1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %%\documentclass{emulateapj}
4: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
5:
6: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
7:
8: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
9:
10: %%\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
11:
12: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
13: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
14: %% use the longabstract style option.
15:
16: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
17:
18: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
19: \newcommand{\myemail}{fwzhang@ynao.ac.cn}
20:
21: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
22:
23: \slugcomment{Accepted to Astrophys. J.}
24:
25:
26: \shorttitle{Lightcurve characteristics of GRBs 980425 and 060218}
27: \shortauthors{Zhang }
28:
29: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
30: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
31:
32: \begin{document}
33:
34:
35: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
36: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
37: %% you desire.
38:
39: %\title{BROADBAND PROPERTIES OF GRBS 980425 AND 060218 AND COMPARISON
40: %WITH LONG-LAG, WIDE-PULSE GAMMA-RAY BURSTS}
41:
42: \title{Broadband lightcurve characteristics of GRBs 980425 and 060218 and comparison
43: with long-lag, wide-pulse GRBs}
44:
45: \author{Fu-Wen Zhang\altaffilmark{1,2,3}}
46:
47: \altaffiltext{1}{National Astronomical Observatories/ Yunnan
48: Observatory,
49: Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 110, Kunming, Yunnan 650011, China;
50: fwzhang@ynao.ac.cn}
51:
52: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Mathematics and Physics, Guilin
53: University of Technology, Guilin, Guangxi 541004, China}
54:
55: \altaffiltext{3}{The Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of
56: Sciences, P.O. Box 3908, Beijing 100039, China}
57:
58:
59:
60: \begin{abstract}
61: It has been recently argued that low-luminosity gamma-ray bursts
62: (LL-GRBs) are likely a unique GRB population. Here, we present
63: systematic analysis of the lightcurve characteristics from X-ray to
64: gamma-ray energy bands for the two prototypical LL-GRBs 980425 and
65: 060218. It is found that both the pulse width ($w$) and the ratio of
66: the rising width to the decaying width ($r/d$) of theses two bursts
67: are energy-dependent over a broad energy band. There exists a
68: significant trend that the pulses tend to be narrower and more
69: symmetry with respect to the higher energy bands for the two events.
70: Both the X-rays and the gamma-rays follow the same $w - E$ and $r/d
71: - E$ relations. These facts may indicate that the X-ray emission
72: tracks the gamma-ray emission and both are likely to be originated
73: from the same physical mechanism. Their light curves show
74: significant spectral lags. We calculate the three types of lags with
75: the pulse peaking time ($t_{peak}$), the pulse centroid time
76: ($t_{cen}$), and the cross-correlation function (CCF). The derived
77: $t_{peak}$ and $t_{cen}$ are a power-law function of energy. The lag
78: calculated by CCF is strongly correlated with that derived from
79: $t_{peak}$. But the lag derived from $t_{cen}$ is less correlated
80: with that derived from $t_{peak}$ and CCF. The energy dependence of
81: the lags is shallower at higher energy bands. These characteristics
82: are well consistent with that observed in typical long-lag,
83: wide-pulse GRBs, suggesting that GRBs 980425 and 060218 may share
84: the similar radiation physics with them.
85:
86:
87: \end{abstract}
88:
89: \keywords{gamma-rays: bursts --- method: statistical --- X-rays:
90: individual (GRB 980425, GRB 060218)}
91:
92: \maketitle
93: % main text
94: \section{Introduction}
95:
96: Two nearby gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) 980425 and 060218 are detected
97: respectively, at the redshifts 0.0085 (Tinney et al. 1998) and
98: 0.0331 (Masetti et al. 2006; Mirabal \& Halpern 2006). The isotropic
99: luminosities (L$_{iso}$) of GRBs 980425 and 060218 are
100: $1.21\times10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (Hakkila et al. 2008) and
101: $1.2\times10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (Liang et al. 2006, hereafter L06),
102: respectively, marking them prominent low-luminosity GRBs (LL-GRBs)
103: with respect to typical GRBs ($L_{iso}\sim10^{50}-10^{52}$ erg
104: s$^{-1}$). Both of them are associated with observed supernova of
105: Type Ic, i.e. GRB 980425/SN 1998bw (Galama et al. 1998) and GRB
106: 060218/SN 2006aj (Masetti et al. 2006, Campana et al. 2006; Pian et
107: al. 2006).
108:
109: The nature of these two bursts are highly uncertain. Based on the
110: high detection rate inferred from these two nearby events, Liang et
111: al. (2007) proposed that these LL-GRBs might form a unique GRB
112: population, characterized by high local GRB rate, small beaming
113: factor, and low luminosity (see also Le \& Dermer 2007; Guetta \&
114: Della Valle 2007). However, the spectral properties of the prompt
115: emission for these two events are apparently different. The peak
116: energy ($E_{p,i}$) of the cosmological rest-frame $\nu f_\nu$
117: spectrum of GRB 060218 is $4.9\pm0.3$ keV, which is well consistent
118: with the $E_{p,i}-E_{iso}$ correlation (the so-called
119: Amati-relation) (Amati et al. 2007). This is reasonable if the
120: Amati-relation is possibly due to a radiation effect (Liang \& Dai
121: 2004). Furthermore, GRB 060218 roughly complies with the
122: luminosity-lag relation ($L-\tau$ relation) (Gehrels et al. 2006;
123: L06) derived from typical GRBs (Norris et al. 2000). These facts
124: indicate that GRB 060218 is a typical X-ray flash, a soft version of
125: GRBs (Lamb et al. 2005). However, GRB 980425 is an apparent outlier
126: with respect to the Amati-relation and the $L-\tau$ relation
127: (Sazonov et al. 2004; Amati 2006). Ghisellini et al. (2006) argued
128: that this may be a hard-to-soft spectral evolution effect. These
129: intriguing observations motivate us to make further analysis on the
130: emission properties of these two events. We focus on their
131: lightcurve characteristics in an attempt to determine whether
132: evidence exists to explain their abnormal luminosities. Their light
133: curves are composed of a smooth, fast-rise-exponential-decay (FRED)
134: pulse with significant spectral lag (Sazonov et al. 2004; L06).
135: Using CGAO/BATSE, BeppoSAX and Swift observations, we obtain their
136: broad band prompt emissions from X-rays to gamma-rays, which are
137: presented in \S2. We derive the spectral lag ($\tau$) and the
138: energy-dependence of pulse-width ($w$) and the ratio of pulse
139: rise-to-decay ($r/d$) for these two events in \S3. Norris et al.
140: (2005) (hereafter N05) identified a subgroup of GRBs with long-lag,
141: wide-pulse in their prompt emission profiles. To further examine
142: whether they share the same properties with typical long-lag,
143: wide-pulse GRBs (LLWP-GRBs), we also make a comparison of the
144: temporal properties of the two bursts with that of the LLWP-GRBs in
145: \S4. Conclusions and discussions are presented in \S 5.
146:
147:
148: \section{Data}
149:
150: GRB 980425 was detected on 1998 April 25.90915 UT with one of the
151: Wide Field Cameras (WFCs) and the Gamma Ray Burst Monitor (GRBM) on
152: board BeppoSAX. This burst was also observed with the BATSE
153: instrument on board the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) at
154: 21:49:08.7 UT (trigger 6707). The X-ray light curves with a temporal
155: resolution of 1 second in energy bands $2-5$ keV, $5-10$ keV, and
156: $10-26$ keV observed with WFC are available at ASI Science Data
157: Center\footnote{http://www.asdc.asi.it or
158: http://www.asdc.asi.it/grb-wfc} (Vetere et al. 2007). The gamma-ray
159: light curves observed with CGRO/BATSE are obtained via anonymous ftp
160: from the CGRO/BATSE
161: website\footnote{ftp://legacy.gsfc.nasa.gov/compton/data/batse/ascii\_data/64ms/}.
162: They are available in four energy bands, i.e., $25-50, 50-100,
163: 100-300$, and $>$300 keV, with a temporal resolution of 64 ms. The
164: backgrounds of these light curves are fitted by a polynomial
165: expression, and they are obtained from the CGRO Science Support
166: Center (CGROSSC) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center through its
167: public
168: archives\footnote{http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/cgro/batse/batseburst/sixtyfour
169: \_ms/bckgnd\_fits.html}. Figure 1 shows the background subtracted
170: light curves in the X-rays and gamma-rays bands (note that the
171: signal in the $>$300 keV band is not detected, so, the light curve
172: in this band is not displayed). All the light curves are shown with
173: respect to the BATSE trigger time without considering the
174: propagation delay between the spacecrafts.
175:
176: GRB 060218 was detected with the Swift Burst Alert Telescope (BAT)
177: on 2006 February 18.149 UT. Its duration $T_{90}\sim$ 2000 s in the
178: $15-150$ keV energy band. Swift slewed autonomously to the burst,
179: and the X-ray telescope (XRT) and the UV/Optical Telescope (UVOT)
180: started collecting data 159 s after the burst trigger. The early
181: X-ray emission contains a thermal emission component (Campana et al.
182: 2006). L06 derived the X-ray light curves of the nonthermal emission
183: in energy bands $0.3-2$ keV, $2-5$ keV and $5-10$ keV by subtracting
184: the thermal emission component from the XRT data. The BAT trigger of
185: this event is an image trigger. L06 extracted the gamma-ray emission
186: light curves in the whole BAT energy band ($15-150$ keV). In our
187: analysis the lightcurve data are taken from L06, which are shown in
188: Figure 2.
189:
190: The light curves of the two events in the gamma-ray energy bands are
191: a long-lag, long duration single-pulse. N05 made an extensive
192: analysis on a sample of GRBs with a long-lag, wide-pulse observed by
193: CGRO/BATSE. In order to make comparison of the two events with these
194: LLWP-GRBs, we used the data of these bursts from N05.
195:
196: \section{Energy Dependence of Lightcurve Characteristics}
197:
198: From Figures 1 and 2, we find that there is an obvious trend, the
199: pulses become narrower at higher energies and the pulse peaks shift
200: to later times at lower energies from the X-ray to gamma-ray energy
201: bands for GRBs 980425 and 060218. We also find that the single-pulse
202: structure of these two bursts apparent at higher energies becomes
203: less obvious at lower energies. The loss of pulse structure at lower
204: energies could be due to, partially by lower signal-to-noise
205: measurements, and also might be due to, partially by some sort of
206: faint pulse substructure. While checking the dependence in the
207: different energy bands are the same or different, here we pay
208: attention how the pulse width and spectral lag depend on energy over
209: a broad energy band.
210:
211:
212: \subsection{Pulse Width and Energy Dependence}
213:
214: Although the single-pulse structure of the two bursts is less
215: obvious at lower energies, we still model their light curves in
216: different energy bands by a single FRED pulse. The pulse profiles of
217: GRBs are found to be self-similar across energy bands (e.g., Norris
218: et al. 1996). Kocevski et al. (2003) developed an empirical
219: expression, which can be used to fit the pulses of GRBs well. This
220: function can be written as,
221: \begin{equation}
222: F(t)=F_{m}(\frac{t+t_{0}}{t_{m}+t_{0}})^{r}[\frac{d}{d+r}+\frac{r}{d+r}
223: (\frac{t+t_{0}}{t_{m}+t_{0}})^{(r+1)}]^{-\frac{r+d}{r+1}},
224: \end{equation}
225: where $t_{m}$ is the time of the maximum flux ($F_{m}$) of the
226: pulse, $t_{0}$ is the offset time, $r$ and $d$ are the rising and
227: decaying power-law indices, respectively. We fit all the light
228: curves of GRB 980425 in the different energy bands with equation (1)
229: and then measure the values of $w$ and $r/d$. The errors of $w$ and
230: $r/d$ are derived from the simulations by assuming a normal
231: distribution of the errors of the fitting parameters. The reported
232: errors are at $1\sigma$ confidence level. The results are listed in
233: Table 1.
234:
235: From Table 1, we find a significant trend that the pulses tend to be
236: narrower and more close to symmetric at higher energies for GRB
237: 980425. We show $w$ and $r/d$ as functions of $E$ in Figure 3
238: ($left$), where $E$ is the geometric mean of the lower and upper
239: boundaries of the corresponding energy band, which is adopted
240: throughout this paper unless otherwise referred to. Apparently both
241: $w$ and $r/d$ are correlated with $E$. A best fit yields $w\propto
242: E^{-0.20\pm0.04}$ (Fig. 3 [\emph{left-top}]) and $r/d\propto
243: E^{0.10\pm0.01}$ (Fig. 3 [\emph{left-bottom}]). The detailed results
244: of the correlation analysis are listed in Table 2. It is found that
245: the $r/d - E$ relation of GRB 980425 is well consistent with that
246: observed in the majority of GRBs (e.g., N05; Peng et al. 2006), but
247: the power-law index of the $w - E$ relation for this event is
248: somewhat larger than that ($\sim -0.4$) previously observed in
249: typical GRBs (e.g., Fenimore et al. 1995; Norris et al. 1996; N05).
250:
251:
252: Both the relations, $w - E$ ($w\propto E^{-0.31\pm0.03}$) and $r/d -
253: E$ ($r/d\propto E^{0.10\pm0.03}$) for GRB 060218 are also displayed
254: in Figure 3 ($right$) and listed in Table 2. We find that this burst
255: roughly satisfies the same $w - E$ relation observed in typical
256: GRBs, the index of the $w - E$ relation is also shallower, similar
257: to that observed in GRB 980425. Note that, the distribution of the
258: power-law indices for a typical GRB sample has a large dispersion,
259: the median value is $\sim -0.4$ (see, Jia \& Qin 2005; Peng et al.
260: 2006; Zhang et al. 2007, last one hereafter Z07). Thus, it is
261: possible that there is no a universal power-law index of the $w - E$
262: relation. We also find that the energy dependence of $r/d$ for the
263: burst is consistent with that observed in typical GRBs, but the
264: value of $r/d$ in the $15-150$ keV band has large error. These
265: results show that both the X-rays and gamma-rays follow the same $w
266: - E$ and $r/d - E$ relations for GRBs 980425 and 060218, indicating
267: that the X-ray emission tracks the gamma-ray emission and thus the
268: two emission are most likely to originate from the same physical
269: mechanism. A similar case is also found in GRB 060124 (Romano et al.
270: 2006; Zhang \& Qin 2008).
271:
272: \subsection{Spectral Lag and Energy Dependence}
273:
274: The light curves of GRBs 980425 and 060218 shown in Figures 1 and 2
275: display significant spectral lags, with the pulse peaks shifting to
276: later time at lower energies, similar to that observed in typical
277: GRBs by several authors (see e.g., Link et al. 1993; Cheng et al.
278: 1995; Norris et al. 1996, 2000; Band 1997; Wu \& Fenimore 2000;
279: Hakkila \& Giblin 2004, 2006; Chen et al. 2005; Norris \& Bonnell
280: 2006; Yi et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2006a, 2006b; Hakkila et al.
281: 2007). By using the fitting pulse data, we can measure the pulse
282: peak time ($t_{peak}$) of each energy band. The results are also
283: listed in Table 1. Figure 4 [\emph{left-top}] shows the correlation
284: between $t_{peak}$ and $E$ for GRB 980425. The best fit to the
285: correlation yields $t_{peak}\propto E^{-0.35\pm0.04}$. The same
286: analysis for GRB 060218 ($t_{peak}\propto E^{-0.25\pm0.05}$)
287: performed by L06 is also displayed in Figure 4 [\emph{right-top}].
