| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
-
- 2019
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Li, Liang, et al.
(author)
-
A CORRELATED STUDY OF OPTICAL AND X-RAY AFTERGLOWS OF GRBs
- 2015
-
In: Astrophysical Journal. - 0004-637X .- 1538-4357. ; 805:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We study an extensive sample of 87 gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) for which there are well-sampled and simultaneous optical and X-ray light curves. We extract the cleanest possible signal of the afterglow component. and compare the temporal behaviors of the X-ray light. curve, observed by Swift XRT, and optical data, observed by UVOT and ground-based telescopes for each individual burst. Overall we find that 62% of the GRBs. are consistent with the standard afterglow model. When more advanced modeling is invoked, up to 91% of the bursts in our sample may be consistent with the external-shock model. A large fraction of these bursts are consistent with occurring in a constant interstellar density medium (61%) while only 39% of them occur in a wind-like medium. Only nine cases have afterglow light curves that exactly match the standard fireball model prediction, having a single power-law decay in both energy bands that are observed during their entire duration. In particular, for the bursts with chromatic behavior, additional model assumptions must be made over limited segments of the light curves in order for these bursts to fully agree with the external-shock model. Interestingly, for 54% of the X-ray and 40% of the optical band observations, the end of the shallow decay (t(similar to-0.5)) period coincides with the jet-break (t(similar to-p)) time, causing an abrupt change in decay slope. The fraction of the burst that is consistent with the external-shock model is independent of the observational epochs in the rest frame of GRBs. Moreover, no cases can be explained by the cooling frequency crossing the X-ray or optical band.
|
|
| 6. |
- Wang, Xiang-Gao, et al.
(author)
-
HOW BAD OR GOOD ARE THE EXTERNAL FORWARD SHOCK AFTERGLOW MODELS OF GAMMA-RAY BURSTS?
- 2015
-
In: Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. - : American Astronomical Society. - 0067-0049 .- 1538-4365. ; 219:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The external forward shock models have been the standard paradigm to interpret the broadband afterglow data of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). One prediction of the models is that some afterglow temporal breaks at different energy bands should be achromatic; that is, the break times should be the same in different frequencies. Multiwavelength observations in the Swift era have revealed chromatic afterglow behaviors at least in some GRBs, casting doubts on the external forward shock origin of GRB afterglows. In this paper, using a large sample of GRBs with both X-ray and optical afterglow data, we perform a systematic study to address the question: how bad or good are the external forward shock models? Our sample includes 85 GRBs up to 2014 March with well-monitored X-ray and optical light curves. Based on how well the data abide by the external forward shock models, we categorize them into five grades and three samples. The first two grades (Grade I and II) include 45 of 85 GRBs. They show evidence of, or are consistent with having, an achromatic break. The temporal and spectral behaviors in each afterglow segment are consistent with the predictions (the "closure relations") of the forward shock models. These GRBs are included in the Gold sample. The next two grades (Grade III and IV) include 37 of 85 GRBs. They are also consistent with having an achromatic break, even though one or more afterglow segments do not comply with the closure relations. These GRBs are included in the Silver sample. Finally, Grade V (3/85) shows direct evidence of chromatic behaviors, suggesting that the external shock models are inconsistent with the data. These are included in the Bad sample. We further perform statistical analyses of various observational properties (temporal index alpha, spectral index beta, break time t(b)) and model parameters (energy injection index q, electron spectral index p, jet opening angle theta(j), radiative efficiency eta(gamma), and so on) of the GRBs in the Gold sample, and derive constraints on the magnetization parameter epsilon(B) in the forward shock. Overall, we conclude that the simplest external forward shock models can account for the multiwavelength afterglow data of at least half of the GRBs. When more advanced modeling (e.g., long-lasting reverse shock, structured jets, arbitrary circumburst medium density profile) is invoked, up to >90% of the afterglows may be interpreted within the framework of the external shock models.
|
|
