1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{aastex}
3: % \documentclass{emulateapj}
4: % \usepackage{apjfonts}
5: % \usepackage{natbib}
6: % \usepackage{epsfig}
7: % \usepackage{subfig}
8: \shorttitle{Jet Break Candidates in X-ray and Optical Afterglow Lightcurves
9: }\shortauthors{Liang et al.} \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ}
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{A Comprehensive Analysis of {\em Swift}/XRT Data:
13: \\ III. Jet Break Candidates in X-ray and Optical Afterglow Lightcurves}
14: \author{En-Wei Liang\altaffilmark{1,2}, Judith L. Racusin \altaffilmark{3}, Bing Zhang\altaffilmark{1}, Bin-Bin
15: Zhang\altaffilmark{1,4}, David N. Burrows\altaffilmark{3}
16: } \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nevada, Las
17: Vegas, NV 89154; lew@physics.unlv.edu} \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics,
18: Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China} \altaffiltext{3}{Department of
19: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
20: 16802.}\altaffiltext{4}{National Astronomical Observatories/Yunnan Observatory,
21: CAS, Kunming 650011, China}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: The {\em Swift}/XRT data of 179 GRBs (from 050124 to 070129) and the optical
25: afterglow data of 57 pre- and post-{\em Swift} GRBs are analyzed, in order to
26: investigate jet-like breaks in the afterglow lightcurves. Using progressively
27: rigorous definitions of jet breaks, we explore whether the observed breaks in the
28: X-ray and optical lightcurves can be interpreted as a jet break, and their
29: implications in understanding GRB energetics if these breaks are jet breaks. We
30: find that not a single burst can be included in the ``Platinum'' sample, in which
31: the data satisfy all the criteria needed to define a jet break, i.e. a clear
32: achromatic break observed in both the X-ray and optical bands, and that the pre-
33: and post-break decay segments satisfy the closure relations in the same, simplest
34: jet model. However, by releasing one or more requirements to define a jet break,
35: some jet-break candidates of various degrees could be identified. In the X-ray
36: band, 42 out of the 103 well-sampled X-ray lightcurves have a decay slope of the
37: post-break segment $\gtrsim 1.5$ (``Bronze'' sample), and 27 of them also satisfy
38: the closure relations of the forward shock models for both the pre- and post-
39: break segments (``Silver'' sample). The numbers of the ``Bronze'' and ``Silver''
40: candidates in the optical lightcurves are 27 and 23, respectively. Thirteen
41: bursts have well-sampled optical and X-ray lightcurves, but only seven cases are
42: consistent with an achromatic break, but even in these cases only one band
43: satisfies the closure relations (``Gold'' sample). The breaks in other GRBs are
44: all chromatic. The observed break time in the XRT lightcurves is statistically
45: earlier than that in the optical bands. All these raise great concerns in
46: interpreting jet-like breaks as jet breaks and further inferring GRB energetics
47: from these breaks. On the other hand, if one {\em assumes} that these breaks are
48: jet breaks, one can proceed to perform a similar analysis as previous work to
49: study GRB collimation and energetics. We have performed such an analysis with the
50: ``Silver'' and ``Gold'' jet break candidates. We calculate the jet opening angle
51: ($\theta_j$) and kinetic energy ($E_K$) or their lower limits with the ISM
52: forward shock models using the X-ray afterglow data. The derived $E_K$
53: distribution reveals a much larger scatter than the pre-{\em Swift} sample. A
54: tentative anti-correlation between $\theta_j$ and $E_{\rm K,iso}$ is found for
55: both the pre-{\em Swift} and {\em Swift} GRBs, indicating that the $E_K$ could
56: still be quasi-universal, if the breaks in discussion are indeed jet breaks.
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \keywords{radiation mechanisms: non-thermal: gamma-rays: bursts: X-rays}
60:
61: \section{Introduction\label{sec:intro}}
62: {\em Swift}, a multi-wavelength gamma-ray burst (GRB) mission (Gehrels et al.
63: 2004), has led to great progress in understanding the nature of the GRB
64: phenomenon (see recent reviews by M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2006; Zhang 2007). One
65: remarkable advance from {\em Swift} is that the on-board X-ray telescope (XRT;
66: Burrows et al. 2005a) has established a large sample of X-ray lightcurves from
67: tens of seconds to days, sometimes even months (e.g. GRB 060729, Grupe et al.
68: 2006) after the GRB triggers, and revealed a canonical X-ray lightcurve that is
69: composed of four successive power-law decaying segments (Zhang et al. 2006;
70: Nousek et al. 2006; O'Brien et al. 2006a) with superimposing erratic flares
71: (Burrows et al. 2005b). These segments include a GRB tail segment (Segment 1,
72: with a decay slope\footnote{Throughout, we use the convention that the X-ray flux
73: evolves as $f\propto t^{-\alpha}\nu^{-\beta}$, where $\alpha$ is the decay slope,
74: $\beta$ is the spectral index, and the subscript of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ marks
75: the segment of the lightcurve.} $\alpha_1>2$), a shallow decay segment (Segment
76: 2, $\alpha_2<0.75$), a normal decay segment (Segment 3, $\alpha_3\sim 1$), and a
77: jet-like decay segment (Segment 4, $\alpha_4>1.5$). The GRB tail and the shallow
78: decay segment are usually seen in the XRT lightcurves (O'Brien et al. 2006a;
79: Liang et al. 2006; Willingale et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2007c, hereafter Paper I;
80: Liang et al. 2007, hereafter Paper II). The jet-like decay segment, however, has
81: occasionally been observed, but only for a small fraction of bursts (Burrows \&
82: Racusin 2007; Covino et al. 2006). Some bursts were observed with {\em Swift}/XRT
83: and/or {\em Chandra} for weeks and even months after the GRB triggers, with no
84: evidence of detecting a jet break in their X-ray lightcurves (Grupe et al. 2006;
85: Sato 2007).
86:
87: The jet models had been extensively studied in the pre-{\em Swift} era (e.g.,
88: Rhoads 1999, Sari et al. 1999; Huang et al. 2000; see reviews by M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros
89: 2002; Zhang \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2004; Piran 2005). An achromatic break is
90: expected to be observed in multi-wavelength afterglow lightcurves at a time when
91: the ejecta are decelerated by the ambient medium down to a bulk Lorentz factor
92: $\sim 1/\theta_j$, where $\theta_j$ is the jet opening angle (Rhoads 1999; Sari
93: et al. 1999). Most GRBs localized in the pre-{\em Swift} era with deep and long
94: optical monitoring have a jet-like break in their optical afterglow lightcurves
95: (see Frail et al. 2001; Bloom, Frail, \& Kulkarni 2003; Liang \& Zhang 2005 and
96: the references therein), but the achromaticity of these breaks was not confirmed
97: outside of the optical band. Panaitescu (2007) and Kocevski \& Butler (2007)
98: studied the jet breaks and the jet energy with the XRT data. However, the lack of
99: detection of a jet-like break in most XRT lightcurves challenges the jet models,
100: if both the optical and X-ray afterglows are radiated by the forward shocks.
101: Multiwavelength observational campaigns raise the concerns that some jet-break
102: candidates may not be achromatic (Burrows \& Racusin 2007; Covino et al. 2006,
103: cf. Dai et al. 2007; Curran et al. 2007). Issues regarding the nature of previous
104: ``jet breaks'' have been raised (e.g. Zhang 2007).
105:
106: The observational puzzles require a systematical analysis on both the X-ray and
107: the optical data. This is the primary goal of this paper. We analyze the {\em
108: Swift}/XRT data of 179 GRBs (from 050124 to 070129) and the optical afterglow
109: data of 57 pre-{\em Swift} and {\em Swift} GRBs, in order to systematically
110: investigate the jet-like breaks in the X-ray and optical afterglow lightcurves
111: (\S 2). We measure a jet break candidate from the data with a uniform method and
112: grade the consistency of these breaks with the forward shock models (\S 3), then
113: compare these breaks observed in the X-ray and optical lightcurves (\S 4).
114: Assuming that these breaks are real jet breaks, we revisit the GRB jet energy
115: budget (Frail et al. 2001; Bloom et al. 2003; Berger et al. 2003) with the
116: conventional jet models (\S 5). Conclusions and discussion are presented in \S 6.
117: Throughout this paper the cosmological parameters $H_0 = 71$ km s$^{-1}$
118: Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M=0.3$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ are adopted.
119:
120: \section{Data\label{sec:data}}
121: The XRT data are taken from the {\em Swift} data archive. We have developed a
122: script to automatically download and maintain all the XRT data. The {\em HEAsoft}
123: packages, including {\em XSPEC}, {\em XSELECT}, {\em XIMAGE}, and {\em Swift}
124: data analysis tools, are used for the data reduction. We have developed an IDL
125: code to automatically process the XRT data for a given burst in any
126: user-specified time interval. For details of our code please see Papers I and II.
127:
128: We process all the XRT data (179 bursts) observed between 2005 January and 2007
129: January with our tools. We are only concerned with the power-law afterglow
130: segments 2, 3, \& 4 without considering the steep decay segment (1) and the
131: flares in the lightcurves. Since the flares are generally superimposed upon the
132: underlying afterglows (Chincarini et al. 2007) and their spectral properties are
133: different from those of the power-law decaying afterglows (Falcone et al. 2007),
134: we do not consider the afterglow phases with significant flares. First, we
135: inspect the XRT lightcurve of each burst and specify the time interval(s) that we
136: use to derive the spectral and temporal properties. Then, we fit the lightcurve
137: in this time interval with a power-law-like model as presented below. We regard
138: that a lightcurve in the specified time interval does not have significant
139: flares, if the reduced $\chi^2$ of the power law fits is less than 2. We obtain a
140: sample of 103 XRT lightcurves that have a good temporal coverage without
141: significant flares.
142:
143: We fit the lightcurve in the specified time interval to derive the decay slopes
144: of the three segments and the two breaks, $t_{b,1}$ (the shallow to normal
145: transition break, possibly due to cessation of energy injection in the forward
146: shock; Paper II) and $t_{b,2}$ (the normal to steep transition break, possibly a
147: jet break). Physically, these breaks should be smooth (e.g., Panaitescu \&
148: M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 1999; Moderski et al. 2000; Kumar \& Panaitescu 2000; Wei \& Lu
149: 2000). As shown in Paper II, the energy injection break is usually seen in the
150: XRT lightcurves, and a smoothly broken power law (SBPL) model fits most XRT
151: lightcurves well, which is defined as
152: \begin{equation}\label{SBPL}
153: f=f_0\left[\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm
154: b,1}}\right)^{\omega_1\alpha_2}+\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm
155: b,1}}\right)^{\omega_1\alpha_3}\right]^{-1/\omega_1},
156: \end{equation}
157: where $\omega_1$ describes the sharpness of the break at $t_{\rm b,1}$, with a
158: larger value corresponding to a sharper break. If the jet-like decay segment is also
159: observed, the lightcurve break near $t_{b,2}$ evolves as
160: \begin{equation}\label{PL}
161: f_j=f_0\left[\left(\frac{t_j}{t_{\rm
162: b,1}}\right)^{\omega_1\alpha_2}+\left(\frac{t_j}{t_{\rm
163: b,1}}\right)^{\omega_1\alpha_3}\right]^{-1/\omega_1}
164: \left(\frac{t}{t_{b,2}}\right)^{-\alpha_4}.
165: \end{equation}
166: Therefore, a three-segment XRT afterglow lightcurve should be fitted with a
167: smoothed triple power law (STPL) model,
168: \begin{equation}\label{STPL}
169: F=(f^{-\omega_2}+f_j^{-\omega_2})^{-1/\omega_2}
170: \end{equation}
171: where $\omega_2$ is the sharpness factor of the jet break at $t_{b,2}$. At $t\ll
172: t_{\rm b, 1}$, the lightcurve is dominated by the shallow decay phase, $F\sim
173: (t/t_{\rm b,1})^{-\alpha_2}$, and at $t\gg t_{\rm b, 2}$, the lightcurve decays
174: as $F\sim (t/t_{\rm b,2})^{-\alpha_4}$. As shown in Paper II, $t_{b,1}$ and
175: $t_{b,2}$ are not significantly affected by $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$, but
176: $\alpha_3$ is. The normal decay segment can be smeared by both the pre- and post-
177: segments if $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ are small ($< 1$). We find that
178: $\omega_1=\omega_2=3$ can well identify the breaks in the lightcurves. Taking the
179: XRT lightcurve for GRB 060814 as an example, in Fig.1 we compare the fit curve of
180: the STPL model with a simpler fit by a joint triple power law (JTPL) model, which
181: is defined as
182: \begin{equation}
183: \label{JPL} F=f_0\cases{ t^{-\alpha_2},
184: & $t<t_{b,1}$, \cr
185: t_{b,1}^{\alpha_3-\alpha_2} t^{-\alpha_3},
186: & $t_{b,1}\leqslant t\leqslant t_{b,2}$, \cr
187: t_{b,1}^{\alpha_3-\alpha_2}t_{b,2}^{\alpha_4-\alpha_3}t^{-\alpha_4},
188: & $t>t_{b,2}$. \cr
189: }
190: \end{equation}
191: We find that the breaks at $\sim3.4$ ks and $\sim40$ ks are well identified in
192: both models, and the results are consistent with each other.
193: On the other hand, the STPL model is smooth
194: without sharp breaks (Fig.1), coinciding more within the physical context of
195: these breaks. The fitting result of the JTPL model strongly depends on the
196: initial values of the two breaks. The results may be misleading, especially when
197: the normal decay phase lasts only a very short time (in log-scale). Therefore, we
198: use the STPL model and fix $\omega_1=\omega_2=3$ throughout this analysis.
199:
200: The jet break signature may not be obvious, therefore we use the following
201: strategy to select the best model among the STPL, SBPL, and single power law
202: (SPL) models to fit the XRT lightcurves. In the sense of Occam's Razor, the
203: simplest model should be adopted. On ther other hand,
204: in order to avoid missing a jet break in the
205: lightcurves, we accept a fit model as the best one when the derived breaks are
206: sufficiently constrained by the data (i.e. $\delta t_b<t_b$, where $\delta t_b$
207: is the fitting error of $t_b$, even if the $\chi^2$ is not significantly improved
208: when compared to a simpler model). We thus first fit the lightcurves with the
209: STPL model (Eq. [\ref{STPL}]). This model is a reasonable fit to all of the
210: lightcurves. In case of $\delta t_b<t_b$, we suggest that such a lightcurve has
211: three segments and we adopt the STPL model fit. We find that only 6 lightcurves
212: satisfy this criterion (see Table 1). We fit the remaining lightcurves with the
213: SBPL model (Eq. [\ref{SBPL}]), and similarly we examine whether or not $t_{b,1}$
214: is sufficiently constrained. The SBPL fits are adopted for 78
215: lightcurves. We fit the remaining lightcurves (26 bursts) with the SPL model.
216: Please note that, as shown in Paper II, the sharp breaks in GRBs 060413, 060522,
217: 060607A, and 070110 are possibly not of external origin (see also Troja et al.
218: 2007). We do not include these sharp breaks in this analysis. GRB 060522 and
219: 070110 have a normal decay segment after an abnormally sharp lightcurve break,
220: therefore we fit this post-break region to a simple power law. GRB 061202 shows
221: significant spectral evolution throughout its lightcurve, so we do not consider
222: this burst either. Our full resulting fits are summarized in Table 1. Using the
223: time intervals defined by the fitting results, we extract the spectrum of each
224: segment, and fit it with a simple power law model with absorption by both our
225: Galaxy and the host galaxy. The spectral fitting results are also reported in
226: Table 1.
227:
228: In order to compare the X-ray break candidates with the optical lightcurves, we
229: also perform an extensive analysis of the optical lightcurves for both pre-{\em Swift}
230: and {\em Swift} bursts. We search for the optical afterglow data in the literature
231: and compile a sample of 57 optical lightcurves that have a good temporal coverage.
232: These lightcurves are fit with the same strategy as that for the XRT lightcurves.
233: The fitting results are reported in Table 2.
234:
235: \section{Jet Break Candidates in the X-Ray and Optical Lightcurves\label{sec:normal}}
236: A break with $\Delta \alpha \sim 1$ is predicted by the forward shock jet models.
237: Since it is purely due to dynamic effects, it should be achromatic with no
238: spectral evolution across the break, and both the pre- and post-break segments
239: should also be consistent with the forward shock models. As shown in Table 2, no
240: significant spectral evolution in the segments 3 and 4 is found for most bursts,
241: and the X-ray spectral index is $\sim 1$ (see also O'Brien et al. 2006b).
242: Assuming that both the optical and the X-ray afterglows are produced by the
243: forward shocks, we select jet break candidates from the results shown in Tables 1
244: and 2, and grade these candidates as ``Bronze'', ``Silver'', ``Gold'', and
245: ``Platinum'' based on the consistency of data with the models. The definitions of
246: these grades are summarized in Table 3. A break with a post-break segment being
247: steeper than 1.5 is selected as ``Bronze''. It is promoted to ``Silver'', if both
248: pre- and post-break segments are consistent with the closure relations of the
249: models\footnote{Notice that the ``Bronze' and ``Silver'' samples also include
250: bursts that are detected in both X-ray and optical bands. We include them as
251: long as one band satisfies the listed criteria, even if the breaks are
252: chromatic.}. If multiwavelength data are consistent with an achromatic break with only
253: one band satisfies the jet models, a ``Silver'' Candidate is elevated to ``Gold''
254: candidate. If an achromatic break can be established independently at least in
255: two bands with both bands satisfying the jet models, this break is termed as a
256: ``Platinum'' jet break candidate.
257:
258: \subsection{``Bronze'' Jet Break Candidates}
259: We first select the ``Bronze'' jet break candidates from both the X-ray and
260: optical data shown in Tables 1 and 2. Without multiple wavelength modelling, the
261: closure relations between the spectral index ($\beta=\Gamma-1$) and temporal
262: decay slope of the GRB afterglows present an approach to verify whether or not
263: the data satisfy the models (see Table 1 of Zhang \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2004 and
264: references therein, in particular Sari et al. 1998; Chevalier \& Li 2000; Dai \&
265: Cheng 2001). As shown in our Tables 1 and 2, the observed X-ray and optical
266: spectral indices are larger than 0.5 (except for the optical data of GRB 021004),
267: indicating that the observed X-ray and optical afterglows are usually in the
268: spectral regime of $\nu_X>\max(\nu_m,\nu_c)$ (Regime I) or $\nu_m<\nu_X<\nu_c$
269: (Regime II), where $\nu_c$ and $\nu_m$ are the cooling frequency and the typical
270: frequency of the synchrotron radiation, respectively. In the standard forward
271: shock models, the decay slope of the pre-break segment is
272: $\alpha_3=(3\beta_3-1)/2$ for emission in the spectral regime I (both ISM and
273: wind) and $\alpha_3=3\beta_3/2$ (ISM) or $\alpha_3=(3\beta_3+1)/2$ (wind) for
274: emission in Regime II. After the jet break and assuming maximized sideways
275: expansion of jets, the lightcurve evolves as $\alpha_4=2\beta$ (spectral regime
276: I) or $\alpha_4=2\beta+1$ (spectral regime II). If the jet sideways expansion
277: effect can be negligible, the post-break decay index $\alpha_4$ is shallower,
278: i.e. $\alpha_4=\alpha_3+0.75$ (ISM) and $\alpha_4=\alpha_3+0.5$ (wind)
279: (Panaitescu 2005). The observed X-ray spectral indices are greater than 0.5.
280: Therefore, within the ISM forward shock jet model the decay slopes of the pre-
281: and post-break segments of the X-rays in the spectral regime II should be greater
282: than 0.75 and 1.5, respectively (even without significant sideways expansion).
283: The wind model (regime II) and the jet model with maximum sideways expansion
284: would make the slopes even steeper. We therefore pick 1.5 as the critical slope
285: to define the ``Bronze'' jet break sample. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, 42 breaks
286: of the XRT lightcurves and 27 of the optical lightcurves satisfy the ``Bronze''
287: jet break candidate criterion. These lightcurves are shown in Fig. 2. We
288: summarize the data of these breaks in Table 4. Our ``Bronze'' jet break candidate
289: sample is roughly consistent with that reported by Panaitescu (2007). The jet
290: breaks in the radio afterglow lightcurve of GRBs 970508 (Frail et al.2000) and
291: 000418 (Berger et al. 2001) are also included in our ``Bronze'' sample.
292:
293: The criterion of the ``Bronze'' jet break candidate concerns only the decay slope
294: of the post-break segment. We notice that the lightcurve of the normal-decaying
295: phase declines as $\alpha_3=(3\beta+1)/2$ in wind medium, i.e., $\alpha_3\sim 2$
296: for $\beta\sim 1$. As shown in Paper II, some jet-like breaks have a pre-break
297: segment much shallower than that expected from the jet models. A reasonable
298: possibility would be that they are due to the energy injection effect in the
299: forward shock model in the wind medium. Therefore, some ``Bronze'' jet break
300: candidates may be fake energy injection breaks instead.
301:
302:
303: \subsection{``Silver'' Jet Break Candidates}
304: We promote a ``Bronze'' jet break candidate to the ``Silver'' sample if both the
305: pre- and post-break segments are consistent with the models in at least one band.
306: The decay slope of the pre-break segment of a jet break for the bursts in our
307: sample should be steeper than 0.75. Fifty-two out of the 71 ``Bronze'' jet break
308: candidates in Table 4 agree with the ``Silver'' candidate criterion (29 in the
309: X-ray lightcurves and 23 in the optical light curves). The X-ray light curve of
310: GRB 970828 has a break at $\sim 2.2$ days, with $\alpha_{3}=1.44$,
311: $\alpha_{4}=2.6$, and $\beta_{X}\sim 1$ (Djorgovski et al. 2001). The X-ray
312: lightcurve of GRB 030329 has a break at $0.52\pm 0.05$ days, with
313: $\alpha_{3}=0.87\pm 0.05$, $\alpha_{4}=1.84\pm 0.07$, $\beta_{3} =1.17$, and
314: $\beta_{4}=0.8\pm 0.3$ (Willingale et al. 2004). We include these two pre-{\em
315: Swift} GRBs in the X-ray jet break candidate ``Silver'' sample.
316:
317: Figure 3 shows the distribution of these bursts in the ($\alpha, \beta$)-plane
318: combined with the closure relations for the models (ISM and wind medium). The
319: X-ray data of the ``Silver'' jet break candidates are shown in Figs. 3(a) and
320: 3(b). It is found that the X-rays are consistent with the models in the spectral
321: regime I, although the decay slopes of both the pre- and post-break segments are
322: slightly shallower than the model predictions according to the observed spectral
323: indices (see also Willingale et al. 2007; Paper II). As argued in Paper II, this
324: may be due to the simplification of the models. Simulations considering more
325: realistic physical effects, such as energy transitions between different epoches
326: (Kobayashi \& Zhang 2007), evolution of microphysics parameters (Panaitescu et
327: al. 2006; Ioka et al. 2005), and jet profiles (Zhang et al. 2004; Yamazaki et al.
328: 2006), could expand the model lines into broad bands, which could
329: accommodate the observational data better.
330:
331: The data for the ``Silver'' jet break candidates in the optical band (15 pre-{\em
332: Swift} GRBs and 8 {\em Swift} GRBs) are shown in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d). Since no
333: time-resolved spectral analysis for the optical data is available, we take the
334: same spectral index for both the pre- and post-break segments. Differing from the
335: X-rays, the optical emission of the post-break segment is consistent with the jet
336: model in the spectral regime II for most bursts. However, the pre-break segment
337: is also shallower than that predicted by the models in this spectral regime.
338:
339: \subsection{``Gold'' Jet Break Candidates}
340: A ``Gold'' jet break candidate requires that the break is achromatic at least in
341: two bands, and that the break should satisfy the criteria of a ``Silver''
342: candidate at least in one band. Inspecting the data in Table 4 and the
343: lightcurves in Fig. 2, one approximately achromatic break is observed in both
344: X-ray and the optical lightcurves of GRBs 030329, 050730, 050820A, 051109A, and
345: 060605. The optical afterglows of GRBs 050525A, 060206, 060526, and 060614 are
346: bright, and a jet-like break is clearly observed in their optical lightcurves.
347: Guided by the optical breaks, some authors argued for achromatic breaks in the
348: XRT lightcurves of these GRBs. Without the guidance of the optical lightcurves,
349: one cannot convincingly argue a break in the XRT lightcurves of these GRBs, but
350: the data may be still consistent with the existence of an achromatic break. Both
351: the optical and radio data of GRB 990510 are consistent with the jet models. We
352: inspect the data of these bursts case by case, and finally identify 7 ``Gold''
353: candidates, as discussed below.
354: \begin{itemize}
355:
356: {\item GRB 990510}: The pre-Swift jet break candidate of GRB 990510 is an
357: exemplar of a jet break (Harrison et al. 1999). The break is achromatic in
358: different colors in the optical band. The radio data post the break is also
359: consistent with the jet models. However, with the radio data alone, one cannot
360: independently claim this break (D. Frail, 2006, personal communication).
361: Therefore, we include this jet candidate in the ``Gold'' but not ``Platinum''
362: category.
363:
364: {\item GRB 030329}: Its X-ray lightcurve has only five data points. Fitting with
365: the SBPL model shows that $\alpha_1=0.96\pm 0.56$, $\alpha_2=1.81\pm 0.05$, and
366: $t_{b,X}=30.6\pm 19.3$ ks with $\chi^2/{\rm dof}=4.2/1$. The break is consistent
367: with the closure relations, and the $t_{b,X}$ agrees with the $t_{b,O}$ within
368: error scope (see also Willingale et al. 2004). However, the achromaticity of this
369: break is somewhat questionable. The break in the X-ray lightcurve has a great
370: uncertainty since the fit has only one degree of freedom. On the other hand, the
371: fit to the SPL model yields $\alpha=1.72\pm 0.01$ and $\chi^2=9.0/3$, indicating
372: that the SBPL fit is required by the data. We cautiously grade this burst to the
373: ``Gold'' sample with the caveat of sparse X-ray data in mind.
374:
375: {\item GRB 050525A}: Blustin et al. (2006) fitted the XRT data of GRB 050525A and
376: derived a break at $13.726^{+7.469}_{-5.123}$ ks, with $\alpha_3=1.20\pm 0.03$
377: and $\alpha_4=1.62^{+0.11}_{-0.16}$. The break is consistent with being achromatic
378: with the break identified in the optical band. The issue with their fitting is that
379: the $\chi^2$ is too small (reduced $\chi^2_r$ = 0.50 (25 dof)). We increase the
380: signal-to-noise ratio of the data by rebinning the lightcurve, and fit it from
381: 5.94ks to 157.85 ks. We find that a simple power law is the best fit to the
382: data, with a decay slope $1.40\pm 0.05$ ($\chi^2_r\sim 1$, 11 dof). The decay
383: slope is much larger than that of the normal decay segment($\sim 1$). A jet-like
384: break is likely embedded in the data. We thus adopt the fitting by Blustin et al.
385: (2006) and cautiously include this burst in the ``Gold'' sample.
386:
387:
388: {\item GRB050820A}: Its optical lightcurve traces the XRT lightcurves after
389: $10^4$ seconds post-burst. An achromatic break at $\sim 4$ days post-burst is
390: observed. Its pre-break segments are well consistent with the models, but the
391: post-break segments are slightly shallower than the prediction of the jet models.
392: We cautiously promote this break to the ``Gold'' sample.
393:
394: {\item GRB 051109A}: The break time in both the X-ray and optical lightcurves is
395: $\sim 25$ ks. Although the decay slopes are $\alpha_{X, 4}=1.53\pm 0.08$ and
396: $\alpha_{O,4}=1.42\pm 0.12$, slightly shallower than those predicted by the
397: no-spreading jet models according to the observed spectral index, this burst is
398: included in the ``Gold'' candidate sample, similar to GRB 050820A.
399:
400: {\item GRB 060526}: The optical lightcurve of GRB 060526 has a significant break
401: at $\sim 1$ day post-burst (Dai et al. 2007). Its X-ray flux after $10^2$ ks is
402: very low (with a significance level of detection being lower than 3 $\sigma$).
403: Dai et al. (2007) suggested a jet-like break in the XRT lightcurve by considering
404: the contamination of a nearby source in the field of view. In all our analyses,
405: we do not try to identify a nearby X-ray contamination source for any GRB, so our
406: best fit does not reveal this jet-break within the observational error scope.
407: In view of the analysis of Dai et al. (2007), we also
408: cautiously grade this break in the ``Gold'' category.
409:
410: {\item GRB 060614}: After subtracting the contribution of the host galaxy, the
411: optical lightcurve of GRB 060614 shows a clear break at $104$ ks (Della Valle et
412: al. 2006). Mangano et al. (2007) argue that the XRT lightcurve also has a break
413: at this time. Fitting with our STPL cannot reveal this break. However, we note
414: that $\alpha_4$ in the X-ray lightcurve of this burst is $\sim 1.9$, consistent
415: with a post-jet-break decay slope. Although a jet-like break cannot be independently
416: claimed at the optical break time with the X-ray data alone, the multi-wavelength
417: data are still consistent with the existence of such a break, with the possibility
418: that the injection break time and the jet break time are close to each other.
419: Therefore, we agree with the suggestion
420: by Mangano et al. (2007) and grade this break as ``Gold''.
421:
422: \end{itemize}
423: To be conservative, we do not include GRBs 050730, 060206, and 060605 in our
424: ``Gold'' candidate sample, as discuss below.
425:
426: \begin{itemize}
427:
428: {\item GRB050730}: The break happens at $\sim 10$ ks in both the optical and
429: X-ray bands. The pre-break segment in both the X-ray and optical light curves is
430: much shallower than the forward shock model predictions. We thus do not grade
431: this break as a ``Gold'' candidate.
432:
433: {\item GRB 060605}: A tentative break is observed at $\sim 10$ ks in both the
434: optical and X-ray afterglow light curves. However, this break time is uncertain
435: in the optical band because no data point around the break time is available. On the
436: other hand, the decay slope of the pre-break segment is only $\sim 0.5$.
437: Similarly to GRB 050730, it is not considered as a ``Gold'' candidate.
438:
439:
440: {\item GRB 060206}: Curran et al. (2007) fitted the XRT data of GRB 060206 in the
441: range between $4$ ks and $10^3$ ks after the GRB trigger with the SBPL model,
442: and reported $t_b= 22^{+2.0}_{-0.8}$ ks, and the decay slopes of pre- and
443: post-break segments are $1.04\pm 0.1$ and $1.40\pm 0.7$, respectively. The
444: reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit is 0.79 (63 dof). Fitting with the SPL model, they
445: got a slope of $1.28\pm 0.02$ with a reduced $\chi^2=1.0$ (65 dof). The fitting
446: results with the SPL model is more reliable than that of the SBPL model. Also
447: by checking the consistency with the models, we find that the
448: the power law spectral index of the WT mode data $1.26\pm 0.06$ after the break
449: is consistent with the ``normal decay'' phase rather than the post-jet-break phase.
450: For example, for $\nu_X > {\rm max}(\nu_m,\nu_c)$, the model-predicted temporal
451: break index in the normal decay phase is $1.39\pm 0.09$, this is well consistent
452: with the data. We therefore do not consider this break as a ``Gold''
453: jet break candidate.
454:
455: \end{itemize}
456:
457: \subsection{``Platinum'' Jet Break Candidates}
458: With our definition, a ``Platinum'' jet break should be independently claimed in
459: at least two bands which should be achromatic. Furthermore, the temporal decay
460: slopes and spectral indices in both bands should satisfy those required in the
461: simplest jet break models. Since the optical and the X-ray afterglows could be in
462: different spectral regimes (Fig. 3), their lightcurve behaviors may be different
463: (e.g. Sari et al. 1999). However, none of the seven ``Gold'' candidates can be
464: promoted to the ``Platinum'' sample due to the various issues discussed above.
465: For some other ``Silver'' candidates in which a prominent ``break'' is observed
466: in one band, the lightcurve in the other band curiously evolves independently
467: without showing a signature of break (see \S4.4 for more discussion). It is fair
468: to conclude that {\em we still have not found a textbook version of jet break
469: after many years of intense observational campaigns}.
470:
471: \section{Comparison between the Jet Break Candidates in the X-ray and
472: Optical Bands}
473:
474: In this section we compare the statistical characteristics of the jet break
475: candidates in the X-ray and optical lightcurves. Our final graded jet break
476: candidates are shown in Table 4. The decay slopes of the pre-break segments of
477: those ``Bronze'' candidates are much shallower than the prediction of the jet
478: models. We cannot exclude the possibility that some ``Bronze'' jet break
479: candidates are due to the energy injection effect in the wind medium (Paper II).
480: Therefore, for the following analysis, we do not include the ``Bronze'' jet break
481: candidates.
482:
483: \subsection{Detection Fraction}
484: As shown above, within the 103 XRT lightcurves with a good temporal coverage, 27
485: have ``Silver'' or ``Gold'' jet break candidates. This fraction is 23/57 for
486: optical lightcurves. The detection fraction of jet break candidates in the XRT
487: lightcurves is significantly lower than that in the optical
488: lightcurves\footnote{Note that this effect may be partially due to the
489: observational effect. Most optical lightcurves with deep and long monitoring
490: during the pre-{\em Swift} era show a jet-like break. From Table 2, we find that
491: 16 {\em Swift} GRBs have optical monitoring longer than 1 day after the GRB
492: triggers. Among them 6 have a ``Silver'' or ``Gold'' jet break candidate. This
493: fraction is smaller than that of the pre-{\em Swift} GRBs. We notice that the
494: sensitivity of the Swift/BAT is much higher than the pre-{\em Swift} GRB
495: missions. It can trigger more less energetic GRBs at higher redshifts (Berger et
496: al. 2005b; Jakobsson et al. 2006e). Considering the suggestion that less
497: energetic bursts are less beamed (Frail et al. 2001), if the breaks under
498: discussion are indeed jet breaks, the break times of the {\em Swift} GRBs should
499: be later than those of the pre-{\em Swift} ones. Due to the time dilation effect,
500: the observed break time of the {\em Swift} GRBs should be also systematically
501: later than the pre-{\em Swift} GRBs. In addition, the rate of deep follow up
502: observations in the optical band drops in the {\em Swift} era, because the number
503: of bursts is greatly increased. All these effects would contribute to the bias of
504: detecting jet breaks in the pre-{\em Swift} and the {\em Swift} samples.}.
505:
506:
507: \subsection{Break Time}
508: Figure 4 shows the distributions of $t_{j}$ and $\Delta \alpha$ in the X-ray and
509: optical lightcurves. The distributions of $\log t_{\rm j,X}$/s and $\log t_{\rm
510: j,O}$/s peak at $4.5 $ and $\sim 5.5$, respectively. The $t_{\rm j,O}$
511: distribution has a sharp cutoff right at the high edge of the peak, indicating
512: that the peak is possibly not an intrinsic feature. Since the histogram depends
513: on the bin size selection, we test the normality of the data set with the
514: Shapiro-Wilk normality test. It shows that the probability of a normal
515: distribution for $t_{\rm j,O}$ is $p=11.5\%$ (at 0.05 confidence level), roughly
516: excluding the normality of the distribution. Therefore, this peak is likely due
517: to an observational selection bias. By contrast, the $t_{\rm j,X}$ distribution
518: is log-normal. The Shapiro-Wilk normality test shows $p=79.8\%$ (at confidence
519: level 0.05). These results suggest that the $t_{\rm j,X}$ is systematically
520: smaller than $t_{\rm j,O}$ (see also Kocevski \& Butler 2007). This raises the
521: possibility that X-ray breaks and optical breaks may not be physically of the
522: same origin.
523:
524: \subsection{$\Delta \alpha$}
525: With the closure relations of $p>2$ and assuming sideways expansion, we derive
526: $\Delta \alpha=(\beta+1)/2$ for the regime-I ISM model and all the wind models,
527: and $\Delta \alpha=\beta/2+1$ for the regime II ISM model\footnote{As show in
528: Fig. 3, most of the bursts (25 out of 29 bursts) are consistent with $p>2$.
529: Therefore we only consider the $p>2$ case.}. The observed $\beta_X$ is $\sim 1$,
530: hence $\Delta \alpha_X\sim 1$ or $\Delta \alpha_X\sim 1.5$. Figure 4 (right)
531: shows that the $\Delta \alpha_{X}$ distribution peaks at $\sim 1$, which suggests
532: that most X-ray afterglows are consistent with the regime II models (i.e. X-ray
533: is above both $\nu_m$ and $\nu_c$)\footnote{Two GRBs have a $\Delta \alpha_{X}$
534: greater than 1.5--- GRB 050124 ($\Delta \alpha_{X}=1.91\pm 0.96$) and GRB 051006
535: ($\Delta \alpha_{X}=1.66\pm 0.62$), but they have large errors.}. The
536: $\Delta\alpha_{O}$ show a tentative bimodal distribution, with two peaks at $\sim
537: 1$ and $\sim 1.7$, roughly corresponding to the regime I ($\nu_{O}
538: >\rm{max}(\nu_m,\nu_c)$) and regime II ($\nu_m<\nu_{O}<\nu_c$) ISM models,
539: respectively.
540:
541:
542: \subsection{Chromaticity}
543: Being achromatic is the critical criterion to claim a break as
544: a jet break. As shown above, the distribution of $t_{\rm j,X}$ is systematically
545: smaller than $t_{\rm j,O}$, which raises the concern of achromaticity of some of
546: these breaks. Monfardini et al. (2006) have raised the concern that some jet-like
547: breaks may not be achromatic.
548: We further check the chromaticity for the jet candidates case by
549: case. We find 13 bursts that have good temporal coverage in both X-ray and
550: optical bands, with a jet break candidate at least in one band. The
551: results are the following.
552: \begin{itemize}
553:
554: {\item The breaks in the X-ray and optical bands are consistent with being achromatic:
555: GRBs 030329, 050525A, 050820A, 051109A, 060526, and 060614.}
556:
557: {\item The X-ray and optical breaks are at different epochs}: GRBs 060206 and 060210
558:
559: {\item A ``Silver'' jet break candidate in the optical band, but no break in the
560: X-ray band}: GRBs 051111 and 060729.
561:
562: {\item A ``Silver'' or ``Bronze'' jet break candidate in the X-ray band, but no
563: break in the optical band}: GRBs 050318 (``Silver''), 050802 (``Bronze''), and
564: 060124 (``Silver'').
565: \end{itemize}
566: The ratio of achromatic to chromatic breaks is 6:7, indicating that the
567: achromaticity is not a common feature of these breaks. It is a great issue to
568: claim the chromatic breaks as a jet break. If both the X-ray and optical
569: emissions are from the forward shocks, one can rule out a large fraction (7/13)
570: of these jet break candidates (many are ``Silver'' candidates) as a jet break! We
571: indicate the achromaticity of the jet break candidates in Table 4. If the above
572: achromatic-to-chromatic ratio is a common value, most of the breaks without
573: multi-wavelength observations (marked with a ``?'' in Table 4) should be also
574: chromatic. A possible way out to still consider these breaks as jet breaks is to
575: {\em assume} that the band (either X-ray or optical) in which the break is
576: detected is from the forward shock, while emission from the other band is either
577: not from the forward shock or some unknown processes have smeared the jet break
578: feature from the forward shock in that band. Such a model does not explicitly
579: exist yet. We therefore suggest that {\em one should be very cautious to claim a
580: jet break, and further infer the GRB energetics from a jet break candidate}. We
581: are probably still a long way from understanding GRB collimation and energetics.
582:
583: \section{Constraints on GRB Jet Collimation and Kinetic Energetics}
584: As shown above, the observed chromatic feature is not consistent with the forward
585: shock models, and it is risky to infer GRB collimation and energetics from these
586: data. On the other hand, it may be still illustrative to perform such a study by
587: {\em assuming} that ``Silver'' break candidates are jet breaks due to the
588: following reasons. First, most pre-{\em Swift} works related to jet break and GRB
589: energetics (Frail et al. 2001; Bloom et al. 2003; Berger et al. 2003) were
590: carried out with one-band data only. If multi-wavelength data were not available
591: for the {\em Swift} bursts, one would still confidently take the post-{\em Swift}
592: ``Silver'' breaks as jet breaks. It is therefore valuable to study this expanded
593: sample and compare the results with the pre-{\em Swift} sample. Second, we notice
594: that there is no GRB that shows a ``Silver'' jet break candidate in both the
595: X-ray and optical bands but at different times. For example, although a chromatic
596: break is observed in both the optical and X-ray lightcurves of GRBs 060206 and
597: 060210, the X-ray break in GRB 060206 ($\alpha_2=0.40\pm 0.05$ and
598: $\alpha_3=1.26\pm 0.04$) and the optical break in GRB 060210 ($\alpha_2=0.04\pm
599: 0.22$ and $\alpha_3=1.21\pm 0.05$) are not jet break candidates. On the other
600: hand, the optical afterglow lightcurve of GRB 060729 show a significant jet-like
601: break, but its XRT lightcurve keeps decaying smoothly without a break. The
602: lightcurve behaviors in the optical and X-ray bands for most GRBs are also
603: enormously different (see also Paper II for a discussion of achromaticity of the
604: shallow-to-normal decay transition in many bursts). These facts suggest that the
605: jet-break candidates we see may indeed have a genuine origin, but we are probably
606: far from understanding the lightcurve behaviors of most bursts. In this section,
607: we {\em assume} that those ``Silver'' or ``Gold'' jet break candidates are jet
608: breaks, and follow the standard forward shock model to constrain jet collimation
609: and kinetic energy of the GRB jets.
610:
611: \subsection{Models}
612: In the standard afterglow models, the isotropic kinetic energy $(E_{\rm K,iso})$
613: can be derived from the data in the normal decay phase, and the jet kinetic
614: energy $E_K$ can be obtained from the jet break information (e.g. Rhoads 1999;
615: Sari et al. 1999; Frail et al. 2001). The models depend on the power law index
616: $p$ of the electron distribution, the spectral regime, and the medium
617: stratification surrounding the bursts (M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros \& Rees 1993; Sari et al.
618: 1998; Dai \& Lu 1998; Chevalier \& Li 2000; Dai \& Cheng 2001). As shown in Fig.
619: 3, most bursts in our sample (25 out of 29) are consistent with $p>2$. We
620: therefore only consider $p>2$ in this analysis. Essentially all the data are
621: consistent with the ISM model, although in some bursts the wind model cannot be
622: confidently ruled out. On the other hand, interpreting the early afterglow
623: deceleration feature in GRB 060418 (Molinari et al. 2007) requires that the
624: medium is ISM, even at the very early time (Jin \& Fan 2007). We therefore
625: consider only the ISM case in this paper.
626:
627: We use the X-ray afterglow data to calculate $E_{\rm K,iso}$, following the same
628: procedure presented in our previous Paper (Zhang et al. 2007a), which gives
629: \begin{eqnarray}
630: E_{\rm K,iso,52} & = & \left[\frac{\nu F_\nu (\nu=10^{18}~{\rm Hz})}{5.2\times
631: 10^{-14} ~{\rm ergs~s^{-1} ~cm^{-2}} }\right]^{4/(p+2)}D_{28}^{8/(p+2)}(1+z)^{-1}
632: t_d^{(3p-2)/(p+2)}\nonumber \\
633: & \times & (1+Y)^{4/(p+2)} f_p^{-4/(p+2)}\epsilon_{B,-2}^{(2-p)/(p+2)}
634: \epsilon_{e,-1}^{4(1-p)/(p+2)} \nu_{18}{^{2(p-2)/(p+2)}}
635: \nonumber \\
636: & & \ \ \ \ ({\rm Spectral\ regime\ I})\label{Ekiso1}\\
637: E_{\rm K,iso,52} & = &
638: \left[\frac{\nu F_\nu (\nu=10^{18}~{\rm Hz})}{6.5\times 10^{-13} ~{\rm
639: ergs~s^{-1} ~cm^{-2}} }\right]^{4/(p+3)} D_{28}^{8/(p+3)}(1+z)^{-1}
640: t_d^{3(p-1)/(p+3)}\nonumber \\
641: & \times &f_p^{-4/(p+3)} \epsilon_{B,-2}^{-(p+1)/(p+3)}
642: \epsilon_{e,-1}^{4(1-p)/(p+3)} n^{-2/(p+3)} \nu_{18}{^{2(p-3)/(p+3)}}
643: \nonumber \\
644: & & \ \ \ \ ({\rm Spectral\ regime\ II})\label{Ekiso2}
645: \end{eqnarray}
646: where $\nu f_\nu(\nu=10^{18}{\rm Hz})$ is the energy flux at $10^{18}$ Hz (in
647: units of ${\rm ergs~s^{-1} ~cm^{-2}}$) , $z$ the redshift, $D$ the luminosity
648: distance, $f_p$ a function of the power law distribution index $p$ (Zhang et al.
649: 2007a), $n$ the density of the ambient medium, $t_d$ the time in the observers
650: frame in days, $Y$ the inverse Compton parameter. The convention $Q_{n}=Q(\rm in\
651: cgs\ units)/10^{n}$ has been adopted.
652:
653: If the ejecta are conical, the lightcurve shows a break when the bulk Lorentz
654: factor declines down to $\sim \theta^{-1}$ at a time (Rhoads 1999; Sari et al.
655: 1999)
656: \begin{equation}
657: t_j\sim 0.5 {\rm\ days} (\frac{E_{\rm
658: K,iso,52}}{n})^{1/3}(\frac{1+z}{2})(\frac{\theta_j}{0.1})^{8/3}.
659: \end{equation}
660: The jet opening angle can be derived as
661: \begin{equation}
662: \theta_j\sim 0.17\left(\frac{t_j}{1+z}\right)^{3/8}\left(\frac{E_{\rm
663: K,iso,52}}{n}\right)^{-1/8}.\label{theta}
664: \end{equation}
665: The geometrically corrected kinetic energy is then given by
666: \begin{equation}
667: E_{\rm K,52}=E_{\rm K,iso,52}(1-\cos\theta_j)~.\label{EKJet}
668: \end{equation}
669: \subsection{Results}
670: Thirty {\em Swift} GRBs in our sample have redshifts available. Among them 14
671: bursts have a jet break candidate detection in the optical or X-ray
672: afterglow lightcurves. For those bursts without jet break detections, we take the
673: time of the last XRT observation as the lower limit of the jet break time. We
674: calculate $E_{\rm K,iso}$ and $\theta_j$ (or its lower limit) for these
675: bursts, then derive their $E_{\rm K}$ (or lower limits). We use the normal decay
676: phase to identify the spectral regime for each burst using the following method.
677: We define
678: \begin{eqnarray}
679: D=|\alpha^{\rm obs}-\alpha(\beta^{\rm obs})|,\\
680: \nonumber \\
681: \delta=\sqrt{(\delta \alpha^{\rm obs})^2+[\delta \alpha(\beta^{\rm obs})]^2},
682: \end{eqnarray}
683: where $\alpha^{\rm obs}(\delta \alpha^{\rm obs})$ and $\alpha(\beta^{\rm obs}) $
684: are the temporal decay slopes (errors) from the observations and that predicted
685: from the closure relations using the observed $\beta$, respectively, for the
686: normal decay phase. The ratio $\phi=D/\delta$ reflects the nearness of the data
687: point to the model lines within errors. In the case of $\phi <1$, the data point
688: goes across the corresponding closure relation line. We derive $\phi$ from the
689: data for both the spectral regimes I and II. By comparing the two $\phi$ values,
690: we then assign each burst to the spectral regime with the smaller $\phi$. We find
691: that the X-rays of about two-third of the bursts are in the spectral regime I.
692: Eq.(\ref{Ekiso1}) shows that the calculation of $E_{\rm K,iso}$ is independent of
693: $n$ and only weakly depends on $\epsilon_B$ and $p$ with the data in this
694: spectral regime. Therefore, this spectral regime is ideal to measure $E_{\rm K}$.
695: The X-rays of about one-third of the bursts are in the spectral regime II. The
696: inferred $E_{\rm K,iso}$ in this spectral regime significantly depends on both
697: $\epsilon_B$ and $n$. This makes it complicated to derive $E_{\rm K,iso}$. In
698: this case $\epsilon_B$ or $n$ must be very small (e.g. $\epsilon_B\lesssim
699: 10^{-3}$ or $n\sim 10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$) in order to have the cooling frequency
700: above the observed X-rays at $t\sim 1$ day while retaining a reasonable $E_{\rm
701: K,iso}$ (Zhang et al. 2007a). Please note that by keeping $\epsilon_e \sim 0.1$,
702: the $Y$ parameter does not increase significantly for a smaller $\epsilon_B$
703: since the Klein-Nishina correction factor $\eta_2$ parameter becomes much smaller
704: (Zhang et al. 2007a).
705:
706: After identifying the appropriate spectral regime, we derive $p$ from the
707: relations between $p$ and the spectral index (Table 5). Most derived $p$'s are
708: greater than 2, except for GRBs 050820A, 060912, and 060926, and we assign
709: $p=2.01$ for these bursts. In our calculation, we fix $n=0.1$ cm$^{-3}$ (Frail et
710: al. 2001) and take initial values of $\epsilon_B$ and $Y$ as $10^{-4}$ and $2.7$,
711: respectively. We iteratively search for the maximum value of $\epsilon_B$ that
712: ensures the X-rays are in the proper spectral regime. Previous broadband fits and
713: statistical analyses suggest that $\epsilon_e$ is typically around 0.1 (Wijers \&
714: Galama 1999; Panaitescu \& Kumar 2002; Yost et al. 2003; Liang et al. 2004; Wu et
715: al. 2004)\footnote{With the observations of {\em Swift}, some authors suggested
716: that the microphysical parameters possibly evolve with time (Panaitescu et al.
717: 2006; Ioka et al. 2006)}. Therefore we take $\epsilon_e=0.1$ for all the bursts.
718: The $E_{\rm K,iso}$ is calculated with the observed energy flux at a given time.
719: After the energy injection is over, $E_{\rm K,iso}$ is a constant in the scenario
720: of an adiabatic decelerating fireball. In principle, one can derive $E_{\rm
721: K,iso}$ at any time $t_d$ with Eqs.(\ref{Ekiso1}) and (\ref{Ekiso2}). We take the
722: flux at a time $\log t=(\log t_{b,2}+\log t_{b,1})/2$. Our results are reported
723: in Table 4.
724:
725:
726: We calculate $\theta_j$ and $E_{\rm K}$ for the pre-{\em Swift} GRBs with the
727: same method. We collect the X-ray afterglow data of the pre-{\em Swift} GRBs
728: from the literature. The results are shown in Table 5. Eight bursts in Table 5
729: are included in the sample presented by Frail et al. (2001). Assuming $n=0.1$
730: cm$^{-3}$ and GRB efficiency $\eta=0.2$, Frail et al. (2001) derived the jet
731: opening angles $\theta_j$ of these bursts with the observed gamma-ray energy.
732: We compare our results with theirs ($\theta_j^{'}$) in Fig. 5. They are
733: generally consistent with each other.
734: Since our calculations derive $E_{\rm K,iso}$ directly rather than assuming an
735: $\eta$ value, this result
736: indicates that the derivation of $\theta_j$ is insensitive to $\eta$, as
737: suggested by the ${-1/8}$ dependence of $E_{\rm K,iso}$ in Eq.(\ref{theta}).
738:
739: The distributions of $E_{\rm K,iso}$ and $p$ are displayed in Fig. 6. No
740: significant differences between the pre-{\em Swift} and the {\em Swift} samples
741: are found for these parameters. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test shows that
742: $p_{K-S}=0.61$ for the $E_{\rm K,iso}$ distribution and $p_{K-S}=0.81$ for the
743: $p$ distribution. As mentioned above, since we only consider $p>2$, the sharp
744: cutoff at $p=2$ is an artifact. A small fraction of bursts might have $p<2$ (such
745: as GRBs 050820A, 060912, and 060926), which would extend the $p$-distribution to
746: smaller values. No evidence for $p$-clustering among bursts is found (see also
747: Shen et al. 2006; Paper II). The $E_{\rm K,iso}$ distribution spans almost 3
748: orders of magnitude, ranging from $2\times 10^{52}$ to $1\times 10^{55}$ ergs
749: with a log-normal peak at $7\times 10^{53}$ ergs. The probability of the
750: normality is $73\%$ at 0.05 confidence level.
751:
752: The $\theta_j$ and $E_K$ distributions are shown in Fig.7. A sharp cutoff at
753: $\theta_j\sim 1.5^{\rm o}$ is observed. The $\theta_j$ of the {\em Swift} GRBs
754: derived from XRT observations tends to be smaller than that of the pre-{\em
755: Swift} GRBs. The $E_K$ of the pre-{\em Swift} GRBs log-normally distribute around
756: $1.5\times 10^{51}$ with a dispersion of 0.44 dex (at $1\sigma$ confidence
757: level). However, the $E_K$ of the {\em Swift} GRBs randomly distribute in the
758: range of $10^{50}\sim 10^{52}$ ergs (see also Kocevski \& Butler 2007). We examine
759: the correlation between $E_{\rm K,iso}$ and $\theta_j$ in Fig. 8. A tentative
760: anti-correlation is found, but it has a large scatter. The best fit yields
761: $E_{\rm K,iso}\propto \theta_j^{-2.35\pm 0.52}$, with a linear correlation
762: coefficient $r=-0.66$ and a chance probability of $p\sim 10^{-4}$ (N=28). This
763: suggests that although $E_K$ has a much larger scatter than the
764: pre-{\em Swift} sample, it is still quasi-universal among bursts.
765:
766: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}
767: We have presented a systematic analysis on the {\em Swift}/XRT data of 179 GRBs
768: observed between Jan., 2005 and Jan., 2007 and the optical afterglow lightcurves
769: of 57 GRBs detected before Jan. 2007, in order to systematically investigate the
770: jet-like breaks in the X-ray and optical afterglow lightcurves. Among the 179 XRT
771: lightcurves, 103 have good temporal coverage and have no significant flares in
772: the afterglow phase. The 103 XRT lightcurves are fitted with the STPL, SBPL, or
773: SPL model, and the spectral index of each segment of the lightcurves is derived
774: by fitting the spectrum with a simple absorbed power law model. The same fitting
775: is also made for the 57 optical light curves. We grade the jet break candidates
776: through examining the data with the forward shock models with ``Bronze'', ``Silver'',
777: ``Gold'', or ``Platinum''. We show that among the 103 well-sampled XRT
778: lightcurves with a break, 42 are ``Bronze'', and 27
779: are ``Silver''. Twenty-seven out of 57 optical breaks are
780: ``Bronze'', and 23 ``Silver''. Thirteen bursts have well-sampled lightcurves of
781: both the X-ray and optical bands, but only 6 cases are consistent with being
782: achromatic. Together with the GRB 990510 (in which an achromatic break in optical
783: and radio bands can be claimed, Harrison et al. 1999), we have 7 ``Gold''
784: jet break candidates. However, none of them
785: can be classified as ``Platinum'', i.e. a textbook
786: version of a jet break. Curiously, 7 out of the 13 jet-break candidates with
787: multi-wavelength data suggest a chromatic break at the ``jet break'', in contrary
788: to the expectation of the jet models. The detection fraction of a jet break
789: candidate in the XRT lightcurves is lower than that of the optical lightcurves,
790: and the break time is also statistically earlier. These facts suggest that one
791: should be very cautious in claiming a jet break and using the break information
792: to infer GRB collimation and energetics.
793:
794: On the other hand, the possibility that some of these breaks are jet breaks is
795: not ruled out. The ``Silver'' and ``Gold'' jet break candidates have both the pre-
796: and post-break temporal decay segments satisfying the simplest jet models,
797: suggesting that these break are likely indeed jet breaks. In order to compare with
798: the previous work on jet breaks, we then cautiously assume that the breaks in
799: discussion are indeed jet breaks and proceed to constrain the $\theta_j$ and
800: $E_K$ by using the X-ray afterglow data using the conventional jet models. We
801: show that the geometrically corrected afterglow kinetic energy $E_K$ has a
802: broader distribution than the pre-{\em Swift} sample, disfavoring the standard
803: energy reservoir argument. On the other hand, a tentative anti-correlation
804: between $\theta_j$ and $E_{\rm K,iso}$ is found for both the pre-{\em Swift} and
805: {\em Swift} GRBs, indicating that the $E_K$ could still be quasi-universal.
806:
807: The GRB jet models had been extensively studied in the pre-{\em Swift} era (e.g.,
808: Rhoads 1999; Sari et al. 1999; Panaitescu \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 1999; Moderski et
809: al. 2000; Huang et al. 2000; Wei \& Lu 2000; see reviews by M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros
810: 2002; Zhang \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2004; Piran 2005). The results of this paper
811: suggest that for most bursts the X-ray and optical afterglows cannot be
812: simultaneously explained within the simplest jet models. Data suggest that we may
813: be missing some basic ingredients to understand GRB afterglows. There have been
814: skepticism about the jet break interpretations before (e.g. Dai \& Lu 1999; Wei
815: \& Lu 2002a,b). The current data call for more open-minded thoughts on the origin
816: of lightcurve breaks (Zhang 2007). Observationally, at the epoch when the
817: jet-like breaks show up the flux level is typically low. Source contaminations
818: (e.g. GRB 060526; Dai et al. 2007) would complicate the picture. Careful analyses
819: are needed to claim the breaks. On the other hand, most of the curious late
820: afterglow break behaviors are likely not caused by these observational
821: uncertainties. For example, even if the contamination source is removed, the
822: broad band afterglow lightcurves of GRB 060526 (Dai et al. 2007) cannot be
823: incorporated within any simplest jet models.
824:
825: As cosmic beacons extending to high redshift universe (e.g. Lamb 2000; Bromm \&
826: Loeb 2002; Gou et al. 2004; Lin et al. 2004), GRBs have the potential to probe
827: the high-$z$ universe. Using the pre-{\em Swift} jet break sample, Ghirlanda et
828: al. (2004a) discovered a tight correlation between the cosmic rest-frame peak
829: energy ($E_p$) of the GRB $\nu f_\nu$ spectrum and the geometrically-corrected
830: GRB jet energy ($E_{\gamma}$). This correlation was taken as a potential standard
831: candle to perform cosmography studies (e.g. Dai et al. 2004; Ghirlanda et al.
832: 2004b). Liang \& Zhang (2005) proceed with a model-independent approach, and
833: derived a tight correlation among three observables, $E_{iso}$, $E_p^{'}$, and
834: $t^{'}_{b, O}$, with the later being the cosmic rest frame optical break time
835: only. This correlation was also used to constrain cosmological parameters (Liang
836: \& Zhang 2005; Wang \& Dai 2006). As shown in this paper, it is difficult to
837: accommodate both the X-ray and optical afterglow data within a unified jet model,
838: so that the Ghirlanda relation is not longer supported by the {\em Swift} data.
839: In fact, even with the optical data only, the {\em Swift} bursts make the
840: Ghirlanda relation more dispersed than the pre-{\em Swift} sample (Campana et al.
841: 2007). As shown in Figs. 4 and 6, the break times in the XRT lightcurves are
842: significantly smaller than that in the optical lightcurves (most are pre-{Swift}
843: bursts), but no significant difference is observed in the $E_{iso}$ distributions
844: of the pre-{\em Swift} and {\em Swift} GRBs. These results tend to suggest that
845: the jet break candidates in the XRT lightcurves do not share the same Liang-Zhang
846: relation derived from the pre-{\em Swift} optical data. Since the energy band of
847: {\em Swift} BAT is too narrow to reliably derive $E_p$ and $E_{iso}$ for most
848: GRBs, it is non-trivial to test the Liang-Zhang relation rigorously. We plan to
849: explore this interesting question in the future.
850:
851: GRBs fall into short-hard and long-soft categories (Kouveliotou et al. 1993) or
852: more generally Type I and Type II categories (Zhang et al. 2007b; Zhang 2006).
853: The progenitors of the two classes are distinctly different: Type II GRBs are
854: related to deaths of massive stars (Woosley \& Bloom 2006 and references
855: therein), and Type I GRBs are likely related to mergers of compact objects
856: (Gehrels et al. 2005; Fox et al. 2005; Barthelmy et al. 2005; Berger et al.
857: 2005a). Inspecting our sample of GRBs with known redshifts, there are two Type I
858: GRBs: 051221A and 060614\footnote{The classification of GRB 060614 is not
859: conclusive. Based on the fact that no supernovae associated nearby bursts and the
860: similarity of the temporal and spectral behaviors with short GRB 050724, it was
861: proposed that it would be from the merger of compact objects (Zhang et al. 2007b;
862: Gehrels et al. 2006; Zhang 2006). However, the apparently long duration suggests
863: it may be from a new type of collapsar with a small amount of $^{56}$Ni ejection
864: (Fynbo et al.2006; Della Valle et al. 2006; Gal-Yam et al. 2006; King et al.
865: 2007; Tominaga et al. 2007).}. Their X-ray afterglows are very bright, and the
866: derived $E_K$ from the XRT data are $\sim 6\times 10^{49}$ ergs and $\sim 2\times
867: 10^{50}$ ergs, respectively, roughly about 1 order of magnitude smaller than that
868: of the typical Type II GRBs. The $\theta_j$ of the two bursts are $\sim 12^{\rm
869: o}$ and $\sim 7^{\rm o}$, respectively. They are wider than those of the other
870: (Type II) {\em Swift} GRBs in our sample. Combining our results with the fact
871: that the $\theta_j$ of another short GRB 050724 is $>25^{\rm o}$ (Grupe et
872: al.2006; Malesani et al. 2007), we cautiously suggest that the short GRBs might
873: be less collimation, if the breaks are explained as a jet break.
874:
875: \acknowledgments
876:
877: We thank the referee for helpful suggestions, and Z. G. Dai, Dirk Grupe and
878: Goro Sato for valuable comments.
879: We acknowledge the use of the public data from the Swift data archive. This
880: work is supported by NASA under grants NNG06GH62G, NNG05GB67G, NNX07AJ64G,
881: NNX07AJ66G, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No.
882: 10463001 (EWL) and 10640420144.
883:
884:
885: \begin{thebibliography}{}
886: %\bibitem[Borozdin \& Trudolyubov(2003)]{2003ApJ...583L..57B} Borozdin,K.~N., \& Trudolyubov, S.~P.\ 2003, \apjl, 583, L57
887: %\bibitem[Butler \& Kocevski 2007]{2007astro.ph..2638B} Butler, N.~R., \& Kocevski, D.\ 2007,\apj, in press [arXiv:astro-ph/0702638]
888: %\bibitem[Campana et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.442.1008C} Campana, S., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 442, 1008
889: %\bibitem[Dai \& Lu 1998a]{1998A&A...333L..87D} Dai, Z.~G., \& Lu, T.\ 1998a, \aap, 333, L87
890: %\bibitem[Dai \& Lu 1998b]{1998PhRvL..81.4301D} Dai, Z.~G., \& Lu, T.\ 1998b, Physical Review Letters, 81, 4301
891: %\bibitem[Dai et al. 2006]{2006Sci...311.1127D} Dai, Z.~G., Wang, X.~Y., Wu, X.~F., \& Zhang, B.\ 2006, Science, 311, 1127
892: %\bibitem[Dai(2004)]{2004ApJ...606.1000D} Dai, Z.~G.\ 2004, \apj, 606, 1000
893: %\bibitem[Dermer 2007]{2006astro.ph..6320D} Dermer, C.~D.\ 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0606320)
894: %\bibitem[Fan \& Wei 2005]{2005MNRAS.364L..42F} Fan, Y.~Z., \& Wei, D.~M.\ 2005, \mnras, 364, L42
895: %\bibitem[Gal-Yam et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.444.1053G} Gal-Yam, A., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1053
896: %\bibitem[Granot \& Kumar 2006]{2006MNRAS.366L..13G} Granot, J., \& Kumar, P.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, L13
897: %\bibitem[Granot \& Kumar 2006]{2006MNRAS.366L..13G} Granot, J., \& Kumar, P.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, L13
898: %\bibitem[Grupe et al.(2006)]{2006astro.ph.11240G} Grupe, D., et al.\ 2006, , arXiv:astro-ph/0611240
899: %\bibitem[King et al. 2005]{2005ApJ...630L.113K} King, A., O'Brien, P.~T., Goad, M.~R., Osborne, J., Olsson, E., \& Page, K.\ 2005, \apjl, 630, L113
900: %\bibitem[Kumar \& Panaitescu 2000]{2000ApJ...541L..51K} Kumar, P., \& Panaitescu, A.\ 2000, \apjl, 541, L51
901: %\bibitem[Nakar(2007)]{2007PhR...442..166N} Nakar, E.\ 2007, \physrep, 442, 166
902: %\bibitem[Panaitescu \& Kumar (2001)]{803} Panaitescu, A., \& Kumar, P. 2001, ApJ, 560, L49
903: %\bibitem[Panaitescu et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...503..314P} Panaitescu, A., Meszaros, P., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1998, \apj, 503, 314
904: %\bibitem[Pe'er et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...652..482P} Pe'er, A., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 482
905: %\bibitem[Perna et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...636L..29P} Perna, R., Armitage, P.~J., \& Zhang, B.\ 2006, \apjl, 636, L29
906: %\bibitem[Perri et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...442L...1P} Perri, M., et al.\ 2005, \aap, 442, L1
907: %\bibitem[Price et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...589..838P} Price, P.~A., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 589, 838
908: %\bibitem[Proga \& Zhang 2006]{2006MNRAS.370L..61P} Proga, D., \& Zhang, B.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, L61
909: %\bibitem[Rees \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 1998]{1998ApJ...496L...1R} Rees, M.~J., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 1998, \apjl, 496, L1
910: %\bibitem[Rees \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 1998]{1998ApJ...496L...1R} Rees, M.~J., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 1998, \apjl, 496, L1
911: %\bibitem[Rhoads 1997]{1997ApJ...487L...1R} Rhoads, J.~E.\ 1997, \apjl, 487, L1
912: %\bibitem[Sari, R. \& Esin 2001]{901} Sari, R. \& Esin, A. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 787
913: %\bibitem[Shao \& Dai 2007]{2007astro.ph..3009S} Shao, L., \& Dai, Z.~G.\ 2007, ApJ, in press ( , arXiv:astro-ph/0703009)
914: %\bibitem[Tagliaferri et al. 2005]{2005Natur.436..985T} Tagliaferri, G., et al.\ 2005, \nat, 436, 985
915: %\bibitem[Wu et al. 2005]{918} Wu, X. F., Dai, Z. G., Huang, Y. F., \& Lu, T. 2005, ApJ, 619, 968
916: %\bibitem[Yu \& Dai(2007)]{2007arXiv0705.1108Y} Yu, Y.-W., \& Dai, Z.-G.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 705, arXiv:0705.1108
917: %\bibitem[Zhang \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2001]{2001ApJ...552L..35Z} Zhang, B., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2001, \apjl, 552, L35
918: \bibitem[Aoki et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..4703....1A} Aoki, K., Hattori, T.,Kawabata, K.~S., \& Kawai, N.\ 2006, GCN, 4703, 1
919: \bibitem[Barthelmy et al.(2005)]{2005Natur.438..994B} Barthelmy, S.~D., et al.\ 2005, \nat, 438, 994
920: \bibitem[Berger \& Gladders(2006)]{2006GCN..5170....1B} Berger, E., \& Gladders, M.\ 2006, GCN, 5170, 1
921: \bibitem[Berger \& Mulchaey(2005)]{2005GCN..3122....1B} Berger, E., \& Mulchaey, J.\ 2005, GCN, 3122, 1
922: \bibitem[Berger \& Soderberg(2005)]{2005GCN..4384....1B} Berger, E., \& Soderberg, A.~M.\ 2005, GCN, 4384, 1
923: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...556..556B} Berger, E., et al.\ 2001, \apj, 556, 556
924: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...590..379B} Berger, E., Kulkarni, S.~R., \& Frail, D.~A.\ 2003, \apj, 590, 379
925: \bibitem[Berger et al. (2005a)]{2005Natur.438..988B} Berger, E. et al. 2005a, Nature, 438, 988
926: \bibitem[Berger et al. (2005b)]{2005ApJ...634..501B} Berger, E. et al. 2005b, ApJ, 634, 501
927: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2005c)]{2005GCN..3368....1B} Berger, E., Cenko, S.~B., Steidel, C., Reddy, N., \& Fox, D.~B.\ 2005c, GCN, 3368, 1
928: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...594..674B} Bloom, J.~S., Frail, D.~A., \& Kulkarni, S.~R.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 674
929: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2006a)]{2006GCN..5217....1B} Bloom, J.~S., Foley,R.~J., Koceveki, D., \& Perley, D.\ 2006a, GCN, 5217, 1
930: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2006b)]{2006GCN..5826....1B} Bloom, J.~S., Perley,D.~A., \& Chen, H.~W.\ 2006b, GCN, 5826, 1
931: \bibitem[Blustin et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...637..901B} Blustin, A.~J., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 637, 901
932: \bibitem[Bromm \& Loeb(2002)]{2002ApJ...575..111B} Bromm, V., \& Loeb, A.\ 2002, \apj, 575, 111
933: \bibitem[Burrows \& Racusin 2007]{2007astro.ph..2633B} Burrows, D.~N., \& Racusin, J.\ 2007, preprint(astro-ph/200702633)
934: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2005a)]{2005SSRv..120..165B} Burrows, D.~N., et al.\ 2005a, Space Science Reviews, 120, 165
935: \bibitem[Burrows et al. 2005b]{2005Sci...309.1833B} Burrows, D.~N., et al.\ 2005b, Science, 309, 1833
936: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...653..468B} Burrows, D.~N., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 468
937: \bibitem[Campana et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...472..395C} Campana, S., Guidorzi, C., Tagliaferri, G., Chincarini, G., Moretti, A., Rizzuto, D., \& Romano, P.\ 2007, \aap, 472, 395
938: \bibitem[Castro-Tirado et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5218....1C} Castro-Tirado,A.~J., Amado, P., Negueruela, I., Gorosabel, J., Jelinek, M., \& de Ugarte Postigo, A.\ 2006, GCN, 5218, 1
939: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2005)]{2005GCN..3542....1C} Cenko, S.~B., et al. 2005, GCN, 3542, 1
940: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2006a)]{2006GCN..4592....1C} Cenko, S.~B., Berger, E., \& Cohen, J.\ 2006a, GCN, 4592, 1
941: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2006b)]{2006GCN..5155....1C} Cenko, S.~B., et al. 2006b, GCN, 5155, 1
942: \bibitem[Chevalier \& Li(2000)]{2000ApJ...536..195C} Chevalier, R.~A., \& Li, Z.-Y.\ 2000, \apj, 536, 195
943: \bibitem[Chincarini et al.(2007)]{2007astro.ph..2371C} Chincarini, G., et al.\ 2007, ApJ, submitted (arXiv:astro-ph/0702371)
944: \bibitem[Covino et al.(2006)]{2006astro.ph.12643C} Covino, S., et al. \ 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0612643
945: \bibitem[Cucchiara et al.(2006a)]{2006GCN..4729....1C} Cucchiara, A., Fox, D.~B., \& Berger, E.\ 2006, GCN, 4729, 1
946: \bibitem[Cucchiara et al.(2006b)]{2006GCN..5052....1C} Cucchiara, A., Price, P.~A., Fox, D.~B., Cenko, S.~B., \& Schmidt, B.~P.\ 2006, GCN, 5052, 1
947: \bibitem[Curran et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0706.1188C} Curran, P.~A., et al.\ 2007, MNRAS, in press(arXiv:0706.1188)
948: \bibitem[Dai \& Cheng 2001]{mmm} Dai, Z. G., \& Cheng, K. S. 2001, \apj, 558, L109
949: \bibitem[Dai \& Lu 1999]{838}Dai, Z. G. \& Lu, T. 1999, ApJ, 519, L155
950: \bibitem[Dai \& Lu(1998)]{1998A&A...333L..87D} Dai, Z.~G., \& Lu, T.\ 1998, \aap, 333, L87
951: \bibitem[Dai et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...612L.101D} Dai, Z.~G., Liang, E.~W., \& Xu, D.\ 2004, \apjl, 612, L101
952: \bibitem[Dai et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...658..509D} Dai, X., Halpern, J.~P., Morgan, N.~D., Armstrong, E., Mirabal, N., Haislip, J.~B., Reichart, D.~E., \& Stanek, K.~Z.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 509
953: \bibitem[D'Elia et al.(2005)]{2005GCN..4044....1D} D'Elia, V., et al.\ 2005, GCN, 4044, 1
954: \bibitem[D'Elia et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5637....1D} D'Elia, V., et al.\ 2006, GCN, 5637, 1
955: \bibitem[Della Valle et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.444.1050D} Della Valle, M., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1050
956: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...562..654D} Djorgovski, S.~G., Frail, D.~A., Kulkarni, S.~R., Bloom, J.~S., Odewahn, S.~C., \& Diercks, A.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 654
957: \bibitem[Falcone et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0706.1564F} Falcone, A.~D., et al.\ 2007, ApJ, submitted (arXiv:0706.1564)
958: \bibitem[Fox et al.(2005)]{2005Natur.437..845F} Fox, D.~B., et al.\ 2005, \nat, 437, 845
959: \bibitem[Frail et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...537..191F} Frail, D.~A., Waxman, E., \& Kulkarni, S.~R.\ 2000, \apj, 537, 191
960: \bibitem[Frail et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...562L..55F} Frail, D.~A., et al.\ 2001, \apjl, 562, L55
961: \bibitem[Fugazza et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5276....1F} Fugazza, D., et al.\ 2006, GCN, 5276, 1
962: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2005a)]{2005GCN..3136....1F} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., Hjorth,J., Jensen, B.~L., Jakobsson, P., Moller, P., \& Naranen, J.\ 2005a, GCN, 3136, 1
963: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2005b)]{2005GCN..3176....1F} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al.\ 2005b, GCN, 3176, 1
964: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2005c)]{2005GCN..3749....1F} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al.\ 2005c, GCN, 3749, 1
965: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.444.1047F} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1047
966: \bibitem[Gal-Yam et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.444.1053G} Gal-Yam, A., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1053
967: \bibitem[Gehrels et al. 2004]{2004ApJ...611.1005G} Gehrels, N., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 1005
968: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.(2006)]{2006Natur.444.1044G} Gehrels, N., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1044
969: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2004a)]{2004ApJ...613L..13G} Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D., \& Firmani, C.\ 2004a, \apjl, 613, L13
970: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2004b)]{2004ApJ...616..331G} Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., \& Lazzati, D.\ 2004b, \apj, 616, 331
971: \bibitem[Gou et al. (2004)]{2004ApJ...604..508G} Gou, L. J., M\'esz\'aros, P., Abel, T., Zhang, B. 2002, ApJ, 604, 508
972: \bibitem[Grupe et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...653..462G} Grupe, D., Burrows, D.~N., Patel, S.~K., Kouveliotou, C., Zhang, B., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., Wijers, R.~A.~M., \& Gehrels, N.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 462
973: \bibitem[Harrison et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...523L.121H} Harrison, F.~A., et al.\ 1999, \apjl, 523, L121
974: \bibitem[Huang, Gou, Dai, \& Lu(2000)]{2000ApJ...543...90H} Huang, Y.~F.,Gou, L.~J., Dai, Z.~G., \& Lu, T.\ 2000, \apj, 543, 90
975: \bibitem[Ioka et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...631..429I} Ioka, K., Kobayashi, S., \& Zhang, B.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 429
976: \bibitem[Ioka et al.(2006)]{2006AA...458....7}Ioka, K., Toma, K., Yamazaki, R., \& Nakamura, T.\ 2006, \aap, 458, 7
977: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006a)]{2006AA...447..897J} Jakobsson, P., et al.\ 2006a, \aap, 460, L13
978: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006b)]{2006GCN..5320....1J} Jakobsson, P., Vreeswijk, P., Fynbo, J.~P.~U., Hjorth, J., Starling, R., Kann, D.~A., \& Hartmann, D.\ 2006a, GCN, 5320, 1
979: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006c)]{2006GCN..5617....1J} Jakobsson, P., Levan, A., Chapman, R., Rol, E., Tanvir, N., Vreeswijk, P., \& Watson, D.\ 2006b, GCN, 5617, 1
980: %\bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006d)]{2006GCN..5716....1J} Jakobsson, P., Fynbo, J.~P.~U., Tanvir, N., \& Rol, E.\ 2006c, GCN, 5716, 1
981: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006e)]{2006A&A...447..897J} Jakobsson, P., et al.\ 2006e, \aap, 447, 897
982: \bibitem[Jaunsen et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..6010....1T} Jaunsen, A.~0., et al. \ 2006, GCN, 6010, 1
983: \bibitem[Jin \& Fan(2007)]{2007MNRAS.378.1043J} Jin, Z.~P., \& Fan, Y.~Z.\ 2007, \mnras, 378, 1043
984: \bibitem[Kelson \& Berger(2005)]{2005GCN..3101....1K} Kelson, D., \& Berger, E.\ 2005, GCN, 3101, 1
985: \bibitem[King et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.374L..34K} King, A., Olsson, E., \& Davies, M.~B.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, L34
986: \bibitem[Kobayashi \& Zhang(2007)]{2007ApJ...655..973K} Kobayashi, S., \& Zhang, B.\ 2007, \apj, 655, 973
987: \bibitem[Kocevski \& Butler(2007)]{2007arXiv0707.4478K} Kocevski, D., \& Butler, N.\ 2007, arXiv:0707.4478
988: \bibitem[Kouveliotou et al.(1993)]{1993ApJ...413L.101K} Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C.~A., Fishman, G.~J., Bhat, N.~P., Briggs, M.~S., Koshut, T.~M., Paciesas, W.~S., \& Pendleton, G.~N.\ 1993, \apjl, 413, L101
989: %\bibitem[Kulkarni et al.(1999)]{1999Natur.398..389K} Kulkarni, S.~R., et al.\ 1999, \nat, 398, 389
990: \bibitem[Kumar \& Panaitescu(2000)]{2000ApJ...541L...9K} Kumar, P., \& Panaitescu, A.\ 2000, \apjl, 541, L9
991: \bibitem[Lamb(2000)]{2000PhR...333..505L} Lamb, D.~Q.\ 2000, \physrep, 333, 505
992: \bibitem[Ledoux et al.(2005)]{2005GCN..3860....1L} Ledoux, C., et al.\ 2005, GCN, 3860, 1
993: \bibitem[Liang \& Zhang(2005)]{2005ApJ...633..611L} Liang, E., \& Zhang, B.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 611
994: \bibitem[Liang et al. (2004)]{875} Liang, E. W., Dai, Z. G., Wu, X. F. 2004, ApJ, 606, L29
995: \bibitem[Liang et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...646..351L} Liang, E.~W., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 351
996: \bibitem[Liang et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0705.1373L} Liang, E.-W., Zhang, B.-B., \& Zhang, B.\ 2007, ApJ, in press(arXiv:0705.1373) (Paper II)
997: \bibitem[Lin et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...605..819L} Lin, J.~R., Zhang, S.~N., \& Li, T.~P.\ 2004, \apj, 605, 819
998: \bibitem[Malesani et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...473...77M} Malesani, D., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 473, 77
999: \bibitem[M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2006]{2006RPPh...69.2259M} M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2006, Reports of Progress in Physics, 69, 2259
1000: \bibitem[M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros(2002)]{2002ARA&A..40..137M} M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2002, \araa, 40, 137
1001: \bibitem[Mangano et al. 2007]{2007arXiv0704.2235M} Mangano, V., et al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.2235
1002: \bibitem[Meszaros \& Rees(1993)]{1993ApJ...405..278M} M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1993, \apj, 405, 278
1003: \bibitem[Moderski et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...529..151M} Moderski, R., Sikora, M., \& Bulik, T.\ 2000, \apj, 529, 151
1004: \bibitem[Molinari et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...469L..13M} Molinari, E., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 469, L13
1005: \bibitem[Mondardini et al. (2006)]{2006ApJ...648.1125M} Monfardini, A. et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1125
1006: \bibitem[Nousek et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...642..389N} Nousek, J.~A., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 389
1007: \bibitem[O'Brien et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...647.1213O} O'Brien, P.~T., et al.\ 2006a, \apj, 647, 1213
1008: \bibitem[O'Brien et al.(2006)]{2006NJPh....8..121O} O'Brien, P.~T., Willingale, R., Osborne, J.~P., \& Goad, M.~R.\ 2006b, New Journal of Physics, 8, 121
1009: \bibitem[Panaitescu \& Kumar(2002)]{2002ApJ...571..779P} Panaitescu, A., \& Kumar, P.\ 2002, \apj, 571, 779
1010: \bibitem[Panaitescu \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros(1999)]{1999ApJ...526..707P} Panaitescu, A., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 1999, \apj, 526, 707
1011: \bibitem[Panaitescu et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.369.2059P} Panaitescu, A., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., Burrows, D., Nousek, J., Gehrels, N., O'Brien, P., \& Willingale, R.\ 2006, \mnras, 369, 2059
1012: \bibitem[Panaitescu(2005)]{2005MNRAS.363.1409P}Panaitescu, A.\ 2005, \mnras, 363, 1409
1013: %\bibitem[Panaitescu(2007a)]{2007MNRAS.379..331P} Panaitescu, A.\ 2007a, \mnras, 379, 331
1014: \bibitem[Panaitescu(2007a)]{2007MNRAS.380..374P} Panaitescu, A.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 374
1015: \bibitem[Piran(2005)]{2005RvMP...76.1143P} Piran, T.\ 2005, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143
1016: \bibitem[Rhoads(1999)]{1999ApJ...525..737R} Rhoads, J.~E.\ 1999, \apj, 525,737
1017: \bibitem[Rol et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5555....1R} Rol, E., Jakobsson, P., Tanvir, N., \& Levan, A.\ 2006, GCN, 5555, 1
1018: \bibitem[Sako, Harrison, \& Rutledge(2005)]{2005ApJ...623..973S} Sako, M., Harrison, F.~A., \& Rutledge, R.~E.\ 2005, \apj, 623, 973
1019: \bibitem[Sari et al. 1998]{1998ApJ...497L..17S} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Narayan, R.\ 1998, \apjl, 497, L17
1020: \bibitem[Sari et al. 1999]{1999ApJ...519L..17S} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Halpern, J.~P.\ 1999, \apjl, 519, L17
1021: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...657..359S} Sato, G., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 657, 359
1022: \bibitem[Shen et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.371.1441S} Shen, R., Kumar, P., \& Robinson, E.~L.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 1441
1023: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2005)]{2005GCN..4186....1S} Soderberg, A.~M., Berger, E., \& Ofek, E.\ 2005, GCN, 4186, 1
1024: \bibitem[Still et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5226....1S} Still, A., et al.\ 2006, GCN, 5226, 1
1025: \bibitem[Thoene et al.(2006)]{2006GCN..5373....1T} Thoene, C.~C., et al.\ 2006, GCN, 5373, 1
1026: \bibitem[Thoene et al.(2007)]{2007GCN..6663....1T}Thoene, C. C., Perley, D. A. , \& Bloom, J. S. 2007, GCN 6663
1027: \bibitem[Tominaga et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...657L..77T} Tominaga, N., et al. \ 2007, \apjl, 657, L77
1028: \bibitem[Troja et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...665..599T} Troja, E., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 665, 599
1029: \bibitem[Wang \& Dai(2006)]{2006MNRAS.368..371W} Wang, F.~Y., \& Dai, Z.~G.\ 2006, \mnras, 368, 371
1030: \bibitem[Wei \& Lu(2000)]{2000ApJ...541..203W} Wei, D.~M., \& Lu, T.\ 2000, \apj, 541, 203
1031: \bibitem[Wei \& Lu(2002a)]{2002} Wei, D.~M., \& Lu, T.\ 2002a, \mnras, 332,994
1032: \bibitem[Wei \& Lu(2002b)]{2002AA}Wei, D. M. \& Lu, T. 2002, A\&A, 381, 731
1033: \bibitem[Wijers\& Galama (1999)]{913} Wijers, R. A. M. J.\& Galama, T. J. 1999, ApJ, 523, 177
1034: \bibitem[Willingale et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.349...31W} Willingale, R., Osborne, J.~P., O'Brien, P.~T., Ward, M.~J., Levan, A., \& Page, K.~L.\ 2004, \mnras, 349, 31
1035: \bibitem[Willingale et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...662.1093W} Willingale, R., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 662, 1093
1036: \bibitem[Woosley \& Bloom(2006)]{2006ARA&A..44..507W_01} Woosley, S.~E., \& Bloom, J.~S.\ 2006, \araa, 44, 507
1037: \bibitem[Wu et al. 2004]{917} Wu, X. F., Dai, Z. G., Liang, E. W. 2004, ApJ, 615, 359
1038: \bibitem[Yamazaki et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.369..311Y} Yamazaki, R., Toma, K., Ioka, K., \& Nakamura, T.\ 2006, \mnras, 369, 311
1039: \bibitem[Yost et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...597..459Y} Yost, S.~A., Harrison, F.~A., Sari, R., \& Frail, D.~A.\ 2003, \apj, 597, 459
1040: \bibitem[Zhang (2006)]{2006Natur.444.1010Z} Zhang, B.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1010
1041: \bibitem[Zhang \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2004]{2004IJMPA..19.2385Z} Zhang, B., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19, 2385
1042: \bibitem[Zhang 2007]{2007ChJAA...7....1Z} Zhang, B.\ 2007, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 7, 1
1043: \bibitem[Zhang et al. (2004)]{2004ApJ...601L.119Z} Zhang, B., Dai, X., Lloyd-Ronning, N.~M., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2004, \apjl, 601, L119
1044: \bibitem[Zhang et al. 2006]{2006ApJ...642..354Z} Zhang, B., Fan, Y.~Z., Dyks, J., Kobayashi, S., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., Burrows, D.~N., Nousek, J.~A., \& Gehrels, N.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 354
1045: \bibitem[Zhang et al. 2007a]{2007ApJ...655..989Z} Zhang, B., et al.\ 2007a, \apj, 655, 989
1046: \bibitem[Zhang et al. 2007b]{2007ApJ...655L..25Z} Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B., Liang, E.-W., Gehrels, N., Burrows, D.~N., \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2007b, \apjl, 655, L25
1047: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2007c)]{2007ApJ...666.1002Z} Zhang, B.-B., Liang, E.-W., \& Zhang, B.\ 2007c, \apj, 666, 1002
1048:
1049: \end{thebibliography}
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054:
1055: %% The values (usually only l,r and c) in the last part of
1056: %% \begin{deluxetable}{} command tell LaTeX how many columns
1057: %% there are and how to align them.
1058: % \begin{tiny}
1059: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllllllllllllllll}
1060:
1061: %% Keep a portrait orientation
1062:
1063: %% Rotate to a landscape orientation
1064: \rotate
1065: %% Over-ride the default font size
1066: %% Use Default (12pt)
1067: \tablewidth{550pt} \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1068: %% Use \tablewidth{?pt} to over-ride the default table width.
1069: %% If you are unhappy with the default look at the end of the
1070: %% *.log file to see what the default was set at before adjusting
1071: %% this value.
1072:
1073: %% This is the title of the table.
1074: \tablecaption{XRT observations and the Fitting results}
1075:
1076: %% This command over-rides LaTeX's natural table count
1077: %% and replaces it with this number. LaTeX will increment
1078: %% all other tables after this table based on this number
1079: \tablenum{1}
1080:
1081: %% The \tablehead gives provides the column headers. It
1082: %% is currently set up so that the column labels are on the
1083: %% top line and the units surrounded by ()s are in the
1084: %% bottom line. You may add more header information by writing
1085: %% another line between these lines. For each column that requries
1086: %% extra information be sure to include a \colhead{text} command
1087: %% and remember to end any extra lines with \\ and include the
1088: %% correct number of &s.
1089:
1090: \tablehead{\colhead{GRB}&\colhead{$t_1$(ks)\tablenotemark{a}}&\colhead{$t_2$(ks)\tablenotemark{a}}&\colhead{$t_{b,1}(\delta
1091: t_{b,1})$(ks)\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$t_{b,2}(\delta
1092: t_{b,2})$(ks)\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$\alpha_2(\delta
1093: \alpha_2)$\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$\alpha_3(\delta
1094: \alpha_3)$\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$\alpha_4(\delta
1095: \alpha_4$\tablenotemark{b})}&\colhead{$\chi^2$(dof)}&\colhead{$\Gamma_2(\delta\Gamma_2)$}&\colhead{$\Gamma_3(\delta\Gamma_3$)}&\colhead{$\Gamma_4(\delta
1096: \Gamma_4$)}}
1097:
1098: %% All data must appear between the \startdata and \enddata commands
1099: \startdata
1100: &STPL\\
1101: \hline
1102: 050128 & 0.25 & 70.72 & 1.13(0.74) & 30.67(14.19) & 0.34(0.15) & 1.00(0.13) & 1.98(0.39) & 27(46) & 1.76(0.07) & 2.05(0.08) & 1.95(0.15)\\
1103: 060210 & 3.90 & 861.94 & 5.51(0.86) & 186.65(76.48) & -0.20(0.39) & 1.00(0.05) & 1.85(0.27) & 134(131) & -- & 2.12(0.08) & 2.11(0.33)\\
1104: 060510A & 0.16 & 343.41 & 2.89(1.87) & 47.65(16.75) & 0.01(0.09) & 0.87(0.17) & 1.74(0.12) & 84(140) & 1.91(0.07) & 2.04(0.14) & 2.06(0.14)\\
1105: 060807 & 0.28 & 166.22 & 3.80(1.15) & 14.89(5.88) & -0.22(0.13) & 0.96(0.24) & 1.92(0.12) & 42(34) & 2.19(0.16) & 2.18(0.09) & 2.40(0.20)\\
1106: 060813 & 0.09 & 74.25 & 0.19(0.04) & 15.24(3.88) & -0.01(0.19) & 0.87(0.03) & 1.63(0.13) & 56(73) & 2.05(0.09) & 1.99(0.05) & 2.10(0.07)\\
1107: 060814 & 0.87 & 203.31 & 5.92(2.88) & 68.58(23.27) & 0.32(0.13) & 1.06(0.12) & 2.38(0.40) & 44(48) & 2.21(0.05) & -- & 2.30(0.05)\\
1108: \hline
1109: &SBPL\\
1110: \hline
1111:
1112: 050124 & 11.37 & 58.66 &-- &29.37(12.61) & -- & 0.62(0.56) & 2.53(0.78) & 6(11) & --& 2.05(0.29) & 1.93(0.21) \\
1113: 050315 & 5.40 & 450.87 &-- &224.64(38.68) & -- & 0.66(0.03) & 1.90(0.28) & 42(52) & --& 2.31(0.12) & 2.17(0.07) \\
1114: 050318 & 3.34 & 45.19 &--& 10.64(4.97) & -- & 0.90(0.23) & 1.84(0.19) & 27(20) & --& 2.01(0.08) & 2.02(0.06) \\
1115: 050319 & 6.11 & 84.79 & 11.20(13.26) &-- & 0.23(0.59) & 0.99(0.25) &--& 9(9) & 2.00(0.06) & 2.04(0.07) &--\\
1116: 050401 & 0.14 & 801.04 & 5.86(0.78) & & 0.58(0.02) & 1.39(0.06)&-- & 107(92) & 2.06(0.06) & 2.03(0.04) &--\\
1117: 050416A & 0.25 & 261.69 & 1.74(1.12) & & 0.43(0.12) & 0.90(0.04)&-- & 36(38) & 2.19(0.20) & 2.15(0.10)& -- \\
1118: 050505 & 3.07 & 97.19 & 7.87(1.57) & & 0.15(0.19) & 1.30(0.06) & --& 26(45) & 2.00(0.07) & 2.03(0.04) & --\\
1119: 050713A & 4.61 & 1600.08 & 5.86(1.24) & & -0.27(1.05) & 1.16(0.03) & -- & 28(17) & 2.25(0.05) & 2.21(0.17)& -- \\
1120: 050713B & 0.79 & 478.50 & 10.80(1.59) & & -0.00(0.07) & 0.94(0.04) & --& 40(63) & 1.83(0.11) & 1.94(0.09) & --\\
1121: 050716 & 0.64 & 74.40 & 7.53(9.02) & & 0.76(0.16) & 1.35(0.24) & --& 31(36) & 1.60(0.08) & 2.01(0.13)& -- \\
1122: 050717 & 0.32 & 11.23 & -- & 1.84(0.95) & -- & 0.57(0.21) & 1.65(0.12) & 28(56) & --& 1.61(0.08) & 1.89(0.12) \\
1123: 050726 & 0.42 & 17.05 & --&1.17(0.33)& -- & 0.80(0.03) & 2.32(0.22) & 27(34) & --& 2.06(0.08) & 2.14(0.09) \\
1124: 050730 & 3.93 & 108.75 & --& 6.66(0.29)& -- & -0.37(0.25) & 2.49(0.04) & 203(215) & --& 1.65(0.03) & 1.70(0.03) \\
1125: 050801 & 0.07 & 46.10 & 0.25(fixed) & & 0(fixed) & 1.10(0.03) & --& 44(45) & -- & 1.91(0.12)& -- \\
1126: 050802 & 0.51 & 83.83 &-- &4.09(0.61) & -- & 0.32(0.10) & 1.61(0.04) & 58(72) & --& 1.92(0.05) & 1.89(0.07) \\
1127: 050803 & 0.50 & 368.89 & --&13.71(0.90) & -- & 0.25(0.03) & 2.01(0.07) & 94(57) & --& 1.78(0.10) & 2.00(0.08) \\
1128: 050820A & 4.92 & 1510.14 &--& 420.78(179.33) & -- & 1.11(0.02) & 1.68(0.21) & 246(292) & --& 1.63(0.05) & 1.87(0.04) \\
1129: 050822 & 6.41 & 523.32 & 66.99(44.38) & & 0.60(0.10) & 1.25(0.19) & -- & 29(44) & 2.29(0.23) & 2.36(0.11)& -- \\
1130: 050824 & 6.31 & 330.49 & 11.52(4.25) & & -0.40(0.52) & 0.61(0.06) & -- & 45(41) & 2.00(0.16) & 2.01(0.09) & --\\
1131: 050908 & 3.97 & 33.36 & --&7.81(5.33) & -- & 0.13(0.96) & 1.58(0.46) & 0(1) & --& - & 2.09(0.25) \\
1132: 050915A & 0.32 & 88.77 & 1.94(1.11) & & 0.39(0.27) & 1.24(0.09) & -- & 7(6) & 2.32(0.17) & 2.42(0.20)& -- \\
1133: %050922C & 0.12 & 61.14 & 0.66(1.49) & & 0.94(0.16) & 1.24(0.09) & --& 207(86) & 2.14(0.05) & 2.15(0.06)& -- \\
1134: 051006 & 0.23 & 13.13 & &0.93(0.71) & -- & 0.57(0.26) & 2.23(0.56) & 15(19) & --& 1.61(0.14) & 1.84(0.20) \\
1135: 051008 & 3.09 & 43.77 & 14.67(3.82) & & -- & 0.86(0.09) & 2.01(0.19) & 52(49) & --& 2.15(0.32) & 2.11(0.10) \\
1136: 051016A & 0.37 & 37.41 & 0.63(0.40) & & -0.41(1.18) & 0.91(0.12) & --& 0(7) & 2.40(0.26) & -- & --\\
1137: 051016B & 4.78 & 150.47 & --&66.40(23.09) & -- & 0.71(0.08) & 1.84(0.46) & 15(16) & --& -& 2.19(0.13) \\
1138: 051109A & 3.73 & 639.16 & --&27.28(7.90)& -- & 0.79(0.07) & 1.53(0.08) & 39(48) & --& 1.91(0.07) & 1.90(0.07) \\
1139: 051109B & 0.39 & 87.63 & 5.11(4.73) & & 0.56(0.17) & 1.22(0.17) & -- & 15(17) & 2.73(0.44) & 2.35(0.24)& -- \\
1140: 051117A & 18.19 & 970.14 & 104.23(151.17) & & 0.51(0.25) & 1.07(0.24) & --& 21(19) & 2.25(0.04) & 2.39(0.15) & --\\
1141: 051221A & 6.87 & 118.64 & --&40.74(15.89) & -- & 0.46(0.16) & 1.75(0.41) & 11(14) & --& 2.08(0.09) & 2.02(0.19) \\
1142: 060105 & 0.10 & 360.83 & --&2.31(0.14)& -- & 0.84(0.01) & 1.72(0.02) & 653(754) & --& 2.23(0.05) & 2.15(0.03) \\
1143: 060108 & 0.77 & 165.26 & --&22.08(7.38)& -- & 0.26(0.09) & 1.43(0.17) & 7(7) & --& 2.17(0.32) & 1.75(0.15) \\
1144: 060109 & 0.74 & 48.01 & 4.89(1.10) & & -0.17(0.14) & 1.32(0.09) & --& 19(13) & 2.32(0.15) & 2.34(0.14)& -- \\
1145: 060124 & 13.30 & 664.01 & --&52.65(10.33)& -- & 0.78(0.10) & 1.65(0.05) & 165(132) & --& 2.10(0.06) & 2.06(0.08) \\
1146: 060202 & 1.03 & 96.23 & 3.50(6.95) & & 0.68(0.37) & 1.14(0.13) & --& 51(31) & 2.96(0.19) & 3.41(0.14)& --\\
1147: 060203 & 3.80 & 32.95 & --&12.95(6.69) & -- & 0.40(0.30) & 1.65(0.47) & 4(7) & --& 2.08(0.19) & 2.25(0.13) \\
1148: 060204B & 4.06 & 98.80 & --&5.55(0.66) & -- & -0.49(0.65) & 1.47(0.07) & 21(34) & --& 2.54(0.14) & 2.64(0.16) \\
1149: 060206 & 0.11 & 621.77 & 8.06(1.46) & & 0.40(0.05) & 1.26(0.04) &--&43(44) & 2.31(0.12) & 2.33(0.32)&--\\
1150: %060210 & 3.85 & 861.94 & 24.44(5.07)& & -& 0.63(0.05) &
1151: 060211A & 5.40 & 527.10 & --&267.24(165.67) & -- & 0.38(0.08) & 1.63(1.27) & 10(9) & --& 2.15(0.06) & 2.11(0.26) \\
1152: 060306 & 0.25 & 124.39 & 4.67(2.91) & & 0.40(0.11) & 1.05(0.07) & --& 30(32) & 2.10(0.11) & 2.21(0.10) & --\\
1153: 060313 & 0.09 & 93.22 & --&11.18(2.89) & -- & 0.82(0.03) & 1.76(0.18) & 95(128) & --& 1.84(0.34) & 1.78(0.09) \\
1154: 060319 & 0.33 & 304.52 & --&99.70(26.78) & -- & 0.84(0.02) & 1.92(0.30) & 72(93) & --& 1.93(0.22) & 2.25(0.11) \\
1155: 060323 & 0.33 & 16.28 & --&1.29(0.32) & -- & -0.11(0.23) & 1.55(0.16) & 4(7) & --& 1.99(0.16) & 2.02(0.13) \\
1156: 060428A & 0.23 & 271.10 & --&125.31(47.19)& -- & 0.48(0.03) & 1.46(0.37) & 26(21) & --& 2.11(0.24) & 1.97(0.10) \\
1157: 060428B & 0.96 & 200.36 & 3.95(5.55) & & 0.53(0.41) & 1.16(0.13) & --& 19(21) & 2.41(0.24) & 2.10(0.33)& -- \\
1158: 060502A & 0.24 & 593.06 & --&72.57(15.05) & -- & 0.53(0.03) & 1.68(0.15) & 11(26) & --& 2.11(0.29) & 2.15(0.13) \\
1159: 060507 & 3.00 & 86.09 & 6.95(1.68) & & -0.06(0.55) & 1.12(0.07) && -- 13(24) & 2.06(0.23) & 2.15(0.14)& -- \\
1160: 060510B & 4.40 & 77.71 & --&67.90(29.88) & -- & 0.44(0.18) & 2.40(0.00) & 4(8) & --& 1.71(0.04) & -- \\
1161: 060526 & 1.09 & 45.20 & --&11.60(6.39) & -- & 0.42(0.12) & 1.58(0.34) & 5(9) & --& 2.07(0.09) & 2.08(0.16) \\
1162: 060604 & 4.14 & 403.81 & 11.51(9.81) & & 0.20(0.77) & 1.17(0.09) & --& 32(36) & 2.44(0.15) & 2.43(0.17)& -- \\
1163: 060605 & 0.25 & 39.85 & --& 7.14(0.93) & -- & 0.45(0.04) & 1.80(0.13) & 22(34) & --& 1.62(0.17) & 1.83(0.09) \\
1164: %060607A & 1.52 & 39.52 & 12.34(0.19) & & -- & -- & 3.35(0.09) & 132(139) & --& 1.74(0.03) & 1.62(0.04) \\
1165: 060614 & 5.03 & 451.71 & --&49.84(3.62) & -- & 0.18(0.06) & 1.90(0.07) & 70(54) & --& 2.02(0.02) & 1.93(0.06) \\
1166: 060707 & 5.32 & 813.53 & 22.21(54.08) & & 0.37(0.96) & 1.09(0.17) & -- & 8(11) & 1.88(0.08) & 2.06(0.20)& -- \\
1167: 060708 & 0.25 & 439.09 & 7.28(2.34) & & 0.57(0.08) & 1.32(0.07) & --& 39(35) & 2.30(0.20) & 2.36(0.11) & --\\
1168: 060712 & 0.56 & 317.56 & 7.89(2.67) & & 0.12(0.16) & 1.15(0.10) & -- & 15(14) & 3.21(0.38) & 2.94(0.28) & --\\
1169: 060714 & 0.32 & 331.97 & 3.70(0.97) & & 0.34(0.10) & 1.27(0.05) & --& 53(73) & 2.15(0.08) & 2.04(0.11)& -- \\
1170: 060719 & 0.28 & 182.15 & 9.57(2.70) & & 0.40(0.06) & 1.31(0.10) & --& 19(26) & 2.35(0.13) & 2.28(0.26) & --\\
1171: 060729 & 0.42 & 2221.24 & 72.97(3.02) & & 0.21(0.01) & 1.42(0.02) & --& 459(459) & 2.33(0.08) & 2.29(0.07)& -- \\
1172: 060804 & 0.18 & 122.07 & 0.86(0.22) & & -0.09(0.15) & 1.12(0.07) & --& 18(24) & 2.04(0.23) & 2.14(0.15) & --\\
1173: 060805A & 0.23 & 75.91 & 1.30(0.70) & & -0.17(0.41) & 0.97(0.13) & --& 11(17) & -- & 1.97(0.37) & --\\
1174: 060906 & 1.32 & 36.69 & --&13.66(3.29) & -- & 0.35(0.10) & 1.97(0.36) & 3(7) & --& 2.28(0.37) & 2.12(0.17) \\
1175: 060908 & 0.08 & 363.07 & --& 0.95(0.34) & -- & 0.70(0.07) & 1.49(0.09) & 98(59) & --& 2.01(0.22) & 2.00(0.08) \\
1176: 060912 & 0.12 & 86.80 & 2.92(2.77) & & 0.65(0.12) & 1.24(0.11) & --& 31(56) & -- & 2.03(0.12)& -- \\
1177: 060923A & 0.22 & 280.62 & 3.33(1.03) & & -0.16(0.22) & 1.30(0.06) & --& 34(21) & 2.05(0.25) & 1.86(0.18) & --\\
1178: 060923B & 0.16 & 6.03 & 0.42(0.64) & & -0.73(0.99) & 1.08(0.82) & --& 2(10) & 2.47(0.53) & 2.25(0.31)& -- \\
1179: 060926 & 0.09 & 5.96 & 1.13(0.92) & & 0.04(0.14) & 1.23(0.52) & --& 11(9) & 1.93(0.16) & 1.88(0.14)& -- \\
1180: 060927 & 0.11 & 5.64 & --&4.24(8.22) & -- & 0.73(0.32) & 1.82(2.60) & 4(7) & --& 1.65(0.19) & 1.92(0.15) \\
1181: 061004 & 0.39 & 69.99 & 1.50(0.52) & & -0.08(0.29) & 1.04(0.09) & --& 13(17) & 1.84(0.34) & 3.04(0.34) & --\\
1182: 061019 & 9.07 & 287.03 & 10.84(2.15) & & -1.38(2.88) & 1.15(0.08) & --& 6(10) & 2.32(0.20) & 1.93(0.28)& -- \\
1183: 061021 & 0.30 & 594.16 & 9.59(2.17) & & 0.52(0.03) & 1.08(0.03) & --& 94(87) & 1.90(0.06) & 1.72(0.05)& -- \\
1184: 061121 & 4.89 & 353.10 & --&24.32(4.38) & -- & 0.75(0.06) & 1.63(0.05) & 121(147) & --& 1.71(0.03) & 1.96(0.07) \\
1185: 061201 & 0.10 & 15.42 & --&2.09(0.75) & -- & 0.57(0.07) & 1.61(0.23) & 20(29) & --& 1.30(0.09)&-- \\
1186: 061222A & 10.94 & 724.64 & --&60.51(8.89) & -- & 0.81(0.07) & 1.86(0.06) & 144(95) & --& 2.45(0.06) & 2.22(0.12) \\
1187: 070103 & 0.11 & 143.98 & --&2.88(0.48) & -- & 0.20(0.10) & 1.63(0.08) & 43(30) & --& 2.32(0.25) & 2.52(0.21) \\
1188: %070107 & 0.58 & 202.15 & 1.47(0.24) & & 0.14(0.16) & 1.01(0.02) & --& 144(52) & 2.02(0.07) & 2.12(0.06)& -- \\
1189: 070129 & 1.32 & 546.36 & 20.12(3.14) & & 0.15(0.07) & 1.31(0.06) & --&42(70) & 2.25(0.07) & 2.30(0.10) & --\\
1190: \hline
1191: &SPL\\
1192: \hline
1193:
1194: 050219B & 3.21 & 85.26 & & & -- & 1.14(0.03) & -- & 24(32) & -- & 2.27(0.14) & --\\
1195: 050326 & 3.34 & 142.24 & & & -- & --&1.63(0.04) & 45(34) & -- & --&2.15(0.14) \\
1196: 050408 & 2.60 & 3223.36 & & & -- & 0.78(0.01) & -- & 52(44) & -- & 2.01(0.18) & --\\
1197: 050525A & 5.94 & 157.85 & & & -- & 1.40(0.05) & -- & 11(11) & -- & 2.17(0.18) & --\\
1198: 050603 & 39.72 & 166.22 & & & -- & --&1.71(0.10) & 8(10) & -- &--& 1.84(0.09) \\
1199: %050712 & 1.26 & 165.81 & & & -- & 0.93(0.04) & -- & 36(13) & -- & 2.29(0.16) & --\\
1200: 050721 & 0.30 & 257.24 & & & -- & 1.18(0.02) & -- & 80(98) & -- & 1.77(0.10) & --\\
1201: 050814 & 2.17 & 87.85 & & & -- & 0.65(0.05) & -- & 21(16) & -- & 1.91(0.07) & --\\
1202: 050826 & 0.13 & 61.93 & & & -- & 1.02(0.03) & -- & 23(21) & -- & 2.19(0.19) & --\\
1203: 050827 & 65.95 & 246.35 & & & -- & 1.24(0.15) & -- & 12(15) & -- & 1.88(0.15) & --\\
1204: 051001 & 6.71 & 273.86 & & & -- & 0.70(0.06) & -- & 30(25) & -- & 1.93(0.19) & --\\
1205: 051111 & 10.98 & 34.24 & & & -- & 1.09(0.17) & -- & 1(6) & -- & -- & --\\
1206: 051117B & 0.22 & 0.62 & & & -- & --&1.68(0.27) & 0(2) & -- & -- & --\\
1207: %060111B & 0.21 & 39.90 & & & -- & 0.99(0.02) & -- & 78(22) & -- & 2.11(0.12) & --\\
1208: 060115 & 5.44 & 326.04 & & & -- & 0.88(0.04) & -- & 12(12) & -- & 2.50(0.38) & --\\
1209: 060116 & 0.21 & 6.87 & & & -- & 0.88(0.06) & -- & 3(6) & -- & 2.33(0.39) & --\\
1210: %060312 & 0.44 & 78.40 & & & -- & 0.97(0.04) & -- & 94(26) & -- & 2.23(0.18) & --\\
1211: 060403 & 0.05 & 79.82 & & & -- & --&1.67(0.07) & 70(57) & -- & --&1.58(0.13) \\
1212: 060418 & 0.20 & 201.65 & & & -- & 1.45(0.02) & -- & 272(283) & -- & 2.24(0.05) & --\\
1213: 060421 & 0.12 & 6.52 & & & -- & 0.93(0.05) & -- & 11(7) & -- & 1.60(0.35) & --\\
1214: 060512 & 0.11 & 104.01 & & & -- & 1.39(0.02) & -- & 76(58) & -- & 3.60(0.19) & --\\
1215: 060522 & 5.50 & 432.75 & & & -- & 1.07(0.10) & -- & 7(13) & -- & -- & --\\
1216: 060825 & 0.23 & 63.15 & & & -- & 1.08(0.04) & -- & 4(6) & -- & 1.64(0.29) & --\\
1217: 061007 & 0.09 & 97.82 & & & -- & &1.68(0.01) & 2153(1880) & -- & -- &2.08(0.05)\\
1218: 061019 & 2.90 & 287.03 & & & -- & 0.95(0.03) & -- & 28(20) & -- & 2.12(0.21) & --\\
1219: 070110 & 43.70 & 439.51 & & & -- & 1.05(0.14) & -- & 9(5) & -- & 2.36(0.24) & --\\
1220:
1221: \enddata
1222:
1223: \tablenotetext{a} {The time interval of our fitting.}
1224:
1225: \tablenotetext{b}{The fitting results of the two-segment lightcurves with the
1226: SBPL model are reported in columns for the jet break candidate (Columns
1227: $t_{b,2}$, $\alpha_3$, $\alpha_4$, $\Gamma_3$, and $\Gamma_4$) if their
1228: post-break segments are steeper than $\gtrsim 1.5$; otherwise, the results are
1229: reported in the columns of the energy injection break(Columns $t_{b,1}$,
1230: $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$, $\Gamma_2$, and $\Gamma_3$). The results of the fitting
1231: results of the one-segment XRT lightcurves with the SPL model are similarly
1232: reported in the columns of the energy injection break or of the jet break
1233: candidate depending on their temporal decay slopes.}
1234:
1235: %\tablenotetext{a}{The fittings of these bursts have an unaccepted reduced
1236: %$\chi^2$ due to significant flicking.}
1237:
1238:
1239:
1240: %% Include any \tablenotetext{key}{text}, \tablerefs{ref list},
1241: %% or \tablecomments{text} between the \enddata and
1242: %% \end{deluxetable} commands
1243:
1244: %% General table comment marker
1245: %\tablecomments{Comments}
1246:
1247: %% General table references marker
1248: %\tablerefs{Refere}
1249:
1250:
1251: \end{deluxetable}
1252:
1253:
1254: %% The values (usually only l,r and c) in the last part of
1255: %% \begin{deluxetable}{} command tell LaTeX how many columns
1256: %% there are and how to align them.
1257: % \begin{tiny}
1258:
1259:
1260:
1261:
1262:
1263:
1264:
1265:
1266: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllll}
1267:
1268: \tablewidth{400pt} \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1269:
1270: \tablecaption{Optical Data and the Fitting results}
1271:
1272: \tablenum{2}
1273:
1274: \tablehead{ \colhead{GRB\tablenotemark{a}}& \colhead{$t_1$(ks)\tablenotemark{b}}&
1275: \colhead{$t_2$(ks)\tablenotemark{b}}& \colhead{$t_{b,O}(\delta t_{b,O})$(ks)}&
1276: \colhead{$\alpha_{O,3}(\delta \alpha_{O,3})$}& \colhead{$\alpha_{O,4}(\delta
1277: \alpha_{O,4})$}& \colhead{$\chi^2$(dof)\tablenotemark{c}} %&\colhead{ref.}
1278: }
1279:
1280: \startdata
1281: 970508 & 30.00 & 7421.93 & 139.67(3.16) & -2.73 & 1.21(0.02) & 29(21) & \\
1282: 980703 & 81.26 & 343.92 & 214.92(10.15) & 1.11 & 2.83 & 7(7) & \\
1283: 990123 & 13.31 & 1907.45 & 155.13(78.79) & 0.98(0.10) & 1.71(0.10) & 12(8) & \\
1284: 990510 & 12.44 & 340.24 & 101.91(12.48) & 0.86(0.03) & 1.95(0.14) & 17(17) & \\
1285: 990712 & 15.25 & 2991.47 & 2000.00(fixed) & 0.97 & 2.32 & 15(11) & \\
1286: 991216 & 41.17 & 1100.60 & 248.71(67.63) & 1.22(0.04) & 2.17 & 27(13) & \\
1287: 000301 & 134.00 & 4198.10 & 562.87(18.70) & 1.04 & 2.97 & 25(24) & \\
1288: 000926 & 74.48 & 591.61 & 175.18(4.62) & 1.48 & 2.49 & 35(24) & \\
1289: 010222 & 13.09 & 2124.75 & 32.12(3.62) & 0.43(0.08) & 1.29(0.02) & 29(48) & \\
1290: 011211 & 34.40 & 2755.47 & 198.66(16.68) & 0.85(0.05) & 2.36 & 26(33) & \\
1291: 020124 & 5.77 & 2787.67 & 8.47(7.39) & 0.76(1.19) & 1.85(0.11) & 8(9) & \\
1292: 020405 & 85.04 & 882.60 & 236.88(15.90) & 1.21 & 2.48 & 6(10) & \\
1293: 020813 & 14.18 & 362.83 & 40.03(0.21) & 0.63 & 1.42 & 69(43) & \\
1294: 021004 & 21.12 & 2030.14 & 300.30(fixed) & 0.82(0.02) & 1.39(0.05) & 82(90) & \\
1295: 030226 & 17.34 & 609.12 & 88.83(16.30) & 0.88(0.12) & 2.41(0.12) & 10(12) & \\
1296: 030323 & 34.68 & 895.74 & 400.00(fixed) & 1.29 & 2.11 & 10(10) & \\
1297: 030328 & 4.90 & 227.46 & 18.50(4.32) & 0.52(0.09) & 1.25(0.05) & 52(70) & \\
1298: 030329 & 4.60 & 100.00 & 41.00(0.42) & 0.84 & 1.89(0.01) & 870(956) & \\
1299: 030429 & 12.53 & 574.04 & 158.73(fixed) & 0.72(0.03) & 2.72 & 30(10) & \\
1300: 030723 & 15.00 & 800.00 & 103.22(5.02) & 0.05(0.06) & 2.01(0.05) & 20(15) & \\
1301: 040924 & 0.95 & 134.12 & 1.49(0.96) & 0.34(0.64) & 1.11(0.06) & 19(10) & \\
1302: 041006 & 0.23 & 550.00 & 14.24(1.15) & 0.44(0.02) & 1.27(0.01) & 97(69) & \\
1303: 050319 & 0.03 & 3.00 & 0.61(0.25) & 0.38(0.06) & 1.02(0.12) & 29(29) & \\
1304: 050525 & 2.83 & 91.80 & 40.72(8.18) & 1.02(0.12) & 3.00(0.57) & 28(5) & \\
1305: 050730 & 0.07 & 358.90 & 11.61(1.95) & 0.26(0.08) & 1.67(0.09) & 58(16) & \\
1306: 050801 & 0.02 & 9.49 & 0.20(0.01) & 0.00(0.02) & 1.11(0.01) & 140(42) & \\
1307: 050820A & 0.12 & 663.30 & 344.98(32.78) & 0.88(0.01) & 1.48 & 439(25) & \\
1308: 050922C & 0.25 & 69.60 & 3.13(2.75) & 0.63(0.13) & 1.14(0.10) & 14(17) & \\
1309: 051109A & 0.04 & 265.20 & 36.02(8.28) & 0.68(0.01) & 1.42(0.12) & 116(40) & \\
1310: 051111 & 0.03 & 20.00 & 2.61(0.25) & 0.79(0.01) & 1.70(0.14) & 107(84) & \\
1311: 060206 & 20.00 & 201.58 & 71.21(3.65) & 1.07(0.02) & 1.96 & 25(50) & \\
1312: 060210 & 0.09 & 7.19 & 0.72(0.17) & 0.04(0.22) & 1.21(0.05) & 13(12) & \\
1313: 060526 & 0.06 & 893.55 & 84.45(5.88) & 0.67(0.02) & 1.80(0.04) & 116(56) & \\
1314: 060605A & 0.43 & 111.96 & 8.83(1.21) & 0.41 & 2.33(0.16) & 2(1) & \\
1315: 060607A & 0.07 & 13.73 & 0.16(fixed) & -3.07(0.25) & 1.18(0.02) & 92(35) & \\
1316: 060614 & 20.00 & 934.36 & 112.35(8.53) & 0.77(0.10) & 2.70(0.07) & 16(16) & \\
1317: 060714 & 3.86 & 285.87 & 10.00(fixed) & 0.01 & 1.41(0.03) & 35(11) & \\
1318: 060729 & 70.00 & 662.39 & 297.49(69.62) & 1.09(0.10) & 2.13(0.44) & 18(19) & \\
1319: 061121 & 0.26 & 334.65 & 1.70(0.73) & 0.17 & 0.99(0.05) & 18(23) & \\
1320: 980326 & 36.46 & 117.68 & & 2.14(0.09) & & 15(6) & \\
1321: 991208 & 179.52 & 613.24 & - & 2.30(0.12) & & 17(9) & \\
1322: 000131 & 357.44 & 699.06 & - & 2.55(0.29) & - & 0(1) & \\
1323: 000418 & 214.27 & 2000.00 & - & 0.81(0.03) & - & 13(9) & \\
1324: 000911 & 123.35 & 1466.26 & - & 1.36(0.06) & - & 9(2) & \\
1325: 011121 & 33.36 & 1000.00 & - & 1.98(0.06) & - & 7(5) & \\
1326: 021211 & 0.13 & 1865.64 & - & 1.18(0.01) & - & 78(50) & \\
1327: 050318 & 3.23 & 22.83 & - & 0.84(0.22) & - & 0(1) & \\
1328: 050401 & 0.06 & 1231.18 & - & 0.80(0.01) & - & 43(12) & \\
1329: 050408 & 8.64 & 434.81 & - & 0.72(0.04) & - & 9(15) & \\
1330: 050502 & 6.12 & 29.22 & - & 1.42(0.02) & - & 31(19) & \\
1331: 050603 & 34.09 & 219.71 & - & 1.75(0.20) & - & 16(7) & \\
1332: 050802 & 0.34 & 127.68 & - & 0.85(0.02) & - & 50(10) & \\
1333: 050908 & 1.32 & 57.81 & - & 0.71(0.09) & - & 11(10) & \\
1334: 060124 & 3.34 & 1979.30 & - & 0.85(0.02) & - & 11(19) & \\
1335: 060418 & 3.92 & 69.53 & - & 1.36(0.04) & - & 8(11) & \\
1336: 060904B & 0.50 & 163.13 & - & 0.86(0.02) & - & 60(19) & \\
1337: 070110 & 0.66 & 34.76 & - & 0.43(0.08) & - & 1(4) & \\
1338: \enddata
1339: \tablenotetext{a}{Taken from Liang \& Zhang (2006) and Paper II and the
1340: references therein.}
1341:
1342: \tablenotetext{b}{Time interval for temporal analysis.}
1343:
1344: \tablenotetext{c}{The fitting $\chi^2$ and degree of freedom. Please note that we
1345: take the observed uncertainty as $\sigma_{\log F_O}=0.05$ for those detection
1346: without observed error or with $\sigma_{\log F_O}<0.05$, in order to properly fit
1347: the data. The uncertainties of the fitting parameters of these bursts thus cannot
1348: be properly constrained.}
1349:
1350:
1351:
1352: %% Include any \tablenotetext{key}{text}, \tablerefs{ref list},
1353: %% or \tablecomments{text} between the \enddata and
1354: %% \end{deluxetable} commands
1355:
1356: %% General table comment marker
1357: %\tablecomments{Comments}
1358:
1359: %% General table references marker
1360: %\tablerefs{Refere}
1361:
1362:
1363: \end{deluxetable}
1364:
1365:
1366:
1367:
1368:
1369:
1370: \newpage
1371:
1372:
1373: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
1374:
1375: \tablewidth{480pt} \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1376:
1377: \tablecaption{Definition of Jet Break Candidate Grades}
1378:
1379: \tablenum{3}
1380:
1381: \tablehead{\colhead{Grade}& \colhead{No Spectral Evolution}&
1382: \colhead{$\alpha_4>1.5$}& \colhead{Closure Relations}&
1383: \colhead{Achromaticity}&\colhead{Number}}
1384: \startdata
1385: ``Bronze''&Y&Y&&&42(XRT)+27(Opt.)\\
1386: ``Silver''&Y&Y&Y&&27(XRT)+23(Opt.)\\
1387: ``Gold''&Y&Y&Y(1 band)&Y&7\\
1388: ``Platinum''&Y&Y&Y (at least 2 bands)&Y&0\\
1389: \enddata
1390: \end{deluxetable}
1391:
1392:
1393:
1394: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllllll}
1395:
1396: \tablewidth{480pt} \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1397:
1398: \tablecaption{Jet Break Candidates and Their Grades}
1399:
1400: \tablenum{4}
1401:
1402: \tablehead{ \colhead{GRB}& \colhead{$\beta_2(\delta \beta_2)$}&
1403: \colhead{$\beta_4(\delta \beta_4)$}&\colhead{$\alpha_3 (\delta \alpha_3)$}&
1404: \colhead{$\alpha_4(\delta \alpha_4)$}& \colhead{$t_j(\delta t_j)$(ks)}&
1405: \colhead{$\Delta \alpha(\delta \Delta
1406: \alpha)$}&\colhead{Grade}&Achromaticity\tablenotemark{*}}
1407:
1408: \startdata
1409: Radio&&&&\\
1410: \hline
1411: 970508\tablenotemark{a}&&&&&$\sim 25$ (days)&&Bronze&?\\
1412: 000418\tablenotemark{b}&&&&&$\sim 26$ (days)&&Bronze&?\\
1413: \hline
1414: Optical&&&&\\
1415: \hline
1416: 980703 & 1.01(0.02) & -- & 1.11 & 2.83 & 214.92(10.15) & 1.71 & Silver&?\\
1417: 990123 & 0.80(0.10) & -- & 0.98(0.10) & 1.71(0.10) & 155.13(78.79) & 0.73(0.14) & Silver&?\\
1418: 990510 & 0.75(0.07) & -- & 0.86(0.03) & 1.95(0.14) & 101.91(12.48) & 1.09(0.14) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1419: 990712 & 0.99(0.02) & -- & 0.97 & 2.32 & 2000 & 1.35 & Silver&?\\
1420: 991216 & 0.74(0.05) & -- & 1.22(0.04) & 2.17 & 248.71(67.63) & 0.95(0.04) & Silver&?\\
1421: 000301C& 0.90(0.02) & -- & 1.04 & 2.82 & 562.87(18.70) & 1.78 & Silver&?\\
1422: 000926 & 1.00(0.20) & -- & 1.48 & 2.49 & 175.18(4.62) & 1.01 & Silver&?\\
1423: 011211 & 0.74(0.05) & -- & 0.85(0.05) & 2.36 & 198.66(16.68) & 1.52(0.05) & Silver&?\\
1424: 020124 & 0.91(0.14) & -- & 0.76(1.19) & 1.85(0.11) & 8.47(7.39) & 1.09(1.19) & Silver&?\\
1425: 020405 & 1.23(0.12) & -- & 1.21 & 2.48 & 236.88(15.90) & 1.27 & Silver&?\\
1426: 020813 & 0.85(0.07) & -- & 0.63 & 1.42 & 40.03(0.21) &0.79 & Silver&?\\
1427: 021004 & 0.39(0.12) & -- & 0.65(0.02) & 1.57(0.05) & 300.30 & 0.92(0.05) & Silver&?\\
1428: 030226 & 0.70(0.03) & -- & 0.88(0.12) & 2.41(0.12) & 88.83(16.30) & 1.53(0.17) & Silver&?\\
1429: 030323 & 0.89(0.04) & -- & 1.29 & 2.11 & 400 & 0.82 & Silver&?\\
1430: 030329 & 0.66 & -- & 0.84 & 1.89(0.01) & 41.00(0.42) & 1.05(0.01) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1431: 030429 & 1.22(0.04) & -- & 0.72(0.03) & 2.72 & 158.73 & 2.00(0.03) & Silver&?\\
1432: 030723 & 1 & -- & 0.05(0.06) &2.01(0.05)& 103.22(5.02)&1.96(0.08)& Bronze&?\\
1433: 050525 & 0.97(0.10) & -- & 1.02(0.12) & 3.00(0.57) & 40.72(8.18) & 1.98(0.58) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1434: 050730 & 0.75 & -- & 0.26(0.08) & 3.00(0.57) & 1.67(0.09) & 2.74(0.58) & Bronze&?\\
1435: 050820A & 0.57(0.06) & -- & 0.88(0.01) & 1.48 & 344.98(32.78) & 0.60 & Gold&$\surd$\\
1436: 051109A & 0.65(0.15) & -- & 0.68(0.01) & 1.42(0.12) & 36.02(8.28) & 0.74(0.12) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1437: 051111 & 0.84(0.02) & -- & 0.79(0.01) & 1.70(0.14) & 2.61(0.25) & 0.91(0.14) & Silver&X\\
1438: 060206 & 0.70 & -- & 1.07(0.02) & 2.00(0.26) & 71.21(3.65) & 0.93(0.26) & Silver&X\\
1439: 060605 & 0.8 & -- & 0.41 & 2.33(0.16) & 8.83(1.21) &1.92& Bronze &$\surd$\\
1440: 060526 & 1.69(0.53) & -- & 0.67(0.02) & 1.80(0.04) & 84.45(5.88) & 1.13(0.04) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1441: 060614 & 0.94(0.08) & -- & 0.77(0.10) & 2.70(0.07) & 112.35(8.53) & 1.93(0.12) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1442: 060729 & 0.74(0.07) & -- & 1.09(0.10) & 2.13(0.44) & 297.49(69.62) & 1.03(0.45) & Silver&X\\
1443: \hline
1444: X-Ray&&&\\
1445: \hline 980828 & $\sim 1$ & &1.44 &2.6 & 190 &1.16 &Silver& ?\\
1446: 030329 & 1.17 & 0.8(0.3)&0.87(0.05) &1.84(0.07)&44.93(4.32) &0.97(0.09)&Gold&$\surd$\\
1447:
1448: 050124 & 1.05(0.29) & 0.93(0.21) & 0.62(0.56) & 2.53(0.78) & 29.37(12.61) & 1.91(0.96) & Silver&?\\
1449: 050128 & 1.05(0.08) & 0.95(0.15) & 1.00(0.13) & 1.98(0.39) & 30.70(14.20) & 0.98(0.41) & Silver&?\\
1450: 050315 & 1.31(0.12) & 1.17(0.07) & 0.66(0.03) & 1.90(0.23) & 224.64(38.68) & 1.24(0.23) & Silver&?\\
1451: 050318 & 1.01(0.08) & 1.02(0.06) & 0.90(0.23) & 1.84(0.19) & 10.60(4.97) & 0.94(0.30) & Silver&X\\
1452: 050525A\tablenotemark{c} & 1.17(0.18) & 1.17(0.18) & 1.20(0.03) & 1.62(0.16) & 13.73(7.47) & 0.42(0.16) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1453: 050717 & 0.61(0.08) & 0.89(0.12) & 0.57(0.21) & 1.65(0.12) & 1.84(0.95) & 1.08(0.24) & Silver&?\\
1454: 050726 & 1.06(0.08) & 1.14(0.09) & 0.79(0.03) & 2.32(0.22) & 8.78(1.11) & 1.53(0.22) & Silver&?\\
1455: 050730 & 0.65(0.03) & 0.70(0.03) & -0.37(0.25) & 2.49(0.04) & 6.66(0.29) & 2.86(0.25) & Bronze&$\surd$\\
1456: 050802 & 0.92(0.05) & 0.89(0.07) & 0.32(0.10) & 1.61(0.04) & 4.09(0.61) & 1.29(0.11) & Bronze&X\\
1457: 050803 & 0.78(0.10) & 1.00(0.08) & 0.25(0.03) & 2.01(0.07) & 13.71(0.90) & 1.76(0.08) & Bronze&?\\
1458: 050820A & 0.63(0.05) & 0.87(0.04) & 1.11(0.02) & 1.68(0.21) & 421.00(179.00) & 0.57(0.21) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1459: 050908 & 2.09(0.25) & 1.09(0.25) & 0.13(0.96) & 1.58(0.46) & 7.81(5.33) & 1.45(1.06) & Bronze&X\\
1460: 051006 & 0.61(0.14) & 0.84(0.20) & 0.57(0.26) & 2.23(0.56) & 0.93(0.71) & 1.66(0.62) & Silver&?\\
1461: 051008 & 1.15(0.32) & 1.11(0.10) & 0.86(0.09) & 2.01(0.19) & 14.67(3.82) & 1.15(0.21) & Silver&?\\
1462: 051016B & 1.19(0.13) & 1.19(0.13) & 0.71(0.08) & 1.84(0.46) & 66.40(23.09) & 1.13(0.47) & Silver&?\\
1463: 051109A & 0.91(0.07) & 0.90(0.07) & 0.79(0.07) & 1.53(0.08) & 27.28(7.90) & 0.74(0.11) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1464: 051221A\tablenotemark{d} & 1.07(0.36) & 1.02(0.19) & 1.20(0.06) & 1.92(0.52) & 354.00(103.00) & 0.72(0.52) & Silver&$\surd$\\
1465: 060105 & 1.23(0.05) & 1.15(0.03) & 0.84(0.01) & 1.72(0.02) & 2.31(0.14) & 0.88(0.02) & Silver&?\\
1466: 060108 & 1.17(0.32) & 0.75(0.15) & 0.26(0.09) & 1.43(0.17) & 22.08(7.38) & 1.17(0.19) & Bronze&?\\
1467: 060124 & 1.10(0.06) & 1.06(0.08) & 0.81(0.09) & 1.66(0.05) & 52.60(10.30) & 0.85(0.10) & Silver&X\\
1468: 060203 & 1.08(0.19) & 1.25(0.13) & 0.40(0.30) & 1.65(0.47) & 12.95(6.69) & 1.25(0.56) & Bronze&?\\
1469: 060204B & 1.54(0.14) & 1.64(0.16) & -0.49(0.65) & 1.47(0.07) & 5.55(0.66) & 1.96(0.65) & Bronze&?\\
1470: %060206 & 1.31(0.12) & 1.33(0.36) & 1.04(0.10) & 1.40(0.70) & 22.00(2.00) & 0.36(0.71) & Silver\\
1471: 060210 & 1.12(0.08) & 1.11(0.33) & 1.00(0.05) & 1.85(0.27) & 187.00(76.50) & 0.85(0.27) & Silver&X\\
1472: 060211A & 1.15(0.06) & 1.11(0.26) & 0.38(0.08) & 1.63(1.27) & 267.24(165.67) & 1.25(1.27) & Bronze&?\\
1473: 060313 & 0.84(0.34) & 0.78(0.09) & 0.82(0.03) & 1.76(0.18) & 11.18(2.89) & 0.94(0.18) & Silver&?\\
1474: 060319 & 0.93(0.22) & 1.25(0.11) & 0.84(0.02) & 1.92(0.30) & 99.70(26.78) & 1.08(0.30) & Silver&?\\
1475: 060323 & 0.99(0.16) & 1.02(0.13) & -0.11(0.23) & 1.55(0.16) & 1.29(0.32) & 1.66(0.28) & Bronze&?\\
1476: 060428A & 1.11(0.24) & 0.97(0.10) & 0.48(0.03) & 1.46(0.37) & 125.31(47.19) & 0.98(0.37) & Bronze&?\\
1477: 060502A & 1.11(0.29) & 1.15(0.13) & 0.53(0.03) & 1.68(0.15) & 72.57(15.05) & 1.15(0.15) & Bronze&?\\
1478: 060510A & 1.04(0.05) & 1.06(0.14) & 0.93(0.14) & 1.77(0.10) & 47.70(16.70) & 0.84(0.17) & Silver&?\\
1479: 060526 \tablenotemark{e}& 1.07(0.09) & 1.08(0.16) & 0.42(0.12) & 1.58(0.34) & 11.60(6.39) & 1.16(0.36) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1480: 060605 & 0.62(0.17) & 0.83(0.09) & 0.45(0.04) & 1.80(0.13) & 7.14(0.93) & 1.35(0.14) & Bronze&$\surd$\\
1481: 060614\tablenotemark{f} & 0.96(0.16) & 0.93(0.06) & 1.03(0.02) & 2.13(0.07) & 36.60(2.40) & 1.10(0.07) & Gold&$\surd$\\
1482: %060614& 1.02(0.02) & 0.93(0.06) & 0.18(0.06) & 1.90(0.07) & 49.84(3.62) & 1.72 & Bronze&X\\
1483: 060807 & 1.18(0.09) & 1.40(0.20) & 0.96(0.24) & 1.92(0.12) & 14.90(5.88) & 0.96(0.27) & Silver&?\\
1484: 060813 & 0.99(0.05) & 1.10(0.07) & 0.87(0.03) & 1.63(0.13) & 15.20(3.88) & 0.76(0.13) & Silver&?\\
1485: 060814 & 1.30(0.05) & 1.30(0.05) & 1.06(0.12) & 2.38(0.40) & 68.60(23.30) & 1.32(0.42) & Silver&?\\
1486: 060906 & 1.28(0.37) & 1.12(0.17) & 0.35(0.10) & 1.97(0.36) & 13.66(3.29) & 1.62(0.37) & Bronze&?\\
1487: 060908 & 1.01(0.22) & 1.00(0.08) & 0.70(0.07) & 1.49(0.09) & 0.95(0.34) & 0.79(0.11) & Bronze&?\\
1488: 060927 & 0.65(0.19) & 0.92(0.15) & 0.73(0.32) & 1.82(2.60) & 4.24(8.22) & 1.09(2.62) & Silver&?\\
1489: 061121 & 0.71(0.03) & 0.96(0.07) & 0.75(0.06) & 1.63(0.05) & 24.32(4.38) & 0.88(0.08) & Silver&?\\
1490: 061201 & 0.30(0.15) & 0.30(0.15) & 0.57(0.07) & 1.61(0.23) & 2.09(0.75) & 1.04(0.24) & Bronze&?\\
1491: 061222A & 1.45(0.06) & 1.22(0.12) & 0.81(0.07) & 1.86(0.06) & 60.50(8.89) & 1.05(0.09) & Silver&?\\
1492: 070103 & 1.32(0.25) & 1.52(0.21) & 0.20(0.10) & 1.63(0.08) & 2.88(0.48) & 1.43(0.13) & Bronze&?\\
1493: \enddata
1494: \tablenotetext{*}{If a break is confirmed to be achromatic, we mark the break
1495: with a ``$\surd$''. If a break is clearly chromatic, we mark it with ``X''. For
1496: most of breaks without multi-wavelength observations, we have no information to
1497: access to the chromaticity of these breaks, so we mark them with a ``?''
1498: sign.}
1499:
1500: \tablerefs{a:Frail et al.(2000); b:Berger et al.(2001);c: Blustin et al. (2006);
1501: d: Burrows et al. (2006); e: Dai et al. (2007); f: Mangano et al. (2007) }
1502:
1503:
1504: %\tablenotetext{a}{Taken from Frail et al.(2000)} \tablenotetext{b}{Taken from
1505: %Berger et al.(2001)}
1506: %
1507: %
1508:
1509: %
1510: %\tablenotetext{d}{Taken from Burrows et al. (2006)}
1511: %
1512: %\tablenotetext{e}{Taken from Mangano et al. (2007)}
1513: %
1514: %
1515:
1516:
1517: %\tablenotetext{a}{The fittings of these bursts have an unaccepted reduced
1518: %$\chi^2$ due to significant flicking.}
1519:
1520: %\tablenotetext{a}{The optical spectral indices are derived from the observations
1521: %without considering the host galaxy extinction.}
1522:
1523:
1524:
1525: %% Include any \tablenotetext{key}{text}, \tablerefs{ref list},
1526: %% or \tablecomments{text} between the \enddata and
1527: %% \end{deluxetable} commands
1528:
1529: %% General table comment marker
1530: %\tablecomments{Comments}
1531:
1532: %% General table references marker
1533: %\tablerefs{Refere}
1534:
1535:
1536: \end{deluxetable}
1537:
1538:
1539: %% The values (usually only l,r and c) in the last part of
1540: %% \begin{deluxetable}{} command tell LaTeX how many columns
1541: %% there are and how to align them.
1542: % \begin{tiny}
1543:
1544:
1545:
1546: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllllllllll}
1547: %\rotate
1548:
1549: \tablewidth{450pt}
1550:
1551: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1552:
1553: \tablecaption{Derivation of Jet Opening Angles and Kinetic Energies}
1554:
1555: \tablenum{5}
1556: \tablehead{\colhead{GRB}&\colhead{$z$}&\colhead{Reg.\tablenotemark{a}}&\colhead{$p$}&\colhead{$\epsilon_{B,-4}$}&\colhead{$Y$}&\colhead{$\theta_j(^{o})$}&
1557: \colhead{$\log E_{\rm K,iso}$\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$\log E_{\rm
1558: K}$\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$\log \nu_m$\tablenotemark{c}}&\colhead{$\log
1559: \nu_c$\tablenotemark{c}}&\colhead{ref.\tablenotemark{d}}}
1560:
1561: \startdata
1562: 050315&1.95&I&2.76&1.00&2.45&2.9&55.06&52.17(0.05)&11.71&16.61&1\\
1563: 050318&1.44&I&2.08&1.01&6.91&1.6&53.30&49.91(0.16)&11.86&18.00&2\\
1564: 050319&3.24&I&2.16&1.00&4.93&$>$2.5&53.76&$>$50.75&11.69&17.70&3\\
1565: 050401&2.9&II&2.98&0.20&2.59&$>$4.2&54.97&$>$52.40&12.51&$>$18.00&4\\
1566: 050416A&0.65&I&2.32&10.78&0.72&$>$9.3&51.94&$>$50.06&11.80&$>$18.00&5\\
1567: 050505&4.27&I&2.1&1.00&6.28&$>$2.5&54.03&$>$51.00&11.56&17.53&6\\
1568: 050525A&0.606&II&3.34&0.99&0.10&2.6&53.98&50.99(0.06)&12.79&$>$18.69&7\\
1569: 050820A&2.61&I&2.01&1.00&11.05&3.6&54.88&52.17(0.14)&9.65&17.08&8\\
1570: 050922C&2.2&II&2.44&1.49&3.16&$>$2.9&53.24&$>$50.35&13.15&$>$18.00&9\\
1571: 051016B&0.94&I&2.18&3.30&1.31&4.82&52.24&49.79(0.12)&10.31&18.00&10\\
1572: 051221A&0.5465&I&2.14&9.76&0.79&12.06&51.53&49.87(0.10)&10.19&18 & 11\\
1573: 060124&2.3&II&3.12&0.23&1.06&1.5&55.41&51.91(0.06)&12.11&$>$18.00&12\\
1574: 060206&4.05&I&2.62&1.00&2.65&1.8&54.48&51.18(0.02)&11.74&16.90&13\\
1575: 060210&3.91&I&2.24&1.00&5.75&2.7&54.33&51.39(0.14)&12.25&17.37&14\\
1576: 060502A&1.51&II&3.3&0.79&0.15&2.1&54.88&51.71(0.07)&12.04&18.00&15\\
1577: 060512&0.44&II&3.36&1.00&0.12&$>$6.1&52.38&$>$50.14&13.41&$>$19.09&16\\
1578: 060522&5.11&I&2.26&1.00&2.91&$>$4.8&53.17&$>$50.73&11.50&17.81&17\\
1579: 060526&3.21&I&2.14&1.01&5.26&2.82&53.41&50.49(0.02)&11.58&17.65&18\\
1580: 060604&2.68&I&2.54&1.00&2.38&$>$4.6&53.75&$>$51.26&12.02&17.59&19\\
1581: 060605&3.7&II&2.98&0.60&2.38&$>$1.6&54.21&$>$50.81&13.32&$>$18.00&20\\
1582: 060614&0.13&II&2.72&1.00&0.43&6.8&52.45&50.30(0.02)&10.74&$>$18.32&21\\
1583: 060714&2.71&I&2.12&1.00&4.26&$>$5.1&53.32&$>$50.91&11.17&17.94&22\\
1584: 060729&0.54&I&2.26&1.00&2.42&6.6&53.39&51.21(0.08)&9.93&17.54&23\\
1585: 060814&0.84&I&2.60&2.33&1.41&3.63&53.34&50.64(0.12)&12.6&18 0&24\\
1586: 060908&2.43&II&2.5&1.00&1.62&$>$8.4&52.78&$>$50.81&11.99&$>$18.26&25\\
1587: 060912&0.94&I&2.01&1.02&7.06&$>$4.4&52.88&$>$50.35&9.46&17.98&26\\
1588: 060926&3.2&I&2.01&1.01&15.71&$>$0.9&54.21&$>$50.26&11.21&17.21&27\\
1589: 061007&1.26&II&3.16&1.00&1.93&$>$7.6&53.99&$>$51.94&14.35&$>$18.22&28\\
1590: 061121&1.31&II&2.7&0.95&1.01&1.93&53.88&50.63(0.06)&11.57&18.01&29\\
1591: 070110&2.35&I&2.72&1.00&1.70&$>$7.8&54.31&$>$52.27&11.38&16.98&30\\
1592: \enddata
1593: \tablenotetext{a}{The spectral regime of the X-rays:
1594: I---$\nu_X>\max(\nu_m,\nu_c)$; II---$\nu_m<\nu_X<\nu_c$.}
1595:
1596: \tablenotetext{b}{The kinetic energies are in units of ergs. The calculation of
1597: the error of $E_{\rm K}$ for those bursts with detection of a jet break takes
1598: only the uncertainty of the jet break time into account. }
1599:
1600: \tablenotetext{c}{The frequencies are in units of Hz. The $\nu_c$ for those
1601: X-rays in the spectral regime II is a lower limit.}
1602:
1603: \tablenotetext{d}{The reference of redshift.}
1604:
1605: \tablerefs{1: Kelson \& Berger(2005); 2: Berger \& Mulchaey(2005); 3: Fynbo et
1606: al.(2005a); 4: Fynbo et al.(2005b); 5: Cenko et al.(2005; 6: Berger et
1607: al.(2005c); 7: Fynbo et al.(2005c); 8: Ledoux et al.(2005); 9: D'Elia et
1608: al.(2005); 10: Soderberg et al.(2005); 11: Berger \& Soderberg(2005); 12: Cenko
1609: et al.(2006a); 13: Aoki et al.(2006); 14: Cucchiara et al.(2006a); 15: Cucchiara
1610: et al.(2006b); 16: Bloom et al.(2006a); 17: Cenko et al.(2006b); 18: Berger \&
1611: Gladders(2006); 19: Castro-Tirado et al.(2006); 20: Still et al.(2006); 21:
1612: Fugazza et al.(2006); 22: Jakobsson et al.(2006a); 23: Thoene et al.(2006) ;
1613: 24:Thoene (2007); 25:Rol et al.(2006); 26: Jakobsson et al.(2006b); 27: D'Elia et
1614: al.(2006); 28: Jakobsson et al.(2006c); 29: Bloom et al.(2006b); 30: Jaunsen et
1615: al.(2006) }
1616:
1617: \end{deluxetable}
1618:
1619:
1620: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllllllllllllll}
1621:
1622: %% Keep a portrait orientation
1623:
1624: %% Rotate to a landscape orientation
1625: \rotate
1626: %% Over-ride the default font size
1627: %% Use Default (12pt)
1628: \tablewidth{620pt} \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1629: %% Use \tablewidth{?pt} to over-ride the default table width.
1630: %% If you are unhappy with the default look at the end of the
1631: %% *.log file to see what the default was set at before adjusting
1632: %% this value.
1633:
1634: %% This is the title of the table.
1635: \tablecaption{Observations of pre-{\em Swift} GRBs derived parameters}
1636:
1637: %% This command over-rides LaTeX's natural table count
1638: %% and replaces it with this number. LaTeX will increment
1639: %% all other tables after this table based on this number
1640: \tablenum{6}
1641: %% The \tablehead gives provides the column headers. It
1642: %% is currently set up so that the column labels are on the
1643: %% top line and the units surrounded by ()s are in the
1644: %% bottom line. You may add more header information by writing
1645: %% another line between these lines. For each column that requries
1646: %% extra information be sure to include a \colhead{text} command
1647: %% and remember to end any extra lines with \\ and include the
1648: %% correct number of &s.
1649: \tablehead{\colhead{GRB}&\colhead{$z$\tablenotemark{a}}&\colhead{Reg.}&\colhead{time
1650: (s)\tablenotemark{a}}&\colhead{$F_x(\delta
1651: F_X$)\tablenotemark{a}}&\colhead{$\alpha(\delta \alpha)$\tablenotemark{a}}&\colhead{$\beta$\tablenotemark{b}}&\colhead{$t_j$(ks)}&\colhead{$\theta^{o}$}&\colhead{$\theta_j$ (rad)\tablenotemark{a}}&\colhead{$p$}&\colhead{$\epsilon_{B,-4}$}&\colhead{$Y$}&\colhead{$E_{\rm K,iso}$}&\colhead{$E_{\rm K}$}&\colhead{$\log \nu_m$}&\colhead{$\log \nu_c$}}
1652: \startdata
1653: 970508&0.835&I&47160&7.13&1.1&$1.14^{+0.51}_{-0.36}$& 2160.00(432.00)& 16.7&0.391&2.28&3.4&1.34&52.53&51.15(0.07)&11.26&18.00\\
1654: 970828&0.958&II&14400&118&1.44(0.07)&$1.1^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$&190.08(34.56)&3.9&0.128&3.2&0.99&0.80&54.31&51.68(0.06)&13.46&18.20\\
1655: 980703&0.966&I&122400&4(1)&1.24(0.18)&$1.77^{+0.6}_{_0.47}$&214.92(10.15)&6.1&0.2&2.1&1.01&3.52&52.91&50.67(0.02)&9.81&17.87\\
1656: 990123&1.6&I&84240&19.11(2.2)&1.41(0.05)&$0.99^{0.07}_{-0.08}$&155.13(787.86) &2.9&0.089&2.98&0.40&1.51&54.77&51.87(0.18)&12.32&18.00\\
1657: 990510&1.619&I&42120&32.8(1.4)&1.41(0.18)&$1.19^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$&101.91(124.81)&3.1&0.054&2.38&1.00&3.63&53.98&51.14(0.04)&12.07&17.62\\
1658: 990705&0.84&II&52200&1.9(0.6)&--&1.05&86.40(17.28)&3.8&0.096&3.1&0.99&0.22&53.52&50.85(0.06)&12.18&18.67\\
1659: 991216&1.02&II&39240&250(10)&1.61(0.07)&$0.7^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$&248.71(67.63)&3.7&0.051&2.01&1.0&11/11&54.79&52.12(0.11)&9.57&17.29\\
1660: 000926&2.307&I&197640&2.23(0.77)&--&$0.9^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$&175.18(4.62)&3.3&0.14&2.01&1.00&7.11&54.12&51.34(0.01)&8.29&17.16\\
1661: 010222&1.477&I&117720&1.87(0.18)&1.33(0.04)&$1^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$&80.35(12.96)&2.7&0.08&2.02&1.00&7.59&54.21&51.25(0.05)&9.21&17.29\\
1662: 011211&2.14&II&29600&0.248&0.95(0.02)&$1.16^{+0.03}_{0.03}$&198.66(16.68)&3.5&-&3.32&0.99&0.21&54.11&51.39(0.02)&12.84&18.31\\
1663: 020405&0.689&I&147600&13.6(2.5)&1.15(0.95)&$1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$&236.88(15.90)&5.7&0.285&2.02&1.00&5.55&53.53&51.21(0.02)&8.63&17.67\\
1664: 020813&1.254&II&114840&22&1.42(0.05)&$0.8^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$&397.44(0.864)&2.2&0.066&2.6&0.55&1.86&54.08&50.95(0.01)&11.57&18.00\\
1665: 021004&2.323&I&113040&4.3(0.7)&1(0.2)&$1.1^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$&300.30(8.64)&4.7&0.24&2.2&1.00&3.69&53.61&51.13(0.01)&10.85&17.54\\
1666: 030329\tablenotemark{c}&0.1678&I&22377&157.0(8.7) &1.2(0.1)&$1.17\pm 0.04$ & 40.95(0.43) &3.8&0.052&2.34&2.15&2.23&53.09&50.43(0.01)&11.95&18.00\\
1667:
1668: \enddata
1669:
1670: \tablenotetext{a}{Taken from Berger et al. (2003) and Bloom et al. (2003).}
1671:
1672: \tablenotetext{b}{Taken from Sako et al. 2005.}
1673:
1674: \tablenotetext{c}{Taken from Willingale et al. (2004).}
1675:
1676:
1677: %\tablerefs{Refere}
1678:
1679: \end{deluxetable}
1680:
1681: %***********************************************
1682:
1683:
1684:
1685: \clearpage
1686:
1687:
1688:
1689: \begin{figure}
1690: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f1.ps} \caption{Comparison of the fitting results with
1691: the STPL (solid line) and the JTPL(dashed) models. The last three data points are
1692: excluded in the fits.} \label{Fig_fitcom}
1693: \end{figure}
1694:
1695: %*******************************************
1696: \clearpage
1697: \thispagestyle{empty}
1698: \setlength{\voffset}{-18mm}
1699:
1700: \begin{figure*}
1701: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2a.ps}
1702: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2b.ps}
1703: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2c.ps}
1704: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2d.ps}
1705: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2bj.ps}
1706: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2e.ps}
1707: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2f.ps}
1708: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2g.ps}
1709: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2h.ps}
1710: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2i.ps}
1711: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2j.ps}
1712: \hfill
1713: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2k.ps}
1714: \caption{The X-ray (solid dots) and optical (open triangles) lightcurves and
1715: their fitting results as well for derived the jet break candidates
1716: .}\label{XRT_LC}
1717: \end{figure*}
1718: \clearpage
1719: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}
1720:
1721: \begin{figure*}
1722: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2l.ps}
1723: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2m.ps}
1724: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2n.ps}
1725: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2o.ps}
1726: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2p.ps}
1727: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2q.ps}
1728: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2r.ps}
1729: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2s.ps}
1730: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2t.ps}
1731: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2u.ps}
1732: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2v.ps}
1733: \hfill
1734: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2w.ps}
1735: \center{Fig.2--- continued.}\nonumber
1736: \end{figure*}
1737:
1738: \begin{figure*}
1739: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2x.ps}
1740: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2y.ps}
1741: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2z.ps}
1742: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2aa.ps}
1743: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ab.ps}
1744: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ac.ps}
1745: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ad.ps}
1746: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ae.ps}
1747: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2af.ps}
1748: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ag.ps}
1749: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ah.ps}
1750: \hfill
1751: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ai.ps}
1752: \center{Fig.2--- continued}
1753: \end{figure*}
1754: %\begin{figure*}
1755: %\hfill \center{Fig.2--- continued}
1756: %\end{figure*}
1757:
1758: \begin{figure*}
1759: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2aj.ps}
1760: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ak.ps}
1761: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2al.ps}
1762: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2am.ps}
1763: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2an.ps}
1764: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ao.ps}
1765: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ap.ps}
1766: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2aq.ps}
1767: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ar.ps}
1768: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2as.ps}
1769: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2at.ps}
1770: \hfill
1771: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2au.ps}
1772: \center{Fig.2--- continued}
1773: \end{figure*}
1774:
1775: \begin{figure*}
1776: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2av.ps}
1777: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2aw.ps}
1778: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ax.ps}
1779: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ay.ps}
1780: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2az.ps}
1781: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2ba.ps}
1782: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2bb.ps}
1783: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2bc.ps}
1784: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2bd.ps}
1785: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2be.ps}
1786: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2bf.ps}
1787: \hfill
1788: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2bg.ps}
1789: \center{Fig.2--- continued}
1790: \end{figure*}
1791:
1792: \begin{figure*}
1793: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2bh.ps}
1794: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35]{f2bi.ps}
1795: \hfill \center{Fig. 2--- continued}
1796: \end{figure*}
1797: %
1798: %\begin{figure*}
1799: %\center{Fig. 2--- continued}
1800: %\end{figure*}
1801: %
1802: %\begin{figure*}
1803: %\hfill
1804: %
1805: %\center{Fig.2--- continued}
1806: %\end{figure*}
1807: %
1808: %\begin{figure*}
1809: %\hfill \center{Fig.2--- continued}
1810: %\end{figure*}
1811: %\begin{figure*}
1812: %\hfill \hfill \center{Fig.2--- continued}
1813: %\end{figure*}
1814:
1815: \clearpage
1816: \thispagestyle{empty}
1817: \setlength{\voffset}{-18mm}
1818: \begin{figure*}
1819: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f3a.eps}
1820: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f3b.eps}
1821: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f3c.eps}
1822: \hfill
1823: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f3d.eps}
1824: \caption{XRT and optical data compared for the ``Silver'' jet break candidates
1825: with the closure relations of the forward shock models for emissions in the
1826: spectral regimes (I)$\nu_X>\max(\nu_m,\nu_c)$ and (II) $\nu_m<\nu_X<\nu_c$. The
1827: solid lines and shaded regions indicate the closure relations of the pre- and
1828: post-break segments in the spectral regime I. The lower/upper boundaries of the
1829: regions are defined with the closure relation without/with taking the jet
1830: sideways expansions into account. Similarly, the dashed lines and shaded regions
1831: filled with lines are for the emission in the spectral regime II. The open
1832: symbols represent the data for the pre-break segments, and the filled symbols for
1833: the post-break segment. The circles stand for the {\em Swift} GRBs, and triangles
1834: for the pre-{\em Swift} GRBs. {\em Panel (a)}: ISM, XRT data; {\em Panel (b)}:
1835: wind, XRT data; {\em Panel (c)}: ISM, optical data; {\em Panel (d)}: wind,
1836: optical data.}\label{Fig_model}
1837: \end{figure*}
1838: \clearpage
1839: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}
1840:
1841:
1842:
1843: \begin{figure}
1844: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f4.eps} \caption{Comparison of the distributions of $t_j$
1845: and $\Delta \alpha$ for the XRT data (solid lines) and the optical data (dashed
1846: lines).} \label{Fig_Ek_p_01}
1847: \end{figure}
1848:
1849: \begin{figure}
1850: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f5.eps} \caption{ Comparison of the $\theta_j$ derived
1851: from the X-ray afterglow with that from the prompt gamma-ray emission (from Frail
1852: et al. 2001). The line is $\theta_j=\theta_j^{'}$.} \label{Fig_5}
1853: \end{figure}
1854:
1855:
1856: \begin{figure}
1857: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f6.eps} \caption{Comparisons of the distributions of
1858: $E_{\rm K,iso}$ (panel a) and $p$ (panel b) for {\em Swift} GRBs (solid lines)
1859: with that of the pre-{\em Swift} GRBs (dashed lines). The shaded columns are for
1860: both pre-{\em Swift} and {\em Swift} GRBs combined. } \label{Fig_Ek_p_02}
1861: \end{figure}
1862:
1863: \clearpage
1864:
1865: \begin{figure}
1866: \epsscale{1} \plotone{f7.eps} \caption{Comparison of the $E_{\rm K}$ distribution
1867: of {\em Swift} GRBs with that of the pre-{\em Swift} GRBs (shaded columns). The
1868: lower limits of $E_{\rm K}$ derived from the XRT observations are marked as open
1869: triangles. The dashed line is the Gaussian fit to the distribution of $E_K$ of
1870: pre-{\em Swift} GRBs.} \label{Fig_Ek_p_03}
1871: \end{figure}
1872:
1873: \clearpage
1874: \begin{figure}
1875: \epsscale{1} \plotone{f8.eps} \caption{The $E_{\rm K,iso}$ as a function of
1876: $\theta_j$ for both the pre-{\em Swift} (open circles) and {\em Swift} GRBs
1877: (solid circles). The solid line is the best fit for both the pre-{\em Swift} and
1878: {\em Swift} GRBs.} \label{Fig_Ek_p_04}
1879: \end{figure}
1880:
1881: \end{document}
1882: