1: % mn2esample.tex
2: %
3: % v2.1 released 22nd May 2002 (G. Hutton)
4: %
5: % The mnsample.tex file has been amended to highlight
6: % the proper use of LaTeX2e code with the class file
7: % and using natbib cross-referencing. These changes
8: % do not reflect the original paper by A. V. Raveendran.
9: %
10: % Previous versions of this sample document were
11: % compatible with the LaTeX 2.09 style file mn.sty
12: % v1.2 released 5th September 1994 (M. Reed)
13: % v1.1 released 18th July 1994
14: % v1.0 released 28th January 1994
15:
16:
17: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
18: \usepackage{epsfig}
19: \usepackage{amsmath} % math package
20: \usepackage{amsfonts}
21: \usepackage{amssymb}
22: \usepackage{natbib}
23: \usepackage{myaasmacros}
24:
25: \voffset = -10mm
26:
27: % If your system does not have the AMS fonts version 2.0 installed, then
28: % remove the useAMS option.
29: %
30: % useAMS allows you to obtain upright Greek characters.
31: % e.g. \umu, \upi etc. See the section on "Upright Greek characters" in
32: % this guide for further information.
33: %
34: % If you are using AMS 2.0 fonts, bold math letters/symbols are available
35: % at a larger range of sizes for NFSS release 1 and 2 (using \boldmath or
36: % preferably \bmath).
37: %
38: % The usenatbib command allows the use of Patrick Daly's natbib.sty for
39: % cross-referencing.
40: %
41: % If you wish to typeset the paper in Times font (if you do not have the
42: % PostScript Type 1 Computer Modern fonts you will need to do this to get
43: % smoother fonts in a PDF file) then uncomment the next line
44: % \usepackage{Times}
45:
46: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
47: \def\mgh#1{{\bf MH: #1}}
48: \def\kjr#1{{\bf KR: #1}}
49: \def\Msol{\mbox{M$_\odot$}}
50:
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52:
53: \title[Measuring the BAO scale during reionisation]{Measurement of the baryonic acoustic oscillation scale in 21\,cm intensity fluctuations during the reionisation era} \author[K.J. Rhook, P.M. Geil \& J.S.B. Wyithe]{Kirsty J. Rhook$^{1}$\thanks{krhook@ast.cam.ac.uk},
54: Paul M. Geil$^{2}$\thanks{pgeil@physics.unimelb.edu.au}
55: \& J. Stuart B. Wyithe$^{2}$\thanks{swyithe@unimelb.edu.au}
56: \\ $^{1}$Institute
57: of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA\\ $^{2}$School of
58: Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia}
59:
60: \begin{document}
61:
62: \date{September 2nd, 2008}
63:
64: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2005}
65:
66: \maketitle
67:
68: \label{firstpage}
69:
70: \begin{abstract}
71: It has recently been suggested that the power spectrum of redshifted
72: 21\,cm fluctuations could be used to measure the scale of baryonic
73: acoustic oscillations (BAOs) during the reionisation era. The
74: resulting measurements are potentially as precise as those offered
75: by the next generation of galaxy redshift surveys at lower
76: redshift. However unlike galaxy redshift surveys, which in the
77: linear regime are subject to a scale independent galaxy bias, the
78: growth of ionised regions during reionisation is thought to
79: introduce a strongly scale dependent relationship between the 21\,cm
80: and mass power spectra. We use a semi-numerical model for
81: reionisation to assess the impact of ionised regions on the
82: precision and accuracy with which the BAO scale could be measured
83: using redshifted 21\,cm observations. For a model in which
84: reionisation is completed at $z\sim6$, we find that the constraints
85: on the BAO scale are not systematically biased at $z \gtrsim
86: 6.5$. In this scenario, and assuming the sensitivity attainable with
87: a low-frequency array comprising 10 times the collecting area of the
88: Murchison Widefield Array, the BAO scale could be measured to within
89: 1.5~per~cent in the range $6.5 \la z \la 7.5$.
90: \end{abstract}
91:
92:
93: \begin{keywords}
94: cosmology: diffuse radiation -- large-scale structure of the universe
95: \end{keywords}
96:
97:
98: \section{Introduction}
99:
100: The imprint of baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAOs) on the mass power
101: spectrum (PS) provides a cosmic yardstick that can be used to measure
102: the dependence of both the angular diameter distance and Hubble
103: parameter on redshift. The wavelength of a BAO is related to the size
104: of the sound horizon at recombination. Its value depends on the Hubble
105: constant, and on the dark matter and baryon densities. However, it
106: does not depend on the amount or nature of dark energy. Thus
107: measurements of the angular diameter distance and Hubble parameter can
108: in turn be used to constrain the possible evolution of dark energy
109: with cosmic time \citep[e.g.][]{eisenstein1998,eisenstein2002}.
110:
111: Galaxy surveys have proved to be a powerful probe of the linear PS on
112: large scales and therefore provide a means to measure the BAO scale
113: \citep[e.g.][]{blake2003, seo2003, seo2005, glazebrook2005,
114: hu2003,seo2007,angulo2008}. Indeed, analyses of the galaxy PS from
115: the SDSS and 2dFGRS surveys have uncovered a BAO signal
116: \citep[e.g.][]{cole2005,eisenstein2005,percival2007,okumura2008,gaztanaga2008,gaztanaga2008b},
117: providing incentive for deeper all-sky galaxy surveys, using
118: telescopes like the SKA\footnote{http://www.skatelescope.org},
119: Pan-STARRS\footnote{http://pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/public} and the
120: LSST\footnote{http://www.lsst.org}, to measure the BAO scale and hence
121: the dark energy equation of state more accurately.
122:
123: Galaxy redshift surveys are best suited to studies of the dark energy
124: equation of state at relatively late times ($z \lesssim 3$) due to the
125: difficulty of obtaining accurate redshifts for a sufficiently large
126: number of high redshift galaxies. Although detection of the Integrated
127: Sachs-Wolfe effect puts some constraints on the integrated role of
128: dark energy above $z \sim 1.5$ [see, e.g., \citet{giannantonio2008}
129: and references therein], we currently have very limited information
130: about the nature of dark energy at high redshift. If dark energy
131: behaves like a cosmological constant, then its effect on the Hubble
132: expansion is only significant at $z\la1$ and becomes negligible at
133: $z\ga2$. In this case, studies of the BAO scale at low redshift would
134: provide the most powerful constraints. However, as the origin of dark
135: energy is not understood we cannot presume a~priori which redshift
136: range should be studied in order to provide optimal constraints on
137: proposed models. Probes of dark energy at higher redshifts have been
138: suggested. These include measurements of the PS from a Ly$\alpha$
139: forest survey which could potentially be used probe the evolution of
140: dark energy through measurement of the BAO scale for redshifts as high
141: as $z\sim4$ \citep{mcdonald2007}. Similarly, studying the temporal
142: variation of high resolution quasar spectra may probe the evolution of
143: dark energy through the Sandage-Loeb test in the window $2<z<5$
144: \citep{corasaniti2007}. Measurements of the BAO scale in the
145: reionisation era ($z>6$) are likely to be complimentary to the
146: constraints at lower redshifts provided by these techniques.
147:
148: It has recently been suggested that observations of 21\,cm intensity
149: fluctuations might provide an additional avenue to measure the mass
150: PS \citep[e.g.][]{mcquinn2006, bowman2006,
151: mao_tegmark2008}, and that future low-frequency arrays could be used
152: to measure the BAO scale at a range of redshifts
153: \citep{wlg2008,chang2008,mao2008}. Redshifted 21\,cm surveys are
154: sensitive to neutral hydrogen regardless of whether it is part of a
155: resolved object. As a result, at high redshifts such surveys may be
156: more efficient in measuring the large-scale mass distribution than
157: galaxy redshift surveys, which must identify a very large number of
158: individual galaxies. Furthermore, spectroscopic emission line surveys
159: have the advantage of probing a precisely defined redshift interval,
160: which is unlikely to be true of a traditional galaxy survey
161: \cite[see][]{simpson2006}.
162:
163: Planned low-frequency arrays such as the Murchison Widefield
164: Array\footnote{http://www.haystack.mit.edu/ast/arrays/mwa} (MWA) and
165: LOFAR\footnote{http://www.lofar.org} are designed to measure the PS of
166: 21\,cm fluctuations at $z>6$ in order to probe the reionisation era.
167: \citet{wlg2008} have argued that while the first generation of
168: low-frequency arrays will not have sufficient sensitivity to precisely
169: determine the BAO scale, future extensions could have the sensitivity
170: to detect the BAO scale with promisingly small errors. \citet{wlg2008}
171: assumed a semi-analytic model which predicts a scale independent value
172: for the effective bias between the linear matter PS and the 21\,cm
173: PS. However the 21\,cm bias is expected to be strongly scale
174: dependent, especially toward the end of reionisation when many ionised
175: bubbles percolate through the intergalactic medium (IGM), creating an
176: excess of power on scales larger than the characteristic bubble size
177: \citep[e.g.][]{furlanetto2004}. In this paper we explore whether the
178: scale dependence of the 21\,cm bias will compromise the ability of
179: redshifted 21\,cm observations to measure the BAO scale
180: \citep{mao2008}. We begin by reviewing the expected BAO signal and
181: 21\,cm PS in Section~\ref{background}. We describe the observation of
182: the 21\,cm PS, including a discussion of the noise considerations in
183: Section~\ref{experiment}. In Section~\ref{fits} we describe our
184: fitting procedure for recovering the BAO scale and present our error
185: analysis, before concluding in Section~\ref{summary}. To calculate
186: these errors we adopt a set of cosmological parameters similar to
187: those derived from the third year WMAP data \citep{spergel2007}, namely
188: $\Omega_m = 0.24, \Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.76, h = 0.73, \sigma_8 =
189: 0.0.76$ and $\Omega_b = 0.042$.
190:
191:
192: \section{Theoretical background}\label{background}
193:
194: The sound speed at recombination $(s)$ determines the length scale of
195: the acoustic peaks in both the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
196: anisotropies and the linear matter PS. We refer to this length as the
197: BAO scale. The co-moving horizon size at decoupling $(r)$ may be
198: determined from knowledge of $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_b$, and an
199: understanding of the physics governing a baryon-photon fluid
200: \citep{page2003}. \citet{komatsu2008} calculate this length scale to
201: be $146 \pm 1.8$\,Mpc for the cosmological parameters extracted from
202: the fifth year WMAP data. The corresponding angular scale $\theta_A =
203: r/D_A(z_{\rm rec})$ is closely related to the position of the first
204: acoustic peak in the CMB PS, which occurs at the scale of the mode
205: which has compressed once at the time of decoupling
206: \citep[see][]{page2003}. Following decoupling the same acoustic scale
207: is imprinted in the matter PS, albeit with a different phase. This
208: signature is expected to be preserved on large scales where non-linear
209: gravitational effects are small. Therefore the BAO scale may be used
210: as a standard ruler to test the geometry of the universe and the role
211: of dark energy.
212:
213: \subsection{Theoretical expectations for the redshifted 21\,cm power spectrum}
214:
215: Neutral hydrogen radiates at 21\,cm due to the hyperfine transition
216: between the singlet and triplet ground states. Assuming a contrast
217: between the kinetic temperature of the IGM $T_k$ and
218: the CMB temperature $T_{\rm CMB}$, and efficient coupling of the spin
219: temperature $T_s$ to $T_k$, the 21\,cm signal will mirror the underlying
220: density of neutral hydrogen. The Ly$\alpha$ and X-ray flux emitted by
221: the first galaxies is expected to ensure these conditions hold during most
222: of the reionisation era \citep[see,
223: e.g.,][]{furlanetto2006}. A radio interferometer is sensitive to
224: fluctuations in the brightness temperature of neutral gas. For gas
225: of mean cosmic density the expected temperature brightness contrast
226: in redshifted 21\,cm emission is
227: \begin{eqnarray}\label{deltaTb}\nonumber
228: \delta T_b &=& \frac{T_b - T_{\rm CMB}}{(1+z)}(1-e^{-\tau})\\ \nonumber
229: &\approx& 22~{\rm mK}~{x}_{\rm HI}\left(1-\frac{T_{\rm
230: CMB}}{T_s}\right)
231: \left( \frac{\Omega_bh^2}{0.02}\right) \\\nonumber
232: &&\hspace{15mm}\times\left[ \left( \frac{1+z}{7.5}\right) \left(
233: \frac{0.24}{\Omega_m}\right)\right]^{1/2},\\
234: & \equiv& \delta \bar{T}_b \bar{x}_{\rm HI}
235: \end{eqnarray}
236: where $\tau$ is the optical depth of the neutral gas to 21\,cm
237: radiation and $\bar{x}_{\rm HI}$ is the mass-weighted neutral fraction
238: of hydrogen in the IGM.
239:
240: Allowing for fractional fluctuations in the baryonic matter density
241: $\delta(\Vec{x})$, ionised fraction $\delta_x(\Vec{x})$, and peculiar
242: gas velocity $\delta_v(\Vec{x}) =
243: \frac{1+z}{H(z)}\frac{dv_r}{dr}(\Vec{x})$ (where $\frac{dv_r}{dr}$ is
244: the peculiar velocity of the gas)\footnote{Variations in the local
245: Ly-$\alpha$ flux may also result in fluctuations in the signal
246: through $T_s$, \citep[e.g.][]{barkana2005a}}, the spatial dependence
247: of the brightness temperature fluctuations may be written
248: \citep[e.g.][]{mao2008}
249:
250: \begin{eqnarray}\label{deltaTb_spatial}\nonumber
251: \delta T_b (\Vec{x}) &=& \delta \bar{T}_b [1-(1-\bar{x}_{\rm HI})(1+\delta_x)](1+\delta)(1-\delta_v)\\
252: &&\left(1-\frac{T_{\rm CMB}}{T_s}\right).
253: \end{eqnarray}
254:
255: \noindent Assuming the peculiar velocity effect is described by the
256: linear theory result from \citet{kaiser1987}, \emph{i.e.}
257: $\delta_v(\Vec{k}) = - f \mu^2 \delta (\Vec{k})$ (note that $f \rightarrow
258: 1$ in the high redshift limit) where $\mu = \Vec{k}.\Vec{n}$ denotes
259: the angle between the line of sight and the Fourier vector $\Vec{k}$, the
260: angle dependent 21\,cm power-spectrum may be written
261: \citep[e.g.][]{mao2008}
262:
263: \begin{eqnarray}\label{21cmPS_angular}
264: &&P_{21}(\Vec{k},z) = \delta \bar{T}_b^2[(\bar{x}_{\rm HI}^2 P_{\delta
265: \delta} - 2 \bar{x}_{\rm HI}(1-\bar{x}_{\rm HI})P_{\delta x} +\\\nonumber
266: &&(1-\bar{x}_{\rm HI})^2 P_{xx}) +
267: 2 f \mu^2 (\bar{x}_{\rm HI}^2P_{\delta
268: \delta} - \bar{x}_{\rm HI}(1-\bar{x}_{\rm HI})P_{\delta x})\\
269: &&+ f^2 \mu^4\bar{x}_{\rm HI}^2P_{\delta \delta} ]. \nonumber
270: \end{eqnarray}
271:
272: \noindent $P_{\delta \delta}$, $P_{x x}$ and $P_{\delta x}$ are the
273: linear matter power-spectrum, ionisation power-spectrum, and
274: ionisation-density cross power-spectrum respectively. In general the
275: 21\,cm PS will display complex angle and redshift dependent
276: structure. The difference in the angular dependence modulating the
277: cosmological ($P_{\delta \delta}$) and astrophysical ($P_{\delta x},
278: P_{xx}$) components may be able to be exploited to constrain both
279: cosmological and astrophysical parameters
280: \citep[e.g.][]{barkana2005b,mao2008}. The spherically averaged 21\,cm
281: PS may be more simply related to the underlying mass PS via
282: \begin{equation}
283: \label{P21Pm}
284: P_{21}(k,z) = b_{21}(k,z)^2 P_l(k,z) D^2(z),
285: \end{equation}
286: where $P_l$ is the primordial linear matter PS extrapolated to $z = 0$
287: calculated using CMBfast \citep{sz1996}, and $D(z)$ is the linear
288: growth factor between redshift $z$ and the present. In
289: equation~(\ref{P21Pm}), the prefactor $b_{21}(k,z)$ is a term which is
290: analogous to galaxy bias (but which has units of mK). However in
291: contrast to galaxy redshift surveys, the value of $b_{21}$ can be
292: scale dependent, even in the linear regime, as a result of the
293: long-range, non-gravitational correlations introduced into the
294: ionisation structure of the IGM by the formation of HII
295: regions. Whilst peculiar velocity effects will be present,
296: \citet{seo2005} find that the BAO signal is preserved in the matter PS
297: at $z \sim 3$. Furthermore, \cite{seo2008} and \cite{shaw2008} show
298: that even the effect of non-linear redshift space distortions on the
299: spherically averaged matter PS may be able to be corrected to high
300: accuracy.
301:
302: Equation~(\ref{P21Pm}) implicitly assumes that the gravitational
303: dynamics governing the large-scale structures probed are well
304: described by linearised fluid equations. Non-linear gravitational
305: dynamics will be increasingly important at low redshift. However at
306: the redshifts of interest here ($z>6$) non-linear evolution is
307: unlikely to play a significant role \citep[see, e.g.][]{crocce2008,
308: mao2008}. \citet{mao_tegmark2008} find that the cut-off in the
309: maximum wave-number probed by redshifted 21\,cm PS in the range
310: $7<z<9$ has little affect on the constraints on cosmological
311: parameters.
312:
313:
314:
315: \subsection{Model for the evolution of the 21\,cm signal}
316:
317: In the early stages of reionisation when most of the hydrogen is still
318: neutral, the bias between the linear matter PS and the 21\,cm PS,
319: $b_{21}$, is well approximated by a constant with units of
320: temperature. However the bias is expected to depend on scale during
321: the process of reionisation since galaxies preferentially form in
322: overdense regions, resulting in early formation of ionised bubbles
323: from an overdense IGM. This effect can be modelled semi-analytically
324: \citep[e.g.][]{wyithe_morales2007}, or with full numerical
325: calculations of reionisation
326: \citep[e.g.][]{mcquinn2007,iliev2007,trac_cen2007}. Recently,
327: semi-numerical schemes have been devised which allow efficient
328: calculation of the large-scale ionisation field
329: \citep{mesinger2007,zahn2007, geil2008}. We use simulations computed
330: using the method described in \citet{geil2008} to model $b_{21}$. We
331: refer the reader to the discussion of the semi-numerical modeling in
332: that paper, and to the discussion of the underlying semi-analytic
333: model for the reionisation of the IGM in
334: \citet{wyithe_morales2007}. Only a brief overview of the assumptions
335: and characteristics of the model(s) is included here.
336:
337: \citet{wyithe_morales2007} describe a semi-analytic model for the
338: density and scale dependent ionisation fraction of the IGM. This model
339: assumes that a certain fraction of the mass in collapsed halos forms
340: galaxies, and that these galaxies produce ionising photons with some
341: efficiency. The ionisation due to galaxies is opposed by the density
342: dependent recombination rate. An overdensity dependent rate of
343: ionisation may then be calculated as a function of scale. For the
344: examples shown in this paper, the model parameters are tuned such that
345: reionisation is completed by $z = 6$. \citet{wyithe_morales2007} use
346: this model to explore the 21\,cm brightness temperature contrast as a
347: function of scale and redshift. \citet{geil2008} use these scale and
348: overdensity dependent predictions for the ionised gas fraction of the
349: IGM to generate realisations of the real-space density and ionisation
350: fraction of a region of the IGM. In this paper we use the
351: semi-numerical model to compute the 21\,cm bias $b_{21}$. We note that
352: our calculation does not include redshift space distortions
353: \citep*{barkana2005b} which are not captured by the model used in this
354: paper. The free parameters include the star formation efficiency,
355: escape fraction of ionising photons, and the minimum halo virial
356: temperature for star formation in neutral and ionised regions of IGM
357: (for which we take $10^4$\,K and $10^5$\,K respectively). The
358: semi-numerical simulation was performed in a cube with 256$^3$
359: resolution elements and of side length 3\,Gpc (co-moving).
360:
361: In Figure~\ref{fig1} we show the model 21\,cm PS at $z = 6.5$, 7, 7.5
362: and 8, corresponding to average volume weighted neutral fractions
363: $x_{\rm HI} = 0.14, 0.28, 0.42,0.53$. The left-hand panels show the
364: ionised gas distribution from the semi-numerical simulations for a box
365: with side length 3\,Gpc (co-moving). The panels in the second column
366: show the spherically averaged model 21\,cm PS (grey lines). The panels
367: in the third column show the model 21\,cm bias (grey lines). The far
368: right-hand panels show the BAO component of the PS, defined as the
369: difference between the 21\,cm PS, and a reference 21\,cm PS computed
370: from a mass PS without baryons, $P_{l,nb}(k)$. The model BAO
371: component, $b_{21}^2(k) D^2(z) [P_l(k)-P_{l,nb}(k)]$, is shown in
372: grey. The model PS is reproduced in Figure 2.
373:
374: \subsection{Fitting formula for 21\,cm power spectra}
375:
376: Following \citet{seo2005} we parametrize the fit to the semi-numerical model of the spherically averaged 21\,cm PS as
377: \begin{equation}\label{model1}
378: P_{21,{\rm fit}}(k,z) = B^2(k)~D^2(z)~P_l(k/\alpha) + AP(k),
379: \end{equation}
380: where $AP(k) = c_0 + c_1k + c_2k^2$ is a term to describe anomalous
381: power and $B(k) = b_0 + b_1 + b_2k^2 + b_3k^3$ is the fitted bias in
382: units of mK. The ``dilation'' or ``phase'' parameter $\alpha$ allows
383: for a dilation/contraction of the matter PS used to fit the 21\,cm
384: PS. In our case the input value of $\alpha$ is unity since we are
385: assuming we know the cosmological parameters governing
386: $P_l$. \citet{seo2005} note that for the parametrization the PS in
387: equation~(\ref{model1}), the errors in the known values of the
388: wave-number dilation parameter $\alpha$ directly translate into the
389: errors in the measured BAO scales. In Section~\ref{error} we calculate
390: the expected redshift dependent errors $\Delta \alpha$ for an
391: observational campaign which is described in Section~\ref{experiment}
392: below.
393:
394: The anomalous power term allows for the distortion of the matter
395: power-spectrum due to non-linear mode coupling. \citet{seo2005} find
396: that by subtracting a smooth function ($AP$) from the matter PS
397: derived from their N-body simulations, they are able to recover the
398: shape of the matter PS and thus the BAO signal. Our semi-numerical
399: model is intrinsically linear, and so does not include anomalous
400: power. However we explore the possible effect of anomalous power on
401: the measurement of the BAO scale by including the correction term $AP$
402: in the fitted PS. Inclusion of this term approximates the effect of
403: degeneracy between anomalous power and scale dependent bias. In this
404: paper we present results using fits both with and without the $AP$
405: term. Note that the degeneracy between the parameters governing the
406: anomalous power and bias terms means that the polynomial fits to these
407: functions cannot be interpreted physically when the $AP$ term is
408: included (see Section~\ref{fits}). However we find that this
409: degeneracy does not significantly hinder the determination of $\alpha$.
410:
411:
412: More detailed cosmological constraints may be obtainable if the
413: line-of-sight and transverse BAO scales could be measured
414: independently [see \citet{wlg2008} and references therein, and also
415: \citet{okumura2008}, \cite{gaztanaga2008} and
416: \cite{gaztanaga2008b} for recent constraints from galaxy
417: surveys]. Indeed, a low-frequency array is naturally suited to
418: measuring both the line-of-sight and transverse components of the
419: 21\,cm PS (see Section~\ref{experiment}). Such an analysis would
420: require modelling of the peculiar velocity effects which give rise to
421: the angular dependence of the 21\,cm PS in
422: equation~\eqref{21cmPS_angular}. As mentioned, the model adopted for
423: the 21\,cm PS does not include peculiar velocities. However we note
424: that above fitting formula could be readily generalised to
425: characterise the ionisation and cross density-ionisation power-spectra
426: needed to describe the angular dependence in
427: equation~\eqref{21cmPS_angular}. This would allow constraints on the
428: dilation parameter, and therefore the BAO scale, both perpendicular
429: and parallel to the line-of-sight to be extracted from the 21\,cm
430: power-spectrum. The signal-to-noise ratio estimates in \citet{wlg2008}
431: suggest that the MWA5000 will be similarly sensitive to each of these
432: scales.
433:
434:
435: \section{Measurement of 21\,cm power spectra}
436: \label{experiment}
437:
438: \begin{figure*}
439: \vspace{5mm}
440: \includegraphics[width=16.5cm]{fig1.eps}
441: \caption{\label{fig1} Model power spectra and fits assuming a
442: third-order polynomial bias and no anomalous power. The left-hand
443: panels show the ionisation maps corresponding to redshifts of $z =
444: 6.5$, 7.0, 7.5 and 8.0. The panels in the second column display the
445: corresponding model (\emph{grey}) and fitted (\emph{black}) 21\,cm PS,
446: and the linear matter PS (\emph{thick grey} line). The panels in the
447: third column show the fitted (\emph{black}) and model (\emph{grey})
448: scale dependent bias. In the far right-hand panels we plot the
449: difference between the model 21\,cm PS with and without baryons
450: (\emph{grey}), and the recovered 21\,cm PS with and without baryons
451: (\emph{black}), as described in the text. The \emph{grey} error bars
452: correspond to spherically averaged noise as described in
453: Section~\ref{experiment}. In each panel the vertical lines
454: indicate the range of $k$ values used for the fit.}
455: \end{figure*}
456:
457: \begin{figure*}
458: \vspace{5mm}
459: \includegraphics[width=16.5cm]{fig2.eps}
460: \caption{\label{fig2}Model power spectra and fits assuming a
461: third-order polynomial bias and quadratic anomalous power for the
462: same simulation data as Figure~1. The first column of panels display
463: the model (\emph{grey}) and fitted (\emph{black}) 21\,cm PS, and the
464: linear matter PS (\emph{thick grey} line) at redshifts of $z = 6.5$,
465: 7.0, 7.5 and 8.0. The panels in the second column show the fitted
466: (\emph{black}) and model (\emph{grey}) scale dependent bias. The
467: anomalous power component of the fit is plotted in the third
468: column. In the far right-hand panels we plot the difference between
469: the model PS with and without baryons (\emph{grey}), and the recovered
470: PS with and without baryons (\emph{black}), as described in the text.
471: The \emph{grey} error bars correspond to spherically averaged noise as
472: described in Section~\ref{experiment}. In each panel the vertical
473: lines indicate the range of $k$ values used for the fit.}
474: \end{figure*}
475:
476: In this section we discuss the sensitivity of a low-frequency array to
477: the 21\,cm PS. The sensitivity to the PS depends on the array design
478: (e.g. total collecting area and antenna distribution) as well as the
479: observation strategy (e.g. total integration time). We consider a
480: low-frequency array which would be a 10-fold extension of the MWA. We
481: refer to this array as the MWA5000 \citep{mcquinn2006}. The MWA5000
482: would consist of 5000 antennae (with each antenna composed of a tile
483: of $4 \times 4$ cross-dipoles) with effective collecting area $A_e\sim
484: 16 \lambda^2/4$\,m$^2$, where $\lambda = 0.21(1+z)$\,m is the observed
485: wavelength. The dipoles will be sensitive to a wide range of
486: frequencies which translate into redshifts spanning the expected
487: extent of reionisation. However, we assume that the receiver will
488: limit the bandpass to a selected $B_{\rm tot}=32$\,MHz window per
489: observation. We assume that the antennae are distributed with constant
490: density in a core of radius $80$\,m (within which the $u$-$v$ coverage
491: is very high), with the remainder distributed with a radially
492: symmetric density profile $\rho \propto r^{-2}$ out to a radius of
493: $1$~km (so that the maximum baseline is $\sim 2$\,km).
494:
495: We use the prescription from \citet{bowman2006} for the 3d sensitivity
496: of an array to the 21\,cm PS. The array sensitivity is expressed in
497: terms of the wave-vector components which are orthogonal $k_{\perp}$
498: and parallel $k_{\parallel}$ to the line-of-sight. The modulus of the
499: wave-number is then given by
500: $k=|\vec{k}|=\sqrt{k_\parallel^2+k_{\perp}^2}$.
501: The sensitivity at large $k$ depends crucially on the angular
502: resolution of the array (and therefore the maximum baseline), the
503: bandpass over which the measurement is made $\Delta \nu$, the
504: integration time $t_{\rm int}$, and the density of baselines which
505: measure a particular $k$-mode. The noise may be divided into two
506: distinct components. The thermal noise component $\Delta P_{21,N}$ is
507: proportional to the sky temperature, where $T_{\rm sky} \sim 250 \left(
508: \frac{1+z}{7}\right)^{2.6}$\,K at the frequencies of interest, and may
509: be written
510: \begin{equation}\label{thermal_noise}
511: \Delta P_{21,N}(\Vec{k}) = \left[\frac{T_{\rm sky}^2}{\Delta\nu t_{\rm int}} \frac{D^2 \Delta D}{n(k_{\perp})}\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{A_e}\right)^2\right] \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_c}},
512: \end{equation}
513: where $D$ is the co-moving distance to the centre of the survey volume
514: which has a co-moving depth $\Delta D$. Here $n(k_{\perp})$ is the
515: density of baselines which observe a wave-vector with transverse
516: component $k_{\perp}$. In the denominator $N_c$ denotes the number of
517: modes observed in a $k$-space volume $d^3k$. In terms of the
518: $k$-vector components, $N_c = 2 \pi k_{\perp} \Delta k_{\perp} \Delta
519: k_{\parallel} \mathcal{V}/(2 \pi)^3$ where $\mathcal{V} = D \Delta D
520: (\lambda^2/A_e)$ is the observed volume. Note that this calculation of
521: $N_c$ incorporates the fact that $k$-modes which do not fit in the
522: bandpass $\Delta \nu$ are not observable. The sample variance
523: component of the noise is given by $\Delta P_{21,SV}(\vec{k}) =
524: P_{21}(\vec{k})/\sqrt{N_c}$. The sensitivity will improve with the
525: square root of the number of independent fields observed. The total
526: noise may therefore be expressed by
527: \begin{equation}\label{2dnoise}
528: \Delta P_{21}(k_{\perp},k_{\parallel},z) = \frac{\Delta
529: P_{21,N}(k_{\perp},k_{\parallel},z) + \Delta
530: P_{21,SV}(k_{\perp},k_{\parallel},z)}{\sqrt{N_{\rm fields} B_{\rm
531: tot}/\Delta \nu}}.
532: \end{equation}
533: For the purposes of constraining the parameters in
534: equation~\eqref{model1}, we average equation~\eqref{2dnoise} over the
535: viewing angle to obtain the spherically averaged noise $\Delta
536: P_{21}(k,z)$. Note that this calculation assumes perfect foreground
537: removal over a bandpass with width $\Delta \nu$ [see
538: \citet{mcquinn2006} for a discussion of the relationship between
539: foreground removal and bandpass width]. In Section~\ref{fits} we
540: explore the effect of the choice of $\Delta \nu$ on the errors in the
541: measurement of $\alpha$.
542:
543:
544:
545: We assume that the spherically averaged PS is measured in $n_k = 32$
546: logarithmically spaced intervals with end points in the range
547: 0.05\,Mpc$^{-1} \leq k \leq 0.2$\,Mpc$^{-1}$. Wave-numbers below this
548: range would not fit within the nominal bandwidth of $\sim8$\,MHz at
549: the redshifts of interest. Above $0.2$\,Mpc$^{-1}$ the BAO signal
550: becomes very weak and the matter PS may be non-linear. The binning in
551: $k$-space, which is approximately equivalent to bin widths of $\Delta
552: k \sim k/20$, is motivated by the scale of the expected BAO
553: features. For clarity the grey error bars in Figures~1 and 2 represent
554: the uncertainty on the spherically averaged PS for larger spectral
555: bins with width $\Delta k = k/10$. We assume that three fields are
556: observed ($N_{\rm fields} = 3$) for 1000\,hrs each. Given the field of
557: view at these redshifts, this would correspond to surveying a few per
558: cent of the sky.
559:
560:
561: \section{Fits to 21\,cm power spectra}\label{fits}
562:
563: In this section we describe the results of fits to the modelled 21\,cm
564: PS using the parametrized form in equation~\eqref{model1}.
565:
566: \subsection{$\mathbf{\chi^2}$ minimization}
567:
568: We adopt the $\chi^2$ function as an indicator for the ``goodness of fit'' of our model,
569: \begin{equation}
570: \chi^2(\Vec{p}) = \sum_{i=1}^{n_k} \bigg[ \frac{P_{21}(k,z) - P_{\rm 21,fit}(\Vec{p},k,z)}{\sigma_{i}} \bigg]^2,
571: \end{equation}
572: where $\sigma_{i} = \Delta P_{21}(k,z)$ and $\Vec{p} \equiv \{ p_j \}
573: = (\alpha,b_0,b_1,b_2,b_3,c_0,c_1,c_2)$ is a vector containing the
574: model parameters. The index $i$ refers to the $n_k$ discrete values of
575: $k$ corresponding to each data bin (see Section~\ref{experiment}). We
576: restrict our fitting to the range $0.05\,$Mpc$^{-1}\le
577: k \le 0.2\,$Mpc$^{-1}$.
578:
579: We have adapted the Numerical Recipes routines \citep{num_rec} which
580: implement the Levenberg-Marquardt technique to iteratively find the
581: parameter set which minimizes the $\chi^2$ function for a model which
582: is non-linear in its parameters $\vec{p}$. In Figures~1 and 2 we show
583: the resulting fits for the cases with a third order polynomial bias
584: (black lines), with and without a quadratic anomalous power term
585: respectively. The panels in the second column of Figure~1 (and the
586: first column in Figure~2) show the fitted spherically averaged 21\,cm
587: PS as well as the linear matter PS. The panels in the third column of
588: Figure~1 (and second column of Figure~2) show the fitted 21\,cm
589: bias. In Figure~2 the panels in the third column show the fitted $AP$
590: term (note that the input term is zero since non-linear effects are
591: not incorporated into the semi-numeric code we have used to generate
592: the ionisation maps). The far right-hand panels in each of Figures~1
593: and 2 show the BAO component of the fitted PS, $B^2(k) D^2(z) P_l(k) +
594: AP(k) - b_{21}^2(k) D^2(z) P_{l,nb}(k)$. The noise in the fitted BAO
595: component is due to the noise in the model calculation of the bias
596: $b_{21}$.
597:
598:
599: \begin{figure*}
600: \begin{center}
601: \begin{tabular}{cc}
602: \epsfig{figure=fig3.eps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=0,clip=}&
603: \epsfig{figure=fig4.eps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=0,clip=}
604: \end{tabular} \caption{\label{fig3}Fitted values and uncertainty for the $\alpha$ using a fit with third-order polynomial bias with (\emph{left panel}) and without (\emph{right panel}) a quadratic anomalous power term. The error bars represent the 1$\sigma$ ($68.3$~per~cent) confidence intervals calculated using from the Fisher matrix by marginalising over all of the other parameters in the fit.}
605: \end{center}
606: \end{figure*}
607:
608: The fit to the 21\,cm PS is very good in all cases.
609: When the anomalous power term is included there is a trade-off between
610: the power in the 21\,cm PS associated with the bias $B$ and that due
611: to $AP$, indicating some degeneracy. However as we show in the next
612: subsection, this degeneracy does not significantly bias the
613: constraints on the BAO scale. It may of course be possible to
614: alleviate the degeneracies between the bias and the $AP$ parameters by
615: putting some physically/numerically motivated priors on the values of
616: $c_0,c_1$ and $c_2$.
617:
618: \subsection{Uncertainty in the measured BAO scale}\label{error}
619:
620:
621:
622: \begin{figure*}
623: \begin{center}
624: \begin{tabular}{cc}
625: \epsfig{figure=fig5.eps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=0,clip=}&
626: \epsfig{figure=fig6.eps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=0,clip=}
627: \end{tabular} \caption{\label{fig4}Fitted values and uncertainty for the $\alpha$ using a fit with fourth-order polynomial bias with (\emph{left panel}) and without (\emph{right panel}) a quadratic anomalous power term. The error bars represent the 1$\sigma$ ($68.3$~per~cent) confidence intervals calculated using from the Fisher matrix by marginalising over all of the other parameters in the fit.}
628: \end{center}
629: \end{figure*}
630:
631:
632:
633: After marginalising over the remaining fit parameters, we may
634: interpret the error in $\alpha$ for our fits as the fractional
635: uncertainty in the measurement of the BAO scale \citep{seo2005}. The
636: Fisher matrix $\mathbf{F}$ is given by \citep{tegmark1997}
637: \begin{equation}
638: F_{ij} = \sum_{k=0}^{n_p} \sum_{l=0}^{n_p}\frac{\partial P_{\rm 21,fit}}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial P_{\rm 21,fit}}{\partial p_j},
639: \end{equation}
640: where $n_p$ is the dimension of $\vec{p}$ and all derivatives are
641: evaluated using the best-fitting $\vec{p}$. Since we expect the noise
642: in 21\,cm PS to be Gaussian, we may invoke the Cramer-Rao theorem to
643: estimate the 1$\sigma$ ($68.3$~per~cent) confidence interval around
644: the best-fitting value of $\alpha$ from $\bf{F}$. Assuming that all
645: other parameters are marginalised over this implies errors around the
646: best-fitting values for $\alpha$ of
647: \begin{equation}\label{error_eqn}
648: \Delta \alpha = (F_{11}^{-1})^{-1/2}.
649: \end{equation}
650:
651: In Figure~\ref{fig3} we plot the the best-fitting values of $\alpha$
652: and the associated 1$\sigma$ error as calculated in
653: equation~(\ref{error_eqn}) for several redshifts in the range $6.4
654: \leq z \leq 8$ corresponding to average neutral fractions of $0.1
655: \lesssim x_{\rm HI} \lesssim 0.5$ for our reionisation model. The
656: \emph{left panel} of Figure~\ref{fig3} assumes a fitted 21\,cm PS with
657: no anomalous power term, whereas the fitted PS used to generate the
658: plot in the \emph{right panel} includes the $AP$ term. In each panel
659: the grey horizontal line indicates the input value $\alpha = 1$. Note
660: that the recovered values of $\alpha$ deviate from the input values at
661: $x_{\rm HI} \sim 0.1 - 0.2$ ($z \sim 6.4 - 6.7$). However for the
662: observing strategy and $k$-space binning chosen, this deviation is
663: within the estimated $1\sigma$ statistical error (although only just
664: at $z\sim 6.4$ where the neutral fraction is $\sim 10$~per~cent). As
665: reionisation nears completion ($x_{\rm HI} \rightarrow 0.1$), the
666: 21\,cm bias becomes most strongly scale dependent in the range
667: 0.05\,Mpc$^{-1} \lesssim k \lesssim 0.2$\,Mpc$^{-1}$. The increasing
668: systematic error toward $z \sim 6.4$ is therefore a result of the
669: (relatively) low noise level in the 21\,cm PS at these redshifts
670: combined with the increasingly strong evolution of the bias function
671: within the fitted range of $k$-values.
672:
673: We find that the statistical errors are slightly larger when we
674: include the extra parameters required to describe the anomalous power
675: (since the matrix $\mathbf{F}$ is not diagonal). We note that our
676: estimate of the attainable errors on the phase/dilation parameter
677: $\alpha$ are a minimum in the sense that $(i)$ we have assumed perfect
678: foreground removal across each bandpass with width 8\,MHz for a total
679: bandwidth of 32\,MHz, and $(ii)$ we have invoked the Cramer-Rao
680: theorem regarding the minimum 1$\sigma$ error on a parameter from the
681: Fisher matrix of the best-fitting model.
682:
683: The bandpass over which foreground removal can be performed may affect
684: the errors on the model parameters, even for a fixed total bandpass
685: $B_{\rm tot}$, because the removal of foreground on larger scales
686: allows for more of the strong large-scale (small $k$) BAO peaks to be
687: included in the fit. However we find that at the high redshifts that
688: we are considering, increasing $\Delta \nu$ above 8\,MHz has little
689: affect on the errors in the recovered values of $\alpha$. On the other
690: hand, we find that decreasing $\Delta \nu$ increases the systematic
691: uncertainty in the recovered values of $\alpha$ toward the end of
692: reionisation. For model fits without the $AP$ term, the systematic
693: error exceeds the statistical error when $x_{\rm HI} \lesssim 0.2$
694: (corresponding to redshifts $z \lesssim 6.7$), indicating that our
695: maximum likelihood indicator is biased. This highlights the
696: potentially significant advantages of including the larger scales
697: accessible with wider bandpasses $B$.
698:
699: The systematic component of the errors will in general be sensitive to
700: the functional form chosen to describe the 21\,cm PS. We find that the
701: effect of increasing the order of the polynomial used to fit the bias
702: is somewhat degenerate with the chosen value of $n_k$. For example,
703: with coarser k-space binning of $n_k = 16$ the errors in $\alpha$
704: decrease by $\sim 0.5$~per~cent when the bias is modelled by a fourth
705: order polynomial rather than a third order polynomial. This effect is
706: not observed for $n_k = 32$ (see Figures~\ref{fig3} and
707: \ref{fig4}). This implies that sampling of the BAO features must be
708: sufficiently fine. However, the affect of $n_k$ on the systematic
709: errors in $\alpha$ is only significant for $x_{\rm HI} < 0.2$ when the
710: bias is evolving strongly over the range of fitted k-values.
711:
712:
713:
714:
715: \section{Summary and conclusions}\label{summary}
716:
717: There has been recent interest in the utility of redshifted 21\,cm
718: fluctuations from the IGM as a probe of the mass PS at a range of
719: redshifts \citep[e.g.][]{mcquinn2006, bowman2006,
720: mao_tegmark2008,wlg2008,chang2008,mao2008}. During the reionisation
721: era ($z\ga6$), the appearance of HII regions generates scale
722: dependence of the bias relating the 21\,cm PS to the linear PS. In
723: this paper we have set out to test the extent to which the scale
724: dependence of the 21\,cm bias will interfere with the ability to
725: extract the BAO scale from the PS of 21\,cm fluctuations.
726:
727: We have utilised the results of semi-numerical models for the
728: evolution of the ionised hydrogen distribution on large scales in
729: order to construct an estimate for the 21\,cm PS at high redshift. For
730: a model in which the IGM is fully reionised by $z=6$, and assuming the
731: design parameters for a 10-fold expansion the the MWA, we find that
732: the scale dependent 21\,cm bias limits the precision, but not the
733: accuracy, of measurements of the BAO scale in the window $6.5 \lesssim
734: z < 8.0$. We parametrize the bias and anomalous power terms in the
735: 21\,cm PS as polynomials, and for the telescope design assumed, find
736: errors on the spherically averaged BAO scale of $\lesssim
737: 1.5$~per~cent in the window $6.5 \le z \le 7.5$. At redshifts closer
738: to the end of reionisation, the strong scale dependence of the 21\,cm
739: bias introduces systematic error in the BAO scale, which exceeds the
740: level of the statistical uncertainty for narrower bandpasses ($B <
741: 8~{\rm MHz}$). We find that the sensitivity of a low-frequency array
742: to the spherically averaged BAO scale decreases with increasing
743: redshift, becoming $> 2$~per~cent by $z \sim 8$.
744:
745: The details of the quantitative results presented in this paper are
746: sensitive to the reionisation model assumed. More generally, the
747: constraints available at a particular redshift will be sensitive to
748: the details of the reionisation history. The best constraints are
749: likely to be derived from observations of the Universe when the IGM is
750: $\sim50$~per~cent ionised - at which time the fluctuations are
751: maximised \citep{lidz2008} - but the bias is relatively weakly
752: dependent on scale at the scale of the BAO signal (and hence does not
753: introduce a large systematic error). As a result, if reionisation
754: completes earlier than $z \sim 6$, the most precise constraints will
755: be obtained at higher redshift than reported here. However, as the
756: foregrounds become brighter when observing at higher redshift, an
757: early reionisation scenario would decrease the maximal precision with
758: which the BAO scale could be measured.
759:
760: A detailed analysis of the corresponding constraints on the dark
761: energy equation of state is non-trivial and depends on the functional
762: form assumed \citep{wlg2008}. We do not explore the translation of BAO
763: scale to cosmological constraints in this paper. Such an analysis
764: should include independent complementary constraints (e.g. from the
765: CMB), and take account of uncertainties in, for example, the horizon
766: scale \citep[e.g.][]{mcquinn2006,mao_tegmark2008}. Simple estimates of
767: the cosmological constraints from a high redshift BAO measurement were
768: presented in \citet{wlg2008}.
769:
770: In a recent paper \citet{mao_tegmark2008} propose a parametrization of
771: the 3d 21\,cm PS including peculiar velocity effects which is
772: motivated by the generic form expected for the ionisation PS and
773: ionisation-matter PS. Our analysis of the accuracy with which the BAO
774: scale may be recovered in the presence of a scale dependent 21\,cm
775: bias is complementary to their detailed discussion of the cosmological
776: constraints available via the redshifted 21\,cm
777: PS. \citet{mao_tegmark2008} demonstrate that their parametrization can
778: recover the ionisation PS constructed from simulations of reionisation
779: and therefore can be used to constrain cosmological parameters from
780: the 21\,cm PS. Whilst they mention that their parametrization
781: struggles to describe the high-$k$ ionisation PS by a redshift of
782: $z=7$ when the ionisation PS become significantly scale dependent,
783: this is not found to be a problem up to the $k_{\rm max} =
784: 0.2$\,Mpc$^{-1}$ that we consider in this paper. It would be
785: interesting to see how well such a parametrization would perform at
786: the end of reionisation in the wavelength range that we have used for
787: our fits.
788:
789: Our calculations of the constraints on the BAO scale from 21\,cm
790: intensity fluctuations are promising when compared to the expected
791: performance of future galaxy surveys. \citet{glazebrook2005} show that
792: a dedicated next-generation spectroscopic galaxy survey could measure
793: the BAO scale to an accuracy of $\sim 1$~per~cent for the transverse
794: component at a redshift $z \sim 3.5$, with a slightly reduced
795: sensitivity to the line-of-sight BAO scale. Limitations in the
796: precision achievable arise due to the large number of galaxies needed
797: to reduce the cosmic variance on the scales at which the BAO signal is
798: expected ($\gtrsim 30$\,Mpc), combined with the decrease in the number
799: of sufficiently luminous galaxies toward higher redshift. The accuracy
800: with which the BAO scale may be measured via the 21\,cm intensity PS
801: is immune to both of these constraints because there is no need to
802: resolve individual objects. Redshifted 21cm measurements of the PS will
803: instead be limited by cosmic variance owing to the finite size of the
804: field of view, and sensitivity to individual modes owing to array
805: configuration and finite collecting area. However we find that the PS of
806: redshifted 21\,cm fluctuations as measured by the MWA5000 could
807: achieve constraints on the BAO scale at $z>6$ that are comparable to
808: the accuracy which will be available to future galaxy redshift surveys
809: at $z\la3.5$.
810:
811: In summary, one potential obstacle to measuring the BAO scale in
812: 21\,cm fluctuations during the reionisation era is the strongly scale
813: dependent bias between the 21\,cm and mass PS that is
814: produced by the appearance of large ionised regions. In this paper we
815: have shown that the appearance of ionised regions during the
816: reionisation epoch will not inhibit the measurement of the BAO scale
817: during most of the reionisation era.
818:
819:
820: \section*{Acknowledgments} We thank the referee for useful
821: comments. KJR acknowledges the support and hospitality of the
822: Department of Physics, University of Melbourne, and a visiting
823: postgraduate Marie Curie Fellowship hosted by MPA. The research was
824: supported by the Australian Research Council (JSBW). PMG acknowledges
825: the support of an Australian Postgraduate Award.
826:
827: \bibliographystyle{mn2e} \bibliography{citations}
828:
829: \end{document}
830:
831:
832: