1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{times}
3: \usepackage{lscape}
4: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
5: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
6:
7: \voffset=-.915truein
8:
9: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
10: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
11:
12: %\def\space{\noalign{\medskip}}
13: \def\fun#1#2{\lower0.837ex\vbox{\baselineskip0ex\lineskip0.209ex
14: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0ex#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
15:
16:
17: \def\rh{R_{\rm h}}
18: \def\trh{t_{\rm rh}}
19: \def\pc{{\rm ~pc}}
20: \def\yr{{\rm ~yr}}
21: \def\kms{{\rm ~km~s^{-1}}}
22: \def\sec{{\rm ~sec}}
23: \def\erg{{\rm ~ erg}}
24: \def\cm{{\rm ~ cm}}
25: \def\gr{{\rm ~ g}}
26: \def\Vlasov{collisionless Boltzmann equation}
27: \def\etal{{\it et al. }}
28: \def\MSUN{\rm M_{\odot}}
29: \newcommand{\et}{et al.\ }
30: \def\degr{^\circ}
31:
32: \def\msun{M_\odot}
33: \def\msunyr{M_\odot \ {\rm yr}^{-1}}
34: \def\sles{\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle <}
35: \over {\scriptstyle\sim}$}}
36:
37: \def\sgreat{\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle >}
38: \over {\scriptstyle\sim}$}}
39: \def\Rf{\parindent=0pt\medskip\hangindent=3pc\hangafter=1}
40: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
41: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
42: \def\aprop{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun \propto}}
43: \def\pgf{\noindent\hangindent = 0.5in\hangafter=1}
44: \def\gks{}
45:
46:
47: \begin{document}
48:
49:
50: \title{Correlations of Prompt and Afterglow
51: Emission in {\it Swift} Long and Short Gamma Ray Bursts}
52: \shortauthors{GEHRELS et al.}
53: \author{
54: N.~Gehrels\altaffilmark{1},
55: S.~D.~Barthelmy\altaffilmark{1},
56: D.~N.~Burrows\altaffilmark{2},
57: J.~K.~Cannizzo\altaffilmark{1,3},
58: G.~Chincarini\altaffilmark{4,5},
59: E.~Fenimore\altaffilmark{6},
60: C.~Kouveliotou\altaffilmark{7},
61: P.~O'Brien\altaffilmark{8},
62: D.~M.~Palmer\altaffilmark{6},
63: J.~Racusin\altaffilmark{2},
64: P.~W.~A.~Roming\altaffilmark{2},
65: T.~Sakamoto\altaffilmark{1,3},
66: J.~Tueller\altaffilmark{1},
67: R.~A.~M.~J.~Wijers\altaffilmark{9},
68: B.~Zhang\altaffilmark{10}
69: }
70: \altaffiltext{1}{NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771,
71: neil.gehrels@nasa.gov}
72: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics,
73: Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16802}
74: \altaffiltext{3}{CRESST/Joint Center for Astrophysics,
75: University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250}
76: \altaffiltext{4}{INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, 1-23807 Merate, Italy}
77: \altaffiltext{5}{Universita degli studi di Milano Bicocca, 1-20126, Milano, Italy}
78: \altaffiltext{6}{Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM, 87545}
79: \altaffiltext{7}{NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center, NSSTC, VP-62,
80: 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805}
81: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK}
82: \altaffiltext{9}{Faculty of Science, Astronomical Institute ``Anton Pannekoek'',
83: University of Amsterdam, Kruislaan 403, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands}
84: \altaffiltext{10}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
85: Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154}
86:
87:
88:
89: %ABSTRACT
90:
91: \begin{abstract}
92: Correlation studies of prompt and afterglow emissions
93: from gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) between different spectral
94: bands has been difficult to do in the past because
95: few bursts had comprehensive and intercomparable afterglow
96: measurements. In this paper\footnote{to appear in The Astrophysical Journal, Dec 20, 2008, v. 689, no. 2}
97: we present a large and
98: uniform data set for correlation analysis based on bursts
99: detected by the {\it Swift} mission. For the first time, short
100: and long bursts can be analyzed and compared. It is found
101: for both classes that the optical, X-ray and gamma-ray
102: emissions are linearly correlated, but with a large spread
103: about the correlation line; stronger bursts tend to have
104: brighter afterglows, and bursts with brighter X-ray afterglow
105: tend to have brighter optical afterglow. Short bursts are,
106: on average, weaker in both prompt and afterglow emissions.
107: No short bursts are seen with extremely low optical
108: to X-ray ratio as occurs for ``dark'' long bursts.
109: Although statistics are still poor for short bursts, there is
110: no evidence yet for a subgroup of short bursts with high
111: extinction as there is for long bursts. Long bursts are
112: detected in the dark category at the same fraction as for
113: pre-{\it Swift} bursts. Interesting cases are discovered of
114: long bursts that are detected in the optical, and yet have
115: low enough optical to X-ray ratio to be classified as dark.
116: For the prompt emission, short and long bursts have different
117: average tracks on flux {\it vs} fluence plots. In {\it Swift}, GRB
118: detections tend to be fluence limited for short bursts and
119: flux limited for long events.
120: \end{abstract}
121:
122:
123: \keywords{
124: gamma rays: bursts
125: }
126:
127:
128:
129:
130:
131: \section{Introduction}
132:
133: %1. INTRODUCTION
134:
135: One of the longest enduring Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) classification
136: schemes is based on their distributions in duration and spectral
137: hardness. Both quantities seem to cluster into two separate
138: classes with the longer events (those above $\sim2$ s;
139: Kouveliotou et al. 1993) being predominantly softer while the
140: shorter ones are harder. The mechanism for the origin of the
141: GRB explosions (the central engine) appears to be quite
142: different for the two types. % (van Paradijs, Kouveliotou \& Wijers 2000,
143: %and references therein).
144: Long bursts are ascribed to the
145: core collapse to a black hole of a massive, young, rapidly
146: rotating star in the ``collapsar'' model (Woosley 1993;
147: MacFadyen \& Woosley 1999; Woosley \& Bloom 2006) which is
148: supported by observations such as the coincidence of SNe with
149: well-observed nearby GRBs (Galama et al. 1998;
150: Bloom et al. 1999; Staneck et al. 2003; Hjorth et al. 2003;
151: Pian et al. 2006).
152: %The prevalent model for short bursts suggests they are caused
153: The prevalent model for short bursts has them caused
154: by the coalescence of a binary pair of compact old stars
155: (Lattimer \& Schramm 1974; Paczy\'nski 1986; Eichler et al. 1989;
156: Mochkovitch et al. 1993; Rosswog, Ramirez-Ruiz, \& Davies 2003;
157: Oechslin, Janka, \& Marek 2007) which is supported by recent observations
158: of progenitor sites with low star formation activity
159: (Gehrels et al. 2005; Bloom et al. 2006; Fox et al. 2005;
160: Villasenor et al. 2005, Hjorth et al. 2005;
161: Barthelmy et al. 2005b; Berger et al. 2005). In both scenarios,
162: a highly-relativistic collimated outflow of particles and
163: %adiation (jet) occurs producing prompt gamma-ray emission
164: radiation occurs producing prompt gamma-ray emission
165: from shock accelerated electrons, which evolves into a
166: long-lasting afterglow from shock interactions with
167: the circumburst medium (e.g., M\'esz\'aros \& Rees 1997).
168: For short bursts there are also models for the afterglow in
169: which a radioactive wind causes emission in the first
170: day or so (Li \& Paczy\'nski 1998, Kulkarni 2005).
171:
172: Correlation studies of prompt and afterglow emission
173: are crucial for understanding their production mechanisms
174: and environmental effects. For example, Jakobsson
175: et al. (2004) developed a criterion for determining which GRBs
176: are ``dark'' bursts, by comparing the relative intensity of
177: their X-ray and optical afterglows to find what fraction of
178: bursts have high column densities.
179: Stratta et al. (2004) studied the X-ray and optical absorption
180: properties of 13 GRBs studied by {\it BeppoSax}.
181: Roming et al. (2006) and
182: Fynbo et al. (2007) expanded on previous work to include (long) bursts
183: from the {\it Swift} satellite. A more detailed work on dark bursts
184: using a broad-band spectral analysis is given by
185: Rol et al. (2005, 2007). Zhang et al. (2007) present a study
186: comparing radiative efficiencies for short and long bursts as
187: derived from a correlation analysis. Using {\it Swift} short bursts,
188: Berger (2007) compared their X-ray afterglow to their
189: gamma-ray prompt emission, and found that 20\% have anomalously
190: low X-ray to gamma ray ratios indicating very low density
191: burst sites, possibly in globular clusters, for that
192: subpopulation (see also Berger et al 2007).
193: %
194: Other correlation studies
195: have been undertaken by
196: Salmonson \& Galama (2002),
197: Firmani et al. (2006),
198: Nava et al. (2006),
199: Butler (2007), and
200: Nysewander, Fruchter, \& Pe'er (2008).
201: % are useful for
202: %determining the properties of long and short bursts, and
203: %particularly the properties of the circumburst environment.
204: An early study of X-ray afterglow properties at $t=11$ hr
205: was carried out by Piran et al. (2001).
206:
207: %To date there has not been an comprehensive analysis of the
208: %correlations for both long and short GRBs.
209: In this study we perform correlation studies using the
210: extensive data set from {\it Swift}. Sections 2 and 3 cover
211: observations and results, respectively, while in Section 4,
212: we discuss the implications of the results and in Section 5
213: the conclusions and future prospects.
214:
215: \section{Observations}
216: %2. OBSERVATIONS
217:
218: \subsection{{\it Swift} Studies}
219: %2.1 {\it Swift} Studies
220:
221: The {\it Swift} mission (Gehrels et al. 2004) has so far
222: provided {\it uniform observations
223: of prompt and afterglow emission}
224: for hundreds of GRBs. This sample is an order of magnitude
225: larger than the one previously available with e.g., the
226: {\it BeppoSAX} satellite
227: (de Pasquale et al. 2006).\footnote{see also website by J. Greiner:
228: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/$\sim$jcg/grbgen.html}
229: Further, {\it Swift} X-ray observations
230: covering time-scales from 1 minute to several days
231: after the burst are provided for the first time
232: for most every GRBs. After three years of operations,
233: our data set has now reached a critical size where
234: statistically meaningful correlations can be studied.
235:
236:
237:
238: We present here three correlation studies:
239: (1) X-ray {\it vs} optical afterglow,
240: (2) gamma-ray prompt
241: {\it vs} X-ray afterglow, and
242: (3) prompt gamma-ray peak
243: flux {\it vs} fluence.
244: All the data used in this study are listed
245: in Tables $1-4$ except that gamma-ray data are
246: listed only for
247: those bursts with, at least, an X-ray afterglow. The full list
248: of fluences and fluxes for the 193 bursts used for study (3) are
249: directly from the Sakamoto et al. (2008) tables.
250: We include all {\it Swift} bursts from January 2005
251: through July 2007 for studies (1) and (2) and through
252: February 2007 for study (3).
253: % add:
254: We adopt $T90 = 2$ s for the dividing line
255: between long and short GRBs,
256: except for ones with soft extended emission.
257: In those cases
258: the duration of the initial hard pulse was required to be
259: $<2$ s, and only that emission was used in the analysis
260: (GRB 050724, 051227, 061006, 061210, and 070714B).
261: %
262: Including the extended emission
263: in the fluence would increase it by a factor
264: $\la 2$ and would not significantly
265: change the correlations.
266:
267:
268:
269: For the X-ray {\it vs} optical afterglow study, we use the
270: methods developed by Jakobsson et al. (2004) in their
271: comparison of X-ray and optical afterglow fluxes for
272: pre-{\it Swift} bursts. In order to compare to the
273: Jakobsson et al. results, we use the same definition
274: of quantities: the X-ray flux density at 3 keV, the optical flux in the
275: $R-$band, and sampling time at 11 hr after the burst.
276: The {\it Swift} X-ray lightcurves have been found typically
277: to have complex shapes (Nousek et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2005)
278: often including a poorly understood ``plateau phase''; the use of
279: flux at 11 hr in most cases avoids sampling during
280: the plateau phase and gives a measure of the true burst afterglow.
281:
282: \subsection{X-ray Fluxes}
283: %2.2 X-ray Fluxes
284:
285: The X-ray fluxes are from measurements
286: of the {\it Swift} X-Ray Telescope
287: (XRT; Burrows et al. 2005). Our primary data product
288: for the XRT flux is the integral flux between
289: 0.3 and 10 keV corrected for absorption at low
290: energies (unabsorbed flux). This is converted
291: to the flux density at 3 keV using the measured
292: spectral index.
293: %
294: Given an integral $0.3-10$ keV X-ray flux $[I_x]=$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
295: and a
296: $0.3-10$ keV X-ray photon index $n$,
297: the flux density at 3 keV, in $\mu$Jy, is given by
298: \begin{equation}
299: f_X(3 \ {\rm keV}) = 4.13\times 10^{11} {I_x (2-n) E_0^{1-n} \over{\left( { E_2^{2-n} - E_1^{2-n} } \right) }},
300: \end{equation}
301: where $E_0= 3$ keV,
302: $E_1=0.3$ keV, and
303: $E_2=10$ keV.
304: %
305: %I used her data on flux and photon spectral index to calculate the microJy values.
306: %
307: %Here is the actual value from my spreadsheet:
308: %=N4*(1-X4)*3^(-1*X4)/(10^(1-X4) - 0.3^(1-X4))/0.00000000000242
309: %
310: %where N4 is the Jacusin flux and X4 is the energy index (photon index-1).
311: %
312: %
313: The integral fluxes, photon spectral
314: indices and flux densities are listed
315: in Tables $1-3$.
316: A 10\% systematic uncertainty was
317: added in quadrature to the measured error to account
318: for uncertainties in the shape and variability of the lightcurves.
319:
320:
321: The integral flux calculation was carried out as follows
322: (see J. Racusin et al. 2008, in preparation,
323: for a more detailed discussion of the method).
324: Level 1 data products were downloaded from
325: the NASA/GSFC {\it Swift} Data Center (SDC) and
326: processed using XRTDAS software (v2.0.1). The
327: {\tt xrtpipeline} task was used to generate
328: level 2 cleaned event files. Only events with
329: Windowed Timing (WT) mode grades $0-2$ and
330: Photon Counting (PC) mode grades $0-12$ and energies
331: between $0.3-10.0$ keV were used in subsequent
332: temporal and spectral analysis.
333:
334: The XRT light curves were created by extracting
335: the counts in a circular region around
336: the GRB afterglow with a variable source
337: radius designed to optimize the $S/N$ depending
338: on the count rate. They were background subtracted,
339: pile-up corrected where applicable,
340: exposure map corrected, and corrected for
341: the fraction of the PSF excluded by the extraction region.
342: The number of counts per bin is variable and dependent
343: on the count rate. Time intervals of significant
344: flaring were removed from the light curves and
345: they were fit to power-laws, broken power-laws, and
346: multiply broken power-law.
347: Using these temporal fits, we
348: interpolated the count rate at 11 hr.
349:
350: Spectra for the power-law segments of the light curves
351: were extracted individually to limit contamination
352: by potential spectral variability. The segment used
353: for the counts to flux conversion was that
354: at 11 hr. The spectra were created by extracting
355: the counts in a 20 pixel radius extraction region and
356: a 40 pixel radius background region.
357: The Ancillary Response Files were made using the {\tt xrtmkarf}
358: task and grouped with 20 counts per bin using the
359: {\tt grppha} task. The spectra were fit in XSPEC to absorbed
360: power-laws and used to measure the $0.3-10$ keV flux and
361: count rate which was applied to the interpolated count
362: rate to convert into flux units.
363:
364:
365:
366: \subsection{Optical and Gamma Ray Fluxes}
367: %2.3 Optical and Gamma Ray Fluxes
368:
369: The optical fluxes are from measurements by ground-based
370: telescopes and from the {\it Swift} UV Optical Telescope
371: (UVOT; Roming et al. 2005). An extensive literature search was done
372: to find the best optical data for each burst. Bursts were included
373: in the study if measurements were available within a factor of 2 of
374: 11 hr (i.e., at $>5.5$ hr or $<22$ hr). The value at 11 hr was
375: estimated by interpolations and extrapolations when measurements
376: were not available exactly at 11 hr. The correction applied to the $R$
377: data for $t_{\rm obs}\ne$ 11 hr was
378: $\Delta m_R = -2.5\log_{10}(t_{\rm obs}/11. \ {\rm hr})$.
379: The one exception to the
380: factor of 2 criterion was GRB 070508 with measurements to only 4 hr,
381: which was included because it appears to be an interesting
382: dark burst candidate. A few bursts are listed with optical
383: flux upper limits at the bottom of Table 2. This is not an
384: exhaustive list of optical limits, but only those with low optical
385: to X-ray ratio limits. A 10\% systematic uncertainty was added in
386: quadrature to the measured error to account for uncertainties in
387: the shape and variability of the lightcurves.
388:
389:
390: Galactic extinction was taken into account
391: using the study of
392: Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis (1998).\footnote{http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/calculator.html}
393: For the precise sky map positions
394: we utilize the XRT localizations.
395: For each data source reference,
396: a determination had to be made as to whether the
397: galactic correction had already been made. (For the GCN entries, it
398: was always assumed the correction had not been made.)
399: For most of the GRBs, the $R$ band correction is small (a few tenths
400: of a magnitude). The exceptions from Table 1 are
401: 050724 ($\Delta m_R = 1.64$)
402: % 051227 ($\Delta m_R = 3.66$),
403: and
404: 061006 ($\Delta m_R = 0.85$);
405: the exceptions from Table 2 are
406: 050713B ($\Delta m_R = 1.249$) and
407: 070704 ($\Delta m_R = 5.014$).
408: Corrections this large are highly uncertain due to
409: the patchiness in extinction in the Galactic plane.
410:
411:
412:
413: Our sample contains three GRBs with redshift values
414: large enough ($z\simeq4$) so that Lyman blanketing may affect the $R-$band fluxes.
415: For these bursts $-$
416: 050730, $z=3.97$;
417: 060206, $z=4.05$; and
418: 060210, $z=3.91$ $-$ %all have $z\la4$
419: the expected redshifting of the Lyman series $(1+z)\simeq5$.
420: % Thus %, e.g.,
421: For Ly$\alpha$, $1215.7 \AA \ \rightarrow \ \sim 6080 \AA$
422: and for
423: Ly$\infty$, $911.3 \AA \ \rightarrow \ \sim 4560 \AA$.
424: Thus the effect of the redshifted absorption is to
425: % would not be expected to significantly
426: impact the blue edge of the $R-$band filter
427: $\lambda_R \approx 6600 \pm 800 \AA$.
428: The $R-$band fluxes for the three highest $z$ bursts
429: (indicated by circles in Fig. 1)
430: scatter about the mean $R-$band flux line, however,
431: rather than being concentrated
432: at low $F_R$ values as would have been expected had blanketing been an
433: issue.
434: Although for $z=4$ the Ly$\alpha$ feature will be shifted redward of the
435: $\sim 6000 \AA$ (skew-symmetric)
436: peak of the $R$ filter, the centroid and FWHM of the filter
437: still predict the bulk of the filter response
438: to lie redward of most of the Lyman series,
439: which would be most dominant for $z=4$ at $\lambda < 6000 \AA$
440: (e.g.,
441: for the Cousins [Bessell 90] $R_C$ filter,
442: $\lambda_{\rm eff}=6588 \AA$ and $\Delta\lambda_{\rm FWHM} =1568 \AA$ $-$
443: Fukugita, Shimasaku, \& Ichikawa 1995, see their Table 9).
444: The absorptive effect would likely warrant a corrective multiplicative factor $\la1.5$,
445: which is small
446: given the $\sim 5$ decade spread in $F_R$ for Figure 1. Therefore we do not
447: attempt to correct $F_R$ for redshifted
448: Lyman absorption for these three high-z bursts.% indicated in Fig. 1.
449:
450:
451:
452: \begin{figure}
453: \centering
454: \epsscale{1.205}
455: \plotone{f1.ps}
456: \vskip -2cm
457: \figcaption{
458: The
459: % X-ray afterglow
460: optical afterglow
461: {\it vs}
462: %optical afterglow
463: X-ray afterglow
464: flux densities of {\it Swift}
465: short (shown in red) and long (shown in blue) GRBs
466: at 11 hr after the burst. The three circled bursts are those
467: for which $z>3.9$.
468: Also plotted are the pre-{\it Swift}
469: GRBs (shown in green) taken from Jakobsson et al (2004).
470: For the Jakobsson et al subsample with upper limits,
471: we only plot those bursts for which the limiting magnitude
472: is fainter than $m_R=23$ (i.e., $\sim2$ $\mu$Jy).
473: The XRT X-ray flux densities
474: are at 3 keV and the optical flux densities are in the $R-$band
475: (see Table 1 and 2). Also shown is the ``dark'' burst
476: separation line $\beta_{OX} = 0.5$ (Jakobsson et al 2004),
477: and a line indicating $\beta_{OX} = 1.0$.
478: \label{fig1}}
479: \smallskip
480: \end{figure}
481:
482:
483:
484: The gamma-ray fluences and peak fluxes are in the $15-150$ keV band
485: and are from the {\it Swift} Burst Alert Telescope
486: (BAT; Barthelmy et al. 2005a) as compiled in the BAT GRB catalog
487: (Sakamoto et al. 2008). For the gamma-ray flux needed in
488: study (3), we use 1 s binning as quoted by Sakamoto et al. (2008).
489:
490:
491: \subsection{Correlation Analysis}
492: %2.4 Correlation Analysis
493:
494: For each study, we have performed fits to the two-parameter correlation
495: data using the Spearman rank test (Spearman 1904; Press et al. 1986) and derived
496: the correlation coefficient, $r$, to determine the degree and significance
497: of the correlation. Upper limits were not included in the fits.
498: In the Spearman rank test, the probability
499: of a null correlation, $P_{\rm null}$, is given by
500: \begin{equation}
501: P_{\rm null} = {\rm erfc} [r (N/2)^{1/2}]
502: \end{equation}
503: where $N$ is the number of data points. The significance of
504: the correlation is $P_{\rm cor} = 1 - P_{\rm null}$.
505: The fraction of the observed spread of the data that
506: can be explained by the correlation is given by $r^2$.
507: The fit parameters and correlation $r$ values are listed in Table 4.
508: %
509: Equation (2) only applies in the limit of $N$ large ($\ga10-20$).
510: For $N\simeq1-10$, the concept of applying a significance criterion
511: to a correlation study begins to lose its
512: meaning.\footnote{This can be seen
513: in the limit $N\rightarrow 2$
514: where one considers two data points $(x_1,y_1)$ and
515: $(x_2,y_2)$. In this example
516: $r\equiv 1$,
517: so the statement ``$r=1$''
518: carries no information and has no significance.}
519: Therefore, although
520: for completeness
521: we list $r$ and $P_{\rm null}$ values for
522: cases with small $N$, we stress that %one cannot place any
523: %significance nor draw any conclusions based on these values.
524: they are only indicative of trends in those cases. % and not accurate.
525: %
526: % One could in principle simulate the data using Monte Carlo techniques
527: % in the small $N$ limit, and assign significance values based on
528: % general, Bayesian considerations.
529:
530:
531:
532: \section{Results}
533: %3. RESULTS
534:
535: \subsection{X-ray and Optical Afterglow Correlations}
536: %3.1 X-ray and Optical Afterglow Correlations
537:
538: Figure 1 shows the {\it Swift} X-ray afterglow average
539: flux density
540: at 3 keV as a function of the
541: $R-$band optical flux density, both
542: converted to $\mu$Jy at 11 hr after the burst, for short and long bursts.
543: The pre-{\it Swift} data points are taken from
544: Jakobsson et al. (2004) and are shown as filled green points.
545: Also shown is the solid line of constant X-ray to optical spectral
546: index that they propose separates the true ``dark'' bursts
547: from the rest. As listed in Table 4, the Spearman rank test for the
548: two GRB populations in Figure 1 gives a null probability
549: %f 0.13 or an 87\% correlation probability between the optical
550: %nd X-ray flux of the long GRBs, and only 57\% for the short population.
551: of $\sim0.01$ or a 99\% correlation probability between the optical
552: and X-ray flux densities of the long GRBs,
553: and only $\sim30$\% for the short population.
554:
555: The long {\it Swift} GRBs fall in the same general region of
556: the plot as the pre-{\it Swift} ones. As with the pre-{\it Swift} bursts,
557: several {\it Swift} long bursts (detections and upper limits)
558: also fall below the Jakobsson et al. dark line. The brightest
559: short GRBs fall in the midst of the long GRB points,
560: but in the region toward lower flux densities. % The dimmest short GRBs
561: %extend significantly below the long burst population.
562: To
563: date there are no short bursts that fall below the dark burst line;
564: those with low optical flux densities or upper limits tend to also have
565: weak X-ray flux densities that place them above the line.
566:
567:
568: \subsection{Gamma Ray Prompt and X-ray Afterglow Correlations}
569: %3.2 Gamma Ray Prompt and X-ray Afterglow Correlations
570:
571:
572: \begin{figure}
573: \centering
574: \epsscale{1.205}
575: \plotone{f2.ps}
576: \vskip -2cm
577: \figcaption{
578: The X-ray afterglow flux density {\it vs} gamma-ray prompt fluence of {\it Swift}
579: short (shown in red) and long (shown in blue) GRBs at 11 hr after the burst.
580: The XRT X-ray flux densities are at 3 keV and the BAT
581: gamma-ray fluences are between 15 and 150 keV (Sakamoto et al. 2008).
582: The XRT and BAT
583: data are given in Table 1, 2 and 3.
584: \label{fig2}}
585: \smallskip
586: \end{figure}
587:
588:
589:
590:
591: We show in Figure 2 the average X-ray
592: afterglow flux density {\it vs} the gamma-ray
593: fluence of the prompt emission for long and short {\it Swift} GRBs.
594: %e find a highly significant correlation (99.9996\% probability) for
595: We find a highly significant correlation (99.9999996\% probability) for
596: the long GRBs, albeit with a wide spread in the data. The correlation
597: %f the short bursts is less significant (95\% probability) mostly due
598: of the short bursts is less significant (69\% probability) mostly due
599: to the smaller number of points. There is an overlap between
600: the brightest short bursts and the faintest long GRBs.
601: The weakest short bursts are fainter than the weakest long bursts.
602:
603: \subsection{Prompt Gamma Ray Fluence and Peak Flux Correlations}
604: %3.3 Prompt Gamma Ray Fluence and Peak Flux Correlations
605:
606:
607: \begin{figure}
608: \centering
609: \epsscale{1.205}
610: \plotone{f3.ps}
611: \vskip -2cm
612: \figcaption{
613: The prompt gamma-ray fluence {\it vs} peak flux measured by
614: BAT in the 15 to 150 keV band for all bursts through
615: February 2007 (Sakamoto et al. 2008).
616: Short bursts are shown by red symbols
617: and long bursts by blue.
618: \label{fig3}}
619: \smallskip
620: \end{figure}
621:
622:
623:
624:
625:
626: Figure 3 shows the prompt emission fluence as a function of peak
627: flux for GRBs detected by BAT. We see a linear correlation for
628: both short and long bursts with a significant spread in the
629: correlation. The correlation probability is virtually 100\%
630: %null probability $= 2\times 10^{-20}$) for long bursts and 96\%
631: (null probability $= 2\times 10^{-29}$) for long bursts and 99.9998\%
632: for short bursts. The best fit lines are distinctly different
633: for short and long bursts, with the long burst having a higher
634: fluence on average for a given flux level than
635: short bursts as expected from duration alone.
636:
637:
638: \section{Discussion}
639: %4. DISCUSSION
640:
641: \subsection{Correlations \& Short/Long Distributions}
642: %4.1 Correlations \& Short/Long Distributions
643:
644:
645: We show in this work that correlations exist between
646: prompt and afterglow fluxes of GRBs and between different
647: wavelength bands in the afterglow. The highest significance
648: correlation is between the prompt emission gamma-ray fluence
649: and the X-ray afterglow flux at a significance level
650: %f 99.9996\% for long bursts and 95\% for short bursts.
651: of 99.9999996\% for long bursts and 69\% for short bursts.
652: The correlation between the optical afterglow and
653: %-ray afterglow fluxes is less significant at 87\%
654: %ignificance for long bursts and only 57\% for
655: X-ray afterglow fluxes is less significant at 99\%
656: significance for long bursts and only $\sim30$\% for
657: short bursts (for a small sample, however). %Due to the small sample size of the short GRBs,
658: %The specific significance values
659: % for the short GRB correlations are only very rough estimates
660: %since the assumption $N>>1$ underlying the
661: %aforementioned $P_{\rm null}$ formalism is not satisfied
662: %($N=8$, 10, and 17,
663: %respectively, for the three short GRB correlations discussed).
664:
665:
666:
667: It is important to note that there is a
668: wide spread in the data for all of the correlations.
669: The correlations are real and significant, but the fraction
670: of the observed variations due to the correlations
671: between the above parameters accounts for only a portion
672: of the data spread. The correlation can only be used
673: to predict a flux level to within approximately an
674: order of magnitude. The fraction of the variation due
675: to the correlations is given by the square of the
676: correlation parameter, $r$, which, as shown in Table 4,
677: varies from a few percent to 50\%. The rest of the data
678: spread is due to other factors such as correlations with
679: additional unknown parameters. An example of an additional
680: parameter is extinction in the optical afterglow.
681:
682:
683: Short bursts are weaker on average than long bursts in
684: afterglow fluxes. There is overlap with the dimmer
685: long bursts, but the short bursts extend to lower intensities
686: than seen for long bursts. The average X-ray flux density at 3 keV
687: at 11 hr for the short bursts is $<F_x({\rm short})> = 9.6\times10^{-3}\mu$Jy,
688: which is more than an order of magnitude less than
689: the average for long bursts of $<F_x({\rm long})> = 0.10\mu$Jy.
690:
691:
692: %The correlation power-law fits in Table 4 show some differences
693: %between long and short bursts in all 3 studies. However, for the
694: %first two studies (optical {\it vs} X-ray afterglow and gamma-ray prompt
695: %{\it vs} X-ray afterglow) the differences between the fits are
696: %statistically marginal of less than 3s significance.
697: %%The following discussion also fits into the section, and can replace the
698: %%sentence "From the analysis of Zhang et al. (2007) ...."
699: %Similarly, Figure 2 also displays a positive correlation with a slope of
700: %roughly unity. This suggests that brighter bursts also have more kinetic
701: %energies in the afterglow phase to power the afterglow. This is a
702: %manifestation of similar radiative efficiency among different bursts,
703: %including both long and short GRBs. Such a point was made by Zhang et al.
704: %(2007) based on an analysis of a smaller sample of early {\it Swift} GRBs.
705: %Zhang et al.
706: %also performed a detailed analysis of both gamma-ray energy and afterglow
707: %kinetic energy based on the afterglow models. The more complete sample
708: %presented here strengthens this conclusion.
709: %%From the analysis of Zhang et al. (2007), the implication of
710: %%this result is that the radiative efficiency is similar
711: %%for long and short GRBs.
712: % For the prompt emission fluence {\it vs}
713: %flux study, the differences are highly statistically significant
714: %as expected from the very fact that short and long bursts
715: %have different durations as discussed below.
716:
717: % Except for the bursts below the ``dark'' line, most bursts in Figure 1 are
718: %generally confined within a certain region defined by two lines with a
719: %slope $\beta_{OX} \sim 0.5$. This is consistent with that in general the
720: %optical and X-ray emission belong to the same spectral component with an
721: %index close to 0.5. For slow cooling which is generally relevant at $t=11$
722: %hr, one expects $\beta_{OX} \sim (p-1)/2$ for $\nu_m < \nu_O < \nu_X <
723: %\nu_c$, which has a typical value of 0.5 for $p=2$. This suggests that
724: %on average, the cooling frequency is above or not much below the
725: %X-ray band at 11 hr. The lower boundary is defined by the detector
726: %sensitivity. The upper boundary is roughly 2 orders of magnitude above the
727: %lower boundary. This is defined by the upper limit of GRB energetics
728: %(highest luminosities) convolved by the redshift distribution effect.
729:
730:
731: %- Sect 4.1: �Last 2 paragraphs. �I just wrote to Bing about these and suggested the following replacements:
732:
733: The X-ray to gamma-ray correlation in Figure 2 has a positive correlation with a slope of roughly unity. This
734: suggests that brighter bursts have more kinetic energy in the afterglow phase to power the afterglow. This is a
735: manifestation of similar radiative efficiency among different bursts and between long and short GRBs. Such a point was
736: made by Zhang et al. (2007) based on an analysis of a smaller sample of early {\it Swift} GRBs.
737:
738: Except for the bursts below the ``dark'' line, most bursts in Figure 1 are confined between lines with
739: $\beta_{OX} =$
740: 0.5 and 1.0. This is consistent with a general interpretation that
741: the optical and X-ray emission belong to the same
742: spectral component with an index close to 0.75.
743: Within the standard model for emission via synchrotron radiation,
744: for slow cooling
745: which is generally relevant at
746: $t = 11$ hr, one
747: expects $\beta_{OX} \sim (p-1)/2$ for $\nu_m < \nu_O < \nu_X < \nu_c$,
748: which has a typical value of 0.75 for
749: electron distribution power law $p = 2.5$.
750: %
751: (An equivalent statement is that
752: for this spectrum, the predicted ratio
753: $F_R/F_X \approx 350$ yields a
754: line intermediate between %the
755: $\beta_{OX}=0.5$ and $1.0$ in % $1.0 in %a lines in
756: Fig. 1.) % $-$ broadly descriptive of our results.
757: This
758: suggests that on average, the cooling frequency is above or
759: not much below the X-ray band at 11 hr.
760:
761:
762:
763: \subsection{Dark GRBs}
764: %4.2 Dark GRBs
765:
766: Another comparison of short and long GRBs relates to dark bursts.
767: Jakobsson et al. (2004, see also De Pasquale et al. 2003)
768: used the simple criterion to define dark bursts
769: as those with extremely low optical to X-ray afterglow ratio, falling
770: below the line of optical to X-ray spectral index, $\beta_{\rm OX}$, equal to 0.5.
771: It may seem counterintuitive that there can be dark bursts
772: with optical detections and bursts not detected in the optical
773: that are not ``dark'', but the important criterion is how
774: optically faint the burst is relative to its X-ray flux.
775: For the pre-{\it Swift} sample there were 5 bursts with
776: upper limits below the dark-burst line
777: (restricting the Jakobsson et al. sample
778: to include only those with
779: upper limits fainter than
780: $m_R=23$, or $\sim2\mu$Jy),
781: compared to 24 bursts with
782: actual measurements (not upper limits) above the line, giving a fraction
783: %f $\sim17$\% in the dark category. For {\it Swift} there are 4 bursts
784: of $\sim17$\% in the dark category. For {\it Swift} there are 2 bursts
785: %ith upper limits (GRB 050713B, 061222A, 070621, and 070704) and
786: with upper limits (GRB 050713B and 061222A) and
787: %3 cases with measurements (GRB 060210, 070419B and 070508) below
788: 3 cases with measurements (GRB 060210, 070419B and 070508) below
789: the line compared with 34 long bursts above the line for
790: a fraction of $\sim17$\% in the dark category, the same as
791: the pre-{\it Swift} sample. The conclusion is that {\it Swift}
792: is sampling the same source environments as previous instruments.
793:
794:
795: The discovery of 3 cases of dark bursts with optical detections is
796: particularly interesting. One possible concern with this finding is
797: that {\it Swift} X-ray afterglows are contaminated in many bursts
798: by emission components not from the external shocks, e.g. X-ray flares.
799: In such instances, the Jakobsson et al. (2004) approach
800: to define dark bursts is no longer relevant since it assumes that
801: the X-ray and optical emission is from the same emission component,
802: but separated by a cooling break. However, the X-ray lightcurves
803: for the {\it Swift} dark bursts are smooth around 11 hr
804: (and beyond the end of the X-ray plateau),
805: with
806: no significant contamination from other components.
807: These are real ``dark'' bursts from both an observational
808: and physics perspective.
809:
810:
811:
812: %> Section 4.2
813: %> On dark GRBs, in paragraph 2 you make the (correct) point that the light curves are smooth. I wonder if you should
814: %> also say that the 11hr data, for the ones that are dark, are beyond the end of the X-ray plateau.
815: %>
816:
817:
818: %In Section 4.2 (near the end), one can add the following discussion:
819:
820:
821: %The method applied here (as in Jakobsson et al 2004)
822: %to investigate dark bursts
823: %is based on the hypothesis that both X-ray and optical emission are from
824: %the external forward shock. Multiwavelength observations in the {\it Swift} era
825: %reveal puzzling chromatic features of
826: % afterglow breaks (e.g., Panaitescu
827: %et al. 2006; Liang et al. 2007, 2008) that are not consistent with the
828: %simplest forward shock model. Models invoking non-forward-shock origin of
829: %X-ray afterglows have been discussed in the literature (e.g., Genet et al.
830: %2007; Uhm \& Beloborodov 2007; Ghisellini et al. 2007; Shao \& Dai 2007;
831: %Panaitescu 2008). On the other hand, analyses suggest that the X-ray data
832: %are generally consistent with the temporal-index and spectral-index
833: %relations (e.g., Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros 2004) predicted by the forward shock
834: %models (Liang et al. 2007). The optical/X-ray data of some bursts (e.g.,
835: %Grupe et al. 2007; Mangano et al. 2007) are well consistent with the same
836: %forward shock model. The analysis presented in this paper suggests that
837: %generally optical/X-ray data are not inconsistent with belonging to the
838: %same afterglow component.
839:
840:
841: % Replace with stronger:
842: Correlation analyses between optical and X-ray can help answer
843: the question of whether these two afterglow
844: components originate from the same physical processes.
845: It is assumed in the Jakobsson et al (2004) study
846: that both X-ray and optical emission arise from the external forward
847: shock. Multiwavelength observations in the {\it Swift} era reveal
848: puzzling chromatic features of
849: afterglow breaks (e.g., Panaitescu et al. 2006; Liang et al. 2007, 2008)
850: that are not consistent
851: with the simplest forward shock model. Models invoking
852: non-forward-shock origin of X-ray
853: afterglows have been discussed in the literature
854: (e.g., Genet et al. 2007; Uhm \& Beloborodov
855: 2007; Ghisellini et al. 2007; Shao \& Dai 2007; Panaitescu 2008).
856: On the other hand, analyses
857: suggest that the X-ray data are generally consistent with
858: the temporal index and spectral
859: index relations (e.g., Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros 2004) predicted by
860: the forward shock models, although not in
861: every case. (Liang
862: et al. 2007,
863: %I think you should also reference Dick's paper (Willingale,
864: %> R. et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1093) with Liang et al.
865: %,a
866: Willingale, et al. 2007).
867: The optical/X-ray data of some bursts
868: (e.g., Grupe et al. 2007; Mangano et
869: al. 2007) are consistent with the same forward shock model.
870: %> The fourth sentence could then be
871: %"
872: Regardless of the exact process,
873: the analysis presented in
874: this paper shows that generally optical/X-ray afterglow
875: fluxes are correlated, which suggests that they are due to
876: the same emission process. The few cases well below the
877: correlation line are found to be dark due to extinction
878: in the host galaxy.
879:
880:
881: For the first time we can search for dark short bursts.
882: No short bursts are seen that fall below the dark-burst line.
883: It is hard to find dark GRBs using this criterion since X-ray
884: afterglow fluxes are also low for the short bursts. However, there are
885: some short bursts with bright X-ray afterglow, and, to date, none of
886: those is seen to be highly deficient in optical afterglow. Statistics
887: are still small with only 5 optical detections, but if the observed
888: trend continues we will be able to conclude that short bursts do not
889: occur in regions with extremely high extinction as occurs for some
890: long bursts.
891:
892: %John,
893: %
894: %That is a nice find. Can you add a short paragraph on this in section 4.2 and point out the importance? Here is some
895: %for the text:
896:
897: We are beginning to have optical detections of bursts
898: below the dark burst line.
899: In one of the three dark bursts with
900: detections (GRB 060210), the burst
901: is found to have high extinction associated with its host galaxy,
902: explaining the low optical flux (Curran et al. 2007b).
903: %
904: By modeling the differences between $\beta_{\rm opt}$, $\beta_X$, and $\beta_{OX}$,
905: and taking into
906: account the Lyman$-\alpha$ absorption ($z=3.91$),
907: the authors find the $R-$band source extinction could be $3.9\pm0.7$ mag
908: ($\nu_c > \nu_O$) or $6.7\pm0.6$ mag ($\nu_c < \nu_O$).
909: %
910: This is an important development
911: in our understanding of dark GRBs.
912: (For two of the three dark bursts with
913: detections - 070419B and 070508 -
914: there has not yet been sufficiently detailed follow-up work
915: on the putative hosts for constraints to be placed on the host extinction.)
916: Assuming that the dark bursts can be largely explained by extinction, then the
917: optical - X-ray correlations, ignoring the dark bursts, would hold true.
918: % add:
919: We note that new studies are being done to examine
920: dark burst definitions (van der Horst et al. 2008).
921:
922:
923:
924:
925: %Please also add a note to the caption of Fig 1 about the beta_OX=1.0 line.
926: %Thanks,
927: %Neil
928: %
929: %
930: %On Jul 14, 2008, at 2:02 PM, John Cannizzo wrote:
931: %
932: %>
933: %>
934: %> Neil--
935: %>
936: %>
937: %55> For two of them - 070419B and 070508 - within ADS there are no linked citations to the original GCN refs (6325 and
938: %> 6398), so it looks like there so far have not been detailed follow-up work. The GCN info is too sketchy to do much
939: %> with it.
940: %>
941: %> For 060210, there has been a journal follow-up with detailed constraints attempted on the host extinction (as
942: %> distinct from galactic extinction). By modeling the differences between beta_opt, beta_X, and beta_OX and taking into
943: %> account the abs. from Lyman alpha redshifting (z=3.91), the authors find the R extinction could be 3.9\pm0.7 mag
944: %> (cooling break \nu_c above optical) or 6.7\pm0.6 mag (cooling break
945: %> below optical). (Curran et al. 2007, A&A, 467, 1059).
946: %>
947: %> So yes - for the one GRB where one can make a statement, the host extinction does look very significant.
948: %>
949:
950:
951: \subsection{Prompt Fluence and Flux Comparisons}
952: %4.3 Prompt Fluence and Flux Comparisons
953:
954:
955: The comparison of fluences and peak fluxes in the prompt emission as
956: shown in Figure 3 is a different kind of study than in the other two
957: above. In this case, the strong observed correlation and high degree
958: of separation of short and long bursts is expected; brighter bursts
959: with higher peak fluxes naturally have higher fluences and short bursts
960: tend to have lower fluence for a given flux by the very fact of their
961: short duration. Within the short and long classes, the spread in
962: fluence that is seen for a given peak flux is due to the diversity
963: of durations and spectral indices. Bursts with longer duration and
964: hard spectra have higher fluences for the same peak flux.
965:
966: It is interesting to note in Figure 3 that the short bursts tend to be
967: fluence limited in the BAT, while long bursts tend to be peak
968: flux limited. This is due to the way BAT operates. A valid GRB trigger
969: requires a statistically significant excess in both the rate
970: and image domains (Fenimore et al. 2004). The ability to form an
971: image depends on the number of photons collected on various
972: trigger timescales, which is related to the burst fluence. Even for
973: relatively high peak-fluxes, short bursts can have low fluence values
974: and be limited in the number of photons available for the image trigger.
975: On the other hand, long bursts tend to have higher fluences for a
976: given peak-flux and become rate limited before the image limit
977: is reached. BAT also has a pure-image mode for triggering where
978: very long duration GRBs and other transients are found by comparing
979: sky images instead of having a rate trigger. The lowest long-burst
980: point in Figure 3 at a peak flux of $\sim0.1$ was such an image-mode
981: trigger for the very long ($T90 = 35$ min) and weak GRB 060218.
982: A caveat on the above discussion is that the BAT trigger algorithm
983: is complex with $\sim500$ different trigger criteria evaluated.
984: There are many different thresholds and limits coming into play
985: for short and long burst triggering, with some mix of flux and
986: fluence limits for both types.
987:
988: This study was based on a 1 s binning for the gamma-ray fluxes.
989: We have also investigated the effect of using a smaller
990: bin size of 64 ms. Smaller bins pick out larger peak flux values
991: when there is short time structure or when the burst has a duration
992: shorter than the bin size. The effect of the smaller bin size
993: is to shift the short bursts to the right (higher peak flux)
994: relative to the long bursts by about a factor of 5.
995: The larger bin size that we use allows for
996: better statistics and is more reliable for long bursts.
997: In either case, the short bursts tend to cluster toward lower
998: fluences than long bursts.
999:
1000: \section{Future Prospects}
1001: %5. FUTURE PROSPECTS
1002:
1003: The combined prompt and afterglow data set for {\it Swift} GRBs is the
1004: largest available to date. We have chosen a criterion on the
1005: afterglow measurements for inclusion in this study of being a
1006: solid measurement 11 hr after the burst. Even with this
1007: stringent definition, there are more than 100 long bursts with
1008: X-ray afterglow data. The optical detections at 11 hr are
1009: less numerous with about 40 good measurements, but still enough
1010: statistics for conclusions to be reached.
1011:
1012: The short burst correlation studies are possible now and key
1013: results are beginning to emerge. The {\it Swift} data base is
1014: growing quickly with time. In its expected lifetime of
1015: $\sim10$ yr, the mission should provide a sample of
1016: $>40$ short and $>400$ long GRBs with good afterglow and
1017: prompt observations.
1018: % The hints of a diverse population of
1019: %short bursts in the current correlation plots and significant
1020: %differences compared to long bursts predict an interesting
1021: %future for this work.
1022: %- Sect 5: �replace last sentence with:
1023: That sized data set will allow more detailed correlations
1024: studies to investigate the interesting trends found in
1025: the current analysis.
1026:
1027:
1028:
1029: \acknowledgements
1030: %Acknowledgements:
1031:
1032: The authors thank the following people for useful discussions:
1033: A. Fruchter, J. Fynbo, P. Jakobsson, A. Loeb, M. Nysewander, and E. Rol.
1034: We also acknowledge our anonymous referee who
1035: provided excellent suggestions for improving the paper.
1036:
1037:
1038: %REFERENCES
1039:
1040: \def\mnras{MNRAS}
1041: \def\apj{ApJ}
1042: \def\apjs{ApJS}
1043: \def\apjl{ApJL}
1044: \def\aj{AJ}
1045: \def\araa{ARA\&A}
1046: \def\aap{A\&A}
1047:
1048:
1049: \begin{thebibliography}{75}
1050: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1051:
1052: \bibitem[]{}
1053: Antonelli, L.~A., et al. 2006, A\&A, 456, 509
1054:
1055: \bibitem[]{}
1056: Barthelmy, S.~D., et al. 2005a, Space Sci Rev, 120, 143
1057:
1058: \bibitem[]{}
1059: Barthelmy, S.~D., et al. 2005b, Nature, 438, 994
1060:
1061: \bibitem[]{}
1062: Berger, E., et al. 2005, Nature, 438, 988
1063:
1064: \bibitem[]{}
1065: Berger, E., et al. 2006, GCN Circ. 5697, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5697.gcn3
1066:
1067: %\bibitem[]{}
1068: %Berger, E., \& Soderberg, A.~M. 2005,
1069: % GCN Circ. 4419, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/4419.gcn3
1070:
1071: \bibitem[]{}
1072: Berger, E. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1254
1073: %erger, E. 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph 0702694)
1074:
1075: \bibitem[]{}
1076: %erger, E., et al. 2006, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0611128)
1077: Berger, E., et al. 2007, ApJ, 664, 1000
1078:
1079: \bibitem[]{}
1080: Bikmaev, I., et al. 2005, GCN Circ. 3797, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/3797.gcn3
1081:
1082: \bibitem[]{}
1083: Bloom, J.~S., et al. 1999, Nature, 401, 453
1084:
1085: \bibitem[]{}
1086: Bloom, J.~S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 354
1087:
1088: \bibitem[]{}
1089: Burrows, D.~N., et al. 2005, Space Sci Rev, 120, 165
1090:
1091: \bibitem[]{}
1092: Butler, N.~R. 2007, ApJ, 656, 1001
1093:
1094: %\bibitem[]{}
1095: %Butler, N.~R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1390
1096:
1097: %\bibitem[]{}
1098: %Cenko, S.~B., Fox, D.~B., \& Price, P.~A. 2006,
1099: % GCN Circ. 5912, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5912.gcn3
1100:
1101: \bibitem[]{}
1102: Cenko, S.~B., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 490
1103:
1104: \bibitem[]{}
1105: Chen, H.-W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 420
1106:
1107: \bibitem[]{}
1108: Cobb, B.~E., \& Bailyn, C.~D.
1109: 2005, GCN Circ. 3104, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/3104.gcn3
1110:
1111: \bibitem[]{}
1112: Curran, P.~A., et al. 2007a, MNRAS, 381, L65
1113:
1114: \bibitem[]{}
1115: Curran, P.~A., et al. 2007b, A\&A, 467, 1049
1116:
1117: %(Curran et al. 2007, A&A, 467, 1059).
1118:
1119: %\bibitem[]{}
1120: %Dado, S., Dar, A., \& De Rujula, A. 2007, astro-ph/0706.0880v1
1121:
1122: \bibitem[]{}
1123: Dai, X., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 509
1124:
1125: \bibitem[]{}
1126: D'Avanzo, P., et al.
1127: 2006, GCN Circ. 5884, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5884.gcn3
1128:
1129: \bibitem[]{}
1130: Della Valle, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, L103
1131:
1132: \bibitem[]{}
1133: de Pasquale, M., et al.
1134: %e Pasquale, M., Piro, L., Perna, R., Costa , E., Feroci, M,
1135: % Gandolfi, G., In't Zand, J., Nicastro, L.,
1136: % Frontera, F., Antonelli, L.~A., Fiore, F.,
1137: % \& Stratta, G.
1138: 2003, ApJ, 592, 1018
1139:
1140: \bibitem[]{}
1141: de Pasquale, M., et al.
1142: %e Pasquale, M., Piro, L., Gendre, B., Amati, L., Antonelli, L.~A.,
1143: % Costa, E., Feroci, M., Frontera, F., Nicastro, L., Soffitta, P.,
1144: % \& in't Zand, J.
1145: 2006, A\&A, 455, 813
1146:
1147: \bibitem[]{}
1148: Durig, D.~T., \& Price, A.
1149: 2005, GCN Circ. 4023, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/4023.gcn3
1150:
1151: \bibitem[]{}
1152: Efimov, Yu., et al. 2006, GCN Circ. 5986, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5986.gcn3
1153:
1154: \bibitem[]{}
1155: Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., \& Schramm, D.~N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126
1156:
1157: \bibitem[]{}
1158: Fenimore, E., et al. 2004, AIP, 727, 667
1159:
1160: \bibitem[]{}
1161: Firmani, C., Ghisellini, G., Avila-Reese, V.,
1162: \& Ghirlanda, G. 2006,
1163: MNRAS, 370, 185
1164:
1165: \bibitem[]{}
1166: Fox, D.~B., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 845
1167:
1168: \bibitem[]{}
1169: Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Ichikawa, T. 1995, PASP, 107, 945
1170:
1171: \bibitem[]{}
1172: Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al. 2007, astro-ph/0703458
1173:
1174: \bibitem[]{}
1175: Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1047
1176:
1177: \bibitem[]{}
1178: Galama, T.~J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670
1179:
1180: \bibitem[]{}
1181: Garnavich, P., \& Karska, A. 2006,
1182: GCN Circ. 5253, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5253.gcn3
1183:
1184: \bibitem[]{}
1185: Gehrels, N., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005
1186:
1187: \bibitem[]{}
1188: Gehrels, N., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 859
1189:
1190: \bibitem[]{}
1191: Genet, F., Daigne, F., \& Mochkovitch, R. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 732
1192:
1193: \bibitem[]{}
1194: George, K., Banerjee, D.~P.~K., Chandrasekhar, T., \& Ashok, N.~M. 2006, ApJ, 640, L13
1195:
1196: \bibitem[]{}
1197: Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., \& Firmani, C. 2007, A\&A, 466, 127
1198:
1199: \bibitem[]{}
1200: Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., \& Firmani, C. 2007, ApJ, 658, L75
1201:
1202: \bibitem[]{}
1203: Grupe, D. et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 443
1204:
1205: %\bibitem[]{}
1206: %Guidorzi, C., et al. 2007, A\&A, 463, 539
1207:
1208: %\bibitem[]{}
1209: %Hicken, M., \& Garnavich, P.
1210: % 2006, GCN Circ. 5070, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5070.gcn3
1211:
1212: \bibitem[]{}
1213: Hjorth, J., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 847
1214:
1215: \bibitem[]{}
1216: Hjorth, J., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 851
1217:
1218: \bibitem[]{}
1219: Huang, K.~Y., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, L25
1220:
1221: \bibitem[]{}
1222: Jakobsson, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, L21
1223:
1224: \bibitem[]{}
1225: Kamble, A., Resmi, L., \& Misra, K. 2007, ApJ, 664, L5
1226:
1227: \bibitem[]{}
1228: Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C.~A., Fishman, G.~J., Bhat, N.~P., Briggs, M.~S., Koshut, T.~M.,
1229: Paciesas, W.~S., \& Pendleton, G.~N. 1993, ApJ, 413, L101
1230:
1231: \bibitem[]{}
1232: Kulkarni, S.~R. 2005, astro-ph/0510256
1233:
1234: \bibitem[]{}
1235: Lattimer, J.~M., \& Schramm, D.~N. 1974, ApJ, 192, L145
1236:
1237: \bibitem[]{}
1238: Lee, W.~H., \& Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2007, New J. Phys., 9, 17
1239:
1240: %\bibitem[]{}
1241: %Levan, A.~J., et al. 2007, GCN Circ. 6630, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/6630.gcn3
1242:
1243: \bibitem[]{}
1244: Li, L.-X., \& Paczy\'nski, B. 1998, ApJ, 507, L59
1245:
1246: \bibitem[]{}
1247: Liang, E.-W., Racusin, J.~L., Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B.,
1248: \& Burrows, D.~N.
1249: 2008, ApJ, 675, 528
1250:
1251: \bibitem[]{}
1252: Liang, E.-W., Zhang, B.-B., \& Zhang, B. 2007, ApJ, 670, 565
1253:
1254: \bibitem[]{}
1255: MacFadyen, A.~I., \& Woosley, S.~E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262
1256:
1257: \bibitem[]{}
1258: Malesani, D., Stella, L., Covino, S., Lidman, C., \& Naef, D. 2006,
1259: GCN Circ. 5705, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5705.gcn3
1260:
1261: \bibitem[]{}
1262: Malesani, D., et al. 2007, GCN Circ. 6565, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/6565.gcn3
1263:
1264: \bibitem[]{}
1265: Malesani, D., et al. 2007, GCN Circ. 6674, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/6674.gcn3
1266:
1267: \bibitem[]{}
1268: Malesani, D., et al. 2007, A\&A, 473, 77
1269:
1270: \bibitem[]{}
1271: Mangano, V. et al. 2007, A\&A, 470, 105
1272:
1273: %\bibitem[]{}
1274: %Melandri, A., Rol, E., \& Tanvir, N.
1275: % 2007, GCN Circ. 6602, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/6602.gcn3
1276:
1277: \bibitem[]{}
1278: Melandri, A., Tanvir, N., \& Guidorzi, C.
1279: 2006, GCN Circ. 5322, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5322.gcn3
1280:
1281: \bibitem[]{}
1282: M\'esz\'aros, P., \& Rees, M.~J. 1997, ApJ, 476, 232
1283:
1284: \bibitem[]{}
1285: Milne, P.~A. 2006, GCN Circ. 5127, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5127.gcn3
1286:
1287: \bibitem[]{}
1288: Misra, K., \& Pandey, S.~B. 2005, GCN Circ. 3396, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/3396.gcn3
1289:
1290: \bibitem[]{}
1291: Misra, K., et al. 2007, A\&A, 464, 903
1292:
1293: \bibitem[]{}
1294: Mochkovitch, R., Hernanz, M., Isern, J., \& Martin, X. 1993, Nature 361, 236
1295:
1296: \bibitem[]{}
1297: Monfardini, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1125
1298:
1299: \bibitem[]{}
1300: Mundell, C.~G., et al.
1301: %undell, C.~G., Gomboc, A., Guidorzi, C., Mottram, C.~J.
1302: % Melandri, A., Steele, I.~A., Smith, R.~J., Monfardini, A., Carter, D.,
1303: % Kobayashi, S., Bersier, D., O'Brien, P.,
1304: % \& Bannister, N.
1305: 2006, GCN Circ. 5700,
1306: http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5700.gcn3
1307:
1308:
1309: \bibitem[]{}
1310: Mundell, C.~G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 489
1311:
1312:
1313: \bibitem[]{}
1314: Nakar, E., et al. 2007, Phys Reports, 442, 166
1315:
1316: \bibitem[]{}
1317: Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Tavecchio, F.,
1318: \& Firmani, C.
1319: 2006, A\&A, 450, 471
1320:
1321: \bibitem[]{}
1322: Nousek, J.~A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 389
1323:
1324: \bibitem[]{}
1325: Nysewander, M., et al. 2007, astro-ph/0708.3444v2
1326:
1327: \bibitem[]{}
1328: Nysewander, M., Fruchter, A.~S., \& Pe'er, A. 2008, astro-ph/0806.3607v1
1329:
1330: \bibitem[]{}
1331: Oates, S.~R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 327
1332:
1333: \bibitem[]{}
1334: Oechslin, R., Janka, H.-T., \& Marek, A. 2007, A\&A, 467, 395
1335:
1336: \bibitem[]{}
1337: Paczy\'nski, B. 1986, ApJ, 308, L43
1338:
1339: \bibitem[]{}
1340: Page, K.~L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1125
1341:
1342: \bibitem[]{}
1343: Panaitescu, A. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1143
1344:
1345: \bibitem[]{}
1346: Panaitescu, A., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1357
1347:
1348: \bibitem[]{}
1349: Pandey, S.~B., et al. 2006, A\&A, 460, 415
1350:
1351: \bibitem[]{}
1352: %erley, D.~A., et al. 2007, astro-ph/0703538v2
1353: Perley, D.~A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 449
1354:
1355: \bibitem[]{}
1356: Perley, D.~A., Thoene, C. C., \& Bloom, J. S. 2007,
1357: GCN Circ. 6774, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/6774.gcn3
1358:
1359: \bibitem[]{}
1360: Pian, E., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1011
1361: % An optical SN associated with the X-ray flash XRF 060218
1362:
1363: \bibitem[]{}
1364: Piran, T., Kumar, P., Panaitescu, A., \& Piro, L. 2001, ApJ, 560, L167
1365:
1366: \bibitem[]{}
1367: Press, W.~H., Flannery, B.~P., Teukolsky, S.~A., \& Vetterling, W.~T.
1368: 1986, Numerical Recipes (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press)
1369:
1370: \bibitem[]{}
1371: Price, P.~A., et al. 2006, GCN Circ. 5077, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5077.gcn3
1372:
1373: \bibitem[]{}
1374: Quimby, R., \& Rykoff, E. S. 2006, GCN Circ. 5377, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5377.gcn3
1375:
1376: \bibitem[]{}
1377: Rol, E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 624, 868
1378:
1379: \bibitem[]{}
1380: Rol, E., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1098
1381:
1382: \bibitem[]{}
1383: Roming, P.~W.~A., et al. 2005, Space Sci Rev, 120, 95
1384:
1385: \bibitem[]{}
1386: Roming, P.~W.~A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1416
1387:
1388: \bibitem[]{}
1389: Rosswog, S., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., \& Davies, M.~B. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1077
1390:
1391: \bibitem[]{}
1392: Rykoff, E.~S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, L5
1393:
1394: \bibitem[]{}
1395: Sakamoto, T., et al. 2006, in ``Gamma-Ray Bursts in the {\it Swift} Era'',
1396: ed. S.~S. Holt, N. Gehrels, and J.~A. Nousek (AIP: New York), p. 43
1397:
1398: \bibitem[]{}
1399: %akamoto, T., et al. 2007, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph 0707.4626)
1400: Sakamoto, T., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 179
1401:
1402: \bibitem[]{}
1403: Salmonson, J.~D., \& Galama, T.~J. 2002, ApJ, 569, 682
1404:
1405: \bibitem[]{}
1406: Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
1407:
1408: \bibitem[]{}
1409: Schmidt, B., \& Bayliss, D. 2006,
1410: GCN Circ. 4880, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/4880.gcn3
1411:
1412: \bibitem[]{}
1413: Schmidt, B., \& Mackie, G. 2007, GCN Circ. 6325, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/6325.gcn3
1414:
1415: \bibitem[]{}
1416: Shao, L., \& Dai, Z.~G. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1319
1417:
1418: \bibitem[]{}
1419: Sharapov, D. et al. 2005, GCN Circ. 3701, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/3701.gcn3
1420:
1421: \bibitem[]{}
1422: Shao, L., \& Dai, Z.~G. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1027
1423:
1424: \bibitem[]{}
1425: Soderberg, A.~M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 261
1426:
1427: \bibitem[]{}
1428: Soderberg, A.~M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, 982
1429:
1430: \bibitem[]{}
1431: Sollerman, J., et al. 2007, A\&A, 466, 839
1432:
1433: \bibitem[]{}
1434: Soyano, T., Mito, H., \& Urata, Y. 2006, GCN Circ. 5548,
1435: http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5548.gcn3
1436:
1437: \bibitem[]{}
1438: Spearman, C. 1904, Am J Psychol, 15, 72
1439:
1440: \bibitem[]{}
1441: Stanek, K.~Z., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, L17
1442:
1443: \bibitem[]{}
1444: Stanek, K.~Z., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, L21
1445:
1446: \bibitem[]{}
1447: Stefanescu, A., et al. 2006, GCN Circ. 5291, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5291.gcn3
1448:
1449: \bibitem[]{}
1450: Stratta, G., Fiore, F., Antonelli, L.~A., Piro, L.,
1451: \& de Pasquale, M. 2004, ApJ, 608, 846
1452:
1453: \bibitem[]{}
1454: Terra, F., et al. 2007, GCN Circ., 6458, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/6458.gcn3
1455:
1456: \bibitem[]{}
1457: Thoene, C.~C., Fynbo, J.~P.~U., \& Jakobsson, P. 2006, GCN Circ. 5747,
1458: http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/5747.gcn3
1459:
1460: \bibitem[]{}
1461: Thoene, C.~C., Fynbo, J.~P.~U., \& Williams, A. 2007, GCN Circ. 6389,
1462: http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/6389.gcn3
1463:
1464: \bibitem[]{}
1465: Thoene, C.~C., Kann, D.~A., Augusteijn, T., \& Reyle-Laffont, C.
1466: 2007, GCN Circ. 6154, http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/6154.gcn3
1467:
1468: \bibitem[]{}
1469: Uhm, Z.~L., \& Beloborodov, A.~M. 2007, ApJ, 665, L93
1470:
1471: \bibitem[]{}
1472: van der Horst, A.~J., et al. 2008, ApJ, in prep.
1473:
1474: %\bibitem[]{}
1475: %van Paradijs, J., Kouveliotou, C., \& Wijers, R.~A.~M.~J. 2000, ARAA, 38, 379
1476:
1477: \bibitem[]{}
1478: Villasenor, J.~S., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 851.
1479:
1480: \bibitem[]{}
1481: Willingale, R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1093
1482: %> R. et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1093) with Liang et al.
1483:
1484: \bibitem[]{}
1485: Woosley, S.~E., 1993, ApJ, 405, 273.
1486:
1487: \bibitem[]{}
1488: Woosley, S.~E., \& Bloom, J.~S. 2006, ARAA, 44, 507
1489:
1490: \bibitem[]{}
1491: Wo\'zniak, P.~R., Vestrand, W.~T., Wren, J.~A.,
1492: White, R.~R., Evans, S.~M., \& Casperson, D. 2005, ApJ, 627, L13
1493:
1494: \bibitem[]{}
1495: Yost, S.~A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 925
1496:
1497: \bibitem[]{}
1498: Zhang, B., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 354
1499:
1500: \bibitem[]{}
1501: Zhang, B., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 989
1502:
1503: \bibitem[]{}
1504: %hang, Z.-B. \& Choi, C.-S. 2007, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0708.4049)
1505: Zhang, Z.-B., \& Choi, C.-S. 2008, A\&A, 484, 293
1506:
1507: \bibitem[]{}
1508: Zhang, B., \& M\'esz\'aros, P. 2004, IJMPA, 19, 2385
1509:
1510: \end{thebibliography}
1511:
1512:
1513:
1514:
1515: \vfil\eject
1516: \pagestyle{empty}
1517: \setlength{\voffset}{20mm}
1518: \LongTables
1519: \clearpage
1520: \begin{landscape}
1521: \voffset=-.235truein
1522: \input{tab1.tex}
1523: \clearpage
1524: \end{landscape}
1525:
1526:
1527:
1528:
1529: \vfil\eject
1530: \pagestyle{empty}
1531: \setlength{\voffset}{20mm}
1532: \LongTables
1533: \clearpage
1534: \begin{landscape}
1535: %vsize=10.5truein
1536: \voffset=-.235truein
1537: \input{tab2.tex}
1538: \clearpage
1539: \end{landscape}
1540:
1541:
1542:
1543: \vfil\eject
1544: \clearpage
1545: \pagestyle{empty}
1546: \setlength{\voffset}{-15mm}
1547: \LongTables
1548: \clearpage
1549: %\begin{landscape}
1550: \input{tab3.tex}
1551: \clearpage
1552: %\end{landscape}
1553:
1554:
1555: \vfil\eject
1556: \clearpage
1557: \pagestyle{empty}
1558: \setlength{\voffset}{20mm}
1559: \input{tab4.tex}
1560: \clearpage
1561:
1562:
1563:
1564:
1565:
1566:
1567: \end{document}
1568:
1569:
1570: