1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{graphics}
5: %
6: % remove for submitted version
7: \usepackage{epstopdf}
8: \DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `basename #1.tif`.png}
9: %
10: \newlength{\colwidth}
11: \setlength{\colwidth}{\textwidth}
12: \addtolength{\colwidth}{-\columnsep}
13: \setlength{\colwidth}{0.5\colwidth}
14:
15:
16: \newcommand{\HI}{\ion{H}{1}}
17: \newcommand{\HeII}{\ion{He}{2}}
18: \newcommand{\FeII}{\ion{Fe}{2}}
19: \newcommand{\CIII}{\ion{C}{3}}
20: \newcommand{\CII}{\ion{C}{2}}
21: \newcommand{\CIV}{\ion{C}{4}}
22: \newcommand{\SiIII}{\ion{Si}{3}}
23: \newcommand{\SiII}{\ion{Si}{2}}
24: \newcommand{\SiIV}{\ion{Si}{4}}
25: \newcommand{\NV}{\ion{N}{5}}
26: \newcommand{\OVI}{\ion{O}{6}}
27: \newcommand{\OV}{\ion{O}{5}}
28:
29: \newcommand{\tlya}{\tau_{\rm Ly{\alpha}}}
30: \newcommand{\tovi}{\tau_{\rm OVI}}
31: \newcommand{\tsiiv}{\tau_{\rm SiIV}}
32: \newcommand{\tciv}{\tau_{\rm CIV}}
33: \newcommand{\tciii}{\tau_{\rm CIII}}
34: \newcommand{\thi}{\tau_{\rm HI}}
35: \newcommand{\tsiiii}{\tau_{\rm SiIII}}
36: \newcommand{\ttru}{\tau_{\rm true}}
37: \newcommand{\trec}{\tau_{\rm rec}}
38: \newcommand{\tmin}{\tau_{\rm min}}
39:
40:
41: \newcommand{\msun}{{\rm M}_\odot}
42:
43: \newcommand{\lya}{Ly$\alpha$}
44: \newcommand{\lyb}{Ly$\beta$}
45:
46: \lefthead{Aguirre et al.}
47: \righthead{Oxygen in the IGM}
48:
49: \def\gsim{\;\rlap{\lower 2.5pt
50: \hbox{$\sim$}}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$>$}\;}
51: \def\lsim{\;\rlap{\lower 2.5pt
52: \hbox{$\sim$}}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;}
53: \def\msol{{\rm\,M_\odot}}
54: \def\yr{{\rm\,yr}}
55: \def\kpc{{\rm\,kpc}}
56: \def\kms{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}}
57:
58: \def\mpc{{\rm\,Mpc}}
59: \def\au{{\rm\,AU}}
60: \def\del{{\partial}}
61: \def\gm{{\rm\,g}}
62: \def\cm{{\rm\,cm}}
63: \def\sec{{\rm\,s}}
64: \def\erg{{\rm\,erg}}
65: \def\kev{{\rm\,keV}}
66: \def\mic{{\,\mu{\rm m}}}
67: \def\ev{{\rm\,eV}}
68: \def\kms{{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}}}
69: \def\K{{\rm\,K}}
70: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}
71: \def\lta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar''218$}}
72: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar''13C$}}}
73: \def\gta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar''218$}}
74: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar''13E$}}}
75: \def\iun{{\rm\,nW\,m^{-2}\,sr^{-1}}}
76: \def\zsol{{\,Z_\odot}}
77: \def\tc{{t_{\rm c}}}
78: \def\tp{{t_{\rm p}}}
79:
80: \shorttitle{Oxygen in the IGM}
81: \shortauthors{Aguirre et al.}
82:
83: \begin{document}
84:
85: \title{Metallicity of the intergalactic medium using pixel
86: statistics:\\ IV. Oxygen.\altaffilmark{1}}
87: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on
88: public data obtained from the ESP archive of observations from the UVES
89: spectrograph at the VLT, Paranal, Chile and on data obtained at the W. M. Keck
90: Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the
91: California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and
92: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The W. M. Keck
93: Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the
94: W. M. Keck Foundation.}
95:
96: \author{ Anthony Aguirre\altaffilmark{2},
97: Corey Dow-Hygelund\altaffilmark{2},
98: Joop~Schaye\altaffilmark{3},
99: Tom~Theuns\altaffilmark{4}
100: }
101: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, University of California at
102: Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064; aguirre@scipp.ucsc.edu,
103: godelstheory@gmail.com}
104: \altaffiltext{3}{Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9513,
105: 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands; schaye@strw.leidenuniv.nl}
106: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute for Computational Cosmology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE; tom.theuns@durham.ac.uk}
107:
108: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
109:
110: \begin{abstract}
111:
112: We have studied the abundance of oxygen in the IGM by analyzing
113: \OVI, \CIV, \SiIV, and \HI\ pixel optical depths derived from a set of
114: high-quality VLT and Keck spectra of 17 QSOs at $2.1\la z \la
115: 3.6$. Comparing ratios
116: $\tovi/\tciv(\tciv)$ to those in realistic, synthetic spectra drawn
117: from a hydrodynamical simulation and comparing to existing constraints on [Si/C] places strong constraints on the ultraviolet background (UVB) model using weak priors on allowed values of [Si/O]: for example, a quasar-only background yields [Si/O] $\approx 1.4$, highly inconsistent with the [Si/O] $\approx 0$ expected from nucleosynthetic yields and with observations of metal-poor stars.
118: Assuming a fiducial quasar+galaxy UVB consistent with these constraints yields a primary
119: result that [O/C] = 0.66 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.2; this result is sensitive to gas with overdensity $\delta \gtrsim 2$. Consistent results are obtained by similarly comparing
120: $\tovi/\thi(\thi)$ and $\tovi/\tsiiv(\tsiiv)$ to simulation values, and also
121: by directly ionization-correcting $\tovi/\thi$ as function of $\thi$
122: into [O/H] as a function of density.
123: Subdividing the sample reveals no evidence for evolution, but low- and
124: high-$\thi$ samples are inconsistent,
125: suggesting either density-dependence of [O/C] or -- more likely --
126: prevalence of collisionally-ionized gas at high density.
127: \end{abstract}
128: \keywords{cosmology: miscellaneous --- galaxies: formation ---
129: intergalactic medium --- quasars: absorption lines}
130:
131: \section{Introduction}
132: \label{sec-intro}
133:
134: The enrichment of the intergalactic medium (IGM) with heavy elements has, over the past decade, become a key tool in understanding star and galaxy formation by providing a fossil record of metal formation and galactic feedback.
135:
136: Absorption line spectroscopy has revealed, among other findings, that
137: the low-density ($\delta \equiv \rho/\left <\rho\right > \la 10$)
138: intergalactic medium (IGM), as probed by the \lya\ forest and through
139: \CIII, \CIV, \SiIII, \SiIV, \OV, \OVI, and other transitions, is at
140: least partly enriched at all redshifts and densities probed. In
141: particular, recent studies indicate that:
142: \begin{itemize}
143: \item When smoothed over large ($\sim 10 - 10^2$~kpc) scales, the
144: abundance of carbon decreases as gas overdensity
145: $\delta$ does and has a scatter of $\sim 1\,$dex at fixed
146: density. There is carbon in at least some gas at all densities down
147: to at least the mean cosmic density, with the median carbon
148: metallicity obeying [C/H] $\approx -3.5 + 0.65(\log \delta
149: -0.5)$ at $z\approx 3$~\citep[Schaye et al.\ 2003, hereafter ][]{paper2}.
150: \item On smaller ($\la 1$~kpc) scales the distribution of metals is
151: less well known, but observations suggest that the metals may be
152: concentrated in small, high-metallicity patches \citep{schaye2007}.
153: \item There is no evidence for metallicity evolution
154: from redshift $z\approx 4$ to $z\approx 2$~\citep{paper2} and metals exist
155: at some level at
156: $z \approx 5 -
157: 6$~\citep{2001ApJ...561L.153S,2003ApJ...594..695P,2006MNRAS.371L..78R,2006ApJ...653..977S}.
158: \end{itemize}
159:
160: In connection with this observed widespread distribution of metals, a
161: general picture has emerged that galactic winds -- driven largely from
162: young and/or starburst galaxies -- have enriched the IGM. The same
163: feedback may account for the dearth of low-luminosity galaxies
164: relative to the halo mass
165: function~\citep[e.g.,][]{1993MNRAS.264..201K,1999MNRAS.310.1087S,2003MNRAS.339..312S},
166: and also for the mass-metallicity relationship of
167: galaxies~\citep[e.g.,][]{2004ApJ...613..898T,2006ApJ...644..813E}.
168: However, a detailed understanding of the various feedback processes is
169: lacking and there are still open questions and controversies
170: concerning the time and relative importance of the various enrichment
171: processes, and concerning the implications for galaxy formation.
172:
173: Both theoretical modeling and observations of intergalactic (IG)
174: enrichment are now advancing to the point where comparison between the
175: two can provide crucial insight into these issues, but this comparison
176: is not without problems.
177: Two key difficulties concern the ionization correction required
178: to convert observed ionic abundances into elemental abundances. First, while
179: the oft-studied ions \CIV\, and \SiIV\, are observationally
180: convenient, they are poor probes of hot ($> 10^5\,$K) gas, because
181: the ion factions \CIV/C and \SiIV/Si both fall dramatically with
182: temperature. Thus, the
183: hot remnants of fast outflows might be largely invisible in these
184: ions. Second, the dominant uncertainty in both the absolute and
185: relative abundance inferences stems from uncertainty in the spectral
186: shape of the ultraviolet ionizing background radiation (UVB).
187:
188: Analysis of oxygen, as probed by \OVI, has the potential to shed light
189: on both problems: this ionization state becomes prevalent in some of
190: the very phases in which \CIV\, and \SiIV\, become rare, and its
191: abundance depends on the UVB shape differently than those of other
192: ions, helping break the degeneracy between abundances and UVB shape.
193: The challenge posed by \OVI\, is that at $z\gtrsim 2$ it is strongly
194: contaminated by both \lya\, and Ly$\beta$ lines, making its
195: identification and quantification difficult. Previous studies of high-$z$
196: oxygen enrichment using line
197: fitting~\citep{Carswell2002,Bergeron2002,Simcoe2004} or pixel
198: statistics~\citep{2000ApJ...541L...1S,Telfer2002,Pieri2004} have
199: reliably detected oxygen in the IGM, and quantified its abundance in
200: relatively dense gas, but have not assessed the oxygen abundance with a
201: very large data sample, at very low-densities, or in a unified
202: treatment with other available ions.
203:
204: Here we extend to \OVI\, our application of the ``pixel optical depth"
205: technique~\cite[e.g., Aguirre, Schaye \& Theuns, hereafter][]{paper1}
206: to a large set of high quality VLT/UVES and Keck/HIRES spectra. The
207: results, when combined with previous studies of \CIV\, and
208: \CIII~\citep{paper2} and of \SiIV\, and \SiIII~\citep[Aguirre
209: et. al. 2004; hereafter][]{paper3}, give a comprehensive
210: observational assessment of IG enrichment by carbon, silicon and
211: oxygen, with significantly reduced uncertainties due to the UVB shape,
212: as well as new data on the importance of hot, collisionally ionized gas.
213:
214: We have organized this paper as follows. In \S\S\ref{sec-data}
215: and~\ref{sec-overview} we briefly describe our sample of QSO
216: spectra. The analysis method is described briefly in
217: \S\ref{sec-overview} and then in greater depth in the remainder of
218: \S\ref{sec-meth}, with heavy reference to Papers I, II and III.
219: The basic results are given in \S\ref{sec-resrel} and discussed in
220: \S\ref{sec-discuss}. Finally, we conclude in \S\ref{sec-conc}.
221:
222: All abundances are given by
223: number relative to hydrogen, and solar abundance are taken to be
224: $({\rm O/H})_\odot = -3.13$, $({\rm C/H})_\odot = -3.45$, and
225: $({\rm Si/H})_\odot = -4.45$
226: \citep{1989GeCoA..53..197A}.
227:
228: \section{Observations}
229: \label{sec-data}
230:
231: We analyze 17 of the 19 high-quality ($6.6\,\kms$ velocity resolution,
232: S/N $> 40$) absorption spectra of quasars used in Papers II and III.
233: The two highest-redshift spectra used in those previous studies were
234: excluded here because the severe contamination of the \OVI\, region by
235: \HI\ lines makes detection of \OVI\, nearly impossible and also
236: introduces very large continuum fitting errors in the \OVI\, region.
237: Fourteen spectra were taken with the UV-Visual Echelle
238: Spectrograph~\citep[UVES,][]{2000SPIE.4005..121D} on the Very Large
239: Telescope and three were taken with the High Resolution Echelle
240: Spectrograph~\citep[HIRES,][]{1994SPIE.2198..362V} on the Keck
241: telescope. For convenience, the observed QSOs are listed in
242: Table~\ref{tbl:sample}.
243:
244: \begin{deluxetable}{llcccclll}
245: \tablecolumns{8}
246: \tablewidth{0pc}
247: \tablecaption{Observed quasars \label{tbl:sample}}
248: \tablecomments{Columns 1 and 2 contain the quasar name and corresponding Ly$\alpha$ emission redshift. Columns 3 and 4 contain the
249: minimum and maximum absorption redshifts considered and Column 5 contains the corresponding minimum observed wavelength. The last column contains an estimate of the percentage uncertainty in the continuum fitting in the \OVI\ region.}
250: \tablehead{
251: \colhead{QSO} & \colhead{$z_{\rm em}$} & \colhead{$z_{\rm min}$} & \colhead{$z_{\rm max}$} & \colhead{$\lambda_{\rm
252: min}$ (\AA)} & \colhead{instrument} & \colhead{ref} & \colhead{Err}}
253: \startdata
254: Q1101-264 & 2.145 & 1.878 & 2.103 & 3050.00 & UVES & 1 & 1.6 \\ %1
255: Q0122-380 & 2.190 & 1.920 & 2.147 & 3062.00 & UVES & 2 & 0.6 \\ %2
256: J2233-606 & 2.238 & 1.963 & 2.195 & 3055.00 & UVES & 3 & 1.1 \\ %3
257: HE1122-1648 & 2.400 & 2.112 & 2.355 & 3055.00 & UVES & 1 & 1.4 \\ %4
258: Q0109-3518 & 2.406 & 2.117 & 2.361 & 3050.00 & UVES & 2 & 1.5 \\ %5
259: HE2217-2818 & 2.406 & 2.117 & 2.361 & 3050.00 & UVES & 3 & 1.6 \\ %6
260: Q0329-385 & 2.423 & 2.133 & 2.377 & 3062.00 & UVES & 2 & 1.2 \\ %7
261: HE1347-2457 & 2.534 & 2.234 & 2.487 & 3050.00 & UVES & 1,2& 2.5 \\ %8
262: PKS0329-255 & 2.685 & 2.373 & 2.636 & 3150.00 & UVES & 2 & 1.5 \\ %9
263: Q0002-422 & 2.76 & 2.441 & 2.710 & 3055.00 & UVES & 2 & 1.6 \\ %10
264: HE2347-4342 & 2.90 & 2.569 & 2.848 & 3428.00 & UVES & 2 & 1.5 \\ %11
265: Q1107+485 & 3.00 & 2.661 & 2.947 & 3644.36 & HIRES & 4 & 2.3 \\ %12
266: Q0420-388 & 3.123 & 2.774 & 3.068 & 3760.00 & UVES & 2 & 1.8 \\ %13
267: Q1425+604 & 3.20 & 2.844 & 3.144 & 3736.20 & HIRES & 4 & 2.1 \\ %14
268: Q2126-158 & 3.268 & 2.906 & 3.211 & 3400.00 & UVES & 2 & 2.0 \\ %15
269: Q1422+230 & 3.62 & 3.225 & 3.552 & 3645.24 & HIRES & 4 & 3.1 \\ %16
270: Q0055-269 & 3.655 & 3.257 & 3.586 & 3423.00 & UVES & 1 & 4.0 %\\ %17
271: \enddata
272: \tablerefs{(1) Kim et al.\ 2002; (2) Kim et al.\ 2004; (3)
273: Kim, Cristiani, \& D'Odorico 2001; (4) Rauch et al.\ 1997.}
274: \end{deluxetable}
275:
276: Regions within $\Delta v =
277: \max(4000,8\,\mpc\,H(z)/h)~\kms$ from the quasars, where $H(z)$ is the Hubble
278: parameter at
279: redshift $z$ extrapolated from its present value ($H_0 \equiv
280: 100h~\kms\,\mpc^{-1}$) assuming $(\Omega_m,\Omega_\Lambda) =
281: (0.3,0.7)$, were excluded to avoid proximity effects. Regions thought
282: to be contaminated by absorption features that are not
283: present in our simulated spectra (e.g., damped Ly$\alpha$ systems)
284: were also excluded from the analysis.
285:
286: Lyman continuum contamination increases significantly towards lower
287: wavelengths, whereas (as described below) our correction for this contamination assumes that it is non-evolving. To mitigate this effect, only the red portion [$\geq
288: {\rm med(\textit{z})}$] of the QSO spectra used in Papers II and III
289: is analyzed in this Paper. As in \cite{2000ApJ...541L...1S}, this was
290: found to result in smaller errors than using the full region.
291:
292: Further details concerning the sample and
293: data reduction are given in Paper II (\S2).
294:
295:
296: \section{Method}
297: \label{sec-meth}
298:
299: The pixel optical depth method we use for measuring \OVI\ is similar to that described in Papers I, II, and III. Section \ref{sec-overview}
300: contains a brief outline of the method; \S\ref{sec-confit} and
301: \S\ref{sec-recovery} describe continuum fitting and contamination
302: corrections, which have been changed slightly from the methods described in
303: Papers II and III; \S\ref{sec-ovitest} describes tests of the
304: recovery, and \S\ref{ioncorr} discusses the ionization balance of the
305: relevant species, and describes how ionization corrections are performed.
306:
307: \subsection{Overview}
308: \label{sec-overview}
309:
310: The basic method for analysis of each QSO spectrum is as follows:
311:
312: \begin{enumerate}
313:
314: \item Optical depths due to \HI\
315: \lya\ ($\lambda1216$~\AA) absorption are recovered for all pixels in the
316: \lya\ forest region, using higher-order Lyman lines to estimate optical depths for saturated pixels.
317:
318: \item The pixel
319: optical depth at the corresponding wavelengths of the metal
320: lines \OVI\ ($\lambda\lambda1032,1038$), \CIV\ ($\lambda\lambda1548,1551$), and \SiIV\ ($\lambda\lambda1394,1403$) are recovered, making several corrections to reduce contamination and noise.
321:
322: \item The recovered optical depth in one transition is compared with that of another, by binning the pixels in terms of the optical depth of \HI, \CIV, or \SiIV, and plotting the median (or some other percentile of) optical depth of \OVI. A correlation then indicates a detection of \OVI\ absorption. An example is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:oviscat}.
323:
324: \begin{figure*}
325: \plotone{fig1.eps}
326: \figcaption[]{\OVI\ optical depths as a function of $\tciv$ (left), $\thi$ (middle), and $\tsiiv$ (right). From bottom to top, the points represent the 31st, median, 69th, and 84th percentiles. Data points are plotted with 1 $\sigma$ error bars. The red lines are predictions from simulations with $\langle {\rm [C/H]}\rangle = -3.8 +
327: 0.65 \delta$, $\sigma=0.70$, [Si/C]$=0.77$, [O/C]$=0.64$.
328: The observed and simulated 31st, 69th and 84th percentiles have been
329: been offset vertically by -0.5, 0.5 and 1.0 dex, respectively.
330: \label{fig:oviscat}}
331: \end{figure*}
332:
333:
334: \end{enumerate}
335:
336: As was done in Papers II and III, an identical analysis is applied to
337: synthetic spectra generated using a cosmological, hydrodynamical
338: simulation, kindly provided by Tom Theuns. For
339: each observed quasar we generate 50 corresponding simulated spectra
340: with the same noise properties, wavelength coverage, instrumental
341: broadening, and pixel size as the observed spectra. For each UVB
342: model (of which several are used; see below) the carbon distribution
343: as measured in Paper II, and the value of [Si/C] from Paper III, are
344: imposed on the fiducial spectra. An oxygen abundance is assigned by
345: assuming a \textit{constant, uniform} value of [O/C]. Ionization
346: balances are calculated using CLOUDY\footnote{See
347: \texttt{http://www.pa.uky.edu/$\sim$gary/cloudy}.}(version 94; see
348: Ferland et al.\ 1998 and Ferland 2000 for details). A direct
349: comparison of the results from these simulated and observed
350: spectra allows for inferences about the distribution of oxygen,
351: carbon, and silicon. The same simulation was used in Papers I (\S3),
352: II, and III, to which the reader is referred for details.
353:
354: This study employs the identical UVB models used in Papers II (\S4.2)
355: and III, excluding model ``QGS3.2''. All models are from Haardt \&
356: Madau (2001, hereafter HM01)\footnote{The
357: data and a description of the input parameters can be found at
358: \texttt{http://pitto.mib.infn.it/$\sim$haardt/refmodel.html}.}. These
359: have been
360: renormalized (by a redshift-dependent factor) such that the simulated
361: spectra match the observed evolution of the mean \HI\
362: Ly$\alpha$ absorption (Paper II). The fiducial model, ``QG'', includes
363: contributions from both galaxies (with a 10\% escape fraction for
364: ionizing photons) and quasars; ``Q'' includes only quasars; ``QGS'' is
365: an artificially softened version of QG: its flux has been reduced by a
366: factor of ten above 4~Ryd. The UVB used in the simulation only affects the IGM temperature, and was chosen to match the measurements by~\citet{2000MNRAS.318..817S}.
367:
368: \subsection{Continuum fitting}
369: \label{sec-confit}
370:
371: A major source of error in \OVI\ optical depths is continuum fitting
372: in the \OVI\ absorption region, where contamination by \lya\ and \lyb\ lines is
373: heavy. To make this fitting as accurate as possible, and to furnish an
374: estimate of the continuum fitting error, we have applied the following
375: procedure to the region analyzed for \OVI\ absorption (in the case of
376: observed spectra, this was done after the spectra had been continuum
377: fitted by eye as described in
378: Paper II \S2):
379: \begin{enumerate}
380: \item{The spectral region is divided into 20\,\AA\ (rest-frame) segments.}
381: \item{In segments with large unabsorbed regions, an automatic
382: continuum fitting algorithm is applied (see \S5.1 of Paper II), in
383: which pixels $> 1\sigma$ below the continuum are iteratively
384: removed.}
385: \item{In segments without large unabsorbed regions, we identify small
386: unabsorbed
387: regions or regions absorbed only in \lyb; the
388: latter are identified by superimposing the region of the spectrum
389: corresponding to Ly$\alpha$ absorption. The continuum level of the segment
390: is fit by minimizing the deviation of identified unabsorbed regions
391: from unit flux, and deviation of the \lyb\ regions from the
392: corresponding scaled Ly$\alpha$ features.}
393: \item{A spline is interpolated between the fits to all segments and
394: the spectrum is rescaled by this spline.
395: }
396: \end{enumerate}
397: This procedure was applied to all observed spectra as well as to to one
398: simulated spectrum per observed spectrum, where a 10-20\% error
399: in the continuum was introduced on scales of 1, 4 and 16 segments. The
400: median absolute errors remaining after blindly fitting the continua of
401: the simulated spectra are given in Table \ref{tbl:sample} as an estimate of continuum
402: fitting errors in the corresponding observed spectra. Because the
403: procedure is not fully automatic, we were unable to apply it to all of
404: the simulated spectra.
405:
406: The region redwards of \lya\ was fit in both simulated and observed
407: spectra using the procedure described in \S5.1 step I of Paper II.
408: Continuum fitting errors are much smaller for this region
409: ($\sim$0.01$\%$).
410:
411: \subsection{Correcting for contamination}
412: \label{sec-recovery}
413:
414: After continuum fitting the spectra, \HI\ (Ly$\alpha$) optical depths $\thi$ are derived for each pixel between the quasar's Ly$\alpha$ and Ly$\beta$ emission wavelengths, save for regions close to the quasar to avoid proximity effects
415: (see \S2). If Ly$\alpha$ is saturated (i.e.,
416: $F(\lambda) < 3\sigma(\lambda)$, where $F$ and $\sigma$ are the
417: flux and noise arrays, see Paper I, \S4.1; Paper II, \S5.1, step 2),
418: higher-order
419: Lyman lines are used to estimate $\thi$.
420:
421: Corresponding \OVI, \SiIV, and \CIV\ optical depths ($\tovi$,
422: $\tsiiv$, $\tciv$) are subsequently derived for each \HI\ pixel. We
423: exclude regions of the quasar spectrum that are contaminated by
424: absorption features that are not included in our simulated
425: spectra, such as \lya\ lines with damping wings. For $\tsiiv$ and
426: $\tciv$, corrections are made for self-contamination and contamination
427: by other metal lines, as described in Paper I, \S4.2.
428:
429: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:oviscat}, when plotting each percentile in $\tovi$ absorption against absorption in some other ion, the correlation disappears below some \OVI\
430: optical depth $\tau_{\rm min}$ (corresponding to a value $\tau_c$ in the other ion) that is determined by noise, continuum fitting errors, and contamination by other lines.
431: These effects may then be corrected for by subtracting $\tau_{\rm min}$ from the
432: binned optical depths, thus converting most points below $\tau_c$ into
433: upper limits. For each realization and for each percentile, we compute
434: $\tau_{\rm min}$ as the given percentile of optical depth for the set
435: of pixels with optical depth $< \tau_c$. We use values $\tau_c=0.01$
436: when binning in \CIV\, or \SiIV, and of $\tau_c=0.1$ when binning in
437: \HI, as we never see a correlation extending below these
438: values.\footnote{In Paper II we used functional fits to determine
439: $\tau_c$. For OVI the correlations are generally less
440: strong than for CIV and we fix $\tau_c$ ``by hand.''}
441:
442: The error on $\tau_{\rm min}$ for an individual realization is computed by dividing the spectrum into 5\,\AA\ segments, then bootstrap-resampling the spectrum by choosing these chunks with replacement, and finally computing the variance of $\tau_{\rm min}$ as computed from 100 such resampled spectra. When the realizations are combined, $\tau_{\rm
443: min}$ is instead computed as the median among the realizations, and the error
444: on this value is computed by bootstrap-resampling the realizations.
445: For further details see Paper II, \S5.1, step 4 and Paper III, \S3.4.
446:
447: As noted above, \lya\ and higher Lyman transitions heavily contaminate
448: the \OVI\ absorption regime. This can add substantial error in the
449: recovered $\tovi$. Two corrections are made to minimize this
450: contamination. First, after recovering $\thi$ and $\tovi$ , an
451: initial correction is made for contamination by higher-order
452: \HI\ lines by subtracting
453: \begin{equation}
454: \tau_{{\rm corr}}(\lambda)=\tlya(\lambda^\prime)(f_{{\rm Ly}i}\lambda_{{\rm Ly}i}/f_{\rm Ly\alpha}\lambda_{\rm Ly\alpha}),
455: \end{equation}
456: where \textit{f} is the transition oscillator strength, $\lambda
457: ^\prime=(\lambda_{\rm Ly\alpha}/\lambda_{{\rm Ly}i})\lambda$ is the
458: redshifted Lyman $\alpha$ wavelength corresponding to Ly$i$ absorption
459: observed at wavelength $\lambda$ and \textit{i} corresponds to first five
460: higher order Lyman lines (i.e., \lyb\ $\lambda1025$ through
461: Ly${\zeta}$ $\lambda930$).
462:
463: A second correction is made by taking the minimum of the \OVI\ doublet,
464: \begin{equation}
465: \tovi={\rm min}\left (\tau_{{\rm OVIa}},\frac{f_{{\rm OVIa}}\lambda_{{\rm
466: OVIa}}\tau_{{\rm OVIb}}}{f_{{\rm OVIb}}\lambda_{{\rm
467: OVIb}}}\right )
468: \end{equation}
469: where `a' and `b' denote the stronger and weaker doublet components, respectively. These corrections are described in detail in Paper I, \S4.2.
470:
471: Another potential contamination issue is that due to strong \lya\ or
472: \lyb\ absorption, some higher percentiles in \OVI\ absorption can
473: become dominated by saturated pixels, so that the particular value of
474: the percentile is determined by the contaminating lines rather than by
475: the \OVI\ distribution. To remove these unreliable percentiles from
476: consideration,
477: the average noise $\bar{\sigma}_{sat}$ is calculated for saturated \OVI\ pixels
478: and is converted into a maximum optical
479: depth ($\tau_{{\rm sat}}=-\ln 3\bar{\sigma}_{sat}$). After \OVI\
480: optical depths are binned, those percentile bins with
481: $\tovi>\tau_{{\rm sat}}$ are excluded from the analysis.
482:
483:
484: \subsection{Testing \OVI\ Recovery}
485: \label{sec-ovitest}
486:
487: Because there is substantial processing of the recovered \OVI\ optical
488: depths, it is important to test how efficiently the true \OVI\ optical
489: depths are recovered by our procedures. To do so, simulations were
490: produced just as described in \S~\ref{sec-overview}, but with
491: (effectively) perfect
492: resolution, no noise, and only \OVI\ $\lambda1032$ absorption (and
493: hence no contamination or self-contamination). In Fig.~\ref{fig:true_rec} the
494: recovered \OVI\ pixel optical depths are plotted against these ``true''
495: optical depths for a set of 60 simulated spectra, for two
496: representative QSOs (see Paper I for more such tests). Of
497: particular note is the efficacy of subtracting the ``flat level''
498: $\tau_{\rm min}$ as described in the preceding section. Ideally,
499: $\tau_{\rm min}$ would be determined using pixels with negligible \OVI\
500: absorption; this is possible in the present case (as the true \OVI\
501: optical depths are known) and corresponding results are shown in the
502: left panels. In a realistic case, a proxy for \OVI\ must be used; in
503: the right panels of Fig. \ref{fig:true_rec}, \HI\ is employed and
504: $\tau_{\rm min}$ is computed using all pixels with $\log\tau_{\rm HI}
505: < -1$. In both
506: cases, the subtracted $\tau_{\rm min}$ values are shown as horizontal
507: dashes on the right axes of Fig.~\ref{fig:true_rec}.
508:
509: \begin{figure}
510: \plotone{fig2.eps}
511: \figcaption[]{The accuracy of recovering the ``true'' OVI pixel optical depth from
512: simulated spectra of Q0109$-$3518 and Q1422$+$230. For every panel, the
513: recovered OVI optical depth is plotted against the ``true'' optical
514: depth, $\ttru$. Each panel shows the binned percentiles after $\tmin$
515: has been subtracted from the recovered $\tovi$ pertaining to that
516: percentile. The left and right panels calculate $\tmin$ using the
517: $\log \ttru <-3$ and $\log\thi<-1$ respectively. These are shown as
518: horizontal dashes on the right axis of each plot. For $\log \tovi>-2$
519: the median OVI optical depths are effectively recovered.
520: \label{fig:true_rec}}
521: \end{figure}
522:
523: Overall, we find that using $\thi$ to calculate $\tmin$ is effective
524: at recovering $\tovi>10^{-2.5}$ for the 31st and median percentiles; for higher percentiles the recovery is accurate only at higher $\tovi$, but the large `scatter' indicates that this is random, rather than systematic error.
525:
526: \subsection{Ionization corrections}
527: \label{ioncorr}
528: In Papers I and II it was shown from simulations that there exists a
529: tight correlation between $\thi$ and the absorbing gas density and
530: temperature, which could be used to predict an ionization correction
531: (i.e., the ratios of \OVI/O and \HI/H) as a function of density; for
532: details see \S~6 in Paper I and \S~5.1 in Paper II. As noted in
533: Papers II and III, this works well for \CIV\ and less well for \SiIV,
534: due to their mild and strong ionization correction dependence on
535: $\thi$, respectively.
536:
537: In the upper panel of Figure \ref{fig:ionpred} we provide a contour plot of
538: the logarithm
539: of the predicted fraction of \OVI\ ions versus temperature and
540: density. The middle and lower panels show $\log
541: \tovi/\tciv$ for [O/C]=0, and $\log \tovi/\thi$ for [O/H]=0,
542: respectively. For photoionized gas ($T \la 10^{5}K$) the \OVI\
543: fraction is highest for $-5\la \log n_{{\rm H}} \la -4$, and only
544: weakly dependent on the temperature.
545:
546: However, for higher densities (and $T \la 10^5\,$K), the \OVI\
547: fraction falls quickly, resulting in a very large ionization
548: correction for \HI\ saturated pixels. At the same time, the \OVI\
549: fraction at high density increases with $T$ for $T \gtrsim 10^5\,$K, so
550: that collisionally ionized gas might be detected relatively easily.
551: Therefore at high $\thi$, collisionally ionized \OVI\ gas can easily
552: swamp photoionized \OVI. This can be seen most clearly in the
553: bottom panel, which shows that for fixed [O/H] and density,
554: $\tovi/\thi$ increases quickly at $T \gtrsim 10^5\,$K, particularly if the
555: density is high. Because our
556: $\thi-\rho$ relation is dominated by photoionized gas (with $T <
557: 10^5$), the effects of collisionally ionized gas are potentially
558: important and are discussed at length in \S~\ref{sec-collisional} below.
559:
560: \begin{figure}
561: \plotone{fig3a.eps}
562: \plotone{fig3b.eps}
563: \plotone{fig3c.eps}
564: \figcaption[]{OVI ion fraction $N_{{\rm OVI}}/N_{{\rm O}}$ (\emph{top}),
565: $\log \tovi/\tciv$ for [O/C]=0 (\emph{middle}), and $\log
566: \tovi/\thi$ for [O/H]=0 (\emph{bottom}) as functions of temperature
567: and the hydrogen
568: number density. Solid (dashed) contours are for the $z=3$ UV background
569: model QG (Q). A measurable quantity of OVI could be
570: collisionally
571: ionized if $T\gtrsim 10^{5}~\K$, which would be
572: misinterpreted as photoionized gas during the ionization correction
573: process. This gas would potentially contain very little associated
574: CIV and HI.
575: \label{fig:ionpred}}
576: \end{figure}
577:
578: The strategy employed here is to employ our fiducial ionization
579: corrections as in Papers II and III, but to recognize that at
580: high-density, the results may be significantly affected by
581: collisionally ionized gas. It is important to note that the importance
582: of collisionally ionized gas may be underestimated by our simulation,
583: because we did not include a mechanism for generating galactic winds,
584: which could shock-heat the gas surrounding galaxies. Our simulation
585: does, however, include heating by gravitational accretion shocks.
586:
587: Once the ionization correction has been determined, and corrected
588: \OVI\ optical depths and recovered \HI\ optical depths $\thi$ have been
589: obtained, the oxygen abundance can be calculated:
590: \begin{equation}
591: [{\rm O/H}]
592: = \log \left ({\tau_{\rm OVI} \over \tau_{\rm HI}}
593: {(f\lambda)_{\rm HI} \over (f\lambda)_{\rm OVI}}
594: {n_{\rm O} \over n_{OVI}}{n_{\rm HI} \over
595: n_{H}}\right ) - ({\rm O/H})_\odot,
596: \label{eq:metallicity}
597: \end{equation}
598: where $f_i$ and $\lambda_i$ are the oscillator strength and rest
599: wavelength of transition $i$, respectively ($f_{\rm OVI} = 0.1329$,
600: $f_{\rm HI} = 0.4164$, $\lambda_{\rm OVI} = 1031.9270$~\AA,
601: $\lambda_{\rm HI} = 1215.6701$~\AA), and we use the solar abundance
602: $({\rm O/H})_\odot = -3.13$ (number density relative to hydrogen;
603: Anders \& Grevesse 1989). An example of the results from this
604: analysis applied to the observed spectrum of Q1422+230 is shown in
605: Figure \ref{fig:1422ioncorr}.
606:
607: \begin{figure}
608: \plotone{fig4.eps}
609: \figcaption[]{The median oxygen abundance as a function of the overdensity
610: (\textit{bottom axis)} or $\thi$ (\textit{top axis}), by applying
611: the ionization correction of \S \ref{ioncorr} and Paper II. For
612: reference, the dashed line is [O/H] vs.\ density, assuming the carbon
613: distribution fit for Q1422+230 from Paper II and constant
614: [O/C]=0.64.
615: \label{fig:1422ioncorr}}
616: \end{figure}
617:
618: In Figure \ref{fig:trueinvsumm_O6} we show a test in which we have
619: generated simulated spectra using the ``QG'' ionizing background,
620: recovered optical depths, and applied the
621: just-described ionization correction to recover the oxygen abundance.
622: The true metallicity is given by the carbon distribution of Paper II
623: (for the QG background), with a
624: fixed [O/C]=$\log 4.5 \approx 0.65$ (i.e., [O/H]=-3.15+0.65$\delta$),
625: and is shown
626: on the plot as a dashed line. For $\log \delta \leq 1.5$, the \OVI\
627: abundance recovery is promising: it overestimates by less than 0.3
628: dex, and the dependence of $\delta$ is reproduced. However, the
629: overestimation appears to increase for $\log \delta \geq 1.5$,
630: reaching approximately 1 dex for the highest overdensity bin. The
631: difference in the high- versus low-$\delta$ gas can probably be
632: attributed to the collisionally ionized gas residing in and around
633: dense regions, due to gravitational accretion shocks. We should thus
634: keep in mind that we expect to overestimate the oxygen abundance
635: associated with strong \HI\ absorbers.
636:
637: \begin{figure}
638: \plotone{fig5.eps}
639: \figcaption[]{Test of the OVI ionization correction from the synthetic
640: spectra using the full QSO sample (using 50 realizations of each synthetic spectrum so as to focus on systematic effects). The input line represents the
641: OVI distribution imposed on the simulations, and the output line is
642: that recovered from the analysis and ionization correction, fit to the data at $\log \delta\leq$1.5; in this density range, the recovery is accurate to within 0.3 dex.
643: \label{fig:trueinvsumm_O6}}
644: \end{figure}
645:
646:
647: \section{Results}
648: \label{sec-resrel}
649:
650: Our basic result will be an estimate of [O/C] for the low-density IGM
651: as a whole, computed using four different but consistent methods,
652: which we describe in turn.
653:
654: \subsection{$\tovi$ versus $\tciv$ for the full sample}
655: \label{sec-resrel-oc}
656:
657: To extract as much information as possible from our data we have, as
658: in papers II and III, combined the data points obtained from our
659: entire sample.
660: Figure~\ref{fig:O_C.fwd.zbin} shows $\log
661: \tovi/\tciv$ versus\ $\log \tciv$, in bins of $z$. To generate these
662: points, we begin with $\tovi$ values binned in $\tciv$ for each QSO, as in
663: Fig.~\ref{fig:oviscat} for Q1422+230. We then subtract from each the
664: ``flat level''
665: $\tau_{\rm min}$ for that QSO to adjust for noise, contamination, etc.
666: (see \S~\ref{sec-overview}), then divide by the central value of the
667: $\tciv$ bin. These points, gathered from all QSOs, are rebinned by
668: determining, for each $\tciv$ bin in
669: Fig.~\ref{fig:O_C.fwd.zbin}, the best constant-level $\chi^2$-fit to
670: all of the points in the
671: specified redshift bin. The errors represent 1- and 2-$\sigma$
672: confidence intervals ($\Delta\chi^2=2$ and $\Delta\chi^2=4$) on this fit.
673:
674: \begin{figure}
675: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{fig6.eps}
676: \figcaption[]{Rebinned median $\log \tovi/\tciv $ vs.\
677: $\log\tciv$ in bins of $z$ for the combined QSO sample. The first two
678: panels show bins centered at $z=2$ and 3 with width $\Delta z=1$;
679: the bottom panel shows combined data for all redshifts. Data points
680: are plotted with 1 and 2$\sigma$ error bars. The
681: lines represent corresponding simulation points (with errors
682: suppressed and with [O/C] chosen to minimize the $\chi ^2$) using
683: different UVB models, as indicated in the legend of the top panel.
684: \label{fig:O_C.fwd.zbin}}
685: \end{figure}
686:
687: The plotted lines indicate corresponding optical depths from synthetic
688: spectra drawn from the simulation, using several UVB models, the
689: corresponding [C/H] distributions as determined in Paper II, and a
690: constant [O/C] value determined as follows.
691: For each background, we generate simulated $\tovi/\tciv$ points in the
692: same way as we did for the observations, but averaging over 50
693: simulated realizations as described in~\S~\ref{sec-overview}. We then
694: calculate a $\chi^2$ between all valid observed original (not
695: rebinned) points and the corresponding simulated points.\footnote{Even
696: using 50 realizations, it may occasionally happen that a simulated
697: bin fails to have enough pixels for at least five realizations, and
698: so is undefined; in this case the observed point is discarded as
699: well.} Because we use 50 simulated realizations, the simulation
700: errors are almost always negligible compared to the observed errors,
701: but they are still taken into account by calculating the total $\chi^2$
702: using the formula:
703: \begin{equation}
704: \chi^2=\sum_i \left[\left({X_{\rm obs}-X_{\rm sim}\over\sigma_{\rm
705: obs}}\right)^{-2}+\left({X_{\rm obs}-X_{\rm sim}\over\sigma_{\rm
706: sim}}\right)^{-2}\right]^{-1},
707: \label{eq:chi2}
708: \end{equation}
709: where $X\equiv\tovi/\tciv$ and $\sigma$ is the error in this
710: quantity. We then add a constant offset to the simulated points
711: (which corresponds to scaling [O/C]) such that $\chi^2$ is
712: minimized. In each panel the lines connect the scaled, rebinned
713: simulation points.
714:
715: The first evident result is that
716: $\log\tovi/\tciv\sim 0$ and appears to be at most weakly dependent on
717: $\log\tciv$, from $\log\tciv~-1.5$ to
718: 0. This is unlike $\tsiiv$, which increases by $\approx$2 dex in this
719: $\tciv$ regime (Paper II). At the lowest densities the data exhibits
720: a decline.
721: Comparing these panels suggest there is little dependence on redshift
722: in this interval. This can be seen more clearly in
723: Figure~\ref{fig:O_C.fwd.dbin}, which show $\log \tovi/\tciv$ versus
724: $z$ in bins of $\tciv$: there is no evidence, in either the simulated
725: or observed points, for evolution in $\tovi/\tciv$ for 1.5$\leq z
726: \leq$3.5.
727:
728:
729: \begin{figure}
730: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{fig7.eps}
731: \figcaption[]{Rebinned median $\log(\tovi/\tciv)$ vs.\ $z$ in cuts of $\tciv$
732: for the combined QSO sample. Data points
733: are plotted with 1 and 2$\sigma$ error bars, where green lines denote
734: lower error of -$\infty$. The first three panels show bins centered
735: at $\log\tciv=-1.25,-0.75$ and -0.25 with width $0.5$, dex; the
736: bottom-right panel shows data for all $\tciv$ combined. The lines are
737: the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:O_C.fwd.zbin}.
738: \label{fig:O_C.fwd.dbin}}
739: \end{figure}
740:
741: The observed trends in $\log(\tovi/\tciv)$ are reproduced well by the
742: simulations. Therefore, because $\tovi/\tciv$ scales with [O/C], the offset in
743: $\tovi/\tciv$ obtained by minimizing the
744: $\chi^2$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:chi2}) against the observations can be used to
745: reliably compute the best fit [O/C]. As an example, for our fiducial UVB model QG, the
746: simulated spectra were generated with [O/C]=0.65 and best fit by an offset
747: of $+0.01$\,dex (implying a best-fit [O/C]=0.66), with $\chi^2/{\rm
748: d.o.f.}$=42.7/82. As we found in Paper II and for Q1422+230 above,
749: the reduced $\chi^2$ is somewhat low.
750: This is due to a slight overestimate of the errors at low-$\tciv$
751: (Paper II) and to the fact that the data points are not completely
752: independent (because single absorbers contribute to multiple data
753: points).
754:
755: The fitted [O/C] values and corresponding $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}$, are
756: listed in Table~\ref{tbl:allfits}, with errors
757: computed by bootstrap-resampling the quasars used in the $\chi^2$
758: minimization. For our fiducial model, QG, the best fit
759: [O/C]$=0.66^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$. The quasar-only background Q (which is
760: probably too hard; see Paper II) gives a much lower value of
761: [O/C]$=0.06^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$. The softer QGS
762: backgrounds gives implausibly high values of
763: [O/C]$=2.23^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$. Coupling this with results from Paper II
764: suggesting that the QGS background is unrealistically soft, strongly
765: disfavors this UVB model.
766:
767: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccccc}
768: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
769: \tablewidth{0pc} \tablecaption{Best-fit Abundances
770: \label{tbl:allfits}}
771: \tablecomments{The best-fit abundances and corresponding $\chi^2$/dof
772: from this work, and Papers II ([C/H]) and III ([Si/C]). Errors were
773: computed by bootstrap-resampling the quasars used in the $\chi^2$
774: minimization. }
775: \tablehead{ &
776: &&&&&&
777: \multicolumn{4}{c}{[C/H]=$\alpha$+$\beta(z-3)$+$\gamma(\log\delta - 0.5)$} \\
778: \colhead{UVB model} &
779: \colhead{[O/C]\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\chi^2$/d.o.f.} &
780: \colhead{[O/C]\tablenotemark{b}} &
781: \colhead{[Si/C]} & \colhead{$\chi^2$/d.o.f.} &
782: \colhead{[Si/O]} &
783: \colhead{$\alpha$} & \colhead{$\beta$} & \colhead{$\gamma$} & \colhead{$\chi^2$/d.o.f.}}
784: \startdata
785: QG & $0.66 \pm 0.06$ & 42.7/82 & $0.56\pm 0.08$ & $0.77 \pm 0.05$ & 65.7/115 & $0.11 \pm 0.08$ & -3.47$^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & 0.08$^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$ & 0.65$^{+0.10}_{-0.14}$ & 114.1/184\\
786: Q & $0.06 \pm 0.06$ & 59.9/82 & $0.06 \pm 0.08$ & $1.48 ^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & 65.6/115 & $1.42 \pm 0.08$ & -2.91$\pm 0.07$ & -0.06$\pm 0.09$ & 0.17$\pm 0.08$ & 113.8/184\\
787: QGS & $2.23\pm 0.06$ & 26.7/82 & $2.11\pm 0.09$ & $0.26 ^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & 73.8/115 & $-1.97 \pm 0.11$ & -4.14$^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & 0.54$^{+0.10}_{-0.07}$ & 1.31$\pm 0.07$ & 114.2/184\\
788: \enddata
789: \tablenotetext{a}{Computed using $\tovi/\tciv$ vs.\ $\tciv$; see
790: \S~\ref{sec-resrel-oc}.}
791: \tablenotetext{b}{Computed using $\tovi/\thi$ vs.\ $\thi$ for gas of density $\delta \le 10$; see \S~\ref{sec-ovihi}.}
792: \end{deluxetable*}
793:
794: We may also subdivide our sample by redshift to test the
795: dependence of [O/C] on these. First, computing [O/C] using only
796: spectra that have a median absorption redshift ${\rm med}(z) > 2.5$
797: (see Table \ref{tbl:sample}) yields [O/C]=$0.71 \pm 0.07$, versus
798: [O/C]=$0.58 \pm 0.10$ using the spectra with ${\rm med}(z) <
799: 2.5$; these are consistent to about 1$\sigma$. Using the Q and QGS UVBs, the [O/C] values inferred from the redshift subsamples are marginally consistent with each other and with the full sample.
800:
801: \subsection{$\tovi$ versus $\thi$ for the full sample}
802: \label{sec-ovihi}
803:
804: While the $\tovi/\tciv$ ratios give the most direct constraints on
805: [O/C], it is also useful to examine $\tovi/\thi$, since comparing the
806: simulated to the observed $\tovi/\thi$ ratios gives an additional (but
807: related) estimate of [O/C] (recall that our simulation reproduces the
808: observed $\tciv(\thi)$)..
809:
810: Figure~\ref{O_H.fwd.zbin} shows $\log \tovi/\thi$ versus $\thi$ for our combined sample, in bins of redshift. Lines again connect the simulation points (with an overall scaling to best match the observations), which reproduce the observed trends in $z$ and $\thi$. The scalings correspond to best-fit [O/C] of 0.69 $\pm$ 0.06, 0.19 $\pm$ 0.06, and 2.25 $\pm$ 0.06, for QG, Q, and QGS, respectively. For QG and QGS, the inferred [O/C] are consistent with the results found using $\tovi/\tciv$; for our hardest UVB model, Q, the [O/C] values are more discrepant, but still within 1.5$\sigma$.
811:
812: \begin{figure}
813: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{fig8.eps}
814: \figcaption[]{Rebinned median $\log \tovi/\thi $ vs.\
815: $\log\thi$ in bins of $z$ for the combined QSO sample. The top two
816: panels show bins centered at $z=2$ and 3 with width $\Delta z=1$;
817: the bottom panel shows combined data for all redshifts. Data points
818: are plotted with $1\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ error bars. The
819: lines represent corresponding simulation points (with errors
820: suppressed and with [O/C] chosen to minimize the $\chi^2$) using
821: different UVB models, as indicated in the legend in the top panel.
822: \label{O_H.fwd.zbin}}
823: \end{figure}
824:
825: However, while the simulations reproduce the overall trends present in the
826: data, there are some possible discrepancies. Although the $\log
827: \thi\leq 0.3$ points are upper limits, the simulations also appear to
828: fall marginally above the data in this regime. At $\log\thi\gtrsim 1$, on
829: the other hand, the simulations slightly but significantly
830: underpredict $\tovi$. This can be seen more clearly in
831: Figure~\ref{O_H.fwd.dbin},
832: where $\log \tovi/\thi$ versus $z$ in bins of $\thi$ is shown,
833: exhibiting a clear discrepancy for points at high-$z$ and high
834: $\thi$.
835: Indeed, if we consider subsamples above and below $\log\thi =
836: 1$, we find that for $\log \thi<$1 we obtain [O/C] values consistent
837: those obtained from $\tovi/\tciv$ (0.62 $\pm$ 0.07, 0.13 $\pm$ 0.07
838: and 2.18 $\pm$ 0.07 for QG, Q, and QGS respectively), but for $\log
839: \thi>1$ we obtain [O/C] of $0.92 \pm 0.10$, $0.34 \pm 0.10$, and $2.52
840: \pm 0.11$ for QG, Q, and QGS respectively. This discrepancy in [O/C]
841: for between low- and high-$\thi$ subsamples is significant at $\approx 2.5\,\sigma$ for the QG and QGS models, and at $1.7\,\sigma$ for the Q model.
842:
843: \begin{figure}
844: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{fig9.eps}
845: \figcaption[]{Rebinned median $\log(\tovi/\thi)$ vs.\ $z$ in cuts of $\thi$
846: for the combined QSO sample. Data points
847: are plotted with 1 and 2$\sigma$ error bars, where green lines denote
848: lower error of -$\infty$. The top two panels show bins centered
849: at $\log\thi=-0.50$ and 0.50 with width $1.0$~dex; the bottom-left
850: panel corresponds to a bin centered at $\log\tciv=1.75$ with width $1.50$ dex;
851: the
852: bottom-right panel shows data for all $\tciv$ combined. The lines are
853: the same as in Fig. \ref{O_H.fwd.zbin}
854: \label{O_H.fwd.dbin}}
855: \end{figure}
856:
857: Given the tight (but $z$-dependent) relation between $\thi$ and gas
858: density (see Paper II, Fig. 2, and the upper axis in the top two
859: panels of Fig.~\ref{O_H.fwd.zbin}), it is useful also to divide our
860: sample into high- and low-density subsamples. We have done this by
861: recomputing [O/C] from $\tovi/\thi$ using only bins with $\thi$
862: corresponding to $\delta < 10$ or $\delta > 10$. For $\delta<$10, we
863: obtain [O/C] of 0.56 $\pm$ 0.08, 0.06 $\pm$ 0.08, and 2.11 $\pm$ 0.09
864: (all consistent at 1$\sigma$ with the full sample), whereas for for
865: $\delta>10$ we obtain [O/C] of 1.02 $\pm$ 0.09, 0.51 $\pm$ 0.09, and
866: 2.60 $\pm$ 0.09 for QG, Q, and QGS, respectively (all discrepant at
867: $\approx 4\sigma$).
868:
869: This high-$\delta$ and (less significantly) high-$\thi$ difference
870: might have several causes. First, it might correspond to a genuine
871: change in [O/C] with gas density. In this case, however, such an
872: effect would also be expected in the trends of $\tovi/\tciv$ vs.\
873: $\tciv$ -- and no such effect is evident.
874: Thus, we
875: consider it more likely that there exists a significant portion of hot
876: gas -- not present in the simulations -- that contains \OVI,
877: but lacks \HI\ and \CIV.
878: As suggested in \S\ref{ioncorr} and
879: Fig.~\ref{fig:ionpred}, and further discussed below in \S
880: \ref{sec-collisional}, this might indicate the presence of a
881: significant amount of collisionally ionized ($T>10^5\,$K) gas in the
882: IGM.
883:
884: \subsection{$\tovi$ versus $\tsiiv$ for the full sample}
885: \label{sec-ovisiiv}
886:
887: A third check on our measured [O/C] is provided by the $\tovi/\tsiiv$
888: ratio. Fig.~\ref{O_S.fwd.zbin} shows $\tovi/\tsiiv$ versus $\tsiiv$
889: for our full sample, for two cuts in $z$. For each UVB the constant
890: Si/C ratio derived in Paper III and the C distribution measured in
891: Paper II are imposed on the simulations and the [O/C]
892: ratio is varied to minimize the $\chi^2$ difference between the
893: observed and simulated data points. Though the
894: detection of $\tovi/\tsiiv$ is weak, the simulations appear to
895: adequately represent the observations in the redshift range where
896: $\tsiiv$ is best detected, $2.5\leq z \leq 3.5$. From these fits we
897: infer, for this redshift interval, [O/C] of $0.77 \pm 0.19$, $0.24
898: \pm 0.20$, and $2.17 \pm 0.21$
899: for UVB models QG, Q, and QGS, respectively; all are consistent with the results obtained from
900: $\tovi/\tciv$, though all are somewhat higher. Because \SiIV\ probes higher density gas
901: than \CIV\ (see Paper III), this again suggests that the simulations
902: underpredict the amount of \OVI\ in and near dense gas.
903:
904: \begin{figure}
905: \plotone{fig10.eps}
906: \figcaption[]{Rebinned median $\log \tovi/\tsiiv $ vs.\
907: $\log\tsiiv$ in bins of $z$ for the combined QSO sample. The two
908: panels show bins centered at $z=2$ and 3 with width $\Delta z=1$.
909: Data points are plotted with 1 and 2$\sigma$ error bars. The
910: lines represent corresponding simulation points (with errors
911: suppressed and with [O/C] chosen to minimize the $\chi^2$) using
912: different UVB models. The $\log \tsiiv =-1.35$ Q data point is
913: set to the minimum allowed $\tovi$, $\log \tovi$=-6.
914: \label{O_S.fwd.zbin}}
915: \end{figure}
916:
917: \subsection{[O/H] versus $\delta$ from $\tovi/\thi$ vs.\ $\thi$}
918: \label{sec-ioncorr}
919: As a final method, we can apply the ``inversion method'' developed in
920: Paper II, to convert $\tovi/\thi$ vs.\ $\thi$ into [O/H] vs.\ $\delta$
921: by applying a density-dependent ionization correction. Then, using the
922: measured distribution of carbon from Paper II, an independent
923: measurement of [O/C] can be obtained.
924:
925: In Figure~\ref{O_H.inv.zbin} we show the derived [O/H] versus $\delta$
926: for our preferred UVB model QG, with data from all $z$ combined. The
927: data points from the individual quasar spectra (an example is shown in
928: Fig.~\ref{fig:1422ioncorr}) have been binned in density
929: bins of 0.25 dex. The solid line shows the least-squares fit to the
930: data points with $\delta < 10$ and the dotted curves indicate the 1
931: $\sigma$ confidence
932: limits, with the resulting fit given in the upper left corner. The
933: errors on the fits were determined by bootstrap resampling the QSOs.
934: The dashed line is the value of [O/H] given by the derived
935: [O/C]=$0.64$ result using $\tovi/\tciv$, and assuming a [C/H]
936: distribution from Paper II.
937:
938: For $\delta< 10$, the [O/H] derived from the ionization correction
939: agrees very well with that determined from both $\tovi/\tciv$, and
940: $\tovi/\thi$. This strengthens the result from \S\ref{sec-resrel-oc}
941: and \S\ref{sec-ovihi} that [O/C] is indeed constant for -0.5$\leq \log
942: \delta \leq$ 1.
943:
944: \begin{figure}
945: \plotone{fig11.eps}
946: \figcaption[]{Median oxygen abundance vs.\ overdensity $\delta$ for
947: $z$=1.5-3.5. The inversion results for each QSO are binned in
948: density bins of 0.125 dex. Data points are plotted with 1$\sigma$
949: error bars, where green lines denote lower error of -$\infty$. The solid
950: line indicates the least-squares fit to the individual data points for
951: $\delta < 10$. Dotted curves represent the 1$\sigma$ confidence
952: limits, which were computed by bootstrap resampling the QSOs. The
953: dashed line is the measured [O/H] utilizing the derived [O/C]
954: results obtained from $\tovi/\tciv$ and assuming the [C/H]
955: distribution from Paper II.
956: \label{O_H.inv.zbin}}
957: \end{figure}
958:
959:
960: However, for $\delta> 10$ the ionization correction results in
961: substantially more [O/H] than that predicted using the
962: previously-determined [C/H] distribution and a fixed [O/C] ratio.
963: This is similar to the breakdown between the simulations and observed
964: $\tovi/\thi$ seen in Fig.~\ref{O_H.fwd.zbin}, and the erroneously high
965: [O/H] recovered for high-$\delta$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:trueinvsumm_O6})
966: when applying the ionization correction to the simulated spectra.
967: Once again, this suggests the presence of collisionally ionized \OVI.
968:
969: \subsection{Systematic uncertainties}
970:
971: The primary source of systematic uncertainty in, e.g. [O/C] or [O/H], is the complex modeling that must be performed to extract these values from the pixel correlations.
972: The greatest combination of importance and uncertainty is clearly the uncertainty in the shape of the UVB; but this is discussed at length below in Sec.~\ref{sec-nuc} so we here focus on other aspects of the modeling.
973:
974: The good agreement between the four methods we have employed indicates that the method is sound; but it is also clear that there are real differences between the universe and our simulation. In particular, it is clear that the real universe has an extra component of \OVI\ at high density, almost certainly due to collisionally ionized gas that is not captured by those simulations. Nonetheless, if we exclude those high-$\thi$ regions, the small discrepancies between [O/C] as measured using the different methods indicate that such effects probably do not contribute more than $\sim 0.1\,$ dex uncertainty to our basic results.
975:
976: Another source of error that may be inaccurately assessed by our
977: bootstrap resampling technique is that from continuum fitting. As
978: shown in Table~\ref{tbl:sample}, our estimated rms error in the
979: \OVI\ absorption region is $\sim 1-4\,$\%. To test the effect of this
980: error on our results, we have imposed an additional error on each
981: observed spectrum on scales of 20, 80, and 320\,\AA, for a total added
982: rms error of 2\%, then recomputed our results. We find that our best
983: fit [O/C] from $\tovi$ versus $\tciv$, and from $\tovi$ versus $\thi$,
984: are both within $\sim 0.03$~dex. Further, both the individual binned
985: points and linear fits of the [O/H] values computed from the full
986: sample (Fig.~\ref{O_H.inv.zbin}) are all affected by this continuum
987: error to a lesser degree than the quoted random errors. Thus, we
988: conclude that the continuum fitting error is not a significant systematic affecting our results.
989:
990: A final possible source of systematic error is that the \OVI\ and \CIV\ recombination rates used in the version of CLOUDY we have employed are too high by $\sim 50-75$\% compared with recent experimental values, for the temperatures relevant to low-density photoionized gas. (Savin, {\em private communication}). For the range of densities $1 \lesssim \delta \lesssim 40$ we cover, this would imply a (density-dependent) correction of $0-0.1$\,dex. This might change our overall fits by an amount comparable to the statistical errors, but is still much smaller than uncertainties stemming from the UVB shape, and cannot account for the ~0.5\,dex of excess in $\tovi$ at high $\thi \gtrsim 10$ shown in Fig.~\ref{O_H.inv.zbin}.
991: Combining these possible sources, we estimate probable systematic
992: errors of $\sim 0.2\,$dex in our basic [O/C] and [O/H] values; this
993: uncertainty may be somewhat greater in subsets of the data, particularly at high-density.
994:
995:
996: \subsection{Densities and volume/mass fractions to which the results apply}
997:
998: It is important to emphasize that each quoted result is sensitive to, and applies to, only a certain range of gas densities. At the upper end, our results nominally concern gas of up to $\delta \sim 100$, though (as noted at length above) the high-$\thi$ range of our data is likely to be affected by collisional ionization. That range is, however, not dominant: we have checked that if all pixels with $\thi > 30$ are excluded from the analysis, the results given for [O/C] in columns 2 and 4 of Table~\ref{tbl:allfits} change only within the quoted errors.
999:
1000: The lower end of the gas density range probed is most straightforward in results from $\tovi/\thi$ (Figs.~\ref{O_H.fwd.zbin} and ~\ref{O_H.inv.zbin}, which formally show OVI detections at 1$\sigma$ using all QSOs at z=$2.5-3.5$ for $\log\thi \gtrsim -0.1$, or $\log\delta \gtrsim 0.1$ and confident detections at $\log\delta \gtrsim 0.4$. In Paper III, the Si abundance results were sensitive to
1001: $\log\thi \gtrsim 0.2$ $(\log\delta \gtrsim 0.2)$, and in Paper II, C abundances were measured in
1002: much lower density gas. Thus our results provide indirect constraints on [O/C] and [O/Si] down to $\log\delta \sim 0.1-0.2$.
1003:
1004: However, there are important caveats. First, the quoted results pertain to the the full density range probed and thus are not necessarily very sensitive to the lowest densities. Second, because the pixel method only works if the element on the x-axis is more easily detectable than the element on the y-axis, direct measurements of [O/C] and [O/Si] from $\tovi/\tciv$ and $\tovi/\tsiiv$ are dominated by much higher-density that gives $\tciv,\tsiiv \gg -2.0$; thus while these results are consistent with our indirect constraints, they do not address the (somewhat implausible) possibility that at low densities O, Si, and C come from completely different gas phases. On the other hand, at {\em high} densities it is quite possible that OVI and SiIV emission are dominated by different phases, so the indirectly inferred [Si/O] values are probably both reliable and well-measured only in the moderate density range $\delta \sim 5-10$.
1005:
1006: Although mass or volume filling-factors corresponding to these results are not well constrained (see, e.g., Schaye \& Aguirre 2005), the forewarned reader can convert the density range $\delta \gtrsim 2$ correspond to into a volume using Paper II.
1007:
1008: \section{Analysis and discussion of results}
1009: \label{sec-discuss}
1010:
1011: \subsection{Relative abundances and the spectral shape of the UVB}
1012: \label{sec-nuc}
1013:
1014: The best fitting metallicities and corresponding $\chi^2$/d.o.f.\ from
1015: Papers II, III and this work are shown in Table~\ref{tbl:allfits} for
1016: each UVB model. Two interesting results stand out. First, for all UVB
1017: models carbon is underabundant relative to both silicon and oxygen (being only marginally
1018: consistent with solar for UVB model Q). Second, all abundance ratios are
1019: sensitive to the UVB shape. A harder UVB results in a lower inferred
1020: [O/C] but a higher inferred [Si/C], making the [Si/O] ratio
1021: particularly sensitive to the spectral hardness of the UVB.
1022:
1023: The extreme sensitivity of the inferred [Si/O] ratio to the
1024: spectral shape of the UV background makes it
1025: possible to constrain feasible UVB models by making only weak
1026: assumptions about the [Si/O] ratio. Since Si and
1027: O are both $\alpha$ elements, they are expected to trace each other
1028: relatively well. For example, using the nucleosynthetic yields of
1029: \cite{1998A&A...334..505P} and \cite{2001A&A...370..194M} and a
1030: \cite{2003PASP..115..763C} initial mass function from $0.1-100~{\rm M}_\odot$, the [Si/O] ratio of
1031: the ejecta of a population of age $t \gtrsim 10^8$~yr is predicted to be
1032: about 0.12 and -0.03 for stars of solar and 1 percent solar metallicity,
1033: respectively. This agrees well with observations of metal-poor stars,
1034: which find [Si/O]$\approx 0$ \citep{Cayrel2004}.
1035:
1036: Tallying the results
1037: of this work with those of Papers II and III yields [Si/O]$= 0.11\pm
1038: 0.08$, $1.42\pm 0.08$, and $-1.97\pm 0.1$ for UVB models QG, Q, and
1039: QGS, respectively. Thus, our preferred model, QG, is nicely consistent
1040: with the expectations, but models Q and QG lead to inferred [Si/O]
1041: ratios that are highly inconsistent with both nucleosynthetic yields
1042: and observations of metal-poor stars. (Assuming [Si/C] $\simeq 0.5$ and [Si/O] $\simeq 0$ in the Q background, for example, raises the $\chi^2$ of the fits in Figures~\ref{fig:O_C.fwd.zbin} and~\ref{O_H.fwd.zbin} by 65 and 92, respectively; requiring this for QGS likewise raises the $\chi^2$ by 138 and 81.)
1043: We conclude that the UVB has a
1044: spectral shape similar to that of model QG.
1045:
1046: While our result using the QG UVB are broadly consistent with the
1047: abundance ratios in metal-poor stars and in yield calculations, the
1048: [O/C] and [Si/C] may be somewhat high, by $\sim 0.1-0.3$\,dex. This is
1049: comparable to our systematic errors, but nevertheless interesting if
1050: taken seriously.
1051:
1052: For example, the models of \citet{Nomoto2006} that include the
1053: contributions of hypernovae (defined as supernovae with kinetic energy
1054: $> 10 \times$ that of normal core-collapse SNe) produce [O/C]
1055: $\approx$ 0.6, and [Si/C] $\approx$ 0.65, in agreement with our
1056: results.
1057:
1058: \subsection{Implications for cosmic abundances}
1059: \label{sec-abun}
1060:
1061: In Paper II we combined the median [C/H]$(\delta, z)$ with the width
1062: $\sigma([{\rm C/H}])(\delta,z)$ of the lognormal probability
1063: distribution of [C/H] for $-0.5 \le \log\delta \le 2.0$ to determine
1064: the mean C abundance versus $\delta$. This was then integrated over the
1065: mass-weighted probability distribution $\delta$ (obtained from our
1066: hydrodynamical simulation) to compute the contribution by gas in this
1067: density range to the overall mean cosmic [C/H]. Assuming that [O/C]
1068: is {\em constant} over this density range\footnote{Note that this is an
1069: extrapolation beyond the range $2\lesssim \delta \lesssim 10$ over which we have reliably {\em measured} Oxygen abundances.} we obtain, for our fiducial UVB model QG, [O/H]$= -2.14 \pm
1070: 0.14$, corresponding to
1071: \begin{equation}
1072: \Omega_{\rm O,IGM} \simeq 3.3\times10^{-6} 10^{[{\rm O}/{\rm H}]+2.1}\left ({\Omega_b
1073: \over 0.045}\right ).
1074: \end{equation}
1075: Extrapolating our [C/H] and [O/C]
1076: results even further to the full density range of the simulation would yield values
1077: $\approx 0.2$\,dex higher but with more uncertainty, as we have argued
1078: that our results are unreliable at the highest densities.
1079:
1080: Note that these results are relatively insensitive to the UVB (unlike those for
1081: $\Omega_{\rm Si, IGM}$ in Paper III) because for a harder UVB, the
1082: inferred [C/H] increases, while [O/C] decreases. For our quasar-only
1083: model Q, these effects almost entirely cancel, yielding [O/H]$\approx
1084: -2.3$, and an $\Omega_{\rm O,IGM}$ value 30$\%$ lower than for model
1085: QG.
1086: Note also that
1087: these estimates include the oxygen that resides in gas that is
1088: observable in \CIV\ and \OVI, but they do not include oxygen in
1089: intergalactic gas that is very hot ($T\gg 10^5$~K) or very cold ($T
1090: \ll 10^4$~K) and shielded from ionizing radiation.
1091:
1092: If, following ~\citet{bouche}, we take $\Omega_{\rm Z,
1093: IGM}=\Omega_{\rm O, IGM}/0.6$, we then infer an intergalactic metal
1094: reservoir of
1095: $
1096: \Omega_{\rm Z, IGM} \approx (4.3-6.8)\times 10^{-6}.
1097: $
1098: This can be compared to their estimate of the total $z \approx 2-3$
1099: ``metal budget" of $\Omega_Z \sim 2-3\times 10^{-5}$, indicating
1100: that $\sim 15 - 35\,\%$ of metals produced prior to $z =3$ reside in
1101: the component of the IGM that is studied here.
1102:
1103: \subsection{Previous Searches for Oxygen in the IGM}
1104: \label{sec-compare}
1105:
1106: Previous studies have explored oxygen abundances in the IGM using both
1107: line-fitting~\citep[e.g.,][]{1997ApJ...481..601R,1998ApJ...509..661D,Carswell2002,Bergeron2002,Simcoe2004,Bergeron2004}
1108: and pixel optical depths~\citep{1998ApJ...509..661D,2000ApJ...541L...1S,Telfer2002,2004A&A...419..811A,Pieri2004}.
1109:
1110: Previous pixel studies did
1111: not attempt to convert their \OVI\ detections into oxygen abundances;
1112: but we can compare to their recovered optical depths.
1113: Both \citet{2000ApJ...541L...1S} and \citet{2004A&A...419..811A} claim
1114: detection of \OVI\ down to $\thi\approx 0.2$. Using our combined data set binned in density (see Fig.~\ref{O_H.inv.zbin}), we obtain 1-$\sigma$ detections down to about the mean density ($\thi\approx 0.5$ at $z =2.5$). While \OVI\ is in principle an excellent tracer of metal in very low-density gas, in practice we find that for the higher redshifts where low densities are more easily probed, \HI\ contamination is severe. Thus we are not in practice able to constrain metals in underdense gas as claimed in previous studies, in spite of a large sample and improved techniques of removing contaminants. On the high-$\thi$ side, both~\citet{2004A&A...419..811A} and~\citet{Pieri2004} exclude pixels
1115: saturated in \HI, so cannot probe $\log \thi \gtrsim 0.5$. (This accounts,
1116: for example, for our detection of \OVI\ in Q1422+230,
1117: while~\citet{Pieri2004} had no detection in the same QSO). The study
1118: of~\citet{2000ApJ...541L...1S} did probe high $\thi$, where their
1119: results are broadly consistent with ours.
1120:
1121: The studies of \citet{Carswell2002}, \citet{Simcoe2004}, ~\citet{Telfer2002},
1122: and~\citet{Bergeron2004} did perform ionization corrections and we can compare our abundance determinations (relatively directly) to
1123: theirs. \citet{Carswell2002} assumed to abundance of oxygen relative to carbon
1124: to be solar and inferred metallicities for various UVB models and a
1125: number of \OVI\ absorbers in $N_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{15}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$
1126: systems at $z\approx 2$. They found that for relatively hard UV backgrounds,
1127: comparable to our model Q, the ionization models yielded densities in
1128: agreement with theoretical predictions for self-gravitating clouds
1129: with the observed \HI\ column densities ($n_{\rm H}\sim 10^{-4}~{\rm
1130: cm}^{-3}$; \cite{2001ApJ...559..507S}) and metallicities
1131: of $10^{-3}-10^{-2}$ solar, in excellent agreement with our measurement
1132: of [O/C]$\approx $[C/H]$\approx -2.6$ for model Q at $z=2$ and $\log \delta
1133: = 1.5$. We note that if \citet{Carswell2002} would have allowed oxygen
1134: to be overabundant relative to carbon, they would have found that
1135: softer UVB models are required to obtain density estimates that agree
1136: with theoretical expectations for gravitationally confined clouds.
1137:
1138: \citet{Telfer2002} employed the Faint Object Spectrograph on
1139: \textit{HST} to search for \ion{O}{5} in QSO spectra from redshift
1140: 1.6$\leq z \leq$ 2.9. The \OVI/\ion{O}{5} ratio found by the survey
1141: favored a UVB background similar to our Q, which they use to derive a
1142: metallicity of $-2.2 \la $[O/H] $\la -1.3$. While somewhat higher than our value, much of the difference may be attributable to their use of the 78th percentile in the \ion{O}{5}/\HI\ ratio. Assuming that [O/H] has a scatter at fixed density similar to that in [C/H] (see~\cite{paper2}), this would correspond to a {\em median} of $\sim 0.5\,$dex less, or $-2.7 \la $[O/H] $\la -1.8$, in fairly good agreement with our numbers.
1143:
1144: ~\citet{Bergeron2004} divide their sample into ``metal-poor absorbers"
1145: with $N($\OVI$)/N($\HI$) < 0.25$, which they take to be predominantly
1146: photoionized, and ``metal-rich
1147: absorbers" with $N($\OVI$)/N($\HI$) > 0.25$, for which they assume a
1148: hotter phase. For the metal-poor systems they use a ``hard" UVB and assume [O/C]$=0$ to derive a range of $-3.0
1149: \la $ [O/H] $ \la -1.0$,
1150: and for the metal-rich phase they infer a
1151: median [O/H] $\approx -0.80 $ to $-0.33$, depending upon the
1152: assumptions regarding the ionization balance. Combining their samples
1153: they estimate cosmic density $\Omega_{\rm O, IGM} \approx (1.6 - 4.4)
1154: \times 10^{-6}$, corresponding to $-2.4 \la $ [O/H] $ \la -2.0$ if
1155: divided by the cosmic gas density $\Omega_b=0.045$. While precise comparison is difficult, these numbers are
1156: consistent with our corresponding estimates of [O/H]$\approx
1157: -2.3$, or $\Omega_{\rm O,IGM}\approx 3.3 \times 10^{-6}$ using the Q
1158: UVB.
1159:
1160: \citet{Simcoe2004} \textit{assume} [O/C]=0.5 and 0.0 for UVB
1161: backgrounds comparable to our QG and Q, for $2.2 \la z \la 2.8$, so
1162: (as for the above studies) comparing derived [O/C] values is less useful than several other points of comparison.
1163: First, in both backgrounds, their dependence of
1164: [O/H] upon $\delta$ is similar to that found for [C/H] vs.\ $\delta$
1165: in Paper II, consistent with a constant [O/C] value. Second,
1166: \citet{Simcoe2004} find that there is a clear jump in in the median
1167: [O/H] at $\delta\sim$10, while a corresponding jump is not seen in
1168: [C/H], similar to our results in \S \ref{sec-ioncorr}. They
1169: also interpret this as possibly indicating that stronger
1170: absorbers are physically more complex or multiphased. Third,
1171: ~\citet{Simcoe2004} compute an overall contribution $\Omega_{\rm
1172: O, IGM} \approx 1.0 \times 10^{-6}$, using their ``hard"
1173: background; this would correspond to a cosmic average
1174: contribution of [O/H] =$ -2.6$; these numbers are $\approx
1175: 0.3\,$dex lower than our values, but this should be regarded as
1176: good agreement given the number of assumptions made in each
1177: computation.
1178:
1179: Finally, the studies of \citet{1997ApJ...481..601R}\citet{1998ApJ...509..661D} are similar to ours in employing simulated spectra to attempt to match observed \OVI\ absorption and thus constrain [O/C] and [O/H]. \citet{1997ApJ...481..601R} generated simulated spectra
1180: from a constant-metallicity simulation and compared ionic ratios to extant data, inferring [C/H] $\approx -2.5$ and evidence for overabundance of Si and O relative to carbon. \citet{1998ApJ...509..661D} used Q1422+230 and a quasar-only Haardt \& Madau UVB model like `Q'. The found that their data is consistent with [O/C] $\approx 0$ and [C/H]$ \approx -2.5$; these are quite consistent with our results using the Q UVB. As an alternative interpretation, they note that a softer UVB would give high [O/C] (more characteristic of Type II supernova yields), but also lower [C/H], again consistent with our findings; however they interpret this softness as due to patchy reionization, whereas we favor its explanation by the contribution of galaxies to the UVB.
1181:
1182: \subsection{Collisionally Ionized Gas}
1183: \label{sec-collisional}
1184:
1185: As discussed above, the difference between the inferred [O/H] for
1186: $\delta\ga10$ and $\delta \la 10$ is probably due to collisionally
1187: ionized gas, for reasons sketched in
1188: \S~\ref{ioncorr}. Fig.~\ref{fig:ionpred} shows that for $T \gg
1189: 10^5~$K, collisional ionization dominates and the optical depth ratios become
1190: independent of the density. For $T \ll 10^5$~K, on the other hand, the
1191: \OVI/\CIV\ and the \OVI/\HI\ ratios both drop rapidly with increasing
1192: density. Consequently, these ratios can be many orders of
1193: magnitude higher in hot, dense gas than in warm, dense gas. The lower
1194: the density, the smaller the differences become. In fact, at high
1195: densities the \OVI\ fraction in warm gas is too small for \OVI\ to be
1196: observable. Therefore, any \OVI\ at the redshift of very strong \HI\
1197: absorption is likely to arise in a different phase than the associated
1198: \HI\ and possibly even the associated \CIV. The \OVI\ phase must
1199: either have a much lower density or a much higher temperature.
1200:
1201: Because the fraction
1202: of hot gas in our simulation is small at all densities, we effectively
1203: assume the gas to be photo-ionized when we compare with synthetic
1204: spectra and when we correct for ionization (as in
1205: Fig.~\ref{O_H.inv.zbin}). In the latter case, we also implicitly assume
1206: that \OVI\ and \HI\ absorption arise in the same gas phase.
1207:
1208: Hence, our results from \S~\ref{sec-ioncorr} suggest the existence of
1209: a detectable amount of \OVI\ enriched hot ($T>10^{5}\,$K) gas associated
1210: with strong \HI\ absorption. A possible physical explanation is
1211: that such \OVI\ systems coincide with
1212: outer regions of high $z$ galactic halos, where the effects of
1213: galactic winds may dominate the heating process. If the temperature
1214: exceeds 10$^5\,$K in these regions, then this gas would contain
1215: significant \OVI, while lacking \CIV\ and \HI. The latter two would
1216: then arise in a cooler gas phase, which has to be fairly dense in
1217: order to account for the strong \HI\ absorption. The high density of
1218: the cooler phase implies that it would not produce significant
1219: photo-ionized \OVI.
1220:
1221: These results and inferences are consistent with other observational studies of \OVI.
1222: \citet{Carswell2002} and \citet{Bergeron2002} both find that the
1223: majority of the detected absorption systems had temperatures
1224: determined from the line widths too low for collisional ionization,
1225: but cannot rule out higher temperatures for some absorbers. Indeed,
1226: the study of \citet{Simcoe2002} find their detected high-column
1227: density \OVI\ lines associated with strong \HI\ absorbers are broad
1228: enough to be consistent with collisional ionization. As noted above,
1229: \citet{Simcoe2004} find a jump in [O/H] at $\delta\sim$10
1230: interpretable as a transition to a regime in which collisionally
1231: ionized gas affects the abundance inferences.
1232:
1233: While collisionally ionized gas complicates oxygen abundance
1234: inferences, the flip-side is that \OVI\ then provides an important
1235: probe of hot, enriched IG gas that is difficult to detect in \CIV\
1236: (e.g., Paper II). Indeed, hydrodynamical simulations by
1237: \citet{2002ApJ...578L...5T} and \citet{Dave2006} predict that a
1238: significant portion of \CIV\ is collisionally
1239: ionized. Hence, it would thus be very interesting
1240: to compare such simulations, employing \OVI\ as a metallicity tracer,
1241: with the observations analyzed here.
1242:
1243:
1244: \section{Conclusions}
1245: \label{sec-conc}
1246:
1247: We have studied the relative abundance of oxygen in the IGM by analyzing
1248: \OVI, \CIV, \SiIV, and \HI\ pixel optical depths derived from a set of
1249: high-quality VLT and Keck spectra of 17 QSOs at $2.1\la z \la 3.6$, and
1250: we have compared them to realistic, synthetic spectra drawn from a
1251: hydrodynamical simulation to which metals have been added. Our fiducial
1252: model employs the ionizing background model (``QG'') taken from Haardt
1253: \& Madau (2001) for quasars and galaxies (rescaled to reproduce the
1254: observed mean Ly$\alpha$ absorption). The simulation assumes a
1255: silicon abundance as calculated in Paper III, [Si/C]$=0.77 \pm 0.05$,
1256: and a carbon abundance as derived in
1257: Paper II: at a given overdensity $\delta$ and redshift $z$, [C/H] has a
1258: lognormal probability distribution centered on
1259: $-3.47+0.65(\log\delta-0.5)$ and of width 0.70~dex.
1260: The main
1261: conclusions from this analysis are as follows:
1262:
1263: \begin{itemize}
1264:
1265:
1266: \item For 1.9$\leq z \leq$3.6, $\thi\leq 10$, and $\delta\leq$10
1267: (when smoothed on the scale of the \HI\ absorption, $10-10^2$
1268: kpc), the fiducial simulation utilized in Papers I, II, and III consistently
1269: agrees with the observed $\tovi/\tciv(\tciv)$, $\tovi/\thi(\thi)$, and (to a
1270: lesser degree) $\tovi/\tsiiv(\tsiiv)$. Fitting $\tovi/\tciv(\tciv)$ yields a constant [O/C] = 0.66 $\pm$ 0.06, with estimated systematic errors within $\pm 0.2$ dex. Converting the observed $\tovi/\thi(\thi)$ into [O/C]$(\delta)$ using the ionization correction method of Paper II further supports these results.
1271:
1272: \item
1273: The relative abundances [O/C] and (especially) [O/Si] are
1274: sensitive to the UVB shape. We find that our fiducial (Haardt \&
1275: Madau 2001, quasars and galaxies) spectrum gives reasonable results
1276: for both, but that significantly softer or harder UVBs, such as the
1277: Haardt \& Madau 2001 quasar-only UVB, give results that are highly
1278: inconsistent with both theoretical yields and observed abundance
1279: ratios in other low-metallicity
1280: environments, and should not be considered tenable.
1281:
1282: \item
1283: Our results, both from applying the ionization correction and
1284: from comparing the simulations to the observations, suggest no evolution
1285: in [O/H] over the redshift range 1.9$\la z \la$3.6, but a strong
1286: dependence on
1287: $\delta$. Both results are consistent with those found in Paper II
1288: for [C/H].
1289:
1290: \item
1291: For $\thi \geq 10$ and $\delta$ $\geq$ 10 the value of [O/C]
1292: (derived by comparison to the simulations) is inconsistent with that
1293: found at lower densities, and $\sim 0.5\,$dex higher than that
1294: predicted using the carbon distribution of Paper II and a
1295: density-independent [O/C] value. This might in principle suggest a
1296: density-dependent [O/C] ratio, but we favor the interpretation that
1297: a fraction of the high-$\delta$ \OVI\ absorbing gas is collisionally
1298: ionized, and that this leads to an erroneously large ionization
1299: correction in this regime. This interpretation is supported by our
1300: simulated spectra as well as by the observation that \OVI\ lines
1301: associated with strong \HI\ absorbers tend to be broader than those
1302: associated with weak \HI\ systems
1303: \citep{Carswell2002,Simcoe2002,Bergeron2002}.
1304:
1305: \end{itemize}
1306:
1307: \acknowledgements We are grateful to Wallace Sargent, Michael Rauch and Tae-Sun Kim for providing the Keck/HIRES and VLT/UVES data used here and in Papers I-III. We are also extremely grateful to Daniel Savin for his assistance in understanding and assessing the systematic uncertainties in recombination rates. Thanks also to Rob Wiersma for computing the expected Si/O ratio from nucleosynthetic yields taken from the literature. We thank the anonymous referee for providing comprehensive and helpful feedback that improved the manuscript. AA and CDH gratefully acknowledge support from NSF Grant
1308: AST-0507117 and JS from Marie Curie Excellence Grant
1309: MEXT-CT-2004-014112.
1310:
1311: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1312: \bibitem[Paper(I)]{paper1} Aguirre,
1313: A., Schaye, J., \& Theuns, T.\ 2002, \apj, 576, 1 (Paper I)
1314:
1315: \bibitem[Paper(III)]{paper3} Aguirre,
1316: A., Schaye, J., Kim, T., Theuns,
1317: T., Rauch, M., \& Sargent, W.L.W.\ 2004, \apj, 602, 38 (Paper III)
1318:
1319: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{1989GeCoA..53..197A} Anders, E.~\&
1320: Grevesse, N.\ 1989, \gca, 53, 197
1321:
1322: \bibitem[Aracil et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...419..811A} Aracil, B., Petitjean,
1323: P., Pichon, C., \& Bergeron, J.\ 2004, \aap, 419, 811
1324:
1325: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(2002)]{Bergeron2002} Bergeron, J.,
1326: Aracil, B., Petitjean, P., \& Pichon, C. \ 2002, \aap, 396, L11
1327:
1328: \bibitem[Bergeron \& Herbert-Fort (2005)]{Bergeron2004} Bergeron, J.~\& Herbert-For, S. \ 2005, astro-ph/0506700
1329:
1330: \bibitem[Bouche et al.(2007)]{bouche} Bouche, N., Lehnert, M., Aguirre, A., P\'eroux, C., \& Bergeron, J.\ 2007, \mnras, submitted.
1331:
1332: \bibitem[Carswell et al.(2002)]{Carswell2002} Carswell, B.,
1333: Schaye, J., \& Tae-Sun, K.\ 2002, \apj, 578, 43
1334:
1335: \bibitem[Cayrel et al.(2004)]{Cayrel2004} Cayrel, R.~et al.\ 2004, \aap, 416, 1117
1336:
1337: \bibitem[Chabrier(2003)]{2003PASP..115..763C} Chabrier, G.\ 2003, \pasp,
1338: 115, 763
1339:
1340: \bibitem[D'Odorico et al.(2000)]{2000SPIE.4005..121D} D'Odorico, S.,
1341: Cristiani, S., Dekker, H., Hill, V., Kaufer, A., Kim, T., \& Primas,
1342: F.\ 2000, \procspie, 4005, 121
1343:
1344: \bibitem[Dav{\'e} et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...509..661D} Dav{\'e}, R.,
1345: Hellsten, U., Hernquist, L., Katz, N., \& Weinberg, D.~H.\ 1998, \apj, 509,
1346: 661
1347:
1348: \bibitem[Erb et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...644..813E} Erb, D.~K., Shapley, A.~E.,
1349: Pettini, M., Steidel, C.~C., Reddy, N.~A., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2006,
1350: \apj, 644, 813
1351:
1352: \bibitem[Ferland(2000)]{2000RMxAC...9..153F}
1353: Ferland, G.~J.\ 2000, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica
1354: Conference Series, 9, 153
1355:
1356: \bibitem[Ferland et al.(1998)]{1998PASP..110..761F}
1357: Ferland, G.~J., Korista, K.~T., Verner, D.~A., Ferguson, J.~W.,
1358: Kingdon, J.~B., \& Verner, E.~M.\ 1998, \pasp, 110, 761
1359:
1360: \bibitem[Haardt \& Madau(2001)]{haardt01:cuba}
1361: Haardt, F.~\& Madau, P. 2001, to be published in the proceedings of
1362: XXXVI Rencontres de Moriond, astro-ph/0106018
1363:
1364: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(1993)]{1993MNRAS.264..201K} Kauffmann, G., White,
1365: S.~D.~M., \& Guiderdoni, B.\ 1993, \mnras, 264, 201
1366:
1367: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2001)]{2001A&A...373..757K} Kim, T.-S., Cristiani, S.,
1368: \& D'Odorico, S.\ 2001, \aap, 373, 757
1369:
1370: \bibitem[Kim, Cristiani, \& D'Odorico(2002)]{2002A&A...383..747K} Kim,
1371: T.-S., Cristiani, S., \& D'Odorico, S.\ 2002, \aap, 383, 747
1372:
1373: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.347..355K} Kim, T.-S., Viel, M.,
1374: Haehnelt, M.~G., Carswell, R.~F., \& Cristiani, S.\ 2004, \mnras, 347, 355
1375:
1376: \bibitem[Marigo(2001)]{2001A&A...370..194M} Marigo, P.\ 2001, \aap, 370,
1377: 194
1378:
1379: \bibitem[Nomoto et al.(2006)]{Nomoto2006} Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Kobayashi, C., \& Maeda, K.\ 2006, \mnras, submitted; astro-ph/0605725
1380:
1381: \bibitem[Oppenheimer \& Dav{\'e}(2006)]{Dave2006} Oppenheimer,
1382: B.~D., \& Dav{\'e}, R.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 1265
1383:
1384: \bibitem[Pieri \& Haehnelt(2004)]{Pieri2004} Pieri, M., \& Haehnelt, M.\
1385: 2004, \mnras, 347, 985
1386:
1387: \bibitem[Pettini et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...594..695P} Pettini, M., Madau, P.,
1388: Bolte, M., Prochaska, J.~X., Ellison, S.~L., \& Fan, X.\ 2003, \apj, 594,
1389: 695
1390:
1391: \bibitem[Portinari et al.(1998)]{1998A&A...334..505P} Portinari, L.,
1392: Chiosi, C., \& Bressan, A.\ 1998, \aap, 334, 505
1393:
1394: \bibitem[Rauch et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...481..601R} Rauch, M., Haehnelt,
1395: M.~G., \& Steinmetz, M.\ 1997, \apj, 481, 601
1396:
1397: \bibitem[Ryan-Weber et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.371L..78R} Ryan-Weber, E.~V.,
1398: Pettini, M., \& Madau, P.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, L78
1399:
1400: \bibitem[Savin(2000)]{2000ApJ...533..106S} Savin, D.~W.\ 2000, \apj, 533,
1401: 106
1402:
1403: \bibitem[Schaye(2001)]{2001ApJ...559..507S} Schaye, J.\ 2001, \apj, 559,
1404: 507
1405:
1406: \bibitem[Schaye
1407: \& Aguirre(2005)]{2005IAUS..228..557S} Schaye, J., \& Aguirre, A.\ 2005, in From Lithium to Uranium: Elemental Tracers of Early Cosmic Evolution, 228, 557
1408:
1409: \bibitem[Schaye et al.(2000a)]{2000ApJ...541L...1S} Schaye,
1410: J., Rauch, M., Sargent, W.~L.~W., \& Kim, T.\ 2000a, \apjl, 541, L1
1411:
1412: \bibitem[Schaye et al.(2000b)]{2000MNRAS.318..817S} Schaye, J., Theuns, T.,
1413: Rauch, M., Efstathiou, G., \& Sargent, W.~L.~W.\ 2000b, \mnras, 318, 817
1414:
1415: \bibitem[Paper(II)]{paper2} Schaye, J., Aguirre, A.,
1416: Kim, T.-S., Theuns, T., Rauch, M., \& Sargent, W.~L.~W.\ 2003, \apj, 596,
1417: 768 (Paper II)
1418:
1419: \bibitem[Schaye et al.(2007)]{schaye2007} Schaye, J.,
1420: Carswell, R.~F., \& Kim, T.-S.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, 1169
1421:
1422: \bibitem[Simcoe et al.(2002)]{Simcoe2002} Simcoe, R.A., Sargent, W.L.W., Rauch, M. \ 2002, \apj, 578,
1423: 737
1424:
1425: \bibitem[Simcoe et al.(2004)]{Simcoe2004} Simcoe, R.A., Sargent, W.L.W., Rauch, M. \ 2004, \apj, 606, 92
1426:
1427: \bibitem[Simcoe(2006)]{2006ApJ...653..977S} Simcoe, R.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 653,
1428: 977
1429:
1430: \bibitem[Somerville \& Primack(1999)]{1999MNRAS.310.1087S} Somerville,
1431: R.~S., \& Primack, J.~R.\ 1999, \mnras, 310, 1087
1432:
1433: \bibitem[Songaila(2001)]{2001ApJ...561L.153S} Songaila, A.\ 2001, \apjl,
1434: 561, L153
1435:
1436: \bibitem[Springel \& Hernquist(2003)]{2003MNRAS.339..312S} Springel, V., \&
1437: Hernquist, L.\ 2003, \mnras, 339, 312
1438:
1439: \bibitem[Telfer et al.(2002)]{Telfer2002} Telfer, R.C., Kriss, G.A., Zheng, W., Davidsen, A.F., Tytler, D.\ 2002, \apj,
1440: 579, 500
1441:
1442: \bibitem[Theuns et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...578L...5T} Theuns, T., Viel, M.,
1443: Kay, S., Schaye, J., Carswell, R.~F., \& Tzanavaris, P.\ 2002, \apjl, 578,
1444: L5
1445:
1446: \bibitem[Tremonti et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...613..898T} Tremonti, C.~A., et
1447: al.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 898
1448:
1449: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(1994)]{1994SPIE.2198..362V} Vogt, S.~S.~et al.\ 1994,
1450: \procspie, 2198, 362
1451:
1452: \end{thebibliography}
1453:
1454:
1455:
1456: \end{document}
1457:
1458: