1: % file ms.tex
2:
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: % edit history
5: %
6: % 2007-06-16 owigger
7: % copied from llc to hedera, edited sections 5 and 6
8: % added 5.4 GRBs and XRFs, and 5.5 one more observation
9: % 2007-06-17 cwigger
10: % copied from owigger's to cwigger's account
11: % edited minor points all over the text
12: % 2007-06-17 owigger
13: % copied from cwigger to owigger
14: % embellished figure and table captions and titles
15: % 2007-06-18 cwigger
16: % major moving around things in section 'results' and 'discussion'
17: % minor changes for the rest
18: % 2007-06-22 cwigger
19: % added Table {tab:fl}
20: % 2007-07-03 cwigger
21: % worked (sometimes renamed to ms_new.tex)
22: % 2007-07-03 owigger
23: % copied, renamed back to ms.tex, overhauled new text
24: % 2007-07-05 owigger
25: % changed title, proofread
26: % 2007-07-05 cwigger
27: % finished tables, new table with peak resolved analysis,
28: % new order of GRBs: time ordered. Change of references accordingly.
29: % 2007-07-06 owigger
30: % final proofreading
31: % 2007-07-07 owigger
32: % added corrections by Eric and Claudia, rearranged figures,
33: % checked citations, added ebellm's F-test, applied ApJ guidelines
34: % aligned equations
35: % 2007-07-08 owigger
36: % Claudia's corrections added
37: % 2007-07-09 owigger
38: % Wojtek's corrections added, new eps figures spec* and 030519_ltc
39: % 2007-07-10 owigger
40: % removed all amstex at the request of
41: % William Wentworth-Sheilds wws@press.uchicago.edu
42: % 2007-10-11 cwigger
43: % enlarged sections fit, CBM function and spectral hardening
44: % according to referee's request
45: % 2007-10-11 owigger
46: % little improvements
47: % 2007-10-14 cwigger
48: % Eric's comments
49: % 2007-10-15 cwigger
50: % final small changes
51: %
52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
53:
54: %% This is a manuscript marked up using the
55: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
56:
57: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
58: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
59: %% any data that comes before this command.
60:
61: %% The command below calls the preprint style
62: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
63: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
64: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
65:
66: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex} % use this for submission
67:
68: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
69:
70: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
71:
72: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
73:
74: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
75:
76: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
77: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
78: %% the \begin{document} command.
79: %%
80: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
81: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
82: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
83: %% for information.
84:
85: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
86: % math macros
87: \newcommand{\mathEbreak}{E_{\mbox{\em\scriptsize break}}}
88: \newcommand{\mathEpeak}{E_{\mbox{\em\scriptsize peak}}}
89: \newcommand{\mathEFE}{E\!\cdot\!F_E}
90: % text macros
91: \newcommand{\CB}{CBM}
92: \newcommand{\CLerrors}{90\% CL errors}
93: \newcommand{\fluenceCB}{$F_{\mbox{\scriptsize CB}}$}
94: \newcommand{\fluenceBand}{$F_{\mbox{\scriptsize Band}}$}
95: \newcommand{\fluenceCPL}{$F_{\mbox{\scriptsize CPL}}$}
96: \newcommand{\fluencemPL}{$F_{\mbox{\scriptsize mPL}}$}
97: \newcommand{\fluenceRHESSI}{$F_{\mbox{\scriptsize RHESSI}}$}
98: \newcommand{\fluenceHETE}{$F_{\mbox{\scriptsize HETE}}$}
99: \newcommand{\fluenceUlysses}{$F_{\mbox{\scriptsize Ulysses}}$}
100: \newcommand{\Ebreak}{$\mathEbreak$}
101: \newcommand{\Epeak}{$E_{\mbox{\em\scriptsize peak}}$}
102: \newcommand{\EFE}{$E\!\!\cdot\!\!F_E$}
103: \newcommand{\Ein}{E^{\mbox{\em\scriptsize in}}}
104: \newcommand{\Edet}{E^{\mbox{\em\scriptsize det}}}
105: \newcommand{\refeq}{eq.~\ref}
106: \newcommand{\fa}{\tablenotemark{a}}
107: \newcommand{\fb}{\tablenotemark{b}}
108: \newcommand{\PM}{$\pm$}
109: % macros usable in both math and text
110: \newcommand{\keV}{\mbox{keV}}
111: \newcommand{\MeV}{\mbox{MeV}}
112: \newcommand{\phS}{\phm{-}}
113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
114:
115: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
116: \slugcomment{submitted to \apj, 2007-07-06}
117: %\slugcomment{accepted by ???, date?}
118:
119: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
120: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
121: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
122: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
123: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
124: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
125:
126: %\shorttitle{Spectra of Strong RHESSI GRBs}
127: %\shortauthors{Wigger et al.}
128:
129: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
130: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
131:
132: \begin{document}
133:
134: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
135: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
136: %% you desire.
137:
138: %\title{GRB 021206: spectral analysis of RHESSI GR}
139: %\title{GRB spectra in the few MeV region:
140: %A comparative study of strong, hard GRBs observed by RHESSI}
141: %\title{Spectral analysis of strong GRBs observed by RHESSI:
142: %Band function versus Cannonball model}
143: %\title{GRB 021206 observation by RHESSI:
144: % spectral hardening around 5 MeV}
145: %RHESSI observation of GRB 021206: Is the spectral hardening
146: %round 5 MeV a sign of a special case?
147: \title{
148: Observation of an unexpected hardening in the spectrum of GRB~021206
149: }
150:
151: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
152: %% author and affiliation information.
153: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
154: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
155: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
156: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
157:
158: \author{C. Wigger\altaffilmark{1,2},
159: O. Wigger\altaffilmark{2},
160: E. Bellm\altaffilmark{3},
161: W. Hajdas\altaffilmark{1}
162: }
163: \email{claudia.wigger@psi.ch}
164: %\email{owigger@hispeed.ch}
165: %\email{ebellm@ssl.berkeley.edu}
166: %\email{wojtek.hajdas@psi.ch}
167:
168: \altaffiltext{1}{
169: Paul Scherrer Institut,
170: CH-5232 Villigen PSI,
171: Switzerland
172: }
173: \altaffiltext{2}{
174: Tellistrasse 9,
175: CH-5000 Aarau,
176: Switzerland
177: }
178: \altaffiltext{3}{
179: UC Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory,
180: 7 Gauss Way, Berkeley,
181: CA 94720-7450, USA
182: }
183:
184: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
185: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
186: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
187: %% affiliation.
188:
189:
190: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
191: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
192: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
193: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
194: %% editorial office after submission.
195:
196: \begin{abstract}
197: GRB 021206 is one of the brightest GRBs ever observed.
198: Its prompt emission, as measured by RHESSI,
199: shows an unexpected spectral feature.
200: The spectrum has a peak energy of about 700~\keV\
201: and can be described by a Band function up to 4.5~\MeV.
202: Above 4.5~\MeV, the spectrum hardens again, so that
203: the Band function fails to fit the whole RHESSI
204: energy range up to 17~\MeV.
205: Nor does the sum of a blackbody function plus a power law,
206: even though such
207: a function can describe a spectral hardening.
208: The cannonball model
209: on the other hand predicts such a hardening,
210: and we found that it
211: fits the spectrum of GRB 021206 perfectly.
212: We also analysed other strong GRBs observed by RHESSI,
213: namely GRBs 020715, 021008, 030329, 030406, 030519B,
214: 031027, 031111.
215: We found that all their spectra can
216: be fit by the cannonball model
217: as well as by a Band function.
218: \end{abstract}
219:
220: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
221: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
222: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
223: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
224:
225: \keywords{
226: gamma rays: bursts
227: ---
228: gamma rays: observations
229: ---
230: techniques: spectroscopic
231: }
232:
233: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
234: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
235: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
236: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
237: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
238: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
239: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
240: %% each reference.
241:
242:
243: %\newpage
244: \section{INTRODUCTION}
245: %---------------------
246: \label{sec:intro}
247:
248: The exact mechanism which produces $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRBs)
249: has not yet been definitively established.
250: Their prompt $\gamma$-ray spectra can be used to distinguish
251: between different models.
252: Several mathematical functions have been used for parametrizing
253: the prompt $\gamma$-ray emission.
254: Most commonly used is the empirical Band function \citep{Band93},
255: %(see \refeq{eq:Band} below),
256: which is not motivated by a physical model.
257:
258: There have been attempts to distinguish between spectral
259: models analysing the low energy part of the spectrum.
260: \citet{Ghirlanda2003}, \citet{Ryde2004}, and more recently
261: \citet{Ghirlanda2007} searched for blackbody components
262: in GRB spectra with varying degrees of success.
263: \citet{Preece2002}, using BATSE GRB spectra,
264: tested the synchrotron shock model and conclude that
265: it ''does not account for the observed spectra
266: during the GRB phase''.
267: %TBD: Other articles to be cited?
268:
269: % \citet{Ghirlanda2003} have studied the low energy part
270: % of GRB spectra in order to `prune down the
271: % forest of emission models'. They find that the early
272: % phase of GRBs sometimes can be described by a thermal
273: % spectral, i.e.\ a blackbody spectrum.
274: % Also \citet{Ryde2004} discusses the fit of a thermal
275: % component and its implication for distinguishing between
276: % GRB models.
277: % In a recent study, \citet{Ghirlanda2007} find however,
278: % that a blackbody plus power law component usually does not fit the
279: % prompt GRB spectrum if observed over a wide enough
280: % energy range.
281:
282: Spectral studies above the peak energy are rare,
283: one reason being the poor data quality because of lack of statistics.
284: Combining BATSE and EGRET spectra,
285: \citet{Nature2003} report a high energy component for GRB 941017.
286: They find a photon index of about 1.0 at energies above 5~\MeV.
287:
288: In this paper we report a high energy
289: component in GRB 021206 \citep{GCN_021206_IPN,GCN_021206_final},
290: observed with the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic
291: Imager RHESSI \citep{RHESSI}.
292: Having a peak energy of about 700~\keV, the spectrum of this burst
293: can be described by a Band function from 70~\keV\ up
294: to 4.5~\MeV, with a high energy photon index $\beta \approx 3.2$.
295: Above 4.5~\MeV, the spectrum hardens again, and can be
296: described with a photon index $\beta' \approx 2.2$.
297: This significant hardening around 4.5~\MeV\ can not
298: be described with a Band function. But it seems to
299: differ from the spectral hardening in GRB 941017 as well.
300:
301: %Dermer et al??
302:
303: There is one model that fits the entire RHESSI spectrum
304: of GRB 021206: the cannonball model \citep{Dar2004,Dado2002,Dado2003}.
305: %Depending on the parameters,
306: The cannonball model
307: predicts a spectral hardening at several times the
308: peak energy with a high energy photon index reaching $\beta \approx 2.1$.
309:
310: The question immediately arises whether the cannonball model
311: can improve our description of other GRB spectra.
312: The difference between the Band function and the cannonball model arises
313: only at the high energy part of the spectrum, where
314: data usually suffer from low statistics.
315: Therefore, we choose the strongest GRBs registered by RHESSI
316: in the years 2002 to 2004.
317: We find that they all can be fit
318: by the cannonball model as well as by the Band function.
319:
320: The outline of the paper is the following:
321: %
322: We first present shortly the instrument, the GRB selection,
323: the spectrum extraction, and the fit method (\S \ref{sec:observations}).
324: %
325: In the next section (\S \ref{sec:models}),
326: many spectral functions are given.
327: %
328: In \S \ref{sec:results}, the fit results for
329: GRB 020715,
330: GRB 021008,
331: GRB 021206,
332: GRB 030329,
333: GRB 030406,
334: GRB 030519B,
335: GRB 031027,
336: and GRB 031111
337: are presented. The fits are discussed and,
338: if possible, compared to other measurements.
339: %%
340: The more general discussion, including
341: an outlook, follows in \S \ref{sec:discussion}.
342: %
343: We end with a short summary in \S \ref{sec:summary}.
344:
345: \section{INSTRUMENT AND METHOD}
346: %\section{OBSERVATIONS}
347: %------------------------------
348: \label{sec:observations}
349:
350: \subsection{Instrument}
351: % - - - - - - - - - - - - -
352:
353: RHESSI is a NASA Small Explorer mission
354: designed to study solar flares in hard X-rays and
355: $\gamma$-rays \citep{RHESSI}.
356: It consists of two main parts:
357: an imaging system and the spectrometer
358: with nine germanium detectors \citep{spectrometer}.
359: The satellite always points towards the Sun
360: and rotates about its axis at $15\,$rpm.
361: The Ge detectors are arranged in a plane perpendicular
362: to this axis.
363:
364: The shape of the detectors is cylindrical with a
365: height of $\approx 8.5\,$cm and diameter of $\approx 7.1\,$cm,
366: and they
367: are segmented into a thin front ($\approx 1.5\,$cm)
368: and a thick rear segment ($\approx 7\,$cm).
369: Since the shielding of the rear segments is minimal,
370: photons with more than about 25~\keV\ can enter
371: from the side.
372: Above about 50--80~\keV, photons from any
373: direction can be observed.
374: %Thus, for GRBs, RHESSI views 65\% of the sky, the rest
375: %being occulted by the Earth.
376: Each detected photon is time- and energy-tagged from
377: 3~\keV\ to 2.8~\MeV\ (front segments)
378: or from 20~\keV\ to 17~\MeV\ (rear segments).
379: The energy resolution is $\approx 3$~\keV\ at 1~\MeV, and the
380: time resolution is 1~$\mu$s.
381:
382: The effective area for GRB detection
383: depends on the incident photon energy $E$
384: and the angle between the GRB direction
385: and the RHESSI axis, the incoming angle $\theta$.
386: Over a wide range of $E$ and $\theta$, the
387: effective area is around 150$\,$cm$^2$.
388: The sensitivity drops rapidly at energies below
389: $\approx 50$~\keV.
390:
391:
392: \subsection{GRB selection}
393: % - - - - - - - - - - - - -
394: For this study, we need well observed GRB spectra.
395: We chose GRBs from the years 2002 to 2004, because
396: radiation damage starts to play a role in 2005.
397: % The detection significance have to be $>55$.
398: The selected GRBs have to be localized by other observations of
399: the same GRB (RHESSI can not measure the incoming angle),
400: because $\theta$ enters into the simulation of the response function.
401: A further requirement was the availability of good background data.
402: And finally, the data storing mode
403: (`rear decimation' for onboard memory saving)
404: is not allowed to change during the entire GRB and background time interval.
405: %Three GRBs from 2002, five from 2003, and none from 2004
406: %met these criteria.
407: Of all the GRBs meeting these criteria, we chose eight with
408: the best signal-to-background ratio,
409: %GRB 020715, GRB 021008, GRB 021206,
410: %GRB 030329, GRB 030406, GRB 030519B,
411: %GRB 031027, and GRB 031111
412: listed in Table~\ref{tab:GRBs}
413: along with their incoming angle $\theta$ and
414: the time intervals used.
415: % for spectral analysis and for background subtraction.
416: The lightcurves of these bursts are shown in
417: Figs.\ \ref{fig:ltc_GRBsI} and \ref{fig:ltc_GRBsII}.
418:
419:
420: \subsection{Preparation and fit of RHESSI spectra}
421: % - - - - - - - - - - - - -
422: \label{sec:fit}
423: The method of analysing RHESSI GRB spectra
424: will be described in detail in a separate article
425: (E.\ Bellm, C.\ Wigger et al., in preparation).
426:
427: For each GRB and detector segment,
428: the total spectrum (GRB plus background)
429: during the burst was extracted,
430: as well as the background spectra during two time intervals
431: before and after the burst.
432: The background was linearly (sometimes quadratically) interpolated
433: and subtracted.
434: The exact time intervals are listed in Table \ref{tab:GRBs}.
435: Then we added all rear and all front segments,
436: except for detector \#2 which
437: is slightly damaged and has a bad energy resolution.
438: Since all GRBs in this study are strong,
439: the observational errors
440: are dominated by the statistical error of the GRB
441: counts, not of the background.
442:
443: We simulate RHESSI using GEANT3 \citep{Geant3}.
444: %, the simulation software for high energy physics experiments by CERN.
445: Knowing the direction of the GRB from other instruments, we simulate
446: RHESSI's response to photons coming from angle $\theta$.
447: The energy of the incoming photons is simulated as
448: a power law spectrum (i.e.\ $dN/dE \propto E^{-\gamma_{sim}}$)
449: with typically $\gamma_{sim} = 2\,$.
450: %
451: %This power law simulation is not intended to represent
452: %the intrinsic GRB spectrum,
453: %but instead provides simulated data representing RHESSI's conversion of
454: %photons to counts. We determine the GRB source spectrum via weight
455: %factors for the resulting simulated count spectrum, as described below.
456: %
457: This power law simulation is only a rough approximation
458: and is not not intended to represent the intrinsic GRB spectrum,
459: but instead provides simulated data representing RHESSI's conversion of
460: photons to counts.
461: The true GRB source spectrum is determined via weight factors
462: for the resulting simulated count spectrum, as described below.
463: %
464: The upper energy limit of the simulated photon spectrum
465: is typically 30 MeV, in the case of GRB 021206 even 40 MeV or 50 MeV.
466: This is important, because an incoming
467: photon of e.g.\ 25 MeV may well make a signal of 15 MeV.
468: Rotation angles are generated uniformly,
469: i.e.\ we compute a RHESSI-spin averaged response function.
470: Since the detector arrangement
471: shows an approximate 120 degree symmetry,
472: the averaging gives good results as long
473: as the analysed time interval is at least one third of
474: the rotation period ($T_{rot} = 4\,$s).
475: This was also confirmed by tests.
476:
477: The output of the simulation is
478: an event list, or rather a hit list,
479: consisting of all signals registered
480: in the Ge detectors.
481: The simulated hit list, having $N_{s}$
482: entries indexed by the letter $l$, contains the deposited energy
483: ($\Edet_l$) as well as the initial photon energy ($\Ein_l$).
484: The measured hit list contains only the observed energy.
485:
486: For spectral fitting, the observed energy histogram
487: is compared with a histogram accumulated from the simulated
488: hit list.
489: More precisely:
490: The measured histogram can be represented by
491: a $k$-element vector $\vec M$ with errors $\vec\sigma_M$, and
492: energy boundaries $E^b_0$, $E^b_1$, $E^b_2$,
493: ..., $E^b_k$.
494: We normalize the histogram $\vec M$ to the total
495: number of counts in the fit range:
496: %$\vec{m} = \frac{1}{C_M}\vec{M} $
497: $\vec{m} = \vec{M}/C_M $
498: %and $\vec{\sigma}_m = \frac{1}{C_M}\vec{\sigma}_M $, where
499: and $\vec{\sigma}_m = \vec{\sigma}_M /C_M $, where
500: $C_M = \sum_{i \in I} M_i $ and the sum goes only over the
501: bins included in the fit, i.e.\
502: $I = \{i \mid \mbox{bin } i \mbox{ is included in the fit} \}$.
503: %
504: The 'theoretical' histogram $\vec{S}$ is accumulated from the
505: simulated hit list. % in the following way:
506: %
507: Each entry is weighted with a factor in order to scale
508: %each count resulting
509: from the simulated power law
510: to the probability density which would be expected,
511: had we actually simulated the GRB source spectrum dN/dE.
512: The $j$th %histogram
513: bin contains therefore the weighted sum of all simulated hits
514: with $\Edet_l$ belonging to that bin, i.e.:
515: \begin{equation}
516: S_j = \sum_{l \in L} w_l
517: \end{equation}
518: where $L = \{l \mid E^b_{j-1} \leq \Edet_l < E^b_j\}$
519: and
520: \begin{equation}
521: w_l = \left( \frac{\Ein_l}{E_{piv}} \right)^{\gamma_{sim}} \cdot
522: \frac{dN}{dE}(\Ein_l) \label{eq:weight}
523: \end{equation}
524: %
525: %The weight factor scales each count resulting from the
526: %simulated power law to the value which would be expected,
527: %had we actually simulated the GRB source spectrum dN/dE.
528: %
529: The first factor in eq.\ \ref{eq:weight} accounts
530: for the spectrum assumed in the simulation and
531: the energy $E_{piv}$ is an arbitrary normalisation.
532: The second factor accounts for
533: the spectrum of the incoming GRB photons.
534: Possible parametrisations
535: of $dN/dE$ are given below in \S \ref{sec:models}.
536: If the GRB spectrum had
537: the same shape as the simulated one,
538: i.e.\ if
539: $ dN/dE = (E/E_{piv})^{-\gamma_{sim}}$,
540: the weights would all be 1 .
541: This method of using weight factors when filling a histogram
542: is common in particle physics, see e.g.\ \citet{Barlow93}.
543: %
544: The statistical error of the 'theoretical'
545: histogram $\vec{S}$ is $\sigma^2_{S_j} = \sum_{l \in L} w_l^2 $
546: \citep[\S 6 of][]{Barlow93}.
547: %%%%
548: %The method of using weighted entries for a histogram
549: %is common in particle physics, see e.g.\ \citet{Barlow93},
550: %in particular \S 6 therein.
551: %
552: As in the case of the measured histogram,
553: the histogram $\vec{S}$
554: is normalised:
555: %$\vec{s} = \frac{1}{C_S}\vec{S} $
556: $\vec{s} = \vec{S}/C_S $
557: %and $\vec{\sigma}_s = \frac{1}{C_S}\vec{\sigma}_S $ with
558: and $\vec{\sigma}_s =\vec{\sigma}_S /C_S $ with
559: $C_S = \sum_{i \in I} S_i $.
560:
561: The parameters of the histogram $\vec{S}$ are varied
562: until the minimum of
563: \begin{equation}
564: \chi^2 = \sum_{i \in I} \frac{(m_i - f s_i)^2}
565: {\sigma_{m_i}^2 + \sigma_{s_i}^2}
566: \end{equation}
567: is found. The factor $f$ accounts for the
568: normalisation between measured and simulated histogram.
569: It is expected to be almost 1, but
570: should be treated as a free fit parameter.
571: For each fit iteration, the histogram $\vec{S}$ is recalculated
572: with different weights (eq.\ \ref{eq:weight}).
573:
574: Since the simulated hit list contains many more
575: photons than the measured spectrum, %so that
576: we used the approximation $\sigma_{m_i}^2 + \sigma_{s_i}^2 \approx
577: \sigma_{m_i}^2$ while fitting.
578: But it was always checked that
579: the statistical error from the measurement is
580: dominant.
581:
582: %It is possible to construct a response matrix from our
583: %simulated count. One of us (EB) developed a response
584: %matrix independently from the routines described in this article.
585: %With his response matrix, he successfully could do
586: %joint fits of RHESSI/Swift or RHESSI/Konus data, see e.g. ...
587: %We checked that the two response matrices agree.
588: %% TODO -- done!
589: It is possible to create a response matrix from our
590: simulations and perform spectral fits via forward-fitting,
591: as in XSPEC.
592: In any case, our weighted histogram method gives equivalent
593: fits to response matrices which are simulated directly
594: %We made cross checks that our weighted histogram method gives
595: %equivalent results to response matrices which are simulated directly
596: (by EB; see E.\ Bellm, C.\ Wigger et al., in preparation).
597:
598:
599: %If the data are noisy, $\chi^2$ will be high even for
600: %a good fit, as is the case e.g. for GRB 030519B.
601: %If, on the other hand, a good fit has a low $\chi$,
602: %as e.g. Band function in the case of GRB 021008 (rear),
603: %then even a fit with an acceptable $\chi^2$ looks bad.
604: %This is the case for GRB 021008 (rear), when fitted with a BPL.
605:
606: %From Table~\ref{tab:chi2} we conclude that
607: %the model with the best $\chi^2_r$ fits the data.
608: %And all other models
609: %that have $= \chi^2_{r,bm} + f\,\Delta \chi^2$,
610: %with $\chi^2_{r,bm}$ is the $\chi^2_r$ of the best fitting
611: %model and $f =0.5$ -- $1.0$ .
612:
613:
614:
615: \subsection{Systematic effects}
616: \label{sec:systematics}
617: At low energies, a small deviation of our RHESSI mass model
618: from the true amount of material
619: can make a considerable difference in the number of
620: observed photons.
621: For $\theta\approx 90$ degrees,
622: this should be a small problem because the
623: lateral shielding is thin. But for $\theta$
624: from 10 to 50 degrees this is an
625: issue, and less prominently also
626: from 130 to 160 degrees.
627:
628: %Since the high energy response function
629: %is less affected by a not so excellent mass model,
630: %we trust the high energy part of our fits.
631:
632: Simulation quality also gets better with higher energy.
633: This is fortunate for the current analysis which relies on
634: high-energy properties of GRB spectra.
635:
636:
637: \section{SPECTRAL MODELS}
638: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
639: \label{sec:models}
640:
641: Let $dN/dE$ be the number of GRB photons per energy bin.
642: The peak energy \Epeak\ is defined as the energy for which
643: $\mathEFE = dN/dE \, E^2$ is maximal.
644: The spectrum in the \EFE\ representation has at least one maximum because
645: the total emitted energy must be finite: $\int_0^\infty dN/dE\,E\, dE < \infty$.
646: Many instruments can see such a maximum \Epeak\ within their energy range.
647:
648: Different mathematical functions, sometimes called models,
649: can describe such a shape. A collection is presented
650: in this section.
651: %We will call them functions, since
652: %we prefer to use the word ``model'' in the sense
653: %of a real physical explanation of the GRB phenomenon.
654:
655: %This is a mathematical reason only,
656: %and it could well be that the peak energy lays outside
657: %the observed energy band, but indeed, most GRB spectra
658: %show such a behaviour.
659: %We call low (high) energy part of the spectrum
660: %the one that lies below (above) \Epeak.
661:
662: %In this study, we use several spectral models:
663:
664: The simplest spectral function is a power law ({\bf PL}):
665: \begin{equation}
666: \frac{dN}{dE} = A \left( \frac{E_{piv}}{E} \right)^\gamma
667: \label{eq:PL}
668: \end{equation}
669: where $E_{piv}$ is a normalization energy, e.g. $E_{piv}=100$~\keV.
670: The PL has no peak energy.
671: It rarely fits a GRB spectrum over the entire observed
672: energy range, but it is often useful for a limited energy band.
673: Indeed, every spectrum can be fit by several joined PLs.
674:
675: One simple way to account for a spectral
676: softening and a peak energy is the cut off power law ({\bf CPL}):
677: \begin{equation}
678: \frac{dN}{dE} = A \left( \frac{E_0}{E} \right)^\alpha e^{-E/E_0}
679: \label{eq:CPL}
680: \end{equation}
681: If $\alpha < 2.0$ then $\mathEpeak = E_0\, (2-\alpha)$ .
682:
683: Another way to account for a spectral break is the
684: broken power law ({\bf BPL}) consisting of two joined PLs
685: \begin{equation}
686: \frac{dN}{dE} =
687: \left\{
688: \begin{array}{ll}
689: A \left( \frac{E_b}{E} \right)^\alpha & \mbox{ if } E\leq E_{b} \\
690: A \left( \frac{E_b}{E} \right)^\beta & \mbox{ if } E\geq E_{b}.
691: \end{array}
692: \right.
693: \label{eq:BPL}
694: \end{equation}
695: If $\alpha < 2.0$ and $\beta > 2.0$, then $\mathEpeak = E_b$ .
696: This function is not continuously differentiable.
697:
698: A smooth transition between the two power laws
699: is realized by the empirical {\bf Band} function \citep{Band93}.
700: This is a smooth composition of a CPL for low energies and
701: a PL for high energies:
702: \begin{equation}
703: \frac{dN}{dE} =
704: \left\{
705: \begin{array}{ll}
706: A \left( \frac{E_{piv}}{E} \right)^\alpha e^{-E/E_0} & \mbox{ if } E \leq \mathEbreak \\
707: B \left( \frac{E_{piv}}{E} \right)^\beta & \mbox{ if } E \geq \mathEbreak
708: \end{array}
709: \right.
710: \label{eq:Band}
711: \end{equation}
712: where
713: \[
714: \mathEbreak = E_0 (\beta-\alpha)
715: \]
716: and
717: \[
718: B = A \left(\frac{E_0}{E_{piv}} (\beta-\alpha)\right)^{\beta-\alpha}
719: e^{-(\beta-\alpha)}
720: \]
721: Again, $E_{piv}$ is a normalization energy, e.g. $E_{piv}=100$~\keV.
722: If $\alpha < 2.0$ and $\beta > 2.0$, then $\mathEpeak = E_0\, (2-\alpha)$.
723: If $\beta \longrightarrow \infty$ or if \Ebreak\ lies
724: at the upper limit of the observed energy range,
725: then the Band function turns into a CPL.
726: As already pointed out by \citet{Preece2000}, section 3.3.1.,
727: the low energy photon index, the curvature of the spectrum,
728: and its peak energy are represented with only two parameters,
729: $\alpha$ and $E_0$.\footnote{The smoothly broken power law model (SBPL,
730: see \citet{Preece2000,BATSEcatalog})
731: would account for this problem with an additional parameter,
732: but we do not use it here, because it can not fit
733: a spectral hardening at high energies.}
734:
735: Sometimes a blackbody spectrum plus power law
736: is used for spectral fitting,
737: see e.g.\ \citet{Ryde2004,Ghirlanda2007,SMcBreen2006}.
738: We will call this the {\bf BBPL}:
739: \begin{equation}
740: \frac{dN}{dE} = A \frac{(E/(kT))^2}{\exp(E/(kT))-1} +
741: A\,b\, \left( \frac{E_{piv}}{E} \right)^\alpha
742: \label{eq:BBPL}
743: % gewichte = (se0/100.)^(betasim-alpha) + $
744: % (anteil / ( (3.92*kT/100.)^2/(exp(3.92)-1)) ) * $
745: % (se0/100.)^2/(exp(se0/kT)-1) * (se0/100.)^betasim
746: \end{equation}
747: We choose $E_{piv} = 3.92\, kT$, the
748: peak energy of the blackbody component.
749: %For $E = 3.92 kT$ - i.e.\ at the peak energy of the blackbody
750: %component - the relative fraction of the power law component
751: %is $b$.
752: The BBPL function can fit a spectral hardening at high
753: energies.
754:
755: When fitting with the BBPL model, it is often found that
756: the PL component does not fit simultaneously at low
757: and at high energies. This is also mentioned by \citet{Ryde2004}.
758: We therefore invented a blackbody plus modified power law
759: ({\bf BBmPL}):
760: \begin{eqnarray}
761: \label{eq:BBmPL}
762: \frac{dN}{dE} = A \frac{(E/(kT))^2}{\exp(E/(kT))-1}\, + \\
763: A \, b \, (1-e^{-E/E_0}) \left( \frac{E_0}{E} \right)^\alpha \nonumber
764: \end{eqnarray}
765: We choose again $E_0=3.92\, kT$.
766: %, because
767: %this is the peak energy of the blackbody component.
768: The modification of the power law component was borrowed from
769: the cannonball model (see next). The BBmPL function can
770: describe a spectral hardening at high energies.
771:
772: % Teff=3.92*kT
773: % gewichte = (se0/100.)^2/(exp(se0/kT)-1.) * (se0/100.)^betasim $
774: % + anteil * (1.-exp(-se0/kT)) *(se0/100)^(betasim-alpha)
775: % ; + anteil * (1.-exp(-se0/Teff)) *(se0/Teff)^(betasim-alpha)
776:
777: %\item[CB] cannonball model
778: The cannonball model {\bf \CB}
779: \citep{Dar2004,Dado2002,Dado2003}
780: makes a prediction for the
781: spectral shape of the prompt GRB emission.
782: It consists of a CPL and a modified power law:
783: \begin{eqnarray}
784: \label{eq:CB}
785: \frac{dN}{dE} = A \left( \frac{T}{E} \right)^\alpha e^{-E/T} + \\
786: A\, b\, \left( \frac{T}{E} \right)^\beta \left( 1- e^{-E/T}\right) \nonumber
787: \end{eqnarray}
788: according to \citet{Dar2004}, eq.~47, or \citet{Dado2004}, eq.~13.
789: The theoretically expected values are
790: $\alpha \approx 1.0$ and
791: $\beta \approx 2.1$.
792: %In principle, this function does not apply for the
793: %entire time integrated GRB spectrum, but for each pulse
794: %separately.
795: The \CB\ function \refeq{eq:CB} applies strictly speaking
796: only to the spectrum caused by a single cannonball,
797: i.e.\ for every single peak of a GRB.
798:
799: It is often observed that the peak energy \Epeak\ is
800: a more stable fit parameter than the parameter $E_0$ in the Band function
801: (\refeq{eq:Band}) or in the CPL (\refeq{eq:CPL}).
802: Therefore, we use
803: $E_p = E_0\, (2-\alpha)$ as a fit parameter. Similarly, we use
804: %$T_p = T_{eff}\, (2-\alpha)$ as fit parameter in the case of
805: $T_p = T\, (2-\alpha)$ as a fit parameter in the case of
806: \CB\ (\refeq{eq:CB}).
807:
808: A word about fitting \CB:
809: For the high energy part, it has two parameters, whereas
810: the Band function has only one.
811: Already when fitting the Band function, it is
812: often observed that the high energy power law index
813: is poorly constrained, because the high energy data
814: tend to have large statistical errors.
815: This is even worse for \CB\ with two
816: high energy parameters.
817: %It often helps to restrain
818: %the high energy power law index $\beta$ to its
819: %theoretically expected value 2.1 .
820: %
821: %The following paragraph was moved here from the former conclusion section
822: %The high energy power law index $\beta$ of the \CB\ model
823: %often has to be fixed
824: It often helps to freeze the parameter $\beta$
825: at its theoretical value of $\beta=2.1$
826: in order to make the fit converge.
827:
828:
829:
830:
831: \section{FIT RESULTS AND FIT DISCUSSIONS}
832: %-------------------------------------------------
833: \label{sec:results}
834:
835: % The upper limit of the fit range is either the maximum RHESSI energy
836: %(16 MeV slightly time dependent) or a few times the highest
837: % GRB energy observed.
838: % For bursts with no counts at high energies, we do not use the full
839: % RHESSI energy range up to 16 MeV, because we want to fit the GRB spectrum,
840: % not background.
841: %
842: % The low energy end of the fit range depends on the incoming angle.
843: % It is determined empirically:
844: % E.g.\ if a fit starting at 100 keV also fits down to 70 keV,
845: % we rather used 70 keV than 100 keV as lower bound.
846: % A general rule is that the more material is in between the GRB
847: %and the detectors, the higher the low energy bound.
848:
849: The spectral models used and the $\chi^2$ of
850: the fits are listed in Table~\ref{tab:chi2} for all eight GRBs.
851: For \CB\ and Band function, the fitted
852: parameters are listed in Tables~\ref{tab:CB_pars}
853: and \ref{tab:Band_pars}, respectively.
854: Throughout this article, all errors are symmetric $1\sigma$ errors
855: if not stated otherwise.
856:
857: The measured spectra together with the \CB\ and Band fits
858: are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:020715} to \ref{fig:031111}.
859: Note that we plot energy$^2 \,\cdot\,$counts/keV versus energy.
860: %% TODO
861: %I agree with the referee's concern about what you're
862: %calling the plotted counts. Calling it E*F[E] will make people think
863: %you're plotting the "unfolded" spectrum. I'd simply say you're plotting
864: %energy^2. counts/keV.
865: %%
866: %When plotting the results, %we do not act on measured data,
867: %%but only on simulations. The figures
868: %we show the observed \EFE\ spectrum.
869: The difference to a deconvolved \EFE\ distribution is
870: %(where $E$ is the energy of the incoming GRB photons) is
871: %don't show the GRB's original spectrum, but its response in RHESSI.
872: %The difference is
873: discernible e.g.\ in the drop of counts
874: towards lower energies in our representation.
875: The statistical scatter from the limited number
876: of simulated events is sometimes visible as a little roughness of
877: the simulated spectra.\footnote{
878: In the case of e.g.\ GRB 021206, rear (see Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_rear}),
879: the mean measured error between 4 and 12 MeV is
880: $0.65 \cdot 10^6\,$counts$\cdot$keV,
881: whereas the mean scatter of the simulated histogram
882: is $0.25 \cdot 10^6\,$counts$\cdot$keV. For the other
883: GRBs with less observed photons and therefore larger measurement errors,
884: the statistical error of the
885: simulation is even more negligible.}
886:
887: From the fit parameters obtained for the
888: \CB\ and the Band function, we calculate the fluences
889: %\fluenceCB\ and \fluenceBand\
890: for various energy intervals.
891: They are listed in Table~\ref{tab:fl}.
892: %
893: %The fluences \fluenceCB\ and \fluenceBand\ were determined for the fit ranges.
894: %
895: The error of the fluence is dominated by systematics,
896: e.g.\ because we do not know the exact active volume
897: of the single detector segments.
898: We estimate the systematic error to be of order 5\%,
899: whereas the statistical error %of our determination of the fluence
900: is of order 1\%.
901: Note also, that the two fluences
902: obtained by fitting \CB\ and Band function
903: are nearly equal.
904:
905:
906: \subsection{GRB 020715}
907: %\paragraph{GRB 020715}
908: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
909: %\paragraph{Fit}
910: The lightcurve is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsI} (top) and
911: the spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
912: %The lightcurve is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:grbsI}, upper plot,
913: %and the spectrum in Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
914: Two bins from 290~\keV\ to 310~\keV\ (a background line)
915: and one bin from 500~\keV\ to 525~\keV\ (the 511~\keV\ line)
916: were omitted in the fit
917: because they would dominate $\chi^2$.
918: The best fit %(see Table~\ref{tab:chi2})
919: is a Band function, but the \CB\ also fits well.
920: % with:
921: %\begin{eqnarray}
922: % \mathEpeak & = & 531 \pm 24 \mbox{ keV} \nonumber \\
923: % \alpha & = & 0.776 \pm 0.044 \\
924: % \beta & = & 3.14 \pm 0.25 \nonumber
925: %\end{eqnarray}
926: %The second best fit is the Cannonball model. %with:
927: %\begin{eqnarray}
928: % \mathEpeak & = & 539 \pm 21 \mbox{keV} \nonumber \\
929: % \alpha & = & 0.774 \pm 0.059 \nonumber \\
930: % \beta & = & 2.19 \pm 0.24 \\
931: % b & = & 0.055 \pm 0.039 \nonumber
932: %\end{eqnarray}
933: %The spectral parameters are listed in Table~\ref{tab:Band_pars}
934: %for the Band function fit and in Table~\ref{tab:CB_pars}
935: %for the Cannonball model.
936:
937: %\paragraph{GRB 020715}
938: %.. not much to be said ...
939:
940:
941: \subsection{GRB 021008}
942: % - - - - - - - - - - - - -
943: Coming from a direction about 50 degrees from the Sun,
944: this GRB deposited photons not only in rear
945: detectors but also in the front detectors,
946: as can be seen from the lightcurve in Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsI}.
947: The front spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:F021008}
948: and the rear in Fig.~\ref{fig:R021008}.
949:
950: \paragraph{Fit}
951: We had difficulties to fit front and rear spectra consistently
952: below 300~\keV. We therefore chose 300~\keV\ as the lower energy bound.
953: Band function and \CB\ give the best fits.
954:
955: We fitted front and rear segments separately, as well as jointly.
956: The results of the joint fit are shown in
957: Figs.~\ref{fig:F021008} and \ref{fig:R021008} .
958: For the joint \CB\ fit we find the 90\% confidence level (CL) errors:
959: \begin{eqnarray}
960: T_p & = & 641 \; ^{+54}_{-53} \mbox{ keV} \nonumber \\
961: \alpha & = & 1.523 \; ^{+0.099}_{-0.098} \label{eq:CB021008} \\
962: \beta & \equiv & 2.1 \nonumber \\
963: b & = & 0.0198\; ^{+0.0129}_{-0.0137} \nonumber
964: \end{eqnarray}
965: % $T_p = 641\; ^{+54}_{-53} \,$keV,
966: % $\alpha = 1.523\; ^{+0.099}_{-0.098}$,
967: % $\beta = 2.1$ (frozen), and
968: % $b = 0.0198\; ^{+0.0129}_{-0.0137} $.
969: The total $\chi^2$ is $71.2$ for $n_{DoF}= 74$.
970: The Band function fits marginally better,
971: $\chi^2= 70.0$ for $n_{DoF}= 74$
972: %(fitting front and rear simultaneously),
973: and its parameters are (\CLerrors):
974: \begin{eqnarray}
975: E_p &=& 677 \; ^{+51}_{-66} \mbox{ \keV} \nonumber \\
976: \alpha &=& 1.493\; ^{+0.104}_{-0.104} \label{eq:Band021008} \\
977: \beta &=& 3.73 \; ^{+0.48}_{-0.38} \nonumber
978: \end{eqnarray}
979: %$ E_p = 677\; ^{+51}_{-66} \,$keV,
980: %$ \alpha = 1.493\; ^{+0.104}_{-0.104}$, and
981: %$ \beta = 3.73\; ^{+0.48}_{-0.38}$.
982:
983:
984: \paragraph{Discussion}
985: %\paragraph{GRB 021008}
986: We do not well understand the
987: spectrum below 300~\keV.
988: Both fits, the \CB\ and the Band function,
989: overestimate the counts below 300~\keV. This can be a hint that
990: the GRB spectrum hardens below 300~\keV.
991: We find functions that fit the front and
992: the rear data from 40~\keV\ to 400~\keV\ individually,
993: but they do not agree.
994:
995: One possible explanation is the GRB incoming angle of
996: about 50 degrees at which the
997: GRB photons pass through a certain amount
998: of material before reaching the detectors.
999: Our GEANT simulation tries to take that into account, but it
1000: is probably not perfect, and maybe the averaging over all rotation
1001: angles is a bad assumption for this short GRB pulse.
1002: %(see e.g. Fig.\ 2? in \citet{PSI2004} for a simplified view of RHESSI).
1003: %Therefore, the simulation at low energies could be less trustworthy
1004: %than in the case with incoming angles of about 90 degrees,
1005: %where the detectors are almost unshielded.
1006:
1007: %Fitting the rear data from 40 keV to 400 keV,
1008: %we find as best fitting model a BPL with
1009: %$E_1=166 \pm 12\,$keV, $\alpha = 0.914 \pm 0.049$ and
1010: %$\beta = 1.796 \pm 0.041$ ($\chi^2 /n_{DoF} = 72.2/73 $).
1011: %Fitting the front data from 40 keV to 400 keV,
1012: %we find as best fitting model a BBPL with
1013: %$kT = 48 \pm 4\,$keV, $\alpha = 1.85 \pm 0.13$ and
1014: %$b_{PL} = 0.29 \pm 0.21$ ($\chi^2 /n_{DoF} = 77.2/73 $),
1015: %and as second best fit a SPL with $\alpha = 1.638 \pm 0.014$
1016: %($\chi^2 /n_{DoF} = 82.2/75 $).
1017: %These two sets of parameter do not really agree.
1018:
1019: Another difficulty for this GRB is its background.
1020: For the single rear segments, the background at low
1021: energies (below $\approx 120$~\keV)
1022: strongly depends on the rotation angle of RHESSI.
1023: We did our best to take this into account,
1024: but maybe did not succeed completely.
1025:
1026:
1027:
1028:
1029: \subsection{GRB 021206}
1030: % - - - - - - - - - - -
1031:
1032: \label{sec:result021206}
1033: GRB 021206 is famous for its claimed
1034: polarization \citep{CB03}, which however
1035: turned out to be an artefact
1036: \citep[see][]{RF04,PSI2004,cw_rome}.
1037: This GRB was also studied by \citet{Boggs2004}
1038: to probe quantum gravity.
1039:
1040: This GRB is only 18 degrees from the Sun, exposing
1041: mainly the front segments of RHESSI's detectors.
1042: Its lightcurve is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsI}.
1043: Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_front} shows the energy spectrum
1044: in the front segments, Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_rear}
1045: in the rear segments.
1046:
1047:
1048: \paragraph{Fit}
1049: The front spectrum can be fit from 70~\keV\ up to 2800~\keV,
1050: and the rear
1051: % spectrum %(Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_rear}) can be fit
1052: from 300~\keV\ to 16~\MeV.
1053: The huge number of excess counts below $300$~\keV\ in the
1054: rear detectors is understood:
1055: The geometrical constellation of the GRB, RHESSI, and Earth
1056: was such that the GRB photons came from the front
1057: direction, where the effective area is relatively small,
1058: whereas the Earth was behind RHESSI so that the
1059: backscattered photons could easily reach the rear
1060: segments.
1061:
1062: The only function that fits the front {\em and} rear spectra
1063: over the entire energy range from 70~\keV\ up to 16~\MeV\ is the \CB.
1064: %One can even freeze $\beta$ at its
1065: %theoretically expected value of 2.1\,.
1066: %The fitted parameters are listed in Table~\ref{tab:CB_pars}.
1067: %
1068: %We used different spectral models for different energy ranges.
1069: %The front data can be well fit starting at 56 keV up to
1070: %2800 keV. The rear data below 300 keV are dominated by
1071: %GRB photons which were scattered in the atmosphere and
1072: %then reach the detectors. Therefore, we restrict our fits
1073: %of the rear data to $> 300$ keV.
1074: %We fitted front and rear segments independently.
1075: %The results of all the fitting is summarised in Table
1076: %\ref{tab:fit_021206}.
1077: %
1078: %We also note that:
1079: %
1080: %$\bullet$
1081: %The full evaluation of the parameter space with frozen
1082: %$\beta$ gives for the \CB\ (\CLerrors):
1083: %\begin{eqnarray}
1084: % T_p &=& 680 ^{+13}_{-13} \mbox{ keV} \nonumber \\
1085: % \alpha &=& 0.593 ^{+0.042}_{-0.043} \\
1086: % \beta &=& 2.1 \nonumber \\
1087: % b &=& 0.0994 ^{+0.0097}_{-0.0096} \nonumber
1088: %\end{eqnarray}
1089: %These values are used for the black line histogram
1090: %and the residuals in Figs.\
1091: %\ref{fig:spec_front} and \ref{fig:spec_rear}. $\chi^2_rs=$?
1092: %
1093: %$\bullet$
1094: %Treating $\beta$ in the \CB\ as a free fit parameter yields
1095: %$\beta = 2.12 \pm 0.13$ for the rear spectrum and
1096: %$\beta = 1.88 \pm 0.25$ for the front spectrum, both consistent
1097: %with $\beta = 2.1$.
1098: %
1099: %$\bullet$
1100: Fitting front and rear spectra simultaneously with \CB\
1101: and all parameters free, yields (\CLerrors):
1102: \begin{eqnarray}
1103: T_p &= 678 \; ^{+13}_{-10} \mbox{ \keV} \nonumber \\
1104: \alpha &= 0.60 \; ^{+0.09}_{-0.08} \label{eq:CB021206} \\
1105: \beta &= 2.12 \; ^{+0.08}_{-0.13} \nonumber \\
1106: b &= 0.108\; ^{+0.039}_{-0.045} \nonumber
1107: \end{eqnarray}
1108: with $\chi^2 = 187.5$ for $n_{DoF}= 185$.
1109: These values are used for the black line histogram
1110: and the residuals in Figs.~\ref{fig:spec_front} and \ref{fig:spec_rear}.
1111:
1112: The front spectrum alone is well described
1113: by a Band function. Its $\chi^2$ is even marginally smaller
1114: than that of the \CB\ model fit, see Table~\ref{tab:chi2}.
1115: The Band function also fits the rear spectrum up to 4.5~\MeV\ with
1116: $\chi^2 = 72.8$ (62 DoF), but not at higher energies.
1117: The front and rear parameters (up to 4.5~\MeV) agree,
1118: see Table~\ref{tab:Band_pars}. Evaluating the full parameter space
1119: simultaneously for front and rear yields (\CLerrors):
1120: \begin{eqnarray}
1121: E_p &= 711 \; ^{+15}_{-17} \mbox{ \keV} \nonumber \\
1122: \alpha &= 0.692\; ^{+0.033}_{-0.039} \label{eq:Band021206} \\
1123: \beta &= 3.19 \pm 0.08 \nonumber
1124: \end{eqnarray}
1125: with $\chi^2=176.5$ for $n_{DoF}= 174$.
1126: These values are used for the grey line histogram in
1127: Figs.~\ref{fig:spec_front} and \ref{fig:spec_rear}.
1128: They agree with the preliminary results by \citet{cw_venice}.
1129: % from cw_venice:
1130: % The weighted means of the spectral parameters are ($1 \sigma$ errors):
1131: % $\alpha = -0.65 \pm 0.04$,
1132: % $\mathEpeak = 705 \pm 14 \,$keV, and
1133: % $\beta = -3.19 \pm 0.06$.
1134: %$\bullet$
1135: Above 4.5~\MeV, a PL with $\gamma = 2.23 \pm 0.21$ fits
1136: the data ($\chi^2 = 12.5$ for 10 DoF).
1137:
1138:
1139:
1140: \paragraph{Discussion}
1141: % - - - - - - - - - - - -
1142: As can be learned from Table~\ref{tab:chi2},
1143: the high energy part can not be fit
1144: by Band, BPL or CPL, and the
1145: low energy part of the spectrum can not be fit
1146: by BBPL nor by BBmPL.
1147: The only function that fits over the whole RHESSI energy range
1148: is \CB.
1149:
1150: The \CB\ function has one parameter more than the Band function.
1151: An F-test indicates that the chance
1152: probability of producing such an improvement in $\chi^2$ with the
1153: additional parameter
1154: is only $4.0\times10^{-9}$.
1155: The spectral hardening at 4.5~\MeV\ is significant.
1156:
1157: Because this GRB has so many counts at high energies,
1158: we used a simulation with $\gamma_{sim} = 1.75$
1159: for the results cited above.
1160: A power law index of 1.75 results in relatively more counts
1161: at high energies than the usual power law index (=2).
1162: We also used simulations with $\gamma_{sim} = 1.5$
1163: and $\gamma_{sim} = 2.0$. The results were almost
1164: identical, especially for the high energy parameters
1165: $\beta$ and $b$ of the \CB\ fit.
1166:
1167: The high energy photon index $\beta$ of the \CB\ function
1168: agrees perfectly with the theoretical expected value ($\approx 2.1$).
1169: The low energy photon index $\alpha \approx 0.6$ on the other hand
1170: is slightly smaller than expected from theory ($\approx 1.0$).
1171: %The spectral shape of GRB 021206 at high energies
1172: %follows the \CB\ model, with a high energy
1173: %power law index of 2.1$\,$.
1174:
1175: %One also should note that the $b$-value found for
1176: %the front fit, where the spectral hardening is not
1177: %visible, is the same that is found for the rear
1178: %fit, where the high energy tail is visible.
1179:
1180: \paragraph{Peak resolved analysis}
1181: % - - - - - - - - - - - -
1182:
1183: %The \CB\ function applies strictly only to the single
1184: %peaks, caused by single cannonballs, of a GRB.
1185: The time structure of GRB 021206 is rather intricate.
1186: Four periods of emission can be distinguished,
1187: see Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsI}, each of them probably
1188: consisting of several overlaying sub-peaks.
1189: Luckily, these time periods match quite well our
1190: minimum time resolution of one third of a rotation period
1191: for fitting with a rotation averaged response function
1192: (see \S \ref{sec:fit}).
1193:
1194: The fitted parameters are listed in
1195: Table~\ref{tab:dt_grb021206} for the four time
1196: intervals marked in the figure,
1197: as well as the additional {\em tail} interval.
1198: The {\em tail} interval lasts one full rotation,
1199: starting at the end of the P4 interval.
1200: The fluences of the two components in the \CB\ function (\refeq{eq:CB})
1201: are listed separately (\fluenceCPL\ for the CPL component
1202: and \fluencemPL\ for the modified PL component).
1203: The mPL index $\beta$ was kept frozen at 2.1.\ %
1204:
1205: The energy $T_p$ increases from the first to the second time interval
1206: and then decreases. Also $F_{CPL}$ and $F_{mPL}$ increase
1207: from the first to the second interval, and then decrease.
1208: However, the modified PL component seems to decay more slowly
1209: than the CPL component. The tail is dominated by the mPL
1210: component.
1211:
1212:
1213: %\newpage
1214:
1215:
1216: \subsection{GRB 030329}
1217: % - - - - - - - - - - -
1218: %\label{sec:res_030329}
1219: GRB 030329 is famous for the supernova 2003dh detected
1220: in its afterglow %\citep{GCN_sn_obs,GCN2131,GCN2169}.
1221: \citep{Hjorth2003,GCN_sn_obs,GCN2131,GCN2169}.
1222: The authors of the \CB\ model used
1223: the lightcurve of this GRB and its early
1224: afterglow to predict the later afterglow and
1225: the appearance of a supernova
1226: \citep[see][]{Dado_030329}.
1227: A supernova and the late afterglow was also predicted by
1228: \citet{Zeh2003}, and is discussed in \citet{Ferrero2006}.
1229:
1230: In the lightcurve of GRB 030329, two peaks are
1231: clearly separated (Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsI}, bottom plot).
1232: We analyse them separately.
1233:
1234: \paragraph{Fit}
1235: The spectrum of the first peak
1236: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:030329_p1}.
1237: Three bins around a background line from 64~\keV\ to 70~\keV\ were
1238: not included in the fit.
1239: A very good fit (see Table~\ref{tab:chi2}) is a CPL with:
1240: $ \mathEpeak = 158.7 \pm 5.0 \mbox{ keV}$ % \nonumber \\
1241: and $ \alpha = 1.662 \pm 0.032 .$
1242: Not surprisingly, the \CB\ and Band function, having more parameters,
1243: but being closely related to a CPL, fit only marginally better.
1244:
1245: The spectrum of the second peak
1246: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:030329_p2}.
1247: The spectrum has some wiggles below 160~\keV,
1248: which account for the relatively high $\chi^2$.
1249: Many models give an acceptable fit, only BBPL
1250: does not fit.
1251: A good fit (see Table~\ref{tab:chi2}) is a CPL with
1252: $ \mathEpeak = 78 \pm 13 \mbox{ keV} $ %\nonumber \\
1253: and $ \alpha = 1.83 \pm 0.05 $.
1254: Also a good fit is a broken power law (BPL) with %:
1255: $ E_b = 175 \pm 15 \mbox{ keV} $, %\nonumber \\
1256: $ \alpha = 1.985 \pm 0.032$, and %\\
1257: $ \beta = 2.68 \pm 0.08 $. %\nonumber
1258: Also Band function and \CB\ model fit the data well,
1259: see Fig.~\ref{fig:030329_p2}.
1260:
1261: \paragraph{Discussion}
1262: % - - - - - - - - - - -
1263: The prompt emission was detected by HETE.
1264: Its spectrum is published by \citet{HETE030329}
1265: and by \citet{HETE2005}.
1266: \citet{HETE030329} do a time resolved analysis.
1267: For the entire burst they find (\CLerrors):
1268: $\mathEpeak= 70.2 \pm 2.3$~\keV,
1269: $\alpha = 1.32 \pm 0.02$,
1270: $\beta = 2.44 \pm 0.08$.
1271: \citet{HETE2005} find for the entire burst (\CLerrors):
1272: $\mathEpeak= 68 \pm 2$~\keV,
1273: $\alpha = 1.26 \pm 0.02$,
1274: $\beta = 2.28 \pm 0.06$.
1275:
1276: The RHESSI parameters, for both peaks, are all significantly higher
1277: (see Table~\ref{tab:Band_pars}).
1278: % This is also the case, when fitting the entire burst. We
1279: % find (for RHESSI)
1280: % $\mathEpeak= 117 \pm 8\,$keV,
1281: % $\alpha= 1.76 \pm 0.04$, and
1282: % $\beta = 3.7 \pm 1.2$.
1283: However, the high energy photon indices can not be compared directly,
1284: because the break energy (above which $\beta$ is determined,
1285: see \refeq{eq:Band})
1286: for HETE is 116~\keV, whereas
1287: for RHESSI it is $>400$~\keV,
1288: i.e.\ above the HETE energy range.
1289: % (see Table~\ref{tab:Band_pars}).
1290: % for RHESSI is $E_{b,\mbox{\em HSI}} = 940\,$keV, whereas for
1291: % HETE $E_{b,HET} = 116\,$keV.
1292: Fitting the RHESSI data (for the entire duration of the burst)
1293: from 135~\keV\ to 500~\keV\ only, where
1294: the RHESSI response is good,
1295: we find $\beta = 2.441 \pm 0.032$, in excellent agreement
1296: with HETE.
1297: Fitting the RHESSI data from 400~\keV\ to 2000~\keV, i.e.\ above
1298: the HETE range, we find $\beta = 3.11 \pm 0.25$.
1299: The spectrum seems to soften above $\approx 350$~\keV.
1300:
1301: The high RHESSI value for $\alpha$ (almost 2.0) for the
1302: second lightcurve peak indicates
1303: that the spectral peak (in the \EFE\ representation) is broad.
1304: Since RHESSI's sensitivity drops below $\approx 80$~\keV, and this
1305: is a GRB with \Epeak\ in the order of 100~\keV,
1306: it is likely that RHESSI's $\alpha$ describes rather the broadness
1307: of the peak than the low energy photon index.
1308: This opinion is supported by the fit result of the BPL fit.
1309: The low energy photon index $\alpha \approx 2.0$ shows
1310: that the \EFE\ spectrum is flat from 34~\keV\ to 175~\keV.
1311:
1312: %For the second peak, as reported in \S \ref{sec:results_otherGRBs},
1313: %a BPL with a low energy photon index $\alpha \approx 2.0$ and
1314: %$E_b=175\,$keV fits as well.
1315: %This means that $\mathEpeak \leq 175\,$keV
1316: %for the second peak.
1317:
1318: It should also be mentioned that the $\chi^2$ of the
1319: HETE fit, as cited by \citet{HETE2005}, is very bad.
1320: Also the RHESSI $\chi^2$ of the spectral fits for
1321: the second peak are rather high.
1322: A joint fit of RHESSI and HETE data might
1323: reveal interesting features.
1324:
1325:
1326: \subsection{GRB 030406}
1327: % - - - - - - - - - - - -
1328:
1329: \paragraph{Fit}
1330: %The spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:030406}.
1331: %The lightcurve of GRB 030406 is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:grbsII},
1332: %top plot, and its count spectrum in Fig.~\ref{fig:030406}.
1333: %Counts are observed up to a few MeV.
1334: %The fit range is 24 - 15000 keV.
1335: The lightcurve is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsII} (top) and
1336: the spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:030406}.
1337: The best fit is the \CB\ function with
1338: the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ frozen at
1339: the theoretical values.
1340: %, see tables \ref{tab:chi2} and \ref{tab:CB_pars}.
1341: %\begin{eqnarray}
1342: % \mathEpeak & = & 656 \pm 57 \mbox{keV} \nonumber \\
1343: % \alpha & = & 1.0 \mbox{\hspace{1em} (fix)} \nonumber \\
1344: % \beta & = & 2.1 \mbox{\hspace{1em} (fix)} \\
1345: % b & = & 0.149 \pm 0.091 \nonumber
1346: %\end{eqnarray}
1347: The next best fit is the Band function.
1348: %The parameters
1349: %are listed in Table~\ref{tab:Band_pars}.
1350: %with:
1351: %\begin{eqnarray}
1352: % \mathEpeak & = & 674 \pm 70 \mbox{ keV} \nonumber \\
1353: % \alpha & = & 0.979 \pm 0.064 \\
1354: % \beta & = & 2.61 \pm 0.27 \nonumber
1355: %\end{eqnarray}
1356:
1357: \paragraph{discussion}
1358: The spectrum of this burst was also studied by \citet{Radek2006}
1359: using data from
1360: the INTEGRAL satellite. For the spectral analysis, they
1361: used combined ISGRI and IBIS Compton mode data.
1362: The time interval used by \citet{Radek2006} differs from ours.
1363: Using a similar time interval as their `peak' time interval, we find:
1364:
1365: $\bullet$
1366: Fit of a BPL from 24--2400~\keV\ (comparable to the energy range
1367: in the analysis by \citet{Radek2006}):
1368: fits well
1369: ($\chi^2=70.3$ for $n_{DoF}=60$),
1370: and the parameters are:
1371: $E_b= 479 \pm 80$~\keV,
1372: $\alpha = 1.08 \pm 0.05$,
1373: $\beta = 1.96 \pm 0.02$.
1374:
1375: $\bullet$
1376: Fit of a BPL from 24~\keV\ to 16~\MeV: does not fit well
1377: ($\chi^2 = 86.0$ for $n_{DoF}=71$).
1378:
1379: $\bullet$
1380: Fit of \CB\ from 24~\keV\ to 16~\MeV\ with $\alpha=1.0$ and
1381: $\beta=2.1$ frozen: fits well
1382: ($\chi^2 = 77.9$ for $n_{DoF}=72$), and the parameters are:
1383: $T= 1220 \pm 110$~\keV\ and $b = 0.055 \pm 0.079$,
1384:
1385: $\bullet$
1386: Fit of Band function: fits well ($\chi^2 = 77.33$ for $n_{DoF}=71$),
1387: and the parameters are:
1388: $\mathEpeak= 1180 \pm 120$~\keV,
1389: $\alpha = 0.96 \pm 0.06$,
1390: $\beta = 3.02 \pm 0.55$.
1391:
1392: For the high energy part,
1393: the parameters found by \citet{Radek2006}
1394: and by us agree.
1395: But we can not confirm their hard low energy photon index $\alpha < 0.0$.
1396: We even dare to say that we trust our low energy photon index better,
1397: because for this GRB incoming direction, the RHESSI response function
1398: is well understood, whereas the INTEGRAL response function of this burst
1399: might suffer from same systematic effects that we described for RHESSI in \S \ref{sec:systematics}.
1400:
1401:
1402:
1403:
1404: \subsection{GRB 030519B}
1405: % - - - - - - - - - - - -
1406: \paragraph{Fit}
1407: The lightcurve is shown in
1408: Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsII}
1409: and the spectrum in Fig.~\ref{fig:030519B}.
1410: %
1411: %\paragraph{Fit}
1412: The best fit is the Band function,
1413: % with:
1414: %\begin{eqnarray}
1415: % \mathEpeak & = & 417 \pm 13 \mbox{ keV} \nonumber \\
1416: % \alpha & = & 1.048 \pm 0.042 \\
1417: % \beta & = & 3.11 \pm 0.16 \nonumber
1418: %\end{eqnarray}
1419: followed by \CB.
1420: %,
1421: %see tables \ref{tab:chi2}, \ref{tab:Band_pars} and \ref{tab:CB_pars}.
1422: % with:
1423: %\begin{eqnarray}
1424: % \mathEpeak & = & 407 \pm 12 \mbox{keV} \nonumber \\
1425: % \alpha & = & 1.006 \pm 0.056 \nonumber \\
1426: % \beta & = & 2.35 \pm 0.12 \\
1427: % b & = & 0.113 \pm 0.042 \nonumber
1428: %\end{eqnarray}
1429:
1430: \paragraph{Discussion}
1431: In the HETE GRB catalog by \citet{HETE2005} one finds
1432: (\CLerrors):
1433: $E_{p}= 138\; ^{+18}_{-15} $~\keV,
1434: $\alpha= 0.8 \pm 0.1$,
1435: $\beta = 1.7 \pm 0.2$.
1436: Since $\beta < 2.0$, the energy $E_p$ is not the
1437: peak energy, but only a variable related to the parameter
1438: $E_0=E_p/(2-\alpha)$.
1439: Indeed, the RHESSI peak energy for this GRB is $>400$~\keV.
1440: But the HETE parameters do not fit the RHESSI
1441: spectrum from 70~\keV\ to 350~\keV\ ($\chi^2 = 141$ for
1442: 53 energy bins).
1443:
1444:
1445: %\newpage
1446:
1447: \subsection{GRB 031027}
1448: % - - - - - - - - - - - -
1449: %\paragraph{Fit}
1450: %The lightcurve of GRB 031027 is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsII}
1451: %and its count spectrum in Fig.~\ref{fig:031027}.
1452: %We observe significant counts up to about one MeV.
1453: %Therefore, we do not fit up to 15 MeV, but
1454: %from 60 keV to 6000 keV.
1455: The lightcurve is shown in
1456: Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsII} and
1457: the spectrum in Fig.~\ref{fig:031027}.
1458: The best fit is a cut off power law with % (\CLerrors)
1459: $ \mathEpeak = 336 \pm 9$~\keV\ and $\alpha = 0.940\pm 0.05$.
1460: %\begin{eqnarray}
1461: % \mathEpeak & = & 336 ^{+15}_{-14} \mbox{ keV} \nonumber \\
1462: % \alpha & = & 0.940 ^{+0.078}_{-0.079} \;\;.
1463: %\end{eqnarray}
1464: This function is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:031027}.
1465: Band function and \CB\ have difficulties to converge.
1466: Since the CPL fits so well, we expect $\beta = \infty$
1467: for the Band function and $b=0$ for the \CB\ function.
1468:
1469:
1470: \subsection{GRB 031111}
1471: % - - - - - - - - - - - -
1472: \paragraph{Fit}
1473: The lightcurve is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsII} (bottom) and
1474: the spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:031111}.
1475: Band function, \CB\ and BBmPL are good fits,
1476: the best being Band function.
1477:
1478: \paragraph{Discussion}
1479: A preliminary CPL fit to the HETE data is
1480: published on a web page\footnote{
1481: \url{http://space.mit.edu/HETE/Bursts/GRB031111A/}
1482: }
1483: as $E_{0}= 600.5$~\keV\ and
1484: $\alpha= 0.8366$ with a good $\chi^2$.
1485: These values describe the RHESSI spectrum
1486: well from 80~\keV\ to 350~\keV, but not at
1487: higher energies.
1488: HETE's energy range ends at 400~\keV,
1489: thus we believe that our values for $E_0$ and $\alpha$ are better.
1490:
1491:
1492: %------------------------------
1493: \section{GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION}
1494: %------------------------------
1495: \label{sec:discussion}
1496:
1497: \subsection{The spectral functions}
1498: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1499:
1500: What is an acceptable $\chi^2$?
1501: In the limit of many degrees of freedom
1502: ($n_{DoF} > 30$), $\chi^2$ is normal distributed
1503: with an expectation value of $n_{DoF}-0.5$ and
1504: a variance of $\sigma_{\chi^2} = \sqrt{2n_{DoF}-1}$.
1505: A fit is acceptable if $\chi^2$ is close to its expectation
1506: value {\em and} if the residuals
1507: scatter around zero over the whole fit range,
1508: i.e.\ if the fit ``looks good''.
1509:
1510: From Table~\ref{tab:chi2} we conclude that
1511: the \CB\ gives acceptable $\chi^2$ for {\em all} GRBs studied.
1512: And they also look good, as can be seen in
1513: Figs.~\ref{fig:020715} to \ref{fig:031111}.
1514: Except for GRB 021206, rear (Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_rear}),
1515: the same can be said for the Band function.
1516:
1517: In many cases, a cut off power law (CPL)
1518: fits the spectrum up to
1519: high energies, e.g.\ GRB 021008, GRB 030329 or GRB 031027.
1520: In these cases, Band and \CB\
1521: improve the goodness-of-fit slightly, but all three spectral
1522: shapes fit the data acceptably.
1523:
1524: A broken power law fits sometimes, but usually not well.
1525:
1526: BBPL and BBmPL do not fit in general, BBPL worse than BBmPL.
1527: However, it should be mentioned that a blackbody component
1528: is expected---if at all---only
1529: at the beginning of a GRB (see e.g.\ \citet{Ryde2006}
1530: and references therein),
1531: whereas we fitted the entire duration of the bursts.
1532: When using BBPL, we often find that the PL component
1533: fits either at high energies or at low energies.
1534: This is also discussed by \citet{Ghirlanda2007}
1535: who studied six BATSE GRBs in detail,
1536: where low energy data from the WFC instrument (on board BeppoSAX) are
1537: available. They find that the WFC data fit
1538: the Band function or CPL extrapolation, but not the
1539: BBPL extrapolation to low energies.
1540: Arguing that the PL contribution is too simple, they
1541: try to fit a blackbody spectrum plus CPL. %cut off power law shape.
1542: %They find the blackbody component to be insignificant,
1543: %which is not surprising, since the CPL alone already fitted
1544: %the data well.
1545: We suggest to use our BBmPL function instead.
1546: Its modified PL component describes a spectral break from
1547: $dN/dE \propto E^{-(\beta-1)}$ at low energies to
1548: $dN/dE \propto E^{-\beta}$ at high energies.
1549:
1550:
1551: %\subsection{\CB\ function versus CPL and Band function}
1552: \subsection{\CB\ function }
1553: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1554:
1555: The present work is, to our knowledge, the first systematic
1556: attempt to fit the \CB\ function to prompt GRB spectra.
1557: The two terms in \refeq{eq:CB}
1558: have a simple meaning.
1559: According to the cannonball theory, all GRBs are associated with a supernova.
1560: The ambient light is Compton up-scattered by the cannonball's electrons,
1561: producing the prompt GRB emission.
1562: Some electrons are simply comoving with the cannonball,
1563: giving rise to the CPL term in \refeq{eq:CB}.
1564: Since the photon spectrum of the ambient light can be described
1565: by a thin thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum,
1566: $\alpha$ is expected to be $\approx 1$.
1567: The second term (mPL) is caused by
1568: a small fraction of electrons accelerated
1569: to a power law distribution, resulting in a
1570: photon index of $\beta \approx 2.1$.
1571: %The first term thus describes the
1572: %initial spectrum of the ambient light,
1573: %boosted by the high Lorentz factor
1574: %of the cannonball's comoving electrons.
1575: See e.g.\ \citet{Dado2005}, \S 3.8.
1576: or \citet{Dado2007}, \S 2 and 4.1 for a summary.
1577:
1578: In our study, the observed values for $\alpha$ are all approximately 1,
1579: as predicted by the \CB.
1580: Because of the low count statistics at high energies,
1581: we could not always fit $\beta$.
1582: We then fixed it to its theoretical value
1583: of 2.1 in order to make the fit converge and to obtain
1584: a value for the parameter $b$.
1585: In the cases where we could fit $\beta$,
1586: we found values close to 2.1 (Table~\ref{tab:CB_pars}).
1587:
1588: For the factor $b$ of the modified PL component in the \CB\ function
1589: we typically found values of the order $0.1\,$.
1590: An exception is GRB 031111, where $b$ is of
1591: the order 1.0, but with a large error ($0.4$).
1592:
1593: %Our values for $\beta$ and $b$ are similar to the
1594: %ones found by \citet{Dado2004}
1595: %(fit of $X$-ray flashes XRF 971019, XRF 980128,
1596: %and XRF 990520 using BeppoSAX/WFC and
1597: %CGRO/BATSE data) and \citet{Dado2005} (fit of GRB 941017).
1598: Our values for $\beta$ and $b$ are similar to the
1599: ones found by
1600: \citet{Dado2005} (fit of GRB 941017)
1601: and by
1602: \citet{Dado2004} (fit of $X$-ray flashes XRF 971019, XRF 980128,
1603: and XRF 990520 using BeppoSAX/WFC and CGRO/BATSE data).
1604: The authors of the \CB\ hypothesize that XRFs are simply GRBs viewed
1605: further off the jet axis.
1606:
1607: The different time development of the CPL- and the mPL-fluences,
1608: as reported in Table~\ref{tab:dt_grb021206},
1609: possibly point to a different time dependence of
1610: the two underlying electron distributions within a cannonball.
1611:
1612:
1613: \subsection{Fitting \CB\ function versus CPL and Band function}
1614: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1615: Both the Band function and the \CB\ function are extensions
1616: of a CPL, the Band function with one additional parameter,
1617: the \CB\ function with two. For cases where a CPL fits the
1618: data well, also a Band function with $\beta = \infty$ or
1619: a \CB\ function with $b=0$ (and $\beta=2.1$ or any other value)
1620: fits. This is the case for GRB 031027.
1621:
1622: Whether additional parameters are necessary in a fit,
1623: can be tested with the $F$-test.
1624: For GRB 030329, the extra parameters are barely needed.
1625: For GRB 020715, 021008, 021206, 030406, 030519B, 031111
1626: additional parameters are required at a confidence level
1627: of at least 90\%.
1628:
1629: Concerning the question of whether the high energy power law
1630: parameter $\beta$ in the \CB\ should be treated as free parameter,
1631: the answer is 'yes' from a theoretical point of view, but
1632: in practice, see Table~\ref{tab:chi2}, the improvements in $\chi^2$
1633: are marginal or small for all bursts we studied.
1634: Our practice to freeze $\beta$ at its theoretically predicted
1635: value in cases of bad convergence
1636: seems to be acceptable.
1637:
1638: It is more difficult to compare the goodness of fit using
1639: the Band function compared to using the \CB\ function.
1640: The two functions are not independent, because they both
1641: are dominated by a CPL up to the peak energy and higher.
1642: In most cases of our study, the two functions fit the observed
1643: spectrum equally well with a slight preference
1644: for the Band function.
1645: At high energies however (typically above several
1646: times the peak energy) the two functions are different, the spectral
1647: hardening being a unique feature of the \CB\ function.
1648: There is only one case, namely GRB 021206, where this
1649: hardening is observed. For the rear data going up to high energies,
1650: a Band function fit gives $\chi^2 / \mbox{dof}
1651: = 133.3 / 74$ (see Table~\ref{tab:chi2}). This is not
1652: acceptable at $<0.01$\% probability of being accidentally so high.
1653: The \CB\ fit on the other hand gives $\chi^2 / \mbox{dof}
1654: = 82.7 / 73$, which is fully acceptable at a $20$\% level.
1655:
1656: We would like to stress again that, while the \CB\ gives acceptable
1657: fits for {\em all} cases, the Band function fails in one case.
1658: This seems enough to us to give some credit to the \CB.
1659:
1660: But it is, of course, no proof that the \CB\ is the only theory capable
1661: of describing the spectrum of GRB 021206.
1662: For example, a Band function plus a PL with $\gamma\approx 1.5$
1663: would also fit.
1664: But there is no theory to predict such a shape.
1665: To our knowledge, \CB\ is to date the only existing GRB model % astronomical theory
1666: that explains the prompt GRB spectra from first principles.
1667:
1668: At this place we also would like to note the the mean
1669: $\alpha$-value found for the BATSE catalogue is 1
1670: \citep[see][]{BATSEcatalog}). We cite from their summary:
1671: %''
1672: ``{\em We confirmed, using a much larger sample, that
1673: the most common value for the low-energy index is $\approx -1\,$}\footnote{
1674: this corresponds to $+1$ in our notation}
1675: {\em \citep{Preece2000, Ghirlanda02}.
1676: The overall distribution of this parameter
1677: shows no clustering or distinct features at the values expected from
1678: various emission models, such as $-2/3$ for synchrotron
1679: \citep{Katz94, Tavani96},
1680: $0$ for jitter radiation \citep{Medv00},
1681: or $-3/2$ for cooling synchrotron \citep{GhisCel99}.}''
1682: They do not mention the \CB\ which would explain $\alpha \approx 1$.
1683:
1684: Note that the $\beta$ values of the \CB\ are systematically lower
1685: than the $\beta$ values of the Band function,
1686: compare Tables \ref{tab:CB_pars} and \ref{tab:Band_pars}.
1687: From Band function fits to BATSE GRBs, it is known that
1688: $\beta$ is clustered around 2.3, with a long tail
1689: towards higher values, see \citet{BATSEcatalog}.
1690: For \CB\ we would expect $\beta$ to cluster at
1691: slightly lower values.
1692:
1693: For criticism of the \CB, see e.g.\ \citet{Hillas}, but see
1694: also the answer by \citet{Dar2006}.
1695:
1696:
1697: \subsection{The spectral hardening}
1698: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1699:
1700: The difference of a \CB\ spectrum and
1701: Band function is the hardening at high energies.
1702: This becomes visible---for the GRBs studied here---in
1703: the few \MeV\ region, but it depends on the peak energy
1704: and the factor $b$. For $\alpha=1.0$ and $b=0.10$ the hardening
1705: typically appears at several times the peak energy
1706: and the second term dominates at 10 times the peak energy.
1707: For the spectral fit of XRFs done by \citet{Dado2004},
1708: %using BeppoSAX/WFC and CGRO/BATSE data,
1709: the spectral hardening is expected in the few hundred \keV\ region,
1710: just where the number of photons detected runs low.
1711: Most of our GRBs also suffer from this lack of statistics at high energies,
1712: preventing the detection of a hardening.
1713:
1714: A spectral coverage of two decades and
1715: good detection efficiency at high energies
1716: is necessary to experimentally observe the
1717: full shape of the \CB\ function.
1718: In the case of GRB 021206 we were able to detect this hardening,
1719: thanks to RHESSI's broad energy range (30~\keV\ to 15~\MeV),
1720: and because this is one of the brightest GRBs ever observed.
1721:
1722: There is a GRB observed by SMM from 20 keV up to 100 MeV,
1723: namely GRB 840805.
1724: As reported by \citet{Share84},
1725: the spectrum of this burst shows emission up 100 MeV.
1726: In order to fit the spectrum, ``a classical thermal synchrotron function
1727: plus a power law'' was used. The power law component was
1728: required to fit the data above about 6 MeV. This is a hint
1729: of a spectral hardening around 6 MeV, and we suppose that
1730: the spectrum of this GRB can be fit by a \CB\ function.
1731:
1732: The spectral hardening observed in GRB 941017
1733: \citep{Nature2003} seems to be different.
1734: The photon index of GRB 941017 above a few \MeV\ is $\approx 1.0$.
1735: This case is discussed by \citet{Dado2005} as a possible
1736: additional feature in the \CB\ spectrum.
1737:
1738:
1739: \subsection{Outlook}
1740: %------------------------------
1741: \label{sec:outlook}
1742:
1743: In order to find more GRB spectra that show the hardening
1744: characteristic for the \CB\ function,
1745: strong GRBs have to be observed over a broad enough energy range.
1746: With the forthcoming GLAST mission, we expect
1747: that more such spectra will be observed.
1748: But also joint analyses with more than one instrument
1749: %GRBs or XRFs
1750: %from Swift/RHESSI and Swift/Konus
1751: could reveal this hardening.
1752: We therefore suggest:
1753:
1754: %$\bullet$
1755: %%Apart from RHESSI, Konus has an as broad energy range,
1756: %%and a huge amount of GRB data.
1757: %To search for \CB\ spectrum candidates among the Konus GRBs.
1758: %% Are there \CB\ candidates in the Konus GRB data?
1759:
1760: $\bullet$
1761: %Apart from RHESSI, Konus has an as broad energy range,
1762: %and a huge amount of GRB data.
1763: to search for \CB\ spectrum candidates among joint Swift/RHESSI
1764: GRBs and XRFs, and joint Swift/Konus GRBs.
1765:
1766: $\bullet$
1767: to reanalyse some BATSE bursts. Looking
1768: at the BATSE spectra published by \citet{Ghirlanda2007},
1769: we suppose that the \CB\ can possibly improve the fits of
1770: GRB 980329, GRB 990123, and GRB 990510.
1771: The same can be said for
1772: GRB 911031 as published by \citet{Ryde2006}.
1773: And GRB 000429, as published in Fig.\ 19 of \citet{BATSEcatalog},
1774: looks like a promising candidate as well.
1775:
1776: $\bullet$
1777: to search in KONUS data for suitable GRBs.
1778:
1779: $\bullet$
1780: %We use our own IDL fitting routines.
1781: to add the \CB\ function to XSPEC
1782: in order to make it more accessible
1783: to the astronomical community.
1784: %. It would help to make this function used more often.
1785:
1786:
1787: \section{SUMMARY}
1788: %------------------
1789: \label{sec:summary}
1790:
1791: We have presented the time integrated spectra of 8 bright
1792: GRBs observed by RHESSI in the years 2002 and 2003.
1793:
1794: The spectrum of GRB 021206 shows a hardening above 4~\MeV.
1795: From 70~\keV\ to 4.5~\MeV, the spectrum can be well
1796: fitted by a Band function -- but not above that.
1797: The cannonball model successfully describes
1798: the entire spectrum up to 16~\MeV, the upper limit
1799: of RHESSI's energy range.
1800: For the spectra of the seven other GRBs analysed, we found that they
1801: can be fitted by the \CB\ as well as by the Band function.
1802:
1803: We therefore suggest that the cannonball model should
1804: be considered for fitting GRB spectra.
1805:
1806:
1807:
1808: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,
1809: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments
1810: %% command.
1811:
1812: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the
1813: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]
1814: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,
1815: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the
1816: %% text to be printed in the second.
1817:
1818:
1819: \acknowledgments
1820: %-----------------
1821:
1822: We thank K. Hurley, A. Kann, S. McGlynn, J. \v{R}ipa and
1823: L.\ Hanlon for helpful discussion and comments.
1824:
1825: %O.\ Wigger
1826: %and E.\ Kirk for many
1827: %helpful discussions and encouragement.
1828:
1829:
1830: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
1831: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
1832: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
1833: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
1834: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
1835: %%
1836: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
1837: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
1838: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
1839: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
1840: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
1841: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
1842: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
1843: %% place of the \cite commands.
1844:
1845: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
1846: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
1847: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
1848:
1849: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
1850: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
1851: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
1852: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
1853: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
1854:
1855: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1856:
1857: \bibitem[Band et al.(1993)]{Band93}
1858: Band, D.\ et al. 1993,
1859: \apj\ 413, p. 281.
1860: \bibitem[Barlow \& Beeston(1993)]{Barlow93}
1861: Barlow, R.\ \& Beeston, C. 1993,
1862: % Barlow, Roger \& Beeston, Christine 1993,
1863: % " Fitting using finite Monte Carlo Samples. "
1864: Comp. Phys. Comm. 77, p.\ 219
1865: \bibitem[Boggs et al.(2004)]{Boggs2004}
1866: Boggs, S.E., Wunderer, C.B., Hurley, K., Coburn, W. 2004,
1867: \apj\ Letter 611, L77-L80
1868:
1869: \bibitem[Chornock et al.(2003)]{GCN2131} R.\ Chornock al. 2003,
1870: GRB Circular Network 2131
1871:
1872: \bibitem[CERN(1993)]{Geant3}
1873: CERN program Library Office 1993,
1874: GEANT -- Detector Description and Simulation Tool
1875: (CERN Geneva, Switzerland)
1876: \bibitem[Coburn \& Boggs(2003)]{CB03}
1877: Coburn, W., \& Boggs, S.E. 2003,
1878: Nature 423, p.\ 415
1879: %\bibitem{ref:CB03} \BY{Coburn~W.\ \atque Boggs~S.E.}
1880: % \IN{Nature}{423}{2003}{415}.
1881: \bibitem[Dado \& Dar(2005)]{Dado2005}
1882: Dado, S. \& Dar, A. 2005,
1883: \apj\ Letter 627, L109-L112
1884: \bibitem[Dado, Dar \& de R\'ujula(2002)]{Dado2002}
1885: Dado, S., Dar, A.\ \& de R\'ujula, A. 2002,
1886: A\&A 388, p.\ 1079
1887: % "On the optical and X-ray afterglows of gamma ray bursts"
1888: \bibitem[Dado, Dar \& de R\'ujula(2003a)]{Dado2003}
1889: Dado, S., Dar, A.\ \& de R\'ujula, A. 2003a,
1890: A\&A 401, p.\ 243
1891: % "On the radio afterglow of gamma ray bursts"
1892: \bibitem[Dado, Dar \& de R\'ujula(2003b)]{Dado_030329}
1893: Dado, S., Dar, A.\ \& de R\'ujula, A. 2003b,
1894: \apj\ Letter 594, L89-L92
1895: % "The Supernova associated with GRB 030329"
1896: \bibitem[Dado, Dar \& de R\'ujula(2004)]{Dado2004}
1897: Dado, S., Dar, A.\ \& de R\'ujula, A. 2004,
1898: A\&A 422, p.\ 381
1899: % "On the origin of X-ray flashes"
1900: \bibitem[Dado, Dar \& de R\'ujula(2007)]{Dado2007}
1901: Dado, S., Dar, A.\ \& de R\'ujula, A. 2007,
1902: arXiv:0706.0880v1 [astro-ph]
1903: % "On the X-ray emission of Gamma Ray Bursts"
1904: \bibitem[Dar \& de R\'ujula(2004)]{Dar2004}
1905: Dar, A. \& de R\'ujula, A. 2004,
1906: Physics Reports 405, 203
1907: % "Towards a complete theory of Gamma Ray Bursts"
1908: \bibitem[Dar \& de R\'ujula(2006)]{Dar2006}
1909: Dar, A.\ \& de R\'ujula, A. 2006,
1910: arXiv:hep-ph/0611369v1
1911: % " The vicissitudes of "cannonballs": a response to criticisms
1912: % by A.M. Hillas and a brief review of our claims "
1913: \bibitem[Ferrero et al.(2006)]{Ferrero2006}
1914: % "The GRB 060218/SN 2006aj event in the context of other
1915: % gamma-ray burst supernovae
1916: P.\ Ferrero et al. 2006,
1917: A\&A 457, pp.\ 857-864
1918: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2007)]{Ghirlanda2007}
1919: Ghirlanda, G.\ et al. 2007,
1920: MNRAS 379, pp.\ 73-85
1921: % "Blackbody components in gamma-ray bursts spectra?"
1922: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2003)]{Ghirlanda2003}
1923: Ghirlanda, G.\ et al. 2003,
1924: A\&A 406, pp.\ 879-892
1925: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2002)]{Ghirlanda02}
1926: Ghirlanda, G.\ et al. 2002,
1927: A\&A 393, p.\ 409
1928: \bibitem[Ghisellini \& Celotti(1999)]{GhisCel99}
1929: Ghisellini, G.\ \& Celotti, A. 1999,
1930: \apj\ Supplements 138, 149
1931: \bibitem[Gonz\'alez et al.(2003)]{Nature2003}
1932: Gonz\'alez, M.M.\ et al. 2003,
1933: Nature 424, 749
1934: \bibitem[Hillas(2006)]{Hillas}
1935: Hillas, A.M. 2006,
1936: arXiv:astro-ph/0607109v2
1937: % " Cosmic Rays: Recent Progress and some Current Questions"
1938: \bibitem[Hjorth et al.(2003)]{Hjorth2003} Hjorth, J.\ et al. 2003,
1939: Nature 423, p.\ 847
1940: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2002a)]{GCN_020715_IPN} Hurley, K.\ et al. 2002a,
1941: GRB Circular Network 1454, 1456
1942: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2002b)]{GCN_021008_IPN} Hurley, K.\ et al. 2002b,
1943: GRB Circular Network 1629, 1617
1944: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2002c)]{GCN_021206_IPN} Hurley, K.\ et al. 2002c,
1945: GRB Circular Network 1727, 1728
1946: %\bibitem[GCN 1728]{GCN1728} Hurley, K.\ et al. 2002,
1947: % GRB Circular Network 1728
1948: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2003a)]{GCN_030406_IPN} Hurley, K.\ et al. 2003a,
1949: GRB Circular Network 2127
1950: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2003b)]{GCN_021206_final} Hurley, K.\ et al. 2003b,
1951: GRB Circular Network 2281
1952: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2003c)]{GCN_030519B_IPN} Hurley, K.\ et al. 2003c,
1953: GRB Circular Network 2237
1954: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2003d)]{GCN_031027_IPN} Hurley, K.\ et al. 2003d,
1955: GRB Circular Network 2438
1956: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2003e)]{GCN_031111_IPN} Hurley, K.\ et al. 2003e,
1957: GRB Circular Network 2443
1958:
1959:
1960: \bibitem[Kaneko et al.(2006)]{BATSEcatalog}
1961: Kaneko, Y.\ et al.\, 2006,
1962: \apj\ Supplements 166, pp.\ 298-340
1963: \bibitem[Katz et al.(1994)]{Katz94}
1964: Katz, J.I. 1994,
1965: \apj\ Letter 432, L107
1966: \bibitem[Lin et al.(2002)]{RHESSI}
1967: Lin, R.P.\ et al. 2002,
1968: Solar Physics 210, p.\ 3
1969:
1970: \bibitem[McBreen et al.(2006)]{SMcBreen2006}
1971: McBreen, S.\ et al. 2006,
1972: A\&A 455, pp.\ 433-440
1973: \bibitem[Marcinkowski et al.(2006)]{Radek2006}
1974: Marcinkowski, R.\ et al. 2006,
1975: A\&A 452, pp.\ 113-117
1976:
1977: %\bibitem[Matheson et al.(2003a)]{GCN_sn_hint} T.\ Matheson\ et al. 2003,
1978: % GRB Circular Network 2107
1979: \bibitem[Matheson et al.(2003)]{GCN_sn_obs} T.\ Matheson\ et al. 2003,
1980: GRB Circular Network 2120
1981: \bibitem[Medvedev(2000)]{Medv00}
1982: Medvedev, M.V. 2000,
1983: \apj\ 540, 704
1984:
1985: \bibitem[Lamb et al.(2003)]{GCN_030519B_HETE}
1986: Lamb, D.\ et al. 2003,
1987: GRB Circular Network 2235
1988: \bibitem[Preece et al.(2000)]{Preece2000}
1989: Preece, R.D.\ et al. 2000,
1990: \apj\ Supplements 126, pp.\ 19-36
1991: \bibitem[Preece et al.(2002)]{Preece2002}
1992: Preece, R.D.\ et al. 2002,
1993: \apj\ 581, pp.\ 1248-1255
1994: % "On the Consistency of Gamma-Ray Burst Spectral Indices
1995: % with the Synchrotron Shock Model"
1996: \bibitem[Rutledge \& Fox(2004)]{RF04}
1997: Rutledge, R.E. and Fox, D.B. 2004,
1998: MNRAS 350, p.\ 1288
1999: \bibitem[Ryde et al.(2006)]{Ryde2006}
2000: Ryde, F.\ et al. 2006,
2001: \apj\ 652, pp.\ 1400-1415
2002: \bibitem[Ryde (2004)]{Ryde2004}
2003: Ryde, Felix 2004,
2004: \apj\ 614, pp.\ 827-846.
2005:
2006: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2005)]{HETE2005}
2007: Sakamoto, T.\ et al. 2005,
2008: \apj\ 629, pp.\ 311-327
2009: \bibitem[Share et al.(1986)]{Share84}
2010: Share, G.H.\ et al\ 1986,
2011: Adv.\ Space Res.\ V.\ 6, N.\ 4, pp.\ 15-18
2012: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{spectrometer}
2013: Smith,D.M., et al. 2002,
2014: Solar Physics 210, p.\ 33
2015: \bibitem[Tavani (1996)]{Tavani96}
2016: Tavani, M. 1996,
2017: \apj\ 466, 768
2018:
2019: \bibitem[Wigger et al.(2007)]{cw_venice}
2020: Wigger, C.\ et al. 2007,
2021: Il Nouvo Cimento B,
2022: DOI: 10.1393/ncb/i2007-10072-9
2023: \bibitem[Wigger et al.(2005)]{cw_rome}
2024: Wigger, C.\ et al. 2005,
2025: Il Nuovo Cimento C, 28, p.\ 265
2026: \bibitem[Wigger et al.(2004)]{PSI2004}
2027: Wigger, C.\ et al. 2004,
2028: \apj\ 613, p.\ 1088
2029: \bibitem[Vanderspek et al.(2003)]{GCN_030329_HETE}
2030: Vanderspek, R.\ et al. 2003,
2031: GRB Circular Network 1997
2032: \bibitem[Vanderspek et al.(2004)]{HETE030329}
2033: Vanderspek, R.\ et al. 2004,
2034: \apj\ 617, pp.\ 1251-1257
2035:
2036: \bibitem[Zaritsky et al.(2003)]{GCN2169} D.\ Zaritskyet al. 2003,
2037: GRB Circular Network 2081
2038: \bibitem[Zeh et al.(2003)]{Zeh2003} A.\ Zeh et al. 2003,
2039: GRB Circular Network 2081
2040: %\bibitem[Zeh,Klose \& Hartmann(2004)]{Zeh2004}
2041: % A.\ Zeh, S.\ Klose, D.H.\ Hartmann 2004,
2042: %% "A Systematic Analysis of Supernova Light in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows"
2043: %% The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 609, Issue 2, pp. 952-961.
2044: % \apj\, 609, p952-961
2045: %\bibitem[Zehnder(2002)]{Zeh02}
2046: % Zehnder, A., et al. 2002,
2047: % SPIE Proc.\ 4853, Waikoloa, Hawaii
2048: \end{thebibliography}
2049:
2050:
2051: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
2052: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
2053:
2054:
2055: \clearpage
2056: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
2057: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2058: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2059: %\tabletypesize{\small}
2060: \tablecolumns{7}
2061: \tablecaption{GRB analysis time intervals
2062: \label{tab:GRBs}}
2063: \tablewidth{0pt}
2064: \tablehead{
2065: \colhead{GRB} &
2066: \colhead{$t_0$} &
2067: \colhead{$\Delta t_{burst}$} &
2068: \colhead{$\Delta t_{BG1}$} &
2069: \colhead{$\Delta t_{BG2}$} &
2070: \colhead{$\theta$} &
2071: \colhead{ref.}
2072: \\
2073: \colhead{} &
2074: \colhead{(UT)} &
2075: \colhead{(s)} &
2076: \colhead{(s)} &
2077: \colhead{(s)} &
2078: \colhead{(degrees)} &
2079: \colhead{}
2080: }
2081: \startdata
2082: 020715 & 19:20:56.0 & [11.53,15.55] & [\phn-80.46,0.0] & [\phn48.28,168.97] &\phn72.4 & 1 \\
2083: 021008 & 07:00:45.0 & [17.21,21.29] & [\phn-73.37,0.0] & [\phn36.68,\phn48.91] &\phn50.1 & 2 \\
2084: 021206 & 22:49:11.7 & [\phn2.73,\phn8.19] & [\phn-53.26,0.0] & [\phn20.49,102.43] &\phn18.0 & 3 \\
2085: %021206 P1& 22:49:11.7 & [\phn2.73,\phn4.10] & [\phn-53.26,0.0] & [\phn20.49,102.43] &\phn18.0 & 3 \\
2086: %021206 P2& " & [\phn4.10,\phn5.46] & " & " & " & " \\
2087: %021206 P3& " & [\phn5.46,\phn6.83] & " & " & " & " \\
2088: %021206 P4& " & [\phn6.83,\phn8.19] & " & " & " & " \\
2089: 030329 P1 & 11:37:10.0 & [16.56,24.84] & [\phn-70.39,0.0] & [\phn70.39,140.78] & 144.1 & 4 \\
2090: 030329 P2 & " & [28.98,34.50] & " & " & " & " \\
2091: 030406 & 22:41:30.0 & [85.68,89.83] & [-140.96,0.0] & [140.96,281.93] &\phn96.1 & 5 \\
2092: 030519B & 14:04:53.0 & [\phn0.46,11.47] & [\phn-61.94,0.0] & [\phn28.90,\phn90.84] & 165.5 & 6 \\
2093: 031027 & 17:07:06.0 & [29.71,45.92] & [-137.77,0.0] & [\phn68.88,206.65] & 101.5 & 7 \\
2094: 031111 & 16:45:12.0 & [\phn2.27,\phn6.35] & [-122.51,0.0] & [\phn12.25,134.76] & 155.6 & 8 \\
2095: % exact 011206 interval times: 2.73133 P1 4.09700 P2 5.46267 P3 6 .82833 P4 8.19400
2096: \enddata
2097: \tablecomments{$t_0$: reference time;
2098: $\Delta t_{burst}$: time interval for spectral analysis;
2099: $\Delta t_{BG1}$: background time interval before GRB;
2100: $\Delta t_{BG2}$: background time interval after GRB;
2101: time intervals are given relative to $t_0$.
2102: $\theta$: angle between GRB direction and RHESSI axis;
2103: References:
2104: (1) GCN 1456, 1454 \citep{GCN_020715_IPN},
2105: (2) GCN 1629, 1617 \citep{GCN_021008_IPN},
2106: (3) GCN 1728, 1727 \citep{GCN_021206_IPN},
2107: (4) GCN 1997 \citep{GCN_030329_HETE},
2108: (5) GCN 2127 \citep{GCN_030406_IPN},
2109: (6) GCN 2235, 2237 \citep{GCN_030519B_HETE, GCN_030519B_IPN},
2110: (7) GCN 2438 \citep{GCN_031027_IPN},
2111: (8) HETE trigger 2924, GCN 2443 \citep{GCN_031111_IPN}.}
2112: \end{deluxetable}
2113:
2114:
2115: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccrrrrrrr}
2116: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2117: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2118: \tabletypesize{\small}
2119: %\rotate
2120: \tablecolumns{11}
2121: \tablecaption{Chi-square of spectral fits
2122: \label{tab:chi2}}
2123: \tablewidth{0pt}
2124: \tablehead{
2125: \colhead{GRB} &
2126: \colhead{$\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize front}}\,$} &
2127: \colhead{$\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize rear}}\,$} &
2128: \colhead{$n$} &
2129: \colhead{CPL} &
2130: \colhead{Band} &
2131: \colhead{\CB} &
2132: \colhead{\CB} &
2133: \colhead{BPL} &
2134: \colhead{BBPL} &
2135: \colhead{BBmPL}
2136: \\
2137: \colhead{} &
2138: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2139: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2140: \colhead{} &
2141: \colhead{$n_{par}=3$} &
2142: \colhead{4} &
2143: \colhead{4} &
2144: \colhead{5} &
2145: \colhead{4} &
2146: \colhead{4} &
2147: \colhead{4}
2148: }
2149: %GRB front interval rear interval n CPL BAND CB CB BPL BBPL BBmPL
2150: \startdata
2151: 020715 & \nodata &[\phn30,15660] & 117 & 113.9 & 106.3 & 110.8 & 110.7 & 129.2 & 270.0 & 157.1 \\ \hline
2152: 021008 &[300,2800] &\nodata & 38 & 35.5 & 34.8 & 35.1 & 35.0 & 33.0 & 32.9 & 33.9 \\
2153: 021008 &\nodata &[300,15660] & 50 & 43.8 & 39.2 & 39.9 & 39.2 & 52.9 & 97.4 & 60.2 \\
2154: 021008 &[300,2800] &[300,15660] & 88 & \nodata & 79.5 & 80.8 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\ \hline
2155: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &\nodata & 112 & 130.6 & 103.6 & 104.1 & 103.9 & 155.5 & 315.7 & 191.8 \\
2156: 021206 &\nodata &[300,16000] & 78 & 338.1 & 133.3 & 82.7 & 82.7 & 132.9 & 94.1 & 110.5 \\
2157: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &[300,16000] & 190 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 187.5 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
2158: 021206 &\nodata &[300,\phn4500] & 66 & \nodata & 72.8 & 69.8 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
2159: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &[300,\phn4500] & 178 & \nodata & 176.5 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\ \hline
2160: %021206 P1 &\nodata &[300,16000] & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\
2161: %021206 P2 &\nodata &[300,16000] & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\
2162: %021206 P3 &\nodata &[300,16000] & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\
2163: %021206 P4 &\nodata &[300,16000] & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\ \hline
2164: 030329 P1 &\nodata &[\phn34,10000] & 94 & 86.5 & 84.3 & 84.8 & 84.7 & 89.3 & 137.8 & 89.1 \\
2165: 030329 P2 &\nodata &[\phn34,\phn7000]& 87 & 104.5 & 103.3 & 103.2 & 103.1 & 98.9 & 102.0 & 98.4 \\ \hline
2166: 030406 &\nodata &[\phn24,15000] & 75 & 79.1 & 75.6 & 75.0 & 75.0 & 88.6 & 151.2 & 88.7 \\ \hline
2167: 030519B &\nodata &[\phn70,15000] & 79 & 102.2 & 86.3 & 91.1 & 89.0 & 99.8 & 189.8 & 109.8 \\ \hline
2168: 031027 &\nodata &[\phn60,\phn6000]& 63 & 63.6 &\phn n.c.&\phn n.c.& \phn n.c.& 93.0 & 138.9 & 99.6 \\ \hline
2169: 031111 &\nodata &[\phn38,15000] & 117 & 182.4 & 128.3 & 133.2 & 130.4 & 140.5 & 266.0 & 133.0
2170: \enddata
2171: \tablecomments{$\chi^2$ obtained by fitting different spectral models to the data.
2172: $\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize front/rear}}$: energy interval used to fit front/rear detector data;
2173: $n$: number of energy bins;
2174: $n_{par}$: number of free fit parameters;
2175: CPL: cut off power law \refeq{eq:CPL},
2176: Band: Band function \refeq{eq:Band},
2177: \CB: cannonball model \refeq{eq:CB},
2178: BPL: broken power law \refeq{eq:BPL},
2179: BBPL: blackbody plus power law \refeq{eq:BBPL},
2180: BBmPL: blackbody plus modified power law \refeq{eq:BBmPL};
2181: n.c.: fit did not converge. In the case of \CB\ with 4 parameters, $\beta$ was fixed to its theoretically
2182: expected value of $2.1 \,$.
2183: For each fit, the degree of freedom is $n_{DoF}=n-n_{par}$.
2184: }
2185: % \tablenotetext{a}{$\beta\equiv2.1$ frozen ($n_{par}=4$)}
2186: % \tablenotetext{b}{$\beta\equiv2.1$ and $\alpha\equiv1.0$ frozen ($n_{par}=3$)}
2187: \end{deluxetable}
2188: % $\Delta_{\chi^2_r} = \sqrt{2 n_{DoF} - 1}/n_{DoF}$, with $n_{DoF} = n-n_{par} \approx n - 4 $.
2189: % GRB 030329, P2, all 87 bins, vCB4 has $\beta=2.1$ frozen.
2190:
2191:
2192: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
2193: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2194: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2195: %\tabletypesize{\small}
2196: \tablecolumns{7}
2197: \tablecaption{Fit results for \CB
2198: \label{tab:CB_pars}}
2199: \tablewidth{0pt}
2200: \tablehead{
2201: \colhead{GRB} &
2202: \colhead{$\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize front}}\,$} &
2203: \colhead{$\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize rear}}\,$} &
2204: \colhead{$T_{p}\,$} &
2205: \colhead{$\alpha$} &
2206: \colhead{$\beta$} &
2207: \colhead{$b$}
2208: \\
2209: \colhead{} &
2210: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2211: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2212: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2213: \colhead{} &
2214: \colhead{} &
2215: \colhead{}
2216: }
2217: \startdata
2218: 020715 &\nodata &[\phn30,15660] & 532\PM20 & $0.741 \pm 0.077$ & 2.20\PM0.14 & \phS0.067\PM0.040 \\ \hline
2219: 021008 &[300,2800] &\nodata & 628\PM71 & $1.31 \pm 0.28$ & 2.1 & \phS0.052\PM0.076 \\
2220: 021008 &\nodata &[300,15660] & 672\PM68 & $1.487 \pm 0.062$ & 2.77\PM0.55 & \phS0.085\PM0.092 \\
2221: 021008 &[300,2800] &[300,15660] & 641\PM32 & $1.523 \pm 0.055$ & 2.1 & \phS0.020\PM0.008 \\ \hline
2222: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &\nodata & 672\PM20 & $0.66 \pm 0.21$ & 1.92\PM0.67 & \phS0.063\PM0.142 \\
2223: 021206 &\nodata &[300,16000] & 672\PM24 & $0.67 \pm 0.19$ & 2.12\PM0.13 & \phS0.102\PM0.048 \\
2224: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &[300,16000] & 678\PM\phn6 & $0.60 \pm 0.06$ & 2.10\PM0.08 & \phS0.103\PM0.028 \\
2225: 021206 &\nodata &[300,\phn4500] & 670\PM23 & $0.71 \pm 0.15$ & 2.1 & \phS0.091\PM0.012 \\
2226: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &[300,\phn4500] & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\ \hline
2227: %021206 P1&\nodata &[300,16000] & 671\PM55 & $0.90 \pm 0.26$ & 2.1 & \phS0.050\PM0.012 \\
2228: %021206 P2&\nodata &[300,16000] & 723\PM33 & $0.57 \pm 0.22$ & 2.1 & \phS0.106\PM0.015 \\
2229: %021206 P3&\nodata &[300,16000] & 680\PM42 & $0.66 \pm 0.26$ & 2.1 & \phS0.083\PM0.014 \\
2230: %021206 P4&\nodata &[300,16000] & 538\PM79 & $0.70 \pm 0.54$ & 2.1 & \phS0.117\PM0.034 \\ \hline
2231: 030329 P1 &\nodata &[\phn34,10000] & 147\PM10 & $1.614 \pm 0.036$ & 2.1 & \phS0.033\PM0.029 \\
2232: 030329 P2 &\nodata &[\phn34,\phn7000]& \phn69\PM15 & $1.841 \pm 0.049$ & 2.1 & \phS0.048\PM0.055 \\ \hline
2233: 030406 &\nodata &[\phn24,15000] & 626\PM83 & $0.966 \pm 0.089$ & 2.1 & \phS0.18\phn\PM0.12\phn \\ \hline
2234: 030519B &\nodata &[\phn70,15000] & 396\PM12 & $0.949 \pm 0.073$ & 2.388\PM0.097 & \phS0.135\PM0.048 \\ \hline
2235: 031027 &\nodata &[\phn60,\phn6000]& 340\PM17 & $0.950 \pm 0.055$ & 2.1 & -0.010\PM0.025 \\ \hline
2236: 031111 &\nodata &[\phn38,15000] & 690\PM45 & $0.68 \pm 0.27$ & 2.241\PM0.023 & \phS1.09\phn\PM0.36\phn
2237: %020715 & 72.4 &[30,15660] & 540\PM26 & $0.784 \pm 0.050$ & 2.1 & \phS0.044\PM0.028 \\
2238: %021206 &[70,2800] &\nodata & 673\PM19 & $0.588 \pm 0.058$ & 2.1 & \phS0.108\PM0.025 \\
2239: %021206 &\nodata &[300,16000] & 671\PM23 & $0.69 \pm 0.14$ & 2.1 & \phS0.094\PM0.008 \\
2240: %021206 &[70,2800] &? & 680\PM\phn7 & $0.593 \pm 0.026$ & 2.1 & \phS0.099\PM0.006 \\
2241: \enddata
2242: \tablecomments{
2243: $\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize front/rear}}$: energy interval used to fit front/rear detector data;
2244: $T_{p}, \alpha, \beta, b$: parameters as defined in the text below \refeq{eq:CB};
2245: errors are symmetric $1 \sigma$ errors;
2246: where no error is given, the parameter was frozen at that value.
2247: }
2248: \end{deluxetable}
2249:
2250:
2251: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
2252: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2253: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2254: %\tabletypesize{\small}
2255: \tablecolumns{6}
2256: \tablecaption{Fit results for Band function
2257: \label{tab:Band_pars}}
2258: \tablewidth{0pt}
2259: \tablehead{
2260: \colhead{GRB} &
2261: \colhead{$\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize front}}$} &
2262: \colhead{$\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize rear}}$} &
2263: \colhead{$E_{p}\,$} &
2264: \colhead{$\alpha$} &
2265: \colhead{$\beta$}
2266: \\
2267: \colhead{} &
2268: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2269: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2270: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2271: \colhead{} &
2272: \colhead{}
2273: }
2274: \startdata
2275: 020715 & \nodata &[\phn30,15660] & $531 \pm 24$ & $0.776 \pm 0.044$ & $3.14 \pm 0.25$ \\ \hline
2276: 021008 &[300,2800] & \nodata & $670 \pm 58$ & $1.36 \pm 0.23$ & $3.41 \pm 0.51$ \\
2277: 021008 & \nodata &[300,15660] & $678 \pm 42$ & $1.526 \pm 0.067$ & $3.86 \pm 0.25$ \\
2278: 021008 &[300,2800] &[300,15660] & $677 \pm 33$ & $1.493 \pm 0.056$ & $3.73 \pm 0.18$ \\ \hline
2279: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] & \nodata & $713 \pm 17$ & $0.694 \pm 0.031$ & $3.20 \pm 0.13$ \\
2280: 021206 & \nodata &[300,16000] & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
2281: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &[300,16000] & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
2282: 021206 & \nodata &[300,\phn4500] & $709 \pm 18$ & $0.72 \pm 0.20$ & $3.186 \pm 0.063$ \\
2283: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &[300,\phn4500] & $711 \pm 7\phn$ & $0.692 \pm 0.020$ & $3.19 \pm 0.04$ \\ \hline
2284: %021206 P1 & \nodata &[300,16000] & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
2285: %021206 P2 & \nodata &[300,16000] & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
2286: %021206 P3 & \nodata &[300,16000] & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
2287: %021206 P4 & \nodata &[300,16000] & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\ \hline
2288: 030329 P1 & \nodata &[\phn34,10000] & $157.2 \pm 5.2$ & $1.608 \pm 0.038$ & $3.48 \pm 0.53$ \\
2289: 030329 P2 & \nodata &[\phn34,\phn7000] & $\phn85 \pm 11$ & $ 1.781\pm 0.065$ & $3.04 \pm 0.30$ \\ \hline
2290: 030406 & \nodata &[\phn24,15000] & $674 \pm 70$ & $0.979 \pm 0.064$ & $2.61 \pm 0.27$ \\ \hline
2291: 030519B & \nodata &[\phn70,15000] & $417 \pm 13$ & $1.048 \pm 0.042$ & $3.11 \pm 0.18$ \\ \hline
2292: 031027 & \nodata &[\phn60,\phn6000] & $338 \pm 15$ & $0.940 \pm 0.079$ & \nodata \\ \hline
2293: 031111 & \nodata &[\phn38,15000] & $844 \pm 59$ & $1.102 \pm 0.036$ & $2.364 \pm 0.068$
2294: \enddata
2295: \tablecomments{
2296: $\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize front/rear}}$: energy interval used to fit front/rear detector data;
2297: $E_{p}, \alpha, \beta$: parameters as defined in the text below \refeq{eq:Band};
2298: where no $\beta$ is given, a CPL (\refeq{eq:CPL}) was fitted;
2299: errors are symmetric $1\sigma$ errors.
2300: } % from the IDL routine `curvefit'.
2301: \end{deluxetable}
2302:
2303:
2304: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrccc}
2305: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2306: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2307: %\tabletypesize{\small}
2308: %\rotate
2309: \tablecolumns{8}
2310: \tablecaption{Fluences in $10^{-5}\,$erg cm$^{-2}$
2311: \label{tab:fl}}
2312: \tablewidth{0pt}
2313: \tablehead{
2314: \colhead{GRB} &
2315: \colhead{\fluenceCB} &
2316: \colhead{\fluenceBand} &
2317: \colhead{\fluenceRHESSI} &
2318: \colhead{\fluenceHETE} &
2319: \colhead{HETE} &
2320: \colhead{\fluenceUlysses} &
2321: \colhead{Ulysses}
2322: \\
2323: \colhead{} &
2324: \multicolumn{7}{c}{($10^{-5}\,$erg cm$^{-2}$)}
2325: }
2326: % DE_CB DE_Ba 0.1-10MeV 30-400keV HETE 25-100keV Ulysses
2327: \startdata
2328: 020715 & 4.37 & 4.41 & 3.94 & 1.93 & \nodata & 0.43 & 0.30 \\ \hline
2329: 021008 front & 26.85 & 26.85 & 41.24 & 22.92\fa & \nodata & 8.67\fa & \nodata \\
2330: 021008 rear & 35.54 & 35.64 & 48.85 & 27.15\fa & \nodata & 10.27\fa & 8.5 \\ \hline
2331: 021206 front & 52.15 & 52.44 & 55.67 & 19.97 & \nodata & 3.81 & \nodata \\
2332: 021206 rear & 58.74 & 53.45 & 70.55 & 25.29 & \nodata & 4.82 & 16 \\ \hline
2333: 030329 P1 & 6.51 & 6.47 & 4.42 & 5.20 & \nodata & 2.57 & \nodata \\
2334: 030329 P2 & 3.58 & 3.58 & 2.26 & 2.95 & \nodata & 1.69 & \nodata \\
2335: 030329 total &\nodata&\nodata& 7.35 & 9.46 & $10.76 \pm 0.14$ & 4.93 & \nodata \\ \hline
2336: 030406 & 4.81 & 4.81 & 4.26 & 1.62 & \nodata & 0.40 & 1.3 \\ \hline
2337: 030519B & 10.27 & 10.36 & 9.56 & 6.07 & $6.10 \pm 0.1$ & 1.78 & \nodata \\ \hline
2338: 031027 & 5.37 & 5.45 & 4.81 & 3.97 & \nodata & 1.17 & 1.4 \\ \hline
2339: 031111 & 7.40 & 7.40 & 6.59 & 2.10 & 1.714 & 0.56 & 0.21
2340: \enddata
2341: \tablecomments{
2342: \fluenceCB: fluence from \CB\ fit (Table~\ref{tab:CB_pars});
2343: \fluenceBand: fluence from Band function fit (Table~\ref{tab:Band_pars});
2344: \fluenceRHESSI: fluence in [100,10000]~\keV\ (RHESSI range);
2345: \fluenceHETE: fluence in [30,400]~\keV\ (HETE range);
2346: \fluenceUlysses: fluence in [25,100]~\keV\ (Ulysses range);
2347: HETE: HETE fluences from references cited in \S \ref{sec:results};
2348: Ulysses: Ulysses fluences from references cited in Table~\ref{tab:GRBs}.
2349: }
2350: \tablenotetext{a}{Our fits overestimate the real counts. More realistic is
2351: \fluenceUlysses$=4.8\times10^{-5}\,\mbox{erg cm}^{-2}$.
2352: }
2353: \end{deluxetable}
2354:
2355: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
2356: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2357: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2358: %\tabletypesize{\small}
2359: \tablecolumns{8}
2360: \tablecaption{Peak resolved analysis of GRB 021206
2361: \label{tab:dt_grb021206}}
2362: \tablewidth{0pt}
2363: \tablehead{
2364: \colhead{$\Delta t$} &
2365: \colhead{duration} &
2366: \colhead{$T_p$} &
2367: \colhead{$\alpha$} &
2368: \colhead{$\beta$} &
2369: \colhead{$b$} &
2370: \colhead{$F_{CPL}$} &
2371: \colhead{$F_{mPL}$}
2372: \\
2373: \colhead{} &
2374: \colhead{(s)} &
2375: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2376: \colhead{} &
2377: \colhead{} &
2378: \colhead{} &
2379: \multicolumn{2}{c}{($10^{-5}\,$erg cm$^{-2}$)}
2380: }
2381: \startdata
2382: P1 & 1.366 & $661 \pm 18$ & $0.77 \pm 0.06$ & $2.1$ & $0.059 \pm 0.010$ & 11.7 & \phn3.0 \\
2383: P2 & 1.366 & $732 \pm 12$ & $0.42 \pm 0.05$ & $2.1$ & $0.115 \pm 0.010$ & 14.5 & 12.9 \\
2384: P3 & 1.366 & $684 \pm 14$ & $0.63 \pm 0.05$ & $2.1$ & $0.085 \pm 0.012$ & 12.7 & \phn6.3 \\
2385: P4 & 1.366 & $530 \pm 20$ & $0.80 \pm 0.08$ & $2.1$ & $0.113 \pm 0.018$ & \phn6.9& \phn3.8 \\
2386: tail & 4.097 & $160 \pm 60$ & 1.0 & $2.1$ & $2.5\;^{+\infty}_{-1.5}$ & \phn0.2& \phn3.1
2387: \enddata
2388: \tablecomments{
2389: $\Delta t$: time period, cf.\ Fig.~\ref{fig:ltc_GRBsI};
2390: $T_p$, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $b$: \CB\ parameters;
2391: \fluenceCPL: fluence of the CPL-component in the \CB\ function (\refeq{eq:CB}),
2392: \fluencemPL: fluence of the modified PL component of \refeq{eq:CB};
2393: fluences are for the range [100,10000]~\keV.
2394: }
2395: \end{deluxetable}
2396:
2397:
2398: \clearpage
2399:
2400: \begin{figure}
2401: \epsscale{0.52} %only for preprint, remove for 2-column version
2402: \plotone{f1a.eps} %was: \plotone{020715_ltc.eps}
2403: \plotone{f1b.eps} %was: \plotone{021008_ltc.eps}
2404: \plotone{f1c.eps} %was: \plotone{021206_ltc.eps}
2405: \plotone{f1d.eps} %was: \plotone{030329_ltc.eps}
2406: \caption{lightcurves
2407: for the energy band 20~\keV\ to 3~\MeV;
2408: black: rear detectors,
2409: grey: front detectors;
2410: broken vertical lines:
2411: time intervals used for spectral analysis.
2412: \label{fig:ltc_GRBsI}}
2413: \end{figure}
2414:
2415: \begin{figure}
2416: \epsscale{0.52} %only for preprint, remove for 2-column version
2417: \plotone{f2a.eps} %was: \plotone{030406_ltc.eps}
2418: \plotone{f2b.eps} %was: \plotone{030519_ltc.eps}
2419: \plotone{f2c.eps} %was: \plotone{031027_ltc.eps}
2420: \plotone{f2d.eps} %was: \plotone{031111_ltc.eps}
2421: \caption{lightcurves
2422: for the energy band 20~\keV\ to 3~\MeV;
2423: black: rear detectors,
2424: grey: front detectors;
2425: broken vertical lines:
2426: time intervals used for spectral analysis.
2427: \label{fig:ltc_GRBsII}}
2428: \end{figure}
2429:
2430: \begin{figure}
2431: \epsscale{1}
2432: \plotone{f3.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_020715.eps}
2433: \caption{rear spectrum of GRB 020715;
2434: error bars: photon counts after background subtraction;
2435: black histogram: \CB\ fit (\refeq{eq:CB});
2436: grey histogram: Band function fit (\refeq{eq:Band});
2437: vertical broken lines: energy range used for fitting;
2438: bottom: residuals of \CB\ (black) and Band (grey) fit.
2439: \label{fig:020715}}
2440: \end{figure}
2441:
2442:
2443: \begin{figure}
2444: \plotone{f4.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_021008_front.eps}
2445: \caption{front spectrum of GRB 021008;
2446: explanations see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:020715};
2447: % Observed spectrum (crosses) and spectral fits of GRB 021008,
2448: % front detectors.
2449: % The Band function (black line histogram) and the Cannonball
2450: % model (grey histogram) fit the data almost equally well.
2451: % The residuals are plotted for the Band function.
2452: the same set of parameters
2453: (eqs.~\ref{eq:CB021008} and \ref{eq:Band021008})
2454: is used for this plot and Fig.~\ref{fig:R021008}.
2455: \label{fig:F021008}}
2456: \end{figure}
2457:
2458:
2459: \begin{figure}
2460: \plotone{f5.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_021008_rear.eps}
2461: \caption{rear spectrum of GRB 021008;
2462: explanations see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
2463: % Observed spectrum (crosses) and spectral fits of GRB 021008,
2464: % rear detectors.
2465: % The Band function (black line histogram) and the Cannonball
2466: % model (grey histogram) fit the data equally well.
2467: % The residuals are plotted for the Band function.
2468: the same set of parameters
2469: (eqs.~\ref{eq:CB021008} and \ref{eq:Band021008})
2470: is used for this plot and Fig.~\ref{fig:F021008}.
2471: \label{fig:R021008}}
2472: \end{figure}
2473:
2474:
2475: \begin{figure}
2476: \plotone{f6.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_021206_front.eps}
2477: \caption{spectrum of GRB 021206, front detectors;
2478: explanations see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
2479: the same set of parameters
2480: (eqs.~\ref{eq:CB021206} and \ref{eq:Band021206})
2481: is used for this plot and Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_rear}.
2482: \label{fig:spec_front}}
2483: \end{figure}
2484:
2485:
2486: \begin{figure}
2487: \plotone{f7.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_021206_rear.eps}
2488: \caption{top: spectrum of GRB 021206, rear detectors;
2489: symbols as in Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
2490: bottom: residuals of \CB\ fit (black) and Band fit (grey).
2491: The Band function was fitted only up to 4.5~\MeV.
2492: The excess counts below 300~\keV\ are backscatters from Earth, see text.
2493: The same set of parameters
2494: (eqs.~\ref{eq:CB021206} and \ref{eq:Band021206})
2495: is used for this plot and Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_front}.
2496: \label{fig:spec_rear}}
2497: \end{figure}
2498:
2499:
2500: \begin{figure}
2501: \plotone{f8.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_030329_p1.eps}
2502: \caption{rear spectrum of GRB 030329, first peak;
2503: explanations see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
2504: % Observed spectrum (crosses) and spectral fits of GRB 030329,
2505: % first peak. The Band function (black) and the Cannonball model (grey)
2506: % fit the data equally well, the main contribution being - in both
2507: % cases - a cut off power law (CPL).
2508: \label{fig:030329_p1}}
2509: \end{figure}
2510:
2511: \begin{figure}
2512: \plotone{f9.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_030329_p2.eps}
2513: \caption{rear spectrum of GRB 030329, second peak;
2514: explanations see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
2515: % Observed spectrum (crosses) and spectral fits of GRB 030329,
2516: % second peak. A good fit is obtained with a cut off power law (CPL, in black).
2517: % Using a band function or Cannonball model hardly
2518: % improves the fit. Shown in grey is the fit of a broken power law (BPL),
2519: % whose low energy index alpha $\approx 2.0$.
2520: \label{fig:030329_p2}}
2521: \end{figure}
2522:
2523: \begin{figure}
2524: \plotone{f10.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_030406.eps}
2525: \caption{rear spectrum of GRB 030406;
2526: explanations see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
2527: % Observed spectrum (crosses) and spectral fits of GRB 030406.
2528: % The best spectral fit is the Cannonball model with
2529: % $\alpha$ and $\beta$ fixed at their theoretically expected values
2530: % (black line histogram).
2531: % The second best fit is a Band function (grey histogram).
2532: % The residuals are plotted for the best fit.
2533: \label{fig:030406}}
2534: \end{figure}
2535:
2536: \begin{figure}
2537: \plotone{f11.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_030519b.eps}
2538: \caption{rear spectrum of GRB 030519B;
2539: explanations see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
2540: % Observed spectrum (crosses) and spectral fits of GRB 0300519B.
2541: % The best spectral fit is a Band function (line histogram).
2542: \label{fig:030519B}}
2543: \end{figure}
2544:
2545: \begin{figure}
2546: \plotone{f12.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_031027.eps}
2547: \caption{rear spectrum of GRB 031027;
2548: % explanations see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
2549: % Crosses: observed counts.
2550: histogram and residuals: fit of a cut off power law (CPL);
2551: a CPL is equivalent to a Band function with
2552: $\beta = \infty$ or \CB\ with $b=0$.
2553: \label{fig:031027}}
2554: \end{figure}
2555:
2556: \begin{figure}
2557: \plotone{f13.eps} %was: \plotone{spec_031111.eps}
2558: \caption{rear spectrum of GRB 031111;
2559: explanations see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:020715}.
2560: % Crosses: observed counts.
2561: % Black histogram and residuals: fit of \CB.
2562: % Grey histogram: fit of Band function.
2563: \label{fig:031111}}
2564: \end{figure}
2565:
2566:
2567:
2568: \end{document}
2569:
2570: %The caveat in \S \ref{sec:systematics} concerns only
2571: %the low energy part of the spectrum, thus does not
2572: %affect this conclusion.
2573: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccllllll}
2574: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2575: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2576: %\tabletypesize{\small}
2577: %\rotate
2578: \tablecolumns{10}
2579: \tablecaption{Reduced Chi-square of spectral fits
2580: \label{tab:chi2}}
2581: \tablewidth{0pt}
2582: \tablehead{
2583: \colhead{GRB} &
2584: \colhead{$\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize front}}\,$} &
2585: \colhead{$\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize rear}}\,$} &
2586: \colhead{$n$} &
2587: \colhead{CPL} &
2588: \colhead{Band} &
2589: \colhead{\CB} &
2590: \colhead{BPL} &
2591: \colhead{BBPL} &
2592: \colhead{BBmPL}
2593: \\
2594: \colhead{} &
2595: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2596: \colhead{(\keV)} &
2597: \colhead{} &
2598: \colhead{$n_{par}=3$} &
2599: \colhead{4} &
2600: \colhead{5} &
2601: \colhead{4} &
2602: \colhead{4} &
2603: \colhead{4}
2604: }
2605: %GRB front interval rear interval n CPL BAND CB BPL BBPL BBmPL
2606: \startdata
2607: 020715 & \nodata &[\phn30,15660] & 117 & 0.999 & 0.941 & 0.980\fa & 1.143 & 2.389 & 1.390 \\ \hline
2608: 021008 &[300,2800] &\nodata & 38 & 1.014 & 1.024 & 1.031\fa & 0.971 & 0.967 & 0.979 \\
2609: 021008 &\nodata &[300,15660] & 50 & 0.931 & 0.852 & 0.867\fa & 1.150 & 2.118 & 1.308 \\
2610: 021008 &[300,2800] &[300,15660] & 88 & \nodata & 0.946 & 0.962\fa &\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\ \hline
2611: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &\nodata & 112 & 1.198 & 0.959 & 0.972 & 1.440 & 2.923 & 1.776 \\
2612: 021206 &\nodata &[300,16000] & 78 & 4.511 & 1.801 & 1.133 & 1.796 & 1.271 & 1.493 \\
2613: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &[300,16000] & 190 & \nodata & \nodata & 1.014 &\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2614: 021206 &\nodata &[300,\phn4500] & 66 & \nodata & 1.174 & 1.126\fa &\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2615: 021206 &[\phn70,2800] &[300,\phn4500] & 178 & \nodata & 1.014 & \nodata &\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\ \hline
2616: %021206 P1 &\nodata &[300,16000] & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\
2617: %021206 P2 &\nodata &[300,16000] & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\
2618: %021206 P3 &\nodata &[300,16000] & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\
2619: %021206 P4 &\nodata &[300,16000] & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? & ? \\ \hline
2620: 030329 P1 &\nodata &[\phn34,10000] & 94 & 0.950 & 0.937 & 0.942 & 0.992 & 1.531 & 0.990 \\
2621: 030329 P2 &\nodata &[\phn34,\phn7000]& 87 & 1.244 & 1.244 & 1.244\fa & 1.191 & 1.229 & 1.186 \\ \hline
2622: 030406 &\nodata &[\phn24,15000] & 75 & 1.098 & 1.066 & 1.041\fb & 1.249 & 2.130 & 1.249 \\ \hline
2623: 030519B &\nodata &[\phn70,15000] & 79 & 1.345 & 1.151 & 1.205 & 1.330 & 2.530 & 1.464 \\ \hline
2624: 031027 &\nodata &[\phn60,\phn6000]& 63 & 1.060 &\phn n.c.& \phn n.c. & 1.576 & 2.354 & 1.688 \\ \hline
2625: 031111 &\nodata &[\phn38,15000] & 117 & 1.600 & 1.135 & 1.158 & 1.243 & 2.354 & 1.177
2626: \enddata
2627: \tablecomments{$\chi^2_r=\chi^2/n_{DoF}$ obtained by fitting different spectral models to the data;
2628: $\Delta E_{\mbox{\scriptsize front/rear}}$: energy interval used to fit front/rear detector data;
2629: $n_{par}$: number of free parameters;
2630: $n$: number of energy bins, $n_{DoF}=n-n_{par}$;
2631: CPL: cut off power law \refeq{eq:CPL},
2632: Band: Band function \refeq{eq:Band},
2633: \CB: cannonball model \refeq{eq:CB},
2634: BPL: broken power law \refeq{eq:BPL},
2635: BBPL: blackbody plus power law \refeq{eq:BBPL},
2636: BBmPL: blackbody plus modified power law \refeq{eq:BBmPL};
2637: n.c.: fit did not converge.
2638: }
2639: \tablenotetext{a}{$\beta\equiv2.1$ frozen ($n_{par}=4$)}
2640: \tablenotetext{b}{$\beta\equiv2.1$ and $\alpha\equiv1.0$ frozen ($n_{par}=3$)}
2641: \end{deluxetable}
2642: % $\Delta_{\chi^2_r} = \sqrt{2 n_{DoF} - 1}/n_{DoF}$, with $n_{DoF} = n-n_{par} \approx n - 4 $.
2643: % GRB 030329, P2, all 87 bins, vCB4 has $\beta=2.1$ frozen.
2644:
2645: