1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4: \usepackage{longtable}
5: \usepackage{pdflscape}
6:
7: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
8:
9: \slugcomment{Submitted to {\it The Astrophysical Journal}}
10:
11: \shorttitle{The Afterglows of Short- and Long-Duration GRBs}
12: \shortauthors{Nysewander, Fruchter & Pe'er}
13:
14: \def \etal{{\it et al.~}}
15:
16: \newcommand{\cm}{\rm{\, cm}}
17: \newcommand{\dL}{\rm{\, d_{L,28}^{-2}}}
18: \newcommand{\mjy}{\rm{\, mJy}}
19: \newcommand{\Hz}{\rm{\, Hz }}
20: \newcommand{\flu}{\rm{\, erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}}}
21: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
22: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
23: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
24: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
25: \newcommand{\E}{E_{52}}
26: \newcommand{\Gi}{\Gamma_{2}}
27: \newcommand{\n}{n_{0}}
28: \newcommand{\ee}{\epsilon_{e,-1}}
29: \newcommand{\eB}{\epsilon_{B,-2}}
30: \newcommand{\td}{t_{d}}
31: \newcommand{\Z}{(1+z)}
32: \newcommand{\Egi}{{\rm E}_{\gamma, \rm ISO}}
33:
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF PREAMBLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35:
36: \begin{document}
37:
38: \title{A Comparison of the Afterglows of Short- and Long-Duration Gamma-Ray Bursts}
39:
40: \author{M. Nysewander\altaffilmark{1, 2}, A.S. Fruchter\altaffilmark{1} \& A. Pe'er\altaffilmark{1,3}}
41:
42: \altaffiltext{1}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Dr, Baltimore, MD, 21218}
43: \altaffiltext{2}{Alion Science \& Technology, 1000 Park Forty Plaza, Durham, NC 27713; mnysewander@alionscience.com}
44: \altaffiltext{3}{Giacconi Fellow}
45:
46: %% ABSTRACT
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49:
50: We present a comparative study of the observed properties of the
51: optical and X-ray afterglows of short- and long-duration
52: $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRBs). Using a large sample of 37 short
53: and 421 long GRBs, we find a strong correlation between the afterglow
54: brightness measured after 11 hours and the observed fluence of the
55: prompt emission. Both the optical (R band) and X-ray flux densites ($F_R$ and $F_X$) scale with the $\gamma$-ray
56: fluence, $F_{\gamma}$. For bursts with a known redshift,
57: a tight correlation exists between the afterglow flux densities at 11 hours (rest-frame) and the
58: total isotropic $\gamma$-ray energy, $\Egi$: $F_{R,X} \propto {\Egi}^{\alpha}$, with
59: $\alpha \simeq 1$.
60: The constant of proportionality is nearly identical for long and short bursts, when $\Egi$ is obtained from the Swift data.
61: %Therefore, for a given fluence, the afterglows of short GRBs are not
62: %significantly dimmer than those of long GRBs in the optical and the
63: %X-ray bands.
64: Additionally, we find that for short busts with $F_{\gamma} \ga10^{-7}$ erg cm$^{-2}$, optical afterglows
65: are nearly always detected by reasonably deep early observations. Finally, we show that the ratio $F_R / F_X$ has very similar
66: values for short and long bursts.
67: These results are difficult to explain in the framework
68: of the standard scenario, since they require that either (1) the
69: number density of the surrounding medium of short bursts is
70: typically comparable to, or even larger than the number density of long
71: bursts; (2) short bursts explode into a density profile, $n(r)
72: \propto r^{-2}$ or (3) the prompt $\gamma$-ray
73: fluence depends on the density of the external medium.
74: We therefore find it likely that either basic
75: assumptions on the properties of the circumburst environment of
76: short GRBs or else the standard models of GRB emission must be
77: re-examined. We believe that the most likely solution is that the
78: ambient density surrounding typical short bursts is higher than
79: has generally been expected: a typical value of $\sim 1$ per cm$^{-3}$ is indicated.
80: We discuss recent modifications to the standard
81: binary merger model for short bursts which may be able to explain the
82: implied density.
83: \end{abstract}
84:
85: %% more keywords
86:
87: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts --- radiation mechanism: nonthermal}
88:
89: %% INTRODUCTION
90:
91: \section{Introduction}
92:
93: Although the past decade has seen great progress in characterizing the
94: afterglows of long-duration GRBs (LGRBs), the afterglows of
95: short-duration GRBs (SGRBs) remain elusive. The average fluence of an
96: SGRB is an order of magnitude fainter than that of an LGRB, and thus
97: while SGRBs have been localized by {\it Swift}, about ten long bursts
98: are localized for every short burst. Optical afterglows of SGRBs have
99: been detected, but are notoriously dim, and large-aperture telescopes
100: are generally required to detect them. Nearly half of all SGRBs have
101: a fluence less than 10$^{-7}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ and none of these have a
102: detected optical afterglow. SGRB X-ray afterglows are commonly
103: detected, but are faint and less likely to be rapidly localized with
104: their positions distributed in real-time, further complicating optical
105: ground-based observations. As a result, only a few well-sampled,
106: robust optical SGRB light curves exist that span a wide range of time
107: or frequency.
108:
109: The faintness of the afterglows of short GRBs (compared to the long
110: GRBs) has been attributed to properties of the progenitor and
111: circumburst environment. While the LGRB-SN connection is strong, the
112: progenitors of SGRBs are less certain. Observations have shown that
113: long-duration GRBs are associated with the deaths of massive stars
114: (\citealt{smg+03, hsm+03}; see \citealt{bw06} for a comprehensive
115: review). However, a number of models exist for the progenitors of
116: SGRBs. The leading model is a binary pair of compact objects, dual
117: neutron stars, or a neutron star and black hole, which merge in a
118: dramatic explosion causing a burst of $\gamma$-rays \citep{elp+89,
119: npp92, lrg05} powered by accretion onto the newly formed compact
120: object.
121:
122: It is commonly believed that the difference in the long and short progenitors
123: implies that they reside in different environments (for a recent review, see
124: \citealt{n07}). Because LGRBs are associated with massive stars, they will
125: lie in or near dense regions of active star-formation. SGRBs progenitors can
126: have long lifetimes and do not need to be in galaxies with active star-formation,
127: nor be associated with dense regions. In fact, the observed diverse host
128: galaxy morphology is roughly consistent with the expected wide range of
129: progenitor lifetimes \citep{bpb+06}.
130:
131: Two of the first detected SGRB afterglows, those of GRB 050509B
132: \citep{gso+05} and GRB 050724 \citep{bpc+05}, were found near bright,
133: giant elliptical galaxies. GRB 050709 \citep{hwf+05} and GRB 051221A
134: \citep{sbk+06} both occurred in late-type galaxies with ongoing
135: star-formation. However, within these late-type galaxies, SGRBs do
136: not necessarily trace areas of active star-formation as is the case
137: with LGRBs \citep{bkd02, fls+06}, rather, they can occur in low
138: luminosity outer regions of the galaxy (e.g. GRB 050709;
139: \citealt{ffp+05}, GRB 060121; \citealt{ltf+06}). Some theories of the
140: formation of compact object binaries include a violent
141: supernova-induced {\it kick} that can offset them from their host
142: galaxy \citep{bsr+06} and may place them in these low density
143: environments.
144:
145: The low environmental densities into which SGRBs occur have an
146: observational implication. Within the context of the standard
147: afterglow model \citep[e.g.][]{MR97, spn98} for observing frequencies
148: below the cooling frequency (and above the peak frequency), the
149: afterglow flux is proportional to the density of the external medium
150: to the power $1/2$. Well-sampled, multiwavelength observations of
151: LGRB afterglows have suggested that at half a day, the cooling
152: frequency generally lies between the optical and X-ray frequencies
153: \citep[e.g.][]{gwb+98,hbf+99,pk02,sbk+06}. It is therefore expected
154: that the differences in the density of the circumburst medium between
155: the long and short bursts would affect the late time optical emission,
156: which is below the cooling break. (Note that according to the
157: standard model, the flux above the cooling break is independent of the
158: external medium density, $n$. Thus, the flux at the X-ray frequency
159: may not be affected by the difference in densities. See discussion in
160: \S\ref{sec:analysis} below).
161:
162: In addition to depending on the environment, we also expect the
163: absolute afterglow brightnesses to be proportional to the total energy
164: released in the burst. The intrinsic energy release of short burst
165: progenitors is not well-known because the current redshift
166: distribution of SGRBs is fragmentary. The average redshift of the
167: SGRB distribution is $<z>$ = 0.5 with E$_{ISO} \sim 10^{48} -
168: 10^{51}$, compared to $<z>$ = 1.9 and E$_{ISO} \sim 10^{49} - 10^{53.5}$
169: for LGRBs. However, it is unclear to what extend these
170: differences are a result of observational biases and/or true intrinsic
171: differences in luminosity or collimation in comparison with LGRBs. No
172: SGRB absorption redshifts have been measured, which is likely due to
173: the lower afterglow brightness and possibly a less dense external
174: medium on which to imprint strong absorption lines. Therefore,
175: because all SGRB redshifts have been measured from optical emission
176: lines in host galaxies, the current sample of redshifts is limited to
177: $z \la 1$. \citet{bfp+07} have noted that the lack of bright galaxies
178: in the error circles of a number of XRT localizations may suggest that
179: a number of short bursts without optical identifications may lie at $z
180: > 1$. Finally we note that the E$_{ISO}$ values presented here are
181: either based upon the $\gamma$-ray fluence observed by the Swift Burst Alert Telescope (BAT)
182: or for the smaller non-Swift sample, scaled to the BAT sensitivity. Because the
183: BAT is only sensitive up to 150 keV, these values underestimate the
184: total prompt emission of all bursts. However, this is most severe
185: on short bursts, which tend to have a harder spectrum than long
186: bursts. We return to this point in more detail later.
187:
188: In this paper we compare the optical and X-ray afterglows measured
189: after 11 hours (a standard {\it Swift} timescale) with the prompt
190: energy emission of both long- and short-duration $\gamma$-ray bursts,
191: and compare these results with afterglow theory. We test the
192: predictions of the standard model with a large data set that spans
193: over six decades in energy. We find that SGRBs afterglows are very
194: similar to low-luminosity LGRBs afterglows. Surprisingly, we find
195: that the afterglow brightnesses depend little upon the classification
196: of long or short; rather, the bursts scale primarily with the
197: high-energy prompt emission. Our result is difficult to reconcile
198: with standard afterglow theory, and contradicts previous claims that
199: SGRB optical afterglows are dim due to the density of their
200: surrounding medium \citep{pkn01, n07, b07d}.
201:
202: This paper is organized as follows: In \S \ref{sec:data} we detail the
203: steps taken to gather the data presented herein. We compare the
204: prompt and afterglow emission of the two populations in \S 3. In \S
205: 4, we explore the assumptions of the standard model, under what
206: conditions the results are valid, and implications related to host
207: galaxies and intrinsic SGRB energies. We show that the afterglow
208: data implies that either (1) the environment of short GRBs is
209: comparable to that of long GRBs, (2) SGRBs explode into a wind
210: profile, or (3) the prompt emission fluence depends on the
211: environment. In \S\ref{sec:statistics} we discuss the statistical
212: significance of our data sample. We summarize and draw final
213: conclusions in \S \ref{sec:summary}.
214:
215: %% DATA
216:
217: \section{Data}
218: \label{sec:data}
219:
220: In this study, we include GRBs detected by all satellites, beginning
221: with GRB 970111, the first localization with follow-up observations
222: capable of detecting an afterglow, and ending over a decade later,
223: with GRB 071227. To be included in the analysis, a GRB must have
224: published values of the prompt emission and had optical or X-ray
225: afterglow follow-up observations within a few days of the burst. 421
226: LGRBs and 37 SGRBs have been included in the sample, out of which 408
227: LGRB and 37 SGRB have optical and 299 LGRBs and 27 SGRB have X-ray
228: follow-up observations. For each GRB, Tables~\ref{short_table} and
229: \ref{long_table} present the short and long prompt gamma-ray fluence,
230: X-ray afterglow flux at eleven hours, and optical $R$-band magnitude
231: at eleven hours (times here are measured in the observer's frame). We
232: also include basic properties of the burst: the satellite and
233: frequency range of the prompt data and the redshift, if known. The
234: data come from over 700 unique sources; these sources are listed in
235: the tables. We thoroughly searched the literature to provide the most
236: accurate values. Only the first page of Table \ref{long_table} is
237: presented in the printed version of this paper. The entire table can
238: be found in the Electronic Supplement.
239:
240: The decision of whether a burst is classified as {\it short} or {\it
241: long} is based upon many factors in the prompt emission and not
242: merely on the burst duration. When a burst's sub-type is
243: questionable, we adopt the classification published by the instrument
244: team. Formal measures of T$_{90}$ do not always accurately
245: distinguish long from short, such as in cases where we observe a short
246: hard spike followed by a long, soft tail of emission (e.g. GRB 050724
247: or GRB 051227; \citealt{bcb+05,bgn+05}). Some bursts, notably GRB
248: 040924 and GRB 050925, have short durations but soft emission, hence
249: are likely the tail-end of the long-duration population \citep{huf+05,
250: hbb+05}. GRB 050911 has a complex BAT $\gamma$-ray light curve that
251: may be interpreted as short, but because it is not conclusively in
252: either category \citep{pkl+06}, it is not included.
253:
254: Our primary sources for GRB fluence and duration are published
255: catalogues, such as those for {\it Swift} \citep{sbb+08} or {\it HETE}
256: \citep{slk+05}, however some are taken from refereed papers or, if no
257: other source is available, from GCN Circulars. If no error is given
258: in the original publication, we assume that the GRB is detected at the
259: 3$\sigma$ level. Because this data set includes bursts discovered by
260: many satellites, we list in tables 1 and 2 the frequency range in
261: which the prompt emission is observed.
262:
263: All fluences have been transformed into the {\it Swift} 15--150 keV
264: fluence range by determining empirical transformations derived from
265: bursts that were detected by multiple satellites. For all bursts with
266: detections by more than one satellite, we calculate the fluence ratio
267: between the two detectors, and the deviation about this ratio. Due to
268: sparse data and lack of overlap in mission lifetimes, in many
269: instances it is necessary to perform multiple transformations to
270: arrive at the final {\it Swift} BAT fluence (e.g. using the {\it
271: Ulysses} to {\it Swift} ratio in order to relate {\it INTEGRAL} and
272: {\it Swift}). However, the additional scatter introduced in doing so
273: is included in the final ratio error. We jointly calculate the
274: transformation for the similar {\it HETE} 25--100 keV, {\it Ulysses}
275: 25--100 keV, and {\it BATSE} 20-100 keV bands, and find the ratio to
276: {\it Swift} to be 1.65$\pm$0.31. The high-energy {\it Konus-Wind}
277: (typically 20--2000 or 20--10000 keV) and {\it RHESSI} (30--10000 keV)
278: fluences were similarly grouped and found to have a rough
279: transformation ratio of 0.37$\pm$0.23 into the {\it Swift} range. Few
280: bursts (seven) had joint detections with {\it INTEGRAL} (20--200 keV);
281: these indicate a ratio of 0.95$\pm$0.68. The {\it HETE} (30--400 keV)
282: ratio is calculated to be 0.63$\pm$0.32, and the {\it BeppoSAX} ratio
283: is 0.67$\pm$0.45. The scaling and large additional errors introduced
284: by this method compensate for the additional scatter caused by
285: comparing bursts between different detectors. If we restrict our
286: analysis to {\it Swift} bursts only, our results do not significantly
287: change.
288:
289: X-ray fluxes, corrected for Galactic extinction, are primarily taken
290: from large-scale uniform studies that fit light curves to estimate the
291: flux at eleven hours, such as those for {\it Swift} \citep{g+08} or
292: {\it BeppoSAX} \citep{dpg+06} GRBs. For bursts not included in these
293: studies, we obtained data from refereed papers, the {\it Swift} XRT
294: Lightcurve Repository \citep{ebp+07}, or GCN Circulars. Nearly all
295: X-ray afterglow fluxes are given in the 0.3--10 keV range, however a
296: few were reported in a different energy range and these are noted in
297: Tables 1 and 2. For the few bursts with no reported Galactic extinction, we estimated the extinction from the neutral hydrogen column density using the Chandra Colden and PIMMS online calculators. These bursts are noted in Tables 1 and 2. In a few instances where no error is given, we
298: assume that the source is detected at the 3$\sigma$ level. We choose
299: detections or limits as close to eleven hours as possible that we then
300: extrapolated using temporal slopes of $\alpha_{S, X}$ = $-1.22$ $\pm$
301: 0.37 and $\alpha_{L, X}$ = $-1.17$ $\pm$ 0.30 for SGRBs and LGRBs
302: respectively. These slopes are averages derived from power-law fits
303: that we performed of the light curves of all bursts observed by XRT
304: until December 31$^{st}$ 2007 that have a well-defined temporal slope
305: based on data that extend from minutes until at least eleven hours
306: after the burst. Figure~\ref{xray_slope_histo} presents a histogram
307: of these slopes and corresponding Gaussian least-squares fit to the
308: scatter in the population. The original measurement error and the
309: error associated with the extrapolation are added in quadrature to
310: determine the final error reported in the tables.
311:
312: Optical magnitudes are obtained from refereed papers when available
313: and from GCN Circulars when not. We chose observations taken as close
314: to eleven hours as possible, preferably in the $R$-band. All optical
315: magnitudes have been corrected for Galactic extinction using the
316: method presented in
317: \citet{sfd98}. If no error is given, as is often the case for GCN
318: derived magnitudes, we again assume that the source is detected at the
319: 3$\sigma$ level. These data are extrapolated in time using a temporal
320: slope of $\alpha_{L, opt} = -0.85$ $\pm$ 0.35 for long and $\alpha_{S,
321: opt}$ = $-0.68$ $\pm$ 0.20 for short GRBs, and in frequency using a
322: spectral slope of $\beta = -1.0$. Because of a lack of early optical
323: data, the optical indices are averages based on all afterglow
324: observations with data that extend from at least three hours until
325: after eleven hours following the burst. We fit power-laws to the
326: afterglows of the five SGRBs and 81 LGRBs that fit this selection
327: criteria. Figure~\ref{opt_slope_histo} presents a histogram of these
328: slopes and Gaussian least-squares fit to the scatter. The original
329: measurement error and the error associated with the extrapolation are
330: added in quadrature to determine the final error.
331:
332: Often, multiple optical limiting magnitudes exist for a given GRB, and
333: in that case, we took care to choose the one that is most
334: constraining. This sometimes can be arbitrary since the level of
335: constraint depends upon the intrinsic shape of the light curve and
336: redshift of the progenitor, both of which are unknowns given a
337: non-detection. At early times, optical afterglows are often not
338: simple power-laws so we avoided limiting magnitudes taken in the
339: first few minutes. Additionally, we require that $>$95\% of the
340: satellite-localized error circle be covered by optical observations,
341: and we assume that the limiting magnitude of the DSS is $R$ = 20.
342:
343: The computed average optical indices are significantly shallower than
344: the X-ray indices. One may expect an observational bias to be
345: introduced because we may be preferably selecting afterglows with
346: shallower temporal decays, because afterglows are typically more
347: difficult to observe in the optical than in the X-ray.
348: In order to show that our analysis is unbiased, we made the
349: following test. We selected
350: % However, if we select
351: X-ray indices by the criteria of the GRB having an optical detection,
352: and through this, we applied the same optical selection effect
353: to the X-ray. When making this selection, we found that the
354: average X-ray temporal slopes remain nearly unchanged ($-1.19$ versus
355: $-1.16$). Therefore, we conclude that the difference between
356: the optical and X-ray temporal indices is real and is not an
357: observational effect.
358:
359: %% ANALYSIS
360:
361: \section{Data Analysis}
362: \label{sec:data_analysis}
363:
364: The entire sample of 421 long and 37 short bursts are presented in
365: Tables~\ref{short_table} and \ref{long_table} and are plotted in
366: Figures~\ref{fig:opt_flux} and \ref{fig:X_flux}.
367: Figure~\ref{fig:opt_flux} presents the optical brightness at eleven
368: hours (observer frame) versus the prompt high-energy fluence;
369: Figure~\ref{fig:X_flux} presents the X-ray brightness at eleven
370: hours (observer frame) versus the prompt fluence. In both
371: figures, we see the same trend: GRBs with high fluence or energy have
372: greater brightness in both optical and X-ray. Not unexpectedly, at
373: both high and low afterglow wavelengths, there is a large intrinsic
374: scatter in the data; the full width in the optical distribution spans
375: nearly four orders of magnitude. A portion of the scatter is
376: certainly intrinsic to the population -- we do not expect tight linear
377: correlations. However, the scatter in the optical is larger than in
378: the X-ray, and this may be partially due to observational effects.
379: The optical data comes from a wider variety of sources: different
380: telescopes, filters, instruments, observing teams, reduction and
381: calibration methods, etc. Line-of-sight source-frame absorption may
382: also play a role in the large optical scatter.
383:
384:
385: The 126 long and 15 short bursts with measured redshift are presented
386: in the rest-frame in Figures~\ref{opt_energy} and \ref{xray_energy}.
387: Figure~\ref{opt_energy} plots the optical, while
388: Figure~\ref{xray_energy} plots the X-ray luminosities versus the
389: prompt $\gamma$-ray energy, $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}}$. As discussed
390: above, these plots exhibit a clear correlation between the afterglow
391: brightness at eleven hours and the prompt GRB fluence (note that in figures \ref{opt_energy},
392: \ref{xray_energy} and \ref{fig:ratio} the time is measured in the
393: source frame, and thus is redshift corrected with respect to the
394: observed time). Eight of the short
395: bursts have redshifts derived from hosts found with accurate optical
396: positions or are associated with Abell clusters, while seven have
397: hosts determined by XRT error circles only. These seven bursts are
398: differentiated from the bursts with secure redshifts in
399: Figures~\ref{opt_energy} and \ref{xray_energy}, but are included in
400: the fit detailed below. In calculating the isotropic equivalent
401: energy emitted in $\gamma$-rays, E$_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}} = 4 \pi
402: F_{\gamma} d_{L}^{2} (1+z)^{-1}$, the luminosity distance, $d_{L}$ is
403: determined assuming $H_{o} = 71$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{M} =
404: 0.27$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$. We transformed the optical data
405: from observer frame filters to rest-frame $R$-band using an assumed
406: spectral slope of $\beta = -1$. The unabsorbed X-ray fluxes have been
407: transformed to 5 keV in the source frame assuming the integrated flux
408: has a spectral slope of $\beta = -1$ between 0.2--10 keV in the
409: observer frame.
410:
411: While the existence of correlations for each of the two populations by
412: themselves is not surprising, it is clear from
413: Figures~\ref{opt_energy} and \ref{xray_energy} that the distributions
414: of the long and short bursts over-lap in both prompt and afterglow
415: energies. In afterglow brightness, both the observed and rest-frame
416: populations overlap such that for a given fluence, the two classes are
417: not significantly different. In each instance, both in optical and
418: X-ray, and in observer and rest-frame, the afterglow brightnesses
419: scale roughly as a power-law with energy. Therefore, we model the
420: data as a one-dimensional Gaussian distribution about a straight line
421: in log-log space: $\log(F_{R,X}) = a + \alpha \log (E_{\gamma,{\rm
422: ISO}})$. We take into account errors in both coordinates by
423: minimizing the $\chi^2$ merit function:
424: \begin{equation}
425: \chi^2(a,\alpha) = \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{(y_i - a - \alpha
426: x_i)^2}{\sigma^2_{y i} + \alpha^2 \sigma^2_{x i}}
427: \end{equation}
428: where we have fit to the line $y(x) = a + \alpha x$. We note that
429: physically, $y(x) \equiv \log(F_{R,X})$, $x \equiv \log(E_{\gamma,{\rm
430: ISO}})$, and $\sigma_{x i}$ and $\sigma_{y i}$ are the $x$ and $y$
431: standard deviations for the $i$th point. The errors alone
432: over-constrain the linear fit and produce poor $\chi^2$ merit values.
433: Therefore, in order to compensate for the intrinsic width of the
434: distribution, we add a constant $1/3$ dex error to each error bar to
435: mimic the scatter effect. Increasing the assumed population width
436: past $1/3$ dex does not significantly affect the final best fits. Our
437: fits using this technique can be found in Table 3. The slopes and
438: intercepts of the long and short burst distributions are equivalent,
439: within our ability to fit them. While the small number of short
440: bursts means that the errors on a combined slope and intercept fit are
441: large, if we restrict the slope to $\alpha = 1$, then the intercepts
442: ({\it i.e.} the brightnesses) of the two distributions are found to be
443: the same well within the error of $\sim 0.2$ dex.
444:
445: The X-ray sample is dominated by observations performed by {\it
446: Swift}, and therefore provides a largely homogeneous sample for our
447: analysis. However, the interpretation of the optical data is hindered
448: by the vast diversity of follow-up programs and typical depths of
449: searches. Many optical limits exist for bursts which do not constrain
450: the distribution, while some are deeply constraining. Without knowing
451: the intrinsic source-frame extinction, it is not possible to determine
452: whether these reflect the intrinsic scatter in the distribution or if
453: they are a result of line-of-sight effects. Limits of X-ray
454: afterglows are rare and often due to a delayed follow-up program
455: rather than intrinsic dimness of the afterglows. Therefore, we do not
456: fit to limits in our analysis in either optical or X-ray. However,
457: ignoring limits may introduce a selection bias to the fits.
458:
459: Figures~\ref{fig:opt_flux} and \ref{fig:X_flux} plot observer-frame
460: quantities and therefore have not been corrected for distance. Given
461: a broadly homogeneous population, we expect the effect of distance to
462: dominate the slope of the populations. In a Euclidean universe we
463: would expect the slope imposed to be $\alpha=1$. The real universe,
464: of course, is expanding, and there is a
465: factor of $1+z$ difference between the correction of a bolometric
466: luminosity and a flux. However, if, as is frequently found, the
467: spectral slope of the afterglow is $\beta \sim -1$, this factor of
468: $1+z$ is largely canceled by the k-correction. And this may
469: largely be responsible for the excellent consistency between
470: the populations seen in the Figures and Table 3.
471:
472: In Figures~\ref{opt_energy} and \ref{xray_energy} we show the subset of
473: bursts with published redshifts. Compared to the previous plots, the
474: scatter in both figures has been reduced. It is clear from both
475: figures, that the dominant predictor of afterglow brightness is the
476: prompt energy emission. The fits to the optical and X-ray flux, given
477: in Table 4 are quite consistent between long and short bursts. If we
478: again assume that the afterglow luminosities scale directly with energy, and
479: impose a slope of $\alpha=1$ on the rest-frame distributions, we find
480: that the long bursts are only brighter on average than the short
481: bursts for a given $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}}$ by about a factor of two,
482: while the long bursts themselves vary in brightness in the X-ray and
483: optical by orders of magnitude for a given $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}}$.
484: However, this difference is only at the $\sim 1 \sigma$ level and
485: thus may be entirely statistical rather than real. We note here
486: that similar results to those discussed so far have been
487: derived by two other groups working contemporaneously, \citet{g+08} and \citet{Kann08}.
488:
489: Readers may be concerned by the fact that we have not corrected the Swift data
490: for the loss of total fluence in the $\gamma$-ray due to the rather low
491: high-energy cutoff of the Swift BAT -- 150 keV. This is well below the
492: peak of the spectral energy distribution of most short bursts, although it is above
493: the peak for most LGRBs with $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}} \la 10^{52.5}$~ergs \citep{amati06}.
494: Thus we may be underestimating the true $\gamma$-ray fluence of the
495: short burst compared to the long bursts in some cases by up to a factor several \citep{Kann08},
496: particularly at low values of $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}}$
497: where the two types of bursts overlap.
498: However, this correction would affect the plots of the afterglow flux density
499: in the optical and X-ray versus $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}}$ similarly.
500: As we will show in the next section, it is the ratio of the optical afterglow flux density to that in the X-ray
501: which provides this paper's real insight into the density of the media
502: surrounding the bursts, and this ratio is unaffected by corrections to $E_{\gamma} or E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}}$ .
503:
504: \section{A Comparison of Theory with Observations}
505: \label{sec:analysis}
506:
507: \subsection{The Standard Model}
508: In order to compare the results presented in the previous section to
509: the predictions of the standard model of GRB afterglow emission, we
510: first give a short description of the model's predictions \citep[For a
511: much more detailed introduction to the theory see,
512: e.g.,][]{spn98}. Afterglow emission follows the propagation of a
513: relativistic shock wave that moves through the cold ambient medium,
514: whose density is assumed constant, $n=1 n_0 {\rm \, cm^{-3}}$. A
515: canonical value of $n_0 = 1$ is often used in the literature for
516: LGRBs, but values fitted from afterglow light curves and spectra of
517: long GRBs range from $\sim 10^{-3}$ to $\sim 10^{2}$
518: \citep[e.g.,][]{pk02,sbk+06}. The shock wave moves in a self-similar
519: motion \citep{BM76}, which implies shocked fluid Lorentz factor
520: $\Gamma(E,n,R) = (17E/16\pi n m_pc^2 R^3)^{1/2}$. Here, $E\equiv
521: E_{\rm ISO}$ is the total explosion energy \footnote{Note the
522: difference between the total explosion energy $E_{\rm ISO}$, and the
523: energy emitted in $\gamma$-rays, $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}}$.}, and $R$ is
524: the radius of the shock wave, which is related to the observed time
525: via $t \approx R/4\Gamma^2 c$ \citep{W97}.
526:
527: The shock wave accelerates electrons and generates magnetic
528: field. The accelerated electrons assume power
529: law distribution $n_{el}(\gamma) d\gamma \propto \gamma^{-p} d\gamma $
530: above $\gamma_m = \epsilon_e (m_p/m_e) g(p) \Gamma$. Here,
531: $\epsilon_e$ is the fraction of post-shock thermal energy that goes
532: into the electrons, $\Gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of the shocked
533: fluid, and $g(p)$ is a function of the power law index of the
534: accelerated electrons, $g(p) = (p-2)/(p-1)$ for $p>2$, $g(p) =
535: \log(\gamma_{\max}/\gamma_m)^{-1} \approx 1/7$ for $p=2$, where
536: $\gamma_{\max}$ is the maximum Lorentz factor in which power law
537: distribution of the electrons exist \citep[e.g.,][]{PW05}. A fraction
538: $\epsilon_B$ of the post shock thermal energy is assumed to be
539: converted to the magnetic field. With these definitions,
540: synchrotron flux peaks at observed frequency
541: \beq
542: \nu_m^{ob} = {3 \over 4 \pi} \Gamma \gamma_m^2 {q B \over m_e c} = 7.8
543: \times 10^{12} g(p)^2 \Z^{1/2} \; \E^{1/2} \, \ee^2 \, \eB^{1/2} \,
544: \td^{-3/2} \, \Hz,
545: \label{eq:nu_m}
546: \eeq
547: where $Q=10^x Q_x$ in cgs units was used, and the observed time is
548: measured in days.
549:
550:
551: The peak of the observed spectral flux at $\nu_m$ is
552: \beq
553: F_{\nu,\max}^{ob} = {1 \over 4\pi d_L^2} N_e P_{\nu_m} \approx {N_e \over
554: 4\pi d_L^2} {P_{tot} \over \nu_m^{ob}} = 7.3 \, \Z \dL \, \E \, \eB^{1/2} \,
555: \n^{1/2} \, \mjy,
556: \label{eq:F_nu_m}
557: \eeq
558: where $P_{tot} = \Gamma^2 (4/3) c \sigma_T \gamma_m^2 (B^2/8\pi)$ is
559: the total synchrotron power radiated by electrons at $\gamma_m$,
560: $\sigma_T$ is Thomson cross section, and $N_e=4 \pi R^3 n / 3$ is the
561: total number of radiating electrons. In estimating the observed flux,
562: luminosity distance $d_L = 10^{28} d_{L,28} \cm$ is assumed.
563:
564: The synchrotron peak flux frequency is below the break frequency
565: $\nu_c$, the characteristic synchrotron emission frequency of
566: electrons for which the synchrotron cooling time, $6 \pi m_e c/B^2
567: \sigma_T \gamma_c (1+Y)$ is comparable to the ejecta (rest frame) expansion
568: time, $\sim r/\Gamma c$,
569: \beq
570: \nu_c^{ob} = 4.0 \times 10^{15}(1+Y)^{-2} \Z^{-1/2} \; \E^{-1/2} \, \eB^{-3/2} \,
571: \n^{-1} \, \td^{-1/2} \, \Hz.
572: \label{eq:nu_c}
573: \eeq
574: Here, $Y$ is the Compton parameter. As we show below, for the
575: canonical parameters values used here, after 11 hours $Y \ll 1$. Therefore,
576: the inclusion of $Y$ does not change the parametric dependence of $\nu_c$.
577:
578: The results in equation \ref{eq:nu_m} indicate that the peak frequency
579: is below the optical band ($\nu_R = 5 \times 10^{14} \Hz$) after 11
580: hours, even for equipartition values of $\epsilon_e$ and
581: $\epsilon_B$. Since $\nu_c > \nu_m$, (the ``slow cooling'' regime),
582: the flux at frequencies above $\nu_m$ is given by
583: \beq
584: F_\nu^{ob} = \left\{
585: \ba{ll}
586: F_{\nu,\max}^{ob} (\nu/\nu_m)^{-(p-1)/2}, & \nu_m<\nu<\nu_c, \nonumber \\
587: F_{\nu,\max}^{ob} (\nu_c/\nu_m)^{-(p-1)/2} (\nu/\nu_c)^{-p/2}, & \nu_c < \nu.
588: \ea
589: \right.
590: \label{eq:F_nu}
591: \eeq
592:
593: \subsection{The Comparison}
594: Two of the primary observational results obtained in this paper, summarized
595: in figures \ref{opt_energy} and \ref{xray_energy},
596: can now be compared to the predictions in equations \ref{eq:nu_m} --
597: \ref{eq:F_nu}. For bursts with known redshift, $E_{\rm ISO}$ and
598: observed time $t_d = 11/24$, adopting the assumption that $2\leq p
599: \leq 2.5$, there are 3 free parameters whose values
600: are unknown: the ambient medium number density $n$ and the parameters
601: $\epsilon_e$ and $\epsilon_B$. In order to remove some of the
602: degeneracy, we look at the ratio of the fluxes at the $R$ and the $X$
603: bands. This ratio for the long and short GRBs is presented in
604: Figure~\ref{fig:ratio}.
605:
606: While the peak flux frequency is below the optical (R) band, the value
607: of the cooling break depends on the density of the ambient medium and
608: on $\epsilon_B$.
609: Thus, three options exist:
610: \begin{enumerate}
611: \item The break frequency is above the observed X-ray frequency,
612: $\nu_R < \nu_X = 1.25 \times 10^{18} \Hz < \nu_c^{ob}$. In this
613: case the ratio of the fluxes at the R and X-ray bands is predicted
614: by equation \ref{eq:F_nu} to be $F_R/F_X = (\nu_x/\nu_R)^{(p-1)/2} =
615: 50$ (for p=2). This ratio is inconsistent with the results presented
616: in Figure \ref{fig:ratio}, which clearly indicate a ratio $F_R/F_X
617: \simeq 1-2 \times 10^3$ for both the short and long bursts. The flux
618: ratio increases with $p$, and for $p=2.5$ it is $\sim 350$. Still,
619: this is lower than that observed for the vast majority of
620: bursts, and is more than an order of magnitude below the ratio of
621: many.
622:
623: \item The break frequency is in between the optical and the X-ray
624: bands, $\nu_R < \nu_c^{ob} < \nu_X$. As noted earlier many studies
625: of afterglows from long GRBs have found this to be the case
626: \citep[e.g.][]{gwb+98,hbf+99,pk02,sbk+06}. Indeed, in this
627: situation, the expected ratio of the fluxes, $F_R/F_X =
628: (\nu_x/\nu_R)^{(p-1)/2} (\nu_x / \nu_c)^{1/2} = 720 \, \E^{1/4}
629: \eB^{3/4} \n^{1/2}$ (calculated for $\nu_c$ after 11 hours and for
630: $p=2$) is consistent with the results obtained in Figure
631: \ref{fig:ratio} for the long bursts. For $p=2.5$, this ratio is
632: somewhat higher $\approx 5 \times 10^3 \, \E^{1/4} \eB^{3/4}
633: \n^{1/2}$, which is slightly above the results in Figure
634: \ref{fig:ratio}.
635:
636: On the other hand, for characteristic energy $E \simeq 10^{50}$~erg
637: typical for the short bursts, this ratio is $F_R/F_x \simeq 130 \,
638: E_{50}^{1/4} \eB^{3/4} \n^{1/2}$ (for $p=2$), nearly an order of
639: magnitude lower than the result obtained in Figure \ref{fig:ratio}
640: for the short bursts. For $p=2.5$, the obtained value is $F_R/F_x
641: \simeq 1600 \, E_{50}^{1/4} \eB^{3/4} \n^{1/2}$, consistent with the
642: results in this figure. The value of $ F_R/F_X \approx 1600$ is
643: obtained for values of the ambient number density of short bursts
644: which are comparable to that expected for long bursts, $n_0 =
645: 1$. Lower values of the number density would be inconsistent with
646: the results in Figure \ref{fig:ratio}, unless the value of
647: $\epsilon_B$ is larger for short bursts than for the long ones.
648: This discrepancy is further aggravated by observed $F_R/F_x$ values
649: around $10^4$ for several short bursts. It is hard to make these
650: consistent with the theory using any set of parameters consistent
651: with standard expectations.
652:
653: \item The third possibility is that the cooling frequency is below the
654: R band, i.e., $\nu_c^{ob} < \nu_R < \nu_X$. Using equation
655: \ref{eq:F_nu} one obtains the ratio of the R to X-ray fluxes to be
656: $F_R/F_X = (\nu_x/\nu_R)^{p/2} = 2500$ (for $p=2$), which is
657: consistent with the results presented in Figure \ref{fig:ratio}. On the
658: other hand, the requirement that $\nu_c^{ob} <\nu_R$ for short GRBs for
659: which $E=10^{30}$~erg implies $\n > 130 \eB^{-3/2}$. Even for
660: equipartition value of the magnetic field this requirement implies
661: value of $n$ which is at least as high for short GRBs as for the
662: long GRBs.
663: \end{enumerate}
664:
665:
666: The analysis presented above implies that under the assumption of the
667: synchrotron emission model, the characteristic values of the number
668: densities of short GRBs are required to be at least similar to the
669: characteristic values obtained for long GRBs, $n \gtrsim 1 {\rm \,
670: cm^{-3}}$. Lower values of the number density in short bursts
671: require stronger magnetic field. Moreover, the results hint toward
672: power law index $p \simeq 2.5$ in short bursts.
673:
674:
675: The ratios calculated above are done in the framework of the
676: standard model, which assumes knowledge of total explosion energy
677: $E_{\rm ISO}$, while for bursts with measured redshift we only
678: measure the energy emitted in $\gamma$ rays, $E_{\gamma,{\rm
679: ISO}}$. However, as we show in \S\ref{sec:energy_comparison}
680: below, the efficiency in converting the explosion energy into
681: $\gamma$ rays is very high, $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}} / \epsilon_e
682: E_{\rm ISO} \simeq 1$ for both the long and short bursts.
683: We note that in principle it is possible that the average values of
684: the microphysical parameter $\epsilon_e$, $\epsilon_B$ and the power
685: law index $p$ are different for short and long GRBs, which may
686: affect our result. However, we find this possibility unlikely, since
687: after 11 hours both types of bursts are well in the self-similar
688: phase, in which the properties of the blast wave - that determines
689: the values of these parameters - are well defined.
690:
691: The basic results found do not change if one assumes that the flux at
692: the X-ray band is dominated by Compton scattering \citep[see,
693: e.g.,][]{SE01, ZM01}. For $\nu_c^{ob} < \nu_X$ and $\nu_m^{ob}
694: \gamma_m^2 < \nu_X < \nu_c^{ob} \gamma_m^2$, one obtains the ratio of
695: the Compton to the synchrotron flux at the X-band to be
696: $F_{X,IC}/F_{X,syn} \approx (16/3) \sigma_T n r \gamma_m^{p-1}
697: (\nu_x/\nu_c)^{1/2} = 2.8 \times 10^{-2} g(p) \, \E^{5/8} \ee
698: \eB^{3/4} \n^{9/8} \td^{1/8}$, where $p=2$ is assumed. This ratio
699: clearly indicates that inverse Compton emission does not dominate the
700: flux at the X band unless the number density is significantly higher
701: than $n_0=1$. Therefore, addition of IC component does not ease the
702: requirement for high values of the number density in short GRBs.
703:
704:
705: We have so far assumed that the density of the ambient medium is
706: constant, i.e. independent of radius from the burst. This, however, may not be the case.
707: Motivated by the association of long GRBs to the deaths of massive
708: stars, some authors \citep[c.f.][]{Woosley93, Pac98} have proposed
709: that the explosion producing a GRB may occur into a wind, ejected by
710: the progenitor prior to its explosion. This scenario results in an
711: ambient matter density profile, $\rho(r) = A r^{-2}$, with
712: characteristic value $A = 5 \times 10^{11} A_* {\rm \, gr \, cm^{-2}}$
713: typical for Wolf-Rayet star \citep{CL00}.
714:
715: In an explosion into density profile, the evolution of the Lorentz
716: factor of the flow in its similar expansion phase is $\Gamma (E, r) =
717: (9 E / 16 \pi \rho c^2)^{1/2} r^{-3/2}$, and the relation between the
718: radius of the shock front and the observed time is $t \approx r / 2
719: \Gamma^2 c$ \citep{PWi05}. Similar calculations to the ones presented
720: in equations \ref{eq:nu_m} -- \ref{eq:nu_c} results in \citep[see,
721: e.g.,][]{PK01}
722: \beq
723: \ba{lcl}
724: \nu_m^{ob.} & = & 1.6 \times 10^{11}g(p)^2 \, \Z^{1/2} \E^{1/2} \ee^2
725: \eB^{1/2} \td^{-3/2} \, \Hz, \nonumber \\
726: \nu_c^{ob.} & = & 1.4 \times 10^{14} \,(1+Y)^{-2} \Z^{-3/2} \E^{1/2} A_*^{-2}
727: \eB^{-3/2} \td^{1/2} \,\Hz, \nonumber \\
728: F_{\nu,\max}^{ob} & \simeq & 45 \Z \dL \E^{1/2} A_* \eB^{1/2}
729: \td^{-1/2} \, \mjy.
730: \ea
731: \eeq
732: Focusing on the case $\nu_m^{ob} < \nu_R < \nu_c^{ob} < \nu_X$, using similar
733: arguments to the ones presented for the constant density scenario
734: discussed above imply that the observed ratio $F_R/F_X \simeq 10^3$ is
735: obtained for combination of the parameters which fulfill $\E^{1/2}
736: A_*^{-2} \eB^{-3/2} \approx 33$. For long GRBs characterized by $E
737: \simeq 10^{52}$~erg and canonical value of $\epsilon_B = 0.01$, the
738: obtained value of $A_*$ is $A_* \approx 0.15$. For short GRBs for
739: which $E \approx 10^{49}$~erg, the obtained value is lower, $A_*
740: \lesssim 0.03$. The assumption $\nu_c^{ob} > \nu_X$ is
741: inconsistent with the results presented in Figure \ref{fig:ratio} and the
742: assumption $\nu_c^{ob} < \nu_R$ leads to higher values of $A_*$.
743:
744: We thus find it possible to explain the results found for short GRBs
745: in a scenario in which the explosion that produces short GRBs occurs
746: into a wind profile, with wind density which is $\sim 30$ times lower
747: than the typical value for Wolf-Rayet stars. There are both strong
748: theoretical \citep[c.f.][]{CL00} and observational \citep{shr+08}
749: reasons to believe that a substantial fraction of long GRBs would
750: explode into a medium with a wind structure. However, the standard
751: models of SGRB production involve the merger of compact binaries. The
752: mass loss from the supernovae producing the compact remnants should,
753: however, impart velocities to the binaries that would take them far
754: outside of any remnant stellar winds long before they merge.
755: Therefore, if a wind density profile is indeed a key to understanding
756: the emission of SGRBs, a novel progenitor system will be required.
757:
758: \subsection{A Further Limit on Emission Mechanisms}
759: \label{sec:energy_comparison}
760:
761: The results presented here also place strong constraints
762: on the efficiency of $\gamma$-ray production during
763: prompt emission, significantly extending the limits
764: derived in earlier works \citep{FW01, BKF03}.
765: For $\nu_c^{ob} < \nu_X$ and assuming power law index $p=2$,
766: equations \ref{eq:nu_m} -- \ref{eq:F_nu} predict the flux at the X-ray
767: band after 11 hours to be $F_X^{ob} \simeq 0.3 \Z \dL \, \E \ee \, \mu
768: Jy$. This result depends only on the energy in the lepton component,
769: which is a fraction $\epsilon_e$ of the total explosion energy $E$.
770: For bursts with known luminosity distance, the rest-frame brightness is thus
771: \beq
772: F_{\nu,X} \simeq 3 \times 10^{26} \, \E \ee {\rm \, erg \, s^{-1} \, Hz^{-1}}
773: \eeq
774: (note that an order unity uncertainty may exist due to the
775: approximations used in deriving the equations, as well as the
776: assumption that $p=2$). Comparison with the results presented in Table
777: 4 and Figure \ref{xray_energy} shows that for a given X-ray brightness,
778: the energy emitted in $\gamma$ rays is similar to the energy carried
779: by the leptons. Thus, we can conclude that the $\gamma$ ray production
780: is efficient, $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}} / \epsilon_e E_{\rm ISO} \simeq 1$. This
781: result holds for at least the seven orders of magnitude in energies
782: considered in this work.
783:
784: The similarity found between the X-ray fluxes of short and long
785: GRBs implies that the high efficiency in $\gamma$ ray production is
786: a property of both types. This result is consistent with the
787: tentative conclusion of \citet{bpp+06}, who studied a single SGRB,
788: namely GRB050509b.
789:
790: \section{Systematic biases and possible caveats}
791: \label{sec:statistics}
792:
793: Our sample includes total of 37 short GRBs, out of which 16 ($43\%$)
794: have measured redshift. From those bursts, seven have measured optical and
795: X-ray fluxes at 11 hours and thus the fluence ratio at 11 hours (rest
796: frame) can be obtained, and nine have only upper limits on the observed
797: optical fluence, and thus only upper limits on the ratio at 11 hours
798: are known (see figures \ref{opt_energy}, \ref{fig:ratio}). Therefore, a
799: question may arise as to whether our conclusions could be biased by
800: selection effects, and in particular, whether bursts in low density
801: regions might be excluded from our sample because their afterglows
802: would be expected to be too weak.
803:
804: Consider, however, all bursts with $\gamma$-ray fluence larger than
805: $10^{-7} \rm{\, erg \, cm^{-2}}$ (see figure \ref{fig:opt_flux} and
806: tables \ref{short_table}, \ref{long_table}). Essentially all long GRBs
807: are in this group, as are more than half of the short bursts (22 out
808: of 37). Furthermore, above this fluence, 8 out of 9 short bursts
809: which have reasonably deep ($< 3 \mu Jy$ or $AB=TBD$) mag early
810: searches, have identified optical counterparts. Indeed, with one
811: exception, GRB~061210, all the optical upper limits lie above detections
812: with comparable $E_{\gamma}$.
813:
814: If the standard model is correct and the prompt gamma-ray fluence
815: arises from an internal process, then choosing this sample in no way
816: selects bursts by the properties of their external medium. However,
817: because an optical ID has been necessary to get a secure redshift for
818: a short GRB, this is the prime sample used to derive a relationship
819: between the fluxes $F_R$, $F_x$ and $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}}$ in Figures
820: \ref{opt_energy} -- \ref{fig:ratio}. Our fits then (in particular Figure \ref{opt_energy}) depend on a
821: sample which is essentially complete, and which does not depend upon
822: the properties of the external medium, unless the external medium
823: influences the observed $E_{\gamma}$.
824: % All of the upper limits seen in
825: %these figures arise from sources which are not part of this sample,
826: %with only one exception, namely GRB061210.
827:
828: Of course, if $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}}$ depends upon the external medium, and in
829: particular its density, then our conclusions would be biased. But
830: this bias only arises if perhaps the most interesting (and potentially
831: controversial) of our possible conclusions is true: the initial
832: gamma-ray fluence is not entirely due to an internal process but is
833: also regulated by the medium external to the exploding object.
834:
835:
836: A further comparison of optical and X-ray fluxes
837: is presented in figure \ref{fig:hist}. In this figure, we plot the
838: ratio of the observed fluxes for bursts,
839: using the full sample of bursts
840: %that is presented in figures
841: %\ref{fig:opt_flux} and \ref{fig:X_flux}
842: for which detections or upper
843: limits exist. Since the redshift, and thus $E_{\gamma,{\rm ISO}}$, is in most cases unknown, we
844: plot a histogram of the optical to X-ray flux
845: ratio at 11 hours observed time. The histogram clearly shows that the
846: two distributions exhibit a Gaussian-like behavior, with very similar
847: means, $<F_R/F_X> = 770$ for the long bursts and $<F_R/F_X> = 1130$
848: for the short bursts, where only those bursts with optical and X-ray
849: detections (no upper limits) were used in this calculation. The
850: similar Gaussian shapes and similar means of the SGRB and LGRB
851: populations also suggests that contaminations, in particular incorrect
852: identification of a long burst as short, does not significantly
853: affect the distribution (otherwise a bi-modal distribution would likely have
854: been seen - unless, of course both distributions have the same ratio,
855: which is the main conclusion here).
856:
857: Again, it is the fact that the values $<F_R/F_X>$ for the short bursts are near
858: 1000 (and comparable or larger than those of long bursts) which is surprising.
859: It is then interesting that three very clear, well studied short bursts, 050709, 050724 and
860: 051221A have values of $<F_R/F_X>$ of about 7000, 10,000 and 500 respectively.
861: Examination of the table by the reader will show that even if some of the short bursts
862: in our sample are falsely identified short bursts, the bursts which are clearly
863: short agree with the claims presented here.
864:
865: %The fluxes in the histogram are shown at 11 hours in the observer frame,
866: %ince we do not adjust for redshift. However, as noted earlier the temporal
867: %slopes in the spectral and the
868: %spectral and temporal slopes in the X-ray and optical are fairly similar,
869: %this will not affect the results. Being unable to determine the redshift of many of these bursts, a
870: %deviation may occur if such a histogram would have been plotted at 11
871: %hours in the rest frame; However, we do not expect a strong deviation
872: %from two reasons. First, most of the bursts are at a limited range of
873: %redshift, $z < 3$, and therefore a maximum shift by a factor of $(1+z)
874: %\leq 4$ is possible. Such a shift is too small to
875: %significantly affect the results presented in figure
876: %\ref{fig:hist}. Second, and more importantly, even at large redshift we do not expect a
877: %strong deviation, since after few hours the flares that occur at the
878: %early afterglow phase disappear, and both the optical and the X-ray
879: %fluxes decay {\bf as power-laws with similar exponents}.
880:
881:
882: %As discussed above, the non-detection (upper limits) do not change
883: %this conclusion: the upper limits that are in the right hand side of
884: %the mean (i.e., large values of $f_R/f_X$ are due to optical searches
885: %that were not deep enough. These typically lie in the upper half of
886: %the distribution plotted in figure \ref{fig:opt_flux}, above the minimum
887: %limit required for detection. The upper limits in the right hand side,
888: %which represent small value of $f_R/f_X$ arise from non-detection of
889: %bursts with faint prompt emission fluence (the left side of the
890: %distribution plotted in figure \ref{fig:opt_flux}), hence the
891: %non-detection does not arise from low values of the number density,
892: %but either from low energy injected or from distant
893: %sources.
894: %Interestingly, when the upper limits are included as
895: %detections, the average ratio for the long bursts remains essentially
896: %the same, while that of the short bursts increases by a factor of 2,
897: %$<f_R/f_X> = 2260$.
898:
899:
900: Additionally, it is possible that the ratio of $f_R/f_X$ could be affected absorption of photons in
901: the host galaxy. While many long GRBs show substantial
902: X-ray columns \cite{crc+06, smp+07, gw01}, the large majority of the observed 10 keV
903: passband of the XRT is unaffected, and thus our X-ray fluxes should
904: be fairly accurate. The measured optical absorption of long gamma-ray burst afterglows
905: often suggests lower column densities than the X-ray, with typical optical absorptions
906: in the range of one-tenth to one magnitude {\cite{smp+07, ckh+09}}.
907: The effect of host absorption on short bursts has not yet been well studied. But again,
908: the main danger would be a suppression of the optical relative to the X-ray. However,
909: our main result is that the short bursts have brighter optical emission relative to
910: the X-ray than expected by the standard model and typically assumed
911: environmental densities.
912: \section{Summary and discussion}
913: \label{sec:summary}
914:
915: In this work, we present a comprehensive study of the optical and
916: X-ray afterglows obtained after 11 hours of 37 short and 421 long
917: GRBs, and compared the results to the energy emitted in $\gamma$-rays
918: during the prompt emission phase. This sample is the
919: largest used so far for this type of study. We find a strong
920: correlation between the optical and X-ray afterglow brightnesses and
921: prompt $\gamma$-ray fluence of GRBs, a result similar to one reported
922: contemporaneously by
923: by \citet{g+08} \citet{Kann08}. However, we also show that
924: the ratio of the optical to X-ray emission in the short burst
925: afterglows is comparable to that of the long-bursts. This
926: equivalence between burst types, and the absolute ratio we find can only be understood
927: in the framework of the standard theory if
928: the circumburst density of SGRBs
929: is typically comparable to, or even higher than the circumburst density of
930: LGRBs. We point out that in a wind-like scenario for SGRBs can also explain
931: this result if the average mass loss rate of the SGRB
932: progenitor is $\sim 30$ times lower than the characteristic mass loss
933: rate from a Wolf-Rayet star. Finally, we have show
934: that in the framework of the standard model, in which the
935: prompt emission fluence is independent of the environmental density,
936: by selecting bursts with $\gamma$-ray fluence larger than $10^{-7}
937: \rm{\, erg \, cm^{-2}}$ we obtain for short bursts above this fluence
938: an essentially complete sample for analysis.
939:
940: These results indicate that SGRB afterglows are not necessarily
941: dim due to a lower density in the circumburst environment. While the
942: average SGRB afterglow is significantly dimmer than the average LGRB
943: afterglow, this appears to be largely due to the lower total
944: energy release of the burst, as indicated by the fainter prompt
945: $\gamma$-ray emission. We can thus conclude that if the prompt
946: emission is a result of internal shocks, then either the external
947: density of long and short bursts is similar, or the afterglow flux is
948: less sensitive to the density of the surrounding medium than
949: predicted. On the other hand, if the prompt emission is due to an
950: external shock, both quantities the gamma-ray fluence and afterglow
951: intensity will depend on the external density and may scale
952: accordingly. In this case we could attribute the faintness of {\it
953: both} the prompt and afterglow emission to the external medium
954: density.
955:
956:
957: Due to the short lifetimes of the massive star progenitors of
958: long-duration GRBs, they have been traditionally expected to occur in
959: or near giant molecular clouds ($n \sim 10^{2.5}$ cm$^{-3}$;
960: \citealt{sal87}). Some observational evidence supports this
961: hypothesis. The hosts of LGRBs are typically blue and actively
962: forming massive stars \citep{ftm+99, sfc+01, ldm+03, chg04, gps+05}.
963: \citet{fls+06} find that LGRBs are preferentially located on the
964: brightest regions of these galaxies, which they interpret as evidence
965: that GRBs frequently occur on or near massive OB associations. X-ray
966: observations of GRB afterglows show neutral hydrogen column densities
967: consistent those of Galactic giant molecular clouds \citep{gw01,
968: jfl+06, smp+07}. At optical wavelengths, moderate extinction
969: characteristic of dense regions is seen in some bursts \citep{kkz+07},
970: while in others the afterglow appears significantly extinguished
971: \citep{dfk+01, lfr+06, wfl+06, pdl+06, rvw+07}, and at high redshifts
972: where Ly$\alpha$ absorption can be found in the optical spectrum,
973: large hydrogen column densities (up to $10^{23}\, {\rm cm}^{-3}$) are
974: frequently found \citep[c.f.][]{jfl+07}. Nonetheless, as noted
975: earlier, the density of the medium into which the relativistic flow of
976: the GRB expands may be dominated by an earlier wind from the
977: progenitor star rather than the ISM.
978:
979: In contrast, SGRBs are found in both elliptical and star-forming
980: galaxies, a fact consistent with merger scenarios. The ISM of
981: elliptical galaxies is sparse and has a typical density of only $n
982: \sim 10^{-2.5}$ cm$^{-3}$ \citep{fbp+06}. \citet{Pan06}, however,
983: estimates a circumburst density of $10^{-1} < n < 10^{3}
984: \, {\rm cm}^{-3}$ for GRB 050724, a burst in an E/S0 galaxy \citep{bpc+05}.
985: At the same time circumburst densities of $10^{-4} < n < 10^{-1} \, {\rm cm}^{-3}$ \cite{Pan06}
986: and $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-1} \, {\rm cm}^{-3}$ \cite{sbk+06} are found
987: for GRBs 050709 and 051221A, respectively, both of which occurred
988: in apparently star-forming galaxies.
989: As we have shown here, the lower ranges of these two latter
990: densities are inconsistent with the distribution of ratios of $F_X/F_R$ seen in
991: Figure \ref{fig:ratio}. These
992: estimates of the SGRB circumburst density , however, assume a locally uniform
993: medium. If the SGRBs were to typically form in a windlike structure,
994: this ratio would be acceptable. Still, the common presence of a
995: wind structure around SGRBs would rule out the standard merger models.
996: The velocity by mass loss during the supernovae, let alone any kicks
997: by the supernovae, would easily move the compact remnants by more than
998: 100 pc from their natal region before a binary merger occurred
999: \citep{bpb+06}.
1000:
1001: A potentially simple explanation of the results presented here is
1002: that both the afterglow and the prompt emission are due to an
1003: external interaction \citep[e.g.,][]{Dermer08}. In this case, both the
1004: afterglow and prompt emission might be expected to scale similarly.
1005: However, it is difficult to explain the strong variability observed in
1006: many bursts in such a model \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Mes06}. Furthermore,
1007: observational evidence for a correlation between the density of a
1008: circumburst medium and $\Egi$ is so far either weak or potentially
1009: damaging. \cite{tko+08} have suggested that SGRBs far from the center
1010: of their host may be fainter than those closer in. However, this work
1011: uses a number of associations based on the brightest galaxy in a
1012: rather large Swift XRT error circle, and therefore may in some cases
1013: assign an incorrect offset, and thus will need to be confirmed on
1014: larger, better samples. In contrast, the only work to examine this
1015: issue for long bursts has found a positive correlation between the
1016: brightness of the burst and the distance of the burst from the center
1017: of the host \citep{rlb02}. This is, to first order, the opposite of
1018: one would predict if the external medium played a role in the
1019: gamma-ray emission. It has, however, been noted that the bursts
1020: GRBG 050509b and 050724, both of which were in early type
1021: galaxies were intrinsically weaker than bursts
1022: found in star-forming hosts \cite{Rhoads09}. Nonetheless, we note again
1023: that
1024: the work by \citet{Pan06} suggests that the circumburst
1025: medium around at GRB 0507024 was reasonably dense.
1026:
1027: Several recent advances in the theory and modelling of the binary
1028: merger process and the local insterstellar medium could potentially explain
1029: our results. \citet{vdh07} has pointed out that the large majority
1030: of known double neutron-star binaries have low eccentricities,
1031: suggesting that the second born neutron stars in binaries, unlike single neutron
1032: stars, typically did not receive substantial ``kick'' velocities at birth.
1033: Lower kicks will lead to lower systemic velocities, and a higher
1034: probability that the system remains in a moderately dense ISM
1035: when the binary merges. Furthermore, the time to merger may often be relatively short.
1036: \citet{bsf09} estimate that up to 70\% of NS-NS and NS-BH binaries
1037: may merge with 100 Myr after formation. Indeed, one burst that appears
1038: to have likely been a short burst, GRB 060505, lies in an [HII] region on the outskirts
1039: of its spiral host \citep{fwt+06,ocg+07,lk07}. Some short bursts, however,
1040: occur in early-type galaxies. Here recent result could also provide an
1041: explanation for an apparent
1042: ISM density of $1\, {\rm cm}^{-3}$. Binary mergers in early-type galaxies
1043: are almost certainly dominated by the evolving binaries in globular clusters \citep{gpm06},
1044: and the most rapid evolution is likely to occur in the densest clusters. These clusters however,
1045: could have ionized gas densities of the required magnitude due to the colliding winds
1046: of giants contained in the cluster \citep{prl09}.
1047:
1048: Although we may not fully understand the mechanism,
1049: we cannot escape the conclusion that SGRBs are fundamentally similar
1050: in emission properties to LGRBs -- particularly the fainter LGRBs that
1051: have typically been found at low redshift. It has been suggested
1052: that low-luminosity LGRBs (e.g. GRB 980425, GRB 031203 and GRB 060218)
1053: have large, and perhaps nearly quasi-spherical, opening angles when
1054: compared to traditional LGRBs \citep{skb+04, skn+06, lzv+07}.
1055: Similarly, of the three SGRBs with estimated opening angles, GRB
1056: 050709 and GRB 050724 have large measured angles, $\Theta \sim 14^{o}$
1057: \citep{ffp+05} and $\sim 25^{o}$ \citep{gbp+06, mcd+07} respectively,
1058: while GRB 051221 has $4^o < \Theta < 8^o$ \citep{bgc+06, sbk+06},
1059: which is more typical of traditional high $\Egi$ LGRB opening angles.
1060: Yet both long and short populations appear to largely fall on a simple
1061: log-linear relationship between afterglow intensity and gamma-ray
1062: luminosity over six orders of magnitude in energy. Within this
1063: relationship there may be strong hints as to the nature of the
1064: progenitors of SGRBs, or perhaps a new more fundamental understanding
1065: of the GRB emission mechanism.
1066:
1067:
1068: %% ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1069:
1070: \acknowledgments
1071:
1072: This work made use of data supplied by the UK {\it Swift} Science Data
1073: Centre at the University of Leicester. We gratefully acknowledge
1074: J. Racusin, N. Gehrels, D. Burrows, and the {\it Swift} team for
1075: generously sharing pre-published XRT values. We also thank
1076: A. Levan, N. Gehrels, E, Waxman, K. Belczynski, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, E. van den Heuvel,
1077: R. Sari and J. Graham for
1078: helpful discussions, J. Greiner for
1079: his online GRB Table and R. Quimby, E. McMahon and J. Murphy for
1080: the GRBlog. AP wishes to acknowledge the support of the
1081: Riccardo Giacconi fellowship award of the Space Telescope Science
1082: Institute.
1083:
1084: %% BIBLIOGRAPHY
1085:
1086: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1087:
1088: \bibitem[Amati (2006)]{amati06} Amati, L. 2006\ \mnras, 372, 233
1089: \bibitem[Antonelli et al.(1999)]{afa+99} Antonelli, L.~A., et al.\ 1999, \aaps, 138, 435
1090: \bibitem[Barbier et al.(2007)]{bbc+07b} Barbier, L., et al.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6623, 1
1091: \bibitem[Barthelmy et al.(2005a)]{bcb+05} Barthelmy, S.~D., et al. 2005a, \nat, 438, 994
1092: \bibitem[Barthelmy et al.(2005b)]{bgn+05} Barthelmy, S., Gehrels, N., Norris, J., \& Sakamoto, T. 2005b, GRB Coordinates Network, 4401, 1
1093: \bibitem[Belczynski et al.(2006a)]{bpb+06} Belczynski, K., Perna, R., Bulik, T., Kalogera, V., Ivanova, N., \& Lamb, D.~Q.\ 2006a, \apj, 648, 1110
1094: \bibitem[Belczynski et al.(2006b)]{bsr+06} Belczynski, K., Sadowski, A., Rasio, F.~A., \& Bulik, T.\ 2006b, \apj, 650, 303
1095: \bibitem[Belczynski et al.(2009)]{bsf09} Belczynski, K., Stanek, K.~Z., \& Fryer, C.~L.\ 2009, \apj, submitted astro-ph/0712.3309
1096: \bibitem[Berger et. al. (2003)]{BKF03} Berger, E., Kulkarni, S.R. \& Frail, D.A. 2003, \apj, 590, 379
1097: \bibitem[Berger(2005)]{b05} Berger, E.\ 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 3801, 1
1098: \bibitem[Berger \& Boss(2005)]{bb05} Berger, E., \& Boss, A.\ 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 4323, 1
1099: \bibitem[Berger \& Fox(2005)]{bf05} Berger, E., \& Fox, D.\ 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 4316, 1
1100: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2005)]{bpc+05} Berger, E., et al.\ 2005a, \nat, 438, 988
1101: \bibitem[Berger(2006a)]{b06} Berger, E.\ 2006a, GRB Coordinates Network, 5965, 1
1102: \bibitem[Berger(2007a)]{b07d} Berger, E.\ 2007a, \apj, 670, 1254
1103: \bibitem[Berger(2007b)]{b07} Berger, E.\ 2007b, GRB Coordinates Network, 5995, 1
1104: \bibitem[Berger \& Kaplan(2007)]{bk07} Berger, E., \& Kaplan, D.~L.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6680, 1
1105: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2007a)]{bfp+07} Berger, E., et al.\ 2007b, \apj, 664, 1000
1106: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2007b)]{bmr07} Berger, E., Morrell, N., \& Roth, M.\ 2007b, GRB Coordinates Network, 7154, 1
1107: \bibitem[Bikmaev et al.(2005)]{bgs+05} Bikmaev, I., et al.\ 2005a, GRB Coordinates Network, 3797, 1
1108: \bibitem[Blandford \& McKee (1976)]{BM76} Blandford, R.D., \& McKee, C.F. 1976, Phys. Fluids, 19, 1130
1109: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2002)]{bkd02} Bloom, J.~S., Kulkarni, S.~R., \& Djorgovski, S.~G.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 1111
1110: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2006)]{bpp+06} Bloom, J.~S., et al. 2006, \apj, 638, 354
1111: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2007)]{bpc+06} Bloom, J.~S., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 878
1112: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2006)]{bgc+06} Burrows, D.~N., et al. 2006, \apj, 653, 468
1113: \bibitem[Campana et al. (2006)]{crc+06} Campana et al.\ 2006, \aap, 449, 61
1114: \bibitem[Castro-Tirado et al.(1997)]{cgh+97} Castro-Tirado, A.~J., et al.\ 1997, \iaucirc, 6598, 2
1115: \bibitem[Castro-Tirado et al.(2000)]{cag00} Castro-Tirado, A., Alises, M., \& Greiner, J.\ 2000, GRB Coordinates Network, 870, 1
1116: \bibitem[Castro-Tirado et al.(2005)]{cbk+05} Castro-Tirado, A.~J., Bond, I., Kilmartin, P., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Gorosabel, J., Jelinek, M., \& Yock, P.\ 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 3018, 1
1117: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2006)]{cfp06} Cenko, S.~B., Fox, D.~B., \& Price, P.~A.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5912, 1
1118: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2007)]{crb+07} Cenko, S.~B., Rau, A., Berger, E., Price, P.~A., \& Cucchiara, A.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6664, 1
1119: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2009)]{ckh+09} Cenko, S.~B. et al.\ 2009 \apj 693 1484
1120: \bibitem [Chevalier \& Li (2000)]{CL00} Chevalier, R. A., Li, Z.-Y. 2000, \apj, 536, 195
1121: \bibitem[Christensen et al.(2004)]{chg04} Christensen, L., Hjorth, J., \& Gorosabel, J.\ 2004, \aap, 425, 913
1122: \bibitem[Cobb(2006)]{c06} Cobb, B.~E.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5935, 1
1123: \bibitem[Connaughton et al.(1997)]{ckp+97} Connaughton, V., et al.\ 1997, \iaucirc, 6683, 1
1124: \bibitem[Cucchiara et al.(2006)]{cfb+06} Cucchiara, A., Fox, D.~B., Berger, E., \& Price, P.~A.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5470, 1
1125: \bibitem[Cucchiara et al.(2007)]{cfc+07b} Cucchiara, A., Fox, D.~B., Cenko, S.~B., Berger, E., Price, P.~A., \& Radomski, J.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6665, 1
1126: \bibitem[Cusumano et al.(2005)]{cbh+05} Cusumano, G., Burrows, D.~N., Hunsberger, S., Pagani, C., La Parola, V., \& Mangano, V.\ 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 4326, 1
1127: \bibitem[D' Avanzo et al.(2008)]{d+08} D'Avanzo, P., et al. 2008, in preparation
1128: \bibitem[de Pasquale et al.(2006)]{dpg+06} de Pasquale, M., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 455, 813
1129: \bibitem[Dermer (2008)]{Dermer08} Dermer, C.d. 2008, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0703223)
1130: \bibitem[Diercks et al.(1998)]{ddc+98} Diercks, A.~H., et al.\ 1998, \apjl, 503, L105
1131: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al.(1997)]{dgm+97} Djorgovski, S.~G., et al.\ 1997, \nat, 387, 876
1132: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al.(1998)]{dkg+98} Djorgovski, S.~G., Kulkarni, S.~R., Goodrich, R., Frail, D.~A., \& Bloom, J.~S.\ 1998, GRB Coordinates Network, 137, 1
1133: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al.(1999)]{dkb+99} Djorgovski, S.~G., Kulkarni, S.~R., Bloom, J.~S., \& Frail, D.~A.\ 1999, GRB Coordinates Network, 289, 1
1134: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al.(2001)]{dfk+01} Djorgovski, S.~G., Frail, D.~A., Kulkarni, S.~R., Bloom, J.~S., Odewahn, S.~C., \& Diercks, A.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 654
1135: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al.(2003)]{dbk03} Djorgovski, S.~G., Bloom, J.~S., \& Kulkarni, S.~R.\ 2003, \apjl, 591, L13
1136: \bibitem[Donaghy et al.(2006)]{dls+06} Donaghy, T.~Q., et al.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0605570
1137: \bibitem[Eichler et al.(1989)]{elp+89} Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., \& Schramm, D.~N.\ 1989, \nat, 340, 126
1138: \bibitem[Evans et al.(2007)]{ebp+07} Evans, P.~A., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 469, 379
1139: \bibitem[Fox et al.(2005)]{ffp+05} Fox, D.~B., et al.\ 2005, \nat, 437, 845
1140: \bibitem[Freedman \& Waxman(2001)]{FW01} Freedman, D.L., \& Waxman, E. 2001, \apj, 547, 922
1141: \bibitem[Fruchter et al.(1999)]{ftm+99} Fruchter, A.~S., et al.\ 1999, \apjl, 519, L13
1142: \bibitem[Fruchter et al.(2006)]{fls+06} Fruchter, A.~S., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 441, 463
1143: \bibitem[Fukazawa et al.(2006)]{fbp+06} Fukazawa, Y., Botoya-Nonesa, J.~G., Pu, J., Ohto, A., \& Kawano, N.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 698
1144: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2006)]{fwt+06} Fynbo, J.~P.~U.\ et al.\ 2006, \nat, 444, 1047
1145: \bibitem[Galama et al.(1997)]{ggv+97} Galama, T., et al. 1997, \nat, 387, 479
1146: \bibitem[Galama et al.(1998a)]{gvg+98} Galama, T., et al.,\ 1998a, GRB Coordinates Network, 62, 1
1147: \bibitem[Galama et al.(1998b)]{gwb+98} Galama, T., et al.,\ 1998b, \apj, 500L, 101
1148: \bibitem[Galama \& Wijers(2001)]{gw01} Galama, T.~J., \& Wijers, R.~A.~M.~J.\ 2001, \apjl, 549, L209
1149: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.(2005)]{gso+05} Gehrels, N., et al.\ 2005, \nat, 437, 851
1150: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.(2008)]{g+08} Gehrels, N., et al. 2008, \apj, 189, 1161
1151: \bibitem[Grindlay et al.(2006)]{gpm06} Grindlay, J., Portegies Zwart, S. \& McMillan, S., Nature Physics, 2, 116
1152: \bibitem[Golenetskii et al.(2007)]{gam+07b} Golenetskii, S., Aptekar, R., Mazets, E., Pal'Shin, V., Frederiks, D., \& Cline, T.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6671, 1
1153: \bibitem[Gorosabel et al.(1999)]{gcp+99} Gorosabel, J., et al.\ 1999, \aaps, 138, 455
1154: \bibitem[Gorosabel et al.(2005)]{gps+05} Gorosabel, J., et al.\ 2005, \aap, 444, 711
1155: \bibitem[Graham et al.(2007)]{gfl+07} Graham, J.~F., Fruchter, A.~S., Levan, A.~J., Nysewander, M., Tanvir, N.~R., Dahlen, T., Bersier, D., \& Pe'Er, A.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6836, 1
1156: \bibitem[Groot et al.(1997a)]{ggv+97c} Groot, P.~J., et al.\ 1997a, \iaucirc, 6616, 2
1157: \bibitem[Groot et al.(1997b)]{ggv+97b} Groot, P.~J. et al.\ 1997b, GRB Coordinates Network, 17, 1
1158: \bibitem[Groot et al.(1998a)]{ggv+98} Groot, P.~J., et al.\ 1998a, \apjl, 493, L27
1159: \bibitem[Groot et al.(1998b)]{ggv+98b} Groot, P.~J., et al.\ 1998b, \apjl, 502, L123
1160: \bibitem[Grupe et al.(2006)]{gbp+06} Grupe, D., Burrows, D.~N., Patel, S.~K., Kouveliotou, C., Zhang, B., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., Wijers, R.~A.~M., \& Gehrels, N.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 462
1161: \bibitem[Guidorzi et al.(2005)]{gms+05} Guidorzi, C., et al.\ 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 4356, 1
1162: \bibitem[Guidorzi et al.(2007)]{gsc+07} Guidorzi, C., et al.\ 2007, GCNR, 77, 1 (2007), 77, 1
1163: \bibitem[Halpern et al.(2005a)]{htt+05} Halpern, J.~P., Tonnesen, S., Tuttle, S., \& Mirabal, N.\ 2005a, GRB Coordinates Network, 4202, 1
1164: \bibitem[Harrison et al.(1999)]{hbf+99} Harrison, F.~A., et al.\ 1999, \apjl, 523, L121
1165: \bibitem[Hjorth et al.(2002)]{htn+02} Hjorth, J., et al.\ 2002, \apj, 576, 113
1166: \bibitem[Hjorth et al.(2003a)]{hsm+03} Hjorth, J., et al.\ 2003a, \nat, 423, 847
1167: \bibitem[Hjorth et al.(2005)]{hwf+05} Hjorth, J., et al.\ 2005, \nat, 437, 859
1168: \bibitem[Holland et al.(2005)]{hbb+05} Holland, S.~T., Barthelmy, S., Beardmore, A., Gehrels, N., Kennea, J., Page, K., Palmer, D., \& Rosen, S.\ 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 4034, 1
1169: \bibitem[Holland et al.(2007)]{hdm07} Holland, S.~T., de Pasquale, M., \& Markwardt, C.~B.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 7145, 1
1170: \bibitem[Huang et al.(2005)]{huf+05} Huang, K.~Y., et al. 2005, \apjl, 628, L93
1171: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2000a)]{hcf+00} Hurley, K., Cline, T., Frontera, F., Guidorzi, C., Montanari, E., Mazets, E., \& Golenetskii, S.\ 2000a, GRB Coordinates Network, 895, 1
1172: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2000b)]{hcm+00c} Hurley, K., Cline, T., Mazets, E., \& Golenetskii, S.\ 2000b, GRB Coordinates Network, 865, 1
1173: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2001)]{hcm+01} Hurley, K., Cline, T., Mazets, E., \& Golenetskii, S.\ 2001, GRB Coordinates Network, 916, 1
1174: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2002a)]{hcm+02} Hurley, K., et al.\ 2002a, GRB Coordinates Network, 1409, 1
1175: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2002b)]{hcm+02b} Hurley, K., et al.\ 2002b, GRB Coordinates Network, 1719, 1
1176: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2006)]{jfl+06} Jakobsson, P., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 460, L13
1177: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2007)]{jfl+07} Jakobsson, P., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 406, 13
1178: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2007)]{jrh+07} Johnson, S., et al.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6218, 1
1179: \bibitem[Kann et al.(2007)]{kkz+07} Kann, D.~A., et al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 712, arXiv:0712.2186
1180: \bibitem[Kann et al.(2009)]{Kann08} Kann, D. A., \etal 2008, \apj, submitted (arXiv:0804.1959)
1181: \bibitem[Kocevski \& Bloom(2007)]{kb07} Kocevski, D., \& Bloom, J.~S.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 7107, 1
1182: \bibitem[Lamb et al.(2002)]{lsv+02} Lamb, D.~Q., et al.\ 2002, GRB Coordinates Network, 1403, 1
1183: \bibitem[Le Floc'h et al.(2003)]{ldm+03} Le Floc'h, E., et al.\ 2003, \aap, 400, 499
1184: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2005)]{lrg05} Lee, W.~H., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., \& Granot, J.\ 2005, \apjl, 630, L165
1185: \bibitem[Levan et al.(2006a)]{lfr+06} Levan, A., et al.\ 2006a, \apj, 647, 471
1186: \bibitem[Levan et al.(2006b)]{ltf+06} Levan, A.~J., et al.\ 2006b, \apjl, 648, L9
1187: \bibitem[Levan et al.(2007)]{ltb+07} Levan, A.~J., et al.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6603, 1
1188: \bibitem[Levan et al.(2008)]{ltj+08} Levan, A.~J., et al.\ 2008, \mnras, 384, 541
1189: \bibitem[Levesque \& Kewley (2007)]{lk07} Levesque, E.~M., \& Kewley, L.~J., 2007 \apjl 667, 121
1190: \bibitem[Liang et al.(2007)]{lzv+07} Liang, E., Zhang, B., Virgili, F., \& Dai, Z.~G.\ 2007, \apj, 662, 1111
1191: \bibitem[Malesani et al.(2007)]{mcd+07} Malesani, D., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 473, 77
1192: \bibitem[Marshall et al.(1998)]{mt98} Marshall, F.~E., Takeshima, T. \ 2000, GRB Coordinates Network, 58, 1
1193: \bibitem[Marshall et al.(2007a)]{mbb+07d} Marshall, F.~E., Barthelmy, S.~D., Burrows, D.~N., Chester, M.~M., Cummings, J., Evans, P.~A., Roming, P., \& Gehrels, N.\ 2007a, GCNR, 80, 1 (2007), 80, 1
1194: \bibitem[Marshall et al.(2007b)]{mbb2+07} Marshall, F.~E., Barthelmy, S.~D., Brown, P.~J., Burrows, D.~N., Cummings, J., Roming, P., Starling, R., \& Gehrels, N.\ 2007b, GCNR, 81, 1 (2007), 81, 1
1195: \bibitem[McBreen et al.(2007)]{mtc+07} McBreen, S., et al.\ 2007, GCNR, 46, 2 (2007), 46, 2
1196: \bibitem[M\'esz\'aros (2006)]{Mes06} M\'esz\'aros, P. 2006, Rep. Prog. Phys., 69, 2259
1197: \bibitem[M\'esz\'aros \& Rees (1997)]{MR97} M\'esz\'aros, P., \& Rees, M.J. 1997, \apj, 476, 232
1198: \bibitem[Metzger et al.(1997)]{mdk+97} Metzger, M.~R., Djorgovski, S.~G., Kulkarni, S.~R., Steidel, C.~C., Adelberger, K.~L., Frail, D.~A., Costa, E., \& Frontera, F.\ 1997, \nat, 387, 878
1199: \bibitem[Mineo(2005)]{mtm+05} Mineo, T., Tagliaferri, G., Malesani, D., Giommi, P., Burrows, D., Fox, D., Chincarini, G., \& Page, K.\ 2005, GRBCoordinates Network, 4195, 1
1200: \bibitem[Mirabal et al.(2005)]{mhg+05} Mirabal, N., Halpern, J.~P., Gotthelf, E.~V., \& Mukherjee, R.\ 2005, \apj, 620, 379
1201: \bibitem[Murakami et al.(1997)]{muy+97} Murakami, T., Ueda, Y., Yoshida, A., Kawai, N., Marshall, F.~E., Corbet, R.~H.~D., \& Takeshima, T.\ 1997, \iaucirc, 6732, 1
1202: \bibitem[Nakar(2007)]{n07} Nakar, E.\ 2007, \physrep, 442, 166
1203: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(1992)]{npp92} Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., \& Piran, T.\ 1992, \apjl, 395, L83
1204: \bibitem[Nysewander et al.(2002)]{nmj+02} Nysewander, M., Moran, J., Johnson, L., Moschler, D., Reichart, D., \& Henden, A.\ 2002, GRB Coordinates Network, 1760, 1
1205: \bibitem[Ofek et al.(2007)]{ocg+07} Ofek, E.~O.. et al.\ 2007, \apj, 662 11290
1206: \bibitem[Paciesas et al.(1999)]{pmp+99} Paciesas, W.~S., et al.\ 1999, \apjs, 122, 465
1207: \bibitem[Paczynski(1998)]{Pac98} Paczy\'nski, B. 1998, \apj, 494, L45
1208: \bibitem[Pagani et al.(2005)]{plb+05} Pagani, C., La Parola, V., \& Burrows, D.~N.\ 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 3934, 1
1209: \bibitem[Page et al.(2006a)]{pkl+06} Page, K.~L., et al.\ 2006a,
1210: \apjl, 637, L13
1211: \bibitem[Panaitescu (2006)]{Pan06} Panaitescu, A. 2006, \mnras, 367, L42
1212: \bibitem[Panaitescu \& Kumar (2001)]{PK01} Panaitescu, A. \& Kumar, P. 2000, \apj, 543, 66
1213: \bibitem[Panaitescu \& Kumar (2002)]{pk02} Panaitescu, A. \& Kumar, P. 2002, \apj, 571, 779
1214: \bibitem[Panaitescu et al.(2001)]{pkn01} Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P., \& Narayan, R.\ 2001, \apjl, 561, L171
1215: \bibitem[Parsons, Ramirez-Ruiz \& Lee(2009)]{prl09} Parson, R.~K., Ramirez-Ruiz, E. \& Lee, W.~H., 2009, \apj, submitted (astro-ph/0904.1768)
1216: \bibitem[Pe'er \& Waxman (2005)]{PW05} Pe'er, A., \& Waxman, E. 2005, \apj, 633, 1018
1217: \bibitem[Pe'er \& Wijers (2006)]{PWi05} Pe'er, A., \& Wijers, R.A.M.J. 2006, \apj, 643, 1036
1218: \bibitem[Pellizza et al.(2006)]{pdl+06} Pellizza, L.~J., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 459, L5
1219: \bibitem[Perley et al.(2007a)]{ptb07} Perley, D.~A., Thoene, C.~C., \& Bloom, J.~S.\ 2007a, GRB Coordinates Network, 6774, 1
1220: \bibitem[Perri et al.(2007a)]{psf+07} Perri, M., Stratta, G., Fenimore, E., Schady, P., Barthelmy, S.~D., Burrows, D.~N., Roming, P., \& Gehrels, N.\ 2007a, GCNR, 103, 1 (2007), 103, 1
1221: \bibitem[Piranomonte et al.(2006)]{pcm+06b} Piranomonte, S., Covino, S., Malesani, D., Tagliaferri, G., Chincarini, G., \& Stella, L.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5392, 1
1222: \bibitem[Piranomonte et al.(2007)]{pvd+07} Piranomonte, S., Vergani, S., D'Avanzo, P., \& Tagliaferri, G.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6612, 1
1223: \bibitem[Perley et al.(2007)]{pbm+07} Perley, D.~A., Bloom, J.~S., Modjaz, M., Poznanski, D., \& Thoene, C.~C.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 7140, 1
1224: \bibitem[Price et al.(2000)]{pas00c} Price, P.~A., Axelrod, T.~S., \& Schmidt, B.~P.\ 2000, GRB Coordinates Network, 898, 1
1225: \bibitem[Price et al.(2001a)]{pmb01} Price, P.~A., Morrison, G., \& Bloom, J.~S.\ 2001a, GRB Coordinates Network, 919, 1
1226: \bibitem[Price et al.(2001b)]{pas+01} Price, P.~A., Axelrod, T.~S., Schmidt, B.~P., \& Reichart, D.~E.\ 2001b, GRB Coordinates Network, 1020, 1
1227: \bibitem[Price et al.(2002)]{psa02b} Price, P.~A., Schmidt, B.~P., \& Axelrod, T.~S.\ 2002, GRB Coordinates Network, 1410, 1
1228: \bibitem[Price et al.(2006)]{pbf+06b} Price, P.~A., Berger, E., Fox, D.~B., Cenko, S.~B., \& Rau, A.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5077, 1
1229: \bibitem[Ramirez-Ruiz et al.(2002)]{rlb02} Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Lazzati, D., \& Blain, A.\ 2002, \apjl, 565, 9
1230: \bibitem[Reichart et al.(1999)]{rlm+99} Reichart, D.~E., et al.\ 1999, \apj, 517, 692
1231: \bibitem[Rhoads (2009)]{Rhoads09} Rhoads, J. 2009, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0807.2642)
1232: \bibitem[Rol et al.(2007)]{rvw+07} Rol, E., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 669, 1098
1233: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2005)]{slk+05} Sakamoto, T., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 629, 311
1234: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2008)]{sbb+08} Sakamoto, T., et al.\ 2008, \apjs, 175, 179
1235: \bibitem[Sari \& Esin (2001)]{SE01} Sari, R., \& Esin, A. 2001,\apj, 548, 787
1236: \bibitem[Sari et al.(1998)]{spn98} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Narayan, R.\ 1998, \apjl, 497, L17
1237: \bibitem[Schady et al.(2007)]{smp+07} Schady, P., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 273
1238: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{sfd98} Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1239: \bibitem[Shu et al.(1987)]{sal87} Shu, F.~H., Adams, F.~C., \& Lizano, S.\ 1987, \araa, 25, 23
1240: \bibitem[Sokolov et al.(2001)]{sfc+01} Sokolov, V.~V., et al.\ 2001, \aap, 372, 438
1241: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2004a)]{sdh+04} Soderberg, A., Djorgovski, S.~G., Halpern, J.~P., \& Mirabal, N.\ 2004a, GRB Coordinates Network, 2837, 1
1242: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2004b)]{skb+04} Soderberg, A.~M., et al.\ 2004b, \nat, 430, 648
1243: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2006a)]{sbk+06} Soderberg, A.~M., et al.\ 2006a, \apj, 650, 261
1244: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2006b)]{skn+06} Soderberg, A.~M., et al.\ 2006b, \nat, 442, 1014
1245: \bibitem[Stanek et al.(2003)]{smg+03} Stanek, K.~Z., et al.\ 2003, \apjl, 591, L17
1246: \bibitem[Starling et al.(2007)]{sop+07} Starling, R., Osborne, J.~P., Page, K.~L., \& Marshall, F.~E.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6852, 1
1247: \bibitem[Starling et al.(2008)]{shr+08} Starling, R.~L.~C., et al.\ 2008, \aap, 481,319
1248: \bibitem[Stratta et al.(2007a)]{sbb+07c} Stratta, G., et al.\ 2007a, \aap, 461, 485
1249: \bibitem[Stratta et al.(2007b)]{sdp+07b} Stratta, G., et al.\ 2007b, \aap, 474, 827
1250: \bibitem[Stratta et al.(2007c)]{spc+07} Stratta, G., Perri, M., Conciatore, M., Burrows, D., \& Sato, G.\ 2007c, GRB Coordinates Network, 6119, 1
1251: \bibitem[Tinney et al.(1998)]{tsc+98} Tinney, C., et al.\ 1998, \iaucirc, 6896, 1
1252: \bibitem[Troja et al.(2008)]{tko+08} Troja, E., King, A.~R., O'Brien, P.~T., Lyons, N., \& Cusumano, G.\ 2008, \mnras, L5
1253: \bibitem[van den Heuvel(2007)]{vdh07} van den Heuvel, E.~P.~J.\ 2007, AIP Conf. Proceedings, 924, 598 (astro-ph/0704.1215)
1254: \bibitem[Villasenor et al.(2005)]{vil+05} Villasenor, J.~S., et al.\ 2005, \nat, 437, 855
1255: \bibitem[Vrba et al.(2000)]{vhc+00} Vrba, F.~J., et al.\ 2000, \apj, 528, 254
1256: \bibitem[Vreeswijk et al.(1999)]{vgo+99} Vreeswijk, P.~M., et al.\ 1999, \apj, 523, 171
1257: \bibitem[Watson et al.(2006)]{wfl+06} Watson, D., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1011
1258: \bibitem[Waxman(1997)]{W97} Waxman, E. 1997, \apj, 491, L19
1259: \bibitem[Wiersema et al.(2008)]{w+08} Wiersema, K., et al. 2008, in preparation
1260: %\bibitem[Wijers \etal (1997)]{WRM97} Wijers, R.A.M.J., Rees, M.J., \& M\'esz\'aros, P. 1997, \mnras, 288, L51
1261: \bibitem[Woosley (1993)]{Woosley93} Woosley, S. 1993, \apj, 405, 273
1262: \bibitem[Woosley \& Bloom(2006)]{bw06} Woosley, S.~E., \& Bloom, J.~S.\ 2006, \araa, 44, 507
1263: \bibitem[Xin et al.(2007)]{xzq+07} Xin, L.~P., Zhai, M., Qiu, Y.~L., Wei, J.~Y., Hu, J.~Y., Deng, J.~S., Urata, Y., \& Zheng, W.~K.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6747, 1
1264: \bibitem[Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros (2001)]{ZM01} Zhang, B., \& M\'es\'aros, P. 2001, \apj, 559, 110
1265: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(2007)]{zzq+07} Zheng, W.~K., et al.\ 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6250, 1
1266: \bibitem[Ziaeepour et al.(2007a)]{zbp+07} Ziaeepour, H., Barthelmy, S.~D., Parsons, A., Page, K.~L., de Pasquale, M., \& Schady, P.\ 2007a, GCNR, 74, 2 (2007), 74, 2
1267: \end{thebibliography}
1268:
1269: \clearpage
1270:
1271: %% FIGURES
1272: \begin{figure}
1273: \plotone{f1.eps}
1274: \caption{A compilation of the X-ray afterglow temporal indices of the
1275: two populations and presents the best-fit Gaussian distribution to
1276: each data set. We include only afterglow indices of bursts with a
1277: rapid XRT detection and with data extending to at least 11 hours.
1278: The solid line indicates SGRBs; the dashed indicates LGRBs. The
1279: plot has been normalized by the sum of the bursts used: 11 short and
1280: 136 long bursts.
1281: }
1282: \label{xray_slope_histo}
1283: \end{figure}
1284:
1285: \begin{figure}
1286: \plotone{f2.eps}
1287: \caption{A compilation of all short and long burst optical afterglow
1288: indices and the best Gaussian fits to the distributions. We include
1289: only afterglow data that have light curves extending from at most
1290: three hours to at least eleven hours. The solid line indicates
1291: SGRBs; the dashed indicates LGRBs. The plot has been normalized by
1292: the sum of bursts used: 5 short and 81 long.
1293: }
1294: \label{opt_slope_histo}
1295: \end{figure}
1296:
1297: \begin{figure}
1298: \plotone{f3.eps}
1299: \caption{A plot of the optical $R$-band flux (corrected for Galactic
1300: extinction) at eleven hours (observed frame) versus prompt 15--150 keV $\gamma$-ray
1301: fluence for both long (grey) and short (red) bursts. Note that
1302: below a fluence of 10$^{-7}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$, no optical afterglow of
1303: an SGRB has been discovered, while above 10$^{-7}$, all reasonably
1304: deep observing campaigns but one (GRB 061210) have detected an
1305: optical afterglow. }
1306: \label{fig:opt_flux}
1307: \end{figure}
1308:
1309: \begin{figure}
1310: \plotone{f4.eps}
1311: \caption{A plot of the X-ray flux at eleven hours (observed
1312: frame) versus the prompt
1313: 15--150 keV $\gamma$-ray fluence for both long (grey) and short
1314: (red) bursts. }
1315: \label{fig:X_flux}
1316: \end{figure}
1317:
1318: \begin{figure}
1319: \plotone{f5.eps}
1320: \caption{A plot of the rest-frame optical $R$-band (corrected for
1321: Galactic extinction) afterglow brightness at eleven hours (in the
1322: source frame) versus $\Egi$, the total prompt emission of the burst
1323: in gamma-rays. Dashed upper limits represent SGRBs with a host
1324: galaxy determined by XRT error circle only. The classification of
1325: GRB 060614 and GRB 060505 is uncertain, therefore they are labeled
1326: as ``Possibly short''. }
1327: \label{opt_energy}
1328: \end{figure}
1329:
1330: \begin{figure}
1331: \plotone{f6.eps}
1332: \vspace{-0.7 in}
1333: \caption{A plot of the rest-frame 5 keV X-ray afterglow brightness at
1334: eleven hours (rest frame) versus $\Egi$. The open circles
1335: represent SGRBs with a host galaxy determined by XRT error circle
1336: only. The classification of GRB 060614 and GRB 060505 is uncertain,
1337: therefore they are labeled as ``Possibly short.'' }
1338: \label{xray_energy}
1339: \end{figure}
1340:
1341: \begin{figure}
1342:
1343: \plotone{f7.eps}
1344: \caption{The ratio of the total fluence in the optical over that in
1345: the x-ray versus the $\Egi$, measured at 11 hours (source frame).
1346: Once again the short and long bursts do not appear to differ, except
1347: in their typical $\Egi$. There is no evidence in a suppression of
1348: this ratio either by a low density medium surrounding the short
1349: bursts or their lower typical $\Egi$, as would be expected from the
1350: standard theory if the synchroton frequency of the bursts were
1351: typically between the optical and X-ray. However, the observed
1352: absolute values of this ratio are hard to explain by the standard
1353: theory if this is not the case.}
1354: \label{fig:ratio}
1355: \end{figure}
1356:
1357: \begin{figure}
1358: \plotone{f8.eps}
1359: \caption{Histogram of the ratio of the observed fluxes at the optical
1360: and X-band after 11 hours (observed time). Long GRBs are marked in
1361: gray, and short ones in red. When only upper limits are known, empty
1362: boxes are drawn. Clearly, both samples show a nearly Gaussian shape in
1363: a log-normal plot, with similar means.}
1364: \label{fig:hist}
1365: \end{figure}
1366:
1367: %\begin{figure}
1368: %Figure 17
1369: %\epsscale{.80}
1370: %\plotone{grb_xE_2.pdf}
1371: %\caption{
1372: %}
1373: %\label{grb_xE_2}
1374: %\end{figure}
1375:
1376: %% TABLES
1377:
1378: \clearpage
1379:
1380: \begin{landscape}
1381:
1382: \small
1383:
1384: \begin{longtable}{p{0.45in}ccccccccccc}
1385: \caption{Observed Prompt and Afterglow Properties of Short-Duration GRBs} \\
1386: \hline \hline
1387: & & & & Fluence & Log & 11 hr & 11 hr 0.2--10 & Log \\
1388: GRB & Satellite & Channel & z & [10$^{-7}$ & E$_{\gamma, ISO}$ & $R$-band & keV [10$^{-14}$ & F$_{R}$/ & Ref. \\
1389: & & [keV] & & erg cm$^{-2}$] & [erg] & [$\mu$Jy] & erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] & F$_{X}$ & \\
1390: \endfirsthead
1391: \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\tablename} \thetable{} -- Continued} \\[0.5ex]
1392: \hline \hline
1393: & & & & Fluence & Log & 11 hr & 11 hr 0.2--10 & Log \\
1394: GRB & Satellite & Channel & z & [10$^{-7}$ & E$_{\gamma, ISO}$ & $R$-band & keV [10$^{-14}$ & F$_{R}$/ & Ref. \\
1395: & & [keV] & & erg cm$^{-2}$] & [erg] & [$\mu$Jy] & erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] & F$_{X}$ & \\
1396: \\[-1.8ex]
1397: \endhead
1398: \multicolumn{3}{l}{{Continued on Next Page\ldots}} \\
1399: \endfoot
1400: \\[-2ex] \hline \hline \\[0.6ex]
1401: {\parbox{8.3in}{\footnotesize
1402: $^\dagger$: probable redshift, $^{C}$: cluster redshift, $^{a}$ Uses estimated N$_{H}$, 1. \citet{hcm+00c},
1403: 2. \citet{cag00}, 3. \citet{hcf+00}, 4. \citet{pas00c}, 5. \citet{hcm+01}, 6. \citet{pmb01}, 7. \citet{dls+06}, 8. \citet{pas+01}, 9. \citet{slk+05}, 10. \citet{lsv+02}, 11. \citet{hcm+02}, 12. \citet{psa02b}, 13. \citet{hcm+02b}, 14. \citet{nmj+02}, 15. \citet{sbb+08}, 16. \citet{cbk+05}, 17. \citet{gso+05}, 18. \citet{bpp+06}, 19. \citet{vil+05},
1404: 20. \citet{ffp+05}, 21. \citet{g+08}, 22. \citet{mcd+07}, 23. \citet{bpc+05}, 24. \citet{ebp+07}, 25. \citet{bgs+05}, 26. \citet{b05}, 27. \citet{ltj+08}, 28. \citet{plb+05}, 29. \citet{htt+05}, 30. \citet{mtm+05}, 31. \citet{bb05}, 32. \citet{bf05}, 33. \citet{cbh+05}, 34. \citet{gms+05}, 35. \citet{sbk+06}, 36. \citet{bfp+07}, 37. \citet{ltf+06}, 38. \citet{pbf+06b}, 39. \citet{bpc+06}, 40. \citet{pcm+06b}, 41. \citet{cfb+06}, 42. \citet{d+08}, 43. \citet{sdp+07b}, 44. \citet{b07}, 45. \citet{cfp06}, 46. \citet{c06}, 47. \citet{b06}, 48. \citet{spc+07}, 49. \citet{jrh+07}, 50. \citet{mtc+07}, 51. \citet{zzq+07}, 52. \citet{hdm07}, 53. \citet{pbm+07}, 54. \citet{gam+07b},
1405: 55. \citet{pvd+07}, 56. \citet{bbc+07b}, 57. \citet{ltb+07}, 58. \citet{gfl+07}
1406: %59. \citet{zbp+07}
1407: %60. \citet{crb+07}, 61. \citet{cfc+07b}, 62. \citet{gsc+07}, 63. \citet{bk07}, 64. \citet{mbb+07d}, 65. \citet{ptb07}, 66. \citet{mbb2+07}, 67. \citet{sop+07}, 68. \citet{xzq+07}, 69. \citet{psf+07}, 70. \citet{kb07}, 71. \citet{sbb+07c}, 72. \citet{w+08}, 73. \citet{bmr07}
1408: }}
1409: \endlastfoot
1410: 001025B & {\it \small Ulysses} & 25--100 & & 2.0 & & $<382.6$ & & & {\footnotesize 1,2} \\
1411: 001204 & {\it \small Ulysses} & 25--100 & & 8.6 & & $<190.9$ & & & {\footnotesize 3,4} \\
1412: 010119 & {\it \small Ulysses} & 25--100 & & 3.2 & & $<1970.3$ & & & {\footnotesize 5,6} \\
1413: 010326B & {\it \small HETE} & 30--400 & & 3.3$\pm$0.8 & & $<26.0$ & & & {\footnotesize 7,8}\\
1414: 020531 & {\it \small HETE} & 30--400 & & 11.1$^{+1.4}_{-1.3}$ & & $<16.9$ & & & {\footnotesize 9,10}\\
1415: 020603 & {\it \small Ulysses} & 25--100 & & 60.0 & & $<708.7$ & & & {\footnotesize 11,12}\\
1416: 021201 & {\it \small Ulysses} & 25--100 & & 2.0 & & $<58.0$ & & & {\footnotesize 13,14}\\
1417: 050202 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 0.3$\pm$0.1 & & $<55.3$ & & & {\footnotesize 15, 16}\\
1418: 050509B & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.225 & 0.09$\pm$0.02 & 48.05$^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ & $<0.4$ & 2.9$\pm$1.0 & $<$2.93 & {\footnotesize 15, 17, 18}\\
1419: 050709 & {\it \small HETE} & 30--400 & 0.161 & 3.0$\pm$0.4 & 49.06$^{+0.13}_{-0.18}$ & 2.9$^{+1.2}_{-0.9}$ & 2.8$^{+2.5}_{-1.4}$ & 3.85$^{+0.31}_{-0.33}$ & {\footnotesize 19, 20}\\
1420: 050724 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.257 & 10.0$\pm$1.2 & 50.21$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & 29.1$\pm$1.1 & 20.5$\pm$6.6 & 3.98$^{+0.12}_{-0.17}$ & {\footnotesize 15, 21, 22, 23} \\
1421: 050813 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.722$^\dagger$ & 0.4$\pm$0.1 & 49.77$^{+0.10}_{-0.12}$ & $<2.6$ & 0.21$^{+1.12}_{-0.18}$ & $<$4.92 & {\footnotesize 15, 24, 25, 26} \\
1422: 050906 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 0.06$\pm$0.02 & & $<0.1$ & $<2.44^{a}$ & & {\footnotesize 15, 27, 28} \\
1423: 051105A & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 0.22$\pm$0.04 & & $<9.0$ & & & {\footnotesize 15, 29, 30}\\
1424: 051210 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.114$^{C}$ & 0.9$\pm$0.1 & 48.36$^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & $<2.1$ & 1.72$^{+6.66}_{-1.41}$ & $<$3.91 & {\footnotesize 15, 24, 31, 32} \\
1425: 051211 & {\it \small HETE} & 30--400 & & 7.2$\pm$1.2 & & $<6.4$ & & & {\footnotesize 7, 33, 34} \\
1426: 051221A & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.546 & 11.5$\pm$0.4 & 50.95$\pm$0.01 & 7.5$^{+2.1}_{-1.6}$ & 99.4$\pm$24.5 & 2.71$^{+0.14}_{-0.16}$ & {\footnotesize 15, 21, 35} \\
1427: 051227 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 7.0$\pm$1.1 & & 0.5$\pm$0.1 & 9.3$\pm$2.5 & & {\footnotesize 15, 21, 36} \\
1428: 060121 & {\it \small HETE} & 30--400 & & 38.7$\pm$2.7 & & 1.6$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 157.0$\pm$26.4 & & {\footnotesize 7, 21, 37} \\
1429: 060313 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 11.3$\pm$0.5 & & 9.9$^{+5.5}_{-3.6}$ & 65.5$\pm$14.6 & & {\footnotesize 15, 21, 36} \\
1430: 060502B & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.287$^\dagger$ & 0.4$\pm$0.1 & 48.90$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & $<1.0$ & 1.2$^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ & $<$3.73 & {\footnotesize 15, 24, 38, 39} \\
1431: 060801 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 1.131$^\dagger$ & 0.8$\pm$0.1 & 50.43$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & $<0.5$ & 0.6$^{+2.2}_{-0.5}$ & $<$3.75 & {\footnotesize 15, 24, 40, 41} \\
1432: 061006 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.438 & 14.2$\pm$1.4 & 50.84$^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ & 6.0$\pm$0.4 & 34.4$\pm$8.9 & 3.07$^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$ & {\footnotesize 15, 21, 36, 42} \\
1433: 061201 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.084$^{C}$ & 3.3$\pm$0.3 & 48.68$^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ & 2.0$\pm$0.2 & 24.9$\pm$7.7 & 2.73$^{+0.13}_{-0.17}$ & {\footnotesize 15, 21, 43, 44} \\
1434: 061210 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.410$^\dagger$ & 11.1$\pm$1.8 & 50.67$^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & $<0.7$ & 580.8$^{+581.3}_{-335.2}$ & $<$0.93 & {\footnotesize 15, 24, 36, 45} \\
1435: 061217 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.827$^\dagger$ & 0.4$\pm$0.1 & 49.88$^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & $<2.5$ & 0.2$^{+0.7}_{-0.1}$ & $<$5.00 & {\footnotesize 15, 24, 46, 47} \\
1436: 070209 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 0.2$\pm$0.1 & & $<13.6$ & $<$1.2 & & {\footnotesize 15, 48, 49} \\
1437: 070406 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 0.4$\pm$0.1 & & $<67.2$ & $<34.6$ & & {\footnotesize 15, 50, 51} \\
1438: 070429B & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.904 & 0.6$\pm$0.1 & 50.13$^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ & $<0.3$ & 4.5$^{+10.7}_{-3.4}$ & $<$2.72 & {\footnotesize 15, 24, 52, 53} \\
1439: 070707 & {\it \small Konus-Wind} & 20--2000 & & 14.1$^{+1.6}_{-10.7}$ & & 2.4$^{+0.8}_{-0.6}$ & 43.3$\pm$9.3 & & {\footnotesize 54, 24, 55} \\
1440: 070714B & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.922 & 7.2$\pm$0.9 & 51.21$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & 2.9$^{+1.1}_{-0.9}$ & 13.6$\pm$3.0 & 3.16$^{+0.17}_{-0.19}$ & {\footnotesize 56, 21, 57, 58} \\
1441: 070724A & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.457$^\dagger$ & 0.3$\pm$0.1 & 49.20$^{+0.09}_{-0.12}$ & $<0.2$ & 24.2$\pm$10.9 & $<$1.82 & {\footnotesize 59, 21, 60, 61}\\
1442: 070729 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 1.0$\pm$0.2 & & $<5.4$ & 1.7$\pm$1.2 & & {\footnotesize 62, 24, 63} \\
1443: 070809 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 1.0$\pm$0.1 & & 0.9$\pm$0.2 & 13.6$\pm$3.0 & & {\footnotesize 64, 21, 65} \\
1444: 070810B & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 0.12$\pm$0.03 & & $<2.0$ & $<0.9^{a}$ & & {\footnotesize 66, 67, 68} \\
1445: 071112B & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & & 0.5$\pm$0.1 & & $<1.5$ & $<4.2$ & & {\footnotesize 69, 70} \\
1446: 071227 & {\it Swift} & 15--150 & 0.384 & 2.3$\pm$0.3 & 49.91$\pm$0.06 & 2.2$^{+0.9}_{-0.7}$ & 2.6$\pm$0.7 & 3.77$^{+0.18}_{-0.21}$ & {\footnotesize 71, 21, 72, 73}\\
1447: \label{short_table}
1448: \end{longtable}
1449: \end{landscape}
1450:
1451: {\footnotesize
1452: 59. \citet{zbp+07}
1453: 60. \citet{crb+07}, 61. \citet{cfc+07b}, 62. \citet{gsc+07}, 63. \citet{bk07}, 64. \citet{mbb+07d}, 65. \citet{ptb07}, 66. \citet{mbb2+07}, 67. \citet{sop+07}, 68. \citet{xzq+07}, 69. \citet{psf+07}, 70. \citet{kb07}, 71. \citet{sbb+07c}, 72. \citet{w+08}, 73. \citet{bmr07}
1454: }
1455:
1456: \clearpage
1457:
1458: \begin{landscape}
1459:
1460: \small
1461: \begin{center}
1462: \begin{longtable}{p{0.45in}ccccccccccc}
1463: \caption{Observed Prompt and Afterglow Properties of Long-Duration GRBs} \\
1464: \hline \hline
1465: & & & & Fluence & Log & 11 hr & 11 hr 0.2--10 & F$_{R}$/ \\
1466: GRB & Satellite & Channel & z & [10$^{-7}$ & E$_{ISO}$ & $R$-band & keV [10$^{-14}$ & F$_{X}$ & Ref. \\
1467: & & [keV] & & erg cm$^{-2}$] & [erg] & [$\mu$Jy] & erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] & & \\
1468: \endfirsthead
1469: \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\tablename} \thetable{} -- Continued} \\[0.5ex]
1470: \hline \hline
1471: & & & & Fluence & Log & 11 hr & 11 hr 0.2--10 & F$_{R}$/ \\
1472: GRB & Satellite & Channel & z & [10$^{-7}$ & E$_{ISO}$ & $R$-band & keV [10$^{-14}$ & F$_{X}$ & Ref. \\
1473: & & [keV] & & erg cm$^{-2}$] & [erg] & [$\mu$Jy] & erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] & & \\
1474: \\[-1.8ex]
1475: \endhead
1476: \multicolumn{3}{l}{{Continued on Next Page\ldots}} \\
1477: \endfoot
1478: \\[-3ex] \hline \hline \\[0.1ex]
1479: {\parbox{8.5in}{\footnotesize $^{a}$: 1.6--10.0 keV, $^{b}$: 2--10 keV, $^{c}$: 0.5--6.0 keV, $^{d}$: Uses estimated N$_{H}$, 1. \citet{dpg+06} 2. \citet{cgh+97} 3. \citet{ggv+97}, 4. \citet{dkb+99}, 5. \citet{ggv+97c}, 6. \citet{dgm+97}, 7. \citet{mdk+97}, 8. \citet{pmp+99}, 9. \citet{ckp+97}, 10. \citet{gcp+99}, 11. \citet{mhg+05}, 12. \citet{sdh+04}, 13. \citet{ggv+98}, 14. \citet{muy+97}, 15. \citet{dfk+01}, 16. \citet{ddc+98}, 17. \citet{afa+99}, 18. \citet{ggv+97b}, 19. \citet{mt98}, 20. \citet{ggv+98b}, 21. \citet{rlm+99}, 22. \citet{tsc+98}, 23. \citet{gvg+98}, 24. \citet{vhc+00}, 25. \citet{dbk03}, 26. \citet{htn+02}, 27. \citet{dkg+98}, 28. \citet{vgo+99}
1480: }}
1481: \endlastfoot
1482: 970111 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & & 430$\pm$30 & & $<$33.6 & 7.5$\pm4.7^{a}$ & & {\scriptsize 1, 2} \\
1483: 970228 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & 0.695 & 64.5 & 51.91$^{+0.12}_{-0.17}$ & 22.0$^{+4.0}_{-3.5 }$ & 208.0$\pm$ $27.0^{a}$ & 2.86$^{+0.29}_{-0.15}$ & {\scriptsize 1, 3, 4} \\
1484: 970402 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & & 82.0$\pm$9.0 & & $<$44.0 & 13.5$\pm7.3^{a}$ & & {\scriptsize 1, 5} \\
1485: 970508 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & 0.835 & 14.5 & 51.42$^{+0.12}_{-0.17}$ & 6.5$^{+1.6}_{-1.3}$ & 57.2$\pm9.0^{a}$ & 2.97$^{+0.25}_{-0.21}$ & {\scriptsize 1, 6, 7} \\
1486: 970616 & {\it \small BATSE} & 20--100 & & 109.7$\pm$0.6 & & $<$14.0 & 385.8$^{+208.3b,d}_{-186.8}$ & & {\scriptsize 8, 9, 10} \\
1487: 970815 & {\it \small BATSE} & 20--100 & & 52.5$\pm$0.6 & & 14.2$^{+12.3}_{-6.7}$ & 498.9$^{+471.8b}_{-286.4}$ & & {\scriptsize 8, 11, 12} \\
1488: 970828 & {\it \small BATSE} & 20--100 & 0.958 & 700.0 & 53.23$^{+0.12}_{-0.17}$ & $<$0.6 & 198.8$^{+113.5b,d}_{-91.1}$ & $<$1.26 & {\scriptsize 13, 14, 15} \\
1489: 971214 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & 3.42 & 64.9 & 53.03$^{+0.24}_{-0.60}$ & 5.6$^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$ & 63.5$\pm9.1^{a}$ & 2.97$\pm$0.29 & {\scriptsize 1, 16} \\
1490: 971227 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & & 6.6$\pm$0.7 & & $<$5.8 & 40.4$^{+14.3a}_{-6.2}$ & & {\scriptsize 1, 17, 18} \\
1491: 980326 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & & 7.5$\pm$1.5 & & 11.9$^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$ & $<$152.6$^{b,d}$ & & {\scriptsize 1, 19, 20} \\
1492: 980329 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & & 650$\pm$50 & & 2.3$^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ & 59.9$\pm5.6^{a}$ & & {\scriptsize 1, 21} \\
1493: 980425 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & 0.009 & 28.5$\pm$5.0 & 47.47$^{+0.23}_{-0.51}$ & $<$24.6 & 28.2$\pm5.9^{a}$ & $<$3.71 & {\scriptsize 1, 22, 23} \\
1494: 980515 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & & 23.0$\pm$3.0 & & & 56.0$\pm22.0^{a}$ & & {\scriptsize 1} \\
1495: 980519 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & & 81.0$\pm$5.0 & & 62.4$^{+10.1}_{-9.0}$ & 39.0$^{+12.0a}_{-11.0}$ & & {\scriptsize 1, 24} \\
1496: 980613 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & 1.097 & 9.9 & 51.31$^{+0.24}_{-0.60}$ & 2.9$^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ & 26.0$^{+12.0a}_{-11.0}$ & 2.98$^{+0.32}_{-0.29}$ & {\scriptsize 1, 25, 26} \\
1497: 980703 & {\it \small BeppoSAX} & 40--700 & 0.966 & 300$\pm$100 & 52.69$^{+0.24}_{-0.60}$ & 35.5$^{+11.3}_{-9.2}$ & 139.9$^{+69.9a}_{-32.0}$ & 3.33$^{+0.33}_{-0.17}$ & {\scriptsize 1, 27, 28} \\
1498: \multicolumn{6}{l}{{A complete version of this Table can be found in the Electronic Supplement.}} \\
1499: \label{long_table}
1500: \end{longtable}
1501: \end{center}
1502: \end{landscape}
1503:
1504: %\begin{table}
1505: %\begin{center}
1506: %\caption{Best-fit Results of the Observed Properties of Long and Short GRBs}
1507: %\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1508: %\\
1509: %\hline\hline
1510: %& slope & zero-point & $\chi^2/dof$ & zero-point, & $\chi^2/dof$ \\
1511: %& $\alpha$ & $a$ & & w/ $\alpha = 1$ & \\
1512: %Short, optical & 1.63$\pm$0.91 & 10.66$\pm$7.52 & 0.65 & 6.74$\pm$0.17 & 0.73 \\
1513: %Long, optical & 1.00$\pm$0.11 & 6.75$\pm$0.63 & 1.31 & 6.77$\pm$0.05 & 1.31 \\
1514: %Short, X-ray & 0.80$\pm$0.25 & -7.70$\pm$1.68 & 0.61 & -6.39$\pm$0.15 & 0.66 \\
1515: %Long, X-ray & 1.01$\pm$0.08 & -6.33$\pm$0.48 & 0.90 & -6.36$\pm$0.04 & 0.90 \\
1516: %\hline
1517: %\end{tabular}
1518: %\end{center}
1519: %\label{parameters}
1520: %\end{table}
1521:
1522: \begin{table}
1523: \begin{center}
1524: \caption{Best-fit Results of the Observed Properties of Long and Short GRBs}
1525: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1526: \\
1527: \hline\hline
1528: & slope & zero-point & $\chi^2/dof$ & zero-point, & $\chi^2/dof$ \\
1529: & $\alpha$ & $a$ & & w/ $\alpha = 1$ & \\
1530: Short, optical & 1.63$\pm$0.91 & 10.66$\pm$7.52 & 0.65 & 6.74$\pm$0.17 & 0.73 \\
1531: Long, optical & 0.97$\pm$0.11 & 6.58$\pm$0.62 & 1.30 & 6.78$\pm$0.05 & 1.30 \\
1532: Short, X-ray & 1.06$\pm$0.30 & -5.94$\pm$2.02 & 0.67 & -6.33$\pm$0.16 & 0.66 \\
1533: Long, X-ray & 1.10$\pm$0.09 & -5.59$\pm$0.54 & 1.05 & -6.18$\pm$0.04 & 1.06 \\
1534: \hline
1535: \end{tabular}
1536: \end{center}
1537: \label{parameters}
1538: \end{table}
1539:
1540:
1541: %\begin{table}
1542: %\begin{center}
1543: %\caption{Best-fit Results of the Rest-Frame Properties of Long and Short GRBs}
1544: %\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1545: %\\
1546: %\hline\hline
1547: %& slope & zero-point & $\chi^2/dof$ & zero-point, & $\chi^2/dof$ \\
1548: %& $\alpha$ & $a$ & & w/ $\alpha = 1$ & \\
1549: %Short, optical & 1.05$\pm$0.26 & -24.41$\pm$13.19 & 0.31 & -21.90$\pm$0.22 & 0.31 \\
1550: %Long, optical & 0.93$\pm$0.08 & -18.22$\pm$4.29 & 0.90 & -21.68$\pm$0.07 & 0.90 \\
1551: %Short, X-ray & 0.88$\pm$0.20 & -18.91$\pm$10.12 & 0.52 & -25.17$\pm$0.20 & 0.54 \\
1552: %Long, X-ray & 1.08$\pm$0.07 & -29.22$\pm$3.90 & 1.08 & -24.88$\pm$0.07 & 1.08 \\
1553: %\hline
1554: %\end{tabular}
1555: %\end{center}
1556: %\label{parameters2}
1557: %\end{table}
1558:
1559: \begin{table}
1560: \begin{center}
1561: \caption{Best-fit Results of the Rest-Frame Properties of Long and Short GRBs}
1562: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1563: \\
1564: \hline\hline
1565: & slope & zero-point & $\chi^2/dof$ & zero-point, & $\chi^2/dof$ \\
1566: & $\alpha$ & $a$ & & w/ $\alpha = 1$ & \\
1567: Short, optical & 1.05$\pm$0.26 & -24.42$\pm$13.20 & 0.31 & -21.90$\pm$0.22 & 0.31 \\
1568: Long, optical &0.93$\pm$0.09 & -19.20$\pm$4.44 & 0.90 & -21.68$\pm$0.07 & 0.90 \\
1569: Short, X-ray & 1.00$\pm$0.21 & -25.18$\pm$10.54 & 0.71 & -25.04$\pm$0.19 & 0.71 \\
1570: Long, X-ray & 1.05$\pm$0.07 & -27.32$\pm$3.73 & 1.09 & -24.74$\pm$0.07 & 1.10 \\
1571: \hline
1572: \end{tabular}
1573: \end{center}
1574: \label{parameters2}
1575: \end{table}
1576:
1577: \end{document}
1578: