1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%% PASJ LaTeX template for draft(body)<2001/02/08>
3: %%%
4: %%% IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR AUTHORS
5: %%% 1. ``\draft'' creates single column and double spaces format.
6: %%% 2. If you comment out ``\draft'', the output will be double column
7: %%% and single space.
8: %%% 3. For cross-references, the use of \label/\ref/\cite and the
9: %%% the bibliography environment is strongly recommended
10: %%% 4. Do NOT use \def/\renewcommand.
11: %%% 5. Do NOT redefine commands provided by PASJ00.cls.
12: %%%
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \documentclass{pasj00}
15: %\draft
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \SetRunningHead{Y. Urata et al.}{Optically dark GRB 051028}
19: \Received{2006/10/17}%{yyyy/mm/dd}
20: \Accepted{2007/05/31}%{yyyy/mm/dd}
21:
22: \title{A multi band study of the optically dark GRB 051028}
23:
24: %%% Please use the following style in case that sorting by
25: %%% affiliation is impossible.
26: %
27: \author{%
28: Yuji \textsc{Urata}\altaffilmark{1},
29: Kui-Yun \textsc{Huang}\altaffilmark{2},
30: Ping-Hung \textsc{Kuo}\altaffilmark{2},
31: Wing-Huen \textsc{Ip}\altaffilmark{2},
32: Yulei \textsc{Qiu}\altaffilmark{3},\\
33: Keisuke \textsc{Masuno}\altaffilmark{1},
34: Makoto \textsc{Tashiro}\altaffilmark{1},
35: Keichi \textsc{Abe}\altaffilmark{1},
36: Kaori \textsc{Onda}\altaffilmark{1},
37: Natsuki \textsc{Kodaka}\altaffilmark{1}, \\
38: %
39: Makoto \textsc{Kuwahara}\altaffilmark{4,5},
40: Toru \textsc{Tamagawa}\altaffilmark{5},
41: Fumihiko \textsc{Usui}\altaffilmark{6},
42: Kunihito \textsc{Ioka}\altaffilmark{7},\\
43: Yi-Hsi \textsc{Lee}\altaffilmark{2},
44: Jianyan \textsc{Wei}\altaffilmark{3},
45: Jinsong \textsc{Deng}\altaffilmark{3},
46: Weikang \textsc{Zheng}\altaffilmark{3},
47: and
48: Kazuo \textsc{Makishima}\altaffilmark{8,4}
49: }
50:
51: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, Saitama University, Shimo-Okubo 255, Sakura, Saitama 338-8570}
52: \email{urata@crystal.heal.phy.saitama-u.ac.jp}
53: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute of Astronomy, National Central University, Chung-Li 32054, Taiwan, Republic of China}
54: \altaffiltext{3}{National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China}
55: \altaffiltext{4}{Tokyo University of Science, 1-3 Kagurazaka, Shinjyuku, Tokyo}
56: \altaffiltext{5}{RIKEN (Institute of Physical and Chemical Research), 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198}
57: \altaffiltext{6}{Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Institute of Space and Astronomical Science, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8510}
58: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8602}
59: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033}
60:
61: %% `\KeyWords{}' always has to be placed before `\maketitle'.
62: \KeyWords{Gamma-Ray Burst:Optical afterglow:X-ray afterglow} %Do NOT move this preamble from here!
63:
64: \maketitle
65:
66: \begin{abstract}
67:
68: Observations were made of the optical afterglow of GRB 051028 with the
69: Lulin observatory's 1.0 m telescope and the WIDGET robotic telescope
70: system. R band photometric data points were obtained on 2005 October
71: 28 (UT), or 0.095-0.180 days after the burst. There is a possible
72: plateau in the optical light curve around 0.1 days after the burst;
73: the light curve resembles optically bright afterglows (e.g. GRB
74: 041006, GRB 050319, GRB060605) in shape of the light curve but not in
75: brightness. The brightness of the GRB 051028 afterglow is 3 magnitudes
76: fainter than that of one of the dark events, GRB 020124.
77: %
78: Optically dark GRBs have been attributed to dust extinction within the
79: host galaxy or high redshift.
80: %
81: However, the spectrum analysis of the X-rays implies that there is no
82: significant absorption by the host galaxy. Furthermore, according to
83: the model theoretical calculation of the Ly$\alpha$ absorption to find
84: the limit of GRB 051028's redshift, the expected $R$ band absorption
85: is not high enough to explain the darkness of the afterglow. While
86: the present results disfavor either the high-redshift hypothesis or
87: the high extinction scenario for optically dark bursts, they are
88: consistent with the possibility that the brightness of the optical
89: afterglow, intrinsically dark.
90:
91: %Please read ``IMPORTANT NOTICE'' carefully before preparing a manuscript.
92: \end{abstract}
93:
94: \section{Introduction}
95:
96: In recent years, the {\it BeppoSAX} and {\it HETE-2} have provided
97: quick positional information for a number of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs)
98: with a typical positional accuracy of $\sim10'$, which has led to
99: rapid follow-up observations in the optical and near infrared
100: frequencies. The {\it Swift} satellite has opened the door to the
101: making of high sensitivity X-ray afterglow observations with an X-ray
102: telescope in the early stage of the afterglows. This revealed that
103: almost all of the GRBs had an X-ray afterglow: the positions of the
104: GRBs could be measured within a precision of 10 arcseconds.
105: Nevertheless, the afterglow associated with about half of the promptly
106: localized GRBs was either very faint ($>$ 23 mag 1 day after the
107: burst; Fynbo et al. 2001), or non-existent
108: %there was no optical afterglows
109: \citep{hete-2}. Such events are broadly termed ``optically dark
110: GRBs''. To be more precise, in this paper we define a GRB to be
111: ``optically dark'' if its optical afterglow is fainter than 23 mag at
112: 1 day after the burst. Typical optically dark GRBs include GRB030115
113: and GRB021211. The afterglow of GRB030115 was extremely red; although
114: a near infrared counterpart with $K\sim$19 was detected 1 day after
115: the burst, no optical afterglow brighter than 20 mag. was detected,
116: even at 0.1 days. In the case of GRB021211, the afterglow showed a
117: rapid decay until around 0.1 days, fading to $>22$ mag. by the next
118: day.
119:
120: The observations of the afterglow of a GRB via X-rays, through radio
121: frequencies can be interpreted by the fireball models. In general a
122: shock produced by the interaction of relativistic ejecta with the
123: circumburst medium will lead to the radiation of broadband synchrotron
124: emission. Assuming this widely accepted hypothesis to be true, there
125: are three possible explanations for optically dark GRBs: (1) They have
126: such high redshifts ($z>5$) that optical afterglows suffer from strong
127: Lyman absorption \citep{Heise2}: (2) The optical afterglow has been
128: extinguished by dust in the vicinity of the GRB or in the star-forming
129: region in which the GRB occurs (Piro et al. 2002; Klose et al. 2002):
130: (3)The optical afterglow exhibits rapid decay from a very early phase,
131: such as has been reported for GRB021211 and GRB020124 (Crew et al
132: 2003, Berger et al 2002, Yamazaki et al 2003).
133:
134: In this paper we present an analysis of the optical and X-ray
135: afterglow of an optically dark event, GRB 051028. At 13:36:01.47 UT
136: on 28 Oct 2005, the {\it HETE-2} FREGATE and WXM \citep{wxm}
137: instruments detected a bright GRB \citep{hete}. The burst triggered
138: the operation of FREGATE in the 30-400 keV energy band. The burst
139: duration (T90) was 16 seconds in both the 30-400 keV band and the 7-30
140: keV band. Ground analysis of the WXM data found a 90\% confidence
141: error region measuring $33'\times18'$ with corners at the following
142: coordinates:
143: $\alpha(2000)=01^{\rm h}50^{\rm m}19^{\rm s}.6, \delta(2000)=+47^{\circ}41'06''$,
144: $\alpha(2000)=01^{\rm h}47^{\rm m}01^{\rm s}.1, \delta(2000)=+47^{\circ}38'02''$,
145: $\alpha(2000)=01^{\rm h}46^{\rm m}58^{\rm s}.3, \delta(2000)=+47^{\circ}55'55''$,
146: and
147: $\alpha(2000)=01^{\rm h}50^{\rm m}$
148: %
149: 17$^{\rm s}$.5, $\delta(2000)=+47^{\circ}58'58''$.
