1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: \usepackage{apjfonts}

3: \bibliographystyle{apj}

4: %\usepackage{longtable}

5: %\usepackage{lscape}

6: 

7: % \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.375in}

8: % \setlength{\textwidth}{7.25in}

9: % \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}

10: % \setlength{\headheight}{0.0in}

11: % \setlength{\textheight}{9.75in}

12: 

13: \def\lya{Ly$\alpha$}

14: \def\lyb{Ly$\beta$}

15: \def\kms{km~s$^{\textrm{-}1}$}

16: \def\da{$D_{\!A}$}

17: 

18: \def\qi{\emph{q1}}

19: \def\qii{\emph{q2}}

20: \def\qiii{\emph{q3}}

21: \def\qiv{\emph{q4}}

22: \def\g6{\emph{g6}}

23: \def\vzw{\emph{wvzw}}

24: \def\nw{\emph{wnw}}

25: \def\cw{\emph{wcw}}

26: 

27: \slugcomment{}

28: \journalinfo{Published in The Astrophysical Journal (2008, \apj, 675, 946)}

29: 

30: \shorttitle{Correlation Anisotropies in the \lya\ Forest}

31: 

32: \shortauthors{Marble et al.}

33: 

34: \begin{document}

35:   

36: \title{The Flux Auto- and Cross-Correlation of the \lya\ Forest.

37: \\II. Modelling Anisotropies with Cosmological Hydrodynamic Simulations}

38: 

39: \author{Andrew R. Marble, Kristoffer A. Eriksen, Chris D. Impey, 

40: Benjamin D. Oppenheimer, Romeel Dav\'{e}}

41: \affil{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}

42: 

43: \begin{abstract}

44: 

45: The isotropy of the \lya forest in real-space uniquely provides a

46: measurement of cosmic geometry at $z>2$.  The angular diameter

47: distance for which the correlation function along the line of sight

48: and in the transverse direction agree corresponds to the correct

49: cosmological model.  However, the \lya\ forest is observed in

50: redshift-space where distortions due to Hubble expansion, bulk flows,

51: and thermal broadening introduce anisotropy.  Similarly, a

52: spectrograph's line spread function affects the autocorrelation and

53: cross-correlation differently.  

54: In this the second paper of a series on using the \lya\ forest observed in 

55: pairs of QSOs 

56: for a new application of the Alcock-Paczy\'{n}ski (AP) test, these

57: anisotropies and related sources of potential systematic error are investigated with

58: cosmological hydrodynamic simulations.

59: Three prescriptions for galactic outflow were

60: compared and found to have only a marginal effect on the \lya\ flux

61: correlation (which changed by at most 7\% with use of the 

62: currently favored variable-momentum wind model vs. no winds at all).

63: An approximate solution for obtaining the zero-lag

64: cross-correlation corresponding to arbitrary spectral resolution

65: directly from the zero-lag cross-correlation computed at

66: full-resolution (good to within 2\% at the scales of interest) is

67: presented. Uncertainty in the observationally determined mean flux

68: decrement of the \lya\ forest was found to be the dominant source of

69: systematic error; however, this is reduced significantly when

70: considering correlation ratios.  We describe a simple scheme for

71: implementing our results, while mitigating systematic errors, in the

72: context of a future application of the AP test.

73: 

74: \end{abstract}

75: 

76: \keywords{cosmology: miscellaneous --- intergalactic medium ---

77:   methods: numerical --- quasars: absorption lines}

78: 

79: \section{Introduction}

80: 

81: Significant observational and theoretical advances in recent

82: decades have made the \lya\ forest a powerful and unique cosmological tool

83: for studying the high-redshift universe.

84: Originally named \citep{1981wey19araa41} for the dense pattern of

85: seemingly discrete \lya\ absorption lines 

86: seen in high-redshift QSO spectra \citep{1971lyn164apjl73},

87: the absorption is now understood to 

88: trace a continuous distribution of non-uniform neutral hydrogen gas 

89: that in turn maps the underlying dark matter 

90: (see \citealt{1998rau36araa267} for a review).  The competing

91: processes of recombination and photoionization lead to a tight

92: relationship between the density of the gas and the neutral fraction,

93: giving rise to a relatively straightforward link between \lya\

94: absorption and the large scale structure of the universe.  

95: Cosmological

96: simulations employing this prescription have had remarkable success

97: reproducing detailed properties of the \lya\ forest provided by 

98: high-resolution ground-based QSO spectra 

99: \citep{1994cen437apjl9, 1995zha453apjl57, 1996her457apjl51,

100:   1998the301mnras478} and low-$z$ \emph{HST} observations

101: \citep{1995pet295aap9, 1999dav511apj521}, paving the way for the \lya\

102: forest to be reliably used for cosmological investigation.

103: 

104: \citet{1999hui511apjl5} and \citet{1999mcd518apj24} first suggested

105: using autocorrelation and cross-correlation measurements in the \lya\ forest

106: for a new application of the Alcock-Paczy\'{n}ski (AP) test 

107: \citep{1979alc281nat358}, a purely geometric method for measuring

108: cosmological parameters that is primarily sensitive to

109: $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ at $z>1$.  The essence of this cosmological test is

110: that spherical objects observed at high redshift will only appear to

111: be equal in their radial and transverse extent if the correct

112: angular diameter distance is used 

113: to determine the latter.  More generally, the correlation function of

114: an isotropic medium, such as the \lya\ forest, 

115: measured as a function of separation 

116: along the line of sight (the autocorrelation

117: $\xi_\parallel$) and in the transverse direction

118: (the cross-correlation $\xi_\perp$) will agree only if the

119: correct cosmology is assumed.

120: 

121: Spectroscopy of the \lya\ forest in any single QSO spectrum yields the

122: complete autocorrelation, albeit with significant variance from one line of

123: sight to another.  The cross-correlation, on the other hand, must be

124: pieced together from pairs of QSOs with different transverse separations.

125: Until recently, only approximately a dozen pairs 

126: with similar redshifts (so that their \lya\ forests overlap)

127: and separations of a few arcminutes or less (the

128: correlation signal diminishes rapidly beyond this point)

129: were known (see, \emph{e.g.}, \citealt{2003rol341mnras1279} and

130: references therein).  

131: The 2dF QSO Redshift Survey \citep[2QZ;][]{2004cro349mnras1397}

132: significantly increased this number, and with motivation from

133: \citet{2003mcd585apj34}, moderate

134: resolution spectra (FWHM $\simeq$ 2.5 \AA) with modest signal-to-noise

135: ratios (S/N $>$ 10 per pixel) have been obtained for more than 50 of these

136: pairs at the VLT \citep{2006cop370mnras1804}, MMT, and Magellan

137: \citep[][hereafter referred to as Paper I]{2007mar} observatories.

138: 

139: While conceptually simple, the \lya\ forest variant of the AP test is

140: not as straightforward as measuring the autocorrelation and

141: cross-correlation from pairs of QSOs and determining the angular

142: diameter 

143: distance which satisfies the presumption of isotropy.  Rather, two

144: additional sources of anisotropy must be accounted for.  First, the

145: line spread function (LSF) of the spectrograph smooths QSO spectra along the

146: line of sight, affecting the autocorrelation and cross-correlation

147: differently.  Second, nonzero velocities caused by the expansion of

148: the universe, gravitational collapse, and thermal broadening make the

149: correlation function in redshift-space ($z$-space) anisotropic

150: \citep{1987kai227mnras1}. Fortunately, the theoretical work of

151: \citet{1999hui511apjl5}, \citet{1999mcd518apj24}, and

152: \citet{2003mcd585apj34} found that these redshift-space distortions

153: can be disentangled from the desired cosmological signature.  

154: 

155: The aim of this paper is to investigate these non-cosmological

156: anisotropies in the \lya\ flux correlation function in a manner which

157: is directly applicable to observations of QSO

158: pairs that are suitable for a new application of the AP test.  To this

159: end we have employed a variety of cosmological hydrodynamic

160: simulations to model the autocorrelation and cross-correlation of the

161: \lya\ forest in both redshift-space and real-space.  These simulations

162: are described in \S~\ref{sec_simdata}, as well as 

163: our procedure for extracting mock \lya\ absorption spectra from

164: them.  In \S~\ref{sec_corrfunc} and

165: \S~\ref{sec_hybrid} we introduce the correlation function and 

166: discuss how to mitigate relevant size and mass resolution limitations

167: of the current generation of simulations.  The effect of arbitrary

168: spectral resolution on the correlation function is the subject of

169: \S~\ref{sec_resolution}.

170: Additional potential sources of systematic error, both computational

171: and observational, are addressed in

172: \S~\ref{sec_systematics}.  The implications of our results for the AP

173: test are the topic of \S~\ref{sec_ap}.  Finally, in

174: \S~\ref{sec_summary}, we summarize this work and its findings.

175: 

176: \section{Simulation Data}\label{sec_simdata}

177: 

178: \subsection{Simulations}\label{sec_sims}

179: 

180: This body of work draws from a suite of eight cosmological

181: simulations which primarily differ in their

182: size, mass resolution, and

183: prescription for galactic outflow (Table~\ref{tab_sims}).  

184: Together, \emph{w16n256vzw} (abbreviated as \vzw) and \g6\ mitigate the effects of limitations in

185: volume and mass resolution as discussed in \S~\ref{sec_hybrid}.

186: Differing wind models (described in \S~\ref{sec_wind})

187: are investigated with the \emph{w16n256cw} and

188: \emph{w16n256nw} simulations (abbreviated as \cw\ and \nw\ respectively), which are 

189: otherwise identical to \vzw.  Similarly, the \qi-\qiv\ simulations

190: differ only by their number of particles, $N_p$, and are used in \S~\ref{sec_hybrid} to test

191: for convergence as a function of mass resolution.  

192: All of these simulations have been the subject of previous

193: study; therefore, we address only the relevant details and 

194: direct interested readers to the references provided for additional

195: discussion.  The common genesis of these simulations is described below,

196: while their differences are contrasted in Table~\ref{tab_sims} and the sections referenced above.

197: 

198: The $N$-body $+$ hydrodynamic code {\sc Gadget} \citep{2001spr6na79}, with

199: modifications described in \citet{2003spr339mnras312}, was

200: used to create \qi, \qii, \qiii, \qiv, and \g6 \citep[][but also see

201: \citet{2006fin639apj672} regarding \g6]{2003spr339mnras312},

202: while \vzw, \cw, and \nw\ \citep{2006opp373mnras1265}

203: were run with a similarly modified version of its successor 

204: {\sc Gadget-2} \citep{2005spr364mnras1105}.  This

205: code computes gravitational forces via a tree particle-mesh solver 

206: and hydrodynamical forces with an entropy-conservative

207: formulation of smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH).  Modelling of

208: additional physical processes includes prescriptions

209: for star formation and supernova feedback within evolving galaxies, which

210: impact the intergalactic medium (IGM) via outflow from galactic winds.

211: A spatially uniform photoionization background is included, with the

212: spectral shape and redshift evolution given by

213: \citet{1996haa461apj20} and \citet{2001haa64cghr} for the {\sc Gadget} and

214: {\sc Gadget-2} runs respectively.  Radiative heating and cooling is

215: calculated assuming photoionization equilibrium and optically thin

216: gas.

217: All of the simulations were run as cubic volumes with periodic boundary

218: conditions and the same cosmological parameters 

219: ($\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, $\Omega_b=0.04$, $\sigma_8=0.9$, and

220: $h=0.7$), which we assume throughout this paper.

221: 

222: \subsection{Line of Sight Selection}

223: 

224: ``Observed'' lines of sight through the simulation box (parallel to the three

225: principal axes) were grouped into sets, each of which probed the desired separation

226: range ($0-5$ arcminutes). $N_s$ sets were randomly distributed across

227: each of the three mutually orthogonal faces of the box in order to 

228: representatively sample the diversity of structure present in the

229: simulation volume. The value of $N_s$ (Table~\ref{tab_sims}),

230: which roughly scales inversely with the box length of the simulation cube

231: for comparable total path length, yields oversampled structure (correlated 

232: measurements) in some cases.  However, there are sufficient independent lines of sight

233: through each simulation to achieve negligible uncertainty in the \lya\ forest flux 

234: correlation mean despite considerable variance.

235: 

236: The lines of sight in a given set were arranged in the following

237: manner.  A position on the face of the

238: simulation box was randomly selected, from which an imaginary $300\arcsec$

239: long line was extended at a random angle within the same plane.  If the

240: line happened to intersect an edge of the simulation face, it was

241: continued on the opposite side, per the wrapped boundary conditions.

242: The two opposing ends of the line and 11 intermediate positions

243: (2, 3, 8, 12, 15, 25, 45, 80, 150,

244: 210, and 250 arcseconds from the origin) defined starting coordinates for

245: that set.  The intervals between these 13 lines of sight, determined

246: via a Monte Carlo approach designed to maximize sampling of angular

247: separation (particularly at small separations where the correlation

248: function evolves more rapidly) with a minimal number of spectra, yield

249: 73 pairings with unique separations.

250: 

251: \subsection{\lya\ Flux Spectra}\label{sec_spectra}

252: 

253: Two \lya\ transmitted flux spectra, one corresponding to redshift-space and another to 

254: real-space, 

255: were computed as a function of position, $x$, along each line of sight using a modified 

256: version of

257: the program {\tt specexbin} \citep[originally part of {\tt tipsy}; ][]{1999dav511apj521}.

258: First, the physical properties of the gas (density, temperature, and velocity) were 

259: calculated at $\simeq20~h^{\textrm{-}1}$ comoving kpc intervals

260: ($\Delta v\,\simeq\,2.1\,$\kms\ or $\Delta \lambda\,\simeq\,0.029\,$\AA\ at $z=2.4$).  

261: For the real-space 

262: spectra, the velocities (resulting from Hubble expansion across the length of the box, bulk flows, and thermal 

263: broadening) were reset to zero.  Then, the corresponding \ion{H}{1} opacities, 

264: $\tau$, were determined, using ionization fraction lookup tables generated with {\tt Cloudy v96} \citep{1998fer110pasp761}, and converted to \lya\ transmitted flux,

265: 

266: \begin{equation}\label{eq_flux}

267: f(x) = e^{-\tau(x)}.

268: \end{equation}

269: 

270: In an additional intermediate step, the extracted opacities were multiplied by a single scaling factor in

271: order to match the mean transmitted flux, $\langle f \rangle$, in redshift-space to the observed value of

272: either \citet{1993pre414apj64} or \citet{2005kir360mnras1373}. 

273: For the moderately overdense regions characteristic of the \lya\ forest

274: ($\rho/\bar{\rho}<10$), this has the same effect as changing the

275: amplitude of the photoionizing background (which determines $\langle f

276: \rangle$)

277: when running the simulation and/or when later computing the ionization fraction

278: to determine opacity \citep{1998cro495apj44}.

279: The appropriate scaling was determined for each simulation and redshift

280: via an iterative process. The raw opacity

281: values from all redshift-space extractions were multiplied by a

282: single scaling factor (originally one),

283: converted to fluxes, and averaged.  The scaling factor was then adjusted to be 

284: higher or lower as needed, and these steps were repeated with

285: incrementally smaller adjustments until the resulting mean flux

286: agreed with the desired value.

287: This convergence was considered complete

288: when the difference was less than or equal to the formal error in the

289: calculated mean.  Given the large number of extracted opacities, this

290: typically corresponded to a relative difference of less than 0.01\%.

291: 

292: Figure~\ref{fig_spec_z} shows the resulting spectrum for a single line

293: of sight through the \vzw\ simulation box at different redshifts. The

294: corresponding set of lines of sight (for $z=3$) is shown in

295: Figure~\ref{fig_spec_sep}, illustrating the

296: decreasing correlation (in the form of visual similarity)

297: at increasingly larger transverse separations.

298: A comparison of the same line of sight in real-space and

299: redshift-space is provided in Figure~\ref{fig_spec_other}, where the

300: redistribution of opacity due to redshift-space distortions is subtle,

301: but evident.  In addition, narrower absorption features can be seen relative

302: to a different line of sight through the larger \g6\ simulation, due to the

303: poorer mass resolution of the latter.

304: 

305: \section{The Correlation Function}\label{sec_corrfunc}

306: 

307: From the ensemble of lines of sight through each simulation, we know

308: the transmitted \lya\ flux as a function of velocity, 

309: 

310: \begin{equation}\label{eq_v}

311: v \equiv \frac{H(z_{sim})\,x}{1+z_{sim}},

312: \end{equation}

313: 

314: \noindent in the radial ($v_\parallel$) and

315: transverse ($v_\perp$) directions for $\Sigma n = N_s$ different realizations

316: (\emph{i.e.,} sets of lines of sight).

317: Here $H(z_{sim})$ is the value of the Hubble parameter at the fixed redshift of the simulation,

318: and the denominator accounts for $x$ being in comoving coordinates.

319: For notational convenience, we define $\delta$ to be the relative difference between

320: $f$ and the global mean, 

321: 

322: \begin{equation}\label{eq_bigf}

323:   \delta_n\left(v_\parallel, v_\perp\right) \equiv \frac{f_n\left(v_\parallel, v_\perp\right)}{\langle f

324:   \rangle} - 1.

325: \end{equation}

326: 

327: \noindent The relation between transmitted flux separated

328: along the line of sight or in the transverse direction 

329: by a velocity difference $\Delta v$ 

330: is

331: given by the autocorrelation, 

332: 

333: \begin{equation}\label{eq_auto}

334:   \xi_{\parallel}(\Delta v) = 

335:   \frac{1}{N_s} \sum_{n=1}^{N_s} 

336:   \frac{1}{N_\perp} \sum_{i=1}^{N_\perp}

337:   \frac{1}{N_\parallel} \sum_{j=1}^{N_\parallel} 

338:   \delta_n\left(v_{\parallel_j}, v_{\perp_i}\right) \,

339:   \delta_n\left(v_{\parallel_j}+\Delta v, v_{\perp_i}\right),

340: \end{equation}

341: 

342: \noindent and zero-lag cross-correlation, 

343: 

344: \begin{equation}

345:   \xi_{\perp}\!\left(\Delta v\right) = 

346:   \frac{1}{N_s} \sum_{n=1}^{N_s} 

347:   \frac{1}{N_\parallel} \sum_{j=1}^{N_\parallel} 

348:   \delta_n\left(v_{\parallel_j}, v_{\perp_i}\right) \, 

349:   \delta_n\left(v_{\parallel_j}, v_{\perp_i}+\Delta v\right),

350: \end{equation}

351: 

352: \noindent respectively.  Note that $f_n$ (and therefore $\delta_n$) is periodic due to

353: the wrapped boundary conditions of the simulation box.

354: In real-space, the correlation of the \lya\ forest is isotropic, and

355: $\xi_{\parallel} = \xi_{\perp}$.  Figure~\ref{fig_zspace} confirms

356: this basic result for the hybrid correlation measurements (discussed

357: in \S~\ref{sec_hybrid}) at $z=3$ and shows the

358: anisotropy introduced in redshift-space.

359: 

360: \subsection{Box Length \emph{vs.} Mass Resolution}\label{sec_hybrid}

361: 

362: The \lya\ forest is believed to have formed, via gravitational

363: collapse, from perturbations in the initial density field.  

364: In order to reliably model the correlation function of the \lya\

365: forest, simulations must evolve a sufficiently large volume with adequate mass

366: resolution.  A simulation box length that is too small, or a gas particle

367: mass that is too large, excludes relevant perturbations on large and

368: small scales respectively.

369: In the moderately overdense regime of the \lya\ forest, growth is

370: sufficiently non-linear that perturbations of different sizes

371: become coupled, and the correlation function is affected even at scales

372: not excluded.

373: In addition, aliasing 

374: due to the periodic boundary conditions of the simulations

375: is extended from half the box length ($L$) to smaller scales

376: (we limit our analysis to

377: separations less than $L/3-L/4$).

378: Since simulations which can satisfy both of these

379: competing demands are not yet available, we mitigate these effects

380: by forming hybrid correlation curves from two

381: different simulations which meet the requirements independently.

382: 

383: The \vzw\ simulation has $256^3$ gas particles within an $L=16~h^{\textrm{-}1}$

384: Mpc box, yielding a gas particle mass of $m_{gas}=2.71 \times 10^6~h^{\textrm{-}1}

385: ~M_{\sun}$.  In order to verify that this mass resolution is

386: sufficient for our purposes, we used the \qi, \qii, \qiii, and \qiv\

387: simulations to test for convergence (note that the result may be

388: simulation code dependent).  The \emph{q}-series 

389: are identical except for particle number, with gas 

390: particle masses which decrease with

391: increasing series number (42.4, 12.5, 3.72,

392: and 1.10 in units of $10^6~h^{\textrm{-}1} ~M_{\sun}$).  

393: As a consequence of their small box length ($L=10~h^{\textrm{-}1}$ Mpc), the

394: correlation is artificially depressed and the autocorrelation crosses

395: zero on the scales of interest to us.  Therefore, in order to make

396: meaningful comparisons (avoiding division by zero), the \emph{q}-series correlation curves were

397: all increased by an equal, constant amount such that \qi\ agrees with

398: \g6\ (which has a comparable gas mass resolution, but a much larger box length) at 445 \kms\ (this velocity choice is motivated below).

399: 

400: As shown in the left panels of Figure~\ref{fig_qseries}, the

401: cross-correlation (\emph{top}) and autocorrelation (\emph{bottom}) from \qiii\

402: agree well with \qiv\ ($<3\%$ relative difference for $\Delta

403: v$ corresponding to less than $L/4$).  We conclude that \vzw, which has a smaller gas particle

404: mass than \qiii, is not significantly compromised by mass

405: resolution. However, in addition to missing large scale power due to the $L=16~h^{\textrm{-}1}$ Mpc box length, the reliable separation range ($\scriptstyle\lesssim$ $L/4$) probed by \vzw\ corresponds to only $394-444$ \kms\ at $z=2-3$.

406: Conversely, the box length of the larger ($L=100~h^{\textrm{-}1}$ Mpc), 

407: but much lower-resolution ($484^3$ gas particles, $m_{gas}=9.79\times10^7~h^{\textrm{-}1} ~M_{\sun}$),

408: \g6\ simulation should more than suffice.

409: \citet{2003mcd585apj34} found little difference in the correlation

410: function between $L=40$ and $80~h^{\textrm{-}1}$ Mpc simulations.

411: 

412: In Figure~\ref{fig_boxsize}, we consider the subtracted difference between the

413: correlation functions of \cw\ and \g6\ (\emph{solid lines}) in order to 

414: characterize the effects of insufficient simulation volume

415: and mass resolution

416: and to motivate a methodology for forming hybrid correlation

417: curves that mitigate them.  Note that \cw\ is used in lieu of \vzw\

418: in order to elliminate any additional differences due to wind models.

419: The signature of poor mass resolution is illustrated (\emph{dotted lines} in 

420: Fig.~\ref{fig_boxsize}) by the correlation difference

421: between \qi\ and the mean of \qiii\ and \qiv\ (which closely corresponds to the

422: mass resolution of \cw).  

423: The nature of the suppression of \cw\ due to its small

424: box length is then reflected in the residual (dash-dotted lines in 

425: Fig.~\ref{fig_boxsize}) between

426: these two curves.  However, since the mass resolution of \qi\ is

427: superior to \g6\ by more than a factor of 2, 

428: the dotted line underestimates the effect for \g6.  Extrapolation from

429: the right panels of Figure~\ref{fig_qseries} is

430: poorly constrained, although accounting for the trend implies significant

431: flattening of the dash-dotted line (Figure~\ref{fig_boxsize}) on small

432: scales.  Such a relatively

433: smooth alteration of the correlation function due to insufficient box

434: length is consistent with the expectation of constant suppression

435: when the evolution of coupled modes is not accounted for

436: \citep[][see Figure 15]{2000mcd543apj1}.  Although the true effect is

437: likely not a constant offset at all scales, this appears to be a

438: reasonable approximation.  Note also that the disparity

439: between \cw\ and \g6\ at sufficiently large $\Delta v$ appears to be

440: purely a box length effect.

441: Therefore, we define the hybrid correlation function $\xi^h$ to be equal to $\xi^{g6}$ for $\Delta v$ greater than an

442: adopted splice velocity, $v_s$. For $\Delta v < v_s$, $\xi_{\parallel}^h$ is equal

443: to $\xi_{\parallel}^{wvzw}$ plus the difference between $\xi_{\parallel}^{g6}$ and

444: $\xi_{\parallel}^{wvzw}$ at the splice velocity.  In the case of the

445: cross-correlation, this is slightly modified to preserve the boundary

446: condition $\xi_{\perp}\left(0\right)=\xi_{\parallel}\left(0\right)$.  More explicitly,

447: 

448: \begin{equation}

449: \label{eq_hybrid}

450: \begin{array}{rcl}

451: 

452: \xi^h\left(\Delta v > v_s\right) & = & \xi^{g6}\left(\Delta v\right)\\

453: 

454: \xi_\parallel^h\left(\Delta v < v_s\right) & = &

455: \xi_\parallel^{wvzw}\left(\Delta v\right) + \tilde{\delta}_\parallel\\

456: 

457: \xi_\perp^h\left(\Delta v < v_s\right) & = &

458: \xi_\perp^{wvzw}\left(\Delta v\right) + \tilde{\delta}_\perp +

459: \left(\frac{\delta_\perp-\delta_\parallel}{v_s}\right) \Delta v\\

460: 

461: \tilde{\delta} & \equiv & \xi^{g6}\left(v_s\right) - \xi^{wvzw}\left(v_s\right).

462: 

463: \end{array}

464: \end{equation}

465: 

466: \noindent The value of $v_s$ was chosen to be the minimum velocity

467: at which the effect of the \g6\ mass resolution can be assumed to be

468: negligible.  In order to ensure isotropy in real-space, $v_s$ must be

469: the same for the autocorrelation and cross-correlation.

470: Thus, based on Figures~\ref{fig_qseries}~and~\ref{fig_boxsize}, 

471: 445 \kms\ was adopted as the splice velocity (for all redshifts).

472: It is worth noting that the resulting hybrid correlation curves are insensitive to the

473: exact choice of $v_s$ due to the relative flatness of the difference

474: between $\xi^{g6}$ and $\xi^{wvzw}$ on these scales.

475: 

476: \subsection{Accounting For Spectral Resolution}\label{sec_resolution}

477: 

478: A real spectrum (\emph{i.e.}, observed with a telescope) is a

479: convolution, $\mathcal{S_\parallel}$, of the true 

480: transmitted flux along the line of sight with the LSF of the

481: spectrograph.  The LSF is generally Gaussian, and the width, $\sigma$, 

482: determines the resolution of the data,  

483: 

484: \begin{equation}\label{eq_smoothing} 

485:   \mathcal{S_\parallel}\left[\tilde{f}\left(v_{\parallel_j}\right), \sigma\right] 

486:   \equiv \sum_{k=j-\alpha}^{j+\alpha} \tilde{f}\left(v_{\parallel_k}\right) \,

487:   \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma} \,\, e^{\frac{-(v_{\parallel_j}-v_{\parallel_k})^2}{2\,\sigma^2}},

488: \end{equation}

489: 

490: \noindent where $\alpha$ must be sufficiently large with respect to

491: $\sigma$ that the tails of

492: the exponential are effectively zero at the limits of convolution.

493: Figure~\ref{fig_spec_other} provides a comparison of a

494: simulated spectrum at full-resolution and the same spectrum degraded to

495: FWHM $= 2 \sqrt{2 \ln 2}$ and $\sigma =\ 2.5\,$\AA.

496: Similar to the anistropy introduced by redshift-space

497: distortions, this smoothing along the line of sight changes the

498: autocorrelation differently than the cross-correlation 

499: (Figure~\ref{fig_res}).  Thus, the latter anisotropy must be properly

500: accounted for in order to correct the former.

501: 

502: A sensible way of determining $\xi^\sigma$, the correlation function

503: corresponding to data of resolution 

504: $\sigma$, is to smooth the simulated spectra and then 

505: compute their correlation,

506: 

507: \begin{eqnarray}

508:   \xi^\sigma_\parallel\left(\Delta v\right) & \equiv &

509:   \frac{1}{N_s} \sum^{N_s}_{n=1} 

510:   \frac{1}{N_\perp} \sum^{N_\perp}_{i=1} 

511:   \frac{1}{N_\parallel} \sum^{N_\parallel}_{j=1}

512:   \mathcal{S_\parallel}\left[\delta_n\left(v_{\parallel_j}, v_{\perp_i}\right),

513:   \sigma\right] \nonumber \\  

514:   & & \times \, \mathcal{S_\parallel}\left[\delta_n\left(v_{\parallel_j}+\Delta v, v_{\perp_i}\right),

515:   \sigma\right]\label{eq_autosigma1} 

516: \\

517:   \xi^\sigma_\perp\left(\Delta v\right) & \equiv &

518:   \frac{1}{N_s} \sum^{N_s}_{n=1} 

519:   \frac{1}{N_\parallel} \sum^{N_\parallel}_{j=1}

520:   \mathcal{S_\parallel}\left[\delta_n\left(v_{\parallel_j}, v_{\perp_i}\right),

521:   \sigma\right] \nonumber \\ 

522:   & & \times \, \mathcal{S_\parallel}\left[\delta_n\left(v_{\parallel_j}, v_{\perp_i}+\Delta v\right),

523:   \sigma\right]\label{eq_crosssigma1}. 

524: \end{eqnarray}

525: 

526: \noindent This, however, has several disadvantages.

527: Individually smoothing each spectrum is a time-consuming

528: process which must be repeated for each desired value of

529: $\sigma$.  Likewise, the correlation calculations must be duplicated, 

530: and future consideration of different resolutions requires

531: the original simulated spectra.  More importantly, 

532: the creation of hybrid \emph{auto}correlation

533: curves as described in \S~\ref{sec_hybrid} 

534: is only valid if performed at full-resolution.  This is because spectral

535: smoothing redistributes correlation along the line of sight, negating

536: the validity of the splice point.

537: Finally, smoothing the spectra also

538: redistributes aliasing effects (which are mitigated in the hybrid

539: correlation function) to smaller separations, 

540: limiting the scales which can be reliably probed at a given resolution.

541: For the \vzw\ simulation, $\pm 3\sigma$ (where the LSF becomes negligible)

542: corresponds to a third of the

543: box length for a FWHM of 1.8/2.7 \AA\ at $z=2/3$.

544: 

545: An alternative method of accounting for spectral resolution, 

546: applied directly to the full-resolution hybrid correlation function,

547: solves each of these problems.

548: Convolving the full-resolution autocorrelation function with 

549: a Gaussian LSF of width $\sqrt{2}\,\sigma$ is mathematically identical

550: to recalculating the autocorrelation with spectra smoothed by a

551: Gaussian LSF of width $\sigma$,

552: 

553: \begin{equation}\label{eq_autosigma2} 

554: \mathcal{S_\parallel}\left[\xi_{\parallel}\left(\Delta

555: v\right), \sqrt{2} \sigma\right] = 

556: \xi^\sigma_\parallel\left(\Delta v\right).

557: \end{equation}

558: 

559: \noindent This convenient result is due to the fact that 

560: the convolution of two Gaussians is itself a Gaussian and that the 

561: autocorrelation and spectral smoothing 

562: are both a function of radial velocity (see the Appendix).

563: 

564: Unfortunately, this is not the case for the cross-correlation, and

565: there is no

566: corresponding analytical expression.  However, since

567: spectral smoothing redistributes correlation along the line of sight,

568: its effect in the orthogonal direction probed by the cross-correlation

569: should be a relative

570: suppression at all separations.  The corresponding

571: scale factor can be evaluated at $\Delta v = 0$, where the

572: amplitude of $\xi^\sigma_\perp$ is known by virtue of

573: equation~\ref{eq_autosigma2} and the fact that $\xi_\perp\left(0\right) =

574: \xi_\parallel\left(0\right)$ by definition.  The 

575: approximate solution

576: 

577: \begin{equation}\label{eq_crosssigma2} 

578:   \xi^\sigma_\perp\left(\Delta v\right)

579:   \,\, \approx \,\,

580:   \xi_\perp\left(\Delta v\right)\,\left(1+\beta \,

581:   \xi_\perp\left(\Delta v\right)\right)^{\textrm{-}1},

582: \end{equation}

583: 

584: \noindent where

585: 

586: \begin{equation}\label{eq_beta}

587:   \beta 

588:   \,\, \equiv \,\, 

589:   \frac{1}{\xi^\sigma_\parallel\left(0\right)} -

590:   \frac{1}{\xi_\perp\left(0\right)},

591: \end{equation}

592: 

593: \noindent agrees remarkably well with results obtained using

594: equation~\ref{eq_crosssigma1}.  This is demonstrated in

595: Figure~\ref{fig_res_cross} for a representative range of redshifts and

596: spectral resolutions.

597: The slight disagreement between the two methods scales with the degree

598: of correlation suppression; however, the difference is

599: $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 2\% for $2<z<3$, FWHM $\leq 2.5$ \AA, and $\theta>90\arcsec$.

600: 

601: \section{Potential Systematics}\label{sec_systematics}

602: 

603: Simulation of the \lya\ flux correlation is subject to a number of sources of

604: systematic error.  Some are either addressed by 

605: previous studies or may be controlled for in a limited

606: fashion by judicious comparison of results from the simulations listed

607: in Table~\ref{tab_sims}.  Others, we can only identify and

608: acknowledge, but not measure or correct for.  However,

609: the primary interest of this study is in alterations of the

610: correlation function due to redshift-space distortions, for which much

611: of this systematic uncertainty is mitigated.

612: It is also worth noting that while errors in the autocorrelation at small scales are

613: propogated to larger scales when spectral smoothing is considered,

614: uncertainty in the cross-correlation is only relevant at the scales

615: corresponding to observed QSO pair separations

616: ($1.5\arcmin\scriptstyle\lesssim\textstyle\theta\scriptstyle\lesssim\textstyle4\arcmin$ 

617: in the case of Paper I).  

618: 

619: The effects of box length and mass resolution have already been

620: discussed in \S~\ref{sec_hybrid}.  For the limited scales

621: accessible with the \emph{q} simulation series,

622: our hybrid correlation

623: measurements appear to be largely unaffected by mass resolution and

624: reasonably well corrected for box length limitations with a constant

625: offset.  However, given the rapid decline of the correlation function

626: on scales affected by the small box length of \vzw, establishing

627: limits for the relative effect of deviations from a constant

628: suppression is speculative.

629: 

630: While the evolution of large scale structure at $z>2$ is

631: relatively insensitive to the cosmological parameters $\Omega_m$ and

632: $\Omega_\Lambda$, the adopted simulation value of $\sigma_8$ 

633: \citep[which

634: is, however, consistent with the three-year \emph{WMAP} value; ][]{2007spe}

635: likely does affect the correlation of the \lya\ forest.  Furthermore, the

636: simulations used in this study represent only a few realizations of

637: random fluctuation amplitudes in the early universe.  Therefore, we

638: cannot account for any related variance in the correlation

639: measurements.  Simulating the grid of amplitudes

640: necessary for this purpose with an SPH code is computationally

641: prohibitive at this time; however, see \citet{2003mcd585apj34} for a

642: discussion on

643: the alternative use of hydro-particle-mesh simulations.

644: In the following subsections, we address several remaining

645: potential sources of systematic error.

646: 

647: \subsection{Redshift Evolution}

648:                                                                                 

649: The $\Delta z = 0.2$ sampling of the \vzw\ simulation was used to

650: verify that the redshift evolution of the autocorrelation and cross-correlation

651: is smooth and well-behaved over

652: the range of interest.  Figure~\ref{fig_zevo} illustrates

653: this for the case of the autocorrelation (four representative $\Delta v$

654: lags are shown) at full-resolution with redshift-space distortions.

655: A third order polynomial does an excellent job of fitting all seven

656: epochs, allowing for reliable interpolation at intermediate redshifts.

657: By extension, the same is assumed for the more coarsely sampled

658: ($\Delta z = 0.5$) \g6 simulation.

659: 

660: \subsection{Metals}

661: 

662: The simulated spectra generated for this study include absorption

663: from \ion{H}{1} only; however, the \lya\ forest in observed spectra is

664: contaminated by metal lines.  

665: Associated metals can introduce features into the correlation function

666: at the velocity difference,

667: 

668: \begin{equation}

669:   \Delta v \simeq c \, \Delta \lambda \, / \, \lambda,

670: \end{equation}

671: 

672: \noindent between their absorption and that of \lya\ from the same gas.

673: Indeed, \citet{2006mcd163apjs80} found enhanced correlation at $\Delta

674: v \simeq 2270$ \kms\ due to \ion{Si}{3} at rest wavelength

675: 1206.50 \AA; however, no other metal correlations were detected.

676: More to the point, no metals in the IGM have known wavelengths closer

677: to that of \lya\ than \ion{Si}{3}; thus increased correlation from

678: associated metals is not a concern for the velocity

679: scales relevant to this study. 

680: Similarly, the velocity splitting of the \ion{Si}{4} doublet ($\Delta

681: v \simeq 1930$ \kms) lies beyond our range of consideration, while 

682: \citet{2006mcd163apjs80}

683: found no evidence of a correlation feature at $\Delta v \simeq 500$ \kms\

684: corresponding to the \ion{C}{4} doublet.

685: 

686: A third potential source of increased correlation

687: is the clustering of metals themselves.  This effect cannot be

688: accounted for in the simulated spectra for two reasons.  First,

689: unassociated metals sparsely populating the \lya\ forest arise from

690: gas at lower redshifts, beyond the epoch for which the simulations

691: were run in some cases.  Second, although the {\sc vzw} wind model

692: (see \S~\ref{sec_wind})

693: has been shown to reproduce the overall mass density and absorption

694: line properties of \ion{C}{4} well, the simulations do not yet

695: accurately reflect the clustering properties of metals.  Fortunately, 

696: clustering of metals is not expected to significantly affect the \lya\

697: flux correlation function; absorption from even the most abundant metals is

698: 2--4 orders of magnitude less than \ion{H}{1}

699: \citep{2003sch596apj768,2003fry281assl231}.

700: 

701: \subsection{Mean Flux Decrement Uncertainty}\label{sec_da}

702: 

703: The mean flux decrement \citep{1982oke255apj11O},

704: 

705: \begin{equation}

706:   D_{\!A}\,=\,1- \langle f \rangle,

707: \end{equation}

708: 

709: \noindent where $\langle f \rangle$ is the mean of the transmitted flux 

710: (observed flux divided by the unabsorbed continuum flux)

711: in the \lya\ forest can be reliably tuned to high precision in

712: simulated spectra (recall \S~\ref{sec_spectra}); however, this is only as accurate as the 

713: observationally

714: determined value.  Measurement of \da\ from real spectra is

715: complicated by the difficult step of estimating the continuum of

716: emitted flux from the background light source

717: (conveniently defined as unity in simulated spectra).

718: For low-resolution spectra, the

719: continuum has generally been extrapolated from redward of the \lya\

720: forest, assuming a power-law.  This technique will not likely be

721: accurate for an individual spectrum; however, the significant

722: uncertainties are assumed to be mitigated for a sufficiently large sample.

723: In the case of higher resolution spectra, a smooth continuum is fit to

724: regions free of obvious absorption.  While individually tailored,

725: residual absorption will almost certainly result in artificially low

726: continuum placement (corresponding to underestimated absorption)

727: unless this bias can be adequately modelled.

728: 

729: Numerous measurements of \da\ have been made during the past two

730: decades (see \citet{1998rau36araa267}, \citet{2004mei350mnras1107}, and

731: references therein).  The few that also determined its evolution as a

732: function of redshift are compared in Figure~\ref{fig_da}, where the

733: thick lines represent the redshift range of the data used.

734: Consistent with the above discussion, \citet{1993pre414apj64} extrapolated the continuum for 29

735: quasars and obtained

736: 

737: \begin{equation}

738:   D_{\!A}^{P93}(z) = 1 - e^{-0.0037\,(1+z)^{3.46}}, \label{eq_p93}

739: \end{equation}

740: 

741: \noindent whereas continuum fits to echelle-resolution spectra by

742: \citet{2001kim373aap757} and \citet{2005kir360mnras1373} yielded

743: significantly lower values (less absorption).  The latter found 

744: 

745: \begin{equation}

746:   D_{\!A}^{K05}(z) = 0.0062\,(1+z)^{2.75} \label{eq_k05}

747: \end{equation}

748: 

749: \noindent and claimed errors of less than 1\% based on

750: tests using artificial 

751: spectra.  A reevaluation of the \citet{1993pre414apj64} results by 

752: \citet{2004mei350mnras1107} reported much better agreement with the

753: high resolution studies; however, \citet{2003ber125aj32} similarly

754: extrapolated the continua for a sample of 1061 quasars and produced

755: results very similar to the original \citet{1993pre414apj64} values.

756: The mean flux decrement remains observationally uncertain. 

757: 

758: Unfortunately, as has been shown previously for matter power

759: spectrum measurements made with the \lya\ forest 

760: \citep{2002cro581apj20,2003zal590apj1,2003sel342mnras79},

761: both the amplitude and shape of the correlation function are sensitive 

762: to \da.  Figure~\ref{fig_meanflux}

763: shows the percent difference in the correlation function for simulated

764: spectra tuned to have the mean flux decrement prescribed by either

765: equation~\ref{eq_p93} or equation~\ref{eq_k05}.

766: In the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig_meanflux}, the correlation functions compared have been 

767: arbitrarily scaled to

768: unity at 400 \kms\ in order to mitigate differences solely in

769: amplitude.  We have addressed this systematic uncertainty by carrying

770: out our analysis using the mean flux decrement values of both

771: \citet{1993pre414apj64} and \citet{2005kir360mnras1373}.  Unless

772: otherwise stated, results from the former are used in the figures

773: throughout this paper (where this choice is secondary to other effects

774: being considered).

775: 

776: \subsection{Spectral Resolution}

777: 

778: Section~\ref{sec_resolution} discussed how to account for arbitrary spectral

779: resolution when using the correlation functions computed at

780: full-resolution.  Here we consider in greater detail the sensitivity

781: of the correlation function to small changes in spectral resolution

782: (or uncertainty in that parameter).

783: Figure~\ref{fig_res_err} shows the relative difference

784: in autocorrelation corresponding to a 4\% change ($\Delta $FWHM $=0.1$\AA\

785: for FWHM $=2.5$\AA) in resolution.  This difference scales roughly

786: linearly for larger $\Delta $FWHM and is less for the cross-correlation.

787: Thus, treating data with FWHM $=2.3$ and $2.5$ \AA\ as having the same

788: resolution introduces an error of up to $5\%-6\%$.

789: 

790: \subsection{Wind Model}\label{sec_wind}

791: 

792: Prescriptions for galactic winds, which transport processed gas from within

793: galaxies to the surrounding IGM, are relatively

794: new additions to cosmological simulations.  \citet{2003spr339mnras312}

795: incorporated a constant wind ({\sc cw}) model 

796: in order to reduce the amount of gas available for star

797: formation in galaxies.  Essentially, a fraction of the gas particles,

798: dictated by the current star formation rate and a relative mass loading factor $\eta$,

799: are ejected from a galaxy via superwinds.  They then travel without

800: hydrodynamic interaction at a constant velocity $v_{wind}$ until the

801: SPH density falls below 10\% of the critical density for multi-phase

802: collapse.  Based on earlier simulation work by \citet{2001agu561apj521}

803: and observations from \citet{1999mar513apj156} and \citet{2000hec129apjs493}, the

804: two free model parameters were set at $v_{wind} = 484$ \kms\

805: and $\eta = 2$.  This yields broad agreement with observations of

806: the stellar mass density at z=0; however, the wind velocity is

807: unphysically large for small galaxies, and \citet{2006opp373mnras1265}

808: found that \ion{C}{4} is overproduced in the IGM compared to observed

809: $\Omega_{\rm{C\,IV}}$ data.  These authors also note that the

810: {\sc cw} model does not converge well with resolution.  That is, in

811: higher-resolution simulations which resolve small galaxies earlier,

812: the winds turn on earlier and heat the IGM in excess of

813: lower-resolution simulations. 

814: 

815: \citet{2006opp373mnras1265} also investigated several, more sophisticated prescriptions

816:  for galactic outflow, contrasting their effect on the IGM and

817:  comparing the results to observational data. The most successful models were variants of 

818: momentum-driven winds.  In the case of {\sc vzw}, the wind speed, $v_{wind} = 3\, \sigma

819: \sqrt{f_L-1}$, and the mass loading factor, $\eta =

820: \sigma_o\,\sigma^{\textrm{-}1}$, both scale as the galaxy velocity dispersion,

821: $\sigma=\sqrt{-\Phi/2}$.  Here, $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential, 

822: and $f_L=f_{L,\sun}\times10^{\,0.0029 \,(log Z+9)^{2.5}\,+\,0.417694}$ is the galaxy

823: luminosity in units of its critical luminosity.  The free parameter

824:  $\sigma_o$ was chosen to be 300 \kms, corresponding to a

825:  Salpeter initial mass function and a typical starburst spectral energy distribution, and $f_{L,\sun}$ was

826:  allowed to vary randomly in the range $1.05-2$ as observed by

827:  \citet{2005rup160apjs115}.  Unlike the {\sc cw} wind model, {\sc vzw} was

828:  shown to non-trivially reproduce a wide range of \ion{C}{4}

829:  absorption observations.

830: 

831: While more detailed studies of the effects of galactic winds on the

832: \lya\ forest have been carried out \citep{2002cro580apj634,

833:   2004des350mnras879, 2005mcd360mnras1471}, our primary interest is in

834: investigating how the different wind models included in the \g6\

835: ({\sc cw}) and \vzw\ ({\sc vzw}) simulations might affect our \lya\ forest

836: flux correlation measurements.

837: The \cw\ and \nw\

838: simulations are identical to \vzw\, with the exception of their

839: wind models.  As their nomenclature indicates, the former incorporates

840: the {\sc cw} model, while the latter includes no winds at all ({\sc nw}).

841: Slight differences in the flux distribution caused by the inclusion of

842: winds were mitigated by the rescaling of opacities described in

843: \S~\ref{sec_spectra}.  Although the three simulations are identically

844: affected by box length limitations, corrections were applied as

845: described in \S~\ref{sec_hybrid} so that meaningful comparisons could be

846: made of correlation curves that otherwise cross zero in the region of interest.

847: Figure~\ref{fig_wind} shows the percent difference between the

848: correlation values obtained from each of these two simulations

849: and those from \vzw\ (in redshift-space, at $z=3$, and at

850: full-resolution). 

851: The \cw\ and \vzw\ results differ by $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 1\%

852: and $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 4\%, for the cross-correlation and autocorrelation

853: respectively, on

854: scales larger than $\sim\,50$ \kms, indicating that our correlation

855: measurements for \g6\ and \vzw\ are only marginally affected by the

856: use of different wind models.  Furthermore, while we assume that

857: inclusion of the currently preferred wind model yields more accurate

858: results than neglecting galactic winds altogether, the \nw\ and

859: \vzw\ comparison demonstrates that these two extremes represent a

860: difference of only $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 7\%.

861: 

862: \section{Implications For The AP Test}\label{sec_ap}

863: 

864: \subsection{Signal-To-Noise Ratio}

865: 

866: Cross-correlation measurements were repeated

867: with varying degrees of Gaussian noise added to the individual simulated

868: (\vzw) spectra.  Although this has no effect on the mean

869: correlation values (which have been averaged over many lines of

870: sight), signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) does affect the dispersion of those values.

871: However, even for relatively low $S/N$, the

872: corresponding increase in $\sigma_{\xi}$ is negligible relative to the

873: intrinsic variation in $\xi$ between different lines of sight.  The

874: latter scales inversely with path length, but even for the entire \lya\

875: forest redward of \lyb\ absorption, the difference in

876: $\sigma_{\xi}$ between $S/N=5$ and $S/N=\infty$ is 

877: $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 2\% for

878: $2<z<3$, resolution FWHM $\le2.5$\AA, and $0<\theta<300$ arcseconds.

879: This is in agreement with the assertion by \citet{2003mcd585apj34} that

880: only moderate quality data is needed for a large number of quasar

881: pairs to carry out the Alcock-Paczyn\'{n}ski test.

882: The $S/N$ requirements of observed spectra are dictated not

883: by correlation measurements, but by the needs of reliable continuum fitting.

884: 

885: \subsection{Continuum Errors and \da\ Variance}

886: 

887: Errors in fitting the continua of observed QSO spectra can affect

888: calculation of the 

889: mean flux decrement (recall \S~\ref{sec_da}) as well as correlation measurements.

890: Comparison of \da\ for a particular spectrum to the expected

891: mean flux decrement might be used, in principle, to constrain

892: systematic errors in the determination of the continuum.  

893: However, genuine variation in \da\ arises naturally

894: between lines of sight (decreasing with increasing path length) due to

895: finite sampling of the local large scale structure.

896: Simulated spectra provide an opportunity to quantify the expected

897: distribution of mean flux decrement measurements

898: in the absence of continuum fitting errors.

899: 

900: Table~\ref{tab_davar} provides the variance in \da\ as a function of

901: redshift and path length (in units of $h^{\textrm{-}1}$ comoving Mpc) for 

902: \vzw\ and \g6.  Although some validation is given by the

903: general agreement between the two simulations, the \g6\ results are

904: systematically lower than those for \vzw\ (the percent difference

905: increases from approximately 1\% to 9\% at $z=3$ and 2,

906: respectively).  If the difference was dominated by the

907: diversity in large scale structure contained within the different

908: simulation volumes, one would expect the \g6\ variances to be larger.

909: Since this is not the case, we presume that the differences primarily

910: reflect the greater mass resolution of the \vzw\ simulation (note

911: that this is consistent with the difference increasing monotonically

912: as the fraction of pixels in low density regions increases at lower

913: redshift).  At $z=2.2$, the standard deviation in \da\ for a

914: path length of $\Delta z=0.2$ is $\sigma_{D_{\!A}}\!\simeq0.017$,

915: corresponding to 9.0\% and 12.1\% of the 

916: \da\ value from \citet{1993pre414apj64} and 

917: \citet{2005kir360mnras1373}, respectively.  This decreases

918: to $\sigma_{D_{\!A}}\simeq0.010$ (5.5\% and

919: 7.3\%) for $\Delta z=0.545$, the path length of the full ``pure''

920: \lya\ forest (redward of the onset of \lyb\ absorption).

921: 

922: \subsection{Anisotropy Corrections}

923: 

924: The primary goal of this work is to model anisotropies 

925: in the observed \lya\ forest correlation function, facilitating a new

926: application of the AP test using spectra of QSO pairs (such as those presented in

927: Paper I).

928: To this end, we have computed the autocorrelation and cross-correlation in both

929: real and redshift-space, investigated potential sources of systematic

930: error, and considered the impact of spectral smoothing.

931: Our full-resolution, hybrid correlation measurements are provided in

932: Tables~\ref{tab_cross_p93}-\ref{tab_auto_k05} (complete versions of

933: the stubs included here can be found in the electronic edition of \apj\ or upon request) for the mean flux decrements of both

934: \citet{1993pre414apj64} and \citet{2005kir360mnras1373}.  Note that

935: the velocity scales are redshift dependent, so a unitless

936: parameterization (first column) is used which is not the same for the

937: autocorrelation and cross-correlation.

938: 

939: Implementation of the AP test itself is nontrivial and the subject of

940: Paper III in this 

941: series.  However, we conclude by outlining a scheme for the use of

942: these simulation results that mitigates the systematic uncertainty discussed in

943: \S~\ref{sec_systematics}.  To reiterate, the correlation function of

944: the resolved \lya\ forest is isotropic in real-space, and adjusting the angular

945: diameter distance until cross-correlation measurements (the data) agree

946: with the autocorrelation (the model) yields the correct cosmology.

947: 

948: Figure~\ref{fig_crossratio} shows the effects 

949: of redshift-space distortions and spectral

950: smoothing on the cross-correlation 

951: (\emph{top left}).  These can be accounted for in observed

952: cross-correlation measurements by applying the ratio

953: of the full-resolution, real-space simulated

954: cross-correlation divided by its counterpart for smoothed data (using

955: equations~\ref{eq_crosssigma2} and \ref{eq_beta})

956: in redshift-space (bottom left panel of Figure~\ref{fig_crossratio}).

957: This correction requires adopting an angular diameter distance

958: and, therefore, must be applied independently for each cosmology

959: considered.  Using the ratio of simulation results allows for partial

960: cancellation of systematic errors.  The right panels of

961: Figure~\ref{fig_crossratio} show the relative difference in these

962: corrections between using the mean flux decrement of

963: \citet{1993pre414apj64} or \citet{2005kir360mnras1373}.  While

964: still a significant source of systematic uncertainty, the impact of

965: \da\ on the correlation ratio is reduced relative to the correlation

966: function itself (recall Figure~\ref{fig_meanflux}).

967: 

968: Until sufficient high-resolution (echelle) data exists for reliable

969: determination of the autocorrelation (many lines of sight are needed

970: to compensate for significant variance), simulated measurements provide

971: the only reasonably continuous model.  However, more abundant observational data

972: obtained at lower resolution can be used to correct systematic error

973: in the simulation data.  This is accomplished by smoothing the

974: full-resolution, redshift-space correlation curve (recall that the

975: $z=3$ hybrid autocorrelation is shown in Figures~\ref{fig_zspace} and

976: \ref{fig_res}) as appropriate

977: (using equations~\ref{eq_smoothing} and \ref{eq_autosigma2}) and fitting

978: it to the observed data. The same corrections can then be applied to the

979: simulated full-resolution, real-space autocorrelation model, which is

980: not affected by the discussed anisotropies.

981: 

982: \section{Summary}\label{sec_summary}

983: 

984: Using cosmological hydrodynamic simulations, we have modelled

985: the \lya\ flux autocorrelation and zero-lag cross-correlation in both

986: real-space and redshift space at $1.8<z<3$.

987:  Mock \lya\ flux absorption spectra were generated from eight SPH

988:    simulations with and without inclusion of redshift-space

989:    distortions caused by Hubble expansion, bulk flows, and thermal

990:    broadening. The simulations considered (\emph{w16n256vzw}

991:    at $1.8 \le z \le 3.0$, \g6\ at $1.5 \le z \le 3.0$, and

992:    \emph{w16n256cw}, \emph{w16n256nw}, \qi, \qii, \qiii, and \qiv\ at

993:    $z=3$) primarily differ in their size, mass resolution,

994:    and prescription for galactic outflow. The lines of sight

995:    through each simulation box were selected such that different

996:    pairings form 73 unique transverse separations spanning the range

997:    $0-5$ arcminutes.  Our analysis is summarized below.

998: 

999: 1) Autocorrelation and zero-lag cross-correlation measurements were

1000:    computed from the extracted spectra for both real-space and

1001:    redshift-space and for the mean flux decrement values reported by

1002:    both \citet{1993pre414apj64} and \citet{2005kir360mnras1373}.  The 

1003:    difference in the autocorrelation and cross-correlation

1004:    corresponding to this observationally uncertain parameter was found

1005:    to be $20\%-45\%$ and $20\%-35\%$, respectively, affecting both the

1006:    shape and amplitude.

1007: 

1008: 2) Convergence of the simulated \lya\ flux correlation as a function of mass

1009:    resolution was tested at $z=3$ for the {\sc Gadget} code using the

1010:    \emph{q}-series simulations (which identically evolve different numbers of

1011:    particles within boxes of equal volume).  The difference in autocorrelation and

1012:    cross-correlation between \qiii\

1013:    ($m_{gas}=3.72\times10^6~h^{\textrm{-}1} ~M_{\sun}$)

1014:    and \qiv\ ($m_{gas}=1.10\times10^6~h^{\textrm{-}1} ~M_{\sun}$) is less

1015:    than 3\% on all scales.  

1016: 

1017: 3) The \emph{q}-series was also used to characterize

1018:    the effect of insufficient mass resolution in \g6\ and, indirectly,

1019:    the effect of the inadequate simulation volume of \emph{w16n256vzw}.  In 

1020:    order to correct for these limitations of current simulations,

1021:    hybrid correlation curves were then formed by splicing together

1022:    those from \emph{w16n256vzw} and \g6\ at $\Delta v = 445$ \kms.  At smaller

1023:    velocities, the hybrid correlation is equal to that of

1024:    \emph{w16n256vzw} plus a constant boxsize correction (in the case

1025:    of the cross-correlation, this is slightly modified to preserve the

1026:    boundary condition at $\Delta v=0$).  At larger

1027:    velocities, where the effects of mass resolution were projected to

1028:    be insignificant, the hybrid correlation is provided by that of

1029:    \g6\ without alteration.

1030: 

1031: 4) An approximate solution is presented for obtaining the

1032:    zero-lag cross-correlation corresponding to arbitrary spectral resolution

1033:    directly from the zero-lag cross-correlation computed at

1034:    full-resolution (an exact solution is available in the case of the

1035:    autocorrelation).  This approximation is good to within 2\% for the

1036:    relevant redshift range at

1037:    velocity differences corresponding to angular separations greater

1038:    than 90 arcseconds. 

1039: 

1040: 5) The effects of three prescriptions for galactic outflow on the

1041:    \lya\ flux correlation were investigated with the 

1042:    \emph{w16n256vzw},

1043:    \emph{w16n256cw}, and \emph{w16n256nw}

1044:    simulations.  The difference between the

1045:    preferred variable-momentum wind model ({\sc vzw}, used for \emph{w16n256vzw}) and the

1046:    older constant wind model ({\sc cw}; used for \g6) was found to be 

1047:    $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 1\% and $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 4\% at 

1048:    scales larger than $\approx 50$ \kms\ for the cross-correlation and autocorrelation

1049:    respectively.  The corresponding difference between {\sc vzw} and no winds at all

1050:    increases to only $< 5\%$ and $< 7\%$.

1051: 

1052: 6) For an adopted mean flux decrement, the variance from one line of sight to

1053:    another was computed as a function of redshift and path length.

1054:    At $z=2.2$, the standard deviation in \da\ for a

1055:    path length of $\Delta z=0.2$ is $\sigma_{D_{\!A}}\!\simeq0.017$,

1056:    corresponding to 9.0\% and 12.1\% of the 

1057:    \da\ value from \citet{1993pre414apj64} and 

1058:    \citet{2005kir360mnras1373}, respectively.

1059: 

1060: 7) Aside from those sources of systematic error already summarized

1061:    above, we find that redshift evolution of the \lya\ flux correlation 

1062:    is sufficiently sampled for reliable interpolation 

1063:    and argue that absorption from metals is insignificant.  

1064:    The evolution of large scale structure at $z>2$ is not sensitive to the

1065:    values for the cosmological parameters $\Omega_m=0.3$ or

1066:    $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ assumed by the simulations considered here, 

1067:    and $\sigma_8=0.9$ is consistent with the three-year \emph{WMAP} value.  

1068:    Systematic error associated with

1069:    variance of random fluctuation amplitudes in the early universe or

1070:    deviations from a constant offset due to finite boxsize cannot be

1071:    addressed with currently available simulations.

1072: 

1073: 8) Correcting for anisotropies due to

1074:    redshift-space distortions and spectral smoothing

1075:    with ratios of the correlation

1076:    measurements allows for significant reduction in systematic error.

1077:    The maximum difference between using the mean flux

1078:    decrements of either \citet{1993pre414apj64} or

1079:    \citet{2005kir360mnras1373}

1080:    (the dominant source of uncertainty) decreases to

1081:    $8\%-16\%$ at $2<z<3$, and presumably the true value is intermediate.  

1082:    We describe a simple scheme for implementing our results, while mitigating

1083:    systematic errors, in the context of a future

1084:    application of the AP test using observations of the \lya\ forest

1085:    in pairs of QSOs.  

1086: 

1087: \acknowledgements

1088: 

1089: This study would not have been possible without significant access to

1090: the Beowulf computer cluster (Mendeleyev) at Steward Observatory

1091: and the corresponding generosity of Dave Arnett,

1092: Adam Burrows, Daniel Eisenstein, Phil Pinto, and Dennis Zaritsky.  Additionally, we

1093: owe gratitude to Jeff Fookson and Neal Lauver for administering the

1094: cluster and supporting this work.  We thank Patrick McDonald, Daniel Eisenstein, Martin

1095: Pessah, Chi-Kwan Chan, Volker Springel, Lars

1096: Hernquist, and Lei Bai for helpful conversations along the way.

1097: 

1098: \begin{thebibliography}{48}

1099: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1100: 

1101: \bibitem[{{Aguirre} {et~al.}(2001){Aguirre}, {Hernquist}, {Schaye}, {Katz},

1102:   {Weinberg}, \& {Gardner}}]{2001agu561apj521}

1103: {Aguirre}, A., {Hernquist}, L., {Schaye}, J., {Katz}, N., {Weinberg}, D.~H., \&

1104:   {Gardner}, J. 2001, \apj, 561, 521

1105: 

1106: \bibitem[{{Alcock} \& {Paczynski}(1979)}]{1979alc281nat358}

1107: {Alcock}, C., \& {Paczynski}, B. 1979, \nat, 281, 358

1108: 

1109: \bibitem[{{Bernardi} {et~al.}(2003)}]{2003ber125aj32}

1110: {Bernardi}, M., {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 125, 32

1111: 

1112: \bibitem[{{Cen} {et~al.}(1994){Cen}, {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, {Ostriker}, \&

1113:   {Rauch}}]{1994cen437apjl9}

1114: {Cen}, R., {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, J., {Ostriker}, J.~P., \& {Rauch}, M. 1994,

1115:   \apjl, 437, L9

1116: 

1117: \bibitem[{{Coppolani} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006cop370mnras1804}

1118: {Coppolani}, F., {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 370, 1804

1119: 

1120: \bibitem[{{Croft} {et~al.}(2002{\natexlab{a}}){Croft}, {Hernquist}, {Springel},

1121:   {Westover}, \& {White}}]{2002cro580apj634}

1122: {Croft}, R.~A.~C., {Hernquist}, L., {Springel}, V., {Westover}, M., \& {White},

1123:   M. 2002{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 580, 634

1124: 

1125: \bibitem[{{Croft} {et~al.}(2002{\natexlab{b}}){Croft}, {Weinberg}, {Bolte},

1126:   {Burles}, {Hernquist}, {Katz}, {Kirkman}, \& {Tytler}}]{2002cro581apj20}

1127: {Croft}, R.~A.~C., {Weinberg}, D.~H., {Bolte}, M., {Burles}, S., {Hernquist},

1128:   L., {Katz}, N., {Kirkman}, D., \& {Tytler}, D. 2002{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 581,

1129:   20

1130: 

1131: \bibitem[{{Croft} {et~al.}(1998){Croft}, {Weinberg}, {Katz}, \&

1132:   {Hernquist}}]{1998cro495apj44}

1133: {Croft}, R.~A.~C., {Weinberg}, D.~H., {Katz}, N., \& {Hernquist}, L. 1998,

1134:   \apj, 495, 44

1135: 

1136: \bibitem[{{Croom} {et~al.}(2004){Croom}, {Smith}, {Boyle}, {Shanks}, {Miller},

1137:   {Outram}, \& {Loaring}}]{2004cro349mnras1397}

1138: {Croom}, S.~M., {Smith}, R.~J., {Boyle}, B.~J., {Shanks}, T., {Miller}, L.,

1139:   {Outram}, P.~J., \& {Loaring}, N.~S. 2004, \mnras, 349, 1397

1140: 

1141: \bibitem[{{Dav{\'e}} {et~al.}(1999){Dav{\'e}}, {Hernquist}, {Katz}, \&

1142:   {Weinberg}}]{1999dav511apj521}

1143: {Dav{\'e}}, R., {Hernquist}, L., {Katz}, N., \& {Weinberg}, D.~H. 1999, \apj,

1144:   511, 521

1145: 

1146: \bibitem[{{Desjacques} {et~al.}(2004){Desjacques}, {Nusser}, {Haehnelt}, \&

1147:   {Stoehr}}]{2004des350mnras879}

1148: {Desjacques}, V., {Nusser}, A., {Haehnelt}, M.~G., \& {Stoehr}, F. 2004,

1149:   \mnras, 350, 879

1150: 

1151: \bibitem[{{Ferland} {et~al.}(1998){Ferland}, {Korista}, {Verner}, {Ferguson},

1152:   {Kingdon}, \& {Verner}}]{1998fer110pasp761}

1153: {Ferland}, G.~J., {Korista}, K.~T., {Verner}, D.~A., {Ferguson}, J.~W.,

1154:   {Kingdon}, J.~B., \& {Verner}, E.~M. 1998, \pasp, 110, 761

1155: 

1156: \bibitem[{{Finlator} {et~al.}(2006){Finlator}, {Dav{\'e}}, {Papovich}, \&

1157:   {Hernquist}}]{2006fin639apj672}

1158: {Finlator}, K., {Dav{\'e}}, R., {Papovich}, C., \& {Hernquist}, L. 2006, \apj,

1159:   639, 672

1160: 

1161: \bibitem[{{Frye} {et~al.}(2003){Frye}, {Tripp}, {Bowen}, {Jenkins}, \&

1162:   {Sembach}}]{2003fry281assl231}

1163: {Frye}, B.~L., {Tripp}, T.~M., {Bowen}, D.~B., {Jenkins}, E.~B., \& {Sembach},

1164:   K.~R. 2003, in ASSL Vol. 281: The IGM/Galaxy Connection. The Distribution of

1165:   Baryons at z=0, ed. J.~L. {Rosenberg} \& M.~E. {Putman}, 231

1166: 

1167: \bibitem[{{Haardt} \& {Madau}(1996)}]{1996haa461apj20}

1168: {Haardt}, F., \& {Madau}, P. 1996, \apj, 461, 20

1169: 

1170: \bibitem[{{Haardt} \& {Madau}(2001)}]{2001haa64cghr}

1171: {Haardt}, F., \& {Madau}, P. 2001, in Clusters of Galaxies and the High

1172:   Redshift Universe Observed in X-rays, ed. D.~M. {Neumann} \& J.~T.~V. {Tran}

1173: 

1174: \bibitem[{{Heckman} {et~al.}(2000){Heckman}, {Lehnert}, {Strickland}, \&

1175:   {Armus}}]{2000hec129apjs493}

1176: {Heckman}, T.~M., {Lehnert}, M.~D., {Strickland}, D.~K., \& {Armus}, L. 2000,

1177:   \apjs, 129, 493

1178: 

1179: \bibitem[{{Hernquist} {et~al.}(1996){Hernquist}, {Katz}, {Weinberg}, \&

1180:   {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}}]{1996her457apjl51}

1181: {Hernquist}, L., {Katz}, N., {Weinberg}, D.~H., \& {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, J.

1182:   1996, \apjl, 457, L51

1183: 

1184: \bibitem[{{Hui} {et~al.}(1999){Hui}, {Stebbins}, \& {Burles}}]{1999hui511apjl5}

1185: {Hui}, L., {Stebbins}, A., \& {Burles}, S. 1999, \apjl, 511, L5

1186: 

1187: \bibitem[{{Kaiser}(1987)}]{1987kai227mnras1}

1188: {Kaiser}, N. 1987, \mnras, 227, 1

1189: 

1190: \bibitem[{{Kim} {et~al.}(2001){Kim}, {Cristiani}, \&

1191:   {D'Odorico}}]{2001kim373aap757}

1192: {Kim}, T.-S., {Cristiani}, S., \& {D'Odorico}, S. 2001, \aap, 373, 757

1193: 

1194: \bibitem[{{Kirkman} {et~al.}(2005)}]{2005kir360mnras1373}

1195: {Kirkman}, D., {et~al.} 2005, \mnras, 360, 1373

1196: 

1197: \bibitem[{{Lynds}(1971)}]{1971lyn164apjl73}

1198: {Lynds}, R. 1971, \apjl, 164, L73

1199: 

1200: \bibitem[{{Marble} {et~al.}(2008){Marble}, {Eriksen}, {Impey}, {Oppenheimer},

1201:   \& {Dav\'{e}}}]{2007mar}

1202: {Marble}, A.~R., {Eriksen}, K.~A., {Impey}, C.~D., {Oppenheimer}, B.~D., \&

1203:   {Dav\'{e}}, D. 2008, \apjs, 175, 29 (Paper I)

1204: 

1205: \bibitem[{{Martin}(1999)}]{1999mar513apj156}

1206: {Martin}, C.~L. 1999, \apj, 513, 156

1207: 

1208: \bibitem[{{McDonald}(2003)}]{2003mcd585apj34}

1209: {McDonald}, P. 2003, \apj, 585, 34

1210: 

1211: \bibitem[{{McDonald} \& {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}(1999)}]{1999mcd518apj24}

1212: {McDonald}, P., \& {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, J. 1999, \apj, 518, 24

1213: 

1214: \bibitem[{{McDonald} {et~al.}(2000){McDonald}, {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, {Rauch},

1215:   {Sargent}, {Barlow}, {Cen}, \& {Ostriker}}]{2000mcd543apj1}

1216: {McDonald}, P., {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, J., {Rauch}, M., {Sargent}, W.~L.~W.,

1217:   {Barlow}, T.~A., {Cen}, R., \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 2000, \apj, 543, 1

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[{{McDonald} {et~al.}(2005){McDonald}, {Seljak}, {Cen}, {Bode}, \&

1220:   {Ostriker}}]{2005mcd360mnras1471}

1221: {McDonald}, P., {Seljak}, U., {Cen}, R., {Bode}, P., \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 2005,

1222:   \mnras, 360, 1471

1223: 

1224: \bibitem[{{McDonald} {et~al.}(2006)}]{2006mcd163apjs80}

1225: {McDonald}, P., {et~al.} 2006, \apjs, 163, 80

1226: 

1227: \bibitem[{{Meiksin} \& {White}(2004)}]{2004mei350mnras1107}

1228: {Meiksin}, A., \& {White}, M. 2004, \mnras, 350, 1107

1229: 

1230: \bibitem[{{Oke} \& {Korycansky}(1982)}]{1982oke255apj11O}

1231: {Oke}, J.~B., \& {Korycansky}, D.~G. 1982, \apj, 255, 11

1232: 

1233: \bibitem[{{Oppenheimer} \& {Dav{\'e}}(2006)}]{2006opp373mnras1265}

1234: {Oppenheimer}, B.~D., \& {Dav{\'e}}, R. 2006, \mnras, 373, 1265

1235: 

1236: \bibitem[{{Petitjean} {et~al.}(1995){Petitjean}, {Mueket}, \&

1237:   {Kates}}]{1995pet295aap9}

1238: {Petitjean}, P., {Mueket}, J.~P., \& {Kates}, R.~E. 1995, \aap, 295, L9

1239: 

1240: \bibitem[{{Press} {et~al.}(1993){Press}, {Rybicki}, \&

1241:   {Schneider}}]{1993pre414apj64}

1242: {Press}, W.~H., {Rybicki}, G.~B., \& {Schneider}, D.~P. 1993, \apj, 414, 64

1243: 

1244: \bibitem[{{Rauch}(1998)}]{1998rau36araa267}

1245: {Rauch}, M. 1998, \araa, 36, 267

1246: 

1247: \bibitem[{{Rollinde} {et~al.}(2003){Rollinde}, {Petitjean}, {Pichon},

1248:   {Colombi}, {Aracil}, {D'Odorico}, \& {Haehnelt}}]{2003rol341mnras1279}

1249: {Rollinde}, E., {Petitjean}, P., {Pichon}, C., {Colombi}, S., {Aracil}, B.,

1250:   {D'Odorico}, V., \& {Haehnelt}, M.~G. 2003, \mnras, 341, 1279

1251: 

1252: \bibitem[{{Rupke} {et~al.}(2005){Rupke}, {Veilleux}, \&

1253:   {Sanders}}]{2005rup160apjs115}

1254: {Rupke}, D.~S., {Veilleux}, S., \& {Sanders}, D.~B. 2005, \apjs, 160, 115

1255: 

1256: \bibitem[{{Schaye} {et~al.}(2003){Schaye}, {Aguirre}, {Kim}, {Theuns}, {Rauch},

1257:   \& {Sargent}}]{2003sch596apj768}

1258: {Schaye}, J., {Aguirre}, A., {Kim}, T.-S., {Theuns}, T., {Rauch}, M., \&

1259:   {Sargent}, W.~L.~W. 2003, \apj, 596, 768

1260: 

1261: \bibitem[{{Seljak} {et~al.}(2003){Seljak}, {McDonald}, \&

1262:   {Makarov}}]{2003sel342mnras79}

1263: {Seljak}, U., {McDonald}, P., \& {Makarov}, A. 2003, \mnras, 342, L79

1264: 

1265: \bibitem[{{Spergel} {et~al.}(2007)}]{2007spe}

1266: {Spergel}, D.~N., {et~al.} 2007, \apjs, 170, 377

1267: 

1268: \bibitem[{{Springel}(2005)}]{2005spr364mnras1105}

1269: {Springel}, V. 2005, \mnras, 364, 1105

1270: 

1271: \bibitem[{{Springel} \& {Hernquist}(2003)}]{2003spr339mnras312}

1272: {Springel}, V., \& {Hernquist}, L. 2003, \mnras, 339, 312

1273: 

1274: \bibitem[{{Springel} {et~al.}(2001){Springel}, {Yoshida}, \&

1275:   {White}}]{2001spr6na79}

1276: {Springel}, V., {Yoshida}, N., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 2001, New Astronomy, 6, 79

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[{{Theuns} {et~al.}(1998){Theuns}, {Leonard}, {Efstathiou}, {Pearce},

1279:   \& {Thomas}}]{1998the301mnras478}

1280: {Theuns}, T., {Leonard}, A., {Efstathiou}, G., {Pearce}, F.~R., \& {Thomas},

1281:   P.~A. 1998, \mnras, 301, 478

1282: 

1283: \bibitem[{{Weymann} {et~al.}(1981){Weymann}, {Carswell}, \&

1284:   {Smith}}]{1981wey19araa41}

1285: {Weymann}, R.~J., {Carswell}, R.~F., \& {Smith}, M.~G. 1981, \araa, 19, 41

1286: 

1287: \bibitem[{{Zaldarriaga} {et~al.}(2003){Zaldarriaga}, {Scoccimarro}, \&

1288:   {Hui}}]{2003zal590apj1}

1289: {Zaldarriaga}, M., {Scoccimarro}, R., \& {Hui}, L. 2003, \apj, 590, 1

1290: 

1291: \bibitem[{{Zhang} {et~al.}(1995){Zhang}, {Anninos}, \&

1292:   {Norman}}]{1995zha453apjl57}

1293: {Zhang}, Y., {Anninos}, P., \& {Norman}, M.~L. 1995, \apjl, 453, L57

1294: 

1295: \end{thebibliography}

1296: 

1297: \clearpage 

1298: 

1299: %% figures

1300: \begin{figure} 

1301: \begin{center}

1302: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f1.eps}

1303: \caption{Redshift evolution of the \lya\ forest as seen in the same

1304:   line of sight at $1.8<z<3$.}\label{fig_spec_z}

1305: \end{center}

1306: \end{figure}

1307: 

1308: \begin{figure} 

1309: \begin{center}

1310: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f2.eps}

1311: \caption{One set of lines of sight illustrating how the cross-correlation diminishes

1312:   with increasing separation.}\label{fig_spec_sep}

1313: \end{center}

1314: \end{figure}

1315: 

1316: \begin{figure} 

1317: \begin{center}

1318: \includegraphics[width=7.25in]{f3.eps}

1319: \end{center}

1320: \caption{Simulated spectra from \vzw\ and \g6\ show the larger box

1321:  length (path length) of the latter, the higher mass resolution

1322:  (narrower features) of the former, the subtle redistribution of

1323:  opacity due to redshift-space distortions, and the smoothing effect of

1324:  spectral resolution.}\label{fig_spec_other}

1325: \end{figure}

1326: 

1327: \begin{figure} 

1328: \begin{center}

1329: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f4.eps}

1330: \end{center}

1331: \caption{In real-space, the correlation function is isotropic.

1332:   However, in redshift-space, distortions caused by line-of-sight

1333:   velocities affect the autocorrelation ($\xi_\parallel$) and

1334:   cross-correlation ($\xi_\perp$) differently.}\label{fig_zspace}

1335: \end{figure}

1336: 

1337: \begin{figure} 

1338: \begin{center}

1339: \includegraphics[width=7.25in]{f5.eps}

1340: \end{center}

1341: \caption{Convergence of the cross-correlation (\emph{top}) and

1342:   autocorrelation (\emph{bottom}) as a function of gas mass

1343:   resolution for the \emph{q}-series simulations

1344:   ($L=10~h^{\textrm{-}1}$ comoving Mpc)

1345:   which differ only by the number of particles.}\label{fig_qseries}

1346: \end{figure}

1347: 

1348: \begin{figure} 

1349: \begin{center}

1350: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f6.eps}

1351: \end{center}

1352: \caption{Correlation difference between \g6\ and \cw\ (\emph{solid lines})

1353:   primarily reflects the insufficient mass resolution of the former

1354:   and box length of the latter.

1355:   The signature of the mass resolution effect is illustrated by the

1356:   dotted line, although for a smaller mass resolution difference.

1357:   Accounting for the

1358:   trend shown in Figure~\ref{fig_qseries}, the residual boxsize effect

1359:   (\emph{dash-dotted lines}) should be significantly flatter, particularly on the

1360:   smallest scales ($\Delta v\,\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 50 \kms).}\label{fig_boxsize}

1361: \end{figure}

1362: 

1363: \begin{figure} 

1364: \begin{center}

1365: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f7.eps}

1366: \end{center}

1367: \caption{Spectral smoothing redistributes autocorrelation ($\xi_\parallel$)

1368:   while suppressing cross-correlation ($\xi_\perp$) on all scales, introducing anisotropy to the

1369:   correlation function.}\label{fig_res}

1370: \end{figure}

1371: 

1372: 

1373: \begin{figure} 

1374: \begin{center}

1375: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f8.eps}

1376: \end{center}

1377: \caption{Approximate solution for the suppression of

1378:   cross-correlation due to spectral resolution,

1379:   $\xi^\sigma_\perp \approx \xi_\perp

1380:   \,

1381:   \left(1+\left(\frac{1}{\xi^\sigma_\parallel\left(0\right)}-\frac{1}{\xi_\perp\left(0\right)}\right)

1382:   \, \xi_\perp\right)^{\textrm{-}1}$, 

1383:   differs from the result

1384:   based on smoothed spectra by $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 2\% for separations greater

1385:   than 90 arcseconds.}\label{fig_res_cross}

1386: \end{figure}

1387: 

1388: \begin{figure} 

1389: \begin{center}

1390: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f9.eps}

1391: \end{center}

1392: \caption{The $\Delta z=0.2$ sampling of \vzw\ shows that the

1393:   redshift-evolution of the correlation function is monotonic and smooth, allowing

1394:   reliable interpolation with a third order polynomial (\emph{solid and

1395:   dotted lines}).}\label{fig_zevo}

1396: \end{figure}

1397: 

1398: \begin{figure} 

1399: \begin{center}

1400: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f10.eps}

1401: \end{center}

1402: \caption{Mean flux decrement, \da, of the \lya\ forest remains

1403:   observationally uncertain.}\label{fig_da}

1404: \end{figure}

1405: 

1406: \begin{figure} 

1407: \begin{center}

1408: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f11.eps}

1409: \end{center}

1410: \caption{Amplitude and shape of the 

1411:   \lya\ flux correlation function are sensitive 

1412:   to the mean flux decrement, as evidenced by the relative

1413:   difference in $\xi$ for simulated spectra tuned to match the values

1414:   from \citet[][P93]{1993pre414apj64} and 

1415:   \citet[][K05]{2005kir360mnras1373}.}\label{fig_meanflux}

1416: \end{figure}

1417: 

1418: \begin{figure} 

1419: \begin{center}

1420: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f12.eps}

1421: \end{center}

1422: \caption{Relative difference in autocorrelation

1423:   corresponding to a 4\% change in spectral resolution FWHM.}\label{fig_res_err}

1424: \end{figure}

1425: 

1426: \begin{figure} 

1427: \begin{center}

1428: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f13.eps}

1429: \end{center}

1430: \caption{Percent difference in correlation between \vzw\ and

1431:   \emph{w16n256}[\emph{cw}/\emph{nw}] indicates that \lya\

1432:   correlation measurements are marginally affected by the

1433:   prescription for galactic outflow. The preferred momentum-driven

1434:   wind model {\sc vzw} differs from the

1435:   older constant wind model {\sc cw} at $z=3$ and on scales larger than $\sim\,$50

1436:   \kms\ by $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 1\% for the cross-correlation and

1437:   $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 4\%

1438:   for the autocorrelation.  This increases to $<\,5$\% and $<\,7$\%,

1439:   respectively, when compared to no winds at all ({\sc nw}).}\label{fig_wind}

1440: \end{figure}

1441: 

1442: \begin{figure} 

1443: \begin{center}

1444: \includegraphics[width=7.25in]{f14.eps}

1445: \end{center}

1446: \caption{Ratios ($R$) in the left panels show the

1447:   individual effects on the cross-correlation of spectral 

1448:   smoothing and redshift-space distortions at $z=3$ (\emph{top}) and their

1449:   combined impact at $z=2$, 2.5, and 3 (\emph{bottom}).  The relative difference

1450:   between using the mean flux decrements measured by

1451:   \citet[][P93]{1993pre414apj64} or

1452:   \citet[][K05]{2005kir360mnras1373} are given in the right panels.}

1453: \label{fig_crossratio}

1454: \end{figure}

1455: 

1456: \clearpage

1457: 

1458: %% tables

1459: 

1460: \input{tab1}

1461: \input{tab2}

1462: \input{tab3}

1463: \input{tab4}

1464: \input{tab5}

1465: \input{tab6}

1466: 

1467: \clearpage

1468: 

1469: \appendix

1470: 

1471: \section{Autocorrelation Calculation for Arbitrary Spectral Resolution}\label{proof}

1472: 

1473: One way to compute the simulated correlation function corresponding to a given

1474: spectral resolution is to carry out the calculations using spectra which have been individually

1475: smoothed as appropriate.  However, assuming a Gaussian line spread function

1476: (LSF), the autocorrelation 

1477: curve for data of arbitrary spectral resolution can also be obtained by simply convolving

1478: the full resolution curve with the LSF broadened

1479: by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$ (eqs.~\ref{eq_auto},

1480: \ref{eq_smoothing}, \ref{eq_autosigma1}, and \ref{eq_autosigma2}).  

1481: The validity of this relation for our discrete, periodic simulated

1482: spectra has been tested and verified.  Here, in the interest of clarity, we demonstrate

1483: its origin for the simplified case of continuous spectra.  In this limit, equations~\ref{eq_auto},

1484: \ref{eq_smoothing}, and \ref{eq_autosigma1} become

1485: 

1486: \begin{equation}\label{eq_auto_cont}

1487:   \hat{\xi}_{\parallel}(\Delta v) = 

1488:   \frac{1}{N_s} \sum_{n=1}^{N_s} 

1489:   \frac{1}{N_\perp} \sum_{i=1}^{N_\perp}

1490:   \frac{1}{\int dv_\parallel} \int

1491:   \hat{\delta}_n\left(v_{\parallel}, v_{\perp_i}\right) \,

1492:   \hat{\delta}_n\left(v_{\parallel}+\Delta v, v_{\perp_i}\right)

1493:   dv_\parallel,

1494: \end{equation}

1495: 

1496: \begin{equation}\label{eq_smoothing_cont}

1497:   \hat{\mathcal{S}}_\parallel\left[\hat{f}\left(v_{\parallel}\right), \sigma\right] 

1498:   = \int \hat{f}\left(\tau\right) \,

1499:   \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma} \,\,

1500:   e^{\frac{-(v_{\parallel}-\tau)^2}{2\,\sigma^2}}

1501:   d\tau,

1502: \end{equation}

1503: 

1504: \noindent and

1505: 

1506: \begin{equation}\label{eq_autosigma1_cont} 

1507:   \hat{\xi}^\sigma_\parallel\left(\Delta v\right) =

1508:   \frac{1}{N_s} \sum^{N_s}_{n=1} 

1509:   \frac{1}{N_\perp} \sum^{N_\perp}_{i=1} 

1510:   \frac{1}{\int dv_\parallel} \int

1511:   \hat{\mathcal{S}}_\parallel\left[\hat{\delta}_n\left(v_{\parallel}, v_{\perp_i}\right),

1512:   \sigma\right] \,

1513:   \hat{\mathcal{S}}_\parallel\left[\hat{\delta}_n\left(v_{\parallel}+\Delta v, v_{\perp_i}\right),

1514:   \sigma\right]

1515:   dv_\parallel,

1516: \end{equation}

1517: 

1518: \noindent respectively.  Combining (\ref{eq_smoothing_cont}) and

1519: (\ref{eq_autosigma1_cont}), and rearranging, yields

1520: 

1521: \begin{equation} 

1522:   \hat{\xi}^\sigma_\parallel\left(\Delta v\right) =

1523:   \frac{1}{N_s} \sum^{N_s}_{n=1} 

1524:   \frac{1}{N_\perp} \sum^{N_\perp}_{i=1} 

1525:   \frac{1}{\int dv_\parallel} \int \int 

1526:   \hat{\delta_n}\left(\tau, v_{\perp i}\right) \,

1527:   \hat{\delta_n}\left(\tilde{\tau}, v_{\perp i}\right) \, 

1528:   \int 

1529:   \frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2} \,

1530:   e^{\frac{-(v_{\parallel}-\tau)^2}{2\,\sigma^2}}

1531:   e^{\frac{-(v_{\parallel}+ \Delta v -\tilde{\tau})^2}{2\,\sigma^2}}

1532:   dv_\parallel \, d\tau \, d\tilde{\tau}.

1533: \end{equation}

1534: 

1535: \noindent After substituting $\beta \equiv v_\parallel - \tau$ and noting that

1536: $\int \frac{1}{2 \pi \sigma^2} \, e^{\frac{-\beta^2}{2 \sigma^2}}

1537: e^{\frac{-(\beta-\gamma)^2}{2 \sigma^2}} d\beta = \frac{1}{2

1538:   \sqrt{\pi} \sigma} e^{\frac{-\gamma^2}{4 \sigma^2}}$, this becomes

1539: 

1540: \begin{equation} 

1541:   \hat{\xi}^\sigma_\parallel\left(\Delta v\right) =

1542:   \frac{1}{N_s} \sum^{N_s}_{n=1} 

1543:   \frac{1}{N_\perp} \sum^{N_\perp}_{i=1} 

1544:   \frac{1}{\int dv_\parallel} \int \int 

1545:   \hat{\delta_n}\left(\tau, v_{\perp i}\right) \,

1546:   \hat{\delta_n}\left(\tilde{\tau}, v_{\perp i}\right) \, 

1547:   \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\pi} \sigma} \,

1548:   e^{\frac{-(\tilde{\tau} - \tau - \Delta v)^2}{4 \sigma^2}}

1549:   d\tau \, d\tilde{\tau}.

1550: \end{equation}

1551: 

1552: \noindent With another change of variables ($\tilde{\tau} \equiv \tau

1553: + \alpha$), $\hat{\xi}^\sigma_\parallel$ can now be written in terms of

1554: (\ref{eq_auto_cont}) and (\ref{eq_smoothing_cont}):

1555: 

1556: \begin{eqnarray}

1557:   \hat{\xi}^\sigma_\parallel\left(\Delta v\right) & = &

1558:   \frac{1}{N_s} \sum^{N_s}_{n=1} 

1559:   \frac{1}{N_\perp} \sum^{N_\perp}_{i=1} 

1560:   \frac{1}{\int dv_\parallel} \int \int 

1561:   \hat{\delta_n}\left(\tau, v_{\perp i}\right) \,

1562:   \hat{\delta_n}\left(\tau+\alpha, v_{\perp i}\right) \, 

1563:   \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\pi} \sigma} \,

1564:   e^{\frac{-(\alpha - \Delta v)^2}{4 \sigma^2}}

1565:   d\tau \, d\alpha

1566: \\

1567:   \hat{\xi}^\sigma_\parallel\left(\Delta v\right) & = &

1568:   \int \left(

1569:   \frac{1}{N_s} \sum^{N_s}_{n=1} 

1570:   \frac{1}{N_\perp} \sum^{N_\perp}_{i=1} 

1571:   \frac{1}{\int dv_\parallel} \int 

1572:   \hat{\delta_n}\left(\tau, v_{\perp i}\right) \,

1573:   \hat{\delta_n}\left(\tau+\alpha, v_{\perp i}\right) \, 

1574:   d\tau \right)

1575:   \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} (\sqrt{2}\sigma)} \,

1576:   e^{\frac{-(\alpha - \Delta v)^2}{2 (\sqrt{2}\sigma)^2}}

1577:   d\alpha

1578: \\

1579:   \hat{\xi}^\sigma_\parallel\left(\Delta v\right) & = &

1580:   \hat{\mathcal{S}}_\parallel\left[\hat{\xi}_\parallel\left(\Delta

1581:   v\right), \sqrt{2}\sigma\right].

1582: \end{eqnarray}

1583: 

1584: \clearpage 

1585: 

1586: \end{document}

1587: 

1588: 

1589: 

1590: 

1591: