1: \documentstyle[times,graphics,astrobib,amssymb]{mn2e}
2: %\documentstyle[times,graphics,astrobib,amssymb,referee]{mn2e}
3:
4:
5: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\e}{\end{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\bear}{\begin{eqnarray}}
8: \newcommand{\ear}{\end{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{\nline}{\nonumber \\}
10: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}
11: \newcommand{\de}{{\rm d}}
12: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}
13: %\newcommand{\la}{\langle}
14: %\newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title[Reionization sources]
19: {On the minimum mass of reionization sources}
20: \author[Choudhury, Ferrara \& Gallerani]
21: {T. Roy Choudhury$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail: chou@ast.cam.ac.uk},~
22: A. Ferrara$^{2}$\thanks{E-mail: ferrara@sissa.it}
23: and
24: S. Gallerani$^{2,3}$\thanks{E-mail: galleran@sissa.it}
25: \\
26: $^{1}$Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK\\
27: $^{2}$SISSA/ISAS, via Beirut 2-4, 34014 Trieste, Italy\\
28: $^{3}$Institute of Physics, E\"otv\"os University, P\'azm\'any P.
29: s. 1/A, 1117 Budapest, Hungary}
30:
31:
32: \maketitle
33:
34: \date{\today}
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: By means of carefully calibrated semi-analytical reionization models, we
38: estimate the minimum mass of star-forming haloes required to match the current data.
39: Models which do not include haloes of total mass $M < 10^9 M_{\odot}$ fail at
40: reproducing the Gunn-Peterson and electron scattering optical depths simultaneously, as
41: they contribute too few (many) photons at high (low, $z\approx 6$) redshift.
42: Marginally acceptable solutions require haloes with $ M \approx 5 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}$
43: at $z \approx 10$, corresponding to virial temperatures ($\sim 10^4$K) for which cooling
44: can be ensured by atomic transitions. However, a much better match to the data is
45: obtained if minihaloes ($M \sim 10^6 M_{\odot}$) are included in the analysis.
46: We have critically examined the assumptions made in our model and conclude that
47: reionization in the large-galaxies-only scenario can remain viable only if metal-free stars
48: and/or some other exotic sources at $z > 6$ are included.
49: \end{abstract}
50: \begin{keywords}
51: intergalactic medium cosmology: theory large-scale structure of Universe.
52: \end{keywords}
53: \section{Introduction}
54:
55:
56: Current models of reionization, when compared with
57: QSO absorption line measurements and CMB polarization experiments, seem
58: to indicate that reionization is a complex process extending
59: over $6 < z < 15$. However, the sources which were primarily responsible
60: for the process still remain uncertain. Even if one makes
61: the (not-so-drastic) assumption that reionization is primarily
62: driven by UV photons from stellar sources, the exact nature of the
63: stars and the mass range of the hosting galaxies are still open
64: questions.
65:
66: For example, semi-analytical models of
67: \citeN{cf06b}, which are consistent with a wide variety of
68: observational data sets,
69: predict that reionization is mostly driven by haloes of
70: mass $< 10^9 M_{\odot}$ harboring metal-free
71: stars at $z \approx 10$ \cite{cf07}. Radiative transfer simulations
72: of \citeN{imsp07} conclude that the constraints on the electron
73: scattering optical depth $\tau_{\rm el}$ \cite{sbd++07}
74: are satisfied by simply including
75: haloes above $10^8 M_{\odot}$; no exotic sources or minihaloes are required.
76: Using a comprehensive model for galaxy formation, \citeN{mlgzd07}
77: conclude that the
78: IGM can be completely reionized at $z \approx 6-7$ by massive stars
79: within protogalactic spheroids with halo
80: masses $\sim 10^{10}-10^{11} M_{\odot}$
81: without resorting to any special stellar IMF; such models are also
82: found to be consistent with the bounds on $\tau_{\rm el}$.
83: On the other hand, using the observational constraints
84: on the Ly$\alpha$ optical depth at $z=6$, \citeN{bh07} conclude
85: that the reionization process is ``photon-starved'' and
86: considerable photon contribution at $z > 6$ is required to complete
87: reionization by $z=6$.
88: Numerical simulations of \citeN{gnedin07} predict negligibly small
89: escape of photons from haloes with $M < 10^{11} M_{\odot}$, and
90: hence it is quite difficult to produce enough photons so as
91: to reionize the IGM by $z=6$.
92: On the observational front, using the
93: observed value of the assembled mass at $z \simeq 5$ and
94: currently available
95: (but highly uncertain) rate of decline in the star formation history over
96: $5<z<10$, it can be concluded that a considerable fraction of star-formation
97: is not yet observed at high redshifts \cite{sbeel07}. This could be either due to significant dust extinction at early times or because of an abundant population of low-luminosity sources just beyond the detection limits of current surveys,
98: thus implying a reionization scenario by small galaxies.
99:
100: Given such wide variety of conclusions in the literature, it is important to
101: examine in detail the kind of halo masses required to match the available
102: observational data. In particular, it would be interesting to check whether
103: models with only large galaxies (say, haloes with masses $> 10^9 M_{\odot}$)
104: with standard stellar spectra and IMF are able to match the data, or is there
105: a desperate need for minihaloes ($M \sim 10^6 M_{\odot}$) and/or metal
106: free (PopIII) stars or any other exotic source. To address this question,
107: we use the semi-analytical formalism of \citeN{cf05} and \citeN{cf06b}
108: (hereafter CF05 and CF06 respectively)
109: and consider a series of physically-motivated scenarios which differ
110: in the minimum mass of star-forming haloes. The main idea of this work
111: is to confront each of these scenarios with the QSO absorption line
112: data at $z \approx 6$ and the constraints on $\tau_{\rm el}$ and
113: determine if some of the scenarios can be conclusively ruled out.
114: Throughout the paper, we use the best-fit cosmological parameters from the 3-year WMAP data \cite{sbd++07}, i.e.,
115: a flat universe with $\Omega_m = 0.24$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.76$, and $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.022$, and $h=0.73$. The
116: parameters defining the linear dark matter power spectrum are $\sigma_8=0.74$, $n_s=0.95$, $\de n_s/\de \ln k =0$.
117:
118:
119:
120: \section{Basic features of the model}
121: %
122: %
123: The main features of the semi-analytical model used in this work
124: could be summarized along the following (for a more detailed description
125: see CF05 and CF06): The model accounts for IGM inhomogeneities by adopting a lognormal distribution with the evolution of volume filling factor of
126: ionized hydrogen (HII) regions $Q_{\rm HII}(z)$ being calculated
127: according to the method outlined in \citeN{mhr00};
128: reionization is said to be complete once all the low-density regions (say, with overdensities $\Delta < \Delta_{\rm crit} \sim 60$) are ionized.
129: Hence, the distribution of high density regions determines the
130: mean free path of photons
131: \be
132: \lambda_{\rm mfp}(z) = \f{\lambda_0}{[1 - F_V(z)]^{2/3}}
133: \label{eq:lambda_0}
134: \e
135: where $F_V$ is the volume fraction of ionized regions and
136: $\lambda_0$ is a normalization constant fixed
137: by comparing with low redshift observations
138: of Lyman-limit absorption systems \cite{smih94}.
139:
140:
141: The number of ionizing photons depends on the assumptions made regarding
142: the sources.
143: In this work, we have assumed two types of reionization sources:
144:
145: {\it (i) Stellar sources:} We assume that the photon production rate
146: from stars within haloes is proportional to the formation
147: rate of haloes, which in turn is calculated using the
148: Press-Schechter formalism. All haloes
149: above a threshold mass $M_{\rm min}$ are allowed to form stars.
150: The stellar sources are assumed to have
151: metallicities $Z=0.2 Z_{\odot}$ and form with a Salpeter IMF in the mass
152: range $1 - 100 M_{\odot}$; the stellar emission spectra are obtained from
153: the population synthesis models of \citeN{bc03}.
154:
155: Under the above assumptions, the characterization of the
156: stellar sources require only two free parameters as
157: far as reionization studies are concerned, namely, (i) the efficiency
158: parameter of stars $\epsilon \equiv \epsilon_* f_{\rm esc}$ where
159: $\epsilon_*$ is the fraction of baryonic mass within haloes converted
160: into stars and $f_{\rm esc}$ is
161: the escape fraction of ionizing photons from the host halo
162: and (ii) the minimum mass of haloes $M_{\rm min}$ which are able to form stars.
163: In this work, we assume $\epsilon$ to be independent of redshift and
164: halo mass, while different physically-motivated models for $M_{\rm min}$
165: are chosen and studied, as will
166: be discussed in the next section.
167:
168: Note that the quantity $M_{\rm min}$ introduced above corresponds
169: to star-forming haloes {\it only within neutral regions}.
170: Reionization by UV sources is accompanied by
171: photo-heating of the gas, which results in a suppression of
172: star formation in low-mass
173: haloes within ionized regions, a process known as
174: radiative feedback. Hence, the minimum mass
175: of star-forming haloes within ionized regions $M_{\rm min}^{\rm RFB}$
176: could be substantially larger
177: than $M_{\rm min}$ introduced above.
178: We compute the value of $M_{\rm min}^{\rm RFB}$ self-consistently from the
179: evolution of the gas temperature in the ionized regions and is typically
180: $\sim 2-3 \times 10^8 M_{\odot}$ at $6 < z < 10$.
181:
182: Note that we do not include any metal-free (i.e. PopIII) stars,
183: which is the main difference of this work compared to our previous works
184: (CF05, CF06).
185:
186:
187: {\it (ii) QSOs:} In this work, we
188: compute the emissivity of QSOs using likelihood
189: estimations of the observed luminosity
190: function at $z < 6$ \cite{meiksin05}. The main uncertainty in the QSO
191: contribution comes from the slope of the faint end of the luminosity
192: function which is poorly constrained observationally \cite{sw07}.
193: In this work, we
194: include the contribution of only those QSOs whose luminosities are
195: above the break or characteristic luminosity; hence
196: the QSO contribution should be considered as a lower limit while the
197: actual emissivity could be a few times higher. Our estimates are similar
198: to or lower than that of \citeN{meiksin05} and \citeN{bh07}.
199:
200: \nocite{fsb++06,ksm++06,tkk++06,gffc07,gsfc07}
201: \begin{figure*}
202: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{basicplots.ps}}}
203: \caption{Comparison of model predictions with observations for
204: different models described in the text and summarized in Table 1.
205: The different panels indicate:
206: (a): The volume-averaged neutral hydrogen
207: fraction $x_{\rm HI}$, with observational
208: limits from QSO absorption lines (Fan et al. 2006; diamond),
209: Ly$\alpha$ emitter luminosity function (Kashikawa et al. 2006; triangle) and
210: GRB spectrum analysis (Totani et al 2006; square). Also shown
211: are the constraints using dark gap statistics on QSO spectra
212: (Gallerani et al 2007a; open circles) and GRB spectra (Gallerani et al. 2007b;
213: filled circle).
214: (b): Electron scattering optical depth, with observational constraint from
215: WMAP 3-year data release.
216: (c): Photoionization
217: rates for hydrogen, with estimates from numerical simulations (shown
218: by points with error-bars; Bolton et al. 2005, Bolton \& Haehnelt 2007).
219: The dotted line shows the lower limit of the QSO contribution.
220: (d): Evolution of Lyman-limit systems, with observed data points from Storrie-Lombardi et al. (1994).
221: (e): Emission rate of ionizing photons per comoving volume.
222: (f): The minimum mass of haloes which are allowed to form stars within
223: neutral regions. The dotted line denotes the corresponding minimum
224: mass within ionized regions obtained using the radiative
225: feedback prescription.
226: (g): Ly$\alpha$ effective optical
227: depth, with observed data points from Songaila (2004) and Fan et al. (2006).
228: (h): Ly$\beta$ effective optical
229: depth, with observed data points from Songaila (2004) and Fan et al. (2006).
230: (i): Evolution of the photon mean free path in physical units.
231: }
232: \label{fig:basicplots}
233: \end{figure*}
234:
235:
236:
237: The main observational data sets used in this work are those
238: of the transmitted fluxes $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$
239: in Ly$\alpha$ and Ly$\beta$ regions respectively, as obtained from
240: the QSO absorption spectra. We have taken the points tabulated
241: in \citeN{songaila04} and \citeN{fsb++06}. For calculating
242: $F_{\alpha}$, we have binned the data points
243: within redshift intervals of $\Delta z =0.2$ and calculated
244: the mean. The errors are calculated using
245: the extreme values of $F_{\alpha}$
246: along different lines of sight.
247: Hence the errors shown in this paper are typically
248: larger than other methods which compute the uncertainties using the
249: interquartile range \cite{bh07} or standard dispersion.
250: For calculating $F_{\beta}$, we note that the data points at $z < 5.5$ are
251: quite sparse \cite{songaila04} and hence do not require further binning;
252: we simply use the values and errors tabulated in \citeN{songaila04}. For
253: points at $z > 5.5$, we follow the method identical to the Ly$\alpha$ case.
254: The constraints on $\tau_{\rm el}$ are obtained from \citeN{sbd++07}, constraints
255: on $\Gamma_{\rm PI}^{\rm HII}$ from \citeN{bhvs05} and \citeN{bh07} and the
256: redshift distribution of Lyman-limit absorption
257: systems from \citeN{smih94}.
258:
259: \vspace{-0.5cm}
260: \section{Minimum mass of star-forming haloes}
261: \begin{figure*}
262: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.3\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{minihalo_halofraction.ps}}}
263: \caption{Photon contribution for the MH model.
264: {\it Left}: Number of ionizing photons per H-atom (accounting for the number of recombinations) contributed by haloes within a given halo mass range as a function of
265: redshift $z$. The dotted line represents the evolution of the volume filling factor $Q_{\rm HII}$ of ionized regions.
266: {\it Right}: Cumulative fraction of the ionizing power $f_{\gamma}$ contributed by haloes of mass $>M$. The curves from
267: right to left correspond to $z = 6,7,8,9,10$ respectively.
268: }
269: \label{fig:minihalo_halofrac}
270: \end{figure*}
271:
272: %
273: \begin{table}
274: \caption
275: {Parameter values for different models used in the paper.}
276: \begin{center}
277: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
278: \hline
279: Model & $\epsilon=\epsilon_* f_{\rm esc}$\\
280: \hline
281: MH & 0.008\\
282: SH & 0.009\\
283: LH & 0.013\\
284: \hline
285: \end{tabular}
286: \label{table:modpar}
287: \end{center}
288: \end{table}
289:
290: In this Section, we consider three
291: physically motivated models which differ in the choice of
292: the value of $M_{\rm min}$ and check whether they are able to match
293: all the data sets. The models are described in the following:
294:
295: (i) {\it Minihalo (MH)}: The minimum mass of star-forming haloes for this model
296: is set
297: by a virial temperature of $T_{\rm vir}=300$K,
298: which corresponds to a scenario where molecular cooling is fully efficient.
299: Note that $M_{\rm min}$ is redshift-dependent and is typically
300: $\sim 5 \times 10^5 M_{\odot}$ at $z = 6$. We should mention that
301: the star-forming efficiencies of such haloes are debatable \cite{hb06} as H$_2$ could
302: be easily dissociated by a Lyman-Werner background photons.
303: However, it has also been argued that such a background only delay the
304: star formation in minihaloes and do not necessarily suppress them \cite{on07}.
305:
306:
307: (ii) {\it Small Halo (SH)}: The minimum mass of star-forming haloes is set
308: by a virial temperature of $T_{\rm vir}=10^4$K; this is motivated
309: by the fact that all haloes having $T_{\rm vir} \geq 10^4$K are able
310: to cool via atomic transitions. This model has
311: $M_{\rm min} \sim 10^8 M_{\odot}$ at $z = 6$ and is usually considered
312: as standard in most semi-analytical works. We must mention again that
313: for both the SH and MH models,
314: the value of $M_{\rm min}$ corresponds to the neutral regions only;
315: the minimum mass of star-forming haloes is much larger in ionized regions
316: because of radiative feedback.
317:
318: (iii) {\it Large Halo (LH)}: The minimum mass of star-forming haloes is set
319: by a virial temperature of $T_{\rm vir}=5 \times 10^4$K which corresponds
320: to $M_{\rm min}(z=6) \sim 10^9 M_{\odot}$. Such value is appropriate to
321: a scenario in which reionization is driven by large galaxies which are
322: largely unaffected by radiative feedback.
323:
324:
325: For each model, we find the maximum value of the efficiency $\epsilon$
326: such that it does not violate the upper bound on
327: $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$ at $z = 6$ and then check how it compares with
328: other observations, in particular whether it can produce
329: $\tau_{\rm el} > 0.06$, the 1-$\sigma$ lower limit from
330: WMAP3 \cite{sbd++07}.
331: The motivation for normalizing all the models by QSO absorption
332: line data is that the measurements of $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$ are
333: less affected by systematics and other uncertainties compared to
334: other data sets considered here. In contrast, the
335: constraints on $\tau_{\rm el}$ obtained from CMB polarization
336: measurements are still preliminary and the possibility of
337: major revision in future experiments cannot be ruled out.
338: Note that, the lower bounds on $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$ at $z = 6$
339: are practically zero and hence the minimum value
340: of $\epsilon$ cannot be obtained using QSO absorption line
341: data. However, the
342: upper bounds should be considered as robust; in fact we have been
343: quite conservative in this work and used the extreme maximum
344: value of $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$ allowed by the data.
345: The values of $\epsilon$ for different
346: models after normalizing to the upper limits
347: of $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$ at $z = 6$
348: are summarized in Table \ref{table:modpar}.
349: The results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:basicplots}.
350:
351: It is clear from the figure that once the models
352: are normalized to the upper bounds on $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$ at
353: $z=6$, the MH and SH models are able to match the evolution
354: of $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$ up to lower redshifts [Panels (g) and (h)].
355: However, the
356: LH model, which does not include low mass ($< 10^9 M_{\odot}$) haloes,
357: gives a poor match with the low redshift observations.
358: Similar conclusions can be drawn from the constraints on
359: $\Gamma_{\rm PI}^{\rm HII}$ where the MH and SH models
360: can fit the data till $z \approx 3$ while the LH model fails
361: to do so.
362: More importantly, when compared with the
363: observed $\tau_{\rm el}$ [Panel (b)], we note that
364: only the MH model can match the data, while
365: the other two models fall short of the lower 1-$\sigma$ limit.
366: The LH model predicts $\tau_{\rm el} \approx 0.052$, which can
367: be considered as a poor match to the data.
368: The SH model predicts
369: $\tau_{\rm el} = 0.058$, marginally lower than
370: the 1-$\sigma$ limit; given the uncertainties in the modeling
371: of the reionization, this could be considered as marginally acceptable.
372: Such low value of $\tau_{\rm el}$ is a severe problem for the LH model
373: because the only way to increase the value of $\tau_{\rm el}$ would be
374: to increase $\epsilon$ (the only free parameter) which would then
375: underpredict the Ly$\alpha$ and Ly$\beta$ optical depths at $z=6$.
376:
377: Hence, models which do not include stars from haloes with masses
378: $< 10^9 M_{\odot}$ cannot match the GP and
379: the electron scattering optical depths simultaneously. In fact, one should
380: at least include haloes of masses $\sim 5 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}$ to get
381: a marginal match with the data (the SH model).
382: The analysis also brings out the
383: importance of including the QSO absorption line measurements explicitly
384: into any reionization model. For example, a model with only
385: $M > 10^9 M_{\odot}$ haloes with a efficiency $\sim 0.06$ would
386: reionize the universe around $z \approx 8$ and produce
387: $\tau_{\rm el} \approx 0.07$; however it would severely overpredict
388: the $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$ (and $\Gamma_{\rm PI}^{\rm HII}$ too)
389: at $z=6$ and hence
390: would not be acceptable.
391:
392: Let us examine which haloes contribute most significantly to reionization; we
393: shall limit ourselves to the MH model as the other two models
394: are shown to be unable to match observations.
395: The number of ionizing photons per H-atom contributed by haloes in the mass range $[M_{\rm min}, M_{\rm max}]$
396: is given by\footnote{Note that, in our previous work,
397: we had defined $x_{\gamma}(z)$ as $\f{n_{\gamma}(z)}{n_H} \f{t_{\rm rec}(z)}{t_H(z)}$, which blows up when recombinations are negligible ($t_{\rm rec} \to \infty$). Under the present definition, $x_{\gamma}(z) \to \f{n_{\gamma}(z)}{n_H}$when $t_{\rm rec} \to \infty$, which is the correct limit.}
398: \be
399: x_{\gamma}(z) \equiv \f{n_{\gamma}(z)}{n_H [1 + t_H(z)/t_{\rm rec}(z)]}
400: \e
401: where $n_H$ is the comoving number density of hydrogen
402: atoms while $n_{\gamma}$
403: is the time-integrated comoving photon density, calculated using the relation
404: \be
405: n_{\gamma}(z) = \int_0^{t(z)} \de t ~ \dot{n}_{\gamma}(M_{\rm min} : M_{\rm max}, t)
406: \e
407: where $\dot{n}_{\gamma}(M_{\rm min} : M_{\rm max}, t)$ is the ionizing photon comoving emissivity
408: from haloes within $[M_{\rm min}, M_{\rm max}]$.
409: The term $[1 + t_H(z)/t_{\rm rec}(z)]$ accounts for the number of
410: recombinations in the IGM
411: where $t_H(z)$ is the Hubble time and
412: $t_{\rm rec}(z)$ is the recombination time.
413: By construction, the IGM is reionized when $x_{\gamma} \gtrsim 1$.
414: A second quantity of interest is the fractional instantaneous contribution of
415: haloes above a certain mass,
416: \be
417: f_{\gamma}(>M, z) \equiv \f{\dot{n}_{\gamma}(>M, z)}{\dot{n}_{\gamma}(z)}.
418: \e
419:
420: The plots of $x_{\gamma}$ and $f_{\gamma}(>M, z)$ for the MH model
421: is shown in Figure \ref{fig:minihalo_halofrac}.
422: It is clear from the figure that
423: haloes of mass $< 10^8 M_{\odot}$ dominate the ionizing background
424: at high redshifts, their contribution decreasing gradually at $z < 8$ because
425: of radiative feedback.
426: However, these haloes are still the dominant contributors of ionizing
427: photons when integrated till $z=6$ (though the instantaneous
428: photon production rate at $z=6$ is dominated by $>10^9 M_{\odot}$
429: haloes). Hence models which do not include $M < 10^8 M_{\odot}$ haloes
430: would miss out a large fraction photons at high redshifts (before
431: radiative feedback is effective) and hence would underpredict
432: $\tau_{\rm el}$.
433: For the SH model, we find that
434: $< 10^8 M_{\odot}$ haloes produce only about 10\% of ionizing photons
435: when integrated till $z=6$, while about 50\% of photons come
436: from high mass $>10^9 M_{\odot}$ haloes.
437:
438:
439:
440: \vspace{-0.5cm}
441: \section{Discussion}
442: %
443: %
444: We have used a semi-analytical reionization model, empirically calibrated on
445: a variety of observational data sets, to estimate the minimum mass of ionizing photon
446: sources required to match the current data. We find that models which
447: do not include haloes with mass $M < 10^9 M_{\odot}$ are not able to reproduce
448: the GP and electron scattering optical depths {\it simultaneously}. Such models (i)
449: contribute too few photons at high redshift, and (ii) {\it produce too many photons
450: too late}. To get a marginally acceptable match with the data, one requires
451: haloes with masses as small as $5 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}$ at $z \approx 10$,
452: which would correspond to a virial temperature of $\sim 10^4$K. In such cases,
453: though the bulk of photons ($\sim 90\%$) is produced by $M > 10^8 M_{\odot}$ haloes,
454: the low mass haloes are important to contribute to $\tau_{\rm el}$
455: at high redshifts without violating the QSO absorption line constraints
456: at $z=6$.
457:
458: A much better match to the data is obtained if minihaloes ($M \sim 10^6 M_{\odot}$)
459: are included in the analysis.
460: These haloes produce enough photons at high redshifts to give a
461: high $\tau_{\rm el}$. They are also easily destroyed once radiative
462: feedback becomes substantial and hence give no contribution to the
463: photoionization rate at $z \approx 6$, thus agreeing with the
464: $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$ upper bounds.
465: In case the minihaloes are not allowed to form stars because
466: of some photodissociating Lyman-Werner background,
467: it becomes almost impossible to construct reionization models
468: with standard stellar sources that are not in tension with data.
469: Given this, it is crucial to critically examine the assumptions and idealizations
470: made in our formalism which could allow reionization scenarios with
471: only large galaxies to be consistent with the data, which is done in the
472: following:
473:
474: (i) $z$-dependence of the photon production efficiency: in this work,
475: we have assumed the
476: efficiency parameter $\epsilon$, the stellar IMF and the stellar spectrum
477: to be independent of $z$. In case the value of $\epsilon$ was higher
478: at high redshifts, it could, in principle, produce high $\tau_{\rm el}$ at
479: high redshifts without violating the GP constraints at $z=6$. Such behavior
480: of $\epsilon$ would mean that either stars were forming more efficiently
481: at early times and/or the escape fraction of photons was higher. A similar
482: effect could also be achieved if the stellar IMF was top-heavy
483: at high-$z$ or the spectra of the stars were harder. In short, one would
484: require a very efficient production of photons per baryons at high-$z$. An obvious
485: candidate for achieving such effects would be the inclusion of metal-free
486: (PopIII) stars with or without a top-heavy IMF. Such models with
487: PopIII stars are found to be an excellent match to a wide variety of data sets
488: in the SH scenario (CF06), while they can possibly be tuned to match the data
489: in the LH case too.
490:
491:
492: (ii) Mass-dependence of $\epsilon$: similarly neglected here, is the possibility that
493: the efficiency parameter depends on the halo mass.
494: Note that, in order to make the LH scenario work, one would require $\epsilon$ to be higher
495: for smaller mass haloes so that the photon contribution
496: increases at $z > 6$. However, the mass-dependence, if any, is found
497: to be opposite, e.g., \citeN{khw++03} found that $\epsilon$ increases
498: with halo mass for $M < 3 \times 10^{12} M_{\odot}$
499: in the local Universe. Given this, it is unlikely that a
500: mass-dependent $\epsilon$ would improve the performance of large-galaxy-only models.
501:
502: (iii) Radiative feedback: One of the main uncertainties in theoretical
503: models of reionization is the implementation of radiative (i.e. photoionization) feedback. However,
504: note that this effect mostly affects haloes of masses $<10^9 M_{\odot}$ [Panel (f) of Figure \ref{fig:basicplots}]
505: and hence a different feedback prescription would have {\it no} effect on the LH model at all. For the SH model,
506: a less severe feedback mechanism, which allows the $10^8 M_{\odot} < M < 10^9 M_{\odot}$ haloes to survive
507: longer than what is used here \cite{gnedin00}, could produce enough photons at high-$z$ to get a better match to the data.
508: On the other hand, if the feedback is more severe on the $\sim 10^8 M_{\odot}$ haloes
509: (e.g., because of the photoionization rate boost arising from the clustering of galaxies, and not taken
510: into account here), the SH model would be ruled out.
511:
512: (iv) QSOs: The contribution of QSOs considered here should be thought
513: of as a lower limit; the actual contribution could be much higher. However,
514: this does not affect our conclusions because a higher contribution
515: from QSOs at $z \sim 6$ would imply a lower value of $\epsilon$, which would
516: then produce a much lower $\tau_{\rm el}$.
517:
518: (v) IGM inhomogeneities: The density distribution of the IGM has been
519: assumed to be lognormal, which is found to be a good match
520: to the QSO transmitted flux distribution \cite{gcf06}. However, it has been
521: argued that the density distribution obtained from simulations
522: has a different form \cite{mhr00}.
523: The density distribution can affect the results in three ways,
524: namely: (a) The evolution of $Q_{\rm HII}(z)$ could be altered
525: if the density distribution is different; however note that
526: there is not much freedom observationally in the qualitative
527: behavior of $Q_{\rm HII}(z)$ as QSO absorption line data
528: requires reionization to be completed around $z \gtrsim 6$.
529: (b) The evolution of $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ could be different thus
530: modifying the photoionization rate $\Gamma_{\rm PI}^{\rm HII}$
531: which is discussed in the next point.
532: (c) For a given $\Gamma_{\rm PI}^{\rm HII}$, a different
533: density distribution would give
534: a different the value of $F_{\alpha}$ (and $F_{\beta}$). However, note that
535: the analysis presented in the paper could also be done using the
536: constraints on $\Gamma_{\rm PI}^{\rm HII}$ without any reference to
537: $F_{\alpha}$ or $F_{\beta}$, and the results would still
538: be qualitatively similar.
539:
540: (vi) Photon mean free path: A related problem is that regarding the
541: value of $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ at $z=6$. There are no observational
542: constraints on $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ at $z > 4$, and the theoretical
543: estimates would depend on the density distribution of the IGM. In case
544: $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ is found to be lower than that obtained in our models
545: ($\lambda_{\rm mfp}(z=6) = 3.73$ and 2.37 proper Mpc for SH and LH respectively),
546: it would give a lower $\Gamma_{\rm PI}^{\rm HII}$ for the same value
547: of $\epsilon$, and hence could allow the SH and LH models to match with
548: observations. However, the typical values of $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ found
549: using the density distribution of \citeN{mhr00}
550: are $\sim 5$ physical Mpc \cite{bh07,wbh07}, which
551: would clearly rule out the SH and LH models. A trivial extrapolation
552: of the observed $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ at lower redshifts to high-$z$
553: would too give similar values.
554:
555: (vii) Revised observational constraints: A good chance of
556: the large galaxies scenario to survive (without including PopIII stars
557: or other sources) would be to revise the
558: constraints on $\tau_{\rm el}$. We have already seen that the value of
559: $\tau_{\rm el}$ was lower in the WMAP3 data release than in the WMAP1
560: because of systematics. In case the value of $\tau_{\rm el}$ is found
561: to be $\sim 0.05$, it would be enough to allow the LH scenario. On the
562: other hand, in case the upper bounds on $F_{\alpha}$ and $F_{\beta}$ are
563: tightened with increase in QSO sample size, it could rule out the
564: LH (and possibly SH) scenario with a higher degree of confidence.
565: For example, we have
566: been conservative in estimating the errors and allowed
567: a $F_{\alpha}$ as high as 0.0125 at $z=6$. One should compare this
568: with the constraints $F_{\alpha} < 0.004$ used by \citeN{bh07}; such
569: severe constraints would clearly disfavor the LH and SH scenarios.
570: Another possibility is that the constraints on
571: the cosmological parameters are revised, e.g., the value of
572: $\sigma_8$ is found to be higher than what is used. A rigorous
573: exploration of the cosmological parameter space is beyond the
574: scope of this work. However, a model with higher value of $\sigma_8=0.9$
575: \cite{vhl06},
576: when normalized to Ly$\alpha$ and Ly$\beta$ flux at $z=6$,
577: gives $\tau_{\rm el} \approx 0.059$; this value is still well below
578: the corresponding 1-$\sigma$ bound on $\tau_{\rm el} \approx 0.1\pm 0.03$.
579:
580:
581: In spite all the model uncertainties, it
582: seems certain that reionization with large galaxies scenario
583: ($M > 10^9 M_{\odot}$) can be conclusively
584: ruled out with the present data; such scenarios can only be allowed if
585: metal-free stars or other exotic sources at high redshifts
586: are included.
587: The scenario where only those haloes which can cool
588: via atomic transitions contribute is marginally acceptable.
589: In any case, there seems to be a requirement
590: for a large number of sources at $z \approx 10$, which are most
591: likely faint (i.e., low-mass) haloes.
592: Observationally, it
593: is important to put constraints on star formation within
594: these faint galaxies at high redshift which, however, seems to be a
595: challenging task. Nonetheless one should be optimistic as
596: most of such issues would be addressed with future experiments like JWST.
597: On the theoretical front, it is important to realize that reionization
598: models could be incomplete unless they are compared with both the $\tau_{\rm el}$ and GP constraints simultaneously.
599:
600: \vspace{-0.5cm}
601: \section*{Acknowledgement}
602: SG acknowledges the support by the Hungarian National Office for
603: Research and Technology (NKTH), through the Pol\'anyi Program.
604:
605: \vspace{-0.5cm}
606: \bibliography{mnrasmnemonic,astropap-mod,reionization}
607: \bibliographystyle{mnras}
608:
609: \end{document}
610:
611:
612: