Constraints on the progenitor and explosion of SN 2024ggi in harmony with pre-explosion detection and hydrodynamic simulations

TL;DR

This work uses MESA-based stellar evolution and STELLA radiative hydrodynamics to constrain the progenitor and explosion properties of SN 2024ggi by integrating pre-explosion progenitor detections with hydrodynamic modeling. The analysis converges on an $11\,M_{\\odot}$ red supergiant as the best-fitting progenitor, with a pre-SN radius near $800\,R_{\\odot}$ and an explosion energy of about $0.7$--$0.8\times10^{51}$ erg, synthesizing $M_{ m Ni}=0.049\,M_{\\odot}$ and ejecting $M_{ m ej}\approx9.1\,M_{\\odot}$. An eruptive or accelerated-wind CSM component is required to reproduce the early luminosity, with CSM masses around $0.5$--$0.7\,M_{\\odot}$ extending to $\sim(1.1$--$1.2)\times10^{14}$ cm, while nebular-phase data broadly corroborate these explosion parameters and support a progenitor in the $10$--$12\,M_{\\odot}$ range. The results illustrate how combining pre-explosion imaging with detailed hydrodynamic simulations can tightly constrain progenitor mass, radius, explosion energy, and CSM structure for Type II-P supernovae.

Abstract

Supernova (SN) 2024ggi is a nearby Type II SN discovered by ATLAS, showing early flash-ionization features. The pre-explosion images reveal a red supergiant (RSG) progenitor with an initial mass of 10-17 M$_\odot$. In the present work, we perform detailed hydrodynamic modeling to refine and put robust constraints on the progenitor and explosion parameters of SN 2024ggi. Among the progenitor models in our study, the pre-SN properties of the 11 M$_{\odot}$ match the pre-explosion detected progenitor well. However, we find it difficult to completely rule out the 10 M$_{\odot}$ and 12 M$_{\odot}$ models. Thus, we provide a constraint of 11$^{+1}_{-1}$ M$_{\odot}$ on the initial mass of the progenitor. To match the observed bolometric light curve and velocity evolution of SN 2024ggi, the favored model with an initial mass of 11 M$_{\odot}$ has a pre-SN radius of 800 R$_{\odot}$. This model requires an explosion energy of [0.7-0.8]$\times$10$^{51}$ erg, nickel mass of 0.049 M$_{\odot}$, ejecta mass of 9.1 M$_{\odot}$, and an amount of $\sim$ 0.5 M$_{\odot}$ of steady-wind CSM extended up to $\sim1.2\times10^{14}$ cm resulting from an eruptive mass-loss rate of 1.0 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. We also incorporate the accelerated-wind CSM scenario, which suggests a mass-loss rate of 1.0$\times10^{-2}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and a CSM mass of $\sim$ 0.7 M$_{\odot}$ extended up to $\sim1.1\times10^{14}$ cm. This mass-loss rate falls within the range constrained observationally. Additionally, due to the constraint of 11$^{+1}_{-1}$ M$_{\odot}$ on the initial mass, the range of pre-SN radius and ejecta mass would be [690-900] R$_{\odot}$, and [8.2-9.6] M$_{\odot}$, respectively.

Figures (5)

• Figure 1: The stellar evolutionary tracks (from ZAMS to pre-SN stage) of 11 M$_{\odot}$ progenitor models in our simulations, assuming two sets of temporal and spatial resolutions. The models seem to have converged for the chosen temporal and spatial resolutions.
• Figure 2: The evolutionary tracks of 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 M$_{\odot}$ progenitor models in our simulations. The tracks shown here start from ZAMS and terminate at the pre-SN stages marked by $\bigstar$ for each model. The location of the HST-detected progenitor candidate is also indicated 2024ApJ...969L..15X. The inset shows our models' zoomed late stages of evolution.
• Figure 3: Top, left: The comparison of the bolometric luminosity light curves resulting from the explosion of 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 M$_{\odot}$ ZAMS models with SN 2024ggi. Top, right: Corresponding photospheric velocity evolution comparisons with the Fe2 line velocities of SN 2024ggi. The bolometric light curve and Fe2 line velocities have been imported from 2025arXiv250301577E. The explosions for 14 (with 40% rotation), 15, 16, and 17 M$_{\odot}$ are not simulated due to their distant position on the HR-diagram from the pre-explosion detected progenitor. Middle, left: Same as the top, left-hand panel but with a steady-state wind CSM included. Middle, right: Corresponding photospheric velocity evolution comparisons with the Fe2 line velocities of SN 2024ggi. Bottom, left: The comparison of the bolometric luminosity light curves resulting from the explosion of preferred 11 M$_{\odot}$ model with steady state wind CSM and also with $\beta$-wind CSM. The effect of changing $\eta$ is also indicated here. Bottom, right: Corresponding photospheric velocity evolution comparisons with the Fe2 line velocities of SN 2024ggi. All the models here are computed with $E_{\rm exp}=0.7\times10^{51}$ erg and $M_{\rm Ni} = 0.049$ M$_{\odot}$ (nicely iterating the nebular phase luminosities as indicated in the insets).
• Figure 4: Left: The density distribution as a function of radius for the two different CSM models assumed in the study. Right: Corresponding wind velocity distribution.
• Figure 5: Effect of varying explosion energy and nickel mass on the 11 M$_{\odot}$ model with accelerated-wind CSM (for comparison, the steady-wind CSM model is also shown). The variations help us to constrain the range of plausible explosion energy and the amount of nickel mass.