1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{amssymb}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
6: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
7: %\usepackage{mathrsfs}
8:
9:
10: \begin{document}
11: \title{Observational Signatures of High-Energy Emission during the Shallow
12: Decay Phase of GRB X-Ray Afterglows}
13: \author{Y. W. Yu$^{1,3}$, X. W. Liu$^{2,4}$, and Z. G. Dai$^1$}
14: \affil{$^1$Department of Astronomy, Nanjing University, Nanjing
15: 210093, China;\\ yuyw@nju.edu.cn, dzg@nju.edu.cn
16: \\$^2$Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
17: Nanjing 210008, China;\\xwliu@pmo.ac.cn
18: \\$^3$Institute of Astrophysics, Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan
19: 430079, China
20: \\$^4$National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
21: Beijing 100012, China}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: The widely existing shallow decay phase of the X-ray afterglows of
25: gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is generally accepted to be due to
26: long-lasting energy injection. The outflows carrying the injecting
27: energy, based on the component that is dominative in energy, fall
28: into two possible types: baryon-dominated and lepton-dominated ones.
29: The former type of outflow could be ejecta that is ejected during
30: the prompt phase of a GRB and consists of a series of baryonic
31: shells with a distribution of Lorentz factors, and the latter type
32: could be an electron-positron-pair wind that is driven by the
33: post-burst central engine. We here provide a unified description for
34: the dynamics of fireballs based on these two types of energy
35: injection, and calculate the corresponding high-energy photon
36: emission by considering synchrotron radiation and inverse Compton
37: scattering (including synchrotron self-Compton and combined
38: inverse-Compton) of electrons. We find that, in the two
39: energy-injection models, there is a plateau (even a hump) in
40: high-energy light curves during the X-ray shallow decay phase. In
41: particular, a considerable fraction of the injecting energy in the
42: lepton-dominated model can be shared by the long-lasting reverse
43: shock since it is relativistic. Furthermore, almost all of the
44: energy of the reverse shock is carried by leptons, and thus the
45: inverse-Compton emission is enhanced dramatically. Therefore, this
46: model predicts more significant high-energy afterglow emission than
47: the baryon-dominated model. We argue that these observational
48: signatures would be used to discriminate between different
49: energy-injection models in the upcoming {\em Gamma-ray Large Area
50: Space Telescope} (GLAST) era.
51: \end{abstract}
52: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts --- radiation mechanism: nonthermal}
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55: As discovered by Swift, there is a shallow decay phase (temporal
56: indices $\alpha\sim[0,-0.8]$) from post-burst several tens of
57: seconds to several hours (even days) occurring in the X-ray
58: afterglow light curves of a significant fraction of gamma-ray bursts
59: (GRBs) (Nousek et al. 2006; O'Brien et al. 2006; Willingale et al.
60: 2007; Liang et al. 2007). This shallow decay phase is obviously
61: beyond understanding of the standard afterglow model (M\'esz\'aros
62: \& Rees 1997; Sari et al. 1998), but is generally accepted to be due
63: to continuous energy injection into relativistic blast waves (e.g.,
64: Zhang et al. 2006; Nousek et al. 2006; Fan \& Xu 2006; Sollerman et
65: al. 2007; de Pasquale et al. 2006, 2007). In particular, Liang et
66: al. (2007) recently compared the closure relations derived from a
67: simple energy-injection form, $\dot{E}_{\rm inj}\propto t^{-q}$,
68: with the observed temporal and spectral indices of afterglows of 53
69: GRBs and then argued that a roughly constant injection luminosity
70: may be favored by the observations. However, although this simple
71: injection form is usually assumed in model fitting, the specific
72: nature of the energy injection should be concerned and studied
73: further.
74:
75: The physical nature of an injecting energy flow discussed in the
76: literature involves two possible candidates: (i) ejecta that
77: consists of a series of shells with a distribution of Lorentz
78: factors, which are dominated in energy by baryons (Rees \&
79: M\'esz\'aros 1998; Panaitescu et al. 1998; Sari \& M\'esz\'aros
80: 2000; Granot \& Kumar 2006; Liu et al. 2007), and (ii) a post-burst
81: energy flow that results from a long-lasting activity of the central
82: engine (Dai \& Lu 1998a, 1998b; Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros 2001a; Wang \&
83: Dai 2001; Dai 2004; Fan \& Xu 2006; Yu \& Dai 2007). In the former
84: case, the total energy carried by the ejecta is released from the
85: central engine during the prompt phase of a GRB. Subsequently,
86: during the afterglow phase, lower-velocity shells catch up and
87: collide with foregoing, higher-velocity but decelerated shells
88: continuously because of an assumed power-law distribution of Lorentz
89: factors in the ejecta. This persistent collision leads to a
90: long-lasting Newtonian or trans-relativistic reverse shock that
91: propagates into the ejecta. Meanwhile, the shock-heated ejecta
92: pushes the outward-moving relativistic blast wave and thus reduces
93: the deceleration of the blast wave effectively, which accounts for
94: the shallow decay. In the latter case, most of the energy that
95: produces an afterglow is argued to be continuously released after
96: (not during) the burst, but the GRB ejecta may provide only a
97: relatively small amount of energy for the blast wave. Initially, the
98: post-burst energy flow may be dominated in energy by the Poynting
99: flux. However, as it propagates outward, the flow would evolve to an
100: ultrarelativistic kinetic-energy flow dominated by a component of
101: electron-positron pairs through some mechanisms (e.g., magnetic
102: reconnection) at larger radii (Coroniti 1990; Michel 1994; Kirk \&
103: Skj{\ae}raasen 2003). It is this ultrarelativistic leptonic wind
104: (rather than the electromagnetic flux) that feeds the blast wave and
105: maintains a long-lasting relativistic reverse shock. The emission of
106: the more and more energetic blast wave and the emission of the
107: reverse shock together give rise to the shallow decay (Dai 2004).
108: Therefore, we conclude from the above discussion that the injecting
109: energy flows are likely to be matter-dominated. Furthermore, based
110: on the component that is dominative in energy, the injecting flows
111: perhaps have two types: a baryon-dominated outflow and a
112: lepton-dominated outflow. The two corresponding representative
113: models as described above are here called the radially structured
114: ejecta (RSE) model (Rees \& M\'esz\'aros 1998) and the relativistic
115: wind bubble (RWB) model (Dai 2004), respectively.
116:
117: In order to provide an effective test on the models mentioned above,
118: a careful investigation of high-energy emission is important and
119: urgent, as the launch and detection of GLAST are upcoming (Ritz
120: 2007). In this paper, we calculate high-energy afterglow emission
121: during the shallow decay phase of X-ray afterglows based on these
122: two models and give corresponding observational signatures.
123: Recently, Wei \& Fan (2007), Fan et al. (2007), and Gou \&
124: M\'esz\'aros (2007) have made some attempts on high-energy
125: afterglows. In their papers, the authors studied only the effect of
126: the forward-shocked medium with the simple energy-injection form of
127: $\dot{E}_{\rm inj}\propto t^{-q}$, but didn't consider the effect of
128: the injecting flow itself. However, as found by Dai (2004), Uhm \&
129: Beloborodov (2007), Genet et al. (2007), Yu \& Dai (2007), and Liu
130: et al. (2007), the reverse shock that propagates into the injecting
131: flow could play an important role in the emission in X-ray and/or
132: optical bands in some situations. Therefore, high-energy emission
133: features due to the reverse shock are also expected. In the RSE and
134: RWB models, the high-energy photon emission from shocked materials
135: is mainly produced by inverse Compton (IC) scattering of
136: shock-accelerated electrons (for simplicity, electrons and positrons
137: are not differentiated) off synchrotron seed photons (Sari \& Esin
138: 2001). Besides the synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) radiation from two
139: shocked regions, we also consider two combined IC (CIC) processes,
140: i.e., scattering of reverse shock photons by forward-shocked
141: electrons and scattering of forward shock photons by reverse-shocked
142: electrons, as pointed out by Wang, Dai \& Lu (2001).
143:
144: The structure of this paper is organized as follows: in the next
145: section we provide a unified description for the dynamics of
146: fireballs in the RSE and RWB models. In \S3, we present the energy
147: distributions of shocked electrons that are determined by the
148: shock-acceleration effect and the synchrotron \& IC cooling effect,
149: and formulate calculations of the synchrotron and IC radiation
150: (including SSC and CIC). In \S4, we show numerical results of the
151: dynamics, spectra and light curves for some typical parameters in
152: the two models. Finally, in \S5, a summary is given and the
153: observability of high-energy emission by the Large Area Telescope
154: (LAT) instrument of GLAST is discussed.
155:
156: \section{Dynamics}
157: As illustrated in Figure 1, in both the RWB and RSE models, the
158: system can be divided into four regions by the forward and reverse
159: shocks\footnote{It takes only a short time (tens to hundreds of
160: seconds) for a reverse shock to cross the ejecta of a typical GRB in
161: the RWB model. Meanwhile, two forward shocks forming initially
162: during the interaction of the ejecta both with the medium and with
163: the leptonic wind are assumed to merge to one forward shock. In
164: addition, the contribution of the GRB ejecta to the afterglow
165: emission should be negligible as compared with the shocked medium
166: and the shocked wind during the emission period of our interest.
167: Thus, for simplicity, the structure of an RWB can be described
168: approximately by Figure 1(a). However, for the RSE model, the
169: situation is different. The reverse shock propagates into the GRB
170: ejecta for a long time and thus influences the afterglow emission
171: during the first hours significantly (see numerical calculations in
172: \S 4).}: (1) the unshocked ambient medium, (2) the forward-shocked
173: medium, (3) the reverse-shocked materials (i.e., shocked leptonic
174: wind for the RWB model or shocked GRB ejecta for the RSE model), and
175: (4) the unshocked cold wind or GRB ejecta, where regions 2 and 3 are
176: separated by a contact-discontinuity surface.
177:
178: \subsection{Structure of injecting flows}
179: Figure 1 also shows illustrative $\Gamma_i$-distributions in all the
180: regions. The main differences between the two models are in the
181: structure and composition of injecting flows:
182:
183: (i) \textit{The RWB model}. Following the analysis of Dai (2004) for
184: a magnetar-driven wind, we simply assume that the leptonic wind
185: propagates outward with a constant luminosity $L_{\rm w}$ and a
186: constant bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma_{\rm w}$ during a period of
187: $T_{\rm w}$ after the burst\footnote{A quantity $Q'$ with a prime is
188: measured in the comoving frame of a certain region, while the other
189: quantities $Q$s are measured in the local medium's rest frame except
190: for specific declarations. In addition, a subscript ``$i=1,2,3,4$"
191: represents a quantity describing region ``$i$".}. Thus, we can
192: calculate the number density (${n'}_4^{(\rm RWB)}$) and the bulk
193: Lorentz factor ($\Gamma_4^{(\rm RWB)}$) of the pre-shock materials
194: at the reverse shock front as
195: \begin{equation}
196: {n'}_4^{(\rm RWB)}= n'_{\rm w}(R)={L_{\rm w}\over 4\pi
197: R^2\Gamma_{\rm w}^2m_{\rm e}c^3},\label{n41}
198: \end{equation}
199: \begin{equation}
200: \Gamma_{4}^{(\rm RWB)}=\Gamma_{\rm w}, \label{g41}
201: \end{equation}
202: where $m_{\rm e}$ is the rest mass of electrons and $R$ is the
203: radius of the system in the thin shell approximation.
204:
205: (ii) \textit{The RSE model}. As suggested by Rees \& M\'esz\'aros
206: (1998), the mass distribution in the wide GRB ejecta associated with
207: a distribution of bulk Lorentz factors reads
208: \begin{equation}
209: M_{\rm ej}(>\Gamma_{\rm ej})\propto\Gamma_{\rm ej}^{-s}.
210: \end{equation}
211: Moreover, we assume that the $\Gamma_{\rm ej}$-distribution in the
212: GRB ejecta satisfies
213: \begin{equation}
214: \Gamma_{\rm ej}(x)\propto x^{-1/b},
215: \end{equation}
216: where $x$ is the displacement of the reverse shock propagating into
217: the ejecta. If the Lorentz factor of the end of the ejecta (i.e.,
218: the minimum bulk Lorentz factor) is denoted by $\Gamma_{\rm
219: ej,min}$, then the total displacement of the reverse shock when it
220: crosses the ejecta could be estimated as $R_{\rm cross}/2\Gamma_{\rm
221: ej,min}^2\sim 10^{13}-10^{14}$ cm. Under these assumptions, the
222: associated injecting energy distributes with respect to $x$ as
223: $E_{\rm ej}\propto x^{s/b}$, and ${n'}_4^{(\rm RSE)}$ and
224: $\Gamma_{4}^{(\rm RSE)}$ are given by
225: \begin{equation}{n'}_4^{(\rm RSE)}=
226: n'_{\rm ej}(x)={{dM_{\rm ej}/dx}\over4\pi R^2\Gamma_{\rm
227: ej}(x)m_{\rm p}},\label{n42}
228: \end{equation}
229: \begin{equation}\Gamma_{4}^{(\rm RSE)}=\Gamma_{\rm
230: ej}(x),\label{g41}
231: \end{equation}
232: where $m_{\rm p}$ is the proton rest mass.
233:
234: \subsection{Dynamic equations}
235: Now, we describe the dynamic evolution of the systems under the
236: effect of the two types of injecting flow. A resultant long-lasting
237: reverse shock transforms the injecting energy into the internal
238: energy of the reverse-shocked materials continuously. Meanwhile, a
239: part of fresh energy is further transformed to the kinetic energy
240: ($E_{\rm K,2}$) of region 2 through the work done by region 3:
241: $\delta W=4\pi P'_3R^2dR$, where $P'_3$ is the pressure of region 3.
242: Then, we have
243: \begin{equation}
244: \delta W=dE_{\rm K,2}=d\left[(\Gamma_2^2-1)M_{\rm sw}c^2\right],
245: \end{equation}
246: where $M_{\rm sw}$ is the rest mass of the swept-up medium and
247: $\Gamma_2$ is the average bulk Lorentz factor of the shocked medium.
248: Thus, the dynamic evolution of region 2 is described by (Dai 2004)
249: \begin{equation}{d\Gamma_2\over dR}={4\pi
250: R^2\left[P'_3/c^2-(\Gamma_2^2-1)n_1m_{\rm
251: p}\right]\over2\Gamma_2M_{\rm sw}},\label{g2}
252: \end{equation}
253: where $dM_{\rm sw}/dR=4\pi R^2n_1m_{\rm p}$ is applied and $n_1$ is
254: the proton number density of the ambient medium. To integrate the
255: above equation, the pressure of region 3 should be calculated by
256: \begin{equation}
257: P'_3={1\over3}(\Gamma'_{34}-1)(4\Gamma'_{34}+3)n'_4m_{\rm
258: re}c^2,\label{p31}
259: \end{equation}where
260: $\Gamma'_{34}=\Gamma_{3}\Gamma_{4}(1-\beta_3\beta_4)$ is the Lorentz
261: factor of region 3 measured in region 4 and $\beta_i$ is the
262: velocity in units of $c$, and $m_{\rm re}$ represents the electron
263: and proton rest masses for the RWB and RSE models, respectively. The
264: evolution of $\Gamma_3$ can be obtained from the equality of Lorentz
265: factors of the two sides of the contact discontinuity surface,
266: assuming that the shocked medium in region 2 satisfies the adiabatic
267: self-similar solution of Blandford \& McKee (1976)
268: \begin{equation}
269: \Gamma_3=\Gamma_2\chi^{-1/2}.\label{g3}
270: \end{equation}
271: To fix the self-similar variable $\chi$, we use the following
272: relationship,
273: \begin{equation}P'_3={4\over3}\Gamma_2^2n_1m_{\rm p}c^2
274: \chi^{-17/12}.\label{p32}
275: \end{equation}
276: Combining Eqs. \ref{p31}, \ref{g3}, and \ref{p32} to eliminate
277: $\chi$, we can solve $\Gamma_3$ and $P'_3$ as functions of
278: $\Gamma_2$ and thus integrate Eq. \ref{g2}. Furthermore, the rest
279: mass of region 3 is obtained from
280: \begin{equation}
281: {dM_3\over dR}=4\pi R^2(\beta_4-\beta_{\rm RS})\Gamma_4n'_4m_{\rm re},
282: \end{equation}where
283: $\beta_{\rm
284: RS}=(\Gamma_3n'_3\beta_3-\Gamma_4n'_4\beta_4)/(\Gamma_3n'_3-\Gamma_4n'_4)$
285: is the velocity of the reverse shock.
286:
287: When the reverse shock crosses the wind or GRB ejecta, the dynamic
288: evolution of region 3 is described by Kobayashi \& Sari (2000) and
289: Kobayashi (2000). Then, the pressure of region 3 in Eq. \ref{g2}
290: decreases significantly and thus is negligible. As a result, the
291: dynamic equation of region 2 returns to the form of the standard
292: afterglow model in Huang et al. (1999).
293:
294: \section{Electron distributions and emission mechanisms}
295: After the dynamic evolution equations are given, the internal
296: physics of the shocked regions in the RWB and RSE models can be
297: considered as follows.
298:
299: \subsection{Electron energy distributions}
300: As the forward and reverse shocks propagate, the bulk kinetic
301: energies of the shells are gradually transformed into the internal
302: energy of the shocked materials, the density of which is denoted by
303: $e'_i$. The internal energy will be partially carried by the
304: accelerated electrons and magnetic fields, the energy densities of
305: which are factions $\epsilon_{{\rm e},i}$ and $\epsilon_{{\rm B},i}$
306: of $e'_i$, respectively. Through the shock acceleration, the
307: electrons behind the forward/reverse shock will obtain an initial
308: energy distribution $N'_{{\rm ini},i}({\gamma'}_{i})\propto
309: {\gamma'}_{i}^{-p}$ with the minimum Lorentz factor ${\gamma'}_{{\rm
310: m},i}=\lambda_i[(p-2)/(p-1)]\epsilon_{{\rm
311: e},i}(\tilde{\Gamma}_i-1)$ and the maximum Lorentz factor
312: $\gamma'_{{\rm max},i}\approx10^8[B'_i(1+Y_i)]^{-1/2}$, where
313: $\lambda_2=m_{\rm p}/m_{\rm e}$, $\lambda_3=m_{\rm re}/m_{\rm e}$,
314: $\tilde{\Gamma}_2=\Gamma_{2}$, $\tilde{\Gamma}_3=\Gamma'_{34}$, and
315: $B'_i$ is the magnetic field strength. The occurrence of the Compton
316: parameter $Y_i$ is induced by the IC cooling effect. By considering
317: the cooling effect of the synchrotron and IC radiation, we can
318: obtain the
319: actual electron energy distributions (Huang et al. 2000):\\
320: for ${\gamma'}_{{\rm c},i}\leq{\gamma'}_{{\rm m},i}$,
321: \begin{equation}
322: N'_i({\gamma'}_i)\propto\left\{
323: \begin{array}{ll}
324: {\gamma'}_i^{-2}~~~~~{\rm if}~~{\gamma'}_{{\rm
325: c},i}\leq{\gamma'}_i\leq{\gamma'}_{{\rm m},i},\\
326: {\gamma'}_i^{-p-1}~~~{\rm if}~~{\gamma'}_{{\rm
327: m},i}<{\gamma'}_i\leq{\gamma'}_{{\rm max},i};
328: \end{array}\label{ng1}
329: \right.
330: \end{equation}
331: and for ${\gamma'}_{{\rm c},i}>{\gamma'}_{{\rm m},i}$,
332: \begin{equation}
333: N'_i({\gamma'}_i)\propto\left\{
334: \begin{array}{ll}
335: {\gamma'}_i^{-p}~~~~~{\rm if}~~{\gamma'}_{{\rm
336: m},i}\leq{\gamma'}_i\leq{\gamma'}_{{\rm c},i},\\
337: {\gamma'}_i^{-p-1}~~~{\rm if}~~{\gamma'}_{{\rm
338: c},i}<{\gamma'}_i\leq{\gamma'}_{{\rm max},i}.\\
339: \end{array}
340: \right.\label{ng2}
341: \end{equation}
342: The cooling Lorentz factor ${\gamma'}_{{\rm c},i}$ is defined by
343: equaling the cooling timescale and dynamic expansion timescale of
344: the system, and it reads
345: \begin{equation}
346: {\gamma'}_{{\rm c},i}={6\pi m_{\rm e}c\over(1+Y_i)\sigma_{\rm
347: T}\Gamma_i {B'}_i^{2}t}\label{gc}
348: \end{equation}
349: with $\sigma_{\rm T}$ being the Thomson scattering cross section.
350: Here, the dynamic timescale measured in the observer's frame in
351: calculating ${\gamma'}_{\rm c}$ is assumed to be approximately equal
352: to the observer's time $t$ since the trigger. In addition, the
353: self-absorption of the synchrotron photons is ignored in Eqs.
354: \ref{ng1} and \ref{ng2} for the high-energy emission that we are
355: interested in. Following Sari \& Esin (2001), the Compton parameter
356: $Y_i$ in Eq. \ref{gc}, defined as the ratio of the IC (including SSC
357: and CIC) luminosity to the synchrotron luminosity of electrons, is
358: estimated by
359: \begin{equation}
360: Y_2\equiv{L'_{\rm IC,2}\over L'_{\rm syn,2}}={U'_{\rm
361: syn,2}+{1\over2}U'_{\rm syn,3}\over U'_{\rm B,2}},\label{y2}
362: \end{equation}
363: \begin{equation}
364: Y_3\equiv{L'_{\rm IC,3}\over L'_{\rm syn,3}}={U'_{\rm
365: syn,3}+{1\over2}U'_{\rm syn,2}\over U'_{\rm B,3}},\label{y3}
366: \end{equation}
367: where $U'_{{\rm syn},i}=\eta_i\epsilon_{{\rm e},i}e'_{i}/(1+Y_i)$
368: and $U'_{{\rm B},i}=\epsilon_{{\rm B},i}e'_{i}$ are the energy
369: densities of synchrotron seed photons and magnetic fields,
370: respectively. The radiation efficiency $\eta_i$ reads
371: \begin{equation}
372: \eta_i=\left\{
373: \begin{array}{ll}
374: 1,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm for}~~{\gamma'}_{{\rm
375: c},i}\leq{\gamma'}_{{\rm m},i},\\({\gamma'}_{{\rm
376: c},i}/{\gamma'}_{{\rm m},i})^{2-p},~~{\rm for}~~{\gamma'}_{{\rm
377: c},i}>{\gamma'}_{{\rm m},i}.
378: \end{array}\right.
379: \end{equation}
380: A factor of ${1\over2}$ in Eqs. \ref{y2} and \ref{y3} occurs,
381: because only about one-half of seed photons from one shocked region
382: will diffuse into the other one for the CIC process. In two extreme
383: situations, equations \ref{y2} and \ref{y3} can be simplified as \\
384: i) for $U'_{\rm syn,3}\gg U'_{\rm syn,2}$,
385: \begin{equation}
386: Y_2=\eta_3{\epsilon_{\rm e,3}e'_3\over2\epsilon_{\rm
387: B,2}e'_2}(1+Y_3)^{-1},~~Y_3=\eta_3{\epsilon_{\rm
388: e,3}\over\epsilon_{\rm B,3}}(1+Y_{3})^{-1};
389: \end{equation}
390: ii) for $U'_{\rm syn,3}\ll U'_{\rm syn,2}$,
391: \begin{equation}
392: Y_2=\eta_2{\epsilon_{\rm e,2}\over\epsilon_{\rm
393: B,2}}(1+Y_{2})^{-1},~~Y_3=\eta_2{\epsilon_{\rm
394: e,2}e'_2\over2\epsilon_{\rm B,3}e'_3}(1+Y_2)^{-1}.
395: \end{equation}
396:
397: \subsection{SSC and CIC emission}
398: Once the electron distribution is known, the synchrotron emissivity
399: of electrons in region $i$ at frequency $\nu'$ is calculated
400: directly by (Rybicki \& Lightman 1979)
401: \begin{equation}
402: {\varepsilon'}_i^{\rm syn}(\nu')={\sqrt{3}q_{\rm e}^3B'_i\over
403: m_{\rm e}c^2}\int d{\gamma'}_iN'_i({\gamma'}_i)\mathcal
404: {F}\left({\nu'\over\nu'_{\rm c}}\right),\label{psyn}
405: \end{equation}
406: where $q_{\rm e}$ is the electron charge, $\nu'_{\rm
407: c}=3{\gamma'}_i^2q_{\rm e}B'_i/(4\pi m_{\rm e}c)$,
408: $\mathcal{F}(u)=u\int_u^{\infty}K_{5/3}(k)dk$, and $K_{5/3}(k)$ is
409: the Bessel function.
410:
411: Accompanying with the synchrotron radiation, the electrons also lose
412: their energy through upscattering the synchrotron seed photons. As
413: usual, the first-order IC scattering is considered and the
414: higher-order processes are neglected. According to Blumenthal \&
415: Gould (1970), when the Klein-Nishina suppression is considered, the
416: IC emissivity (at a frequency $\nu'$) of electrons in region $i$
417: upscattering seed photons from region $j$ is calculated by ($i=j$
418: for SSC and $i\ne j$ for CIC)
419: \begin{equation}
420: {\varepsilon'}_i^{{\rm IC}(j)}(\nu')=3\sigma_{\rm T}\int
421: d{\gamma'}_iN'_i({\gamma'}_i)\int
422: {d{\nu}_{j}^{\dag}}{\nu'f_{j}^{\dag}\over
423: 4{\gamma'}_i^2{{\nu}_{j}^{\dag}}^2}g(x,y),
424: \end{equation}
425: where $g(x,y)=2y\ln y+(1+2y)(1-y)+{1\over2}{x^2y^2\over1+xy}(1-y)$
426: with $x=4\gamma'_ih{\nu}_{j}^{\dag}/m_{\rm e}c^2$,
427: $y={h\nu'/[x(\gamma'_im_{\rm e}c^2-h\nu')]}$. ${\nu}_{j}^{\dag}$ and
428: ${f}_{j}^{\dag}$ are the frequency and the corresponding flux
429: density of the incident photons from region $j$, respectively, which
430: are measured in the comoving frame of region $i$.
431:
432: The observed synchrotron and IC flux densities at a frequency $\nu$
433: (measured in the observer's frame) from region $i$ are given
434: respectively by (Huang et al. 2000)
435: \begin{equation}
436: F_{\nu,i}^{\rm syn}(t)=\int_0^{\pi}d\theta V'_i{\sin
437: \theta\over2}{{\varepsilon'}_i^{\rm syn}(\mathcal{D}_i\nu)\over 4
438: \pi D_{\rm L}^2\mathcal{D}_i^3},\label{fsyn}
439: \end{equation}
440: \begin{equation}
441: F_{\nu,i}^{{\rm IC}(j)}(t)=\int_0^{\pi} d\theta
442: V'_i{\sin\theta\over2}{{\varepsilon'}_i^{{\rm
443: IC}(j)}(\mathcal{D}_i\nu)\over4 \pi D_{\rm
444: L}^2\mathcal{D}_i^3},\label{fic}
445: \end{equation}
446: where $D_{\rm L}$ is the luminosity distance and
447: $\mathcal{D}_i=\Gamma_i(1-\beta_i\cos\theta)$ is the Doppler factor.
448: Here, the viewing angle is assumed to be zero and $\theta$ is the
449: angle between the moving direction of the emitting material and the
450: line of sight. The volumes $V'_i$ of the shocked regions in Eqs.
451: \ref{fsyn} and \ref{fic} are functions of $\theta$ because the
452: integrations are performed over the equal-arrival surface. In
453: addition, the jet correction should be considered if the GRB ejecta
454: is collimated.
455:
456: \section{Numerical Results}
457: \subsection{Dynamic evolution}
458: For the RWB and RSE models, we first calculate the dynamic evolution
459: with radius. The initial value of $R$ is taken to be $\sim10^{16}$
460: cm as the deceleration radius. For the RWB model, as in Yu \& Dai
461: (2007), the isotropic wind luminosity is $L_{\rm
462: w}=4\times10^{47}B_{14}^2~\rm erg~s^{-1}$, the wind duration $T_{\rm
463: w}=5\times10^4B_{14}^{-2}$ s, and the bulk Lorentz factor of the
464: wind $\Gamma_{\rm w}=10^4$, where $B_{14}$ is the magnetic field
465: strengthen of the central magnetar in unit of $10^{14}$ G. Here, we
466: take $B_{14}=4$ for a typical magnetar. Thus the total energy of the
467: wind is $E_{\rm w}=2.0\times10^{52}$ erg. However, the isotropic
468: kinetic energy of the previous GRB ejecta is relatively small,
469: $E^{\rm RWB}_{\rm ej}=10^{51}$ erg. For consistency, we assume that,
470: in the RSE model, the isotropic kinetic energy carried by the wide
471: GRB ejecta is $E^{\rm RSE}_{\rm ej}=2.1\times10^{52}$ erg, and the
472: distribution-related parameters are $\Gamma_{\rm ej,min}=30$,
473: $\Gamma_{\rm ej, max}=500$, and $s=b=1.5$. In addition, the number
474: density of the ambient interstellar medium is $n_1=1~\rm cm^{-3}$ in
475: both cases.
476:
477: The dotted lines in Figure 2 represent the dynamic evolution of
478: blast waves with a certain energy (i.e., without energy injection),
479: and the solid lines show the energy injection case. We can see
480: clearly from this figure that the energy ($\propto\Gamma_2^2$) of
481: the shocked medium increases gradually until the energy injection is
482: over. As analyzed in Yu \& Dai (2007), the final energy carried by
483: the shocked medium is a fraction $\sim 67\%$ of the total injecting
484: energy for the RWB model versus $\sim 90\%$ for the RSE model.
485: Meanwhile, the other fraction of the injecting energy ($\sim 33\%$
486: and $\sim 10\%$ for the RWB and RSE models, respectively) should be
487: shared by the reverse-shocked material. In addition, we can know
488: that the reverse shock is relativistic in the RWB model, but
489: Newtonian or trans-relativistic in the RSE model, according to an
490: estimation of the Lorentz factor of region 3 relative to region 4
491: from
492: \begin{equation}
493: \Gamma'_{34}\approx{1\over2}\left({\Gamma_3\over\Gamma_4}
494: +{\Gamma_4\over\Gamma_3}\right)
495: \end{equation}
496: with the values of $\Gamma_3$ as shown in Figure 2. This difference
497: between the reverse shocks in the two models is just the reason why
498: the reverse shock in the RWB model can share more injecting energy
499: than the one in the RSE model.
500:
501: \subsection{Spectra and light curves}
502: To calculate the emission of shocked materials, we take the
503: microphysical parameters $p=2.3$ and $\epsilon_{\rm B}=0.01$ for all
504: shocked regions. Then, $\epsilon_{\rm e}$ is calculated by
505: $\sqrt{\epsilon_{\rm B}}$ for the baryon-dominated regions (i.e.,
506: regions 2 \& 3 in the RSE model and region 2 in the RWB model) as
507: argued by Medvedev (2006) and $(1-\epsilon_{\rm B})$ for the
508: lepton-dominated region (i.e., region 3 in the RWB model). The
509: luminosity distance of a GRB is taken to be $D_{\rm L}=1$ Gpc,
510: corresponding to a redshift of 0.2.
511:
512: Figure 3 shows the light curves of an RWB. From this figure, we
513: obtain the following results. First, the shallow decay phase of an
514: X-ray (keV) afterglow is produced during the early hours (left upper
515: panel), which is mildly dominated by the reverse shock emission (for
516: a detailed discussion see Yu \& Dai 2007). The synchrotron radiation
517: is the dominative mechanism in this band. Second, an obvious hump
518: accompanying with the X-ray plateau occurs in a high-energy (MeV \&
519: GeV) afterglow, which is dominated by the IC (especially SSC)
520: emission from the reverse-shocked wind. Finally, a comparison of
521: light curves in different bands (right lower panel) shows that the
522: high-energy (especially GeV) emission flux is mildly or even
523: significantly higher than the one in X-ray band. This feature is
524: also implied obviously by the spectra as shown in Figure 4. The peak
525: flux of the IC emission at $\sim1$ GeV is about one order of
526: magnitude higher than the synchrotron peak at $\sim10$ eV. Moreover,
527: the IC component is dominative above sub-MeV and, in all bands, the
528: emission from the reverse-shocked wind is more important than the
529: one from the forward-shocked medium at 1000 s.
530:
531: The results for the RSE model are shown in Figures 5 and 6. From
532: these two figures, we find that, first, the X-ray shallow decay
533: phase during the early hours is also produced in this model as shown
534: in left upper panel of Figure 5, which is dominated by the forward
535: shock. Second, the high-energy afterglow light curves also have a
536: flattening segment. However, differing from the RWB model, the
537: contribution to the high-energy plateau from the IC emission plays a
538: role only in GeV band, whereas the MeV emission is totally
539: contributed by the synchrotron mechanism during the total afterglow
540: phase. This result arises from the relative weakness of the IC
541: component in the RSE model as shown in Figure 6. Therefore, the flux
542: in MeV or GeV band is lower than or approximately equal to the X-ray
543: flux as shown in right lower panel of Figure 5. In addition, Figure
544: 6 shows that the contribution of the emission from the
545: reverse-shocked ejecta is negligible in all bands for the parameters
546: that we adopt.
547:
548: In conclusion, we obtain very different high-energy afterglows in
549: the RWB and RSE models with a same amount of injecting energy that
550: gives rise to similar X-ray afterglows. The RWB model predicts more
551: significant (about one order of magnitude stronger) high-energy
552: emission than the RSE model. The reasons for this difference are
553: that the reverse shock in the RWB model is relativistic and that the
554: energy of the reverse shock is almost totally carried by electrons.
555: The former reason enables the reverse shock to share more (i.e.,
556: 33\% vs 10\%) injecting energy as discussed in Sect. 4.1, and the
557: latter reason dramatically increases the emission efficiency of the
558: reverse-shocked material through the enhanced IC emission.
559: Therefore, a higher fraction of injecting energy can be radiated
560: from the shocked regions in the RWB model. In the baryon-dominated
561: injection model, however, this significant enhanced IC component
562: doesn't happen even if the emission flux from the reverse shock
563: exceeds the one from the forward shock under some extreme
564: conditions, because most of the injecting energy in both shocked
565: regions is locked in the baryons whose emission is weak. Therefore,
566: we argue that the difference in high-energy emission between the RWB
567: and RSE models is essentially due to the physical distinction
568: between the two types of energy injection. Thus, reasonable
569: variations of the parameters for the models should not change our
570: results significantly.
571:
572: \section{Summary and discussion}
573: The discovered shallow decay phase of GRB X-ray afterglows suggests
574: long-lasting energy injection into relativistic blast waves. The
575: injecting flow is likely to be dominated in energy by the component
576: of either baryons or leptons. In this paper, we first provide a
577: unified description for dynamics and radiation in two representative
578: models, i.e., the RSE and RWB models. Through maintaining a
579: long-lasting reverse shock and doing work to forward-shocked medium,
580: both types of energy injection can produce the flattening segment in
581: X-ray afterglow light curves easily. Second, we pay attention to
582: calculations of the simultaneous high-energy emission that is due to
583: synchrotron and, especially, IC (including SSC and CIC processes)
584: radiation from the shocked materials. Our results show that, during
585: the shallow decay phase of X-ray afterglows, there is a plateau
586: (even a hump) in high-energy light curves in both the RSE and RWB
587: models. As argued by Wei \& Fan (2007), we suggest that the
588: plateau/hump might account for the delayed high-energy emission of
589: some bursts such as GRB 940217.
590:
591: We also find that the high-energy emission derived from the two
592: models has different observable features, e.g., morphologies of the
593: light curves and spectra. In particular, more significant
594: high-energy emission is predicted by the RWB model, because more
595: injecting energy in this model is carried by electrons and thus the
596: IC scattering is enhanced significantly. This difference in
597: high-energy emission between the two models could be tested in the
598: upcoming GLAST era. As proposed by Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros (2001b) and
599: Gou \& M\'esz\'aros (2007), the fluence threshold of the LAT
600: instrument aboard GLAST for an effective observation time $t_{\rm
601: eff}$ in an observation energy band centered around a photon energy
602: $E$ is estimated by $F_{\rm thr}\sim [\Phi_0(T/t_{\rm
603: eff})^{1/2}]Et_{\rm eff}$, where the flux sensitivity,
604: $[\Phi_0(T/t_{\rm eff})^{1/2}]$, scales as $t_{\rm eff}^{-1/2}$ due
605: to a limitation by the background for a long-time observation and
606: $\Phi_0$ is the sensitivity over an exposure time $T$. Specifically,
607: over a one-year exposure period, the sensitivity above 100 MeV is
608: $\sim 1.33\times10^{-9}~\rm ph~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}$ for point-source
609: observations of GRB afterglows (Gou \& M\'esz\'aros 2007). On the
610: other hand, for a short-time observation, the fluence threshold is
611: instead calculated by $F_{\rm thr}=5E/A_{\rm eff}$ with the
612: assumption that at least 5 photons are collected on an effective
613: area $A_{\rm eff}$ of the instrument. Taking $E=400$ MeV and $A_{\rm
614: eff}=6000~ \rm cm^{-2}$, we obtain the fluence threshold of GLAST
615: LAT,
616: \begin{equation}
617: F_{\rm thr}=\left\{
618: \begin{array}{ll}
619: 5.3\times10^{-7}~~~~~{\rm erg~cm^{-2}},~~~t\leq2.43\times 10^4\,{\rm s},\\
620: 3.4\times10^{-9}t^{1/2}~{\rm erg~cm^{-2}},~~~t>2.43\times 10^4\,{\rm s},
621: \end{array}\right.
622: \end{equation}
623: where an observation efficiency $\eta\equiv t_{\rm eff}/t=0.5$ due
624: to the occultation by the earth is considered. With this fluence
625: threshold, the observability of high-energy emission in the RWB and
626: RSE models by GLAST LAT is shown in Figure 7. It can be seen that
627: both the high-energy emissions predicted by the two models can be
628: detected by GLAST LAT for the given parameters. The partial fluence
629: of the high-energy emission in the RWB model is about an order of
630: magnitude higher than that in the RSE model for a same amount of
631: injecting energy. Here, the partial fluence is defined as an
632: integration of the flux density ($F_{\nu}$) over the GLAST LAT
633: energy band [20 MeV, 300 GeV] and the time intervals [$0.5t, t$] as
634: done in Gou \& M\'esz\'aros (2007).
635:
636: Although the detection of the RWB model by GLAST LAT is obviously
637: easier, joint observations of GLAST and Swift are necessary to
638: distinguish between the RWB and RSE models. Simultaneous
639: observations of a high-energy afterglow by GLAST LAT and an X-ray
640: afterglow by Swift XRT for a same GRB could provide a ratio of
641: fluxes ($\nu F_{\nu}$) in the high-energy band to the X-ray. As
642: implied by the right lower panels of Figures 3 and 5, for example,
643: the injecting flow could be dominated in energy by baryons if the
644: ratio $(\nu F_{\nu})_{\rm GeV}/(\nu F_{\nu})_{\rm keV}$ is close to
645: 1. On the other hand, if the ratio is significantly higher than 1,
646: there could be lepton-dominated energy injection.
647:
648: \section*{Acknowledgements}
649: We would like to thank Lijun Gou and an anonymous referee for
650: valuable comments and suggestions that have helped us to improve an
651: earlier version of this manuscript. This work is supported by the
652: National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 10221001 and
653: 10640420144). YWY is also supported by the Visiting PhD Candidate
654: Foundation of Nanjing University and the National Natural Science
655: Foundation of China (grant no.10603002).
656:
657: \begin{thebibliography}{}
658: \bibitem{}Blandford, R. D., \& McKee, C. F. 1976, Phys. Fluids., 19, 1130
659: \bibitem{}Blumenthal, G. R., \& Gould, R. J. 1970, Rev. Mod. Phys., 42, 237
660: \bibitem{}Coroniti, F. V. 1990, ApJ, 349, 538
661: \bibitem{}Dai, Z. G. 2004, ApJ, 606, 1000
662: \bibitem{}Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 1998a, A\&A, 333, L87
663: \bibitem{}Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 1998b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 4301
664: \bibitem{}de Pasquale, M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1031
665: \bibitem{}de Pasquale, M., et al. 2007, accepted by MNRAS, arXiv:astro-ph/0703447
666: \bibitem{}Fan, Y. Z., \& Xu, D. 2006, MNRAS, 372, L19
667: \bibitem{}Fan, Y. Z., Piran, T., Narayan, R., \& Wei, D. M., 2007, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:0704.2063
668: \bibitem{}Genet, F., Daigne, F., \& Mochkovitch, R. 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/0701204
669: \bibitem{}Gou, L. J., \& $\rm M\acute{e}sz\acute{a}ros$, P. 2007, accepted by ApJ, arXiv:0705.1545
670: \bibitem{}Granot, J., \& Kumar, P., 2006, MNRAS, 366, L13
671: \bibitem{}Huang, Y. F., Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 513
672: \bibitem{}Huang, Y. F., Gou, L. J., Dai, Z. G. \& Lu, T. 2000, ApJ, 543, 90
673: \bibitem{}Kirk, J. G., \& Skj{\ae}raasen, O. 2003, ApJ, 591, 366
674: \bibitem{}Kobayashi, S. 2000, ApJ, 545, 807
675: \bibitem{}Kobayashi, S., \& Sari, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 819
676: \bibitem{}Liang, E. W., Zhang, B. B., \& Zhang, B. 2007, accepted by ApJ, arXiv:0705.1373
677: \bibitem{}Liu, X. W., Wu, W. F., Zou, Y. C., \& Lu, T. 2007, to be submitted
678: \bibitem{}Medvedev, M. V. 2006, ApJ, 651, L9
679: \bibitem{}$\rm M\acute{e}sz\acute{a}ros$, P., \& Rees, M. J. 1997, ApJ, 476, 232
680: \bibitem{}Michel, F. C. 1994, ApJ, 431, 397
681: \bibitem{}Nousek, J. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 389
682: \bibitem{}O'Brien, P. T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1213
683: \bibitem{}Panaitescu, A., $\rm M\acute{e}sz\acute{a}ros$, P., \& Rees, M. J. 1998, ApJ, 503, 314
684: \bibitem{}Rees, M. J., \& $\rm M\acute{e}sz\acute{a}ros$, P. 1998, ApJ, 496, L1
685: \bibitem{}Ritz, S. 2007, a review talk in the First GLAST Symposium (5 February 2007)
686: \bibitem{}Rybicki, G. B., \& Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (New York: Wiley)
687: \bibitem{}Sari, R., \& Esin, A. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 787
688: \bibitem{}Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Narayan, R. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17
689: \bibitem{}Sari, R., \& $\rm M\acute{e}sz\acute{a}ros$, P. 2000, ApJ, 535, L33
690: \bibitem{}Sollerman, J., et al. 2007, A\&A, 466, 839
691: \bibitem{}Uhm, Z. L., \& Beloborodov, A. M. 2007, ApJ, 665, L93
692: \bibitem{}Wang, W., \& Dai, Z. G. 2001, Chin. Phys. Lett., 18, 1153
693: \bibitem{}Wang, X. Y., Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T., 2001, ApJ, 556, 1010
694: \bibitem{}Wei, D. M., \& Fan, Y. Z. 2007, ChJAA, 7, 509
695: \bibitem{}Willingale, R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1093
696: \bibitem{}Yu, Y. W., \& Dai, Z. G. 2007, A\&A, 470, 119
697: \bibitem{}Zhang, B., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 354
698: \bibitem{}Zhang, B., \& $\rm M\acute{e}sz\acute{a}ros$, P. 2001a, ApJ, 552, L35
699: \bibitem{}Zhang, B., \& $\rm M\acute{e}sz\acute{a}ros$, P. 2001b, ApJ, 559, 110
700: \end{thebibliography}
701: %
702: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
703: \begin{figure}\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}}
704: \caption{Illustrations of four regions divided by the forward and
705: reverse shocks in the RWB (left) and RSE (right) models, and the
706: corresponding distributions of Lorentz factors (not scaled).}
707: \end{figure}
708: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
709: %
710: %
711: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
712: \begin{figure}\resizebox{\hsize}{!} {\includegraphics{fig2.eps}}
713: \caption{Evolution of the Lorentz factors of regions 2 and 3 as the
714: shells in the RWB (left) and RSE (right) models expand. A dotted
715: line represents the dynamic evolution of the shell with a fixed
716: amount of energy as labeled.}
717: \end{figure}
718: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
719: %
720: %
721: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
722: \begin{figure}
723: \resizebox{\hsize}{!} {\includegraphics{fig3.eps}} \caption{Light
724: curves in X-ray (keV) and high energy gamma-ray (MeV, GeV) bands for
725: the RWB model. The emission from the forward-shocked medium is
726: represented by thick lines, while the reverse shock corresponds to
727: thin lines. The solid, dash-dotted, and dashed lines are due to SSC,
728: CIC, and synchrotron processes, respectively.}
729: \end{figure}
730: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
731: %
732: %
733: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
734: \begin{figure}
735: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig4.eps}}
736: \caption{Synchrotron and IC spectra at 1000 s for the RWB model. The
737: solid lines represent the emission contributed by the
738: forward-shocked medium, while the dotted lines correspond to the
739: reverse-shocked wind.}
740: \end{figure}
741: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
742: %
743: %
744: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%
745: \begin{figure}
746: \resizebox{\hsize}{!} {\includegraphics{fig5.eps}} \caption{Same as
747: in Figure 3 but for the RSE model.}
748: \end{figure}
749: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
750: %
751: %
752: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%
753: \begin{figure}
754: \resizebox{\hsize}{!} {\includegraphics{fig6.eps}} \caption{Same as
755: in Figure 4 but for the RSE model.}
756: \end{figure}
757: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
758: %
759: %
760: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%
761: \begin{figure}
762: \resizebox{\hsize}{!} {\includegraphics{fig7.eps}} \caption{The
763: partial fluence (defined as
764: $\int_{0.5t}^{t}\int_{\nu_1}^{\nu_2}F_{\nu}d\nu dt$, where $h\nu_1$
765: = 20 MeV and $h\nu_2$ = 300 GeV) curves for the RWB and RSE models.
766: The dotted line represents the fluence threshold of the GLAST LAT at
767: 400 MeV.}
768: \end{figure}
769: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
770: %
771: \end{document}
772: