1: 

2: 

3: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}

4: 

5: 

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

7: 

8: 

9: 

10: \usepackage{graphicx}

11: \usepackage{apjfonts}

12: \usepackage{mathptmx}

13: 

14: 

15: \makeatletter

16: \newenvironment{inlinetable}{%

17: \def\@captype{table}%

18: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}\footnotesize}

19: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}

20: 

21: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{%

22: \def\@captype{figure}%

23: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}

24: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}

25: \makeatother

26: 

27: 

28: 

29: \def\***#1{{\sc #1}}

30: \def\plan#1{\relax}

31: \def\Plan#1{\relax}

32: \def\PLAN#1{\relax}

33: 

34: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}

35: 

36: \newcommand{\gcc}{g~cm$^{-3}\ $}

37: \newcommand{\sfun}[2]{$#1(#2)\ $}

38: \newcommand{\rhonot}{$\rho_{\circ}\ $}

39: \newcommand{\msun}{$M_{\odot}\ $}

40: \newcommand{\greq}{$\stackrel{>}{ _{\sim}}$}

41: \newcommand{\lteq}{$\stackrel{<}{ _{\sim}}$}

42: \def\lta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

43:      \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}

44: \def\gta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

45:      \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}

46: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al. }}

47: 

48: \shorttitle{}

49: \shortauthors{}

50: 

51: 

52: \def\mathnew{\mathsurround=0pt}

53: 

54: \def\simov#1#2{\lower .5pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt \lineskip-.5pt

55: \ialign{$\mathnew#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}

56: 

57: \def\simgreat{\mathrel{\mathpalette\simov >}}

58: \def\simless{\mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <}}

59: 

60: 

61: \begin{document}

62: \title{Statistical Evidence for Three classes of Gamma-ray Bursts}

63: 

64: \author{Tanuka Chattopadhyay$^1$, Ranjeev Misra $^2$, Asis Kumar Chattopadhyay$^3$ and Malay Naskar $^4$\\ }

65: 

66: \altaffiltext{1}{Shibpur Dinobundhoo College, 412/1 G.T. Road

67: (South), Howrah 711102, India, Email: tanuka@iucaa.ernet.in}

68: 

69: \altaffiltext{2}{Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and

70: Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007. Email:

71: rmisra@iucaa.ernet.in}

72: 

73: 

74: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Statistics,Calcutta University,35

75: Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata 700019, India.

76: Email:akcstat@caluniv.ac.in}

77: 

78: 

79: \altaffiltext{4}{NIRJAIT, Indian Council of Agricultural

80: Research,12, Regent Park, Kolkata 700 040, India. Email:

81: malaynaskar@yahoo.com}

82: 

83: 

84: 

85: \begin{abstract}

86:  Two different multivariate clustering techniques, the K-means partitioning

87: method and the Dirichlet process of mixture modeling, have been applied to

88: the BATSE Gamma-ray burst (GRB) catalog, to obtain the optimum number of

89: coherent groups. In the standard paradigm, GRB are classified

90: in only two groups, the long and short bursts. However, for both the

91: clustering techniques, the optimal number of classes was found to be three,

92: a result which is consistent with previous statistical analysis.

93:  In this classification,

94: the long bursts are further divided into two groups which are primarily

95: differentiated by their total fluence and duration and hence are named low

96: and high fluence GRB. Analysis of GRB with known red-shifts and spectral

97: parameters suggests that low fluence GRB have nearly constant isotropic

98: energy output of $10^{52}$ ergs while for the high fluence ones, the

99: energy output ranges from $10^{52}$ to $10^{54}$ ergs. It is speculated that the

100: three kinds of GRBs reflect three different origins: mergers of

101: neutron star systems, mergers between white dwarfs and neutron stars,

102: and collapse of massive stars

103: 

104: 

105: \end{abstract}

106: 

107: \keywords{Gamma Rays: Bursts - Methods: Data Analysis - Methods: Statistical}

108: 

109: \section{Introduction}

110: 

111: Although it has now been well established that Gamma-Ray Bursts

112: (GRB) are of cosmological origin, their nature and source still

113: remains a mystery. Detailed observations and studies of their

114: afterglow emission have revealed important information regarding

115: the dynamic features and environments of these explosive events

116: (see \cite{Pir05} for a review). The detection of supernova light

117: curve in the afterglows of long duration nearby GRB has indicated

118: that a  fraction of the GRB occur during the the collapse of a

119: massive star (see \cite{Woo06} for a review). Other mechanism that could produce GRB are the

120: merger of compact objects like a pair of neutron stars or a

121: neutron star with a black hole \citep[e.g.][]{Pir92,Geh05,Blo06}. 

122: Thus GRB may be a heterogeneous

123: group and a  proper classification of the phenomena is crucial to

124: isolate and identify the possible different sources. Such a

125: classification will also enable the identification of spectral or

126: temporal correlations which may exist only for a particular class

127: of GRB.

128: 

129: In general, GRB have been classified into two groups of long ($> 2$ sec)

130: and short ($< 2$ sec) duration bursts.

131: This is based on visual inspection of the distribution of burst duration

132:  which clearly shows two peaks. Theoretically, this may be understood by identifying

133: long bursts with collapsing stars where the duration of the event is linked to

134: the dynamical collapse time-scale. On the other hand, the merger of two neutron

135: stars should occur on short timescales and hence may correspond to the

136: short duration bursts. In this scenario, the long duration bursts should

137: always be associated with a supernova explosion and occur in star burst regions, while

138: short bursts should have no relation to star burst regions and should have no associated

139: supernova. However, theoretically another mechanism to create a GRB could be the

140: merger of neutron stars with white dwarfs. These would be long duration bursts,

141: with no associated supernova and could be a significant fraction of the total

142: observed bursts \citep{Kin07}. Observationally, there have been some evidence that

143: there may be more than two classes of GRB. Some GRB have been recorded with low intrinsic

144: luminosity and do not comply with standard spectral relationships \citep{Saz04,Sod04}.

145: More compelling evidence was the absence of a

146: super-nova light curve in two nearby bursts, GRB 060614 and 060505, which suggested

147: that not all long duration bursts are due to  massive stellar collapses \citep{Geh06,Fyn06}

148: ,although for GRB 060614 this result has been disputed by \cite{Sch06},

149: who claim that this GRB is not a nearby one.

150:  While confirmation of these results are awaited, they do highlight the need to examine

151: the possibility that there are more than two types of GRB.

152: 

153: The Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on board the

154: COMPTON Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO) has provided spectral and

155: temporal information for more than 1500 GRB. Although BATSE

156: provides several spectral parameters, the bimodal distribution of

157: GRB is based on  univariate analysis i.e. only duration is

158: considered as a parameter \citep[e.g.][]{Dez92,Kou93}. There is a

159: claim that even such a univariate analysis supports the existence

160: of three classes \citep{Hor98}. Classification analysis taking

161: into account more observed parameters, i.e. a multivariate

162: analysis, was first undertaken by \cite{Fei98}. Subsequently,

163: different type of analysis were undertaken to classify GRB.

164: \cite{Bau94} used a neural network technique while \cite{Bag98}

165: have undertaken a factor analysis. Nonparametric hierarchical

166: clustering techniques have been used by \cite{Muk98} for 797 GRB

167: with six variables and by \cite{Bal01} for 1599 GRB with nine

168: variables. The results were confirmed for the complete BATSE GRB

169: catalog \citep{Hor02}. \cite{Hak03} used a unsupervised pattern

170: recognition algorithm while \cite{Hor06} have classified GRB by

171: fitting bivariate distributions to the observed duration and

172: hardness ratios. In all these cases, the authors have claimed the

173: existence of at least three classes of GRB although it is not

174: clear whether the different classifications found are consistent

175: with each other, primarily because of the different techniques and

176: the choice of different observed parameters and data sets.

177: 

178: These analyses are based on the observed properties of the GRB and

179: are hence subject to observational biases. In fact, \cite{Hak00}

180: argue that such classification techniques are significantly

181: hampered and the three classes found is probably due to  such

182: biases (see \cite{Hor06} for a counter argument). Indeed, a proper

183: classification should be based on intrinsic rather than observed

184: properties. However since the number of GRB with known red-shift

185: and uniformly measured temporal and spectral parameters is small,

186: such an exercise is presently not possible. Although it can be

187: argued that certain correlations between observed parameters (e.g.

188: the positive correlation between duration and flux) cannot be

189: entirely due to observational bias, it is difficult to ascertain

190: whether the quantitative relationships are not affected. A prudent

191: approach may be to treat such classification as indicative of the

192: nature of systems which should be corroborated by theoretical

193: expectations and further observations. Since theoretical

194: expectations are on intrinsic properties, there is a need to

195: estimate how these intrinsic properties cluster, given the results

196: of a classification based on observed ones. The classification

197: itself should be tested for robustness using different types of

198: schemes. The result of such an analysis may guide or be supported

199: by theoretical models. Moreover, the results can lay down the

200: broad framework and requirements of future observations which can

201: confirm or rule out the proposed  theoretical scenario.

202: 

203: In this work, we use two different multivariate clustering

204: techniques, the K-means partitioning method and the Dirichlet

205: process of mixture modeling, to classify GRB based on their

206: observed properties. These two schemes, which have not been used

207: before for GRB, have the advantage that they do not follow any

208: prior assumption about the number of homogeneous classes. The

209: optimum classification comes out of the process itself. The two

210: schemes allow for post classification discriminant analysis which

211: can be used to verify the acceptability of the classification by

212: computing classification/misclassification probabilities. More

213: importantly, a  GRB which is not in the original sample and which

214: has only a subset of the observed properties used for the

215: classification can be assigned a probability for it to be a member

216: of a certain class. Thus although our analysis has been based on

217: the BATSE catalog, GRB with known red-shifts (which have been

218: observed by other instruments) can be assigned such probabilities

219: and suitably classified. As we shall see, this not only provides

220: qualitative estimation of any possible  observational bias, but

221: can constrain the intrinsic properties of the different clusters.

222: We have selected 21 GRB with known redshifts and well constrained

223: spectral parameters for such classifications and obtained

224: constrains on the cluster's average luminosity.

225: 

226: In the next section, we briefly describe the two classification

227: schemes and present the result of the analysis on the BATSE

228: catalog. In \S 3, the classification obtained from the BATSE data

229: are used to classify GRB with known red-shifts and inferences are

230: made on the intrinsic properties of the different GRB groups. In

231: \S 4 the work is summarized and the main results are discussed.

232: 

233: 

234: \section{Clustering Analysis for GRB data}

235: 

236: The BATSE catalog provides temporal and spectral information for more than 1500

237: GRB. The parameters include, two measures of burst

238: durations, the times within which 50\% ($T_{50}$) and 90\%

239: ($T_{90}$) of the flux arrive, three peak fluxes, $P_{64},

240: P_{256}, P_{1024}$ measured in 64, 256 and 1024 ms bins

241: respectively, four time integrated fluences $F_1-F_4$, in the

242: $20-50$, $50-100$, $100-300$ and $ > 300$ KeV spectral channels.

243: Many of the parameters are highly correlated and following previous

244: works \citep[e.g.][]{Muk98,Hak00} we use the following six parameter

245: set: log$T_{50}$,

246:  log$T_{90}$,  log$P_{256}$,  log$F_T$,  log$H_{32}$,  log$H_{321}$,

247: where  $F_T = F_1 + F_2 +F_3 +F_4$ is the total fluence while  $H_{32}=F_3/F_2$ and

248: $H_{321}=F_3/(F_1+F_2)$ are measures of spectral hardness. The sample consists of

249: $1594$ GRB that have non-zero detections of these parameters. We have not introduced

250: any completeness criteria (like a lower flux cutoff), since incompleteness primarily affects

251: the short duration bursts and hence is not expected to change the qualitative results

252: obtained.  We retain the $F_4$ flux (in the definition of $F_T$),

253: despite the uncertainties in its calibration and

254: sensitivity, because as we discuss later in \S 4, the $\gamma$-ray flux $> 300$ keV

255: is expected to have important spectral information. However, this fluence is not used

256: in the computation of spectral hardness.

257: 

258: \subsection{Partitioning (K-means clustering) method}

259: 

260: 

261:  Over the last several decades, different algorithms

262: have been developed for Cluster Analysis which is used to find groups in

263: a multivariate data set. The choice of a clustering algorithm

264: depends both on the type of data available and on the particular

265: purpose. Generally, clustering algorithms can be divided into two

266: principal types viz. partitioning and hierarchical methods.

267: A partitioning method constructs K clusters i.e. it classifies

268:  the data into K groups which together satisfy the requirement of

269:  a partition such that each group must contain at least one object and

270:  each object must belong to exactly one group. So there are at

271:  most as many groups as there are objects ($K <=n$). Two different

272:  clusters cannot have any object in common and the K groups

273:  together add up to the full data set.  The aim

274:  is usually to uncover a structure that is already present in the

275:  data.  On the other hand,

276: Hierarchical algorithms do not construct single partition with K

277:   clusters but they deal with all values of K in the same run. The

278:   extreme partitions with $K=1$ (all objects are

279:   together in one cluster)and $K = n$ (where each object forms a separate cluster)

280: is a part of the output. In between all values of

281:   $K=2,3,...n-1$ are covered in a kind of gradual transition. The

282:   only difference between $K=r$ \& $K=r+1$ is that one of the r

283:   clusters splits in order to obtain $r+1$ clusters or two of the

284:   $(r+1)$ clusters combined to yield $r$ clusters. In this method

285:   either one starts with $K=n$ and move hierarchically downwards

286:   where at each step two clusters are merged depending on

287:   similarity until only one is left i.e. $K=1$ (agglomerative) or

288:   the reverse way where one starts with $K=1$ and moves upwards

289:   where at each step one cluster is divided into two (depending on

290:   dissimilarity) until $K=n$ (divisive). Most of the previous

291:   works  on GRB \citep[e.g.][]{Muk98,Hak00,Bal01} have been based on

292: hierarchical clustering. However, for GRB classification, a

293:  partitioning  method may be more applicable because

294:   (a) it tries to select the best clustering with K

295:   groups which is not the goal of a hierarchical method,

296:   (b) a hierarchical method can never repair what was done in

297:   previous steps and (c) partitioning methods are designed to group items rather than

298:   variables into a collection of K clusters.

299: 

300: In this work, we apply the K- means method of \cite{Mac67} which is probably the

301:  most widely technique, to the BATSE catalog.  For this method,

302: the optimum value of K  can be obtained in different ways \citep{Har75}.

303: This is done by computing for each cluster formation ( i.e for number

304: of clusters $K = 2,3,4..$) a distance measure

305:  $d_{K} = (1/p) min_{x} E[( x_{K} - c_{K} )^{'}(x_{K} - c_{K})]$ which is defined

306: as the distance of

307: the $x_{K}$ vector (values of the parameters) from the center of a cluster

308: $c_{K}$ (which is estimated as mean value). $p$ is the order of the

309: $x_{K}$ vector, i.e. the number of parameters which for our case is six.

310: If $d_{K}^{\prime}$ is the estimate of $d_{K}$ at the

311: $K^{th}$ point, then $d_{K}^{\prime}$ is the minimum achievable

312: distortion associated with fitting K centers to the data.

313: A natural way of choosing the number of clusters is to plot

314: $d_{K}^{\prime}$ versus K and look for the resulting distortion

315: curve. This curve will monotonically decrease with increasing K, till

316: K is greater than true number of clusters, after which the curve will

317: level off with a smaller slope. This is expected since adding more clusters

318: beyond the true number, will simply create partitions within a group.

319: According to \cite{Sug03} it is more illustrative to consider the

320: transformation of the distortion curve to an appropriate negative power,

321: $J_{K} = (d_{K}^{\prime-(p/2)}  - d_{K-1}^{\prime-(p/2)}$), which will exhibit a

322: sharp "jump" when K equals the true number of clusters.

323: The optimum number of clusters is the value of  K at which the

324: distortion curve levels off as well as its value associated with

325: the largest jump for the transformed curve.

326: 

327: \begin{figure}

328: \begin{center}

329: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f1.eps}}

330: \end{center}

331: \caption{The distortion curve $d_{K}^{\prime}$ and the transformed jump curve $J_K$ for

332: different number of clusters. The largest value of $J_K$ and the leveling of $d_{K}^{\prime}$

333: indicates that for the K-means clustering technique the optimal number of clusters is three. }

334: \label{f1}

335: \end{figure}

336: 

337: 

338: Fig \ref{f1} shows the distortion curve and transformed jump curve

339: for the analysis of the BATSE data. The leveling of the distortion

340: curve and the shape of the jump function strongly suggests that

341: the optimum number of clusters is greater than two and is likely

342: to be three. The group means and the standard errors for the six

343: parameters for three cluster classification, are tabulated in

344: Table \ref{t1}. Cluster I with 423 members has an average

345: $<T_{90}> \sim 0.5$ s can be clearly identified with the short

346: duration bursts. The long duration bursts are cleanly separated

347: into two clusters (clusters 2 and 3) with 622 and 549 members.

348: 

349: 

350: \begin{deluxetable} {lrrr}

351: \tablewidth{0pt}

352: \tablecaption{Average Cluster properties based on K-means classification}

353: \tablehead{

354: \colhead{Parameters} & \colhead{Cluster I} & \colhead{Cluster II} &

355: \colhead{Cluster III} }

356: \startdata

357: $T_{50}$ (sec) &$0.19\pm0.01$& 5.37$\pm$ 0.25&22.9$\pm$ 1.0\\

358: $T_{90}$ (sec)&0.50$\pm$ 0.02&15.85$\pm$ 0.73&63.1$\pm$ 2.9\\

359: $P_{256}$ (\#/cm$^2$/sec) &1.66$\pm$ 0.08& 1.26$\pm$ 0.06& 2.88$\pm$ 0.13\\

360: $F_T$ ($\times 10^{-6}$ ergs/sec)&$0.62\pm{0.04}$& $2.34\pm{0.11}$&$17.8\pm{0.8}$\\

361: $H_{32}$&5.50$\pm$ 0.13& 2.45$\pm$ 0.06& 3.16$\pm$ 0.07\\

362: $H_{321}$&3.39$\pm$ 0.08& 1.32$\pm$ 0.03& 1.78$\pm$ 0.04\\

363: \enddata

364: \tablecomments{Errors quoted are standard errors. The number of members are

365: 423, 622 and 549 for Clusters I,II and III respectively.}

366: \label{t1}

367: \end{deluxetable}

368: 

369: 

370: 

371: 

372: Once the optimum classification (clustering) is obtained, using a

373: process called Discrimination Analysis \cite{Joh96}, one can

374: verify the acceptability of the classification by computing

375: classification/misclassification probabilities for the different

376: GRB.  Although the K-means clustering method is purely a data

377: analytic method, for classification it may be necessary to assume

378: that the underlying distribution is Multivariate Normal. In this

379: standard procedure, using the probability density functions in

380: parameter space for the different clusters, one can assign an

381: object (in this case a GRB) to be a member of a certain class. If

382: the original classification was robust, then every GRB

383: should be classified again as a member of the same class that it was

384: before. If a

385: significant number of objects are not reclassified then that would

386: mean that the original classification was not stable and hence not

387: trustworthy. Table \ref{t2} show the result of a Discrimination

388: Analysis, where the columns represent how the GRB of a cluster

389: were assigned by the analysis. The

390:  fraction of correct classification is $0.954$ which implies that the classification is

391: indeed robust.

392: 

393: \begin{deluxetable} {lccc}

394: \tablewidth{0pt}

395: \tablecaption{Discriminant Analysis for the  K-means classification}

396: \tablehead{

397: \colhead{} & \colhead{Cluster I} & \colhead{Cluster II} &

398: \colhead{Cluster III} }

399: \startdata

400: Cluster $I^*$ &417& 28&  0\\

401: Cluster $II^*$ &  6&578& 23\\

402: Cluster $III^*$ &  0& 21&526\\

403: &&&\\

404: Total         &423&622&549\\

405: \enddata

406: \tablecomments{Clusters I,II and III, are the clusters obtained from the K-means classification.

407: Clusters $I^*,II^*$ and $III^*$ are the clusters to which the GRB were assigned by the Discriminant

408: analysis.}

409: \label{t2}

410: \end{deluxetable}

411: 

412: 

413: 

414: 

415: 

416: 

417: 

418: 

419: 

420: 

421: \subsection{Dirichlet process model based clustering}

422: 

423: 

424: The standard approach to  model-based clustering analysis, is

425: based on modeling by finite mixture of parametric distributions.

426: For example, \cite{Muk98} used such a model based approach to analyze

427: GRB data where they assumed that the GRB population

428: consists of mixture of multivariate Gaussian classes. The number

429: of classes is, however, determined from an initial classification

430: method (e.g. via agglomerative hierarchical clustering).  The

431: Dirichlet process model based clustering is more general and avoids the

432: assumption of known number of possible classes. Since this method

433: is less commonly used as compared to the K-means technique, we describe here

434: the basic concept on the analysis in more detail.

435: 

436: The Dirichlet process avoids a prior assumption of the number of classes

437: by applying a Bayesian

438: nonparametric modeling of the unknown distribution for the multi component data. In this

439: particular case the six component GRB data can be represented by

440: $x_i=($log$T_{50},$log$T_{90},$log$F_{T},$log$P_{256},$log$H_{321},$log$H_{32})^\prime,i=1,2,\ldots,n$.

441: More specifically, $x_i$ is assumed to follow a multivariate normal

442: distribution whose mean vector is generated from a Dirichlet

443: Process (DP). Following \cite{Esc95}, the method is

444: best conceptualized by representing the model as

445: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:model}

446: x_i|\mu_i, \Sigma & \sim & \hbox {MVN}(\mu_i,\Sigma), \;\;\;\; i=1,2,\ldots,n; \nonumber \\

447: \mu_i|G & \sim & G ; \;\;\;\;\;\; G \sim DP(\alpha G_0)

448: \end{eqnarray}

449: where MVN means multivariate normal distribution, $G$ is a

450: discrete measure of the unknown  distribution, $\alpha$ is the precision

451: parameter and $G_0$ is a known base measure distribution. Since

452: $G$ is discrete, there can be ties among the $\mu_i$'s , which can

453: also be seen from polya urn representation of \cite{Bla73} as

454: \begin{equation}\label{eq:bm}

455: \mu_i|\mu_1,\mu_2,\ldots,\mu_{i-1} \sim

456: \frac{\alpha}{\alpha+i-1}G_0 + \frac{1}{\alpha+i-1}

457: \sum_{h=1}^{i-1} \delta(\mu_h)

458: \end{equation}

459:  where $\delta(x)$ is the distribution concentrated at the single

460:  point $x$. It is evident from Eqn. (\ref{eq:bm}) that $\mu_i$ are

461: marginally sampled from $G_0$ with positive probability and that some

462: of the $\mu_i$'s are identical. Thus, a partition of

463: $S=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ can be formed by defining classes under the

464: relation that $\mu_i$ belongs to the $j^{th}$ class if and only if

465: $\mu_i=\mu_j , j=1,2,\ldots,k$, $k$ being the number of distinct

466: $\mu_i$'s $, i=1,2,\ldots,n$. This induces a certain posterior

467: distribution of $S$ and a posterior inference  can then be used to

468: provide clustering procedure. There are various algorithms

469: available to obtain the posterior partitions of $S$ which are

470: useful for making inferences on clustering of $x_1,x_2, \ldots,

471: x_n$. We implement  the independent and identically distributed

472: Weighted Chinese Restaurant (iidWCR) algorithm \citep[see][]{Ish02}

473: which comes from its use of the partition

474: distribution of $S$. Let $p=\{C_1,C_2,\ldots,C_{n(p)}\}$ be a

475: partition of size $n(p)$ of $S$, where each $C_j$ contains $e_j$

476: elements. Assuming $G_0 $ as the multivariate normal with mean

477: vector $m$ and covariance matrix $B_0$ and denoting

478:  $N_p(x;\mu,\Sigma)=(2\pi)^{-\frac{p}{2}}|\Sigma|^{-\frac{1}{2}}

479:  exp[-\frac{1}{2}(x-\mu)^\prime \Sigma^{-1}(x-\mu)]$

480: as the density of a $p$-component multivariate normal

481: distribution, the iidWCR algorithm for inducing posterior

482: partition of $S$ consists of following steps:

483: \begin{description}

484: \item[\emph{Step 1:}] Assign $p_1 = \{1\}$ and the corresponding

485: importance weight $\lambda (1)=N_6(x_1;m,\Sigma_0+B_0)$ where

486: $\Sigma_0$ is the initial estimate of $\Sigma$.

487: 

488: \item[\emph{Step r:}] Given $p_{r-1}$, compute $\Sigma_{r-1}$ from

489: $x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_{r-1}$. Create $p_r$ by assigning label $r$ to

490: a new set with probability $\frac{\alpha}{(\alpha+r-1)\lambda(r)}

491: \times N_6(x_r;m,\Sigma_{r-1}+B_0)$. Otherwise, assign label $r$

492: to an existing set $C_{j,r-1}$ with probability $

493: \frac{e_{j,r-1}}{(\alpha+r-1)\lambda(r)} \times

494: N_6(x_r;\mu_{j,r-1}, \Sigma_{j,r-1})$ where

495: $\Sigma_{j,r-1}=(B_0^{-1} +e_{j,r-1}\Sigma_{r-1}^{-1})^{-1}$ and

496: $\mu_{j,r-1}=\Sigma_{j,r-1}(B_0^{-1}+e_{j,r-1}\Sigma_{r-1}^{-1}\overline{x}_{j,r-1})$.

497: Note that $e_{j,r-1}$ and $\overline{x}_{j,r-1}$ are the  number

498: of elements and observed mean in $C_{j,r-1}$ respectively and

499: $\lambda(r)$ is the normalizing constant.

500: \end{description}

501: Running step 1 followed by step $r$ for $r=2,3,\ldots,n$ gives a

502: draw from posterior partition of $S$. This $n-step$ draw, in fact,

503: provides an iid sample from WCR density given by

504: \begin{equation}

505: g(p) = \frac{f(x|p)\pi(p)}{\Delta(p)}\nonumber

506: \end{equation}

507: where $\pi(p)$ is the prior density of $p$, f(.) is the density of

508: $x$ and $\Delta(p)=\lambda(1) \times \lambda(2) \times \ldots

509: \times \lambda(n)$ is the importance weight. Repeating the above

510: algorithm $B$ times, one can obtain $p^1,p^2,\ldots,p^B$ iid

511: sample observations from posterior partition of $S$. Based on

512: these sample observations, Monte Carlo method can be devised to

513: estimate $E\{n(p)\}$, the expected number of clusters, as

514: \begin{equation}\label{eq:est-cluster}

515: \widehat{E\{n(p)\}} \approx \frac{\sum_{b=1}^B n(p^b)

516: \Delta(p^b)}{\sum_{b=1}^B  \Delta(p^b)}

517: \end{equation}

518: The key advantages of using this Dirichlet process model-based

519: clustering are that  the underlying distribution of $x_i$'s and

520: the number of clusters are unknown. Moreover, one can provide an

521: estimate of the expected number of clusters by using Eqn.

522: (\ref{eq:est-cluster}).

523: 

524: \begin{deluxetable} {lrrr}

525: \tablewidth{0pt}

526: \tablecaption{Average Cluster properties based on the Dirichlet Mixture Modeling method }

527: \tablehead{

528: \colhead{Parameters} & \colhead{Cluster I} & \colhead{Cluster II} &

529: \colhead{Cluster III} }

530: \startdata

531: $T_{50}$ (sec) &0.31$\pm$ 0.02& 6.76$\pm$ 0.31&16.22$\pm$ 1.50\\

532: $T_{90}$ (sec)& 0.45$\pm$ 0.03&19.05$\pm$ 0.88&43.65$\pm$ 3.02\\

533: $P_{256}$ (\#/cm$^2$/sec) &1.66$\pm$ 0.08& 1.35$\pm$ 0.03& 4.79$\pm$ 0.33\\

534: $F_T$ ($\times 10^{-6}$ ergs/sec)&$0.89\pm{0.06}$& $3.46\pm{0.08}$&$18.2\pm{0.2}$\\

535: $H_{32}$&4.68$\pm$ 0.22& 2.82$\pm$ 0.06& 3.31$\pm$ 0.15\\

536: $H_{321}$&2.75$\pm$ 0.13& 1.58$\pm$ 0.04& 1.86$\pm$ 0.09\\

537: \enddata

538: \tablecomments{Errors quoted are standard errors. The number of members are

539: 409, 892 and 293 for Clusters I,II and III respectively.}

540: \label{t3}

541: \end{deluxetable}

542: 

543: 

544: For fitting the model, we used $\alpha=1.0$ and a flat

545: prior $G_0 \sim N_6(0,\sigma^2\mathbf{I})$ with $\sigma^2=1000$.

546: The initial value of $\Sigma$, $\Sigma_0$ is obtained as the

547: sample covariance matrix. We applied the iidWCR algorithm for

548: $B=1000$ to obtain the estimate of the number of clusters.

549: Three classes were obtained consistent with the results from

550: the K-means technique.    In Table \ref{t3} the mean values of

551: the parameters with errors are tabulated. The values are consistent

552: with those found from the K-means method.

553: The number of members of cluster II, 892 is somewhat larger

554: than what was found by the K-means method, 622, but considering the different nature and

555: approach of the two techniques, such differences are perhaps expected. In summary,

556: these  two independent

557: clustering techniques indicate that there are three classes of GRB with

558: qualitatively similar properties.

559: 

560: 

561: 

562: 

563: \section{Classification of GRB with known red-shift}

564: 

565: 

566: Although the classification described in the previous section is based on six GRB parameters

567: the segregation of the classes can be visualized using the total fluence, $F_T$ and the

568: duration, $T_{90}$. This is illustrated in Fig (\ref{f2}) which shows  $F_T$ versus

569: $T_{90}$ for the members of the three clusters obtained using the K-means technique. The

570: Dirichlet process model gives qualitatively similar results. The solid line representing

571: $T_{90} = 2$ sec, differentiates the members of Cluster I (marked

572: by triangles) with those of Cluster II (marked by filled circles). Thus Cluster I is consistent

573: with the standard classification of short duration bursts. The standard long duration bursts

574: (with $T_{90} > 2$ s) are further classified into two groups with one of them (members

575: of Cluster III, marked using open circles) having typically higher fluence. Thus we have named

576: members of Cluster II and III as low and high  fluence GRB. The

577: solid line representing $F_T = 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ ergs/cm$^2$ qualitatively separates two groups. There are eight GRB detected by BATSE for which

578: there are redshift estimates \citep[e.g.][]{Bag03}. These are marked by

579: squares in Figure 2. Six of them are in Cluster III while two are close to

580: the demarking line. One of these GRB (980425) is at a low redshift 

581: ($z = 0.0085$) and is associated with a supernova. 

582: 

583: \begin{figure}

584: \begin{center}

585: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f2.eps}}

586: \end{center}

587: \caption{The fluence $F_T$ in ergs/cm$^2$ versus the duration $T_{90}$ in seconds for members

588: of Cluster I (triangles), II (solid circles) and III (open circles) from the 

589: K-means clustering method. The solid lines represent

590: $T_{90} = 2$s and $F_T = 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ ergs/cm$^2$ which qualitatively 

591: separate the three groups. The solid squares represent eight GRB detected by 

592: BATSE for which redshifts are also measured \citep[e.g.][]{Bag03}. }

593: \label{f2}

594: \end{figure}

595: 

596: \begin{figure}

597: \begin{center}

598: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f3.eps}}

599: \end{center}

600: \caption{ The fluence $F_T$ in ergs/cm$^2$ versus the duration $T_{90}$ in

601: seconds for $21$ GRB (filled circles) with known redshifts taken from

602: \cite{Ghi04} and references therein.  The solid lines represent $T_{90} = 2$s and $F_T =

603: 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ which qualitatively distinguish the

604: three clusters (Fig \ref{f2}). For each GRB, the dotted lines

605: represent the predicted fluence and duration if it was located at

606: a redshift range $0.1 < z < 5$. The open triangles represent the

607: predicted fluence and duration if the GRB were located at

608: redshift $z = 1$. These predicted values allow for the

609: classification of the GRB into members of Cluster II and III. }

610: \label{f3}

611: \end{figure}

612: 

613: 

614: 

615: 

616: 

617: To identify a GRB with  a known red-shift as a member of a

618: cluster, broad band coverage of the prompt emission is required in

619: order to correctly estimate the total fluence $F_T$, which BATSE

620: would have observed for the burst. This is particularly important,

621: when the peak of the energy spectrum of a GRB is at high energies

622: $> 300$ keV. \cite{Ama02} analyzed GRB with known red-shifts and

623: well constraned spectral parameters over a broad energy range and

624: discovered that the intrinsic (i.e. red-shift corrected) peak of

625: the energy spectrum, $E_p$ correlates with the isotropic energy

626: output, $E_{iso}$. Apart from being a stringent condition and test

627: for any theoretical model that describes the GRB prompt emission,

628: this empirical relation highlights the possibility that GRB can be

629: used to probe and constrain the expansion of the Universe at early

630: times. \cite{Ghi04} added more GRB to the sample and  found that

631: the the beaming corrected luminosity, $E$ has a tighter

632: correlation with $E_p$ than the isotropic one. Nevertheless, there

633: is still significant dispersion in the relationship which needs to

634: be explained. In order to see how the classification  found in

635: this work affects such relationship, we  have used 21 GRB listed

636: in Table 1 of \cite{Ghi04} that have well measured temporal and

637: spectral parameters. The total fluence $F_T$ versus the duration

638: $T_{90}$ for these GRB are plotted in Fig. (\ref{f3}) (filled

639: circles). Overlaid on the plot are the two solid lines

640:  $F_T = 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ ergs and $T_{90} = 2$s which qualitatively segregate the three

641: clusters (Fig \ref{f2}). Most of the GRB have high fluence and are of long duration (consistent with them

642: being members of Cluster III) which is probably a selection effect.  Two of the GRB have $F_T < 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ ergs/cm$^2$

643: and are probably members of Cluster II. However, there are three GRB with

644:  $F_T \sim 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ ergs/cm$^2$ and hence there is an ambiguity about their classification.

645: For each GRB, a corresponding dotted line is plotted in

646: Fig (\ref{f3}) which shows the variation of the observed $F_T$ versus $T_{90}$ if the same GRB was

647: located at different red-shifts. The lines are drawn for a red-shift range $0.1 < z < 5.0$ for a

648: $\Lambda$ CDM cosmology with $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$ and Hubble parameter $H = 65$ km/s/Mpc.

649: It is interesting to note that the red-shift trajectories for the high fluence GRB in general do

650: not cross the $F_T = 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ line. In other words, if these GRB were located

651: at a wide range of red-shifts, their observed fluence would have been $F_T > 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$

652: and hence they would have been classified as members of Cluster III. On the other hand there are six

653: GRB whose red-shift trajectories mostly lie below the de-marking line. Their  observed fluence would be

654: $F_T < 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ for a wide range of red-shifts and hence they would be classified

655: as members of Cluster II. The open triangles in the Figure mark the positions of the GRBs if they were

656: all located at a red-shift, $z = 1.0$. In this representation, the GRB are more clearly segregated into Clusters

657: II and III with five of them having a  predicted fluence less

658: than  $F_T > 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ with the others being significantly brighter. This strongly suggests

659: that the classification described in this work is not due to observational bias arising from the use

660: of observed parameters instead of intrinsic ones.

661: 

662: \begin{figure}

663: \begin{center}

664: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f4.eps}}

665: \end{center}

666: \caption{ The intrinsic (red-shift corrected) peak of the energy flux, $E_{peak}$ versus the

667: isotropic energy output for 21 GRB with well defined spectral parameters \citep{Ama02,Ghi04}.

668: GRB that are members of Cluster II (triangles) have isotropic energy output of nearly

669: $10^{52}$ ergs, while members of Cluster III (circles) have a much wider range of energy

670: output.}

671: \label{f4}

672: \end{figure}

673: 

674: 

675: 

676: We classify the 21 GRB according to their predicted observed fluence and duration if they were situated

677: at $z = 1$. In this scheme, five GRBs

678: are classified as members of Cluster II while the remaining 18 are identified as

679: members of Cluster III. Fig (\ref{f4}) shows the variation of the intrinsic energy peak $E_{peak}$ versus

680: the isotropic energy realized, $E_{iso}$, which is the correlation discovered by \cite{Ama02}. GRB identified

681: as Cluster I are marked as triangles while those belonging to Cluster III are represented by filled circles.

682: GRB belonging to Cluster II all

683: have an isotropic energy output close to $\sim 10^{52}$ ergs, while those belonging  to Cluster III span

684: a much larger range of energy $10^{52-54}$ ergs and roughly follow the $E_p-E_{iso}$ correlation. Although the

685: number of GRB in this sample is small, this segregation of the GRB in intrinsic parameter space is a

686: another indication that the classification is robust and perhaps not due to observational bias.

687: Most of the members of Cluster III have a rest frame peak energy $E_{peak} > 300$ keV and hence would have

688: had significant flux in the highest energy channel of BATSE, i.e. $F_4$. Thus, the retention of $F_4$ in

689: the classification analysis of \S 2 is important even though there is systematic  uncertainty in

690: the measured value of the fluence. Indeed, if $F_4$ is not taken into account the evidence for  three

691: clusters in the BATSE sample decreases.

692: 

693: \section{Summary and Discussion}

694: 

695: 

696: Two multivariate clustering techniques, the K-means partitioning

697: method and the Dirichlet process of mixture modeling, have been applied for the first time to

698: the BATSE Gamma-ray burst (GRB) catalog. These two schemes do not make any a priori assumptions

699: about the number of clusters, but instead provide quantitative estimate of the optimal number of

700: groups. The jump curve for the K-means partitioning method suggests that this optimal number is

701: three which is further supported with the value of  the expected number of clusters, $E\{n(p)\}$, obtained

702: using Dirichlet process of mixture modeling. The two techniques group the GRBs in qualitatively similar

703: classes, which can be described as short bursts ($T_{90} < 2$ s, Cluster I), long duration, low fluence bursts

704: ($F_T < 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ ergs/cm$^2$, Cluster II) and long duration, high fluence bursts ($F_T > 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ ergs/cm$^2$, Cluster III).

705: 

706: To estimate how such a classification, based on observed spectral and temporal parameters,

707:  can arise from intrinsic GRB properties, a sample of 21 GRB with known red-shifts and well constrained

708: spectral parameters,  are classified within

709: this scheme. The observed total fluence, $F_T$ and duration $T_{90}$ for

710: these GRBs if they were located at different red-shifts ($0.1 < z < 5$) were estimated. For 16 of the

711: 21 GRB, the estimated fluence would have satisfied $F_T > 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$ ergs/cm$^2$

712: for nearly the entire

713: range of red-shift space and hence they were classified as high fluence bursts.

714: This invariance in red-shift, indicates that the  classification scheme is not strongly effected

715: by observational bias and by the use of observed parameters instead of intrinsic ones. For

716: five GRB, classified as low fluence bursts, the predicted fluence   $F_T < 1.6 \times 10^{-4}/T_{90}$

717: for a significant fraction of the red-shift space, which again signifies the physical nature

718: of the classification. Based on the classification of these GRB with known red-shift, it can

719: be inferred that the low fluence GRB have a  nearly constant isotropic Energy output of $10^{52}$ ergs

720: and have an intrinsic (red-shift corrected) duration of $T_{90} \sim 2$-$30$ secs.

721: On the other hand, the high fluence GRB (Cluster III)

722: have a much wider range of isotropic energy output $10^{52-54}$ ergs and a corresponding wide

723: range of intrinsic durations $10$ - $500$ secs.

724: 

725: 

726: We note with caution that the number of GRB with known red-shifts, used for this analysis

727: is small and a much larger sample is required before concrete conclusions can be drawn. It is

728: also important, for this analysis,  to have well constrained spectral parameters of these GRB.

729: In particular, the peak of the energy fluxes, $E_p$ are required to be well estimated

730: and since for high energetic

731: sources $E_p > 300$ keV, it is imperative to have well calibrated high energy information. Indeed, if the

732: highest energy channel of the BATSE measurement is not taken into account,

733: the significance of the classification is smaller.

734: 

735: The classification presented here, needs to be supported by

736: theoretical considerations. It is tempting to identify the low

737: fluence GRB with neutron star-white dwarf mergers \citep{Kin07}

738: and the higher fluences ones with massive stellar collapse. The

739: near constancy of the isotropic energy output of low fluence

740: bursts, seem to be consistent with them being neutron star-white

741: dwarf mergers. Since both neutron stars and white dwarfs do not

742: have significant mass variations, their initial conditions for the

743: binary merger could be similar, leading to the nearly constant

744: energy output. Moreover, their merger time may also be typically

745: smaller than massive stellar collapse time-scales, which is

746: consistent with the shorter intrinsic duration $2-30$ s, found in

747: this work. On the other hand, the energy output and duration of

748: GRB induced by massive stellar collapse may depend on the mass and

749: size of the progenitor which is consistent with the variation

750: inferred for high fluence bursts. The present observational

751: evidence for such a model is not clear. Evidence for supernova

752: light curves have been detected in GRB with different energy

753: output, including some low luminosity ones, e.g. GRB 0311203, $E

754: \sim 3 \times 10^{49}$ ergs \citep{Mal04}, the nearby GRB 060614,

755: for which no supernova was detected also had a low isotropic

756: energy output of $10^{51}$ ergs. Such low energy output are not

757: represented in the 21 GRB with well constrained spectral

758: parameters used in this analysis which all have energies $>

759: 10^{52}$ ergs. These rare GRB (since they have to be located

760: relatively nearby to be detected) may not represent a significant

761: fraction of the BATSE catalogue. BATSE did detect GRB 980425 which

762: is at low redshift ($z = 0.0086$) and is associated with a supernova. 

763: At this redshift, the GRB would be a borderline case between the high and 

764: low fluence GRB (Figure 2). Thus the interpretation of the

765: two different classes of long bursts as being due to stellar

766: collapse and white dwarf-neutron star mergers, is speculative and

767: more quantitative theoretical predictions and observational

768: evidences are required before a definite conclusion can be made.

769: 

770: 

771: 

772: \acknowledgements

773: 

774: 

775: TC and AKC thank the IUCAA associateship program for

776: support

777: 

778: \begin{thebibliography}{}

779: 

780: \bibitem[Amati et al.(2002)]{Ama02} Amati, L., et al.\ 2002,

781: \aap, 390, 81

782: 

783: \bibitem[Bagoly et al.(1998)]{Bag98} Bagoly, Z., Meszaros, 

784: A., Horvath, I., Balazs, L.~G., \& Meszaros, P.\ 1998, \apj, 498, 342 

785: 

786: \bibitem[Bagoly et al.(2003)]{Bag03} Bagoly, Z., Csabai, I., 

787: M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, A., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., Horv{\'a}th, I., Bal{\'a}zs, 

788: L.~G., \& Vavrek, R.\ 2003, \aap, 398, 919 

789: 

790: \bibitem[Balastegui et al.(2001)]{Bal01} Balastegui, A., 

791: Ruiz-Lapuente, P., \& Canal, R.\ 2001, \mnras, 328, 283 

792: 

793: 

794: 

795: \bibitem [Baumgart (1994)]{Bau94} Baumgart,C.W. 1994, in SPIE

796:           Proc. 2243, Applications of Artificial Neural Networks V, eds. S.

797:           K. Rogers \& D. W. Ruck (Bellingham: SPIE), 552.

798: 

799: \bibitem [Blackwell \& MacQueen (1973)]{Bla73} Blackwell, D. \&

800:           MacQueen,J. B. 1973, {\it Annals of Statistics}, 1, 353.

801: 

802: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2006)]{Blo06} Bloom, J.~S., et al.\ 

803: 2006, \apj, 638, 354 

804: 

805: 

806: 

807: 

808: 

809: 

810: 

811: 

812: 

813: 

814: \bibitem[Dezalay et al.(1992)]{Dez92} Dezalay, J.-P., Barat, 

815: C., Talon, R., Syunyaev, R., Terekhov, O., \& Kuznetsov, A.\ 1992, American 

816: Institute of Physics Conference Series, 265, 304 

817: 

818: 

819: 

820: \bibitem [Escober \& West(1995)]{Esc95} Escobar, M. D. \& West, M. 1995,

821:           {\it Journal of the American Statistical Association}, 90, 577.

822: 

823: \bibitem[Feigelson \& Babu(1998)]{Fei98} Feigelson, E.~D., \& 

824: Babu, G.~J.\ 1998, IAU Symp.~179: New Horizons from Multi-Wavelength Sky 

825: Surveys, 179, 363 

826: 

827: 

828: 

829: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2006)]{Fyn06} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al.\

830: 2006, \nat, 444, 1047

831: 

832: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.(2005)]{Geh05} Gehrels, N., et al.\ 

833: 2005, \nat, 437, 851 

834: 

835: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.(2006)]{Geh06} Gehrels, N., et al.\

836: 2006, \nat, 444, 1044

837: 

838: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2004)]{Ghi04} Ghirlanda, G.,

839: Ghisellini, G., \& Lazzati, D.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 331

840: 

841: \bibitem[Hakkila et al.(2000)]{Hak00} Hakkila, J., Haglin, 

842: D.~J., Pendleton, G.~N., Mallozzi, R.~S., Meegan, C.~A., \& Roiger, R.~J.\ 

843: 2000, \apj, 538, 165 

844: 

845: \bibitem[Hakkila et al.(2003)]{Hak03} Hakkila, J., Giblin, 

846: T.~W., Roiger, R.~J., Haglin, D.~J., Paciesas, W.~S., \& Meegan, C.~A.\ 

847: 2003, \apj, 582, 320 

848: 

849: 

850: 

851:  \bibitem [Hartigan (1975)]{Har75} Hartigan, J. A. 1975, Clustering

852:           Algorithms, New York, Wiley.

853: 

854: 

855: \bibitem[Horv{\'a}th (1998)]{Hor98} Horv{\'a}th, I.\ 1998,

856: \apj, 508, 757

857: 

858: \bibitem[Horv{\'a}th (2002)]{Hor02} Horv{\'a}th, I.\ 2002,

859: \aap, 392, 791

860: 

861: 

862: \bibitem[Horv{\'a}th et al.(2006)]{Hor06} Horv{\'a}th, I., 

863: Bal{\'a}zs, L.~G., Bagoly, Z., Ryde, F., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, A.\ 2006, 

864: \aap, 447, 23 

865: 

866: 

867: 

868: 

869: \bibitem [Ishwaran \& Takahara(2002)]{Ish02} Ishwaran, H. \& Takahara, G., 2002,

870: {\it Journal of the American Statistical Association}, 97, 1154.

871: 

872: \bibitem [Johnson (1996)]{Joh96} Johnson, R. A., \& Wichern, D.W. 1996,

873: Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Prentice Hall of India.

874: 

875: \bibitem[King et al.(2007)]{Kin07} King, A., Olsson, E., \&

876: Davies, M.~B.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, L34.

877: 

878: \bibitem[Kouveliotou et al.(1993)]{Kou93} Kouveliotou, C., 

879: Meegan, C.~A., Fishman, G.~J., Bhat, N.~P., Briggs, M.~S., Koshut, T.~M., 

880: Paciesas, W.~S., \& Pendleton, G.~N.\ 1993, \apjl, 413, L101 

881: 

882: 

883: 

884: \bibitem [MacQueen (1967)]{Mac67} MacQueen, J., 1967, Fifth Berkeley

885:           Symp. Math. Statist. Prob.,1,281.

886: 

887: \bibitem[Malesani et al.(2004)]{Mal04} Malesani, D., et al.\

888: 2004, \apjl, 609, L5

889: 

890: \bibitem[Mukherjee et al.(1998)]{Muk98} Mukherjee, S., 

891: Feigelson, E.~D., Jogesh Babu, G., Murtagh, F., Fraley, C., \& Raftery, A.\ 

892: 1998, \apj, 508, 314 

893: 

894: 

895: \bibitem[Piran(1992)]{Pir92} Piran, T.\ 1992, \apjl, 389, L45 

896: 

897: \bibitem[Piran(2005)]{Pir05} Piran, T.\ 2005, Reviews of

898: Modern Physics, 76, 1143

899: 

900: 

901: \bibitem[Sazonov et al.(2004)]{Saz04} Sazonov, S.~Y.,

902: Lutovinov, A.~A., \& Sunyaev, R.~A.\ 2004, \nat, 430, 646

903: 

904: \bibitem[Schaefer \& Xiao(2006)]{Sch06} Schaefer, B.~E., \&

905: Xiao, L.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0608441

906: 

907: \bibitem [Sugar \& James(2003)]{Sug03} Sugar, A. S., \& James, G. M.

908:          2003, JASA, 98, 750.

909: 

910: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2004)]{Sod04} Soderberg, A.~M., et

911: al.\ 2004, \nat, 430, 648

912: 

913: \bibitem[Woosley \& Bloom(2006)]{Woo06} Woosley, S.~E., \& 

914: Bloom, J.~S.\ 2006, \araa, 44, 507 

915: 

916: 

917: 

918: \end{thebibliography}

919: 

920: 

921: \end{document}

922: