to the error bars to give $\chi^2/\mathrm{DOF}=1$.
843: Since this color correction includes an intrinsic SN Ia
844: color correction as well as a dust correction, it will over-correct
845: the SN Ia magnitudes, but we do it to get an estimate of the limiting
846: case. If SNe Ia are color-corrected using $\beta=2.8$
847: \citep{2007ApJ...664L..13C}, the scatter is reduced to a range of 0.6
848: \Msun\ in \nickel[56] for all but a few outliers. Thus the upper
849: limit on the TBT03 metallicity effect is $0.06/0.6=10\%$.
850:
851: \begin{figure}
852: \plotone{f8.eps}
853: \caption{$^{56}$Ni mass versus host luminosity weighted age as
854: estimated from PEGASE.2 models. A color cut on the SN magnitudes has been made, but not a
855: color correction. The line shows a fit to the data with slope
856: $-0.15\pm 0.03$ and correlation coefficient -0.38.\label{ageni}}
857: \end{figure}
858:
859: \begin{figure}
860: \plotone{f9.eps}
861: \caption{Same as Fig. \ref{ageni}, but a color correction has been
862: made. The line shows a fit to the data with slope
863: $-0.11\pm 0.028$ and correlation coefficient -0.37.
864: \label{ageni-colorcor}}
865: \end{figure}
866:
867: %Though the TBT03 theory may not be able to explain a significant
868: %fraction of the scatter in SN Ia luminosity, there is some evidence
869: %that the model is favored. If we take the error on the mean (inner
870: %error bars) for each bin in Fig. \ref{metal}, we find that the TBT03
871: %model has a $\chi^2$/DOF of 2.1, while a straight line has a
872: %$\chi^2$/DOF of 3.3. If we use the color-corrected version
873: %(Fig.~\ref{metal-colorcor}), the TBT03 model has $\chi^2$/DOF of 2.3
874: %versus 3.3 for the straight line.
875:
876: \subsection{Progenitor Age}\label{agesec}
877:
878: Since there is an age-metallicity degeneracy, it is difficult to
879: separate effects that may be caused by metallicity from those that may
880: be caused by age of the progenitor. An age-brightness effect must
881: exist for SNe Ia, since both SN rate and average luminosity are
882: increased in young stellar populations
883: \citep[e.g.][]{2001ApJ...554L.193H,2005A&A...433..807M,2006ApJ...648..868S}.
884: Figure~\ref{ageni} confirms that there is a correlation between SN
885: $^{56}$Ni mass and host luminosity-weighted age as estimated from
886: PEGASE.2 models --- the slope of the line is significant at $\sim
887: 5\sigma$. This correlation is understandably noisy -- the PEGASE.2
888: luminosity-weighted age is merely an indicator of the mean age of an
889: entire galaxy -- the SN progenitor may have a very different age.
890: Any age-brightness relation must be related to
891: with the mass of the secondary star -- in an old population more
892: massive secondaries do not exist. But this is difficult to understand
893: in the Chandrasekhar mass model -- if all SNe Ia explode when the
894: primary nears the Chandrasekhar mass, why should the mass of the
895: secondary matter? This might be an indication that the binary
896: evolution and mass transfer history, which is strongly dependent on
897: the mass of the secondary, influences the outcome of the explosion.
898:
899: \subsection{\nickel[56] mass vs. metallicity grouped by stretch}\label{ni3psec}
900:
901: Figure \ref{ni3p} shows \nickel[56] mass vs. 12+log(O/H) in three
902: stretch bins. The most striking finding is that low stretch ($s <
903: 0.9$) SNe Ia almost exclusively occur in galaxies with high implied metallicity, roughly
904: above-solar. At the highest stretches ($s > 1.05$), the
905: inferred \nickel[56] mass is relatively insensitive to inferred host galaxy
906: metallicity. Also, the scatter in \nickel[56] mass is
907: lower for low stretch SNe Ia. This is likely due to several factors.
908: For the low-stretch SNe, on the high side the \nickel[56] mass is
909: limited by the stretch cut, and on the low side it is limited by
910: selection effects -- it is difficult to find and spectroscopically
911: confirm the lowest-stretch SNe. But there is also some evidence that
912: SNe Ia in passive galaxies, which predominantly host low stretch SNe
913: Ia, make better standard candles \citep{2003MNRAS.340.1057S}. Some of
914: this lower dispersion is likely due to lower dust extinction in these
915: hosts, but it is also possible that moderately low-stretch SNe Ia are
916: intrinsically more uniform as a population than high stretch SNe Ia
917: \citep{howell2004}.
918:
919:
920: \begin{figure}
921: \plotone{f10.eps}
922: \caption{Ni mass versus implied O/H as in Figure \ref{metal}, split by
923: stretch. Within a stretch bin there is no obvious inferred host galaxy metallicity
924: dependency (line shows TBT03 prediction). The bottom panel shows that low stretch SNe Ia
925: are always produced in higher-metallicity galaxies, and the scatter
926: in \nickel[56] mass is lower for low-stretch SNe Ia.
927: \label{ni3p}}
928: \end{figure}
929:
930:
931: \begin{figure}
932: \plotone{f11.eps}
933: \caption{Hubble residual vs. inferred host galaxy metallicity for SNe Ia
934: from the SNLS 1st year sample \citep{2006A&A...447...31A}. The
935: solid line is a fit to the data, though it is consistent with zero
936: slope at the $\sim 1\sigma$ level. The dotted line shows the
937: G08 relation, here ruled out at $>99.9\%$
938: confidence. The metallicity dispersion of 0.1 dex in the
939: \citet{2004ApJ...613..898T} relation was added in quadrature when
940: calculating the fit, but is not plotted for clarity. Residual
941: errors do not include intrinsic SN Ia scatter about the Hubble line.
942: No redshift or color cut was applied to the data; applying either
943: or both gives a slope consistent with zero and still rules out the
944: G08 relation at $>99.9\%$ confidence.
945: Symbol shapes and colors are the same as Fig.~\ref{massstr}. The
946: upper axis shows the log mass for a galaxy with the metallicity
947: found on the lower axis at $z=0$. The convention used is the same
948: as that in G08 --- overluminous SNe have a negative Hubble
949: residual. Note that we are using an indicator of [O/H] as the independent
950: variable, whereas Gallagher use an indicator of [Fe/H]. Any
951: systematic trend with Hubble residual should show a slope with
952: respect to either variable.
953: \label{residmetal}}
954: \end{figure}
955:
956: \subsection{Hubble residuals}\label{hubbleresidsec}
957: G08 found a trend between SN Ia host galaxy
958: metallicity and residuals from the Hubble diagram, indicating the
959: lightcurve fitter used, MLCS2k2, cannot correct for the full range of
960: SN Ia properties. Since the demographics of supernovae are known to
961: evolve with redshift \citep{2007ApJ...667L..37H}, any problem fully
962: correcting SN Ia magnitudes could have dire consequences for SN Ia
963: cosmology. \citeauthor{2008arXiv0805.4360G} cite a 9\% systematic
964: error in the measurement of the Dark Energy equation of state, $w$,
965: larger than the current best statistical errors on $w$
966: \citep{2008arXiv0804.4142K,2006A&A...447...31A}.
967:
968: However, using our independent metallicity indicator and the SiFTO
969: lightcurve fitter we find no systematic trend in Hubble residual
970: vs. inferred host galaxy metallicity. The results are shown in Figure~\ref{residmetal},
971: where the SNe Ia include those from \citet{2006A&A...447...31A}
972: sample, but we apply no redshift or color cut. The solid line shows
973: the best fit to the data, based on a Markov Chain Monte Carlo
974: analysis \citep[LINMIX in IDL;][]{2007ApJ...665.1489K}, which takes into account errors on the
975: x-axis, and is allowed to add extra scatter to the data (here 0.11
976: mag) to achieve the best fit. The slope of the best-fit line, $-0.10\pm
977: 0.07$ is consistent with 0 at the $\sim 1\sigma$ level, and is
978: inconsistent with the G08 slope of 0.26
979: at $5\sigma$. In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, none produced a
980: slope as steep at that found by G08.
981:
982: Possible explanations for the difference between our results and those
983: of G08 include that SiFTO can correct for
984: differences in SN Ia properties that the current version of MLCS2k2 cannot, that one or the
985: other metallicity indicator produces systematically flawed results, or
986: that there are selection effects such that we are not comparing
987: similar samples. We examine each hypothesis in turn.
988:
989: {\bf SiFTO vs. MLCS: } Recently \citet{2007ApJ...659..122J} found
990: evidence for a ``Hubble Bubble'' ---local SNe Ia fit with MLCS2k2 give
991: a different Hubble constant than do SNe Ia well into the Hubble flow.
992: \citet{2007ApJ...666..694W} considered this to be a 6\% systematic
993: error on $w$. However, \citet{2007ApJ...664L..13C} did not see the
994: same effect with either the SiFTO or SALT2 \citep{2007A&A...466...11G}
995: lightcurve fitters, and traced the discrepancy to problems in the
996: way MLCS2k2 handled dust extinction. MLCS2k2 assumed color excess
997: beyond any assumed intrinsic SN Ia color relation is due to $R_V=3.1$
998: (average Milky Way dust), though this appears not to be appropriate
999: (SALT2 and SiFTO do an empirical fit to determine color-luminosity
1000: relationships). G08 do not provide enough information to determine
1001: whether a spurious reddening correction is driving their result.
1002:
1003: {\bf Flawed metallicity indicators: } Since we cannot make a
1004: definitive statement about whether the $y$-axis of
1005: Figure~\ref{residmetal} (or the equivalent figure in G08) is flawed,
1006: the next culprit to examine is the $x$-axis. No metallicity indicator is
1007: perfect --- the various caveats throughout the text attest to the
1008: limitations of our adopted method. Estimating a metallicity through a
1009: mass-metallicity relationship and determining the mass from photometry
1010: is certainly indirect. Still, it should be correct on average,
1011: especially since we are probing several orders of magnitude in mass,
1012: ranging from $<10^8$ to $>10^{11}$, and more than 1 dex in
1013: metallicity.
1014:
1015: A stronger argument is that there seems to be no way to rearrange the
1016: points on the $x$-axis of Figure~\ref{residmetal} to produce the G08
1017: relation. On the other hand, it is possible to imagine that the $x$-axis of
1018: the upper left panel of G08 Fig. 9 could be systematically flawed.
1019: The four points with the highest metallicity drive the relation.
1020: These four SNe all have E/S0 hosts with ages less than 3 Gyr, among
1021: the lowest in the G08 sample. Thus, the hosts of these SNe Ia are the most likely
1022: to have H$\beta$ emission contaminating the H$\beta$ absorption line
1023: index. Nominally this is used to determine age, but because of the
1024: age-metallicity degeneracy, it also affects the metallicity
1025: determination. As can be seen from G08 Figure 2, when the emission
1026: correction is applied 1/3 to 1/2 of their sample either falls off or
1027: is moved onto their theoretical age-metallicity grid. Even after
1028: correction, eight of their SNe Ia are more than $1\sigma$ too high off
1029: the grid, and their metallicities are extrapolations.
1030:
1031: {\bf Selection effects: } Since G08 target nearby SNe Ia in E/S0
1032: hosts, they study many SNe Ia too dim to show up in a
1033: magnitude-limited sample like the SNLS. But the four SNe with
1034: high metallicities driving the G08 Hubble residual trend are all of
1035: normal magnitude $-19 <M_V<-19.5$, not the type absent from the SNLS
1036: sample. The metallicity range is also similar for the two studies,
1037: spanning a range $\pm \sim 0.5$ dex relative to solar. But if the differences between
1038: the two studies were due to some unknown selection effect, an
1039: important point is that it will not produce a systematic effect on
1040: cosmology, because the SNLS sample reflects cosmology as it is
1041: actually practiced, and we have shown that it produces unbiased Hubble
1042: residuals.
1043:
1044: \section{Conclusions}
1045: We find that host galaxies with a higher inferred metallicity
1046: produce SNe Ia with less \nickel[56] on average. The effect proposed by
1047: TBT03, increased neutronization in higher metallicity environments,
1048: can qualitatively explain this trend, though there remains additional scatter in SN
1049: Ia luminosity that cannot be explained by the theory.
1050: TBT03 predict that SNe Ia in high metallicity environments should be
1051: 25\% dimmer than those in low metallicity galaxies, though most of
1052: the dynamic range in this prediction occurs at metallicities several times
1053: solar. We have shown that SNLS supernovae occur in galaxies where the
1054: implied average metallicity is a few tenths of a dex above solar or below, and
1055: in this range the theory predicts only a 0.06 \Msun\ change in
1056: \nickel[56] mass. The {\em average} \nickel[56] yield does appear to
1057: decrease in metal-rich galaxies in accordance with the theory, but the
1058: large scatter (0.2 -- 1.0 \Msun , or $\sim0.6$ \Msun\ with
1059: color correction), indicates that the theorized metallicity
1060: effect has at most a 7\%--10\% effect on \nickel[56] yield.
1061:
1062: The luminosity
1063: of SNe Ia appears to be dominated by other effects, possibly those
1064: caused by the age of the progenitor \citep{2001ApJ...554L.193H,
1065: 2005ApJ...634..210G, 2005A&A...433..807M, 2006ApJ...648..868S}.
1066: We find a correlation between host galaxy luminosity-weighted age and
1067: SN \nickel[56] yield. This indicates that more massive stars
1068: (explicitly, massive secondaries, since they set the timescale for
1069: explosion in binaries), produce more luminous explosions, a result not
1070: well understood if most SNe Ia explode near the Chandrasekhar mass.
1071: We have also shown that allowing for changes in O/Fe with the
1072: metallicity [Fe/H] does not have a major effect on the theoretical
1073: prediction of TBT03 for metallicities within the observed range of our
1074: sample, so long as one is using the O/H as the
1075: independent variable.
1076:
1077: Unlike G08, we find no trends between residuals from the Hubble
1078: diagram and host metallicity. We conclude that metallicity is not a
1079: significant systematic error for the measurement of $w$. The G08
1080: finding may be due to problems with their lightcurve fitter, MLCS2k2,
1081: or with their method of host metallicity determination which relies on
1082: an uncertain correction for H$\beta$ emission, and the extrapolation
1083: of theoretical models to cover the host galaxies of SNe Ia which fall off the grid.
1084:
1085: These findings are broadly consistent with the range of local SN Ia
1086: host galaxy metallicities found by \citet{2005ApJ...634..210G}, though
1087: we differ in how we compare the model to the data, and in the
1088: interpretation of the results. Despite using completely different
1089: methodology and data, both studies find that the majority of SN hosts
1090: have a metallicity between 8.4 $<$ log (O/H) + 12 $<$ 9.1.
1091: Additionally we find several lower metallicity, low mass hosts. These
1092: are underrepresented in low redshift searches which target large,
1093: higher-mass galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{2001ApJ...546..734L}. But
1094: rather than convert the observations to \nickel[56] mass,
1095: \citet{2005ApJ...634..210G} converted the TBT03 model
1096: prediction into an expected difference in \drp\
1097: \citep{1993ApJ...413L.105P}. They found a fairly steep evolution in
1098: the \drp\ model prediction over the observed range in host O/H, in
1099: contrast to the flat prediction over the same range found here
1100: (Fig. \ref{metal}) and in TBT03. This is because they used the
1101: delayed detonation models of \citet{2002ApJ...568..791H} and the
1102: empirical relations of \citet{2004ApJ...613.1120G} to convert the
1103: model to the observed parameter \drp . The
1104: \citet{2002ApJ...568..791H} models had a varying detonation transition
1105: density, so \citet{2005ApJ...634..210G} found a steeper
1106: relation than one would derive if only O/H were varied while holding
1107: the other properties of the explosion fixed. As a result, they concluded
1108: that the TBT03 prediction is a poor fit to the data, whereas we find
1109: that it could account for some of the variation in SN Ia properties, but
1110: it is not the dominant effect.
1111:
1112: Our findings are also consistent with \citet{2008ApJ...673.1009P}, who
1113: roughly estimated that the TBT03 theory could only explain a small
1114: fraction of SN Ia luminosity based on average SNLS SN Ia stretches
1115: reported in \citet{2007ApJ...667L..37H} and average SN host
1116: metallicity estimated from the galaxy types in
1117: \citet{2006ApJ...648..868S}.
1118:
1119: One caveat regarding our findings is that we are using a proxy for the
1120: global average galaxy metallicity -- we have no way of knowing
1121: the actual progenitor's metallicity. One could imagine an effect that
1122: would skew the results, such as an enhanced SN rate in metal-poor or
1123: metal-rich environments, or similar diminution of the rate in either
1124: environment, such that the average SN metallicity would not be
1125: representative of the average metallicity in the galaxy. While
1126: there has been speculation from time to time that such effects could
1127: in principle exist \citep{1998ApJ...503L.155K,
1128: 2000A&A...362.1046L}, there is no observational evidence that they
1129: do.
1130:
1131: The absolute calibration of the mass-metallicity relationship is also
1132: uncertain \citep{2008arXiv0801.1849K}, but changing it would have the
1133: main effect of moving all points in Fig.~\ref{metal} to slightly lower
1134: or higher metallicities. Our conclusions would remain unchanged --
1135: that the metallicity effect can only account for a fraction of the
1136: scatter in SN Ia luminosities.
1137:
1138: %There are reasons to expect that metallicity does not play a dominant
1139: %role in regulating the luminosity of SNe Ia. First, lighter material
1140: %accreted onto the surface of a white dwarf is thought to burn to
1141: %carbon and oxygen on the surface. Secondly, SN luminosity is almost
1142: %entirely driven by the amount of \nickel[56] synthesized from the
1143: %burning of carbon and oxygen to heavier elements, and the dominant
1144: %effect is the density at which burning occurs. Metallicity is at most
1145: %a second-order effect. As TBT03 have shown, in principle the
1146: %metallicity could affect the neutron fraction, and thus the fraction
1147: %of \nickel[56] compared to other iron-peak elements, though this is
1148: %predominantly an effect at metallicities several times solar. Here we
1149: %have shown that few SNe Ia come from hosts with significantly
1150: %above-solar metallicities, instead SNe Ia are biased towards low-mass,
1151: %low-metallicity environments.
1152:
1153: \citet{2008ApJ...673.1009P} find that weak reactions during low-level
1154: burning in the white dwarf in the $\sim 1000$ years leading up to explosion
1155: (i.e. simmering) may increase the neutron excess. This effect may set
1156: a ``floor'' to the level of neutronization that dominates over the
1157: TBT03 metallicity effect at low metallicities $Z/Z_{\odot}\lesssim
1158: 2/3$. \citet{2008arXiv0801.1643C} also find that simmering can
1159: increase neutronization. Since neutronization effects during
1160: simmering depend on the degree of simmering, and at least to first
1161: order do not appear to depend on metallicity, it is possible that
1162: simmering could wash out the TBT03 metallicity effect. Significant
1163: uncertainties, including the role of the convective Urca process,
1164: remain, and further study is required. At the very least it seems
1165: that simmering cannot enhance the TBT03 metallicity effect enough to
1166: account for the significant scatter in SN Ia luminosities
1167: \citep{2008ApJ...673.1009P}.
1168:
1169: One additional caveat is that it is possible that a change in
1170: metallicity could alter the explosion mechanism itself, not just
1171: whether the process produces more \nickel[56] or \nickel[58].
1172: \citet{2007ApJ...655L..93C} found that laminar flame speed also
1173: depends on the metallicity, but this is probably a higher-order
1174: effect. At any rate, this process is so poorly understood that it is
1175: not yet possible to test this effect with observations.
1176:
1177:
1178: \acknowledgements
1179:
1180: The authors thank Lars Bildsten, Kevin Bundy, and
1181: Renbin Yan for helpful discussions. We also thank the Kavli
1182: Institute for Theoretical Physics, and the Aspen Center for Physics,
1183: where the initial development of
1184: this work was done. This research was supported in part by the
1185: National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY05-51164.
1186:
1187: EFB is supported by grant AST-0507456 from the National Science
1188: Foundation. MS acknowledges support from the Royal Society. JCW is supported in part by NSF AST-0707769
1189:
1190: The SNLS collaboration gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Pierre
1191: Martin and the CFHT Queued Service Observations team.
1192: Canadian collaboration members acknowledge support from NSERC and
1193: CIAR; French collaboration members from CNRS/IN2P3, CNRS/INSU and CEA.
1194:
1195: SNLS relies on observations with MegaCam, a joint project of
1196: CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT)
1197: which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the
1198: Institut National des Science de l'Univers of the Centre National de la
1199: Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) of France, and the University of Hawaii. This
1200: work is based in part on data products produced at the Canadian
1201: Astronomy Data Centre as part of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy
1202: Survey, a collaborative project of the National Research Council of
1203: Canada and the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
1204:
1205: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1206: %\bibliography{astro}
1207: \begin{thebibliography}{100}
1208: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1209:
1210: \bibitem[{{Arnett}(1979)}]{1979ApJ...230L..37A}
1211: {Arnett}, W.~D. 1979, \apjl, 230, L37
1212:
1213: \bibitem[{{Arnett}(1982)}]{1982ApJ...253..785A}
1214: ---. 1982, \apj, 253, 785
1215:
1216: \bibitem[{{Asplund}, {Grevesse}, \& {Sauval}(2005)}]{2005ASPC..336...25A}
1217: {Asplund}, M., {Grevesse}, N., \& {Sauval}, A.~J. 2005, in Astronomical
1218: Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 336, Cosmic Abundances as
1219: Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, ed. T.~G. {Barnes}, III
1220: \& F.~N. {Bash}, 25--+
1221:
1222: \bibitem[{{Astier} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006A&A...447...31A}
1223: {Astier}, P. {et~al.} 2006, \aap, 447, 31
1224:
1225: \bibitem[{{Baumont} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008arXiv0809.4407B}
1226: {Baumont}, S. {et~al.} 2008, ArXiv e-prints
1227:
1228: \bibitem[{{Bensby} \& {Feltzing}(2006)}]{2006MNRAS.367.1181B}
1229: {Bensby}, T. \& {Feltzing}, S. 2006, \mnras, 367, 1181
1230:
1231: \bibitem[{{Blinnikov} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006A&A...453..229B}
1232: {Blinnikov}, S.~I., {R{\"o}pke}, F.~K., {Sorokina}, E.~I., {Gieseler}, M.,
1233: {Reinecke}, M., {Travaglio}, C., {Hillebrandt}, W., \& {Stritzinger}, M.
1234: 2006, \aap, 453, 229
1235:
1236: \bibitem[{{Branch}(1992)}]{1992ApJ...392...35B}
1237: {Branch}, D. 1992, \apj, 392, 35
1238:
1239: \bibitem[{{Branch} \& {Khokhlov}(1995)}]{1995PhR...256...53B}
1240: {Branch}, D. \& {Khokhlov}, A.~M. 1995, \physrep, 256, 53
1241:
1242: \bibitem[{{Branch}, {Romanishin}, \& {Baron}(1996)}]{1996ApJ...465...73B}
1243: {Branch}, D., {Romanishin}, W., \& {Baron}, E. 1996, \apj, 465, 73
1244:
1245: \bibitem[{{Bronder} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008A&A...477..717B}
1246: {Bronder}, T.~J. {et~al.} 2008, \aap, 477, 717
1247:
1248: \bibitem[{{Cardelli}, {Clayton}, \& {Mathis}(1989)}]{1989ApJ...345..245C}
1249: {Cardelli}, J.~A., {Clayton}, G.~C., \& {Mathis}, J.~S. 1989, \apj, 345,
1250: 245
1251:
1252: \bibitem[{{Chamulak}, {Brown}, \& {Timmes}(2007)}]{2007ApJ...655L..93C}
1253: {Chamulak}, D.~A., {Brown}, E.~F., \& {Timmes}, F.~X. 2007, \apjl, 655,
1254: L93
1255:
1256: \bibitem[{{Chamulak} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008arXiv0801.1643C}
1257: {Chamulak}, D.~A., {Brown}, E.~F., {Timmes}, F.~X., \& {Dupczak}, K. 2008,
1258: ArXiv e-prints, 801
1259:
1260: \bibitem[{{Chiappini}, {Romano}, \&
1261: {Matteucci}(2003)}]{2003MNRAS.339...63C}
1262: {Chiappini}, C., {Romano}, D., \& {Matteucci}, F. 2003, \mnras, 339, 63
1263:
1264: \bibitem[{{Cid Fernandes} {et~al.}(2005)}]{2005MNRAS.358..363C}
1265: {Cid Fernandes}, R., {Mateus}, A., {Sodr{\'e}}, L., {Stasi{\'n}ska}, G., \&
1266: {Gomes}, J.~M. 2005, \mnras, 358, 363
1267:
1268: \bibitem[{{Colgate} \& {McKee}(1969)}]{1969ApJ...157..623C}
1269: {Colgate}, S.~A. \& {McKee}, C. 1969, \apj, 157, 623
1270:
1271: \bibitem[{{Colgate}, Petschek, \&
1272: Kriese(1980)}]{Colgate1980The-Luminosity-}
1273: {Colgate}, S.~A., Petschek, A.~G., \& Kriese, J.~T. 1980, \apjl, 237, L81
1274:
1275: \bibitem[{{Commins}(2004)}]{2004NewAR..48..567C}
1276: {Commins}, E.~D. 2004, New Astronomy Review, 48, 567
1277:
1278: \bibitem[{{Conley} {et~al.}(2007)}]{2007ApJ...664L..13C}
1279: {Conley}, A., {Carlberg}, R.~G., {Guy}, J., {Howell}, D.~A., {Jha}, S.,
1280: {Riess}, A.~G., \& {Sullivan}, M. 2007, \apjl, 664, L13
1281:
1282: \bibitem[{{Conley} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006AJ....132.1707C}
1283: {Conley}, A. {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 132, 1707
1284:
1285: \bibitem[{{Conley} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}})}]{2008arXiv0803.3441C}
1286: {Conley}, A. {et~al.} 2008{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv e-prints, 803
1287:
1288: \bibitem[{{Conley} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}})}]{2008conley}
1289: {Conley}, A. 2008{\natexlab{b}}, in preparation
1290:
1291: \bibitem[{{Contardo}, {Leibundgut}, \&
1292: {Vacca}(2000)}]{2000A&A...359..876C}
1293: {Contardo}, G., {Leibundgut}, B., \& {Vacca}, W.~D. 2000, \aap, 359, 876
1294:
1295: \bibitem[{{Elias-Rosa} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008MNRAS.384..107E}
1296: {Elias-Rosa}, N. {et~al.} 2008, \mnras, 384, 107
1297:
1298: \bibitem[{{Ellis} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008ApJ...674...51E}
1299: {Ellis}, R.~S. {et~al.} 2008, \apj, 674, 51
1300:
1301: \bibitem[{{Filippenko} {et~al.}(1992)}]{1992AJ....104.1543F}
1302: {Filippenko}, A.~V. {et~al.} 1992, \aj, 104, 1543
1303:
1304: \bibitem[{{Fioc} \& {Rocca-Volmerange}(1997)}]{1997A&A...326..950F}
1305: {Fioc}, M. \& {Rocca-Volmerange}, B. 1997, \aap, 326, 950
1306:
1307: \bibitem[{{Fioc} \& {Rocca-Volmerange}(1999)}]{1999astro.ph.9912179}
1308: {Fioc}, M. \& {Rocca-Volmerange}, B. 1999, in astro-ph, astro--ph/9912179
1309:
1310: \bibitem[{{Foley}, {Filippenko}, \& {Jha}(2008)}]{2008arXiv0803.1181F}
1311: {Foley}, R.~J., {Filippenko}, A.~V., \& {Jha}, S.~W. 2008, ArXiv e-prints,
1312: 803
1313:
1314: \bibitem[{{Gallagher} {et~al.}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...634..210G}
1315: {Gallagher}, J.~S., {Garnavich}, P.~M., {Berlind}, P., {Challis}, P.,
1316: {Jha}, S., \& {Kirshner}, R.~P. 2005, \apj, 634, 210
1317:
1318: \bibitem[{{Gallagher} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008arXiv0805.4360G}
1319: {Gallagher}, J.~S., {Garnavich}, P.~M., {Caldwell}, N., {Kirshner}, R.~P.,
1320: {Jha}, S.~W., {Li}, W., {Ganeshalingam}, M., \& {Filippenko}, A.~V. 2008,
1321: ArXiv e-prints, 805
1322:
1323: \bibitem[{{Garnavich} {et~al.}(2004)}]{2004ApJ...613.1120G}
1324: {Garnavich}, P.~M. {et~al.} 2004, \apj, 613, 1120
1325:
1326: \bibitem[{{Guy} {et~al.}(2007)}]{2007A&A...466...11G}
1327: {Guy}, J. {et~al.} 2007, \aap, 466, 11
1328:
1329: \bibitem[{{Guy} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008guy}
1330: {Guy}, J. 2008, in preparation
1331:
1332: \bibitem[{{Hamuy} {et~al.}(1995)}]{1995AJ....109....1H}
1333: {Hamuy}, M., {Phillips}, M.~M., {Maza}, J., {Suntzeff}, N.~B., {Schommer},
1334: R.~A., \& {Aviles}, R. 1995, \aj, 109, 1
1335:
1336: \bibitem[{{Hamuy} {et~al.}(2000)}]{2000AJ....120.1479H}
1337: {Hamuy}, M., {Trager}, S.~C., {Pinto}, P.~A., {Phillips}, M.~M.,
1338: {Schommer}, R.~A., {Ivanov}, V., \& {Suntzeff}, N.~B. 2000, \aj, 120,
1339: 1479
1340:
1341: \bibitem[{{Hatano}, {Branch}, \& {Deaton}(1998)}]{1998ApJ...502..177H}
1342: {Hatano}, K., {Branch}, D., \& {Deaton}, J. 1998, \apj, 502, 177
1343:
1344: \bibitem[{{H{\"o}flich} {et~al.}(2002)}]{2002ApJ...568..791H}
1345: {H{\"o}flich}, P., {Gerardy}, C.~L., {Fesen}, R.~A., \& {Sakai}, S. 2002,
1346: \apj, 568, 791
1347:
1348: \bibitem[{{H\"oflich} \& {Khokhlov}(1996)}]{1996ApJ...457..500H}
1349: {H\"oflich}, P. \& {Khokhlov}, A. 1996, \apj, 457, 500
1350:
1351: \bibitem[{{H\"oflich}, {Wheeler}, \&
1352: {Thielemann}(1998)}]{1998ApJ...495..617H}
1353: {H\"oflich}, P., {Wheeler}, J.~C., \& {Thielemann}, F.~K. 1998, \apj, 495,
1354: 617
1355:
1356: \bibitem[{{Howell}(2001)}]{2001ApJ...554L.193H}
1357: {Howell}, D.~A. 2001, \apjl, 554, L193
1358:
1359: \bibitem[{{Howell} {et~al.}(2001)}]{2001ApJ...556..302H}
1360: {Howell}, D.~A., {H{\" o}flich}, P., {Wang}, L., \& {Wheeler}, J.~C. 2001,
1361: \apj, 556, 302
1362:
1363: \bibitem[{{Howell} \& {Nugent}(2004)}]{howell2004}
1364: {Howell}, D.~A. \& {Nugent}, P. 2004, in Cosmic Explosions in Three
1365: Dimensions, 151
1366:
1367: \bibitem[{{Howell} {et~al.}(2007)}]{2007ApJ...667L..37H}
1368: {Howell}, D.~A., {Sullivan}, M., {Conley}, A., \& {Carlberg}, R. 2007,
1369: \apjl, 667, L37
1370:
1371: \bibitem[{{Howell} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006Natur.443..308H}
1372: {Howell}, D.~A. {et~al.} 2006, \nat, 443, 308
1373:
1374: \bibitem[{{Howell} {et~al.}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...634.1190H}
1375: {Howell}, D.~A. {et~al.} 2005, \apj, 634, 1190
1376:
1377: \bibitem[{{Howell}, {Wang}, \& {Wheeler}(2000)}]{2000ApJ...530..166H}
1378: {Howell}, D.~A., {Wang}, L., \& {Wheeler}, J.~C. 2000, \apj, 530, 166
1379:
1380: \bibitem[{{Hsiao} {et~al.}(2007)}]{2007ApJ...663.1187H}
1381: {Hsiao}, E.~Y., {Conley}, A., {Howell}, D.~A., {Sullivan}, M., {Pritchet},
1382: C.~J., {Carlberg}, R.~G., {Nugent}, P.~E., \& {Phillips}, M.~M. 2007,
1383: \apj, 663, 1187
1384:
1385: \bibitem[{{Ivanov}, {Hamuy}, \& {Pinto}(2000)}]{2000ApJ...542..588I}
1386: {Ivanov}, V.~D., {Hamuy}, M., \& {Pinto}, P.~A. 2000, \apj, 542, 588
1387:
1388: \bibitem[{{Jha}, {Riess}, \& {Kirshner}(2007)}]{2007ApJ...659..122J}
1389: {Jha}, S., {Riess}, A.~G., \& {Kirshner}, R.~P. 2007, \apj, 659, 122
1390:
1391: \bibitem[{{Junde}(1999)}]{1999NDS....86..315J}
1392: {Junde}, H. 1999, Nuclear Data Sheets, 86, 315
1393:
1394: \bibitem[{{Kasen} {et~al.}(2004)}]{2004ApJ...610..876K}
1395: {Kasen}, D., {Nugent}, P., {Thomas}, R.~C., \& {Wang}, L. 2004, \apj, 610,
1396: 876
1397:
1398: \bibitem[{{Kasen} \& {Woosley}(2007)}]{2007ApJ...656..661K}
1399: {Kasen}, D. \& {Woosley}, S.~E. 2007, \apj, 656, 661
1400:
1401: \bibitem[{{Kelly}(2007)}]{2007ApJ...665.1489K}
1402: {Kelly}, B.~C. 2007, \apj, 665, 1489
1403:
1404: \bibitem[{{Kewley} \& {Dopita}(2002)}]{2002ApJS..142...35K}
1405: {Kewley}, L.~J. \& {Dopita}, M.~A. 2002, \apjs, 142, 35
1406:
1407: \bibitem[{{Kewley} \& {Ellison}(2008)}]{2008arXiv0801.1849K}
1408: {Kewley}, L.~J. \& {Ellison}, S.~L. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801
1409:
1410: \bibitem[{{Khokhlov}, {Mueller}, \&
1411: {Hoeflich}(1993)}]{1993A&A...270..223K}
1412: {Khokhlov}, A., {Mueller}, E., \& {Hoeflich}, P. 1993, \aap, 270, 223
1413:
1414: \bibitem[{{Kobayashi} {et~al.}(1998)}]{1998ApJ...503L.155K}
1415: {Kobayashi}, C., {Tsujimoto}, T., {Nomoto}, K., {Hachisu}, I., \& {Kato},
1416: M. 1998, \apjl, 503, L155
1417:
1418: \bibitem[{{Kowalski} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008arXiv0804.4142K}
1419: {Kowalski}, M. {et~al.} 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804
1420:
1421: \bibitem[{{Krisciunas} {et~al.}(2007)}]{2007AJ....133...58K}
1422: {Krisciunas}, K. {et~al.} 2007, \aj, 133, 58
1423:
1424: \bibitem[{{Langer} {et~al.}(2000)}]{2000A&A...362.1046L}
1425: {Langer}, N., {Deutschmann}, A., {Wellstein}, S., \& {H{\"o}flich}, P.
1426: 2000, \aap, 362, 1046
1427:
1428: \bibitem[{{Le Borgne} \& {Rocca-Volmerange}(2002)}]{2002A&A...386..446L}
1429: {Le Borgne}, D. \& {Rocca-Volmerange}, B. 2002, \aap, 386, 446
1430:
1431: \bibitem[{{Lee} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006ApJ...647..970L}
1432: {Lee}, H., {Skillman}, E.~D., {Cannon}, J.~M., {Jackson}, D.~C., {Gehrz},
1433: R.~D., {Polomski}, E.~F., \& {Woodward}, C.~E. 2006, \apj, 647, 970
1434:
1435: \bibitem[{{Lentz} {et~al.}(2001)}]{2001ApJ...557..266L}
1436: {Lentz}, E.~J., {Baron}, E., {Branch}, D., \& {Hauschildt}, P.~H. 2001,
1437: \apj, 557, 266
1438:
1439: \bibitem[{{Leonard} {et~al.}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...632..450L}
1440: {Leonard}, D.~C., {Li}, W., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Foley}, R.~J., \&
1441: {Chornock}, R. 2005, \apj, 632, 450
1442:
1443: \bibitem[{{Li} {et~al.}(2001)}]{2001ApJ...546..734L}
1444: {Li}, W., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Treffers}, R.~R., {Riess}, A.~G., {Hu}, J.,
1445: \& {Qiu}, Y. 2001, \apj, 546, 734
1446:
1447: \bibitem[{{Liang} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006ApJ...652..257L}
1448: {Liang}, Y.~C., {Yin}, S.~Y., {Hammer}, F., {Deng}, L.~C., {Flores}, H., \&
1449: {Zhang}, B. 2006, \apj, 652, 257
1450:
1451: \bibitem[{{Mannucci} {et~al.}(2005)}]{2005A&A...433..807M}
1452: {Mannucci}, F., {della Valle}, M., {Panagia}, N., {Cappellaro}, E.,
1453: {Cresci}, G., {Maiolino}, R., {Petrosian}, A., \& {Turatto}, M. 2005,
1454: \aap, 433, 807
1455:
1456: \bibitem[{{Mazzali} {et~al.}(2001)}]{2001ApJ...547..988M}
1457: {Mazzali}, P.~A., {Nomoto}, K., {Cappellaro}, E., {Nakamura}, T., {Umeda},
1458: H., \& {Iwamoto}, K. 2001, \apj, 547, 988
1459:
1460: \bibitem[{{Nugent} {et~al.}(1997)}]{1997ApJ...485..812N}
1461: {Nugent}, P., {Baron}, E., {Branch}, D., {Fisher}, A., \& {Hauschildt},
1462: P.~H. 1997, \apj, 485, 812
1463:
1464: \bibitem[{{Nugent} {et~al.}(1995)}]{1995PhRvL..75..394N}
1465: {Nugent}, P., {Branch}, D., {Baron}, E., {Fisher}, A., {Vaughan}, T., \&
1466: {Hauschildt}, P.~H. 1995, Physical Review Letters, 75, 394
1467:
1468: \bibitem[{{Perlmutter} {et~al.}(1999)}]{1999ApJ...517..565P}
1469: {Perlmutter}, S. {et~al.} 1999, \apj, 517, 565
1470:
1471: \bibitem[{{Perlmutter} {et~al.}(1997)}]{1997ApJ...483..565P}
1472: {Perlmutter}, S. {et~al.} 1997, \apj, 483, 565
1473:
1474: \bibitem[{{Phillips}(1993)}]{1993ApJ...413L.105P}
1475: {Phillips}, M.~M. 1993, \apjl, 413, L105
1476:
1477: \bibitem[{{Phillips} {et~al.}(1999)}]{1999AJ....118.1766P}
1478: {Phillips}, M.~M., {Lira}, P., {Suntzeff}, N.~B., {Schommer}, R.~A.,
1479: {Hamuy}, M., \& {Maza}, J.~. 1999, \aj, 118, 1766
1480:
1481: \bibitem[{{Pinto} \& {Eastman}(2000{\natexlab{a}})}]{2000ApJ...530..744P}
1482: {Pinto}, P.~A. \& {Eastman}, R.~G. 2000{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 530, 744
1483:
1484: \bibitem[{{Pinto} \& {Eastman}(2000{\natexlab{b}})}]{2000ApJ...530..757P}
1485: ---. 2000{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 530, 757
1486:
1487: \bibitem[{{Piro} \& {Bildsten}(2008)}]{2008ApJ...673.1009P}
1488: {Piro}, A.~L. \& {Bildsten}, L. 2008, \apj, 673, 1009
1489:
1490: \bibitem[{{Ram{\'{\i}}rez}, {Allende Prieto}, \&
1491: {Lambert}(2007)}]{2007A&A...465..271R}
1492: {Ram{\'{\i}}rez}, I., {Allende Prieto}, C., \& {Lambert}, D.~L. 2007,
1493: \aap, 465, 271
1494:
1495: \bibitem[{{Riess} {et~al.}(1998)}]{1998AJ....116.1009R}
1496: {Riess}, A.~G. {et~al.} 1998, \aj, 116, 1009
1497:
1498: \bibitem[{{Riess} {et~al.}(1999)}]{1999AJ....118.2675R}
1499: {Riess}, A.~G. {et~al.} 1999, \aj, 118, 2675
1500:
1501: \bibitem[{{Riess}, {Press}, \& {Kirshner}(1996)}]{1996ApJ...473...88R}
1502: {Riess}, A.~G., {Press}, W.~H., \& {Kirshner}, R.~P. 1996, \apj, 473, 88
1503:
1504: \bibitem[{{Sauer} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008arXiv0803.0871S}
1505: {Sauer}, D.~N. {et~al.} 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803
1506:
1507: \bibitem[{{Savaglio} {et~al.}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...635..260S}
1508: {Savaglio}, S. {et~al.} 2005, \apj, 635, 260
1509:
1510: \bibitem[{{Stritzinger} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006A&A...460..793S}
1511: {Stritzinger}, M., {Mazzali}, P.~A., {Sollerman}, J., \& {Benetti}, S.
1512: 2006, \aap, 460, 793
1513:
1514: \bibitem[{{Sullivan} {et~al.}(2003)}]{2003MNRAS.340.1057S}
1515: {Sullivan}, M. {et~al.} 2003, \mnras, 340, 1057
1516:
1517: \bibitem[{{Sullivan} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006ApJ...648..868S}
1518: {Sullivan}, M. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 648, 868
1519:
1520: \bibitem[{{Sullivan} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008sullivan}
1521: {Sullivan}, M. 2008, in preparation
1522:
1523: \bibitem[{{Timmes}, {Brown}, \& {Truran}(2003)}]{2003ApJ...590L..83T}
1524: {Timmes}, F.~X., {Brown}, E.~F., \& {Truran}, J.~W. 2003, \apjl, 590, L83
1525:
1526: \bibitem[{{Trager} {et~al.}(2000)}]{2000AJ....119.1645T}
1527: {Trager}, S.~C., {Faber}, S.~M., {Worthey}, G., \& {Gonz{\'a}lez}, J.~J.
1528: 2000, \aj, 119, 1645
1529:
1530: \bibitem[{{Tremonti} {et~al.}(2004)}]{2004ApJ...613..898T}
1531: {Tremonti}, C.~A. {et~al.} 2004, \apj, 613, 898
1532:
1533: \bibitem[{{Truran}, {Arnett}, \& {Cameron}(1967)}]{1967CaJPh..45.2315T}
1534: {Truran}, J.~W., {Arnett}, W.~D., \& {Cameron}, A.~G.~W. 1967, Canadian
1535: Journal of Physics, 45, 2315
1536:
1537: \bibitem[{{van den Bergh}(1997)}]{1997AJ....113..197V}
1538: {van den Bergh}, S. 1997, \aj, 113, 197
1539:
1540: \bibitem[{{Vila Costas} \& {Edmunds}(1993)}]{1993MNRAS.265..199V}
1541: {Vila Costas}, M.~B. \& {Edmunds}, M.~G. 1993, \mnras, 265, 199
1542:
1543: \bibitem[{{Wang}, {H\"oflich}, \& {Wheeler}(1997)}]{1997ApJ...483L..29W}
1544: {Wang}, L., {H\"oflich}, P., \& {Wheeler}, J.~C. 1997, \apjl, 483, L29+
1545:
1546: \bibitem[{{Wang} {et~al.}(1996)}]{1996ApJ...467..435W}
1547: {Wang}, L., {Wheeler}, J.~C., {Li}, Z., \& {Clocchiatti}, A. 1996, \apj,
1548: 467, 435
1549:
1550: \bibitem[{{Wang} {et~al.}(2008)}]{2008ApJ...675..626W}
1551: {Wang}, X. {et~al.} 2008, \apj, 675, 626
1552:
1553: \bibitem[{{Wheeler}, {Sneden}, \& {Truran}(1989)}]{1989ARA&A..27..279W}
1554: {Wheeler}, J.~C., {Sneden}, C., \& {Truran}, Jr. 1989, \araa, 27, 279
1555:
1556: \bibitem[{{Wood-Vasey} {et~al.}(2007)}]{2007ApJ...666..694W}
1557: {Wood-Vasey}, W.~M. {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 666, 694
1558:
1559: \end{thebibliography}
1560:
1561:
1562: \end{document}
1563: