MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021) https://doi.org/10.

1093/mnras/stab2071
Advance Access publication 2021 July 20

GRB jet structure and the jet break

Gavin P. Lamb ,1 ‹ D. Alexander Kann,2 Joseph John Fernández ,3 Ilya Mandel ,4,5,6
Andrew J. Levan7 and Nial R. Tanvir1
1 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

2 IAA-CSIC, Glorieta de la Astronomı́a, s/n, E-18008 Granada, Spain
3 Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, IC2, Liverpool Science Park, 146 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L3 5RF, UK
4 Monash Centre for Astrophysics, School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
5 OzGrav, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery, Swinburne University of Technology PO Box 218, Hawthorn,

VIC 3122, Australia

6 Institute of Gravitational Wave Astronomy and School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
7 Department of Astrophysics, Radboud University, NL-6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Accepted 2021 July 15. Received 2021 July 15; in original form 2021 April 23

ABSTRACT
We investigate the shape of the jet break in within-beam gamma-ray burst (GRB) optical afterglows for various lateral jet structure
profiles. We consider cases with and without lateral spreading and a range of inclinations within the jet core half-opening angle,
θ c . We fit model and observed afterglow light curves with a smoothly-broken power-law function with a free-parameter κ that
describes the sharpness of the break. We find that the jet break is sharper (κ is greater) when lateral spreading is included than
in the absence of lateral spreading. For profiles with a sharp-edged core, the sharpness parameter has a broad range of 0.1 ࣠ κ
࣠ 4.6, whereas profiles with a smooth-edged core have a narrower range of 0.1 ࣠ κ ࣠ 2.2 when models both with and without
lateral spreading are included. For sharp-edged jets, the jet break sharpness depends strongly on the inclination of the system
within θ c , whereas for smooth-edged jets, κ is more strongly dependent on the size of θ c . Using a sample of 20 GRBs, we find
9 candidate smooth-edged jet structures and 8 candidate sharp-edged jet structures, while the remaining 3 are consistent with
either. The shape of the jet break, as measured by the sharpness parameter κ, can be used as an initial check for the presence of
lateral structure in within-beam GRBs where the afterglow is well-sampled at and around the jet-break time.
Key words: gamma-ray burst: general.

medium, or α = 1 for a wind-like medium (Rhoads 1999; Sari

1 I N T RO D U C T I O N
et al. 1999; Gao et al. 2013). Where lateral spreading is included,
The achromatic breaks observed in the light curves of some gamma- the post-break decline index is α ≤ −p, where p is the electron
ray burst (GRB) afterglows have been used to argue that these energy spectral slope (e.g. Rhoads 1999; Sari et al. 1999; Zhang &
sources are jet-like in nature (Rhoads 1997). The observed time of the MacFadyen 2009).
afterglow jet break after the prompt GRB contains information about The shape of the jet break – how rapidly the light-curve behaviour
the angular size, θ j of the outflows that produce these transients (e.g. changes from the pre- to the post-break temporal behaviour – depends
Halpern et al. 1999; Sari, Piran & Halpern 1999; Jaunsen et al. 2001; on the angular size of the jet and the inclination of the line of sight
Panaitescu & Kumar 2002) and this knowledge of a finite angular within the jet opening angle, θ j . For a jet with sharp edges, i.e. the
size relaxes the energy requirements needed to produce cosmological energy declines rapidly or goes to zero at angles beyond θ j , the near
GRBs when assuming isotropic emission (Kulkarni et al. 1999). The edge of the jet will be viewed before the far edge for an observer
temporal index α of the light curve before a jet break, and the steeper whose line of sight is between the jet edge and the central axis. This
decline α 2 after it, provide information about the ambient medium results in a longer transition from pre- to post-jet-break behaviour,
density profile and the spectral regime of the emission (Granot & when compared with an observer that is either aligned with the central
Sari 2002) and constrain energy injection into the outflow (Zhang axis or the jet edge, and reduces the sharpness of the jet-break shape
et al. 2006). as measured via a smoothly broken power-law (PL) function (van
The change in the temporal index, α, across the jet break can Eerten & MacFadyen 2013).
be used to indicate the degree of lateral spreading perpendicular to Whilst looking at the time evolution of the temporal index for
the outflow radial motion. For a jet without any lateral spreading, the both sharp-edged and smooth-edged jets1 at various inclinations, in a
loss of flux due to the edge of the jet becoming visible as the Lorentz study focused on reverse-shock emission, Lamb & Kobayashi (2019)
factor decreases,  ≤ θj−1 , yields α = 3/4 for a uniform ambient
1A smooth-edged jet is described by a jet structure with an energy/velocity
 E-mail: [email protected] profile that varies with lateral angle, e.g. a Gaussian or PL functional form.
© 2021 The Author(s).
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Astronomical Society. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
4164 G. P. Lamb et al.
showed that the temporal index, α, for an on-axis observer exhibits Practically, the radius for a spherical, or a non-laterally spreading
different behaviour through the jet break for different jet structure conical segment, can be found using the swept-up mass and the
models. This suggests that the shape of the afterglow light curve ambient particle number density as, Ri3 = 3Mi /( nmp ), where Mi is
through the jet break for on-beam (within the jet core or opening the mass of swept-up material for step i of the solution to equation (1)
angle) cosmological GRBs could be used as an indication of lateral (we solve this using a fourth-order Runge–Kutta), n is the ambient
jet structure (see also Rossi et al. 2004). number density, and mp is the mass of a proton. Equation (1) assumes
In Section 2, we describe the methods used to generate model energy conservation, therefore a blastwave with a fixed initial energy
light curves and how we measure the shape of the jet break. In has a swept-up mass at each step that does not depend on the details

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

Section 3, we present our results including the best-fitting measure of lateral spreading.
of the jet break shape for a sample of GRB afterglows that exhibit The resultant solid angle for a uniform conical jet with lateral
an achromatic jet break. We discuss our findings in Section 4 and spreading and initial half-opening angle, θ j , is then i = 2π (1 −
conclude in Section 5. cos (θ j + θ i )); thus, where the change in radius for the blastwave
is calculated from the swept-up mass at each step in the solution
to equation (1), the effects of lateral spreading can be included by
2 METHOD scaling the change in radius for a spherical blastwave by the ratio,
( 0 / i )1/2 , where 0 is the initial solid angle.
We produce afterglow light curves for a variety of jet structure models
We split the jet into multiple small sections with angular size, θ
following the method in Lamb & Kobayashi (2017), Lamb, Mandel &
 θ j , and sum across the surface to get the afterglow light curve,
Resmi (2018b). The instantaneous Lorentz factor, , and swept-up
effectively integrating across the equal-arrival-time surface (e.g.
mass, M, of a relativistic blastwave can be found by considering
Lamb & Kobayashi 2017). The initial angular size of each section
energy and momentum conservation (Pe’er 2012; Nava et al. 2013;
is chosen so that θ  0−1 , and when calculating the ratio, 0 / i ,
Lamb et al. 2018b):
  we set θ = 0 to avoid any resolution dependence. The instantaneous
d M ln (10) γˆ ( 2 − 1) − (γˆ − 1)β 2 radial distance at each step, i, for each component of the blastwave
=      , (1)
d log10 M E/ 0 c2 + M 2γˆ  − (γˆ − 1) 1 +  −2 is then found with
  1/3
1/2
where  0 is the maximum initial Lorentz factor, E is the blastwave 0 3 1/3 1/3
Ri = Ri−1 + Mi − Mi−1 , (4)
kinetic energy, c the speed of light, β = (1 −  −2 )1/2 , the velocity as i 4πnmp
a fraction of the speed of light, and γˆ is the adiabatic index (found
using the expressions given in Pe’er 2012). where M is the swept-up mass for a spherical volume (for a non-
For a conical outflow, the kinetic energy and the swept-up mass spreading jet or spherical blastwave, the ratio 0 / i = 1). Note that
is a fixed fraction of that used in equation (1) for a spherically using the ratio θ 0 /θ i ∼ ( 0 / i )1/2 , from equation (3) gives an
symmetric system. The shock-heated material within the blastwave identical approximation whilst the blastwave is still relativistic,2 and
will have a significant sound speed, cs , and for a conical outflow with where θ → 0 for each component.
‘edges’, lateral spreading will occur. By assuming four different jet structure profiles,3 as in Lamb &
√ For an ideal relativistic plasma, Kobayashi (2017, 2019), we generate on-axis afterglow light curves
the sound-speed limit is cs = c/ 3, and the instantaneous sound
speed can be found by assuming an ideal equation of state, P ∝ ρ γˆ , with and without lateral spreading to check for differences between
where P is the pressure and ρ is the density, and cs = (γˆ P /ρ)1/2 . the models. The fiducial parameters are as follows: the isotropic
Using the strong relativistic shock conditions, with P = (γˆ − 1)( − equivalent energy for a point on the central axis of the jet, Ec =
1)ρ0 c2 and ρ = ρ0 + γˆ P /(c2 [γˆ − 1]), the sound speed in terms of 1052 erg; the bulk Lorentz factor at the central jet axis,  0 = 100; the
√
the Lorentz factor and adiabatic index is then microphysical parameters, εe = εB = 0.1; the electron distribution
 2 1 / 2 index, p = 2.5; and a uniform ambient density, n = 10−3 cm−3 ; a jet
c γˆ (γˆ − 1)( − 1) core opening angle of θ c = 0.07 rad; and a maximum jet extent of
cs = . (2)
1 + γˆ ( − 1) θ j = 0.35 rad, where the energy/velocity is not zero at angles wider
than θ c : Note for TH jets, θ c = θ j = 0.07. From these afterglow
As the jet spreads laterally, the half-opening angle of the outflow,
light curves, the temporal index of the afterglow with observer time
θ j , will increase. By considering an element travelling perpendicular
is calculated from each time-step using
to the outflow direction at the sound speed, and an element travelling
parallel to the outflow direction at the velocity βc, the change in the d log(F )
α= , (5)
initial opening angle due to lateral spreading is d log(tobs )
  where F is the flux and tobs the observed time. We use Richardson’s
cs
θ ≈ tan−1 , (3) extrapolation to find α at each observer time-step from the model
βc
where the sound speed, cs , is defined in the co-moving fluid frame.
2 The afterglow light curves for a ‘top-hat’ jet structure are generated using
For an outflow where the effects of lateral spreading are included,
the changing opening-angle will affect the estimate of the radial this method and tested for consistency with the on- and off-axis light curves
of BoxFit (van Eerten, van der Horst & MacFadyen 2012). Afterglow peak
distance, R, that the blastwave has travelled (Granot & Piran 2012).
and break times plus the very late-time evolution, including the counter-jet
The outflow sweeps up matter and compresses it into a thin shell at the emergence and peak time/flux, are recreated.
head of the jet (e.g. Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1999). We approximate 3 The jet structure profiles used are: ‘top-hat’ (TH), a uniform jet defined by
this thin shell of compressed matter as a surface with area, A = R2 , the opening angle, θ j ≡ θ c , with energy Ec and  0 ; Gaussian (G) structured
where is the solid angle of the outflow. As mass and energy must jet with the lateral profile E = Ec e−(θ /θc ) and  = 1 + (c − 1)e−(θ /2θc ) ;
2 2 2 2

be conserved, the area is proportional to the instantaneous swept-up a two-component (2C) jet defined as a ‘top-hat’ core surrounded by a sheath
mass, M, and for a given area and a uniform medium, the radius, with  = 5 and 0.1Ec ; and a PL jet, a ‘top-hat’ core with energy and Lorentz
R ∝ −1/2 . factor that declines as ∝ (θ /θ c )−2 , where θ > θ c .

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)

 Structure in the break 4165
Eerten & MacFadyen 2013; Wang et al. 2015, 2018)
 −1/κ
F (t) = F1κ + F2κ , (6)
where Fx = fb (t/tb ) and the subscript ‘x’ indicates the trend pre-
αx

and post-jet-break, i.e. ∝ t−3(p − 1)/4 and ∝ t−p for the case where
the emitting frequency is between the characteristic synchrotron
frequency, ν m , and the cooling frequency, ν c , as ν m < ν < ν c , and
relevant for all our fiducial models, and fb and tb indicate the observed

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

flux and time at the jet break.
We fit the model structured jet afterglow light curves with the
approximation given by equation (6) for the behaviour of the light-
curve break. In fitting equation (6) to the model data we fix the
earliest (latest) time to ∼ 2 tp (20 t˜b ), except for the 2C model, where
the latest time is fixed at 10 t˜b to avoid significant late-time variability
in the post-break light curve, here t˜b is the expected jet-break time
for a TH jet with the same θ c and ι. The best-fitting parameters,
[α 1 , α 2 , κ, fb , tb ], for each jet structure are found using a non-
linear least-squares minimization. For each jet structure model, we
evaluate the best-fitting value of κ for jets described by core sizes
θc = [0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, and 0.2], and for each of these at an
inclination from ι = 0 → θ c at step sizes of 0.05θ c . The value of κ
and limits (1σ ) are shown in Fig. 2 as a function of the inclination,
ι/θ c . The model light curves and the equation (6) best fit for each jet
Figure 1. The evolution of the temporal index α with observer time in units structure model at ι = 0.0 is shown in Fig. 3.
of the afterglow peak time, t/tp , for the four jet profile models with fixed θ c We further apply this method to measure the sharpness of the
and varying orientation within the core angle: ι = [0.0, 0.3, 0.6, 1.0] θ c . From afterglow jet break to a sample of GRB light curves. Using GRBs
the top to bottom: TH (purple), G (orange), 2C (blue), and PL (green) jet
with multiband afterglows that are consistent with the closure
structure profiles. Solid lines show the evolution of α for a laterally spreading
outflow, whereas the dashed lines do not include spreading. The line thickness
relations, the ‘gold’ sample in Wang et al. (2015), we select those
indicates the inclination within the jet core angle. with an achromatic jet break listed in Wang et al. (2018). The
optical afterglows for the resulting 20 GRBs are collected and
composite light curves with the flux at various filters shifted, using
afterglows. This temporal index, α, with the observer time relative to the spectral energy distribution (SED) for each burst and corrected
the optical frequency afterglow peak time, tp , which is typically the for Galactic foreground extinction and host contribution (if necessary
deceleration time for outflows with our fiducial parameters at optical and possible), to produce RC -band afterglows at z = 1 (Kann et al.
frequencies, is shown in Fig. 1. 2010, 2011). We use a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) via
The change in the temporal index for observers at various incli- emcee (Foreman-Mackey et al. 2013) to fit the parameters [α 1 , α 2 ,
nations, ι, within the core angle, θ c , can be seen with thinner lines κ, fb , tb ] in equation (6) to the observed data around the jet-break
indicating a higher ι. time. The preferred κ, or sharpness parameter, can then be used
For observers that are midway between the jet central axis and as a test for jet structure in these GRB afterglows. Although the
the jet edge, an earlier quasi-break can be seen for the jet structures GRB afterglows in our sample have achromatic jet breaks at X-ray
described by a uniform core and the effect most pronounced for frequencies, we use only the optical frequency afterglow to measure
the sharp-edged jet structures, e.g. TH and 2C, and where lateral the sharpness of the break. This avoids introducing model-dependent
spreading is included. cooling frequencies, ν c , whose evolution depends on the medium.
This quasi-break is due to the near edge of the jet becoming visible, van Eerten & MacFadyen (2013) showed that for the case ν > ν c ,
and the main jet-break when the furthest edge becomes visible – thus, the jet break light curve has a higher κ value at all inclinations within
the full jet-break is delayed when compared to that of an observer the jet opening angle than it would have in the case of ν < ν c .
along the jet central axis. For the TH jet model with spreading, the The starting point for each GRB afterglow fit is given by the α 1 ,
minimum value for α and its temporal behaviour is qualitatively α 2 and tb values4 with associated uncertainties reported in Wang
the same as that described in van Eerten & MacFadyen (2013) via et al. (2018) and the break time shifted to a source at z = 1. The
hydrodynamic simulations. initial guess for fb is the interpolated light-curve flux from the data
We see a similar change in minimum α as the jet opening angle at tb , and κ = 3 ± 0.5 – for the sharpness parameter. Rhoads (1999)
of the system is increased and a minimum α that is marginally lower favoured a κ = 0.4, however, by fitting α 1, 2 to afterglow data; Liang
due to the details of the spreading – where the sound speed expansion et al. (2007) found κ ∼ 3 was preferred in most cases and consistent
that is used in our model can be considered a physical upper limit. with the mean value found by Zeh, Klose & Kann (2006) for seven
The point at which we see differences in the afterglow behaviour GRBs where κ was freely fit; κ = 3.1 ± 1.6. The prior is flat for
due to the jet structure for an on-beam observer within θ c is at ∼ each parameter in a range; (0 ≤ α 1 ≤ 3, α 1 ≤ α 2 ≤ 4, 0.001
the jet-break time. The sharpness of this break can be measured by ≤ κ ≤ 10, − 2 ≤ log10 fb ≤ 6) and flat for log10 tb for each
fitting a simple empirical function for the transition behaviour from
the pre- to post-break light curve. A parameter, κ, is used to define
the sharpness of the observed break in a smoothly broken PL as (e.g. 4 For GRBs 050922C, 060729, 080710, and 091127, the jet-break times
Beuermann et al. 1999; Rhoads 1999; Rossi et al. 2004; Gorosabel reported in table 2 of Wang et al. (2018) differ from those in their fig. 1;
et al. 2006; Liang, Zhang & Zhang 2007; Schulze et al. 2011; van in these cases, we use values for tb found from the figure.

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)

4166 G. P. Lamb et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

Figure 2. The κ value versus inclination within the jet core from fits of equation (6) to the model light curves at the jet-break time. The shaded regions indicate
the 1σ limits for the fit for the spreading/non-spreading cases with varying core size. Solid lines indicate the central value for the maximally spreading case,
while dashed lines indicate the central value for the non-spreading case. Jet structures are top left-hand panel – top-hat, top right-hand panel – Gaussian, bottom
left-hand panel – two-component, and bottom right-hand panel – PL. The pink-shaded region and lines in the top left-hand panel (TH) show the values of κ for
top-hat jet afterglows with p = 2.5 from van Eerten & MacFadyen (2013). The vertical grey dashed line indicates an ι = 0.57θ c , the typical inclination within
the core angle for GRBs (Ryan et al. 2015).

burst with unique limits set by the data constraints. We use 1000 3 R E S U LT S
walkers and 15 000 steps per GRB. To avoid variability in the early
For the model jet afterglows we find α = α 1 − α 2 , and κ ranges for
afterglow data due to either a reverse shock, energy injection, or
the five core angles and inclinations using the best-fitting values of
flares related to the prompt emission, we set an earliest time, tmin
equation (6) to the model data. The analytic estimate for the opening
for each GRB. In three cases, the long GRBs 050408 and 130427A
angle of an on-axis, ι = 0.0, TH jet is given by (e.g. Sari et al. 1999;
and the short GRB 130603B, we also set a maximum time, beyond
Nakar, Piran & Granot 2002)
which the data show variability that is inconsistent with the late-
time single PL behaviour (for GRB 130603B, the late-time excess  1 / 8  3 / 8
is a kilonova; e.g. Berger, Fong & Chornock 2013; Tanvir et al. n/0.001 cm−3 tb
θj ,inferred ∼ 0.055 rad, (7)
2013). E/1052 erg d

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)

 Structure in the break 4167
in Table 2 and the light curves shown in Fig. 4; all light curves here are
shifted to a redshift z = 1. Each panel shows the data for the named
GRB, the red curves show a random sample of 100 parameter sets
for equation (6) from the MCMC fit to the data. The value of most
interest for this study is the best-fitting value of κ, the sharpness
parameter. Whereas α 1 can depend on the details of the spectral
regime, the distribution of shocked electrons, and the nature of the
ambient environment, and α 2 on the details of the lateral spreading

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

and p, the value for the sharpness of the transition, κ, depends on the
lateral structure of the jet, the inclination to the line of sight, and the
width of the jet.

4 DISCUSSION
We have used model afterglows from four distinct jet structures,
two with sharp-edged cores (TH and 2C), and two with smooth-
edged cores (G and PL), to show how the shape of the jet break
for an observer aligned within the core opening angle can provide
clues to the presence of lateral jet structure. We fit these afterglows
with a commonly used smoothly-broken PL function leaving κ,
the parameter that describes the sharpness of the break, as a free
parameter. Fig. 2 shows κ < 2.2 for smooth-edged jet structures,
whereas sharp-edged jet structures show a wider range that depends
Figure 3. The on-axis, ι = 0, model light-curve flux (dashed lines) as a on the inclination of the system and the width of the jet core, resulting
fraction of the peak flux fp , with the time normalized by the best-fitting jet- in κ ࣠ 5.
break time, tb , for each jet structure. The corresponding best fits to equation (6) For sharp-edged structures, e.g. TH and 2C, as an observer’s line
are shown in black/grey lines. The bolder coloured lines show the case where
of sight to the jet central axis increases within the core opening angle
lateral spreading is included. The vertical dotted line shows t = tb , the jet-
break time.
then the value of κ typically dips before increasing again as ι ∼ θ c ;
with the exception of very narrow jet cores, θ c ∼ 0.02. Whereas, for
where we have used5 t ∼ R/(2 2 c). With this expression, we estimate smooth-edged jet structures, the value of κ within the jet core remains
the opening angle as would be inferred from the best-fitting jet-break ∼constant or mildly increasing with inclination. From Fig. 1, we can
time for each model. Table 1 lists the ranges found for α and κ, and see that for the TH and 2C jet structures, where ι = 0.0 or ι = θ c ,
the inferred θ j for the cases where ι = 0.0 and θ c . Fig. 2 shows the κ the temporal index α is ∼constant before the sharp change at the
at each inclination within the jet core angle for the four jet structures. jet break, however, between these inclination limits, a quasi-break
Within each panel, the results for core sizes 0.02 ≤ θ c ≤ 0.2 are caused by the near edge of the jet core becoming visible can be seen.
shown with the discrete core sizes given by a different colour line This quasi-break results in a small change in α before the break and
according to the legend. For the TH jet structure, the results of van when fit by equation (6), a lower value of κ for these inclinations. For
Eerten & MacFadyen (2013) are shown with pink lines for the three comparison, the values of κ for three jet widths from van Eerten &
core sizes that they tested; the observed behaviour is qualitatively MacFadyen (2013) are shown in the top left-hand panel of Fig. 2
the same to that seen with our models. We include a very narrow jet as pink dashed/dotted lines. van Eerten & MacFadyen (2013) found
model in our sample with θ c = 0.02; for this model, κ(ι) remains that the range of κ values is larger for wider jets with a minimum κ
relatively high at all inclinations when compared to models with a at ∼mid-way between the central axis and the jet edge; our results
core size >0.02. confirm this where θ c ≥ 0.04. For the G and PL jet structures, the
From Table 1, we note that although α is consistent between all smooth edge of the jet core softens or eliminates this quasi-break
models, the sharpness of the break, κ, has a typically lower value resulting in a more continuously declining α before the jet-break
for jet structures with a continuously declining energy/Lorentz factor time and when fit by equation (6), a value for κ that is typically κ ࣠
lateral distribution, i.e. the smooth-edged jet structures (G, PL); see 2 at all inclinations.
also Fig. 2. Where a model light curve is more variable at either very For jet models where lateral spreading at the sound speed is
early or very late times, then fitting equation (6) can result in either included, the fit value for κ is typically higher than where no lateral
artificially sharp breaks (high values of κ) or very soft breaks (κ  spreading is included and contrary to the findings of Rossi et al.
1). This is especially pronounced in the fits for the 2C model, where (2004).6 For a laterally spreading outflow, the jet break transition
the wider jet component contributes at late times resulting in a highly results in a larger α; see Table 1. Where the time-scale of the
variable α(t) post-jet-break (see Figs 1 and 3). This is reflected in the jet break is comparable between the spreading and non-spreading
comparatively noisy curves in Fig. 2 and uncertainties for κ and α models for the jet-break, a larger α will result in a larger κ.
outliers in Table 1. Similarly, for ‘mid-way’ inclinations where a quasi-break is present,
The central parameter values for α 1 , α 2 , tb , and κ from the
MCMC fits of equation (6) for the 20 GRBs in our sample are listed
6 As noted in Section 2 and in Rossi et al. (2004), the time interval over which

the light curve is fit can affect the returned fit parameters. We have carefully
5 The inferred jet opening angles are larger by a factor of ∼1.3 when using t ∼ chosen our time interval for the model light curves so that the returned fits of
R/(4 2 c), resulting in typically better agreement for θ c from the TH models equation (6), for most cases, closely follows the model light curve during the
with lateral spreading where θ c  0.1, and/or for those viewed at ι = θ c . jet-break transition.

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)

4168 G. P. Lamb et al.
Table 1. Best-fitting absolute parameter ranges over all inclinations for our model afterglows.

Model θc α [min − max] ± err κ [min − max] ± err θ j, inferred [ι = 0.0 − ι = θ c ]

TH 0.02 [1.31(1.05)–1.69(1.36)] ± 0.06(0.04) [2.72(2.23)–3.93(3.51)] ± 0.82(0.43) [0.02(0.02)–0.04(0.04)]

TH 0.04 [1.51(1.20)–1.81(1.46)] ± 0.04(0.03) [1.44(1.11)–3.42(2.68)] ± 0.51(0.20) [0.04(0.04)–0.06(0.07)]
TH 0.07 [1.57(1.31)–1.88(1.71)] ± 0.05(0.05) [0.97(0.54)–3.52(2.25)] ± 0.52(0.16) [0.07(0.07)–0.10(0.12)]
TH 0.1 [1.73(1.44)–1.99(2.97)] ± 0.06(0.23) [0.57(0.14)–3.35(1.99)] ± 0.51(0.14) [0.09(0.10)–0.12(0.18)]
TH 0.2 [1.39(1.29)–1.81(2.66)] ± 0.06(0.23) [0.63(0.15)–3.29(1.64)] ± 0.70(0.13) [0.16(0.20)–0.22(0.33)]

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

G 0.02 [1.36(1.17)–1.65(1.43)] ± 0.05(0.04) [1.52(1.64)–2.17(2.06)] ± 0.28(0.20) [0.02(0.02)–0.03(0.03)]
G 0.04 [1.57(1.32)–1.81(1.54)] ± 0.04(0.03) [1.24(1.15)–1.62(1.33)] ± 0.21(0.12) [0.04(0.04)–0.06(0.06)]
G 0.07 [1.67(1.43)–1.82(1.57)] ± 0.04(0.04) [0.98(0.78)–1.52(1.09)] ± 0.19(0.10) [0.06(0.07)–0.09(0.11)]
G 0.1 [1.68(1.48)–1.82(1.64)] ± 0.04(0.04) [0.89(0.64)–1.54(1.01)] ± 0.20(0.09) [0.08(0.09)–0.13(0.16)]
G 0.2 [1.56(1.52)–1.75(1.79)] ± 0.05(0.06) [0.89(0.48)–1.62(0.89)] ± 0.25(0.08) [0.14(0.20)–0.21(0.30)]
2C 0.02 [1.35(1.12)–1.79(1.53)] ± 0.05(0.03) [2.25(1.67)–3.24(2.63)] ± 0.47(0.22) [0.02(0.02)–0.04(0.04)]
2C 0.04 [1.23(1.17)–1.90(1.66)] ± 0.07(0.05) [1.37(0.69)–4.21(2.06)] ± 1.86(0.20) [0.04(0.04)–0.06(0.07)]
2C 0.07 [0.89(1.15)–1.80(1.98)] ± 0.07(0.14) [1.56(0.31)–4.60(1.80)] ± 1.85(0.17) [0.07(0.08)–0.08(0.12)]
2C 0.1 [1.04(1.43)–1.62(3.36)] ± 0.06(0.80) [0.77(0.11)–4.58(1.67)] ± 1.66(0.13) [0.09(0.11)–0.12(0.24)]
2C 0.2 [1.46(1.68)–2.10(3.14)] ± 0.10(0.35) [0.33(0.14)–2.62(0.96)] ± 0.31(0.10) [0.16(0.24)–0.24(0.66)]
PL 0.02 [1.25(1.18)–1.54(1.45)] ± 0.02(0.02) [1.44(1.30)–1.83(1.57)] ± 0.10(0.09) [0.03(0.03)–0.04(0.04)]
PL 0.04 [1.42(1.35)–1.63(1.65)] ± 0.03(0.05) [0.71(0.55)–1.51(1.39)] ± 0.08(0.08) [0.05(0.05)–0.07(0.09)]
PL 0.07 [1.44(1.46)–2.15(2.55)] ± 0.07(0.19) [0.32(0.21)–1.16(0.99)] ± 0.06(0.08) [0.08(0.11)–0.14(0.19)]
PL 0.1 [1.72(1.66)–2.72(3.16)] ± 0.14(0.33) [0.23(0.16)–0.68(0.72)] ± 0.05(0.07) [0.13(0.18)–0.20(0.33)]
PL 0.2 [1.54(1.74)–2.03(3.13)] ± 0.06(0.38) [0.67(0.14)–1.22(0.70)] ± 0.16(0.08) [0.23(0.43)–0.24(0.85)]
Note. Values in parentheses are those found for the non-spreading jets.

then lateral spreading results in a more pronounced feature that is in Fig. 1 for our model, based on the maximal spreading at the
responsible for the larger variability in κ with ι for the same θ c sound speed. A post jet-break temporal index that is steeper than
models. the analytical expectation for both a spreading and non-spreading
As equation (6) is a function that asymptotically approaches a jet is also found by Lu, Beniamini & McDowell (2020). Although
single PL at either extreme, then for cases where early- and/or late- the expansion description that we use can be considered an upper
time variability in the model light curves is present, some care must be limit, the resulting temporal behaviour of the afterglow light curve
taken when windowing the light curve for the fit. We set maximum at about the jet-break time is consistent with that seen in full, and
and minimum times for each structure in an attempt to avoid the computationally expensive, hydrodynamic simulations.
worst variability, however, this can result in time windows that are From Fig. 3 and Table 1, we can see that where lateral spreading
too narrow, and the resulting fit does not accurately reproduce the is included, the jet break occurs at a marginally earlier time than for
expected behaviour. Examples of this can be seen in Table 1, e.g. the non-spreading case for most examples – where we expect the
the 2C and the PL models with θ c = 0.1 and 0.2, where some cases peak, or deceleration time, for the spreading/non-spreading cases to
have α  2.75; here the change in α across the jet break should be the same. Using the fitted tb , which may over or underestimate
fall in the range 0.75 ≤ α ≤ 2.75, where 2 ≤ p ≤ 3, and the lower the real model break time (see the discussion above), for each model
limit is set by the edge effect (Zhang et al. 2006; Gao et al. 2013). with equation (7), an estimate of θ c + ι can be found. Although this
An example of such a poor fit is apparent in Fig. 3, showing ι = 0.0 analytic estimate is based on the break-time for a TH jet, we find
light curves where the inferred break-time for the non-spreading PL a reasonable estimate for all jet structure models with θ c ࣠ 0.07,
model with θ c = 0.2 is much later than expected (see θ j, inferred = 0.43, and best for the cases with ι = 0.0 and without lateral spreading.
and more than twice the expected 0.2, in Table 1). The fit light curve This analytic estimate is based on the time-scale for the (t) = θc−1 ,
here is cut off before the single PL behaviour is observed resulting in and so we expect the best results from cases that are most similar
the higher than expected α for this example. These cases highlight to this, i.e. non-laterally spreading TH jets. This estimate assumes
how small amounts of variability at early/late times, and/or short time that lateral spreading does not affect the evolution of the light curves
windows can skew the fit results for a smoothly-broken PL function. until after the jet-break time; however, the shell will undergo some
When fitting such a function to observed data to determine the best- lateral expansion at all times during the deceleration. At early times,
fitting value of κ, these factors should be carefully considered as the where this expansion is mild and confined to the edges of the jet,
resulting fit parameter can easily occupy high values, i.e. κ 10, as energy is conserved, then the radial extent of the blastwave will
that are difficult to reconcile with theoretical expectations. gradually fall behind that of an identical but non-spreading outflow;
The post-break temporal behaviour for the afterglow from our the radial extent of the blastwave determines the observed time-scale
models, as shown in Fig. 1, is beyond the simple theoretical as dtobs /dR = 1/(β(R)c) − cos (ι)/c, and thus, for a jet with significant
approximations of α 1 − 3/4 and −p for the non-spreading and lateral spreading, the jet-break time will be marginally sooner than
spreading cases respectively (Sari et al. 1999). This is a known the case without. This is more apparent for wider-cored jet structures,
result (e.g. Granot 2007) and the steep decline for the top-hat case where the time-scale to the jet break is longer and spreading is
with lateral spreading is consistent with hydrodynamic results (e.g. more significant. A similar effect can be seen in Lu et al. (2020),
Zhang & MacFadyen 2009; De Colle et al. 2012; van Eerten & Mac- where they compare light curves with and without lateral expansion,
Fadyen 2013). At optical to X-ray frequencies, these hydrodynamic and in Granot (2007), where the light curves from hydrodynamic
simulations find that the steepest temporal index post jet-break is α codes and non-lateral spreading semi-analytic light curves are
࣠ −3.1 (where p = 2.5) and consistent with the α ∼ −3.3 shown shown.

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)

 Structure in the break 4169
Table 2. Our sample of 20 GRB afterglows that obey the closure relations and literature claims of an achromatic jet break.

GRB tmin(max) (d) α1 α2 tb (d)a κ θ j (rad), mediumb Categoryc Refs

050408 0.07(2.07) 0.56+ 0.06

−0.09 1.92+ 0.17
−0.16 0.75+ 0.05
−0.04 1.28+ 0.60
−0.44 0.12 W Either [1][4–9]
050801 0.0025 1.09+ 0.03
−0.04 1.41+ 0.05
−0.04 0.12+ 0.02
−0.02 2.94+ 2.27
−1.37 0.05 I Either [1][10–12]
+0.18 +0.18 +1.50
050820A 0.056 0.32−0.17 2.39−0.20 5.43−0.72 0.16+ 0.09
−0.05 0.10 I Smooth [1][13–14]
050922C 0.001 0.75+ 0.01
−0.01 1.60+ 0.02
−0.02 0.116+ 0.002
−0.001 1.39+ 0.16
−0.15 0.03 I Smooth [1][15–21]

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

051109A 0.00027 0.64+ 0.01
−0.01 1.10+ 0.08
−0.07 0.19+ 0.05
−0.04 6.84+ 2.19
−2.55 0.06 W Sharp [1][22–31]
+0.03 +0.14 +0.07
060206 0.025 0.72−0.03 3.12−0.08 0.66−0.03 0.40+ 0.04
−0.04 0.06 W Smooth [1][32–45]
060418 0.0015 1.05+ 0.03
−0.04 2.03+ 0.05
−0.05 7.52+ 0.63
−0.57
+0.06
0.35−0.06 0.03 I Smooth [1][46–53]
+0.004 +0.14 +0.042
060729 0.85 1.265−0.005 3.80−0.25 52.47−0.30 3.22+ 2.67
−0.72 0.36 W Sharp [1][2][54–58]
061126 0.0087 0.88+ 0.01
−0.01 2.18+ 0.25
−0.17 1.76+ 0.26
−0.14
+2.00
3.66−1.21 0.08 I Sharp [1][59–60]
+0.06 +0.06 +0.000
080413A 0.0002 0.50−0.07 1.57−0.05 0.005−0.000 1.30+ 0.46
−0.36 0.02 W Smooth [1][61–64]
080603A 0.05 0.95+ 0.02
−0.02 2.31+ 0.38
−0.26 1.42+ 0.26
−0.23
+2.74
5.86−2.50 0.09 I Sharp [2][65–67]
080710 0.03 0.52+ 1.06
−0.06 1.58+ 0.02
1.07 0.118+ 0.003
−0.004 3.32+ 0.85
−0.72 0.06 I Sharp [1][68–74]
+0.03 +0.05 +0.010 +0.37
081008 0.0013 0.88−0.03 1.52−0.04 0.060−0.004 1.36−0.32 0.04 I Smooth [1][85]
081203A 0.03 0.80+ 0.13
−0.30 1.84+ 0.03
−0.03 0.059+ 0.004
−0.004 6.20+ 2.62
−2.84 0.03 I Sharp [1][76–83]
+0.01 +0.09 +0.002 +0.62
090426 0.02 0.59−0.01 2.53−0.09 0.280−0.003 9.15−1.10 0.10 W Sharp [84–90]
090618 0.001 0.690+ 0.002
−0.002 1.30+ 0.01
−0.01 0.32+ 0.01
−0.01 2.83+ 0.14
−0.14 0.03 I Sharp [91]
+0.26 +0.27 +0.74 +0.17
090926A 1.00 0.48−0.27 3.35−0.28 7.29−0.45 0.29−0.09 0.07 I Smooth [1][2][92]
091127 0.048 0.32+ 0.02
−0.02 1.64+ 0.02
−0.02 0.52+ 0.01
−0.01 0.88+ 0.07
−0.07 0.07 I Smooth [3][93–99]
130427A 0.044(14.5) 0.834+ 0.003
−0.003 1.94+ 0.01
−0.01 2.14+ 0.01
−0.01 1.10+ 0.02
−0.02 0.05 I Smooth [3]
+0.29 +0.33 +0.03 +2.48
130603B 0.15(10.0) 0.66−0.35 2.51−0.25 0.53−0.03 2.00−1.00 0.10 I Either [96]
References for the data used: [1] Kann et al. (2010), [2] Kann et al. (2011), [3] Kann et al. (2019), [4] Wiersema et al. (2005), [5] Milne, Williams & Park
(2005a), [6] Flasher et al. (2005), [7] Kahharov et al. (2005), [8] Foley et al. (2006), [9] de Ugarte Postigo et al. (2007), [10] Rykoff et al. (2009), [11] de
Pasquale et al. (2007), [12] Monard (2005), [13] Cenko et al. (2006), [14] Vestrand et al. (2006). [15] Rykoff et al. (2009), [16] Li et al. (2005), [17] Ofek,
Lipkin & Dann (2005), [18] Durig & Price (2005), [19] Henych et al. (2005), [20] Novak (2005), [21] Hunsberger et al. (2005), [22] Milne et al. (2005b), [23]
Haislip et al. (2005), [24] Yost et al. (2007), [25] Kinugasa & Torii (2005), [26] Misra et al. (2005), [27] Li (2005), [28] Wozniak et al. (2005), [29] Holland
et al. (2005), [30] Huang et al. (2005), [31] Bloom et al. (2005), [32] Thöne et al. (2010), [33] Curran et al. (2007), [34] Stanek et al. (2007), [35] Monfardini
et al. (2006), [36] Woźniak et al. (2006), [37] Reichart et al. (2006), [38] Lacluyze et al. (2006), [39] Boyd et al. (2006), [40] Terada et al. (2006), [41] Alatalo,
Perley & Bloom (2006), [42] Milne & Williams (2006), [43] Ofek et al. (2006), [44] Lin et al. (2006), [45] Greco et al. (2006), [46] Falcone et al. (2006), [47]
Nysewander et al. (2006), [48] Schady & Falcone (2006), [49] Cenko et al. (2010), [50] Melandri et al. (2008), [51] Molinari et al. (2007), [52] Huang, Ip &
Urata (2006), [53] Chen et al. (2006), [54] Schady et al. (2010), [55] Rykoff et al. (2009), [56] Grupe et al. (2007), [57] Quimby et al. (2006), [58] Cano et al.
(2011), [59] Gomboc et al. (2008), [60] Perley et al. (2008), [61] Yuan et al. (2008), [62] Fukui et al. (2008), [63] Antonelli et al. (2008), [64] Klotz, Boer &
Atteia (2008), [65] Guidorzi et al. (2011), [66] Sbarufatti, Mangano & La Parola (2008), [67] Milne & Updike (2008), [68] Krühler et al. (2009), [69] Yoshida
et al. (2008), [70] Perley & Melis (2008), [71] Weaver et al. (2008), [72] Bersier & Gomboc (2008), [73] D’Avanzo et al. (2008), [74] Li et al. (2008), [75]
Yuan et al. (2010), [76] Rumyantsev et al. (2008), [77] Liu et al. (2008), [78] West et al. (2008), [79] Volkov (2008), [80] Fatkhullin et al. (2008), [81] Isogai &
Kawai (2008), [82] Mori et al. (2008), [83] Andreev et al. (2008), [84] Nicuesa Guelbenzu et al. (2011), [85] Thöne et al. (2011), [86] Xin et al. (2011), [87]
Antonelli et al. (2009), [88] Kinugasa et al. (2009), [89] Mao, Cha & Bai (2009), [90] Yoshida et al. (2009), [91] Cenko et al. (2011), [92] Rau et al. (2010),
[93] Vergani et al. (2011), [94] Filgas et al. (2011), [95] Cobb et al. (2010), [96] de Ugarte Postigo et al. (2014). The MCMC-fitted parameters for a light curve
given by equation (6). The reported times are observer times for a burst at z = 1. a Half the observed jet-break time, corresponding to the source-frame time if
the source was at z = 1. b The literature opening angle as listed in Zhao et al. (2020) for the preferred medium of our GRBs as stated in Wang et al. (2015),
ISM/wind (I/W). c The category that best describes the jet-break shape according to our fits; smooth-, sharp-edged jet structure, or either.

We have fit a smoothly-broken PL estimate for the afterglow flux the closure relation fits by Wang et al. (2015) to highlight the
behaviour (equation 6, to the observed optical afterglows of 20 GRBs most likely θ c + ι value. Additionally, we show, using a smaller
(including one short GRB). The data and a sample of the light curves marker size and grey error bar lines, the seven GRBs with fitted κ
from an MCMC posterior distribution for each burst are shown in from Zeh et al. (2006); GRBs 990510, 000301C, 010222A, 020813,
Fig. 4. The best-fitting parameters for the temporal indices, α 1 and 030226, 030329, 041006 – opening angles are from Zhao et al.
α 2 , the sharpness parameter, κ, and the observed jet-break time, tb , (2020) except for GRB 041006, where we use the value in Zeh
assuming a source at redshift z = 1, are listed in Table 2. The jet- et al. (2006). We also show the expected parameter space from our
break time, tb , is equivalent to the time when the entire jet is within models with a green shaded region for sharp-edged jet structures
the beaming cone, 1/, and for a mildly inclined jet, the opening (TH and 2C) and with a yellow shaded region for a smooth-edged
angle estimate found from tb will be equivalent to θ c + ι, where ι ≤ jet structure (G and PL). The limits on the parameter space are
θ c . Assuming a top-hat jet structure for all GRBs should, therefore, those for a jet with lateral spreading, and the lower limit on κ
result in a strong inverse correlation for κ ࣠ 2 with the jet opening for the non-spreading jets is indicated with a dashed line for each
angle, i.e. lower κ having larger θ c + ι θ j, inferred . case respectively. Additionally, we show the values of κ from the
In Fig. 5, we show the κ versus θ c + ι for our GRB sample hydrodynamic simulations for TH jets from van Eerten & MacFadyen
using the opening angles from Zhao et al. (2020, and references (2013), where 2 ≤ p ≤ 3 and θ c = [0.05, 0.01, 0.2] + ι as a pink
therein) and the preferred environment (uniform ISM or wind) from shaded region; note that a lower p results in a higher value for the

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)

4170 G. P. Lamb et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

Figure 4. The afterglow light curves for 20 GRBs that are reported to be consistent with a jet-break scenario. All sources shifted to z = 1 and data trace the
RC -band emission. A sample of 100 parameter sets are randomly drawn from the MCMC posterior for each burst to construct the red-line jet-break approximation.
The corresponding break time, tb , is shown as a vertical blue line and the region between the 16th and 84th percentiles is shaded. The pink dashed line indicates
the tb estimate from Wang et al. (2018) used as a prior and shifted to z = 1. Dotted grey lines indicate tmin , and where required tmax , for the allowed data range
of the fit. Gold stars indicate GRB afterglows that are consistent with being a structured jet viewed from within the core angle; see Section 4.

sharpness κ. We see no correlation between κ and increasing θ c for 060418, the shape of the pre-break light curve and the jet-break time
our sample. from multiband fits (Wang et al. 2018) can help to determine the
Half of the GRBs in our sample have κ < 2.0, and are potentially sharpness of the break, however, as with the non-spreading θ c = 0.2
consistent with the expectation for a smooth-edged structured jet (G model PL structure case discussed previously, the poorly sampled
and/or PL). By considering the effect of viewing angle and jet width light curve after the jet break can result in an artificially low κ value
on the sharpness, this number drops to nine GRBs: GRBs 050820A, and may be the cause of the κ = 0.16 and 0.35 for these two GRBs,
050922C, 060206, 060418, 080413A, 081008, 090926A, 091127, respectively. Similarly, GRB 090926A, with κ = 0.29, has gaps in
and 130427A – each marked with a gold star in Fig. 4. An additional the data on either side of the jet break; and GRB 060206 with κ =
two GRBs from the seven in Zeh et al. (2006) fit our criteria: GRBs 0.40 has some variability and significant data gaps on either side
010222A and 020813. In some cases, the data at or after the jet- of the break. The remaining five GRBs in our candidate structured
break time are sparse – in these cases, e.g. GRBs 050820A and jet list are well-sampled on either side of the break, and in some

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)

 Structure in the break 4171

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

Figure 5. The jet break sharpness parameter κ versus the opening-angle plus inclination, θ c + ι ≡ θ j, inferred , for our model GRB afterglows. The parameter
region indicative of the sharp-edged structured jets (TH, 2C) with spreading is shown with green shading; the parameter region for smooth-edged jets (G, PL)
with spreading is shown with yellow shading. A 20 per cent uncertainty is added to the edges to give an indication for a change in p within our fiducial models.
For non-spreading jets, the parameter regime at κ ࣠ 2 is indistinguishable where θ c + ι  0.05 – dashed lines indicate the low-κ limits for the non-spreading
models. The red shaded regions indicate the values of κ from van Eerten & MacFadyen (2013) for three TH jets using hydrodynamical simulations. The best
values for the inferred jet opening angles, θ j, inferred , and their preferred medium (ISM – red circle, wind – blue cross), are shown (Zhao et al. 2020) for the
bursts in our sample (black error bars) and those from Zeh et al. (2006) (smaller markers and grey error bars). The short GRB 130603B is indicated by the green
pentagon.

cases, throughout, e.g. GRB 050922C, 080413A, and 130427A. For Where data are absent at jet-break time, the sharpness of the break
these better-sampled light curves, the sharpness of the break and derived from the fits should be treated with caution. High cadence,
the inferred opening angles are consistent with smooth-edged jet multiband (particularly at optical frequencies, where the spectral
structures with lateral spreading, i.e. 0.88 ࣠ κ ࣠ 1.39. regime is expected to be consistent, i.e. ν < ν c ) are essential in
We find three GRBs that have inconclusive values for κ in terms of determining the temporal behaviour of the afterglow before, during,
jet structure – GRBs 050408, 050801 and 130603B. The remaining and after the jet-break time. For GRBs with κ < 2 and θ c + ι  0.05,
eight GRBs are all consistent with being candidate sharp-edged jet the break sharpness cannot reliably identify candidate smooth-edged
structures with κ > 2, of these there are five with afterglow light jet structure afterglows. However, where θ c + ι < 0.05 and κ < 2,
curves well-sampled on either side of the break and two throughout then we do not expect afterglows from sharp-edged jet structures
the jet break, e.g. GRBs 080710 and 090618. Of these five: GRB to fit this parameter space and such GRBs should be considered as
051109A has sparse data before and throughout the break; GRB candidate smooth-edged jet structure examples. Similarly, for κ  3
081203A has sparse data pre-break, where we have discounted and all θ c + ι, we do not expect any afterglows from smooth-edged jet
very early data as being most likely a reverse-shock component, structures, and such structure profiles can be ruled out in these cases.
or a pre-wind termination evolution; and, finally, GRB 090426 A well-sampled afterglow light curve that is found to be consistent
has a well-measured jet break sharpness of κ = 9.15+ 0.62
−1.1 , and is with a smooth-edged jet structure via this jet-break shape analysis
therefore inconsistent with all of the models tested here. We propose should be followed up with detailed light curve and burst modelling
that energy injection, flaring, or a difficult data reduction could be to determine the best-fitting jet structure profile (e.g. Cunningham
responsible for the apparently very sharp jet-break shape. et al. 2020).

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)

4172 G. P. Lamb et al.
The single short GRB in our sample sits well within the sharp- medium, where we note no preference for wind-medium GRBs in
edged parameter space, however, it is on the the upper boundary κ distribution when compared to the uniform medium GRBs in our
for a smooth-edged structure profile, and so we cannot rule this out. sample.
We note that, although the short GRB 170817A, viewed at ι > θ c , is A jet that is initially propagating within a wind medium may, at
commonly fit with a smooth-edged jet structure profile, i.e. a G or PL late times, transition into a uniform medium as the outflow passes
model, the afterglow can also be fit with a sharp-edged jet structure, the wind termination shock (Chevalier, Li & Fransson 2004); a
e.g. model A in Lamb et al. (2019a), the energy injection scenario in statistical study of GRB environments favours a typically small wind
Lamb, Levan & Tanvir (2020), the hydrodynamic results for a TH jet termination radius (Schulze et al. 2011), meaning that for most jets,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

from Gill et al. (2019), a magneto-hydrodynamic, or a hollow-cored the jet break will occur within a uniform medium. As the afterglow
jet Nathanail et al. (2021). Thus if we assume that all short GRBs shock passes through the wind termination shock, a change in the
have a universal structure model, then analysis of the shape of the jet temporal index of the afterglow is expected i.e. (3p − 1)/4 versus 3(p
break for short GRBs observed within the jet opening angle could − 1)/4, where ν m < ν < ν c and p > 2 for wind k = 2 versus uniform
be used to indicate the preferred jet structure profile – sharp-edged medium, with the evidence of such passage in some GRB afterglows
versus smooth-edged. (e.g. Gendre et al. 2007; Kamble, Resmi & Misra 2007; Jin et al.
Within Fig. 2, we show the typical inclination for GRBs within θ c 2009; Fraija et al. 2017; Li et al. 2020, 2021) and an absence of any
as a vertical dashed grey line at 0.57θ c , the value found by Ryan et al. wind in others (e.g. Bardho et al. 2016). Similarly, energy injection
(2015) for a GRB afterglow sample. Where the opening angle of the can change the afterglow decline (e.g. Zhang et al. 2006); where the
jet is found from the observed jet-break time using the usual analytic injection is continuous, then the effect on the jet-break shape is not
relation (e.g. Sari et al. 1999; Frail et al. 2001; Nakar et al. 2002), then expected to be significant. However, where the energy injection is
considering the typical inclination within the jet, θ c ≈ 0.6 θ j, inferred . discrete, then variability in the afterglow decline is expected (e.g.
The range for the sharpness parameter that we find at ι = 0.57θ c is as Kumar & Piran 2000; Zhang et al. 2006; Laskar et al. 2015; Lamb
follows: for sharp edge structured jets, 0.1 ࣠ κ ࣠ 4.0, and for smooth et al. 2019b), this variability could skew a smoothly broken PL
edge structured jets, 0.2 ࣠ κ ࣠ 2.0 – we note that these values are for function fit if it occurs at early or late times, as discussed above,
model afterglows with p = 2.5 and the jet structure profiles for our alternatively, if the discrete energy injection episode coincides with
fiducial models. van Eerten & MacFadyen (2013) showed that the the jet break, then the fit κ will be affected. We expect such a situation
change in κ due to different p is ∼ ±10 per cent of the κ(p = 2.5) to be rare, however, where this does occur, then the inferred value of
value for 2 ≤ p ≤ 3 with lower p resulting in higher κ, or sharper jet κ is likely to be larger for a discrete energy injection episode. The
breaks. In either jet-structure case, the typical ι = 0.57θ c value of κ is large κ = 9.15+ 0.62
−1.10 for GRB 090426, and the apparent variability at
inversely proportional to the jet opening angle. For very narrow jets, the jet-break time in the afterglow light curve (see Fig. 4), could be an
θ c ࣠ 0.03, κ for sharp-edged versus smooth-edged structure profiles example of such an energy injection. Where the injected energy has a
is distinct. stratified profile (e.g. Rees & Mészáros 1998; Sari & Mészáros 2000;
Our fiducial models have assumed a uniform ambient density, Nakamura & Shigeyama 2006; Cheng et al. 2021) as in Model 2 in
however, the environment of a GRB may be described by a wind Lamb et al. (2020), and the injection time-scale coincides with the
model where the density, n ∝ R−k with k = 2 for a stellar wind (e.g. jet-break time, then the shape of the break will be softened, resulting
Dai & Lu 1998; Chevalier & Li 1999). Pre-GRB mass injections in a low κ value. For very narrow jets, θ c ࣠ 0.04, this could enable κ
other than winds e.g. stellar pulsations or common-envelope events ࣠ 1, although any information on the potential angular jet structure
for progenitors in a binary, could also affect the properties of the profile will be lost.
surrounding interstellar medium. We do not attempt to model their
impact on the GRB afterglow. The nature of the medium, principally,
affects the temporal index, α 1 (e.g. Granot & Sari 2002; Zhang 5 CONCLUSIONS
et al. 2006; Gao et al. 2013). For a wind, as k → 2, the change in We have shown that for an observer at a line-of-sight inclination
temporal index, α, is reduced when compared to the α within a angle ι within the core opening angle θ c of a GRB, the temporal
uniform medium (Granot 2007; De Colle et al. 2012). However, evolution of the afterglow light curve around the jet-break time is
De Colle et al. (2012) show that the break time is earlier for distinct between core-dominated jets with a sharp-edged core and
higher k, and despite the smoother change in α, the sharpness (or those with a smooth-edged core profile. Using a smoothly-broken
steepening) of the light curve across the jet break occurs over a PL function as a way to measure the jet-break sharpness, we show
significantly shorter duration. We expect competing contributions the following:
to the sharpness of the jet break, κ, with the smaller α through
the jet break within a wind environment resulting in a lower κ (i) Jets with lateral spreading typically have higher values of the
value,7 whereas the reduced time-scale of the break would lead sharpness parameter, κ, than identical jets without lateral spreading.
to a higher κ value. The two effects should largely balance out at (ii) Smooth-edged jet structures have a sharpness parameter κ ࣠
the observable precision to give a similar sharpness measure for jet 2.2 with little dependence on the inclination of the system within θ c .
breaks within a wind medium to those seen for a uniform medium. (iii) Sharp-edged jet structures have a more diverse range, 0.1 ࣠
As noted by De Colle et al. (2012), the inclination within the jet κ ࣠ 4.6, where κ depends strongly on θ c and the inclination.
opening angle has a more pronounced effect on the shape of the jet Using a sample of GRB afterglows (19 long GRBs, one short GRB)
break than the steepness of the external density profile. Additionally, that are consistent with an achromatic jet break and the standard
we note that the preferred medium for the GRBs in our sample is closure relations (Wang et al. 2015), we find that approximately half
shown in Fig. 5 with a blue cross for wind and red dot for uniform are candidates for a smooth-, and half for a sharp-edged jet structure
profile. We find the following:
7 Analogous to that seen in the comparison between outflows with and without (i) nine candidate smooth-edged jet structure GRBs, including
lateral spreading. three that have well-sampled light curves through the jet break;

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)

 Structure in the break 4173
(ii) eight candidate sharp-edged jet structure GRBs, including two Boyd P., Morris D., Marshall F., Gehrels N., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw., 4722,
with well-sampled light curves; 1
(iii) three ambiguous GRBs, consistent with either a smooth- or a Cano Z. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 669
sharp-edged jet structure. Cenko S. B. et al., 2006, ApJ, 652, 490
Cenko S. B. et al., 2010, ApJ, 711, 641
Of the nine candidate smooth-edged jet structure GRBs, we find Cenko S. B. et al., 2011, ApJ, 732, 29
five that have well-sampled light curves on either side of the break, Cheng K. F., Zhao X. H., Zhang B. B., Bai J. M., 2021, preprint
with three being well-sampled throughout the jet break – GRBs (arXiv:2103.08205)
081008, 091127 and GRBs 050922C, 080413A, and 130427A as the Chen B. A., Lin C. S., Huang K. Y., Ip W. H., Urata Y., 2006, GRB Coord.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

Netw., 4982, 1
three well-sampled examples. Of the eight candidate sharp-edged jet
Chevalier R. A., Li Z.-Y., 1999, ApJ, 520, L29
structure GRBs, we find five that are sufficiently well-sampled on
Chevalier R. A., Li Z.-Y., Fransson C., 2004, ApJ, 606, 369
either side of the jet break, with two being continuously sampled Cobb B. E., Bloom J. S., Perley D. A., Morgan A. N., Cenko S. B., Filippenko
throughout – GRBs 051109A, 081203A, and 090426, and GRBs A. V., 2010, ApJ, 718, L150
080710 and 090618 as the two well-sampled examples. For the Coughlin M. W. et al., 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1181
remaining four (three) GRBs that sit in the smooth- (sharp-)edged Cunningham V. et al., 2020, ApJ, 904, 166
jet structure candidate group, we consider the afterglow light-curve Curran P. A. et al., 2007, MNRAS, 381, L65
data to be either too sparse, variable, or to contain significant gaps D’Avanzo P. et al., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 7960, 1
that could bias the estimated κ parameter. Dai Z. G., Lu T., 1998, MNRAS, 298, 87
We encourage high-cadence multifilter optical observations De Colle F., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Granot J., Lopez-Camara D., 2012, ApJ, 751,
57
around the jet-break time, for GRBs with a bright optical afterglow.
de Pasquale M. et al., 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1638
Understanding the fraction of GRB jets that are consistent with lateral
de Ugarte Postigo A. et al., 2007, A&A, 462, L57
jet structure is important for off-axis, orphan afterglow searches, de Ugarte Postigo A. et al., 2014, A&A, 563, A62
and rates (e.g. Ghirlanda et al. 2015; Lamb, Tanaka & Kobayashi Durig D. T., Price A., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 4023, 1
2018a; Huang et al. 2020); additionally, the fraction of short GRBs Falcone A. D., Barthelmy S. D., Burrows D. N., Cummings J. R., Gehrels N.,
showing evidence of jet structure is important for gravitational-wave Hunsberger S. D., Kennea J. A., Palmer D. M., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw.,
counterpart search strategies and counterpart rates (e.g. Lamb & 4966, 1
Kobayashi 2017; Coughlin et al. 2020; Gompertz et al. 2020). The Fatkhullin T. et al., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 8695, 1
presence and diversity of lateral structure within the afterglows to Filgas R. et al., 2011, A&A, 535, A57
GRBs can also help constrain the physics that drives and shapes Flasher J. et al., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 3561, 1
Foley R. J. et al., 2006, ApJ, 645, 450
these high-energy transients (e.g. Pescalli et al. 2015; Salafia et al.
Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, PASP, 125,
2015, 2020; Beniamini & Nakar 2019; Gottlieb et al. 2020; Gottlieb,
306
Nakar & Bromberg 2021; Hamidani & Ioka 2021; Nathanail et al. Fraija N. et al., 2017, ApJ, 848, 15
2021; Takahashi & Ioka 2021). Frail D. A. et al., 2001, ApJ, 562, L55
Fukui A., Itow Y., Sumi T., Tristram P., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 7622, 1
Gao H., Lei W.-H., Zou Y.-C., Wu X.-F., Zhang B., 2013, New Astron Rev.,
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S 57, 141
We thank the anonymous referee for constructive comments that Gendre B., Galli A., Corsi A., Klotz A., Piro L., Stratta G., Boër M., Damerdji
have improved the work. GPL and JJF thank Shiho Kobayashi for Y., 2007, A&A, 462, 565
Ghirlanda G. et al., 2015, A&A, 578, A71
useful discussions and comments on a pre-submission version. GPL
Gill R., Granot J., De Colle F., Urrutia G., 2019, ApJ, 883, 15
thanks Lekshmi Resmi for valuable discussions. GPL is supported
Gomboc A. et al., 2008, ApJ, 687, 443
by the Science Technology and Facilities Council (STFC) via grant Gompertz B. P. et al., 2020, MNRAS, 497, 726
ST/S000453/1. DAK acknowledges support from Spanish National Gorosabel J. et al., 2006, ApJ, 641, L13
Research Project RTI2018-098104-J-I00 (GRBPhot), and thanks S. Gottlieb O., Bromberg O., Singh C. B., Nakar E., 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3320
Schulze and M. Blažek for calculations support. IM is a recipient of Gottlieb O., Nakar E., Bromberg O., 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3511
the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT190100574. Granot J., 2007, Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis., 27. 140
Granot J., Piran T., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 570
Granot J., Sari R., 2002, ApJ, 568, 820
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y Greco G., Terra F., Nanni D., Bartolini C., Guarnieri A., Piccioni A., Pizzichini
G., Gualandi R., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw., 4732, 1
Data are available on request. Grupe D. et al., 2007, ApJ, 662, 443
Guidorzi C. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2124
Haislip J., Nysewander M., Bayliss M., Lacluyze A., Reichart D., Crain J.
REFERENCES
A., Foster A., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 4220, 1
Alatalo K., Perley D., Bloom J. S., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw., 4702, 1 Halpern J. P., Kemp J., Piran T., Bershady M. A., 1999, ApJ, 517, L105
Andreev M., Sergeev A., Babina J., Pozanenko A., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., Hamidani H., Ioka K., 2021, MNRAS, 500, 627
8615, 1 Henych T., Kocka M., Hroch F., Jelinek M., Hudec R., 2005, GRB Coord.
Antonelli L. A. et al., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 7597, 1 Netw., 4026, 1
Antonelli L. A. et al., 2009, A&A, 507, L45 Holland S. T., Campana S., Smith P., Huckle H., Gehrels N., 2005, GRB
Bardho O. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 459, 508 Coord. Netw., 4235, 1
Beniamini P., Nakar E., 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5430 Huang Y.-J. et al., 2020, ApJ, 897, 69
Berger E., Fong W., Chornock R., 2013, ApJ, 774, L23 Huang F. Y., Huang K. Y., Ip W. H., Urata Y., Qiu Y., Lou Y. Q., 2005, GRB
Bersier D., Gomboc A., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 7963, 1 Coord. Netw., 4230, 1
Beuermann K. et al., 1999, A&A, 352, L26 Huang K. Y., Ip W. H., Urata Y., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw., 4984, 1
Bloom J. S., Blake C. H., Starr D., Alatalo K., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., Hunsberger S. D., Marshall F., Holland S. T., Brown P., Morgan A., Roming
4216, 1 P., Cucchiara A., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 4041, 1

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)

4174 G. P. Lamb et al.
Isogai M., Kawai N., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 8629, 1 Perley D. A. et al., 2008, ApJ, 672, 449
Jaunsen A. O. et al., 2001, ApJ, 546, 127 Perley D. A., Melis C., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 7970, 1
Jin Z. P., Xu D., Covino S., D’Avanzo P., Antonelli A., Fan Y. Z., Wei D. M., Pescalli A., Ghirlanda G., Salafia O. S., Ghisellini G., Nappo F., Salvaterra
2009, MNRAS, 400, 1829 R., 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1911
Kahharov B., Ibrahimov M., Sharapov D., Pozanenko A., Rumyantsev V., Quimby R., Swan H., Rujopakarn W., Smith D. A., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw.,
Beskin G., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 3261, 1 5366, 1
Kamble A., Resmi L., Misra K., 2007, ApJ, 664, L5 Rau A. et al., 2010, ApJ, 720, 862
Kann D. A. et al., 2010, ApJ, 720, 1513 Rees M. J., Mészáros P., 1998, ApJ, 496, L1
Kann D. A. et al., 2011, ApJ, 734, 96 Reichart D., Lacluyze A., Nysewander M., Haislip J., 2006, GRB Coord.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/506/3/4163/6324578 by Physical Research Laboratory user on 05 December 2023

Kann D. A. et al., 2019, A&A, 624, A143 Netw., 4768, 1
Kinugasa K., Torii K., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 4295, 1 Rhoads J. E., 1997, ApJ, 487, L1
Kinugasa K., Honda S., Hashimoto O., Takahashi H., Taguchi H., 2009, GRB Rhoads J. E., 1999, ApJ, 525, 737
Coord. Netw., 9292, 1 Rossi E. M., Lazzati D., Salmonson J. D., Ghisellini G., 2004, MNRAS, 354,
Klotz A., Boer M., Atteia J. L., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 7595, 1 86
Kobayashi S., Piran T., Sari R., 1999, ApJ, 513, 669 Rumyantsev V., Antonyuk K., Andreev M., Pozanenko A., 2008, GRB Coord.
Krühler T. et al., 2009, A&A, 508, 593 Netw., 8645, 1
Kulkarni S. R. et al., 1999, Nature, 398, 389 Ryan G., van Eerten H., MacFadyen A., Zhang B.-B., 2015, ApJ, 799, 3
Kumar P., Piran T., 2000, ApJ, 532, 286 Rykoff E. S. et al., 2009, ApJ, 702, 489
Lacluyze A. et al., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw., 4750, 1 Salafia O. S., Ghisellini G., Pescalli A., Ghirlanda G., Nappo F., 2015,
Lamb G. P. et al., 2019a, ApJ, 870, L15 MNRAS, 450, 3549
Lamb G. P. et al., 2019b, ApJ, 883, 48 Salafia O. S., Barbieri C., Ascenzi S., Toffano M., 2020, A&A, 636, A105
Lamb G. P., Kobayashi S., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4953 Sari R., Mészáros P., 2000, ApJ, 535, L33
Lamb G. P., Kobayashi S., 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1820 Sari R., Piran T., Halpern J. P., 1999, ApJ, 519, L17
Lamb G. P., Tanaka M., Kobayashi S., 2018a, MNRAS, 476, 4435 Sbarufatti B., Mangano V., La Parola V., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 7810, 1
Lamb G. P., Mandel I., Resmi L., 2018b, MNRAS, 481, 2581 Schady P. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2773
Lamb G. P., Levan A. J., Tanvir N. R., 2020, ApJ, 899, 105 Schady P., Falcone A. D., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw., 4978, 1
Laskar T., Berger E., Margutti R., Perley D., Zauderer B. A., Sari R., Fong Schulze S. et al., 2011, A&A, 526, A23
W.-f., 2015, ApJ, 814, 1 Stanek K. Z. et al., 2007, ApJ, 654, L21
Li L. et al., 2020, ApJ, 900, 176 Takahashi K., Ioka K., 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5746
Li W., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 4240, 1 Tanvir N. R., Levan A. J., Fruchter A. S., Hjorth J., Hounsell R. A., Wiersema
Li W., Jha S., Filippenko A. V., Bloom J. S., Pooley D., Foley R. J., Perley K., Tunnicliffe R. L., 2013, Nature, 500, 547
D. A., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 4095, 1 Terada H., Pyo T. S., Kobayashi N., Kawai N., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw.,
Li W., Chornock R., Perley D. A., Filippenko A. V., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 4716, 1
7959, 1 Thöne C. C. et al., 2010, A&A, 523, A70
Liang E.-W., Zhang B.-B., Zhang B., 2007, ApJ, 670, 565 Thöne C. C. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 479
Li X.-Y., Lin D.-B., Ren J., Hou S.-J., Li Y.-F., Wang X.-G., Liang E.-W., van Eerten H., MacFadyen A., 2013, ApJ, 767, 141
2021, preprint (arXiv:2104.14080) van Eerten H., van der Horst A., MacFadyen A., 2012, ApJ, 749, 44
Lin C. S., Lin H. C., Chen C. W., Ip K. Y., Huang W. H., Urata Y., Qiu Y., Vergani S. D. et al., 2011, A&A, 535, A127
2006, GRB Coord. Netw., 4696, 1 Vestrand W. T. et al., 2006, Nature, 442, 172
Liu H. et al., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 8618, 1 Volkov I., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 8604, 1
Lu W., Beniamini P., McDowell A., 2020, preprint (arXiv:2005.10313) Wang X.-G. et al., 2015, ApJS, 219, 9
Mao J., Cha G., Bai J., 2009, GRB Coord. Netw., 9285, 1 Wang X.-G., Zhang B., Liang E.-W., Lu R.-J., Lin D.-B., Li J., Li L., 2018,
Melandri A. et al., 2008, ApJ, 686, 1209 ApJ, 859, 160
Milne P. A., Updike A., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 7793, 1 Weaver E. et al., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 7967, 1
Milne P. A., Williams G. G., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw., 4699, 1 West J. P. et al., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 8617, 1
Milne P. A., Williams G. G., Park H. S., 2005a, GRB Coord. Netw., 3258, Wiersema K. et al., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 3200, 1
1 Wozniak P. R., Vestrand W. T., Wren J., White R., Evans S., 2005, GRB
Milne P. A., Williams G. G., Park H. S., Barthelmy S., 2005b, GRB Coord. Coord. Netw., 4239, 1
Netw., 4218, 1 Woźniak P. R., Vestrand W. T., Wren J. A., White R. R., Evans S. M.,
Misra K., Kamble A. P., Sahu D. K., Srividya S., Bama P., Anupama G. C., Casperson D., 2006, ApJ, 642, L99
Vanniarajan M. S., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 4259, 1 Xin L.-P. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 27
Molinari E. et al., 2007, A&A, 469, L13 Yoshida M., Yanagisawa K., Kuroda D., Shimizu Y., Nagayama S., Toda H.,
Monard B., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 3728, 1 Kawai N., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 7973, 1
Monfardini A. et al., 2006, ApJ, 648, 1125 Yoshida M., Kuroda D., Yanagisawa K., Shimizu Y., Nagayama S., Toda H.,
Mori Y. A. et al., 2008, GRB Coord. Netw., 8619, 1 Kawai N., 2009, GRB Coord. Netw., 9267, 1
Nakamura K., Shigeyama T., 2006, ApJ, 645, 431 Yost S. A. et al., 2007, ApJ, 657, 925
Nakar E., Piran T., Granot J., 2002, ApJ, 579, 699 Yuan F. et al., 2008, in Huang Y.-F., Dai Z.-G., Zhang B., eds, AIP Conf. Ser.
Nathanail A., Gill R., Porth O., Fromm C. M., Rezzolla L., 2021, MNRAS, Vol. 1065, 2008 Nanjing Gamma-ray Burst Conference. Am. Inst. Phys.,
502, 1843 New York, p. 103
Nava L., Sironi L., Ghisellini G., Celotti A., Ghirlanda G., 2013, MNRAS, Yuan F. et al., 2010, ApJ, 711, 870
433, 2107 Zeh A., Klose S., Kann D. A., 2006, ApJ, 637, 889
Nicuesa Guelbenzu A. et al., 2011, A&A, 531, L6 Zhang W., MacFadyen A., 2009, ApJ, 698, 1261
Novak R., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 4027, 1 Zhang B., Fan Y. Z., Dyks J., Kobayashi S., Mészáros P., Burrows D. N.,
Nysewander M. et al., 2006, GRB Coord. Netw., 4971, 1 Nousek J. A., Gehrels N., 2006, ApJ, 642, 354
Ofek E. O., Lipkin Y. M., Dann J., 2005, GRB Coord. Netw., 4018, 1 Zhao W. et al., 2020, ApJ, 900, 112
Ofek E. O., Cenko S. B., Soderberg A. M., Fox D. B., 2006, GRB Coord.
Netw., 4691, 1
Panaitescu A., Kumar P., 2002, ApJ, 571, 779
This paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared by the author.
Pe’er A., 2012, ApJ, 752, L8

MNRAS 506, 4163–4174 (2021)