Maoz_2010_ApJ_722_1879

The Astrophysical Journal, 722:1879–1894, 2010 October 20 doi:10.
1088/0004-637X/722/2/1879

C 2010. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
THE SUPERNOVA DELAY TIME DISTRIBUTION IN GALAXY CLUSTERS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
TYPE-Ia PROGENITORS AND METAL ENRICHMENT∗
Dan Maoz1 , Keren Sharon2 , and Avishay Gal-Yam3
1
School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
2Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
3 Benoziyo Center for Astrophysics, Faculty of Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
Received 2010 June 17; accepted 2010 August 23; published 2010 October 5
ABSTRACT
Knowledge of the supernova (SN) delay time distribution (DTD)—the SN rate versus time that would follow a
hypothetical brief burst of star formation—can shed light on SN progenitors and physics, as well as on the timescales
of chemical enrichment in different environments. We compile recent measurements of the Type-Ia SN (SN Ia)
rate in galaxy clusters at redshifts from z = 0 out to z = 1.45, just 2 Gyr after cluster star formation at z ≈ 3. We
review the plausible range for the observed total iron-to-stellar mass ratio in clusters, based on the latest data and
analyses, and use it to constrain the time-integrated number of SN Ia events in clusters. With these data, we recover
the DTD of SNe Ia in cluster environments. The DTD is sharply peaked at the shortest time-delay interval we probe,
0 Gyr < t < 2.2 Gyr, with a low tail out to delays of ∼10 Gyr, and is remarkably consistent with several recent
DTD reconstructions based on different methods, applied to different environments. We test DTD models from the
literature, requiring that they simultaneously reproduce the observed cluster SN rates and the observed iron-to-stellar
mass ratios. A parameterized power-law DTD of the form t −1.2±0.3 from t = 400 Myr to a Hubble time can satisfy
both constraints. Shallower power laws such as t −1/2 cannot, assuming a single DTD, and a single star formation burst
(either brief or extended) at high z. This implies that 50%–85% of SNe Ia explode within 1 Gyr of star formation.
DTDs from double-degenerate (DD) models, which generically have ∼t −1 shapes over a wide range of timescales,
match the data, but only if their predictions are scaled up by factors of 5–10. Single-degenerate (SD) DTDs always
give poor fits to the data, due to a lack of delayed SNe and overall low numbers of SNe. The observations can also be
reproduced with a combination of two SN Ia populations—a prompt SD population of SNe Ia that explodes within a
few Gyr of star formation, and produces about 60% of the iron mass in clusters, and a DD population that contributes
the events seen at z < 1.5. An alternative scenario of a single, prompt, SN Ia population, but a composite star
formation history in clusters, consisting of a burst at high z, followed by a constant star formation rate, can reproduce
the SN rates, but is at odds with direct measurements of star formation in clusters at 0 < z < 1. Our results support
the existence of a DD progenitor channel for SNe Ia, if the overall predicted numbers can be suitably increased.
Key words: galaxies: clusters: general – supernovae: general
1. INTRODUCTION Iben 1973), a WD grows in mass through accretion from a non-

degenerate stellar companion. In the double-degenerate (DD)
Supernovae (SNe) play a central role in astrophysics, not model (Iben & Tutukov 1984; Webbink 1984), two WDs merge
only as distance indicators for cosmology (e.g., Riess et al. after losing energy and angular momentum to gravitational
1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999), but also as prime synthesizers waves. In both scenarios, many question remain regarding the
of heavy elements (e.g., Woosley 2007), sources of kinetic ignition and development of the explosion itself. It is only
energy, and accelerators of cosmic rays (e.g., Helder et al. 2009). recently that the relative and absolute rates of CC SNe and SNe
However, many of the most basic facts about these events are Ia as a function of environment and cosmic time are starting to
still poorly understood. Core-collapse (CC) SNe are descended be measured accurately, and therefore the respective quantity,
from massive stars, roughly in the range 8–50 M (e.g., types, and times of their contributions to metal-enrichment
Gal-Yam & Leonard 2009), but the exact limits are not known, history are still poorly constrained.
neither from theory nor from observation. It is not yet clear A fundamental function that could shed light on all of these
what are the physical parameters (mass, binarity, rotation, issues is the SN delay time distribution (DTD). The DTD
magnetic field, and more) that determine the variety of observed is the hypothetical SN rate versus time that would follow
CC-SN subtypes (IIP, Ib, Ic, IIn, IIL; see Filippenko 1997 for a a brief burst of star formation. The DTD is directly linked
review). Type-Ia SNe (SNe Ia) are linked by indirect evidence to to the lifetimes (i.e., the initial masses) of the progenitors
the thermonuclear detonations of carbon–oxygen white dwarfs and to the binary evolution timescales up to the explosion,
(WDs) whose mass has grown to near the Chandrasekhar limit and therefore different progenitor scenarios predict different
(Hoyle & Fowler 1960). However, competing scenarios exist DTDs. Furthermore, the DTDs of different SN types dictate
for the initial conditions and evolutionary paths that lead to this directly the mix of contributions of different SN types to metal
mass growth. In the single-degenerate (SD) model (Whelan & enrichment throughout cosmic history. Until recently, only few,
and often-contradictory, observational constraints on the DTD
∗ Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope,
existed. One observational approach has been to compare the
obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the SN rate in field galaxies, as a function of redshift, to the
Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA
contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with programs cosmic star formation history (SFH). Given that the DTD is
GO-10493 and GO-10793. the SN “response” to a short burst of star formation, the SN rate
1879
1880 MAOZ, SHARON, & GAL-YAM Vol. 722
versus cosmic time will be the convolution of the full SFH with after >2.4 Gyr. Maoz & Badenes (2010) applied this method
the DTD. Gal-Yam & Maoz (2004) carried out the first such also to a sample of SN remnants in the Magellanic Clouds,
comparison, using a small sample of SNe Ia out to z = 0.8, compiled by Badenes et al. (2010). Treating the remnants as an
and concluded that the results were strongly dependent on the effective SN survey conducted over ∼20 kyr, they also find a
poorly known cosmic SFH, a conclusion echoed by Förster et al. significant detection of a prompt (this time <330 Myr) SN Ia
(2006). component. A related DTD reconstruction method has been
With the availability of SN rate measurements to higher applied by Brandt et al. (2010) to the SNe Ia from the SDSS-II
redshifts, Barris & Tonry (2006) found an SN Ia rate that closely survey. Like Maoz et al. (2010), they detect both a prompt and
tracks the SFH out to z ∼ 1, and concluded that the DTD must be a delayed SN Ia population.
concentrated at short delays, 1 Gyr. Similar conclusions have Yet another approach for recovering the DTD, which is at
been reached, at least out to z ∼ 0.7, by Sullivan et al. (2006). the focus of this paper, is to measure the SN rate versus
In contrast, Dahlen et al. (2004, 2008) and Strolger et al. (2004) redshift in massive galaxy clusters. The deep potential wells
have argued for a DTD that is peaked at a delay of ∼3 Gyr, with of clusters, combined with their relatively simple SFHs, make
little power at short delays, based on a decrease in the SN Ia rate them ideal locations for studying both the DTD and the metal
at z > 1. However, Kuznetsova et al. (2008) have re-analyzed production of SNe. Optical spectroscopy and multiwavelength
some of these data sets and concluded that the small numbers of photometry of cluster galaxies have shown consistently that
SNe and their potential classification errors preclude reaching the bulk of their stars were formed within short episodes
a conclusion. Similarly, Poznanski et al. (2007) performed new (∼100 Myr) at z ∼ 3 (e.g., Daddi et al. 2000; Stanford et al.
measurements of the z > 1 SN Ia rate, and found that, within 2005; Eisenhardt et al. 2008). Thus, the observed SN rate
uncertainties, the SN rate could be tracking the SFH. This, again, versus the elapsed cosmic time since the stellar formation epoch
would imply a short delay time. Greggio et al. (2008) pointed out provides an almost (see Section 5) direct measurement of the
that underestimated extinction of the highest-z SNe, observed form of the DTD. Furthermore, the record of metals stored in
in their rest-frame ultraviolet emission, could be an additional the intracluster medium (ICM) constrains the number of SNe
factor affecting these results. that have exploded, and hence the normalization of the DTD.
A second approach to recovering the DTD has been to com- Renzini et al. (1993) and Renzini (1997) first pointed out that
pare the SN rates in galaxy populations of different character- the large mass of iron in the ICM could not have been produced
istic ages. Using this approach, Mannucci et al. (2005, 2006), solely by CC SNe from a stellar population with a standard initial
Scannapieco & Bildsten (2005), and Sullivan et al. (2006) all mass function (IMF). Either a “top-heavy” IMF or a dominant
found evidence for the co-existence of two SN Ia populations, a contribution by SNe Ia is required. Maoz & Gal-Yam (2004)
“prompt” population that explodes within ∼100–500 Myr, and revisited the problem, and tested the hypothesis that the main
a delayed channel that produces SNe Ia on timescales of order source of iron is SNe Ia. Accounting for the CC SN contribution
5 Gyr. Naturally, these two “channels” may in reality be just to the observed iron mass, they calculated the number of
integrals over a continuous DTD on two sides of some time SNe Ia, per present-day stellar luminosity, needed to have
border (Greggio et al. 2008). Totani et al. (2008) have used a exploded over the entire past history of a cluster, in order to
similar approach to recover the DTD, by comparing SN Ia rates produce the observed iron mass. Finally, they compared some
in early-type galaxies of different characteristic ages, seen at simple theoretical DTDs, normalized to produce this number
z = 0.4–1.2 as part of the Subaru/XMM-Newton Deep Survey of SNe, to the then-available cluster SN Ia rates (Gal-Yam
(SXDS) project. They find a DTD consistent with a t −1 form, et al. 2002; Reiss 2000). The low observed SN Ia rates out
which is roughly generic for DD models (e.g., Greggio 2005; to z ∼ 1 implied that the large number of events, needed to
see Section 5.1). Additional recent attempts to address the issue produce the bulk of the iron, occurred at even higher redshifts,
with the “rate versus age” approach have been made by Aubourg beyond the range of the then-existing observations. Maoz &
et al. (2008), Raskin et al. (2009), Yasuda & Fukugita (2010), Gal-Yam (2004) therefore concluded that SNe Ia can be the
and Cooper et al. (2009). main source of iron only if most of them explode during the
Both of the above approaches involve averaging, and hence relatively brief time interval between star formation in massive
some loss of information. In the first approach, one averages over clusters (at z ∼ 2–3) and the highest-redshift cluster SN rate
large galaxy populations, by associating all of the SNe detected measurements (at z ∼ 1). In other words, the majority of SNe Ia
at a given redshift with all the galaxies of a particular type at (at least those that occur in a galaxy cluster environment) must
that redshift. In the second approach, a characteristic age for a have a short time delay, 2 Gyr.
sample of galaxies replaces the detailed SFH of the individual A shortcoming of the work by Maoz & Gal-Yam (2004)
galaxies in an SN survey. Maoz et al. (2010) recently presented was the paucity and quality of the cluster SN rate data it was
a method for recovering the DTD, which avoids this averaging. based on. The low-z cluster SN rate by Reiss (2000) was never
In the method, the SFH of every individual galaxy, or even published in the refereed literature. The cluster SN rates at
galaxy subunit, is compared to the number of SNe it hosted in z = 0.25–0.9 by Gal-Yam et al. (2002) were based on very
the survey (generally none, sometimes one, rarely more). DTD few events—two or three—discovered in archival Hubble Space
recovery is treated as a linearized inverse problem, which is Telescope (HST) WFPC2 images of clusters. The large Poisson
solved statistically. Maoz et al. (2010) applied the method to a and systematic uncertainties in the resulting rates precluded any
subsample of the galaxies in the Lick Observatory SN Search (A. detailed discrimination among model DTDs.
V. Filippenko et al. 2010, in preparation; Leaman et al. 2010; Li Over the past few years, the observational situation has im-
et al. 2010a, 2010b), having SFH reconstructions by Tojeiro et al. proved dramatically. Accurate cluster SN Ia rates have been
(2009) based on data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; measured in the redshift range of 0–1.5, with smaller errors
York et al. 2000). Maoz et al. (2010) find a significant detection than the previous sole published study at z = 0.25, 0.90 by
of both a prompt SN Ia component, that explodes within 420 Myr Gal-Yam et al. (2002). In this paper, we utilize this wealth of
of star formation, and a delayed SN Ia population that explodes new measurements for a renewed analysis of the cluster SN
No. 2, 2010 SN DTD IN GALAXY CLUSTERS 1881
rate and its implications for the SN Ia DTD and for cluster Table 1
metal-enrichment history. We show that the new data permit a Cluster SN Ia Rates and Delay Time Distribution
direct comparison of the observations with the functional be- Redshift Cosmic Time SN Ia Rate Delay DTD Ref.
havior of various DTDs that have been proposed in the lit- z t RIa (t) τ Ψ(τ )
erature, whether parameterized-mathematical or phenomeno- (Gyr) (SNuM) (Gyr)
logical DTDs, or DTDs resulting from physical considerations (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
at different levels of sophistication. We find that few of these 0.020+0.020
−0.015 13.2+0.2
−0.3 0.066+0.027
−0.020 11.1+0.2
−0.3 3.6+1.5
−1.1 M08
models, in their simplest forms, are compatible with the emerg- 0.084+0.086 12.4+0.6 0.060+0.029 10.3+0.6 3.3+1.6 D10
−0.054 −1.0 −0.021 −1.0 −1.2
ing observational picture, and therefore we have reached the 0.150+0.040 11.6+1.0 0.098+0.068 9.5+1.0 5.5+3.8 S07
−0.090 −0.4 −0.048 −0.4 −2.7
point where the observations discriminate among models. In
0.225+0.075
−0.125 10.8+1.3
−0.7 0.088+0.025
−0.020 8.7+1.3
−0.7 4.9+1.4
−1.1 D10
Section 2, we compile the existing cluster SN Ia measurements.
In Section 3, we review the existing measurements of the prop- 0.250+0.120
−0.070 10.5+0.7
−1.1 0.110+0.160
−0.070 8.4+0.7
−1.1 6.2+9.0
−4.0 GY02
erties of clusters, particularly the gas-to-stellar mass ratio, that 0.460+0.140
−0.260 8.7+2.3
−1.0 0.177+0.212
−0.124 6.6+2.3
−1.0 10.1+12.1
−7.1 G08
are relevant for estimating the present-day cluster iron-to-stellar 0.600+0.290
−0.100 7.8+0.7
−1.5 0.151+0.138
−0.116 5.7+0.7
−1.5 8.7+7.9
−6.6 S10
mass ratio. This ratio, in turn, sets the number of SN Ia that have 0.900+0.370
−0.070 6.2+0.3
−1.4 0.220+0.250
−0.110 4.1+0.3
−1.4 12.9+14.6
−6.4 GY02
exploded in clusters, per unit stellar mass formed, which then 1.120+0.330
−0.220 5.3+0.9
−1.0 0.364+0.301
−0.270 3.2+0.9
−1.0 21.6+19.9
−16.0 B10
fixes the normalization of the DTD. In Section 4, we use the ··· ··· ··· 1.1+1.1
−1.1 230 +112
−112 txt
rates and the normalization to recover the observational DTD.
We take a forward-modeling approach starting in Section 5, Notes. Column 1: visibility-time-weighted mean redshift of cluster sample,
where we compare the observed rates to the DTD predictions of and redshift range; Column 2: time since the Big Bang corresponding to
various “single-component” models that invoke a single math- redshifts in Column 1; Column 3: SN rate per unit stellar mass, in SNuM
(10−12 SNe yr−1 M −1 ), with normalization relative to the remaining mass at
ematical form or physical progenitor formation channel. In
the redshift of the observation; Column 4: time since zf = 3 corresponding to
Section 6, we relax the assumption of a single, instantaneous, redshifts in Column 1; Column 5: mean recovered DTD value in time bin of
star formation episode in clusters, and examine whether an ex- Column 4, in units of 10−14 SNe yr−1 M −1 , with normalization relative to
tended SFH, combined with some single DTD, can reproduce formed mass.
the measurements. In Section 7, we examine the ability of com- References. M08: Mannucci et al. 2008; D10: Dilday et al. 2010; S07: Sharon
posite models, which mix diverse DTDs, or multiple episodes et al. 2007; GY02: Gal-Yam et al. 2002; G08: Graham et al. 2008; S10: Sharon
of star formation, to match the observations. We summarize et al. 2010; B10: Barbary et al. 2010; txt: DTD value derived in this work, based
our results in Section 8. Throughout this paper, we assume a on iron-mass constraints. Published rates have been converted to the same “diet-
cosmology with parameters ΩΛ = 0.7, Ωm = 0.3, and H0 = Salpeter” IMF (Bell et al. 2003). The S10 rate has been scaled up to account
70 km s−1 Mpc−1 . for the expected evolution of the Bell et al. (2003) M/L-to-color relations,
according to B10.
2. CLUSTER SN Ia RATES
at low z and M/LB from Sharon et al. (2010) at high z; and
2.1. Existing Cluster SN Rates Graham et al. (2008), who estimate masses for the galaxies in
To perform our analysis, we first compile the cluster SN Ia rate their sample using the spectral population synthesis of Buzzoni
measurements currently in existence. The recent measurements (2005) who, in turn, assumed a Salpeter (1955) IMF. We
are at mean redshifts of z = 0.02 (Mannucci et al. 2008); therefore scale up the Graham et al. (2008) rate by a factor of
z = 0.15 (Sharon et al. 2007; Gal-Yam et al. 2008); z = 1.77, which is the ratio between the remaining stellar mass in an
0.08, 0.23 (Dilday et al. 2010); z = 0.46 (Graham et al. 2008); old and inactive quiescent population in a Salpeter (1955) IMF,
z = 0.60 (Sharon et al. 2010); and z = 1.12 (Barbary et al. and that in a diet-Salpeter IMF (see Section 3.4 for details). We
2010). The mean redshifts are visibility-time-weighted means follow Barbary et al. (2010) in scaling up the rate of Sharon et al.
for the clusters monitored by each survey, i.e., in the calculation (2010) by 35%, to account for the offset in the M/Lg versus
of the mean, the redshift of each cluster in the survey sample g − r relation of Bell et al. (2003), expected in the younger
is weighted by the effective time during which an SN Ia would galaxies that exist at z = 0.6.
have been visible in the survey (see, e.g., Sharon et al. 2007).
Before these recent measurements, the sole modern published 2.2. Observed Cluster SN Ia Rates versus Redshift
cluster rates were at z = 0.25, 0.90 (Gal-Yam et al. 2002). Figure 1 shows the rates we have compiled and which we
Table 1 summarizes, for each of these measurements, the mean analyze in this paper. It suggests only a mild rise in the rates, by
redshift of the sample, the redshift range, the cosmic times a factor of ∼2–5, over the redshift interval probed. Remarkably,
corresponding to these redshifts in our assumed cosmology, the cluster SN rate appears not to change much from z = 0
and the SN Ia rate, normalized by stellar mass. The stellar to z = 1.45, corresponding to a look-back time of 9.8 Gyr.
masses, at the cosmic time corresponding to the redshifts of This is only about 2 Gyr after the formation of the cluster stars,
the clusters, have generally been estimated consistently in the assuming this occurred at a redshift zf ≈ 3.
respective papers, based on the observed stellar luminosities
and colors of the monitored cluster galaxies, and assuming 3. TIME-INTEGRATED SN NUMBER PER
the same IMF—the “diet-Salpeter” IMF of Bell et al. (2003). FORMED MASS
Exceptions to this are: Dilday et al. (2010), who converted their
luminosity-normalized rates to mass-normalized rates assuming As pointed out by Maoz & Gal-Yam (2004) and Sharon et al.
that the mean M/LB ratio found by Sharon et al. (2007) is valid (2010), and now further suggested by the results above, the
for their cluster sample, which spans a similar redshift range; integral over the SN Ia rate from z = 0 to z = 1.45, times the
Gal-Yam et al. (2002), whose rates were mass normalized by mean iron yield of SNe Ia (0.6–0.7 M ; see below), gives just
Sharon et al. (2010), using M/LB from Sharon et al. (2007) a small fraction, roughly 10%, of the present-day ratio of iron
erally used in the literature, relate to the Anders & Grevesse
(1989) value.4
3.2. The Gas-to-Star Mass Ratio
The present-day mass ratio of baryons in the ICM gas and
in stars, Mgas /M∗,0 , has been recently re-evaluated by Gonzalez
et al. (2007), taking into account the contribution to M∗,0 by the
intergalactic stellar population of a cluster. Contrary to Lin et al.
(2003), who argued for Mgas /M∗,0 that is independent of total
cluster mass, Gonzalez et al. (2007) find that Mgas /M∗,0 rises
monotonically with cluster mass, from a value of about 5 for
low-mass clusters to about 15 for the most-massive systems. To
find the suitable values for the clusters from which were derived
Figure 1. SN Ia rates per unit stellar mass in galaxy clusters, as a function
the SN rates that we analyze, we now examine the typical masses
of redshift, as listed in Table 1. Observed rates, here and in the subsequent of those clusters.
Figures 3–13, are in units of SNuM: 10−12 SNe yr−1 M −1 . Horizontal The most massive cluster sample in our SN rate compilation
error bars mark the cluster redshift intervals of the respective SN surveys, is that of Sharon et al. (2010), which is largely coincident with
with the central value at the visibility-time-weighted mean redshift of each the z > 0.5 MACS cluster sample of Ebeling et al. (2007).
survey. Vertical error bars show the summed 68% confidence limit statistical
and systematic uncertainties. All measurements have been consistently scaled to The clusters in this sample have total masses M500 ∼ 1015 M ,
the “diet-Salpeter” IMF (see the text). Labels are: M08—Mannucci et al. (2008); where M500 is the mass within a spherical volume in which
D10—Dilday et al. (2010); S07—Sharon et al. (2007); GY02—Gal-Yam et al. the mean density is 500 times the critical closure density. In
(2002); G08—Graham et al. (2008); S10—Sharon et al. (2010); B10—Barbary the Sharon et al. (2010) sample, the part of the rest-frame B-
et al. (2010).
band luminosity of each cluster that is included in the HST
field of view (and which is therefore monitored for SNe) is
(1–6) × 1012 LB, , and the corresponding stellar mass range is
mass to stellar mass observed in clusters. It is then unavoidable
(4–17) × 1012 M , with a mean of 1013 M . Such masses also
that the large majority of cluster metals were produced within the
apply to the massive, X-ray-selected clusters at z = 0.25, 0.90
first 1–2 Gyr after the formation of the cluster stars. The metals
studied by Gal-Yam et al. (2002). For the z = 0.15 clusters
were produced by CC SNe and perhaps by “prompt” SNe Ia,
monitored by Gal-Yam et al. (2008), the typical stellar mass is
but they were not produced by any SNe with a larger delay, as
7 × 1012 M (Sharon et al. 2007). From Gonzalez et al. (2007),
the rate measurements show that only few such explosions took
this corresponds to total masses of M500 ∼ 4 × 1014 M .
place at those later times.
Barbary et al. (2010) find, for their z = 1.12 clusters, a
In order to juxtapose the new cluster rates, compiled above,
mean B-band luminosity of ≈3 × 1012 LB, and typical stellar
with model expectations, we revisit the question of the iron-to-
masses of ≈4 × 1012 M . As a check, the bulk properties of
stellar mass ratio in clusters, which dictates the normalization
the Barbary et al. (2010) clusters, such as X-ray luminosities,
of the DTD. In addition to considering the latest data on cluster
X-ray temperatures, and velocity dispersions, also suggest
properties, our treatment will differ from the one in Maoz &
masses about one-half as large as those of the cluster sample
Gal-Yam (2004) in several respects, most notably in that we
of Sharon et al. (2010) at z = 0.60. Well-measured X-ray
will use mass-normalized, rather than luminosity-normalized
temperatures exist in the literature for five of the Barbary et al.
SN rates, and we will account for mass evolution due to stellar
sample clusters, and are all around 6–7 keV (Rosati et al. 2004;
mass loss. Stellar mass is, of course, more closely related to the
Stanford et al. 2002, 2006; Boehringer et al. 2005; Gilbank
number of stars than is blue luminosity, and is a more stable
et al. 2008). This compares to the mean temperature, kT = 9
quantity.
keV, of the z > 0.5 MACS cluster sample of Ebeling et al.
The mass of iron in clusters that is attributable to SNe Ia
(2007). X-ray luminosities, reported for these five Barbary
is the sum of the iron masses in the ICM and in stars, minus
et al. clusters, and for an additional four of their clusters
the mass of iron produced by CC SNe. Thus, the ratio between
(Rosati et al. 1999; Postman et al. 2001; Bremer et al. 2006;
SN Ia-produced iron mass and the present-day stellar mass is
Andreon et al. 2008) are in the range ∼(0.7–16) × 1044 erg s−1 ,
with a mean of ∼4 × 1044 erg s−1 , compared to LX =
MFe,Ia ZFe, Mgas /M∗,0 ZFe,gas ZFe,∗
= 0.0074 + 16 × 1044 erg s−1 for the Ebeling et al. (2007) sample. Galaxy
M∗,0 0.0026 10 0.3 1.2 velocity dispersion best-fit measurements for seven of the

M(>8 M )/M∗,0 ycc Barbary et al. clusters are in the range of ≈600–1300 km s−1
− . (1) (references above, plus Eisenhardt et al. 2008; Cain et al.
0.35 0.01
2008), with a mean of about 850 km s−1 , compared to σ =
We discuss below each of the quantities that enter this 1300 km s−1 for the z > 0.5 MACS clusters. Since total mass
equation. depends (e.g., Hicks et al. 2008) on X-ray temperature roughly
as M ∝ T 1.5 , on X-ray luminosity roughly as M ∝ L0.5 X , and
3.1. The Solar Iron Abundance on velocity dispersion as M ∝ σ 2 , all of these observables
suggest that the typical cluster in the Barbary et al. sample has
The value of the photospheric solar abundance of iron,
ZFe, = 0.0026, is from Anders & Grevesse (1989). Al- 4 Lin et al. (2003) derived an iron-to-stellar mass ratio, using a fairly low
though the correct photospheric iron abundance has been re- ICM iron abundance of 0.21 solar found by De Grandi & Molendi (2001), but
coupled it to the meteoritic iron abundance of Anders & Grevesse (1989),
vised down to 0.00176 (Grevesse & Sauval 1999), the ICM and 0.00181. As a result, the ratio they found is a factor of ∼2 lower than we find
stellar abundances we quote below, and which are still gen- here.
about one-half the mass of the typical cluster in the Sharon et al. above, the best-fit relations of Giodini et al. (2009) then give
(2010) sample. Assuming a constant fraction of the cluster mass Mgas /M∗,0 of about 7 and 11, respectively. Finally, a recent
in stars, the stellar mass in the Barbary et al. sample would also analysis by Andreon (2010) of 52 clusters, chosen to have
be of order one-half that in the Sharon et al. (2010) sample. accurate measurements, results in similar relations, with values
However, the stellar mass fraction in clusters depends on total of Mgas /M∗,0 of about 7 and 13.5 for the two typical cluster
cluster mass. For example, Andreon (2010) has recently found a masses, respectively.
dependence of roughly fstars ∝ M −0.5 . If this relation held also Considering all of the above studies, we see that the estimates
for clusters at redshifts z > 1, the stellar mass in the Barbary of Mgas /M∗,0 are in the range of 6–10 for the lower-mass clusters
et al. clusters would be only about 1.4 times lower than in of the type monitored by most of the low-z surveys whose SN
the Sharon et al. (2010) sample, and thus more similar to the rates we analyze, 11–21 for the massive, intermediate-z clusters
z = 0.15 clusters monitored by Gal-Yam et al. (2008). monitored by Gal-Yam et al. (2002) and by Sharon et al. (2010),
The optically selected clusters monitored for SNe by Graham and somewhere inside this range for the high-z cluster sample
et al. (2008) and Dilday et al. (2010) have masses comparable of Barbary et al. (2010). (We also note that these ratios appear
to those of the samples discussed above, though somewhat to be independent of redshift; e.g., Giodini et al. 2009.) When
lower. Graham et al. (2008) derived a total stellar mass of considering the iron mass in clusters and the number of SNe Ia
M∗ = 8×1013 M for the 30 clusters they used for their SN rate needed to produce it, we therefore choose Mgas /M∗,0 = 10
measurement, or ∼3×1012 M for a typical cluster. Dilday et al. as our “optimal” fiducial value, but we will also consider the
(2010) report a total r-band luminosity of Lr = 1014 Lr, for consequences of a “minimal-iron” value of Mgas /M∗,0 = 6.
the 71 clusters in their low-z, “C4,” cluster subsample. Taking
M∗ /Lr = 3 (Sharon et al. 2007), this gives a mean stellar 3.3. The Cluster Iron Abundance
mass per cluster of ∼4 × 1012 M . For the 492 clusters in the
z = 0.225 “maxBCG” sample of Dilday et al. (2010), the A “canonical” value of ZFe,gas = 0.3 is by now fairly well
integrated luminosity is Lr = 2 × 1014 Lr, , and hence established for the ICM gas iron abundance, relative to solar.
the mean stellar mass per cluster is ∼1 × 1012 M . Thus, Balestra et al. (2007), Maughan et al. (2008), and Anderson
this one subsample of Dilday et al. (2010) has clusters that et al. (2009) argue for values that have evolved even higher,
are undermassive, compared to the other cluster samples we to 0.4–0.5, at low redshifts (but see Ehlert & Ulmer 2009).
analyze. The other samples have only about a factor of three To err conservatively, we adopt ZFe,gas = 0.3 for our fiducial
difference in mean cluster mass between the higher- and lower- value. These iron abundances typically relate to the central
mass extremes. ∼1 Mpc radius of massive clusters, the same region in which
From the fits by Gonzalez et al. (2007), the lower and higher the stellar luminosity is measured and the SNe are detected
typical masses considered above (excluding the lower-mass by the cluster SN surveys we consider. Nevertheless, because
maxBCG sample of Dilday et al. 2010) correspond to Mgas /M∗,0 the X-ray emission is strongly centrally peaked, there is some
values of 6.5 and 14.5, respectively. However, Gonzalez et al. concern that the above iron abundance could be strongly biased
(2007) used the relation obtained by Cappellari et al. (2006) by a high abundance in the very core region, which might be
between the kinematically measured total-mass-to-luminosity unrepresentative of a much lower abundance existing over most
ratio, M/L, of nearby ellipticals and their I-band luminosity. of the volume within 1 Mpc. However, Maughan et al. (2008)
Cappellari et al., when comparing their results to M/L estimates have shown that measuring iron abundances within an annulus
for the same galaxies based on spectral population synthesis, that excludes the central 15% in radius reduces the results only
concluded that 30% of the contribution to their kinematic M/L mildly, to values still consistent with the canonical ZFe,gas = 0.3.
could be due to dark matter within the central regions. If so, the For the stellar iron abundance relative to solar, we follow Maoz
stellar masses in clusters found by Gonzalez et al. (2007) would & Gal-Yam (2004) and Lin et al. (2003) in adopting the value
be scaled down by 0.7, and hence Mgas /M∗,0 would increase to ZFe,∗ = 1.2 from the study by Jorgensen et al. (1997).
9.3 for, e.g., the z = 0.15 cluster sample, and to 21 for the
z = 0.60 cluster sample. 3.4. The CC SN Contribution
Laganá et al. (2008) re-analyzed X-ray and optical data for
five clusters to deduce the stellar and gas mass fractions. To M(>8 M )/M∗,0 is the ratio between the initial mass in stars
obtain stellar masses, they used the Kauffmann et al. (2003) of mass above 8 M , which will explode as CC SNe, and the
M/L ratios, which are consistent with the Bell et al. (2003) present-day mass in stars in clusters. Maoz & Gal-Yam (2004)
M/L ratios, used in deriving the SN rates analyzed here. For examined the dependence of this ratio on the choice of IMF for
clusters with total masses, M500 , similar to the two ends of a large range of standard and non-standard IMFs. In the present
the typical mass range considered here, Laganá et al. (2008) work, we will consistently assume the “diet-Salpeter” IMF of
find Mgas /M∗,0 of about 8 and 17, respectively. Giodini et al. Bell et al. (2003), as this is the IMF that has been assumed
(2009) also recently examined the dependence of stellar and gas when determining rates per unit mass in the SN surveys that
mass fractions on M500 . Gas mass fractions were estimated for we analyze. This IMF is like the Salpeter (1955) single-power-
41 clusters compiled by Pratt et al. (2009) from the literature. law IMF with slope −2.35 between 0.1 and 100 M . However,
Stellar mass fractions were obtained for a sample of 91 groups when calculating observables involving mass, such as M/L, the
and poor clusters from the COSMOS survey, based on spectral total initial mass in stars is scaled down by a factor of 0.7, to
population synthesis fitting of their spectral energy distributions. simulate the deficit, relative to the Salpeter IMF, of low-mass
These were combined with the re-evaluated stellar masses stars in realistic IMFs. The ratio of mass in stars of mass above
of 27 clusters from Lin et al. (2003). We scale down their 8 M to the total initial mass, in such an IMF, is 0.20. From
stellar masses by 0.7, to transform from the Salpeter (1955) Bruzual & Charlot (2003), for a Salpeter (1955) IMF, during
IMF they assumed to our assumed “diet-Salpeter” IMF (see the stellar evolution of a 10 Gyr old population 31% of the
below). For the two ends of the cluster mass range considered stellar mass is returned to the interstellar medium (ISM) via
stellar winds and SN explosions. For a diet-Salpeter IMF, this formed stellar mass, NSN /M∗ (from Section 3), to recover the
mass-loss fraction is 0.31/0.7 = 44%, and hence the present- SN Ia DTD. In the following section, we take an alternative,
day ratio M(>8 M )/M∗,0 ≈ 0.2/0.56 = 0.35. This is, in the forward-modeling, approach, to examine the predictions of a
present context, a conservative estimate, in that it maximizes variety of specific model DTDs. Throughout this section, we
the contribution of CC SNe, relative to SNe Ia, to cluster iron assume that all stars in clusters formed in a single instanta-
production. If, as generally believed, stars in some mass ranges neous burst, neglecting any subsequent star formation. As al-
collapse directly into black holes, without an SN explosion and ready noted above, this is a fair approximation to the results
its contribution to iron production, then the appropriate mass of spectral synthesis of the mass-dominant stellar populations
ratio to be used here would be lower. For example, if only stars in cluster ellipticals, indicating a burst lasting ∼0.1 Gyr at
up to 50 M or 25 M explode as CC SNe, M(>8 M )/M∗,0 zf ≈ 3 (corresponding to cosmic time tf ≈ 2 Gyr), i.e., some
will be reduced to 0.29 or 0.20, respectively. 11.5 Gyr ago. The consequences of relaxing the instantaneous-
The diet-Salpeter IMF gives a very similar M(>8 M )/M∗,0 burst assumption are studied in Sections 6 and 7. If, in fact, the
ratio to that of the Kroupa (2001) and Gould et al. (1997) burst assumption is valid, recovery of the DTD is straightfor-
IMFs (see Maoz & Gal-Yam 2004 and Bell et al. 2003). In ward. The SN rate since the epoch of star formation differs from
any case, since both the SN rate and the iron mass in clusters the DTD only in the stellar-mass normalization—the DTD is the
are normalized relative to stellar mass, as derived from observed SN rate normalized by unit stellar mass at the formation epoch,
stellar luminosity, the conclusions are insensitive to the assumed M∗ , while the SN rate is normalized by the remaining stellar
form of the IMF in the low-mass range, as long as it is assumed mass, M∗ (t) = M∗ m(t), at the cosmic epoch of the rate mea-
consistently for both. The ratio M(>8 M )/M∗,0 also depends surement. Here, m(t) is the remaining fraction of the initially
weakly on the assumed age of the population, as long as it is of formed stellar mass at cosmic time t (since the Big Bang). The
order several Gyr or more, since most of the return of mass to observed SN rates per unit mass at cosmic times t are the values
the ISM occurs early on. of the DTD at delays t − tf , up to the correction, easily applied,
Finally, we follow Maoz & Gal-Yam (2004) in assuming to convert from the existing mass at time t to the formed mass
that the iron yield of a CC SN, ycc , is 1% of the initial mass at tf , accounting for mass loss during stellar evolution. The SN
of the progenitor star. As discussed there, this is likely to be rate and the DTD are thus related by
a conservative overestimate as well. For M(>8 M )/M∗,0 =
0.35 and the fiducial values of the metallicities, this means Ψ(t − tf )
RIa (t) = . (4)
about 1/3 of the cluster iron mass was produced by CC SNe. m(t − tf )
For M(>8 M )/M∗,0 = 0.20, less than 1/5 of the iron mass
is from CC SNe. Alternatively, for the “minimal-iron” value of Bruzual & Charlot (2003) tabulate the relative accumulated
Mgas /M∗,0 = 6, the core-collapse contribution is between 1/2 stellar mass loss versus time, mloss (t), following a burst of star
and 1/4. formation, assuming a Salpeter (1955) IMF. For the “diet-
Salpeter” IMF, the remaining mass fraction is m(t) = 1 −
3.5. The SN Ia Iron Yield and Correction for mloss (t)/0.7. Starting 2.5 Myr after star formation, the remaining
Stellar Mass Evolution mass m(t) is well approximated as (t/2.5 Myr)−0.07 . The
Dividing Equation (1) by the mean iron yield of SNe Ia gives predicted SN rate will therefore decline slightly less steeply
the time-integrated number of SNe Ia that have exploded in than the DTD. We convert the observed SN rates, RIa , to the
clusters, per present-day unit stellar mass, NSN /M∗,0 . The mean DTD, Ψ(t), using Equation (4) with the full Bruzual & Charlot
iron yield of an SN Ia is 0.6–0.7 M (e.g., Mazzali et al. 2007). (2003) mass loss (rather than the power-law approximation).
In line with our conservative approach, we will assume the To estimate the DTD at delay times earlier than those cor-
higher value of 0.7 M , thus lowering the integrated number of responding to the redshift, zmax , of the most distant clusters
SNe Ia required to explain the observed abundances. monitored, we can use the NSN /M∗ constraints from the iron
The time-integrated number of SNe Ia per unit formed stellar observations. The total number of SNe per unit formed stellar
mass, before the 44% mass loss that occurs over the course of mass between zf and zmax is (NSN /M∗ )zf ,zmax = (NSN /M∗ ) −
∼10 Gyr (see Section 3.4), will be 0.56 times lower. Multiplying (NSN /M∗ )zmax,0 , where (NSN /M∗ )zmax,0 is the total number be-
Equation (1) by 0.56/0.7 M , we thus obtain the time-integrated tween z = 0 and zmax , obtained by integrating the DTD over that
number of cluster SNe Ia per unit formed stellar mass, range. The mean DTD value in the time interval [0, tmax − tf ],
corresponding to the unobserved redshift range zf to zmax , is

NSN just (NSN /M∗ )zf ,zmax /(tmax − tf ).
= 0.0059 M −1 = 5.9 SNuM Gyr, (2) To estimate (NSN /M∗ )zmax,0 , we integrate, using small time
M∗ opt
steps, over the mass-loss-corrected SN rates. At times that are
assuming the “optimal” value of Mgas /M∗,0 = 10, and the other covered by several measurements, we take a mean rate, weighted
fiducial values in Equation (1). Alternatively, for the “minimal” by the relative measurement errors. Out to z = 1.45, we find
value of Mgas /M∗,0 = 6, we obtain an integrated SN to stellar mass ratio of (NSN /M∗ )zmax,0 =
8.2 × 10−4 M −1 . Subtracting this from the minimal-iron value
of 0.0034 M −1 (Equation (3)) leaves 0.0026 M −1 in the time
NSN
= 0.0034 M −1 = 3.4 SNuM Gyr. (3) interval of 2.2 Gyr between zf = 3 to zmax = 1.45, or a mean
M∗ min
DTD value of 0.012 SNe yr−1 (1010 M )−1 in this delay time
4. A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE OBSERVATIONAL SN interval of 0–2.2 Gyr. For the optimal-iron value (Equation (2))
DELAY TIME DISTRIBUTION of 0.0059 M −1 , the mean DTD value in this time bin is
0.023 SNe yr−1 (1010 M )−1 . We take this range of DTD values
In this section, we combine the observed cluster SN rates, as the uncertainty, which is driven in this case mainly by the
RIa (t) (from Section 2) and the integrated SN Ia number per systematic uncertainty in the cluster gas-to-stellar mass ratio.
systematics, the various measurements are generally consistent
with each other in regions of overlap. Second, the DTD is
a monotonically decreasing function, peaking at the earliest
delays probed by the observations. Finally all the plotted points
appear to be generally consistent with the illustrated power-
law dependences, which, remarkably, pass through each and
every error box. This consistency is tested quantitatively in
Section 5.1. With this new DTD derivation, combined with
those by Maoz et al. (2010) and Maoz & Badenes (2010), we thus
confirm and extend the results of Totani et al. (2008), who found
in their field elliptical SN sample a best-fit DTD dependence of
a power law, Ψ ∝ t s , with s = 1.08 ± 0.15. This is also further
discussed below in Section 5.1.
Figure 2. Recovered SN Ia DTD for galaxy clusters (filled circles). All but
the earliest point are obtained directly from the observed rates in Figure 1, 5. COMPARISON TO DTD
after correcting them for stellar mass loss, and assuming an instantaneous star MODELS—SINGLE-COMPONENT MODELS
formation burst at zf = 3 for all clusters. Horizontal error bars indicate the time
bin over which each mean DTD value is evaluated. The first point is obtained In this section, we take a forward-modeling approach, to com-
by requiring a time-integrated number of SNe Ia according to Equations (2) and pare the predictions of specific model DTDs to the observations.
(3), satisfying the observed iron-to-stellar mass ratio in clusters. Also plotted, Forward modeling is advantageous in that the actual data are not
for comparison, are the recovered observational DTDs from: Maoz et al. (2010),
based on SNe in nearby galaxies from LOSS (empty circles); Maoz & Badenes
manipulated and errors need not be propagated. Furthermore,
(2010), based on SN remnants in the Magellanic Clouds (empty triangles, with this approach will permit us later (Sections 6 and 7) to relax the
arrow marking the 95% confidence upper limit); and Totani et al. (2008) based assumption of a single short burst of star formation in clusters.
on SN Ia candidates in elliptical galaxies at z = 0.4–1.2 (empty squares). For A model DTD that we test, Ψ(t), in order to be consistent with
reference, we also show (curves) power laws, t −s , with s = −1.1 and s = −1.3, observed cluster iron abundances, needs to have a normalization
scaled to pass through the latest cluster-based point.
such that its integral over a cluster stellar age, t0 , agrees with
the above, time-integrated, SN numbers:
For our best estimate we take the optimal-iron value. We note t0
that this exercise implies that, for the minimal and optimal-iron NSN
Ψ(t)dt = . (5)
assumptions, respectively, 79%–88% of the SNe Ia in clusters 0 M∗
exploded before z = 1.45.
Figure 2 shows the recovered DTD, whose values are also This is one constraint on the DTD, imposed by the cluster
listed in Table 1. The horizontal error bars mark the limits of each iron abundances. A second set of constraints is imposed by
DTD time bin, while the vertical error bars show the summed the observed time dependence of the SN rate, which can be
(not in quadrature) and propagated statistical and systematic compared to the model DTD predictions. The predictions will
errors. Also shown in Figure 2 are three other recently recovered be tested with the χ 2 figure of merit. The SN rate at each
observational SN Ia DTDs. One (empty circles) is from Maoz visibility-time-weighted mean redshift is compared with the
et al. (2010), obtained for a subsample of the local galaxies model prediction, with the latter averaged over the redshift
in the Lick Observatory SN Search having individual SFH interval spanned by the cluster sample used for deriving each
reconstructions based on SDSS spectra. We have plotted here SN rate. Errors on the observed rates are generally asymmetric.
the Maoz et al. (2010) DTD from a subsample that excluded For the χ 2 calculation, we use the error that is on the model side
galaxies of Hubble types Sa to Sbc, in order to reduce cross of each data point.
talk between time bins. Due to the limited aperture of the SDSS Throughout this section, we assume that all stars in clus-
spectrograph fibers, there remains a “leak” of signal from the ters formed in a single instantaneous burst, neglecting any sub-
first to the second time bins, and therefore the plotted DTD level sequent star formation. As already noted above, this is a fair
in the 40–420 Myr time bin is likely an underestimate of the approximation to the results of spectral synthesis of the mass-
true level (see Maoz et al. 2010). Another DTD shown (empty dominant stellar populations in cluster ellipticals, indicating a
triangles) was found by Maoz & Badenes (2010), using the SN short burst at zf ≈ 3. As noted in Section 4, the SN rate since the
remnants in the Magellanic Clouds as an effective SN survey. In epoch of star formation differs from the DTD only in the stellar-
this DTD, there is a detection in one time bin, of t < 330 Myr, mass normalization, whether formed mass, M∗ , or remaining
but only an upper limit on the DTD value between 330 Myr stellar mass, M∗ (t) = M∗ m(t), at the epoch of the rate measure-
and a Hubble time, which is indicated. Finally, we show (empty ment, and we again use Equation (4), this time to convert the
squares) the DTD recovered by Totani et al. (2008), using SN Ia DTD model, Ψ(t), to a rate prediction, RIa (t).
candidates in SXDS field elliptical galaxies at z = 0.4–1.2. Various forms have been proposed for the DTD, some de-
We have divided the DTD values of Totani et al. by a factor of rived from detailed binary population synthesis (BPS) calcu-
1.8, given by them, to convert from their normalization unit, of lations (e.g., Yungelson & Livio 2000; Han & Podsiadlowski
present-day K-band luminosity, to ours, of formed stellar mass. 2004; Ruiter et al. 2009; Bogomazov & Tutukov 2009;
We have then divided by a further factor of 0.7 to convert from Mennekens et al. 2010); some physically motivated mathemat-
their assumed Salpeter (1955) IMF to our diet-Salpeter IMF. ical parameterizations, with varying degrees of sophistication
We also show, for reference, two power laws, Ψ ∝ t −1.1 and (e.g., Madau et al. 1998; Greggio 2005; Totani et al. 2008); and
Ψ ∝ t −1.3 , which are discussed further in Section 5.1. some ad hoc formulations intended to reproduce the observed
Several facts are apparent in Figure 2. First, considering the field SN rate evolution (e.g., Strolger et al. 2004). We now at-
different time bins of the different measurements, and the known tempt to fit the observed cluster SN Ia rates with some of these
proposed DTDs, using Equation (4), while simultaneously sat-
isfying the DTD normalization constraint, Equation (5), set by
the iron abundances in clusters.
5.1. Power-law DTDs
A first and simple mathematical parameterization of the DTD
that we compare to the observed cluster SN rates is a power law
in time, Ψ(t) ∝ t s . Power laws have been long considered as
possible forms of the DTD (e.g., Ciotti et al. 1991; Sadat et al.
1998). As noted by previous authors (e.g., Greggio 2005; Totani
et al. 2008) a power-law dependence is generic to models (such
as the DD model) in which the event rate ultimately depends
on the loss of energy and angular momentum to gravitational
radiation by the progenitor binary system. If the dynamics are
controlled solely by gravitational wave losses, the time t until a
merger depends on the binary separation a as
Figure 3. Fits of the predictions of Ψ ∝ t −1/2 power-law DTDs to the observed
t ∼ a4. (6) cluster SN Ia rates, plotted as a function of time since the Big Bang, assuming
instantaneous cluster star formation at zf = 3, and SN Ia events starting
If the separations are distributed as a power law 40 Myr after star formation. The best-fitting version (dotted curve) has a time-
integrated number of SNe that is only a minor fraction of that required to
produce observed cluster iron-to-stellar mass ratios. Versions scaled to produce
dN
∼ a , (7) the minimal (dashed curve) or optimal (solid curve) integrated number of SNe
da give poor fits to the cluster rates, with the reduced χ 2 values indicated.
then the event rate will be

dN dN da rate versus specific star formation rate of the host population in
= ∼ t (−3)/4 . (8) the Supernova Legacy Survey.
dt da dt
We test model power-law DTDs with these two particular
For a fairly large range around ≈ −1, which describes power-law indices, −1, and −1/2, as well as a continuous range
well the observed distribution of initial separations of non- of indices, s, against the cluster data. We assume Ψ(t) = 0
interacting binaries (see Maoz 2008 for a review of the issue in for t < 40 Myr, corresponding to the lifetime of 8 M stars
the present context), the DTD will have a power-law dependence (e.g., Girardi et al. 2000), at the border between CC and WD
with index not far from −1. However, in reality, the binary formation. We start by setting the star formation redshift at
separation distribution of WDs that have emerged from their zf = 3, i.e., at a cosmic time tf = 2.1 Gyr.
common-envelope phase could be radically different, given Fitting the observed cluster SN rates with a power-law
the complexity of the physics of that phase. Thus, the ∼t −1 DTD having a free normalization and index s, the best fit is
DTD dependence of the DD channel cannot be considered obtained for s = −1.2. The time-integrated SN number is
unavoidable. Be that as it may, the DTD reconstructions by NSN /M∗ = 0.0044 for a power law of this slope, which
Totani et al. (2008), Maoz et al. (2010), Maoz & Badenes (2010), is intermediate to the “minimal-iron” value we have derived
and in this work (Section 4), all point to a ∼t −1 power law. above (Equation (3)) and the “optimal” value (Equation (2)).
A different power-law DTD dependence, with different phys- However, with the normalization thus unconstrained, χ 2 de-
ical motivation, has been proposed by Pritchet et al. (2008). If pends weakly on s, and there is a wide range of indices, −1.6 <
the time between formation of a WD and its explosion as an s < 2.7, that give acceptable fits to the observed rates. (We will
SN Ia is always brief compared to the formation time of the deem as “acceptable” those models with reduced chi-square,
WD, the DTD will simply be proportional to the formation rate χr2 = χ 2 /dof < 2, which corresponds to a probability of >5%
of WDs. Assuming that the main-sequence lifetime of a star for 7 degrees of freedom (dof)—9 data points minus two free
depends on its initial mass, m, as a power law, parameters, s and the normalization.) The steeper ones among
these power laws also have sufficiently large integrals. Specif-
t ∼ mδ , (9) ically, power laws with s < −0.88 satisfy the minimal-iron
constraint, while shallower power laws, e.g., s = −0.5, do not.
and assuming the IMF is also a power law, Conversely, an s = −0.5 power law normalized to have the
correct integral, when compared to the data, grossly overpredicts
dN
∼ mλ , (10) the observed rates, giving an unacceptably high reduced chi-
dm square, χr2 , of 17 and 69 per dof, for the minimal and optimal
then the WD formation rate, and hence the DTD, will be normalizations, respectively. (In the latter two fits, there are
no free parameters that are adjusted to fit the data, and hence
dN dN dm we have 9 dof, as the number of independent data points.)
= ∼ t (1+λ−δ)/δ . (11) Figure 3 shows these three fits. Thus, a t −1/2 power law, while
dt dm dt
it can describe well the time dependence of the cluster rates
For the commonly used value of δ = −2.5 and the Salpeter at 0 < z < 1.45, cannot simultaneously produce the required
(1955) slope of λ = −2.35, the resulting power-law index is time-integrated SN Ia numbers.
−0.46, or roughly −1/2. Pritchet et al. (2008) have argued that If we force the minimal-iron constraint, the best-fit power
such a t −1/2 form for the DTD can explain the trend of SN Ia law is t −1.1 , with an acceptable χr2 = 0.11, as shown in
optimal-iron value with a t −1/2 , t −1.3 broken power law, that is

steeper at late times (since even t −1 alone is already rejected,
see above). Here, too, an acceptable χr2 = 0.9 is found. For
the minimal-iron normalization, a t −1/2 , t −1.1 dependence is
acceptable, as long as tc < 1.5 Gyr. Such a late break time is
interesting in the context of sub-Chandrasekhar merger models,
in which the mergers of WDs of initial masses smaller than 3 M
produce SNe Ia (Sim et al. 2010; van Kerkwijk et al. 2010).
To summarize, the cluster SN rates plus iron abundances can
be fit with a power-law DTD, under some conditions. Assuming
the minimal-iron-mass value indicated by cluster observations,
a range of slopes with values of s ≈ −1, or somewhat steeper,
is allowed. A break to a shallower t −1/2 dependence at t < tc is
also permitted, provided the power law is steep enough at longer
delays, and the break does not occur too late. For the acceptable
range of power-law DTDs, between 50% and 85% of SNe Ia
Figure 4. Same as Figure 3, but for steeper power-law DTDs, Ψ ∝ t −s , with
s = −1.1 and the minimum-iron normalization (dashed curve), and s = −1.3
explode during the first Gyr after star formation.
plus the optimal-iron normalization (solid curve). In both cases, there is a good
fit to the cluster SN rate data.
5.2. DTDs from Binary Population Synthesis Models
Over the past decade, a number of groups (e.g., Yungelson &
2 Livio 2000; Han & Podsiadlowski 2004; Belczynski et al. 2008;
Figure 4. The low χ value indicates that the errors on at least
Ruiter et al. 2009; Bogomazov & Tutukov 2009; Wang et al.
some of the rates have been conservatively overestimated. The
2010; Mennekens et al. 2010) have calculated DTDs using BPS,
combined constraints of the SN rate data and the minimal-iron
in which a large number of binaries with a chosen distribution
abundances limit the acceptable values of the power-law index to
of initial conditions are followed through the stages of stellar
s = −1.10+0.28
−0.22 . For the optimal-iron constraint, the acceptable and binary evolution, to the point that some of them reach
range of indices is s = −1.28+0.25−0.18 , with χr = 0.10 for the best
2
the conditions for explosion as SNe Ia. In our comparison to
fit. Smaller, more realistic, rate uncertainties would reduce these cluster SN rates, we focus here, as examples, on the models
allowed ranges. presented by Yungelson & Livio (2000), and on the more recent
We thus see that a simple parameterized model DTD of the ones by Mennekens et al. (2010). As opposed to the simple
form t −1 , or slightly steeper, can provide a good fit to the cluster parameterized models, considered above, the BPS models can
SN Ia rates while simultaneously providing a sufficient time- make absolute predictions of SN rates versus time, i.e., their
integrated number of SNe Ia to satisfy the iron-based constraints. normalizations are set. Therefore, in our comparisons of these
We note that these conclusions depend weakly on the chosen models to the observed rates and to the integrated iron mass in
epoch of cluster star formation, tf . For a given power-law slope, clusters, we first consider the “raw” predictions of the models,
acceptable fits are obtained for tf in the range 1.2 to 2.3 Gyr, without any scalings, and then proceed to test scaled versions.
corresponding to zf = 4.8 to 2.8, with a best fit that has a Yungelson & Livio (2000) studied four different evolutionary
constant minimum χ 2 in the range zf = 3.2–3.7. Varying tf paths to an SN Ia: a DD model; an SD model with accretion of He
cannot salvage power-law DTDs such as t −1/2 , that are strongly from a giant companion and detonation at sub-Chandrasekhar
ruled out because of the shallowness of their slope. However, mass, through an edge-lit detonation caused by ignition of the
moving tf back can slightly increase the allowed range of slopes. He layer (He-ELD); and SD models with accretion from a sub-
For example, for the optimal-iron value, the maximal acceptable giant companion and detonation at the Chandrasekhar mass
power-law slope can be raised from −1.11 to −1.08 by shifting (SG-Ch), or through an edge-lit detonation (SG-ELD). The
zf back to 3.6. DTDs for these different paths can be seen in their Figure 2.
It is arguable that, instead of a single, ∼t −1 power law, We have scaled up these DTDs by a small factor of 1.05, to
motivated by binary mergers, with this power law extending convert from the IMF assumed by Yungelson & Livio (2000) to
back to delays as short as 40 Myr, there could be a “bottleneck” our adopted diet-Salpeter IMF. Their assumed IMF is a broken
in the supply of progenitor systems below some delay. Such a power law, of index λ = −2.5 from 0.3 M to 100 M , and
bottleneck could be due to the birth rate of WDs, which behaves with λ = 0 from 0.08 M to 0.3 M (L. Yungelson 2010,
as ∼t −1/2 . One possible result would then be a broken-power- private communication). (For a fully self-consistent comparison
law DTD, with Ψ ∝ t −1/2 up to some characteristic time, tc , and of the shapes of the DTDs, their models would need to be re-
Ψ ∝ t −1 thereafter. A possible value could be tc ≈ 400 Myr, calculated with our adopted IMF, but it is unlikely that the
corresponding to the lifetimes of 3 M stars. If that were the different IMF slopes, −2.5 and −2.35, over the limited range of
lowest initial mass of stars that can produce the WD primary in a masses that contribute to SN Ia progenitors, would lead to major
DD SN Ia progenitor, then beyond tc the supply of new systems changes in the DTD.) Two of the models, He-ELD and SG-Ch,
would go to zero, and the SN Ia rate would be dictated by the predict no SNe beyond 1.5–2 Gyr after star formation, where all
merger rate. the measured cluster SN rates are. These models are obviously
We have therefore attempted to fit the data with such a t −1/2 , inconsistent with the observed rates, although they could play
t −1 broken power law. With the DTD normalization fixed to a role in a multi-component DTD scenario (see Section 7). The
produce the required minimum iron integrated SN numbers, DD and SG-ELD models, on the other hand, do predict SN
this model gives an acceptable χr2 = 1.2, though this is events on long timescales, and can be tested.
considerably worse than the single power-law fit, and could Figure 5 compares the predictions of the DD model of
become unacceptable with more realistic errors. We test the Yungelson & Livio (2000) to the observations. The “raw”
Figure 5. Comparison of the observed cluster SN rates to the predictions of the Figure 6. Same as Figure 5, but for the SD model of Yungelson & Livio (2000)
DD model from the BPS simulations of Yungelson & Livio (2000). The “raw” involving a sub-giant donor and an edge-lit detonation. The cluster epoch of star
prediction of the model (dashed curve), without any scaling, underpredicts formation, as before, is assumed to be zf = 3, but in this model the first SN Ia
both the observed rates and the required integrated number by a factor of events are delayed by ∼800 Myr. Because of the steep decline of this model
five. A version of the model (solid line) scaled to produce the minimal-iron DTD, neither the raw models, nor those scaled to the normalizations required
normalization matches well the observed rates. When scaled to the optimal-iron by iron abundances, match the rate observations.
value, however, it overpredicts the low-redshift cluster rates.
version of this model, without any re-scaling of the DTD by the accreting star. Values of β = 0, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 are
(beyond the adjustment above for conversion between the considered. The α parameter (Webbink 1984), which is the
IMFs), underpredicts the observed cluster SN rates, with a poor fraction of the orbital energy lost during the common-envelope
χr2 = 2.9. Its integrated number of SNe per formed stellar phase that is transferred to kinetic energy of the envelope, is
mass is NSN /M∗ = 0.0007, just 1/5 of the minimal-iron value, set to 1. An additional DD model is calculated with β = 1,
and only 12% of the optimal value. This confirms previous but treating the common-envelope phase, instead of with the α
assertions by Maoz (2008), Ruiter et al. (2009), and Mennekens model, by using the γ parameterization of Nelemans & Tout
et al. (2010) that BPS models underpredict observed SN rates by (2005), with γ = 1.5. The γ approach quantifies the change in
a factor of at least a few, and likely by more. As seen in Figure 5, angular momentum during the common-envelope phase. Two
if we scale up the model by a multiplicative factor of five, so as SD models with β = 1 have also been calculated by Mennekens
to integrate to the minimal-iron value, we obtain an acceptable et al. (2010), one with α = 1.0 and one with γ = 1.5.
χr2 = 0.3 for the rates. Although BPS models have many free Fitting these models to the cluster rates, with or without
parameters, it is not clear that such a level of scaling-up of the the cluster iron constraints, we find the following. None of
model could be achieved easily. If we force the DTD integral to the raw DTDs of Mennekens et al. (2010) produce enough
the optimal-iron value, the predicted rates are too high, giving time-integrated SN numbers to reproduce the observed iron
an unacceptable χr2 = 3.0. abundances. At best, the β = 0.8 and β = 0.9 DD models
Proceeding to the SG-ELD model of Yungelson & Livio produce 12% of the minimal-iron value, and the SD α = 1 model
(2000), this model (Figure 6) always gives a poor fit to the makes 16%. The other models make only a few percent or less of
SN rates, whether in its raw form (which again produces only the minimal number of SNe required by cluster abundances. If
23% of the minimum iron value), or scaled to satisfy the iron we scale up the models, forcing the minimal-iron normalization,
constraints, or even if scaled arbitrarily. The SG-ELD model the Mennekens et al. (2010) SD models, qualitatively like the
begins making SNe Ia only about 800 Myr after star formation, Yungelson & Livio (2000) SD models discussed above, predict
and thus misses the opportunity of producing the bulk of the iron no SNe 4–5 Gyr after star formation, and hence cannot match the
mass during that time. Furthermore, this model then predicts SN observed cluster rates. This is illustrated in Figure 7. Two of the
rates that fall too steeply with time. These problems cannot be scaled Mennekens et al. (2010) DD models give acceptable fits
alleviated by a change in the star formation epoch, tf , which to the observed cluster SN rates: DD with α = 1 and β = 0.9;
has little effect on the fits, as was the case for parameterized and DD with γ = 1.5 and β = 1. These fits are shown in
power-law DTDs. Figure 8.
We turn now to the BPS models of Mennekens et al. (2010), To summarize our analysis of BPS models from these two
who have examined both DD and SD models. They have teams, the emerging picture is that SD models always fit
assumed a Kroupa et al. (1993) IMF, consisting of a three- the observations poorly—in terms of both the absolute “raw”
part broken power law, with index λ = −1.3 from 0.08 M numbers of SNe they predict, and the time dependence of
to 0.5 M , λ = −2.2 from 0.5 M to 1 M , and λ = −2.7 the cluster SN rates they predict. The raw DD models also
from 1 M to 100 M . The mass ratio between this IMF and underpredict the absolute SN numbers, but by lower factors, of
the diet-Salpeter IMF is 0.92, and we therefore scale down the 5–8. If we treat the BPS models as scalable, then for some of the
Mennekens et al. (2010) DTDs by this factor. DD models it is possible to simultaneously satisfy the minimal-
In their DD models that we examine, Mennekens et al. iron constraints and the observed cluster SN rate dependence on
(2010) introduce the possibility of non-conservative Roche-lobe redshift. The higher optimal-iron constraint can also be satisfied
overflow, which they parameterize with a β parameter, the by two scaled DD models among those of Mennekens et al.
fraction of material lost by the donor star that is accepted (2010).
Figure 7. Rate predictions based on DTDs from two SD models by Mennekens Figure 9. Comparison of the observed cluster SN rates to predictions by three
et al. (2010), based on two different parameterizations of the physics of the of the analytic models of Greggio (2005), scaled to give either the minimal or
common-envelope phase (see the text). The models have been scaled up by optimal ratio of integrated SN numbers to stellar mass. The SD model, like
factors of 80 (γ = 1.5 model, solid curve) and 6.4 (α = 1.0 model, dashed the SD models from the BPS simulations, underpredicts the low-z cluster SN
curve), to match the minimal-iron constraint but both fall too steeply to match rate. Two of the DD models, however, can match the data. Also shown, for
the observed cluster SN rate redshift dependence. comparison (dotted line), is the prediction from a simple broken-power-law
DTD: t −1/2 at 40 Myr < t < 400 Myr; t −1.3 for t > 400 Myr, having the
minimal-iron normalization, which is similar to the DD-close-3 model (dashed
curve).
and four DD models, computed under different assumptions

for these parameters. The “wide” and “close” labels of the
DD models refer to two possible parametric schemes used by
Greggio (2005) to describe the WD separation distribution after
the common-envelope phase. The Greggio models do not predict
the absolute levels of the SN rates (i.e., the normalization of the
model DTDs), as this is another free parameter in the models. We
therefore examine only various scaled versions of the Greggio
models.
The DD-close model with a minimum secondary initial mass
of 3 M fits the observed SN rate redshift dependence, while
satisfying either the minimal-iron constraint (with χr2 = 0.52)
Figure 8. Same as Figure 5, but for two of the DD models from the BPS or the optimal-iron constraint (with χr2 = 0.45). Maoz et al.
calculations of Mennekens et al. (2010) that can match the data, if the raw (2010) have already noted the good agreement between this
DTDs are suitably scaled up according to the optimal-iron requirement, or the Greggio (2005) model and a DTD reconstructed from the SNe
minimal requirement, as marked. The parameter β quantifies the degree of mass in the LOSS-SDSS subsample, and the fact that this Greggio
conservation during the Roche-lobe overflow phase.
model is similar to a t −1/2 , t −1.3 , broken power law with break
at tc < 400 Myr. Such a broken power law was shown to fit well
5.3. DTDs from Analytical Models the data and the minimal-iron constraint in Section 5.1. The
resemblance is seen in Figure 9. The DD-close model with a
Another approach to making DTD predictions, followed by minimum secondary mass of 2 M , also shown in Figure 9, can
Greggio (2005), is to calculate analytical DTD models, based fit the rates as well, but only with the minimal-iron constraint,
on stellar evolution arguments and on various parameterizations due to its shallower slopes at both early and late times. The
of the possible results of the complex common-envelope phases two DD-wide models of Greggio (2005) we test, with minimal
through which SN Ia progenitor systems must pass. For each of masses of 2 M and 2.5 M , are both too shallow to fit the rates
several SN Ia channels, she calculated the DTDs that emerge and either of the normalizations, and give χr2 > 3.6.
when varying the values for the parameters describing the Finally, the SD model of Greggio (2005), while having
initial conditions, and the mass and separation distributions and a DTD that is more extended in time than the SD models
limits of the systems that eventually explode. Mennekens et al. from BPS that we have examined above, suffers from similar
(2010) have criticized this approach in that it overlooks the problems, particularly a steep drop in rates beyond ∼8 Gyr.
changes in stellar-evolution timescales that occur as a result of The minimal-iron normalized SD model, shown in Figure 9,
the “rejuvenation” due to mass transfer between stars. On the is formally acceptable, with χr2 < 2, but its low predicted
other hand, an advantage of the analytic approach, compared rates at low redshifts are in conflict with the measurements.
to the BPS approach, is that predictions for a large range of (Poisson statistics would be more appropriate to compare the
parameters can be made quickly. This successful range can then low prediction to the accurately measured, non-zero, rates at
be investigated in more detail with actual BPS simulations. low redshift.)
We focus on a selection of representative models shown in Thus, only the two DD-close Greggio (2005) models are
Figure 1 of Greggio et al. (2008). These include one SD model consistent with the rates and the iron data. This is simply the
Figure 10. Comparison of the data to predictions of a t −1.1 power-law DTD, Figure 11. Same as Figure 10, but for the Yungelson & Livio (2000) SG-ELD
convolved with an exponential SFH starting at zf = 5, and several characteristic model, previously shown in Figure 6. The convolution of this DTD with an
exponential times τsf . The prediction for the same DTD, but following an extended exponential SFH cannot improve the fit to the SN rates, if the iron
instantaneous burst at zf = 3, shown before in Figure 4, is plotted for constraints on the normalization are to be simultaneously satisfied.
comparison (dotted curve). All curves are normalized to satisfy the minimal-
iron constraint. Such extended SFHs degrade the agreement with observations,
and τsf < 2.7 Gyr is required to avoid significantly overpredicting the rates.
that the SN rate rises more slowly at early times than in the
instantaneous-burst approximation. This, in turn, means that a
result of the fact that DD models generically produce power- smaller fraction of the time-integrated SN number, dictated by
law DTDs, and the power laws required to fit simultaneously the the iron abundances, can be produced at early times. Raising
observed rates and the normalizations need to have indices of the model normalization, such that the iron constraints are met,
≈−1 or steeper. Such indices can be obtained by emerging from then results in a poor fit to the SN rate data, compared to the
the common-envelope phase with a steep power-law separation instantaneous case. To try to mitigate this effect, we shift back
distribution, i.e., with relatively more close pairs, as discussed by 1 Gyr the time of initial star formation to tf = 1.1 Gyr,
in Section 5.1 and seen in Equation (8). Naturally, we have corresponding to zf = 5. Nonetheless, in every case, the fit with
examined a limited range of the Greggio (2005) models, and an extended SFH is worse than in the case of an instantaneous
it would be interesting to see if there are others (e.g., Greggio burst.
2010) that do fit the data, and what are their parameters. These results are illustrated with two examples. Figure 10
shows the predictions of a minimal-iron-normalized t −1.1
6. COMPARISON TO DTD power-law DTD, with the exponential SFH starting at zf = 5,
PREDICTIONS—NON-INSTANTANEOUS CLUSTER and several characteristic exponential times τsf . Also shown, for
STAR FORMATION HISTORIES comparison, is the zf = 3 instantaneous burst, shown before in
Figure 4. At late times, all the predictions have similar slopes,
So far, we have assumed the cluster SFH to be a single, while at progressively shorter times, the rate dependence is shal-
instantaneous burst at zf . We now test whether relaxing this lower for the more extended SFHs. This leads to progressively
assumption can improve the fit of any of the models to the data, greater overprediction of the observed rates. Formally, τsf >
in terms of reproducing both the time dependence of the SN Ia 2.7 Gyr is ruled out, based on χr2 > 2. Conversely, if we ignore
rate and the normalization, as required by the iron abundance. the iron constraints and find the best-fit normalization, then the
Furthermore, a non-instantaneous burst may be a more realistic integrated number of SNe Ia is significantly lower than required
description of cluster SFH. The predicted SN rate will now be by the minimal constraint (e.g., by a factor of two, for τsf =
a convolution of the SFH, S(t), with the DTD, after correction 3 Gyr). In Figure 11, we show the same exercise for the SG-
for stellar mass loss, ELD model of Yungelson & Livio (2000). It might have been
t hoped that the convolution with an extended SFH could moder-
Ψ(τ ) ate the steep fall at late delays of this DTD, and thus provide a
RIa (t) ∝ S(t − τ ) dτ. (12)
0 m(τ ) better fit to the observed weak time dependence of the rates. Al-
though the steep fall, predicted in the instantaneous-burst case,
We consider a single, but non-instantaneous, burst of star is indeed moderated, the smoothing at short delays lowers the
formation in galaxy clusters in the form of an exponentially contribution from early times to the integrated SN numbers,
decaying SFH, S(t) ∝ exp[−(t − tf )/τSF ], starting at time tf . forcing a higher overall normalization and a poor fit.
More complex SFHs are considered in Section 7.2. We have To summarize this section, the moderate slope of the observed
re-fit the cluster rates with the iron-mass normalizations using SN rate redshift dependence at 0 < z < 1.4., combined with
all the DTD models discussed in Section 5, but convolved with the large time-integrated number of SNe Ia indicated by the iron
this exponential SFH, with values of τSF = 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and abundance, together call for a DTD that is sharply peaked at short
4 Gyr. The effect on the SN rate of the convolution between delays, but with a low tail out to long delays. Convolution of
the DTD and any temporally extended star formation is always any of the few single-DTD models that satisfy these constraints
to transfer some fraction of the SN events to later times. Since with any simple SFH that is extended on timescales 1 Gyr
all the DTDs that we consider peak at short delays, this means only degrades the fits.
Figure 12. Predicted SN rate dependence for a composite DTD model, Figure 13. Same as Figure 12, but with a single, prompt, DTD, and a composite
combining the He-ELD and DD models of Yungelson & Livio (2000). Dotted SFR—an exponentially decaying burst at zf = 3, with characteristic times
curves show the raw predictions of these models and the lower solid line is their as labeled, and a constant “DC” component of star formation, with a ratio
sum. The raw sum underpredicts the low-redshift rates by a factor of five (as between the components of 200:1 at z = 3. The DTD is the α = 1 SD model
was the case for this DD model alone, Figure 5), and the integrated SN number of Mennekens et al. (2010), previously shown if Figure 7. Normalizations are
by 2.1 (minimal iron) to 3.6 (optimal iron). Scaled-up versions of these models minimal-iron for the short-timescale burst and optimal iron for the two longer-
do give a satisfactory fit to all the observations, as indicated. timescale bursts. As seen in the figure, such composite SFHs can match the rate
observations and the iron constraints with a single, prompt, DTD. However, the
constant and high level of star formation down to low redshifts is at odds with
7. COMPARISON TO DTD other observations of cluster galaxies.
PREDICTIONS—TWO-COMPONENT MODELS
We now examine to what degree the challenges of repro- DTD by factors of 2.1 or 3.6 can solve these problems for the
ducing the observations can be overcome by the addition of minimal and optical iron cases, respectively. In this example,
free parameters that is implicit in the combination of multiple 60% of the SNe (and the iron) are from the prompt He-ELD SD
components—either two DTDs (as could be expected from the component, and the rest from the DD component.
co-existence of two distinct physical SN Ia channels, e.g., DD Similar combinations of two components can work using
and SD), or two components of cluster SFH, as opposed to the the other DTDs we have considered, as long as one of the
single bursts assumed so far. components is a DD model (or a similar power law) that can
provide the SNe with long delays. In addition to the choice
7.1. Double DTD Models of components, one can choose the relative scaling between
them, providing a further adjustable parameter. The current
The idea of two co-existing SN Ia channels, prompt and data of course cannot discriminate between the various possible
delayed, emerged several years ago from the observation of, prompt components as they make their contributions beyond the
on the one hand, a proportionality between star formation rate redshifts at which rate measurements exist. Our experiments at
(SFR) and SN Ia rate per unit stellar mass in star-forming combining different DTD are obviously not exhaustive, but the
galaxies, and on the other hand, a non-zero SN Ia rate in early- emerging picture is nonetheless clear. The observed SN rates
type galaxies with no current star formation (Mannucci et al. and the iron mass in clusters can be explained simultaneously
2005, 2006; Scannapieco & Bildsten 2005; Sullivan et al. 2006). by combining “prompt” and “delayed” DTDs. The SNe Ia from
As noted in Section 1, this observation does not necessarily the prompt component produce the majority of the iron mass in
imply the existence of two separate physical channels. Instead, clusters. The SNe from the delayed component produce only a
it could be the manifestation of a DTD from a single channel fraction of the metals, and they are the events detected by current
but with delays spread over a wide range of timescales. Indeed, SN rate measurements, with their weak time dependence.
our analysis, above, shows that single parameterized DTDs of
power-law form, with indices somewhat steeper than −1 can 7.2. Composite Star Formation Histories
match the observational constraints (as can some DD models
that produce DTDs of this type, if they are suitably scaled up). A final scenario we examine is that of a single DTD, but
However, some of the other theoretical DTDs, that individually with a composite cluster SFH, consisting of a short starburst,
are incompatible with the data because they predict no delayed beginning at zf , combined with a more extended SFR. With
SNe, can be “saved” by incorporating them into a two-channel the additional free parameters introduced in this scheme, it is
picture. easy to find combinations of DTDs with such composite SFHs
For example, two of the models of Yungelson & Livio that reproduce the SN Ia rate versus time, while simultaneously
(2000), He-ELD and the SG-Ch, predict no SNe at long time providing a sufficient time-integrated number of SNe to produce
delays. Figure 12 shows the predicted cluster rates from the the observed ratio of iron mass to stellar mass. Figure 13
combination of the He-ELD model and the DD model, discussed shows an example. Here, we have used the α = 1, β = 1
in Section 5.2. The raw sum of these two models, as before, SD model, discussed previously in Section 5.2, from the BPS
produces a too-small fraction (less than half) of the total calculations of Mennekens et al. (2010). We recall that this
number of SNe Ia indicated by the minimal-iron constraint, DTD produces only SNe Ia with short delays. In the context
and underpredicts all the SN rates below z < 0.5 (by a factor of of the present exercise, this is desirable, as the observed
five). However, as seen in Figure 12, scaling up this composite SN rate dependence in generated by the SFH rather than by
the DTD. In this example, for the two SFH components we recent but unseen star formation in these galaxies. However,
take the sum, S(t) = S1 (t) + S2 (t), of an exponential SFR, a study by Förster & Schawinski (2008) of the early-type
S1 (t) ∝ exp[−(t − tf )/τSF ] as in Section 6, and a constant SFR, hosts of SNe Ia argues against this possibility. Furthermore, the
S2 (t) = const. The relative levels of the two components are DTD reconstruction in nearby galaxies by Maoz et al. (2010)
adjusted to fit the iron-based normalization constraints. For this demonstrates a 4σ detection of a delayed SN Ia component,
choice of functions, τSF < 4 Gyr is required. A more prolonged with delays of 2.4 Gyr < τ < 13 Gyr.
exponential component either overpredicts the high-z rates or We therefore conclude that the scenario of a burst+constant
forces the constant component to overpredict the low-z rates. SFH, combined with a prompt single-component DTD, is
This scenario can, in principle, explain the presently discussed probably not a viable model. While it is capable of explaining
data in terms of “prompt” DTDs such as those from SD models, the cluster SN rate data and the observed iron to stellar mass
combined with residual star formation. However, it is at odds ratio, it is incompatible with other cluster observations. Those
with many other observations of clusters. Star formation activity observations indicate that, although about 10% of the stellar
in clusters avoids the cluster cores (1 Mpc), and increases mass of clusters formed at z < 1, this activity did not occur
progressively with radius (e.g., Hansen et al. 2009; Porter et al. in the central, quiescent, galaxies hosting the SNe found by
2008; Bai et al. 2009; Saintonge et al. 2008; Loh et al. 2008). current surveys, and that the SFR falls steeply with cosmic
In contrast, all of the cluster-SN candidate hosts in Sharon et al. time, in contrast to the flat SFH required to reproduce, under
(2010) are found at projected distances <0.7 Mpc from the this scenario, the flat observed SN rate.
brightest cluster galaxy. In the sample of Barbary et al. (2010)
all are within <0.8 Mpc, or even <0.5 Mpc if excluding the 8. CONCLUSIONS
outermost one.5 Furthermore, the SNe from the various surveys
Measurements of galaxy-cluster SN Ia rates as a function of
we analyze are almost always found in early-type, red-sequence
cosmic time provide a particularly direct avenue to obtain the
(and hence apparently quiescent), galaxies. For example, in the
DTD of SNe Ia, with its implications for progenitor models
sample of Gal-Yam et al. (2008), for four out of the five cluster
and cosmic history. Such measurements can constrain both the
SNe Ia that have host galaxies, the galaxies are early types, based
functional form and the normalization of the DTD. We have
on colors and spectra. In the sample of Sharon et al. (2010), six
combined recently completed measurements of cluster rates
out of the seven most likely cluster SN Ia hosts are red-sequence
between z = 0 and z = 1.45 with the latest results on the
galaxies. In Barbary et al. (2010), this figure is eight out of nine.
iron-mass content of clusters, to recover the SN Ia DTD, and
Thus, the cluster SNe Ia, on which are based the rates that we
to test a variety of model DTDs, from purely mathematical
analyze, are neither at the locations nor in the types of galaxies
parameterized forms, to DTDs obtained from more detailed
where star formation in clusters is actually observed to occur.
physical considerations.
Quantitatively, in the above version of the burst+constant SFH
Our main results are as follows.
scenario, as shown in Figure 13, for, e.g., τSF = 0.5, ∼93% of
the present-day cluster stellar mass is formed before z = 1, and 1. Assuming that the bulk of the stars in clusters formed with
the remaining 7% is from the constant SFR between z = 1 and a normal IMF in a brief burst at zf ≈ 3, as indicated by
0. A typical monitored stellar mass in the clusters we consider optical spectroscopy of cluster galaxies, the SN Ia DTD can
is ∼1013 M (see Section 3.2) or, correcting to formed mass be directly recovered from the observations. The resulting
before stellar evolution mass losses, ∼2 × 1013 M . With a DTD peaks at the shortest delays probed, 0 Gyr < t <
look-back time to z = 1 of 8 Gyr, the 7% fraction implies a 2.2 Gyr, decreases steeply at longer delays, and extends
constant SFR between z = 0 and 1 of ∼175 M yr−1 , just in out to 11 Gyr. The recovered DTD agrees remarkably well,
the central regions of clusters. both in shape and in absolute normalization, with DTDs
By comparison, several recent studies (e.g., Krick et al. 2009; recently recovered using different techniques, in different
Bai et al. 2009; Koyama et al. 2010) find SFRs, integrated over environments: in field ellipticals (Totani et al. 2008); in
the galaxies within a cluster, between ∼10 and a few hundred nearby galaxies (Maoz et al. 2010); and in the Magellanic
M yr−1 . Some clusters thus do have the high integrated SFRs Clouds (Maoz & Badenes 2010). The current derivation is
required in the scenario of a composite SFH + prompt DTD complementary to previous ones in that it recovers the DTD
(ignoring for the moment that this SFR is not in the central, over its full time range, with good time resolution at delays
quiescent galaxies that are seen to host the SNe, but rather 3 Gyr. The emerging picture is of a universal DTD that
in the outer regions, e.g., Haines et al. 2009). However, the is not strongly dependent on environment or cosmic time,
observed cluster SFR, normalized by cluster mass, rises steeply and can be well represented by a single power law, of index
with redshift, as (1 + z)p , with p = 5.3 ± 1.2 (Bai et al. 2009), s ∼ −1.
p = 5.7+2.1
−1.8 (Haines et al. 2009), or p ≈ 6 (Koyama et al. 2010).
2. Comparing the data to theoretical or phenomenological
This corresponds to one or two orders of magnitude increase in DTDs in a forward-modeling process, the best parametric
SFR over the 0 < z < 1 range, and is in contrast to the roughly description of the DTD is a power law,
constant mass-normalized SFR that is required in this range, in s
−1 −1 t
the composite SFH scenario, to reproduce the cluster SN rates. Ψ(t) ≈ 0.01 SN yr (10 M )10
(13)
We also note that, if the DTD were universal in environment 1 Gyr
and in time, and the SFH + DTD scenario were true, then it
with index s = −1.1 ± 0.2 or s = −1.3 ± 0.2, depending
would apply to early-type galaxies in general. SNe Ia in all
on whether we adopt a minimal-iron constraint or an
early types, whether in the field or in clusters, and at low or
optimal-iron constraint, respectively, based on cluster data.
high redshifts, would be the prompt outcome of low levels of
Single-component DTDs consisting of shallower power
5 It would be useful to study the dependence of cluster SN rates on radial
laws, such Ψ ∝ t −1/2 , cannot simultaneously match the
distance from cluster cores. Such an analysis may be feasible, however, only observed SN rates and the integrated SN Ia numbers
with a larger sample of cluster SNe. dictated by the iron-to-stellar mass ratio.
3. Physical DD models from the BPS simulations we have Badenes, C., Maoz, D., & Draine, B. T. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1301
examined can match the observations, provided they are Bai, L., Rieke, G. H., Rieke, M. J., Christlein, D., & Zabludoff, A. I. 2009, ApJ,
693, 1840
scaled up in numbers by factors of 5–8. On the other hand, Balestra, I., Tozzi, P., Ettori, S., Rosati, P., Borgani, S., Mainieri, V., Norman,
SD models, on their own, fail because they do not produce C., & Viola, M. 2007, A&A, 462, 429
SNe at late delays, as implied by the data. Our results Barbary, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, submitted
thus provide strong support for the DD SN Ia progenitor Barris, B. J., & Tonry, J. L. 2006, ApJ, 637, 427
scenario. Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., Taam, R. E., Zezas, A., Bulik, T.,
Maccarone, T. J., & Ivanova, N. 2008, ApJS, 174, 223
4. The above conclusions are insensitive to the exact epoch Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289
of star formation in clusters, in the range zf = 2–5. Boehringer, H., Mullis, C., Rosati, P., Lamer, G., Fassbender, R., Schwope, A.,
The conclusions also do not change if one replaces the & Schuecker, P. 2005, Messenger, 120, 33
instantaneous starburst with an exponentially decaying Bogomazov, A. I., & Tutukov, A. V. 2009, Astron. Rep., 53, 214
Brandt, T. D., Tojeiro, R., Aubourg, É., Heavens, A., Jimenez, R., & Strauss,
SFH, except that the model fits deteriorate with increasing M. A. 2010, AJ, 140, 804
star formation timescale, and so the range of acceptable Bremer, M. N., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1427
models shrinks. Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
5. Multi-component models, that either combine freely scaled Buzzoni, A. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 725
Cain, B., et al. 2008, ApJ, 679, 293
versions of two DTDs (e.g., SD and DD), or two SFH Cappellari, M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1126
models (such as a burst plus a constant) with a prompt Ciotti, L., D’Ercole, A., Pellegrini, S., & Renzini, A. 1991, ApJ, 376, 380
DTD, have enough freedom to permit many combinations Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A., & Yan, R. 2009, ApJ, 704, 687
that can match the existing data. However, apart from Daddi, E., Cimatti, A., & Renzini, A. 2000, A&A, 362, L45
the loss of simplicity involved, such combinations face Dahlen, T., Strolger, L.-G., & Riess, A. G. 2008, ApJ, 681, 462
Dahlen, T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 189
other problems. For the composite DTD models, it remains De Grandi, S., & Molendi, S. 2001, ApJ, 551, 153
to be seen if the required combinations and scalings are Dilday, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1021
physically plausible. For the composite SFHs, a high SFR Ebeling, H., Barrett, E., Donovan, D., Ma, C.-J., Edge, A. C., & van Speybroeck,
in the central regions of clusters, and which remains L. 2007, ApJ, 661, L33
constant between 0 < z < 1, is required, in conflict with Ehlert, S., & Ulmer, M. P. 2009, A&A, 503, 35
Eisenhardt, P. R. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 905
observations of clusters at these redshifts. Filippenko, A. V. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 309
6. All of the successful DTD models produce just a fraction Förster, F., & Schawinski, K. 2008, MNRAS, 388, L74
of the time-integrated numbers of SNe Ia at redshifts below Förster, F., Wolf, C., Podsiadlowski, P., & Han, Z. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1893
1.4. A clear prediction of these models is, therefore, that SN Gal-Yam, A., & Leonard, D. C. 2009, Nature, 458, 865
Gal-Yam, A., & Maoz, D. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 942
surveys of clusters or protoclusters at even higher redshifts, Gal-Yam, A., Maoz, D., Guhathakurta, P., & Filippenko, A. V. 2008, ApJ, 680,
approaching the stellar formation redshifts of the clusters, 550
should reveal a sharply rising rate of SNe Ia. Alternatively, Gal-Yam, A., Maoz, D., & Sharon, K. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 37
observation of a non-rising SN Ia rate would raise the Gilbank, D. G., Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E., Hicks, A. K., Gladders, M. D.,
possibility that the bulk of metals in clusters was produced Barrientos, L. F., & Keeney, B. 2008, ApJ, 677, L89
Giodini, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 982
by CC SNe from a top-heavy IMF that exploded even earlier Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&AS, 141, 371
in cluster environments. Gonzalez, A. H., Zaritsky, D., & Zabludoff, A. I. 2007, ApJ, 666, 147
Gould, A., Bahcall, J. N., & Flynn, C. 1997, ApJ, 482, 913
We thank K. Barbary, M. Graham, F. Mannucci, N. Graham, M. L., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 1343
Greggio, L. 2005, A&A, 441, 1055
Mennekens, E. Ofek, D. Poznanski, C. Pritchet, L. Yungel- Greggio, L. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 22
son, D. Zaritsky, and the anonymous referee for providing use- Greggio, L., Renzini, A., & Daddi, E. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 829
ful input. D.M. acknowledges support by a grant from the Is- Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1999, A&A, 347, 348
rael Science Foundation. A.G. acknowledges support by grant Haines, C. P., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 126
07AST-F9 from the Ministry of Science, Culture and Sport, Han, Z., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1301
Hansen, S. M., Sheldon, E. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Koester, B. P. 2009, ApJ,
Israel, and the Ministry of Research, France. A.G. is also sup- 699, 1333
ported by the Israel Science Foundation, the EU FP7 Marie Helder, E. A., et al. 2009, Science, 325, 719
Curie program via an IRG fellowship, the Benoziyo Center Hicks, A. K., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 1022
for Astrophysics, Weizmann-UK, and the Peter and Patricia Hoyle, F., & Fowler, W. A. 1960, ApJ, 132, 565
Iben, I., Jr., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, ApJS, 54, 335
Gruber Awards. K.S. thanks the Benoziyo Center for Astro- Jorgensen, H. E., Lipunov, V. M., Panchenko, I. E., Postnov, K. A., & Prokhorov,
physics for its hospitality in the course of this work. This work M. E. 1997, ApJ, 486, 110
was supported by grants GO-10493 and GO-10793 from the Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33
Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the As- Koyama, Y., Kodama, T., Shimasaku, K., Hayashi, M., Okamura, S., Tanaka, I.,
sociation of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under & Tokoku, C. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1611
Krick, J. E., Surace, J. A., Thompson, D., Ashby, M. L. N., Hora, J. L., Gorjian,
NASA contract NAS 5-26555. V., & Yan, L. 2009, ApJ, 700, 123
Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231
Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545
REFERENCES Kuznetsova, N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 981
Laganá, T. F., Lima Neto, G. B., Andrade-Santos, F., & Cypriano, E. S.
Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197 2008, A&A, 485, 633
Anderson, M. E., Bregman, J. N., Butler, S. C., & Mullis, C. R. 2009, ApJ, 698, Leaman, J., Li, W., Chornock, R., & Filippenko, A. V. 2010, ApJ, submitted,
317 arXiv:1006.4611
Andreon, S. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 263 Li, W., Chornock, R., Leaman, J., Filippenko, A. V., Poznanski, D., Xi-
Andreon, S., Puddu, E., de Propris, R., & Cuillandre, J.-C. 2008, MNRAS, 385, aofeng, W., Ganeshalingam, M., & Mannucci, F. 2010a, ApJ, submitted,
979 arXiv:1006.4613
Aubourg, É., Tojeiro, R., Jimenez, R., Heavens, A., Strauss, M. A., & Spergel, Li, W., et al. 2010b, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:1006.4612
D. N. 2008, A&A, 492, 631 Lin, Y.-T., Mohr, J. J., & Stanford, S. A. 2003, ApJ, 591, 749
Loh, Y.-S., Ellingson, E., Yee, H. K. C., Gilbank, D. G., Gladders, M. D., & Renzini, A., Ciotti, L., D’Ercole, A., & Pellegrini, S. 1993, ApJ, 419, 52
Barrientos, L. F. 2008, ApJ, 680, 214 Riess, A. G., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
Madau, P., Della Valle, M., & Panagia, N. 1998, MNRAS, 297, L17 Rosati, P., Stanford, S. A., Eisenhardt, P. R., Elston, R., Spinrad, H., Stern, D.,
Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Panagia, N. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 773 & Dey, A. 1999, AJ, 118, 76
Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., Panagia, N., Cappellaro, E., Cresci, G., Maiolino, Rosati, P., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 230
R., Petrosian, A., & Turatto, M. 2005, A&A, 433, 807 Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., & Fryer, C. 2009, ApJ, 699, 2026
Mannucci, F., Maoz, D., Sharon, K., Botticella, M. T., Della Valle, M., Gal-Yam, Sadat, R., Blanchard, A., Guiderdoni, B., & Silk, J. 1998, A&A, 331, L69
A., & Panagia, N. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1121 Saintonge, A., Tran, K.-V. H., & Holden, B. P. 2008, ApJ, 685, L113
Maoz, D. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 267 Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161
Maoz, D., & Badenes, C. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1314 Scannapieco, E., & Bildsten, L. 2005, ApJ, 629, L85
Maoz, D., & Gal-Yam, A. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 951 Sharon, K., Gal-Yam, A., Maoz, D., Filippenko, A. V., & Guhathakurta, P.
Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Della Valle, M., & Panagia, 2007, ApJ, 660, 1165
N. 2010, MNRAS, in press (arXiv:1002.3056) Sharon, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 876
Maughan, B. J., Jones, C., Forman, W., & Van Speybroeck, L. 2008, ApJS, 174, Sim, S. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, L52
117 Stanford, S. A., Holden, B., Rosati, P., Eisenhardt, P. R., Stern, D., Squires, G.,
Mazzali, P. A., Röpke, F. K., Benetti, S., & Hillebrandt, W. 2007, Science, 315, & Spinrad, H. 2002, AJ, 123, 619
825 Stanford, S. A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, L129
Mennekens, N., Vanbeveren, D., De Greve, J. P., & De Donder, E. 2010, A&A, Stanford, S. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, L13
515, A89 Strolger, L.-G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 200
Nelemans, G., & Tout, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 753 Sullivan, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 868
Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565 Tojeiro, R., Wilkins, S., Heavens, A. F., Panter, B., & Jimenez, R. 2009, ApJS,
Porter, S. C., Raychaudhury, S., Pimbblet, K. A., & Drinkwater, M. J. 185, 1
2008, MNRAS, 388, 1152 Totani, T., Morokuma, T., Oda, T., Doi, M., & Yasuda, N. 2008, PASJ, 60, 1327
Postman, M., Lubin, L. M., & Oke, J. B. 2001, AJ, 122, 1125 van Kerkwijk, M. H., Chang, P., & Justham, S. 2010, ApJ, submitted,
Poznanski, D., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1169 arXiv:1006.4391
Pratt, G. W., Croston, J. H., Arnaud, M., & Boehringer, H. 2009, A&A, 498, Wang, B., Li, X.-D., & Han, Z.-W. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2729
361 Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355
Pritchet, C. J., Howell, D. A., & Sullivan, M. 2008, ApJ, 683, L25 Whelan, J., & Iben, I., Jr. 1973, ApJ, 186, 1007
Raskin, C., Scannapieco, E., Rhoads, J., & Della Valle, M. 2009, ApJ, 707, Woosley, S. E. 2007, Nat. Phys., 3, 832
74 Yasuda, N., & Fukugita, M. 2010, AJ, 139, 39
Reiss, D. 2000, PhD thesis, Univ. Washington York, D. G., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
Renzini, A. 1997, ApJ, 488, 35 Yungelson, L. R., & Livio, M. 2000, ApJ, 528, 108

Maoz_2010_ApJ_722_1879

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maoz_2010_ApJ_722_1879

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maoz_2010_ApJ_722_1879

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Astrophysical Journal, 722:1879–1894, 2010 October 20 doi:10.

1. INTRODUCTION Iben 1973), a WD grows in mass through accretion from a non-

then the event rate will be

optimal-iron value with a t −1/2 , t −1.3 broken power law, that is

and four DD models, computed under different assumptions

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.