1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \shorttitle{GRB 060614: a chance superposition?}
4: \shortauthors{Cobb et al.}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title {Could GRB 060614 and its presumed host galaxy be a chance superposition?}
9:
10: \author{B.~E. Cobb\altaffilmark{1}, C.~D. Bailyn\altaffilmark{1}, P.~G. van Dokkum\altaffilmark{1}, and
11: P. Natarajan\altaffilmark{1}}
12: \email{cobb@astro.yale.edu}
13:
14: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, Yale University, P.O. Box 208101, New Haven, CT 06520}
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: The lack of an observed supernova associated with GRB 060614 appears to
18: require a new paradigm for the formation of (a subset of) long-duration GRBs.
19: This requirement is based on the presumed low
20: redshift of the burst, which was inferred from the spatial
21: coincidence of the afterglow with a $z=0.125$ galaxy. We explore
22: the possibility that this low-redshift galaxy is a chance
23: superposition along the line of sight to GRB 060614. We examine the galaxy
24: distribution of the field of GRB 060614 and find that the probability of a chance association
25: with a galaxy at least as bright as the putative host is
26: only $\sim 0.5 - 1.9$\%. However, for the current ensemble of
27: $\approx 180$ \textit{Swift} GRBs it is likely that several such coincidences have occurred, and
28: given the ``non-standard" nature of GRB 060614 it is not implausible
29: that this is one such occurrence.
30: Thus the conclusion that GRB 060614 requires a revision
31: to the formation paradigm for long-duration GRBs should
32: be approached with caution.
33:
34:
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts}
38:
39:
40: \section{Introduction}
41: The evidence that long-duration GRBs are associated with supernovae (SNe) is very strong.
42: From observed low-luminosity GRBs with SNe that dominate the bursts' optical emission (e.g. GRB 980425/SN 1998bw
43: and 060218/SN 2006aj; \citealt{Galama+98,Cobb+06,Ferrero+06,Mirabal+06,Modjaz+06,Sollerman+06})
44: to high-luminosity GRBs with SNe embedded in the bursts' optical afterglow
45: (e.g. GRB 030329/SN 2003dh; \citealt{Hjorth+03,Stanek+03,Bloom+04}) has emerged a paradigm in which long-duration GRBs are produced
46: by the core collapse supernovae of massive stars.
47:
48: The study of this association is difficult at high redshifts,
49: due to the intrinsic faintness of the SNe when compared with the luminosities produced at all wavelengths
50: by ultra-relativistic GRB jets. Any possible low-redshift GRB is, therefore, of great importance
51: and is scrutinized by many observers for photometric or spectroscopic evidence of a SN.
52: Such was the case for GRB 060614 \citep{Parsons+06}, a burst that was typical in most respects and was
53: followed by a relatively bright and long-lasting optical afterglow \citep{Holland06,Brown+06}.
54:
55: Initial observations of GRB 060614 detected afterglow light in all \textit{Swift} UVOT bands,
56: indicating that the GRB had a moderate redshift of $z<1.7$, due to the absence of
57: absorption from the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest \citep{Holland06,SX06}. From the spectral parameters of the GRB,
58: \cite{PA06} calculated the pseudo-redshift of GRB 060614 to
59: be $pz= 1.45\pm0.85$, consistent with the earlier estimate \citep[see also][]{SX06}.
60: Spectroscopic observations of the afterglow of GRB 060614 taken less than
61: two days post-burst did not yield a spectroscopic redshift
62: \citep{Fugazza+06a}, as no absorption or emission features were detected on top of the
63: power-law spectrum of the afterglow.
64:
65: More spectra were obtained at the afterglow position of GRB 060614 as the afterglow continued to fade away.
66: In a spectrum taken $\sim5$ days post-burst \citep{Price+06}, a single strong emission line was
67: detected and interpreted to be due to H$\alpha$ from the GRB host galaxy at $z=0.13$.
68: The redshift of this potential host galaxy was confirmed to be $z=0.125$ by \cite{Fugazza+06b}.
69: With the possibility of this burst being at very low redshift, several observers continued careful
70: follow-up campaigns \citep[e.g.][]{BH06,CB06,Fynbo+06a}, anticipating the brightening expected from a SN at that redshift.
71: However, in time, all decaying afterglow light curves leveled off to a constant magnitude,
72: interpreted to be the magnitude of the host galaxy, and no SN brightening was observed \citep{CB06,DellaValle+06,Fynbo+06b,Gal-Yam+06}.
73:
74: The lack of an observed SN from this seemingly low-redshift GRB can be explained in several ways:
75: \begin{enumerate}
76: \item A SN did occur but was not detected due to high line-of-sight extinction
77: toward the GRB, most likely due to dust in the GRB's host galaxy. However
78: there are no indications of the presence of a supernova in IR observations
79: \citep{CB06} and also no
80: indication of the presence of this reddening in the UV/optical/IR
81: observations of the afterglow \citep{Holland06,DellaValle+06,Fynbo+06b,Gal-Yam+06}.
82: \item A SN did occur but was not detected because the SN was underluminous by more
83: than 5 magnitudes. This would be unexpected, however, as all previous
84: GRB-related SNe have luminosities that cluster within a magnitude of the peak
85: brightness of SN 1998bw \citep{ZKH04,Cobb+06,Ferrero+06}. While local non-GRB Type Ibc SNe
86: do span a larger range of $\pm\sim2$ magnitudes from the peak of SN 1998bw \citep{Richardson+06}, even
87: the dimmest known Ibc SN should have been detectable in the absence of strong reddening.
88: \item No stellar core collapse occurred, or the core collapse did not result in a typical GRB ``hypernova".
89: These possibilities have now been suggested by several authors
90: \citep{DellaValle+06,Fynbo+06b,Gal-Yam+06} and require a paradigm shift in our understanding
91: of the formation mechanism of GRBs or, at the very least, require the introduction of a new class of GRBs.
92: \item The proposed host galaxy of GRB 060614 is not the true host galaxy but,
93: instead, represents the chance coincidence of a low-redshift galaxy intersecting
94: the line of sight toward what is actually a moderate-redshift GRB (as suggested
95: by \citealt{SX06}).
96: The SN, therefore, did occur but is undetectable given the redshift of the burst.
97: \end{enumerate}
98:
99: In some ways, the fourth possibility is the most appealing, since it
100: requires no new formation channel for long-duration GRBs, and is consistent
101: with some features of the GRB itself \citep{SX06}.
102: However, it requires a spatial coincidence between a foreground galaxy
103: and the GRB. Here we analyze a deep optical image of the field of GRB 060614 to study
104: the statistics of such a coincidence empirically. In agreement with \cite{SX06},
105: we find that a chance superposition is not implausible.
106: While statistical arguments can never
107: rigorously exclude or require such a coincidence, the drastic nature of
108: the alternatives suggests that the possibility of a chance
109: superposition should be seriously considered.
110:
111: \section{Data}
112: Our data were obtained using the ANDICAM instrument mounted on the 1.3 m telescope
113: at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory\footnote{http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM}.
114: This telescope is operated as part of the Small and Moderate Aperture Research Telescope System (SMARTS)
115: consortium\footnote{http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts.}.
116: Imaging was obtained approximately every other night between 2006 June 15 - July 25 UT,
117: which is between 0.65 and 40.73 days post-burst.
118: A number of observations were affected by clouds and are not included in this analysis.
119: In total, 13 useful nights worth of data were collected (see Table 1).
120:
121: Each night's data set consisted of six individual 360 s I-band observations and $30\times60$ s J-band
122: observations.
123: The data were reduced in the same way as in \cite{Cobb+06}
124: and combined to produce a single 36 minute I-band exposure and a 30 minute J-band exposure per night.
125: I-band observations taken 0.65 and 1.66 days post-burst both contain bright afterglow light
126: and the remaining 11 images show no
127: indication of brightening due to a SN \citep[e.g.][]{CB06} down
128: to 22 mag in I and 20 mag in J (see Table 1 and Figure 1). This result is in agreement with the more stringent limits
129: imposed by other works \citep{DellaValle+06,Fynbo+06b,Gal-Yam+06}.
130:
131: The 11 I-band images taken from 2.66 to 40.73 days post-burst were combined to produce a single image of a
132: $5\farcm4 \times 5\farcm2$ field approximately centered on GRB 060614.
133: The I-band photometry is calibrated to a number of
134: secondary standard stars in the field of GRB 060614. The magnitude of these secondary standards
135: was derived using Landolt standard star observations \citep{Landolt92} taken on 7 of the
136: photometric nights when GRB 060614 was observed.
137: The image reaches a $3\sigma$ limiting magnitude of $I\approx23.3$.
138: The proposed host galaxy has an observed magnitude of $I = 22.08 \pm 0.09$.
139:
140: All objects in the field were cataloged using SExtractor \citep{BA96}.
141: 348 objects were detected using a 2$\sigma$ detection threshold.
142: Using SExtractor's neural network star/galaxy classifier, 85 objects with CLASS\_STAR$>0.8$
143: were considered stars and not included in the following analysis.
144: A section of our master image is shown in Figure 2 with SExtracted galaxies shown as
145: green and magenta ellipses. The proposed host galaxy of GRB 060614 is highlighted in red.
146:
147: \section{Probability of a Chance Superposition}
148: In our 28 square arcminute field of view, the position of the optical afterglow of GRB 060614
149: can be determined to within sub-pixel accuracy.
150: We calculate the probability by dividing the number of pixels covered by galaxies by
151: the total number of pixels.
152: The total pixel area of our image that is covered by galaxies is found by summing the
153: number of pixels contained in each individual SExtracted galaxy. The area of each
154: galaxy can be computed in two ways. First, the galaxy area can be taken as the area
155: of the SExtracted ellipse ($\pi\times3*$A\_IMAGE$\times3*$B\_IMAGE),
156: where the multiplier 3 is chosen so that the ellipse is visually coincident with the extent of the galaxy (see Figure 2).
157: Alternatively, the area can be given by the isophotal SExtractor parameter ISOAREAF\_IMAGE. From the sum of the ellipse areas,
158: the number of pixels contained in galaxies divided by the total number of pixels in the image produces a probability of 3.5\%
159: that the optical afterglow would land on a pixel contained in any galaxy in the field. The isophotal area
160: measurement produces somewhat smaller area values for each galaxy, reducing the probability to 2.4\%.
161:
162: Of course, some of the galaxies in this image are dimmer than the proposed host galaxy of GRB 060614,
163: and we are concerned here specifically with the chance of a superposition with galaxies similar to
164: or brighter than the proposed host.
165: All galaxies that are detected at the $4.8\sigma$
166: level are considered ``bright" galaxies (these galaxies are indicated in Figure 2 by the green ellipses).
167: The value of $4.8\sigma$ is chosen because it is the highest
168: threshold for which the proposed host of GRB 060614 is still SExtracted. Of the 263 galaxies
169: initially detected, 95 of those objects are still detected at a significance of greater
170: than $4.8\sigma$. The isophotal area contained within only these bright galaxies
171: represents 1.9\% of the total pixels in the image. The number of galaxies
172: in this sample is reduced to 36\% of the original, but this corresponds
173: to only a 21\% drop in probability because each bright galaxy covers
174: significantly more area than any given dim galaxy.
175:
176: To more fully explore the possibility that GRB 060614 is a chance superposition with a foreground
177: galaxy, it would be helpful to know the redshift of all the sources in the field. In the
178: absence of this data, we can only assume for this field a typical galaxy redshift distribution.
179: In a VVDS-CDFS galaxy sample limited to $I<22.1$ \citep{LeFevre+04}, 99\%
180: of galaxies have a redshift of $z\leq1.5$, which is at the low end of the redshift
181: range for GRB 060614 suggested by \cite{SX06}. This indicates that if the burst was
182: randomly associated with any of these bright galaxies, then that bright galaxy would almost certainly be at a redshift
183: lower than that proposed for the burst. However, it was only the lack of an observed SN
184: that called attention to this burst. If the proposed host galaxy of GRB 060614 had been at a redshift beyond that for which a SN could
185: reasonably have been detected, then the burst would not have been singled out as either curious
186: or groundbreaking given the burst's otherwise unexceptional characteristics.
187:
188: There exists spectroscopic
189: and/or photometric evidence for a SN component in most other bursts with $z\lesssim0.7$ \citep{ZKH04,Ferrero+06}.
190: However, at redshifts approaching $z\sim0.7$, the degeneracy between distance
191: and reddening would allow for the reasonable assumption that the SN
192: was not observed due to moderate extinction by host-galaxy dust.
193: To some extent, reddening can be constrained by analysis
194: of the X-ray to optical SED of the GRB afterglow. In the case of GRB 060614, this yields
195: a low reddening value of only a few tenths of a magnitude \citep{DellaValle+06}.
196: This assumes, however, that the GRB afterglow experiences the same reddening as the associated SN,
197: which may not be the case given the collimated versus (near-)isotropic configuration of the GRB and SN emission, respectively.
198: The exact redshift at which a SN non-detection would have elicited serious proposals of a new GRB mechanism
199: is difficult to quantify, but we choose a value of $z=0.4$. At this redshift, the non-detection of a SN excess above
200: the brightness of a $I\sim22$ host galaxy requires that any SN be at least a magnitude fainter
201: at peak than the typical GRB-SNe value of $I\sim-19$, assuming a low reddening value measured from SED analysis.
202: Given that a variation of only a magnitude is not surprising for Type Ibc SNe in general, this limit
203: is still reasonable because HST observations may be expected to place more stringent
204: limits than ground-based observations by resolving the optical afterglow/SN location within
205: the galaxy. In such a case, the SN would be observed as a deviation in the
206: power-law decay of the optical afterglow. For example, a SN at $z=0.7$ could have
207: been detected above the afterglow in the HST observations taken by \cite{Gal-Yam+06}.
208:
209: In our flux-limited sample of VVDS-CDFS galaxies, 65\% have a redshift of $z\leq0.7$, and 25\% have $z\leq0.4$. If projected
210: area is similar, or at least random, for all galaxies, then the area covered by those galaxies is
211: 2/3 or 1/4 of the total covered area, respectively. The specific probability of a chance superposition with a galaxy that
212: has a redshift low enough for a null-SN detection to be of interest is then 1.2\% (for $z\leq0.7$) or 0.5\% (for $z\leq0.4$).
213: This does not take into account, however, the true angular size of the individual galaxies. If the lowest redshift galaxies
214: trend toward larger projected surface areas than higher-$z$ galaxies, then the drop in the chance superposition
215: probability caused by this redshift cut will be somewhat reduced.
216:
217: Thus, depending on one's assumptions of the redshift limit out to which the lack of an
218: apparent SN would be flagged as important, a chance superposition for this particular GRB can be ruled
219: out with 98.1 - 99.5\% certainty.
220:
221: \section{Discussion}
222: Although the probability for a chance superposition for any given GRB is small,
223: we must also consider that a large number of GRB fields have now been observed
224: in this manner. If we assume that the galaxy density in the field of GRB 060614 is not unusual
225: (as appears to be the case --- Cobb et al. in prep), then given the $\approx 180$ bursts observed
226: by \textit{Swift}, a chance overlap of a galaxy brighter than $I\sim22$ and the
227: precise position of a GRB would be expected for $\approx 1 - 4$ GRBs.
228: The probability that no chance overlaps would be observed in the ensemble is
229: quite small, at 3.2\% to 41\%, assuming a probability of 1.9\% to 0.5\% for a
230: chance superposition in any given image. Most such superpositions would not be noticed, however, because the
231: typical foreground galaxy would be at a redshift comparable to that of the GRB. In contrast,
232: GRB 060614 has generated great interest because the galaxy implies that
233: the GRB is at an unusually low redshift.
234:
235: The strongest host galaxy claims can only be made for GRBs with
236: detected optical afterglows. Of the $\sim80$ optical afterglows detected following
237: \textit{Swift} bursts, the detection of no chance overlaps would not be unexpected
238: at a probability of 22\% to 67\%. Note, however, that the position of GRBs without
239: optical afterglows are determined from \textit{Swift} XRT
240: observations of X-ray afterglows, which have a spatial precision of $\sim4"$.
241: Taking this larger positional uncertainty into account would significantly increase the probability
242: of chance superpositions.
243:
244: One additional feature of GRB 060614 is that it appears to be at the periphery of
245: the galaxy \citep{Gal-Yam+06}. This is not expected for
246: standard long-duration GRB formation mechanisms, since the star formation rate at the outskirts of galaxies
247: is expected to be low. Indeed \cite{Gal-Yam+06} invoke the location of the GRB within the
248: galaxy as a first clue to the nature of a new GRB formation paradigm. The chance
249: superposition hypothesis is consistent with an off-center location of the GRB.
250: With deeper observations it may be possible to confirm or refute the presence of a background galaxy,
251: although we note that there is a $\sim1/4$ chance that the center of the true host
252: galaxy will lie directly behind that of the $z=0.125$ galaxy \citep{Bloom+02}.
253:
254: We note that any superposition with a foreground galaxy requires that the
255: source be lensed. However, the low luminosity and hence inferred low mass for this
256: particular galaxy suggests that the lensing induced magnification is less than 5\%,
257: which is inconsequential. This lensing estimate is obtained using standard
258: assumptions and modeling the galaxy as a singular isothermal sphere.
259:
260: It has been suggested that GRB 060505 is also a low-redshift GRB with
261: no SN \citep{Fynbo+06b}, although the observational data are more
262: limited both in the gamma-rays \citep{SX06} and for the afterglow,
263: for which no optical spectrum has been reported. Clearly the existence
264: of a second ``060614-like" object would significantly diminish
265: the probability of chance superpositions. But this argument
266: requires that the two objects be members of the \textit{same}
267: putative new category, and it is not clear that this could
268: be the case. In particular, there are significant differences
269: in the GRB characteristics of the two sources (GRB 060505 was
270: much shorter--4 s versus 120 s--and weaker than GRB 060614; \citealt{Palmer+06,Parsons+06})
271: and GRB 060505 appears to be located in a star forming region of a galactic
272: spiral arm, whereas GRB 060614 seems to be outside the main
273: region of star formation. If, as seems likely, the inferred
274: low redshifts of these two objects require different
275: formation mechanisms from each other, then an explanation of either
276: or both of them as a chance superposition remains plausible.
277:
278: We emphasize that an analysis of this kind is by nature not definitive.
279: From this argument alone, it is not possible to claim that GRB 060614 \textit{is} a chance superposition
280: between a low-$z$ galaxy and a moderate-$z$ GRB; we only claim that there
281: is a possibility of such an occurrence.
282: The fact that galaxies as bright as the purported host of GRB 060614 cover
283: several percent of the field, and that well over a hundred GRBs have now been observed
284: by \textit{Swift}, suggests that a chance superposition cannot be excluded. Indeed, over
285: the ensemble of \textit{Swift} bursts, the probability that such a coincidence would be
286: observed in at least one case is high.
287: The unusual combination of a low-redshift putative host and the lack of an associated
288: supernova make GRB 060614 an intriguing candidate for a chance superposition.
289: Thus the conclusion that GRB 060614 requires
290: a ``new paradigm" for GRB formation should be approached with caution.
291:
292: \acknowledgments
293: We thank SMARTS observers D. Gonzalez and J. Espinoza for their dedication to observing this source
294: and S. Tourtellotte for assistance with
295: optical data reduction. This work is supported by NSF
296: Graduate Fellowship DGE0202738 to BEC and NSF/AST grant 0407063 and \textit{Swift}
297: grant NNG05GM63G to CDB.
298:
299: \begin{thebibliography}{}
300: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{BA96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
301: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2002)]{Bloom+02} Bloom, J.~S., Kulkarni, S.~R., \& Djorgovski, S.~G.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 1111
302: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2004)]{Bloom+04} Bloom, J.~S., van Dokkum, P.~G., Bailyn, C.~D., Buxton, M.~M., Kulkarni, S.~R., \& Schmidt, B.~P.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 252
303: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2006)]{Brown+06} Brown, P.~J., Holland, S.~T., Mangano, V., Parsons, A.~M., \& Gehrels, N.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5262
304: \bibitem[Brown \& Holland(2006)]{BH06} Brown, P.~J., Holland, S.~T.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5286
305: \bibitem[Cobb \& Bailyn(2006)]{CB06} Cobb, B.~E., \& Bailyn, C.~D.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5282
306: \bibitem[Cobb et al.(2006)]{Cobb+06} Cobb, B.~E., Bailyn, C.~D., van Dokkum, P.~G., \& Natarajan, P.\ 2006, \apjl, 645, L113
307: \bibitem[Della Valle et al.(2006)]{DellaValle+06} Della Valle, M. et al.\ 2006, (astro-ph/0608322)
308: \bibitem[Ferrero et al.(2006)]{Ferrero+06} Ferrero, P. et al. \ 2006, A\&A \textit{in press}, (astro-ph/0605058)
309: \bibitem[Fugazza et al.(2006a)]{Fugazza+06a} Fugazza, D., et al.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5271
310: \bibitem[Fugazza et al.(2006b)]{Fugazza+06b} Fugazza, D., et al.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5276
311: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2006a)]{Fynbo+06a} Fynbo, J.~P.~U., et al.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5277
312: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2006b)]{Fynbo+06b} Fynbo, J.~P.~U. et al.\ 2006, (astro-ph/0608313)
313: \bibitem[Galama et al.(1998)]{Galama+98} Galama, T.~J., et al.\ 1998, \nat, 395, 670
314: \bibitem[Gal-Yam et al.(2006)]{Gal-Yam+06} Gal-Yam, A. et al.\ 2006, (astro-ph/0608257)
315: \bibitem[Hjorth et al.(2003)]{Hjorth+03} Hjorth, J. et al. \ 2003, \nat, 423, 847
316: \bibitem[Holland(2006)]{Holland06} Holland, S.~T.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5255
317: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{Landolt92} Landolt, A.~U.\ 1992, \aj, 104, 340
318: \bibitem[Le F{\`e}vre et al.(2004)]{LeFevre+04} Le F{\`e}vre, O., et al.\ 2004, \aap, 428, 1043
319: \bibitem[Mirabal et al.(2006)]{Mirabal+06} Mirabal, N., Halpern, J.~P., An, D., Thorstensen, J.~R., \& Terndrup, D.~M.\ 2006, \apjl, 643, L99
320: \bibitem[Modjaz et al.(2006)]{Modjaz+06} Modjaz, M., et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 645, L21
321: \bibitem[Parsons et al.(2006)]{Parsons+06} Parsons, A.~M., et al.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5252
322: \bibitem[Patat et al.(2001)]{Patat+01} Patat, F., et al.\ 2001, \apj, 555, 900
323: \bibitem[Pelangeon \& Atteia(2006)]{PA06} Pelangeon, A., \& Atteia, J.-L.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5265
324: \bibitem[Palmer et al.(2006)]{Palmer+06} Palmer, D., et al.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5076
325: \bibitem[Price et al.(2006)]{Price+06} Price, P.~A., Berger, E., \& Fox, D.~B.\ 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5275
326: \bibitem[Richardson et al.(2006)]{Richardson+06} Richardson, D., Branch, D., \& Baron, E.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2233
327: \bibitem[Schaefer \& Xiao(2006)]{SX06} Schaefer, B.~E.\ 2006, (astro-ph/0608441)
328: \bibitem[Skrutskie et al.(2006)]{Skrutskie+06} Skrutskie, M.~F., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1163
329: \bibitem[Sollerman et al.(2006)]{Sollerman+06} Sollerman, J., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 454, 503
330: \bibitem[Stanek et al.(2003)]{Stanek+03} Stanek, K.~Z., et al.\ 2003, \apjl, 591, L17
331: \bibitem[Zeh et al.(2004)]{ZKH04} Zeh, A., Klose, S., \& Hartmann, D.~H.\ 2004, \apj, 609, 952
332: \end{thebibliography}
333:
334: \begin{deluxetable}{rrll}
335: \tablecolumns{3}
336: \tablewidth{0pc}
337: \tablecaption{SMARTS observations of GRB 060614 afterglow + purported host galaxy}
338: \tablehead{\colhead{Observation UT date (2006)} & \colhead{Days after GRB\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{I mag\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{J mag\tablenotemark{b,c}}
339: }
340: \startdata
341: June 15.1780 & 0.65 & $19.00\pm0.04$ & $18.39\pm0.11$ \\
342: June 16.1909 & 1.66 & $20.62\pm0.10$ & $19.43\pm0.19$ \\
343: June 17.1865 & 2.66 & $21.41\pm0.15$ & $>19.1$ \\
344: June 19.3164 & 4.79 & $>21.7$ & $>19.0$ \\
345: June 21.3072 & 6.78 & $>21.9$ & $>19.1$ \\
346: June 25.4049 & 10.87 & $>21.8$ & $>19.1$ \\
347: June 27.3962 & 12.87 & $22.06\pm0.14$ & $>19.8$ \\
348: June 29.3504 & 14.82 & $22.04\pm0.15$ & $>18.9$ \\
349: July 01.3760 & 16.85 & $>21.8$ & $>19.2$ \\
350: July 05.2827 & 20.75 & $>22.0$ & $>18.9$ \\
351: July 18.2019 & 33.67 & $22.13\pm0.13$ & $>19.9$ \\
352: July 20.1319 & 35.60 & $22.31\pm0.21$ & $>19.6$ \\
353: July 25.2559 & 40.73 & $22.09\pm0.14$ & $>20.0$ \\
354: \enddata
355: \tablenotetext{a}{Mid-exposure time of images in days after the burst trigger, which occurred at 2006 June 14, 12:43:48 UT.}
356: \tablenotetext{b}{These values have not been corrected for Galactic extinction. $3\sigma$ limiting magnitudes are reported for observations
357: in which the galaxy is not significantly detected.}
358: \tablenotetext{c}{J-band photometric calibration was performed using two 2MASS stars \citep{Skrutskie+06} in the field.}
359: \end{deluxetable}
360:
361: \begin{figure}
362: \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{f1.eps}
363: \caption{Photometry of the afterglow and proposed host galaxy of GRB 060614.
364: Filled symbols represent detections; open symbols indicate $3\sigma$ magnitude limits
365: for observations in which the galaxy was not significantly detected.
366: \textit{Top:} I-band photometry, with the brightness of the galaxy
367: determined from the master combined image ($I=22.08\pm0.09$) indicated by the dotted line with $1\sigma$
368: error (dashed lines). The dot-dashed lines indicate
369: the expected brightness of the galaxy had a SN similar to SN 1998bw \citep{Galama+98}
370: occurred in the galaxy, assuming 0 to 3 magnitudes of host-galaxy extinction.
371: Even with 3 magnitudes of extinction, at $z=0.125$ such a SN would have
372: easily been observed. The solid line indicates a $z=0.5$ SN 1998bw superimposed on the galaxy;
373: a SN with any higher redshift would be difficult to detect in our data. Note
374: that other more stringent limits are available in the literature \citep{DellaValle+06,Fynbo+06b,Gal-Yam+06}.
375: \textit{Bottom:} J-band photometry; in the absence of the GRB afterglow, the galaxy remains
376: undetected. A 1998bw-like SN would be expected to roughly follow the dot-dashed line,
377: assuming the galaxy has a J-band magnitude of $\sim21$ and no host-galaxy extinction. The few available SN 1998bw
378: J-band observations are taken from \cite{Patat+01}.
379: }
380: \end{figure}
381:
382: \begin{figure}
383: \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{f2.eps}
384: \caption{Section of the master image of GRB 060614. SExtracted galaxies are indicated in green
385: and magenta. Each ellipse has axes 3*A\_IMAGE and 3*B\_IMAGE and position angle THETA\_IMAGE.
386: The proposed host galaxy of GRB 060614 is indicated in red. Bright galaxies are denoted
387: by green ellipses; these are galaxies detected at the same or higher significance
388: than the galaxy at the position of the optical afterglow of GRB 060614.
389: }
390: \end{figure}
391: \end{document}
392:
393: