Free Access
Volume 626, June 2019
Article Number A12
Number of page(s) 6
Section Astrophysical processes
Published online 05 June 2019

© ESO 2019

1. Introduction

Soon after its launch, the Fermi satellite has been detecting1 about 14 gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) per year on average with its Large Area Telescope (LAT) in the high-energy (HE) range between a few MeV to 100 GeV (Ackermann et al. 2013). The Fermi/LAT GRBs confirm the detections by the Astro Rivelatore Gamma ad Immagini Leggero (Agile/GRID – Giuliani et al. 2008, 2010; Del Monte et al. 2011) and the earlier results of the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory/EGRET (Sommer et al. 1994; Hurley et al. 1994; González et al. 2003). Until very recently, observations of GRBs emission at very high energies (VHE) by Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (IACT) resulted only in upper limits (Aliu et al. 2014; Carosi et al. 2015; Hoischen et al. 2017). GRB 190114C is the first burst detected at > 300 GeV by the Major Atmospheric Gamma Imaging Cherenkov Telescopes (MAGIC; Mirzoyan et al. 2019).

Gammy-ray burst emission in the 100 MeV–100 GeV energy range as detected by LAT typically starts with a short delay with respect to the trigger time of the keV–MeV component (Omodei 2009; Ghisellini et al. 2010; Ghirlanda et al. 2010) and extends until after the prompt emission. This behavior has also been observed in short GRBs (Ghirlanda et al. 2010; Ackermann et al. 2010). While the early HE emission (simultaneous with the keV–MeV component) shows some variability, its long-lasting tail decays smoothly. A possible transition from an early steep decay (∝t−1.5) to a shallower regime (∝t−1) has been reported (Ghisellini et al. 2010; Ackermann et al. 2013) and a faster temporal decay in brighter bursts has been claimed (Panaitescu 2017).

During the prompt emission phase (as detected, e.g., by the Gamma Ray Burst Monitor, GBM, on board the Fermi satellite), the LAT spectrum can either be the extension above 100 MeV of the typical sub-MeV GRB spectrum (which is usually fitted with the Band function; Band et al. 1993), or it requires an additional spectral component in the form of a power law (PL), as in GRB 080916C, 110713A (Ackermann et al. 2013), 090926A (Yassine et al. 2017), and 130427A (Ackermann et al. 2014). In a few bursts, this additional PL component has been found to extend to the X-ray range (< 20 keV; e.g., 090510, Ackermann et al. 2010, and 090902B, Abdo et al. 2009). When the prompt emission has ceased, the LAT spectrum is often fit by a PL with photon index ΓPL ∼ −2.

The interpretation of the HE emission of GRBs is still debated (see Nava 2018 for a review). It has been proposed that the LAT emission that extends after the end of the prompt emission is the afterglow that is produced in the external shock that is driven by the jet into the circum-burst medium (Kumar & Barniol Duran 2009, 2010; Ghisellini et al. 2010). The mechanism that causes this might be synchrotron emission. The correlation of the LAT luminosity with the prompt emission energy (Nava et al. 2014) and the direct modeling of the broadband spectral energy distribution (initially in a few bursts, Kumar & Barniol Duran 2009, 2010 and then in a larger sample Beniamini et al. 2015) support the hypothesis of a synchrotron origin.

A possible problem with the synchrotron interpretation are VHE photons (tens of GeV), which exceed the theoretical limit of synchrotron emission from shock-accelerated electrons. This limit is ∼70 MeV in the comoving frame (Guilbert et al. 1983, see also de Jager et al. 1996; Lyutikov 2010 for a lower value of about 30 MeV), but downstream magnetic field stratification (Kumar et al. 2012) or acceleration in magnetic reconnection layers (Uzdensky et al. 2011; Cerutti et al. 2013) can alleviate this apparent discrepancy.

The deceleration of the jet by the interstellar medium is expected to produce a peak in the afterglow light curve at a time tp that corresponds to the transition from the coasting to the deceleration phase (Sari & Piran 1999). tp depends on the blast wave kinetic energy Ek, on the density of the circum-burst medium (and its radial profile), and on the initial bulk Lorentz factor Γ0 (representing the maximum velocity that the jet attained, i.e., that of the coasting phase). Therefore, by deducing EK from the prompt emission and making an assumption on the circum-burst medium density, it is possible to estimate Γ0 (Molinari et al. 2007; Ghirlanda et al. 2012, 2018) for large samples of GRBs.

If the GeV component is afterglow produced by the external shock, the time tp provides an estimate of Γ0 (see also Nava et al. 2017), as shown for the first time in the case of the LAT-detected GRB 090510 (Ghirlanda et al. 2010). The shorter tp, the larger Γ0: LAT bursts have the shortest times tp (Ghirlanda et al. 2018) and therefore provide the highest values of Γ0 up to ∼1200 (GRB 090510 – Ghirlanda et al. 2018). As discussed in Ghisellini et al. (2010), this might indicate that a large Γ0 helps to accelerate very high energy electrons, which emit at high photon energies. Furthermore, even a small fraction of photons of the prompt phase can be scattered by the circum-burst medium and act as targets for the γγ to e± process: this enhances the lepton abundance of the medium, thus making shock acceleration of the leptons more efficient (Beloborodov 2005; Ghisellini et al. 2010).

While the LAT emission, which in some cases is detected up to hours after the end of the prompt, seems to be of external origin, a possible challenge is the interpretation of the early LAT emission that is detected during the prompt phase. It has been argued (Zhang et al. 2011; He et al. 2011) that the very early LAT emission has an internal origin (Bošnjak et al. 2009) because it can be due to inverse Compton-scattered synchrotron photons of the prompt (SSC). The delay of the GeV emission as measured by LAT could be explained by inverse Compton emission that occurred in the Klein–Nishina regime at early times (Daigne 2012; Bošnjak et al. 2009). While recent findings seem to support a synchrotron origin of keV–MeV photons (Oganesyan et al. 2017, 2018; Ravasio et al. 2018), the presence of a soft excess (< 50 keV) that is clearly detected so far in GRB 090902B (Abdo et al. 2009), GRB 090510 (Ackermann et al. 2010), and GRB 090926A (Yassine et al. 2017), represents a challenge for the SSC interpretation (but see Toma et al. 2011) and would be more easily interpreted as the low-energy extension of the GeV afterglow component.

This paper is based on the study of the emission of GRB 190114C (Sect. 2) as detected by the GBM in the 10 keV–40 MeV energy range, up to 61 s after the trigger. We also consider data from the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) and the X-Ray Telescope (XRT) on board the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory in three time intervals. While the properties of GRB 190114C are similar to other bursts detected by LAT, emission that might extend up to the TeV energy range as detected by MAGIC (Mirzoyan et al. 2019) makes this event unique so far. Data extraction and analysis are presented in Sect. 3 and in Sect. 4, where we show the appearance and temporal evolution of a nonthermal power-law spectral component starting from 4 s after the trigger. In Sect. 5 we discuss our results and their implications.

2. GRB 190114C

On 14 January 2019 at 20:57:03 UT, both the Fermi/GBM and the Swift/BAT were triggered by GRB 190114C (Hamburg et al. 2019; Gropp et al. 2019). The burst was also detected in hard X-rays by the SPI-ACS instrument on board INTEGRAL, with evidence for long-lasting emission (Minaev & Pozanenko 2019), by the Mini-CALorimeter (MCAL) instrument on board the AGILE satellite (Ursi et al. 2019), by the Hard X-ray Modulation Telescope (HXMT) instrument on board the Insight satellite (Xiao et al. 2019), and by Konus-Wind (Frederiks et al. 2019).

Remarkably, this burst was the first to be detected at very high energies by a Cherenkov telescope: MAGIC was able to point the source 50 s after the Swift trigger, revealing the burst with a significance > 20σ at energies > 300 GeV (Mirzoyan et al. 2019). The burst was also detected by LAT. It remained in its field of view until 150 s after the GBM trigger (Kocevski et al. 2019).

The redshift was first measured by the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT; Selsing et al. 2019) (soon confirmed by the Gran Telescopio Canarias, GTC; Castro-Tirado et al. 2019), with the value z = 0.4245 ± 0.0005.

The fluence (integrated in the 10–1000 keV energy range) measured by the GBM is 3.99 × 10−4 ± 8 × 10−7 erg cm−2 and the peak photon flux (with 1 s binning in the same energy range) is 246.86 ± 0.86 cm−2 s−1 (Hamburg et al. 2019). As reported in Hamburg et al. (2019), the corresponding isotropic equivalent energy and luminosity are Eiso  ∼  3 × 1053 erg and Liso  ∼  1 × 1053 erg s−1, respectively. These values make this burst consistent with the EpeakEiso (Amati et al. 2002) and EpeakLiso (Yonetoku et al. 2004) correlations (Frederiks et al. 2019).

The prompt emission of GRB 190114C is characterized by a first (multi-peaked) pulse that lasted ∼5.5 s, followed by a second weaker and softer pulse from 15 to 22 s after trigger (as shown in the top panel of Fig. 1), and then a weaker and long tail that lasted up to some hundreds of seconds (Hamburg et al. 2019; Minaev & Pozanenko 2019).

thumbnail Fig. 1.

Spectral evolution of GRB 190114C. Two spectral components are shown: smoothly broken power law (SBPL, red symbols) and power law (PL, blue circles). 1σ errors are shown. Panel A: count rate light curve (black solid line for GBM NaI detector 3 and purple solid line for GBM BGO detector 0). Panel B: flux (integrated in the 10 keV–40 MeV energy range) of the two spectral components. The green line is a power law with slope −2.8 up to 15 s, with slope −1 when the decay of the flux is shallower. Panel C: temporal evolution of the spectral photon index of the SBPL (red and black symbols) and of the PL (blue symbols). Panel D: evolution of the peak energy (Epeak) of the SBPL model.

3. Data analysis

3.1. Fermi/GBM

The GBM is composed of 12 sodium iodide (NaI, 8 keV–1 MeV) and 2 bismuth germanate (BGO, 200 keV–40 MeV) scintillation detectors (Meegan et al. 2009). We analyzed the data of the three brightest NaI detectors with a viewing angle smaller than 60° (n3, n4, and n7) and both the BGO detectors (b0 and b1). In particular, we selected the energy channels in the range 8–900 keV for NaI detectors, excluding the channels in the range 25–40 keV because of the iodine K–edge at 33.17 keV2 and 0.3–40 MeV for BGO detectors. Spectral data files and the corresponding response matrix files (.rsp2) were obtained from the online archive3, and the spectral analysis was performed with the public software RMFIT- (v. 4.3.2). To model the background, we selected background spectra in time intervals well before and after the burst (≈−130: −10 s and 210:370 s from the trigger time) and modeled them with a polynomial function up to the third order. We used time-tagged event (TTE) data, and rebinned them with a time resolution of 0.3 s during the first emission episode of the burst. After the first emission episode, we rebinned the data in progressively longer time bins up to the second minor peak of the light curve (from ∼15 s to ∼23 s), which was analyzed as a single bin. Finally, we analyzed the 23–61 s time interval as two consecutive time bins (23–47 s and 47–61 s).

3.2. Swift: BAT and XRT data

We also considered BAT data extracted for three time bins, 6–6.3 s, 47–61 s, and 87–232 s, both as a check of the consistency with the parameters of the fit obtained in the same time intervals from GBM data and as a way to extend our analysis to later times. We downloaded BAT event files from the Swift data archive4. To extract BAT spectra, we used the latest version of the HEASOFT package (v6.25). We generated BAT spectral files with the batbinevt task, applying the correction for systematic errors with the batupdatephakw and batphasyserr tasks. We generated response files with the batdrmgen tool. We adopted the latest calibration files (CALDB release 2017–10–16).

In addition, we retrieved XRT event files from the Swift/XRT archive5. The source and background files were extracted with the xselect tool. We removed the central region of the XRT image to avoid pile-up effects, following the procedure described in Romano et al. (2006). We generated an ancillary response file with the xrtmkarf task. We excluded all the channels below 1.5 keV because an apparent low-energy excess has been reported in Beardmore (2019). We then rebinned the energy channels using the grppha tool, requiring at least 40 counts per bin.

We used the multiplicative XSPEC models tbabs and ztbabs to account for Galactic and intrinsic absorption of the X-ray spectrum by neutral hydrogen (Wilms et al. 2000). The value of Galactic neutral hydrogen column density in the direction of GRB 190114C was found from Kalberla et al. (2005). The intrinsic column density 7.7 × 1022 cm−2 was estimated by fitting the late-time X-ray spectrum (5.6 × 104 − 5.7 × 105 s).

3.3. Fitting models

A preliminary analysis of the GBM spectrum was reported in Hamburg et al. (2019): the time-integrated spectrum from 0 to 38.59 s (which includes the two pulses of the burst but also the inter-pulse interval) was fit with a Band function, finding Epeak = 998.6 ± 11.9 keV, α = −1.058 ± 0.003, and β = −3.18 ± 0.07. In addition, the authors also reported a strong statistical preference for an extra power-law component.

In our time-resolved analysis, we fit the spectra with a smoothly broken power-law (SBPL, see Ravasio et al. 2018 for a description of the functional form). The SBPL is one of the empirical functions that is generally used to model GRB spectra (Kaneko et al. 2006; Gruber et al. 2014). The SBPL is made of two power laws, with spectral indices α and β, which are smoothly connected at the break energy (usually corresponding to the νFν peak of the spectrum, Epeak). As in Ravasio et al. (2018), the curvature parameter was kept fixed at n = 2.

Because an additional power-law component was reported in Hamburg et al. (2019), we also added an additional power-law component in the fitting procedure, with two free parameters, the normalization N and the spectral index ΓPL.

4. Results

Figure 1 shows the results of the time-resolved spectral analysis of GBM data. We find that all spectra belonging to the first emission episode (from 0 s to 4.8 s) are reasonably well fit by an SBPL model and no additional power-law component is required. The low- and high-energy spectral indices of the SBPL model are shown in panel C of Fig. 1 (red and black symbols, respectively). Their values are consistent with the typical distributions obtained from the analysis of large samples of GBM bursts (Goldstein et al. 2012; Gruber et al. 2014; Nava et al. 2011; Kaneko et al. 2006). The peak energy (panel D in Fig. 1) evolves and tracks the flux of the light curve, with an average value of Epeak = 510 ± 170 keV.

The additional power-law component starts in the 4.8–5.4 s and 5.4–6.0 s time bins, where the superposition of an SBPL and a PL component is preferred over the SBPL component alone (an F-test yields a 6 and 7.5σ preference for the SBPL+PL model in the first and second bin, respectively).

The power-law component reaches its peak in the time bin 6–6.3 s, with a flux of 1.7 ± 0.2 × 10−5 erg cm−2 s−1, integrated in the energy range 10 keV–40 MeV. From 6.3 s onward, the spectrum is well fit (p-value > 0.3 in all bins) by a single power-law PL component, with no increase in the goodness of fit when the SBPL component is added. Moreover, when we tried to fit with the SBPL function, the peak energy Epeak was completely unconstrained, and the values found for the two spectral indices α and β are consistent with each other within the errors. The single power-law spectral slope is shown by the blue symbols in panel C of Fig. 1. Its 10 keV–40 MeV flux is shown by the blue symbols in panel B.

The average spectral slope of the PL component in the time interval 4.8–15.3 s is ΓPL = −1.81 ± 0.08, similar to the spectral slope found in the LAT data (at > 100 MeV, Kocevski et al. 2019) in the same time interval (Wang et al. 2019). After ∼10 s, the slope of the power law becomes constant and settles at the −2 value, again similar to the LAT index. The second emission episode was fit by an SBPL, with α = −1.51 ± 0.06, β = −2.33 ± 0.06, and Epeak = 63 ± 3 keV. The parameters of the additional power law were not constrained, and the fit did not improve when it was included. After 22.8 s, the spectrum was again well fit by a power law alone, with index ΓPL ∼ −2. The flux of the PL component (panel B of Fig. 1) decayed steeply from the peak up to 15 s (a reference green line ∝t−2.8 is shown). From 15–50 s, the temporal decay of the flux was consistent with t−1.0.

We also added BAT data for the time intervals 6.0–6.3 s and 11–14 s. In both time bins, BAT+GBM data were fit together with a single PL, from which we obtained best-fit parameters that were consistent with the analysis of GBM data alone. We also verified that BAT data alone for the first time bin result in power-law parameters that were fully consistent with those derived from the fit of the GBM spectrum alone. Figure 2 shows the spectral energy distribution of the three time intervals (as labeled). Spectral data used in the fits are BAT+GBM for interval 6–6.3 s and 11–14 s. XRT+BAT+GBM spectra are shown for the last time bin (66–92 s). Wang et al. (2019) analyzed the LAT spectrum of GRB 190114C by fitting the high-energy data with a power-law model. Figure 2 also shows the LAT flux and spectral index with butterflies (including the corresponding uncertainties) for the same time intervals, to be compared with our results.

thumbnail Fig. 2.

X–ray to GeV SED of GRB 190114C at three specific times: at 6−6.3 s, when the power-law component peaks in the GBM data (see panel B of Fig. 1, blue symbols), at 11–14 s, and at 66–92 s (as labeled). We show the GBM, BAT, and XRT data (the latter deabsorbed, as described in the text). Errors and upper limits on the data points represent 1σ. The LAT butterflies represent the range of fluxes and indices of the power law reported in the analysis of Wang et al. (2019).

The GBM and BAT data appear to be connect to the LAT emission, as analyzed by Wang et al. (2019). In the two time intervals 6–6.3 s and 11–14 s, the photon indices of the LAT spectrum are ΓPL = −2.06 ± 0.30 and ΓPL = −2.10 ± 0.31, respectively, which are consistent with the values we obtained from our analysis. The LAT emission is slightly higher than the GBM extrapolation (by less than 60%: less than 2σ). Moreover, we analyzed XRT+BAT+GBM data from 66 s to 92 s to check again for consistency with the LAT flux given in Wang et al. (2019) and also to track the power-law evolution at later times. As shown in Fig. 2, the LAT flux is still consistent with extrapolation of the joint XRT+BAT+GBM data fit. From our analysis, the fit of XRT+BAT+GBM data from 66 s to 92 s with a PL function results in a spectral slope ΓPL = −2.01 ± 0.05, which is only marginally consistent with the values obtained by Wang et al. (2019) for the LAT data (ΓPL = −1.67 ± 0.27). We note, however, that the spectral slopes reported in Wang et al. (2019) have large uncertainties and show a rapid variability. In summary, Fig. 2 shows that the keV–MeV and GeV emissions have a similar time decay and similar slopes, suggesting that they belong to the same component. However, because of the uncertainties on the LAT spectral parameters reported in Wang et al. (2019), the possibility that the GeV and keV–MeV data belong to two different components cannot be excluded.

Several slightly different formulae can be used to derive the bulk Lorentz factor Γ0 of the coasting phase from the observational data. The required parameters are (i) the peak time of the light curve tp; (ii) the isotropic equivalent kinetic energy of the jet EK after the emission of the prompt radiation; (iii) the circum-burst density n, which is responsible for the deceleration of the jet, and (iv) its radial profile.

Usually, it is assumed that the observed isotropic equivalent energy radiated in the prompt phase Eiso is a fraction η of the kinetic energy, implying EK = Eiso/η, typically with η = 0.1 or 0.2. The density is assumed to have a radial profile n ∝ Rs (R is the distance from the central engine originating the GRB). We considered the case of a uniform density (s = 0), or a steady stellar wind density profile (s = 2). In the latter case, the density depends on the mass rate w of the wind and its velocity vw (Chevalier & Li 2000), n(R) = w/(4πvwR2mp).

The different formulae used to calculate Γ0 have been thoroughly discussed in Ghirlanda et al. (2018). As in that paper, we used the formula derived in Nava et al. (2013)


which for the two different cases of homogeneous medium (s = 0) and wind density profile (s = 2), becomes



Here tp is measured in the source cosmological rest frame, that is, tp, z = tp/(1 + z), mp is the mass of the proton, and n0 is the normalization of the circum-burst density profile, that is, n(R) = n0Rs.

Assuming Eiso = 2.6 × 1053 erg calculated from 0 to 6 s, η = 0.2, tp = 6 s, through Eq. (1) we estimate Γ0 ∼ 700 ± 26 (520 ± 20) in the case of a homogeneous medium with density n = 1 cm−3 (n = 10 cm−3). For a wind medium with w = 10−5 M yr−1 and vw = 103 km s−1 (vw = 102 km s−1), following the relation n0 = w/4πvwmp, the initial bulk Lorentz factor is Γ0 ∼ 230 ± 6 (130 ± 3). The errors are only statistical and were calculated using the uncertainties on the observables Eiso and tp; the errors do not include the unknown uncertainties on parameters η and n0.

Table 2 in Ghirlanda et al. (2018) lists the coefficients that are required to calculate Γ0 for all the other proposed formulae for the homogeneous and for the wind case. The resulting Γ0 values differ at most by a factor of 2. The computed values are similar to those found for other GBRs detected by LAT, which show a peak in the light curve in the LAT energy band (Ghirlanda et al. 2018).

5. Discussion

Our results indicate that a power-law component appears at ∼4 s after trigger in the GBM data, that it peaks at 6 s, and then declines. This temporal behavior matches that of the flux above 100 MeV, as seen by the LAT. Figure 2 shows that the emission in the two detectors (GBM and LAT) joins smoothly, with a consistent slope (within the errors). It is therefore compelling to interpret the two power laws seen in LAT and GBM as belonging to a single emission component. We propose that this nonthermal emission is produced by the external shock that is driven by the jet into the circum-burst medium. Its peak marks the jet deceleration time, that is, onset time of the afterglow.

The reasons leading to this interpretation are (i) they appear after the trigger of the prompt event, and peak when most of the prompt emission energy has already been radiated; (ii) they last much longer than the prompt emission; iii) they are characterized by a spectral index (ΓPL ∼ −2) typical of the known afterglows; (iv) with the exception of the early variable phases, their light curve smoothly decays with a temporal slope typical of the known afterglows.

We remark that this is not the first time that a power law is detected in the hard X-rays in addition to the spectral components that are usually seen during the prompt emission phase. A component like this was well visible in GRB 090202B, another burst that was very strong in the LAT band (Rao et al. 2013 and references above). The observation of the onset of the afterglow in the hard X-ray band is new, however, as is that it was found to be simultaneous within the uncertainties with the peak of the LAT light curve. This is especially important in this burst because of the MAGIC detection.

Our results imply that emission in the energy range between 10 keV and 30 GeV is produced by a single mechanism. If this mechanism is synchrotron or inverse Compton emission, this in turn implies that the energy of the underlying electron distribution must extend over more than three orders of magnitude.

We also know that the MAGIC telescope revealed photons above 300 GeV (Mirzoyan et al. 2019) despite the strong absorption due to the extragalactic optical-infrared background (e.g., Franceschini et al. 2008) that is expected for z = 0.425. If the maximum synchrotron energy is hνmax = mec2/αF ∼ 70 MeV in the comoving frame, as theoretically predicted in the case of shock acceleration (Guilbert et al. 1983; de Jager et al. 1996), then the radiation above 300 GeV might be interpreted as due to another process, most likely inverse Compton or synchrotron self-Compton emission. On the other hand, the observed maximum photon energy detected by LAT, 22.9 GeV 15 s after trigger, does not violate the comoving 70 MeV limit if the bulk Lorentz factor Γ at this time is higher than 450. For this value to be consistent with Γ0, that is, the bulk Lorentz of the jet before it starts to be decelerated by the circum-burst medium, (assuming a prompt efficiency η = 0.2) the circum-burst medium must not be too dense, with a number density n ≲ 30 cm−3 in the homogeneous case, or the progenitor stellar wind to be slightly faster and/or less massive than usually assumed, to satisfy w,−5 vw,8 ≲ 0.02 (where w,−5 = w/(10−5 M yr−1) and vw, 8 = vw/(108 cm s−1)).

Alternatively, the entire spectral energy distribution from the keV to the TeV energy range could be inverse Compton emission, possibly by Compton scattering off IR–optical radiation. In this case, the MAGIC emission should connect smoothly with the LAT spectrum (i.e., it should not be harder). Therefore the MAGIC flux and spectrum will give crucial information about the origin of the entire high-energy spectrum of GRBs.


We would like to thank Lara Nava for fruitful discussions. M. E. R. is grateful to the Observatory of Brera for the kind hospitality. This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, and specifically, this work made use of public Fermi-GBM data. We acknowledge INAF-Prin 2017 ( for support and the Italian Ministry for University and Research grant “FIGARO” We also would like to thank for the support of the implementing agreement ASI-INAF n.2017-14-H.0.


  1. Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Asano, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 580 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackermann, M., Asano, K., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1178 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 11 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 42 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Aliu, E., Aune, T., Barnacka, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, L3 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  7. Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Beardmore, A. P. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23736, 23736 [Google Scholar]
  9. Beloborodov, A. M. 2005, ApJ, 627, 346 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Beniamini, P., Nava, L., Duran, R. B., & Piran, T. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1073 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bošnjak, Ž., Daigne, F., & Dubus, G. 2009, A&A, 498, 677 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  12. Carosi, A., Antonelli, A., Becerra Gonzalez, J., et al. 2015, in 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), eds. A. S. Borisov, V. G. Denisova, Z. M. Guseva, et al., Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., 34, 809 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
  13. Castro-Tirado, A. J., Hu, Y., Fernandez-Garcia, E., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23708, 23708 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cerutti, B., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 147 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chevalier, R. A., & Li, Z.-Y. 2000, ApJ, 536, 195 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Daigne, F. 2012, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser., 8, 196 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. de Jager, O. C., Harding, A. K., Michelson, P. F., et al. 1996, ApJ, 457, 253 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Del Monte, E., Barbiellini, G., Donnarumma, I., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A120 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  19. Franceschini, A., Rodighiero, G., & Vaccari, M. 2008, A&A, 487, 837 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  20. Frederiks, D., Golenetskii, S., Aptekar, R., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23737, 23737 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Nava, L. 2010, A&A, 510, L7 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 483 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ghirlanda, G., Nappo, F., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A112 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., & Celotti, A. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 926 [Google Scholar]
  25. Giuliani, A., Mereghetti, S., Fornari, F., et al. 2008, A&A, 491, L25 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  26. Giuliani, A., Fuschino, F., Vianello, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, L84 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldstein, A., Burgess, J. M., Preece, R. D., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 19 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. González, M. M., Dingus, B. L., Kaneko, Y., et al. 2003, Nature, 424, 749 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gropp, J., Kennea, J. A., Klingler, N. J., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23688, 23688 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gruber, D., Goldstein, A., Weller von Ahlefeld, V. 2014, ApJS, 211, 12 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Guilbert, P. W., Fabian, A. C., & Rees, M. J. 1983, MNRAS, 205, 593 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hamburg, R., Veres, P., Meegan, C., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23707, 23707 [Google Scholar]
  33. He, H.-N., Wu, X.-F., Toma, K., Wang, X.-Y., & Mészáros, P. 2011, ApJ, 733, 22 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoischen, C., Balzer, A., Bissaldi, E., et al. 2017, Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., 35, 636 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hurley, K., Dingus, B. L., Mukherjee, R., et al. 1994, Nature, 372, 652 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaneko, Y., Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 298 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kocevski, D., Omodei, N., Axelsson, M., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23709, 23709 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kumar, P., & Barniol Duran, R. 2009, MNRAS, 400, L75 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kumar, P., & Barniol Duran, R. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 226 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kumar, P., Hernández, R. A., Bošnjak, Ž., & Barniol Duran, R. 2012, MNRAS, 427, L40 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lyutikov, M. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1809 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
  43. Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Minaev, P., & Pozanenko, A. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23714, 23714 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mirzoyan, R., Noda, K., Moretti, E., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23701, 23701 [Google Scholar]
  46. Molinari, E., Vergani, S. D., Malesani, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, L13 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  47. Nava, L. 2018, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 27, 1842003 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Nava, L., Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A. 2011, A&A, 530, A21 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  49. Nava, L., Sironi, L., Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., & Ghirlanda, G. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2107 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. Nava, L., Vianello, G., Omodei, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3578 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Nava, L., Desiante, R., Longo, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 811 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. Oganesyan, G., Nava, L., Ghirlanda, G., & Celotti, A. 2017, ApJ, 846, 137 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  53. Oganesyan, G., Nava, L., Ghirlanda, G., & Celotti, A. 2018, A&A, 616, A138 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  54. Omodei, N. 2009, in AIP Conf. Ser., eds. D. Bastieri, &R. Rando, 1112, 8 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  55. Panaitescu, A. 2017, ApJ, 837, 13 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  56. Rao, A., Basak, R., Bhattacharya, J., et al. 2013, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 14 [Google Scholar]
  57. Ravasio, M. E., Oganesyan, G., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A16 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  58. Romano, P., Campana, S., Chincarini, G., et al. 2006, A&A, 456, 917 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  59. Sari, R., & Piran, T. 1999, ApJ, 520, 641 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  60. Selsing, J., Fynbo, J. P. U., Heintz, K. E., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23695, 23695 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sommer, M., Bertsch, D. L., Dingus, B. L., et al. 1994, ApJ, 422, L63 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  62. Toma, K., Wu, X.-F., & Mészáros, P. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1663 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  63. Ursi, A., Tavani, M., Marisaldi, M., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23712, 23712 [Google Scholar]
  64. Uzdensky, D. A., Cerutti, B., & Begelman, M. C. 2011, ApJ, 737, L40 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  65. Wang, Y., Li, L., Moradi, R., & Ruffini, R. 2019, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1901.07505] [Google Scholar]
  66. Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  67. Xiao, S., Li, C. K., Li, X. B., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 23716, 23716 [Google Scholar]
  68. Yassine, M., Piron, F., Mochkovitch, R., & Daigne, F. 2017, A&A, 606, A93 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  69. Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Nakamura, T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 935 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  70. Zhang, B.-B., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 141 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1.

Spectral evolution of GRB 190114C. Two spectral components are shown: smoothly broken power law (SBPL, red symbols) and power law (PL, blue circles). 1σ errors are shown. Panel A: count rate light curve (black solid line for GBM NaI detector 3 and purple solid line for GBM BGO detector 0). Panel B: flux (integrated in the 10 keV–40 MeV energy range) of the two spectral components. The green line is a power law with slope −2.8 up to 15 s, with slope −1 when the decay of the flux is shallower. Panel C: temporal evolution of the spectral photon index of the SBPL (red and black symbols) and of the PL (blue symbols). Panel D: evolution of the peak energy (Epeak) of the SBPL model.

In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2.

X–ray to GeV SED of GRB 190114C at three specific times: at 6−6.3 s, when the power-law component peaks in the GBM data (see panel B of Fig. 1, blue symbols), at 11–14 s, and at 66–92 s (as labeled). We show the GBM, BAT, and XRT data (the latter deabsorbed, as described in the text). Errors and upper limits on the data points represent 1σ. The LAT butterflies represent the range of fluxes and indices of the power law reported in the analysis of Wang et al. (2019).

In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.