1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: %
4: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
5: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
6:
7:
8: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
9: \slugcomment{
10: %submitted to ApJL
11: }
12:
13: \shorttitle{Prior Emission Model of X-ray Plateau Phase}
14: \shortauthors{Ryo Yamazaki}
15:
16:
17: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
18: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
19:
20: \begin{document}
21:
22: \title{
23: Prior Emission Model for X-ray Plateau Phase
24: of Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows
25: }
26:
27: \author{Ryo Yamazaki\altaffilmark{1}}
28: \affil{Department of Physical Science, Hiroshima University,
29: Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan}
30: \email{ryo@theo.phys.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp}
31:
32:
33: % \author{
34: % Ryo~Yamazaki\altaffilmark{1}
35: % %% Takayuki~Umeda\altaffilmark{2},
36: % }
37: % %
38: % \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physical Science, Hiroshima University,
39: % Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan; ryo@theo.phys.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp}
40: % %
41: % %% \altaffiltext{2}{
42: % %% Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya University,
43: % %% Nagoya, 464-8601, Japan; umeda@stelab.nagoya-u.ac.jp}
44:
45:
46: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
47: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
48: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
49: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
50: %% editorial office after submission.
51:
52: \def\d{{\rm d}}
53: \def\p{\partial}
54: \def\w{\wedge}
55: \def\o{\otimes}
56: \def\f{\frac}
57: \def\tr{{\rm tr}}
58: \def\Half{\frac{1}{2}}
59: \def\half{{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}
60: \def\T{\tilde}
61: \def\RA{\rightarrow}
62: \def\N{\nonumber}
63: \def\n{\nabla}
64: \def\bb{\bibitem}
65: \def\BE{\begin{equation}}
66: \def\EE{\end{equation}}
67: \def\BEA{\begin{eqnarray}}
68: \def\EEA{\end{eqnarray}}
69: \def\L{\label}
70: %
71: \def\zero{{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}
72:
73:
74: \begin{abstract}
75: The two-component emission model to explain the plateau phase
76: of the X-ray afterglows of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is proposed.
77: %
78: One component, which
79: is responsible for the plateau and subsequent normal decay phase
80: of the X-ray afterglow, is the prior emission via outflow ejected from the
81: central engine before the main burst.
82: %
83: The other is the main outflow, which causes the
84: prompt GRB emission and the initial steep decay phase of the X-ray
85: afterglow.
86: %
87: In this model, the transition from the plateau to the
88: subsequent normal decay phase
89: is an artifact of the choice of the zero of time.
90: For events with distinct plateau phase,
91: the central engine is active
92: $10^{3}$--$10^4$~sec before the launch of the main outflow.
93: %
94: According to this model, a prior emission in the X-ray and/or
95: optical bands
96: $10^{3}$--$10^4$~sec before the prompt GRB emission
97: is possibly seen, which will be
98: tested by near-future instruments such as
99: Monitor of All-sky X-ray Image (MAXI),
100: WIDe-field telescope for GRB Early Timing (WIDGET), and so on.
101:
102:
103:
104:
105: \end{abstract}
106:
107: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
108: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
109: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
110: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
111:
112: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts ---gamma rays: theory}
113:
114: \section{Introduction}
115: \label{sec:intro}
116:
117: The X-Ray Telescope (XRT) onboard {\it Swift} has
118: revealed complex temporal behavior of the X-ray afterglows
119: of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) in the first few hours
120: \citep{burrows05,tagl05,nousek06,obrien06,will07,binbin07,liang07,liang08}.
121: %
122: This time window had been largely unexplored before the
123: {\it Swift} era, and studies of early afterglows have revealed
124: many questions concerning GRBs, such as the emission mechanism,
125: nature of the central engine, and burst environment
126: \citep[e.g.,][]{zhang06,zhang07}.
127: %
128:
129: Early X-ray afterglows have three phases\footnote{
130: For simplicity, the X-ray flares are not considered in this Letter.
131: }, which was not predicted
132: by the standard model from the pre-{\it Swift} era
133: \citep{nousek06,zhang07}.
134: %
135: {\it Phase~I: initial steep decay phase}.
136: Initially, the X-ray afterglow
137: decays very steeply; the most popular interpretation
138: is that this is the tail emission of the prompt GRB
139: \citep{kumar00ng,zhang06,yama06,binbin08},
140: although other possibilities have been proposed
141: \citep[e.g.,][]{binbin07}.
142: %
143: {\it Phase~II: plateau phase}.
144: At several hundreds of
145: seconds after the burst trigger, this phase begins until
146: $\sim10^3$--$10^4$ sec, whose origin is quite uncertain.
147: This is the main topic of this Letter.
148: %
149: {\it Phase~III: normal decay phase}.
150: After the plateau phase ends, the X-rays subsequently decay
151: with the decay index usually steeper than unity, as expected in
152: the pre-{\it Swift} era. This decay behavior is well explained
153: by the classical external shock model \citep{sari98}, in which
154: neither the delayed energy injection nor the time dependency of shock
155: microphysics is considered.
156: %% Hence this phase is sometimes called {\it the normal decay phase}.
157: %
158:
159: Phase~II is the
160: most enigmatic in early X-ray afterglows.
161: So far, various kinds of models have been proposed such as
162: the energy injection model \citep{nousek06,zhang06,granot06},
163: the inhomogeneous or two-component jet model
164: \citep{toma06,eichler06,granot06m},
165: the time-dependent microphysics model \citep{ioka06,granot06m,fan06},
166: the reverse shock-dominated afterglow model \citep{genet07},
167: the prior activity model \citep{ioka06},
168: the internal engine model \citep{ghise07},
169: the cannonball model \citep{dado2006},
170: and the dust scattering model \citep{shao08}.
171: %
172: %
173: In this Letter, another model of phase~II is proposed.
174:
175:
176:
177: \section{Two-component Emission Model}
178: \label{sec:model}
179:
180: As described in the following,
181: we consider a two-component emission model in which a
182: prior and the main outflows emit X-rays independently
183: (see fig.~\ref{fig:model}).
184: %
185: One component is the prior emission via outflow ejected from the
186: central engine before the main burst.
187: This is responsible for phases II and III of the X-ray afterglow.
188: This emission component arrives at the observer
189: before the main burst triggering prompt
190: GRB detectors (i.e., the onset of GRB) such as BAT onboard {\it Swift}.
191: It decays with time simply in a single power-law form
192: \begin{equation}
193: f_0(t)=A_0 t^{-\alpha_0} ~~,
194: \label{eq:comp0}
195: \end{equation}
196: where $A_0$ is a constant
197: and the time coordinate, $t$, is measured in the rest frame
198: of the observer.
199: %% (neglecting cosmic expansion effect for simplicity).
200: The epoch $t=0$ is taken around the time of arrival at the observer
201: of the (unseen)
202: information of the launch of the outflow at the central engine.
203: %
204: This kind of a choice of the time zero is seen in many references
205: \citep[e.g.,][]{pana00,kobayashi07}.
206: The origin of the prior emission, $f_0$, is not discussed in detail
207: here.
208: It can be either internal engine activity or external shock emission
209: of the outflow.
210:
211:
212: We set an observer time, $T$, where $T=0$ corresponds to the onset of
213: the prompt GRB.
214: The interval between the time $t=0$ and $T=0$ is assumed
215: to be $T_0$~seconds, that is,
216: $t=T+T_0$.
217: %\begin{equation}
218: %t=T+T_0 ~~.
219: %\label{eq:time}
220: %\end{equation}
221: %
222: Then, one obtains
223: \begin{equation}
224: f_0(T)=A_0 (T+T_0)^{-\alpha_0} ~~,
225: \label{eq:comp0_mod}
226: \end{equation}
227: which becomes constant if
228: $T\ll T_0$, while $f_0\propto T^{-\alpha_0}$ when $T\gg T_0$.
229: %
230: In order to explain phases~II and III of the X-ray afterglow,
231: $T_0$ should be $10^3$--$10^4$~sec, and
232: $\alpha_0$ should be the temporal decay index of
233: phase~III.
234: %
235: It is noted that the onset time of the prior emission is unknown.
236: The first detectable X-rays from the prior component
237: arrive at the observer in the time range
238: $0\lesssim t\lesssim T_0$ ($-T_0\lesssim T\lesssim0$).
239: %
240: This fact will be further discussed in \S~\ref{subsec:precursor}.
241: %
242: Another remark is that
243: from Eq.~(\ref{eq:comp0_mod}) alone,
244: the introduction of $T_0$ shifts the origin of time.
245: It has been known that, for phase~I, the choice of time zero
246: affects the decay slope \citep{zhang06,yama06}.
247: The same argument for phase~II is used
248: for the first time in this Letter.
249:
250:
251: The other component is the main outflow, which causes the
252: prompt GRB emission and the subsequent phase~I of the X-ray afterglow.
253: %
254: With time coordinate $T$,
255: phase~I of the X-ray afterglow is well approximated
256: by a single power-law model given by
257: \begin{equation}
258: f_1(T)=A_1T^{-\alpha_1}~~,
259: \label{eq:comp1}
260: \end{equation}
261: where $A_1$ is a constant and $\alpha_1\approx3-6$.
262:
263: The whole light curve of the X-ray afterglow from
264: phase~I to III is described by the sum of the two
265: components introduced above, that is,
266: \begin{eqnarray}
267: f(T) &=& f_0(T) + f_1(T) \nonumber\\
268: &=& A_0(T+T_0)^{-\alpha_0} + A_1T^{-\alpha_1} ~~.
269: \label{eq:compall}
270: \end{eqnarray}
271: %
272: This is our formula for
273: observed X-ray afterglows,
274: where $f_0(T)$ describes
275: phases~II and III, while $f_1(T)$ fits phase~I.
276:
277:
278: We find that by choosing appropriate values of the parameters,
279: $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$, $T_0$, $A_0$, and $A_1$,
280: the observed light curves of X-ray afterglows
281: are well described with Eq.~(\ref{eq:compall}).
282: Figure~\ref{fig:fit} shows some examples of the fit.
283:
284:
285: It is not surprising that our formula, Eq.~(\ref{eq:compall}),
286: well explains the observational results of X-ray afterglows.
287: %
288: The functional form of Eq.~(\ref{eq:comp0_mod}) is a good approximation of
289: that introduced by \citet{will07}:
290: \begin{equation}
291: f_a(T)=
292: \left\{
293: \begin{array}
294: {l@{~~} c@{}}
295: F_a \exp[\alpha_a(1-T/T_a)]\exp(-t_a/T)~, & T<T_a~, \\
296: F_a(T/T_a)^{-\alpha_a}\exp(-t_a/T)~, & T_a\leq T~.
297: \end{array} \right.
298: \label{eq:will}
299: \end{equation}
300: They have shown that the observed light curves of phases~II and III
301: are well fitted with Eq.~(\ref{eq:will}).
302: The function $f_a(T)$ becomes constant with $T$ if $t_a\ll T\ll T_a$,
303: while $f_a\propto T^{-\alpha_a}$ if $T_a\ll T$.
304: This behavior is quite similar to that of $f_0(T)$.
305: Indeed, one can find that over a wide parameter range,
306: $f_a(T)\approx f_0(T)$ for $t_a\ll T$ if we take
307: $t_a\ll T_a\approx T_0$ and $\alpha_a\approx\alpha_0$.
308:
309:
310:
311: \section{Discussion}
312: \label{sec:discussion}
313:
314: \subsection{Overall shape of the X-ray afterglow}
315:
316: In this Letter, we have seen
317: that for most events, phases~II and III of the
318: observed light curves of the X-ray afterglow can be well
319: fitted with a very simple formula, Eq.~(\ref{eq:comp0_mod}).
320: %
321: In particular, the observational facts are that
322: for most events, the transition from phase~II to III
323: is slow and fairly smooth, and that
324: the X-ray spectrum remains unchanged across the
325: transition \citep{nousek06};
326: this can be naturally explained by our model
327: because the transition from phase~II to III is an artifact of
328: the choice of the time zero.
329: %
330: A typical exception is GRB~070110;
331: at the end of the plateau phase~II, the light curve shows an
332: abrupt drop
333: %%, which rules out an external shock origin
334: \citep{troja07}.
335: Such events may need other explanations \citep[e.g.,][]{kumar08}.
336:
337: After phase~III, subsequent fourth phase is occasionally observed:
338: the so called {\it post jet break phase}
339: \citep[{\it Phase~IV};][]{zhang07}.
340: Its typical decay index is $\sim-2$, satisfying the predictions
341: of the jetted afterglow model \citep{sari99}.
342: This phase~IV can also be clearly seen in our sample
343: (e.g., GRB~060428A; upper right of Fig.~\ref{fig:fit}).
344: %
345: If the prior emission is from an external shock of the prior outflow,
346: the jetted afterglow model is applied to the present case.
347: As will be discussed in \S~\ref{subsec:MainAG},
348: the origin of the optical afterglow is different from the X-ray one,
349: which explains the fact that the epoch of the jet break in the
350: X-ray band is not generally the same as the optical one
351: \citep{sato07,liang08}.
352:
353:
354: \subsection{Observed $f_0(T_0)$ -- $T_0$ Correlation}
355:
356: \citet{sato08} investigated the characteristics of the transition from
357: phase~II to III for 11 events with known redshifts.
358: They derived the transition time, $T^0_{\rm brk}$, and
359: the isotropic luminosity at that time $L_{\rm X, end}$,
360: and found that
361: $L_{\rm X, end}$ is well correlated with
362: $T^0_{\rm brk}$ as $L_{\rm X, end}\propto (T^0_{\rm brk})^{-1.4}$.
363: They adopt a broken power-law form to fit the
364: light curve in phases~II and III which is different from that
365: considered in this Letter. However,
366: we expect that their $T^0_{\rm brk}$ and $L_{\rm X, end}$
367: roughly correspond to $T_0$ and $f_0(T_0)$, respectively,
368: that are considered in \S~\ref{sec:model}.
369: Indeed, one finds
370: $f_0(T_0)\propto T_0{}^{-\alpha_0}$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:comp0_mod}).
371: Hence, if $\alpha_0\approx1.4$ which is a typical number for
372: the decay index of phase~III, we can reproduce the observed result
373: of \citet{sato08}.
374:
375:
376: A similar analysis has been done but with
377: Eq.~(\ref{eq:will}) as the fitting formula \citep{dainotti08}.
378: For 32 events with measured redshifts,
379: they found a correlation between $T_a$ and
380: the X-ray luminosity at the time $T_a$, $L_X(T_a)$,
381: as $L_X(T_a)\propto T_a^{-\beta}$ with $\beta=0.6$--0.74.
382: Since $T_a\approx T_0$ and $L_X(T_a)\approx f_0(T_0)$,
383: their correlation indicates $f_0(T_0)\propto T_0{}^{-\beta}$.
384: The index $\beta$ is smaller than the typical value of
385: $\alpha_0$ ($\approx1.0$--1.5).
386: However, the claimed correlation has large
387: scatter \citep[see Figures~1 and 2 of][]{dainotti08},
388: which may be explained by the scatter of $\alpha_0$ in our model.
389:
390:
391: There is a difference between the results of \citet{sato08}
392: and \citet{dainotti08}.
393: At present, the number of events with known redshifts may be small,
394: so this discrepancy may be resolved if the number of events
395: increases.
396:
397:
398: \subsection{Link between $T_0$ and the Prompt Emission Properties}
399:
400: \citet{nava07} studied the properties of prompt emission
401: and X-ray afterglows of 23 GRBs with known redshifts.
402: They adopted Eq.~(\ref{eq:will}) in fitting phases~II and
403: III of the X-ray afterglow, and found that for events with
404: measured spectral peak energy $E_{\rm p}$, the time
405: $T_a$ weakly correlates with the isotropic equivalent energy
406: $E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}$ of the prompt GRB emission.
407: One can find from Fig.~6 of \citet{nava07},
408: that $T_a$ seems to be roughly proportional to $E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}$.
409: %
410: At present, this correlation is not firmly established
411: because as noted by \citet{nava07}, there are no correlation
412: between $T_a$ and the isotropic equivalent energy of
413: prompt GRBs in the 15-150~keV band
414: for a larger sample of GRBs with known redshift but unknown $E_{\rm p}$
415: (hence without $k$-correction).
416:
417:
418: The quantity $E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}$ correlates with $E_{\rm p}$
419: \citep{amati02}.
420: %
421: Hence, if the $T_a$--$E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}$ correlation exists,
422: the bright GRBs with large $E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}$
423: and $E_{\rm p}$ have large $T_a$, which is responsible for
424: the distinct plateau phase. On the other hand,
425: the X-ray flashes or X-ray-rich GRBs
426: \citep[e.g.,][]{heise01,barraud03,sakamoto08}
427: have small $T_a$ ($\approx T_0$),
428: and have X-ray afterglow without phase~II.
429: This tendency could have been seen in \citet{sakamoto08}.
430:
431:
432: The above arguments may lead a link between long GRBs
433: and X-ray flashes/X-ray-rich GRBs.
434: %
435: Suppose that the outflow ejection is not continuous but
436: intermittent, i.e.,
437: the central engine ejects two distinct outflows with a
438: time interval of $\sim T_0$.
439: Just after the launch of the prior outflow,
440: the central engine does not have enough energy for
441: another outflow, so that
442: it needs to store an additional one.
443: During the time interval $\sim T_0$,
444: matter surrounding the central engine
445: is accreted, increasing the gravitational binding energy.
446: This energy is released as the main outflow causing the prompt GRB.
447: It is expected that the larger is $T_0$,
448: the larger is the stored gravitational energy, resulting in a
449: brighter burst with large $E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}$.
450: %
451: On the other hand, if $T_0$ is small the energy of the main
452: outflow becomes small; this is responsible for the X-ray flash
453: or X-ray-rich GRBs.
454: %
455: Further details will be discussed in the near future.
456:
457:
458: \subsection{External Shock Emission from the Main Outflow}
459: \label{subsec:MainAG}
460:
461: The main outflow that is responsible for the prompt GRB
462: might cause external shock X-ray emission, $f_{\rm X, ext}(T)$.
463: %
464: In the present two-component emission model, however,
465: $f_{\rm X, ext}(T)$ must be dimmer than the
466: prior X-ray emission $f_0(T)$ throughout phases~II and III.
467: %
468: Let us consider the simplest model of external shock emission of
469: the main outflow.
470: The relativistically expanding shell with energy $E_K$ interacts with
471: the surrounding medium with uniform density $n_0$\footnote{
472: Since the prior outflow may modify the circumburst medium
473: density profile, the external shock emission from the main
474: outflow deviates from the case of a uniform density profile.
475: Nevertheless, we adopt the uniform density model here
476: for the simplicity.},
477: and emits synchrotron
478: radiation with microphysics parameters at the shock,
479: $p$, $\varepsilon_e$, and $\varepsilon_B$ \citep{sari98}.
480: Then, in the case of slow cooling and $\nu_c<\nu_X$,
481: the X-ray light curves are analytically
482: calculated as
483: $f_{\rm X, ext}(T) \propto
484: E_K^{(p+2)/4} \varepsilon_e^{p-1}
485: \varepsilon_B^{(p-2)/4} T^{(2-3p)/4} \nu_{X}^{-p/2}$,
486: %\begin{equation}
487: %f_{\rm X, ext}(T) \propto
488: %E_K^{(p+2)/4} \varepsilon_e^{p-1}
489: %\varepsilon_B^{(p-2)/4} T^{(2-3p)/4} \nu_{X}^{-p/2}~~,
490: %\end{equation}
491: which is independent of $n_0$ \citep[e.g.,][]{pana00}.
492: If $p\approx2$, then $f_{\rm X, ext}(T)$ hardly depends on
493: $\varepsilon_B$.
494: Before the {\it Swift} era, typical values had been
495: $E_K\sim10^{52}$--$10^{53}$~erg,
496: %% $n\sim1$--10~cm$^{-3}$,
497: $\varepsilon_e\sim10^{-1}$, and $\varepsilon_B\sim10^{-2}$
498: so that the external shock emission reproduced the observed late-time
499: X-ray afterglow.
500: In the present case, $f_{\rm X, ext}(T)$ must be dim, which implies
501: small $E_K$ and/or $\varepsilon_e$.
502: %
503: A similar discussion was made by \citet{ghise07,ghise08}.
504: %
505: In some models, such as the energy injection model
506: and the inhomogeneous jet model, prompt GRB emission
507: needs high radiation efficiency, which is defined by
508: $\varepsilon_\gamma=E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}/(E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}+E_K)$,
509: because $E_K$ is small at the epoch of the prompt GRB emission
510: \citep{fan06,granot06m,ioka06,zhang07effi}.
511: %
512: As discussed here, $f_{\rm X, ext}(T)$ can be dim
513: if $\varepsilon_e$ is small while $E_K$ remains
514: large, $\sim10^{52}$--$10^{53}$~erg.
515: Hence, the present model could avoid a serious
516: efficiency problem.
517: %
518: On the other hand, if $E_K$ of the outflow is small,
519: the efficiency $\varepsilon_\gamma$ should be high.
520: Then the mechanism of prompt GRB emission
521: is unlike a classical internal shock model
522: \citep[e.g.,][]{thompson07,ioka07}.
523:
524:
525: The observed optical afterglow comes mainly from the prior outflow.
526: %
527: For some events, the rising part of the early optical afterglow proceeds
528: until $T\sim10^2$~sec \citep{moli07}, which is difficult to
529: explain with prior emission.
530: In the case of prior emission,
531: the time zero would be shifted $T_0\sim10^3$--$10^4$~sec before the
532: burst trigger, making the light curve extraordinarily spiky.
533: %
534: Furthermore, in most cases, the transition from phase~II to III is
535: chromatic, i.e.,
536: the optical light curves do not show
537: any break at that epoch \citep{pana06}, although there exist
538: a few exceptions \citep{liang07,grupe07,mangano07}.
539: %
540: Hence, at least in the early epoch,
541: the observed optical afterglow arises from the main outflow
542: component or
543: others, most likely an external shock emission.
544: Indeed, there have been some observational facts that indicate
545: different origins of X-ray and optical afterglows
546: \citep[e.g.,][]{oates07,sato07,urata07}\footnote{
547: One may expect that the optical emission also arises
548: from the prior outflow.
549: However, it may be outshone by the
550: main outflow component at least in the early epoch.
551: This condition will constrain the
552: mechanisms of the prior X-ray emission as well as the optical one.
553: }.
554:
555:
556: \subsection{Predicted Precursor Emission?}
557: \label{subsec:precursor}
558:
559: A possible prediction of the present model is a bright X-ray precursor
560: before the prompt GRB emission.
561: Let us assume that the prior X-ray emission starts at
562: $t\sim10^2$~sec, although its onset time is fairly uncertain
563: (see \S~\ref{sec:model}). Then, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:comp0}),
564: the X-ray flux in the 2--10~keV band is estimated as
565: $f_0(t)\sim 4\times10^{-9}(t/10^2~{\rm s})^{-1.2}$erg~s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$,
566: %\begin{equation}
567: %f_0(t)\sim 4\times10^{-9}\left(\f{t}{10^2~{\rm s}}\right)^{-1.2}
568: %{\rm erg}~{\rm s}^{-1}{\rm cm}^{-2}~~,
569: %\end{equation}
570: where $\alpha_0\approx1.2$ is taken as a typical value and
571: the flux normalization constant $A_0$ is determined so that
572: $f_0\sim1\times10^{-12}$~erg~s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$ at
573: $t\sim10^5$~sec \citep{gendre08}.
574: Such emission will be detected by
575: Monitor of All-sky X-ray Image (MAXI)\footnote{
576: http://www-maxi.tksc.jaxa.jp/indexe.html
577: }.
578: The expected event rate should be a few events per year
579: \citep{motoko08}.
580:
581:
582: However, if the emission starts with $t\sim10^2$s, the predicted
583: flux might be large enough to be detected by current instruments
584: like BAT onboard {\it Swift}.
585: In order to avoid this problem, the starting time of the emission
586: should be comparable to or later
587: than $t\sim10^3$~sec so that the peak flux is smaller
588: than the detection limit of the prompt GRB emission monitors.
589: %
590: One possibility is off-axis jet emission in the context of
591: the external shock model \citep{granot03,granot05}.
592: Due to the relativistic beaming effect, the observed X-ray emission
593: is dim as long as the bulk Lorentz factor of the emitting outflow
594: is larger than the inverse of the angle between the emitting matter
595: and the observer's line of sight.
596: This effect shifts the peak time of the X-ray emission toward the
597: later epoch.
598: %
599: %Another possibility to delay the onset of the prior X-ray emission
600: %is the opacity effect, which can be expected in the context of
601: %the internal dissipation (ref).
602: %Initially the emission occurrs at a small radius in which the pair
603: %formation prevents the photons from escaping the emitting region.
604: %
605: For an appropriate choice of parameters, we may adjust the
606: starting time (the peak time) of the X-ray emission.
607:
608:
609: A signal of the onset of the prior emission might also be seen in the
610: optical band.
611: If the prior emission is extremal shock origin,
612: the reverse shock emission might cause a bright optical flash
613: \citep{sari99opt}.
614: So far, for some events, WIDGET\footnote{
615: http://cosmic.riken.go.jp/grb/widget/}
616: has given observational upper
617: limit on the prior optical emission, $V>10$~mag, about 750~seconds
618: before the prompt emission \citep[e.g.,][]{abe06}.
619: Further observations will constrain the model parameters.
620: %
621: In summary, in order to test the model presented in this Letter,
622: the search for a signal in the data of sky monitors in
623: the optical and X-ray bands is crucial.
624: %
625:
626:
627:
628: \acknowledgments
629:
630: R.Y. would like to thank
631: Takashi~Nakamura, Kunihito~Ioka, Takanori~Sakamoto,
632: Atsumasa~Yoshida, Motoko~Suzuki,
633: Takeshi~Uehara, and the anonymous referee
634: for useful comments and discussions.
635: %% and the anonymous referee for useful comments.
636: %
637: This work was supported in part
638: by grant-in-aid from the
639: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science,
640: and Technology (MEXT) of Japan,
641: No.~18740153, No.~19047004.
642: %% (R.~Y.).
643:
644:
645: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
646: %
647: \bibitem[Abe et al.(2006)]{abe06}
648: Abe, K. et al. 2006, GCN 4931
649: %
650: \bibitem[Amati et al.(2002)]{amati02}
651: Amati, L. et al. 2002, A\&A, 390, 81
652: %
653: %\bibitem[Antonelli et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...456..509A}
654: %Antonelli, L.~A., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 456, 509
655: %
656: \bibitem[Barraud et al.(2003)]{barraud03}
657: Barraud, C. et al. 2003, A\&A, 400, 1021
658: %
659: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2005)]{burrows05}
660: Burrows, D. N. et al. 2005, Science, 309, 1833
661: %
662: %\bibitem[Cenko et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652..490C}
663: %Cenko, S.~B., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 490
664: %
665: %\bibitem[Chevarier \& Li(2000)]{chev00}
666: %Chevarier, R. A. \& Li, Z.-Y. 2000, ApJ, 536, 195
667: %
668: %\bibitem[Chincarini et al.(2007)]{chincarini07}
669: %Chincarini, G. et al. 2007, astro-ph/0702371
670: %
671: %\bibitem[Corsi et al.(2005)]{corsi2005}
672: %Corsi, A. et al. 2005, A\&A, 438, 829
673: %
674: \bibitem[Dado et al.(2006)]{dado2006}
675: Dado, S., Dar, A., \& De Ruj\'{u}la, A. 2006, ApJ, 646, L21
676: %
677: %\bibitem[Dai et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...658..509D}
678: %Dai, X. et al. \ 2007, \apj, 658, 509
679: %
680: %\bibitem[Dai \& Cheng(2001)]{dai01}
681: %Dai, Z.G. \& Cheng, K. S. 2001, ApJ, 558, L109
682: %
683: \bibitem[Dainotti et al.(2008)]{dainotti08}
684: Dainotti, M. G., Cardone, V. F., \& Capozziello, S. 2008,
685: MNRAS, 391, L79
686: %
687: %\bibitem[De Pasquale et al.(2006a)]{2006MNRAS.365.1031D}
688: %De Pasquale, M., et al.\ 2006a, \mnras, 365, 1031
689: %
690: %\bibitem[De Pasquale et al.(2006b)]{depasquale2006b}
691: %De Pasquale, M., et al.\ 2006b, A\&A 455, 813
692: %
693: %\bibitem[Della Valle et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...642L.103D}
694: %Della Valle, M., et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 642, L103
695: %
696: %\bibitem[Doi et al.(2007)]{doi07}
697: %Doi, H., Takami, K., \& Yamazaki, R. 2007, ApJ, 659, L95
698: %
699: \bibitem[Eichler \& Granot(2006)]{eichler06}
700: Eichler, D. \& Granot, J. 2006, ApJ, 641, L5
701: %
702: \bibitem[Evans et al.(2007)]{evans07}
703: Evans, P. A. et al. 2007, A\&A, 469, 379
704: %
705: \bibitem[Fan \& Piran(2006)]{fan06}
706: Fan, Y. Z. \& Piran, T. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 197
707: %
708: %\bibitem[Falcone et al.(2007)]{falcon07}
709: %Falcone, A. D. et al. 2007, arXiv:0706.1564
710: %
711: \bibitem[Gendre et al(2008)]{gendre08}
712: Gendre, B. et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 620
713: %
714: \bibitem[Genet et al(2007)]{genet07}
715: Genet, F. et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 732
716: %
717: \bibitem[Ghisellini et al.(2007)]{ghise07}
718: Ghisellini, G. et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, L75
719: %
720: \bibitem[Ghisellini et al.(2008)]{ghise08}
721: Ghisellini, G. et al. 2008, MNRAS, in press (arXiv:0811.1038)
722: %
723: \bibitem[Granot(2005)]{granot05}
724: Granot, J. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1022
725: %
726: \bibitem[Granot \& Kumar(2003)]{granot03}
727: Granot, J. \& Kumar, P. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1086
728: %
729: \bibitem[Granot \& Kumar(2006)]{granot06}
730: Granot, J. \& Kumar, P. 2006, MNRAS, 366, L13
731: %
732: \bibitem[Granot et al.(2006)]{granot06m}
733: Granot, J. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1946
734: %
735: \bibitem[Grupe et al.(2007)]{grupe07}
736: Grupe, D. et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 443
737: %
738: %\bibitem[Halpern et al.(2007)]{halp07}
739: %Halpern, J. P. et al. 2006, GCN Circ., 5847
740: %
741: \bibitem[Heise et al.(2001)]{heise01}
742: Heise, J., in 't Zand, J., Kippen, R. M., \& Woods, P. M. 2001,
743: in Proc. Second Rome Workshop: Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era,
744: ed. E. Costa, F. Frontera, \& J. Hjorth (Berlin: Springer), 16
745: %
746: %\bibitem[Holland et al.(2003)]{holl03}
747: %Holland, S. T. et al. 2003, ApJ, 125, 2291
748: %
749: %\bibitem[Huang et al.(2007)]{huang07}
750: %Huang, K.~Y., et al.\ 2007, \apjl, 654, L25
751: %
752: %\bibitem[Ioka et al.(2005)]{ioka05}
753: %Ioka, K., Kobayashi, S., \& Zhang, B. 2005, ApJ, 631, 429
754: %
755: \bibitem[Ioka et al.(2006)]{ioka06}
756: Ioka,~K. et al. 2006, A\&A, 458, 7
757: %
758: \bibitem[Ioka et al.(2007)]{ioka07}
759: Ioka,~K. et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, L77
760: %
761: %\bibitem[Kann et al.(2006)]{kann06}
762: %Kann, D. A., Klose, S., \& Zeh, A. 2006, ApJ, 641, 993
763: %
764: %\bibitem[Klotz et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...439L..35K}
765: %Klotz, A. et al.\ 2005, \aap, 439, L35
766: %
767: \bibitem[Kobayashi \& Zhang(2007)]{kobayashi07}
768: Kobayashi, S. \& Zhang, B. 2007, ApJ, 655, 973
769: %
770: \bibitem[Kumar et al.(2008)]{kumar08}
771: Kumar, P., Narayan, R., \& Johnson, J. L. 2008, Science, 321, 376
772: %
773: \bibitem[Kumar \& Panaitescu(2000)]{kumar00ng}
774: Kumar,~P., \& Panaitescu,~A. 2000, ApJ, 541, L51
775: %
776: %\bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{land92}
777: %Landolt, A.~U.\ 1992, \aj, 104, 340
778: %
779: \bibitem[Liang et al.(2007)]{liang07}
780: Liang,~E.~W., Zhang, B.~B., Zhang, B. 2007, ApJ, 670, 565
781: %
782: \bibitem[Liang et al.(2008)]{liang08}
783: Liang,~E.~W. et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 528
784: %
785: %\bibitem[Lipkin et al.(2004)]{lipk04}
786: %Lipkin, Y. M. et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 381
787: %
788: \bibitem[Mangano et al.(2007)]{mangano07}
789: Mangano, V. et al. 2007, A\&A, 470, 105
790: %
791: \bibitem[Molinari et al.(2007)]{moli07}
792: Molinari, E. et al. 2007, A\&A, 469, L13
793: %
794: \bibitem[Nava et al.(2007)]{nava07}
795: Nava, L. et al. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1464
796: %
797: \bibitem[Nousek et al.(2006)]{nousek06}
798: Nousek, J. A. et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 389
799: %
800: \bibitem[Oates et al.(2007)]{oates07}
801: Oates, S. R. et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 270
802: %
803: \bibitem[O'Brien et al.(2006)]{obrien06}
804: O'Brien, P. T. et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1213
805: %
806: \bibitem[Panaitescu \& Kumar(2000)]{pana00}
807: Panaitescu,~A. \& Kumar, P. 2000, ApJ, 543, 66
808: %
809: \bibitem[Panaitescu et al.(2006)]{pana06}
810: Panaitescu,~A. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 2059
811: %
812: %\bibitem[Piro et al.(1998)]{piro1998}
813: %Piro, L. et al. 1998, A\&A, 331, L41
814: %
815: %\bibitem[Rees \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros(1998)]{rees1998}
816: %Rees, M. \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P. 1998, ApJ, 496, L1
817: %
818: %\bibitem[Rykoff et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...638L...5R}
819: %Rykoff, E.~S., et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 638, L5
820: %
821: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2008)]{sakamoto08}
822: Sakamoto, T. et al. 2008, ApJ, 679, 570
823: %
824: \bibitem[Sari et al.(1998)]{sari98}
825: Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Narayan, R. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17
826: %
827: \bibitem[Sari et al.(1999)]{sari99}
828: Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Halpern, P. 1999, ApJ, 519, L17
829: %
830: \bibitem[Sari \& Piran(1999)]{sari99opt}
831: Sari, R. \& Piran, T. 1999, ApJ, 520, 641
832: %
833: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2007)]{sato07}
834: Sato, G. et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 359
835: %
836: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2008)]{sato08}
837: Sato, R. et al. 2008, arXiv:0711.0903
838: %
839: \bibitem[Shao \& Dai(2007)]{shao08}
840: Shao, L. \& Dai, Z. G. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1319
841: %
842: %\bibitem[Sollerman et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...466..839S}
843: %Sollerman, J., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 466,839
844: %
845: %\bibitem[Stanek et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...654L..21S}
846: %Stanek, K.~Z., et al.\ 2007, \apjl, 654, L21
847: %
848: \bibitem[Suzuki et al.(2008)]{motoko08}
849: Suzuki, M. et al. 2008,
850: to appear in 3rd international MAXI workshop proceedings
851: %
852: \bibitem[Tagliaferri et al.(2005)]{tagl05}
853: Tagliaferri, G. et al. 2005, Nature, 436, 985
854: %
855: \bibitem[Thompson et al.(2007)]{thompson07}
856: Thompson, C. et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1012
857: %
858: \bibitem[Toma et al.(2006)]{toma06}
859: Toma,~K. et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, L139
860: %
861: \bibitem[Troja et al.(2007)]{troja07}
862: Troja, E. et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 599
863: %
864: %\bibitem[de Ugarte Postigo et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...462L..57D}
865: %de Ugarte Postigo, A., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 462, L57
866: %
867: %\bibitem[Uemura et al.(2007)]{uemura07}
868: %Uemura, M. et al. 2007, PASJ, submitted
869: %
870: %\bibitem[Urata et al.(2003)]{urata03}
871: %Urata, Y., et al.\ 2003, \apjl, 595, L21
872: %
873: %\bibitem[Urata et al.(2005)]{urata05}
874: %Urata, Y., et al.\ 2005, Nuovo Cimento C Geophys. Sp. Phys. C, 28, 775
875: %
876: %\bibitem[Urata et al.(2007a)]{urata07}
877: %Urata, Y., et al.\ 2007a, \apjl, 655, L81
878: %
879: \bibitem[Urata et al.(2007)]{urata07}
880: Urata, Y., et al.\ 2007, \apjl, 668, L95
881: %
882: \bibitem[Willingale et al.(2007)]{will07}
883: Willingale, R. et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1093
884: %
885: %\bibitem[Wo{\'z}niak et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...642L..99W}
886: %Wo{\'z}niak, P.~R. et al. 2006, \apjl, 642, L99
887: %
888: \bibitem[Yamazaki et al.(2006)]{yama06}
889: %Yamazaki,~R., Toma,~K., Ioka,~K., Nakamura,~T. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 311
890: Yamazaki,~R. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 311
891: %
892: %\bibitem[Yost et al.(2003)]{yost2003}
893: %Yost, S. A. et al. 2003, ApJ, 597, 459
894: %
895: %\bibitem[Yost et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...657..925Y}
896: %Yost, S.~A. et al.\ 2007, \apj, 657, 925
897: %
898: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2006)]{zhang06}
899: Zhang, B. et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 354
900: %
901: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2007)]{zhang07effi}
902: Zhang, B. et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 989
903: %
904: \bibitem[Zhang(2007)]{zhang07}
905: Zhang,~B. 2007, Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys. 7, 1
906: %
907: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2007)]{binbin07}
908: Zhang,~B.~B., E. W. Liang, \& Zhang, B. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1002
909: %
910: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2009)]{binbin08}
911: Zhang,~B.~B. et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, L10
912: %
913: \end{thebibliography}
914:
915: \clearpage
916:
917: \begin{figure}[t]
918: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
919: \caption{
920: Schematic diagram of the model presented in this Letter.
921: In terms of the coordinate $t$, the prior emission component
922: $f_0(t)$ takes a single power-law form throughout the burst,
923: but in terms of $T(=t-T_0)$, the function $f_0(T)$ has
924: an artificial plateau phase (see the text for details).
925: }
926: \label{fig:model}
927: \end{figure}
928:
929:
930: \begin{figure}[t]
931: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
932: \caption{
933: Comparison of the observed light curves of X-ray afterglows with
934: Eq.~(\ref{eq:compall}), where
935: all phases I, II, and III are well described.
936: The adopted parameters are
937: $(\alpha_0,~\alpha_1,~T_0)=(1.2,~7.0,~8000~{\rm sec})$,
938: $(1.0,~4.0,~5000~{\rm sec})$,
939: $(1.4,~4.0,~7000~{\rm sec})$, and
940: $(1.6,~5.5,~4000~{\rm sec})$, for
941: GRB~051016B, 060428A, 060814, and 061121, respectively.
942: Data of X-ray afterglows are taken from the
943: {\it Swift} online repository \citep{evans07}.
944: %% (http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt\_curves/)
945: }
946: \label{fig:fit}
947: \end{figure}
948:
949:
950: \end{document}
951:
952: %%
953: %% End of file
954:
955:
956:
957: