1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2:   \documentclass{emulateapj}

3: %   \usepackage{apjfonts}

4: %   \usepackage{natbib}

5: %  \usepackage{epsfig}

6: % \usepackage{subfig}

7: \shorttitle{Shallow Decay Segment of the {\em Swift}/XRT Data}

8: \shortauthors{Liang et

9: al.}

10: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ on April 29, 2007}

11: \begin{document}

12: 

13: \title{A Comprehensive Analysis of the {\em Swift}/XRT Data: \\

14: II. Diverse Physical Origins of the Shallow Decay Segment}

15: \author{En-Wei Liang\altaffilmark{1,2}, Bin-Bin Zhang\altaffilmark{1,3},

16: Bing Zhang\altaffilmark{1}

17: } \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas,

18: NV 89154, USA; lew@physics.unlv.edu; zbb@physics.unlv.edu;bzhang@physics.unlv.edu}

19: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China}

20: \altaffiltext{3}{National Astronomical Observatories/Yunnan Observatory, CAS, Kunming

21: 650011, China}

22: 

23: \begin{abstract}

24: The origin of the shallow decay segment in the {\em Swift}/XRT light curves is

25: still a puzzle. We analyze the properties of this segment with a sample of 53

26: long {\em Swift} GRBs detected before Feb., 2007. We show that the distributions

27: of its characteristics are log-normal or normal, and its isotropic X-ray energy

28: ($E_{\rm iso,X}$) is linearly correlated with the prompt gamma-ray energy, but

29: with a steeper photon spectrum except for some X-ray flashes. No significant

30: spectral evolution is observed from this phase to the follow-up phase, and the

31: follow-up phase is usually consistent with the external shock models, implying

32: that this shallow decay phase is also of external shock origin, likely due to a

33: refreshed external shock. Within the refreshed shock model, the data are

34: generally consistent with a roughly constant injection luminosity up to the end

35: of this phase $t_b$. A positive correlation between $E_{\rm iso, X}$ and $t_b$

36: also favors the energy injection scenario. Among the 13 bursts that have

37: well-sampled optical light curves, 6 have an optical break around $t_b$ and the

38: breaks are consistent with being achromatic. However, the other 7 bursts either

39: do not show an optical break or have a break at a different epoch than $t_b$.

40: This raises a concern to the energy injection scenario, suggesting that the

41: optical and X-ray emissions may not be the same component at least for a fraction

42: of bursts. There are 4 significant outliers in the sample, GRBs 060413, 060522,

43: 060607A, and 070110. The shallow decay phase in these bursts is immediately

44: followed by a very steep decay after $t_b$, which is inconsistent with any

45: external shock model. The optical data of these bursts evolve independently from

46: the X-ray data. These X-ray plateaus likely have an internal origin and demand

47: continuous operation of a long-term GRB central engine. We conclude that the

48: observed shallow decay phase likely has diverse physical origins.

49: \end{abstract}

50: 

51: \keywords{radiation mechanisms: non-thermal: gamma-rays: bursts: X-rays}

52: 

53: \section{Introduction\label{sec:intro}}

54: The observations for the gamma-ray burst (GRB) phenomenon with the {\em Swift}

55: satellite (Gehrels et al. 2004) have revolutionized our understanding on this

56: phenomenon in many aspects (see recent reviews by M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2006; Zhang

57: 2007). In its first two years of operation, the on-board X-ray telescope (XRT;

58: Burrows et al. 2004) has accumulated a large set of well-sampled X-ray light

59: curves from tens of seconds to days (even months) since the GRB triggers.

60: 

61: The generally accepted GRB models are the relativistic fireball models (Rees \&

62: M\'esz\'aros 1994; M\'esz\'aros \& Rees 1997a; Sari et al. 1998; see reviews by

63: M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2002; Zhang \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2004; Piran 2005). This model

64: invokes a fireball powered by a GRB central engine that ejects an intermittent,

65: relativistic outflow. Internal shocks from stochastic collisions within the

66: ejecta power the observed prompt gamma-rays, and deceleration of the fireball by

67: the ambient medium excites a long term external forward shock that powers the

68: broad band afterglow (M\'esz\'aros \& Rees 1997a; Sari et al. 1998). Swift data

69: suggest possible late internal shocks that are the origin of the erratic late

70: X-ray flares seen in XRT light curves (Burrows et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2006;

71: Dai et al. 2006; Fan \& Wei 2005; King et al. 2005; Proga \& Zhang 2006; Perna et

72: al. 2006). The XRT light curves generally begin with a rapidly decaying segment

73: (Tagliaferri et al. 2005; O'Brien et al. 2006b), which is explained as the prompt

74: emission tail due to the so-called ``curvature effect'' (Kumar \& Panaitescu

75: 2000b; Zhang et al. 2006; Liang et al. 2006; Yamazaki et al. 2006)\footnote{Other

76: suggestions to interpret this segment include cooling of a hot cocoon surrounding

77: the GRB jet (Pe'er et al. 2006) or a highly radiative blast wave (Dermer 2007).}.

78: The broadband afterglows, which usually decay as a power-law with an index of

79: $\alpha\sim -1$ (normal decay phase), are believed to be related to the external

80: shock. If the external shocks are refreshed by continuous energy injection into

81: the blastwave, a shallow decay phase prior of the normal decay phase could be

82: observed (Rees \& M\'{e}z\'{a}ros 1998; Dai \& Lu 1998a,b; Panaitescu et al.

83: 1998; Sari \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2000 ; Zhang \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros et al. 2001; Wang

84: \& Dai 2001; Dai 2004; Granot \& Kumar 2006; Panaitescu 2007; Yu \& Dai 2007; see

85: Zhang 2007 for a review).

86: 

87: As the fireball is decelerated by the ambient medium, the normal decay phase

88: transits to a jet-like decay phase (with a decay index $\alpha\sim -2$), when the

89: bulk Lorentz factor is degraded to $\Gamma\sim \theta^{-1}_{j}$, where

90: $\theta_{j}$ is the opening angle of a conical jet (Rhoads 1997; Sari et al.

91: 1999). Therefore, four successive emission episodes are invoked in the framework

92: of the fireball models, i.e., prompt gamma-ray phase with a tail, shallow decay

93: phase, normal decay phase, and jet-like decay phase. These power law segments,

94: together with erratic X-ray flares, composes a canonical X-ray afterglow

95: lightcurve revealed by Swift (Zhang et al. 2006; Nousek et al. 2006; O'Brien et

96: al. 2006b). The physical origins of these segments have been discussed in the

97: literature (Zhang et al. 2006; Nousek et al. 2006; Panaitescu et al. 2006a).

98: Empirically,  O'Brien et al. (2006a,b) and Willingale et al. (2007) show that the

99: data can be fitted by the superposition of a prompt emission component and an

100: afterglow component.

101: 

102: In order to explore the physical origin of this canonical afterglow lightcurve,

103: we perform a systematic analysis of the Swift XRT data. In the first paper of

104: this series (Zhang, Liang, \& Zhang 2007, Paper I of this series), we have

105: studied the steep decay phase for a sample of bright tails, and revealed an

106: apparent hard-to-soft spectral evolution for some bursts (see also Campana et al.

107: 2006; Mangano et al. 2007; Butler \& Kocevski 2007). This paper will focus on the

108: shallow decay phase and the subsequent phase. This is motivated by some puzzling

109: facts related to the shallow decay phase. For example, simultaneous X-ray/optical

110: observations suggest that the break between the shallow and the normal decay

111: segments in the X-ray band for some GRBs is chromatic (Panaitescu et al. 2006b;

112: Fan \& Piran 2006). This is inconsistent with the simplest energy injection

113: model. One fundamental question is whether X-ray and optical afterglows have the

114: same physical origin. Another interesting fact is that the XRT light curve of GRB

115: 070110 shows a long-lived plateau followed by an abrupt fall-off (the decay slope

116: $\sim -9$ with zero time at the trigger time). This feature is hard to interpret

117: within the external shock models, and it likely indicates a long-lasting central

118: engine emission component (Troja et al. 2007).

119: 

120: Theoretically, several models have been proposed to interpret the shallow decay

121: phase (e.g. Zhang 2007 for a review). Besides the energy injection models (Zhang

122: et al. 2006; Nousek et al. 2006; Panaitescu et al. 2006a), other models include

123: the combination of the GRB tail with the delayed onset of the afterglow emission

124: (Kobayashi \& Zhang 2007); off-beam jet model (Toma et al. 2006; Eichler \&

125: Granot 2006); pre-cursor model (Ioka et al. 2006); two-component jet (Granot et

126: al. 2006; Jin et al. 2007), varying microphysics parameter model (Ioka et al.

127: 2006; Panaitescu et al. 2006b; Fan \& Piran 2006; Granot et al. 2006), etc. The

128: chromaticity of some X-ray shallow-to-normal breaks drives several ideas that go

129: beyond the traditional external forward shock model. For example, Shao \& Dai

130: (2007) interpret the X-ray lightcurve as due to dust scattering of some prompt

131: X-rays, so that it has nothing to do with the external shock. Uhm \& Beloborodov

132: (2007) and Genet, Daigne \& Mochkovitch (2007) interpret both X-ray and optical

133: afterglow as emission from a long-lived reverse shock. Ghisellini et al. (2007)

134: even suggested that the shallow-to-normal transition X-ray afterglows may be

135: produced by late internal shocks, and the end of this phase is due to the jet

136: effect in the prompt ejecta (see also Nava et al. 2007).

137: 

138: The observational puzzles and theoretical chaos call for a systematic

139: understanding of the shallow decay phase data for a large sample of GRBs. In

140: particular, it is desirable to find out how bad the standard external forward

141: shock model is when confronted with the data, e.g. what fraction of bursts

142: actually call for models beyond the standard external forward shock model. This

143: is the primary goal of this paper. Data reduction and sample selection are

144: presented in \S 2. The characteristics of the shallow decay segment and their

145: relations with the prompt gamma-ray phase are explored in \S 3. In \S4, we test

146: the external origin of the power law segment following the shallow decay phase

147: and explore whether or not the shallow decay segment is also of external origin.

148: Assuming an energy injection model for shallow decay phase, we further analyze

149: the the energy injection model parameters of these bursts in \S 5. The relation

150: among the isotropic X-ray energy ($E_{\rm iso, X}$), peak energy of the prompt

151: gamma-ray $\nu f_\nu$ spectrum ($E_{\rm p}$), and $t_{\rm b}$ is investigated in

152: \S 6. The results are summarized in \S 7 with some discussion. Throughout the

153: paper the cosmological parameters $H_0 = 71$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$,

154: $\Omega_M=0.3$, and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ have been adopted.

155: 

156: \section{Data Reduction and Sample Selection \label{sec:data}}

157: The XRT data are taken from the Swift data archive. We developed a script to

158: automatically download and maintain all the XRT data. The {\em Heasoft} packages,

159: including {\em Xspec}, {\em Xselect}, {\em Ximage}, and {\em Swift} data analysis

160: tools, are used for the data reduction. We have developed an IDL code to

161: automatically process the XRT data for a given burst in any user-specified time

162: interval. Our procedure is described as follows. The details of our code have

163: been presented in Paper I.

164: 

165: Our code first runs the XRT tool {\em xrtpipeline} to reproduce the XRT clean

166: event data, and then makes pile-up corrections with the same methods as discussed

167: in Romano et al. (2006) (for the Window Timing [WT] mode data) and Vaughan et al.

168: (2006) (for the Photon Counting [PC] mode data). Both the source and background

169: regions are annuli (for PC) or rectangular annuli (for WT). The inner radius of

170: the (rectangular) annuli are dynamically determined by adjusting the inner radius

171: of the annuli through fitting the source brightness profiles with the King's

172: point source function (for PC) or determined by the photon flux using the method

173: described in Romano et al 2006 (for WT). If the pipe-up effect is not

174: significant, the source regions are in the shape of a circle with radius $R=20$

175: pixels (for PC) or of a 40$\times$20 pixels rectangle (for WT) centered at the

176: bursts' positions. The background regions have the same size as the source

177: region, but has a distance of 20 pixels away from the source regions. The

178: exposure correction is also made with an exposure map created by XRT tools {\em

179: xrtexpomap}. By considering these corrections, the code extracts the

180: background-subtracted light curve and spectrum for the whole XRT data set. The

181: signal-to-noise ratio is normally taken as 3 $\sigma$, but it is not rigidly

182: fixed at this value and may be flexibly adjusted depending on the source

183: brightness.

184: 

185: With our code we process all the XRT data observed between Feb., 2005 and Jan.,

186: 2007. We inspect all the light curves to identify the beginning ($t_1$) of the

187: shallow decay segment and the end ($t_2$) of the decay phase following the

188: shallow phase (which usually is the normal decay phase, but in some cases the

189: decay slope could be much steeper). Please note that the selection of $t_1$ and

190: $t_2$ is guided by eye without a rigid criterion. Generally,  $t_1$ is taken

191: as the end of the steep decay segment or the beginning of the observation time,

192: unless significant flares or high level emission bumps following the GRB

193: tails were observed. The ending time $t_2$ is taken as the end of the observation

194: time except for GRBs 050416A, 050803, 060413, 060908, 060522, 061121,and 070110,

195: which have an additional break at later times, and $t_2$ is chosen as that

196: break time. For example, GRBs 060522

197: and 070110 have a distinct ``normal-decay'' emission component following the sharp

198: decay segment, and $t_2$ is taken the end of the sharp decay. The last

199: data points of GRB 050416A, 050803, 060413, 060908, and

200: 061121 show a flattening feature, which significantly deviates from the power

201: law decay trend post $t_b$. We thus do not include those data points.

202: 

203: Physically, the temporal break of an external shock origin should be smooth

204: (due to the equal-arrival-time effect of a relativistic shell of conical geometry).

205: Therefore, a smoothed broken power law is used to fit the light

206: curve in the time interval [$t_1,t_2$],

207: \begin{equation}

208: F=F_0\left[\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm b}}\right)^{\omega {\alpha_1}}+\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm

209: b}}\right)^{\omega {\alpha_2}}\right]^{-1/\omega},

210: \end{equation}

211: where $\omega$ describes the sharpness of the break. The larger the $\omega$,

212: the sharper the break. In order to constrain $\omega$ it is required that the time

213: interval covers a range from $t_1\ll t_b$ to $t_2\gg t_b$, and that the light curve

214: around $t_b$ is well-sampled. The parameter $t_b$ is not significantly affected

215: by $\omega$, but both $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are. We show the comparison of

216: the fitting results with $\omega=1$ and $\omega=3$ for the bursts in our sample

217: (see below) in Fig. 1. We find that systematically, $t_b^{\omega=1}\sim

218: t_b^{\omega=3}$, $\alpha_1^{\omega=1}<\alpha_1^{\omega=3}$, and

219: $\alpha_2^{\omega=1}>\alpha_2^{\omega=3}$. We notice that Willingale et al. (2007)

220: fit the XRT light curves with a superposition model of both the prompt and afterglow

221: emission components. The derived $\alpha_2$ from our fitting with $\omega=3$ is

222: generally consistent with their results. We therefore fix $\omega=3$ in this

223: analysis, except for GRBs 060413, 060522, 060607A, and 070710. The XRT light

224: curves of these bursts abruptly drop at $t_{\rm b}$, and we take $\omega=10$. We

225: then create a time filter array that contains two time intervals of [$t_1, t_{\rm

226: b}$] and [$t_{\rm b}, t_2$] for each burst. By specifying the time filter array

227: we run our code again to extract the spectra in the two time intervals and derive

228: their photon indices, $\Gamma_{\rm X, 1}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm X, 2}$, by fitting the

229: spectra with a power law model incorporating with absorptions by both the Milky Way

230: Galaxy and the host galaxy, wabs$^{\rm Gal}\times$zwabs$^{\rm host}\times$ power law

231: (when the redshift is unknown, zwabs$^{\rm host}$ is replaced with the model of

232: wabs). The $N_H^{\rm host}$ value in the time-resolved spectral analysis is fixed

233: to the value obtained from fitting the time-integrated spectrum during the whole

234: time span of each burst.

235: 

236: The $t_{\rm b}$ is roughly considered as the duration of the shallow decay phase.

237: As suggested by Lazzati \& Begelman (2006) and Kobayashi \& Zhang (2007), the

238: zero time of the external-origin power-law segments should be roughly the BAT

239: trigger time. In our calculation, in order to account for the onset of the

240: afterglow we take a $t_0$ as 10 seconds after the GRB trigger. The X-ray fluence

241: ($S_X$) of the shallow decay phase is derived by integrating the fitting light

242: curve from 10 seconds post the GRB trigger to $t_{\rm b}$ without considering the

243: contributions of both early X-ray flares and the GRB tail emissions. Since the

244: shallow decay phase has a temporal decay index shallower than -1, the results are

245: not sensitive to the choice of $t_0$. We estimate the uncertainty of $S_X$ with a

246: boostrap method based on the errors of the fitting parameters, assuming that the

247: errors of the fitting parameters, $\sigma_{\log F_0}$, $\sigma_{\log t_{\rm b}}$,

248: $\sigma_{ \alpha_1}$, and $\sigma_{ \alpha_2}$, are of Gaussian distributions. We

249: generate $5\times 10^3$ parameter sets of ($F_0$, $t_{\rm b}$, $\alpha_1$,

250: $\alpha_2$) from the distributions of these parameters for each burst, and then

251: calculate $S_{\rm X}$ for each parameter set. We make a Gaussian fit to the

252: distribution of $\log S_{\rm X}$ and derive the central value of $\log S_{\rm X}$

253: and its error $\sigma_{\log S_{\rm X}}$. In our fittings, $\alpha_1$ and/or $t_b$

254: are fixed for GRBs 050801 and 060607A. We do not calculate the errors for the two

255: bursts.

256: 

257: We use the following criteria to select our sample. First, the XRT light curves

258: have a shallow decay segment following the GRB tails. Since the decay slope of

259: the ``normal'' decay phase predicted by the external GRB models is generally

260: steeper than 0.75, we require that the so-called shallow decay segment has a

261: slope $\alpha_{\rm X,1}<0.75$ at $1\sigma$ error. Second, both the shallow decay

262: segment and the follow-up segment are bright enough to perform spectral analysis.

263: Systematically going through all the {\em Swift} XRT data before Feb. 2007 we use

264: the above criteria to compile a sample of 53 bursts. Please note that the

265: apparently long GRB 060614 is also included in our sample, although it may belong

266: to the short-type bursts (Gehrels et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2007b; Zhang 2006).

267: The XRT light curves and the fitting results are shown in Fig. 2, and the data

268: are summarized in Table 1. We collect the BAT observations of these bursts from

269: GCN circular reports, and report them in Table 2. We search the optical afterglow

270: data of these bursts from published papers and GCN circular reports\footnote{The

271: {\rm GRBlog} web page (http://grad40.as.utexas.edu/grblog.php) has been used.}.

272: We identify a burst as optically bright, if three or more detections in the

273: UV-optical bands were made. We find that 30 out of the 53 bursts are optically

274: bright, but only 15 bursts have an optical light curve with good temporal

275: coverage. We make the Galactic extinction correction and convert the observed

276: magnitudes to energy fluxes. We fit these light curves with a simple power law or

277: the smooth broken power law ($\omega$ is also fixed as 3). The fitting results

278: are summarized in Table 3. We directly compare the optical data with the XRT data

279: in Fig. 2 in order to perform a quick visual check of achromaticity of these

280: light curves. If multi-wavelength optical light curves are available, we show

281: only the one that was observed around the X-ray shallow decay phase with the best

282: sampling. Notice that the contribution from the host galaxy to the optical light

283: curve of GRB 060614 has been removed.

284: 

285: Twenty-seven out of the 53 GRBs in our sample have redshift measurements. Table 4

286: reports the properties of these bursts in the burst rest frame, including the

287: durations ($T_{90}^{'}$ and $t_{\rm b}^{'}$) and the equivalent-isotropic

288: radiation energies ($E_{\rm iso, \gamma}$ and $E_{\rm iso, X}$) in the prompt

289: phase and in the shallow decay phase, and the peak energy of the $\nu f_\nu$

290: spectrum ($E_{\rm p}^{'}$). The $E_{\rm iso, \gamma}$ and $E_{\rm iso, X}$ are

291: calculated by

292: \begin{equation}

293: E_{\rm iso,(\gamma,X)}=\frac{4\pi D_L^2 S_{(\gamma,X)}}{1+z},

294: \end{equation}

295: where $S_\gamma$ is the gamma-ray fluence in the BAT band and $S_X$ is the X-ray

296: fluence in the shallow decay phase in the XRT band, and $D_L$ is the

297: luminosity distance of the source. Due to the narrowness of the BAT band, the BAT

298: data cannot well constrain the spectral parameters of GRBs (Zhang et al. 2007a).

299: Generally the BAT spectrum can be fitted by a simple power law, and the power

300: law index $\Gamma$ is correlated with $E_{\rm p}$ (Zhang et al. 2007b; see also

301: Sakamoto et al. 2007; Cabrera et al.2007)\footnote{We should point out that

302: this empirical relation is for BAT observations only. The origin of this relation

303: is due to the narrowness of the BAT instrument. It can be robustly used for those

304: bursts whose $E_{\rm p}$ are roughly within the BAT band.}, i.e.,

305: \begin{equation}\label{E_p-Gamma-Relation}

306: \log E_p=(2.76\pm 0.07)-(3.61\pm 0.26)\log \Gamma.

307: \end{equation}

308: We estimate $E_{\rm p}$ with this relation if it is not constrained by the BAT

309: data. We then calculate the {\em bolometric} energy $E^b_{\rm iso,\gamma}$ in

310: the $1-10^4$ keV band with the $k$-correction method used by Bloom et al. (2001),

311: assuming that the photon indices are -1 and -2.3 before and after $E_{\rm p}$,

312: respectively (Preece et al. 2000). Both $E_{\rm p}^{'}$ and $E^{b}_{\rm iso,

313: \gamma}$ are listed in Table 4.

314: 

315: \section{The Characteristics of the Shallow Decay Phase and its Relations

316: to the Prompt Gamma-Ray Phase

317: \label{sec:Shallow-Prompt}}

318: 

319: We display the

320: distributions of the characteristics of the shallow decay phase in Fig. 3. It is

321: found that these distributions are consistent with being normal/lognormal, i.e.

322: $\log t_{\rm b} /s=4.09\pm 0.61 $, $\log S_X / {\rm erg\ cm}^{-2}=-6.52\pm 0.69$,

323: $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}=2.09\pm 0.21$, and $\alpha_1=0.35\pm 0.35$. Quoted errors are at

324: $1\sigma$ confidence level.

325: 

326: We investigate the relation of the shallow decay phase to the prompt gamma-ray

327: phase. Figure 3 shows $t_{\rm b}$, $S_X$, $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$, and $E_{\rm iso,

328: X}$ as functions of $T_{90}$, $S_\gamma$, $\Gamma_\gamma$, and $E_{\rm iso,

329: \gamma}$, respectively. No correlation between $\Gamma_\gamma$ and $\Gamma_{\rm

330: X,1}$ is observed. However, $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$ is larger then

331: $\Gamma_\gamma$, except for some X-ray flashes (XRFs), indicating that

332: the photon spectrum of the shallow decay phase is generally steeper than that of the

333: prompt gamma-ray phase for typical GRBs. It is interesting to note that in contrast

334: to $\Gamma_\gamma$ $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$ is narrowly clustered around 2.1 (see also

335: O'Brien et al. 2006a), hinting a possible common microscopic mechanism during the

336: shallow decay phase.

337: 

338: From Fig. 3 we find tentative correlations of durations, energy fluences,

339: and isotropic energies between the gamma-ray and X-ray phases. The best fits yield

340: $\log t_{\rm b}=(0.61\pm 0.16)\log T_{90}+(3.00\pm 0.27)$ ($r=0.48$ and $p=0.003$ for

341: $N=53$), $\log S_X=(0.76\pm 0.11)\log S_{\gamma}+(-2.33\pm 0.60)$ ($r=0.70$ and

342: $p<10^{-4}$ for $N=53$), and $\log E_{\rm iso, X}=(1.00\pm 0.16) \log E_{\rm iso,

343: \gamma}+(-0.50\pm 8.10)$ ($r=0.79$ and $p<10^{-4}$ for $N=27$). It is found that

344: $t_{\rm b}$ weakly depends on $T_{90}$. However, X-ray fluence and

345: isotropic energy are almost linearly correlated with gamma-ray fluence and

346: gamma-ray energy, respectively. $E_{iso, \gamma}$ is greater than

347: $E_{X,iso}$ for most of the bursts, but for a few cases $E_{iso, X}$ is even

348: larger than $E_{\gamma,iso}$. In order to reveal possible linear correlations for

349: the quantities in the two phases, we define a $2\sigma$ linear correlation

350: regions with $y=x+(A\pm 2\times \sigma_A)$, where $y$ and $x$ are the two quantities

351: in question, and

352: %in $y$ and $x$-axis, respectively, and

353: $A$ and $\sigma_A$ are the mean and its

354: $1\sigma$ standard error of the $y-x$ correlation, respectively.

355: The $1\sigma$ regions of the correlations are shown with

356: dashed lines in Fig. 4.  These results indicate that radiation during the

357: shallow decay phase is correlated with that in the prompt gamma-ray phase.

358: 

359: 

360: \section{Testing the physical origin of the shallow decay segment using the properties

361: of the follow-up segment \label{sec:Shallow-Prompt}}

362: 

363: The leading scenario of the shallow decay phase is a refreshed forward shock due to

364: either a long-term central engine or a spread of the ejecta Lorentz factor (Zhang

365: et al. 2006; Nousek et al. 2006; Rees \& M\'esz\'aros 1998; Dai \& Lu 1998a,b;

366: Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros 2001; Granot \& Kumar 2006; Yu \& Dai 2007). Within such

367: a scenario, the shallow decay phase ends at $t_{\rm b}$ and

368: transits to a ``normal'' decay phase consistent with the standard external forward

369: shock models. Three criteria are required to claim

370: an energy injection break $t_b$. First, there should be no spectral evolution

371: across $t_b$ since energy injection is a pure hydrodynamical effect. Second, due

372: to the same reason, the break at $t_b$ should be achromatic. Third,

373: the power-law decay phase after $t_b$ should comply with

374: the standard external shock models. In this section, we test whether all three

375: criteria are satisfied with the data.

376: 

377: Figure 4(a) shows $\Gamma_{\rm X,2}$ as a function of $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$. The

378: solid line is $\Gamma_{\rm X,2}=\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$, and the dashed lines marks

379: the $3\sigma$ region of the equality, which is defined with $\Gamma_{\rm

380: X,2}=\Gamma_{\rm X,1}+(\mathcal{G}\pm 3\delta_\mathcal{G})$, where $\mathcal{G} $

381: and $\delta_\mathcal{G}$ are the mean and statistical uncertainty ($1\sigma$

382: level) of the difference $\Gamma_{\rm X,2}-\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$. Please note that

383: $\delta_\mathcal{G}$ does not include the observational uncertainty. It

384: statistically describes the scatter of $\mathcal{G}$ for the bursts in our

385: sample. We find that only one burst GRB 061202 is out of the region. The

386: comparison between the distributions of $\Gamma_{\rm X,2}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$

387: is shown in Fig. 4(b). Excluding GRB 061202, the two distributions are

388: consistent. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov  test suggests that the significance level of

389: this consistency is 0.96. These results indicate that $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$ and

390: $\Gamma_{\rm X,2}$ for the bursts in our sample are globally consistent with

391: each other. In order to verify this consistency within observed uncertainty

392: for individual bursts, Fig. 4(c)

393: shows the distribution of the ratio $\mu=\mathcal{G}/\sigma$, where

394: $\sigma^2={\delta \Gamma^2_{X,1}}+{\delta \Gamma^2_{X,2}}$ is the observed

395: uncertainty of $\mathcal{G}$. A positive value of $\mu$ would indicate a hard-to-soft

396: spectral evolution. This ratio indicates the significance level of the difference

397: between $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm X,2}$ for individual bursts within the

398: observational uncertainties of the two quantities. As shown in Fig. 4(c), most of

399: the bursts ($\sim 90\%$) have $\mu\lesssim 1$, and only one burst (GRB 061202) has

400: $\mu> 3$. These results prove that no significant spectral evolution between the

401: two phases with a confidence level above $3\sigma$ is observed for the bursts in

402: our sample within the observational error, except for GRB 061202. This is

403: consistent with the expectation of the refreshed shock afterglow models. Please

404: note that GRB 061202 shows significant hard-to-soft spectral evolution from the

405: shallow to the normal decay phases, i.e., from $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}=2.25\pm 0.07$ to

406: $\Gamma_{\rm X,2}=3.55\pm 0.44$. One caveat for this spectral evolution is that

407: there is a long observational gap between the first epoch in the shallow decay

408: phase ($4\times 10^3$ to $2\times 10^4$ seconds) and the second epoch in normal

409: decay phase ($1\times 10^5\sim 5\times 10^5$ seconds) when the spectral indices

410: are measured. Without detecting the break itself, it may be dangerous to draw the

411: conclusion that spectral variation is clearly seen across $t_b$. We cannot rule

412: out the possibility that the plateau extends further and drops dramatically

413: before landing onto a normal decay segment as is seen in GRBs 060522 and 070110

414: (see discussion below).

415: 

416: Although the mechanism of energy injection into the forward shock could vary

417: (e.g. Rees \& M\'{e}z\'{a}ros 1998; Dai \& Lu 1998a,b; Zhang \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros

418: et al. 2001; Yu \& Dai 2007), the kinetic energy of the fireball after the energy

419: injection is over should be constant and this ``normal'' decay phase should be

420: explained with the standard external shock models. Without broadband afterglow

421: modeling, the ``closure relations'' between the observed spectral index $\beta$

422: and temporal decay index $\alpha$ present a simple test to the models. In Fig.5,

423: we present $\alpha_{\rm X,2}$ as a function of spectral index $\beta_{\rm X,2}$,

424: where $\beta_{\rm X,2}=\Gamma_{\rm X,2}-1$. The closure correlations of the

425: external shock afterglow models for different spectral regimes, different cooling

426: schemes, different ambient medium properties, and different electron

427: distributions (the spectral index $p>2$ and $p<2$) are shown in Fig. 5 (see Table

428: 1 of Zhang \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2004 and reference therein, in particular Sari et

429: al. 1998; Chevalier \& Li 2000; Dai \& Cheng 2001). The fact that the observed

430: $\beta_{X,2}$ is greater than 0.5 for the bursts in our sample suggests that

431: these X-rays are in the spectral regime $\nu_X>\max(\nu_m,\nu_c)$ (Regime I) or

432: $\nu_m<\nu_X<\nu_c$ (Regime II), where $\nu_m$ and $\nu_c$ are the characteristic

433: frequency and cooling frequency of synchrotron radiation. The relation between

434: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for the spectral Regime I is $\alpha=(3\beta-1)/2$

435: regardless of the type of the medium (ISM or wind medium). If the X-ray band is

436: in the Regime II, we have $\alpha=3\beta/2$ (for ISM) and $\alpha=(3\beta+1)/2$

437: (for wind). We define

438: \begin{eqnarray}

439: D=|\alpha^{\rm obs}-\alpha(\beta^{\rm obs})|,\nonumber \\

440: \delta_D=\sqrt{(\delta \alpha^{\rm obs})^2+[\delta \alpha(\beta^{\rm obs})]^2},

441: \end{eqnarray}

442: where $\alpha^{\rm obs}(\delta \alpha^{\rm obs})$ and $\alpha(\beta^{\rm obs}) $

443: are the temporal decay slopes (errors) from the observations and from the closure

444: relations. The ratio $\phi=D/\delta_D$ reflects the ``nearness'' of the data point

445: to the model predictions within the error scope. If $\phi <1$, we consider that

446: the data point goes cross the corresponding closure relation line. If $\phi<3$,

447: we regard that the

448: model cannot be excluded within a 3$\sigma$ significance level. Those bursts that

449: have large uncertainties on both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ may be interpreted with

450: more than one models. In this case, we compare $\phi$ values derived from these

451: models and take the model that gives the smallest $\phi$.

452: 

453: As shown in Fig. 5, 24 out of the 53 bursts distribute around the line for the

454: spectral Regime I. A group of bursts have a decay slope shallower

455: than the model prediction, but they are slightly below and almost keep abreast

456: with the Regime I model line (see also Fig. 5 of Willingale et al.

457: 2007). At the $3\sigma$ confidence level, this model cannot be excluded for these

458: bursts. Eighteen bursts are consistent with the ISM external shock afterglow model

459: in the spectral regime II.

460: 

461: Six bursts (GRBs 050315, 050318, 050803, 060614, 051008, and 060906) agree with

462: both the regime I ISM jet model and the regime II wind model. The observed

463: $\beta$ of these six bursts are $\sim 1$. The two models are almost degenerate at

464: $\beta\sim 1$. We therefore use the spectral and temporal behaviors of the prior

465: segment to distinguish the two models. Since the observed $\beta>0.5$ in our

466: sample, the decay slope of the light curves before a jet break should be steeper

467: than $(3\beta)/2\sim 0.75$. From Table 1 we can see that the $\alpha_1$ values

468: are $0.66\pm 0.03$, $0.90\pm 0.23$, $0.25\pm 0.03$, $0.18\pm 0.06$, $0.78\pm

469: 0.11$, and $0.35\pm 0.10$, respectively, for the six bursts. So there is no

470: confident evidence to claim a jet break within the uncertainty of the decay slope

471: for these bursts\footnote{The possibility that a jet break is temporarily

472: coincident with an energy injection break is however not ruled out. The normal

473: decay phase could be missed in data fitting, if the normal decay segment is

474: short, the data is sparse, or the jet break is not significant(e.g. Wei \& Lu

475: 2000; Kumar \& Panaitescu 2000a; Gou et al. 2001). One example of this scenario

476: is GRB 060614. Our best fit with a smooth broken power law does not reveal a

477: jet-like break from a normal decay phase. However, Mangano et al. (2007) suggest

478: a normal decay phase between $3.66\times 10^4$ and $1.04\times 10^5$ seconds by

479: fitting the light curve with a joint-power-law model (the breaks are guided by

480: eye). They showed that the decay slope during the period is $1.03\pm 0.02$. This

481: normal decay phase thus satisfies a closure relation of the standard forward

482: shock models. For a detailed study of jet breaks please see our paper III in the

483: series, E.-W. Liang et al. 2007, in preparation.} Since the energy injection

484: model the shallow decay slope depends on a free parameter $q$,  we tentatively

485: suggest that these six cases can be explained with a wind afterglow model in the

486: spectral regime II. GRB 060108 is also consistent with this model according to

487: our criterion.

488: 

489: As shown above, the spectral index and temporal decay slope of the normal decay

490: phase for most bursts in our sample (49 out of 53 bursts) are roughly consistent

491: with the closure relations of the external shock models. This further favors the

492: idea that the shallow decay segment is also of external shock origin, and

493: probably is related to a long-term energy injection effect. In this scenario, the

494: energy injection break should be achromatic, if the multi-wavelength radiations

495: are all from the same emission region, presumably the forward shock. We therefore

496: inspect the optical light curves of these bursts to examine whether the breaks

497: observed in the XRT light curves are achromatic. Among these 13 bursts have

498: well-sampled optical light curves, as shown in Fig. 2 and Table 3. The optical

499: light curves of GRBs 050801, 051109A, 060614, 060714, 060729, and 061121 show a

500: break around $t_b$, indicating that the breaks in both the X-ray and the optical

501: bands are consistent with being achromatic. However, the optical light curves of

502: GRBs 050318, 050319, 050802, 060124, and 050401 do not have a break around $t_b$

503: (see also Panaitescu et al. 2006b). They can be well fitted by a simple power law

504: model. GRBs 060210 and 060526 have an optical break, but the breaks are not

505: around $t_b$.

506: 

507: GRBs 060413, 060522, 060607A, and 070110 have a plateau with a step-like sharp

508: drop ($\omega=10$ is required in our data fitting). Except for GRB 060522, the

509: other three bursts deviate significantly from any external shock afterglow models

510: at $3\sigma$ significance level. Although the sharp drop segment of GRB 060522 is

511: consistent with the regime II, wind-jet model, the plateau convincingly rules out

512: this model since it cannot be explained as the pre-jet segment within the same

513: model. These results suggest that the sharp drop segment and its prior plateau in

514: these bursts are very likely not of external shock origin. A direct support to

515: this speculation is that the optical lightcurves of these bursts, if available,

516: are all evolve independently with respect to the X-ray lightcurves. For example,

517: The optical light curve of GRB 060607A rapidly increases (with $F\propto t^{3}$)

518: up to a maximum at $t=160$ seconds post the GRB trigger, and then continuously

519: decays with an index of $-1.18\pm 0.02$ (Molinari et al. 2007). The X-ray

520: lightcurve, on the other hand, shows significant flares before 600 seconds, and a

521: plateau lasting from 600 seconds to $\sim 1.2\times 10^4$ seconds after the GRB

522: trigger. At the end of the plateau, the XRT light curve drops sharply with

523: $\alpha_2=3.35\pm 0.09$. During the plateau in the XRT light curve, the optical

524: light curve ``normally'' decays until a significant flare around 2000 seconds.

525: The optical light curve is consistent with a external forward shock, and the peak

526: is consistent with onset of the afterglow (Molinari et al. 2007). The plateau and

527: the sharp drop in the XRT light curve of GRB 070110 is similar to that of GRB

528: 060607A, but an additional ``normal''-decay component post the steep fall-off was

529: also observed (Troja et al. 2007). The decay slope of this late X-ray emission

530: component is similar to that of the optical light curve and is likely of external

531: shock origin (see also GRB 060522). This reinforces the suggestion that the early

532: X-ray plateau is of internal origin and is connected to a long-lasting central

533: engine (Troja et al. 2007). A common signature of these internal-origin plateaus

534: is that the flux almost keeps constant on the plateau but with significant

535: flickering. Although it may not be unreasonable to interpret it as late internal

536: shocks (which usually give rise to erratic collisions within the ejecta and may

537: power X-ray flares), another possibility is that the plateau is powered by

538: tapping the spindown energy of the central engine, as suggested by Troja et al.

539: (2007).

540: 

541: \section{Energy Injection Behavior}

542: 

543: As shown above, the normal decay phase for most of the bursts in our sample (49 out

544: of 53) are consistent with the external shock models. This suggests that,

545: in general, the observed shallow decay phase is also of the external origin and

546: may be related to continuous energy injection into the fireball. In this section,

547: we assume the standard energy injection model and infer from the data the

548: parameters of the long-lived central engine.

549: 

550: We describe the energy injection behavior as $L(t)\propto t^{-q}$ (e.g. Zhang \&

551: M\'esz\'aros 2001)\footnote{Another injection scenario invoking a distribution of

552: the Lorentz factor of the ejecta (Rees \& M\'esz\'aros 1998) can be effectively

553: represented by a long-term central engine (Zhang et al. 2006). The

554: internal-origin plateaus discussed above suggest that at least for some GRBs, a

555: long-lived central engine is indeed in operation.}. The difference between the

556: decay slopes before and after $t_{\rm b}$ depends on the observed spectral regime

557: and the type of abient medium, which can be summarized as (derived from Table 2

558: of Zhang et al. 2006),

559: 

560: \begin{equation}

561: \label{q} \Delta \alpha=\cases{ \frac{(p+2)(1-q)}{4},

562:             & spectal regime I, ISM and Wind, \cr

563:  \frac{(p+3)(1-q)}{4},

564:             & spectal regime II, ISM,\cr

565:  \frac{(p+1)(1-q)}{4},

566:             & spectral regime II, Wind, \cr

567:             }

568: \end{equation}

569: where $p$ is the power law index of the electron distribution. The $p$ value is

570: derived from the observed spectral index, depending on the observed spectral

571: regime. We identify the spectral regime for these bursts by comparing the

572: observed $\alpha_{\rm X,2}$ and $\beta_{X,2}$ with the closure correlations, and

573: then derive their $q$ values from Eqs. \ref{q}. The distributions of theses GRBs

574: in the two dimensional $q-\Delta \alpha$ and $q-p$ planes are shown in Fig. 6, along

575: with the contours of constant $p$ and $\Delta \alpha$ lines derived from the models

576: (Eq.[\ref{q}]). No correlation between $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ is found. The

577: steepening index $\Delta\alpha$ is found to vary among bursts, with an average of

578: $1.11\pm 0.39$.  The $p$ values range

579: from $2\sim 3.5$ without evidence of clustering (see also Shen et al. 2006). The

580: $q$ values for most bursts are around $-0.75$ to $0.55$, with an average of $\sim

581: -0.07\pm 0.35$. It is worth commenting that a specific energy injection model

582: invoking a spindown pulsar predicts a $q$ value of 0 (Dai \& Lu 1998a; Zhang

583: \& M\'esz\'aros 2001). The average $q$ value is close to this model prediction.

584: 

585: 

586: \section{Empirical Relation among $E_{\rm iso}-E_{\rm p}-t_{\rm b}$}

587: An empirical relation among $E_{\rm iso}-E_{\rm p}^{'}-t'_{b,opt}$ was discovered

588: with pre-Swift GRBs, where $t'_{b,opt}$ is the temporal break of the optical

589: afterglow light curve in the rest frame of the burst (Liang-Zhang relation; Liang

590: \& Zhang 2005)\footnote{If $t'_{b,opt}$ is interpreted as a jet break, then the

591: relation is similar to the Ghirlanda-relation (Ghirlanda et al. 2004). However,

592: the more empirical Liang-Zhang relation allows more freedom to understand the

593: origin of the breaks.}. Willingale et al. (2007) found a similar correlation to

594: the Ghirlanda relation by assuming that $t_b$ in the X-ray band are jet breaks.

595: Such a relation may be interpreted as an effective $E_{\rm iso}-E_{\rm

596: p}^{'}-t_{b}{'}$ relation similar to the Liang-Zhang relation. In this section we

597: investigate the relations among the energies $E_{\rm iso, \gamma}^{b}$, $E_{\rm

598: iso,X}$ and the other two parameters $E_{\rm p}^{'}$ and $t_{\rm b}^{'}$. With

599: the data reported in Table 4 (for bursts with redshift measurements), we use a

600: multi-variable regression analysis method to search for possible dependences of

601: $E_{\rm iso, X}$ and $E_{\rm iso, \gamma}^{b}$ on both $E_{\rm p}^{'}$ and

602: $t_{\rm b}^{'}$. Our sample is limited to those bursts whose $t_b$ can be

603: explained as an energy injection break (without considering the achromaticity of

604: the break). Among the 49 bursts 27 have redshift measurements. Since only two

605: bursts in the internal-origin plateau sample have redshift measurements, we

606: cannot make an analysis to them. Our regression model reads

607: \begin{equation}\label{MVR}

608: \log \hat{E}_{{\rm{iso}}}=\kappa_{0}+ \kappa_{1}\log E_{\rm p}^{'}+\kappa_{2}\log

609: t_{b}^{'}

610: \end{equation}

611: where $E_{\rm p}^{'}=E_{\rm {p}}(1+z)$ and $t_{b}^{'}=t_{\rm{b}}/(1+z)$. We

612: measure the significance level of the dependences of each variable on the model

613: by the probability of a t-test ($p_t$). The significance of the global regression

614: is measured by a F-test (with a chance probability $p_F$). Statistically, a

615: robust statistical analysis requires the chance probability to be less than

616: $10^{-4}$. Our multiple regression analysis to $E_{\rm iso, X}(E_{\rm p}^{'},

617: t_{\rm b}^{'})$ shows $\kappa_0=44.0\pm 1.1$ (with $p_t<10^{-4}$),

618: $\kappa_1=1.82\pm 0.33$ (with $p_t<10^{-4}$), and $\kappa_2=0.61\pm 0.18$ (with

619: $p_t=3\times 10^{-3}$). The $p_F$ is $<10^{-4}$. These results suggest a strong

620: correlation between $E_{\rm iso, X}$ and $E_{\rm p}^{'}$ and a tentative

621: correlation between $E_{\rm iso, X}$ and $t_{\rm b}^{'}$. On the other hand, our

622: multiple regression analysis to $E_{\rm iso,\gamma}^{b} (E_{\rm p}^{'}, t_{\rm

623: b}^{'})$ gives $\kappa_0=48.3\pm 0.8$ (with $p_t<10^{-4}$), $\kappa_1=1.70\pm

624: 0.25$ (with $p_t<10^{-4}$), and $\kappa_2=0.07\pm 0.13$ (with $p_t=0.486$). The

625: $p_F$ is $<10^{-4}$. It is found that the correlation between $E_{\rm iso,

626: \gamma}^{b}$ and $E_{\rm p}^{'}$ is significant, but statistically no correlation

627: between $E_{\rm iso, \gamma}^{b}$ and $t_{\rm b}^{'}$ can be claimed.

628: 

629: With the relation discovered by Willingale et al.(2007), one would naively expect

630: a multi-variable correlation among $E_{\rm iso, \gamma}^{b}-E_p^{'}-t_b^{'}$.

631: According to our results, a significant correlation among $E_{\rm iso,

632: \gamma}^{b}-E_p^{'}-t_b^{'}$ could be indeed claimed with a chance probability

633: $p_F<10^{-4}$. However, this correlation is dominated by the correlation of

634: $E_{\rm iso, \gamma}^{b}-E_p^{'}$ only (with a $p_t<10^{-4}$), which is

635: essentially the Amati-relation (Amati et al. 2002). The $p_t$ of the dependence

636: between $E_{\rm iso, \gamma}^{b}$ and $t_b^{'}$ is 0.486. This strongly rules out

637: such a dependence. Therefore, we suspect that the apparent relation found by

638: Willingale et al. (2007) would be intrinsically a manifestation of the

639: Amati-relation. A similar conclusion has been also achieved by Nava et al.

640: (2007). The $t_b$ essentially did not enter the problem, since the distribution

641: of $t_b$ is narrower than that of $t_{b,opt}$ as discussed in Liang \& Zhang

642: (2005).

643: 

644: It is interesting to note the dependence $E_{\rm iso, X}\propto t_{\rm

645: b}^{'0.61\pm 0.18}$. This is in sharp contrast to the Liang-Zhang relation, in

646: which $E_{\rm iso, \gamma}\propto t_{\rm b,opt}^{'-1.24}$ was discovered. In

647: order to compare the $E_{\rm iso, X}-E_{\rm p}^{'}-t_{\rm b}^{'}$ correlation

648: with the Liang-Zhang relation in a 2-dimensional plane, we define $\Sigma=\log

649: E_{\rm iso}-\kappa_{2}\log t'_{\rm b}$, and show $\Sigma_X$ and $\Sigma_\gamma$

650: as a function of $\log E_{\rm p}^{'}$ in Fig. 8. We observe that the $E_{\rm iso,

651: X}-E_{\rm p}^{'}-t_{\rm b}^{'}$ correlation is significant, but it has a larger

652: scatter than the Liang-Zhang relation. Although we can not rule out the

653: possibility that the large dispersion is intrinsic, the observational

654: uncertainties of both $E_{X,iso}$ and $E_{\rm p}$ could make such a dispersion.

655: Figure 8 evidently shows that the $E_{\rm iso, X}-E_{\rm p}-t_{\rm b}$

656: correlation is different from the Liang-Zhang relation. This suggests that

657: $t_{\rm b}$ and $t_{\rm b,opt}$ may have distinct physical origins. The positive

658: correlation between  $E_{\rm iso, X}$ and $t_{\rm b}$ is consistent with energy

659: injection origin of $t_{\rm b}$, namely, a longer injection episode gives more

660: energy. The negative correlation between $E_{\rm iso, \gamma}$ and $t_{\rm

661: b,opt}$ may step back to the standard energy reservoir argument of Frail et al.

662: (2001), which suggests a connection between $t_{\rm b,opt}$ and the jet opening

663: angle of the outflow.

664: 

665: 

666: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}

667: We have presented a comprehensive analysis of the {\em Swift} XRT light curves of

668: long GRBs, focusing on the properties of the shallow decay phase and its relation

669: with the follow-up decay phase. Our sample includes 53 bursts whose X-ray

670: emissions are bright enough to perform spectral and temporal analyses for both

671: phases. We summarize our results as follows.

672: 

673: (1) We find that the distributions of the characteristic properties of the

674: shallow decay phase are log-normal or normal, i.e., $\log t_{\rm b} /s=4.09\pm

675: 0.61 $, $\log S_X / {\rm erg~cm}^{-2}=-6.52\pm 0.69$, $\Gamma_{\rm

676: X,1}=2.09\pm 0.21$, and $\alpha_1=0.35\pm 0.35$ (quoted errors are at $1\sigma$

677: confidence level).

678: 

679: (2) The $E_{\rm iso,X}$ of the shallow decay phase is linearly correlated with

680: the prompt gamma-ray phase, i.e., $\log E_{X,iso}=(1.00\pm 0.16)\log

681: E_{iso,\gamma}-(0.5\pm 8.12)$ (with a Spearman correlation coefficient $r=0.79$

682: and a chance probability $p<10^{-4}$). The spectrum of the shallow decay phase is

683: softer than the prompt gamma-ray phases, except for some typical XRFs.

684: 

685: (3) Except for GRB 061202, no spectral evolution is observed during the

686: transition from the shallow decay to the follow-up decay phases. The post break

687: phase in most bursts is consistent with the closure relations of the external

688: shock models. Six out of the 13 bursts with well-sampled optical light curves

689: show an achromatic break in both X-ray and optical bands, but the other 7 cases

690: either do not show any break or have a break at a different epoch in the optical

691: band.  This poses an issue to explain $t_b$ of these bursts as the end of the

692: energy injection phase.

693: 

694: (4) Four bursts (GRBs 060413, 060522, 060607A, and 070110) in our sample have a

695: post-break phase significantly deviate from the external shock models. The decay

696: indices are much steeper than model requirements. The optical light curves of the

697: latter two bursts evolve distinctly from the X-ray light curves. We suggest that

698: the X-ray and optical emissions of these bursts are from different emission

699: sites, and the X-ray plateaus are of internal origin and demand a long-live

700: emission component from the central engine.

701: 

702: (5) Within the scenario of the refreshed external shocks, the average energy

703: injection index $q\sim 0$, suggesting a roughly constant injection luminosity

704: from the central engine.

705: 

706: (6) With a sub-sample of 27 bursts with known redshifts that satisfy the closure

707: relations of the standard external fireball models, we discover an empirical

708: multi-variable relation among $E_{\rm iso, X}$, $E_{\rm p}^{'}$, and $t'_{\rm b}$

709: (Eq.[7]), which is distinctly different from the $E_{\rm iso,\gamma}-E_{\rm

710: p}^{'} -t'_{\rm b,opt}$ relation discussed by Liang \& Zhang (2005).

711: 

712: (7) There is no significant correlation between $t'_b$ and the

713: other parameters $E_{\rm iso,\gamma}$ and $E_{\rm p}^{'}$ (unlike $t'_{\rm

714: b,opt}$). This suggests that the apparent $E_{\rm j, \gamma}-E_p^{'}$ relation by

715: assuming a jet origin of $t_b$ (Willingale et al. 2007) is likely a manifestation

716: of the Amati-relation.

717: 

718: These results suggest that the shallow decay segment observed in most bursts is

719: consistent with having an external forward shock origin, probably due to a

720: continuous energy injection into the forward shock from a long-lived central

721: engine. Therefore, the scenarios that

722: completely abandon the external shock models (e.g. Ghisellini et al. 2007;

723: Genet et al. 2007; Uhm \& Beloborodov 2007; Shao \& Dai 2007) may

724: not be demanded by the data, and these models need to explain the apparent

725: consistency of the $\alpha-\beta$ data with the simple closure relations of

726: the forward shock models.

727: 

728: Since the energy injection break is due to a hydrodynamic effect, achromatism is

729: one of a key feature of the model. Although about half cases satisfy such a

730: constraint, at least some X-ray breaks are chromatic (even if the post break

731: segment is well consistent with the standard afterglow model). This poses a great

732: issue to argue that these X-ray breaks are energy injection breaks. Invoking

733: different emission regions (e.g. Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros 2002) may solve the

734: problem, although more detailed modelling is needed. Crossing of a cooling break

735: would also result in a temporal break, but it would also lead to a change of the

736: spectral index by $\sim 0.5$. From Table 1 we find that the changes of the X-ray

737: spectral indices across the break of these bursts are $0.01\pm 0.10$ (050318),

738: $0.04\pm 0.10$ (050319), $0.08\pm 0.12$(050401), and $0.03\pm 0.09$ (050802).

739: These results confidently rule out such a possibility. Genet et al. (2007)

740: account for these chromatic breaks as due to a long-live reverse shock in which

741: only a small fraction of electrons are accelerated. The big issue of such an

742: interpretation is how to ``hide'' the emission from the forward shock, which

743: carries most of the energy.

744: 

745: Assuming a simple energy injection law $L(t) \propto t^{-q}$, we find that

746: averagely speaking the injection luminosity could be almost a constant. This

747: places some constraints on the physical models of the energy injection models.

748: The constant injection luminosity agree with the expectation of the energy

749: injection model from a central pulsar (Dai \& Lu 1998a; Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros

750: 2001), suggesting that the pulsar injection model may be consistent with the data

751: at least for some GRBs (see also Grupe et al. 2007; Fan \& Xu 2006; De Pasquale

752: et al. 2007; Yu et al. 2007).

753: 

754: The temporal decay slopes of some bursts following the shallow decay phase are

755: shallower than the model predictions [Fig. 5, see also Fig. 5(a) in Willingale et

756: al. 2007]. This discrepancy may be alleviated by different ways. First, as shown

757: in Fig. 1, $\alpha_2$ could be systematically steeper if a smoother broken power

758: law model (with smaller $\omega$) is adopted. Second, theoretically the temporal

759: breaks involving external shocks are usually not sharp. Other effects, such as

760: delay of transfer of the fireball energy to the forward shock (Kobayashi \& Zhang

761: 2007), and the structured jet effect (Zhang et al. 2004; Kumar et al. 2004;

762: Yamazaki et al. 2006) would modify the simplest closure relations to make a band

763: rather than a line in the $\alpha-\beta$ plane.

764: 

765: One interesting conclusion from this study is that at least for a small fraction

766: of bursts (e.g. GRBs 060413, 060522, 060607A, and 070110), the observed shallow

767: decay phase is likely of internal origin. This is another component other than

768: X-ray flares that are possibly of internal origin. Contrary to the

769: erratic X-ray flares, this component has a smoother light curve with flickering,

770: likely due to a steady component from the central engine. A possible energy

771: source for such a component would be the spin energy from the central engine, and

772: an internal dissipation of the spindown power may be the origin (e.g. Troja et

773: al. 2007). Tapping of the rotation energy is likely through magnetic fields, either

774: through dipolar spindown for a central millisecond pulsar (Usov 1992; Dai \& Lu

775: 1998a,b; Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros 2001) or by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism for a black

776: hole central engine (Blandford \& Znajek 1977; M\'esz\'aros \& Rees 1997b; Li

777: 2000). If one accepts that such a component is common among bursts, one can

778: speculate that the observed early X-ray emission is the sum of different emission

779: components. The competition among these components shapes the variety of the X-ray

780: light curves one observes. Depending on the relative importance of the internal and

781: external components, the shallow decay segment could be possibly dominated by

782: either the radiation from the refreshed shocks or by the steady radiation

783: component from the internal dissipation of the central engine. In the former

784: scenario, the shallow decay phase transits to a normal decay phase that is

785: consistent with the external shock models. In the later scenario, the emission

786: level of the underlying afterglow component is weaker than that from the emission

787: component of the central engine, so that one needs a steep dropoff from the

788: plateau to land onto the external shock emission component.

789: 

790: 

791: \acknowledgments We acknowledge the use of the public data from the Swift data

792: archive. We appreciate valuable comments and suggestions from the anonymous

793: referee and P. O'Brien, Z. G. Dai, X. Dai, D. M. Wei, K. Ioka, L. Nava, X. Y.

794: Wang, X. F. Wu, F. W. Zhang. This work is supported by NASA under grants

795: NNG06GH62G, NNG05GB67G, NNX07AJ64G, NNX07AJ66G, and the National Natural Science

796: Foundation of China under grant No. 10463001 (EWL) and 10640420144.

797: 

798: 

799: 

800: \begin{thebibliography}{}

801: \bibitem[Asfandyarov et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5434....1A} Asfandyarov, I., Pozanenko, A., \& Ibrahimov, M.\ 2006, GCN, 5434

802: \bibitem[Barbier et al. 2005]{ Barbier, L., et al. 2005} Barbier, L., et al. 2005, GCN  4104

803: \bibitem[Barbier et al. 2006a]{ Barbier, L., et al. 2006} Barbier, L., et al. 2006a, GCN 4961

804: \bibitem[Barbier et al. 2006b]{ Barbier, L., et al. 2006} Barbier, L., et al. 2006b, GCN 5091

805: \bibitem[Barbier et al. 2006c]{ Barbier, L., et al. 2006} Barbier, L., et al. 2006c, GCN 5108

806: \bibitem[Barbier et al. 2006d]{ Barbier, L., et al. 2006} Barbier, L., et al. 2006d, GCN  5403

807: \bibitem[Barthelmy et al. 2005a]{Barthelmy, S., et al. 2005} Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2005a, GCN 3682

808: \bibitem[Barthelmy et al. 2005b]{Barthelmy, S. et al. 2005} Barthelmy, S. D.,  et al. 2005b, GCN  4077

809: \bibitem[Barthelmy et al. 2006a]{Barthelmy, S. et al. 2006} Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2006a, GCN 5256

810: \bibitem[Barthelmy et al. 2006b]{Barthelmy, S. D.,  et al. 2006} Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2006b, GCN 5421

811: \bibitem[Berger \& Gladders 2006 ]{Berger2006}Berger, E., \& Gladders, M. 2006a, GCN 5162

812: \bibitem[Berger \& Gladders(2006)]{2006GCN..5170....1B} Berger, E., \& Gladders, M.\ 2006b, GCN 5170

813: \bibitem[Berger \& John 2005a]{ Berger, E.,and John Mulchaey } Berger, E., \& Mulchaey, J. 2005, GCN 3122

814: \bibitem[Berger et al. 2005b]{ Berger, E., et al. 2005} Berger, E., et al. 2005, GCN 3368

815: \bibitem[Blandford \& Znajek 1977]{1977MNRAS.179..433B} Blandford, R.~D., \& Znajek, R.~L.\ 1977, \mnras, 179, 433

816: \bibitem[Bloom 2006]{ Bloom, J. S., 2006} Bloom, J. S., 2006, GCN 5826

817: \bibitem[Bloom et al. 2001]{2001AJ....121.2879B} Bloom, J.~S., Frail, D.~A., \& Sari, R.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 2879

818: \bibitem[Bloom et al. 2005]{ Bloom, J. S., et al. 2005} Bloom, J. S., et al. 2005, GCN 3758

819: \bibitem[Burrows \& Racusin 2007]{2007astro.ph..2633B} Burrows, D.~N., \& Racusin, J.\ 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/0702633

820: \bibitem[Burrows et al. 2004]{2004SPIE.5165..201B} Burrows, D.~N., et al.\ 2004, \procspie, 5165, 201

821: \bibitem[Burrows et al. 2005]{2005Sci...309.1833B} Burrows, D.~N., et al.\ 2005, Science, 309, 1833

822: \bibitem[Butler \& Kocevski 2007]{2007astro.ph..2638B} Butler, N.~R., \& Kocevski, D.\ 2007,\apj, in press [arXiv:astro-ph/0702638]

823: \bibitem[Cabrera et al. 2007]{2007arXiv0704.0791C} Cabrera, J.~I., et al. \ 2007, arXiv:0704.0791

824: \bibitem[Campana et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.442.1008C} Campana, S., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 442, 1008

825: \bibitem[Castro-Tirado et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5218....1C} Castro-Tirado, A.~J., et al. \ 2006, GCN 5218

826: \bibitem[Cenko et al. 2005]{Cebko2005}Cenko, S. B., et al. 2005, GCN 3542

827: \bibitem[Cenko et al. 2006a]{ Cenko, S.B.,   et al. 2006} Cenko, S.B.,   et al. 2006a, GCN 4592

828: \bibitem[Cenko et al. 2006b]{ Cenko, S.B.,  et al. 2006} Cenko, S.B.,  et al. 2006b, GCN 5155

829: \bibitem[Chevalier \& Li 2000]{} Chevalier, R. A. \& Li, Z.-Y. 2000, \apj, 536, 195

830: %\bibitem[Covino et al. 2006]{2006astro.ph.12643C} Covino, S., et al. 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0612643

831: \bibitem[Cucchiara et al. 2006a]{ Cucchiara, A.,  et al. 2006} Cucchiara, A.,  et al. 2006a, GCN 4729

832: \bibitem[Cucchiara et al. 2006b]{ Cucchiara, A., et al. 2006} Cucchiara, A., et al. 2006b, GCN 5052

833: \bibitem[Cummings et al. 2005 ]{Cummings2005}Cummings, J., et al. 2005a, GCN 2992

834: \bibitem[Cummings et al. 2006]{ Cummings, J., et al. 2006} Cummings, J., et al. 2006, GCN 5443

835: \bibitem[Cummings et al. 2007]{ Cummings, J.,  et al. 2007} Cummings, J.,et al. 2007, GCN 6007

836: \bibitem[Curran et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...467.1049C} Curran, P.~A., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 467, 1049

837: \bibitem[Dai(2004)]{2004ApJ...606.1000D} Dai, Z.~G.\ 2004, \apj, 606, 1000

838: \bibitem[Dai \& Cheng 2001]{} Dai, Z. G., \& Cheng, K. S. 2001, \apj, 558, L109

839: \bibitem[Dai \& Lu 1998a]{1998A&A...333L..87D} Dai, Z.~G., \& Lu, T.\ 1998a, \aap, 333, L87

840: \bibitem[Dai \& Lu 1998b]{1998PhRvL..81.4301D} Dai, Z.~G., \& Lu, T.\ 1998b, Physical Review Letters, 81, 4301

841: \bibitem[Dai et al. 2006]{2006Sci...311.1127D} Dai, Z.~G., Wang, X.~Y., Wu, X.~F., \& Zhang, B.\ 2006, Science, 311, 1127

842: \bibitem[Dai et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...658..509D} Dai, X., Halpern, J.~P., Morgan, N.~D., Armstrong, E., Mirabal, N., Haislip, J.~B., Reichart, D.~E., \& Stanek, K.~Z.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 509

843: %\bibitem[Daigne \& Mochkovitch(2007)]{2007A&A...465....1D} Daigne, F., \& Mochkovitch, R.\ 2007, \aap, 465, 1

844: \bibitem[De Pasquale et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.365.1031D} de Pasquale, M., et al.\ 2006, \mnras, 365, 1031

845: \bibitem[de Pasquale et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.377.1638D} de Pasquale, M., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 1638

846: \bibitem[Della Valle et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.444.1050D} Della Valle, M., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1050

847: \bibitem[Dermer 2007]{2006astro.ph..6320D} Dermer, C.~D.\ 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0606320)

848: \bibitem[Eichler \& Granot 2006]{2006ApJ...641L...5E} Eichler, D., \& Granot, J.\ 2006, \apjl, 641, L5

849: \bibitem[Fan \& Piran 2006]{2006MNRAS.369..197F} Fan, Y., \& Piran, T.\ 2006, \mnras, 369, 197

850: \bibitem[Fan \& Wei 2005]{2005MNRAS.364L..42F} Fan, Y.~Z., \& Wei, D.~M.\ 2005, \mnras, 364, L42

851: \bibitem[Fan \& Xu 2006]{} Fan, Y. Z. \& Xu, D. 2006, \mnras, 372, L19

852: \bibitem[Fenimore et al. 2005]{ Fenimore, E., et al.  2005} Fenimore, E., et al. 2005, GCN 4217

853: \bibitem[Fenimore et al. 2006]{ Fenimore, E.,  et al. 2006} Fenimore, E.,  et al. 2006a, GCN 5295

854: \bibitem[Fenimore et al. 2006]{ Fenimore, E.,  et al. 2006} Fenimore, E.,  et al. 2006b, GCN 5831

855: \bibitem[Frail et al. 2001]{2001ApJ...562L..55F} Frail, D.~A., et al.\ 2001, \apjl, 562, L55

856: \bibitem[Fynbo et al. 2005]{ Fynbo, J. P. U.,  et al. 2005} Fynbo, J. P. U.,  et al. 2005c, GCN 3176

857: \bibitem[Fynbo et al. 2005]{ Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2005} Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2005b, GCN 3749

858: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2005a)]{Fynbo2005a}Fynbo, J. P. U.,  et al. 2005a, GCN 3136

859: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.444.1047F} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1047

860: \bibitem[Gal-Yam et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.444.1053G} Gal-Yam, A., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1053

861: \bibitem[Gehrels et al. 2004]{2004ApJ...611.1005G} Gehrels, N., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 1005

862: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.444.1044G} Gehrels, N., et al.\

863: 2006, \nat, 444, 1044

864: \bibitem[Genet et al. 2007]{2007astro.ph..1204G} Genet, F., Daigne, F., \& Mochkovitch, R.\ 2007,  arXiv:astro-ph/0701204

865: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al. 2004]{2004ApJ...616..331G} Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., \& Lazzati, D.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 331

866: %\bibitem[Ghirlanda et al. 2007]{2007A&A...466..127G} Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., \& Firmani, C.\ 2007, \aap, 466, 127

867: \bibitem[Ghisellini et al. 2007]{2007ApJ...658L..75G} Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., \& Firmani, C.\ 2007, \apjl, 658, L75

868: \bibitem[Golenetskii et al. 2006]{ Golenetskii, S., et al. 2006} Golenetskii, S., et al. 2006, GCN 5446

869: \bibitem[Gou et al.(2001)]{2001A&A...368..464G} Gou, L.~J., Dai, Z.~G., Huang, Y.~F., \& Lu, T.\ 2001, \aap, 368, 464

870: \bibitem[Granot \& Kumar 2006]{2006MNRAS.366L..13G} Granot, J., \& Kumar, P.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, L13

871: \bibitem[Granot et al. 2006]{2006MNRAS.370.1946G} Granot, J., K{\"o}nigl, A., \& Piran, T.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 1946

872: \bibitem[Grupe et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...662..443G} Grupe, D., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 662, 443

873: \bibitem[Huang et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...654L..25H} Huang, K.~Y., et al.\ 2007, \apjl, 654, L25

874: \bibitem[Hullinger et al. 2005]{ Hullinger, D., et al. 2005} Hullinger, D., et al. 2005a, GCN  3364

875: \bibitem[Hullinger et al.(2005)]{2005GCN..3856....1H} Hullinger, D., et al.\ 2005b, GCN 3856

876: \bibitem[Hullinger et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..4851....1H} Hullinger, D., et al.\ 2006, GCN 4851

877: \bibitem[Ioka et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...631..429I} Ioka, K., Kobayashi, S., \& Zhang, B.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 429

878: \bibitem[Ioka et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...458....7I} Ioka, K., Toma, K., Yamazaki, R., \& Nakamura, T.\ 2006, \aap, 458, 7

879: \bibitem[Jakobsson 2006b]{ Jakobsson, P., 2006} Jakobsson, P., 2006d, GCN 5617

880: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al. 2006a]{ Jakobsson, P.,  et al. 2006} Jakobsson, P.,  et al. 2006a, GCN 5298

881: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al. 2006b]{ Jakobsson, P., et al. 2006} Jakobsson, P., et al. 2006b, GCN 5319

882: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...460L..13J} Jakobsson, P., etal.\ 2006c, \aap, 460, L13

883: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006c)]{2006GCN..5337....1J} Jakobsson, P., et al. \ 2006c, GCN, 5337

884: \bibitem[Jaunsen et al. 2007]{ Jaunsen,A. O., et al. 2007} Jaunsen,A. O., et al. 2007, GCN 6010

885: \bibitem[Jin et al. 2007]{2007ApJ...656L..57J} Jin, Z.~P., Yan, T., Fan, Y.~Z., \& Wei, D.~M.\ 2007, \apjl, 656, L57

886: \bibitem[Kelson \& Berger 2005 ]{Kelson2005}Kelson, D. \& Berger, E., 2005, GCN 3101

887: \bibitem[King et al. 2005]{2005ApJ...630L.113K} King, A., O'Brien, P.~T., Goad, M.~R., Osborne, J., Olsson, E., \& Page, K.\ 2005, \apjl, 630, L113

888: \bibitem[Kobayashi \& Zhang(2007)]{2007ApJ...655..973K} Kobayashi, S., \& Zhang, B.\ 2007, \apj, 655, 973

889: \bibitem[Krimm et al. 2005]{ Krimm, H., et al. 2005} Krimm, H., et al. 2005b, GCN , 3134

890: \bibitem[Krimm et al. 2005]{ Krimm, J. et al. 2005} Krimm, J. et al. 2005a, GCN 3119

891: \bibitem[Krimm et al. 2006]{ Krimm, H.,  et al. 2006} Krimm, H.,  et al. 2006d, GCN 5334

892: \bibitem[Krimm et al. 2006]{ Krimm, H.,  et al. 2006} Krimm, H.,  et al. 2006e, GCN 6058

893: \bibitem[Krimm et al. 2006]{ Krimm, H., et al. 2006} Krimm, H., et al. 2006c, GCN 5153

894: \bibitem[Krimm et al.(2005)]{2005GCN..3105....1K} Krimm, H., et al.\ 2005c, GCN, 3105

895: \bibitem[Kumar \& Panaitescu(2000)]{2000ApJ...541L...9K} Kumar, P., \& Panaitescu, A.\ 2000a, \apjl, 541, L9

896: \bibitem[Kumar \& Panaitescu 2000]{2000ApJ...541L..51K} Kumar, P., \& Panaitescu, A.\ 2000b, \apjl, 541, L51

897: \bibitem[Granot et al.(2004)]{2004ASPC..312..373G} Granot, J., Kumar, P., \& Piran, T.\ 2004, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 312,

898: 373

899: \bibitem[Lamb, D., et al. 2006]{ Lamb, D., et al. 2006} Lamb, D., et al. 2006, GCN 4601

900: \bibitem[Lazzati \& Begelman 2006]{2006ApJ...641..972L} Lazzati, D., \& Begelman, M.~C.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 972

901: \bibitem[Ledoux, C., et al. 2006]{ Ledoux, C., et al. 2006} Ledoux, C., et al. 2006, GCN 5237

902: \bibitem[Li 2000]{2000ApJ...540L..17L} Li, L.-X.\ 2000, \apjl, 540, L17

903: \bibitem[Liang \& Zhang 2005]{2005ApJ...633..611L} Liang, E. W., \& Zhang, B.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 611

904: \bibitem[Liang et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...646..351L} Liang, E.~W., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 351

905: \bibitem[M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros \& Rees 1997a]{1997ApJ...476..232M} M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1997a, \apj, 476, 232

906: \bibitem[M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros \& Rees 1997b]{1997ApJ...482L..29M} M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1997b, \apjl, 482, L29

907: \bibitem[M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2002]{2002ARA&A..40..137M} M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros P., 2002, ARA\&A, 40, 137

908: \bibitem[M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2006]{2006RPPh...69.2259M} M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2006, Reports of Progress in Physics, 69, 2259

909: \bibitem[Mangano et al. 2007]{2007arXiv0704.2235M} Mangano, V., et al.\ 2007,\aap in press [arXiv:0704.2235]

910: \bibitem[Markwardt et al. 2006]{ Markwardt, C., et al. 2006} Markwardt, C., et al. 2006a, GCN  4435

911: \bibitem[Markwardt et al. 2006]{ Markwardt, C., et al. 2006} Markwardt, C., et al. 2006b, GCN 5022

912: \bibitem[Markwardt et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..4671....1M} Markwardt, C., et al.\ 2006c, GCN 4671

913: \bibitem[Markwardt et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5174....1M} Markwardt, C., et al.\ 2006d, GCN 5174

914: \bibitem[Mason et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...639..311M} Mason, K.~O., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 639, 311

915: \bibitem[McGowan et al.(2005a)]{2005GCN..3745....1M} McGowan, K., Morgan, A., Mason, K., \& Kennedy, T.\ 2005a, GCN, 3745, 1

916: \bibitem[McGowan et al.(2005b)]{2005GCN..3739....1M} McGowan, K., Band, D., Brown, P., Gronwall, C., Huckle, H., \& Hancock, B.\ 2005b, GCN, 3739, 1

917: \bibitem[Melandri et al. 2006]{ Melandri, A., et al. 2006} Melandri, A., et al. 2006, GCN 4539

918: \bibitem[Misra et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...464..903M} Misra, K., Bhattacharya, D., Sahu, D.~K., Sagar, R., Anupama, G.~C., Castro-Tirado, A.~J., Guziy, S.~S., \& Bhatt, B.~C.\ 2007, \aap, 464, 903

919: %\bibitem[Moderski et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...529..151M} Moderski, R., Sikora, M., \& Bulik, T.\ 2000, \apj, 529, 151

920: \bibitem[Molinari et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...469L..13M} Molinari, E., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 469, L13

921: \bibitem[Nava et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.377.1464N} Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Cabrera, J.~I., Firmani, C., \& Avila-Reese, V.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 1464

922: \bibitem[Nousek et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...642..389N} Nousek, J.~A., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 389

923: \bibitem[O'Brien et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...647.1213O} O'Brien, P.~T., et al.\ 2006b, \apj, 647, 1213

924: \bibitem[O'Brien et al.(2006)]{2006NJPh....8..121O} O'Brien, P.~T., Willingale, R., Osborne, J.~P., \& Goad, M.~R.\ 2006a, New Journal of Physics, 8, 121

925: \bibitem[Page et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0704.1609P} Page, K.~L., et al.\ 2007, \apj, in press, [arXiv:0704.1609]

926: \bibitem[Palmer et al. 2005]{ Palmer, D. et al. 2005} Palmer, D. et al. 2005, GCN 3737

927: \bibitem[Palmer et al. 2006]{ Palmer, D., et al. 2006} Palmer, D., et al. 2006a, GCN 4476

928: \bibitem[Palmer et al. 2006]{ Palmer, D., et al. 2006} Palmer, D., et al. 2006b, GCN  5744

929: \bibitem[Palmer et al. 2006]{ Palmer, D., et al., 2006} Palmer, D., et al., 2006c, GCN 5551

930: \bibitem[Panaitescu \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros(1999)]{1999ApJ...526..707P} Panaitescu, A., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 1999, \apj, 526, 707

931: %\bibitem[Panaitescu 2007]{2007astro.ph.12170P} Panaitescu, A.\ 2007, \mnras, in press, [arXiv:astro-ph/0612170]

932: \bibitem[Panaitescu et al. (2006a)]{2006MNRAS.366.1357P} Panaitescu, A., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., Gehrels, N., Burrows, D., \& Nousek, J.\ 2006a, \mnras, 366, 1357

933: \bibitem[Panaitescu et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...503..314P} Panaitescu, A., Meszaros, P., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1998, \apj, 503, 314

934: \bibitem[Panaitescu et al.(2006b)]{2006MNRAS.369.2059P} Panaitescu, A., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., Burrows, D., Nousek, J., Gehrels, N., O'Brien, P., \& Willingale, R.\ 2006b, \mnras, 369, 2059

935: \bibitem[Parsons 2005]{ Parsons, A., 2005} Parsons, A., 2005a, GCN 3600

936: \bibitem[Parsons 2005]{ Parsons, A., 2005} Parsons, A., 2005b, GCN 3757

937: \bibitem[Parsons et al. 2006]{ Parsons, A., et al. 2006} Parsons, A., et al. 2006a, GCN  5370

938: \bibitem[Parsons et al. 2006]{ Parsons, A., et al. 2006} Parsons, A., et al. 2006b, GCN 4912

939: \bibitem[Parsons et al. 2006]{ Parsons, A., et al. 2006} Parsons, A., et al. 2006c, GCN 5053

940: \bibitem[Parsons et al. 2006]{ Parsons, A., et al. 2006} Parsons, A., et al. 2006d, GCN 5561

941: \bibitem[Parsons et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5214....1P} Parsons, A., et al.\ 2006e, GCN 5214

942: \bibitem[Pavlenko et al.(2005)]{2005GCN..3744....1P} Pavlenko, E., et al. \ 2005, GCN, 3744

943: \bibitem[Pavlenko et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5317....1P} Pavlenko, E., et al. \ 2006a, GCN, 5317

944: \bibitem[Pavlenko et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5324....1P} Pavlenko, E., et al. \ 2006b, GCN, 5324

945: \bibitem[Pe'er et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...652..482P} Pe'er, A., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 482

946: \bibitem[Perna et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...636L..29P} Perna, R., Armitage, P.~J., \& Zhang, B.\ 2006, \apjl, 636, L29

947: \bibitem[Piran 2005]{2005RvMP...76.1143P} Piran, T.\ 2005, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143

948: \bibitem[Preece et al. 2000]{2000ApJS..126...19P} Preece, R.~D., et al. \ 2000, \apjs, 126, 19

949: \bibitem[Price et al. 2006]{ Price, P.A., et al. 2006} Price, P.A., et al. 2006, GCN 5275

950: \bibitem[Proga \& Zhang 2006]{2006MNRAS.370L..61P} Proga, D., \& Zhang, B.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, L61

951: \bibitem[Quimby et al. 2005]{ Quimby, R., et al. 2005} Quimby, R., et al. 2005, GCN 4221

952: \bibitem[Quimby et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...640..402Q} Quimby, R.~M., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 402

953: \bibitem[Rees \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 1994]{1994ApJ...430L..93R} Rees, M.~J., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 1994, \apjl, 430, L93

954: \bibitem[Rees \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 1998]{1998ApJ...496L...1R} Rees, M.~J., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 1998, \apjl, 496, L1

955: \bibitem[Rhoads 1997]{1997ApJ...487L...1R} Rhoads, J.~E.\ 1997, \apjl, 487, L1

956: \bibitem[Rol et al. 2006]{ Rol, E., et al. 2006} Rol, E., et al. 2006, GCN 5555

957: \bibitem[Romano et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...456..917R} Romano, P., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 456, 917

958: \bibitem[Rumyantsev et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5336....1R} Rumyantsev, V., Pavlenko, E., \& Pozanenko, A.\ 2006, GCN, 5336, 1

959: \bibitem[Rykoff et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...631L.121R} Rykoff, E.~S., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 631, L121

960: \bibitem[Rykoff et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...638L...5R} Rykoff, E.~S., et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 638, L5

961: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al. 2005a]{ Sakamoto, T.,  et al. 2005} Sakamoto, T.,  et al. 2005a, GCN 3173

962: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al. 2005b]{ Sakamoto, T., et al. 2005} Sakamoto, T., et al. 2005b, GCN 3730

963: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al. 2006a]{ Sakamoto, T.,  et al. 2006} Sakamoto, T.,  et al. 2006a, GCN  4748

964: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al. 2006b]{ Sakamoto, T., 2006} Sakamoto, T., 2006b, et al. GCN 4445

965: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al. 2006c]{ Sakamoto, T., et al. 2006} Sakamoto, T., et al. 2006c, GCN 5349

966: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al. 2006d]{ Sakamoto, T., et al. 2006} Sakamoto, T., et al. 2006d, GCN 5887

967: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al. 2007]{ Sakamoto, T., et al. 2007} Sakamoto, T., et al. 2007, ApJ, submitted

968: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2005)]{Sakamoto2005}Sakamoto, T., et al. 2005c, GCN 3273

969: \bibitem[Sari \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros(2000)]{2000ApJ...535L..33S} Sari, R., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2000, \apjl, 535, L33

970: \bibitem[Sari et al. 1998]{1998ApJ...497L..17S} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Narayan, R.\ 1998, \apjl, 497, L17

971: \bibitem[Sari et al. 1999]{1999ApJ...519L..17S} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Halpern, J.~P.\ 1999, \apjl, 519, L17

972: \bibitem[Sato et al. 2006]{ Sato, G., et al. 2006} Sato, G., et al. 2006, GCN  5538

973: %\bibitem[Sato et al. 2007]{2007ApJ...657..359S} Sato, G., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 657, 359

974: \bibitem[Shao \& Dai(2007)]{2007ApJ...660.1319S} Shao, L., \& Dai, Z.~G.\ 2007, \apj, 660, 1319

975: \bibitem[Soderberg et al. 2005]{ Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2005} Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2005, GCN 4186

976: \bibitem[Stamatikos 2006]{ Stamatikos, M.,  2006} Stamatikos, M.,  2006, GCN  5459

977: \bibitem[Stamatikos et al. 2006]{ Stamatikos, M.,  et al. 2006} Stamatikos, M.,  et al. 2006, GCN  5289

978: \bibitem[Stanek et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...654L..21S} Stanek, K.~Z., et al.\ 2007, \apjl, 654, L21

979: \bibitem[Still et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...635.1187S} Still, M., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 635, 1187

980: \bibitem[Tagliaferri et al. 2005]{2005Natur.436..985T} Tagliaferri, G., et al.\ 2005, \nat, 436, 985

981: \bibitem[Thoene et al. 2006]{ Thoene, C. C., et al. 2006} Thoene, C. C., et al. 2006, GCN 5373

982: \bibitem[Toma et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...640L.139T} Toma, K., Ioka, K., Yamazaki, R., \& Nakamura, T.\ 2006, \apjl, 640, L139

983: \bibitem[Troja et al. 2007]{2007astro.ph..2220T} Troja, E., et al.\ 2007, \apj, in press [arXiv:astro-ph/0702220]

984: \bibitem[Tueller et al. 2006]{ Tueller, J., et al. 2006} Tueller, J., et al. 2006a, GCN 5964

985: \bibitem[Tueller et al. 2006]{ Tueller, J., et al. 2006} Tueller, J., et al. 2006b, GCN 5242

986: \bibitem[Tueller et al. 2006]{ Tueller, J., et al. 2006} Tueller, J., et al. 2006c, GCN 5395

987: %\bibitem[Tueller et al. 2006]{ Tueller, J., et al. 2006} Tueller, J., et al. 2006d, GCN 5589

988: \bibitem[Uhm \& Beloborodov 2007]{2007astro.ph..1205U} Uhm, Z.~L., \& Beloborodov, A.~M.\ 2007,\apjl, in press [arXiv:astro-ph/0701205]

989: \bibitem[Usov 1992]{1992Natur.357..472U} Usov, V.~V.\ 1992, \nat, 357, 472

990: \bibitem[Vaughan et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...638..920V} Vaughan, S., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 638, 920

991: \bibitem[Vreeswijk 2006]{Vreeswijk, P., 2006} Vreeswijk, P., 2006, GCN 5535

992: \bibitem[Wang \& Dai(2001)]{2001ChPhL..18.1153W} Wang, W., \& Dai, Z.-G.\ 2001, Chinese Physics Letter, 18, 1153

993: \bibitem[Watson et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652.1011W} Watson, D., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1011

994: \bibitem[Wei \& Lu(2000)]{2000ApJ...541..203W} Wei, D.~M., \& Lu, T.\ 2000, \apj, 541, 203

995: \bibitem[Willingale et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...662.1093W} Willingale, R., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 662, 1093

996: \bibitem[Yamazaki et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.369..311Y} Yamazaki, R., Toma, K., Ioka, K., \& Nakamura, T.\ 2006, \mnras, 369, 311

997: \bibitem[Yost et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...657..925Y} Yost, S.~A., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 657, 925

998: \bibitem[Yu \& Dai(2007)]{2007arXiv0705.1108Y} Yu, Y.-W., \& Dai, Z.-G.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 705, arXiv:0705.1108

999: \bibitem[Yu et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0706.3741Y} Yu, Y.~W., Liu, X.~W., \& Dai, Z.~G.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 706, arXiv:0706.3741

1000: \bibitem[Zhang (2006)]{2006Natur.444.1010Z} Zhang, B.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1010

1001: \bibitem[Zhang (2007)]{2007ChJAA...7....1Z} Zhang, B.\ 2007, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 7, 1

1002: \bibitem[Zhang \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2001]{2001ApJ...552L..35Z} Zhang, B., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2001, \apjl, 552, L35

1003: \bibitem[Zhang \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2002]{2002ApJ...566..712Z} Zhang, B., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2002, \apj, 566, 712

1004: \bibitem[Zhang \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2004]{2004IJMPA..19.2385Z} Zhang, B., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19, 2385

1005: \bibitem[Zhang et al. (2004)]{2004ApJ...601L.119Z} Zhang, B., Dai, X., Lloyd-Ronning, N.~M., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2004, \apjl, 601, L119

1006: \bibitem[Zhang et al. (2006)]{2006ApJ...642..354Z} Zhang, B., Fan, Y.~Z., Dyks, J., Kobayashi, S., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., Burrows, D.~N., Nousek, J.~A., \& Gehrels, N.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 354

1007: \bibitem[Zhang et al. (2007a)]{2007ApJ...655..989Z} Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., Page, K., Grupe, D., et al.\ 2007a, \apj, 655, 989

1008: \bibitem[Zhang et al. (2007b)]{2007ApJ...655L..25Z} Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B., Liang, E.-W., Gehrels, N., Burrows, D.~N., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2007b, \apjl, 655, L25

1009: \bibitem[Zhang et al. (2007c)]{2007astro.ph.12246Z} Zhang, B.-B., Liang, E.-W., \& Zhang, B.\ 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0612246) (Paper I)

1010: \end{thebibliography}

1011: 

1012: 

1013: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllllllllllllllll}

1014: 

1015: %% Keep a portrait orientation

1016: 

1017: %% Rotate to a landscape orientation

1018: %\rotate

1019: %% Over-ride the default font size

1020: %% Use Default (12pt)

1021: \tablewidth{450pt} \tabletypesize{\tiny}

1022: 

1023: \tablecaption{XRT observations and the fitting results of our sample}

1024: 

1025: \tablenum{1}

1026: 

1027: 

1028: \tablehead{\colhead{GRB}&\colhead{$t_1$(ks)\tablenotemark{a}}&\colhead{$t_2$(ks)\tablenotemark{a}}&\colhead{$t_{b}$(ks)\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$\alpha_{\rm

1029: X,1}$\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$\alpha_{\rm

1030: X,2}$\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$\chi^2$(dof)\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$S_X$\tablenotemark{c}}&\colhead{$\Gamma_{\rm

1031: X,1}$\tablenotemark{d}}&\colhead{$\Gamma_{\rm X,2}$\tablenotemark{d}}}

1032: 

1033: 

1034: \startdata

1035: 

1036: 050128 & 0.25 & 70.72 & 2.76(0.62) & 0.49(0.07) & 1.26(0.03) & 40(48) & 3.70(1.07) & 1.87(0.14) & 1.95(0.06)\\

1037: 050315 & 5.40 & 450.87 & 224.64(38.68) & 0.66(0.03) & 1.90(0.28) & 42(52) & 10.88(2.56) & 2.06(0.11) & 2.18(0.08)\\

1038: 050318 & 3.34 & 45.19 & 10.64(4.97) & 0.90(0.23) & 1.84(0.19) & 27(20) & 5.92(6.32) & 2.09(0.08) & 2.02(0.06)\\

1039: 050319 & 6.11 & 84.79 & 11.20(13.26) & 0.23(0.59) & 0.99(0.25) & 9(9) & 1.26(1.42) & 2.00(0.06) & 2.04(0.07)\\

1040: 050401 & 0.14 & 801.04 & 5.86(0.78) & 0.57(0.02) & 1.37(0.06) & 106(92) & 9.32(1.31) & 1.91(0.05) & 1.99(0.11)\\

1041: 050416A & 0.25 & 261.69 & 1.74(1.12) & 0.43(0.12) & 0.90(0.04) & 36(38) & 0.62(0.38) & 2.18(0.31) & 2.15(0.10)\\

1042: 050505 & 3.07 & 97.19 & 7.87(1.57) & 0.15(0.19) & 1.30(0.06) & 26(45) & 2.34(0.68) & 2.00(0.07) & 2.03(0.04)\\

1043: 050713B & 0.79 & 478.50 & 10.80(1.59) & -0.00(0.07) & 0.94(0.04) & 40(63) & 3.28(0.35) & 1.85(0.10) & 1.94(0.09)\\

1044: 050726 & 0.42 & 17.05 & 1.17(0.33) & 0.08(0.33) & 1.31(0.09) & 13(21) & 1.17(0.53) & 2.25(0.07) & 2.07(0.06)\\

1045: 050801 & 0.07 & 46.10 & 0.25(fixed) & 0.00(fixed) & 1.10(0.03) & 44(45) & 0.16(0.01) & 1.70(0.19) & 1.91(0.12)\\

1046: 050802 & 0.51 & 83.83 & 4.09(0.61) & 0.32(0.10) & 1.61(0.04) & 58(72) & 3.66(0.94) & 1.91(0.06) & 1.89(0.07)\\

1047: 050803 & 0.50 & 368.89 & 13.71(0.90) & 0.25(0.03) & 2.01(0.07) & 94(57) & 5.96(0.51) & 1.76(0.14) & 2.00(0.08)\\

1048: 050822 & 6.41 & 523.32 & 66.99(44.38) & 0.60(0.10) & 1.25(0.19) & 29(44) & 4.05(3.12) & 2.29(0.13) & 2.36(0.11)\\

1049: 051008 & 3.09 & 43.77 & 14.67(3.82) & 0.78(0.11) & 1.96(0.21) & 17(19) & 6.87(3.43) & 2.00(0.11) & 2.06(0.07)\\

1050: 051016B & 4.78 & 150.47 & 66.40(23.09) & 0.71(0.08) & 1.84(0.46) & 15(16) & 2.18(1.10) & 2.15(0.13) & 2.19(0.13)\\

1051: 051109A & 3.73 & 639.16 & 27.28(7.90) & 0.79(0.07) & 1.53(0.08) & 39(48) & 10.59(4.71) & 1.91(0.07) & 1.90(0.07)\\

1052: 060105 & 0.10 & 360.83 & 2.31(0.14) & 0.84(0.01) & 1.72(0.02) & 653(754) & 42.98(3.84) & 2.23(0.05) & 2.15(0.03)\\

1053: 060108 & 0.77 & 165.26 & 22.08(7.38) & 0.26(0.09) & 1.43(0.17) & 7(7) & 0.53(0.17) & 2.17(0.32) & 1.75(0.15)\\

1054: 060109 & 0.74 & 48.01 & 4.89(1.10) & -0.17(0.14) & 1.32(0.09) & 19(13) & 0.91(0.20) & 2.32(0.15) & 2.34(0.14)\\

1055: 060124 & 13.30 & 664.01 & 52.65(10.33) & 0.78(0.10) & 1.65(0.05) & 165(132) & 29.65(12.09) & 2.10(0.03) & 2.08(0.06)\\

1056: 060204B & 4.06 & 98.80 & 5.55(0.66) & -0.59(0.72) & 1.45(0.07) & 21(34) & 0.87(0.36) & 2.54(0.14) & 2.77(0.18)\\

1057: 060210 & 3.90 & 861.94 & 24.24(5.01) & 0.63(0.05) & 1.38(0.05) & 144(133) & 10.41(2.90) & 2.06(0.03) & 2.12(0.09)\\

1058: 060306 & 0.25 & 124.39 & 4.67(2.91) & 0.40(0.11) & 1.05(0.07) & 30(32) & 1.58(0.98) & 2.09(0.16) & 2.21(0.10)\\

1059: 060323 & 0.33 & 16.28 & 1.29(0.32) & -0.11(0.23) & 1.55(0.16) & 4(7) & 0.27(0.08) & 1.99(0.16) & 2.02(0.13)\\

1060: 060413 & 1.20 & 253.52 & 26.43(1.12) & 0.18(0.03) & 3.42(0.21) & 78(71) & 13.77(0.82) & 1.60(0.08) & 1.50(0.10)\\

1061: 060428A & 0.23 & 271.10 & 11.04(6.58) & 0.27(0.09) & 0.88(0.08) & 25(21) & 3.79(1.74) & 2.11(0.24) & 2.05(0.14)\\

1062: 060502A & 0.24 & 593.06 & 72.57(15.05) & 0.53(0.03) & 1.68(0.15) & 11(26) & 5.09(1.19) & 2.20(0.12) & 2.15(0.13)\\

1063: 060507 & 3.00 & 86.09 & 6.95(1.68) & -0.37(0.48) & 1.25(0.09) & 2(8) & 0.40(0.16) & 2.15(0.19) & 2.13(0.12)\\

1064: 060510A & 0.16 & 343.41 & 9.18(0.67) & 0.10(0.03) & 1.51(0.03) & 93(142) & 17.28(1.65) & 1.91(0.09) & 1.96(0.06)\\

1065: 060522 & 0.20 & 0.90 & 0.53(0.06) & 0.14(0.36) & 3.15(0.79) & 11(11) & 0.26(0.12) & 2.03(0.16) & 2.13(0.30)\\

1066: 060526 & 1.09 & 322.75 & 10.02(4.55) & 0.30(0.12) & 1.50(0.23) & 34(48) & 0.79(0.32) & 2.08(0.09) & 2.08(0.16)\\

1067: 060604 & 3.52 & 403.81 & 11.37(6.80) & 0.19(0.48) & 1.17(0.08) & 34(41) & 0.79(0.67) & 2.44(0.15) & 2.43(0.17)\\

1068: 060607A & 1.52 & 39.52 & 12.34(0.19) & 0.00(fixed) & 3.35(0.09) & 132(139) & 8.45(0.17) & 1.44(0.06) & 1.64(0.05)\\

1069: 060614 & 5.03 & 451.71 & 49.84(3.62) & 0.18(0.06) & 1.90(0.07) & 70(54) & 4.35(0.49) & 2.02(0.02) & 1.93(0.06)\\

1070: 060707 & 5.32 & 813.53 & 22.21(54.08) & 0.37(0.96) & 1.09(0.17) & 8(11) & 0.64(2.01) & 1.88(0.09) & 2.06(0.20)\\

1071: 060708 & 3.81 & 439.09 & 6.66(3.84) & 0.49(0.54) & 1.30(0.09) & 39(34) & 0.96(1.06) & 2.41(0.17) & 2.28(0.12)\\

1072: 060714 & 0.32 & 331.97 & 3.70(0.97) & 0.34(0.10) & 1.27(0.05) & 53(73) & 1.48(0.46) & 2.15(0.08) & 2.04(0.11)\\

1073: 060719 & 0.28 & 182.15 & 9.57(2.70) & 0.40(0.06) & 1.31(0.10) & 19(26) & 1.30(0.37) & 2.35(0.13) & 2.38(0.26)\\

1074: 060729 & 0.42 & 2221.24 & 72.97(3.02) & 0.21(0.01) & 1.42(0.02) & 459(459) & 19.58(0.83) & 3.35(0.04) & 2.26(0.05)\\

1075: 060804 & 0.18 & 122.07 & 0.86(0.22) & -0.09(0.15) & 1.12(0.07) & 18(24) & 0.97(0.18) & 2.04(0.23) & 2.14(0.15)\\

1076: 060805A & 0.23 & 75.91 & 1.30(0.70) & -0.17(0.41) & 0.97(0.13) & 11(17) & 0.06(0.03) & 2.10(0.10) & 1.97(0.37)\\

1077: 060807 & 0.28 & 166.22 & 8.04(0.35) & 0.06(0.03) & 1.73(0.05) & 67(36)\tablenotemark{*} & 1.94(0.11) & 2.30(0.28) & 2.22(0.08)\\

1078: 060813 & 0.09 & 74.25 & 1.77(0.27) & 0.55(0.03) & 1.25(0.03) & 86(75) & 7.31(1.36) & 2.09(0.16) & 2.04(0.04)\\

1079: 060814 & 0.57 & 399.37 & 17.45(1.71) & 0.54(0.02) & 1.59(0.05) & 81(57) & 6.93(0.87) & 2.11(0.09) & 2.30(0.05)\\

1080: 060906 & 1.32 & 36.69 & 13.66(3.29) & 0.35(0.10) & 1.97(0.36) & 3(7) & 0.96(0.29) & 2.28(0.37) & 2.12(0.17)\\

1081: 060908 & 0.08 & 363.07 & 0.95(0.34) & 0.70(0.07) & 1.49(0.09) & 98(59)\tablenotemark{*}  & 1.28(0.61) & 2.41(0.21) & 2.00(0.08)\\

1082: 060912 & 0.42 & 86.80 & 1.13(0.31) & 0.13(0.30) & 1.19(0.08) & 8(26) & 0.37(0.15) & 2.08(0.11) & 1.95(0.13)\\

1083: 061021 & 0.30 & 594.16 & 9.59(2.17) & 0.52(0.03) & 1.08(0.03) & 94(87) & 3.59(0.87) & 1.81(0.04) & 1.70(0.13)\\

1084: 061121 & 4.89 & 353.10 & 24.32(4.38) & 0.75(0.06) & 1.63(0.05) & 121(147) & 19.89(6.14) & 2.00(0.04) & 1.93(0.05)\\

1085: 061202 & 0.93 & 357.04 & 41.65(5.36) & 0.10(0.04) & 2.20(0.18) & 55(49) & 13.80(1.12) & 2.15(0.09) & 3.55(0.44)\\

1086: 061222A & 22.78 & 724.64 & 32.73(2.17) & -0.61(0.45) & 1.75(0.04) & 102(59)\tablenotemark{*}  & 6.62(1.89) & 2.46(0.07) & 2.22(0.12)\\

1087: 070110 & 4.10 & 28.72 & 20.40(0.44) & 0.11(0.05) & 8.70(0.88) & 43(66) & 3.59(0.23) & 2.16(0.11) & 2.21(0.09)\\

1088: 070129 & 1.32 & 546.36 & 20.12(3.14) & 0.15(0.07) & 1.31(0.06) & 42(70) & 1.47(0.24) & 2.25(0.07) & 2.30(0.10)\\

1089: 

1090: 

1091: \enddata

1092: 

1093: \tablenotetext{a}{The starting and ending time of our lightcurve fitting}

1094: 

1095: \tablenotetext{b}{The break time and the decay slopes before and after the break,

1096: and the fitting $\chi^2$ (degrees of freedom).}

1097: 

1098: \tablenotetext{c}{The X-ray fluence (in units of $10^{-7}$ erg cm$^{-2}$) of the

1099: shallow decay phase calculated by integrating the fitting light curve from 10

1100: seconds post the GRB trigger to $t_b$.}

1101: 

1102: \tablenotetext{d}{The X-ray photon indices before and after $t_b$.}

1103: 

1104: \tablenotetext{*}{The fitting results of these bursts have an unaccepted reduced

1105: $\chi^2$ due to significant flicking.}

1106: 

1107: 

1108: \end{deluxetable}

1109: 

1110: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllll}

1111: 

1112: %\rotate

1113: 

1114: \tablewidth{400pt} \tabletypesize{\tiny} \tablecaption{BAT observations and

1115: redshifts of our sample}

1116: 

1117: \tablenum{2}

1118: 

1119: \tablehead{\colhead{GRB}& \colhead{$T_{90}$(s)}&

1120: \colhead{$S_\gamma$\tablenotemark{a}}&

1121: \colhead{$\Gamma_{\gamma,1}$\tablenotemark{b}}&

1122: \colhead{$\Gamma_{\gamma,2}$\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$E_{\rm

1123: p}$(keV)\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{ref$_{\rm

1124: BAT}$\tablenotemark{c}}&\colhead{$z$}&\colhead{ref$_{z}$ \tablenotemark{c}}}

1125: \startdata

1126: 050128 & 13.8(2.0) & 45.00(5.00) & 1.50(0.05) &  & 133.1(30.2) & 2992 &  & \\

1127: 050315 & 96.0(10.0) & 28.00(3.00) & 1.28(0.00) & 2.20 & 37.0(8.0) & 3105 & 1.95 & 3101\\

1128: 050318 & 32.0(2.0) & 21.00(2.00) & 2.10(0.11) &  & 39.5(12.4) & 3134 & 1.44 &3122  \\

1129: 050319 & 10.0(2.0) & 8.00(0.80) & 1.25(0.00) & 2.15 & 28.0(6.0) & 3119, Z07 & 3.24 & 3136\\

1130: 050401 & 33.0(2.0) & 140.00(14.00) & 1.15(0.00) & 2.65 & 132.0(16.0) & 3173,Z07 & 2.90 &3176 \\

1131: 050416A & 2.4(0.2) & 3.80(0.40) & 1.00(0.00) & 3.22 & 16.0(3.0) &  3273 & 0.65 & 3542\\

1132: 050505 & 60.0(2.0) & 41.00(4.00) & 1.50(0.10) &  & 133.1(41.0) &  3364, Z07& 4.27 & 3368\\

1133: 050713B & 75.0(7.5) & 82.00(10.00) & 1.00(0.13) &  & 109.0(32.0) &3600, Z07  &  & \\

1134: 050726 & 30.0(3.0) & 43.00(7.00) & 1.00(0.16) &  & 984.0(200.0) &  3682, Z07& & \\

1135: 050801 & 20.0(3.0) & 4.40(1.00) & 1.40(0.00) & 2.00 & 33.0(7.0) & 3730, Z07 & & \\

1136: 050802 & 13.0(2.0) & 28.00(3.00) & 1.12(0.00) & 2.48 & 118.0(77.0) & 3737, Z07 & 1.71 &3749 \\

1137: 050803 & 110.0(11.0) & 39.00(3.00) & 1.05(0.10) & & 150.0(68.0) & 3757, Z07 & 0.42 &3758 \\

1138: 050822 & 102.0(2.0) & 34.00(3.00) & 1.00(0.00) & 2.48 & 36.0(7.0) & 3856 & & \\

1139: 051008 & 280.0(28.0) & 540.00(10.00) & 0.98(0.09) &  & 865.0(178.0) & 4077, Z07 & & \\

1140: 051016B & 4.0(0.1) & 1.70(0.20) & 2.38(0.23) &  & 25.2(11.2) & 4104 & 0.94 & 4186\\

1141: 051109A & 36.0(2.0) & 21.00(3.00) & 1.50(0.20) &  & 133.1(69.0) & 4217 & 2.35 & 4221\\

1142: 060105 & 55.0(5.0) & 182.00(4.00) & 1.11(0.03) &  & 394.8(75.2) & 4435 &  & \\

1143: 060108 & 14.4(1.0) & 3.70(0.40) & 2.01(0.17) &  & 46.3(18.1) & 4445 & 2.03 &4539 \\

1144: 060109 & 116.0(3.0) & 6.40(1.00) & 1.96(0.25) &  & 50.7(26.3) & 4476 &  & \\

1145: 060124 & 800.0(10.0) & 110.00(10.00) & 1.17(0.27) &  & 326.5(277.3) & 4601 & 2.30 & 4592\\

1146: 060204B & 134.0(5.0) & 30.00(2.00) & 0.82(0.40) &  & 96.8(41.0) & 4671 & & \\

1147: 060210 & 255.0(10.0) & 77.00(4.00) & 1.52(0.09) &  & 126.9(36.7) & 4748 & 3.91 &4729 \\

1148: 060306 & 61.0(2.0) & 22.00(1.00) & 1.85(0.10) &  & 62.4(18.7) & 4851 &  & \\

1149: 060323 & 18.0(2.0) & 5.70(0.60) & 1.53(0.17) &  & 124.0(55.3) & 4912 &  & \\

1150: 060413 & 150.0(10.0) & 36.00(1.00) & 1.67(0.08) &  & 90.4(24.5) & 4961 & & \\

1151: 060428A & 39.4(2.0) & 14.00(1.00) & 2.04(0.11) &  & 43.9(13.8) & 5022 & & \\

1152: 060502A & 33.0(5.0) & 22.00(1.00) & 1.43(0.08) &  & 158.2(43.4) & 5053 & 1.51 & 5052\\

1153: 060507 & 185.0(5.0) & 45.00(2.00) & 1.83(0.10) &  & 64.9(19.3) & 5091 & & \\

1154: 060510A & 21.0(3.0) & 98.00(5.00) & 1.55(0.10) &  & 118.3(36.1) & 5108 & & \\

1155: 060522 & 69.0(5.0) & 11.00(1.00) & 1.59(0.15) &  & 107.9(42.7) & 5153 & 5.11 & 5155\\

1156: 060526 & 13.8(2.0) & 4.90(0.60) & 1.66(0.20) &  & 92.3(44.5) & 5174 & 3.21 & 5170\\

1157: 060604 & 10.0(3.0) & 1.30(0.30) & 1.90(0.41) &  & 56.7(46.1) & 5214 & 2.68 & 5218\\

1158: 060607A & 100.0(5.0) & 26.00(1.00) & 1.45(0.07) &  & 150.5(38.6) &5242  & 3.08 &5237 \\

1159: 060614 & 102.0(5.0) & 217.00(4.00) & 2.13(0.04) &  & 37.5(9.9) & 5256 & 0.125 &5275 \\

1160: 060707 & 68.0(5.0) & 17.00(2.00) & 0.66(0.63) & & 66.0(25.0) & 5289 & 3.43 & 5298\\

1161: 060708 & 9.8(1.0) & 5.00(0.40) & 1.68(0.12) & & 88.4(29.4) & 5395 &  & \\

1162: 060714 & 115.0(5.0) & 30.00(2.00) & 1.99(0.10) & & 48.0(14.5) & 5334 & 2.71 & J06\\

1163: 060719 & 55.0(5.0) & 16.00(1.00) & 2.00(0.11) & & 47.1(14.7) & 5349 &  & \\

1164: 060729 & 116.0(10.0) & 27.00(2.00) & 1.86(0.14) & & 61.2(21.7) & 5370 & 0.54 & 5373\\

1165: 060804 & 16.0(2.0) & 5.10(0.90) & 1.78(0.28) & & 71.8(43.7) & 5395 &  & \\

1166: 060805A & 5.4(0.5) & 0.74(0.20) & 2.23(0.42) & & 31.8(23.2) & 5421 & & \\

1167: 060807 & 34.0(4.0) & 7.30(0.90) & 1.57(0.20) & & 112.9(56.6) & 5403 &  & \\

1168: 060813 & 14.9(0.5) & 55.00(1.00) & 0.53(0.15) & & 192.0(19.0) & 5443,5446 &  & \\

1169: 060814 & 146.0(10.0) & 150.00(2.00) & 1.56(0.03) & & 115.6(24.3) & 5459 &  & \\

1170: 060906 & 43.6(1.0) & 22.10(1.40) & 2.02(0.11) & & 45.5(14.2) & 5538 & 3.68 & 5535\\

1171: 060908 & 19.3(0.3) & 29.00(1.00) & 1.33(0.07) & & 205.5(53.4) & 5551 & 2.43 & 5555\\

1172: 060912 & 5.0(0.5) & 13.00(1.00) & 1.74(0.09) & & 77.9(22.3) & 5561 & 0.94 & 5617\\

1173: 061021 & 46.0(1.0) & 30.00(1.00) & 1.31(0.06) & & 217.1(52.4) & 5744 & & \\

1174: 061121 & 81.0(5.0) & 137.00(2.00) & 1.41(0.03) & & 166.5(33.2) & 5831 & 1.31 & 5826\\

1175: 061202 & 91.0(5.0) & 35.00(1.00) & 1.63(0.07) & & 98.6(25.4) &  5887&  & \\

1176: 061222A & 72.0(3.0) & 83.00(2.00) & 1.39(0.04) & & 175.3(36.8) &  5964& & \\

1177: 070110 & 85.0(5.0) & 16.00(1.00) & 1.57(0.12) & & 112.9(38.4) & 6007 & 2.35 & 6010\\

1178: 070129 & 460.0(20.0) & 31.00(3.00) & 2.05(0.16) & & 43.1(16.1) & 6058 & & \\

1179: \enddata

1180: \tablenotetext{a}{The observed gamma-ray fluence and its error in 15-150 keV

1181: band, in units of $10^{-7}$ erg cm$^{-2}$.}

1182: 

1183: \tablenotetext{b} {The spectrum of the prompt gamma-rays is generally fitted by a

1184: simple power-law, $f_\nu\propto \nu^{-\Gamma_{\gamma,1}}$. We estimate the $E_p$

1185: for these bursts with the empirical relation between $\Gamma_{\gamma_1}$ and

1186: $E_p$ for the BAT observations. Few cases are fitted with a cut-off power-law or

1187: the Band function (the photon indices before and after the break energy is

1188: $\Gamma_{\gamma,1}$ and $\Gamma_{\gamma,2}$, respectively).}

1189: 

1190: \tablenotetext{c} {References for BAT data and redshift data.}

1191: 

1192: \tablerefs{ J06: Jakobsson et al. 2006(c); Z07: Zhang et al. 2007a; 2992:

1193: Cummings et al. (2005) ; 3101: Kelson and  Berger (2005); 3105: Krimm et al.

1194: (2005c); 3119: Krimm et al. (2005a); 3122: Berger and Mulchaey (2005); 3134:

1195: Krimm et al. (2005b); 3136: Fynbo et al. (2005a); 3173: Sakamoto et al. (2005a);

1196: 3176: Fynbo et al. (2005c); 3273: Sakamoto et al. (2005c); 3364: Hullinger et al.

1197: (2005a); 3368: Berger et al. (2005b); 3542: Cenko et al. (2005); 3600: Parsons et

1198: al. (2005a); 3682: Barthelmy et al. (2005a); 3730: Sakamoto et al. (2005b); 3737:

1199: Palmer et al. (2005); 3749: Fynbo et al. (2005b); 3757: Parsons (2005b); 3758:

1200: Bloom et al. (2005); 3856: Hullinger et al. (2006b); 4077: Barthelmy et al.

1201: (2005b); 4104: Barbier et al. (2005); 4186: Soderberg et al. (2005); 4217:

1202: Fenimore et al. (2005); 4221: Quimby et al. (2005); 4435: Markwardt et al.

1203: (2006a); 4445: Sakamoto et al. (2006b); 4476: Palmer et al. (2006a); 4539:

1204: Melandri et al. (2006); 4592: Cenko et al. (2006a); 4601: Lamb et al. (2006);

1205: 4671: Markwardt et al. (2006c); 4729: Cucchiara et al. (2006a); 4748: Sakamoto et

1206: al. (2006a); 4851: Hullinger et al. (2006); 4912: Parsons et al. (2006b); 4961:

1207: Barbier et al. (2006a); 5022: Markwardt et al.(2006b); 5052: Cucchiara et al.

1208: (2006b); 5053: Parsons et al. (2006c); 5091:Barbier et al. (2006b); 5108: Barbier

1209: et al. (2006c); 5153: Krimm et al.(2006c); 5155: Cenko et al. (2006a); 5162:

1210: Berger and Gladders (2006a); 5170:Berger and  Gladders (2006b); 5174: Markwardt

1211: et al. (2006d); 5214: Parsons et al.(2006e); 5218: Castro-Tirado et al. (2006);

1212: 5237: Ledoux et al. (2006); 5242:Tueller et al. (2006b); 5256: Barthelmy, S. et

1213: al. (2006a); 5275: Price et al.(2006); 5289: Stamatikos et al. (2006b); 5295:

1214: Fenimore et al. (2006a); 5298: Jakobsson et al. (2006a); 5320: Jakobsson et al.

1215: (2006c); 5334: Krimm et al. (2006d); 5349: Sakamoto et al. (2006c); 5370: Parsons

1216: et al. (2006a); 5373: Thoene et al. (2006); 5395: Tueller et al. (2006c); 5403:

1217: Barbier et al. (2006d); 5421: Barthelmy et al. (2006b); 5443: Cummings et al.

1218: (2006); 5446: Golenetskii et al. (2006); 5459: Stamatikos et al. (2006a); 5535:

1219: Vreeswijk (2006); 5538: Sato et al. (2006); 5551: Palmer et al. (2006c); 5555:

1220: Rol et al. (2006); 5561: Parsons et al. (2006d); 5617: Jakobsson (2006d); 5744:

1221: Palmer et al. (2006b); 5826: Bloom (2006); 5831:Fenimore  et al. (2006b); 5887:

1222: Sakamoto et al. (2006d); 5964: Tueller et al. (2006a); 6007: Cummings et al.

1223: (2007); 6010: Jaunsen et al. (2007); 6058: Krimm et al. (2006e).}

1224: \end{deluxetable}

1225: 

1226: 

1227: 

1228: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllll}

1229: 

1230: %\rotate

1231: 

1232: \tablewidth{330pt} \tabletypesize{\tiny} \tablecaption{The optical observations

1233: and our fitting results}

1234: 

1235: \tablenum{3}

1236: 

1237: \tablehead{\colhead{GRB}& \colhead{$t_1$(ks)\tablenotemark{a}}&

1238: \colhead{$t_2$(ks)\tablenotemark{a}}& \colhead{$t_{b,O}$(ks)\tablenotemark{b}}&

1239: \colhead{$\alpha_{O,1}$\tablenotemark{b}}&

1240: \colhead{$\alpha_{O,2}\tablenotemark{b}$}&

1241: \colhead{$\chi^2$/(dof)\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{ref}} \startdata

1242: 050318 & 3.23 & 22.83 & - & 0.84(0.22)  & -& 0.5(1)&(1)\\

1243: 050319 & 2.00 & 204.74 & - & 0.42(0.02) & - & 11(16)&(2)-(4)\\

1244: 050401 & 0.06 & 1231.18 & - & 0.80(0.01) & - & 43(12)&(5)-(7)\\

1245: 050801 & 0.02 & 9.49 & 0.19(0.02) & -0.02(0.07) & 1.10(0.02) & 26(42)&(8)\\

1246: 050802 & 0.34 & 127.68 & - & 0.85(0.02) & - & 50(10)&(9)-(11)\\

1247: 051109A & 0.04 & 20170.00 & 21.80(10.95) & 0.66(0.02) & 1.10(0.08) & 106(42)&(12)\\

1248: 060124 & 3.34 & 1979.30 & - & 0.85(0.02) & - & 11(19)&(13)-(14)\\

1249: 060210 & 0.09 & 7.19 & 0.70(0.18) & 0.01(0.24) & 1.23(0.08) & 5(12)&(15)-(16)\\

1250: 060526 & 0.06 & 893.55 & 84.45(5.88) & 0.67(0.02) & 1.80(0.04) & 116(56)&(17)\\

1251: 060607A & 0.07 & 13.73 & 0.16(fixed) & -3.07(0.25) & 1.18(0.02) & 92(35)&(18)\\

1252: 060614 & 1.54 & 934.36 & 39.09(1.71) & -0.40(0.05) & 2.16(0.03) & 114(24)&(19)-(21)\\

1253: 060714 & 3.86 & 285.87 & 1.00 & 0.01(fixed) & 1.41(0.03) & 35(11)&(22)-(26)\\

1254: 060729 & 20.00 & 662.39 & 43.29(5.15) & -0.37(0.34) & 1.34(0.06) & 36(27)&(27)\\

1255: 061121 & 0.26 & 334.65 & 1.70(0.73) & 0.17(fixed) & 0.99(0.05) & 18(23)&(28)\\

1256: 070110 & 0.66 & 34.76 & - & 0.43(0.08) &  & 1(4)&29\\

1257: \enddata

1258: \tablenotetext{a}{The time interval concerned in our fitting}

1259: 

1260: \tablenotetext{b}{For a smooth broken power law fit, $t_{b,O}$, $\alpha_{O,1}$,

1261: $\alpha_{O,2}$ are the break time and the decay slopes before and after the

1262: break. For a simple power law fit, the decay index and its error are shown in column

1263: $\alpha_{O,1}$. In order to make the fittings more reasonable, we assume an error

1264: of 0.1 mag for those data points without observational error available.}

1265: 

1266: \tablerefs{(1)Still et al. (2005); (2) Quimby et al. (2006); (3) Huang et al.

1267: (2007); (4) Mason et al. (2006); (5) De Pasquale (2006); (6) Rykoff et al.

1268: (2005); (7) Watson et al. (2006); (8) Rykoff et al. (2006); (9) McGowan et

1269: al.(2005a); (10)Pavlenko et al.(2005); (11: McGowan et al.(2005b);(12) Yost et

1270: al. (2007); (13) Misra et al. (2007); (14): Romano et al. 2006; (15) Curran et

1271: al.(2007);(16) Stanek et al.(2007); (17) Dai et al. 2007; (18) Molinari et

1272: al.(2007); (19)Fynbo et al.(2006); (20)Della Valle et al.(2006); (21)Gal-Yam et

1273: al.(2006); (22) Asfandyarov et al.(2006); (23)Rumyantsev et al.(2006); (24)

1274: Pavlenko et al.(2006a); (25) Jakobsson et al.(2006c); (26)Pavlenko et al.(2006b);

1275: (27) Grupe et al.(2007); (28) Page et al.(2007); (29) Troja et al.(2007).}

1276: 

1277: 

1278: 

1279: \end{deluxetable}

1280: 

1281: 

1282: 

1283: 

1284: 

1285: 

1286: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllll}

1287: 

1288: %\rotate

1289: 

1290: \tablewidth{400pt} \tabletypesize{\tiny} \tablecaption{Rest-frame properties of

1291: the bursts with known redshifts in our sample}

1292: 

1293: \tablenum{4}

1294: 

1295: \tablehead{\colhead{GRB}& \colhead{$\log T_{90}^{'}$(s)}& \colhead{$\log E_{\rm

1296: p}^{'}$(keV)}& \colhead{$\log E_{\rm iso, \gamma}$(erg)}& \colhead{$\log E_{\rm

1297: iso, \gamma}^{p}$(erg)}& \colhead{$\log E_{\rm iso, X}$(erg)}& \colhead{$\log

1298: t_{\rm b}^{'}$(s)}}

1299: 

1300: \startdata

1301: 050315 & 1.51(0.05) & 2.0(0.1) & 52.41(0.05) & 52.84 & 51.94(0.10) & 4.83(0.07)\\

1302: 050318 & 1.12(0.03) & 2.0(0.1) & 52.04(0.04) & 52.38 & 51.88(0.46) & 4.03(0.20)\\

1303: 050319 & 0.37(0.09) & 2.1(0.1) & 52.24(0.04) & 52.69 & 52.03(0.49) & 4.01(0.51)\\

1304: 050401 & 0.93(0.03) & 2.7(0.1) & 53.41(0.04) & 53.69 & 52.82(0.06) & 3.77(0.06)\\

1305: 050416A & 0.16(0.04) & 1.4(0.1) & 50.62(0.05) & 51.00 & 49.69(0.26) & 2.88(0.28)\\

1306: 050505 & 1.06(0.01) & 2.8(0.1) & 53.14(0.04) & 53.51 & 52.62(0.13) & 3.90(0.09)\\

1307: 050802 & 0.68(0.07) & 2.5(0.3) & 52.31(0.05) & 52.62 & 51.86(0.11) & 3.61(0.06)\\

1308: 050803 & 1.89(0.04) & 2.3(0.2) & 51.24(0.03) & 51.67 & 50.29(0.04) & 3.85(0.03)\\

1309: 051016B & 0.32(0.01) & 1.7(0.2) & 50.59(0.05) & 50.95 & 50.99(0.22) & 4.82(0.15)\\

1310: 051109A & 1.03(0.02) & 2.6(0.2) & 52.43(0.06) & 52.82 & 52.65(0.19) & 4.44(0.13)\\

1311: 060108 & 0.68(0.03) & 2.1(0.2) & 51.56(0.05) & 51.89 & 51.20(0.14) & 4.34(0.15)\\

1312: 060124 & 2.38(0.01) & 3.0(0.4) & 53.13(0.04) & 53.72 & 53.08(0.18) & 4.72(0.09)\\

1313: 060210 & 1.72(0.02) & 2.8(0.1) & 53.36(0.02) & 53.72 & 53.18(0.12) & 4.38(0.09)\\

1314: 060502A & 1.12(0.07) & 2.6(0.1) & 52.10(0.02) & 52.54 & 51.82(0.10) & 4.81(0.09)\\

1315: 060522 & 1.05(0.03) & 2.8(0.2) & 52.69(0.04) & 53.03 & 51.29(0.19) & 2.16(0.05)\\

1316: 060526 & 0.52(0.06) & 2.6(0.2) & 52.02(0.05) & 52.36 & 51.21(0.26) & 3.38(0.25)\\

1317: 060604 & 0.43(0.13) & 2.3(0.4) & 51.32(0.10) & 51.64 & 50.88(0.37) & 3.27(0.26)\\

1318: 060607A & 1.39(0.02) & 2.8(0.1) & 52.72(0.02) & 53.12 & 52.84(0.01) & 4.09(0.01)\\

1319: 060614 & 1.96(0.02) & 1.6(0.1) & 50.90(0.01) & 51.24 & 49.25(0.05) & 4.70(0.03)\\

1320: 060707 & 1.19(0.03) & 2.5(0.2) & 52.61(0.05) & 52.98 & 51.44(1.36) & 3.95(1.06)\\

1321: 060714 & 1.49(0.02) & 2.3(0.1) & 52.69(0.03) & 53.01 & 51.95(0.14) & 3.57(0.11)\\

1322: 060729 & 1.88(0.04) & 2.0(0.2) & 51.31(0.03) & 51.65 & 51.35(0.02) & 4.86(0.02)\\

1323: 060906 & 0.97(0.01) & 2.3(0.1) & 52.78(0.03) & 53.09 & 51.57(0.13) & 3.62(0.10)\\

1324: 060908 & 0.75(0.01) & 2.8(0.1) & 52.59(0.01) & 53.07 & 51.12(0.21) & 2.32(0.16)\\

1325: 060912 & 0.41(0.04) & 2.2(0.1) & 51.47(0.03) & 51.83 & 50.21(0.17) & 3.05(0.12)\\

1326: 061121 & 1.54(0.03) & 2.6(0.1) & 52.78(0.01) & 53.23 & 51.83(0.13) & 3.90(0.08)\\

1327: 070110 & 1.40(0.03) & 2.6(0.1) & 52.31(0.03) & 52.68 & 52.19(0.03) & 4.31(0.01)\\

1328: \enddata

1329: \end{deluxetable}

1330: 

1331: 

1332: \clearpage

1333: 

1334: \begin{figure}

1335: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{Comparison of the fitting results of

1336: smooth broken power law models with different sharpness parameters: $\omega=1$

1337: and $\omega=3$. The solid lines stand for the equality of the two quantities.}

1338: \label{Fig_fittingmodel}

1339: \end{figure}

1340: 

1341: 

1342: 

1343: 

1344: %\input{fig.tex}

1345: 

1346: \begin{figure*}

1347: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2a.ps}

1348: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2b.ps}

1349: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2c.ps}

1350: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2d.ps}

1351: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2e.ps}

1352: \hfill

1353: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2f.ps}

1354: \center{Fig.2  (continued)} \caption{The XRT light curves (dots) for the bursts

1355: in our sample. The {\em solid} lines are the best fits with the smooth broken

1356: power law for the shallow decay phase and its follow-up decay phase (usually the

1357: ``normal'' decay phase). The fitting $\chi^2$ and degrees of freedom are shown in

1358: each plot. The optical light curves are shown by opened triangles, if they are

1359: available. They are fitted by a smooth broken power law or a simple power law as

1360: displayed by dashed lines.}\label{XRT_LC}

1361: \end{figure*}

1362: \begin{figure*}

1363: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2g.ps}

1364: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2h.ps}

1365: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2i.ps}

1366: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2j.ps}

1367: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2k.ps}

1368: \hfill

1369: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2l.ps}

1370: \center{Fig.2  (continued)}

1371: \end{figure*}

1372: \begin{figure*}

1373: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2m.ps}

1374: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2n.ps}

1375: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2o.ps}

1376: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2p.ps}

1377: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2q.ps}

1378: \hfill

1379: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2r.ps}

1380: \center{Fig.2  (continued)}

1381: \end{figure*}

1382: \begin{figure*}

1383: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2s.ps}

1384: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2t.ps}

1385: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2u.ps}

1386: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2v.ps}

1387: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2w.ps}

1388: \hfill

1389: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2x.ps}

1390: \center{Fig.2  (continued)}

1391: \end{figure*}

1392: \begin{figure*}

1393: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2y.ps}

1394: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2z.ps}

1395: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2aa.ps}

1396: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ab.ps}

1397: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ac.ps}

1398: \hfill

1399: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ad.ps}

1400: \center{Fig.2  (continued)}

1401: \end{figure*}

1402: \begin{figure*}

1403: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ae.ps}

1404: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2af.ps}

1405: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ag.ps}

1406: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ah.ps}

1407: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ai.ps}

1408: \hfill

1409: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2aj.ps}

1410: \center{Fig.2  (continued)}

1411: \end{figure*}

1412: \begin{figure*}

1413: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ak.ps}

1414: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2al.ps}

1415: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2am.ps}

1416: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2an.ps}

1417: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ao.ps}

1418: \hfill

1419: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ap.ps}

1420: \center{Fig.2  (continued)}

1421: \end{figure*}

1422: \begin{figure*}

1423: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2aq.ps}

1424: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ar.ps}

1425: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2as.ps}

1426: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2at.ps}

1427: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2au.ps}

1428: \hfill

1429: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2av.ps}

1430: \center{Fig.2 (continued)}

1431: 

1432: \end{figure*}

1433: \begin{figure*}

1434: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2aw.ps}

1435: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ax.ps}

1436: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2ay.ps}

1437: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2az.ps}

1438: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.40]{f2aaa.ps}

1439: \center{Fig.2  (continued)}

1440: \end{figure*}

1441: 

1442: \begin{figure}

1443: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f3.eps} \caption{Distributions of the characteristics of

1444: the shallow decay segment for the bursts in our sample. The dashed lines are the

1445: fitting results with Gaussian functions.} \label{Fig_Distribution}

1446: \end{figure}

1447: 

1448: 

1449: 

1450: \begin{figure}

1451: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f4.eps} \caption{The correlations between the data of the

1452: shallow decay phase and the prompt gamma-ray phase. The {\em solid} line in each

1453: panel is the best fit. The {\em dashed} lines mark a $2\sigma$ region defined as

1454: $y=x+(A\pm 2\times \sigma_A)$, where $y$ and $x$ are the quantities in the $y$

1455: and $x$-axes, respectively, and $A$ and $\sigma_A$ are the mean and its $1\sigma$

1456: standard error of $y-x$, respectively. The {\em dash-dotted} line is $y=x$. }

1457: \label{Fig_Correlation}

1458: 

1459: \end{figure}

1460: 

1461: 

1462: \begin{figure}

1463: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f5.eps} \caption{The comparison between $\Gamma_{\rm

1464: X,1}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm X,2}$: (a) $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$ vs. $\Gamma_{\rm X,2}$. The

1465: {\em solid} lines marks the equality line $\Gamma_{\rm X,2}=\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$ and

1466: its 2$\sigma$ region; (b) The histograms of $\Gamma_{\rm X,1}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm

1467: X,2}$; (c) The distribution of $\mu$.} \label{Fig_Comparison}

1468: \end{figure}

1469: 

1470: 

1471: \begin{figure}

1472: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f6.eps} \caption{The temporal decay index $\alpha_{\rm

1473: X,2}$ as a function of the spectral index $\beta_{\rm X,2}$ for the post-break

1474: segment as compared with the closure correlations of various external shock

1475: afterglow models: (1) $\nu>\max(\nu_c, \nu_m)$; (2) $\nu_m<\nu<\nu_c$ (ISM, slow

1476: cooling); (3) $\nu_m<\nu<\nu_c$ (Wind, slow cooling) (4) $\nu>\nu_c$ (Jet, slow

1477: cooling) (5) $\nu_m<\nu<\nu_c$ (Jet, slow cooling). The solid lines are those for

1478: electron distribution index $p>2$, and the dashed lines are for $p<2$. The {\em

1479: solid} dots represent the bursts whose $\alpha_{\rm X,2}$ and $\beta_{\rm X,2}$

1480: satisfy the models (1) and (2), and the open dots represent those bursts can be

1481: explained with the model (3). The stars are those bursts that significantly

1482: deviate from the external shock afterglow models including 060522 (see discussion

1483: in the text).}.\label{Fig_Model}

1484: \end{figure}

1485: 

1486: \begin{figure}

1487: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f7.eps} \caption{The distributions of the 49 GRBs whose

1488: normal decay phases are consistent with the external shock models in the

1489: $q-\Delta \alpha$ ({\em panel a}) and $q-p$ ({\em panel b}) planes along with the

1490: model predictions for $\nu>\max(\nu_c,\nu_m)$ (solid lines) and $\nu_m<\nu<\nu_c$

1491: (dashed lines).}.\label{Fig_Model}

1492: \end{figure}

1493: 

1494: 

1495: 

1496: \begin{figure}

1497: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f8.eps} \caption{Comparison of the $E_{\rm iso, X}-E_{\rm

1498: p}^{'}-t_{\rm b}^{'}$ relation  with the bursts in our sample (the solid dots;

1499: the solid and dashed lines mark the best fit in $3\sigma$ level) with the

1500: Liang-Zhang relation derived with pre-{\em Swift} bursts (the open triangles and

1501: the dotted line is the best fit; Liang \& Zhang 2005), where $\Sigma_X\equiv \log

1502: E_{\rm iso, X}-\kappa_2 t_{\rm b}^{'}$ and $\Sigma_\gamma\equiv \log E_{\rm iso,

1503: \gamma}-\kappa_2 t_{\rm b, O}^{'}$.} \label{Liang_Zhang}

1504: \end{figure}

1505: 

1506: 

1507: \end{document}

1508: