1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2004 January 9
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18:
19: %% define
20: \def\eiso{E_{\rm iso}}
21: \def\egamma{E_{\gamma}}
22: \def\ep{E_{\rm peak}}
23: \def\epo{E^{\rm obs}_{\rm peak}}
24: \def\eps{E^{\rm src}_{\rm peak}}
25:
26: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
27:
28: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
29:
30: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
31:
32: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
33:
34: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
35:
36: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
37: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
38: %% use the longabstract style option.
39:
40: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
41:
42: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
43: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
44: %% the \begin{document} command.
45: %%
46: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
47: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
48: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
49: %% for information.
50:
51: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
52: \newcommand{\myemail}{takanori@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov}
53:
54: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
55:
56: \slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
57:
58: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
59: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
60: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
61: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
62: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
63: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
64:
65: \shorttitle{X-ray Flash: XRF 050416a}
66: \shortauthors{Sakamoto et al.}
67:
68: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
69: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
70:
71: \begin{document}
72:
73: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
74: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
75: %% you desire.
76:
77: \title{Confirmation of the $\eps$ -- $\eiso$ (Amati) relation \\
78: from the X-ray flash XRF 050416A observed by Swift/BAT}
79:
80: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
81: %% author and affiliation information.
82: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
83: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
84: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
85: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
86:
87: \author{T. Sakamoto\altaffilmark{1,2},
88: L. Barbier\altaffilmark{1},
89: S. D. Barthelmy\altaffilmark{1},
90: J. R. Cummings\altaffilmark{1,2},
91: E. E. Fenimore\altaffilmark{3},
92: N. Gehrels\altaffilmark{1},
93: D. Hullinger\altaffilmark{4},
94: H. A. Krimm\altaffilmark{1,5},
95: C. B. Markwardt\altaffilmark{1,4},
96: D. M. Palmer\altaffilmark{3},
97: A. M. Parsons\altaffilmark{1},
98: G. Sato\altaffilmark{6},
99: J. Tueller\altaffilmark{1},
100: }
101:
102: \altaffiltext{1}{NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771}
103: \altaffiltext{2}{National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW,
104: TJ2114, Washingtion, DC 20418}
105: \altaffiltext{3}{Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1663, Los
106: Alamos, NM, 87545}
107: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, University of Maryland,
108: College Park, MD 20742}
109: \altaffiltext{5}{Universities Space Research Association, 10211 Wincopin
110: Circle, Suite 500, Columbia, MD 21044-3432}
111: \altaffiltext{6}{Institute of Space and Astronautical Science,
112: JAXA, Kanagawa 229-8510, Japan}
113:
114: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
115: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
116: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
117: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
118: %% editorial office after submission.
119:
120: %% Modified on 08/30/05
121: %% -Include the comments from Neil and Hans
122: %%
123: %% Modified on 09/15/05
124: %% - Modified the spectral parameter numbers (new cos-calculation/batdrmgen)
125: %% - Include Giancarlo's comment: Crab Ratio part
126: %%
127: %% xrf050416a_v2.tex
128: %% Start modifying on 10/20/05
129: %% Modification is based on the referee's report
130:
131: \begin{abstract}
132: We report Swift Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) observations of the X-ray Flash (XRF)
133: XRF 050416A. The fluence ratio between the 15-25 keV and 25-50 keV energy bands of
134: this event is 1.5, thus making it the softest gamma-ray burst
135: (GRB) observed by BAT so far.
136: The spectrum is well fitted by the Band function with $\epo$ of 15.0$_{-2.7}^{+2.3}$
137: keV. Assuming the redshift of the host galaxy (z $=$ 0.6535), the isotropic-
138: equivalent radiated energy $\eiso$ and the peak energy at the GRB rest frame ($\eps$)
139: of XRF 050416A are not only consistent with the correlation found by Amati et al.
140: and extended to XRFs by Sakamoto et al., but also fill-in the gap of this relation
141: around the 30 -- 80 keV
142: range of $\eps$. This result tightens the validity of the $\eps$ --
143: $\eiso$ relation from XRFs to GRBs.
144:
145: We also find that the jet break time estimated
146: using the empirical relation between $\eps$ and the collimation corrected
147: energy $\egamma$ is inconsistent with the afterglow observation
148: by Swift X-ray Telescope. This could be due to the extra external shock
149: emission overlaid around the jet break time or to the non existence of a jet break
150: feature for XRF, which might be a further challenging for GRB jet emission,
151: models and XRF/GRB unification scenarios.
152:
153: \end{abstract}
154:
155: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
156: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
157: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
158: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
159:
160: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
161: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the
162: %% subject header. Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"
163: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the
164: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each
165: %% individual object, not exceed six. The \objectname{} macro, and its
166: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object. The macro takes the object
167: %% name as its primary argument. This name will appear in the paper
168: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name
169: %% is recognized by the data centers. The macro also takes an optional
170: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification
171: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.
172:
173: \keywords{Gamma-ray Burst}
174:
175: %% Plan
176: %% 1. Introduction
177: %% 2. XRF050416a
178: %% ground observations (redshift)
179: %% 2.1 BAT detection
180: %% 2.2 Temporal properties
181: %% Fig energy resolved LC (15-25, 25-50, 50-100, 100-150, 15-150)
182: %% 2.3 Spectral properties
183: %% Fig time-ave spectrum (band fit)
184: %% Fig Posterior prob. (or maybe not...)
185: %% 2.4 Ep-Eiso relation
186: %% Fig. Ep-Eiso
187: %% 3. Discussion
188: %% 3.1 Comparison with HETE XRFs
189: %% 3.2 Ep-Eiso -> Ep-Egamma -> jet break time (XRT)
190: %% 3.3 Jet models
191:
192: \section{Introduction}
193:
194: The observations of X-ray flashes (XRF) are providing important
195: information for understanding the nature of Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRB). The
196: detailed studies of XRFs started few years ago based on BeppoSAX observations
197: \citep{heise2000,kippen2002}, but X-ray rich events had already been
198: detected by the $Ginga$ satellite. \citet{yoshida1989} reported that soft X-ray
199: emission below 10 keV co-exists with $\gamma$-ray emission
200: of GRBs. About 36\% of the bright bursts observed
201: by $Ginga$ have $\epo$ energy,
202: which is the photon energy at which the $\nu$F$_{\nu}$ spectrum peaks, around a few keV
203: and also show large X-ray to $\gamma$-ray fluence ratios \citep{strohmayer1998}.
204:
205: The Wide Field Cameras (WFC) on-board the $Beppo$SAX satellite observed 17 XRFs
206: in five years \citep{heise2000}.
207: %The $t_{90}$ durations of XRFs
208: %range from 10s to 200s,
209: %as for of long duration GRBs. The peak fluxes in the 2--25 keV band
210: %range from 10$^{-8}$ to 10$^{-9}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$.
211: \citet{kippen2002} searched for GRBs and XRFs which were observed in both
212: WFC and BATSE.
213: %36 GRBs and 17 XRFs were found in 3.8 years when WFC and BATSE
214: %were operated simultaneously.
215: The WFC and BATSE joint spectral analysis of XRFs
216: shows that their $\epo$ energies are significantly lower than those of the BATSE
217: $\epo$ distribution \citep{preece2000}.
218: The systematic study of the spectral properties of XRFs observed by $HETE$-2 also
219: supports this result \citep{sakamoto2005}.
220:
221: The afterglow detection and the redshift measurement from the host galaxy of
222: XRF 020903, which is one of the softest XRF observed by $HETE$-2, shows the dramatic
223: progress in understanding the nature of XRFs. The prompt emission of XRF 020903
224: has $\epo$ $<$ 5.0 keV which is two orders of magnitude smaller than
225: that of typical GRBs. The optical transient and the host galaxy of XRF 020903
226: were detected. Further spectroscopic observation of the host galaxy suggests
227: that the redshift is $0.25 \pm 0.01$ \citep{soderberg2004}. \citet{sakamoto2004} calculated
228: the isotropic-equivalent energy $\eiso$ and the peak energy at the source frame
229: $\eps$ using the redshift of the host galaxy, and found that XRF 020903 follows
230: an extension of the empirical relationship between $\eiso$ and $\eps$ found by
231: \citet{amati2002} for GRBs (a.k.a. Amati relation).
232: This result provides the observational evidence
233: that XRFs and GRBs form a continuum and are a single phenomenon.
234:
235: In this paper, we report the prompt emission properties of XRF 050416A observed
236: by Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) on-board the $Swift$ satellite.
237: The X-ray flash, XRF 050416A, was detected and localized by
238: the $Swift$ \citep{gehrels2004} Burst Alert Telescope (BAT;
239: \citet{barthelmy2005}) at 11:04:44.5
240: UTC on 2005 April 16 \citep{sakamoto2005b,sakamoto2005c}.
241: $Swift$ autonomously slewed to the BAT on-board position, and both $Swift$
242: X-Ray Telescope (XRT; \citet{burrows2005}) and UV-Optical Telescope
243: (UVOT; \citet{roming2005}) detected the afterglow
244: (Cusumano et al. (2005) in preparation, Holland et al. (2005) in preparation).
245: The afterglow emission of XRF 050416A was also observed by ground
246: observatories at various wavelengths \citep{cenko2005a,anderson2005,
247: li2005,kahharov2005,price2005,cenko2005b,soderberg2005}. \citet{cenko2005c}
248: reported that the host galaxy is faint and blue with large amount of the star
249: formation and its redshift is z = 0.6535 $\pm$ 0.0002.
250: Throughout this paper, the quoted errors are the 90\% confidence level
251: and the sky coordinates in J2000 unless we state otherwise in the text.
252:
253: \section{BAT data analysis}
254:
255: The BAT data analysis was performed using the Swift software package
256: (HEAsoft 6.0). The background was subtracted using the modulations of
257: the coded aperture (mask-weighting technique). In this technique,
258: photons with energies higher
259: than 150 keV become transparent to the coded mask and these photons
260: are treated as a background. Thus, in this mask-weighted technique
261: the effective BAT energy range is from 14 keV to 150 keV.
262:
263: Figure \ref{fig:bat_lc} shows the energy resolved BAT light curves of
264: XRF 050416A. It is clear that the signal of the burst is only visible
265: below 50 keV. The burst signal is composed of two peaks. The
266: first peak has a triangular shape with the rise time longer than the
267: decay time. When we calculate the spectral lag \citep{norris2000}
268: between the 25--50 keV and 15-25 keV band, the cross-correlation
269: function lag is $-$0.066$_{-0.018}^{+0.014}$ second (1$\sigma$ error).
270: These temporal characteristics are very unusual
271: for the typical GRBs (e.g. \citet{mitrofanov1996,norris2000}),
272: thus, it is difficult to
273: understand them in the frame work of the standard internal shocks models
274: in which the rise
275: time is always shorter than the decay time and the hard emission
276: always exceeds the soft emission (e.g. \citet{piran1999}, \citet{kobayashi1997}).
277: The $t_{90}$ and $t_{50}$ in
278: the 15-150 keV band are 2.4 and 0.8 seconds, respectively. This $t_{90}$
279: belongs to the shortest part of the ``long GRB'' classification based
280: on the BATSE duration distribution \citep{paciesas1999}. The fluence
281: ratio between the 15-25 keV band and the 25-50 keV band of 1.5 makes
282: this burst one of the softest GRBs observed by BAT so far. The bottom panel of figure
283: \ref{fig:bat_lc} shows the count ratio between the 25-50 keV and
284: 15-25 keV bands. The spectral softening is clearly visible during
285: the first and the second peak.
286:
287: %The BAT spectrum and the detector response matrix (DRM) were
288: %created using the latest Swift software packages (HEAsoft 6.0) and
289: %the Swift calibration database (CALDB 20050327).
290: As reported by the BAT
291: team\footnote{http://legacy.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/analysis/bat\_digest.html},
292: we applied the energy-dependent systematic error
293: vector in the spectral files before doing any fitting procedure.
294: The background subtracted (mask-weighted) spectral data were used in
295: the analysis. The XSPEC v11.3.1 software package was used for
296: fitting the data from 14 keV to 150 keV to the model spectrum.
297:
298: Table \ref{table:fluence_peakflux} shows the fluences and the peak photon
299: fluxes in the various energy bands.
300: These fluences and peak photon fluxes were derived directly from fitting
301: the time-averaged and 1-s peak spectra respectively assuming the Band
302: function with $\alpha = -1$.
303: Table \ref{table:spec_para} summarizes the spectral parameters of the BAT
304: time-averaged spectrum\footnote{The spectral models which we used throughout
305: this paper are following; a simple power-law model (PL):
306: $f(E) = K_{30} (E/30)^{\beta}$ and the Band function (Band):
307: $f(E) = K_{30} (E/30)^{\alpha} \exp (-E(2+\alpha)/\ep)$,
308: if $E < (\alpha - \beta) \ep / (2 + \alpha)$ and
309: $f(E) = K_{30}\{(\alpha - \beta)\ep/[30(2+\alpha)]\}^{\alpha-\beta}
310: \exp (\beta - \alpha) (E/30)^{\beta}$, if $E \geq (\alpha - \beta) \ep / (2+\alpha)$.}.
311: Figure \ref{fig:bat_spec} shows the time-averaged spectrum, accumulated over
312: the time interval from $-$0.5 seconds to 3 seconds since the BAT trigger time,
313: was fitted with a simple power-law model.
314: The photon index $\beta$ which is much steeper
315: than $-2$ strongly indicates that the BAT observed the higher energy
316: part of the Band function
317: \citep{band1993}. Motivated by this result,
318: and also by the fact that almost all of GRB and XRF spectra are well
319: described by the Band function \citep{preece2000,kippen2002},
320: we tried to fit the spectrum
321: with the Band function assuming the low energy photon index
322: $\alpha$ to be fixed at $-1$, which is the typical value for both GRBs
323: \citep{preece2000} and XRFs \citep{kippen2002,sakamoto2005}. The fitting shows a
324: significant improvement from a simple power-law model to the Band
325: function of $\Delta \chi^{2}$ of 7.75 for 1 degree of freedom.
326: To quantify the significance of this improvement, we performed
327: 10,000 spectral simulations assuming our best fit spectral parameters
328: in a simple power-law model, and determined in how many cases the
329: Band function fit gives
330: $\chi^{2}$ improvements of equal or greater than 7.75 over the
331: simple power-law. We found
332: equal or higher improvements in $\chi^{2}$ in 62 simulated spectra
333: out of 10,000. Thus, the chance probability of having an equal or higher
334: $\Delta\chi^{2}$ of 7.75 with the Band function, when the parent
335: distribution is a case of a simple power-law
336: model is 0.6\%.
337: The observed $E_{\rm peak}$
338: energy, $\epo$, is well constrained at 15.6$_{-2.7}^{+2.3}$ keV, and it
339: confirms the soft nature of this burst. We also applied a $constrained$
340: Band function fit \citep{sakamoto2004} to the BAT spectrum to estimate
341: $\epo$. The calculated $\epo$ is consistent with the Band function fit of
342: the fixed $\alpha$ to $-1$: 9.9 keV $<$ $\epo$ $<$ 20.0 keV at the 68\%
343: confidence level, 5.1 keV $<$ $\epo$ $<$ 21.8 keV at the 90\% confidence
344: level, and $\epo$ $<$ 23.0 keV at the 99\% confidence level.
345:
346: The low energy response is crucial for the determination of the
347: spectral parameters of an XRF and also, as reported by the BAT team
348: \footnote{Section ``Corrections to Response'' of the BAT Digest
349: (http://legacy.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/analysis/bat\_digest.html)},
350: there is a known problem of $\sim$ 15\% smaller effective area in
351: the Crab spectrum below 20 keV when fitting with a pre-launch response
352: matrix. Since the post-launch response matrix which we used in the
353: analysis was applying a correction to force the Crab spectrum to
354: fit a canonical model
355: %(photon index of 2.15 and normalization of
356: %10.17 ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$ at 1 keV)
357: from 14 keV to 150
358: keV, and because we were also also applying the systematic error
359: vectors before
360: performing the spectral analysis, the systematic effect of this low
361: energy problem is very limited. However, we investigated the
362: spectrum of XRF 050416A ignoring the spectral bins below 20 keV.
363: Even without using spectral bins below 20 keV, the photon index of XRF
364: 050416A is $-3.4 \pm 0.4$, much
365: steeper than $-2$ ($\alpha < -2$ at the $>$ 99.99\% confidence level).
366: Furthermore, we took the ratio of the spectral data of XRF 050416A
367: and the Crab nebula observed at a similar incident angle to XRF
368: 050416A. The result is shown in figure \ref{fig:crab_ratio}.
369: The flattening trend of the photon index below 25 keV is also clear
370: in this figure. Thus, we conclude that the deviation
371: from a simple power-law model below 25 keV is a real
372: features of the spectrum of XRF 050416A.
373:
374: \section{Discussion}
375: %In the previous section, we have reported the prompt emission characteristics of the
376: %X-ray flash, XRF 050416A, observed by Swift/BAT. This event is the softest
377: %GRB observed by BAT so far. The spectrum is well fit with in the Band function
378: %with $\epo$ = 15.6$_{-2.7}^{+2.3}$ keV.
379: %
380: One of the most important discoveries related to XRF 050416A is the confirmation
381: of the $\eps$ -- $\eiso$ relation \citep{amati2002}.
382: We calculate the $E_{\rm peak}$ energy at the GRB rest frame,
383: $\eps$, and the
384: isotropic-equivalent energy (1 -- 10$^{4}$ keV at the rest frame),
385: $\eiso$, using the redshift of
386: the host galaxy (z=0.6535). Assuming $\alpha = -1$,
387: $\eps$ and $\eiso$ of XRF 050416A are
388: 25.1$_{-3.7}^{+4.4}$ keV and $(1.2 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{51}$ erg,
389: respectively.
390: Figure \ref{fig:epeak_eiso} shows the data point of XRF 050416A with
391: the known redshift GRBs of $Beppo$SAX and $HETE-2$ sample \citep{amati2003,lamb2004,
392: sakamoto2004}. XRF 050416A not only follows the $\eps$
393: $\propto$ $\eiso^{0.5}$
394: relation, but also fills in the gap of the relation around $\eps$ of 30 -- 80 keV.
395: This result tightens
396: the validity of this relation at five orders of magnitude in $\eiso$ and at three
397: orders of magnitude in $\eps$. XRF 050416A bridges the gap between XRFs
398: which have $\eps$ of less than 10 keV and GRBs in the $\eps$ -- $\eiso$ relation.
399:
400: The confirmation of $\eps$ -- $\eiso$ relation from XRFs to GRBs gives us
401: a clear indication that XRFs and GRBs form a continuum and are a single
402: phenomenon. There are several jet models to explain a unified picture of XRFs and
403: GRBs. The off-axis jet model \citep{yamazaki2004,toma2005},
404: the structured jet model \citep{rossi2002,zhang2002,zhang2004},
405: and the variable jet opening angle model \citep{lamb2005} are the most
406: popular models in this aspect. On the other hand, there are theoretical models to
407: explain XRFs in the frame work of the internal shock model \citep{mes2002,mochkovitch2003}
408: and of the external shock model \citep{dermer1999,huang2002,dermer2003}. The
409: cited jet models and internal/external shock models not only explain the existences
410: of XRFs, under certain assumptions, but also, in some of their realizations
411: or for some values of their parameters, they can predict the $\eps$ -- $\eiso$
412: correlation.
413:
414: According to the XRT afterglow observation of XRF 050416A, the decay slope
415: of the afterglow emission is $\sim$ $-0.9$ from 0.015 days to $\sim$ 34.7
416: days after the GRB trigger without any signature of a jet break
417: (Cusumano et al. (2005) in preparation; \citet{neusek2005}).
418:
419: Using $\eps$ and $\eiso$ of XRF 050416A measured by BAT, we can estimate the
420: jet break time using the relation between $\eps$ and the jet collimation-corrected
421: energy $E_{\gamma}$ found by \citet{ghirlanda2004} (Ghirlanda relation).
422: However, there is a debate about
423: the assumption of the jet model used by \citet{ghirlanda2004} to derive
424: the relationship between $\eps$ and $E_{\gamma}$ \citep{xu2005,liang2005}.
425: Based on this argument, we use the empirical relation between $\eiso$,
426: $\eps$, and the jet break time at the rest frame, $t_{\rm jet}^{\rm src}$,
427: derived by \citet{liang2005}. Note that there is no assumption of a jet
428: model in the formula found by \citet{liang2005}, and thus their relation is
429: purely based on observational properties.
430: When we use the equation (5) in \citet{liang2005},
431: ($\eiso/10^{52} \,{\rm erg}) = 0.85 \times (\eps/ 100 \,{\rm keV})^{1.94}
432: \times (t_{\rm jet}^{\rm src}/1 \, {\rm day})^{-1.24}$,
433: the jet break time in
434: the observer's frame is estimated to be $\sim$ 1.5 days after the GRB on-set time.
435: Note that this estimated jet break time is consistent with the estimation using
436: the Ghirlanda relation assuming the circum-burst density of 3 cm$^{-3}$.
437: Thus, the estimated jet break time using the empirical $\eps$-$\eiso$-
438: $t_{\rm jet}^{\rm src}$ relation is
439: inconsistent with the null detection of a jet break until more than 34.3 days after
440: the trigger by XRT.
441:
442: In the off-axis jet model \citep{yamazaki2004,toma2005}, the null detection of
443: the jet break in the XRT data of XRF 050416A could be difficult to explain.
444: When we assume a
445: bulk Lorentz factor of 100, $\eps$ of 300 keV for an on-axis observer, and a jet
446: opening angle of 2 degrees, the viewing angle from the jet on-axis is estimated
447: to be $\sim$ 4 degrees from the observed $\eps$ of 25 keV. According to
448: \citet{granot2002}, when observing the jet from an angle two times larger
449: than the jet opening angle, we would expect to see a rise in the flux
450: around one day after the burst. It is possible to increase the bulk Lorentz factor
451: and to reduce the off-axis viewing angle to achieve the same Doppler factor. However,
452: in this case, the afterglow light curve should be close to the on-axis case, thus,
453: we would expect to see the jet break around the time we estimated.
454:
455: On the other hand, the variable jet opening angle model \citep{lamb2005} might
456: work for XRF 050416A if $\egamma$ is a constant value. If we assume the values
457: typical for GRBs ($\eps$ =
458: 300 keV and the jet opening angle of 5 degrees), the jet opening angle of XRF
459: 050416A is calculated to be 52 degrees because of the inverse relation between
460: $\eps$ and the jet opening angle in the case in which $\egamma$ is a constant.
461: When we used the formulation of
462: \citet{sari1999} applying the estimated jet opening angle, the
463: jet break time will be 64 days in the case of the circum-burst density of 10
464: cm$^{-3}$. Both properties of the low $\eps$ and the null detection
465: of the jet break could be explained in the variable jet opening angle model if $\egamma$
466: is constant. However, as \citet{ghirlanda2004} showed, $\egamma$
467: is not a constant parameter, but has a good correlation with $\eps$. When we
468: applied the Ghirlanda relation, $\eps \propto \egamma^{0.7}$, in the variable
469: opening angle model, and re-calculated the jet break time, the break time will
470: be 0.7 days assuming the circum-burst density of 10 cm$^{-3}$. In the variable
471: jet opening angle model, there is no way to explain both the Ghirlanda relation
472: and the null detection of the jet break by XRT simultaneously.
473:
474: One natural way to explain the non-detection of the jet break feature is that
475: %Another way to explain the non-detection of the jet break feature is that
476: extra components are overlaid around a jet break time period. According
477: to the afterglow calculations in the X-ray band by \citet{zhang2005}, there are
478: several possibilities to hide a jet break feature due to some kinds of emission
479: by the external shock. These are the external shock emission from
480: 1) the dense clouds surrounding a GRB progenitor (e.g. \citet{lazzati2002}),
481: 2) a moderately relativistic cocoon component of a two-component jet
482: (e.g. \citet{granot2005}) , and 3) a jet with large fluctuations in angular
483: direction (patchy jets; \citet{{kumar2000}}). On the other hand, it might be
484: the case that XRFs indeed do not show the signature of a jet break in the afterglow.
485: Indeed although the numbers in the sample are limited, there is no clear observational
486: indication of a jet break in any XRF afterglow light curve so far.
487: If the later case is true, we need to change our view of XRFs completely.
488: Thus, the multi-wavelength observations of the XRF afterglows
489: will be crucial to investigate whether a jet break feature
490: exists in XRFs or not.
491:
492: \acknowledgments
493:
494: We would like to thank R. Yamazaki, and D. Q. Lamb for useful comments
495: and discussions. We would also like to thank the anonymous referee for
496: comments and suggestions that materially improved the paper.
497: This research was performed while T.S. held a National Research
498: Council Research Associateship Award at NASA Goddard Space Flight
499: Center.
500:
501: \begin{thebibliography}{}
502: \bibitem[Amati et al.(2002)]{amati2002} Amati, L., et al. 2002, A\&A,
503: 390, 81
504: \bibitem[Amati(2003)]{amati2003} Amati, L., 2003, ChJAA, Vol. 3, Supplement, pp. 455-460
505: \bibitem[Anderson et al.(2005)]{anderson2005} Anderson, G., et al.
506: 2005, GCN Circ. 3266
507: \bibitem[Band et al.(1993)]{band1993} Band, D.L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413,
508: 281
509: \bibitem[Barthelmy et al.(2005)]{barthelmy2005} Barthelmy, S.D., et al. 2005,
510: Space Science Review, in press
511: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2005)]{burrows2005} Burrows, D., et al. 2005,
512: Space Science Review, in press
513: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2005a)]{cenko2005a} Cenko, S.B., et al. 2005, GCN
514: Circ. 3265
515: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2005b)]{cenko2005b} Cenko, S.B., et al. 2005, GCN
516: Circ. 3269
517: \bibitem[Cenko et al.(2005c)]{cenko2005c} Cenko, S.B., et al. 2005, GCN
518: Circ. 3542
519: \bibitem[Dermer et al.(1999)]{dermer1999}
520: Dermer, C. D., Chiang, J., and B$\ddot{\rm o}$ttcher
521: 1999, \apj, 513, 656
522: \bibitem[Dermer and Mitman(2003)]{dermer2003}
523: Dermer, C. D., and Mitman, K. E. 2003, in ASP Conf. Ser. 312, Third
524: Rome Workshop on Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era, ed. M. Feroci
525: et al. (San Francisco: ASP), 301
526: \bibitem[Frail et al.(2001)]{frail2001} Frail, D.A., et al. 2001, ApJ,
527: 562, L55
528: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.(2004)]{gehrels2004} Gehrels, N., et al. 2004,
529: ApJ, 611, 1005
530: \bibitem[Granot et al.(2002)]{granot2002} Granot, J., Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P.,
531: Woosley, S.E., ApJJ, 570, 61
532: \bibitem[Granot (2005)]{granot2005} Granot, J., 2005, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0504254)
533: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2004)]{ghirlanda2004} Ghirlanda, G.,
534: Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D., 2004, ApJ, 616, 331
535: \bibitem[Heise et al.(2000)]{heise2000} Heise, J., in't Zand, J., Kippen, R.M.,
536: \& Woods, P.M. 2000, in Proc. Second Rome Workshop: Gamma-Ray Bursts
537: in the Afterglow Era, Ed. E. Costa, F. Frontera, \& J. Hjorth (Berlin:
538: Springer), 16
539: \bibitem[Huang et al.(2002)]{huang2002}
540: Huang, Y. F., Dai, Z. G., and Lu, T. 2002,
541: MNRAS, 332, 735
542: \bibitem[Kahharov et al.(2005)]{kahharov2005} Kahharov, B., et al.
543: 2005, GCN Circ. 3274
544: \bibitem[Kennea et al.(2005)]{kennea2005} Kennea, J.A., et al. 2005,
545: GCN Circ. 3268
546: \bibitem[Kippen et al.(2002)]{kippen2002} Kippen, R.M., Woods, P.M., Heise, J.,
547: in't Zand, J., Briggs, M.S., \& Preece, R.D. 2002, in Gamma-Ray Bursts
548: and Afterglow Astronomy, ed. G.R. Ricker \& R. Vanderspek (Melville: AIP),
549: 244
550: \bibitem[Kobayashi et al.(1997)]{kobayashi1997} Kobayashi, S., Piran,
551: T., Sari, R. 1997, ApJ, 490, 92
552: \bibitem[Kumar \& Piran(2000)]{kumar2000} Kumar, P., Piran, T. 2000, ApJ, 532, 286
553: \bibitem[Lamb et al.(2004)]{lamb2004} Lamb, D.Q. et al., NewAR, 48, 423
554: \bibitem[Lamb, Donaghy \& Graziani(2005)]{lamb2005}
555: Lamb, D. Q., Donaghy, T. Q., and Graziani, C. 2005, ApJ, 520,
556: 335
557: \bibitem[Lazzati et al.(2002)]{lazzati2002} Lazzati, D., et al. 2002, A\&A, 396, L5
558: \bibitem[Li et al.(2005)]{li2005} Li, W., et al. 2005, GCN Circ. 3270
559: \bibitem[Liang \& Zhang(2005)]{liang2005} Liang, E., Zhang, B., ApJ
560: in press (astro-ph/0504404)
561: \bibitem[Mochkovitch et al.(2003)]{mochkovitch2003}
562: Mochkovitch, R., Daigne, F., Barraud, C., \& Atteia, J. L.
563: 2003, in APS Conf. Ser. 312, Third Rome Workshop on Gamma-Ray Bursts in
564: the Afterglow Era, ed. M. Feroci et al. (San Francisco: ASP), 381
565: \bibitem[M\'esz\'aros et al.(2002)]{mes2002} M\'esz\'aros, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E.,
566: Rees, M. J., Zhang, B., ApJ, 578, 812
567: \bibitem[Mitrofanov et al.(1996)]{mitrofanov1996} Mitrofanov, I.G., et al. 1996,
568: ApJ, 459, 570
569: \bibitem[Norris et al.(2000)]{norris2000} Norris, J.P., Marini, G.F.,
570: Bonnel, J.T. 2000, ApJ, 534, 248
571: \bibitem[Nousek et al.(2005)]{neusek2005} Nousek, J.A., et al. 2005 submitted to
572: ApJ (astro-ph/0508332)
573: \bibitem[Paciesas et al.(1999)]{paciesas1999} Paciesas, W.S., et
574: al. 1999, ApJS, 122, 465
575: \bibitem[Piran(1999)]{piran1999} Piran, T. 1999,
576: Physics Reports, 314, 575
577: \bibitem[Preece et al.(2000)]{preece2000} Preece, R.D., et al. 2000,
578: ApJS, 126, 19
579: \bibitem[Price et al.(2005)]{price2005} Price, P.A., et al. 2005, GCN
580: Circ. 3312
581: \bibitem[Roming et al.(2005)]{roming2005} Roming, P., et al. 2005,
582: Space Science Review
583: \bibitem[Rossi et al.(2002)]{rossi2002}
584: Rossi, E., Lazzati, D., and Rees, M. J. 2002, MNRAS,
585: 332, 945
586: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2004)]{sakamoto2004} Sakamoto, T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 602, 875
587: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2005a)]{sakamoto2005} Sakamoto, T., et al. 2005,
588: ApJ, 629, 311
589: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2005b)]{sakamoto2005b} Sakamoto, T., et
590: al. 2005, GCN Circ. 3264
591: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2005c)]{sakamoto2005c} Sakamoto, T., et
592: al. 2005, GCN Circ. 3273
593: \bibitem[Sari et al.(1999)]{sari1999} Sari, R., Piran, T., Halpern, J.P. 1999,
594: ApJ, 519, L17
595: \bibitem[Schady et al.(2005)]{schady2005} Schady, P., et al. 2005, GCN
596: Circ. 3276
597: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2005)]{soderberg2005} Soderberg, A.M., et
598: al. 2005, GCN Circ. 3318
599: \bibitem[Soderberg et al.(2004)]{soderberg2004} Soderberg, A.M., et
600: al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 994
601: \bibitem[Strohmayer et al.(1998)]{strohmayer1998} Strohmayer, T.E.,
602: Fenimore, E.E., Murakami, T., Yoshida, A. 1998, ApJ, 500, 873
603:
604: \bibitem[Toma et al.(2005)]{toma2005} Toma, K., Yamazaki, R., Nakamura,
605: T. 2005 submitted to ApJ
606: \bibitem[Xu(2005)]{xu2005} Xu, D. 2005, submitted to ApJ (astro-ph/0504052)
607: \bibitem[Yamazaki et al.(2004)]{yamazaki2004} Yamazaki, R., Ioka, K.,
608: Nakamura, T. 2004, ApJ, 607, L103
609: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(1989)]{yoshida1989} Yoshida, A., et al.
610: 1989, PASJ, 41, 509
611: \bibitem[Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros(2002)]{zhang2002}
612: Zhang, B. \& M\'esz\'aros, P. 2002, \apj, 571, 876
613: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2004)]{zhang2004}
614: Zhang, B., Dai, X., Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., \& M\'esz\'aros, P.
615: 2004, 601, L119
616: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2005)]{zhang2005} Zhang, B., et al., submitted to ApJ
617: (astro-ph/0508321)
618:
619: \end{thebibliography}
620:
621: \clearpage
622:
623: %% tables
624:
625: \begin{table}
626: \caption{Energy fluences and the peak photon fluxes of XRF 050416A
627: assuming the Band function with $\alpha$ = $-1$}
628: \begin{center}
629: \begin{tabular}{cccc}\hline
630: Energy band & Energy fluence & Peak photon flux \\
631: $[{\rm keV}]$ & [erg cm$^{-2}$] & [ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$] \\\hline
632: 15 -- 25 & $(1.7 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-7}$ & $2.9_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$\\
633: 25 -- 50 & $(1.5 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-7}$ & $1.7 \pm 0.2$\\
634: 50 -- 100 & $3.4_{-0.6}^{+1.0} \times 10^{-8}$ & $3.2_{-0.4}^{+0.8} \times 10^{-1}$ \\
635: 100 -- 150 & $4.2_{-3.2}^{+11.8} \times 10^{-9}$ & $2.5_{-1.2}^{+3.6} \times 10^{-2}$ \\
636: 15 -- 150 & $(3.5 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{-7}$ & $5.0 \pm 0.5$ \\\hline
637: \end{tabular}
638: \end{center}
639: \label{table:fluence_peakflux}
640: \end{table}
641:
642: \clearpage
643:
644: \begin{table}
645: \caption{The time-averaged spectral parameters of XRF 050416A}
646: \begin{center}
647: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}\hline
648: Model & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ & E$_{\rm peak}$ & K$_{30}$ & $\chi^{2}$/d.o.f.\\
649: & & & [keV] & [ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
650: keV$^{-1}$] & \\\hline
651: PL & & $-3.1 \pm 0.2$ & & $(4.3 \pm 0.3)$ $\times 10^{-2}$ & 50.74 / 57\\
652: PL$^{a}$ & & $-3.4 \pm 0.4$ & & $(4.7 \pm 0.5)$ $\times 10^{-2}$ &
653: 43.88 / 53\\
654: Band & $-$1 (fixed)& $<$ -3.4 & 15.6$_{-2.7}^{+2.3}$ &
655: $3.5_{-0.8}^{+1.7}$ $\times 10^{-1}$ & 42.99 / 56\\\hline
656: \end{tabular}
657: \end{center}
658: \label{table:spec_para}
659: \tablenotetext{a}{Fitting result using only spectral bins above 20 keV.}
660: \end{table}
661:
662: %% figures
663:
664: \clearpage
665:
666: \begin{figure}
667: \centerline{
668: \includegraphics[scale=0.6,angle=-90]{f1.eps}}
669: \caption{Light curve of XRF 050416a in five energy bands: 15--25 keV, 25--50 keV,
670: 50--100 keV, 100--150 keV, and 15--150 keV. The bottom panel shows the hardness
671: ratio between the 25--50 keV and 15--25 keV band.}
672: \label{fig:bat_lc}
673: \end{figure}
674:
675: \clearpage
676:
677: \begin{figure}
678: \centerline{
679: \includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{f2.eps}}
680: \vspace{1cm}
681: \caption{BAT spectrum of XRF 050416A with a simple power-law model.
682: The spectral bins in the figure are binned at least 3 sigma,
683: or are grouped in sets of 13 bins.}
684: \label{fig:bat_spec}
685: \end{figure}
686:
687: \clearpage
688:
689: \begin{figure}
690: \centerline{
691: \includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{f3.eps}}
692: \caption{The ratio between the spectral data of XRF 050416A and the Crab nebula.
693: The numerator and denumerator of the ratio are the XRF 050416A and the Crab nabula
694: spectrum, respectively. The solid line shows the best fit power-law slope of $-$1.9
695: derived from fitting the data above 25 keV. The bottom panel shows the residuals from this
696: best fit power-law slope. The reduced $\chi^{2}$ is 7.72 in 20 degree
697: of freedom.}
698: \label{fig:crab_ratio}
699: \end{figure}
700:
701: \clearpage
702:
703: \begin{figure}
704: \centerline{
705: \includegraphics[scale=0.6,angle=-90]{f4.eps}}
706: \caption{The isotropic-equivalent energy, $\eiso$, versus the peak energy at the GRB
707: rest frame, $\eps$, for XRF 050416A (red square) and the known redshift GRBs from $Beppo$SAX
708: (circle) and $HETE$-2 (triangle). The $Beppo$SAX GRB sample is from \citet{amati2002} and the
709: $HETE$-2 GRB sample is from Lamb et al. The dotted line is the
710: relation of $\eps$ = 89 ($\eiso/10^{52}\,{\rm erg})^{0.5}$ \citep{amati2002}.}
711: \label{fig:epeak_eiso}
712: \end{figure}
713:
714: %% User Guide for details.
715: %%
716: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
717: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
718: %% after every seventh one.
719:
720: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
721: %% each one.
722:
723: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
724: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
725: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
726: %%
727:
728: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
729: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
730:
731: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
732: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
733: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to
734: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the
735: %% reduced font size.
736: %%
737: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
738: %% inside the \tablecaption.
739:
740: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full
741: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic
742: %% edition.
743: %%
744: \clearpage
745:
746: \end{document}
747: