1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \usepackage{psfig}
4: \usepackage{natbib}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Energetics of Gamma Ray Bursts}
9: \author{ Raul Jimenez\altaffilmark{1} David Band\altaffilmark{2}
10: and Tsvi Piran\altaffilmark{3}}
11:
12: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University, 136
13: Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ08854--8019 USA.
14: (raulj@physics.rutgers.edu)}
15: \altaffiltext{2}{X-2, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM,
16: USA 87545. (dband@lanl.gov)}
17: \altaffiltext{3}{Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University,
18: Jerusalem, Israel. (tsvi@nikki.fiz.huji.ac.il)}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We determine the distribution of total energy emitted by gamma-ray
22: bursts for bursts with fluences and distance information. Our
23: core sample consists of eight bursts with BATSE spectra and
24: spectroscopic redshifts. We extend this sample by adding four
25: bursts with BATSE spectra and host galaxy R magnitudes. From
26: these R magnitudes we calculate a redshift probability
27: distribution; this method requires a model of the host galaxy
28: population. From a sample of ten bursts with both spectroscopic
29: redshifts and host galaxy R magnitudes (some do not have BATSE
30: spectra) we find that the burst rate is proportional to the galaxy
31: luminosity at the epoch of the burst. Assuming that the total
32: energy emitted has a log-normal distribution, we find that the
33: average emitted energy (assumed to be radiated isotropically) is
34: $\langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle = 1.3^{+1.2}_{-1.0} \times
35: 10^{53}$ ergs (for H$_0$ = 65 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$,
36: $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$); the distribution has a
37: logarithmic width of $\sigma_\gamma=1.7^{+0.7}_{-0.3}$. The
38: corresponding distribution of X-ray afterglow energy (for seven
39: bursts) has $\langle E_{X iso} \rangle = 4.0^{+1.6}_{-1.8} \times
40: 10^{51}$ergs and $\sigma_X = 1.3^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$. For
41: completeness, we also provide spectral fits for all bursts with
42: BATSE spectra for which there were afterglow searches.
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \keywords{gamma-ray: bursts}
46:
47: \section{Introduction}
48:
49: The recent breakthrough in our understanding of gamma-ray bursts resulted from
50: associating of these events with host galaxies. This association demonstrates
51: that most, and probably all, bursts are at cosmological distances. Whether
52: measured from absorption lines in the continuum of optical transients or
53: emission lines in the host galaxies' spectra, the redshifts show that the
54: bursts are even further than predicted by the simplest ``minimal''
55: cosmological model \citep{BandHartmann98}. With assumptions about the
56: radiation pattern, the energy radiated by the burst is calculated from the
57: redshifts and the burst fluence. The position of the burst within the host
58: argues for a strong connection between star formation and the burst
59: \citep{Bloom01}. Many of the galaxies show evidence of vigorous star
60: formation.
61:
62: We now have a sufficient sample of detected host galaxies to consider various
63: distributions of burst properties which require the distance to the burst.
64: Here we calculate the distributions of the total energy and peak luminosity
65: radiated by the burst and the X-ray energy in the afterglow. The energy scale
66: is a strong constraint on burst scenarios; some proposed sources are
67: insufficient to provide the necessary observed energy. However, the width and
68: shape of the energy distributions are also consequences of the emission
69: process. For example, in the current physical scenario
70: \citep{NPP92,PX94,RM94,SP97} the gamma-rays are radiated by ``internal''
71: shocks resulting from the collision of regions with different Lorentz factors
72: within a relativistic outflow. Thus the total gamma-ray emission may depend on
73: the vagaries of the central source accelerating the outflow. However, the
74: afterglow is attributed to the ``external'' shock where the outflow collides
75: with the external medium. Thus the afterglow may be a bolometric measurement
76: of the energy content of the relativistic flow. This is the basis of the
77: ``patch shell'' model's prediction that the gamma-ray energy distribution
78: should be broader than that of the afterglows \citep{KP99}.
79:
80: To expand the burst sample, we include not only bursts with spectroscopic
81: redshifts, but also bursts for which there are only host galaxy magnitudes. A
82: galaxy magnitude can be mapped into a probability distribution for the burst's
83: redshift. This mapping requires a model of the host galaxy distribution;
84: competing models are tested by comparing the measured spectroscopic redshifts
85: with the magnitude-derived redshift distribution for those bursts with both a
86: spectroscopic redshift and a host galaxy magnitude. This host galaxy model is
87: intrinsically interesting since it indicates whether the burst rate is
88: proportional to the host galaxy mass or luminosity.
89:
90: An underlying assumption in our study is that the burst energy and
91: luminosity distributions have not changed over the universe's
92: lifetime. Similarly, we assume that a burst's energy or
93: luminosity is uncorrelated with the host galaxy magnitude.
94:
95: In \S 2 we present the expected fluence distribution given the
96: assumed lognormal burst energy distribution. \S 3 describes the
97: sources of the observed $\gamma$-ray and X-ray energy fluxes and
98: fluences. \S 4 discusses the determination of a burst redshift
99: from a single optical magnitude of the host galaxy. However,
100: galaxy surveys count individual galaxies while the burst rate may
101: be proportional to the mass or luminosity of a galaxy; therefore
102: in \S 5 we consider the underlying host galaxy luminosity
103: function. The burst $\gamma$-ray and X-ray energy distributions
104: are calculated in \S 6. Our conclusions are summarized in \S 7.
105:
106: \section{The Expected Fluence Distribution}
107:
108: Here we present the methodology for modeling the distribution of
109: the total burst energy $E_\gamma$ given a set of observed burst
110: fluences. The determination of the distribution of
111: the peak gamma-ray luminosity and of the X-ray afterglow energy
112: are analogous.
113:
114: We begin by assuming that $E_\gamma$ has a log-normal
115: distribution,
116: %
117: \begin{equation}
118: p(E_\gamma \,|\, \langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle,\sigma_\gamma)
119: d(\log E_\gamma)
120: = {1\over{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_\gamma}}
121: \exp \left[-{{(\log(\langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle)-\log(E_\gamma))^2}
122: \over{2\sigma_\gamma^2}} \right] d(\log E_\gamma)
123: \quad .
124: \end{equation}
125: %
126: Thus the bolometric fluence $F=E_\gamma (1+z)/4\pi D_L(z)^2$
127: (where $D_L(z)$ is the luminosity distance) has the log-normal
128: distribution
129: %
130: \begin{equation}
131: p(F \,|\, \langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle,\sigma_\gamma) d(\log F)
132: = {1\over{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_\gamma}}
133: \exp \left[-{{(\log(\langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle
134: (1+z)/4\pi D_L(z)^2)-\log(F))^2}
135: \over{2\sigma_\gamma^2}}\right] d(\log F)
136: \quad .
137: \end{equation}
138: %
139: Note that $\sigma_\gamma$ is a width in logarithmic space, and the
140: linear change of variables does not affect this width. This
141: probability for the fluence assumes that the redshift is known. If
142: not, then we have to convolve eq.~2 with the probability
143: distribution for the host galaxy redshift, $p_B(z\,|\,D_o)$, where
144: $D_o$ is the optical data we have about the redshift (e.g., the
145: measured spectroscopic redshift from spectral lines or the host
146: galaxy magnitude). The resulting probability is
147: %
148: \begin{eqnarray}
149: && p(F \,|\, \langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle,\sigma_\gamma)
150: d(\log F) = \\
151: &&\int dz\,p_B(z\,|\,D_o)
152: {1\over{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_\gamma}}
153: \exp \left[-{{(\log(\langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle (1+z)/4\pi
154: D_L(z)^2)-\log(F))^2}
155: \over{2\sigma_\gamma^2}} \right] d(\log F) \quad . \nonumber
156: \end{eqnarray}
157: %
158:
159: These are the distributions for $E_\gamma$ and $F$, regardless of
160: whether these quantities are actually observable. The
161: distributions for the observable bursts must therefore be
162: truncated at the threshold value of the fluence, $F_T$, and the
163: overall distribution must be renormalized. Thus
164: %
165: \begin{eqnarray}
166: p_{\hbox{obs}}(F \,|\, \langle E_{\gamma iso}\rangle
167: ,\sigma_\gamma) =
168: {{p(F \,|\, \langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle,\sigma_\gamma)\theta(F-F_T)}
169: \over{\int_{F_T}^\infty dF \,
170: p(F \,|\, \langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle,\sigma_\gamma)\theta(F-F_T)}}
171: \end{eqnarray}
172: %
173: where $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside function (1 above $x=0$, and 0
174: below). Since BATSE triggers on the peak count rate
175: $C_{\hbox{max}}$ and not the fluence, the threshold fluence $F_T$
176: is the observed fluence divided by
177: $C_{\hbox{max}}/C_{\hbox{min}}$, where $C_{\hbox{min}}$ is the
178: threshold count rate (i.e., the minimum peak count rate at which
179: BATSE would have triggered). Thus $F_T$ and $p_{\hbox{obs}} (F
180: \,|\, \langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle, \sigma_\gamma)$ vary from
181: burst to burst. For calculations of the X-ray afterglow energy
182: the X-ray detectability threshold must be used instead of $F_T$.
183: The likelihood is the product of these probabilities evaluated
184: with each burst's observed properties (fluence, redshift, etc.)
185: for all bursts in the sample. By maximizing this likelihood we
186: find the preferred values and confidence ranges for $\langle
187: E_{\gamma iso} \rangle$ and $\sigma_\gamma$ (or the equivalent for
188: the X-ray afterglow). Note that the selection effect introduced
189: by observing bursts at different redshifts---only intrinsically
190: bright high redshift bursts are observable---while the detector
191: threshold varies is mitigated by truncating the probability
192: distribution for the observable fluence at the threshold value.
193:
194: \section{$\gamma$-Ray and X-Ray Data}
195:
196: We consider the sample of GRBs with observed optical afterglows
197: and with detected host galaxies, whether or not a redshift has
198: been measured, for bursts between 1997 January and 2000 June ({\it
199: CGRO}'s untimely demise). To obtain a uniform estimate of the
200: $\gamma$-ray energy fluence we consider only those bursts detected
201: by BATSE. The bursts with BATSE data and a spectroscopic redshift
202: are GB970508, GB970828, GB971214, GB980425, GB980703, GB990123,
203: GB990506, GB990510, and GB991216; however, GB980425 is exceptional
204: because of its possible association with a supernova in a
205: relatively nearby galaxy and we do not include it in our sample.
206: The bursts with BATSE data and only an R magnitude for its host
207: galaxy are GB971227, GB980326, GB980329, and GB980519. In
208: addition, both R magnitudes and spectroscopic redshifts but no
209: BATSE data are available for GB970228, GB980613, and GB990712. For
210: GB990510 there is currently a spectroscopic redshift but no host
211: galaxy R magnitude. Thus, there are eight bursts for which we can
212: calculate the total emitted energy, and another four for which we
213: can calculate a range of possible energies. There are ten bursts
214: for which we have both spectroscopic redshifts and a host galaxy R
215: magnitude; from these ten we determine a model of the host galaxy
216: population, as described below.
217:
218: To calculate the total gamma-ray energy emitted by a burst we need
219: the observed gamma-ray fluence. We determine the fluence of a
220: given burst by fitting the spectrum accumulated over the time
221: segment during which there was detectable emission. For strong
222: bursts we use spectra from BATSE's Spectroscopy Detectors (SDs),
223: while for weak bursts we fit spectra from BATSE's Large Area
224: Detectors (LADs). Since BATSE consisted of 8 modules, each with
225: an SD and an LAD, more than one detector observed each burst. For
226: strong bursts we choose the SD with the smallest burst angle (the
227: angle between its normal and the burst) and with a gain
228: sufficiently high to cover the 30--1000~keV energy band (the SDs
229: were operated at different gains). A typical SD spectrum provides
230: $\sim 200$ usable energy channels. For weak bursts we use the LAD
231: with the highest count rate which almost always had the smallest
232: burst angle.
233:
234: These spectra were fitted with the ``Band function''
235: \cite{Band+93}, which consists of a low energy power law cut off
236: by an exponential, $N_E=N_0 (E/100\hbox{ keV})^\alpha
237: \exp[-E/E_0]$ ph s$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, which merges
238: smoothly with a high energy power law, $N_E\propto E^\beta$. The
239: parameters of the resulting fits are given in the 2nd--5th columns
240: of Table~\ref{Table}. The energy fluence $F_\gamma$ (6th column
241: of the table) is obtained by integrating this fit over the energy
242: band 20--2000~keV and over the time for which there was detectable
243: emission (the 10th column). This is the energy band of the
244: fluences provided by the BATSE catalogue. In most cases the
245: fluence in this energy band is very nearly the bolometric fluence,
246: and thus no k-corrections are necessary to calculate the energies
247: for bursts at different redshifts (the k-correction compensates
248: for the redshift shift in the energy band between the emitter and
249: the detector). In this table we provide for completeness spectral
250: fits and fluences for all the bursts observed by BATSE which were
251: localized after 1997 January. Figure~\ref{flu_comp} compares the
252: 20--2000~keV fluences provided by the BATSE catalogues and
253: calculated here; as can be seen, the BATSE catalogue values are
254: somewhat larger than the fluences resulting from spectral fits.
255: Note that there are host galaxy observations for only 12 of the
256: bursts in this table; these 12 burst comprise our ``BATSE redshift
257: sample.''
258:
259: As described above, for each burst we need the threshold fluence,
260: the minimum fluence at which BATSE would have triggered. This is
261: derived by equating the ratios of the observed and threshold
262: fluences and peak count rates: $F_T = F / [C_{\hbox{max}} /
263: C_{\hbox{min}}]$. The online BATSE catalog provides
264: $C_{\hbox{max}} / C_{\hbox{min}}$ for some bursts, but values are
265: missing for many bursts because of data gaps. For bursts without
266: a catalog value we have estimated $C_{\hbox{max}} /
267: C_{\hbox{min}}$ from the light curves.
268:
269: In addition to the energy emitted by the burst (mostly in
270: gamma-rays), significant emission occurs during the first few
271: hours of the afterglow (mostly in X-rays). We estimate this
272: energy (excluding the prompt X-ray emission during the burst)
273: using the observed late (few hours) X-ray flux
274: in the 2--10~keV band and assuming this emission decays as a power
275: law with the index $\delta_x$ shown in Table~\ref{Table} over the
276: period 100 to $10^5$ seconds after the burst.
277:
278: \section{Host Galaxy Redshift Distribution}
279:
280: The methodology presented in \S 2 requires $p_B(z\,|\,D_o)$, the
281: probability that the burst redshift has a given value. Thus far
282: redshift information has been derived from the associated host
283: galaxies. Clearly, if we know the spectroscopic redshift $z_0$
284: then $p_B(z\,|\,D_o) = \delta(z-z_0)$. However, spectroscopic
285: redshifts are not available for some of the host galaxies. For
286: these host galaxies we derive a redshift probability distribution
287: with a finite width from their observed single-band magnitudes.
288:
289: The use of photometry to derive galaxy redshifts has flourished
290: during the past 5 years (e.g. \citet{CCSKM95, SLY97, D+98, FLY99,
291: A+99}). Redshifts are now commonly determined to an accuracy of
292: 10\% (e.g., \citet{CCSB99}) using multi-band photometry (usually 4
293: to 6 bands). Multi-band photometry is therefore an economical
294: method of determining redshifts. Unfortunately, most GRB hosts
295: have been observed in only a single band (typically $R$).
296:
297: It may seem futile to try to determine the redshift of a galaxy
298: from a single band. Galaxies span a large range in stellar masses
299: (i.e., luminosities) and therefore galaxies of a given magnitude
300: are found at virtually any redshift (c.f., \citet{D99}). On the
301: other hand, since the volume element $dV/dz$ peaks at around
302: $z=1-2$ (for reasonable cosmologies) and galaxies formed stars at
303: a higher rate at $z>1$ (and consequently were brighter than at
304: present), we expect a high probability that the average galaxy
305: inhabited the $1<z<2$ region for not too faint magnitudes. Here
306: we use the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) to derive a galaxy redshift
307: distribution at different observed magnitudes. With this
308: distribution we then determine a probability distribution of the
309: host galaxies' redshift based on their observed optical
310: magnitudes. Our methodology permits us to consider different
311: redshift distributions corresponding to different models of the
312: host galaxy population (e.g., the burst rate is proportional to
313: the galaxy luminosity); we test the hypotheses about the host
314: galaxies by determining whether the model redshift distributions
315: are consistent with the host galaxies with spectroscopic
316: redshifts. We use only observations from the HDF, the deepest
317: available survey, in order not to complicate our analysis with
318: theoretical prejudices in merging results from different surveys.
319: Note that we only require the distribution of redshifts at a given
320: magnitude, and thus as long as a redshift is determined for every
321: galaxy at a given magnitude in the survey field, the HDF will
322: suffice.
323:
324: Spectroscopic redshifts have thus far not been determined for all
325: the HDF galaxies. However, the available multi-band photometric
326: redshifts (accurate to 10\%) will suffice. We have used the HDF
327: catalog from \citet{D99}, to which the reader is referred for a
328: full description of the sample and the expected accuracy of the
329: photometric redshifts. In Fig.~\ref{hdf} we show the galaxy
330: redshift distribution as a function of apparent $R$ magnitude,
331: where we have transformed the HST F606W magnitudes into cousins
332: $R$ magnitudes. As expected, $R < 26$ galaxies are systematically
333: more common at $z<2$ than at higher redshifts.
334:
335: When normalized, the distributions in Fig.~\ref{hdf} provide the
336: galaxy redshift probability distributions in a given $R$ magnitude
337: band. Thus the HDF provides $p_{\hbox{HDF}}(z \,|\, f_R)$---$f_R$
338: is the energy flux corresponding to an R magnitude---from which we
339: derive $p_B$ for those bursts without a spectroscopic redshift.
340: Galaxy surveys weight each detected galaxy equally. However, the
341: burst rate may not be the same for each galaxy, and thus we have
342: to weight the galaxies in the HDF based on a model of burst
343: occurrence. To determine how to weight $p_{\hbox{HDF}}$ we have
344: to analyze the origin of this probability: it is the normalized
345: product of the comoving volume per redshift, $dV/dz$, times the
346: galaxy density at $L_R$ per comoving volume, $n(L_R,z)$. $L_R$ is
347: the luminosity over the band
348: in the burst's frame that redshifted into the $R$ band in the
349: observer's frame; this band varies with redshift. Note that we do
350: not need k-corrections for $L_R$ since the density is for those
351: galaxies which provide us with the observed $f_R$ in the $R$-band
352: in our frame. Thus
353: %
354: \begin{equation}
355: p_{\hbox{HDF}}(z\,|\,f_R) dz =
356: {{n(L_R=4\pi D_L^2f_R,z) {{dV}\over {dz}} dz }
357: \over{\int n(L_R=4\pi D_L^2f_R,z) {{dV}\over {dz}} dz}}
358: \quad .
359: \end{equation}
360: %
361:
362: We consider four models. First, we use $p_{\hbox{HDF}}$ as $p_B$;
363: every galaxy has an equal probability of hosting a burst. This is
364: inconsistent with most burst scenarios, but serves as a useful
365: null hypothesis.
366:
367: Second, we assume that the burst rate is proportional to the mass
368: of the galaxy. This corresponds to a scenario where the burst
369: occurs long after the progenitor was formed, and thus the
370: progenitor population is (approximately) proportional to the
371: galaxy's mass. In this case $p_B$ is $p_{\hbox{HDF}}$ weighted by
372: the luminosity the galaxy would have today in the R-band. Thus
373: {\it both} a k- and an e-correction are required, where the
374: e-correction compensates for the evolution in the galaxy's
375: spectrum. Note that these k- and e-corrections are {\it not}
376: applied to $p_{\hbox{HDF}}$ but only to the weighting. Thus $p_B
377: \propto L_R K(z)E(z)p_{\hbox{HDF}}(z \,|\,f_R)$ where $K(z)$ is
378: the k-correction which references $L_R$ (the luminosity in the
379: band at the host galaxy's redshift which is redshifted into
380: today's R-band) to today's R-band and $E(z)$ is the e-correction
381: which maps the R-band luminosity of a galaxy at the host's
382: redshift to the R-band luminosity it would have at present.
383:
384: Third, we assume that the burst rate is proportional to the
385: galaxy's intrinsic luminosity at the time of the burst. This
386: corresponds to scenarios where the burst occurs very soon after
387: the progenitor forms. Thus, if the luminosity per mass was
388: greater in the past as a result of increased star formation, then
389: the burst rate should also increase. This is admittedly an
390: oversimplification of a galaxy's evolutionary history. For this
391: model $p_B \propto L_R K(z)p_{\hbox{HDF}}(z \,|\,f_R)$ where, once
392: again, $K(z)$ is the k-correction which references $L_R$ (the
393: luminosity in the band which is redshifted into today's R-band) to
394: today's R-band.
395:
396: Fourth, we model the star formation rate for a given model by weighting the
397: second model, where the burst rate is proportional to the galaxy mass, by the
398: cosmic redshift-dependent star formation rate. This rate rises rapidly with
399: redshift to $z\sim 1$, and then levels off, e.g. cite{H+98}.
400:
401: Note that the $p_B$ for each of these different models needs to be
402: renormalized given the model-dependent weightings.
403:
404: Whenever we need to compute a k and/or e--correction in any of the above
405: scenarios, we have used the set of synthetic stellar populations developed in
406: \cite{JPMH98}. The star formation rate is modelled as a declining exponential,
407: with e-folding ($\tau$) time depending on the morphological type. In
408: particular, we used the following values: $\tau=1$, 3, 5 and $\inf$ for E/S0,
409: Sab, Scd and Irr types respectively. We kept the metallicity fixed at the
410: solar value during the whole evolution of the galaxy and chose $z=4$ as the
411: redshift of formation -- starting point of the star formation -- for all
412: galaxies. This modeling of galaxies is, indeed, overly simplistic, but it
413: is sufficient for our purposes since we do not require to be precise by more
414: than 0.5 magnitudes when computing the k+e corrections.
415:
416: \section{Testing the Host Galaxy Models}
417:
418: We can test the different models for the host galaxy population
419: using the bursts with both spectroscopic redshifts and host galaxy
420: R magnitudes. We compare the likelihoods using the various
421: models. However, the probability used in these likelihoods is the
422: probability that we would determine the redshift that was indeed
423: observed, not the probability that a host galaxy with a given R
424: magnitude would have a particular redshift. For the telescope
425: which determined the redshift there are redshift windows in which
426: it would not have been able to make this determination. For
427: example, for the Keck observations the redshift is difficult to
428: determine between $z=$1.3, when O[II] is redshifted out of the
429: spectrum, and $z=$2.5, when Ly$\alpha$ is blue shifted in. Thus in
430: the likelihood we should use $p\propto h(z)p_B$, where $h(z)$ is
431: the probability of determining a particular value of the redshift;
432: however, including the redshift windows applicable to each
433: observation is beyond the scope of this paper. Note that by
434: modifying the distribution of host galaxy redshifts, whether
435: observable or not, for a given R magnitude into the distribution
436: of host galaxies which are actually observable, we avoid the
437: selection effect resulting from the easier detectability of bright
438: host galaxies.
439:
440: The resulting likelihood is
441: %
442: \begin{equation}
443: \Lambda = \prod_i {{h(z_i)p_B(z_i \,|\, f_{R,i})}\over
444: {\int dz \, h(z_i)p_B(z_i \,|\, f_{R,i})}} \quad .
445: \end{equation}
446: %
447: We find that $\Lambda =10^{-3}$ for the model where the burst rate
448: is constant per galaxy, $\Lambda =3 \times 10^{-4}$ when the burst
449: rate is proportional to the galaxy mass, $\Lambda =10^{-2}$ when
450: the burst rate is proportional to the galaxy luminosity, and
451: $\Lambda =10^{-4}$ for the model where the burst rate is
452: proportional to the product of the galaxy mass and the cosmic star
453: formation rate. Thus the third model is preferred; we will use the
454: corresponding $p_B$ in adding the four bursts with only host
455: galaxy R magnitudes to the sample with spectroscopic redshifts.
456:
457: \section{The Burst Energy Distributions}
458:
459: We first estimate the characteristic isotropic gamma-ray energy ($\langle
460: E_{\gamma iso} \rangle$) and its spread ($\sigma_\gamma$) in the 20--2000 keV
461: band. The result is presented in Figure~\ref{tot}. The upper panel shows the
462: likelihood contour corresponding to 70\% confidence using only the 8 GRBs with
463: spectroscopic redshifts, while the bottom panel shows the same contour level
464: but with the additional 4 GRBs with statistical redshifts. Therefore, the
465: preferred value for $\langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle$ is $1.3^{+1.2}_{-1.0}
466: \times 10^{53}$ erg with $\sigma_\gamma=1.7^{+0.7}_{-0.3}$. Note that there is
467: no need to k-correct the $\gamma$-ray data in this case because the 20--2000
468: keV band already contains most of the energy of the GRB.
469:
470: Similarly we derive the peak luminosity $\langle L_{\gamma iso} \rangle$ in
471: the 50--300 keV band. In this case we apply a k-correction to the data using
472: the spectral fits described in Table~\ref{Table}. Figure~\ref{likpeak} shows
473: the 70\% confidence contour plot using all the GRBs in our sample. We find
474: $\langle L_{\gamma iso} \rangle=4.6^{+5.4}_{-2.5} \times 10^{51}$ erg s$^{-1}$
475: with $\sigma_L=1.4^{+0.7}_{-0.4}$.
476:
477: Finally, we find the average energy of the X-ray afterglow. To homogenize the
478: observations, we integrate the X-ray emission between 100 and 10$^5$ seconds
479: after the burst using the best fitting power law to the observed light curve
480: (slopes for the different light curves are given in Table~\ref{Table}).
481: Figure~\ref{xafter} shows the $1\sigma$ contour plot when the 7 GRBs with
482: X-ray light curves are considered. Here we find that $\langle E_{X iso}
483: \rangle = 4.0^{+1.6}_{-1.8} \times 10^{51}$ erg and $\sigma_X =
484: 1.3^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$.
485:
486: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
487:
488: We have determined the distributions of the total burst energy,
489: the peak burst luminosity and the total X-ray afterglow energy for
490: a sample of bursts with either spectroscopic redshifts or host
491: galaxy R magnitudes. These distributions reflect the physics of
492: the burst process.
493:
494: We have found that the best model for the burst rate is
495: proportional to the host galaxy luminosity and not to the host
496: size. This result provides further support to the proposition that
497: the bursts are associated with star formation. Star forming
498: galaxies are brighter than other galaxies with the same size.
499:
500: It seems that $\langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle$ is slightly broader than
501: $\langle E_{X iso} \rangle$, but within the 70\% confidence both distributions
502: are compatible with having the same width. However, inspection of the data
503: points shows that X-ray energy of one burst---GRB970508---significantly
504: broadens the X-ray distribution; otherwise the X-ray distribution would be
505: {\it much} narrower than the gamma-ray distribution. Thus we must conclude
506: that the data are insufficient to determine conclusively the width of the
507: luminosity functions, although there is a trend for the X-ray distribution to
508: be narrower than the ${\gamma}$ distribution.
509:
510: The ratio between the widths of the gamma-ray and the X-ray luminosity
511: functions is particularly important as far as the physics of the physical
512: processes within the ``inner engine.'' A ratio of order unity suggests that
513: the ``inner engine'' emits a rather uniform flow with no significant angular
514: variation on an angular scale of few degrees (corresponding to the width seen
515: several hours after the burst while the X-rays are emitted). On the other
516: hand, a large $\sigma_\gamma / \sigma_X$ would support the ``patchy shell''
517: model\citep{KP99} which predicts that the gamma-ray energy emitted during the
518: GRB has a significantly wider distribution than the X-ray energy emitted
519: during the afterglow, $\sigma_\gamma>\sigma_X$. In this model, there are mass
520: fluctuations on the shells whose collisions produce the internal shocks which
521: subsequently radiate the observed gamma-rays. Thus the gamma-ray intensity
522: should vary greatly with the observer's angle. On the other hand, the
523: afterglow results from the decelerating external shock, and the observer sees
524: a much larger solid angle of the relativistic outflow in the afterglow than in
525: the burst itself. Thus there are smaller fluctuations in the afterglow
526: intensity with observer angle. Finally $\sigma_\gamma / \sigma_X < 1$ would be
527: indicative of extremely large variations (from one burst to the other) in the
528: circumstellar matter surrounding the GRBs. The data are sufficient to rule
529: out this third possibility, but cannot distinguish with confidence between the
530: first and second, although the trend is toward favoring the ``patchy shell''
531: model.
532:
533: It is interesting to compare our results with the energy distribution
534: determined for the whole GRB sample. \cite{S99} finds for a broken
535: power law distribution that the energy of the break is $1.2 \times 10^{53}$
536: ergs, which is very close to our average energy. However, the average energy
537: in Schmidt's distribution is a factor of $\sim5$ smaller than this break
538: energy. This can be explained by the fact that afterglow can be observed only
539: for the more luminous bursts for which we can determine an exact position.
540:
541: Finally we note that we have presented here a new methodology for obtaining
542: the luminosity function of a sample for which the magnitude is known but there
543: are no redshift measurements. This method can be best applied to other
544: populations that like GRBs have an intrinsically wide luminosity function.
545: While a galaxy's optical magnitude does not provide a reliable distance
546: measure for a single object, is should be sufficiently reliable when analyzing
547: a large sample. This method should be tested on other samples in the future.
548:
549: This methodology can be used wherever burst distances and energies are
550: required. For example, a burst sample with known distances is required to
551: calibrate proposed correlations between the burst energy and the
552: frequency--dependent lags in pulses \citep{FR2001} or light-curve variability
553: \citep{NMB2000}.
554:
555: This research was supported in part by a US-Israel BSF. The work of David
556: Band was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the
557: Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-36.
558:
559: \clearpage
560:
561: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
562: %\bibliography{raul}
563:
564: \begin{thebibliography}{19}
565: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
566:
567: \bibitem[{{Arnouts et al.}(1999)}]{A+99}
568: {Arnouts et al.} 1999, astro-ph, 9902290
569:
570: \bibitem[{{Band} {et~al.}(1993){Band}, {Matteson}, {Ford}, {Schaefer},
571: {Palmer}, {Teegarden}, {Cline}, {Briggs}, {Paciesas}, {Pendleton}, {Fishman},
572: {Kouveliotou}, {Meegan}, {Wilson}, \& {Lestrade}}]{Band+93}
573: {Band}, D., {Matteson}, J., {Ford}, L., {Schaefer}, B., {Palmer}, D.,
574: {Teegarden}, B., {Cline}, T., {Briggs}, M., {Paciesas}, W., {Pendleton}, G.,
575: {Fishman}, G., {Kouveliotou}, C., {Meegan}, C., {Wilson}, R., \& {Lestrade},
576: P. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281
577:
578: \bibitem[{{Band} \& {Hartmann}(1998)}]{BandHartmann98}
579: {Band}, D.~L. \& {Hartmann}, D.~H. 1998, \apj, 493, 555
580:
581: \bibitem[{{Bloom} {et~al.}(2001){Bloom}, {Kulkarni}, \& G.}]{Bloom01}
582: {Bloom}, J.~S., {Kulkarni}, S.~R., \& G., D.~S. 2001, ApJ
583:
584: \bibitem[{{Connolly} {et~al.}(1995){Connolly}, {Csabai}, {Szalay}, {Koo},
585: {Kron}, \& {Munn}}]{CCSKM95}
586: {Connolly}, A.~J., {Csabai}, I., {Szalay}, A.~S., {Koo}, D.~C., {Kron}, R.~G.,
587: \& {Munn}, J.~A. 1995, AJ, 110, 2655
588:
589: \bibitem[{{Csabai} {et~al.}(1999){Csabai}, {Connolly}, {Szalay}, \&
590: {Budavari}}]{CCSB99}
591: {Csabai}, I., {Connolly}, A., {Szalay}, A., \& {Budavari}, T. 1999, astro-ph,
592: 9910389
593:
594: \bibitem[{{Driver}(1999)}]{D99}
595: {Driver}, S. 1999, astro-ph, 9909469
596:
597: \bibitem[{{Driver} {et~al.}(1998){Driver}, {Fernandez-Soto}, {Couch},
598: {Odewahn}, {Windhorst}, {Phillips}, {Lanzetta}, \& {Yahil}}]{D+98}
599: {Driver}, S.~P., {Fernandez-Soto}, A., {Couch}, W.~J., {Odewahn}, S.~C.,
600: {Windhorst}, R.~A., {Phillips}, S., {Lanzetta}, K., \& {Yahil}, A. 1998,
601: ApJL, 496, L93
602:
603: \bibitem[{{Fenimore} \& {Ramirez--Ruiz}(2000)}]{FR2001}
604: {Fenimore}, E. \& {Ramirez--Ruiz}, E. 2000, astro-ph, 0004176
605:
606: \bibitem[{{Fernandez-Soto} {et~al.}(1999){Fernandez-Soto}, {Lanzetta}, \&
607: {Yahil}}]{FLY99}
608: {Fernandez-Soto}, A., {Lanzetta}, K.~M., \& {Yahil}, A. 1999, ApJ, 513, 34
609:
610: \bibitem[{{Jimenez} {et~al.}(1998){Jimenez}, {Padoan}, {Matteucci}, \&
611: {Heavens}}]{JPMH98}
612: {Jimenez}, R., {Padoan}, P., {Matteucci}, F., \& {Heavens}, A.~F. 1998, MNRAS,
613: 299, 123
614:
615: \bibitem[{{Kumar} \& {Piran}(1999)}]{KP99}
616: {Kumar}, P. \& {Piran}, T. 1999, astro-ph, 9909014
617:
618: \bibitem[{{Narayan} {et~al.}(1992){Narayan}, {Paczynski}, \& {Piran}}]{NPP92}
619: {Narayan}, R., {Paczynski}, B., \& {Piran}, T. 1992, ApJ(Lett), 395, L83
620:
621: \bibitem[{{Norris} {et~al.}(2000){Norris}, {Marani}, \& {Bonnel}}]{NMB2000}
622: {Norris}, J., {Marani}, G., \& {Bonnel}, J. 2000, \apj, 534, 248
623:
624: \bibitem[{{Paczynski} \& {Xu}(1994)}]{PX94}
625: {Paczynski}, B. \& {Xu}, G. 1994, ApJ, 427, 708
626:
627: \bibitem[{{Rees} \& {Meszaros}(1994)}]{RM94}
628: {Rees}, M.~J. \& {Meszaros}, P. 1994, ApJ(Lett), 430, L93
629:
630: \bibitem[{{Sari} \& {Piran}(1997)}]{SP97}
631: {Sari}, R. \& {Piran}, T. 1997, ApJ, 485, 270
632:
633: \bibitem[{{Sawicki} {et~al.}(1997){Sawicki}, {Lin}, \& {Yee}}]{SLY97}
634: {Sawicki}, M.~J., {Lin}, H., \& {Yee}, H. K.~C. 1997, AJ, 113, 1
635:
636: \bibitem[{{Schmidt}(1999)}]{S99}
637: {Schmidt}, M. 1999, astro-ph, 9908206
638:
639: \end{thebibliography}
640:
641: \clearpage
642: \begin{deluxetable}{l l l l l l l l l l l l l}
643: \tablecolumns{13}
644: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
645: \tablewidth{0pt}
646: \rotate
647: \tablecaption{\label{Table}Main properties of the sample of Gamma Ray Bursts.}
648: \tablehead{
649: \colhead{Name}
650: &\colhead{$N_0$}
651: &\colhead{$\alpha$}
652: &\colhead{$\beta$}
653: &\colhead{$E_0$ (keV)}
654: &\colhead{$F_{\gamma}$ (erg cm$^{-2}$)\tablenotemark{a}}
655: &\colhead{$F_{\gamma peak}$ (erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) \tablenotemark{b}}
656: &\colhead{$\delta_x$}
657: &\colhead{$F_x$ (erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$)}
658: &\colhead{$t$ (s)}
659: &\colhead{$R_{\rm gal}$}
660: &\colhead{$z_{\rm obs}$}
661: &\colhead{$z_{\rm est}$}
662: }
663: \startdata
664: 970111& $7.86\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.533$ & \nodata &106.56& $4.07\times
665: 10^{-5}$ &
666: \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &35.36& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
667: %
668: % z--S. G. Djorgovski, S. R. Kulkarni, J. S. Bloom (Caltech), and D. A.
669: %Frail GCN 289,
670: % Bloom, J. S., Djorgovski, S. G., and Kulkarni, S. R. 2000, Ap.J.,
671: %[astro-ph/0007244]
672: % R=24.7--Fruchter et al. 1998
673: 970228& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $2.15\times
674: 10^{-6}$ &
675: \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 24.6&0.695&0.8\\
676: %
677: % z--Metzger et al. 1997a, IAU 6676
678: % R=25.55--Zharikov, S. V., Sokolov, V. V., and Baryshev, Yu. V. 1998, GCN 31
679: 970508& $1.73\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.191$ & $-1.831$ &480.84& $5.54\times
680: 10^{-6}$ & $7.38\times 10^{-7}$ & $-1.2$ & $3.9\times 10^{-7}$ & 23.44&
681: 25.8&0.835&1.2\\
682: %
683: 970616& $4.99\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.464$ & $-2.549$ & 296.91&
684: $4.03\times 10^{-5}$ & \nodata &
685: \nodata & \nodata & 203.68& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
686: %
687: 970815& $4.17\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.094$ & $-2.802$ &113.25& $1.37\times
688: 10^{-5}$ &
689: \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &183.59& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
690: %
691: % z--Djorgovski talk
692: %
693: 970828& $1.15\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.704$ & $-2.072$ & 229.74& $9.60\times
694: 10^{-5}$ & $3.01\times 10^{-6}$ & $-1.0$ & $1.82\times 10^{-6}$ &
695: 146.59& 24.5&0.958&0.8 \\
696: %
697: 971024& $9.72\times 10^{-3}$ &0.185& $-3.881$ &40.93& $2.38\times 10^{-6}$ &
698: \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &97.82& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
699: %
700: % z--Kulkarni et al. 1998a, Nature, 393, 35
701: % R=26.5 Odewahn et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, L5
702: 971214& $7.23\times 10^{-3}$ & $-0.783$ & $-2.574$ &155.96& $9.44\times
703: 10^{-6}$ &
704: $2.28\times 10^{-6}$ & $-1.6$ & $1.31\times 10^{-6}$ &45.45& 26.2
705: &3.412&1.2\\
706: %
707: 971227& $1.06\times 10^{-2}$ & $-1.440$ & $-4.198$ &112.03& $1.21\times
708: 10^{-6}$ & $3.37\times 10^{-6}$ & \nodata & \nodata &6.94& 25.0& \nodata &1.2\\
709: %
710: 980109& $9.34\times 10^{-3}$ & $-0.428$ & $-2.291$ &62.65&
711: $4.08\times 10^{-6}$ & \nodata &
712: \nodata & \nodata &42.97& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
713: %
714: 980326& $2.11\times 10^{-2}$ & $-1.327$ & $-4.335$ &77.19& $9.22\times
715: 10^{-7}$ &
716: $8.00\times 10^{-7}$ & \nodata & \nodata &4.01& 25.3& \nodata &1.2\\
717: %
718: 980329 & $2.58\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.964$ & $-2.431$ & 235.65& $5.51\times
719: 10^{-5}$ & $1.15\times 10^{-5}$ & $-1.34$ & $0.56\times 10^{-6}$
720: &50.15& 26.3& \nodata &1.2\\
721: %
722: % Kulkarni et al. 1998b, Nature, 395, 663
723: 980425& $4.70\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.266$ & \nodata &161.20& $3.87\times
724: 10^{-6}$ &
725: \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &37.41&14.3&0.0085&0.01\\
726: %
727: % R=24.8
728: 980519& $4.79\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.352$ & \nodata &315.94& $1.03\times
729: 10^{-5}$ & $2.98\times 10^{-6}$ & \nodata & \nodata &56.35& 24.7& \nodata
730: &0.8\\
731: %
732: % z Djorgovski et al. 1999,GCN189
733: % R=23.85 "
734: 980613& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $3.87\times
735: 10^{-7}$ & $-1.6$ & $0.55\times 10^{-6}$ & \nodata & 23.85&1.096&0.8 \\
736: %
737: % z Djorgovski et al. ApJL 508, 17, 1998
738: % R=22.8 Bloom, J., & Kulkarni, S. 2000, GCN702
739: 980703& $4.41\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.314$ & $-2.396$ &370.26& $2.26\times
740: 10^{-5}$ & $1.62\times 10^{-6}$ & $-1.67$ & $1.27\times
741: 10^{-6}$ &102.37& 22.8 &0.966&0.6\\
742: %
743: 980706& $1.50\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.112$ & \nodata & $5000.0$ & $2.31\times
744: 10^{-5}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &72.81& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
745: %
746: % z Bloom et al. 1999, ApJ, 518
747: % R=23.7 Fruchter et al. 1999, ApJ, 516, 689
748: 990123& $2.62\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.900$ & $-2.476$ &549.51& $2.68\times
749: 10^{-4}$ & $1.11\times 10^{-5}$ & $-1.6$ & $8.98\times
750: 10^{-6}$ &104.61& 24.3&1.600&0.8\\
751: %
752: 990506 & $1.51\times 10^{-2}$ & $-1.370$ & $-2.152$ &449.78& $1.94\times
753: 10^{-4}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 220.38& 25.0 &1.2& \nodata\\
754: %
755: 990510 & $7.96\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.275$ & $-2.670$ &174.24& $2.26\times
756: 10^{-5}$ & $5.02\times
757: 10^{-6}$ & \nodata & \nodata &103.84& \nodata &1.619& \nodata\\
758: %
759: 990712& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
760: \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 22.0&0.43&0.40\\
761: %
762: 990806& $8.91\times 10^{-3}$ & $-0.658$ & $-2.261$ &109.09& $2.51\times
763: 10^{-6}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &12.71& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
764: %
765: 991014& $1.16\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.754$ & $-2.190$ &84.65& $1.01\times
766: 10^{-6}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &5.093& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
767: %
768: 991105& $2.16\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.734$ & \nodata &363.49& $2.80\times
769: 10^{-6}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &34.28& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
770: %
771: 991208 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata
772: & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0.706 & \nodata \\
773: %
774: 991216& $1.29\times 10^{-1}$ & $-1.234$ & $-2.184$ &414.83& $1.94\times
775: 10^{-4}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 24.96& 26.9 & 1.02 & \nodata\\
776: %
777: 991229 & $5.76\times10^{-3}$ & $-1.171$ & \nodata & 3000 &
778: $1.70\times10^{-4}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 174.431 &
779: \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
780: %
781: 000115 & $5.92\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.856$ & $-2.692$ & 191.74 &
782: $3.68\times 10^{-5}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
783: 18.214& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
784: %
785: 000126 & $7.71\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.279$ & $-2.289$ &342.64 &
786: $3.28\times 10^{-5}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
787: 85.023& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
788: %
789: 000131 & $1.68\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.688$ & $-2.068$ & 98.982 &
790: $4.18\times 10^{-5}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
791: 110.151& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
792: %
793: 000201 & $5.80\times10^{-3}$ & $-1.092$ & $-5.000$ & 347.73 &
794: $2.81\times 10^{-5}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
795: 99.359& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
796: %
797: 000301A & $3.01\times 10^{-3}$ & $-0.901$ & $-2.347$ & 468.48 &
798: $6.17\times 10^{-6}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
799: 23.757& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
800: %
801: % z--Castro, S. M., et al. 2000, GCN 605.
802: 0000301C & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata
803: & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 2.0335 & \nodata \\
804: %
805: 000307 & $1.05\times10^{-2}$ & $-1.372$ & $-2.267$ & 168.63 &
806: $8.70\times 10^{-6}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
807: 26.598& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
808: %
809: 000408 & $5.48\times 10^{-2}$ & $-1.208$ & $-2.353$ & 248.16 &
810: $2.28\times 10^{-5}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
811: 10.278& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
812: %
813: % z--Bloom, J. S., et al. 2000, GCN 661.
814: % R host--Klose, S., et al. 2000, astro-ph/0007201.
815: 000418 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
816: \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
817: \nodata & 23.9 & 1.118 & \nodata\\
818: %
819: 000429 & $2.37\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.050$ & $-5.000$ & 536.80 &
820: $3.25\times 10^{-5}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
821: 179.693& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
822: %
823: 000508B & $1.18\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.711$ & $-2.247$ & 105.48 &
824: $1.49\times 10^{-5}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
825: 59.283& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
826: %
827: 000519 & $8.90\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.500$ & $-2.361$ & 473.81 &
828: $7.94\times 10^{-6}$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
829: 16.991& \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
830: \enddata
831:
832: \tablenotetext{a}{20--2000 keV}
833: \tablenotetext{b}{50--300 keV}
834:
835: \end{deluxetable}
836:
837:
838: \clearpage
839: \begin{figure}
840: \plotone{f1.eps}
841: \caption{
842: Comparison between the 20--2000~keV
843: fluences (in erg cm$^{-2}$) from the BATSE catalog and from
844: integrating the spectral fits in the table over energy and time.
845: The fluences are equal along the solid line while along the dashed
846: line the catalog fluences are twice as great as the fluences
847: derived from the spectral fits.\label{flu_comp}}
848: \end{figure}
849:
850: \clearpage
851: \begin{figure}
852: \plotone{f2.eps}
853: \caption{
854: The redshift distribution of galaxies in the $R$ band from the HDF.\label{hdf}}
855: \end{figure}
856:
857: \clearpage
858: \begin{figure}
859: \plotone{f3.eps}
860: \caption{
861: The 70\% confidence likelihood contour plot for
862: total burst energy $\langle E_{\gamma iso} \rangle$ and its
863: variance $\sigma_\gamma$ (see text) in the 20--2000 keV band when
864: using the 8 bursts with spectroscopic redshifts (top panel) and
865: when adding to these 8 bursts the 4 GRBs with only host galaxy
866: magnitudes (bottom panel).\label{tot}}
867: \end{figure}
868:
869: \clearpage
870: \begin{figure}
871: \plotone{f4.eps}
872: \caption{
873: The 70\% confidence likelihood contour plot for
874: the peak burst luminosity $\langle L_{\gamma iso} \rangle$ and
875: $\sigma_L$ in the 50--300 keV band. Note that in this case we have
876: k-corrected the data from Table~\ref{Table} using the spectral
877: fits provided in the table.\label{likpeak}}
878: \end{figure}
879:
880: \clearpage
881: \begin{figure}
882: \plotone{f5.eps}
883: \caption{
884: The 70\% confidence likelihood contour plot for
885: the total afterglow X-ray energy $\langle E_{X iso} \rangle$ and
886: $\sigma_X$. We integrated the X-ray flux between 100 and $10^5$
887: seconds after the burst in the 2--10 keV band and applied a
888: corresponding k-correction assuming a spectrum $\propto
889: \nu^{-0.75}$.\label{xafter}}
890: \end{figure}
891:
892: \end{document}
893: