Lorenzo Amati INAF, Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica, Bologna INAF, Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica, Bologna 43 rd Rencontres de Moriond La Thuile (Val d'Aosta, Italy) March , 2008

Gamma-Ray Bursts  most of the flux detected from keV up to 1-2 MeV  measured rate (by an all-sky experiment on a LEO satellite): ~0.8 / day; estimated true rate ~2 / day  bimodal duration distribution  fluences (= av.flux * duration) typically of ~10 -7 – erg/cm 2 short long

 isotropic distribution of GRBs directions  paucity of weak events with respect to homogeneous distribution in euclidean space  hints to cosmological origin of GRBs -> would imply huge luminosity  but a “local” origin could not be excluded until 1997 !

 in 1997 discovery of afterglow emission by BeppoSAX  first X, optical, radio counterparts

GRB970228, Van Paradijs et al., Nature, 1997 GRB , Metzger et al., Nature, 1997  optical spectroscopy of afterglow and/or host galaxy –> first measurements of GRB redshift  redshifts higher than 0.1 -> GRB are cosmological  their isotropic equivalent radiated energy is huge (up to erg in a few tens of s !)

 all GRBs with measured redshift (~100, including a few short GRB) lie at cosmological distances (z = – 6.4) (except for the peculiar GRB980425, z=0.0085)  isotropic luminosities and radiated energy are huge and span several orders of magnitude: GRB are not standard candles (unfortunately) Mean: Eiso = erg Are GRB standard candles ?

 jet angles derived from the achromatic break time, are of the order of few degrees  the collimation-corrected radiated energy spans the range ~5x10 40 – erg-> more clustered but still not standard  recent observations put in doubt jet interpretation of optical break

 GRB have huge luminosity, a redshift distribution extending far beyond SN Ia  high energy emission -> no extinction problems  but need to investigate their properties to find ways to standardize them (if possible)

 GRB F spectra typically show a peak at photon energy Ep  for GRB with known redshift it is possible to estimate the cosmological rest frame peak energy Ep,i and the radiated energy assuming isotropic emission, Eiso “Standardizing” GRB with spectrum-energy correlations log(Ep,i )= 2.52,  = 0.43 log(Eiso)= 1.0,  = 0.9

 Amati et al. (2002) analyzed a sample of BeppoSAX events with known redshift found evidence of a strong correlation between Ep,i and Eiso, highly significant (  = 0.949, chance prob %)  Further analysis with updated samples confirmed the correlation and extended it to X-Ray Flashes (XRF)  the scatter of the data around the best fit power-law can be fitted with a Gaussian with s(logEp,i) ~ 0.2 (~0.17 extra-Poissonian) Amati et al., 2008

 redshift estimates available only for a small fraction of GRB occurred in the last 10 years based on optical spectroscopy  pseudo-redshift estimates for the large amount of GRB without measured redshift -> GRB luminosity function, star formation rate evolution up to z > 6, etc.  use of the Ep,i – Eiso correlation for pseudo-redshift: most simple method is to study the track in the Ep,i - Eiso plane ad a function of z  not precise z estimates and possible degeneracy for z > 1.4  anyway useful for low –z GRB and in general when combined with optical  a first step: using Ep,i – Eiso correlation for z estimates

 the E p,i -E iso correlation becomes tighter when adding a third observable: jet opening angle (  jet -> E  = [1-cos(  jet )]*E iso (Ghirlanda et al. 2004) or “high signal time” T 0.45 (Firmani et al. 2006)  the logarithmic dispersion of these correlations is very low: they can be used to standardize GRB ?  jet angle inferred from break time in optical afterglow decay, while E p,i -E iso - T 0.45 correlation based on prompt emission properties only  a step forward: standardizing GRB with 3-parameters spectral energy correlations

 Methods (e.g., Ghirlanda et al, Firmani et al., Dai et al., Zhang et al.) :  general purpouse: estimate c.l. contours in 2-param surface (e.g.  M -  ,  M -w 0 )  general method: construct a chi-square statistics for a given correlation as a function of a couple cosmological parameters  general assumption: the correlation exists  method 1 – minimum correlation scatter: for each couple of cosm.parameters compute Ep,i and Eiso (or E  ), fit the points with a pl and compute the chi-square -> derive c.l. contours based on chi-square surface  method 2 – luminosity distance: for each couple of param. fit the correlation, derive Eiso from from Ep for each GRB through the best fit law, derive D L for each GRB from Eiso/fluence, construct chi-square based on difference from these D L and those derived form the z with the assumed couple of cosm. param. -> derive c.l. contours based on chi-square surface  method 3: more sophisticated bayesian method assuming that the correlation exists AND IS UNIQUE (which is reasonable given that it is expected that depends from the physics of GRB emission)

Ghirlanda et al., 2004,2007  GRB Hubble diagram with Ep-E  using lum. dist. method:

Ghirlanda et al., Firmani et al.  Contour plots in  m –  plane with Ep-E  correlation(left) and Ep-Lp-T 0.45 correlation (right) with the bayesian method

Ghirlanda, Ghisellini et al. 2005, 2006,2007  What can be obtained with 150 GRB with known z and Ep and complementarity with other probes (SN Ia, CMB)  complementary to SN Ia: extension to much higher z even when considering the future sample of SNAP (z < 1.7), cross check of results with different probes

 Combining spectrum-energy correlations with other (less tight) Luminosity correlations in GRB (Schaefer 2007)

 physics of prompt emission still not settled, various scenarios: SSM internal shocks, IC-dominated internal shocks, external shocks, photospheric emission dominated models, kinetic energy dominated fireball, poynting flux dominated fireball)  e.g., Ep,i  -2 L 1/2 t -1 for syncrotron emission from a power-law distribution of electrons generated in an internal shock (Zhang & Meszaros 2002, Ryde 2005); for Comptonized thermal emission  geometry of the jet (if assuming collimated emission) and viewing angle effects also may play a relevant role  lack of solid physical explanation Drawbacks and circularity problems

 Lack of calibration  differently to SN Ia, there are no low-redshift GRB (only 1 at z correlations cannot be calibrated in a “cosmology independent” way  would need calibration with a good number of events at z neeed to substantial increase the number of GRB with estimates of redshift and Ep  Bayesian methods have been proposed to “cure” the circularity problem (e.g., Firmani et al., 2006), resulting in slightly reduced contours w/r to simple (and circularity free) scatter method (using L p,iso -E p,i -T 0.45 corr.)

 Very recently (Kodama et al., 2008; Liang et al., 2008) calibrated GRB spectrum—energy correlation at z < 1.7 by using the cosmology independent luminosity distance – redshift relation derived for SN Ia (RIess et al, 2007)  Obtained significant constraints on both  M and   but with this method GRB are no more an indipendent cosmological probe

 “crisis” of 3-parameters spectrum-energy correlations  Recent debate on Swift outliers to the Ep-E  correlation (including both GRB with no break and a few GRB with achromatic break)  Recent evidence that the dispersion of the Lp-Ep-T0.45 correlation is significantly higher than thought before Campana et al. 2007Rossi et al. 2008

 Given their huge luminosities and redshift distribution extending up to at least 6.3, GRB are potentially a very powerful tool for cosmology and complementary to other probes (CMB, SN Ia, clusters, etc.)  The use of spectrum-energy correlations to this purpouse is promising, but:  need to substantial increase of the # of GRB with known z and Ep (which will be realistically allowed by next GRB experiments: Swift+GLAST/GBM, SVOM,…)  need calibration with a good number of events at z < 0.01 or within a small range of redshift, in order to avoid circularity problem  need solid physical interpretation  identification and understanding of possible sub- classes of GRB not following correlationsConclusions

 GRB can be used as cosmological beacons for study of the IGM up to z > 6  Because of the association with the death of massive stars GRB allow the study the evolution of massive star formation and the evolution of their host galaxy ISM back to the early epochs of the Universe (z > 6) GRB as cosmological beacons EDGE Team

END OF THE TALK

BACK UP SLIDES

 physics of prompt emission still not settled, various scenarios: SSM internal shocks, IC-dominated internal shocks, external shocks, photospheric emission dominated models, kinetic energy dominated fireball, poynting flux dominated fireball)  e.g., Ep,i  -2 L 1/2 t -1 for syncrotron emission from a power-law distribution of electrons generated in an internal shock (Zhang & Meszaros 2002, Ryde 2005)  e.g., Ep,i  Tpk  2 L -1/4 or  under different assumptions and to be combined with and in scenarios in whch for comptonized thermal emission from the photosphere dominates (e.g. Rees & Meszaros 2005)  physics of prompt emission (e.g. Zhang & Meszaros 2002)

 jet geometry and structure  XRF-GRB unification models  viewing angle effects  identification and nature of different classes of GRBs (as I will discuss next) Uniform/variable jet PL-structured /universal jet Uniform/variable jet PL-structured /universal jet

 physics of prompt emission still not settled, various scenarios: SSM internal shocks, IC-dominated internal shocks, external shocks, photospheric emission dominated models, kinetic energy dominated fireball, poynting flux dominated fireball)  Need of understending the physics behind spectral energy correlations

 lack of jet breaks in several Swift X-ray afterglow light curves, in some cases, evidence of achromatic break  challenging evidences for Jet interpretation of break in afterglow light curves or due to present inadequate sampling of optical light curves w/r to X-ray ones and to lack of satisfactory modeling of jets ?  Ep,i-E  correlation need to clarify and understand the problem lack of chromatic breaks and possible outliers GRB , Mundell et al. Schady et al.GRB a

 need to reduce systematics on Ep with broad energy band spectroscopy  In some cases, Ep estimates form different instruments are inconsistent with each other -> particular attention has to be paid to systematics in the estimate of Ep (limited energy band, data truncation effects, detectors sensitivities as a function of energies, etc.)

 need detectors extending to high energies (1-2 MeV)  due to the broad spectral curvature of GRBs, a WFM with a limited energy band (< keV) will allow the determination of E p for only a small fraction of events and with low accuracy (e.g., Swift/BAT ~15%)  an extension up to 1-2 MeV with a good average effective area (~600cm keV) in the FOV of the WFM is required  -> baseline solution: WFM + GRB Detector based on crystal scintillator  accuracy of a few % for GRB with keV fluence > erg cm -2 over a broad range of E p ( ) GRB with keV fluence erg cm -2 and Ep=300 keV. Left: WFM only, Right: WFM + GRBD WFM: 2mm thick CZT detector, eff. Area~500 keV, FOV~1.4sr WFM + GRBD (5cm thick NaI, 850cm2 geom.area) Pow.law fit

 and to low energies (1 keV)  GRB was a very long event (~3000 s) and without XRT mesurement ( keV) Ep,i would have been over-estimated and found to be inconsistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation  Ghisellini et al. (2006) found that a spectral evolution model based on GRB can be applied to GRB and GRB031203, showing that these two events may be also consistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation

 Swift has shown how fast accurate localization and follow-up is critical in the reduction of selection effects in the sample of GRB with known z  increasing the number of GRB with known z and accurate estimate of Ep is fundamental for calibration and verification of spectral energy correlations and their use for estimate of cosmological parameters (sim. by G. Ghirlanda)  need to increase number and reduce selection effects of redshift estimates

Next experiments: what is needed ?  to test the correlations, to better constrain their slope, normalization and dispersion, to understand the physics behind them and study the behaviour of different sub-classes of GRB, and to calibrate them for cosmological use, need to:  increase the number of z estimates, reduce selection effects and optimize coverage of the fluence-Ep plane in the sample of GRBs with known redshift  more accurate estimates of Ep,i by means of sensitive spectroscopy of GRB prompt emission from a few keV (or even below) and up to at least ~1 MeV  Swift is doing greatly the first job but cannot provide a high number of firm Ep estimates, due to BAT ‘narrow’ energy band (sensitive spectral analysis only from 15 up to ~200 keV)  Ep estimates for some Swift GRBs from HETE-2 (2-400 keV) and Konus (from 15 keV to several MeV) for simultaneously detected events

 presently, Ep,i values are mainly provided by HETE-2 (but only up to 400 keV -> mostly CPL fits) or Konus/Wind (> 15 keV, fits with Band function); in some cases, useful spectral information also from BAT, Suzaku and INTEGRAL 2008(-2011 ?): GLAST (AGILE) + Swift:  accurate Ep and z estimate (plus full X-ray coverage and possibly study of GeV emission) for simultaneously detected events  however, even by assuming that Swift will follow-up ALL GLAST GRB, no more than 30 GRB with Ep and z in 3 years  need of new GRB detectors capable to extend down to a few keV (or even below) and up to at least ~1 MeV: e.g., a combination of a sensitive low energy detector (CZT, silicon microstrips or SDC diodes) and moderate area scintillator high energy detector (NaI, CsI, BGO)

In the time frame a significant step forward expected from SVOM:  spectral study of prompt emission in keV -> accurate estimates of Ep and reduction of systematics (through optimal continuum shape determination and measurement of the spectral evolution down to X-rays)  fast and accurate localization of optical counterpart and prompt dissemination to optical telescopes -> increase in number of z estimates and reduction of selection effects in the sample of GRB with known z  optimized for detection of XRFs, short GRB, sub-energetic GRB  substantial increase of the number of GRB with known z and Ep -> test of correlations and calibration for their cosmological use  unique mission with these capabilities in the (at least) time frame  SVOM will allow a step forward in the test, understanding and use (GRB physics, cosmology) of spectral – energy correlations

Full calibration and exploitation of spectral-energy correlation for cosmology may be provided by EDGE in the > 2015 time frame  in 3 years of operations, EDGE will detect perform sensitive spectral analysis in keV for ~ GRB  redshift will be provided by optical follow-up and EDGE X-ray absorption spectroscopy (use of microcalorimeters, GRB afterglow as bkg source)  substantial improvement in number and accuracy of the estimates of E p, which are critical for the estimates of cosmological parameters

THE END

LONG  energy budget up to >10 54 erg  long duration GRBs  metal rich (Fe, Ni, Co) circum- burst environment  GRBs occur in star forming regions  GRBs are associated with SNe  naturally explained collimated emission  energy budget up to erg  short duration GRBs (< 5 s)  clean circum-burst environment  GRBs in the outer regions of the host galaxy SHORT

 before EDGE main contributions expected from GLAST+Swift and SVOM  EDGE will ~triplicate the GRB in the sample and substantially increase the accuracy in cosmological parameters  EDGE will allow cosm. param. estimates based on an homogeneous sample  the very high number of GRB known z and E p that will be reached with EDGE will allow calibration of the correlations (i.e. find Ep for a sufficent number of GRB at same z within 10% and thus solve circularity problem)  EDGE GRB, SNAP SN Ia, other probes (e.g. clusters): complementarity and sinergy (different z ranges), cross-checks, reduction of systematics  EDGE will also allow a robust test of the correlations themselves (selection effects, outliers, etc.)

What is needed ?  to test the correlations, to better constrain their slope, normalization and dispersion, to understand the physics behind them and study the behaviour of different sub-classes of GRB, and to calibrate them for cosmological use, need to:  increase the number of z estimates, reduce selection effects and optimize coverage of the fluence-Ep plane in the sample of GRBs with known redshift  more accurate estimates of Ep,i by means of sensitive spectroscopy of GRB prompt emission from a few keV (or even below) and up to at least ~1 MeV  Swift is doing greatly the first job but cannot provide a high number of firm Ep estimates, due to BAT ‘narrow’ energy band (sensitive spectral analysis only from 15 up to ~200 keV)  Ep estimates for some Swift GRBs from HETE-2 (2-400 keV) and Konus (from 15 keV to several MeV) for simultaneously detected events

Spectral-energy correlations: physics, peculiar GRB and possible outliers, tests, debates

 physics of prompt emission still not settled, various scenarios: SSM internal shocks, IC-dominated internal shocks, external shocks, photospheric emission dominated models, kinetic energy dominated fireball, poynting flux dominated fireball)  Origin of spectral-energy correlations

 physics of prompt emission still not settled, various scenarios: SSM internal shocks, IC-dominated internal shocks, external shocks, photospheric emission dominated models, kinetic energy dominated fireball, poynting flux dominated fireball)  e.g., Ep,i  -2 L 1/2 t -1 for syncrotron emission from a power-law distribution of electrons generated in an internal shock (Zhang & Meszaros 2002, Ryde 2005)  e.g., Ep,i  Tpk  2 L -1/4 or  under different assumptions and to be combined with and in scenarios in whch for comptonized thermal emission from the photosphere dominates (e.g. Rees & Meszaros 2005)  physics of prompt emission (e.g. Zhang & Meszaros 2002)

 jet geometry and structure  XRF-GRB unification models  viewing angle effects  identification and nature of different classes of GRBs (as I will discuss next) Uniform/variable jet PL-structured /universal jet Uniform/variable jet PL-structured /universal jet

GRB not only prototype event of GRB/SN connection but closest GRB (z = ) and sub-energetic event (Eiso ~ erg, Ek,aft ~ erg) GRB : the most similar case to GRB980425/SN1998bw: very close (z = 0.105), SN2003lw, sub-energetic the most common explanations for the (apparent ?) sub-energetic nature of GRB and GRB and their violation of the Ep-Eiso and Ep-E  correlations assume that they are NORMAL events seen very off-axis (e.g. Yamazaki et al. 2003, Ramirez-Ruiz et al  are sub-energetic GRBs really outliers ?

 but, contrary to GRB and (possibly) GRB031203, GRB is consistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation -> evidence that it is a truly sub-energetic GRB  also XRF is very weak and soft (sub-energetic GRB prompt emission) and is ocnsistent with the Ep-Eiso correlation Amati et al., 2007  GRB , a very close (z = 0.033, second only to GRB ), with a prominent association with SN2006aj, and very low Eiso (6 x 1049 erg) and Ek,aft -> very similar to GRB and GRB031203

 GRB was a very long event (~3000 s) and without XRT mesurement ( keV) Ep,i would have been over-estimated and found to be inconsistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation  Ghisellini et al. (2006) found that a spectral evolution model based on GRB can be applied to GRB and GRB031203, showing that these two events may be also consistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation

 claims that a high fraction of BATSE events (without z) are inconsistent with the correlation (e.g. Nakar & Piran 2004, Band & Preece 2005  Ghirlanda et al. (2005), Bosnjak et al. (2005), Pizzichini et al. (2005): BATSE GRB with unknown redshift are consistent with the correlation  different conclusions but general consensus: Swift will allow reduction of selection effects both in GRB detection and in z estimates and will allow us to stringently test the correlation Testing the Ep,i – Eiso correlation

 fast (~1 min) and accurate localization (few arcesc) of GRBs -> prompt optical follow-up with large telescopes -> substantial increase of redshift estimates and reduction of selection effects in the sample of GRBs with known redshift  fast slew -> observation of a part (or most, for very long GRBs) of prompt emission down to 0.2 keV with unprecedented sensitivity –> following complete spectra evolution, detection and modelization of low-energy absorption/emission features -> better estimate of Ep for soft GRBs  BAT “narrow” energy band allow to estimate Ep only for ~15-20% of GRBs (but for some of them Ep from HETE-2 and/or Konus GRB060124, Romano et al., A&A, 2006

 all long Swift GRBs with known z and published estimates or limits to Ep,i are consistent with the correlation  the parameters (index, normalization,dispersion) obatined with Swift GRBs only are fully consistent with what found before  Swift allows reduction of selection effects in the sample of GRB with known z -> the Ep,i-Eiso correlation is passing the more reliable test: observations ! adapted from Amati, NCimC, 2006

 very recent claim by Butler et al.: 50% of Swift GRB are inconsistent with the pre-Swift Ep,i-Eiso correlation  but Swift/BAT has a narrow energy band: keV, nealy unesuseful for Ep estimates, possible only when Ep is in (or close to the bounds of ) the passband (15-20%) and with low accuracy  comparison of Ep derived by them from BAT spectra using Bayesian method and those MEASURED by Konus/Wind show they are unreliable  as shown by the case of GRB , missing the soft part of GRB emission leads to overestimate of Ep

 lack of jet breaks in several Swift X-ray afterglow light curves, in some cases, evidence of achromatic break  challenging evidences for Jet interpretation of break in afterglow light curves or due to present inadequate sampling of optical light curves w/r to X-ray ones and to lack of satisfactory modeling of jets ? The Ep,i-E  correlation: the problem lack of breaks or of chromatic breaks and possible outliers GRB , Mundell et al. Schady et al.GRB a

 Recent debate on Swift outliers to the Ep-Eg correlation (including both GRB with no break and a few GRB with achromatic break)  again, different conclusions based on light curve modeling and considering early or late break  additional reasons to prefer the Ep,i-Lp-T0.45 correlaiton for standardizing GRB (but needs to be confirmed with more GRBs) Campana et al. 2007Ghirlanda et al. 2007

 to test the correlation, to better constrain its slope, normalization and dispersion (test of GRB/XRF prompt emission physics and geometry), to identify and understand sub-energetic GRBs and short GRBs, to calibrate spectral-energy correlation for cosmological use, need to  increase the number of z estimates, reduce selection effects and optimize coverage of the fluence-Ep plane in the sample of GRBs with known redshift  more accurate estimates of Ep,i by means of sensitive spectroscopy of GRB prompt emission from a few keV (or even below) and up to at least ~1 MeV  Swift is doing greatly the first job but cannot provide a high number of firm Ep estimates, due to BAT ‘narrow’ energy band (sensitive spectral analysis only from 15 up to ~200 keV)  Ep estimates for some Swift GRBs from HETE-2 (2-400 keV) and Konus (from 15 keV to several MeV) for simultaneously detected events Observations

 presently, Ep,i vaues are mainly provided by HETE-2 (but only up to 400 keV -> mostly CPL fits) or Konus/Wind (> 15 keV, fits with Band function); in some cases, useful spectral information also from BAT, Suzaku and INTEGRAL  some future and possible GRB experiments:  AGILE and GLAST (2006, 2007) : study of GRBs form keV up to tens or hundreds of GeV  ECLAIRs (2009) : spectral study of prompt emission in keV and optical observation of prompt emission  Spectrum-RG/e-Rosita/Lobster (>2010 ?) : spectral study of GRB in the ~ keV enegy band  ESTREMO/WXRT: Wide Field Monitor from a few keV to keV  need of new GRB detectors capable to extend down to a few keV (or even below) and up to at least ~1 MeV: e.g., a combination of a sensitive low energy detector (CZT, silicon microstrips or SDC diodes) and moderate area scintillator high energy detector (NaI, CsI, BGO)

 In some cases, Ep estimates form different instruments are inconsistent with each other -> particular attention has to be paid to systematics in the estimate of Ep (limited energy band, data truncation effects, detectors sensitivities as a function of energies, etc.)  the fixed keV energy band on which is computed Eiso could not be optimal -> energy band centerd on Ep,i or larger fixed energy band (e.g – ) Analysis

 study of the systematics on the estimates of Ep,i and Eiso  identify a golden sample of GRBs to allow accurate calibration  include X-ray flares (and the whole afterglow emission) in the estimate of Ep,i and Eiso  test theoretical models by computing Ep,i and Eiso in a specific way  cosmology with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation (only 2 parameters, high number of events) ?

 “ canonical ” early afterglow light curve observed by Swift ~ -3 ~ -0.7 ~ ~ -2 10^2 – 10^3 s10^4 – 10^5 s 10^5 – 10^6 s ( 1 min ≤ t ≤ hours ) GRBs and : peculiar afterglow decay

 Swift GRB : a long GRB with unusal monotonic power-law decay  no break up to at least 106 s -> very narrow (0.8°) jet angle or very bright event (E~10 54 erg)

 GRB : very flat early X-ray decay followed by abrupt drop  This behaviour challenges external shock scenarios  “Late bump” likely originated by internal shocks due to long lasting central engine emission

 Both GRBs are consistent with Ep-Eiso correlation  The Ep-Eiso correlation holds independently on early afterglow behaviour and the presence of “jet” break  Including the “bump” emission in the Eiso of GRB should make it fit even better the correlation: a test for its internal shock origin

Swift GRBs and Ep,i-Eiso correlation: summary  Swift long GRBs are consistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation -> the correlation is not significantly affected by selection effects  Short GRBs are all inconsistent with the correlation -> different emission mechanism or lack/weakness of the second longer part of the emission (the soft tail of GRB is consistent with the correlation)  The local, sub-energetic, SN associated GRB is consistent with the correlation: evidence that it was not seen off-axis -> really sub-energetic -> GRB rate as high as 2000/Gpc3/year; GRB radiated energy vary much more than M of associated SN  The long GRB not associated with a bright GRB/SN, , is consistent with the correlation -> properties of long GRBs do not depend on the properties of the associated SN  GRBs with peculiar afterglow decay (061007, ) are consistent with the correlation; inclusion of early afterglow emission in Eiso may reduce the dispersion

 In some cases, Ep estimates form different instruments are inconsistent with each other -> particular attention has to be paid to systematics in the estimate of Ep (limited energy band, data truncation effects, detectors sensitivities as a function of energies, etc.)  the fixed keV energy band on which is computed Eiso could not be optimal -> energy band centerd on Ep,i or larger fixed energy band (e.g – ) Analysis

 study of the systematics on the estimates of Ep,i and Eiso  identify a golden sample of GRBs to allow accurate calibration  include X-ray flares (and the whole afterglow emission) in the estimate of Ep,i and Eiso  test theoretical models by computing Ep,i and Eiso in a specific way  cosmology with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation (only 2 parameters, high number of events) ?

A note on selection effects and systematics

 Nakar & Piran and Band & Preece 2005: a substantial fraction (50-90%) of BATSE GRBs without known redshift are potentially inconsistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation for any redshift value  they suggest that the correlation is an artifact of selection effects introduced by the steps leading to z estimates: we are measuring the redshift only of those GRBs which follow the correlation  they predict that Swift will detect several GRBs with Ep,i and Eiso inconsistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation BUT…

 up to now, all long Swift GRBs with known z show Ep,i (values or upper/lower limits) and Eiso values consistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation  Ghirlanda et al. (2005), Bosnjak et al. (2005), Pizzichini et al. (2005): most BATSE GRB with unknown redshift are consistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation Ghirlanda et al., ApJ, 2005

 consider BATSE keV fluences and spectra for 350 bright GRBs  Ep,i = K x Eiso m, Ep,i = Ep x (1+z), Eiso=(Sx4  D L 2 )/(1+z)  Ep,i-Eiso correlation re-fitted by computing Eiso from 25*(1+z) to 2000*(1+z) gives K ~100, m ~0.54,  (logEp,i) ~ 0.2, K max,2  ~ 250 -> S min,n  = min[(1+z) 2.85 /(4  D L 2 )] x (Ep/K max,n  ) 1.85 (min. for z = 3.8) Adapted from Kaneko et al., MNRAS,   only a small fraction (and with substantial uncertainties in Ep) is below the 2  limit !

 moreover (1): estimates of Ep,i of several BATSE GRBs may be biased by the lack detection of the X-ray emission, which can contribute significantly to the time-integrated spectrum -> overestimate of Ep,i  moreover (2): for dim GRBs we may observe only the brightest and hardest portion of the event -> overestimate of Ep,i BeppoSAX GRB960720Swift GRB060124

 all long Swift GRBs with known z and published estimates or limits to Ep,i are consistent with the correlation  the parameters (index, normalization,dispersion) obatined with Swift GRBs only are fully consistent with what found before  the Ep,i-Eiso correlation is passing the more reliable test: observations ! adapted from Amati, NCimC, 2006

GRB , a normal GRB detected and localized by BeppoSAX WFC and NFI, but in temporal/spatial coincidence with a type Ic SN at z = (chance prob ) GRB/SN connection and sub-energetic GRBs Pian et al.,ApJ, 2000

further evidences of a GRB/SN connection: bumps in optical afterglow light curves and optical spectra resembling that of GRB most prominent case: GRB GRB , Hjorth et al., Nature, 2003 GRB , Stanek et al., ApJ, 2003

The E p,i – E  and E p,i – E iso – t b correlations

 by substituting E iso with the collimation corrected energy E  the correlation still holds, with a lower dispersion and a steeper slope of ~0.7 (Ghirlanda et al. 2004, Dai et al. 2004) Nava et al.., A&A, 2005 Dai et al., ApJ, 2004

 very recently, Liang et al. (2005) performed a multi-variable correlation analysis between various observables of prompt and afterglow  they found a tight correlation between E pi, E iso and t b  with respect to E p,i – E  correlation it has the advantage of being model independent  differently from the E p,i -E iso correlation, the E p,i -E  and E p,i - E iso -t b correlations can be used for only a fraction of events (a firm estimate of t b is needed)

 use of the E p,i -E  and E p,i -E iso -t b correlations for the estimate of cosmological parameters, in a way similar to SN Ia Ghirlanda et al.,ApJ, 2004 Ghisellini et al., NCIM, 2005

 use of the E p,i -E  and E p,i -E iso -t b correlations for the estimate of cosmological parameters, in a way similar to SN Ia Liang & Zhang,ApJ, 2005

 use of the E p,i -E  and E p,i -E iso -t b correlations for the estimate of cosmological parameters, in a way similar to SN Ia Ghisellini et al. 2005

 use of 3-parameters spectral-energy correlations (E p,i -E , E p,i -E iso -tb, E p,i -L iso -T 0.45 for cosmology

 use of the E p,i -E  and E p,i -E iso -t b correlations for the estimate of cosmological parameters, in a way similar to SN Ia Ghisellini et al. 2005

Ghirlanda et al A&A Ghirlanda et al JOP Review, GRB Special Issue

 the physics behind the Ep,i-Eiso correlation is still to be understood  physics of prompt emission (e.g. Zhang & Meszaros 2002)  jet geometry and structure  XRF-GRB unification models  viewing angle effects  identification and nature of different classes of GRBs (short, sub- energetic)  Need to settle the physics behind this correlation in order to achieve a complete understanding of the GRB phenomenon and to use spectral- energy correlations to standardize GRBs for the estimate cosmological parameters Physics

“ canonical ” early afterglow light curve ~ -3 ~ -0.7 ~ ~ -2 10^2 – 10^3 s10^4 – 10^5 s 10^5 – 10^6 s ( 1 min ≤ t ≤ hours ) Adding pieces to the puzzle

 the correlation is used regularly as a input or test ouptut for GRB/XRF syntesis models and simulations  pseudo redshift estimators  standardization of GRBs for estimate of cosmological parameters (albeit the addition of 1 more observable: t b, T 0.45 ) Nava et al. (2006), Ghirlanda et al. (2004)

 ms time variability + huge energy + detection of GeV photons -> plasma occurring ultra-relativistic (  > 100) expansion (fireball)  non thermal spectra -> shocks synchrotron emission (SSM)  fireball internal shocks -> prompt emission  fireball external shock with ISM -> afterglow emission

 the “extra-statistical scatter” of the data was quantified by performing a fit whith a method (D’Agostini 2005) which accounts for sample variance  the “intrinsic” dispersion results to be  int (logEp,i) = 0.14 (-0.02,+0.03)  with this method, the power-law index and normalization turn out to be ~0.5 and ~100, respectively (the commonly assumed values !) Amati (2006)

 the Ep-E  shows slightly different slope and dispersion based on the assumptions on the circum-burst environment density profile (ISM or wind)  in the wind case the slope is more close to 1 (-> linear correlation) and the dispersion slightly lower Nava et al.., A&A, 2005: ISM (left) and WIND (right)

 the correlation holds also when substituting Eiso with Liso or Lpeak,iso, with similar slope and scatter Lamb et al., 2004, Schaefer 2007 Yonetoku et al., 2004, Ghirlanda et al., 2005

From Amati, MNRAS, 2006  increasing the sample of GRBs with known z and firm estimate of Ep,i increases the significance of the correlation  the correlation is characterized by a substantial dispersion, as indicated by the high chi-square values of the fits with a power-law  due to the scatter of the data around the best fit power-law, different sub- samples give different values of the power-law index (~0.4 – 0.6)