1:
2: % Draft 1
3: % 5/15/01
4:
5: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
6:
7: %\usepackage{psfig}
8: %\usepackage{natbib}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{The Energy Distribution of Gamma-Ray Bursts}
13: \author{David L. Band}
14: \affil{X-2, MS B-220, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los
15: Alamos, NM 87545}
16: \email{dband@lanl.gov}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: The distribution of the apparent total energy emitted by a
20: gamma-ray burst reflects not only the distribution of the energy
21: actually released by the burst engine, but also the distribution
22: of beaming angles. Using the observed energy fluences, the
23: detection thresholds and burst redshifts for three burst samples,
24: I calculate the best-fit parameters for lognormal and power-law
25: distributions of the apparent total energy. Two of the samples
26: include a small number of bursts with spectroscopic redshifts,
27: while the third sample has 220 bursts with redshifts determined by
28: the proposed variability-luminosity correlation. I find different
29: sets of parameter values for the three burst samples. The Bayesian
30: odds ratio cannot distinguish between the two model distribution
31: functions for the two smaller burst samples with spectroscopic
32: redshifts, but does favor the lognormal distribution for the
33: larger sample with variability-derived redshifts. The data do not
34: rule out a distribution with a low energy tail which is currently
35: unobservable. I find that neglecting the burst detection
36: threshold biases the fitted distribution to be narrower with a
37: higher average value than the true distribution; this demonstrates
38: the importance of determining and reporting the effective
39: detection threshold for bursts in a sample.
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \keywords{gamma-rays: bursts}
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: The growing number of gamma-ray bursts with redshifts has not only
47: established that most, if not all, bursts are at cosmological
48: distances, and that up to $10^{54}$ erg are radiated by a burst,
49: but permits us to determine important intrinsic physical
50: distributions. Since we sample a burst's radiation pattern at
51: only one point, the observed energy fluence can only be related to
52: the energy flux emitted in our direction; this energy flux can be
53: expressed as the total energy the burst would have emitted if it
54: radiated isotropically. Here I consider the distribution of this
55: apparent total energy.
56:
57: The distribution of the apparent total energy is a convolution of
58: the distribution of the actual energy emitted and the distribution
59: of the angle into which the emission is beamed, both quantities of
60: crucial importance in understanding the physics of the progenitor,
61: the frequency of burst occurrence, and the impact of a burst on
62: its environment. Frail et al. (2001) have recently determined the
63: beaming angles for a burst sample by modeling the
64: late-time breaks in the temporal decay of the afterglows;
65: accounting for the beaming angle provides the actual total energy,
66: which they found is clustered around $E\sim 5\times10^{50}$ erg. If the
67: analysis of Frail et al. is indeed correct (there are competing
68: models for the evolution of the afterglow) then methods similar to
69: those I develop here will be necessary to determine properly the
70: beaming angle and total energy distributions.
71:
72: This study extends the work of Jimenez, Band \& Piran (2001) which
73: considered lognormal distributions for the apparent total
74: gamma-ray energy, the peak gamma-ray luminosity, and the total
75: X-ray afterglow energy. Jimenez et al. expanded the database of
76: bursts with spectroscopic redshifts by adding bursts for which a
77: redshift probability distribution could be inferred from the host
78: galaxy brightness. Currently the bursts with only redshift
79: probability distributions do not augment the relevant burst
80: database sufficiently to warrant their inclusion in my study,
81: although in the future it may be advantageous to include these
82: bursts if the determination of spectroscopic redshifts does not
83: keep pace with the detection of bursts and their host galaxies.
84:
85: Recently correlations have been proposed between burst properties
86: and their peak luminosities. Norris, Marani \& Bonnel (1999)
87: proposed that more luminous bursts have smaller time lags between
88: energy channels, while Fenimore \& Ramirez-Ruiz (2001) reported
89: that the light curves of more luminous bursts were more variable;
90: Schaefer, Deng \& Band (2001) found that applying both
91: correlations to the same burst sample resulted in consistent burst
92: luminosities. The redshift is determined from the derived
93: luminosities and the observed peak fluxes. Thus these
94: correlations can give us a large burst sample with redshifts from
95: which the energy distribution can be determined.
96:
97: In \S 2 I discuss the methodology for finding the best parameter
98: values for a given functional form of the distribution, and for
99: comparing different functional forms. I also evaluate the
100: sensitivity to small burst samples, and demonstrate the importance
101: of considering the detection threshold in determining the
102: distributions. The energy distributions resulting from two small
103: burst samples with spectroscopic redshifts and from a large sample
104: with redshifts from the variability-luminosity correlation are
105: described in \S 3. Finally, \S 4 summarizes my conclusions.
106:
107: \section{Methodology}
108:
109: \subsection{The Likelihood Function}
110:
111: I begin with an assumed distribution $p(E \,|\, \vec{a_j}, M_j,
112: I)$ where $E$ is the apparent total burst energy, $\vec{a_j}$ is
113: the set of parameters which characterize the $j$th model
114: distribution function represented by $M_j$, and $I$ specifies
115: general assumptions about the distribution function. I use
116: $p(a\,|\,b)$ to mean the probability of $a$ given $b$. Below I
117: present the distribution functions used in this study. A
118: distribution is assumed to be universal and not a function of
119: redshift (i.e., no evolution), or of properties of the host
120: galaxy, burst, etc. Of course, once a sufficiently large sample
121: is available, the energy distributions for burst subsets can be
122: investigated. I use normalized distributions since the burst rate
123: is not of interest here. The observed energy fluence $F$ and the
124: burst energy $E$ are related by $F=E (1+z)/4\pi D_L(z)^2 = E C(z)$
125: where $D_L(z)$ is the luminosity distance. It is in calculating
126: the luminosity distance that the burst redshift and a cosmological
127: model are required. Here I assume H$_0$=65 km s$^{-1}$
128: Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$.
129:
130: This energy distribution is converted into $p(F \,|\, \vec{a_j},z,
131: M_j,I)$, the probability of obtaining the energy fluence $F$ given
132: the parameters $\vec{a_j}$ for model $M_j$, the burst redshift
133: $z$, and other assumptions $I$ (e.g., the choice of cosmological
134: model). However, the observed fluences are not drawn from this
135: probability distribution but from $p(F \,|\, F_T,\vec{a_j},
136: z,M_j,I)$, the normalized distribution which is truncated below
137: $F_T$, the minimum fluence at which that particular burst would
138: have been included in the burst sample.
139:
140: I now form the likelihood
141: %
142: \begin{equation}
143: L_j=\prod_{i=1}^N p(F_i \,|\, F_{T,i},\vec{a_j},z_i,M_j,I)
144: \end{equation}
145: %
146: where the $i$th burst has energy fluence $F_i$, threshold fluence
147: $F_{T,i}$, and redshift $z_i$. In the ``frequentist'' framework
148: best fit parameters are typically found by maximizing $L_j$.
149:
150: The likelihood is $L_j=p(D \,|\, \vec{a_j},M_j,I)$, where $D$ is
151: the set of observed fluences and fluence thresholds. The Bayesian
152: method of estimating the parameters is to calculate
153: %
154: \begin{eqnarray}
155: \langle \vec{a_j} \rangle &=& \int d\vec{a_j} \,\vec{a_j}\,
156: p(\vec{a_j}\,|\, D,M_j,I) \\
157: &=& {{\int d\vec{a_j} \,\vec{a_j}\, p(D\,|\, \vec{a_j},M_j,I)
158: p(\vec{a_j}\,|\, M_j,I)} \over
159: {\int d\vec{a_j} \, p(D\,|\, \vec{a_j},M_j,I)
160: p(\vec{a_j}\,|\, M_j,I)}}
161: = {{\int d\vec{a_j} \,\vec{a_j}\,
162: \prod_{i=1}^N p(F_i \,|\, F_{T,i},\vec{a_j},z_i,M_j,I)
163: p(\vec{a_j}\,|\, M_j,I)} \over{\int d\vec{a_j} \,
164: \prod_{i=1}^N p(F_i \,|\, F_{T,i},\vec{a_j},z_i,M_j,I)
165: p(\vec{a_j}\,|\, M_j,I)}} \nonumber
166: \end{eqnarray}
167: %
168: where $p(\vec{a_j}\,|\, M_j,I)$ is the prior for the parameters
169: $\vec{a_j}$. If $\Lambda_j = p(D\,|\, \vec{a_j},M_j,I)
170: p(\vec{a_j}\,|\, M_j,I)$ is sharply peaked, then the expectation
171: value of the parameters occurs at the peak of $\Lambda_j$. Note
172: that $\Lambda_j$ is the likelihood in eq.~1 times the priors for
173: the parameters. In some sense the priors indicate the natural
174: variables in terms of which the priors are constant. For example,
175: here the burst energies vary over a number of decades, and thus I
176: assume that the priors for average or cutoff energies are
177: logarithmic. Consequently maximizing $\Lambda_j$ is equivalent to
178: maximizing the likelihood in terms of the logarithm of the energy
179: parameters. This is the methodology I use here; I do not attempt
180: to integrate the integrals in eq.~2.
181:
182: For each burst the cumulative probability is
183: %
184: \begin{equation}
185: P(F_i \,|\, F_{T,i},\vec{a_j},z_i,M_j,I) =
186: \int_{F_i}^\infty p(F \,|\, F_{T,i},\vec{a_j},z_i,M_j,I)\, dF
187: \quad .
188: \end{equation}
189: %
190: If the assumed energy distribution function is an acceptable
191: characterization of the observations (which would be the case if
192: the model $M_j$ is correct) and all the assumptions are valid
193: (e.g., the cosmological model is correct), then the cumulative
194: probabilities $P(F_i)$ should be uniformly distributed between 0
195: and 1, and have an average value of $\langle P(F_i) \rangle=
196: 1/2\pm (12N)^{-1/2}$ for $N$ bursts in the sample.
197:
198: \subsection{Model Comparison}
199:
200: As mentioned above, the average of the cumulative probability
201: $\langle P(F_i) \rangle$ should be 1/2 (within a quantifiable
202: uncertainty) if the distribution function describes the
203: observations satisfactorily. Thus the value of this statistic for
204: model $M_j$ is a measure of the acceptability of that model.
205: Further, a comparison of the values for different models is a
206: measure of the relative merits of these models; of course, this
207: comparison should account for the expected uncertainty in the
208: value of this statistic.
209:
210: The Bayesian framework provides a clear prescription for comparing
211: models through the odds ratio. Let $p(M_j \,|\, D , I)$ be the
212: posterior probability for the $j$th model $M_j$ given the data
213: $D$. Then the odds ratio comparing the $j$th and $k$th models is
214: $O_{jk} = p(M_j \,|\, D , I)/ p(M_k \,|\, D , I)$. But by Bayes'
215: Theorem $p(M_j \,|\, D , I)\propto p(M_j \,|\, I) p(D \,|\, M_j ,
216: I)$ where the normalizing factor is independent of $M_j$, and thus
217: cancels in forming the odds ratio. I assume that no model is
218: favored a priori; therefore the ``priors'' $p(M_j \,|\, I)$ are
219: the same for all $M_j$, and cancel in forming the odds ratio. Here
220: $D$ consists of the observed energy fluences (and the detection
221: thresholds). Thus $p(M_j \,|\, D , I)\propto \prod_i p(F_i \,|\,
222: F_{T,i},z_i,M_j,I)$. However, we begin with the more fundamental
223: probabilities $p(F_i \,|\, F_{T,i},z_i,M_j,\vec{a_j}, I)$, which
224: are functions of the model parameters $\vec{a_j}$. In determining
225: the preferred model we are uninterested in the specific model
226: parameters, and therefore we ``marginalize'' over the parameters
227: $\vec{a_j}$: $ p(F_i \,|\, F_{T,i},z_i,M_j,I) = \int d\vec{a_j} \,
228: p(\vec{a_j}\,|\,M_j,I) \prod_i p(F_i \,|\, F_{T,i},z_i, M_j,
229: \vec{a_j}, I)$, where $p(\vec{a_j}\,|\,M_j,I)$ is the prior for
230: the parameters of the $j$th model. Thus
231: %
232: \begin{equation}
233: O_{jk} = {{\int d\vec{a_j} \, \prod^N_i
234: p(F_i \,|\, F_{T,i},z_i,M_j,\vec{a_j}, I)
235: p(\vec{a_j}\,|\,M_j,I)} \over
236: {\int d\vec{a_k} \, \prod^N_i
237: p(F_i \,|\, F_{T,i},z_i,M_k,\vec{a_k}, I)
238: p(\vec{a_k}\,|\,M_k,I) }} \quad .
239: \end{equation}
240: %
241: It will be noted that the odds ratio is the ratio of the
242: likelihoods for each model (eq.~1) marginalized over the model
243: parameters. Often the prior for the parameters is set equal to a
244: delta function at the parameter values which maximize the
245: likelihood, which is of course circular reasoning. In this common
246: formulation, the odds ratio is the ratio of the peak values of the
247: likelihoods for each model. Below I present priors defined in
248: terms of the expected parameter ranges, in which case the
249: integrals in eq.~4 must be integrated. I present values of the
250: odds ratio with both the delta function priors and the more
251: refined priors. It is possible that with the delta function
252: priors the odds ratio may favor one model, but with the more
253: refined priors another model is favored, as is indeed the case
254: here.
255:
256: \subsection{Distribution Functions}
257: \subsubsection{Lognormal Distribution}
258:
259: I assume that $E$ has a log-normal distribution
260: %
261: \begin{equation}
262: p(E \,|\, E_0 ,\sigma) d(\ln E) =
263: {1\over{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}}
264: \exp \left[-{{(\ln E_0 -\ln E)^2}
265: \over{2\sigma^2}} \right] d(\ln E) \quad .
266: \end{equation}
267: %
268: Thus the fluence $F$ also has a log-normal distribution. Note
269: that $\sigma$ is a width in logarithmic space, and the linear
270: change of variables from $E$ to $F$ does not affect this width. As
271: discussed above, we need to consider the range over which the
272: fluence could actually have been observed, i.e., for fluences
273: above the threshold $F_T$. The resulting normalized fluence
274: probability distribution is
275: %
276: \begin{equation}
277: p_{\hbox{obs}}(F \,|\, F_T, E_0 ,\sigma,z) d (\ln F) =
278: {{{1\over{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}}
279: \exp \left[-{{\left(\ln\left[ E_0 C(z)\right]-\ln F \right)^2}
280: \over{2\sigma^2}}\right] \theta(F-F_T) d(\ln F)}
281: \over{{1\over 2}
282: \left(1+\hbox{erf}\left[ {{\ln\left[ E_0
283: C(z)\right]-\ln(F_T) }\over {\sqrt{2}\sigma}} \right]\right)}}
284: \end{equation}
285: %
286: where $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside function (1 above $x=0$, and 0
287: below) and $C(z)=(1+z)/4\pi D_L(z)^2$ converts energies in the
288: burst's frame to fluences in our frame; the denominator results
289: from integrating over the numerator from $F_T$ to infinity.
290:
291: For the Bayesian formulation we also need the priors for the model
292: parameters. There is no reason to favor one energy over another
293: over many energy decades, and thus I assume the prior is constant
294: in logarithimic space: $p(E_0) dE_0 = (E_0 \ln [E_u/E_l])^{-1}
295: dE_0=(\ln[E_u/E_l])^{-1} d\ln E_0= (\log_{10} [E_u/E_l])^{-1}
296: d\log_{10} E_0$ where $E_u$ and $E_l$ are the upper and lower
297: limits of the permitted range (because of the logarithmic
298: dependence, the result is not very sensitive to the precise
299: values). I will use $E_l = 10^{51}$ erg and $E_u = 10^{54}$ erg.
300: Similarly, I have no a priori information about $\sigma$, and
301: therefore assign it a uniform prior between 0 and 5. Note that the
302: distribution function is explicitly a function of $\ln E_0$ and
303: $\sigma$, and the priors indicate that these are indeed the
304: natural parameters.
305:
306: \subsubsection{Single Component Power Law Distribution}
307:
308: I assume that the underlying energy probability distribution is
309: %
310: \begin{eqnarray}
311: p(E\,|\,E_1, E_2, \alpha) dE =&
312: {{\left(1-\alpha\right)E_2^{\alpha-1}}
313: \over{1-(E_1/E_2)^{1-\alpha}}} E^{-\alpha} dE \quad
314: & ; \quad E_1\le E \le E_2,\quad \alpha \ne 1 \nonumber \\
315: =& {{E^{-1}}\over{\ln(E_2/E_1)}} dE & ; \quad E_1\le E \le E_2,\quad
316: \alpha = 1 \quad .
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: %
319: If $E_1$ is extended to 0 or $E_2$ to infinity, then we must
320: restrict $\alpha$ to be less than or greater than 1, respectively.
321: The expected fluence probability distribution, accounting for the
322: fluence threshold $F_T$, is
323: %
324: \begin{eqnarray}
325: p(F\,|\,F_T,E_1, E_2, \alpha) dF =&
326: {{\left(1-\alpha\right) [E_2 C(z)]^{\alpha-1}} \theta(F-F_T)
327: \over{1-(\max [E_1,F_T/C(z)]/E_2)^{1-\alpha}}} F^{-\alpha} dF
328: & ; \quad E_1\le F/C(z) \le E_2,\quad \alpha \ne 1 \nonumber \\
329: =& {{F^{-1}\theta(F-F_T)}\over{\ln(E_2/\max [E_1,F_T/C(z)])}} dF &
330: ; \quad E_1\le F/C(z) \le E_2, \quad \alpha = 1
331: \end{eqnarray}
332: %
333: where again $C(z)=(1+z)/4\pi D_L(z)^2$ converts burst energies to
334: fluences.
335:
336: As with $E_0$ for the lognormal distribution, I have no reason to
337: prefer any value of the energy limits $E_1$ and $E_2$ over many
338: energy decades, and therefore I again use logarithmic priors for
339: these two energies. For definiteness, I will assume that $E_1$
340: can have a value between $10^{49}$ and $10^{52}$ erg, and $E_2$
341: between $10^{52}$ and $10^{55}$ erg. The spectral index is
342: assumed to have a uniform prior between $-2.5$ and 2.5.
343:
344: \subsection{Data}
345:
346: The methodology discussed above requires the energy fluence $F$,
347: the threshold fluence $F_T$ and the redshift $z$ for each burst. I
348: consider 3 samples. The B9 sample consists of 9 bursts with BATSE
349: data and spectroscopic redshifts. The fluences were calculated by
350: fitting the BATSE spectrum accumulated over the entire burst with
351: the ``GRB'' function (Band et al. 1993), and then integrating the
352: resulting fit over the 20--2000~keV energy range in the burst's
353: rest frame and over the time during which the spectrum was
354: accumulated. The resulting fits are presented in Jimenez et al.
355: (2001). There are some bursts for which the high energy power law
356: in the GRB function has an index $\beta<-2$ (where $N\propto
357: E^\beta$) and thus the fluence depends crucially on the high
358: energy cutoff (or roll-off) which must exist for a finite fluence
359: but which could not be determined from the BATSE data. The
360: spectroscopic redshifts are taken from Frail et al. (2001).
361:
362: The limiting fluence $F_T$ is more difficult to determine. The
363: bursts in our sample must have been intense enough to be first
364: detected and then properly localized. In addition, a decision was
365: made to attempt to observe the afterglow and thus determine the
366: redshift. These threshold quantities have generally not been
367: reported. Note also that detectors almost never trigger on the
368: fluence but usually trigger on the peak count rate sampled over a
369: time bin of a specified duration. Here I will assume that the
370: ratio of the observed to threshold fluence, $F/F_T$, is the same
371: as the ratio of the observed to threshold peak count rate, $C_{\rm
372: max}/C_{\rm min}$, for the BATSE data. These thresholds are most
373: likely underestimates of the true thresholds. The $C_{\rm
374: max}/C_{\rm min}$ ratio is a standard part of the BATSE catalog
375: (BATSE team 2001); however, in some cases the BATSE team did not
376: calculate this quantity because of data gaps, in which case I
377: estimated this ratio from the lightcurves. This sample is
378: described by Table~1.
379:
380: The C17 sample consists of the 17 bursts with spectroscopic
381: redshifts and fluences in Frail et al. (2001). This sample is
382: basically a superset of the B9 sample with an additional BATSE
383: burst for which there are no spectra, and bursts observed by {\it
384: Beppo-SAX} and {\it Ulysses}. For those bursts without reported
385: detection thresholds I use a fluence threshold of
386: $10^{-6}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$.
387:
388: Finally, the F220 sample uses the 220 bursts in Fenimore \&
389: Ramirez-Ruiz (2001) with redshifts determined by the
390: variability-luminosity correlation. This sample was selected to
391: have a peak count rate accumulated on the 256 millisecond
392: timescale of greater than 1.5~cts~s$^{-1}$, which provides a
393: well-defined detection threshold. The fluences were taken from
394: the BATSE catalog without any k-corrections. Note that Bloom et
395: al. (2001) find that the k-correction for the 20--2000~keV energy
396: range is of order unity.
397:
398: It should be noted that for the first two samples the redshifts
399: are reliable but the detection threshold is very uncertain. Even
400: when the detection threshold is known for the gamma-ray portion of
401: the burst, the effective threshold for optical follow-up
402: observations has not been reported. On the other hand, the
403: detection threshold for the third sample is known, but the
404: validity of the variability-luminosity correlation is still not
405: well established, and the uncertainty in the resulting redshifts
406: is not considered.
407:
408: \subsection{Simulations}
409:
410: To determine the sensitivity of the methodology to the number of
411: bursts and to demonstrate the importance of considering the
412: fluence threshold, I ran a series of simulations. For each
413: simulation I first created between 100 and 500 simulated databases
414: to which I then applied the methodology described above to
415: determine the parameters of their energy distribution. For some
416: simulations I found the parameters with the fluence thresholds
417: used in creating the database or with much smaller thresholds.
418:
419: For each simulated burst I needed a redshift, a burst energy and a
420: fluence threshold. The redshifts were drawn from a distribution
421: which is similar to the proposed cosmic star formation rate. The
422: fluence threshold was drawn from a uniform logarithmic
423: distribution over one decade. The burst energy was drawn from a
424: lognormal distribution with specified central energy and
425: logarithmic width, as long as the resulting fluence was greater
426: than the fluence threshold.
427:
428: Figure 1 shows the importance of considering the fluence threshold
429: in calculating the likelihood. As can be seen, the best fitted
430: parameter values cluster around the input central energy
431: $E_0=10^{53}$~erg and logarithmic width $\sigma=1.5$ when the
432: fluence threshold is considered (asterisks), but cluster around a
433: higher energy and narrower width when the fluence threshold is
434: neglected (diamonds). The fluence threshold removes low energy
435: bursts, resulting in a narrower apparent distribution which is
436: shifted to higher energy. Each of the 100 simulated datasets had
437: 80 bursts, and a fluence threshold between $10^{-6}$ and $10^{-5}$
438: erg cm$^{-2}$. Figure~2 shows that the likelihood contours for a
439: sample analyzed with the correct fluence thresholds (left panel)
440: and thresholds a factor of 10 smaller (right panel) differ
441: significantly.
442:
443: Table~2 gives the width of the distributions of the parameters of
444: the lognormal distribution, $\log E_0$ and $\sigma$, for databases
445: with 9, 20, 40 and 80 bursts. As expected, the distributions
446: become narrower as the number of bursts increases. As can be seen,
447: a database with 40 bursts should give satisfactory best-fit
448: parameter values.
449:
450: \section{Results}
451:
452: As can be seen from Table~3, the parameter values at the
453: likelihood maximum for the two distribution functions differ for
454: the three burst samples, and the 90\% confidence ranges from one
455: burst sample do not always include the parameters from the other
456: samples. Note that the lower energy cutoff $E_1$ for the simple
457: power law distribution is not fitted. The fits are insensitive to
458: $E_1$ values smaller than the lowest energy for which any burst in
459: the sample would have been detected, and $E_1$ cannot be greater
460: than the smallest observed burst energy; the difference between
461: these two limits is very small. Figures~3--8 show the likelihood
462: contours for the fitted parameters. A ridge of somewhat lower
463: likelihood values curves towards lower values of $E_0$ and higher
464: values of $\sigma$ for the lognormal distributions. Thus the data
465: do not strongly exclude a broader distribution which includes
466: lower energy bursts which are not detected because their fluence
467: is below the threshold. Consequently, the 90\% confidence bounds
468: for the parameters are quite broad. For the power law
469: distributions, the favored high energy cutoff is at the highest
470: observed energy in the burst sample; if the bursts truely have a
471: power law distribution, this cutoff is most likely somewhat
472: greater.
473:
474: Table~3 also provides the average of the cumulative probabilities
475: for each sample and distribution. As can be seen, these averages
476: are within $\sim 1\sigma$ of the expected value of 1/2, indicating
477: that the distributions are acceptable descriptions of the data,
478: and that this statistic cannot be used to discriminate between
479: distributions. The actual distributions of these cumulative
480: probabilities are also presented by Figures~3--8.
481:
482: Finally, Table~3 presents the likelihood ratios and the Bayesian
483: odds ratios comparing the lognormal to power law distributions.
484: The likelihood ratio is a Bayesian odds ratio using delta function
485: priors set to the parameters which maximize the likelihoods (which
486: violates the definition of a prior). The Bayesian odds ratios
487: given here use the priors described in \S 2.3. The ratios show
488: that using a broad prior distribution favors the lognormal
489: distribution over the power law distribution. Based on the odds
490: ratio, the B9 and C17 samples are insufficient to discriminate
491: between the two distribution functions. On the other hand, the
492: odds ratio favors the lognormal distribution for the F220 sample.
493:
494: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
495:
496: The parameters and parameter ranges differ for the three different
497: burst samples. It is not clear whether we yet have a sufficiently
498: large, properly defined burst sample from which to calculate the
499: energy distribution. The two samples with spectroscopic redshifts
500: do not have correct detection thresholds: the threshold for
501: detecting the burst itself is usually reported, but the intensity
502: threshold which triggers further localization and spectroscopic
503: redshift determination has not been reported. Indeed, there may
504: not yet be a formal definition of such a followup threshold. Thus
505: these two samples are flawed. On the other hand, the validity of
506: the variability-determined redshifts has not yet been proven,
507: although the detection threshold was defined in choosing the burst
508: sample. The importance of the detection thresholds for statistical
509: studies of burst samples argues for well-defined (and reported)
510: intensity thresholds for triggering the followup observations of
511: the expected large number of {\it HETE-II} and {\it SWIFT} burst
512: localizations.
513:
514: The distributions of cumulative probabilities and the averages of
515: these distributions indicate that the two functional forms used
516: here are sufficient to describe the distribution of energies;
517: consequently, I concluded that the data do not justify trying more
518: complicated distribution functions at this time. The Bayesian
519: odds ratio does not distinguish between these two functional forms
520: for the two samples with spectroscopic redshifts, although it does
521: favor the lognormal distribution for the large F220 sample with
522: redshifts derived from the variability of the burst lightcurves.
523:
524: The energy distribution cannot be determined for energies below
525: the lowest energy threshold (i.e., the lowest burst energy
526: corresponding to the fluence thresholds). Indeed, Hakkila et al.
527: (1996) make a distinction between the ``observed'' and
528: ``intrinsic'' luminosity functions in their study of luminosity
529: functions for cosmological bursts based on the shape of the peak
530: flux distribution; they point out that the observed distribution
531: may be much narrower than the intrinsic distribution. In my study
532: the true low energy cutoff of the power law distribution cannot be
533: determined. Similarly, the likelihood contours for the lognormal
534: distribution do not rule out broader distributions with lower
535: central energies.
536:
537: We anticipate that the {\it HETE-II} and {\it SWIFT} missions will
538: result in the construction of a large burst sample with
539: spectroscopic redshifts. Properly defined subsets can be studied
540: to identify trends with burst redshift, duration, and other
541: properties. As we move from the study of individual bursts to the
542: study of burst ensembles, we must define and report the criteria
543: (e.g., detection thresholds) by which the burst samples are
544: collected.
545: %
546: \acknowledgements
547: This work was performed under the auspices of
548: the U.S. Department of Energy by the Los Alamos National
549: Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-36.
550:
551: \clearpage
552:
553: \begin{thebibliography}{}
554:
555: \bibitem[Band et al. (1993)]{ban93}Band,~D., et al. 1993, ApJ,
556: 413, 281
557: %
558: \bibitem[BATSE team (2001)]{bat01}BATSE team 2001, ``Current
559: Catalog,''
560: http://www.batse.msfc.nasa.gov/batse/grb/catalog/current/
561: %
562: \bibitem[Bloom et al. (2001)]{blo01}Bloom,~J.~S., Frail,~D.~A., \&
563: Sari,~R. 2001, AJ, in press [astro-ph/0102371]
564: %
565: \bibitem[Fenimore \& Ramirez-Ruiz 2001]{frr01}Fenimore,~E., \&
566: Ramirez-Ruiz,~E. 2001, ApJ, submitted [astro-ph/0004176]
567: %
568: \bibitem[Frail et al. (2001)]{fra01}Frail,~D.~A., et al. 2001,
569: Nature, submitted [astro-ph/0102282]
570: %
571: \bibitem[Hakkila et al. (1996)]{hak96}Hakkila, J., Meegan, C. A.,
572: Horack,~J.~A., Pendleton,~G.~N., Briggs,~M.~S., Mallozzi,~R.~S.,
573: Koshut,~T.~M., Preece,~R.~D., \& Paciesas,~W.~S. 1996, ApJ, 462,
574: 125
575: %
576: \bibitem[Jimenez, Band and Piran (2001)]{jbp01}Jimenez,~R., Band,~D.
577: \& Piran~T. 2001, ApJ, submitted [astro-ph/0103258]
578: %
579: \bibitem[Norris, Marani, and J. Bonnel (1999)]{jmb99}Norris,~J.,
580: Marani,~L., \& Bonnel,~J. 1999, ApJ, 534, 248 [astro-ph/9903233]
581: %
582: \bibitem[B. Schaefer, M. Deng, \& D. Band (2001)]{smb01}Schaefer,~B.,
583: Deng,~M., \& Band,~D. 2001, ApJ, submitted [astro-ph/0102282]
584:
585: \end{thebibliography}
586:
587: \clearpage
588:
589: \begin{figure}
590: \plotone{f1.eps}
591: \caption{Best-fit parameter values including (asterisks) or
592: neglecting (diamonds) the fluence threshold in calculating the
593: likelihood for 100 simulated databases with 80 bursts each. The
594: model lognormal energy distribution had a central energy of
595: $E_0=10^{53}$~erg and a logarithmic width of $\sigma=1.5$. The
596: median values for the fits including (large solid cross) or
597: neglecting (large dashed cross) the fluence threshold are
598: indicated. The bursts were drawn from a redshift distribution
599: similar to that of star formation, and the fluence threshold was
600: between $10^{-6}$ and $10^{-5}$ erg~cm$^{-2}$.}
601: \end{figure}
602:
603: %\begin{figure}
604: %\caption{Distributions of the best-fit central energy $E$
605: %(panel~a) and logarithmic width (panel~b) for simulations with 9
606: %(solid histogram), 20 (dashed), 40 (dot-dashed), and 80
607: %(3~dots-dashed) bursts in a simulated database. A lognormal energy
608: %distribution with no fluence thresholds was used; a redshift
609: %distribution which peaks at $z\sim1.5$ was assumed. The
610: %histograms have been normalized so that the bins centered on the
611: %input values of $E_0=100$ (in units of $10^{51}$ erg) and
612: %$\sigma=1.5$ have unit heights. The histogram boundaries and
613: %heights have been shifted by small amounts for greater
614: %legibility.}
615: %\end{figure}
616:
617: \clearpage
618:
619: \begin{figure}
620: \plotone{f2.eps}
621: \caption{Comparison of the likelihood contours for a sample
622: analyzed with the correct fluence thresholds (left) and thresholds
623: a factor of 10 smaller (right). The sample of 9 bursts was drawn
624: from a lognormal distribution with $E_0 = 10^{53}$~erg and
625: $\sigma=1.5$, a redshift distribution similar to star formation,
626: and a uniform fluence threshold between $10^{-5}$ and $10^{-4}$
627: erg~cm$^{-2}$.}
628: \end{figure}
629:
630: \clearpage
631:
632: \begin{figure}
633: \plotone{f3.eps}
634: \caption{Contour plot of the likelihood for the lognormal energy
635: distribution for the B9 sample (left panel). The parameters are
636: the central energy $E_0$ and the logarithmic width $\sigma$. The
637: asterisk indicates the location of the maximum likelihood while
638: contours are spaced by $\Delta \log_{10} L=0.1$ starting from the
639: maximum value. Cumulative distribution of the cumulative
640: probability for each burst assuming their energies are drawn from
641: the best-fit lognormal energy distribution for the B9 sample
642: (right panel). The dashed line is the expected distribution.}
643: \end{figure}
644:
645: \clearpage
646:
647: \begin{figure}
648: \plotone{f4.eps}
649: \caption{The same as Figure~3, but for a simple power law energy
650: distribution for the B9 sample. The parameters are the upper
651: cutoff energy $E_2$ and the power law index $\alpha$.}
652: \end{figure}
653:
654: \clearpage
655:
656: \begin{figure}
657: \plotone{f5.eps}
658: \caption{The same as Figure 3 for the lognormal distribution and
659: the C17 sample.}
660: \end{figure}
661:
662: \clearpage
663:
664: \begin{figure}
665: \plotone{f6.eps}
666: \caption{The same as Figure 4 for the power law distribution and
667: the C17 sample.}
668: \end{figure}
669:
670: \clearpage
671:
672: \begin{figure}
673: \plotone{f7.eps}
674: \caption{The same as Figures 3 and 5 for the lognormal distribution
675: and the F220 sample.}
676: \end{figure}
677:
678: \clearpage
679:
680: \begin{figure}
681: \plotone{f8.eps}
682: \caption{The same as Figures 4 and 6 for the power law
683: distribution and the F220 sample.}
684: \end{figure}
685:
686: \clearpage
687:
688: \begin{deluxetable}{l l l l c c c}
689: \tablecolumns{7}
690: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
691: \tablewidth{0pt}
692: \tablecaption{\label{Table}The BATSE Gamma-Ray Bursts Sample.}
693: \tablehead{
694: %
695: \colhead{Burst} &
696: \colhead{$F_{\rm obs}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
697: \colhead{$F_{\rm burst}$\tablenotemark{b}} &
698: \colhead{$z_{\rm obs}$} &
699: \colhead{${{C_{\rm max}}\over{C_{\rm min}}}$} &
700: \colhead{$E_{\rm obs}$\tablenotemark{c}} &
701: \colhead{$E_{\rm burst}$\tablenotemark{d}} \\
702: %
703: & \colhead{(erg cm$^{-2}$)}
704: & \colhead{(erg cm$^{-2}$)}
705: &&&
706: \colhead{($10^{51}$ erg)}
707: & \colhead{($10^{51}$ erg)}}
708: \startdata
709: %
710: % z--Metzger et al. 1997a, IAU 6676
711: % R=25.55--Zharikov, S. V., Sokolov, V. V., and Baryshev, Yu. V. 1998, GCN 31
712: % $1.73\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.191$ & $-1.831$ &480.84&
713: 970508 & $3.18\times 10^{-6}$ & $2.59\times 10^{-6}$ &
714: 0.835& 3.3\tablenotemark{f} & 6.734 & 5.482 \\
715: %
716: % z--Djorgovski talk
717: %
718: % $1.15\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.704$ & $-2.072$ & 229.74&
719: 970828 & $9.57\times 10^{-5}$ & $7.88\times 10^{-5}$ &
720: 0.958& 20\tablenotemark{f} & 267.1 & 219.3 \\
721: %
722: % z--Kulkarni et al. 1998a, Nature, 393, 35
723: % R=26.5 Odewahn et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, L5
724: % $7.23\times 10^{-3}$ & $-0.783$ & $-2.574$ &155.96&
725: 971214 & $9.44\times 10^{-6}$ & $7.59\times 10^{-6}$ &
726: 3.412& 7.32\tablenotemark{e} & 261.3 & 210.7 \\
727: %
728: % Kulkarni et al. 1998b, Nature, 395, 663
729: % $4.70\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.266$ & \nodata &161.20&
730: %980425& $3.87\times 10^{-6}$ & 0.0085& 2.5\tablenotemark{d} & \\
731: %
732: % z Djorgovski et al. ApJL 508, 17, 1998
733: % R=22.8 Bloom, J., & Kulkarni, S. 2000, GCN702
734: % $4.41\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.314$ & $-2.396$ &370.26&
735: 980703& $2.26\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.13\times 10^{-5}$ &
736: 0.966& 3.08\tablenotemark{e} & 63.94 & 60.18 \\
737: %
738: % z Bloom et al. 1999, ApJ, 518
739: % R=23.7 Fruchter et al. 1999, ApJ, 516, 689
740: % $2.62\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.900$ & $-2.476$ &549.51&
741: 990123& $2.68\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.93\times 10^{-4}$ &
742: 1.600& 80.1\tablenotemark{e} & 1996. & 1438. \\
743: %
744: % $1.51\times 10^{-2}$ & $-1.370$ & $-2.152$ &449.78&
745: 990506 & $1.94\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.69\times 10^{-4}$ &
746: 1.2 & 50\tablenotemark{f} & 838.8 & 854.0 \\
747: %
748: % $7.96\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.275$ & $-2.670$ &174.24&
749: 990510 & $2.26\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.32\times 10^{-5}$ &
750: 1.619 & 19.3\tablenotemark{e} & 172.0 & 176.8 \\
751: %
752: % $1.29\times 10^{-1}$ & $-1.234$ & $-2.184$ &414.83&
753: 991216 & $1.93\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.70\times 10^{-4}$ &
754: 1.02 & 144.\tablenotemark{e} & 611.1 & 534.1 \\
755: %
756: % $1.68\times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.688$ & $-2.068$ & 98.982 &
757: 000131 & $4.18\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.71\times 10^{-5}$ & 4.5
758: & 3\tablenotemark{f} & 1791. & 1159. \\
759: \enddata
760:
761: \tablenotetext{a}{Fluence over 20--2000~keV in the observer's frame.}
762: \tablenotetext{b}{Fluence over 20--2000~keV in the burst's frame.}
763: \tablenotetext{c}{Gamma-ray energy over 20--2000~keV in the observer's frame,
764: assuming isotropic emission, $H_0=65$
765: km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M$=0.3 and $\Omega_\Lambda$=0.7.}
766: \tablenotetext{d}{Gamma-ray energy over 20--2000~keV in the burst's frame.}
767: \tablenotetext{e}{From the online BATSE catalog.}
768: \tablenotetext{f}{Estimated from lightcurve.}
769:
770: \end{deluxetable}
771:
772: \clearpage
773:
774: \begin{deluxetable}{l c c}
775: \tablecolumns{3}
776: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
777: \tablewidth{0pt}
778: \tablecaption{\label{Table2}Width of Parameter Distribution}
779: \tablehead{
780: %
781: \colhead{Number of Bursts} &
782: \colhead{Width\tablenotemark{a}$\quad$of $\log E_0$} &
783: \colhead{Width\tablenotemark{a}$\quad$of $\sigma$} \\
784: \colhead{in Sample} &
785: \colhead{Distribution} &
786: \colhead{Distribution}}
787: %
788: \startdata
789: %
790: 9 & 0.38 & 0.47 \\
791: %
792: 20 & 0.40 & 0.52 \\
793: %
794: 40 & 0.20 & 0.31 \\
795: %
796: 80 & 0.13 & 0.19 \\
797: %
798: \enddata
799: %
800: \tablecomments{In these simulations 100 samples were constructed with the
801: indicated number of bursts per sample. The burst energies were drawn from
802: a lognormal distribution with central energy $E_0=10^{53}$~erg and logarithmic
803: width $\sigma=1.5$. The redshift distribution mimics the cosmic star formation
804: rate, and the threshold fluence was between $10^{-6}$ and $10^{-5}$ erg cm$^{-2}$.
805: The best fit parameters were found by maximizing the likelihood.}
806: \tablenotetext{a}{The width given is the range within which 1/2 the simulated
807: bursts fell.}
808:
809: \end{deluxetable}
810:
811: \clearpage
812:
813: \begin{deluxetable}{l c c c}
814: \tablecolumns{4}
815: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
816: %\tablewidth{6.in}
817: \tablecaption{\label{Table3}Comparison of Model Distributions}
818: \tablehead{
819: %
820: \colhead{Quantity} &
821: \colhead{B9\tablenotemark{a}} &
822: \colhead{C17\tablenotemark{b}} &
823: \colhead{F220\tablenotemark{c}} }
824: %
825: \startdata
826: %
827: $E_0$\tablenotemark{d} & 125.9 & 52.48 & 11.79 \\
828: %
829: &1.6--315 & 1.6--100 & 2.--23.4 \\
830: %
831: $\sigma$\tablenotemark{e} & 1.87 & 2.06 & 1.88 \\
832: %
833: & 1.5--4.5 & 1.7--4.15 & 1.65--2.3 \\
834: %
835: $E_1$\tablenotemark{f} & 1.6 & 0.55 & 0.12 \\
836: %
837: $E_2$\tablenotemark{g} & 1440 & 1460 & 5000 \\
838: %
839: & 1440--3550 & 1460--3350 & 5000--6100 \\
840: %
841: $\alpha$\tablenotemark{h} & 0.74 & 0.96 & 1.81 \\
842: %
843: & 0.4--1.2 & 0.75--1.25 & 1.7--1.94 \\
844: %
845: $\langle p\rangle_{ln}$\tablenotemark{i} & 0.4525 & 0.4638 &
846: 0.4753 \\
847: %
848: $\langle p\rangle_{pl}$\tablenotemark{j} & 0.4608 & 0.4723 &
849: 0.4892 \\
850: %
851: $\sigma_{\langle p\rangle}$\tablenotemark{k} & 0.0962 & 0.0700 &
852: 0.0195 \\
853: %
854: Likelihood Ratio\tablenotemark{l} \qquad \qquad & \qquad \qquad$4.29\times10^{-2}$ \qquad\qquad&
855: \qquad\qquad$5.61\times10^{-2}$\qquad \qquad & \qquad\qquad $4.38\times10^{2}$ \qquad \qquad\\
856: %
857: Odds Ratio\tablenotemark{m} & 1.19 & 1.65 & $9.92\times10^{3}$ \\
858: %
859: \enddata
860: %
861: \tablenotetext{a}{Sample of 9 BATSE bursts with spectroscopic
862: redshifts and fitted spectra (Table~1).}
863: \tablenotetext{b}{Sample
864: of 17 bursts with spectroscopic redshifts (Frail et al. 2001).}
865: \tablenotetext{c}{Sample of 220 bursts with redshifts derived from
866: variability redshifts (Fenimore \& Ramirez-Ruiz 2001).}
867: \tablenotetext{d}{The central energy of the lognormal
868: distribution, in units of $10^{51}$~erg. The following line in
869: the table provides the 90\% confidence range.}
870: \tablenotetext{e}{The logarithmic width (in units of the energy's
871: natural logarithm) for the lognormal distribution. The following
872: line provides the 90\% confidence range.}
873: \tablenotetext{f}{The low energy cutoff of the power law
874: distribution, in units of $10^{51}$~erg. This energy has been set
875: to the lowest threshold energy for the sample.}
876: \tablenotetext{g}{The high energy cutoff of the power law
877: distribution, in units of $10^{51}$~erg. The following line
878: provides the 90\% confidence range.}
879: \tablenotetext{h}{The power law index of the power law
880: distribution, $p(E)\propto E^{-\alpha}$. The following line
881: provides the 90\% confidence range.}
882: \tablenotetext{i}{Average of the cumulative probabilities for the
883: lognormal distribution; 1/2 is expected.}
884: \tablenotetext{j}{Average of the cumulative
885: probabilities for the power law distribution; 1/2 is
886: expected.}
887: \tablenotetext{k}{The
888: standard deviation $1/[12N]^{1/2}$ of the average of the
889: cumulative probabilities for a sample of $N$ bursts.}
890: \tablenotetext{l}{Ratio of the maximum likelihood for the
891: lognormal to power law distributions. A value greater than 1
892: favors the lognormal distribution.}
893: \tablenotetext{m}{Odds ratio
894: comparing the lognormal to power law distributions. A value
895: greater than 1 favors the lognormal distribution.}
896:
897: \end{deluxetable}
898:
899: \end{document}
900: