Draft version October 27, 2020 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX62

Explaining recently studied intermediate optical transients (ILOTs) with jet powering

Noam Soker1, 2 and Noa Kaplan1

1Department of Physics, Technion, Haifa, 3200003, Israel; [email protected] 2Guangdong Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Shantou 515069, Guangdong Province, China

ABSTRACT We apply the jet-powered ILOT scenario to two recently studied intermediate luminosity optical transients (ILOTs), and find the relevant shell mass and jets’ energy that might account for the outbursts of these ILOTs. In the jet-powered ILOT scenario accretion disk around one of the of a binary system launches jets. The interaction of the jets with a previously ejected slow shell converts kinetic energy to thermal energy, part of which is radiated away. We apply two models of the jet- powered ILOT scenario. In the spherical shell model the jets accelerate a spherical shell, while in the cocoon toy model the jets penetrate into the shell and inflate hot bubbles, the cocoons. We find consistent results. For the ILOT (ILRT: intermediate luminosity red transient) SNhunt120 we find the 47 shell mass and jets’ energy to be Ms ' 0.5 − 1M and E2j ' 5 × 10 erg, respectively. The jets’ half ◦ ◦ opening angle is αj ' 30 − 60 . For the second peak of the ILOT (luminous red ) AT 2014ej 48 ◦ ◦ we find these quantities to be Ms ' 1 − 2M and E2j ' 1.5 × 10 erg, with αj ' 20 − 30 . The models cannot tell whether these ILOTs were powered by a stellar merger that leaves one , or by mass transfer where both stars survived. In both cases the masses of the shells and energies of the jets suggest that the binary progenitor system was massive, with a combined mass of M1 + M2 & 10M .

Keywords: binaries: close — stars: jets — stars: variables: general

1. INTRODUCTION et al. 2019; Schrøder et al. 2020; MacLeod & Loeb 2020; The transient events with peak above Soker 2020b). We refer to all these systems as interme- those of classical novae and below those of typical su- diate luminosity optical transients (ILOTs). pernovae might differ from each other by one or more In cases where both stars survive and stay detached properties, like the number of peaks in the light curve, the binary system can experience more than one out- total power, progenitor masses, and powering mecha- burst, and can have several separated peaks in its light nism (e.g. Mould et al. 1990; Bond et al. 2003; Rau et curve. This is the case for example in the grazing en- al. 2007; Ofek et al. 2008; Mason et al. 2010; Kasliwal velope evolution (Soker 2016). The same holds when 2011; Tylenda et al. 2013; Kasliwal et al. 2012; Blagorod- the binary system forms a temporary common envelope. nova et al. 2017; Kaminski et al. 2018; Pastorello et al. Namely, the more compact companion enters the enve- 2018; Boian & Groh 2019; Cai et al. 2019; Jencson et al. lope and then gets out. An example of the later process 2019; Kashi et al. 2019; Pastorello et al. 2019; Howitt et is the repeating common envelope jets (CE- al. 2020; Jones 2020; Klencki et al. 2020). They form a JSN) impostor scenario (Gilkis et al. 2019). In a CEJSN heterogeneous group of ‘gap transients’. impostor event a star (or a black hole) gets into arXiv:2007.06472v2 [astro-ph.HE] 24 Oct 2020 We study those transients that are powered by an ac- the envelope of a giant massive star, accretes mass and cretion process that releases gravitational energy. The launches jets that power an ILOT event (that might be accretion process might be a mass transfer from one classified as a supernova impostor), and then gets out star to another, or an extreme case of stellar merger, of the envelope (Soker & Gilkis 2018; Gilkis et al. 2019; where either one star destroys another, or one star (or Yalinewich & Matzner 2019). a planet; Retter & Marom 2003; Bear et al. 2011; Kashi Mass outflow accompanies the bright outbursts of & Soker 2017; Kashi et al. 2019) enters the envelope of ILOTs. Many studies attribute the powering of ILOTs, a larger star to start a common envelope evolution (e.g., both the kinetic energy of the outflow and the radia- Tylenda et al. 2011; Ivanova et al. 2013; Nandez et al. tion, to stellar binary interaction processes (e.g., Soker 2014; Kami´nskiet al. 2015; MacLeod et al. 2017; Segev & Tylenda 2003; Tylenda & Soker 2006; Kashi et al. 2010; Mcley & Soker 2014; Pejcha et al. 2016a,b; Soker 2

2016; MacLeod et al. 2018; Michaelis et al. 2018; Pas- al. 2017; MacLeod et al. 2017; Metzger & Pejcha 2017). torello et al. 2019). As a fast outflow hits a previously Blagorodnova et al.(2020) estimate the primary mass ejected slower outflow, the collision channels kinetic en- to be M1 ' 5M and deduce that during the two years ergy to radiation. There are two types of binary sce- pre-outburst activity the system lost a mass of about narios in that respect, those that take the main collision > 0.14M . Such a pre-outburst formation of a shell to take place in and near the equatorial plane (e.g., Pe- (circumbinary matter) is an important ingredient in the jcha et al. 2016a,b; Metzger & Pejcha 2017; Hubov´a,& jet-powered ILOT scenario. Pejcha 2019), and those that attribute the main colli- In other recent papers Kaminski et al.(2020, 2021) sion to fast polar outflow, i.e., jets. In most of the cases study in details the ILOT (stellar-merger candidate) with high mass accretion rates that power ILOTs, the Nova 1670 (CK Vulpeculae). This 350-years old high-accretion-powered ILOT (HAPI) model (Kashi & has a bipolar structure (Shara et al. 1985) with an ‘S’ Soker 2016; Soker & Kashi 2016), the accretion of mass shape along the long axis (Kaminski et al. 2020, 2021). is likely to be through an accretion disk. This accre- This is an extremely strong indication of shaping by pre- tion disk is very likely to launch two opposite jets. If cessing jets. We take it to imply that the jet-powered the jets collide with a previously ejected slow shell an ILOT scenario accounts for Nova 1670. The intervals efficient conversion of kinetic energy to radiation might from the first to second peak and from the second to take place. This is the jet-powered ILOT scenario. third peak in the triple-peaks light curve are about equal In a recent study Soker(2020a) argues that the jets- at about 1 year (Shara et al. 1985). We take it to imply shell interaction of the jet-powered ILOT scenario is a multiple jets-launching episodes, or more likely in this more efficient in converting kinetic energy to radia- case, a variability in jets’ launching power as the jets tion than collision of equatorial ejecta. He further precess. applies a simple jet-shell interaction model to three These two recent studies, and in particular the clear ILOTs, the Great Eruption of Eta Carinae (Davidson, demonstration of an ‘S’ shape morphology of the ILOT & Humphreys 1997), which is a luminous blue variable Nova 1670 (Kaminski et al. 2020, 2021) motivate us to (LBV), to V838 Mon (Munari et al. 2002) that is a stel- apply the jet-powered ILOT scenario to two recently lar merger (also termed ; LRN), and studied ILOTs. We emphasise that our main aim is to to the ILOT V4332 Sgr that has a bipolar structure find plausible parameters for these two recently studied (Kaminski et al. 2018). We apply this simple spherical ILOTs in the frame of the jet-driven model, as the for- shell model to two other ILOTs (Sections 2.2 and 2.3). mation of jets in binary merger can be very common As said, in this study we use the term ILOT (Berger (e.g., L´opez-C´amaraet al. 2020 and references therein). et al. 2009; Kashi & Soker 2016; Muthukrishna et al. In section2 we describe the basic features of the jet- 2019). There are different classifications of the hetero- powered ILOT scenario and apply it in a simple way geneous class of transients, like the one by Kashi & to the ILOTs SNhunt120 and AT 2014ej. In section3 Soker(2016) 1, the one by Pastorello et al.(2019) and we build a more sophisticated toy model to describe the Pastorello & Fraser(2019), and also by Jencson et al. jet-powered ILOT scenario and apply it to these two (2019). Some refer to transients from stellar merger by ILOTs. We summarise in section4. LRNe and to outbursts that involve a massive giant star by intermediate luminosity red transients (ILRTs). We 2. THE JET-POWERED ILOT SCENARIO simply refer to all transients that are powered by gravi- 2.1. Features of the spherical shell model tational energy of mass transfer (or merger), the HAPI The basic flow structure of the jet-powered ILOT sce- model, as ILOTs. This saves us the need to classify nario is as follows (Soker 2020a). A binary interaction a specific event by its unknown progenitors. We are leads to the ejection of a shell, spherical or not, at veloc- mainly interested in the roles of jets, that might play a ities of tens to hundreds of km s−1. The shell ejection role in all types of ILOTs (although not in all ILOTs). period can last from few weeks to several years. In a de- Two recent studies of two ILOTs support two crucial lay of about days to several months (or even a few years) ingredients of the jet-powered ILOT scenario. Blagorod- the binary system launches two opposite jets. The jets nova et al.(2020) study the ILOT M31-LRN-2015 that is collide with the shell, an interaction that converts ki- possibly a merger remnant (some earlier studies related netic energy, mainly of the jets, to radiation. to this ILOT include Williams et al. 2015; Lipunov et There are two types of evolutionary channels to launch jets. (1) The more compact secondary star accretes mass 1 See http://physics.technion.ac.il/∼ILOT/ for an updated list. from the primary star and launches the jets, as in the jet-powered ILOT scenario of the Great Eruption of Eta 3

Carinae (e.g., Soker 2007; Kashi & Soker 2010a). The be binary stellar system might stay detached, might expe- −1  rs   vj  rience the grazing envelope evolution, and/or enters a texp ≈73 1014 cm 1000 km s−1 common envelope evolution. In this case the binary sys- (3)  M −1/2 tems might experience several jets-launching episodes. × 2j days, (2) The primary star gravitationally destroys the sec- 0.1(M2j + Ms) ondary star to form an accretion disk around the pri- and mary star, and this accretion disk launches the jets. In     this case there is one jets-launching episode, although 3τ∆rs Ms κ tdiff ' ' 55 2 −1 the jets’ intensity can very with time. c 1M 0.1 cm g (4) −1   Soker(2020a) obtains the following approximate rela-  rs  ∆rs × 14 days, tions for jets that interact with a slower spherically sym- 10 cm 0.3rs metric shell and power an ILOT. We refer to this model as the spherical shell model. Soker(2020a) considers where τ = ρsκ∆rs is the optical depth of the shell, κ is jets-shell interaction that (1) transfers a large fraction the opacity, and c is the light speed. The relevant ratio of the kinetic energy of the outflow to radiation, and (2) to substitute in equation (2) is radiates much more energy than what recombination of     tdiff Ms κ  vj  the outflowing gas can supply. Soker(2020a) considers ≈ 0.75 2 −1 −1 texp 1M 0.1 cm g 1000 km s two opposite fast jets that hit a uniform spherical shell (5) −2    1/2 and accelerate the entire shell. In section3 we build a  rs  ∆rs M2j × 14 . toy model where the jets penetrate into the shell and in- 10 cm 0.3rs 0.1(M2j + Ms) teract with shell’s material only in the polar directions. We emphasise that we do not assume any value for the In the simple flow structure that Soker(2020a) con- jets’ energy E . We rather take the jets’ velocity from siders the relevant properties of the jets are their half 2j observations, and use the time scale of the ILOT to- opening angle α 10◦, velocity v ≈ 103 km s−1, and j & j gether with an assumed opacity to find the mass in the their total mass M ≈ 0.01 − 1M . With a conversion 2j shell (equation4). We then calculate the efficiency f efficiency of jets’ kinetic energy to radiation f , the rad rad together with the mass in the jets (or their energy) to total energy in radiation is fit the total radiated energy (equations2 and5). Soker(2020a) applies this spherical shell model of the   2 48 M2j  vj  jet-powered ILOT radiation to the ILOT (LRN) V838 Erad,j = 10 frad −1 erg. (1) 0.1M 1000 km s Mon, to the Great Eruption of Eta Carinae which is an LBV, and to the ILOT V4332 Sgr. He could find plau- The relevant properties of the spherical shell are its ve- sible set of shell and jets parameters that might explain these ILOTs. Here we apply the spherical shell model to locity vs  vj, mass Ms, radius rs, and width ∆rs. The jet-shell interaction converts kinetic energy, the ILOT (ILRT) SNhunt120 and to the ILOT (LRN) mainly of the jets, to thermal energy. The hot bub- AT 2014ej. We summarise the plausible physical pa- bles that the jets inflate lose their energy adiabatically rameters of the ILOT events in Table1, and explain by accelerating the shell and non-adiabatically by radi- their derivation in sections 2.2 and 2.3. We empha- ation. The adiabatic cooling proceeds on a typical time sise that due to the very simple model we apply here, e.g., we use a spherical shell and we keep the opacity scale that is the expansion time texp, while energy losses to radiation occurs during a typical photon-diffusion and shell thickness constant, the properties of the jets and shells we derive are very crude, and might even not time out tdiff . Namely, the relative rates, E/E˙ , of adi- −1 −1 be unique. Nonetheless, they demonstrate the potential abatic and radiative energy losses are texp and tdiff , respectively. This implies that the fraction of energy of the jet-powered ILOT scenario to account for many that ends in radiation is ILOTs. The opacity of a fully ionised gas that is appro- priate for ILOTs is κ ' 0.3 cm2 g−1 (e.g., Ivanova et al. 2013; Soker & Kashi 2016). We expect that in the t−1  t −1 f ' diff = 1 + diff . (2) outer parts of the shell hydrogen is partially neutral, and rad −1 −1 t tdiff + texp exp that opacity is therefore lower. Therefore, we scale with κ = 0.1 cm2 g−1. For the simple spherically symmetric geometry he as- sumes, Soker(2020a) estimates the two time scales to 2.2. The ILOT SNhunt120 4

Property SNhunt120 AT 2014ej AT 2014ej energy, we find from equation (1) that the mass in the 1stp 2ndp −1 −2 two jets is M2j ≈ 0.045M (vj/1000 km s ) . [O] Radiated energy 4 × 1047 1048 1.4 × 1048 In this analysis there is no reference to the shell Erad (erg) (assumed) velocity, beside that it should be much lower than [O] Time scale 10-20 ≈ 20 40 −1 the jets’ velocity. This implies here 100 km s . (days) −1 vs 500 km s . To reach a distance of rs = 2 × [O] Photosphere 2 × 1014 2.5 × 1014 2.5 × 1014 . 1014 the binary system ejected the shell about ∆t ' R (cm) s BB −1 −1 0.6(vs/100 km s ) yr before detection. The kinetic [J] Shell mass 0.7 1.5 1.5 energy in the shell for these parameters of M ' 0.7M M (M ) s s and v ' 100 km s−1 is about 15% of the jets’ energy. [J] Jets’ mass 0.045 0.1 0.15 s In any case, most of the kientic enrgy of the shell does M2j(M ) [J] Jets’ Energy 4.5 × 1047 1.1 × 1048 1.6 × 1048 not convert to radiation.

E2j (erg) In case that the secondary star launches the jets with [J] Emission efficiency 0.9 0.9 0.9 a mass of M2j ' 0.045M , it should accrete a mass of

frad Macc,2 ' 0.45M from a more evolved primary star, possibly a giant. This implies that the secondary star Table 1. Summary of plausible approximate values of pa- should be a massive star itself. We are therefore consid- rameters in the spherical-shell ILOT model of Soker(2020a) ering a massive binary system. Alternatively, it is pos- for the ILOTs SNhunt120 and AT 2014ej. We assume that AT 2014ej was powered by two jet-launching episodes, each sible that the primary star destroyed the secondary star accounting for one of the two peaks in the light curve. The of mass M2 ' 0.3 − 1M to form an accretion disk that symbol ‘[O]’ in the first column implies a quantity we take launched the jets. The primary is then a massive main from observations, while ‘[J]’ indicates that we derive the sequence star, and the secondary is not yet settled on plausible parameter. We derive these parameters under the the main sequence, such that its average density is lower 2 −1 assumption of a constant opacity of κ = 0.1 cm g and a than that of the primary star (as in the merger model constant shell width of ∆rs = 0.3rs. In both ILOTs observa- −1 of V838 Mon; Tylenda & Soker 2006). In any case, the tion suggest jets’ velocity of vj ' 1000 kms which we also use here. primary star mass can be in the range of M1 ≈ 10M , similar to the range that Stritzinger et al.(2020b) con- sider. Since there is only one jets-launching episode, the Stritzinger et al.(2020b) study the ILOT (ILRT) jet-powered ILOT scenario does not directly refer in the SNhunt120 and find the following relevant properties. case of SNhunt120 to the question of which of these two The velocities of different emission lines are in the evolutionary routes apply here. range of ' 300 − 1800 km s−1, with a typical veloc- ity of ≈ 103 km s−1. The typical photospheric radius 14 is RBB ' 2 × 10 cm. The time to double the luminos- 2.3. The ILOT AT 2014ej ity at rise is about 10 days, and the decline time to half the maximum luminosity is about 20 days. The total Stritzinger et al.(2020a) study the ILOT (LRN) 47 AT 2014ej. They find that the light curve of models energy in radiation is Erad ' 4 × 10 erg. Stritzinger et al.(2020b) further find that existing electron capture of equatorial collision (Metzger & Pejcha 2017; section supernova models over-predict the energy in radiation. 1), under-predict the luminosity. We therefore consider We do not consider this event to be a supernova, but powering by jets, i.e., polar collision. rather an ILOT. Stritzinger et al.(2020a) find that AT 2014ej has slow −1 Following these parameters we scale the parameters component(s) moving at ≈ 100 km s and fast com- −1 −1 ponent(s) moving at ≈ 1000 km s . The total ra- for SNhunt120 with vj ' 1000 km s and rs ' 2 × 48 1014 cm. To get a photon diffusion time of about the diated energy is Erad ≈ 2 × 10 erg, with two large decline time of 20 days, we find from equation (4) for κ = peaks in the light curve. From discovery to first mini- 2 −1 mum 20 days later, the luminosity decreased from L0 = 0.1 cm g and ∆rs = 0.3rs that Ms ≈ 0.7M . For 41 −1 41 −1 an opacity of κ = 0.3 cm2 g−1 and somewhat a thicker 3.2 × 10 erg s to Lmin,1 = 1.2 × 10 erg s . Over the next 35 days the luminosity increased to LAT ≡ shell with ∆rs = 0.5Rs, the required shell mass is only 41 −1 Lpeak,2 ' 2.6 × 10 erg s , after which the luminos- Ms ≈ 0.15M ity decreased over a time scale of several weeks. The Equation (5) gives then tdiff /texp ≈ 0.1, and from photosphere was hotter in the first peak than in the sec- equation (2) frad ' 0.9. To account for the emitted ond one. The photosphere (black body surface) moder- ately followed the behavior of the luminosity, and first 5 declined somewhat and then increased somewhat. Its jet-ejecta interaction in core collapse supernova see the 14 approximate average value is RBB ' 2.5 × 10 cm. three-dimensional simulations of Akashi & Soker 2020). In the jet-powered ILOT scenario such multiple-peaks In the cocoon toy model we only calculate the timescale can be accounted for by multiple jet-launching episodes. of the emission peak (eruption) and its maximum lumi- From Stritzinger et al.(2020a) we find that the radiated nosity (or total energy). We do not calculate the shape energy from detection to first minimum (0 to 20 days) of the light curve, but rather assume a simple shape for is ' 4 × 1047 erg. If we take a similar energy at rise, the light curve. We then calculate the total radiated 48 the energy in the first peak is Erad,1p ≈ 10 erg. The energy by integrating the luminosity over time. energy in the second peak, from 20 to about 95 days, is We assume that each mini-explosion that results from 48 Erad,2p ≈ 1.4×10 erg. The outburst of V838 Mon has jet-shell interaction is spherically symmetric around the a similar qualitative behavior with three peaks and three jet-shell interaction point (Akashi & Soker 2020), and declines in the photospheric radius (Tylenda 2005). that cooling is due to photon diffusion and adiabatic ex- In AT 2014ej the two peaks have about the same en- pansion. These assumptions allow us to determine the ergy (under our assumption), but the second peak is luminosity and the time scale of each mini-explosion. slower by a factor of about two. From equation (4) the As we deal with ILOTs where the total radiated energy mass in the shell should be larger in the second peak by is larger than the recombination energy of the outflow- a factor of two, ' 2M instead of ' 1M . We do not ing gas, we neglect the recombination energy. Like Ka- expect the system to lose much more slow mass in that plan & Soker(2020) we use equations (4) from Kasen short time. The difference in the time scales of the two & Woosley(2009) to calculate the time of maximum lu- peaks might come from different values of κ and/or ∆rs minosity tj and the maximum luminosity Lj for one jet. between the two peaks, rather than from different shell These expressions read masses. This can also be accompanied by precessing  1/2 jets, i.e., the jets’ axes in the two jet-launching episodes 3 −1/4 3/4 t = E M κ1/2, j 5/2 2 j js c have different directions. In the present study we use a 2 π c (6) simple model and do not calculate the opacity, and so 2πc −1 −1 Lj = sin αj β Mjs Ejκc RBB, we simply take for both peaks Ms ' 1.5M . 3 From the equations of section 2.1 we derive the crude where E , M , κ , α , β and R are the energy that plausible values of the shell mass, jets’ energy, and emis- j js c j BB one jet deposits into the shell, the mass in the interaction sion efficiency for the two peaks, as we list in Table1. region of one jet with the shell, the opacity in the cocoon, According to the jet-powered ILOT scenario the the half opening angle of the jet, the distance of the jet- two distinguished peaks result from two jets-launching ejecta interaction relative to the shell’s outer edge (the episode. This suggests that the secondary star, possi- photosphere radius R ), and the photospheric radius of bly in an eccentric orbit, accreted mass and launches BB the shell, respectively. Namely, in this model the mini the jets. Most likely, the secondary star survived the explosion takes place at a radius (measured from the interaction. center of the binary system) of rme = βRBB. There is 3. A BIPOLAR TOY-MODEL one mini-explosion on each of the two polar regions. The value of rme is constant and does not change with time. 3.1. The cocoon toy-model What increases with time is the radius of the cocoon In the simple spherical-shell model that we apply in itself, ac, that is measured from the place of the mini section2 the jets interact with the entire shell (Soker explosion. 2020a). We now turn to a more realistic toy model where We build the light curve of the jet as follows. We as- the jets interact only with the shell segments along the sume that the shape of the rise of the peak to maximum polar directions. In this ‘cocoon toy model’ the jet-shell luminosity is similar to the rise to maximum of the light interaction inflates a ‘cocoon’, i.e., a relatively hot bub- curve of a core collapse supernova (based on photomet- ble composed of the post-shock shell material and post- ric data of SN 2008ax, taken from The Open Supernova shock jet’s material. We further simplify the interac- Catalog Guillochon et al. 2017). Since the light curve tion by assuming that the jets’ activity time period is of the jet does not have a tail powered by radioactive short, such that we can treat the jet-shell interaction processes and recombination, we take the decline of the that creates the cocoon as a ‘mini explosion’. We base mini-explosion from maximum to be symmetric to its the cocoon toy model on our usage of this model to rise. Again, we do not try to fit the light curve. We account for peaks in the light curves of core collapse su- rather only derive the properties of the jets that might pernovae (Kaplan & Soker 2020; for the geometry of a lead to an event that has the same timescale, luminosity 6 and radiated energy. We assume a light curve, but our 40 results are not sensitive to the exact shape of the light 10 15 curve we assume. We turn to estimate the jets’ properties that according to the cocoon toy model might fit the eruption times and luminosities of the ILOTs SNhunt120 (section 3.2) and 10 AT 2014ej (section 3.3).

3.2. The cocoon toy model fit of SNhunt120 First we extend the observed light curve of SNhunt120 5 (Stritzinger et al. 2020b; thick-red line in Fig.1) by tak- [erg/s] Luminosity ing a linear fit before discovery and beyond t = 30 days after discovery, in both sides down to L = 0. This is the solid-blue line in Fig.1. The observed light curve of 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 this ILOT has a break at about 40 days post-discovery, time [s] where the decline becomes shallower. This might re- sult from a second and weaker jet-launching episode or Figure 1. The light curve of SNhunt120 (thick-red line) from matter collision in the equatorial plane. We are from Stritzinger et al.(2020b), our extension of the peak of interested here only in the light curve around the max- light curve (blue line), and a light curve of the cocoon toy imum, so we continue the steep decline beyond 30 days model (green line for case 1). We constrain the green light post-discovery down to L = 0. We then find the radi- curve to fit the total radiated energy of the peak Erad,hunt = 47 ated energy of SNhunt120 of our fit to the peak to be 3.8 × 10 erg and its maximum luminosity Lhunt = 1.4 × 47 41 −1 Erad,hunt = 3.8 × 10 erg. As we explained in section 10 erg s . The parameters of this fit (Case 1) are the 3.1, we then build a toy-model symmetric light curve opacity κc, the jets’ half opening angle αj, and the radius that has the same maximum luminosity as SNhunt120, of the jet-shell interaction region βRBB, where RBB is the 41 −1 photosphere radius. We calculate the values of the combined Lhunt = 1.4 × 10 erg s , and the same total radiated energy of the two jets E2j and the combined masses in the energy. This is the green line in Fig.1 (for Case 1 that jets-shell interaction regions M2js. Note that we do not try to we describe next). fit the shape of the light curves, but rather only try to explain We calculate the energy of one jet Ej and the mass in the amount of radiated energy and maximum luminosity of the region of interaction of one jet with the shell (the co- the peak. coon), Mjs, as follows. We build a symmetric toy model light curve (one example is the green line in Fig.1) that demonstrate the model sensitivity to opacity. The rel- is characterised by its maximum luminosity Lj and by evant scaling of equations (6) for SNhunt120, (for one its timescale from start to maximum tj by equations (6). jet) read We then calculate the total radiated energy according to  −1/4 this light curve (area under the green light curve). We Ej t = 22.7 iterate the values of E and M until we obtain the lu- j 2 × 1047 erg j js (7) minosity due to the two jets together of L2j = Lhunt =  M 3/4  κ 1/2 41 −1 js c 1.4 × 10 erg s , and the total radiated energy from × 2 −1 d, 47 0.1M 0.1 cm g the two jets is Erad,2j = Erad,hunt = 3.8 × 10 erg. We note that the cocoon toy model is not sensitive to the and expansion velocities of the shell and of the jets, as long sin α   β  as the v  v . L = 7.3 × 1040 j j s j 0.87 0.7 We do not vary the values of the photosphere radius 14  −3/2  3/2 R = 2 × 10 cm that we take from Stritzinger et Mjs Ej BB (8) × 47 al.(2020b), and of β = 0.7 in equations (6). We do 0.1M 2 × 10 erg vary the values of the jet’s half opening angle αj and  −1   κc RBB of the opacity κ . We continue with the wide jets that × erg s−1. c 0.1 cm2 g−1 2 × 1014 cm we discussed in section2(Soker 2020a) and scale with ◦ αj = 60 , but we consider narrower jets as well. We As with the spherical shell model, we do not assume the 2 −1 scale the opacity with κc = 0.1 cm g but exam- energy of the jets. The input variables to the fitting pro- 2 −1 2 −1 ine also κc = 0.05 cm g and κc = 0.3 cm g to cess are the light curve, the half opening angle of the jets, 7 the opacity, and the values of β and sin αj. We take the nary system of this ILOT might have a combined mass radius of the continuum black body photosphere from of M1 + M2 ≈ 10M . observations. We then substitute in equations (9) and 3.3. The cocoon toy model fit of AT 2014ej (10) the observed ILOT’s (or one peak of the ILOT) Because at discovery AT 2014ej was already in its de- duration tj and the energy radiated from one jet-shell cline from the first peak in its light curve, we try to interaction Lj, and solve for the one jet’s energy Ej and fit the maximum luminosity and the radiated energy the mass of the shell that one jet interacts with Mjs. In Table2 we present six sets of values in the cocoon of the second peak only. In Fig.2 we plot by the toy model for SNhunt120. We emphasise that we do not thick-red line the black-body light curve of AT 2014ej try to fit the shape of the light curves, and only try to as Stritzinger et al.(2020a) estimate (their figure 4). explain the amount of radiated energy, the timescale, The maximum luminosity of the second peak is LAT = 41 −1 and the maximum luminosity of the peak. In Fig.1 we 2.6 × 10 erg s . In our cocoon toy model this value 41 −1 show by the green line Case 1. implies Lj = L2j/2 = LAT/2 = 1.3 × 10 erg s . We examine only the time near maximum luminosity before

Case κc αj E2j M2js frad the break around t ' 70 days. We therefore extend the 2 −1 47 (cm g ) (10 erg) (M ) black-body light curve near maximum (solid-blue line in Fig.2) by taking a linear fit before t = 42 days 1 0.1 60◦ 4.1 0.21 0.93 ◦ and beyond t = 67 days after discovery, in both sides 2 0.3 60 7.2 0.13 0.53 41 ◦ down to LAT = 1.2 × 10 , which is the minimum in 3 0.05 40 4.6 0.36 0.83 the light curve between the two peaks. We find that ◦ 4 0.1 40 6.4 0.25 0.59 the total energy that this ILOT radiated in its second ◦ 5 0.3 40 11.4 0.15 0.33 peak according to our fit (solid-blue line in Fig.2) is 6 0.1 30◦ 9.6 0.29 0.4 48 Erad,AT = 1.1 × 10 erg. We note that in section 2.3 Table 2. Six different sets of parameters that fit the peak where we apply the spherical shell model we include the of the light curve and the total radiated energy of the ILOT ‘hump’ at t ' 90 days, and therefore the radiated en- SNhunt120 in the frame of the cocoon toy model. The opac- ergy is somewhat larger. The hump can result from a ity κc and the jets’ half opening angle αj are input param- weak third jet-launching episode or from mass collision eters of the modelling. Other parameters are as in equa- in the equatorial plane. tions (7) and (8). We calculate from these equations (see We recall that our cocoon toy model does not fit a text) the combined energy of the two jets E2j and the com- bined mass in the interaction regions of the two jets with the light curve, but rather fit only the maximum luminos- shell M2js. In the last column we list the emission efficiency ity and total radiated energy (or timescale). We rather frad = Erad/E2j. assume a symmetric light curve (green line in Fig.2 for Case 1). We proceed as in section 3.2 and solve it- erativelly equations (6) for several combinations of the The energy of the jets and the mass they interact with input parameters αj and κc. We can scale equations (6) vary between the cases. The energy range is E2j ' 4 × with typical values for AT 2014ej (Case 1). The scaled 47 47 10 erg − 11 × 10 erg. In the spherical-shell model of equations read section 2.2 the jets’ energy is 4.5 × 1047 erg. From the  −1/4 cases of tables1 and2 we crudely take the jets’ energy Ej tj = 31 47 1.14 × 1048 erg for this ILOT to be E2j(SNhunt120) ' 5 × 10 erg. (9)  3/4  1/2 In the cocoon toy model the jets interact with a Mjs κc fraction of the shell. After the ‘mini-explosion’ the × 2 −1 d, 0.46M 0.1 cm g assumed spherical interaction zone (cocoon) expands and from its initial cocoon-radius a = sin α βR to c,0 j BB     larger radii. The mass in the interaction zone is then 40 sin αj β Lj = 6.9 × 10 M2js > (1 − cos αj)Ms. Namely, the shell mass is 0.5 0.7 −3/2 3/2 Ms < M2js/(1 − cos αj). From Table2 we find the shell  M   E  × js j (10) masses of the different cases to be Ms(Case2) < 0.3M 48 0.46M 1.14 × 10 erg to Ms(Case6) < 2.2M . In the spherical shell model  −1   κc RBB −1 the shell mass is 0.7M (table1). We crudely take for × erg s . 0.1 cm2 g−1 2.5 × 1014 cm this ILOT Ms(SNhunt120) ' 0.5 − 1M , but we note that the model can accommodate somewhat lower shell We examine four cases with different values of αj and masses. As we discussed in section 2.2 the progenitor bi- κc that we summarise in Table3. 8

1.5M . We take the slow shell mass for this ILOT to 1041 3 crudely be Ms(AT 2014ej) ≈ 1 − 2M . If this shell mass holds, then the progenitor binary system of this ILOT cannot be a low mass system, and requires the 2.5 combined mass to be M1 + M2 > 5M , and more likely M1 + M2 & 10M .

2 4. SUMMARY We apply the jet-power ILOT scenario to two recently studied ILOTs, SNhunt120 (Stritzinger et al. 2020b) and Luminosity [erg/s] Luminosity 1.5 AT 2014ej (Stritzinger et al. 2020a). In section2 we apply the spherical shell model (Soker 2020a), and in section3 we apply the cocoon toy model that we have 1 used to explain some peaks in the light curve of core col- 0 20 40 60 80 100 lapse supernovae (Kaplan & Soker 2020). In both these time [s] models of the jet-power ILOT scenario fast jets catch up with a slower and older shell and collide with it. The Figure 2. Similar to Fig.1 but for AT 2014ej. We show collision converts kinetic energy to thermal energy. The the light curve of AT 2014ej (thick-red line; from Stritzinger et al. 2020a), our fit to the light curve of the second peak post-shock shell and jets gases form a hot bubble, the of AT 2014ej (blue line), and the assumed light curve of the cocoon. The cocoon cools by photon diffusion that turns cocoon toy model (green line). We fit the radiated energy of to radiation, and by adiabatic expansion. The competi- 48 the second peak Erad,AT = 1.1 × 10 erg and the maximum tion between these processes determine the efficiency of 41 −1 luminosity LAT = 2.6 × 10 erg s . The relevant scaled- converting kinetic energy, mainly of the jets, to radia- equations are (9) and (10). tion. These two models are very crude because we neither conduct hydrodynamic simulations of the interaction Case κc αj E2j M2js frad nor radiative transfer calculations. As well, we take 2 −1 48 (cm g ) (10 erg) (M ) some parameters to have constant values, in particular 1 0.1 30◦ 1.14 0.46 0.96 the opacity. Even if one does conduct these numerical 2 0.3 30◦ 1.8 0.24 0.61 calculations, the parameter space of the model is very 3 0.1 20◦ 1.8 0.49 0.61 large. Namely, we have no knowledge of the properties 4 0.3 20◦ 3 0.28 0.37 of the shell and of the jets, in particular the distribu- tion of the momentum flux of the shell and of the jets Table 3. Similar to Table2 but for the second peak of the with direction and time. Nonetheless, we did reach our ILOT AT 2014ej (Fig.2), and with the scaling of equations (9) and (10). main goal, which is to show that the jet-powered ILOT scenario can account for these two ILOTs. We found the following properties of the jet-powered We find that we can better fit the second peak in the ILOT scenario for these ILOTs. For SNhunt120 (Ta- light curve of AT 2014ej with moderately wide jets αj ' ble2) we found that we need to use moderately-wide, ◦ ◦ ◦ 20 − 30 . Fitting with wide jets do not give acceptable αj ' 30 , to wide, αj ' 60 , jets. For wider jets the as- results. For the parameters we list in Table3 the jets’ sumptions of the model break (like that the cocoon has 48 48 energies range is E2j ' 1.14 × 10 − 3 × 10 erg. In time to expand), and for narrower jets the shell becomes the spherical shell model for the second peak we found too massive. The typical jets’ energy that might explain 48 47 this energy to be 1.6 × 10 erg (Table1). We take the peak of SNhunt120 is E2j(SNhunt120) ' 5×10 erg −1 the jets’ energy for this ILOT to be E2j(AT 2014ej) ≈ (Tables1 and2). For jets’ velocity of vj = 1000 km s 48 −1 1.5 × 10 erg. For jets’ velocity of vj = 1000 km s the mass in the jets is then M2j ' 0.05M . The the mass in the jets is then M2j ' 0.15M . mass of the shell is less certain, and it is sensitive to We proceed as in section 3.2 to put an upper limit the parameters of the models. We crudely estimated on the shell mass Ms < M2js/(1 − cos αj). We calculate Ms(SNhunt120) ' 0.5 − 1M . from Table3 Ms < 2M , 1M , 3.7M , 1.2M for Cases For the second peak of AT 2014ej we had to use 1, 2, 3, 4 respectively. In the spherical shell model we moderately wide jets (Table3). The jets’ energy is 48 crudely estimate (Table1) the shell mass to be Ms ≈ E2j(AT 2014ej) ≈ 1.5 × 10 erg (Tables1 and3). For 9

−1 jets’ velocity of vj = 1000 km s the mass in the Future studies should include more accurate numeri- jets is then M2j ' 0.15M . We crudely estimated cal simulations of the jet-shell interaction and of radia- Ms(AT 2014ej) ≈ 1 − 2M . tive transfer. A parallel line of studies should examine To launch jets with a mass of ' 0.1M the star that which type of binary systems can lead to such high mass launches the jets should accrete Macc ' 10M2j ' 1M . transfer and mass loss rates. An example for such a case is a very young massive star of ≈ 10M that tidally destroys a pre-main sequence ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS star of ' M and accretes most of its mass. This high We thank Ari Laor for useful discussions and Amit value of accreted mass and the massive shell Ms ≈ 1M , Kashi and an anonymous referee for helpful comments. suggest that the binary system progenitors of these two This research was supported by a grant from the Israel ILOTs are massive, namely M1 + M2 & 10M . Science Foundation (420/16 and 769/20) and a grant from the Asher Space Research Fund at the Technion.

REFERENCES

Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2020, arXiv e-prints, Kashi, A., Frankowski, A., & Soker, N. 2010, ApJL, 709, arXiv:2006.01717 L11 Bear, E., Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1965 Kashi, A., Michaelis, A. M., & Feigin, L. 2019, , 8, Berger, E., Soderberg, A. M., Chevalier, R. A., et al. 2009, 2 ApJ, 699, 1850 Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2010a, ApJ, 723, 602 Blagorodnova, N., Karambelkar, V., Adams, S. M., et al. Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2016, Research in Astronomy and 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.04757 Astrophysics, 16, 99 Blagorodnova, N., Kotak, R., Polshaw, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4938 834, 107 Kasliwal, M. M. 2011, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society Boian, I., & Groh, J. H. 2019, A&A, 621, A109. of India, 39, 375 Bond, H. E., Henden, A., Levay, Z. G., et al. 2003, Nature, Kasliwal, M. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, 422, 405 ApJ, 755, 161 Cai, Y.-Z., Pastorello, A., Fraser, M., et al. 2019, A&A, Klencki, J., Nelemans, G., Istrate, A. G., & Chruslinska, 632, L6 M., 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.11286 Davidson, K., & Humphreys, R. M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 1 Lipunov, V. M., Blinnikov, S., Gorbovskoy, E., et al. 2017, Gilkis, A., Soker, N., & Kashi, A. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4233 MNRAS, 470, 2339 Guillochon, J., Parrent, J., Kelley, L. Z., et al. 2017, ApJ, L´opez-C´amara,D., Moreno M´endez,E., & De Colle, F. 835, 64 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2057 Howitt, G., Stevenson, S., Vigna-G´omez,A., et al. 2020, MacLeod, M., & Loeb, A. 2020, arXiv:2003.01123 MNRAS, 492, 3229 MacLeod, M., Macias, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Grindlay, J., Hubov´a,D., & Pejcha, O. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 891 Batta, A., & Montes, G. 2017, ApJ, 835, 282 Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Avendano Nandez, J. L., & MacLeod, M., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M. 2018, ApJ, Lombardi, J. C. 2013, Science, 339, 433 868, 136. Jencson, J. E., Kasliwal, M. M., Adams, S. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 40 Mason, E., Diaz, M., Williams, R. E., Preston, G., & Jones, D. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.03337 Bensby, T. 2010, A&A, 516, A108 Kami´nski,T., Mason, E., Tylenda, R., & Schmidt, M. R. Mcley, L., & Soker, N. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 582 2015, A&A, 580, A34 Metzger, B. D., & Pejcha, O. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3200 Kaminski, T., Menten, K. M., Tylenda, R., et al. 2020, Michaelis, A. M., Kashi, A., & Kochiashvili, N. 2018, arXiv:2006.10471 NewA, 65, 29 Kaminski, T., Steffen, W., Bujarrabal, V., Tylenda, R., Mould, J., Cohen, J., Graham, J. R., et al. 1990, ApJL, Menten, K. M., & Hajduk, M. 2021, arXiv:2010.05832 353, L35 Kaminski, T., Steffen, W., Tylenda, R., Young, K. H., Munari, U., Henden, A., Kiyota, S., et al. 2002, A&A, 389, Patel, N. A., & Menten, K. M. 2018, A&A, 617, A129 L51 Kaplan, N., & Soker, N. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3013 Muthukrishna, D., Narayan, G., Mandel, K. S., Biswas, R., Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2205. & Hloˇzek,R. 2019, PASP, 131, 118002 10

Nandez, J. L. A., Ivanova, N., & Lombardi, J. C., Jr. 2014, Soker, N. 2007, ApJ, 661, 490 ApJ, 786, 39 Soker, N. 2016, NewA, 47, 16 Ofek, E. O., Kulkarni, S. R., Rau, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, Soker, N. 2020a, ApJ, 893, 20 447 Soker, N. 2020b, Galaxies, 8, 26 Pastorello, A., & Fraser, M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 676 Soker, N., & Gilkis, A. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1198 Pastorello, A., Kochanek, C. S., Fraser, M., et al. 2018, Soker, N., & Kashi, A. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 217 MNRAS, 474, 197 Soker, N., & Tylenda, R. 2003, ApJL, 582, L105 Pastorello, A., Mason, E., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2019, Stritzinger, M. D., Taddia, F., Fraser, M., et al. 2020a, A&A, 630, A75 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.00076 Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., & Tomida, K. 2016a, MNRAS, Stritzinger, M. D., Taddia, F., Fraser, M., et al. 2020b, 455, 4351 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.00319 Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., & Tomida, K. 2016b, MNRAS, Tylenda, R. 2005, A&A, 436, 1009 461, 2527 Tylenda, R., Hajduk, M., Kami´nski,T., et al. 2011, A&A, Rau, A., Kulkarni, S. R., Ofek, E. O., & Yan, L. 2007, ApJ, 528, A114 659, 1536 Tylenda, R., Kami´nski,T., Udalski, A., et al. 2013, A&A, Retter, A., & Marom, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, L25 555, A16 Schrøder, S. L., MacLeod, M., Loeb, A., Vigna-G´omez,A., Tylenda, R., & Soker, N. 2006, A&A, 451, 223 & Mandel, I. 2020, arXiv:1906.04189 Williams, S. C., Darnley, M. J., Bode, M. F., & Steele, Segev, R., Sabach, E., & Soker, N. 2019, ApJ, 884, 58 I. A., 2015, ApJL, 805, L18 Shara, M. M., Moffat, A. F. J., & Webbink, R. F. 1985, Yalinewich, A., & Matzner, C. D. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 312 ApJ, 294, 271