observations and modeling of supernova ( sn ) light indicate that the two most common power sources of the emission we observe are the radioactive decay of  and the internal energy deposited in the envelope by the shock that unbinds the star ( * ? ? ?
* and references therein ) .
the emission powered by the latter is known as the cooling envelope emission and it dominates the photospheric phase in most type ii sne @xcite that mark the explosion of a red supergiant ( rsg ) ( * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* and references therein ) . these are sub - classified into two sub - types based on the luminosity decline rate during that phase .
if the photospheric phase shows no ( or at most a moderate ) decline the sn is classified as ii - p while if the decline is faster it is classified as ii - l @xcite .
this classification is not well defined and different authors use different decline rates in different bands in order to separate the two classes ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
earlier studies suggested that the decline rate separates type ii sne into two distinctive populations ( e.g. , * ? ? ? * ; * ? ? ? * ) .
however , recent studies ( @xcite , see however @xcite ) suggest that there is a continuous distribution of decline rates , thus challenging the usefulness of this classification . in this paper
we do not attempt to separate sne into these two categories , using instead the measured decline rate to characterize each sn .
interestingly , there is no clear theoretical explanation for the origin of the difference in the decline rates ( be it continuous or not ) , or to the correlation of the decline with other sne properties such as the peak brightness @xcite or spectral features @xcite .
the most common , yet unconfirmed , suggestion is that steeper decline rates are generated by smaller envelope masses ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
numerical modeling of rsg explosions that include  suggest that although cooling envelope emission dominates the photospheric phase , the power deposited by  may have an observable effect also during that phase ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
the main effect of  on the light curve is via the additional radiated energy , which results in a brighter emission .
a second order  effect is the increase in ionization fraction ( and thus the opacity ) of the envelope , thereby delaying the release of internal energy deposited both by the shock and by the  itself . for any realistic distribution of , its contribution to the observed
emission increases with time during most of the photospheric phase ( this is true even for a uniform  mixing through the entire star ;
e.g. , @xcite ) .
this may make the final stages of the photospheric phase brighter , and possibly more extended .
the purpose of this paper is to use observations of type ii sne to study the impact of  decay on the photospheric phase emission .
in particular we are interested in a quantitative measurement of the  importance in observed sne and in separating  contribution from that of the cooling envelope emission , which is powered by shock deposited energy .
we pay special attention to the effect  has on the light curve decline rate .
the paper structure is as follows . in  [
sec : theory ] we use exact energy conservation arguments to derive a robust measurement of the contribution of   during the photospheric phase , using the time - weighted integrated bolometric light curve .
we also derive a measure of the cooling envelope emission alone ( i.e. , the one that would have been observed if there were no ) , which is directly related to its light curve shape . in section  [ sec : nicontribution ] we apply these measurements to the bolometric light curves of a sample of sne that were compiled from the literature and are described in
[ sec : sample ] .
we show that  is important in many sne , and constrain the effect that  has on the light curve shape . in
[ sec : correlations ] we test for correlations between the observables we introduce here and other observables we obtain for our sample . finally , in
[ sec : sn_properties ] we use the time - weighted light curve to obtain a new global measurement that constrains the progenitor radius , envelope mass , and explosion energy , by rigorously subtracting the  contribution .
we show that , contrary to previous suggestions , a faster decline rate is most likely not a result of a lower envelope mass .
we summarize our results in  [ sec : summary ] .
we are interested in a well - defined observationally - based measure that can separate the contributions of cooling envelope and  decay to the photospheric emission for a given bolometric light curve @xmath0 . in type ii sne
there is a sharp drop in the light curve once the photosphere ends crossing the envelope , allowing a clear distinction between the photospheric phase and the  tail .
we denote this time as @xmath1 , and in well observed sne it can be determined to within 10d accuracy or better . at @xmath2 the diffusion time through the envelope is much shorter than @xmath3 and therefore @xmath4 , where @xmath5 is the instantaneous injection of energy into the ejecta due to the  decay chain .
@xmath6 is time since the explosion in days .
escape of gamma - rays generated by the decay of  is minor in type ii sne for some time after @xmath1 , as evident from the  tail observed decay rates , which are typically consistent with eq .
[ eq : qni ] .
therefore , observations of the  tail provide a rather accurate estimate of the total  mass in the ejecta ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
] , @xmath7 .
once @xmath7 is found , the  injection rate of energy @xmath8 at any given time is determined using ( up to late times where gamma - ray escape becomes significant ) .
now we are faced with the following question  at early times @xmath9 , how much of @xmath0 was due to the cooling envelope and how much was due to @xmath10 ?
there are a few challenges that do not allow a simple separation of the two contributions :    * energy which is deposited at some time @xmath11 is released at an unknown later time @xmath3 . *
the opacity depends on the temperature and composition and is thus affected in a non linear way by the contribution of the two energy sources .
* there are continuous adiabatic losses so that the emitted energy is smaller than the injected energy
.    let us imagine first that the ejecta were not expanding , so that there were no adiabatic losses .
in such a case , we would know that the total emitted energy @xmath12 has to be the sum of the shock deposited energy and the integrated injected energy @xmath13 . since we know @xmath0 and @xmath8 , we would be able to determine each of the contributions .
note that this separation would be based on total energy conservation and would thus not depend on the difference between deposited and released times nor on the effect of  decay on the opacities .
if we were to apply the same energy conservation argument to an expanding ejecta it would fail due to the significant and unknown adiabatic losses .    a way to follow the conservation of total energy in an expanding ejecta was recently realized in the context of type ia sne @xcite and we apply the same method here .
the idea is that for non - relativistic homologous expansion , where the energy is dominated by radiation , adiabatic losses do not affect the product @xmath14 , where @xmath15 is the energy in radiation that is trapped in the ejecta and @xmath3 is the time since explosion .
thus we can separate the contributions by using the time - weighted emission @xmath16 .    for clarity
we repeat here these arguments and extend them to include the cooling envelope emission which is negligible in sne ia . during the homologous phase , which starts in the case of rsg progenitors about a day after the explosion , the derivative of the internal energy ( which is dominated by radiation ) in
the outflow satisfies : @xmath17 the term @xmath18 is the total rate of adiabatic losses . after rearranging the equation , multiplying both sides by @xmath3 and integrating over @xmath3 from @xmath19 to @xmath1 one obtains : @xmath20 where @xmath21 is the time at which the homologues phase begins , @xmath22 and we used the fact that the contribution at @xmath23 to the integral on the r.h.s of the equation is negligible .
we also used the fact that at late enough time @xmath24 the diffusion time through the envelope is much shorter than @xmath3 and therefore @xmath25 . on the left hand side of eq .
, we have the total ( time weighted ) energy released . on the right side
we have the total ( time weighted ) energy deposited , where we separated contributions from the  decay chain @xmath26 and from the shock deposited energy @xmath27 ( just like in the hypothetic static case , but with time weights ) .
the measurable parameter @xmath27 is of interest by itself as it is related directly to the progenitor structure and mass and to the explosion energy .
we explore this relation in @xcite .
we use their results here ( section [ sec : sn_properties ] ) to study the sample of sne that we compile in section [ sec : sample ] .
we use here the notation of @xcite for @xmath27 : @xmath28    next , we define @xmath29 as the luminosity that would have been seen if there were no  present in the ejecta . since without  @xmath30 , eq .
( [ eq : e0t01 ] ) implies @xmath31 .
this in turn implies that when  does exist ( but @xmath29 is still the hypothetical luminosity when it does not ) : @xmath32    an observable measure of the  contribution to the emission during the photospheric phase ( @xmath9 ) can be defined as the ratio of the ( time weighted ) energy deposited by  decay to the shock deposited energy ( multiplied by @xmath21 ) : @xmath33 @xmath34 implies that shock deposited energy is the main power source and cooling envelope emission dominates during the entire photospheric phase .
@xmath35 indicates that  decay dominates the energy output during most of the photospheric phase .
when @xmath36 the two power sources have a comparable contribution where cooling envelope dominates at early time and  is more dominant near the end of the photospheric phase .    finally , we define another dimensionless observable : @xmath37 where @xmath38 and @xmath39 are the hypothetical @xmath29 and the observed @xmath40 on day 25 , respectively . as the  effect on @xmath40
is expected to be negligible on day 25 we assume that @xmath41 .
the rational behind this definition is that @xmath42 is an observable that depends purely on @xmath29 .
being the ratio between @xmath38 and the time - weighted integrated @xmath29 it measures a combination of the decline rate and duration of the light curve had  been absent . in section [ sec : nicontribution ] we discuss its interpretation in more detail . the constant @xmath43 is inserted to make @xmath42 a dimensionless parameter of order unity , where the specific choice of @xmath44 is explained in section [ sec : nicontribution ] .
we therefore have defined three observables , @xmath45 , @xmath42 , and et , that will allow us to separate and evaluate the relative contributions of the cooling envelope and  to a given light curve .
p1cmcccccccccccc 1999em & 0.54 & 0.55 & 0.17 & 1.34 & 14 & 12 & 12 & 136 & 4.7 & bol & 3280 & 1 + 1999gi & 0.63 & 0.66 & 0.33 & 1.37 & 16 & 13 & 12 & 130 & 5.8 & bol & 3700 & 1,2 + 2003hn & 0.31 & 1.3 & 0.85 & 1.16 & 23 & 13 & 11 & 110 & 3.2 & bol & & 1 + 2004et & 0.43 & 0.77 & 0.53 & 1.83 & 23 & 16 & 14 & 136 & 5.0 & ubvrijhk & 4020 & 3 + & ( 0.32)&(0.85)&(0.70)&(1.23 ) & ( 17 ) & ( 10 ) & ( 8.8)&(136 ) & ( 2.5 ) & ( ubvri ) & + 2005cs@xmath46 & 0.26 & 0.08 & -0.09 & 0.28 & 1.9 & 2.0 & 2.1 & 130 & 0.5 & bol & 1980 & 4 + & ( 0.15)&(0.11)&(0.01)&(0.17)&(1.2 ) & ( 1.1 ) & ( 1.2 ) & ( 130)&(0.17 ) & ( ubvri ) & + 2007od@xmath46 & 0.12 & 0.97 & 0.87 & 2.12 & 32 & 22 & 15 & 112 & 2.0 & uvoir & 3130 & 5 + 2009n & 0.61 & 0.67 & -0.04 & 0.40 & 4.6 & 5.1 & 4.8 & 112 & 2.0 & bol & 2580 & 6 + & ( 0.45)&(0.68)&(0.09)&(0.21)&(2.5 ) & ( 2.5 ) & ( 2.3 ) & ( 112)&(0.8 ) & ( bvri ) & & + 2009ib & 2.6 & 1.1 & 0.1 & 0.29 & 5.2 & 4.8 & 4.7 & 142 & 4.6 & uvoir & 3090 & 7 + 2009md & 0.28 & 0.59 & 0.26 & 0.23 & 2.4 & 2.2 & 1.9 & 121 & 0.5 & ubvrijhk & 2000@xmath47 & 8 + 2012a & 0.29 & 0.91 & 0.56 & 0.42 & 6.1 & 4.6 & 3.6 & 117 & 0.9 & uvoir & 2840@xmath47 & 9 + 2012aw@xmath48 & 0.49 & 0.56 & 0.31 & 1.52 & 16 & 13 & 12 & 135 & 4.9 & uvoir & 3890 & 10 + 2012ec & 0.57 & 0.88 & 0.18 & 0.73 & 10 & 9.3 & 8.8 & 112 & 3.5 & ubvrijhk & 3370 & 11 + 2013by & 0.2 & 1.2 & 1.19 & 1.66 & 33 & 25 & 11 & 104 & 2.9 & bol & & 12 , 13 [ table : bolsample ]    p1cmcccccccccccc 1992h@xmath46 & 0.71 & 1.1 & 0.70 & 17 & 11 & 9.0 & 142 & 4.2 & bvr & 1 + 1995ad@xmath48 & 0.4 & 1.4 & 0.83 & 9.1 & 6.2 & 4.2 & 98 & 1.5 & ubvri & 2 + 2001dc & 0.43 & 0.82 & 0.35 & 0.90 & 0.73 & 0.65 & 120 & 0.22 & bvri & 3 + 2003z@xmath49 & 0.27 & 0.57 & 0.24 & 0.95 & 0.84 & 0.76 & 130 & 0.21 & bvri & 4 + 2004a & 0.63 & 0.68 & 0.06 & 4.4 & 4.3 & 4.2 & 120 & 1.75 & bvri & 5 + 2008 in & 0.39 & 0.96 & 0.53 & 2.8 & 2.1 & 1.7 & 115 & 0.55 & bvri & 6 + 2009bw & 0.17 & 0.64 & 0.77 & 13 & 7.8 & 6.6 & 140 & 1.2 & ubvri & 7 + 2009dd & 0.46 & 1.1 & 0.83 & 12 & 7.3 & 5.5 & 130 & 2.1 & ubvri & 2 + 2010aj & 0.09 & 1.3 & 1.05 & 11 & 7.5 & 4.3 & 94 & 0.5 & ubvri & 2 + 2013ab & 0.47 & 1.2 & 0.71 & 13 & 8.1 & 6.8 & 116 & 2.6 & uvo & 8 + 2013ej & 0.16 & 1.4 & 1.27 & 19 & 8.8 & 6 & 112 & 1.1 & uvo & 9 .
[ table : optsample ]
we compiled from the literature 24 well observed type ii sne for which detailed bolometric or pseudo - bolometric light curves are available .
the light curves are taken from the references in tables [ table : bolsample ] and [ table : optsample ] and are based on the distances and extinctions used in each reference .
an exception is sn2013by for which we computed the bolometric light curve ourselves based on blackbody fits to the photometry from @xcite assuming no significant extinction and taking a distance modulo @xmath50 . for a sn to be included in our sample
, we required a reasonable coverage of the photospheric phase , namely first detection less than 30d after the estimated time of explosion , and several data points along the photospheric phase that enable a reasonable constraint on the luminosity evolution during that phase .
we further required at least two measurements along the  tail so that the mass of  could be constrained .
the analysis in this paper is sensitive to the light curve starting about 20 d after the explosion ( we verify that below ) and up to the  tail . at these times
most of the observed light is in the optical and ir .
all the light curves we compile include the light emitted in the optical bands but some are missing the ir light .
we therefore divide the 24 sne to two samples . the first is composed of 13 sne for which the published light curves provide a good approximation to the true bolometric light at the time of interest .
these are light curves that include bolometric correction or pseudo - bolometric light curves that are base on uv / opt / ir or opt / ir light .
we refer to this sample as the bolometric sample .
the sne in this sample and their properties are given in table [ table : bolsample ] .
the second sample has 11 sne where ir luminosity is missing , and thus their light curves may miss a significant fraction of the emitted luminosity .
we refer to this sample as the optical sample , and its sne are listed in table [ table : optsample ] .
as described below we first derive the observables of the bolometric sample and then , based on the results of the bolometeric sample , we derive properties of the optical sample that can be used for our analysis .    for each sn in the bolometric sample we estimated first
the  mass based on the luminosity during the tail , and on equation [ eq : qni ] , assuming that @xmath51 . in all but two sne
, the  tail evolved as expected , namely a decay at a rate consistent with 0.98 mag/100d .
the light curves of sne 2005cs and 2007od do not follow the expected evolution .
we cautiously kept them in the sample , using the observed tail to get a rough estimate of the  mass for sn2005cs and a value taken from the literature for sn 2007od @xcite , where dust may strongly affect the observed tail luminosity .
the  masses that we find are given in table [ table : bolsample ] .
the mass found for each sne is very similar to the value derived in the paper from which we took the sne light curves ( always within the uncertainly and up to 10 - 20% from the best estimated value ) .
next we determined @xmath1 for each sn .
this can be done accurately ( to within @xmath52 d ) in all sne but one ( sn 2012aw ) , where @xmath1 was taken between the last data point of the photospheric phase and the first data point on the  tail ( see table [ table : bolsample ] for details ) . for each
sn we found the luminosities at days 25 , 50 , and 75 denoted as @xmath39 , @xmath53 and @xmath54 respectively , by linear interpolation ( in @xmath55 $ ] space ) .
as a measure of the decline rate we define @xmath56 .
we then calculate @xmath45 , @xmath42 and et for each sn .    for all sne with available
spectra we measure the ejecta velocities , and in a single case ( sn 2009md ) we take it from the literature ( spectra for the majority of the sne were obtained from wiserep ; @xcite ) .
these velocities are used in section [ sec : sn_properties ] .
traditionally , the feii @xmath57 absorption line velocity , as measured in mid - plateau , is considered a good proxy for the velocity of the photosphere ( e.g. , @xcite ; @xcite ) .
briefly , as often done before @xcite , we cross correlate the spectra with a library of high signal - to - noise spectra for which the velocity of the @xmath57 line has been measured directly .
the velocity from the cross - correlation and its uncertainty are then propagated to day 50 past explosion , following @xcite , who showed that photospheric velocities of sne ii - p follow a tight power law relation .
we use the improved determination of the phase dependance of the velocity by @xcite .
we note that @xcite found that sne ii - l have a different , slower , velocity evolution , with some scatter . as a result
, our calculations may slightly underestimate the velocity for such sne .
we can use the bolometric sample to evaluate the accuracy of observables that are derived based on light curves that lack ir luminosity .
we repeat the derivation described above for three of the sne in the bolometric sample , where ubvri ( or bvri ) and bolometric light curve are provided in the same paper ( i.e. , using the same data , estimated distance and extinction ) .
the derivation of all the observables is done as if the optical light curve is bolometric .
namely , @xmath7 is derived by comparison of the optical light in the  tail to equation [ eq : qni ] , while @xmath45 and @xmath42 are calculated by time integration of the optical light .
comparison of the quantities derived based on optical light alone to those derived based on bolometric light show that in all observables that are linear with the luminosity ( i.e. , @xmath58 , @xmath7 and et ) the usage of optical light only leads to an underestimate by about a factor of 2 , and in some cases even by a factor of 3 .
however , the difference in the dimensionless observables is much smaller  a moderate factor of @xmath59 in the measurement of @xmath45 , a difference of 0.010.08 in @xmath60 and a difference of @xmath61 mag/50d in @xmath62 .
the reason that these dimensionless quantities are rather accurate also when only optical light is considered is that they are basically a ratio of the luminosities observed at different times and therefore they are insensitive to the absolute value of the missing bolometric correction factor .
instead they are only sensitive to the time evolution of the correction factor , which turns out to be not too large . based on these results
we restrict the usage the optical sample in our analysis to dimensionless quantities .
these are given in table [ table : optsample ] .
we also provide , for completeness , the value of the  mass we use for the derivation of @xmath45 and @xmath42 , although these are not the true  masses in these sne as they are derived using the optical light curves as if they were bolometric .
finally , in order to test the effect of missing data at early time ( in about half of the sample the first data point is around day 20 ) , as well as the effect of missing uv light , we used 8 sne in our two samples , for which data starts no more than 10d after the estimated time of explosion .
we compared @xmath45 and et ( the only two quantities affected by early data ) of these sne when measured with and without the data before day 20 .
the typical difference in @xmath45 is @xmath63 and in et it is @xmath64 .
we therefore conclude that the effect of missing early data and/or uv light is not a major source of uncertainty .
this result also implies that the uncertainty in the estimated time of explosion ( which is typically better than 10 days ) also does not introduce a significant uncertainty to the quantities we measure .
the values of @xmath45 in our sample are all , except one , in the range 0.090.71 , with most sne having @xmath65 ( tables [ table : bolsample ] and [ table : optsample ] ) .
the exception is sn 2009ib with @xmath66 .
the fraction of the time weighted integrated luminosity that is contributed by  is @xmath67 .
thus , the observed values of @xmath45 in our sample ( 0.092.6 ) imply that the range of  contribution to the time weighted integrated luminosity is 8%-72% with a typical value of 30% .
these values indicate that  has a non - negligible contribution to the photospheric emission for most of the sample .
but what is this effect on the observed light curve and can it be quantified ?
@xmath45 and @xmath42 have the advantage of being observables that are independent of radiative transfer .
but , for that they must be integrals and as such they do not hold information on the exact shape of the light curve .
namely , knowing their values does not enable us to determine exactly how the light curve would have been looked like if there were no .
the reason is that in order to remove the  contribution we need to know the exact  distribution and to calculate its effect on the radiative transfer .
yet , @xmath45 and @xmath42 can provide quantitative constraints on the effect of  on the observed light curve .    to obtain that
, we use the expectation that  is produced in the core and that its fraction drops , or at most remains constant , with radius .
this implies that the relative contribution of  increases with time , reaching a peak near the end of the photospheric phase .
thus , the effect of  on the light curve can be either flattening ( i.e. , reducing the decline rate ) or extending the duration of the photospheric phase ( or a combination of both effects ) . in fig .
( [ fig : le_sketch ] ) we sketch the two extreme possibilities of  effect on the light curve .
the first is that  is extending the plateau duration without affecting the decline rate . in this case
the cooling envelope contribution underlying the combined ` observed ' light curve would have looked like the dashed red line in fig .
( [ fig : le_sketch ] ) .
alternatively ,   could make the last stages of the plateau brighter ( i.e. , making it flatter ) without significantly affecting the plateau duration , and the cooling envelope emission would look like the dotted blue line in fig .
( [ fig : le_sketch ] ) .
the true effect is a combination of the two , but what is the actual possible effect in each scenario and which one is more likely to be the dominant ? to address this question
we consider each scenario in some detail and estimate ( quantitatively ) its possible effect on the sne in our sample .
first , consider the possibility that  only extends the plateau without significantly affecting its decline rate .
namely ,  does not affect the light curve up to the time that @xmath29 starts fading , at which point it becomes the main power source , thereby extending the plateau .
this behavior is expected to dominate when  is concentrated in the core and is not well mixed into the envelope .
then , the luminosity generated by  power diffuses to the observer only after almost all the shock deposited energy has already been leaked out of the envelope fades and the  power becomes the dominant energy source . ] .
if the plateau is flat ( i.e. , @xmath40 is constant ) then the relation between @xmath45 and the plateau extension in this scenario is analytic . denoting @xmath68 and @xmath69 as the durations of the plateaus of @xmath40 and @xmath29 , respectively , then in this scenario @xmath70 , where from eqs .
( [ eq : et2 ] ) and ( [ eq : etani ] ) we find @xmath71
. thus , in this case @xmath72 , where the final equality is for @xmath65 . assuming instead @xmath40 with a constant decline rate of 1 [ 2 ] mag/100d and @xmath73 d , the observed range @xmath65 corresponds to @xmath74 [ @xmath75 .
next , we consider the other extreme possibility , namely that the plateau duration is not affected by  ( or @xmath76 ) and that instead the   changes only the luminosity along the plateau . since  is always negligible at early times the effect must be an increase in the luminosity at late times , namely more  results in a flatter ( or even rising ) plateau .
this is the effect which is expected to dominate if  is well mixed throughout a significant fraction of the envelope .
efficiently mixed  generates luminosity that diffuses to the observer at earlier stages , simultaneously with the cooling envelope emission . without the cooling envelope emission
, the  generated luminosity would have looked in this case like a broad peak ( similar to that observed in sn 1987a ) .
the main effect on the plateau duration is then via increase in the envelope opacity .
the flattening effect on  is seen clearly in the numerical light curve of the fully mixed case in figure 12 of @xcite .
the change in the decline rate that   induces in this case can be estimated using @xmath42 , which is a ratio between the luminosity at early time ( day 25 ) and the time - weighted average luminosity .
thus , if the duration of the plateau is roughly constant in all sne then we expect @xmath42 to be a measure of the decline rate of @xmath29 . to verify this , and to calibrate @xmath42 , we define its bolometric luminosity counterpart : @xmath77 fig .
( [ fig : lambdavsdm ] ) shows the tight linear correlation between @xmath62 and @xmath78 , which is consistent with @xmath79 ( the constant @xmath43 in the definition of @xmath80 and @xmath42 was chosen to obtain this equality ) .
thus , @xmath78 is a good estimator of the observed decline rate ( in units of mag/50d ) and if the  does not affect the plateau duration then @xmath42 is a good estimator of the decline rate of @xmath29 .    fig .
( [ fig : lambdavsdm ] ) also shows @xmath81 as a function of @xmath78 .
the measured values are narrowly distributed around @xmath82 ( with the exception of sn 2009ib ) .
this implies two interesting points .
in this scenario the  reduces the decline rate in flat sne ( with small @xmath80 ) by about 1 mag/100 d , while sne with fast decline ( large @xmath80 ) are less affected . for the majority of the sne in our sample
the flattening in this scenario is in the range of 0.5 - 1 mag/100 d. second , the tight correlation between @xmath80 and @xmath83 indicates that while  affects the observed decline rate , it is not the only source for the difference between sne in the observed decline rates .
namely , different observed decline rates often reflects different decline rates of the cooling envelope emission .
the two scenarios discussed above provide bounds to the effect of  on the light curve . in reality
it is a combination of both ( i.e. , both a flattening and an extension of the plateau ) , where the relative importance depends on the level of  mixing in the envelope .
yet , there are several lines of evidence that support that flattening is significant , and possibly the dominant effect on the light curve :    \(i ) flattening is expected if  is well mixed through the envelope .
the best clue regarding  mixing in sn explosions of progenitors with massive hydrogen - rich envelopes is sn 1987a and similar events ( e.g. * ? ? ?
* ) , which have progenitors with similar masses and composition but smaller radii than those of regular type ii sne .
the handful of sne of this type that were well observed are all showing rather similar light curves , which often look like a clone of sn 1987a up to a normalization factor ( * ? ? ?
* and references therein ) .
detailed light curve modeling of sn 1987a favor an efficient  mixing throughout the hydrogen envelope ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
\(ii ) the first scenario  no  mixing and a significant extension of the plateau  requires a fine tuning of the amount of .
the reason is that the photospheric phase can be separated in this case into two phases  first a cooling envelope phase where  is negligible and later a  dominated phase .
the luminosity of the two phases depends on different explosion parameters ( the first phase is determined mostly by the progenitor radius and to some extent by the explosion energy and progenitor mass , while the second phase depends only on the amount of  mass ) .
therefore , without finely tuning the amount of , a transition between the two phases is expected to be observed during late stages of the plateau , either as a bump if there is too much  or a dip if there is not enough .
this can be seen in @xcite ( their fig .
2 ) where @xmath7 is varied by a factor of 4 ( and so does @xmath45 between 0.5 and 2 ) .
this variation is enough to change the light curve from a dip near the end of the plateau to a bump . in our sample
the plateaus do not show any transition between two phases , even though the  contribution varies significantly ( @xmath84 ) including a case where  dominates the photospheric light curve .
\(iii ) in the second scenario , where  is well mixed , its contribution becomes significant earlier , near the middle of the plateau ( if sn1987a is a reasonable example for  contribution then around day 50 ) , and from that point , both  and cooling envelope are significant until the plateau ends .
thus , instead of a transition between the two phases , a flattening is expected to be seen around the middle of the plateau .
such a flattening is indeed observed in many sn light curves ( e.g. , @xcite ; the transition from s1 to s2 in their notation ) .
\(iv ) each scenario predicts different correlations between observables . if  results in flattening of the light curve then an anti - correlation is expected between the importance of  contribution ( @xmath45 ) and the decline rate . on the other hand ,
if  extends the plateau no such anti - correlation is expected and instead a correlation between @xmath45 and @xmath1 is predicted .
as we show in the next section we find a highly significant anti - correlation between @xmath45 and @xmath62 and at most a weak correlation between @xmath45 and @xmath1 .
these arguments are all suggesting that @xmath81 is not only an upper limit on the decline rate of the light curve without , @xmath29 , but that it also provides a rough estimate of this decline rate .     to conclude ,  contribution to the photospheric emission is significant in type ii sne , although in most it is not the main source of the observed luminosity .
typically it contributes around 30% of the time weighted integrated luminosity , but in some sne it contributes less than 10% and in the extreme case of sn2009ib it contribute 72% .
this contribution flattens and extends the plateau . in typical sne ,
the maximal possible extension of the plateau is by about 25% while the maximal possible flattening is by about 1 mag/100 d. the actual effect is a combination of both , however , several line of evidence suggest that flattening is significant
. finally , while  most likely affect the decline rate of the plateau , the observed range of decline rates is clearly dominated by the decline rates of the cooling envelope emission and can not be a result of  alone .
p1cmccccccccccccc @xmath45 &  & n / a & @xmath85 & 0.05 & n / a & n / a & n / a & 0.02 & n / a & n / a & n / a & n / a + @xmath42 & &  & @xmath86&@xmath870.04 & 0.03 & 0.06 & n / a & n / a & n / a & n / a & n / a & n / a + @xmath62 & & &  & @xmath870.04 & @xmath88&0.002 & 0.06 & n / a & 0.06 & 0.005 & 0.02 & 0.04 + @xmath1 & & & &  & n / a & n / a & n / a & 0.07 & n / a & n / a & n / a & n / a + @xmath39 & & & & &  & & & 0.06 & @xmath88&@xmath86&@xmath86 & @xmath86 + @xmath53 & & & & & &  & & 0.04 & @xmath89&@xmath86&@xmath86 & @xmath86 + @xmath54 & & & & & & &  & 0.008 & @xmath90&@xmath86&@xmath86 & @xmath86 + @xmath7 & & & & & & & &  & n / a & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.05 + [ table : correlations ]    table [ table : correlations ] list the significance of correlations ( and anti - correlations ) between every two observables listed in tables [ table : bolsample ] and [ table : optsample ] . here
we focus on the correlations of the two new dimensionless observables that we introduce , @xmath45 and @xmath42 , which are relevant for the effect on  on the light curve .
@xmath45 does not show a significant correlation to most of the observables .
specifically , it seems to be uncorrelated with @xmath42 , which is a measure of the cooling envelope shape , and with the plateau luminosity @xmath39 , @xmath53 and @xmath54 ( see illustration in figure [ fig : etanivsx ] ) .
it also shows no correlation with @xmath91 , @xmath92 and @xmath93 ( see discussion in section [ sec : sn_properties ] ) . a marginally significant correlation ( probability of no correlation @xmath94 )
is seen with the plateau duration and a slightly more significant correlation ( probability of no correlation @xmath95 ) with @xmath7 ( see figure [ fig : etanivsx ] ) .
the only highly significant finding ( probability of no correlation @xmath96 ) is an anti - correlation with the bolometric decline rate between days 25 and 75 , @xmath62 .
( [ fig : dmvsetani ] ) shows a scatter plot of @xmath45 vs. @xmath62 . a roughly linear anti
- correlation is clearly seen .
namely , the role of  during the photospheric phase is more prominent in sne with a smaller decline rate ( a ` flatter ' plateau ) .
the scatter around the correlation is considerable and it is most likely a combination of intrinsic scatter and the inhomogeneity of our sample .
the anti - correlation between  contribution and the decline rates can also be seen when the well known correlation between the plateau luminosity and the  mass is plotted .
( [ fig : l25vsmni ] ) shows the luminosity at 25 days after explosion , @xmath39 , as a function of the  mass .
an approximate linear relation is seen , similarly to the finding of previous works ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
in order to show the relation to the  contribution and decline rate , we use different symbols for sne with different values of @xmath62 .
sne that decline fast are significantly above those that decline slowly .
namely , for the same amount of fast declining sne are brighter and thus have a smaller @xmath45 .
this is consistent with the results of @xcite .
( [ fig : l75vsmni ] ) is similar to fig .
( [ fig : l25vsmni ] ) , but with @xmath54 instead of @xmath39 .
while fast declining sne are still brighter on average at day 75 ( for the same amount of ) , the difference from slow declining sne is reduced , as expected .
we have seen in section [ sec : nicontribution ] that for sne with a high value of @xmath45 ,  must have an observable effect either via flattening the plateau or by extending it or , most likely , both . the significant anti - correlation between @xmath45 and @xmath62 supports a picture
were flattening is a major effect .
this in turn requires  to be mixed into a significant part of the envelope .
the marginal correlation with @xmath1 suggest that  also extends the plateau , although not significantly .
next we examine the correlations of @xmath42 , some of which are illustrated in figure [ fig : lambda_evsx ] .
@xmath42 probes the shape of @xmath29 , the light curve that we would have seen if there were no .
it is larger when @xmath29 declines faster and/or when its duration is shorter .
@xmath42 shows a very strong correlation with @xmath62 .
this indicates that the observed decline rate is dominated by the cooling envelope emission .
namely , while  most likely affect the decline rate it is not the source of the range of decline rates that are observed . instead this range is dominated by the cooling envelope emission .
@xmath42 also shows a marginal anti - correlation with @xmath1 suggesting that the variance that we see in plateau durations is at least partially determined by @xmath29 .
finally @xmath42 is also correlated with the plateau luminosity .
this correlation is most likely related to the correlation between the decline rate and the luminosity @xcite , whose origin is still unknown .
other than that @xmath42 shows no correlation to any other observable we examined .
interestingly , this includes @xmath7 and @xmath45 , suggesting that the shape of @xmath29 is not correlated with the  amount in the ejecta or its importance in shaping the observed light .
as discussed in  [ sec : theory ] the total contribution of the cooling envelope to the ( time - weighted ) energy release , et , can be directly obtained from observation without major uncertainties related to the details of radiative transfer .
this observable is directly related to the explosion energy and progenitor structure .
this relation was explored recently by @xcite . here
we use their results to study our bolometric sample ( table  [ table : bolsample ] ) , for which we obtained a reliable measure of et .
@xcite used a large set of numerically calculated red supergiants to study what et can teach us on the progenitor and explosion energy .
in general @xmath98 where @xmath99 , @xmath100 , @xmath101 and @xmath102 are energy , mass , radius and velocity that characterize the explosion and the progenitor . specifically they find three approximations , each for a different characteristic e , m and r : @xmath103 where @xmath104 is the total explosion energy carried by the entire ejecta to infinity , @xmath105 is the energy carried by the envelope to infinity , @xmath106 [ @xmath107 is the ejecta [ envelope ] mass , @xmath108 the progenitor radius and @xmath109 is the mass weighted average radius of the envelope ( @xmath110 is mass element of the progenitor at radius @xmath111 ) .
the quality of the approximations vary between the three .
the reasons are , first , that the cooling envelope emission depends only on the envelope properties , and therefore approximations that use only envelope characteristics , the first two in equation [ eq : et ] , are more accurate than the third one , which use global properties of the ejecta .
second , @xmath91 also depends on the internal structure ( density profile ) of the progenitor , thus the first approximation which takes it into account is better than the second one .
quantitatively , the first , which depends on @xmath105 , @xmath112 and @xmath113 , is accurate to within 20% for all the progenitors considered by @xcite , including those that lost almost all of their hydrogen envelope .
the second approximation , which depends on @xmath105 , @xmath108 and @xmath113 is accurate to within 20% for progenitors that retain most of their envelope , and to within a factor of 3 for progenitors that lost most of their envelope .
the third approximation , which depends on @xmath104 , @xmath108 and @xmath106 is applicable only to progenitors where @xmath114 , in which case it is accurate to within about 30% .
additional information can be extracted from et for sne with spectral measurements of the photospheric velocity .
@xcite show that @xmath97 provides a good estimate of @xmath115 , and when the ejecta is dominated by the envelope it is also a good approximation of @xmath116 .
thus , @xmath117 and @xmath118 .
in order to apply equation [ eq : et ] to observations a reliable estimate of et is needed , which in turn requires good bolometric light curve .
therefore we use here only the 13 sne in our bolometric sample ( table  [ table : bolsample ] ) .
( [ fig : e0m0r0vsl25 ] ) depicts scatter plots of @xmath39 with @xmath91 , @xmath92 and @xmath93 , normalized by @xmath119 , @xmath120 and @xmath121 , respectively , where @xmath122 erg , @xmath123 and @xmath124 .
the logarithmic mean of all three is almost identical , 0.8 , suggesting that the canonical progenitor envelope values we used for the normalization are representative for this sample .
the spread in the values is largest for @xmath92 , about an order of magnitude , and smallest for @xmath93 , about a factor of 3 .
this suggests that unless there is an anti - correlation between @xmath113 and @xmath108 ( rsgs calculated by the stellar evolution code mesa does not show such anti - correlation ; @xcite ) , the spread is dominated by variation of @xmath105 which in most progenitors is similar to @xmath125 .
this spread is consistent with the findings of @xcite who found @xmath126 in a sample of sne ii - p with detected progenitors .
the typical values that we find are similar to those found in estimates of @xmath125 , @xmath127 and @xmath108 via detailed hydrodynamical modeling of individual events in our sample ( see the references in table  [ table : bolsample ] ) .
however , @xcite finds systematically larger explosion energies and ejecta masses , and lower progenitor radii .
the estimates in @xcite are based on general numerical models @xcite that solve for @xmath125 , @xmath127 and @xmath108 based on three observables , @xmath53 ( in v band ) , @xmath97 , and the plateau duration .
these models ignore the  contribution and this can explain at least part of the discrepancy . as we find here ,
is affecting the plateau properties in most type ii sne .
our results show that  either flatten the plateau , in which case it is most likely contributes significantly to @xmath53 , and/or extends the plateau .
both effects , when ignored , cause overestimates of @xmath125 and @xmath127 and an underestimate of @xmath108 .
table  [ table : correlations ] lists the correlation significance of @xmath91 , @xmath92 and @xmath93 with other observables .
no correlation is found with @xmath45 suggesting the  relative contribution is most likely uncorrelated to the envelope properties and explosion energy .
we do find however highly significant correlations with all luminosities ( @xmath39 , @xmath53 and @xmath54 ; see for example fig .
[ fig : e0m0r0vsl25 ] ) .
this implies , again assuming no anti - correlation between @xmath113 and @xmath108 , that brighter sne are more energetic and more massive and/or with larger radius .
this is consistent with the estimates based on hydrodynamical modeling for individual sne ( see the references in table  [ table : bolsample ] ) .
finally , all three observables show a significant correlation with @xmath62 .
this suggests that faster declining sne have larger @xmath105 and larger @xmath113 and/or @xmath108 .
some of the implications of this correlation are discussed in the next sub - section .
the progenitor properties of type ii - l sne is still unknown .
the most common suggestion is that the fast decline is a result of a small envelope mass .
this possibility was first speculated by @xcite .
later , numerical simulations have shown that envelopes masses of @xmath128 can produce the observed linear declines ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; see however @xcite ) .
our results of positive correlation between @xmath129 and @xmath62 does not support this picture .
this correlation is evident in fig .
( [ fig : e0m0r0vsdm ] ) .
it shows that @xmath130 of fast declining sne are larger by a factor of 2 - 3 compared to slow declining sne . thus , unless there is a strong anti - correlation between @xmath113 and @xmath108 , which contradicts predictions of stellar evolution models , the envelope of fast declining sne in our sample are at least as massive as those of slow declining sne .
moreover , for 6 out of the 11 sne with estimate of @xmath130 there are pre - explosion images of the progenitor @xcite from which @xmath108 can be estimated ( see table 1 in @xcite ) . the range of radii is small , about a factor of 2 , and they show no correlation with @xmath62 .    another indication that faster decline is unlikely to be the result of a lower envelope mass is that if that were the case , the photospheric phase of fast declining sne should have been much shorter .
the reason is that for a given ejecta velocity the duration of the photospheric phase depends strongly on the ejecta mass ( fast declining sne have similar @xmath97 to slow declining ones with similar luminosity ) .
this can bee seen for example in @xcite and @xcite who model type ii - l sne with low mass ( @xmath131 ) envelopes , where for all these models @xmath132 d. in our observed sample , on the other hand , @xmath1 is in the range of 90140d and very weakly correlates with @xmath62 if at all in the sample is narrowly clustered around the mean ( 120 d ) where almost all sne are in the range 110 - 140 d and no correlation with @xmath62 is observed .
the exception are three fast declining sne , 1995ad , 2010aj and 2013by , which have @xmath1 shorter by @xmath133 than the average . ] .
if , indeed , the envelope mass is not the main driver of the observed range of decline rates then what can it be ? we show here that while  most likely affects the observed decline rate its effect is only secondary to that of the intrinsic cooling envelope emission , @xmath29 . the temporal evolution of @xmath29 , in turn
, is determined to a large extent by the pre - explosion density profile of the progenitor , we therefore speculate that the decline rate is determined mostly by the envelope structure and not by its mass .
we explore the effect of  on the photospheric emission of type ii sne .
we use energy conservation in a spherical outflow that expands homologously to derive a measure for the importance of  ( eq . [ eq : etani ] ) .
this measure is obtained by time weighted integrals over the bolometric light curve and  decay energy deposition rate . as such it is insensitive to the complicated physical processes of radiative transfer and its accuracy depends mostly on the quality of the bolometric light curve .
we use a similar method to derive a measure that depends purely on the light curve shape of the cooling envelope emission that would have been seen if there were no  in the ejecta ( eq . [ eq : lambda_e ] ) .
we compile from the literature a sample of 24 type ii sne with detailed bolometric and quasi - bolometric light curves of the photospheric phase and  tail .
the sample is heterogeneous , ranging over a factor of 30 in plateau luminosity and  mass , and over a range of 2.5 mag/100d in decline rate .
namely , the sample includes luminous , intermediate and low - luminosity type ii sne as well as sne that were classified as ii - p and as ii - l .
we analyze this sample , calculating the new observables that we derive here and find the following results :    *  contribution is significant in most of the sample . in many sne
it is the source of about 30% of the time weighted integrated luminosity during the photospheric phase .
but , there is a single sn ( 2009ib ) in the sample where  contributes 72% and several sne where it powers about 10% .
*  contribution can possibly flatten and/or extend the photospheric light curve .
we find that if flattening were the only effect , then sne that are observed to have a flat plateau would have shown a decline rate of about 1 mag/100 d in the absence of . if on the other hand the only effect of  were to extend the plateau , then without  the photospheric phase would have been typically shorter by a factor of about 1.151.35 and in most extreme cases by almost a factor of 2 .
*  contribution can not explain the entire range of observed decline rates , which is mostly an intrinsic property of the cooling envelope .
several independent lines of evidence suggest that the dominant effect of  is flattening of the light curve .
this includes a significant anti - correlation between the level of  contribution and the decline rate ( i.e. ,  is more important in sne with a flatter plateau ) .
this is expected if  is mixed throughout a significant fraction of the envelope ( as suggested by @xcite for sn1999em ) . with this interpretation
the picture that arises from our results is that flat plateaus are not a generic feature of cooling envelope emission .
instead many observed plateaus includes a significant contribution of , and without it many of the type ii - p sne would have shown a decline rate of up to 1 mag/100d .
note that while not being expected a - priori , there is no need for a ` conspiracy ' so the combination of cooling envelope and  emission would result in plateaus .
first , type ii sne exhibit a range of decline rates , thus in some cases the combined emission produces a plateau and in others it does not .
second , it seems that even without  the cooling envelope emission often shows a moderate decline rate where the luminosity drops by less than a factor of two over 100 d. in these cases the contribution of  is enough to make the light curve even flatter .
the coincidence in type ii sne seems to be the fact that the contribution of cooling envelope and  powered emission are comparable over a wide range of light curve luminosities .
this is a result of the well known tight correlation between the luminosity and  mass @xcite , which most likely reflects a correlation between the explosion energy and  production .
finally , we do not find correlations between the level of  contribution and most of the observed light curve properties , as well as other properties of the cooling envelope emission . on the other hand , @xmath42 , a property of cooling envelope emission alone ,
does correlate with the plateau luminosity and decline rate .
this suggests that the many correlations seen between properties of type ii light curve ( luminosity , velocity , decline rate , etc . )
seem to be intrinsic properties of the cooling envelope emission .
we use the method to remove the effect of  on the integrated light curve to derive an observable measure of a combination of the progenitor radius , envelope mass and explosion energy ( equation [ eq : et ] ; see @xcite for more details ) .
this measure is robust in the sense that , being a result of an integrated energy conservation equation , it is insensitive to the radiation transfer of the observed light . applying this measure to our sample , together with a measurement of the photospheric velocity at day 50 , we find , in agreement with previous studies , that brighter sne are most likely generated by more energetic explosions with larger ejecta mass and/or progenitor radius .
we also find that the decline rate is positively correlated with @xmath134 , which contradicts the popular view that fast decline in type ii sne is a result of significant envelope stripping and thus a low value of @xmath135 .
instead it is more likely to be related to the mass distribution of the ejecta , rather than to its total mass .
we thank iair arcavi , doron kushnir , viktoriya morozova and tony piro for useful comments .
we thank ofer yaron for pointing out the extreme light curve of 2009ib .
we thank the anonymous referee for a thorough report that helped us improving the paper .
this research made use of the weizmann interactive supernova data repository ( ` www.weizmann.ac.il/astrophysics/wiserep ` ) , as well as the nasa / ipac extragalactic database ( ned ) which is operated by the jet propulsion laboratory , california institute of technology , under contract with nasa .
this research was partially supported by the i - core program ( 1829/12 ) .
en was was partially supported by an erc starting grant ( grb / sn ) , isf grant ( 1277/13 ) and an isa grant .
bk was partially supported by the beracha foundation .