1: \documentclass [12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: % for a referee version 

3: %\documentclass [manuscript]{aastex}

4: %documentclass [article]{aa}

5: \usepackage{epsfig}

6: %

7: \begin{document}

8: \voffset-0.5cm

9: \newcommand{\gsim}{\hbox{\rlap{$^>$}$_\sim$}}

10: \newcommand{\lsim}{\hbox{\rlap{$^<$}$_\sim$}}

11: 

12: 

13: \title{The diverse broad-band lightcurves of Swift GRBs\\ 

14: reproduced with the cannonball model}   

15: 

16: 

17: \author{Shlomo Dado\altaffilmark{1}, Arnon Dar\altaffilmark{2},

18: A. De R\'ujula\altaffilmark{3}}

19: 

20: \altaffiltext{1}{dado@phep3.technion.ac.il,

21: Physics Department, Technion, Haifa 32000,

22: Israel}

23: \altaffiltext{2}{ arnon@physics.technion.ac.il,

24: Physics Department, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel\\

25: ~~~~dar@cern.ch, Theory Unit, CERN,1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}

26: 

27: \altaffiltext{3}{alvaro.derujula@cern.ch; Theory Unit, CERN,

28: 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland \\

29: Physics Department, Boston University, USA}

30: 

31: 

32: \begin{abstract} 

33: 

34: Two radiation mechanisms, inverse Compton scattering (ICS) and synchrotron 

35: radiation (SR), suffice within the cannonball (CB) model of long gamma ray 

36: bursts (LGRBs) and X-ray flashes (XRFs) to provide a very simple and 

37: accurate description of their observed prompt emission and afterglows. 

38: Simple as they are, the two mechanisms and the burst environment generate 

39: the rich structure of the light curves at all frequencies and times. This 

40: is demonstrated for 33 selected Swift LGRBs and XRFs, which are  

41: well sampled from early until late time and faithfully represent the entire 

42: diversity of the broad-band light curves of Swift LGRBs and XRFs. Their 

43: prompt gamma-ray and X-ray emission is dominated by ICS of `glory' light. 

44: During their fast decline phase, ICS is taken over by SR, which 

45: dominates their broad-band afterglow. The pulse shape and spectral 

46: evolution of the gamma-ray peaks and the early-time X-ray flares, and even 

47: the delayed optical `humps' in XRFs, are correctly predicted. The 

48: `canonical' and non-canonical X-ray light curves and the chromatic behaviour 

49: of the broad-band afterglows are well reproduced. In particular, in 

50: canonical X-ray light curves, the initial fast decline and rapid 

51: softening of the prompt emission, the transition to the plateau phase, the 

52: subsequent gradual steepening of the plateau to an asymptotic power-law 

53: decay, and the transition from chromatic to achromatic behaviour of the 

54: light curves agrees well with those predicted by the CB model. The Swift 

55: early-time data on XRF 060218 are inconsistent with a black-body emission 

56: from a shock break-out through a stellar envelope. Instead, they are well 

57: described by ICS of glory light by a jet breaking out from SN2006aj. 

58: %The  start time of the X-ray emission does not constrain the exact time 

59: %of the core's collapse before the launch of the jet, nor does it constrain 

60: %possible ejections of additional CBs farther off axis.

61: 

62: \end{abstract}

63: 

64: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts}

65: 

66: \maketitle

67: 

68: \section{Introduction}

69: 

70: 

71: Since the launch of the Swift satellite, precise data from its Burst Alert 

72: Telescope (BAT) and X-Ray Telescope (XRT) have been obtained on the 

73: spectral and temporal behaviour of the X-ray emission of long-duration 

74: $\gamma$-ray bursts (LGRBs) and X-ray flashes (XRFs) from their beginning 

75: until late times.  The early data are often complemented by the 

76: ultraviolet-optical telescope (UVOT) on board Swift, and by ground-based 

77: {\it UVO} and $NIR$ robotic and conventional telescopes. The ensemble of these 

78: data have already been used to test the most-studied theories of long 

79: duration GRBs and their afterglows (AGs), the {\it Fireball} (FB) models 

80: (see, e.g.~Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros~2004, Zhang~2007, and references 

81: therein) 

82: and the {\it Cannonball} (CB) model [see, e.g.~Dar \& De R\'ujula~2004 

83: (hereafter DD2004), Dado, Dar \& De R\'ujula (hereafter DDD)~2002a, 2003a, 

84: and references therein].

85: 

86: The Swift X-ray light curves of LGRBs roughly divide into two classes, 

87: `canonical' and non-canonical (Nousek et al.~2006, O'Brien et al.~2006, 

88: Zhang~2007).  When measured early enough, the observed X-ray emission has 

89: prompt peaks which coincide with the $\gamma$-ray peaks of the GRB, and a 

90: rapidly declining light curve with a fast spectral softening after the 

91: last detectable peak of the GRB. This rapid decline and spectral softening 

92: of the prompt emission end within a few hundreds of seconds. In 

93: canonical LGRBs the X-ray light curve turns sharply into a much flatter 

94: `plateau' with a much harder power-law spectrum, typically lasting 

95: thousands to tens of thousands of seconds, and within a time of order one 

96: day it steepens into a power-law decay, which lasts until the X-ray AG 

97: becomes too dim to be detected (Fig.~\ref{f1}). 

98: 

99: The plateau phase is missing in non canonical GRBs,

100: and the asymptotic power-law decline begins the decay of the

101: prompt emission and lasts until the X-ray become too dim to be detected

102: (Fig.~\ref{f2}) without any observable break.

103: 

104: 

105: In an significant fraction of otherwise canonical GRBs, 

106: the rapid decay and fast spectral softening of the prompt emission

107: changes to a slower power-law decay, $\sim t^{-2.1}$, and a harder 

108: spectrum, before it reaches the plateau (Fig.~\ref{f3}).

109: We shall refer to such light curves as `semi-canonical'.

110: 

111: 

112: 

113: The Swift X-ray data show a flaring activity in a large fraction of GRBs, 

114: both at early and late times. The X-ray peaks during the prompt $\gamma$- 

115: ray emission follow the pattern of the $\gamma$-ray pulses, they must have 

116: a common origin. In many GRBs, superimposed on the early-time fast 

117: decaying X-ray light curve, there are X-ray flares, whose peak intensities 

118: also decrease with time and whose accompanying $\gamma$-ray emission is 

119: probably below the detection sensitivity of BAT. Yet, their spectral and 

120: temporal behaviour is similar to that of the prompt X/$\gamma$ pulses. 

121: Very often the flaring activity continues into the afterglow phase. 

122: Late-time flares appear to exhibit different temporal and spectral 

123: behaviours than early-time flares.

124: 

125: 

126: 

127: Neither the general trend, nor the frequently complex structure of the 

128: Swift X-ray data were predicted by (or can be easily accommodated within)  

129: the standard FB models (see, e.g.~Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros 2004, Piran~2005, 

130: for reviews). Much earlier confrontations between predictions of the FB 

131: models and the observations also provided severe contradictions, such as 

132: the failure to understand the prompt spectrum on grounds of synchrotron 

133: radiation (e.g.~Ghisellini, Celotti, \& Lazzati 2000), or the `energy 

134: crisis' in the comparison of the bolometric prompt and AG fluences 

135: (e.g.~Piran~1999, 2000). We have discussed elsewhere other problems of FB 

136: models (DD2004, Dar~2005 and references therein), including those related 

137: to `jet breaks' (e.g.~DDD2002a, Dar~2005, DDD2006), and the a-posteriori 

138: explanations of the reported detections (GRB 021206: Coburn and 

139: Boggs~2003, see however Wigger et al.~2004 and Rutledge \& Fox~2004; GRBs 

140: 930131 and GRB 960924: Willis et al.~2005; GRB 041219A: Kalemci et 

141: al.~2007; McGlynn et al.~2007) of large $\gamma$-ray polarization 

142: (DDD2007b, and references therein).

143: 

144: 

145: The Swift data have challenged the prevailing views on GRBs. Kumar et 

146: al.~(2007) concluded that the prompt $\gamma$-ray emission cannot be 

147: produced in shocks, internal or external. Zhang, Liang \& Zhang~(2007) found 

148: that the fast decay and rapid spectral softening ending the prompt 

149: emission cannot be explained by high latitude emission. The X-ray and 

150: optical afterglows of Swift GRBs are very chromatic at early time in 

151: contrast with the fireball model expectation. Moreover, Curran et 

152: al.~(2006) have carefully examined Swift data and found that X-ray and 

153: optical AGs have chromatic breaks which differ significantly from the jet 

154: break of the blast-wave model of AGs. Burrows and Racusin~(2007) examined 

155: the XRT light curves of the first $\sim\! 150$ Swift GRBs and reported 

156: that the expected jet breaks are extremely rare. In particular, Liang et 

157: al.~(2008) have analyzed the Swift X-ray data for the 179 GRBs detected 

158: between January 2005 and January 2007 and the optical AGs of 57 pre- and 

159: post-Swift GRBs. They did not find any burst satisfying all the 

160: criteria of a jet break.

161: 

162: 

163: In spite of the above failures, not all authors are so critical. Some 

164: posit that the Swift data require only some modifications of the standard 

165: FB models to accommodate the results (e.g.~Panaitescu et 

166: al.~2006, Dai et al.~2007, Sato et al.~2007). Others still view the 

167: situation with faith (e.g.~Covino et al.~2006, 

168: Panaitescu~2008, Dai et al.~2008, Racusin et al.~2008a).

169: 

170: The situation concerning the CB model is different. The model was based on 

171: the assumption that LGRBs are produced by highly relativistic 

172: jets of plasmoids of ordinary matter (Shaviv \& Dar~1995) ejected in 

173: core-collapse supernova (SN) explosions akin to SN1998bw (Dar \& 

174: Plaga~1999, Dar \& De R\'ujula 2000).  It successfully described the 

175: broad-band AGs observed before the Swift era (e.g.~DDD2002a, 

176: DDD2003a) 

177: and exposed the consistent photometric evidence for a LGRB/SN association 

178: in all nearby GRBs (DDD2002a, DD2004 and references therein) long before 

179: GRB 030329. In the case of GRB 030329 the first $\sim\!6$ days of AG data 

180: were described by the CB model precisely enough to extrapolate them to 

181: predict even the date in which its associated SN would be bright enough to 

182: be detected spectroscopically (DDD2003c). General acceptance of the 

183: GRB-SN association waited until the spectroscopic discovery of SN2003dh, 

184: coincident with GRB 030329 (Hjorth et al.~2003, Stanek et al.~2003), and 

185: other spectroscopically-proven  

186: associations, e.g.~GRB030213/SN2003lw (Malesani et al.~2004), 

187: GRB021211/SN2002lt (Della Valle et al.~2003), XRF060218/SN2006aj (Campana 

188: et al.~2006b, Pian et al.~2006, Mazzali et al.~2006) and XRF080109/SN2008D 

189: (Malesani et al.~2008, Modjaz et al.~2008, Soderberg et al.~2008).

190: 

191: 

192: The CB model (DD2004) has been applied successfully to explain all the 

193: main observed properties of long GRBs and XRFs before the Swift era

194: (e.g.~Dar 2005 and references therein). The model is summarized in 

195: $\S$\ref{CBMODEL}. For detailed accounts see, e.g.,~De R\'ujula, 2007a,b. 

196: 

197: In this report we extend and refine our analysis of the temporal and 

198: spectral behaviour of the $\gamma$-ray, X-ray and optical light curves of 

199: GRBs during the prompt emission, the rapid-decay phase, and the 

200: afterglow phase. The observed prompt spectrum in the $\gamma$-ray to X-ray 

201: domain is the predicted one, which is Compton-dominated in the CB 

202: model  (DD2004). The observed widths of the $\gamma$-ray and 

203: X-ray peaks, as well as lag-times between them and their relative 

204: fluences, are in accordance with the model's predictions, if free-free 

205: absorption dominates the transparency of the CBs to eV photons in the CBs' 

206: rest frame. We investigate whether or not the CB model can 

207: describe all the data in terms of only two emission 

208: mechanisms: inverse Compton scattering and synchrotron radiation. We shall 

209: see that this simple picture, explicitly based on the predictions in 

210: DDD2002a and DD2004, gives a straightforward and successful description 

211: of the Swift GRB data, at all observed energies and times.

212: 

213: An exploding SN illuminates the progenitor's earlier ejecta, creating a {\it glory}

214: of scattered and re-emitted light. In the CB model inverse Compton 

215: scattering (ICS) of glory photons is the origin of the prompt 

216: $\gamma$/X-ray peaks, as we 

217: review in $\S$\ref{Inverse}. Each peak is generated by a single CB 

218: emitted by the `engine', the accreting compact object resulting from a 

219: core-collapse supernova event. We shall see that ICS correctly describes 

220: the prompt peaks, extending even into the optical domain in XRFs in which 

221: the relevant observations are available, such as XRF 060218. The natural 

222: explanation of the early time flares is the same as that of the stronger 

223: flares: ICS of glory photons by the electrons of CBs ejected in late 

224: accretion episodes of fall-back matter on the newly formed central object. 

225: These CB emissions must correspond to a weakening activity of the engine, 

226: as the accreting material becomes scarcer.

227: 

228: In the CB model, from the onset of the `plateau' onwards, the X-ray,

229: optical (DDD2002a) and radio (DDD2003a) afterglows are dominated

230: by synchrotron radiation (SR), the CB-model predictions for which

231: are reviewed in $\S$\ref{Synchrotron}. On occasion

232: these AGs also have transient rebrightenings (`very late' flares),

233: two notable cases before the Swift era being GRB 970508 (Amati et 

234: al.~1999, Galama et al.~1998a)

235: and GRB 030329 (Lipkin et al.~2004). During these 

236: episodes, the spectrum continues

237: to coincide with the one predicted on the basis of the 

238: synchrotron mechanism that dominates the late AGs. These very late flares

239: are well described by encounters of CBs with density inhomogeneities

240: in the interstellar medium (DDD2002a, DD2004). 

241: Very late flares in the {\it XUVONIR} AG may have this origin as well.

242: 

243: In this article we compare the predictions of the CB model and the observed 

244: X-ray and optical light curves of 33 selected GRBs, which are well sampled 

245: from very early time until late time, have a relatively long follow-up 

246: with good statistics and represent well the entire diversity of Swift 

247: GRBs. These include the brightest of the Swift GRBs (080319B), the GRB 

248: with the longest measured X-ray emission (060729), a few with canonical 

249: X-ray light curves (050315, 060526, 061121 and 080320) with and without 

250: superimposed X-ray flares, GRBs with semi-canonical light curves (060211A, 

251: 061110A, 070220, 080303, 080307, 051021B) and non-canonical light curves 

252: (061007, 061126, 060206), and some of the allegedly most peculiar GRBs 

253: (050319, 050820A, 060418, 060607A, 071010A, 061126). We also compare the 

254: CB model prediction and the observed X-ray light curve of additional 12 

255: GRBs with the most rapid late-time temporal decay.

256: 

257: In the CB model, LGRBs and XRFs are one and the same, 

258: the general distinction being that XRFs are viewed at a 

259: larger angle relative to the direction of the approaching jet of CBs or 

260: have a relatively small Lorentz factor (DD2004, Dado et 

261: al.~2004c). Thus we include a Swift XRF of 

262: particular interest in our analysis: 060218. Its X-ray light curve is 

263: shown to be the normal X-ray light curve of a GRB viewed far off axis, and 

264: not the emission from the break-out of a spherical shock wave through the 

265: stellar envelope. Its optical AG at various frequencies shows, before the 

266: SN becomes dominant, a series of 

267: broad peaks between 30 ks and 60 ks after trigger, which we interpreted as 

268: the optical counterparts of the dominant prompt X-ray peak of this XRF.  

269: The expressions for an ICS-generated peak at all frequencies allow 

270: us to predict the positions, magnitudes and pulse shape of these broad 

271: peaks, a gigantic extrapolation in time, radiated energy and frequency.

272: 

273: After submitting for publication a first version of a comparison between

274: the CB-model predictions and Swift observations (DDD2007c), we have 

275: compared many more Swift data with the CB-model predictions, in order to 

276: further test its ability to predict correctly all the main 

277: properties of GRB light curves. These included the rapid spectral 

278: evolution observed during the fast decay of the prompt emission in 

279: `canonical' GRBs (DDD2008a) and the `missing AG breaks' in the AG of 

280: several GRBs (DDD2008b). We have also extended the CB model to describe 

281: short hard bursts (SHBs) and confronted it with the entire data on all 

282: SHBs with well-measured X-ray and/or optical afterglows (Dado \& Dar 

283: 2008).

284: 

285: Together with the GRBs discussed in this report, we have analyzed 

286: and published CB model fits to the light curves of more than 100 LGRBs and 

287: SHBs.  The CB model continued to be completely successful in the confrontation

288:  of its predictions with the data.

289: 

290: 

291: \section{The CB Model}

292: \label{CBMODEL}

293: 

294: In the CB model (e.g.~DD2004 and references therein)  {\it 

295: long-duration} GRBs and their AGs are produced by bipolar jets of CBs 

296: which are ejected (Shaviv \& Dar, 1995, Dar \& Plaga, 1999)

297: in~{\it ordinary core-collapse} supernova explosions\footnote{Supernovae

298: associated with GRBs are viewed uncommonly

299: close to their jet axis, near which

300: the non-relativistic ejecta from the SN are faster than average. 

301: The observed initial large velocities of the leading ejecta may,

302: erroneously in our view, lead to their interpretation  as 

303: a very special GRB-associated class of super energetic SNe:

304: {\it `hypernovae'}. Yet, the velocities of their ejecta

305:  have been observed to decrease within a year or two after the explosion 

306: (before they have swept a significant amount of circumburst matter) to

307: a typical 5000-7000 km s$^{-1}$, implying a normal SN kinetic energy 

308: release of a few times $10^{51}$ erg.}.   

309: An accretion disk or a torus is 

310: hypothesized to be produced around the newly formed compact object, either 

311: by stellar material originally close to the surface of the imploding core 

312: and left behind by the explosion-generating outgoing shock, or by more 

313: distant stellar matter falling back after its passage (De R\'ujula~1987). 

314: As observed in microquasars (e.g.~Mirabel \& Rodriguez~1999, Rodriguez \& 

315: Mirabel~1999 and references therein), each time part of the accretion disk 

316: falls abruptly onto the compact object, a pair of CBs made of {\it 

317: ordinary-matter plasma} with a typical baryonic number, 

318: $N_{_{\rm B}}\!\sim\! 10^{50},$ are 

319: emitted with large bulk-motion Lorentz factors, typically 

320: $\gamma_0\!\sim\! 10^3$, 

321: in opposite directions along the rotation axis, wherefrom matter has 

322: already fallen back onto the compact object, due to lack of rotational 

323: support. 

324: 

325: 

326: The $\gamma$-rays of a single pulse of a GRB are produced as a CB coasts 

327: through the SN {\it glory}, the light emitted and scattered by the `wind' ---the 

328: ejecta puffed by the progenitor star continuously or in a succession of 

329: pre-SN flares--- after being illuminated by the progenitor's pre-supernova 

330: and SN light. The electrons enclosed in the CB Compton up-scatter 

331: the photons of the glory to GRB energies. The initial fast expansion of 

332: the CBs and the increasing transparency of the wind environment as the CBs 

333: penetrates it, result in the fast rise of GRB pulses. As the CB coasts 

334: further through the SN glory, the density and temperature decrease 

335: rapidly. Consequently, the energy of the up-scattered photons is 

336: continuously shifted to lower energies and their number decreases rapidly. 

337: Typically, the ensuing fast decline of the prompt emission is taken over, 

338: within a couple of minutes of observer's time, by a broad-band synchrotron 

339: emission from swept-in electrons from the wind and the interstellar medium 

340: (ISM) spiraling in the CB's enclosed magnetic field.

341: 

342: In the CB model there is no clear-cut {\it temporal} distinction between 

343: prompt and {\it after}-glow signals. There are, however, two rather 

344: distinct radiation mechanisms: inverse Compton scattering and synchrotron 

345: radiation. For all cases we have studied, the prompt emission of 

346: $\gamma$-rays, X-rays and optical light in XRFs is dominated by ICS 

347: whereas in ordinary GRBs, only the prompt emission of $\gamma$ and X-rays 

348: is dominated by ICS, while SR dominates the prompt optical emission and the 

349: broad-band afterglow emission. Usually, the SR takes over the X-ray 

350: emission during the fast decay of the prompt emission or at the onset of 

351: the `plateau' phase. Late flares appear to be dominated by SR.

352: 

353: 

354: \section

355: {Inverse Compton Scattering}

356: \label{Inverse}

357: 

358: \subsection{The spectrum of ICS pulses}

359: 

360: During the initial phase of $\gamma$-ray emission in a GRB,

361: the Lorentz factor $\gamma$ of a CB stays put at its initial value

362: $\gamma_0\!=\!{\cal{O}}(10^3)$, for the deceleration induced by 

363: the collisions with the ISM has not yet had a significant effect

364: (DDD2002a, DDD2003a).

365: Let $\theta$ be the observer's angle relative to the direction of motion

366: of a CB.

367: The Doppler factor by which light emitted by a CB is boosted in energy

368: is, 

369: \begin{equation}

370: \delta={1\over \gamma\,

371: (1-\beta\, \cos\theta)}\approx {2\, \gamma\over

372: 1+\gamma^2\, \theta^2}\; ,

373: \label{delta}

374: \end{equation}

375: where the 

376: approximation is excellent for $\gamma\gg 1$ and $\theta\ll 1$.

377: The emitted light is forward-collimated into a cone of 

378: characteristic opening angle $1/\gamma$,

379: so that the boosted energetic radiation is observable for 

380: $\theta\!=\!{\cal{O}}(1/\gamma_0)$. This implies that the typical

381: initial Doppler factor of a GRB is:

382: $\delta_0\!=\!{\cal{O}}(10^3)$.

383: 

384: The burst environment is very complex, and can only

385: be roughly approximated. 

386: After it is ejected, the fast-expanding CB propagates through a cavity

387: produced by the pre-supernova ejecta, and shortly encounters 

388: the previously ejected `windy environment', whose density distribution 

389: is roughly $n(r)\!\propto\! 1/r^2$. The initially fast-expanding CB scatters  

390: the quasi-isotropic distribution of glory light and the collimated light from the CBs

391: themselves\footnote{The CB arrives at the windy environment shortly

392: after its emitted light, well before the scattered photons

393: could have left the beaming cone, since

394: $r/2\,c\,\gamma^2\! \ll\! r/\gamma\, c$.}.  

395: The glory light has a thin thermal bremsstrahlung 

396: spectrum 

397:  \begin{equation}

398: \epsilon\, {dn_\gamma \over d\epsilon} \approx n_\gamma(r)\, 

399: \left({\epsilon \over k\,T_g }\right)^{-\beta_g}\, e^{-\epsilon/ k\,T_g}, 

400: \label{thinbrem}

401: \end{equation}

402: with $\beta_g\!\sim\!0$ and a temperature that decreases with distance beyond a 

403: characteristic $r_g$  like

404: $T_g(r)\! \sim\! T(0)\, r_g^2/(r_g^2\!+\!r^2) $,

405: with

406: $k\, T(0)\!\sim\!1$ eV.

407: The observed energy of a glory photon which was  

408: scattered by an electron comoving with a 

409: CB at redshift $z$, is:

410: \begin{equation}

411: E={\gamma_0\, \delta_0\, \epsilon \, (1+\cos\theta_{in})\over 1+z}\,,   

412: \label{ICSboost}

413: \end{equation}

414: where $\theta_{in}$ is the angle of incidence of the initial

415: photon onto the CB, in the SN rest system.

416: For a quasi-isotropic distribution of glory light,  

417: $\cos\theta_{in} $  in Eq.~(\ref{ICSboost})

418: roughly averages to zero.

419: The predicted time-dependent spectrum of the GRB pulse produced 

420: by ICS of the glory photons is given by (DD2004): 

421: \begin{equation}

422: E\, {dN_\gamma\over dE} \sim \left({E\over E_p(t}\right)^{-\beta_g}\,

423:  e^{-E/E_p(t)}+ b\,(1-e^{-E/E_p(t)})\, \left({E \over

424: E_p(t)}\right)^{-p/2}\,,

425: \label{GRBspec}

426: \end{equation}

427: where 

428: \begin{eqnarray}

429: E_p(t)&\approx & E_p(0)\, {t_p^2 \over t^2+t_p^2}\,,

430: \nonumber\\

431: E_p(0)&\approx & {\gamma_0\, \delta_0 \over 1+z}\,k\, T_g(0),

432: \label{PeakE}

433: \end{eqnarray}

434: with $t_p\!\approx \! (1\!+\!z)\,r_g /c\,\gamma_0\, \delta_0 $,

435:  the peak time of  $dN_\gamma/ dt$, discussed in the next chapter.

436: 

437: The first term in Eq.~(\ref{GRBspec}), with $\beta_g\!\sim\! 0$, is the 

438: result of Compton 

439: scattering by the bulk of the CB's electrons, which are comoving with it.

440: The second term in Eq.~(\ref{GRBspec}) is induced by 

441: a very small fraction of

442: `knocked-on' and Fermi-accelerated electrons, whose initial spectrum

443: (before Compton and synchrotron cooling) is $dN_e/dE\propto E^{-p}$, 

444: with $p\approx 2.2$. For $b={\cal{O}}(1)$,

445: the energy spectrum predicted by the CB model, Eq.~(\ref{GRBspec}),

446: bears a striking resemblance 

447: to the Band function (Band et al.~1993) traditionally used to model the 

448: energy spectra of GRBs, 

449: but GRBs whose spectral measurements

450: extended over a much wider energy range than that of BATSE and Swift's BAT,

451: are better fitted by Eq.~\ref{GRBspec} (e.g.~Wigger et al.~2008).

452: 

453: 

454: For many Swift GRBs the spectral observations

455: do not extend to energies bigger than $E_p(0)$, or the value of $b$

456: in Eq.~(\ref{GRBspec}) is relatively small, so that the first term 

457: of the equation provides a very good approximation. But for its time-dependence,

458: this term coincides with the `cut-off 

459: power-law' which has also been recently used to model 

460: GRB spectra. For $b\!\sim\! 0$ and $\beta_g\!\sim \!0$

461: it yields a peak value of $E^2\, dN/dE$ at 

462: $E_p(t)$ whose pulse-averaged value is:

463: \begin{equation}

464: E_p\approx E_p(t_p)\approx 0.5\, E_p(0) 

465: \approx 155 \,  {\gamma_0\,\delta_0\over 10^6}\;

466: {T(0)\over 1\,{\rm eV}}\;{3.2\over 1+z}\, {\rm keV}\,, 

467: \label{ICSEp}

468: \end{equation}

469: where the numerical result was obtained for the pulse shape discussed in 

470: the next subsection and the indicated typical values,

471: including the mean redshift $\langle z\rangle\!\approx\!2.2$ of Swift's

472: long GRBs (Greiner: {\it http://www.mpe.mpg.de/$\sim$jcg/grbgen.html}).

473: For $b\!=\!1$ and $\beta_g\sim 0$,  

474: $E_p$ is larger by 50\% than the result of Eq.~(\ref{ICSEp}). 

475: The predicted spectrum, Eq.~(\ref{GRBspec}), 

476: and the range of $E_p$

477: values, Eq.~(\ref{ICSEp}), are in good agreement with the 

478: observations of BATSE, 

479: BeppoSAX, Konus-Wind, INTEGRAL, Suzaku and RHESSI, which cover a much 

480: broader 

481: energy range than Swift\footnote{Swift data can determine

482: $E_p$ only when it is 

483: well within its 15-350 keV detection range. This results in a biased sample 

484: of GRBs whose {\it measured} $E_p$ is smaller than the average 

485: over the entire GRB population.}.

486: 

487: In the CB model XRFs are either GRBs with typical values of $\gamma_0$, 

488: but viewed from angles $\theta \!\gg \!1/\gamma_0$, or GRBs

489: with smaller $\gamma_0$  (DD2004, DDD2004a). 

490: Both choices imply a smaller $\delta_0$ in Eq.~(\ref{delta}),

491: and consequently the softer spectrum and

492: relatively small $E_p$ that define an XRF,

493: see Eqs.~(\ref{GRBspec},\ref{PeakE}). XRFs have light curves

494: with wider and less rugged peaks than GRBs. This follows from

495: the time dependence of the light curves, which

496: we discuss next.

497: 

498: 

499: \subsection{The light curves of GRB and XRF pulses}

500: 

501: After launch, as the CB propagates in the progenitor's wind on 

502: its way  to the ISM, its cross section increases, its density and the 

503: wind's  density decrease and consequently their opacities decrease. 

504: Let $t$ be the time after launch of a CB as measured by a distant 

505: observer. 

506: Approximating the CB geometry by a cylindrical slab with the same radius, 

507: density and volume, and neglecting multiple scattering and the spread in 

508: arrival times of ICS photons from the CB which entered it simultaneously, 

509: their arrival rate is given by: 

510: \begin{equation}

511: {dN_\gamma\over dt} = e^{-\tau_{_W}}\, n_g (t)\, \sigma_{_T}\, \pi\, 

512: R^2(t)\, 

513: {[1\!-\!e^{-\tau_{_{CB}}}]\over \sigma_a}\, ,  

514: \label{dNdtslab}

515: \end{equation}

516: where  $\tau_{_W}$  

517: is the opacity of the wind at the CB location,

518: $\tau_{_{CB}}$ is the effective opacity of the expanding CB 

519: encountered  by a photon with energy $E'\!=\!(1+z)\, E/\delta_0$

520: which begins crossing it at a time $t$,

521: $\sigma_a(E')$ is the photo-absorption cross section at energy $E'$

522: and $\sigma_{_T}$ is the Thomson cross section. 

523: The density of the glory photons seen by a CB 

524: is quasi isotropic and decreases roughly like

525: $n_g\!\propto\! 1/(r^2\!+\! r_g^2)$,

526: where $r_g$ is distance where the wind becomes transparent 

527: (optical thickness $\sim \!1$) to glory photons. 

528: At an early time, 

529: $r\!\approx\! c\, \gamma_0\, \delta_0\, t/(1\!+\!z).$ 

530: Consequently

531: $n_g\! \propto\! 1/(t^2\!+ \! \Delta t^2)$,

532: where  $\Delta t\!=\!(1\!+\!z)\, r_g/ c\, \gamma_0\, \delta_0$. Thus

533: the shape of an ICS pulse produced by a CB is given approximately by

534: \begin{equation}

535: E\,{d^2N_\gamma \over dt\, dE}\propto  e^{-\tau_{_W}}\, n_g\, \pi\, 

536: R^2\, [1\!-\!e^{-R_{tr}^2/R^2}]\, E\,{dN_\gamma\over dE}\, ,

537: \label{ICSPulse0}

538: \end{equation}

539: where  $R_{tr}$ is the radius of the CB at $t\!=\!t_{tr}$,

540: when $\tau_{_{CB}}\!\approx\!1$, i.e., when it

541: becomes transparent to the scattered radiation,

542: and $E\, dN_\gamma/dE$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{GRBspec}). 

543: The pre-supernova wind from the progenitor star produces a 

544: density distribution, $n(r)\!=\! n_0\, r_0^2/r^2$ around it, which 

545: yields $\tau_{_W}\!=\!a(E)/t$ with

546: $a(E)\!=\!\sigma_a\, n_0\, r_0^2\, (1\!+\!z)/c\,\gamma_0\, 

547: \delta_0$.

548: At sufficiently high energies the opacities of the wind and the CBs

549: are mainly due to Compton scattering and  

550: $R_{tr}\!\sim\!\sqrt{\sigma_{_T}\, N_B/\pi}$, 

551: where $\sigma_{_T}$ is the Thomson cross section and 

552: $N_B$ is the baryon number of the expanding CB.

553: At low energies, their opacity

554: is dominated  by free-free absorption

555: because the CBs and the wind along their trajectory are completely 

556: ionized. In the CBs' rest frame the glory photons have typical  

557: energies, $E'\!\ll\!$ keV.  At such low energies, the opacity of CBs

558: with a uniform  density behaves like  $\tau_{_{CB}}\!\sim\! 

559: E'^{-3}\,(1\!-\!e^{\!-\!E'\,k/T'})\,G(E')\,R^{-5}\,,$

560: where $G(E')$ is the quantum mechanical Gaunt factor that 

561: depends logaritmically on $E'$ (e.g.~Lang~1980 and references therein).

562: Thus, when the optical thickness of a CB is dominated 

563: by free-free photo-absorption, its 

564: transparency radius increases with decreasing energy like

565: $R_{tr}\!\propto\! E^{-3/5}\!=\! E^{-0.6}$ at $E'\!\gg\!k\,T'$ and

566: $R_{tr}\!\propto\! E^{-2/5}\!=\! E^{-0.4}$ at $E'\!\ll\!k\,T',$

567: yielding  $R_{tr} \!\sim \! E^{-0.5\pm0.1}$. 

568: 

569: 

570:  

571: The initially rapid expansion of a CB slows down as it propagates 

572: through the wind and scatters its particles

573: (DDD2002, DD2004).  This expansion may be roughly described by 

574: $R^2\approx R_{cb}^2\, t^2/(t^2\!+\!t_{exp}^2)$, where $R_{cb}$

575: is the asymptotic radius of the CB and $t_{exp}\!\gg\!t_{tr}$. Thus,

576: Eq.~(\ref{ICSPulse0}) can be  approximated by

577: \begin{equation}

578:  E\,{d^2N_\gamma \over dt\, dE} \propto {

579: e^{-a/t}\, \Delta t^2\, t^2\over

580:          (t^2\!+\!\Delta t^2)\, (t^2\!+\!t_{tr}^2)}\,  E\,{dN_\gamma\over 

581: dE}\, .

582: \label{ICSP}

583: \end{equation}

584: For nearly transparent winds ($a\! \rightarrow\! 0$) and for

585: $t_{tr}\!\sim\! \Delta t$,  Eq.~(\ref{ICSP}) has an approximate shape

586: \begin{equation}

587:  E\,{d^2N_\gamma \over dt\, dE} \propto {\Delta t^2\, t^2  \over

588: (t^2+\Delta t^2)^2}\,E\,{dN_\gamma\over dE}\, ,

589: \label{ICSPulse}

590: \end{equation}

591: which peaks around $t\!\approx\!\Delta t$.

592: Except for very early times, this shape is almost

593: undistinguishable from that of the `Master' formula  of the CB model 

594: (DD2004):

595: \begin{equation}

596:  E\,{d^2N_\gamma \over dt\, dE} \propto e^{-\Delta t^2/t^2 }

597: \, [1\!-\!e^{-\Delta t^2/t^2} ]\,E\,{dN_\gamma\over dE}\, ,

598: \label{ICSMaster}

599: \end{equation}

600: which also took into account  arrival-time 

601: effects that depend on the geometry of the CB and the 

602: observer's viewing  angle, and  was shown to 

603: describe well the prompt emission pulses of LGRBs  

604: (DD2004) and  their rapid decay with a fast spectral 

605: softening (DDD2008a).

606: 

607: 

608: At the relatively low X-ray energies covered by Swift and, 

609: more so, at smaller ones, the first term on the RHS of

610: Eq.~(\ref{GRBspec}) usually dominates  $E\, dN_\gamma/dE$. Thus

611: the light curve generated by a sum of ICS pulses 

612: at a luminosity distance $D_L$ is generally well described by: 

613: \begin{equation}

614: E\,{d^2N_\gamma \over dt\, dE} \approx \Sigma_i\, 

615: A_i\Theta[t\!-\!t_i]\,{\Delta t_i^2\,(t\!-\!t_i)^2 \over

616: ((t\!-\!t_i)^2\!+\!\Delta t_i^2)^2}\, e^{-E/E_{p,i}[t\!-\!t_i]}\, ,

617: \label{ICSlc}

618: \end{equation}

619: where the index `i' denotes the i-th pulse produced by a

620: CB launched at an observer time $t\!=\!t_i$, or, alternatively,  

621: \begin{equation}

622: E\,{d^2N_\gamma \over dt\, dE} \approx \Sigma_i\,

623: A_i\Theta[t\!-\!t_i]\, e^{-\Delta t_i^2/(t\!-\!t_i)^2}

624: \, [1\!-\!e^{-\Delta t_i^2/(t\!-\!t_i)^2} ]\, e^{-E/E_{p,i}[t\!-\!t_i]}\,,

625: \label{ICSlcmaster}

626: \end{equation}

627: where $E_{p,i}[t\!-\!t_i]$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{PeakE}) with $t$ replaced 

628: by $t\!-\!t_i$ and 

629: \begin{equation}

630: A_i \approx {c\, n_g(0)\, \pi\, R_{CB}^2\,\gamma_0\, \delta_0^3\, (1+z)

631: \over 4\, \pi\, D_L^2}\, .

632: \label{peakparam}

633: \end{equation}

634: Thus, in the CB model, each ICS pulse in the GRB light curve 

635: is effectively described by four parameters, $t_i,\, A_i,\,

636: \Delta t_i$  and $E_{p,i}(0)$,

637: which are best fitted to reproduce its observed light curve.

638: The evolution of its peak energy is then determined.

639: 

640: Setting $t_i=0$, $E_p(t)$  has the approximate form

641: $E_p(t)\!\approx\! E_p\, t_p^2/(t_p^2\!+\!t^2)\!.$ 

642: Such an evolution

643: has been observed in the time-resolved spectrum of well-isolated pulses 

644: (see, for instance, the insert in Fig.~8 of Mangano et al.~2007),

645: until the

646: ICS emission is overtaken by the broad-band

647: synchrotron emission from the swept-in ISM electrons. Hence,

648: the temporal behaviour of the  separate ICS peaks  

649: is given by: 

650: \begin{equation}

651: E\, {d^2N_\gamma\over dt\,dE}(E,t)

652: \propto {t^2/\Delta t^2  \over(1+t^2/\Delta t^2)^2} 

653: e^{-E\, t^2/\, E_p\,t_p^2} \approx F(E\,t^2),

654: \label{law}

655: \end{equation}

656: to which we shall refer as the `$E\,t^2$~{\it law'}.

657: A simple consequence of this law is that unabsorbed ICS peaks have 

658: approximately identical shape at different energies when 

659: their $E\,d^2 N_\gamma/dt\,dE$ is plotted as a

660: function of $E\, t^2$. 

661: 

662: A few other trivial but important consequences of Eq.~(\ref{law}) 

663: for unabsorbed GRB peaks at $E \,\lsim\, E_p$ are the following: 

664: \begin{itemize}

665: 

666: \item{}

667: The peak time of a pulse is at

668: \begin{equation}

669: t_p=t_i\!+\!\Delta t_i\,.

670: \label{peaktime}

671: \end{equation}

672: 

673: 

674: \item{}

675: The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a  pulse is

676: \begin{equation}

677: {\rm FWHM}\!\approx\! 2\, \Delta t_i,

678: \label{fwhm}

679: \end{equation}

680: and it extends from $t\!\approx\!t_i\!+\! 0.41\, \Delta t_i $ to 

681: $t\!\approx\!t_i\!+\! 2.41\,\Delta t_i$.

682: 

683: \item{}

684: The rise time (RT) from half peak 

685: value to peak value satisfies

686: \begin{equation}

687: {\rm RT\approx 0.30\,FWHM},

688: \label{ratio}

689: \end{equation}

690: independent of energy. This result agrees with the empirical

691: relation that was inferred by Kocevski et al.~(2003)

692: from bright BATSE GRBs, 

693: ${\rm RT\!\approx\! (0.32\!\pm\! 

694: 0.06)\, FWHM}$. 

695:  

696: 

697: 

698: \item{}

699: The FWHM increases 

700: with decreasing energy approximately like a power-law:

701: \begin{equation}

702: {\rm FWHM}(E)\sim E^{-0.5}\, .

703: \label{widthrelation}

704: \end{equation}

705: This relation is consistent with the empirical relation

706: ${\rm FWHM}(E) \propto E^{\!-\!0.42\!\pm\! 0.06}$,

707: satisfied by BATSE GRBs (Fenimore et al.~2003). 

708: 

709: 

710:  

711: \item{}

712: The onset-time, $t_i$, of a pulse is simultaneous at all energies.

713: But the peak times $t_p$ at different energies differ, the 

714: lower-energy ones `lagging'

715: behind the higher-energy ones: 

716: \begin{equation}

717: t_p-t_i \propto E^{-0.5}\, .

718: \label{lagtime}

719: \end{equation}

720: 

721: \item{}

722: The time-averaged value of $E_p(t)$ for GRB peaks, which follows from 

723: Eq.~(\ref{PeakE}), satisfies: 

724:   \begin{equation}

725: E_p= E_p(0)/2=E_p(t_p)\, .

726: \label{Epeak}

727: \end{equation}

728: 

729: \end{itemize}

730: 

731: \subsection{X-ray `flares' and $\gamma$-ray pulses}

732: 

733: In more than 50\% of the GRBs observed by Swift, the X-ray light curve, 

734: during the prompt GRB and its early AG phase, 

735: shows flares superimposed on a smooth background. 

736: In the CB model, an X-ray `flare' coincident in time with a $\gamma$-ray

737: pulse is simply its low-energy tail. Both are

738: due ICS of photons 

739: in the thin-bremsstrahlung glory. The glory's

740: photons incident on the CB at small $\epsilon_i$ or $1\!+\!\cos\theta_i$

741: result in X-ray or softer up-scattered energies, see Eq.~(\ref{ICSboost}).

742: The harder and less collinear photons result in $\gamma$-rays.

743: The light curve and spectral evolution of an ICS X-ray flare

744: are given approximately by Eq.~(\ref{ICSlc}).

745: Its width is related to that of the accompanying $\gamma$-ray pulse  

746: as in  Eq.~(\ref{fwhm}). Relative to its $\gamma$-ray

747: counterpart, an X-ray flare is wider and  its peak time `lags'

748: after the peak time of the $\gamma$-ray pulse.

749: The X-ray flares during a GRB are well 

750: separated only if the $\gamma$-pulses are sufficiently spaced. 

751: 

752: 

753: In the CB model, X-ray flares without an accompanying

754: detectable $\gamma$-ray emission can be of two kinds.

755: They can be ICS flares produced  by CBs 

756: ejected with relatively small  Lorentz factors

757: and/or relatively large viewing angles  (Dado et al.~2004).

758: Such CBs may be ejected in accretion episodes both 

759: during the prompt GRB and in delayed accretion episodes 

760: onto the newly formed central object in core collapse 

761: SNe (De R\'ujula 1987).

762: ICS flares satisfy the $E\,t^2$-law and exhibit a rapid softening 

763: during their fast decline phase 

764: which is well described by Eqs.~(\ref{GRBspec},\ref{PeakE}),

765: as shown in detail in DDD2008b. 

766: 

767: We shall see in our case studies that very often, during the rapidly

768: decreasing phase of the prompt emission, there are `mini X-ray flares'

769: which show this rapid spectral softening. 

770: As the accretion

771: material is consumed, one may expect  the `engine' to have

772: a few progressively-weakening dying pangs. 

773: 

774: Flares can also be due to enhanced synchrotron emission during the passage 

775: of CBs through over-densities produced by mass ejections from the 

776: progenitor star or by interstellar winds (DDD2002a, DDD2003a). The synchrotron 

777: emission from CBs is discussed in the following section.  Late flares 

778: seem to have the predicted synchrotron spectrum and spectral evolution 

779: which are different from those of ICS flares.

780: 

781: 

782: \section{Synchrotron radiation}

783: \label{Synchrotron} 

784: 

785: A second mechanism besides ICS, which generates radiation from a CB,

786: is synchrotron radiation (SR). A CB encounters matter in its voyage 

787: through the interstellar medium (ISM), effectively

788: ionized by the high-energy radiation of the very same CB.

789: This continuous collision with the medium decelerates the CB in

790: a characteristic fashion, and results in a gradual steepening of the

791: light curves of their emitted synchrotron radiation 

792: (DDD2002a). In $\S$\ref{Deceleration},

793: we review the calculation of $\gamma(t)$, the CB's diminishing

794: Lorentz factor. We have assumed and tested observationally, 

795: via its CB-model consequences,

796: that the impinging ISM generates within

797: the CB a turbulent magnetic field\footnote{`First principle' numerical

798: simulations of two plasmas merging at a relative relativistic

799: Lorentz factor (Frederiksen et al.~2003, 2004, Nishikawa et al.~2003)

800: do not generate the desired shocks, but do generate turbulently

801: moving magnetic fields.}, in approximate energy equipartition

802: with the energy of the intercepted ISM (DDD2002a, DDD2003a). 

803: In this field, the intercepted

804: electrons emit synchrotron radiation. This radiation, isotropic in the 

805: CB's rest frame,

806: is Doppler boosted and collimated around the direction of motion 

807: into a cone of characteristic opening angle $\theta(t)\sim 1/\gamma(t)$. 

808: In $\S$\ref{SyncSpec} we summarize the predictions of the synchrotron 

809: radiation's dependence on time and frequency

810: (DDD2002a, DDD2003a).

811:   

812:   

813: \subsection{The deceleration of a CB}

814: \label{Deceleration}

815: 

816: As it ploughs through the ionized ISM, a CB 

817: gathers and scatters its constituent ions, mainly protons. These encounters

818:  are `collisionless' since, at about the time it becomes transparent to 

819: radiation, a CB also becomes `transparent' to hadronic interactions

820: (DD2004). The scattered and re-emitted 

821: protons exert an inward pressure on the CB, countering its expansion.

822: In the approximation of isotropic re-emission in the CB's 

823: rest frame and a constant ISM density $n\!\sim\!n_e\!\sim\!n_p$, 

824: one finds that within minutes of observer's time $t$, a typical CB

825: of baryon number $N_B\!\approx 10^{50}$ reaches a roughly

826: constant `coasting' radius $R\!\sim\!10^{14}$ cm, before it finally 

827: stops and blows up, after a journey of years of observer's

828: time. During the coasting phase, and in a constant-density ISM, 

829: $\gamma(t)$  obeys (DDD2002a, Dado et al.~2006): 

830: \begin{equation}

831: ({\gamma_0/ \gamma})^{3+\kappa}+

832: (3-\kappa)\,\theta^2\,\gamma_0^2\,(\gamma_0/\gamma)^{1+\kappa} 

833: =1\!+\!(3\!-\!\kappa)\,\theta^2\,\gamma_0^2\!+\!t/t_0\,,

834: \label{decel}

835: \end{equation}

836: with

837: \begin{equation}

838: t_0={(1\!+\!z)\, N_{_{\rm B}}\over (6\!+\!2\kappa)\,c\, n\,\pi\, R^2\, 

839: \gamma_0^3}\,,

840: \label{break}

841: \end{equation}

842: where the numerical value $\kappa\!=\!1$, is for the

843: case in which the ISM particles re-emitted fast by the

844: CB are a small fraction of the flux of the intercepted ones, and

845: $\kappa\!=\!0$ in the opposite limit.

846: In the CB model of cosmic

847: rays (Dar \& De R\'ujula 2006) the observed spectrum strongly

848: favours $\kappa\!=\!1$. Thus in all of our fits we use $\kappa\!=\!1$, 

849: though the results are not decisively sensitive to this choice. 

850: As can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{decel}), $\gamma$  and $\delta$  

851: change little as long as $t\!<\! t_b\!=\![1\!+\!\gamma_0^2\, 

852: \theta^2]^2\, t_0$.

853: where, in terms of typical CB-model values of $\gamma_0$,

854: $R$, $N_{_{\rm B}}$ and $n$,

855: \begin{equation}

856: t_b= (1300\,{\rm s})\, [1+\gamma_0^2\, \theta^2]^2\,(1+z)

857: \left[{\gamma_0\over 10^3}\right]^{-3}\,

858: \left[{n\over 10^{-2}\, {\rm cm}^{-3}}\right]^{-1}

859: \left[{R\over 10^{14}\,{\rm cm}}\right]^{-2}

860: \left[{N_{_{\rm B}}\over 10^{50}}\right] \! .

861: \label{tbreak}

862: \end{equation}

863: For $t\!\gg\!t_b$, $\gamma$  and $\delta$ decrease like $t^{-1/4}$. 

864: 

865: The deceleration equation for a non-expanding CB can be integrated 

866: analytically also for other commonly encountered density profiles, such as 

867: a step function times $n(r)\! \propto\! 1/r^2$. Such a profile is produced by a 

868: constantly blowing wind from a massive progenitor star 

869: prior to the GRB, or from a star formation region, or in an isothermal 

870: sphere which describes 

871: quite well the density distribution in galactic bulges, 

872: galactic halos and elliptical galaxies. 

873: %Due to lack of space 

874: %they will not be discussed here. In the general case,

875: %the deceleration  equation can be integrated numerically.

876: 

877: 

878: 

879: 

880: 

881: \subsection{The Synchrotron spectral energy density}

882: \label{SyncSpec} 

883: 

884: As indicated by first-principle calculations of the relativistic merger of 

885: two

886: plasmas (Frederiksen et al.~2004), the ISM ions continuously impinging on

887: a CB generate

888: within it turbulent magnetic fields, which we assume to be

889: in approximate energy equipartition with their energy, 

890: $B\!\approx\! \sqrt{4\,\pi\, n\, m_p\, c^2}\, \gamma$.

891: In this field, the intercepted

892: electrons emit synchrotron radiation. The SR, isotropic in the CB's

893: rest frame, has a characteristic frequency, $\nu_b(t)$,

894: the typical frequency radiated by the

895: electrons that enter a CB at time $t$ with a relative Lorentz

896: factor $\gamma(t)$. In the observer's frame:

897: \begin{equation}

898: \nu_b(t)\simeq  {\nu_0 \over 1+z}\,

899: {[\gamma(t)]^3\, \delta(t)\over 10^{12}}\,

900: \left[{n\over 10^{-2}\;\rm cm^3}\right]^{1/2}

901: {\rm Hz}.

902: \label{nub}

903: \end{equation}

904: where $\nu_0\!\simeq\! 3.85\times 10^{16}\, \rm Hz \simeq 160\, eV/h$.

905: The spectral energy density of the SR

906: from a single CB at a luminosity distance $D_L$  is given by (DDD2003a):

907: \begin{equation}

908: F_\nu \simeq {\eta\,  \pi\, R^2\,n\, m_e\, c^3\,

909: \gamma(t)^2\, \delta(t)^4\, A(\nu,t)\,

910: \over 4\,\pi\, D_L^2\,\nu_b(t)}\;{p-2\over p-1}\;

911: \left[{\nu\over\nu_b(t)}\right]^{-1/2}\,

912: \left[1 + {\nu\over\nu_b(t)}\right]^{-(p-1)/2}\,,

913: \label{Fnu}

914: \end{equation}

915: where $p\!\sim\! 2.2$ is the typical spectral index\footnote{The 

916: normalization

917: in Eq.~(\ref{nub}) is only correct for $p\!>\!2$, for otherwise the norm

918: diverges. The cutoffs for the $\nu$ distribution are time-dependent,

919: dictated by the acceleration and SR coling times of electrons 

920: and their `Larmor' limit. The discussion of these processes being complex 

921: (DD2003a, DD2006),

922: we shall satisfy ourselves here with the statement that for $p\!\leq \!2$

923: the AG's normalization is not predicted.} of the Fermi-accelerated

924: electrons, $\eta\!\approx\!1$ is the fraction of the impinging ISM

925: electron energy that is synchrotron re-radiated by the CB, and $A(\nu, t)$

926: is the attenuation of photons of observed frequency $\nu$ along the line

927: of sight through the CB, the host galaxy (HG), the intergalactic medium

928: (IGM) and the Milky Way (MW):

929: \begin{equation}

930: A(\nu, t) = {\rm

931: exp[-\tau_\nu(CB)\!-\!\tau_\nu(HG)\!-\!\tau_\nu(IGM)\!-\!\tau_\nu(MW)].}

932: \label{attenuation}

933: \end{equation}

934: The opacity $\tau_\nu\rm (CB)$ at very early times, during the

935: fast-expansion phase of the CB, may strongly depend on time and frequency.

936: The opacity of the circumburst medium [$\tau_\nu\rm (HG)$ at early times]

937: is affected by the GRB and could also be $t$- and $\nu$-dependent.  The

938: opacities $\tau_\nu\rm (HG)$ and $\tau_\nu\rm (IGM)$ should be functions

939: of $t$ and $\nu$, for the line of sight to the CBs varies during the AG

940: observations, due to the hyperluminal motion of CBs. 

941: 

942: The dependence of the SR afterglow on the CB's radius, external density 

943: and extinction, as summarized in Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}), give rise to a 

944: variety of early-time optical light curves, in contrast to the more 

945: uniform behaviour of the optical and X-ray SR afterglow at later times.

946:  

947:  \subsection{The X-ray afterglow}

948: 

949: The Swift X-ray band is usually above the bend frequency $\nu_b$, 

950: as given by

951: Eq.~(\ref{nub}), at all times. It then follows from Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}) that

952: the spectral energy density of the {\it unabsorbed} 

953: X-ray afterglow has the form:

954: \begin{equation}

955: F_\nu \propto R^2\, n^{(p+2)/4}\,

956: \gamma^{(3p-2)/2}\, \delta^{(p+6)/2}\,  \nu^{-p/2}=

957: R^2\, n^{\Gamma/2}\,

958: \gamma^{3\,\Gamma-4}\, \delta^{\Gamma+2}\, \nu^{-\Gamma+1}\, ,

959: \label{Fnux}

960: \end{equation}

961: where we have used the customary notation

962: $dN_{\gamma}/dE\!\propto\!E^{-\Gamma}$. 

963: 

964:  

965: The deceleration of a CB causes a transition of its $\gamma$ and 

966: $\delta$ values from being approximately 

967: constant to asymptotic power-law declines. For a constant ambient

968: density this occurs gradually around $t\!=\!t_b$ and the 

969: asymptotic decline is $\delta\!\propto\!\gamma\! \propto\! t^{-1/4}$, 

970: see Eq.(\ref{tbreak}). This induces a gradual {\it bend}  (usually called a ``break")

971: in the synchrotron AG of a CB from a plateau to an 

972: asymptotic power-law decay

973: \begin{equation}

974: F_\nu \propto t^{-p/2-1/2}\,\nu^{-p/2}= t^{-\Gamma+1/2}\, 

975: \nu^{-\Gamma+1},

976: \label{Asymptotic}

977: \end{equation}

978: with a power-law in time steeper by half a unit than that in

979: frequency. For a constant ISM density and in an often used notation,

980: the asymptotic behaviour $F_\nu(t)\propto t^{-\alpha}\,\nu^{-\beta}\,,$ 

981: satisfies

982: \begin{equation}

983: \alpha=\beta+1/2=p/2+1/2=\Gamma-1/2\, . 

984: \label{indices} 

985: \end{equation}

986: 

987: 

988: For a fast-falling density beyond a given distance $r_c$, crossed by CBs

989: exiting density enhancements due to stellar winds or by CBs which escape 

990: the galactic bulge or disk into the galactic halo, 

991: $\gamma$ and $\delta$ tend to approximately constant values. Consequently

992: $r\!-\!r_c$ becomes proportional to $t-t_c\equiv t-t(r_c)$.

993: As a result, for a density profile such as $n\!\propto\! 1/r^2$ beyond $r_c$,

994: the unattenuated synchrotron afterglow, as given by  

995: Eq.~(\ref{Fnux}), approximately tends to

996: \begin{equation}

997: F_\nu \propto  n^{(p+2)/4}\,\nu^{-p/2} \propto 

998: (t-t_c)^{-(p+2)/2}\,\nu^{-p/2} =(t-t_c)^{-\Gamma}\, \nu^{-\Gamma+1}\,,   

999: \label{Fnurm2}

1000: \end{equation}

1001: and satisfies the asymptotic relation

1002: \begin{equation}

1003: \alpha=\beta+1=\Gamma \approx 2.1\, .

1004: \label{indicesrm2}

1005: \end{equation}

1006: Thus, an unattenuated optical and X-ray AG may steepen at late times to an 

1007: asymptotic decline $\!\sim\! (t-t_c)^{-2.1}$. 

1008: Such an achromatic steepening, which was seen in several late-time 

1009: optical and X-ray AGs of Swift GRBs (see Figs.~\ref{f6},\ref{f7}), may 

1010: have been   misinterpreted as very late 

1011: `jet breaks' (e.g.~Dai et al.~2008, Racusin et al.~2008a).   

1012: 

1013: All of the afterglows of Swift GRBs which are well sampled at 

1014: late time satisfy one or the other of

1015: the asymptotic relations (\ref{indices})  or (\ref{indicesrm2}) (DDD2008b).  

1016: 

1017: 

1018: 

1019: \subsection{Early-time SR}

1020: 

1021: During the early-time when both $\gamma$ and $\delta$ stay put at their initial values 

1022: $\gamma_0$ and $\delta_0$, Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}) yields a SR light curve

1023: $F_\nu\! \propto\! e^{-\tau_{_W}}\, R^2\, n^{(1+\beta)/2}\,\nu^{-\beta}$.

1024: Since $r\!\propto\!t$, a CB ejected into  

1025: a windy density profile $n\!\propto\!1/r^2$, 

1026: created by the mass ejection from the

1027: progenitor star prior to its SN explosion, emits SR 

1028: with an early-time light curve of the form

1029: \begin{equation}

1030: F_\nu \propto  {e^{-a/t}\,

1031: t^{1-\beta} \over t^2+t_{exp}^2}\, \nu^{-\beta}\, ,

1032: \label{SRP}

1033: \end{equation}

1034: where, for a CB ejected at time $t_i$,  $t$ must be replaced by

1035: $t\!-\!t_i$. 

1036: 

1037: 

1038: In the $\gamma$-ray and X-ray bands, the SR emission from a CB is usually 

1039: hidden under the prompt ICS emission. But in many GRBs the asymptotic 

1040: exponential decline of the energy flux density of the prompt ICS emission, 

1041: $F_\nu\! \propto\! t^{-2}\, e^{-E\, t^2/E_p\, t_p^2}$, is taken over 

1042: by the slower power-law decline, $F_\nu\! \propto\! t^{-\Gamma}$, of the 

1043: synchrotron emission in the windy $\!\sim\! 1/r^2$ circumburst density 

1044: before the CB reaches the constant ISM density and the AG emission enters 

1045: the plateau 

1046: phase. This is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{f3} for GRBs 051021B, 060211A, 

1047: 061110A, 070220, 080303, 080307. As soon as the light curve is dominated 

1048: by SR, the rapid spectral softening of the ICS-dominated light curve stops 

1049: and the spectrum of the unabsorbed X-ray emission changes to the ordinary 

1050: synchrotron power-law spectrum with the typical power-law index, 

1051: $\beta_X\!\approx\!1.1$ ($\Gamma\!\approx\!2.1$). Unlike the sudden 

1052: change in the spectrum when the prompt ICS emission is taken over by SR 

1053: during the plateau phase, there is no spectral change when SR dominates 

1054: the X-ray light curve already before the plateau phase.

1055: 

1056: 

1057: When the windy density profile changes to a constant ISM density, the 

1058: light curve of the early-time 

1059: optical AG, as given by Eq.~(\ref{SRP}), changes to a plateau or a shallow 

1060: decline with a typical SR optical spectrum. After the deceleration 

1061: bend, the temporal decline of the optical AG begins to 

1062: approach that of the X-ray AG because the bend frequency, which decreases 

1063: like $\nu_b\!\propto\!  \sqrt{n}\, \gamma^3\,\delta\,,$ moves below the 

1064: optical band. After the cross-over, $\beta_O(t)\!\approx\! \beta_X\! 

1065: \approx\! 1.1$ and the AG becomes achromatic, approaching the asymptotic 

1066: power-law decay $F_\nu\! \sim\! t^{-\!\beta_X\!-\!1/2}$, and yielding an 

1067: optical AG with a similar early and late power-law decline, 

1068: $F_\nu\!\sim\! t^{-1.6}$.  This behaviour has been observed in several 

1069: very bright GRBs whose optical light curve was discovered early enough and 

1070: was followed until late time, e.g.~in GRBs 990123, 021211, 061007, 061126 

1071: and 080319B (see Fig.~\ref{f2}).

1072: Unlike the prompt $\gamma$-ray and X-ray emission in ordinary GRBs, which 

1073: is dominated by ICS, their prompt optical emission is dominated by 

1074: SR. This is because $F_\nu$[SR] increases with decreasing frequency 

1075: like $\nu^{-\beta_O}$ with $\beta_O\sim 0.5$, whereas the 

1076: prompt ICS emission for $h\, \nu\! \ll\! E_p$ is independent of frequency 

1077: ($\beta\!\approx\! 0$). 

1078: 

1079: The entire diversity of the chromatic early-time 

1080: optical light curves of LGRBs measured with robotic telescopes, 

1081: such as GRBs 030418 (Rykoff et al.~2004), 050319 (Wozniak et al.~2005, 

1082: Quimby et al.~2006a), 050820A (Cenko et al.~2006, Vestrand et al.~2006), 

1083: 060418 (Molinari et al.~2007) 060605 (Ferrero et al.~2008), 060607A 

1084: (Molinari et al.~2007, Nysewander et al.~2007, Ziaeepour et al.~2008), 

1085: 071010A (Covino et al.~2008), and 061126 (Perley et al.~2008; Gomboc et 

1086: al.~2008), is described well by Eq.~(\ref{SRP}). This is shown in 

1087: Figs.~\ref{f5},\ref{f8}.

1088: 

1089: 

1090: The early 

1091: SR obeys $F_\nu\propto \gamma_0^{3\,\beta-1}\,\delta_0^{3+\beta}$. Unlike 

1092: ordinary GRBs with large $\delta_0\!\sim\!\gamma_0$, XRFs are GRBs with 

1093: a relatively small $\delta_0\!\sim\! \gamma_0$ (near-axis XRFs) 

1094: or far off-axis GRBs with $\delta_0\!\ll\! \gamma_0$. 

1095: Consequently, the prompt optical emission in XRFs is also dominated by ICS.

1096: An optical pulse that is dominated by ICS emission is distinguishable from an optical pulse that is

1097: dominated by SR, in shape, spectrum and spectral 

1098: evolution. Optical peaks produced by ICS satisfy the approximate $E\, t^2$ 

1099: law, they are much wider than their $\gamma$-ray and X-ray counterparts 

1100: and, as a result, they are usually blended. In XRFs such as 060218 

1101: and 080109, however, the ICS optical peaks

1102: have a large lagtime and are clearly visible as humps in the light curves at 

1103: different optical wavelengths, see Fig.~\ref{f9}.

1104:  

1105: 

1106: \subsection{Chromatic Afterglows}

1107: \label{Chromo}

1108: 

1109: 

1110: 

1111: The early-time light curves of LGRBs are very chromatic because their 

1112: prompt $\gamma$-ray and X-ray emission is dominated by ICS, while their 

1113: optical emission is dominated by SR with entirely different temporal and 

1114: spectral properties. Even in XRFs, where the prompt optical emission is 

1115: also dominated by ICS, the light curves are very chromatic 

1116: because the ICS pulses, which satisfy the `$E\, t^2$ law', are by themselves 

1117: very chromatic, see Figs.~\ref{f9},\ref{f10}.

1118: 

1119: 

1120: The afterglow emission in GRBs is dominated by SR at all 

1121: wavelengths. In XRFs the situation is more interesting:

1122: the same statement is not correct, should one adhere to the

1123: traditional definition of AG as anything seen after the

1124: decline of the prompt X- or $\gamma$- signal. This is discussed in

1125: detail in $\S$\ref{XRF} on XRF 060218.

1126:  The observed chromatic behaviour of the AGs results 

1127: from their dependence on the circumburst density, the bend frequency and 

1128: the attenuation of light along the line of sight to the source of the AG.  The most

1129: general behaviour --that takes into account light attenuation inside the CBs 

1130: and in the circumburst environment, CB expansion and density variation as 

1131: summarized in Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}), and the chromatic light curves of 

1132: superimposed flares-- is rather complex and will not be discussed in detail in 

1133: this paper. The behaviour becomes simpler when the CB and circumburst 

1134: medium become transparent to radiation and the fast expansion of the CB 

1135: has slowed down.

1136: 

1137: For a constant circumburst density, the simplest situation arises when all 

1138: observed frequencies are above the injection bend. Notice that for typical 

1139: reference parameters, $\nu_b(0)$ in Eq.~(\ref{nub}) corresponds to an 

1140: energy well above the {\it UVO} bands. But there are cases where $\delta$ is 

1141: sufficiently small, such as XRFs and GRBs with very small $E_{iso}$, 

1142: and/or where $n$ is very small, such that $\nu_b(0)\!\propto\! \sqrt{n}\, 

1143: \gamma_0^3\, \delta_0$, is already below the {\it UVO} bands. In that case the 

1144: (unattenuated) synchrotron spectrum is $F_\nu\!\sim\!\nu^{-p/2}$, 

1145: achromatic all the way from the {\it UVO} bands to X-ray 

1146: band at all times, see Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}).

1147: 

1148: 

1149: In ordinary GRBs, $\nu_b(0)$ in Eq.~(\ref{nub}) is usually well above the 

1150: {\it UVO} bands, but below the X-ray band. In that case, the unabsorbed 

1151: spectrum of the optical AG evolves in a predicted fashion from 

1152: $F_\nu\!\propto \![\nu/\nu_b(t)]^{\!-\!1/2}$ to 

1153: $F_\nu\!\propto\![\nu/\nu_b(t)]^{\!-\!p/2}$, the behaviour of the unabsorbed X-ray 

1154: AG. Many cases of this very specific chromatic evolution have been studied 

1155: in DDD2003a. The success of their CB-model description corroborates the 

1156: assumption that the CB's inner magnetic-field intensity $B(t)$, of which 

1157: $\nu_b(t)$ is a function, is approximately determined by the equipartition 

1158: hypothesis.

1159: 

1160: In a constant density, the CBs begin to decelerate rapidly around the time $t_b$ of 

1161: Eq.~(\ref{tbreak}). Thus, the bend frequency, $\nu_b(t)\!\propto\! 

1162: \gamma^3\, \delta$, declines rapidly with time beyond $t_b$ and crosses 

1163: below the optical band. According to Eqs.~(\ref{tbreak}, \ref{Fnu}), $F_\nu 

1164: $ steepens around $t_b$ to an asymptotic achromatic power-law decline, 

1165: $F_\nu\!\propto\! \nu^{-\beta}\,t^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\! \approx\!\beta\! 

1166: +\!1/2\! =\!\Gamma\!-\!1/2$, all the way from X-rays to the {\it UVO} bands. 

1167: This smooth CB-deceleration bend in the AG of canonical GRBs, beyond 

1168: which the $XUVO$ AG becomes achromatic, is not to be confused with the 

1169: achromatic {\it break} predicted in fireball models (Rhoads 1997, 1999). 

1170: The CB-model interpretation of this well understood achromatic bend-time 

1171: (see, e.g.~DDD2003a) is further strengthened by the facts that it is 

1172: observed at the predicted time scale and displays the predicted 

1173: correlations with the prompt GRB emission (DDD 2008b), and that the 

1174: predicted asymptotic relations between the temporal and spectral power-law 

1175: declines beyond it are well satisfied.

1176: 

1177:  

1178: 

1179: A variation of the chromatic behaviour due to

1180: bend-frequency crossing occurs when it happens early enough for

1181: the circumburst density profile to be still dominated by the progenitor's

1182: pre-SN wind emissions. 

1183: At early times, $t\!\ll\! t_b$,

1184: the deceleration of CBs has not significantly affected their motion

1185: and $\gamma(t)$ and $\delta(t)$ are practically constant.

1186: Yet, the observer's

1187: bend frequency, $\nu_b(t)\!\propto\! \sqrt{n(t)}\, [\gamma(t)]^3 \delta(t)$,

1188: decreases with time as $n(t)$ varies.

1189: Keeping track of the $n$-dependence, we concluded (DDD2003a) from 

1190: Eqs.~({\ref{nub},\ref{Fnu}) that the unattenuated

1191: early synchrotron radiation of a CB moving in a windy

1192: density profile, $n\!\sim\! r^{-2}\!\sim\! t^{-2}$, 

1193: is given approximately by

1194: \begin{equation}

1195: F_\nu  \propto n^{(1+\beta)/2}\,\nu^{-\beta}\propto

1196: t^{-(1+\beta)}\,\nu^{-\beta}.

1197: \label{esync}

1198: \end{equation}

1199: In cases for which $\nu_b(0)$ is initially well above the $UVOIR$ bands,

1200: $\beta\!\approx\! 0.5$, and the initial $UVOIR$  behaviour is

1201: $F_\nu \!\propto\! t^{-1.5}\, \nu^{-0.5},$ 

1202: while the X-ray AG, for which 

1203: $\nu_b \!\ll\! \nu$ and $\beta\!\simeq\! 1.1$, behaves like

1204: $ F_\nu \!\propto\! t^{-2.1}\, \nu^{-1.1}$ (DDD2003b). 

1205: If the density continues to decline like $1/r^2$,

1206: then the bend frequency crosses below the $UVOIR$ band, 

1207: and the $XUVOIR$ AG becomes achromatic

1208: with  $\alpha\! \approx\!\beta\! +\!1\!=\!\Gamma\!\sim\! 2.1$.

1209:  

1210: Optical light curves with an early-time power-law decay,

1211: $F_\nu\!\sim\! t^{-1.5}$, 

1212: have been observed, e.g.~in GRB 990123 (Akerlof et al.~1999); GRB 021211 

1213: (Li et al.~2003) and GRB 061126 (Perley et al.~2008). Usually,

1214: the steeper $F_\nu\!\sim\! t^{-(1+\beta_X)}\!\sim\! t^{-2.1}$

1215: early-time decline of the X-ray synchrotron emission is hidden 

1216: under the dominant early-time ICS emission, but in several 

1217: GRBs it is visible as a power-law tail that takes over the initial 

1218: exponential decay of the ICS pulse, see Fig.~\ref{f3}.

1219: This take-over also stops the fast spectral softening 

1220: of the ICS-dominated light curve and changes the soft 

1221: spectrum into the harder SR spectrum.

1222:  

1223:  

1224:  

1225: 

1226: In the CB model the absorption and extinction in the host galaxy, which 

1227: are frequency dependent, can also be time dependent even far from the 

1228: burst environment. In a day of the highly aberrated observer's time, CBs 

1229: typically move to a few hundred parsecs from their birthplace, a 

1230: region wherein the ionization should have drastically diminished and the 

1231: line of sight to the CBs in the host and IGM has shifted considerably. 

1232: Indeed, Watson et al. (2007) found very different X-ray-to-optical column 

1233: density ratios in GRB afterglows. A strong variation in 

1234: extinction at early times was observed, e.g.~by Perley et al.~(2008) in 

1235: GRB 061126, and by Ferrero et al.~(2008) in GRB 060605. A time-dependent 

1236: IGM absorption was reported by Hao et al.~(2007), but see also Th\"one et 

1237: al.~(2008a). A frequency-dependent extinction and absorption, which change 

1238:  in the host galaxy with the line of sight to the moving CB, can 

1239: change an intrinsically achromatic AG into an observed chromatic AG.

1240: 

1241: Finally, ICS, which dominates also the prompt optical emission in XRFs,

1242: results in a very specific chromatic 

1243: behaviour: the X-ray light curve is declining rapidly, while the optical 

1244: light curves are stretched by the $E\, t^2$ law and display humps that are 

1245: nothing but the X-ray pulse(s) with their peak time and width stretched by 

1246: the same law. A striking example is shown in Figs.~\ref{f9} and \ref{f10} 

1247: for XRF 060218, discussed in great detail in $\S$\ref{Case}.

1248: 

1249: 

1250: 

1251: Because of the complex chromatic behaviour of GRB afterglows, we have 

1252: limited our discussion to the chromatic properties of the AG of a single 

1253: CB.  The actual situation can be even more convoluted because the AG, 

1254: like the prompt emission, is usually the sum of the contributions from 

1255: many individual CBs ejected at slightly different times with different 

1256: parameters (baryon number, Lorentz factor and emission angle) which have 

1257: or have not merged by the time of the AG phase. For the sake of 

1258: simplicity, brevity and predictivity, we shall assume that the AG from the 

1259: entire ensemble of CBs can be calculated as if it was due to one or at most

1260: two effective CBs during the AG. Despite this simplification, the 

1261: CB model, as we shall show, can reproduce and explain well, within 

1262: observational uncertainties, the entire diversity of the measured light 

1263: curves of the Swift GRBs and their afterglows.

1264: 

1265: 

1266: \section{Comparison with observations}

1267: \label{CWO}

1268: 

1269: To date, Swift has detected over 350 long GRBs, localized them through 

1270: their $\gamma$, X-ray and {\it UVO} emissions and followed most of them until 

1271: they faded into the background.  Beside the Swift observations, there have 

1272: been many prompt optical measurements of Swift GRBs by an increasing 

1273: number of ground-based robotic telescopes, and follow-up measurements by 

1274: other ground-based optical telescopes, including some of the largest ones. 

1275: Incapable of discussing all Swift GRBs, we discuss only a sample of 33 

1276: of them (some $10\%$ of all Swift GRBs), which have  well sampled 

1277: X-ray and optical light curves from early to late time, and which 

1278: represent well the entire diversity of Swift GRBs.

1279: 

1280: 

1281: We fit the X-ray light curves reported in the  

1282: Swift/XRT GRB light curve repository:

1283: {\it http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt\_curves/}; Evans et al.~(2007). 

1284: We used  Eq.~(\ref{ICSlc}) or Eq.~(\ref{ICSlcmaster})

1285: for the early-time ICS contribution, and   Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}) for the  

1286: SR afterglow with its simple explicit limit, 

1287: Eq.~(\ref{SRP}), for the very-early-time synchrotron emission.

1288: The a-priori unknown parameters are 

1289: the number of CBs, their ejection time, baryon number, Lorentz factor and 

1290: viewing angle and the environmental ones along the CBs' 

1291: trajectory, i.e.~the distributions of the glory's light and of the ISM density. 

1292: To demonstrate that the CB model correctly describes all of 

1293: the observed features of the Swift X-ray observations, it suffices to 

1294: include in the fits only the main or the latest few observed pulses or 

1295: flares in the prompt emission. This is because the exponential factor 

1296: in Eq.~(\ref{ICSlc}) suppresses very fast the relative contribution of 

1297: the earlier pulses by the time the data sample the later pulses or flares. 

1298: It also suffices to fix the glory's light and ISM density distribution to 

1299: be the same along the trajectories of all CBs in a given GRB. The pulse 

1300: shapes are assumed to be universal: given by Eq.~(\ref{ICSlc}).  For the 

1301: synchrotron contribution, in most cases it suffices to consider a common 

1302: emission angle $\theta$ and an average initial Lorentz factor $\gamma_0$ 

1303: for the ensemble of CBs.

1304: 

1305: 

1306: The ISM density along the CBs' trajectories was generally taken to have

1307: a windy contribution ($\propto\! 1/r^2$) near the ejection site, changing 

1308: later to a constant ISM density. The windy density  

1309: is only relevant in some optical synchrotron-dominated AGs for which 

1310: very early data are available, as discussed in the previous section. 

1311: Density bumps with a density decline $n\propto\! 1/r^2$ were assumed to 

1312: generate X-ray and optical flares in the synchrotron emission at late 

1313: times (DDD2003). Only for a small fraction of cases ($\sim$ 14 out of 350 Swift GRBs) 

1314: the observed late-time decline could not be well fit unless a transition from a 

1315: constant density to a density proportional to $ 1/r^2$ was assumed. 

1316:  

1317: 

1318: Case by case,

1319: the X-ray and optical light curves were calculated with the same CB 

1320: parameters. The spectral index $p$ of the Fermi-accelerated electrons in 

1321: the CBs was treated as a free parameter. In the CB model it determines 

1322: both the spectral and temporal declines of the AG, as in Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}). 

1323: In cases where the fit was insensitive to $p$ we fixed its value to be the 

1324: canonical one: $p\!=\!2.2$ (DDD2002). The relative normalization of the 

1325: X-ray and optical AGs was generally treated as a free adjustable 

1326: parameter except when both extinction of the optical light and absorption 

1327: of the emitted X-rays could be estimated reliably. In such cases the 

1328: predicted dependence on frequency could be tested. These favourable cases include 

1329: prompt ICS flares and the late-time SR afterglow where both the X-ray 

1330: band and the optical band are above the bend frequency and the SR 

1331: afterglow becomes `achromatic'. No attempt was made to derive the 

1332: environmental parameters, because the use of simplifying assumptions --the 

1333: single-CB approximation and the lack of exact knowledge of the extinction 

1334: of the optical radiation in the host galaxy-- make such attempts potentially

1335: unreliable.

1336: 

1337: 

1338: In the following case studies of a representative sample of the entire 

1339: diversity of Swift GRBs, we include GRBs with canonical, non-canonical and 

1340: semi-canonical light curves, with or without superimposed flares, GRBs 

1341: with very chromatic early-time afterglows, GRBs with exceptionally rapidly 

1342: decaying late afterglows and GRBs with very complex and chromatic light 

1343: curves. Special attention is given to XRF 060218. The parameters used in 

1344: the CB-model description of the ICS flares and the synchrotron afterglow 

1345: of all the GRBs and XRFs to be discussed anon are listed in Tables 

1346: \ref{t1} and \ref{t2}.

1347: 

1348: 

1349: 

1350: 

1351: \subsection{Case studies}

1352: \label{Case} 

1353: 

1354: \subsubsection{GRBs with a canonical X-ray light curve} 

1355: 

1356: \noindent

1357: {\bf GRB 060729.} {\it X-ray observations:}

1358: This GRB  is described and discussed in detail in Grupe et al.~(2007).

1359: It was detected and located by Swift at UT 19:12:29 July 29, 2006 

1360: (Grupe et al.~2007). It is one of the brightest Swift GRB in X-rays 

1361: and has the longest follow-up observations in X-rays: 

1362: more than 125 days after burst. The X-ray 

1363: observations were triggered by the detection of a GRB precursor by the 

1364: BAT, which dropped into the background level

1365: within 6 s. Two other major overlapping peaks 

1366: were detected 70 s after trigger and a fourth one around 120 s. The 

1367: end of the fourth peak was seen also by the XRT at the beginning of its 

1368: observations. The XRT detected another flare around 

1369: 180 s followed by a rapid decay of the  

1370: light curve by three orders of magnitude before it was 

1371: overtaken by a plateau at $530 \pm 25$ s, which lasted

1372: for $\!\sim\!0.5$ day before it bent into a power-law 

1373: decline. During the fast decline of the prompt emission, the X-ray 

1374: spectrum changed dramatically from a hard spectrum to a 

1375: very soft one. After this phase the unabsorbed spectrum of the X-ray 

1376: afterglow hardened to a power-law with $\beta_X\!\approx \!1.1$ and

1377: remained unchanged during the plateau phase and the late power-law decline.

1378: The complete 

1379: light curve obtained from the 

1380: observations with the BAT (extrapolated to the XRT band), the XRT and 

1381: XMM-Newton is shown in Fig.~\ref{f1}a; a magnified view of the early 

1382: times light curve is shown in Fig.~\ref{f1}b.

1383:  

1384: 

1385: 

1386: 

1387: \noindent {\bf GRB 060729.} {\it Interpretation:} The CB-model fit to the 

1388: complete X-ray light curve of GRB 060729 is shown in Fig.~\ref{f1}a.  The overall 

1389: good agreement between theory and observations extends over some eight orders of 

1390: magnitude in time and in flux. The spectral evolution of the X-ray emission is 

1391: also in good agreement with the CB-model predictions (see DDD2008b). In the XRT 

1392: 0.3 -10 keV band the spectrum of the early time flares and their spectral 

1393: evolution are well described by the exponential cut-off power-law obtained by ICS 

1394: of a thin thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum, Eq.~(\ref{ICSlc}). In particular the 

1395: exponential factor in Eq.~(\ref{ICSlc}) describes well the rapid softening of the 

1396: spectrum as a function of time during the fast decaying phase of the burst 

1397: (DDD2008b). But, as soon as the X-ray afterglow is taken over by the synchrotron 

1398: emission around 325 s its unabsorbed spectrum changes to the much harder SR 

1399: power-law spectrum with $\beta_X\!=\!1.1$. The temporal shape of the AG is best 

1400: fit with electron spectral index $p=2.20$, which implies $\beta_X\!=\!1.1$, in 

1401: good agreement with the observations of the XRT and of XMM-Newton (Grupe et 

1402: al.~2007). The late power law decay satisfies the CB model prediction, 

1403: $\alpha\!=\!\Gamma\!-\!1/2$.

1404: 

1405: \noindent

1406: {\bf GRB 060729.} {\it Optical observations and a sketch of their

1407: interpretation:}

1408: The ROTSE-IIIa telescope in Australia took a first 5-s image of this GRB, 

1409: starting about a minute after the burst, which showed no afterglow down to 

1410: magnitude 16.6. Some 23 s later, an AG of magnitude 15.7 was clearly 

1411: detected. The AG brightened over several minutes, and faded very slowly 

1412: (Quimby et al.~2006b). In the CB model such a behaviour is expected 

1413: from the early synchrotron emission  in the $UVOIR$ band during and 

1414: shortly after the prompt GRB, see Eq.~(\ref{SRP}). The UVOT followed the 

1415: {\it UVO} emission from 739 s to 20 days after trigger. The VLT in Chile

1416:  obtained spectra, and determined a relatively low redshift of $z\!=\!0.54$ for this 

1417: burst (Th\"one et al.~2006). The light curves of its {\it UVO} AG show a striking 

1418: similarity to the X-ray light curve (Grupe et al.~2007) as predicted by 

1419: the CB model for the optical AG when the bending frequency is below the 

1420: {\it UVO} bands, and the extinction along the lines of sight to the hyperluminal 

1421: CBs stays constant. All in all, the well sampled observations of the $XUVO$ 

1422: light curves of GRB 060729 agree well with the expectations of the CB model.

1423: 

1424: 

1425: \noindent {\bf GRB 061121.} {\it Observations.}

1426: This canonical GRB at $z=1.314$ was described and discussed in detail in 

1427: Page et al.~(2007). It is one of the brightest GRBs in X-rays observed to 

1428: date by the XRT. The BAT triggered on a precursor to the main burst,

1429: allowing observations of the latter from 

1430: the optical to $\gamma$-ray bands. Many telescopes, including 

1431: Konus-Wind, XMM-Newton, ROTSE, and the Faulkes Telescope North, also 

1432: observed the burst. Its most intense activity began 60 s after trigger, and consisted 

1433: of three overlapping peaks of increasing brightness, some 63, 69 and 74 s 

1434: after trigger, as one can see in Fig.~\ref{f1}d. The 

1435: $\gamma$-ray emission decayed fast after 75 s and became undetectable by 

1436: the BAT beyond 140 s. The burst was also detected by Konus-Wind. The 

1437: spectrum and its evolution  were well fit with a broken 

1438: power-law. Its `peak' energy appeared to increase during the rise of each 

1439: flare and decreased as their flux decayed. But its isolated main strong 

1440: flare at $\sim\! 74$ s, as in many cases studied before, had a maximum 

1441: $E_p$ at its beginning, which decayed monotonically thereafter. After the 

1442: bright burst, the X-ray emission ---measured by the XRT and later also 

1443: with XMM-Newton--- began to follow the `canonical' decay. Superimposed on 

1444: the initially rapid decay from the major flare are two smaller flares 

1445: around 90 s and 125 s. The rapid decay is taken over by the plateau around 

1446: 200 s and gradually breaks into a power-law decline, with an asymptotic 

1447: power-law index $\alpha\!=\!1.59^{+0.09}_{-0.04}\, .$ The AG spectrum was well fit 

1448: by an absorbed power-law with $\Gamma\!=\!2.07\! \pm \!0.06$, which 

1449: slightly hardened after the AG bent down. 

1450: 

1451: 

1452: 

1453: \noindent

1454: {\bf GRB 061121.} {\it Interpretation:}

1455: The hard mean spectral index, $\Gamma\!\sim\! 1.3$, and the continuously 

1456: decreasing $E_p$ during the main flare are as predicted by the CB model 

1457: (DD2004). The apparent increase of $E_p$ during the rise time of the 

1458: smaller flares is probably an artifact of overlapping peaks, wherein the 

1459: decay of a previous flare is taken over by a new flare only near its peak 

1460: time. A comparison between the observed complete X-ray light curve (Page 

1461: et al.~2007) and the CB model's fit is shown in Fig.~\ref{f1}c. The 

1462: general trend before the onset of the synchrotron plateau is dominated by 

1463: the main X-ray peak. The two smaller overlapping preceding peaks seen in 

1464: the $\gamma$-ray light curve in Fig.~\ref{f1}d have been included in the 

1465: fit, and so have the two late X-ray flares not intense enough to be seen 

1466: in $\gamma$-rays. Assuming a constant density ISM, the CB model reproduces 

1467: very well the observed light curve over seven orders of magnitude in 

1468: intensity and five in time. The model's best fit to the 

1469: entire X-ray light curve yielded $p\!=\!2.2$, which implies 

1470: $\beta\!=\!1.1$ and 

1471: $\alpha\!=\!1.6$, in good agreement with their observed values. The CB 

1472: model 

1473: also correctly predicts the spectrum and spectral evolution of the X-ray 

1474: emission during the rapid-decline phase of the prompt emission (DDD2008a). 

1475: The observed strong softening of the spectrum during the rapid decline is 

1476: in full agreement with the spectral evolution predicted by 

1477: Eq.~(\ref{ICSlc}). When the plateau phase takes over, the spectral 

1478: power-law index changes to $\beta_X\!=\!1.07\pm 0.06$, remaining in 

1479: agreement with the predicted $\beta\!=\!p/2$. The slight hardening of the 

1480: spectrum at late time to $\beta\!=\!0.87\! \pm\! 0.08$ we have not 

1481: predicted. 

1482: It may be an artifact due to the assumption that the absorbing 

1483: column density is constant during

1484: the AG phase.

1485: 

1486: \noindent

1487: {\bf GRB 061121.} {\it Optical observations and a sketch of their

1488: interpretation:}

1489: The UVOT detected an optical counterpart in the white filter starting 62 s 

1490: after the trigger, and subsequently in all other filters (optical and UV).  

1491: The UVOT light curve shows a prominent peak around $t\!\sim\!73$ s, 

1492: coincident in time with the blended three main X-ray peaks, followed by a 

1493: plateau phase. The complete optical light curves measured by the Swift 

1494: UVOT and in ground observations with ROTSE, FTN, CTIO and MDM follows 

1495: roughly the canonical X-ray light curve. The peak is well fit 

1496: by SR from expanding CBs in a windy density $\propto\!1/r^2$. The rest 

1497: of the light curve, as the canonical X-ray light curve, is well described by 

1498: SR from a CB decelerating in a constant density with a spectral index 

1499: gradually changing from $\beta\!\sim\!0.5$ above the bend frequency to 

1500: $\beta\!=\!\beta_X\!\sim\! 1 $ below it, well after the AG bends down.

1501: 

1502: 

1503: \noindent

1504: {\bf GRB 050315.} {\it Observations:}

1505: This GRB was described and studied in detail by Vaughan et al.~(2006).

1506: It is one of the first Swift GRBs with a well sampled X-ray

1507: light curve from trigger until late time ($\!\sim\! 10$ days).

1508: It was detected and located by BAT at 20:59:42 UT on March 15, 

1509: 2005. The BAT light curve comprises two major overlapping peaks separated 

1510: by about 22 seconds. Absorption features in the spectrum of its  optical 

1511: afterglow  obtained  with the Magellan telescope indicated that its 

1512: redshift is $z\!\geq\! 1.949$ (Berger et al.~2006). 

1513: The XRT began observations 80 s after the 

1514: BAT trigger and continued them for 10 days, providing one 

1515: of the best sampled X-ray AGs (Vaughan et al.~2006). 

1516: The extrapolation of the BAT light curve into the XRT band-pass 

1517: showed the X-ray data to be consistent with the tail end of the decaying 

1518: prompt emission. 

1519: The combined light curve showed the canonical behaviour: 

1520: the rapid decline ends $\sim\!300$ s 

1521: after trigger, the plateau lasted for about 

1522: $10^4$ seconds, before it gradually bent into a power-law 

1523: decay. 

1524: 

1525: \noindent

1526: {\bf GRB 050315.} {\it Interpretation:}

1527: The complete X-ray light curve of this GRB  is compared with the CB-model 

1528: prediction in Fig.~\ref{f1}e. An enlarged view at early times is shown in 

1529: Fig.~\ref{f1}f. Two pulses are used in the fit.  As shown, the 

1530: model reproduces the data well: the exponentially decaying contributions of the 

1531: two pulses describe the changing slope of the fast-decaying phase.  The 

1532: early ICS flares, the decay of the prompt emission and the subsequent 

1533: synchrotron-dominated plateau and gradually bending light curve into a 

1534: power-law decay are well reproduced by the model as shown in 

1535: Figs.~\ref{f1}e,f. 

1536:  

1537: 

1538: 

1539: 

1540: 

1541: 

1542: \subsubsection{GRBs with a single power-law afterglow}

1543: 

1544: \noindent

1545: {\bf GRB 061007.} {\it Broad-band observations:} 

1546: The data were summarized and discussed by 

1547: Mundell et al.~(2007) and Schady et al.~(2007). The Swift BAT detected the event 

1548: on 2006 Oct 07, 10:08:08 UT. The prompt emission was also detected at MeV 

1549: energies by Konus-Wind, Suzaku-WAM and RHESSI. The BAT $\gamma$-ray 

1550: light curve has three peaks with substantial sub-structure, and a small 

1551: fourth peak around 75 s that shows a long exponential decay and a faint 

1552: emission detectable till $\sim\!900$ s. The Swift XRT and UVOT began observing 

1553: 80 s after the BAT trigger time and detected a very bright X-ray and optical 

1554: counterpart with a power-law decay identical to that of the soft 

1555: $\gamma$-ray tail, with a temporal slope 

1556: $\alpha_X\!=\!1.6 \pm 0.1$ all the way to at least $10^6$ s with no indication 

1557: of any break. The best-fit spectral index of the unabsorbed X-ray 

1558: afterglow was $\Gamma\!=\!2.1\pm 0.1$. Robotically-triggered 

1559: observations with 

1560: the ground-based telescopes ROTSE and FTS began at 26 s and 137 s after trigger, 

1561: respectively,  and the FTN continued them for 5.5 h. Follow-up 

1562: observations were performed with the VLT and the Magellan-I Baade telescope. 

1563: The spectral indices of the unabsorbed X-ray and unextinct 

1564: optical AGs were found to be the same beyond 200 s.

1565: 

1566: \noindent

1567: {\bf GRB 061007.} {\it Interpretation:}

1568: In the CB model, afterglows decaying like a single power-law are observed 

1569: when the AG'a bend takes place very early and is hidden under  

1570: the prompt emission, or before the beginning of the observations. In the 

1571: case of a constant ISM density, the decay index and the spectral index are predicted 

1572: to satisfy $\alpha\!=\!\Gamma-1/2$ implying a decay index $\alpha\!=\!1.6 \pm 0.1$. 

1573: The CB-model predictions for the light curves of the X-ray and $R$-band 

1574: AG are shown in Figs.~\ref{f2}a,b. 

1575: The best-fit temporal decay index  is $1.6$, as expected.

1576: Agreement between theory and observations is very good. 

1577: The slight wiggling around the power-law decay follows, in the CB model, from density 

1578: variations along the trajectory of the CBs. The reported broad-band 

1579: spectral index, corrected for extinction and absorption, is $\beta_{OX}\!=\!1.03$.

1580: (Mundell et al.~2007). This is consistent with the CB-model's prediction 

1581: (DDD2002) for a bend frequency below the optical band, as expected

1582: beyond the AG's break. 

1583:  

1584: \noindent

1585: {\bf GRB 061126.} {\it X-ray observations:}

1586: The broad-band observations of this GRB were described and

1587: discussed in detail in the framework of the fireball model 

1588: by Perley et al.~(2008)   

1589: who found their evolution troublesome and by Gomboc

1590: et al.~(2008) who found them intriguing. 

1591: It was a long GRB ($T_{90}=191$ s) dominated by two major 

1592: $\gamma$-ray peaks within the first 40 s, which was followed by a smooth 

1593: power-law decline with a temporal index $\alpha\sim 1.3$. Due to an Earth 

1594: limb constraint Swift slewed to the burst only after 23 min and 

1595: followed its X-ray AG from 26 min to 20 days after burst. Its X-ray AG 

1596: showed roughly a power-law decline with the same power-law index,

1597: $\alpha_X\!\sim\! 1.3$, with marginal evidence for steeper early and very 

1598: late time-declines, with an index $\alpha\!\sim\! 2$. 

1599: The unabsorbed X-ray AG  had a best-fit spectral index  

1600: $\beta_X\!=0.94\!\pm\! 0.05$. 

1601: 

1602: \noindent

1603: {\bf GRB 061126.} {\it Optical observations:}

1604: In the optical band this was one of the brightest Swift GRBs. Its 

1605: optical emission was detected by RAPTOR during the $\gamma$-ray emission 

1606: 21 s after the BAT trigger, and its early decline was followed also by the 

1607: PAIRITEL, NMSU, KAIT, Super Lotis and FTN robotic telescopes. Observations 

1608: continued with several large telescopes. The data were 

1609: summarized and discussed in Perley et al.~(2008) and in Gomboc et al.~(2008). 

1610: The initial power-law decay of the optical AG with $\alpha\!\sim\!1.5$ changed 

1611: to a shallower decline approximately 1000 s after the burst, which 

1612: steepened about 1.5 d after the burst.  The last optical data point 

1613: ($0.52\pm 0.05\, \mu$Jy) obtained with Gemini North at 15 d after burst 

1614: (Gomboc et al.~2008) was slightly dimmer than the host galaxy at redshift 

1615: $z\!=\!1.16$ (Perley et al.~2008), whose $R$-magnitude $24.10\pm 0.11$ 

1616: ($0.70\pm 0.07\, \mu$Jy)  was measured with the Keck telescope 54 d after burst. 

1617: After correcting for Galactic extinction and estimated extinction in the 

1618: host galaxy, its observed early-time optical emission had 

1619: $\beta\!=\!1.0\pm 0.1$ and showed a strong colour evolution towards 

1620: $\beta_O\!\sim\! 0.4\!$ - $\! 0.5$

1621: around 2000 s. The late-time index was typically $\beta_O\!=\!0.95\pm0.10$, 

1622: consistent with $\beta_O\!=\!\beta_X$.

1623: 

1624: \noindent

1625: {\bf GRB 061126.} {\it Interpretation:} Swift's XRT detected the X-ray

1626: emission only long after the prompt signal had faded. Its measured light

1627: curve, shown in Fig.~\ref{f2}c, was well fit by SR, with $p\!=\!1.84$,

1628: in a density $n\! \propto\! 1/r^2$, taken

1629: over by a constant at $t\!\sim\!3000$ s. The CB-model

1630: expectation, $\Gamma\!=\!p/2\!+\!1\!=\!1.92$, is consistent with the mean photon

1631: spectral index (corrected for absorption), inferred by Evans et

1632: al.~(2007), $\Gamma\!=\!1.82\pm 0.05$, and by Perley et al.~(2008),

1633: $\Gamma\!=\!2.00\pm 0.07$. The wiggling around the

1634: power-law decay --induced by density variations along the CB's path-- 

1635: we did not model. In the FB model prompt and AG emissions

1636: are SR-dominated and the extrapolation from the $\gamma$- and X-domains 

1637: to the optical band results in a signal much brighter and with a different

1638: light curve than the observed one (Perly et al.~2008).

1639: The changing power law of the declining optical light 

1640: is well described by SR from a CB with the same parameters modeling

1641: the X-ray light curve. A SN contribution akin to

1642: that of SN1998bw placed at the GRB location was added to the CB light curve.

1643: The general behavior is well reproduced by the CB model,

1644: as can be seen from Fig.~\ref{f2}d. The slight wiggling of the 

1645: light curve around its CB model's description and the corresponding changes in

1646: the spectral index $\beta_O$ we attribute, as usual, to small density variations,

1647: which we did not model. The expected variation of the

1648: spectral index from $\beta_O\!\approx\!0.5$ at early time to

1649: $\beta_O\!\approx\! \beta_X$ is supported by the data (Perley et al.~2008). The

1650: evolution of $\beta_O(t)$ at very early time may be due to

1651: variation in light extinction as the CB moves away from the SN.

1652: 

1653: \noindent

1654: {\bf GRB 080319B} {\it Observations:}

1655: This GRB was detected by the Swift (Racusin et al.~2008b,), INTEGRAL (Beckmann 

1656: et al.~2008) and Konus-Wind (Golenetskii et al.~2008) satellites. 

1657: It lasted  $\sim \! 60$ s. It was the brightest observed

1658: long GRB so far. Three robotic ground 

1659: telescopes detected its extremely intensive optical light emission 

1660: (Karpov et al.~2008, Cwiok et al.~2008, Wozniak et al.~2008) before the 

1661: Swift alert, and saw it brightening to a visual peak magnitude 5.4, 

1662: visible to the naked eye, some 18 s after the start of the burst. Swift 

1663: XRT slewed to the GRB position within 65 s and followed its power-law 

1664: declining X-ray light curve for the first 15 days. Swift's 

1665: prompt alert sent to the world's telescopes triggered many follow-up 

1666: observations including spectral measurements with the VLT (Vreeswijk, et 

1667: al. 2008) and Hobby-Eberly telescope (Cucchiara et al.~2008) 

1668: which determined  the GRB's redshift to be $z\!=\!0.937$. Its 

1669: X-ray light curve is shown in  Fig.~\ref{f2}e. Its

1670: combined $R$- and $V$-band light curve (normalized to the $R$-band), as 

1671: reported in GCNs (see, e.g.,~Bloom et al.~2008 and references therein)

1672: is shown in Fig.~\ref{f2}f.

1673: 

1674: 

1675: \noindent

1676: {\bf GRB 080319B.} {\it Interpretation:}

1677: In the CB model the ICS spectrum of the scattered glory's photons is an 

1678: exponential cut-off power-law with a spectral index, $\Gamma\!\approx\!1$, 

1679: cut-off energy $\approx\!E_p$, and a power-law tail, see 

1680: Eq.~(\ref{GRBspec}). The spectral index, $\Gamma\!=\! 1.01\!\pm\!0.02 $ in the 

1681: 15 -350 keV range, reported by the Swift BAT team (Racusin et al.~2008b), and  

1682: the Band function fit to the broader 20 keV to 7 MeV energy range, reported 

1683: by the Konus-Wind team (Golenetskii et al.~2008) are in agreement with the

1684: CB model.

1685: 

1686: In Fig.~\ref{f2}e we compare the X-ray light curve of GRB 080319B, measured 

1687: with the Swift XRT, to its CB-model description, Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}), assuming a 

1688: constant ISM density and a single effective CB. 

1689: The best-fit $p$ is 2.08, yielding an approximate power-law decline 

1690: with $\alpha_X\!=\!1.54$ beyond $t_b$, best fit to 72 s. The description

1691: of the AG is quite good except 

1692: around $4 \times 10^4$ s, where the data are sparse.  As expected (DDD2008a) 

1693: for very luminous GRBs, no AG break is observed. The temporal index, 

1694: $\alpha_X\!=\!\Gamma_X\!-\!1/2\!=1\!.42\! \pm\! 0.07$, predicted from the 

1695: late-time photon spectral index, $\Gamma_X\!=\!1.92\! \pm \!0.07$,

1696: reported by the Swift XRT team (Racusin et al.~2008c) is in 

1697: agreement with the best-fit temporal 

1698: index. At $t\!\sim\!4 \times 10^4$ s, the data lie below the fit. If not a 

1699: statistical fluctuation, this may be due to a failure of the 

1700: constant-density approximation, not surprising at this level of precision. 

1701: 

1702: GRB 080319B began with a succession of prompt $\gamma$-ray 

1703: pulses, but the XRT observations started too late to

1704: detect their X-ray counterparts, which were seen at 

1705: optical frequencies. Even though the optical pulses are SR-generated, 

1706: their expected time dependence, Eq.~(\ref{SRP}),

1707: is akin to that of the $\gamma$-ray pulses.

1708: The CB-model optical light curve, shown in 

1709: Fig.~\ref{f2}f, was obtained by

1710: fitting each of the three early pulses observed by 

1711: TORTORA (Karpov et al.~2008).  The later-time

1712: AG, described by Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}) for $t_b\,\gsim\, 70$ s,

1713: is essentially a power-law decline, insensitive to

1714: the precise values of the best-fit $\theta\,\gamma_0$ and $t_b$, but

1715: sensitive to $\beta_O$. In the CB model,

1716: the index $\beta$ is $\sim\!0.5$ below and $\sim\!1.1$

1717: above the bend frequency,

1718: which usually crosses the optical band within $t\!\sim\! 1$ day, so that

1719: $\beta_O\!\approx\! \beta_X$ thereafter. Our best fit to the optical AG results in

1720: $\alpha_{O}\!=\!1.40\pm 0.04$, which

1721: implies a late-time  $\beta_{O}\!\approx\! 0.90$, consistent

1722: with the expectation. So far no late-time spectral information is available

1723: to verify it.

1724: 

1725: When a CB  crosses a density enhancement,

1726: $\nu_b$ increases due the sudden increase in $n$

1727: and the consequently faster CB deceleration. The

1728: bend frequency may then cross the optical band `backwards': from

1729: above it, to below it. Such a spectral evolution may have been observed  

1730: some 5000 s after the onset of the burst (Bloom et al.~2008).

1731: The spectral analysis of the UNLV GRB group (Zhang et al.~2008)

1732: shows a decreased $\beta_X\!=\!0.70\pm 0.05$ around that time.

1733: The expected $\beta_{O}\!\approx\!\beta_X-0.5\!=\!0.2\pm 0.05$

1734: at that time is consistent with the

1735: spectral evolution around 5000 s after burst  reported by Bloom et al.~(2008).

1736: 

1737: 

1738: \subsubsection{GRBs with a semi-canonical X-ray light curve}

1739: 

1740: \noindent

1741: {\bf GRBs 060211A, 061110A, 080307, 051021B, 080303, 070220.} 

1742: {\it Observations and interpretation:} 

1743: These GRBs, detected by the Swift BAT and followed up by its XRT,

1744: have canonical X-ray light curves, but for the fact that their exponentially-declining phase    

1745: at the end of the prompt emission changed into a slower power-law 

1746: decline before it entered the plateau phase. Their X-ray light curves

1747: and their CB-model description

1748: %, extracted from the Swift/XRT GRB light curve repository (Evans et al.~2007, 

1749: %{\it http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt\_curves/docs.php}) 

1750: are shown in Figs.~\ref{f3}a-f.

1751: The exponential decline  of the prompt ICS emission, as given by Eq.~(\ref{ICSlc}),

1752: is taken over by the 

1753: SR emission from the CBs, which, in a windy circumburst environment, decays

1754: like a power: $F_\nu \sim t^{-(1+\beta_X)}\, \nu^{-\beta_X}$,

1755: see Eq.~(\ref{SRP}). This takeover by SR is accompanied by 

1756: a sudden hardening of the AG to the ordinary SR spectrum, 

1757: $\sim\!\nu^{-\beta_X}$ with $\beta_X\! \sim\! 1.1$.

1758: The power-law decay changes into the canonical plateau 

1759: when  the CBs enter the constant ISM density.

1760: In the case of GRB 070220, the fast asymptotic decline

1761: was well fit  assuming  an isothermal sphere  density  profile,

1762: $n\propto 1/(r^2\!+\!r_c^2)$, as in the cases shown in 

1763: Figs.~\ref{f6},\ref{f7}.

1764:  

1765: \subsubsection{GRBs with large X-ray flares during the early 

1766: X-ray afterglow}  

1767: 

1768: \noindent

1769: {\bf GRB 060526.} {\it X-ray observations:} 

1770: This GRB was detected by Swift's BAT at 16:28:30 UT on May 26, 2006 

1771: (Campana et al.~2006a). The XRT began observing the field 73 s after the 

1772: BAT trigger. The burst started with a $\gamma$-ray emission episode 

1773: lasting 18 s. The GRB was thereafter quiet for about 200 s, and then 

1774: emitted two additional pulses which lasted about 50 s and were 

1775: coincident with strong X-ray flares between 220 s and 270 s after 

1776: trigger. The XRT followed the X-ray emission for 6 days until it faded into the 

1777: background. The entire XRT light curve is shown in Fig.~\ref{f4}a. It has 

1778: the canonical behaviour of many Swift GRBs, and two superimposed 

1779: early-time large flares.

1780: 

1781: \noindent

1782: {\bf GRB 060526.} {\it Optical observations:}

1783: The observations of the optical emission from GRB 0605526 are summarized 

1784: and discussed in Dai et al.~(2007), Khamitov et al.~(2006)

1785: and Th\"one et al.~(2008b). They were 

1786: started as early as 36.2 s after the BAT trigger by the Watcher 40cm 

1787: robotic telescope, in South Africa, which saw the AG 

1788: at a very bright 15th magnitude (French \& Jelinek 2006). 

1789: The UVOT on Swift detected its optical AG 

1790: 81 s after trigger (Campana et al.~2006a). The burst was followed 

1791: up with UVOT and ground-based telescopes by several groups. Spectra 

1792: obtained with the Magellan-Clay telescope indicated a redshift of 

1793: $z\!=\!3.21$ (Berger \& Gladders~2006). Its $R$-band light curve obtained 

1794: with the MDM and PROMPT telescopes at Cerro Tololo, amongst others, 

1795: is shown in Fig.~\ref{f4}c (Dai et al.~2007 and references 

1796: therein). It can be seen in Figs.~\ref{f4}a,b that, apart from the 

1797: superimposed large early-time X-ray flares which are not present in the 

1798: optical light curve and the late mini-flares, the X-ray light curve and the 

1799: well-sampled $R$-band data show a roughly achromatic behaviour.

1800: 

1801: \noindent

1802: {\bf GRB 060526.} {\it Interpretation:} The entire X-ray light curve and 

1803: its CB-model's fit are shown in Fig.~\ref{f4}a. Three ICS pulses were used 

1804: in the fits of the early time emission, although the third pulse may well 

1805: be a superposition of two unresolved ones. The pulse shape and the 

1806: spectral evolution of the last two large flares are typical of ICS 

1807: flares (DDD2008a). Their coincidence in time with the late $\gamma$-ray 

1808: peaks, the absence of corresponding peaks in the optical UVOT light 

1809: curve, and their spectral evolution support their interpretation as part 

1810: of the prompt GRB emission. This GRB's `prompt' emission extends to long 

1811: times partly because of the large redshift of the burst source which 

1812: stretches observer time by the relatively large factor, $z+1\!=\!4.21$. 

1813: A zoom-in on these two ICS X-ray flares is shown in Fig.~\ref{f4}b. The 

1814: decay of the prompt emission is dominated by the decay of the last pulse. 

1815: In Figs.~\ref{f4}a,b,c we show that the early ICS flares, the decay of 

1816: the prompt emission, the subsequent synchrotron-dominated plateau and the

1817: gradual bending into a power-law decline are all well reproduced 

1818: by the CB model. In Fig.~\ref{f4}d we show the theoretical $R$-band light 

1819: curve obtained with the parameters which were fitted to the SR X-rays. 

1820:  Since the bending frequency during the steepening phase is below 

1821: the $R$ band, the temporal decay of the $R$-band light curve practically 

1822: coincides with that of the X-ray one. Both the X-ray and the late-time optical 

1823: light curve are bumpy, which may be caused by mini-flares 

1824: and/or density inhomogeneities, which we have not tried to fit. The 

1825: apparent steeper decay of the optical AG beyond 1 day may be the decline 

1826: following a flare or a transition into the galactic halo with a 

1827: density declining as $1/r^2$.

1828: 

1829: 

1830:  

1831: \noindent 

1832: {\bf GRB 060206.} {\it Observations:}

1833:  This GRB triggered the Swift's BAT on February 6, 2006 at 04:46:53

1834: UT (Morris et al.~2006). Its $\gamma$-ray emission lasted only 

1835: 6 s. The XRT started its observations 80 s after the BAT trigger.

1836: Despite its initially poor time sampling,  it detected  

1837: an X-ray decline after 0.5 h and a strong rebrightening after 1 h, 

1838: after which its follow-up was nearly continuous for some 20 days.

1839: The bright optical AG of GRB was detected by Swift at $V=16.7$, 

1840: about 1 minute after the burst.   

1841: RAPTOR   started  observations 

1842: 48.1 min after trigger and reported that, after 

1843: an initial fading, the AG rebrightened 1h after burst 

1844: by $\sim\! 1$  magnitude within a couple of minutes 

1845: (Wozniak et al.~2006). Many observatories followed the bright optical AG

1846: (Monfardini et al.~2006, Stanek et al.~2007, and references therein), and 

1847: Fynbo et al.~(2006a) carried out spectral observations to determine its 

1848: large redshift, $z\!=\!4.05$, later confirmed by other groups.

1849: The RAPTOR data clearly shows that the rebrightenning was due to two

1850: flares (Wozniak et al.~2006). Similar `anomalous' rebrightennings  of the

1851: optical AG were seen in some other bursts (Stanek et al.~2007) .

1852: 

1853: \noindent

1854: {\bf GRB 060206.} {\it Interpretation:}

1855: In Fig.~\ref{f4}a,b we compare the observations of the X-ray and $R$-band 

1856: light curves with the CB-model fits. Superimposed on the plateau phase are 

1857: two strong flares beginning around 1 h after trigger. The coincidence in 

1858: time of the X-ray and optical flares, and the absence of any evidence for 

1859: the typical ICS strong spectral evolution, suggest that these two flares 

1860: are SR flares due to an encounter with a density jump, such as at the boundary 

1861: of a superbubble created by the star formation region.  In Fig.~\ref{f4}c 

1862: we compare the observed light curve of these two flares in the $R$ band 

1863: and their CB-model description via Eq.~(\ref{SRP}). The figures show that the 

1864: agreement is very good and that there is nothing `anomalous' in the X-ray 

1865: and optical data of GRB 060206. Instead, their prominent structures are 

1866: well described and precisely related by their CB-model's understanding in 

1867: terms of SR from late ejections of CBs into the 

1868: circumburst windy environment.

1869: 

1870: \subsubsection{GRBs with chromatic afterglows}  

1871: 

1872: \noindent

1873: {\bf GRB 050820A.} {\it Broad-band observations:}

1874: This is one of the Swift GRBs with the best-sampled broad-band data,  

1875: summarized and discussed in detail in Cenko et 

1876: al.~2006. The burst

1877: was detected and observed by Swift and Konus-Wind. Its $\gamma$-ray 

1878: emission was preceded by a soft precursor pulse some 200 s before the main 

1879: burst. The latter lasted some 350 s and consisted of 5 well-separated major 

1880: peaks, with a clear spectral-softening evolution within each peak. 

1881: The main peak observed by Swift during $217\,\rm{s}\!<t\!<\!241$ s, and the 

1882: time-integrated photon spectrum over the entire burst were well fit with a 

1883: cut-off power law with a photon indices $\Gamma\!=\!1.07\pm 0.06$ and 

1884: $\Gamma\!=\!1.12\pm 0.15$,

1885: %(and $E_p\!\sim \!367$ keV), 

1886: respectively. 

1887: The Swift XRT began observations 88 s after trigger and 

1888: followed its X-ray emission until 44 days, see 

1889: Fig.~\ref{f5}a. The measured mean photon index of the unabsorbed 

1890: emission in the 0.3-15 keV band during the prompt emission phase was 

1891: $\Gamma\!=\!1.06\pm 0.04$ ($\beta_X\!=\!0.06\pm 0.04$) and 

1892: $\Gamma\!=\!2.06\pm 0.07$ ($\beta_X\!=\!1.06\pm 0.07$) during the 

1893: afterglow phase (Evans et al.~2007).

1894: 

1895: The prompt optical emission was measured by RAPTOR 

1896: beginning 18 s after trigger. 

1897: The Swift UVOT began observations 80 s after  trigger but became 

1898: inoperable when Swift entered the South Atlantic Anomaly 

1899: approximately 240 s after trigger. The automated Palomar 60-inch 

1900: telescope started observations 206 s after trigger

1901: and followed-up until late time. Later measurements were made by the

1902: Turkish Russian 1.5 m telescope. Late-time images were taken with the 9.2 

1903: m Hobby-Eberly Telescope  and with the Hubble Space Telescope 

1904: until 37 days after burst. The $R$-band light curve is shown in Fig.~\ref{f5}b.

1905: Ignoring host reddening and correcting for 

1906: Galactic extinction  in the burst direction [E (B -V)$=\!0.044$], the fitted 

1907: spectral index (Cenko et al.~2006) in the optical band during the prompt 

1908: emission was $\beta_O\!=\!0.57\pm 0.06$,  steepening to 

1909: $\beta_O\!=\!0.77\pm 0.08$ within the first day. While the optical 

1910: spectrum appeared steeper later on, the poor fit quality precluded the

1911: derivation of a reliable value. In Figs.~\ref{f5}a,b one can see

1912: the very chromatic behaviour of the X-ray- and optical light curves

1913: during the prompt  and AG  phases.

1914:  

1915: 

1916: \noindent

1917: {\bf GRB 050820A.} {\it Interpretation:}

1918: The pulse shape of the  prompt-emission $\gamma/$X-ray peaks and their 

1919: spectral index agree well with those predicted by ICS of glory light.

1920: The CB-model fit to the entire XRT light curve 

1921: is shown in Fig.~\ref{f5}a. The early-time light curve 

1922: is well described by the ICS X-ray counterparts of the prompt 

1923: $\gamma$-ray peaks: the very-early-time XRT light curve is  

1924: the tail of the precursor pulse, the next pulse is the 

1925: X-ray counterpart of the first ICS $\gamma$-ray pulse 

1926: around 220 s. The ICS peaks are superimposed on a canonical 

1927: SR afterglow bending down at around 1000 s. 

1928: We interpret the X-ray peak around 5000 s as a flare due to a density bump.

1929: While the prompt $\gamma$-ray and X-ray emission is dominated by 

1930: the ICS of glory light, which yields $\beta\! \sim\! 0$,  

1931: the optical emission is dominated 

1932: by  SR, as in Eq.~(\ref{SRP}), 

1933: with the typical $\beta\!\sim\! 0.5$, as observed. The different

1934: radiation mechanisms are responsible for the 

1935: chromatic behaviour of the prompt emission. 

1936: 

1937: Although both the X-ray AG and the optical AG are dominated by SR, the 

1938: optical AG evolves differently than the X-ray AG because of its 

1939: dependence on the bend frequency, a function of the ISM density and 

1940: the Lorentz factor of the decelerating CB. Consequently, the early-time 

1941: optical and X-ray AGs are chromatic until the bend frequency crosses well 

1942: below the optical band, after which $\beta_O=\beta_X$. This is shown in 

1943: Figs.~\ref{f5}a,b. The CB-model $R$-band light curve in 

1944: Fig.~\ref{f5}b was calculated with $\beta_O\!=\! 0.77$ and the best-fit 

1945: parameters of the X-ray AG shown in Fig.~\ref{f5}a.

1946: The calculated light curves did not include the late-time flares 

1947: in order not to obscure the chromatic behaviour of the underlying 

1948: smooth AGs.

1949: 

1950: \noindent

1951: {\bf GRB 060418.} {\it Broad-band observations:}

1952: This GRB was discussed in detail in Molinari et al.~(2007). Its $\gamma$-ray 

1953: emission was detected and observed by the Swift BAT and by Konus-Wind. 

1954: The BAT light curve showed three overlapping peaks at 10, 18 and 27 s 

1955: and a bump which coincided with an X-ray flare at 128 s after trigger. The 

1956: Swift XRT started observing the GRB 78 s after trigger. The XRT 

1957: light curve shows a notable flaring activity superimposed on a smooth 

1958: AG decay. A prominent peak, also visible as a bump in the BAT data, 

1959: was observed at about 128 s after trigger. The REM robotic telescope began 

1960: observing this GRB  64 s after trigger in the $z'JHK$ bands and 

1961: followed it down to the sensitivity limits. The {\it UVONIR} AG was also 

1962: detected by the Swift UVOT, by one of the 16-inch PROMPT telescopes at 

1963: CTIO and by the robotic telescope FRAM 

1964: (part of the Pierre Auger Observatory).  The {\it ONIR} AG was also 

1965: followed up with the 1.3 m telescope at CTIO beginning $\sim$1 h 

1966: post-trigger, and with the PAIRITEL 1.3 m telescope staring 2.53 h after 

1967:  trigger.  The {\it UVONIR} light curves show a very chromatic initial 

1968: behaviour compared to the XRT light curve, see Figs.~\ref{f5}c,d. 

1969: The $NIR$ AG rises until reaching a maximum around 130 s after trigger and 

1970: then gradually changes to a power-law decline shallower than that of the 

1971: X-ray AG, with a weak flare 

1972: superimposed on it at around 5 ks, which roughly coincides in time with a 

1973: strong X-ray flaring activity.

1974: 

1975: \noindent

1976: {\bf GRB 060418.} {\it Interpretation:}

1977: The XRT light curve was fit by the tail of the prompt ICS 

1978: emission, and an ICS flare around 128 s which was later

1979: taken over by the SR afterglow of a CB moving 

1980: in a constant density ISM (Fig.~\ref{f5}c).

1981: The bend of the SR afterglow

1982: is hidden under the tail of the X-ray flare at 128 s.

1983: The $H$-band light curve, shown 

1984: in Fig.~\ref{f5}d,  was calculated using Eq.~(\ref{SRP})

1985: with an early-time unabsorbed $\beta_O\!=\!0.5$

1986: and an ejection time, $t_i\!=\!26$ s, coincident with 

1987: the start-time of the major $\gamma$-ray peak.   

1988: No attempt was made to model the flaring activity around 5 ks. 

1989: 

1990: \noindent

1991: {\bf GRB 071010A.} {\it Broad-band observations:}

1992: This GRB at redshift $z\!=\!0.985$ was discussed in detail by 

1993: Covino et al.~(2008). It had a single peak lasting for 6 s, detected by 

1994: the Swift BAT. 

1995: Swift did not slew to this GRB because its automatic slewing  

1996: was temporarily disabled. 

1997: The XRT began observing this GRB only 34 ks after the BAT 

1998: trigger and followed it until 550 ks after trigger. 

1999: The XRT light curve (Fig.~\ref{f5}e)

2000: shows a wide flare  peaking around 60 ks and

2001: followed by a power-law decay with an index $\sim\!1.6\!\pm 0.3$.

2002: The early {\it ONIR}  emission was observed by the 

2003: TAROT, REM and the 2.2 m MPI-ESO telescopes.

2004: Follow-up $NIR$ observations were carried out with Gemini-North,  TNG and the NTT.

2005: The AG was observed a few hours after the GRB

2006: with the Keck-I and Sampurnan telescopes and with  NOT and  VLT.

2007: The {\it ONIR} light curve shows 

2008: an initial rising with a maximum at about 7 min, and 

2009: a smooth decay interrupted by a flare about 0.6 d,

2010: visible in both the {\it ONIR} and in X-rays

2011: (Figs.~\ref{f5}e,f). The {\it ONIR}

2012: spectrum was modeled by a power law with an SMC-like extinction 

2013: law with a best fit  E (B -V) = 0.21. The reported unabsorbed late index was 

2014: $\beta_O\!=\!1.26\pm 0.26 $.

2015: 

2016: \noindent

2017: {\bf GRB 071010A.} {\it Interpretation:}

2018: The {\it ONIR} light curves correspond to the SR radiation 

2019: from a CB ejected into a windy $1/r^2$ density profile, as 

2020: given by Eq.~(\ref{SRP}),  until taken over by a constant-density 

2021: ISM,  with a standard wide flare superimposed on the AG  

2022: around 0.6 d. The late XRT light curve was calculated with the same 

2023: parameters except for $\beta_X\!=\!1.1$. 

2024: 

2025: 

2026: \subsubsection{GRBs with very fast-decaying late afterglows}

2027:       

2028: In Figs.~\ref{f6} and \ref{f7} we show the well-sampled XRT light curves of 12 GRBs:

2029: 050318, 050326, 050814, 051008, 061019, 060807, 060813, 070306, 070419B, 

2030: 070420, 070521 and 080207, with a late decay more rapid than the 

2031: canonical $t^{-1.6}$ decline of the AG of CBs decelerating in a constant-density 

2032: ISM.  In the CB model such a fast decline is produced by a fast-declining 

2033: ISM density or by the tail of a late flare. We have found that all Swift 

2034: GRBs with a well sampled fast-declining X-ray light curve can be 

2035: reproduced by either an asymptotic $n\!\propto\! 1/r^2$ density profile or a 

2036: tail of a late flare, as demonstrated in Figs.~\ref{f6} and \ref{f7}. Such 

2037: an asymptotic density decline is typical of isothermal spheres, for which

2038: $n(r)\!\sim\!n_0/[1\!+\!(r/r_c)^2]$, a fair representation of

2039: the density profile of galactic bulges in spirals, of ellipticals, and of the outskirts

2040: of bumpy density shells created by stellar winds. 

2041: The CB-model prediction is that for $r\! \gg\! r_c$, the AG declines like 

2042: $ F_\nu\! \propto\! t^{-(1+\beta)}\,\nu^{-\beta}$, i.e.~with 

2043: $\alpha\!=\!\beta+1\!=\!\Gamma_{SR}\!\sim\! 2.1$. In some GRBs the 

2044: transition from $\alpha\!=\!\Gamma-1/2\!\sim\!1.6 $ for $r \ll r_c$, 

2045: to $\alpha\!=\!\Gamma\sim 2.1$ for $r \gg r_c$, has probably been 

2046: misidentified as the standard FB-model late achromatic `jet break' 

2047: (e.g.~Dai et al.~2008, Racusin et al.~2008a).

2048: 

2049: 

2050: 

2051: 

2052: \subsubsection{GRBs with complex chromatic light curves}

2053: 

2054: \noindent

2055: {\bf GRB 050319.} {\it Observations:}

2056: The Swift BAT, XRT and UVOT observations of this GRB were discussed 

2057: in detail in Cusumano et al.~(2006a) and Mason et al.~(2006). A reanalysis of 

2058: the BAT data showed that its onset was $\sim\!135$ s before the trigger 

2059: time reported by Krimm et al.~(2005). The XRT began its observations 90 s 

2060: after the BAT trigger, continuing them for 28 days (Cusumano et 

2061: al.~2006a). The $\gamma$-ray light curve shows two strong peaks. The X-ray 

2062: light curve had the canonical behaviour: an early fast decline which 

2063: extrapolated well to the low-energy tail of the last prompt $\gamma$-ray 

2064: pulse at around 137 s after the onset of the GRB. After $\sim\!400$ s, the 

2065: fast decline was overtaken by a plateau which gradually bent into a 

2066: power-law decline after $\sim\!10^4$ s.  

2067: 

2068: \noindent

2069: {\bf GRB 050319.} {\it Interpretation:}

2070: A CB-model fit to the complete X-ray light curve is shown in 

2071: Fig.~\ref{f8}a. Two pulses are used in the early ICS phase. The early ICS 

2072: flares, the decay of the prompt emission and the subsequent 

2073: synchrotron-dominated plateau and gradually bending light curve are well reproduced.

2074: The spectral index of the AG,   

2075: $\beta_X\!=\!0.73\pm 0.05$, and its asymptotic temporal decline index, 

2076: $\alpha\!=\!1.14\pm 0.2$ (Cusumano et al.~2006a),  satisfy well the relation 

2077: $\alpha\!=\!\beta\!+\!1/2$, though they were obtained by correcting only for 

2078: Galactic absorption.

2079: 

2080: 

2081: \noindent

2082: {\bf GRB 050319.} {\it UVO observations:}

2083: The UVOT detected an optical counterpart in the initial White filter 

2084: observation, starting 62 s after the trigger, and subsequently in all 

2085: other filters (optical and UV). Swift's UVOT, which followed the typical 

2086: sequence for GRB observations, was able to observe the UVO emission 140 s 

2087: after its detection by the BAT. It was also observed by ground-based 

2088: telescopes RAPTOR (Wozniak et al.~2005), and ROTSE III (Quimby et 

2089: al.~2006a) just 27.1 s after the Swift trigger.  The optical AG was 

2090: followed later with a number of ground-based telescopes (Huang et al.~2006 

2091: and references therein). An absorption redshift, $z\!=\!3.24$, was 

2092: measured with the Nordic Optical Telescope (Jakobsson et 

2093: al.~2006). The afterglow of this GRB is highly chromatic with no apparent 

2094: correlated behaviour between its X-ray and optical emission,

2095: as can be seen from Figs.~\ref{f8}a,b.

2096: 

2097: 

2098: \noindent

2099: {\bf GRB 050319.} {\it Interpretation of UVO observations:}

2100: The early-time optical light curve was fit by SR emission from the two 

2101: separate CBs implied by the first two strong $\gamma$-ray peaks. The late 

2102: X-ray and optical AG were calculated with the same deceleration 

2103: parameters. The complex optical light curve is reproduced well, as shown 

2104: in Fig.~\ref{f8}b.

2105: 

2106: 

2107: \noindent

2108: {\bf GRB 060605.} {\it Broad-band observations:}

2109: This GRB  at  $z\!=\!3.773$ 

2110: was studied and discussed by Ferrero et al.~(2008). 

2111: It was long and relatively faint,  with 

2112: a duration of about 20 s,  detected by the Swift BAT. 

2113: The BAT light curve showed two overlapping peaks.

2114: The Swift XRT began taking data 93 s after the BAT

2115: trigger and continued for 200 ks. The XRT light curve shows a 

2116: canonical behaviour

2117: with a flare around 265 s after trigger, superimposed 

2118: on a shallow plateau which began at $\sim 200$ s 

2119: and changed into an asymptotic power-law decline beyond 8 ks

2120: (Fig.~\ref{f8}c). The best-fit spectral index of the unabsorbed 

2121: spectrum in the X-ray band 

2122: was $\beta_X\!=\!1.06\!\pm\!0.16$. 

2123: The UVOT, which began observations of the GRB's field 97 s after 

2124:  trigger detected and localized its fading AG.

2125: Follow-up observations in the {\it UVONIR} bands were carried out also with

2126: ROTSEIIIa, which began 48 s after trigger and with the VATT, RTT, TNG   

2127: and the Kitt Peak 2.1 m telescopes. In Fig.~\ref{f8}d we show the 

2128: recalibrated $R_c$-band light curve from these 

2129: observations (Ferrero et al.~2008).

2130: In contrast with the XRT light curve, it shows a chromatic early rise

2131: with a `broken' power-law decay. The {\it XUVONIR} data show a spectral 

2132: evolution at early time from $\beta_{OX}\!=\! 0.8 \pm 0.05$  at 0.07 

2133: d, to $\beta_{OX}\!=\! 1.02 \pm 0.02\!\approx\! \beta_X$  at 0.43 d.

2134: 

2135: \noindent

2136: \bf GRB 060605.} {\it Interpretation:}

2137: The XRT light curve was fitted with a canonical CB-model X-ray light curve 

2138: (Fig.~\ref{f8}c),  beginning with the tail of the fast decline of the 

2139: prompt ICS emission, and taken over by SR in a 

2140: constant density environment which changes to an $1/r^2$ profile

2141: beyond 8 ks. The 

2142: bump around 250 s was interpreted as a SR flare superimposed on the 

2143: smooth canonical AG. The corresponding $R$-band light curve, shown in 

2144: Fig.~\ref{f8}d, was generated using Eq.~(\ref{SRP}) with the fit 

2145: parameters of the X-ray flare and the canonical $\beta_O\!=\!0.5$ for an 

2146: early optical emission, until it was taken by the SR emission in the 

2147: density profile used in the CB-model description of the late X-ray  AG.

2148: 

2149: 

2150: \noindent

2151: {\bf GRB 060607A.} {\it Broad-band observations:}

2152: This GRB  at $z\!=\!3.082$

2153: was studied by Molinari et al.~(2007), Nysewander et al.~(2007) 

2154: and  Ziaeepour et al.~(2008). The Swift XRT began observing it  

2155: 73.6 s after the BAT trigger. Its complex X-ray light 

2156: curve, like that of quite a few other

2157: GRBs, was dominated by strong flaring activity. The XRT light curve, shown 

2158: in Fig.~\ref{f8}d,  exhibits 

2159: three early  flares peaking at approximately

2160: 97 s, 175 s, and 263 s after trigger and a  continuing

2161: weaker flaring activity superposed on a decaying continuum.

2162: The UVOT began to observe the bright optical AG  75 s after trigger.

2163: The REM telescope began {\it NIR} observations 59 s after

2164: trigger. It detected a brightening smooth light curve which peaked

2165: around  $\!\sim\!155$ s and decayed like a power law  

2166: interrupted by flaring activity beyond 1000 s. The REM followed the decay for 

2167: 20 ks down to its sensitivity limit. Four 0.4m PROMPT telescopes began 

2168: observing the AG  44 s after trigger

2169: and measured the {\it UVO} light curves until 20 ks,

2170: which behaved as the {\it NIR} light curve

2171: (Nysewander et al.~2007).  

2172: 

2173: \noindent {\bf GRB 060607A.} {\it Interpretation:} 

2174: The complex X-ray light curve, shown in 

2175: Fig.~\ref{f8}e, was fit with 6 flares superimposed to the AG of a 

2176: single dominant CB. This fit, which can be improved by splitting the last 

2177: flare into two, is a very rough description $(\chi^2/${\it dof} $=\! 4.9$ 

2178: for 440 {\it dof)}, not a proof of the quality of a prediction. 

2179: Moreover, in cases with such a prominent flaring activity, the mean spectral 

2180: index of the AG data is an average between the typical index of flares, 

2181: $\Gamma\!=\!1.5$, and that of a SR afterglow, $\Gamma\!=\!2$, i.e.~an 

2182: average significantly smaller than that of the SR. Thus, we do 

2183: not expect such a labyrinthine AG to satisfy the CB-model spectral-index 

2184: relations, Eqs.~(\ref{Fnux},\ref{Asymptotic}). The CB model's early {\it UVONIR} 

2185: light curves, shown in Fig.~\ref{f8}f for the $H$ band, is well 

2186: described by the smooth SR afterglow of a single CB moving in a wind 

2187: environment, as given by Eq.~(\ref{SRP}). We did not try to fit the 

2188: weak flaring activity, which is 

2189: probably due to a bumpy environment.

2190: 

2191: 

2192: \subsubsection{XRF 060218}

2193: \label{XRF}

2194: \noindent 

2195: {\bf XRF 060218/SN2006aj.} {\it Broad-band observations:} This 

2196: XRF/SN pair provides one of the best testing grounds of theories (De 

2197: R\'ujula 2008) given its proximity, which resulted in very good sampling 

2198: and statistics (see, e.g.~Campana et al.~2006b, Pian et al.~2006, 

2199: Soderberg et al.~2006, Mirabal et al.~2006, Modjaz et al.~2006, Sollerman 

2200: et al.~2006, Ferrero et al.~2006, Kocevski et al.~2007). The XRF was 

2201: detected with the Swift's BAT on February 18, 2006, at 03:34:30 UT 

2202: (Cusumano et al.~2006b). The XRT and UVOT detected the XRF and began 

2203: taking data 152 s after the BAT trigger. Its detection led to 

2204: a precise localization, the determination of its redshift, $z\!=\!0.033$ 

2205: (Mirabal et al.~2006) and the discovery of its association with a 

2206: supernova, SN2006aj (Masetti et al.~2006). The BAT data lasted only 300 s, 

2207: beginning 159 s after trigger, with most of the emission below 50 keV 

2208: (Campana et al.~2006b, Liang et al.~2006).  The total isotropic equivalent 

2209: $\gamma$-ray energy was $E_{\rm iso}\sim 0.8\times 10^{49}$ erg and the 

2210: spectral peak energy, $E_p$, strongly evolved with time from $\!\sim\! 54$ 

2211: keV at the beginning of observations by the BAT down to $\!<\!5$ keV 300 s 

2212: later. The X-ray light curve  was followed up with the XRT until nearly 

2213: $1.1\times 10^6$ s after burst (Campana et al.~2006b). It 

2214: showed the canonical behaviour of X-ray light curves of XRFs and GRBs, 

2215: except that the prompt X-ray emission was stretched in time and lasted 

2216: more than 2000 s. The prompt emission ended with a fast temporal decline 

2217: and a rapid spectral softening (Fig.~\ref{f9}a) that was overtaken around 

2218: 10 ks by an ordinary power-law-decaying AG. Follow-up observations with 

2219: the UVOT and ground-based telescopes showed a very chromatic {\it UVONIR} AG 

2220: with a long brightening phase with a peak between 30 and 60 ks, which 

2221: changed into a fast decline and was taken over around 2 d after burst by 

2222: the rising light curve of SN2006aj (Marshall et al.~2006, Campana et 

2223: al.~2006b, Pian et al.~2006, Mirabal et al.~2006, Sollerman et al.~2006, 

2224: Ferrero et al.~2006). Spectral measurements of the the light of SN2006aj 

2225: showed negligible additional extinction (Pian et al.~2006, Guenther et 

2226: al.~2006, Wiersema et al.~2007) beyond the Galactic one, 

2227: E (B -V) = 0.13, along the line of sight.

2228: 

2229:  

2230: \noindent 

2231: {\bf XRF060218/SN2006aj.} {\it Interpretation:} 

2232: The spectral energy distribution measured with the Swift BAT and XRT was 

2233: parametrized (e.g.~Campana et al.~2006b, Liang et al.~2006, Butler et 

2234: al.~2007) as the sum of a black-body emission with a time-declining 

2235: temperature from a sphere with time-growing radius, and a cut-off power-law 

2236: with time-dependent amplitude and a constant cutoff energy. 

2237: From this parametrization it was concluded that this event had a 

2238: thermal black-body component in its X-ray spectrum, which cools and shifts 

2239: into the {\it UVO} band as time elapses. This alleged black-body component

2240: was interpreted as the result of a shock's break-out from the stellar 

2241: envelope into the stellar wind of the progenitor star of the core-collapse 

2242: SN2006aj (Campana et al.~2006b, Blustin~2007, Waxman, Meszaros \& 

2243: Campana~2007). From this interpretation, a delay of $\leq 4$ ks between 

2244: the SN and the GRB beginning was concluded. 

2245: 

2246: The early optical emission from XRF 060218 --the 

2247: first $10^5$ s measured with the UVOT and

2248: interpreted as black-body dominated-- required an intrinsic reddening of 

2249: $\rm{E\,(B -V)}\, = \,0.20\pm0.03$ (assuming a Small Magellanic-Cloud effect) 

2250: in addition to a Galactic reddening of $\rm{E\,(B -V)}\, = \,0.14$ (Campana et al.~2006b, 

2251: Ghisellini et al.~2007) to be consistent with a black-body 

2252: spectrum. Such a host extinction is inconsistent with the 

2253: negligible extra-Galactic one measured from the spectrum 

2254: of SN2006aj by e.g.,~Pian et al.~(2006), Guenther et 

2255: al.~(2006), Wiersema et al.~(2007). With a negligible reddening in the host,

2256: the ratio between the measured fluxes with the V and UVW2 filters 

2257: of the Swift UVOT --de-reddened with the Galactic $\rm{E\,(B -V)}\, = \,0.14$ -- is 

2258: different by nearly a factor 10 from the  

2259: $F_\nu\!\propto\!\nu^2$ behaviour in the Rayleigh-Jeans domain. 

2260: Moreover, the flux ratio between these two bands 

2261: is time-dependent and increases by $\!\sim\!2.5$ between 2 ks and 

2262: 20 ks after burst, while it should be constant as long as the optical band 

2263: stays in the Rayleigh-Jeans part of the black-body spectrum.

2264: We conclude that the {\it UVO} emission from XRF 060218 

2265: is not black-body-like. This

2266: is independent of whether it is produced by the same

2267: source which produced the alleged black-body 

2268: component in the prompt X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission or by another 

2269:  source. 

2270:  

2271:  

2272: The light curves of XRF 060218/SN2006aj, measured with the 

2273: Swift's UVOT filters, are particularly interesting. Not only they provide evidence 

2274: that the XRF was produced in the explosion of SN2006aj, but, 

2275: together with the BAT and XRT light curves,  they confirm 

2276: the CB-model interpretation of the broad-band emission at all times. Prior 

2277: to the dominance of the associated supernova's radiation, the {\it UVO} light 

2278: curves show wide peaks whose peak-time shifts from $t_{peak}\!\approx\! 

2279: 30$ ks at $\lambda\!\sim\!188$ nm to $t_{peak}\!\approx\! 50$ ks at 

2280: $\lambda\!\sim\! 544$ nm, and whose peak-energy flux decreases with 

2281: energy, see Fig.~\ref{f9}b: the lower half of the upper figure. In the CB model 

2282: these are the predicted properties of a single peak generated by a single 

2283: CB as it Compton up-scatters glory's light. The prompt $\gamma$-rays  

2284: and X-rays  of ordinary GRBs are dominated by ICS, while the 

2285: optical emission is dominated by SR. However,  

2286: in low-luminosity XRFs the optical emission is also dominated by ICS 

2287: of glory light. The dominant radiation mechanisms at various times

2288: can actually be identified, using the different spectral and 

2289: temporal shapes of the ICS and SR emissions: while the early unabsorbed SR 

2290: contribution has a spectral energy density $F_\nu \! \propto \! 

2291: \nu^{-0.6}$, ICS has $F_\nu\!\propto\! e^{-E/E_p(t)}$ and  

2292: satisfies the $E\,t^2$ law. 

2293: 

2294: In order to test whether the prompt X-ray 

2295: peak around 1000 s and the UVOT peaks between 30 and 50 ks belong to 

2296: the same ICS pulse, we have plotted in Fig.~\ref{f9}c the energy fluxes between 

2297: 5 ks  and 150 ks

2298: measured with the UVOT  filters, de-reddened for Galactic extinction 

2299: [$\rm {E \,(B -V)} \!=\! 0.14$, Campana 

2300: et al.~(2006b)] and scaled by the $E\, t^2$ law, together with the unabsorbed 

2301: energy flux in the 0.3 -10 keV band of the prompt X-ray pulse which was 

2302: measured with the XRT (Campana et al.~2006b). Each de-reddened

2303: energy flux in the UVOT filters at time $t$ was converted to 

2304: energy flux density using  the UVOT energy

2305: band widths, $  \Delta E \!=\! h\,\nu\, \Delta 

2306: \lambda/\lambda^2$, with $\Delta \lambda$ = 75, 98, 88, 70, 51 and 76 nm 

2307: the FWHM of the V, B, U, UVW1, UVM1 and UVW2  filters of the 

2308: Swift UVOT, with central wavelengths, $\lambda$ = 

2309: 544 nm, 439 nm, 345 nm, 251 nm, 217 nm, and 188 nm respectively. 

2310: These energy flux densities were multiplied by the XRT band width 

2311: and plotted at time $(\nu/\nu_x)^{0.5}\,t$, where $h\,\nu_x=5.15$ keV

2312: is the central energy of the 0.3 -10 keV band.  

2313: As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{f9}d, the XRT and UVOT data near their peak 

2314: times satisfy  the $E\, t^2$ (or $\sqrt{\nu}\,t$) law quite well. 

2315: The very large differences between peak times and peak energy fluxes in the 

2316: Swift $XUVO$ bands simply disappear in the scaled-time plot, and

2317: the peaks' shapes coincide.

2318: 

2319: In Tables~\ref{t3},\ref{t4} and Figs.~\ref{f10}a,b we 

2320: further test the $E\,t^2$ law for the  peak-energy flux (PEF) 

2321: and peak-time in the different UVOT filters. Though these results are

2322: flawless, there remain the small deviations from the $E\, t^2$ law in Fig.~\ref{f9}d,

2323: which may be due to its approximate nature, our rough spectral integrations,

2324: a non-negligible contribution from the SN at a relatively early time 

2325: and/or a significant SR contribution to the UVOT light curves.   

2326: There is a strong indication for the latter possibility:

2327: the spectrum obtained from the de-reddened UVOT data at 

2328: $t\!<\!5$ ks is consistent either with the $E\,t^2$ law 

2329: (Fig.~\ref{f9}d) or with a SR spectrum below the frequency bend, $F_\nu\!\propto\! \nu^{-0.6}$. 

2330: This is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{f9}c, where we have plotted 

2331: the UVOT de-reddened data of Campana et al.~(2006b) in the form

2332: $\nu^{0.6}\, F_\nu(t)$, which, for $t\!\ll\!(a,t_{exp})$ and $\beta\!=\!0.6$ in Eq.~(\ref{esync}),

2333: should be proportional to $t^{0.4}$. The line in the figure shows that it is.

2334: A black-body shape, $F_\nu\!\propto \! \nu^2$, multiplied by $\nu^{0.6}$ would have, for instance, 

2335: separated the  $V$ and $UVW2$ bands by a factor $\!\sim\!14$, entirely inconsistent 

2336: with Fig.~\ref{f9}c.

2337: 

2338: From the above relatively model-independent analysis we have 

2339: concluded that the {\it UVO} light curves observed prior to the

2340: dominance of the associated SN, and the early-time X-ray data,

2341: are consistent with ICS of glory light by a jet of CBs breaking out

2342: from SN2006aj, while they are inconsistent with a black-body

2343: radiation from a shock break-out from the stellar envelope

2344: of the progenitor star. But, can the detailed

2345: broad-band observations of this XRF be reproduced by the CB model

2346: in greater detail?

2347:  

2348: Amati et al.~(2006) showed that XRF 060218 complies with the so-called 

2349: `Amati correlation' (Amati 2002) for GRBs and XRFs and concluded that this 

2350: implies that XRF 060218~{\it was not} a GRB viewed far off axis. In the 

2351: CB model the conclusion of the same argument is the opposite one. 

2352: The observed correlation 

2353: between peak and isotropic energies of GRBs~{\it and} XRFs is a prediction 

2354: (Dar \& De R\'ujula~2000, DD2004, Dado, Dar \& De R\'ujula~2007b) 

2355: trivially following from the kinematics of ICS. The fact that XRF 060218 

2356: complies with it corroborates that it~{\it was} a GRB viewed far off axis. 

2357: In this model, the isotropic equivalent $\gamma$-ray energy emission of a 

2358: typical CB is $\approx 0.8 \times 10^{44}\,[\delta_0]^3$ erg (DD2004). 

2359: Thus, the reported $E_{\rm iso}\approx (6.2\pm 0.3)\times 10^{49}$ erg 

2360: implies that the CB which generated the dominant peak of XRF 060218 had 

2361: $\delta_0\!\sim\! 92$. It then follows from Eq.~(\ref{ICSEp}) that its 

2362: measured $E_p\!=\!4.6$ keV implies (for the typical $k\,T(0)\!\sim\! 1$ 

2363: eV) a Lorentz factor $\gamma_0\!\sim\! 103 $, $\gamma_0\, \theta\approx 1.1$ 

2364: and a viewing angle $\theta\!\sim\! 1.08\times 10^{-2}$ rad, an order of magnitude

2365: larger than the typical GRB value $\theta\!\sim\! 1$ mrad.

2366: 

2367: 

2368: The best-sampled data set of XRF 060218  

2369: is the XRT 0.3 -10 keV light curve (Campana et al.~2006b). Thus, we 

2370: fit these data first,  with prompt ICS emission plus SR. 

2371: We assume that the prompt ICS emission is dominated by two pulses:

2372: an early one preceding the main pulse, as suggested by the hardness ratio and 

2373: the BAT light curve. The SR contribution was calculated using 

2374: Eqs.~(\ref{decel},\ref{Fnu}) for a constant-density ISM, with the previously-derived

2375: $\!\gamma_0\, \theta\!=\!1.1$, the standard $\beta_X\!=\!1.1$, and a best-fit value for 

2376: $t_b$.  The result is Fig.~\ref{f10}c; the corresponding Swift-XRT hardness ratio

2377: is shown in Fig.~\ref{f10}d (DDD2008a), and the AG parameters are listed in Table~\ref{t1}. 

2378: Next, we use the $E\,t^2$ law for ICS to predict 

2379: the UVOT and BAT light curves. The results are Fig.~\ref{f10}e for

2380: the de-reddened UVOT light curve in the UVW2 filter, and Fig.~\ref{f10}f

2381: for the BAT light curve in the 15-150 keV band.

2382: 

2383: We conclude that the XRF 060218/SN2006aj pair is in full agreement with 

2384: the predictions of the CB model. The rich structure of its {\it UVO} AG is as 

2385: expected. Its X-ray light curve has the canonical GRB shape (stretched in 

2386: time) and consistent with the observed $E_p$ and $E_{iso}$.

2387: All of these results are explicitly dependent on the fact that XRFs 

2388: are GRBs produced by CBs with smaller Doppler factors, because 

2389: they are viewed at larger angles or have  smaller Lorentz factors. 

2390: The data on this XRF are inconsistent with a black-body component generated 

2391: by a shock break-out through the stellar envelope, or by any other mechanism. 

2392: The start time of the X-ray emission does not constrain the exact time of the 

2393: core's collapse before the launch of the CBs, nor the 

2394: possible ejection of other CBs farther off axis, 

2395: prior\footnote{Intriguingly, Swift detected $\gamma$ rays from the same 

2396: direction over a month earlier on January 17, 2006 (Barbier, et al.~2006).}

2397: to the trigger-time of XRF 060218.

2398: 

2399: 

2400: \section{Conclusions and outlook}

2401: 

2402: \label{outlook}

2403: 

2404: The rich data on GRBs gathered after the launch of Swift, as interpreted

2405: in the CB model and as we have discussed

2406: here and in recent papers (e.g.~Dado et al.~2006, 2007, 2008a, 2008b) 

2407: has taught us several things:

2408: 

2409: \begin{itemize}

2410: \item{} 

2411: Two radiation mechanisms, inverse Compton scattering and synchrotron 

2412: radiation, suffice within the CB model to provide a very simple and 

2413: accurate description of long-duration GRBs and XRFs and their afterglows. 

2414: Simple as they are, these two mechanisms 

2415: and the bursts' environments generate 

2416: the rich structure and variety of the light curves at all frequencies and times.

2417: 

2418: \item{} 

2419: The historical distinction between prompt and afterglow phases is 

2420: replaced by a physical distinction: the relative dominance 

2421: of the Compton or synchrotron mechanisms at different, frequency-dependent 

2422: times.

2423: 

2424: \item{}

2425: The relatively narrow pulses of the $\gamma$-ray signal, the

2426: somewhat wider prompt flares of X-rays, and the much wider humps

2427: sometimes seen at $UVOIR$ frequencies in XRFs, have a common origin. They 

2428: are generated by inverse Compton scattering.

2429: 

2430: \item{}

2431: The synchrotron radiation component dominates 

2432: the prompt  optical emission in ordinary GRBs, the broad-band afterglow

2433: in GRBs and XRFs and the late-time flares of both types of events.

2434: 

2435: \item{}

2436: 

2437: The early-time XRT and UVOT data on XRF 060218 are inconsistent 

2438: with a black-body emission from a shock break-out through the stellar 

2439: envelope. Instead, they support the CB-model interpretation of ICS of 

2440: glory light by an early jet of CBs from what is later seen as SN2006aj. 

2441: The start time of the X-ray emission does not constrain the exact time 

2442: of the core's collapse before the launch of the CBs, nor the 

2443: possible ejection of other CBs farther off axis. 

2444: 

2445: \item{} 

2446: Despite its simplicity and approximate nature, the CB model 

2447: continues to provide an extremely successful description of long GRBs and 

2448: XRFs. Its testable predictions, so far, are in complete agreement with the 

2449: main established properties of their prompt emission and of the

2450: afterglow at all times and frequencies.

2451: 

2452: \end{itemize}

2453: 

2454: 

2455: We re-emphasize that the 

2456: results presented in this paper are  based on direct applications

2457: of our previously published explicit predictions.

2458: Our master formulae, Eq.~(\ref{ICSlc}) for ICS and 

2459: Eqs.~(\ref{decel}, \ref{Fnu}, \ref{SRP})

2460: for the synchrotron component describe all the data very

2461: well. But, could they just be very lucky guesses? The general 

2462: properties of the data are predictions. But,

2463: when fitting cases with many flares, are we not `over-parametrizing' 

2464: the results? Finally, the $E\,t^2$ law plays an important role.

2465: Could it also be trivially derived in a different theory?

2466: 

2467: 

2468: 

2469: 

2470: When their collimated radiation points to the observer, GRBs are the 

2471: brightest sources in the sky. In the context of the CB model and of the 

2472: simplicity of its underlying physics, GRBs are not persistent mysteries, nor

2473: `the biggest of explosions after the Big Bang', nor a constant source of 

2474: surprises, exceptions and new requirements. Instead, they are 

2475: well-understood and can be used as cosmological tools, to study the 

2476: history of the intergalactic medium and of star formation up to large 

2477: redshifts, and to locate SN explosions at a very early stage. As 

2478: interpreted in the CB model, GRBs are not `standard candles', their use in 

2479: `Hubble-like' analises would require further elaboration. The GRB conundra 

2480: have been reduced to just one: `how does a SN manage to sprout mighty 

2481: jets?' The increasingly well-studied ejecta of quasars and microquasars, 

2482: no doubt also fired in catastrophic accretion episodes on compact central 

2483: objects, provides observational hints with which, so far, theory and 

2484: simulations cannot compete.

2485: 

2486:  

2487: The CB model underlies a unified theory of high energy astrophysical 

2488: phenomena. The information gathered in our study of GRBs can be used to 

2489: understand, also in very simple terms, other phenomena. The most notable 

2490: is (non-solar) cosmic rays. We allege (Dar et al.~1992, Dar \& Plaga~1999)  

2491: that they are simply the charged ISM particles scattered by CBs, in 

2492: complete analogy with the ICS of light by the same CBs. This results in a 

2493: successful description of the spectra of all primary cosmic-ray nuclei and 

2494: electrons at all observed energies (Dar and De R\'ujula~2006a). The CB 

2495: model also predicts very simply the spectrum of the gamma background 

2496: radiation and explains its directional properties (Dar \& De 

2497: R\'ujula~2001a, 2006b). Other phenomena understood in simple terms include 

2498: the properties of cooling core clusters (Colafrancesco, Dar \& De 

2499: R\'ujula~2003) and of intergalactic magnetic fields (Dar \& De 

2500: R\'ujula~2005). The model may even have a say in `astrobiology' (Dar,

2501: Laor \& Shaviv~1998, Dar \& De R\'ujula~2001b).

2502: 

2503: 

2504: 

2505: 

2506: {\bf Acknowledgment:} 

2507: A.D. would like to thank the 

2508: Theory Division of CERN for its hospitality during this work.

2509: We would also like to thank S.~Campana, G.~Cusumano, 

2510: P.~Ferrero, D.~Grupe, D.~A.~Kann, K.~L.~Page and S.~Vaughan, for making 

2511: available to us the tabulated data of their published X-ray 

2512: and optical light curves of Swift GRBs and an anonymous referee for

2513: an exceptionally constructive and useful report.

2514: 

2515: \newpage

2516: 

2517: \begin{thebibliography}

2518: 

2519: 

2520: \bibitem[1999]{Aker1999}

2521: Akerlof, C., et al.~1999, Nature, 398, 400

2522: 

2523: \bibitem[Amati1999]{1999}

2524: Amati, L., et al.~1999, NuPhS, 69, 656

2525: 

2526: \bibitem[Amati2002]{2002} 

2527: Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al.~2002, A\&A, 390, 81

2528: 

2529: \bibitem[2006]{Amati}

2530: Amati, L.,~2006, MNRAS, 372, 233 

2531: 

2532: % \bibitem[2000]{AXLines}

2533: % Antonelli, L. A., et al.~2000, ApJ, 545, L39

2534: 

2535: \bibitem[1993]{Band1993}

2536: Band, D., et al.~1993, ApJ, 413, 281

2537: 

2538: \bibitem[2006]{Barbier2006}

2539: Barbier, L., et al. 2006, GCN Circ 4780

2540: 

2541: \bibitem[2008]{Bec2008}

2542: Beckmann, V. et al.~2008, GCN Circ 7450

2543: 

2544: \bibitem[2006]{Berg2006}

2545: Berger, E. \& Gladders, M.~2006, GCN 5170

2546: 

2547: \bibitem[2007]{Berger2005}

2548: Berger, E., et al.~2005, ApJ, 634, 501

2549: 

2550: \bibitem[2003]{Bloom2003}

2551: Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A. \& Kulkarni, S. R.~2003, ApJ, 594, 674

2552: 

2553: \bibitem[2008]{Bloom2008}

2554: Bloom, J. S. et al.~2008, arXiv:0803.3215

2555: 

2556: \bibitem[2007]{Blustin}

2557: Blustin, A. J.~2007, Phil. Trans. Royal. Soc. A, 365, 1263

2558: 

2559: \bibitem[2007]{Burrows}

2560: Burrows, D. N. \& Racusin, J.~2007, astro-ph/0702633

2561: 

2562: \bibitem[2007]{Butler}

2563: Butler, R.~2007, ApJ, 656, 1001

2564: 

2565: \bibitem[2006a]{Cam2006a}

2566: Campana, S., et al.~2006a, GCN 5162

2567: 

2568: \bibitem[2006b]{Cam2006b}

2569: Campana, S., et al.~2006b, Nature, 442, 1008

2570: 

2571: \bibitem[2006]{Cenko}

2572: Cenko, S. B., et al.~2006, ApJ, 652, 490

2573: 

2574: 

2575: \bibitem[2003]{CB2003}

2576: Coburn, W. \& Boggs, S. E.~2003, Nature, 423, 415

2577: 

2578: \bibitem[2004]{2004CCC}

2579: Colafrancesco, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2004, A\&A, 413, 441	

2580: 

2581: \bibitem[1968]{Colgate}

2582: Colgate, S. A.~1968, CaJPS, 46, 476

2583: 

2584: \bibitem[2006]{Covino}

2585: Covino, S., et al.~2006, 

2586: Il Nuovo Cimento B, 121, 1171

2587: 

2588: \bibitem[2008]{Covino}

2589: Covino, S., et al.~2008, MNRAS, 388, 347

2590: 

2591: \bibitem[2008]{Cuc}

2592: Cucchiara, A. et al.~2008, GCN Circ. 7456

2593: 

2594: \bibitem[2007]{Curran}

2595: Curran, P. A., et al.~2006, arXiv: astro-ph/0610067

2596: 

2597: \bibitem[2006a]{Cusumano2006a}

2598: Cusumano, G., et al.~2006a, ApJ. 639, 316 

2599: 

2600: \bibitem[2006b]{Cus2006b}

2601: Cusumano, G., et al.~2006b, GCN 4775

2602: 

2603: \bibitem[2008]{Cwi2008}

2604: Cwiok, M. et al.~2008, GCN  Circ. 7445

2605: 

2606: \bibitem[2005]{DD2005SN}

2607: Dado, S. \& Dar, A.~2005, Nuovo Cimento 120, 731

2608: 

2609: \bibitem[2008]{DD2008}

2610: Dado, S. \& Dar, A.~2008, ApJ, in press (arXiv:0807.1962)  

2611: 

2612: \bibitem[2002a]{DDD2002OXAG}

2613: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2002a, A\&A, 388, 1079 (DDD2002a)

2614: 

2615: % \bibitem[2002a]{DDD2002SN}

2616: % Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2002b, A\&A, 393, L25	

2617: 

2618: % \bibitem[2002b]{DDD200SN}

2619: % Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2002c, ApJ, 572, L143

2620: 

2621: \bibitem[2003a]{DDD2003RADIOAG}

2622: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2003a, A\&A, 401, 243 (DDD2003a)

2623: 

2624: \bibitem[2003a]{DDD2003b}

2625: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2003b, ApJ, 593, 961 (DDD2003b)

2626: 

2627: % \bibitem[2003b]{DDD2003RADIO}

2628: % Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2003b, Phys. Lett. B, 562, 161

2629: 

2630: % \bibitem[2003c]{DDD2003Lines}

2631: % Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2003c, ApJ, 585, 890

2632: 

2633: \bibitem[2003c]{DDD2003SN}

2634: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2003c, ApJ, 594, L89 (DDD2003a)

2635: 

2636: \bibitem[2004]{DDD2004XRF}

2637: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2004, A\&A, 422, 381 (DDD2004)

2638: 

2639: % \bibitem[2004b]{DDD2004CBsuperluminal}

2640: % Dado S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A. 2004b, arXiv: astro-ph/0406325

2641: 

2642: 

2643: \bibitem[2006]{DDD2006XAG}

2644: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2006, ApJ, 646, L21 (DDD2006)

2645: 

2646: 

2647: \bibitem[2007]{DDD2007cor}

2648: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2007a, ApJ, 663, 400 (DDD2007a)

2649: 

2650: \bibitem[2007b]{DDD2007Pol}

2651: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2007b, arXiv: astro-ph/0701294 

2652: (DDD2007b)

2653: 

2654: \bibitem[2007c]{DDD2007XG}

2655:  Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2007c, arXiv: arXiv:0706.0880

2656: 

2657: \bibitem[2008]{DDD2008a}

2658: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2008a,  ApJ, 681, 1408  (DDD2008a)

2659: 

2660: \bibitem[2008]{DDD2008b}

2661: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2008b, ApJ, 680, 517 (DDD2008b)

2662: 

2663: \bibitem[2007]{Dai2007}

2664: Dai, X., et al.~2007, ApJ, 658, 509

2665: 

2666: \bibitem[2008]{Dai2008}

2667: Dai, X., et al.~2008, ApJ, 682L, 77

2668: 

2669: % \bibitem[1997]{Dar1997}

2670: % Dar, A.~1997, arXiv: astro-ph/9704187

2671: 

2672: \bibitem[1998]{Dar1998}

2673: Dar, A.~1998, ApJ, 500, L93

2674: 

2675: 

2676: \bibitem[2005]{Dar2005SNGRB}

2677: Dar, A.~2005, arXiv:arXiv: astro-ph/0405386

2678: 

2679: \bibitem[2006]{Dar2006fbacb}

2680: Dar, A.~2006, ChJAS, 6, 301

2681: 

2682: \bibitem[1999]{DP1999}

2683: Dar, A. \& Plaga, R.~1999, A\&A, 349, 259

2684: 

2685: \bibitem[2000a]{DD2000a}

2686: Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2000a, arXiv: astro-ph/0008474

2687: 

2688: \bibitem[2000b]{DD2000b}

2689: Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2000b, arXiv: astro-ph/0012227

2690: 

2691: \bibitem[2001a]{DD2001a}

2692: Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2001a, MNRAS, 323, 391

2693: 

2694: \bibitem[2001b]{DD2001b}

2695: Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula,

2696: A.~2001b,  {\it Astrophysics and Gamma Ray Physics in 

2697: Space} (eds. A. Morselli and P. Picozza), Frascati Physics Series Vol.

2698: XXIV pp. 513-523 (arXiv: astro-ph/0110162)

2699: 

2700: \bibitem[2004]{DD2004}

2701: Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2004, Physics Reports, 405, 203 (DD2004)

2702: 

2703: \bibitem[2005]{DD2005MF}

2704: Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2005, PRD, 72, 123002

2705: 

2706: \bibitem[2006]{DD2006CR}

2707: Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2008, Physics Reports, 466, 179 

2708: 

2709: \bibitem[1998]{DLS1998}

2710: Dar, A., Laor, A. \& Shaviv, N. J.~1998, PRL, 80, 5813

2711: 

2712: \bibitem[1998]{DLS1998}

2713: Dar, A. \& Plaga, R.~1999, A\&A, 349, 259

2714: 

2715: \bibitem[Della]{2006}

2716: Della Valle, M., et al.~2006, Nature 444, 1050

2717: 

2718: \bibitem[1987]{DR1987}

2719: De R\'ujula, A.~1987, Phys. Lett. 193, 514

2720: 

2721: \bibitem[2007a]{DR2007a}

2722: De R\'ujula, A.~2007a , arXiv:0707.0283 

2723: 

2724: \bibitem[2007b]{DR2007b}

2725: De R\'ujula, A.~2007b, arXiv:0711.0970 (in press)

2726: 

2727: \bibitem[2008]{DR2008}

2728: De R\'ujula, A.~2008, arXiv:0801.0397

2729: 

2730: \bibitem[2007]{Evans}

2731: Evans, P. A., et al.~2007, A\&A, 469, 379

2732:  

2733: \bibitem[1995]{Fenimore}

2734: Fenimore, E. E., et al.~1995, ApJ, 448, L101

2735: 

2736: \bibitem[2006]{Ferrero}

2737: Ferrero, P.,  et al.~2006, A\&A, 457, 857

2738: 

2739: \bibitem[2008]{Ferrero}

2740: Ferrero, P. et al.~2008, arXiv:0804.2457 

2741: 

2742: \bibitem{fredelec} 

2743: Frederiksen, J. T.  et al.~2003, arXiv: astro-ph/0303360 

2744: 

2745: \bibitem{fredurelmagf} 

2746: Frederiksen,  J.T., et al.~2004, Astrophys. J. {608}, L13 

2747: 

2748: \bibitem[2006]{Fre2006}

2749: French, J., \& Jelinek, M.~2006, GCN 5165

2750: 

2751: \bibitem[2001]{Frai2001}

2752: Frail, D. A., et al.~2001, ApJ, 562, L55

2753: 

2754: \bibitem[1998a]{Galama}

2755: Galama, T. J. et al.~1998a, ApJ, 497, L13

2756: 

2757: \bibitem[1998]{Galama}

2758: Galama, T. J. et al.~1998b, Nature, 395, 670

2759: 

2760: \bibitem[2006]{Gal-Yam}

2761: Gal-Yam, A., et al.~2006, Nature, 444, 1053

2762: 

2763: \bibitem[2000]{Ghis2000} 

2764: Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., \& Lazzati, D.~2000, MNRAS, 316, L5

2765: 

2766: \bibitem[2008]{Gomboc2008} 

2767: Gomboc, A., et al.~2008, ApJ, 687, 443

2768: 

2769: \bibitem[2000]{Gol2000} 

2770: Golenetskii, S. et al.~2008, GCN Circ.  7482

2771: 

2772: \bibitem[2006]{Guen2006}

2773: Guenther, E. W., et al.~2006, GCN 4863

2774: 

2775: \bibitem[2007]{Hao2007}

2776: Hao, H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, 99,

2777: 

2778: \bibitem[2001]{Heise}

2779: Heise, J., et al.~2001,  {\it Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era},

2780: (Eds.~E. Costa, F. Frontera, and J. Hjorth) Springer-Verlag,  p. 16

2781: 

2782: \bibitem[2003]{Hjor2003}

2783: Hjorth, J., et al.~2003, Nature, 423, 847

2784: 

2785: \bibitem[2007]{Huang}

2786: Huang, K. Y., et al.~2007, ApJ, 654, L25

2787: 

2788: 

2789: \bibitem[2006]{Jacob2006}

2790: Jakobsson, P., et al.~2006, A\&A, 460, L13

2791: 

2792: \bibitem[2007]{Kalemci}

2793: Kalemci, E., et al.~2007, ApJS, 169, 75

2794: 

2795: 

2796: \bibitem[2008]{Kar2008}

2797: Karpov, S. et al.~2008,  GCN Circ.  7558

2798: 

2799: \bibitem[2008]{Kham2007}

2800: Khamitov, I. M., et al.~2007, AstL, 33, 797 

2801: 

2802: \bibitem[2003]{Koc2003}

2803: Kocevski, D.,  Ryde, F. \&  Liang, E.~2003, ApJ, 596, 389

2804: 

2805: \bibitem[2003]{Koc2007}

2806: Kocevski, D., et al.~2007, ApJ, 663, 1180.

2807: 

2808: \bibitem[2005]{Krimm}

2809: Krimm, H., et al.~2005, GCN Circ. 3117

2810: 

2811: \bibitem[2007]{Kumar}

2812: Kumar, P.,  et al.~2007, MNRAS, 376, L57

2813: 

2814: \bibitem[2003]{Li}

2815: Li, W., et al.~2003, ApJ, 586, L9

2816: 

2817: \bibitem[2007]{Liang}

2818: Liang E. W., et al.~2007, ApJ, 653, L81

2819: 

2820: \bibitem[2008]{Liang}

2821: Liang, E. W., et al.~2008, ApJ, 675, L528

2822: 

2823: \bibitem[2004]{Lipkin}

2824: Lipkin, Y. M., et al.~2004, ApJ, 606, 381

2825: 

2826: \bibitem[2004]{Malesani}

2827: Malesani, D. et al.~2004, ApJ, 609, L5

2828: 

2829: \bibitem[Malesani]{2008}

2830: Malesani, D., et al.~2008, arXiv:0805.1188

2831: 

2832: \bibitem[2007]{Mang2007}

2833: Mangano, V.,  et al.~2007, A\&A, 470, 105

2834: 

2835: \bibitem[2006]{Mars2006}

2836: Marshall, F., et al.~2006, GCN Circ. 4779

2837: 

2838: \bibitem[2006]{Mas2006}

2839: Masetti, N., et al.~2006, GCN  Circ. 4803

2840: 

2841: \bibitem[Mazzali]{2006}

2842: Mazzali, P. A., et al.~2006, ApJ, 645, 1323

2843: 

2844: \bibitem[2007]{McGlynn}

2845: McGlynn, S., et al.~2007, A\&A, 466, 895

2846: 

2847: \bibitem[2002]{Mesz2002}

2848: M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P.~2002, ARA\&A, 40, 137

2849: 

2850: \bibitem[2006]{Meszaros2006}

2851: M\'{e}sz\'aros, P.~2006, Rept. Prog. Phys.   69,  2259

2852: 

2853: \bibitem[2006]{MirabalH}

2854: Mirabal, L. \& Halpern, J. P., 2006, GCN 4709

2855: 

2856: \bibitem[2006]{Mirabal}

2857: Mirabal, L., et al.~2006, ApJ, 643, L99

2858: 

2859: \bibitem[1999]{Felix}

2860: Mirabel, I.F. \& Rodriguez, L.F. 1999 ARA\&A,

2861:  37, 409.

2862: 

2863: \bibitem[Modjaz]{2008}

2864: Modjaz, M., et al.~2008, arXiv:0805.2201

2865: 

2866: \bibitem[2007]{Mol2007}

2867: Molinari, E., et al.~2007, A\&A, 469,  L13	

2868: 

2869: \bibitem[2006]{Mon2006}

2870: Monfardini, A., et al.~2006, ApJ, 648, 1125

2871: 

2872:  

2873: \bibitem[2001]{Papa}

2874: Nisenson, P. \& Papaliolios, C.~2001, ApJ, 548, L201

2875: 

2876: \bibitem{Nishi}

2877: Nishikawa, K.-I. et al.~2003, ApJ, 595, 555

2878: 

2879: 

2880: \bibitem[2006]{Nous2006}

2881: Nousek, J., et al.~2006, ApJ, 642, 389

2882: 

2883: \bibitem[2007]{Nysewander }

2884: Nysewander, M., et al.~2007, arXiv:0708.3444

2885: 

2886: \bibitem[2006]{O'brien}

2887: O'Brien, P. T., et al.~2006, ApJ, 647, 1213

2888: 

2889: \bibitem[2007]{Page2007}

2890: Page, K. L. et al.~2007, ApJ, 663, 1125

2891: 

2892: \bibitem[2006]{Panaitescu}

2893: Panaitescu, A., et al.~2006, MNRAS, 369, 2059

2894: 

2895: \bibitem[2008]{Panaitescu}

2896: Panaitescu, A.~2007, MNRAS, 380, 374

2897: 

2898: \bibitem[2006]{Parsons}

2899: Parsons, A., et al.~2006, GCN 5370

2900: 

2901: \bibitem[]{}

2902: Perley, D. A., et al.~2008, ApJ, 672, 449

2903: 

2904: \bibitem[2006]{Pian}

2905: Pian, E.,  et al.~2006, Nature, 442, 1011

2906: 

2907: \bibitem[1999]{Pira1999}

2908: Piran, T.~1999, Physics Reports, 314, 575

2909: 

2910: \bibitem[2000]{Pira2000}

2911: Piran, T.~2000, Physics Reports, 333, 529

2912: 

2913: \bibitem[2005]{Pira2005}

2914: Piran, T.~2005, RMP, 76, 1143

2915: 

2916: \bibitem[1998]{PXLines}

2917: Piro, L., et al.~1998, A\&A, 331, L41

2918: 

2919: \bibitem[2000]{PXLines}

2920: Piro, L., et al.~2000, Science, 290, 955 

2921: 

2922: \bibitem[2006a]{Quimbya}

2923: Quimby, R. M., et al.~2006, ApJ, 640, 402

2924: 

2925: \bibitem[2006b]{Quimbyb}

2926: Quimby, R. M., et al.~2006b, GCN Circ. 5366

2927: 

2928: \bibitem[2008a]{Racusin}

2929: Racusin, J. L. et al.~2008a, arXiv:0801.4749

2930: 

2931: \bibitem[2008b]{Racusin}

2932: Racusin, J. L. et al.~2008b, GCN Circ. 7427

2933: 

2934: \bibitem[2008c]{Racusin}

2935: Racusin, J. L. et al.~2008, GCN Circ. 7459

2936: 

2937: \bibitem[2002]{RLines}

2938: Reeves, J. N., et al.~2002, Nature, 416, 512

2939: 

2940: \bibitem[1997a]{Rhoa1997}

2941: Rhoads, J. E.~1997, ApJ, 487, L1

2942: 

2943: \bibitem[1999]{Rhoa1999}

2944: Rhoads, J. E.~1999, ApJ, 525, 737

2945: 

2946: \bibitem[1998]{RM}

2947: Rodriguez, L.F. \& Mirabel, I.F. 1998, New Astron. Rev.  42, 649.

2948: 

2949: \bibitem[2006]{Rom2006}

2950: Romano, P., et al.~2006, A\&A 450, 59

2951: 

2952: \bibitem[2004] {Rykoff2004}

2953: Rykoff, E. S., et al.~2004, 2004, ApJ, 601, 1013

2954: 

2955: 

2956: \bibitem{Sala1998}

2957: Salamanca, I. et al.~1998, MNRAS, 300, L17S

2958: 

2959: \bibitem{Sala2002}

2960: Salamanca, I., Terlevich, R. J. \& Tenorio-Tagle, G.~2002, MNRAS, 330, 

2961: 844

2962: 

2963: \bibitem[1999]{SPH1999}

2964: Sari, R., Piran, T. \& Halpern, J. P.~1999, ApJ, 519, L17

2965: 

2966: \bibitem[2007]{Sato}

2967: Sato, G., et al.~2007, ApJ 657, 359

2968: 

2969: \bibitem[2007]{Schady}

2970: Schady, P., et al.~ 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1041

2971: 

2972: \bibitem[2006]{WB2006}

2973: Schaefer, B. E.~2007, ApJ, 663, 1125

2974: 

2975: \bibitem[1995]{SD1995}

2976: Shaviv, N. J. \& Dar, A.~1995, ApJ, 447, 863

2977: 

2978: \bibitem[2006]{Soller}

2979: Sollerman et al.~2006, A\&A, 454, 503

2980: 

2981: \bibitem[2006]{Soderberg}

2982: Soderberg, A. M., et al.~2006, Nature, 442, 1014 

2983: 

2984: \bibitem[2008]{Soderberg}

2985: Soderberg, A. M., et al.~2008, Nature, 453, 469 

2986: 

2987: 

2988: \bibitem[2003]{Stan2003}

2989: Stanek, K. Z., et al.~2003, ApJ, 591, L17

2990: 

2991: \bibitem[2007]{Stan2007}

2992: Stanek, K. Z., et al.~2007, ApJ, 654 L21

2993: 

2994: 

2995: \bibitem[2006]{Theone2006}

2996: Th\"one, C. C., et al.~2006, GCN 5373

2997: 

2998: \bibitem[2008]{Theone2008a}

2999: Th\"one, C. C.,  et al.~2008a, A\&A, 489, 37 

3000: 

3001: \bibitem[2008b]{Theone2008b}

3002: Th\"one, C. C., et al.~2008b, arXiv:0806.1182

3003: 

3004: 

3005: \bibitem{Tura}

3006: Turatto, M., et al.~2000, ApJ, 534, L57

3007: 

3008: \bibitem[2006]{Vaug2006}

3009: Vaughan, S., et al.~2006,  ApJ, 638, 920

3010: 

3011: 

3012: \bibitem[2006]{Vestrand2006}

3013: Vestrand, J. A. et al.~2006, Nature, 442, 172.

3014: 

3015: \bibitem[2008]{Vr2008}

3016: Vreeswijk, P. M.  et al.~2008, GCN Circ. 7444

3017: 

3018: \bibitem[2004]{YO2004}

3019: Yonetoku, D., et al.~2004, ApJ. 609, 935

3020: 

3021: \bibitem[2003]{WXlines}

3022: Watson, D., et al.~2003, ApJ, 595, L29

3023: 

3024: \bibitem[2003a]{Waxm2003a}

3025: Waxman, E.~2003a, Lect. Notes Phys. 598, 393

3026: 

3027: 

3028: \bibitem[2007]{WMC}

3029: Waxman, E., Meszaros, P. \& Campana, S.~2007, ApJ, 667, 351

3030: 

3031: \bibitem[2007]{Wiersema}

3032: Wiersema, K., et al.~2007, A\&A, 464, 529.

3033: 

3034: \bibitem[2004]{Wigg2004}

3035: Wigger, C., et al.~2004, ApJ, 613, 1088

3036: 

3037: \bibitem[2008]{Wigg2008}

3038: Wigger, C., et al.~2008, ApJ, 675, 553

3039: 

3040: \bibitem[2005]{Will2005}

3041: Willis, D. R., et al.~2005, A\&A, 439, 245

3042: 

3043: \bibitem[2005]{Woz2005}

3044: Wozniak, P. R., et al.~2005, ApJ, 627, L13

3045: 

3046: \bibitem[2006]{Woz2006}

3047: Wozniak, P. R., et al.~2006, ApJ, 642, L99 

3048: 

3049: \bibitem[2008]{Woz2008}

3050: Wozniak, P., et al.~2008, GCN Circ. 7464

3051: 

3052: 

3053: \bibitem[1999]{YXlines}

3054: Yoshida, A., et al.~1999, A\&AS, 138, 433

3055: 

3056: \bibitem[2001]{YXlines}

3057: Yoshida, A., et al.~2001, ApJ, 557, L27

3058: 

3059: \bibitem[2000]{WuF}

3060: Wu, B. \& Fenimore, E.~2000, ApJ, 535, L29

3061:  

3062: \bibitem[2004]{ZM2004}

3063: Zhang, B. \& M\'esz\'aros, P.~2004, IJMPA, 19, 2385

3064: 

3065: \bibitem[2007]{ZB2007}

3066: Zhang, B.~2007, ChjAA, 7, 1

3067: 

3068: \bibitem[2007]{ZBB2007}

3069: Zhang, B-B., Liang, E-W. \& Zhang, B.~2007, ApJ, 666, 1002

3070: 

3071: 

3072: \bibitem[2008]{Ziaeepour}

3073: Ziaeepour, H., et al.~2008, MNRAS, 385, 453

3074: 

3075: 

3076: \end{thebibliography}

3077: 

3078: 

3079: \newpage

3080: \begin{deluxetable}{lllc}

3081: \vskip -2.cm

3082: \tablewidth{0pt}

3083: \tablecaption{CB-model afterglow parameters.}

3084: \tablehead{

3085: \colhead{GRB/XRF} & \colhead{$t_0[{\rm s}]$} & \colhead{$\theta\,\gamma_0 

3086: $}

3087: & \colhead{$p$}

3088: }

3089: \startdata

3090: 060729 & (606) & (2.52) &  2.20 \\

3091: 061121 & 248 & 1.42 &  2.20 \\

3092: 050315 & 12362 & 0.965 & 2.20 \\

3093: 061007 &  40   & $\ll 1$ & 2.20\\     

3094: 061126  & 142  & 1.08  & 1.84  \\

3095: 080319B & 72 & ($\ll 1$) &  2.16 \\

3096: 060211A & 64596& 0.54 & 2.11 \\  

3097: 061110A & 29402& 0.81 & 2.04 \\ 

3098: 080307  & 28893 & 1.00 & 2.13 \\

3099: 051021B & 13092 & 0.82 & 2.24\\

3100: 080303  & 15196 & 0.79 & 2.15 \\

3101: 070220  & 1314  & 0.64 & 2.16 \\

3102: 060526  & 1840 & 0.93 & 2.20 \\

3103: 060206  & 2570 & 1.035 & 2.20 \\

3104: 050820A & 2692 & 1.128 & 2.22 \\

3105: 060418  & $<60$ & 1.73 & 2.20 \\

3106: 071010A  & 857   & 1.21 & 1.92 \\

3107: 050318  & 273   & 1.61 & 2.19  \\

3108: 050326  & 379   & 1.28 & 2.16  \\

3109: 051008  & 1233  & 1.17 & 2.20  \\

3110: 050814  & 7737  & 1.14 & 2.18  \\

3111: 061019  & 194   & 2.22 & 2.20  \\    

3112: 070306  & 1437 &  1.91 & 2.20  \\

3113: 060813  &  273  &  1.60 & 2.20 \\

3114: 070521  &  551  &  1.33 & 2.23 \\

3115: 080207  & 95    &  0.98 & 1.87 \\  

3116: 060807  & 9867  &  1.02 & 2.21 \\

3117: 070419B & 1146  &  0.99 & 2.20 \\

3118: 070420  &  60   &  2.00 & 2.22 \\

3119: 050319  & 73    &  0.92 & 2.20 \\

3120: 050319  & 999   &  2.05 & 2.22 \\  

3121: 060605  & ($\!<1000$)& (1.00)& 2.20 \\

3122: 060607A & (54)& (1.07)& 2.20 \\

3123: 060218 & 267 & 1.10 & 1.94 \\

3124: \enddata

3125: \label{t1}

3126: \end{deluxetable}

3127: 

3128: 

3129: 

3130: 

3131: \begin{deluxetable}{llcccc}

3132: \tablewidth{0pt}

3133: \tablecaption{Time parameters in Eq.~(12) for the two last  

3134: prompt X-ray flares.}

3135: \tablehead{

3136: \colhead{GRB/XRF} & Band 

3137: & \colhead{$t_1$ [s]  } & \colhead{$\Delta t_1$ [s]}

3138: &\colhead{$t_2$ [s]} &

3139: \colhead{$\Delta t_2$ [s]} }

3140: \startdata

3141: 060729  &  X & 122    &  6.2   &  153    & 19.1 s     \\

3142: 061121  &  X &  52    &  12.4   &  97   &  18.8      \\

3143: 050315  &   X & -5    &  6.9   & 16.4    &  5.4      \\

3144: 061007  &   X & 23    &  5.5  &          &             \\

3145: 061126  &   X & 4.4   &  7.8   &          &             \\

3146: 080319  &   X &  37   &  5.0   &          &             \\

3147: 060211A &   X &  79   &  30  &          &              \\

3148: 061110A &   X &  35   &  54   &          &             \\

3149: 080307  &   X &  0   &  373   &          &             \\

3150: 051021B &   X &  0   &   67   &          &             \\

3151: 080303  &   X &  0   &  114   &          &             \\

3152: 070220  &   X &  0   &   75    &          &             \\

3153: 060526  &  X & 233    & 16.4   &  272   & 31.6       \\

3154: 060206  &  X & 581    & 43.2   & 4187   &  549       \\

3155: 050820A &  X & 205    & 29   & 2173    &  2225      \\ 

3156: 060418  &  X & 60    & 12   & 118       &  9.8       \\

3157: 071010A  &  X & 18990    & 30968   &      &             \\

3158: 050814  &  X &           &           &  0   & 2074        \\

3159: 070306  &  X & 154   &  20     & 364    &  50        \\

3160: 060813  &  X &  37   &  58     &  0     &  246       \\

3161: 070521  &  X &  0    &  222     &      &             \\

3162: 060807  &  X &  0       & 26     &      &  4635     \\

3163: 070419B &  X &  106     & 41      & 134  & 87       \\

3164: 070420  &  X &  0       & 54      &      &            \\

3165: 050319  &  X &  0       & 54     & 2003   &         \\

3166: 060605  &  X &   0       & 83         &  67    &  154   \\

3167: 060607A &  X &           &          &      &         \\

3168: 060218  &  X  &  0    &  950       &     &        \\   

3169: \enddata

3170: \label{t2}

3171: \end{deluxetable}

3172: 

3173: \newpage

3174: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccc}

3175: \tablewidth{0pt}

3176: \tablecaption{Peak energy flux (PEF) and peak flux 

3177: density (PFD) of XRF 060218 in the 

3178: Swift UVOT filters, corrected for Galactic reddening E (B -V) = 0.14;

3179: and the PFD predicted, using the $E\,t^2$ law, from   

3180: the XRT unabsorbed PEF in the 0.3 -10 keV 

3181: band.} 

3182: \tablehead{

3183: \colhead{Filter} & \colhead{$\lambda$}      & \colhead{E(center)} &

3184: \colhead{FWHM} & \colhead{PEF}  & \colhead{PFD } & 

3185: \colhead{Predicted PFD}\\ 

3186: \colhead{} & \colhead{[nm]} &\colhead{[eV] } &\colhead{}

3187: &\colhead{${\rm [erg\, cm^{-2}\, s^{-1}]}$} & \colhead{${\rm [\mu\, 

3188: Jansky]}$} & \colhead{${\rm [\mu\, Jansky]}$}  }

3189: \startdata

3190: UVW2  & 188 & 6.60 & 76~nm  & $(2.29\pm 0.23)\times 10^{-12}$ &

3191: $355\pm 36$ & $ 374\pm 135$  \\  

3192: UVM1  & 217 & 5.71 & 51~nm  & $(1.30 \pm 0.10)\times 10^{-12}$ & 

3193: $ 399 \pm 31 $& $ 374\pm 135$  \\  

3194: UVW1 & 251 & 4.94 & 70~nm  & $(1.17 \pm 0.12)\times 10^{-12}$ & 

3195: $ 352\pm 37$& $ 374\pm 135$  \\  

3196: $U$     & 345 & 3.55 & 88~nm  & $(8.89\pm 0.85)\times 10^{-13}$ & 

3197: $406 \pm 44$ & $ 374\pm 135$ \\  

3198: $B$     & 439 & 2.83 & 98~nm  & $(5.99 \pm 0.56)\times 10^{-13}$ & 

3199: $393 \pm 37$ & $ 374\pm 135$  \\  

3200: $V$     & 544 & 2.28 & 75~nm   & $(2.59\pm 0.10) \times 10^{-13}$ & 

3201: $ 340 \pm 34 $ & $ 374\pm 135 $ \\  

3202: \enddata\\

3203: \label{t3}

3204: \end{deluxetable}

3205: 

3206: 

3207: 

3208: \begin{deluxetable}{llcc}

3209: \tablewidth{0pt}

3210: \tablecaption{Peak times of the energy flux of XRF 060218 in the 

3211: Swift XRT and UVOT filters and their expected values from the $E\, t^2$

3212: law.}

3213: 

3214: \tablehead{

3215: \colhead{Band}   & \colhead{E(eff) [eV]} &

3216: \colhead{Observed $t_{peak}$ [s]} & \colhead{CB Model $t_{peak}$ [s]}

3217: }

3218: \startdata

3219: X     & 5150  & $985 \pm 50$  & $   985\pm 50$     (input)   \\

3220: X     & 3000  & $1,310 \pm 90$  & $ 1,290 \pm 65$            \\

3221: X     & 600   & $2,790 \pm 2,550$  & $ 2,770\pm 150 $         \\

3222: UVW2  & 6.60  & $25,800 \pm 5,000 $  & $ 27,500 \pm 1,400$ \\

3223: UVM1  & 5.71  & $36,208 \pm 8,000 $  & $ 29,600 \pm 1,800$ \\

3224: UVW1  & 4.94  & $41,984 \pm 10,000 $  & $ 32,000 \pm 1,600$ \\

3225: $U$     & 3.59 & $42,864 \pm 10,000 $  & $ 37,500 \pm 1,900$ \\

3226: $B$     & 2.82 & $39,600 \pm 15,000 $  & $ 42,000 \pm 2,100$ \\

3227: $V$     & 2.28 & $47,776 \pm 10,000 $  & $ 47,000 \pm 2,400$ \\

3228: 

3229: 

3230: 

3231: \enddata

3232: 

3233: \label{t4}

3234: \end{deluxetable}

3235: 

3236: 

3237: 

3238: \newpage

3239: \begin{figure}[]

3240: \centering

3241: \vspace{-1cm}

3242: \vbox{

3243: \hbox{

3244: %\hskip 2.cm

3245: \epsfig{file=f01a.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6.0cm}

3246: \epsfig{file=f01b.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6.0cm}

3247: }}

3248: \vbox{

3249: \hbox{

3250: %\hskip 2.cm

3251: \epsfig{file=f01c.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6.0cm}

3252: \epsfig{file=f01d.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6.0cm}

3253: }}

3254: % \hskip -.3cm

3255: %\vspace{1cm}

3256: \vbox{

3257: \hbox{

3258: %\hskip 2.cm

3259: \epsfig{file=f01e.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6cm }

3260: \epsfig{file=f01f.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6cm}

3261: }}

3262: \caption{Comparison between Swift observations of canonical GRB  X-ray 

3263: light curves  and their CB-model description for:

3264: {\bf Top left (a):} GRB 060729.

3265: {\bf Top right (b):}  GRB 060729 at early time. 

3266: {\bf Middle left (c):} GRB 061121.

3267: {\bf Middle right (d):}  GRB 061121 at early time.

3268: {\bf Bottom left (e):}  GRB 050319.

3269: {\bf Bottom right (f):}  GRB 050319 at early time.}

3270: \label{f1}

3271: \end{figure}

3272: 

3273: 

3274: \newpage

3275: \begin{figure}[]

3276: \centering

3277: \vspace{-1cm}

3278: \vbox{

3279: \hbox{

3280: %\hskip 2.cm

3281: \epsfig{file=f02a.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6.0cm}

3282: \epsfig{file=f02b.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6.0cm}

3283: }}

3284: \vbox{

3285: \hbox{

3286: %\hskip 2.cm

3287: \epsfig{file=f02c.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6.0cm}

3288: \epsfig{file=f02d.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6.0cm}

3289: }}

3290: % \hskip -.3cm

3291: %\vspace{1cm}

3292: \vbox{

3293: \hbox{

3294: %\hskip 2.cm

3295: \epsfig{file=f02e.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6cm }

3296: \epsfig{file=f02f.eps,width=8.0cm,height=6cm}

3297: }}

3298: \caption{Comparison between broad-band observations of GRBs with

3299: single-power-law decaying AGs and their CB-model description, for:

3300: {\bf Top left (a):} The X-ray light curve of GRB 061007.

3301: {\bf Top right (b):} The $R$-band light curve of GRB 061007.

3302: {\bf Middle left (c):} The X-ray light curve of GRB 061126.

3303: {\bf Middle right (d):}  The $R$-band light curve of GRB 061126.

3304: {\bf Bottom left (e):} The X-ray light curve of GRB 080319B.

3305: {\bf Bottom right (f):} The $R$-band light curve of GRB 080319B.

3306: Some SN1998bw-like SN contributions are shown.}

3307: \label{f2}

3308: \end{figure}

3309: 

3310: 

3311: \begin{figure}[]

3312: \centering

3313: \vspace{-2cm}

3314: \vbox{

3315: \hbox{

3316: \epsfig{file=f03a.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3317: \epsfig{file=f03b.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3318: }}

3319: \vbox{

3320: \hbox{

3321: \epsfig{file=f03c.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3322: \epsfig{file=f03d.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3323: }}

3324: \vbox{

3325: \hbox{

3326: \epsfig{file=f03e.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3327: \epsfig{file=f03f.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3328: }}

3329: %\hskip -.8cm

3330: \caption{Comparison between  `semi-canonical' X-ray light curves

3331: of Swift GRBs 

3332: %(Evans et al.~2007) 

3333: and their CB-model description for:

3334: {\bf Top left (a):} GRB 060211A.

3335: {\bf Top right (b):} GRB 061110A.

3336: {\bf Middle left (c):} GRB 080307.

3337: {\bf Middle right (d):} GRB 051021B.

3338: {\bf Bottom left (e):} GRB 080303.

3339: {\bf Bottom right (f):} GRB 070220.}

3340: \label{f3}

3341: \end{figure}

3342: 

3343: 

3344: \newpage

3345: \begin{figure}[]

3346: \centering

3347: \vspace{-2cm}

3348: \vbox{

3349: \hbox{

3350: \epsfig{file=f04a.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3351: \epsfig{file=f04b.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3352: }}

3353: \vbox{

3354: \hbox{

3355: \epsfig{file=f04c.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3356: \epsfig{file=f04d.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3357: }}

3358: \vbox{

3359: \hbox{

3360: \epsfig{file=f04e.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3361: \epsfig{file=f04f.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3362: }}

3363: %\hskip -.8cm

3364: \caption{Comparison between broad-band observations of GRBs with

3365: chromatic early-time afterglow and their CB-model descriptions for:

3366: {\bf Top left (a):} The XRT light curve of GRB 060526.

3367: {\bf Top right (b):} The early X-ray ICS flares of GRB 060526.

3368: {\bf Middle left (c):} The $R$-band light curve of GRB 060526.

3369: {\bf Middle right (d):}  The XRT light curve of GRB 060206.

3370: {\bf Bottom left (e):} The $R$-band light curve of GRB 060206.

3371: %(Wozniak et al.~2006, Stanek et al.~2007 and Monfardini et al.~2006). 

3372: {\bf Bottom right (f):} Enlarged view of two-early time 

3373: $R$-band SR flares and their CB-model description.}

3374: \label{f4}

3375: \end{figure}

3376: 

3377: 

3378: 

3379: 

3380: 

3381: \newpage

3382: \begin{figure}[]

3383: \centering

3384: \vspace{-2cm}

3385: \vbox{

3386: \hbox{

3387: \epsfig{file=f05a.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3388: \epsfig{file=f05b.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3389: }}

3390: \vbox{

3391: \hbox{

3392: \epsfig{file=f05c.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3393: \epsfig{file=f05d.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3394: }}

3395: \vbox{

3396: \hbox{

3397: \epsfig{file=f05e.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3398: \epsfig{file=f05f.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3399: }}

3400: %\hskip -.8cm

3401: \caption{Comparison between broad-band observations of GRBs with

3402: chromatic early-time afterglow and their CB-model descriptions for:

3403: {\bf Top left (a):} The X-ray light curve of GRB 050820A.

3404: {\bf Top right (b):} The $R$-band light curve of GRB 050820A.

3405: {\bf Middle left (c):} The X-ray light curve of GRB 060418.

3406: {\bf Middle right (d):} The $H$-band light curve of GRB 060418.

3407: {\bf Bottom left (e):} The X-ray light curve of GRB 071010A.

3408: {\bf Bottom right (f):} The $R$-band light curve of GRB 071010A.}

3409: \label{f5}

3410: \end{figure}

3411: 

3412: 

3413: 

3414: \newpage

3415: \begin{figure}[]

3416: \centering

3417: \vspace{-2cm}

3418: \vbox{

3419: \hbox{

3420: \epsfig{file=f06a.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3421: \epsfig{file=f06b.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3422: }}

3423: \vbox{

3424: \hbox{

3425: \epsfig{file=f06c.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3426: \epsfig{file=f06d.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3427: }}

3428: \vbox{

3429: \hbox{

3430: \epsfig{file=f06e.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3431: \epsfig{file=f06f.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3432: }}

3433: %\hskip -.8cm

3434: \caption{Comparison between XRT-light curves of Swift GRBs

3435: (Evans et al.~2007) with

3436: late time decay index $\alpha>2$ and their CB-model 

3437: descriptions 

3438: assuming an isothermal-sphere density profile, for: 

3439: {\bf Top left (a):}  GRB 050318.

3440: {\bf Top right (b):} GRB 050326.

3441: {\bf Middle left (c):} GRB 051008.

3442:  {\bf Middle right (d):} GRB 050814.

3443: {\bf Bottom left (e):} GRB 061019.

3444: {\bf Bottom right (f):} GRB 070306.}

3445: \label{f6}

3446: \end{figure}

3447: 

3448: 

3449: \newpage

3450: \begin{figure}[]

3451: \centering

3452: \vspace{-2cm}

3453: \vbox{

3454: \hbox{

3455: \epsfig{file=f07a.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3456: \epsfig{file=f07b.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3457: }}

3458: \vbox{

3459: \hbox{

3460: \epsfig{file=f07c.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3461: \epsfig{file=f07d.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3462: }}

3463: \vbox{

3464: \hbox{

3465: \epsfig{file=f07e.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3466: \epsfig{file=f07f.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3467: }}

3468: %\hskip -.8cm

3469: \caption{Comparison between  the Swift XRT-light curves 

3470: %(Evans et al.~2007)

3471: with late-time decay index ($\alpha>2$) or a late-time flare and their CB-model 

3472: description for:

3473: {\bf Top left (a):} GRB 060813, with a steep decay.

3474: {\bf Top right (b):} GRB 070521, with a steep  decay.

3475: {\bf Middle left (c):} GRB 080207, with a steep  decay.

3476: {\bf Middle right (d):} GRB 060807, with a  flare.

3477: {\bf Bottom left (e):} GRB 070419B, with a  flare.

3478: {\bf Bottom right (f):} GRB 070420,  with a  flare.}

3479: \label{f7}

3480: \end{figure}

3481: 

3482: \newpage

3483: \begin{figure}[]

3484: \centering

3485: \vspace{-2cm}

3486: \vbox{

3487: \hbox{

3488: \epsfig{file=f08a.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3489: \epsfig{file=f08b.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3490: }}

3491: \vbox{

3492: \hbox{

3493: \epsfig{file=f08c.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3494: \epsfig{file=f08d.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3495: }}

3496: \vbox{

3497: \hbox{

3498: \epsfig{file=f08e.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3499: \epsfig{file=f08f.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3500: }}

3501: %\hskip -.8cm

3502: \caption{Comparison between complex chromatic light 

3503: curves of GRBs  and their CB-model description for:

3504: {\bf Top left (a):} The X-ray light curve  of GRB 050319.

3505: %(Cusumano et al.~2005)

3506: {\bf Top right (b):} The $R$-band light curve 

3507: %(Wozniak et al.~2005, Huang et al.~2006 and references therein)

3508: of GRB 050319.

3509: %and its CB model description based on the CB model fit to its X-ray light curve.     

3510: {\bf Middle left (c):} The X-ray light curve of GRB 060605.

3511: {\bf Middle right (d):} The  $R_c$-band light curve of GRB 060605.

3512: %(Ferrero et al.~2008) and the CB model 

3513: %prediction based on the CB model description of its X-ray light curve.

3514: %The early rise corresponds to the early X-ray flare superimposed

3515: %on the early X-ray plateau phase.

3516: {\bf Bottom left (e):} The X-ray light curve of GRB 060607A.

3517: {\bf Bottom right (f):}  The $H$-band light curve

3518: of GRB 060607.

3519: %(Molinari et al.~2007) and its CB model description

3520: %based on the CB model fit to its X-ray light curve. 

3521: }

3522: \label{f8}

3523: \end{figure}

3524: 

3525: \newpage 

3526: \begin{figure}[]

3527: %\centering

3528: \vspace{-2.cm}

3529: \hskip -1.cm 

3530: \vbox{

3531: \hbox{

3532: \epsfig{file=f09a.eps,width=18.cm,height=12.cm } 

3533: }

3534: \vspace{-1.5 cm}

3535: }

3536: %\vspace{-1.cm}

3537: \vbox{

3538: \hbox{

3539: \epsfig{file=f09b.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3540: \epsfig{file=f09c.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm}

3541: }}

3542: %\hskip -.8cm

3543: \caption{X-ray and {\it UVO} light curves of XRF 060218/SN2006aj.

3544: {\bf (a) and (b): The top figure} (Campana et al.~2006b). Upper half {\bf (a)}:

3545: The unabsorbed 0.3 -10 keV Swift-XRT light curve. The line 

3546: is a sum of a cut-off power-law and a black body with 

3547: fitted time-dependent radius and temperature. 

3548: The dashed line is their best-fit power law for $t\!>\!10$ ks. The  

3549: arrows indicate rough peak-flux times. 

3550: Lower half {\bf (b)}: Energy fluxes 

3551: corrected for reddening: red: $V$; 

3552: green: $B$; blue: $U$, light 

3553: blue: UVW1; magenta: UVM1 and yellow: UVW2. 

3554: %with peak time (roughly indicated by an arrow) which increases 

3555: %with wavelength. 

3556: %The SN2006aj contribution is also shown.

3557: {\bf Bottom left (c)}: De-reddened energy flux densities 

3558: multiplied by $\nu^{0.6}$, predicted to have the slope of the plotted line  ($\propto\!t^{0.4}$).

3559: {\bf Bottom right (d)}: The unabsorbed and the de-redenned energy fluxes, 

3560: divided by the band-width ratios, plotted as functions 

3561: of $(E/E_X)^{1/2}\, t$.

3562: }

3563: \label{f9}

3564: \end{figure}

3565: 

3566: 

3567: \newpage 

3568: \begin{figure}[] 

3569: \centering 

3570: \vspace{-1cm} 

3571: \vbox{ 

3572: \hbox{ 

3573: \epsfig{file=f010a.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm} 

3574: \epsfig{file=f010b.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm} 

3575: }} 

3576: \vbox{ 

3577: \hbox{ 

3578: \epsfig{file=f010c.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm} 

3579: \epsfig{file=f010d.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm} }} 

3580: \vbox{ 

3581: \hbox{ 

3582: \epsfig{file=f010e.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm} 

3583: \epsfig{file=f010f.eps,width=8.cm,height=6.cm} }} 

3584: %\hskip -.8cm 

3585: \caption{XRF 060218: data and CB-model predictions.

3586: {\bf Top left (a)}: De-reddened UVOT PEF

3587: %(Campana et al.~2006b), 

3588: divided by $E\, \Delta \lambda/\lambda$, plotted at the central 

3589: energy of each band. The line is the  

3590: prediction of the $E\, t^2$ law.  

3591: {\bf Top right (b)}: PEF times

3592: in XRT and UVOT filters, and the $E\,t^2$ law (red line's slope). 

3593: {\bf Middle left (c)}: Swift

3594: unabsorbed XRT light curve.

3595: %(Campana et al.~2006b), 

3596: The  ICS $\to$ SR transition is at $\sim 9$ ks. 

3597: {\bf Middle right (d)}: XRT hardness ratio.

3598: {\bf Bottom left (e)}: UVW2 light curve.

3599: {\bf Bottom Right (f):} BAT 30-150 keV  $\gamma$-ray light 

3600: curve and its expected shape from 

3601: the $E\,t^2$ law. 

3602: %Deviation are expected  for $E\!\gsim\!E_p$. 

3603: An early peak, hinted by the hardness ratio,

3604: was added.}

3605: 

3606: \label{f10}

3607: \end{figure}

3608: 

3609: 

3610: \end{document}

3611: 

3612: 

3613: