Arxiv:2105.05512V1 [Astro-Ph.HE] 12 May 2021 Ic-BL), the Similarity in Their Late Spectra (E.G., Pas- Woosley 2010; Inserra Et Al

Draft version May 13, 2021 Preprint typeset using LATEX style AASTeX6 v. 1.0

SUPERNOVA LUMINOSITY POWERED BY MAGNETAR-DISK SYSTEM

W. L. Lin1, X. F. Wang1,2,3, L. J. Wang4, Z. G. Dai5

1Physics Department and Tsinghua Center for Astrophysics (THCA), Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China; [email protected]; [email protected] 2Beijing Planetarium, Beijing Academy of Science and Technology, Beijing 100044, China 3Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Science, Nanjing 210008, China 4Astroparticle Physics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China 5CAS Key Laboratory for Research in Galaxies and Cosmology, Department of Astronomy, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China

ABSTRACT Magnetars are one of the potential power sources for some energetic supernova explosions such as type I superluminous supernovae (SLSNe I) and broad-lined type Ic supernovae (SNe Ic-BL). In order to explore the possible link between these two subclasses of supernovae (SNe), we study the effect of fallback accretion disk on magnetar evolution and magnetar-powered SNe. In this scenario, the interaction between a magnetar and a fallback accretion disk would accelerate the spin of the magnetar in the accretion regime but could result in substantial spin-down of the magnetars in the propeller regime. Thus, the initial rotation of the magnetar plays a less significant role in the spin evolution. Such a magnetar-disk interaction scenario can explain well the light curves of both SNe Ic-BL and SLSNe I, for which the observed differences are sensitive to the initial magnetic field of the magnetar and the fallback mass and timescale for the disk. Compared to the magnetars powering the SNe Ic-BL, those accounting for more luminous SNe usually maintain faster rotation and have relatively lower effective magnetic fields around peak time. In addition, the association between SLSNe I and long gamma-ray bursts, if observed in the future, could be explained in the context of magnetar-disk system. Keywords: stars: magnetars - supernovae: general

1. INTRODUCTION in the iron-dominated wavelength range of 4000−5500 Å, Type I superluminous supernovae (SLSNe I; e.g., Gal- SLSNe I and SNe Ic-BL have more properties in common Yam 2012, 2019; Inserra 2019) are a newly-discovered as compared to normal SNe Ic (Nicholl et al. 2019). type of the most luminous supernovae (SNe) whose early- Despite several models have been proposed so far for time spectra are dominated by O ii absorption complexes energetic core collapse SNe (e.g., Gal-Yam 2019; Wang and blue continua indicating high photospheric tempera- et al. 2019, and references therein), the spin-down of ture (e.g., Quimby et al. 2011, 2018). Although SLSNe I magnetar, i.e. strongly magnetized neutron star (NS), exhibit distinct early-time light curves and spectral fea- has been invoked as a promising mechanism to power tures compared to normal and broad-lined SNe Ic (SNe SLSNe I and SNe Ic-BL (e.g., Kasen, & Bildsten 2010; arXiv:2105.05512v1 [astro-ph.HE] 12 May 2021 Ic-BL), the similarity in their late spectra (e.g., Pas- Woosley 2010; Inserra et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2017a,b). torello et al. 2010; Blanchard et al. 2019; Lin et al. 2020) Moreover, both SLSNe I and SNe Ic-BL tend to occur implies an intrinsic link between these two subclasses of in faint dwarf hosts with low metallicity (e.g., Lunnan SNe with both hydrogen and helium envelope stripped et al. 2014; Perley et al. 2016; Schulze et al. 2018; Mod- before explosion. A systematic comparison study con- jaz et al. 2020), indicating that they are associated with ducted by Liu et al.(2017) reveals that the absorption metal-poor massive progenitor stars. During the evolu- features, such as the widths and average velocities of tion of such progenitor stars, stellar wind might be re- Fe ii λ5169, are similar in the mean post-peak spectra duced and suﬃcient angular momentum can be sustained of SLSNe I and SNe Ic-BL, while normal SNe Ic usually in aid of the formation of fast spinning magnetars. Al- exhibit narrower absorption lines with a lower blueshift though most SNe Ic are found in higher metallicity en- velocity. Similarities between SLSNe I and SNe Ic/Ic-BL vironments (Modjaz et al. 2020) and prefer radioactive 56 can be observed in their nebular-phase spectra; especially decay of Ni as the main power source, a small portion of 2

them exhibit engine-powered properties (e.g., Greiner et al. 2015; Nicholl et al. 2016; Taddia et al. 2018, 2019). In the isolated magnetar-powered scenario, the magnetars for SLSNe I possess an initial spin period PNS,0 ≈ 1 − 10 12 14 ms and surface magnetic field BNS ∼ 10 −10 G, while 14 those with PNS,0 & 10 ms and BNS > 10 G are expected to power SNe Ic/Ic-BL. Lin et al.(2020) proposed that the above BNS − PNS,0 correlation is consistent with the 7/6 relation of BNS ∝ Peq expected in an equilibrium state reached during the interaction between a magnetar and an accretion disk (e.g., Piro & Ott 2011). In this paper, we study the evolution of a magnetar surrounded by a fallback accretion disk and explore the possibility that both SLSNe I and SNe Ic-BL can be pro- duced in such a magnetar-disk scenario. In Section2, we develop a magnetar-disk model to study the effect of fallback accretion on the magnetar and the SNe powered by such a magnetar-disk system. In Section3, we study the effect of initial properties of the magnetar-disk system on the luminosity evolution of SNe. A brief conclusion is presented in Section4.

2. MODEL DESCRIPTION

2.1. Evolution of a magnetar with a disk Figure 1. Schematic pictures for (1) an isolated magnetar A rapidly rotating magnetar might be born in SN ex- (top panel), and (2) a magnetar surrounded by a fallback plosion, and a portion of stellar debris could fall back to accretion disk during the propeller regime (rc < rm, mid- circularize into a disk around the magnetar with an accre- dle panel) and accretion regime (rm < rc, bottom panel), respectively. tion rate greatly exceeding the Eddington limit (M˙ Edd). The highly super-Eddington accretion disk is expected to The evolution stage of this magnetar-disk system de- be geometrically thick and probably advective (e.g., Be- pends on the relative position of co-rotation radius (rc), loborodov 1998), which likely drives large-scale outflows light cylinder radius (rlc), magnetospheric radius (rm), within the time range of our interest ( 1000 s since & which are related to the gravitational mass (MNS), the SN explosion) (see Dexter & Kasen 2013, and references radius (RNS), the spin period (PNS) and the surface mag- therein). Assuming the accretion rate at the outer ra- netic field strength (BNS) of the central magnetar as well dius of the disk to be the fallback mass rate (e.g., Michel as the accretion rate of the disk. We assume the mag- 1988; Metzger et al. 2018), we have netospheric radius to be the maximum between Alfvén 2Mfb −5/3 radius (rA) and the radius of the magnetar (RNS), M˙ D,out = M˙ fb = (1 + t/tfb) , (1) 3tfb rm = max(rA,RNS). (3) where Mfb is the total fallback mass available for the Alfvén radius, where the radial inflow of the disk ma- disk, tfb is the fallback timescale. Due to the presence of accompanied outflows, only a fraction (η) of the accretion terials is blocked by the magnetic barrier of the central 1 rate would reach the inner disk radius, i.e. magnetar, is given by −1/7 4/7 −2/7 rA = (GMNS) µ M˙ (4) M˙ D,in = ηM˙ D,out. (2) NS D,in 3 Considered the effects of advection process and mass out- where G is the gravitational constant and µNS = BNSRNS is the magnetic dipole moment of the magnetar. Co- flows, Mushtukov et al.(2019) found η & 0.6 (η & 0.4) when the disk outflow is powered by half (all) of the rotation radius is defined as viscously dissipated energy. Their numerical simulations 2 1/3 rc = (GMNS/ΩNS) , (5) also show that η tends to approach the minimum as the where the inflowing matter revolves at the angular fre- initial accretion rate increases from 1 to ∼ 1000 M˙ Edd, which is far exceeded in all cases we consider (see Sec- quency of the magnetar (ΩNS = 2π/PNS). The light tion3). Here we ignore the possible effect of chemical 1 The geometrical thickness of the disk could affect Alfvén radius composition of the disk, and take η = 0.5. by a factor of ∼ 1 (e.g., Chashkina et al. 2019). 3 cylinder radius of the magnetar is as

dΩNS rlc = c/ΩNS, (6) I = N + N , (10) NS dt dip acc where c is the light speed. where the moment of inertia for the magnetar is esti- If the disk penetrates the light cylinder of the mag- mated as (Lattimer & Schutz 2005) netar (rm < rlc) and cuts open part of closed magnetic " 4# field lines, the magnetic dipole radiation wind from the 2 MNS/R MNS/R INS = 0.237MNSRNS 1 + 4.2 + 90 . magnetar would be enhanced. Thus, the magnetic dipole M /km M /km torque can be expressed as (Parfrey et al. 2016; Metzger (11) et al. 2018) The mass rate accreted onto the magnetar surface can  be estimated as (Piro & Ott 2011; Metzger et al. 2018)  r2 /r2 , r < r N = −µ2 Ω3 /(6c3) · lc m m lc (7)  dip NS NS ˙  1. rm > rlc  MD,in, rm < rc M˙ acc = (12) and the effective magnetic field strength for the dipole  0. rm > rc radiation is BNS,eff = BNS · max(1, rlc/rm). Accordingly, the baryon mass of the magnetar with ini- If r < r , the disk materials at inner radius re- R m c tial mass of MNS,b,0 is MNS,b = MNS,b,0 + M˙ accdt, and volve faster than the magnetar and tend to be magnet- the corresponding gravitational mass can be obtained by ically channelled towards the magnetar, resulting in the solving MNS,b = MNS(1 + 0.075MNS) (Timmes et al. spin-up of the magnetar (accretion regime); conversely 1996). Pile-up of the accreted matter on the surface if rc < rm, the angular momentum of the magnetar is of magnetar could cause decay of the magnetic field as transferred to the inner disk (propeller regime; e.g., Il- (Shibazaki et al. 1989; Taam & van den Heuvel 1986; Fu 2 larionov & Sunyaev 1975; see also Figure1) . In the & Li 2013) propeller state, inner disk matter could be accelerated to a super-Keplerian velocity and then form a centrifu- BNS = BNS,0/(1 + Macc/Mc), (13) gally driven outflow. It could hinder the in-falling of where B is the initial magnetic field. As for the un- outer disk matter, resulting in a decrease in the accretion NS,0 certain characteristic mass M , we follow Li et al.(2021) rate. However, the propeller outflow can be decelerated c to adopt M = 10−3M . The magnetic field will re- in turn, and hence a fraction of it might accumulate in c diffuse to the surface of NS due to Ohmic diffusion and the inner disk supplying extra accretion mass. Hence, we Hall drift after a relatively long timescale (e.g., Geppert caution that the actual evolution of accretion rate might et al. 1999; Fu & Li 2013). Given a re-diffusion timescale deviate from Equation2. of 103 years for M > 10−4M , the re-diffusion pro- The accretion torque that exerts on the magnetar can & acc cess of magnetic field is not considered in this paper. be given by (Eks, i et al. 2005; Piro & Ott 2011) ˙ 2 ˙ 1/2 2.2. SN luminosity powered by magnetar-disk system Nacc = (1−ω)MD,inrmΩK,m = (1−ω)MD,in(GMNSrm) , (8) Magnetic dipole radiation can drive a magnetar wind 3/2 where ω ≡ ΩNS/ΩK,m = (rm/rc) is defined as the fast- with a luminosity of 3 1/2 ness parameter, and ΩK,m = (GMNS/rm) is the local LNS,w = ΩNSNdip. (14) Keplerian angular frequency at rm. If the magnetar-disk interaction dominates over the magnetic dipole radiation, The kinetic luminosity of large-scale outflow from the this system tends to evolve towards rc = rm. When rm radiatively ineffective disk can be estimated by (see Ap- equals rc, the magnetar reaches an equilibrium spin pe- pendixA for detailed derivations) riod (e.g., Piro & Ott 2011) −1 ˙ 2 MNS rm −5/7 6/7 ˙ −3/7 LD,w ≈ 0.001ηMfbc 7 , (15) Peq = 2π(GMNS) µNS MD,in . (9) 1.4M 10 cm Considering both effects of dipole and accretion Outflow could be also generated from the inner disk torques, the angular momentum of the magnetar evolves during the propeller regime. However, as Li et al.(2021) pointed out, the kinetic energy of the propeller outflow 2 In the propeller regime when rm ∼ rc, quasi-periodic events of could be reduced because of (1) low acceleration effi- accretion might occur, since the insufficiently-accelerated propeller matter could pile up in the inner disk until an event of accretion ciency, (2) internal dissipation inside the outflow, and onto the magnetar surface is triggered and empties the mass accu- (3) interaction between the outflows and the in-falling mulated during the propeller state (D’Angelo & Spruit 2010). In that case, the effective transition between the accretion and pro- matter from the outer disk. Thus, the propeller outflow peller phases might be slightly shifted to rm/rc & 1. is not considered here. 4

a b accretion propeller tFB 102

108 propeller

1 r (cm)

P (ms) 10 107

PNS Peq rlc rc iso rm RNS PNS 106 100 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 t (day) t (day)

c d 16 10 BNS, 0 LNS, w Lej, rad 1048 BNS LNS, w, th iso LNS, w BNS, eff LD, w iso Lej, rad 1015 46 LD, w, th ) 10 1 ) s

G ( g

r 44 B e 10

14 (

10 L

1042 1013 1040 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 t (day) t (day)

Figure 2. The evolution of the magnetar-disk system for case A. (a) Characteristic radii: rlc (dashed-dotted), rm (solid), rc (dashed) and RNS (dotted). The accretion phase is shown by gray-shaded region. (b) The spin period PNS (solid) and the accretion-induced equilibrium period Peq (Equation9; dashed-dotted). The vertical dotted line indicates the fallback timescale. (c) Magnetic field: BNS,0 (dashed), BNS (dashed-dotted) and BNS,eff (solid). (d) The magnetar wind luminosity (LNS,w; blue dashed) and the fraction thermalized by the SN ejecta (LNS,w,th; blue dotted), the disk outflow luminosity (LD,w; green dashed-dotted) and the thermalized outflow luminosity (LD,w,th; green dotted), and the SN luminosity powered by this system (Lej,rad; red solid). For comparison, we show in panel iso iso (d) the magnetar wind luminosity (LNS,w, Equation B2; yellow dashed) and the SN luminosity (Lej,rad, Equation B3; purple solid) derived in the isolated magnetar-powered scenario with the same initial properties as case A, whose spin iso evolution (PNS , Equation B1; yellow dashed) is displayed in panel (b).

In the accretion regime, the highly super-Eddington LD,w,th = LD,w, where is the thermalized efficiency. accretion column above the magnetar should be radia- Then we use the semi-analytical solution for the bolomet- tively inefficient and cool via neutrino emission (e.g., Piro ric light curve of SN ejecta in a homologous expansion & Ott 2011; Mushtukov et al. 2018). Hence, the accre- derived by Arnett(1982) to calculate the SN luminosity tion luminosity is not expected to significantly affect the powered by such a magnetar-disk system SN luminosity. Assuming that an ejecta with mass Mej and velocity t 0 0 vej is generated in SN explosion, the magnetar wind lu- 2 Z 0 2 t dt L (t) = 2e−(t/tdiff ) (L +L )e(t /tdiff ) , minosity thermalized by the SN ejecta can be given by ej,rad NS,w,th D,w,th 2 0 tdiff −At02 2 LNS,w,th = (1−e )LNS,w, where A = 3κmMej/(4πvej) (16) 1/2 is related to photon trapping (Wang et al. 2015), and where tdiff = (2κMej/(13.8cvej)) is the diffusion time κm is the opacity of SN ejecta to gamma-ray photons with κ being the gray opacity of the SN ejecta. κ can be from magnetar wind. As for the mass outflow from constrained to ∼ 0.01−0.2 cm2 g−1 (Inserra et al. 2013), 2 −1 the disk, a fraction of its kinetic energy can be used to while κm is usually assumed to be 0.01 − 100 cm g heat the SN ejecta during the interaction process, i.e. (e.g., Nicholl et al. 2017). 5

3. RESULTS the same initial mass, spin period and magnetic field. Using the model described in Section2, we further ex- In Figure3, we take case A as the basic scenario and amine the effect of initial properties of the magnetar-disk vary only one initial parameter in our simulations for system on the luminosity evolution of SNe within 1000 case B–H to study the effect of initial parameters on the days since explosion. evolution of magnetar-disk system and on the luminosity of the SNe. When we assume PNS,0 = 1 − 10 ms, the In case A, we assume (1) an SN ejecta with mass Mej = 9 −1 evolution of the system (see case B as an example with 5M and velocity vej = 10 cm s , (2) a magnetar PNS,0 = 10 ms) after t = 0.1 days is similar to that born with initial mass MNS,b,0 = 1.4M , spin period 15 in case A, suggesting that the initial spin period of the PNS,0 = 5ms, and magnetic field BNS,0 = 10 G, and (3) magnetar might not have significant influence on the late a fallback accretion disk with a total mass Mfb = 0.5M , 5 evolution of the system. fallback timescale tfb = 10 s. The thermalized efficiency of disk outflow is = 0.1, and both opacities (κ and κ ) The evolution of rm/rc is shown in Figure3a. The m 14 are adopted as 0.1 cm2 g−1. magnetar with BNS,0 = 10 G (case C) is always in the As seen in Figure2, this system experiences three evo- propeller regime (rm/rc > 1) while the other systems lution stages within 1000 days, i.e. propeller (t < 0.06 considered here experience propeller–accretion–propeller days), accretion (t = 0.06 − 11 days), and propeller stages. Both the accretion and the magnetic dipole (t > 11 days). During the first propeller period, the torques influence the spin evolution of the magnetar, magnetar contributes its angular momentum to the disk, but the former plays a dominant role during most of the evolution time of our interest in above cases. Thus, resulting in an increase in rc. After t ≈ 0.06 days, this the central magnetar usually spins up in the accretion system enter into the accretion regime (rc > rm). As the disk matter is accreted onto the surface of the mag- phase but slows down in the propeller phase (Figure3b). 6 netar, the magnetar spins up, grows in mass and de- Compared to case A and F (tfb = 10 s), the accre- clines in magnetic field strength. Since r ∝ M −1/7B8/7, tion phase starts and ends earlier when the system has m NS NS 16 the inner radius of the disk starts to shrink rapidly. stronger initial magnetic field BNS,0 = 10 G (case D) 4 5 or shorter fallback timescale tfb = 10 s (case E). Nev- As t > tfb = 10 s (i.e. 1.2 days), the disk under- goes a substantial decreases in mass inflowing rate (i.e. ertheless, total accretion masses in these four cases are −5/3 comparable (Figure3c). When the fallback mass varies M˙ fb ∝ t ). Consequently, the ram pressure of the in- flows decreases significantly, and the magnetic pressure between 0.05 − 1M , we find that the accretion phase of the magnetar pushes the disk outwards. After t ≈ 11 could start earlier and last for a longer time for the system with a larger fallback mass. Moreover, since the days, rm exceeds the co-rotation radius and the propeller mechanism starts to work again. During this period, the fallback timescale is assumed to be the same in cases A, magnetar spins down, and its magnetic field ceases to de- G(Mfb = 0.05M ) and H (Mfb = 1M ), larger fallback cay since the magnetar mass remains constant. Through- mass corresponds to higher mass inflowing rate, which out the evolution of t = 0 − 1000 days, the effective results in a larger mass accreted onto the surface of the magnetar (Figure3c). According to Equation (13), only magnetic field is always enhanced to be above BNS by the magnetar in case C that keeps expelling matter from the fallback accretion disk because rm < rlc. Never- the disk possesses a constant field throughout the evolu- theless, BNS,eff declines below the initial magnetic field tion; while in other cases, the magnetic field of magnetars after t ∼ 0.1 days due to accretion-induced BNS decay. decays significantly due to mass accretion and then re- Although low BNS,eff can weaken the magnetar wind, the energy transfer from the disk during the accretion regime mains invariable after the accretion regime ends. The ef- results in spin-up of the magnetar and then significantly fective magnetic field strength (BNS,eff ) can be enhanced boost the magnetar wind. Before t ∼ 100 days, magne- when the disk penetrates the light cylinder of the mag- tar wind can be completely thermalized by the SN ejecta. netar (rm < rlc); but it might become overall weak dur- However, when the SN ejecta becomes transparent due ing the accretion stage if the accretion-induced magnetic to expansion, only a fraction of wind luminosity can con- field decays significantly (Figure3d). tribute to the SN luminosity. Since the kinetic luminosity It is worth noting that the magnetar wind power of disk outflow is lower than the magnetar wind lumi- (see Equation 14) is determined by the spin period nosity during t > 10 days, the thermalized luminosity and the effective magnetic field (BNS,eff ), instead of the magnetic field (BNS). In Figure3e, we show the LD,w,th is well below LNS,w,th given the thermalized efficiency = 0.1. Powered by this magnetar-disk system, BNS,eff − PNS distribution during 1-500 days after explo- 44 sion. In cases C, D and G, the magnetars rotate with the SN exhibits a peak luminosity (Lej,rad,p = 2 × 10 erg s−1) similar to those of SLSNe I. It is much more lu- PNS,p = 10−100 ms around the epoch of maximum light 14 15 minous than that powered by an isolated magnetar with (tp), and their BNS,eff,p is enhanced to ∼ 10 − 10 G by the disk. We note that, during t = 10 − 1000 days, 6

a b

103

7 5/ t

) 2

s 10

c 0 r

10 m / (

m S r N P 1 A E (tfb = 10000 s) 10 6 B (PNS, 0 = 10 ms) F (tfb = 10 s) 14 C (BNS, 0 = 10 G) G (Mfb = 0.05M ) 16 1 D (B = 10 G) H (Mfb = 1M ) 10 NS, 0 100 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 t (day) t (day)

c d

0 10 1017

16 1 10 /21 10 t5 ) ) G (

f 15 f ( 10

2 e , c 10 c S a N B M 1014 10 3 1013

10 4 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 t (day) t (day)

e f 1045

1015 100d 1044 30d

10d ) 1 )

s 43

G 10 ( g

14 r f

f 10 e e ( ,

S d 42 N a

r 10 B , j e L 1013 1041

1040 100 101 102 103 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 PNS (ms) t (day)

Figure 3. Comparison of the evolution of the magnetar-disk systems with different initial properties. In cases B–H, only an initial parameter is assumed to be different from that adopted in case A and the rest parameters remain the same. We show the radii ratio rm/rc (a), the spin period of the magnetar PNS (b), the accretion mass Macc (c), the effective magnetic field BNS,eff (d), BNS,eff − PNS distribution during t = 1 − 500 days (e) and the SN light curves powered by such systems (f). In panel (e), we mark the BNS,eff − PNS distribution at t = 10 (squares), 30 (circles) and 100 days (triangles) as well as the peak time (stars) of SNe. For a system that evolves at an equilibrium state during 5/7 5/21 t > tfb, the spin period of the magnetar evolves as PNS|eq ∝ t , and the effective magnetic field is BNS,eff |eq ∝ t (see the dotted-dashed lines in panels b and d). See text for detailed discussions. 7

Ic-BL. 1045 As seen in Figure4, our model with the parameters SN 2018hti listed in Table1 can reproduce the observed light curves PTF12dam 1044 of some representative fast- and slow-evolving SLSNe I SN 2010gx ) 1 SN 1998bw (i.e., PTF12dam, SN 2010gx and SN 2018hti). The early-

s 43 10 time light curves of SNe Ic-BL (i.e., SN 1998bw and SN

g SN 2002ap r

e 2002ap) can be also explained in terms of the magnetar- (

d 42 a disk interaction scenario. However, we notice that the

r 10 , j e late-time luminosities of SN 1998bw and SN 2002ap ap- L 1041 pear to be much higher than the theoretical light curves, which is possibly due to the contribution of 56Ni powering 1040 (Wang et al. 2017a,b). Thus, magnetar wind regulated 0 100 200 300 400 500 by the magnetar-disk interaction can serve as a primary t (day) power source for both SLSNe I and SNe Ic-BL. Figure 4. The bolometric light curves of some representative SLSNe I (circles) and SNe Ic-BL (triangles) with re- Table 1. Model fitting parameters for some well- spect to artificially assumed explosion epoch. The bolo- observed SNe Ic-BL and SLSNe I. We set MNS,b,0 = metric luminosities of SLSNe I are derived by fitting the 1.4M , PNS,0 = 5 ms, Mej = 5M , vej = 10000 km −1 2 −1 absorbed blackbody curve (Nicholl et al. 2017) to the s , = 0.1, and κm = 0.1 cm g . multi-band data (Nicholl et al. 2013; Brown et al. 2014; 2 −1 SN type BNS,0 (G) Mfb (M ) tfb (s) κ (cm g ) Guillochon et al. 2017; De Cia et al. 2018; Lin et al. 2020), SN 1998bw Ic-BL 8.5 × 1014 0.12 105 0.1 while the bolometric light curves of SN 1998bw and SN SN 2002ap Ic-BL 3 × 1014 0.2 5 × 104 0.13 2002ap are taken from Patat et al.(2001) and Tomita PTF12dam SLSN I 5 × 1014 0.67 105 0.2 et al.(2006), respectively. The solid lines represent the SN 2010gx SLSN I 2.8 × 1015 0.6 105 0.15 fitting results from our model. SN 2018hti SLSN I 9 × 1014 0.92 105 0.2 Note: We present one but not unique set of parameters for modeling the light curve of each SN. these three systems are all in the propeller regime and 5/7 evolve at a near-equilibrium state with PNS|eq ∝ t Since our model may reproduce the major observa- 5/21 and BNS,eff |eq ∝ t (see dotted-dashed lines in Figure tional characteristics of the near-maximum-light bolo- 3b and3d). In the other five cases, however, the mag- metric light curves of SLSNe I or SNe Ic-BL, these two netar engines are characterized by lower effective field subclasses of SNe could have a similar origin, which is 12 14 (BNS,eff,p = 10 −10 G) and faster spin (PNS,p = 1−10 also implied by the similarity between their late-time ms) around tp. Therefore, there seems to be a positive spectra (e.g., Pastorello et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2017; Blan- correlation between BNS,eff,p and PNS,p at peak, which is chard et al. 2019; Nicholl et al. 2019; Lin et al. 2020). As reminiscent of the positive correlation between BNS and for the observed differences in their early-time spectra, PNS,0 inferred from isolated magnetar model for SLSNe magnetar wind that remains powerful for tens of days I and SNe Ic-BL (Lin et al. 2020). since explosion could help produce the prominent O ii ab- In Figure3f, we display the bolometric light curves of sorption features seen in SLSNe I instead of SNe Ic-BL, the SNe powered by these magnetar-disk systems. The via non-thermal excitation or by heating the SN ejecta to thermalized luminosity of disk outflow is always lower a high temperature (Quimby et al. 2011, 2018; Mazzali than that of the magnetar wind in these cases. The peak et al. 2016). luminosities of these SNe can vary from 1042 erg s−1 Finally, we give a brief discussion over the possible con- to 1045 erg s−1, which cover the values observed in SNe nection between SLSNe I and long gamma-ray bursts Ic/Ic-BL (41.5 . log Lp . 43.5; e.g., Prentice et al. 2016) (LGRBs). Rapidly-rotating magnetars have been pro- and SLSNe I (log Lp > 43.5; e.g., Inserra 2019). In cases posed as one of the promising central engines for gamma- 42 43 −1 A–H, SNe with Lp = 10 − 4 × 10 erg s reach the ray bursts (e.g., Usov 1992; Dai, & Lu 1998; Zhang, & peak luminosity at tp = 11 − 15 days since explosion, Mészáros 2001). As shown in Figure 1 of Lin et al.(2020), 44 14 while a much higher peak luminosity (i.e. Lp > 10 erg strong magnetic field (> 10 G) might play a crucial role s−1) can be attained in a light curve with a longer rise in driving a magnetar wind responsible for the shallow time (i.e. 20–32 days). Thus, a positive correlation likely decay of early-time afterglow of LGRBs, while relatively 14 exists between the peak luminosity and the rise time, low magnetic field strength (. a few 10 G) is required which is in agreement with the observation tendency that for the isolated millisecond magnetars to power the broad SLSNe I have broader and brighter light curves than SNe and luminous light curves of SLSNe I that peak at tens of 8

days after the SN explosions. Thus, most LGRBs are not 2016YFA0400801). expected to be associated with SLSNe I in the isolated magnetar-powered scenario. However, their association, REFERENCES if observed in the future, can be explained in the context of magnetar-disk system where the magnetic field of the Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785 nascent magnetar could decay significantly due to fall- Blanchard, P. K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 90 back accretion, since the magnetar-disk scenario is also Beloborodov, A. M. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 739 favored for some LGRB afterglows (e.g., Dai & Liu 2012; Brown, P. J., Breeveld, A. A., Holland, S., et al. 2014, Ap&SS, 354, 89 Li et al. 2021). Chashkina, A., Lipunova, G., Abolmasov, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A18 4. CONCLUSION Dai, Z. G., & Liu, R.-Y. 2012, ApJ, 759, 58 In this paper, we study the effect of fallback accretion Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 1998, A&A, 333, L87 De Cia, A., Gal-Yam, A., Rubin, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 100 on the evolution of central magnetar and SN luminos- Dexter, J. & Kasen, D. 2013, ApJ, 772, 30 ity. On one hand, fallback accretion might accelerate the D’Angelo, C. R. & Spruit, H. C. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1208 spin of the magnetar in the accretion regime, and then Eks, i, K. Y., Hernquist, L., & Narayan, R. 2005, ApJL, 623, L41 the SN ejecta is heated by stronger magnetar wind. On Fu L., Li X.-D., 2013, ApJ, 775, 124 Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927 the other hand, the SN luminosity can be low, when the Gal-Yam, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 305 magnetar spins down substantially during the propeller Geppert, U., Page, D., & Zannias, T. 1999, A&A, 345, 847 regime. The main conclusions are outlined in the follow- Greiner, J., Mazzali, P. A., Kann, D. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 523, ing. 189 Guillochon, J., Parrent, J., Kelley, L. Z., & Margutti, R. 2017, Firstly, in the presence of a fallback accretion disk, the ApJ, 835, 64 evolutions of the magnetar and the SN luminosity depend Illarionov, A. F. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1975, A&A, 39, 185 strongly on the magnetic field of the magnetar as well as Inserra, C. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697 the fallback mass and timescale for the disk, while the Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 128 initial spin period of the magnetar plays a less significant Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245 role. Kohri, K., Narayan, R., & Piran, T. 2005, ApJ, 629, 341 Secondly, light curves of both SNe Ic-BL and SLSNe I Lattimer J. M., Schutz B. F., 2005, ApJ, 629, 979 can be reproduced in the magnetar-disk interaction sce- Li, S.-Z., Yu, Y.-W., Gao, H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 87. Lin, W. L., Wang, X. F., Li, W. X., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 497, nario, suggesting that these two subclasses of SNe could 318 have a similar origin. Compared to the magnetars in Lin, W. L., Wang, X. F., Wang, L. J., et al. 2020b, ApJL, 903, SNe Ic-BL, those that can power SLSNe I usually main- L24 tain faster rotation and relatively lower effective mag- Liu, Y.-Q., Modjaz, M., & Bianco, F. B. 2017, ApJ, 845, 85 Lunnan, R., Chornock, R., Berger, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 138 netic field around the light-curve peak time. Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., Pian, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, Finally, we revisit the possible link between LGRBs 3455 and SLSNe I in the context of magnetar-disk system. Metzger, B. D., Beniamini, P., & Giannios, D. 2018, ApJ, 857, 95 Fallback accretion could result in a significant decay in Michel, F. C. 1988, Nature, 333, 644 Modjaz, M., Bianco, F. B., Siwek, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 153 the magnetic field of a millisecond magnetar born with Mushtukov, A. A., Ingram, A., Middleton, M., et al. 2019, strong magnetic field that is required for LGRBs, which MNRAS, 484, 687 makes it possible for the magnetar to power an energetic Mushtukov, A. A., Tsygankov, S. S., Suleimanov, V. F., et al. SN similar to SLSNe I at tens of days after explosion. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2867 Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Blanchard, P. K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 102 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2016, ApJL, 828, L18 The authors thank the anonymous referee for his/her Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, ApJ, 850, 55 suggestive comments that help improve the paper. Nicholl, M., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, Nature, 502, 346 This work is supported by the National Natural Sci- Pastorello, A., Smartt, S. J., Botticella, M. T., et al. 2010, ApJL, ence Foundation of China (NSFC grants 12033003, 724, L16 11633002, 11761141001 and 11833003), the National Pro- Parfrey, K., Spitkovsky, A., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2016, ApJ, gram on Key Research and Development Project (grant 822, 33 Patat, F., Cappellaro, E., Danziger, J., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 900. 2016YFA0400803 and 2017YFA0402600), the Scholar Perley, D. A., Quimby, R. M., Yan, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 13 Program of Beijing Academy of Science and Technol- Piro, A. L., & Ott, C. D. 2011, ApJ, 736, 108 ogy (DZ:BS202002), and the National SKA Program Prentice, S. J., Mazzali, P. A., Pian, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, of China (grant No. 2020SKA0120300). L.J.W. ac- 2973 Quimby, R. M., De Cia, A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 2 knowledges support from the National Program on Key Quimby, R. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2011, Research and Development Project of China (grant Nature, 474, 487 9

Schulze, S., Krühler, T., Leloudas, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, Tomita, H., Deng, J., Maeda, K., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 400. 1258 Usov, V. V. 1992, Nature, 357, 472 Shibazaki N., Murakami T., Shaham J., Nomoto K., 1989, Natur, Wang, L. J., Cano, Z., Wang, S. Q., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 851, 54 342, 656 Wang, S.-Q., Wang, L.-J., & Dai, Z.-G. 2019, Research in Taam R. E., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 1986, ApJ, 305, 235 Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 063 Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, Wang, S. Q., Wang, L. J., Dai, Z. G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 107 A106 Wang, L. J., Yu, H., Liu, L. D., et al. 2017b, ApJ, 837, 128 Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJL, 719, L204 A64 Zhang, B., & Mészáros, P. 2001, ApJL, 552, L35 Timmes, F. X., Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1996, ApJ, 457, 834

APPENDIX A. OUTFLOW LUMINOSITY FROM DISK In this paper, we assume the accretion rate of the disk as a power-law function of radius with a constant index 0 < s < 1 (Kohri et al. 2005), s M˙ D(r) = M˙ fb (r/rout) , (A1) s where rout is the outer radius of the disk. In this case, the accretion rate ratio η = M˙ D,in/M˙ fb = (rm/rout) . Given that the velocity of the large-scale outﬂow from the disk is likely to be comparable to the local escape velocity 1/2 1/2 ves = (2GMNS/r) = (rS/r) c, the kinetic luminosity of the outﬂow can be estimated by (Kohri et al. 2005)

Z rout 1 2 ˙ LD,w ≈ ζ vesdMD(r) 2 rm ζs r r s r = S m − m M˙ c2 2(1 − s) r r r fb m out out (A2) ζs rS ˙ 2 . ηMfbc 2(1 − s) rm −1 ˙ 2 s ζ MNS rm . 0.002ηMfbc 7 1 − s 0.1 1.4M 10 cm 2 where rS = 2GMNS/c is Schwarzschild radius, and ζ parameterizes the eﬀect of outﬂow physics. In this paper, we adopt (see also Equation 15) −1 ˙ 2 MNS rm LD,w ≈ 0.001ηMfbc 7 , (A3) 1.4M 10 cm 2 instead of LD,w ≈ 0.001M˙ fbc used in the fallback accretion-powered model (Dexter & Kasen 2013).

B. ISOLATED MAGNETAR-POWERED SNE For an isolated magnetar, the rotation energy is dissipated via the magnetic dipole radiation. The spin and the wind luminosity (i.e. magnetic dipole luminosity) of the magnetar can be written as

iso iso 1/2 PNS = PNS,0(1 + t/Tdip) , (B1)

B2 R6 Ω4 Liso = NS,0 NS NS,0 (1 + t/T iso)−2, (B2) NS,w 6c3 dip iso 3 2 6 2 where Tdip = 3c INS/(BNS,0RNSΩNS,0) is the spin-down timescale, and ΩNS,0 refers to the initial spin frequency of the magnetar. Using the same energy diﬀusion formula as in Equation (16), the radiative luminosity of the SN powered by an isolated magnetar can be calculated as t 0 0 2 Z 02 0 2 t dt iso −(t/tdiff ) iso −At (t /tdiff ) Lej,rad(t) = 2e Ldip(1 − e )e 2 . (B3) 0 tdiﬀ