1: % aa.dem
2: % AA vers. 6.1, LaTeX class for Astronomy & Astrophysics
3: % demonstration file
4: % (c) Springer-Verlag HD
5: % revised by EDP Sciences
6: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7: %
8: %\documentclass[referee]{aa} % for a referee version
9: %\documentclass[onecolumn]{aa} % for a paper on 1 column
10: %\documentclass[longauth]{aa} % for the long lists of affiliations
11: %\documentclass[rnote]{aa} % for the research notes
12: %\documentclass[letter]{aa} % for the letters
13: %
14: \documentclass{aa}
15: %
16: \usepackage{graphicx}
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: \usepackage{txfonts}
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: %
21: \begin{document}
22: %
23: \title{An analysis of the durations of Swift Gamma-Ray Bursts}
24:
25: % \subtitle{I. Overviewing the $\kappa$-mechanism}
26:
27: \author{Zhi-Bin Zhang
28: \inst{1, 2}
29: % \fnmsep\thanks{Just to show the usage
30: % of the elements in the author field}
31: \and
32: Chul-Sung Choi
33: \inst{1}
34: }
35: \offprints{Z. B. Zhang}
36:
37: \institute{International Center for Astrophysics, Korea
38: Astronomy and Space Science Institute, 36-1 Hwaam, Yusong, Daejon
39: 305-348, South Korea; \email{zbzhang@kasi.re.kr}
40: \and
41: Yunnan Observatory, National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of
42: Sciences,
43: P. O. Box 110, Kunming 650011, China\\
44: % \thanks{The university of heaven temporarily does not
45: % accept e-mails}
46: }
47:
48: % \date{Received September 15, 1996; accepted March 16, 1997}
49:
50: % \abstract{}{}{}{}{}
51: % 5 {} token are mandatory
52:
53: \abstract
54: % context heading (optional)
55: % {} leave it empty if necessary
56: {Swift detectors are found to be more sensitive to long-soft bursts than pre-Swift missions. This
57: may largely bias the distribution of durations and then classification of gamma-ray bursts. }
58: % aims heading (mandatory)
59: {In this paper, we systematically investigate the duration distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the Swift era via comparison
60: with that of pre-Swift bursts.}
61: % methods heading (mandatory)
62: {For the purpose of this study, statistical methods such as the K-S test and
63: linear/non-linear fitting analysis have been used to examine the duration properties of Swift bursts in both observer and source frames.}
64: % results heading (mandatory)
65: {For 95 GRBs with known redshift, we show that two-lognormal distributions of duration are
66: clearly divided at $T_{90}\simeq2$~s. The intrinsic durations also
67: show a bimodal distribution but shift systematically toward the
68: smaller value and the distribution exhibits a narrower width
69: compared with the observed one. Swift long bursts exhibit a wider
70: duration dynamic range in both observer and source frame in
71: comparison to pre-Swift long bursts.}
72: % conclusions heading (optional), leave it empty if necessary
73: {We find that Swift bursts and pre-Swift ones can share the same criterion of classification in terms of duration at 2 seconds,
74: although both monitors have large difference with respect to sensitivity of a given energy band.}
75:
76: \keywords{gamma-rays: bursts -- gamma rays: theory
77: }
78: \titlerunning{Properties of GRB duration in the Swift era}
79: \authorrunning{Z. B. Zhang \& C. S. Choi}
80: \maketitle
81: %
82: %________________________________________________________________
83:
84: \section{Introduction}
85:
86: Cosmic gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are the most violent explosions
87: occurring at cosmological distances in the universe. When a GRB
88: takes place, satellites can monitor its temporal variability in the
89: $\gamma$-ray energy band. The duration of the burst, $T_{90}$, is
90: defined as the time interval in which the integrated photon counts
91: increase from 5\% to 95\% of the total counts. Based on an analysis
92: of durations using initial BASTE data, Kouveliotou et al. (1993)
93: divided GRBs into two classes, i.e., long GRBs (LGRBs) with $T_{90}
94: > 2$~s and short GRBs (SGRBs) with $T_{90}<2$~s. The dichotomy has
95: been justified by subsequent investigations (e.g., Mao, Narayan \&
96: Piran 1994; Katz \& Canel 1996; Meegan et al.1996; Paciesas et al.
97: 1999; Fishman 1999). In fact, the best parameters of a two-component
98: lognormal fit to the distribution data were first obtained by
99: McBreen et al. (1994). This fit has been supported by the current
100: BATSE data with peak flux information (Horv\'{a}th 2002; Nakar
101: 2007).
102:
103: So far, much evidence showing the difference between two classes has
104: been discovered and presented (see Zhang 2006 for review). For
105: example, the spectra of LGRBs are softer than that of SGRBs in
106: general. Besides, the pulse profiles of SGRBs are on average more
107: symmetric than those of LGRBs (Zhang \& Xie 2007). The current Swift
108: observations show that LGRBs have their median cosmological redshift
109: $z_{m}\sim 2.0$ higher than that of SGRBs $z_{m}\sim 0.4$. All these
110: differences suggest that both LGRBs and SGRBs, most likely, are
111: distinct physical phenomena and produced due to model-independent
112: emission engines (e.g., Bal\'{a}zs et al. 2003). However, it is not
113: clear what causes these differences, especially the origin of
114: bimodal $T_{90}$ distribution.
115:
116: Koshut et al. (1996) pointed out that the observed duration
117: distribution may vary with instruments. It is therefore necessary to
118: investigate if there exists a new GRB class and/or what physical
119: factors produce such properties (Gehrels et al. 2004). Naturally, we
120: focus our study on the related issues of GRB classification using
121: the updated Swift
122: data\footnote[1]{http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/archive/grb\_table.html}$^,$
123: \footnote[2] {http://grad40.as.utexas.edu/tour.php (\textit{GRBlog}
124: site)}$^,$ \footnote[3]{http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~jcg/grbgen.html}.
125:
126: \section{Observation and data selection}
127:
128: The higher sensitivity and angular resolution of Swift make it
129: superior to previous space telescopes (e.g. BATSE, BeppoSAX and
130: HETE-2), accurate follow-up observations have further added to its
131: advantage (Gehrels et al. 2004). It can detect on an average about 2
132: GRBs per week within a 2 sr field of view, which is about two times
133: more than that of pre-Swift missions (M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2006).
134: However, the detection rate of SGRBs to total GRBs is much lower
135: ($\sim 8\%$) than the rate by BATSE ($\sim 18 \%$), which is
136: attributed to both their different energy responses and the
137: relatively high spectral hardness of SGRBs (e.g., Band 2006a, b;
138: Gehrels et al. 2007). On the other hand, the lower sensitivity to
139: short duration bursts of Swift, relative to BATSE, makes it
140: accumulate relatively lower counts, comparable with the number of
141: background counts (Band 2006a). The effect of the instrument may
142: cause the detection rate of SGRBs to be somewhat underestimated.
143:
144: In order to study the intrinsic properties of GRBs, we selected six
145: data sets, namely s1 - s6, as listed in Table 1. As of 2007 July 1,
146: Swift has detected 75 LGRBs (s1) and 20 SGRBs (s2) with known
147: duration and redshift. The $E_p$ in the observed $\nu F_{\nu}$
148: energy spectra are chosen to characterize the spectral hardness
149: relations with duration. Here, 44 GRBs from s1 have also the
150: available $E_p$ values and constitute our sample s3. Out of the s2,
151: only 11 sources have the measured $E_p$ and are employed to build
152: the sample s4. Unfortunately, the remaining 9 bursts in s2 (i.e.,
153: \object{GRB 050202}, \object{GRB 050906}, \object{GRB 050925},
154: \object{GRB 051105A}, \object{GRB 051210}, \object{GRB 060313},
155: \object{GRB 070209}, \object{GRB 070406} and \object{GRB 070429B})
156: do not have the measured redshifts. For these we assigned a redshift
157: value of $z$=0.5 to the 9 bursts, approaching the median redshift of
158: $z$=0.4, as assumed by Norris \& Bonnell (2006). These sources were
159: included in the present study to improve the statistics. However, we
160: found that the choice between $z$=0.5 and $z$=0.4 contributes only a
161: small relative error of $\sim$ 0.07, implying that the final results
162: are not sensitive to the above assumed redshift values. In our fifth
163: sample set, s5, we include 48 pre-Swift LGRBs whose $z$ and $T_{90}$
164: are already measured, in which 18 sources, less than half ($\sim$
165: 38\%) of the 48 pre-Swift bursts, are detected by the BATSE mission
166: and constitute our sample s6.
167:
168: %\begin{table*}
169: %\caption{Nonlinear Model Results} \label{table:1} \centering
170: %\begin{tabular}{c c c c l l l } % 7 columns
171: %\hline\hline
172: % % To combine 4 columns into a single one
173: %HJD & $E$ & Method\#2 & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Method\#3}\\
174: %\hline
175: % 1 & 50 & $-837$ & 970 & 65 & 67 & 78\\
176: % 2 & 47 & 877 & 230 & 567& 55 & 78\\
177: % 3 & 31 & 25 & 415 & 567& 55 & 78\\
178: % 4 & 35 & 144 & 2356& 567& 55 & 78 \\
179: % 5 & 45 & 300 & 556 & 567& 55 & 78\\
180: %\hline
181: %\end{tabular}
182: %\end{table*}
183: %%
184: \begin{table} \centering \caption{GRB samples of known durations ($T_{90}$),
185: redshifts ($z$) and/or peak energies ($E_{p}$)} \label{Tab.1
186: samples}
187: \begin{tabular}{c c clr}
188: \hline
189: Sample & No.&Class & Parameters &Ref. \\
190: \hline
191: s1$^{\dag}$& 75&LGRBs&$T_{90}$; $z$&1; 1; -\\
192: s2$^{\dag}$& 20&SGRBs&$T_{90}$; $z$&1; 1; - \\
193: s3$^{\dag}$& 44&LGRBs&$T_{90}$; $z$; $E_p$&1; 1; 4 \\
194: s4$^{\dag}$& 11&SGRBs&$T_{90}$; $z$; $E_p$&1; 1; 4 \\
195: s5$^{\ddag}$& 48&LGRBs&$T_{90}$; $z$&2, 3; 5; -\\
196: s6$^{\sharp}$& 18&LGRBs&$T_{90}$; $z$&2, 3; 5; -\\
197: \hline
198: \end{tabular}
199: \begin{flushleft}
200: \textit{Note}: The references are given in order for $T_{90}$, $z$
201: and $E_p$. Data sets: $^{\dag}$ Swift; $^{\ddag}$ pre-Swift;
202: $^{\sharp}$ BATSE. Of the 20 SGRBs, \object{GRB 050709}, is
203: adopted from HETE-2.\\
204:
205: %\\ $^{\oplus}$ \textbf{The $T_{90}$ of GRBs with
206: %known redshift are referred to the Swift public webpage for 95 Swift
207: %bursts and Ghirlanda, Ghisellini \& Lazzati (2004) as well as the
208: %\textit{GRBlog} website for 48 pre-Swift bursts.}
209: \textit{Reference}: 1. Swift public webpage; 2. Ghirlanda,
210: Ghisellini \& Lazzati 2004; 3. \textit{GRBlog} website; 4. Butler et
211: al. 2007; 5. Friedman \& Bloom 2005.
212: \end{flushleft}
213: \end{table}
214:
215: %__________________________________________________________________
216:
217: \section{results}
218:
219: % Two column figure (place early!)
220: %______________________________________________ Gamma_1 (lg rho, lg e)
221: % \begin{figure*}
222: % \centering
223: % %%%\includegraphics{empty.eps}
224: % %%%\includegraphics{empty.eps}
225: % %%%\includegraphics{empty.eps}
226: % \caption{Adiabatic exponent $\Gamma_1$.
227: % $\Gamma_1$ is plotted as a function of
228: % $\lg$ internal energy $\mathrm{[erg\,g^{-1}]}$ and $\lg$
229: % density $\mathrm{[g\,cm^{-3}]}$.}
230: % \label{FigGam}%
231: % \end{figure*}
232: %%
233:
234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
235: \subsection{Distributions of durations in the Swift era}
236:
237: %In this section, we first obtained the distribution of durations in
238: %both observer and source frames. Subsequently, we compare the
239: %durations of LGRBs between Swift and pre-Swift/BATSE to check
240: %whether the distributions depend on the on-board instruments or not.
241:
242: To check whether the distributions of $T_{90}$ are significantly
243: different, indicative of a dependence on the on-board instruments,
244: we first obtained the distributions of Swift bursts in both observer
245: and source frames. Then, we compare the durations of LGRBs between
246: Swift and pre-Swift/BATSE missions.
247:
248: \subsubsection{Observed $T_{90}$ distribution}
249:
250: The accuracy of $T_{90}$ measurements is in principle affected by
251: several factors including the identification of the time interval of
252: a burst, the sensitivity of instrument, background modeling, the
253: time resolution of the data, and the detailed shape of the burst
254: time profile, etc. Figure 1 shows the $T_{90}$ distribution for the
255: 95 Swift GRBs, which include s1 and s2 samples (see Table 1). The
256: best fit with a two-lognormal function gives the center values
257: ($T_{90, p1}=0.28_{-0.09}^{+0.14}$~s and $T_{90,
258: p2}=42.83_{-4.45}^{+4.60}$~s) and the widths
259: ($w_{1}=19.05_{-11.11}^{+24.60}$~s and
260: $w_{2}=18.20_{-3.41}^{+4.19}$~s) with the reduced Chi-square
261: $\chi^{2}$/dof = 0.67, which are roughly consistent with those
262: calculated from the BATSE data (McBreen et al. 1994; Meegan et al.
263: 1996; Paciesas et al. 1999; Horv\'{a}th 2002; Nakar 2007). Note that
264: the number of objects classified as belonging to the two lognormals
265: to itself has been allowed to be a free parameter. The superposed
266: function has a minimum around 2 s as found by Kouveliotou et al.
267: (1993), indicating that the Swift sources are also divided into two
268: classes, SGRBs and LGRBs, although the Swift is more sensitive to
269: long soft bursts than the BATSE (Band 2006a,b; Gehrels et al. 2007).
270: This is an interesting result since the different detectors with
271: diverse bandwidth sensitivity do not indeed affect the
272: classification of GRBs in terms of duration.
273:
274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
275: \begin{figure}
276: %\centering
277: %\resizebox{7cm}{5cm}{\includegraphics{fig1.EPS}}
278: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{figure1.EPS}
279: \caption{Bimodal distribution of durations for the 95 GRBs (s1 and s2; histogram)
280: and two-component lognormal fit to the data (solid line). The GRBs
281: are divided into two classes at $T_{90}\simeq2$ s (vertical line):
282: LGRBs (dotted line) and SGRBs (dashed line).}
283: \label{Fig1 T90 dis}
284: \end{figure}
285: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
286: \subsubsection{Intrinsic $T_{90}$ distribution}
287:
288: One of the great Swift progresses is the increase in number of
289: higher redshift sources. It is known that the median redshift of
290: Swift LGRBs, $z_{m}\sim2$, is roughly two times larger than that of
291: pre-Swift. As pointed out by previous authors (Bagoly et al. 2006;
292: Jakobsson et al. 2006), the difference of redshift distributions
293: between the two samples is statistically significant. This may lead
294: to an evident discrepancy between the two intrinsic $T_{90}$
295: distributions. We therefore utilize the Swift sources to explore
296: this possibility.
297:
298: The potential spectrum evolution, as a result of cosmological
299: redshift, can usually cause high energy $\gamma$ photons to shift
300: into or out of the finitely sensitive bandwidth of a given detector.
301: Note that here we had neglected the effect of a burst's spectrum
302: itself softening with time (Ford et al. 1995). In this case, the
303: transformation of $T_{90}$ from observer frame to source frame is
304: generally expressed as $T_{90, int}$=$T_{90}/(1+z)^{\omega}$, in
305: which $\omega=0.6$ or 1, corresponding to energy stretching or not
306: (Fenimore \& Bloom 1995; M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 1995;
307: M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 1996; Horv\'{a}th,
308: M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 1996; Bal\'{a}zs et al. 2003).
309: Here, we consider a simple case of $\omega=1$ throughout this work,
310: which the intrinsic duration is given by $T_{90,
311: int}$=$T_{90}/(1+z)$. We calculate the intrinsic duration ($T_{90,
312: int}$) distribution for the 95 GRBs and compare it with the observed
313: one. As shown in Figure 2, the $T_{90, int}$ has a bimodal
314: distribution and is significantly shifted toward shorter durations
315: than the observed one. The best fit with a two-lognormal function
316: gives two centers ($T_{90, p1}=0.13_{-0.05}^{+0.12}$~s, $T_{90,
317: p2}=12.30_{-1.83}^{+2.15}$~s) and two widths
318: ($w_{1}=10.96_{-8.14}^{+31.69}$~s and
319: $w_{2}=17.38_{-5.63}^{+8.32}$~s) with $\chi^{2}$/dof = 0.92,
320: indicating that the distribution of $T_{90, int}$ is indeed bimodal
321: but systematically narrower and shifted towards low value of
322: durations in comparison to the observed one. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov
323: (K-S) test returns the statistic $D=0.27$ with a probability of
324: $P=0.001$, suggesting the intrinsic and observed duration
325: distributions are drawn from the different parent populations. This
326: result is well consistent with the theoretical prediction by Bromm
327: \& Loeb (2002), where they assumed the formation of all GRBs tightly
328: follows the cosmic star formation history. However, some
329: instrument-dependent factors such as the selection effects and
330: discrepancy between different detectors can distort the resultant
331: parent distribution of $T_{90, int}$ in a sense. Once the
332: disturbances are really reduced from the observed distribution, the
333: remainder is the true parent distribution correlated with some
334: physical predictions. In this case, our current result can offer
335: some corroborative statistical evidence that the rate of GRBs may
336: really trace the star formation history, partly because the
337: redshifts of SGRBs had not been measured before Swift.
338:
339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
340: \begin{figure}
341: %\resizebox{7cm}{5cm}{\includegraphics{fig2.EPS}}
342: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{figure2.EPS}
343: \caption{Comparison between the observed (solid line the same as Fig. 1) and the
344: intrinsic (dashed-dotted line) $T_{90}$ distributions.}
345: \label{Fig2 T90-in dis}
346: \end{figure}
347: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
348: %
349: \subsubsection{$T_{90}$ of LGRBs: Swift vs. pre-Swift}
350: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
351: \begin{figure}
352: \resizebox{8cm}{12cm}{\includegraphics{figure3.EPS}}
353: \caption{The normalized duration distributions for the Swift (s1;
354: dashed line), pre-Swift (s5; solid line) and BATSE (s6; dotted line)
355: LGRBs in the observer (\textit{upper} panel) and the source
356: (\textit{lower} panel) frames.}
357: \label{Fig3 T90 comp}
358: \end{figure}
359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
360: $T_{90}$ may be wrongly estimated because of the factors pointed out
361: in section 3.1.1. In particular, the measured duration has been
362: found to be instrument-dependent (e.g., Koshut et al. 1996). We
363: examined the dependence of $T_{90}$ on the instruments by
364: contrasting the normalized distributions of different detectors in
365: Figure 3. For this comparison, three samples including s1, s5, and
366: s6 are applied.
367:
368: A lognormal fit to the six distributions gives the best parameters
369: listed in Table 2. We find the Swift sample obviously exhibits a
370: wider duration distribution than the pre-Swift and BATSE did in both
371: observer and source frames, while the widths of pre-Swift and BATSE
372: distributions of duration are robustly equal. This implies that
373: Swift can detect GRBs in a wider dynamic range of $T_{90}$, i.e.,
374: the fraction of longer and shorter Swift LGRBs are significantly
375: higher than that of pre-Swift/BATSE LGRBs, except the increased
376: detection rate of LGRBs due to the higher sensitivity of BAT loaded
377: on Swift to long soft bursts (Band 2006 a,b). Considering the fact
378: that Swift bursts can still be separated at $T_{90}=2$ s, we predict
379: that the width of $T_{90}$ distribution of Swift SGRBs could be
380: equally wider in comparison to pre-Swift detectors. Furthermore, we
381: see from Table 2 that the distribution centers of $T_{90, obs}$ are
382: very close to each other, while for the $T_{90, int}$ distribution,
383: the centers of the pre-Swift and BATSE bursts are much more close
384: but significantly larger than that of Swift bursts. It is
385: interesting to note that the K-S test to the pre-Swift and BATSE
386: bursts provides a very large probability of $P\sim0.99$ in both
387: observer and source frames showing that the s5 and s6 samples are
388: consistent with being drawn from the same parent distribution.
389: %are drawn
390: %from the same parent distribution.
391: As for the Swift $T_{90, int}$ distribution, the obvious decrease of
392: the center value is attributable to the relative increase of the
393: fraction of high redshift sources, which could be caused by the
394: ubiquitous threshold effect of different instruments (e.g., Bromm \&
395: Loeb 2002; Band 2006a,b).
396:
397: \begin{table*}
398: \centering \caption{The best-fit parameters to the three data sets}
399: \label{Tab.2 for fig 3}
400: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
401: \hline
402: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{log$T_{90, obs}$}& \multicolumn{3}{c}{log$T_{90, int}$}\\
403: \hline
404: Sample &$\mu$&$w$&$\chi^{2}/dof$&$\mu$&$w$&$\chi^{2}/dof$ \\
405: \hline
406: s1 &1.57$\pm0.04$&1.31$\pm$0.08&2.4 &1.06$\pm$0.04&1.23$\pm$0.09&2.8\\
407: s5 &1.63$\pm$0.04&0.90$\pm$0.09&2.5 &1.32$\pm$0.03&0.89$\pm$0.05&0.9\\
408: s6 &1.62$\pm$0.04&0.76$\pm$0.07& 0.5&1.29$\pm$0.03&0.92$\pm$0.07&0.3\\
409: \hline
410: \end{tabular}
411: \begin{flushleft}
412: \textit{Note}: The fitted parameters for the distribution center
413: ($\mu$) and the width ($w$) are given in a logarithmic scale.
414: \end{flushleft}
415: \end{table*}
416:
417: \subsection{Spectral hardness relation}
418:
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: \begin{figure*}
421: \resizebox{18cm}{6cm}{\includegraphics{figure4.EPS}}
422: \caption{Relations of $T_{90}$ with $E_p$ (panel \textit{b}) and
423: $E_{p, i}$ (panel \textit{c}). Panels \textit{a} and \textit{d} show
424: the distributions of the $E_p$ and $E_{p, i}$ in logarithmic
425: timescale, respectively.}
426: \label{Fig4 hardness}
427: \end{figure*}
428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
429: In theory, the peak energy $E_p$ can be used to reflect the photon
430: components, similar to hardness ratio between different energy
431: channels. The intrinsic peak energy ($E_{p,i}$) in the source frame
432: is related with the $E_{p}$ in the observer frame by $E_{p, i}=E_p
433: (1+z)$. To verify the relation of spectral hardness with duration,
434: we made plots of peak energy versus $T_{90, obs}$ for the samples s3
435: and s4 as shown in Figure 4\textit{b} and 4\textit{c}.
436: %Obviously, we find from Figure 4 that both kinds of bursts
437: %locate at different regions.
438: A linear correlation analysis gives the coefficient of $r=-0.27$
439: with probability $P=0.07$ for Figure 4\textit{b} and $r=0.004$ with
440: $P=0.98$ for Figure 4\textit{c}, indicating that the tendency of
441: SGRBs relatively harder than LGRBs exists in the observer frame and
442: almost disappears in the source frame. The former accords with the
443: previous findings, for example, using the BATSE data (e.g.,
444: Kouveliotou et al. 1993) or the Swift data (e.g., Band 2006a).
445:
446: \textit{We also compare the peak energy of LGRBs and SGRBs in both
447: observer (Figure 4\textit{a}) and source frame (Figure
448: 4\textit{d}).} It needs to point out that more cosmological redshift
449: correction is required to give LGRBs when we convert the physical
450: variables from the observer frame to the source frame. As a result,
451: the trend of the relative spectral softness for LGRBs (or the
452: relative hardness for SGRBs) weakens more or less. For our samples,
453: the long and short bursts have the median values of
454: $74^{+120}_{-45}$ keV and $398^{+493}_{-220}$ keV, respectively, in
455: the observer frame, and $302^{+631}_{-202}$ keV and
456: $617^{+896}_{-365}$ keV, respectively, in the source frame. A K-S
457: test returns the different probabilities of $P=0.01$ for Figure
458: 4\textit{a} and $P=0.15$ for Figure 4\textit{d}, which hints that
459: the $E_{p, i}$ of long and short bursts may be drawn from the same
460: parent population.
461:
462:
463: \section{Discussion}
464:
465: The duration distribution from the third BATSE catalog is suggested
466: to have a three-component lognormal form (Horv\'{a}th 1998;
467: Mukherjee 1998; Hakkila et al. 2000). Similarly, the duration
468: distribution of the current 4B
469: catalog\footnote[4]{http://www.batse.msfc.nasa.gov/batse/grb/duration/}
470: exhibits the possible existence of an intermediate group.
471: % in %mathematics.
472: Further studies show that the third group is either the excess of
473: SGRBs with low fluence (Hakkila et al. 2003) or the softest LGRBs
474: (Horv\'{a}th et al. 2006). It is still controversial whether there
475: exists the third class or not, due to the lack of a physical
476: explanation (Horv\'{a}th et al. 2006; see however, Chattopadhyay et
477: al. 2007). The third group might be caused by an instrumental bias
478: which reduces the durations of faint LGRBs (e.g., Hakkila et al.
479: 2000; Hakkila et al. 2003), suggesting their presence \textbf{is}
480: not physical but phenomenological. Therefore, the bimodality of the
481: duration distribution is widely accepted by most people today.
482:
483: Basically, what causes the bimodality is an interesting but unsolved
484: problem owing to the absence of direct observational evidence,
485: although several works have tried to explain the bimodality within
486: different scenarios. It was suggested that the different spin axes
487: of millisecond pulsars can interpret the two GRB classes (Usov 1992;
488: Yi \& Blackman 1998). Subsequently, Huang et al. (2003) studied the
489: neutron star kick model (Dar \& Plaga 1999) in detail and proved
490: that this model can successfully account for the two-lognormal
491: distributions if the central engine has a neutron star of high kick
492: velocity larger than $\sim1000$ km $s^{-1}$. Yamazaki, Ioka \&
493: Nakamura (2004) put forward the so-called unified model consisting
494: of multiple subjets within an inhomogeneous main jet. Using this
495: model, Toma, Yamazaki \& Nakamura (2005) explained that the
496: bimodality originates from discrete emitters in the main jet. They
497: also predicted that the two kinds of bursts should have the same
498: origin, i.e., supernovae, instead of the leading models, which
499: predict that the LGRBs and SGRBs are produced due to the core
500: collapse of a massive star and the merger of double compact objects,
501: respectively (see e.g., Cheng \& Lu 2001; Zhang \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros
502: 2004; Piran 2005; M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros 2006 and Lee \& Ramirez-Ruiz 2007
503: for reviews). However, further investigations on the unified model
504: showed that the bimodal distribution could be reproduced only for
505: some special parameters (Janiuk et al. 2006).
506:
507: Recently, from an independent analysis of distinct timescales, Zhang
508: et al. (2007) suggested that LGRBs occur at larger distances from
509: the central engine while SGRBs at smaller distances, i.e., two
510: distinct $\gamma$-ray emission regions may result in two different
511: properties of GRBs, including the varieties of pulse profiles, as
512: mentioned above. In this study, they also pointed out the fact that
513: LGRBs usually have long positive spectral lag (e.g., Norris, Marani
514: \& Bonnell 2000; Daigne \& Mochkovitch 2003; Chen et al. 2005) and
515: SGRBs have negligible lag (Norris \& Bonnell 2006; Zhang et al.
516: 2006) can be naturally explained under the assumption that the
517: curvature effect is a main contributor to the spectral lags (Ryde
518: 2005; Shen, Song \& Li 2005). The predication of distinct emission
519: regions for different GRB classes and/or the nature of the
520: bimodality still need to be clarified with more accurate
521: observations in the future.
522:
523: \section{Conclusions}
524: \begin{itemize}
525: \item We find that the observed
526: durations of Swift GRBs have two-lognormal distributions divided
527: clearly at $T_{90}\simeq2$ s. This implies that the classification
528: in terms of duration is unchanged from pre-Swift to Swift era.
529: \item The intrinsic durations also show a bimodal distribution but
530: shifted systematically toward the smaller value and the distribution
531: exhibits a narrower width relative to the observed distribution.
532: \item The $T_{90, int}$ distributions of Swift and pre-Swift/BATSE
533: LGRBs are significantly different in the width and center values.
534: \item Swift bursts have a wider duration dynamic range than
535: pre-Swift and BATSE bursts.
536: \item The spectra of the SGRBs are predominantly harder than the
537: LGRBs, confirming the previous results from the BATSE bursts.
538: However, the trend of LGRBs with relatively softer spectrum largely
539: weakens in the source frame.
540: \end{itemize}
541: %
542: %%__________________________________________________ One column table
543: % \begin{table}
544: % \caption[]{Opacity sources.}
545: % \label{KapSou}
546: % $$
547: % \begin{array}{p{0.5\linewidth}l}
548: % \hline
549: % \noalign{\smallskip}
550: % Source & T / {[\mathrm{K}]} \\
551: % \noalign{\smallskip}
552: % \hline
553: % \noalign{\smallskip}
554: % Yorke 1979, Yorke 1980a & \leq 1700^{\mathrm{a}} \\
555: %% Yorke 1979, Yorke 1980a & \leq 1700 \\
556: % Kr\"ugel 1971 & 1700 \leq T \leq 5000 \\
557: % Cox \& Stewart 1969 & 5000 \leq \\
558: % \noalign{\smallskip}
559: % \hline
560: % \end{array}
561: % $$
562: %\begin{list}{}{}
563: %\item[$^{\mathrm{a}}$] This is footnote a
564: %\end{list}
565: % \end{table}
566: %
567:
568: % \begin{eqnarray}
569: % \Gamma_3 - 1 = \frac{P}{\rho T} \frac{\chi^{}_T}{c_v}&>&0\\
570: % \Gamma_1 = \chi_\rho^{} + \chi_T^{} (\Gamma_3 -1)&>&0\\
571: % \nabla_{\mathrm{ad}} = \frac{\Gamma_3 - 1}{\Gamma_1} &>&0
572: % \end{eqnarray}
573:
574:
575: %
576: % One column figure
577: %----------------------------------------------------------- S_vib
578: % \begin{figure}
579: % \centering
580: % %%%\includegraphics[width=3cm]{empty.eps}
581: % \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
582: % $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
583: % $>0$ means vibrational stability.
584: % }
585: % \label{FigVibStab}
586: % \end{figure}
587: %%
588: %______________________________________________________________
589:
590:
591: \begin{acknowledgements}
592: We thank David L. Band and Attila M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros for their helpful
593: comments and suggestions. The authors would like to thank the
594: anonymous referee for a thorough and constructive report which has
595: led to a substantial improvement of the paper. We thank Istvan
596: Horv\'{a}th for good communication and G. Maheswar for critical
597: reading of the manuscript. Z. B. Z wishes to acknowledge the
598: postdoctoral fellowship in Korea Astronomy and Space Science
599: Institute (KASI).
600: \end{acknowledgements}
601:
602: \begin{thebibliography}{}
603:
604: \bibitem[Band 2006]{Ba06}Band, D. L., 2006a, ApJ, 644, 378
605: \bibitem[Band 2006]{Ba06}Band, D. L., 2006b,AIPC, 836, 704
606: \bibitem[Bal\'{a}zs 2003]{Ba03}Bal\'{a}zs, L. G., et al., 2003, A\&A, 401, 129
607: \bibitem[Bagoly 2006]{Ba06}Bagoly, Z. et al., 2006, A\& A, 453, 797
608: \bibitem[Bromm 2002]{Br02}Bromm, V. \& Loeb, A., 2002, ApJ, 575, 111
609: \bibitem[Butler 2007]{Bu 02} Butler, N. R., et al., 2007, ApJ, 671,
610: 656
611: \bibitem[Chattopadhyay 2007]{Ca07}Chattopadhyay, T., et al., 2007, ApJ, 667, 1017
612: \bibitem[Chen 2005]{Ch05}Chen L., et al., 2005, ApJ, 619, 983
613: \bibitem[Cheng 2001]{Ch01}Cheng, K. S. \& Lu, T., 2001, ChJAA, 1, 1
614: \bibitem[Daigne 2003]{Da03}Daigne F. \& Mochkovitch R., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 587
615: \bibitem[Dar 1999]{Da99}Dar, A. \& Plaga, R., 1999, A\&A, 349, 259
616: \bibitem[Fenimore 1995]{Fe95}Fenimore, E. E., \& Bloom, J. S. 1995, ApJ, 453, 16
617: \bibitem[Fishman 1999]{Fi99}Fishman, G. J., 1999, A\&AS, 138, 395
618: \bibitem[Ford 1995]{Fo95} Ford, L. A., et al., 1995, ApJ, 439, 307
619: \bibitem[Friedman 2005]{Fr05}Friedman, A. S. \& Bloom, J. S., 2005,
620: ApJ, 627, 1
621: \bibitem[Gehrels 2004]{Ge04}Gehrels, N., et al., 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005
622: \bibitem[Gehrels 2007]{Ge07}Gehrels, N., Cannizzo, J. K. \& Norris, J. P., 2007, NJPh, 9, 37
623: \bibitem[Ghirlanda 2004]{Gh04}Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati,
624: D., 2004, ApJ, 616, 331
625: \bibitem[Hakkila 2000]{Ha00}Hakkila, J., et al. 2000, ApJ, 538, 165
626: \bibitem[Hakkila 2003]{Ha03}Hakkila, J., et al., 2003, ApJ, 582, 320
627: \bibitem[Horv\'{a}th 1996]{Ho96}Horv\'{a}th, I., M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P., M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros,
628: A., 1996, ApJ, 470, 56
629: \bibitem[Horv\'{a}th 2002]{Ho98}Horv\'{a}th, I., 1998, ApJ, 508, 757
630: \bibitem[Horv\'{a}th 2002]{Ho02}Horv\'{a}th, I., 2002, A\&A, 392,
631: 791
632: \bibitem[Horv\'{a}th 2006]{Ho06}Horv\'{a}th, I., et al., 2006, A\&A, 447,
633: 23
634: \bibitem[Huang 2003]{Hu03}Huang, Y. F., et al., 2003, ApJ, 594, 919
635: \bibitem[Jakobsson 2006]{Ja06}Jakobsson, P., et al., 2006, AIPC, 836, 552
636: \bibitem[Janiuk 2006]{Ja06}Janiuk, A., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 874
637: \bibitem[Katz 1996]{Ka96}Katz, J. I. \& Canel, L. M., 1996, ApJ, 471, 915
638: \bibitem[Kawai 2005]{Ka05}Kawai, N. et al, 2005, astro-ph/0512052
639: \bibitem[Kouveliotou 1993]{Ko93}Kouveliotou, C., et al., 1993, ApJ, 413, L101
640: \bibitem[Koshut 1996]{Ko96}Koshut, T. M., et al. 1996, ApJ, 463, 570
641: \bibitem[Lee 2007]{Ku07}Lee, W. H. \& Ramirez-Ruiz, E., 2007, NJPh, 9, 17
642: \bibitem[Mao 1993]{Ma93}Mao, S., Narayan, R. \& Piran, T., 1994, ApJ, 420, 171
643: \bibitem[McBreen 1994]{Mc94}McBreen, B., Hurley, K. J., Long, R., et al., 1994, MNRAS,
644: 271, 662
645: \bibitem[Meegan 1996]{Me96}Meegan, C. A., et al., 1996, ApJS, 106, 65
646: \bibitem[Meszoras 1996] {Me96}M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, A.; M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P., 1996, ApJ, 466, 29
647: \bibitem[Meszoras 1995]{Me95} M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P.; M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, A., 1995, ApJ, 449, 9
648: \bibitem[Meszoras 2006]{Me06}M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P., 2006, RPPh, 69, 2259
649: \bibitem[Mukherjee 1998]{Mu98}Mukherjee, S., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, 314
650: \bibitem[Nakar 2007]{Na07}Nakar, E., 2007, PhR, 442, 166
651: \bibitem[Norris 2006]{No06}Norris J. P., \& Bonnell J. T., 2006, ApJ, 643,
652: 266
653: \bibitem[Paciesas 1999]{pa99}Paciesas, W., Meegan, C., Pendleton, G., et al., 1999, ApJS, 122, 465
654: \bibitem[Piran 2005]{pi05}Piran, T., 2005, Rvmp, 76, 1143
655: \bibitem[Ryde 2005]{Ry05}Ryde, F., 2005, ApJ, 429, 869
656: \bibitem[Shen 2005]{Shen05}Shen, R.F., Song, L.M., Li, Z., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 59
657: \bibitem[Toma 2005]{To05}Toma, K., Yamazaki, R., Nakamura, T., 2005, ApJ, 620, 835
658: \bibitem[Usov 1992]{Us92}Usov, V. V., 1992, Nature, 357, 472
659: \bibitem[Yamazaki 2004]{Ya04}Yamazaki, R, Ioka, K., Nakamura, T., 2004, ApJ, 607, L103
660: \bibitem[Yi 1998]{Yi98}Yi, I., Blackman, E. G., 1998, ApJ, 494, L163
661: \bibitem[Zhang 2004]{zh04}Zhang, B. \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P., 2004, IJMPA, 19, 2385
662: \bibitem[Zhang 2006]{zh06}Zhang, B., 2006, Nature, 444, 1010
663: \bibitem[Zhang et al. 2006]{zh06}Zhang, Z. B., Xie, G. Z., Deng, J. G. et al., 2006, MNRAS, 373, 729
664: \bibitem[Zhang \& Xie 2007]{zh07}Zhang, Z. B. \& Xie, G. Z., 2007, Ap\& SS, 310, 19
665: \bibitem[Zhang et al. 2007]{zh07}Zhang, Z. B., Xie, G. Z., Deng, J. G. et al., 2007, AN, 328, 99
666: \end{thebibliography}
667:
668: \end{document}
669:
670: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
671: Examples for figures using graphicx
672: A guide "Using Imported Graphics in LaTeX2e" (Keith Reckdahl)
673: is available on a lot of LaTeX public servers or ctan mirrors.
674: The file is : epslatex.pdf
675: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
676:
677: %_____________________________________________________________
678: % A figure as large as the width of the column
679: %-------------------------------------------------------------
680: \begin{figure}
681: \centering
682: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{empty.eps}
683: \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
684: $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
685: $>0$ means vibrational stability.
686: }
687: \label{FigVibStab}
688: \end{figure}
689: %
690: %_____________________________________________________________
691: % One column rotated figure
692: %-------------------------------------------------------------
693: \begin{figure}
694: \centering
695: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3cm]{empty.eps}
696: \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
697: $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
698: $>0$ means vibrational stability.
699: }
700: \label{FigVibStab}
701: \end{figure}
702: %
703: %_____________________________________________________________
704: % Figure with caption on the right side
705: %-------------------------------------------------------------
706: \begin{figure}
707: \centering
708: \includegraphics[width=3cm]{empty.eps}
709: \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
710: $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
711: $>0$ means vibrational stability.
712: }
713: \label{FigVibStab}
714: \end{figure}
715: %
716: %_____________________________________________________________
717: %
718: %_____________________________________________________________
719: % Figure with a new BoundingBox
720: %-------------------------------------------------------------
721: \begin{figure}
722: \centering
723: \includegraphics[bb=10 20 100 300,width=3cm,clip]{empty.eps}
724: \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
725: $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
726: $>0$ means vibrational stability.
727: }
728: \label{FigVibStab}
729: \end{figure}
730: %
731: %_____________________________________________________________
732: %
733: %_____________________________________________________________
734: % The "resizebox" command
735: %-------------------------------------------------------------
736: \begin{figure}
737: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
738: {\includegraphics[bb=10 20 100 300,clip]{empty.eps}
739: \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
740: $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
741: $>0$ means vibrational stability.
742: }
743: \label{FigVibStab}
744: \end{figure}
745: %
746: %______________________________________________________________
747: %
748: %_____________________________________________________________
749: % Simple A&A Table
750: %_____________________________________________________________
751: %
752: \begin{table}
753: \caption{Nonlinear Model Results} % title of Table
754: \label{table:1} % is used to refer this table in the text
755: \centering % used for centering table
756: \begin{tabular}{c c c c} % centered columns (4 columns)
757: \hline\hline % inserts double horizontal lines
758: HJD & $E$ & Method\#2 & Method\#3 \\ % table heading
759: \hline % inserts single horizontal line
760: 1 & 50 & $-837$ & 970 \\ % inserting body of the table
761: 2 & 47 & 877 & 230 \\
762: 3 & 31 & 25 & 415 \\
763: 4 & 35 & 144 & 2356 \\
764: 5 & 45 & 300 & 556 \\
765: \hline %inserts single line
766: \end{tabular}
767: \end{table}
768: %
769: %_____________________________________________________________
770: % Two column Table
771: %_____________________________________________________________
772: %
773: \begin{table*}
774: \caption{Nonlinear Model Results}
775: \label{table:1}
776: \centering
777: \begin{tabular}{c c c c l l l } % 7 columns
778: \hline\hline
779: % To combine 4 columns into a single one
780: HJD & $E$ & Method\#2 & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Method\#3}\\
781: \hline
782: 1 & 50 & $-837$ & 970 & 65 & 67 & 78\\
783: 2 & 47 & 877 & 230 & 567& 55 & 78\\
784: 3 & 31 & 25 & 415 & 567& 55 & 78\\
785: 4 & 35 & 144 & 2356& 567& 55 & 78 \\
786: 5 & 45 & 300 & 556 & 567& 55 & 78\\
787: \hline
788: \end{tabular}
789: \end{table*}
790: %
791: %_____________________________________________________________
792: % Table with foonotes
793: %-------------------------------------------------------------
794: %
795: \begin{table}
796: \begin{minipage}[t]{\columnwidth}
797: \caption{LHNW source catalogue.}
798: \label{catalog}
799: \centering
800: \renewcommand{\footnoterule}{} % to avoid a line before footnotes
801: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
802: \hline \hline
803: ID& RA & Dec & {\it S/N} & Flux \\
804: ~ &(J2000) & (J2000) &~ & [{\rm mJy}] \\
805: \hline
806: LHJ10 &10:32:02.4 & +58:80:09 & 8 & 97 $\pm$ 15\\
807: LHJ10 &10:33:08.8 & +58:80:30 & 5 & 80 $\pm$ 16\\
808: LHJ10 &10:34:45.1 & +57:47:33\footnote{Text of the footnote}
809: & 5 & 48 $\pm$ 10\\
810: LHJ10 &10:32:49.7 & +57:37:19 & 5 & 56 $\pm$ 11\\
811: LHJ10 &10:33:52.1 & +58:40:30\footnote{Text of the footnote}
812: & 4 & 55 $\pm$ 14\\
813: LHJ10 &10:33:04.3 & +57:36:37 & 4 & 55 $\pm$ 14\\
814: LHJ10 &10:35:50.4 & +57:30:05 & 4 & 49 $\pm$ 11\\
815: \hline
816: \end{tabular}
817: \end{minipage}
818: \end{table}
819: %
820: %_____________________________________________________________
821: % A rotated Table in landscape
822: % In the preamble, use: \usepackage{lscape}
823: %-------------------------------------------------------------
824: \begin{landscape}
825: \begin{table*}
826: \caption{Summary for ISOCAM sources with mid-IR excess
827: (YSO candidates).}\label{YSOtable}
828: \centering
829: \begin{tabular}{crrlcl}
830: \hline\hline
831: ISO-L1551 & $F_{6.7}$~[mJy] & $\alpha_{6.7-14.3}$
832: & YSO type$^{d}$ & Status & Comments\\
833: \hline
834: \multicolumn{6}{c}{\it New YSO candidates}\\ % To combine 6 columns into a single one
835: \hline
836: 1 & 1.56 $\pm$ 0.47 & -- & Class II$^{c}$ & New & Mid\\
837: 2 & 0.79: & 0.97: & Class II ? & New & \\
838: 3 & 4.95 $\pm$ 0.68 & 3.18 & Class II / III & New & \\
839: 5 & 1.44 $\pm$ 0.33 & 1.88 & Class II & New & \\
840: \hline
841: \multicolumn{6}{c}{\it Previously known YSOs} \\
842: \hline
843: 61 & 0.89 $\pm$ 0.58 & 1.77 & Class I & \object{HH 30} & Circumstellar disk\\
844: 96 & 38.34 $\pm$ 0.71 & 37.5& Class II& MHO 5 & Spectral type\\
845: \hline
846: \end{tabular}
847: \end{table*}
848: \end{landscape}
849: %
850: %_____________________________________________________________
851: % Table longer than a single page
852: % In the preamble, use: \usepackage{longtable}
853: %-------------------------------------------------------------
854: % All long tables have to be placed at the end, after
855: % \end{thebibliography}
856: %
857: % In the text, at the place where the large table should appear
858: % add the command:
859: \addtocounter{table}{1}
860: % Tables counters will be well numbered.
861: %
862: \end{thebibliography}
863: % If table 2
864: \longtab{2}{
865: \begin{longtable}{lllrrr}
866: \caption{\label{kstars} Sample stars with absolute magnitude}\\
867: \hline\hline
868: Catalogue& $M_{V}$ & Spectral & Distance & Mode & Count Rate \\
869: \hline
870: \endfirsthead
871: \caption{continued.}\\
872: \hline\hline
873: Catalogue& $M_{V}$ & Spectral & Distance & Mode & Count Rate \\
874: \hline
875: \endhead
876: \hline
877: \endfoot
878: %%
879: Gl 33 & 6.37 & K2 V & 7.46 & S & 0.043170\\
880: Gl 66AB & 6.26 & K2 V & 8.15 & S & 0.260478\\
881: Gl 68 & 5.87 & K1 V & 7.47 & P & 0.026610\\
882: & & & & H & 0.008686\\
883: Gl 86
884: \footnote{Source not included in the HRI catalog. See Sect.~5.4.2 for details.}
885: & 5.92 & K0 V & 10.91& S & 0.058230\\
886: \end{longtable}
887: }% End \longtab
888: %
889: %_____________________________________________________________
890: % Table longer than a single page
891: % and in landscape
892: % In the preamble, use: \usepackage{longtable,lscape}
893: %-------------------------------------------------------------
894: % All long tables have to be placed at the end, after
895: % \end{thebibliography}
896: %
897: % In the text, at the place where the large table should appear
898: % add the command:
899: \addtocounter{table}{1}
900: % Tables counters will be well numbered.
901: %
902: \end{thebibliography}
903: % If table 2
904: \longtabL{2}{
905: \begin{landscape}
906: \begin{longtable}{lllrrr}
907: \caption{\label{kstars} Sample stars with absolute magnitude}\\
908: \hline\hline
909: Catalogue& $M_{V}$ & Spectral & Distance & Mode & Count Rate \\
910: \hline
911: \endfirsthead
912: \caption{continued.}\\
913: \hline\hline
914: Catalogue& $M_{V}$ & Spectral & Distance & Mode & Count Rate \\
915: \hline
916: \endhead
917: \hline
918: \endfoot
919: %%
920: Gl 33 & 6.37 & K2 V & 7.46 & S & 0.043170\\
921: Gl 66AB & 6.26 & K2 V & 8.15 & S & 0.260478\\
922: Gl 68 & 5.87 & K1 V & 7.47 & P & 0.026610\\
923: & & & & H & 0.008686\\
924: Gl 86
925: \footnote{Source not included in the HRI catalog. See Sect.~5.4.2 for details.}
926: & 5.92 & K0 V & 10.91& S & 0.058230\\
927: \end{longtable}
928: \end{landscape}
929: }% End \longtabL
930: %
931: % Online Material
932: %_____________________________________________________________
933: % Online appendices have to be placed at the end, after
934: % \end{thebibliography}
935: %-------------------------------------------------------------
936: \end{thebibliography}
937:
938: \Online
939:
940: \begin{appendix} %First online appendix
941: \section{Background galaxy number counts and shear noise-levels}
942: Because the optical images used in this analysis...
943:
944: \begin{figure*}
945: \centering
946: \includegraphics[width=16.4cm,clip]{1787f24.ps}
947: \caption{Plotted above...}
948: \label{appfig}
949: \end{figure*}
950:
951: Because the optical images...
952: \end{appendix}
953:
954: \begin{appendix} %Second online appendix
955: These studies, however, have faced...
956: \end{appendix}
957:
958: \end{document}
959: %
960: %_____________________________________________________________
961: % Some tables or figures are in the printed version and
962: % some are only in the electronic version
963: %-------------------------------------------------------------
964: %
965: % Leave all the tables or figures in the text, at their right place
966: % and use the commands \onlfig{}{} and \onltab{}{}. These elements
967: % will be automatically placed at the end, in the section
968: % Online material.
969:
970: \documentclass{aa}
971: ...
972: \begin{document}
973: text of the paper...
974: \begin{figure*}%f1
975: \includegraphics[width=10.9cm]{1787f01.eps}
976: \caption{Shown in greyscale is a...}
977: \label{cl12301}}
978: \end{figure*}
979: ...
980: from the intrinsic ellipticity distribution.
981: % Figure 2 available electronically only
982: \onlfig{2}{
983: \begin{figure*}%f2
984: \includegraphics[width=11.6cm]{1787f02.eps}
985: \caption {Shown in greyscale...}
986: \label{cl1018}
987: \end{figure*}
988: }
989:
990: % Figure 3 available electronically only
991: \onlfig{3}{
992: \begin{figure*}%f3
993: \includegraphics[width=11.2cm]{1787f03.eps}
994: \caption{Shown in panels...}
995: \label{cl1059}
996: \end{figure*}
997: }
998:
999: \begin{figure*}%f4
1000: \includegraphics[width=10.9cm]{1787f04.eps}
1001: \caption{Shown in greyscale is...}
1002: \label{cl1232}}
1003: \end{figure*}
1004:
1005: \begin{table}%t1
1006: \caption{Complexes characterisation.}\label{starbursts}
1007: \centering
1008: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1009: \hline \hline
1010: Complex & $F_{60}$ & 8.6 & No. of \\
1011: ...
1012: \hline
1013: \end{tabular}
1014: \end{table}
1015: The second method produces...
1016:
1017: % Figure 5 available electronically only
1018: \onlfig{5}{
1019: \begin{figure*}%f5
1020: \includegraphics[width=11.2cm]{1787f05.eps}
1021: \caption{Shown in panels...}
1022: \label{cl1238}}
1023: \end{figure*}
1024: }
1025:
1026: As can be seen, in general the deeper...
1027: % Table 2 available electronically only
1028: \onltab{2}{
1029: \begin{table*}%t2
1030: \caption{List of the LMC stellar complexes...}\label{Properties}
1031: \centering
1032: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
1033: \hline \hline
1034: Stellar & RA & Dec & ...
1035: ...
1036: \hline
1037: \end{tabular}
1038: \end{table*}
1039: }
1040:
1041: % Table 3 available electronically only
1042: \onltab{3}{
1043: \begin{table*}%t3
1044: \caption{List of the derived...}\label{IrasFluxes}
1045: \centering
1046: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccc}
1047: \hline \hline
1048: Stellar & $f12$ & $L12$ &...
1049: ...
1050: \hline
1051: \end{tabular}
1052: \end{table*}
1053: }
1054: %
1055: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1056: % For the online material, table longer than a single page
1057: % In the preamble, use: \usepackage{longtable,lscape}
1058: % or for landscape option: \usepackage{longtable,lscape}
1059: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1060: \documentclass{aa}
1061: \usepackage[varg]{txfonts}
1062: \usepackage{graphicx}
1063: \usepackage{longtable}
1064:
1065: \begin{document}
1066: text of the paper
1067:
1068: \onllongtab{3}{
1069: \begin{longtable}{lrcrrrrrrrrl}
1070: \caption{Line data and abundances ...}\\
1071: \hline
1072: \hline
1073: Def & mol & Ion & $\lambda$ & $\chi$ & $\log gf$ & N & e & rad & $\delta$ & $\delta$
1074: red & References \\
1075: \hline
1076: \endfirsthead
1077: \caption{Continued.} \\
1078: \hline
1079: Def & mol & Ion & $\lambda$ & $\chi$ & $\log gf$ & B & C & rad & $\delta$ & $\delta$
1080: red & References \\
1081: \hline
1082: \endhead
1083: \hline
1084: \endfoot
1085: \hline
1086: \endlastfoot
1087: A & CH & 1 &3638 & 0.002 & $-$2.551 & & & & $-$150 & 150 & Jorgensen et al. (1996) \\
1088: \end{longtable}
1089: }% End onllongtab
1090:
1091: % Or for landscape, large table:
1092:
1093: \onllongtabL{3}{
1094: \begin{landscape}
1095: \begin{longtable}{lrcrrrrrrrrl}
1096: ...
1097: \end{longtable}
1098: \end{landscape}
1099: }% End onllongtabL
1100: