1: %% This is a manuscript marked up using the
2: %% AASTeX v5.2 LaTeX 2e macros.
3:
4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5: \documentclass{emulateapj}
6: %\usepackage{showkeys}
7: \usepackage{float,longtable,amsmath}
8:
9: % preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document:
10: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
11:
12: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
13: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
14: %% the \begin{document} command.
15:
16: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
17:
18: \shorttitle{BAT Catalog and Correlations}
19: \shortauthors{Butler et al.}
20:
21: % Some definitions I use
22: \def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
23: \def\lessim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
24:
25: \newcommand\swift{{\it Swift}}
26:
27: \slugcomment{Accepted to ApJ}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \title{A Complete Catalog of Swift GRB Spectra and Durations: \\
32: Demise of a Physical Origin for Pre-Swift High-Energy Correlations}
33:
34: \author{Nathaniel R. Butler\altaffilmark{1,2},
35: Daniel Kocevski\altaffilmark{2}, Joshua S. Bloom\altaffilmark{2,3}, and Jason L. Curtis\altaffilmark{2}.}
36: \altaffiltext{1}{Townes Fellow, Space Sciences Laboratory,
37: University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720-7450, USA}
38: \altaffiltext{2}{Astronomy Department, University of California,
39: 445 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-3411, USA}
40: \altaffiltext{3}{Sloan Research Fellow}
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: We calculate durations and spectral parameters for 218 Swift bursts detected
44: by the BAT instrument between and including GRBs~041220 and 070509,
45: including 77 events with measured redshifts. Incorporating prior knowledge
46: into the spectral fits, we are able to measure the characteristic $\nu F_{\nu}$
47: spectral peak energy $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and the isotropic equivalent energy
48: $E_{\rm iso}$
49: (1--$10^4$ keV) for all events.
50: This complete and rather extensive catalog, analyzed with a
51: unified methodology, allows us to address the persistence and origin
52: of high-energy correlations suggested in pre-Swift observations. We find
53: that the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ correlation is present in the Swift
54: sample; however, the best-fit powerlaw relation is inconsistent with the
55: best-fit pre-Swift relation at $>5\sigma$ significance. It has
56: a factor $\gtrsim 2$ larger intrinsic scatter, after accounting for large errors on $E_{\rm pk,obs}$. A large fraction of
57: the Swift events are hard and subluminous relative to (and inconsistent with) the pre-Swift
58: relation, in agreement with indications from {\it BATSE}~GRBs without redshift.
59: Moreover, we determine an experimental threshold for the BAT detector and show
60: how the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ correlation arises artificially
61: due to partial correlation with the threshold. We show that pre-{\it Swift}~correlations
62: found by \citet[]{amati02,yon04,firmani06} (and independently by others) are likely
63: unrelated to the physical properties of GRBs and are likely useless for tests of cosmology.
64: Also, an explanation of these correlations in terms of a detector threshold provides a
65: natural and quantitative explanation
66: for why short-duration GRBs and events at low redshift tend to be outliers to the correlations.
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts --- methods: statistical --- Gamma-rays: general}
70:
71: \maketitle
72:
73: \section{Introduction}
74:
75: The {\it Swift}~satellite \citep{gehrels04} is revolutionizing our understanding of
76: Gamma-ray Bursts (GRBs) and their afterglows. Our knowledge of the early X-ray afterglows
77: has increased tremendously due to the dramatic success of the X-ray Telescope \citep{burrows05}. However,
78: our understanding of the prompt emission properties has lagged. This is due in part
79: to the narrow energy bandpass of the Burst Alert Telescope \citep[BAT;][]{bart05}, which precludes direct
80: measurement of the broad GRB spectra and tends to weaken any inferences about the $\nu F_{\nu}$ spectral
81: peak energy $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and the bolometric GRB fluence. Pre-{\it Swift}~observations
82: and estimations of these parameters lead to tantalizing correlations between the host-frame
83: characteristics of GRBs \citep[e.g.,][]{lpm00,fr00,nmb00,shaf03,amati02,lamb04,ggl04,firmani06}.
84:
85: The number of redshifts available in the {\it Swift}~sample now exceeds by
86: large factor the number of pre-{\it Swift}~GRBs with measured redshifts, and a {\it Swift}~BAT
87: catalog is a veritable gold-mine for the study of GRB intrinsic properties and possibly cosmological
88: parameters, provided we find a way to accurately constrain the BAT GRB energetics.
89:
90: \citet{cabrera07} derive $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ values and isotropic equivalent energies $E_{\rm iso}$
91: for 28 BAT GRBs with measured redshift, in an impressive study which carefully accounts for
92: the narrow BAT bandpass. Interestingly, their fits suggest an inconsistency between
93: an $E_{\rm pk,obs}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ correlation in the {\it Swift}~sample relative to the pre-{\it Swift}~sample
94: \citep[e.g.,][]{amati02,lamb04}.
95: Several {\it Swift}~events appear to populate a region of the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ plane
96: containing events harder and less energetic than those found prior to {\it Swift}. Indications
97: that this might happen were found in the {\it BATSE}~GRB sample by \citet{np05} and \citet{bp05}. \citet{bp05}
98: estimate that as many as 88\% of {\it BATSE}~GRBs are inconsistent with the (pre-{\it Swift})
99: $E_{\rm pk,obs}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ relation and that this relation may in fact be an inequality, provided
100: we account for truncation by the detector threshold.
101:
102: Below, we show that $E_{\rm pk,obs}$
103: determinations well above the nominal BAT upper energy of 150 keV, which agree well with those made by detectors actually sensitive at those energies,
104: are possible.
105: We constrain $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and the $1-10^4$ keV fluence $S_{\rm bol}$ for
106: 218 BAT GRBs, including 77 GRBs with host galaxy/spectroscopic redshifts. As we describe in Section \ref{sec:spec}, this can be done because
107: the {\it BATSE}~catalog sets strong priors for the possible values of $E_{\rm pk,obs}$.
108: Moreover, we show (Section \ref{sec:amati}) that it is possible to rigorously account for the measurement uncertainty in $E_{\rm pk,obs}$
109: and $E_{\rm iso}$ when fitting for an ensemble relation between these quantities.
110:
111: We find that a powerlaw
112: relation between $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ is likely present but there is a large {\it intrinsic}~scatter --- even after accounting for the observed
113: scatter arising from the BAT narrow bandpass and resulting large $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ uncertainties. The
114: {\it Swift}~sample relation is inconsistent with all pre-{\it Swift}~relations
115: at the $>5\sigma$ level.
116: We experimentally infer the threshold of the detector (Section \ref{sec:thresh})
117: and test for the first time with many events the way the threshold impacts the observable host frame
118: quantities $E_{\rm pk}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$. We find that the $E_{\rm pk}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ correlation, as well as the correlations found by
119: \citet{firmani06}, \citet{yon04}, and \citet{atteia03} are significant but simply due to a \citet{malm22} type bias in the source frame luminosity.
120:
121:
122: \section{Data Reduction and Temporal Region Definition}
123:
124: Our automated pipeline at Berkeley is used to download the \swift~data in near real
125: time from the {\it Swift}~Archive\footnote{ftp://legacy.gsfc.nasa.gov/swift/data}
126: and quicklook site.
127: We use the calibration files from the 2006-10-14 BAT database release.
128: We establish the energy scale and mask weighting for the BAT event mode data
129: by running the {\tt bateconvert} and {\tt batmaskwtevt} tasks
130: from the HEASoft 6.0.6 software release\footnote{http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/lheasoft/download.html}.
131: Spectra and light curves are extracted with the {\tt batbinevt} task, and response
132: matrices are produced by running {\tt batdrmgen}. We apply the systematic
133: error corrections to the low-energy BAT spectral data as suggested by the BAT
134: Digest website\footnote{http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/analysis/bat\_digest.html}, and fit the data in
135: the 15--150 keV band using
136: ISIS\footnote{http://space.mit.edu/CXC/ISIS}. The spectral normalizations are corrected for satellite slews using the {\tt batupdatephakw} task.
137: All errors regions reported correspond to the 90\% confidence interval. In determining source
138: frame flux values, we assume a cosmology with $h=0.71$, $\Omega_m=0.3$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.
139:
140: The timing and spectral analyses described in detail below first require the definition of a time region
141: encompassing the burst.
142:
143: \subsection{Automated Burst Interval Determination}
144:
145: The observed raw counts detected by the BAT are modulated by the coded-mask pattern
146: above the detector. By ``mask-weighting'' the observed data using a known source position,
147: assumed here to be the position from the XRT if available,
148: the standard analysis software effectively removes the mean counts flux from
149: background sources. Estimation of the burst time interval and count rate from the
150: mask-weighted light curve therefore does not require the fitting of a background term. Because
151: the burst interval is defined only by a start time t1 and a stop time t2, it is possible
152: to quickly measure the signal-to-noise ($S/N$) ratio of every possible burst interval
153: for a given stretch of data known to contain a GRB.
154:
155: We employ the following automated
156: 3-step procedure
157: to define an optimum burst interval in the sense that it is likely to contain most of
158: the source counts. An example event is shown in Figure \ref{fig:triggerNprob} (Top Panel).
159:
160: \noindent 1. For every possible source extraction window t1--t2, by examining the cumulative distribution
161: of detected counts in a light curve with 10ms bins, we record each interval of duration $\Delta t$ [s] with signal-to-noise
162: ratio $S/N$ over threshold $S/N_{\rm min} = {\rm MIN} ( \sqrt{\Delta t} , 5 )$.
163: This trigger threshold suppresses the detection of entire emission episodes lasting
164: longer than 25s. This is to avoid contamination due to count rate fluctuations
165: that sometimes occur at the start or end of data acquisition due to the spacecraft
166: slew. Low $S/N$ and long emission episodes
167: are still detected, provided they are comprised of shorter regions, because:
168:
169: \noindent 2. We sort the triggers and dump temporal overlaps with lower $S/N$. The burst
170: region is defined as the interval containing all surviving intervals. For the example
171: shown in Figure \ref{fig:triggerNprob} (Top Panel), the algorithm recovers four temporally
172: separate triggers over threshold.
173:
174: \noindent 3. We allow the endpoints of this region to extend slightly outward to allow for the presence of a low $S/N$ rise
175: or tail. With binsize $0.01~dt_{S/N}$, where $dt_{S/N}$ is the duration of the time window containing the maximal
176: $S/N$ detection, we form a binned light curve and denoise the binned light curve with Haar wavelets \citep[e.g.,][]{kol00}.
177: The start (or end) of the initial burst region is allowed to extend by one additional bin for a total extension of
178: $n_{\rm extend}$ bins as long as the $S/N$ of the denoised lightcurve in that bin is $>0.1~\sqrt{n_{\rm extend}}$, where 0.1 is
179: the typical root-mean-square background noise fluctuation after denoising.
180:
181: This final region is fixed and used for the timing and spectral analyses discussed below.
182: In three cases (GRBs 060218, 061027, and 070126), the above procedure fails to detect a trigger
183: and we must decrease the threshold in step 1 to $S/N_{\rm min} = 3$.
184:
185: \subsection{Burst Duration Estimates}
186: \label{sec:durs}
187:
188: Using the burst intervals defined above for each event, we form the cumulative distribution of source
189: counts and record the time values according to when a fraction 5, 25, 75, and 95\% of the total
190: counts arrive relative to the start of the burst interval. The difference between the 75 and
191: 25 percentile time defines the burst $T_{50}$ duration, while the difference between the 95 and
192: 5 percentile time defines the burst $T_{90}$ duration. We also determine a measure of duration
193: $T_{r45}$ according to the prescription of \citet{reichart01}. We also report the ratio of the
194: peak rate Rate$_p$ (in a time bin of width $0.01~dt_{S/N}$) over the total source counts (Cts).
195: This is used to below to approximately relate the burst fluences reported in Table 2 to peak fluxes.
196: We determine errors on each measured
197: duration by performing a bootstrap Monte Carlo \citep[e.g.,][]{lupton93}, using the observed Poisson
198: errors on the observed count rate. These duration values as well as the time region
199: and $S/N$ ratio of the highest $S/N$ trigger for each burst are given in Table 1.
200:
201: $T_{90}$ durations are strongly dependent on the choice of burst start and stop
202: times, which are typically set by hand \citep[e.g.,][]{paciesas99}. We note the following
203: loose consistency with the $T_{90}$ values reported by the {\it Swift}~team without
204: uncertainties on their
205: public webage\footnote{http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/swiftsc.html}.
206: Less than half (39\%) of our $T_{90}$ values are consistent (1-sigma level) with those
207: reported on the {\it Swift}~webpage, assuming a 10\% error for the {\it Swift}~Team
208: values. At the 3-sigma level, the consistency is 67\%. Although individual
209: values are inconsistent, it is important to note that we cannot reject the
210: hypothesis that our $T_{90}$ distribution \citep[see, also,][]{jason_paper} is
211: consistent with that of the {\it Swift}~Team (Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test
212: $P_{\rm KS} = 0.7$).
213:
214: \subsection{Caveats, Manual Burst Region Edits}
215: \label{sec:caveats}
216:
217: We separate short and long durations GRBs \citep[e.g.,][]{kouv93}
218: here using a cutoff duration $T_{90}<3$s. The
219: details of how our durations change with energy band and redshift are discussed in
220: \citet{jason_paper}.
221: In some cases, our automated algorithm detects a faint and long tail following some short GRBs.
222: For GRB~050724, for example, there is a broad ($dt=20.7$ s) and late bump at 74 s after the main pulse ($dt=0.54$ s, $S/N=20.8$).
223: For GRB~061006, the automated region selection above finds a broad $\approx 60$ s \citep[see, also,][]{krimm06} burst region
224: due to a broad pulse with $S/N=14.7$. This lies under and after a narrow pulse of
225: $S/N=42.6$ and $dt=0.82$ s. The ratio of the durations of these pulses
226: ($\approx 40$ and 70, respectively) are $\gtrsim 3\sigma$ outliers with respect to the ratios found for all other BAT events. For this reason, we
227: present in Table 2 spectral fits for both the full burst region and for the narrow pulse. We do this also for
228: GRB~051227. We also conservatively label these events as ``short-duration'' events for exclusion in
229: the analyses in Section \ref{sec:discuss}.
230:
231: The portion of of GRB~060124 which we analyze is only the pre-cursor to a much longer event \citep[see, e.g.,][]{romano06b}.
232: The precursor is a factor $\approx 15$ fainter than the large flare which
233: occurs $\approx 500$s later and for which only a light curve data are available.
234:
235: Similarly we do not analyze the flux contribution to the unusual GRB~060218 \citep[e.g.,][]{campana06a} after $t\approx 300$s.
236:
237: \subsection{Experimental Determination of the Detector Threshold}
238: \label{sec:thresh}
239:
240: Plotting various observed quantities derived from the BAT spectra and light
241: curves, we notice a strong correlation between the photon fluence and duration (e.g.,
242: Figure \ref{fig:thresh}, Top Right). This correlation has also been noted by \citet{berger07s} for energy
243: fluence in the case of short-duration GRBs only. \citet{lbp00} discuss a similar correlation
244: found for pulses in {\it BATSE}~bursts, which is unlikely to be due to cosmological effects.
245:
246: The fluence and duration in the {\it Swift}~sample are best fit
247: by a powerlaw with index consistent with one half, which is suggestive of a
248: detector threshold at the Poisson level. It is reasonable that the BAT
249: detector could perform at or near the Poisson level over a wide range of
250: burst durations due to the detector's capacity to trigger on images (demasked
251: light curves). A precise determination of the threshold, which is beyond
252: the scope of this work, would involve modelling
253: the satellite triggering algorithm and observational efficiency and also accounting for the sensitivity by the
254: detector at different field angles for incident photons distributed in energy according
255: to the true burst spectrum.
256: We are interested here in obtaining an approximation to this
257: threshold in terms of our best-fit values for detector independent quantities.
258:
259: The fluence--duration correlation is likely due in part to the both shape of the typical
260: GRB spectrum and also due to an intrinsic decrease in the number of bright relative
261: to faint events. To test whether a truncation of the lowest fluence values by
262: the detector threshold also contributes to the correlation, we plot the histogram of
263: photon fluence over the square root of the $T_{90}$ duration (Figure \ref{fig:thresh}, Top Left).
264: There is a narrow clustering of values, and we find that $>90$\% of events
265: have $n_{\rm bol}/\sqrt{T_{90}}> 3$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-0.5}$. Also,
266: characteristic of a threshold, the observed $S/N$ of the maximal $S/N$ image trigger correlates
267: tightly and linearly with $n_{\rm bol}/\sqrt{T_{90}}$ (Figure \ref{fig:thresh}, Bottom Left).
268: This clustering does not tighten if we consider a threshold in terms of peak photon rate instead of
269: fluence over root time, as is typically the case for GRBs which fade rapidly in time \citep[e.g.,][]{band03}.
270:
271: We find that the threshold in $n_{\rm bol}/\sqrt{T_{90}}$ corresponds to
272: an $\approx 5\sigma$ detection threshold. The scatter around this best fit log-log line is
273: $\sigma=0.52\pm0.05$, determined using equation (\ref{eq:scat}). Hence, the threshold
274: estimator traces the actual threshold (as proxied by the observed $S/N$) to $\approx 50$\% accuracy.
275: There is no significant decrease in the scatter
276: in Figure \ref{fig:thresh} (Bottom Left) or significant increase in the tightness of the histogram
277: in Figure \ref{fig:thresh} (Top Left) if we attempt to include $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ (to some power) in
278: the threshold estimate. We note that our value of $(n_{\rm bol}/\sqrt{T_{90}})_{\rm thresh}$
279: is closely consistent with the value estimated prior to {\it Swift}~of $\approx 1$
280: ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ peak rate (1-$10^3$ keV) by \citet{band03}, after accounting for a slight increase
281: due to a typical $\sqrt{T_{90}}\approx 3$ s$^{0.5}$. The \citet{band03} threshold is
282: also nearly independent of $E_{\rm pk,obs}$.
283:
284:
285: \section{Spectral Fitting}
286: \label{sec:spec}
287:
288: We employ in parallel two spectral modelling approaches. The first is
289: a classical frequentist approach that will be familiar to experienced
290: users of the software package XSPEC \citep{arnaud96}. As we
291: describe in the next subsection, we fit the data with the simplest
292: of three possible models. We then derive confidence intervals by considering
293: random realizations of the data given the best-fit model
294: for each model parameter constrained by the best-fit model. This approach
295: turns out to be very limited for {\it Swift}~events, due to the narrow energy
296: bandpass of the BAT instrument. In particular it is possible to measure a $\nu F_{\nu}$
297: spectral peak energy $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ for only about one third of the events in the sample.
298: A more powerful Bayesian approach assumes that the each burst spectrum has
299: an intrinsic spectrum containing the interesting $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ parameter, and we
300: derive the probability distribution for that parameter given the
301: data. We show below that prior information can be exploited to derive
302: limits on $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ (and the burst fluence) even for cases where
303: $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ is well above the detection passband.
304:
305: \subsection{Model Fitting 1: Frequentist Approach}
306: \label{sec:freq}
307:
308: We fit the time-integrated BAT spectra in the 15-150 keV band by forward folding
309: an incident photon spectrum through the detector response. The resulting counts model
310: is called $m(\vec \theta)$ and is a function of the parameters $\vec \theta$. We find
311: the best-fit model by minimizing:
312: \begin{equation}
313: \chi^2 = \sum_i (y_i-m_i(\vec \theta))^2/\sigma_i^2,
314: \end{equation}
315: where $y_i$ is the count rate per energy in energy $E$ bin $i$ and $\sigma_i$ is the uncertainty
316: (estimated from the source and background data) in $y_i$. To avoid falling into local
317: $\chi^2$ minima, all minimization is done using a
318: downhill simplex algorithm \citep[e.g.,][]{press92} instead of the default XSPEC Marquardt algorithm \citep{arnaud96}.
319:
320: We consider three possible models of increasing complexity to fit the time-integrated BAT
321: spectra. These are a simple powerlaw, a powerlaw times an exponential cutoff, and
322: a smoothly-connected broken powerlaw. The final model is the GRB Model (GRBM) of \citet{band93}.
323: We force this model to have a peak in the $\nu F_{\nu}$ spectrum in $E\in (0,\infty )$
324: by requiring that
325: the low energy photon index $\alpha>-2$ and the high-energy photon index $\beta<-2$.
326: Identifying the exponential times powerlaw model with the low energy portion of the GRBM
327: spectrum, we require that the photon index for this model also satisfy $\alpha>-2$.
328:
329: As we step from one model to the next, we add one additional parameter to the fit. Because
330: the models are nested, the improvement in $\chi^2$ with each new parameter is distributed
331: approximately as $\chi^2_{\nu}$ with $\nu=1$ degrees of freedom \citep[e.g.,][]{protassov02}. We only
332: allow the step to a more complex model if the change in $\chi^2$ corresponds to a $>$90\%
333: confidence improvement in the fit.
334: Errors on the parameters $\vec \theta$ are reported in Table 2 and are found from $\chi^2_{\rm min}$ in
335: the vicinity of the global minimum as described in, e.g., \citet{cash76}.
336:
337: The middle panel of Figure \ref{fig:triggerNprob}
338: shows an example spectrum which is well fit by a powerlaw. All BAT bursts are adequately
339: fit by one of the three models (Table 2).
340:
341: In the 63\% of cases where the data are adequately fit by a simple powerlaw model only, we also
342: calculate a limit on $E^{\rm freq.}_{\rm pk,obs}$ as follows. If the photon index is more negative than
343: $-2$ at 90\% confidence, we use the constrained Band formalism \citep{taka04} to derive an $E^{\rm freq.}_{\rm pk,obs}$ upper limit.
344: If the photon index is greater than $-2$ at 90\% confidence, we derive an $E^{\rm freq.}_{\rm pk,obs}$ lower limit by fitting
345: an exponential times powerlaw model. We warn the reader that lower and upper limits, respectively,
346: on $E^{\rm freq.}_{\rm pk,obs}$ are undefined in these cases. Also, the probabilities associated with all
347: quantities become poorly defined if the best-fit models have $\beta\approx -2$ or $\alpha \approx -2$,
348: due the discontinuity in $\chi^2$ at these values \citep[see, e.g.,][]{protassov02}.
349:
350: \subsection{Model Fitting 2: Bayesian Approach}
351: \label{sec:bayesfit}
352:
353: In the discussion below, we will be primarily interested in determining burst energetics
354: via $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and the bolometric GRB energy fluence. Because these quantities are poorly
355: defined (if at all) for many BAT events in the frequentist approach, we consider also a more powerful Bayesian
356: approach. The likelihood of the model given the data is
357: \begin{equation}
358: P(\vec Y|\vec \theta) \propto \exp{(-\chi^2/2)}
359: \end{equation}
360: From Bayes rule \citep[e.g.,][]{greg05} the posterior distribution gives the probability of the model, given
361: the data
362: \begin{equation}
363: P(\vec \theta |\vec Y) \propto P(\vec Y|\vec \theta) P(\vec \theta),
364: \end{equation}
365: where $P(\vec \theta)$ in the prior probability on the model. We assume below that the
366: prior can be broken into four multiplicative terms, one for each of the GRBM parameters. The posterior probability distribution for
367: a given parameter $\theta_i$ is found by marginalizing $P(\vec \theta |\vec Y)$ over
368: the other parameters.
369:
370: The power in the Bayesian approach comes from its capacity to allow us to incorporate pre-{\it Swift}~knowledge
371: of GRB spectra into our model fitting through the prior. Observations of thousands of GRBs by
372: {\it BATSE}~\citep[e.g.,][]{preece00} strongly limit the range of likely GRBM parameters.
373:
374: Most importantly (for {\it Swift}),
375: the {\it BATSE}~distribution in $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ falls off sharply above 300 keV \citep{preece00,kaneko06}. This leads us to
376: the following prior on $ln[E_{\rm pk,obs}]$, ignoring the normalization:
377: \begin{multline}
378: P( ln[E_{\rm pk,obs}] ) \propto \exp{\left \{ -0.5\left[ln \left( { E_{\rm pk,obs} \over 300 ~{\rm keV}} \right) \right]^2/\sigma^2_{lE_p} \right \}},
379: \end{multline}
380: for $E_{\rm pk,obs}>300$ keV, with $\sigma_{lE_p}=4/5$. We assume a uniform distribution in $ln[E_{\rm pk,obs}]$ below 300 keV
381: instead of the cutoff observed by {\it BATSE}~due to the high-energy bandpass of that instrument
382: and to the discovery of X-ray Flashes \citep[XRFs;][]{heise2000} which extends the distribution to low $E_{\rm pk,obs}$.
383: We assign zero probability to $E_{\rm pk,obs}<1$ keV and $E_{\rm pk,obs}>10^4$ keV.
384:
385: \citet{kippen02} \citep[also,][]{barraud03} show that the photon indices for XRFs are consistent with
386: those found for GRBs.
387: We assume the low energy powerlaw index distribution from {\it BATSE}~\citep[e.g.,][]{kaneko06}:
388: \begin{equation}
389: P( \alpha) \propto \exp{(-0.5(\alpha-\alpha_{\rm pk})^2/\sigma^2_{\alpha})},
390: \label{eq:alpha}
391: \end{equation}
392: with $\alpha_{\rm pk}=-1.1$ and $\sigma_{\alpha}=0.25$.
393:
394: There is evidence that the high-energy index distribution broadens with the inclusion of XRFs \citep[see,][]{taka05}.
395: To be conservative, we assume only the peak of the {\it BATSE}~distribution $\beta_{\rm pk}=-2.3$. We use
396: the maximum entropy \citep[e.g.,][]{greg05} prior for a distribution of known mean:
397: \begin{equation}
398: P( \beta ) \propto \exp{(-\beta/\beta_{\rm pk})}.
399: \end{equation}
400:
401: Finally, we assign equal probability per logarithmic interval to the model normalization, taken to be the fluence
402: in the $1-10^4$ keV band (host frame, or source frame if redshift unknown) \citep[see, also,][]{amati02}. We
403: truncate this prior below $10^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ so that the
404: integral over the model normalization remains finite. The specific value of this truncation is unimportant. We find
405: identical results if we truncate instead at $10^{-50}$ erg cm$^{-2}$.
406:
407: \subsection{Most Probable Values, Samples, and Confidence Intervals}
408:
409: We find that the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ marginal posterior probability distributions are typically broad and asymmetrical.
410: We calculate these distributions explicitly for each event by integrating $P(\vec \theta |\vec Y)$ analytically
411: over model normalization and numerically over $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The 2-dimensional numerical integration
412: is done via 10-point Gaussian quadrature \citep{press92}. At each step, we fit for and concentrate the integration in the
413: region of maximal $P(\vec \theta |\vec Y)$.
414:
415: An example posterior probability curve is plotted in
416: the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:triggerNprob}. With the adopted prior above, we recover an $E_{\rm pk,obs}$
417: value which is well above the {\it Swift}~BAT bandpass and also consistent with Konus-Wind measurements \citep{gol06} in the 20--$2 \times 10^4$ keV band.
418:
419: Figure \ref{fig:triggerNprob} also shows how the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ determination changes as we relax our priors. Quadrupling the
420: dispersion $\sigma_{\alpha}$ in the $\alpha$ prior has little effect at these high energies. However, if we discard
421: the prior on $ln[E_{\rm pk,obs}]$ above 300 keV, then we are only able to derive a lower limit on $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ as in the frequentist
422: approach ($E_{\rm pk,obs}>390$ keV; Table 2). At low energies, and analogous to the constrained Band formalism \citep{taka04},
423: the prior on $\alpha$ helps to break the degeneracy
424: between fitting a powerlaw spectrum associated with either the low-energy or the high-energy portion of the GRBM.
425:
426: To describe the joint posterior probability distribution in $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and fluence $E_{\rm iso}$, we obtain
427: $10^3$ samples via a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation. We first draw $10^3$ samples from
428: the marginal $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ posterior distribution (tabulated as discussed above). For each $E_{\rm pk,obs}$, we determine the mode
429: of P($E_{\rm iso}$,$E_{\rm pk,obs}|\vec Y$) and the curvature at
430: the mode. These define a Gaussian sampling distribution from which we take
431: five Metropolis-Hastings steps \citep[e.g.,][]{greg05} in a random walk.
432: The last $E_{\rm iso}$ value
433: is saved, and the process is repeated $10^3$ times to store $10^3$ $E_{\rm pk,obs}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ pairs.
434: Samples from the posterior distributions for each GRB with measured redshift are plotted in Figure \ref{fig:amati}.
435: We use the
436: $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ samples to report the most probable values and intervals containing
437: 90\% of the posterior probability for all 218 bursts in Table 2.
438:
439: \subsection{$E_{\rm pk,obs}$ Constraints for Powerlaw Events}
440: \label{sec:powerlaws}
441:
442: The referee has noted that our most-probable $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ values for events adequately
443: fit by simple powerlaws correlate tightly with the best fit powerlaw indices $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}$
444: \citep[Figure \ref{fig:alpha_ep}; also,][]{taka06}. Indeed, because we wish to measure $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ from data
445: which only constrain $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}$, this had better be the case. How
446: does the correlation arise?
447:
448: Half of the events, or about 30\% of the total sample, produce the
449: tightest region of the correlation and have $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}<-1.6$. Given
450: our prior on the GRBM $\alpha$, these $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}$
451: are $2\sigma$ unlikely to be associated with the low energy index. Instead, the most-probable
452: model steepens the index by placing $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ just above, in, and then below the BAT bandpass
453: \citep[see, also,][]{cabrera07}.
454: We should not, therefore, interpret $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}$ as the GRBM $\alpha$ in this
455: regime. However, we can also be confident that the data are strongly influencing $E_{\rm pk,obs}$.
456:
457: The remaining half of events have $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}$ which could be associated with the GRBM $\alpha$.
458: Above 200 keV, the steepening of $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}$ relative to $\alpha$ is comparable to the
459: breadth of the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ prior, and this makes the prior on $\alpha$ relatively unimportant in this
460: regime (e.g., Figure \ref{fig:triggerNprob}, Bottom Panel).
461: Because the exponential cutoff in the GRBM $E_{\circ}=(2+\alpha)E_{\rm pk,obs}$, the hardest events will
462: still be most sensitive to low $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ values and will lead to tighter lower limits than for the softer
463: events. The prior on $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ truncates the probability at high $E_{\rm pk,obs}$, and we continue
464: to see a correlation, although with more scatter. Figure \ref{fig:alpha_ep} shows how the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ upper
465: limits effectively account for possible large $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ values in the {\it BATSE}~sample.
466:
467: The average $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ for a large number of events in the regime $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}>-1.6$ is expected,
468: therefore, to be unbiased with respect to {\it BATSE}~GRBs with $E_{\rm pk,obs}> 200$
469: keV. Also, the uncertainty in our estimate should account for the population $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ variations at high
470: $E_{\rm pk,obs}$. Therefore, our $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ should still be useful for population studies
471: (e.g., Sections \ref{sec:amati},\ref{sec:other}). Our error regions are also likely to contain the true
472: $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ for a given event.
473:
474: Whether the most likely $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ for an individual burst closely corresponds to
475: the
476: true $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ will depend on whether or not $\alpha$ tends to be shallow for high $E_{\rm pk,obs}$.
477: There is a weak but signifcant correlation ($\tau_K=0.18$, $5.1\sigma$) in GRBM fits to the \citet{kaneko06}
478: {\it BATSE}~sample, which indicates that this may be the case for some events.
479: Contemporaneous measurement at energies above the BAT bandpass provide
480: a direct test.
481:
482: \subsection{Comparison to Konus-Wind and Suzaku Measurements}
483: \label{sec:kw}
484:
485: For 75 events in Table 2, we are able to determine lower and upper 90\% confidence intervals for $E_{\rm pk,obs}$
486: using the classical frequentist approach (Figure \ref{fig:catalog}; Top Left).
487: The sample mean is $E^{\rm freq.}_{\rm pk,obs} = (79\pm 6)$ keV. We find consistent and unbiased $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ estimates
488: from the Bayesian approach ($E_{\rm pk,obs} = (83\pm 6)$ keV). There is no strong evidence that the distributions
489: are inconsistent ($P_{\rm KS}=0.88$). How
490: does the Bayesian approach fare at higher energies where the spectra are typically acceptably modelled by powerlaws?
491:
492: Comparing our {\it Swift}~numbers to values from 27 observations
493: by Konus-Wind reported in the Gamma-ray bursts Coordinates Network (GCN) circulars \citep[e.g.,][]{gol06},
494: we find no evidence for bias in either our $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ or our
495: $S_{\rm bol}$ determination (Figure \ref{fig:sks}).
496: The sample means for both quantities are consistent at the $<1\sigma$ level
497: ($\log_{10}{(S_{\rm bol,KW})} = -4.62 \pm 0.08$ versus $\log_{10}{(S_{\rm bol,Sw})} = -4.62 \pm 0.09$
498: and
499: $\log_{10}{(E_{\rm pk,obs,KW})} = 2.52 \pm 0.06$ versus $\log_{10}{(E_{\rm pk,obs,Sw})} = 2.47 \pm 0.06$).
500: There is no evidence from a KS-test ($P_{\rm KS}=$1.0, 0.9, for the fluence and $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ comparisons,
501: respectively) that the distributions are different.
502: Additionally, we note that there are very few discrepancies. We find
503: that $>85$\% of either our $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ values or our $S_{\rm bol}$ values
504: are consistent within our estimated 90\% confidence errors.
505:
506: This agreement is remarkable considering that the Konus-Wind spectral fits are only the preliminary
507: fits reported to the GCN. For seven of the events, Suzaku measurements are also reported in the GCN
508: \citep[e.g.,][]{hong07}. We find no evidence for bias when comparing our {\it Swift}~values instead to these (Figure \ref{fig:sks}).
509:
510: To check that we are measuring $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ values above the BAT bandpass rather than simply assigning these
511: all the same $E_{\rm pk,obs}$, we fit a powerlaw to the {\it Swift}~and Konus-Wind data in Figure \ref{fig:sks} (Left).
512: To be conservative, we exclude the 8 points below 200 keV. For most (15 of 19)
513: of these events, the {\it Swift}~data are adequately fit by a powerlaw, and
514: only one event has $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}<-1.6$. The
515: remaining 4 of 19 events have weakly constrained $E^{\rm freq.}_{\rm pk,obs}$
516: values. The joint $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ data are
517: fit by a powerlaw with index ($0.6\pm0.2$) greater than zero at
518: $\approx 5\sigma$ confidence.
519:
520: Although this indicates information content
521: in our $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ values, an index less than unity indicates a tendency to underestimate
522: $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ at high $E_{\rm pk,obs}$. Our prior appears to lead to underestimates of large $E_{\rm pk,obs}\gtrsim 2$ MeV by
523: a factor $\gtrsim 2$. We note that our estimates remain consistent within
524: errors, that $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ understimates will be conservative as regards the analyses below, and that such very high $E_{\rm pk,obs}$
525: events are rare in the {\it BATSE}~sample.
526:
527:
528: \subsection{Comparison to BATSE Measurements}
529:
530: Figure \ref{fig:catalog} displays our fluence and $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ estimates. In the lower-right panel,
531: an excess of low-$E_{\rm pk,obs}$ events is present relative to the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ distributions determined
532: by \citet{kaneko06} for bright {\it BATSE}~GRBs. A similar effect is present in the {\it HETE-2}~catalog
533: \citep{taka05}. We also plot the best-fit Gaussian to the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ data including errors (Section \ref{sec:amati}).
534: There is marginal evidence for a shift in the peak of the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ distribution. The
535: prior we assume on $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ (from {\it BATSE}) is at least partially responsible for this effect.
536: Further analyses and comparisons of our $E_{\rm iso}$ and $E_{\rm pk}$ estimates to those found for previous
537: GRBs, also using our XRT analyses \citep{butler07a,butler07b}, are presented in \citet{dans_paper}.
538:
539:
540: \section{Discussion}
541: \label{sec:discuss}
542:
543: \subsection{$E_{\rm iso}$--$E_{\rm pk}$ Correlation and Intrinsic Scatter}
544: \label{sec:amati}
545:
546: In this section, we use the $10^3$ pairs of $E_{\rm iso}$--$E_{\rm pk}$ samples accumulated above, which
547: fully account for correlations between the GRBM parameters for each of 77 bursts with measured redshift,
548: in order to test the well known burst-to-burst relation $E_{\rm pk} = (1+z)E_{\rm pk,obs} \approx K (E_{\rm iso}/[10^{52}{\rm ~erg}])^{\eta}$
549: keV \citep[e.g.,][]{lpm00,amati02}.
550: The samples, aside from the most peripheral 10\%, are plotted in Figure \ref{fig:amati} along with the best fit
551: powerlaw we derive below. These are publicly available from our webpage\footnote{http://astro.berkeley.edu/$\sim$nat/swift}
552: and should be used in place of the best-fit values (Table 2) when fitting models to the data. As we illustrate below, these samples
553: can be used to rigorously determine the normalization, slope, and scatter, even when large
554: measurement errors are present.
555:
556: First it is interesting to know what fraction of the total number of events have at least $10^2$ samples on the opposite
557: side of the best fit line of \citet[][i.e. $K=90$, $\eta=0.49$]{amati02} from the main mass of samples. This provides a measure of consistency at the 90\% confidence
558: level. To be conservative, we allow the \citet{amati02} relation to have a logarithmic dispersion of $\pm0.7$ (i.e., 0.3 dex).
559: We also toss out strong outliers from our sample.
560: We ignore the short-duration and underluminous events marked in yellow and cyan in the Figure \ref{fig:amati}. We use an ad hoc (and admittedly
561: circular) definition of underluminous: the $E_{\rm iso}$ is 100 or more times fainter than that expected from the \citet{amati02}
562: relation, given the best-fit $E_{\rm pk}$. The underluminous events with long durations are GRBs 051109B, 060218, and 060614.
563: After removing the underluminous and short duration events and retaining only those
564: marked with red circles in Figure \ref{fig:amati},
565: we find that 41\% ($26/63$) of {\it Swift}~events are inconsistent with the \citet{amati02} powerlaw at the
566: 90\% confidence level.
567:
568: We now determine the best $E_{\rm iso}$--$E_{\rm pk}$ powerlaw relation for the {\it Swift}~data.
569: For each event $j$, the $10^3$ samples represent the posterior probability $P(E_{j,{\rm iso}},E_{j{\rm pk}}|\vec Y)$ (Section \ref{sec:bayesfit}).
570: Using the $(E_{\rm iso},E_{\rm pk})$ values corresponding
571: to the posterior peak in each event (Table 2), there is evidence for a strong correlation (Section \ref{sec:amati_cor}).
572: What are the values of $K$ and $\eta$ describing this correlation via a powerlaw fit, and what is the true scatter around this fit?
573:
574: For simplicity in notation we write $x_j = ln(E_{j,{\rm iso}}/[10^{52} {\rm ~erg}])$ and $y_j=ln(E_{j,{\rm pk}})$.
575: We now assume for each burst a prior between $x_j$ and $y_j$ representing a powerlaw relation between $E_{\rm iso}$ and $E_{\rm pk}$:
576: \begin{multline}
577: P(x_j,y_j|k,\eta,\sigma_A) \propto \\ \exp{( -0.5[y_j-k-\eta x_j]^2/\sigma^2_A )}/\sigma_A,
578: \label{eq:allpost}
579: \end{multline}
580: where $\sigma_A$ allows for an {\it intrinsic}~scatter in the correlation. By inverting the data in this fashion to determine
581: the intrinsic scatter (rather than just assuming that the observed scatter is the intrinsic scatter), we rigorously
582: account for the large $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ uncertainties arising from the narrow BAT bandpass.
583: The parameter $\sigma_A$ also plays an important role in allowing the powerlaw model to acceptably fit the data,
584: as we discuss in Section \ref{sec:cabrera}.
585:
586: Equation (\ref{eq:allpost}) multiplies the posterior $P(x_j,y_j|\vec Y)$
587: for each event to form the posterior probability of $k$, $\eta$, and $\sigma_A$ for that event. The posterior considering all $N$
588: events is then:
589: \begin{multline}
590: P(k,\eta,\sigma_A,x_j,y_j|\vec Y) \propto ~ \sigma^{-N-1}_A \prod_{{\rm event}~j} P(x_j,y_j|\vec Y) \\
591: \times \exp{( -0.5[y_j-k-\eta x_j]^2/\sigma^2_A )}.
592: \label{eq:p1}
593: \end{multline}
594: Here we have included a $1/\sigma_A$ prior on $\sigma_A$ (i.e., equal probability per logarithmic interval or scale invariance). We assume
595: uniform priors on $k$ and $\eta$. Because $P(x_j,y_j|k,\eta,\sigma_A)=P(y_j|x_j,k,\eta,\sigma_A)P(x_j|k,\eta,\sigma_A)$, we are effectively setting
596: a uniform prior on $x_j$ as well.
597:
598: We wish now to marginalize over the $(x_j, y_j)$. This can be accomplished by Monte Carlo integration using the
599: $10^3$ samples $i$ for each event:
600: \begin{multline}
601: P(k,\eta,\sigma_A|\vec Y) \propto ~ \sigma^{-N-1}_A \\
602: \times \prod_{{\rm event}~j} \left \{ \sum_{{\rm samp}~i~} \exp{( -0.5[y_{i,j}-k-\eta x_{i,j}]^2/\sigma^2_A )} \right \},
603: \end{multline}
604: where $x_{i,j}$ designates the $i$th sample of $x_j$.
605: Because the $P(x_j,y_j|\vec Y)$ are independent, we can carry out
606: the product before the sum in Equation \ref{eq:p1}, provided we randomize away any sorting that may have occurred in the tabulation
607: of the $(x_{i,j},y_{i,j})$.
608: Defining $\Theta_i \equiv \sum_j [y_{i,j}-k-\eta x_{i,j}]^2$, we have:
609: \begin{multline}
610: P(k,\eta,\sigma_A|\vec Y) \propto ~ \sigma^{-N-1}_A \left \{ \sum_{{\rm samp}~i~} \exp{( -0.5\Theta_i/\sigma^2_A )} \right \}.
611: \end{multline}
612: If we define the following statistics for the set of $i$th samples averaged over events $j$,
613: $mx_i={<x_{i,j}>_j}$, $my_i={<y_{i,j}>_j}$
614: $vx_i={<x^2_{i,j}>_j - mx^2_j}$,
615: $vy_i={<y^2_{i,j}>_j - my^2_j}$,
616: $cov_i={<x_{i,j}y_{i,j}>_j} - mx_jmy_j$, we can marginalize to find:
617: \begin{multline}
618: P(k,\eta|\vec Y) \propto \sum_{{\rm samp}~i} [k^2 + 2 k \eta ~mx_i - 2 k ~my_i + \\
619: \eta^2 (vx_i+mx^2_i) - 2 \eta (cov_i+my_i ~mx_i) + (vy_i+my^2_i)]^{-N/2},
620: \label{eq:ka}
621: \end{multline}
622: \begin{multline}
623: P(k|\vec Y) \propto \sum_{{\rm samp}~i} (vx_i+mx_i^2)^{(N-2)/2} \\ [(vy_i+my_i^2) (vx_i+mx_i^2)- (cov_i+
624: mx_i my_i)^2 - \\ 2 k (my_i ~vx - mx_i ~cov_i) + k^2 ~vx_i )]^{-(N-1)/2},
625: \label{eq:k}
626: \end{multline}
627: \begin{multline}
628: P(\eta|\vec Y) \propto \sum_{{\rm samp}~i} ( \eta^2 ~vx_i - 2 \eta~cov_i+vy_i )^{-(N-1)/2}, ~{\rm and}
629: \label{eq:b}
630: \end{multline}
631: \begin{multline}
632: P(\sigma_A|\vec Y) \propto \sigma^{-N+1}_A \\ \times \sum_{{\rm samp}~i} vx_i^{-1/2} \exp{(-0.5 N [vy_i-cov_i^2/vx_i]/\sigma^2_A)}.
633: \label{eq:scat}
634: \end{multline}
635: In a similar fashion to the derivation of these formulae, it is interesting to know the intrinsic distribution
636: of individual parameters if we assume that this distribution is a Gaussian, i.e.,
637: \begin{multline}
638: P(x_j|\vec Y) \propto \exp{( -0.5[x_j-x_{\circ}]^2/\sigma^2_{\rm x} )}/\sigma_{\rm x}.
639: \label{eq:gauss}
640: \end{multline}
641: As in Equation (\ref{eq:ka}),
642: \begin{multline}
643: P(x_{\circ}|\vec Y) \propto \sum_{{\rm samp}~i} [(x_{\circ}-mx_i)^2 + vx_i]^{-N/2}.
644: \label{eq:onex}
645: \end{multline}
646: As in Equation (\ref{eq:scat}),
647: \begin{multline}
648: P(\sigma_{\rm x}|\vec Y) \propto ~ \sigma^{-N}_{\rm x} \sum_{{\rm samp}~i} \exp{(-0.5 N vx_i/\sigma^2_{\rm x})}.
649: \label{eq:scatx}
650: \end{multline}
651:
652: Figure \ref{fig:amati_prob} shows Equations (\ref{eq:ka}, \ref{eq:k}, and \ref{eq:b}) for the 63 events marked by red circles in Figure \ref{fig:amati}.
653: We find that the posterior (Equation \ref{eq:ka}) peaks at $\log_{10}{(K)}=2.35\pm 0.09$
654: and $\eta = 0.47\pm0.08$.
655: This is inconsistent at the $>5\sigma$ level with all pre-{\it Swift}~curves. There is also large {\it intrinsic}~scatter in the
656: relation $\sigma_A = 0.7\pm0.1$ ($0.30\pm0.04$ dex), given the {\it Swift}~data.
657:
658: Comparatively, the observed scatter (Equation \ref{eq:scat} for just the
659: best fit $E_{\rm pk}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ values; Table 2) is 0.46 dex.
660: This latter value is an unfair estimate of the true scatter, because it is contaminated by the relatively weak $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ determinations (Figure \ref{fig:amati})
661: due to the narrow BAT bandpass. The intrinsic scatter we calculate
662: is far larger than the pre-{\it Swift}~estimate of $0.14^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ dex
663: by \citet{amati06}.
664: Because $\sigma_A$ refers to the scatter in the logarithm, our value corresponds to a factor of
665: 2 intrinsic scatter in the powerlaw relation $E_{\rm pk}=K E_{\rm iso}^{\eta}$.
666:
667: \citet{li2007} observes a possibly significant variation in $K$ and $\eta$
668: with redshift for the pre-{\it Swift}~sample.
669: For the {\it Swift}~sample, we observe no significant evidence for such variations
670: (Figure \ref{fig:amati_prob}). Also, we note that possible
671: variations appear to be non-monotonic.
672: The intrinsic scatter does not vary significantly:
673: $\sigma_A=0.58^{+0.20}_{-0.14}$ ($z<1.5$),
674: $\sigma_A=0.53^{+0.24}_{-0.14}$ ($1.5<z<3.0$), and $\sigma_A=0.65^{+0.20}_{-0.16}$ ($z>3$).
675:
676: There is little evidence for an $E_{\rm pk}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ relation in the {\it Swift}~short-duration GRB
677: sample, because the relation has large errors
678: $\log_{10}{(K)}=2.7\pm 1.0$, $\eta = 0.1^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$
679: and a large intrinsic scatter $\sigma_A = 1.3^{+0.8}_{-0.5}$. Also, $\eta$ is consistent with zero.
680:
681: \subsection{Comparison with \citet{cabrera07} \\ $E_{\rm pk}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ Relation}
682: \label{sec:cabrera}
683:
684: As described above, \citet{cabrera07} measure $E_{\rm pk}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ for 28 {\it Swift}~GRBs
685: with measured redshift --- a subsample of the full 77 GRB sample considered here. They account
686: for the detector-dependent correlation between these quantities for each GRB with a Gaussian approximation.
687: We have retrieved their best fit $E_{\rm pk}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ and confidence
688: regions (their Table 3), drawn $10^3$ samples from the appropriate bivariate-Gaussian distributions for each event, and
689: fit the data using Equations (\ref{eq:k}-\ref{eq:scat}).
690:
691: We find $\log_{10}{(K)}=2.33\pm 0.09$ and $\eta=0.35\pm0.09$ (Figure \ref{fig:amati_prob}), and an
692: intrinsic scatter $\sigma_A=0.4\pm0.1$ ($0.18\pm0.04$ dex).
693: These parameters are
694: closely consistent with those that we derive above for our full sample, although $\sigma_A$ is larger for the full sample.
695: We find identical maximum posterior values and confidence regions
696: with the {\tt linmix\_err} MCMC regression tool \citep{kelly07} in IDL\footnote{http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov}, which sets different priors for the $E_{{\rm iso},j}$
697: and $\sigma_A$.
698:
699: Because \citet{cabrera07} employ a Gaussian error approximation, a powerlaw fit to their $E_{\rm pk}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ values
700: can also be obtained from a simple $\chi^2$ minimization procedure. Following \citet{press92}, we minimize
701: \begin{multline}
702: \chi_p^2 = \sum_i { (y_i-k-\eta x_i)^2 \over (\sigma^2_{y_i}+\eta^2\sigma^2_{x_i}-2\rho_i\eta\sigma_{x_i}\sigma_{y_i}+\sigma_A^2) },
703: \label{eq:chip}
704: \end{multline}
705: where $\sigma_{x_i}$ and $\sigma_{y_i}$ are the errors on $x_i$ and $y_i$, respectively, and $\rho_i$ is the Pearson correlation coefficient
706: between
707: $x_i$ and $y_i$ (labeled ``cov'' in Table 3 of \citet{cabrera07}). Fixing $\sigma_A=0.4$ and minimizing $\chi^2_p$,
708: we find $\log_{10}{(K)}=2.32\pm 0.08$ and $\eta=0.32\pm0.19$, for $\chi^2_p/\nu=21.9/26$. This is consistent with our
709: Monte Carlo fits above but inconsistent with the Monte Carlo fit reported in \citet{cabrera07}: $\log_{10}{(K)}=2.03\pm 0.01$ and $\eta=0.53\pm0.03$.
710:
711: For $\sigma_A=0$, the \citet{cabrera07} fit has $\chi^2_p/\nu=445.7/26$.
712: It is clear from Figures 4 and 5 in \citet{cabrera07} that their fit does not match the data well and that the
713: fit errors are under-estimated.
714: The quoted errors are under-estimated by at least a factor $(\chi^2_p/\nu)^{0.5}\approx 4$.
715:
716: It is not entirely clear how such a poorly-fitting model was chosen by
717: those authors. It is likely that assuming $\sigma_A=0$ precludes finding a statistically acceptable model:
718: our best-fit model with $\sigma_A=0$ has $\log_{10}{(K)}=2.11$ and $\eta=0.23$ ($\chi^2_p/\nu=366.4/26$).
719:
720: \subsection{Differences Between the \citet{amati02} Consistent and
721: Outlier Samples}
722: \label{sec:diffs}
723:
724: Separating the 59\% of events above found to be consistent with the \citet{amati02} relation at 90\% confidence
725: from those found to be inconsistent, we perform a number of 2-sample KS tests on the observables in Tables 1 and 2.
726: We adopt a functional definition of inconsistency between these sub-samples: the KS test NULL hypothesis probability
727: that the sub-samples are drawn from the same parent distribution is $P_{\rm KS}<0.01$. We find that the sub-sample
728: distributions goodness of fit $\chi^2/\nu$, $T_{90}$ duration, and fluence are all consistent. The
729: redshift and $E_{\rm iso}$ distributions are also consistent. Contrarily,
730: the photon fluences are lower on
731: average by a factor $\approx 2.3$ ($P_{\rm KS}=9.8\times 10^{-3}$) in the observer frame and $\approx 2.7$ in
732: the source frame ($P_{\rm KS}=1.4\times 10^{-3}$). Because the energy fluences were consistent, we expect and observe
733: that the \citet{amati02} inconsistent events
734: are on average a factor $\approx 2.5$ times harder ($P_{\rm KS}=4.1\times 10^{-4}$) in terms of $E_{\rm pk,obs}$, or
735: a factor $\approx 1.5$ in $E_{\rm pk}$ ($P_{\rm KS}=9.3\times 10^{-3}$).
736:
737: The differences in $N_{\rm iso}$ and $E_{\rm pk}$ between the two samples are most apparent when we plot the
738: ratio of these quantities (Figure \ref{fig:amati_thresh}). Because $E_{\rm iso}\propto E_{\rm pk} N_{\rm iso}$
739: (e.g., Figure \ref{fig:catalog}, Bottom Left),
740: a powerlaw relation $E_{\rm peak} \propto E^{0.5}_{\rm iso}$ like that found above for the full {\it Swift}~sample
741: and by \citet{amati02} for GRBs observed by {\it Beppo-SAX} translates to a line of constant $N_{\rm iso}/E_{\rm pk}$.
742: We also plot the observed $5\sigma$ detection threshold, determined by scaling the observed $N_{\rm iso}/E_{\rm pk}$
743: by $5/(S/N)$. As we discuss in more detail in the next section, a dividing line between events detected by a satellite
744: of greater sensitivity ({\it Swift}~versus {\it Beppo-SAX}) points to a detector threshold selection effect.
745:
746: To be quantitative, we perform the following bootstrap simulation
747: which approximately conserves the local fraction of events per energy flux interval. In redshift steps $dz=1$, we shuffle
748: the observed $E_{\rm peak}$, $T_{90}$, and $z$ values and calculate $N_{\rm iso,new} = N_{\rm iso} (E_{\rm pk}/E_{\rm pk,new})/
749: (T_{90,{\rm new}}/T_{90})$ for each event several times. We observe that no simulated events above the horizontal line drawn
750: in Figure \ref{fig:amati_thresh} are lost due to a threshold in $N_{\rm iso}/\sqrt{T_{90}}$ (Section \ref{sec:thresh}).
751: However, 30\% of events below the line fall below threshold. If we increase the {\it Swift}~threshold by a factor of 3
752: \citep[see,][]{band03}
753: to obtain an approximate {\it Beppo-SAX}~threshold, then 65\% percent of events below the line are lost, while only 2\%
754: are lost above the line.
755: If we increase the {\it Swift}~threshold by a factor of 10 --- as is suggested by the \citet{firmani06} relation (Section \ref{sec:lowz})
756: --- then nearly all (96\%) of events below the line are lost while only 34\% are lost above the line.
757:
758: An alternative explanation for why our $E_{\rm pk}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ relation is inconsistent with the pre-{\it Swift}~relations
759: is that the {\it Swift}~GRBs are intrinsically different from pre-{\it Swift}~GRBs. Most must have $E_{\rm pk}$ values which are
760: $(2.5)^2\approx 6$ times harder on average, assuming that they have similar photon fluences.
761: We are very confident that our analysis --- which determines $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ for an approximately fixed photon fluence --- could
762: not yield an error this large for individual events and certainly not for a large number of events.
763:
764: Our prior assumptions cannot be the dominant source of inconsistency.
765: A similar fraction ($\approx 60$\%) of events for both the \citet{amati02} consistent and inconsistent classes
766: are adequately fit by powerlaws, and the
767: number of events in each class with $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}<-1.6$ (see Section \ref{sec:powerlaws}) are
768: comparable.
769: Moreover, if some events adequately fit by a simple powerlaw in the classical frequentist approach actually did have
770: extremely high $E_{\rm pk}\gtrsim 1$ MeV, these would be underestimated given our prior, and the actual
771: values would be {\it more}~inconsistent with the pre-{\it Swift}~relations.
772:
773: Also, the priors can be discarded, and similar results are found.
774: Our best-fit $E_{\rm pk}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ values (Table 2) for the events shared between our and
775: the \citet{cabrera07} analyses are closely consistent.
776: The fits lead to a closely consistent $E_{\rm pk}=K E_{\rm iso}^{\eta}$ relation (Section \ref{sec:cabrera}).
777: If we retain our priors but replace our {\it Swift}~numbers with the 7 closely-consistent $E_{\rm pk,obs}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ pairs available from
778: the Konus-Wind sample (Section \ref{sec:kw})
779: of GRBs with measured redshifts, we also find statistically indistinguishable results.
780:
781: The difference in the {\it Swift}~sample cannot be a difference due to the higher redshifts, because the low-$z$ events in the {\it Swift}~sample dominate
782: the relation and force it to be inconsistent with the pre-{\it Swift}~relation (Figure \ref{fig:amati_prob}). The
783: high-$z$ events produce the most consistent $E_{\rm pk}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ relation to that of \citet{amati02}.
784:
785:
786: \subsection{The $E_{\rm pk}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ Correlation as a Threshold Effect}
787: \label{sec:amati_cor}
788:
789: It is apparent from Figure \ref{fig:thresh} (Bottom Right) that the BAT detector threshold leads to
790: a strong truncation of detected events with redshift. We show above how this truncation can help
791: to narrow the scatter in
792: a powerlaw $E_{\rm pk}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ relation, making that relation more consistent with a pre-{\it Swift}~relation
793: found by \citet{amati02}.
794: Our observed relation corresponds to fainter and harder events, in agreement with indications
795: from spectral fits to {\it BATSE}~GRBs \citep{np05,bp05} that the relation may in fact be an inequality.
796:
797: In agreement with previous studies \citep{amati02,amati03,ggl04,fb05,nava06,amati06}, we find that $E_{\rm iso}$ and $E_{\rm pk}$
798: are tightly correlated (e.g., Figure \ref{fig:amati}). We find a Kendall's $\tau_K=0.59$ ($6.8\sigma$ significant),
799: for the best-fit values (Table 2) in 63 bursts.
800:
801: A correlation between $E_{\rm pk}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ could come about in two very
802: different ways. First (1), there could be an intrinsic correlation between
803: these quantities in the source frame, as is widely held \citep[e.g.,][]{cabrera07}.
804: Alternatively (2), these quantities could be correlated in the observer frame
805: (or just narrowly-distributed) and a strong correlation arises when we multiply
806: both quantities by strong functions of redshift.
807: The most straight-forward way to rule out (2) in favor of a true source frame
808: correlation is to
809: show that there is no strong correlation among values in the
810: observer frame. If that fails, as it does for the {\it Swift}~sample,
811: we can argue against (2) by
812: attempting to show that the source frame correlation represents
813: a tighter clustering. The source frame clustering then presumably leads to
814: the observer frame clustering. To demonstrate a significantly tighter clustering in the source frame, we
815: must control for the increase in clustering which arises due to multiplication by factors
816: containing redshift.
817:
818: If we separate the terms in the $E_{\rm iso}$-$E_{\rm pk}$ powerlaw fit containing redshift from
819: those not containing redshift \citep[e.g.,][]{np05}, we see that the redshift independent terms
820: $\approx S^{0.5}_{\rm bol}/E_{\rm pk,obs}$ ($\approx \sqrt{n_{\rm bol}/E_{\rm pk,obs}}$)
821: exhibit a narrow scatter of $0.32\pm0.05$ dex. (There is a strong observer frame
822: correlation between our best-fit $S_{\rm bol}$ and $E_{\rm pk,obs}$: $\tau_K=0.49$, $5.7\sigma$.)
823: This is consistent with the scatter about the $E_{\rm iso}$-$E_{\rm pk}$
824: relation (Section \ref{sec:discuss}).
825: Stated differently, we can ignore the actual data and randomly sample the ratio $S_{\rm bol}/E_{\rm pk,obs}$
826: from a lognormal distribution and recover an equally significant (but fake)
827: $1+z$ versus $E_{\rm iso}/E_{\rm pk}$ correlation in a majority (94\%) of simulations.
828: The narrow scatter in these observer frame quantities is likely a consequence of the detector threshold,
829: because there is less scatter
830: in $\sqrt{n_{\rm bol}}$ alone ($0.23\pm 0.04$ dex) and in $\sqrt{n_{\rm bol}/T^{0.5}_{90}}$ ($0.19\pm0.03$ dex;
831: Figure \ref{fig:thresh}; Top Left).
832: Moreover, the scatter in $\sqrt{n_{\rm bol}/T^{0.5}_{90}}$ ($0.24\pm0.04$ dex) changes little if we
833: also include the short-duration and underluminous events.
834:
835: In addition to a weak dependence on the actual fluence and $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ data, little
836: source frame information appears to be encoded in the $E_{\rm iso}$-$E_{\rm pk}$
837: correlation. If we shuffle the redshifts among the sample, drawing
838: with repetition one redshift for each burst and recalculating the
839: source frame quantities given the observer frame quantities, we find
840: that a stronger correlation happens by chance in a large fraction
841: (42\%) of simulations. \citet{shaf07} discuss in detail the redshift degeneracy in
842: the $E_{\rm iso}$-$E_{\rm pk}$ and other high-energy relations.
843:
844: We show now how the $E_{\rm iso}$-$E_{\rm pk}$ correlation can arise due to partial correlation
845: with the detector threshold. First we divide the $E_{\rm iso}$, $E_{\rm pk}$
846: through by $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and find that $(1+z)$ and $E_{\rm iso}/E_{\rm pk,obs}$ are tightly
847: correlated ($\tau_K=0.53$, $6.2\sigma$ significance). The expected threshold for $E_{\rm iso}/E_{\rm pk,obs}$ scales
848: as $D_L^2/(1+z)\sqrt{T_{90}}$. Controlling for partial correlation with this
849: quantity \citep[see,][]{as96}, we find that the $E_{\rm pk}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ correlation
850: has $\tau_{K,{\rm partial}}=0.12$, with a significance of only $1.5\sigma$.
851: We conclude that the detector threshold accounts for a substantial portion of the $E_{\rm iso}$-$E_{\rm pk}$ correlation
852: seen for {\it Swift}~events.
853:
854: Previous studies \citep[e.g.,][]{amati02} have concluded that the $E_{\rm pk}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ correlation is not due to
855: a flux selection
856: effect because individual burst fluences tend to lie well above the detector threshold. This is not a strong enough
857: argument, however,
858: because even highly significant detections can be affected by a threshold bias if the values follow the threshold and are
859: clustered (e.g., Figure \ref{fig:thresh}; Top Left). We can then invent apparent source
860: frame correlations
861: of arbitrarily small significance (i.e., very significant) by multiplying by steeper and steeper function of redshift.
862:
863: It is also argued that the large dynamic range in $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and fluence over which the
864: pre-{\it Swift}~$E_{\rm pk}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ relation is observed makes it less likely to be a selection effect.
865: However, the ratio of fluence to $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ is narrowly-distributed (i.e., these quantities are highly
866: correlated in the observer frame; Figure \ref{fig:catalog}, Top Right), even for the pre-{\it Swift}~sample \citep[see, e.g.,][]{amati02,taka05},
867: and this ratio is what we should require to exhibit a large dynamic range.
868:
869:
870: \subsection{Other High-Energy Correlations}
871: \label{sec:other}
872:
873: A number of correlations have been reported in the literature among GRB timing
874: and spectral parameters in addition to the $E_{\rm iso}$--$E_{\rm pk}$
875: correlation. We can test three of these against the {\it Swift}~data set
876: in Tables 1 and 2.
877:
878: \citet{firmani06} have performed a careful search over high-energy parameters in
879: fits to 27 pre-{\it Swift}~GRBs
880: in order to find a very tight correlation $L_{\rm iso}
881: \approx 10^{48.5\pm0.1} ( E_{\rm pk}^{1.62} T^{-0.49}_{z,r45} )$.
882: We find a consistent
883: but less tightly constrained relation from the {\it Swift}~sample:
884: $L_{\rm iso} \approx 10^{48.5\pm0.7} ( E_{\rm pk}^{1.62} T^{-0.49}_{z,r45} )^{0.86\pm0.15}$.
885: Here, the duration $T_{r45}$ (Tables 1 \& 2) is transformed to the source frame according
886: to the prescription in \citet{firmani06},
887: $T_{z,r45}r = T_{r45}/(1+z) ( (1+z)/2 )^{0.4}$,
888: which accounts for the BAT energy range.
889: The most-probable new relation has large intrinsic scatter of $0.58\pm 0.8$ dex.
890:
891: The \citet{firmani06} relation broadens in the {\it Swift}~sample due to the excess of hard and low-luminosity
892: events. We find that most {\it Swift}~events (60\% or $38/63$) are inconsistent with the
893: pre-{\it Swift}~\citet{firmani06} relation at the 90\% confidence level.
894: Stated differently, most (71\%) of the
895: {\it Swift}~GRB 90\% confidence redshift intervals
896: on a redshift estimator $\hat z$
897: determined assuming the relation do not contain the actual redshift.
898:
899: Using Equation \ref{eq:scatx} to account for the large uncertainties in $\log_{10}{(1+\hat z)}$,
900: we find that there is a large intrinsic scatter of $0.6\pm0.1$ dex between this and the same
901: of function using the host galaxy/spectroscopic redshift. We find that
902: 50\% of the probability in terms of estimated redshift for 40\% of
903: events is at $z>10$,
904: due to the faintness and hardness of the {\it Swift}~events.
905: Ignoring these cases, the 90\% confidence redshift estimate
906: still fails for 53\% ($20/38$) of events. There is
907: only a weak correlation ($\tau_K=0.17$, $1.9\sigma$) between the best-fit redshift assuming
908: the relation and the actual redshift.
909:
910: The {\it Swift}~\citet{firmani06} correlation, using the best-fit parameters from Tables 1 \& 2, has $\tau_K=0.61$ ($7.1\sigma$). However,
911: this decreases to $\tau_{K,{\rm partial}} = 0.13$ ($1.5\sigma$) if we control for partial correlation
912: with the detector threshold.
913: Because the ratio of source frame quantities used in the \citet{firmani06} relation is narrowly-distributed for the
914: {\it Swift}~sample (0.45 dex), we find that most simulations (71\%) of the source frame correlation using fake observer frame
915: data yield a more significant source frame correlation.
916:
917: We observe a significant correlation between $L_{\rm iso}$ and $E_{\rm peak}$
918: \citep[see,][]{shaf03,yon04}, with $\tau_K=0.55$ ($6.3\sigma$) for
919: our best-fit model parameters (Tables 1 \& 2). However,
920: if we control for partial correlation with the detector threshold as above,
921: the correlation largely disappears ($\tau_{K,{\rm partial}}=0.15$, $\sigma=1.8$).
922: Most simulations (96\%) of the source frame correlation using fake observer frame
923: data yield a more significant source frame correlation.
924:
925: \citet{atteia03} find a tight correlation between $N_{\rm iso}/E_{\rm pk,obs}/\sqrt{T_{90}}$
926: and $1+z$ for data detected by the {\it HETE-2}~satellite, which is used as a redshift
927: estimator. We find a modestly significant correlation ($\tau_K=0.38$, $4.4\sigma$)
928: among our best fit parameters (Tables 1 \& 2).
929: As hinted by the similar form of the \citet{atteia03} redshift estimator to our
930: $S/N$ estimator ($n_{\rm bol}/\sqrt{T_{90}}$; Section \ref{sec:thresh}), the correlation strength
931: degrades greatly when we control for partial correlation with the detector threshold
932: ($\tau_{K,{\rm partial}}=0.14$, $1.6\sigma$).
933: Most simulations ($>$99\%) of the source frame correlation using fake observer frame
934: data yield a more significant source frame correlation.
935:
936: We note that the \citet{atteia03} correlation and the correlations above can be used as redshift
937: estimators only if one believes that the correlation exists in the source frame, independent
938: of the observer frame detector threshold.
939:
940: We do not test here the veracity of correlations between temporal lag
941: and luminosity \citep[e.g.,][]{nmb00} or temporal variability and luminosity \citep[e.g.,][]{fr00}. However, we stress
942: that future analyses testing these correlations must account for the detector
943: threshold.
944:
945: We also do not test the correlation between $E_{\rm pk}$ and the beaming corrected
946: energy release $E_{\gamma}$ found by \citep{ggl04} \citep[see, also,][]{liangzang05}.
947: This requires measurement of
948: late-time light curve breaks, and these appear to be ambiguous
949: or non-existent for many {\it Swift}~events \citep{sato07,willin07}.
950: \citet{pain07} find that the $E_{\rm pk}$-$E_{\gamma}$ exists in the {\it Swift}~sample
951: but is largely a consequence of the $E_{\rm pk}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ correlation. We explore
952: this issue in a separate paper \citep{dans_paper}.
953:
954: \subsection{The pre-{\it Swift}~Threshold and Low-$z$ Events}
955: \label{sec:lowz}
956:
957: We assume here that the pre-{\it Swift}~correlations represent measures of detection
958: threshold. In addition to the instrument that detected the GRB (e.g., {\it HETE-2}~or {\it Beppo-SAX}),
959: this includes biases due to the source localization, optical afterglow brightness and
960: host galaxy brightness and star formation rate. There are also likely strong biases due to outlier
961: rejection during the construction of the correlations. The \citet{firmani06} relation
962: is potentially the best measure of the sum total of these biases, because that relation has the
963: narrowest scatter.
964:
965: In Figure \ref{fig:firmani_thresh}, we plot the observer-frame quantities used to form the \citet{firmani06}
966: relation versus redshift. There is a moderately strong correlation in the \citet{firmani06} sample ($\tau_K=0.76$, $4.6\sigma$).
967: Excluding the underluminous and short-duration {\it Swift}~events as above, the {\it Swift}~sample exhibits lower flux values, and the correlation
968: among best-fit model parameters (Table 2) is weak ($\tau_K=0.17$, $1.9\sigma$). Because the \citet{firmani06}
969: relation has a similar form to our detector threshold estimate (Section \ref{sec:thresh}), as we describe below, the
970: clustering in observer-frame quantities in Figure \ref{fig:firmani_thresh} is likely a consequence of a clustering above threshold
971: (Figure \ref{fig:thresh}; Top Left).
972:
973: Additionally, it is plausible that the moderately strong correlation between these quantities and redshift
974: in the pre-{\it Swift}~sample arises from biases associated with optical transient detection.
975: If the intrinsic optical flux tracks the $\gamma$-ray flux, then there will be a truncation below lines roughly parallel
976: to the dotted line in Figure \ref{fig:firmani_thresh}.
977: We find that bright ($R<18$ mag) optical
978: transients were not detected within 0.5 days of the GRB for 25\%
979: of events above $5 \times 10^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-0.51}$ keV$^{-1.62}$ in Figure \ref{fig:firmani_thresh}. However, more than half of events below a line drawn
980: at that value do not have bright optical counterparts. Pre-{\it Swift}~host galaxy associations depended on tight localizations
981: possible only from optical detections, whereas {\it Swift}-era host galaxies are often pin-pointed from XRT observations.
982:
983: The redshift dependence of the observer frame quantities in the pre-{\it Swift}~sample appears compelling in large part due to the
984: presence of the bright GRB~0303029 (Figure \ref{fig:firmani_thresh}) at low redshift. However, the {\it Swift}~sample shows the
985: high flux of this event to be anomalous. There are additional points --- overlapping with the {\it Swift}~cyan points
986: in Figure \ref{fig:firmani_thresh} --- which were discarded as outliers by \citet{firmani06}.
987:
988: If we~re-write the \citet{firmani06} relation in terms of $n_{\rm bol}$,
989: we find
990: \begin{multline}
991: n_{\rm bol,firmani} \approx 30 \left \{{ E_{\rm pk,obs} \over 100~{\rm keV} } \right \}^{0.62} T_{r45}^{-0.49} (1+z)^{-0.09} \\
992: \times \left \{ {D_L(z=1) \over D_L } \right \}^2 \left \{ {1+z \over 2} \right \}^2 \gamma ~{\rm cm}^{-2}.
993: \label{eq:firmani}
994: \end{multline}
995: Equation \ref{eq:firmani} has a similar time dependence to our threshold.
996: There is also a weak
997: dependence on the burst $E_{\rm pk,obs}$.
998: Ignoring the difference between $T_{90}$ and $T_{r45}$,
999: the value of the threshold is in an order of magnitude lower than our
1000: estimated {\it Swift}~threshold (Section \ref{sec:thresh}).
1001: This is consistent with
1002: the relative fraction of expected hard/faint events in the {\it Swift}~and pre-{\it Swift}~samples
1003: determined in Section \ref{sec:discuss}. The redshift variation in Equation
1004: \ref{eq:firmani}
1005: is extremely weak for $z\gtrsim 1$.
1006:
1007: An explanation in terms of a threshold provides a natural explanation for why low-$z$ events like GRBs 051109B, 060218, 060614,
1008: and the short-duration GRBs do not fit on the \citet{firmani06} and other
1009: relations. In Sections \ref{sec:thresh} and \ref{sec:other}, we discuss
1010: how these {\it Swift}~short-duration and underluminous events, which are strong outliers to the
1011: $E_{\rm iso}$--$E_{\rm pk}$ relation, do follow the source frame correlation set by the detector threshold (Figure \ref{fig:thresh}; Bottom Left).
1012:
1013: A test of our claim that most pre-{\it Swift}~high-energy correlations are due simply to the detector threshold is
1014: to also show that the pre-{\it Swift}~underluminous and short duration events satisfy Equation (\ref{eq:firmani}).
1015: In terms of $E_{\rm iso}$, if the events are near threshold, the expected value is
1016: \begin{multline}
1017: E_{\rm iso, thresh} \approx 5 \times 10^{49} \left \{{ E_{\rm pk,obs} \over 100~{\rm keV} } \right \}^{1.62} \left \{{T_{r45} \over 5~{\rm s}}\right \}^{-0.49} \\
1018: \times
1019: \left \{ {D_L \over D_L(z=0.1) } \right \}^2 \left \{ {1.1 \over 1+z} \right \}^2 ~{\rm erg}.
1020: \label{eq:firmani_thresh}
1021: \end{multline}
1022: The observed $E_{\rm iso}$ and $E_{\rm obs,pk}$ for GRB~980425 at $z=0.0085$ \citep[e.g.,][]{kouv04,ggl04} are $\approx 10^{48}$ erg and 120 keV, respectively.
1023: If we assume $T_{r45}=5$ s, then we find $E_{\rm iso, thresh} \approx 5 \times 10^{47}$ erg.
1024: The observed $E_{\rm iso}$ and $E_{\rm obs,pk}$ for GRB~031203 at $z=0.105$ \citep[e.g.,][]{saz04} are $\approx 5 \times 10^{49}$ erg and $\gtrsim 190$ keV, respectively.
1025: If we assume $T_{r45}=5$ s, then we find $E_{\rm iso, thresh} \approx 5 \times 10^{49}$ erg.
1026: The observed $E_{\rm iso}$ and $E_{\rm obs,pk}$ for short GRB~050709 at $z=0.16$ \citep[e.g.,][]{joel05} are $\approx 10^{50}$ erg and 84 keV, respectively.
1027: If we assume $T_{r45}=0.5$ s, then we find $E_{\rm iso, thresh} \approx 10^{50}$ erg. This agreement is excellent.
1028:
1029: Because we can understand the luminosities of these events in terms of a detector threshold, there is little reason
1030: to think of them as anomalously subluminous \citep[see, e.g.,][]{sod04,guetta04,watson06,ghis06}.
1031: If our threshold versus redshift is in fact correct for short durations, then there is little reason to believe
1032: that the intrinsic energy release in short durations GRBs is different from that in long duration GRBs.
1033:
1034:
1035: \section{Conclusions}
1036:
1037: We fit for the durations and spectral parameters of 218 {\it Swift}~GRBs, including
1038: 77 GRBs with redshifts. Unbiased estimates of $E_{\rm iso}$ and $E_{\rm pk,obs}$
1039: (at least for $E_{\rm pk,obs}\lessim 1$ MeV)
1040: are possible for these events if we adopt a Bayesian spectral fitting
1041: approach, with relatively weak prior assumptions. Because $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ is typically
1042: poorly-constrained and correlates with $E_{\rm iso}$ in a complicated fashion, we rigorously propagate
1043: errors via a sampling of the posterior probability. We have searched for correlations
1044: among the observer frame quantities, and have found a family of correlations (Figure
1045: \ref{fig:thresh}) which we argue to be due to the detector threshold. We have also
1046: measured apparently statistically significant correlations among host frame quantities
1047: (Sections \ref{sec:amati_cor} and \ref{sec:other}).
1048:
1049: Thanks to the large {\it Swift}~BAT dataset, we now understand the probable origin
1050: of the $E_{\rm pk}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ correlation: a trigger threshold $\propto n_{\rm bol}$
1051: and an intrinsic lack of bright relative to faint sources induces a strong
1052: observer-frame correlation between $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and $S_{\rm bol}$. The apparent correlation strength
1053: is then amplified as we multiply both side of the equation by strong functions of
1054: redshift, in order to transform to the host frame quantities. The redshifts or fluence
1055: and $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ data can be
1056: drawn at random and do not have to correspond to the actual host galaxy redshifts
1057: or measured values in order to produce a significant correlation in the host frame quantities.
1058:
1059: There are 3 strong and independent reasons to believe that the $E_{\rm pk}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ relation
1060: for both {\it Swift}~and pre-{\it Swift}~GRBs is an artifact of the detection
1061: threshold. First, a large fraction of the {\it Swift}~GRB sample exhibits
1062: hard and underluminous spectra which are inconsistent with the pre-{\it Swift}~relations,
1063: in agreement with indications from {\it BATSE}~GRBs without redshifts. Second,
1064: the {\it Swift}~GRB sample yields a powerlaw $E_{\rm pk}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ relation
1065: which is inconsistent at the $>5\sigma$ level with the pre-{\it Swift} relations,
1066: and with an intrinsic scatter at least a factor of 2 larger. Third, a dividing
1067: line between the pre-{\it Swift}~and {\it Swift}~samples can be plotted (Figure \ref{fig:amati_thresh}) using only
1068: the detector threshold, and the $E_{\rm pk}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ correlation significance can be shown to decrease
1069: dramatically if we correct for partial correlation with the probable shape of the
1070: threshold.
1071:
1072: These faults appear to be shared by several other correlations
1073: among high-energy parameters reported in the literature (Section \ref{sec:other}).
1074: It is likely that these contain
1075: largely redundant information which reduces to the shape of the detector threshold,
1076: at least for {\it Swift}~BAT events.
1077: This insight also helps to explain why short-duration and underluminous
1078: events at low$-z$ appear to fall away from the relations (Section \ref{sec:lowz}).
1079:
1080: We stress that even if the relations contain information actually
1081: related to the physical properties of GRBs, the wide dispersion in the relations makes
1082: them useless as cosmology probes \citep[see, also,][]{fb05}.
1083:
1084: Nonetheless, it is still likely that the relations encapsulate
1085: important information about the intrinsic distribution of GRBs
1086: with luminosity. Extracting this information requires that we account accurately for the detector threshold.
1087: Turning this around, at the low energy end, the $E_{\rm pk}$-$E_{\rm iso}$ and other relations may be useful proxies for the
1088: detector threshold and other complicated biases (e.g., those associated with source
1089: localization, optical detection and redshift determination; Section \ref{sec:lowz}). Accounting for these biases
1090: may be the most fruitful path toward uncovering true source frame relations in GRBs.
1091: This is clearly a critical step toward realizing the potential of {\it Swift}~and future
1092: missions such as {\it GLAST}~and {\it EXIST}.
1093:
1094:
1095: \acknowledgments
1096: N.~R.~B gratefully acknowledges support from a Townes Fellowship at
1097: U.~C. Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory and partial support
1098: from J.~S.~B. and A. Filippenko.
1099: D.~K. acknowledges financial support through the NSF Astronomy $\&$ Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowships under award AST-0502502.
1100: We thank G. Jernigan for useful conversations. We thank an anonymous
1101: referee for useful criticisms.
1102:
1103: \begin{thebibliography}{apj}
1104: \bibitem[Akritas \& Siebert(1996)]{as96} Akritas, M.~G., \& Siebert, J. 1996, \aap, 278, 919
1105: \bibitem[Amati(2003)]{amati03} Amati, L. 2003, ChJAA, 3 Suppl., 455
1106: \bibitem[Amati et al.(2002)]{amati02} Amati, L., et al. 2002, \aap, 390, 81
1107: \bibitem[Amati et al.(2006)]{amati06} Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233
1108: \bibitem[Arnaud(1996)]{arnaud96} Arnaud, K.~A. 1996, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, eds. Jacoby G. and Barnes J., ASP Conf. Series v101.
1109: \bibitem[Atteia(2003)]{atteia03} Atteia, J.-L. 2003, \aap, 407, L1
1110: \bibitem[Band(2003)]{band03} Band, D.~L. 2003, \apj, 588, 945
1111: \bibitem[Band et al.(1993)]{band93} Band, D.~L., et al. 1993, \apj, 413, 281
1112: \bibitem[Band \& Preece(2005)]{bp05} Band, D.~L., \& Preece, R.~D. 2005, \apj, 627, 319
1113: \bibitem[Barraud et al.(2003)]{barraud03} Barraud, C., et al. 2003, \aap, 413, 281
1114: \bibitem[Barthelmy et al.(2005)]{bart05} Barthelmy, S.~D., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 143
1115: \bibitem[Berger \& Becker(2005)]{zref11} Berger, E., \& Becker, G. 2005, GCN \#3520
1116: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2005a)]{zref1} Berger, E., et al. 2005a, \apj, 629, 328 % 050126
1117: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2005b)]{zref3} Berger, E., et al. 2005b, \apj, 634, 501 % 050315 050318
1118: \bibitem[Berger(2006)]{zref69} Berger, E. 2006, GCN \#5962
1119: \bibitem[Berger \& Gladders(2006)]{zref46} Berger, E., \& Gladders, M. 2006, GCN \#5170
1120: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2006a)]{zref38} Berger, E., et al. 2006a, GCN \#4815
1121: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2006b)]{zref8} Berger, E., et al. 2006b, \apj, 642, 979 % 050505
1122: \bibitem[Berger(2007)]{berger07s} Berger, E. 2007, \apj Submitted, astro-ph/0702694
1123: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2007)]{zref67} Berger, E., et al. 2007, \apj accepted, astro-ph/0611128 % 061217 061210
1124: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2005)]{zref15} Bloom, J.~S., et al. 2005, GCN \#3758
1125: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2006a)]{zref42} Bloom, J.~S., et al. 2006a, GCN \#5238
1126: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2006b)]{zref44} Bloom, J.~S., et al. 2006b, GCN \#5217
1127: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2006c)]{zref65} Bloom, J.~S., et al. 2006c, GCN \#5826
1128: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2005)]{burrows05} Burrows, D.~N., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 165
1129: \bibitem[Butler(2007a)]{zref34} Butler, N. 2007a, ApJ, 656, 1001
1130: \bibitem[Butler(2007b)]{zref40} Butler, N. 2007b, AJ, 133, 1027
1131: \bibitem[Butler \& Kocevski(2007a)]{butler07a} Butler, N., \& Kocevski, D. 2007a, astro-ph/0612564, \apj Accepted
1132: \bibitem[Butler \& Kocevski(2007b)]{butler07b} Butler, N., \& Kocevski, D. 2007b, astro-ph/0702638, \apj Accepted
1133: \bibitem[Cabrera et al.(2007)]{cabrera07} Cabrera, J.~I., et al. 2007, arXiv:0704.0791, MNRAS submitted
1134: \bibitem[Campana et al.(2006a)]{campana06a} Campana, S., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1008
1135: \bibitem[Cash(1976)]{cash76} Cash, W. 1976, \aap, 52, 307
1136: \bibitem[Castro-Tirado et al.(2006)]{zref47} Castro-Tirado, A.~J., et al. 2006, GCN \#5218
1137: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2006a)]{zref33} Cenko, S.~B., et al. 2006a, GCN \#4592
1138: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2006b)]{zref45} Cenko, S.~B., et al. 2006b, GCN \#5155
1139: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2007)]{zref75} Cenko, S.~B., et al. 2007, GCN \#6322
1140: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2005)]{zref13} Chen, H.-W., et al. 2005, ApJL, 634, L25 % 050730
1141: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2007)]{zref73} Chen, H.-W., et al. 2007, GCN \#6217
1142: \bibitem[Cucchiara et al.(2006a)]{zref36} Cucchiara, A., et al. 2006a, GCN \#4729
1143: \bibitem[Cucchiara et al.(2006b)]{zref41} Cucchiara, A., et al. 2006b, GCN \#5052
1144: \bibitem[Cucchiara et al.(2007)]{zref71} Cucchiara, A., et al. 2007, GCN \#6083
1145: \bibitem[Curtis et al.(2007)]{jason_paper} Curtis, J.~L., et al. 2007, in prep.
1146: \bibitem[D'Elia et al.(2005)]{zref23} D'Elia, V., et al. 2005, GCN \#4044
1147: \bibitem[Della Valle et al.(2006)]{zref50} Della Valle, M., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1050 % 060614
1148: \bibitem[Dupree et al.(2006)]{zref39} Dupree, A.~K., et al. 2006, GCN \#4969
1149: \bibitem[Fenimore \& Ramirez-Ruiz(2000)]{fr00} Fenimore, E.~E., \& Ramirez-Ruiz, E., astro-ph/0004176
1150: \bibitem[Firmani et al.(2006)]{firmani06} Firmani, C., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 185
1151: \bibitem[Foley et al.(2005a)]{zref10} Foley, R.~J., et al. 2005a, GCN \#3483
1152: \bibitem[Foley et al.(2005b)]{zref29} Foley, R.~J., et al. 2005b, GCN \#4409
1153: \bibitem[Friedman \& Bloom(2005)]{fb05} Friedman, A.~S., \& Bloom, J.~S. 2005, \apj, 627, 1
1154: \bibitem[Fugazza et al.(2005)]{zref22} Fugazza, D., et al. 2005, GCN \#3948
1155: \bibitem[Fugazza et al.(2006)]{zref55} Fugazza, D., et al. 2006, GCN \#5513
1156: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2005)]{zref14} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al. 2005, GCN \#3749
1157: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2006a)]{zref35} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al. 2006a, \aap, 451, L47 % 060206
1158: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2006b)]{zref64} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al. 2006b, GCN \#5809
1159: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.(2004)]{gehrels04} Gehrels, N., et al. 2004, \apj, 611, 1005
1160: \bibitem[Ghirlanda, Ghisellini, \& Lazzati(2004)]{ggl04} Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., \& Lazzati D. 2004, \apj, 616, 331
1161: \bibitem[Ghisellini et al.(2006)]{ghis06} Ghisellini, G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1699
1162: \bibitem[Golenetskii et al.(2006)]{gol06} Golenetskii, S., et al. 2006, GCN \#4439
1163: \bibitem[Grazian et al.(2006)]{zref32} Grazian, A., et al. 2006, GCN \#4545
1164: \bibitem[Gregory(2005)]{greg05} Gregory, P. 2005, Bayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical Sciences, Cambridge Uvinversity Press, Cambridge
1165: \bibitem[Guetta et al.(2004)]{guetta04} Guetta, D., et al. 2004, \apj, 615, 73
1166: \bibitem[Halpern \& Mirabal(2005)]{zref20} Halpern, J.~P., \& Mirabal, N. 2005, GCN \#5982
1167: \bibitem[Heise et al.(2000)]{heise2000} Heise, J., et al. 2000, in Proc. 2nd Rome Workshop: Gamma-ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era, eds. E. Costa, F. Frontera, J. Hjorth (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), 16
1168: \bibitem[Hong et al.(2007)]{hong07} Hong, S., et al. 2007, GCN \#6240
1169: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2005)]{zref17} Jakobsson, P., et al. 2005, \aap, 447, 897 % 050814
1170: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006a)]{zref5} Jakobsson, P., et al. 2006a, \aap, 460, L13 % 050319 050922C 060526 060707 060714 060906
1171: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006b)]{zref51} Jakobsson, P., et al. 2006b, GCN \#5298
1172: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006c)]{zref53} Jakobsson, P., et al. 2006c, GCN \#5320
1173: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006d)]{zref58} Jakobsson, P., et al. 2006d, GCN \#5617
1174: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006e)]{zref61} Jakobsson, P., et al. 2006e, GCN \#5698
1175: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2007a)]{zref74} Jakobsson, P., et al. 2007a, GCN \#6283
1176: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2007b)]{zref77} Jakobsson, P., et al. 2007b, GCN \#6398
1177: \bibitem[Jaunsen et al.(2007a)]{zref70} Jaunsen, A.~O., et al. 2007a, GCN \#6010
1178: \bibitem[Jaunsen et al.(2007b)]{zref72} Jaunsen, A.~O., et al. 2007b, GCN \#6202
1179: \bibitem[Kaneko et al.(2006)]{kaneko06} Kaneko, Y., et al. 2006, \apjs, 166, 298
1180: \bibitem[Kawai et al.(2005)]{zref21} Kawai, N., et al. 2005, Nature, 440, 184 % 050904
1181: \bibitem[Kelly(2007)]{kelly07} Kelly, B.~C. 2007, \apj Accepted, astro-ph/0705.2774
1182: \bibitem[Kippen et al.(2002)]{kippen02} Kippen, R.~M., et al. 2002, in Gamma-Ray Bursts and Afterglow Astronomy, ed. G.~R. Ricker \& R. Vanderspek (Melvill: AIP), 25
1183: \bibitem[Kocevski et al.(2007)]{dans_paper} Kocevski, D., et al. 2007, in prep
1184: \bibitem[Kolaczyk \& Dixon(2000)]{kol00} Kolaczyk, E. D., Dixon, D. D. 2000, \apj, 534, 490K
1185: \bibitem[Kouveliotou et al.(1993)]{kouv93} Kouveliotou, C., et al. 1993, \apj, 413, L101
1186: \bibitem[Kouveliotou et al.(2004)]{kouv04} Kouveliotou, C., et al. 2004, \apj, 608, 872
1187: \bibitem[Krimm et al.(2006)]{krimm06} Krimm, H., et al. 2006, GCN \#5704
1188: \bibitem[Lamb et al.(2004)]{lamb04} Lamb, D.~Q., et al. 2004, New A Rev., 48, 459
1189: \bibitem[Ledoux et al.(2006)]{zref49} Ledoux, C., et al. 2006, GCN \#5237
1190: \bibitem[Ledoux et al.(2005)]{zref18} Ledoux, C., et al. 2005, GCN \#3860
1191: \bibitem[Lee, Bloom, \& Petrosian(2000)]{lbp00} Lee, A., Bloom, E.~D., \& Petrosian, V. 2000, ApJS, 131, 21
1192: \bibitem[Li(2007)]{li2007} Li, L.-X. 2007, MNRAS Accepted, arXiv:0704.3128
1193: \bibitem[Liang \& Zhang(2005)]{liangzang05} Liang, E., \& Zhang, B. 2005, \apj, 633, 611
1194: \bibitem[Lloyd, Petrosian, \& Mallozzi(2000)]{lpm00} Lloyd, N.~M., Petrosian, V., \& Mallozzi, R.~S. 2000, \apj 534, 227
1195: \bibitem[Lupton(1993)]{lupton93} Lupton, R. 1993, Statistics in Theory and Practice, Princeton University Press, Princeton
1196: \bibitem[Malesani et al.(2007)]{zref12} Malesani, D., et al. 2007, \aap submitted, arXiv%0706.1273 % 050724
1197: \bibitem[Malmquist(1922)]{malm22} Malmquist, K.~G. 1922, Lund Medd. Ser. I, 100, 1
1198: \bibitem[Melandri et al.(2006)]{zref30} Melandri, A., et al. 2006, GCN \#4539
1199: \bibitem[Nakar \& Piran(2005)]{np05} Nakar, E., \& Piran, T. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 73
1200: \bibitem[Nava et al.(2006)]{nava06} Nava, L., et al. 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0511499)
1201: \bibitem[Norris, Marani, \& Bonnell(2000)]{nmb00} Norris, J.~P., Marani, G.~F., \& Bonnell J.~T. 2000, \apj, 534, 248
1202: \bibitem[Osip et al.(2006)]{zref62} Osip, D., et al. 2006, GCN \#5715
1203: \bibitem[Paciesas et al.(1999)]{paciesas99} Paciesas, W.~S., et al. 1999, \apjs, 122, 465
1204: \bibitem[Panaitescu(2007)]{pain07} Panaitescu, A. 2007, MNRAS submitted, arXiv/0705.1015
1205: \bibitem[Pellizza et al.(2006)]{zref2} Pellizza, L.~J., et al. 2006, \aap, 459, L5 % 050223
1206: \bibitem[Penprase et al.(2005)]{zref27} Penprase, B.~E., et al. 2005, \apj, 646, 358 % 051111
1207: \bibitem[Perley et al.(2006)]{zref26} Perley, D.~A., et al. 2006, GCN \#5387
1208: \bibitem[Perley et al.(2007)]{zref66} Perley, D.~A., et al. 2007, \apj submitted, astro-ph/0703538 % 061126
1209: \bibitem[Pian et al.(2006)]{zref37} Pian, E., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1011 % 060218
1210: \bibitem[Piranomonte et al.(2006a)]{zref59} Piranomonte, S., et al. 2006a, GCN \#5626
1211: \bibitem[Piranomonte et al.(2006b)]{zref31} Piranomonte, S., et al. 2006b, GCN \#4520
1212: \bibitem[Preece et al.(2000)]{preece00} Preece, R.~D., et al. 2000, \apj, 126, 19S
1213: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{press92} Press, W.~H., et al. 1992, Numerical Recipes in C, (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
1214: \bibitem[Price et al.(2007)]{zref43} Price, P.~A., et al. 2007, ApJL, 663, L57 % 060510B
1215: \bibitem[Prochaska et al.(2005)]{zref9} Prochaska, J.~X., et al. 2005, GCN \#3390
1216: \bibitem[Prochaska et al.(2006)]{zref16} Prochaska, J.~X., et al. 2006, \apj, 642, 989 % 050813
1217: \bibitem[Protassov et al.(2002)]{protassov02} Protassov, R., et al. 2002, \apj, 571, 545
1218: \bibitem[Quimby et al.(2005)]{zref25} Quimby, R., et al. 2005, GCN \#4221
1219: \bibitem[Reichart et al.(2001)]{reichart01} Reichart, D.~E., et al. 2001, \apj, 552, 57
1220: \bibitem[Rol et al.(2006)]{zref57} Rol, E., et al. 2006, GCN \#5555
1221: \bibitem[Romano et al.(2006b)]{romano06b} Romano, P., et al. 2006a, \aap, 456, 917
1222: \bibitem[Ruiz-Velasco et al.(2007)]{zref60} Ruiz-Velasco, A.~E., et al. 2007, \apj submitted, arXiv%0706.1257 % 060927
1223: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2004)]{taka04} Sakamoto, T., et al. 2004, \apj, 602, 875
1224: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2005)]{taka05} Sakamoto, T., et al. 2005, \apj, 629, 311
1225: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2006)]{taka06} Sakamoto, T., et al. 2006, HEAD Meeting Bulletin, 38, 380
1226: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2007)]{sato07} Sato, G., et al. 2007, \apj, 657, 359
1227: \bibitem[Savaglio(2006)]{zref48} Savaglio, S., et al 2006, GCN \#6166
1228: \bibitem[Sazonov et al.(2004)]{saz04} Sazonov, S.~Y., et al. 2004, Nature, 430, 646
1229: \bibitem[Schady(2006)]{zref52} Schady, P., et al. 2006, GCN \#5296
1230: \bibitem[Schaeffer(2003)]{shaf03} Schaeffer, B.~E. 2003, \apj, 583, L67
1231: \bibitem[Schaeffer \& Collazzi(2007)]{shaf07} Schaeffer, B.~E., \& Collazzi, A.~C. 2003, ApJL Accepted, astro-ph/07015481
1232: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2004)]{sod04} Soderberg, A.~M., et al.2004, Nature, 430, 648
1233: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2005)]{zref24} Soderberg, A.~M., et al. 2005, GCN \#4186
1234: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2006)]{zref28} Soderberg, A.~M., et al. 2006, \apj, 650, 261 % 051221A
1235: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2007)]{zref7} Soderberg, A.~M., et al. 2007, \apj, 661, 982 % 050416A
1236: \bibitem[Sollerman et al.(2007)]{zref19} Sollerman, J., et al. 2007, \aap, 466, 839 % 050824
1237: \bibitem[Th\"{o}ne et al.(2006a)]{zref54} Th\"{o}ne, C.~C., et al. 2006a, GCN \#5373
1238: \bibitem[Th\"{o}ne et al.(2006b)]{zref63} Th\"{o}ne, C.~C., et al. 2006b, GCN \#5812
1239: \bibitem[Th\"{o}ne et al.(2007)]{zref76} Th\"{o}ne, C.~C., et al. 2007, GCN \#6379
1240: \bibitem[Villasenor et al.(2005)]{joel05} Villasenor, J.~S., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 855
1241: \bibitem[Vreeswijk et al.(2006)]{zref56} Vreeswijk, P., et al. 2006, GCN \#5535
1242: \bibitem[Watson et al.(2006a)]{watson06} Watson, D., et al. 2006a, \apj, 636, 967
1243: \bibitem[Watson et al.(2006b)]{zref6} Watson, D., et al. 2006b, \apj, 652, 1011 % 050401
1244: \bibitem[Willingale et al.(2007)]{willin07} Willingale, R., et al. 2007, astro-ph/0612031
1245: \bibitem[Yonetoku et al.(2004)]{yon04} Yonetoku, D., et al. 2004, \apj, 609, 935
1246: \end{thebibliography}
1247:
1248: \vfill
1249: \eject
1250:
1251: \input tab1.tex
1252:
1253: \vfill
1254: \eject
1255:
1256: \input tab2.tex
1257:
1258: \vfill
1259: \eject
1260:
1261: \begin{figure}
1262: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\includegraphics[width=2.6in]{f1a.ps}}}
1263: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\includegraphics[width=2.6in]{f1b.ps}}}
1264: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\includegraphics[width=2.6in]{f1c.ps}}}
1265: \caption{\small Time region definition, duration estimation, and spectral parameter
1266: estimation for example GRB~060105. (Top Panel) Light curve plotted with 1s binning.
1267: The automated algorithm finds four trigger regions over
1268: threshold and merges these into a burst window of width $\Delta t=87.4$s. This
1269: region is then extended backward by 0.46 s and forward by 3.22 s based on signal
1270: in the denoised light curve (overplotted in red) to define the final burst interval.
1271: (Middle Panel) The time-integrated spectrum is acceptably fit by a simple powerlaw
1272: (Table 2). (Bottom Panel) Using prior information (primarily on $E_{\rm pk,obs}$)
1273: we are able to infer the presence of a spectral break located well above the BAT
1274: detector bandpass, consistent with measurements by Konus-Wind \citep{gol06}.}
1275: \label{fig:triggerNprob}
1276: \end{figure}
1277:
1278: \begin{figure}
1279: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f2a.ps}\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f2b.ps}
1280: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f2c.ps}\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f2d.ps}
1281: \caption{\small Experimental determination of the BAT threshold in terms of $n_{\rm bol}/\sqrt{T_{90}}$. (Top Left) The
1282: histogram of 1--$10^4$ keV photon fluence $n_{\rm bol}$ (Table 2) divided by the
1283: square root of $T_{90}$ (Table 1) exhibits a narrow
1284: distribution and 90\% of values are greater than a threshold of 3 ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-0.5}$.
1285: The red histogram shows the events with measured redshift.
1286: (Top Right) Scatter plot showing a correlation between $n_{\rm bol}$ and $T_{90}$ likely due to the threshold.
1287: The approximate threshold from the Top Left plot is also plotted. (Bottom Left) The trigger $S/N$ (Table 1) correlates
1288: tightly with $n_{\rm bol}/\sqrt{T_{90}}$. The best fit powerlaw (plotted) has index $\approx 1$ and
1289: normalization $S/N\approx 5$ at $n_{\rm bol}/\sqrt{T_{90}}
1290: = 3$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-0.5}$. (Bottom Right) The effect of the threshold in the source frame versus redshift $z$.}
1291: \label{fig:thresh}
1292: \end{figure}
1293:
1294: \begin{figure}
1295: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{f3.ps}}
1296: \caption{The role of the Bayesian priors over a large $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ range plotted versus best-fit powerlaw photon
1297: index $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}$. The dark black points and error bars show $E_{\rm pk,obs}$
1298: determinations for events adequately fit by a powerlaw model (PLM). In the classical frequentist approach to
1299: spectral fitting, these spectra yield only limits (Table 2). Very large $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ values are
1300: extremeley uncommon, as is clear from the red points from {\it BATSE}~\citep{kaneko06}, which are plotted
1301: using the GRBM high energy index $\alpha$ on the x-axis;
1302: we truncate the probability at high $E_{\rm pk,obs}$
1303: through our model priors. We do not truncate the probability at low $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ until 1 keV, and it is clear
1304: that {\it Swift}~measures $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ values (grey points) below the {\it BATSE}~bandpass.
1305: A strong correlation between the best-fit photon index $\alpha_{\rm best-fit}$ for the black points --- which is not
1306: necessarily $\alpha$ or $\beta$ in the GRBM due to the possible proximity of $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ to the bandpass ---
1307: and $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ results (Section \ref{sec:kw}).}
1308: \label{fig:alpha_ep}
1309: \end{figure}
1310:
1311:
1312: \begin{figure}
1313: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f4a.ps}\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f4b.ps}
1314: \caption{\small Comparison of $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and approximate bolometric fluences $S_{\rm bol}$ derived
1315: here to values reported in the GCN circulars for Konus-Wind \citep[e.g.,][]{gol06} or Suzaku \citep[e.g.,][]{hong07} and the lines of equality. Although
1316: the BAT detector approaches zero effective area above 150 keV, we are able to accurately recover
1317: the true $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ and fluence without bias.}
1318: \label{fig:sks}
1319: \end{figure}
1320:
1321: \begin{figure}
1322: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f5a.ps}\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f5b.ps}
1323: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f5c.ps}\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f5d.ps}
1324: \caption{\small Catalog values for the 1--$10^4$ keV photon ($n_{\rm bol}$) and energy
1325: ($S_{\rm bol}$) fluences and $\nu F_{\nu}$ spectral peak energy $E_{\rm pk,obs}$.
1326: (Top Left) Bayesian versus frequentist $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ estimates and the line of equality. The red
1327: arrows designate $E_{\rm pk,obs}^{\rm freq.}$ limits for the majority (66\%) of BAT events.
1328: (Top Right) $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ versus the approximate bolometric fluence $S_{\rm bol}$.
1329: (Bottom Left) The approximately bolometric photon fluence scales as $S_{\rm bol}/E_{\rm pk,obs}$.
1330: (Bottom Right) The {\it Swift}~sample contains an excess of low $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ events, similar
1331: to {\it HETE-2}~\citep{taka05}, compared to the
1332: \citet{kaneko06} catalog of bright {\it BATSE}~GRBs.
1333: In blue we plot the fit to the $E_{\rm pk,obs}$ (including errors) for each GRB (from Equations \ref{eq:onex} and \ref{eq:scatx}). We assume the red line
1334: as a prior in the fitting for each event in order to measure upper confidence interval bounds on $E_{\rm pk,obs}$.
1335: The histogram for {\it Swift}~``short-duration'' GRBs is given as a dashed histogram.}
1336: \label{fig:catalog}
1337: \end{figure}
1338:
1339:
1340: \begin{figure}
1341: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.0in]{f6.eps}}
1342: \caption{\small Maximum posterior probability values for $E_{\rm pk}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ (filled circles)
1343: for 77 {\it Swift}~GRBs with measured redshifts (Table 2). Also plotted are samples from the 90\%
1344: confidence region in $E_{\rm pk}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ for each GRB (small gray dots). Outliers in terms
1345: of short burst duration or low-luminosity are
1346: labelled. The best fit lines from this study (excluding the underluminous and ``short-duration'' events)
1347: and from the Beppo-SAX sample of \citet{amati02} are also plotted. Events furthest from the \citet{amati02} line
1348: in terms of low $E_{\rm iso}$ and high $E_{\rm pk}$ are closer to detector thresholds (Figure \ref{fig:amati_thresh}).}
1349: \label{fig:amati}
1350: \end{figure}
1351:
1352: \begin{figure}
1353: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=5.0in]{f7.ps}}
1354: \caption{\small Posterior probability contours for a powerlaw relation $E_{\rm pk}=K~(E_{\rm iso}/[10^{52} {\rm ~erg}])^{\eta}$ keV.
1355: We also plot ($K,\eta)$ for the sample divided into 3 redshift bins.
1356: Estimates of the relation before {\it Swift}~and including early {\it Swift}~data summarized in \citet{amati06}
1357: (and from \citet{amati02,amati03,ggl04,fb05,nava06})
1358: are inconsistent with the current sample normalization $K$ at the $>5\sigma$ level. $E_{\rm pk}$ and
1359: $E_{\rm iso}$ values and confidence regions from \citet{cabrera07}
1360: for 28 of the events also used in this study are also fit (cyan point; Section \ref{sec:cabrera}).
1361: The marginal posterior
1362: distributions in $K$ and $\eta$ are plotted above the $X$ and to the right of $Y$ axes, respectively.}
1363: \label{fig:amati_prob}
1364: \end{figure}
1365:
1366: \begin{figure}
1367: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.0in]{f8.ps}}
1368: \caption{\small $E_{\rm pk}$--$E_{\rm iso}$ truncation and the detector threshold. We
1369: can separate events consistent with the \citet{amati02} relation (black circles)
1370: from those inconsistent (red circles) by a line of constant $E^{0.5}_{\rm iso}/E_{\rm pk}$, which
1371: is approximately a line of constant $N_{\rm iso}/E_{\rm pk}$. The detection
1372: threshold scales as $N_{\rm iso}/\sqrt{T_{90}}$ (Section \ref{sec:thresh}). For the units in the plot,
1373: because of convolution with the
1374: burst $T_{90}$ and $E_{\rm pk}$, the threshold is blurred and the observed instance is a jagged line.
1375: We also plot the median threshold.
1376: Hypothetical events below the purple line (which divides the red and black events and also touches the detection
1377: threshold at various points) are $\gtrsim 65$\% more likely to be absent from pre-{\it Swift}~catalogs.}
1378: \label{fig:amati_thresh}
1379: \end{figure}
1380:
1381: \begin{figure}
1382: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.0in]{f9.ps}}
1383: \caption{\small The observer frame quantities found to correlate tightly with redshift by \citet{firmani06} do
1384: not correlate tightly in the {\it Swift}~sample. Both samples follow the same upper limit envelope. However,
1385: the {\it Swift}~events extend to lower flux and stop at the detector threshold. Here, $P_{\rm bol}$ is the peak energy flux. The {\it Swift}~threshold
1386: values (actual and median)
1387: are plotted, as is the best-fit line to the \citet{firmani06} sample. Error bars are not plotted for the (red) events considered in \citet{firmani06}.}
1388: \label{fig:firmani_thresh}
1389: \end{figure}
1390:
1391: \end{document}
1392: