Loading…
AG-2026.06-1468·astro-ph.HE·cross-listed: astro-ph.SR
Authors
Abstract
Type Ibn supernovae (SNe) are a class of interacting SNe characterised by narrow helium lines in their spectra. We present an extensive observational dataset of the Type Ibn SN 2025kzr at 51 Mpc, including the discovery of a precursor outburst with a peak brightness of M_r~-13.6 mag beginning ~55 days before explosion. Our photometry indicates the SN was discovered within the first day of explosion, showing fast-rising, ultraviolet-bright emission peaking at M_r=-19.26+/-0.09 mag and a peak blackbody temperature of T~29000 K, consistent with shock breakout within a region of dense and confined circumstellar material (CSM). Our high-cadence spectroscopic dataset spanning 1.9-58.5 days post-explosion shows flash-ionised emission features during the first 10 days. In our SALT spectrum at 3.8 days we observe a pronounced blueshift of the He II lines by 460 km/s compared to the He I lines at zero velocity, while a Pickering-decrement analysis reveals a CSM that is fully hydrogen-free. The timing of the disappearance of the flash features combined with the CSM velocity of 1500 km/s imply a mass-loss event ~66 days before explosion, in close agreement with the timing of the precursor observed 55 days before explosion and strongly suggestive of a physical link. We derive a CSM mass of 0.03-1.7 M_sun and a corresponding high mass-loss rate >~10^{-1} M_sun/yr. The precursor timescale and energetics suggest an extreme mass-loss event that might be explained by wave-driven mass loss during the late stages of nuclear burning, in particular the oxygen-burning phase. Overall, we favour a single massive Wolf-Rayet progenitor with M_ZAMS~30-40 M_sun to explain SN 2025kzr, although a binary origin cannot be excluded.
Submitted
17 June 2026today
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2606.18962
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.