Gamma-ray signature of superluminous supernovae: Fermi-LAT GeV detection of SN 2017egm and evidence of a central engine
Authors
F. Acerofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Acharyyafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Adelfiofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Ajellofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
E. Avianofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
L. Baldinifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
J. Balletfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
C. Bartolinifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
D. Bastierifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
J. Becerra Gonzalezfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
R. Bellazzinifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
E. Bissaldifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
R. Bonino
for the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. Bruelfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
S. Busonfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
R. A. Cameronfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. A. Caraveofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
F. Casaburofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
F. Casinifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
E. Cavazzutifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
C. C. Cheungfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
N. Cibrariofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
G. Cozzolongofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. Cristarella Orestanofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
F. Cunafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
S. Cutinifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
F. D'Ammandofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
D. Depalofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
S. W. Digelfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
N. Di Lallafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Dineshfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
L. Di Venerefor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. Fauvergefor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Fiorifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Franckowiakfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
Y. Fukazawafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
S. Funkfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. Fuscofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
F. Garganofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
C. Gasbarrafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
D. Gasparrinifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
S. Germanifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
F. Giacchinofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
N. Gigliettofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Gilibertifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
F. Giordanofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Girolettifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
I. A. Grenierfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. -H. Grondinfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
S. Guiriecfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
R. Guptafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
E. Haysfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
J. W. Hewittfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Holzmann Airascafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
D. Horanfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
X. Houfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
T. Kayanokifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Kerrfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Kussfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Lavironfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Lemoine-Goumardfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Liguorifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
J. Lifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
I. Liodakisfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. Loizzofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
F. Longofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
F. Loparcofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
S. López Pérezfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
L. Lorussofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. N. Lovellettefor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. Lubranofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
S. Malderafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Manfredafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
G. Martí-Devesafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
R. Martinellifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. N. Mazziottafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Michailidisfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. F. Michelsonfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
N. Mirabalfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
T. Mizunofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. Monti-Guarnierifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. E. Monzanifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Morsellifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
I. V. Moskalenkofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Negrofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
N. Omodeifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Orientifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
E. Orlandofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
G. Panzarinifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Persicfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Pesce-Rollinsfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
R. Pillerafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
T. A. Porterfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
G. Principefor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
S. Rainòfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
R. Randofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
B. Ranifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Razzanofor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
A. Reimerfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
O. Reimerfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
M. Sánchez-Condefor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. M. Saz Parkinsonfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
D. Serinifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
C. Sgròfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
E. J. Siskindfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
G. Spandrefor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
P. Spinellifor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
D. J. Susonfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
H. Tajimafor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
D. J. Thompsonfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
D. F. Torresfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
Z. Wadiasinghfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
K. Woodfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
G. Zaharijasfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
W. Zhangfor the Fermi-LAT Collaboration
E. Chatzopoulos
B. D. Metzger
P. J. Pessi
I. Vurm
Abstract
Superluminous supernovae (SLSNe) are a rare class of transients with peak luminosities 10-100 times greater than those of standard core-collapse supernovae (SNe). The mechanisms powering their extreme brightness remain debated, with circumstellar medium (CSM) interaction, or energy injection from a central engine like a magnetar wind nebula being the most plausible scenarios. To further constrain the underlying mechanism, we carried out a systematic search for GeV gamma-ray emission using the Fermi-LAT telescope from a sample of nearby hydrogen-poor (Type I) and hydrogen-rich (Type II) SLSNe over the past 16 years. Among the sample, only SN 2017egm shows significant gamma-ray emission, with likelihood test statistic (TS) values of 26-33 (i.e., >5$σ$) depending on the adopted time window. The signal arises between 50 and 160 days after explosion and is well described by a power-law spectrum with index $Γ=2.17 \pm 0.23$. The emission is consistent both in terms of its light curve and its spectrum, with predictions from magnetar models requiring either low nebular magnetization or faster spin-down than dipole losses. The CSM shell interaction scenario can reproduce the observed flux level but not the observed timing of the gamma-ray signal. In addition, the observed ratio, $L_γ/L_{opt} \sim 1$, is inconsistent with theoretical expectations and not in line with ratio measurements in other interacting CSM-dominated objects (e.g., novae or SNe) where this ratio is less than $10^{-2}$. Our study strongly suggests that a central engine like a magnetar plays a key role in this SLSN and could explain the bulk of the optical and gamma-ray light curves properties. Finally, simulations of 50 hours of CTAO observations indicate that a SN 2017egm-like event would be detectable up to 140 Mpc in the magnetar model but not in the CSM model due to strong gamma-gamma absorption.
Fermi-LAT detected GeV gamma rays from the superluminous supernova SN 2017egm, with properties better explained by a magnetar central engine than by interaction with surrounding material.
01Only one superluminous supernova in a 16-year survey shows significant gamma-ray emission, suggesting a rare or special condition—likely a rapidly spinning, highly magnetic neutron star (magnetar) powering the explosion.
02The gamma-ray signal arrives 50–160 days after the explosion and has an oddly high brightness ratio compared to optical light, which contradicts predictions for gas-collision models but matches magnetar wind theory.
03Future gamma-ray observatories like CTAO could detect similar magnetar-powered events out to 140 megaparsecs, offering a new way to identify and study these exotic explosions.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.