150: %$\alpha(2000)=01^{\rm h}50^{\rm m}17^{\rm s}.5, \delta(2000)=+47^{\circ}58'58''$ .
151: %%$\alpha(2000)=01^{\rm h}50^{\rm m}17^{\rm s}.5, \delta(2000)=+47^{\circ}58'58''$.
152: %
153: %
154: The 30-400 keV fluence of GRB 051028 is $6\times 10^{-6} {\rm
155: erg/cm^{2}}$ ; the 2-30 keV fluences is $6\times 10^{-7} {\rm
156: erg/cm^{2}}$. The hardness ratio allows us to classify this burst as a
157: classical GRB \citep{hete}.
158: %%
159: %%
160: {\it Swift} XRT started to observe the field about 7.1 hours after the
161: burst and found the X-ray afterglow at $\alpha(2000)=01^{\rm h}48^{\rm
162: m}15^{\rm s}.1, \delta(2000)=+47^{\circ}45'12''.5$ with an uncertainty
163: of $6''$ (90\% containment) \citep{swift}. The optical afterglow was
164: also reported by \citet{ot} at the coordinates of $\alpha(2000)=01^{\rm
165: h}48^{\rm m}15^{\rm s}.01, \delta(2000)=+47^{\circ}45'09''.2$.
166:
167:
168: \section{Observations}
169:
170: Optical observations were made by the East-Asia GRB Follow-up
171: Observation Network
172: (EAFON\footnote{http://cosmic.riken.jp/grb/eafon/}; \cite{eafon})
173: using two kinds of telescopes.
174:
175:
176: \subsection{Pre-GRB observation with WIDGET}
177:
178: We observed the error region of GRB 051028 \citep{hete} with the very
179: wide-field camera WIDGET (Abe et al 2006; Tamagawa et al 2005).
180: WIDGET is a robotic telescope. It monitors the {\it HETE-2}
181: field-of-view and can detect GRB optical flashes or possible optical
182: precursors. The filed-of-view is $62^{\circ}\times62^{\circ}$, which
183: covers about 80\% of the {\it HETE2} WXM observing field. The system
184: consists of a 2k$\times$2k Apogee U10 CCD camera and a Canon EF 24mm
185: f/1.4 wide-angle lens. WIDGET has been in operation at the Akeno site
186: (Latitude and Longtitude are $+35~{\circ}47'$ and $138^{\circ}30'$,
187: respectively) since June 2004. WIDGET monitored the GRB 051028 region
188: by repeated unfiltered 5-second exposures taken 16.0 min and 11.2 min
189: before the burst \citep{widget2}.
190:
191: \begin{figure}
192: \begin{center}
193: \FigureFile(80mm,80mm){figure1.ps}
194: %%% \FigureFile(width,height){filename}
195: \end{center}
196: \caption{$R$ band image of the GRB 051028 field obtained at the Lulin observatory with a 300 s exposure time.
197: The circle near the center of the image indicates the afterglow.}\label{fig:image}
198: \end{figure}
199:
200: \subsection{Follow-up observation at Lulin}
201:
202: We started optical follow-up observations using Lulin's One-meter
203: Telescope (LOT) (\cite{lot}) 0.094 days after the burst (i.e., 12 min
204: after the {\it HETE-2} position alert). This is the fastest follow-up
205: observation time possible with a meter-sizes-telescope. This
206: telescope was installed in September 2002 on the summit of Mount Lulin
207: ($120^{\circ}52'25''$ E, $23^{\circ}28'7''$ N, H$=2862$ m) in central
208: Taiwan by the Institute of Astronomy of National Central University.
209: Photometric images were obtained with a PI1300B CCD camera
210: ($1340\times1300$ pixels: $11'.5\times11'.2$ field of view). A samples
211: is shown in figure 1. To cover the entire {\it HETE-2} WXM error box
212: ($33'\times18'$), we imaged the 8-field mosaic with 300 sec exposures
213: in the R band. Due to the darkness and to there being no clear
214: variability during the early part of our observations as shown in
215: figure 2, we could not quickly identify the afterglow by analysis at
216: the observing site. The obtained R band data is described in Table 1.
217:
218:
219: \section{Analysis and Results}
220:
221: \subsection{WIDGET}
222:
223: The data reduction of the WIDGET images were performed in the standard
224: manner. Each WIDGET image taken around the GRB position was compared
225: with non-saturated bright stars in the Tycho-2.0 position catalog. The
226: rms deviation around the fit to the positions of 8 reference stars was
227: $231''$. We did not find any optical emission from the afterglow
228: position (Jelinek et al. GCN 4175). The 1-sigma limiting magnitude of
229: each frame derived from the Tycho-2 catalog was around V=10.3 mag.
230:
231: \begin{figure}
232: \begin{center}
233: \FigureFile(80mm,80mm){figure2.eps}
234: %%% \FigureFile(width,height){filename}
235: \end{center}
236: \caption{$R$ band light curve based on the photometry of the Lulin (LOT) photometry. The dashed line indicates the best fit function for the lightcurve between 0.11 and 0.63 days after ther burst.}\label{fig:rlc}
237: \end{figure}
238:
239: \subsection{LOT}
240:
241: A standard routine, including bias subtraction, dark subtraction, and
242: flat-fielding corrections with appropriate calibration data was
243: employed to process the data using IRAF.
244: As shown in figure 1, the afterglow can clearly be seen in the $R$ band
245: images. Flux calibrations were performed using the APPHOT package in IRAF,
246: referring to the standard stars suggested by Henden (2005). For each
247: data set, the one-dimensional aperture size was set to 4 times as large as
248: the full-width at half maximum of the objects. The magnitude of error for
249: each optical image is estimated as $\sigma_{\rm e}^{2}=\sigma_{\rm
250: ph}^{2} + \sigma_{\rm sys}^{2}$, where $\sigma_{\rm ph}$ represents the
251: photometric errors for the GRB051028 afterglow, estimated from the output
252: of IRAF PHOT, and $\sigma_{\rm sys}$ is the photometric calibration
253: error estimated by comparing our instrumental magnitudes for the 7
254: standard stars over the 9 frames.
255:
256: Figure 2 shows the $R$ band light curve of the GRB 051028 afterglow.
257: There is a clear plateau phase seen about 0.1 days after the burst.
258: This early phase plateau is often seen in optically bright afterglows, such as
259: with GRB 041006 (Urata et al. 2006), GRB 021004 (Urata et al. 2006)
260: and GRB 050319 (Huang et al 2006). Around 0.11 days after the burst,
261: the optical afterglow started to decay. We tried to
262: fit the decaying $R$ band light curves using
263: %
264: %a simple power law of a
265: %form proportional to $t^{\alpha}$, where t is the time after the onset
266: %of the burst onset and $\alpha$ is the decay index. %
267: %
268: as a simple power law of the time t after the onset of the burst,
269: $t^{\alpha}$, where $\alpha$ is the decay index. We have obtained
270: $\alpha=-1.06\pm0.04$ with a reduced chi-squared $(\chi^2/\nu)$ of
271: 0.029 for $\nu=$ 1. In order to better constrain the late-time ($>$
272: 0.3 day) behavior of the light curve, we combined our data with the
273: two $Rc$-band photometric points taken by the Willam Herschel
274: telescope; $R$=$21.97\pm$0.05 mag. at 0.337 day, and $R$=22.8$\pm$0.3
275: mag. at 0.625 day \citep{castro}. We again successfully fitted the
276: combined $R$ band light curve with a single power law, for which the
277: decay index is $-0.904\pm0.037$ with $\chi^{2}/\nu$=0.33 for $\nu=3$.
278:
279: \begin{table}
280: \caption{Lulin photometric result.}\label{tab:first}
281: \begin{center}
282: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
283: \hline \hline
284: Delay (days) & Filter & Magnitude \\ \hline
285:
286: 0.095 & R & $ 20.77\pm0.08$\\
287: 0.099 & R & $ 20.71\pm0.06$\\
288: 0.103 & R & $ 20.77\pm0.06$\\
289: 0.107 & R & $ 20.76\pm0.06$\\
290: 0.111 & R & $ 20.88\pm0.07$\\
291: 0.147 & R & $ 21.19\pm0.09$\\
292: 0.180 & R & $ 21.45\pm0.14$\\
293: 0.262 & R & $ 21.80\pm0.13$\\ \hline
294:
295: \end{tabular}
296: \end{center}
297: \end{table}
298:
299: \subsection{Swift/XRT}
300:
301: In order to compare the X-ray afterglow with the optical afterglow, we also
302: analyzed X-ray data taken by {\it Swift}/XRT. The data for GRB
303: 051028 were downloaded from the {\it Swift} archive and reduced by
304: running version 0.10.3 of the xrtpipeline reduction script from the
305: HEAsoft
306: 6.0.6\footnote{http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/lheasoft/}
307: software package. However for the four series of observations, the
308: significance was close to 3 $\sigma$, less than expected from 1
309: set of XRT data. We then analyzed only the first set of XRT data, for which
310: observation started at 7.1 hours after the burst.
311: %
312: Spectral response files were generated using the {\tt xrtmkarf} task and the
313: latest calibration database files (CALDB version 8, 2006-04-27).
314:
315: The X-ray light curve in the $0.5-5.0$ keV band is a reasonably fit to
316: a power law model with $\alpha=-1.37\pm0.38$ and $\chi^2/dof=1.00/7$,
317: which is consistent or slightly steeper than that of the optical
318: value. The $0.5-5.0$ keV spectrum is well fitted by an absorbed power
319: law where the photon index $\Gamma=2.3^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$ with an
320: absorbing column of $N_{\rm H}=3.1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}\times10^{22} {\rm
321: cm}^2$ and $\chi^2/dof=0.67/19$. According to \citet{nh}, the
322: galactic column density of this line of sight is estimated to be
323: $1.2\times10^{21} {\rm cm}^2$.
324: %
325: The mean flux during the observation is
326: $1.08^{+0.24}_{-0.73}\times10^{-12}$ erg/cm$^2$/s, which is about
327: 1 order fainter than those of optically bright GRB's X-ray afterglows,
328: such as GRB 050319\citep{x050319}, GRB 051111\citep{x051111} and GRB
329: 060124\citep{x060124}.
330: %
331: These light curve and spectrum analyses indicate that
332: this X-ray afterglow behavior agrees with the standard model in terms
333: of the relation between the temporal and spectral indices, assuming
334: that we are observing a spherical fireball in a frequency range above
335: that of synchrotron cooling (Sari et al. 1999).
336: %
337: \begin{figure}
338: \begin{center}
339: \FigureFile(80mm,80mm){figure3.eps}
340: %%% \FigureFile(width,height){filename}
341: \end{center}
342: \caption{X-ray lightcurve taken by {\it Swift}/XRT. The dashed line shows the best fit power law function.}\label{fig:xlc}
343: \end{figure}
344:
345: \begin{figure}
346: \begin{center}
347: \FigureFile(80mm,80mm){figure4.eps}
348: %%% \FigureFile(width,height){filename}
349: \end{center}
350: \caption{X-ray spectrum taken by {\it Swift}/XRT. The spectrum is well fitted by the absorbed power law with photon index $\Gamma = 2.3^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$, absorbing column $N_{H}=3.1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{2}$.}\label{fig:xspe}
351: \end{figure}
352: %
353:
354: \section{Discussion}
355:
356: LOT was used to detect the optically dim afterglow of GRB 051028. The
357: brightness around $0.1$ days after the burst is about 3 magnitudes
358: fainter than that of the dark GRB 020124 \citep{berger}. The temporal
359: evolution of the optical afterglow shows a plateau phase around 0.1
360: days after the burst. These features, with the exception of the
361: brightness, resemble those of recent optically bright afterglows. The
362: X-ray afterglow is also 1 order fainter than those of optically bright
363: GRB's X-ray afterglow. In contrast with one typical, optically dark
364: event, GRB 021211, the light curve of GRB 051028 shows the usual
365: pattern of temporal decay, with an index of $\alpha=-0.904$. This is
366: different from optically dark GRBs, which show rapid decay
367: from very early phases, such as for GRB 021211.
368:
369: The optical darkness of the GRB 051028 optical afterglow may
370: instead be a result of high circumburst extinction. However the
371: column density $N_{\rm H}$ shows no significant excess against the
372: Galactic value. The observed $N_{\rm H}$ (90\% confidence level) is
373: consistent with that of the Galactic value. Since this value is
374: insufficient to explain the optical darkness of dark GRBs, the
375: extinction model of optically dark GRBs is also not applicable to the
376: present case. These results are supported the SCUBA observations of
377: several dark GRBs: the sub-mm results suggest that the optically dark
378: GRBs do not occur in particularly dusty environments \citep{submm}.
379:
380: Although the redshift of GRB 051028 was not determined from optical
381: spectroscopic observation, a value of pseudo-$z =3.7\pm1.8$ can be
382: derived for this burst using the pseudo-$z$ estimator developed by
383: Pelangeon et al (2006). Even assuming the highest allowed redshift
384: ($z=5.5$), the Ly$\alpha$ line and continuum absorption is
385: expected to affect the $R$ band flux of the afterglow only by $\sim2$
386: mag.
387: %
388: In this calculation, the optical depth is calculated following
389: \citet{yoshii}, and the spectral index, as computed from the X-ray
390: afterglow, is fixed at $\beta=-1.3$.
391: %
392: This calculation also successfully explains the drop in the B band in
393: the spectra of the GRB 050319 ($z=3.24$) afterglow \citep{050319}.
394: Since the expected $R$ band absorption is not high enough to explain
395: the darkness of the afterglow, it is inappropriate to use the high-z
396: scenario for optically dark GRBs, at least for the particular case of
397: GRB 051028.
398: %
399: %%
400: The afterglow spectral index $\beta_{ox}$ at 11 hours after the burst
401: derived from X-ray and optical data is also usefull indicator of the
402: opticall darkness as Jakobsson et al (2004). For the current event, the
403: index $\beta_{ox} \sim -0.6$ agrees with the standard afterglow model
404: and imply that the optical darkness is unlikely to support high-z and
405: obscuration.
406:
407: %Furthermore the afterglow spectral index $\beta_{ox} \sim -0.6$ derived
408: %from X-ray and optical data agrees with the standard afterglow model
409: %As Jakobsson et al (2004) claimed, the index supports that the optical
410: %darkness is unlikely due to high-z and obscuration.
411:
412: \begin{figure}
413: \begin{center}
414: \FigureFile(80mm,80mm){figure5.eps}
415: %%% \FigureFile(width,height){filename}
416: \end{center}
417: \caption{The brightness in the R band at 0.1 days after the burst
418: plotted against the prompt fluence between 30 and 400 keV. The prompt
419: fluence come from Hurley et al (2005) for GRB 051028 and Sakamoto et al
420: (2004) for others}\label{fig:gamma}
421: \end{figure}
422:
423: The above discussion suggests that the brightness of the GRB 051028
424: afterglow is intrinsically optically dark although the prompt fluence
425: is brighter than that of optically bright events, such as GRB 021004.
426: The brightness of X-ray afterglow also supports this hypothesis.
427: %
428: Figure 5 shows the R band brightness at 0.1 days against the prompt
429: fluence. It can be seen that they have the same redshift range as does
430: GRB 051028 ($z=3.7\pm1.8$) detected by {\it HETE-2}. This result
431: implies that the afterglow emission mechanism or the energy conversion
432: to the afterglows may be the origin of the darkness.
433: %%%%
434: {\it Swift} has formulated the canonical X-ray afterglow behavior,
435: which has led to the observation of early optical afterglows. These
436: X-ray and optical light curves show rapid and shallow decay in the
437: early phase.
438: %%%%%
439: These various variablities may be explained by the standard forward
440: shock scenario, with some additional components, such as continuous
441: activities related to the central engine, energy injection, patch
442: shell and 2 jet models (e.g. \citet{ioka}).
443: %%%
444: The t$<0.1$ days plateau phase of GRB 051028 could be explained by
445: energy injection within the context of forward shock model.
446: %
447: %As comprehensive discussion of the shallow decay phase with energy
448: %injection scenario explains the t$<0.1$ days plateau phase of GRB
449: %051028 as due to energy injection with the standard forward shock
450: %model.
451: %%%
452: In a case of less energy input, there are two expected features: (1)
453: the brightness of the optical afterglow will be dim, and (2) the
454: temporal behavior will have a shorter shallow decay phase than those
455: of bright afterglows, which is similar to the pure standard model.
456: The shallow decay period of the current GRB 051028 is obviously less
457: than that of the bright afterglow. While the bright event of GRB
458: 050319 has a longer shallow decay phase ($\sim 1$days), the afterglow
459: of GRB 051028 shows the classical temporal decay pattern
460: ($\alpha=-0.9$) from 0.1 days after the burst.
461:
462: \section{Conclusion}
463:
464: We made optical observations using both {\it WIDGET} and the Lulin 1 m
465: telescope. Based on our optical follow-up observation, it can be seen
466: that the optical afterglow shows a possible plateau phase at 0.1 days,
467: which is similar in behavior but not in brightness to optically bright
468: afterglows (e.g. GRB 041006, Urata et al. 2007; GRB 050319, Huang et
469: al. 2007; GRB 060605, Deng et al. 2007). The brightness is 3
470: magnitudes fainter than that of the optically dark GRB 020124. The
471: X-ray spectrum analysis implies that there is no significant
472: extinction by the host galaxy. Furthermore, according to the model
473: calculation of Ly$\alpha$ absorption limit of GRB 051028's redshift,
474: the expected $R$ band absorption is not high enough to explain the
475: darkness of the afterglow. These arguments indicate that the
476: faintness of the afterglow of GRB 051028, that is the optically
477: darkness of the burst, is not due to its being obscured by dust but
478: because it is intrinsically dim.
479:
480:
481: \section*{Acknowledgment}
482: We thank all the staff and observers of the Lulin telescope for
483: various arrangements in realizing this observation. This work is
484: supported by NSC 93-2752-M-008-001-PAE and NSC 93-2112-M-008-006. Y.U
485: acknowledge support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of
486: Science (JSPS) through JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.
487: %
488:
489: \begin{thebibliography}{}
490:
491: %\bibitem[Abe et al(2006)]{widget}
492: % Abe K. et al 2006, submitted to PASJ
493: \bibitem[Barnard et al(2003)]{submm}
494: Barnard, V. E. et al 2003, {\it MNRAS}, {\bf 338}, 1
495: \bibitem[Berger et al(2002)]{berger}
496: Berger, E. et al 2002, {\it ApJ}, {\bf 581}, 981
497: \bibitem[Butler et al(2006)]{x051111} Butler, N. R. et al 2006, {\it ApJ} accepted, astro-ph/0606763
498: \bibitem[Castro-Tirado et al.(2006)]{castro} Castro-Tirado,
499: A.~J., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 459, 763
500: \bibitem[Crew et al(2003)]{crew}
501: Crew, G. B et al 2003, {\it ApJ}, {\bf 599}, 387
502: \bibitem[Cusumano et al(2006)]{x050319}
503: Cusumano, G. et al 2006, {\it ApJ}, {\bf 639}, 316
504: \bibitem[Deng et al(2007)]{deng} Deng, J. et al 2007, in prep.
505: \bibitem[Dickey \& Lockman(1990)]{nh}
506: Dickey, J. M. \& Lockman, F. J. 1990, {\it ARAA}, {\bf 28}, 215
507: \bibitem[Fynbo et al(2001)]{fynbo}
508: Fynbo et al 2001 {\it A\&A}, {\bf 369}, 373 (2001)
509: \bibitem[Heise(2001)]{Heise2}
510: Heise, J. et al astro-ph/0111246
511: \bibitem[Henden(2005)]{henden}
512: Henden, A. GCN Circ. 4184
513: \bibitem[Huang et al(2005)]{lot}
514: Huang K.Y. et al\ 2005, NCimC, 28, 731
515: \bibitem[Huang et al.(2007)]{050319} Huang, K.~Y., et al.\
516: 2007, \apjl, 654, L25
517: \bibitem[Hurley et al(2005)]{hete}
518: Hurley, K. et al 2005 GCN Circ. 4172
519: \bibitem[Ioka et al. (2005)]{ioka} Ioka, K., Kobayashi, S., \& Zhang, B., 2005 \apj, 631, 429
520: \bibitem[Jelinek et al(2005)]{ot} Jelinek, M. et al 2002 GCN Circ. 4175
521: \bibitem[Klose et al (2002)]{klose} Klose, S. et al 2002 {\it ApJ}, {\bf 592}, 1025
522: \bibitem[Lamb et al(2003)]{hete-2} Lamb, D., Q. et al 2003, astro-ph 0310414
523: \bibitem[Masuno et al(2006)]{widget2} Masuno, K. et al 2006 GCN Circ. 5190
524: \bibitem[Onda et al(2006)]{widget} Onda, K. et al 2006, NCimC, submitted
525: \bibitem[Pelangeon et al(2006)]{pz} Pelangeon, A., et al 2006, astro-ph 0601150
526: \bibitem[Piro et al(2002)]{piro} Piro, L. et al 2002, {\it ApJ}, {\bf 577}, 680
527: \bibitem[Racusin et al(2005)]{swift} Racusin, J., Page, K., Kennea, J., Morris, D., Pagani, C., Burrows, D., Gehrels, N. et al 2005, GCN Circ. 4174
528: \bibitem[Romano et al.(2006)]{x060124} Romano, P., et al.\
529: 2006, \aap, 456, 917
530: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...629..311S} Sakamoto, T., et al.\
531: 2005, \apj, 629, 311
532: \bibitem[Sari, Piran \& Halpern (1999)]{sari99} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Halpern, J. P., 1999, \apj, 519, L17
533: \bibitem[Shirasaki et al(2003)]{wxm} Shirasaki, Y. et al 2003, {\it PASJ}, {\bf 55}, 1033
534: %2003PASJ...55.1033
535:
536:
537: \bibitem[Tamagawa \etal(2005b)]
538: {tamagawa}Tamagawa, ~T. \etal\ 2005, NCimC, 28, 771
539:
540: %\bibitem[Tamagawa et al(2005)]{widget0} Tamagawa, T. et al 2005, IL CIMENTO
541:
542: \bibitem[Urata et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...655L..81U} Urata, Y., et al.\ 2007,
543: \apjl, 655, L81
544:
545: \bibitem[Urata et al(2005)]{eafon}
546: Urata Y. et al\ 2005, NCimC, 28, 775
547:
548: \bibitem[Urata et al. (2004)]{urata1}
549: Urata Y. et al\ 2004 {\it ApJ}, {\bf 601L}, 17
550:
551:
552: \bibitem[Yamazaki et al(2003)]{yamazaki} Yamazaki, R., Ioka, K., Nakamura, T. 2003, {\it ApJ}, {\bf 593}, 941
553:
554: \bibitem[Yoshii et al(1994)]{yoshii} Yoshii, Y. \& Peterson, B. A., 2003, {\it ApJ}, {\bf 436}, 551
555:
556: \end{thebibliography}
557: \end{document}
558:
559: