4.7 Article

The volumetric rate of superluminous supernovae at z similar to 1

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 464, Issue 3, Pages 3568-3579

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw1942

Keywords

surveys; supernovae: general

Funding

  1. EU/FP7-ERC grant [615929]
  2. W. M. Keck Foundation
  3. STFC [ST/L000733/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/L000733/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a measurement of the volumetric rate of superluminous supernovae (SLSNe) at z similar to 1.0, measured using archival data from the first four years of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS). We develop a method for the photometric classification of SLSNe to construct our sample. Our sample includes two previously spectroscopically identified objects, and a further new candidate selected using our classification technique. We use the point-source recovery efficiencies from Perrett et al. and a Monte Carlo approach to calculate the rate based on our SLSN sample. We find that the three identified SLSNe from SNLS give a rate of 91(-36)(+76) SNe yr(-1) Gpc(-3) at a volume-weighted redshift of z = 1.13. This is equivalent to 2.2(-0.9)(+1.8) x 10(-4) of the volumetric core-collapse supernova rate at the same redshift. When combined with other rate measurements from the literature, we show that the rate of SLSNe increases with redshift in a manner consistent with that of the cosmic star formation history. We also estimate the rate of ultra-long gamma-ray bursts based on the events discovered by the Swift satellite, and show that it is comparable to the rate of SLSNe, providing further evidence of a possible connection between these two classes of events. We also examine the host galaxies of the SLSNe discovered in SNLS, and find them to be consistent with the stellar-mass distribution of other published samples of SLSNe.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available