1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{lscape,graphicx,rotating}
3:
4: \newcommand{\Swift}{\textit{Swift}}
5: \newcommand{\Bc}{\textit{B$_{\mathrm{C}}$}}
6: \newcommand{\Rc}{\textit{R$_{\mathrm{C}}$}}
7: \newcommand{\Ic}{\textit{I$_{\mathrm{C}}$}}
8: \newcommand{\Vc}{\textit{V$_{\mathrm{C}}$}}
9: \newcommand{\zG}{\textit{z}}
10: \newcommand{\iG}{\textit{i}}
11: \newcommand{\gG}{\textit{g}}
12: \newcommand{\ip}{\textit{i$^{\prime}$}}
13: \newcommand{\zp}{\textit{z$^{\prime}$}}
14: \newcommand{\gp}{\textit{g$^{\prime}$}}
15: \newcommand{\rp}{\textit{r$^{\prime}$}}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: %=============================================================================
20: \title{Dark Bursts in the \Swift\ Era: The Palomar 60\,inch-\Swift\
21: Early Optical Afterglow Catalog}
22: %=============================================================================
23:
24: %==============================================================================
25: % Author List
26: %==============================================================================
27: \author{S.~B.~Cenko\altaffilmark{1,2}, J.~Kelemen\altaffilmark{3},
28: F.~A.~Harrison\altaffilmark{1}, D.~B.~Fox\altaffilmark{4},
29: S.~R.~Kulkarni\altaffilmark{5}, M.~M.~Kasliwal\altaffilmark{5},
30: E.~O.~Ofek\altaffilmark{5}, A.~Rau\altaffilmark{5},
31: A.~Gal-Yam\altaffilmark{6}, D.~A.~Frail\altaffilmark{7}
32: and D.-S.~Moon\altaffilmark{8}}
33:
34: \altaffiltext{1}{Space Radiation Laboratory, MS 220-47, California
35: Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}
36: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, 601 Campbell Hall, University of
37: California, Berkeley, CA 94720}
38: \altaffiltext{3}{Konkoly Observatory, H-1525, Box 67, Budapest, Hungary}
39: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, 525 Davey
40: Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802}
41: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, Mail Stop 105-24, California
42: Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}
43: \altaffiltext{6}{Benoziyo Center for Astrophysics, Weizmann
44: Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel}
45: \altaffiltext{7}{National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O.~Box 0, 1003
46: Lopezville Road, Socorro, NM 87801}
47: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of
48: Toronto, 50 St.~George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3H4, Canada.}
49:
50: \email{cenko@srl.caltech.edu}
51:
52: %==============================================================================
53: % Other Misc Info
54: %==============================================================================
55: \slugcomment{Submitted to \apj}
56:
57: \shorttitle{P60 Afterglow Catalog}
58: \shortauthors{Cenko {\it et al.}}
59:
60: %===========================================================================
61: % Abstract
62: %==========================================================================
63: \begin{abstract}
64: We present multi-color optical observations of
65: long-duration $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRBs) made over a three year period with
66: the robotic Palomar 60\,inch telescope (P60). Our sample consists of all 29
67: events discovered by \Swift\ for which P60 began observations less than one
68: hour after the burst trigger. We were able to recover $80\%$ of the optical
69: afterglows from this prompt sample, and we attribute this high efficiency to
70: our red coverage. Like \citet{mmk+08}, we find that a significant fraction
71: ($\approx 50\%$) of \Swift\ events show a suppression of the optical flux with
72: regards to the X-ray emission (so-called ``dark'' bursts). Our multi-color
73: photometry demonstrates this is likely due in large part to extinction in the
74: host galaxy. We argue that previous studies, by selecting only the brightest
75: and best-sampled optical afterglows, have significantly underestimated the
76: amount of dust present in typical GRB environments.
77: \end{abstract}
78:
79: %==============================================================================
80: % Keywords
81: %==============================================================================
82: \keywords{gamma-rays: bursts}
83:
84: %============================================================================
85: % Introduction
86: %============================================================================
87: \section{Introduction}
88: \label{sec:intro}
89: The launch of the \Swift\ $\gamma$-Ray Burst (GRB) Explorer \citep{gcg+04} in
90: 2004 November has ushered in a new era in the study of GRB
91: afterglows. \Swift\ offers a unique combination of event rate ($\sim
92: 100$\,yr$^{-1}$; almost an order of magnitude increase over previous missions)
93: and precise localization ($\sim 3\arcmin$ radius error circles are distributed
94: seconds after the burst, and refined to $\sim 3\arcsec$ minutes later).
95: The on-board X-ray Telescope (XRT; \citealt{bhn+05}) and UV-Optical Telescope
96: (UVOT; \citealt{rkm+05}), together with the rapid relay of these
97: precise localizations to ground-based observers, has enabled an unprecedented
98: glimpse into the time period immediately following the prompt emission over
99: a broad frequency range.
100:
101: Observations of X-ray afterglows with the XRT have generated particular
102: interest in recent years. In the pre-\Swift\ era, X-ray observations were
103: limited to hours or days after the prompt emission, and were often poorly
104: sampled compared with the optical and radio bandpasses. Routine XRT
105: observations of \Swift\ GRBs beginning at early times have revealed a central
106: engine capable of injecting energy into the forward shock at times well
107: beyond the duration of the prompt emission (e.g., \citealt{brf+05,zfd+06}).
108: This discovery has had a profound effect on our understanding of progenitor
109: models.
110:
111: While the X-ray afterglow is currently a well-explored phase space,
112: comparatively few analogous studies have been performed in the optical
113: bandpass. \citet{bkf+05} first suggested that \Swift\ optical afterglows
114: were 1.8\,mag fainter in the $R$-band than pre-\Swift\ events (at a common
115: epoch of 12\,hours after the burst). Likewise, \citet{rsf+06} found that
116: only 6 of the first 19 \Swift\ bursts with prompt ($\Delta t \lesssim 100$\,s)
117: UVOT coverage yielded optical afterglow detections. Since then, explaining the
118: faintness of \Swift\ optical afterglows has remained one of the
119: outstanding questions in the field.
120:
121: One clear contributor is distance: the median redshift of \Swift\ events
122: ($\langle z_{Swift} \rangle \approx 2.0$)\footnote{Calculated from J.~Greiner's
123: compilation at http://www.mpe.mpg.de/\~{}jcg/grbgen.html.} is significantly
124: larger than the pre-\Swift\ sample ($\langle z_{\mathrm{pre-}Swift} \rangle =
125: 1.1$; \citealt{bkf+05,jlf+06}). In a comprehensive literature-based study of
126: the brightest, best-studied \Swift\ afterglows, \citet{kkz+07} find properties
127: broadly similar to pre-\Swift\ events, after applying a cosmological
128: k-correction.
129:
130: On the other hand, \citet{mmk+08} have recently presented a sample of 63
131: GRBs observed in the optical ($r^{\prime}$-band) with the robotic 2\,m
132: Liverpool Telescope and Faulkes Telescopes (North and South). The selection
133: criteria for including a burst in their sample is never explicitly stated, and
134: several non-\Swift\ bursts are included, making a direct comparison with the
135: results of \citet{kkz+07} difficult. However, \citet{mmk+08} do not exclude the
136: significant fraction of events without optical detections from their analysis,
137: providing a more unbiased look at optical afterglow properties.
138: By measuring the ratio of optical to X-ray flux at a common time, these
139: authors find that roughly half of the GRBs in their sample exhibit a relative
140: suppression of the optical flux inconsistent with our standard picture of
141: afterglow emission (e.g., \citealt{spn98}), so-called ``dark'' bursts
142: \citep{jhf+04}. This finding suggests that distance alone cannot explain the
143: faintness of \Swift\ optical afterglows.
144:
145: Several other possibilities have been suggested to explain optically dark
146: GRB afterglows. Undoubtedly some GRBs, like GRB\,050904 \citep{hnr+06,kka+06},
147: originate from such large redshifts ($z \gtrsim 6$) that Ly-$\alpha$ absorption
148: in the inter-galactic medium (IGM) completely suppresses the optical flux
149: \citep{lr00}. Alternatively, late-time energy injection from the central
150: engine, manifested as bright X-ray flares and/or extended periods of shallow
151: decay, may be artificially increasing the X-ray flux, leading to spurious claims
152: of optically dark GRBs \citep{mmk+08}.
153:
154: One final possibility is extinction native to the GRB host galaxy. As a
155: population, long-duration GRB host galaxies exhibit extremely large neutral H
156: column densities (e.g., \citealt{hmg+03,bpc+06}), typically falling at $\log
157: N_{H} > 20.3$\,cm$^{-2}$ (so-called Damped Ly-$\alpha$, or DLA systems;
158: \citealt{wgp05}). And within their hosts, GRBs trace the blue light from hot
159: young stars in the disk even more closely than core-collapse supernovae
160: \citep{bkd02,fls+06}. Both findings are consistent with the observed
161: association between long-duration GRBs and massive star death (e.g.,
162: \citealt{wb06}).
163:
164: In spite of these expectations, relatively few GRB afterglows to date exhibit
165: signs of large host galaxy extinction (e.g., \citealt{cbm+07,rvw+07,tlr+08}).
166: \citet{kkz+07} find only a modest amount of dust ($\langle A_{V} \rangle =
167: 0.20$\,mag) for the 15 events in their ``golden'' sample, an identical value
168: found from an analogous study of pre-\Swift\ afterglows \citep{kkz06}.
169: The primary drawback of such studies, however, is the large and uncertain role
170: of selection effects: by including only the brightest, best-sampled optical
171: afterglows, \citet{kkz+07} may be preferentially selecting those events in
172: low-extinction environments. Understanding these selection effects is one
173: of the primary goals of this work.
174:
175: The Palomar 60\,inch telescope (P60) is a robotic, queue-scheduled facility
176: dedicated to rapid-response observations of GRBs and other transient
177: events \citep{cfm+06}. With a response time of $\Delta t \lesssim 3$\,min
178: and a limiting magnitude of $R \gtrsim 20.5$ (60\,s exposure), the P60
179: aperture is well suited to detect most \Swift\ optical afterglows \citep{as07}.
180: In addition, with a broadband filter wheel providing coverage from the near-UV
181: to the near-IR, P60 can also provide multi-color data on the afterglow
182: evolution.
183:
184: In this work, we present the P60-\Swift\ Early Optical Afterglow sample:
185: 29 unambiguously long-duration GRBs detected by the \Swift\
186: Burst Alert Telescope (BAT; \citealt{bbc+05}) with P60 observations beginning
187: at most one hour after the burst trigger time. This sample offers two
188: distinct advantages over previous efforts to understand the optical
189: afterglow emission from GRBs. First and foremost, our study enforces a
190: strict selection criterion independent of the optical afterglow properties,
191: and therefore will allow us to study the properties of the \Swift\ population
192: in a relatively unbiased manner. Secondly, nearly all events contain
193: multi-color ($\gp\,\Rc\,\ip\,\zp$) observations that allow us to evaluate the
194: importance of host galaxy extinction for a fraction of our sample. Altogether,
195: we aim to discriminate between the competing hypotheses proffered to explain
196: dark GRB afterglows in the \Swift\ era.
197:
198: Throughout this work, we adopt a standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with
199: $h_{0}$ = 0.71\,km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}} = 0.27$, and
200: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 1 - \Omega_{\mathrm{m}} = 0.73$ \citep{sbd+07}. We define the
201: flux density power-law temporal and spectral decay indices $\alpha$ and
202: $\beta$ as $f_{\nu} \propto t^{-\alpha} \nu^{-\beta}$ (e.g., \citealt{spn98}).
203: All errors quoted are 1 $\sigma$ (i.e., $68\%$) confidence intervals unless
204: otherwise noted.
205:
206: %============================================================================
207: % Observations
208: %============================================================================
209: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
210: \label{sec:p60catalog}
211: The P60-\Swift\ Early Optical Afterglow Catalog is shown in
212: Table~\ref{tab:p60catalog}. We have included here all optical afterglows of
213: events localized by \Swift\ in the three year period from 2005 April 1 --
214: 2008 March 31 (roughly coinciding with the beginning of real-time GRB alerts
215: and narrow-field instrument follow-up) for which we began P60 observations
216: within one hour after the BAT trigger.
217:
218: All P60 data were reduced in the IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the
219: National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the
220: Association for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with
221: the National Science Foundation.} environment using our custom real-time
222: reduction pipeline \citep{cfm+06}. Where necessary, co-addition was performed
223: using SWarp\footnote{See http://terapix.iap.fr/soft/swarp.}. For the vast
224: majority of events, magnitudes were calculated using aperture photometry with
225: the inclusion radius roughly matched to the stellar PSF FWHM. For the few
226: events with either extremely crowded fields or variable, elevated backgrounds
227: (due to nearby bright stars or the moon), image subtraction was performed
228: using the ISIS package \citep{al98}.
229:
230: Photometric calibration was performed relative to the SDSS data release 6
231: \citep{aaa+08} where possible, typically resulting in rms variations of
232: $\lesssim 0.05$\,mag in all filters. For those fields without Sloan coverage,
233: we made use of the calibration files provided by A.~Henden\footnote{Available
234: via ftp at ftp.aavso.org.} when available, resulting in similar quality
235: calibrations to the SDSS. The remaining events were calibrated relative to the
236: USNO-B1 catalog\footnote{See http://www.nofs.navy.mil/data/fchpix.}, resulting
237: in significantly poorer zero point fits. Particularly in the \gG, \zG, and
238: \zp\ filters, the rms errors for these events could be quite large
239: ($\sim 0.6$\,mag). Photometric and instrumental errors have been added in
240: quadrature to obtain the results presented in Table~\ref{tab:p60catalog}.
241:
242: Filter transformations (either from the Johnson-Kron-Cousins Vega system to the
243: SDSS AB system, or vice versa) were made using the results from \citet{jga06}.
244: Throughout this work, the Gunn \gG\ and \zG\ filters have been calibrated
245: relative to the SDSS \gp\ and \zp\ filters, and their corresponding magnitudes
246: are reported in the AB system. The Gunn \iG\ filter, used for some early
247: observations in 2005, was found to best match the Cousins \Ic\ filter, and hence
248: is reported on the Vega system. The remaining filters have magnitudes
249: reported in their native photometric system (i.e., Vega for \Vc, \Rc, and \Ic,
250: and AB for \ip\ and \zp). A summary of the relevant photometric calibration
251: and appropriate zero point for flux conversion can be found in
252: Table~\ref{tab:p60filters}. Full throughput curves for all P60 filters can
253: be found in \citet{cfm+06}.
254:
255: Finally, we note that the magnitudes reported in Table~\ref{tab:p60catalog}
256: have not been corrected for Galactic extinction along the line-of-sight.
257: For all subsequent figures and analysis, this correction has been applied
258: using the dust extinction maps of \citet{sfd98} and the Milky Way extinction
259: curve from \citet{ccm89}. For most bursts, the extinction correction was
260: quite small [$\langle E(B-V) \rangle = 0.04$\,mag], although a few events
261: were subjected to large column densities [e.g., GRB\,060110: $E(B-V) =
262: 0.97$\,mag]
263:
264: %============================================================================
265: % Early Optical Afterglows
266: %============================================================================
267: \section{Analysis}
268: \label{sec:early}
269: The standard theoretical paradigm to explain GRBs is the relativistic
270: fireball model (e.g., \citealt{p05}).
271: In the case of long-duration GRBs, accretion onto the black hole remnant of
272: massive star core-collapse powers an ultra-relativistic outflow of matter
273: and/or radiation \citep{w93}. Shocks and/or instabilities within the
274: outflow generate the prompt $\gamma$-rays (i.e., internal shocks). The
275: afterglow emission, on the other hand, is powered by electrons in the
276: circumburst medium accelerated by the outgoing blast wave (i.e., external
277: shocks). The resulting synchrotron spectrum and light curve are well described
278: by a series of broken power-laws \citep{gs02},
279: with the break frequencies determined not only by properties of the outflow
280: ($E$, $\theta$, etc.), but also by the nature of the circumburst medium. In
281: what follows we attempt to understand the early optical afterglow phase in the
282: context of this model.
283:
284: The \Rc-band optical light curves (and upper limits) for all 29 events in the
285: P60-\Swift\ Early Optical Afterglow Sample are shown in
286: Figure~\ref{fig:early:all}. For all events with P60 optical
287: detections, we have simultaneously fit both the spectral and temporal evolution
288: of the light curve, assuming a power-law spectrum and either a single or broken
289: power-law temporal evolution. The results of this analysis are shown in
290: Table~\ref{tab:early}.
291:
292: %==============================================================================
293: % Early Optical Light Curves - All
294: %==============================================================================
295: \begin{figure}[t!]
296: \centerline{\plotone{f1.eps}}
297: \caption[The P60-\Swift\ early optical afterglow sample]
298: {The P60-\Swift\ early optical afterglow sample. We plot here \Rc-band
299: light curves or upper limits for all 29 events in the P60-\Swift\
300: Early Afterglow Sample. With the exception of GRB\,050607, the upper limits
301: fall securely at the very faint end of the distribution (see also
302: Fig.~\ref{fig:agdistro}).}
303: \label{fig:early:all}
304: \end{figure}
305: %==============================================================================
306:
307: Because afterglow emission is a broadband phenomenon, multi-wavelength
308: observations can often provide important constraints that would be overlooked
309: by considering only a single bandpass. We have therefore obtained XRT
310: light curves from the on-line \Swift-XRT light curve
311: repository\footnote{See http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt\_curves.} \citep{ebp+07}.
312: We converted the 0.3--10\,keV fluxes to flux densities at a nominal
313: energy of 2\,keV assuming a power-law X-ray spectrum with indices provided
314: in the Gamma-Ray Burst Coordinate Network (GCN)\footnote{See
315: http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3\_archive.html.} circulars. We then fit the
316: temporal decay of each X-ray light curve, assuming either a single or
317: broken-power law model.
318:
319: With these results in hand, we now move on to explore the anomalously large P60
320: detection efficiency (\S~\ref{sec:deteff:obs}); the relationship between
321: X-ray and optical flares (\S~\ref{sec:xrayflares}); the brightness
322: and luminosity distribution of \Swift\ optical afterglows
323: (\S~\ref{sec:luminosity:obs}); and optically dark bursts in the \Swift\ era
324: (\S~\ref{sec:dark:obs}).
325:
326: %=============================================================================
327:
328: \subsection{Detection Efficiency}
329: \label{sec:deteff:obs}
330: The most striking feature in Table~\ref{tab:early} is the large fraction
331: of P60 detected afterglows: of the 29 events in the sample, P60 detected
332: 22 (76$\%$). This stands in stark contrast with the 32$\%$
333: afterglow detection efficiency of the UVOT \citep{rsf+06} and even
334: exceeds the 50$\%$ value reported by the larger Liverpool and Faulkes
335: telescopes \citep{mmk+08}. For those events without P60 detections, one
336: (GRB\,050607: \citealt{GCN.3527}) was detected in the optical below
337: our sensitivity limits, while three were detected in the NIR
338: (GRB\,050915: \citealt{GCN.3984}; GRB\,060923A: \citealt{GCN.5587};
339: GRB\,061222A: \citealt{GCN.5975}). Only three events ($10\%$) in the entire
340: sample registered no detections in the optical or NIR bandpass: GRBs\,050412,
341: 060805, and 070521.
342:
343: $59\%$ of the events in the sample (17 of 29) have a redshift measured
344: from optical spectroscopy, roughly a factor of two larger than the \Swift\
345: population as a whole. These range from $z = 0.6535$ (GRB\,050416A;
346: \citealt{snc+07}) to $z = 4.9$ (GRB\,060510B; \citealt{psc+07}). Together
347: with our measured median redshift of $\langle z \rangle \approx 2$, the events
348: in our sample are relatively representative of \Swift\ afterglows ($\langle
349: z \rangle \approx 2.0$; \citealt{bkf+05,jlf+06}). We wish to reiterate here
350: again that P60 immediately responds to all \Swift\ events visible at Palomar
351: Observatory (weather permitting), ruling out any large selection bias. While
352: small number statistics may account for some of our observed deviations from
353: previous studies, our large detection efficiency merits a more thorough
354: discussion in \S~\ref{sec:deteff:disc}.
355:
356: %=============================================================================
357: \subsection{X-Ray and Optical Flares}
358: \label{sec:xrayflares}
359: A large fraction ($\approx 33\%$) of \Swift\ X-ray light curves exhibit
360: dramatic short-lived flares superposed on their power-law decay \citep{fmr+07}.
361: The temporal and spectral structure of these flares indicate they cannot
362: come from the external shock powering the afterglow emission; instead they
363: are widely attributed to late-time activity of the central engine
364: \citep{zfd+06}. Likewise, a re-brightening at late times in the optical
365: bandpass has now been seen in several \Swift\ afterglows
366: \citep{wvw+06,sdp+07}. Investigating the relationship between these two
367: bandpasses should help shed light on the emission mechanisms responsible for
368: these deviations from standard afterglow theory.
369:
370: Our early afterglow sample includes four events with contemporaneous optical
371: observations of X-ray flares: GRBs\,050820A, 050908, 060210, and 080310
372: (Figs.~\ref{fig:betaOX} and \ref{fig:xrayflares}). The relationship
373: between the X-ray and optical emission from GRB\,050820A is discussed
374: extensively in \citet{ckh+06} and \citet{vww+06}. While the optical emission
375: clearly jumps in concert with the bright X-ray flare at $t \approx 230$\,s,
376: the dominant contribution to the optical emission at later times appears to
377: come from the forward shock. In the other three events, the optical emission
378: is completely de-coupled from any flaring in the X-rays.
379:
380: %==============================================================================
381: % Beta_OX vs. Time
382: %==============================================================================
383: \begin{figure}[p]
384: \epsscale{0.8}
385: \centerline{\plotone{f2a.eps}}
386: \centerline{\plotone{f2b.eps}}
387: \caption[X-ray and optical light curves of GRB\,080310 and GRB\,060210]
388: {X-ray and optical light curves of GRB\,080310 ({\it top}) and GRB\,060210
389: ({\it bottom}). For both events the optical light curve at early times
390: ($t \lesssim 10^{3}$\,s) is not correlated with the dramatic X-ray flares.
391: Measurement of the optical to X-ray spectral index ($\beta_{OX}$;
392: \S~\ref{sec:dark:obs}) is therefore a strong function of time. Measuring
393: $\beta_{OX}$ during an X-ray flare may lead to erroneous classification of
394: some bursts as ``dark'' ($\beta_{OX} < 0.5$). Both events, however, show
395: relatively constant $\beta_{OX}$ values for $t \gtrsim 10^{3}$\,s.
396: GRB\,060210, for example, is clearly a dark burst, even at late times.}
397: \label{fig:betaOX}
398: \end{figure}
399: %==============================================================================
400:
401: GRB\,060906 is unique in our sample, as we observe a re-brightening by a
402: factor of $\approx$ 3 at $t \approx 10^{4}$\,s in the optical. The
403: X-ray decay, on the other hand, appears relatively flat during this stage.
404: One possibility to explain the
405: optical flare is an increase in the circumburst density; such a change in the
406: surrounding medium should have no effect on any emission above the
407: synchrotron cooling frequency, $\nu_{c}$, where the X-ray bandpass is likely
408: to fall. However, a recent study by \citet{ng07} has shown that even
409: sharp density changes do not lead to dramatic variability in afterglow
410: light curves; instead any changes in the afterglow evolution occurs smoothly
411: over several orders of magnitude in time. We leave a more thorough discussion
412: of the afterglow of GRB\,060906 to Rana et al.~(2008, in preparation).
413:
414: %==============================================================================
415: % X-ray Flares
416: %==============================================================================
417: \begin{figure}[p]
418: \epsscale{0.8}
419: \centerline{\plotone{f3a.eps}}
420: \centerline{\plotone{f3b.eps}}
421: \caption[X-ray and optical flares in \Swift\ afterglows]
422: {X-ray and optical flares in \Swift\ afterglows. \textit{Top:} X-ray and
423: optical light curves of GRB\,050908. The X-ray light curve shows a dramatic
424: flare ($\Delta f / f \approx 50$ at $t \approx 400$\,s) at early times. No
425: corresponding variability is seen in the optical. \textit{Bottom:} X-ray
426: and optical light curves of GRB\,060906. In this case, the re-brightening
427: occurs in the optical while the X-ray decay is relatively flat. Both events
428: require additional emission mechanisms beyond the forward shock synchrotron
429: model.}
430: \label{fig:xrayflares}
431: \end{figure}
432: %==============================================================================
433:
434: %=============================================================================
435: \subsection{Brightness and Luminosity Distribution}
436: \label{sec:luminosity:obs}
437: We have interpolated (where possible) or extrapolated the extinction-corrected
438: \Rc-band flux to a common time of $t = 10^{3}$\,s in the observer frame for
439: 21 P60-detected afterglows in our sample\footnote{GRB\,080320 was only detected
440: in the \ip\ and \zp\ filters and is therefore included in
441: Figure~\ref{fig:agdistro} as a limit.}. A plot of the resulting
442: cumulative distribution is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:agdistro}. For those
443: events without detections, we take the deepest upper limit obtained before
444: this fiducial time, and plot this limit as an arrow in
445: Figure~\ref{fig:agdistro}. For comparison, we also show the analogous result
446: obtained by \citet{as07} in a literature-based study of the first 43 \Swift\
447: optical afterglows from 2005--2006.
448:
449: %==============================================================================
450: % Brightness Distribution
451: %==============================================================================
452: \begin{figure}[t!]
453: \centerline{\plotone{f4.eps}}
454: \caption[P60-\Swift\ optical afterglow brightness distribution]
455: {P60-\Swift\ optical afterglow brightness distribution. We plot here the
456: observed optical brightness distribution of all events in our early
457: afterglow sample at a common reference time of $t = 10^{3}$\,s (solid line).
458: The dashed line indicates a similar archival analysis performed by
459: \citet{as07}. Minor deviations can be seen at the very faint end
460: (\Rc $\gtrsim 21$\,mag), likely indicative of the P60 sensitivity limit.
461: Arrows indicate P60 upper limits for GRBs with optical afterglows from other
462: facilities (green), GRBs with only NIR afterglows (red), and GRBs with no
463: detected optical or NIR afterglows (blue).}
464: \label{fig:agdistro}
465: \end{figure}
466: %==============================================================================
467:
468: It is clear from the large degree of overlap in the two distributions
469: in Figure~\ref{fig:agdistro} that our sample, though slightly smaller in
470: size, is consistent with the findings of \citet{as07} and therefore likely
471: representative of the entire \Swift\ optical afterglow population.
472: We find a slight degree of variation at the faint end ($\Rc \gtrsim
473: 21.5$\,mag), which likely indicates we are missing a small fraction ($< 10\%$)
474: of the faintest afterglows. However, given that $\sim 70\%$ of \Swift\ events
475: seem to have $\Rc < 22$\,mag at this fiducial time \citep{as07}, the P60
476: sensitivity is well matched to detect the majority of events.
477:
478: For those events for which we do not detect an optical afterglow with
479: P60, it is clear from Figures~\ref{fig:early:all} and \ref{fig:agdistro}
480: that only one event can be attributed to a lack of sensitivity (GRB\,050607,
481: which was located only 3\arcsec\ from a $R \approx 16$\,mag star).
482: The remaining 6 events would all have been easily detected if as bright as
483: a typical afterglow in our sample.
484:
485: For the 17 GRBs with redshifts, it is also possible to compare
486: optical light curves in the GRB rest frame. We therefore compute the
487: afterglow luminosity at a fiducial time of $10^{3}$\,s in the rest frame of
488: the GRB, applying a k-correction to convert our observed bandpass to the rest
489: frame $\Rc$-band, as described in \citet{hbb+02}. The resulting
490: histogram is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:agluminosity}. At this
491: time, we find a median value for the afterglow luminosity to be
492: $\langle \log(L [\mathrm{erg s}^{-1}]) \rangle = 46.39$ with a standard
493: deviation of 1.4 dex. Also shown in Figure~\ref{fig:agluminosity} is the
494: best-fit single Gaussian distribution.
495:
496: %==============================================================================
497: % Luminosity Distribution
498: %==============================================================================
499: \begin{figure}[t!]
500: \centerline{\plotone{f5.eps}}
501: \caption[P60-\Swift\ optical afterglow luminosity distribution]
502: {P60-\Swift\ optical afterglow luminosity distribution. We have measured
503: the rest-frame optical \Rc-band luminosity at a common (rest frame) time
504: of $t = 10^{3}$\,s for all events in our early sample with a spectroscopic
505: redshift. We find a good fit to a single log-normal distribution with mean
506: $\log (L [\mathrm{erg s}^{-1}]) = 46.68$ and standard deviation
507: $\sigma = 1.04$ dex. The sole outlier (GRB\,060210) falls on the
508: over-luminous end because of its extreme k-correction
509: (\S~\ref{sec:luminosity:obs}).}
510: \label{fig:agluminosity}
511: \end{figure}
512: %============================================================================
513:
514: Several authors \citep{lz06,ngg+06,kkz06} have argued in favor of a bimodal
515: distribution of intrinsic afterglow luminosity, with a class of nearby,
516: sub-luminous events. Much like \citet{mmk+08}, we find no need for a
517: bimodal distribution. While a single event (GRB\,060210) is a significant
518: outlier on the over-luminous end, we note this event is at relatively high
519: redshift ($z = 3.91$; \citealt{GCN.4729}) and has an extremely steep
520: spectral index ($\beta = 7.2 \pm 0.7$). The resulting k-correction is
521: therefore extremely large (and relatively uncertain). This seems a more likely
522: explanation than such an extremely luminous burst.
523:
524: %============================================================================
525: \subsection{Dark Bursts}
526: \label{sec:dark:obs}
527: We adopt here the definition of a ``dark'' GRB as one where the optical
528: (\Rc-band) to X-ray spectral index satisfies $\beta_{OX} < 0.5$ \citep{jhf+04}.
529: Unlike definitions based solely on optical brightness, the $\beta_{OX}$ method
530: is physically motivated: an afterglow qualifies as dark when the
531: ratio of optical to X-ray flux is incompatible with standard synchrotron
532: afterglow theory. By utilizing both the optical and X-ray afterglows, we can
533: easily distinguish between intrinsically sub-luminous afterglows (i.e., those
534: events that are faint in all bandpasses) and those afterglows that indicate
535: an additional process is selectively suppressing the optical flux (or,
536: alternatively, increasing the X-ray emission).
537:
538: In Figure~\ref{fig:darkbursts} we compare the X-ray and \Rc-band flux
539: densities extrapolated to a common time of $t = 10^{3}$\,s for all 29 afterglows
540: in our sample. The allowed region in the standard afterglow model,
541: $0.50 \lesssim \beta_{OX} \lesssim 1.25$, is marked with solid lines. Like
542: \citet{mmk+08}, we find that nearly $50\%$ of events qualify as dark under
543: this definition. It is clear therefore that the faintness of the \Swift\
544: optical afterglows cannot be attributed solely to distance, as this would
545: not directly affect the measured flux ratio. This result stands
546: in stark contrast with the study of pre-\Swift\ events by
547: \citet{jhf+04}, which found a dark burst incidence of only $10\%$.
548:
549: %==============================================================================
550: % Dark Bursts
551: %==============================================================================
552: \begin{figure}[t!]
553: \centerline{\plotone{f6.eps}}
554: \caption[Optical / X-ray spectral energy distribution of \Swift\ GRBs]
555: {Optical / X-ray spectral energy distribution of \Swift\ GRBs. We plot the
556: X-ray and optical flux (or upper limits) at a common reference time of
557: $t = 10^{3}$ for all events in our P60-\Swift\ sample. In
558: standard afterglow theory, the optical to X-ray spectral index, $\beta_{OX}$
559: should fall between $0.5 < \beta_{OX} < 1.25$ (solid black lines). In our
560: sample, nearly $50\%$ of afterglows quality as ``dark'' bursts ($\beta_{OX} <
561: 0.5$). Correcting for extinction in the GRB host galaxy (\textit{open
562: squares}) brings several events in line with the predictions of synchrotron
563: radiation.}
564: \label{fig:darkbursts}
565: \end{figure}
566: %==============================================================================
567:
568: The most important difference between our study and that of \citet{jhf+04} is
569: the time at which we evaluate $\beta_{OX}$ ($t = 11$\,hr for \citealt{jhf+04}).
570: In Figure~\ref{fig:betaOX} we demonstrate the importance of the reference
571: time when calculating $\beta_{OX}$. Many \Swift\ afterglows exhibit bright
572: X-ray flares at early times \citep{brf+05}, as well as a plateau
573: decay phase indicative of continued energy injection into the forward shock
574: \citep{nkg+06,zfd+06}. This late-time activity could artificially inflate
575: the X-ray flux at early times, leading to spuriously low $\beta_{OX}$
576: measurements (see GRB\,080310, Fig.~\ref{fig:betaOX}).
577:
578: While our optical coverage at $t = 11$\,hr is relatively sparse, we find
579: little evidence for evolution of $\beta_{OX}$ between these two epochs.
580: Delayed engine activity may explain the low values of $\beta_{OX}$ measured
581: for a few events (e.g., GRB\,050820A; \citealt{ckh+06}). But we find that
582: extrapolating the light curves out to both $t = 10^{4}$\,s and $t = 11$\,hr
583: does not change the dark burst fraction by more than 10$\%$. This
584: echoes the result found by \citet{mmk+08}.
585:
586: Another possibility to explain dark optical afterglows is a high-redshift
587: ($z \gtrsim 5$) origin. In this case, the observed \Rc\ bandpass falls below
588: the Ly-$\alpha$ cut-off in the GRB rest frame, leading to a significant
589: suppression of optical flux due to absorption in the intergalactic medium.
590: This is the case, for example, for GRB\,060510B ($\beta_{OX} = 0.04$), which
591: lies at $z = 4.9$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:darkbursts}; \citealt{psc+07}).
592:
593: Much like the delayed engine activity hypothesis, a high-redshift origin
594: can only account for a fraction of the observed dark bursts in our sample.
595: Theoretical models, assuming GRBs trace the cosmic star formation rate,
596: predict a high-redshift ($z \gtrsim 7$) fraction of $\approx 10\%$
597: \citep{bl06}. Five events with $\beta_{OX} < 0.5$ have measured
598: spectroscopic redshifts, firmly establishing the Ly-$\alpha$ cut-off
599: below the observed \Rc\ filter (e.g., GRB\,060210: $\beta_{OX} = 0.37$,
600: $z = 3.91$; \citealt{GCN.4729}). And we can place upper limits on the
601: redshifts of some events that do not have optical afterglows based on the
602: inference of absorption in excess of the Galactic value in X-ray afterglow
603: spectra (e.g., GRB\,070521A: $z < 2.4$; \citealt{gnv+07}).
604:
605: Finally, we consider the possibility of extinction native to GRB host
606: galaxies. Because long-duration GRBs have massive star progenitors, it is
607: natural to expect them to explode in dusty, highly extinguished environments.
608: However, broadband studies of some of the best sampled afterglows in the
609: both pre-\Swift\ and \Swift\ eras indicate only a modest amount of host
610: reddening ($\langle A_{V} \rangle \approx 0.2$\,mag; \citealt{kkz06,kkz+07}).
611:
612: In contrast, we find evidence for significant host absorption in several of
613: the afterglows in our sample. Using our multi-color P60 observations, we
614: provide best-fit optical power-law spectral indices for all events with
615: sufficient filter coverage in Table~\ref{tab:early}. Of the 7 dark bursts
616: with measured values of $\beta_{O}$, 6 spectral indices are too steep to be
617: explained by the standard afterglow formulation (i.e., $\beta_{O} > 1.5$).
618:
619: To further quantify this effect, we have refitted our optical data, but in this
620: case fixing the optical spectral index to $\beta_{O} = 0.6$ (the average value
621: for bright \Swift\ events; \citealt{kkz+07}). We then incorporated the effects
622: of dust by adding the host galaxy reddening [$A_{V}$(host)] as a free
623: parameter to the fit. In general, our data were not sufficient to distinguish
624: between competing extinction laws (i.e., Milky Way, LMC, and SMC;
625: \citealt{p92}). We therefore assumed an SMC-like extinction curve, as this
626: model has proved successful for most GRB afterglows. The results are shown in
627: Table~\ref{tab:early}. The extinction-corrected fluxes are also plotted
628: in Figure~\ref{fig:darkbursts}. In all cases where we were able to measure
629: the host extinction, this correction has moved the afterglow from near or
630: below the dark burst threshold back into the realm of synchrotron theory.
631:
632: It is clear that the afterglows in our sample are significantly more reddened
633: than the brightest afterglows in both the \Swift\ and pre-\Swift\ eras.
634: Furthermore, even our host absorption measurements are quite biased; we could
635: not measure $A_{V}$(host) for those events without P60 afterglows, which are
636: likely to be the most extinguished events in our sample. Even some afterglows
637: that do not qualify as dark, such as GRB\,070208 and GRB\,070419A, exhibit
638: strong evidence for significant amounts of host galaxy dust [$A_{V}$(host)
639: $\approx 1$]. Though our sample size is still quite small, host galaxy
640: extinction appears to be the primary explanation for dark bursts in the
641: \Swift\ era.
642:
643: %============================================================================
644: % Discussion
645: %============================================================================
646: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
647: \label{sec:discussion}
648:
649: %============================================================================
650:
651: \subsection{Anomalous P60 Detection Efficiency}
652: \label{sec:deteff:disc}
653: We have demonstrated in \S~\ref{sec:deteff:obs} that P60 was able to detect
654: optical afterglow emission from a large fraction ($\sim 80\%$) of events for
655: which observations began within an hour of the burst trigger. While the
656: 1.5\,m aperture is relatively large for a robotic facility, it would be
657: nonetheless informative to understand systematic effects that affect our
658: afterglow recovery rate. The ultimate goal, of course, is to better inform
659: future GRB follow-up campaigns.
660:
661: The first lesson from this campaign is the importance of
662: observing in redder filters. We have shown in
663: \S~\ref{sec:dark:obs} that typical \Swift\ events suffer from a
664: non-negligible amount of host galaxy extinction (Tab.~\ref{tab:early}).
665: Coupled with the additional effect of Ly-$\alpha$ absorption in the IGM from
666: a median redshift of $\langle z \rangle \approx 2$, it is clear that a large
667: fraction of the low UVOT detection efficiency is caused by its
668: blue observing bandpass. The P60 automated follow-up sequence, consisting of
669: alternating exposures in the \Rc, \ip, and \zp\ filters, while initially
670: designed for identification of candidate high-$z$ events, is actually
671: well-suited to maximize afterglow detection rates.
672:
673: The large fraction of P60-detected bursts with spectroscopic redshifts, on the
674: other hand, is almost certainly an artifact of the unequal longitudinal
675: distribution of large optical telescopes. With the exception of the South
676: African Large Telescope (SALT), all optical telescopes with apertures larger
677: than 8\,m fall within six time zones (UT-4 to UT-10). It is not entirely
678: surprising then, that so many promptly discovered P60 optical
679: afterglows have spectroscopic redshifts from immediate follow-up with the
680: largest optical facilities.
681:
682: While building the largest optical facilities is often prohibitively
683: expensive for all but the largest collaborations, 1\,m class facilities are much
684: more feasible, both in terms of cost and construction time scale. We wish here
685: to echo the thoughts of many previous GRB observers (e.g., \citealt{as07}) that
686: future automated facilities be built at longitudes (and latitudes) not covered
687: by current facilities. NIR coverage is particularly crucial to detect the
688: most extinguished events and provide tighter constraints on the afterglow
689: SED and hence host galaxy extinction.
690:
691: A longitudinally spaced ring of 1\,m class facilities, as for example envisioned
692: by the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope\footnote{See http://lcogt.net.}
693: is well positioned in the future to recover the vast majority of GRB optical
694: afterglows, assuming the follow-up is done in the reddest filters possible.
695: Such coverage will be particularly important as we transition into the
696: \textit{Fermi} era, with its significantly decreased rate of precise GRB
697: localizations.
698:
699: %============================================================================
700: \subsection{Re-visiting Dark Bursts}
701: \label{sec:darkbursts:disc}
702: We now turn our attention to the issue of dark bursts in the \Swift\ era.
703: In \S~\ref{sec:dark:obs}, we demonstrated that a large fraction
704: ($\approx 50\%$) of \Swift\ afterglows showed suppressed emission in the
705: optical bandpass (relative to the X-ray), that was due in large part to
706: extinction in the host galaxy. Given the natural expectation that GRBs,
707: since they are associated with massive stars, should form in relatively
708: dusty environments, we wish to understand why our study of \Swift\
709: events yields such a dramatically different dark burst fraction than previous
710: work on pre-\Swift\ GRBs \citep{jhf+04}.
711:
712: We believe selection effects are one large cause of this discrepancy.
713: It is clear that previous studies of GRB host galaxy extinction, by selecting
714: the brightest and best-sampled events, provide a strongly biased view. Many,
715: if not most, GRB hosts, appear to suffer from a significant amount of dust
716: extinction ($A_{V} \gtrsim 0.5$). Even the study of \citet{jhf+04}, though
717: it included \textit{all} pre-\Swift\ GRBs with an X-ray afterglow, could
718: be biased towards unextinguished events as well. Before \Swift,
719: target-of-opportunity X-ray observations often required the accurate
720: localization provided by an optical (or radio) afterglow. Thus those events
721: with the brightest optical afterglows (assumed to have on average smaller
722: extinction) were more likely to be observed in the X-ray, biasing the
723: optical-to-X-ray spectral index to larger values of $\beta_{OX}$.
724:
725: Another, more subtle, effect, may also cause \Swift\ afterglows to appear
726: darker than pre-\Swift\ afterglows, independent of host galaxy extinction.
727: Because \Swift\ is a more sensitive instrument, it detects GRBs at a higher
728: average redshift than any previous mission. Consider a host frame extinction
729: of $A_{V} = 0.1$\,mag. At $z = 1$, typical for pre-\Swift\ events, the observed
730: \Rc\ filter corresponds to roughly to rest-frame $U$-band, and so an
731: extinction of 0.17\,mag (assuming a Milky Way-like extinction curve). On
732: the other hand, at $z = 3$, the observed \Rc-band corresponds to a rest frame
733: wavelength of $\lambda = 1647$\,\AA. So at high redshift, the same amount of
734: dust will produce nearly twice as much extinction in the observed bandpass.
735: Solely because of redshifts effects, similar environments will produce
736: different observed spectral slopes. This effect is exacerbated by the nature
737: of dust grains in most GRB host galaxies, as the SMC extinction curve does not
738: show the pronounced 2175\,\AA\ bump seen from the Milky Way \citep{p92}.
739:
740: If GRBs do trace the cosmic star formation rate, our results suggest a
741: significant fraction of star formation occurs in highly obscured environments.
742: \citet{kkz06} found a weak correlation between host reddening and sub-mm
743: flux, and we believe a sensitive mid-infrared or sub-mm survey of GRB host
744: galaxies would be an important confirmation of our results. However, instead
745: of focusing on the brightest, best studied afterglows, as has often been
746: done in the past (e.g., \citealt{tbb+04,mhc+08}), we instead suggest a survey
747: of the host galaxies of the optically darkest GRB afterglows to see if these
748: events really do exhibit signs of obscured star formation.
749:
750: %============================================================================
751: % Acknowledgments
752: %============================================================================
753: \acknowledgments
754: P60 operations are funded in part by NASA through the \textit{Swift} Guest
755: Investigator Program (Grant Number NNG06GH61G). S.~B.~C.~is supported by
756: a NASA Graduate Student Research Program fellowship. M.~M.~K.~would like
757: to acknowledge the Moore Foundation for the Hale Fellowship supporting her
758: graduate studies. A.~G.~acknowledges support by the Benoziyo Center for
759: Astrophysics and the William Z.~and Eda Bess Novick New Scientists Fund at the
760: Weizmann Institute. This work made use of data supplied by the UK
761: \textit{Swift} Science Data Centre at the University of Leicester. This
762: research has made use of the USNOFS Image and Catalogue Archive operated by
763: the United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station.
764:
765: %=============================================================================
766: % Facility Keywords
767: %=============================================================================
768: {\it Facilities:} \facility{PO:1.5m ()}, \facility{Swift ()}
769:
770: %===========================================================================
771: % Bibliography
772: %===========================================================================
773: \clearpage
774: \begin{thebibliography}{73}
775: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
776:
777: \bibitem[{Adelman-McCarthy {et~al.}(2008)Adelman-McCarthy, Ag{\"u}eros, Allam,
778: Prieto, Anderson, Anderson, Annis, Bahcall, Bailer-Jones, Baldry, Barentine,
779: Bassett, Becker, Beers, Bell, Berlind, Bernardi, Blanton, Bochanski, Boroski,
780: Brinchmann, Brinkmann, Brunner, Budav{\'a}ri, Carliles, Carr, Castander,
781: Cinabro, Cool, Covey, Csabai, Cunha, Davenport, Dilday, Doi, Eisenstein,
782: Evans, Fan, Finkbeiner, Friedman, Frieman, Fukugita, G{\"a}nsicke, Gates,
783: Gillespie, Glazebrook, Gray, Grebel, Gunn, Gurbani, Hall, Harding, Harvanek,
784: Hawley, Hayes, Heckman, Hendry, Hindsley, Hirata, Hogan, Hogg, Hyde, ichi
785: Ichikawa, Ivezi{\'c}, Jester, Johnson, Jorgensen, Juri{\'c}, Kent, Kessler,
786: Kleinman, Knapp, Kron, Krzesinski, Kuropatkin, Lamb, Lampeitl, Lebedeva, Lee,
787: Leger, L{\'e}pine, Lima, Lin, Long, Loomis, Loveday, Lupton, Malanushenko,
788: Malanushenko, Mandelbaum, Margon, Marriner, Mart{\'\i}nez-Delgado, Matsubara,
789: McGehee, McKay, Meiksin, Morrison, Munn, Nakajima, Neilsen, Newberg, Nichol,
790: Nicinski, Nieto-Santisteban, Nitta, Okamura, Owen, Oyaizu, Padmanabhan, Pan,
791: Park, Peoples, Pier, Pope, Purger, Raddick, Fiorentin, Richards, Richmond,
792: Riess, Rix, Rockosi, Sako, Schlegel, Schneider, Schreiber, Schwope, Seljak,
793: Sesar, Sheldon, Shimasaku, Sivarani, Smith, Snedden, Steinmetz, Strauss,
794: SubbaRao, Suto, Szalay, Szapudi, Szkody, Tegmark, Thakar, Tremonti, Tucker,
795: Uomoto, Berk, Vandenberg, Vidrih, Vogeley, Voges, Vogt, Wadadekar, Weinberg,
796: West, White, Wilhite, Yanny, Yocum, York, Zehavi, \& Zucker}]{aaa+08}
797: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K. {\it et al.} 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement
798: Series, 175, 297
799:
800: \bibitem[{Akerlof \& Swan(2007)}]{as07}
801: Akerlof, C.~W. and Swan, H.~F. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 1868
802:
803: \bibitem[{Alard \& Lupton(1998)}]{al98}
804: Alard, C. and Lupton, R.~H. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 503, 325
805:
806: \bibitem[{Barthelmy {et~al.}(2005)Barthelmy, Barbier, Cummings, Fenimore,
807: Gehrels, Hullinger, Krimm, Markwardt, Palmer, Parsons, Sato, Suzuki,
808: Takahashi, Tashiro, \& Tueller}]{bbc+05}
809: Barthelmy, S.~D. {\it et al.} 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 143
810:
811: \bibitem[{Berger {et~al.}(2005)Berger, Kulkarni, Fox, Soderberg, Harrison,
812: Nakar, Kelson, Gladders, Mulchaey, Oemler, Dressler, Cenko, Price, Schmidt,
813: Frail, Morrell, Gonzalez, Krzeminski, Sari, Gal-Yam, Moon, Penprase,
814: Jayawardhana, Scholz, Rich, Peterson, Anderson, McNaught, Minezaki, Yoshii,
815: Cowie, \& Pimbblet}]{bkf+05}
816: Berger, E. {\it et al.} 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 634, 501
817:
818: \bibitem[{Berger {et~al.}(2006)Berger, Penprase, Cenko, Kulkarni, Fox, Steidel,
819: \& Reddy}]{bpc+06}
820: Berger, E., Penprase, B.~E., Cenko, S.~B., Kulkarni, S.~R., Fox, D.~B.,
821: Steidel, C.~C., and Reddy, N.~A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 642, 979
822:
823: \bibitem[{Bloom \& Alatalo(2005)}]{GCN.3984}
824: Bloom, J.~S. and Alatalo, K. 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 3984, 1
825:
826: \bibitem[{Bloom {et~al.}(2002)Bloom, Kulkarni, \& Djorgovski}]{bkd02}
827: Bloom, J.~S., Kulkarni, S.~R., and Djorgovski, S.~G. 2002, The Astronomical
828: Journal, 123, 1111
829:
830: \bibitem[{Bromm \& Loeb(2006)}]{bl06}
831: Bromm, V. and Loeb, A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 642, 382
832:
833: \bibitem[{Burrows {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}})Burrows, Hill, Nousek, Kennea,
834: Wells, Osborne, Abbey, Beardmore, Mukerjee, Short, Chincarini, Campana,
835: Citterio, Moretti, Pagani, Tagliaferri, Giommi, Capalbi, Tamburelli,
836: Angelini, Cusumano, Br{\"a}uninger, Burkert, \& Hartner}]{bhn+05}
837: Burrows, D.~N. {\it et al.} 2005{\natexlab{a}}, Space Science Reviews, 120, 165
838:
839: \bibitem[{Burrows {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}})Burrows, Romano, Falcone,
840: Kobayashi, Zhang, Moretti, O'Brien, Goad, Campana, Page, Angelini, Barthelmy,
841: Beardmore, Capalbi, Chincarini, Cummings, Cusumano, Fox, Giommi, Hill,
842: Kennea, Krimm, Mangano, Marshall, M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, Morris, Nousek, Osborne,
843: Pagani, Perri, Tagliaferri, Wells, Woosley, \& Gehrels}]{brf+05}
844: ---. 2005{\natexlab{b}}, Science, 309, 1833
845:
846: \bibitem[{Cardelli {et~al.}(1989)Cardelli, Clayton, \& Mathis}]{ccm89}
847: Cardelli, J.~A., Clayton, G.~C., and Mathis, J.~S. 1989, The Astrophysical
848: Journal, 345, 245
849:
850: \bibitem[{Castro-Tirado {et~al.}(2007)Castro-Tirado, Bremer, McBreen,
851: Gorosabel, Guziy, Fakthullin, Sokolov, Delgado, Bihain, Pandey, Jel{\'\i}nek,
852: de~Ugarte~Postigo, Misra, Sagar, Bama, Kamble, Anupama, Licandro,
853: P{\'e}rez-Ram{\'\i}rez, Bhattacharya, Aceituno, \& Neri}]{cbm+07}
854: Castro-Tirado, A.~J. {\it et al.} 2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 475, 101
855:
856: \bibitem[{Cenko \& Fox(2006)}]{GCN.5975}
857: Cenko, S.~B. and Fox, D.~B. 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5975, 1
858:
859: \bibitem[{Cenko {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}})Cenko, Fox, Moon, Harrison,
860: Kulkarni, Henning, Guzman, Bonati, Smith, Thicksten, Doyle, Petrie, Gal-Yam,
861: Soderberg, Anagnostou, \& Laity}]{cfm+06}
862: Cenko, S.~B. {\it et al.} 2006{\natexlab{a}}, The Publications of the
863: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 1396
864:
865: \bibitem[{Cenko {et~al.}(2007)Cenko, Gezari, Small, Fox, \&
866: Chornock}]{GCN.6322}
867: Cenko, S.~B., Gezari, S., Small, T., Fox, D.~B., and Chornock, R. 2007, GRB
868: Coordinates Network, 6322, 1
869:
870: \bibitem[{Cenko {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})Cenko, Kasliwal, Harrison,
871: Pal'shin, Frail, Cameron, Berger, Fox, Gal-Yam, Kulkarni, Moon, Nakar, Ofek,
872: Penprase, Price, Sari, Schmidt, Soderberg, Aptekar, Frederiks, Golenetskii,
873: Burrows, Chevalier, Gehrels, McCarthy, Nousek, \& Piran}]{ckh+06}
874: Cenko, S.~B. {\it et al.} 2006{\natexlab{b}}, The Astrophysical Journal, 652,
875: 490
876:
877: \bibitem[{Cucchiara {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}})Cucchiara, Fox, \&
878: Berger}]{GCN.4729}
879: Cucchiara, A., Fox, D.~B., and Berger, E. 2006{\natexlab{a}}, GRB Coordinates
880: Network, 4729, 1
881:
882: \bibitem[{Cucchiara {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}})Cucchiara, Fox, \&
883: Cenko}]{GCN.7124}
884: Cucchiara, A., Fox, D.~B., and Cenko, S.~B. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, GRB Coordinates
885: Network, 7124, 1
886:
887: \bibitem[{Cucchiara {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}})Cucchiara, Fox, Cenko, \&
888: Price}]{GCN.6083}
889: Cucchiara, A., Fox, D.~B., Cenko, S.~B., and Price, P.~A. 2007{\natexlab{b}},
890: GRB Coordinates Network, 6083, 1
891:
892: \bibitem[{Cucchiara {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})Cucchiara, Price, Fox, Cenko,
893: \& Schmidt}]{GCN.5052}
894: Cucchiara, A., Price, P.~A., Fox, D.~B., Cenko, S.~B., and Schmidt, B.~P.
895: 2006{\natexlab{b}}, GRB Coordinates Network, 5052, 1
896:
897: \bibitem[{Evans {et~al.}(2007)Evans, Beardmore, Page, Tyler, Osborne, Goad,
898: O'Brien, Vetere, Racusin, Morris, Burrows, Capalbi, Perri, Gehrels, \&
899: Romano}]{ebp+07}
900: Evans, P.~A. {\it et al.} 2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 469, 379
901:
902: \bibitem[{Falcone {et~al.}(2007)Falcone, Morris, Racusin, Chincarini, Moretti,
903: Romano, Burrows, Pagani, Stroh, Grupe, Campana, Covino, Tagliaferri,
904: Willingale, \& Gehrels}]{fmr+07}
905: Falcone, A.~D. {\it et al.} 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 1921
906:
907: \bibitem[{Fruchter {et~al.}(2006)Fruchter, Levan, Strolger, Vreeswijk,
908: Thorsett, Bersier, Burud, Cer{\'o}n, Castro-Tirado, Conselice, Dahlen,
909: Ferguson, Fynbo, Garnavich, Gibbons, Gorosabel, Gull, Hjorth, Holland,
910: Kouveliotou, Levay, Livio, Metzger, Nugent, Petro, Pian, Rhoads, Riess, Sahu,
911: Smette, Tanvir, Wijers, \& Woosley}]{fls+06}
912: Fruchter, A.~S. {\it et al.} 2006, Nature, 441, 463
913:
914: \bibitem[{Fugazza {et~al.}(2005)Fugazza, Fiore, Patat, Ledoux, D'Avanzo,
915: Antonelli, Chincarini, Malesani, Covino, Tagliaferri, Piranomonte, \&
916: Stella}]{GCN.3948}
917: Fugazza, D. {\it et al.} 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 3948, 1
918:
919: \bibitem[{Fukugita {et~al.}(1995)Fukugita, Shimasaku, \& Ichikawa}]{fsi95}
920: Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., and Ichikawa, T. 1995, The Publications of the
921: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 107, 945
922:
923: \bibitem[{Gehrels {et~al.}(2004)Gehrels, Chincarini, Giommi, Mason, Nousek,
924: Wells, White, Barthelmy, Burrows, Cominsky, Hurley, Marshall,
925: M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, Roming, Angelini, Barbier, Belloni, Campana, Caraveo,
926: Chester, Citterio, Cline, Cropper, Cummings, Dean, Feigelson, Fenimore,
927: Frail, Fruchter, Garmire, Gendreau, Ghisellini, Greiner, Hill, Hunsberger,
928: Krimm, Kulkarni, Kumar, Lebrun, Lloyd-Ronning, Markwardt, Mattson, Mushotzky,
929: Norris, Osborne, Paczynski, Palmer, Park, Parsons, Paul, Rees, Reynolds,
930: Rhoads, Sasseen, Schaefer, Short, Smale, Smith, Stella, Tagliaferri,
931: Takahashi, Tashiro, Townsley, Tueller, Turner, Vietri, Voges, Ward,
932: Willingale, Zerbi, \& Zhang}]{gcg+04}
933: Gehrels, N. {\it et al.} 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 1005
934:
935: \bibitem[{Granot \& Sari(2002)}]{gs02}
936: Granot, J. and Sari, R. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 820
937:
938: \bibitem[{Grupe {et~al.}(2007)Grupe, Nousek, Berk, Roming, Burrows, Godet,
939: Osborne, \& Gehrels}]{gnv+07}
940: Grupe, D., Nousek, J.~A., Berk, D. E.~V., Roming, P. W.~A., Burrows, D.~N.,
941: Godet, O., Osborne, J., and Gehrels, N. 2007, The Astronomical Journal, 133,
942: 2216
943:
944: \bibitem[{Haislip {et~al.}(2006)Haislip, Nysewander, Reichart, Levan, Tanvir,
945: Cenko, Fox, Price, Castro-Tirado, Gorosabel, Evans, Figueredo, MacLeod,
946: Kirschbrown, Jelinek, Guziy, Postigo, Cypriano, Lacluyze, Graham, Priddey,
947: Chapman, Rhoads, Fruchter, Lamb, Kouveliotou, Wijers, Bayliss, Schmidt,
948: Soderberg, Kulkarni, Harrison, Moon, Gal-Yam, Kasliwal, Hudec, Vitek,
949: Kubanek, Crain, Foster, Clemens, Bartelme, Canterna, Hartmann, Henden, Klose,
950: Park, Williams, Rol, O'Brien, Bersier, Prada, Pizarro, Maturana, Ugarte,
951: Alvarez, Fernandez, Jarvis, Moles, Alfaro, Ivarsen, Kumar, Mack, Zdarowicz,
952: Gehrels, Barthelmy, \& Burrows}]{hnr+06}
953: Haislip, J.~B. {\it et al.} 2006, Nature, 440, 181
954:
955: \bibitem[{Hjorth {et~al.}(2003)Hjorth, M{\o}ller, Gorosabel, Fynbo, Toft,
956: Jaunsen, Kaas, Pursimo, Torii, Kato, Yamaoka, Yoshida, Thomsen, Andersen,
957: Burud, Cer{\'o}n, Castro-Tirado, Fruchter, Kaper, Kouveliotou, Masetti,
958: Palazzi, Pedersen, Pian, Rhoads, Rol, Tanvir, Vreeswijk, Wijers, \& van~den
959: Heuvel}]{hmg+03}
960: Hjorth, J. {\it et al.} 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 597, 699
961:
962: \bibitem[{Hogg {et~al.}(2002)Hogg, Baldry, Blanton, \& Eisenstein}]{hbb+02}
963: Hogg, D.~W., Baldry, I.~K., Blanton, M.~R., and Eisenstein, D.~J. 2002, eprint
964: arXiv, (astro-ph/0210394)
965:
966: \bibitem[{Jakobsson {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}})Jakobsson, Fynbo, Ledoux,
967: Vreeswijk, Kann, Hjorth, Priddey, Tanvir, Reichart, Gorosabel, Klose, Watson,
968: Sollerman, Fruchter, de~Ugarte~Postigo, Wiersema, Bj{\"o}rnsson, Chapman,
969: Th{\"o}ne, Pedersen, \& Jensen}]{jfl+06}
970: Jakobsson, P. {\it et al.} 2006{\natexlab{a}}, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 460,
971: L13
972:
973: \bibitem[{Jakobsson {et~al.}(2004)Jakobsson, Hjorth, Fynbo, Watson, Pedersen,
974: Bj{\"o}rnsson, \& Gorosabel}]{jhf+04}
975: Jakobsson, P., Hjorth, J., Fynbo, J. P.~U., Watson, D., Pedersen, K.,
976: Bj{\"o}rnsson, G., and Gorosabel, J. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 617,
977: L21
978:
979: \bibitem[{Jakobsson {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})Jakobsson, Levan, Fynbo,
980: Priddey, Hjorth, Tanvir, Watson, Jensen, Sollerman, Natarajan, Gorosabel,
981: Cer{\'o}n, Pedersen, Pursimo, {\'A}rnad{\'o}ttir, Castro-Tirado, Davis, Deeg,
982: Fiuza, Mykolaitis, \& Sousa}]{jlf+06}
983: Jakobsson, P. {\it et al.} 2006{\natexlab{b}}, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 447,
984: 897
985:
986: \bibitem[{Jakobsson {et~al.}(2007)Jakobsson, Vreeswijk, Hjorth, Malesani,
987: Fynbo, \& Thoene}]{GCN.6952}
988: Jakobsson, P., Vreeswijk, P.~M., Hjorth, J., Malesani, D., Fynbo, J. P.~U., and
989: Thoene, C.~C. 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 6952, 1
990:
991: \bibitem[{Jordi {et~al.}(2006)Jordi, Grebel, \& Ammon}]{jga06}
992: Jordi, K., Grebel, E.~K., and Ammon, K. 2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 460,
993: 339
994:
995: \bibitem[{Kann {et~al.}(2006)Kann, Klose, \& Zeh}]{kkz06}
996: Kann, D.~A., Klose, S., and Zeh, A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 641, 993
997:
998: \bibitem[{Kann {et~al.}(2007)Kann, Klose, Zhang, Malesani, Nakar, Wilson,
999: Butler, Antonelli, Chincarini, Cobb, Covino, D'Avanzo, D'Elia, Valle,
1000: Ferrero, Fugazza, Gorosabel, Israel, Mannucci, Piranomonte, Schulze, Stella,
1001: Tagliaferri, \& Wiersema}]{kkz+07}
1002: Kann, D.~A. {\it et al.} 2007, eprint arXiv, (astro-ph/0712.2186)
1003:
1004: \bibitem[{Kawai {et~al.}(2006)Kawai, Kosugi, Aoki, Yamada, Totani, Ohta, Iye,
1005: Hattori, Aoki, Furusawa, Hurley, Kawabata, Kobayashi, Komiyama, Mizumoto,
1006: Nomoto, Noumaru, Ogasawara, Sato, Sekiguchi, Shirasaki, Suzuki, Takata,
1007: Tamagawa, Terada, Watanabe, Yatsu, \& Yoshida}]{kka+06}
1008: Kawai, N. {\it et al.} 2006, Nature, 440, 184
1009:
1010: \bibitem[{Lamb \& Reichart(2000)}]{lr00}
1011: Lamb, D.~Q. and Reichart, D.~E. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 536, 1
1012:
1013: \bibitem[{Liang \& Zhang(2006)}]{lz06}
1014: Liang, E. and Zhang, B. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 638, L67
1015:
1016: \bibitem[{Melandri {et~al.}(2008)Melandri, Mundell, Kobayashi, Guidorzi,
1017: Gomboc, Steele, Smith, Bersier, Mottram, Carter, Bode, O'Brien, Tanvir, Rol,
1018: \& Chapman}]{mmk+08}
1019: Melandri, A. {\it et al.} 2008, eprint arXiv, (astro-ph/0804.811)
1020:
1021: \bibitem[{Micha{\l}owski {et~al.}(2008)Micha{\l}owski, Hjorth, Cer{\'o}n, \&
1022: Watson}]{mhc+08}
1023: Micha{\l}owski, M.~J., Hjorth, J., Cer{\'o}n, J. M.~C., and Watson, D. 2008,
1024: The Astrophysical Journal, 672, 817
1025:
1026: \bibitem[{Nakar \& Granot(2007)}]{ng07}
1027: Nakar, E. and Granot, J. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
1028: Society, 380, 1744
1029:
1030: \bibitem[{Nardini {et~al.}(2006)Nardini, Ghisellini, Ghirlanda, Tavecchio,
1031: Firmani, \& Lazzati}]{ngg+06}
1032: Nardini, M., Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Tavecchio, F., Firmani, C., and
1033: Lazzati, D. 2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 451, 821
1034:
1035: \bibitem[{Nousek {et~al.}(2006)Nousek, Kouveliotou, Grupe, Page, Granot,
1036: Ramirez-Ruiz, Patel, Burrows, Mangano, Barthelmy, Beardmore, Campana,
1037: Capalbi, Chincarini, Cusumano, Falcone, Gehrels, Giommi, Goad, Godet,
1038: Hurkett, Kennea, Moretti, O'Brien, Osborne, Romano, Tagliaferri, \&
1039: Wells}]{nkg+06}
1040: Nousek, J.~A. {\it et al.} 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 642, 389
1041:
1042: \bibitem[{Pei(1992)}]{p92}
1043: Pei, Y.~C. 1992, The Astrophysical Journal, 395, 130
1044:
1045: \bibitem[{Perley {et~al.}(2008)Perley, Li, Chornock, Prochaska, Butler,
1046: Chandra, Pollack, Bloom, Filippenko, Akerlof, Auger, Cenko, Chen, Fassnacht,
1047: Fox, Frail, Johansson, Mignant, Modjaz, Skinner, Smith, Swan, van Dam, \&
1048: Yuan}]{plc+08}
1049: Perley, D.~A. {\it et al.} 2008, eprint arXiv, 0805, 2394
1050:
1051: \bibitem[{Piran(2005)}]{p05}
1052: Piran, T. 2005, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143
1053:
1054: \bibitem[{Price {et~al.}(2007)Price, Songaila, Cowie, Burnell, Berger,
1055: Cucchiara, Fox, Hook, Kulkarni, Penprase, Roth, \& Schmidt}]{psc+07}
1056: Price, P.~A. {\it et al.} 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, L57
1057:
1058: \bibitem[{Prochaska {et~al.}(2008)Prochaska, Murphy, Malec, \&
1059: Miller}]{GCN.7388}
1060: Prochaska, J.~X., Murphy, M., Malec, A.~L., and Miller, K. 2008, GRB
1061: Coordinates Network, 7388, 1
1062:
1063: \bibitem[{Rhoads(2005)}]{GCN.3527}
1064: Rhoads, J. 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 3527, 1
1065:
1066: \bibitem[{Rol {et~al.}(2006)Rol, Jakobsson, Tanvir, \& Levan}]{GCN.5555}
1067: Rol, E., Jakobsson, P., Tanvir, N., and Levan, A. 2006, GRB Coordinates
1068: Network, 5555, 1
1069:
1070: \bibitem[{Rol {et~al.}(2007)Rol, van~der Horst, Wiersema, Patel, Levan,
1071: Nysewander, Kouveliotou, Wijers, Tanvir, Reichart, Fruchter, Graham,
1072: Ovaldsen, Jaunsen, Jonker, van Ham, Hjorth, Starling, O'Brien, Fynbo,
1073: Burrows, \& Strom}]{rvw+07}
1074: Rol, E. {\it et al.} 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1098, (c) 2007: The
1075: American Astronomical Society
1076:
1077: \bibitem[{Roming {et~al.}(2005)Roming, Kennedy, Mason, Nousek, Ahr, Bingham,
1078: Broos, Carter, Hancock, Huckle, Hunsberger, Kawakami, Killough, Koch,
1079: McLelland, Smith, Smith, Soto, Boyd, Breeveld, Holland, Ivanushkina, Pryzby,
1080: Still, \& Stock}]{rkm+05}
1081: Roming, P. W.~A. {\it et al.} 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 95
1082:
1083: \bibitem[{Roming {et~al.}(2006)Roming, Schady, Fox, Zhang, Liang, Mason, Rol,
1084: Burrows, Blustin, Boyd, Brown, Holland, McGowan, Landsman, Page, Rhoads,
1085: Rosen, Berk, Barthelmy, Breeveld, Cucchiara, Pasquale, Fenimore, Gehrels,
1086: Gronwall, Grupe, Goad, Ivanushkina, James, Kennea, Kobayashi, Mangano,
1087: M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, Morgan, Nousek, Osborne, Palmer, Poole, Still, Tagliaferri,
1088: \& Zane}]{rsf+06}
1089: ---. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 652, 1416
1090:
1091: \bibitem[{Sari {et~al.}(1998)Sari, Piran, \& Narayan}]{spn98}
1092: Sari, R., Piran, T., and Narayan, R. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 497, L17
1093:
1094: \bibitem[{Schlegel {et~al.}(1998)Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis}]{sfd98}
1095: Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., and Davis, M. 1998, The Astrophysical
1096: Journal, 500, 525
1097:
1098: \bibitem[{Soderberg {et~al.}(2007)Soderberg, Nakar, Cenko, Cameron, Frail,
1099: Kulkarni, Fox, Berger, Gal-Yam, Moon, Price, Anderson, Schmidt, Salvo, Rich,
1100: Rau, Ofek, Chevalier, Hamuy, Harrison, Kumar, MacFadyen, McCarthy, Park,
1101: Peterson, Phillips, Rauch, Roth, \& Shectman}]{snc+07}
1102: Soderberg, A.~M. {\it et al.} 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 661, 982
1103:
1104: \bibitem[{Spergel {et~al.}(2007)Spergel, Bean, Dor{\'e}, Nolta, Bennett,
1105: Dunkley, Hinshaw, Jarosik, Komatsu, Page, Peiris, Verde, Halpern, Hill,
1106: Kogut, Limon, Meyer, Odegard, Tucker, Weiland, Wollack, \& Wright}]{sbd+07}
1107: Spergel, D.~N. {\it et al.} 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series,
1108: 170, 377
1109:
1110: \bibitem[{Stanek {et~al.}(2007)Stanek, Dai, Prieto, An, Garnavich, Calkins,
1111: Serven, Worthey, Hao, Dobrzycki, Howk, \& Matheson}]{sdp+07}
1112: Stanek, K.~Z. {\it et al.} 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 654, L21
1113:
1114: \bibitem[{Tanvir {et~al.}(2006)Tanvir, Levan, Jarvis, \& Wold}]{GCN.5587}
1115: Tanvir, N., Levan, A., Jarvis, M., and Wold, T. 2006, GRB Coordinates Network,
1116: 5587, 1
1117:
1118: \bibitem[{Tanvir {et~al.}(2004)Tanvir, Barnard, Blain, Fruchter, Kouveliotou,
1119: Natarajan, Ramirez-Ruiz, Rol, Smith, Tilanus, \& Wijers}]{tbb+04}
1120: Tanvir, N.~R. {\it et al.} 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
1121: Society, 352, 1073
1122:
1123: \bibitem[{Tanvir {et~al.}(2008)Tanvir, Levan, Rol, Starling, Gorosabel,
1124: Priddey, Malesani, Jakobsson, O'Brien, Jaunsen, Hjorth, Fynbo, Melandri,
1125: Gomboc, Milvang-Jensen, Fruchter, Jarvis, Fernandes, \& Wold}]{tlr+08}
1126: ---. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 795, (c) Journal
1127: compilation {\copyright} 2008 RAS
1128:
1129: \bibitem[{Vestrand {et~al.}(2006)Vestrand, Wren, Wozniak, Aptekar, Golentskii,
1130: Pal'shin, Sakamoto, White, Evans, Casperson, \& Fenimore}]{vww+06}
1131: Vestrand, W.~T. {\it et al.} 2006, Nature, 442, 172
1132:
1133: \bibitem[{Vreeswijk {et~al.}(2008)Vreeswijk, Smette, Malesani, Fynbo,
1134: Milvang-Jensen, Jakobsson, Jaunsen, Oslo, \& Ledoux}]{GCN.7444}
1135: Vreeswijk, P.~M. {\it et al.} 2008, GRB Coordinates Network, 7444, 1
1136:
1137: \bibitem[{Wiersema {et~al.}(2008)Wiersema, Tanvir, Vreeswijk, Fynbo, Starling,
1138: Rol, \& Jakobsson}]{GCN.7517}
1139: Wiersema, K., Tanvir, N., Vreeswijk, P., Fynbo, J., Starling, R., Rol, E., and
1140: Jakobsson, P. 2008, GRB Coordinates Network, 7517, 1
1141:
1142: \bibitem[{Wolfe {et~al.}(2005)Wolfe, Gawiser, \& Prochaska}]{wgp05}
1143: Wolfe, A.~M., Gawiser, E., and Prochaska, J.~X. 2005, Annual Review of
1144: Astronomy {\&} Astrophysics, 43, 861
1145:
1146: \bibitem[{Woosley(1993)}]{w93}
1147: Woosley, S.~E. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 405, 273
1148:
1149: \bibitem[{Woosley \& Bloom(2006)}]{wb06}
1150: Woosley, S.~E. and Bloom, J.~S. 2006, Annual Review of Astronomy {\&}
1151: Astrophysics, 44, 507
1152:
1153: \bibitem[{Wo{\'z}niak {et~al.}(2006)Wo{\'z}niak, Vestrand, Wren, White, Evans,
1154: \& Casperson}]{wvw+06}
1155: Wo{\'z}niak, P.~R., Vestrand, W.~T., Wren, J.~A., White, R.~R., Evans, S.~M.,
1156: and Casperson, D. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 642, L99
1157:
1158: \bibitem[{Zhang {et~al.}(2006)Zhang, Fan, Dyks, Kobayashi, M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros,
1159: Burrows, Nousek, \& Gehrels}]{zfd+06}
1160: Zhang, B., Fan, Y.~Z., Dyks, J., Kobayashi, S., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., Burrows,
1161: D.~N., Nousek, J.~A., and Gehrels, N. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 642,
1162: 354
1163:
1164: \end{thebibliography}
1165:
1166: %============================================================================
1167: % Tables
1168: %=============================================================================
1169: \clearpage
1170: \input{tab1.tex}
1171:
1172: \clearpage
1173: \input{tab2.tex}
1174:
1175: \clearpage
1176: \input{tab3.tex}
1177:
1178: %============================================================================
1179: % The End
1180: %============================================================================
1181: \end{document}
1182:
1183: