text:
# Hawking radiation of nonsingular black holes in two dimensions

## I Introduction

Two of the outstanding questions in physics today are how should Einstein’s theory of gravity be modified in regions of spacetime with high curvatures, and what is the final state of an evaporating black hole. The physics required to answer both of these questions rests in an as of yet unknown theory of quantum gravity.

In general, theories which report to describe features of quantum gravity (including some string theories) contain higher derivative corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert action  \- . For example, perturbative string theory predicts an infinite series of correction terms to the Einstein equations

$$R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }R+𝒪(\alpha ^{}R^2)+𝒪(\alpha ^2R^4)+\mathrm{}=0.$$
(1.1)
These correction terms become important at energies near the string scale $`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}=M_s^1`$. It is possible that such terms will drastically affect the structure of singularities in both cosmological and black hole spacetimes. Perhaps quantum gravity will some how remove the singularities, leading to geodesically complete spacetimes.

Two examples of higher-derivative gravitational theories which eliminate the singularity in the Pre-Big-Bang model (allowing for a successful graceful exit) are constructed in . These models utilize the Limiting Curvature Hypothesis (LCH) of . The goal of the LCH is to capture features of quantum gravity in an effective theory which interpolates between General Relativity at low energies and a nonsingular spacetime at high curvatures. The LCH has been studied in a variety of black hole and cosmological spacetimes  \-  (also see  \- ). The assumption of the existence of a limiting curvature is well motivated given the existence of a fundamental length scale $`\mathrm{}_f`$ (such as the Planck length $`\mathrm{}_{pl}`$ or the string length $`\mathrm{}_s`$). If there is a fundamental length then it follows (from dimensional arguments) that all curvature invariants are bounded

$`|R|<\mathrm{}_f^2,|R_{\alpha \beta }R^{\alpha \beta }|<\mathrm{}_f^4,`$ (1.2)
$`|C_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }C^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }|<\mathrm{}_f^8,\mathrm{}`$ (1.3)
In this letter we investigate the process of Hawking radiation of a nonsingular black hole in $`(1+1)`$-dimensional dilaton gravity . The construction involves concepts from the LCH. However, since the Ricci scalar is the only invariant in two dimensions, the role of the higher derivative correction terms is facilitated by the dilaton and its potential. The resulting solution is nonsingular everywhere and resembles the Schwarzschild black hole at large values of the radial coordinate. At $`r=0`$ the solution approaches the de Sitter metric. Cosmologically desirable consequences may arise if the universe is generated at the interior of a black hole (see, e.g. and the references therein).

Although it is natural to question the physical validity of results in $`2D`$ dilaton gravity, there are strong motivations for using the theory as a toy model of quantum gravity and to study the process of black hole evaporation. In particular, a certain limit of superstring theory yields a generalized dilaton theory as the effective action (see e.g. ). This simplified model allows for completely analytic calculations, possibly capturing non-perturbative features of the physics, evaporation and final state of realistic four-dimensional black holes. ***For some early references to two-dimensional gravity see  \- . Further motivation is provided by , where it is argued that the thermodynamics of black hole in $`D4`$ is effectively described by the thermodynamics of black holes in two-dimensional dilaton gravity theories. Specifically, it is shown that the Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropies of single-charged dilaton black holes and dilaton $`p`$-branes with an arbitrary dilaton coupling parameter in arbitrary spacetime dimensions are exactly reproduced by the BH entropy of the two-dimensional black hole in the associated $`2D`$ dilaton gravity model. We are also inspired by the successful generalization of a nonsingular cosmological model in two dimensions  to a nonsingular four-dimensional model  using dilaton gravity and the limiting curvature construction mentioned above. Based on this encouraging evidence, we believe that the two-dimensional results presented in this paper should apply to more realistic four-dimensional models.

## II A nonsingular black hole

Here we reconstruct the nonsingular two-dimensional dilaton black hole solution presented in . We begin with the most general Lagrangian for gravity with a scalar field (e.g., dilaton gravity) in $`(1+1)`$-dimensions :

$$=\sqrt{g}\left(D(\phi )R+G(\phi )(\phi )^2+H(\phi )\right).$$
(2.4)
By performing a conformal transformation

$$g_{\alpha \beta }e^{2\sigma (\phi )}g_{\alpha \beta },$$
(2.5)
and requiring that

$$4\frac{d\sigma }{d\phi }\frac{dD}{d\phi }=G(\phi ),$$
(2.6)
it is possible to conformally transform away the kinetic term for $`\phi `$ and we may simply start with the action

$$S=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left(D(\phi )R+V(\phi )\right),$$
(2.7)
where $`V(\phi )=e^{2\sigma (\phi )}H(\phi )`$Note that in , it is argued that under certain circumstances conformally related theories may not be equivalent.

Varying this action with respect to $`\phi `$ and the metric tensor yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V(\phi )}{\phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D(\phi )}{\phi }}R`$ (2.8)
$`V(\phi )g_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`2(^2g_{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta )D(\phi ),`$ (2.9)
respectively. We may redefine $`\phi `$ so that $`D(\phi )=1/\phi `$ and assume a spherically symmetric and static metric

$$ds^2=n(r)dt^2+p(r)dr^2.$$
(2.10)
In the “Schwarzschild gauge” $`p(r)=1/n(r)`$ and the EOM become

$`\phi ^3V(\phi )4n\phi ^2+n^{}\phi ^{}\phi +2n\phi \phi ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\phi }}+\phi ^2n^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2.12)
$`V(\phi )+\phi ^2\phi ^{}n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.13)
Implementing the limiting curvature hypothesis is equivalent to identifying a class of potentials $`V(\phi )`$ so that $`R`$ is bounded for all values of the radial coordinate from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. The form of the potential is restricted by considering the behavior of the system at low and high curvatures. We require $`n(r)`$ to reduce to the Schwarzschild solution in regions of spacetime with small curvature. Mathematically,

$$n(r)(12m/r)whenr\mathrm{},\phi 0.$$
(2.14)
From equation (2.8) it is easy to see that limiting $`V^{}(\phi )`$ in the high curvature regime (i.e.$`r0`$, $`\phi \mathrm{}`$) will result in the limitation of $`R`$.

While there are many potentials that interpolate correctly between the above asymptotic regimes, a simple potential which satisfies the above criteria is

$$V(\phi )=\frac{2mA^3\phi ^2}{1+mA^3l^2\phi ^3},$$
(2.15)
where $`A`$ is a constant and $`l`$ is a constant representing the limiting fundamental scale.  Note that this potential is only one possible potential that will force the curvature to be limited. While it is not a unique choice all potentials that satisfy the asymptotic conditions, limiting the curvature, will give the same result. For a more detailed explanation of the construction of $`V(\phi )`$ we refer the reader to the original source . Using this potential in the EOM one finds the exact solutions

$`\phi (r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ar}},`$ (2.16)
$`n(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{l}}\right)^{2/3}\times `$ (2.17)
$`\mathrm{ln}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{r^2(ml^2)^{1/3}r+(ml^2)^{2/3}}{r_0^2(ml^2)^{1/3}r_0+(ml^2)^{2/3}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0+(ml^2)^{1/3}}{r+(ml^2)^{1/3}}}\right)^2\right\}`$ (2.18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{l}}\right)^{2/3}\{arctan\left({\displaystyle \frac{2r(ml^2)^{1/3}}{\sqrt{3}(ml^2)^{1/3}}}\right)`$ (2.19)
$`arctan\left({\displaystyle \frac{2r_0(ml^2)^{1/3}}{\sqrt{3}(ml^2)^{1/3}}}\right)\},`$ (2.20)
where $`r_0`$ is the location of the black hole horizon. The function $`n(r)`$ is plotted below in Fig. (I). When the mass of the black hole is large, $`n`$ reduces to $`(12m/r)`$ as expected.

The Ricci scalar $`R`$ (the only curvature invariant in two-dimensions) remains finite for all positive value of the radial coordinate $`r`$,

$$R=\frac{2m(2r^3l^2m)}{(r^3+l^2m)^2},$$
(2.21)
hence, the spacetime is singularity free (see Fig. (2)). Note that $`R`$ changes sign at the value $`r=(l^2m/2)^{2/3}`$ and takes on its limiting value $`R_{max}`$ at $`r=0`$,

$$R_{max}=\frac{2}{l^2}.$$
(2.22)
Near $`r=0`$ the spacetime becomes de Sitter. §§§In the conventions of , the cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }R`$) for de Sitter space is negative. To see this, expand $`n`$ around the point $`r=0`$:

$$n(r)C+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+𝒪[(r)^3].$$
(2.23)
Ignoring terms of order $`r^3`$ and higher, the line element becomes

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{r^2}{l^2}C\right)dt^2+\left(\frac{r^2}{l^2}C\right)^1dr^2,$$
(2.24)
where $`C`$ is a constant. Taking $`C=1`$, we may define a new coordinate $`\tau `$ given by

$$\frac{d\tau }{dr}=\left((\frac{r}{l})^21\right)^{1/2},$$
(2.25)
which gives

$$\frac{\tau (r)}{l}=arccosh\left(\frac{r}{l}\right).$$
(2.26)
In the $`(t,\tau )`$ coordinates the metric takes on the recognizable de Sitter form

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2sinh^2\left(\frac{\tau }{l}\right)dt^2.$$
(2.27)
Another conceivably interesting region is near the fundamental scale $`rl`$. Expanding around $`r=l`$, $`n`$ takes the form

$$n(r)C^{}+\frac{2m}{l(l+1)}(rl)+𝒪[(rl)^2].$$
(2.28)
Here we choose a new coordinate $`\chi `$ (and $`C^{}=1`$) defined by

$$\frac{d\chi }{dr}=(\frac{2m(rl)}{l(l+1)}1)^{1/2}.$$
(2.29)
In the $`(t,\chi )`$ coordinates the metric becomes

$$ds^2=d\chi ^2\alpha ^2\chi ^2dt^2,$$
(2.30)
where the constant $`\alpha =m/l(l+1)`$. This is simply the Milne metric.

One final comment is in order concerning the above solution. In , Myers and Horowitz argue that spacetime singularities should play a useful role in gravitational theories by eliminating unphysical solutions. Furthermore, they suggest that any modified theory of gravity must have singularities in order to posses a stable ground state. The argument goes as follows: even if the theory claims to have a ground state with $`E<0`$, one can always start with the Schwarzschild metric with $`m<E`$ and argue that it must be singular. Removing all singularities leads to the existence of states with arbitrarily negative energy. They suggest that a new mechanism must be found to prevent a state which resembles the negative mass Schwarzschild solution from existing in the theory.

In the above model, we may argue that the negative mass Schwarzschild solution is not a well behaved solution, in the sense that a singularity is present for $`m<0`$ (see equation (2.21)). Furthermore, we may argue that the negative energy solutions may simply be thrown out due to their pathological, singular nature. Negative mass Schwarzschild solutions are not possible asymptotic solutions of the theory since a singularity is present at finite $`r`$. Thus, the instability of the theory for $`m<0`$ discussed in  does not occur in our theory. I would like to thank R. Myers for useful discussions concerning this point.

## III Hawking radiation and the method of complex paths

We now examine the process of Hawking radiation of the nonsingular black hole solution obtained in the previous section. One of the simplest ways to do this is to employ the method of complex path analysis introduced by Landau  and applied to Schwarzschild-like spacetimes by Srinivasan and Padmanabhan  (also see , for a related treatment). Here we use the method to calculate the Hawking temperature of a two-dimensional, static and spherically symmetric metric with horizon. We will then apply this formula to the black hole solution derived above.

The line element is given by equation (2.10) in the Schwarzschild gauge $`p(r)=1/n(r)`$:

$$ds^2=n(r)dt^2+n^1(r)dr^2.$$
(3.31)
We assume that $`n(r)`$ vanishes at some $`r_0`$ and $`n^{}(r)`$ is finite and nonzero at $`r_0`$. This indicates that there is a horizon at the value $`r=r_0`$. One must of course check that the singularity at $`r_0`$ is only a mathematical one. In our case this is simple since the only curvature invariant in two-dimensions is $`R`$, which remains finite at $`r_0`$ (see equation (2.21)). Expanding $`n(r)`$ around the point $`r_0`$ gives

$$n(r)=n^{}(r_0)(rr_0)+𝒪[(rr_0)^2](r_0)(rr_0),$$
(3.32)
where we assume that $`(r_0)0`$.

Now consider a scalar field which satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation

$$\left(\mathrm{}\frac{m_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(3.33)
If this field is propagating in the background spacetime given by equation (3.31), then

$$\frac{1}{n(r)}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{t^2}+\frac{}{r}\left(n(r)\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{r}\right)=\frac{m_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(3.34)
The semiclassical wavefunctions satisfying the above are obtained by making the standard ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r,t)=e^{\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮(r,t)\}},$$
(3.35)
where $`𝒮`$ is a functional which will be expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$. Substituting this ansatz into equation (3.34) gives,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(r)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒮}{t}}\right)^2+n(r)\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒮}{r}}\right)^2+m_0^2`$ (3.36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(r)}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒮}{t^2}}n(r){\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒮}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dn(r)}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒮}{r}}\right]=0.`$ (3.37)
We now expand $`𝒮`$ in a power series of $`\mathrm{}/i`$:

$$𝒮(r,t)=S_0(r,t)+\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}𝒮_1(r,t)+\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\right)^2𝒮_2(r,t)+\mathrm{},$$
(3.38)
and substitute the result into equation (3.36). Neglecting terms of order $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}`$ or higher we have

$$\frac{1}{n(r)}\left(\frac{𝒮_0}{t}\right)^2+n(r)\left(\frac{𝒮_0}{r}\right)^2+m_0^2=0.$$
(3.39)
This is simply the Hamilton-Jacobi equation satisfied by a particle of mass $`m_0`$ moving in a background spacetime with metric (3.31). The solution to this equation is

$$𝒮_0(r,t)=t\pm ^r\frac{dr}{n(r)}\sqrt{^2m_0^2n(r)},$$
(3.40)
where $``$ is a constant and is identified with the energy. For simplicity we take $`m_0=0`$Note that the results do not change for $`m_00`$ . Now it is possible to solve equation (3.39) exactly.

Using the usual saddle point method, the semiclassical propagator $`K(x^{\prime \prime },x^{})`$ for a particle propagating from a spacetime point $`x^{\prime \prime }=(t_1,r_1)`$ to a point $`x^{}=(t_2,r_2)`$ is

$$K(x^{\prime \prime },x^{})=𝒩e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮_0(x^{\prime \prime },x^{})},$$
(3.41)
where $`𝒮_0`$ is the action functional satisfying the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation in the massless limit and $`𝒩`$ is a suitable normalization constant. With the solution to equation (3.39):

$$𝒮_0(x^{\prime \prime },x^{})=(t_2t_1)\pm _{r_1}^{r_2}\frac{dr}{n(r)},$$
(3.42)
we can calculate the amplitudes and probabilities of emission and absorption through the event horizon at $`r_0`$. Note that the sign ambiguity in equation (3.42) corresponds to the outgoing $`(𝒮_0>0)`$ or ingoing $`(𝒮_0<0)`$ massless particles.

If the points $`x^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`x^{}`$ are on opposite sides of the event horizon then the above integral diverges (since $`n^1`$ diverges at $`r=r_0`$). Therefore, to evaluate the integral we employ the calculus of residues and choose the contour over which the integral is to be performed around the point $`r=r_0`$.

Consider an outgoing particle at $`r=r_1<r_0`$. The modulus squared of the amplitude for this particle to cross the horizon gives the probability of emission of the particle. Invoking the usual “$`iϵ`$” prescription, the contribution to $`𝒮_0`$ in the ranges $`(r,r_0ϵ)`$ and $`(r_0+ϵ,r_2)`$ is real. We take the contour to lie in the upper complex plane and find

$`𝒮_0[emission]=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle _{r_0ϵ}^{r_0+ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{n(r)}}+realpart`$ (3.43)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{(r_0)}}+realpart,`$ (3.44)
where the minus sign in front of the integral corresponds to the initial condition that $`(𝒮_0/r)>0`$ at $`r=r_1<r_0`$, and $`(r_0)`$ is given by equation (3.32).

Now consider an ingoing particle with $`(𝒮_0/r)>0`$ at $`r=r_2>r_0`$. The modulus squared of the amplitude for this particle to cross the horizon gives the probability of absorption of the particle into the horizon. Choosing the contour to lie in the upper complex plane gives

$`𝒮_0[absorption]=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle _{r_0+ϵ}^{r_0ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{n(r)}}+realpart`$ (3.45)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{(r_0)}}+realpart.`$ (3.46)
This result agrees with the calculation of an outgoing particle $`(𝒮_0/r)>0`$ at $`r=r_2>r_0`$. Here the contour is taken in the lower half-plane and the amplitude for the particle to cross the horizon is the same as that of ingoing particle due to time reversal invariance.

Squaring the modulus to get the probability gives,

$$P[emission]e^{\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}},$$
(3.47)
$$P[absorption]e^{\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}},$$
(3.48)
implying that

$$P[emission]=e^{\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{}}}P[absorption].$$
(3.49)
Comparing this formula with the relation due to Hawking and Hartle :

$$P[emission]=e^{(\beta )}P[absorption],$$
(3.50)
we find the identification

$$\beta ^1=\frac{\mathrm{}||}{4\pi }.$$
(3.51)
The method described above was shown to correctly reproduce the Hawking temperatures of the Schwarzschild black hole

$$\beta ^1=\frac{\mathrm{}}{8\pi m},$$
(3.52)
de Sitter spacetime and Rindler spacetime , and is valid for a variety of coordinate systems . The method employs simple quantum mechanics and reproduces results obtained by much more difficult means such as the calculation of Bogoliubov coefficients and other traditional techniques, e.g.,,.

## IV An eternally evaporating black hole

Calculating the Hawking temperature of the black hole (given by the metric (3.31), with equation (2.20)) is now a simple task. Expanding $`n(r)`$ near $`r_0`$ gives

$$n(r)=\frac{2mr_0}{l^2m+r_0^3}(rr_0)+𝒪[(rr_0)^2].$$
(4.53)
In order to agree with the Schwarzschild solution we take $`r_0=2m`$, from which $`(2m)=4m/(l^2+8m^2)`$. Hence, the Hawking temperature of the black hole is given by (see equation (3.51)),

$$T_H=\frac{\mathrm{}m}{\pi (l^2+8m^2)}.$$
(4.54)
This temperature is plotted in Fig. (3).

The most important feature of this solution is that $`T_H0`$ as $`m0`$, in contrast to the standard Schwarzschild black hole which approaches infinite temperature in the zero mass limit (see equation (3.52)). Notice that in the limit of large $`m`$ (or in the limit as the fundamental parameter $`l0`$) the formula for $`T_H`$ appropriately reduces to the Schwarzschild temperature. At the maximum temperature $`T_{max}=\mathrm{}/4\sqrt{2}\pi l`$, the curvature at the horizon, remains less than the magnitude of the limiting curvature. Hence, we are comforted that our semiclassical treatment of the radiation should remain a good approximation.

A two dimensional version of Stefan’s law gives the total power radiated by the black hole:

$$𝒫\frac{dm}{dt}T^2.$$
(4.55)
The power is plotted in Fig. (4).

Using the power it is possible to estimate the evaporation time of the black hole

$$t_{evap}\frac{m}{|dm/dt|}\frac{(l^2+8m^2)^2}{m},$$
(4.56)
which is infinite in the limit $`m0`$. In the limit of large mass (or taking $`l0`$) the evaporation time reduces to the familiar formula for the Schwarzschild black hole $`t_{evap}m^3`$. Our result implies that the black hole will radiate eternally. The mass will decrease as in the Schwarzschild case until most of the mass is radiated away, at which point the radiation decreases and one is left with a very slowly radiating, small black hole. \**\**\**Note that a similar behavior was found in . Here the authors considered a microcanonical treatment of black holes. (At the maximum temperature the black hole has a Schwarzschild radius of $`r_s=l/\sqrt{2}`$.)

Note that if this result applies to realistic black holes, then it should significantly affect the analysis of evaporating black holes created at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) or in future collider experiments (such as CLIC and VLHC). Most current discussions of black holes created in the lab are based on semi-classical calculations that are valid only when the mass of the black hole is much larger than $`M_{pl}`$. When the black hole mass approaches the fundamental scale the physics required to understand the process of Hawking radiation is rooted in a theory of quantum gravity. Our classical intuition concerning the creation of black holes in the lab may require refinement. (This is indicated by the above result). Further observational consequences of black hole remnants will be discussed in a future work .

## V Miniature black holes as dark matter candidates

One of the greatest challenges of cosmology is to determine the nature of the dark matter/energy which makes up most of the matter in the Universe. The eternal black holes we have described above could have very significant consequences for cosmology, since they have the potential to contribute a sizeable amount of the dark matter in the Universe today (black hole remnants could behave as weakly interacting matter particles (WIMPS) ). ††††††For some early references on black holes as dark matter candidates see . It is possible that in the early Universe geometric fluctuations produced a thermal (Boltzmann) distribution of black holes (see e.g.,). During the expansion of the Universe these black holes would slowly decay into radiation and very small black holes near or below the fundamental scale which would still be present today.

## VI Conclusions

In this paper we have explored the process of Hawking radiation within the context of a specific model for a nonsingular black hole. We find that the black hole radiation mimics the Schwarzschild case for large values of the mass, but then reaches a maximum (determined by the fundamental scale) and then slowly decreases for all values of the time coordinate. The resulting miniature black holes could play an important role as dark matter candidates.

A brief comment on the black hole information loss problem is warranted. The above model does not suffer from the traditional black hole information loss problem. All the information which falls into the black hole is transported into the nonsingular black hole interior. In principle, an observer travelling into the black hole should be able to recover this information. Because the black hole never completely evaporates, the information is never truly lost.

A standard argument against the existence of stable black hole remnants is that it seems physically unreasonable for a large amount of information to be carried within a small (Planckian) volume . One possible way to circumvent this issue was proposed within the context of charged dilatonic black holes  \- . Here it is suggested that what appears to be a small volume to an observer outside of the black hole is actually an infinite volume tube capable of storing infinite information. The scenario discussed in this paper shares this feature. The black hole is viewed from the outside as being a small remnant. The large interior core contains the missing information which may be accessed only by travelling into the black hole. In  it was argued that the size of the universe inside the black hole is infinite. ‡‡‡‡‡‡One problem which may remain in this scenario is that a large number of fundamental-mass particles will appear in loops and in the thermodynamic ensemble leading to a large degeneracy. It is conceivable, however, that they could be cured by suppressed amplitudes for creating such large cores if these amplitudes decrease sufficiently rapidly with the information content .

Of course, it remains to be shown that such physical properties will carry over to realistic four-dimensional black holes. This possibility is currently being investigated . In order to generalize the model to four dimensions we must use a higher derivative theory of gravity. The gravitational action should admit a solution which resembles the Schwarzschild black hole at large distances but with the singularity replaced by a de-Sitter universe. The method of construction will be similar to that in .

Our main conclusion is as follows. A specific construction, based on the notion of a limiting curvature, is capable of removing singularities in cosmological models. In this paper we have argued that this construction predicts long-lived black hole relics with observational consequences and possibly solves the information loss problem.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank R. Brandenberger, F. Leblond, P. Martineau and R. Myers for enlightening discussions. I would also like to thank the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada for its hospitality during the completion of this work.


format: text

text:
# Extremely hard GRB spectra prune down the forest of emission models

## 1 Introduction

Since the discovery of these mysterious and puzzling cosmic explosions, the time resolved spectral analysis of Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) has been a testing ground–floor for the models proposed for the $`\gamma `$–ray prompt emission (Ford et al. Ford a (1995), Crider et al. 1997a ). In general GRBs have a continuous curvature spectrum which is usually characterized (Band et al. Band (1993)) by two smoothly joining components defining a peak (in a $`EF_E`$ representation of the power per unit logarithmic energy interval) at energies around 200 keV. The low energy asymptotic spectrum can be modeled as a power law function in the photon distribution $`N(E)E^\alpha `$ (i.e. $`EF_EE^{\alpha +2}`$), where E indicates the photon energy. The high energy spectral component can be described in most cases by a steep power law $`E^\beta `$ (with $`\beta <\alpha `$) or an exponential cutoff. The typical values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are widely distributed around –1 and –2.5 respectively (Preece et al. Preece2000 (2000); see also Fig. 1).

In particular, different authors (Crider et al. Crider a (1999), Preece et al. 1998a ) have stressed the importance of studying the low energy component of GRB spectra which is one of the better determined and accessible observables. Crider et al. (Crider (1997)) showed that the low energy spectrum evolves in time and that the distribution of the spectral index $`\alpha `$ extends above -1 and in some cases can be $`\alpha 1`$.

The most popular radiative process proposed for interpreting GRB spectra is synchrotron emission by relativistic electrons in intense magnetic fields (Rees & Mészáros Rees (1994); Katz Katz (1994); Tavani Tavani (1996)). Optically–thin synchrotron theory predicts (Katz Katz (1994)) that the low energy photon spectrum can not be harder than $`N(E)E^{2/3}`$. Nonetheless, different authors (Crider et al. Crider (1997), Preece et al. 1998a , Preece et al. Preece2002 (2002)) have found violations of this limit in many observed spectra. Following these inconsistencies between the standard synchrotron model and observations, alternative scenarios have been proposed, such as jitter radiation (Medvedev Medvedev (2001)); synchrotron emission from particles with an anisotropic pitch angle distribution (Lloyd & Petrosian Lloyd (2000), Lloyd a (2002)); thin/thick synchrotron emission from a stratified region (Granot, Piran & Sari Granot (2000)); synchrotron self–Compton or inverse Compton off photospheric photons (Mészáros & Rees Meszaros (2000)); Compton drag (Lazzati et al. Lazzati 2000 (2000); Ghisellini et al. Ghisellini (2000)); Comptonization of low energy photons by thermal or quasi–thermal particles (Liang et al. Liang (1997); Ghisellini & Celotti Ghisellini a (1999)). The physical parameters of these models can be tuned and combined to justify the principal observed temporal and spectral characteristics of GRBs, producing a considerable number of plausible spectral shapes. However, the most extreme (in this case hardest) low energy spectra and their evolution can be used to rule out or constrain some of these possibilities.

Another relevant aspect of GRB spectra is their possible thermal character. In fact, the fireball model (Goodman Goodman (1986), Paczynski Paczynski (1986)) naturally predicts thermal radiation when the fireball becomes transparent. The lack of observational evidence of thermal spectra motivated the proposal of the internal shock model (Rees & Mészáros Rees (1994)) in which the fireball energy could be efficiently extracted and transformed into radiation with a non–thermal spectrum as observed in most bursts. Nonetheless, evidence for possible thermal spectra in some GRBs has been reported by Preece (Preece2001 (2001)) for GRB 970111 and Schaefer et al. (poster P-56 presented at the Rome 1998 Whorkshop on GRBs, private communication). Furthermore Blinnikov et al. (Blinnikov (1999)) propose that also the spectra observed in most GRBs could be interpreted as superposition of black body spectra with different temperatures. From a theoretical point of view thermal emission from the fireball is expected if the dominant acceleration agent is internal pressure (Daigne & Mochovitch Daigne  2002). Alternatively, magnetic acceleration (e.g. by Poynting flux) would determine a non–thermal spectrum (Drenkhahn & Spruit Drenkhahn (2002), but see also Ruffini et al. Ruffini (2002)). The analysis of spectra with a possible thermal character can therefore have important implications for the understanding of the nature of the fireball acceleration mechanism.

To the aim of testing the validity/generality of the proposed models we have then searched among the 156 GRBs of the published spectral catalog of Preece et al. (Preece2000 (2000)) the bursts with a low energy time resolved spectrum harder than $`N(E)E^0`$, which represents a limit for most of the above models (see Sec. 2). We found two extremely hard bursts: GRB 911118 (BATSE trigger 1085), whose peak energy evolution has been reported in the spectral catalog by Ford et al. (Ford a (1995)), and a new case, GRB 980306 (trigger 6630). These two GRBs are carefully studied here in terms of their low energy spectral hardness. Their spectral evolution on timescales of few tenths of a second is presented in Sec. 4.1, 4.2, particularly regarding the slope of the low energy spectral component. We also found GRB 910807 (trigger 647) and GRB 970111 (trigger 5773) whose spectral properties have already been presented in the literature by Crider et al. (Crider (1997), 1997a , Crider b (2000)) and Frontera et al. (Frontera (2000)) (only for GRB 970111). We included also GRB 910927 (trigger 829) reported by Crider et al. (Crider (1997), Crider b (2000)) which is not present in the spectral catalog of Preece et al. (Preece2000 (2000)). These bursts have been re-analyzed in order to test the reliability of their low energy spectral hardness (Sec. 4.4). In fact, we present the tests that we performed in order to determine the statistical robustness of the spectral hardness, and in particular a model independent approach consisting in the comparison of each spectrum with a template one of given hardness (Sec. 4.3). The evidence that, at least at the beginning of the bursts, the spectra are extremely hard suggested their comparison with a black body model. This part of the analysis is presented in Sec. 4.5. The comparison with the low energy spectral limits predicted by different models (briefly recalled in Sec. 2 together with the previous evidence of hard spectra) is the content of the discussion (Sec. 5), where also tentative interpretations of the initial quasi–thermal spectral evolution, in the context of the hot fireball model and of the the Compton drag model, are presented. We draw our conclusions in Sec. 6.

## 2 Spectral Slopes and Emission Models

The distribution of the low energy photon spectral index $`\alpha `$ obtained from the time resolved spectral analysis of a sample of bright BATSE bursts (Ghirlanda, Celotti & Ghisellini Ghirlanda (2002)) is reported in Fig. 1. The majority of GRB spectra (Preece et al. Preece2000 (2000), Ghirlanda et al. Ghirlanda (2002)) have a low energy power law spectral index $`3/2\alpha 2/3`$, i.e. within the limits predicted by the optically thin synchrotron model (Fig. 2, dashed lines; see also Katz Katz (1994)), but there is a non negligible fraction of bursts ($``$15%, see also Preece et al. Preece2000 (2000)) with a low energy spectrum harder than $`N(E)E^{2/3}`$. The spectral analysis of a sample of GRBs by Crider et al. (Crider (1997)) also revealed that in 60% of their cases the spectrum evolves with time. Moreover, the spectrum integrated over the pulse rise phase is harder than $`E^{2/3}`$ in 40% of their bursts and can be as hard as $`N(E)E^1`$ (i.e. $`EF_EE^3`$). For comparison the distribution of the $`\alpha `$ parameter for the hard spectra of the bursts considered in this work is also reported (gray histogram) in Fig. 1. Note that they contribute to extend the distribution toward positive $`\alpha `$ values up to $`1.5`$.

Let us here just recall that this evidence is hardly reconcilable with the simplest formulation of the synchrotron model and some alternatives have been proposed to account for these observations within the frame of this emission process (Papathanassiou Papathanassiou (1999), Granot, Piran & Sari Granot (2000)). Lloyd & Petrosian (Lloyd (2000)) propose a scenario in which electrons have a small pitch angle distribution (SPD in Fig. 2), extending the range of possible low energy spectral indices produced via synchrotron to the limit $`\alpha 0`$. The same limiting slope can be obtained in the “jitter” radiation theory, which is based on synchrotron emission in a non uniform magnetic field with inhomogeneities on length scales smaller than the electron gyro-radius (Medvedev Medvedev (2001)). Slopes even harder (i.e. $`\alpha 1`$) may instead correspond to thermal radiation, such as a portion of a black body spectrum (Mészáros & Rees Meszaros (2000)) or saturated Comptonization spectra with Wien peaks which can be as hard as $`\alpha 2`$ (Liang et al. Liang (1997), Ghisellini & Celotti Ghisellini a (1999), Ghisellini et al. Ghisellini (2000)).
A detailed discussion of these models and their comparison with our observational findings are presented in sec. 6. As reference for the following sections we schematically summarize the model predictions in Tab. 1, and display in Fig. 2 their typical low energy limiting slopes in a $`EF_E`$ representation.

## 3 Data Analysis

We have analyzed the Large Area Detector (LAD) High Energy Resolution Burst (HERB) data which have a high count rate, due to the LAD large effective area, and are suited for the spectral analysis of GRBs for which a moderate energy resolution is sufficient to study the typical broad band continuum (Preece et al. Preece1998 (1998)).

We selected the data from the most illuminated detector which has the highest signal to noise ratio (S/N), and maintained the instrumental time binning corresponding (in the best cases) to single time resolved spectra accumulated for 128 ms, to follow the spectral variations on the smallest possible timescale (thanks to the high S/N there was no need to rebin the data before fitting). Each spectrum has been fitted from $`E_{\mathrm{min}}28`$ keV to $`E_{\mathrm{max}}1800`$ keV which define the typical energy window for the LAD data (Preece et al. Preece1998 (1998), Preece2000 (2000)).

The spectral analysis has been carried out using SOAR (Ford 1993 (1993)) as a quick look tool for the spectral evolution and then XSPEC (v11.1) for the individual spectral fitting of time resolved spectra.The background, to be subtracted to each time resolved spectrum, has been calculated as the average over a selected number of background spectra accumulated before and after the trigger.

In the data analysis we have used the standard forward folding technique to fit the model spectral functions (convolved with the detector response matrix) to the observed spectra. As explained in Sec.4, we also used the instrumental spectra in the comparison with a simulated spectrum in order to verify the robustness of our results.

### 3.1 Fitting models

We fitted the most commonly adopted GRB spectral models: the BAND (Band et al. Band (1993)) and COMP model, represented by a smoothly connected double power law or by a single power law ending with an exponential cutoff, and the sharply connected double power law model (BPLW). The choice of these models is motivated by the fact that they characterize the low energy part of the spectrum with a spectral parameter (i.e. the spectral index $`\alpha `$) which can be simply compared with the predictions of the different emission processes. For a detailed description of these spectral functions see Preece et al. (Preece2000 (2000)).

Due to the extreme hardness of the low energy spectrum of these bursts, we decided also to verify if thermal, black body like, emission was consistent with the low energy data. We considered only the time resolved spectra which have a low energy spectral index $`\alpha 0.5`$ when fitted with the BAND or COMP models. This indicative value, which is softer than $`\alpha =1`$ (i.e. the Rayleigh-Jeans limit of a black body spectrum) has been chosen to: a) account for typical errors in the determination of $`\alpha `$ with the BAND or COMP models; b) include the possibility that the spectrum could be softer than $`\alpha =1`$, if its peak is at low energies, due to the spectral curvature (see also Sec.4.5).

The result of each fit was then considered acceptable if the reduced $`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$ was lower than 1.5 for typically $``$ 110 degrees of freedom (dof): in fact the statistical probability of having a better fit is around 0.5 if the reduced $`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$ is around 1, but a limiting value of $`\chi _\mathrm{r}^21.5`$ is suggested if one considers that $`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$ depends on the quality of the data (Bevington & Robinson 1992). In addition we visually inspected the data–to–model ratio to look for possible systematics (i.e., sequence of points significantly above or below unity). We discarded the black body as a good fit when an excess of flux occurred at low energies (i.e. in the $`E^2`$ part of the spectrum), while we allowed for (a moderate) deviation from unity at high energies (i.e. in the exponential part). This latter choice reflects the possible (or even likely) situation of having a “supra–thermal” tail to a Maxwellian distribution in quasi–thermal plasmas, or a multi–temperature black body emission as proposed by Blinnikov et al. (Blinnikov (1999)).

## 4 Results

Sec. 4.1 deals with the low energy spectrum of GRB 980306. In particular we focus on the early phase of this burst when the spectrum is extremely hard and report the time evolution of its low energy spectral component. The detailed spectral analysis of GRB 911118 (also reported by Ford et al. Ford a (1995) only in terms of the time evolution of the peak energy) is presented in Sec. 4.2 with emphasis (again) on the low energy spectral index evolution. In Sec. 4.3 we describe the tests we performed on the raw data to check for the significance of these results on the spectral hardness. In Sec. 4.4 we briefly discuss other 3 bursts (GRB 910807, GRB 910927 and GRB 970111) with hard spectra at low energies which were already presented in the literature. We have re-analyzed them, applying the tests described in Sec.4.3, to verify their low energy hardness. In particular for GRB 910807 we have extended the time analysis beyond the first 5 s that were previously studied by Ryde & Svensson (1999). The results relative to the black body fits are reported separately in Sec. 4.5.

### 4.1 GRB 980306

GRB 980306 represents a new case of hard burst. It is a single peak burst (Fig. 3, top panel) with duration of $`6`$ s, peak flux of $`(17.2\pm 0.4)`$ phot cm-2 s-1 at $`t_{peak}2.2`$ s and a total (100–300) keV fluence of $`10^5`$ erg cm-2.111http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/batse/4Bcatalog/index.html This burst was already present in the Preece et al. (Preece2000 (2000)) spectral catalogue but, as it had been fitted with a BPLW model only, it resulted softer than what we have found by fitting its spectra with the COMP model. In fact, as already noticed in Ghirlanda et al. (Ghirlanda (2002)), a fit of a model with a sharp break, like the BPLW, to a smoothly curved spectrum, although can still give acceptable fits, tends to underestimate the low energy spectral hardness.

We present, for the first time, its hardness evolution, during the first 6 s, divided in 14 time resolved spectra. In particular, we focus on the extremely hard low energy spectral component. The spectral fits with the different models show that the spectra are better represented by the COMP model, since the high energy spectrum is very steep (i.e. steeper than a power law with spectral index $`\beta =10`$, the limit of the fitting function). The time evolution of the low energy spectral index $`\alpha `$ and of the peak energy $`E_{peak}`$ are reported in Fig.3 (middle and bottom panels, respectively).

The hardness evolution of a burst is typically described by how the spectral index $`\alpha `$ and $`E_{\mathrm{peak}}=(\alpha +2)E_0`$ change in time (here $`E_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ is the peak energy of the $`EF_E`$ spectrum and $`E_0`$ is the characteristic energy of the exponential cutoff). The evolution of $`\alpha `$ (mid panel of Fig. 3) indicates that, in the rising phase of the pulse, the maximum hardness ($`\alpha =1.1\pm 0.2`$) is reached during the interval $`t1.5`$ s. The first 4 spectra are in fact consistent with a non evolving spectrum (the low energy spectral index can be considered equal to its average value $`\alpha =0.73\pm 0.03`$ at 92% confidence level for the first 1.5 seconds). After this time the spectrum softens, but it remains harder than $`\alpha =0`$. We stress that the low energy spectrum is significantly (more than 3$`\sigma `$) harder than $`\alpha =0`$ for each of the first 7 time resolved spectra (between $`t=0`$ and $`t=2.24`$ s). For this specific burst the evolution is hard–to–soft, as shown by the peak energy (bottom panel of Fig. 3) decreasing in time from $``$450 keV to $``$50 keV, consistently with the $`E_{peak}`$ evolution reported by Ryde & Svensson (Ryde2002 (2002)).

In view of the discussion on the spectral models (sec. 6) we also checked the inadequacy of the optically thin synchrotron model by fitting the BAND spectrum with the low energy power law slope fixed at $`2/3`$. As expected, the residuals at low energies show a systematic sign and the reduced $`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$ is larger than 2 indicating that this model is not a good representation of the data.

### 4.2 GRB 911118

The light curve of GRB 911118, reported in Fig. 4 (top panel), has two main peaks which partially overlap. It is a typical long burst with total duration $`T_{90}=19.2\pm 0.1`$ s and a background subtracted peak flux of ($`30.6\pm 0.8`$) phot cm-2 s-1 at $`t_{\mathrm{peak}}=6.08`$ s. Its fluence, in the 100–300 keV energy range, is $`(27.8\pm 0.1)\times 10^6`$ erg cm-2.1

The spectral analysis that we present covers the first 13 s after the trigger time (for a total of 50 spectra), in which the time resolved spectrum evolves dramatically with an excursion of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha 1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{peak}400`$ keV. The best fit is obtained with the BAND model. The low energy spectral index is $`\alpha >0`$ for the first $`6`$ s (32 spectra, phase A of Fig. 4, mid panel) and decreases with time (the spectrum softens), but remains harder than –2/3 for the time interval up to the end of phase B (see Fig. 4). After $`t`$13 s, the spectrum has a typical $`\alpha <2/3`$ slope. The hardest spectrum (at $`t1.5`$ s after the trigger) has $`\alpha =0.74\pm 0.13`$. The statistical significance of a positive value of $`\alpha `$ for the spectra of phase A is high, being $`>`$ 3$`\sigma `$ for most of the individual spectra (23/32). The peak energy evolution reported in Fig. 4 (bottom panel) is consistent with what reported by Ford et al. (Ford a (1995)). According to these fits, the 18 spectra belonging to phase B have $`2/3\alpha 0`$ and their evolution is of the “hard–to–soft” kind, i.e. the peak energy decreases in time (becoming smaller than 200 keV in phase B). Fig. 4 shows a possible correlation between the peak energy $`E_{peak}`$ and $`\alpha `$. It has been pointed out (Lloyd & Petrosian Lloyd (2000)) that such correlations could result from the effect of the curvature of the fitted model when the peak energy is particularly low (e.g. below $`100`$ keV and close to the low energy spectral threshold). However in the case of GRB 911118 we can exclude this effect because the peak energy is between 500 and 200 keV during phase A (Fig.4).

Again, we also tried to fit the simplest optically thin synchrotron model (by fixing the low energy spectral index of the BAND model to –2/3). In Fig. 5 we report, for comparison, the values of the reduced $`\chi _r^2`$ for all spectra. The best fit is given by the BAND model (asterisks) while the “synchrotron” case (triangles) is inadequate to fit these spectra because its $`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$ is typically $`2`$ (for $`110`$ degrees of freedom) during phase A. The value of $`\chi _r^2`$ for the synchrotron model becomes marginally acceptable ($`<1.5`$) for most spectra in phase B.

We conclude that the time resolved spectra of this burst are best represented by the BAND model with the 4 fit parameters free to vary and that most of the spectra of phase A have $`\alpha >0`$ at a $`3\sigma `$ level.

### 4.3 Tests on the Spectral Results

Considering the relevance of the extreme hardness of these bursts for the comparison with the models, we performed different checks to verify if and at what confidence level they can be considered harder than the predictions of the proposed spectral models (as in Tab. 1). In the following we report on the tests performed on the above GRB spectra and their results.

* reduced fitting energy range: we eliminated from the fitting energy range the high energy channels to test if they substantially influence the low energy fitted spectral slope. We restricted the analysis to the range 28–600 keV (the upper limit being the maximum peak energy found among the bursts presented) and compared the results with those obtained by fitting the spectra on the entire energy window (i.e. up to 1800 keV). We found that the best fit spectral parameters are consistent within their errors and the values of $`\alpha `$ inferred from the limited energy range case are still inconsistent with $`\alpha =0`$. Moreover, Preece et al. (Preece1996 (1998)) found a soft low energy component in some bursts through the analysis of other data type extending below the standard LAD threshold of 28 keV. This component could make the fitted low energy spectral slope softer than it really is and the fit results for the $`\alpha `$ parameter presented here should be considered as lower limits thus reinforcing the evidence of extremely hard spectra. We tested this possibility by fitting the spectra with a low energy threshold at 50 and 100 keV. The comparison with the fits on the entire energy range (28 - 1800 keV) showed consistent spectral parameters within their 90% confidence intervals.
* background spectrum: if the background spectrum were characterized by any feature or absorption edge at low energies (e.g. dependent on some electronic failure or anomalous observational conditions) this might determine particularly hard low energy power laws in the background subtracted spectra. In order to exclude this possibility we computed several backgrounds selecting different time intervals, within the same GRB, and found that the background spectrum does not depend on the time interval selected for its estimate. Moreover, we also fitted the spectra adopting different backgrounds calculated for other bursts: the results indicate that $`\alpha `$ is not affected by anomalous features in the background spectrum.
* detector response: the detector response matrix, if incorrectly calculated, could determine a wrong set of best fit parameters. We believe this is unlikely as, by fitting the spectra with the detector response matrix (DRM) associated with another burst but for the same LAD, the results are consistent within their 90% confidence level. Moreover, although we used the data of the mostly illuminated detector, we also tried to fit the data from the other three detectors that were triggered by these bursts. Although the lower signal to noise ratio in these “secondary” detectors resulted in a lower statistical significance of the best fit parameters, these fits confirmed the extremely hard low energy spectral slope of these bursts at least in the second best illuminated detector. For the remaining two detectors the results are consistent, although the low statistics does not allow to confirm the hardness. Note also that Crider et al. (1997) showed that combining different detectors can make the low energy spectral component softer than it really is.
* comparison with a simulated spectrum: the most direct and robust way to verify if the deconvolved spectra are really as hard as we found is to compare them with a reference spectrum whose shape is well defined. For every time resolved spectrum that we analyzed, we thus simulated a reference (template) spectrum with a low energy power law slope $`\alpha 0`$ and a break energy fixed at the value obtained from the fit of the observed spectrum. We divided channel by channel the observed spectrum by the template and then analyzed the ratio (as long as the observed spectrum is harder than the template one their ratio at low energies increases with energy). In order to quantify the hardness we then fitted such ratio $`R(E)`$, where $`E`$ represents the energy, with a power-law model $`R(E)=AE^\delta +B`$. The fitted index $`\delta `$ is reported in Fig. 6 and 7 for GRB 911118 and GRB 980306, respectively. We note that during phase A (the first 6 s after the trigger) of GRB 911118 each of the time resolved spectra is at least 3$`\sigma `$ harder than a flat spectrum (i.e. with the same level of confidence that was found with the direct fitting method). In the case of GRB 980306 this test gives a fitted ratio with a poor level of confidence ($`<2\sigma `$) for each spectrum (with only two spectra at $`>2\sigma `$) because of the lower S/N due to count statistics and to the propagation of errors in dividing the observed spectrum by the template one. This significance is increased if the first 8 spectra are rebinned in time (although the time resolved information is lost) which gives a value of $`\delta >0`$ at 3.7$`\sigma `$. Furthermore (see also below) also in the case of GRB 980306 the significance of $`\delta >0`$ (Fig. 7) is higher when considering the sequence of $`\delta `$ values as a group (since $`\delta `$ remains systematically positive).

As a final consideration let us stress the fact that in the case of GRB 911118 (Fig. 4) and GRB 980306 (Fig. 3) there is a minority of hard spectra (9 and 4, respectively) which have $`\alpha >0`$ at a level of significance lower than 3$`\sigma `$. Nonetheless the fact that a considerable number of subsequent spectra (32 for GRB 911118 and 12 for GRB 980306) in the first few seconds have a spectrum harder (at more than $`3\sigma `$) than $`E^0`$ increases the level of significance of the result, if they are considered as a whole.

### 4.4 Other hard bursts

There are other bursts with extremely hard low energy spectra for a major part of their evolution, which have already been reported in the literature. In particular, we found three bursts with very hard spectra if fitted by the BAND function. In order to have homogeneous results and verify their robustness we have then re–analyzed their spectra and applied the tests described in Sec.4.3. Let us summarize their properties.

* GRB 910807 has a peak flux of $`(7.2\pm 0.5)`$ phot cm-2 s-1. The spectrum is harder than $`\alpha =0`$ for the first $``$5 s, and remains quite constant ($`0`$) during the overall burst, which lasts about 28 s, as already pointed out by Ryde & Svensson (Ryde (1999)). The peak energy instead shows a tracking pattern correlated with the flux and hardens in correspondence of the second peak (at $`t=12`$ s) as already reported by Borgonovo & Ryde (Borgonovo (2001)).

The complete spectral evolution is reported in Fig. 8. The hardest spectrum has $`\alpha =1.6\pm 0.5`$ at 90% confidence level. This value is somewhat harder, but consistent with what quoted by Crider et al. (Crider b (2000)). A (successful) check for the hardness of the first few spectra of this burst has been performed using the last method described in the previous section.
* GRB 910927 (Crider et al. Crider b (2000), Crider (1997)) and GRB 970111 (Crider et al. 1997a ; Frontera et al. Frontera (2000)) are other two cases of extremely hard spectra with a low energy power law spectral index as high as $`\alpha =1.6\pm 0.3`$. GRB 970111 was studied (Frontera et al. Frontera (2000)) also including the WFC–$`Beppo`$SAX data. Its extremely hard low energy spectrum was confirmed to extend down to 5 keV. Unfortunately, the lack of spectral resolution of the GRBM instrument above 40 keV does not allow to study the complete spectrum, especially at its peak.

In addition we found in the spectral catalogue of Preece et al. (Preece2000 (2000)) other 3 bursts (BATSE triggers 1974, 2855 and 6350) with $`\alpha >0`$, but at a low significance level ($`<1\sigma `$) and/or for a short interval of the light curve. Note that also these cases contribute to the $`\alpha >0`$ tail of the spectral index distribution reported in Fig. 1.

### 4.5 Black body spectra

As anticipated we performed fits on the hardest spectra also with a black body function to test if the emission is consistent with a thermal model. In fact, the first spectra of all the bursts discussed in this work are typically harder than $`\alpha =0.5`$ and thus could be consistent with the Rayleigh–Jeans part of a black body. Note that the fit could however be unacceptable in terms of $`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$ if the curvature around the peak (i.e. typically in the range 100 - 300 keV) were broader than a black body one.

As already mentioned the fits have been performed only on spectra with $`\alpha 0.5`$. In order to determine the value of this threshold in $`\alpha `$ we simulated spectra with a black body model assuming the detector response of these bursts and a typical exposure time $`0.2`$ sec (i.e. the average integration time of the spectra presented before). We then fitted these simulated thermal spectra with a non–thermal model $`N(E)E^\alpha exp(E/E_0)`$ where the power law spectral index $`\alpha `$ was fixed at different values between 0 (a flat photon spectrum) and +1 (which best approximates a thermal spectrum). The residuals of these fits indicated that for $`\alpha <0.5`$ the model spectrum (at low energies) deviates systematically from the data (i.e. residuals different from 0) at more than $`2\sigma `$. For this reason we selected $`\alpha =0.5`$ as the threshold for fitting the spectra with a black body model.

The criteria applied for the goodness of the fit with the black body model were:

* the reduced $`\chi _r^2`$ should be smaller than a fixed reference value of 1.5.
* the data–to–model ratio can be systematically and significantly greater than 1 only at energies above the peak, as a possible consequence of the presence of a supra–thermal or multi-temperature spectral component (whose nature is not discussed here).

The results of the fits for each spectrum are reported in Tab. 2: the start and stop time, with respect to the trigger time, are given in col. 2 and 3. The model temperature $`kT`$ (keV) and its normalization (erg cm-2 s-1) are reported in col. 4 and 5. The value of the reduced $`\chi _r^2/dof`$ with the corresponding degrees of freedom and the photon flux computed from the fitted model in the 28–1800 keV energy range are given in col. 6 and 7, respectively. Column 8 and 9 report the spectral index ($`\alpha `$) obtained by the fit with the non thermal (BAND or COMP) models and the associated $`\chi _r^2/dof`$.

For illustration, we report in Fig. 9 some examples of fitted spectra for GRB 980306 and the corresponding data–to–model ratios. The first two spectra are considered well fitted by the model because $`\chi _r^2=1.19`$ and 0.9 for 111 dof, respectively, and the ratio is systematically greater than 1 only at high energies. In the other two cases the black body fits give less acceptable results because the data–to–model ratio shows systematic deviations from 1 at low energies.

In most of the bursts the best fits with the black body model are obtained at the beginning: in the later stages (e.g. after the first 2.5 s in the case of GRB 980306) the low energy component softens and becomes incompatible with the black body model as the reduced $`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$ and the data–to–model ratio indicate.

The black body temperature and total flux (as derived by the model) evolve in time as reported in Fig. 10 for all the good black body spectral fits. Note the decrease of the temperature with time in almost all these bursts, which in the figure are compared with a dependence $`T_{BB}t^{1/4}`$ (dotted line). Although the temperature decreases, the flux slightly increases or remains constant in the first phases, and rapidly decreases thereafter.

Before concluding we note that although not publicly available, other possible evidence of a black body emission from GRBs has been reported in poster proceedings (Palmer D., private communication). The possible thermal black body spectrum of GRB970111 has also been recently presented by Preece (Preece2001 (2001)): the spectrum integrated over its first 5 s could be fitted by a black body with $`kT=55`$ keV which is consistent with the average value of the black body temperatures that we obtain from the fits of the time resolved spectra covering the same time interval (Fig.10).

## 5 Discussion

GRB 980306 and 911118, together with GRB910807, 910927 and 970111 already reported in the literature, bring new constraints on the extremely hard spectra that the emission process responsible for the prompt phase must be able to satisfy. These bursts represent the cases with the hardest low energy power law spectral index and significantly contribute in extending the $`\alpha `$ distribution reported by Preece at al. (Preece2000 (2000)) and Ghirlanda et al. (Ghirlanda (2002)) to values greater than 0, up to $`\alpha 1.5`$. For the bursts studied here $`\alpha `$, i.e. the spectral index of the low energy photon spectrum, remains positive for a major part of the pulse/s, like in the case of GRB 911118 or GRB 970111, or for its first rising part (GRB 980306 and GRB 910807).

In the following we consider several emission models proposed so far to see if they can account for these hard spectra, except for the photospheric and Compton drag model which will be discussed in Sec. 5.5.2 in relation to the quasi–thermal character of the initial phases of these extremely hard bursts.

### 5.1 Synchrotron emission

Optically thin synchrotron emission — The optically thin synchrotron model, in its simplest formulation, can produce at most a spectrum as hard as $`\alpha =2/3`$ (Katz Katz (1994)). Furthermore if one considers the very short cooling timescales (much shorter than any conceivable current exposure time) the predicted ‘cooled’ spectrum has $`\alpha =3/2`$ (see also Ghisellini, Celotti & Lazzati 2000).

Synchrotron self-absorption — One alternative, investigated among others by Papathanassiou (Papathanassiou (1999)), is that the medium responsible for the synchrotron emission also absorbs these photons. Also Granot Piran & Sari (Granot (2000)) have proposed a model based on synchrotron self absorption by a stratified electron population. In these cases it is possible to produce low energy spectral slopes as hard as $`\alpha =1`$ (for a thermal or a power law electron energy distribution with a low energy cut–off) or $`\alpha =1.5`$ (for a power law extending to low energies).

However, for synchrotron self–absorption to be effective in the typical BATSE energy range, a very high density of relativistic electrons is necessary. Assuming that the electron distribution extends to low energies (this minimizes the required particle number) with a power law distribution of index $`p`$ (i.e. $`N_\mathrm{e}(\gamma )\gamma ^p`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz factor of the electrons), the synchrotron self–absorption frequency $`\nu _t`$ in the comoving frame, assuming $`p=2`$, is (e.g. Ghisellini & Svensson 1991) $`\nu _\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\times 10^5\nu _\mathrm{B}(\tau _T/B)^{1/3}Hz,`$ where $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thomson optical depth and $`\nu _\mathrm{B}=eB/(2\pi m_ec)`$ is the Larmor frequency. In order to have $`\nu _\mathrm{t}10^{16}`$ Hz, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu _\mathrm{t}`$ in the BATSE range, $`\tau _TB^25.7\times 10^{12}\nu _{t,16}^3`$. The Comptonization parameter $`y\tau _\mathrm{T}\gamma ^2`$ corresponding to the required particle density, would largely exceed unity (making inverse Compton process more efficient than synchrotron) unless the magnetic field is extremely high ($`B10^7`$ G). This would in turn imply a (magnetically dominated) fireball with isotropic (equivalent) energy in excess of $`10^{54}`$ erg, using $`E4\pi R^2(B^2/8\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }^2ct_{burst}`$ and assuming $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10^2`$ and $`R10^{13}`$ cm. A magnetic field of $`10^7`$ G has been derived also by Crider & Liang (Crider c (1999)) from the fit of a simplified self absorbed synchrotron model to the spectrum of GRB 970111.

Small pitch angles — Lloyd & Petrosian (2000) have proposed that in rarefied, highly magnetized plasmas, turbulence can give origin to an anisotropic pitch angle distribution of emitting particles. In this case the optically thin synchrotron spectrum is modified at low energies (compared to the standard $`F(E)E^{1/3}`$), with a limiting slope $`F(E)E`$. This can accommodate some, but not all, of the hard spectra that we presented. Note also that according to this scenario to prevent strong cooling the particles have to be re-accelerated, contrary to one of the basic assumptions of the internal shock scenario, and in order not to be re–isotropized by scattering, the inverse Compton process must be much less efficient than the synchrotron one.

### 5.2 Jitter radiation

A variant of the standard synchrotron emission theory, the jitter radiation (Medvedev Medvedev (2001)), can justify a flat low energy spectral slope. It originates as the emission of relativistic electrons in a non uniform magnetic field with inhomogeneity length scale smaller than the Larmor gyro–radius. Medvedev (Medvedev (2001)) proposed a composite model for GRB spectra by assuming the presence of a small scale magnetic field, which causes the jitter radiation component, and a larger scale field producing a standard synchrotron spectrum. The composite spectrum has a broad bump in correspondence of the jitter radiation characteristic energy, which depends only on the magnetic field properties and not on the electron energy and if the small scale field prevails, the spectrum has a limiting $`\alpha =0`$. This implies that only a minority of the hard spectra reported here could be consistent with such a model.

### 5.3 Compton attenuation

Compton attenuation (Brainerd et al. Brainerd (1998)) can produce a low energy (20–100 keV) hard component because of the propagation and scattering of the intrinsic spectrum by material (not participating to the bulk flow) located between the fireball and the observer. The original high energy spectral shape can be unaltered because of the decline of the Klein–Nishina cross section with energy, while at lower energies, where the scattering process is more efficient, the spectrum is hardened. The most appealing features of this model are that it could explain the clustering of the peak energy of bursts around some hundred keV and produce a flat slope at low energies. But in order for this to work, the Thomson optical depth of the scattering material must be quite large (of the order of $`\tau _\mathrm{T}10`$) and this would smooth out the observed burst light curve by smearing the variability on the smallest time scales. Furthermore, by decreasing the transmitted (spectrally unaltered) flux, this mechanism requires intrinsic powers greater than what we observe, exacerbating the energy budget problem.

### 5.4 Quasi–thermal Comptonization

The above models are based on the assumption that the emitting particles are highly relativistic, as a result of “instantaneous” acceleration at a shock front. However, if the heating mechanism operates on timescales of the order of the dynamical time (or the light crossing time of a shell in the internal shock scenario), then the heating and cooling processes could balance, leading to typical energies of the electrons that are sub or only mildly relativistic (Ghisellini & Celotti 1999). In this case the dominant radiation process is Comptonization of seed soft photons by a quasi–thermal particle distribution.

Different models assume different sources for the seed photons and different parameters (i.e. typical size for the emitting region, magnetic field, role of the photospheric radiation, and so on) within the internal shock scenario.

Liang et al. (1997), among the first to propose such process for the prompt emission, considered a relatively large emitting region embedded in a relatively weak magnetic field. This model was applied to GRB 990123 by Liang (1999), who found quite extreme best fit values for the required total power and number of emitting particles. Ghisellini & Celotti (1999) proposed that Comptonization acts on the self-absorbed cyclo–synchrotron radiation produced by the same quasi–thermal particles responsible for the multiple scattering process, and pointed out the role that electron–positron pairs can have in keeping the temperature (or the mean energy) of the particles within a narrow range. On the same line Mészáros & Rees (2000) pointed out the importance of the residual photospheric emission as source of soft photons.

The basic features of the Comptonization model is that, in the quasi–saturated regime a Wien peak with its characteristic $`F(E)E^3`$ shape can form at high energies (i.e. for $`h\nu kT`$). In principle this can thus explain very hard spectra. One possible difficulty of this model is the slope at lower energies, whose saturated value should be $`\alpha =1`$. A further possible problem for quasi-thermal Componization is that the temperature of the emitting particles (in the comoving frame) is expected to be of order of $`50`$ keV, which would lead to an observed $`E_{peak}`$ of few MeV (Ghisellini & Celotti 1999). This is a somewhat high value, also in the light of the results presented in this work, which show that even spectra time resolved on scales $``$ 1 sec present a peak energy of $`E_{peak}500`$ keV.

### 5.5 The possible thermal character of the initial phase

The first 1–5 s of the emission of the bursts presented in this work were found to be consistent with a black body spectrum with typical temperatures initially around $``$ 100 keV and decreasing to 30 – 40 keV. After this initial phase a softer (non–thermal or multi–temperature) character of the spectrum becomes dominant. Clearly this behavior can be a powerful diagnostic. In particular it seems to favour two among the proposed models, namely photospheric and Compton drag emission, which both predict – as recalled in Sec. 5.5, 5.6 – a thermal spectrum during the first phases. Here we briefly discuss which physical constraints can be quantitatively gathered from the data.

#### 5.5.1 Photospheric emission

When the fireball is becoming optically thin, during the acceleration or coasting phase, its internal energy is emitted with a black body spectrum whose observed temperature is blue-shifted by a factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with respect to the comoving one. The possible presence of a photospheric component in the spectrum of GRBs has been theoretically investigated by Mészáros & Rees (Meszaros (2000)). Recently, Daigne & Mochkovitch (2002) have reconsidered this possibility, finding quite tight limits on the model of hot fireballs accelerated through internal radiation pressure, imposed by the absence of an initial emission phase (or precursor) with a black body shape.

In this scenario we have two options: we can relate the initial phase to a single fireball, in the process of becoming optically thin, or – following Daigne & Mochkovitch (2002) – to an ensemble of $`𝒩`$ shells, each becoming optically thin at approximately the same distance. In both cases at transparency:

$$\tau _\mathrm{T}=\frac{E_\mathrm{f}\sigma _\mathrm{T}}{2\pi \theta ^2R_\mathrm{t}^2m_\mathrm{p}c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒩}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$
(1)
where $`R_\mathrm{t}`$ is the transparency radius of the fireball, collimated into two cones of semi–aperture angle $`\theta `$, $`E_\mathrm{f}`$ is the total fireball energy (a fraction $`ϵ_\gamma `$ of which is radiated as photons), and $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross section. Assuming that the surface of the fireball is emitting, at $`R_\mathrm{t}`$, as a black body with a comoving temperature $`T^{}=T_{\mathrm{obs}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we have

$$L_{\mathrm{BB}}=\frac{ϵ_\gamma E_\mathrm{f}}{t_{\mathrm{BB}}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \theta ^2R_\mathrm{t}^2\sigma \left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{obs}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,$$
(2)
where $`L_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ is the average black body luminosity in the observer frame for the time $`t_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ and $`\sigma `$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Both eq. (2) and (3) show a $`E_\mathrm{f}\theta ^2R_\mathrm{t}^2`$ dependence, allowing to solve for the bulk Lorentz factor:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _\mathrm{T}\sigma }{m_\mathrm{p}c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{obs}}^4t_{\mathrm{BB}}}{ϵ_\gamma 𝒩}}\right)^{1/3}`$
$``$ $`3\times 10^3T_{\mathrm{obs},9}^{4/3}t_{\mathrm{BB}}^{1/3}ϵ_\gamma ^{1/3}𝒩^{1/3}`$ (3)
with $`T_{\mathrm{obs}}=10^9T_{\mathrm{obs},9}`$ K (corresponding to the observed black body peak of $``$ 100 keV). We stress that this estimate of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is independent of the degree of collimation of the fireball.

In the case of a single shell $`t_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ is the time needed for the fireball to become transparent, implying

$$R_\mathrm{t}=ct_{\mathrm{BB}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\times 10^{17}T_{\mathrm{obs},9}^{8/3}t_{\mathrm{BB}}^{5/3}ϵ_\gamma ^{2/3}\mathrm{cm}.$$
(4)
Therefore, if the emission comes from a single shell, the transparency radius is very large, implying unreasonably large values for the luminosity and energy, i.e. from eq.(3), $`E_\mathrm{f}3\times 10^{58}\theta _1^2T_{\mathrm{obs},9}^{20/3}t_{\mathrm{BB}}^{11/3}ϵ_\gamma ^{5/3}\mathrm{erg},`$ where $`\theta `$ is expressed in units of 0.1 radians.

If, instead, the observed emission comes from a series of shells the transparency radius can be much smaller, allowing a “reasonable” luminosity of the photosphere: for $`E_\mathrm{f}=10^{51}E_{\mathrm{f},51}`$ erg we have

$$R_\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\times 10^{13}\frac{E_{\mathrm{f},51}^{1/2}}{\theta _1𝒩^{1/3}}\left(\frac{ϵ_\gamma }{t_{\mathrm{BB}}T_{\mathrm{obs},9}^4}\right)^{1/6}\mathrm{cm}.$$
(5)
We conclude that a series of shells (of total energy $`E_\mathrm{f}`$) each becoming transparent at $`R_\mathrm{t}`$ can account for the observed black body emission. The case of $`𝒩`$ shells for large $`𝒩`$ is clearly equivalent to a continuous or quasi–continuous flow.

As Daigne & Mochkovitch (2002) pointed out, and in agreement with our findings, the photospheric radiation is likely to be visible only during the first phases of the burst light curve, as long as the optical depth of the material ahead of the shell which is releasing its thermal radiation is negligible and before internal shocks take over.

#### 5.5.2 Compton drag

If the circum-burst environment is characterized by quite a large photon density, as is the case of bursts following a supernova explosion, or for fireballs produced in the matter–evacuated funnel of an hypernova, there can be a strong interaction between these seed photons and the fireball itself, as postulated in the so–called Compton drag model. The ambient photon energy is boosted by the factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ at the expense of the fireball kinetic energy (Lazzati et al. Lazzati 2000 (2000)). If the funnel or the young supernova remnant are characterized by a single temperature $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$, and if the fireball does not decelerate, the emitted spectrum is a black body at a temperature $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$. If instead the seed photons have a range of temperatures (as likely to be in the case of a funnel, hotter in the central parts), and/or the process is so efficient to decelerate the fireball, than the final spectrum will be a superposition of the locally produced black body spectra, as calculated by Ghisellini et al. (Ghisellini (2000)). The resulting spectrum can indeed resemble the very hard spectra found, at least for the initial part of these bursts. In fact, once the first shells have swept up the seed photons, the efficiency of Compton drag is greatly reduced, since the time to replenish the circum–burst environment with seed photons is typically longer than the duration of the burst itself. On the other hand the Compton drag model favours the formation of internal shocks, since after the first shells deceleration, the subsequent ejecta can more easily collide with them and produce shocks. Then another radiation source can become efficient after the first phase (lasting $``$1 to a few seconds). This possibly also explains the hard to soft evolution: at first the spectrum, due to Compton drag, is very hard at low energies ($`F(E)E^2`$), whereas at later times the spectrum produced in internal shocks through other processes becomes softer ($`F(E)E^{1/3}`$ or $`E^0`$).

Let us then assume that the time interval for which the black body lasts corresponds to the emission from a single shell and that the emission peaks when the shell becomes transparent (eq. 2), implying $`R_\mathrm{t}ct_\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$.

The total energy $`E_{\mathrm{CD}}`$ due to the Compton drag process, produced in the observed time $`t_\mathrm{t}`$, is of the order

$`E_{\mathrm{CD}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \theta ^2R_\mathrm{t}^3(2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)a\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{obs}}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}\right)^4`$ (6)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\times 10^{51}\theta _1^2t_\mathrm{t}^3T_{\mathrm{obs},9}^4\mathrm{erg}`$
where $`a=7.56\times 10^{15}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{K}^4`$ is the radiation constant. In this form $`E_{\mathrm{CD}}`$ does not depend on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (although of course $`T_{SN}`$ does). We can then derive the transparency radius (from eq.(2) and (8)) and the bulk Lorentz factor:

$`R_\mathrm{t}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _\mathrm{T}c^{3/2}t_\mathrm{t}^{7/2}aT_{\mathrm{obs}}^4}{8ϵ_\gamma m_\mathrm{p}}}\right)^{2/5}`$ (7)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\times 10^{14}T_{\mathrm{obs},9}^{8/5}t_\mathrm{t}^{7/5}ϵ_\gamma ^{2/5}\mathrm{cm}`$
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{t}}{ct_\mathrm{t}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}100}T_{\mathrm{obs},9}^{4/5}t_\mathrm{t}^{1/5}ϵ_\gamma ^{1/5}$$
(8)
for a temperature of the seed photons corresponding to $`T_{SN}5\times 10^4`$K.

These simple (and rough) estimates indicate that the Compton drag model is viable.

#### 5.5.3 Time evolution

Although the limited number of time resolved spectra and bursts do not allow to search for a general evolutionary behaviour, we can briefly comment on the spectral and dynamical evolution of the initial thermal phase of these 5 bursts. As reported in Fig. 10 in all the 5 bursts, the black body temperature decreases with time (bottom panel) and its evolution is intriguingly close to $`T_{\mathrm{obs}}t^{1/4}`$ for the first few seconds, and then drops. In the same time interval the luminosity ($`L_{BB}`$) remains constant or mildly increases (top panel of Fig. 10). We therefore observe, at least in the first phase, a decrease in the observed temperature without a corresponding decrease in the observed black body flux. We plan to examine more deeply these observational behaviour in a future work: here we just briefly comment on it in relation to the scenarios discussed above.

In the context of the photospheric model discussed in Sec. 5.7.1, the black body evolution could be explained by successive shells having an increasing baryon loading and smaller Lorentz factor, thus becoming transparent at increasing distances $`R_t`$. This can cause the observed temperature to decrease (because the Lorentz factor is smaller) without a decrease in flux (because the radius is larger).

In the context of the Compton drag model, a decrease in the observed temperature can be due to the deceleration of the fireball and/or a decreasing temperature of the seed photons with distance. If we consider the luminosity due to the Compton drag process (Eq. (8)), we have $`L_{\mathrm{CD}}E_{\mathrm{CD}}/tt^2T_{\mathrm{obs}}^4`$, which predicts $`L_{\mathrm{CD}}t`$ if the time behavior of the observed temperature is indeed $`T_{\mathrm{obs}}t^{1/4}`$. A weaker dependence of the observed flux on time can occur if the fireball is becoming transparent (i.e. only a fraction $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ of the seed photons can be scattered) with $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ decreasing with distance and/or if the fireball distance becomes larger than the typical dimension occupied by the seed photons.

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented the spectral evolution of GRB 911118 and of a new case of hard burst, GRB 980306, together with some other hard bursts already reported in the literature. Their low energy spectral component is harder than $`N(E)E^0`$ for a considerable period of their main peak emission and even after this initial phase their spectrum remains harder than the synchrotron limit $`E^{2/3}`$. We have applied different tests to verify the significance of the low energy hardness, concluding that these results are indeed robust.

These GRB prompt spectra represent a challenge for the proposed emission scenarios as shown through a comparison with the limiting spectral shapes predicted by such models. We pointed out the difficulties that synchrotron emission, even including the effects of self–absorption, small pitch angles particle distributions and jittering, has in explaining spectra harder than $`N(E)E^0`$. Comptonization models also have difficulties, even if they are consistent with very hard spectra in a limited range of energies. Of course, such a pruning of the forest of emission scenarios refers only to the phases characterized by the harder emission, while it is possible and likely that different processes dominate at different stages of the prompt evolution and/or in different GRBs (see also below).

The main result of this study is the possible thermal character of the first emission phase of all the bursts we considered and the findings on the evolution of such a thermal phase. The conventional scenario, of a fireball accelerated by its own internal pressure, indeed predicts such an initial thermal character when the fireball becomes transparent. It was indeed its absence in previously considered bursts that led Daigne & Mochkovitch (2002) to favour a rather cold fireball scenario, where at least part of the acceleration was due to magnetic forces. In our bursts, on the contrary, the luminosity in the thermal phase is a significant fraction of the total, therefore in agreement with the hot fireball scenario. However, the fireball could be cold initially, and be heated later (but before it becomes transparent). The heating agent could be magnetic reconnection (see e.g. Drenkhahn & Spruit 2002) or internal shocks occurring at early phases. The latter case demands that the typical bulk Lorentz factors of the shells are small enough for the shells to collide before the transparency radius.

Alternatively, a cold fireball could work if the thermal spectrum we see is produced by Compton drag, in which circum-burst radiation is boosted to high energies by the fireball bulk motion.

At present, we are not able to discriminate between the photospheric and the Compton drag scenario. However, a key difference between the two scenarios is the fact that the seeds photons for the Compton drag process can be “used” only by the first shells, because the time needed to refill the scattering zone with new seeds exceeds the duration of the burst. Therefore observing blackbody emission for a long time, or during the rising phase of two time resolved peaks would be difficult to explain in terms of the Compton drag process. We finally note that emission at times greater than a few seconds can well be due to other processes, possibly linked to internal shocks starting to dominate at later phases.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the anonymous referee for a careful and thorough work and her/his constructive criticisms. This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center On line Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. Giancarlo Ghirlanda and AC acknowledge the Italian MIUR for financial support.