1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex} %% one-column, double-spaced document

2: \documentclass{emulateapj} %% double-column ApJ style emulator

3: 

4: \newcommand\hi{\hbox{H\,{\sc i}~}}

5: \newcommand\hii{\hbox{H\,{\sc ii}~}}

6: \newcommand\hei{\hbox{He\,{\sc i}~}}

7: \newcommand\heii{\hbox{He\,{\sc ii}~}}

8: \newcommand\heiii{\hbox{He\,{\sc iii}~}}

9: 

10: \def\lsim{~\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$}\kern-0.75em{\lower0.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}~}

11: \def\gsim{~\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$}\kern-0.75em{\lower0.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}~}

12: \def\lt{~\hbox{$<$}~}

13: \def\gt{~\hbox{$>$}~}

14: \def\lbrack2{[\![}

15: \def\rbrack2{]\!]}

16: \def\ddx{\partial \over \partial x}

17: \def\dt{{{\small \Delta}t}}

18: \def\dd{{\small \Delta}}

19: \def\dv{{\small \Delta} v}

20: \def\flux{{\bf F}}

21: \def\nh{{n_{\rm H}}}

22: \def\ig{{I_{\rm g}}}

23: \def\etal{{\it et al.~}}

24: \def\mhalo{M_{\rm halo}}

25: \def\nhi{{N_{\rm HI}}}

26: \def\xion{{x_{\rm HII}}}

27: \def\tf{{\Delta t_{\rm f}}}

28: \def\tr{{\Delta t_{\rm r}}}

29: \def\dcr{{\delta_{\rm crit}}}

30: \def\vcirc{{v_{\rm circ}}}

31: \def\v90{{v_{\rm 90}}}

32: \def\mcrit{{M_{\rm crit}}}

33: \def\rmax{{R_{\rm max}}}

34: \def\tdyn{{t_{\rm dyn}}}

35: \def\tcr{{t_{\rm cr}}}

36: \def\nSrcInitial{{n_{\rm 0}^{\rm src}}}

37: \def\nSrcExpanded{{n_{\rm e}^{\rm src}}}

38: 

39: \def\nug{{\nu_{\rm g}}}

40: \def\nugp{{\nu_{{\rm g}+1}}}

41: \def\alphag{{\alpha_{\rm g}}}

42: \def\i0g{{I_{0\rm g}}}

43: \def\e0g{{E_{0\rm g}}}

44: \def\gstar{{G_{*\rm g}}}

45: \def\chema{{\rm H}}

46: \def\chemb{{{\rm H}^+}}

47: \def\chemc{{{\rm H}^-}}

48: \def\h2{{{\rm H}_2}}

49: \def\cheme{{{\rm H}_2^+}}

50: \def\chemf{{\rm He}}

51: \def\chemg{{{\rm He}^+}}

52: \def\chemh{{{\rm He}^{++}}}

53: \def\chemi{{{\rm e}^-}}

54: \def\AA{{A}}

55: %\def\AA{{\circ\atop A}}

56: \def\xe{{x_{\rm e}}}

57: \def\hp{h_{\rm P}}

58: 

59: \def\km{{\rm\,km}}

60: \def\kms{{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}}}

61: \def\gcm3{{\rm\,g\,cm^{-3}}}

62: \def\cmsq{{\rm\,cm^{-2}}}

63: \def\kpc{{\rm\,kpc}}

64: \def\mpc{{\rm\,Mpc}}

65: \def\s{{\rm\,s}}

66: \def\ev{{\rm\,eV}}

67: \def\msun{{\rm\,M_\odot}}

68: \def\lsun{{\rm\,L_\odot}}

69: \def\rsun{{\rm\,R_\odot}}

70: \def\pc{{\rm\,pc}}

71: \def\cm{{\rm\,cm}}

72: \def\erg{{\rm\,erg}}

73: \def\ster{{\rm\,sr}}

74: \def\hz{{\rm\,Hz}}

75: \def\sr{{\rm\,sr}}

76: \def\yr{{\rm\,yr}}

77: \def\yrs{{\rm\,yrs}}

78: \def\Myrs{{\rm\,Myrs}}

79: \def\Myr{{\rm\,Myr}}

80: \def\au{{\rm\,AU}}

81: \def\g{{\rm\,g}}

82: \def\om{\Omega_0}

83: \def\lyalpha{{Ly$\alpha$ }}

84: \def\fesc{{f_{\rm esc}}}

85: 

86: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

87: 

88: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

89: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

90: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

91: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

92: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

93: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

94: 

95: \shorttitle{Velocity dispersion in DLAs}

96: \shortauthors{Razoumov et al.}

97: 

98: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

99: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

100: 

101: \begin{document}

102: 

103: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

104: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

105: %% you desire.

106: 

107: \title{Can gravitational infall energy lead to the observed velocity

108:   dispersion in DLAs?}

109: 

110: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

111: %% author and affiliation information.

112: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

113: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

114: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

115: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

116: 

117: \author{Alexei O. Razoumov\altaffilmark{1}}

118: \email{razoumov@ap.smu.ca}

119: 

120: \author{Michael L. Norman\altaffilmark{2}}

121: \email{mnorman@cosmos.ucsd.edu}

122: 

123: \author{Jason X. Prochaska\altaffilmark{3}}

124: \email{xavier@ucolick.org}

125: 

126: \author{Jesper Sommer-Larsen\altaffilmark{4,5}}

127: \email{jslarsen@astro.ku.dk}

128: 

129: \author{Arthur M. Wolfe\altaffilmark{2}}

130: \email{awolfe@ucsd.edu}

131: 

132: \author{Yi-Jung Yang\altaffilmark{6}}

133: \email{yjyang@asiaa.sinica.edu.tw}

134: 

135: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

136: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

137: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

138: %% affiliation.

139: 

140: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Computational Astrophysics, Dept. of

141:   Astronomy \& Physics, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, NS, B3H 3C3,

142:   Canada}

143: 

144: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, and Center for Astrophysics

145:   and Space Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla,

146:   CA 92093-0424}

147: 

148: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, and

149:   UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California, 1156 High Street,

150:   Santa Cruz, CA 95064}

151: 

152: \altaffiltext{4}{Excellence Cluster Universe, Technische Universit\"at

153:       M\"unchen, Boltzmanstr. 2, D-85748 Garching, Germany}

154: 

155: \altaffiltext{5}{Dark Cosmology Centre, Niels Bohr Institute,

156:  University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen,

157:  Denmark}

158: 

159: \altaffiltext{6}{Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Academia

160:   Sinica, P.O. Box 23-141, Taipei 10617, Taiwan}

161: 

162: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

163: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

164: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

165: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

166: %% editorial office after submission.

167: 

168: \begin{abstract}

169:   The median observed velocity width $\v90$ of low-ionization species

170:   in damped Ly$\alpha$ systems is close to $90\kms$, with $\sim 10\%$

171:   of all systems showing $\v90\gt210\kms$ at $z=3$. We show that a

172:   relative shortage of such high-velocity neutral gas absorbers in

173:   state-of-the-art galaxy formation models is a fundamental problem,

174:   present both in grid-based and particle-based numerical

175:   simulations. Using a series of numerical simulations of varying

176:   resolution and box size to cover a wide range of halo masses, we

177:   demonstrate that energy from gravitational infall alone is

178:   insufficient to produce the velocity dispersion observed in damped

179:   Ly$\alpha$ systems, nor does this dispersion arise from an

180:   implementation of star formation and feedback in our highest

181:   resolution ($\sim45\pc$) models, if we do not put any galactic winds

182:   into our models by hand. We argue that these numerical experiments

183:   highlight the need to separate dynamics of different components of

184:   the multiphase interstellar medium at $z=3$.

185: \end{abstract}

186: 

187: \keywords{galaxies: formation --- galaxies: kinematics and dynamics

188:   --- intergalactic medium}

189: 

190: \section{Introduction}

191: 

192: Damped Ly-alpha absorbers (DLAs) provide us with a high-resolution

193: probe of galaxy formation processes up to redshift $z\sim5$, allowing

194: us to study the neutral hydrogen distribution and kinematics of young

195: galaxies and their surroundings on scales from several pc to several

196: kpc, although detailed information about the spatial extent of the

197: absorbing gas cannot be readily extracted from the observed velocity

198: line profiles. DLAs contain a large fraction of high-redshift baryons

199: potentially available for star formation (SF; Prochaska et al. 2005),

200: however, their in-situ SF efficiency appears to be a factor of 20-30

201: lower than in the present-day galaxies of comparable gas surface

202: density \citep{wolfe.06}. Even though DLAs are presumably associated

203: with fairly compact structures, they cover about a third of the sky,

204: so there is a high probability that a line of sight to a remote quasar

205: will contain such an absorber. Currently, just over a 1000 such

206: systems have been studied, and their number will undoubtedly increase

207: in coming years

208: \footnote{http://www.ucolick.org/$\sim$xavier/SDSSDLA/}.

209: 

210: One of the unsolved long-standing puzzles in our understanding of DLAs

211: is their large neutral gas velocity dispersion

212: \citep{prochaska.97}. The median value of $\v90$, the velocity

213: interval encompassing 90\% of the optical depth, in absorption lines

214: of low ions associated with cold neutral gas (such as SiII, NI, FeII,

215: etc.) is close to $90\kms$, and 10\% of all systems have

216: $\v90\gt210\km/s$. Observations indicate that there is virtually no

217: correlation between the column density $\nhi$ of the absorber and its

218: absorption line velocity width, with even lower column density systems

219: at the DLA threshold $\nhi=10^{20.3}\cmsq$ demonstrating velocity

220: widths up to $400\kms$. On the other hand, a correlation is observed

221: between the velocity widths and metallicities of the DLAs. In fact,

222: the correlation is remarkably tight between the equivalent width of

223: the \ion{Si}{2}~1526 transition (a kinematic diagnostic because the

224: line is saturated) and gas metallicity \citep{prochaska....07} that

225: shows a slope matching the local velocity/metallicity relation in

226: dwarf galaxies \citep{dekel.03}. These correlations may be a

227: consequence of a relation between the mass of the galaxies and their

228: metallicities \citep{wolfe.98,ledoux....06}, or an indication that

229: feedback from SF has a direct effect on the observed velocity

230: dispersion \citep{nulsen..98}.

231: 

232: To date all DLAs exhibit metal-line absorption

233: \citep{prochaska....03}, and one expects that they will all show

234: significant MgII equivalent widths. The opposite is not true; the

235: majority of MgII-selected absorbers are not DLAs. Unlike traditional

236: low ions, MgII traces both cold and warm neutral material, as well as

237: warm partially photoionized gas. Recently, \citet{murphy....07} found

238: a correlation between metallicity and the rest-frame MgII equivalent

239: width, suggesting a link between kinematics and the metal-enrichment

240: history of the absorber. They stressed that the absorption-line

241: kinematics should be viewed separately from the host galaxy

242: kinematics, in other words, the observed velocity widths need not

243: scale directly with the mass of the DLA-hosting

244: halos. \citet{bouche....06} used the cross-correlation between 1806

245: MgII absorbers and $\sim250,000$ luminous red galaxies from the Sloan

246: Digital Sky Survey to find that the absorber halo mass is

247: anti-correlated with the Mg II equivalent width, suggesting that at

248: least part of the observed velocity dispersion in MgII regions is

249: produced by supernova-driven winds and/or other feedback mechanisms

250: which could drive cold and warm gas efficiently out of lower mass

251: ($\mhalo\lt10^{11.5}\msun$) galaxies. On the other hand, this

252: anti-correlation could also be interpreted as a transition from cold

253: to shock-heated gas in more massive $\sim10^{12.5}\msun$ halos

254: accompanied by a drop in the cumulative cross-section of neutral

255: clouds found in these halos \citep{tinker.07}.

256: 

257: At least for now, observational data are insufficient to find a

258: relation between the absorbing halo mass and the velocity width $\v90$

259: of neutral absorption in DLAs. Therefore, we should consider at least

260: three distinct physical mechanisms which could contribute especially

261: to the high-end tail of the DLA velocity distribution:

262: 

263: 1) If cold clouds accreting onto massive galaxies are dense enough to

264: survive collisional heating while falling into the hot

265: ($\sim10^6{\rm\,K}$) virialized region, they could retain a

266: sufficiently high neutral fraction with column densities above

267: $10^{20.3}\cmsq$ \citep{mcdonald.99}. Note that for this mechanism to

268: be viable, the accreting gas should be already sufficiently

269: metal-rich, as even the most metal-poor DLAs have been found to have

270: metallicities $Z\gsim-2.8$, i.e. it would imply a model in which SF

271: was ubiquitous at some time before $z=3$ in field galaxies of mass

272: $10^8-10^{10}\msun$. In this scenario a large fraction of metals

273: observed in DLAs was produced far from massive ($\gsim10^{12}\msun$)

274: halos where we see these metals in absorption. On the other hand, it

275: is also possible that the low-metallicity accreting material could mix

276: efficiently with the more metal-rich environment of the massive

277: virialized halo.

278: 

279: 2) Conversely, DLA kinematics could be dominated by outflow velocities

280: of supernova-driven winds, i.e. we could see feedback directly

281: \citep{nulsen..98}. This hypothesis is indirectly supported by the

282: high detected outflow velocities in Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs), the

283: higher effective widths $W_{1526}$ of the SiII $1526\AA$ transition in

284: GRB-DLAs, and the anti-correlation between the absorbing halo mass and

285: the effective line width in MgII absorbers. It would also naturally

286: explain the metallicity-velocity correlation, since metals should be

287: produced in the same regions which drive the winds.

288: 

289: 3) The apparent inefficiency of in-situ SF in DLAs, coupled with their

290: relatively high inferred cooling rates suggests a picture in which

291: very compact star-forming regions, perhaps associated with LBGs,

292: illuminate much more extended neutral gas structures

293: \citep{wolfe.06}. \citet{maller...01} used a toy model of DLA

294: absorption to show that a large covering factor of the cold gas in

295: protogalactic clumps is consistent with observations. Moreover,

296: numerical simulations confirm that massive halos at $z=3$ often

297: consist of multiple compact galaxies embedded into larger neutral

298: clouds. Combined outflows from stellar winds and SNe in these galaxies

299: could drive large chunks of surrounding neutral material to larger

300: galactic radii where they could pick up a higher velocity dispersion

301: from the local galaxy group.

302: 

303: Although we now have absorption data on $\sim$1000 DLAs, very few

304: groups have attempted to model DLA kinematics in recent years. Both

305: analytical and numerical models in the literature tend to rely on a

306: velocity dispersion put in by hand, in part because of our lack of

307: understanding of the physical processes of SF and feedback on

308: sub-galactic scales, and in part due to numerical resolution

309: limitations.

310: 

311: \citet{mcdonald.99} used an analytical model combining the

312: Press-Schechter formalism with a picture of individual spherically

313: symmetric halos consisting of multiple absorbing clouds to show that

314: the rate of energy dissipation corresponding to the velocity

315: dispersion of these clouds necessary to produce the observed line

316: profiles far exceeds the rate at which energy can be supplied to these

317: clouds by gravitational collapse and mergers of halos. They noted that

318: a large fraction of DLAs show multiple components in absorption

319: profiles of the low-ionization lines, and that this observation can be

320: reproduced by a model in which the missing dissipation energy comes

321: from supernova explosions. In fact, the energy injection rate of

322: $1.8\times10^{50}{\rm\,ergs\,yr^{-1}}/(10^{12}\msun)$ reproduces well

323: the fraction of multi-component DLAs and the overall absorption line

324: velocity width distribution with the median value of $\sim90\kms$.

325: 

326: However, their model does not provide the physical mechanism for

327: transferring the feedback energy to the turbulent motions in gas

328: clouds, apart from specifying the source of this energy. In addition,

329: it is a highly approximate model which assumes spherical exponential

330: halos consisting of discrete neutral clouds moving with a given

331: velocity dispersion. Moreover, the same feedback energy per unit mass

332: is injected into all halos, independently of their mass, an assumption

333: which probably puts too much velocity dispersion into small halos.

334: 

335: On the numerical front, \citet{nagamine...07} used cosmological

336: smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations coupled to a

337: phenomenological galactic wind model to compute the rate of incidence

338: of DLAs as a function of halo mass, galaxy apparent magnitude, and

339: impact parameter, for a variable strength of hydrodynamical

340: feedback. In their model, gas particles were driven out of dense SF

341: regions by hand, by assigning a momentum in random directions. The

342: wind mass loss rate was assumed to be twice the SF rate, and the wind

343: carried a fixed fraction of the SN feedback energy, corresponding to

344: the fixed wind velocities of $242\kms$ (weak wind) and $484\kms$

345: (strong wind). Depending on the strength of feedback, they found that

346: it evacuated gas from predominantly low-mass galaxies and increased

347: the cross-section and hence the rate of incidence of more massive

348: galaxies. In their weak feedback model $\sim10^{9.6}\msun$ halos

349: contributed the most to the cross-section, whereas with strong

350: feedback the peak shifted to $\sim10^{11}-10^{12}\msun$ halos,

351: depending on numerical resolution, as feedback became more and more

352: efficient at removing gas from low-mass systems. Although,

353: \citet{nagamine...07} did not analyze the velocity width statistics,

354: one would expect to see numerous line profiles with $\v90\gt100\kms$

355: in their models, due the increased incidence rate of massive galaxies.

356: 

357: The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we test a hypothesis that

358: the observed kinematics is driven primarily by energy coming from

359: gravitational infall in the process of hierarchical buildup of

360: galaxies. This is essentially an extension of the idea put forward by

361: \citet{haehnelt..98} that the observed DLA line profiles are caused by

362: a combination of random halo motions, rotation, and infall, coupled to

363: the paradigm of several distinct modes of accretion onto growing

364: proto-galaxies \citep{dekel.06}. We use the approach developed in our

365: earlier paper \citep[][hereafter Paper I]{razoumov...06},

366: postprocessing high resolution adaptive mesh refinement (AMR)

367: simulations of galaxy formation with high-angular resolution radiative

368: transfer of UV ionizing photons. We improved our algorithm in several

369: ways including a better treatment of hydrodynamical heating during the

370: radiative transfer stage, as well as taking into account SF and

371: feedback. We experimented with a number of SF models, including the

372: standard four-criterion model of \citet{cen.92} and the two-mode SF

373: model of \citet{sommer-larsen..03}, both of which can be tuned to give

374: the observed SF rates in the absence of or with mild

375: feedback. Including strong feedback in our experience tends to always

376: suppress an ongoing SF, either unless relevant scales in the clumpy

377: interstellar medium (ISM) are resolved, or interaction between the

378: wind and the ambient medium has been turned off.

379: 

380: It is well known that without any special treatment the feedback

381: energy is quickly lost away in cooling. Several prescriptions have

382: been suggested to alleviate this problem; popular algorithms used in

383: particle-based galaxy formation models are (1) turning off cooling of

384: gas particles in the feedback regions

385: \citep{thacker.00,sommer-larsen..03,stinson.....06} and (2) using a

386: subresolution model for the multiphase ISM

387: \citep{springel.03a,nagamine...07} usually coupled with kinematic

388: feedback in which individual multiphase gas particles are driven out

389: of the star-forming regions in random or specified

390: directions.

391: 

392: Grid-based AMR simulations in which feedback energy is simply

393: converted into the gas thermal energy seem to be quite effective in

394: limiting SF, although this efficiency certainly depends on numerical

395: and temporal resolution. In the grid-based simulations presented in

396: Section~\ref{amrModels} we do not suppress cooling or use any

397: kinematic outflow model, in other words, we enforce a fairly

398: conservative approximation to the role of SF in DLA kinematics,

399: largely limited to conversion of some fraction of gas into stars.

400: 

401: In the second half of this paper (Sec.~\ref{sphModels}) we examine DLA

402: kinematics with TreeSPH models in which radiative cooling is

403: suppressed in regions surrounding active SF sites.

404: 

405: \section{Grid-based AMR models}

406: \label{amrModels}

407: 

408: \begin{table}

409:   \begin{center}

410:     \caption{Simulation parameters.\label{modelList}}

411:     \begin{tabular}{ccc}

412: %      \colrule\colrule

413:       model & box & resolution\\

414:       & comoving & base$^3$+ \\

415:       & $\mpc/h$ & nested+AMR \\

416:       \hline

417:       N0 & 4 & $64^3+7$ \\ % aka S1

418:       N1 & 4 & $128^3+7$ \\

419: %      N1 & 4 & $64^3+1+6$ \\

420:       \hline

421:       M0 & 8 & $64^3+7$ \\

422:       M1 & 8 & $128^3+7$ \\

423:       \hline

424:       L0 & 16 & $64^3+7$ \\

425:       L1 & 16 & $128^3+7$ \\

426: %      ga2 & 16 & $256^3+7$ & Gadget & no SF & \\

427:       \hline

428:       H0 & 32 & $64^3+7$ \\

429:       H1 & 32 & $128^3+7$ \\

430:       HN & 32 & $128^3+2+7$ \\

431: %      \colrule

432:     \end{tabular}

433: %\tablenotetext{a}{low-resolution set}

434: %\tablenotetext{b}{high-resolution set}

435: %\tablenotetext{c}{weak feedback}

436: %\tablenotetext{d}{strong feedback}

437: %\tablecomments{}

438:   \end{center}

439: \end{table}

440: 

441: To accumulate the absorption line statistics, in order to compare

442: models to observations, we need to analyze a large cosmological

443: volume, at the same time attempting to resolve clumpy gas distribution

444: in individual galaxies. To achieve the necessary dynamical range, we

445: use the grid-based AMR cosmological structure formation code Enzo,

446: running a series of models with box sizes of $4h^{-1}$, $8h^{-1}$,

447: $16h^{-1}$ and $32h^{-1}$ comoving Mpc, listed in

448: Table~\ref{modelList}. All of our models have the base grid size of

449: $128^3$, with up to seven additional levels of refinement everywhere

450: in the volume. Each level of refinement features twice the spatial and

451: 8 times the mass resolution of the previous level. In order to check

452: resolution effects, for each box size we also ran one $64^3$ base grid

453: model with up to seven levels of AMR. In addition, we ran a

454: high-resolution simulation HN of the most massive halo in the

455: $32h^{-1}\mpc$ model H1. For this model we traced the positions of all

456: dark matter (DM) particles found at $z=3$ inside the spheres of radii

457: $2h^{-1}\mpc$ and $4h^{-1}\mpc$ centered on the target halo back to

458: the initial redshift $z=99$, and regenerated the initial conditions

459: (ICs) with 2X the grid and 8X the mass resolution inside the region

460: which contributed all DM particles to the $4h^{-1}\mpc$ sphere, and

461: with 4X the grid resolution and 64X the mass resolution inside the

462: region which contributed the DM particles to the $2h^{-1}\mpc$

463: sphere. Since the base grid resolution in this run is $128^3$, the

464: effective resolution for the halo is $512^3$, with 7 additional levels

465: of AMR, resulting in the same physical ($200\pc$) and mass resolution

466: as the entire $8h^{-1}\mpc$ volume in model M1.

467: 

468: Star formation was modeled with discrete stellar particles using the

469: prescription of \citet{cen.92}, with the overdensity threshold

470: $\delta_{\rm cr}=100$, the star formation efficiency $\epsilon_{\rm

471:   sf}=0.1$, and the stellar particle mass $M_*=10^6\msun$. Whenever

472: the conditions for SF were met and there was enough gas in a cell to

473: form at least one stellar particle, this gas was converted into

474: stars. Although a stellar particle was created instantaneously, the

475: actual star formation and feedback was modeled on the local dynamical

476: timescale. At each timestep, a $\epsilon_{\rm th}=10^{-5}$ fraction of

477: the rest-mass energy of the stars produced during that time interval

478: was injected locally as thermal energy.

479: 

480: % StarMakerMinimumDynamicalTime         = 1e+07

481: % StarMassEjectionFraction              = 0.25

482: % StarMetalYield                        = 0.02

483: % StarEnergyToThermalFeedback           = 1e-05

484: % StarEnergyToStellarUV                 = 3e-06

485: % StarEnergyToQuasarUV                  = 5e-06

486: 

487: \subsection{UVB radiative transfer}

488: \label{rt}

489: 

490: Our galaxy formation models include a non-equilibrium ionization

491: network for hydrogen and helium, in the presence of a uniform

492: \citet{madau..99} UVB. The output of these simulations at $z=3$ is

493: then postprocessed iteratively with the UVB radiative transfer code

494: FTTE \citep{razoumov.05} developed for nested grids, until an

495: equilibrium position of hydrogen and helium ionization fronts is

496: found, with the angular resolution of 192 bins over the $4\pi$ sphere,

497: using the same UVB as in the hydrodynamical run. This algorithm is

498: similar to the one we used in Paper I, but with an improved treatment

499: of hydrodynamical heating. In Paper I we added a location-specific

500: hydrodynamical heating term which would keep the temperature of each

501: cell constant during the iterative radiative transfer stage by exactly

502: balancing radiative cooling, provided that the radiation field in that

503: cell stays the same as in the hydrodynamical calculation. Recently we

504: found that due to numerical instabilities this approach had a tendency

505: to overestimate the neutral fraction in the shock-heated regions of

506: very massive halos where the radiative cooling timescale is very

507: long. Now we simply do not update temperature in shock heated regions

508: with $T\gt T_{\rm cr}$, where $T_{\rm

509:   cr}=3\times10^4{\rm\,K}$. Although heating by active galactic nuclei

510: via helium photoionization could take the temperature above

511: $3\times10^4{\rm\,K}$, in practice we found that our results are not

512: sensitive to the exact choice of $T_{\rm cr}$, as long as it stays in

513: the $2\times10^4-5\times10^4{\rm\,K}$ range, since shock-heated

514: regions have fairly narrow boundaries.

515: 

516: \subsection{Spectrum generation}

517: 

518: To generate and process artificial spectra, we follow the procedure

519: outlined in Paper I, with one important modification. The principal

520: line width diagnostic used throughout this paper is the velocity

521: interval $\v90$ encompassing 90\% of the optical depth in the

522: line. This diagnostic is dominated by clouds with large optical depths

523: -- its more detailed discussion and the comparison to the equivalent

524: width can be found, e.g., in \citet{prochaska....07}. To measure

525: $\v90$, we need an unsaturated line which also has a sufficient

526: oscillator strength to stand out above the noise. In observations such

527: a line is picked by hand from a set of low ionization lines associated

528: with the absorber. In numerical models we deal with a very large

529: number of sightlines to accumulate the statistics and therefore need a

530: robust algorithm to pick up the suitable line automatically. One

531: solution is to adjust the line strength by hand, so that the optical

532: depth in the line center is always $\tau_{\rm c}\sim2-3$. Here we

533: simply compute $\v90$ prior to applying the noise to the

534: spectrum. This approach nevertheless gives us the right measurement

535: since $\v90$ is not sensitive to the choice of the specific line

536: provided that all of its components can be seen above the noise.

537: 

538: \subsection{Results from AMR models}

539: 

540: \begin{figure*}

541: %  \epsscale{1.}

542:   \epsscale{1.1}

543:   \plotone{f1.ps}

544:   \caption{HI column density frequency distribution $f(N,X)$ (top

545:     panels, see text for details) and line density $\ell_{\rm DLA}(X)$

546:     of DLAs with the Si II velocity width higher than $v_{\rm Si II}$

547:     vs. $v_{\rm Si II}$ (lower panels) for $4h^{-1}\mpc$ (red lines),

548:     $8h^{-1}\mpc$ (magenta lines), $16h^{-1}\mpc$ (green lines) and

549:     $32h^{-1}\mpc$ (blue lines) models, at $z=3$. The panels on the

550:     left are for the $64^3+7$ (i.e., 7 additional levels of

551:     refinement) models, the panels on the right are for the higher

552:     resolution $128^3+7$ models. The dashed lines are fits to the

553:     observed distributions at $z=3$ \citep{prochaska..05}.}

554:   \label{colVel-boxSize}

555: \end{figure*}

556: 

557: Figure~\ref{colVel-boxSize} provides a quick glance at our

558: results. The top panels show the HI column density frequency

559: distribution $f(N,X)$ defined such that $f(N,X)dNdX$ is the number of

560: DLAs in the intervals $[N,N+dN]$ and $[X,X+dX]$, where $N$ is the HI

561: column density, and $dX$ is the ``absorption distance'' interval

562: 

563: \begin{equation}

564: dX={H_0\over H(z)}(1+z)^2dz.

565: \end{equation}

566: 

567: \noindent

568: The bottom panels of Figure~\ref{colVel-boxSize} show the line density

569: $\ell_{\rm DLA}(X)$, i.e. the number of DLAs per unit absorption

570: distance with the velocity width higher than $\v90$, for $64^3+7$ (on

571: the left) and $128^3+7$ (on the right) models,

572: respectively. Figure~\ref{colVel-boxSize} gives the same distributions

573: as Figures 4 and 5 in Paper I, with several differences. First, our

574: latest models use consistently higher grid resolution, across the

575: wider range of volumes from $4h^{-1}$ to $32h^{-1}\mpc$. Next, we

576: calculate the neutral hydrogen fraction in shock-heated regions more

577: accurately. Finally, we account for conversion of gas into stars, as

578: well as feedback, albeit in a conservative form. Only model M1 has the

579: same grid and mass resolution as one of the runs (C2) in Paper I,

580: however, the above-mentioned changes yield slightly lower HI column

581: densities across the entire $\nhi$ range.

582: 

583: % Our best new models slightly underpredict the total DLA rate of

584: % incidence. This discrepancy might be improved in future higher

585: % resolution models which could produce more self-shielded filamentary

586: % structures or low-mass halos currently missing from our simulations.

587: 

588: % The result is plotted in the right-hand side panel of

589: % Figure~\ref{colVel-boxSize}.

590: 

591: At low column densities ($10^{20.3}-10^{20.6}\cmsq$) we find fewer

592: absorbers than observed, with the maximum discrepancy factor of

593: $\sim1.6$ at the DLA threshold. Part of this discrepancy may be

594: explained by a Malmquist bias in the observational result

595: \citep{omeara.....07}. On the other hand, our models produce

596: consistently more high-column density absorbers, missing the turn-off

597: at $\nhi\gsim10^{21.5}\cmsq$. This behaviour is not surprising as (1)

598: we do not include the formation of $\h2$ molecules on dust grains,

599: which is believed to be the major sink for neutral hydrogen atoms at

600: higher densities, and (2) we do not account for gas clumping on scales

601: below $100\pc$. Apart from the uncertainties of $\h2$ formation at

602: non-zero metallicities, putting this physics in by hand into our

603: current models is not yet practical, as we do not resolve the

604: $\sim1-10\pc$ scale of individual cold clouds in which these molecules

605: form. Note that $\nhi=10^{21}\cmsq\approx8\msun{\rm\,pc^{-2}}$ is also

606: a critical surface density threshold for the formation of the cold

607: phase \citep[e.g.,][]{schaye04}. Our limited numerical resolution in

608: effect prevents conversion of gas into the cold phase which would

609: otherwise trigger gravitational instability, i.e. further collapse of

610: densest cores leading to much smaller cross-sections. In addition,

611: once the multiphase medium develops, hydrodynamical feedback from OB

612: winds and supernovae in such a clumpy medium is likely to lead to

613: compression of HI regions into thinner shells again producing lower

614: cross-sections. Gas clumping on these small scales is expected to

615: lower the rate of incidence of clouds forming $\h2$ which probably

616: explains why the observed transition between the HI and $\h2$ column

617: density distributions at $z=0$ \citep{zwaan.06} corresponds to fewer

618: absorbers ($\log f(N,X)\sim-26$ at $\nhi=10^{22}\cmsq$ ) than what is

619: predicted in our current models ($\log f(N,X)\sim-24.5$ at

620: $\nhi=10^{22}\cmsq$).

621: 

622: We see the same trend found in Paper I that higher grid resolution

623: partially alleviates the kinematics problem producing a larger

624: fraction of $\v90\gsim70\kms$ absorbers. However, the median value of

625: $\v90$ in the resolved models N1, M1 and L1 ranges from 39 to

626: $53\kms$, well below the observed value of $90\kms$. In model H1 the

627: median $\v90$ is $64\kms$, but this model is clearly not resolved as

628: it misses a large fraction of absorbers with $\mhalo\lsim10^{11}\msun$

629: (Fig.~\ref{incidenceMass}). Similarly, going to larger computational

630: volumes at a fixed grid and mass resolution

631: (Fig.~\ref{colVel-sameRes}) accounts for progressively more massive

632: halos and in smaller boxes tends to produce a larger fraction of

633: high-velocity systems. The low median value of $\v90$ is further

634: illustrated in the HI column density vs. velocity scatter plot

635: (Fig.~\ref{scatter-colVel-boxSize}) in which we compare a quasi-random

636: sample of 135 observed DLAs to a sample of 135 systems picked randomly

637: from each model.

638: 

639: \begin{figure}

640: %  \epsscale{0.9}

641:   \epsscale{1.1}

642:   \plotone{f2.ps}

643:   \caption{Connected points show the differential line density $dN/(dX

644:     d\log\mhalo)$ of DLAs as a function of halo mass. Isolated points

645:     on the left ($\mhalo<10^{7.4}\msun$) and on the right

646:     ($\mhalo>10^{13.6}\msun$) show the cumulative line density $dN/dX$

647:     of intergalactic and halo DLAs, respectively.}

648: %   Horizontal lines at the top indicate the mass range of halos that

649: %   each of the models -- N1, M1, L1, and H1 -- contributed to in the

650: %   part of the composite model outside the nested ICs region of hn as

651: %   described in Sec.~\ref{compositeModelSection}.

652:   \label{incidenceMass}

653: \end{figure}

654: 

655: \begin{figure*}

656: %  \epsscale{1.}

657:   \epsscale{1.1}

658:   \plotone{f3.ps}

659:   \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{colVel-boxSize} except that now each

660:     panel shows two simulations of same grid and mass resolution but

661:     different volumes.}

662:   \label{colVel-sameRes}

663: \end{figure*}

664: 

665: \begin{figure}

666: %  \epsscale{0.7}

667:   \epsscale{1.1}

668:   \plotone{f4.ps}

669:   \caption{HI column density vs. velocity scatter plot for a sample of

670:     135 observed DLAs from the SDSS DLA survey \citep[][top

671:     panel]{prochaska..05} and for 135 randomly picked DLAs from models

672:     N1, M1, L1 and H1.}

673:   \label{scatter-colVel-boxSize}

674: \end{figure}

675: 

676: Let us now look at how halos of different masses contribute to the

677: overall kinematics. Figure~\ref{velMass} shows the $\v90$ velocity

678: widths for those DLA sightlines which pass through the virial radii of

679: all DM halos in each model. These DLAs do not encompass our entire

680: simulated sample, as we see a substantial fraction of

681: $\nhi\gt2\times10^{20}\cmsq$ systems in filaments or intergalactic

682: neutral clouds not associated with any particular DM halo

683: (Table~\ref{intergalacticDLAs}). This fraction varies with resolution

684: and box size but is fairly large in all models, except for the nested

685: ICs simulation of the massive halo HN in which there are very few

686: intergalactic DLAs. Most of the volume in this model is not resolved

687: to have DLA-type absorption, except for the $2\mpc$ refined

688: region. This region corresponds to a higher density peak in the

689: initial density distribution in which structures started to form

690: earlier, with less gas left over in the diffuse filamentary form,

691: which explains its very high fraction of DLAs associated with halos

692: (93\%).

693: 

694: \begin{figure}

695: %  \epsscale{0.9}

696:   \epsscale{1.1}

697:   \plotone{f5.ps}

698:   \caption{Median (large symbols) and mean (small symbols) $\v90$

699:     velocity widths for DLA sightlines which pass through virial radii

700:     of DM halos with $\mhalo>10^8\msun$, vs. $\mhalo$, in models S1

701:     (red filled circles), M1 (magenta filled circles), L1 (green

702:     filled circles), H1 (blue filled circles) and HN (blue open

703:     diamonds). Dotted lines show the full range of absorption

704:     velocities in each mass bin, separately for each model. The thick

705:     solid line is the z=3 circular velocity. Data points on the left

706:     ($\mhalo<10^{7.3}\msun$) show the velocity widths for

707:     intergalactic DLAs, i.e. absorbers not associated with any halo.}

708: %Error bars show the \emph{rms} scatter.

709:   \label{velMass}

710: \end{figure}

711: 

712: Note that at much higher numerical resolution a lot of these

713: intergalactic absorbers would accrete onto low-mass halos or form more

714: compact filamentary structures with a smaller overall cross-section,

715: so that the values given in Table~\ref{intergalacticDLAs} should

716: probably be regarded as upper limits to the average fraction of

717: intergalactic DLAs at $z=3$.

718: 

719: % We discuss the resolution effects in futher detail in

720: % Section~\ref{compositeModelSection}.

721: 

722: \begin{table}

723:   \begin{center}

724:     \caption{Fraction of intergalactic DLAs.\label{intergalacticDLAs}}

725:     \begin{tabular}{clll}

726:       box, $\mpc/h$ & low res & high res & nested\\

727:       \hline

728:       4 & 44.2\% & 57.6\% &\\

729:       8 & 49.7\% & 39.6\% &\\

730:       16 & 43.9\% & 54.8\% &\\

731:       32 & 26.0\% & 62.8\% & 7.0\%\\

732:     \end{tabular}

733:   \end{center}

734: \end{table}

735: 

736: The scatter in Figure~\ref{velMass} is quite large. Apart from the

737: resolution effects, there is a correlation between the observed median

738: $\v90$ and the circular velocity, although this dependence has a

739: flatter slope than the $v_{\rm obs}\sim0.6\vcirc$ found by

740: \citet{haehnelt..98}. Moreover, we see that this relation might break

741: at higher masses where individual halos consist of multiple

742: components, and unless these components are resolved the median of the

743: observed velocity widths can be as small as $\sim0.2\vcirc$.

744: 

745: In the top panel of Figure~\ref{tempHalo} we plotted the mass-weighted

746: gas temperature

747: 

748: \begin{figure}

749: %  \epsscale{0.6}

750:   \epsscale{1.1}

751:   \plotone{f6.ps}

752:   \caption{Mass-weighted average gas temperature (top panel), fraction

753:     of cold ($T\lt10^4{\rm\,K}$) gas (center panel), and ratio of the

754:     mass-weighted average hydrogen neutral fraction to the fraction of

755:     cold gas (lower panel) inside virial radii of all halos in a given

756:     mass bin, vs. that mass, for model S1 (red filled circles), M1

757:     (magenta filled circles), L1 (green filled circles), H1 (blue

758:     filled circles) and HN (blue open diamonds). The dotted line in

759:     the top panel shows the virial temperature at $z=3$, while the

760:     dashed line shows the fit with Eq.~\ref{tempFit}. Note the data

761:     points above this line, indicating gas heating in small halos by

762:     larger scale dynamics in the vicinity of more massive halos.}

763:   \label{tempHalo}

764: \end{figure}

765: 

766: \begin{equation}

767:   \langle T\rangle_{\rm bin}=\int T\rho dV \bigg/ \int\rho dV

768: \end{equation}

769: 

770: \noindent

771: averaged over the virial spheres of all halos in a given mass bin, as

772: a function of that mass. Only halos containing at least 100 DM

773: particles are included. It is evident that a significant fraction of

774: the gas fails to heat to the virial temperature, since its cooling is

775: fairly efficient and the infall velocities are relatively small. This

776: result was first pointed out by \citet{binney77} and more recently by

777: \citet{birnboim.03}, who showed that in one-dimensional models a

778: virial shock does not develop in halos below some redshift-dependent

779: critical mass.

780: 

781: We find that in nested grid models lower-mass halos have the mean

782: temperature well above their virial temperature (Fig.~\ref{tempHalo})

783: indicating that they are found close to the virial radii of more

784: massive halos and are being heated by the gas falling into the

785: potential wells of their massive neighbors. A fit to all halos with

786: $T\lt T_{\rm vir}$, i.e. halos not affected by this ram-pressure

787: heating, produces a relationship

788: 

789: \begin{equation}

790: \label{tempFit}

791: \log\langle T\rangle_{\rm bin}=-3.51+0.80\log\mhalo,

792: \end{equation}

793: 

794: \noindent

795: which has a steeper slope than that of the virial temperature

796: ($2/3$). This result can be also demonstrated by the mass fraction

797: $f_{\rm c}$ of gas at $T\lt10^4{\rm\,K}$ (Fig.~\ref{tempHalo}). Due to

798: shock heating this fraction decreases with increasing halo mass, but

799: in lower-mass ($10^9\lsim\mhalo\lsim10^{11}\msun$) systems most gas

800: can be actually found in the cold phase. As expected, the fraction

801: $f_{\rm c}$ traces the amount of neutral gas in halos, as can be seen

802: from the lower panel of Figure~\ref{tempHalo}, where we plotted the

803: ratio of the mass-weighted neutral fraction

804: 

805: \begin{equation}

806:   \langle x_{\rm neu}\rangle_{\rm bin}=\int{n_{\rm HI}\rho dV\over n_{\rm

807:       HI}+n_{\rm HII}} \bigg /\int\rho dV.

808: \end{equation}

809: 

810: \noindent

811: to $f_{\rm c}$. In order to explain DLA kinematics with large velocity

812: widths of low-ionization species, we need a sufficiently large cold

813: fraction $f_{\rm c}$ of gas in massive halos which have a high

814: velocity dispersion. On the other hand, it is expected that halos

815: above a certain mass scale may not contribute significantly to the

816: observed neutral gas absorption due to shock heating of their baryons

817: \citep{tinker.07}. Therefore, our goal is to determine precisely the

818: fraction of cold gas inside compact clouds and/or accretion filaments

819: which survive shock heating while falling into the massive halos. To

820: have a large velocity dispersion, we need to maximize the number of

821: such clouds intersected by any single line of sight going through the

822: halo. In our simulations as much as $\sim20\%$ of all gas in

823: $10^{12}-10^{12.5}\msun$ halos is at $T\lt10^4{\rm\,K}$

824: (Fig.~\ref{tempHalo}), however, this amount of cold material does not

825: automatically produce the observed velocity dispersion.

826: 

827: % \subsection{Resolution effects}\label{compositeModelSection}

828: 

829: \begin{figure*}

830: %  \epsscale{0.9}

831:   \epsscale{1.}

832:   \plotone{f7.eps}

833:   \caption{Mass-weighted temperature projection (top panels, in K) and

834:     HI column density (lower panels, in $\cmsq$) for the most massive

835:     halo ($8\times10^{12}\msun$) in models H1 (refined to the same

836:     $l_{\rm max}=7$ everywhere in the volume; left panels) and HN (the

837:     halo at the center was resimulated at 4X the highest grid and 64X

838:     the highest mass resolution of H1; right panels). Each panel is

839:     $4h^{-1}\mpc$ (comoving) on a side and $4h^{-1}\mpc$ thick.}

840:   \label{h1-nh-zoom}

841: \end{figure*}

842: 

843: One can argue that the spatial distribution of neutral clouds inside

844: collapsed halos is equally important for probing the velocity

845: space. Could improved numerical resolution change this distribution?

846: Without running higher resolution models of isolated galaxies and

847: understanding the physics of feedback on the scale of typical neutral

848: structures in the ISM of absorber galaxies, it is very difficult to

849: extrapolate our results to higher resolution. Even in our current

850: models resolution effects show up in several different ways. First of

851: all, in more massive ($\gsim10^{11}\msun$) halos high mass resolution

852: assists early collapse onto a larger number of low-mass DM clumps, as

853: opposed to slower accretion via filamentary flows onto more massive

854: and more centrally concentrated DM halos at somewhat lower redshifts

855: (Fig.~\ref{h1-nh-zoom}). Higher grid resolution leads to more

856: efficient cooling and in general more compact shock heated regions,

857: resulting in a higher survival probability of neutral clouds falling

858: on massive virialized halos. The combined effect of higher mass and

859: grid resolution in massive environments is the increased line-of-sight

860: velocity dispersion in a larger number of compact ($\lsim10\kpc$)

861: neutral gas clouds, as several of these clouds can be normally

862: intersected by a line of sight going through such a halo. The

863: resulting spectra feature multiple components and the combined

864: velocity widths of up to $300\kms$ (Fig.~\ref{oneHaloVelocity}), with

865: a median $\v90$ value close to $90\kms$ (Fig.~\ref{velMass}).

866: 

867: \begin{figure}

868: %  \epsscale{0.6}

869:   \epsscale{1.}

870:   \plotone{f8.ps}

871:   \caption{Distribution of velocity widths along random sightlines

872:     crossing the most massive halo ($8\times10^{12}\msun$) in

873:     $32h^{-1}\mpc$ models, at three different resolutions.}

874:   \label{oneHaloVelocity}

875: \end{figure}

876: 

877: On the other hand, in lower-mass environments, such as isolated

878: $\lsim10^{10}\msun$ halos and filaments, higher numerical resolution

879: yields a more numerous halo population, and consequently, many more

880: neutral clouds. These clouds are sufficiently isolated so that very

881: few of them fall on the same line of sight, and the velocity

882: dispersion in individual clouds is too small to contribute to the

883: large observed velocity tail, independently of resolution. However,

884: these lower-mass environments supply the majority of low $\v90$

885: absorbers and are an important contributor to the overall column

886: density distribution.

887: 

888: % \begin{figure*}

889: %   \epsscale{1.}

890: % %  \epsscale{1.1}

891: %   \plotone{f8.eps}

892: %   \caption{Mass-weighted temperature projections from runs H1, L1, HN,

893: %     N1, M1 (clockwise, from top left corner). All images are to drawn

894: %     to scale, with the largest box $32h^{-1}\mpc$ and the smallest one

895: %     $4h^{-1}\mpc$ on a side. The refined region in

896: %     Fig.~\ref{h1-nh-zoom} is the massive halo in the lower right

897: %     quadrants of the two $32h^{-1}\mpc$ models. In model HN this halo

898: %     is resolved at the same high mass and grid resolution as the

899: %     entire M1 model.}

900: %   \label{allToScale-small-temp}

901: % \end{figure*}

902: 

903: % Figure~\ref{allToScale-small-temp} displays the mass-weighted

904: % temperature projections from the higher resolution models N1 through

905: % H1, as well as HN, all on the same scale.

906: 

907: % In numerical galaxy formation models one has to always compromise

908: % between the sampling volume and resolution.

909: 

910: Ideally, to combine the benefits of models of different volumes and

911: resolutions, one would like to convolve the incidence rates in

912: Figure~\ref{incidenceMass} with the velocity distributions from

913: Figure~\ref{velMass}, using the best resolved halos in each mass bin

914: in both distributions and adding intergalactic DLAs. Note that our

915: $4-8\mpc$ models represent fairly small volumes and are therefore

916: subject to the large cosmic variance. Unfortunately, these small

917: volumes are also the most expensive to compute, as they start to

918: resolve the ISM, and the fraction of the volume which is refined

919: adaptively rises steeply.

920: 

921: % {\it Here we attempt to build a composite DLA population using the

922: %   highest resolution data from all our simulations. The simplest way

923: %   to build such a model is to convolve *** However, the velocity

924: %   dispersion in Figure~\ref{velMass} depends not only on the host

925: %   halo mass and numerical resolution, but also on the galactic

926: %   environment, the distribution of line-of-sight impact parameters,

927: %   galaxy morphology and gas supply to build various galactic

928: %   pieces. For example, the higher median velocities for the nested

929: %   ICs run HN at $\mhalo>10^{11}\msun$, compared to H1, can be

930: %   partially attributed to a more massive environment within the

931: %   refined region of HN, compared to the volume-averaged sample in

932: %   H1.}

933: 

934: % \begin{table*}

935: %   \begin{center}

936: %     \caption{Building the composite model.\label{compositeModelTable}}

937: %     \begin{tabular}{lcr}

938: %       model & contribution & weight\\

939: %       \hline

940: %       HN & all halos inside the refined patch & 1\\

941: %       H1 & $\mhalo\gt10^{12.2}\msun$ outside the refined patch & 1\\

942: %       L1 & $10^{11}\lt\mhalo\le10^{12.2}\msun$ from entire volume & 1.981\\

943: %       M1 & $10^{9.5}\lt\mhalo\le10^{11}\msun$ from entire volume & 3.961\\

944: %       N1 & $\mhalo\le10^{9.5}\msun$ from entire volume & 7.923\\

945: %       L1 & all intergalactic DLAs & 2\\

946: %     \end{tabular}

947: %   \end{center}

948: % \end{table*}

949: 

950: % {\it Therefore, we also attempt to use information about the spatial

951: % distribution of absorbers, adopting the following algorithm. We start

952: % by copying all DLAs produced by halos in the refined region of model

953: % HN, i.e. inside the $4h^{-1}$ comoving Mpc sphere centered on the most

954: % massive halo, into an empty $32h^{-1}\mpc$ box preserving their

955: % spatial positions. Outside this $4h^{-1}\mpc$ sphere we populate the

956: % volume with halo DLAs from models H1, L1, M1 and N1, if their host

957: % halo's mass falls into the range specified for each model in

958: % Table~\ref{compositeModelTable}. Model H1 contains the same physical

959: % volume as HN, therefore, we can simply copy all $\gt10^{12.2}\msun$ H1

960: % halo DLAs outside the refined patch into their respective positions in

961: % the composite model. On the other hand, models L1, M1 and N1 have

962: % smaller volumes and contain different cosmic realizations, so we can

963: % use their entire volumes to build the statistics of absorption from

964: % $\le10^{12.2}\msun$ halos. Note that we need to correct for the

965: % shorter line of sight in these smaller volumes. E.g., the length of a

966: % random sightline inside a $32\mpc$ volume with a $4\mpc$ sphere cut

967: % out in the location of the refined patch is $1.981$ times longer than

968: % the length of an average sightline inside the full $16\mpc$ volume of

969: % L1. Therefore, for analysis we use the statistical weight $1.981$ for

970: % all halo DLAs contributed by model L1. Similar algorithm is applied to

971: % halos from models M1 and N1. Figure~\ref{incidenceMass} illustrates

972: % contribution of each model to the composite population. Finally, we

973: % add all intergalactic DLAs from model L1 with the statistical weight

974: % 2, assuming that the same fraction of gas would stay in the

975: % ``diffuse'' filamentary form in the composite model.}

976: 

977: % The second most massive halo in run H1 has the mass

978: % $5.0\times10^{12}\msun$, well above the most massive halo

979: % $2.6\times10^{12}\msun$ in the L1 volume. Similar to the procedure

980: % outlined above, we can replace all absorbers within the

981: % $4h^{-1}\mpc$ radius of the second most massive halo in H1 with

982: % halos from the refined patch in HN, which should give us an upper

983: % limit on the velocity dispersion. The result is very similar to the

984: % composite model, suggesting that we already fully sample the high

985: % tail of the velocity dispersion.

986: 

987: \section{SPH models with efficient feedback}

988: \label{sphModels}

989: 

990: We now turn to high-resolution galaxy formation models computed with

991: the TreeSPH code \citep{sommer-larsen..03} which, unlike Enzo, uses

992: particle representation of the fluid. SF is similarly modeled with a

993: set of discrete star particles which represent a population of stars

994: born at the same time. Two distinct modes of SF depending on the

995: thermal history of the star-forming gas are used: (1) early and very

996: efficient ($\epsilon_{\rm sf}=1$) SF from gas which has always been

997: cooler than $T_{\rm cr}=3\times10^4{\rm\,K}$ and is found above a

998: critical density $n_{\rm H,cr}=0.3{\rm\,cm^{-3}}$, and (2) a late mode

999: with much lower efficiency ($\epsilon_{\rm sf}=5\times10^{-3}$) fueled

1000: by gas which has been heated to temperatures above $T_{\rm cr}$ and

1001: has subsequently cooled down to be found in clouds with density above

1002: $n_{\rm H,cr}=0.01{\rm\,cm^{-3}}$.

1003: 

1004: For our purposes the most important difference between the two codes

1005: lies in implementation of feedback. In Enzo feedback energy is

1006: injected into the thermal energy of the ISM which is then allowed to

1007: be radiated away on a cooling timescale resulting in a very

1008: conservative realization of feedback. In the TreeSPH code feedback is

1009: modeled in accordance with a given initial mass function (IMF),

1010: however, cooling is suppressed in the feedback regions for the

1011: duration of the starburst, resulting in a much more efficient

1012: expansion of the heated gas into the surrounding medium. This latter

1013: approach has been shown to preserve a larger fraction of angular

1014: momentum in the baryonic component as it settles into rotationally

1015: supported disks, and to lead to more realistic disks at $z=0$

1016: \citep{sommer-larsen..03}. Can these state-of-the-art models reproduce

1017: the observed DLA kinematics at $z=3$?

1018: 

1019: To address this question, we selected three halos from a dark

1020: matter-only run of box length $10h^{-1}\mpc$ which was then

1021: resimulated with the TreeSPH code at higher resolution in Lagrangian

1022: regions enclosing the galaxies, with gas (and star) particle masses of

1023: $1.1\times10^6\msun$. Two of these halos (15 and 18) would form

1024: massive galaxies at $z=0$, and the third one (Scl54) would form a

1025: cluster. At $z=2.95$ their virial masses are $4.2\times10^{11}\msun$,

1026: $3.0\times10^{11}\msun$ and $1.6\times10^{13}\msun$, respectively. In

1027: the latter proto-cluster run SF and feedback is modeled with a set of

1028: discrete star particles assuming a Salpeter IMF. One of the

1029: proto-galaxies (AY18) was modeled with a top-heavy Arimoto-Yoshii IMF,

1030: and the other proto-galaxy was rerun twice, once with the Salpeter

1031: (S15) and once with the Arimoto-Yoshii (AY15) IMFs, respectively. We

1032: then took these halos at $z=2.95$ and projected them onto a hierarchy

1033: of nested grids with interpolated grid resolution of $45\pc$ for the

1034: two proto-galaxies and $150\pc$ for the proto-cluster. We

1035: postprocessed these datasets with the UVB radiative transfer using the

1036: same algorithm as for our grid-based simulations (Sec.~\ref{rt}), and

1037: with transfer of stellar ionizing photons using the adaptive ray

1038: splitting method described in \citet{razoumov.06}. The stellar UV

1039: luminosity is determined using the population synthesis package

1040: Starburst 1999 \citep{leitherer........99} with continuous SF

1041: distributed among all stars younger than $34\Myrs$.

1042: 

1043: \begin{figure}

1044: %  \epsscale{0.7}

1045:   \epsscale{1.1}

1046:   \plotone{f9.ps}

1047:   \caption{HI column density frequency distribution $f(N,X)$ (top

1048:     panels) and line density $\ell_{\rm DLA}(X)$ of DLAs with the Si

1049:     II velocity width higher than $v_{\rm Si II}$ vs. $v_{\rm Si II}$

1050:     (lower panels) for the two Salpeter (S15 and Scl54) and two

1051:     Arimoto-Yoshii (AY15 and AY18) models computed with the TreeSPH

1052:     code.}

1053:   \label{colVel-jesper-2.95}

1054: \end{figure}

1055: 

1056: Figure~\ref{colVel-jesper-2.95} shows the differential HI column

1057: density and cumulative $\v90$ velocity width distributions for the

1058: four models. These distributions were computed with the random

1059: sightlines passing through the resimulated volumes which have the

1060: average densities in excess of the mean density of the Universe at

1061: $z=2.95$. Therefore we should expect more absorption than from a truly

1062: representative large cosmological volume, which is evident in the

1063: upper plot of Fig.~\ref{colVel-jesper-2.95}. However, since these

1064: volumes contain massive environments, they should exhibit a higher

1065: neutral gas velocity dispersion than a larger cosmological volume. The

1066: median $\v90$ velocity width for models S15, AY15, AY18, and Scl54 is

1067: 32, 34, 31, and $31\kms$, respectively. This is a surprising result,

1068: as with suppression of cooling in the feedback regions one would

1069: expect to see a more efficient conversion of feedback energy into

1070: hydrodynamical expansion and, therefore, higher outflow velocities. In

1071: fact, we see that increasing the strength of feedback has some effect

1072: on velocities. AY15 is the same proto-galaxy as S15, resimulated with

1073: the top-heavy Arimoto-Yoshii IMF with stronger

1074: feedback. Figure~\ref{colVel-jesper-2.95} shows that more energetic

1075: feedback removes gas from higher column densities and produces a

1076: larger fraction of high-velocity DLAs, although the median $\v90$

1077: changes only slightly from 32 to $34\kms$.

1078: 

1079: Note that our kinematics results are independent of the assumed

1080: UVB. Changing the amplitude and hardness of the UVB does not alleviate

1081: the lack of high-velocity systems, as it affects primarily lower

1082: column density absorbers, and since there is effectively no

1083: correlation between the velocity widths and column densities (lower

1084: panel of Fig.~\ref{scatter-colVel-boxSize}), changing the UVB just

1085: adds or removes both low- and high-velocity DLAs from the simulated

1086: sample.

1087: 

1088: \section{Discussion}

1089: 

1090: We have performed a numerical study of DLA kinematics using

1091: high-resolution grid-based AMR simulations with moderate feedback, as

1092: well as particle-based SPH models with much more efficient

1093: feedback. With grid-based models our goal was to test the hypothesis

1094: that the observed velocity dispersion in DLAs could be explained by

1095: energy coming from gravitational collapse of cosmic structures. The

1096: broadest line profiles would then come from neutral clouds surviving

1097: infall into the massive virialized ($\gsim10^{11}\msun$) systems, as a

1098: $10^{11}\msun$ halo at $z=3$ has a circular velocity already in excess

1099: of $100\kms$. We used a series of models with a comoving volume size

1100: ranging from $4h^{-1}$ to $32h^{-1}\mpc$ and the maximum physical

1101: resolution of $100\pc$ to build a DLA population covering halos in the

1102: mass range $10^{8.5}-10^{13}\msun$. Although our models can reproduce

1103: well the total incidence rate of DLAs at $z=3$, our median $\v90$

1104: velocities are of order $40-50\kms$, well below the observed value of

1105: $90\kms$. We can point out three possibilities to resolve this

1106: discrepancy:

1107: 

1108: 1. {\it More massive environments --} The velocity dispersion in

1109: individual clouds is a strong function of mass. Therefore, one could

1110: expect that including more massive halos through sampling of the rare

1111: density peaks could alleviate the velocity problem. On the other hand,

1112: all our 4-16 Mpc high resolution models feature similar velocity tails

1113: (Fig.~\ref{colVel-boxSize}) even though the mass function in the

1114: $16\mpc$ model L1 extends to nearly 50 times more massive halos than

1115: in the $4\mpc$ model N1. Therefore it seems unlikely that the more

1116: massive ($\mhalo\gt8\times10^{12}\msun$) and consequently much rarer

1117: halos could make any substantial contribution to the overall

1118: statistics, even though each individual halo could have a velocity

1119: dispersion of several hundred $\kms$.

1120: 

1121: Note that including only massive halos in larger simulation volumes

1122: might produce $f(N,X)$ at low $\nhi$ which is too small

1123: \citep{jedamzik.98} or too large, depending on the technique. In our

1124: simulations neglecting low-mass halos can actually raise $f(N,X)$ at

1125: low column densities, as all the gas which would otherwise be pulled

1126: in by low-mass halos stays in extended filaments which sometimes can

1127: produce column densities $\nhi\gt10^{20.3}\cmsq$. On the other hand,

1128: our larger $32\mpc$ models H0 and H1 do not have enough grid

1129: resolution to resolve these filaments, and hence produce small line

1130: densities $\ell_{\rm DLA}(X)$.

1131: 

1132: 2. {\it Resolution --} Our current simulations are already very

1133: expensive computationally as we refine adaptively everywhere in the

1134: volume, and the $128^3$ base grid models have in practice $300^3$ to

1135: $400^3$ resolution elements. If we start from $256^3$ or a larger base

1136: grid, many more halos will form drawing in a larger fraction of

1137: baryons at earlier redshifts, whereas inside individual galaxies we

1138: will start resolving clumpy interstellar gas. However, without running

1139: these simulations and sampling a large number of galaxies at higher

1140: resolution, it is impossible to predict reliably the effect on the

1141: velocity and column density distributions. In addition, higher

1142: resolution would allow us to better model propagation of

1143: supernova-driven winds in the clumpy interstellar gas.

1144: 

1145: The key question is the relative contribution of lower mass

1146: ($\lsim10^{10.5}\msun$) and more massive ($\gsim10^{10.5}\msun$)

1147: halos. In our current models these two populations contribute about

1148: equally to the total ``galactic'' DLA column density

1149: (Fig.~\ref{incidenceMass}). It is possible that at higher resolution

1150: the relative contribution of the more massive halos might grow, as

1151: they will feature more numerous spatially separated components falling

1152: on the same line of sight, perhaps with neutral gas tidal tails and

1153: bridges, whereas isolated lower mass galaxies could become even more

1154: compact and pull the remaining cold neutral gas from extended

1155: filamentary structures decreasing its covering factor on the sky.

1156: 

1157: Unfortunately, the spatial distribution of absorbing clouds cannot be

1158: reconstructed from the observed line profiles in the velocity space,

1159: which would otherwise point to the minimum scale needed to resolve

1160: muli-component DLAs. \citet{lopez...02} studied an almost dust free

1161: DLA at $z=2.33$ featuring 14 resolved metal line components. They

1162: found very similar Z/Fe ratios of low-ionization species in all 14

1163: components, suggesting that these components could originate in clouds

1164: physically located in a small region of space, perhaps much smaller

1165: than the resolution limit of our current simulations.

1166: 

1167: 3. {\it Local microphysics --} The most intriguing possibility is that

1168: the observed velocity dispersion could arise as a result of feedback

1169: from SF. More efficient feedback could disrupt the highest column

1170: density absorbers ($\nhi\gsim10^{21.5}\cmsq$) in the lower panel of

1171: Fig.~\ref{scatter-colVel-boxSize} creating a population of low

1172: $\nhi$ systems with high velocity widths. With such a disruption

1173: mechanism put in by hand with the galactic wind model,

1174: \citet{nagamine...07} saw efficient gas removal from lower-mass

1175: ($\lsim10^{10}\msun$) halos and increased cross-sections in

1176: $\gsim10^{11}\msun$ halos. In view of our results, a model in which

1177: more efficient feedback is obtained without resorting to the

1178: unphysical assumptions of kinematic winds and/or suppressing cooling

1179: in feedback regions would seem particularly compelling. The key

1180: challenge here is to come up with a model which describes dynamics of

1181: individual components of the multiphase ISM separately from each

1182: other, either resolving them explicitly, or using a subresolution

1183: model in which different components are advected differently on a

1184: grid. In these models supernova winds would channel most of their

1185: energy into the lower density regions between the star-forming clouds,

1186: whereas the clouds would be more likely to survive the disruptive

1187: effect of the winds.

1188: 

1189: 

1190: 

1191: 

1192: 

1193: In Section~\ref{sphModels} we used TreeSPH models to test the effect

1194: that the suppression of cooling has on neutral gas kinematics. We

1195: found the median velocity widths $\v90$ of only 31 to $34\kms$, even

1196: though that these models have been shown to expel gas efficiently from

1197: the star-forming regions at high redshifts and produce realistic

1198: galactic disks at $z=0$. In our view, such low velocity dispersion

1199: could be explained by a number of factors.

1200: 

1201: A. {\it Resolution --} When numerical models do not resolve density

1202: inhomogeneities in the ISM, putting a certain amount of supernova

1203: feedback into the thermal energy of the gas and turning off cooling

1204: leads to an efficient conversion of this energy into the superwind

1205: expansion into a nearly uniform medium. However, the mass loading of

1206: the wind in a uniform medium is much larger than in a clumpy medium of

1207: the same average density, since in the latter case the wind will

1208: predominantly expand into the lower density voids between the clumps

1209: creating a high velocity outflow which will occasionally sweep chunks

1210: of neutral material off the edges of denser clouds. Clumps of gas

1211: entrained in winds are often observed in low-redshift outflows

1212: \citet{rupke..05}. On the other hand, at low resolution winds will

1213: displace most gas in the galaxy moving it to somewhat higher galactic

1214: radii, producing ``puffy'' galaxies with a relatively low velocity

1215: dispersion. This is exactly what we see in SPH simulations at $45\pc$

1216: physical resolution. The expectation is that at higher resolution we

1217: should see multiphase outflows, with higher overall velocities in hot

1218: ionized gas, and numerous dense clouds giving rise to multi-component

1219: low-ionization absorption lines. Getting such galactic winds from

1220: first principles is notoriously difficult in numerical simulations. In

1221: this paper, we argue that the necessary condition for obtaining the

1222: correct DLA velocity dispersion is a separate dynamical treatment of

1223: different components of the multiphase interstellar medium at $z=3$.

1224: 

1225: In addition to the resolution effects, two other factors could have

1226: affected our SPH results. Here we just mention these effects briefly,

1227: as clearly their study goes beyond the reach of this paper.

1228: 

1229: B. {\it Mean redshift of feedback --} A realistic population of

1230: galaxies at $z=0$ can be obtained in cosmological simulations invoking

1231: early ($z\gsim 4-6$) episodes of star formation with energetic

1232: feedback \citep{sommer-larsen..03}. In this scenario, the radial

1233: distribution of gas and its angular momentum arise as a cumulative

1234: result of successive episodes of star formation driving gas out of the

1235: galaxies. Other model parameters might result in similar star

1236: formation histories; not all parameters can be constrained uniquely

1237: from observations. One could speculate that a different star formation

1238: history, e.g. one featuring energetic feedback down to redshift

1239: $z\sim3$, would produce a higher neutral hydrogen velocity dispersion

1240: at such a redshift. We note that from the spectra of $z\sim3-4$ LBGs,

1241: outflow velocities of $300-400 \kms$ are routinely inferred

1242: \citep[e.g.,][]{pettini.......01, shapley...03}. Note, however, also

1243: that \citet{laursen.07} were able to match both the magnitude and

1244: radial fall-off of Ly$\alpha$ surface brightness of typical $z\sim3$

1245: galaxies, indicating that the spatial distribution of neutral hydrogen

1246: is correctly predicted by current SPH models.

1247: 

1248: C. {\it AGN feedback --} It is possible that the core of each massive

1249: galaxy hosts a supermassive black hole which might have shown an

1250: AGN-type activity at some time in the past. Neither grid-based nor

1251: particle-based simulations presented in this paper include feedback

1252: from AGNs which could have a profound impact on gas kinematics in host

1253: galaxies.

1254: 

1255: Feedback from star formation is generally thought to play an important

1256: role in galaxy evolution. If galactic winds give rise to the observed

1257: neutral gas kinematics in DLAs, the same winds should affect the

1258: column density distribution. In Paper I and in this paper, we have

1259: attempted to look at both distributions through large-scale,

1260: ``blind-survey'' models, in which we simulate cosmological volumes

1261: using aggressive grid refinement for all galaxies. However, these

1262: models are very expensive to compute, especially as we get closer to

1263: resolving the typical scales of the ISM. Perhaps, a more efficient

1264: approach is to combine these large-scale numerical surveys with

1265: simulations of the ISM in isolated galaxies, whether or not accounting

1266: for mergers and cosmic infall. Fortunately, there is sufficient amount

1267: of observational data which can be used to constrain these

1268: models. Combining traditional QSO-DLA data with a closer look at the

1269: high-redshift star-forming regions with GRB-DLAs and with emission

1270: line studies should allow us to learn a lot more about young

1271: proto-galaxies in coming years.

1272: 

1273: \acknowledgments

1274: 

1275: The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for his/her careful

1276: reviewing and constructive comments. The AMR simulations were

1277: performed at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC). The TreeSPH

1278: simulations were performed on the SGI Itanium II facility provided by

1279: the Danish Center for Scientific Computing (DCSC). This research was

1280: supported by the DFG cluster of excellence ``Origin and Structure of

1281: the Universe''. The Dark Cosmology Centre is funded by the DNRF.

1282: 

1283: \bibliographystyle{apj}

1284: 

1285: % \bibliography{apj-jour,ref}

1286: 

1287: \begin{thebibliography}{37}

1288: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1289: 

1290: \bibitem[{{Binney}(1977)}]{binney77}

1291: {Binney}, J. 1977, \apj, 215, 483

1292: 

1293: \bibitem[{{Birnboim} \& {Dekel}(2003)}]{birnboim.03}

1294: {Birnboim}, Y. \& {Dekel}, A. 2003, \mnras, 345, 349

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[{{Bouch{\'e}} {et~al.}(2006){Bouch{\'e}}, {Murphy}, {P{\'e}roux},

1297:   {Csabai}, \& {Wild}}]{bouche....06}

1298: {Bouch{\'e}}, N., {Murphy}, M.~T., {P{\'e}roux}, C., {Csabai}, I., \& {Wild},

1299:   V. 2006, \mnras, 371, 495

1300: 

1301: \bibitem[{{Cen} \& {Ostriker}(1992)}]{cen.92}

1302: {Cen}, R. \& {Ostriker}, J. 1992, \apj, 393, 22

1303: 

1304: \bibitem[{{Dekel} \& {Birnboim}(2006)}]{dekel.06}

1305: {Dekel}, A. \& {Birnboim}, Y. 2006, \mnras, 368, 2

1306: 

1307: \bibitem[{{Dekel} \& {Woo}(2003)}]{dekel.03}

1308: {Dekel}, A. \& {Woo}, J. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1131

1309: 

1310: \bibitem[{{Haehnelt} {et~al.}(1998){Haehnelt}, {Steinmetz}, \&

1311:   {Rauch}}]{haehnelt..98}

1312: {Haehnelt}, M.~G., {Steinmetz}, M., \& {Rauch}, M. 1998, ApJ, 495, 647

1313: 

1314: \bibitem[{{Jedamzik} \& {Prochaska}(1998)}]{jedamzik.98}

1315: {Jedamzik}, K. \& {Prochaska}, J.~X. 1998, \mnras, 296

1316: 

1317: \bibitem[{{Laursen} \& {Sommer-Larsen}(2007)}]{laursen.07}

1318: {Laursen}, P. \& {Sommer-Larsen}, J. 2007, \apjl, 657, L69

1319: 

1320: \bibitem[{{Ledoux} {et~al.}(2006){Ledoux}, {Petitjean}, {Fynbo}, {M{\o}ller},

1321:   \& {Srianand}}]{ledoux....06}

1322: {Ledoux}, C., {Petitjean}, P., {Fynbo}, J.~P.~U., {M{\o}ller}, P., \&

1323:   {Srianand}, R. 2006, \aap, 457, 71

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[{{Leitherer} {et~al.}(1999){Leitherer}, {Schaerer}, {Goldader},

1326:   {Delgado}, {Robert}, {Kune}, {de Mello}, {Devost}, \&

1327:   {Heckman}}]{leitherer........99}

1328: {Leitherer}, C., {Schaerer}, D., {Goldader}, J.~D., {Delgado}, R.~M.~G.,

1329:   {Robert}, C., {Kune}, D.~F., {de Mello}, D.~F., {Devost}, D., \& {Heckman},

1330:   T.~M. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3

1331: 

1332: \bibitem[{{Lopez} {et~al.}(2002){Lopez}, {Reimers}, {D'Odorico}, \&

1333:   {Prochaska}}]{lopez...02}

1334: {Lopez}, S., {Reimers}, D., {D'Odorico}, S., \& {Prochaska}, J.~X. 2002, \aap,

1335:   385, 778

1336: 

1337: \bibitem[{{Madau} {et~al.}(1999){Madau}, {Haardt}, \& {Rees}}]{madau..99}

1338: {Madau}, P., {Haardt}, F., \& {Rees}, M.~J. 1999, ApJ, 514, 648

1339: 

1340: \bibitem[{{Maller} {et~al.}(2001){Maller}, {Prochaska}, {Somerville}, \&

1341:   {Primack}}]{maller...01}

1342: {Maller}, A.~H., {Prochaska}, J.~X., {Somerville}, R.~S., \& {Primack}, J.~R.

1343:   2001, \mnras, 326, 1475

1344: 

1345: \bibitem[{{McDonald} \& {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}(1999)}]{mcdonald.99}

1346: {McDonald}, P. \& {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, J. 1999, \apj, 519, 486

1347: 

1348: \bibitem[{{Murphy} {et~al.}(2007){Murphy}, {Curran}, {Webb}, {Menager}, \&

1349:   {Zych}}]{murphy....07}

1350: {Murphy}, M.~T., {Curran}, S.~J., {Webb}, J.~K., {Menager}, H., \& {Zych},

1351:   B.~J. 2007, astro-ph/0701028

1352: 

1353: \bibitem[{{Nagamine} {et~al.}(2007){Nagamine}, {Wolfe}, {Hernquist}, \&

1354:   {Springel}}]{nagamine...07}

1355: {Nagamine}, K., {Wolfe}, A.~M., {Hernquist}, L., \& {Springel}, V. 2007, \apj,

1356:   660, 945

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[{{Nulsen} {et~al.}(1998){Nulsen}, {Barcons}, \& {Fabian}}]{nulsen..98}

1359: {Nulsen}, P.~E.~J., {Barcons}, X., \& {Fabian}, A.~C. 1998, \mnras, 301, 168

1360: 

1361: \bibitem[{{O'Meara} {et~al.}(2007){O'Meara}, {Prochaska}, {Burles}, {Prochter},

1362:   {Bernstein}, \& {Burgess}}]{omeara.....07}

1363: {O'Meara}, J.~M., {Prochaska}, J.~X., {Burles}, S., {Prochter}, G.,

1364:   {Bernstein}, R.~A., \& {Burgess}, K.~M. 2007, \apj, 656, 666

1365: 

1366: \bibitem[{{Pettini} {et~al.}(2001){Pettini}, {Shapley}, {Steidel}, {Cuby},

1367:   {Dickinson}, {Moorwood}, {Adelberger}, \& {Giavalisco}}]{pettini.......01}

1368: {Pettini}, M., {Shapley}, A.~E., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Cuby}, J.-G., {Dickinson},

1369:   M., {Moorwood}, A.~F.~M., {Adelberger}, K.~L., \& {Giavalisco}, M. 2001,

1370:   \apj, 554, 981

1371: 

1372: \bibitem[{{Prochaska} {et~al.}(2007){Prochaska}, {Chen}, {Wolfe},

1373:   {Dessauges-Zavadsky}, \& {Bloom}}]{prochaska....07}

1374: {Prochaska}, J.~X., {Chen}, H.-W., {Wolfe}, A.~M., {Dessauges-Zavadsky}, M., \&

1375:   {Bloom}, J.~S. 2007, astro-ph/0703701

1376: 

1377: \bibitem[{{Prochaska} {et~al.}(2003){Prochaska}, {Gawiser}, {Wolfe}, {Castro},

1378:   \& {Djorgovski}}]{prochaska....03}

1379: {Prochaska}, J.~X., {Gawiser}, E., {Wolfe}, A.~M., {Castro}, S., \&

1380:   {Djorgovski}, S.~G. 2003, \apjl, 595, L9

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[{{Prochaska} {et~al.}(2005){Prochaska}, {Herbert-Fort}, \&

1383:   {Wolfe}}]{prochaska..05}

1384: {Prochaska}, J.~X., {Herbert-Fort}, S., \& {Wolfe}, A.~M. 2005, \apj, 635, 123

1385: 

1386: \bibitem[{{Prochaska} \& {Wolfe}(1997)}]{prochaska.97}

1387: {Prochaska}, J.~X. \& {Wolfe}, A.~M. 1997, \apj, 487, 73

1388: 

1389: \bibitem[{{Razoumov} \& {Cardall}(2005)}]{razoumov.05}

1390: {Razoumov}, A.~O. \& {Cardall}, C.~Y. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 1413

1391: 

1392: \bibitem[{{Razoumov} {et~al.}(2006){Razoumov}, {Norman}, {Prochaska}, \&

1393:   {Wolfe}}]{razoumov...06}

1394: {Razoumov}, A.~O., {Norman}, M.~L., {Prochaska}, J.~X., \& {Wolfe}, A.~M. 2006,

1395:   \apj, 645, 55

1396: 

1397: \bibitem[{{Razoumov} \& {Sommer-Larsen}(2006)}]{razoumov.06}

1398: {Razoumov}, A.~O. \& {Sommer-Larsen}, J. 2006, \apjl, 651, L89

1399: 

1400: \bibitem[{{Rupke} {et~al.}(2005){Rupke}, {Veilleux}, \& {Sanders}}]{rupke..05}

1401: {Rupke}, D.~S., {Veilleux}, S., \& {Sanders}, D.~B. 2005, \apjs, 160, 115

1402: 

1403: \bibitem[{{Schaye}(2004)}]{schaye04}

1404: {Schaye}, J. 2004, \apj, 609, 667

1405: 

1406: \bibitem[{{Shapley} {et~al.}(2003){Shapley}, {Steidel}, {Pettini}, \&

1407:   {Adelberger}}]{shapley...03}

1408: {Shapley}, A.~E., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Pettini}, M., \& {Adelberger}, K.~L. 2003,

1409:   \apj, 588, 65

1410: 

1411: \bibitem[{{Sommer-Larsen} {et~al.}(2003){Sommer-Larsen}, {G{\"o}tz}, \&

1412:   {Portinari}}]{sommer-larsen..03}

1413: {Sommer-Larsen}, J., {G{\"o}tz}, M., \& {Portinari}, L. 2003, ApJ, 596, 47

1414: 

1415: \bibitem[{{Springel} \& {Hernquist}(2003)}]{springel.03a}

1416: {Springel}, V. \& {Hernquist}, L. 2003, \mnras, 339, 289

1417: 

1418: \bibitem[{{Stinson} {et~al.}(2006){Stinson}, {Seth}, {Katz}, {Wadsley},

1419:   {Governato}, \& {Quinn}}]{stinson.....06}

1420: {Stinson}, G., {Seth}, A., {Katz}, N., {Wadsley}, J., {Governato}, F., \&

1421:   {Quinn}, T. 2006, \mnras, 373, 1074

1422: 

1423: \bibitem[{{Thacker} \& {Couchman}(2000)}]{thacker.00}

1424: {Thacker}, R.~J. \& {Couchman}, H.~M.~P. 2000, \apj, 545, 728

1425: 

1426: \bibitem[{{Tinker} \& {Chen}(2007)}]{tinker.07}

1427: {Tinker}, J.~L. \& {Chen}, H.-W. 2007, astro-ph/0709.1470

1428: 

1429: \bibitem[{{Wolfe} \& {Chen}(2006)}]{wolfe.06}

1430: {Wolfe}, A.~M. \& {Chen}, H.-W. 2006, \apj, 652, 981

1431: 

1432: \bibitem[{{Wolfe} \& {Prochaska}(1998)}]{wolfe.98}

1433: {Wolfe}, A.~M. \& {Prochaska}, J.~X. 1998, \apjl, 494, L15

1434: 

1435: \bibitem[{{Zwaan} \& {Prochaska}(2006)}]{zwaan.06}

1436: {Zwaan}, M.~A. \& {Prochaska}, J.~X. 2006, \apj, 643, 675

1437: 

1438: \end{thebibliography}

1439: 

1440: \end{document}

1441: