1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,emulateapj5,apjfonts}
3: %\usepackage{epsfig}
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% macro definitions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5: \newcommand \Angstrom {\,{\rm \AA}}
6: \newcommand \AU {\,{\rm AU}}
7: \newcommand \cm {\,{\rm cm}}
8: \newcommand \mm {\,{\rm mm}}
9: \newcommand \erg {\,{\rm erg}}
10: \newcommand \eV {\,{\rm eV}}
11: \newcommand \g {\,{\rm g}}
12: \newcommand \K {\,{\rm K}}
13: \newcommand \pc {\,{\rm pc}}
14: \newcommand \kpc {\,{\rm kpc}}
15: \newcommand \s {\,{\rm s}}
16: \newcommand \sr {\,{\rm sr}}
17: \newcommand \yr {\,{\rm yr}}
18: \newcommand \yrs {\,{\rm yrs}}
19: \newcommand \Myr {\,{\rm Myr}}
20: \newcommand \Myrs {\,{\rm Myrs}}
21: \newcommand \Gyr {\,{\rm Gyr}}
22: \newcommand \nH {n_{\rm H}}
23: \newcommand \simlt {\lesssim}
24: \newcommand \simgt {\gtrsim}
25: \newcommand \gtsim {\gtrsim}
26: \newcommand \ltsim {\lesssim}
27: \newcommand \um {\mu{\rm m}}
28: \newcommand \mum {\,{\rm \mu m}}
29: \newcommand \ppm {\,{\rm ppm}}
30: \newcommand \Teff {T_{\rm eff}}
31: \newcommand \Msun {\,{M_\odot}}
32: \newcommand \Lsun {\,{L_\odot}}
33: \newcommand \mH {m_{\rm H}}
34: \newcommand \NH {N_{\rm H}}
35: \newcommand \simali {\sim\,}
36: \newcommand \Alambda {A_\lambda}
37: \newcommand \AV {A_V}
38: \newcommand \Fnu {F_\nu}
39: \newcommand \Fo {F_{\rm o}}
40: \newcommand \dof {{\rm d.o.f.}}
41: \newcommand \magni {\,{\rm mag}}
42: \def \beq {\begin{equation}}
43: \def \eeq {\end{equation}}
44: \def \beqa {\begin{eqnarray}}
45: \def \eeqa {\end{eqnarray}}
46: %
47: %\newcommand{\figwidth}{4.0in}
48: \newcommand{\figwidth}{6.0in}
49: \newcommand{\btdnote}[1]{{\bf[#1]}}
50: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
51: %------- delete following for submission to ApJ --------
52: %\pagestyle{myheadings}
53: % today's date
54: %use number register 200 for "decade"
55: %\countdef\decade=200
56: %\decade=0
57: %\advance\decade by \year
58: %\advance\decade by -2000 %to suppress two leading digits of yearb
59: %\countdef\hours=201
60: %\hours=0
61: %\advance\hours by \time
62: %\divide\hours by 60
63: %\countdef\mins=202
64: %\mins=0
65: %\advance\mins by \hours
66: %\multiply\mins by 60
67: %\multiply\hours by 100
68: %\countdef\miltime=203
69: %\miltime=0
70: %\advance\miltime by \hours
71: %\advance\miltime by \time
72: %\advance\miltime by -\mins
73: %\def\today{\number\decade.\number\month.\number\day.\number\miltime}
74: %\markright{\today: DRAFT}
75:
76: \shorttitle{Dust Extinction of GRB Host Galaxies}
77:
78: %\received{2003 September 18}
79: \begin{document}
80: \title{
81: %------------- enable for labelling preprint ---------------------------
82: % \vspace*{-2.0em}
83: % {\normalsize\rm submitted to {\it The Astrophysical Journal Letters}}\\
84: % \vspace*{1.0em}
85: On Dust Extinction of Gamma-ray Burst Host Galaxies
86: %\\{\small DRAFT: \today ~~}
87: }
88: \author{Aigen Li\altaffilmark{1},
89: S.~L. Liang\altaffilmark{1},
90: D.~A. Kann\altaffilmark{2},
91: D.~M. Wei\altaffilmark{3},
92: S. Klose\altaffilmark{2},
93: and Y.~J. Wang\altaffilmark{4}}
94: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
95: Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211; {\sf lia@missouri.edu}}
96: \altaffiltext{2}{Th\"{u}ringer Landessternwarte Tautenburg,
97: D-07778 Tautenburg, Germany}
98: \altaffiltext{3}{Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of
99: Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China}
100:
101: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, Hunan Normal University,
102: Changsha 410071, China}
103:
104: \begin{abstract}
105: Although it is well recognized that gamma-ray burst (GRB)
106: afterglows are obscured and reddened by dust in their host
107: galaxies, the wavelength-dependence and quantity of dust
108: extinction are still poorly known.
109: %
110: Current studies on this mostly rely on fitting
111: the afterglow spectral energy distributions (SEDs)
112: with template extinction models.
113: %
114: The inferred extinction (both quantity and
115: wavelength-dependence) and dust-to-gas ratios
116: are often in disagreement with that obtained from
117: dust depletion and X-ray spectroscopy studies.
118: %
119: We argue that this discrepancy could result from
120: the prior assumption of a template extinction law.
121: %
122: We propose an analytical formula to approximate
123: the GRB host extinction law.
124: %
125: With the template extinction laws self-contained,
126: and the capability of revealing extinction laws
127: differing from the conventional ones,
128: it is shown that this is a powerful approach
129: in modeling the afterglow SEDs to derive GRB host extinction.
130: %
131: \end{abstract}
132:
133: \keywords{dust, extinction --- gamma rays: bursts}
134:
135: \section{Introduction\label{sec:intro}}
136: %
137: In addition to the Galactic foreground extinction,
138: GRBs and their afterglows are
139: subject to extinction caused by the dust within
140: their host galaxies. Evidence for this includes ---
141: \begin{itemize}
142: \item ``{\it Dark bursts}'' -- an appreciable fraction
143: of GRBs with X-ray and/or radio afterglows
144: lack an optical afterglow
145: (Jakobsson et al.\ 2004).\footnote{%
146: Prior to the launch of {\it Swift},
147: nearly $\simali$60\% of the X-ray afterglows
148: reportedly had no optical counterparts.
149: Despite rapid and deep searches in the {\it Swift} era,
150: it was found that $\simali$1/3 GRBs with bright X-ray
151: afterglows remain undetected at optical wavelengths
152: (Fiore et al.\ 2007, Schady et al.\ 2007).
153: }
154: %
155: A natural explanation for dark bursts is that they
156: lie behind significant obscuring dust columns
157: in their host galaxies
158: which effectively suppresses the optical light
159: [although some dark bursts may be intrinsically
160: faint or occur at high redshifts (say, $z\gtsim 5$)
161: where the Ly$\alpha$ break has moved through
162: the optical bands, leading to absorption of
163: the optical light by the Ly$\alpha$ forest].
164: %Indeed, Schady et al.\ (2007) found that the host galaxies
165: %of dark GRBs are intrinsically dustier than those of GRBs
166: %with detected optical counterparts.
167: Indeed, Schady et al.\ (2007) found that the X-ray afterglows
168: of GRBs not detected by UVOT were more affected by extinction
169: than those of GRBs with detected UVOT counterparts.
170: %
171: The recent detection of the near infrared (IR) afterglows
172: of some GRBs (which would have been considered as ``dark bursts''
173: since their afterglows were not detected in any bluer bands)
174: provides another piece of evidence for dust obscuration
175: (e.g. see Jaunsen et al.\ 2008, Tanvir et al.\ 2008).
176: %
177: \item {\it Reddening} -- some GRB afterglows with low redshifts
178: appear very red, due to effects of extinction -- ultraviolet
179: (UV)/visible light is extinguished more by dust than red light
180: (e.g. see Klose et al.\ 2000, Levan et al.\ 2006).
181: Dust reddening is also indicated by the significant deviation
182: of the optical/near-IR spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of
183: many afterglows from that expected from standard models.
184: Also because of dust reddening, the Balmer line ratios in
185: the spectra of some GRB host galaxies
186: (e.g. see Djorgovski et al.\ 1998),
187: known as the {\it Balmer decrement},
188: deviate from the expected ratios for
189: the standard Case B recombination,
190: which are fairly independent of physical conditions
191: (Osterbrock \& Ferland 2006).
192: %
193: \item {\it Depletion} -- dust-forming heavy elements
194: such as Si and Fe were found to be substantially
195: depleted from the gas phase in some host galaxies
196: (e.g. see Savaglio et al.\ 2003). This indirectly
197: shows the presence of dust in GRB host galaxies
198: since the missing heavy elements must have
199: been locked up in dust grains.
200: %
201: \item {\it Connection between long GRBs and massive stars}
202: -- there are multiple strong lines of evidence
203: that long-duration ($\simgt 2\s$) GRBs
204: are associated with the death of massive stars,
205: occurring in regions of active star formation
206: embedded in dense clouds of dust and gas
207: (see Woosley \& Bloom 2006).
208: %
209: \end{itemize}
210:
211: A precise knowledge of the extinction
212: (quantity, wavelength-dependence) and
213: the nature (size, composition, and quantity)
214: of the dust in GRB host galaxies is crucial for
215: %
216: \begin{itemize}
217: \item Correcting for the extinction of afterglows
218: from X-ray to near-IR wavelengths to derive their
219: intrinsic luminosities --
220: this is particularly important
221: for studying the luminosity distribution of
222: GRB afterglows and their intrinsic SEDs
223: (e.g. see Kann et al.\ 2008);
224: %
225: \item Constraining the nature of the GRB progenitors
226: (i.e. collapsing massive stars
227: or merging neutron stars) --
228: if long-duration GRBs are indeed linked to
229: the collapse of massive stars,
230: it is most likely that
231: their optical and near-IR afterglows will
232: suffer from significant attenuation in the
233: star-forming molecular clouds heavily
234: enshrouded by dust
235: -- the birth place of these short-lived
236: ($\simali 10^{6}\yrs$) massive stars;
237: %
238: \item Tracing the physical conditions of
239: (and processes occurring in) the environments
240: where GRBs occur which hold clues for understanding
241: the mechanism for making a burst, e.g.,
242: a flat or gray extinction law for GRB host galaxies
243: would imply a dense circumburst environment where
244: dust undergoes coagulational-growth
245: or a preferential destruction of small grains; and
246: %
247: \item Probing the interstellar medium (ISM)
248: of high-redshift galaxies
249: and the cosmic star formation history --
250: because of their intense luminosity
251: which allows their detection at cosmological distances,
252: GRBs are a powerful tool to study the star formation
253: history up to very high redshifts;
254: e.g., the dust and extinction properties
255: of GRB hosts would help understand the nature
256: of dark bursts and the dark burst fraction
257: which would place important constraints
258: on the fraction of obscured star formation
259: in the universe
260: (e.g. see Djorgovski et al. 2001, Ramirez-Ruiz et al.\ 2002).
261: %
262: \end{itemize}
263:
264: However, our current understanding of the dust extinction
265: in GRB host galaxies is still very poor.
266: Existing studies on this often draw conclusions
267: in conflict with each other
268: (see \S\ref{sec:status} for details).
269: We argue that this could be caused by the prior
270: adoption of a {\it template} extinction law
271: in fitting the observed GRB afterglow spectra
272: to derive dust extinction (\S\ref{sec:status}).
273: We propose in this work an alternative, robust method
274: based on an analytical formula which can restore the
275: widely adopted template extinction laws (\S\ref{sec:approach}).
276: For illustration, we apply this approach to
277: GRB\,000301C and GRB\,021004 (\S\ref{sec:test}).
278: We demonstrate in \S\ref{sec:discussion} the uniqueness
279: of the derived extinction laws.
280: The robustness of this approach will be discussed in
281: a separate paper (Liang \& Li 2008a) in which the afterglow
282: SEDs of $>$\,50 GRBs of a wide range of properties
283: are successfully modeled and for which the inferred
284: extinction curves are diverse, with some differing
285: substantially from any of the template extinction curves.
286:
287: \section{Current Status\label{sec:status}}
288: %
289: At present, the amount of extinction (usually the rest-frame
290: visual extinction $A_{V_r}$) and the wavelength-dependence of
291: the extinction (``extinction curve'' or ``extinction law'';
292: $A_\lambda/A_V$ or $A_\nu/A_V$ if expressed in frequency)
293: are commonly derived by fitting the UV, optical, and near-IR
294: afterglow photometry
295: ($F_\nu$; with the Galactic extinction corrected)
296: with a power-law model ($\propto \nu^{-\beta}$;
297: approximating their intrinsic spectra)
298: reddened by an {\it assumed},
299: template extinction law $A_\nu/A_V$
300: %
301: \begin{equation}
302: \label{eq:Fnu}
303: \Fnu = \Fo\,\left(\nu/{\rm Hz}\right)^{-\beta}
304: \exp\left[-\frac{A_{V_r}}{1.086} \frac{A_{(1+z)\nu}}{A_{V_r}}\right]~~,
305: \end{equation}
306: where $\beta$ is the intrinsic power-law slope
307: of the afterglow, %\footnote{%
308: % $\beta$ is usually estimated based on the standard
309: % fireball model (Sari et al.\ 1998).
310: % Let $\beta_X$ be the X-ray afterglow spectral index,
311: % and $p$ be the electron energy distribution index.
312: % One can first estimate $p$ from $p$\,=\,2\,$\beta_X$
313: % by assuming that the X-ray frequencies $\nu_X$ are
314: % above the cooling frequency $\nu_c$ (Berger et al.\ 2003),
315: % and then estimate the UV-optical-near-IR spectral index
316: % $\beta$ from $\beta$\,=\,$(p-1)/2$ for $\nu$\,$<$\,$\nu_c$,
317: % or $\beta$\,=\,$p/2$ for $\nu$\,$>$\,$\nu_c$.
318: % Alternatively, one can also estimate $p$ from
319: % the afterglow power-law decay index
320: % $\alpha$ ($F_\nu$\,$\sim$\,$t^{-\alpha}$; see Sari et al.\ 1998):
321: % $p$\,=\,4\,$\alpha/3$\,$+$\,1 in the slow-cooling regime,
322: % or $p$\,=\,4\,$\alpha/3$\,$+$\,2/3 in the fast-cooling regime.
323: % }
324: $\Fo$ is a normalization constant
325: (normalized to the overall afterglow flux level),
326: $A_{(1+z)\nu}$ is the rest-frame extinction,
327: and $z$ is the GRB redshift.
328: The factor of ``1.086'' in eq.(\ref{eq:Fnu})
329: arises from the conversion of extinction (in magnitude)
330: to optical depth.
331: %
332: As a priori, six {\it template} extinction laws have
333: been widely adopted in the literature to derive the dust
334: extinction of GRB hosts:
335: (1) a simple power-law
336: $A_\lambda/A_V$\,$\sim$\,$\lambda^{-\gamma}$
337: %(e.g. see Savaglio \& Fall 2004),
338: or even just a linear function of inverse wavelength
339: $A_\lambda/A_V$\,$\sim$\,$\lambda^{-1}$
340: (``Linear'' thereafter);
341: %(e.g. see Galama \& Wijers 2001).
342: (2) the Milky Way (MW) extinction curve
343: (with a prominent bump at 2175$\Angstrom$)
344: characterized by $R_V$, the total-to-selective
345: extinction ratio (the Galactic average value is
346: $R_V\approx 3.1$);
347: (3) the featureless Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) extinction curve
348: which steeply rises with inverse wavelength
349: from near-IR to far-UV
350: ($A_\lambda/A_V \sim \lambda^{-1.2}$);
351: (4) the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) curve being
352: intermediate between that of the MW and the SMC;
353: (5) the featureless ``Calzetti'' attenuation law
354: for the dust in local starburst galaxies
355: (Calzetti et al.\ 1994);\footnote{%
356: We should note that recent Spitzer observations
357: in the near- and mid-IR argue against GRB hosts
358: being strongly starbursting galaxies
359: (Le Floc'h et al.\ 2006),
360: although their morphological and average radio/submillimeter
361: properties suggest that they are likely massive
362: and actively star-forming galaxies
363: (Berger et al.\ 2003; Conselice et al. 2005).
364: }
365: and
366: (6) the relatively flat ``Maiolino'' extinction law for the dust
367: in the dense circumnuclear region of AGNs (Maiolino et al.\ 2001)
368: where the dust size distribution is skewed
369: toward large grains (see Fig.\,1).
370: %
371:
372: To our knowledge, exceptions to the ``template''
373: extinction approach described here are that of
374: Chen et al.\ (2006) and Li et al.\ (2008),
375: both of which were based on the fireball model.
376: The latter approach is limited to bursts of which
377: the X-ray and optical decay indices are the same.
378: %
379: In most studies (which assume an extinction template)
380: a SMC-type extinction curve is preferred.
381: This is probably because the 2175$\Angstrom$ extinction
382: feature (which is prominent in the MW and LMC curves)
383: is rarely seen in the afterglow spectra of GRBs.
384: So far, its possible detection is only reported in
385: four bursts: GRB\,970508 (Stratta et al.\ 2004),
386: GRB\,991216 (Kann et al.\ 2006, Vreeswijk et al.\ 2006),
387: GRB\,050802 (Schady et al.\ 2007),
388: and more definitely GRB\,070802
389: (Kr\"uhler et al.\ 2008;
390: \'A. El\'iasd\'ottir et al.\ 2008, in preparation).
391:
392: However, some studies favour a much flatter or even gray
393: extinction curve (e.g. see Savaglio et al.\ 2003,
394: Savaglio \& Fall 2004, Stratta et al.\ 2005,
395: Chen et al.\ 2006, Li et al.\ 2008, Perley et al.\ 2008).
396: %
397: With a SMC-type curve, the amount of visual extinction
398: $A_V$ or reddening\footnote{%
399: Reddening is usually expressed as
400: $E(B-V)\equiv A_B-A_V \equiv A_V/R_V$,
401: where $A_B$ is the extinction at
402: the $B$ band ($\lambda_B\approx 4400\Angstrom$).
403: %and $R_V$ is the total-to-selective extinction ratio.
404: By definition, gray dust (for which the extinction
405: is just weakly dependent on $\lambda$) is characterized
406: by small reddening $E(B-V)$ and large $R_V$.
407: Apparently, for gray dust, a small {\it reddening} does not
408: necessarily imply a small {\it extinction} since $R_V$ can be large.
409: \label{ft:reddening}
410: }
411: derived by fitting the afterglow photometry
412: tends to be small since the SMC curve rises so rapidly
413: with $\lambda^{-1}$ that a small $A_V$
414: would imply a large UV extinction.
415: This may explain the finding of ``a strong clustering
416: toward low extinction ($A_V$\,$\simlt$\,0.2\,mag)''
417: in a detailed study of 19 GRBs by Kann et al.\ (2006),
418: and later by Kann et al.\ (2008) for 15 GRBs.
419: In contrast, for a flatter extinction law
420: like that of Calzetti, Maiolino, MW with $R_V$\,$>$\,4,
421: or that derived by Chen et al.\ (2006), Li et al.\ (2008)
422: and Perley et al.\ (2008),
423: a relatively large $A_V$ is often obtained.
424:
425: The visual extinction $A_V$ can also be
426: inferred from the dust depletion method
427: based on the gas-phase heavy-element abundances
428: estimated from the afterglow optical absorption
429: spectroscopy (Savaglio et al.\ 2003;
430: Savaglio \& Fall 2004). %\footnote{%
431: This analysis assumes both the dust depletion pattern
432: and the visual extinction per unit dust column
433: $A_V/N_{\rm dust}$ of GRB hosts to be the same as
434: that of the MW. It is quite possible that GRB hosts may
435: have a different depletion pattern
436: and/or a different $A_V/N_{\rm dust}$ conversion
437: factor. The latter could result from a dust composition
438: or size distribution differing from that of the MW.
439: %\label{ft:depletion}
440: %}
441:
442: One can also derive $A_V$ from
443: the neutral hydrogen column density $N_{\rm H}$
444: derived from Ly$\alpha$ absorption
445: (Hjorth et al.\ 2003)
446: or the equivalent $N_{\rm H}$ obtained from
447: soft X-ray absorption (mostly from
448: oxygen K-shell absorption; Galama \& Wijers 2001,
449: Stratta et al.\ 2004, Watson et al.\ 2006).
450: %
451: There is a puzzling discrepancy between
452: the optical reddening $E(B-V)$ derived from
453: the afterglow SED fitting and the visual extinction
454: $A_V$ inferred from the dust depletion analysis
455: or from $N_{\rm H}$ measured from the Ly$\alpha$
456: or X-ray absorption spectra,
457: with the former considerably smaller than the latter.
458:
459: This discrepancy problem could be alleviated
460: if one invokes a flat or gray extinction law.
461: %
462: This is because (1) gray dust ($\simgt 1\mum$)
463: characterized with an extinction curve weakly
464: dependent on $\lambda$ in the optical/UV
465: could produce a high $A_V$ but little reddening
466: (see Footnote-\ref{ft:reddening}),
467: and (2) per unit mass gray dust is not as effective
468: as submicron-sized dust in absorbing and scattering
469: optical light so that the $A_V/N_{\rm dust}$ conversion
470: factor for gray dust is smaller than that of the MW dust
471: (with a typical size of $\sim 0.1\mum$; see Li 2008). %\footnote{%
472: % Alternatively, the mismatch between the X-ray-derived $A_V$
473: % and that derived from the optical SED modeling
474: % could be attributed to physically separate X-ray
475: % and optical emission regions
476: % (e.g. see Prochaska et al.\ 2006, Watson et al.\ 2007).
477: % %Prochaska et al. (2006) placed a lower limit
478: % %of $>$50\,pc on the locations of host galaxy absorption
479: % %system from GRBs! ... the X-ray opacity comes from
480: % %dust-free gas that is very local to the GRB
481: % %(~1pc).
482: % }
483: %%
484: The latter would imply that the methods based on
485: %dust depletion (see Footnote-\ref{ft:depletion})
486: dust depletion (see above)
487: and Ly$\alpha$/X-ray absorption may overestimate $A_V$
488: if the dust size distribution of GRB host galaxies
489: is indeed biased toward large grains, as a result of
490: dust coagulational growth in the dense circumburst
491: environments or preferential destruction of small dust
492: by GRB emission (e.g. see Waxman \& Draine 2000,
493: Fruchter et al.\ 2001, Perna et al.\ 2003).
494: %
495:
496: However, we should stress that the gray extinction hypothesis
497: should not be considered as the only solution to
498: the discrepancy problem (after all, SMC-type or even
499: steeper extinction laws were derived for the hosts
500: of some GRBs; see Liang et al.\ 2008a).
501: Indeed, the mismatch between the X-ray-derived $A_V$
502: and that derived from the optical SED modeling
503: could be attributed to physically separate X-ray
504: and optical emission regions (e.g. see Prochaska et al.\ 2006,
505: Watson et al.\ 2007). Prochaska et al.\ (2006) argued that for
506: GRB\,051111, the X-ray opacity comes from dust-free gas that is
507: very local to the GRB ($\simali$1\,pc), while they placed
508: a lower limit of $>$\,50\,pc on the host galaxy absorption
509: systems from the GRB.
510: It has also been argued that $A_V$ is probably probing
511: the dust outside of the dense molecular cloud around the GRB,
512: since all dust within the cloud is likely to have been
513: obliterated by the burst
514: (e.g. see Perna \& Lazzati 2002, Prochaska et al.\ 2007).
515: Moreover, if the dust depletion pattern of GRB hosts is
516: different from that of the Milky Way, the discrepancy
517: between the depletion-derived $A_V$ and that from
518: the optical SED modeling could be alleviated.
519:
520:
521: \section{Our Approach\label{sec:approach}}
522: %
523: In view of the shortcomings of the prior assumption
524: of a template extinction law
525: (see \S\ref{sec:status}) %\footnote{%
526: % There is no reason for a prior
527: % assumption of a known extinction law:
528: % the composition and size distribution
529: % (and therefore the extinction law) of
530: % the dust in the dense circumburst clouds
531: % of GRB hosts with a wide range of metallicities
532: % and evolutionary stages
533: % are not expected to resemble that of the MW, LMC, or SMC.
534: % Indeed, it was shown that the afterglow SED
535: % of GRB\,050904 at a redshift of $z\approx6.3$
536: % cannot be explained by dust reddening with
537: % any of the conventional (MW, SMC, Calzetti)
538: % extinction curves; instead, it can be well
539: % reproduced by invoking the extinction curve
540: % inferred for a distant quasar at $z=6.2$ (Maiolino et al.\ 2004),
541: % suggesting that the properties of dust may
542: % evolve beyond $z=6$ (Stratta et al.\ 2007).
543: % %
544: % The fact that the SMC-type extinction
545: % is preferred in most of the GRB afterglow
546: % SED modeling studies is probably just
547: % because of the apparent lack of the 2175$\Angstrom$
548: % extinction bump in the afterglow spectra
549: % of most GRBs, while it is prominent in
550: % both the MW and LMC extinction laws.
551: % }
552: and guided by Pei (1992), we propose a simple formula
553: containing four dimensionless parameters
554: ($c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$, and $c_4$) for the wavelength-dependence
555: of the extinction for
556: the dust in GRB host galaxies,
557: instead of adopting
558: any known extinction laws (see \S\ref{sec:status})
559: as a template,
560: %%%
561: \beqa
562: \nonumber
563: \label{eq:A2AV}
564: \Alambda/\AV & = & \frac{c_1}{\left(\lambda/0.08\right)^{c_2}
565: + \left(0.08/\lambda\right)^{c_2} + c_3} \\
566: \nonumber
567: & + & \frac{233\left[1 - c_1/\left(6.88^{c_2}+0.145^{c_2}+c_3\right)
568: - c_4/4.60\right]}{\left(\lambda/0.046\right)^2
569: + \left(0.046/\lambda\right)^2 + 90} \\
570: & + & \frac{c_4}{\left(\lambda/0.2175\right)^2
571: + \left(0.2175/\lambda\right)^2 -1.95} ~~~,
572: \eeqa
573: %%%
574: where $\lambda$ is in $\mu$m.\footnote{%
575: Reichart (2001) proposed a seven-parameter formula
576: for the dust extinction curve $A_\lambda/A_V$ of
577: GRB hosts based on the expressions of
578: Cardelli et al.\ (1989; ``CCM''; for $\lambda >0.3\mum$)
579: and of Fitzpatrick \& Massa (1990; ``FM'';
580: for $0.1\mum < \lambda < 0.3\mum$).
581: The problem with the Reichart (2001) formula
582: (see his eqs.\,61,66) is that the CCM expression is
583: only valid for the Galactic extinction curves,
584: it is not suitable for the SMC or LMC extinction
585: (Gordon et al.\ 2003).
586: Therefore, if a GRB host happens to have a SMC- or LMC-type
587: extinction law, models based on the Reichart (2001) formula
588: will not be able to restore the true extinction.
589: %Compared to the Pei (1992) formula
590: %consisting of 12 free parameters and designed
591: %for MW, LMC and SMC,
592: %Eq.(\ref{eq:A2AV}), with four parameters,
593: }
594: %
595: While the first term in the right-hand side of Eq.(\ref{eq:A2AV})
596: represents the far-UV extinction rise, the second term
597: and the third term respectively account for the near-IR/visible
598: extinction and the 2175$\Angstrom$ extinction bump.
599: We call this the ``{\it Drude}'' approach
600: since Eq.(\ref{eq:A2AV}) looks like a sum of
601: Drude functions.
602: %
603: As shown in Figure \ref{fig:extcurv}, this formula,
604: with the free parameters $c_j$ ($j=1,...,4$) adjusted
605: using the Levenberg-Marquardt minimization algorithm
606: (Press et al.\ 1992; see Table \ref{tab:extcurv}),
607: can reproduce the extinction curves
608: widely adopted as template extinction laws
609: in GRB afterglow SED modeling,
610: clearly demonstrating the advantages
611: of the proposed formula over any template
612: extinction laws with a fixed wavelength-dependence shape:
613: with the widely-adopted conventional extinction laws
614: self-contained in Eq.(\ref{eq:A2AV})
615: and the capability of revealing extinction laws
616: differing from the conventional ones,
617: the proposed formula is more flexible
618: and more powerful in modeling the afterglow SEDs.
619: %
620: Indeed, as shown in Liang \& Li (2008a,b),
621: dust reddening models based on this formula nicely
622: reproduce the observed afterglow SEDs of distant
623: GRBs at $z>4$ (including GRB\,050904 at $z\approx 6.3$)
624: and that of the ``troublesome''
625: GRB\,061126 (Perley et al.\ 2008)
626: without resorting to an exotic extinction law.
627:
628: \section{GRB\,000301C and GRB\,021004: Test Cases\label{sec:test}}
629: %
630: We apply the above-described technique (\S\ref{sec:approach})
631: to the optical afterglows of GRB\,000301C
632: at $z\approx 2.04$ (Jensen et al.\ 2001)
633: and GRB\,021004 at $z\approx 2.33$ (Fynbo et al.\ 2005).
634: They are selected mainly because they are among
635: the best-observed in terms of sampling in the time
636: domain, and multiwavelength coverage.
637: %(see Jensen et al.\ 2001, Fynbo et al.\ 2005).
638: We fit their broadband SEDs
639: using Eqs.(\ref{eq:Fnu},\ref{eq:A2AV})
640: with $\beta$, $A_V$, $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$
641: allowed to vary as free parameters [$\Fo$ is not really
642: a free parameter; for a given set of ($\beta$, $A_V$,
643: $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$), $\Fo$ is uniquely determined by
644: the overall flux level. Therefore, in the SED modeling
645: we fit five free parameters to the six (seven) data points of
646: GRB\,000301C (GRB\,021004)].\footnote{%
647: We set $c_4$\,=\,0 based on a visual inspection
648: of the observed SEDs which clearly suggest
649: the absence of a 2175$\Angstrom$ feature
650: (see Figs.\,\ref{fig:GRB000301C},\ref{fig:GRB021004}).
651: With $c_4$ treated as a free, positive parameter,
652: even the best fits (given by $c_4\approx 0.0034,0.0018$
653: for GRB\,000301C and GRB\,021004, respectively;
654: for comparison, $c_4\approx 0.051,0.039$ for
655: MW and LMC, respectively) are not as good as
656: that provided by models with $c_4=0$.
657: We place an upper limt of $c_4\approx 0.015$ (0.0073)
658: for GRB\,000301C (GRB\,021004).
659: }
660: We derive the best-fit parameters based on
661: the Levenberg-Marquardt minimization algorithm
662: (see Table \ref{tab:grbmod}).
663: As shown in Figure\,\ref{fig:GRB000301C}
664: for GRB\,000301C and in Figure\,\ref{fig:GRB021004}
665: for GRB\,021004, almost perfect fits to the observed
666: SEDs are achieved through this approach.
667: The inferred extinction curves differ substantially
668: from any of the template extinction laws.
669:
670: \section{Discussion\label{sec:discussion}}
671: %
672: We have also fitted the afterglow
673: SEDs of GRB\,000301C and GRB\,021004
674: in terms of the MW, SMC, LMC, Calzetti,
675: and ``linear'' %($A_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-1}$)
676: template extinction curves (see Table \ref{tab:grbmod}
677: and Figs.\,\ref{fig:GRB000301C},\ref{fig:GRB021004}).
678: Since for a given template extinction law
679: the wavelength-dependence of the extinction
680: $A_\lambda/A_V$ is fixed, we are now left with
681: only three parameters: $\Fo$, $\beta$, and $A_V$.
682: %As shown in Table \ref{tab:grbmod}
683: %and Figures\,\ref{fig:GRB000301C},\ref{fig:GRB021004},
684: %none of these fits is as good as that obtained using
685: %the technique described in \S\ref{sec:approach}.
686: The models based on the MW and LMC extinction laws
687: could not fit the observed SEDs at all.
688: This is because the 2175$\Angstrom$
689: extinction feature which is prominent in the MW and LMC
690: curves is absent in the SEDs of GRB\,000301C and GRB\,021004.
691: In contrast, the SMC and ``linear'' models closely fit
692: the afterglow SEDs of these two bursts,
693: better than the Drude model proposed here
694: as measured by $\chi^2/N_{\rm d.o.f.}$
695: (see Table \ref{tab:grbmod}).
696:
697: While the Drude model has three more parameters
698: than the SMC and ``linear'' models, the quality
699: of the fitting of the Drude model is even not as
700: good as that of the SMC or ``linear'' model.
701: Then, why do not we simply adopt the SMC
702: or ``linear'' model?
703:
704: First of all, we should note that there are no physical
705: reasons for a prior assumption of a known extinction law,
706: either that of the SMC, LMC, ``linear'' or MW:
707: the composition and size distribution
708: (and therefore the extinction law) of
709: the dust in the dense circumburst clouds
710: of GRB hosts with a wide range of metallicities
711: and evolutionary stages
712: are not expected to resemble that of
713: the MW, LMC, or SMC (e.g. see Dwek 2005).
714: In literature, a SMC-type extinction is often assumed
715: for low-metallicity environments. However, there is no
716: physical basis for this (except the lack of grain growth
717: in these regions because of the lack of raw dust materials
718: -- the SMC dust, on average, is substantially smaller than
719: that of the Milky Way [see Weingartner \& Draine 2001]).
720: Moreover, it is known that the GRB hosts have
721: a wide range of metallicities.
722: %
723: Indeed, the reasons why the MW, LMC and SMC
724: laws are often used for GRB afterglow SED
725: modeling are mainly (1) little is known about the extinction
726: laws of other galaxies, and (2) the Pei (1992) formula for
727: the MW, LMC and SMC extinction laws is numerically convenient
728: for computer implementation.
729:
730: Second, although the SMC-type extinction
731: is preferred in most of the present afterglow
732: SED modeling studies, only the Drude approach is
733: capable of reproducing the SEDs of those reddened
734: by gray extinction or by non-conventional extinction.
735: Indeed, it was shown that the afterglow SED
736: of GRB\,050904 at a redshift of $z$\,$\approx$\,6.3
737: cannot be explained by dust reddening with
738: any of the conventional (MW, SMC, Calzetti)
739: extinction curves; instead, it can be well
740: reproduced by invoking the extinction curve
741: inferred for a distant quasar at $z$\,=\,6.2 (Maiolino et al.\ 2004),
742: suggesting that the properties of dust may
743: evolve beyond $z$\,=\,6 (Stratta et al.\ 2007).
744:
745: Third, the Drude model would at least complement
746: the models using template extinction curves,
747: particularly for those bursts for which the Drude
748: model gives a larger $\chi^2/N_{\rm d.o.f.}$
749: (but still fits the observed SEDs well).
750: Given that the derived extinction $A_V$
751: and the intrinsic spectral slope $\beta$
752: differ appreciably among different approaches
753: (see Table \ref{tab:grbmod}), the SMC model
754: (and other models) should be used along side
755: with the Drude model to gain insight into
756: the ``true'' extinction and the ``true'' spectral slope.
757:
758: We finally demonstrate the uniqueness of the extinction
759: curve inferred from the Drude approach.
760: To this end, we generate three sets of afterglow
761: ``photometry data'' by reddening the intrinsic afterglow
762: spectrum $F_\nu\,(\mu {\rm Jy})$\,=\,$5.2\times 10^8
763: \left(\nu/{\rm Hz}\right)^{-0.5}$ of a burst at $z\approx 2$
764: respectively with three template extinction laws:
765: MW, SMC, and Calzetti, each with $A_V=0.5\magni$.
766: We then apply the Drude approach to these three sets
767: of artificially-created GRB afterglow data.
768: As shown in Figure\,\ref{fig:test},
769: we uniquely restore the MW, SMC, and Calzetti extinction
770: laws: the inferred extinction curves are almost identical
771: to that used to redden the intrinsic spectrum
772: (the derived parameters [see Table\,\ref{tab:test}]
773: are essentially the same as those tabulated
774: in Table\,\ref{tab:extcurv}).
775: %This suggests that although the SMC model is also able to
776: %reproduce the afterglow SEDs of GRB\,000301C and GRB\,021004,
777: %it is probably just a coincidence: if their afterglow
778: %spectra are indeed reddened by SMC-type dust,
779: %the Drude approach should be able to restore
780: %a SMC extinction curve.
781: %Moreover, if the intrinsic spectral slope $\beta$ is
782: %known (say, from the fireball model), one should also
783: %be able to break this degeneracy.
784:
785:
786:
787: \acknowledgments
788: We thank the anonymous referee and J.X. Prochaska
789: for very helpful comments.
790: A.L. and S.L. are supported in part by a NASA/Swift Theory Program,
791: a NASA/Chandra Theory Program, and the NSFC Outstanding Oversea
792: Young Scholarship. D.M.W. is supported by the NSFC grants
793: 10621303 and 10673034, and the National Basic Research Program of
794: China (973 Program 2007CB815404). D.A.K. and S.K. acknowledge
795: financial support by DFG grant Kl 766/13-2.
796:
797: \begin{thebibliography}{}
798: \bibitem[]{696} Berger, E., Cowie, L.~L., Kulkarni, S.~R., Frail, D.~A.,
799: Aussel, H., \& Barger, A.~J.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 99
800: \bibitem[]{698} Calzetti, D., Kinney, A.~L., \& Storchi-Bergmann, T.\
801: 1994, \apj, 429, 582
802: \bibitem[]{783}Cardelli, J.~A., Clayton, G.~C., \& Mathis, J.~S.\
803: 1989, ApJ, 467, 334
804: \bibitem[]{700} Chen, S.~L., Li, A., \& Wei, D.~M.\ 2006, \apjl, 647, L13
805: \bibitem[]{701} Conselice, C.~J., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 29
806: \bibitem[]{702} Djorgovski, S.~G., Kulkarni, S.~R., Bloom, J.~S.,
807: Goodrich, R., Frail, D.~A., Piro, L.,
808: \& Palazzi, E.\ 1998, \apjl, 508, L17
809: \bibitem[]{705} Djorgovski, S.~G., Frail, D.~A., Kulkarni, S.~R.,
810: Bloom, J.~S., Odewahn, S.~C.,
811: \& Diercks, A.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 654
812: \bibitem[]{}Dwek, E.\ 2005, in AIP Conf. Proc. 761,
813: The Spectral Energy Distributions of Gas-Rich Galaxies:
814: Confronting Models with Data,
815: ed. C. C. Popescu \& R. J. Tuffs (Melville: AIP), 103
816: \bibitem[]{708} Fiore, F., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 624, 853
817: \bibitem[]{709} Fiore, F., Guetta, D., Piranomonte, S.,
818: D'Elia, V., \& Antonelli, L.~A.\ 2007, \aap, 470, 515
819: \bibitem[]{796}Fitzpatrick, E.~L., \& Massa, D.~L.\
820: 1990, ApJS, 72, 163
821: \bibitem[]{711} Fruchter, A., Krolik, J.~H., \& Rhoads, J.~E.\
822: 2001, ApJ, 563, 597
823: \bibitem[]{713} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 317
824: \bibitem[]{714} Galama, T.~J., \& Wijers, R.~A.~M.~J.\ 2001,
825: \apjl, 549, L209
826: \bibitem[]{716} Gordon, K.~D., Clayton, G.~C., Misselt, K.~A.,
827: Landolt, A.~U., \& Wolff, M.~J.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 279
828: \bibitem[]{718} Hjorth, J., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 597, 699
829: \bibitem[]{719} Holland, S.~T., et al.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 2291
830: \bibitem[]{720} Jakobsson, P., et al.\ 2004, A\&A, 427,785
831: \bibitem[]{} Jaunsen, A.~O., et al.\ 2008, ApJ, in press
832: (astro-ph/0803.4017)
833: \bibitem[]{721} Jensen, B.~L., et al.\ 2001, A\&A, 370, 909
834: \bibitem[]{722} Kann, D.~A., Klose, S., \& Zeh, A.\
835: 2006, \apj, 641, 993
836: \bibitem[]{724} Kann, D.~A., et al.\ 2008, \apj, submitted
837: (astro-ph/0712.2186)
838: \bibitem[]{726} Klose, S., et al.\ 2000, \apj, 545, 271
839: \bibitem[]{814} Kr\"uhler, T., et al.\ 2008, ApJ, submitted
840: %\bibitem[]{727} Lazzati, D. \& Perna, R.\ 2002, MNRAS, 330, 383
841: \bibitem[]{728} Le Floc'h, E., Charmandaris, V.,
842: Forrest, W.~J., Mirabel, I.~F., Armus, L.,
843: \& Devost, D.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 636
844: \bibitem[]{731} Levan, A., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 471
845: \bibitem[]{851} Li, A. 2004, in Penetrating Bars through Masks
846: of Cosmic Dust, ed. D.~L. Block, I. Puerari,
847: K.~C. Freeman, R. Groess, \& E.~K. Block
848: (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 535
849: \bibitem[]{732} Li, A.\ 2008, in: Small Bodies in Planetary Sciences
850: (Lecture Notes in Physics Series), I. Mann, A. Nakamura,
851: \& T. Mukai (eds.), Springer, in press
852: \bibitem[]{735} Li, Y., Li, A., \& Wei, D.~M.\ 2008,
853: \apj, 678, 1136
854: \bibitem[]{737} Liang, S.~L., \& Li, A.\ 2008a, in preparation
855: \bibitem[]{738} Liang, S.~L., \& Li, A.\ 2008b, in preparation
856: \bibitem[]{739} Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., \& Oliva, E.\
857: 2001, \aap, 365, 37
858: \bibitem[]{741} Maiolino, R., Schneider, R., Oliva, E.,
859: Bianchi, S., Ferrara, A., Mannucci, F., Pedani,
860: M., \& Roca Sogorb, M.\ 2004, \nat, 431, 533
861: \bibitem[]{744} Osterbrock, D.~E., \& Ferland, G.~J.\ 2006,
862: Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active
863: Galactic Nuclei
864: (2nd ed; Sausalito: Univ. Sci. Books)
865: \bibitem[]{748} Pei, Y.~C.\ 1992, \apj, 395, 130
866: \bibitem[]{749} Perley, D.~A., et al.\ 2008, \apj, 672, 449
867: \bibitem[]{} Perna, R., \& Lazzati, D.\ 2002, \apj, 580, 261
868: \bibitem[]{750}Perna, R., Lazzati, D., \& Fiore, F.\
869: 2003, \apj, 585, 775
870: \bibitem[]{875} Press, W.~H., Teukolsky, S.~A., Vetterling, W.~T.,
871: \& Flannery, B.~P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in
872: FORTRAN: The Art of Scientific Computing
873: (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
874: \bibitem[]{752} Prochaska, J.~X., Chen, H.-W., \& Bloom, J.~S.\
875: 2006, \apj, 648, 95
876: \bibitem[]{} Prochaska, J.~X., Chen, H.-W., Dessauges-Zavadsky, M.,
877: \& Bloom, J.~S.\ 2007, \apj, 666, 267
878: \bibitem[]{754} Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Trentham, N., \& Blain, A.~W.\
879: 2002, \mnras, 329, 465
880: \bibitem[]{844}Reichart, D.~E.\ 2001, ApJ, 553, 235
881: \bibitem[]{756} Rhoads, J.~E., \& Fruchter, A.~S.\ 2001, \apj, 546, 117
882: \bibitem[]{757} Rol, E., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 669, 1098
883: %\bibitem[]{758} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Narayan, R.\
884: % 1998, \apjl, 497, L17
885: \bibitem[]{760} Savaglio, S., \& Fall, S.~M.\
886: 2004, \apj, 614, 293
887: \bibitem[]{762} Savaglio, S., Fall, S.~M., \& Fiore, F.\
888: 2003, \apj, 585, 638
889: \bibitem[]{764} Schady, P., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 273
890: \bibitem[]{765} Stratta, G., Fiore, F., Antonelli, L.~A., Piro, L.,
891: \& De Pasquale, M.\ 2004, \apj, 608, 846
892: \bibitem[]{767} Stratta, G., Perna, R., Lazzati, D., Fiore, F.,
893: Antonelli, L.~A., \& Conciatore, M.~L.\ 2005, \aap, 441, 83
894: \bibitem[]{769} Stratta, G., Maiolino, R., Fiore, F.,
895: \& D'Elia, V.\ 2007, \apjl, 661, L9
896: \bibitem[]{} Tanvir, N.~R., et al.\ 2008, MNRAS, in press
897: (astro-ph/0803.4100)
898: \bibitem[]{771} Vreeswijk, P.~M., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 447, 145
899: \bibitem[]{772} Watson, D., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1011
900: \bibitem[]{773} Waxman, E., \& Draine, B.T.\
901: 2000, \apj, 537, 796
902: \bibitem[]{908}Weingartner, J.C., \& Draine, B.T. 2001, ApJ, 548, 296
903: \bibitem[]{775} Woosley, S.~E., \& Bloom, J.~S.\ 2006, \araa, 44, 507
904: %
905: \end{thebibliography}
906:
907: %\clearpage
908: \begin{table}
909: {\footnotesize
910: \caption[]{\footnotesize
911: ``Drude'' fits to known extinction curves
912: for $\lambda$\,=\,0.1--1$\mum$
913: widely adopted as ``templates'' in modeling
914: GRB afterglow SEDs to derive GRB host dust extinction.
915: \label{tab:extcurv}}
916: \begin{center}
917: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
918: \tableline\tableline
919: & $c_1$ & $c_2$ & $c_3$ & $c_4$ & $\chi^2/\dof$ \\
920: \cline{1-6}
921: MW & 14.4 & 6.52 & 2.04 & 0.0519 & 1.66 \\
922: LMC & 4.47 & 2.39 & -0.988 & 0.0221 & 1.19 \\
923: SMC & 38.7 & 3.83 & 6.34 & 0. & 1.36 \\
924: Linear & 66.2 & 4.97 & 22.1 & 0. & 1.42 \\
925: Calzetti & 44.9 & 7.56 & 61.2 & 0. & 1.68 \\
926: \tableline
927: \end{tabular}
928: \end{center}
929: }
930: \end{table}
931:
932: \begin{table}
933: {\footnotesize
934: \caption[]{\footnotesize
935: Results of fitting to the afterglow SEDs
936: of GRB\,000301C and GRB\,021004
937: with the Drude approach
938: (see \S\ref{sec:approach}, \S\ref{sec:test})
939: or various template extinction laws.
940: Note that the Drude approach has more free
941: parameters than the other approaches.
942: \label{tab:grbmod}}
943: \begin{center}
944: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
945: \tableline\tableline
946: Extinction & $c_1$ & $c_2$ & $c_3$ & $c_4$
947: & $\AV$ & $\beta$ & $\Fo$
948: & $\chi^2/N_{\rm data}$
949: & $\chi^2/N_{\rm d.o.f.}$ \\
950: Type & & & & & (mag) & & ($\mu$Jy) & \\
951: \cline{1-10}
952: & & & & & GRB\,000301C & & & & & \\
953: \cline{1-10}
954: %Drude & $c_1$ & $c_2$ & $c_3$ & $c_4$ & $R_V$
955: % & $\AV$ & $\beta$ & $\Fo$ & $\chi^2/\dof$ \\
956: Drude &0.025 &0.048 &-2.00 & 0. &0.32 &0.61 &3.99E10 & 0.33 & 1.98\\
957: %
958: MW & ... & ... & ... & ... &0. & 0.85 &1.04E14 & 1.32 &2.64\\
959: SMC & ... & ... & ... & ... &0.11 & 0.62 &4.68E10 & 0.64 &1.28\\
960: LMC & ... & ... & ... & ... &0. & 0.85 &1.04E14 & 1.32 &2.64\\
961: Linear & ... & ... & ... & ... &0.20 & 0.51 &1.23E9 & 0.47 &0.94\\
962: Calzetti & ... & ... & ... & ... &0. & 0.85 & 1.04E14 & 1.32 &2.64\\
963: \cline{1-10}
964: & & & & & GRB\,021004 & & & & & \\
965: \cline{1-10}
966: %Type & $c_1$ & $c_2$ & $c_3$ & $c_4$
967: % & $\AV$ & $\beta$ & $\Fo$ & \chi^2/\dof$ \\
968: Drude &0.015 &0.15 &-2.00 & 0. &0.13 &0.78 &6.13E12 &0.47 &1.64\\
969: %
970: MW & ... & ... & ... & ... &0. & 1.06 &8.23E16 & 1.53 &2.68\\
971: SMC & ... & ... & ... & ... &0.15 & 0.67 &1.58E11 & 0.36 &0.53\\
972: LMC & ... & ... & ... & ... &0. & 1.06 &8.23E16 & 1.53 &2.68\\
973: Linear & ... & ... & ... & ... &0.26 & 0.54 &2.05E9 & 0.76 &1.33\\
974: Calzetti & ... & ... & ... & ... &0.95 & 0. &46.7 & 0.80 &1.40\\
975: \tableline
976: \end{tabular}
977: \end{center}
978: }
979: \end{table}
980:
981:
982: \begin{table}
983: {\footnotesize
984: \caption[]{\footnotesize
985: Results of Drude-fitting to the artificial SED
986: generated by reddening the power-law afterglow
987: $F_\nu\,(\mu {\rm Jy})$\,=\,$5.2\times 10^8
988: \left(\nu/{\rm Hz}\right)^{-0.5}$
989: with $A_V$\,=\,0.5\,mag extinction
990: of MW, SMC, and Calzetti-type
991: (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:test}).
992: \label{tab:test}}
993: \begin{center}
994: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
995: \tableline\tableline
996: Reddening & $c_1$ & $c_2$ & $c_3$ & $c_4$
997: & $\AV$ & $\beta$ & $\Fo$
998: & $\chi^2/N_{\rm data}$
999: & $\chi^2/N_{\rm d.o.f.}$ \\
1000: Type & & & & & (mag) & & ($\mu$Jy) & \\
1001: \cline{1-10}
1002: %Drude & $c_1$ & $c_2$ & $c_3$ & $c_4$ & $R_V$
1003: % & $\AV$ & $\beta$ & $\Fo$ & $\chi^2/\dof$ \\
1004: MW & 14.3 & 6.49 & 2.02 & 0.0514
1005: &0.501 & 0.499 &5.24E8 & 3.26E-4 &4.35E-4\\
1006: SMC & 39.4 & 3.89 & 6.31 & 0.
1007: &0.500 & 0.501 &5.26E8 & 1.32E-3 &1.76E-3\\
1008: Calzetti & 45.2 & 7.51 & 61.7 & 0.
1009: &0.497 & 0.502 &5.17E8 & 7.98E-4 &1.06E-3\\
1010: \cline{1-10}
1011: \tableline
1012: \end{tabular}
1013: \end{center}
1014: }
1015: \end{table}
1016:
1017:
1018: %\clearpage
1019:
1020: \begin{figure}[ht]
1021: \begin{center}
1022: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth,angle=0]{f1.cps}
1023: \end{center}\vspace*{-1em}
1024: \caption{
1025: \label{fig:extcurv}
1026: Extinction laws widely adopted
1027: as {\it ``templates''} in GRB host extinction studies:
1028: the SMC law (upper panel: dashed black line; Pei 1992),
1029: the LMC law (upper panel: dashed blue line; Pei 1992),
1030: the linear $A_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-1}$ law
1031: (upper panel: dashed cyan line),
1032: the MW Galactic average extinction law
1033: ($R_V=3.1$; lower panel: dashed black line; Pei 1992),
1034: the MW extinction law with $R_V=4.5$ for dense
1035: clouds (lower panel: solid red line),
1036: the Calzetti starburst attenuation law
1037: (lower panel: dashed blue line),
1038: and the Maiolino law for AGN dust tori
1039: (lower panel: dashed cyan line; just like that of
1040: the MW with $R_V=4.5$).
1041: Also shown are the ``Drude'' fits to
1042: these ``template'' extinction laws:
1043: SMC (upper panel: solid green line),
1044: LMC (upper panel: solid red line),
1045: Linear (upper panel: solid magenta line),
1046: MW with $R_V=3.1$ (lower panel: solid green line),
1047: and Calzetti (lower panel: solid magenta line).
1048: }
1049: \end{figure}
1050:
1051: \begin{figure}[ht]
1052: \begin{center}
1053: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth,angle=0]{f2.cps}
1054: \end{center}\vspace*{-1em}
1055: \caption{
1056: \label{fig:GRB000301C}
1057: Upper panel: fitting the SED of the afterglow of
1058: GRB\,000301C (filled black circles)
1059: with the SMC (green) and LMC or MW (blue) template extinction
1060: laws and the ``Drude'' approach (red; see Eq.\ref{eq:A2AV})
1061: for the host extinction curve.
1062: No extinction is allowed in the MW and LMC models
1063: (i.e. the best fit with a MW- or LMC-type extinction
1064: is given by $A_V$\,$\approx$\,0): a small amount of
1065: $A_V$ would lead to large deviations from the afterglow
1066: SED since the 2175$\Angstrom$ bump prominent in
1067: the MW and LMC laws is absent in the afterglow SED.
1068: Lower panel: comparison of the SMC (green), LMC (blue),
1069: MW ($R_V=3.1$; black) extinction laws with
1070: that derived from the Drude approach (red).
1071: }
1072: \end{figure}
1073:
1074: \begin{figure}[ht]
1075: \begin{center}
1076: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth,angle=0]{f3.cps}
1077: \end{center}\vspace*{-1em}
1078: \caption{
1079: \label{fig:GRB021004}
1080: Same as Figure \ref{fig:GRB000301C}
1081: but for GRB\,021004.
1082: }
1083: \end{figure}
1084:
1085: \begin{figure}[ht]
1086: \begin{center}
1087: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth,angle=0]{f4.cps}
1088: \end{center}\vspace*{-1em}
1089: \caption{
1090: \label{fig:test}
1091: Upper panel: Drude fits to the observer-frame
1092: $UBVRIJHK$ ``photometry data''
1093: artificially-generated by reddening the intrinsic afterglow
1094: spectrum $F_\nu\propto \nu^{-\beta}$ of
1095: a burst at $z\approx 2$
1096: (black line with red crosses superimposed for
1097: the observer-frame $UBVRIJHK$ bands) with
1098: the SMC (``data'': cyan squares; Drude fit: green line),
1099: Calzetti (``data'': blue triangles; Drude fit: magenta line),
1100: and MW (``data'': black circles; Drude fit: red line)
1101: extinction laws (with $A_V=0.5\magni$ for each).
1102: Lower panel: comparison of the SMC, Calzetti and MW
1103: extinction curves (solid lines) with that inferred from
1104: the Drude approach (dashed lines).
1105: }
1106: \end{figure}
1107: %%
1108:
1109: \end{document}
1110: