format: text

text:
# High Energy Spectral Components in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows

## 1 Introduction

Gamma-ray Burst (GRB) afterglows have been detected mainly at longer wavebands, from X-rays to radio, extending up to months after the burst triggers (e.g. van Paradijs, Kouveliotou & Wijers 2000). These long-lived afterglow emissions are generally interpreted within the fireball shock model by the synchrotron emission of external shock-accelerated relativistic electrons. The broadband electron synchrotron spectrum (Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998) has proven to be a useful paradigm to study afterglow lightcurves in the X-ray, optical, and radio band, and to constrain various unknown parameters. On the other hand, there are other high energy emission components, whose role in determining the long wavelength afterglows may be secondary or of limited duration, but which may, for some time, dominate the high energy, X-ray to GeV spectrum of the afterglows. These include the synchrotron self-inverse Compton emission (IC) of the electrons (Mészáros, Rees & Papathanassiou 1994; Waxman 1997; Panaitescu & Mészáros 1998; Wei & Lu 1998, 2000; Dermer, Böttcher & Chiang 2000a; Dermer, Chiang & Mitman 2000b; Panaitescu & Kumar 2000; Sari & Esin 2001), the proton synchrotron emission (Vietri 1997; Böttcher & Dermer 1998; Totani 1998) as well as some other hadron-related emission components (Böttcher & Dermer 1998). The emission from such high energy mechanisms in the GeV band may have been detected by EGRET in GRB 940217 (Hurley et al. 1994) and probably also in some other GRBs, and will be detectable by next generation GeV $`\gamma `$-ray missions such as GLAST. In the X-ray band, the electron IC component has been pointed out as potentially detectable at a later time (Sari & Esin 2001).

Previous afterglow snapshot spectral fits to multi-wavelength data up to X-rays using the synchrotron emission component (e.g. Wijers & Galama, 1999; Panaitescu & Kumar 2000; van Paradijs, Kouveliotou & Wijers, 2000; Freedman & Waxman 2001) have constrained some of the fireball shock parameters (e.g. the electron and magnetic field energy equipartition parameters $`ϵ_e`$, $`ϵ_B`$), which are found to vary over a wide range. Because of the relative looseness of these fits, there is a need to tighten the model constraints. A promising way to do this is by extending upward the frequency range over which the snapshot spectra are fitted, and to investigate the relative importance and additional constraints imposed by the high energy radiation components, over a wider region of parameter phase space, which is the subject of this paper. For this purpose, we use a simple analytic approach to describe the various spectral components. Following a brief general treatment of the particle distribution and the synchrotron spectrum of the electrons (§2), we discuss the proton synchrotron spectral component (§3) and the electron inverse Compton component (§4), and compare their importance relative to the electron synchrotron emission in the frequency regime below the electron synchrotron cut-off. Above this cut-off, the relative importance between the electron’s IC and the hadron-related components is also discussed. In §5 we incorporate the high energy absorption due to $`\gamma \gamma `$ pair production in an analytic manner. We then present several examples of the broad band spectra of GRB afterglows within different parameter regimes in §6, and discuss the detectability of these high energy spectral components within various bands, especially in the X-ray band and the GeV band. Finally we summarize our findings in §7.

## 2 Proton and electron distributions and cooling

We assume that for negligible radiative losses both electrons and protons are shock accelerated to a single relativistic power law distribution of index $`p`$. Denoting the particle species by the subindex “x” (which indicates “e” for electrons and “p” for protons), after a certain time the particle distribution becomes a broken power law depending on the relative ordering between the injection minimum energy, $`\gamma _{m,x}`$, and the energy at which the particles cool radiatively in an expansion timescale, $`\gamma _{c,x}`$. Given a maximum particle energy $`\gamma _{u,x}`$ at which the acceleration time equals the energy loss time, the particle distribution is $`N(\gamma _x)\gamma _x^p`$ for $`\gamma _{m,x}<\gamma _x<\gamma _{c,x}`$, and $`N(\gamma _x)\gamma _x^{p1}`$ for $`\gamma _{c,x}<\gamma _x<\gamma _{u,x}`$, if $`\gamma _{m,x}<\gamma _{c,x}`$ (slow cooling regime); and is $`N(\gamma _x)\gamma _x^2`$ for $`\gamma _{c,x}<\gamma _x<\gamma _{m,x}`$, and $`N(\gamma _x)\gamma _x^{p1}`$ for $`\gamma _{m,x}<\gamma _x<\gamma _{u,x}`$, if $`\gamma _{m,x}>\gamma _{c,x}`$ (fast cooling regime). For $`p>2`$, the mean particle energy is $`\overline{\gamma }_x=[(p1)/(p2)]\gamma _{m,x}`$. Hereafter we assume for simplicity the same power law index $`p`$ for both electrons and protons. Assuming that $`\zeta _pn`$ and $`\zeta _en`$ are the number densities of the shock-accelerated power-law protons and electrons, respectively, where $`\zeta _p`$ and $`\zeta _e`$ are the injection fractions and $`n`$ is the number density of the pre-shock thermal medium, one can define the energy portion contained in the power-law distributed electrons and protons with respect to the total energy behind the shock to be $`ϵ_e=\zeta _e(m_e/m_p)(\overline{\gamma }_e/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, and $`ϵ_p=\zeta _p(\overline{\gamma }_p/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, respectively, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the blast wave. Consequently, the minimum energy for the power-law distributed electrons and the protons are 111We note that the larger minimum proton energy estimates $`\gamma _{m,p}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ adopted, e.g., by Vietri 1997; Böttcher & Dermer 1998 and Totani 1998, when $`p`$ is close to 2 as assumed in those references, lead to larger proton synchrotron flux levels than those obtained using equation (1), because of the higher $`\overline{\gamma }_p`$ involved.

$$\gamma _{m,e}=\left(\frac{ϵ_e}{\zeta _e}\right)\left(\frac{m_p}{m_e}\right)\left(\frac{p2}{p1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma },\gamma _{m,p}=\left(\frac{ϵ_p}{\zeta _p}\right)\left(\frac{p2}{p1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(1)
The above equations are for $`p>2`$, which for simplicity will be assumed to be valid. For $`p`$ getting closer to 2, the $`(p2)/(p1)`$ factor is no longer precise, and when $`p=2`$, it is replaced by $`\mathrm{ln}^1(\gamma _{u,x}/\gamma _{m,x})`$. However, the imprecise of eq.(1) at $`p=2`$ does not influence the precise of the discussions in §3 (e.g. eq.) since both correction factors for the proton and the electron components are cancelled out. The cooling energy $`\gamma _{c,x}`$ is defined by equating the comoving adiabatic expansion time $`t_{ad}^{}r/(\mathrm{\Gamma }c)\mathrm{\Gamma }t`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the blastwave at the radius $`r`$, $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(r/c)`$ is the expansion time in the observer frame) to the comoving radiation cooling time $`t_c^{}=[(t_{sy}^{})^1+(t_{IC}^{})^1]^1=t_{sy}^{}/(1+Y)`$, where $`t_{sy}^{}`$ and $`t_{IC}^{}`$ are the synchrotron and the IC cooling time, and $`Y=t_{sy}^{}/t_{IC}^{}=(1+\sqrt{1+4\eta ϵ_x/ϵ_B})/2`$ is the Compton factor (e.g. Panaitescu & Kumar 2000; Sari & Esin 2001). Here redshift corrections have been ignored for simplicity, $`\eta =\mathrm{Min}[1,(\gamma _{m,x}/\gamma _{c,x})^{p2}]`$ is the fraction of the particle energy that is radiated away via both synchrotron and inverse Compton (Sari & Esin 2001), and $`ϵ_B`$ is the fraction of the magnetic energy density with respect to the total energy density behind the shock, so that the comoving magnetic field $`B^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }c(32\pi nm_pϵ_B)^{1/2}`$. For $`\eta ϵ_x/ϵ_B1`$, one has $`Y\eta ϵ_x/ϵ_B1`$ and $`t_c^{}t_{sy}^{}`$, and the IC cooling is not important. Alternatively, when $`\eta ϵ_x/ϵ_B1`$, IC cooling is important, and $`t_c^{}(\eta ϵ_e/ϵ_B)^{1/2}t_{sy}^{}`$ (Sari & Esin 2001). The critical energy above which the particle species $`x`$ cool in an expansion time is $`\gamma _{c,x}=(1+Y_x)^1(6\pi m_xc/\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma _{T,x}B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t)`$, where $`t_{sy}^{}=(\gamma _xm_xc^2)/[(4/3)\sigma _{T,x}c\gamma _x^2(B^2/8\pi )]`$ is used, $`\sigma _{T,x}=(8\pi /3)(e^2/m_xc^2)^2`$ is the Thomson cross section for particles of mass $`m_x`$, and $`\sigma _{T,p}/\sigma _{T,e}=(m_e/m_p)^2`$. A caveat is that, by adopting $`Y=(1+\sqrt{1+4\eta ϵ_x/ϵ_B})/2`$, one has implicitly assumed $`L_{IC}/L_{sy}U_{sy}/U_B`$, where $`U_{sy}`$, $`U_B`$ are the synchrotron radiation and magnetic field energy densities, respectively. Strictly speaking, this is valid only when the IC cooling occurs in the classical Thomson regime. In practice, high energy electrons may cool in the Klein-Nishina regime, especially at the early afterglow phase. The cooling frequency in the above analytic treatment is then a crude approximation if the energy where the electron cool is in the K-N regime, and more careful treatment ought to be made. As discussed more in §4, the analytic treatment presented in this paper is adequate at one hour or even earlier after the burst trigger, but may be crude for the prompt phase.

The maximum energy $`\gamma _{u,x}`$ is defined by equating the comoving acceleration time $`t_{\mathrm{acc}}^{}2\pi \alpha r_\mathrm{L}/c=2\pi \alpha \gamma _{u,x}m_xc/eB^{}`$ (where $`r_\mathrm{L}`$ is the Larmor radius, and $`\alpha `$ is a factor of the order of unity for relativistic shocks) to the minimum of the comoving adiabatic cooling time $`t_{ad}^{}`$ and the comoving radiation cooling time $`t_c^{}`$. This gives $`\gamma _{u,x}=\mathrm{Min}\{(2\pi \alpha )^1(eB^{}/m_xc)(\mathrm{\Gamma }t),`$ $`[3e/\alpha B^{}\sigma _{T,x}(1+Y_x)]^{1/2}\}`$, where for protons the first part of the equation applies, while for the electrons it is the latter.

The electron synchrotron emission spectrum is a broken power law separated by three characteristic frequencies: the self-absorption frequency $`\nu _{a,e}`$, the characteristic frequency for the minimum energy particles, $`\nu _{m,e}(\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Gamma })\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{eB^{}}{m_ec}\gamma _{m,e}^2`$, and the cooling frequency, $`\nu _{c,e}(\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Gamma })\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{eB^{}}{m_ec}\gamma _{c,e}^2`$. Similar expressions apply for protons, except that synchrotron absorption and cooling are less important than in electrons. For both $`p`$ and $`e`$ the maximum particle energy $`\gamma _{u,x}`$ defines a synchrotron cut-off frequency $`\nu _{u,x}(\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Gamma })\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{eB^{}}{m_xc}\gamma _{u,x}^2`$. In the above expressions, the factor (4/3) gives a more precise conversion from the comoving frame to the observer frame (Wijers & Galama 1999). The spectral indices of the four segments ordering from low to high in frequency are \[2, 1/3, -1/2, -p/2\] for the fast-cooling ($`\nu _{c,e}<\nu _{m,e}`$) regime, or \[2, 1/3, -(p-1)/2, -p/2\] for the slow-cooling ($`\nu _{c,e}>\nu _{m,e}`$) regime, respectively (Sari et al. 1998).

## 3 Synchrotron components

A potentially interesting high energy emission component of GRB afterglows is the synchrotron emission from the shock-accelerated relativistic protons (Vietri 1997; Böttcher & Dermer 1998; Totani 1998, 2000). Compared to electrons, the protons are inefficient emitters due to their much larger mass. The ratio of the characteristic synchrotron frequencies of protons and electrons is

$$\frac{\nu _{m,p}}{\nu _{m,e}}=\left(\frac{\gamma _{m,p}}{\gamma _{m,e}}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)=\left(\frac{ϵ_p/\zeta _p}{ϵ_e/\zeta _e}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)^3,$$
(2)
where eq.(1) is used. The peak synchrotron flux for the emission of particle x is $`F_{\nu ,max,x}n_xP_{\nu _{m,x}^{}}^{}n_x/m_x`$, where $`P_{\nu _{m,x}^{}}^{}=\varphi _o(\sqrt{3}e^3B^{}/m_xc^2)`$, and $`\varphi _o0.6`$ (Wijers & Galama, 1999). This is independent of whether the peak is at $`\nu _{m,x}`$ or at $`\nu _{c,x}`$. Thus the ratio of the peak flux of the two particle species is

$$\frac{F_{\nu ,max,p}}{F_{\nu ,max,e}}=\left(\frac{\zeta _p}{\zeta _e}\right)\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right).$$
(3)
We see that both $`\nu _{m,p}`$ and $`F_{\nu ,max,p}`$ are much smaller than $`\nu _{m,e}`$ and $`F_{\nu ,max,e}`$, respectively, indicating that the proton emission component is usually buried under the electron emission component. However, the ratio of the cooling frequencies is

$$\frac{\nu _{c,p}}{\nu _{c,e}}=\left(\frac{1+Y_e}{1+Y_p}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_p}{m_e}\right)^6$$
(4)
(see §2), which means that protons barely cool while electrons cool rapidly. This allows, in some cases, the proton component to dominate over the electron component at high frequencies.

We consider now a certain observation band $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ around $`\nu `$ which is above both the cooling frequency and the characteristic synchrotron frequency of the electrons, but is below the electrons’ synchrotron cut-off frequency, i.e. $`\nu _{c,e}(\mathrm{and}\nu _{m,e})<\nu <\nu _{u,e}`$. Regardless of the relative ordering of $`\nu _{m,e}`$ and $`\nu _{c,e}`$ (slow-cooling or fast cooling), the electron synchrotron flux at this frequency is $`F_{\nu ,e}(\nu )=(\nu /\nu _{m,e})^{(p1)/2}F_{\nu ,max,e}(\nu _{c,e}/\nu )^{1/2}`$. If $`\nu <\nu _{u,p}`$ is also satisfied, the flux of the proton synchrotron component at the same frequency is $`F_{\nu ,p}(\nu )=(\nu /\nu _{m,p})^{(p1)/2}F_{\nu ,max,p}`$, since $`\nu _{m,p}<\nu _{m,e}`$ and usually $`\nu _{c,p}\stackrel{>}{}\nu _{u,p}`$. Thus

$$\frac{F_{\nu ,p}(\nu )}{F_{\nu ,e}(\nu )}=\left(\frac{F_{\nu ,max,p}}{F_{\nu ,max,e}}\right)\left(\frac{\nu _{m,p}}{\nu _{m,e}}\right)^{(p1)/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _{c,e}}\right)^{1/2}=\left(\frac{ϵ_p}{ϵ_e}\right)^{(p1)}\left(\frac{\zeta _e}{\zeta _p}\right)^{(p2)}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)^{(3p1)/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _{c,e}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(5)
We see that $`\nu `$ must be $`\nu _{c,e}`$ to make the proton component show up in the spectrum, and that a large $`ϵ_p`$ and a small $`ϵ_e`$ favor the proton component. The dependence on the injection parameters $`\zeta _e`$ and $`\zeta _p`$ is weak for $`p`$ close to 2.

For the purposes of numerical examples we use below a standard scenario (e.g. Mészáros & Rees 1997) in which a blast wave with total energy per solid angle $`=E/\mathrm{\Omega }=10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}/\mathrm{Sr}_{52}`$ expands into a uniform interstellar medium of particle number density $`n\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a putative jet opening solid angle. (In follows we will not discuss the jet dynamics. This does not influence our discussions on the early GeV afterglows, but may quantitatively, although not qualitatively, change the discussions of the late X-ray afterglows, if the transitions occur after the jet breaks. A wind-like external medium with $`nr^2`$ may be also incorporated in a similar way but we do not discuss this here). For the uniform external medium case, the blast wave starts to decelerate at a radius $`r_{dec}(3/4\pi nm_pc^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2)^{1/3}2.6\times 10^{16}\mathrm{cm}_{52}^{1/3}n^{1/3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,300}^{2/3}`$, at an observer time $`t_{dec}(r_{dec}/4\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2c)(1+z)2.4\mathrm{s}_{52}^{1/3}n^{1/3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,300}^{8/3}(1+z)`$ s. Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=300\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,300}=E/M_0c^2`$ is the initial bulk Lorentz factor of the shocked materials at $`t=t_{dec}`$ and the factor $`(1+z)`$ reflects the cosmological time dilation effect. After collecting enough interstellar medium materials, the blast wave will be decelerated self-similarly and its advance is measured by $`r(t)[12ct/(1+z)/4\pi nm_pc^2]^{1/4}=1.6\times 10^{17}\mathrm{cm}(_{52}/n)^{1/4}[t_h/(1+z)]^{1/4}`$, while the bulk Lorentz factor decays as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)[3(1+z)^3/4^34\pi nm_pc^5t^3]^{1/8}=19.4(_{52}/n)^{1/8}[t_h/(1+z)]^{3/8}`$. Here $`r=4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2ct(1+z)`$ has been adopted, and $`t_h`$ is the earth observer time in unit of hours. The comoving magnetic field is $`B^{}=7.5\mathrm{G}ϵ_B^{1/2}_{52}^{1/8}n^{3/8}[t_h/(1+z)]^{3/8}`$ G. The breaks in the electron energy distribution are then given by

$`\gamma _{m,e}=`$ $`5.9\times 10^3(ϵ_e/\zeta _e)(_{52}/n)^{1/8}[t_h/(1+z)]^{3/8},`$ (6)
$`\gamma _{c,e}=`$ $`1.96\times 10^2(1+Y_e)^1ϵ_B^1_{52}^{3/8}n^{5/8}[t_h/(1+z)]^{1/8}.`$ (7)
In eq.(6) and hereafter $`p=2.2`$ for both electrons and protons has been adopted to calculate numerically the coefficients. The $`p`$-dependences in the power indices, if necessary, will be still retained. The observed characteristic electron synchrotron frequency is then $`\nu _{m,e}=2.9\times 10^{16}\mathrm{Hz}(ϵ_e/\zeta _e)^2ϵ_B^{1/2}_{52}^{1/2}t_h^{3/2}(1+z)^{1/2}`$, while that for the protons is $`\nu _{m,p}=4.6\times 10^6\mathrm{Hz}(ϵ_p/\zeta _p)^2ϵ_B^{1/2}_{52}^{1/2}t_h^{3/2}(1+z)^{1/2}`$. The electron cooling frequency is

$$\nu _{c,e}=3.1\times 10^{13}\mathrm{Hz}(1+Y_e)^2ϵ_B^{3/2}_{52}^{1/2}n^1t_h^{1/2}(1+z)^{1/2},$$
(8)
and the cut-off maximum frequencies for the electrons and the protons are

$`\nu _{u,e}=`$ $`2.3\times 10^{23}\mathrm{Hz}\alpha ^1(1+Y_e)^1(_{52}/n)^{1/8}t_h^{3/8}(1+z)^{5/8},`$ (9)
$`\nu _{u,p}=`$ $`2.8\times 10^{23}\mathrm{Hz}\alpha ^2ϵ_B^{3/2}(_{52}n)^{3/4}t_h^{1/4}(1+z)^{3/4}.`$ (10)
Finally, the maximum electron synchrotron flux is $`F_{\nu ,max,e}=[(4\pi /3)r^3\zeta _en\mathrm{\Gamma }P_{\nu _{m,e}^{}}^{}/4\pi D^2](1+z)=(\varphi _o\sqrt{3}/3)(e^3\zeta _en/mc^2D^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }B^{}r^3(1+z)=29\mathrm{m}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{y}\zeta _eϵ_B^{1/2}n^{1/2}_{52}D_{28}^2(1+z)`$, where $`DD(z)=10^{28}\mathrm{cm}D_{28}`$ is the proper distance of the source (which, depending on the cosmological model, is also redshift dependent). Similarly, the maximum proton synchrotron flux is $`F_{\nu ,max,p}=15.7\mu \mathrm{Jy}\zeta _pϵ_B^{1/2}n^{1/2}_{52}D_{28}^2(1+z)`$.

For $`\nu <\nu _{u,e}`$, the condition for the proton synchrotron component to overcome the electron component is $`F_{\nu ,p}(\nu _{u,p})>F_{\nu ,e}(\nu _{u,p})`$. Using equations (5), (8) and (10), this translates into

$$(1+Y_e)^{2/3}ϵ_B>594(ϵ_e/ϵ_p)^{2(p1)/3}(\zeta _p/\zeta _e)^{2(p2)/3}\alpha ^{2/3}_{52}^{5/12}n^{7/12}[t_h/(1+z)]^{1/12},$$
(11)
which is shown as line 1 in Fig. 1.

Another condition for the competition between the $`p`$ and $`e`$ components which might be thought to be relevant is $`\nu _{u,p}>\nu _{u,e}`$, which corresponds to $`(1+Y_e)^{2/3}ϵ_B>0.88\alpha ^{2/3}_{52}^{5/12}`$ $`n^{7/12}[t_h/(1+z)]^{1/12}`$. However, this condition may not be essential, since as shown by Böttcher & Dermer (1998) there can be other proton-induced electromagnetic signals extending above this energy, of level comparable to or lower than the proton synchrotron component. These include the synchrotron radiation from the positrons produced by $`\pi ^+`$ decay and the $`\gamma `$-rays produced directly from $`\pi ^0`$ decay. These components may be regarded as an extension to the proton synchrotron component, which would stick out above the electron synchrotron component even if $`\nu _{u,p}<\nu _{u,e}`$. However, these proton components will compete with the electron IC component, which we discuss in §4.

## 4 Inverse Compton component

The inverse Compton (IC) is mainly important for the electron component, both for the electron cooling and for forming a separate high energy emission component222The IC of the protons is not important since $`\eta _p=(\gamma _{m,p}/\gamma _{c,p})^{p2}1`$.. The condition for the IC cooling to be important is $`\eta ϵ_e/ϵ_B>1`$, which has been explicitly addressed by Sari & Esin (2001). Here we investigate the condition that the IC emission component overtakes the electron and/or the proton synchrotron component.

The IC component has a similar spectral shape to the synchrotron component, but its low energy peak is Lorentz-boosted by roughly a factor of $`\gamma _{m,e}^2`$, while the frequency spread where it is important is stretched out, by comparison to the spread of the synchrotron spectrum, extending between the boosted characteristic and cooling frequencies. Sari & Esin (2001) have explicitly presented analytic expressions for the IC spectral component, and found that the power law approximation is no longer accurate at $`\nu >\gamma _m^2\nu _{m,e}`$, since electrons with a range of Lorentz factors between $`\gamma _m`$ and $`\gamma _c`$ contribute equally to the emission at each frequency. For the convenience of the following discussions, we will still adopt the broken power law approximation to perform order-of-magnitude estimations, bearing in mind that more accurate expressions would be necessary in more detailed calculations.

In this approximation, the IC spectral component can be represented (Sari & Esin, 2001) by a four-segment broken power law with power indices ordered from low to high frequency of \[1, 1/3, -(p-1)/2, -p/2\] in the slow-cooling regime, or of \[1, 1/3, -1/2, -p/2\] in the fast-cooling regime. The break frequencies are $`\nu _{a,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}=\gamma _{m,e}^2\nu _{a,e}`$, $`\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}\gamma _{m,e}^2\nu _{m,e}`$, and the IC cooling frequency $`\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}\gamma _{c,e}^2\nu _{c,e}`$. The maximum flux of the inverse Compton component is roughly a factor $`(u_{ph}^{}/u_B^{})(\nu _{m,e}/\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})`$ of that of the synchrotron component, where $`u_{ph}^{}(4/3)c\sigma _{T,e}u_B^{}\gamma _e^2(r/\mathrm{\Gamma }c)(4\mathrm{\Gamma }\zeta _en)`$ and $`u_B^{}=B^2/8\pi `$ are the comoving synchrotron photon and magnetic field energy densities, respectively. This gives

$$\frac{F_{\nu ,max,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}}{F_{\nu ,max,e}}\frac{16}{3}\sigma _{T,e}\zeta _enr=3.5\times 10^7\zeta _enr_{17}=5.7\times 10^7\zeta _e_{52}^{1/4}n^{3/4}[t_h/(1+z)]^{1/4}.$$
(12)
This shows that generally the IC component can only overtake the synchrotron component beyond the synchrotron component’s cooling break, but before the IC component’s cooling break. In the slow-cooling regime, for a frequency $`\nu `$ satisfying $`\nu _{c,e}\nu \nu _{u,e}`$ and $`\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}\nu \nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$, the flux ratio of the IC and the synchrotron components is

$$\frac{F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu )}{F_{\nu ,e}(\nu )}=\left(\frac{F_{\nu ,max,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}}{F_{\nu ,max,e}}\right)\left(\frac{\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}}{\nu _{m,e}}\right)^{(p1)/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _{c,e}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(13)
Alternatively, in the fast-cooling regime, for a frequency $`\nu `$ satisfying $`\nu _{m,e}\nu \nu _{u,e}`$ and $`\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}\nu \nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$, the flux ratio of the IC and the synchrotron components is

$$\frac{F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu )}{F_{\nu ,e}(\nu )}=\left(\frac{F_{\nu ,max,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}}{F_{\nu ,max,e}}\right)\left(\frac{\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}}{\nu _{c,e}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _{m,e}}\right)^{(p1)/2}.$$
(14)
Similarly to the proton synchrotron case, the conditions that the IC component overcomes the synchrotron component is $`F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})>F_{\nu ,e}(\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})`$ for the slow-cooling case, or $`F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})>F_{\nu ,e}(\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})`$ for the fast-cooling case, and both conditions can be simplified to

$$\frac{16}{3}\sigma _{T,e}\zeta _enr\gamma _{c,e}\gamma _{m,e}^{(p1)}>1.$$
(15)
Using eqs.(6) and (7), this IC-dominance condition over electron synchrotron can be re-expressed as

$$(1+Y_e)ϵ_B<3.8(ϵ_e/\zeta _e)^{(p1)}\zeta _e(_{52}/n)^{(p2)/8}[t_h/(1+z)]^{3(p2)/8}.$$
(16)
This is the line labeled 2 in Fig. 1. We see that a large $`ϵ_e`$ or a small $`ϵ_B`$ makes the IC component more prominent, since a large $`ϵ_e`$ enhances $`\gamma _{m,e}`$ and a small $`ϵ_B`$ tends to increase $`\gamma _{c,e}`$ due to the inefficient synchrotron cooling. A denser medium also favors the IC component (eq.). One comment is that if one takes into account the flux increase above $`\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$ due to the logarithmic term from the scattering contributions of the different electrons (Sari & Esin 2001), the IC dominance condition is less stringent than (16).

The cut-off energy in the IC component is defined by $`\nu _{u,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}=\mathrm{Min}(\gamma _{u,e}^2\nu _{u,e},\nu _{_{\mathrm{KN},e}}^{\mathrm{IC}})`$, where $`\nu _{_{\mathrm{KN},e}}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$ is the Klein-Nishina limit. A rough estimate of this frequency is given by $`\nu _{_{\mathrm{KN},e}}^{\mathrm{IC}}\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e}}^2\nu _{_{\mathrm{KN},e}}`$, where $`\nu _{_{\mathrm{KN},e}}(\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Gamma })\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{eB^{}}{m_ec}\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e}}^2`$, and $`\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e}}mc^2/\mathrm{Min}(h\nu _{m,e}^{},h\nu _{c,e}^{})=\mathrm{Max}(\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e,1}},\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e,2}})`$, where $`\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e,1}}=1.1\times 10^5(\xi _e/ϵ_e)^2ϵ_B^{1/2}_{52}^{3/8}n^{1/8}t_h^{9/8}(1+z)^{1/8}`$, and $`\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e,2}}=1.0\times 10^8(1+Y_e)^2ϵ_B^{3/2}_{52}^{5/8}n^{7/8}t_h^{1/8}(1+z)^{7/8}`$. In any case, the condition $`\nu _{u,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}\nu _{u,e}`$ always holds, which means that above $`\nu _{u,e}`$ the IC component always sticks out. By comparing both $`\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e,1}}`$ and $`\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e,2}}`$ with $`\gamma _{c,e}`$ (eq.) and noticing their temporal dependences, we can see that at $`t_h=1`$, both $`\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e,1}}`$ and $`\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e,2}}`$ are far greater than $`\gamma _{c,e}`$, and only $`\gamma _{_{\mathrm{KN},e,1}}`$ may becomes smaller than $`\gamma _{c,e}`$ at the prompt phase. This means that throughout the afterglow phase, the scatterings with the peak-flux background photons ($`\nu _{m,e}^{}`$ for slow-cooling and $`\nu _{c,e}^{}`$ for fast-cooling) for the cooling energy electrons are well in the classical regime, and at $`t_h1`$ or even earlier, the scatterings with the peak-energy-flux background photons ($`\nu _{c,e}^{}`$ for slow-cooling and $`\nu _{m,e}^{}`$ for fast-cooling) for the cooling energy electrons are also in the classical regime. This justifies the approximate analytic cooling treatment adopted in this paper, at least for $`t_h>1`$. For earlier afterglows, especially at the prompt phase, the cooling frequency estimate may be still viable, but the spectrum above the cooling frequency ought to be treated more carefully by taking into account the Klein-Nishina modifications.

In the $`ϵ_e,ϵ_B`$ space (Fig.1), we see that the regions defined by (11) and (16) do not overlap. This means that for frequencies $`\nu <\nu _{u,e}`$, given a certain set of parameters, only one or the other high energy component (IC or proton synchrotron) competes with the electron synchrotron component. We note that there is also a substantial region of parameter space in which neither of these high energy components can be dominant. For frequencies $`\nu >\nu _{u,e}`$, on the other hand, there is an overlap of the proton dominated phase space region with the IC dominated phase space region in the $`ϵ_e,ϵ_B`$ plane. We thus need to compare the relative importance of these two components. Below, we choose the slow-cooling case as an example. The fast-cooling case can be discussed in a similar way and results in qualitatively similar conclusions.

Within the slow-cooling regime, there are two cases. If $`\nu _{u,e}<\nu <\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$, the IC emission is important, and one can use eqs. (5), (12) and (13) to define the condition that the proton component overcomes the IC component333Here we have assumed a $`(p1)/2`$ slope for the proton component extending to infinity. When $`\nu >\nu _{u,p}`$, this is an over-estimate for the other hadron-related components (Böttcher & Dermer 1998). Thus the real criterion is even more stringent than (17)., i.e., $`F_{\nu ,p}(\nu )/F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu )=(ϵ_p/ϵ_e)^{(p1)}(\zeta _e/\zeta _p)^{(p2)}`$ $`(m_e/m_p)^{(3p1)/2}/[(16/3)\sigma _{T,e}\zeta _enr\gamma _{m,e}^{(p1)}]>1`$. This can be translated into

$$ϵ_e<8.1\times 10^4ϵ_p^{\frac{1}{2}}\zeta _e^{\frac{p2}{p1}}\zeta _p^{\frac{p2}{2(p1)}}_{52}^{\frac{p+1}{16(p1)}}n^{\frac{7p}{16(p1)}}[t_h/(1+z)]^{\frac{3p5}{16(p1)}}.$$
(17)
This is line 3 in Fig. 1, to the left of which proton synchrotron dominates over IC, which again is a relatively small phase space region in terms of $`ϵ_e`$ (but larger than the region left of line 1, where proton synchrotron dominates over electron synchrotron).

The second case in the slow-cooling regime is for $`\nu >\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$, and here the competition between the two components is more difficult to quantify. The fact that usually $`\nu _{u,p}\nu _{u,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$ would seem to indicate that the proton component is not important. However, as Böttcher & Dermer (1998) have shown, photo-meson interactions between the relativistic protons and the low energy photon spectrum lead to additional hadron-related spectral components at high energies, with a $`\nu F_\nu `$ level which can be a substantial fraction of that of the proton synchrotron component, but extending to much higher energies. For our purposes it is not necessary here to compute these components in detail, assuming instead as a rough estimate that beyond the maximum proton synchrotron frequency $`\nu _{u,p}`$ the extended hadron component $`\nu F_\nu `$ flux level represents a fraction $`k=0.1k_1`$ of the proton synchrotron flux level at the proton synchrotron cut-off, $`F_{\nu ,p}(\nu _{u,p})=F_{\nu ,max,p}(\nu _{u,p}/\nu _{m,p})^{(p1)/2}`$, so that one has $`F_{\nu ,p}(\nu )/F_{\nu ,p}(\nu _{u,p})=0.1k_1(\nu _{u,p}/\nu )`$. This is consistent with Böttcher & Dermer’s Fig.1, and in general $`k=0.1k_1`$ represents an overestimate of the flux level from these hadron-related components. We then compare $`F_{\nu ,p}(\nu )`$ to $`F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu )=F_{\nu ,max,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}/\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})^{(p1)/2}(\nu /\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})^{p/2}`$. Again with the help of (5), (12) and (13), and noticing $`F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu )/F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})=(\nu /\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})^{p/2}`$ and $`F_{\nu ,e}(\nu _{u,p})/F_{\nu ,e}(\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})=(\nu _{u,p}/\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})^{p/2}`$, one can get $`F_{\nu ,p}(\nu )/F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu )=[F_{\nu ,p}(\nu )/F_{\nu ,p}(\nu _{u,p})][F_{\nu ,p}(\nu _{u,p})/F_{\nu ,e}(\nu _{u,p})][F_{\nu ,e}(\nu _{u,p})/F_{\nu ,e}(\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})][F_{\nu ,e}(\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})/F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})][F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})/F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu )]=(ϵ_p/ϵ_e)^{(p1)}`$ $`(\zeta _e/\zeta _p)^{(p2)}(m_e/m_p)^{(3p1)/2}/[(16/3)\sigma _{T,e}\zeta _enr\gamma _{m,e}^{(p1)}](\nu _{u,p}/\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})^{1/2}(\nu /\nu _{u,p})^{(p2)/2}.`$ After some further derivations, the condition $`F_{\nu ,p}(\nu )>F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu )`$ can be translated into

$$(1+Y_e)^{0.85}ϵ_B>215k_1^{0.43}ϵ_e^{1.02}ϵ_p^{0.51}\zeta _e^{0.17}\zeta _p^{0.09}\alpha ^{0.34}_{52}^{0.22}n^{0.35}t_h^{0.10}(1+z)^{0.01}\nu _{26}^{0.04}.$$
(18)
These are the lines labeled 4 (calculated for $`k=0.1`$) and 4’ (for $`k=1`$) in Fig. 1. In the above expression we have adopted $`p=2.2`$ for both electrons and protons in order to avoid an unnecessarily complicated expression. (The explicit spectral index $`p`$-dependence can be written out straightforwardly, and is presented in the Appendix). Notice that this criterion is mildly dependent on $`\nu `$, and we have adopted $`\nu =10^{26}\mathrm{Hz}\nu _{26}`$ for the typical frequency in (18). Above this frequency (several TeV), the self-absorption due to $`\gamma \gamma `$ pair production becomes important (§5) and the comparison is no longer meaningful. For lower frequencies, the constraint on the hadron-dominant region of parameter space is more stringent.

In summary, the competition between various components in the $`ϵ_e,ϵ_B`$ diagram can be read off from Fig. 1. A) The first case, applicable to frequencies $`\nu <\nu _{u,e}`$, is shown by the solid lines (eqs. and ), which divide the space into three regions, in which the proton synchrotron component competes with the electron synchrotron component, and the electron synchrotron competes with the the electron IC component, respectively. Regions I and II are the regions where the proton component and the electron IC component dominate in the spectrum, respectively, while in region III, neither of these high energy spectral components can overcome the electron synchrotron component. B) The second case, applicable to frequencies $`\nu >\nu _{u,e}`$, is shown by the dashed lines dividing the parameter space into two regions, in which the proton synchrotron and the electron IC components compete with each other. Region I’ is where the proton component as well as other hadron-related components may overcome the electron IC emission component, while region II’ is the IC-dominated region. The dashed line 3 (eq.) is the separation line for the case of $`\nu <\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$, and the dashed line 4 (eq.) is the separation line for the case of $`\nu >\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$, calculated for a typical frequency $`\nu 10^{26}`$ Hz. For lower frequencies, this line moves leftwards, causing the hadron-dominant phase space region to shrink. It can be seen that the hadron-related components are usually masked by the electron IC component, unless $`ϵ_e`$ is very small. We note that both eqs.(17) and (18) are derived under conditions which are maximally favorable for the proton components, which includes also adopting the extreme case of $`ϵ_p=1`$, which may be an over estimate (Vietri 1997). Bearing all these facts in mind, we expect that the actual proton-dominated regimes (I and I’) could be even smaller than what is indicated in Fig.1. On the other hand, in both the low energy band ($`\nu <\nu _{u,e}`$) and in the high energy band ($`\nu >\nu _{u,e}`$), the IC component is important in a much larger portion of the parameter phase space (regions II and II’).

## 5 $`\gamma \gamma `$ pair attenuation

For the higher energy GRB photons in the observer frame, the comoving frame photon energy exceeds $`mc^2`$, and for sufficient high photon densities, a photon with energy $`E`$ in the observer frame may be attenuated by pair production through interaction with softer photons whose energy (also in the observer frame) is equal to or greater than $`E_{an}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }mc^2)^2/E(1+z)^2`$, depending on the impact angle between the two photons. This may greatly degrade the high-energy fluence level, and the corrections due to this $`\gamma \gamma `$ absorption process needs to be taken into account. The $`\gamma \gamma `$ absorption in the GRB prompt phase has been studied by several authors, e.g. Krolik & Pier 1991; Fenimore et al. 1993; Woods & Loeb 1995; Baring & Harding 1997; Lithwick & Sari 2001. Here, however, instead of the prompt phase we concentrate on the afterglow phase.

To treat the absorption in the afterglow phase we adopt an analytical approach similar to the one developed for internal shocks by Lithwick & Sari (2001, their eq.), which we adapt here to the external shock scenario. Instead of using $`\delta T`$ (the temporal variation timescale in the internal shock scenario), we use in our case an emission timescale $`t/(1+z)`$, which is the expansion time as viewed by the earth observer with the cosmological time dilation effect correction. Assuming that the emission spectrum around $`E_{an}=h\nu _{an}`$ is $`L_\nu (\nu )=L_{\nu ,0}(\nu /\nu _{an})^\beta `$, the total photon number with $`E>E_{an}`$ can be estimated as $`N_{>E_{an}}_{\nu _{an}}^{\mathrm{}}(L_{\nu ,0}/h\nu )(\nu /\nu _{an})^\beta 𝑑\nu t/(1+z)=L_\nu (\nu _{an})[t/(1+z)]/h\beta `$. We adopt an averaged $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross section given by $`C\sigma _{T,e}`$, where $`C`$ is a constant dependent on the photon spectral index. Svensson (1987) gives an analytic expression leading to $`C=11/180`$ for a photon energy density index of -1 (photon number density index -2), also used by Lithwick & Sari (2001). More detailed calculations by, e.g., Coppi & Blandford (1990) and Böttcher & Schlickeiser (1997) lead to a slightly larger $`C`$ of the order 0.1. Noticing that $`L_\nu (\nu _{an})=F_\nu (\nu _{an})4\pi D^2/(1+z)`$, the attenuation optical depth is

$$\tau _{\gamma \gamma }(\nu )=\frac{C\sigma _{T,e}N_{>E_{an}}}{4\pi [4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2ct/(1+z)]^2}=\frac{C\sigma _{T,e}F_\nu (\nu _{an})D^2}{16\mathrm{\Gamma }^4c^2h\beta t},$$
(19)
where in terms of the quantities $`t`$ and $`F_\nu (\nu _{an})`$ as measured by an Earth observer, the redshift factor has cancelled out.

It is seen from eq. (19) that the dominant spectral dependence of $`\tau _{\gamma \gamma }(\nu )`$ is on $`F_\nu (\nu _{an})`$. For $`E1`$ TeV (where absorption becomes important), we find $`E_{an}2.6\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2(1+z)^2`$, which is above $`h\nu _{c,e}`$. In this band, the electron synchrotron emission component dominates in a large region of phase space (Fig.1), and even if the IC component may potentially dominate, this happens at a later time (§6), when the GeV-TeV emission is not important. Thus for the regime we are interested in, we can approximate $`F_\nu (\nu _{an})=F_{\nu ,max,e}(\nu _{c,e}/\nu _{m,e})^{(p1)/2}(\nu _{an}/\nu _{c,e})^{p/2}`$, and take $`\beta =p/2`$. For the model of the dynamics adopted used here and for $`p=2.2`$, eq.(19) reads then

$$\tau _{\gamma \gamma }(\nu )0.56C_1(1+Y_e)^1(1+z)^{(7p8)/8}ϵ_B^{(p2)/4}ϵ_e^{p1}\zeta _e^{(p2)}_{52}^{(p+4)/8}n^{(p+4)/8}t_h^{(83p)/8}\nu _{26}^{p/2},$$
(20)
where $`C_1=C/0.1`$, and the dependence of $`(1+Y_e)^1`$ may be dropped for the regime I bursts ($`ϵ_eϵ_B`$ and $`Y_e0`$). Notice the mild dependence on $`\nu `$ and the weak dependence on $`t`$. The absorption becomes important only when $`\nu `$ approaches 1 TeV ($`2.4\times 10^{26}`$ Hz). This simple treatment is in qualitative agreement with the more detailed simulations of Dermer et al. 2000b (their Fig.3).

An approximate expression for the final spectral flux including $`\gamma \gamma `$ attenuation is given by the flux escaping from a skin-depth of unit optical depth, or

$$F_\nu ^{ab}(\nu )=F_\nu ^{tot}(\nu )/(1+\tau _{\gamma \gamma }),$$
(21)
where $`F_\nu (\nu )^{tot}`$ includes the contributions from all the spectral components discussed above.

## 6 Results and implications for high energy observations

With a simple numerical code that includes the three spectral components discussed in this paper, as well as the $`\gamma \gamma `$ attenuation effect modeled through eq.(19), we have investigated the spectra and the lightcurves in various energy bands for different choices of the most relevant parameters, especially $`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$. Because of the relatively small value of $`\tau _{\gamma \gamma }`$ for most energies of interest here, we have treated this as a simple absorption process and have neglected for simplicity the effects of the secondary pairs which it produces. The results generally confirm the division of the $`ϵ_e,ϵ_B`$ phase space sketched in Fig.1. Below we present some examples and explore the detectability of the proton component and the IC component in the afterglow phase in various bands, in particular at GeV energies with future missions such as GLAST, and in the X-ray band with the Chandra X-ray Observatory. The signatures of the IC and proton components may be detected at high energies in at least two ways. One is through snapshot spectral fits, which require a wide and well-sampled energy coverage, including the MeV to GeV band. Such simultaneous measurements may be achieved in the Swift and GLAST era. Another, simpler way, is to study the lightcurves at some fixed high energy band, looking for a possible hardening of the lightcurve, the details of which we discuss below.

### 6.1 Detectability of the proton synchrotron component

To explore the detectability of the proton synchrotron component, we choose as typical parameters for the regimes I and I’ the values $`ϵ_B=0.5ϵ_{B,.5}`$, $`ϵ_e=10^3ϵ_{e,3}`$ and $`n=10^2n_2`$. Notice that $`ϵ_B=0.5ϵ_{B,.5}`$, $`ϵ_e=10^3ϵ_{e,3}`$ would fall outside region I for the density $`n1`$ assumed in our Fig. 1, but adopting here a higher density $`n_21`$ these parameters are appropriate for region I. A denser medium will reduce $`\nu _{c,e}`$ (eq.) and consequently enlarges the region I (eq.). We do not explore an even lower $`ϵ_e`$, since it is unlikely to have values $`ϵ_e\stackrel{<}{}m_e/m_p0.5\times 10^3`$.

For the frequency range $`\nu <\nu _{u,e}`$, the critical time $`t_p`$ at which the proton component overtakes the electron component, $`t_p`$, can be derived by making eq.(5) greater than unity. From eq.(8), and taking a certain band, e.g., $`\nu =10^{23}\mathrm{Hz}\nu _{23}`$, one gets

$$t_p=1.1\mathrm{hr}ϵ_{B,.5}^3(ϵ_{e,3}/ϵ_p)^{4(p1)}(\zeta _p/\zeta _e)^{4(p2)}_{52}^1n_2^2(1+z)^3\nu _{23}^2.$$
(22)
The dependence on $`n`$ is steep, so that for a lower density medium the overtaking time $`t_p`$ could be too late for observational purposes. The dependence on the frequency is also very steep, so that the overtaking time for slightly higher $`\nu `$ shifts to much shorter time. For example, for $`\nu _{23}=10`$ (4 GeV), the overtaking time moves down to $`t_p40`$ s.

Equation (22) indicates that for the above set of parameters, the proton synchrotron component will show up in the GeV band. The possibility of directly detecting this component is interesting for several reasons. One is in possibly providing a constraint on the ratio of the proton to the electron injection fractions into the acceleration process, $`\zeta _p/\zeta _e`$, which is for the interest of the shock physics. This would also have important implications for the overall energetics of the fireball. A detection might also provide information on whether the index $`p`$ is the same for electrons and protons, as assumed here for simplicity (but departures from which would be interesting). We note, however, that the absolute luminosity of this proton GeV emission is too faint to be detected by GLAST, even for bursts at a distance of $`z0.1`$, unless $`_{52}\stackrel{>}{}150`$. It may, however, be detectable for $`_{52}\stackrel{>}{}1`$ by future larger larger effective area ground-based GeV telescopes from some close regime I bursts (see §6.4 and Fig.4).

In the X-ray band where Chandra is sensitive ($`\nu \nu _{18}`$), because of the steep frequency dependence $`t_p\nu ^2`$ the overtaking time occurs always too late, when the flux is low. Thus it appears impossible to detect the proton synchrotron component in the X-ray band. Figure 2a shows the snapshot spectra including the X-ray and GeV region for the typical parameter set representative of regime I, with a relatively dense external medium ($`n_21`$).

One remark is that the condition for the proton synchrotron component to dominate a certain high energy band is that $`\nu _{c,e}`$ must decrease with time, to make the electron component relatively less prominent (see eq.). This is not the case for the afterglow evolution in a wind-like external medium with $`nr^2`$ (Chevalier & Li 1999). Thus, a detection of the proton component in the GeV band lightcurve would provide a diagnostic for an approximately constant external medium. A non-detection, however, would not necessarily be an argument against the constant medium, since the phase space region for the proton component detection is small.

### 6.2 Detectability of the electron IC component

To explore the detectability of the IC component, we choose the typical parameters for regions II and II’ to be $`ϵ_B=10^2ϵ_{B,2}`$, $`ϵ_e=0.5ϵ_{e,.5}`$ and $`n=1`$, similarly to Sari & Esin (2001). Following the same procedure to derive (22), one can derive the critical time $`t_{IC}`$ when the IC component overtakes the synchrotron component at a typical frequency $`\nu <\nu _{u,e}`$.

In the X-ray band, the overtaking time of the IC component usually occurs in the slow-cooling regime, which we will assume in the following discussions (see below). The crossing point between the synchrotron spectral component and the IC spectral component, $`\nu _e^{\mathrm{IC}}`$ (Sari & Esin 2001), could in principle be either above or below $`\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$. If $`\nu _e^{\mathrm{IC}}>\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$, eq.(13) could be used directly, and the overtaking condition is $`(16/3)\sigma _{T,e}\zeta _enr\gamma _{m,e}^{(p1)}\left(\nu /\nu _{c,e}\right)^{1/2}>1`$. The complication in comparing the regions I and I’ is that the Compton cooling factor $`(1+Y_e)`$ in the expression of $`\nu _{c,e}`$ (eq.) can no longer be neglected. For $`(\eta ϵ_e/ϵ_B)^{1/2}1`$, one has $`(1+Y_e)(\eta ϵ_e/ϵ_B)^{1/2}`$, where in the slow cooling phase $`\eta =(\gamma _{m,e}/\gamma _{c,e})^{p2}`$. We have derived the overtaking time for this case, where $`t_{\mathrm{IC}}\nu ^{[4(4p)/(3p^223p+36)]}`$ (cf. Sari & Esin 2001). For reasonable values of $`p`$ (e.g. 2.2-2.4), the quantity $`(3p^223p+36)`$ is close to zero, causing a very sharp, and probably unphysical, dependence of $`t_{\mathrm{IC}}`$ on all parameters. However, the value of $`t_{\mathrm{IC}}`$ derived in this manner is not generally useful for our purposes here. The reason is that, to ensure $`\nu _e^{\mathrm{IC}}>\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$, the $`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$ should be close to the values near the boundary between the regions II and III (eq.), so that both values are comparable. In such a regime, the approximation of $`(1+Y_e)(\eta ϵ_e/ϵ_B)^{1/2}`$ no longer holds, and one cannot get a simple analytic expression for $`t_{\mathrm{IC}}`$.

More generally, the overtaking occurs when $`\nu _e^{\mathrm{IC}}<\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$ in situations where $`ϵ_eϵ_B`$, as is the case for the typical values adopted above (and in Sari & Esin 2001). Noticing that in this regime $`F_{\nu ,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu )=F_{\nu ,max,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu /\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})^{1/3}=F_{\nu ,max,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(\nu /\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})^{(p1)/2}(\nu /\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})^{(3p1)/6}`$, using eq.(13) the overtaking condition can be written as $`(16/3)\sigma _{T,e}\zeta _enr\gamma _{m,e}^{(p1)}\left(\nu /\nu _{c,e}\right)^{1/2}(\nu /\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}})^{(3p1)/6}>1`$. This finally leads to

$$t_{\mathrm{IC}}=3.4\mathrm{days}ϵ_{e,.5}^{0.89}ϵ_{B,2}^{0.08}\zeta _e^{1.63}_{52}^{0.06}n^{0.66}(1+z)^{0.36}\nu _{18}^{0.68}$$
(23)
for $`p=2.2`$ and $`\nu =10^{18}\mathrm{Hz}\nu _{18}`$ (X-ray band). The $`p`$-dependence in the above expression is more cumbersome, and is given in the Appendix. This result is in general agreement with Sari & Esin (2001)444The numerical indices in the equation (23) are in agreement with Sari & Esin’s results for $`p=2.2`$, except the index for $`(1+z)`$, where we have included an additional factor from the frequency redshift correction, i.e., -0.36=0.32-0.68. , and in addition here we have explicitly presented the $`\zeta _e`$, $`_{52}`$, and $`\nu `$ dependences which are absent in their paper. A roughly factor of two difference on the overtaking time ($`7.7`$ days in their case) may be caused by slightly different coefficients adopted in both works for the $`\nu _{m,e}`$, $`\nu _{c,e}`$, $`F_{\nu ,max,e}`$, etc. Nonetheless, this confirms Sari & Esin’s finding that in a reasonably dense medium, the IC component can be directly detected by Chandra a couple of days after the burst trigger. We note that a substantial flattening of the X-ray light curve for GRB 000926 has been detected by Chandra (Piro et al. 2001). Since the proton component cannot show up in the X-ray band under any circumstances, as we argued in §6.1, such a flattening may indicate a direct detection of the IC emission of the electrons 555After this paper was submitted, we noticed that Harrison et al (2001) have performed a detailed fit to the snapshot spectra of the afterglow data of this burst at 2 day and 10 day. The X-ray emission data are consistent with an IC emission component. The best-fit parameters they derived lie in our Regime II. This agrees with the discussions presented here.. An alternative interpretation is advanced in Piro et al. (2001).

Extensive efforts have been made to determine key fireball parameters such as $`,ϵ_B,ϵ_e,n`$ using snapshot spectral fits extending from radio to X-rays on well studied GRB afterglows (e.g. Galama et al. 1998; Wijers & Galama 1999; Panaitescu & Kumar 2001). A cautionary point which needs to be stressed about these analyses is that the spectrum which is observed need not be, as is generally assumed, solely due to electron synchrotron radiation, especially when using late time ($`\stackrel{>}{}`$ a couple of days) data in the fitting. According to our results in this paper, as long as the $`ϵ_e,ϵ_B`$ phase space is in the regions I or III, the standard fitting assumption (i.e. electron synchrotron dominance) is safe, since there are no high energy (proton or IC) spectral components appearing in the X-ray band. However, in the region II of parameter space (which includes values of $`ϵ_B,ϵ_e`$ often derived from such fits), the analysis may not be self-consistent, since the X-ray data points may be due the IC component. This caution applies to even earlier snapshot spectral fits, if the burst happens to occur in a denser medium (notice the negative dependence of $`n`$ on the $`(2/3)(5p26)/(3p^28p12)`$ index).

The negative dependence on $`\nu _{18}`$ of $`t_{\mathrm{IC}}`$ (the explicit index is $`(2/3)(3p+2)(p4)/(3p^28p12)`$, see also Sari & Esin 2001) indicates that for energy bands above X-rays, the overtaking time is much earlier666At higher energy bands, $`\nu _{\mathrm{IC}}<\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$ may be no longer satisfied, and the overtaking time may occur in the fast-cooling regime. Nonetheless, the negative dependence on $`\nu `$ of $`t_{\mathrm{IC}}`$ generally holds.. In fact, in the GeV band, the IC component dominates almost throughout the entire afterglow phase. For the typical parameter set corresponding to the IC dominated region II, Figure 2b shows the time evolution of the snapshot spectra. For completeness, we present also in Figure 2a the snapshot spectra for the typical parameter set in the proton dominated region I, while Figure 2c shows the snapshot spectra for parameters in the electron synchrotron dominated region III. We can see that in this latter region, neither of the two high energy components is prominent below $``$ GeV energies (although at $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ GeV there is a lower level IC component). Two explanations ought to be made about our code. First, to avoid adding up an unphysical component in the electron synchrotron self-absorption band, we have arbitrarily defined the self-absorption cut-off in the proton component. The self-absorption segment in the electron IC component is still plotted with a slope 2 rather than 1 (Sari & Esin 2001) for the convenience of code developing, which does not influence the final broad-band spectrum. Second, at the cut-off frequency of each component, we have adopted a sharp cut-off while a more realistic cut-off should be exponential. The same applies for the sharp jumps in the lightcurves presented in Figs.3 and 4.

In Figure 3, we present the X-ray lightcurves for the typical bursts in the three different regimes. While the regime I and III afterglows show a monotonous decay in this band, we show that the regime II afterglows can show interesting bump features, due to the dominance of the IC component at a later time, in qualitative agreement with Panaitescu & Kumar (2000) and Sari & Esin (2001).

### 6.3 GeV afterglows and GRB 940217

The extended GeV emission 1.5 hours after the trigger of GRB 940217 detected by EGRET (Hurley et al. 1994) indicates that a high energy spectral component can extend into the GeV band for a long period of time, at least in some bursts. In principle, this could be either due to the proton synchrotron emission in the regime I, or due to the electron IC emission in the regime II, or even due to the electron synchrotron emission in the regime III. We will show below that the regime II IC-dominated origin is the more plausible explanation.

The peak energy flux expected from various scenarios can be estimated straightforwardly. For the proton synchrotron in regime I, we have

$`\nu F_{\nu ,p}(\mathrm{GeV})=\nu F_{\nu ,max,p}(\nu /\nu _{m,p})^{(p1)/2}1.4\times 10^{14}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$
$`\times ϵ_p^{(p1)}\zeta _p^{(2p)}ϵ_{B,.5}^{(p+1)/4}n_2^{1/2}_{52}^{(p+3)/4}D_{28}^2(1+z)^{(9p)/4}`$ $`t_h^{3(p1)/4}\nu _{23}^{(3p)/2}`$ (24)
(see also Fig.2). This is more than one order of magnitude below the calculated level of Böttcher & Dermer (1998) as well as the analytical estimate of Totani (1998). The main discrepancy with both of these results is due to their having adopted $`\gamma _{m,p}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, rather than the more accurate lower value we adopted in equation (1), and also due to the fact that we calculate the flux coefficient using $`p=2.2`$ while they use $`p=2`$, which further enhances the discrepancy between $`\gamma _{m,p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and which gives a milder $`\nu `$-dependence. To test this, we have substituted $`\gamma _{m,p}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`p=2`$ in our code, and this reproduces Böttcher & Dermer’s results. We conclude that the correction introduced by using here the more realistic $`\gamma _{m,p}`$ (eq.) is essential, and that the previous rough estimates using $`\gamma _{m,p}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can considerably overestimate the proton synchrotron flux level. Another feature, which can be seen from equation (24), is the negative temporal decay of the flux level with the index $`3(p1)/40.9`$, which indicates that even if the the proton synchrotron emission flux level is detectable in the early afterglow phase, it will drop with time as time goes by. For the regime III, electron-synchrotron-dominated case, the trend is similar, with a steeper temporal index $`(3p2)/41.15`$ (Fig.4).

In the IC-dominated regime II, contrary to the proton component, the IC component itself has a bump peaking at $`\nu _{m,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$ (for slow-cooling) or $`\nu _{c,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}`$ (for fast-cooling) in the $`F_\nu `$ plot. The peak will sweep the band $`\nu =10^{23}\mathrm{Hz}\nu _{23}`$ at $`t=t_{max}0.3\mathrm{hr}ϵ_{e,.5}^{16/9}\zeta _e^{16/9}ϵ_{B,2}^{2/9}_{52}^{1/3}n^{1/9}(1+z)^{5/9}\nu _{23}^{4/9}`$ in the slow-cooling regime. The temporal index before the flux reaches its peak is 1 (slow-cooling) or $`(83p)/3(4p)0.26`$ (fast cooling), and is $`(119p)/81.1`$ (slow cooling, which is usually the case) after the flux has passed its peak. The peak energy flux can be estimated as $`\nu F_{\nu ,max,e}^{\mathrm{IC}}(t=t_{max})3.0\times 10^{10}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for $`ϵ_B0.01`$. This temporal evolution is mild, which allows a substantial GeV emission component lasting hours after the GRB trigger.

The EGRET flux sensitivity above 100 MeV is $`10^7\mathrm{ph}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for point-source observations over a period of two weeks in directions away from the Galactic Plane. Correcting for an average effective on-source observing fraction of 45% (D. J. Thompson, private communication), the fluence threshold may be estimated as $`10^7T(t/T)^{1/2}5\times 10^8t^{1/2}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ at an average energy 400 MeV, where $`T=148640045\%`$, and $`t`$ is integration time in seconds. This fluence sensitivity may be extrapolated down to integration times such that at least, say, 5 photons are collected. For even shorter integration times, the flux sensitivity may be defined, e.g. by the criterion that at least 5 photons are collected, which is $`5/(A_{eff}t)\mathrm{ph}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$. For EGRET, $`A_{eff}1500\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^2`$, giving an estimated fluence threshold in the low integration time regime of $`5/1500400\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}2.1\times 10^6\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. As shown in Figure 4, for $`_{52}1`$, the EGRET fluence threshold level is not reached by regime I or III bursts, but this level is attainable for a regime II burst located at closer distances (e.g. $`z=0.1`$), or in a higher density environment. Thus the late ($``$ hour) GRB 940217 afterglow was most likely dominated by the electron IC emission from a nearby or dense-medium regime II burst. This agrees with Mészáros & Rees (1994), and Dermer et al. (2000b) drew a similar conclusion by detailed simulations using a specific set of parameters, i.e., $`ϵ_e=0.5`$, $`ϵ_B10^4`$, which lies in our regime II. The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) currently under construction will have a flux sensitivity of $`1.6\times 10^{12}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for long term observations (Gehrels & Michelson 1999), roughly 40 times more sensitive than EGRET in the point-mode. In the low flux regime, given the effective area of $`8000\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^2`$ (Gehrels & Michelson 1999), it is only about a factor of 5 more sensitive than EGRET. The fluence threshold for GLAST is roughly $`1.2\times 10^9t^{1/2}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for long integration time regime, and $`4.0\times 10^8\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for short integration time regime (again assuming that at least 5 photons are collected). This will make most regime II burst afterglows detectable at a typical cosmological distance and in a moderate density medium (Fig.4).

In Figure 4 we show the GeV lightcurves for bursts typical of the three different parameter regimes and $`_{52}=1`$. For comparison with future observations, we have integrated over the 400 MeV - 200 GeV band to get the total energy fluence GLAST can collect during a certain time duration $`t`$. The sensitivity threshold of EGRET and GLAST are indicated. One sees that regime II burst afterglows would be generally detectable by GLAST within hours after the burst trigger. Bursts in regime I and III are generally non-detectable by GLAST, even for burst at $`z=0.1`$. Increasing total energy budget ($`_{52}`$) or ambient density ($`n`$) can increase the detectability of these bursts. Since for transient events, the key factor of sensitivity is the effective collecting area, some future ground-based larger area GeV telescopes, such as the $`5\mathrm{@}5`$ \- 5 GeV energy threshold array of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes at 5 km altitude (Aharonian et al. 2001), may have better chance to detect the regime I and III bursts (at the prompt phase), and of course, to collect more photons from regime II bursts. A criterion to differentiate between nearby regime I and III bursts is that the lightcurve for the regime I burst is flatter. In any case, we conclude that an extended GeV afterglow is a diagnostic of a regime II (IC-dominated) burst.

Recently, an energy flux upper limit $`J(E>760\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})<9.4\times 10^{12}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ in GRB 010222 was obtained in a 4-hour measurement with the stereoscopic HEGRA Cherenkov telescope system, 19 hours after the burst trigger (Goetting & Horns 2001). Given the cosmological distance of $`z1.477`$ (Jha et al. 2001), this is consistent with our model prediction in this paper (see Fig.2), even for the most favorable regime II case (Fig.2b).

### 6.4 Prospects from broadband observations in the Swift-GLAST era

The GLAST mission will be launched in 2005, with a sensitivity range in the 20 MeV-300 GeV, complemented by the Glast Burst Monitor (BGM) whose energy range extends from a few keV to 30 GeV. Another broad band GRB mission, Swift, will be launched in 2003, and will be sensitive in the optical, X-ray and $`\gamma `$-rays up to $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 140 keV. At the same time, ground-based experiments such as Milagro, HESS, Veritas, MAGIC and Cangaroo-III may provide $`\stackrel{>}{}0.5`$ TeV, or in some cases $`\stackrel{>}{}30`$ GeV data or upper limits. In the Swift-GLAST era, simultaneous broad-band observations at the very earliest stages of the GRB afterglows will become possible, which will bring invaluable information about GRB shock physics and the central engine. Here we note several interesting issues which can be addressed in the Swift-GLAST era:

1. Sari & Esin (2001) pointed out that due to the IC cooling, there are two possible solutions of the unknown fireball and shock parameters for a same set of observables from the low-energy afterglow fits. For high density mediums, these two scenarios may be distinguished from the late-time X-ray observations. But for low density mediums, the two solutions are degenerate and indistinguishable with the present data. However, we note that the two sets of solutions lie within the regime III and regime II, respectively. This provides a natural way to distinguish between the two scenarios by using the GeV afterglow data. If an extended GeV afterglow is detected by GLAST, then the parameter space should be in regime II where the IC component dominates in the high energy band. In this case eqs.(4.17) to (4.20) of Sari & Esin (2001) will apply. Otherwise, the parameter space should be in regime III, where no prominent emission component shows up in the GeV band. This is the case that Sari & Esin’s eqs.(4.13) to (4.16) may apply.

2. It has been proposed by Waxman (1995) and Vietri (1995) that GRBs are likely sites to produce ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs), and that the $`10^{20}`$ eV excess UHECRs detected are of the GRB origin. This hypothesis is subject to debate (cf. Stecker 2000; Mannheim 2000; Scully & Stecker 2001). We note that future GeV observations with GLAST may be able to add important criteria on the debate, at least for the external shock scenario. To accelerate protons to ultra-high energies around $`10^{20}`$ eV, $`ϵ_B`$ must be close to unity (Waxman 1995; Vietri 1995; Rachen & Mészáros 1998, but see Dermer 2001). If substantial extended GeV afterglows are common among GRBs, and if the redshift measurements from the low frequency afterglow observations indicate that the GRBs are around $`z1`$, this will impose severe constraints on the UHECR acceleration theory by the external shock scenario, since the regime II generally favors a small $`ϵ_B`$. (However, our calculations do not apply to a possible UHECR acceleration in internal shocks). On the other hand, if long duration GeV afterglows are not common, and for a few nearby bursts a GeV (prompt) lightcurve hardening is detected by GLAST or some other future telescopes, this could be attributable to proton synchrotron emission, in which case both $`ϵ_p`$ and $`ϵ_B`$ are close to unity. This would provide support to the theory of UHECR origin in GRBs. Since these components are not masked by the electron synchrotron and the IC components, this would also hint at a small $`ϵ_e`$ (e.g. due to a weak coupling between electrons and protons, as argued by Totani 1998; 2000).

3. Although most present snapshot spectral fits assume that the unknown shock parameters ($`ϵ_e`$, $`ϵ_p`$, $`ϵ_B`$) are constant with time, there is no a priori reason for this simplest assumption. Evolutions of one or more of these parameters are in principle possible (e.g. Dermer et al. 2000b). Present observations are too crude to explore these possibilities, but future broadband observations will provide the opportunity to explore this important issue. In our Figure 1, we present generically the parameter space of various regimes as well as their dependences on some other parameters including the observation time. In the whole discussions in §6, we have assumed the constant equipartition parameters. If there exist substantial evolutions of these parameters, the blastwave parameters will change in the $`ϵ_eϵ_B`$ space, and may, in some cases, switch the regime they belong to as time goes by. This will bring some additional interesting signatures in the lightcurves in various bands, and further more detailed studies may provide diagnostics on the possible evolutional effects.

## 7 Summary

We have studied GRB afterglow snapshot spectra and lightcurves over a broader band than usual by including the canonical electron synchrotron emission as well as two other high energy spectral components, i.e., the proton synchrotron emission component and the electron synchrotron self-inverse-Compton emission component. We have in particular concentrated upon the X-ray to GeV-TeV ranges, including the effect of attenuation by $`\gamma \gamma `$ pair formation. This investigation has the advantage, relative to prior ones, of bringing together in a single coherent treatment the effects of these various high energy mechanisms, which hitherto had been mostly treated singly or in twos, within the context of a specific GRB afterglow dynamical model. This is carried out over a wider range of parameter phase space than hitherto, to allow a global view on the relative importance of the various spectral components.

For the frequency range below the electron’s synchrotron cut-off, $`\nu <\nu _{u,e}`$, there is a competition between the electron synchrotron component on the one hand, and the proton synchrotron component or the electron IC component on the other, which can affect the higher energy bands including X-rays or above. This competition divides the $`ϵ_e,ϵ_B`$ phase space into three regimes (Fig.1). We have explored the range of validity of these regimes, and discussed the conditions for which these high energy spectral components would show up in various bands, especially in the GeV and the X-ray band. The conclusion is that the IC component is likely to be important in a relatively large region of parameter space, while the conditions for which the proton synchrotron component is important involve a small, but non-negligible, region of parameter space. One interesting consequence is that there is a substantial region (regime III) in which neither of the two high energy components are important. Above the electron synchrotron cut-off, the competition is between the electron IC component and the hadron-related photo-meson decay components, which we treated as a reduced extension of the proton synchrotron component. Again, the phase space region where the latter effects are important in the afterglow is small. We also find that for the external shock and the afterglow phase the $`\gamma \gamma `$ absorption is not important below the TeV range.

A general conclusion is that the most likely origin for an extended high energy afterglow component at GeV energies is from the electron IC component. Not only is the phase space region where the IC component dominates (II and II’) much larger than that where the proton component dominates (I and I’, see Fig. 1), but its intensity is also much higher than that of the hadron components, and the time scale during which an appreciable flux level is maintained in the GeV band is much longer than for the hadronic components. In the parameter regime favorable for the IC emission, this component is observable at and above the X-ray band. In the X-ray band, it will lead to a flattening of the light curve at late times, as long as the medium density is not too low (see also Sari & Esin 2001). Above the X-ray band, the time after which IC emission becomes dominant appears earlier, and the IC component dominates the GeV-band emission almost from the onset of the afterglow phase. In general, a high external density medium favors the detectability of the IC component. Such an IC component is likely to have been responsible for the GeV photons detected from GRB 940217 with EGRET, and similar events should in the future be detectable by GLAST.

The proton synchrotron component, as well as the hadron-related photo-meson electromagnetic components in the afterglow radiation are likely to be, in most cases, less important than previous approximate estimates indicated (Vietri 1997; Böttcher & Dermer 1998; Totani 1998; Totani 2000). The $`ϵ_e,ϵ_B`$ phase space region where this component overcomes the electron synchrotron and the IC components is very small, unless the medium density is high. Even in the most favorable region of the phase space, the proton component is not expected to show up in the X-ray band, but it may overcome the electron synchrotron component in the GeV band shortly after the onset of the afterglow phase, if the medium density is moderately high. However, the flux level is low and drops with time, and is generally not detectable by GLAST unless for some extreme bright bursts at close enough distances. We note also that the value $`_{52}=1`$ used for the estimates in the figures is per steradian, and narrow jets could in principle give values $`\stackrel{>}{}10^2`$. The detection of a proton component would be of extremely high interest (§6.1) for the GRB and shock physics. Its detection, if successful, would imply, depending on its strength, fireball and shock parameters which are more extreme than currently commonly assumed. In particular, it would provide a diagnostic for a high $`ϵ_p,ϵ_B`$ and/or a low $`ϵ_e`$.

We point out a simple way to break the current parameter space degeneracy which currently, from low frequency observations alone (X-rays and below), prevent the unambiguous determination of the unknown fireball and shock parameters, through the use of snapshot spectral measurements extending into the GeV range. We also suggest a way to test the hypothesis of a GRB origin for UHECR using combined Swift and GLAST data. Such observations may also provide diagnostics for the presence of a quasi-homogeneous versus a wind-like inhomogeneous external medium.

Finally, we note that the condition for the spectral IC component to be prominent (eq. and Fig.1) usually covers the parameter regime in which IC cooling is important ($`\eta ϵ_e/ϵ_B>1`$, Sari & Esin 2001). Thus, the current snapshot spectral fits ought to be made with caution for the X-ray data points when the IC cooling is important, especially for the data at later times, and for cases which may involve a high external medium density.

We are grateful to C. D. Dermer, D. J. Thompson and M. Böttcher for informative correspondence, to the referee for valuable comments, and to NASA NAG5-9192 and NAG5-9193 for support.

## Appendix A Explicit $`p`$-dependences of equations (18) and (23)

In this appendix, we explicitly present the $`p`$-dependent indices in equations (18) and (23). For equation (18):

$`(1+Y_e)^{\frac{8}{163p}}ϵ_B`$ $`>215k_1^{\frac{4}{163p}}ϵ_e^{\frac{8(p1)}{163p}}ϵ_p^{\frac{4(p1)}{163p}}\zeta _e^{\frac{8(p2)}{163p}}\zeta _p^{\frac{4(p2)}{163p}}\alpha ^{\frac{4(3p)}{163p}}`$ (A1)
$`\times _{52}^{\frac{134p}{2(163p)}}n^{\frac{112p}{2(163p)}}t_h^{\frac{4p7}{2(163p)}}(1+z)^{\frac{94p}{2(163p)}}\nu _{26}^{\frac{2(p2)}{163p}}.`$
For equation (23):

$`t_{\mathrm{IC}}`$ $`=3.4\mathrm{days}ϵ_{e,.5}^{\frac{4(3p^28p7)}{3(3p^28p12)}}ϵ_{B,2}^{\frac{3p^210p+4}{3(3p^28p12)}}\zeta _e^{\frac{4(3p^25p22)}{3(3p^28p12)}}`$ (A2)
$`\times _{52}^{\frac{2p^24p+1}{2(3p^28p12)}}n^{\frac{2(5p26)}{3(3p^28p12)}}(1+z)^{\frac{3p^216p+4}{3(3p^28p12)}}\nu _{18}^{\frac{2(3p+2)(p4)}{3(3p^28p12)}}.`$


text:
# Exact soliton solutions, shape changing collisions and partially coherent solitons in coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations

## Abstract

We present the exact bright one-soliton and two-soliton solutions of the integrable three coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations ($`3`$-CNLS) by using the Hirota method, and then obtain them for the general $`N`$-coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations ($`N`$-CNLS). It is pointed out that the underlying solitons undergo inelastic (shape changing) collisions due to intensity redistribution among the modes. We also analyse the various possibilities and conditions for such collisions to occur. Further, we report the significant fact that the various partial coherent solitons (PCS) discussed in the literature are special cases of the higher order bright soliton solutions of the $`N`$-CNLS equations.

In recent years the concept of soliton has been receiving considerable attention in optical communications since soliton is capable of propagating over long distances without change of shape and with negligible attenuation \[1-3\]. It has been found that soliton propagation through optical fiber arrays is governed by a set of equations related to the CNLS equations,

$$iq_{jz}+q_{jtt}+2\mu \underset{p=1}{\overset{N}{}}|q_p|^2q_j=0,j=1,2,\mathrm{}N,$$
(1)
where $`q_j`$ is the envelope in the $`j`$th core, $`z`$ and $`t`$ represent the normalized distance along the fiber and the retarded time, respectively. Here $`2\mu `$ gives the strength of the nonlinearity. Eq. (1) reduces to the standard envelope soliton possessing integrable nonlinear Schrödinger equation for $`N=1`$. For $`N=2`$, the above Eq. (1) governs the integrable Manakov system  and recently for this case the exact two-soliton solution has been obtained and novel shape changing inelastic collision property has been brought out . However, the results are scarce for $`N3`$, even though the underlying systems are of considerable physical interest. For example, in addition to optical communication, in the context of bio-physics the case $`N=3`$ can be used to study the launching and propagation of solitons along the three spines of an alpha-helix in protein. Similarly the CNLS Eq. (1) and its generalizations for $`N`$$``$$`3`$ are of physical relevance in the theory of soliton wavelength division multiplexing, multi-channel bit-parallel-wavelength optical fiber networks and so on. In particular, for arbitrary $`N`$, Eq. (1) governs the propagation of $`N`$-self trapped mutually incoherent wavepackets in Kerr-like photorefractive media in which $`q_j`$ is the $`j`$th component of the beam, $`z`$ and $`t`$ represents the normalized coordinates along the direction of propagation and the transverse coordinate, respectively, and $`_{p=1}^N|q_p|^2`$ represents the change in the refractive index profile created by all incoherent components of the light beam  when the medium response is slow.The parameter $`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`k_0^2n_2/2`$, where $`n_2`$ is the nonlinear Kerr coefficient and $`k_0`$ is the free space wave vector.

In this letter, we report the exact bright one and two soliton solutions, first for the $`N=3`$ case and then for the arbitrary $`N`$ case, where the procedure can be extended in principle to higher order soliton solutions, using the Hirota bilinearization method. In particular, we point out that the shape changing inelastic collision property persists for the $`N`$ $``$ $`3`$ cases also as in the $`N=2`$ (Manakov) case reported recently , giving rise to many possibilities of energy exchange. Furthermore, we point out that in the context of spatial solitons the partially coherent stationary solitons(PCS) reported in the recent literature\[9-10\] are special cases of the above general soliton solutions which undergo shape changing collisions.

The bright one-soliton and two-soliton solutions of the $`3`$-CNLS system,

$`iq_{jz}+q_{jtt}+2\mu (|q_1|^2+|q_2|^2+|q_3|^2)q_j=0,j=1,2,3,`$ (2)
can be obtained from its equivalent bilinear form resulting from the transformation $`q_j`$ $`=`$ $`g^{(j)}/f`$,

$`(iD_z+D_t^2)g^{(j)}.f=0,D_t^2f.f=2\mu {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}}g^{(n)}g^{(n)},`$ (3)
where $``$ denotes the complex conjugate, $`D_z`$ and $`D_t`$ are Hirota’s bilinear operators , and $`g^{(j)}`$’s are complex functions, while $`f(z,t)`$ is a real function.The resulting set of Eqs. (3) can be solved recursively by making the power series expansion $`g^{(j)}=\chi g_1^{(j)}+\chi ^3g_3^{(j)}+\mathrm{}`$, $`f=1+\chi ^2f_2+\chi ^4f_4+\mathrm{}`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, where $`\chi `$ is a formal expansion parameter. In order to get the one-soliton solution, the power series expansions are terminated as $`g^{(j)}=\chi g_1^{(j)}`$, and $`f=1+\chi ^2f_2`$. After deducing $`g^{(j)}`$ and $`f`$ as $`g^{(j)}=\alpha _1^{(j)}e^{\eta _1}`$, $`j=1,2,3`$ and $`f=1+e^{\eta _1+\eta _1^{}+R}`$, where $`e^R=\mu _{j=1}^3|\alpha _1^{(j)}|^2/(k_1+k_1^{})^2,`$ the bright one-soliton solution is obtained as

$`(q_1,q_2,q_3)^T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\eta _1}}{1+e^{\eta _1+\eta _1^{}+R}}}(\alpha _1^{(1)},\alpha _1^{(2)},\alpha _1^{(3)})^T,`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_{1R}e^{i\eta _{1I}}}{\text{cosh}\left(\eta _{1R}+\frac{R}{2}\right)}}(A_1,A_2,A_3)^T,`$ (5)
where $`\eta _1`$$`=`$$`k_1(t+ik_1z)`$, $`A_j`$$`=`$$`\alpha _1^{(j)}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mu (_{j=1}^3|\alpha _1^{(j)}|^2))^{1/2}`$. Here $`\alpha _1^{(j)}`$, $`k_1`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, are four arbitrary complex parameters. Further $`k_{1R}A_j`$ gives the amplitude of the $`j`$th mode and $`2k_{1I}`$ the soliton velocity.

The general bright two-soliton solution of Eq. (2) can be generated by terminating the series as $`g^{(j)}=\chi g_1^{(j)}+\chi ^3g_3^{(j)}`$ and $`f=1+\chi ^2f_2+\chi ^4f_4`$ and solving the resultant linear partial differential equations. This solution contains eight arbitrary complex parameters, $`\alpha _l^{(j)}`$ and $`k_l`$, $`l=1,2`$ and $`j=1,2,3`$. It is given by

$`q_j`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha _1^{(j)}e^{\eta _1}+\alpha _2^{(j)}e^{\eta _2}+e^{\eta _1+\eta _1^{}+\eta _2+\delta _{1j}}`$ (7)
$`+e^{\eta _1+\eta _2+\eta _2^{}+\delta _{2j}})/D,j=1,2,3,`$
where $`D=1`$ $`+`$ $`e^{\eta _1+\eta _1^{}+R_1}`$ $`+`$ $`e^{\eta _1+\eta _2^{}+\delta _0}`$ $`+`$ $`e^{\eta _1^{}+\eta _2+\delta _0^{}}`$ $`+`$ $`e^{\eta _2+\eta _2^{}+R_2}`$ $`+`$ $`e^{\eta _1+\eta _1^{}+\eta _2+\eta _2^{}+R_3}`$, $`\eta _i`$$`=`$$`k_i(t+ik_iz)`$, $`e^{R_1}=`$ $`\kappa _{11}/(k_1+k_1^{})`$, $`e^{R_2}=`$ $`\kappa _{22}/(k_2+k_2^{})`$, $`e^{\delta _0}=`$ $`\kappa _{12}/(k_1+k_2^{})`$, $`e^{\delta _{1j}}=`$ $`((k_1k_2)(\alpha _1^{(j)}\kappa _{21}\alpha _2^{(j)}\kappa _{11}))/((k_1+k_1^{})(k_1^{}+k_2))`$, $`e^{\delta _{2j}}=`$ $`((k_2k_1)(\alpha _2^{(j)}\kappa _{12}\alpha _1^{(j)}\kappa _{22}))/((k_2+k_2^{})(k_1+k_2^{}))`$, $`e^{R_3}=`$ $`(|k_1k_2|^2(\kappa _{11}\kappa _{22}\kappa _{12}\kappa _{21}))/((k_1+k_1^{})(k_2+k_2^{})|k_1+k_2^{}|^2)`$ and $`\kappa _{il}=`$ $`\mu _{n=1}^3\alpha _i^{(n)}\alpha _l^{(n)}/(k_i+k_l^{})`$, $`i,l=1,2`$, $`j=1,2,3`$. Though one can proceed to obtain higher order soliton solutions in principle by making use of the general power series expansion, the details become complicated and we will present the results separately.

The nature of the interaction of the underlying solitons can be well understood by making an asymptotic analysis of the two-soliton solution. Asymptotically, the two-soliton solution(5) can be written as a combination of two one-soliton solutions and their forms in the two different regimes $`z\mathrm{}`$ and $`z\mathrm{}`$ are similar to those of the one-soliton solution given in Eq. (4) but differing in amplitude (intensity) and phase. The analysis reveals that there is an intensity exchange among the three components of each soliton during this two-soliton interaction, which can be quantified by defining a transition matrix $`T_j^l`$ such that $`A_j^{l+}`$$`=`$$`A_j^lT_j^l`$, $`j`$$`=`$$`1,2,3`$ and $`l`$$`=`$$`1,2,`$ where the superscripts $`l\pm `$ represent the solitons designated as $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ at $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$ , and $`k_{lR}A_j^{l\pm }`$denote the corresponding amplitudes.

Consequently, the three modes $`q_1`$, $`q_2`$ and $`q_3`$ of $`S_1`$ having magnitudes of amplitudes $`|A_j^1|k_{1R}=`$$`|\alpha _1^{(j)}|k_{1R}/\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$$`=`$$`(\mu (_{j=1}^3|\alpha _1^{(j)}|^2))^{1/2}`$, exchange intensity given by the square of the transition matrices, $`|T_j^1|^2=|1\lambda _2(\alpha _2^{(j)}/\alpha _1^{(j)})|^2/|1\lambda _1\lambda _2|,`$$`j=1,2,3,`$ along with a phase shift $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1=(R_3R_2R_1)/2`$ during collision. Here $`\lambda _1=\kappa _{21}/\kappa _{11}`$ and $`\lambda _2=\kappa _{12}/\kappa _{22}`$. In a similar fashion due to collision the three modes $`q_1`$, $`q_2`$ and $`q_3`$ of $`S_2`$ also exchange an amount of intensity, $`|T_j^2|^2=|1\lambda _1\lambda _2|/|1\lambda _1(\alpha _1^{(j)}/\alpha _2^{(j)})|^2`$, $`j=1,2,3,`$ respectively and change their amplitudes to $`|A_j^{2+}|k_{2R}=|\alpha _2^{(j)}|k_{2R}/\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ from $`|A_j^2|k_{2R},`$ respectively. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$$`=`$$`(\mu (_{j=1}^3|\alpha _2^{(j)}|^2))^{1/2}`$. The associated phase shift for this soliton is $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2=(R_3R_2R_1)/2.`$ We also note there is a net change in the relative separation distance between the solitons due to collision by $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}=(k_{1R}+k_{2R})|(R_3R_2R_1)|/2k_{1R}k_{2R}.`$

Also, we note that for the special case $`|T_j^l|=1`$, $`l=1,2`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, which is possible only when $`\alpha _1^{(1)}/\alpha _2^{(1)}`$= $`\alpha _1^{(2)}/\alpha _2^{(2)}`$= $`\alpha _1^{(3)}/\alpha _2^{(3)}`$, the collision corresponds to the standard elastic collision. For all other cases, the quantity $`|T_j^l|1`$, which corresponds to a change in the values of the amplitudes of the individual modes leading to a redistribution of the intensities among them and corresponding to a change in the shape of the soliton. However, during the interaction the total intensity of the individual solitons $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ remains conserved, that is $`|A_1^l|^2+|A_2^l|^2+|A_3^l|^2=1/\mu `$.

The above shape changing (inelastic) collision during the two-soliton interaction of the $`3`$-CNLS can occur in two different ways. The first case is an enhancement of intensity in anyone of the modes of either one of the solitons (say $`S_1`$) and suppression in the remaining two modes of the corresponding soliton with commensurate changes in the other soliton $`S_2`$. The other possibility is an interaction which allows one of the modes of either one of the solitons (say $`S_1`$) to get suppressed while the other two modes of the corresponding soliton to get enhanced (with corresponding changes in $`S_2`$). In either of the cases, the intensity may be completely or partially suppressed(enhanced). Thus as a whole during the inelastic interaction among the two one solitons $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ of the $`3`$-CNLS, the soliton $`S_1`$ ($`S_2`$) has the following six possible combinations to exchange the intensity among its modes: $`(q_1,q_2,q_3)(q_1^a,q_2^b,q_3^c)_i,(a,b,c=S\text{(suppression)},E\text{(enhancement)})`$ with $`i=1`$, $`a=E`$, $`b=S`$, $`c=S`$; $`i=2`$, $`a=S`$, $`b=E`$, $`c=S`$; $`i=3`$, $`a=S`$, $`b=S`$, $`c=E`$; $`i=4`$, $`a=S`$, $`b=E`$, $`c=E`$; $`i=5`$, $`a=E`$, $`b=S`$, $`c=E`$ and $`i=6`$, $`a=E`$, $`b=E`$, $`c=S`$.

Two of the above interactions involving a dramatic switching in the intensity are depicted in Fig. 1 for illustrative purpose for specific choice of soliton parameters. These may also be viewed as the two-soliton interaction in a waveguide supporting propagation of three nonlinear waves simultaneously. For other choices, in general, partial suppression(enhancement) of intensity among the components will occur depending on the values of the transition matrix elements $`T_j^l`$. Fig. 1a is plotted for the parameters $`k_1=1+i`$, $`k_2=2i`$, $`\alpha _2^{(1)}=\alpha _2^{(2)}=(39+i80)/89`$, $`\alpha _1^{(1)}=\alpha _1^{(2)}=\alpha _1^{(3)}=\alpha _2^{(3)}=1`$ and $`\mu =1`$. In this figure the intensities of the components $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ of $`S_1`$ ($`S_2`$) are almost completely suppressed (enhanced) and that of the third component is enhanced (suppressed). The second possibility of enhancement (suppression) of intensity in the $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ components of $`S_1`$($`S_2`$) and suppression(enhancement) of intensity in its $`q_3`$ component are shown in Fig. 1b, in which the parameters are chosen as $`k_1=1+i`$, $`k_2=2i`$, $`\alpha _1^{(1)}=0.02+0.1i`$, $`\alpha _1^{(2)}=0.1i`$, $`\alpha _1^{(3)}=\alpha _2^{(1)}=\alpha _2^{(2)}=\alpha _2^{(3)}=1`$.

Now it is straight forward to extend the above analysis to obtain the one-soliton and two-soliton solutions of the arbitrary $`N`$-CNLS Eq. (1). After making the bilinear transformation $`q_j`$ $`=`$ $`g^{(j)}/f`$, $`j=1,2,3,\mathrm{},N`$ in Eq. (1), one can get a set of bilinear equations of the form (3) but now with $`j,n=1,2,3,\mathrm{},N`$. Then by expanding $`g^{(j)}`$s and $`f`$ in power series up to $`N`$terms and following the procedure mentioned above, the one-soliton and two-soliton solutions of Eq. (1) can be obtained.

*(a) One-soliton solution:*

$`(q_1,q_2,\mathrm{},q_N)^T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_{1R}e^{i\eta _{1I}}}{\text{cosh}(\eta _{1R}+\frac{R}{2})}}(A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_N)^T,`$ (8)
where $`\eta _1=k_1(t+ik_1z)`$, $`A_j=\alpha _1^{(j)}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mu (_{j=1}^N|\alpha _1^{(j)}|^2))^{1/2}`$, $`e^R=\mathrm{\Delta }^2/(k_1+k_1^{})^2`$, $`\alpha _1^{(j)}`$ and $`k_1`$, $`j`$$`=`$$`1,2\mathrm{},N,`$ are $`(N+1)`$ arbitrary complex parameters.

*(b) Two-soliton solution:* This solution will also be of the same form as Eq.(5) with the replacements, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`\kappa _{il}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{n=1}^N\alpha _i^{(n)}\alpha _l^{(n)}/(k_i+k_l^{})`$, where $`i,l=1,2`$. One can also verify that this two-soliton solution will depend on $`2(N+1)`$ complex parameters and the shape changing interaction can lead to intensity redistribution among the modes of the soliton of the $`N`$-CNLS system in $`2^N2`$ ways (by generalizing the $`N=3`$ case). We believe that such studies will have important applications in logic gates and all optical computations.

From an application point of view, it has been observed recently that the CNLS equations can support a kind of stationary solutions known as partially coherent solitons (PCS). In particular, explicit form of such solutions have been given for $`N=2,3`$ and $`4`$ cases of Eq. (1) in Ref.. They have also been shown to have variable shapes. Now, the generalized Manakov equation(1) is integrable and hence its $`N`$-soliton solution can be obtained in principle by extending our above analysis. So the natural question arises as to what is the relation between the PCS and the exact $`N`$-soliton solutions.

To answer the above question, let us look at the $`N=2,3`$ and $`4`$, cases of Eq. (1) explicitly. One can check that very special cases corresponding to specific parametric restrictions in the two-soliton solution of the $`N=2`$ case, the three-soliton solution of the $`N=3`$ case and four-soliton solution of the $`N=4`$ case give rise to the $`2`$-soliton, $`3`$-soliton and the $`4`$-soliton PCSs, respectively, reported in . In order to appreciate this we consider as an illustration the three-soliton solution of the $`N=3`$ case of Eq. (1). Instead of writing down the full $`3`$-soliton solution of the $`N=3`$ case explicitly and choosing the special parametric values, we make the following simplified procedure. Starting from the bilinear Eqs. (3) and terminating the series for $`g^{(j)}`$ and $`f`$ as $`g^{(j)}=\chi g_1^{(j)}+\chi ^3g_3^{(j)}+\chi ^5g_5^{(j)}`$ and $`f=1+\chi ^2f_2+\chi ^4f_4+\chi ^6f_6`$, one can identify $`g_1^{(j)}=\alpha _1^{(j)}e^{\eta _1}+\alpha _2^{(j)}e^{\eta _2}+\alpha _3^{(j)}e^{\eta _3}`$ where $`\eta _n=k_n(t+ik_nz)`$, $`j,n=1,2,3`$ in which $`\alpha _i^{(j)}`$ and $`k_i`$ are complex parameters. Finding $`g_3^{(j)}`$, $`g_5^{(j)}`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, $`f_2`$, $`f_4`$ and $`f_6`$, the three soliton solution is obtained. Instead, as a special case, we look for a stationary solution with $`k_{nI}=0`$, $`\alpha _2^{(1)}=\alpha _3^{(1)}=\alpha _1^{(2)}=\alpha _3^{(2)}=\alpha _1^{(3)}=\alpha _2^{(3)}=0`$ and $`\alpha _1^{(1)}=\alpha _2^{(2)}=\alpha _3^{(3)}=1`$, in order to gain insight into the physics of the problem. Then, the resulting explicit expression for the three-soliton solution has been found after simple algebraic manipulation to be exactly the same as the stationary PCS for N=3 given in Eq.(17) of Ref.\[9a\]. One can also check that with the choice $`k_{nI}=0`$, $`\alpha _2^{(1)}=\alpha _1^{(2)}=0`$, $`\alpha _1^{(1)}=\alpha _2^{(2)}=1`$, in the two-soliton solution of the $`N=2`$ case (Manakov equation)  of Eq. (1), the $`N=2`$ soliton complex(PCS) is obtained. By a similar analysis we have verified that the $`N=4`$ PCS also results as a special case of the $`4`$-soliton solution of the $`4`$-CNLS equation. Extending this idea it is clear that the PCS which is formed due to a nonlinear superposition of $`N`$-fundamental solitons is a special case of $`N`$-soliton solution of the $`N`$-CNLS Eq. (1).

Further, it has been found that these PCS are of variable shape and also change their shape during collision with another PCS . The reason for the shape change of the PCS can be deduced from the interaction properties of the solitons discussed above. The solitons are characterized by their amplitudes $`A_j^lk_{lR}`$ and their velocities $`2k_{lI}`$(so that the angle of incidence is $`\theta _l=tan^1(2k_{lI}))`$. During a pair-wise interaction of two fundamental solitons of $`N`$-CNLS equation there is an energy sharing between them resulting in a novel shape changing collision, depending on the transition matrix elements $`T_j^l`$, the phase shift $`\mathrm{\Phi }^l`$ and change in the relative separation distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{ij}`$ defined earlier . Since the PCS is a special case of the $`N`$-soliton solution, parametrized as above, it naturally possesses a variable shape. For example in Figs.1, the solitons $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are travelling with velocities $`2k_{1I}=2`$ and $`2k_{2I}=2`$, respectively. For the chosen parameters, in Fig.1a, the amplitudes of the modes of the solitons $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ before interaction given respectively by $`k_{1R}`$$`|A_j^1|`$ $`=`$ $`(0.577,0.577,0.577)`$ and $`k_{2R}|A_j^2|`$ $`=`$ $`(0.857,0.857,1.591)`$ change to $`k_{1R}|A_j^{1+}|`$ $`=`$ $`(0.183,0.183,0.966)`$ and $`k_{2R}|A_j^{2+}|`$ $`=`$ $`(1.155,1.155,1.155)`$ after interaction, preserving the total intensity of each of the soliton. Similarly in Fig.1b, the amplitudes of the solitons $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ before interaction are $`(0.101,0.099,0.990)`$ and $`(1.322,1.335,0.686)`$ respectively, while after interaction they become $`(0.466,0.484,0.741)`$ and $`(1.155,1.155,1.155)`$.The phase shifts suffered by the solitons are $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.787`$(Fig.1a),$`0.600`$(Fig.1b). During the collision process the initial separation distance $`x_{12}^{}=0.668`$ changes to $`x_{12}^+=0.513`$ in Fig.1a and $`0.036`$ to $`0.865`$ in Fig.1b.

In a similar way, the variable shape of the PCS during interaction with another PCS also arises from the fundamental bright soliton collision of the Manakov system. The collision of two PCS each comprising of m and n soliton complexes respectively, such that $`m+n=N`$, is equivalent to the interaction of $`N`$ fundamental bright solitons (for suitable choice of parameters) represented by the special case of $`N`$-soliton solution of the $`N`$-CNLS system.Further details will be published elsewhere.

Our above analysis has considerable practical relevance in view of the various recently reported interesting experimental observations. Firstly, the Manakov spatial solitons have been observed in AlGaAs planar waveguides and their collisions involving energy exchange of precisely the type discussed here has been experimentally demonstrated. Also collisions between PCS’s of shape changing type as treated here were observed in a photorefractive strontium barium niobate crystal using screening solitons. Further partially incoherent solitons have been observed through excitation by partially coherent light and with a light bulb. Using different techniques, such as the coherent density function theory, to describe such incoherent solitons one can obtain the N-coupled NLS equations of the form(1) considered in this Letter. We believe that our exact analytical results will give further impetus in the experimental investigations of these solitons.

In conclusion, we have shown that $`N`$-CNLS Eq. (1) possesses fascinating type of soliton solutions undergoing shape changing (inelastic) collision property due to intensity redistribution among its modes. The many possibilities for such collisions to occur provides interesting avenues of research in developing logic gates and in all-optical digital computations. We have also shown the interesting fact that the multisoliton complexes are special cases of the shape changing bright soliton solutions and pointed out that the variable shape of PCS is due to the shape changing collision of the fundamental solitons which is an inherent nature of the $`N`$-CNLS system.

The work of M.L. and T.K. forms part of a Dept. of Science and Technology, Govt. of India research project.