1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: %\usepackage{natbib}
6:
7:
8: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
9: \hyphenation{Taglia-ferri}
10:
11: \newcommand{\mynote}[1]{[\textsf{\textit{#1}}]}
12: \newcommand{\thisgrb}{GRB\,050716}
13: \newcommand{\swift}{\textit{Swift}}
14: \newcommand{\Tzero}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}_0}}
15: \newcommand{\Tnine}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}_{90}}}
16: \newcommand{\etal}{{et.~al.}}
17: \newcommand{\plusminus}[2]{\ensuremath{^{+#1}_{-#2}}}
18: \newcommand{\nh}{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{H}}}
19: \newcommand{\ebv}{\ensuremath{E_{B-V}}}
20: \newcommand{\av}{\ensuremath{A_V}}
21: \newcommand{\nuc}{\ensuremath{\nu_{\mathrm{c}}}}
22: \newcommand{\num}{\ensuremath{\nu_{\mathrm{m}}}}
23: \newcommand{\alphao}{\ensuremath{\alpha_{\mathrm{o}}}}
24: \newcommand{\betao}{\ensuremath{\beta_{\mathrm{o}}}}
25: \newcommand{\chisqred}{\ensuremath{\chi^2_{\mathrm{red}}}}
26: \newcommand{\Ec}{\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{c}}}}
27: \newcommand{\Ep}{\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{p}}}}
28: \newcommand{\nodata}{---}
29: %\newcommand{\arcsec}{\mbox{\ensuremath{^{\prime\prime}}}}
30:
31:
32: \newcommand{\aj}{{AJ}} % Astronomical Journal
33: \newcommand{\actaa}{{Acta Astron.}} % Acta Astronomica
34: \newcommand{\araa}{{ARA\&A}} % Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys
35: \newcommand{\apj}{{ApJ}} % Astrophysical Journal
36: \newcommand{\apjl}{{ApJ}} % Astrophysical Journal, Letters
37: \newcommand{\apjs}{{ApJS}} % Astrophysical Journal, Supplement
38: \newcommand{\ao}{{Appl.~Opt.}} % Applied Optics
39: \newcommand{\apss}{{Ap\&SS}} % Astrophysics and Space Science
40: \newcommand{\aap}{{A\&A}} % Astronomy and Astrophysics
41: \newcommand{\aapr}{{A\&A~Rev.}} % Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews
42: \newcommand{\aaps}{{A\&AS}} % Astronomy and Astrophysics, Supplement
43: \newcommand{\mnras}{{MNRAS}} % Monthly Notices of the RAS
44: \newcommand{\na}{{New A}} % New Astronomy
45: \newcommand{\pasp}{{PASP}} % Publications of the ASP
46: \newcommand{\nat}{Nature} % Nature
47: \newcommand{\science}{Science} % Science
48: \newcommand{\jcp}{JCP} % The Journal of Chemical Physics}
49:
50:
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52:
53: \title[\thisgrb]{The early and late-time spectral and temporal evolution of \thisgrb}
54:
55: \author[E. Rol et al.]
56: {E.~Rol,$^1$
57: J.~P.~Osborne,$^1$
58: K.~L.~Page,$^1$
59: K.~E.~McGowan,$^2$
60: A.~P.~Beardmore,$^1$
61: \newauthor
62: P.~T~.O'Brien,$^1$
63: A.~J.~Levan,$^3$
64: D.~Bersier,$^{4,5}$
65: C.~Guidorzi,$^{5,6}$
66: F.~Marshall,$^7$
67: \newauthor
68: A.~S.~Fruchter,$^4$
69: N.~R.~Tanvir,$^{1,3}$
70: A.~Monfardini,$^5$
71: A.~Gomboc,$^{5,8}$
72: \newauthor
73: S.~Barthelmy,$^7$ and
74: N.~P.~Bannister$^1$
75: \\
76: $^1$University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK \\
77: $^2$School of Physics \& astronomy, University of Southamption, Southampton, SO17 3BJ, UK \\
78: $^3$Department of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertsfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Herts, AL9 10AB, UK \\
79: $^4$Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA \\
80: $^5$Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Twelve Quays House, Birkenhead, CH41 1LD, UK \\
81: $^6$Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, INAF, Via Brera 28, 20121, Milano, IT. \\
82: $^7$GSFC, USA \\
83: $^8$Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, 1000 Ljubljana, SI.
84: }
85:
86: \begin{document}
87:
88: \date{}
89:
90: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{}
91:
92: \maketitle
93:
94: \label{firstpage}
95:
96: \begin{abstract}
97:
98: We report on a comprehensive set of observations of Gamma Ray Burst
99: 050716, detected by the \swift\ satellite and subsequently
100: followed-up rapidly in X-ray, optical and near infra-red wavebands.
101: The prompt emission is typical of long-duration bursts, with two
102: peaks in a time interval of $\Tnine = 68$ seconds (15 -- 350 keV).
103: The prompt emission continues at lower flux levels in the X-ray
104: band, where several smaller flares can be seen, on top of a decaying
105: light~curve that exhibits an apparent break around 220 seconds post
106: trigger. This temporal break is roughly coincident with a spectral
107: break. The latter can be related to the extrapolated evolution of
108: the break energy in the prompt $\gamma$-ray emission, and is
109: possibly the manifestation of the peak flux break frequency of the
110: internal shock passing through the observing band. A
111: possible 3~$\sigma$ change in the X-ray absorption column is also
112: seen during this time. The late-time afterglow behaviour is
113: relatively standard, with an electron distribution power-law index
114: of $p = 2$; there is no noticable temporal break out to at least 10
115: days. The broad-band optical/nIR to X-ray spectrum indicates a
116: redshift of $z \gtrsim 2$ for this burst, with a host-galaxy
117: extinction value of $\ebv \approx 0.7$ that prefers an SMC-like
118: extinction curve.
119:
120: \end{abstract}
121:
122: \begin{keywords}
123: gamma-rays: bursts -- radiation mechanisms: non-thermal
124: \end{keywords}
125:
126: \section{Introduction}
127:
128:
129: One of the main goals of the \swift\ mission
130: \citep{gehrels2004:apj611:1005} is to obtain early-time information
131: for gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows in X-ray and optical/UV
132: wavelengths, using its rapid and autonomous slewing capability. In
133: addition, longer term monitoring, especially in X-rays, has become
134: more feasible than previously, with a dedicated facility like \swift.
135:
136:
137: Results of the early observations include the rapid decline of (X-ray)
138: afterglows in the first tens of minutes
139: \citep{tagliaferri2005:nature436, goad2006:aa449:89}. An explanation
140: for this behaviour is prompt emission seen from angles further away
141: from our line of sight \citep{kumar2000:apj541}. It is likely that
142: emission from the afterglow itself has not risen enough so early to
143: contribute significantly to the measured flux, although there are some
144: exceptions where the (X-ray) flux of the late-time external forward
145: shock is already visible from early times on
146: \citep[eg][]{obrien2006:apj647:1213}. A thorough understanding of
147: this phenomenon requires detailed descriptions of the light~curve (and
148: broad-band spectral) behaviour early on, preferentially with as little
149: as possible interference from other phenomena such as X-ray flares.
150: These X-ray flares are seen in a number of bursts
151: \citep[eg][]{burrows2005:science309}, and are now generally
152: interpreted as continuing activity of the inner engine
153: (\citealt{king2005:apj630:113}; but see also \citealt{piro2005:apj623:314},
154: who interpreted the X-ray rebrightenings as the result of the
155: beginning of the afterglow). Late time monitoring allows the
156: construction of multiple epochs of combined near infra-red/optical/UV
157: and X-ray broad-band spectra (occasionally including radio data),
158: building a more complete picture of GRB afterglows than before.
159:
160:
161: We present here a full analysis of \thisgrb. This includes the prompt
162: (burst) emission in gamma-rays and early X-ray data, for which we
163: performed time-resolved spectroscopy. We present the late time X-ray
164: behaviour of the afterglow, as well as late time optical observations,
165: which we then combine to form a broad-band spectrum. The observations
166: and their analysis are described in Section \ref{section:obsana}, and in
167: Section \ref{section:discussion} we discuss the results of the
168: observations. In Section \ref{section:summary}, we summarise our findings
169: and draw our conclusions.
170:
171: In the following, $1\,\sigma$ errors are used except where
172: noted. The temporal and spectral power~law indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$
173: are defined by $F \propto t^{-\alpha} \nu^{-\beta}$, and the photon
174: index $\Gamma = 1+\beta$. All \swift\ data have been reduced using the
175: \swift\ software version 2.4 within the HEAsoft software (version
176: 6.0.5), and the corresponding CALDB files.
177:
178:
179:
180: \section{Observations and analysis} \label{section:obsana}
181:
182: \thisgrb\ was detected by the \swift\ Burst Alert Telescope (BAT,
183: \citealt{barthelmy2005:ssrv120:143}) on July 16, 2005, at 12:36:04 UT.
184: All times mentioned in this text are relative to this \Tzero, except
185: where noted. The spacecraft slewed and started observing in the X-ray
186: and optical/UV bands 96 and 99 seconds later, respectively. The XRT
187: \citep{burrows2005:ssrv120:165} was able to immediately locate a
188: position for the X-ray afterglow on-board, allowing ground-based
189: telescopes to perform rapid, deep follow-up observations.
190:
191:
192: \subsection{BAT analysis} \label{section:bat}
193:
194: BAT data were reduced using the BAT software tools within the \swift\
195: software package. A PHA to PI energy conversion was performed first
196: with the \texttt{bateconvert} tool, which ensures the conversion is
197: quadratic, rather than linear. We subsequently corrected the data for
198: hot pixels. An additional systematic error correction was applied
199: before spectral fitting. The 15--350 keV light~curve is shown in
200: Figure \ref{figure:batlc}.
201:
202:
203: The light~curve shows an increase similar to the typical Fast-Rise
204: Exponential-Decay (FRED) behaviour seen for many other bursts, with a
205: peak around 9 seconds after trigger and the start of the rise of the
206: light~curve some 30 seconds earlier. A notable difference is that the
207: rise is not as steep as usually seen for a FRED. A similar FRED
208: light~curve is superposed on the tail of the first one, producing a
209: second peak 39 seconds after the trigger. After 80 seconds, most of the
210: prompt emission has disappeared in the 15--350 keV energy band.
211: \Tnine\ in this energy band for this burst is $66 \pm 1$ seconds.
212: A 4-second binned light~curve shows some emission still apparent past
213: 80 seconds, up to 200 seconds, which is mostly found in the lower
214: energy bands.
215:
216: \begin{figure}
217: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1}
218:
219: \caption{\textbf{Top panel} The BAT 15--350 keV mask-weighted
220: light~curve, with the two peaks around 9 and 39 seconds. Points are
221: 0.5-second binned light~curve, while the overplotted line is the
222: 4-second binned light~curve. The latter shows some evidence for
223: possible emission after 80 seconds. \textbf{Bottom panel} The spectral
224: evolution of the prompt emission in the 15--150 keV range; shown is
225: the photon index for a power~law model with an exponential cutoff.
226: \label{figure:batlc}
227: }
228:
229: \end{figure}
230:
231: We have subdivided the gamma-ray data into 4 temporal sections and
232: obtained spectral fits for each of these. The spectral shape was
233: fitted with a power~law, which results in an acceptable fit. A
234: power~law with an exponential cut-off, however, provides a better fit,
235: while a fit with a Band model \citep{band1993:apj413:281} does not
236: improve the fit compared to either one of those models. The BAT
237: spectral energy range and low number of energy bins do not allow an
238: accurate determination of the cut-off energy \Ec\ in the cut-off
239: power~law model (for the first section, it is in fact a lower limit),
240: but there is an indication that the spectrum softens, with
241: \Ec\ gradually becoming lower, and the photon index $\Gamma$ changing
242: from about 0.4 to 0.9 during the prompt gamma-ray emission, over a
243: period of $\approx 50$ seconds.
244:
245: To verify this spectral evolution, we have fitted the later time
246: sections (C \& D) with the model parameters (other than the
247: normalisation) fixed at those obtained from the earlier sections (A \&
248: B). By then freeing the parameters and applying an F-test, we find
249: that there is indeed a change in the spectrum at a 99.9\% level.
250: Performing a similar test to the first and last sections (A \& D),
251: with the results obtained from the fit to the total section (-20 -- 80
252: s), also indicates a changing spectrum at a 99.9\% confidence level.
253:
254: Such softening behaviour of the prompt spectrum has been commonly
255: found before in other bursts \citep{ford1995:apj439:307}. The results
256: are detailed in Table \ref{table:gammaray-spectra}, and include the
257: result of a spectral fit to the whole time span. Figure
258: \ref{figure:batlc} shows the spectral evolution of the prompt emission
259: between 15 and 150 keV as well.
260:
261:
262:
263:
264: \begin{table}
265: \caption{Results of spectral fits to four sections of the prompt
266: gamma-ray emission, as well as that of the combined fit.
267: \label{table:gammaray-spectra}
268: }
269: \begin{tabular}{lrlll}
270: Section &
271: Time &
272: $\Gamma$ &
273: cutoff energy &
274: \chisqred
275: \\
276: &
277: (sec) &
278: &
279: (keV) &
280: \\
281: \hline
282:
283: A &
284: -20 -- 0 &
285: 0.42 \plusminus{0.21}{0.60} &
286: 221 ($> 6.7$) &
287: 1.05
288: \\
289:
290: B &
291: 0 -- 20 &
292: 0.74 \plusminus{0.27}{0.29} &
293: 125 \plusminus{178}{49} &
294: 0.86
295: \\
296:
297: C &
298: 20 -- 40 &
299: 0.64 \plusminus{0.40}{0.45} &
300: 105 \plusminus{305}{48} &
301: 0.86
302: \\
303:
304: D &
305: 40 -- 80 &
306: 0.87 \plusminus{0.33}{0.36} &
307: 65.6 \plusminus{47.5}{20.9} &
308: 0.95
309: \\
310:
311: A -- D &
312: -20 -- 80 &
313: 0.85 \plusminus{0.21}{0.23} &
314: 150 \plusminus{169}{54} &
315: 0.76
316: \\
317: \hline
318:
319: \end{tabular}
320: \end{table}
321:
322:
323: \subsection{XRT analysis} \label{section:xrt}
324:
325: XRT data were reduced from level 1 to level 2 with the \swift\
326: software task \texttt{xrtpipeline}. Data obtained in Windowed Timing
327: (WT) mode and Photon Counting (PC) mode have been used in all our
328: following analysis. Counts were grouped by 20 per bin for the spectra.
329: WT mode data for the light curve have been grouped by 40 counts per
330: bin, and PC mode light curve data have been grouped by 20 counts per
331: bin.
332:
333: We have subdivided our analysis into an early-time part and a
334: late-time part. We designate the early-time part as the section of the
335: X-ray afterglow that shows flares (probably related to inner engine
336: activity, see also the discussion below), while the late-time part
337: shows a relatively smooth decay and is presumed to be the afterglow
338: emission from a forward shock. The data for the early part extends up
339: to almost 1ks, with most of the data having been obtained in WT mode.
340: The late-time part starts some 4ks after the trigger and extends out
341: to almost three weeks.
342:
343:
344: \subsection{Early XRT data} \label{section:earlyxrt}
345:
346: WT mode observations started at 103 seconds, and extended up to 516
347: seconds. After this, the count-rate was low enough for the instrument
348: to automatically switch to PC mode. WT mode data were extracted using
349: a rectangular region with a length of 93\arcsec\ centred on the source
350: and along the readout direction, with an equally sized region
351: off-source serving as the background determination. PC mode data have
352: been extracted with a 47\arcsec\ circular aperture instead of the
353: default 71\arcsec\, because of a contaminating close-by source. The
354: first few 100 seconds of PC mode data are piled-up and we used an
355: annular extraction region, with a 12\arcsec\ inner radius and a
356: 47\arcsec\ outer radius. In addition, some bad columns are located
357: near the source centre. We used default grades for WT mode (grades 0
358: to 2), while we used only grade 0 for the first few 100 seconds of
359: PC-mode observations.
360:
361: To determine the combined correction factor for the annular aperture
362: and bad column loss, we modelled the PSF using \textsf{ximage}, and
363: calculated the ratio of the integrated response between an unmodified
364: PSF and that masked out by an inner 12\arcsec\ circle and the bad
365: columns. In the same manner, we correct for the expected loss of using
366: only a 47\arcsec\ circular aperture. The combined correction factor is
367: 4.47.
368:
369:
370: \subsubsection{Spectral evolution}
371:
372: Similar to the BAT observations, we find evidence for a change in the
373: spectral slope over time. Modelling the spectrum with a simple power
374: law, we find that the X-ray spectrum starts with $\Gamma = 0.9 \pm
375: 0.1$ (0.3 -- 10 keV), and the slope then evolves to $\Gamma = 2.0 \pm
376: 0.1$, with a change between 250 and 400 seconds post trigger.
377:
378: If a break is expected in the X-ray band, a broken power~law model for
379: the spectra around this time is preferred. Fits with broken power~law
380: models, however, do not show a significant improvement in the fit, and
381: we have therefore used the results from the single power~law fits above.
382:
383: Because there is still some flux in the BAT light~curve coincident
384: with the first 100 seconds or so of WT mode data, we have performed a
385: joined fit to the BAT and XRT data between 100 and 200 seconds post
386: trigger. A single power law fit has a \chisqred of $1.98$ (degrees of
387: freedom (DOF) = 61), but a Band model does a much better job
388: ($\chisqred = 0.90$, DOF = 59), and results in $E_0 =
389: 12.2\plusminus{5.4}{2.4}$~keV, or a peak energy of $\Ep =
390: 13.1\plusminus{5.8}{2.6}$~keV. The spectral indices are $\alpha =
391: -0.93\plusminus{0.08}{0.13}$ and $\beta =
392: -2.56\plusminus{0.37}{1.51}$.
393:
394: Because of the low number of counts in the BAT data, the fit is
395: dominated by the XRT data and the outcome should be taken somewhat
396: cautiously.
397:
398: \subsubsection{Light curve} \label{sect:light-curve}
399:
400: Since there is a change in the spectral slope halfway through the
401: light~curve, we cannot simply fit the count-rate light~curve: a flux
402: calibrated light~curve has to be used. To derive the count-rate to
403: flux conversion factors, we have used the spectra between 103 and 223
404: seconds and between 263 and 513 seconds (see also Table
405: \ref{table:nh}), which provide the conversion values for the first and
406: last part of the light~curve, respectively. For the middle section we
407: have used the average of these values: the rapid change in spectrum
408: does not allow for a good spectral fit. In all our following fits, we
409: have modelled the two most pronounced flares with two simple
410: Gaussians. We also left out the last data point of the light~curve: it
411: is likely that this point is the onset of the later-time light~curve
412: (see Section \ref{section:latexrt}), or possibly even the start of
413: another flare.
414:
415: A fit to the flux light curve with a single power~law results in
416: $\chisqred = 2.06$ (DOF = 123), while a broken power~law fit gives
417: $\chisqred = 1.83$ (DOF = 121). Neither fit is good, but the broken
418: power~law does provide a significant improvement. A fit with a
419: smoothly broken power~law (either with the sharpness of the break
420: fixed or free) hardly improves this ($\chisqred = 1.78$ for
421: both, DOF = 121 and 120, respectively), and an exponential fit is
422: worse ($\chisqred = 2.07$, DOF = 123).
423:
424: The broken power~law fit results in decay parameters $\alpha_1 = 0.91
425: \plusminus{0.30}{0.09}$ and $\alpha_2 = 3.78 \plusminus{0.19}{0.15}$.
426: The temporal break is found at $220 \plusminus{27}{4}$ seconds, just
427: before the time of the spectral break. This coincidence strengthens
428: the suggestion that a broken power~law is a reasonable model for the
429: underlying light~curve. See Section \ref{section:early} for a more
430: detailed exploration of this break.
431:
432: The light~curve and the spectral evolution are shown in Figure
433: \ref{figure:earlylc}. As commonly seen in other early X-ray
434: light~curves
435: \citep[eg][]{burrows2005:science309,nousek2006:apj642:389,obrien2006:apj647:1213},
436: this one exhibits a few flares, which most likely indicates activity
437: of the burst engine itself. This would agree with the possible
438: emission seen in the BAT 15--350 keV range between 100 and 200
439: seconds. Also visible is the deviation of the underlying decay from a
440: power~law.
441:
442: \begin{figure}
443: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2}
444:
445: \caption{ \textbf{Top panel} 0.3--10 keV early-time light~curve. The
446: last three points are PC mode data, the previous data points consist
447: of WT mode data. A broken
448: power~law fit with two Gaussians is shown as the continuous line, with
449: its break time around 200 seconds post trigger (the Gaussians account
450: for the two main flares, to obtain a better overall fit; the broken
451: power~law without Gaussians is shown as the dashed line). The last
452: data point has not been fit, since this likely belongs to the
453: later-time light~curve. \textbf{Middle panel} The fit residuals,
454: expressed in sigma deviation. Even with the Gaussian fits to two
455: flares, the overall light curve shows significant deviations from the
456: fit. \textbf{Bottom panel} The evolution of the photon index $\Gamma$
457: of the X-ray spectrum.
458: \label{figure:earlylc}
459: }
460:
461: \end{figure}
462:
463: \subsubsection{X-ray absorption change?}
464:
465: For the combined WT-mode data, we find no evidence for excess \nh\
466: above that of the estimated Galactic column of $1.1 \times 10^{21}
467: \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ \citep{dickey1990:araa28:215}. Subdividing the WT-mode
468: into a pre- and a post- spectral break section indicates, however, a
469: modest amount of excess absorption at early times, while no excess
470: absorption is measured past the break: $\nh =
471: 2.0\,(\pm\,0.2)\,\cdot\,10^{21}\,\mathbf{\mathrm{cm}^{-2}}$ and $\nh =
472: 1.1 (\pm 0.2) \cdot 10^{21} \mathbf{\mathrm{cm}^{-2}}$ for the total
473: \nh\ at the two respective epochs. While the observed change in
474: photon index could correlate with this change in \nh, a contour plot
475: (Figure \ref{figure:contour}) indicates it is likely that the column
476: density did change. Something similar has been seen, for example, in
477: the early (prompt) X-ray emission for GRB\,000528
478: \citep{frontera2004:apj614:301}, or claimed for GRB\,050730
479: \citep{starling2005:aa442:21}. An F-test for a model with \nh\ fixed
480: at the later time value (see also Section \ref{section:latexrt}),
481: compared to a model with \nh\ free to fit, gives a probability of
482: 6.7e-5 for the two models to be consistent. See the second part of
483: Table \ref{table:nh} for more details.
484:
485:
486:
487: \begin{figure}
488: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\columnwidth]{fig3}
489:
490: \caption{Contour plots for the 1-$\sigma$, 90\% and 99\% combined
491: confidence intervals for the photon index $\Gamma$ and \nh. The
492: contours upper-left are for the WT-mode data after the observed
493: spectral break (303-513 seconds), the contours in the lower-right
494: corner are pre-break (103-253 seconds). The middle part (253-303
495: seconds) is left out, since here the change in spectral break is most
496: pronounced, indicating $\Gamma$ is highly variable. Note that
497: $\Gamma$ for the first data section is slightly higher than the
498: previously quoted $0.9$, which is for the very first part of WT-mode
499: data only.
500: \label{figure:contour}
501: }
502:
503: \end{figure}
504:
505: \begin{table*}
506: \caption{Results of spectral fits for the XRT WT-mode data. The second half
507: of the table details the results on variation of the column
508: density. See also Figure \ref{figure:contour}. A simple power~law was
509: used, with the Teubingen-Boulder model
510: \citep[][\texttt{tbabs}]{wilms2000:apj542:914} for the absorption.
511: \label{table:nh}
512: }
513: \begin{tabular}{llll}
514: \multicolumn{1}{c}{time} &
515: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Gamma$} &
516: \multicolumn{1}{c}{\nh} &
517: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^2_{\mathrm{red}}$} \\
518: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(sec)} &
519: &
520: \multicolumn{1}{c}{($10^{21}$ cm$\mathbf{^{-2}}$)} &
521: \\
522:
523: \hline
524: 103 -- 123 &
525: $0.95 \pm 0.12$ &
526: $1.37 \plusminus{0.73}{0.66}$ &
527: 0.509 (12.2/24) \\
528:
529: 123 -- 143 &
530: $1.31 \plusminus{0.15}{0.14}$ &
531: $1.87 \plusminus{0.74}{0.67}$ &
532: 0.899 (15.3/17) \\
533:
534: 143 -- 163 &
535: $1.26 \pm 0.14$ &
536: $1.18 \plusminus{0.66}{0.61}$ &
537: 0.518 (9.84/19) \\
538:
539: 163 -- 183 &
540: $1.18 \plusminus{0.13}{0.12}$ &
541: $1.11 \plusminus{0.61}{0.57}$ &
542: 0.698 (16.8/24) \\
543:
544: 183 -- 243 &
545: $1.23 \pm{0.11}$ &
546: $1.65 \plusminus{0.42}{0.39}$ &
547: 0.801 (25.6/32) \\
548:
549: 243 -- 363 &
550: $1.66 \pm{0.07}$ &
551: $1.51 \plusminus{0.25}{0.23}$ &
552: 1.09 (63.3/58) \\
553:
554: 363 -- 403 &
555: $2.16 \plusminus{0.23}{0.21}$ &
556: $1.88 \plusminus{0.56}{0.53}$ &
557: 1.12 (13.5/12) \\
558:
559: 403 -- 513 &
560: $2.05 \plusminus{0.17}{0.16}$ &
561: $1.09 \plusminus{0.39}{0.36}$ &
562: 1.09 (22.9/21) \\
563:
564: \hline
565: \multicolumn{4}{l}{\hspace{-0.5cm}\nh\ variation} \\
566:
567: 103 -- 223 &
568: $1.26 \pm 0.05$ &
569: $2.04 \plusminus{0.21}{0.20}$ &
570: 0.890 (111.2/125) \\
571:
572: 263 -- 513 &
573: $1.86 \plusminus{0.08}{0.07}$ &
574: $1.13 \plusminus{0.19}{0.18}$ &
575: 1.053 (73.69/70) \\
576:
577: \hline
578:
579: \end{tabular}
580: \end{table*}
581:
582:
583:
584:
585: \subsection{Late time XRT observations}
586: \label{section:latexrt}
587:
588: The XRT data after 4ks are not piled-up, and were extracted using a
589: circular aperture of 47\arcsec radius and the default grades (0 to
590: 12). The resulting 0.3\,--\,10 keV light~curve follows a smooth
591: power-law decline, with a power-law decay index of 0.99. The full
592: light~curve is shown in Figure \ref{figure:xrtlc} and includes the
593: early time light~curve as well. There is no indication of a shallow
594: part ($\alpha \lesssim 0.5$) in the light~curve between the steep
595: early decay and the later time decay, as often seen around this time
596: in the light~curve \citep[eg][]{nousek2006:apj642:389}; this may have
597: been missed if it was relatively short and between the early and
598: late-time part. There has been, however, no need to include such a
599: section in our fits to obtain good results. There is also no
600: indication of a late-time break before the light~curve is lost in the
601: background noise, up to $10^6$ seconds. A spectral fit to the data
602: between 10ks and 100ks, with \nh\ fixed at its Galactic value, results
603: in a good fit ($\chi^2_{\mathrm{red}} = 0.54$), with a photon index of
604: $\Gamma = 2.01 \plusminus{0.11}{0.10}$.
605:
606: \subsection{Optical observations}
607: \label{section:optical}
608:
609: Optical observations were automatically performed with the \swift\
610: Ultra Violet and Optical Telescope (UVOT,
611: \citealt{roming2005:ssrv120:95}) in the $UBVW1\,M2\,W2$ filters and
612: without a filter. The prompt dissemination of the position also
613: triggered the Faulkes Telescope North (FTN), which began the first
614: observations of its automatic follow-up procedure
615: \citep{guidorzi2006:pasp188:288} 243 seconds after the \swift\
616: trigger. Finally, near infra-red observations at the United Kingdom
617: Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) started 56 minutes post trigger, in the
618: $JHK$ bands, and Gemini NIRI $K$-band observations were obtained 22
619: hours after \Tzero. The log of our observations can be found in Table
620: \ref{table:optical-log}.
621:
622: A faint, fading source was detected in the UKIRT data, just outside
623: the 90\% XRT error circle, and identified as the IR afterglow
624: \citep{tanvir2005:gcn3632}. The IR data also gives the best position
625: for the GRB and its afterglow. This is RA~=~22:34:20.73,
626: Dec~=~+38:41:03.6 (J2000), with an estimated error of 0.4\arcsec. This
627: position is derived from the NIRI $K$-band image, calibrated with
628: respect to the 2MASS survey \citep{skrutskie2006:aj131:1163}.
629:
630: A single power~law fit to the three $K$-band points results in a
631: power~law decay index of $\alphao = 0.80\plusminus{0.13}{0.07}$, with
632: $\chi^2_{\mathrm{red}} = 0.689$. While different from the X-ray decay
633: slope at these times, the paucity of data points does not allow a
634: strong quantification of this difference. A fit with $\alphao$ fixed
635: at $\alpha_X = 0.99$, however, results in $\chi^2_{\mathrm{red}} =
636: 2.58$.
637:
638:
639: We calculated the $JHK$ spectral index by shifting the data to a
640: common epoch using the previously calculated decay index, and
641: correcting for the estimated Galactic extinction
642: \citep{schlegel1998:apj500}. Conversion to flux was performed using
643: the Vega fluxes from \citet{fukugita1995:pasp107} for the optical and
644: from \citet{tokunaga2005:pasp117} for the nIR filters. The fit shows
645: the spectrum to be inconsistent with a power-law spectrum ($\betao =
646: 2.9$, but $\chisqred = 4.2$), indicative of intrinsic reddening. We
647: address this in Section \ref{section:broadband}.
648:
649:
650: \begin{table*}
651: \caption{\label{table:optical-log} The results of our optical
652: follow-up campaign, covering the wavelength range from near infra-red
653: to the near ultraviolet. Other data collected through the GCN network
654: provide only upper limits similar to those of the FTN and UVOT, and
655: have therefore not been repeated here.}
656: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
657: Start date & days since burst & exposure time & filter &
658: magnitude & telescope/instrument \\
659: (days UT, July 2005) & (mid-time) & (seconds) & &
660: & \\
661: \hline
662: 16.529991 & 0.01954 & 400 & $i'$ & $ > 21.5 $ & FTN \\
663: 16.527721 & 0.00306 & 30 & $R$ & $ > 20.3 $ & FTN \\
664: 16.527721 & 0.02239 & 540 & $R$ & $ > 22.3 $ & FTN \\
665: 16.529911 & 0.02236 & 520 & $B$ & $ > 23.0 $ & FTN \\
666: 16.526169 & 0.4315 & 5799 & $V$ & $ > 21.2 $ & \swift/UVOT \\
667: 16.527859 & 0.4042 & 5507 & $B$ & $ > 22.1 $ & \swift/UVOT \\
668: 16.527697 & 0.3988 & 5477 & $U$ & $ > 21.6 $ & \swift/UVOT \\
669: 16.527534 & 0.4416 & 5053 & $W1$ & $ > 21.5 $ & \swift/UVOT \\
670: 16.527373 & 0.4374 & 5486 & $M2$ & $ > 21.8 $ & \swift/UVOT \\
671: 16.528044 & 0.4084 & 4383 & $W2$ & $ > 21.8 $ & \swift/UVOT \\
672: 19.055751 & 2.7699 & 9480 & 'white' & $ > 22.5 $ & \swift/UVOT \\
673: 16.579109 & 0.05594 & 300 & $J$ & $20.76 \pm 0.08$ & UKIRT/UFTI \\
674: 16.581678 & 0.05937 & 450 & $H$ & $19.31 \pm 0.05$ & UKIRT/UFTI \\
675: 16.564178 & 0.04272 & 600 & $K$ & $17.74 \pm 0.15$ & UKIRT/UFTI \\
676: 16.583727 & 0.06055 & 300 & $K$ & $18.22 \pm 0.15$ & UKIRT/UFTI \\
677: 17.421337 & 0.9275 & 3600 & $K$ & $20.5 \pm 0.2$ & Gemini/NIRI \\
678: \hline
679: \end{tabular}
680: \end{table*}
681:
682:
683: \begin{figure}
684: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig4}
685:
686: \caption{\label{figure:xrtlc}
687: The complete X-ray light~curve between
688: 0.3 and 10 keV. The continuous line is modelled using a broken
689: power~law and 2 Gaussians for the early time light~curve (see Section
690: \ref{section:earlyxrt}), and a single power~law added to that for the
691: late-time light~curve. The latter has a decay index of $0.99 \pm
692: 0.02$.
693: \textbf{Bottom panel} The residuals of the fit,
694: expressed in sigma deviation.
695: }
696: \end{figure}
697:
698:
699:
700:
701:
702:
703: \section{Discussion} \label{section:discussion}
704:
705:
706: \begin{table*}
707: \caption{\label{table:summary}
708: Summary of the main results obtained in Section \ref{section:obsana}.
709: We have converted the spectral results from $\Gamma$ to $\beta$.
710: }
711: \begin{tabular}{llll}
712: \multicolumn{1}{c}{data section} &
713: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\beta$} &
714: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha$} &
715: \\
716: \hline
717:
718: X-ray, 103 -- 223 seconds &
719: 0.26 $\pm$ 0.05 &
720: 0.91 \plusminus{0.30}{0.09}
721: \\
722:
723: X-ray, 263 -- 513 seconds &
724: 0.86 \plusminus{0.08}{0.07} &
725: 3.78 \plusminus{0.19}{0.15}
726: \\
727:
728: X-ray, post 1 hour &
729: 1.01 \plusminus{0.11}{0.10} &
730: 0.99 $\pm$ 0.02
731: \\
732:
733: optical, post 1 hour &
734: 2.94$^1$ &
735: %\nodata &
736: 0.80 \plusminus{0.13}{0.07}
737: \\
738: \hline
739: $^1$ $\chisqred = 4.2$, therefore no error has been calculated.
740: \end{tabular}
741: \end{table*}
742:
743: Here we discuss the results obtained above. A short summary of the
744: results is given in Table \ref{table:summary}.
745:
746: \subsection{Early emission}
747: \label{section:early}
748:
749: \thisgrb\ shows characteristics as seen in previous (\swift) bursts,
750: both in its prompt emission and the (early) afterglow
751: \citep{nousek2006:apj642:389,obrien2006:apj647:1213}. The flares,
752: combined with the multiple peaks in the gamma-ray emission, imply
753: several shocks, likely indicative of prolonged engine activity
754: \citep{king2005:apj630:113}. The early X-ray data show a
755: power-law decline, that appears to be unrelated to the later afterglow
756: emission and which is often explained as prompt emission originating
757: from higher latitudes at the emission source, after the emission at
758: smaller angles has faded away.
759:
760:
761: In the context of this model, we can test the curvature effect $\alpha
762: = 2 + \beta$ \citep{kumar2000:apj541}. We used the values pre- and
763: post-break in the XRT data, showing that by this relation, the
764: observed $\alpha_1$ is too shallow and $\alpha_2$ too steep.
765: \citet{zhang2006:apj642:354} list several possible causes why this
766: relation would not hold. Most important are the effect of using the
767: trigger time instead of the time of the last emission peak (thereby
768: assigning an incorrect zeropoint for a power law fit), and that of
769: superposition of tails of several emission peaks. Both causes could be
770: valid here, since the last significant emission peaks some 40 seconds
771: after the trigger. However, applying such a correction for both
772: effects would effectively produce an ever shallower decay, making the
773: discrepancy larger. Possible causes for $\alpha$ being too shallow are
774: the fact that one is looking at a structured jet
775: \citep{rossi2002:mnras332:945} or when the observed (X-ray) wavelength
776: regime is still below the cooling break. In the latter case, the decay
777: is given by $\alpha \sim 1 + 3 \beta/2$ \citep{zhang2006:apj642:354}.
778: Only the very early section of the X-rays agrees with this relation,
779: with $\alpha = 0.91$ and $\beta = -0.1$ (Section
780: \ref{sect:light-curve}, Table \ref{table:nh}). Post-break, however,
781: the discrepancy is even larger in this scenario. Potentially, both
782: the peak frequency and the cooling break have passed the X-ray band at
783: this time. While this could explain the relatively long spectral
784: transition, there is no direct evidence for this. The discrepancy at
785: later times, for either relation, might more likely be attributed to
786: an increasing influence of the external shock (which likely dominates
787: the last data), and the last flare, which hamper a good fit to the
788: steeper tail of the early light curve.
789:
790: Evolution of the early emission in the X-ray to gamma-ray energy range
791: has been studied before, eg by \citet{frontera2000:apjs127:59}, who
792: looked at the spectral evolution for eight \textit{Beppo}SAX bursts
793: which had been detected by both the Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor and one of
794: the Wide-Field Cameras. While their findings are similar, an important
795: advantage here is that we have an early X-ray light curve which, with
796: provisions for some flaring, can be fit with a broken power law; the
797: break time of this power law is roughly coincident with the moment
798: \Ep\ passes through the X-ray band. The WFC data generally cover only
799: the very early part of the burst, and any underlying (broken) power
800: law is not visibile. As a result, the \Ep\ evolution could only be
801: deduced from the spectral changes for the \textit{Beppo}SAX data.
802:
803: Variable X-ray absorption at early times in the X-ray spectra of GRBs
804: has been noted before in other GRBs
805: \citep{frontera2000:apjs127:59,amati2000:sci290:953,intzand2001:apj559:710,starling2005:aa442:21}.
806: \citet{lazzati2002:mnras330:383} have suggested that ionisation
807: strongly modifies the absorption properties of the surrounding
808: material. For this effect to be noticable, the material should be in a
809: compact region surrounding the GRB ($< 5$ parsec), and have an initial
810: column density $\nh > 10^{21} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$. The change detected
811: here is $0.8 \cdot 10^{21} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ at redshift 0. For a
812: redshift of $z = 2$ (see below), the column density would be $\nh
813: \approx 1.5 \cdot 10^{22} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ (at Solar meticallicity),
814: large enough to fulfill the $\nh > 10^{21} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$
815: criterion.
816:
817:
818:
819: \subsection{The late-time light~curve and broad-band spectrum}
820: \label{section:broadband}
821:
822:
823: From the combination of the X-ray temporal and spectral index around
824: 5ks, we can infer a electron power~law index of $p = 2.0$ within the
825: standard fireball model
826: \citep[eg][]{meszaros1997:apj476:232,sari1999:apj519:17,chevalier1999:apj520:29}.
827: This assumes that 1) the afterglow is in the slow-cooling regime
828: ($\num < \nuc$), 2) \nuc\ is below the X-rays and 3) the jet-break has
829: not manifested itself at this time. Other scenarios are easily ruled
830: out by invalidating relations between the two indices (see eg Table 1
831: in \citealt{zhang2004:ijmp19:2385}). There is still a degeneracy
832: between the type of circumburst environment (a constant density medium
833: or a medium with a $R^{-2}$ dependency ($R$ the distance from the
834: centre) such as a stellar wind), which can potentially be resolved by
835: looking at the temporal and spectral indices below \nuc; in our case
836: the only candidate for that is the optical band, which is generally
837: found to be below \nuc\ at these times. To verify this is indeed the
838: case, we compared the X-ray and optical decay indices.
839:
840:
841: There is a 1.5$\sigma$ difference between the afterglow decay slope in
842: optical and X-rays, which is only marginally significant and does
843: allow \nuc\ to be below optical wavelengths. However, a cooling break
844: between the optical and X-ray waveband makes the picture
845: self-consistent: for an ISM-like, the decay index in optical should be
846: 0.25 lower than that in X-ray, 0.74, which is certainly compatible
847: with $\alphao$ obtained from our fit to the $K$-band data. On the
848: other hand, for a wind-like medium, the optical decay index would have
849: to be 0.25 higher than that in X-ray, 1.24, and is therefore
850: incompatible with \alphao.
851:
852: The non power-law behaviour of the near infra-red (nIR) spectrum
853: indicates reddening, which we estimate by examining the broad-band
854: spectral behaviour, by combining the X-ray, optical and nIR data. For
855: this, we have extrapolated the optical and X-ray data to a common
856: epoch: we choose 0.04 days (3.5ks) after trigger, which is central to
857: the optical FTN and nIR UKIRT data, and lies just at the beginning of
858: the late-time X-ray data. We obtained an unabsorbed X-ray flux from
859: the data between 4ks and and 12ks (orbits 2 and 3 combined), which
860: were then extrapolated back to 0.04 days using the power~law decay
861: index of $0.99$. The optical and nIR data were corrected for Galactic
862: extinction and converted to fluxes as before. We then extrapolated to
863: 0.04 days post trigger using our estimate for the optical power~law
864: decay index.
865:
866: \begin{figure}
867: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig5}
868:
869: \caption{The X-ray to optical/nIR broad-band spectrum of GRB\,050716, 0.04 days post burst. The best fit is shown for a broken power~law connecting the two
870: wavelength ranges, with host-galaxy absorption for an
871: SMC-like extinction curve at $z = 2$. The X-ray spectrum has been
872: represented relatively simply by a single data point. This
873: has the purpose of enhancing the \chisqred\ sensitivity on the
874: nIR data instead of on the X-ray data, since we try to calculate
875: the estimated optical/UV host-galaxy extinction.
876: \label{fig:bbspec}
877: }
878:
879: \end{figure}
880:
881: With the scaled fluxes, we constructed the broad-band spectrum of
882: \thisgrb\ at 0.04 days (Figure \ref{fig:bbspec}). We then tried to fit
883: the data with models available within the standard fireball model,
884: allowing for intrinsic (UV/optical) extinction within the host galaxy
885: and a Lyman cutoff resulting from its redshift. No spectroscopic
886: redshift is known, however. While in principal one can obtain a
887: photometric redshift, there are too many free parameters with the few
888: available data to do this accurately. We have therefore obtained an
889: estimate of the intrinsic extinction for an afterglow positioned at
890: various redshifts (1, 2, 3, \ldots, 7). We have further constrained
891: the power~law slope connecting the X-ray and optical/nIR regime to be
892: equal to that obtained by the X-ray spectral fit alone, $\beta = 1.0$.
893:
894: A single power~law, absorbed by host-galaxy extinction or
895: intergalactic Lyman extinction, is not able to reproduce the observed
896: broad-band spectrum. A spectral break between optical and X-ray is
897: required, as already found from the fits to the optical and X-ray
898: light~curves. With the assumption that this break is indeed the
899: cooling break (with $\Delta \beta = 0.5$), we have kept the lower end
900: of this break fixed at a power~law index of $\beta_{\mathrm{opt}} =
901: 0.5$, and the higher end at $\beta_{\mathrm{X}} = 1.0$). Reasonable
902: fits are then obtained for redshifts above $z = 2$, with host-galaxy
903: extinction that follows an SMC-like extinction curve (\ebv\ = 0.5 --
904: 0.7, \av\ = 1.5 -- 2.1, with lower values for higher redshifts. See
905: Figure \ref{fig:bbspec}). This estimate for the host-galaxy is higher
906: than on average found for GRB host galaxies, but not unknown
907: \citep[eg][]{levan2006:apj647:471}. However, localised extinction or
908: a line-of-sight through an edge-on galaxy could easily explain the
909: somewhat larger than average host extinction.
910:
911: The reduced $\chi^2$ is in all cases $\lesssim 1$ (for redshifts above
912: 4, it becomes much less than 1), resulting in a lower limit on the
913: redshift of $z \gtrsim 2$. A Galactic-type extinction curve
914: results in a steeper nIR slope than measured here, and
915: provides a worse fit. The same gradual nIR slope also implies that
916: host-galaxy extinction should be present, and cannot be explained by a
917: Lyman break alone. We further looked at the resultant extinction
918: value for small changes ($\pm 0.1$) in our assumed spectral index,
919: which results in changes of about 0.1 magnitude in \ebv (the value for
920: \chisqred, however, also increases considerably doing so). Finally,
921: from our best fit we find that the \nuc\ cannot be located directly
922: below the X-ray frequencies, but is restricted to $\sim 10^{16}$ Hz.
923:
924: An \ebv\ of $0.7$ with an SMC-like extinction curve would imply an
925: \nh\ of $3.2 \cdot 10^{22}$ \citep{martin1989:aa215:219} in the host
926: galaxy. Correcting for an assumed SMC-metallicity of $1/4$ Solar and
927: adjusting for the redshift of $z = 2$, this turns out to be not
928: measurable above the estimated Galactic extinction in our data, and
929: indeed, no excess extinction is measured past 300 seconds.
930:
931:
932: We can obtain a lower limit on the fluence and burst energy from the
933: BAT spectrum, which results in $5.9 \cdot 10^6$ erg cm$^{-2}$ and $5.6
934: \cdot 10^{52}$ erg, respectively. Both values are in the 15 -- 150 keV
935: energy range in the observers frame. With a lower limit of $z \gtrsim
936: 2$, the relation found by Amati
937: \citep{amati2002:aa390:81,amati2006:mnras372:233} gives $\Ep
938: \gtrsim 76$ keV in the observers frame, while we find $\Ep \gtrsim
939: 170$ keV from the spectral fit (Table \ref{table:gammaray-spectra},
940: after conversion of the cut-off energy to \Ep). Note that the latter
941: uses a power law with an exponential cut-off, not the Band function.
942: Using the previous fit values with a Band function, fixing $\beta =
943: -2$, and extrapolating outside the BAT spectral range (0.001 --
944: $10^{4}$ keV), we obtain an estimate of the isotropic energy of
945: $E_{\mathrm{iso}} \approx 2.3 \cdot 10^{53} \mathrm{erg}$, which is
946: almost four times larger than the 15 -- 150 keV estimate. Using the
947: Amati relation, this would put the peak energy at $\sim 150$ keV in
948: the observer frame, assuming $z~\approx~2$. This redshift estimate
949: therefore agrees reasonably well with the results expected from the
950: Amati relation, and indicates $z~\approx~2$ is a likely good estimate
951: for the redshift of this burst.
952:
953:
954: \section{Summary} \label{section:summary}
955:
956: We have presented here a comprehensive analysis of the data available
957: on GRB\,050716. The most remarkable feature of the early emission is
958: the spectral change, clearly visible in the X-rays, which can possibly
959: be traced back to the gamma-ray emission. The temporal break
960: coincident with the spectral break points to the peak-flux frequency
961: passing through the X-rays at this time. In addition, the X-ray
962: absorption before the break appears to be higher than after. While
963: this could be an artificial result related to the break, care has been
964: taken to eliminate instrumental effects and the result appears to be
965: significant, possibly indicating ionisiation of surrounding
966: medium.
967:
968: At later times, our multi-wavelength data of \thisgrb\ shows a fairly
969: standard afterglow: the X-ray light curve and spectrum indicate $p =
970: 2$, with no evidence for a break related to the broadening of the jet
971: outflow. The optical data are rather limited, partly because the
972: optical afterglow is relatively faint: host-galaxy extinction with
973: \av\ = 1.5 -- 2.1 can account for the obtained
974: upper limits.
975: Though no spectroscopic redshift has been obtained for \thisgrb, we
976: obtain a lower limit of $z \gtrsim 2$, which appears to be in
977: agreement with the Amati relation.
978:
979:
980:
981: \section*{Acknowledgements}
982:
983: We thank the referee for a careful reading of the manuscript, which
984: improved it overall.
985: ER, JPO, KLP, APB, AJL and NRT acknowledge financial support from
986: PPARC. The authors like to thank Simon Vaughan for additional help
987: with parts of the data analysis. This work is also supported at
988: Pennsylvania State University (PSU) by NASA contract NAS5-00136 and
989: NASA grant NNG05GF43G, and at the Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera
990: (OAB) by funding from ASI on grant number I/R/093/04. "The United
991: Kingdom Infrared Telescope is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre
992: on behalf of the U.K. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research
993: Council." This publication makes use of data products from the Two
994: Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of
995: Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis
996: Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National
997: Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
998: Foundation. We gratefully appreciate the contributions of all members
999: of the \swift\ team.
1000:
1001:
1002: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
1003: \bibliography{references}
1004:
1005:
1006: \label{lastpage}
1007:
1008:
1009: \end{document}
1010: