arxiv: v2 [astro-ph] 15 Apr 2008

Transcription

1 PASJ: Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 1??, c 1. Astronomical Society of Japan. Multiple Component Analysis of Time Resolved Spectra of GRB: A Clue to the Nature of Underlying Soft Component of GRBs. arxiv:.19v [astro-ph] 15 Apr Yuji Shirasaki, 1 Atsumasa Yoshida,, Nobuyuki Kawai, 3, Toru Tamagawa, Takanori Sakamoto, 5 Motoko Suzuki, Yujin Nakagawa, Akina Kobayashi, Satoshi Sugita,, Ichiro Takahashi, Makoto Arimoto, 3 Takashi Shimokawabe 3 Nicolas Vasquez Pazmino, 3 Takuto Ishimura, 3 Rie Sato, 7 Masaru Matsuoka, Edward E. Fenimore, Mark Galassi, Donald Q. Lamb, 9 Carlo Graziani, 9 Timothy Q. Donaghy, 9 Jean-Luc Atteia, 1 Alexandre Pelangeon, 1 Roland Vanderspek, 11 Geoffrey B. Crew, 11 John P. Doty, 11 Joel Villasenor, 11 Gregory Prigozhin, 11 Nat Butler, 11,1 George R. Ricker, 11 Kevin Hurley, 1 Stanford E. Woosley, 13 and Graziella Pizzichini 1 1 National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo, 11-5 yuji.shirasaki@nao.ac.jp Department of Physics and Mathematics, Aoyama Gakuin University, Fuchinobe, Sagamihara, Kanagawa Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, -1-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo RIKEN, -1 Hirosawa, Wako Saitama Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA, Greenbelt, Maryland, 771, USA JAXA, -1-1 Sengen, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JAXA/ISAS, Yoshinodai, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 9-51 Los Alamos National Laboratory, P. O. Box 13, Los Alamos, NM, 755, USA 9 Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of cago, 5 South Ellis Avenue, cago, Illinois 37, USA 1 LATT, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, 1 avenue E. Belin, 31 Toulouse, France 11 Center for Space Research, MIT, 77 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, , USA 1 Space Sciences Laboratory, 7 Gauss Way, University of California, Berkeley, California, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California at Santa Cruz, 77 Clark Kerr Hall, Santa Cruz, California, 95, USA 1 INAF/IASF Bologna, Via Gobetti 11, 19 Bologna, Italy (Received February 1; accepted April 1) Abstract GRB was detected by HETE- at 1:1: UT on October. This GRB displays a soft X-ray emission, a precursor before the onset of the main event, and also a soft X-ray tail after the end of the main peak. The light curves in four different energy bands display different features; At higher energy bands several peaks are seen in the light curve, while at lower energy bands a single broader bump dominates. It is expected that these different features are the result of a mixture of several components each of which has different energetics and variability. To reveal the nature of each component, we analysed the time resolved spectra and they are successfully resolved into several components. We also found that these components can be classified into two distinct classes; One is a component which has an exponential decay of E p with a characteristic timescale shorter than 3 sec, and its spectrum is well represented by a broken power law function, which is frequently observed in many prompt GRB emissions, so it should have an internal-shock origin. Another is a component whose E p is almost unchanged with characteristic timescale longer than sec, and shows a very soft emission and slower variability. The spectrum of the soft component is characterized by either a broken power law or a black body spectrum. This component might originate from a relatively wider and lower velocity jet or a photosphere of the fireball. By assuming that the soft component is a thermal emission, the radiation radius is initially. 1 km, which is a typical radius of a blue supergiant, and its expansion velocity is. 1 5 km s 1 in the source frame. Key words: gamma-rays:busts X-rays: bursts X-rays: individual (GRB) 1. Introduction On October, the High Energy Transient Explorer (HETE-) detected a gamma-ray burst (GRB) with soft X-ray emission before the onset of the main event. Such soft emission, a precursor, is predicted in some of theoretical models. The fireball undergoes a transition from an optically thick phase to an optically thin phase, and thermal radiation (the fireball precursor) may occur during this transition (B. Paczynsky 19; Daigne

2 Y. Shirasaki et al. [Vol., & Mochkovitch ). A precursor (progenitor precursor) may also be emitted by the interaction of the jet with the progenitor star (Ramirez-Ruiz et al. ; Waxman & Meszaros 3). The external shock by the first relativistic shell can also produce the non-thermal precursor (Umeda et al. 5). Soft precursors are occasionally detected in long GRBs. The first detection was made by the GINGA satellite (GRB 91; Murakami et al. 1991). In more recent observations, the BeppoSAX (e.g. GRB 1111; Piro et al. 5), HETE (e.g. GRB 339; Vanderspek et al. ) and Swift (e.g GRB 5A; Cenko et al., GRB 1; Romano et al., GRB 111; Page et al. 7) satellites have also detected precursors. Lazzati 5 studied bright long BATSE GRB light curves and found that in % of the cases there is evidence for soft emission before the main event. The precursor is usually detected as a single pulse that is well separated in time from the main event, typically several seconds to hundreds of seconds. The precursor of GRBisnotwellseparatedfromthemaineventand is likely to be continuously active during the whole prompt GRB phase. Such a long lasting soft component was also observed in GRB 339 (Vanderspek et al. ). Vetere et al. found that for some of the GRBs detected by the BeppoSAX, there is a slowly varying soft component underlying the highly variable main event. Borgonovo et al. 7 analyzed the light curves obtained by BATSE, Konus, and BeppoSAX, and found that the width of the auto-correlation function shows a remarkable bimodal distribution in the rest-frame of the source. This result suggests that there exists a slowly varying soft component in some GRBs. The relation between the underlying soft X- ray component, the X-ray precursor, and the main event is still open to question. In this paper, we present the results of multiple component analysis of the time resolved spectra of GRB. Throughout this paper the peak energies are in the observer s frame, and quoted errors are at 9% C.L., unless specified otherwise.. Observation GRB was detected with the HETE FREGATE (Atteia et al. 3) and the WXM (Shirasaki et al. 3) instruments at 1:1: UT on October (Galassi et al. ). The WXM flight software localized the burst in real time, resulting in a GCN Notice seconds after the burst trigger. The prompt error region was a circle of 1 arcminute radius (9% confidence) centered at h 5 m 5 s, (J). Ground analyses of the burst data allowed the error region to be refined to a circle of 5. arcminute radius (9% confidence) centered at h 5 m 53 s, +1 1 (J). 1. hours after the trigger, the optical afterglow was foundbydacostaetal.,andtheredshiftwasfirstreportedby Fugazzaet al.andlaterconfirmedby Price et al. to be z =.71. Follow-up observations were made at various observation sites (e.g. Urata et al. 7). VLA observations were made but no radio sources were detected (Soderberg et al. ). The X-ray afterglow was found by Butler et al. 5, and it exhibited a power law decay with a slope of 1.±.1. The X-ray spectrum was characterized by an absorbed power law model with a photon index of Γ=1.9±. and n H =(1.1±.5) 1 1 cm. The emergence of a supernova component was reported by Bikmaev et al. and Garg et al.. The field of GRB was imaged by Soderberg et al. using the WFC ofthe ACS on-boardhst, and they found a SN 199bw-like supernova dimmed by.3 magnitudes. 3. Analysis The data obtained by the WXM and FREGATE instruments were reduced and calibrated in the standard manner. We used WXM TAG data and FREGATE PH data Temporal Properties Figure 1 shows the light curves of GRB in four energy bands with.5 sec time resolution. T 5 and T 9 are measured for each energy band, and they are shown in table 1. The burst can be divided into four major intervals according to spectral features, and each major interval is divided into a few sub-intervals for time-resolved spectral analysis. The time intervals for each sub-interval are shown in table. In interval 1 soft emission showing no prominent activity above kev occurs, then harder emissions follow in intervals and 3. In interval, the hard emission almost disappears and only gradually decaying soft emission is present. We call the emission seen in interval 1 an X-ray precursor. The precursor shows a structured light curve in the lowest energy band ( 1 kev), which indicates that two emissions are occurring successively. In interval, two peaks are seen in the higher energy bands (> kev). The time history of the hardness ratio also clearly shows the corresponding peaks. In the lowest energy bands (< 1 kev), structured emission is not clearly seen. In interval 3, two harder peaks are seen in the highest energy band ( kev), and this structure is less distinct in the lower energy bands. The emission in interval, which we call an X-ray tail, shows no prominent structure. From the dissimilarity of the light curves in the four energy bands, it is inferred that the total emission is composed of several independent emissions which have different characteristic energies. For an example, two components which contribute to the precursor, four components seen as a peak in the energy bands kev and kev, and one broad soft component which constitutes the major part of the light curve in the lowest energy band. To investigate this hypothesis, we performed time resolved spectral analysis based on a multiple-component spectrum model.

3 No. ] Multi-Component Analysis of Time Resolved Spectra of GRB Average Spectral Properties The joint spectral analysis of WXM and FREGATE data was performed using XSPEC v (arnaud 199). The time integrated spectrum of GRB is approximately described by a broken power law function (figure ); the low energy photon index is α = 1.±., the high energy index is β =.1±.7, the break energy is E p =.5±1.7 kev and the flux at 1 kev is K =.5±.15 cm s 1 kev 1, where the quoted errors are one sigma. The χ is for 79 dof, and Null hypothesis probability is.99, so the fit is not very good. From this fitting result, we obtained S X =(5.±.) 1 ergs cm, S γ =(7.13±.1) 1 ergs cm, where S X and S γ denote fluences in the 3 kev and 3 kev energy ranges and the error is 1 sigma. As the ratio of fluences is log(s x /S γ ) =.13, the GRB can be classified as an X-ray Rich GRB (Sakamoto et al. 5). The isotropic energy is calculated from: E iso = πd L z+1 Ehi,src /(z+1) E lo,src /(z+1) EΦdE (1) where D L is the luminosity distance, Φ is the differential photon spectrum, the range of energy intergation is from 1 kev to kev in the source frame. We obtained E iso = ergs. In figure 3, the peak energy in the source frame E p,src is plotted against the isotropic energy E iso (the point labeled Total ). The relation for GRB obtained from the one component fit is completely outside the Amati relation (Amati ). Looking at the residual plot in the top panel of figure, an additional soft component is apparently seen around kev and a systematic excess is also seen around 5 kev. Thus the total spectrum was fitted by a superposition of multiple basic functions. As basic functions, we considered a broken power law and a black-body. For the broken power law model, we used the following function to estimate the peak energy flux directly: A(E)=K/E p (E/E p) α, E E p () K/E p(e/e p ) β, E >E p The parameters α and β, which are the lower and higher energy photon indices, are restricted to the range of -.. and.5 5., respectively. The initial value of the break energy E p of the bknp basic function is determined from the local excess of the residual between the single bknp model and the observed data. The restriction to the break energy E p is applied so that the parameter converges around the initial value. The results of the spectral fit for three three-component models are shown in table 3. For comparison the result of the two-component model and a fit by the Band function (Band et al. 1993) and a broken power law function are also shown in the table. The fitting parameters for the models bbody*+bknp and bknp*3 are given in table. Akaike s Information Criterion (AIC) is calculated for each model. AIC (Akaike 197) is a very widely used criterion to evaluate the goodness of the statistical model from both the goodness of fit and the complexity of the model. AIC is defined by the following equation: ( ) χ AIC =nln +k, (3) n where n is the number of data points, k is the number of free parameters to be estimated, and χ is the residual sum of squares from the estimated model. The AIC includes a penalty that is an increasing function of the number of estimated parameters; overfitting is discouraged, and thus this method enables one to find the best model for the data, with minimum of free parameters. The model with the lower value of AIC is the one to be preferred. The most preferable model is bbody*+bknp. The model name is given by an algebraic expression of the name of a basic model. The second most preferable model is bknp*3. The AIC values for the two models are.7 and.7 respectively. The lowest AIC does not necessarily select the true model, and the degree of the preference is estimated by the AIC difference. The relation between the degree of the preferenceandtheaicdifference( X ), however,depends on n and the models to be compared. So we evaluate the confidence limit of the AIC difference by carrying out a Monte Carlo simulation. The Monte Carlo simulation was performed by using the fakeit command of XSPEC, which generated PHA samples based on the spectral model to be tested. For each PHA sample, a spectral fit was performed for both the tested model and the model which gave the lowest AIC, and the AIC difference was calculated. The left panel of figure shows a simulated distribution of the AIC difference bknp*3 =AIC bknp*3 AIC bbody*+bknp. The simulation was performed with the model spectrum bknp*3; the model parameters were obtained from the fit to the observed total spectrum. For each simulated PHA sample, model fit was performed for both the bknp*3 model and bbody*+bknp, which is the most preferred model. From this result the 9% confidence limit for bknp*3 is estimated as.7, below which 9% of samples are included. The observed AIC difference for the model bknp*3 is., so the model is acceptable at 9% C.L. In the case of the Band model (right hand panel of figure ), for 9% of the samples the AIC is smaller than the most preferred model bbody*+bknp. The observed AIC difference is 13., so the Band model is rejected at higher than 9% C.L. All the three three-component models are acceptable at 9% C.L. The two-component model is rejected at 9% C.L. As the time averaged spectrum of GRB is well represented by a superposition of the three components, we examined the E p,src -E iso relation for each one. The E iso calculated for a model bknp*3 are summarized in table 7. The E iso calculated for a model bbody*+bknp is also shown in the table for the high energy component. The result are compared with the other GRBs in figure 3. The components with E p > kev (C) and E p kev

4 Y. Shirasaki et al. [Vol., (B) are well within the Amati relation, and the component E p kev (A) is out of the 9% distribution width of the Amati relation. The log(s x /S γ ) for the three components are.3 for the component C,.7 for the component B, and.7 for the component A; thus they are classified as XRR, XRF and XRF, respectively Time Resolved Spectral Properties Time resolved spectral analysis was performed for 1 independent time intervals, and also for some intermediate intervals which overlap part of one or two adjacent intervals to trace the spectral evolution more closely. We applied multi-component models in the spectral fit, where the model spectrum is represented as a superposition of an arbitrary number of basic functions. The basic functions considered here are black body (bbody), broken power law (bknp), and a single power law function (pl). The XSPEC built-in model is used for bbody and pl, for which the XSPEC model names are bbodyrad and powerlaw respectively. For the broken power law model, we used equation. The fitting results for various combinations of basic functions are summarized in table 5. The fitting parameters for the lowest AIC model are shown in table. The model spectra giving the lowest AIC at each interval are shown in figures and 7. The expected number of components constituting the total spectrum is inferred from the number of local excesses in the residual plot for the bknp model, and also from the light curves in the four energy bands. As an example, the case of interval c is shown in figure5. Thespectrumisfitted withasinglebrokenpower law function, and E p is determined as kev. Looking at the residual plot shown in the bottom of the figure, local excesses around kev and kev are seen. So the spectrum of interval c is expected to be constituted from three components which have peak energies of,, and kev. In the case of interval b at least four components are expected from the light curves. One is the precursor component seen in interval 1, which is expected to be present in interval if it is extrapolated smoothly. Two components corresponding to the two peaks seen in the kev energy band and one component corresponding to the broad soft emission in the lowest energy band are also expected to be present. So up to four components are examined for interval b. The model selection is carried out by examining the AIC difference, and the 9% confidence limit of the AIC difference is calculated by performing a Monte Carlo simulation. By this statistical examination, single component models considered here are rejected for most of the intervals. The single component model is accepted only for intervals 1a, a, and b. For the other intervals, the single component model considered here is rejected at 9% C.L. and the multi-component models are preferred. For most of the intervals, the null hypothesis probability is larger than.1. For interval b, however, the null hypothesis probability is at most.3. This is probably because unknown systematic errors are present in the data.. Discussion The optical afterglow light curve in the R band can be fitted by a broken power-law model with a break time t b =.1±.days(Staneketal.5). Takingt b asajet break time and assuming a homogeneous density profile aroundthegrb,thejet openingangleθ isestimatedfrom the following equation (Sari et al. 1999, Nava et al. ): ( ) 3/ ( ) 1/ tb n η γ θ =.11, () 1+z E iso,5 where n is the ambient particle density in cm 3, η γ the radiation efficiency, and E iso,5 = E iso / (1 5 erg). Assuming n = 3 and η γ =., we obtain a jet opening angle of 3.. If the GRB is viewed on-axis, the collimation-corrected total energy can be estimated from E γ = (1 cosθ)e iso. The corrected total energies for the three components are erg for E p,src = kev, erg for E p,src = erg for E p,src = kev, and kev. These values do not follow the Ghirlanda relation (Ghirlanda et al. 7) except for the component with E p kev. That is, the E p,src expected from the Ghirlanda relation are 39., 13. and. kev for the components with E p > kev, kev, and kev, respectively. Taking a 5% uncertainty in the Ghirlanda relation, the observed E p for the the components with E p > kev and kev are incompatible. We also tested the Liang-Zhang relation (Liang & Zhang 5). The isotropic energies E iso,5 calculated by equation (5) of Liang & Zhang 5 are:.5,.13, 3. and.1 for components total, A, B, and C, respectively. The isotropic energy derived from the fit to a single broken power law function are consistent with the isotropic energy derived from the Liang-Zhang relation. On the other hand, the isotropic energies derived for components B and C are incompatible with those obtained from the relation. Looking at the time evolution of E p obtained by the time resolved spectral analysis shown in figure, we can identify seven components. Each component is interpolated with a solid line, and is given an identifier A, B 1, B, C 1, C, C 3 or C. The most preferred spectral model for component A in interval 1a is the bbody model. The calculated emission radius is km, which corresponds to solar radii and is a typical radius for a blue supergiant. The AIC difference for the second-most preferred bknp model is 3.31 and its 9% confidence limit is.9, so the bknp is also acceptable. The AIC differences for the power law spectrum with and without absorption (wabs*pl and pl) are larger than.9, and their 9% confidence limits are less than.3, so these models are rejected at 9% C.L. For interval 1b, the acceptable models are bbody*, bbody+bknp and bknp*, all of which are two-component models. None of the single component models considered here is preferable and all are rejected at 9% C.L. Thus it is likely that the emission in interval 1b is composed of

5 No. ] Multi-Component Analysis of Time Resolved Spectra of GRB 5 two components (A and B 1 ). The spectral type of each component is not uniquely determined from this result; it is either a black body or a broken power law function. Assuming that component B 1 is black body radiation, the calculated emission radius is about one solar radius. In intervals a d, the soft components A and B 1 are present in all the acceptable models. The peak energies of the components are almost constant during intervals 1 and, andtheydecreaseslowly, withdecaytime 7±secfor componentaand57±33secforcomponentb 1. Assuming that the components originate from thermal emission, we can derive the evolution of the radiation radii, and they are shown in figure 9 with the filled circles for component A and with open circles for component B 1. The data points for component B 1 are shifted by a factor of four. The data points for intervals 1 and are fitted with a linear function, and we calculate the apparent expansion velocity for component A to be (.3±1.5) 1 5 km s 1, which is twice the speed of light. This superluminal motion is observed when the emitter is moving with relativistic velocity toward the observer. The relation between the apparent expansion velocity v and the velocity measured in the source frame v is given by: v = v (5) (1+z)(1 v c ). Theexpansionvelocityinthesourceframeis km s 1, and the corresponding Lorenz factor is 1.. The apparent expansion rate for component B 1 is found to be km s 1, and the velocity in the source frame is km s 1, which is half the velocity of component A. This result indicates that the soft component originates from the GRB photosphere expanding with a mildly relativistic speed. According to the current models of GRB photosphere (e.g. Meszaros et al. ; Rees & Meszaros 5), however, it is difficult to interpret a blackbody with essentially the same temperature but an increasing radius, unless the temperature is boosted by the growing Lorentz factor of the photosphere. If the component originates in an internal shock according to the model of Zhang & Meszaros the following relation should be satisfied: E p L 1/ Γ () where L is the luminosity and Γ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the shock. If the spectral shape does not change, the normalization constant K of equation is proportional to the luminosity. As the α and β are not well constrained in the multi-component model due to the correlation of the parameters among the components, the luminosity is not well constrained. We have plotted the E p -K relation in figure 1. If Γ is constant and the spectral shape does not change during the emission, we expect that E p will be proportional to K 1/. No clear correlation is found for component A (filled circle). For component B 1 (filled triangle) the expected correlation is not found either, and it shows a negative correlation. The higher energy components of the interval, C 1 and C, which correspond to the two peaks seen in the kev light curve, are resolved as a broken power law spectrum for which E p is around 5 9 kev. If we assume thate p decreasesexponentiallyasseeninmanygrbs, we can derive the correspondence among the E p as indicated in figure. The decay constant of the E p is sec. At interval 3, the first precursor component seen in interval 1a (component A) is not well resolved. Component B has a similar E p to that of component B 1, but its E p is somehow systematically higher than the extrapolation of B 1. Assuming that B is thermal emission, its radiation radius is calculated and shown in figure 9. The radiation radius is well below the extrapolationof those for B 1. The E p -K relation of B is shown in figure 1, and it does not follow the relation given by equation. The highly variable spectra whose emission peaks vary from kev to kev are also resolved (C 3, C ), and they correspond to the emissions seen in the light curve of the highest energy band. From figure, the E p of the components decrease exponentially with time with a decay constant of 5 sec. The E p -K relations for components C 1, C, C 3 and C are also shown in figure 1. Although there are few data points for each component, the E p -K relation is satisfied except for two points. Both the exceptions are at the time intervals corresponding to the rising part of the components C 1 and C 3. During the rise, due to the curvature effect, the emission from a part of the shock front that is moving toward us dominates. After that, the emission is averaged over a wider region, so the emission properties may change between the rising part and the following part. In interval a, component B is likely to remain and a black body spectrum with T = 1 kev or a broken power law spectrum with E p kev is also likely to be present. In interval b, a power law spectrum with photon index 1.9 is the most preferred model, which is almost the same as the afterglow spectrum observed by Chandra. 5. Conclusion We have analyzed the time resolved spectra of GRB and successfully resolved the components corresponding to the hard spikes and the soft broad bump observed in the multi-energy band light curves. The components may be divided into two classes. One is component A, which has almost constant E p around kev, and components B 1 and B which have almost constant E p around kev. E p for this class gradually decreases on a timescale, 7 s. The spectral type is well represented by a broken power law function or a black body radiation function. Assuming that the emission of this component is due to black body radiation, we derived the emission radii. At the beginning of the emission they are 1 km for component A and km for components B 1 and B. The expansion velocity in the source frame is also derived; it is.7 c and. c for components A and B 1, respectively. The emission radius of component B is almost constant.

6 Y. Shirasaki et al. [Vol., Table 1. Temporal properties, T 5 and T 9, of GRB. energy range T5 T9 (kev) (s) (s) ±. 3.± ±.1 7.3±1. 1.±.9 19.± ±.5 17.±.5 The quoted errors correspond to one sigma. The E p -Luminosity relation is examined for these components and compared with the prediction of the internal shock model. We used a normalization constant K in equation instead of deriving the luminosity. According to the internal shock model of Zhang & Meszaros, E p is proportionalto L 1/ if the bulk Lorentz factor of the shock is constant during the emission. We could not find such a correlation for components A, B 1 and B. The second classcomprises the components whosee p is larger than the former class and shows a relatively rapid decrease on a timescale of 5 sec. The spectra are well representedbyabrokenpowerlawfunction, andthee p -K relation almost follows the relation expected for an internal shock origin, so this could explain their origin. We could not reach a conclusion about the origin of the soft component observed for GRB. However, the difference in its time variability with respect to the higher energy component suggests that it originates from different emission sites, such as acceleration by a wider jet, emission from a supernova shock breakout, or emission from the photosphere of the fireball. Table. Time intervals used for time resolved spectral analysis. time interval start end (s) 1a.5. 1b. 1.5 a b c d a b c d a 3..5 b.5. a c.. 3b c The offset time is the trigger time -1-1:1: Acknowledgements We would like to thank the HETE- team members for their support. The HETE- mission is supported in the US by NASA contract NASW-9; in Japan in part by Grant-in-Aid 1791 from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology; and in France by CNES contract YS is grateful for support under the JSPS Core-to-Core Program, Grant-in-aid for Information Science (15179 and 197) and Young Scientists (B) (1775) carried out by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. KH is grateful for support under MIT Contract SC-A-9391, Table 7. Isotropic energies E iso,5 and rest-frame peak energies E p,src derived from the average spectrum. Component E p,src E iso,5 (kev) Total 3. ± A B C C bknp model. bknp*3 model. bbody*+bknp model

7 No. ] Multi-Component Analysis of Time Resolved Spectra of GRB 7 Table 3. Results of the spectral fit to the time averaged spectrum. model n k χ p AIC # X parameters bbody*+bknp T=1.,5.5,E p =7 bknp* (.7) E p =5,5,7 bbody+bknp* (.1) T=1.,E p =3,73 bknp* (<) E p =5, band (<) E p =3 bknp (<) E p = Numbers of data points used for the fit. Numbers of model parameters. -square of the fit Null hypothesis probability. Akaike information criterion. # AIC difference between the corresponding model and the lowest AIC model. The numbers in parentheses represent the 9% confidence limits of the AIC difference. T is the black body temperature in kev and E p is the break energy of the brknp model in kev. Table. Fitting parameters for the time averaged spectrum. model component parameters bbody*+bknp 1 T = K bbody =.1±. T = K bbody =.±.1 3 E p = α= β = K bknp = bknp*3 1 E p = α= β = K bknp = E p = α= β = K bknp = E p = α= β = K bknp = T and K bbody =R km /D 1 are the temperature in units of kev and normalization constant for the black-body radiation model, respectively. R km is the source radius in units of km. D 1 is the distance to the source in units of 1 kpc. E p, α, β, K bknp are the break energy in units of kev, low energy photon index, high energy photon index, and normalization constant defined in equation. K bknp is in units of kev cm s 1. 1.

8 Y. Shirasaki et al. [Vol., Table 5. Results of spectral model fitting to the time resolved spectra. interval model n k χ p AIC # X parameters 1a bbody T = bknp (3.9) E p =7.3 wabs*pl (1.1) α=3.,n H =1 pl (<) α=.1 1b bbody* T =1.,5.9 bbody+bknp (.) T=1.5,E p =3 bknp* (7.) E p =,3 bknp (<) E p = bbody+pl (<) T =.1,α=1.9 pl (<) p=1.9 a bbody*+bknp T=1.7,5.9,E p = bknp* (.1) E p =,3 bbody+bknp* (.) T=.,E p =3,3 bknp* (9.) E p =5,,3 bknp (.5) E p =5 b bbody*+bknp T=1.,5.,E p = bbody*+bknp* (.) T=1.,5.5,E p =5,5 bbody+bknp (.) T=1.5,E p =1 bknp (1.7) E p =3 bknp* (.1) E p =3,5 bknp* (.) E p =5,,5 bbody+bknp* (5.5) T=1.5,E p =,5 c bbody*+bknp* T=1.3,5.,E p =5,9 bbody*+bknp (<) T=1.3,5.,E p =53 bbody+bknp* (.) T=1.5,E p =1,5 bknp* (.) E p =5.5,1,7 bknp* (.) E p =19,5 bbody+bknp (<) T=.7,E p =55 bknp (<) E p =3 d bbody*+bknp T=1.,.,E p = bbody+bknp (.9) T=.5,E p = bknp* (1.) E p =1,59 bknp (.1) E p =1 bbody+bknp* (5.5) T=1.,E p =17, bknp* (.) E p =,17, 3a bbody+bknp T=.,E p =9 bknp* (.9) E p =7,95 bbody+bknp* (.) T=.,E p =5,9 bknp (3.) E p =3 bknp* (11.) E p =,5,9 3b bknp* E p =5, bknp*+pl (3.9) E p =,,α=1.3 bbody+bknp+pl (3.) T=,E p =,α=1. bknp* (.) E p =,1,1, bbody+bknp* (.) T=.9,E p =, bbody+bknp (<) T=,E p =3 bknp* (7.) E p =5,, bknp (<) E p =7 3c bknp* E p =,,1 bbody+bknp* (.5) T=1.,E p =,,11 bknp* (.3) E p =,13 bbody+bknp* (1.3) T=1.1,E p =,117 bknp* (7.) E p =,,,119 bknp (<) E p =5 3d bbody+bknp T=.1,E p =7

9 No. ] Multi-Component Analysis of Time Resolved Spectra of GRB 9 Table 5. (Continued.) interval model n k χ p AIC # X parameters bknp* (5.) E p =1,7 bknp (<) E p = bknp* (13.) E p =3,3,75 a bbody* T =1.,5. bbody+bknp (7.1) T=1.,E p = bknp (.) E p = bknp* (7.) E p =,5 bbody+pl (1.) T =.7,α=.3 pl (<) α=. b pl α=1.9 bbody+pl (3.1) T =1.5,α=1. bknp (3.) E p = bbody (<) T =1.7 Numbers of data points used for the fit. Numbers of model parameters. -square of the fit Null hypothesis probability. Akaike information criterion. # AIC difference between the corresponding model and the lowest AIC model. The numbers in parentheses represent the 9% confidence limits of the AIC difference. T is the black body temperature in units of kev, E p is the break energy of the brknp model in units of kev, α is the power law photon index of the pl model, and n H is the column density measured in unit 1.

10 1 Y. Shirasaki et al. [Vol., Table. Fitting parameters for the most preferred models, that is, the model that gives the lowest AIC. interval component parameters 1a 1 T = K bbody = b 1 T = K bbody = T = K bbody = a 1 T = K bbody = T = K bbody = E p = α= β = K bknp = b 1 T = K bbody = T = K bbody = E p = α= β = K bknp = c 1 T = K bbody = T = K bbody = E p = α= β = K bknp = E p = α= β = K bknp = d 1 T = K bbody = T = K bbody = E p = α= β = K bknp = a 1 T = K bbody = E p = α= β = K bknp = b 1 E p = α= β = K = E p = α= β = K = c 1 E p = α= β = K = E p = α= β = K = E p = α= β = K = d 1 T = K bbody = E p = α= β = K = a 1 T = K bbody = T = K bbody = K pl = b 1 α= T and K bbody =R km /D 1 are the temperature in units of kev and normalization constant for the black-body radiation model, respectively. R km is the source radius in units of km. D 1 is the distance to the source in units of 1 kpc. E p, α, β, K bknp are the break energy in units of kev, low energy photon index, high energy photon index, and normalization constant defined in equation. The unit of K bknp is kev cm s 1. K pl is the normalization constant for power law spectrum defined as photon flux at 1 kev in unit of photons kev 1 cm s 1.

11 No. ] Multi-Component Analysis of Time Resolved Spectra of GRB 11 count/s count/s cout/.5s count/.5s 1a 1b a b c d 3a 3c 3d a b 3b E : WXM -1 kev E1 : WXM 1-5 kev E : FREGATE - kev E3 : FREGATE - kev E/E. Hardness Ratio Time since trigger (s) Fig. 1. Light curves of GRB in four energy bands and hardness ratio. From top to bottom, 1 kev, 1 5 kev, kev, and kev. The hardness ratio is calculated by dividing the kev count rate by the 1 kev count rate. The vertical lines represent the boundaries of the time intervals for time resolved spectral analysis.

12 1 Y. Shirasaki et al. [Vol., E F(E) (kev/cm /s) E F(E) (kev/cm /s) Fig.. Time averaged unfolded spectrum expressed in νf ν. Top: Fitting result for the broken power law model. Bottom: Fitting result for the three-component model represented by a superposition of one broken power law function and two blackbody functions.

13 No. ] Multi-Component Analysis of Time Resolved Spectra of GRB 13 Long GRB (from Amati ) GRB Ep > kev (bknp*3) E p at source [kev] Ep ~ kev (bknp*3) Total 1 Ep ~ kev (bknp*3) E iso [1 5 erg] Fig. 3. E p,src-e iso relation for long GRBs. The open circles represent the long GRBs compiled by Amati. The solid circles represent GRB. The solid circle labeled Total is derived from a single broken power law model. The other solid circles are derived from a bknp*3 model. The parameters obtained in this work are summarized in table 7. The solid line represent the average relation derived from all the points of the open circles, while the dashed lines represent lower and upper boundaries which are parallel to the average relation and contain 9% of the points. Number Number AIC(bknp*3) - AIC(bbody*+bknp) AIC(Band) - AIC(bbody*+bknp) Fig.. Left: Simulated distribution of AIC differences between the bknp*3 and bbody*+bknp models (left). The simulation is performed using the bknp*3 model, and model fitting to the simulated data is carried out for both the models. The bbody*+bknp model is the most preferable model for the time integrated spectrum. The AICs for the two models are calculated for each simulated spectrum. The fraction of events with AIC > corresponds to the probability of selecting the wrong model. Right: Same plot for the Band model.

14 1 Y. Shirasaki et al. [Vol., c E F(E) (kev/cm /s) Fig. 5. An example of spectral fitting for interval c, where a single-component model is used.

15 No. ] Multi-Component Analysis of Time Resolved Spectra of GRB 15 1a 1b E F(E) (kev/cm /s) 1 1 E F(E) (kev/cm /s) a b E F(E) (kev/cm /s) 1 E F(E) (kev/cm /s) E F(E) (kev/cm /s) 1 c E F(E) (kev/cm /s) 1 d Fig.. Time resolved unfolded spectra for intervals 1 and. The residual between the observation and the model is also shown at the bottom panel of each figure. The spectrum is expressed in νf ν. The most preferable model spectra are plotted as a solid line (total) and dashed lines (basic function).

16 1 Y. Shirasaki et al. [Vol., E F(E) (kev/cm /s) 1 3a E F(E) (kev/cm /s) 3b c 3d E F(E) (kev/cm /s) E F(E) (kev/cm /s) E F(E) (kev/cm /s) a E F(E) (kev/cm /s) b Fig. 7. Time resolved unfolded spectra for interval 3 and.

17 No. ] Multi-Component Analysis of Time Resolved Spectra of GRB 17 3 C1 C C3 C Peak A B1 B Time since the trigger (s) Fig.. Peak energy calculated for each interval by fitting the data with multi-component models. The points which are inferred to belong to identical components are interpolated with a line. The vertical error bar corresponds to 9% C.L.

18 1 Y. Shirasaki et al. [Vol., 5 Component A Component B1 and B (x ) Radiation Rdius (1 km) Time since the trigger (s) Fig. 9. Evolution of the radiation radii of the black body components. The filled circles represent component A of figure. The open circles represent components B 1 and B, for which the radius is multiplied by four. The solid and dashed lines represent the linear fit to the data of intervals 1 and. 7 5 A B1 B C1 C C3 C E p (kev) K (kev/cm /s) Fig. 1. The relation between E p and K of equation for each component. Solid lines represent the relation E p K.5.

19 No. ] Multi-Component Analysis of Time Resolved Spectra of GRB 19 References Akaike, H. 197, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 71 Amati, L., MNRAS, 37, 33 Arnaud, K. A. 199, in ASP Conf. Ser. 11: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. Jacoby, G. H. & Barnes, J., 17 Atteia, J.-L. et al. 3, in Gamma-Ray Burst and Afterglow Astronomy, ed. Ricker, G. R. & Vanderspek, R. (Melville: AIP),, 17 Band, D. et al. 1993, ApJ, 13, 1 Bikmaev, I. et al., GCN notice # Borgonovo, L., Frontera, F., Guidorzi, C., Montanari, E., Vetere, L., and Soffitta, P. 7, A&A, 5, 75 Butler, N. R., Ricker, G. R., Ford, P. G., Vanderspek, R. K., Marshall, H. L., Jernigan, J. G., Garmire, G. P., & Lamb, D. Q. 5, ApJ, 9, 9 Cenko, S. B. et al., ApJ, 5, 9 Da Costa, G. S., Noel, N. & Price, P. A., GCN notice #75 Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R., MNRAS, 33, 171 Fugazza, D. et al., GCN notice #7 Galassi, M. et al, GCN notice #77 Garg, A. et al., GCN notice #9 Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., & Firmani, C. 7, A&A,, 17 Lazzati, D. 5, MNRAS, 357, 7 Liang, E. & Zhang, B. 5, ApJ, 33, 11 Meszaros, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Rees, M. J., & Zhang, B.,, ApJ, 57, 1 Murakami, T., Inoue, H., Nishimura, J., van Paradijs, J., & Fenimore, E. E. 1991, Nature, 35, 59 Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Tavecchio, F., & Firmani, C., A&A, 5, 71 Page, K. L. et al. 7, ApJ, Paczynsky, B. 19, ApJ, 3, L3 Piro, L. et al. 5, ApJ, 3, 31 Price, P. A. et al., GCN notice #791 Ramirez-Ruiz, E., MacFadyen, A. I., & Lazzati, D., MNRAS, 331, 197 Rees, M. J. & Meszaros, P. 5, ApJ,, 7 Romano, P. et al., A&A, 5, 917 Sakamoto, T. et al. 5, ApJ, 9, 311 Sari, R., Piran, T. & Halpern, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 519, L17 Shirasaki, Y. et al. 3, PASJ, 55, 133 Soderberg, A. M. et al., GCN notice #77 Soderberg, A. M. et al., ApJ, 3, 391 Stanek, K. Z. et al. 5, ApJ,, L5 Umeda, H., Tominaga, N., Maeda, K., Nomoto, K. 5, ApJ, 33 L17 Urata, Y. et al. 7 ApJ, 55, L1 Vanderspek, R. et al., ApJ, 17, 151 Vetere, L., Massaro, E., Costa, E., Soffitta, P., & Ventura, G., A&A, 7, 99 Waxman, E. & Meszaros, P. 3, ApJ, 5, 39 Zhang, B., & Meszaros, P., ApJ, 51, 13