1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx,lscape,subfigure}
4: \usepackage{latexsym}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6:
7:
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{The Early-time Optical Properties of Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows}
12:
13: \author{A.~Melandri\altaffilmark{1}, C.G.~Mundell\altaffilmark{1}, S.~Kobayashi\altaffilmark{1}, C.~Guidorzi\altaffilmark{2,3,1}, A.~Gomboc\altaffilmark{4}, I.A.~Steele\altaffilmark{1}, R.J.~Smith\altaffilmark{1}, D.~Bersier\altaffilmark{1}, C.J.~Mottram\altaffilmark{1}, D.~Carter\altaffilmark{1}, M.F.~Bode\altaffilmark{1}, P.T.~O'Brien\altaffilmark{5}, N.R.~Tanvir\altaffilmark{5}, E.~Rol\altaffilmark{5}, R.~Chapman\altaffilmark{6}}
14: \email{axm@astro.livjm.ac.uk}
15:
16: \altaffiltext{1}{Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Twelve Quays House, Egerton Wharf, Birkenhead, CH41 1LD, UK}
17: \altaffiltext{2}{Universit\`a di Milano Bicocca, Dipartimento di Fisica, piazza della Scienze 3, I-20126 Milano, Italy}
18: \altaffiltext{3}{INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via Bianchi 46, 23807 Merate (LC), Italy}
19: \altaffiltext{4}{FMF, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia}
20: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK}
21: \altaffiltext{6}{Centre for Astrophysics Research, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK}
22:
23:
24: \label{firstpage}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27:
28: We present a multiwavelength analysis of 63 Gamma-Ray Bursts observed
29: with the world's three largest robotic optical telescopes, the
30: Liverpool and Faulkes Telescopes (North and South). Optical emission
31: was detected for 24 GRBs with brightnesses ranging from $R$ = 10 to 22
32: mag in the first 10 minutes after the burst. By comparing optical and
33: X-ray light curves from t = 100 to $\sim 10^6$ seconds, we introduce
34: four main classes, defined by the presence or absence of temporal
35: breaks at optical and/or X-ray wavelengths. While 15/24 GRBs can be
36: modelled with the forward-shock model, explanation of the remaining
37: nine is very challenging in the standard framework even with the
38: introduction of energy injection or an ambient density gradient. Early
39: X-ray afterglows, even segments of light curves described by a
40: power-law, may be due to additional emission from the central
41: engine. 39 GRBs in our sample were not detected and have deep upper
42: limits ($R$ $<$ 22 mag) at early time. Of these, only ten were
43: identified by other facilities, primarily at near infrared
44: wavelengths, resulting in a dark burst fraction of
45: $\sim$50\%. Additional emission in the early time X-ray afterglow due
46: to late-time central engine activity may also explain some dark bursts
47: by making the bursts brighter than expected in the X-ray band compared
48: to the optical band.
49:
50: \end{abstract}
51:
52: \keywords {Gamma rays: bursts}
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55:
56:
57: Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) are brief, intense flashes of high energy
58: gamma rays originating at cosmological distances and often associated
59: with subsequent radiation emitted at longer wavelengths from X-ray to
60: radio waves on times scales of minutes to days after the initial gamma
61: ray burst. In the standard model a typical long duration GRB is
62: thought to be formed by the explosion of a compact source that
63: generates an expanding relativistic fireball (Rees $\&$
64: M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 1992). If the central engine remains active for some
65: time several expanding shells with different speeds (different Lorentz
66: factors, $\Gamma$) can be produced. The collisions between these
67: shells power the $\gamma$-ray prompt emission itself (internal
68: shocks), while the interactions of the relativistic flow with the
69: surrounding medium (external forward shocks) generate the so-called
70: afterglow emission that dominates at longer wavelengths and is more
71: long-lived than the prompt emission (M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2002, Piran
72: 1999). Assuming that the shock-accelerated electrons producing the
73: radiation have a power-law spectral energy distribution, the afterglow
74: synchrotron emission is expected to exhibit a standard form of
75: spectrum, with two characteristic break frequencies: the typical
76: synchrotron frequency $\nu_{\rm m}$ and the cooling frequency
77: $\nu_{\rm c}$ (Sari, Piran $\&$ Narayan 1998). When the forward shock
78: is formed, a reverse shock that propagates backwards into the ejecta
79: is also generated. The brightness of the reverse shock emission decays
80: very rapidly compared to the decay of the forward component. It is
81: predicted that at early time the reverse shock can produce extremely
82: bright optical flashes while at late time the optical flux is
83: completely dominated by the forward shock emission (M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros
84: $\&$ Rees 1997, Sari $\&$ Piran 1999). In reality, the resultant light
85: curve is a complex, time-dependent mixture of these components and
86: unravelling them provides important insight into the physics and
87: energetics of the explosion.
88:
89: The study of pre-{\it Swift} bursts allowed the understanding of late
90: time multiband properties of the afterglows confirming many
91: predictions of the fireball model. Well-sampled pre-{\it Swift}
92: optical light curves were mostly obtained at late times, typically
93: after few hours from the burst event, and exhibited relatively smooth
94: light curves with simple power law decays, showing breaks at late time
95: (hints of a jet evolution) and making clear a strong connection with
96: supernova emission and, thus, the death of massive stars (e.g. Woosley
97: $\&$ Bloom 2006, Malesani et al. 2004, Stanek et al. 2003). The advent
98: of the {\it Swift} satellite (Gehrels et al. 2004) has opened up a new
99: observational window at early times, revealing more complex light
100: curve behaviour than previously known. It is now accepted that the
101: X-ray temporal decay of GRBs observed by {\it Swift} is well described
102: by a canonical light curve (Nousek et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2006);
103: combining the $\gamma$-ray \citep[Burst Alert Telescope, BAT,][]{bart}
104: and X-ray (X-Ray Telescope, XRT, Burrows et al. 2005) data the initial
105: X-ray emission (rapid fall-off for the first hundred seconds) is
106: consistent with the tail of the $\gamma$-ray emission (Tagliaferri et
107: al. 2005, O'Brien et al. 2006) and can be modelled by two components
108: that have exactly the same functional form (Willingale et
109: al. 2007). These functions are completely empirical and do not do not
110: provide a physical explanation for the X-ray flares seen in many
111: bursts, but the majority of {\it Swift} bursts seem to follow this
112: behaviour.
113:
114: It was clear that rapid response to obtain early-time optical
115: observations with ground based robotic telescopes was required to pin
116: down the open issue of the emission mechanism for the GRB itself and
117: its afterglow. However, the small number of prompt optical
118: observations simultaneous to the GRB $\gamma$-ray emission do not yet
119: allow a firm conclusion to be drawn about the GRB emission models
120: (Yost et al. 2007). The statistics of these events remain small due to
121: the fact that the GRBs detected by {\it Swift} satellite are fainter
122: and located at higher redshift ($<z> = 2.7$, Le $\&$ Dermer 2007,
123: Jakobsson et al. 2006) than those detected by previous missions. Large
124: 2-m robotic telescopes, such as the Liverpool and Faulkes (North and
125: South) Telescopes, responding within 1-3 minutes of the burst offer a
126: unique tool for probing early-time light curves over a wide range of
127: brightnesses, allowing the extension of the analysis of GRB properties
128: to unprecedented depth and time coverage.
129:
130: Based on the theoretical predictions of the forward and reverse shock
131: emission theories, optical light curves at early times should show
132: different shapes depending on the relative contribution of the two
133: components (Kobayashi $\&$ Zhang 2003, Zhang, Kobayashi $\&$
134: M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2003); possible light curve shapes are illustrated in
135: Figure~\ref{figc1}. In particular, if the optical observations start
136: when the reverse shock component still dominates the optical flux, the
137: shape of the optical light curve will appear as case 1 or case 2 in
138: Figure~\ref{figc1}. In the first case the light curve will show a
139: transition from steep to shallow power law decay index. In the second
140: case it will show a re-brightening, but if observations do not start
141: early enough the first steep segment (thick dashed line on
142: Figure~\ref{figc1}) of the light curve should be missing and it will
143: be visible only in the rise of the forward component. The observed
144: peak in case 2 will correspond to the passage of the $\nu_{\rm m}$ in
145: the observing band. If there is energy injection to the forward shock
146: emission then the light curve should appear as case 3 in
147: Figure~\ref{figc1}. This behaviour can be explained by long-lived
148: central engine activity or large dispersion in the distribution of
149: Lorentz factors (Zhang et al. 2006) or related to the time when the
150: energy is transferred from the fireball to the ambient medium
151: (Kobayashi $\&$ Zhang 2007).
152:
153: Within this theoretical framework, we present the analysis of a sample
154: of 63 GRBs observed with the network of three 2-m telescopes
155: \emph{RoboNet-1.0}\footnote[1]{\it
156: http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/RoboNet/} (Gomboc at al. 2006), formed by
157: the Liverpool Telescope (LT, La Palma, Canary Islands), the Faulkes
158: Telescope North (FTN, Haleakala, Hawaii) and the Faulkes Telescope
159: South (FTS, Siding Spring, Australia). For those GRBs with detected
160: optical counterparst, we discuss their light curve properties, compare
161: optical and X-ray data and analyse the intrinsic rest frame properties
162: of those bursts with known spectroscopic redshift. An analysis of the
163: bursts for which no afterglow was detected is also presented and
164: discussed within the standard fireball model.
165:
166: Throughout we use the following conventions : the power law flux is
167: given as $F(\nu,t) \propto t^{-\alpha} \nu^{-\beta}$, where $\alpha$
168: is the temporal decay index and $\beta$ is the spectral slope; we
169: assume a standard cosmology with $H_{0} = 70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$,
170: $\Omega_{m} = 0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$; all errors and
171: uncertainties are quoted at the $1\sigma$ confidence level.
172:
173:
174: \section{Observations and Analysis}
175:
176:
177: All three telescopes enable rapid response (the typical mean reaction
178: time is $<t> \sim 2.5$ minutes after the trigger) and deep
179: observations ($R \sim$ 21 at $t \sim 5$ minutes after the trigger) to
180: GRB alerts, which are crucial in the case of faint or optically dark
181: bursts. Each telescope operates in a fully robotic mode, responding
182: automatically to a GRB satellite alert by immediately over-riding the
183: current observing programme, then obtaining, analysing and
184: interpreting optical images of the GRB field using the specially
185: designed, sophisticated pipeline (LT-TRAP); subsequent robotic
186: followup observations are then optimised and driven by the
187: automatically derived properties of the afterglow (see Guidorzi et
188: al. 2006). Up to September 2007 the network robotically reacted to 63
189: GRBs with 24 optical afterglow detections and 39 upper limits (Figure
190: \ref{figall}).
191:
192: In this paper, the optical photometry of each optical afterglow was
193: performed using Starlink/GAIA photometry tools. Each field of view was
194: calibrated with the best data available: 1) standards stars observed
195: during the night, if the night was photometric; 2) pre-burst
196: calibration fields (both for SDSS or Bessell filters) reported in GCN
197: Circulars; 3) differential photometry with catalogued stars in the
198: field of view (USNOB1.0 catalogue). This procedure has been followed
199: for all the sample data. All the calibrated magnitudes in the SDSS-r'
200: filter (for all the bursts observed with the LT telescope) were then
201: transformed to the $R_{\rm C}$ band using the filter transformations
202: given by Smith et al. (2002); the colour term $R-r'$ was then derived
203: for the selected stars used to calibrate the field and finally applied
204: to the estimated magnitude. Data calibration is also discussed in
205: Guidorzi et al. (2005b, 2007), Monfardini et al. (2006) and Mundell et
206: al. (2007b).
207:
208: \section{Results}
209:
210: \subsection{Optical Detections}
211:
212: The observed optical light curves of the detected afterglows in our
213: sample are shown in Figure~\ref{figall} (left panel). In the right
214: panel of the same figure all the deep upper limits for the undetected
215: afterglows are shown, using the same scale on the y-axis to emphasize
216: the large range in brightness and time covered by our observations.
217:
218: The individual light curves of the detected afterglows are then shown
219: in Figure~\ref{figxopt}, which shows $R$ band observations together
220: with the corresponding {\it Swift} X-ray light curves. Temporal and
221: spectral properties are summarised in Table 1. We give both temporal
222: and spectral information for each burst, when available. We fitted the
223: data either with a single or with a broken power law; the values
224: reported in the table are the best fitting results. The values
225: reported for $\beta_{\rm O}$, $\beta_{\rm X}$ and $\beta_{\rm OX}$ are
226: retrieved from the literature. In the last two columns of the table we
227: report the redshift ($z$) and the derived isotropic gamma-ray energy
228: ($E_{\gamma, {\rm iso}}$) of the burst. For all the bursts detected by
229: the {\it Swift} satellite the value of $E_{\gamma, {\rm iso}}$
230: reported in the table is taken from Butler et al. (2007). For the
231: no-{\it Swift} bursts we calculated $E_{\gamma, {\rm iso}}$ assuming a
232: standard cosmology as reported at the end of Section 1, with the
233: following formula: $E_{\gamma,iso} = (4 \pi D_{L}^{2}~{\it f}) / (1 +
234: z) $, where $D_{L}$ is the luminosity distance and {\it f} is the
235: gamma ray fluence of the burst.
236:
237: Some of the sample bursts have been discussed in previous dedicated
238: papers, but are presented here for completeness. For each burst in our
239: sample we summarise its key properties, together with references to
240: more detailed work where relevant:
241:
242: \begin{itemize}
243:
244: \item GRB~041006 : this HETE burst was observed with Chandra between
245: 16.8 and 42.5 hours after the burst event, showing a single temporal
246: power law decay, whereas in the optical a break in the light curve at
247: early time was clearly visible. At late time ($>10^{6}$ s) the
248: contribution of the underlying supernova emerged (Stanek et al. 2005,
249: Soderberg et al. 2006). The spectral indices in the two bands are
250: consistent, with a slope $\beta_{\rm OX} \sim 0.7$ (Butler at
251: al. 2005; Garnavich et al. 2004). Chandra X-ray data are not shown in
252: our plot; the results of X-ray analysis are taken from Butler et
253: al. 2005.
254:
255: \item GRB~041218 : for this long INTEGRAL burst there is only a late XRT
256: observation. We do not have information for the X-ray temporal decay
257: but in the optical we see a steepening of the decay after $\sim 0.10$
258: days. No spectral information is available for this burst.
259:
260: \item GRB~050502A : for this long INTEGRAL burst the XRT provided only
261: an upper limit for the X-ray flux at $\sim 1.3$ days. In the optical
262: band the light curve can be described by a single power law with a
263: hint of a bump at 0.02 days. In the X-ray band, temporal and spectral
264: parameters are consistent with similar behaviour to that of the
265: optical (see Guidorzi et al. 2005b for the detailed analysis of this
266: burst).
267:
268: \item GRB~050713A : XMM observations performed between 5.8 and 13.9
269: hours after the burst, show a break in the X-ray light curve at $\sim
270: 2 \times 10^{4}$ s. That break is marginally detected in the X-ray
271: data acquired by {\it Swift}, while the optical light curve is well
272: described by a shallow power law at all times (Guetta et al.,
273: 2006). XMM data are not reported in our plot; an accurate spectral
274: analysis has been done by Morris et al. (2007).
275:
276: \item GRB~050730 : both X-ray and optical light curves of this
277: {\it Swift} burst show a steepening of the initial temporal power law
278: decay at 0.1 days, more pronounced in the X-ray band. The derived
279: spectral slopes from X-ray and optical data are statistically in
280: agreement (Pandey et al. 2006).
281:
282: \item GRB~051111 : the optical light curve is well fitted by a broken
283: power law with an early break around 12 minutes, while in the X-ray no
284: early data were acquired and no break is visible. A comprehensive
285: multi-wavelength temporal and spectral study of this burst has been
286: done by Guidorzi et al. (2007), Yost et al. (2007) and Butler at
287: al. (2006).
288:
289: \item GRB~060108 : this burst has a faint, but relatively blue,
290: optical afterglow that was identified by deep rapid FTN observation,
291: without which it would have been classified as dark burst ($\beta_{\rm
292: OX} \sim 0.5$ and no afterglow was detected by the {\it Swift} UVOT
293: within the first 300 s). It shows a canonical X-ray light curve while
294: in the optical band the flux may show a similar behaviour but, due to
295: its optical faintness the resultant sparse sampling with co-added
296: images provides a light curve that is consistent wit a single power
297: law. The darkness of this burst can be explained by a combination of
298: an intrinsically optical faintness, an hard optical to X-ray spectrum
299: and a moderate extinction in the host galaxy (Oates et al. 2006).
300:
301: \item GRB~060203 : after an initial rise, the optical light curve
302: follows a shallow power law decay (typical example of the case 2
303: reported in Figure~\ref{figc1}). Due to observing constraints, X-ray
304: observations started only $10^{3}$~s after the trigger and the light
305: curve shows evidence of a power law decay roughly consistent with the
306: optical one. The spectral fit gives a value of $\beta_{\rm X} \sim
307: 1.1$ and shows a value of N$_{\rm H}$ in excess of the galactic one
308: (Morris et al. 2006a).
309:
310: \item GRB~060204B : the early X-ray light curve is dominated by
311: flaring activity and only after $2\times10^{3}$~s does the decay
312: appear to be a single power law (Falcone et al. 2006a). In the optical
313: the afterglow is faint and the light curve is a simple power law,
314: shallower than the X-ray decay.
315:
316: \item GRB~060206 : the detailed analysis of the optical light curve
317: showed dramatic energy injection at early time, with at least 3
318: episodes, with the largest one also visible in the X-ray light
319: curve. At late times a break is evident in the optical but not in the
320: X-ray band; the chromatic nature of the break is not consistent with
321: the possible jet-break interpretation and can be ascribed to a change
322: in the circumburst density profile (Monfardini et al. 2006). In a
323: recent work Curran et al. (2007) found that the data are also
324: consistent with an achromatic break, even if the break in the X-ray is
325: less pronounced. However, the complete X-ray data set acquired with
326: XRT remains consistent with a single unbroken power law decay up to
327: $10^{6}$ seconds (Morris et al. 2006b, Burrows $\&$ Racusin 2007) ,
328: and the first explanation for the break seems to be the more
329: plausible.
330:
331: \item GRB~060210 : the optical light curve exhibits a power law decay
332: after an initial flat phase ($\alpha = 0.09 \pm 0.05$, case 3 in
333: Figure~\ref{figc1}). There is marginal evidence for a break at late
334: times ($t_{{\rm O},break}$ $\sim 0.1 $ days) but there are not enough
335: optical data to support that. Instead a break is visible in the X-ray
336: light curve, but the late time break is not simultaneous ($t_{{\rm
337: X},break} \sim 0.3$ days). We can not exclude the possible achromatic
338: nature of that break due to the very complex behaviour of X-ray light
339: curve.
340:
341: \item GRB~060418 : in the optical and infrared bands (see Molinari et
342: al., 2007 for the infrared analysis) an initial rise is visible,
343: followed by a straight power law decay (case 2 in
344: Figure~\ref{figc1}). Fitting the early X-ray data it is possible to
345: see a change in the slope, but, accounting for the presence of a large
346: flare, the data are also consistent with a single power law
347: decay. There is no evidence of temporal break up to $10^6$~s in both
348: optical and X-ray bands. The spectrum of the underlying X-ray
349: afterglow can be described by a simple absorbed power law with
350: $\beta_{\rm X} = 1.04\pm0.13$ (Falcone et al. 2006b). The low degree
351: of polarization of the optical light at early time (at $\sim 200$ s
352: after the event) ruled out the presence of a large scale ordered
353: magnetic field in the emitting region (Mundell et al. 2007a).
354:
355: \item GRB~060510B : the temporal behaviour in the X-ray seems to be
356: the canonical steep-shallow-steep decay with superimposed flares, even
357: if the light curve at late times is poorly sampled. Looking at the
358: flat light curve at early times, possibly the prompt gamma-ray
359: component is detected in XRT (T$_{90} \sim 280$ s). Due to the high
360: redshift, the optical flux is suppressed by the Ly$\alpha$ absorption
361: and our early optical data are consistent with a single power law
362: decay. No optical observations at late time were available to confirm
363: the possible achromatic nature of the break observed in the X-ray
364: band. The early time X-ray spectrum is well fitted with an absorbed
365: power law with $\beta_{\rm X} \sim 0.5$ (Perri et al. 2006). This is
366: the value of $\beta_{\rm X}$ reported in Table1 because
367: estimated at a time consistent with the time of our optical
368: observations. At late times, taking into account the intrinsic
369: absorption at the redshift of the burst, the spectrum is well fitted
370: by an absorbed power law with $\beta_{\rm X} \sim 1.5$ (Campana et
371: al., 2006).
372:
373: \item GRB~060512 : optical data are consistent with a single power law.
374: In the X-ray a clear flare is visible at early times and the decay
375: after $10^{3}$ s is a simple power law. At late time, the X-ray
376: spectrum has a slope $\beta_{\rm X} \sim 0.9$ (Godet et al. 2006).
377:
378: \item GRB~060927 : due to the high redshift ($z=5.467$), the optical
379: light curve is highly affected by Ly$\alpha$ suppression, particularly
380: in the $R$ filter. The light curve in the $I$ band shows evidence of a
381: possible extra component at early times, but after 500 s the decay is
382: a single power law ($\alpha_{\rm I} \sim 1.2$). In the X-ray a change
383: of slope is clearly visible and the spectrum is well modelled with an
384: absorbed power law with $\beta_{\rm X} \sim 0.9$ (Ruiz-Velasco et al.,
385: 2007).
386:
387: \item GRB~061007 : the optical light curve exhibits an early peak
388: followed by an unprecedented straight power law decay up to (and
389: likely beyond) $10^6$~s after the burst (a good example of case 2 in
390: Figure~\ref{figc1}), perfectly mirrored in the X-ray band. The peak at
391: early times can be explained in the context of the fireball model: no
392: optical flash is seen because the typical frequency of the reverse
393: shock emission lies in the radio band at early time and the optical
394: afterglow is dominated by forward shock emission (Mundell et
395: al. 2007b). The broad band optical to $\gamma$-ray spectral energy
396: distribution is well described by an absorbed power law with $\beta
397: \sim 1.0$ (Mundell et al. 2007b, Schady et al. 2007).
398:
399: \item GRB~061110B : this burst is intrinsically faint and displays a
400: simple power law decay both in the optical and in the X-ray bands. It
401: showed a typical GRB afterglow spectrum with $\beta_{\rm X} \sim 1.0$
402: (Grupe et al. 2006).
403:
404: \item GRB~061121 : this is a perfect example of canonical light curve
405: in the X-ray band not replicated in the optical. The light curve
406: follows a simple power law decay even though the observations began
407: when the initial steep X-ray phase was still ongoing (Page et al.,
408: 2007).
409:
410: \item GRB~061126 : the optical light curve shows a steep to shallow
411: transition at about 13 minutes after the trigger. The early, steep
412: component can be interpreted as due to the reverse shock while the
413: later slowly fading component is coming from the forward shock (clear
414: example of case 1 in Figure~\ref{figc1}). X-ray observations started
415: after the transition in optical, and show the X-ray afterglow decaying
416: with $\alpha_{{\rm X},2} > \alpha_{{\rm O},2}$ (faster than the
417: optical afterglow) to the end of observations at $10^{6}$ s (for more
418: details see Gomboc et al. 2008).
419:
420: \item GRB~070208 : after an initial rising phase, the X-ray light curve
421: shows a power law decay. The optical data cover the same time interval
422: as the X-ray data but no rising phase is detected and the optical
423: light curve is well described by a simple power law, after an initial
424: flat phase (case 3 in Figure~\ref{figc1}). The optical decay index
425: after the flat phase remains shallower than the decay in the X-ray
426: band.
427:
428: \item GRB~070411 : in this case the temporal decay in the two bands is
429: very similar, but in the optical band an initial rising phase is
430: detected that is not visible in the X-ray band, probably due to the
431: poor sampling at early times in that band. The optical light curve
432: seems to be another example of case 2 reported in Figure~\ref{figc1}
433: but the shape is not smooth and clear, with significant scatter
434: (possibly variability) around the power law decay.
435:
436: \item GRB~070419A : different observations in the optical band show
437: that at early time the afterglow brightened before starting a shallow
438: decay phase that lasts up to $10^{6}$~s. Although the X-ray temporal
439: decay at late time ($\alpha_{{\rm X},2}$ = $0.64\pm0.10$) agrees very
440: well with the optical decay ($\alpha_{{\rm O},2}$ = $0.58\pm0.04$), at
441: early times the X-ray light curve shows a rapid decay, with no hints
442: of any flare activity. The shape observed in the optical band does not
443: fit the three cases reported in Figure~\ref{figc1} and is probably the
444: result of an episode of energy injection.
445:
446: \item GRB~070420 : another example of canonical light curve in the X-ray
447: band not replicated in the optical. However, in this case the optical
448: light curve is less well sampled than GRB~061121, so it is more
449: difficult to constrain the optical behaviour in the entire time
450: interval covered by XRT observations.
451:
452: \item GRB~070714B : the X-ray data show a steep-shallow-steep decay,
453: not well constrained at late times and with possible small flaring
454: activity. The optical counterpart is very faint but appears to show a
455: shallower power law decay compared with the X-ray decay at late times.
456:
457: \end{itemize}
458:
459:
460: \subsection{Optical Upper-Limits}
461:
462:
463: In Table~2 we report the optical upper limits for all the bursts
464: observed with the Liverpool and the Faulkes telescopes for which we
465: did not detect any afterglow candidate. For each GRB we specified when
466: the XRT position for the X-ray afterglow was found. The duration, the
467: BAT fluence $\it f$ (15-150 keV), the XRT early flux F$_{\rm X}$
468: (0.3-10 keV), the time of X-rays observations ($\Delta~t_{\rm X}$),
469: the temporal decay ($\alpha_{\rm X}$) and the spectral slope
470: ($\beta_{\rm X}$) in the X-ray band, are the values reported in the
471: GCNs or taken from the {\it Swift} general table. $R^{\rm u.l.}_{\rm
472: start}$ are the values of our optical upper limits at $\Delta~t_{\rm
473: start}$ minutes from the trigger, where $\Delta~t_{\rm start}$ is the
474: starting time of our observations. $R^{\rm u.l.}_{\rm mean}$ are the
475: values of our optical upper limits at $\Delta~t_{\rm mean}$ minutes
476: from the trigger (mean time) for the coadded frames with a total
477: integration time of $T_{exp}$ minutes. The columns OT and $A_{R}$ show
478: when an optical (O) or infrared (IR) afterglow for that burst had been
479: detected by other facilities and the extinction for the $R$ band in
480: the direction of the burst. The last two columns on the table are the
481: value of the X-ray temporal decay inferred from our fit of the XRT
482: light curves ($\alpha_{\rm X}^{\rm (fit)}$) and the estimate of the
483: X-ray flux (F$_{\rm X}$) at the time of our optical upper limit
484: $\Delta~t_{\rm mean}$.
485:
486: X-ray light curves are given in Figure~\ref{figul2} together with our
487: optical upper limit. The best fit for the X-ray light curves is
488: shown. The temporal decay indices in the X-ray band ($\alpha_{\rm
489: X}^{\rm (fit)}$) reported in Table~2 refer to the segment of the light
490: curve contemporaneous with our optical limit. Only two of the bursts
491: listed in the table were detected by UVOT in the optical bands
492: (GRB~070721A and GRB~070721B); we did not detect the optical
493: counterpart for these two bursts because our observations were
494: performed at late time due to observational constraints.
495:
496: Of the 39 non-detections, 10 were detected by other facilities,
497: primarily at infrared wavelengths or using larger aperture optical
498: telescopes; the other 29 remain as non-detections. Details are
499: summarised below:
500:
501: \begin{itemize}
502:
503: \item GRB~050124 : an infrared candidate was detected and confirmed
504: by two Keck observations performed in the $K_{s}$ band about 24.6 and
505: 47.8 hours after the burst ($\Delta K_{s} \sim 0.5$, Berger et
506: al. 2005a, Berger et al. 2005b). No afterglow was detected in the
507: optical bands even by the UVOT telescope ($\sim 3$ hours after the
508: trigger, Lin et al. 2005, Hunsberger et al. 2005). Our observations
509: were performed manually in the $R$ band only after 14.7 hours for
510: observational constraints and no optical counterpart was detected.
511:
512: \item GRB~050716 : our observations in the optical band began
513: 3.8 minutes after the burst with the FTN telescope but no optical
514: candidate was found down to a limit of R$\sim$20 mag (Guidorzi et
515: al. 2005a). A potential infrared counterpart ($J-K \sim 2.5$) was
516: found in UKIRT observations just outside the XRT error circle (Tanvir
517: et al. 2005). At the position of that candidate we did not clearly
518: detect any source in the $R$ and $I$ bands but we found an excess
519: flux which suggests that the afterglow is probably reddened rather
520: than at very high redshift. A broad-band analysis found that $z \sim$
521: 2 is a good estimate for the redshift of this event and that a host
522: galaxy extinction of A$_{\rm V} \sim 2.0$ can account for the
523: relatively faint optical/infrared afterglow observed (Rol et
524: al. 2007b).
525:
526: \item GRB~060116 : also for this burst an infrared candidate was
527: detected in UKIRT observations (Kocevski et al. 2006a, Kocevski et
528: al. 2006b). The afterglow of that burst was detected with an
529: unfiltered magnitude $\sim$20 (Swan et al. 2006) and the very red
530: colours of this afterglow ($J-K =2.5$, $I-J > 2.9$, Malesani et
531: al. 2006a) suggest the source to be a highly dust extincted (A$_{\rm
532: V} > 2.5$) but not at high redshift (Tanvir at al. 2006a).
533:
534: \item GRB~060121: the SXC error circle for this HETE-II short burst
535: was partially covered by our first LT observation starting 0.83 hours
536: after the burst. Only in the second observation starting 2.44 hours
537: after the event the XRT error circle was entirely inside our field of
538: view. The detected optical/infrared afterglow (Levan et al. 2006a,
539: Malesani et al. 2006b, Hearty et al. 2006a, Hearty et al. 2006b) is
540: not seen in our images down to a limiting magnitude of $R \sim 22$ at
541: $\sim 3$ hours after the burst. Subsequent HST observations revealed
542: the presence of a very faint (both in optical and infrared) red
543: galaxy, probably an edge-on disk, close to the position of the
544: afterglow (Levan et al. 2006). In this case this would favour a
545: higher redshift for this burst than has been measured for most short
546: bursts to date.
547:
548: \item GRB~060319 : an infrared candidate was found in WHT observations
549: ($K = 19.0 \pm 0.3$, Tanvir et al. 2006b) but no claims about
550: variability have been made. Our observations set an upper limit of $R
551: \sim 21$ mag after 10 minutes of the burst and no other optical
552: observation detected any possible counterpart down to $R \sim 23$ mag
553: (D'Avanzo et al. 2006a, Lipunov et al. 2006).
554:
555: \item GRB~060602A : a very faint possible optical candidate was detected
556: about 15 minutes after the burst ($R \sim 22.5 \pm 0.3$, Jensen et
557: al. 2006). The transient nature of the source was difficult to assess
558: but was not visible in the SDSS pre-burst image. Our observations were
559: affected by the bright moon and only an upper limit of $R \sim 16.8$
560: mag was set about 36 minutes after the burst.
561:
562: \item GRB~060923A : an infrared afterglow was detected in the $K$-band
563: but undetected in $I$ and $J$ bands (Tanvir et al. 2008, Fox et
564: al. 2006a, Fox 2006), suggesting again a highly extinguished or high
565: redshift afterglow for this burst. The subsequent detection of a faint
566: host galaxy ($R\sim25.5$, Tanvir et al. 2008) set an upper limit for
567: the redshift of this burst of $z \sim 5$, leaving the extinction as
568: the most likely cause of the extremely red colours measured at early
569: times.
570:
571: \item GRB~060923C : the afterglow of that burst was detected and
572: confirmed in the infrared bands (Covino et al. 2006, Fox et al. 2006b,
573: D'Avanzo et al. 2006b). No indication of any optical identification
574: means again that the possible explanation is a high redshift or high
575: extinction origin for that burst.
576:
577: \item GRB~061006 : a source was found to vary with $\Delta I \sim 0.5$
578: mag between 0.6 and 1.6 days after the burst in the $I$-band (Malesani
579: et al. 2006c, Malesani et al. 2006d). This source was identified with
580: the afterglow of this short-hard burst. However the inferred power-law
581: decay slope was quite shallow ($\sim 0.5$) and in the second
582: observation the source was extended so the detection was contaminated
583: by the host galaxy (Malesani et al. 2006d).
584:
585: \item GRB~070223 : the afterglow of that burst was confirmed in the
586: infrared band (Castro-Tirado et al. 2007, Rol et al. 2007) and found
587: to be very faint in the optical band, close to the deep limit of our
588: observations.
589:
590: \end{itemize}
591:
592: In summary, of the 10 afterglows discussed above, 7 were detected in
593: the infrared bands with very red colours and 3 in the optical band. Of
594: those latter 3 optical afterglows, two (GRB~060602A and GRB~061006)
595: had a magnitude below our limiting magnitude in the same band at the
596: same time. For the remaining one (GRB~060121) our observations
597: performed $\sim 2.5$ hours after the burst support a probable
598: high-redshift nature for this event.
599:
600: \section{Discussion}
601:
602: \subsection{A Comparison of X-ray and Optical Light Curves}
603:
604: For a simple visual comparison we show in Figure~\ref{figxopt} the X-ray
605: light curves (where data were available, from Evans et al. 2007
606: \footnote[2]{For those bursts where no exact conversion factor from
607: count rate to observed flux (0.3-10 keV) was available we assumed the
608: mean value of $5\times10^{-11}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$.}), together
609: with the optical light curves, including all published data. When
610: optical and X-ray data cover the same time interval we superimposed on
611: the data a simple power-law fit, to better understand the temporal
612: decay behaviour. As can be seen, the light curves in the two bands do
613: not follow the same temporal decay for all the GRBs. For the majority
614: of the bursts the behaviour in the X-ray and optical bands is
615: different, especially at early times where in the X-ray band the
616: temporal decay is steep, showing the hints of large flare activity.
617:
618: \subsubsection{Blastwave Physics from Light Curves Breaks}
619:
620: In the standard fireball model, observed afterglow emission is
621: synchrotron radiation from a quasi-spherical relativistic blast wave
622: (forward shock) that propagates into the homogeneous or wind-like
623: ambient medium. The model can give clear predictions of the shape of
624: light curves at different frequencies. Here we test this model
625: comparing the theoretical expectations with the observed light curves
626: properties. We take into account simple modifications to the standard
627: model if needed. The modifications are energy injection into the blast
628: wave in the afterglow phase ($L \propto t^{-q}$) and a generalized
629: wind environment ($\rho \propto R^{-s}$). The injection would modify
630: the bast wave dynamics as long as $q<1$ and $q=1$ corresponds to the
631: case without energy injection. The possible theoretical values for the
632: temporal decay index $\alpha$ and the spectral index $\beta$ as
633: functions of the electron spectral index $p$ are summarized in Table
634: 3.
635:
636: Traditionally, optical data from ground based telescopes alone have
637: been used to establish the presence of achromatic breaks since the
638: number of pre-{\it Swift} bursts with good simultaneous X-ray and
639: optical data at any time (early and late) was very small. However,
640: recent studies of {\it Swift} bursts have shown that many {\it Swift}
641: GRBs exhibit a well defined steepening of the X-ray light curve while
642: the optical decay continues to be described by a single un-broken
643: power law (Panaitescu et al. 2006). In some cases the decay is a
644: straight power law at all times with no breaks either in the optical
645: or in the X-ray band (Mundell et al. 2007b), while in some bursts the
646: break is observed only in the optical but not in the X-ray band.
647:
648: In this paper we study breaks in X-ray and optical light curves in the
649: decay phase. Immediately after the prompt emission, some light curves
650: show a peak or flare features which are likely to be due to central
651: engine activity or reverse shock emission. We concentrate our
652: discussion on the study of simpler forward shock emission. The bursts
653: in our sample (see Figure~\ref{figxopt}) can be divided into four main
654: classes, depending on the presence or not of a break in the optical
655: curve (see Figure~\ref{figc2}):
656:
657: \begin{itemize}
658:
659: \item Class A : no break in the optical or in the X-ray band;
660: \item Class B : no break in the optical band, break in the X-ray band;
661: \item Class C : break in the optical band, no break in the X-ray band;
662: \item Class D : break in the optical and in the X-ray band.
663:
664: \end{itemize}
665:
666:
667: In the cartoon shown in Figure~\ref{figc2} we show the shape of the
668: four classes. This classification is based on the available data in
669: the two bands: {\it Swift}-XRT for the X-ray light curve and our
670: telescopes, GCNs and published data for optical light curves. There is
671: clearly the possibility of additional breaks in the period not covered
672: by the observations both in the optical and in the X-ray band. The
673: possible mechanisms that can produce a break in the observed light
674: curves in the decay phase can be summarised as follow:
675:
676: \begin{enumerate}
677:
678: \item the cooling break $\rightarrow$ chromatic break;
679:
680: \item cessation of energy injection $\rightarrow$ achromatic break;
681:
682: \item jet break $\rightarrow$ achromatic break;
683:
684: \item change in the ambient distribution $\rightarrow$ chromatic or achromatic break;
685:
686: \item additional emission component (reverse shock, late central engine activities, SN-component, host galaxy contamination) $\rightarrow$ chromatic break;
687:
688: \end{enumerate}
689:
690:
691: In the epoch under investigation in this paper ($10^{2} - 10^{6}$ s),
692: the emission process is in the slow cooling regime. One of the most
693: natural explanations for a break in a light curve is the cooling break
694: (i): on the passage of the cooling frequency through the observation
695: band, the light curve steepens by $\delta \alpha = 1/4$. The
696: steepening happens in the X-ray band first and in the optical band
697: later for a homogeneous medium, while it occurs in the optical band
698: first and in the X-ray band later for a wind-like medium. Note that
699: the cooling frequency increases in time for the wind-like medium. The
700: cessation of energy injection into the blast wave (ii) or a jet break
701: (iii) causes a change in the hydrodynamics of the blast wave,
702: producing achromatic breaks in the light curves. In the post-break
703: phase, the optical and X-ray decay indices could be the same or
704: different by $\alpha = 1/4$ for mechanism (ii). The decay indices in
705: the two bands should be the same for a jet break (iii). It should be
706: noted that for the mechanism (iv) the afterglow emission above the
707: cooling frequency does not depend on the ambient matter density. The
708: break is achromatic if the cooling frequency is located above the
709: X-ray band, while it is chromatic if the cooling frequency lies
710: between the two bands. The mechanisms (v), especially reverse shock
711: emission and late time internal shocks, are generally believed to be
712: relevant only at early times and their contribution to the shape of
713: the light curves becomes negligible at late times.
714:
715: Temporal and spectral properties of all the bursts in the sample are
716: reported in Table 1. Assuming the standard fireball model and a
717: homogeneous or wind-like circumburst medium it is possible to derive
718: the closure relations between the temporal decay index ($\alpha$) and
719: the spectral slope ($\beta$) in order to satisfy the models
720: (e.g. Zhang et al. 2006). In Figure~\ref{figab} the comparison between
721: observed properties and model expectations is shown in the optical
722: (left panel) or in the X-ray (right panel) band. The two bursts
723: indicated on the left panel of Figure~\ref{figab} (GRB~060108 and
724: GRB~060210) are the ones that, based on the optical data, deviate the
725: most from the standard model. In the case of GRB~060108 the spectral
726: optical analysis (without accounting for extinction) gives a steep
727: value for $\beta_{\rm O}$, hard to explain for the standard
728: model. When extinction is included a shallower value is found
729: ($\beta_{\rm OX} \sim 0.5$) more in agreement with the observed
730: spectral energy distribution (Oates et al. 2006). For GRB~060210, the
731: spectral analysis reveals a large difference between $\beta_{\rm X}$,
732: $\beta_{\rm O}$ and $\beta_{\rm OX}$, probably due to a large amount
733: of extinction which is difficult to evaluate. If again we consider the
734: value found from the fit of the multiband spectral energy distribution
735: a value in agreement with the model is found (see Curran et al. 2007
736: for detailed analysis of this burst). Using temporal and spectral
737: information (when available), it is now possible to constraint the
738: value of electron spectral index ($p$) for different bursts and study
739: each burst belonging to our four classes in the context of the
740: standard fireball model.
741:
742:
743: \subsubsection{{\it Class A - no breaks}}
744:
745: For 10 bursts (GRB~050502A, GRB~060203, GRB~060204B, GRB~060418,
746: GRB~060512, GRB~061007, GRB~061110B, GRB~070208, GRB~070411 and
747: GRB~070419A) no break is observed in the optical or X-ray bands, but
748: in general, the decay indices of the optical and the X-ray light
749: curves are different.
750:
751: The simplest explanation for the difference is that the cooling
752: frequency is situated between the optical and the X-ray band. If this
753: is the case, the difference is $\delta \alpha = 1/4$ as we have
754: discussed in the previous section. If there is energy injected into a
755: blast wave $L \propto t^{-q}$, the difference is given by $\delta
756: \alpha = (2-q)/4$ (see Table~3). The X-ray light curve is
757: steeper by $\delta \alpha$ than the optical in the homogeneous medium,
758: while the optical one is steeper by $\delta
759: \alpha$ in the wind-like medium. In the generalized wind-like medium
760: case $\rho \propto R^{-s}$ (with no energy injection), optical
761: afterglow decays faster by $\delta \alpha = (3s-4)/(16-4s)$ than the
762: X-ray afterglow (Monfardini et al. 2006).
763:
764:
765: \begin{itemize}
766:
767: \item GRB~050502A : the decay index of the X-ray afterglow is not well
768: determined, and late time {\it Swift} observations give only a lower
769: limit for $\alpha_{\rm X}$. Since the optical decay is shallower,
770: $\nu_{\rm c}$ should lie between the two bands and the homogeneous
771: ambient medium is favored. The electron spectral index is given by $p
772: = 2\beta_{\rm X} = 2.6\pm0.3$. The theoretical values $\alpha =
773: 3(p-1)/4 = 1.2$ and $\beta = (p-1)/2 = 0.8$ are in good agreement with
774: the observations (Guidorzi et al. 2006).
775:
776:
777: \item GRB~060203 : the X-ray light curve is steeper by $\delta \alpha
778: \sim 0.2$ than the optical light curve. It indicates the uniform ambient
779: medium and $\nu_{\rm O}<\nu_{\rm c}<\nu_{\rm X}$ during the power law
780: decay phase. The theoretical estimates $\alpha_{\rm O} \sim 0.75$,
781: $\alpha_{\rm X} \sim 1.0$ and $\beta_{\rm X} \sim 1.0$ ($p \sim 2.0$)
782: can explain well the observations ($\alpha_{{\rm O},1} = 0.74\pm0.13$,
783: $\alpha_{{\rm X},1} = 0.94 \pm 0.05$ and $\beta_{\rm X} = 0.9 \pm
784: 0.2$).
785:
786: \item GRB~060204B : the X-ray afterglow decays faster by $\delta \alpha
787: = 0.62$ than the optical afterglow. The difference $\delta \alpha$ is
788: larger than the value $\delta \alpha = 1/4$ for a simple model in
789: which the optical and X-ray bands are in different spectral domain
790: (i.e. $\nu_{\rm O}<\nu_{\rm c}<\nu_{\rm X}$). Since X-ray light curve
791: is steeper than the optical light curve, wind-like medium model does
792: not work. Although constant energy injection (q=0) gives a close value
793: $\delta \alpha = 0.5$ we do not expect the observed steep decay
794: $\alpha_{{\rm O},1} = 0.73$ and $\alpha_{{\rm X},2} = 1.35$ for such
795: significant energy injection. In the early phase flares are noticeable
796: in the X-ray light curve. Late internal shock emission might dominate
797: X-ray band at later times as well. Superposed flares might steepen the
798: X-ray light curve. Another possible explanation is that fluctuations
799: in the ambient medium produce bumps in the late optical light curve
800: (this interpretation was already proposed by Guidorzi et al. 2006 to
801: explain the bump in the light curve observed for GRB~050502A). If the
802: cooling frequency lies between the two bands, the bumps are produced
803: only in the optical light curve. Since the optical observations are
804: very sparse for this afterglow,a bump in the optical light curve might
805: take the decay index shallower than the real value.
806:
807: \item GRB~060418 : the X-ray light curve is steeper by $\delta \alpha =
808: 0.25$ than the optical light curve in the late decay phase. This
809: indicates an uniform ambient medium with $\nu_{\rm O}<\nu_{\rm
810: c}<\nu_{\rm X}$ during that phase. Temporal observed values
811: ($\alpha_{{\rm O},1} = 1.19$, $\alpha_{{\rm X},1} = 1.44$) are in
812: agreement with the theoretical expectation of a simple model with a
813: value for the spectral index of $p \sim 2.6$ ($\alpha_{\rm O} = 1.20$,
814: $\alpha_{\rm X} = 1.45$).
815:
816: \item GRB~060512 : the X-ray emission decays faster by $\delta \alpha =
817: 0.38$ than the optical emission. The difference $\delta \alpha$ is not
818: consistent with the simplest scenario ($\delta \alpha$ = 1/4). The
819: energy injection (q=0.48) in homogeneous ambient can account for the
820: large value of $\delta \alpha$. However, even with $p=2\beta_{\rm
821: X}=2.2$, the maximum value allowed from the observed spectral index
822: $\beta_{\rm X}=0.93\pm0.18$, the expected decay indices $\alpha_{\rm
823: O} = [(2p-6)+(p+3)q]/4 = 0.22$ and $\alpha_{\rm X} = [(2p-4)+(p+2)q]/4
824: = 0.60$ (Zhang et al. 2006) are much shallower than the observed
825: values. X-ray flares might make the X-ray decay index larger than the
826: real decay index of the blast wave emission.
827:
828: \item GRB~061007 : the afterglow of this burst is very bright in optical
829: and X-ray, the decay is a straight power law from early time (there is
830: the hint of a rise in the optical not mirrored in the X-ray) since
831: late times. A comprehensive multiwavelength analysis of this burst is
832: presented in Mundell et al. (2007b): the evolution of the afterglow
833: can be explained in the context of the fireball model with $\nu_{\rm
834: m} < \nu_{O} < \nu_{\rm X} < \nu_{c}$ for the entire $10^6$~s period
835: covered by the observations.
836:
837: \item GRB~061110B : for that burst the optical light curve decays faster
838: by $\delta \alpha = 0.20$ than the X-ray, indicating that during the
839: observations $\nu_{\rm c}$ is located between the two bands in a
840: wind-like medium. The X-ray data imply a value of $p \sim 2.5$ and the
841: expected value for the optical temporal decay $\alpha_{\rm O} \sim
842: 1.63$ is in good agreement with that observed ($\alpha_{{\rm O},1} =
843: 1.64\pm0.08$).
844:
845: \item GRB~070208 : the X-ray afterglow decays faster by $\delta \alpha
846: = 0.87$ than the optical afterglow. Again this difference is much
847: larger than the value $\delta \alpha = 1/4$ for a simple model,
848: similar to the case of GRB~060204b. Also the energy injection model
849: can not account for the larger value $\delta \alpha = 0.87$. Beyond
850: the standard model, possible explanations of such a large difference
851: are X-ray flares (late time internal shocks) which make the X-ray
852: steeper coupled with energy injection which makes the optical decay
853: shallower.
854:
855: \item GRB~070411 : the X-ray afterglow decays faster by $\delta \alpha
856: = 0.20$ than the optical afterglow. It indicates the uniform ambient
857: medium and $\nu_{\rm O}<\nu_{\rm c}<\nu_{\rm X}$ during the power law
858: decay phase. If this is the case, the value of p derived from the
859: X-ray data ($p \sim 2.2$) imply a value of the decay indices
860: $\alpha_{\rm O} \sim 0.9$ and $\alpha_{\rm O} \sim 1.2$, well in
861: agreement with the observed values ($\alpha_{{\rm O},1} = 0.92\pm0.04$
862: and $\alpha_{{\rm X},1} = 1.12\pm0.03$).
863:
864: \item GRB~070419A : for this burst the temporal decay in the two bands
865: is again very similar, but this is true only at late times ($\delta
866: \alpha_{A} = 0.06$), while at early times the shape in the two bands
867: is very different: a very steep decay in the X-ray ($\alpha \sim 2.8$)
868: and a possible broad re-brightening in the optical. Even in the late
869: power law phase, no closure relations for the simple models can
870: reconcile the observed value $\alpha_{\rm X} - 3\beta_{\rm X}/2 =
871: -1.6$. Assuming $\nu_{\rm X},\nu_{\rm O}>\nu_{\rm c}$ (then the
872: emission does not depend on the ambient medium) we obtain $p=2.9$ from
873: $\beta_{\rm X}$. The observed decay indices in the two bands
874: ($\alpha_{\rm O} \sim \alpha_{\rm X} \sim 0.6$) and the closure
875: relation could be explained if there is significant energy injection
876: ($q=0.12$). The total injected energy increases by a factor $(3
877: \times 10^{6}/3500)^{(1-q)} = 380$ between the break time $t_{{\rm
878: X},break} \sim 0.04$~days$\sim 3500$~s and the end of the observations
879: $\sim 3 \times 10^{6}$~s. This could contradict with the energy budget
880: of the central engine (solar mass scale).
881:
882: \end{itemize}
883:
884:
885: \subsubsection{{\it Class B - break in the X-ray band only}}
886:
887: A steepening in the X-ray decay slope is observed in eight bursts of
888: our sample (GRB~050713A, GRB~060108, GRB~060210, GRB~060510B,
889: GRB~060927, GRB~061121, GRB~070420 and GRB~070714B), while the rate of
890: the optical decay remains constant.
891:
892: A simple explanation of this behaviour could be the passage of the
893: cooling frequency through the X-ray band. For a homogeneous ambient
894: medium, the decay indices of the optical and X-ray light curves should
895: be the same in the pre-break phase, with only the X-ray light curve
896: steepening due to the passage of $\nu_{\rm c}$. In contrast, for
897: wind-like medium the optical light curve is steeper than the X-ray
898: light curve in the pre-break phase and the decay indices in the two
899: bands become the same after a break in the X-ray light curve. For the
900: eight bursts in that class, the observed steepening $\delta \alpha$ is
901: always larger than the value $\delta \alpha = 1/4$ expected in the
902: simplest scenario.
903:
904: \begin{itemize}
905:
906: \item GRB~050713A : the X-ray emission decays faster by $\delta \alpha
907: \sim 0.7$ than the optical in the post-break phase. The decay indices
908: in the pre-break phase are also significantly different from each
909: other ($\delta \alpha = 0.54$). We cannot explain the break (and the
910: behaviour of the light curves in the two bands) by the cooling break
911: even if the energy injection and generalized wind-like medium are
912: assumed. The cessation of the energy injection and a jet break also
913: cannot account for the observed break because of their achromatic
914: nature. The most likely explanation is that X-ray flares due to late
915: internal shocks shapes the X-ray light curve (there are notable
916: fluctuations in the X-ray light curve). Although the optical light
917: curve is poorly sampled, the rather shallow observed decay
918: ($\alpha_{{\rm O},1} = 0.63\pm0.04$) might indicate energy injection
919: into the blast wave.
920:
921: \item GRB~060108 : the decay indices of the optical and X-ray light
922: curves are almost the same in the pre-break phase, but the steepening
923: in the X-ray band ($\delta \alpha = 0.69$) is too large to be
924: explained in a simple cooling break model (also reported by Oates et
925: al. 2006). Since there are no optical observations at late times,
926: achromatic break mechanisms are also applicable to this event. The
927: X-ray decay after the break ($\alpha_{{\rm X},2} = 1.15$) is too
928: shallow for the jet break model in which the electron spectral index
929: should be equal to the post-break decay index ($p=\alpha_{{\rm X},2}$
930: in that case). Considering the shallow pre-break decay in the X-ray
931: and optical, the probable explanation is the energy injection ceasing.
932:
933: \item GRB~060210 : the optical light curve is complex. The early flat
934: portion might be due to energy injection or to the passage of the
935: typical frequency through the optical band, and there is a hint of a
936: late break. Since we are interested in breaks in the decay phase, we
937: discuss the intermediate power law part of the optical light curve
938: together with X-ray observations. Before the X-ray break the optical
939: afterglow decays faster ($\delta \alpha = 0.15$) than the X-ray
940: afterglow. This could indicate that the cooling frequency lies between
941: the two bands and that the ambient medium is wind-like. Since after
942: the break the X-ray light curve becomes steeper than the optical, the
943: steepening is not explained by a cooling break even if we consider
944: energy injection or a generalized wind-like medium. The post-break
945: X-ray index ($\alpha_{{\rm X},2} = 1.31$) is too shallow to be
946: explained in the jet break model. In the model of cessation of energy
947: injection the difference of the decay indices in the two bands
948: ($\nu_{\rm O}<\nu_{\rm c}<\nu_{\rm X}$) is $\delta \alpha = (2-q)/4$in
949: the pre-break phase (during the energy injection) and the steepening
950: in the X-ray light curve (ceasing of energy injection) is given by
951: $\delta \alpha_{\it break} = (p+2)(1-q)/4$. The observed difference
952: $\delta \alpha = 0.15$ is smaller than the expected value in the
953: energy injection model ($q$ should be smaller than unity). The X-ray
954: spectrum $\beta_{\rm X}=1.14$ and the observed steepening $\delta
955: \alpha_{\it break} = 0.43$ require $p=2.8$ and significant energy
956: injection ($q=0.60$), for which the decay indices are expected to be
957: $\alpha_{{\rm O},1} = 1,13$, $\alpha_{{\rm X},1} = 0.78$,
958: $\alpha_{{\rm X},2} = 1,21$. This could marginally explain the
959: observations. A more plausible explanation is that X-ray flares due to
960: late central engine activity shape the X-ray light curve.
961:
962: \item GRB~060510B : in the pre-break phase, the decay indices in
963: the two bands are the same if the prompt emission and X-ray flares at
964: early times are ignored. Considering the shallow pre-break decay in
965: the X-ray and optical bands, a possible explanation for the X-ray
966: break is the cessation of energy injection. If this is the case, the
967: optical light curve should have a break at the same time, although
968: there are no optical observations at late times.
969:
970: \item GRB~060927 : the optical light curve in the R-band does not
971: show a simple decay; $\alpha_{{\rm O},1} > \alpha_{{\rm X},1}$ and
972: $\delta \alpha > 1.0$. There is a possible flat phase in the optical
973: between $10^2$ and $10^3$ s. A possible explanation could be late
974: energy injection but this behaviour is not mirrored in the X-ray
975: band. The observed characteristics of this burst are difficult to
976: explain in the context of the standard model.
977:
978: \item GRB~061121 : Page et al. (2007) found that the decay indices
979: in the optical and X-ray bands are consistent, within the
980: uncertainties, with the (possible) presence of an achromatic
981: break. However, the optical data after the break, as reported in our
982: Figure~\ref{figxopt3}, are in very good agreement with the same power
983: law decay index observed before the break ($\alpha_{{\rm O},1} =
984: 0.83$), without requiring any break in the optical. The chromatic
985: nature of the break excludes the possibilities of a jet break and
986: cessation of energy injection for the explanation of the break in the
987: X-ray light curve. Since the X-ray decay index evolves from almost
988: zero (flat) to a steep value ($\alpha_{{\rm X},2} = 1.58$), which is
989: much larger than the optical decay index ($\alpha_{{\rm O},1} =
990: 0.83$), neither cooling break models nor change of the ambient density
991: distribution (e.g. change from ISM medium to wind-like medium during
992: the propagation of the blast wave) can explain the evolution of the
993: X-ray light curve. The emission from late central engine activities
994: could mask the X-ray radiation from the forward shock. The darkness
995: $\beta_{\rm OX} = 0.53$ might be due to the bright additional X-ray
996: emission from the central engine.
997:
998:
999: \item GRB~070420 : the observed data are not consistent with any closure
1000: relation for the standard model. The behaviour of the X-ray and the
1001: optical light curves looks quite different. However, the sparse
1002: observations can not exclude the presence of a flat phase in the
1003: optical light curve as visible in the X-ray. If this is the case, the
1004: ceasing of energy injection could explain the X-ray and optical
1005: observations.
1006:
1007: \item GRB~070714B : similarly to GRB~070420, the behaviour or the
1008: X-ray and optical light curves cannot be explained in the standard
1009: model if a single power law is assumed for the decay of the optical
1010: light curve. Although the optical data are too sparse to firmly
1011: constrain the behaviour in that band, but a possible initial flat
1012: phase may be present (like in the X-ray band) followed be a standard
1013: power law decay. Like the previous case, the ceasing of energy
1014: injection could explain the X-ray and optical behaviours.
1015:
1016: \end{itemize}
1017:
1018:
1019: \subsubsection{{\it Class C - break in the optical band only}}
1020:
1021: In five cases a change of decay index is detected only in the optical
1022: light curve and not in the X-ray band (GRB~041006, GRB~041218,
1023: GRB~051111, GRB~060206 and GRB~061126).
1024:
1025: A possible explanation for these breaks is the passage of $\nu_{\rm
1026: c}$ through the optical band. If a homogeneous medium is assumed, the
1027: decay indices of the optical and the X-ray light curves should be the
1028: same in the post-break phase, with only the optical light curve
1029: steepening with the passage of $\nu_{\rm c}$. If a wind-like ambient
1030: medium is assumed, the decay indices in the two bands are the same in
1031: the pre-break phase and the optical light curve is steeper than the
1032: X-ray after the break.
1033:
1034: \begin{itemize}
1035:
1036: \item GRB~041006 : counting the rather large error in the value of
1037: $\alpha_{\rm X}$, the X-ray decay and the post-break optical decay
1038: indices could be considered as almost the same. If the cooling break
1039: model is assumed to explain the steepening of the optical light curve,
1040: a homogeneous ambient medium is favored, because the decay indices in
1041: the two bands are the same in the post-break phase. The drastic
1042: steepening in the optical light curve ($\delta \alpha = 0.53$)
1043: requires almost constant energy injection ($q\sim0$). It is hard to
1044: achieve the steep decay in the post-break phase ($\alpha_{{\rm O},2} =
1045: 1.12$) with such a massive energy injection. The cooling break model
1046: does not work. Since there are no X-ray observations at early times,
1047: achromatic break models are acceptable. The post-break optical index
1048: is too shallow to consider a jet break.
1049:
1050: Next we consider the cessation of energy injection. From the observed
1051: spectral indices ($\beta_{\rm O} \sim \beta_{\rm X} \sim 1.0$), the
1052: two bands should be in the same spectral domain and we obtain $p\sim3$
1053: for $\nu_{\rm m}<\nu_{\rm obs}<\nu_{\rm c}$ or $p\sim2$ for $\nu_{\rm
1054: c}<\nu_{\rm obs}$. The closure relations are marginally satisfied in
1055: both cases. The ceasing of energy injection causes steepening in a
1056: light curve. If the observation band is above $\nu_{\rm c}$ the flux
1057: does not depend on the ambient medium and the steepening is $\delta
1058: \alpha = (p+2)(1-q)/4$. If $\nu_{\rm m}<\nu_{\rm obs}<\nu_{\rm X}$ the
1059: steepening is $\delta \alpha = (p+3)(1-q)/4$ for a homogeneous ambient
1060: medium and $\delta \alpha = (p+1)(1-q)/4$ for a wind-like ambient
1061: medium. For the combination of $\nu_{\rm m}<\nu_{\rm obs}<\nu_{\rm c}$
1062: and homogeneous ambient medium, the initial energy injection is
1063: mildest $q=0.47$ and the expected values $\alpha_{\rm pre-break} \sim
1064: 0.71$, $\alpha_{\rm post-break} \sim 1.5$ and $\beta \sim 1.0$ could
1065: be consistent with the observations.
1066:
1067: \item GRB~041218 : there is only a late time observation for the X-ray
1068: band, neither $\alpha_{\rm X}$ nor $\beta_{\rm X}$ are constrained
1069: from the observations. The optical spectral index $\beta_{\rm O}$ is
1070: also not available. The break in the optical light curve ($\delta
1071: \alpha =0.22$) could be explained in many models including the cooling
1072: break.
1073:
1074: \item GRB~051111 : since the X-ray decay index $\alpha_{{\rm X},2} =
1075: 1.60$ is incoincident with both the pre-break ($\alpha_{{\rm O},1} =
1076: 0.82$) and the post-break ($\alpha_{{\rm O},2} = 1.0$) optical decay
1077: index, cooling break models cannot account for the optical break even
1078: if energy injection is considered. The fact that the X-ray emission
1079: decays faster than the optical emission rules out a wind-like ambient
1080: medium scenario (and scenarios related to the wind medium). No X-ray
1081: observations are available before the optical break and the break
1082: might be achromatic. The jet break is unlikely because the afterglow
1083: decays with significantly different rates in the two bands after the
1084: break. The difference of the spectral indices in the two bands
1085: indicates that the two bands are in different spectral domains
1086: (i.e. $\nu_{\rm m}<\nu_{\rm O}<\nu_{\rm c}<\nu_{\rm X}$). This
1087: highlighted by the spectral energy distribution analysis presented in
1088: Guidorzi et al. 2007. Using the observed $\beta_{\rm O} = 0.76$ (for
1089: which the error is smaller than in $\beta_{\rm X}$), we obtain
1090: $p=2\beta_{\rm O}+1=2.5$. If the energy injection rate changes from
1091: $q_{1}$ to $q_{2}$ at the break, the steepening of the optical decay
1092: is given by $\delta \alpha_{\rm O} = (p+3)(q_{2}-q_{1})/4 = 0.18$ and
1093: the difference of the decay indices is $\delta \alpha = (2-q_{2})/4 =
1094: 0.6$ in the post-break phase. The resulting $q_{1}$ and $q_{2}$ are
1095: negative and unphysical, with which the predicted temporal and
1096: spectral indices deviate largely from the observed values. The energy
1097: injection model also does not work.
1098:
1099: \item GRB~060206 : the X-ray light curve is consistent with a single
1100: unbroken power law, achromatic break models (i.e. jet break and
1101: ceasing of energy injection) are ruled out. Since the X-ray decay
1102: index ($\alpha_{{\rm X},1} =1.30$) is different from both the
1103: pre-preak ($\alpha_{{\rm O},1} =0.93$) and the post-break
1104: ($\alpha_{{\rm O},2} =1.83$) optical decay indices, the cooling break
1105: models can not account for the optical break even if the energy
1106: injection or generic wind-like ambient medium is considered. The
1107: observed behaviour of the light curves might be due to a transition in
1108: the ambient matter distribution (Monfardini et al. 2006): a blast wave
1109: initially propagates into a constant medium and then it breaks out
1110: into a wind-like medium. Note that X-ray emission does not depend on
1111: the ambient matter density (and its distribution) as long as the X-ray
1112: band is above the cooling frequency, and that the optical emission
1113: (below $\nu_{\rm c}$) reflects the change in the ambient matter
1114: distribution.
1115:
1116: \item GRB~061126 : for this burst no break is visible in the X-ray band,
1117: while in the optical the transition is from steeper to shallower decay
1118: index. This behaviour at early times can be explained as the
1119: contribution from the reverse shock component. The detailed study by
1120: Gomboc et al. (2008) shows its inconsistency with the standard
1121: fireball model (the steeper decay in the X-ray band and the large
1122: ratio of X-ray to optical flux).
1123:
1124: \end{itemize}
1125:
1126:
1127: \subsubsection{{\it Class D - break in both bands}}
1128:
1129: The bursts belonging to this class are those showing a break in both
1130: the optical and the X-ray light curves in their decay phases. In
1131: general, breaks in the two bands occur at different times, both
1132: chromatic and achromatic breaks are considered. Surprisingly, for only
1133: one burst do we observe a break in both bands, although GRB~060210
1134: might be classified in this case if we take seriously the last optical
1135: data points.
1136:
1137: \begin{itemize}
1138:
1139: \item GRB~050730 : if a jet break is responsible for the steep X-ray
1140: decay, the electron energy index is $p=\alpha_{{\rm X},2}=2.37$.
1141: Given that X-ray band is below the cooling frequency, the observed
1142: X-ray spectral index $\beta_X= 0.73\pm0.07$ is consistent with the
1143: model prediction $\beta=(p-1)/2=0.69$. However, the much shallower
1144: optical decay ($\alpha_{{\rm O},2}=1.55\pm0.08$) is inconsistent with
1145: the jet break model. As pointed out by Pandey et al. (2006), the
1146: possibility of a contribution from the host galaxy or an associated SN
1147: to the late time optical afterglow can be ruled out considering the
1148: high redshift of the burst ($z=3.967$). Since after a jet break a
1149: forward shock emits photons practically at a constant radius (the
1150: exponential slowing down; Sari, Piran $\&$ Halpern 1999), fluctuations
1151: in the ambient medium do not seem to affect the decay rate of the
1152: emission. Even if there is an effect, both light curves should become
1153: shallower (or steeper) in the same way because both optical and X-ray
1154: bands are in the same spectral domain ($\nu_O,\nu_X < \nu_c$). Energy
1155: injection into a forward shock also cannot explain the shallow optical
1156: decay because of the same reason. Additional emission components,
1157: e.g. the two component jet model or late time internal shocks might
1158: make the optical decay slower. The early shallow decay phase observed
1159: in the optical and X-ray light curves could be explained by energy
1160: injection (Pandey et al. 2006), though the ceasing of the injection
1161: should happen around the time of the jet break.
1162:
1163: \end{itemize}
1164:
1165:
1166: \subsubsection{Summary of Light Curves Breaks}
1167:
1168: From this analysis of the optical and X-ray light curves we conclude
1169: that in our sample of 24 optical GRB afterglows: 15 bursts can be
1170: explained in the context of the standard fireball model (with
1171: modifications: energy injection or variation in the ambient matter
1172: distribution); while for the remaining 9 bursts:
1173:
1174: \begin{itemize}
1175:
1176: \item Class A : GRB~060204B, GRB~060512, GRB~070208, GRB~070419A
1177: \item Class B : GRB~050713A, GRB~060927, GRB~061121
1178: \item Class C : GRB~051111, GRB~061126
1179:
1180: \end{itemize}
1181:
1182: the observed data are inconsistent with the predictions of the
1183: standard model.
1184:
1185:
1186:
1187: \subsection{Rest Frame Properties}
1188:
1189:
1190: In Figure~\ref{figall2} we translate the observed magnitudes of the
1191: optical afterglows into the rest-frame luminosity (left panel). The
1192: subscript $t$ used in this section refers to the time in the rest
1193: frame of the GRBs. We assumed a standard cosmology (defined in Section
1194: 1) and we include any correction expected from the distance of the
1195: event ($z$) and its spectral properties ($\beta$) in order to report
1196: all the observed quantities in the rest frame of the GRB. We corrected
1197: the optical magnitude for Galactic extinction using the reddening maps
1198: of Schlegel et al. (1998) and we applied the {\it k}-correction to
1199: take into account the fact that sources are observed at different
1200: redshifts (${\it k} = -2.5~log (1+z)^{(\beta-1)}$). We do not correct
1201: for the host galaxy dust absorption. From this analysis we excluded :
1202: 1) the bursts for which no spectroscopic redshift was available
1203: (GRB~041218, GRB~050713A, GRB~060108, GRB~060203 and GRB~060204B); 2)
1204: GRB~060510B, for which there is a value of the spectroscopic redshift
1205: but the optical light curve is sparsely sampled. After this selection
1206: our sub-sample totals 16 objects.
1207:
1208: Even in the rest frame of the burst, starting the observations about
1209: 0.5 minutes after the burst event, a difference of about 4 orders of
1210: magnitude in luminosity is evident, particularly at early time. This
1211: spread in intrinsic luminosity remains after including all the
1212: available early and late time public data, although there is a hint of
1213: a convergence at later times. It should be noted that our analysis
1214: does not take into account any beaming effect. This collimation
1215: correction is known to reduce the observed spread in luminosity for
1216: bursts (Frail et al. 2001, Panaitescu $\&$ Kumar 2001) but requires a
1217: correct determination of the jet opening angle for each burst based on
1218: an unambiguous identification of a jet break. Identification of such
1219: break times is clearly important but, as discussed in Section 4.1.1 is
1220: non-trivial due to complex light curve properties and requires
1221: well-sampled optical and X-ray light curves from the earliest to the
1222: latest possible times.
1223:
1224:
1225: In a previous study of optical afterglow light curves, Liang $\&$
1226: Zhang (2006, hereafter LZ06) suggested that the optical luminosity at
1227: t=1 day (source frame time) after the burst shows a bimodal
1228: distribution, with a separation at $L^{*}_{\rm t=1day} = 1.4 \times
1229: 10^{45}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. The majority of the bursts in their sample (44
1230: bursts in total) fall into the luminous group (34 bursts with
1231: $L_{peak} > L^{*}_{t=1day}$). Kann et al. 2006 and Nardini et al. 2006
1232: (hereafter K06 and N06 respectively) found a similar result. LZ06
1233: selected t=1 day as the reference time because at this time the light
1234: curves of their sample were better sampled. Moreover they selected
1235: this late time because they were concerned about the possible
1236: contribution of the reverse shock component or additional energy
1237: injection at early times. The result of N06 was obtained in the same
1238: way but extrapolating the luminosity at t=0.5 days (source frame
1239: time).
1240:
1241: As our observations have good coverage starting at earlier time
1242: (between 1 and 20 minutes in the GRB rest-frame) we have estimated the
1243: intrinsic optical luminosity at three different times: 10 minutes, 0.5
1244: days and 1 day (source frame time). In the cases presented here we
1245: have confirmed that the reverse shock component does not affect our
1246: analysis. As discussed in the previous section, in only one case
1247: (GRB~061126) do we detect the possible contribution of the reverse
1248: shock at early times. Our early observations at t=10 minutes are more
1249: directly related to the explosion energy during the prompt emission
1250: phase.
1251:
1252: In Table 4 we report the mean values for the rest-frame luminosity
1253: calculated at different times. The two classes defined by LZ06 (dim
1254: and lum) are not consistent with a single population, as clear from
1255: their Figure~2. Our data (at any times) are consistent within the
1256: uncertainties with a single population rather than with two separate
1257: classes. In Fig~\ref{figlum12h} we show the observed luminosity
1258: distribution of our sample extrapolated at 12 hours.The distribution
1259: is well fitted with a single log-normal function with an average of
1260: $29.54\pm0.07$ and a $\sigma$ of $0.67\pm0.05$.
1261:
1262: Figure~\ref{figall2} (right panel) shows the luminosity-redshift
1263: distribution for the bursts in our sample. In this figure we over plot
1264: the separation line between the two classes and the highest values for
1265: the redshift of the members of the two groups in the LZ06 sample. As
1266: pointed out by LZ06, a possible reason for the lack of high redshift
1267: members in their dim group is a lack of deep and rapid followup
1268: observations. The burst population detected by {\it Swift} has a
1269: larger mean redshift and fainter brightness distribution that previous
1270: missions ($<z>_{{\it Swift}} \sim 2.7$, $<z>_{pre-{\it Swift}} \sim
1271: 1.5$, Le $\&$ Dermer 2007). This could explain the results of LZ06,
1272: whose sample was based on bursts detected up to August 2005, thus
1273: containing only 7 {\em Swift} bursts. The study presented by K06 of a
1274: sample of 16 pre-{\it Swift} bursts similarly probed the bright end of
1275: the GRB luminosity function and found similar conclusions to LZ06. K06
1276: found that on average low-redshift afterglows are less luminous than
1277: high-redshift ones, suggesting a bimodal luminosity distribution.
1278: Strong selection effects due to observational bias against
1279: intrinsically faint afterglows at higher redshifts is a likely
1280: explanation for this result. This observational bias is greatly
1281: reduced in our sample thanks to the rapid response and use of red
1282: filters on our ground based telescopes to {\it Swift} triggers (14/16
1283: objects used for this analysis were detected by {\it Swift}). Our
1284: results show that faint {\em Swift} GRBs at higher redshift are
1285: readily detected with such rapid, deep optical observations in red
1286: filters (Figure~\ref{figall2}, right panel), a region of parameter
1287: space not accessible in the samples of LZ06 or K06.
1288:
1289: The population that is not prevalent in the right panel of
1290: Figure~\ref{figall2} is bright bursts at low redshifts, probably due
1291: to the GRB luminosity function such that very luminous bursts rare and
1292: a large survey volume is therefore required to detect them. Other
1293: authors discuss the possibility of two separate luminosity functions
1294: for luminous and underluminous GRBs (Nardini et al. 2007, Kann et
1295: al. 2007, Liang et al. 2007, Chapman et al. 2007) but given the many
1296: complex instrumental selection effects inherent in GRB discovery and
1297: followup, significantly larger samples are required to draw robust
1298: conclusions. Lower {\em Swift} trigger thresholds may provide the
1299: basis for such samples in the future.
1300:
1301: \subsection{Dark Bursts}
1302:
1303: We consider as an optically dark event, or ``dark burst'' to be a one
1304: that satisfies the definition of Jakobsson et al. (2004), i.e. that
1305: the slope of the spectral energy distribution between the optical and
1306: the X-ray band or spectral index $\beta_{\rm OX}$, is $<$ 0.5. Even
1307: optically detected bursts may be classified as ``dark'', providing
1308: that the optical flux is much fainter than expected from scaling the
1309: X-ray flux (e.g. GRB060108). For all the bursts reported in Table 2 no
1310: optical counterpart was detected by our telescopes. Apart from a few
1311: cases in which our observations were performed at late times, the
1312: majority of GRBs in our sample were observed by our telescopes
1313: reacting rapidly and performing deep, early-time optical observations
1314: ($R \sim 21$ at 5 minutes after the trigger, for co-added images). A
1315: late response or poor sensitivity are therefore ruled out as
1316: explanations for non-detections in most cases. What, therefore, is the
1317: explanation for the lack (or faintness) of the optical afterglow for
1318: these 'dark' bursts? To understand this we analyse the X-ray light
1319: curve of the bursts in our sub-sample observed by the {\it
1320: Swift}-XRT. Using the decay inferred from the fit of the light curves
1321: the X-ray and optical fluxes are extrapolated to a common time. We
1322: assume that the optical light curves for those undetected bursts
1323: follow a power law decay with a slope equal to the mean temporal decay
1324: of the detected afterglows analysed in Section 3 ($<\alpha_{\rm
1325: O}>~\sim 1.1$). Alternatively, in the X-ray band we use the value
1326: derived from the fit of the light curve and reported on Table 2
1327: ($\alpha_{\rm X}^{\rm (fit)}$). Three characteristic times t$_{0}$,
1328: t$_{1}$ and t$_{2}$ are used here. The time t$_{2}$ = 11 hours is
1329: chosen for consistency with the dark burst classification of Jakobsson
1330: et al. (2004), while fluxes extrapolated to t$_{1}$ = 1 hour and
1331: t$_{0}$ = 10 minutes exploit our early-time data without compromising
1332: observing sensitivity.
1333:
1334: As can be seen in Figure~\ref{figuljako}, the majority of the bursts
1335: are located close to the dark bursts region ($\beta_{\rm OX}<0.5$)
1336: independent of the selected time, ruling out late observation time as
1337: an explanation for the apparent darkness of most bursts. For almost
1338: all the bursts, the evolution of the optical and X-ray flux follows a
1339: line almost parallel to the lines of constant $\beta_{\rm OX}$ (bottom
1340: right panel). This behaviour can be seen, in the optical band, as a
1341: consequence of the assumption of an average decay when making the
1342: extrapolation. Any change in the temporal decay would clearly modify
1343: this behaviour. However, it seems that bursts that are classified as
1344: ``normal'' after 10 minutes (bottom left panel) remain in the same
1345: class also after 11 hours (top left panel). At the same time those
1346: bursts that are optically dark soon after 10 minutes belong to the
1347: class of the so-called ``dark bursts'' also after 11 hours.
1348:
1349: In only five cases, does the classification of the burst depend on the
1350: time for the extrapolation of the flux. For these five bursts we
1351: report also the errors (including the uncertainties on the flux and on
1352: the $\alpha$ used for the extrapolation) in the bottom right panel of
1353: Figure~\ref{figuljako}. Three bursts are classified as normal bursts
1354: if we extrapolate at t=t$_{2}$ but belong to the class of ``dark
1355: bursts'' if we extrapolate at t=t$_{0}$ (GRB~050124, GRB~060901 and
1356: GRB~070721B, red circles on Figure~\ref{figuljako}); in two cases it
1357: is the contrary (GRB~050504 and GRB~070219, blue circles). In the
1358: latter cases it is clear that the optical flux significantly
1359: suppressed compared to the X-ray flux. This may be due to spectral
1360: evolution of those bursts, but within the uncertainties we cannot rule
1361: out the possibility that nothing changes also for these five bursts.
1362:
1363: For 10/39 bursts, as reported in Table 2, an optical/infrared
1364: counterpart was identified by larger optical or IR telescopes, with
1365: counterparts detected primarily at NIR wavelengths. Our observations
1366: rule out the large population of bright optical counterparts that were
1367: predicted, pre-{\it Swift}, to exist and be observable with suitably
1368: rapid followup observations. Explanations for dark bursts in the era
1369: of rapid followup remain: extinction caused by dust (Galactic or
1370: host), high redshift origin, or both. In some cases ($\sim 10\%$) the
1371: Galactic absorption along the light of sight in the observing band
1372: (A$_{\rm R}$) for our bursts is significant and may explain the
1373: undetected optical counterpart; however, it is interesting to note
1374: that no IR detections have been reported for these GRBS. The effect of
1375: Ly-$\alpha$ absorption due to an high-redshift event ($z>7$) is
1376: difficult to evaluate but again this effect could be responsible at
1377: least for a fraction of our non-detections (Roming et al. 2006). The
1378: possibility of a rapid temporal decay seems to be the most unlikely:
1379: in fact, assuming that the undetected bursts of Table 2 have a
1380: temporal behaviour similar to the detected afterglows of Table 1 than
1381: the temporal optical decay at early times appears to be shallow, not
1382: steep. Another possibility could be an excess of X-ray emission at
1383: late time; if late-time central engine activity is responsible for the
1384: production of the early X-ray afterglow in some cases, the additional
1385: emission will mask the forward shock X-ray emission and the total flux
1386: in the X-ray band would be higher than the value expected for the
1387: forward shock emission alone. This might explain some dark bursts and
1388: their distribution on the Log~$F_{\rm O}$-Log~$F_{\rm X}$ diagram. A
1389: combination of these mechanisms and others (i.e. intrinsic optical
1390: faintness, low density circumburst medium) may combine to explain the
1391: high number of bursts that remain undetected at optical wavelengths
1392: ($\sim 46\%$ in our sample).
1393:
1394:
1395: \section{Conclusions}
1396:
1397:
1398: \begin{itemize}
1399:
1400: \item We have classified our afterglows sample into four groups based
1401: on breaks in the optical and the X-ray afterglow light curves during
1402: the decay phase. We have used the temporal and spectral properties of
1403: the X-ray and optical afterglows to investigate the blastwave physics
1404: around the break times within the framework of the standard fireball
1405: model (the synchrotron shock model). The majority of the bursts in our
1406: sample (15 out of 24) are consistent with the standard model. However,
1407: for a significant fraction of our sample (9 bursts: GRB~050713A,
1408: GRB~051111, GRB~060204B, GRB~060512, GRB~060927, GRB~061121,
1409: GRB~061126, GRB~070208 and GRB~070419A), the data cannot be explained
1410: by the standard model, even if modifications to the simple model are
1411: made (i.e. energy injection or variation in the ambient matter). A
1412: possible explanation beyond the standard model is that the early X-ray
1413: afterglow is not due to forward shock emission but is instead produced
1414: by late-time central engine activity (e.g. Ghisellini et al. 2007).
1415:
1416: \item We have derived the light curves of the optical afterglows in
1417: the source rest frame for those bursts with spectroscopically
1418: confirmed redshifts (i.e. not merely assuming a fixed redshift z=1 for
1419: all bursts). The optical luminosity function measured at $t=10$~mins
1420: and the corresponding distributions for light curves extrapolated to
1421: $t=12$~hours and 1 day are uni-modal, showing no evidence for the
1422: bi-modality suggested by previous authors. A fit of the distribution
1423: at 10 minutes with a single log-normal yields an average and a sigma
1424: values of $\log L$(erg s$^{-1}$)$=46.55\pm0.18$ and
1425: $\sigma=1.23\pm0.15$, respectively. Liang $\&$ Zhang (2006) reported a
1426: bimodal distribution of optical luminosity at t= 1 day. Two recent
1427: studies on the afterglows of {\it Swift}-era GRBs (Kann et al. 2007
1428: and Nardini et al. 2007) also suggested a clustering of optical
1429: afterglow luminosities at one day and 12 hours (already found by Kann
1430: et al. 2006, and Nardini et al. 2006), showing again a bi-modality in
1431: the luminosity distribution. This discrepancy may be explained by our
1432: ability to detect fainter GRBs at high redshift; in future, larger
1433: samples covering a wide range of GRB luminosities (possibly
1434: facilitated by lower triggering thresholds on {\it Swift}) will
1435: provide stronger tests for the existence of separate classes of GRBs.
1436:
1437: \item By comparing X-ray flux densities and optical upper limits, we
1438: have shown that the majority of non-detections in our sample should be
1439: classified as dark bursts. The rapid response of our telescopes to
1440: real-time localisations from {\it Swift} show that there remains a
1441: significant number of genuinely dark GRB afterglows and rapid optical
1442: temporal decay at early time is ruled out as an explanation for
1443: failure to detect optical afterglows at later time. Of our 39
1444: non-detections, ten afterglows were identified by other facilities,
1445: primarily at NIR wavelengths, demostrating a small population of
1446: bursts in high density host environments. The lack of optical/IR
1447: afterglows for the remaining 29 bursts may be due to effects such as
1448: high levels of extinction (Galactic or host), circumburst absorption,
1449: Ly-$\alpha$ absorption due to high-redshift or low-density
1450: environments suppressing production of optical sychrotron (or a
1451: combination of effects). Alternatively, we suggest that if late-time
1452: central engine activity is responsible for the production of the early
1453: X-ray afterglow emission in some cases, the additional emission will
1454: mask the simultaneous, but fainter forward shock X-ray emission and
1455: result in an observed X-ray flux that is larger than expected from
1456: forward shock emission alone. This might explain some dark bursts.
1457:
1458: \end{itemize}
1459:
1460:
1461:
1462: \acknowledgements
1463:
1464: AM acknowledge founding from the Particle Physics and Astronomy
1465: Research Council (PPARC). CGM acknowledges financial support from the
1466: Royal Society and Research Councils UK. The Liverpool Telescope is
1467: operated by Liverpool John Moores University at the Observatorio del
1468: Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de
1469: Canarias. The Faulkes Telescopes, now owned by Las Cumbres
1470: Observatory, are operated with support from the Dill Faulkes
1471: Educational Trust. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC
1472: Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion
1473: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with
1474: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
1475:
1476: \clearpage
1477:
1478: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1479:
1480: %\bibitem[{Beardmore et al. 2006}{}]{beard} Beardmore A.P., Mateos S., Page K.L. $\&$ Burrows D.N., 2006, GCN Circ. 4733
1481: \bibitem[{Barthelmy et al. 2005}{}]{bart} Barthelmy S.D. et al., 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 143
1482: \bibitem[{Berger et al. 2005a}{}]{ber1} Berger E. $\&$ Kulkarni S.R., 2005a, GCN Circ. 2978
1483: \bibitem[{Berger et al. 2005b}{}]{ber2} Berger E. $\&$ Kulkarni S.R., 2005b, GCN Circ. 2983
1484: \bibitem[{Bloom et al. 2006a}{}]{bloom} Bloom J.S., Foley R.J., Koceveki D. $\&$ Perley D., 2006a, GCN Circ. 5217
1485: \bibitem[{Bloom et al. 2006b}{}]{bloom2} Bloom J.S., Perley D.A. $\&$ Chen H.W., 2006b, GCN Circ. 5826
1486: \bibitem[{Burrows et al. 2005}{}]{burro} Burrows D.N. et al., 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 165
1487: \bibitem[{Burrows \& Racusin}{}]{burro2} Burrows D.N. $\&$ Racusin J., arXiv:astro-ph/0702.633
1488: %\bibitem[{Butler et al. 2004}{}]{butler} Butler N. et al., 2004, GCN Circ. 2808
1489: \bibitem[{Butler et al. 2005}{}]{butler2} Butler N. et al., 2005, ApJ, 629, 908
1490: \bibitem[{Butler et al. 2006}{}]{butler3} Butler N. et al., 2006, ApJ, 652, 1390
1491: \bibitem[{Butler et al. 2007}{}]{butler4} Butler N., Kocevski D., Bloom J.S. $\&$ Curtis J.L., 2007, ApJ, 671, 656
1492: \bibitem[{Campana et al. 2006}{}]{campana} Campana S. $\&$ De Luca A., 2006, GCN Circ. 5157
1493: \bibitem[{Castro-Tirado et al. 2007}{}]{castro} Castro-Tirado A. J. et al., 2007, GCN Circ. 6168
1494: \bibitem[{Cenko et al. 2007}{}]{cenko} Cenko S.B., Gezari S., Small T., Fox D.B. $\&$ Berger E., 2007, GCN Circ. 6322
1495: \bibitem[{Chapman et al. 2007}{}]{chap} Chapman R., Tanvir N.R., Priddey R.S., Levan A.J., 2007, MNRAS, 382, 21
1496: \bibitem[{Chen et al. 2005}{}]{chen} Chen H., Thompson I., Prochaska J.X. $\&$ Josh Bloom J.S., 2005, GCN Circ. 3709
1497: %\bibitem[{Chevalier $\&$ Li 1999}{}]{chev} Chevalier R. A. $\&$ Li Z. Y., 1999, ApJ, 520, 29
1498: \bibitem[{Conciatore et al. 2007}{}]{conc1} Conciatore M.L., Stratta G., Perri M., Sato G. $\&$ Burrows D., 2007, GCN Circ. 6085
1499: \bibitem[{Covino et al. 2006}{}]{cov1} Covino S., Malesani D. $\&$ Tagliaferri G., 2006, GCN Circ. 5604
1500: \bibitem[{Cucchiara et al. 2006}{}]{cucchiara} Cucchiara A., Fox D.B. $\&$ Berger E., 2006, GCN Circ. 4729
1501: \bibitem[{Cucchiara et al. 2007}{}]{cucchiara2} Cucchiara A., Fox D.B., Cenko S.B. $\&$ Price D.A., 2007, GCN Circ. 6083
1502: \bibitem[{Curran et al. 2007}{}]{curran} Curran P. et al., 2007, A$\&$A, 467, 1049
1503: \bibitem[{D'Avanzo et al. 2006a}{}]{dav1} D'Avanzo P. $\&$ Israel G.L., 2006a, GCN Circ. 4893
1504: \bibitem[{D'Avanzo et al. 2006b}{}]{dav2} D'Avanzo P., Covino S., Malesani D. $\&$ Tagliaferri G., 2006b, GCN Circ. 5609
1505: \bibitem[{Dupree et al. 2006}{}]{dupree} Dupree A.K., Falco E., Prochaska J.X., Chen H.W. $\&$ Bloom J.S., 2006, GCN Circ. 4969
1506: \bibitem[{Evans et al. 2007}{}]{evans} Evans P.A. et al., 2007, A$\&$A, 469, 379
1507: \bibitem[{Falcone et al. 2006a}{}]{falcone} Falcone A.D., Burrows D.N., Morris D.C. $\&$ Gehrels N., 2006a, GCN Circ. 4669
1508: \bibitem[{Falcone et al. 2006b}{}]{falcone2} Falcone A. et al., 2006b, GCN Circ. 5009
1509: \bibitem[{Fox 2006}{}]{fox0} Fox D.B., 2006, GCN Circ. 5605
1510: \bibitem[{Fox et al. 2006a}{}]{fox1} Fox D.B., Rau A. $\&$ Ofek E.O., 2006a, GCN Circ. 5597
1511: \bibitem[{Fox et al. 2006b}{}]{fox2} Fox D.B., 2006b, GCN Circ. 5607
1512: \bibitem[{Frail et al. 2001}{}]{frail} Frail D. A. et al., 2001, ApJ, 562, L55
1513: \bibitem[{Fugazza et al. 2004}{}]{fugazza} Fugazza D. et al., 2004, GCN Circ. 2782
1514: %\bibitem[{Fynbo et al. 2006a}{}]{fynbo} Fynbo J.P.U et al., 2006a, A$\&$A, 451, L47
1515: %\bibitem[{Fynbo et al. 2006b}{}]{fynbo2} Fynbo J.P.U. et al., 2006b, GCN Circ. 5651
1516: \bibitem[{Fynbo et al. 2006}{}]{fynbo3} Fynbo J.P.U. et al., 2006c, GCN Circ. 5809
1517: \bibitem[{Garnavich et al. 2004}{}]{garna} Garnavich P., Zhao X. $\&$ Pimenova T., 2004, GCN Circ. 2792
1518: \bibitem[{Gehrels et al. 2004}{}]{gehrels} Gehrels N. et al., 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005
1519: \bibitem[{Ghisellini et al. 2007}{}]{ghise} Ghisellini G., Celotti A., Ghirlanda G., Firmani C. $\&$ Nava L., 2007, MNRAS, 382, L72
1520: \bibitem[{Godet et al. 2006}{}]{godet} Godet O., Page K.L. $\&$ Burrows D.N., 2006, GCN Circ. 5128
1521: \bibitem[{Gomboc et al. 2006}{}]{gomb} Gomboc A. et al., 2006, Il Nuovo Cimento, 121B, 1303
1522: \bibitem[{Gomboc et al. 2008}{}]{gomb2} Gomboc A. et al., 2008, submitted to ApJ
1523: \bibitem[{Graham et al. 2007}{}]{graham} Graham J.F. et al., 2007, GCN Circ. 6836
1524: \bibitem[{Grupe et al. 2006}{}]{grupe} Grupe D., Fox D.B., Racusin J. $\&$ Kennea J., 2006, GCN Circ. 5811
1525: \bibitem[{Guetta et al. 2007}{}]{guetta} Guetta D. et al., 2007, A$\&$A, 461, 95
1526: \bibitem[{Guidorzi et al. 2005a}{}]{gui1} Guidorzi C. et al., 2005a, GCN Circ. 3625
1527: \bibitem[{Guidorzi et al. 2005b}{}]{gui1b} Guidorzi C. et al., 2005b, ApJ, 630, L121
1528: \bibitem[{Guidorzi et al. 2006}{}]{gui2} Guidorzi C. et al., 2006, PASP, 118, 288
1529: \bibitem[{Guidorzi et al. 2007}{}]{guidorzi2} Guidorzi C. et al., 2007, A$\&$A, 463, 539
1530: \bibitem[{Hearty et al. 2006a}{}]{hear1} Hearty F. et al., 2006a, GCN Circ. 4604
1531: \bibitem[{Hearty et al. 2006b}{}]{hear2} Hearty F. et al., 2006b, GCN Circ. 4611
1532: \bibitem[{Hill et al. 2005}{}]{hill} Hill G., Prochaska J.X, Fox D.B. Schaefer B. $\&$ Reed M., 2005, GCN Circ. 4255
1533: \bibitem[{Hunsberger et al. 2005}{}]{hun1} Hunsberger S. et al., 2005, GCN Circ. 2982
1534: \bibitem[{Jakobsson et al. 2004}{}]{jako0} Jakobsson P. et al., 2004, ApJ, 617, L21
1535: \bibitem[{Jakobsson et al. 2006}{}]{jako1} Jakobsson P. et al., 2006, A$\&$A, 447, 897
1536: \bibitem[{Jakobsson et al. 2007}{}]{jako2} Jakobsson P. et al., 2007, GCN Circ. 6283
1537: \bibitem[{Jensen et al. 2006}{}]{jen1} Jensen B.L., Hjorth J., Fynbo J. $\&$ N$\ddot{a}$r$\ddot{a}$nen J., 2006, GCN Circ. 5203
1538: \bibitem[{Kann et al. 2006}{}]{kann} Kann D.A., Klose S. $\&$ Zeh A., 2006, ApJ, 641, 993
1539: \bibitem[{Kann et al. 2007}{}]{kann2} Kann D.A. et al., 2007, astro-ph/0712.2186
1540: \bibitem[{Kobayashi $\&$ Zhang 2003}{}]{koba} Kobayashi S. $\&$ Zhang B., 2003, ApJ, 582, L75
1541: \bibitem[{Kobayashi $\&$ Zhang 2007}{}]{koba2} Kobayashi S. $\&$ Zhang B., 2007, ApJ, 655, 973
1542: \bibitem[{Kocevski et al. 2006a}{}]{koc1} Kocevski D., Bloom J.S. $\&$ McGrath E.J., 2006a, GCN Circ. 4528
1543: \bibitem[{Kocevski et al. 2006b}{}]{koc2} Kocevski D., Bloom J.S. $\&$ McGrath E.J., 2006b, GCN Circ. 4540
1544: \bibitem[{Le $\&$ Dermer et al. 2007}{}]{le} Le T. $\&$ Dermer C. D., 2007, ApJ, 661, 394
1545: \bibitem[{Levan et al. 2006}{}]{lev0} Levan A.J. et al., 2006, ApJ, 648, L9
1546: %\bibitem[{Levan et al. 2006b}{}]{lev2} Levan A.J., Tanvir N.R. $\&$ Gorosabel J., 2006b, GCN Circ. 5673
1547: \bibitem[{Liang $\&$ Zhang 2006}{}]{liang} Liang E. $\&$ Zhang B., 2006, ApJ, 638, L67
1548: \bibitem[{Liang et al. 2007}{}]{liang2} Liang E., Zhang B., Virgili F. $\&$ Dai Z.G., 2007, ApJ, 662, 1111
1549: \bibitem[{Lin et al.2005 }{}]{lin1} Lin Z.Y. et al., 2005, GCN Circ. 2976
1550: \bibitem[{Lipunov et al. 2006}{}]{lip1} Lipunov V. et al., 2006, GCN Circ. 4892
1551: \bibitem[{Malesani et al. 2004}{}]{male00} Malesani D. et al., 2004, ApJ, 609, L5
1552: \bibitem[{Malesani et al. 2006a}{}]{male0} Malesani D. et al., 2006a, GCN Circ. 4541
1553: \bibitem[{Malesani et al. 2006b}{}]{male1} Malesani D. et al., 2006b, GCN Circ. 4561
1554: \bibitem[{Malesani et al. 2006c}{}]{male2} Malesani D. et al., 2006c, GCN Circ. 5705
1555: \bibitem[{Malesani et al. 2006d}{}]{male3} Malesani D. et al., 2006d, GCN Circ. 5718
1556: \bibitem[{M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros $\&$ Rees 1999}{}]{mesre} M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros P. $\&$ Rees M.J., 1999, MNRAS, 306, L39
1557: \bibitem[{M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2002}{}]{mesza} M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros P., 2002, ARA$\&$A, 40, 137
1558: \bibitem[{Molinari et al. 2007}{}]{moli} Molinari E. et al., 2007, A$\&$A, 469, L13
1559: \bibitem[{Monfardini et al. 2006}{}]{monfardini} Monfardini A. et al., 2006, ApJ, 648, 1125
1560: \bibitem[{Moretti et al. 2007}{}]{moretti} Moretti A., Romano P. $\&$ Guidorzi C., 2007, GCN Circ. 6286
1561: \bibitem[{Morris et al. 2006a}{}]{mor1} Morris D.C., Burrows D.N., Gehrels N., Boyd P. $\&$ Voges W., 2006a, GCN Circ. 4651
1562: \bibitem[{Morris et al. 2006b}{}]{morris2} Morris D.C., Pagani C., Burrows D.N., Kennea J.A. $\&$ Page K.L., 2006b, GCN Circ. 4764
1563: \bibitem[{Morris et al. 2007}{}]{morris} Morris D.C. et al., 2007, ApJ, 654, 413
1564: \bibitem[{Mundell et al. 2007a}{}]{mundell1} Mundell C. et al., 2007a, Science, 315, 1822
1565: \bibitem[{Mundell et al. 2007b}{}]{mundell2} Mundell C. et al., 2007b, ApJ, 660, 489
1566: \bibitem[{Nardini et al. 2006}{}]{nard} Nardini M. et al., 2006, A$\&$A, 451, 821
1567: \bibitem[{Nardini et al. 2007}{}]{nard2} Nardini M., Ghisellini G. $\&$ Ghirlanda G., 2007, astro-ph/0801.4759
1568: \bibitem[{Nousek et al. 2006}{}]{nousek} Nousek J.A. et al., 2006, ApJ, 642, 389
1569: \bibitem[{O'Brien et al. 2006}{}]{obrien} O'Brien, P.T. et al., 2006, ApJ, 647 1213
1570: \bibitem[{Oates et al. 2006}{}]{oates} Oates S. et al., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 327
1571: \bibitem[{Osip et al. 2007}{}]{osip} Osip D., Chen H.W. $\&$ Prochaska J.X., 2007, GCN Circ. 5715
1572: \bibitem[{Page et al. 2007}{}]{page} Page K.L. et al., 2007, ApJ, 663, 1125
1573: \bibitem[{Panaitescu $\&$ Kumar 2001}{}]{pana0} Panaitescu A. $\&$ Kumar P., 2001, ApJ, 560, L49
1574: \bibitem[{Panaitescu et al. 2006}{}]{pana1} Panaitescu A. et al., 2006, MNRAS, 369, 2059
1575: \bibitem[{Pandey et al. 2006}{}]{pandey} Pandey S.B. et al., 2006, A$\&$A, 460, 415
1576: \bibitem[{Perri et al. 2006}{}]{perri} Perri M. et al., 2006, GCN Circ. 5110
1577: \bibitem[{Perri et al. 2007}{}]{perri2} Perri M. et al., 2007, GCN Circ. 6333
1578: \bibitem[{Perley et al. 2007}{}]{perley} Perley D.A. et al., 2007, astro-ph/0703.538
1579: \bibitem[{Piran 1999}{}]{piran} Piran T., 1999, Physics Reports, 314, 575
1580: \bibitem[{Price et al. 2006}{}]{price2} Price P.A., 2006, GCN Circ. 5104
1581: \bibitem[{Prochaska et al. 2005}{}]{prochaska} Prochaska J.X., Ellison S., Foley R.J., Bloom J.S. $\&$ Chen H.W., 2005, GCN Circ. 3332
1582: \bibitem[{Prochaska et al. 2006}{}]{prochaska2} Prochaska J.X. et al., 2006, GCN Circ. 4701
1583: \bibitem[{Racusin et al. 2007}{}]{racusin} Racusin J., Kennea J., Pagani C., Vetere L. $\&$ Evans P., 2007, GCN Circ. 6627
1584: \bibitem[{Rees $\&$ M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 1992}{}]{rees} Rees M.J. $\&$ M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros P., 1992, MNRAS, 258, 41
1585: \bibitem[{Rol et al. 2007}{}]{rol} Rol E. et al., 2007, GCN Circ. 6221
1586: \bibitem[{Rol et al. 2007b}{}]{rol2} Rol E. et al., 2007b, MNRAS, 374, 1078
1587: \bibitem[{Ruiz-Velasco et al. 2007}{}]{ruiz} Ruiz-Velasco A.E. et al., 2007, ApJ, 669, 1
1588: \bibitem[{Sari, Piran $\&$ Narayan 1998}{}]{sari} Sari R., Piran T. $\&$ Narayan R., 1998, ApJ, 497, L17
1589: \bibitem[{Sari, Piran $\&$ Halpern 1999}{}]{sari2} Sari R., Piran T. $\&$ Halpern J.P., 1999, ApJ, 519, L17
1590: \bibitem[{Sari $\&$ Piran 1999}{}]{sari3} Sari R. $\&$ Piran T., 1999, ApJ, 520, 641
1591: \bibitem[{Schady et al. 2006}{}]{schady} Schady P. et al., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1041
1592: \bibitem[{Schlegel et al. 1998}{}]{schle} Schlegel D. et al., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
1593: \bibitem[{Smith et al. 2002}{}]{smith} Smith J.A. et al., 2002, AJ, 123, 2121
1594: \bibitem[{Soderberg et al. 2006}{}]{sode} Soderberg A.M. et al., 2006, ApJ, 636, 391
1595: \bibitem[{Stanek et al. 2003}{}]{stanek} Stanek K.Z. et al., 2003, ApJ, 591, L17
1596: \bibitem[{Stanek et al. 2005}{}]{stanek1} Stanek K.Z. et al., 2005, ApJ, 626, L5
1597: \bibitem[{Stratta et al. 2007}{}]{stratta} Stratta G., Perri M., Burrows D.N. $\&$ Stamatikos M., 2007, GCN Circ. 6337
1598: \bibitem[{Swan et al. 2006}{}]{swan1} Swan H., Akerlof C., Rykoff E., Yost S. $\&$ Smith I., 2006, GCN Circ. 4568
1599: \bibitem[{Tagliaferri et al. 2005}{}]{taglia} Tagliaferri G. et al., 2005, Nature, 436, 985
1600: \bibitem[{Tanvir et al. 2005}{}]{tan1} Tanvir N.R. et al., 2005, GCN Circ. 3632
1601: \bibitem[{Tanvir et al. 2006a}{}]{tan2} Tanvir N.R., Levan A.J., Priddey R.S., Fruchter A.S. $\&$ Hjorth J., 2006a, GCN Circ. 4602
1602: \bibitem[{Tanvir et al. 2006b}{}]{tan2b} Tanvir N.R., Rol E., Wiersema K., Starling R. $\&$ O'Mahoney N., 2006b, GCN Circ. 4897
1603: %\bibitem[{Tanvir et al. 2006c}{}]{tan3} Tanvir N.R., Levan A.J., Jarvis M. $\&$ Wold T., 2006c, GCN Circ. 5587
1604: \bibitem[{Tanvir et al. 2008}{}]{tan3} Tanvir N.R. et al., 2008, astro-ph/0803.4100
1605: \bibitem[{Yost et al. 2006}{}]{yost} Yost S.A. et al., 2006, ApJ, 636, 959
1606: \bibitem[{Yost et al. 2007}{}]{yost2} Yost S.A. et al., 2007, ApJ, 657, 925
1607: \bibitem[{Willingale et al. 2007}{}]{willi} Willingale, R. et al., 2007, ApJ, 662, 1093
1608: \bibitem[{Woosley $\&$ Bloom 2006}{}]{woos} Woosley S.E. $\&$ Bloom J.S., 2006, ARA$\&$A, 44, 507
1609: \bibitem[{Wreeswjk $\&$ Jaunsen 2006}{}]{wrees} Wreeswijk P. $\&$ Jaunsen A., 2006, GCN Circ. 4974
1610: \bibitem[{Zhang, Kobayashi $\&$ M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros 2003}{}]{zhang} Zhang B., Kobayashi S. $\&$ M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros P., 2003, ApJ, 595, 950
1611: \bibitem[{Zhang et al. 2006}{}]{zhang1} Zhang B. et al., 2006, ApJ, 642, 354
1612:
1613: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baird}]{} Baird S.R., 1981, ApJ, 245, 208
1614:
1615: \end{thebibliography}
1616:
1617: %FIGURE 1
1618:
1619: \clearpage
1620:
1621: \begin{figure*} \centering
1622: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=14cm]{f1.eps}
1623: \caption{Schematic illustrating possible shapes of the optical light
1624: curves at early times as a result of the contribution of reverse and
1625: forward shock emissions (case 1 and 2) or due to energy injection
1626: (case 3). The thick dashed line for case 1 and 2 represent the reverse
1627: shock contribution at early times, that can be missing if the
1628: observations do not start early enough.}
1629: \label{figc1}
1630: \end{figure*}
1631:
1632: %FIGURE 2
1633:
1634: \clearpage
1635:
1636: \begin{figure*} \centering
1637: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f2a.eps}
1638: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f2b.eps}
1639: \caption{Left panel: observed light curves in the $R$ filter of
1640: all the detected afterglows in our sample. GRB~060927 is not included
1641: as we detected this burst only in the $i'$ band (see Ruiz-Velasco et
1642: al. 2007). Right panel : optical upper limits in the $R$ band of the
1643: remaining GRBs observed with, but not detected by the Liverpool and
1644: Faulkes telescopes. Connected symbols refer to different observations
1645: for the same burst when additional late time observations were
1646: available.}
1647: \label{figall}
1648: \end{figure*}
1649:
1650:
1651: %FIGURE 3
1652:
1653: \clearpage
1654:
1655: \begin{figure} \centering
1656: \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=9.5cm]{f3a.eps}
1657: \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=9.5cm]{f3b.eps}
1658: \caption{\small X-ray and optical ($R$-band) light curves for the
1659: 24 GRB afterglows detected by our telescopes from October 2004 to
1660: September 2007. For each burst we show the X-ray flux density in
1661: $\mu$Jy (black filled squares) and optical flux density in mJy (red
1662: filled circles for our observations and red open circles for published
1663: data, when available). We show also the value of the spectroscopic
1664: redshift when available. X-ray data of {\it Swift}/XRT are from Evans
1665: et al. (2007). We superimpose simple power-law fit segments to each
1666: curve (the details of the fit are reported on Table 1).}
1667: \label{figxopt}
1668: \end{figure}
1669:
1670: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}
1671:
1672: \begin{figure} \centering
1673: \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=9.5cm]{f3c.eps}
1674: \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=9.5cm]{f3d.eps}
1675: \caption{- continued. For GRB~060927 there are no data in the
1676: R band because we detected this burst only in the $i'$ filter due to
1677: its high redshift ($z=5.467$).}
1678: \label{figxopt2}
1679: \end{figure}
1680:
1681: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}
1682:
1683: \begin{figure} \centering
1684: \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=9.5cm]{f3e.eps}
1685: \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=9.5cm]{f3f.eps}
1686: \caption{- continued.}
1687: \label{figxopt3}
1688: \end{figure}
1689:
1690:
1691:
1692: %FIGURE 4
1693:
1694: \clearpage
1695:
1696: \begin{figure*} \centering
1697: \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=10cm]{f4a.eps}
1698: \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=10cm]{f4b.eps}
1699: \caption{X-ray light curves (black squares) for some GRBs for which
1700: we provide deep optical upper limit (red dots). These are the bursts
1701: in Table 2 that have been observed by the {\it Swift}-XRT (data from
1702: Evans et al. 2007).}
1703: \label{figul2}
1704: \end{figure*}
1705:
1706: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}
1707:
1708: \begin{figure*} \centering
1709: \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=16.0cm]{f4c.eps}
1710: \caption{- continued.}
1711: \label{figul3}
1712: \end{figure*}
1713:
1714:
1715: %FIGURE 5
1716:
1717: \clearpage
1718:
1719: \begin{figure*} \centering
1720: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=15cm]{f5.eps}
1721: \caption{Schematic view of the observed shapes of light curves in
1722: the optical (red) and X-ray band (black).}
1723: \label{figc2}
1724: \end{figure*}
1725:
1726: %FIGURE 6
1727:
1728: \clearpage
1729:
1730: \begin{figure*} \centering
1731: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f6a.eps}
1732: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f6b.eps}
1733: \caption{Left panel : optical spectral slope ($\beta_{\rm O}$) vs optical
1734: temporal decay index ($\alpha_{\rm O}$). Right panel : spectral slope
1735: ($\beta_{\rm X}$) vs temporal decay ($\alpha_{\rm X}$) in the X-ray
1736: band. The three lines drawn are the closure relations expected for the
1737: standard fireball model: S1 = spherical outflow with the cooling
1738: frequency ($\nu_{\rm c}$) below the observing frequency (optical or
1739: X-ray), S2a = spherical outflow with $\nu_{\rm c}$ above the observing
1740: frequency in a homogeneous medium, S2b = spherical outflow with
1741: $\nu_{\rm c}$ above the observing frequency in a wind-like medium.}
1742: \label{figab}
1743: \end{figure*}
1744:
1745: %FIGURE 7
1746:
1747: \clearpage
1748:
1749: \begin{figure*} \centering
1750: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f7a.eps}
1751: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f7b.eps} \caption{Left
1752: panel: rest frame luminosity for all the afterglows in our sample with
1753: known spectroscopic redshift. We superimposed on our data all the
1754: published data (GCNs and refereed journal papers). The time axis is
1755: given in days for an easier comparison with the similar plot of LZ06
1756: and the same time in the restframe $\Delta T_{\rm rest-frame}$ is
1757: given along the top of the plot in seconds to be consistent with the
1758: earlier plots. The black dotted line shows the luminosity separation
1759: ($L_{*}$) between luminous and dim bursts as defined by LZ06, see text
1760: for details. Right panel: luminosity rest frame at 1 day against
1761: redshift for the bursts of our sample. The vertical line is $L_{*}$
1762: and the two horizontal lines show the biggest values for the redshift
1763: of the two classes of LZ06.} \label{figall2}
1764: \end{figure*}
1765:
1766: %FIGURE 8
1767:
1768: \clearpage
1769:
1770: \begin{figure} \centering
1771: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f8a.eps}
1772: \caption{The observed luminosity distribution of our sample
1773: at 12 hours, fitted with a single log-normal function with an average
1774: of $29.54\pm0.07$ and a $\sigma$ of $0.67\pm0.05$.}
1775: \label{figlum12h}
1776: \end{figure}
1777:
1778: %FIGURE 9
1779:
1780: \clearpage
1781:
1782: \begin{figure*} \centering
1783: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f9a.eps}
1784: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f9b.eps}
1785: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f9c.eps}
1786: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{f9d.eps}
1787: \caption{Plots of optical flux ($F_{\rm O}$) versus X-ray flux ($F_{\rm X}$)
1788: for all the bursts listed in Table~2 for which an XRT observation was
1789: available. Extrapolation of the fluxes has been done at $t_{\rm 2}$=11
1790: hours (top left), $t_{\rm 1}$=1 hour (top right) and $t_{0}$=10
1791: minutes (bottom left). Lines with constant $\beta_{\rm OX}$ are
1792: shown. Dark bursts are the ones below the constant line $\beta_{\rm
1793: OX}=0.5$. The plot at bottom right shows the evolution of the optical
1794: and X-ray flux from $t_{\rm 0}$ to $t_{\rm 2}$; for clarity the errors
1795: on this panel are not shown.}
1796: \label{figuljako}
1797: \end{figure*}
1798:
1799:
1800: % TABLE 1
1801:
1802: \clearpage
1803:
1804: \setcounter{table}{0}
1805: \begin{landscape}
1806: \begin{deluxetable}{@{}cccccccccccccc}
1807: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1808: \tablewidth{0pt}
1809: %\centering
1810: \tablecaption{\tiny Optical and X-ray light curves parameters. If data are well fitted with a broken power law then $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ represent the decay index pre- and post-break respectively and $t_{\rm break}$ is the break time, for both optical and X-ray bands. The value of the reduced $\chi^{2}$ ($\chi^{2}/\nu$, where $\nu$ are the degrees of freedom) is given for each fit in the two bands. The values of $\beta_{\rm O}$, $\beta_{\rm X}$ and $\beta_{\rm OX}$ are the slopes of the spectral energy distribution taken from the literature. In the last two columns we report the value of the redshift ($z$) and the isotropic energy ($E_{\gamma, {\rm iso}}$) of the burst when available. * = this value refers to $R$ band data taken from GCNs because we detected GRB~060927 only in the $i'$ band, due to the high redshift of the event.}
1811: \label{tabsample}
1812: %\begin{tabular}{@{}cccccccccccccc} \hline \hline
1813: \tablewidth{0pt}
1814: \tablehead{
1815: \colhead{GRB} & \colhead{$\alpha_{{\rm O},1}$} & \colhead{$\alpha_{{\rm O},2}$} & \colhead{$t_{{\rm O},break}$} & \colhead{$\chi^{2}/\nu$} & \colhead{$\alpha_{{\rm X},1}$} & \colhead{$\alpha_{{\rm X},2}$} & \colhead{$t_{{\rm X},break}$} & \colhead{$\chi^{2}/\nu$} & \colhead{$\beta_O$} & \colhead{$\beta_X$} & \colhead{$\beta_{OX}$} & \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{$E_{\gamma, {\rm iso}}$}\\
1816: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{[$10^{52}$ erg]}}
1817: \startdata
1818: 041006 & $0.71\pm0.04$ & $1.24\pm0.01$ & $0.15\pm0.01$ & $77/72$ &--- & $1.0\pm0.1$ & --- & --- & $1.0\pm0.2$ & $0.9\pm0.2$ & $\sim0.7$ & 0.716 & $0.94_{-0.08}^{+0.21}$ \\
1819: 041218 & $1.25\pm0.10$ & $1.47\pm0.13$ & $0.11\pm0.01$ & $19/16$ & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- & ---\\
1820: 050502A & $1.20\pm0.04$ & --- & --- & $50/52$ & $>1.45$ & --- & --- & --- & $0.80\pm0.05$ & $1.30\pm0.05$ & $0.8\pm0.1$ & 3.793 & $4_{-1}^{+3}$ \\
1821: 050713A & $0.63\pm0.04$ & --- & --- & $12/6$ & $1.17\pm0.05$ & $1.32\pm0.09$ & $0.28\pm0.06$ & $53/45$ & --- & $1.10\pm0.05$ & $1.2\pm0.1$ & --- & --- \\
1822: 050730 & $0.63\pm0.07$ & $1.55\pm0.08$ & $0.10\pm0.01$ & $46/45$ & $0.49\pm0.02$ & $2.37\pm0.05$ & $0.11\pm0.01$ & $670/566$ & $0.56\pm0.06$ & $0.73\pm0.07$ & --- & 3.967 & $9_{-3}^{+8}$ \\
1823: 051111 & $0.82\pm0.03$ & $1.00\pm0.03$ & $0.008\pm0.001$ & $46/43$ & --- & $1.60\pm0.07$ & --- & $34/29$ & $0.76\pm0.07$ & $1.15\pm0.15$ & $0.84\pm0.02$ & 1.55 & $6_{-2}^{+5}$ \\
1824: 060108 & $0.42\pm0.16$ & --- & --- & $5/4$ & $0.46\pm0.07$ & $1.15\pm0.07$ & $0.18\pm0.02$ & $29/25$ & $\sim1.4$ & $0.89\pm0.30$ & $0.54\pm0.10$ & $<3.2$ & $<0.795$\\
1825: 060203 & $0.74\pm0.13$ & --- & --- & $11/8$ & $0.94\pm0.05$ & --- & --- & $41/34$ & --- & $1.24\pm0.30$ & --- & --- & --- \\
1826: 060204B & $0.73\pm0.10$ & --- & --- & $4/3$ & --- & $1.35\pm0.04$ & --- & $54/60$ & --- & $0.9\pm0.2$ & --- & --- & ---\\
1827: 060206 & $0.93\pm0.02$ & $1.83\pm0.02$ & $0.60\pm0.01$ & $235/216$ & $1.30\pm0.02$ & --- & --- & $66/72$ & $0.84\pm0.15$ & $0.84\pm0.14$ & $0.93\pm0.02$ & 4.048 & $4.1_{-0.6}^{+1.2}$ \\
1828: 060210 & $1.03\pm0.06$ & ($2.38\pm0.43$) & ($0.10\pm0.02$) & $9/7$ & $0.88\pm0.04$ & $1.31\pm0.03$ & $0.33\pm0.03$ & $263/221$& $3.1\pm0.4$ & $1.14\pm0.03$ & $0.3\pm0.1$ & 3.91 & $42_{-8}^{+35}$\\
1829: 060418 & $1.19\pm0.02$ & --- & --- & $29/26$ & $1.44\pm0.05$ & --- & --- & $97/80$ & --- & $1.04\pm0.13$ & --- & 1.489 & $10_{-2}^{+7}$\\
1830: 060510B & $0.55\pm0.34$ & --- & --- & $2/1$ & $0.56\pm0.13$ & $1.7\pm0.1$ & $1.16\pm0.02$ & $5/6$ & --- & $0.42\pm0.13$ & --- & 4.9 & $23_{-4}^{+10}$\\
1831: 060512 & $0.77\pm0.02$ & --- & --- & $19/22$ & $1.15\pm0.05$ & --- & --- & $22/17$ & --- & $0.93\pm0.18$ & --- & 0.4428 & $0.020_{-0.004}^{+0.030}$\\
1832: 060927 & $0.99\pm0.11^{*}$ & --- & --- & $19/11$ & $0.63\pm0.11$ & $1.78\pm0.21$ & $0.035\pm0.003$ & $16/13$ & ---& $0.87\pm0.17$ & --- & 5.467 & $9_{-1}^{+2}$ \\
1833: 061007 & $1.71\pm0.02$ & --- & --- & $24/23$ & $1.65\pm0.01$ & --- & --- & $954/978$ & --- & $0.99\pm0.02$ & $1.02\pm0.05$ & 1.261 & $140_{-60}^{+110}$\\
1834: 061110B & $1.64\pm0.08$ & --- & --- & $8/7$ & $1.44\pm0.15$ & --- & --- & $11/7$ & --- & $0.9\pm0.4$ & --- & 3.44 & $13_{-6}^{+16}$\\
1835: 061121 & $0.83\pm0.03$ & --- & --- & $41/36$ & $1.21\pm0.02$ & $1.58\pm0.12$ & $2.89\pm0.03$ & $200/191$ & ---- & $0.99\pm0.07$ & $0.53\pm0.06$ & 1.314 & $19_{-5}^{+11}$\\
1836: 061126 & $1.43\pm0.12$ & $0.89\pm0.02$ & $0.009\pm0.001$ & $93/72$ & --- & $1.28\pm0.01$ & --- & $348/273$ & $0.48\pm0.02$ & $0.98\pm0.02$ & $0.53\pm0.02$ & 1.158 & $8_{-2}^{+7}$\\
1837: 070208 & $0.42\pm0.04$ & --- & --- & $14/11$ & --- & $1.29\pm0.07$ & --- & $36/24$ & --- & $1.6\pm0.2$ & --- & 1.165 & $0.28_{-0.08}^{+0.22}$ \\
1838: 070411 & $0.92\pm0.04$ & --- & --- & $61/38$ & $1.12\pm0.03$ & --- & --- & $39/28$ & --- & $1.1\pm0.2$ & --- & 2.954 & $10_{-2}^{+8}$\\
1839: 070419A & --- & $0.58\pm0.04$ & --- & $21/9$ & $2.79\pm0.06$ & $0.64\pm0.10$ & $0.046\pm0.005$ & $139/105$ & --- & $1.46\pm0.09$ & --- & 0.97 & $0.24_{-0.03}^{+0.23}$ \\
1840: 070420 & $0.68\pm0.03$ & --- & --- & $4/3$ & $0.30\pm0.05$ & $1.34\pm0.03$ & $0.034\pm0.04$ & $232/142$ & --- & $1.0\pm0.2$ & --- & --- & --- \\
1841: 070714B & $0.83\pm0.04$ & --- & --- & $5/3$ & $0.56\pm0.19$ & $1.56\pm0.09$ & $0.010\pm0.02$ & $28/19$ & --- & $0.2\pm0.1$ & --- & 0.92 & $0.8_{-0.1}^{+2.0}$\\
1842: \enddata
1843: \tablecomments{Notes - References for $\alpha_{{\rm X},1}$ : GRB~050502A : \cite{gui1b}. References for $\alpha_{{\rm X},2}$ : GRB~041006 : \cite{butler2}. References for $\beta_{\rm O}$ : GRB~041006 : \cite{garna}; GRB~050502A : \cite{gui1b,yost}; GRB~050730 : \cite{pandey}; GRB~051111 : \cite{guidorzi2}; GRB~060108 : \cite{oates}; GRB~060206 : \cite{monfardini}; GRB~060210 : \cite{curran}; GRB~061126 : \cite{gomb2}. References for $\beta_{\rm X}$ : GRB~041006 : \cite{butler2}; GRB~050502A : \cite{gui1b}; GRB~050713A : \cite{morris}; GRB~050730 : \cite{pandey}; GRB~051111 : \cite{guidorzi2}; GRB~060108 : \cite{oates}; GRB~060203 : \cite{mor1}; GRB~060204B : \cite{falcone}; GRB~060206 : \cite{monfardini}; GRB~060210 : \cite{curran}; GRB~060418 : \cite{falcone2}; GRB~060510B : \cite{perri}; GRB~060512 : \cite{godet}; GRB~060927 : \cite{ruiz}; GRB~061007 : \cite{schady}; GRB~061110B : \cite{grupe}; GRB~061121 : \cite{page}; GRB~061126 : \cite{gomb2}; GRB~070208 : \cite{conc1}; GRB~070411 : \cite{moretti}; GRB~070419A : \cite{perri2}; GRB~070420 : \cite{stratta}; GRB~070714B : \cite{racusin}. References for $\beta_{\rm OX}$ : GRB~041006 : \cite{butler2}. GRB~050502A : \cite{gui1b}; GRB~050713A : \cite{morris}; GRB~051111 : \cite{guidorzi2}; GRB~060108 : \cite{oates}; GRB~060206 : \cite{monfardini}; GRB~060210 : \cite{curran}; GRB~061007 : \cite{mundell2}; GRB~061121 : \cite{page}; GRB~061126 : \cite{gomb2}. References for $z$ : GRB~041006 : \cite{fugazza}; GRB~050502A : \cite{prochaska}; GRB~050730 : \cite{chen}; GRB~051111 : \cite{hill}; GRB~060108 : \cite{oates}; GRB~060206 : \cite{prochaska2}; GRB~060210 : \cite{cucchiara}; GRB~060418 : \cite{dupree,wrees}; GRB~060510B : \cite{price2}; GRB~060512 : \cite{bloom}; GRB~060927 : \cite{ruiz}; GRB~061007 : \cite{osip}; GRB~061110B : \cite{fynbo3}; GRB~061121 : \cite{bloom2}; GRB~061126 : \cite{perley}; GRB~070208 : \cite{cucchiara2}; GRB~070411 : \cite{jako2}; GRB~070419A : \cite{cenko}; GRB~070714B : \cite{graham}. References for $E_{\gamma, {\rm iso}}$ : \citep[all values from][ except for GRB~041006, GRB~050502A and GRB~060108]{butler4}.}
1844:
1845: \end{deluxetable}
1846: %\end{table}
1847: \end{landscape}
1848:
1849:
1850: % TABLE 2
1851:
1852: \clearpage
1853:
1854: \setcounter{table}{1}
1855:
1856: \begin{landscape}
1857: \begin{deluxetable}{@{}ccccccccrrrrrcccc}
1858: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1859: \tablewidth{0pt}
1860: %\centering
1861: \tablecaption{\scriptsize Upper limit parameters. Refer to Section 3.2 for
1862: detailed explanation of the colums of that table.}
1863: \label{tabul}
1864: %\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccccccccccccccc}
1865: %\hline \hline
1866: \tablehead{\colhead{GRB} & \colhead{XRT} & \colhead{Duration} & \colhead{$\it f$ $\times 10^{7}$} & \colhead{F$_{\rm X}$ $\times 10^{11}$} & \colhead{$\Delta~t_{\rm X}$} & \colhead{$\alpha_{\rm X}$} & \colhead{$\beta_{\rm X}$} & \colhead{$\Delta~t_{\rm start}$} & \colhead{$R^{\rm u.l.}_{\rm start}$} & \colhead{$\Delta~t_{\rm mean}$} & \colhead{$R^{\rm u.l.}_{\rm mean}$} & \colhead{$T_{exp}$} & \colhead{OT} & \colhead{$A_{R}$} & \colhead{$\alpha_{\rm X}^{\rm (fit)}$} & \colhead{F$_{\rm X}$ ($\Delta~t_{R}$)}\\
1867: \colhead{} & \colhead{pos.} & \colhead{(s)} & \colhead{(erg~cm$^{-2}$)} & \colhead{(erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(min)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(min)} &\colhead{} & \colhead{(min)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(min)} &\colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{($\mu$~Jy)}}
1868: %\hline
1869: \startdata
1870: 041211 & no & 30.2 & 100 & --- & --- & --- & --- & 197.20 & 19.18 & 242.94 & 20.86 & 4.5 & --- & 0.45 & --- & --- \\
1871: 050124 & yes & 4.1 & 12.3 & 6.9 & 185.2 & --- & 0.3 & 885.64 & 19.00 & 886.02 & 19.20 & 0.5 & IR & 0.09 & $1.49\pm0.08$ & 0.103\\
1872: 050128 & yes & 13.8 & 51.7 & 24.0 & 3.62 & --- & --- & 697.20 & 21.13 & 788.4 & 21.85 & 20.0 & --- & 0.21 & $1.05\pm0.02$ & 0.296\\
1873: 050412 & yes & 26.0 & 5.66 & 0.39 & 166.7 & 1.35 & 0.4 & 2.5 & 18.7 & 3.83 & 20.82 & 11.5 & --- & 0.05 & $1.58\pm0.09$ & 6.790\\
1874: 050504 & yes & 80.0 & 15.0 & --- & 326.8 & --- & --- & 3.7 & 19.00 & 17.39 & 20.33 & 17.67 & --- & 0.03 & $0.21\pm0.08$ & 0.043\\
1875: 050520 & yes & 80.0 & 24.0 & 0.01 & 127.7 & 1.4 & --- & 4.5 & 16.60 & 8.34 & 19.4 & 2.5 & --- & 0.04 & --- & ---\\
1876: 050528 & no & 10.8 & 4.40 & --- & 849.0 & --- & --- & 2.5 & 17.2 & 3.88 & 17.96 & 1.0 & --- & 0.43 & --- & ---\\
1877: 050713B & yes & 75.0 & 45.7 & 90.2 & 2.27 & 2.88 & 0.7 & 3.3 & 18.2 & 3.80 & 19.32 & 0.5 & --- & 1.25 & $3.08\pm0.07$ & 52.947\\
1878: 050716 & yes & 69.0 & 63.2 & 70.2 & 3.83 & 1.68 & 0.32 & 3.8 & 19.8 & 4.29 & 20.61 & 8.5 & IR & 0.29 & $1.50\pm0.05$ & 58.970\\
1879: 050925 & no & 0.068 & 0.75 & --- & 1.66 & --- & --- & 3.3 & 19.0 & 3.69 & 21.12 & 2.0 & --- & 5.69 & --- & ---\\
1880: 051211A & no & 4.2 & 9.2 & --- & --- & --- & --- & 353.4 & 20.86 & 413.4 & 21.72 & 60.5 & --- & 0.32 & --- & ---\\
1881: 051211B & yes & 80.0 & 20.0 & 0.13 & 179.7 & 1.16 & 1.0 & 66.1 & 16.5 & 67.4 & 17.0 & 1.0 & --- & 1.26 & $0.82\pm0.06$ & 0.322\\
1882: 060114 & no & 100.0 & 13.0 & --- & --- & --- & --- & 2.2 & 19.0 & 37.59 & 20.70 & 15.5 & --- & 0.09 &--- & ---\\
1883: 060116 & yes & 113.0 & 26.0 & 0.9 & 2.57 & 0.95 & 1.1 & 18.72 & 18.58 & 39.98 & 20.0 & 8.5 & IR & 0.69 & $1.01\pm0.04$ & 0.990\\
1884: 060121 & yes & 2.0 & 43.0 & 0.46 & 176.70 & 1.08 & 1.07 & 50.23 & 19.5 & 175.56 & 22.22 & 20.83 & O & 0.04 & $1.20\pm0.04$ & 0.644\\
1885: 060204C & no & 60.0 & 3.5 & 0.001 & 2.6 & --- & --- & 6.42 & 18.7 & 6.89 & 19.39 & 1.0 & --- & 0.49 & --- & ---\\
1886: 060319 & yes & 12.0 & 2.7 & 2.2 & 2.88 & 1.02 & 1.10 & 7.0 & 19.0 & 9.90 & 21.63 & 3.0 & IR & 0.06 & $0.95\pm0.02$ & 4.559\\
1887: 060602A & yes & 60.0 & 16.0 & --- & --- & --- & --- & 7.72 & 15.0 & 36.08 & 16.83 & 21.0 & O & 0.07 & $1.15\pm0.13$ & 1.595\\
1888: 060602B & yes & 9.0 & 1.8 & 0.32 & 1.38 & 1.05 & 2.1 & 19.2 & 18.0 & 38.20 & 20.85 & 2.5 & --- & 95.63 & --- & ---\\
1889: 060825 & yes & 8.1 & 9.8 & 3.57 & 1.1 & 0.87 & 0.64 & 4.43 & 18.7 & 7.31 & 19.47 & 3.0 & --- & 1.55 & $0.96\pm0.05$ & 1.626\\
1890: 060901 & yes & 20.0 & 7.0 & 0.26 & 226.0 & 1.7 & 1.1 & 142.8 & 21.0 & 177.6 & 22.10 & 20.0 & --- & 1.85 & $1.38\pm0.08$ & 0.553\\
1891: 060923A & yes & 51.7 & 8.7 & 4.9 & 1.35 & 2.7 & 1.1 & 2.8 & 19.0 & 8.88 & 19.90 & 2.0 & IR & 0.16 & $1.69\pm015$ & 1.732\\
1892: 060923C & yes & 76.0 & 16.0 & 85.0 & 3.38 & 3.4 & 0.85 & 4.22 & 19.0 & 14.50 & 20.3 & 3.67 & IR & 0.17 & $3.09\pm0.09$ & 0.700\\
1893: 060929 & yes & 12.4 & 2.8 & 0.53 & 1.53 & 0.79 & 1.3 & 21.13 & 19.0 & 25.88 & 20.36 & 3.0 & --- & 0.13 & $1.07\pm0.04$ & 0.396\\
1894: 060930 & no & 20.0 & 2.5 & --- & --- & --- & --- & 1.98 & 19.5 & 6.45 & 20.85 & 1.5 & --- & 0.22 & --- & ---\\
1895: 061006 & yes & 0.5 & 14.3 & 0.19 & 2.38 & 2.26 & 0.7 & 22.61 & 18.0 & 23.05 & 18.20 & 0.5 & O & 0.85 & $0.77\pm0.04$ & 0.306\\
1896: 061210 & yes & 0.2 & 11.0 & --- & --- & --- & --- & 2.39 & 17.0 & 2.8 & 18.20 & 0.5 & --- & 0.09 & $2.20\pm0.42$ & 118664.2\\
1897: 070103 & yes & 19.0 & 3.4 & 0.38 & 1.15 & 1.4 & 1.3 & 23.7 & 19.0 & 25.20 & 19.45 & 1.0 & --- & 0.18 & $1.42\pm0.05$ & 3.00 \\
1898: 070219 & yes & 17.0 & 3.2 & 0.12 & 1.37 & 2.2 & 1.0 & 51.4 & 19.9 & 59.09 & 20.64 & 5.0 & --- & 0.09 & $0.75\pm0.28$ & 0.104 \\
1899: 070220 & yes & 129.0 & 106.0 & 16.5 & 1.32 & 1.76 & 0.55 & 1.93 & 19.5 & 34.01 & 20.47 & 10.0 & --- & 2.41 & $0.76\pm0.09$ & 3.834 \\
1900: 070223 & yes & 89.0 & 17.0 & 92.0 & 1.83 & 2.3 & 0.7 & 18.7 & 21.4 & 38.84 & 22.29 & 13.0 & IR & 0.04 & $0.88\pm0.06$ & 0.407 \\
1901: 070412 & yes & 34.0 & 4.8 & 33.0 & 1.02 & 0.98 & 1.2 & 14.1 & 21.0 & 35.68 & 21.89 & 13.0 & --- & 0.06 & $1.02\pm0.03$ & 1.34 \\
1902: 070521 & yes & 37.9 & 80.0 & 3.2 & 1.28 & 0.5 & 1.11 & 2.35 & 19.3 & 31.77 & 22.70 & 12.0 & --- & 0.07 & $0.36\pm0.16$ & 8.02 \\
1903: 070531 & yes & 44.0 & 11.0 & --- & 2.13 & --- & --- & 11.9 & 18.2 & 14.64 & 19.45 & 3.0 & --- & 1.00 & $1.32\pm0.17$ & 1.01 \\
1904: 070704 & yes & 380.0 & 59.0 & 285.0 & 2.55 & 0.87 & 0.85 & 239.5 & 21.1 & 254.34 & 22.11 & 30.0 & --- & 5.01 & $0.92\pm0.10$ & 0.150 \\
1905: 070721A & yes & 3.4 & 0.71 & 0.823 & 1.43 & 2.97 & 1.24 & 229.2 & 19.0 & 261.72 & 20.08 & 15.5 & --- & 0.04 & $0.78\pm0.04$ & 0.089 \\
1906: 070721B & yes & 340.0 & 36.0 & 24.5 & 1.53 & 0.9 & 0.48 & 327.0 & 18.5 & 364.44 & 19.31 & 15.17 & --- & 0.08 & $1.63\pm0.07$ & 0.195 \\
1907: 070808 & yes & 32.0 & 12.0 & 1.0 & 1.9 & 3.5 & 1.8 & 2.35 & 19.7 & 36.69 & 20.42 & 16.0 & --- & 0.06 & $0.93\pm0.03$ & 0.283 \\
1908: 070810B & yes & 80.0 & 0.12 & --- & 1.03 & --- & --- & 2.80 & 20.0 & 40.63 & 21.15 & 14.0 & --- & 0.14 & --- & --- \\
1909:
1910: %\hline
1911: %\hline
1912: \enddata
1913: %\end{tabular}
1914:
1915: \tablecomments{Notes - Reference for Duration, $\it f$, F$_{\rm X}$, $\Delta~t_{\rm X}$, $\alpha_{\rm X}$ and $\beta_{\rm X}$ : ${\it http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/archive/grb\_table/}$. References for OT : GRB~050124 : \cite{ber1,ber2}; GRB~050716 : \cite{tan1,rol2}; GRB~060116 : \cite{koc1,koc2,swan1,male0,tan2}; GRB060121: \cite{lev0,male1,hear1,hear2}; GRB~060319 : \cite{tan2b}; GRB~060602A : \cite{jen1}; GRB~060923A : \cite{tan3,fox1,fox0}; GRB~060923C: \cite{cov1,dav2}; GRB~061006 : \cite{male2,male3}; GRB~070223 : \cite{castro,rol}. Reference for $A_{R}$ : the values of $A_{R}$ come from the NED extinction calculator and are calculated from the list of $A_{\lambda}/E(B-V)$ reported in Table 6 of Schlegel et al. (1998) assuming an average value $R_{V}= A_{V}/E(B-V)= 3.1$.}
1916:
1917: \end{deluxetable}
1918: %\end{table}
1919: \end{landscape}
1920:
1921: % TABLE 3
1922:
1923: \clearpage
1924:
1925: \setcounter{table}{2}
1926:
1927: \begin{deluxetable}{@{}lccc}
1928: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
1929: \tablewidth{0pt}
1930: %\centering
1931: \tablecaption{Temporal decay index $\alpha$ and spectral index
1932: $\beta$ in the slow cooling regime as functions of the electron
1933: spectral index $p$ for ISM ($\rho$=constant) or wind-like ambient
1934: medium ($\rho=R^{-2}$). The cases of energy injection ($L \propto
1935: t^{-q}$) and no energy injection (q=1) are considered (e.g. Zhang et
1936: al. 2006). } \label{tab3}
1937: \tablehead{\colhead{Slow cooling} & \colhead{$\beta$} & \colhead{$\alpha$ (no injection)} & \colhead{$\alpha$ (injection)}}
1938: \startdata
1939: $\nu_{\rm m} < \nu < \nu_{\rm c}$ (ISM) & $\frac{p-1}{2}$ & $\frac{3(p-1)}{4}$ & $\frac{(2p-6)+(p+3)q}{4}$\\
1940: $\nu_{\rm m} < \nu < \nu_{\rm c}$ (wind) & $\frac{p-1}{2}$ & $\frac{3p-1}{4}$ & $\frac{(2p-2)+(p+1)q}{4}$\\
1941: $\nu_{\rm c} < \nu$ (ISM/wind) & $\frac{p}{2}$ & $\frac{3p-2}{4}$ & $\frac{(2p-4)+(p+2)q}{4}$\\
1942: \enddata
1943: \end{deluxetable}
1944:
1945: % TABLE 4
1946:
1947: \clearpage
1948:
1949: \setcounter{table}{3}
1950:
1951: \begin{deluxetable}{@{}cccc}
1952: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
1953: \tablewidth{0pt}
1954: %\centering
1955: \tablecaption{Mean values and standard deviations for the
1956: distribution of the luminosity rest-frame L$_{R}$ at different
1957: times. LZ06 refer to values from Liang $\&$ Zhang (2006) and N06 to
1958: values from Nardini et al. (2006). See text for more details.}
1959: \label{tablum}
1960: \tablehead{\colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{log~L$_{R}$} & \colhead{} \\
1961: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{(t = 1 day)} & \colhead{(t = 12 hours)} & \colhead{(t = 10 min)} \\
1962: \colhead{} & \colhead{[erg~s$^{-1}$]} & \colhead{[erg~s$^{-1}$~Hz$^{-1}$]} & \colhead{[erg~s$^{-1}$]}}
1963: \startdata
1964: \hline
1965: LZ06 dim & $44.66\pm0.41$ & --- & --- \\
1966: LZ06 lum & $46.15\pm0.77$ & --- & --- \\
1967: \hline \hline
1968: N06 & --- & $30.65\pm0.28$ & --- \\
1969: \hline \hline
1970: Our result & $44.25\pm0.70$ & $29.54\pm0.67$ & $46.55\pm1.23$ \\
1971: \enddata
1972: \end{deluxetable}
1973:
1974: \end{document}
1975: