arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.he] 22 Jan 2019

Transcription

1 Draft version January 23, 2019 Typeset using L A TEX preprint2 style in AASTeX62 arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.he] 22 Jan 2019 GRB C: A Gamma-ray Burst of Many faces Yu Wang, 1, 2 Liang Li, 2 Rahim Moradi, 1, 2 and Remo Ruffini1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1 ICRA and Dipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, P.le Aldo Moro 5, Rome, Italy 2 ICRANet, P.zza della Repubblica 10, Pescara, Italy 3 Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis, CEDEX 2, Grand Château Parc Valrose, Nice, France 4 ICRANet-Rio, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rua Dr. Xavier Sigaud 150, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 5 ICRA, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 21, I Rome, Italy ABSTRACT The Gamma-ray burst (GRB) C has many faces. First it resembles two classical and extraordinary GRBs: GRB A and GRB B. Compared to GRB A, they are both strong sources of GeV emission, exhibiting consistent GeV spectral evolution, and surprisingly they are almost identical in detail for the morphology of light-curves in all X-ray, gamma-ray and GeV bands. Compared to GRB B, they have the most prominent thermal emission, that a large percentage of > 50% energy is thermal presenting in some time intervals of the early gamma-ray prompt emission. Moreover, MAGIC team reported the detection of ultra-high energy emission (> 300 GeV) associated with GRB C, which reveals a new face. In the letter, we present the similarities of the above GRBs, and we discuss a model of a black hole continuously powering the high energy emissions. 1. INTRODUCTION AND OBSERVATION At 20:57:02.63 UT on 14 January 2019, gamma-ray burst (GRB) C triggered Fermi-GBM, here we take this trigger time as the t 0, and define T 90 = 116 s from the Fermi- GBM. Swift slewed immediately to the burst and located the position (J.D. Gropp et al. 2019). Various optical telescopes followed the observation: MASTER (N.Tyurina et al. 2019; V. Lipunov et al. 2019), Pan-STARRS (A. de Ugarte Postigo et al. 2019), NOT (J. Selsing et al. 2019), OASDG (L. Izzo et al. 2019), and Corresponding author: Yu Wang, Laing Li, Rahim Moradi, Remo Ruffini yu.wang@uniroma1.it, liang.li@icranet.org, rahim.moradi@icranet.org, ruffini@icra.it GROND (J. Bolmer & Schady 2019). The redshift of this GRB is detected as z = 0.42 by NOT (J. Selsing et al. 2019) and confirmed by GTC (A. J. Hu et al. 2019). Fermi-LAT team reported the high energy observation, the photon of the highest energy is 22.9 GeV (D. Kocevski et al. 2019). MAGIC team reported that their data show a clear excess of gammarays more than 300 GeV with significance > 20 sigma from 50 s to 1200 s (R. Mirzoyan et al. 2019). A supernova optical signal is predicted to appear in 19 days (R. Ruffini 2019) from the binary driven hypernova model. In this letter, we first show the light-curves of GRB C in section 2, and the thermal emission in section 3, then we compare these results with GRB A and GRB B in section 4, as well as the discussion on the

2 2 possible central engine of a spining Kerr black hole for high energy emissions in section SIGNIFICANT GEV EMISSION Figure 1. The bore-sight angle of Fermi-LAT, as well as the time coverage of Fermi-LAT, Swift-XRT and MAGIC: the angle between the GRB C and the Fermi-LAT bore-sight. The green curve is the evolution of bore-sight angle since the trigger of the GRB, the grey dotted line indicates a 75 degree angle, outside which the effective area of Fermi- LAT becomes very small, the grey shades cover the good time intervals of the Fermi-LAT observation. This figure shows in the early time ( 1000 s), when the GeV emission is supposed to be luminous, the bore-sight angle suppresses the observation that there are few photons can be received after 200 s. The grey and the blue shadow and the grey dots correspond to the observation time of Fermi-LAT, Swift-XRT and MAGIC, respectively. The effective area and the point spread function of Fermi-LAT highly depend on the off-axis angle from the Fermi-LAT bore-sight to the position of the GRB, it indicates if the GRB is well located within the field of view (FOV), hereafter we call it bore-sight angle. The higher bore-sight angle leads to fewer GRB photons observed, a typical threshold of bore-sight angle is 75 degree, outside of which the probability of determining the photons becomes tiny. GRB C has an initial bore-sight angle of 67 degree, shown in figure 1. For 10 GeV photons, a 67 degree angle corresponds to an effective area of 0.2 m 2, which is only 20% of the effective area when the satellite pointing to the GRB 1. The bore-sight angle keeps increasing, at time 200 s, it passes the threshold of 75 degree, then re-enters at the time later than 8000 s when the GeV emission is supposed to weak. Therefore, we may expect the majority of Fermi-LAT photons are received within 300 s since the trigger time. The MAGIC observation starts 50 s after the Fermi-GBM trigger, and lasts 20 minutes, there exists a common time interval from 50 s to 200 s covered by Fermi and MAGIC, as well as Swift, MASTER and other lower energy telescopes, the time coverage of Fermi, Swift and MAGIC is shown in figure 1. Despite having a large bore-sight angle, still GRB C challenges the record of observing the most significant GeV photons. The significance is determined by the value of Test Statistics (TS) computed from the Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT). LRT compares two models, one considers only the background, the other contains an additional putative GRB as a point source, the ratio of the likelihoods by fitting these two models gives a TS value, a higher TS value presents more confidence in having an additional GRB model, TS = 25 corresponds to 5 sigma, details see Ackermann et al. (2013). Here we perform the Fermi-LAT data likelihood analysis using Fermitools distributed as a Python package 2, we choose the response function file p8 transient020, energy range is from 100 MeV to 100 GeV, and a region of 12 degree around the source is taken into the analysis. The TS value we obtained for the T90 from s is 2520, which is extremely high, 1 canda/lat Performance.htm 2

3 GRB C 3 Figure 2. Test Statistics (TS) of 138 GRBs observed by Fermi-LAT ( ssc/observations/types/grbs/lat grbs/table.php). There are 9 GRBs with significant TS > 500. The value of TS depends on the time range and the energy range selected, the TS value in the above link considers 100 MeV to 10 GeV, and each of the time range is specified. Here for GRB C, we consider the photons form 100 MeV to 100 GeV, for the time selection as the T90 of Fermi-GBM, from s, the TS value is 2520 (shown in the figure), and for s, during the period when the GRB is in the field of view, the TS value is GRB C is one of the most significant GeV GRBs, if not the top one. perhaps the highest among all the Fermi-LAT GRBs, normally the TS value is smaller than 250 if there is GeV detection, as shown in figure 2. The TS value for the time of s, during when the GRB is within the FOV of the satellite, is High TS value signifies a high abundance of GeV photons, in figure 3, we show the probability of each photon belonging to this GRB C and the count rate light-curve. There are in total 208 photons with high probability (> 80%), within which, 153 photons are received before 20 s, the highest rate reaches more than 20s 1. There is only one photon comes after 200 s, this is consistent with our expectation that the rate of GeV photons decays with time, and the GRB goes outside the 75 degree of the boresight angle after 200 s. The first high energy photon (> 100 MeV) received with probability > 80% is at 7.33 s, and with probability > 50% is at 2.74 s. The photon with the highest energy GeV arrive at s, besides there are two more photons with energy more than 10 GeV, they are of energy GeV and GeV, arriving at s and s respectively. The time-integrated Fermi-LAT spectrum of first 200 s is best fitted by a single power-law, with a typical photon index 1.98 ± 0.062, the averaged flux is 1.38 ± ergs 1 cm 2, corresponds to the isotropic Fermi-LAT energy of 1.31 ± erg in the energy band of 100 MeV to 100 GeV, k-correction is considered. The time-resolved spectral fitting is performed from the trigger time till 10 5 s. Time bins are spitted by the Bayesian block method, with an additional criteria that, the TS value of each bin shall between 100 and 200 before 50 s, and at least 20 at later time, we give the upper limit of the flux if the TS value of the time bin is smaller 20. In the figure 10, we show the evolution of the photon index and the energy flux, initially the power-law index is very soft as , it rises then varies around 2, the photon index shows an almost anti-flux-tracking behaviour after 4.5 s. At time 8000 s, the GRB re-enters the FOV of Fermi-LAT, the TS value of this time bin is 25, which makes possible to obtain the spectral fitting, a power-law index of 1.72 ± 0.34 is obtained. We also tested cut-off power-law and broken power-law to fit the spectra, but none of them makes a significant improvement, statistically a single power-law is always preferred, even for the bins with very soft index. With the spectral parameters from the timeresolved fitting, and the detected redshift (z = 0.42), we are able to generate the luminosity light-curve of Fermi-LAT. In figure 5, we show two light-curves, presenting the luminosity of

4 4 Figure 3. The Fermi-LAT photons in the first 500 s. Upper: the count rate of photons of energy 100 MeV to 100 GeV. Lower: the energy of each single photon and its arrival time. Grey, red and blue colors represent < 50%, > 50% and > 80% of the probability that this photon belonging to the GRB C. After 250 s, there is no photon with high probability > 80%. Figure 4. The evolution of photon index and flux. Initially the spectrum of Fermi-LAT is very soft with photon index 3.65 ± 0.48, it rises then varies around 2, the photon index show an anti-fluxtracking behaviour after 4.5 s. 100 MeV to 1 GeV and 100 MeV to 100 GeV in the cosmological rest-frame (by default, we use observer s frame if we don t specify), respectively. In the first 2.7 s, GeV emission has a low TS value 11, which is consistent with figure 3, that there is no confident photon arriving before 2.74 s, an upper limit is computed. Then the GeV light-curve exhibits spiky structure till 25 s, as like the prompt gamma-ray emission. Later, the GeV light-curve seems to follow a power-law decay, the power-law index relies on the time bin at 8000 s, the power-law index is obtained as 1.12±0.12 and 1.16±0.14 for the light-curves of 100 MeV to 1 GeV and 100 MeV to 100 GeV, respectively. For comparison, we show the X-ray light-curve of Swift-XRT in the energy range of kev, details of data analysis in appendix A. The power-law decay index of X-ray light-curve (e.g., Li et al. 2015, 2018) from the starting time of XRT observation ( 60 s) to 8000 s is 1.36 ± , slightly steeper than the Fermi-LAT light-curve. From the Fermi-LAT light-curve, we infer the light-curve of MAGIC during its operating time,

5 GRB C 5 Figure 5. Luminosity light-curve of Fermi-LAT and Swift-XRT and the estimation of the MAGIC lightcurve. Blue and green colours represent the energy of 100 MeV to 1 GeV and 100 MeV to 100 GeV observed by Fermi-LAT, orange colour is the Fermi-GBM observation extrapolated to 1 kev to 10 MeV, grey colour is for the soft X-ray from 0.3 kev to 10 kev observed by Swift-XRT. The Fermi-LAT light-curves are fitted by a power-law using the data points 20 s after the trigger time, where the prompt flares end. The red region is the estimation of the MAGIC observation at energy 300 GeV to 10 TeV from 50 s to 1200 s. The power-law decay of the GeV luminosity interpreted by the spin-down of a Kerr black hole locating in a strong magnetic field will be presented in a parallel article. from 50 s to 1200 s. For the quality of data, it is not reliable to extrapolate the previous fitted Fermi-LAT spectra of time bins between 50 s and 1200 s to the MAGIC energy range (300 GeV to 10 TeV), since the extrapolation brings unconstrained uncertainty. Alternatively, we fit the Fermi-LAT spectrum of the entire MAGIC duration, a power-law with photon index 1.87 ± 0.18 is obtained, assuming this power-law extends from GeV to TeV regime, we get the ratio of luminosity between the Fermi- LAT and MAGIC, that the MAGIC luminosity (300 GeV to 10 TeV) is to 3.13 times of the Fermi-LAT luminosity (100 MeV to 100 GeV), then we shift the light-curve of Fermi-LAT to obtain the light-curve of MAGIC, plotted as the red region in figure 5, we are waiting for the release of MAGIC data for confirmation and for having a very wide energy data analysis. Different from gamma-ray prompt emission, the GeV emission continues for a long time, at least till 8000 s for this GRB. In order to obtain the total energy of the GeV photons, it is essential to include the energy in the GeV afterglow. From the observation, the data from 200 s to 8000 s is insufficient. Therefore, we smoothly fit the Fermi-LAT light-curve using locally weighted regression, a machine learning algorithm (Cleveland & Devlin 1988), which provides sequent power-law functions. The total

6 6 energy is obtained by summing up all of the integrals of the power-laws. The detailed formulae and the code are provided ( YWangScience/AstroNeuron), and figure 12 in the appendix shows the fitting. The resulting energy of 100 MeV to 100 GeV is erg, equivalent to 75% of the gammaray isotropic energy as 2.47 ± erg. 3. THERMAL IN PROMPT EMISSION The temporal and spectral analysis for Fermi- GBM data is carried out using the fully Bayesian approach tool, namely, the Multi- Mission Maximum Likelihood Framework (3ML, Vianello et al. 2015) tool. Four NaI detectors (n3, n4, n7, n8) and one BGO detector (B0) are used to conduct the analysis. The background is fitted with automatically determined polynomial order (0 and 1) by 3ML, before (- 20 s to -10 s) and after (180 s s) the bursts (marked with Bkg.Selections in figure 6), and the maximum likelihood-based statistics are used, the so-called Pgstat, given by a Poisson (observation)-gaussian (background) profile likelihood (Cash 1979). Light curve of prompt emssion with the best background fitting is shown in Figure 6. We rebin the Time-Tagged Events (TTE) data by using the more reasonable the Bayesian Blocks method (BBs, Scargle et al. 2013; Li 2018) to one NaI detector, then apply it to all other detectors. The signal-tonoise ratio (S/N) is also reported for each time bin. The time-resolved spectral analysis is the main approach to study the GRB radiation mechanism, which has widely studied in previous works (e.g., Kaneko et al. 2006; Li 2018; Li et al. 2019). We perform the time-resolved spectral analysis for the time interval from -1.0 s to 120 s, which covers the duration (T s) of the burst. Following the BBs, we totally obtain 52 spectra. Considering the fact that the burst is extremely bright, it is interesting to know which model is best to represent the data. We apply 7 models to fit the time-integrated spectrum for the burst (see Table 1), respectively. These models are PL, CPL, Band, Blackbody (BB), PL+BB, CPL+BB, Band+BB, we find that the CPL+BB (or the Band+BB) model fit the spectrum is much better than others, and the AIC (or the BIC) is at least 300 less than other models. This is quite surprising and indicates that adding the BB component is much more improved the spectral fitting. On the other hand, we perform the CPL model to fit the time-resolved spectral analysis, and plot temporal evolution of both the low energy index α and peak energy E pk in figure 7, the α evolution present soft-to-hard trend in early time, even across the synchrotron limit (- 2/3), with the hardest α value of around 4 second, then display hard-to-soft evolution, and later softer even than the fast-cooling limit (-3/2) of synchrotron model, which is quite interesting. Figure 6. Light curve of prompt emission of C (Fermi-GBM), along with its spectral evolution. In view of the very hard spectral index in the time-resolved spectrum seen around 4 seconds, on the other hand, the CPL+BB is the best model for time-integrated spectral fitting as discussed above, we therefore motivated to

7 GRB C 7 Figure 8. The thermal temperature evolution in the prompt emission, a confident thermal component is found only the first flare from 4 s to 6 s from the time-resolved analysis. Figure 7. Light curve of prompt emission of C (Fermi-GBM), along with its spectral evolution. add the BB component to fit the time-resolved spectrum, and find that adding the BB can well fitted for those time-resolved spectra which display hard α spectral indices. The blackbody component is seen in the first spike up to 6 seconds, we plot the temperature evolution in Figure 9. An example fit data in one time bin (between 4.56 s to 4.76 s) of GRB C using the CPL plus the BB component, is shown in figure TWINS OF GRB A AND GRB B GRB C is luminous in the GeV emission, more than 200 photons with energy > 100 MeV are observed, this number is similar to GRB B and A, the record holder is GRB A, of which the number is 500 (Abdo et al. 2009a; Swenson et al. 2010; Ackermann et al. 2014). During the prompt emission, the Fermi-LAT spectra and the spectral evolution of GRB C is similar to GRB A, the spectra are best fitted by a single power-law in all time bins, starting softly with a photon index 3, then fluctuates between 2.5 and 1.5 (Ackermann et al. 2014). Moreover, the light-curve shape of GRB C and GRB A behave generally identical in detail after the rescaling, in all X- ray, gamma-ray, and GeV bands. We show in figure 10 the comparison, the x-axis is the rest-frame time of GRB C, the time of GRB A is scaled by multiplying 0.23 for all three light-curves. For the y-axis, to have the overlap, we scale the Swift-XRT, Fermi- GBM, and Fermi-LAT light-curves of A by multiplying 1, 0.2 and 10. For the Fermi- GBM light-curves, both of them are composed by two main flares, first a strong flare, then followed by the second weak flare. The second flare of GRB A comes later than the corresponding one in GRB C, but they share a same structure of rise and decay. The Fermi- LAT light-curves of both GRBs are dim during the first Fermi-GBM flare, then they rise and reach the peak at the time when the fist Fermi- GBM flare ends. The Fermi-LAT also presents a second flare, which occurs a little later than the second flare of Fermi-GBM, but mostly over-

8 8 Figure 9. Top: The spectrum of T90 from s: it is fitted by a cutoff power-law (blue dotted line) plus a blackbody function (yellow dashed line), the combination is given by a red solid line with a red shadow indicating the 95% confidence region. The energy cut is at 760 ± 140 kev and the temperature is 155 ± 5 kev, the flux of thermal component is 1.9 ± erg cm 2 s 1, while the total flux is 4.5 ± erg cm 2 s 1, the ratio of thermal component is high as 42.7%. Fitting details see appendix B. Bottom: a similar example showing a very short time interval of duration 0.2 s, from 4.56 s to 4.76 s, temperature is found as 140 ± 6 kev, the flux of thermal component is 4.7 ± erg cm 2 s 1, the total flux is 9.1 ± erg cm 2 s 1, the ratio of thermal component is more than half, as 51.7%. laps. The afterglows of Fermi-LAT follow a power-law decay with a consistent power-law index. The Swift-XRT light-curves exhibit a Figure 10. Similar evolution of GRB C and A. The x-axis is the rest-frame time of GRB C, the time of GRB A is scaled by multiplying a factor of 0.23 for all three lightcurves. For the y-axis, the luminosity, to have the overlap, we scale the Swift-XRT, Fermi-GBM, and Fermi-LAT light-curves of A by multiplying 1, 0.2 and 10, respectively. Then we arbitrarily shift the three groups of light-curve to have a clear view. We find that these two GRBs generally have a same behaviour after the rescaling. For comparing the unscaled light-curves, we refer to figure 5 in this article and figure 8 in Ruffini et al. (2015) similar power-law decay for both GRBs, GRB A has an upwarp at the beginning, possibly it is associated to the second flare of Fermi- GBM. The Swift-XRT observation of C starts later than its second Fermi-GBM flare, therefore it is unable to check the corresponding upwarp.

9 GRB C 9 In short, GRB C is analogous to GRB A for the temperol luminosity in all bands, topologically they are identical in detail. This may indicate the existence of a GRB template, at least for some luminous GRBs, which is also important for the cosmology. We find the difference of the time-scale as 0.23 times, the simplest explanation may related to the size of the GRB system, GRB C is more compact. Comparing to GRB A, GRB C has lower gamma-ray emission, higher GeV emission, and lower X-ray emission, there are many possible reasons to be investigated, for instance, it may due to the different energy partitions from the central engine, the the opacities for different energies in the burst region, the viewing angle of the telescopes with respect to the angular distributions of gamma-ray and GeV. We are modelling the system to find a most plausible explanation. Compared with other Fermi-LAT GRBs, the delay of GeV emission has been widely found (Abdo et al. 2009b; Ackermann et al. 2010, 2013; Castignani et al. 2014; Ruffini et al. 2018a), and the afterglow power-law decay index 1.16 ± 0.14 is also consistent with others(ackermann et al. 2013; Ruffini et al. 2018b,a). This GRB contains a very intense thermal component in the first flare of the prompt emission till 6 s. A time-integrated fitting of the T90 show that 42.67% of the X-ray and the gammaray energy is thermal and the average temperature is 150 kev. The time-resolved analysis shows the rising and decaying of the thermal temperature. This high percentage of thermal is similar to GRB B, of which also intense thermal emission appears in the first half of the prompt emission (Ryde et al. 2011). On the other hand, the temperature (kt) evolution in GRB C display two power-law segments, initially being constant before the break and then exhibits the power-law decay after the break. This is consistent with the results of the typical evolution characteristics of kt for a large sample in Ryde & Pe er (2009). 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The total Fermi-LAT energy of GRB C till 10 4 s is erg, equivalent to 75% of its gamma-ray isotropic energy, this percentage is higher than other bright Fermi- LAT GRBs, of which 20% (Cenko et al. 2011; Ackermann et al. 2013, 2014). Such energy is higher than the total rotational energy of a neutron star (e.g., Li et al. 2018). GRB C is the first one observing TeV photons at some hundred seconds by MAGIC, this implies a higher initial Lorentz factor than the value inferred for the previous GRBs (Lithwick & Sari 2001; Ruffini et al. 2018a). The ultrahigh energy TeV photon during the MAGIC observational period ( s) disfavours the lepton synchrotron origin, which hardly can generate photons more than 10 GeV at hundreds of seconds (Ackermann et al. 2014). In the recent articles of Ruffini et al. (2018c), a model of black hole inner engine is proposed to interpret the energetic and luminosity behaviour of the GeV emission, in a scenario that a rotating Kerr black hole is placed in an originally uniform magnetic field aligned along the symmetry axis of the black hole, generated by the surrounding disk or the accreting matter. There has been shown that black hole in a magnetic field will acquire electric field which acts like the effective charge. The effective charge of the black hole may accelerate charged particles up to ev. Eventually, the rotational energy of the black hole and energy of the electromagnetic field are taken away by these accelerated particles. In Ruffini et al. (2018d), using the above mechanism, and considering a newly formed black hole accreting the fall-back supernova remnant, the total energy in the GeV photons and the power-law decay of GeV lightcurve can be well explained. Aharonian et al.

10 10 (2010) computed the neutrinos and the synchrotron gamma-rays produced by high energy protons propagating in a magnetic field. By injecting power-law distributed protons with an index 2 and a cutoff energy at ev, it is possible to produce the GeV and TeV photons forming a power-law-like spectrum distribution with photon index 1.8, as we observed at 8000 s. The spectrum has a high energy cut, for protons propagating a magnetic field of 100 ng, the high energy cut of photon is at 1 TeV, and a higher magnetic field gives a higher energy cut, the exact value of the magnetic field can be constrained by the spectrum of MAGIC. We are preparing the following article on applying our black hole inner engine model on this GRB C. To conclude, GRB C has very bright Fermi-LAT observations, more than 200 photons with energy > 100 MeV are detected. The ratio of GeV energy versus the gamma-ray energy (75%) is triple of other bright Fermi-LAT GRBs. It presents a strong thermal component in the prompt emission, contributing nearly half of the total hard X-ray and gamma-ray energy. GRB C displays a similar face of GRB A for the spectral and luminosity evolution, and another face similar to GRB B for the high percentage thermal emission, And remarkably, it is the first GRB having TeV photons detection by MAGIC, which makes a new face. We see the merger of these faces on GRB C, we expect that it will depict a comprehensive face of gamma-ray bursts. We acknowledge the use of the public data from Fermi and Swift data archives. We appreciate the discussion with Prof. She-sheng Xue on the ultra-high energy particles. REFERENCES A. de Ugarte Postigo, D. A. Kann, C. C. T., & Izzo, L. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network A. J. Hu, Fernandez-Garcia, E., & Valeev, A. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009a, ApJL, 706, L b, Nature, 462, 331 Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2010, ApJL, 717, L127 Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, , Science, 343, 42 Aharonian, F. A., Kelner, S. R., & Prosekin, A. Y. 2010, PhRvD, 82, Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A., & Sari, R. 2001, AJ, 121, 2879 Cash, W. 1979, Astrophysical Journal, 228, 939 Castignani, G., Guetta, D., Pian, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 565, A60 Cenko, S. B., Frail, D. A., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 29 Cleveland, W., & Devlin, S. 1988, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, D. Kocevski, Omodei, N., Axelsson, M., Burns, E., & the Fermi-LAT team. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, , MNRAS, 397, 1177 J. Bolmer, & Schady, P. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network J. Selsing, Fynbo, J., Heintz, K., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network J.D. Gropp, Kennea, J. A., Krimm, N. J. K. P. H. A., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network Kaneko, Y., Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 166, 298 Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, L. Izzo, Noschese, A., DAvino, L., & Mollica, M. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network Li, L. 2018, arxiv.org, arxiv: Li, L., Wu, X.-F., Lei, W.-H., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 26

11 GRB C 11 Li, L., Wu, X.-F., Huang, Y.-F., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 13 Li, L., Geng, J.-J., Meng, Y.-Z., et al. 2019, arxiv.org, arxiv: Lithwick, Y., & Sari, R. 2001, ApJ, 555, 540 N.Tyurina, Lipunov, V., A.Kuznetsov, Gorbovskoy, E., & V.Kornilov, D.Kuvshinov, P. D. V. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network R. Mirzoyan, Noda, K., Moretti, E., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network R. Ruffini. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network Ruffini, R., Wang, Y., Enderli, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 10 Ruffini, R., Moradi, R., Rueda, J. A., et al. 2018a, arxiv e-prints, arxiv: Ruffini, R., Muccino, M., Aimuratov, Y., et al. 2018b, arxiv e-prints, arxiv: Ruffini, R., Rueda, J. A., Becerra, L., et al. 2018c, arxiv e-prints, arxiv: Ruffini, R., Moradi, R., Rueda, J. A., et al. 2018d, arxiv e-prints, arxiv: Ruffini, R., Wang, Y., Aimuratov, Y., et al. 2018e, ApJ, 852, 53 Ryde, F., & Pe er, A. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 1211 Ryde, F., Pe er, A., Nymark, T., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3693 Scargle, J. D., Norris, J. P., Jackson, B., & Chiang, J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 167 Swenson, C. A., Maxham, A., Roming, P. W. A., et al. 2010, ApJL, 718, L14 V. Lipunov, N.Tyurina, A.Kuznetsov, et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network Vianello, G., Lauer, R. J., Younk, P., et al. 2015, arxiv.org, arxiv: Vuong, Q. H. 1989, Econometrica, 57,

12 12 APPENDIX A. SWIFT-XRT ANALYSIS The data of Swift-XRT are retrieved from UKSSDC 3 and are analyzed by NASA s Heasoft 6.25 with relevant calibration files 4. By applying the criteria of binning the data, that each time bin contains at least 1000 photons, as well as the signal to noise ratio must be larger than 3. We obtain 43 time bins in total, including 20 from the windows timing mode, and 23 bins from the photon counting mode, they cover the time, in the observer s frame, from s to s since the Fermi-GBM trigger. Following the standard procedure of Swift-XRT data analysis (Evans et al. 2007, 2009), we fit the spectra from 0.3 kev to 10 kev of all the time bins by a single power-law model considering the X-ray absorption from our Galaxy and the progenitor s galaxy. In order to produce the luminosity light-curve, we applied the k-correction to each time bin, the k-correction converts the flux observed on the earth that reshifted by the expansion of the universe to the progenitor s cosmological rest frame, k-correction is computed by the redshift and the model s fitted parameters (Bloom et al. 2001; Ruffini et al. 2018e). B. SPECTRUM FITTING OF T90 Spectra are fitted by Bayesian iterations. The AIC is preferred for comparing non-nested models, and BIC is preferred for nested models (Kass & Raftery 1995). Log(likelihood) is adopted by the method of maximum likelihood ratio test which is treated as a reference of the model comparison (Vuong 1989). Parameters are shown in table 1. Segment Time (s) Model Log(Likelihood) AIC BIC PL T90 CPL (NaI+BGO) Band BB PL+BB CPL+BB Band+BB Table 1. The statistics of fitting the prompt spectrum. We have used the following abbreviations: PL (Power-law), CPL (cutoff power-law) and BB (blackbody). The cutoff power-law gives the best fit

13 GRB C BB kt BB Norm [ 10 ] CPL Cutoff Energy CPL index CPL Norm CPL Index CPL Cutoff Energy BB Norm [ 10 7 ] BB kt 168 Figure 11. An example of fitting the Fermi-GBM data from 0 s to 116 s, as the T90 defined by Fermi- GBM. We apply 20 chains, each chain iterates 10 4 times and burns the first 10 3 times. The parameters are normalisation, cut-off energy and power-law index of the cut-off power-law model, as well as normalisation and temperature (kt) of the blackbody model.

14 14 C. INTEGRATION OF E LAT Figure 12. LWR