1: \documentstyle[times,epsfig,graphics,amssymb,astrobib]{mn2e}
2:
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\e}{\end{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\bear}{\begin{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\ear}{\end{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand{\nline}{\nonumber \\}
8: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}
9: \newcommand{\de}{{\rm d}}
10: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}
11: \newcommand{\etal}{\frenchspacing etal. }
12:
13:
14:
15: \title[Glimpsing through the high redshift neutral hydrogen fog]
16: {Glimpsing through the high redshift neutral hydrogen fog}
17:
18: \author[S. Gallerani, A. Ferrara, X. Fan, T. Roy Choudhury]
19: {S. Gallerani$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail: galleran@sissa.it},
20: A. Ferrara$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail: ferrara@sissa.it},
21: X. Fan $^{2}$\thanks{E-mail: fan@as.arizona.edu},
22: T. Roy Choudhury$^{3}$\thanks{E-mail: chou@ast.cam.ac.uk} \\\\
23: $^1$ SISSA/International School for Advanced Studies, via Beirut
24: 2-4, 34014 Trieste, Italy\\
25: $^2$ Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA\\
26: $^3$ Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 OHA, UK}
27:
28: \date{\today}
29:
30: \begin{document}
31:
32: \maketitle
33:
34:
35: \begin{abstract}
36: We analyze the transmitted flux in a sample of 17 QSOs spectra at $5.74\leq z_{em}\leq 6.42$ to
37: obtain tighter constraints on the volume-averaged neutral hydrogen fraction, $x_{\rm{HI}}$, at $z\approx 6$.
38: We study separately the narrow transmission windows (peaks) and the wide dark portions (gaps) in the
39: observed absorption spectra. By comparing the statistics of these spectral features with a semi-analytical model of the Ly$\alpha$ forest, we conclude that $x_{\rm{HI}}$ evolves smoothly from $10^{-4.4}$ at $z=5.3$
40: to $10^{-4.2}$ at $z=5.6$, with a robust upper limit $x_{\rm{HI}} < 0.36$ at $z=6.3$. The frequency and
41: physical sizes of the peaks imply an origin in cosmic underdense regions and/or in HII regions around
42: faint quasars or galaxies. In one case (the intervening HII region of the faint quasar RD J1148+5253
43: at $z=5.70$ along the LOS of SDSS J1148+5251 at $z=6.42$) the increase of the peak spectral density is explained
44: by the first-ever detected transverse proximity effect in the HI Ly$\alpha$ forest; this indicates that at least some peaks result from a
45: locally enhanced radiation field. We then obtain a strong lower limit on the foreground QSO lifetime of $t_Q>11$ Myr.
46: The observed widths of the peaks are found to be systematically larger than the simulated
47: ones. Reasons for such discrepancy might reside either in the photoionization equilibrium assumption or in radiative transfer
48: effects.
49: \end{abstract}
50: \begin{keywords}
51: cosmology: large-scale structure of Universe - intergalactic medium - quasars:
52: absorption lines
53: \end{keywords}
54: \begin{figure*}
55: \centerline{
56: \psfig{figure=PLOT/fillf.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=0}
57: $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$
58: \psfig{figure=PLOT/gamma.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=0}
59: $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$
60: \psfig{figure=PLOT/nh.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=0}
61: }
62: \caption{{\it Left panel}: Evolution of the volume filling
63: factor of ionized regions for the early (red solid lines) and late
64: (blue dotted lines) reionization models.
65: {\it Middle panel}: Volume-averaged
66: photoionization rate $\Gamma_{-12}=\Gamma_{\rm HI}/10^{-12}{\rm s}^{-1}$. The filled circles, empty
67: circles, filled triangles and empty triangles show results obtained by F06,
68: MM01, B05 and B07, respectively. {\it Right panel}: Evolution of the neutral hydrogen fraction.
69: Thick lines represent average results over 100 LOS, while the thin lines
70: denote the upper and lower neutral hydrogen fraction extremes in each redshift
71: interval. Solid circles represent neutral hydrogen fraction estimates by F06;
72: empty squares denote the results obtained in this work.}
73: \label{prop}
74: \end{figure*}
75: \section{Introduction}
76: Although observations of cosmic
77: epochs closer to the present have indisputably
78: shown that the InterGalactic Medium (IGM) is in an ionized state,
79: it is yet unclear when the phase transition from the neutral state to the
80: ionized one started. Thus, the redshift of reionization, $z_{rei}$, is still very
81: uncertain.
82:
83: After the first year WMAP data a possible tension was identified between CMB
84: and SDSS results. The high electron-scattering optical depth inferred
85: from the TE-EE power spectra $\tau_e\approx 0.17$ (\citeNP{ksb++03};
86: \citeNP{svp++03}) seemed
87: difficult to be reconciled with the strong evolution in the Gunn-Peterson optical depth $\tau_{GP}$
88: at $z=6$
89: (\citeNP{f01}; \citeNP{f03}), accompanied by the appearance of large dark
90: portions in
91: QSO absorption spectra (\citeNP{bfw++01}; \citeNP{djo01}; \citeNP{f06}, hereafter F06).
92: The 3-yr WMAP results have released the above tension by providing a
93: smaller value for $\tau_e\approx 0.1$, which implies $z_{rei}\approx 11$ for a model with instantaneous reionization (\citeNP{page06}; \citeNP{Sp06}). However,
94: an increasing number of LAEs are routinely found at $z > 6$ (e.g. \citeNP{stern05}; \citeNP{iye06}; \citeNP{stark07}), possibly requiring a substantial free electron fraction, resulting in an IGM relatively transparent to Ly$\alpha$ photons.
95:
96:
97: Constraints on the IGM ionization state derived by using Ly$\alpha$
98: forest spectroscopy must take into account the extremely high sensitivity of
99: $\tau_{GP}$ to tiny neutral hydrogen amounts. Indeed, a volume averaged
100: neutral hydrogen fraction as low as $x_{\rm HI}\sim 10^{-3}$ \cite{f02} is
101: sufficient to completely depress the transmitted flux in QSO absorption spectra;
102: thus, the detection of a Gunn-Peterson trough only translates into a lower
103: limit for $x_{\rm HI}$.
104: For this reason, recently, many studies have tried to clarify if the SDSS data
105: effectively require that the IGM was reionized as late as $z\approx 6$
106: (\citeNP{gfc06}, hereafter GCF06; \citeNP{Becker06}):
107: in particular, GCF06 have shown that QSO observational data currently
108: available are compatible with a highly ionized Universe at that redshift.
109:
110: Clearly the determination of the reionization epoch is strictly related to the
111: measurement of the neutral hydrogen fraction at $z\approx 6$.
112: To investigate this
113: issue many different approaches can be used. To start with, it is worth
114: mentioning that many authors have tried to constrain $x_{\rm HI}$ at high
115: redshift by analyzing statistically the optical depth inside HII regions
116: around high redshift QSO (\citeNP{mh04}; \citeNP{mh06}), or by measuring the
117: QSO bubble sizes (\citeNP{wl04}; \citeNP{wlc05}; \citeNP{BH07};
118: \citeNP{antiesimo}, \citeNP{Lidz07}). However, sufficient ground for
119: controversy remains due to intrinsic uncertainties of the various techniques.
120:
121:
122: By deriving sizes of HII bubbles surrounding observed $z=6.5$ LAEs,
123: \citeNP{maro05} have provided an upper limit for the neutral hydrogen
124: fraction $x_{\rm HI}\lesssim 0.2-0.5$. This result is in quite good agreement with
125: the upper limit $x_{\rm HI}\lesssim 0.45$ found by \citeNP{kashi06},
126: by interpreting the deficit measured at the bright end of the LAE Luminosity Function at
127: $z>6$ as a sudden change in the intergalactic neutral hydrogen content.
128: Nevertheless, the increasing attenuation with redshift of the Ly$\alpha$ line
129: transmission could be partially explained as a consequence of the
130: evolution in the mass function of dark matter halos, thus implying a much
131: lower upper limit, $x_{\rm HI}<0.05-0.2$ \cite{dij07}.
132:
133: GRB spectroscopy has also tentatively used to constrain $x_{\rm HI}$;
134: \citeNP{totani06}
135: have observed a damping wing at wavelengths larger than the
136: Ly$\alpha$ emission line, finding that this feature can be explained at best
137: by assuming an intervening damped Ly$\alpha$ system immersed in a fully
138: ionized IGM, and quoting an upper limit of $x_{\rm HI}<0.17$ and $0.60$ ($68\%$ and $95\%$ confidence levels, respectively).
139:
140: Finally, the width distribution of dark portions (gaps) seen in QSO absorption spectra
141: has been recently introduced in order to constrain the IGM ionization state (\citeNP{pn05}; F06; GCF06).
142: F06 has used the dark gap distribution, as observed in 19 high-$z$ QSO spectra, to put a preliminary upper limit on
143: the IGM neutral fraction $x_{\rm HI}<0.1-0.5$. GCF06, by analyzing the statistically properties of the transmitted flux
144: in simulated absorption spectra, have shown that the gap and peak (i.e. transmission windows)
145: width statistics are very promising tools for discriminating between an
146: early ($z_{rei} > 6$) and a late ($z_{rei}\approx 6$) reionization scenario.
147: Here we combine the previous two results: by comparing the observed
148: transmitted flux in high-$z$ QSO spectra with theoretical predictions we
149: obtain tighter constraints on the neutral hydrogen fraction around $z=6$, a
150: crucial epoch in the reionization history.
151:
152: The plan of the paper is the following: in Section 2 we describe the
153: semi-analytical modeling adopted; in Section 3 we compare observational data
154: with simulations. The implications of this comparison are given in Section
155: 4; in Section 5 we evaluate the robustness of our method against the
156: specific line of sight to the highest redshift QSO. The conclusions are summarized
157: in Section 6.
158:
159: \section{Simulations}
160: The radiation emitted by QSOs could be absorbed through Ly$\alpha$ transition
161: by the neutral hydrogen intersecting the line of sight, the so-called
162: Gunn-Peterson (GP) effect.
163: The Ly$\alpha$ forest arises from absorption by low amplitude-fluctuations in
164: the underlying
165: baryonic density field \cite{bbc92}, and is a natural consequence of the
166: hierarchical
167: structure formation expected in the context of CDM cosmologies\footnote
168: {Throughout this
169: paper we will assume a flat universe with total matter, vacuum, and baryonic
170: densities in units of
171: the critical density of $\Omega_m=0.24$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.76$, and
172: $\Omega_bh^2=0.022$, respectively, and a Hubble constant of
173: $H_0=100 h$~km~s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, with $h=0.73$. The parameters defining the
174: linear dark matter power spectrum are $n=0.95$,
175: $\de n/\de \ln k=0$, $\sigma_{8}=0.82$. Note that we have chosen
176: a $\sigma_8$ value higher than the WMAP3 one ($0.74$).
177: Indeed \citeNP{viel06}, by combining WMAP3 data with SDSS ones,
178: found $\sigma_8\approx 0.78$ ($0.86$) analyzing high (low)
179: resolution Ly$\alpha$ forest data.
180: Mpc are physical unless differently stated.}.
181:
182: To simulate the GP optical depth ($\tau_{GP}$) distribution we use the method
183: described by GCF06, whose
184: main features are recalled in the following. The spatial distribution of the
185: baryonic density field and its correlation with the peculiar velocity field are taken into account adopting the formalism introduced by \citeNP{bd97}. To enter the mildly non-linear regime
186: which characterizes the Ly$\alpha$ forest absorbers we use a Log-Normal
187: model introduced by \citeNP{cj91}, widely adopted later
188: on (\citeNP{bi93}; \citeNP{bd97}; \citeNP{cps01}; \citeNP{csp01};
189: \citeNP{vmht02}; GCF06). In particular, GCF06 have compared various Ly$\alpha$ statistics, namely the Probability Distribution Function (PDF) and the Gap Width distribution, computed using the Log-Normal distribution with those obtained from \rm{HYDROPM} simulations, finding a good agreement between the results.
190: For a given IGM temperature, the HI fraction, $x_{\rm HI}$, can be computed from the
191: photoionization equilibrium as a function of the baryonic density field and photoionization rate
192: due to the ultraviolet background radiation field. For all these quantities we
193: follow the approach of \citeNP{cf06}, hereafter CF06. By assuming as ionizing sources QSOs, PopII and PopIII stars (the latter neglected here,
194: see below),
195: their model provides excellent fits to a large number of observational data, namely the redshift evolution of
196: Lyman-limit systems, Ly$\alpha$ and Ly$\beta$ optical depths, electron scattering optical depth, cosmic star formation history, and the number counts of high redshift sources.
197: \begin{figure*}
198: \centerline{
199: \psfig{figure=PLOT/tau.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=0}
200: $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$
201: \psfig{figure=PLOT/pdf.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=0}
202: $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$
203: \psfig{figure=PLOT/gap.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=0}
204: }
205: \caption{{\it Left panel}: Evolution of the Gunn-Peterson
206: optical depth for early (ERM, solid red line) and late (LRM, blue dotted).
207: Thick lines represent average results on 100 LOS for each emission redshift,
208: while the thin lines denote the upper and lower transmission extremes in
209: each redshift bin, weighted on 100 LOS. Filled and empty circles are
210: observational
211: data from Songaila 2004 and F06, respectively. {\it Middle panel}: Probability
212: Distribution Function (PDF) of the flux at z=6.0. Filled circles are obtained
213: by Fan et al. 2002. Thick lines represent simulated results averaged over 500
214: LOS, while the thin lines denote cosmic variance. {\it Right panel}: Gap Width
215: distribution in the redshift range 5.0-5.5. Simulated results are compared
216: with observations by Songaila \& Cowie 2002 (filled circles).
217: The errors associated to both simulated and observed results denote cosmic
218: variance.}
219: \label{controlfig}
220: \end{figure*}
221: In the CF06 model, a reionization scenario is defined by the product of two free
222: parameters: (i) the star-formation efficiency $f_*$, and (ii) the escape fraction $f_{esc}$
223: of ionizing photons of PopII and PopIII stars; it is worth noting that these parameters are degenerate,
224: since different parameter values could provide equally good fits to observations.
225: In this work, by fitting all the above observational constraints, we select two sets of free parameters values yielding two different
226: reionization histories: (i) an Early Reionization Model (ERM) for
227: ($f_{*,PopII}=0.1; f_{esc,PopII}=0.07$), and (ii) a Late Reionization Model (LRM) for ($f_{*,PopII}=0.08; f_{esc,PopII}=0.04$).
228: We do not consider contributions from PopIII stars, as PopII stars alone yield $\tau_e=0.07$ ($0.06$) for ERM (LRM), marginally consistent with
229: WMAP3 results\footnote{Small contributions from PopIII stars, i.e.
230: $f_{*,PopIII}=0.013$ ($f_{*,PopIII}=0.08$), in the ERM (LRM), would yield
231: $\tau_e=0.09$ ($\tau_e=0.08$), without affecting sensitively the results below.}.\\
232: Fig. \ref{prop} shows the global properties of the two reionization models
233: considered. In the ERM the volume filling factor of ionized regions,
234: $Q_{HII}=V_{HII}/V_{tot}=1$ at $z\leq 7$; in the LRM it evolves from 0.65 to
235: unity in the redshift range 7.0-6.0, implying that the Universe is still in the
236: pre-overlap stage at $z\geq 6$, i.e. the reionization process is not completed up to this epoch. In the middle panel of the same Figure we compare the volume-averaged
237: photoionization rate $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ for the two models with
238: the recent estimate by F06, and the ones by \citeNP{mm01},
239: \citeNP{BH05}, and \citeNP{BH07new}, hereafter MM01, B05 and B07, respectively. Finally, the evolution of the
240: volume-averaged neutral hydrogen fraction for the ERM and LRM is presented in the rightmost panel.
241:
242: The photoionization rate predicted by both models is in agreement with the
243: results by B05 and B07 at in the range $z=4.0 < z < 6$, whereas at $z=5.5$ ($6$)
244: the ERM is characterized by a photoionization rate which is $\approx$ 2 (6) times larger than the
245: estimates by F06. In spite of these differences, our predictions for $x_{\rm HI}$ are consistent
246: with F06 measurements. This apparent contradiction does not come as a
247: surprise. In fact, the derivation of $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ requires an assumption
248: concerning the IGM density distribution. When measuring $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ at
249: $5<z<6$, F06 assume the density Probability Distribution Function given by
250: \citeNP{mhr00}, hereafter MHR\footnote{F06 require $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ to match
251: the MM01 measurement at $z=4.5$.
252: This estimate is based on a mean transmitted flux ($\bar{F}=0.25$) which is
253: lower than the more recent measurements $\bar{F}\approx 0.32$ by
254: \citeNP{songaila04}, which implies $\Gamma_{\rm HI}\approx 0.3$.}.
255: We instead adopt a Log-Normal
256: (LN) model which predicts a higher probability to find overdensities
257: $\Delta=\rho/\bar{\rho}\gtrsim 1$ than MHR. For example, at $z=6$ and for $\Delta\approx 1.5$,
258: $P_{LN}(\Delta)\approx 2\times P_{MHR}(\Delta))$. For this reason,
259: once $\tau_{GP}$ is fixed to the observed value, the LN model requires a
260: higher $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$. As $x_{\rm HI}\propto \Delta$, these two effects combine
261: to give a values of $x_{\rm HI}$ consistent with the data.
262: \begin{figure*}
263: \psfig{figure=PLOT/largap.eps,height=8.cm}
264: \caption{Largest Gap Width distribution for the LR and the
265: HR cases (left and right, respectively).
266: Filled circles represent the result of the analysis of the 17 QSOs observed
267: spectra.
268: Solid red (dotted blue) lines show the
269: results obtained by the semi-analytical modeling implemented for the ERM
270: (LRM). Vertical error bars measure poissonian noise, horizontal errors define
271: the bin for the gap widths.}
272: \label{larg}
273: \end{figure*}
274: \section{Comparison with observations}
275: \subsection{Control statistics}
276: We first test the predictions of our model by applying various
277: statistical analysis to the simulated spectra and comparing our results with
278: observations. Specifically, we use the following control statistics:
279: (i) Mean Transmitted Flux evolution in the redshift range $2-6$;
280: (ii) Probability Distribution Function (PDF) of the transmitted flux
281: at the mean redshifts $z=5.5, 5.7, 6.0$; (iii) Gap Width (GW) distribution in
282: $3.5\leq z\leq 5.5$. For what concerns the GW statistics we define gaps as
283: contiguous regions of the spectrum having a $\tau_{GP}> 2.5$
284: over rest-frame wavelength ($\lambda_{RF}$) intervals $> 1$~\AA.
285: This method was first suggested by Croft (1998) and then adopted by various
286: authors (\citeNP{sc02}; \citeNP{pn05}; F06; GCF06). The comparison
287: of model and observational results in terms of the above three statistics
288: is plotted in Fig. \ref{controlfig}. By checking our models we
289: follow the same approach of GCF06, to which we refer for a complete
290: description of the technical details.
291:
292: The outcome of the test is encouraging, as both ERM and LRM successfully match
293: the observational data at $z\leq 6$ for the control statistics considered.
294: This allows us to confidently proceed the comparison with more advanced
295: statistical tools.
296:
297: \subsection{Advanced statistics}
298: Since at $z\approx 6$ regions with high transmission in the Ly$\alpha$ forest
299: become rare, an appropriate method to analyze the statistical properties
300: of the transmitted flux is the distribution of gaps. In particular
301: GCF06 suggested that the Largest Gap Width (LGW) and the Largest Peak Width
302: (LPW)
303: statistics are suitable tools to study the ionization state
304: of the IGM at high redshift\footnote{The definition of ``peak'' in the
305: transmitted flux is similar to the ``gap'' one. A peak is a contiguous
306: region of the spectrum over $\lambda_{RF}$ intervals greater than the observed pixel size ($\approx 0.5$ \AA) characterized by a transmission above a given flux threshold
307: ($F_{th}=0.08$ in this work).}.
308: The LGW (LPW) distribution quantifies the fraction of LOS
309: which are characterized by the largest gap (peak) of a given width.
310: As far as this work is concerned, we apply the LGW and the LPW statistics both
311: to simulated and observed spectra with the aim of measuring the evolution of
312: $x_{\rm HI}$ with redshift. \\
313: We use observational data including 17 QSOs obtained by F06.
314: We divide the observed spectra into two redshift-selected sub-samples:
315: the ``Low-Redshift'' (LR) sample (8 emission redshifts $5.7 < z_{em} < 6$), and
316: the ``High-Redshift'' (HR) one (9 emission redshifts $ 6 < z_{em} < 6.4$).
317: Simulated spectra have the same $z_{em}$ distribution of the observed samples.
318: For most QSOs we consider the ($\lambda_{RF}$) interval 1026-1200 \AA\ and we normalize each
319: width to the corresponding redshift path. Note that the LOS do not extend up to $z_{em}$;
320: the upper (lower) limit of the interval chosen ensures that we exclude from the analysis
321: the portions of the spectra penetrating inside the QSO HII (Ly$\beta$) region.
322: For the QSOs SDSS J1044-0125 and SDSS J1048+4637 we
323: choose different intervals, namely 1050-1183 and 1050-1140, respectively.
324: These two objects have been classified as
325: BAL QSO (\citeNP{goodrich}; \citeNP{f03};
326: \citeNP{maio04}), since their spectra present Broad Absorption
327: Lines associated with highly ionized atomic species (e.g. SiIV, CIV).
328: By selecting the above intervals we exclude those portions of the spectra
329: characterized by CIV absorption features which extend to
330: $z\approx 5.56$ ($z\approx 5.75$) in SDSS J1044-0125 (SDSS J1048+4637).\\
331: Observed data were taken with a spectral resolution $R\approx 3000-6000$;
332: simulated spectra have been convolved with a gaussian of
333: $FWHM=67~{\rm km/sec}$, providing $R\sim 4500$. Moreover each
334: observed/simulated spectrum has been rebinned to a resolution of $R=2600$.
335: Finally, we add noise to the simulated data such that the flux $F$ in each pixel is replaced by
336: $F+G(1)\times\sigma_n$, where $G(1)$ is a Gaussian random deviate with zero
337: mean and unit variance, and $\sigma_n$ is the observed noise r.m.s deviation
338: of the corresponding pixel.
339:
340: The results provided by the statistics adopted in
341: this study are sensitive to the S/N ratio, since spurious peaks
342: could arise in spectral regions with noise higher than the $F_{th}$ adopted.
343: Indeed, the shape of the LGW/LPW distributions depends on the $F_{th}$
344: chosen. Thus, we consider two
345: different values for $F_{th}$, namely $0.03$ and $0.08$, respectively, and,
346: for both of them, compute preliminary LGW/LPW distributions.
347: Finally, the LGW/LPW distributions presented are obtained as the mean of the
348: preliminary ones, weighted on the corresponding errors
349: (See Appendix A for a detailed discussion).
350: In our analysis we do not consider 2 QSOs presented by F06,
351: namely SDSS J1436+5007 and SDSS J1630+4012, since these spectra have
352: significantly lower S/N to apply LGW/LPW tests (continuum S/N $\lesssim 7$).
353: \begin{figure*}
354: \psfig{figure=PLOT/largpeak.eps,height=8.cm}
355: \caption{Largest Peak Width distribution for the LR and the
356: HR cases (left and right, respectively).
357: Filled circles represent observational data obtained by analyzing the observed
358: spectra of the 17 QSOs considered.
359: Solid red (dotted blue) lines show the
360: results obtained by the semi-analytical modeling implemented for the ERM
361: (LRM). Vertical error bars measure poissonian noise, horizontal errors define
362: the bin for the peak widths.}
363: \label{peakfig}
364: \end{figure*}
365: \subsubsection{\it LGW distribution}
366: We now discuss the LGW distribution for observed/simulated spectra;
367: the results are shown in Fig. \ref{larg}.
368: The QSOs emission redshifts used and the $\lambda_{RF}$
369: interval chosen for the LR sample are such that the mean redshift of the
370: absorbers is $\langle z\rangle=5.26$, with a minimum (maximum) redshift $z_{min}=4.69$
371: ($z_{max}=5.86$), and a r.m.s. deviation $\sigma=0.06$. For the HR sample it is $\langle z\rangle=5.55$, $z_{min}=4.90$, $z_{max}=6.32$,
372: $\sigma=0.14$.
373: The observed LGW distribution evolves rapidly with redshift: in the LR sample most of the LOS are
374: characterized by a largest gap $<40$~\AA, whereas gaps as
375: large as 100 \AA \ appear in the HR sample. This means that LOS to QSOs
376: emitting at $z_{em}\lesssim 6$ encounter ``optically thick'' regions whose size is
377: $\leq$ 20 Mpc,
378: while for $z_{em}\gtrsim 6$ blank regions of size up to 46 Mpc are present.\\
379: Superposed to the data in Fig. \ref{larg} are the predicted LGW distributions
380: corresponding to ERM and LRM, obtained by simulating 800/900 LOS in the LR/HR case, corresponding to 100 LOS for each emission redshift in each sample.
381: In our ERM simulated spectra, at $z\approx 6$ gaps are produced by
382: regions characterized by a mean overdensity $\bar{\Delta}\approx 1$ ($\Delta_{min}=0.05$, $\Delta_{max}=18$) with a
383: $x_{\rm HI}\approx 10^{-4}$, averaging on 100 LOS ($x_{\rm HI,min}=1.1\times 10^{-5}$,
384: $x_{\rm HI,max}=3.6\times 10^{-4}$). \\
385: It results that both the predicted LGW distributions provide a good fit to
386: observational data. We exploit the agreement between the simulated and
387: observed LGW distributions to derive an estimate of $x_{\rm HI}$, shown in
388: Fig. \ref{prop}. We find $\log_{10}x_{\rm HI}=-4.4^{+0.84}_{-0.90}$ at $z\approx 5.3$\footnote{The $x_{\rm HI}$ value
389: quoted is the mean between the estimates predicted by the ERM and the LRM.
390: Moreover, we consider the most conservative case in which the errors for the
391: measurement of the neutral hydrogen fraction are provided by the minimum
392: $x_{\rm HI}$ value found in the ERM and the maximum one in the LRM.}.
393: By applying the same method to the HR sample we constrain the
394: neutral hydrogen fraction
395: to be within $\log_{10}x_{\rm HI}=-4.2^{+0.84}_{-1.0}$ at $z\approx 5.6$.\\
396: Although the predicted LGW distributions are quite similar for the two models
397: considered, yet some differences can be pointed out.
398: Both for the LR and HR cases the early reionization LGW
399: distribution provides a very good match to the observed points, thus suggesting $z_{rei}\gtrsim 7$.
400: The agreement is satisfactory also for the LRM, but it is important
401: to notice that late reionization models predict too
402: many largest gaps $\approx$ 60 \AA \ in the LR case and too few gaps $\approx$ 20
403: \AA \ in the HR one. Given the
404: limited quasar sample available, the statistical relevance of the LRM
405: discrepancies is not sufficient to firmly rule out this scenario. However,
406: since in the HR case $40\%$ of the lines of sight extend at $z\gtrsim 6$, we can use the LRM results to put an upper
407: limit on $x_{\rm HI}$ at this epoch.
408: Indeed in the HR case we find that a
409: neutral hydrogen fraction at $z\approx 6$
410: higher than that one predicted by the LRM would imply an even worst
411: agreement with observations, since a more abundant HI would produce a lower
412: (higher) fraction of LOS characterized by the largest gap smaller (higher)
413: than $40$ \AA\ with respect to observations.
414: Thus, this study suggests $x_{\rm HI}<0.36$ at $z=6.32$ (obtained from the
415: maximum value for $x_{\rm HI}$ found in the LRM at this epoch).
416: \subsubsection{\it LPW distribution}
417: Next, we apply the Largest Peak Width (LPW) statistics (Fig \ref{peakfig}) to
418: both observed and simulated spectra.
419: From the observed LPW distribution we find that, in the LR (HR) sample,
420: about $50\%$ of the lines of sight exhibit peaks of width $< 12 (8)$ \AA.
421: In more details, the size $P_{max}$ of the largest transmission
422: regions in the observed sample are $3\lesssim P_{max}\lesssim 10$
423: ($1\lesssim P_{max}\lesssim 6$) Mpc at $\langle z\rangle=5.3$ ($5.6$).
424: The frequency and the
425: amplitude of the transmission regions rapidly decrease toward high redshift.
426: This could be due both
427: to the enhancement of the neutral hydrogen abundance at epochs approaching
428: reionization or
429: to evolutionary effects of the density field \cite{songaila04}. In fact the growth factor $D_+$
430: of density fluctuations decreases with redshift ($D_+(z=6)=3/5\times D_+(z=3)$
431: for $\Lambda CDM$), thus implying a low density contrast at $z=6$ with respect
432: to later
433: epochs. Stated differently, underdense regions that are transparent
434: at $z=3$, were less underdense at $z=6$, thus blocking transmission.
435: As a consequence of the density field evolution toward higher $z$, only few/small
436: peaks survive and wide GP troughs appear.
437:
438: Superposed to the data in Fig. \ref{peakfig} are the predicted LPW distributions
439: corresponding to ERM and LRM, obtained by simulating 800/900 LOS in the LR/HR case.
440: In our ERM simulated spectra, at $z\approx 6$, gaps are interrupted by
441: narrow transparent windows (i.e. peaks) originating from underdense regions
442: with $\bar{\Delta}\approx 0.1$, averaging on 100 LOS ($\Delta_{min}=0.03$, $\Delta_{max}=0.26$) and
443: $x_{\rm HI}\approx 2\times 10^{-5}$, ($x_{\rm HI,min}=7.8\times 10^{-6}$,
444: $x_{\rm HI,max}=3.6\times 10^{-5}$). Regions characterized by
445: $\Delta\in [0.05;0.26]$ and
446: $x_{\rm HI}\in[1.1\times 10^{-5};3.6\times 10^{-5}]$
447: could correspond to both gaps or peaks depending on redshift and
448: peculiar motions of the absorbers producing them.
449:
450: By comparing the simulated LPW distributions with the observed one,
451: it is evident that simulations predict peak widths that are much smaller than the observed ones
452: both for LR and HR cases. In particular, in no LOS of our simulated samples
453: we find peaks larger than 8 \AA. The disagreement between the
454: observed and simulated LPW distributions does not affect the estimate of
455: $x_{\rm HI}$ through the LGW distributions, since
456: at high redshift the peaks are narrow ($\lesssim 10$~\AA).
457: We discuss the possible reasons for this discrepancy in the final Section.
458:
459: %
460: \section{PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PEAKS}
461: %
462: The most natural interpretation for the peaks is that they correspond to underdense regions, where
463: the low HI density of the gas allows a high transmissivity. However, in principle they could also arise
464: if individual ionized bubbles produced by QSOs and/or galaxies are crossed by the LOS. In the
465: latter case the typical physical size and frequency of such semi-transparent regions must be
466: related to the emission properties and masses of such objects. Stated differently,
467: the fraction of LOS, $f_{LOS}$, having the largest peak width equal to $P_{max}$ can be
468: interpreted as the probability $\wp$ to intersect an HII region of radius $R_{HII}$ around a
469: dark matter halo hosting either a QSO or a galaxy along the redshift path ($z_i-z_f$)
470: spanned by the LOS.
471: The comoving number density $n_h$ of dark matter halos of mass $M_h$ is related to $\wp$
472: through the following equation:
473: %
474: \begin{equation}
475: n_h(M_h)=\frac{3}{2} \frac{H_0 \Omega_m^{1/2}}{c} (\pi R_{HII}^2)^{-1}\left[\left(1+z\right)^{3/2}|^{z_f}_{z_i}\right]^{-1}\wp,
476: \label{probhalo}
477: \end{equation}
478: %
479: We take $R_{HII}=1 (10)$ Mpc, consistent with the smaller (larger) size
480: $P_{max}$ of the observed
481: largest peaks in the HR (LR) sample. As it is likely that statistically the
482: LOS crosses the
483: bubble with non-zero impact parameter, adopting $R_{HII}=P_{max}$ seems a
484: reasonable assumption.
485: By further imposing $\wp=f_{LOS}$ we find that $n_h=3.7\times 10^{-6}$
486: ($2.2\times 10^{-8}$) Mpc$^{-3}$
487: for $P_{max}=1$ ($10$) Mpc in the redshift range $z_i=5$ to $z_f=6$. Given our
488: cosmology, such
489: halo number density can be transformed at $z=5.5$ into a typical halo mass of
490: $M_h\gtrsim 10^{12}$
491: ($10^{13}$) ${\rm M}_{\odot}$ \cite{mowhite}. Thus, the halos hosting the
492: putative luminous sources
493: producing the peaks must be massive. Note that this result holds even if
494: the QSO is shining only for a fraction of the Hubble time $t_{Q}/t_H \approx 10^{-2}$
495: at $z=5.5$. \\
496: In addition to the peak frequency, additional constraints on the properties of
497: the ionizing sources come from bubble physical sizes.
498: %
499: \subsection{QSO HII regions}
500: %
501: First, we consider the case in which the largest peaks are produced by HII regions around QSOs.
502: The bubble size $R_{HII}$ is related to the ionizing photons emission rate $\dot{N}_{\gamma}$
503: and QSO lifetime $t_Q$ as
504: %
505: \begin{equation}\label{rh2}
506: R_{HII}=\left( \frac{3\dot{N}_{\gamma}t_Q}{4\pi n_{\rm HI}}\right) ^{1/3},
507: \label{rh2}
508: \end{equation}
509: %
510: where $n_{\rm HI}$ is the neutral hydrogen number density. Eq.(\ref{rh2}) applies for a homogeneous IGM and does not take into account both recombinations and relativistic effects. \\
511: The recombination timescale $t_{rec}$ is given by:
512: \begin{equation}
513: t_{rec}=\left[C\alpha_Bn_{\rm H}(1-x_{\rm HI})\right]^{-1},
514: \end{equation}
515: where $C\simeq 26.2917exp[-0.1822z+0.003505z^2]$ is the clumping factor \cite{Iliev07}, $\alpha_B=2.6\times 10^{-13}\rm{cm^3~s^{-1}}$ is the case B hydrogen recombination coefficient evaluated at $T=10^4~\rm{K}$, and $n_{\rm H}=7\times10^{-5}[(1+z)/7]^3 \rm{cm^{-3}}$ is the mean hydrogen number density. Thus, at the redshifts of interest $z\approx 6$, even in the limiting case $x_{\rm HI}=0$, $t_{rec}\approx 2\times 10^8 {\rm yr}$, thus being larger than typical QSOs lifetime $t_Q\approx 10^7$. This shows that eq.(\ref{rh2}) provides a plausible value for the HII region extent. For instance, Maselli et al. (2007) have shown that eq.(\ref{rh2}) matches quite well the mean value of the HII region size determined through radiative transfer calculations. \\
516: In this Section, we neglect relativistic effects which could squash the ionization front along the sight-line (\citeNP{white03}; \citeNP{wlb05}; \citeNP{Yu05}; \citeNP{shapirorel06}), possibly reducing the length of the lines of sight interested by the proximity effect. We will discuss this issue in detail in Sec. 5, when addressing the first observed case of transverse proximity effect.
517:
518: At $z=5.5$, assuming
519: $x_{\rm HI}=5.6\times 10^{-5}$ (see Fig. 1), $R_{HII}=1$ ($10$) Mpc could be produced by a
520: QSO emitting a number of ionizing photons ${N}_{\gamma}=\dot{N}_{\gamma}t_Q=7\times 10^{65}$ ($7\times 10^{68}$).
521: Thus, assuming a QSO lifetime $\approx 10^7 {\rm yr}$, the observed peaks in the LR (HR) sample
522: require $\dot{N}_{\gamma}= 2.2\times 10^{51}$ ($2.2\times 10^{54}$) ${\rm s^{-1}}$,
523: which would correspond to sources $\approx 6$ ($3$) orders of magnitude fainter than QSOs observed at
524: $z\approx 6$, typically having $\dot{N}_{\gamma}\approx 10^{57} {\rm s^{-1}}$ \cite{haicen} and
525: black hole masses $M_{BH}\approx 10^9{\rm M}_{\odot}$.
526:
527: So far we have assumed that the gas inside the HII region is fully ionized or, stated differently, that
528: along the redshift path encompassed by the ionized bubble the flux is {\it completely} transmitted.
529: However, this is unlikely since a sufficiently high opacity due to resonant (damping wing) optical depth associated with the neutral hydrogen
530: inside (outside) the HII region can produce dark gaps. Thus, the relation between $P_{max}$ and $R_{HII}$ is
531: \begin{equation}
532: P_{max}=\frac{H(\bar{z})\lambda_{Ly\alpha}}{c}\frac{(1+\bar{z})}{(1+z_{em})} f_{t}R_{HII} = A(z) f_t R_{HII},
533: \label{ftransm}
534: \end{equation}
535: where $f_{t}$ is the mean transmitted flux computed inside the proximity region.
536: We will derive $f_{t}$ in Sec. 5 from an observed case of transverse proximity effect, note
537: that values of $f_{t}<1$ would result in a larger luminosity of the QSO producing the
538: transmissivity window.\\
539: Finally, powerful QSOs, as those observed at $z\approx 6$, could produce
540: transmission windows consistent with observational data if they are embedded
541: in overdense regions where the high density sustains an initial neutral
542: fraction, $x_{\rm HI}\gtrsim 0.1$, {\it before the QSO turns on}. The expansion of
543: the HII region in such environment would result in considerably smaller sizes
544: (\citeNP{antiesimo}). In this case, both the host dark matter halo mass found
545: above ($M_h\approx 10^{12}{\rm M}_{\odot}$), and the size of the HII region
546: would combine to give the correct frequency and spectral width of the observed
547: peaks.
548: %
549: \subsection{Galaxy HII regions}
550: %
551: In addition to QSOs, transmissivity windows could be produced by HII regions around high-$z$ galaxies.
552: Adopting the canonical relations
553: %
554: \begin{equation}
555: M_*=f_*\frac{\Omega_b}{\Omega_m}M_h;\\
556: N_{\gamma}=\bar{n}_{\gamma}\frac{M_*}{m_p};\\
557: f_{esc}N_{\gamma}=\frac{4\pi}{3}n_{\rm HI}R_{HII}^3,
558: \end{equation}
559: %
560: where $M_*$ is the stellar mass, $\bar{n}_{\gamma}$ is the number of ionizing
561: photons per baryon into stars, and $m_p$ is the proton mass,
562: the relation between $M_h$ and $R_{HII}$ is given by:
563: %
564: \begin{equation}
565: M_h=3\times 10^8 M_\odot\left(\frac{1+z}{6.5}\right)^3y_{-1}R_{HII}^3,
566: \label{hm}
567: \end{equation}
568: %
569: where $y_{-1}=(x_{\rm HI} f_*^{-1}f_{esc}^{-1})/0.1$ and we are
570: assuming $\bar{n}_{\gamma}=4000$, appropriate for a PopII stellar population with
571: a standard Salpeter IMF; we assume the fiducial values $x_{\rm HI}=5.6\times 10^{-5}$, $f_*=0.1$,
572: $f_{esc}=0.01$. The mass of an halo hosting a star-forming region able to produce
573: $R_{HII}\approx 1$ ($10$) Mpc is $2\times 10^8$ ($2\times 10^{11}$) ${\rm M}_{\odot}$.
574: At $z\approx 5.5$ objects of these masses corresponds to fluctuations of the
575: density field $\gtrsim 1-\sigma$ ($2-\sigma$) \cite{baloeb}.\\
576: As for QSOs, the bubble size$-$peak frequency tension could be alleviated if
577: the galaxies
578: live in overdense environments where the photoionization rate only supports a $x_{\rm HI}\approx 0.1$
579: (resulting in a larger value of $y_{-1}$, and hence of $M_h$ in eq.(\ref{hm})) prior to the
580: onset of star formation in the galaxy. Obviously, the previous arguments neglect that because
581: of clustering (\citeNP{yulu}; \citeNP{kramerhaiman}), as multiple sources could power a single HII region;
582: in order to get firmer results radiative transfer cosmological simulations are required.
583: %
584: %
585: \section{PEAKS FROM THE PROXIMITY EFFECT}
586: %
587: %
588: In Sec. 4, we have discussed the possibility that the observed peaks are
589: produced by ionizing sources whose bubbles intersect the lines of sight to
590: the target QSO. In this case one could ask if the source responsible for the
591: HII region would be detected in the observed field. If the origin of
592: transmissivity regions resides in bubbles around high-$z$ galaxies, these
593: sources are too faint to be seen in the SDSS; however, deep HST
594: imaging (\citeNP{stiavelli05}) could detect such objects. On the contrary, if
595: the HII region of a quasar intervenes along the LOS to an
596: higher redshift quasar, the first could be observed in the
597: SDSS field. \\
598: \citeNP{mahabal05} have discovered a faint quasar
599: (RD J1148+5253, hereafter QSO1) at $z=5.70$ in the field of the highest
600: redshift quasar currently known (SDSS J1148+5251, hereafter QSO2) at $z=6.42$.
601: In this Section we study the QSO2 transmitted flux,
602: in order to analyze the proximity effect of QSO1 on the QSO2 spectrum.
603: For clarity, Fig. \ref{prox} presents a schematic picture of the considered geometry.
604: As the redshift $z=5.70$ quoted by \citeNP{mahabal05} is based on the peak of the
605: Ly$\alpha$ emission line, and the estimated error from such procedure is $\Delta z\approx 0.05$ \cite{goodrich}, we assume $z_{em}^{QSO1}=5.65$ and we discuss this issue in further details in Appendix B.
606:
607: The two QSOs have a projected separation of 109'', which corresponds to
608: $R_{\bot}=0.66$ Mpc. The line of sight to QSO2 intersects the bubble produced
609: by QSO1 for a redshift path ($\Delta z_{prox}$) whose length depends on the
610: radius of the HII region ($R_{HII}$) itself. We find $R_{HII}=39~{\rm Mpc}$,
611: by plugging in eq.(\ref{rh2}) the following values:
612: $t_Q=1.34\times 10^7{\rm yr}$, $x_{\rm HI}=8.4\times 10^{-5}$,
613: $\dot{N}_{\gamma}=8.6\times 10^{55}{\rm sec^{-1}}$, where $x_{\rm HI}$ is
614: provided by the mean value between those predicted by our models
615: at $z=5.7$ (see rightmost panel of Fig. \ref{prop}), while
616: $\dot{N}_{\gamma}$ is compatible with the luminosity of a QSO 3.5 magnitudes
617: fainter than QSO2 (\citeNP{mahabal05}).
618: In this Section, we also take into account relativistic effects which could squash the ionization front along the LOS (\citeNP{white03}; \citeNP{wlb05}; \citeNP{Yu05}; \citeNP{shapirorel06}). The apparent size of the HII region, computed following the method outlined in \citeNP{Yu05}, is shown in Fig. \ref{prox}. By zooming the region close to QSO1 (small box in Fig. (\ref{prox})) it is clear that the apparent size of the HII region extends up to 2~Mpc in the
619: direction toward QSO2.
620: %RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS
621: %5.65 5.164 39 Mpc
622: %5.65 5.678 2 Mpc
623: %5.65 6.245 39 Mpc
624: Given $R_{HII}$, taking into account relativistic effects, the region $\Delta z_{prox}$ extends from $z=5.16$ up to
625: $z=5.68$.
626: %Note that the size of the HII region $R_{HII}$ is only used to compare the redshift path
627: %$\Delta z_{prox}$ in which the bubble produced by QSO1 intersects the LOS to
628: %QSO2, with the redshift path $\Delta z_{det}$ along which the proximity effect
629: %can be detected.
630: We re-compute $x_{\rm HI}$ along the LOS to QSO2, adding
631: to the
632: uniform UVB photoionization rate $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ the photoionization
633: rate $\Gamma_{\rm HI}^{QSO1}$ provided by QSO1, obtained starting from the following equations:
634:
635: \begin{equation}
636: \Gamma_{\rm HI}^{QSO1}=4\pi\int_{\nu_{\rm HI}}^{\infty}\frac{J_{\nu}}{h\nu}\sigma_0\left (\frac{\nu}{\nu_{\rm HI}}\right )^{-3}d\nu;
637: \end{equation}
638:
639: \begin{equation}
640: J_{\nu}=\frac{\dot{N}_{\nu}h\nu}{16\pi^2 R^2};
641: \end{equation}
642:
643: \begin{equation}
644: \dot{N}_{\gamma}=\int_{\nu_{\rm HI}}^{\infty}\dot{N}_{\nu}d\nu=\int_{\nu_{\rm HI}}^{\infty}\dot{N}_{\nu_{\rm HI}}\left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_{\rm HI}}\right)^{-{\alpha}}d\nu,
645: \label{ndot}
646: \end{equation}
647: where $\nu_{\rm HI}$ is the hydrogen photoionization
648: frequency threshold, $\sigma_0$ is the Thompson scattering cross section, $R$ is the distance from QSO1 to the LOS, $\dot{N}_{\nu_{\rm HI}}$ is the rate of the emitted ionizing photons at the hydrogen photoionization frequency threshold and $\alpha=1.5$ is the spectral index of the QSO continuum.
649: Integrating eq.(\ref{ndot}) we obtain :
650: \begin{equation}
651: \dot{N}_{\nu_{\rm HI}}=\frac{(\alpha-1)\dot{N}_{\gamma}}{\nu_{\rm HI}}.
652: \end{equation}
653: Thus, it results:
654: \begin{equation}
655: \Gamma_{\rm HI}^{QSO1}=\left(\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha+2}\right)\frac{\dot{N}_{\gamma}\sigma_0}{4\pi R^2},
656: \end{equation}
657:
658: In Fig. \ref{bubblemod} we compare the observed transmitted flux in the spectrum of QSO2 with the simulated fluxes along
659: 3 different LOS with (bottom row) or without (top) including the contribution from QSO1 to the total ionizing flux.
660: For brevity, we refer to these case as ``with bubble'' or ``without bubble''. Visual inspection of Fig. \ref{bubblemod}
661: shows that the case ``with bubble'' is in better agreement with observations. Such statement can be made more
662: quantitative by introducing a quantity denoted Peak Spectral Density (PSD), i.e. the number of peaks per
663: unit $\lambda_{RF}$ interval.
664: %
665: %
666: \begin{figure}
667: \psfig{figure=PLOT/toy2.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
668: \caption{Schematic positions of quasars SDSS J1148+5251
669: (QSO2, $z_{em}=6.42$, redshift position not in scale) and RD J1148+5252 (QSO1, $z_{em}=5.65$). The projected
670: separation is denoted by $R_{\bot}$, the size of the HII region, $R_{HII}$, in the QSO1 rest frame is represented by the dotted circle;
671: the magenta solid line shows the apparent shape of the ionization front; the dashed black line shows the redshift path ($\Delta z_{prox}$)
672: in which the bubble produced by
673: QSO1 intersects the LOS to QSO2. }
674: \label{prox}
675: \end{figure}
676: \begin{figure}
677: \psfig{figure=PLOT/peak_prox.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
678: \caption{{\it Leftmost panels}: Observed transmitted flux (black spectra)
679: in the spectrum of QSO SDSS J1148+5251 (QSO2, $z_{em}=6.42$). The solid black
680: line shows the redshift path ($\Delta z_{prox}$)
681: in which the bubble produced by
682: QSO RD J1148+5252 (QSO1, $z_{em}=5.65$) intersects the LOS to QSO2.
683: {\it Top panels (ai), with i=1,3}:
684: Simulated fluxes (cyan spectra) along 3 different random LOS
685: (cases ``without bubble''). {\it Bottom panels (bi), with i=1,3}:
686: Simulated fluxes (magenta spectra) along the same LOSs
687: shown in the top panels, taking into account the contribution from QSO1 to the
688: total ionizing flux (cases ``with bubble'').}
689: \label{bubblemod}
690: \end{figure}
691: %
692: %
693: To compute the PSD for the two cases, we fix two different values for the flux threshold inside ($F_{th}^{IN}=0.01$) and outside
694: ($F_{th}^{OUT}=0.08$) the bubble. While $F_{th}^{OUT}$ is the same as the value used in this work so far, $F_{th}^{IN}$ has
695: been chosen accordingly to the maximum observed noise r.m.s. deviation (for reasons explained in the Appendix A) in the $\lambda_{RF}$
696: interval $\Delta \lambda=1087-1092$~\AA, where $\Gamma_{\rm HI}^{QSO1}\gtrsim\Gamma_{\rm HI}$. For both the observed and simulated spectra, we compute the PSD
697: inside and outside the bubble, finding the following results:
698: \\
699: \\
700: \centerline{
701: $(PSD_{obs}^{OUT},PSD_{obs}^{IN})=(0.11,0.40)$;
702: }
703: \\
704: \\
705: \centerline{
706: $(PSD_{sim}^{OUT},PSD_{sim}^{IN})=(0.04^{+0.06}_{-0.04},0.24^{+0.35}_{-0.24}),$
707: }
708: \\
709: \\
710: where error bars provide the maximum and minimum PSD values found in the simulated LOS.
711: Observationally, the PSD is found to be
712: $\approx 4$ times\footnote{This factor depends on the flux threshold used.
713: For example, it is reduced to $\approx 2.7$ if $F_{th}^{IN}=F_{th}^{OUT}=0.05$.
714: Nevertheless, for the purpose of our test what really matters is the boost of
715: this factor moving from outside toward inside the bubble.}
716: larger inside that bubble than outside it. This boost is quite well reproduced by the
717: simulated PSD, although their absolute values are somewhat lower than the observed ones.
718:
719: The physical interpretation of the results reported in this Section is the following. In
720: the $\lambda_{RF}$ (redshift) interval $\Delta \lambda = 1087-1092$ ($\Delta z_{det} = 5.63-5.67$), where
721: $\Gamma_{\rm HI}^{QSO1}\gtrsim\Gamma_{\rm HI}$, most of the gaps present in
722: the case ``without bubble'' disappear, making room for peaks,
723: as a consequence of the decreased opacity in the proximity of QSO1. Note that
724: the $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ value adopted in our calculations (shown in Fig.\ref{prop}, middle panel, red line) is close to the maximum value suggested by previous studies.
725: Moreover, $\Gamma_{\rm HI}^{QSO1}\approx 3.4\times\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ at 0.66 Mpc from the foreground QSO. Thus, an implausible $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ value should be assumed to explain the observed boost in the PSD with a uniform UVB.
726: The enhancement in the transmissivity decreases for $\lambda_{RF}$
727: smaller (larger) than $1087$ ($1092$) \AA, since at the corresponding
728: redshift $\Gamma_{\rm HI}^{QSO1}\lesssim \Gamma_{\rm HI}$. These results (i) confirm the detection
729: of a proximity effect, (ii) show that the redshift stretch affected by the proximity effect
730: is $ \Delta z_{det} <\Delta z_{prox}$.
731:
732: \begin{figure}
733: \psfig{figure=PLOT/overd2.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
734: \caption{Evolution of the optical depth $\tau$ as a function of the distance R
735: from QSO1. Filled circles denote the observed mean value for $\tau$,
736: while error bars represent the maximum and the minimum observed $\tau$ at a
737: given distance from the foreground QSO. Solid (dotted) magenta lines are the
738: mean (maximum/minimum) values from 500 simulated LOS, computed adopting the
739: case ``with bubble''. The dashed cyan horizontal line shows the mean optical
740: depth predicted by the ERM in correspondence of the emission redshift of the
741: foreground QSO. The dotted cyan horizontal lines denote the maximum/minimum
742: optical depth at the same redshift.}
743: \label{overd}
744: \end{figure}
745: As a final test for our model, we compute the observed evolution of the optical depth
746: as a function of the distance $R$ from QSO1 and compare it with the predictions of model "with bubble'';
747: the result is shown in Fig. \ref{overd}. The agreement between observations
748: and simulations is at 1-$\sigma$ confidence level for $86\%$ of the plotted
749: points. For $R\lesssim 2$ Mpc, the mean optical depth $1.5 \lesssim\bar{\tau}\lesssim 3.5$ is
750: lower than the mean value expected at $\bar{z}=5.65$
751: ($\bar{\tau}_{5.65}\approx 4$); it approaches $\bar{\tau}_{5.65}$ at distances larger than $R_{\tau}\sim 2$ Mpc. \\
752: By taking the difference between $R_{\tau}$ and $R_{\bot}$, we set a lower limit on the foreground QSO lifetime $t_Q>\frac{R_{\tau}-R_{\bot}}{c}+(t_{\tau}-t_{QSO1})\approx 11$ Myr, where $t_{\tau}$ and $t_{QSO1}$ represent the cosmic times corresponding to the redshifts $z_{\tau}=5.68$ and $z_{em}^{QSO1}=5.65$, respectively.\\
753: It is worth noting that our model does not take into account neither (i) the clustering of the ionizing
754: sources, nor (ii) the overdense environment expected around the QSO. Both these effects,
755: in principle, could strongly affect the IGM ionization state, albeit in opposite ways.
756: While clustering of sources would enhance the transmissivity in the QSO near-zones, the
757: overdense environment would tend to suppress it. The fact that we found agreement between
758: observations and our modeling could indicate that, at least along this LOS, the two effects
759: compensate. For what concerns (ii), by comparing the optical depth evolution observed
760: in the proximity regions of 45 QSOs at $z_{em}\gtrsim 4$ with theoretical expectations,
761: \citeNP{guima} find evidence for a density bias correlated with the QSO luminosity.
762: Since QSO1 is much fainter than the QSOs studied by \citeNP{guima} it seems likely that
763: neglecting such effect does not introduce a significant error. However, the extension of the
764: proposed approach to a larger sample could clarify the relation between the clustering of sources
765: and the overdensities in which massive objects are likely to be embedded.\\
766: It is important to note that the LOS toward SDSSJ1148+5251 contributes to the LPW distribution with the
767: smallest peak ($P_{max}\approx 2$\AA) in the entire sample. Thus, even if we
768: succeeded in reproducing the features of this LOS with our model
769: ``with bubble'', we still have to explain the mysterious origin of
770: transmissivity windows as large as $10-15$\AA.\\
771: In Sec. 4.1, we estimate the QSO1 luminosity required to explain the
772: observed $P_{max}$ value, and we comment on the result dependence from
773: $f_{t}$. Plugging in eq.(\ref{ftransm}) the value $f_{t}\approx 0.03$
774: computed inside the proximity region, we obtain an effective size for $R_{HII}$; by
775: further using eq.(\ref{rh2}), this translates into $\dot{N}_{\gamma}=9.2\times 10^{55}$~s$^{-1}$,
776: a value in quite good agreement with the QSO1 ionizing rate quoted by \citeNP{mahabal05}.\\
777: %
778: \section{DISCUSSION}
779: %
780: We have studied several statistical properties of the transmitted flux in high-$z$ QSO spectra and
781: compared them with those obtained from simulated Ly$\alpha$ forest spectra to infer
782: constraints on the ionization state of the IGM at $z\approx 6$. We have considered
783: two different reionization models: (i) an Early Reionization Model (ERM),
784: in which the universe reionizes at $z_{rei}=6$, and (ii) a Late Reionization Model
785: ($z_{rei}\approx 7$).\\
786: By first using standard control statistics (mean transmitted flux evolution, probability
787: distribution function of the transmitted flux, gap width distribution) in the
788: redshift range $3.5 < z < 6$, we show that both ERM and LRM match the
789: observational data. This implies that current observations do not exclude that reionization can
790: have taken place at redshift well beyond six. \\
791: We then apply the Largest Gap Width (LGW) and Largest Peak Width (LPW) statistics introduced
792: by Gallerani et al. (2006) to a sample of 17 QSOs in the redshift range $5.74-6.42$.
793: Both ERM and LRM provide good fits to the observed LGW distribution, favoring a scenario
794: in which $x_{\rm HI}$ smoothly evolves from $10^{-4.4}$ at $z\approx 5.3$ to $10^{-4.2}$ at $z\approx 5.6$.
795:
796: Discriminating among the two reionization scenarios would require
797: a sample of QSO at even higher redshifts. In fact, although according to LRM at $z\gtrsim 6$ the
798: reionization process is still in the overlap phase with a mixture of ionized and neutral regions
799: characterizing the IGM, only $\approx 10\%$ of the simulated LOS pierce the overlap epoch,
800: and for a redshift depth $\Delta z \lesssim 0.2$. This explains why the predicted LGW
801: distributions are quite similar for the two models considered.\\
802: Nonetheless, ERM provides a slightly better fit to observational data with respect to LRM, favoring
803: $z_{rei}\gtrsim 7$. Within the statistical relevance of our sample, we have shown that LRM
804: models can be used to put a robust upper limit $x_{\rm HI} < 0.36$ at $z=6.3$.\\
805:
806: We have suggested that peaks preferentially arise from underdense regions of the cosmic density
807: field and also from isolated HII regions produced by either faint quasars or galaxies.
808: The frequency of the observed peaks implies that the dark matter halos
809: hosting such sources is relatively large, $\approx 10^{12}$ ($10^{13}$) $M_{\odot}$.
810: Bright QSOs are unlikely to contribute significantly in terms of peaks, because
811: given the required size of the HII regions, they should be located close enough to the LOS to
812: the target QSO, that they should be detectable in the field.
813:
814: The previous conclusions are substantiated by the specific case of an
815: intervening HII region produced by the faint quasar RD J1148+5253 (QSO1) at
816: $z=5.70$ along the LOS toward the highest redshift quasar currently known
817: (SDSS J1148+5251, QSO2) at $z=6.42$. It is worth noting that searches for
818: the transverse proximity effect in the HI Ly$\alpha$ forest at $z\approx 3$
819: \cite{schirber} have been so far unsuccessful. Such effect has been isolated only by HeII absorption studies (\citeNP{WW06};\citeNP{WW07}). Thus, our results
820: represent the first-ever detection in the HI Ly$\alpha$ forest.
821: We have analyzed the proximity effect of QSO1 on
822: the QSO2 spectrum. Moreover, we have build up a simple model to estimate the
823: location/extension of the proximity zone. Within the proximity region of QSO1
824: we have found an increased number of peaks per unit frequency with respect
825: to segments of the LOS located outside the quasar HII bubble. This supports
826: the idea that we are indeed sampling the proximity region of the QSO1 and that
827: at least some peaks originate within ionized regions around (faint) sources.
828: We then obtain a strong lower limit on the foreground QSO lifetime of $t_Q>11$
829: Myr.
830: Proper inclusion of galaxy clustering, which requires numerical simulations,
831: might affect our conclusions \cite{FG07}.
832: Note that even in this clear-cut case, the size of the largest observed
833: peak in the spectrum of QSO2 is only of 2\AA.
834:
835: Thus we are left with the puzzling discrepancy between observed and simulated transmissivity
836: windows (peaks) size, the former being systematically larger.
837: Very likely, this reflects an unwarranted assumption made by the model. We do not believe that the discrepancy could be impute to the assumption
838: of a Log-Normal model, tested against \rm{HYDROPM} simulations by GCF06.
839: Nevertheless, we plan to compare the observed
840: Largest Peak Width
841: distribution with full hydrodynamical simulations in a future
842: work to study the correlation properties of the underdense regions, since Coles et al. (1993) have shown that the Log-Normal model produces a too ``clumpy'' distribution of the density field, when compared with N-body simulations.
843:
844: At least two physical effects,
845: neglected here, could
846: affect the calculation of $x_{\rm HI}$: (i) non-equilibrium photoionization, and (ii)
847: UV background radiation fluctuations. \\
848: The first assumption is made by the majority of studies dealing with the Ly$\alpha$ forest. However, if a fraction of the Ly$\alpha$ forest gas has been shock-heated as it condenses into the cosmic web filaments, it might cool faster than it recombines. For example, the recombination time $t_r$ becomes longer than the Hubble time when the density contrast is $\Delta < 7.5 [(1+z)/6.5]^{-3/2}$;
849: hence, large deviations from photoionization equilibrium are expected where
850: $\Delta \ll 1$. Lower values of $x_{\rm HI}$ with respect to equilibrium are expected in such regions, as a result of the exceedingly slow recombination rates.\\
851:
852: The second possible explanation for the too narrow simulated peaks might reside
853: in radiative transfer effects, also neglected here. At $z \approx 6$ the increase in the mean GP
854: optical depth is accompanied by an evident enhancement of the dispersion of this measurement
855: which has been ascribed to spatial fluctuations of the UVB intensity near the end of reionization.
856: A considerable (up to 10\%) scatter in the UVB HI photoionization rate
857: is expected already at $z \approx 3$, as shown by \citeNP{antieandre} through
858: detailed radiative transfer calculations. The amplitude of such illumination
859: fluctuations tend to increase with redshift because of the overall thickening of the forest.
860: Although the observed dispersion in the mean GP optical depth may be compatible with a
861: spatially uniform UVB (\citeNP{liu06}; \citeNP{LOF06}), it is likely that a proper radiative transfer treatment
862: becomes mandatory at earlier times. Basically, the main effect of fluctuations is to break
863: the dependence of the HI neutral fraction on density. This is readily understood by considering
864: two perturbations with the same density contrast $\Delta$. If the first is close to a luminous
865: source it will have its $x_{\rm HI}$ depressed well below that of the second one
866: located away from it. Thus, opacity fluctuations naturally arise.
867: If so, peaks of larger width could be produced if the density perturbation associated with
868: it happens to be located in a region where the UVB intensity is higher than the mean.
869: \section*{Acknowledgments}
870: We thank R. Cen, B. Ciardi, D. Eisenstein, J.~P. Ostriker and S. White for
871: stimulating discussions. We are particularly grateful to Z. Haiman, A. Lidz and A. Maselli
872: for enlightening comments on the manuscript.
873: XF acknowledges support from NSF grant AST 03-07384, a Sloan Research Fellowship,
874: a Packard Fellowship for Science and Engineering.
875: \bibliography{}
876: \bibliographystyle{mnras}
877: \section{APPENDIX A}
878: The gap/peak statistics are sensitive to the S/N ratio, since spurious peaks
879: could arise in spectral regions with noise higher than the flux threshold
880: ($F_{th}$) adopted. In what follows we restrict our attention to ``gaps'',
881: since the extension of the conclusions on the ``peaks'' is direct.
882: In particular, in this Appendix, we discuss the LGW distribution shape
883: dependence on the $F_{th}$ chosen.
884: We consider two values for $F_{th}$, namely $0.03$ and
885: $0.08$, which correspond to $\tau=3.5$ and $\tau=2.5$, respectively. It is not
886: obvious what criterion to apply in order to choose a proper value for
887: $F_{th}$, since a too high (low) $F_{th}$ could overestimate (underestimate)
888: the gap length. In Fig. \ref{2spc} we show two examples of
889: spectra in which the $F_{th}$ choice strongly affects the gap measurement.
890: On the bottom, the spectrum of QSO J1030+0524 is shown, and, in the small box,
891: the region marked by the solid black line is zoomed. It is evident that
892: $F_{th}=0.03$ would break the gap at $\lambda_{RF}\approx 1190$ \AA,
893: instead of at $\lambda_{RF}\approx 1160$\AA ,
894: as also noticed by F06; thus, in this case
895: $F_{th}=0.08$ seems to be a better choice.\\
896: The opposite is true for the spectrum of QSO J1148+5251, shown in Fig.
897: \ref{2spc} on the top. Indeed, in
898: this case $F_{th}=0.08$ would provide a gap as large as $\approx 100$\AA,
899: terminated by transmission at
900: $\lambda_{RF}\approx 1100$\AA. However, the peak at
901: $\lambda_{RF}\approx 1160$\AA~is consistent with pure
902: transmission (\citeNP{white03}; \citeNP{ohfurla}; F06); thus, in this case,
903: $F_{th}=0.03$ would provide the correct gap measurement. For this reason,
904: we compute the LGW distribution, considering both $F_{th}=0.03$ and
905: $F_{th}=0.08$, alternatively. \\
906: The final LGW distribution is obtained as the mean of the
907: preliminary ones, weighted on the corresponding errors.
908: \begin{figure}
909: \psfig{figure=PLOT/2spc.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
910: \caption{Observed spectra of the QSO SDSS J1148+5251
911: ({\it top panel}) and SDSS J1030+0524 ({\it bottom panel}). The
912: black line denote the largest dark gap, measured by assuming $F_{th}=0.08$.
913: In the small box the region interested by the largest dark gap is zoomed. The
914: two black lines indicate $F_{th}=0.08$ and $F_{th}=0.03$. From the top
915: (bottom) panel is evident that $F_{th}=0.08$ ($F_{th}=0.03$) overestimates
916: (underestimates) the size of the largest dark gap.}
917: \label{2spc}
918: \end{figure}
919: \section{APPENDIX B}
920: \begin{figure*}
921: \psfig{figure=PLOT/foreg_z.eps,width=15.5cm,angle=0}
922: \caption{Same as Fig.7, but for different choices of foreground QSO emission redshift: $z_{em}=5.65$ (leftmost panel); $z_{em}=5.70$ (middle panel); $z_{em}=5.725$ (rightmost panel).}
923: \label{compz}
924: \end{figure*}
925:
926: The redshift quoted by \citeNP{mahabal05} for RD J1148+5253 ($z_{em}=5.7$) is
927: based on the peak of the Ly$\alpha$ emission line. This standard approach
928: typically overestimates the true redshift by $\approx 0.05$ (e.g. \citeNP{goodrich}). For this reason
929: we adopt as fiducial value $z_{em}=5.65$.
930: As the object RD J1148+5253 (QSO1) is a BAL QSO \cite{mahabal05}, its emission
931: redshift can not be established with accuracy from the broad metal lines, thus
932: remaining uncertain.
933: By comparing the QSO1 absorption spectrum with a BAL composite,
934: also $z_{em}=5.725$ could be a plausible choice for the QSO1 emission
935: redshift (Willot C., private communication). In this Appendix we repeat the
936: analysis shown in Sec.5 considering different possibilities for the QSO1
937: emission redshift. In Fig. \ref{compz} we
938: compare the optical depth evolution as a function of the distance from QSO1
939: obtained assuming $z_{em}^{QSO1}=5.65$ (left panel) with the cases in which
940: $z_{em}^{QSO1}=5.70$ (middle panel) and $z_{em}^{QSO1}=5.725$ (right panel). In table \ref{tablepsd} the results of the Peak Spectral Density (PSD) for the tree different choices of QS01 emission redshift are shown, together with the wavelength interval $\Delta \lambda$ where $\Gamma_{\rm HI}^{QSO1}>\Gamma_{\rm HI}$.
941:
942: \begin{center}
943: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
944: \hline
945: $z_{QSO1}$ & $PSD_{OUT}$ & $PSD_{IN}$ & $\Delta \lambda$\\
946: \hline
947: 5.65 & 0.11 & 0.40 & 1087-1092\\
948: 5.70 & 0.12 & 0.60 & 1095-1100\\
949: 5.725 & 0.11 & 0.40 & 1099-1104\\
950: \hline
951: \label{tablepsd}
952: \end{tabular}
953: \end{center}
954: Even though Fig. \ref{compz} shows that the observed optical depth evolution
955: as a function of the distance from QSO1 is better explained by our model
956: assuming $z_{em}^{QSO1}=5.65$, this result does not rule out other choices of
957: the QSO1 emission redshift.
958: The results shown in table \ref{tablepsd} confirm the the evidence of the
959: transverse proximity effect, since the boost in the PSD moving from outside
960: toward inside the bubble is present in all the three cases considered.
961: \end{document}
962:
963: