We revisit the relation between the peak luminosity
L
_{iso}
and the spectral time lag in the source frame. Since gammaray bursts (GRBs) are generally thought to be beamed, it is natural to expect that the collimationcorrected peak luminosity may well correlate with the spectral time lag in the source frame if the lagluminosity relation in the GRB source frame exists. With 12 long GRBs detected by the
Swift
satellite, whose redshift and spectral lags in the source frame are known, we computed
L
_{0,H}
and
L
_{0,W}
using bulk Lorentz factors Γ
_{0,H}
and Γ
_{0,W}
archived in the published literature, where the subscripts H and W represent homogeneous and windlike circumburst environments, respectively. We have confirmed that the isotropic peak luminosity correlates with the spectral time lag in the source frame. We have also confirmed that there is an anticorrelation between the sourceframe spectral lag and the peak energy,
E
_{peak}
(1 +
z
) in the source frame. We have found that the collimationcorrected luminosity correlates in a similar way with the spectral lag, except that the correlations are somewhat less tight. The correlation in the wind density profile seems to agree with the isotropic peak luminosity case better than in the homogeneous case. Finally we conclude by briefly discussing its implications.
1. INTRODUCTION
Gammaray bursts (GRBs) are cosmic explosions, which are extremely energetic events occurring in a very short time, and produce highly diverse light curves. GRBs form two distinct populations: the short and long GRBs, defined on the basis of the burst duration (Kouveliotou et al. 1993). Short GRBs are distinguished from long GRBs not only by their duration, but also by various observed properties. For instance, as opposed to long GRBs, for which the isotropic equivalent gammaray energy is of the order of 10
^{53}
erg and for which the host galaxies are typically dwarf galaxies with high star formation rate (Chang 2006, Fruchter et al. 2006, Savaglio et al. 2009), short GRBs are typically less energetic (of the order of 10
^{49}
10
^{51}
erg) and occur in both early and latetype galaxies (Nakar 2007, Berger 2009, 2011). Negligible spectral lag and hard spectra are also common for short GRBs.
Several empirical correlations between various properties of the light curves in prompt gammaray emissions and GRB energetics have been discovered. Fenimore & RamirezRuiz (2000) have found that variable GRBs are much brighter than the smoother ones. Reichart et al. (2001) present a Cepheidlike luminosity estimator based on their finding that the isotropic equivalent peak luminosities positively correlate with a rigorously constructed measure of the variability. Long GRBs with spectroscopically measured redshifts show a correlation between the total isotropic energy and the peak energy of their spectrum (Amati et al. 2002), which is later confirmed with the collimated jet model (Ghirlanda et al. 2004). Yonetoku et al. (2004) have established a relation between the spectral peak energy (
E
_{peak}
) and the isotropic peak luminosity (
L
_{iso}
). The correlations involving the long GRB prompt emission energy provide a new key to understand the GRB physics. These correlations have also been suggested that long GRBs can be a new class of standard candles in a cosmological distance scale.
There is another relation which calls for a physical interpretation (Dermer 1998, Ioka & Nakamura 2001). That is, the spectral time lag has been shown to correlates with the isotropic peak luminosity for long duration bursts (Norris et al. 2000, Norris 2002, Gehrels et al. 2006, Schaefer 2007, Hakkila et al. 2008, Ukwatta et al. 2011). Spectral lag is defined as the difference in time of arrival of high and low energy photons. Recently, Margutti et al. (2010) investigated spectral lags of Xray flares and found that Xray flares of long GRBs also exhibit the lagluminosity correlation observed in the prompt emission. Most of the previous investigations, however, used lags extracted in the observerframe only until Ukwatta et al. (2010, 2012) have recently presented an analysis of the lagluminosity relation in the GRB source frame based on a sample of
Swift
long GRBs with measured spectroscopic redshifts,
L
∝τ
^{a}
. Their analysis indicates a higher degree of correlation 0.82 ± 0.05 between spectral lag and the isotropic peak luminosity,
L
_{iso}
, with a bestfit powerlaw index of 1.2 ± 0.2. In addition, an anticorrelation between the sourceframe spectral lag and the peak energy in the source frame is also reported.
In this study, we revisit the analysis of Ukwatta et al. (2012) using the collimationcorrected peak luminosity instead of the isotropic one, in order to check if the jet model may conform the relation or even yield a more robust correlation. The compactness problem requires that GRBs are relativistic sources. From this argument lower limits of bulk Lorentz factor Γ
_{0}
of the fireball are usually derived greater than of order of 100 (Lithwick & Sari 2001). Large Lorentz factors imply strong beaming of the radiation, i.e., relativistic Doppler beaming effect. The observational evidence supporting this idea is the achromatic break of the afterglow light curve, which declines more steeply than in the spherical case (Rhoads 1997, Sari et al. 1999, Panaitescu & Kumar 2001, Frail et al. 2003). The possibility that GRB fireballs are collimated was first proposed for GRB 970508 (Waxman et al. 1998). Hence, if this is the case, it seems natural that the jet should play a crucial role in determining such a relation.
To tackle this issue, we study here two cases of Γ
_{0}
estimated from the shape of the light curve in two different density profiles, i.e., homogeneous interstellar medium (ISM) and varying ISM in density. Generically, a circumburst density profile is described by
n
(
r
) =
n
_{0}
. While a wind density profile of
n
(
r
) =
n
*
r
^{2}
is expected from a massive star progenitor that undergoes strong wind mass losses during the final stages of its life (Chevalier & Li 1999). Even though, it is not possible at the present stage to conclusively prefer the wind ISM to the homogeneous ISM case, Nava et al. (2006) showed, with 18 long GRBs, that the collimationcorrected
E
_{peak}

E
correlation (so called ‘Ghirlanda’ correlation) has a smaller scatter and a linear slope when computed under the assumption of the W compared to the H case. It is also, therefore, important to compare the estimates of Γ
_{0}
and further the comoving frame energetics in these two possible scenarios.
2. SPECTRAL LAG IN THE SOURCE FRAME AND DATA
The observed spectral lag is extracted between two arbitrary energy bands in the observer frame in the first place. There are three well known ways of extracting spectral lags: pulse peakfit method (Norris et al. 2005, Hakkila et al. 2008), Fourier analysis method (Li et al. 2004), and crosscorrelation function analysis method (Cheng et al. 1995, Band 1997). These two energy bands can correspond to a different pair of energy bands in the GRB source frame due to the cosmological redshift. Therefore, two corrections are required: 1) correct for the time dilation effect by multiplying the extracted lag value (in the observer frame) by (1 +
z
)
^{1}
(zcorrection), and 2) take into account the fact that for GRBs with various redshifts, observed energy bands correspond to different energy bands at the GRB source frame (Kcorrection). The second correction is not so straightforward. Gehrels et al. (2006) attempted to approximately correct the spectral lag by multiplying the lag value in the observer frame by (1 +
z
)
^{0.33}
. The approximate Kcorrection is based on the assumption that spectral lag is proportional to the pulse width and the pulse width is proportional to the energy (Fenimore et al. 1995, Zhang et al. 2009). An alternative is to make the Kcorrection by defining two energy bands in the GRB source frame to project those two bands into the observer frame and extract lags between them using the relation
E
_{observer}
=
E
_{source}
/ (1 +
z
), as in Ukwatta et al. (2010, 2012). They selected two sourceframe energy bands (100200 keV and 300400 keV) of
Swift
data to extract lags.
In this paper we present a study of spectral lags using a subset of
Swift
burst alert telescope data. The launch of the
Swift
satellite (Gehrels et al. 2004) ushered in a new era of GRB research. Since we want to study the energetics, and spectral lags of GRBs in the source frame, our first requirement is to know the redshift
z
. The second selection criterion of GRBs is that the bulk Lorentz factor Γ
_{0}
is known, which can be calculated using the measured peak time of their afterglow light curves. We adopt two possible scenarios, as mentioned above, for the estimate of Γ
_{0}
: the case of a homogeneous circumburst medium (H) or a wind
Sample of GRBs.Columns 1 and 2 show the gammaray burst (GRB) name and its redshift, column 3 the extracted spectral lags in ms, column 4 the rest frame peak energy Epeakin eV, and column 5 the isotropic equivalent luminosityLiso. In columns 6 and 7 we show the Γ0factor in the H case and in the W case, respectively.
Sample of GRBs. Columns 1 and 2 show the gammaray burst (GRB) name and its redshift, column 3 the extracted spectral lags in ms, column 4 the rest frame peak energy E_{peak} in eV, and column 5 the isotropic equivalent luminosity L_{iso}. In columns 6 and 7 we show the Γ_{0} factor in the H case and in the W case, respectively.
density profile (W). We have searched in the literature for this criterion and taken them from Ghirlanda et al. (2012). For spectral lags, thirdly, we have taken data of GRBs from Ukwatta et al. (2010, 2012). Finally, we only choose GRBs whose spectral lag is positive, i.e., only those in whose light curves the highenergy photons arrive earlier than the low energy ones.
The spectral information for the 12 bursts used in this paper is given in
Table 1
. Columns 1 and 2 show the GRB name and its redshift, column 3 the extracted spectral lags in ms, column 4 the rest frame peak energy
E
_{peak}
in keV, and column 5 the isotropic equivalent luminosity Liso. In columns 6 and 7 we show the Γ
_{0}
factor in the H case (column 6) and in the W case (column 7) assuming a typical density value
n
_{0}
= 3 cm
^{3}
and a typical radiative efficiency η = 0.2. This sample used in our analysis has redshifts ranging from 0.540 (GRB 090618) to 3.913 (GRB 060210) with an average redshift of 1.467. The values of Γ
_{0}
are broadly distributed between few tens and several hundreds with average values 115 and 60 for the homogeneous and wind density profiles, respectively.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In
Fig. 1
, we show the sourceframe peak energy
E
_{peak}
versus spectral lag for 12 GRBs in loglog plot. The straight line represents the bestfit of data obtained by the linear leastsquares method. As reported earlier, there is an anticorrelation between the sourceframe spectral lag and the peak energy,
E
_{peak}
(1 +
z
) in the source frame. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient for this relation is 0.55 with a chance probability of 0.033. The bestfit powerlaw index is 0.39 ±
Correlation coefficients of the lag  Epeakrelation.
Correlation coefficients of the lag  E_{peak} relation.
Source frame peak energy E_{peak} versus spectral lag. The straight line represents the bestfit of data obtained by the linear leastsquares method. The uncertainty in the slope is 0.25.
Source frame peak luminosity L_{iso} versus spectral lag. The uncertainty in the slope is 0.33.
0.19. For comparison with results of Ukwatta et al. (2012), they reported the Pearson’s coefficient of 0.57 ± 0.14 for the 43 long GRBs, which can be considered as a parent sample of ours. We provide various correlation coefficient of the relations with null probabilities in
Table 2
.
In
Fig. 2
, we show the sourceframe isotropic peak luminosity Liso versus spectral lag in loglog plot. The straight line is the bestfit of data. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient for this relation is 0.75 with a null hypothesis
Source frame peak luminosity L_{0,H} versus spectral lag. The uncertainty in the slope is 0.29.
Correlation coefficients of the lag  Lisorelation.
Correlation coefficients of the lag  L_{iso} relation.
Correlation coefficients of the lag  L0,Hrelation.
Correlation coefficients of the lag  L_{0,H} relation.
Correlation coefficients of the lag  L0,Wrelation
Correlation coefficients of the lag  L_{0,W} relation
probability of being uncorrelated of 0.0027 (for the correlation coefficients, e.g., see Press et al. [1992]). The bestfit powerlaw index is 0.91 ± 0.26. The extracted correlation coefficient is compatible with the correlation coefficient of 0.82 ± 0.05 reported in Ukwatta et al. (2012). According to
Figs. 1
and
2
we consider our sample is hardly biased, even though GRBs are selected according to the criteria we provided in the last section. Various correlation coefficient of the relations with null probabilities are provided in
Table 3
.
In
Figs. 3
and
4
, we show the sourceframe peak luminosity
L
_{0,H}
and
L
_{0,W}
versus spectral lag in loglog plot, respectively. The subscripts H and W represent homogeneous and windlike circumburst environments, respectively. We computed collimated peak luminosity
Source frame peak luminosity L_{0,W} versus spectral lag. The uncertainty in the slope is 0.24.
using Γ
_{0,H}
and Γ
_{0,w }
in
Table 1
. The straight lines are the bestfits of data. The Pearson’s correlation coefficients for these relations are 0.42 and 0.61 with chance probabilities of 0.08 and 0.001, respectively. The bestfit powerlaw indices are 0.39 ± 0.26 and 0.53 ± 0.21, respectively. We provide various correlation coefficients of the relation with null probabilities in
Tables 4
and
5
. We find that the collimationcorrected luminosity correlates in a similar way with spectral lag, except that the correlations are somewhat less tight. The correlation in the wind density profile seems to agree with the isotropic peak luminosity case better than in the homogeneous case. There are two important changes in the lagluminosity relation which may occur when going from isotropic energy to collimated energy in the source frame, i.e., a change in the powerlaw index, and a change in the correlation coefficient. This correlation can shed light on the still uncertain radiation processes for the prompt GRB emission (Nava et al. 2006).
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Using a sample of 43
Swift
GRBs, Ukwatta et al. (2012) found that the correlation coefficient improves significantly in the source frame. Since GRBs are generally thought to be beamed, it is natural to expect that the collimationcorrected peak luminosity may well correlate with the spectral time lag in the source frame if the lagluminosity relation in the GRB source frame exists. We revisit the analysis of Ukwatta et al. (2012) using the collimationcorrected peak luminosity instead of the isotropic one. Using 12 long GRBs detected by the
Swift
satellite, whose redshift and spectral lags in the source frame are known, we derived
L
_{0,H}
and
L
_{0,W}
using bulk Lorentz factors Γ
_{0,H}
and
L
_{0,W}
archived in the published literature. By doing so, one may expect an extension from Ukwatta relation to another, such as, one from Amati relation to Ghirlanda relation.
We have found that our sample is hardly biased, since correlation coefficients for the relation between the sourceframe peak luminosity
L
_{iso}
and spectral lag are compatible with the correlation coefficients reported in Ukwatta et al. (2012). We have also confirmed that there is an anticorrelation between the sourceframe spectral lag and the peak energy,
E
_{peak}
(1 +
z
) in the source frame. In the present analysis we have found that the collimationcorrected luminosity correlates in a similar way with spectral lag, except that the correlations are somewhat less tight. The correlation in the wind density profile seems to agree with the isotropic peak luminosity case better than in the homogeneous case. This finding corresponds to earlier report by Nava et al. (2006) that the collimationcorrected
E
_{peak}
–
E
correlation has a smaller scatter when computed under the assumption of the W compared to the H case. Even if several ideas have been already discussed in the literature, this correlation would contribute to understand the underlying radiation process of the prompt emission of GRBs in the source frame.
Acknowledgements
HYC was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean government (NRF20110008123) and also thanks the anonymous referees for critical comments and helpful suggestions which greatly improve the original version of the manuscript.
Amati L
,
Frontera F
,
Tavani M
,
in't Zand JJM
,
Antonelli A
(2002)
Intrinsic spectra and energetics of BeppoSAX gammaray bursts with known redshifts
A&A
390
81 
89
Band DL
(1997)
Gammaray burst spectral evolution through crosscorrelations of discriminator light curves
ApJ
486
928 
937
Berger E
(2009)
The host galaxies of shortduration gammaray bursts: luminosities, metallicities, and starformation rates
ApJ
690
231 
237
Berger E
(2011)
The environments of shortduration gammaray bursts and implications for their progenitors
NewAR
55
1 
22
Chang HY
(2006)
The peak energyduration correlation and possible implications on gamma ray burst progenitor
JASS
23
167 
176
Cheng LX
,
Ma YQ
,
Cheng KS
,
Lu T
,
Zhou YY
(1995)
The time delay of gammaray bursts in the soft energy band
A&A
300
746 
750
Chevalier RA
,
Li ZY
(1999)
Gammaray burst environments and progenitors
ApJ
520
L29 
L32
Dermer CD
(1998)
On spectral and temporal variability in blazars and gammaray bursts
ApJ
501
L157 
L160
Fenimore EE
,
in't Zand JJM
,
Norris JP
,
Bonnell JT
,
Nemiroff RJ
(1995)
Gammaray burst peak duration as a function of energy
ApJ
448
L101 
L104
Fenimore EE
,
RamirezRuiz E
(2000)
Redshifts for 220 BATSE gammaray bursts determined by variability and the cosmological consequences
http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0004176v2
Frail DA
,
Kulkarni SR
,
Berger E
,
Wieringa MH
(2003)
A complete catalog of radio afterglows: the first five years
AJ
125
2299 
2306
Fruchter AS
,
Levan AJ
,
Strolger L
,
Vreeswijk PM
,
Thorsett SE
(2006)
Long gammaray bursts and corecollapse supernovae have different environments
Natur
441
463 
468
Gehrels N
,
Chincarini G
,
Giommi P
,
Mason KO
,
Nousek JA
(2004)
The swift gammaray burst mission
ApJ
611
1005 
1020
Gehrels N
,
Norris JP
,
Barthelmy SD
,
Granot J
,
Kaneko Y
(2006)
A new gammaray burst classification scheme from GRB060614
Natur
444
1044 
1046
Ghirlanda G
,
Ghisellini G
,
Lazzati D
(2004)
The collimationcorrected GRB energies correlate with the peak energy of their ν Fνspectrum
ApJ
616
331 
338
Ghirlanda G
,
Nava L
,
Ghisellini G
,
Celotti A
,
Burlon D
(2012)
Gammaray bursts in the comoving frame
MNRAS
420
483 
494
Hakkila J
,
Giblin TW
,
Norris JP
,
Fragile PC
,
Bonnell JT
(2008)
Correlations between lag, luminosity, and duration in gammaray burst pulses
ApJ
677
L81 
L84
Ioka K
,
Nakamura T
(2001)
Peak luminosityspectral lag relation caused by the viewing angle of the collimated gammaray bursts
ApJ
554
L163 
L167
Kouveliotou C
,
Meegan CA
,
Fishman GJ
,
Bhat NP
,
Briggs MS
(1993)
Identification of two classes of gammaray bursts
ApJ
413
L101 
L104
Li TP
,
Qu JL
,
Feng H
,
Song LM
,
Ding GQ
(2004)
Timescale analysis of spectral lags
ChJAA
4
583 
598
Lithwick Y
,
Sari R
(2001)
Lower limits on lorentz factors in gammaray bursts
ApJ
555
540 
545
Margutti R
,
Guidorzi C
,
Chincarini G
,
Bernardini MG
,
Genet F
(2010)
Lagluminosity relation in gammaray burst Xray flares: a direct link to the prompt emission
MNRAS
406
2149 
2167
Nakar E
(2007)
Shorthard gammaray bursts
PhR
442
166 
236
Nava L
,
Ghisellini G
,
Ghirlanda G
,
Tavecchio F
,
Firmani C
(2006)
On the interpretation of spectralenergy correlations in long gammaray bursts
A&A
450
471 
481
Norris JP
(2002)
Implications of the lagluminosity relationship for unified gammaray burst paradigms
ApJ
579
386 
403
Norris JP
,
Bonnell JT
,
Kazanas D
,
Scargle JD
,
Hakkila J
(2005)
Longlag, widepulse gammaray bursts
ApJ
627
324 
345
Norris JP
,
Marani GF
,
Bonnell JT
(2000)
Connection between energydependent lags and peak luminosity in gammaray bursts
ApJ
534
248 
257
Panaitescu A
,
Kumar P
(2001)
Fundamental physical parameters of collimated gammaray burst afterglows
ApJ
560
L49 
L53
Press WH
,
Flannery BP
,
Teukolsky SA
,
Vetterling WT
1992
Numerical recipes in FORTRAN
Cambridge University Press
Cambridge
Reichart DE
,
Lamb DQ
,
Fenimore EE
,
RamirezRuiz E
,
Cline TL
(2001)
A possible cepheidlike luminosity estimator for the long gammaray bursts
ApJ
552
57 
71
Rhoads JE
(1997)
How to tell a jet from a balloon: a proposed test for beaming in gammaray bursts
ApJ
487
L1 
L4
Sari R
,
Piran T
,
Halpern JP
(1999)
Jets in gammaray bursts
ApJ
519
L17 
L20
Savaglio S
,
Glazebrook K
,
Le Borgne D
(2009)
The galaxy population hosting gammaray bursts
ApJ
691
182 
211
Schaefer BE
(2007)
The Hubble diagram to redshift > 6 from 69 gammaray bursts
ApJ
660
16 
46
Ukwatta TN
,
Dhuga KS
,
Morris DC
,
MacLachlan G
,
Parke WC
(2011)
A new frequencyluminosity relation for long gammaray bursts?
MNRAS
412
875 
882
Ukwatta TN
,
Dhuga KS
,
Stamatikos M
,
Dermer CD
,
Sakamoto T
(2012)
The lagluminosity relation in the GRB source frame: an investigation with Swift BAT bursts
MNRAS
419
614 
623
Ukwatta TN
,
Stamatikos M
,
Dhuga KS
,
Sakamoto T
,
Barthelmy SD
(2010)
Spectral lags and the lagluminosity relation: an investigation with swift BAT gammaray bursts
ApJ
711
1073 
1086
Waxman E
,
Kulkarni SR
,
Frail DA
(1998)
Implications of the radio afterglow from the gammaray burst of 1997 May 8
ApJ
497
288 
293
Yonetoku D
,
Murakami T
,
Nakamura T
,
Yamazaki R
,
Inoue AK
(2004)
Gammaray burst formation rate inferred from the spectral peak energypeak luminosity relation
ApJ
609
935 
951
Zhang B
,
Zhang BB
,
Virgili FJ
,
Liang EW
,
Kann DA
(2009)
Discerning the physical origins of cosmological gammaray bursts based on multiple observational criteria: the cases of z = 6.7 GRB 080913, z = 8.2 GRB 090423, and some short/hard GRBs
ApJ
703
1696 
1724