J/ApJS/267/42 Swift GRBs light curve reconstruction (Dainotti+, 2023)
A stochastic approach to reconstruct gamma-ray-burst light curves.
Dainotti M.G., Sharma R., Narendra A., Levine D., Rinaldi E., Pollo A.,
Bhatta G.
<Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 267, 42 (2023)>
=2023ApJS..267...42D 2023ApJS..267...42D
ADC_Keywords: GRB; Models; Redshifts
Keywords: Gamma-ray bursts ; Gamma-rays ; Gamma-ray astronomy
Abstract:
Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), as they are observed at high redshift
(z=9.4), are vital to cosmological studies and investigating
Population III stars. To tackle these studies, we need correlations
among relevant GRB variables with the requirement of small
uncertainties on their variables. Thus, we must have good coverage of
GRB light curves (LCs). However, gaps in the LC hinder the precise
determination of GRB properties and are often unavoidable. Therefore,
extensive categorization of GRB LCs remains a hurdle. We address LC
gaps using a stochastic reconstruction, wherein we fit two preexisting
models (the Willingale model; W07 (Willingale+ 2007ApJ...662.1093W 2007ApJ...662.1093W);
and a broken power law; BPL) to the observed LC, then use the
distribution of flux residuals from the original data to generate data
to fill in the temporal gaps. We also demonstrate a model-independent
LC reconstruction via Gaussian processes. At 10% noise, the
uncertainty of the end time of the plateau, its correspondent flux,
and the temporal decay index after the plateau decreases by 33.3%,
35.03%, and 43.32% on average for the W07, and by 33.3%, 30.78%, 43.9%
for the BPL, respectively. The uncertainty of the slope of the plateau
decreases by 14.76% in the BPL. After using the Gaussian process
technique, we see similar trends of a decrease in uncertainty for all
model parameters for both the W07 and BPL models. These improvements
are essential for the application of GRBs as standard candles in
cosmology, for the investigation of theoretical models, and for
inferring the redshift of GRBs with future machine-learning analyses.
Description:
We take a sample of 455 GRBs from Srinivasaragavan+ (2020ApJ...903...18S 2020ApJ...903...18S)
with X-ray plateaus (222 with known redshift and 233 without known
redshift), originally obtained from the Swift BAT-XRT repository
(Evans+ 2007A&A...469..379E 2007A&A...469..379E & 2009, J/MNRAS/397/1177). A sample of the
data is presented in Table 1.
File Summary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FileName Lrecl Records Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReadMe 80 . This file
table1.dat 189 455 Full sample of 455 GRBs
table2.dat 74 436 Error fractions of log10(Ta), log10(Fa)
and αa before and after reconstruction
table3.dat 211 390 Values and error fractions of log10(Ta), log10(Fa),
α1 and α2 before and after reconstruction
table5.dat 71 218 Error fractions of log10(Ta), log10(Fa) and αa
before and after Gaussian Process (GP) reconstruction
table6.dat 208 195 Values and error fractions of log10(Ta), log10(Fa),
α1 and α2 before and after
GP reconstruction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
J/ApJS/175/179 : The BAT1 gamma-ray burst catalog (Sakamoto+, 2008)
J/MNRAS/397/1177 : Swift-XRT observations of GRBs (Evans+, 2009)
J/ApJ/720/1513 : The afterglows of Swift-era GRBs. I. (Kann+, 2010)
J/ApJS/192/1 : Light-curve parameters from the SNLS (Conley+, 2011)
J/ApJS/195/2 : The second Swift BAT GRB catalog (BAT2) (Sakamoto+, 2011)
J/MNRAS/421/1874 : GRB 100901A and GRB 100906A light curves (Gorbovskoy+, 2012)
J/ApJ/774/157 : Swift GRBs with X-ray afterglows and z<9.5 (Dainotti+, 2013)
J/ApJ/774/157 : Swift GRBs with X-ray afterglows and z<9.5 (Dainotti+, 2013)
J/MNRAS/428/729 : GRB Swift X-ray light curves analysis (Margutti+, 2013)
J/A+A/557/A12 : Optical light curves of γ-ray bursts (Zaninoni+, 2013)
J/A+A/565/A72 : Optical and X-ray LCs of BAT6 sample (Melandri+, 2014)
J/ApJ/787/66 : Burst duration measurements for a GRB sample (Zhang+, 2014)
J/ApJ/829/7 : 3rd Swift/BAT GRB catalog (past ∼11yrs) (BAT3) (Lien+, 2016)
J/ApJS/224/20 : 10yr of Swift/XRT obs. of GRBs (Yi+, 2016)
J/ApJ/866/97 : Swift X-ray flash & rich GRBs in BAT3 (Bi+, 2018)
J/A+A/617/A122 : GRB 111209A GROND and UVOT light curves (Kann+, 2018)
J/ApJS/261/25 : Optical LC fit parameters for 179 GRBs (Dainotti+, 2022)
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table1.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 10 A10 --- Name GRB Name
12- 15 F4.2 --- z [0.03/8.26]? Redshift
17- 23 F7.2 s T90 [0.18/2100] Observer-frame burst duration
25- 31 F7.2 s T90dz [0.13/2033]? Rest-frame duration, T90/(1+z)
33- 38 A6 --- Class Classification (1)
40- 59 A20 --- Type GRB Type (2)
61-170 A110 --- Ref References for Class and Type (3)
172-189 A18 --- Morph Morphological classes (4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): Classification as follows:
IS = Intrinsically Short GRBs (10+2 occurrences)
SEE = Short GRBs with extended emission (15+2 occurrences)
L = Long, T90≥2s (414 occurrences)
S = Short, T90<2s (14 occurrences)
Note (2): GRB Type. Codes as follows:
A = GRBs with strong spectroscopic evidence connecting it with a SNe;
AB = This is a set of all GRBs that show a Type-A and
Type-B SNe connection;
B = GRBs lightcurves that show a noticable bump, with some
spectroscopic evidence connecting it with a SNe;
C = GRBs that shows a clear bump in their lightcurve consistent with
a LGRB-SNe connection, but no spectroscopic confirmation;
D = GRBs with lightcurves that show a significant bump, but the SNe
properties are not entirely consistent with LGRB-SNe connection;
DE = This is a set of all GRBs that show a Type-D and Type-E SNe
connection;
E = GRBs that show a low significance bump in their lightcurve or is
inconsistent with LGRB-SNe connection, but has a spectroscopic
redshift;
IS = Intrinsically Short GRBs;
L = Long;
S = Short;
SEE = SGRBs with extended emission;
SNe-GRB = GRB associated with Supernova;
UL = Ultra-long;
XRF = X-ray flashes;
XRR = X-ray rich.
Note (3): References for Class and Type; additional GCN Circular citation are
given by their Circular # only in the table.
Bi et al. (2018) = 2018ApJ...866...97B 2018ApJ...866...97B
Dainotti et al. (2017) = 2017A&A...600A..98D 2017A&A...600A..98D
Dainotti et al. (2020a) = 2020ApJ...904...97D 2020ApJ...904...97D
Dainotti et al. (2021) = 2021ApJ...912..150D 2021ApJ...912..150D
Dainotti et al. (2022) = 2022ApJ...938...41D 2022ApJ...938...41D
Gendre et al. (2019) = 2019MNRAS.486.2471G 2019MNRAS.486.2471G
Gropp et al. (2019) = GCN circular #23642,
http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/23642.gcn3
Lien et al. (2016) = 2016ApJ...829....7L 2016ApJ...829....7L
Lipunov et al. (2018) = 2018ATel11429....1L 2018ATel11429....1L
Norris et al. (2010) = 2010ApJ...717..411N 2010ApJ...717..411N
Sakamoto et al. (2008) = 2008ApJS..175..179S 2008ApJS..175..179S
Sakamoto et al. (2011) = 2011ApJS..195....2S 2011ApJS..195....2S
Stamatikos et al. (2018) = GCN circular #22909,
http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3/22909.gcn3
Tian et al. (2022) = 2022PASA...39....3T 2022PASA...39....3T
van Putten et al. (2014) = 2014MNRAS.444L..58V 2014MNRAS.444L..58V
Xu et al. (2021) = 2021ApJ...911...76X 2021ApJ...911...76X
Yi et al. (2016) = 2016ApJS..224...20Y 2016ApJS..224...20Y
Note (4): Morphological classes as follows:
Break+Flares/Bumps = GRBs that show two breaks in the powerlaw fit and
flares/bumps in their afterglow lightcurve
(41 occurrences);
Bumps+Flares = GRBs that show flares/bumps in the afterglow lightcurve
(47 occurrences);
Double_Break = GRBs that show two breaks in the powerlaw fit
in the afterglow lightcurve (145 occurrences);
Flare+Double_Break = GRBs that show two breaks in the powerlaw fit and
flares in their afterglow lightcurve (4 occurrences);
Good_GRB = GRBs that do not show flares/bumps and have a single
break in the powerlaw fit of their afterglow lightcurve
(218 occurrences);
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table2.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 2 I2 % Noise [10/20] Noise level, 10 or 20%
8- 17 A10 --- Name GRB name
19- 23 F5.3 --- EFlogTa [0.003/0.1] Error Fraction, logTa, original
Willingale 2007 fit, Equation 6
25- 29 F5.3 --- EFlogFa [0.001/0.1] Error Fraction, logFa, original
Willingale 2007 fit, Equation 7
31- 35 F5.3 --- EFalpha [0.005/0.5] Error Fraction, alpha, original
Willingale 2007 fit, Equation 8
37- 41 F5.3 --- EFlogTaRC [0.002/0.07] Error Fraction, logTa, W07 fit
after reconstruction
43- 47 F5.3 --- EFlogFaRC [0.001/0.02] Error Fraction, logFa, W07 fit
after reconstruction
49- 53 F5.3 --- EFalphaRC [0.003/0.3] Error Fraction, alpha, W07 fit
after reconstruction
55- 60 F6.2 % dEFlogTa [-77.4/67.3] Percent decrease, in EFlogTa
after reconstruction
62- 67 F6.2 % dEFlogFa [-94/40] Percent decrease, in EFlogFa after
reconstruction
69- 74 F6.2 % dEFalpha [-72.6/50] Percent decrease, in EFalpha
after reconstruction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table3.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 2 I2 % Noise [10/20] Noise level, 10 or 20%
8- 17 A10 --- Name GRB name
19- 24 F6.4 s Ta [2.4/5.5] Time at end of plateau emission
26- 33 F8.4 --- Fa [-13/-8.6] Flux at end of plateau emission
35- 40 F6.4 --- alpha1 [0.1/1.4] Temporal decay index of the
initial power law
42- 47 F6.4 --- alpha2 [0.5/3.7] Temporal decay index of the final
power law
49- 54 F6.4 s e_Ta [0.013/9.5] Uncertainty in Ta
56- 62 F7.4 --- e_Fa [0.016/13.1] Uncertainty in Fa
64- 69 F6.4 --- e_alpha1 [0.008/2.5] Uncertainty in alpha1
71- 76 F6.4 --- e_alpha2 [0.006/0.4] Uncertainty in alpha2
78- 82 F5.3 --- EFlogTa [0.005/2.4] Error Fraction, logTa, original
BPL fit
84- 89 F6.3 --- EFlogFa [-1.2/-0.002] Error Fraction, logFa,
original BPL fit
91- 95 F5.3 --- EFalpha1 [0.01/3.6] Error Fraction, alpha1, original
BPL fit
97- 101 F5.3 --- EFalpha2 [0.005/0.4] Error Fraction, alpha2,
original BPL fit
103- 108 F6.4 s TaRC [2.4/5.5] Ta after reconstruction
110- 117 F8.4 --- FaRC [-12.81/-8.6] Fa after reconstruction
119- 124 F6.4 --- alpha1RC [0.059/1.4] Alpha1 after reconstruction
126- 131 F6.4 --- alpha2RC [0.5/3.7] Alpha2 after reconstruction
133- 138 F6.4 s e_TaRC [0.01/0.4] Uncertainty in TaRC
140- 145 F6.4 --- e_FaRC [0.014/0.5] Uncertainty in FaRC
147- 152 F6.4 --- e_alpha1RC [0.009/0.5] Uncertainty in alpha1RC
154- 159 F6.4 --- e_alpha2RC [0.003/0.3] Uncertainty in alpha2RC
161- 165 F5.3 --- EFlogTaRC [0.003/0.2] Error Fraction, logTa, new BPL
fit after reconstruction
167- 171 F5.3 --- EFlogFaRC [0.001/0.04] Error Fraction, logFa, new BPL
fit after reconstruction
173- 177 F5.3 --- EFalpha1RC [0.01/9.4] Error Fraction, alpha1, new BPL
fit after reconstruction
179- 183 F5.3 --- EFalpha2RC [0.003/0.3] Error Fraction, alpha2, new BPL
fit after reconstruction
185- 190 F6.2 % dEFlogTa [-97/7.7] Percent decrease, in EFlogTa
after reconstruction
192- 197 F6.2 % dEFlogFa [-97/11.6] Percent decrease, in EFlogFa
after reconstruction
199- 204 F6.2 % dEFalpha1 [-96/376] Percent decrease, in EFalpha1
after reconstruction
206- 211 F6.2 % dEFalpha2 [-71.1/-1.6] Percent decrease, in EFalpha2
after reconstruction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table5.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5- 14 A10 --- Name GRB name
16- 20 F5.3 --- EFlogTa [0.003/0.1] Error Fraction, logTa, original
Willingale 2007 fit, Equation 6
22- 26 F5.3 --- EFlogFa [0.001/0.1] Error Fraction, logFa, original
Willingale 2007 fit, Equation 7
28- 32 F5.3 --- EFalpha [0.005/0.5] Error Fraction, alpha, original
Willingale 2007 fit, Equation 8
34- 38 F5.3 --- EFlogTaRC [0.002/0.2] Error Fraction, logTa, W07 fit
after GP reconstruction
40- 44 F5.3 --- EFlogFaRC [0.001/0.04] Error Fraction, logFa, W07 fit
after GP reconstruction
46- 50 F5.3 --- EFalphaRC [0.003/0.3] Error Fraction, alpha, W07 fit
after GP reconstruction
52- 57 F6.2 % dEFlogTa [-71.8/123] Percent decrease, in EFlogTa
after GP reconstruction
59- 64 F6.2 % dEFlogFa [-93.5/70.3] Percent decrease, in EFlogFa
after GP reconstruction
66- 71 F6.2 % dEFalpha [-83/20.5] Percent decrease, in EFalpha
after GP reconstruction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table6.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5- 14 A10 --- Name GRB name
16- 21 F6.4 s Ta [2.4/5.5] Time at end of plateau emission
23- 30 F8.4 --- Fa [-13/-8.6] Flux at end of plateau emission
32- 37 F6.4 --- alpha1 [0.1/1.4] Temporal decay index of the
initial power law
39- 44 F6.4 --- alpha2 [0.5/3.7] Temporal decay index of the final
power law
46- 51 F6.4 s e_Ta [0.01/9.5] Uncertainty in Ta
53- 59 F7.4 --- e_Fa [0.016/13.1] Uncertainty in Fa
61- 66 F6.4 --- e_alpha1 [0.008/2.5] Uncertainty in alpha1
68- 73 F6.4 --- e_alpha2 [0.006/0.4] Uncertainty in alpha2
75- 79 F5.3 --- EFlogTa [0.005/2.4] Error Fraction, logTa, original
BPL fit
81- 86 F6.3 --- EFlogFa [-1.2/-0.002] Error Fraction, logFa,
original BPL fit
88- 92 F5.3 --- EFalpha1 [0.01/3.6] Error Fraction, alpha1, original
BPL fit
94- 98 F5.3 --- EFalpha2 [0.005/0.4] Error Fraction, alpha2,
original BPL fit
100- 105 F6.4 s TaRC [2.4/5.6] Ta after GP reconstruction
107- 114 F8.4 --- FaRC [-13/-8.6] Fa after GP reconstruction
116- 121 F6.4 --- alpha1RC [0.1/1.4] Alpha1 after GP reconstruction
123- 128 F6.4 --- alpha2RC [0.5/3.7] Alpha2 after GP reconstruction
130- 135 F6.4 s e_TaRC [0.01/0.8] Uncertainty in TaRC
137- 142 F6.4 --- e_FaRC [0.01/0.7] Uncertainty in FaRC
144- 149 F6.4 --- e_alpha1RC [0.007/0.7] Uncertainty in alpha1RC
151- 156 F6.4 --- e_alpha2RC [0.003/0.3] Uncertainty in alpha2RC
158- 162 F5.3 --- EFlogTaRC [0.003/0.2] Error Fraction, logTa, new BPL
fit after GP reconstruction
164- 168 F5.3 --- EFlogFaRC [0.001/0.07] Error Fraction, logFa, new BPL
fit after GP reconstruction
170- 174 F5.3 --- EFalpha1RC [0.008/1.3] Error Fraction, alpha1, new BPL
fit after GP reconstruction
176- 180 F5.3 --- EFalpha2RC [0.003/0.4] Error Fraction, alpha2, new BPL
fit after GP reconstruction
182- 187 F6.2 % dEFlogTa [-95.3/439] Percent decrease, in EFlogTa
after GP reconstruction
189- 194 F6.2 % dEFlogFa [-95.7/431] Percent decrease, in EFlogFa
after GP reconstruction
196- 201 F6.2 % dEFalpha1 [-92.5/226] Percent decrease, in EFalpha1
after GP reconstruction
203- 208 F6.2 % dEFalpha2 [-67/86] Percent decrease, in EFalpha2
after GP reconstruction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History:
From electronic version of the journal
(End) Prepared by [AAS], Emmanuelle Perret [CDS] 17-Nov-2023