288: The $t_{peak}- E$ relations for these two bursts are listed in Table
289: 2. We find that the indices of the $t_{peak}- E$ relations are
290: different for the two bursts. The pulse peak lags ($\tau_{peak}$)
291: are defined as the differences between the pulse peak times in
292: different energy bands (e.g., N05; Z07; Hakkila et al. 2008). The
293: values of $\tau_{peak}$ between any pairs of the six light curves of
294: GRB 980425 can be simply obtained and listed in Table 3.
295:
296: It is well known that the pulse centroid time ($t_{cen}$) can be
297: easily measured than the pulse peak time, which is depicted as,
298: $t_{cen}=\int I(t)tdt/\int I(t)dt$, where $I(t)$ is the pulse
299: intensity (see Appendix A in N05). In general, $t_{cen}$ can be
300: directly estimated from the observed lightcurve data (e.g., Norris
301: et al. 2002; N05). The observed data are discrete, so, we simply
302: replace the integral equation by a sum one, $t_{cen}=\sum
303: I(t)t\Delta t/\sum I(t)\Delta t$, where $\Delta t$ is the time bin
304: of the observed data. Using this equation, we measure
305: $t_{cen}^{\ast}$\footnote{The symbol $\ast$ represents the value is
306: estimated directly from the observed data.} in the different energy
307: bands for GRBs 980425 and 060218. The errors are estimated from
308: simulations by assuming a normal distribution of the errors of the
309: observed data. The results are reported in Table 1 as well. From
310: Table 1, we find that $t_{cen}^{\ast}$ and $E$ are also correlated.
311: The best fit to the correlation yields $t_{cen}^{\ast}\propto E
312: ^{-0.40\pm0.07}$ for GRB 980425 (Fig. 4 [\emph{left-bottom}]) and
313: $t_{cen}^{\ast}\propto E ^{-0.15\pm0.03}$ for GRB 060218 (Fig. 4
314: [\emph{right-bottom}]). Meanwhile, the pulse centroid lags
315: ($\tau_{cen}^{\ast}$) are defined by the differences between the
316: pulse centroid times in different energy bands, which can be
317: calculated between any of two energy bands and listed in Table 3 as
318: well. In addition, for a purpose of comparison, we also calculate
319: $t_{cen}$ and pulse centroid lags ($\tau_{cen}$) from the fitting
320: light curves. The results are listed in Tables 1 and 3. We find that
321: the relation between $t_{cen}$ and $E$ is consistent with that
322: between $t_{cen}^{\ast}$ and $E$ as reported in Table 2. We also
323: find that the indices associated with the pulse centroid time and
324: energy for the two bursts are different.
325:
326: In addition, the lags calculated with the cross correlation function
327: (CCF), $\tau_{CCF}$, have been widely adopted by many authors (Band
328: 1997; Norris et al. 2000; Wu \& Fenimore 2000; Hakkila \& Giblin
329: 2004, 2006; Chen et al. 2005; Norris \& Bonnell 2006; Yi et al.
330: 2006, 2008; Zhang et al. 2006a, 2006b; Z07; Peng et al. 2007,
331: Hakkila et al. 2007). In general, $\tau_{CCF}$ can be calculated
332: directly from the observed data. However, since the time resolution
333: of the X-ray light curves of GRB 980425 is very low and different
334: with that of the gamma-ray light curves, we can not directly use the
335: observed data to measure all lags between any pairs of the light
336: curves. Thus, we estimate $\tau_{CCF}$ with the normalized light
337: curves derived from the pulse fits for this event. To reduce the
338: uncertainty in the lag measurement, we adopt the same approach as
339: presented by Hakkila \& Giblin (2006). Thanks to the GRB pulse model
340: (Norris et al. 1996) which is a time-asymmetric function, and has
341: the additional degrees of freedom than a quadratic (Wu \& Fenimore
342: 2000) or a cubic (Norris et al. 2000) which can result in a more
343: accurate CCF fit. This model is used to fit the CCF. The reported
344: lags are derived by averaging lags obtained from CCF measurements
345: spanning a range of temporal shifts (typically, 6 trial measurements
346: are made over a broad range of CCF values in the vicinity of the CCF
347: peak). The errors of lags are evaluated by the simulations. The
348: results are also reported in Table 3. The CCF lags of GRB 060218
349: derived by L06 are available and reported in Table 3 as well.
350:
351: Then immediately arises a question, whether the values of
352: $\tau_{CCF}$ derived from the fitting curves are convincing? To
353: address this question, we compare the lags calculated from the
354: fitting curves with those derived from the observed data. Using the
355: observed data and the same CCF method, we calculate the lags
356: ($\tau_{CCF}^{\ast}$) of GRBs 980425 and 060218 only in the X-ray
357: energy bands or in the gamma-ray energy bands. The errors of
358: $\tau_{CCF}^{\ast}$ are evaluated by the simulations. The results
359: are also reported in Table 3. From Table 3, we find the calculated
360: lags from the two methods are consistent, but the values of
361: $\tau_{CCF}^{\ast}$ estimated from the observed X-ray light curves
362: for GRB 980425 have large errors. Thus, our estimated lags from the
363: fitting curves are convincing.
364:
365: Based on the above results, we can analyze the relationships between
366: the three types of lags. For the purpose of unified comparison, we
367: use all the quantities derived from the fitting light curves. The
368: plots of $\tau_{cen}$ vs. $\tau_{peak}$, $\tau_{cen}$ vs.
369: $\tau_{CCF}$, and $\tau_{CCF}$ vs. $\tau_{peak}$ are displayed in
370: Figure 5. The results of correlation analysis for the three
371: quantities are listed in Table 2. We find that $\tau_{CCF}$ and
372: $\tau_{peak}$ are highly correlated for the multi-wavelength
373: observations in GRBs 980425 and 060218, while the other pairs of the
374: quantities are less well correlated. In addition, we find that
375: $\tau_{cen}$ is systematically larger than both $\tau_{peak}$ and
376: $\tau_{CCF}$. These results are well consistent with those derived
377: in typical LLWP-GRBs (Z07). As suggested by Z07, $\tau_{CCF}$ is
378: mainly caused by a shifting of the pulse peaks, while $\tau_{cen}$
379: is not. We suspect that $\tau_{CCF}$ and $\tau_{cen}$ reflect
380: different aspects of pulse evolution, with one representing the
381: shifting of the pulse peaks and the other describing an enhancement
382: of the pulse time scales. Under this interpretation, the lag caused
383: by the stretching of pulses is always larger than that caused by the
384: shifting of the pulse peaks. In addition, the nonlinear fluctuations
385: statistically present between the different types of lag
386: measurements (e.g., Figure 5), which might be due to the process of
387: pulse evolution and/or to instrumental response. In other words,
388: each type of lag measurement may be well sensitive to different
389: variations pertaining to pulse evolution; these variations may
390: depend upon pulse shape, energy, and/or signal-to-noise. It is
391: possible that the different types of lag measurements could be used
392: as a tool for probing aspects of pulse evolution. Thus, we propose
393: to reveal the evolution of a pulse in detail, both the pulse peak
394: lag and the centroid lag should be measured.
395:
396: Recently, Lu et al. (2006) considered the contributions of the
397: curvature effect of fireballs to the spectral lag (see also Shen et
398: al. 2005), and tentatively studied the dependence of spectral lag on
399: energy. They considered a wide energy band ranging from 0.2 to 8000
400: keV, and then divided the band into 14 geometrical uniform energy
401: bands: $0.2-0.4, 0.5-1, 1-2, 2-4, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, 50-100,
402: 100-200, 200-400, 500-1000, 1000-2000, 2000-4000$ and $4000-8000$
403: keV. Subsequently, they measured the spectral lags\footnote{Note
404: that the spectral lag of the Lu et al. (2006) paper was defined as
405: the time between the peaks of the light curves in two different
406: energy bands, which is the pulse peak lag in this paper.} between
407: the first energy band ($0.2-0.4$ keV) and any of the other bands and
408: pointed out that the lags increases with energy following the law of
409: $\tau\propto E$, and then saturates at a certain energy [see the
410: left panel of Fig. 13 in Lu et al. (2006)]. Motivated by this, we
411: also investigate the dependence of the three types of lags on energy
412: for GRBs 980425 and 060218. We analyze the lags between the lowest
413: energy band ($2-5$ keV for GRB 980425 and $0.3-2$ keV for GRB
414: 060218) and all of the other higher energy bands as performed by Lu
415: et al. (2006). Figure 6 shows the relationship between $\tau$ and
416: $E$ (here $E$ denotes the energy of the corresponding high-energy
417: band). We find from Figure 6, the three types of lags relative to
418: the same low-energy band increase with the energy of the
419: corresponding high-energy band, but their increases become shallow
420: at higher energies. The trend of the $\tau- E$ relation for the two
421: bursts seems to be similar with that obtained by Lu et al. (2006).
422: Probably, the curvature effect of the fireballs plays a role in
423: producing the relation (see, e.g., Qin et al. 2004, 2005), which is
424: currently not clear.
425:
426: \section{Comparison with Typical Long-Lag, Wide-Pulse GRBs}
427:
428: N05 analyzed the temporal and spectral behavior of the wide pulses
429: in 24 long-lag BATSE bursts and suggested that these events may form
430: a separate subclass of GRBs\footnote{GRB 980425 is included in the
431: N05 sample.}. Although GRBs 980425 and 060218 are two very peculiar
432: low-luminosity events, both of them have a simple temporal
433: structure, and their light curves are composed of a long duration
434: single-pulse with long spectral lag. It is very interesting to see
435: whether they have the different temporal properties with typical
436: LLWP-GRBs to explain their abnormal luminosities. In order to
437: clarify this issue, we first compare the distribution of ($w$,
438: $\tau$) of the two bursts with that of the bursts in the N05 sample.
439: Besides GRB 060218, the values of $w$ of other bursts are directly
440: taken from Table 2 of N05. The definition of $w$ given by N05 is the
441: width between the two $1/e$ peak intensity points of pulse, we also
442: measure the pulse width of GRB 060218 in the different energy bands
443: according to this definition. We obtain $w=1053\pm275$, $1574\pm68$,
444: $2107\pm73$ and $3668\pm214$ s in the energy bands $15-150$, $5-10$,
445: $2-5$ and $0.3-2$ keV, respectively. In general, the spectral lags
446: ($\tau_{B31}$) of the BATSE bursts between energy bands $100-300$
447: keV ($B3$) and $25-50$ keV ($B1$) could be well estimated and widely
448: adopted by many authors. We only analyze the spectral lags in the
449: two energy bands\footnote{The data are taken from Z07 for the N05
450: sample.}. The values of $\tau_{peak,B31}$ ($177\pm16$ s) and
451: $\tau_{CCF,B31}$ ($61\pm26$ s) of GRB 060218 estimated by L06 are
452: available. Using the same extrapolated method as done by L06, we
453: obtain $\tau_{cen,B31}=219\pm30$ s, $w_{B1}=1065\pm61$ s and
454: $w_{B3}=585\pm34$ s for GRB 060218. Figure 7 shows the relationships
455: of $\tau_{peak,B31}$, $\tau_{CCF,B31}$ and $\tau_{cen,B31}$ against
456: $w_{B1}$ and $w_{B3}$ for the N05 sample as well as GRB 060218. We
457: find from Figure 7 that the distribution of ($w$, $\tau$) of GRB
458: 980425 is completely consistent with that of the other LLWP-GRBs (as
459: pulse width increase, the spectral lag tends to increase, see N05),
460: and GRB 060218 also fall into the same sequence, although it has the
461: longest pulse width and spectral lag observed to date.
462:
463: Recently, Peng et al. (2007) suggested that the correlation between
464: pulse spectral lag and pulse width might be caused by the Lorentz
465: factor of the GRBs. However, the pulse relative spectral lag (RSL),
466: which is defined as the ratio of the pulse spectral lag between
467: light curves observed in two different energy bands (in general, the
468: BATSE $B1$ and $B3$ bands are adopted) to the pulse width (see,
469: Zhang et al. 2006a, 2006b, Peng et al. 2007; Zhang \& Xie 2007), is
470: an unique and intrinsic quantity since such definition can reduce
471: both Doppler and cosmological time dilation effects on the
472: observations owing to $\tau\propto\Gamma^{-2}\propto(1 + z)$ and
473: $w\propto\Gamma^{-2}\propto(1 + z)$ (Zhang et al. 2006b; Norris et
474: al. 2000; Kocevski \& Liang 2006; Peng et al. 2007; Zhang \& Xie
475: 2007). Therefore, we also analyze the relation between the pulse
476: RSLs and pulse widths for the typical LLWP-GRBs as well as GRBs
477: 980425 and 060218. The results are plotted in Figure 8. We find from
478: Figure 8 that the pulse RSLs are not correlated with the pulse
479: widths, and the pulse RSLs of GRBs 980425 and 060218 are fully
480: consistent with those of the other LLWP-GRBs.
481:
482: In addition, we also compare the two bursts with the events of the
483: N05 sample in the panel of $r/d$ vs. $w$. Using the data of Table 2
484: and the equation (5) in N05, we derive the values of $r/d$ in the
485: $B1$ and $B3$ energy bands for all the bursts in the N05 sample.
486: Figure 9 shows the plots of $r/d$ vs. $w$ in the $B1$ and $B3$
487: energy bands\footnote{The values of $r/d$ for GRB 060218 have large
488: errors at higher energies, and which can not be estimated well, so
489: we take the value in the $15-150$ keV ($0.56\pm0.15$) as that in the
490: $B1$ and $B3$ energy bands, which can not affect the results more.}.
491: As can be seen from Figure 9 that the pulse rise-to-decay ratios of
492: GRBs 980425 and 060218 are in good agreement with those of the other
493: LLWP-GRBs. These results indicate that GRBs 980425 and 060218 may
494: share the similar radiation physics with them.
495:
496: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}
497:
498: We have analyzed the prompt lightcurve characteristics of GRBs
499: 980425 and 060218 from X-ray to gamma-ray energy bands. We find that
500: both the pulse width $w$ and the ratio of pulse rise-to-decay $r/d$
501: are energy-dependent for these two bursts over a broad energy band.
502: There exists a significant trend that the pulses of these two bursts
503: tend to be narrower and more symmetry with respect to the higher
504: energy bands. Both the X-rays and gamma-rays of the two events
505: follow the same $w - E$ and $r/d - E$ relations, but the power-law
506: indices of the $w - E$ relations are somewhat larger than those
507: observed previously in typical GRBs (Fenimore et al. 1995; Norris et
508: al. 1996; N05; Peng et al. 2006).
509:
510: The light curves of GRBs 980425 and 060218 show significant spectral
511: lags, with the pulse peaks shifting later time at lower energies. We
512: calculate the three types of lags $\tau_{peak}$, $\tau_{cen}$ and
513: $\tau_{CCF}$, with the pulse peaking time ($t_{peak}$), the pulse
514: centroid time ($t_{cen}$), and the cross-correlation function (CCF).
515: The derived $t_{peak}$ and $t_{cen}$ are a power-law function of
516: energy, and $\tau_{CCF}$ is strongly correlated with $\tau_{peak}$,
517: but the other pairs of the quantities are less well correlated. Our
518: analysis also show that $\tau_{cen}$ is systematically larger than
519: both $\tau_{peak}$ and $\tau_{CCF}$. In addition, the relationships
520: between the three types of lags and energy are investigated as well.
521: We find that the lags relative to the same low-energy band increase
522: with the energy of the corresponding high-energy band, but their
523: increases becomes shallow at higher energies.
524:
525: Although GRBs 980425 and 060218 are two very peculiar low-luminosity
526: events, the temporal and spectral characteristics of these two
527: bursts are normal when compared to other typical LLWP-GRBs.
528:
529: Our analysis is performed in the observer frame, rather than in the
530: GRB rest frame. This makes the comparison slightly inappropriate,
531: since GRBs 980425 and 060218 are low-redshift bursts, but the normal
532: long-lag GRBs have been observed at larger redshifts (typically
533: $z\sim1$). Recently, Hakkila et al. (2008) found that the rest frame
534: pulse duration ($w_{0}$), pulse peak lag ($\tau_{0}$) and isotropic
535: pulse peak luminosity ($L$) are highly correlated for the pulses of
536: BATSE GRBs with known redshifts. Remarkably, the underluminous GRB
537: 980425 follows the $w_{0}-\tau_{0}$ relation well, but deviates from
538: the $L-\tau_{0}$ relation. Meanwhile, we also analyze the
539: distribution of GRB 060218 in both the $w_{0}-\tau_{0}$ and
540: $L-\tau_{0}$ panels (see Fig. 10). From Figure 10 we find that GRB
541: 060218 also complies with the $w_{0}-\tau_{0}$ relation well, and it
542: is inconsistent with the $L-\tau_{0}$ correlation. This result
543: further reinforces our conclusion that the temporal and spectral
544: characteristics of GRBs 980425 and 060218 are normal. In addition,
545: besides the time dilation effect on the rest frame lags and
546: durations (the correction is $(1+z)^{-1}$) has been widely
547: concerned, the energy correction (K correction) also affected the
548: two rest frame quantities, since the normal pulses are subsequently
549: observed at lower energies than those of the low-luminosity pulses
550: and both the lags and durations are energy-dependent ($\tau\propto
551: E^{-0.4}$ and $w\propto E^{-0.4}$, see, e.g., Norris et al. 1996;
552: N05; Z07). The energy correction to the rest frame for the lags and
553: durations is approximately $(1+z)^{0.33}$ (e.g., Gehrels et al.
554: 2006). This effect is not considered here. When comparing these
555: observations to observer frame observations of higher-z bursts, both
556: the energy correction and time dilation correction should be taken
557: into account.
558:
559: Stern et al. (1999) first suggested that there is a group of
560: ¡°simple¡± bursts with peak fluxes near the BATSE trigger threshold:
561: the average profile of dim bursts were less complex than that of
562: bright bursts. Norris (2002) found that the proportion of long-lag
563: bursts within long-duration bursts increases from negligible among
564: bright BATSE bursts to $\sim 50 \%$ at the trigger threshold. N05
565: proposed that these long-lag bursts may be underluminous and form a
566: separate subclass of GRBs (see also, Liang et al. 2007; Le \& Dermer
567: 2007; Guetta \& Della Valle 2007; Ghisellini et al. 2007; Daigne \&
568: Mochkovitch 2007). However, the Hakkila et al. (2008) results
569: challenge this statement. They found that $L$, $\tau_{0}$ and
570: $w_{0}$ are correlated intrinsic properties of most GRB pulses. GRBs
571: 980425 and 060218 are fully consistent with the $w_{0}-\tau_{0}$
572: relation holding for the normal GRB pulses. Given this, the evidence
573: for a separate class of LLWP-GRBs seems to be much weaker. However,
574: both of them are two apparent outliers with respect to the
575: $L-\tau_{0}$ relation. This result makes the underluminous features
576: of GRBs 980425 and 060218 that much more unusual. Based on the fact
577: that redshifts of three such bursts are available [GRB 980425,
578: Galama et al. 1998; 031203, Malesani et al. 2004 and 060218, Mirabal
579: et al. 2006], some authors argued that the low-luminosity bursts are
580: probably relatively nearby, and the local event rate of these events
581: should be much higher than that expected from the high-luminosity
582: GRBs (Cobb et al. 2006; Pian et al. 2006; Soderberg et al. 2006;
583: Liang et al. 2007; Le \& Dermer 2007; Guetta \& Della Valle 2007).
584: There are two scenarios which were proposed to explain their
585: wide-pulse, long-lag, and underluminous features. One possible
586: scenario is that these GRBs are normal events viewed off-axis (e.g.,
587: Nakamura 1999; Salmonson 2000; Yamazaki et al. 2003). The second
588: scenario is that these features are intrinsic, may be due to their
589: lower Lorentz factors (Kulkarni et al. 1998; Woosley \& MacFadyen
590: 1999; Salmonson 2000; Dai et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2007) or a
591: different type of central engine (e.g., neutron stars rather than
592: black holes; see references, Mazzali et al. 2006; Soderberg et al.
593: 2006; Toma et al. 2007).
594:
595:
596: \textbf{Acknowledgments}
597:
598: I would like to address my great thanks to the anonymous referee for
599: his/her helpful comments and suggestions which helped me to improve
600: the paper greatly. I also thank En-Wei Liang, Jin-Ming Bai, Yi-Ping
601: Qin and Bin-Bin Zhang for their helpful discussions. I am grateful
602: to Prof. Jon Hakkila for providing the pulse duration and pulse lag
603: data of BATSE bursts with known redshifts. I also express our thanks
604: to Dr. Alok Gupta (ARIES, India) for going through the paper and
605: making several suggestions to improve the language. This work is
606: supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
607: 10573030 and No. 10533050).
608:
609:
610: % The Appendices part is started with the command \appendix;
611: % appendix sections are then done as normal sections
612: % \appendix
613:
614: % \section{}
615: % \label{}
616:
617: % Bibliographic references with the natbib package:
618: % Parenthetical: \citep{Bai92} produces (Bailyn 1992).
619: % Textual: \citet{Bai95} produces Bailyn et al. (1995).
620: % An affix and part of a reference:
621: % \citep[e.g.][Ch. 2]{Bar76}
622: % produces (e.g. Barnes et al. 1976, Ch. 2).
623:
624: \begin{thebibliography}{}
625: \bibitem[Amati(2006)]{ama06} Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233
626: \bibitem[Amati et al.(2007)]{ama07} Amati, L., Della Valle, M., Frontera, F., Malesani, D., Guidorzi, C., Montanari,
627: E., \& Pian, E. 2007, A\&A, 463, 913
628: \bibitem[Band(1997)]{ban97} Band, D. L. 1997, \apj, 486, 928
629: \bibitem[Campana et al.(2006)]{cam06} Campana, S., et al. 2006, Nature, 442,
630: 1008
631: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2005)]{che05} Chen, L., Lou, Y.-Q., Wu, M., Qu, J.-L., Jia, S.-M., \& Yang,
632: X.-J. 2005, \apj, 619, 983
633: \bibitem[Cheng et al.(1995)]{che95} Cheng, L. X., Ma, Y. Q., Cheng, K. S., Lu, T., \& Zhou, Y. Y.
634: 1995, A\&A, 300, 746
635: \bibitem[Cobb et al.(2006)]{cob06} Cobb, B. E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, L113
636: \bibitem[Dai et al.(2006)]{dai06} Dai, Z. G., Zhang, B., \& Liang, E. W. 2006, preprint
637: (astro-ph/0604510)
638: \bibitem[Daigne \& Mochkovitch]{dai07}Daigne, F., \& Mochkovitch, R. 2007, \aap,
639: 465, 1
640: \bibitem[Fenimore et al.(1995)]{fen95} Fenimore, E. E., in't Zand, J. J. M., Norris, J. P.,
641: Bonnell, J. T., \& Nemiroff, R. J. 1995, \apj, 448, L101
642: \bibitem[Galama et al.(1998)]{gal98} Galama, T. J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670
643: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.(2006)]{geh06} Gehrels, N., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1044
644: \bibitem[Ghisellini et al.(2006)]{ghi06} Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Mereghetti, S., Bosnjak, Z.,
645: Tavecchio, F., \& Firmani, C. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1699
646: \bibitem[Ghisellini et al.(2007)]{ghi07} Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., \& Tavecchio, F. 2007, MNRAS, 375,
647: L36
648: \bibitem[Guetta \& Della Valle(2007)]{gue07} Guetta, D., \& Della Valle, M. 2007, ApJ, 657, L73
649: \bibitem[Hakkila \& Giblin(2004)]{hak04} Hakkila, J., \& Giblin, T.
650: W. 2004, \apj, 610, 361
651: \bibitem[Hakkila \& Giblin(2006)]{hak06} Hakkila, J., \& Giblin, T.
652: W. 2006, \apj, 646, 1086
653: \bibitem[Hakkila et al.(2007)]{hak07} Hakkila, J., et al. 2007, ApJS, 169, 62
654: \bibitem[Hakkila et al.(2008)]{hak08} Hakkila, J., Giblin, T. W., Norris, J. P., Fragile, P. C.,
655: \& Bonnell, J. T. 2008, ApJ, 677, L85
656: \bibitem[Jia \& Qin(2005)]{jia05} Jia, L.-W., \& Qin, Y.-P. 2005,
657: \apj, 631, L25
658: \bibitem[Kocevski et al.(2003)]{koc03} Kocevski, D., Ryde, F., \& Liang, E. 2003,
659: \apj, 596, 389
660: \bibitem[Kocevski \& Liang(2006)]{koc06} Kocevski, D., \& Liang, E. 2006, ApJ, 642, 371
661: \bibitem[Kulkarni et al.(1998)]{kul98} Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 1998, Nature,
662: 395, 663
663: \bibitem[Lamb et al.(2005)]{lam05} Lamb, D. Q., Donaghy, T. Q., \& Graziani,
664: C. 2005, ApJ, 620, 355
665: \bibitem[Le \& Dermer(2007)]{le07} Le, T., \& Dermer, C. D. 2007, ApJ, 661, 394
666: \bibitem[liang \& Dai(2004)]{lia04} Liang, E. W., \& Dai, Z. G.
667: 2004, ApJ, 608, L9
668: \bibitem[liang et al.(2006)]{lia06} Liang, E. W., Zhang, B.-B., Zhang,
669: J., Zhang B., \& Dai, Z. G. 2006, \apj, 653, L81 (L06)
670: \bibitem[liang et al.(2007)]{lia07} Liang, E. W., Zhang B., Virgili, F., \& Dai, Z. G. 2007,
671: \apj, 662, 1111
672: \bibitem[Link et al.(1993)]{lin93} Link, B., Epstein, R. I., \& Priedhorsky, W. C. 1993, \apj,
673: 408, L81
674: \bibitem[Lu et al.(2006)]{lu06} Lu, R.-J., Qin, Y.-P., Zhang, Z.-B.,
675: \& Yi, T.-F. 2006, \mnras, 367, 275
676: \bibitem[Malesani et al.(2004)]{mal04}Malesani, D., et al. 2004, \apj, 609, L5
677: \bibitem[Masetti et al.(2006)]{mas06} Masetti, N., Palazzi E., Pian E., Patat F. 2006, GCN, 4803
678: \bibitem[Mazzali et al.(2006)]{maz06} Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2006, Nature,
679: 442, 1018
680: \bibitem[Mirabal \& Halpern(2006)]{mir06} Mirabal, N., \& Halpern, J. P. 2006, GCN, 4792
681: \bibitem[Nakamura(1999)]{nak99} Nakamura, T. 1999, \apj, 522, L101
682: \bibitem[Norris(2002)]{nor02} Norris, J. P. 2002, ApJ, 579, 386
683: \bibitem[Norris \& Bonnell(2006)]{nor06} Norris, J. P., \& Bonnell,
684: J. T. 2006, \apj, 643, 266
685: \bibitem[Norris et al.(2005)]{nor05} Norris, J. P., Bonnell, J. T., Kazanas, D., Scargle, J. D.,
686: Hakkila, J., \& Giblin, T. W. 2005, \apj, 627, 324 (N05)
687: \bibitem[Norris et al.(2000)]{nor00} Norris, J. P., Marani, G. F., \& Bonnell, J.
688: T. 2000, \apj, 534, 248
689: \bibitem[Norris et al.(1996)]{nor96} Norris, J. P., Nemiroff, R. J., Bonnell, J. T., Scargle, J. D.,
690: Kouveliotou, C., Paciesas, W. S., Meegan, C. A., \& Fishman, G.
691: J. 1996, \apj, 459, 393
692: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2007)]{2007ChJAA...7..428} Peng, Z.-Y., Lu, R.-J., Qin,
693: Y.-P., \& Zhang, B.-B. 2007, ChJAA, 7, 428
694: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2006)]{pen06} Peng, Z.-Y., Qin, Y.-P., Zhang, B.-B., Lu, R.-J., Jia, L.-W., \& Zhang,
695: Z.-B. 2006, \mnras, 368, 1351
696: \bibitem[Pian et al.(2006)]{pia06} Pian, E., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1011
697: \bibitem[Qin et al.(2005)]{qin05} Qin, Y.-P., Dong, Y.-M., Lu, R.-J., Zhang, B.-B., \& Jia,
698: L.-W. 2005, \apj, 632, 1008
699: \bibitem[Qin et al.(2004)]{qin04} Qin, Y.-P., Zhang, Z.-B., Zhang, F.-W., \& Cui, X.-H.
700: 2004, \apj, 617, 439
701: \bibitem[Romano et al.(2006)]{rom06} Romano, P., et al. 2006, A\&A, 456, 917
702: \bibitem[Salmonson(2000)]{sal00} Salmonson, J. D. 2000, ApJ, 544, L115
703: \bibitem[Sazonov et al.(2004)]{saz04} Sazonov, S. Y., Lutovinov, A. A., \& Sunyaev, R. A. 2004,
704: Nature, 430, 646
705: \bibitem[Shen, Song, \& Li(2005)]{she05} Shen, R. F., Song, L. M.,
706: \& Li, Z. 2005, \mnras, 362, 59
707: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2006)]{sod06} Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1014
708: \bibitem[Stern et al.(1999)]{} Stern, B. E., Poutanen, J., \& Svensson, R. 1999, ApJ, 510, 312
709: \bibitem[Tinney et al.(1998)]{tin98} Tinney C., Stahakis R., Cannon R., \& Galama T. J. 1998, IAU Circ.,
710: 6896
711: \bibitem[Toma et al.(2007)]{tom07} Toma, K., Ioka, K., Sakamoto, T., \& Nakamura, T. 2007, ApJ, 659,
712: 1420
713: \bibitem[Vetere et al.(2007)]{vet07} Vetere, L., Soffitta, P.,
714: Massaro, E., Giommi, P., \& Costa, E. 2007, A\&A, 473, 347
715: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...664.1026W} Wang, X.-Y., Li, Z., Waxman, E.,
716: \& M$\acute{e}$sz$\acute{a}$ros, P. 2007, \apj, 664, 1026
717: \bibitem[Woosley \& MacFadyen(1999)]{woo99} Woosley, S. E., \& MacFadyen,
718: A. I. 1999, A\&AS, 138, 499
719: \bibitem[Wu \& Fenimore(2000)]{wu00} Wu, B., \& Fenimore,
720: E. 2000, \apj, 535, L29
721: \bibitem[Yamazaki et al.(2003)]{yam03} Yamazaki, R., Yonetoku, D., \& Nakamura, T. 2003, ApJ, 594, L79
722: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2006)]{yi06} Yi, T. F., Liang, E. W., Qin, Y.
723: P., \& Lu, R. J. 2006, \mnras, 367, 1751
724: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2008)]{yi08} Yi, T.-F., Xie, G.-Z., \& Zhang,
725: F.-W. 2008, ChJAA, 8, 81
726: \bibitem[zhang \& Qin(2008)]{zfw08} Zhang, F.-W., \& Qin, Y.-P. 2008,
727: NewA, 13, 485
728: \bibitem[zhang et al.(2007)]{zqz07} Zhang, F.-W., Qin, Y.-P., \& Zhang,
729: B.-B. 2007, PASJ, 59, 857 (Z07)
730: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2006a)]{zha06a}Zhang, Z.-B., Deng, J.-G., Lu, R.-J., \& Gao, H.-F. 2006a, ChJAA, 6, 312
731: \bibitem[Zhang \& Xie(2007)]{zzb07}Zhang, Z.-B., \& Xie, G.-Z. 2007,
732: submitted (arXiv:0711.1411)
733: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2006b)]{zha06b}Zhang, Z., Xie, G. Z., Deng, J. G., \& Jin, W. 2006b, MNRAS, 373,
734: 729
735:
736: \end{thebibliography}
737:
738: %\clearpage
739:
740: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
741: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
742: %% To embed the sample graphics in
743: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and
744: %% \includegraphics commands
745: %%
746: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or
747: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the
748: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,
749: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the
750: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,
751: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.
752: %%
753: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of
754: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check
755: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to
756: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from
757: %% journal to journal.
758:
759: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to
760: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption
761: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be
762: %% available in the electronic journal.
763:
764: \begin{figure}
765: \epsscale{.90} \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{BeppoSAX and BATSE light
766: curves of GRB 980425. The count rates have been normalized to the
767: peak of each light curve. The fitting curves with eq. (1) are
768: plotted. \label{fig1}}
769: \end{figure}
770:
771: %\clearpage
772:
773: \begin{figure}
774: \epsscale{.90} \plotone{f2.eps} \caption{XRT and BAT light curves of
775: the nonthermal emission of GRB 060218. The fitting curves with eq.
776: (1) are also plotted. The data are taken from L06. \label{fig2}}
777: \end{figure}
778:
779: \begin{figure}
780: \epsscale{.90} \plotone{f3.eps} \caption{Dependence of the pulse
781: width ($top$) and pulse rise-to-decay ratio ($bottom$) on energy in
782: GRBs 980425 and 060218. The solid lines in the plots are the best
783: fits.\label{fig3}}
784: \end{figure}
785:
786: \begin{figure}
787: \epsscale{.90} \plotone{f4.eps} \caption{The plots of the pulse peak
788: time against energy ($top$) and the centroid time versus energy
789: ($bottom$) in GRBs 980425 and 060218. The $t_{cen}^{\ast}$ are
790: estimated directly based on the observed data. The solid lines
791: represent the best fits.\label{fig4}}
792: \end{figure}
793:
794: \begin{figure} \epsscale{.90} \plotone{f5.eps} \caption{Relationships
795: between the three types of lags ($\tau_{cen}$, $\tau_{peak}$, and
796: $\tau_{CCF}$). The solid lines are the regression lines, where the
797: correlation coefficients from the top to bottom panels are 0.78,
798: 0.74, and 0.99 for GRB 980425, and 0.97, 0.92 and 0.99 for GRB
799: 060218, respectively.\label{fig5}}
800: \end{figure}
801:
802:
803:
804: \begin{figure}
805: \epsscale{.90} \plotone{f6.eps} \caption{plots of $\tau$ vs. $E$,
806: where $\tau$ are spectral lags between the first energy band ($2-5$
807: keV for GRB 980425 and $0.3-2$ keV for GRB 060218) and any of the
808: other high-energy bands, $E$ is the energy of the corresponding
809: high-energy band. The circle, square and triangle symbols represent
810: the lags derived from the pulse peak time, centroid time and CCF,
811: respectively. \label{fig6}}
812: \end{figure}
813:
814: \begin{figure}
815: \epsscale{.90} \plotone{f7.eps} \caption{Relation between pulse
816: spectral lags and pulse widths, where $\tau_{peak,B31}$,
817: $\tau_{cen,B31}$ and $\tau_{CCF,B31}$ are the pulse peak lags,
818: centroid lags and CCF lags in the $100-300$ keV ($B3$) and $25-50$
819: keV ($B1$) bands, $w_{B1}$ and $w_{B3}$ are the pulse width measured
820: between the two $1/e$ intensity points defined by N05 in the $B1$
821: and $B3$ bands, respectively. The solid line is the best fit
822: ($\tau_{cen,B31}\approx0.089w_{B1}^{1.42}$ s) obtained by N05. The
823: filled diamonds represent GRB 980425 and GRB 060218, and the open
824: circles are the other bursts in the N05 sample besides GRB
825: 980425.\label{fig7}}
826: \end{figure}
827:
828: \begin{figure}
829: \epsscale{.95} \plotone{f8.eps} \caption{Pulse relative spectral
830: lags vs. pulse widths. The other symbols are same as Fig. 7.
831: \label{fig8}}
832: \end{figure}
833:
834: \begin{figure}
835: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f9.eps} \caption{Pulse rise-to-decay ratios
836: vs. widths. The $r/d_{B1}$ and $r/d_{B3}$ are the pulse
837: rise-to-decay ratio measured in the $B1$ and $B3$ bands. The other
838: symbols are same as Fig. 7. \label{fig9}}
839: \end{figure}
840:
841: \begin{figure}
842: \epsscale{.90} \plotone{f10.eps} \caption{\emph{Left}: Rest frame
843: pulse duration $w_{0}$ vs. pulse peak lag $\tau_{0}$ for fit pulses
844: of BATSE GRBs having known redshifts (the data are taken from
845: Hakkila et al. 2008) as well as GRB 060218. \emph{Right}: Isotropic
846: pulse peak luminosity $L$ vs. pulse peak lag $\tau_{0}$ for the
847: pulses shown in the left panel. The open circles represent the
848: pulses from GRB 971214, GRB 980703, GRB 970508, GRB 990510, GRB
849: 991216 and GRB 990123, and the filled diamonds represent GRB 980425
850: and GRB 060218. The solid lines are the best fits obtained by
851: Hakkila et al. (2008). \label{fig10}}
852: \end{figure}
853:
854: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,
855: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color
856: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates
857: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.
858: %%
859:
860:
861: \clearpage
862:
863: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllll}
864: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{Broadband temporal characteristics of
865: GRB 980425 and GRB 060218}
866:
867: \tablehead{
868: \colhead{ Band} & \colhead{$t_{peak}$ }&\colhead{$t_{cen}^{\ast}$}& \colhead{$t_{cen}$}& \colhead{$w$}
869: &\colhead{$r/d$} &\colhead{$E$}\\
870: \colhead{(keV)} & \colhead{(s)}&\colhead{(s)}&\colhead{(s)}& \colhead{(s)}
871: &\colhead{} &\colhead{(keV)}}
872:
873: \startdata
874: & & &GRB 980425 & & &\\
875: \hline
876: (1) 2-5 &14.24$\pm$0.26 &26.91$\pm$1.14 &27.10$\pm$1.32 &24.71$\pm$3.36 &0.49$\pm$0.11 &3.2\\
877: (2) 5-10 &13.80$\pm$0.25 &23.98$\pm$1.93 &24.05$\pm$1.51 &22.58$\pm$2.98 &0.53$\pm$0.14 &7.1\\
878: (3) 10-26 &11.73$\pm$0.29 & 9.79$\pm$3.94 &14.24$\pm$1.84 &13.67$\pm$3.51 &0.61$\pm$0.16 &16.1\\
879: (4) 25-50 & 7.10$\pm$0.01 &11.94$\pm$0.48 &12.42$\pm$0.18 &14.64$\pm$0.17 &0.61$\pm$0.01 &35.4\\
880: (5) 50-100 & 5.53$\pm$0.01 & 8.61$\pm$0.32 & 8.98$\pm$0.07 &13.51$\pm$0.11 &0.65$\pm$0.01 &70.7\\
881: (6) 100-300 & 3.81$\pm$0.01 & 5.29$\pm$0.41 & 5.75$\pm$0.08 &11.16$\pm$0.14 &0.74$\pm$0.01 &173.2\\
882: \hline
883: & & &GRB 060218$^{\star}$ & & &\\
884: \hline
885: (1) 0.3-2 &1082$\pm$13 &1362$\pm$59 &1687$\pm$98 &2625$\pm$125 &0.43$\pm$0.03 &0.7\\
886: (2) 2-5 & 919$\pm$7 &1236$\pm$19 &1399$\pm$49 & 1707$\pm$40 &0.58$\pm$0.02 &3.1\\
887: (3) 5-10 & 735$\pm$9 &1082$\pm$19 &1142$\pm$45 & 1278$\pm$45 &0.59$\pm$0.03 &6.9\\
888: (4) 15-150 & 405$\pm$25 &749$\pm$129 &773$\pm$164 & 889$\pm$244 &0.54$\pm$0.18 &36.9\\
889:
890: \enddata
891: \tablenotetext{\ast}{ The values of $t_{cen}^{\ast}$ are estimated
892: directly based on the observed data.}
893:
894: \tablenotetext{\star}{ The values of $t_{peak}$, $w$, $r/d$ and $E$
895: of GRB 060218 are taken from L06.}
896: \end{deluxetable}
897:
898: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}
899: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{Correlations of the temporal
900: structures of GRB 980425 and GRB 060218}
901:
902: \tablehead{\colhead{GRB 980425}& \colhead{GRB 060218} }
903:
904: \startdata
905: log $w=(1.47\pm0.06)-(0.20\pm0.04)$ log $E$ & log $w=(3.38\pm0.02)-(0.31\pm0.03)$ log $E$ \\
906: log $(r/d)=(-0.35\pm0.01)+(0.10\pm0.01)$ log $E$ & log $(r/d)=(-0.32\pm0.03)+(0.10\pm0.03)$ log $E$ \\
907: log $t_{peak}=(1.41\pm0.07)-(0.35\pm0.04)$ log $E$ & log $t_{peak}=(3.04\pm0.04)-(0.25\pm0.05)$ log $E$\\
908: log $t_{cen}^{\ast}=(1.63\pm0.10)-(0.40\pm0.07)$ log $E$ & log $t_{cen}^{\ast}=(3.14\pm0.03)-(0.15\pm0.03)$ log $E$\\
909: log $t_{cen}=(1.66\pm0.04)-(0.39\pm0.03)$ log $E$ &log $t_{cen}=(3.22\pm0.02)-(0.20\pm0.02)$ log $E$\\
910: $\tau_{cen}=(2.18\pm2.09)+(1.48\pm0.33)\tau_{peak}$ &
911: $\tau_{cen}=(47\pm62)+(1.23\pm0.15)\tau_{peak}$ \\
912: $\tau_{cen}=(2.74\pm2.23)+(1.59\pm0.40)\tau_{CCF}$ &
913: $\tau_{cen}=(197\pm79)+(1.25\pm0.27)\tau_{CCF}$ \\
914: $\tau_{CCF}=(0.11\pm0.12)+(0.86\pm0.04)\tau_{peak}$ &
915: $\tau_{CCF}=(-100\pm17)+(0.91\pm0.08)\tau_{peak}$ \\
916: \enddata
917: \end{deluxetable}
918:
919:
920:
921: \begin{deluxetable}{llllll}
922: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{Multi-band spectral lags of GRBs
923: 980425 and 060218}
924:
925: \tablehead{
926: \colhead{Bands} & \colhead{$\tau_{peak}$}& \colhead{$\tau_{cen}^{\ast}$} & \colhead{$\tau_{cen}$}
927: & \colhead{$\tau_{CCF}$} & \colhead{$\tau_{CCF}^{\ast}$} \\
928: & \colhead{(s)}&\colhead{(s)}& \colhead{(s)} & \colhead{(s)}& \colhead{(s)}}
929:
930: \startdata
931: & & &GRB 980425 & & \\
932: \hline
933: (1)-(2) & 0.44$\pm$0.36 & 2.93$\pm$2.24 & 3.05$\pm$2.01 &0.22$\pm$0.19 &0.45$\pm$1.56\\
934: (1)-(3) & 2.51$\pm$0.39 &17.12$\pm$4.10 &12.86$\pm$2.26 &1.75$\pm$0.26 &1.87$\pm$1.69\\
935: (1)-(4) & 7.14$\pm$0.26 &14.97$\pm$1.23 &14.68$\pm$1.33 &5.43$\pm$0.54 &... \\
936: (1)-(5) & 8.71$\pm$0.26 &18.30$\pm$1.18 &18.12$\pm$1.32 &7.04$\pm$0.74 &... \\
937: (1)-(6) &10.43$\pm$0.26 &21.62$\pm$1.21 &21.35$\pm$1.32 &8.93$\pm$0.55 &... \\
938: (2)-(3) & 2.07$\pm$0.38 &14.19$\pm$4.39 & 9.81$\pm$2.38 &1.98$\pm$0.13 &1.45$\pm$1.15\\
939: (2)-(4) & 6.70$\pm$0.25 &12.04$\pm$1.99 &11.63$\pm$1.52 &5.79$\pm$0.57 &... \\
940: (2)-(5) & 8.27$\pm$0.25 &15.37$\pm$1.96 &15.07$\pm$1.51 &7.40$\pm$0.71 &... \\
941: (2)-(6) & 9.99$\pm$0.25 &18.69$\pm$1.97 &18.30$\pm$1.51 &9.27$\pm$0.88 &... \\
942: (3)-(4) & 4.63$\pm$0.29 &-2.15$\pm$3.97 & 1.82$\pm$1.85 &4.01$\pm$0.41 &... \\
943: (3)-(5) & 6.20$\pm$0.29 & 1.18$\pm$3.95 & 5.26$\pm$1.84 &5.59$\pm$0.43 &... \\
944: (3)-(6) & 7.92$\pm$0.29 & 4.50$\pm$3.96 & 8.49$\pm$1.84 &7.45$\pm$0.72 &... \\
945: (4)-(5) & 1.57$\pm$0.01 & 3.33$\pm$0.58 & 3.44$\pm$1.19 &1.42$\pm$0.15 &1.46$\pm$0.18\\
946: (4)-(6) & 3.29$\pm$0.01 & 6.65$\pm$0.63 & 6.67$\pm$0.20 &3.11$\pm$0.28 &3.08$\pm$0.32\\
947: (5)-(6) & 1.72$\pm$0.01 & 3.32$\pm$0.52 & 3.23$\pm$0.11 &1.65$\pm$0.12 &1.72$\pm$0.18\\
948: \hline
949: & & &GRB 060218$^{\star}$ & & \\
950: \hline
951: (1)-(2) & 163$\pm$15 & 126$\pm$62 & 288$\pm$109 & 43$\pm$8 & 39$\pm$15\\
952: (1)-(3) & 347$\pm$16 &280$\pm$62 & 545$\pm$108 &173$\pm$25 &183$\pm$37\\
953: (1)-(4) & 677$\pm$28 &613$\pm$141 & 914$\pm$191 &518$\pm$70 &... \\
954: (2)-(3) & 184$\pm$11 &154$\pm$27 & 257$\pm$66 & 81$\pm$12 & 71$\pm$12\\
955: (2)-(4) & 514$\pm$26 &487$\pm$130 & 626$\pm$171 &389$\pm$47 &... \\
956: (3)-(4) & 330$\pm$26 &333$\pm$130 & 369$\pm$170 &249$\pm$37 &... \\
957:
958:
959:
960:
961: \enddata
962: \tablenotetext{\ast}{The values of $\tau_{cen}^{\ast}$ and
963: $\tau_{CCF}^{\ast}$ are calculated directly based on the observed
964: data. }
965:
966: \tablenotetext{\star}{The values of $\tau_{peak}$ and $\tau_{CCF}$
967: of GRB 060218 are taken from L06.}
968: \end{deluxetable}
969:
970:
971: \end{document}
972:
973: %%
974: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
975: