1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{psfig,natbib,amsmath}
4: %\usepackage[light,bottom,none]{draftcopy}
5: %\psdraft
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7:
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: %My defs
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: \newcommand{\citepeg}[1]{\citep[{e.g.,}][]{#1}}
12: \newcommand{\citepcf}[1]{\citep[{see}\phantom{}][]{#1}}
13: \newcommand{\rha}[0]{\rightarrow}
14: \def\etal{{\sl et al.}}
15: \def\lsim{\hbox{ \rlap{\raise 0.425ex\hbox{$<$}}\lower 0.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
16: \def\gsim{\hbox{ \rlap{\raise 0.425ex\hbox{$>$}}\lower 0.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
17: \def\arcmin{\hbox{$^\prime$}}
18: \def\arcsec{\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}}
19: \def\arcdeg{\mbox{$^\circ$}}%
20: \def\fd{\hbox{$~\!\!^{\rm d}$}}
21: \def\fh{\hbox{$~\!\!^{\rm h}$}}
22: \def\fm{\hbox{$~\!\!^{\rm m}$}}
23: \def\fs{\hbox{$~\!\!^{\rm s}$}}
24: \def\ale{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
25: \def\age{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
26: \def\msyr{\hbox{M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$}}
27: \def\kms{km~s$^{-1}$ }
28: \def\swift{{\textit{Swift}}\,}
29: \def\thegrb{GRB\,080319B }
30:
31: \voffset=0.0in
32:
33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
34: \begin{document}
35:
36: \title{Observations of the Naked-Eye GRB 080319B: Implications of Nature's
37: Brightest Explosion}
38:
39: \def\berk{1}
40: \def\sloan{2}
41: \def\chicago{3}
42: \def\lcogt{4}
43: \def\tautenberg{5}
44: \def\lick{6}
45: \def\uva{7}
46: \def\das{8}
47: \def\york{9}
48: \def\swin{10}
49: \def\cfa{11}
50:
51:
52: \author{J.~S. Bloom\altaffilmark{\berk,\sloan},
53: D.~A. Perley\altaffilmark{\berk},
54: W. Li\altaffilmark{\berk}, \\
55: N.~R. Butler\altaffilmark{\berk},
56: A.~A. Miller\altaffilmark{\berk},
57: D. Kocevski\altaffilmark{\berk},
58: D.~A. Kann\altaffilmark{\tautenberg},\\
59: R.~J. Foley\altaffilmark{\berk},
60: H.-W. Chen\altaffilmark{\chicago},
61: A.~V. Filippenko\altaffilmark{\berk},
62: D.~L. Starr\altaffilmark{\berk, \lcogt}, \\
63: B. Macomber\altaffilmark{\berk},
64: J.~X. Prochaska\altaffilmark{\lick},
65: R. Chornock\altaffilmark{\berk}, \\
66: D. Poznanski\altaffilmark{\berk},
67: S. Klose\altaffilmark{\tautenberg},
68: M. F. Skrutskie\altaffilmark{\uva}, \\
69: S. Lopez\altaffilmark{\das}, P. Hall\altaffilmark{\york},
70: K. Glazebrook\altaffilmark{\swin},
71: and C. H. Blake\altaffilmark{\cfa}}
72:
73: \affil{$^\berk$ Department of Astronomy,
74: University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3411.}
75:
76: \affil{$^\sloan$ Sloan Research Fellow.}
77:
78: \affil{$^\chicago$ Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, University of
79: Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637.}
80:
81: \affil{$^\lcogt$ Las Cumbres Global Telescope Network, 6740 Cortona Dr. Santa
82: Barbara, CA 93117.}
83:
84: \affil{$^\tautenberg$ Th\"uringer Landessternwarte Tautenburg, Sternwarte 5,
85: D-07778 Tautenburg, Germany.}
86:
87: \affil{$^\lick$ University of California Observatories/Lick
88: Observatory, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064.}
89:
90: \affil{$^\uva$ Department of Astronomy, P.O. Box 3818, University of
91: Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903-0818.}
92:
93: \affil{$^\das$
94: Departamento de AstronomÃa, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 36-D, Santiago, Chile.}
95:
96: \affil{$^\york$ Physics and Astronomy, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada.}
97:
98: \affil{$^{\swin}$ Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia}
99:
100: \affil{$^{\cfa}$ Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge,
101: MA 02138.}
102:
103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
104: \begin{abstract}
105: The first gamma-ray burst (GRB) confirmed to be bright enough to be
106: seen with the naked eye, GRB~080319B at redshift $z = 0.937$, allowed
107: for exquisite follow-up observations across the electromagnetic
108: spectrum. We present our detailed optical and infrared observations of
109: the afterglow, consisting of over 5000 images starting 51~s after the
110: GRB trigger, in concert with our own analysis of the {\it Swift} UVOT,
111: BAT, and XRT data. The event is extreme not only in observed
112: properties but intrinsically: it was the most luminous event ever recorded
113: at optical and infrared wavelengths and had an exceedingly high
114: isotropic-equivalent energy release in $\gamma$-rays. At early times,
115: the afterglow evolution is broadly consistent with being reverse-shock
116: dominated, but then is subsumed by a forward shock at around 1000~s.
117: The overall spectral energy distribution, spanning from ultraviolet
118: through near-infrared wavelengths, shows no evidence for a significant
119: amount of dust extinction in the host frame. The afterglow evolution,
120: however, is highly chromatic: starting at about 1000~s the index
121: shifts blueward before shifting back to the red at late times. In our
122: deepest late-time observations, we find tentative evidence for an
123: optical jet break and a luminous supernova. Finally, we examine
124: the detectability of such events with current and future facilities
125: and find that such an event could be detected in gamma-rays by BAT out
126: to $z$ = 10.7 ($8\sigma$), while the nominal EXIST sensitivity would
127: allow detection to $z \approx 32$. At $K$ band, this source would have been
128: easily detected with meter-class telescopes to $z \approx 17$.
129: \end{abstract}
130:
131: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts, gamma-ray bursts: individual: 080319B}
132:
133: \section{Introduction}
134:
135: The longevity and burst-discovery prowess of the \swift mission
136: \citep{Gehrels:2004p672} has led to a boom in correlative studies of
137: the properties of a large sample of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) observed
138: systematically and uniformly. At the same time, the sheer number of
139: bursts encompasses an ever-expanding volume of interesting parameter
140: space, often revealing rarities that help to redefine and shape the
141: totality of our understanding of the phenomenon. It is in the backdrop of the latter
142: that \thegrb superlatively reigns.
143:
144: At 06:12:49 (UTC is used throughout this paper), \thegrb
145: triggered \citep{rgh+08} the {\swift} Burst Alert Telescope (BAT), the
146: second GRB trigger that day in what would be 5 GRB triggers in a
147: 24\,hr period. The extreme brightness of the burst at high energies,
148: in the X-ray afterglow, and in the ultraviolet/optical/infrared
149: (UV/O/IR) afterglow led to a flurry of follow-up observations, many
150: automatically triggered on robotic facilities. Contemporaneous
151: imaging, both all-sky and directed, uncovered a fast-rising optical
152: afterglow which peaked a time from trigger of $t \approx 18.3$~s at
153: $V \approx 5.3$~mag
154: \citep{Cwiok08_GCN7445,Covino08_GCN7446,Swan08_GCN7470,Karpov08_GCN7452,Schubel08_GCN7461,Wozniak08_GCN7464};
155: this makes the afterglow of \thegrb the first confirmed counterpart
156: that could have been seen with the unaided eye in dark skies.
157:
158: At a redshift of $z=0.937$ \citep{Vreeswijk08}, the event was
159: relatively nearby compared to the \swift distribution of long-duration
160: events
161: \citepeg{2006A&A...447..897J,2006MNRAS.372.1034D,2007ApJ...661..394L},
162: yet near the median for redshifts of pre-\swift events. One aim of
163: this article is to place the observed properties (particularly
164: energetics) in the context of both distributions; we show in \S
165: \ref{sec:als} that \thegrb was not only potentially the
166: highest-fluence event ever observed, it also had an
167: isotropic-equivalent energy release comparable to the highest known
168: values yet recorded. The other significant aim is to analyze in
169: detail our long-wavelength observations, in both the optical and IR,
170: with high time cadence on moderate-sized robotic telescopes. The
171: quality of the data, coupled with those available in the literature
172: and from public archives, reveals a complex evolution of the afterglow
173: that we attempt to reconcile with canonical afterglow theory. Unless
174: noted, we assume a concordance cosmology with $H_0 = 71$ \kms
175: Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.70$, and $\Omega_m = 0.3$. A redshift
176: of $z=0.937$ corresponds to a luminosity distance of $6011.3$~Mpc
177: (distance modulus 43.89~mag). All of the results presented herein,
178: though generally consistent with our previous results in GCN
179: Circulars\footnote{\url{http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/ .}}, supersede them.
180:
181: \section{Optical/IR Observations and Reductions}
182: \label{sec:obs}
183:
184: \begin{figure*}[p]
185: \centerline{\psfig{file=f1.ps,width=6.5in,angle=0}}
186: \caption[] {\small Light curves of the \thegrb long-wavelength
187: afterglow, fit by our empirical model, which allows (and in this case
188: prefers) color change. This is a combination of data from the GCN
189: Circulars ($\times$ symbols, including the prompt light curve as
190: plotted by \citealt{Karpov08_GCN7558}, in green), our observations
191: from various ground-based instruments (KAIT, the Lick Nickel 1m, and
192: PAIRITEL) and our re-reductions of the \swift UVOT, XRT, and BAT data.
193: The afterglow decays extremely rapidly, dropping from mag 5 to 21 in
194: less than one day. For clarity, UV/O/IR data are corrected to $V$
195: [Vega] mag using the model. Individual broken power-law components are shown as dotted lines; these are summed together to generate the fitted model (solid line). Different colors indicate different filters. Empty points were not used in the fitting
196: in \S \ref{sec:canonball}.}
197: \label{fig:lc}
198: \end{figure*}
199:
200: \subsection{PAIRITEL}
201:
202: The Peters Automated Infrared Imaging Telescope (PAIRITEL;
203: \citealt{Bloom:2006p4665}), responding automatically to the {\swift}
204: trigger via an open-source
205: package\footnote{\url{http://sourceforge.net/projects/pygcnsock .}}
206: connected to the GCN, began taking data on the field at 06:13:39.7 ($t =
207: 51$~s after the \swift trigger). The 1.3~m telescope is equipped with NICMOS3 arrays to
208: simultaneously observe in bands {\em J}, {\em H}, and {\em K$_s$}
209: (1.2, 1.6, and 2.2~$\mu$m, respectively). Each image consists of a
210: 256 $\times$ 256 pixel array with a scale of $2''$
211: pixel$^{-1}$. Data are obtained as a double-correlated read, with a 51~ms
212: accumulation since reset on the first (``short'') read and 7.851~s on the
213: second (``long'') read. Both the long and the short read exposures are
214: saved to disk. The telescope is dithered by $\sim 1'$ after every
215: third exposure. With no shutter, the standard reductions necessarily
216: incorporate per-pixel models of the combined detector dark current and
217: sky flux fitted over time \citep{wfb+08}. In a modified version of our
218: automated pipeline, once these time-specific frames (``sky+dark'')
219: are subtracted from the object frames, they are combined into 3$-$12
220: file intermediate mosaics with effective integration times of 24$-$96~s per
221: image, which in turn are stacked to form the final mosaics.
222:
223: During the first few minutes on target (253~s in $J$, 289~s in $H$,
224: and 289~s in $K_s$), the afterglow was saturated in
225: the exposures, where we have adopted the saturation/non-linearity threshold
226: determined from data for the 2MASS South camera\footnote{{\tt
227: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/ \\ doc/sec4\_2.html
228: .}}: 37000 counts in a single pixel in the $J$ and $H$ bands, and 33000
229: counts in a single pixel in the $K_s$ band. In addition, a number of the
230: final science frames suffered from poor sky+dark-frame subtraction and
231: could not be photometered or included in the final mosaics. These
232: frames were removed following an inspection by eye prior to the
233: construction of the final mosaics. Less than 4\% of the 7.8~s
234: exposures were removed following this procedure.
235:
236: \begin{figure*}[p]
237: \centerline{\psfig{file=f2.ps,width=6.5in,angle=0}}
238: \caption[] {\small Detailed optical-IR light curve covering much of the first
239: night after the afterglow, demonstrating the exquisite time sampling and
240: overall goodness-of-fit of the model. The earliest-time PAIRITEL observations
241: are saturated/non-linear and uncertain (see \S \ref{sec:nl}); these are not included in fitting or modeling.}
242: \label{fig:lczoom}
243: \end{figure*}
244:
245: Our initial IR photometry report \citep{bsp08} noted that the
246: afterglow had been strongly detected simultaneously in all three
247: filters during the first few minutes of observations. Indeed, the
248: ability to detect the transient in single 7.8~s exposures lasted for a
249: few hours. In total, we obtained 1822 simultaneous $J$, $H$, and
250: $K_{s}$ observations of the GRB (5466 total frames) over the course of
251: 6 hr, though as the afterglow begins to fade we bin together
252: individual frames to increase the signal-to-noise ratio and improve
253: readability of the light curve.
254:
255: \subsubsection{Photometry on Unsaturated Frames}
256: \label{sec:nl}
257:
258: A custom pipeline was used to perform photometry on the 7.8 s exposures constructed from the difference of the two readouts which occurred 7.851 and 0.051 s
259: following array reset. This pipeline was also used on the intermediate
260: mosaics constructed from the 7.8s frames. Zeropoint determinations were made in comparison to the 2MASS
261: catalog. The statistical uncertainties are small, while the total
262: uncertainty on any individual image is dominated by systematics,
263: especially at early times, associated with our ability to accurately
264: zeropoint relative to 2MASS. We quantify this systematic uncertainty
265: empirically by measuring the photometric scatter in a mag 10 star
266: (hereafter ``S1''), located at $\alpha$ = 14\fh32\fm03\fs.55, $\delta$
267: = +36\arcdeg18\arcmin29\arcsec.6 (J2000), a few arcmin from the
268: position of the GRB optical afterglow (OA). In all three bands the systematic contribution
269: is $\sim$4\%. The resulting light curves are presented in
270: Figs. \ref{fig:lc}--\ref{fig:lczoom} and listed in Table
271: \ref{tab:photlogptel}.
272:
273: \subsubsection{Photometry on Early-Time Imaging}
274:
275: Due to the extreme brightness of the early afterglow, a large number
276: of early PAIRITEL frames are highly saturated or otherwise nonlinear (when the magnitude is $\lesssim$ 9).
277: We employed two methods to recover the photometry in these early epochs (see Tables \ref{tab:shortr}--\ref{tab:annulus}). First, since there is sufficient signal in the 51 ms short reads to detect the GRB well above the noise when $JHK_s$ $\gtrsim$ 7, we use the
278: procedure described in \citet{2007ApJ...669.1072E} to extract the flux from the GRB
279: in the short reads and calibrate this to the 2MASS system using stars in
280: the corresponding long reads. The uncertainty of these measurements is
281: primarily dominated by the determination of the zeropoint. Second, we developed a simple method to extract photometry from saturated ``long minus short'' frames, using an annulus centered on the GRB position. We
282: use S1 to determine the zeropoint for each of the individual saturated
283: long minus short (7.8~s) frames. The inner annulus radius was chosen
284: to exclude any saturated pixels in any frame, while the outer annulus
285: radius was selected to provide sufficient signal without including too
286: much noise as the wings of the point-spread function (PSF) become
287: dominated by noise from the background. The accuracy of these early
288: measurements of the GRB afterglow is strongly limited by the determination of
289: the zeropoint: high near-IR backgrounds and the annulus aperture lead
290: to a large scatter in the determined zeropoints for each frame. Thus,
291: the uncertainty for these early measurements is dominated by a large
292: systematic term, defined as the scatter of the individual zeropoints.
293: We include these points in early-time light-curve plots and in our
294: data table to show the general early behavior of the IR afterglow, but
295: do not include them in any fitting or model analysis. We emphasize that photometry of
296: these saturated frames is subject to unaccounted-for systematic uncertainties, but note qualitative agreement with other submitted early IR imaging \citep{Racusineteveryone}.
297:
298: \subsection{KAIT and Nickel}
299:
300: At Lick Observatory, the Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope (KAIT;
301: \citealt{Filippenko2001}) GRB alert system \citep{Li:2003p703}
302: responded to \thegrb automatically. While ordinarily the time to slew
303: is $<1$~min, since KAIT was following GRB\,080319A (which triggered
304: {\swift} 30 min earlier) our first observations of \thegrb did not
305: start until 19 min after the BAT trigger. We followed the GRB OA with
306: a combination of filters ($BVI$ and unfiltered) and with varying
307: exposure times (20~s initially, then 40~s, then 300~s guided
308: exposures), and continued until 280 min after the BAT trigger. We also
309: observed \thegrb with the Lick 1-m Nickel telescope remotely from the
310: University of California, Berkeley, between 116 and 392 min after the
311: BAT trigger, using $BVRI$ filters and exposure times of 300~s and
312: 360~s.
313:
314: To reduce the KAIT and Nickel data, we used the PSF-fitting technique
315: in IRAF/DAOPHOT. Instrumental magnitudes were measured for the GRB OA
316: and several local standard stars, and conversion to the standard
317: $BVRI$ system was accomplished using the SDSS calibration
318: \citep{ceh+08,DR6} of the field (the magnitudes in the SDSS magnitude
319: system were converted to $BVRI$ following the recipe of Lupton
320: 2005\footnote{http://www.sdss.org/dr6/algorithms/ \\
321: sdssUBVRITransform.html\#Lupton2005
322: .}). Two of the SDSS standards in our field are shared with the
323: standard star calibration of \cite{Henden08_GCN7528}; because the
324: posted magnitudes for both stars are consistent within the
325: uncertainties, we adopted the SDSS system due to the much larger
326: number of stars and the ability to extend to deep late-time
327: observations. The final KAIT and Nickel photometry is listed in
328: Tables \ref{tab:photlogkait} and \ref{tab:photlognickel}. A list
329: of the converted $BVRI$ magnitudes of the bright standards used
330: in this calibration is given in Table \ref{tab:lickstars}.
331:
332: \subsection{UVOT}
333:
334: To extend the wavelength coverage, we downloaded the \swift UVOT data
335: from the quicklook data archive. The Level 2 sky image data in $U$,
336: $B$, and $V$ were analyzed according to the photometry calibration and
337: recipe by \citet{Li:2006p4490}. We also followed the procedure
338: reported in \citet{Poole2008}, and found that when the GRB was bright,
339: the two procedures yield similar results. When the GRB became faint,
340: the Li et al. (2006) procedure yields measurements with smaller
341: uncertainties and better overall agreement with the KAIT and Nickel
342: data in the $B$ and $V$ passbands, likely due to the smaller adopted
343: photometry aperture. The \swift UV filters ($UVW1$, $UVM1$, and
344: $UVW2$) were reduced following \citet{Poole2008}. The final UVOT
345: photometry is reported in Table \ref{tab:photloguvot}.
346:
347: \subsection{Gemini Spectroscopy}
348:
349: An optical spectrum of \thegrb was obtained under program
350: GS-2008A-Q-20 beginning at 08:23 on 19 Mar. 2008 \citep{Foley08} using
351: the Gemini~South 8-m telescope with GMOS \citep{Hook04}. We used a
352: slit of width $0.75''$, the R831 grating, and a OG515 filter. Two
353: 1800~s exposures were obtained with slightly different central
354: wavelengths of 7000 and 7100~\AA\ and read out in $2\times 2$
355: binning. Standard CCD processing and spectrum extraction were
356: accomplished with IRAF \citep[for more details, see][]{Foley06}. The
357: data were extracted using the optimal algorithm of
358: \citet{Horne86}. The spectrum shows a featureless continuum with no
359: strong absorption systems, emission features, or spectral breaks. Unfortunately, our wavelength range does not cover the spectral range of the VLT spectrum where strong absorption features were seen \citep{Vreeswijk08}.
360: With our spectral coverage, and given the proposed redshift of GRB~080319B
361: \citep{Vreeswijk08}, the strongest ISM absorption lines for
362: a galaxy at $z=0.937$ are expected to be \ion{Ti}{2}~3384 and the
363: \ion{Ca}{2} doublet at $\lambda \approx 3950$\AA.
364: We do not detect \ion{Ti}{2} $\lambda 3384$ to a
365: 3$\sigma$ rest-frame absorption equivalent width limit of $W=0.05$
366: \AA\ over a spectral resolution element, while the \ion{Ca}{2} H \&
367: K absorption doublet is blended with the atmospheric A-band
368: absorption.
369: No additional features were found in our observed
370: wavelength range of 5950--8150~\AA.
371:
372:
373: \subsection{Gemini Imaging}
374:
375: In the nights following the burst, we began a program of additional
376: imaging using Gemini~South and Gemini~North. On the first night
377: following the event, we acquired 4 $\times$ 180~s of GMOS imaging in
378: each of the $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$ filters under excellent seeing
379: conditions (0.85\arcsec) despite the low elevation of the target
380: (airmass of 2.5). A second epoch was acquired the following night in
381: $r$ only, and additional multicolor epochs were taken later on March
382: 25 and 28, and April 2. Imaging was taken at Gemini~North on April 14
383: ($g$, $r$, $i$) and 17 ($z$).
384: %, and a deep final integration was acquired on May 11 ($g$ only).
385: Data were reduced using the standard
386: Gemini IRAF package and photometered using SExtractor
387: \citep{SExtractor} aperture magnitudes. The field was calibrated
388: relative to select stars from SDSS DR6 (\citealt{DR6}, Table
389: \ref{tab:sdssstars}). The Gemini filters appear to be somewhat
390: nonstandard compared to the SDSS survey filters, so significant
391: color-term corrections were necessary. As the number of comparison
392: stars used was large we were able to calculate these individually for
393: each observation. The color dependence is about 20\% in $g$ on
394: Gemini~North and 30\% on Gemini~South. In $r$, $i$, and $z$ it is
395: about 10\%, 15\%, and 5\% (respectively) on both telescopes. The
396: final photometry is given in Table \ref{tab:photloggemini}. For use
397: in the light-curve fitting (for which a comparison to the early-time
398: $BVRI$ observations is necessary), the $gri$ magnitudes for the
399: afterglow were then converted back to $VRI$ using the equations of
400: Lupton (2005).
401:
402: \subsection{GCN Circulars}
403:
404: Finally, to supplement our data at very early times and late times, we
405: downloaded additional photometry from the GCN Circulars. Of
406: particular note, we downloaded the corrected TORTORA light curve
407: \citep{Karpov08_GCN7558} containing high-quality optical photometry
408: throughout the prompt phase, and {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)}
409: data points at late times \citep{Tanvir08_GCN7569,Levan08_GCN7710},
410: which allow us to complete the entire light curve of this event. Due
411: to the fact that GCN observations are preliminary and may have large
412: calibration offsets, we do not use any of the GCN points in any of our
413: fits or models, though we do show them in light-curve plots. Instead,
414: we focus our analysis on the intermediate phase of the burst,
415: from 300~s to $10^6$~s, during which we have good time sampling.
416: The GCN data shown in our plots are listed in Table
417: \ref{tab:photloggcn}.
418:
419: \subsection{Swift BAT and XRT}
420: \label{sec:hep}
421:
422: Our high-energy reduction pipeline is described in detail by
423: \citet{Butler:2007p4518} for the {\swift} BAT and by
424: \citet{Butler:2007p4519} for the {\swift} XRT. \thegrb exhibits one
425: dominant emission episode of duration $\Delta t \approx 60$~s,
426: composed of multiple unresolved spikes. The BAT spectrum in the time
427: interval $-$1.1~s to 57.4~s is acceptably fit ($\chi^2/\nu=13.55/55$)
428: by a simple power law with photon index $\alpha=-1.01\pm0.02$ and
429: energy fluence $(1.96\pm0.03) \times 10^{-4}$~erg cm$^{-2}$
430: (15--350~keV). The BAT catches only the low-energy portion of a
431: spectrum extending beyond $E_{\rm peak,obs} = 651^{+13}_{-14}$~keV
432: \citep{gam+08}, with an isotropic-equivalent energy release in
433: $\gamma$-rays of $\sim 10^{54}$~erg. There is evidence for a
434: gamma-ray tail detected up to $\sim1000$~s as seen in Fig.\
435: \ref{fig:lc}. This extended emission at late times is similar to that
436: observed in the extremely bright BATSE GRB 980923 \citep{Giblin99} and
437: \swift GRB 061007 \citep{Mundell07,Schady07}.
438:
439: The {\swift} XRT began observing during the tail of the prompt
440: emission phase at $t=66$~s. We find (see, also, \citealt{but08}) that
441: the X-ray spectrum is unchanging until quite late times ($t = 2.91$~Ms)
442: despite a break in the X-ray light curve at $t \approx 1$~ks (Fig.\
443: \ref{fig:lc}). The combined XRT/BAT data are well fit by an absorbed
444: power law with $\Gamma=1.814\pm0.011$ and an excess column density
445: over Galactic of $N_{\rm H} = (1.87\pm 0.13) \times 10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$
446: at $z=0.937$. The early-time windowed timing (WT) mode (66 s $<t<$ 4.95 ks) X-ray
447: photon index $\Gamma_1=1.814\pm 0.013$ is closely consistent with the
448: late-time photon-counting (PC) mode (4.95 ks $<t<$ 2.91 Ms) X-ray photon index
449: $\Gamma_2=1.80\pm 0.04$, assuming a constant $N_{\rm H}$. From
450: negligible $\lesssim 1$\% variations in the X-ray hardness ratio
451: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{bnk07b}, the magnitude of any secular trends in
452: $\Gamma_1$ or $\Gamma_2$ must be at the few-percent level or less, and
453: there is no evidence for variation in $N_{\rm H}$.
454:
455: \begin{figure*}[p]
456: \centerline{\psfig{file=f3.ps,width=3.0in,angle=0}}
457: \caption[] {\small Photometric spectral energy distributions (SEDs)
458: generated over specific time ranges during the first night after the
459: burst from combined PAIRITEL, KAIT, Nickel, and UVOT measurements.
460: All plots have the same horizontal and vertical scale, differing only
461: in the vertical offset. The assumed host-galaxy extinction is based
462: on a fit using a combined SED from all epochs (a fit assuming no host
463: extinction is also shown for comparison). A clear red-to-blue
464: transition is evident during this time. The three lines show the various fits to the data with the relevant parameters noted. ``Fixed'' indicates that that parameter is held constant in the fit.}
465: \label{fig:seds}
466: \end{figure*}
467:
468: \begin{figure*}[p]
469: \centerline{\psfig{file=f4.ps,width=3.0in,angle=0}}
470: \caption[] {\small Photometric SEDs generated on subsequent nights
471: from multicolor Gemini~South and Gemini~North observations. The scale
472: and assumed host extinction are the same as in Figure \ref{fig:seds}.
473: The color is consistent with constant evolution early, but shifts
474: dramatically redward at very late times, likely due to the appearance
475: of a very luminous supernova.}
476: \label{fig:seds2}
477: \end{figure*}
478:
479:
480: \begin{figure*}[p]
481: \centerline{\psfig{file=f5.ps,width=3.8in,angle=0}}
482: \caption[] {\small Evolution of the afterglow spectral index $\beta$ with time. The optical spectral index $\beta_{\rm opt}$ is measured from a fit to the UV-optical-IR data from each of 40 different overlapping bins ranging from 360 s to 22000 s, plus one additional series of UVOT exposures and the first three multicolor Gemini epochs. The X-ray spectral index is also plotted (gray points), with the dashed line showing the best-fit value assuming no spectral evolution (which the data are consistent with). The optical-to-X-ray spectral index $\beta_{\rm OX}$ is defined as the index between the X-ray (normalized at 1 keV) and the $V$-band optical flux. At early times the optical spectral index evolves from red to blue to red again. The X-ray, optical, and optical-to-X-ray spectral indices are all consistent at late times, which may suggest that both optical and X-ray bands are in the same synchrotron regime.}
483: \label{fig:beta}
484: \end{figure*}
485:
486:
487: \begin{figure*}[p]
488: \centerline{\psfig{file=f5a.eps,width=5.5in,angle=0}}
489: \caption[] {\small Fits to the late-time $I_C$-band data with a combination of an
490: afterglow component described with a broken power-law, a constant
491: host galaxy component and a supernova component. We assume that the
492: late afterglow, in terms of break-time ($11.5 \pm 3$ day) and post-break decay slope ($2.45 \pm 0.35$),
493: follows the values derived from the X-ray afterglow (the pre-break
494: decay slope is left free to vary, but is strongly constrained by
495: earlier data which is not plotted). The black lines represent the
496: sum of all components, directly fit to the data. The blue lines
497: give the afterglow plus host galaxy component, whereas the red
498: lines show the supernova contribution. Unbroken lines denote the use
499: of the central values (M for Mid) derived from the X-ray fit and a
500: host galaxy magnitude of $I_C=26.5$. Dotted lines denote the extreme
501: (L)ow case of the (within 1$\sigma$ errors of the X-ray fit) earliest
502: break and steepest post-break decay slope, as well as the faintest
503: host galaxy (where we choose conservative errors of 0.5 magnitudes).
504: In this case, at late times, the supernova dominates the afterglow. The dashed lines denote the opposite
505: case (H for High), a late break and shallow post-break decay as well
506: as a bright host galaxy, which results in the smallest supernova
507: contribution, comparable to the afterglow at peak. Even so, we find
508: this ``faint'' supernova component to be 50\% more luminous than SN
509: 1998bw at peak. We also plot the three $z^\prime$ observations. The
510: two first points show no color evolution, whereas the last point is
511: significantly brighter than the extrapolated $I_C$ light curve and gives further evidence of the strong
512: reddening due to the rising supernova component.}
513: \label{fig:late}
514: \end{figure*}
515:
516:
517: \section{Analysis}
518: \label{sec:als}
519:
520:
521: \subsection{Optical Light Curve}
522:
523: We fit the optical data in all filters simultaneously by fitting a
524: series of summed \cite{Beuermann+1999} functions, a generalization of
525: the procedure described by \cite{Perley+2008a}. Several iterations of
526: different models with varying assumptions and complexity were fitted,
527: with our final preferred model motivated by a combination of
528: assumptions of underlying physical behavior (as will be described
529: shortly) and the necessity to fit the data with a reasonable $\chi^2$
530: and without large trends in the residuals. This model contains two elements: a
531: monochromatic, rapidly falling component which dominates at early
532: times ($\lesssim 10^4$ s), plus a chromatically evolving second
533: component which peaks at about $10^3$ -- $10^4$ s (depending on the filter).
534: The first
535: component is actually a sum of three Beuermann functions (this was
536: necessary to fit several low-level modulation ``wiggles'' in the
537: data); the second component is a single Beuermann function, but the
538: peak time is allowed to be a function of the filter central wavelength
539: to allow the break (peak) to be chromatic. (Modulations are seen at
540: late times as well, but we do not have the temporal coverage to
541: accurately attempt to characterize them.) We exclude points after 2
542: $\times$ $10^6$ s, which appear to be contaminated by additional light
543: (possibly due to a supernova; see \S 3.7) in most filters. We use
544: only our own calibrated data; observations reported in the GCN
545: Circulars are excluded from the fits. Very early points from UVOT and
546: PAIRITEL that were heavily affected by pileup, saturation, or
547: nonlinearity effects were excluded, and a small number of other
548: conspicuous outliers at late times were manually flagged during the
549: fitting process.
550:
551: Our model is found to match the data very well, with no obvious
552: residual trends, with the exception of a possible chromatic divergence
553: of the very early-time IR measurements from the initial power law.
554: The final value for $\chi^2$ = 938 (over 592 degrees of freedom) is
555: reasonable, if not strictly statistically acceptable, although this is
556: not necessarily a surprise given the large number of different
557: instruments and very complicated behavior of the afterglow. A modest underestimate of the systematic errors could account for $\chi^2/$dof $>1$. All
558: optical photometry from our measurements and the GCN Circulars is
559: presented in Figure \ref{fig:lc}. Here we adopt the convention for the spectral index ($\beta$) and the temporal index ($\alpha$) such that $f_\nu \propto \nu^{-\beta}\, t^{-\alpha}$. A subset of these observations
560: showing our measurements in more detail is shown in Figure
561: \ref{fig:lczoom}.
562:
563: The early afterglow decay is extremely rapid: $\alpha \approx 2.24$.
564: At about 500~s the light curve flattens slightly, and then levels out
565: much more significantly around 1500~s, as noted by
566: \cite{Li08_GCN7438}. Our rapid temporal sampling ends at 20,000~s due
567: to bright morning twilight, but we began Gemini observations the
568: following night, and from then until about $10^6$~s the optical
569: afterglow decays approximately as a simple power law, although some
570: limited achromatic variations both above and below the fit may suggest
571: small modulations.
572:
573: Our fitting procedure is capable of assigning different colors to
574: different components and modeling chromatic breaks, so there is no
575: need to assume achromatic evolution. Indeed, attempts at
576: monochromatic fits invariably produced very poor $\chi^2$ values and
577: obvious residual trends, and color evolution is clear in the
578: time-dependent SED (\S \ref{sec:sed}). Our final preferred model is
579: able to fit all the chromatic evolution using the chromatic break of
580: the late-time component, which transitions from blue (while rising) to
581: red (while fading). This behavior is strongly reminiscent of the
582: predicted evolution of a forward shock at peak, so we fix the rising
583: power-law index $\alpha_{1,b}$ and the overall color change over the
584: break $\Delta\beta_{1,b-a}$ to the values predicted by this model.
585: (They are nearly unconstrained by the fits otherwise.) This late-time
586: component is allowed to have a different post-break color from the
587: early-time component, but the fits suggest they have similar values,
588: with the overall beginning-to-end change in spectral index of $\Delta
589: \beta = 0.006 \pm 0.020$, despite a notable color change in the
590: intermediate region.
591:
592: \subsection{SED and Extinction Constraints}
593: \label{sec:sed}
594:
595: Due to the excellent coverage of the photometry across the UV/O/IR
596: spectrum, we can strongly constrain the host-galaxy extinction. Our
597: chromatic model can generate SEDs at any point in the evolution of the
598: light curve using all available filters, shielding us from the
599: possibility that the intrinsic (pre-extinction) SED may not be a
600: simple power law during the periods when most of the observations were
601: actually taken (though only to the extent to which our model
602: accurately describes the light curve). We can therefore use all
603: available filters to fit a single extinction law to the full data in
604: spite of the observed chromatic behavior. After correcting for the
605: small Galactic extinction along this sightline of $E(B - V)$
606: = 0.01 mag \citep{Schlegel:1998p695} and excluding the Swift UVM2 and UVW2 filters (which are likely to be significantly affected by Lyman-$\alpha$ and Lyman-break absorption, respectively), we measure $A_{V,{\rm host}}$ =
607: $0.07 \pm 0.06$ mag for a fit to the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC)
608: extinction law. Milky Way Galaxy and Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC)
609: laws were also tried, but generally had higher values of $\chi^2$ ---
610: to be sure, the small amount of extinction makes the exact
611: choice of extinction law unimportant. Due to the possibility of
612: hydrogen absorption and the generally uncertain nature of extinction
613: laws in the far UV, the UVW2 and UVM2 filters were excluded from
614: these fits. Compared to the X-ray host-galaxy hydrogen column of
615: $N_{\rm H} = (1.87\pm 0.13) \times 10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$, this suggests a
616: dust-to-gas (actually dust-to-free-metals) ratio of about ten times
617: the Galactic value, which is typical for previous GRB sightlines
618: \citepeg{Schady+2007}. The small amount of extinction inferred
619: is also typical \citepeg{Kann2006}.
620:
621: We can also generate purely observational time-dependent SEDs. The
622: photometric observations taken the night of the burst were divided
623: into 40 overlapping regions, and a simple power law was fit to the
624: magnitudes in each region in order to produce contemporaneous observed
625: fluxes in each available filter at each region. Galactic extinction,
626: as well as the small amount of host extinction correction found above,
627: are removed, and each SED is then fit to a power law to estimate
628: the overall UV/O/IR spectral index $\beta$ as a function of
629: time. Some representative epochs are shown in Figure \ref{fig:seds}.
630: These are supplemented by SEDs generated directly from the late-time
631: Gemini observations (with a small correction owing to the fact that
632: different filters were not observed exactly contemporaneously), shown
633: in Figure \ref{fig:seds2}. Finally, we can combine all available data
634: to plot the spectral index $\beta$ as a function of time, as shown in
635: Figure \ref{fig:beta}. The chromatic behavior of this afterglow is
636: immediately evident.
637:
638:
639: \subsection{X-ray Fits}
640:
641: We employ a similar fitting procedure to the X-ray light curve as in
642: the optical and distinguish two distinct components: a smooth early
643: decay of $\alpha = 1.48$ breaks at 2500 s to a short lived and poorly
644: constrained (due to lack of observations during this period) fast
645: decay of $\alpha \approx 2.8$, and then declines as $\alpha = 1.40$
646: for the remainder of its evolution (possibly except for the last
647: observation in which the afterglow is detected, which appears to be
648: significantly below this curve). This differs from the optical value
649: by $\Delta \alpha = 0.17$. Toward the very end of the XRT
650: observations, the flux appears to decline more rapidly, and in our
651: last binned observation is significantly below our fitted model. This
652: appears to provide evidence for an additional break at $\sim 2 \times
653: 10^6$ s, but beyond this point the afterglow flux faded below the XRT
654: detection threshold and further observations are unavailable, so we
655: cannot independently verify this behavior.
656:
657: As discussed previously in \S \ref{sec:hep}, the X-ray spectrum
658: appears invariant over the entire burst evolution within fairly
659: stringent constraints. At early times (during the smooth early decay)
660: we measure $\beta_{X,1}=0.814\pm 0.013$; during the late phase we
661: measure $\beta_{X,2}=0.80\pm 0.04$.
662:
663: \subsection{Testing Canonical Models}
664: \label{sec:canonball}
665:
666: We are able to measure $\alpha$ and $\beta$ very precisely throughout
667: most of the evolution of the light curve in both optical and X-ray
668: bands (limited in most cases only by the assumptions of the model
669: itself, e.g., the possible presence of additional underlying
670: components, rather than the actual statistical uncertainty). In
671: principle this should allow us a strong test of the canonical fireball
672: model \citepeg{Sari+1998}.
673:
674: During the rapid decay phase of the afterglow, we measure (after
675: extinction correction) $\alpha_{\rm opt}=2.2$, $\beta_{\rm opt}=0.5$ in the
676: UV-optical-IR range (though both values are somewhat variable).
677: Unsurprisingly, this combination of large $\alpha$ and low $\beta$ is
678: not well-fit by any canonical forward-shock model
679: (e.g., \citealt{Price:2003p575}), with the exception of a jet model
680: where $\nu_{\rm opt} < \nu_c$, which is approximately consistent with
681: both values for $p = 2.0-2.2$. We will return to the possibility of
682: an extremely early jet break in \S \ref{sec:energy}, but the later
683: evolution of the light curve (in which it flattens) casts doubt on
684: this interpretation. Alternatively, the reverse-shock model
685: \citep{Kobayashi2000} also predicts a very steep early decay, although
686: even this model cannot exactly reconcile the steep decay with the
687: observed spectral index; given $\alpha = 2.2$ this model predicts
688: $\beta$=0.8. Still, this is a significant improvement over any
689: forward-shock model. A third possibility, favored by
690: \cite{Kumar+2008}, is that the early steep decay is actually ``high
691: latitude'' emission: prompt emission whose arrival at the observer was
692: delayed because it is slightly off-axis. In this case a value of
693: $\beta = \alpha - 2$ = 0.2 is predicted, which is also not consistent
694: with our observations. In fact, the observed value is nearly exactly
695: between the reverse-shock and high-latitude values. It is possible that both
696: models may contribute in about equal degrees to the observations and
697: produce an intermediate spectral index (which may also explain some of
698: the small-scale variation in the observed $\alpha$).
699:
700: At about the same time when the optical light curve is rapidly
701: decaying, the X-ray light curve is relatively flat, with $\alpha_X$ =
702: 1.48. Comparing the relative optical and X-ray fluxes, the optical
703: flux overpredicts the X-ray flux at early times; the optical and
704: X-ray bands also have different spectral indices, suggesting that a
705: spectral break is present between the two bands and that this break is
706: moving upward in frequency with time. Given the disparate behavior
707: from the contemporaneous optical light curve and the shift to different
708: behavior at late time, the early X-ray emission appears to come from
709: a different origin or process as the rest of the light curve; we do
710: not attempt to explain it within the standard model.
711:
712: Once the optical light curve begins to level out (in the transition
713: zone between the early and late-time components), the spectral index
714: evolves to surprisingly blue values. An average SED formed from data
715: points during the extremely well-observed region, using observations
716: from $K$ through the UV between 5500 and 12,000~s, constrains the
717: average SED to $\beta_{\rm opt} = 0.07 \pm 0.03$ (see also Figure
718: \ref{fig:beta}). It is impossible to generate $\beta < 0.5$ during a
719: declining light curve within the basic synchrotron model, so this
720: offers strong corroborating evidence that the underlying component
721: responsible for the majority of the optical flux is undergoing a break
722: at this time. The canonical model \citep{Sari+1998} could
723: naturally explain this portion of the light curve as a
724: characteristic-frequency peak, when $\nu_m$ crosses through the UV,
725: optical, and IR bands (in that order), causing a gradual shift in the
726: overall color from $\beta$ = $-1/3$ to $\beta$ = $(p-1)/2$. It is in
727: fact difficult to explain this feature in any other straightforward
728: way; in a wind medium the same feature shifts in color only from
729: $\beta$ = $1/2$ to $\beta$ = $p/2$ \citep{LiChevalier2003} which is
730: never sufficiently blue. Complicated prescriptions involving numerous
731: components contributing about equally to the afterglow flux
732: \citepeg{Racusineteveryone} may also explain this feature, though at
733: the expense of substantial additional complexity.
734:
735: Although the optical SED provides good evidence of shifting somewhat
736: back toward the red at late times, its overall blueness remains a
737: challenge to explain even after a simple power-law decay has set in.
738: This late decay rate is $\alpha_{\rm opt} = 1.23 \pm 0.02$ optically,
739: and $\alpha_X = 1.30 \pm 0.05$ in X-rays.
740: Fitting to a combination of the first three epochs of the late-time
741: Gemini data gives $\beta_{\rm opt} = 0.51 \pm 0.26$. If we assume
742: that the X-ray and optical afterglows have the same origin, then the
743: X-ray to optical spectral index is $\beta_{\rm OX} = 0.77 \pm 0.01$ ---
744: consistent with the X-ray index itself of $\beta_{\rm X}=0.80\pm 0.04$.
745: This also forms a strict upper limit on $\beta_{\rm opt}$; even if a
746: cooling break is present close to the optical band (our observations
747: do not rule out this possibility) then $\beta_{\rm opt} < \beta_{\rm OX}$
748: to not underpredict the X-ray flux.
749:
750: Given this, and assuming $p \geq 2$, we can greatly constrain the
751: available models. The jet model (which we favored in the first
752: version of this paper, before late-time data were available) is
753: completely ruled out (it requires $\alpha \geq 2.0$), as are models
754: where the optical band is above the cooling break (which requires
755: $\beta \geq 1.0$). This leaves only two possibilities. The
756: interstellar medium (ISM) model discussed previously is, in principle,
757: still in agreement (barely) with the data: for $p$ = 2.59, $\alpha$ =
758: 1.19 and $\beta$ = 0.79, all within 2$\sigma$ of observed values.
759: However this requires that the X-ray regime also be below the cooling frequency
760: ($\nu_X < \nu_c$) out to extremely late times (at least 10~d),
761: which is not expected physically in the ISM model unless the density
762: $n$ and/or the magnetization fraction $\epsilon_B$ are very low:
763: \begin{equation}
764: \left(\frac{n}{\rm cm^{-3}}\right)\left(\frac{\epsilon_B}{\rm 4 \times
765: 10^{-5}}\right)^{3/2} \lesssim 1. \nonumber
766: \end{equation}
767: \noindent Alternatively, a wind model with $p =
768: 2.0$ predicts $\alpha_{\rm opt} = 1.25$ and $\beta_{\rm opt}$ = 0.50.
769: These are reasonable, but the X-ray flux is either greatly
770: over-predicted (if a cooling break is absent, we would anticipate
771: $\beta_{\rm OX}$ = 0.50 as well), or the X-ray decay is far too fast (if a
772: cooling break is present, then $\alpha_{\rm X}$ = 1.0). Either
773: possibility is ruled out to at least 6$\sigma$.
774:
775: We therefore prefer the ISM model to favor all observations. While a
776: wind-stratified medium may be made to work with sufficient
777: enhancements (for example, the chromatic optical behavior could be
778: explained by an additional emission component, and the late-time
779: discrepancies in the optical and X-rays could be explained by evolution
780: of the cooling frequency in a way not predicted by canonical models),
781: this model is simpler as it explains all of our observations without
782: the need for such components --- with the exception of the very
783: early-time data, where standard assumptions are most expected not to hold. Our
784: conclusion here therefore disagrees with that of \cite{Kumar+2008}
785: and \cite{Racusineteveryone}, who prefer a wind-stratified model at
786: late times.
787:
788:
789: \subsection{Frequency Domain Searches}
790:
791: Given the brightness of the event, we analyzed the high time cadence
792: $\gamma$-ray, X-ray, and IR data in search of any significant trends
793: in the frequency domain. The power-density spectrum (PDS) for the {\it
794: INTEGRAL} data \citep{beckmann2008}, spanning $f = 0.03$ to $5$\,Hz,
795: is well fit by a power law with $P(f) df \propto f^{-1.8}$. This
796: index here is consistent with the $-5/3$ reported for a number of
797: bright GRBs \citep{bss98,cy00}, and is interpreted as evidence for fully
798: developed turbulence. The PDS from the {\swift} XRT data is
799: essentially (white) noise, apart from $1/f$ noise at short
800: frequencies. An analysis of the first $\sim$2 hr of PAIRITEL
801: $J$-band photometry also shows a featureless PDS aside from $1/f$
802: noise.
803:
804: \begin{figure*}[p]
805: \centerline{\psfig{file=f6.eps,width=5.5in,angle=0}}
806: \caption[] {\footnotesize Comparison between the observed $R$-band light curve of
807: \thegrb and those of other GRB afterglows, both from the pre-\swift as
808: well as the \swift era, shifted to a common redshift of $z=1$ with the
809: method of \cite{Kann2006}. The prompt flash of \thegrb is clearly
810: shown to be the most luminous optical transient ever observed with a
811: high degree of confidence. In spite of this, because of its rapid
812: early decay the afterglow at late times is quite unremarkable, and is
813: similar in this regard to the three other ``ultra-luminous''
814: bursts to date: GRBs~990123, 061007, and 050904. In contrast,
815: the bursts that remain the brightest tend to be those with late
816: plateaus and slow decays.}
817: \label{fig:z1}
818: \end{figure*}
819:
820:
821: \subsection{Energetics}
822: \label{sec:energy}
823:
824: The emission from GRB~080319B makes it one of the most energetic GRBs
825: ever detected and the most energetic thus far seen by {\swift}. A
826: preliminary analysis of Konus-Wind observations reported by
827: \citet{gam+08} yields a burst fluence of ${5.72}_{-0.13}^{+0.14}$
828: $\times 10^{-4}$~erg cm$^{-2}$ in a 20 keV to 7 MeV energy window.
829: This corresponds to a fluence of $5.31 \times 10^{-4}$~erg cm$^{-2}$
830: in the BATSE bandpass of 20~keV to 1.8~MeV, making it brighter than
831: the highest-fluence BATSE burst \citep[$4.08 \times 10^{-4}$~erg
832: cm$^{-2}$;][]{Kaneko06}. The rest-frame isotropic equivalent energy
833: release is $E_{\rm iso}= 1.3 \times 10^{54}$~erg in the standard
834: source frame $1-10^4$~keV band \citep{Amati02,Bloom01}.
835:
836: If the true collimation-corrected energy ($E_{\gamma}$) of \thegrb is
837: comparable to the median value of $E_{\gamma} = 1.33 \times
838: 10^{51}$~erg found by \citet{Bloom03}, and if we assume average values
839: for the efficiency of converting the blast wave's kinetic energy into
840: gamma rays of $\eta_{\gamma}=0.5$ and the circumburst density
841: $n=1.0$~cm$^{-3}$ \citep{Granot06,Kumar07}, then a jet break is
842: expected at $3.6 \times 10^{4}$~s post trigger. A circumburst density
843: greater than $n=1$~cm$^{-3}$ only hastens the predicted light-curve
844: break, with $n=100$~cm$^{-3}$ resulting in $t_{\rm jet} =7.8 \times
845: 10^3$~s. Likewise, a collimation-corrected energy less than
846: $E_{\gamma} = 1.3 \times 10^{51}$~erg will also push the expected jet
847: break to earlier times, with $E_{\gamma} = 10^{50}$~erg yielding
848: $t_{\rm jet} \approx 10^{3}$~s.
849:
850: No canonical jet break is observed in the GRB light curve. The only
851: unambiguous steepening feature is an X-ray break observed at $t = 2620
852: \pm 470$~s. However, no contemporaneous optical break is observed.
853: There is evidence of a break at very late times ($\gtrsim 10^6$~s).
854: Unfortunately, the afterglow is extremely faint at this point, but
855: both the last X-ray observation, the last $g$-band detection, and the
856: final {\it HST} $F606W$ measurement from the GCN circulars are
857: significantly (though only mildly: 2--3$\sigma$) below our fitted
858: power-law extrapolation. Furthermore, the fact that the afterglow
859: shifts to dramatically redder colors at this point (simultaneously,
860: $i$ and $z$ rise above the fitted curve) suggests that the optical
861: flux may be dominated by supernova light (\S 3.7; host-galaxy light likely
862: contributes as well), and the afterglow contribution is actually even
863: smaller than this, which would strongly favor a break. Unfortunately,
864: given the lack of available late-time X-ray data we cannot strongly
865: constrain whether or not the break is chromatic.
866:
867: Treating this feature as a jet break, the very late break time ($t =
868: 10$ d) imposes strong demands on the afterglow energetics. Assuming
869: $n=1$~cm$^{-3}$ and $\eta_{\gamma} = 0.5$, this places a lower limit
870: on the collimation-corrected energy of $4.0 \times 10^{51}$~erg,
871: significantly higher than any pre-\swift value \citep{Bloom03} and the
872: vast majority of \swift bursts, but comparable to the handful of
873: ``hyper-energetic'' outlier events discovered by \swift: GRBs 050904
874: \citep{Tagliaferri+2005}, 050820A \citep{Cenko+2006}, and 070125
875: \citep{Chandra+2008,Updike+2008}. The lack of an early jet break would then argue
876: that the extreme brightness of this GRB is at least partially
877: intrinsic to the explosion itself.
878:
879: Alternatively, a jet break may have occurred extremely early (within
880: the first 100~s) before the start of our observations. Such a model
881: has been suggested to explain the lack of an apparent jet break in
882: another powerful event detected by {\swift}, such as GRB~061007 ---
883: see \citealt{Schady07} and \citealt{Mundell07}). In this case,
884: $E_{\gamma}$ would actually have an unusually \emph{low}, though not
885: unprecedented, energy release of $\sim 10^{49}$~erg. One could also
886: appeal to the minor break in the X-ray light curve (and presume the
887: optical break was hidden by other effects), which would indicate a
888: fairly canonical energy near $10^{51}$ erg; either of these cases
889: would point to extreme collimation given the large $E_{\rm iso}$.
890: However, as we have already discussed, in these cases the
891: ``post-break'' light-curve slopes in the optical and X-rays of
892: $\alpha_{\rm O} = 1.23$ and $\alpha_{\rm X} = 1.40$ are much too
893: shallow for the prediction of $t^{-p}$ \citep{Sari1999}, where
894: generally we expect the electron index $p \geq 2.0$.
895:
896: A final possibility is that multiple jets, with very different opening
897: angles, were involved, similar to the model proposed for GRB 030329
898: \citep{Berger+2003}. In this scenario, we might expect to see both an
899: early break (from highly collimated, highly relativistic emission)
900: \emph{and} a late break (from less collimated, less relativistic
901: emission), presuming that the emission at different times was
902: dominated by different jet components. Assuming that the prompt
903: emission and optical flash were associated with the narrow jet, the
904: lack of a break at late times\footnote{To be sure, \citet{Racusineteveryone} claim a late-time jet break but we find no significant evidence of such in the XRT data alone. The apparent discrepancy may be due to the different time binnings of the late-time data.} need not imply unusual energetics.
905: The fact that the early-time X-ray break is very sharp, and also
906: apparently achromatic, might argue for this interpretation, and the
907: lack of a contemporaneous optical break could be explained if the
908: optical counterpart of the early X-ray shallow decay phase were hidden
909: by the bright reverse shock. This model is the one favored by
910: \cite{Racusineteveryone}.
911:
912:
913: \subsection{Supernova Constraints}
914:
915: Detailing the nature of the late-time behavior and the evolution of
916: the likely supernova counterpart is beyond the scope of this paper,
917: but we performed a few basic fits using the method of \cite{Zeh+2004}
918: of the late-times observations under various model assumptions (host
919: brightnesses, using an extrapolation of the late-time light curve and
920: a SN 1998bw-like supernova template). In all assumptions we measure a luminosity relative to SN
921: 1998bw in the same rest-frame epoch, of greater than one, with an
922: overall distribution of $k$ = $2.3 \pm 0.8$ (Figure \ref{fig:late}). In particular, the
923: existence of a late afterglow break and host galaxy with a magnitude
924: comparable to the HST measurement of \citet{Levan08_GCN7710} favor higher values,
925: which provides evidence that this unusually bright GRB may be
926: associated with an unusually bright (even compared to other GRB
927: supernovae: \citealt{Ferrero+2006}) supernova. For $s$, the relative
928: rest-frame time to maximum light relative to SN 1998bw, we measure
929: $s$ = $0.89 \pm 0.10$.
930:
931: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
932:
933: The PDS analysis reflects quantitatively what is qualitatively a light
934: curve without strong brightening features. Such ``smooth'' afterglows
935: have been seen before (e.g., \citealt{Laursen:2003p4600, Stanek2005}),
936: yet many GRBs with high-quality optical/IR afterglow observations show
937: significant jaggedness, often on timescales less than the time since
938: trigger \citepeg{Jakobsson:2004p4601}. The afterglow in this case is
939: not entirely featureless; slow modulations of less than 10\% with
940: $\Delta t / t$ are observed at around 200~s and 700~s, but these
941: have been seen before in other afterglows, including the undulating
942: afterglow of GRB 030329 \citep{Lipkin:2004p552}.
943:
944: While an observation of periodicity ($f \age 1$~Hz) in the prompt
945: phase could be considered a reasonable manifestation of a magnetized
946: neutron star powering the initial internal shocks
947: \citepeg{Metzger:2007p4684}, the absence of such a signature in the
948: {\it INTEGRAL} PDS by no means rules out such a hypothesis. The
949: concordance of the PDS with other GRBs in the pre-{\swift} sample
950: suggests, {\it prima facie}, a similarity between \thegrb and other
951: events in the hydrodynamic properties of the (emitting) outflow; also
952: absent is any substantial evidence for a difference in microphysical
953: parameters. We are left with the reasonable conclusion that the
954: extreme brightness of \thegrb has more to do with macroscopic
955: parameters of the central engine (in particular, the collimation
956: angle, $M_{\rm ejecta}$, initial Lorentz factor, and possibly the
957: circumburst medium could all be responsible) than extrema in shock
958: parameters.
959:
960: \begin{figure*}[p]
961: \centerline{\psfig{file=f7.ps,width=5.0in,angle=0}}
962: \caption[] {\small Rest-frame comparison of the most luminous
963: optical/IR probes of the distant universe, showing the absolute
964: magnitude ($M_r$, in AB magnitudes as defined by \citealt{oke82})
965: versus time of \thegrb (red circles) and SN\,2006gy (blue triangles;
966: \citealt{Smith:2007p532}). Transformed light curves of GRB\,990123
967: (yellow stars; adapted from \citealt{gbw+99}) and GRB\,050904 (green
968: squares; adapted from \citealt{Kann:2007p133}) are also shown. For
969: reference, the most luminous known QSO \citep{Schneider:2007p4602} is
970: shown with a dashed horizontal line; the distribution of SDSS QSO
971: magnitudes, adapted from Fig.\ 6 of \citeauthor{Schneider:2007p4602},
972: is shown as horizontal banding (darker indicates higher density of
973: sources per unit magnitude). The afterglow of \thegrb was the
974: brightest GRB afterglow ever recorded and was at early times
975: $\sim$10$^{3}$ times more luminous than the most luminous QSO.}
976: \label{fig:vsqso}
977: \end{figure*}
978:
979: There is a qualitative similarity in the intrinsic behavior of the
980: three brightest afterglow events (Fig.\ \ref{fig:z1}), requiring more
981: than 9~s in the rest frame from $\gamma$-ray trigger to reach peak
982: brightness. Yet, as noted with GRBs 050904 and 990123
983: \citep{Kann:2006p3171}, even the brightest events fade very rapidly
984: and reach by day 1 a magnitude comparable to that of the general
985: population. In our adopted cosmology, $M_{{\rm peak},r} = -38.3$ mag
986: at a time $t \approx 10$ s (rest frame) from trigger. Likewise, $M_{{\rm
987: peak},r} (990123) = -36.0$ mag at a time $t=18.1$ s and $M_{{\rm
988: peak},r} (050904) = -37.1$ mag at a time $t=71.2$ s. Compared to GRBs
989: 990123 and 050904, \thegrb does not appear to support the proposed
990: brightness vs. $t_{\rm peak}$ relation \citep{Panaitescu:2008p3168}
991: (i.e., that brighter events are seen to take longer from trigger to
992: peak); still, the existence of a rough relation when including fainter events suggests that the very
993: brightest events such as these may allow for the longest follow-up delay at a given
994: redshift. This afterglow ``turn on'' delay for some fraction of events has
995: important implications for follow-up of high-redshift GRBs since tens
996: of seconds in the rest frame becomes a delay of minutes in the
997: observer frame (Fig.\ \ref{fig:z15}). Such a consideration, for
998: example, could relax requirements for extremely rapid repointing of
999: satellites to catch afterglows at their brightest.
1000:
1001: Figure \ref{fig:vsqso} shows the comparison between GRB\,080319B,
1002: quasars, and one of the most energetic supernova recorded (SN~2006gy;
1003: \citealt{Smith:2007p532}). While evolutionary effects in all three
1004: populations are sure to be important at some level (with QSOs fainter
1005: at higher redshift, etc.), in the context of probing the high-redshift
1006: universe, the overall impression is clear: for $\sim$30 min in the
1007: rest frame (what would be $\sim4$~hr in the observer frame at $z=7$), GRB
1008: 080319b would have been brighter than the brightest known QSO in the universe (see also \citealt{2001grba.conf..191L,Kann2006} for a discussion comparison of the GRB population with QSOs).
1009:
1010: We now turn our attention to {\em detectability} of such GRBs at high
1011: redshift (leaving aside the question of their {\em existence}; see,
1012: e.g., \citealt{BrommLoebReview,Naoz+2007}). Given the observed light
1013: curve and intrinsic spectrum of this burst ($\S$ 2), to what redshift
1014: could similar events be detected by present and future missions? The
1015: peak photon flux from GRB~080319B in 1~s is $\sim 1 \times
1016: 10^{59}$~photons s$^{-1}$. For a BAT threshold flux of 0.8 photons
1017: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for $E_{\rm pk,obs} \gtrsim 100$~keV
1018: \citep{band03}, the event would be detected out to $z=10.7$
1019: ($8\sigma$). For the nominal EXIST \citep{2007AIPC..921..211G}
1020: threshold of $0.2$~photons~cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, the event would be
1021: detected out to $z=32$. The ability to detect an afterglow for an
1022: extreme event of this nature is even more remarkable because of
1023: time-dilation effects --- shifted to $z \approx 32$ or potentially
1024: even further, the afterglow luminosity at late times is nearly
1025: independent of distance at high redshift. Aside from the effects of
1026: line-of-sight absorption by neutral hydrodgen, \thegrb would remain visible even if placed well into the
1027: epoch of reionization (Fig.\ \ref{fig:z15}).
1028:
1029:
1030: \begin{figure*}[p]
1031: \centerline{\psfig{file=f8.ps,width=5.0in,angle=0}}
1032: \caption[] {\small
1033: Observability of \thegrb in observer-frame $K$ band at a variety of
1034: redshifts, based on a simple model of the temporal and spectral
1035: evolution of the afterglow bootstrapped from the $V$-band light curve.
1036: Dotted lines cover the gap in optical ($V$-band) coverage. The
1037: afterglow, which would have been as bright as Vega if the event
1038: occurred at $z=0.40$, remains remarkably bright even to $z \approx
1039: 16$. The purple filled circles show the observed $K$-band light curve
1040: from this paper, showing a good agreement with the model of the
1041: $z = 0.937$ (purple) curve (suggesting, too, that the interpolation in the V-band time gap is appropriate). The PAIRITEL cumulative 10$\sigma$
1042: point-source sensitivity is shown, assuming a nominal start time after
1043: GRB trigger of 51~s. For all redshifts where the Universe is
1044: transparent to Ly$\alpha$ photons, this source could have easily been
1045: detected by sub-meter class telescopes.}
1046: \label{fig:z15}
1047: \end{figure*}
1048:
1049: We conclude with a rumination on the extrapolation of the features of
1050: the afterglow toward the low-redshift universe. At $z=0.17$, the
1051: distance of the nearest non-underluminous GRB to date (GRB
1052: 030329), this event would peak at $R \approx 1$ mag, nearly as bright as
1053: the brightest stars in the sky. Or, to carry the comparison to its
1054: greatest extreme, we might envision a situation in which a GRB similar
1055: to \thegrb were to occur in our own Galaxy. At a distance of 1 kpc
1056: (and neglecting the probable substantial extinction along Galactic
1057: lines of sight at optical wavelengths), the optical flash would peak
1058: at magnitude about $-28.5$, several times the brightness of the Sun!
1059: Such an event must assuredly be extremely unusual --- the Galactic GRB
1060: rate is probably no greater than 1 per $10^5$ to $10^6$ years
1061: (\citealt{Posiadlowski2004}; see also \citealt{Stanek2006}), likely
1062: only 1\% of such bursts are collimated toward Earth, and this is
1063: among the brightest 0.1\% of bursts ever observed. Altogether, the
1064: rate is probably less than 1 per $10^{10}-10^{11}$ yr: unlikely to
1065: have ever happened even over the long timescale of geological history,
1066: and certainly not a spectacle we can expect to witness anytime soon.
1067:
1068: \acknowledgements
1069:
1070: Much of this research could not have been undertaken without the work
1071: of S. Barthelmy running the GCN Circulars and the {\swift} team for
1072: their extraordinary efforts. N.R.B. was partially supported by a
1073: SciDAC grant from the Department of Energy. J.S.B., J.X.P., and
1074: H.-W.C. are partially supported by NASA/{\swift} grant \#NNG05GF55G.
1075: A.V.F.'s group at U.C. Berkeley is supported by National Science
1076: Foundation (NSF) grant AST--0607485 and the TABASGO Foundation, as
1077: well as by NASA/{\swift} Guest Investigator grants \#NNG05GF35G and
1078: \#NNG06GI86G. S.L. was partly supported by the Chilean {\sl Centro de Astrof\'\i sica}
1079: FONDAP No. 15010003 and by FONDECYT grant N$^{\rm o}1060823$. We thank J.\ Brewer of the IFMD Foundation. This
1080: publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky
1081: Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts
1082: and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute
1083: of Technology, funded by NASA and the NSF. KAIT and its ongoing
1084: research were made possible by donations from Sun Microsystems, Inc.,
1085: the Hewlett-Packard Company, AutoScope Corporation, Lick Observatory,
1086: the NSF, the University of California, the Sylvia \& Jim Katzman
1087: Foundation, and the TABASGO Foundation. Partially, based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the
1088: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement
1089: with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United
1090: States), the Science and Technology Facilities Council (United Kingdom), the
1091: National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council
1092: (Australia), Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia (Brazil) and SECYT (Argentina). We thank the
1093: Gemini Observatory staff for their excellent work in observing
1094: GRB\,080319B; the assistance of the Lick Observatory staff is also
1095: acknowledged. The Peters Automated Infrared Imaging Telescope is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) and was made possible by a grant from the Harvard University Milton Fund, the camera loan from the University of Virginia, and the continued support of the SAO and UC Berkeley. The PAIRITEL project is further supported by NASA/Swift Guest Investigator Grant \#NNG06GH50G. We are grateful to E.\ E.\ Falco and the Mt.\ Hopkins staff (W.~Peters, R.\ Hutchins, T.\ Groner) for their continued assistance with PAIRITEL.
1096:
1097: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
1098: %\bibliography{080319b}
1099: \begin{thebibliography}{91}
1100: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1101:
1102: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2008){Adelman-McCarthy}, {Ag{\"u}eros},
1103: {Allam}, {Allende Prieto}, {Anderson}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall},
1104: {Bailer-Jones}, {Baldry}, {Barentine}, {Bassett}, {Becker}, {Beers}, {Bell},
1105: {Berlind}, {Bernardi}, {Blanton}, {Bochanski}, {Boroski}, {Brinchmann},
1106: {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Carliles}, {Carr}, {Castander},
1107: {Cinabro}, {Cool}, {Covey}, {Csabai}, {Cunha}, {Davenport}, {Dilday}, {Doi},
1108: {Eisenstein}, {Evans}, {Fan}, {Finkbeiner}, {Friedman}, {Frieman},
1109: {Fukugita}, {G{\"a}nsicke}, {Gates}, {Gillespie}, {Glazebrook}, {Gray},
1110: {Grebel}, {Gunn}, {Gurbani}, {Hall}, {Harding}, {Harvanek}, {Hawley},
1111: {Hayes}, {Heckman}, {Hendry}, {Hindsley}, {Hirata}, {Hogan}, {Hogg}, {Hyde},
1112: {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Jester}, {Johnson}, {Jorgensen}, {Juri{\'c}},
1113: {Kent}, {Kessler}, {Kleinman}, {Knapp}, {Kron}, {Krzesinski}, {Kuropatkin},
1114: {Lamb}, {Lampeitl}, {Lebedeva}, {Lee}, {Leger}, {L{\'e}pine}, {Lima}, {Lin},
1115: {Long}, {Loomis}, {Loveday}, {Lupton}, {Malanushenko}, {Malanushenko},
1116: {Mandelbaum}, {Margon}, {Marriner}, {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado}, {Matsubara},
1117: {McGehee}, {McKay}, {Meiksin}, {Morrison}, {Munn}, {Nakajima}, {Neilsen},
1118: {Newberg}, {Nichol}, {Nicinski}, {Nieto-Santisteban}, {Nitta}, {Okamura},
1119: {Owen}, {Oyaizu}, {Padmanabhan}, {Pan}, {Park}, {Peoples}, {Pier}, {Pope},
1120: {Purger}, {Raddick}, {Re Fiorentin}, {Richards}, {Richmond}, {Riess}, {Rix},
1121: {Rockosi}, {Sako}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Schreiber}, {Schwope}, {Seljak},
1122: {Sesar}, {Sheldon}, {Shimasaku}, {Sivarani}, {Smith}, {Snedden}, {Steinmetz},
1123: {Strauss}, {SubbaRao}, {Suto}, {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Szkody}, {Tegmark},
1124: {Thakar}, {Tremonti}, {Tucker}, {Uomoto}, {Vanden Berk}, {Vandenberg},
1125: {Vidrih}, {Vogeley}, {Voges}, {Vogt}, {Wadadekar}, {Weinberg}, {West},
1126: {White}, {Wilhite}, {Yanny}, {Yocum}, {York}, {Zehavi}, \& {Zucker}}]{DR6}
1127: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K. {\it et al.} 2008, \apjs, 175, 297
1128:
1129: \bibitem[{{Amati} {et~al.}(2002){Amati}, {Frontera}, {Tavani}, {in't Zand},
1130: {Antonelli}, {Costa}, {Feroci}, {Guidorzi}, {Heise}, {Masetti}, {Montanari},
1131: {Nicastro}, {Palazzi}, {Pian}, {Piro}, \& {Soffitta}}]{Amati02}
1132: {Amati}, L. {\it et al.} 2002, \aap, 390, 81
1133:
1134: \bibitem[{{Band}(2003)}]{band03}
1135: {Band}, D.~L. 2003, \apj, 588, 945
1136:
1137: \bibitem[{{Beckmann} {et~al.}(2008){Beckmann}, {Mereghetti}, {Kienlin}, {Beck},
1138: {Savchenko}, {Borkowski}, \& {Gotz}}]{beckmann2008}
1139: {Beckmann}, V., {Mereghetti}, S., {Kienlin}, A.~v., {Beck}, M., {Savchenko},
1140: V., {Borkowski}, J., and {Gotz}, D. 2008, {GCN Circular} 7450
1141:
1142: \bibitem[{{Beloborodov} {et~al.}(1998){Beloborodov}, {Stern}, \&
1143: {Svensson}}]{bss98}
1144: {Beloborodov}, A.~M., {Stern}, B.~E., and {Svensson}, R. 1998, \apjl, 508, L25
1145:
1146: \bibitem[{{Berger} {et~al.}(2003){Berger}, {Kulkarni}, {Pooley}, {Frail},
1147: {McIntyre}, {Wark}, {Sari}, {Soderberg}, {Fox}, {Yost}, \&
1148: {Price}}]{Berger+2003}
1149: {Berger}, E. {\it et al.} 2003, \nat, 426, 154
1150:
1151: \bibitem[{{Bertin} \& {Arnouts}(1996)}]{SExtractor}
1152: {Bertin}, E. and {Arnouts}, S. 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
1153:
1154: \bibitem[{{Beuermann} {et~al.}(1999){Beuermann}, {Hessman}, {Reinsch},
1155: {Nicklas}, {Vreeswijk}, {Galama}, {Rol}, {van Paradijs}, {Kouveliotou},
1156: {Frontera}, {Masetti}, {Palazzi}, \& {Pian}}]{Beuermann+1999}
1157: {Beuermann}, K. {\it et al.} 1999, \aap, 352, L26
1158:
1159: \bibitem[{{Bloom} {et~al.}(2003){Bloom}, {Frail}, \& {Kulkarni}}]{Bloom03}
1160: {Bloom}, J.~S., {Frail}, D.~A., and {Kulkarni}, S.~R. 2003, \apj, 594, 674
1161:
1162: \bibitem[{{Bloom} {et~al.}(2001){Bloom}, {Frail}, \& {Sari}}]{Bloom01}
1163: {Bloom}, J.~S., {Frail}, D.~A., and {Sari}, R. 2001, \aj, 121, 2879
1164:
1165: \bibitem[{{Bloom} {et~al.}(2008){Bloom}, {Starr}, \& {Perley}}]{bsp08}
1166: {Bloom}, J.~S., {Starr}, D., and {Perley}, D.~A. 2008, {GCN Circular} 7434
1167:
1168: \bibitem[{{Bloom} {et~al.}(2006){Bloom}, {Starr}, {Blake}, {Skrutskie}, \&
1169: {Falco}}]{Bloom:2006p4665}
1170: {Bloom}, J.~S., {Starr}, D.~L., {Blake}, C.~H., {Skrutskie}, M.~F., and
1171: {Falco}, E.~E. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference
1172: Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed.
1173: C.~{Gabriel}, C.~{Arviset}, D.~{Ponz}, \& S.~{Enrique}, 751
1174:
1175: \bibitem[{{Bromm} \& {Loeb}(2007)}]{BrommLoebReview}
1176: {Bromm}, V. and {Loeb}, A. 2007, in American Institute of Physics Conference
1177: Series, Vol. 937, Supernova 1987A: 20 Years After: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray
1178: Bursters, ed. S.~{Immler}, K.~{Weiler}, \& R.~{McCray}, 532--541
1179:
1180: \bibitem[{{Butler}(2008)}]{but08}
1181: {Butler}, N. 2008, {GCN Circular} 7499
1182:
1183: \bibitem[{{Butler} \& {Kocevski}(2007{\natexlab{a}})}]{Butler:2007p4519}
1184: {Butler}, N.~R. and {Kocevski}, D. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 663, 407
1185:
1186: \bibitem[{{Butler} \& {Kocevski}(2007{\natexlab{b}})}]{bnk07b}
1187: ---. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 668, 400
1188:
1189: \bibitem[{{Butler} {et~al.}(2007){Butler}, {Kocevski}, {Bloom}, \&
1190: {Curtis}}]{Butler:2007p4518}
1191: {Butler}, N.~R., {Kocevski}, D., {Bloom}, J.~S., and {Curtis}, J.~L. 2007,
1192: \apj, 671, 656
1193:
1194: \bibitem[{{Cenko} {et~al.}(2006){Cenko}, {Kasliwal}, {Harrison}, {Pal'shin},
1195: {Frail}, {Cameron}, {Berger}, {Fox}, {Gal-Yam}, {Kulkarni}, {Moon}, {Nakar},
1196: {Ofek}, {Penprase}, {Price}, {Sari}, {Schmidt}, {Soderberg}, {Aptekar},
1197: {Frederiks}, {Golenetskii}, {Burrows}, {Chevalier}, {Gehrels}, {McCarthy},
1198: {Nousek}, \& {Piran}}]{Cenko+2006}
1199: {Cenko}, S.~B. {\it et al.} 2006, \apj, 652, 490
1200:
1201: \bibitem[{{Chandra} {et~al.}(2008){Chandra}, {Cenko}, {Frail}, {Chevalier},
1202: {Macquart}, {Kulkarni}, {Bock}, {Bertoldi}, {Kasliwal}, {Fox}, {Price},
1203: {Berger}, {Soderberg}, {Harrison}, {Gal-Yam}, {Ofek}, {Rau}, {Schmidt},
1204: {Cameron}, {Cowie}, {Cowie}, {Dopita}, {Peterson}, \&
1205: {Penprase}}]{Chandra+2008}
1206: {Chandra}, P. {\it et al.} 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 0802.2748
1207:
1208: \bibitem[{{Chang} \& {Yi}(2000)}]{cy00}
1209: {Chang}, H.-Y. and {Yi}, I. 2000, \apjl, 542, L17
1210:
1211: \bibitem[{{Cool} {et~al.}(2008){Cool}, {Eisenstein}, {Hogg}, {Blanton},
1212: {Schlegel}, {Brinkmann}, {Lamb}, {Schneider}, \& {Berk}}]{ceh+08}
1213: {Cool}, R.~J. {\it et al.} 2008, {GCN Circular} 7465
1214:
1215: \bibitem[{{Covino} {et~al.}(2008){Covino}, {D'Avanzo}, {Fugazza}, {Antonelli},
1216: {Calzoletti}, {Campana}, {Chincarini}, {Conciatore}, {Cutini}, {D'Elia},
1217: {D'Alessio}, {Fiore}, {Goldoni}, {Guetta}, {Guidorzi}, {Israel}, {Maiorano},
1218: {Masetti}, {Melandri}, {Meurs}, {Nicastro}, {Palazzi}, {Pian}, {Piranomonte},
1219: {Stella}, {Stratta}, {Tagliaferri}, {Tosti}, {Testa}, {Vergani}, \&
1220: {Vitali}}]{Covino08_GCN7446}
1221: {Covino}, S. {\it et al.} 2008, {GCN Circular} 7446
1222:
1223: \bibitem[{{Cwiok} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}}){Cwiok}, {Dominik}, {Kasprowicz},
1224: {Majcher}, {Majczyna}, {Malek}, {Mankiewicz}, {Molak}, {Nawrocki},
1225: {Piotrowski}, {Rybka}, {Sokolowski}, {Uzycki}, {Wrochna}, \&
1226: {Zarnecki}}]{Cwiok08_GCN7445}
1227: {Cwiok}, M. {\it et al.} 2008{\natexlab{a}}, {GCN Circular} 7445
1228:
1229: \bibitem[{{Cwiok} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}}){Cwiok}, {Dominik}, {Kasprowicz},
1230: {Majcher}, {Majczyna}, {Malek}, {Mankiewicz}, {Molak}, {Nawrocki},
1231: {Piotrowski}, {Rybka}, {Sokolowski}, {Uzycki}, {Wrochna}, \&
1232: {Zarnecki}}]{Foley08}
1233: ---. 2008{\natexlab{b}}, {GCN Circular} 7445
1234:
1235: \bibitem[{{Daigne} {et~al.}(2006){Daigne}, {Rossi}, \&
1236: {Mochkovitch}}]{2006MNRAS.372.1034D}
1237: {Daigne}, F., {Rossi}, E.~M., and {Mochkovitch}, R. 2006, \mnras, 372, 1034
1238:
1239: \bibitem[{{Eisner} {et~al.}(2007){Eisner}, {Hillenbrand}, {White}, {Bloom},
1240: {Akeson}, \& {Blake}}]{2007ApJ...669.1072E}
1241: {Eisner}, J.~A., {Hillenbrand}, L.~A., {White}, R.~J., {Bloom}, J.~S.,
1242: {Akeson}, R.~L., and {Blake}, C.~H. 2007, \apj, 669, 1072
1243:
1244: \bibitem[{{Ferrero} {et~al.}(2006){Ferrero}, {Kann}, {Zeh}, {Klose}, {Pian},
1245: {Palazzi}, {Masetti}, {Hartmann}, {Sollerman}, {Deng}, {Filippenko},
1246: {Greiner}, {Hughes}, {Mazzali}, {Li}, {Rol}, {Smith}, \&
1247: {Tanvir}}]{Ferrero+2006}
1248: {Ferrero}, P. {\it et al.} 2006, \aap, 457, 857
1249:
1250: \bibitem[{{Filippenko} {et~al.}(2001){Filippenko}, {Li}, {Treffers}, \&
1251: {Modjaz}}]{Filippenko2001}
1252: {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Li}, W.~D., {Treffers}, R.~R., and {Modjaz}, M. 2001, in
1253: Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 246, IAU Colloq.
1254: 183: Small Telescope Astronomy on Global Scales, ed. B.~{Paczynski}, W.-P.
1255: {Chen}, \& C.~{Lemme} ({San Francisco, CA}: {ASP}), 121
1256:
1257: \bibitem[{{Foley} {et~al.}(2006){Foley}, {Perley}, {Pooley}, {Prochaska},
1258: {Bloom}, {Li}, {Cobb}, {Chen}, {Aldering}, {Bailyn}, {Blake}, {Falco},
1259: {Green}, {Kowalski}, {Perlmutter}, {Roth}, \& {Volk}}]{Foley06}
1260: {Foley}, R.~J. {\it et al.} 2006, \apj, 645, 450
1261:
1262: \bibitem[{{Galama} {et~al.}(1999){Galama}, {Briggs}, {Wijers}, {Vreeswijk},
1263: {Rol}, {Band}, {Paradijs}, {Kouveliotou}, {Preece}, {Bremer}, {Smith},
1264: {Tilanus}, {Bruyn}, {Strom}, {Pooley}, {Castro-Tirado}, {Tanvir}, {Robinson},
1265: {Hurley}, {Heise}, {Telting}, {Rutten}, {Packham}, {Swaters}, {Davies},
1266: {Fassia}, {Green}, {Foster}, {Sagar}, {Pandey}, {Nilakshi}, {Yadav}, {Ofek},
1267: {Leibowitz}, {Ibbetson}, {Rhoads}, {Falco}, {Petry}, {Impey}, {Geballe}, \&
1268: {Bhattacharya}}]{gbw+99}
1269: {Galama}, T.~J. {\it et al.} 1999, \nat, 398, 394
1270:
1271: \bibitem[{{Gehrels} {et~al.}(2004){Gehrels}, {Chincarini}, {Giommi}, {Mason},
1272: {Nousek}, {Wells}, {White}, {Barthelmy}, {Burrows}, {Cominsky}, {Hurley},
1273: {Marshall}, {M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros}, {Roming}, {Angelini}, {Barbier}, {Belloni},
1274: {Campana}, {Caraveo}, {Chester}, {Citterio}, {Cline}, {Cropper}, {Cummings},
1275: {Dean}, {Feigelson}, {Fenimore}, {Frail}, {Fruchter}, {Garmire}, {Gendreau},
1276: {Ghisellini}, {Greiner}, {Hill}, {Hunsberger}, {Krimm}, {Kulkarni}, {Kumar},
1277: {Lebrun}, {Lloyd-Ronning}, {Markwardt}, {Mattson}, {Mushotzky}, {Norris},
1278: {Osborne}, {Paczynski}, {Palmer}, {Park}, {Parsons}, {Paul}, {Rees},
1279: {Reynolds}, {Rhoads}, {Sasseen}, {Schaefer}, {Short}, {Smale}, {Smith},
1280: {Stella}, {Tagliaferri}, {Takahashi}, {Tashiro}, {Townsley}, {Tueller},
1281: {Turner}, {Vietri}, {Voges}, {Ward}, {Willingale}, {Zerbi}, \&
1282: {Zhang}}]{Gehrels:2004p672}
1283: {Gehrels}, N. {\it et al.} 2004, \apj, 611, 1005
1284:
1285: \bibitem[{{Giblin} {et~al.}(1999){Giblin}, {van Paradijs}, {Kouveliotou},
1286: {Connaughton}, {Wijers}, {Briggs}, {Preece}, \& {Fishman}}]{Giblin99}
1287: {Giblin}, T.~W., {van Paradijs}, J., {Kouveliotou}, C., {Connaughton}, V.,
1288: {Wijers}, R.~A.~M.~J., {Briggs}, M.~S., {Preece}, R.~D., and {Fishman}, G.~J.
1289: 1999, \apjl, 524, L47
1290:
1291: \bibitem[{{Golenetskii} {et~al.}(2008){Golenetskii}, {Aptekar}, {Mazets},
1292: {Pal'shin}, {Frederiks}, \& {Cline}}]{gam+08}
1293: {Golenetskii}, S., {Aptekar}, R., {Mazets}, E., {Pal'shin}, V., {Frederiks},
1294: D., and {Cline}, T. 2008, {GCN Circular} 7482
1295:
1296: \bibitem[{{Granot} \& {Kumar}(2006)}]{Granot06}
1297: {Granot}, J. and {Kumar}, P. 2006, \mnras, 366, L13
1298:
1299: \bibitem[{{Grindlay}(2007)}]{2007AIPC..921..211G}
1300: {Grindlay}, J.~E. 2007, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series,
1301: Vol. 921, The First GLAST Symposium, ed. S.~{Ritz}, P.~{Michelson}, \& C.~A.
1302: {Meegan} ({New York, NY}: {AIP}), 211--216
1303:
1304: \bibitem[{{Henden}(2008)}]{Henden08_GCN7528}
1305: {Henden}, A. 2008, {GCN Circular} 7528
1306:
1307: \bibitem[{{Hentunen} {et~al.}(2008){Hentunen}, {Oksanen}, \&
1308: {Kehusmaa}}]{Hentunen08_GCN7484}
1309: {Hentunen}, V., {Oksanen}, A., and {Kehusmaa}, P. 2008, {GCN Circular} 7484
1310:
1311: \bibitem[{{Hook} {et~al.}(2004){Hook}, {J{\o}rgensen}, {Allington-Smith},
1312: {Davies}, {Metcalfe}, {Murowinski}, \& {Crampton}}]{Hook04}
1313: {Hook}, I.~M., {J{\o}rgensen}, I., {Allington-Smith}, J.~R., {Davies}, R.~L.,
1314: {Metcalfe}, N., {Murowinski}, R.~G., and {Crampton}, D. 2004, \pasp, 116, 425
1315:
1316: \bibitem[{{Horne}(1986)}]{Horne86}
1317: {Horne}, K. 1986, \pasp, 98, 609
1318:
1319: \bibitem[{{Jakobsson} {et~al.}(2004){Jakobsson}, {Hjorth}, {Ramirez-Ruiz},
1320: {Kouveliotou}, {Pedersen}, {Fynbo}, {Gorosabel}, {Watson}, {Jensen}, {Grav},
1321: {Hansen}, {Michelsen}, {Andersen}, {Weidinger}, \&
1322: {Pedersen}}]{Jakobsson:2004p4601}
1323: {Jakobsson}, P. {\it et al.} 2004, New Astronomy, 9, 435
1324:
1325: \bibitem[{{Jakobsson} {et~al.}(2006){Jakobsson}, {Levan}, {Fynbo}, {Priddey},
1326: {Hjorth}, {Tanvir}, {Watson}, {Jensen}, {Sollerman}, {Natarajan},
1327: {Gorosabel}, {Castro Cer{\'o}n}, {Pedersen}, {Pursimo}, {{\'A}rnad{\'o}ttir},
1328: {Castro-Tirado}, {Davis}, {Deeg}, {Fiuza}, {Mykolaitis}, \&
1329: {Sousa}}]{2006A&A...447..897J}
1330: ---. 2006, \aap, 447, 897
1331:
1332: \bibitem[{{Jelinek} {et~al.}(2008){Jelinek}, {Castro-Tirado}, {Chantry}, \&
1333: {Pl{\'a}}}]{Jelinek08_GCN7476}
1334: {Jelinek}, M., {Castro-Tirado}, A.~J., {Chantry}, V., and {Pl{\'a}}, J. 2008,
1335: {GCN Circular} 7476
1336:
1337: \bibitem[{{Kaneko} {et~al.}(2006){Kaneko}, {Preece}, {Briggs}, {Paciesas},
1338: {Meegan}, \& {Band}}]{Kaneko06}
1339: {Kaneko}, Y., {Preece}, R.~D., {Briggs}, M.~S., {Paciesas}, W.~S., {Meegan},
1340: C.~A., and {Band}, D.~L. 2006, \apjs, 166, 298
1341:
1342: \bibitem[{{Kann} {et~al.}(2006){Kann}, {Klose}, \& {Zeh}}]{Kann2006}
1343: {Kann}, D.~A., {Klose}, S., and {Zeh}, A. 2006, \apj, 641, 993
1344:
1345: \bibitem[{{Kann} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Kann}, {Klose}, {Zhang},
1346: {Malesani}, {Nakar}, {Wilson}, {Butler}, {Antonelli}, {Chincarini}, {Cobb},
1347: {Covino}, {D'Avanzo}, {D'Elia}, {Della Valle}, {Ferrero}, {Fugazza},
1348: {Gorosabel}, {Israel}, {Mannucci}, {Piranomonte}, {Schulze}, {Stella},
1349: {Tagliaferri}, \& {Wiersema}}]{Kann:2006p3171}
1350: {Kann}, D.~A. {\it et al.} 2007{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv e-prints, 0712.2186
1351:
1352: \bibitem[{{Kann} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Kann}, {Masetti}, \&
1353: {Klose}}]{Kann:2007p133}
1354: {Kann}, D.~A., {Masetti}, N., and {Klose}, S. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 133,
1355: 1187
1356:
1357: \bibitem[{{Karpov} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}}){Karpov}, {Beskin}, {Bondar},
1358: {Bartolini}, {Greco}, {Guarnieri}, {Nanni}, {Piccioni}, {Terra}, {Molinari},
1359: {Chincarini}, {Zerbi}, {Covino}, {Testa}, {Tosti}, {Vitali}, {Antonelli},
1360: {Conconi}, {Cutispoto}, {Malaspina}, {Nicastro}, {Palazzi}, {Meurs}, \&
1361: {Goldoni}}]{Karpov08_GCN7452}
1362: {Karpov}, S. {\it et al.} 2008{\natexlab{a}}, {GCN Circular} 7452
1363:
1364: \bibitem[{{Karpov} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}}){Karpov}, {Beskin}, {Bondar},
1365: {Bartolini}, {Greco}, {Guarnieri}, {Piccioni}, {Nanni}, {Terra}, {Molinari},
1366: {Chincarini}, {Zerbi}, {Covino}, {Testa}, {Tosti}, {Vitali}, {Antonelli},
1367: {Conconi}, {Cutispoto}, {Malaspina}, {Nicastro}, {Palazzi}, {Meurs}, \&
1368: {Goldoni}}]{Karpov08_GCN7558}
1369: ---. 2008{\natexlab{b}}, {GCN Circular} 7558
1370:
1371: \bibitem[{{Kobayashi}(2000)}]{Kobayashi2000}
1372: {Kobayashi}, S. 2000, \apj, 545, 807
1373:
1374: \bibitem[{{Krugly} {et~al.}(2008){Krugly}, {Slyusarev}, \&
1375: {Pozanenko}}]{Krugly08_GCN7519}
1376: {Krugly}, Y., {Slyusarev}, I., and {Pozanenko}, A. 2008, {GCN Circular} 7519
1377:
1378: \bibitem[{{Kumar} {et~al.}(2007){Kumar}, {McMahon}, {Panaitescu}, {Willingale},
1379: {O'Brien}, {Burrows}, {Cummings}, {Gehrels}, {Holland}, {Pandey}, {vanden
1380: Berk}, \& {Zane}}]{Kumar07}
1381: {Kumar}, P. {\it et al.} 2007, \mnras, 376, L57
1382:
1383: \bibitem[{{Kumar} \& {Panaitescu}(2008)}]{Kumar+2008}
1384: {Kumar}, P. and {Panaitescu}, A. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 0805.0144
1385:
1386: \bibitem[{{Laursen} \& {Stanek}(2003)}]{Laursen:2003p4600}
1387: {Laursen}, L.~T. and {Stanek}, K.~Z. 2003, \apjl, 597, L107
1388:
1389: \bibitem[{{Lazzati} {et~al.}(2001){Lazzati}, {Ghisellini}, {Haardt}, \&
1390: {Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto}}]{2001grba.conf..191L}
1391: {Lazzati}, D., {Ghisellini}, G., {Haardt}, F., and {Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto}, A.
1392: 2001, in Gamma-ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era, ed. E.~{Costa},
1393: F.~{Frontera}, \& J.~{Hjorth}, 191
1394:
1395: \bibitem[{{Le} \& {Dermer}(2007)}]{2007ApJ...661..394L}
1396: {Le}, T. and {Dermer}, C.~D. 2007, \apj, 661, 394
1397:
1398: \bibitem[{{Levan} {et~al.}(2008){Levan}, {Tanvir}, {Fruchter}, \&
1399: {Graham}}]{Levan08_GCN7710}
1400: {Levan}, A.~J., {Tanvir}, N.~R., {Fruchter}, A.~S., and {Graham}, J. 2008, {GCN
1401: Circular} 7710
1402:
1403: \bibitem[{{Li} {et~al.}(2008){Li}, {Chornock}, {Perley}, \&
1404: {Filippenko}}]{Li08_GCN7438}
1405: {Li}, W., {Chornock}, R., {Perley}, D.~A., and {Filippenko}, A.~V. 2008, {GCN
1406: Circular} 7438
1407:
1408: \bibitem[{{Li} {et~al.}(2003){Li}, {Filippenko}, {Chornock}, \&
1409: {Jha}}]{Li:2003p703}
1410: {Li}, W., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Chornock}, R., and {Jha}, S. 2003, \pasp, 115,
1411: 844
1412:
1413: \bibitem[{{Li} {et~al.}(2006){Li}, {Jha}, {Filippenko}, {Bloom}, {Pooley},
1414: {Foley}, \& {Perley}}]{Li:2006p4490}
1415: {Li}, W., {Jha}, S., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Bloom}, J.~S., {Pooley}, D.,
1416: {Foley}, R.~J., and {Perley}, D.~A. 2006, \pasp, 118, 37
1417:
1418: \bibitem[{{Li} \& {Chevalier}(2003)}]{LiChevalier2003}
1419: {Li}, Z.-Y. and {Chevalier}, R.~A. 2003, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin
1420: Springer Verlag, Vol. 598, Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed.
1421: K.~{Weiler}, 419--444
1422:
1423: \bibitem[{{Lipkin} {et~al.}(2004){Lipkin}, {Ofek}, {Gal-Yam}, {Leibowitz},
1424: {Poznanski}, {Kaspi}, {Polishook}, {Kulkarni}, {Fox}, {Berger}, {Mirabal},
1425: {Halpern}, {Bureau}, {Fathi}, {Price}, {Peterson}, {Frebel}, {Schmidt},
1426: {Orosz}, {Fitzgerald}, {Bloom}, {van Dokkum}, {Bailyn}, {Buxton}, \&
1427: {Barsony}}]{Lipkin:2004p552}
1428: {Lipkin}, Y.~M. {\it et al.} 2004, \apj, 606, 381
1429:
1430: \bibitem[{{Metzger} {et~al.}(2008){Metzger}, {Thompson}, \&
1431: {Quataert}}]{Metzger:2007p4684}
1432: {Metzger}, B.~D., {Thompson}, T.~A., and {Quataert}, E. 2008, \apj, 676, 1130
1433:
1434: \bibitem[{{Mundell} {et~al.}(2007){Mundell}, {Melandri}, {Guidorzi},
1435: {Kobayashi}, {Steele}, {Malesani}, {Amati}, {D'Avanzo}, {Bersier}, {Gomboc},
1436: {Rol}, {Bode}, {Carter}, {Mottram}, {Monfardini}, {Smith}, {Malhotra},
1437: {Wang}, {Bannister}, {O'Brien}, \& {Tanvir}}]{Mundell07}
1438: {Mundell}, C.~G. {\it et al.} 2007, \apj, 660, 489
1439:
1440: \bibitem[{{Naoz} \& {Bromberg}(2007)}]{Naoz+2007}
1441: {Naoz}, S. and {Bromberg}, O. 2007, \mnras, 380, 757
1442:
1443: \bibitem[{{Novak}(2008)}]{Novak08_GCN7504}
1444: {Novak}, R. 2008, {GCN Circular} 7504
1445:
1446: \bibitem[{{Oke} \& {Gunn}(1982)}]{oke82}
1447: {Oke}, J.~B. and {Gunn}, J.~E. 1982, \pasp, 94, 586
1448:
1449: \bibitem[{{Panaitescu} \& {Vestrand}(2008)}]{Panaitescu:2008p3168}
1450: {Panaitescu}, A. and {Vestrand}, W.~T. 2008, \mnras, 387, 497
1451:
1452: \bibitem[{{Perley} {et~al.}(2008){Perley}, {Bloom}, {Butler}, {Pollack},
1453: {Holtzman}, {Blake}, {Kocevski}, {Vestrand}, {Li}, {Foley}, {Bellm}, {Chen},
1454: {Prochaska}, {Starr}, {Filippenko}, {Falco}, {Szentgyorgyi}, {Wren},
1455: {Wozniak}, {White}, \& {Pergande}}]{Perley+2008a}
1456: {Perley}, D.~A. {\it et al.} 2008, \apj, 672, 449
1457:
1458: \bibitem[{{Podsiadlowski} {et~al.}(2004){Podsiadlowski}, {Mazzali}, {Nomoto},
1459: {Lazzati}, \& {Cappellaro}}]{Posiadlowski2004}
1460: {Podsiadlowski}, P., {Mazzali}, P.~A., {Nomoto}, K., {Lazzati}, D., and
1461: {Cappellaro}, E. 2004, \apjl, 607, L17
1462:
1463: \bibitem[{{Poole} {et~al.}(2008){Poole}, {Breeveld}, {Page}, {Landsman},
1464: {Holland}, {Roming}, {Kuin}, {Brown}, {Gronwall}, {Hunsberger}, {Koch},
1465: {Mason}, {Schady}, {vanden Berk}, {Blustin}, {Boyd}, {Broos}, {Carter},
1466: {Chester}, {Cucchiara}, {Hancock}, {Huckle}, {Immler}, {Ivanushkina},
1467: {Kennedy}, {Marshall}, {Morgan}, {Pandey}, {de Pasquale}, {Smith}, \&
1468: {Still}}]{Poole2008}
1469: {Poole}, T.~S. {\it et al.} 2008, \mnras, 383, 627
1470:
1471: \bibitem[{{Price} {et~al.}(2003){Price}, {Kulkarni}, {Berger}, {Fox}, {Bloom},
1472: {Djorgovski}, {Frail}, {Galama}, {Harrison}, {McCarthy}, {Reichart}, {Sari},
1473: {Yost}, {Jerjen}, {Flint}, {Phillips}, {Warren}, {Axelrod}, {Chevalier},
1474: {Holtzman}, {Kimble}, {Schmidt}, {Wheeler}, {Frontera}, {Costa}, {Piro},
1475: {Hurley}, {Cline}, {Guidorzi}, {Montanari}, {Mazets}, {Golenetskii},
1476: {Mitrofanov}, {Anfimov}, {Kozyrev}, {Litvak}, {Sanin}, {Boynton}, {Fellows},
1477: {Harshman}, {Shinohara}, {Gal-Yam}, {Ofek}, \& {Lipkin}}]{Price:2003p575}
1478: {Price}, P.~A. {\it et al.} 2003, \apj, 589, 838
1479:
1480: \bibitem[{{Racusin} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}}){Racusin}, {Gehrels},
1481: {Holland}, {Kennea}, {Markwardt}, {Pagani}, {Palmer}, \&
1482: {Stamatikos}}]{rgh+08}
1483: {Racusin}, J.~L., {Gehrels}, N., {Holland}, S.~T., {Kennea}, J.~A.,
1484: {Markwardt}, C.~B., {Pagani}, C., {Palmer}, D.~M., and {Stamatikos}, M.
1485: 2008{\natexlab{a}}, {GCN Circular} 7427
1486:
1487: \bibitem[{{Racusin} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}}){Racusin}, {Karpov},
1488: {Sokolowski}, {Granot}, {Wu}, {Pal'shin}, {Covino}, {van der Horst}, {Oates},
1489: {Schady}, {Smith}, {Cummings}, {Starling}, {Piotrowski}, {Zhang}, {Evans},
1490: {Holland}, {Malek}, {Page}, {Vetere}, {Margutti}, {Guidorzi}, {Kamble},
1491: {Curran}, {Beardmore}, {Kouveliotou}, {Mankiewicz}, {Melandri}, {O'Brien},
1492: {Page}, {Piran}, {Tanvir}, {Wrochna}, {Aptekar}, {Bartolini}, {Barthelmy},
1493: {Beskin}, {Bondar}, {Campana}, {Cucchiara}, {Cwiok}, {D'Avanzo}, {D'Elia},
1494: {Della Valle}, {Dominik}, {Falcone}, {Fiore}, {Fox}, {Frederiks}, {Fruchter},
1495: {Fugazza}, {Garrett}, {Gehrels}, {Golenetskii}, {Gomboc}, {Greco},
1496: {Guarnieri}, {Immler}, {Kasprowicz}, {Levan}, {Mazets}, {Molinari},
1497: {Moretti}, {Nawrocki}, {Oleynik}, {Osborne}, {Pagani}, {Paragi}, {Perri},
1498: {Piccioni}, {Ramirez-Ruiz}, {Roming}, {Steele}, {Strom}, {Testa}, {Tosti},
1499: {Ulanov}, {Wiersema}, {Wijers}, {Zarnecki}, {Zerbi}, {Meszaros},
1500: {Chincarini}, \& {Burrows}}]{Racusineteveryone}
1501: {Racusin}, J.~L. {\it et al.} 2008{\natexlab{b}}, ArXiv e-prints, 0805.1557
1502:
1503: \bibitem[{{Sari} {et~al.}(1999){Sari}, {Piran}, \& {Halpern}}]{Sari1999}
1504: {Sari}, R., {Piran}, T., and {Halpern}, J.~P. 1999, \apjl, 519, L17
1505:
1506: \bibitem[{{Sari} {et~al.}(1998){Sari}, {Piran}, \& {Narayan}}]{Sari+1998}
1507: {Sari}, R., {Piran}, T., and {Narayan}, R. 1998, \apjl, 497, L17+
1508:
1509: \bibitem[{{Schady} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Schady}, {de Pasquale}, {Page},
1510: {Vetere}, {Pandey}, {Wang}, {Cummings}, {Zhang}, {Zane}, {Breeveld},
1511: {Burrows}, {Gehrels}, {Gronwall}, {Hunsberger}, {Markwardt}, {Mason},
1512: {M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros}, {Norris}, {Oates}, {Pagani}, {Poole}, {Roming}, {Smith},
1513: \& {vanden Berk}}]{Schady07}
1514: {Schady}, P. {\it et al.} 2007{\natexlab{a}}, \mnras, 380, 1041
1515:
1516: \bibitem[{{Schady} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Schady}, {Mason}, {Page}, {de
1517: Pasquale}, {Morris}, {Romano}, {Roming}, {Immler}, \& {vanden
1518: Berk}}]{Schady+2007}
1519: ---. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \mnras, 377, 273
1520:
1521: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&
1522: {Davis}}]{Schlegel:1998p695}
1523: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., and {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1524:
1525: \bibitem[{{Schneider} {et~al.}(2007){Schneider}, {Hall}, {Richards}, {Strauss},
1526: {Vanden Berk}, {Anderson}, {Brandt}, {Fan}, {Jester}, {Gray}, {Gunn},
1527: {SubbaRao}, {Thakar}, {Stoughton}, {Szalay}, {Yanny}, {York}, {Bahcall},
1528: {Barentine}, {Blanton}, {Brewington}, {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Castander},
1529: {Csabai}, {Frieman}, {Fukugita}, {Harvanek}, {Hogg}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Kent},
1530: {Kleinman}, {Knapp}, {Kron}, {Krzesi{\'n}ski}, {Long}, {Lupton}, {Nitta},
1531: {Pier}, {Saxe}, {Shen}, {Snedden}, {Weinberg}, \& {Wu}}]{Schneider:2007p4602}
1532: {Schneider}, D.~P. {\it et al.} 2007, \aj, 134, 102
1533:
1534: \bibitem[{{Schubel} {et~al.}(2008){Schubel}, {Reichart}, {Nysewander},
1535: {LaCluyze}, {Ivarsen}, {Crain}, {Foster}, {Brennan}, {Haislip}, {Styblova},
1536: \& {Trotter}}]{Schubel08_GCN7461}
1537: {Schubel}, M. {\it et al.} 2008, {GCN Circular} 7461
1538:
1539: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2007){Smith}, {Li}, {Foley}, {Wheeler}, {Pooley},
1540: {Chornock}, {Filippenko}, {Silverman}, {Quimby}, {Bloom}, \&
1541: {Hansen}}]{Smith:2007p532}
1542: {Smith}, N. {\it et al.} 2007, \apj, 666, 1116
1543:
1544: \bibitem[{{Stanek} {et~al.}(2005){Stanek}, {Garnavich}, {Nutzman}, {Hartman},
1545: {Garg}, {Adelberger}, {Berlind}, {Bonanos}, {Calkins}, {Challis}, {Gaudi},
1546: {Holman}, {Kirshner}, {McLeod}, {Osip}, {Pimenova}, {Reiprich}, {Romanishin},
1547: {Spahr}, {Tegler}, \& {Zhao}}]{Stanek2005}
1548: {Stanek}, K.~Z. {\it et al.} 2005, \apjl, 626, L5
1549:
1550: \bibitem[{{Stanek} {et~al.}(2006){Stanek}, {Gnedin}, {Beacom}, {Gould},
1551: {Johnson}, {Kollmeier}, {Modjaz}, {Pinsonneault}, {Pogge}, \&
1552: {Weinberg}}]{Stanek2006}
1553: ---. 2006, Acta Astronomica, 56, 333
1554:
1555: \bibitem[{{Swan} {et~al.}(2008){Swan}, {Yuan}, \&
1556: {Rujopakarn}}]{Swan08_GCN7470}
1557: {Swan}, H., {Yuan}, F., and {Rujopakarn}, W. 2008, {GCN Circular} 7470
1558:
1559: \bibitem[{{Tagliaferri} {et~al.}(2005){Tagliaferri}, {Antonelli}, {Chincarini},
1560: {Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto}, {Malesani}, {Della Valle}, {D'Avanzo}, {Grazian},
1561: {Testa}, {Campana}, {Covino}, {Fiore}, {Stella}, {Castro-Tirado},
1562: {Gorosabel}, {Burrows}, {Capalbi}, {Cusumano}, {Conciatore}, {D'Elia},
1563: {Filliatre}, {Fugazza}, {Gehrels}, {Goldoni}, {Guetta}, {Guziy}, {Held},
1564: {Hurley}, {Israel}, {Jel{\'{\i}}nek}, {Lazzati}, {L{\'o}pez-Echarri},
1565: {Melandri}, {Mirabel}, {Moles}, {Moretti}, {Mason}, {Nousek}, {Osborne},
1566: {Pellizza}, {Perna}, {Piranomonte}, {Piro}, {de Ugarte Postigo}, \&
1567: {Romano}}]{Tagliaferri+2005}
1568: {Tagliaferri}, G. {\it et al.} 2005, \aap, 443, L1
1569:
1570: \bibitem[{{Tanvir} {et~al.}(2008){Tanvir}, {Levan}, {Fruchter}, {Graham},
1571: {Wiersema}, \& {Rol}}]{Tanvir08_GCN7569}
1572: {Tanvir}, N.~R., {Levan}, A.~J., {Fruchter}, A.~S., {Graham}, J., {Wiersema},
1573: K., and {Rol}, E. 2008, {GCN Circular} 7569
1574:
1575: \bibitem[{{Updike} {et~al.}(2008){Updike}, {Haislip}, {Nysewander}, {Fruchter},
1576: {Kann}, {Klose}, {Milne}, {Williams}, {Zheng}, {Hergenrother}, {Prochaska},
1577: {Halpern}, {Mirabal}, {Thorstensen}, {van der Horst}, {Starling}, {Racusin},
1578: {Burrows}, {Kuin}, {Roming}, {Bellm}, {Hurley}, {Li}, {Filippenko}, {Blake},
1579: {Starr}, {Falco}, {Brown}, {Dai}, {Deng}, {Xin}, {Qiu}, {Wei}, {Urata},
1580: {Nanni}, {Maiorano}, {Palazzi}, {Greco}, {Bartolini}, {Guarnieri},
1581: {Piccioni}, {Pizzichini}, {Terra}, {Misra}, {Bhatt}, {Anupama}, {Fan},
1582: {Jiang}, {Wijers}, {Reichart}, {Eid}, {Bryngelson}, {Puls}, {Goldthwaite}, \&
1583: {Hartmann}}]{Updike+2008}
1584: {Updike}, A.~C. {\it et al.} 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 0805.1094
1585:
1586: \bibitem[{{Vreeswijk} {et~al.}(2008){Vreeswijk}, {Smette}, {Malesani}, {Fynbo},
1587: {Milvang-Jensen}, {Jakobsson}, {Jaunsen}, \& {Ledoux}}]{Vreeswijk08}
1588: {Vreeswijk}, P.~M., {Smette}, A., {Malesani}, D., {Fynbo}, J.~P.~U.,
1589: {Milvang-Jensen}, B., {Jakobsson}, P., {Jaunsen}, A.~O., and {Ledoux}, C.
1590: 2008, {GCN Circular} 7444
1591:
1592: \bibitem[{{Wood-Vasey} {et~al.}(2007){Wood-Vasey}, {Friedman}, {Bloom},
1593: {Hicken}, {Modjaz}, {Kirshner}, {Starr}, {Blake}, {Falco}, {Szentgyorgyi},
1594: {Challis}, {Blondin}, \& {Rest}}]{wfb+08}
1595: {Wood-Vasey}, W.~M. {\it et al.} 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 0711.2068
1596:
1597: \bibitem[{{Wozniak} {et~al.}(2008){Wozniak}, {Vestrand}, {Wren}, \&
1598: {Davis}}]{Wozniak08_GCN7464}
1599: {Wozniak}, P., {Vestrand}, W.~T., {Wren}, J., and {Davis}, H. 2008, {GCN
1600: Circular} 7464
1601:
1602: \bibitem[{{Zeh} {et~al.}(2004){Zeh}, {Klose}, \& {Hartmann}}]{Zeh+2004}
1603: {Zeh}, A., {Klose}, S., and {Hartmann}, D.~H. 2004, \apj, 609, 952
1604:
1605: \end{thebibliography}
1606:
1607:
1608: %\input{phot_short}
1609: %\input{stds}
1610:
1611: \begin{deluxetable}{rccll}
1612: \tabletypesize{\small}
1613: \tablecaption{PAIRITEL Observations of GRB\,080319B\label{tab:photlogptel}}
1614: \tablecolumns{6}
1615: \tablehead{
1616: \colhead{$t_{\rm mid}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Filter} &
1617: \colhead{Exp.~time} &
1618: \colhead{Mag.\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Flux\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1619: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1620: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1621: \colhead{$\mu$Jy}}
1622: \startdata
1623: 344.0 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $10.389 \pm 0.048$ & $111255.0\pm 4815.5$ \\
1624: 352.3 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $10.483 \pm 0.048$ & $102084.5\pm 4419.0$ \\
1625: 360.2 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $10.563 \pm 0.048$ & $ 94763.2\pm 4102.4$ \\
1626: 380.1 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $10.652 \pm 0.048$ & $ 87313.1\pm 3779.8$ \\
1627: 388.4 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $10.722 \pm 0.048$ & $ 81846.4\pm 3544.3$ \\
1628: 396.3 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $10.781 \pm 0.048$ & $ 77538.9\pm 3357.8$ \\
1629: 416.3 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $10.877 \pm 0.048$ & $ 70983.9\pm 3074.6$ \\
1630: 424.5 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $10.896 \pm 0.048$ & $ 69752.5\pm 3021.6$ \\
1631: 432.4 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $10.952 \pm 0.048$ & $ 66227.7\pm 2868.9$ \\
1632: 344.0 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 9.639 \pm 0.042$ & $142696.2\pm 5421.2$ \\
1633: 352.3 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 9.721 \pm 0.042$ & $132364.7\pm 5029.4$ \\
1634: 360.2 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 9.753 \pm 0.042$ & $128513.3\pm 4883.6$ \\
1635: 380.1 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 9.946 \pm 0.042$ & $107582.1\pm 4088.8$ \\
1636: 388.4 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 9.985 \pm 0.042$ & $103750.1\pm 3944.2$ \\
1637: 396.3 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $10.115 \pm 0.042$ & $ 92078.9\pm 3501.5$ \\
1638: 416.3 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $10.127 \pm 0.042$ & $ 91066.8\pm 3464.2$ \\
1639: 424.5 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $10.177 \pm 0.042$ & $ 86920.1\pm 3306.4$ \\
1640: 432.4 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $10.245 \pm 0.042$ & $ 81665.8\pm 3107.6$ \\
1641: 344.0 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 9.067 \pm 0.058$\tablenotemark{x} & $157495.6\pm 8197.4$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1642: 352.3 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 9.308 \pm 0.058$\tablenotemark{x} & $126102.6\pm 6564.2$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1643: 360.2 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 9.207 \pm 0.058$\tablenotemark{x} & $138421.8\pm 7205.9$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1644: 380.1 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 9.312 \pm 0.058$ & $125650.6\pm 6541.1$ \\
1645: 388.4 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 9.310 \pm 0.058$ & $125949.5\pm 6557.6$ \\
1646: 396.3 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 9.419 \pm 0.058$ & $113840.4\pm 5927.9$ \\
1647: 416.3 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 9.508 \pm 0.058$ & $104946.6\pm 5465.3$ \\
1648: 424.5 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 9.546 \pm 0.058$ & $101331.5\pm 5277.5$ \\
1649: 432.4 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 9.638 \pm 0.058$ & $ 93031.2\pm 4845.6$ \\
1650: \enddata
1651: \tablecomments{Because of the very large number of exposures acquired, only a few representative points are given. The full table of photometry containing all 406 points is available online. Includes only non-saturated exposures; photometry from the saturated epochs is given in Tables \ref{tab:shortr} and \ref{tab:annulus}.}
1652: \tablenotetext{a}{Exposure mid-time, measured from the \emph{Swift} trigger (UTC 06:12:49).}
1653: \tablenotetext{b}{Observed value; not corrected for Galactic extinction.}
1654: %%\tablenotetext{s}{Saturated epoch; magnitude estimated via annulus photometry.}
1655: \tablenotetext{x}{Point not used in modeling.}
1656: \end{deluxetable}
1657:
1658:
1659: \begin{deluxetable}{lccll}
1660: \tabletypesize{\small}
1661: \tablecaption{PAIRITEL Short-Read Observations of GRB\,080319B During Saturated Regime \label{tab:shortr}}
1662: \tablecolumns{6}
1663: \tablehead{
1664: \colhead{$t_{\rm mid}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Filter} &
1665: \colhead{Exp.~time} &
1666: \colhead{Mag.\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Flux\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1667: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1668: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1669: \colhead{$\mu$Jy}}
1670: \startdata
1671: 59.3 & {\rm J} & 0.051 & $ 5.206 \pm 0.055$ & $1.32\times 10^{7}\pm6.52\times 10^{5}$ \\
1672: 67.3 & {\rm J} & 0.051 & $ 5.627 \pm 0.055$ & $8.94\times 10^{6}\pm4.43\times 10^{5}$ \\
1673: 87.3 & {\rm J} & 0.051 & $ 6.470 \pm 0.055$ & $4.11\times 10^{6}\pm2.04\times 10^{5}$ \\
1674: 95.5 & {\rm J} & 0.051 & $ 6.847 \pm 0.056$ & $2.91\times 10^{6}\pm1.45\times 10^{5}$ \\
1675: 103.5 & {\rm J} & 0.051 & $ 6.954 \pm 0.056$ & $2.63\times 10^{6}\pm1.32\times 10^{5}$ \\
1676: 59.3 & {\rm H} & 0.051 & $ 4.520 \pm 0.052$ & $1.59\times 10^{7}\pm7.47\times 10^{5}$ \\
1677: 67.3 & {\rm H} & 0.051 & $ 4.853 \pm 0.052$ & $1.17\times 10^{7}\pm5.50\times 10^{5}$ \\
1678: 87.3 & {\rm H} & 0.051 & $ 5.713 \pm 0.052$ & $5.30\times 10^{6}\pm2.50\times 10^{5}$ \\
1679: 95.5 & {\rm H} & 0.051 & $ 6.101 \pm 0.052$ & $3.71\times 10^{6}\pm1.75\times 10^{5}$ \\
1680: 103.5 & {\rm H} & 0.051 & $ 6.225 \pm 0.052$ & $3.31\times 10^{6}\pm1.56\times 10^{5}$ \\
1681: 67.3 & {$\rm K_s$} & 0.051 & $ 4.362 \pm 0.048$ & $1.20\times 10^{7}\pm5.20\times 10^{5}$ \\
1682: 87.3 & {$\rm K_s$} & 0.051 & $ 5.192 \pm 0.048$ & $5.59\times 10^{6}\pm2.43\times 10^{5}$ \\
1683: 95.5 & {$\rm K_s$} & 0.051 & $ 5.308 \pm 0.048$ & $5.02\times 10^{6}\pm2.18\times 10^{5}$ \\
1684: 103.5 & {$\rm K_s$} & 0.051 & $ 5.675 \pm 0.048$ & $3.58\times 10^{6}\pm1.56\times 10^{5}$ \\
1685: \enddata
1686: \tablenotetext{a}{Exposure mid-time, measured from the \emph{Swift} trigger (UT 06:12:49).}
1687: \tablenotetext{b}{Observed value; not corrected for Galactic extinction.}
1688: \tablenotetext{x}{No saturated values were used in modeling.}
1689: \tablecomments{Because of the large number of exposures acquired, only a few representative points are given. The full table of photometry containing all 406 points is available online.}
1690: \end{deluxetable}
1691:
1692: \begin{deluxetable}{lccll}
1693: \tabletypesize{\small}
1694: \tablecaption{PAIRITEL Annulus Photometry of GRB\,080319B During Saturated Regime\label{tab:annulus}}
1695: \tablecolumns{6}
1696: \tablehead{
1697: \colhead{$t_{\rm mid}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Filter} &
1698: \colhead{Exp.~time} &
1699: \colhead{Mag.\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Flux\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1700: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1701: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1702: \colhead{$\mu$Jy}}
1703: \startdata
1704: 55.0 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $ 4.595 \pm 0.133$ & $2.31\times 10^{7}\pm2.66\times 10^{6}$ \\
1705: 63.2 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $ 5.070 \pm 0.133$ & $1.49\times 10^{7}\pm1.72\times 10^{6}$ \\
1706: 71.2 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $ 5.560 \pm 0.133$ & $9.51\times 10^{6}\pm1.10\times 10^{6}$ \\
1707: 91.2 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $ 6.572 \pm 0.133$ & $3.74\times 10^{6}\pm4.31\times 10^{5}$ \\
1708: 99.4 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $ 6.710 \pm 0.133$ & $3.30\times 10^{6}\pm3.80\times 10^{5}$ \\
1709: 107.4 & {\rm J} & 7.8 & $ 7.004 \pm 0.133$ & $2.51\times 10^{6}\pm2.90\times 10^{5}$ \\
1710: 55.0 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 4.387 \pm 0.191$ & $1.80\times 10^{7}\pm2.90\times 10^{6}$ \\
1711: 63.2 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 4.805 \pm 0.191$ & $1.22\times 10^{7}\pm1.97\times 10^{6}$ \\
1712: 71.2 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 5.159 \pm 0.191$ & $8.84\times 10^{6}\pm1.42\times 10^{6}$ \\
1713: 91.2 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 5.818 \pm 0.191$ & $4.82\times 10^{6}\pm7.76\times 10^{5}$ \\
1714: 99.4 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 6.386 \pm 0.191$ & $2.86\times 10^{6}\pm4.60\times 10^{5}$ \\
1715: 107.4 & {\rm H} & 7.8 & $ 6.421 \pm 0.191$ & $2.76\times 10^{6}\pm4.45\times 10^{5}$ \\
1716: 55.0 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 3.853 \pm 0.463$ & $1.92\times 10^{7}\pm6.65\times 10^{6}$ \\
1717: 63.2 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 4.200 \pm 0.463$ & $1.39\times 10^{7}\pm4.83\times 10^{6}$ \\
1718: 71.2 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 4.510 \pm 0.463$ & $1.05\times 10^{7}\pm3.63\times 10^{6}$ \\
1719: 91.2 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 5.130 \pm 0.463$ & $5.91\times 10^{6}\pm2.05\times 10^{6}$ \\
1720: 99.4 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 5.659 \pm 0.463$ & $3.63\times 10^{6}\pm1.26\times 10^{6}$ \\
1721: 107.4 & {$\rm K_s$} & 7.8 & $ 5.812 \pm 0.463$ & $3.16\times 10^{6}\pm1.09\times 10^{6}$ \\
1722: \enddata
1723: \tablenotetext{a}{Exposure mid-time, measured from the \emph{Swift} trigger (UT 06:12:49).}
1724: \tablenotetext{b}{Observed value; not corrected for Galactic extinction.}
1725: \tablenotetext{x}{No saturated values were used in modeling.}
1726: \tablecomments{Because of the large number of exposures acquired, only a few representative points are given. The full table of photometry containing all 406 points is available online.}
1727: \end{deluxetable}
1728:
1729:
1730:
1731: \begin{deluxetable}{rccll}
1732: \tabletypesize{\small}
1733: \tablecaption{KAIT Observations of GRB\,080319B\label{tab:photlogkait}}
1734: \tablecolumns{6}
1735: \tablehead{
1736: \colhead{$t_{\rm mid}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Filter} &
1737: \colhead{Exp.~time} &
1738: \colhead{Mag.\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Flux\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1739: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1740: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1741: \colhead{$\mu$Jy}}
1742: \startdata
1743: 1217.0 & {\rm clear} & 20.0 & $14.116 \pm 0.008$ & $ 7008.1\pm 51.4$ \\
1744: 1308.0 & {\rm clear} & 20.0 & $14.261 \pm 0.007$ & $ 6132.0\pm 39.4$ \\
1745: 1404.0 & {\rm clear} & 20.0 & $14.424 \pm 0.011$ & $ 5277.2\pm 53.2$ \\
1746: 1495.0 & {\rm clear} & 20.0 & $14.548 \pm 0.013$ & $ 4707.6\pm 56.0$ \\
1747: 1586.0 & {\rm clear} & 20.0 & $14.651 \pm 0.011$ & $ 4281.5\pm 43.2$ \\
1748: 2098.0 & {\rm B} & 20.0 & $15.623 \pm 0.045$ & $ 2327.0\pm 94.5$ \\
1749: 2249.0 & {\rm B} & 20.0 & $15.750 \pm 0.041$ & $ 2070.1\pm 76.7$ \\
1750: 2373.0 & {\rm B} & 20.0 & $15.814 \pm 0.042$ & $ 1951.6\pm 74.1$ \\
1751: 2546.5 & {\rm B} & 40.0 & $15.911 \pm 0.037$ & $ 1784.8\pm 59.8$ \\
1752: 2791.0 & {\rm B} & 40.0 & $16.094 \pm 0.035$ & $ 1508.0\pm 47.8$ \\
1753: 1157.0 & {\rm V} & 20.0 & $14.345 \pm 0.022$ & $ 6745.3\pm 135.3$ \\
1754: 1248.0 & {\rm V} & 20.0 & $14.442 \pm 0.022$ & $ 6168.8\pm 123.7$ \\
1755: 1339.0 & {\rm V} & 20.0 & $14.651 \pm 0.022$ & $ 5088.6\pm 102.1$ \\
1756: 1435.0 & {\rm V} & 20.0 & $14.815 \pm 0.025$ & $ 4375.2\pm 99.6$ \\
1757: 1526.0 & {\rm V} & 20.0 & $14.939 \pm 0.026$ & $ 3903.0\pm 92.4$ \\
1758: 1188.0 & {\rm I} & 20.0 & $13.777 \pm 0.013$ & $ 7502.4\pm 89.3$ \\
1759: 1279.0 & {\rm I} & 20.0 & $13.879 \pm 0.012$ & $ 6829.7\pm 75.1$ \\
1760: 1370.0 & {\rm I} & 20.0 & $14.016 \pm 0.015$ & $ 6020.0\pm 82.6$ \\
1761: 1465.0 & {\rm I} & 20.0 & $14.176 \pm 0.020$ & $ 5195.2\pm 94.8$ \\
1762: 1557.0 & {\rm I} & 20.0 & $14.328 \pm 0.018$ & $ 4516.5\pm 74.3$ \\
1763: \enddata
1764: \tablecomments{Because of the very large number of exposures acquired, only the first five exposures in each band are given. The full table of photometry is available online.}
1765: \tablenotetext{a}{Exposure mid-time, measured from the \emph{Swift} trigger (UTC 06:12:49).}
1766: \tablenotetext{b}{Observed value; not corrected for Galactic extinction.}
1767: \end{deluxetable}
1768:
1769: \begin{deluxetable}{rccll}
1770: \tabletypesize{\small}
1771: \tablecaption{Nickel Observations of GRB\,080319B\label{tab:photlognickel}}
1772: \tablecolumns{6}
1773: \tablehead{
1774: \colhead{$t_{\rm mid}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Filter} &
1775: \colhead{Exp.~time} &
1776: \colhead{Mag.\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Flux\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1777: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1778: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1779: \colhead{$\mu$Jy}}
1780: \startdata
1781: 7154.7 & {\rm B} & 360.0 & $17.365 \pm 0.005$ & $ 467.7\pm 2.1$ \\
1782: 8579.2 & {\rm B} & 360.0 & $17.646 \pm 0.006$ & $ 361.1\pm 2.0$ \\
1783: 10013.4 & {\rm B} & 360.0 & $17.866 \pm 0.008$ & $ 294.8\pm 2.2$ \\
1784: 11512.3 & {\rm B} & 360.0 & $18.090 \pm 0.008$ & $ 239.9\pm 1.8$ \\
1785: 13015.9 & {\rm B} & 360.0 & $18.248 \pm 0.011$ & $ 207.4\pm 2.1$ \\
1786: 14473.6 & {\rm B} & 360.0 & $18.389 \pm 0.011$ & $ 182.1\pm 1.8$ \\
1787: 16436.8 & {\rm B} & 360.0 & $18.587 \pm 0.015$ & $ 151.8\pm 2.1$ \\
1788: 17937.4 & {\rm B} & 360.0 & $18.770 \pm 0.018$ & $ 128.2\pm 2.1$ \\
1789: 19398.1 & {\rm B} & 360.0 & $18.858 \pm 0.015$ & $ 118.2\pm 1.6$ \\
1790: 20965.3 & {\rm B} & 360.0 & $18.970 \pm 0.023$ & $ 106.7\pm 2.2$ \\
1791: 7444.0 & {\rm V} & 300.0 & $17.251 \pm 0.005$ & $ 464.1\pm 2.1$ \\
1792: 8860.5 & {\rm V} & 300.0 & $17.484 \pm 0.007$ & $ 374.5\pm 2.4$ \\
1793: 10291.9 & {\rm V} & 300.0 & $17.727 \pm 0.007$ & $ 299.4\pm 1.9$ \\
1794: 11829.3 & {\rm V} & 300.0 & $17.899 \pm 0.007$ & $ 255.5\pm 1.6$ \\
1795: 13294.2 & {\rm V} & 300.0 & $18.062 \pm 0.007$ & $ 219.9\pm 1.4$ \\
1796: 14767.2 & {\rm V} & 300.0 & $18.236 \pm 0.014$ & $ 187.3\pm 2.4$ \\
1797: 16714.4 & {\rm V} & 300.0 & $18.424 \pm 0.012$ & $ 157.5\pm 1.7$ \\
1798: 18236.5 & {\rm V} & 300.0 & $18.559 \pm 0.016$ & $ 139.1\pm 2.0$ \\
1799: 19700.4 & {\rm V} & 300.0 & $18.637 \pm 0.013$ & $ 129.5\pm 1.5$ \\
1800: 22996.8 & {\rm V} & 300.0 & $18.902 \pm 0.021$ & $ 101.4\pm 1.9$ \\
1801: 7782.0 & {\rm R} & 300.0 & $16.991 \pm 0.006$ & $ 496.1\pm 2.7$ \\
1802: 9196.4 & {\rm R} & 300.0 & $17.239 \pm 0.005$ & $ 394.8\pm 1.8$ \\
1803: 10635.4 & {\rm R} & 300.0 & $17.435 \pm 0.008$ & $ 329.6\pm 2.4$ \\
1804: 12181.0 & {\rm R} & 300.0 & $17.637 \pm 0.009$ & $ 273.7\pm 2.3$ \\
1805: 13652.0 & {\rm R} & 300.0 & $17.799 \pm 0.007$ & $ 235.7\pm 1.5$ \\
1806: 15110.2 & {\rm R} & 300.0 & $17.917 \pm 0.007$ & $ 211.4\pm 1.4$ \\
1807: 17071.9 & {\rm R} & 300.0 & $18.107 \pm 0.011$ & $ 177.5\pm 1.8$ \\
1808: 18582.1 & {\rm R} & 300.0 & $18.218 \pm 0.008$ & $ 160.3\pm 1.2$ \\
1809: 20035.8 & {\rm R} & 300.0 & $18.308 \pm 0.017$ & $ 147.5\pm 2.3$ \\
1810: 23331.8 & {\rm R} & 300.0 & $18.541 \pm 0.021$ & $ 119.0\pm 2.3$ \\
1811: 8122.0 & {\rm I} & 300.0 & $16.797 \pm 0.004$ & $ 464.7\pm 1.7$ \\
1812: 9531.2 & {\rm I} & 300.0 & $17.013 \pm 0.005$ & $ 380.9\pm 1.7$ \\
1813: 10995.4 & {\rm I} & 300.0 & $17.189 \pm 0.005$ & $ 323.9\pm 1.5$ \\
1814: 12520.7 & {\rm I} & 300.0 & $17.394 \pm 0.005$ & $ 268.2\pm 1.2$ \\
1815: 14003.3 & {\rm I} & 300.0 & $17.537 \pm 0.009$ & $ 235.1\pm 1.9$ \\
1816: 15973.2 & {\rm I} & 300.0 & $17.704 \pm 0.008$ & $ 201.6\pm 1.5$ \\
1817: 17412.9 & {\rm I} & 300.0 & $17.817 \pm 0.011$ & $ 181.6\pm 1.8$ \\
1818: 18936.7 & {\rm I} & 300.0 & $17.921 \pm 0.010$ & $ 165.0\pm 1.5$ \\
1819: 20447.9 & {\rm I} & 300.0 & $18.045 \pm 0.014$ & $ 147.2\pm 1.9$ \\
1820: 23665.5 & {\rm I} & 300.0 & $18.111 \pm 0.118$ & $ 138.5\pm 14.3$ \\
1821: \enddata
1822: \tablenotetext{a}{Exposure mid-time, measured from the \emph{Swift} trigger (UTC 06:12:49).}
1823: \tablenotetext{b}{Observed value; not corrected for Galactic extinction.}
1824: \end{deluxetable}
1825:
1826:
1827: \begin{deluxetable}{rccll}
1828: \tabletypesize{\small}
1829: \tablecaption{UVOT Observations of GRB\,080319B\label{tab:photloguvot}}
1830: \tablecolumns{6}
1831: \tablehead{
1832: \colhead{$t_{\rm mid}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Filter} &
1833: \colhead{Exp.~time} &
1834: \colhead{Mag.\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Flux\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1835: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1836: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1837: \colhead{$\mu$Jy}}
1838: \startdata
1839: 6156.0 & {\rm UVW1} & 196.6 & $16.146 \pm 0.043$ & $ 343.2\pm 13.3$ \\
1840: 17398.0 & {\rm UVW1} & 885.6 & $17.645 \pm 0.042$ & $ 86.3\pm 3.3$ \\
1841: 28047.0 & {\rm UVW1} & 427.9 & $18.316 \pm 0.086$ & $ 46.5\pm 3.5$ \\
1842: 45393.0 & {\rm UVW1} & 427.9 & $18.909 \pm 0.121$ & $ 26.9\pm 2.8$ \\
1843: 75628.0 & {\rm UVW1} & 200.6 & $19.266 \pm 0.213$ & $ 19.4\pm 3.5$ \\
1844: 5542.0 & {\rm UVW2} & 196.6 & $16.192 \pm 0.046$ & $ 239.6\pm 9.9$ \\
1845: 10709.0 & {\rm UVW2} & 885.6 & $17.231 \pm 0.036$ & $ 92.0\pm 3.0$ \\
1846: 22273.0 & {\rm UVW2} & 266.3 & $18.394 \pm 0.116$ & $ 31.5\pm 3.2$ \\
1847: 28931.0 & {\rm UVW2} & 856.1 & $18.631 \pm 0.073$ & $ 25.3\pm 1.6$ \\
1848: 46279.0 & {\rm UVW2} & 856.1 & $19.228 \pm 0.102$ & $ 14.6\pm 1.3$ \\
1849: 76050.0 & {\rm UVW2} & 401.3 & $19.888 \pm 0.220$ & $ 8.0\pm 1.5$ \\
1850: 5951.0 & {\rm UVM2} & 196.6 & $15.923 \pm 0.052$ & $ 284.4\pm 13.3$ \\
1851: 12528.0 & {\rm UVM2} & 334.6 & $17.144 \pm 0.071$ & $ 92.4\pm 5.8$ \\
1852: 16491.0 & {\rm UVM2} & 885.6 & $17.493 \pm 0.052$ & $ 67.0\pm 3.1$ \\
1853: 30028.0 & {\rm UVM2} & 611.2 & $18.381 \pm 0.101$ & $ 29.6\pm 2.6$ \\
1854: 47376.0 & {\rm UVM2} & 610.0 & $19.039 \pm 0.144$ & $ 16.1\pm 2.0$ \\
1855: 631.0 & {\rm U} & 19.4 & $12.474 \pm 0.028$\tablenotemark{x} & $ 19697.0\pm 501.5$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1856: 785.0 & {\rm U} & 19.4 & $12.968 \pm 0.030$ & $ 12496.8\pm 340.6$ \\
1857: 1430.0 & {\rm U} & 19.4 & $14.108 \pm 0.042$ & $ 4373.2\pm 165.9$ \\
1858: 1591.0 & {\rm U} & 19.5 & $14.342 \pm 0.046$ & $ 3525.3\pm 146.2$ \\
1859: 4926.0 & {\rm U} & 196.6 & $16.015 \pm 0.029$ & $ 755.1\pm 19.9$ \\
1860: 6362.0 & {\rm U} & 196.6 & $16.329 \pm 0.033$ & $ 565.5\pm 16.9$ \\
1861: 18304.0 & {\rm U} & 295.0 & $17.864 \pm 0.056$ & $ 137.5\pm 6.9$ \\
1862: 18609.0 & {\rm U} & 231.2 & $17.886 \pm 0.064$ & $ 134.8\pm 7.7$ \\
1863: 28486.0 & {\rm U} & 213.4 & $18.498 \pm 0.089$ & $ 76.7\pm 6.0$ \\
1864: 45833.0 & {\rm U} & 213.4 & $19.435 \pm 0.148$ & $ 32.4\pm 4.1$ \\
1865: 656.0 & {\rm B} & 9.6 & $13.334 \pm 0.042$\tablenotemark{x} & $ 19160.2\pm 727.0$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1866: 811.0 & {\rm B} & 9.6 & $13.913 \pm 0.046$ & $ 11240.9\pm 466.3$ \\
1867: 1454.0 & {\rm B} & 19.4 & $15.012 \pm 0.046$ & $ 4085.1\pm 169.5$ \\
1868: 1616.0 & {\rm B} & 19.5 & $15.291 \pm 0.052$ & $ 3159.4\pm 147.7$ \\
1869: 5131.0 & {\rm B} & 196.6 & $16.962 \pm 0.033$ & $ 678.0\pm 20.3$ \\
1870: 6567.0 & {\rm B} & 196.6 & $17.350 \pm 0.039$ & $ 474.2\pm 16.7$ \\
1871: 28708.0 & {\rm B} & 213.4 & $19.417 \pm 0.112$ & $ 70.7\pm 6.9$ \\
1872: 46055.0 & {\rm B} & 213.3 & $20.036 \pm 0.171$ & $ 40.0\pm 5.8$ \\
1873: 75943.0 & {\rm B} & 100.2 & $20.441 \pm 0.316$ & $ 27.5\pm 6.9$ \\
1874: 711.0 & {\rm V} & 19.5 & $13.373 \pm 0.040$\tablenotemark{x} & $ 16512.0\pm 597.2$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1875: 975.0 & {\rm V} & 393.5 & $14.337 \pm 0.013$\tablenotemark{x} & $ 6795.2\pm 80.9$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1876: 1518.0 & {\rm V} & 19.4 & $15.025 \pm 0.076$ & $ 3605.8\pm 243.8$ \\
1877: 1680.0 & {\rm V} & 19.5 & $15.127 \pm 0.081$ & $ 3282.5\pm 236.0$ \\
1878: 5746.0 & {\rm V} & 196.6 & $16.955 \pm 0.058$ & $ 609.5\pm 31.7$ \\
1879: 11616.0 & {\rm V} & 295.0 & $17.948 \pm 0.078$ & $ 244.2\pm 16.9$ \\
1880: 11919.0 & {\rm V} & 295.1 & $17.895 \pm 0.078$ & $ 256.4\pm 17.8$ \\
1881: 12222.0 & {\rm V} & 295.0 & $18.041 \pm 0.082$ & $ 224.2\pm 16.3$ \\
1882: 29806.0 & {\rm V} & 213.4 & $19.491 \pm 0.256$ & $ 59.0\pm 12.4$ \\
1883: \enddata
1884: \tablenotetext{a}{Exposure mid-time, measured from the \emph{Swift} trigger (UTC 06:12:49).}
1885: \tablenotetext{b}{Observed value; not corrected for Galactic extinction.}
1886: \tablenotetext{x}{Point not used in modeling.}
1887: \end{deluxetable}
1888:
1889: \begin{deluxetable}{rccll}
1890: \tabletypesize{\small}
1891: \tablecaption{Gemini Observations of GRB\,080319B\label{tab:photloggemini}}
1892: \tablecolumns{6}
1893: \tablehead{
1894: \colhead{$t_{\rm mid}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Filter} &
1895: \colhead{Exp.~time} &
1896: \colhead{Mag.\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Flux\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1897: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1898: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1899: \colhead{$\mu$Jy}}
1900: \startdata
1901: 89309 & {\rm g} & 5 $\times$ 180 & $20.670 \pm 0.100$ & $ 19.59\pm 1.72$ \\
1902: 90356 & {\rm r} & 5 $\times$ 180 & $20.520 \pm 0.060$ & $ 22.49\pm 1.21$ \\
1903: 91307 & {\rm i} & 5 $\times$ 180 & $20.380 \pm 0.050$ & $ 25.59\pm 1.15$ \\
1904: 92470 & {\rm z} & 5 $\times$ 180 & $20.310 \pm 0.050$ & $ 27.93\pm 1.26$ \\
1905: 174960 & {\rm r} & 5 $\times$ 180 & $21.510 \pm 0.060$ & $ 9.037\pm 0.486$ \\
1906: 520390 & {\rm g} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $23.450 \pm 0.190$ & $ 1.514\pm 0.243$ \\
1907: 521589 & {\rm r} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $23.340 \pm 0.090$ & $ 1.675\pm 0.133$ \\
1908: 522792 & {\rm i} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $22.900 \pm 0.060$ & $ 2.512\pm 0.135$ \\
1909: 523990 & {\rm z} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $22.940 \pm 0.090$ & $ 2.477\pm 0.197$ \\
1910: 780120 & {\rm r} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $23.670 \pm 0.070$ & $ 1.236\pm 0.077$ \\
1911: 781560 & {\rm i} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $23.280 \pm 0.060$ & $ 1.770\pm 0.095$ \\
1912: 1209960 & {\rm g} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $24.440 \pm 0.080$ & $ 0.6081\pm 0.0432$ \\
1913: 1211220 & {\rm r} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $24.100 \pm 0.080$ & $ 0.8318\pm 0.0591$ \\
1914: 1212480 & {\rm i} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $23.810 \pm 0.070$ & $ 1.086\pm 0.068$ \\
1915: 2286720 & {\rm g} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $25.860 \pm 0.110$\tablenotemark{x} & $ 0.1644\pm 0.0158$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1916: 2287800 & {\rm r} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $25.050 \pm 0.090$\tablenotemark{x} & $ 0.3467\pm 0.0276$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1917: 2285280 & {\rm i} & 6 $\times$ 180 & $24.360 \pm 0.080$\tablenotemark{x} & $ 0.6546\pm 0.0465$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1918: 2531160 & {\rm z} & 3 $\times$ 180 & $23.940 \pm 0.130$\tablenotemark{x} & $ 0.9863\pm 0.1113$\tablenotemark{x} \\
1919: % 4592160 & {\rm g} & 9 $\times$ 180 & $\geq 26.5$ & $ \leq 0.09$ \\
1920: \enddata
1921: \tablenotetext{a}{Exposure mid-time, measured from the \emph{Swift} trigger (UTC 06:12:49).}
1922: \tablenotetext{b}{Observed value; not corrected for Galactic extinction.}
1923: \tablenotetext{x}{Point not used in modeling.}
1924: \end{deluxetable}
1925:
1926: \begin{deluxetable}{rccllll}
1927: \tabletypesize{\small}
1928: \tablecaption{GCN Observations of GRB\,080319B\label{tab:photloggcn}}
1929: \tablecolumns{7}
1930: \tablehead{
1931: \colhead{$t_{\rm mid}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Filter} &
1932: \colhead{Exp.~time} &
1933: \colhead{Mag.\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Flux\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} \\
1934: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1935: \colhead{sec} & \colhead{} &
1936: \colhead{$\mu$Jy} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} }
1937: \startdata
1938: -11.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ \geq 11.48$ & $ \leq7.94\times 10^{4}$ & Pi\tablenotemark{c} & GCN 7445\tablenotemark{d}\\
1939: 3.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 9.83$ & $3.63\times 10^{5}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1940: 17.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 5.76$ & $1.54\times 10^{7}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1941: 32.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 6.00$ & $1.24\times 10^{7}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1942: 79.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 8.26$ & $1.54\times 10^{6}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1943: 93.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 8.77$ & $9.64\times 10^{5}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1944: 108.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 9.10$ & $7.11\times 10^{5}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1945: 122.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 10.27$ & $2.42\times 10^{5}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1946: 163.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 10.50$ & $1.96\times 10^{5}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1947: 177.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 11.10$ & $1.13\times 10^{5}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1948: 252.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 11.21$ & $1.02\times 10^{5}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1949: 296.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 11.79$ & $5.97\times 10^{4}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1950: 310.0 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 11.95$ & $5.15\times 10^{4}$ & Pi & GCN 7445\\
1951: 37.2 & {\rm clear} & 10.0 & $ 5.60$ & $1.79\times 10^{7}$ & RAPTOR & GCN 7464\tablenotemark{e} \\
1952: 24.6 & {\rm clear} & 5.0 & $ 5.35$ & $2.25\times 10^{7}$ & ROTSE & GCN 7470\tablenotemark{f}\\
1953: 111.7 & {\rm clear} & 20.0 & $ 8.49$ & $1.25\times 10^{6}$ & ROTSE & GCN 7470\\
1954: 8.9 & {\rm clear}\tablenotemark{v} & -- & $ 8.198 \pm 0.579$ & $1.94\times 10^{6}\pm8.02\times 10^{5}$ & TORTORA & GCN 7558\tablenotemark{g} \\
1955: 10.1 & {\rm clear}\tablenotemark{v} & -- & $ 6.967 \pm 0.188$ & $6.03\times 10^{6}\pm9.58\times 10^{5}$ & TORTORA & GCN 7558\\
1956: 11.5 & {\rm clear}\tablenotemark{v} & -- & $ 6.650 \pm 0.141$ & $8.07\times 10^{6}\pm9.83\times 10^{5}$ & TORTORA & GCN 7558\\
1957: 60300.0 & {\rm R} & -- & $ 19.80$ & $3.73\times 10^{1}$ & Canarias & GCN 7476\tablenotemark{h} \\
1958: 55830.0 & {\rm clear} & 1500.0 & $19.080 \pm 0.020$ & $7.24\times 10^{1}\pm1.32\times 10^{0}$ & AAVSO & GCN 7484\tablenotemark{i} \\
1959: 70500.0 & {\rm clear} & 2040.0 & $19.000 \pm 0.100$ & $7.80\times 10^{1}\pm6.86\times 10^{0}$ & AAVSO & GCN 7484 \\
1960: 74831.0 & {\rm R} & -- & $20.000 \pm 0.300$ & $3.10\times 10^{1}\pm7.50\times 10^{0}$ & Brno & GCN 7504\tablenotemark{j} \\
1961: 43934.4 & {\rm R} & -- & $ 19.10$ & $7.11\times 10^{1}$ & Kharkiv & GCN 7519\tablenotemark{k} \\
1962: 46270.8 & {\rm R} & -- & $ 19.90$ & $3.40\times 10^{1}$ & Kharkiv & GCN 7519 \\
1963: 71208.0 & {\rm R} & -- & $ 20.10$ & $2.83\times 10^{1}$ & Kharkiv & GCN 7519 \\
1964: 1656000 & {\rm R}\tablenotemark{n}& -- & $ 24.35$ & $5.65\times 10^{-1}$ & HST & GCN 7569\tablenotemark{l}\\
1965: 1656000 & {\rm I}\tablenotemark{o}& -- & $ 23.76$ & $7.62\times 10^{-1}$ & HST & GCN 7569\\
1966: 4590000 & {\rm R}\tablenotemark{n}& -- & $26.280 \pm 0.100$ & $9.55\times 10^{-2}\pm8.40\times 10^{-3}$ & HST & GCN 7710\tablenotemark{m} \\
1967: 4590000 & {\rm I}\tablenotemark{o}& -- & $25.460 \pm 0.100$ & $1.59\times 10^{-1}\pm1.40\times 10^{-2}$ & HST & GCN 7710\\
1968: \enddata
1969: \tablecomments{Most of the TORTORA measurements have been omitted to save space. The full table of GCN photometry used in our plot is available online.}
1970: \tablenotetext{a}{Exposure mid-time, measured from the {\textit{Swift}}\, trigger (UTC 06:12:49).}
1971: \tablenotetext{b}{Observed value; not corrected for Galactic extinction.}
1972: \tablenotetext{c}{``Pi$-$of$-$the$-$Sky'' Collaboration}
1973: \tablenotetext{d}{\cite{Cwiok08_GCN7445}}
1974: \tablenotetext{e}{\cite{Wozniak08_GCN7464}}
1975: \tablenotetext{f}{\cite{Swan08_GCN7470}}
1976: \tablenotetext{g}{\cite{Karpov08_GCN7558}}
1977: \tablenotetext{h}{\cite{Jelinek08_GCN7476}}
1978: \tablenotetext{i}{\cite{Hentunen08_GCN7484}}
1979: \tablenotetext{j}{\cite{Novak08_GCN7504}}
1980: \tablenotetext{k}{\cite{Krugly08_GCN7519}}
1981: \tablenotetext{l}{\cite{Tanvir08_GCN7569}}
1982: \tablenotetext{m}{\cite{Levan08_GCN7710}}
1983: \tablenotetext{n}{Converted from F606W.}
1984: \tablenotetext{o}{Converted from F804W.}
1985: \tablenotetext{v}{Calibrated to $V$-band and plotted as $V$ in our figures.}
1986: \tablenotetext{x}{No GCN observations were used in modeling.}
1987: \end{deluxetable}
1988:
1989:
1990:
1991:
1992: \begin{deluxetable}{llllll}
1993: \tabletypesize{\small}
1994: \tablecaption{Bright SDSS standard stars}
1995: \tablecolumns{6}
1996: \tablehead{
1997: \colhead{RA} & \colhead{Dec} & \colhead{B} & \colhead{V} & \colhead{R} & \colhead{I} \\
1998: \colhead{deg} & \colhead{deg} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{mag}
1999: }
2000: \startdata
2001: 217.915229 & 36.31513 & 15.940 $\pm$ 0.010 & 15.293 $\pm$ 0.006 &14.922 $\pm$ 0.008 & 14.551 $\pm$ 0.007 \\
2002: 217.908143 & 36.29125 & 17.716 $\pm$ 0.012 & 16.350 $\pm$ 0.006 &15.523 $\pm$ 0.008 & 14.821 $\pm$ 0.007 \\
2003: 217.943617 & 36.31667 & 17.993 $\pm$ 0.012 & 16.834 $\pm$ 0.006 &16.162 $\pm$ 0.008 & 15.590 $\pm$ 0.007 \\
2004: \enddata
2005: \label{tab:lickstars}
2006: \end{deluxetable}
2007:
2008:
2009: \begin{deluxetable}{llllll}
2010: \tabletypesize{\small}
2011: \tablecaption{Faint SDSS standard stars}
2012: \tablecolumns{6}
2013: \tablehead{
2014: \colhead{RA} & \colhead{Dec} & \colhead{g} & \colhead{r} & \colhead{i} & \colhead{z} \\
2015: \colhead{deg} & \colhead{deg} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{mag}
2016: }
2017: \startdata
2018: 217.908143 & 36.29125 & 17.091 $\pm$ 0.005 & 15.816 $\pm$ 0.004 & 15.310 $\pm$ 0.004 & 15.067 $\pm$ 0.005 \\
2019: 217.943617 & 36.31667 & 17.425 $\pm$ 0.005 & 16.409 $\pm$ 0.004 & 16.058 $\pm$ 0.004 & 15.872 $\pm$ 0.007 \\
2020: 217.871828 & 36.29380 & 17.364 $\pm$ 0.005 & 16.903 $\pm$ 0.005 & 16.769 $\pm$ 0.005 & 16.689 $\pm$ 0.010 \\
2021: 217.894280 & 36.34851 & 18.298 $\pm$ 0.007 & 16.955 $\pm$ 0.005 & 16.370 $\pm$ 0.005 & 16.036 $\pm$ 0.007 \\
2022: 217.902832 & 36.33332 & 18.084 $\pm$ 0.006 & 17.741 $\pm$ 0.006 & 17.626 $\pm$ 0.007 & 17.565 $\pm$ 0.017 \\
2023: 217.981086 & 36.29605 & 18.223 $\pm$ 0.007 & 17.866 $\pm$ 0.006 & 17.746 $\pm$ 0.008 & 17.723 $\pm$ 0.041 \\
2024: 217.931339 & 36.34208 & 19.812 $\pm$ 0.014 & 18.342 $\pm$ 0.008 & 16.818 $\pm$ 0.005 & 16.016 $\pm$ 0.007 \\
2025: 217.931216 & 36.27044 & 19.172 $\pm$ 0.010 & 18.382 $\pm$ 0.008 & 18.110 $\pm$ 0.009 & 17.988 $\pm$ 0.021 \\
2026: 217.918619 & 36.31995 & 20.742 $\pm$ 0.026 & 19.264 $\pm$ 0.013 & 18.483 $\pm$ 0.011 & 18.055 $\pm$ 0.024 \\
2027: 217.913905 & 36.28612 & 20.736 $\pm$ 0.027 & 19.266 $\pm$ 0.013 & 18.253 $\pm$ 0.010 & 17.687 $\pm$ 0.019 \\
2028: 217.928915 & 36.33948 & 20.850 $\pm$ 0.029 & 19.462 $\pm$ 0.017 & 18.214 $\pm$ 0.010 & 17.578 $\pm$ 0.018 \\
2029: 217.928801 & 36.30674 & 20.844 $\pm$ 0.028 & 19.471 $\pm$ 0.014 & 18.689 $\pm$ 0.012 & 18.315 $\pm$ 0.029 \\
2030: 217.955190 & 36.33084 & 19.708 $\pm$ 0.014 & 19.506 $\pm$ 0.015 & 19.505 $\pm$ 0.023 & 19.315 $\pm$ 0.065 \\
2031: 217.926000 & 36.33788 & 20.047 $\pm$ 0.016 & 19.640 $\pm$ 0.016 & 19.474 $\pm$ 0.022 & 19.437 $\pm$ 0.071 \\
2032: 217.932586 & 36.27256 & 21.248 $\pm$ 0.033 & 19.710 $\pm$ 0.016 & 18.342 $\pm$ 0.010 & 17.551 $\pm$ 0.016 \\
2033: 217.946853 & 36.30972 & 21.362 $\pm$ 0.040 & 19.909 $\pm$ 0.020 & 19.003 $\pm$ 0.016 & 18.439 $\pm$ 0.033 \\
2034: 217.971356 & 36.30059 & 21.318 $\pm$ 0.039 & 19.937 $\pm$ 0.020 & 19.043 $\pm$ 0.016 & 18.571 $\pm$ 0.035 \\
2035: \enddata
2036: \label{tab:sdssstars}
2037: \end{deluxetable}
2038: \end{document}
2039: