format: text

text:
# Wide-field (sub)millimeter continuum surveys of protoclusters: Clues to the origin of the IMF

## 1. Introduction

The question of the origin and possible universality of the initial mass function (IMF), which is crucial for both star formation and galactic evolution, remains a matter of debate (e.g. Elmegreen, this volume). In the past, numerous molecular line studies of cloud structure have attempted, without success, to relate the mass spectrum of observed clumps to the stellar IMF (see, e.g., Williams, Blitz, & McKee 2000 and references therein). The reason of this failure is presumably that most CO clumps are not gravitationally bound and reflect more the characteristics of the low-density outer parts of molecular clouds than the initial conditions of protostellar collapse (e.g. Kramer et al. 1998).

The advent of sensitive bolometer arrays on large (sub)mm radiotelescopes has recently made possible extensive surveys for protostars and their prestellar precursors in nearby star-forming regions (see, e.g., review by André, Ward-Thompson, & Barsony 2000). Wide-field millimeter continuum mapping of molecular clouds was first performed using the (19- and 37-channel) MPIfR bolometer arrays (MAMBO) at the IRAM 30m telescope (e.g. Chini et al. 1997; Motte, André, & Neri 1998 – hereafter MAN98). More recently, the bolometer cameras SCUBA and SHARC have been used at the JCMT and CSO radiotelescopes (e.g. Lis et al. 1998; Johnstone et al. 2000 – hereafter JWM00; Motte et al. 2001 – hereafter MAWB01, see Fig. 1). At the same time, mosaics of star-forming cloud cores have been obtained with the Owens Valley millimeter array (OVRO), over somewhat smaller areas but with higher angular resolution than single-dish bolometer observations (e.g. Testi & Sargent 1998 – hereafter TS98).

These (sub)mm continuum surveys have detected a large number of starless cloud fragments in the $`\rho `$ Oph (MAN98; JWM00), Serpens (TS98), OMC1 (Coppin et al. 2000 – hereafter CGJH00), NGC 1333 (Sandell & Knee 2000 – hereafter SK01), and NGC 2068/2071 (MAWB01) cluster-forming regions. Some of the starless fragments, dubbed here protocluster condensations, are likely to be the direct progenitors of protostars (see Sect. 2.2 below). When such condensations are carefully extracted from their surrounding cloud (see Sect. 2.3), the associated mass spectrum is found to resemble the shape of the stellar IMF (Sect. 3.1). This has important implications for the origin of the IMF in clusters (Sect. 4). We here give an overview of these recent submillimeter results and compare the methods employed in the various published studies.

## 2. Analysis of cloud structure

Relating cloud structure to star formation is a difficult task which requires a careful analysis motivated by physical questions such as: What is the size scale of protostellar collapse? How can we select those cloud fragments that are the potential progenitors of protostars? How can we accurately measure the mass reservoirs involved in individual collapse? Possible answers are proposed below.

### 2.1. Estimating the characteristic size scale of protostellar collapse

Numerous CO studies have shown that the overall structure of molecular clouds is fractal and probably shaped by turbulence, in both quiescent and star-forming regions (e.g. Elmegreen & Falgarone 1996; Heithausen et al. 1998). On the other hand, there is a growing body of evidence that this fractal structure breaks down once self-gravity takes over at the high densities and small lengthscales characteristic of individual protostellar collapse.
First, the CO maps of the Taurus cloud cannot be described by a single fractal dimension (Blitz & Williams 1997). Second, the dense cores observed within molecular clouds appear to be “coherent”, i.e., largely devoid of turbulence, in their inner 0.1 pc$`\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ AU parts (Goodman et al. 1998). Third, mid-infrared absorption images of isolated starless dense cores taken with ISOCAM aboard ISO show that these cores are typically finite-sized structures (Bacmann et al. 2000; Bacmann, André, & Ward-Thompson, this volume). Finally, (sub)mm continuum maps of optically thin dust emission also indicate finite sizes for protostellar envelopes. The radial intensity profiles observed for the envelopes of nearby protostars are indeed consistent with a power-law density structure merging into some background cloud emission beyond some outer radius $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ (MAN98; Motte & André 2001; see also Fig. 2a). The envelope outer radii are measured to be typically $`\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ AU in $`\rho `$ Oph and NGC 2068/2071 while being $`>\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ AU in Taurus. These outer sizes may result from truncation by the local ambient cloud pressure $`P_\mathrm{s}`$, varying from $`<P_\mathrm{s}>510\times 10^5k_\mathrm{B}\text{cm}^3`$K in dense protoclusters such as $`\rho `$ Oph and NGC 2068/2071, to $`<P_\mathrm{s}>0.5\times 10^5k_\mathrm{B}\text{cm}^3`$K in regions of more distributed star formation such as Taurus.

The typical size observed for (young) protostellar envelopes in a given star-forming region provides a natural lengthscale which is likely to be characteristic of the detached cloud fragments participating in individual protostellar collapse.

### 2.2. Selecting the possible progenitors of protostars

Guided by the ideas outlined in § 2.1 above, MAN98 and MAWB01 have used a multiresolution wavelet technique (e.g. Starck, Murtagh, & Bijaoui 1998) to analyze their (sub)mm maps of the $`\rho `$ Oph and NGC 2068/2071 protoclusters. With this technique, it is possible to separate small-scale fragments from structures larger than the characteristic outer size of protostellar envelopes. Note that the wavelet analysis is not subject to human bias, unlike the “visual inspection method” used by e.g. SK01 in NGC 1333.
As illustrated in Fig. 3 for the $`\rho `$ Oph-F region, the procedure consists in decomposing the original image in a number of views of the same field at different spatial scales. For simplicity, only two such views are shown in Fig. 3. The “small-scale” view (bottom right of Fig. 3) has been adjusted so as to trace circumstellar envelopes (or disks) around embedded young stellar objects (YSOs). In addition, the same view reveals several compact starless fragments (e.g. F-MM1 and F-MM2 in Fig. 3). These are not associated with any centimeter radio continuum emission or near-/mid-IR emission (MAN98). They are even often seen in absorption by ISOCAM at 7 $`\mu `$m against the diffuse mid-IR emission arising from the cloud’s outer layers (e.g. Motte et al. 1998b). These small-scale fragments are good candidates for being pre-stellar condensations (see below).
On the other hand, the structures that show up in the “large-scale” view (bottom left of Fig. 3) correspond to dense cores already known from DCO+, CS, or NH3 studies with $``$arcmin resolution (e.g. Loren, Wootten, & Wilking 1990). In protoclusters, such dense cores are typically the sites of multiple protostellar collapse and correspond to the background environment of several smaller-scale condensations. In regions of isolated star formation (e.g. Taurus), dense cores of similar sizes generally give birth to only one or two stars (cf. Myers 1998).

The $`\rho `$ Oph starless condensations identified in this way by MAN98 have relatively narrow linewidths and are close to gravitational virial equilibrium according to recent observations in high-density molecular tracers (see Belloche, André, & Motte, this volume). Furthermore these condensations, as well as those of MAWB01 in NGC 2068/2071 have spheroidal shapes (aspect ratio $`0.6`$, see also CGJH00). All of this suggests that the condensations have dissipated (most of) their initial magnetic turbulent support and are on the verge of collapse. In $`\rho `$ Oph, some of them already show spectroscopic evidence of inward motions (see Belloche et al., this volume). Based on these characteristics and the similarity with protostellar envelopes, we argue that the starless condensations identified in the (sub)mm continuum are likely to be pre-stellar in nature and the direct progenitors of accreting (i.e. Class 0, Class I) protostars.

In the Serpens core, the OVRO interferometer study of TS98 filtered out all cloud structures larger than $`\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ AU in diameter. As this is comparable to the size of protostellar envelopes in Serpens, the sources detected by TS98 are probably “protocluster condensations” in the same sense as above. However, line and centimeter radio continuum observations would be needed to confirm that these condensations are self-gravitating and pre-stellar in character.

In their independent study of the $`\rho `$ Oph protocluster, JWM00 analyzed cloud structure without reference to any circumstellar lengthscale. In practice, they nevertheless selected fragments smaller than $`\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ AU in diameter, owing to the Gaussian filter applied to remove reduction artifacts from the SCUBA data. They identified as “clumps” all the structures associated with a local maximum in their map, regardless of size, global shape, or substructure. Some of these clumps are very diffuse and may be transient features confined by external pressure rather than bound by gravity (cf. Bertoldi & McKee 1992). Moreover, several of the JWM00 clumps are and/or will clearly be the sites of multiple protostellar collapse (e.g. the clump associated with IRS43, CRBR85, and F-MM2 in Fig. 3). Thus, in general, the structures selected by JWM00 do not seem to be truly representative of collapse initial conditions and cannot be taken as the direct progenitors of protostars.

### 2.3. Making reliable measurements of the collapse mass reservoir

In order to estimate the total mass available for local gravitational collapse, one first needs to quantify the importance of the background cloud surrounding each pre-stellar condensation. This is definitely the most difficult step in the analyses of MAN98, CGJH00, and MAWB01. CGJH00 assumed that all their condensations were essentially unresolved (i.e. diameter $`<\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ AU in their case) and thus estimated only lower limits to the corresponding mass reservoirs. The analysis of MAN98 and MAWB01 is more sophisticated as it uses the radial intensity profiles of the condensations to determine their outer radii (e.g. § 2.1 and Fig. 2b). This makes it possible to filter the background very effectively and to get an accurate measurement of the collapse mass reservoir, without any a priori assumption about the fragment shape. It is however a time-consuming process that cannot be easily automated. The condensations must also be spatially resolved which, in practice, limits the technique to nearby regions.
As for TS98, they integrated the emission detected toward the point-like sources identified in their OVRO 3.3 mm mosaic. They did not correct for the physical size of the mass reservoir which may be slightly larger than the $`\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ AU diameter of the interferometric filter.
In another approach, JWM00 used a variant of the clump finding algorithm of Williams, de Geus, & Blitz (1994) which assumes that a fragment ends at the last significant contour surrounding it. Such a boundary is signal-to-noise dependent and not necessarily related to the physical outer radius resulting from, e.g., truncation by the pressure of the background cloud.

After source extraction and background subtraction, the masses of the condensations identified are estimated from the measured (sub)mm fluxes assuming dust properties (temperature and opacity) adapted to pre-stellar cores (see e.g. MAN98). At least far from massive YSOs, starless condensations are expected to have low temperatures $`T_{\text{dust}}<1015`$ K, as they are well shielded from external heating by cosmic rays and the interstellar radiation field (e.g. Masunaga & Inutsuka 2000; Evans et al. 2001).

## 3. Overview of results

With present instruments, wide-field (sub)mm surveys of nearby ($`d<500`$ pc) protoclusters are limited to the detection of $`>0.02M_{}`$ condensations and are only complete down to $`>0.1M_{}`$. Table 1 lists several of the above-mentioned submm continuum studies, along with the related molecular line survey of Taurus by Onishi et al. (2001, this volume – herafter OMKF01). The characteristics of the cloud fragments found in each study are given in the last column.

### 3.1. Mass distribution of protocluster condensations

When one carefully selects the (sub)mm fragments seen on the same spatial scales as protostellar envelopes (cf. § 2.2), the resulting mass spectrum appears to mimic the shape of the stellar IMF (see MAN98; TS98; MAWB01 and Fig. 4). The cumulative mass spectra of the pre-stellar condensations identified in the $`\rho `$ Oph, Serpens, and NGC 2068/2071 protoclusters approximately follow the Salpeter power-law (i.e. $`N(>m)m^{1.35}`$, Salpeter 1955) for $`m>0.30.5M_{}`$, $`>0.4M_{}`$ and $`>0.8M_{}`$, respectively. At lower masses, the $`\rho `$ Oph mass spectrum flattens to $`N(>m)m^{0.5}`$ as does the stellar IMF (e.g. Kroupa, Tout, & Gilmore 1993). This suggests that the protocluster condensations detected in the (sub)mm continuum will form individual stars/systems with a high efficiency roughly independent of mass. More quantitatively, comparison of the pre-stellar mass spectrum of MAN98 with the mass spectrum determined by Bontemps et al. (2001) for pre-main sequence objects suggests that the local star formation efficiency is $`>5070\%`$ for each prestellar condensation of $`\rho `$ Oph.
Interestingly, the starless H13CO+ condensations detected by Onishi et al. in Taurus also have a mass spectrum that resembles, for $`m>3.5M_{}`$, the IMF of field stars (OMFK01, this volume). In marked contrast with CO results (see Fig. 4 and, e.g., Williams et al. 2000), this finding suggests that high density molecular tracers can also give access to the real progenitors of protostars. The star formation efficiency estimated by OMKF01 for their condensations is significantly lower ($`<15\%`$) than that inferred in protoclusters, which may be characteristic of regions forming stars in relative isolation such as Taurus.

On the other hand, the mass distribution found by submm continuum studies which do not carefully select small-scale pre-stellar fragments (see Sect. 2.2) is generally scale-free and tends to follow the same power-law as that observed for CO clumps (e.g. CGJH00 and SK01). Likewise, the mass spectrum obtained by MAN98 when combining the dense cores and compact condensations of $`\rho `$ Oph together is roughly scale-free with $`N(>m)m^{0.5}`$.
The introduction of an upper sizescale in the study of cloud structure naturally creates a break in this self-similar scaling. This may explain why JWM00, who filtered dust structures larger than $`\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ AU in diameter in $`\rho `$ Oph, found a mass spectrum reminiscent of the Salpeter IMF above a break at $`m0.9M_{}`$ (when $`T_{\text{dust}}`$=15 K). However, the upper sizescale used to select protocluster condensations must be physically motivated (cf. § 2.1) for the derived mass spectrum to be meaningful.

### 3.2. Mass-size relation of protocluster condensations

Figure 5 compares the mass-size relations derived for the (sub)mm dust continuum condensations of the $`\rho `$ Oph and NGC 2068/2071 protoclusters (from MAN98 and MAWB01) with those found for CO clumps in various clouds (e.g. Heithausen et al. 1998). The (sub)mm condensations are definitely denser ($`n_{\text{H2}}>10^6\text{cm}^3`$) than both CO clumps ($`n_{\text{H2}}10^3\text{cm}^3`$) and typical NH3 cores ($`n_{\text{H2}}10^410^5\text{cm}^3`$ – Jijina, Myers, & Adams 1999). The mass-size relation of the condensations spans only one decade in size and is much flatter than that of CO clumps: a formal fitting analysis gives $`M_{\mathrm{smm}}R_{\mathrm{smm}}^{1.1}`$ as opposed to $`M_{\mathrm{CO}}R_{\mathrm{CO}}^{2.4}`$. Although the observed correlations may be partly affected by size-dependent detection thresholds, it is worth pointing out that they are suggestive of a change from a turbulence-dominated to a gravity-dominated regime. Indeed, while the Larson law $`MR^2`$ is consistent with the fractal, turbulent nature of molecular clouds (e.g. Elmegreen & Falgarone 1996), a linear relation ($`MR`$) is expected for a sample of self-gravitating isothermal condensations assuming a uniform temperature and a range of external pressures (cf. Bonnor 1956). The thick solid line in Fig. 5 displays the $`M(R)=2.4Ra^2/G`$ relation obtained for critical Bonnor-Ebert spheres when $`T=15`$ K ($`a`$ is the sound speed). A very similar linear relation ($`M(R)=2Ra^2/G`$) holds for truncated singular isothermal spheres (cf. Shu 1977). The largest condensations of NGC 2068/2071 are consistent with $`P_\mathrm{s}10^5k_\mathrm{B}\text{cm}^3`$K, and the smallest condensations of $`\rho `$ Oph with $`P_\mathrm{s}10^7k_\mathrm{B}\text{cm}^3`$K. These values are compatible with the range of ambient pressures expected in protoclusters (cf. Myers 1998 and Johnstone et al. 2000). Although the Bonnor-Ebert isothermal model is probably too simplistic to fully describe the condensations observed in protoclusters, the comparison shown in Fig. 5 is quite encouraging. It illustrates that the pre-stellar condensations identified in the dust continuum are much more centrally concentrated than CO clumps and require the effects of self-gravity.

## 4. Conclusions

There is now a growing body of evidence that the fragmentation of dense ($`10^510^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$) cores into compact, self-gravitating condensations determines the IMF of star clusters in the low- to intermediate-mass range ($`0.15M_{}`$). A plausible scenario, supported by some numerical simulations of cluster formation (Klessen & Burkert 2000; Padoan et al. 2001), could be the following: First, cloud turbulence generates a field of density fluctuations, a fraction of them corresponding to self-gravitating fragments; second, these fragments (or “kernels”) decouple from their turbulent environment (e.g. Myers 1998) and collapse to protostars after little interaction with their surroundings.

More extensive surveys should be done to improve the statistics and search for starless condensations more massive than $`10M_{}`$. However, high-mass stars may not form from the collapse of single condensations but from the merging of several pre-/proto-stellar condensations of low to intermediate mass. In the collision scenario of Bonnell, Bate, & Zinnecker (1998), the cluster crossing time must be short enough to allow individual condensations to collide and coalesce with one another. Follow-up high-resolution dynamical studies in dense molecular tracers are thus necessary to decide whether the condensations detected in the submm dust continuum have the potential to form massive stars with $`M_{}>10M_{}`$. Preliminary results of such a dynamical study suggest that this is not the case in the $`\rho `$ Oph protocluster (Belloche et al., this volume).

Deeper, wider submillimeter continuum surveys in a variety of star-forming regions are clearly required to set stronger constraints on the IMF’s origin and investigate possible environmental effects. At the end of the present decade, the FIRST/Herschel satellite equipped with the bolometer arrays SPIRE and PACS will carry out unbiased surveys of nearby ($`d<1`$ kpc) cloud complexes at 90–300 $`\mu `$m, i.e., at wavelengths where cold pre-stellar condensations emit most of their radiation. Thanks to its unprecedented resolution and sensitivity around $`\lambda `$ 0.8–1 mm (and below), the ALMA interferometer will make possible similar investigations in distant protoclusters including Galactic mini-starburst regions.

#### Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge useful discussions with Anthony Whitworth on the mass-size relation of submm condensations given in Fig. 5.

## References

André, P., Ward-Thompson, D., Barsony, M. 2000, in Protostars & Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. Boss, & S. Russell (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), p. 59

Bacmann, A., André, P., Puget, J.-L., Abergel, A., Bontemps, S., & Ward-Thompson, D. 2000, A&A, 361, 555

Bertoldi, F., & McKee, C.F. 1992, ApJ, 395, 140

Blitz, L., & Williams, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 488, L145

Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., & Zinnecker, H. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 93

Bonnor, W. B. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 351

Bontemps, S., André, P., Kaas, A., et al. 2001, A&A, in press

Chini, R., Reipurth, B., Ward-Thompson, D., et al. 1997, ApJ, 474, L135

Coppin, K. E. K., Greaves, J. S., Jenness, T., & Holland, W. S. 2000, A&A, 356, 1031 (CGJH00)

Elmegreen, B. G., & Falgarone, E. 1996, ApJ, 471, 816

Evans, N. J., Rawlings, J. M. C., Shirley, Y. L., & Mundy, L. G. 2001, in prep.

Goodman, A. A., Barranco, J. A., Wilner, D. J., Heyer, M. H. 1998, ApJ, 504, 22

Heithausen, A., Bensch, F., Stutzki, J., Falgarone, E., Panis, J.-F. 1998, A&A, 331, L65

Jijina, J., Myers, P. C., & Adams, F.C. 1999, ApJS, 125, 161

Johnstone, D., Wilson, C. D., Moriarty-Schieven, G., et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, 3274 (JWM00)

Klessen, R. S., & Burkert, A. 2000, ApJS, 128, 287

Kramer, C., Stutzki, J., Winnewisser, G. 1996, A&A, 307, 915

Kramer, C., Stutzki, J., Rohrig, R., & Corneliussen, U. 1998, A&A, 329, 249

Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545

Lada, E. A., Bally, J., Stark, A. A. 1991a, ApJ, 368, 432 (LBS)

Lis, D. C., Serabyn, E, Keene, J., et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, 299

Loren, R. B., Wootten, A., Wilking, B. A. 1990, ApJ, 365, 229

Masunaga, H., & Inutsuka, S. 2000, ApJ, 531, 350

Motte, F., & André, P. 2001, A&A, 365, 440

Motte, F., André, P., & Neri, R. 1998a, A&A, 336, 150 (MAN98)

Motte, F., André, P. Neri, R., & Abergel, A. 1998b, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 132, Star Formation with the Infrared Space Observatory, ed. J. Yun & R. Liseau, 163

Motte, F., André, P., Ward-Thompson, D., Bontemps, S. 2001, submitted (MAWB01)

Myers, P. C. 1998, ApJ, 469, L109

Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

Sandell, G., & Knee, L.B.G. 2001, ApJ, 546, L49 (SK01)

Shu, F. H. 1977, ApJ, 214, 488

Starck, J.-L., Murtagh, F., & Bijaoui, A. 1998, Image Processing and Data Analysis: The Multiscale Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

Testi, L., Sargent, A. I. 1998, ApJ, 508, L91 (TS98)

Williams, J. P., de Geus, E. J., Blitz, L. 1994, ApJ, 428, 693

Williams, J. P., Blitz, L., McKee, C. F. 2000, in Protostars & Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. Boss, & S. Russell (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), p. 97


text:
# Gamma-ray bursts: afterglows from cylindrical jets

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows in early 1997 (van Paradijs et al. 1997; Sahu et al. 1997) has revolutionized the researches in the field (Wijers 1998). Since then, X-ray afterglows (Costa et al. 1997; Piro et al. 1998) have been detected from more than 20 GRBs, of which a half were observed optically (e.g., Groot et al. 1997; Galama et al. 1997; Metzger et al. 1997; Kulkarni et al. 1998; Pedersen et al. 1998; Garcia et al. 1998; Akerlof et al. 1999; Vreeswijk et al. 1999) and one third were even observed in radio bands (e.g., Frail et al. 1997; Galama et al. 1998a, b). The cosmological origin is thus firmly established, and the so called fireball model (Goodman 1986; Paczyński 1986; Rees & Mészáros 1992, 1994; Mészáros & Rees 1992; Mészáros, Laguna & Rees 1993; Mészáros, Rees & Papathanassiou 1994; Katz 1994; Sari, Narayan & Piran 1996) becomes the most popular model, which is found successful in explaining the global features of GRB afterglows (Mészáros & Rees 1997; Waxman 1997a, b; Tavani 1997; Vietri 1997; Wijers, Rees & Mészáros 1997; Mészáros, Rees & Wijers 1998; Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998; Dermer et al. 1999a, b; Wijers & Galama 1999; Dai & Lu 1998, 1999). For detailed reviews on recent progresses, see Piran (1999) and van Paradijs, Kouveliotou & Wijers (2000).

However, we are still far from resolving the puzzle of GRBs, because many crucial problems are largely open. For example, whether a GRB is due to a highly collimated jet or an isotropic fireball is still controversial. This issue has been discussed extensively. It is generally believed that due to both the edge effect (Panaitescu & Mészáros 1999; Kulkarni et al. 1999; Mészáros & Rees 1999) and the lateral expansion effect (Rhoads 1997, 1999), afterglows from a jet will be characterized by a break in the light curve during the relativistic phase. GRBs 990123, 990510 and 000301c are regarded as good examples (Kulkarni et al. 1999; Harrison et al. 1999; Castro-Tirado et al. 1999; Sari, Piran & Halpern 1999; Wijers et al. 1999; Rhoads & Fruchter 2001; Berger et al. 2001; Jensen et al. 2001; Masetti et al. 2000). But detailed numerical studies show that the break is usually quite smooth (Panaitescu & Mészáros 1998; Moderski, Sikora & Bulik 2000). Recently Huang et al. (1998a, b, 1999a, b) stressed the importance of the non-relativistic phase of GRB afterglows. They have used their refined dynamical model to discuss afterglows from jetted GRB remnants (Huang et al. 2000a, b, c). It is found that the most obvious light curve break does not appear in the relativistic phase, but occurs at the relativistic-Newtonian transition point. They also stressed that the break is parameter-dependent (Huang et al. 2000b). Based on their investigations, the rapid fading of optical afterglows from GRBs 970228, 980326, 980519, 990123, 990510 and 991208 has been suggested as evidence for beaming in these cases (Huang et al. 2000d).

In all these discussion, a conical jet (i.e., a jet with a constant half opening angle; of course, in some more realistic discussion, the conical jet is permitted to expand laterally) has been assumed. However, we should note that this might not be the case. For example, we know that a relativistic flow (i.e., a jet) is a common feature of radio galaxies. Interestingly, copious examples have shown that these outflows are not conical, instead, they maintain constant cross sections at large scales (Perley, Bridle & Willis 1984; Biretta, Sparks & Macchetto 1999; also see GLAST home page: http://www-glast.sonoma.edu/gru/agn/Default.htm and Chandra home page: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/cycle1/pictor/index.html for good examples). Here we call a jet maintaining a constant cross section a cylindrical jet. It is reasonable to deduce that ultra-relativistic outflows in GRBs might also be cylindrical jets, not conical ones. In fact, this idea has already been suggested as GRB trigger mechanism by Dar et al. (Shaviv & Dar 1995; Dar 1998, 1999).

Afterglows from a cylindrical jet is likely to differ from those of a conical jet markedly. If GRBs are really due to cylindrical jets, then we need to examine their dynamics and afterglows in detail, which is just the purpose of this article. The structure of our article is as follows. We describe our model in Section 2 and present the analytic solution in Section 3. Section 4 is the numerical results and Section 5 is brief discussion.

## 2 Model

Let us consider a highly collimated GRB remnant, ploughing its way through a homogeneous interstellar medium (ISM) where the number density is $`n`$. Denote the lateral radius of the remnant as $`a`$, and its distance from the central engine of the GRB as $`R`$. The remnant will maintain a constant cross section (i.e., $`a`$ const), except that it may expand laterally at a speed $`v_{}`$.

### 2.1 Dynamics

In the literature, the following differential equation is usually used to depict the expansion of GRB remnants (e.g., Chiang & Dermer 1999; Piran 1999),

$$\frac{d\gamma }{dm}=\frac{\gamma ^21}{M},$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the rest mass of the swept-up medium, $`\gamma `$ is the bulk Lorentz factor and $`M`$ is the total mass in the co-moving frame, including internal energy. However, Huang et al. (1999a, b) pointed out that in the adiabatic case equation (1) does not match with the Sedov solution during the non-relativistic phase. They have proposed a refined equation,

$$\frac{d\gamma }{dm}=\frac{\gamma ^21}{M_{\mathrm{ej}}+ϵm+2(1ϵ)\gamma m},$$
(2)
which is shown to be correct for both adiabatic and highly radiative shocks, and in both relativistic and Newtonian phase. Here $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ is the initial ejecta mass and $`ϵ`$ is the radiative efficiency. In this paper we adopt equation (2) to describe the dynamical behavior of our cylindrical jet. For simplicity, we will only consider the adiabatic case (i.e., $`ϵ0`$).

The evolution of radius ($`R`$), the swept-up mass ($`m`$), and the lateral radius ($`a`$) is described by (cf. Huang et al. 2000a, b),

$$\frac{dR}{dt}=\beta c\gamma (\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^21}),$$
(3)
$$\frac{dm}{dR}=\pi a^2nm_\mathrm{p},$$
(4)
$$\frac{da}{dt}=v_{}(\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^21}),$$
(5)
where $`t`$ is the observer’s time, $`\beta =\sqrt{\gamma ^21}/\gamma `$, $`c`$ is the speed of light, and $`m_\mathrm{p}`$ is the mass of proton. As for $`v_{}`$, we have two possibilities, just like in the case of a conical jet: (i) $`v_{}0`$, this means the jet does not expand laterally, it maintains a constant cross section strictly. The problem is then greatly simplified; (ii) $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$, i.e., the jet expands laterally at the co-moving sound speed, of which a reasonable expression has been derived by Huang et al. (2000a, b) as,

$$c_\mathrm{s}^2=\widehat{\gamma }(\widehat{\gamma }1)(\gamma 1)\frac{1}{1+\widehat{\gamma }(\gamma 1)}c^2,$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{\gamma }(4\gamma +1)/(3\gamma )`$ is the adiabatic index (Dai, Huang & Lu 1999). In the ultra-relativistic limit ($`\gamma 1,\widehat{\gamma }4/3`$), equation (6) gives $`c_\mathrm{s}^2=c^2/3`$; and in the non-relativistic limit ($`\gamma 1,\widehat{\gamma }5/3`$), we simply get $`c_\mathrm{s}^2=5\beta ^2c^2/9`$.

Equations (2) — (5) give a thorough description of the dynamical evolution of our cylindrical jets. We will solve them analytically in the next section and then present our numerical results in Section 4.

### 2.2 Synchrotron radiation

A strong blastwave will be produced due to the interaction of the remnant with the ISM. Synchrotron radiation from the shock-accelerated ISM electrons gives birth to GRB afterglows. As usual, we assume that the magnetic energy density in the co-moving frame is a fraction $`\xi _\mathrm{B}^2`$ of the total thermal energy density ($`B^2/8\pi =\xi _\mathrm{B}^2e^{}`$), and that electrons carry a fraction $`\xi _\mathrm{e}`$ of the proton energy, which means that the minimum Lorentz factor of the random motion of electrons in the co-moving frame is $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{min}}=\xi _\mathrm{e}(\gamma 1)m_\mathrm{p}/m_\mathrm{e}+1`$, where $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ is the electron mass. In the absence of radiation loss, the distribution of the shock-accelerated electrons behind the blastwave can be characterized by a power-law function of electron energy, $`dN_\mathrm{e}^{}/d\gamma _\mathrm{e}\gamma _\mathrm{e}^p`$ $`(\gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{min}}\gamma _\mathrm{e}\gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{max}})`$, where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum Lorentz factor, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{max}}=10^8(B^{}/1\mathrm{G})^{1/2}`$ (Mészáros et al. 1993; Vietri 1997; Dai et al. 1999).

However, radiation loss may play an important role in the process. Sari et al. (1998) have derived an equation for the critical electron Lorentz factor, $`\gamma _\mathrm{c}`$, above which synchrotron radiation is significant:

$$\gamma _\mathrm{c}=6\pi m_\mathrm{e}c/(\sigma _\mathrm{T}\gamma B^2t),$$
(7)
where $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thompson cross section. The distribution of radiative electrons (i.e., those with $`\gamma _\mathrm{e}>\gamma _\mathrm{c}`$) becomes another power-law function of $`dN_\mathrm{e}^{}/d\gamma _\mathrm{e}\gamma _\mathrm{e}^{(p+1)}`$. A good description of electron distribution allowing for radiation loss has been presented by Dai et al. (1999, also see: Huang et al. 2000a, b). We will use their expression in this research. For convenience, let us define a characteristic frequency of $`\nu _\mathrm{c}\gamma \gamma _\mathrm{c}^2eB^{}/(2\pi m_\mathrm{e}c)`$ here (Sari et al. 1998).

In the co-moving frame, synchrotron radiation power at frequency $`\nu ^{}`$ from electrons is given by (Rybicki & Lightman 1979),

$$P^{}(\nu ^{})=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3B^{}}{m_\mathrm{e}c^2}_{\gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{min}}}^{\gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{max}}}\left(\frac{dN_\mathrm{e}^{}}{d\gamma _\mathrm{e}}\right)F\left(\frac{\nu ^{}}{\nu _{\mathrm{cr}}^{}}\right)𝑑\gamma _\mathrm{e},$$
(8)
where $`e`$ is electron charge, $`\nu _{\mathrm{cr}}^{}=3\gamma _\mathrm{e}^2eB^{}/(4\pi m_\mathrm{e}c)`$, and

$$F(x)=x_x^+\mathrm{}K_{5/3}(k)𝑑k,$$
(9)
with $`K_{5/3}(k)`$ being the Bessel function. We assume that this power is radiated isotropically,

$$\frac{dP^{}(\nu ^{})}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}=\frac{P^{}(\nu ^{})}{4\pi }.$$
(10)
Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be the angle between the axis of the jet and the line of sight, and define $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$, we can derive the angular distribution of power in the observer’s frame (Rybicki & Lightman 1979),

$$\frac{dP(\nu )}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{1}{\gamma ^3(1\beta \mu )^3}\frac{dP^{}(\nu ^{})}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}=\frac{1}{\gamma ^3(1\beta \mu )^3}\frac{P^{}(\nu ^{})}{4\pi },$$
(11)
$$\nu =\frac{\nu ^{}}{\gamma (1\mu \beta )}.$$
(12)
Then the observed flux density at frequency $`\nu `$ is (Huang et al. 2000a, b),

$$S_\nu =\frac{1}{A}\left(\frac{dP(\nu )}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{A}{D_\mathrm{L}^2}\right)=\frac{1}{\gamma ^3(1\beta \mu )^3}\frac{1}{4\pi D_\mathrm{L}^2}P^{}\left(\gamma (1\mu \beta )\nu \right),$$
(13)
where $`A`$ is the area of our detector and $`D_\mathrm{L}`$ is the luminosity distance.

## 3 Analytic Solutions

Since the geometry concerned here is still quite simple, we can derive approximate solutions to the problem analytically. In this section, for simplicity, we assume $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$, i.e., the jet is just moving along the line of sight. Obviously, we then do not need to consider the effect of the equal arrival time surfaces (Waxman 1997b; Sari 1997; Panaitescu & Mészáros 1998). We discuss the two cases of $`v_{}0`$ and $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$ separately. Note that we take $`ϵ0`$ all through the article.

### 3.1 $`v_{}0`$ case

During the ultra-relativistic phase, since $`\gamma 1`$, $`\beta 1`$, and $`\gamma mM_{\mathrm{ej}}`$, equations (2) — (5) reduce to,

$$\frac{d\gamma }{dm}\frac{\gamma }{2m},\frac{dm}{dR}\mathrm{const},\frac{dR}{dt}2\gamma ^2c.$$
(14)
Then it is very easy to get:

$$\gamma m^{1/2},mR,Rt^{1/2}.$$
(15)
Additionally, from the shock conditions (Blandford & McKee 1976; Huang et al. 1998a, b), the co-moving thermal energy density is $`e^{}\gamma ^2t^{1/2}`$, so we have $`B^{}(e^{})^{1/2}t^{1/4}`$, and $`\nu _\mathrm{c}\gamma \gamma _\mathrm{c}^2B^{}t^1`$. Since the peak frequency of synchrotron radiation is $`\nu _\mathrm{m}\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{min}}^2B^{}`$ (Sari et al. 1998), we have $`\nu _\mathrm{m}t^1`$, and the peak flux density is $`S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}N_\mathrm{e}\gamma B^{}/\gamma ^2N_\mathrm{e}\gamma ^3B^{}t^{1/2}`$. The factor of $`\gamma ^2`$ in $`S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}`$ is due to the relativistic beaming effect. At last, we can derive the flux density of the afterglow as follows,

$$S_\nu \{\begin{array}{ccc}S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{(p1)/2}\nu ^{(p1)/2}t^{p/2},(\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu <\nu _\mathrm{c},\mathrm{slow}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu _\mathrm{c}}{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{(p1)/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{p/2}\nu ^{p/2}t^{(p+1)/2},(\nu _\mathrm{m}<\nu _\mathrm{c}\nu ,\mathrm{slow}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{1/2}\nu ^{1/2}t^1,(\nu _\mathrm{c}\nu <\nu _\mathrm{m},\mathrm{fast}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu _\mathrm{m}}{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{p/2}\nu ^{p/2}t^{(p+1)/2},(\nu _\mathrm{c}<\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu ,\mathrm{fast}\mathrm{cooling}).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(16)
In the non-relativistic phase, $`\gamma 1`$, $`\beta 1`$, $`d\gamma \beta d\beta `$, equations (2) — (5) reduce to,

$$\frac{d\beta }{dm}\frac{\beta }{2m},\frac{dm}{dR}\mathrm{const},\frac{dR}{dt}\beta c.$$
(17)
The scaling laws become,

$$\beta m^{1/2},mR,Rt^{2/3}.$$
(18)
According to the shock conditions (Huang et al. 1998a, b), the co-moving thermal energy density is $`e^{}\gamma 1t^{2/3}`$. Then we have $`B^{}(e^{})^{1/2}t^{1/3}`$, $`\nu _\mathrm{c}\gamma \gamma _\mathrm{c}^2B^{}t^1`$, $`\nu _\mathrm{m}\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{min}}^2B^{}t^{5/3}`$, $`S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\gamma N_\mathrm{e}B^{}t^{1/3}`$, and finally the flux density is,

$$S_\nu \{\begin{array}{ccc}S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{(p1)/2}\nu ^{(p1)/2}t^{(5p7)/6},(\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu <\nu _\mathrm{c},\mathrm{slow}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu _\mathrm{c}}{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{(p1)/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{p/2}\nu ^{p/2}t^{(5p4)/6},(\nu _\mathrm{m}<\nu _\mathrm{c}\nu ,\mathrm{slow}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{1/2}\nu ^{1/2}t^{1/6},(\nu _\mathrm{c}\nu <\nu _\mathrm{m},\mathrm{fast}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu _\mathrm{m}}{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{p/2}\nu ^{p/2}t^{(5p4)/6},(\nu _\mathrm{c}<\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu ,\mathrm{fast}\mathrm{cooling}).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(19)
Let us discuss the decay of optical afterglows (e.g., R band, at the frequency $`\nu _\mathrm{R}`$) in more detail. In the ultra-relativistic phase, $`\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu _\mathrm{R}\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ is typically satisfied initially, then we have $`S_\mathrm{R}\nu ^{(p1)/2}t^{p/2}`$ at early stages. Since $`\nu _\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ both scale as $`t^1`$, we will eventually have $`\nu _\mathrm{m}<\nu _\mathrm{c}<\nu _\mathrm{R}`$, then the afterglow at later stages is just $`S_\mathrm{R}\nu ^{p/2}t^{(p+1)/2}`$, i.e., the light curve steepens by $`t^{1/2}`$ due to the cooling effect of electrons. After entering the non-relativistic phase, since $`\nu _\mathrm{m}t^{5/3}`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{c}t^1`$, the relation of $`\nu _\mathrm{m}<\nu _\mathrm{c}<\nu _\mathrm{R}`$ will continue to be satisfied. The afterglow then decays as $`S_\mathrm{R}\nu ^{p/2}t^{(5p4)/6}`$, which means the light curve usually becomes flatter again, by $`t^{(72p)/6}`$

### 3.2 $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$ case

During the ultra-relativistic phase, $`\gamma 1`$, $`\beta 1`$, $`\gamma mM_{\mathrm{ej}}`$, $`c_\mathrm{s}c/\sqrt{3}`$, equations (2) — (5) reduce to,

$$\frac{d\gamma }{dm}\frac{\gamma }{2m},\frac{dm}{dR}\pi a^2nm_\mathrm{p},\frac{da}{dt}\frac{2\gamma c}{\sqrt{3}},\frac{dR}{dt}2\gamma ^2c.$$
(20)
The corresponding solution is,

$$\gamma t^{1/2},at^{1/2},mt.$$
(21)
Similarly we have $`e^{}\gamma ^2t^1`$, $`B^{}(e^{})^{1/2}t^{1/2}`$, $`\nu _\mathrm{c}\gamma \gamma _\mathrm{c}^2B^{}t^0`$, $`\nu _\mathrm{m}\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{min}}^2B^{}t^2`$, and $`S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}N_\mathrm{e}\gamma B^{}/\gamma ^2t^1`$. The flux density of the afterglow is then given by,

$$S_\nu \{\begin{array}{ccc}S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{(p1)/2}\nu ^{(p1)/2}t^p,(\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu <\nu _\mathrm{c},\mathrm{slow}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu _\mathrm{c}}{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{(p1)/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{p/2}\nu ^{p/2}t^p,(\nu _\mathrm{m}<\nu _\mathrm{c}\nu ,\mathrm{slow}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{1/2}\nu ^{1/2}t^1,(\nu _\mathrm{c}\nu <\nu _\mathrm{m},\mathrm{fast}\mathrm{cooling})\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu _\mathrm{m}}{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{p/2}\nu ^{p/2}t^p,(\nu _\mathrm{c}<\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu ,\mathrm{fast}\mathrm{cooling}).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(22)
Note that in most cases, the flux density decays as $`t^p`$.

In the non-relativistic phase, $`\gamma 1`$, $`\beta 1`$, $`c_\mathrm{s}\sqrt{5}\beta c/3`$, equations (2) — (5) reduce to,

$$\frac{d\beta }{dm}\frac{\beta }{2m},\frac{dm}{dR}\pi a^2nm_\mathrm{p},\frac{da}{dt}\frac{\sqrt{5}\beta c}{3},\frac{dR}{dt}\beta c.$$
(23)
The solution is also easy to get as,

$$\beta m^{1/2},mR^3,Rat^{2/5}.$$
(24)
Then we have: $`e^{}\gamma 1t^{6/5}`$, $`B^{}(e^{})^{1/2}t^{3/5}`$, $`\nu _\mathrm{c}\gamma \gamma _\mathrm{c}^2B^{}t^{1/5}`$, $`\nu _\mathrm{m}\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{min}}^2B^{}\beta ^4B^{}t^3`$, $`S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\gamma N_\mathrm{e}B^{}t^{3/5}`$. So the flux density is,

$$S_\nu \{\begin{array}{ccc}S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{(p1)/2}\nu ^{(p1)/2}t^{(15p21)/10},(\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu <\nu _\mathrm{c},\mathrm{slow}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu _\mathrm{c}}{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{(p1)/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{p/2}\nu ^{p/2}t^{(15p20)/10},(\nu _\mathrm{m}<\nu _\mathrm{c}\nu ,\mathrm{slow}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{1/2}\nu ^{1/2}t^{1/2},(\nu _\mathrm{c}\nu <\nu _\mathrm{m},\mathrm{fast}\mathrm{cooling}),\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ S_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}\left(\frac{\nu _\mathrm{m}}{\nu _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _\mathrm{m}}\right)^{p/2}\nu ^{p/2}t^{(15p20)/10},(\nu _\mathrm{c}<\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu ,\mathrm{fast}\mathrm{cooling}).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(25)
Again let us have a look at the R band optical light curve. In the ultra-relativistic phase, typically we have $`\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu _\mathrm{R}\nu _\mathrm{c}`$, so the afterglow decays as $`S_\mathrm{R}\nu ^{(p1)/2}t^p`$. After entering the non-relativistic phase, we will have $`\nu _\mathrm{m}\nu _\mathrm{R}<\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ at first, which means $`S_\mathrm{R}\nu ^{(p1)/2}t^{(15p21)/10}`$. We see that the light curve becomes flatter by $`t^{(215p)/10}`$. Since $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ now decreases as $`\nu _\mathrm{c}t^{1/5}`$, at sufficiently late stages, we will eventually have $`\nu _\mathrm{m}<\nu _\mathrm{c}<\nu _\mathrm{R}`$, which leads to $`S_\mathrm{R}\nu ^{p/2}t^{(15p20)/10}`$, i.e., the light curve is still flatter than that in the relativistic phase (by $`t^{(205p)/10}`$). In short, after entering the non-relativistic phase, the light curve is expected to become flatter obviously, which is quite different from the behaviour of a laterally expanding conical jet (Huang et al. 2000a, b, c, d).

## 4 Numerical Results

Now we solve equations (2) — (5) numerically and compare the optical (R band) afterglow light curves with those of conical jets. First we describe our initial values and parameters briefly. The ISM density ($`n`$), the original ejecta mass ($`M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$) and the initial value of $`\gamma `$ are fixedly set as $`n=1`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>, $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}=5\times 10^{10}M_{}`$, and $`\gamma _0=300`$, respectively. We further assume $`a_0=1.2\times 10^{14}`$ cm, then the initial values of $`m`$ and $`R`$ are given by: $`m_0=M_{\mathrm{ej}}/300`$, $`R_0=m_0/(\pi a_0^2nm_\mathrm{p})1.2\times 10^{17}`$ cm. These values indicate that the angular radius of our GRB ejecta from the central engine is only $`10^3`$ at the beginning, and in the ultra-relativistic phase considered here it is just as powerful as an isotropic fireball with kinetic energy $`E_{\mathrm{iso},0}10^{54}`$ ergs. In calculating the R band flux densities, we take $`D_\mathrm{L}=1`$ Gpc, and will assume $`p=2.5`$, $`\xi _\mathrm{e}=0.1`$, $`\xi _\mathrm{B}^2=10^6`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ unless declared explicitly.

Here, we would like to point out that many of our initial values and parameters (such as $`n`$, $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$, $`\gamma _0`$, $`a_0`$ and $`D_\mathrm{L}`$) have been arbitrarily chosen. However, variation of them within reasonable ranges will not alter the major conclusions we draw below in this section.

### 4.1 $`v_{}0`$ case

Assuming no lateral expansion, we have evaluated equations (2) — (5) numerically. Fig. 1 shows the evolution of the Lorentz factor, $`\gamma `$. The jet becomes non-relativistic after $`10^{11}`$ s. In the relativistic phase the slope is approximately $`0.26`$ and in the non-relativistic phase it is about $`0.68`$, both consistent with the theoretical value (i.e., $`1/4`$ and $`2/3`$ respectively, see Section 3.1). For comparison, the dashed line shows the evolution of $`\gamma `$ for a conical jet (parameters: $`E_{\mathrm{iso},0}=10^{54}`$ ergs, $`\gamma _0=300`$, with an initial half opening angle $`\theta _0=0.1`$). We see that the cylindrical jet decelerates much slower, which is easy to understand.

Fig. 2 illustrates the Lorentz factor as a function of $`R`$. The slope of the solid line is $`1.00`$ in the relativistic phase and $`0.50`$ in the non-relativistic phase, also consistent with the theoretical results. This further confirms the correctness of our programs.

The R band afterglow light curves are shown in Fig. 3. The solid line represents a cylindrical jet with $`p=2.5`$. Its slope is approximately $`1.26`$ before $`10^9`$ s, consistent with the theoretical value of $`1.25`$ (for $`\nu _\mathrm{m}<\nu _\mathrm{R}<\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ case, see Section 3.1). The slope is $`1.89`$ between $`10^{10}`$ s and $`10^{11}`$ s, also in good agreement with our analytical results ($`1.75`$ for $`\nu _\mathrm{m}<\nu _\mathrm{c}<\nu _\mathrm{R}`$). After $`10^{11}`$ s, the jet enters the non-relativistic phase and the light curve becomes flatter slightly, just as required by the theoretical result. The dotted line here represents afterglows from a conical jet ($`p=2.5`$). We can see that the light curve of a cylindrical jet differs markedly from that of a conical one, mainly in the following two aspects: (i) the relativistic phase lasts for a very long period ($`>10^{10}`$ s typically), during which only a slight break (by $`t^{1/2}`$, due to cooling of electrons) can be observed; (ii) after entering the Newtonian phase, it becomes flatter slightly, not steeper. Please note that at the end point of each line, the characteristic Lorentz factor of electrons has already been as small as $`\gamma _\mathrm{e}5`$.

Fig. 4 illustrates the effect of three parameters, $`\xi _\mathrm{e}`$, $`\xi _\mathrm{B}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, on the light curve. It is clear that $`\xi _\mathrm{e}`$ does not change the shape of the light curve markedly. However, because $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ strongly depends on $`B^{}`$ ($`\gamma _\mathrm{c}B^2`$, $`\nu _\mathrm{c}B^3`$), we see that $`\xi _\mathrm{B}^2`$ affects the cooling break seriously. In our calculations, since we take $`\gamma _0=300`$, we have found that for any $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ smaller than 1/300, the light curve will be almost identical to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ case. But in the $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0.1`$ case, the flux density is lowered down markedly before $`10^7`$ s, which means a cylindrical jet is observable only within a narrow solid angle.

### 4.2 $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$ case

When lateral expansion is included, the results are quite different. The solid line in Fig. 5 illustrates the evolution of $`\gamma `$ in this case. We can see that the jet becomes Newtonian at $`10^5`$$`10^6`$ s, much earlier than the $`v_{}0`$ case. Note that its slope is approximately $`0.51`$ in the ultra-relativistic phase and $`1.20`$ in the non-relativistic phase, both consistent with the theoretical values (i.e., $`1/2`$ and $`6/5`$ respectively, see Section 3.2). Fig. 5 also shows that when $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$, a cylindrical jet decelerates faster than a conical one, which is just contrary to the $`v_{}0`$ case. The $`\gamma `$$`R`$ relation is shown in Fig. 6 by the solid line. In the non-relativistic phase, the slope is $`3.0`$, consistent with the theoretical value. However, in the ultra-relativistic phase, the $`\gamma `$$`R`$ relation is not a power-law function, but an exponential one.

Fig. 7 illustrates the evolution of the jet profile on the $`y`$$`z`$ plane. Generally speaking, the lateral expansion is not significant during the ultra-relativistic phase. But in the non-relativistic phase, the lateral radius increases synchronically with the radial scale.

R band afterglows from cylindrical jets expanding laterally are shown in Fig. 8. The solid line is plot with $`p=2.5`$. Its slope is $`2.63`$ before $`10^6`$ s, consistent with the theoretical value of $`2.5`$ (see Section 3.2). It turns flatter in the non-relativistic phase, also consistent with our analytical results. The dotted line corresponds to a laterally expanding conical jet ($`p=2.5`$), where a break due to the relativistic-Newtonian transition can be clearly seen (Huang et al. 2000a, b, c, d). It is clear that the light curve of a cylindrical jet differs from that of a conical one mainly in the following aspects: (i) no obvious breaks could be observed; (ii) in the relativistic phase, the decay is always as quick as $`t^p`$, but for a conical jet the decay is only $`t^{(3p3)/4}`$ at early stages (Rhoads 1997, 1999); (iii) after entering the non-relativistic phase, the light curve becomes flatter slightly, also quite different from that of a conical jet. Fig. 9 illustrates the effect of $`\xi _\mathrm{e}`$, $`\xi _\mathrm{B}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on the light curve. Similar to the $`v_{}0`$ case, the flux density is markedly lowered down by a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, but generally speaking, $`\xi _\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\xi _\mathrm{B}^2`$ do not change the slope of the light curve here.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

The importance of collimation in GRBs goes beyond influencing the detailed shape of the light curve: it reveals something about the central engine, and affects our estimates of how many GRB progenitors there need to be (van Paradijs et al. 2000; Wijers et al. 1998; Lee, Brown & Wijers 2000). Most theorists now expect GRBs to be significantly collimated, because jets seem to be produced by all systems where matter is undergoing disk accretion onto a compact central object, including young protostars, “microquasars” (i.e., black hole binaries in the Galaxy), capture of a main sequence star by a moderate massive black hole in normal galaxies (Cheng & Lu 2000), radio galaxies, and active galactic nuclei (Lamb 2001). Observations on these systems have interestingly indicated that an astrophysical jet usually maintains a constant cross section at large scales (Perley et al. 1984; Biretta et al. 1999). In fact, it has already been pointed out by Dar et al. (Shaviv & Dar 1995; Dar 1998, 1999) that although a conical beam can solve the “energy crisis” of GRBs, it suffers from some other deficiencies of isotropic fireballs, while a cylindrical jet does not. However, nearly all previous discussion on afterglows from collimated GRB remnants have assumed a conical geometry, which, we believe is not enough. Here we have discussed afterglows from cylindrical jets in detail. Both analytic and numerical results are presented.

For a cylindrical jet without lateral expansion, in the relativistic phase the flux density typically decays as $`S_\nu t^{p/2}`$ at first. Then the light curve steepens by $`t^{1/2}`$ due to cooling of electrons. After entering the Newtonian phase, the decline becomes slightly slower, $`S_\nu t^{(5p4)/6}`$, just contrary to the behavior of a conical jet. Note that the remnant usually decelerates very slowly in this case, i.e., $`\gamma t^{1/4}`$ when $`\gamma 1`$, so that it keeps to be highly relativistic as long as $`t10^8`$$`10^9`$ s. When lateral expansion is included and assuming $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$, the afterglow light curve is $`S_\nu t^p`$ in the ultra-relativistic phase, and it flattens to be $`S_\nu t^{(15p21)/10}`$ or $`S_\nu t^{(15p20)/10}`$ in the the non-relativistic phase, also quite different to a conical jet.

In previous sections, we have assumed that the lateral expansion velocity of our cylindrical jet can be either $`v_{}0`$ or $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$ and we have not given a preference for either of these two cases. Now we discuss this question. At the first glance, the $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$ seems more realistic. However, observations on relativistic outflows in radio galaxies reveal that lateral expansion is usually unobtrusive (Perley et al. 1984; Biretta et al. 1999). For example, observed profiles are generally quite different from the profile in our Fig. 7. The high degree of collimation and the suppression of lateral expansion is probably due to magnetic confinement (Dar 1998; Mirabel & Rodriguez 1999) and/or the external pressure. We believe that in many cases, even if the cylindrical jet expands laterally, its velocity will be $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$.

Afterglows from some GRBs, such as GRBs 970508, 971214, 980329 and 980703 have been observed to decay slowly and steadily within a long period (i.e., up to several months, see van Paradijs et al. 2000), with $`S_\nu t^{1.1}`$$`t^{1.3}`$. Although an isotropic fireball is the most natural and popular model for these GRBs, Huang et al. (1998a; also see Dai et al. 1999) pointed out that there is a problem: usually a typical fireball with kinetic energy $`E_{\mathrm{iso},0}=10^{52}`$ ergs will become non-relativistic in one or two months, then the theoretical light curve will become steeper slightly (Wijers et al. 1997; Huang et al. 1998b, 1999a, b). So it is difficult to understand why the light curve is a single straight line that lasts for 0.5 — 1 year (e.g., GRB 970508). Here we suggest that this kind of GRBs might be due to cylindrical jets (with $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$): a light curve with slope $`1.1`$$`1.3`$ can be easily produced by assuming $`2.2p2.6`$, and the steady decline is explained by the fact that these cylindrical jets are highly relativistic even when $`t10^8`$$`10^9`$ s. Note that in this model, $`\gamma `$-rays of the initial burst are beamed into a solid angle with the angular radius $`1/\gamma _0`$. For $`\gamma _0300`$, the beaming angle is $`0.003`$; and for $`\gamma _0100`$, it is $`0.01`$, which means the energy involved will be greatly reduced.

GRBs 990123, 990510, 991216 and 000301c are characterized by an obvious break in the afterglow light curve. A break steeper than $`t^{1/2}`$ could not be explained directly by our simple cylindrical jet model, either $`v_{}0`$ or $`v_{}c_\mathrm{s}`$. However, there are many other factors that have not been taken into account in this article, such as the inhomogeneity of ISM (especially $`n(R)R^2`$, Dai & Lu 1998; Chevalier & Li 2000), and the nature of the lateral expansion. For example, we can imagine that in some cases, since the shock is highly radiative at first (which means the remnant is relatively cool), the magnetic field is much stronger initially, and at the same time the external pressure may be high, then the lateral expansion can be successfully suppressed, which will lead to a flat light curve of $`S_\nu t^1`$$`t^{1.3}`$ at early stages. At later stages the lateral expansion takes effect and the light curve becomes $`S_\nu t^2`$$`t^3`$. So an obvious break appears. In short, we suggest that the cylindrical jet model should be paid attention to and should be investigated further since it seems to be more realistic than the conical jet model on the observational basis.

Recently, Wang & Loeb (2001) discussed the emission from bow shocks of beamed GRBs. They found that the emitted flux from this bow shock may dominate over the direct emission from the conical jet for lines of sight which are outside the angular radius of the jet emission. The event rate for these lines of sight is thus greatly increased. For typical GRB parameters, they found that the bow shock emission from a jet of half-angle $`5^\mathrm{o}`$ is visible out to tens of Mpc in the radio and hundreds of Mpc in the X-rays. In most of our calculations where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ is assumed, the bow shock emission generally will not play a dominant role. However, we should bear in mind that the bow shock emission is obviously more important for a cylindrical jet than for a conventional conical jet, since observers of a cylindrical jet are more likely to be situated outside the initial emission cone. For example the bow shock emission may take effect in those $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0.1`$ cases in Figs. 4 and 9. A direct effect of bow shock emission from cylindrical jets is that the beaming factor will be considerably reduced, so that it will be much easier for us to observe them. We will not go further to calculate the bow shock emission here. But in the future, if the so called “burstless afterglows” are observed, then the question of bow shock emission will become very important.

Finally we would like to say a few words about the origin of the cylindrical jet. It should not be born a cylinder. In fact, the outflow in a black hole-accreting disk system is likely to be conical initially, with the half opening angle $`\theta 1`$. Assuming $`\theta 0.1`$, then after propagating to a distance of $`R10^{15}`$ cm, it will acquire a lateral radius of $`a10^{14}`$ cm. So in our calculation we have implicitly assumed that the jet has become cylindrical before $`R10^{15}`$$`10^{16}`$ cm. We will not go to any further details of the mechanism that makes a conical jet into a cylindrical one here, they are beyond the purpose of this article. However, if our cylindrical jet is really originated from a conical outflow very near to the central black hole, then we can draw an interesting conclusion as follows. Adopting the parameters used in Section 4, our cylindrical jet has a total kinetic energy of $`E_{\mathrm{ej}}\gamma _0M_{\mathrm{ej}}c^23\times 10^{47}`$ ergs. Since this energy comes from a cone with $`\theta 0.1`$ when $`R10^{15}`$ cm, we can get the corresponding $`initial`$ isotropic energy easily as $`E_{\mathrm{iso},\mathrm{ini}}4\pi \times E_{\mathrm{ej}}/[2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )]1.2\times 10^{50}`$ ergs. We have already pointed out in Section 4 that our cylindrical jet looks just as powerful as an isotropic fireball with total kinetic energy $`E_{\mathrm{iso},0}10^{54}`$ ergs at the GRB afterglow stage (i.e., when $`R10^{17}`$ cm). So our final conclusion is: if GRBs are really due to cylindrical jets, then an apparently energetic GRB event (eg., $`E_{\mathrm{iso}}10^{54}`$ ergs ) can be easily produced by a supernova-like event (i.e., $`E_{\mathrm{iso}}10^{50}`$ ergs). We even do not need to make the embarrassing assumption that all the kinetic energy involved in the supernova-like event is beamed into a narrow cone to produce the GRB, which, as noted already, is not natural. Of course, in this case, the GRB rate in the Universe will be much higher correspondingly.

## Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to R.A.M.J. Wijers for his valuable comments and suggestions that lead to an overall improvement of this manuscript. We also thank F. Yuan, Z. G. Dai, L. Zhang, J. H. Fan and X. Zhang for stimulative discussion. KSC is supported by a RGC grant of the Hong Kong Government, YFH and TL are supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Special Funds for Major State Basic Research Projects.


text:
# The INTEGRAL Core Observing Programme

## 1 Introduction

The gamma-ray satellite INTEGRAL will be operated as an observatory whith the majority of scientific observing time being awarded to the scientific community at large, following standard AO and peer-review procedures: this constitutes the General Programme covering open time observations. As a return to those scientific collaborations and individual scientists who contributed to the development, design and procurement of INTEGRAL and who are represented in the INTEGRAL Science Working Team (ISWT), a portion of the total scientific observing time, the guaranteed time, will be used for their Core Programme observations (Figure 1).

The guaranteed time amounts during the first year of nominal operations to 35% (or $``$9.3$`\times `$106 s) of the total annual observing time ($``$26.6$`\times `$106s) 222Note, that these numbers may decrease slightly as time for instrument calibration observations during nominal operations needs to be allocated. This share decreases to 30% (year 2) and 25% (to be confirmed, during extended mission).

The Core Programme (Gehrels et al., 1997), (Winkler, 1999) will consist of three elements as shown in Table 1. The data from the Core Programme observations belong to the ISWT for the usual proprietary period of one year, after which the data will become public (see Section 4).

## 2 Science Objectives of the Core Programme

### 2.1 Deep Exposure of the Galactic Central Radian (GCDE)

The GCDE is driven by the following objectives:

* mapping line emission from nucleosynthesis radioisotopes (e.g. 26Al, 44Ti, 511 keV),
* mapping continuum emission of the Galactic ridge, and
* performing deep imaging and spectroscopic studies of the central region of the Galaxy.

Several interesting emission regions in or near the Galactic plane have been identified using CGRO OSSE and COMPTEL: these include the 26Al (7$`\times `$105 years half life) mapping the sites of nucleosynthesis in the past million years in the Galaxy (Diehl et al., 1995), and 44Ti (half life $``$60 years) which has been detected by COMPTEL from the Cas A SNR (Iyudin et al., 1994) and more recently from a region coincident with a new SNR in Vela, detected by ROSAT (Iyudin et al., 1998). OSSE mapping of the positron - electron annihilation radiation at 511 keV shows a central bulge, emission in the Galactic plane and an enhancement of extension of emission at positive latitudes above the Galactic centre (Purcell et al., 1997). Other isotopes such as 60Fe produce lines which could be detected by INTEGRAL. The origin of the clumpy structure of the COMPTEL observed 26Al maps and the 44Ti emission from hidden supernovae (”hot spots”) are key targets of INTEGRAL research.

The INTEGRAL GCDE deep exposure will also study the continuum gamma-ray and hard X-ray emission from the Galactic plane. This “galactic ridge” is concentrated in a narrow band with a latitude extent of $`5^{}`$ and a longitude extent of $`\pm 40^{}`$ (Gehrels & Tueller, 1993), (Valinia & Marshall, 1998), (Strong et al., 1999). The exact distribution and spectrum of the ridge emission is not well known. The origin is thought to be Bremsstrahlung from cosmic ray electrons, but this is also not fully established. INTEGRAL will be able to map the emission with high sensitivity and high angular resolution. This should allow the removal of the point-source origin of the emission so that the spectrum can be determined with high confidence. The GCDE will resolve isolated point sources with arcmin location and provide source spectra with high energy resolution. At least 90 sources known as X- and gamma-ray emitters are contained in the region at $`10`$ keV and GRANAT/SIGMA, BeppoSAX and other earlier missions have found this region to be filled with a number of highly variable and transient sources (Vargas et al., 1997), (Ubertini et al., 1997). Many are thought to be compact objects in binary systems undergoing dynamic accretion. However, even for some of the brightest sources in the region (1E 1740.7$``$2942, GRS 1758$``$258) the detailed nature of the systems are not known. INTEGRAL will study the faintest sources with high angular resolution allowing multi-source monitoring within its wide field of view during single pointings. Also interesting will be searches for gamma-ray emission from SgrA, at the Centre of the Galaxy (Sunyaev et al., 1993).

The central radian of the Galaxy will be observed using a set of 4 rectangular pointing grids each with a pitch of 2.4. The grids are shifted with respect to each other by 1.2 (Figure 2). The outer grid covers the celestial region between $``$ 30 $``$ l $``$ $`+`$ 30 and $``$ 20 $``$ b $``$ $`+`$ 20, while the three inner grids extend to galactic latitude $`\pm `$10 only. This choice allows to obtain an exposure ratio of 4:1 of the inner ($``$ 10) part of the Galactic plane compared to the outer ($``$ 20) part. The entire GCDE grid system is therefore optimized to minimise SPI imaging artefacts and to optimize IBIS’ sensitivity to point sources predominantly located close to the Galactic plane. With an assumed 200 s slew duration for 2.4 and 1800 s exposure per point, about 2.15$`\times `$106 s will be required to scan all grids once. Within the total time allocation for the GCDE, all four grids will be scanned 2 times per year.

### 2.2 Weekly scans of the Galactic plane (GPS)

The scanning of the Galactic plane (GPS) will be mainly done for two reasons: the most important one is to provide frequent monitoring of the plane in order to detect transient sources because the gamma-ray sky in the INTEGRAL energy range is dominated by the extreme variability of many sources. The scans would find sources in high state (outburst) which warrant possible scientifically important follow-up observations (Target of Opportunity \[TOO\] observation, see Section 2.3). The second reason is to build up time resolved maps of the Galactic plane in continuum and diffuse line emission such as 26Al, 44Ti and 511 keV with modest exposure. CGRO and SIGMA have been detecting Galactic compact sources of several different categories/groups which include X-ray binaries (e.g. X-ray novae, Be binary pulsars) and in particular superluminal sources (GRS 1915$`+`$105 and GRO J1655$``$40). The occurrence rates for events that INTEGRAL can observe is about 2 events/year for each of these classes, where pointing constraints due to the fixed solar arrays have been taken into account. The important time scales for the transient outbursts vary significantly from class to class and from event to event, but a typical duration of an event is 1 - 2 weeks and a typical variability time scale is of the order of 1 day.

The scans will be performed once a week by performing a “slew - and stare” manoeuvre (Figure 3) of the spacecraft along the visible (accessible) part of the Galactic plane (Figure 4) with latitude extent $`\pm `$10. The accessible part of the Galactic plane depends on viewing constraints including the solar aspect angle (40 during first two years outside eclipse seasons, 30 during first two years during eclipse seasons, and 30 during extended mission phase) due to the fixed solar arrays, and on the season of the year.

The angular distance between subsequent exposures (1050 s each) along the scan path is 6. The scan will be performed as a sawtooth with inclination of 21 with respect to the Galactic plane, each subsequent scan is shifted by 27.5 in galactic longitude. The visibility (Figure 4) of the Galactic plane depends on the annual season. On average a strip of width b = $`\pm `$10 has a longitude extent of 178.4 (ranging from 100 to 350) and requires on average 12.3 hours of scanning (ranging from 6.8 hours to 23.6 hours).

### 2.3 Pointed observations

Remaining Core Programme observing time (2.7$`\times `$106 s, Table 1) not spent on GPS and GCDE will be devoted to dedicated pointings on individual sources, which have been defined as:

* transient events

+ unknown transient events: local group SNII, SNIa, classical novae and previously unknown X-/$`\gamma `$ transients,
    + known transient events: GRS 1915$`+`$105, GRO J1655, 1E 1740$``$2942, Cyg X$``$1, Cyg X$``$3, GX 339$``$4 and Mk 501, and,
* Vela region, target pointing at (l,b) = (265,0).

#### 2.3.1 Transient events

Core Programme observing time of $``$1.7$`\times `$106 s will be set aside to be able to perform scientifically important follow-up observations on those events (”TOOs”) which have either been detected during INTEGRAL’s GPS and GCDE observations or where the trigger has been observed by optical telescopes (SN and Novae) or observations at other wavelengths. Core Programme observation time will be used on any of the known and unknown sources listed above, whatever TOO event comes first.

The greatest advantage of INTEGRAL, as compared to other high energy missions, is its high spectral resolution and high sensitivity at energies above 100 keV. The strongest point for INTEGRAL to response to a TOO call is the potential to detect transient high energy emission features (e.g. 511 keV, its scattering feature at 170 keV; 480 keV (7Li); MeV bump; flares from Blazars). The high energy cutoff or spectral break as a function of time may provide critical information to our understanding of the emission mechanism and system parameters. Concerning the high energy continuum, several pointings for each flare or outburst are required to achieve meaningful science return since the spectral evolution instead of simply the spectral shape is the main objective here. Separation between the exposures depends on the time scale of the event.

The chance that a supernova of type Ia occurs with detectable gamma-ray line emission from the 56Ni $``$ 56Co $``$ 56Fe decay chain in the INTEGRAL life-time, is promising.

The maximum distance for a SNIa, to be detected by SPI, will depend on the line broadening: If an expansion velocity of 10,000 km/s is assumed, the SPI sensitivity limit for detecting the 847 keV 56Co-line is about 3 $`\times `$ 10-5 cm-2 s-1. For a 56Ni-yield of the supernova of 1 Mo, this results in a detectability up to a distance of 15.5 Mpc. Within this distance, one type Ia supernova can be expected every two or three years (Gehrels et al., 1987).

The chance to detect gamma-ray line emission from a nearby type II supernova is much smaller, because of the lower 56Ni-yield and the long obscuration time of type II supernovae to gamma-rays.

Radioactive elements are being synthesized during a Nova explosion, yet to be detected through gamma-ray line emissions. Short lived beta unstable nuclei may be detected via the 511 keV annihilation emission. Today’s most interesting gamma-ray lines are 1275 keV (22Na, t = 3.8 y) and 478 keV (7Be $``$ 7Li, t = 53 d).
1275 keV: Recent results on two near novae (Nova Her 1991, Nova Cyg 1992) as observed by CGRO established 2$`\sigma `$ upper limits of $``$ 2 to 3 $`\times `$ 10-5 cm-2 s-1). SPI should be able to achieve a positive detection on similar events.
478 keV: Assuming an ejected mass of 10-5 Mo, SPI should detect 478 keV emission for close ($``$ 500 pc) novae just after outburst. INTEGRAL should provide evidence whether C-O novae do produce 7Li, which is under abundant in standard big bang nucleosynthesis as compared to solar abundance by more than an order of magnitude (Hernanz et al., 1996), (Hernanz et al., 1999).

#### 2.3.2 Vela region

Finally, the remaining Core Programme observing time allocated to pointed observations ($``$ 1.0$`\times `$106s, see Table 1) will be used for an observational survey of the Vela region, using the 5$`\times `$5 dither pattern centred on (l,b) = (265,0). This region is a showcase for Galactic sources active in the INTEGRAL energy domain, including massive stars, historical SNe, young SNR’s, spin powered pulsars. Furthermore, the survey intends to depict and study the diffuse 1.8 MeV interstellar source(s) as well as few unidentified EGRET (EG) sources (Figure 5).

## 3 Exposure Times and Sensitivities

### 3.1 GCDE

The area covered by the GCDE will receive a net exposure (i.e. excluding slews) of $``$ 4$`\times `$106 s per year which will give SPI a 3$`\sigma `$ sensitivity of $``$3.5$`\times `$10-6 cm-2s$`{}_{}{}^{}1`$ for narrow lines in the 100 keV - 2 MeV region, sufficient for mapping and for detailed line shape studies at 1809 keV (Gehrels & Chen, 1996) of the bright 26Al “hot spots” ($``$3$`\times `$10-5 cm-2s-1) as detected by COMPTEL. The continuum sensitivities (3$`\sigma `$) in the 100 keV to 1 MeV range would be 1$`\times `$10-6 to 8$`\times `$10-8 cm-2 s-1 keV-1 (SPI) and (2.5 to 3)$`\times `$10-7 cm-2 s-1 keV-1 (IBIS) while JEM-X would achieve $``$3.5$`\times `$10-6 cm-2 s-1 keV-1 in the 3 to 30 keV range.

In Figure 6 we show a SPI simulation (Jean et al., 2000) of the GCDE exposure at 511 keV taking the OSSE 3-source model (extended feature, point source at Galactic centre, emission at northern latitude) according to Purcell et al. (1997) as input model into account.

### 3.2 GPS

The IBIS continuum 3$`\sigma `$ sensitivity for a single point on a GPS sawtooth scan (1050 s exposure, Figure 3) is shown in Figure 7. This will correspond to a 3$`\sigma `$ sensitivity of 1.5$`\times `$10-5 cm-2 s-1 keV-1 @ 100 keV and $``$1.9$`\times `$10-5 cm-2 s-1 keV-1 @ 1 MeV. For SPI a 1050 sec exposure would result in a 3$`\sigma `$ sensitivity of 4.6$`\times `$10-6 cm-2 s-1 keV-1 @ 1 MeV (continuum) and 1.6$`\times `$10-4 cm-2 s-1 @ 1 MeV (narrow line).

Due to the large coded field-of-views for SPI (FCFOV 16 across) and IBIS (FCFOV 9 $`\times `$ 9), a single “staring” point on a GPS scan will not only receive the nominal exposure per pointing (1050 s), but a larger amount given by the larger partially coded FOV: While this exposure point is still located within the partially coded field-of-view (PCFOV, coverage to zero response), additional exposure will be collected as the spacecraft (i.e. the co-aligned instruments) is pointing at close neighbouring positions of that single exposure point (see Figure 3).

For SPI and IBIS, a single “staring” point will therefore receive a total exposure of 3465 s (SPI), and 3255 s (IBIS) on each scan, while JEM-X and OMC – because of the smaller FOV’s – will accumulate 1050 s per point/scan.

The 3$`\sigma `$ sensitivities for the high energy instruments which can be obtained for one “staring” point during a single scan, and for the same “staring” point for all scans during one year are listed in Table 2. The exposure values for OMC are equivalent to the JEM-X values. The expected sensitivities will allow detection of transient sources throughout the Galaxy.

In Figure 8 we show IBIS simulation results of one GPS scan across the Galactic Centre (Goldwurm et al., 2000). Several known sources can be easily detected at levels above 10$`\sigma `$. Furthermore, simulation of a 1 Crab transient results in a 90% error radius less than 10 arcseconds providing accurate data for optical/radio follow-up observations. Finally, a faint source (30 mCrab) located in a crowded region would be detected at the 6$`\sigma `$ level.

### 3.3 Pointed observations

#### 3.3.1 Follow-up observations of unknown TOO’s

Supernovae and Novae observations would be possibly done repeatedly at various times after onset, to study, for example, early observations of radioactivity from Co breaking through the SN envelope and late observations of 44Ti. The typical total exposure would amount to $``$ 1 - 2 $`\times `$106 s.

#### 3.3.2 Follow-up observations of known TOO’s

These sources also require a number of repeated observations after alert on intervals ranging from days to weeks. Typical total exposure per source would amount to $``$ 3$`\times `$105 s with an IBIS sensitivity of $``$9$`\times `$10-7 cm-2 s-1 keV-1 (0.07 mCrab) at 100 keV. These observations will be triggered if the source deviates significantly from a ”normal” intensity level. These would be, for example for GRS1915$`+`$105, a flux exceeding 500 mCrab @ 10 keV, or 300 mCrab @ 100 keV for GRO J1655, easily detectable by a single GPS exposure.

#### 3.3.3 Survey of the Vela region

Studies of points sources and nucleosynthesis studies of the Vela regions require typically $``$106 s. The continuum sensitivities (3$`\sigma `$) obtainable during that observation in the 100 keV to 1 MeV range would be 2$`\times `$10-6 to 1.5$`\times `$10-7 cm-2 s-1 keV-1 (SPI) and (5 to 6)$`\times `$10-7 cm-2 s-1 keV-1 (IBIS) while JEM-X would achieve $``$7$`\times `$10-6 cm-2 s-1 keV-1 in the 3 to 30 keV range. For line studies SPI will achieve a 3$`\sigma `$ sensitivity of $``$7$`\times `$10-6 cm-2 s-1 in the 100 keV to 2 MeV region.

## 4 Data analysis and data rights

Data from the Core Programme will be used by the ISWT as a common scientific database. This database will be analysed according to research categories (e.g. diffuse galactic emission) and topics (e.g. 511 keV line profiles). The topics/scientists involved in that research do match the agreed share of Core Programme data within the ISWT. The data are property of the ISWT for the duration of one year. Then they will become publicly available through the archive. The same rules do apply for data obtained during the open time (General Programme).

The specification333The final list of targets will be made available in the INTEGRAL AO-1 documentation. of the known and unknown transients (see above) serves the purpose to clearly notify the scientific community at large on the CP guaranteed targets. Note, however, that due to the random nature of transient events and the limited amount of CP allocated time, it is possible that not all pointed TOO follow-up observations will be performed within the CP allocated time. Therefore open time proposals for any of those TOO sources as listed above are not a priori prohibited and should differ in scientific objectives and instrument modes but run a smaller chance of being executed than any open time TOO proposals made for transient events not listed in the CP. The Vela region is reserved as a guarenteed time target.

In case TOO follow-up observations will be performed for (exciting) scientific reasons, and the required time would exceed the total allocated ceiling, and no open time proposals would exist, then these observations would be performed, but the data would be made publicly available immediately. However, the ISWT will keep some flexibility in the overall allocation of its CP time in case a major TOO event (e.g. close-by SN) would occur and not sufficient time would be available anymore. In this case the ISWT will review the CP priorities and, if available, re-assign GCDE and GPS time for this follow-up observation. In case of low TOO activity, more time could be spend on the Vela region observation.

## Acknowledgments

The INTEGRAL Core Programme has been defined by the Core Programme Working Group (N. Gehrels, N. Lund, P. Ubertini, V. Schönfelder, C. Winkler) who has been charged by the ISWT with this task. The fundamental support of the instrument teams, in particular through extensive simulation studies, and of the INTEGRAL Mission Scientists is gratefully acknowledged.