1: \documentstyle[times,graphics,astrobib,amssymb]{mn2e}
2: %\documentstyle[times,graphics,astrobib,amssymb,referee]{mn2e}
3:
4:
5: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}} \newcommand{\e}{\end{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\bear}{\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ear}{\end{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand{\nline}{\nonumber \\} \newcommand{\f}{\frac}
8: \newcommand{\de}{{\rm d}} \newcommand{\del}{\partial}
9: \newcommand{\lya}{Ly$\alpha$}
10: %\def\mgh#1{{\bf MGH: #1}}
11: %\newcommand{\la}{\langle} %\newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}
12: %\def\refbf {\bf}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \title[The topology of reionization] {Inside-out or Outside-in: The
17: topology of reionization in the photon-starved regime suggested by
18: \lya\ forest data} \author[Choudhury, Haehnelt \& Regan] {Tirthankar Roy
19: Choudhury\thanks{E-mail: chou@ast.cam.ac.uk},~
20: Martin G. Haehnelt\thanks{E-mail: haehnelt@ast.cam.ac.uk} and
21: John Regan\thanks{E-mail: regan@ast.cam.ac.uk} \\ Institute of
22: Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK}
23:
24:
25:
26: \maketitle
27:
28: \date{\today}
29:
30: \begin{abstract} We use a set of semi-numerical simulations based on
31: Zel'dovich approximation, friends-of-friends algorithm and excursion
32: set formalism to generate reionization maps of high dynamic range with
33: a range of assumptions regarding the distribution and luminosity of
34: ionizing sources and the spatial distribution of sinks for the
35: ionizing radiation. We find that ignoring the inhomogeneous spatial
36: distribution of regions of high gas density where recombinations are
37: important -- as is often done in studies of this kind -- can lead
38: to misleading conclusions regarding the topology of reionization,
39: especially if reionization occurs in the photon-starved regime
40: suggested by \lya\ forest data. The inhomogeneous spatial distribution
41: of recombinations significantly reduces the mean free
42: path of ionizing photons and the typical size of coherently ionized
43: regions. Reionization proceeds then much more as an outside-in
44: process. Low-density regions far from ionizing sources become ionized
45: before regions of high gas density not hosting sources of ionizing
46: radiation. The spatial distribution of
47: sinks of ionization radiation also significantly affects shape and
48: amplitude the power spectrum of fluctuations of 21cm emission. The
49: slope of the 21cm power spectrum as measured by upcoming 21cm
50: experiments should be able to distinguish to what extent the topology
51: of reionization proceeds outside-in or inside-out while the evolution of
52: the amplitude of the power spectrum with increasing ionized mass
53: fraction should be sensitive to the spatial distribution and the
54: luminosity of ionizing sources.
55: \end{abstract}
56: \begin{keywords} intergalactic medium cosmology: theory
57: large-scale structure of Universe.
58: \end{keywords}
59: \section{Introduction}
60:
61: The reionization of neutral hydrogen is an important milestone in the
62: evolution of the Universe. The epoch of reionization has received a
63: major boost of attention recently due to a series of observational
64: advances which suggest that the process is complex and that the
65: reionization of hydrogen extends over wide redshift range from $6
66: \lesssim z \lesssim 15$ (for reviews see \citeNP{cf06a,fob06}). We
67: are about to enter an exciting phase as planned 21cm observations are
68: expected to settle the questions when and how the Universe was
69: reionized. It thus timely to develop more accurate and detailed
70: analytical and numerical models in order to extract the maximum
71: information about the physical processes relevant for reionization
72: from the expected large and complex future data sets.
73:
74: Currently operating and upcoming low-frequency radio observations
75: (e.g., GMRT\footnote{http://www.gmrt.ncra.tifr.res.in/},
76: 21CMA\footnote{http://web.phys.cmu.edu/~past/},
77: MWA\footnote{http://www.haystack.mit.edu/ast/arrays/mwa/},
78: LOFAR\footnote{http://www.lofar.org/},
79: SKA\footnote{http://www.skatelescope.org/}) of redshifted 21cm
80: emission of neutral hydrogen should also probe the topology of the neutral
81: (or ionized) regions at high redshifts. Unfortunately, modelling the
82: expected data sets is not straightforward because of the dauntingly
83: wide range of physical scales involved and our lack of knowledge of
84: many details of the relevant physical processes.
85:
86:
87: Full numerical simulations including radiative transfer effects are
88: still computationally extremely challenging. Modelling the smallest
89: mass haloes contributing to the ionizing emissivity at early epochs
90: (with a total mass $M \sim 10^8 M_{\odot}$) requires linear scales
91: $\lesssim 0.1$Mpc while at the same time, the size of the simulated
92: regions need to extend over $100$ Mpc or more in order to probe the largest
93: coherently ionized regions in the final stages of reionization.
94: Despite such challenging requirements, considerable progress has been
95: made in performing radiative transfer simulations of ionization maps
96: of representative regions of the Universe
97: (see e.g. \citeNP{gnedin00,cfw03,pn05,impmsa06,ica++06,imsp07,mlz+07}).
98: Most radiative transfer simulations are, however, still rather limited in
99: dynamic range and equally important also limited in their ability to
100: explore the large parameter space of plausible assumptions regarding
101: the spatial distribution and time evolution of the ionizing
102: emissivity.
103:
104: This is one of the reasons why modelling the evolution of ionized
105: regions analytically using excursion-set-like formalisms has become a
106: widely used and useful tool ({\it e.g.} \citeNP{fzh04b}). Such methods are well
107: adapted to obtain estimates of the size distribution of ionized regions for
108: arbitrary models of the luminosity function and time evolution of the
109: ionizing emissivity. One has, however, to keep in mind that these
110: models make quite drastic simplifying assumptions. The shapes of
111: ionized bubbles are e.g. assumed to be spherical and the (relative)
112: spatial distribution of sources and sinks of ionizing radiation are
113: not properly taken into account.
114:
115: Ideally, one would like to compare realistic models of the
116: ionization state of the IGM with a large dynamic range for a wide
117: range of assumptions with future observations. For this purpose a
118: variety of semi-numeric formalisms have recently been proposed which
119: are based on performing an excursion-set formalism on the initial
120: Gaussian random field. The models predict the spatial distribution of
121: the (integrated) ionizing emissivity as well as the spatial
122: distribution of ionized
123: regions \cite{zlm+07,mf07,gw08}. They incorporate many of the relevant
124: physical processes and allow the modeller to produce 21cm maps for
125: representative volumes of the Universe with a modest computational effort.
126:
127: These studies suggest
128: that reionization proceeds strictly
129: inside-out with dense regions ionized
130: first and reionization slowly progressing into the large underdense
131: region as time goes on \cite{fzh04b,wm07,mf07,mlz+07}. This appears,
132: however, in conflict with what is expected and observed for the
133: post-overlap phase where the low-density regions are found to be
134: highly ionized while high-density regions remain neutral because of
135: their high recombination rate \cite{mhr00,wl03,cf05,cf06b}. These
136: neutral regions determine the photon mean free path and manifest
137: themselves as Lyman-limit systems in QSO absorption spectra. Based on
138: the this low-redshift intuition derived from studying the
139: intergalactic medium at $z\sim 2-4$ with Ly$\alpha$ forest data, one
140: is thus drawn to the conclusion that reionization must have
141: proceeded -- at least to some extent -- outside-in rather than inside-out in the final
142: stages. The obvious suspect for resolving this apparent contradiction
143: is the role recombinations play in these simulations. Most of these models
144: assume a spatially uniform distribution of recombinations and hence
145: do not take into account the self-shielding and shadowing of
146: high-density regions. \citeN{fo05} have attempted to model this by
147: introducing the concept of recombination-limited bubbles in analytic
148: studies of the size distribution of ionized bubbles, which has been
149: implemented in simulations by \citeN{lzfmhz08}. As we will show
150: in this paper it is important to realistically model the spatial
151: distribution of the sinks of ionizing radiation due to recombinations
152: when modelling the topology of reionization. Many of the models also assume that
153: reionization occurs rather fast diminishing the relative importance of
154: recombinations. This appears, however, to be in conflict with the
155: ionizing emissivity inferred from the opacity of the \lya\ forest
156: in QSO absorption spectra which suggests that reionization occurs
157: slowly in a photon-starved regime \cite{bh07}.
158:
159:
160: We will study here the effects of the inhomogeneous spatial
161: distribution of recombinations on ionization maps and present a
162: consistent picture of reionization combining the concepts of growing
163: bubbles in the pre-overlap phase with the expected presence of
164: neutral clumps in the post-overlap phase. Our modelling is similar
165: in spirit to other semi-numerical models of this kind and in many
166: aspects we (need to) make similar approximations and
167: simplifications.
168:
169: In order to determine whether a high-density clump can remain neutral
170: or self-shielded against ionizing radiation, it is necessary to
171: determine its position with respect to the nearest sources of ionizing
172: photons. An important requirement for a realistic model of the
173: spatial distribution of density-dependent recombinations is thus (i)
174: a realistic representation of the baryon distribution and more
175: importantly, (ii) the location of the sources of ionizing sources
176: with respect to the density field. Note that we will here concentrate on a
177: qualitative understanding of the physical effects of a spatially
178: inhomogeneous distribution of recombinations on the
179: topology of reionization.
180:
181:
182: The paper is organized as follows: We describe our method for
183: generating the ionization maps in Section 2.
184: Section 3 discusses our main results for the modelling of
185: a single source and representative volumes of the Universe. In
186: Section 4 we check the consistency of our modelling with
187: \lya\ forest data. In Section 5 we present predictions for the
188: evolution of the power spectrum and probability distribution of
189: 21cm emission and discuss prospects for the first generation
190: low-frequency instruments LOFAR and MWA. Section 6 contains our
191: conclusions. Throughout the paper, we
192: assume a flat Universe with cosmological parameters $\Omega_m =
193: 0.26$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.74$, $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.022$, and
194: $h=0.73$. The parameters defining the linear dark matter power
195: spectrum we use are $\sigma_8=0.9$, $ n_s=1$, $\de n_s/\de \ln k =0$
196: \cite{vhl06}.
197:
198: \begin{figure*}
199: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{denplushaloplot.ps}}}
200: \caption{The density field (left panel) and the location of collapsed
201: haloes (right panel) at $z=6$ for our fiducial simulation (see text
202: for details). The thickness of the slice shown is 1$h^{-1}$Mpc.}
203: \label{fig:denplushalo}
204: \end{figure*}
205:
206: \section{Method}
207:
208: Our method of constructing ionization fields at a given redshift
209: consists of four steps:(i) generating the dark matter density field,
210: (ii) identifying the location and size of collapsed objects (haloes)
211: within the simulation box, (iii) assigning photon luminosities to the
212: haloes and (iv) generating maps of ionized regions from the spatial
213: distribution of the ionizing emissivity. We discuss each of these
214: steps in the following subsections.
215:
216:
217: \subsection{Simulating the dark matter density field}
218:
219: We obtain our representations of the dark matter density distribution
220: using the Zel'dovich approximation. We first generate an initial
221: linear density field (as is routinely done in N-body simulations) and
222: then displace the particles from their initial (Lagrangian)
223: coordinates ${\bf q}$ using the relation \be {\bf x}({\bf q},z) =
224: {\bf q} + D_+(z) {\bf \nabla_q} \phi({\bf q}), \e where $\phi({\bf
225: q})$ is the initial velocity potential and $D_+(z)$ is the growth
226: factor of linear dark matter density perturbations.
227:
228:
229: The advantage of the Zel'dovich approximation is its much larger speed
230: compared to a typical N-body simulation of comparable size. This
231: allows us to produce ionization maps with a very large dynamic range
232: at a modest computational cost. As we will show later (and has been
233: shown before) the density field obtained in this way is a
234: reasonable approximation to that obtained using full N-body
235: simulations, particularly at high redshifts.
236:
237: In Figure \ref{fig:denplushalo} we show the projected two-dimensional
238: density field of a 1$h^{-1}$ Mpc thick slice through our fiducial
239: simulation. One can clearly identify the expected filamentary
240: structures and voids, though the range of overdensities achieved at
241: small scales are typically less than those obtained using full
242: simulations. A possible objection against the use of the Zel'dovich
243: approximation is that it becomes invalid once shell-crossing
244: occurs. Note, however, that at the redshifts and at scales of our
245: interest ($\gtrsim 1$Mpc) this occurs rarely. A more detailed
246: comparison of the dark matter distribution obtained with the
247: Zel'dovich approximation with that of N-body simulations is performed
248: in Appendix \ref{app:compzeldo}.
249:
250: Our fiducial simulation volume is a periodic box of length $100
251: h^{-1}$ Mpc (comoving) containing $1000^3$ dark matter particles
252: which corresponds to a particle mass of $M_{\rm part} = 7.22 \times
253: 10^7 h^{-1} M_{\odot}$. In order to check for numerical convergence,
254: we have run further simulations with differing box sizes and particle
255: numbers; these are described and discussed in Appendix
256: \ref{app:numres}.
257:
258: \subsection{Identifying haloes}
259:
260:
261:
262: \nocite{st02}
263: \begin{figure}
264: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{haloes-multb.ps}}}
265: \caption{The halo mass function at $z=6$. The points with errorbars
266: show the results from our simulation; the vertical errors correspond
267: to the statistical uncertainties while the horizontal errors denote
268: the bin size. The solid curve is the theoretical mass function of
269: Sheth \& Tormen (2002) with the fitting function adopted from
270: Jenkins et al. (2001).}
271: \label{fig:comparehalomassfunc}
272: \end{figure}
273:
274: The identification of haloes within the simulation box is performed
275: using a standard Friends-of-friends (FoF) algorithm \cite{defw85}.
276: Usually the mass function of haloes identified using the FoF algorithm
277: with a fixed linking length $b \approx 0.2$ (in units of mean
278: inter-particle separation) is found to give an excellent match to the
279: theoretical halo mass function for masses as small as $\sim 15-20
280: M_{\rm part}$ (for a recent example, see \citeNP{swj++05}).
281: Unfortunately, the use of the standard linking length fails when
282: applied to the density field generated using the Zel'dovich
283: approximation due to the more diffuse matter distribution in high
284: density regions. However, if we use the FoF algorithm with an
285: adaptive linking length which, depending on the redshift of interest,
286: lies in the range $0.30 \lesssim b \lesssim 0.37$ we get very
287: reasonable results. Note, that the fact that the haloes do not have
288: the correct density profile is not a major concern here. For our
289: purposes it is sufficient to obtain the correct location and mass of
290: the haloes with respect to the density field.
291: Our method is a somewhat simpler version of algorithms based on
292: Lagrangian perturbation theory \cite{mttgqs02,ss02}. The main difference
293: is that we identify haloes in Eulerian
294: space using a FoF group-finder algorithm.
295:
296:
297:
298: The location of haloes within a slice of the simulation box is shown
299: in the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:denplushalo}. As expected the
300: haloes trace the high-density peaks of the field. The comoving number
301: density of haloes per unit logarithmic mass $\de n/\de \ln M$ at
302: $z=6$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:comparehalomassfunc} by the points
303: with error-bars. The theoretical mass function as predicted by
304: \citeN{jfw++01} is shown as the solid curve. The agreement is
305: excellent over a wide mass range $10^9 \lesssim M/(h^{-1} M_{\odot})
306: \lesssim 10^{13}$. The lower mass limit corresponds to $\sim 10
307: M_{\rm part}$.
308:
309:
310:
311: \subsection{Assigning ionizing luminosities}
312:
313: Observationally little is known how the ionizing luminosity varies
314: with galaxy properties \cite{iid06,cpg07,gkc08}. Models for
315: reionization thus often assume that the ionizing luminosity from
316: galaxies scales as the halo mass with an efficiency factor chosen
317: such that the integrated ionizing emissivity is sufficient to
318: complete reionization.
319:
320:
321: We do the same and and assume that the number of ionizing photons
322: contributed by a halo of mass $M$ is given by \be N_{\gamma}(M) =
323: N_{\rm ion} \f{M}{m_H},
324: \label{eq:ngamma_nion} \e where $m_H$ is the hydrogen mass and $N_{\rm
325: ion}$ is a dimensionless constant. The significance of $N_{\rm ion}$
326: can be understood by estimating the globally averaged comoving photon
327: density \be n_{\gamma} = \int_{M_{\rm min}}^{\infty} \de M \f{\de
328: n}{\de M} N_{\gamma}(M), \e which can be written in terms of the
329: fraction of mass in collapsed objects
330: \be f_{\rm coll} = \rho_m^{-1}
331: \int_{M_{\rm min}}^{\infty} \de M \f{\de n}{\de M} M, \e
332: as \be
333: n_{\gamma} = N_{\rm ion} \f{n_H}{1-Y_{\rm He}} ~ f_{\rm coll},
334: \label{eq:ngamma_fcoll} \e where $n_H$ is the comoving hydrogen
335: density. $N_{\rm ion}$ is the number of photons entering the IGM
336: per baryon in collapsed objects \cite{wl07}. It is
337: determined by a combination of star-forming efficiency within the
338: halo, number of photons produced per unit stellar mass and the photon
339: escape fraction. Note that the helium weight fraction $Y_{\rm He}$
340: could equally well be absorbed into the definition of $N_{\rm ion}$; in that
341: case it would be equivalent to the parameter $\zeta$ used by
342: \citeN{fzh04b} and \citeN{mf07}. The analysis presented in this paper
343: is applicable for any functional form of $N_{\gamma}(M)$. For example, one can
344: include QSOs in the analysis by simply assuming that they form in
345: haloes above a given mass $M_{\rm QSO}$, i.e., $N_{\gamma,{\rm QSO}}(M) =
346: N_{\rm ion, QSO}(M) \Theta(M_{\rm QSO}/M)$, where
347: \bear \Theta(x) &=& 1,
348: ~~~~\mbox{if $x < 1$},\nline &=& 0, ~~~~\mbox{otherwise}.
349: \label{eq:theta} \ear
350: and $N_{\rm ion, QSO}(M)$ is the number of ionizing photons produced within
351: a QSO-hosting halo of mass $M > M_{\rm QSO}$.
352:
353: \subsection{Generating the ionization field}
354:
355: Once the location and mass of haloes are known and the functional form
356: of $N_{\gamma}(M)$ is assigned, the ionization field can be
357: generated using an excursion-set formalism as introduced by
358: \citeN{fzh04b}. First we determine whether a given (spherical)
359: region is able to ``self-ionize''. We estimate the mean number
360: density of photons $\langle n_{\gamma}({\bf x}) \rangle_R$ within a
361: spherical region of radius $R$ around a point ${\bf x}$ and compare it
362: with the corresponding spherically-averaged hydrogen number density
363: $\langle n_H({\bf x}) \rangle_R$. The condition for a point ${\bf x}$
364: to be ionized is that
365: \be
366: \langle n_{\gamma}({\bf x}) \rangle_R \geq
367: \langle n_H({\bf x}) \rangle_R (1 + \bar{N}_{\rm rec})
368: \label{eq:ngnh}
369: \e
370: for any $R$, where $\bar{N}_{\rm rec}$ is the
371: average number of recombinations per hydrogen atom in the IGM. For the
372: simple model where $N_{\gamma}(M) \propto M$, the above condition
373: translates to \be \langle f_{\rm coll}({\bf x}) \rangle_R \geq
374: \left(\f{N_{\rm ion}}{1-Y_{\rm He}}\right)^{-1} (1 + \bar{N}_{\rm
375: rec}),
376: \label{eq:fcoll_nrec} \e which is identical to what is used in
377: \citeN{mf07}. Points which do not satisfy the above condition are
378: assigned a ionized fraction $Q_i({\bf x}) = \langle n_{\gamma}({\bf
379: x}) \rangle_{R_{\rm min}} / \langle n_H({\bf x}) \rangle_{R_{\rm
380: min}}$, where $R_{\rm min}$ is the spatial resolution of the
381: simulation. This is important to account for the HII regions
382: not resolved by the resolution of the simulations \cite{gw08}. Note
383: also that the effect of spatially uniform recombinations (i.e., the
384: $1 + \bar{N}_{\rm rec}$ term) can be absorbed within the definition of
385: $N_{\rm ion}$.
386:
387: Before identifying ionized regions, we smooth the density
388: field to a grid-size of 1$h^{-1}$Mpc, corresponding to $100^3$ grid
389: points in the box. We do this in order to smooth out the smaller
390: scales which are generally comparable to the largest halo sizes where
391: the Zel'dovich approximation ceases to provide a good approximation
392: for the evolution of the matter distribution.
393:
394:
395: The quantity $\langle n_{\gamma}({\bf x}) \rangle_R$ is estimated as
396: \be \langle n_{\gamma}({\bf x}) \rangle_R = \left(\f{4 \pi
397: R^3}{3}\right)^{-1} \sum_i N_{\gamma}(M_i) \Theta\left(\f{|{\bf x -
398: x_i}|}{R}\right),
399: \label{eq:nphot_R} \e where the sum is over all luminous haloes and
400: $\Theta$ is defined in equation (\ref{eq:theta}).
401: $\langle n_{\gamma}({\bf x}) \rangle_R$ essentially
402: measures the contribution of ionizing photons at ${\bf x}$ arising from all the sources
403: within a radius $R$ around the point. When dealing with a small
404: number of sources, the summation in the above equation can be done
405: directly for every point in the simulation box. When the number of
406: sources becomes large, direct summation is computationally expensive.
407: We therefore convert the point source distribution into a field. The
408: filtering is then done in Fourier space. The spherically-averaged
409: hydrogen number density $\langle n_H({\bf x}) \rangle_R$ is computed
410: by assuming that the hydrogen distribution follows the dark matter
411: distribution and then filtering the density field over a scale $R$
412: \cite{mf07}.
413:
414: We should mention here that our method of obtaining the ionization
415: field follows that of \citeN{mf07} with one notable difference. For
416: a given $R$ and ${\bf x}$, we assume only the pixel at the centre
417: of the sphere with radius R to be
418: ionized when the threshold (\ref{eq:ngnh}) is crossed while
419: \citeN{mf07} assume the entire filter sphere to be ionized. In this respect, our
420: modelling is similar to that of \citeN{zlm+07}. We have
421: checked our method for isolated sources and found a good match with
422: theoretical expectations (to be discussed in \ref{sec:qsobubble}). In
423: the case where all (or most of) the identified haloes contribute to
424: reionization, we find that the mass-averaged neutral fraction obtained
425: through our method agrees with the theoretical value $1 - N_{\rm ion}
426: f_{\rm coll}/(1 - Y_{\rm He})$ to within 15 per cent. This difference
427: arises because the semi-numeric schemes do not conserve
428: the number of photons within overlapping ionized regions
429: \cite{zlm+07}.
430:
431:
432: \subsection{Implementing a more realistic inhomogeneous spatial distribution of
433: sinks of ionizing radiation due to recombinations}
434: \label{sec:recombination}
435:
436: So far we have accounted for recombinations simply by multiplying the
437: number of ionizing photons produced by a universal factor $1 +
438: \bar{N}_{\rm rec}$ which does not depend on location. This corresponds
439: to assuming a homogeneous spatial distribution of recombinations. In
440: reality the spatial distribution of sinks of ionizing radiation due to
441: recombinations will
442: be highly inhomogeneous. Even if a given spherical region contains
443: enough photons to self-ionize, the high-density clumps within the
444: region will remain neutral for a longer period because of their high
445: recombination rate and thus alter the nature of the ionization
446: field. A simple prescription to describe the presence of such neutral
447: clumps by assuming that regions with overdensities above a critical
448: value ($\Delta > \Delta_i$) remain neutral was suggested by
449: \citeN{mhr00}. Unfortunately for our purpose this is also not
450: appropriate as many of the high-density regions are expected to harbour
451: ionizing sources. Whether a region remains neutral will depend on
452: two competing factors, the local density (which determines the
453: recombination rate) and the proximity to ionizing sources (which
454: determines the number of photons available). It is thus important to
455: include a realistic spatial distribution of recombinations into the
456: formalisms for making ionization maps.
457:
458: As a first approximation, one can incorporate recombinations within
459: the formalism by introducing a threshold condition similar to equation
460: (\ref{eq:ngnh}), i.e.,
461: \be
462: \langle \dot{n}_{\gamma}({\bf x}) \rangle_R \geq
463: {\cal C}_R \alpha_R \langle n_H({\bf x}) \rangle_R^2 ~ a^{-3},
464: \label{eq:ngrec}
465: \e
466: where $\dot{n}_{\gamma}({\bf x})$ is the comoving photon emissivity,
467: $\alpha_R$ is the recombination rate at a temperature of $10^4$K.
468: Note that both the number densities $n_{\gamma}$ and $n_H$ are expressed
469: in comoving units.
470: The above condition, which is similar to that used by
471: \citeN{fo05} and \citeN{lzfmhz08}, expresses the fact that
472: for a spherical region of radius $R$ to be ionized, one needs
473: the ionizing photon emissivity to be
474: larger than the spherically-averaged recombination rate within the region.
475: The quantity ${\cal C}_R$ is the clumping factor which also
476: takes into account the
477: fact that not all the points within the spherical region would contribute
478: to the recombination rate. For example, \citeN{fo05} consider that
479: high-density points with $\Delta > \Delta_i$
480: remain neutral and hence should not be counted
481: while computing the recombination rate within the region.
482: In that case ${\cal C}_R \propto \int_0^{\Delta_i} \de \Delta \Delta^2
483: P_V(\Delta)$ is a measure of clumping factor provided by low-density
484: region only, where $P_V(\Delta)$ is the volume-weighted density
485: distribution of the IGM.
486:
487: Another possible way of modelling the recombinations in high-density
488: regions is to use a self-shielding criterion. In order to be
489: ionized, a given point should satisfy the condition that it cannot
490: remain self-shielded, i.e.,
491: \be
492: [n_{\rm HI}({\bf x}) a^{-3}] [L({\bf x}) a] \sigma_H \leq 1,
493: \e
494: where $n_{\rm HI}({\bf x})$ is the comoving number density of neutral
495: hydrogen at the given point,
496: $L({\bf x})$ is the
497: comoving size of the of the absorber and $\sigma_H$
498: is the hydrogen photoionization cross section.
499: In order to
500: estimate the HI density for highly ionized regions, we use the
501: photoionization equilibrium condition: $n_{\rm HI} = (\alpha_R/\Gamma)
502: n_H^2 a^{-3}$, where the photoionization rate is $\Gamma =
503: \dot{n}_{\gamma} a^{-3} \lambda_{\rm mfp} \sigma_H$.
504:
505: Estimating $\Gamma$ thus requires the knowledge of the emissivity
506: $\dot{n}_{\gamma}$ and local mean free path
507: $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$. For a given filtering scale $R$, we equate it
508: to the mean free path, i.e., $\lambda_{\rm mfp} = R$
509: \cite{lzfmhz08}. Sources within a distance
510: $R$ then contribute to the emissivity. If we assume that the
511: fluctuations in the emissivity are negligible for scales smaller than
512: the mean free path, we can write
513: \bear
514: \dot{n}_{\gamma}({\bf x}) &=& \left(\f{4 \pi
515: R^3}{3}\right)^{-1} \sum_i \dot{N}_{\gamma}(M_i) \Theta\left(\f{|{\bf x -
516: x_i}|}{R}\right)
517: \nline
518: & \equiv& \langle \dot{n}_{\gamma}({\bf x}) \rangle_R,
519: %\label{eq:nphot_R}
520: \ear
521: where $\dot{N}_{\gamma}(M_i)$ is the photon production rate within
522: the halo with mass $M_i$ and the summation is over all haloes. The
523: photoionization rate is then given by
524: \be
525: \Gamma({\bf x}) = \langle \dot{n}_{\gamma}({\bf x})
526: \rangle_R a^{-3} R \sigma_H
527: \propto \sum_i \f{\dot{N}_{\gamma}(M_i)}{R^2} \Theta\left(\f{|{\bf x -
528: x_i}|}{R}\right).
529: \label{eq:GammaPI}
530: \e
531: The above equation expresses the fact
532: that photons travel an average distance of $R$
533: from the source before being absorbed and the ionizing flux at the
534: point of the absorber is diluted by a factor $R^{-2}$. Also
535: implicit is the assumption that no photons are lost to recombination
536: within the region except those in the central cell which may lead to
537: slight underestimate of the extent of self-shielded regions. On first
538: sight it may appear from the above equation that sources which are within distances
539: much shorter $R$ are not properly taken into account (the flux
540: from such sources would be less diluted than implied by the
541: $R^{-2}$ factor). However, one has to keep in mind that the procedure
542: is repeated for different values of $R$. Sources that are
543: closer to the point will thus be taken into account for a smaller value
544: of $R$.
545:
546: With the above approximations, one can write a new condition for a point
547: to be ionized, which is
548: \be
549: \langle \dot{n}_{\gamma}({\bf x}) \rangle_R \geq
550: \f{\alpha_R n_H^2({\bf x})}{a^3} \f{L({\bf x})}{R}.
551: \e
552: There still remains the issue that the present formalism for
553: identifying ionized regions is based on the cumulative number of
554: photons $n_{\gamma}$, while balancing the recombination requires the
555: instantaneous rate of photon production $\dot{n}_{\gamma}$ (as seen
556: in the previous equation). Any
557: detailed model for the evolution of the ionizing emissivity would
558: predict both these quantities self-consistently. We would, however,
559: like to incorporate recombinations here without entering into the
560: complexities of the reionization history over a wide redshift range.
561: We thus integrate the above from the start of reionization so that
562: the left hand side gives the integrated number of photons. The
563: right hand side is significant only when recombinations are
564: important and hence we can write the above relation in an
565: approximate way,
566: \be
567: \langle n_{\gamma}({\bf x}) \rangle_R \geq
568: n_H({\bf x}) \f{\epsilon t_H}{t_{\rm rec}({\bf x})}
569: \f{L({\bf x})}{R},
570: \label{eq:ngnhtrec}
571: \e
572: where $t^{-1}_{\rm rec}({\bf x}) \equiv
573: \alpha_R n_H({\bf x}) a^{-3}$ is the local recombination timescale
574: and $\epsilon t_H$ is the timescale over which the recombination
575: term has significant
576: contribution with $t_H$ being the Hubble time.
577: Note that the parameter $\epsilon$,
578: which determines the time-scale over which recombinations are
579: significant, depends on the ionization and thermal history at a
580: given location. We also still need to account for the effect of an
581: enhanced recombinations due to clumping on scales smaller than
582: resolved by our simulations. This is often done in the form
583: of a sub-grid clumping factor, which should be of the order
584: (but larger) than unity \cite{bh07} and can be absorbed within
585: the unknown parameter $\epsilon$. Short of doing the full radiative
586: transfer problem we have little handle for a rigorous estimate of
587: $\epsilon$. We will thus take it to be independent of ${\bf x}$ and
588: study the results for a couple of values, namely, 0.5 and 1.0. A value
589: of $\epsilon=1.0$ implies that recombinations are
590: significant over a Hubble time. These values of
591: $\epsilon$ where chosen in order to simulate a model
592: in the ``photon-starved'' regime of reionization
593: suggested by the \lya\ forest data (\citeNP{bh07}, section 4).
594: Smaller values of $\epsilon$ should correspond to the
595: more rapid reionization implemented in many published numerical
596: simulations where recombinations are less important.
597: Note further that we have absorbed the sub-grid clumping factor within
598: $\epsilon$ which is typically larger than unity and thus
599: $\epsilon \sim 1.0$ may not be that unreasonable.
600:
601: The only parameter which remains to be discussed is
602: the size of the absorber which determines
603: the neutral hydrogen column density. An obvious choice
604: for this is the local Jeans length $L_J({\bf x})$ \cite{schaye01}, which
605: depends on the temperature and density. We assume here a uniform temperature
606: of $10^4$K. The Jeans length scales then as $L_J \propto \Delta^{-1/2}$.
607: Any uncertainty in the value of the absorber size (e.g., those arising from the
608: geometry of the object or a different value of temperature)
609: would again be absorbed within
610: the unknown parameter $\epsilon$. The ionized cells are identified
611: using the two threshold conditions (\ref{eq:ngnh}) and (\ref{eq:ngnhtrec});
612: we find that the barrier corresponding to (\ref{eq:ngrec}) is almost always
613: weaker than (\ref{eq:ngnhtrec}) and thus does not
614: make much difference to the results.
615:
616:
617:
618: Finally, we would like to point out that, while comparing the
619: number of available photons to the recombination rate at
620: a given point, one should exclude the collapsed
621: gas residing within the halo.
622: However, this affects only a handful number of cells within the box. The
623: reason is not difficult to understand -- for cells where the
624: collapsed fraction is higher than, say 5-10 per cent (depending on
625: the exact value of $N_{\rm ion}$ being used),
626: the cell usually produces enough
627: photons to ionize itself and also overcome the self-shielding
628: criterion. In other words, cells with a collapsed mass fraction
629: $> 5-10$ per cent would anyway
630: be flagged as ionized when we use a filtering scale $R$ of the
631: order of the cell size. For cells with a collapsed mass fraction lower than
632: this, it hardly makes any difference whether we include the halo gas into the
633: recombination budget (changes of the order of a few per cent only).
634:
635: Note that our modelling probably somewhat overestimates the size
636: of individual self-shielded regions. This should, however, at
637: least partially be compensated by the fact that recombinations
638: will occur outside of self-shielded regions and that our
639: simulations lack the self-shielded regions expected to be hosted by
640: DM haloes with masses below the resolution limit of our simulations.
641:
642:
643:
644: \subsection{Other radiative transfer effects: shadowing}
645:
646: \begin{figure*}
647: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.27\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{plot_qso.ps}}}
648: \caption{Ionization maps for a single source (QSO) with(middle
649: panel) and without (left panel) a spatially inhomogeneous
650: distribution of recombinations. The right panel includes the additional effect of
651: shadowing. The thickness of the slice shown is 1$h^{-1}$Mpc.}
652: \label{fig:plot_qso}
653: \end{figure*}
654:
655:
656: There are various radiative transfer effects which have not been taken
657: into account in our simplified treatment. The most important is the
658: effect of ``shadowing''. High density clumps which are self-shielded
659: from ionizing photons will not allow photon propagation to the other
660: side of the source. Such shadowing effects can only be incorporated
661: using some form of ray-tracing algorithm which is beyond the scope of
662: the modelling here. We have studied the effect of shadowing for a
663: single isolated source using a simple-minded ray-tracing algorithm;
664: the details are presented in Section \ref{sec:qsobubble}.
665:
666:
667: \subsection{Computational requirements}
668:
669:
670: The code used for this work has been parallelized for shared-memory machines
671: using OpenMP. The simulations were run on COSMOS, a SGI Altix 4700
672: supercomputer. For our fiducial simulation box with $1000^3$
673: particles, we used 32 processors with a total RAM of 32 GB to
674: store the particle positions and velocities. Generating the
675: initial gaussian random field took about 10 minutes, and obtaining
676: the position and velocity data for a
677: particular redshift using the Zel'dovich approximation took less than an
678: hour. A substantial amount of time was required to identify the
679: position of collapsed haloes using the FoF halo finder. For a single
680: value of the linking length, the halo finder takes about 100 minutes to
681: run using 32 processors. However, since we are using an adaptive
682: linking length, the whole process takes much longer, about 14
683: hours. Thus, for a given redshift, generating the density and
684: velocity fields alongwith the location of the haloes takes somewhere
685: around 17 hours. We should mention here that the FoF algorithm, which
686: takes most of the time, is easily parallelizable and scales well if
687: a larger number of processors is used.
688:
689: The ionization fields were generated with lower resolution.
690: If we smooth the box to about $500^3$ grid points, the
691: process takes about 40 minutes for a single set of
692: parameters. Since we probe a wide range of parameter space, we
693: usually work with a smaller number of grid points, say, $200^3$ or
694: $100^3$; generating ionization maps takes then around a
695: minute to complete.
696:
697:
698: \section{The Effect of spatially inhomogeneous recombinations on the
699: topology of reionization}
700: \label{sec:results}
701:
702:
703: \begin{figure}
704: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{xmevol.ps}}}
705: \caption{Evolution of the mass-averaged ionized fraction for the
706: models with different assumptions regarding the spatial distribution
707: of sinks and sources of ionizing radiation as
708: described in section 3.2: HR (solid curve), IR-0.5 (dashed curve),
709: IR-1.0 (dot-dashed curve) and IR-HM (dotted curve). The photon
710: production efficiency in each model is normalised such that
711: $x_i^M(z=6) = 0.8$. }
712: \label{fig:xmevol}
713: \end{figure}
714:
715: \begin{figure*}
716: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{plot_comparerec.ps}}}
717: \caption{Ionization maps for a range of mass-averaged ionized
718: fractions $x^M_i$ for the models with different assumptions regarding
719: the spatial distribution of sinks and sources of ionizing radiation
720: as described in section 3.2: HR
721: (left-most panel), IR-0.5 (second panel), IR-1.0 (third panel) and
722: IR-HM (fourth panel). The thickness of the slice shown is
723: 1$h^{-1}$Mpc. The right-most panel shows the volume-averaged ionized
724: fraction $Q_i(\Delta)$ for the same models: HR (solid curve), IR-0.5
725: (dashed curve), IR-1.0 (dot-dashed curve) and IR-HM (dotted curve).}
726: \label{fig:plot_comparerec}
727: \end{figure*}
728:
729: \begin{figure*}
730: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.3\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{plot_mfp.ps}}}
731: \caption{Dependence of various quantities on the mass-averaged ionized
732: fraction $x_i^M$ for the different models: HR (solid curves), IR-0.5
733: (dashed curves), IR-1.0 (dot-dashed curves) and IR-HM (dotted
734: curves). The left panel shows the volume averaged ionized fraction
735: $x_i^V$. The dot-dot-dashed curve denotes $x_i^V = x_i^M$. The
736: middle panel shows the number of photons $n_{\gamma}$ produced per
737: hydrogen atom $n_H$ in the IGM. The dot-dot-dashed curve denotes
738: $n_{\gamma}/n_H = x_i^M$. The right panel shows the comoving mean
739: free path $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ of ionizing photons.}
740: \label{fig:plot_mfp}
741: \end{figure*}
742:
743:
744:
745:
746: \subsection{Test case: Stromgren sphere around a single source (QSO)}
747: \label{sec:qsobubble}
748:
749: First, we consider the case of a single ionizing source with the
750: ionizing luminosity of a bright QSO in the most massive halo ($M =
751: 3.71 \times 10^{12} h^{-1} M_{\odot}$) in the simulation volume as a
752: test case. The ionizing luminosity and the age of the QSO are chosen
753: such that the ionized region has a comoving radius of $\approx 22.5
754: h^{-1}$Mpc within an otherwise completely neutral and homogeneous IGM.
755: This corresponds to an ionized fraction of $x^M_i \approx 0.05$
756: averaged over the whole simulation volume. Ionization maps for
757: two-dimensional slices centered on the ``QSO'' are shown in Figure
758: \ref{fig:plot_qso} for the case with and without an inhomogeneous
759: spatial distribution of recombinations in the middle and left panels
760: respectively. The right panel shows the same slice with the effects of
761: shadowing taken into account.
762:
763: In the left panel of the figure where no (or only spatially
764: homogeneous recombinations have been included) the ionized region is
765: spherical with radius as expected for the assumed ionizing
766: luminosity. This confirms that our method of generating ionization
767: fields is reasonably accurate for the case of spatially homogeneous
768: recombinations and justifies our assumption that only the central
769: pixel rather than the whole filtered sphere is ionized.
770:
771: When the density dependence of recombinations are taken into account
772: allowing high-density regions to stay neutral the appearance of the
773: ionized region is very different due to the then very inhomogeneous
774: spatial distribution of sinks of ionizing radiation. The resulting
775: ionized fraction also decreases from $x^M_i \approx 0.05$ to $x^M_i
776: \approx 0.03$, despite the fact that the ionizing luminosity of the
777: QSO has the same value as before. This is simply due to the fact
778: that a larger number of photons is needed to overcome the
779: recombinations predominantly occurring in high-density regions. More
780: importantly, the shape of the ionized region is now far from
781: spherical. The ionization fronts appear to progress into the
782: low-density regions while they are halted when high-density clumps are
783: encountered (see the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:denplushalo} for
784: the corresponding density field). However, we find that there are some
785: low-density pixels which lie in the shadow of a self-shielded clump
786: but are still ionized. This unphysical ``tunnelling'' of photons is a
787: limitation of our modelling which does not take into account
788: shadowing effects.
789:
790: The effect of shadowing is demonstrated in the right panel of Figure
791: \ref{fig:plot_qso}. In this case we have used a simple ray-tracing
792: algorithm where rays are going out from the source along all
793: directions. For each point along the ray, we check whether the local
794: photon density is sufficient to ionize hydrogen taking into account
795: recombinations, i.e., we check whether a point can or cannot be
796: self-shielded. The ray is terminated once it hits a self-shielding
797: pixel, thus forming a shadow on the other side of the high-density
798: point. The differences in the topology of the resulting field are
799: obvious. The edges of the ionized bubble are more ragged when
800: shadowing is included. Note, however, that the difference in the
801: global ionized fraction is only $\sim 0.0003$ or about $\sim 1$ per
802: cent. For representative volumes of the Universe the effect of
803: shadowing will be much less dramatic. Points lying in the shadow of a
804: high-density clump with respect to one ionizing source will generally
805: receive ionizing photons from sources in other directions.
806:
807:
808: \subsection{Modelling representative volumes of the Universe}
809: \label{sec:globalmaps}
810:
811:
812: We now discuss ionization maps of representative volumes of the Universe
813: where significant numbers of haloes (as opposed to a single
814: source) host ionizing sources. In order to investigate the effect of
815: a spatially inhomogeneous distribution of sinks and sources of ionizing
816: radiation and the speed
817: with which reionization occurs we consider four different models:
818: \begin{itemize}
819: \item{\it HR:} The spatial distribution of recombinations is assumed
820: to be homogeneous. The condition for a region to be ionized is given
821: by equation (\ref{eq:ngamma_nion}), with $N_{\rm ion}$ being chosen so
822: as to give a defined global mass-averaged ionized fraction $x^M_i$.
823:
824: \item{\it IR-0.5:} The spatial distribution of recombinations
825: is assumed to be inhomogeneous as discussed in section
826: \ref{sec:recombination}.
827: The condition for a region to be ionized is
828: determined by equation (\ref{eq:ngnh}) [which is
829: same as in the HR model] and the self-shielding condition (\ref{eq:ngnhtrec})
830: with a value of $\epsilon=0.5$.
831: $N_{\rm ion}$ is adjusted to give the same values of $x^M_i$ for all
832: four models.
833:
834:
835: \item{\it IR-1.0:} The same as the previous model but with
836: $\epsilon=1.0$. The effect of recombinations should be more prominent
837: than in the previous model.
838:
839: \item{\it IR-HM:} The same as model IR-1.0 except that only high mass
840: (HM) haloes with $M > 10^{11} h^{-1} M_{\odot}$ are ionizing sources.
841: This model investigates the possibility that ionizing photons within
842: lower mass haloes may not be able to escape into the IGM efficiently
843: ({\it e.g.} \citeNP{gnedin08}). These small haloes may still form stars,
844: but in this model we assume that the ionizing photons are then absorbed
845: within the interstellar medium and
846: hence the galaxy remains mostly neutral, possibly contributing
847: significantly to the neutral hydrogen budget.
848: \end{itemize}
849:
850: Before investigating the ionization maps generated using the above
851: models, we first discuss the predicted evolution of the global
852: mass-averaged ionized fraction $x_i^M$. To obtain the evolution of
853: $x_i^M$, we have calculated the collapsed mass fraction $f_{\rm coll}$
854: using the theoretical Sheth-Tormen mass function assuming a value of
855: $M_{\rm min}$ as set by our fiducial simulation box. This means that
856: the effects of various feedback processes on star-formation have been
857: ignored. We have then estimated the value of $x_i^M$ from $f_{\rm
858: coll}$ using the relation $x_i^M = N_{\rm ion} f_{\rm coll}/(1 - Y_{\rm
859: He})$ for the HR model. For the models with an inhomogeneous spatial
860: distribution of recombinations the above relation was
861: modified to $x_i^M = N_{\rm ion} f_{\rm coll}/(1 - Y_{\rm He}) \times
862: (1 + \epsilon t_H/\langle t_{\rm rec} \rangle)$. The values of
863: $x_i^M$ computed analytically in this way differ from those obtained
864: using the full simulations by up to 15 per cent, however, the basic
865: trends and other conclusions remain unaffected. The corresponding
866: evolution of $x_i^M$ for the four models is shown in Figure
867: \ref{fig:xmevol}. The value of $N_{\rm
868: ion}$ is chosen in each case such that $x_i^M = 0.8$ at $z=6$.
869:
870: For models HR, IR-0.5 and IR-1.0 (which have the same $f_{\rm
871: coll}$ at a given $z$), the evolution of $x_i^M$ is nearly
872: identical. The growth of $x_i^M$ is slightly more rapid in
873: model IR-1.0 and slightly slower in model HR than in model IR-0.5
874: , but the differences are small. For the same distribution of haloes,
875: reionization progresses ``faster'' as the spatially inhomogeneous
876: recombinations become more important. At high-$z$,
877: the average recombination time is shorter than the Hubble time. As a
878: result reionization is less efficient at early epochs when the
879: spatially inhomogeneous recombinations are included. As expected
880: the evolution of $x_i^M$ is drastically faster in model IR-HM, where
881: only rare massive haloes host ionizing sources. The collapsed
882: fraction in this model is significantly smaller than in the other
883: models, particularly at high redshifts, and hence reionization is
884: initially delayed.
885:
886: We now discuss the nature of the ionization maps for the different
887: models. Note that we have kept the
888: halo distribution fixed at that corresponding to $z=6$ and have varied the
889: luminosities to obtain different $x^M_i$ at the same redshift. In
890: reality, however, the variation in $x^M_i$ is due to the evolution of
891: the halo distribution with redshift. We have here chosen to keep the halo
892: distribution fixed in order to focus on the effect of the different
893: way we treat the spatial distribution of sinks of ionizing radiation in the
894: different models.
895:
896:
897: The ionization fields for different $x^M_i$ are shown in Figure
898: \ref{fig:plot_comparerec} with the left-most panel corresponding to
899: model HR. The second, third and fourth panels describe the three
900: models with a spatially inhomogeneous distribution of sinks of
901: ionizing radiation due to recombinations (IR-0.5, IR-1.0 and IR-HM, respectively). The
902: right-most panel shows the volume-averaged ionized fraction
903: $Q_i(\Delta)$ as a function of overdensity $\Delta$. Including the
904: effects of a spatially inhomogeneous distribution of recombinations
905: distinctively changes the topology of ionized
906: regions at fixed ionized mass fraction.
907:
908: Let us first concentrate on the three columns of panels on the left of
909: Figure \ref{fig:plot_comparerec} corresponding to models HR, IR-0.5
910: and IR-1.0, respectively. In all three models the ionizing radiation
911: originates from the same dark matter haloes. The models differ only
912: in their treatment of recombinations. To reach the value of $x_i^M$,
913: one requires higher values of $N_{\rm ion}$ in models IR-0.5 and
914: IR-1.0 than in model HR as more photons are required to overcome
915: recombination in high-density regions. When the ionized mass
916: fraction is small ($x_i^M = 0.25$), the maps look very similar. At
917: this stage most of the ionizing photons are ionizing the
918: high-density
919: structures which host the photon sources. At the later
920: stages of reionization ($x_i^M > 0.5$) , however, the topology of
921: the ionized regions becomes very different in the three models. In
922: model HR the topology of the ionized regions is significantly
923: ``smoother'' than in the other models. The
924: high-density regions in models IR-0.5 and IR-1.0 remain
925: neutral for longer and hence a larger number of photons per hydrogen
926: atom is required to reach the same $x_i^M$. Due to the larger number
927: of ionizing photons per hydrogen atom the ionizing photons are able
928: to reach low-density regions far away from sources of ionizing
929: radiation before the average ionized mass fraction becomes large. The
930: ionization maps of model HR show much larger coherently ionized
931: regions while many neutral (or partially neutral) clumps are
932: embedded within the ionized regions in the models with a spatially
933: inhomogeneous distribution of the sinks of ionizing radiation
934: due to recombinations.
935: In the very late stages of
936: reionization, models IR-0.5 and IR-1.0 are nearly identical.
937:
938: The dependence of the ionization state on density is shown in the
939: right-most panel; the solid, dashed and dot-dashed curves correspond
940: to models HR, IR-0.5 and IR-1.0, respectively. As already mentioned,
941: early on ($x_i^M \lesssim 0.5$) the three models are similar,
942: while they start to differ at later stages of reionization. Initially
943: the topology can be described as ``inside-out''. High density
944: regions are ionized first. However, in model HR, the ionization of
945: the high-density regions is fully completed before the ionization
946: fronts proceed into the underdense voids, which are the last regions
947: to be ionized. In the HR model reionization proceeds ``inside-out''
948: all the way through the reionization process.In models IR-0.5 and IR-1.0,
949: on the other hand, the ionization fronts are trapped by
950: high-density clumps and they therefore proceed into low-density voids
951: leaving behind islands of neutral high-density gas. The topology is
952: now much more complex and cannot be classified simply either as
953: ``inside-out'' or ``outside-in''. Underdense regions ($\Delta < 1$)
954: are completely ionized by the time $x_i^M \sim 0.75$, which is
955: expected as the effect of recombination is negligible within the
956: low-density regions. For regions with $\Delta \gtrsim 1$,
957: recombinations are important and more than one photon is required to
958: keep the region ionized. The ionized fraction $Q_i(\Delta)$
959: therefore decreases around $\Delta \sim 1$. Higher overdensities
960: $\Delta \sim 2$ are found close to the filamentary structures in the
961: density field. These regions harbour small mass haloes, i.e,. the
962: relatively faint ionizing sources which are able to overcome
963: recombinations to some extent and are responsible for an increase in
964: the value of $Q_i(\Delta)$ around $\Delta \sim 2$. We have
965: verified this explicitly by computing the collapsed mass
966: fraction within such cells. In even higher
967: density regions, the number of photons required to keep the region
968: ionized becomes much larger than unity and cannot be provided by the
969: fainter sources. Regions with overdensities $\Delta \sim 6$ tend thus
970: to remain neutral. The extremely high-density regions ($\Delta > 10$)
971: represent the overlapping of filaments and harbour the most
972: massive/luminous sources. These regions are able to overcome the
973: high recombination rates prevalent there and hence can remain
974: ionized.
975:
976:
977:
978: The ionization maps of model IR-HM is very similar to those of
979: model IR-0.5 and IR-1.0. The reversal to reionization progressing
980: more ``outside-in'' occurs somewhat earlier, which is most obvious when
981: investigating the rightmost column showing the ionization state as a
982: function of density $Q_i(\Delta)$ (dotted curves). In model IR-HM
983: the ionizing sources reside in rare massive dark matter haloes.
984: A significant number of high-density regions of moderate mass
985: are devoid of any ionizing photon sources locally and are able to
986: remain self-shielded from ionizing photons. This is very different
987: from model IR-0.5 and IR-1.0 where almost all the high-density
988: regions host ionizing sources and hence cannot remain completely
989: neutral. Also note that the behaviour of $Q_i(\Delta)$ for
990: intermediate overdensities is somewhat different from that in models
991: IR-0.5 and IR-1.0. There is no peak around $\Delta \sim 2$ in model
992: IR-HM. Recall that the peak in the other models is due to the fainter
993: sources present within filamentary structures. These low-mass sources
994: are absent in model IR-HM and hence the corresponding peak in
995: $Q_i(\Delta)$ does not appear.
996:
997: At this point, let us briefly compare our results with other
998: published results, particularly regarding the typical value of
999: overdensities which can remain self-shielded. For example, \citeN{fo05}
1000: have shown, using modelling
1001: based on \citeN{mhr00}, that an overdensity $\Delta$ at $z=6$
1002: would be self-shielded
1003: only if the local photoionization rate $\Gamma_{-12} < (\Delta/60)^{3/2}$,
1004: where $\Gamma_{-12}$ is the photoionization rate in units of $10^{-12}$
1005: s$^{-1}$. We have explicitly verified whether this condition is satisfied
1006: in every self-shielded region by estimating $\Gamma_{-12}$ using
1007: equation (\ref{eq:GammaPI}). We find considerable
1008: fluctuations in the local value of $\Gamma_{-12}$ (which as expected
1009: decreases as
1010: reionization progresses and the mean free path rises) and there do
1011: remain regions
1012: where $\Gamma_{-12}$ is much lower than what is required to overcome the
1013: self-shielding.
1014: To give an explicit example, for the IR-1.0 scenario,
1015: we find that regions far away from sources
1016: have $\Gamma_{-12}$ as low as 0.002 for $x_i^M = 0.95$ when the global mean
1017: is $\approx 0.1$. The range of values of $\Gamma_{-12}$ is typically
1018: larger than that found by \citeN{md08}, which is probably due to the
1019: difference in the space density of ionizing sources (the smallest
1020: haloes in the simulations of \citeN{md08} have a mass of
1021: $\sim 10^8 M_{\odot}$,
1022: while our mass threshold is $\sim 10^9 M_{\odot}$).
1023:
1024:
1025: Having demonstrated that reionization should not progress in a simple
1026: ``inside-out'' manner when the inhomogeneous distribution of
1027: recombinations is taken into account, we now
1028: discuss various other quantities of interest for the
1029: different models. The dependence of these quantities on $x_i^M$ is
1030: shown in Figure \ref{fig:plot_mfp}.
1031:
1032: The left panel shows the volume-averaged ionized fraction $x_i^V$. In
1033: the HR model (solid curve) the ionized volume fraction does not
1034: exceed the ionized mass fraction ($x_i^V \leq x_i^M$) for the whole range of
1035: $x_i^M$ confirming that ionization is biased towards high-density
1036: regions. The models with a spatially inhomogeneous distribution of
1037: recombinations have $x_i^V \leq x_i^M$ in the early stages
1038: of reionization (i.e., low values of $x_i^M$), while the trend
1039: reverses later on. This is in line with what we discussed earlier,
1040: i.e., reionization proceeds ``inside-out'' at early stages while the
1041: situation is more complex later. As expected the reversal of trend
1042: occurs earlier in the IR-HM model than in the IR-0.5 and IR-1.0
1043: models. The values of $x_i^V$ are higher in the IR-HM model than in
1044: the IR-1.0 model for given $x_i^M$. High density regions are, on
1045: average, more neutral in model IR-HM, hence a larger volume has to
1046: become ionized to reach the same $x_i^M$. Note that for large ionized
1047: mass fraction (say $\ge 0.95$) our models will increasingly
1048: underestimate the ionized volume fraction due to insufficient
1049: resolution.
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054: The middle panel shows the number of ionizing photons per hydrogen
1055: atom $n_{\gamma}/n_H$ reaching the IGM. The first point to be noted
1056: is that $n_{\gamma}/n_H$ closely follows the ionized fraction $x_i^M$
1057: in model HR. Deviations arising from
1058: a moderate violation of photon conservation of our algorithm for
1059: identifying ionized region are $\lesssim 15$ per cent.
1060: Obviously, the
1061: ratio $n_{\gamma}/n_H$ is higher than $x_i^M$ for the other models
1062: where sinks of ionizing radiation due to recombinations are included. Extra photons are
1063: required to reach the same ionized mass fraction. The other crucial
1064: difference between model HR and the other three models is that for
1065: large ionized mass fractions $n_{\gamma}/n_H$ flattens for model HR
1066: while it steepens when inhomogeneous recombinations are
1067: included. In model HR low-density voids are
1068: the last regions to be ionized and hence the ionized volume
1069: increases without significant further need for photons. The situation
1070: is exactly opposite for the other cases where most of the photons are
1071: being absorbed within high-density regions (acting as ``sinks'') and
1072: hence no significant rise in $x_i^M$ is found even though the number
1073: of photons used up increases rapidly.
1074:
1075:
1076: Finally, we plot the dependence of the mean free path $\lambda_{\rm
1077: mfp}$ in the right panel. To calculate $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$, we first
1078: randomly choose a ionized pixel and calculate the distance to a
1079: neutral pixel along a randomly chosen direction; this should denote
1080: the local mean free path for the chosen point. This Monte Carlo
1081: procedure is repeated for a large number of points. The global mean
1082: free path is then estimated in two different ways: (i) $\lambda_{\rm
1083: mfp}$ is estimated as the average of the different local mean free
1084: paths and (ii) $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ is estimated as the median of the
1085: local mean free path distribution. In most cases, both methods give
1086: nearly identical estimates. The curves plotted in the figure are
1087: obtained using the median [method (ii)].
1088:
1089: The dependence of $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ on the ionized mass fraction is
1090: most easily understood in the HR model (solid curve) where it is
1091: determined by the characteristic size of ionized regions.
1092: $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ rises with $x_i^M$ essentially featureless until
1093: it flattens when $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ approaches the size of the
1094: simulation box. The trends for models IR-0.5 (dashed curve) and
1095: IR-1.0 (dot-dashed curve) are similar to that in model HR in the
1096: early stages of reionization ($x_i^M < 0.4$). However, as
1097: reionization progresses, the mean free path in models IR-0.5 and IR-1.0
1098: is smaller than that in the HR model. High density clumps limit the
1099: propagation of ionizing photons in these models. The mean free path
1100: in the models with spatially inhomogeneous recombination is thus not
1101: determined by the sizes of ionized regions when $x_i^M$ is large. It
1102: depends instead on the spatial covering factor of high-density peaks. Note
1103: that the mean free path in the IR-HM model is larger than that in
1104: the IR-0.5 and IR-1.0 models for given $x_i^M$. This is consistent
1105: with the fact in these models a larger volume has to be ionized to
1106: reach the same ionized mass fraction. Note the ``break''
1107: in the evolution of $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ for the models with
1108: inhomogeneous recombinations. This break broadly defines the epoch
1109: when the mean free path starts to be limited by high-density clumps
1110: rather than the size of ionized regions.
1111:
1112: We should mention here that
1113: is likely that we have overestimated the sizes of the
1114: self-shielded absorbers because of the
1115: limited spatial resolution of our simulations
1116: This should lead to an underestimate of
1117: $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$. The limited resolution
1118: will, however, at the same time, result in an underestimate
1119: of the space density of
1120: self-shielded regions as well as of recombination outside of
1121: self-shielded absorbers. This should in turn have lead to an
1122: overestimate of the mean free path.
1123: The two effects should thus partially cancel.
1124: We have examined the effect of resolution on $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$
1125: in Appendix \ref{app:numres} and found that our results do not
1126: change when the resolution is improved by a factor of two.
1127: The absolute values of the mean free path shown in figure
1128: \ref{fig:plot_mfp} should nevertheless be treated with some caution
1129: but our finding that the mean free path will evolve more
1130: slowly if recombinations are important should be robust.
1131:
1132:
1133:
1134: \section{Consistency with Ly$\alpha$ forest data at $\lowercase{z}\sim 6$}
1135:
1136: Current observational constraints on the epoch of reionization are
1137: still rather limited. Studies of the \lya\ forest in QSO absorption
1138: spectra have taught us that reionization probably ended at around $z
1139: \sim 6$ (\citeNP{fnswbpr02,fhr++04,fsb++06}; {\it cf} \citeNP{brs07}).
1140: As discussed by \citeN{miralda03} and \citeN{bh07}, the emissivity inferred
1141: from the \lya\ forest data
1142: corresponds to at most a few photons per hydrogen atom per Hubble
1143: time. \citeN{bh07} thus coined the term ``photon-starved'' to
1144: describe the regime in which reionization appears to occur. \citeN{bh07}
1145: measured the emissivity of ionizing photons to be roughly
1146: constant in comoving units in the redshift range $2<z <6$. They
1147: pointed out that because of the rather low emissivity of ionizing
1148: photons reionization of hydrogen most likely started early and
1149: extends over a wide redshift range. This sits well with the rather
1150: large Thomson optical depth inferred from studies of the cosmic
1151: microwave background \cite{sbd++07,dkn++08,cfg08}.
1152: Predictions of ionization maps should
1153: obviously be consistent with available data. Enforcing consistency
1154: with the \lya\ forest data shrinks the allowed parameter space
1155: considerably and we therefore discuss now how our modelling fairs in
1156: this respect.
1157:
1158:
1159: In Table 1 we summarize the mean-free path of ionizing photons
1160: $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ and the inferred photoionization rate $\Gamma$ in
1161: our three models for two values of the volume fraction of ionized
1162: regions (at $z=6$) and two different assumptions for when
1163: reionization has started at $z_{\rm re}=15$ and $z_{\rm re}=\infty$, respectively.
1164: The value of the mean free path of ionising photons and the volume
1165: fraction of ionized regions $x_i^V$ at $z=6$ are observationally still
1166: very uncertain. \citeN{bh07} estimate the mean free path
1167: to be $\la 40~{\rm Mpc}$ and infer a photoionization rate
1168: $\Gamma_{12} \la 0.19$. The volume fraction of ionized regions has
1169: been estimated to be $\gtrsim 0.5$ at $z \gtrsim 6.3$ from the
1170: evolution of Ly$\alpha$ luminosity function \cite{ksm++06} and GRB
1171: spectrum \cite{tkk++06}, while the constraints from QSO absorption
1172: line measurements at $z \lesssim 6$ are quoted to give $1 - x_i^V
1173: \gtrsim 10^{-4}$ \cite{fsb++06}.
1174:
1175:
1176: For our models with a spatially inhomogeneous distribution of
1177: recombinations the mean free path is reasonably consistent
1178: with the estimate of \citeN{bh07} if the volume fraction of
1179: ionized regions is large (95\%). For models HR and IR-HM on the other
1180: hand, the estimated mean free path is consistent with the values in Table 1
1181: if the volume fraction of ionized regions at $z=6$ is low (50\%).
1182:
1183:
1184: We have estimated the photoionization rate (in units of $10^{-12}$
1185: s$^{-1}$) inferred from the photon emission rate $\dot{n}_{\gamma}$
1186: and $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ using \cite{bh07},
1187: \bear \Gamma_{-12} &\approx& 10^{-51.2}
1188: \f{\dot{n}_{\gamma}}{{\rm s}^{-1} {\rm Mpc}^{-3}}
1189: \left(\f{\alpha_s}{3}\right) \left(\f{\alpha_s+3}{6}\right)^{-1}
1190: \nline &\times& \left(\f{\lambda_{\rm mfp}}{40 {\rm Mpc}}\right)
1191: \left(\f{1+z}{7}\right)^2,
1192: \label{eq:gamma12} \ear
1193: where $\alpha_s$ is the spectral index of the
1194: ionizing background (which we assume to be 3 consistent with stellar
1195: sources of sub-solar metallicity). The results are shown in the two right-most
1196: columns in table 1. Note again that there could be inaccuracies
1197: of $\lesssim 15$ per cent arising from moderate violations of photon
1198: conservation of our algorithm.
1199: For models IR-0.5 and IR-1.0 we find reasonable agreement with the
1200: inferred photoionization rate for $x_i^V=0.95$.
1201: On the other hand, models HR and IR-HM generally tend to overpredict
1202: the photoionization rate when the assumed ionized fraction is large.
1203: For smaller values of the ionized mass fraction ($x_i^V=0.5$),
1204: these models are found to be consistent with the data.
1205: % while
1206: %model HR and to some extent also model IR-HM struggle to meet the
1207: %estimates of mean free path and ionization rate consistently with the
1208: %same volume fraction of ionized regions.
1209:
1210:
1211:
1212: \begin{table}
1213: \caption{Mean free path and inferred photoionization rate for
1214: different ionized mass fractions and different redshifts for the
1215: start of reionization.}
1216: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1217: \hline
1218: Model & $x_i^V$ & $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ & $n_{\gamma}/n_H$ &
1219: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$\Gamma_{-12}$}\\
1220: & &$h^{-1} {\rm Mpc}$& &$z_{\rm re}=\infty$ &$z_{\rm re}=15$\\
1221: \hline
1222: HR & 0.5 & 15 & 0.79 & 0.031 & 0.044 \\
1223: & 0.95 & 97 & 0.96 & 0.257 & 0.362 \\
1224: \hline
1225: IR-0.5 & 0.5 & 8 & 0.82 & 0.016 & 0.023 \\
1226: & 0.95 & 21 & 1.14 & 0.063 & 0.089 \\
1227: \hline
1228: IR-1.0 & 0.5 & 5 & 0.89 & 0.011 & 0.015 \\
1229: & 0.95 & 21 & 1.40 & 0.076 & 0.107 \\
1230: \hline
1231: IR-HM & 0.5 & 12 & 0.91 & 0.026 & 0.036 \\
1232: & 0.95 & 56 & 2.20 & 0.330 & 0.465 \\
1233: \hline
1234: \end{tabular}
1235: \label{tab:gamma12}
1236: \end{table}
1237:
1238:
1239:
1240: \section{Predictions for 21cm observations}
1241:
1242: \subsection{The effect of the spatial distribution of sinks and the
1243: luminosity of sources on the 21cm power spectrum.}
1244:
1245:
1246: \begin{figure*}
1247: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.29\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{qipower.ps}}}
1248: \caption{The power spectrum of 21cm brightness temperature
1249: fluctuations. The panels from left to right show models HR, IR
1250: and IR-HM, respectively. In each panel, results are shown for
1251: mass-averaged ionization fraction $x_i^M = $ 0 (solid), 0.1 (dashed),
1252: 0.3 (dot-dashed), 0.5 (dotted), 0.7 (dot-dot-dot-dashed) and 0.9
1253: (triangles), respectively.}
1254: \label{fig:qipower}
1255: \end{figure*}
1256:
1257: \begin{figure*}
1258: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.29\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{plotqipower.ps}}}
1259: \caption{The amplitude (left panel) and slope (right panel) of the
1260: power spectrum of 21cm brightness temperature fluctuations as a
1261: function of the mass-averaged ionized fraction $x_i^M$ at wavenumber
1262: $k = k_p \equiv 0.4 h {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. The solid, dashed and
1263: dot-dashed curves represent models HR, IR and IR-HM, respectively.}
1264: \label{fig:plotqipower}
1265: \end{figure*}
1266:
1267: \begin{figure*}
1268: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.29\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{qipdf_smooth.ps}}}
1269: \caption{The probability distribution of the dimensionless 21cm
1270: brightness temperature fluctuations. {\it Left panel:} Results
1271: for model HR . The curves with peaks from right to left are for
1272: mass averaged ionization fractions of $x_i^M = 0, 0.35, 0.7, 0.9$
1273: respectively. {\it Middle panel:} Results for models IR-1.0.
1274: The curves with peaks from right to left represent cases
1275: $x_i^M = 0, 0.35, 0.6, 0.9$ respectively. {\it Right panel:}
1276: Results for model IR-HM. The curves with peaks from right to
1277: left are for $x_i^M = 0, 0.1, 0.45, 0.9$, respectively. }
1278: \label{fig:qipdf_smooth}
1279: \end{figure*}
1280:
1281: We have seen in Section \ref{sec:globalmaps} that the models with
1282: different assumptions regarding the spatial distribution of sinks and
1283: sources of ionizing radiation predict rather different topologies for
1284: the neutral hydrogen distribution, particularly in the late stages
1285: of reionization (with the exception that models IR-0.5 and IR-1.0 are
1286: nearly identical for $x_i^M > 0.9$). We now discuss the prospects of
1287: investigating the effects of the spatial distribution of the sinks
1288: and sources of ionizing radiation with future low-frequency radio
1289: observations of the redshifted 21cm line. Since model IR-0.5 is
1290: qualitatively very similar to model IR-1.0, we shall not discuss it
1291: separately in this section.
1292:
1293:
1294: The 21cm brightness temperature at a given location ${\bf x}$
1295: relative to the CMB can be approximated as
1296: \be T_b({\bf x}) = \bar{T}_b x_{\rm HI}({\bf x}) \Delta({\bf x}), \e
1297: where we have assumed
1298: that the spin temperature of hydrogen is much larger than the CMB
1299: temperature. This should be a reasonable assumption once a significant
1300: fraction (a few percent) of the volume/mass has been ionized
1301: (\citeNP{sr90,tmmr00,cm03,bl05,sethi05,furlanetto06,fob06}; see \citeNP{pl08}
1302: for an extensive recent
1303: discussion of the expected evolution of the spin temperature). We
1304: have also ignored peculiar velocity effects which are small at
1305: the scales relevant here (see, e.g., \citeNP{mf07}).
1306: The quantity $\bar{T}_b \approx 22 {\rm mK} [(1+z)/7]^{1/2}$ denotes
1307: the brightness temperature for neutral gas at mean density. By
1308: definition, $\langle T_b({\bf x}) \rangle = \bar{T}_b (1 - x_i^M)$.
1309:
1310:
1311: The first quantity of interest is the power spectrum of temperature
1312: fluctuations which we define as $\bar{T}_b^2 \Delta^2_{21}(k) \equiv
1313: k^3 \langle T_b^2(k) \rangle/2 \pi^2$. The power spectrum is plotted in Figure
1314: \ref{fig:qipower} for our models for a range of values of $x_i^M$
1315: (e.g. \citeNP{fzh04}).
1316: The panels from left to right show the power spectrum for models HR, IR-1.0 and
1317: IR-HM, respectively. In each panel the power spectrum is shown for
1318: mass-averaged ionization fraction $x_i^M = $ 0 (solid), 0.1 (dashed),
1319: 0.3 (dot-dashed), 0.5 (dotted), 0.7 (dot-dot-dot-dashed) and 0.9
1320: (triangles) respectively. For $x_i^M = 0$, the brightness temperature
1321: simply traces the DM fluctuations.
1322:
1323: In model HR (left panel), the amplitude of the power spectrum
1324: decreases from its initial value until about $x_i^M = 0.3$
1325: (dot-dashed curve). The decrease of the fluctuation amplitude,
1326: particularly at large scales, occurs as regions of high density
1327: become ionized. The decrease in amplitude is accompanied by a
1328: steepening in slope, consistent with the findings of
1329: \citeN{lzmzh07}. It follows then a reversal in trend. The amplitude
1330: rises (particularly at large scales $k < 1.5 h$ Mpc$^{-1}$) and the
1331: slope becomes shallower. This is particularly evident if the power
1332: spectra for $x_i^M = 0.3$ (dot-dashed curve) and $x_i^M = 0.5$
1333: (dotted curve) are compared. This is the phase when the the ionizing
1334: radiation from collapsed objects ionizes the surrounding high-density
1335: regions. The growth of ionized regions boosts the large scale power
1336: and flattens the slope of $\Delta_{21}^2(k)$. The flattening of the
1337: slope continues (and the power spectrum becomes practically flat) as
1338: the IGM becomes more ionized while the amplitude decreases at high
1339: values of $x_i^M$. In model HR there is nearly equal power at all
1340: scales in the late stages of reionization and the fluctuation
1341: amplitude decreases as the neutral hydrogen content in the IGM
1342: decreases.
1343:
1344: In the early stages of reionization ($x_i^M < 0.5$) the evolution of
1345: the 21cm power spectrum in model IR-1.0 (middle panel) is very
1346: similar to that in model HR. The similarity, however, disappears
1347: for $x_i^M \geq 0.5$ when the slope of $\Delta_{21}^2(k)$ steepens
1348: rather than flattens. The high-density neutral regions embedded
1349: within the ionized regions are responsible for a considerable amount
1350: of small-scale power in the 21cm power spectrum. At the same time, the
1351: clumps limit the size of coherently ionized regions, thus keeping
1352: the large-scale power low. This pattern holds until the very end of
1353: reionization. The steepening of the slope in the later stages of
1354: reionization in the models with an inhomogeneous spatial distribution
1355: of recombinations is a signature of the more complex
1356: topology which we had described in section 3.2. In the late stages
1357: reionization proceeds much more ``outside-in'' than in model HR and
1358: this is clearly recognizable in the 21cm power spectra.
1359:
1360: A similar but more pronounced steepening of the slope of the 21cm
1361: power spectrum occurs in model IR-HM, where the emission of ionizing
1362: photons is restricted to massive haloes. Here reionization starts to
1363: proceed in a more ``outside-in'' fashion much earlier. The behaviour
1364: of the amplitude 21cm spectrum at large scales ($k < 1 h {\rm
1365: Mpc}^{-1}$) is less complicated than in the other two models; there
1366: is a slight dip in the power spectrum around $x_i^M = 0.1$ due to the
1367: ionization of the high-density regions harbouring the sources of
1368: ionizing radiation. Otherwise the power spectrum evolves very little
1369: until $x_i^M \sim 0.5$ and then the amplitude decreases with decreasing neutral
1370: fraction. In model IR-HM the amplitude of the 21cm power spectrum is
1371: generally somewhat higher than in the other two models. This is due
1372: to reionization being driven by relatively highly clustered sources
1373: in this model.
1374:
1375:
1376: \subsection{ Evolution of slope and amplitude of the 21cm power
1377: spectrum at scales probed by LOFAR and MWA}
1378:
1379: In the last section we developed a feeling for how the spatial
1380: distribution of sinks and sources of ionizing radiation influence the
1381: 21cm power spectrum. We now discuss in more detail the possibility to
1382: differentiate observationally between different models with first
1383: generation 21cm experiments like LOFAR and MWA.
1384: The typical scales
1385: probed by these experiments correspond to wavenumbers $0.1 < k/{\rm
1386: Mpc}^{-1} < 1$. Foreground subtraction will be a serious problem
1387: and it is not clear yet to how small and large scales it will be
1388: possible to determine the power spectrum with reasonable accuracy.
1389: We follow \citeN{lzmzh07} and assume that the optimum scale for studying
1390: 21cm fluctuations with these instruments correspond to $k \sim 0.3-0.5 {\rm
1391: Mpc}^{-1}$ and use a pivot scale of $k = k_p \equiv 0.4 h {\rm
1392: Mpc}^{-1}$ in the following to be definite.
1393: This scale is well suited for a discrimination between
1394: our models.
1395:
1396:
1397: The amplitude of the power spectrum at $k_p$ and its slope $n_p
1398: \equiv \de \ln \Delta_{21}^2(k_p)/\de \ln k$ as a function of the
1399: ionized mass fraction $x_i^M$ are shown in the left and right panels
1400: of Figure \ref{fig:plotqipower}. The evolution of the different models
1401: reflects our discussion in the last section. The
1402: evolution of the amplitude $\Delta_{21}^2(k_p)$ can be divided into
1403: three phases. An initial decrease in amplitude due to the early
1404: ionization of high-density regions (\citeNP{wm07}), is followed by a
1405: rise corresponding to a growth in patchiness and a final fall due to
1406: the elimination of neutral hydrogen. In model HR-IM (dot-dashed
1407: curve) where reionization is driven by rarer sources the 21cm power
1408: spectrum has significantly (a factor two or more) power than in the
1409: other two models. The amplitude of the power spectrum and its
1410: evolution at our pivot scale contains valuable information about the
1411: spatial distribution of ionizing sources.
1412:
1413:
1414: The amplitude of the power spectrum at our pivot scale appears,
1415: however, not to be a good indicator of the spatial distribution of
1416: the sinks of ionizing radiation. Models HR and IR-1.0 models are very
1417: similar in this respect. As discussed earlier the spatial
1418: distribution of sinks has instead a strong influence on the slope of
1419: the power spectrum $n_p$ (right panel).
1420: The evolution of the slope $n_p$ can be again divided into three
1421: phases. An initial rise due to the ionization of high-density regions
1422: followed by a fall corresponding to the growth of patchiness. In the
1423: third phase at $x_i^M > 0.65$ $n_p$ keeps on decreasing rapidly in
1424: the HR model while it increases instead in the models with a
1425: spatially inhomogeneous distribution of sinks of ionizing radiation
1426: due to recombinations.
1427:
1428: By measuring the power spectrum and its slope at large scales ($k \sim
1429: 0.3-0.5 {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$) it should thus be possible to characterize
1430: both the spatial distribution of sources and sinks of ionizing
1431: radiation. The detectability of the 21cm fluctuations obviously
1432: depends on the instrument noise and the ability to subtract
1433: foreground emission. Assuming a perfect removal of foreground
1434: emission \citeN{mzzhf06} find typical values of detector noise for
1435: LOFAR and MWA at $k \sim 0.4 h {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ of $\lesssim 5$
1436: mK$^2$ at $z=6$ for 1000 hrs of observation. With such noise levels,
1437: the power spectra for the HR and the IR-HM models should be detectable
1438: with reasonable confidence in the range $0.5 < x_i^M < 0.9$ and
1439: $x_i^M < 0.9$ ,respectively. The fluctuation amplitude in model
1440: IR-1.0 is lower than in the other two models discussed in this
1441: section. At their peak value around $x_i^M \sim 0.6$ 21cm fluctuations
1442: should nevertheless be detectable by LOFAR and MWA even for this
1443: model. Note that the values quoted here should be only taken as
1444: indicative. Both the noise properties and the fluctuation amplitude
1445: depend on redshift For example in our models an ionized mass fraction
1446: of $x_i^M \sim 0.6$ is reached around $z \sim 8$ while our estimations
1447: were performed assuming $z \sim 6$.
1448:
1449:
1450: \subsection{The PDF of the 21cm brightness distribution}
1451:
1452: We now briefly discuss the probability distribution $P(T_b/\bar{T}_b)
1453: \equiv P(\Delta~x_{\rm HI})$ of the dimensionless brightness
1454: temperature \cite{fzh04b}. In order to compute the distribution, we smooth the
1455: brightness temperature $T_b$ over scales of $10 h^{-1}$ Mpc, as is
1456: appropriate for the first generation 21cm experiments. The results are
1457: shown in Figure \ref{fig:qipdf_smooth}. The left panel shows the 21cm
1458: PDF for model HR. The curves with peaks from right to left are for
1459: $x_i^M = 0, 0.35, 0.7, 0.9$, respectively. We have chosen the values
1460: of $x_i^M$ such that they represent the characteristic points in the
1461: evolution of the power spectrum at large scales. The curve for $x_i^M = 0$
1462: (solid) obviously represents the dark matter PDF. For
1463: $x_i^M = 0.35$ (dashed curve), the PDF has become significantly
1464: narrower. This is again due to the ionization of high-density regions
1465: and corresponds to a low-amplitude of the power spectrum. The
1466: evolution of the PDF in model HR is consistent with the analytical
1467: models of \citeN{wm07}. The PDF widens subsequently with increasing
1468: $x_i^M$ as more regions are being ionized. The behaviour is similar
1469: in model IR-1.0 (middle panel) where the curves with peaks from
1470: right to left represent $x_i^M = 0, 0.35, 0.6, 0.9$, respectively.
1471: The only difference is a somewhat narrower width of the distribution
1472: than in model HR in the final stages of reionization ($x_i^M \sim
1473: 0.9$). This is consistent with what is expected from the evolution
1474: of the 21cm power spectra at large scales. The results for model
1475: IR-HM are shown in the right panel. The curves with peaks from right
1476: to left represent $x_i^M = 0, 0.1, 0.45, 0.9$, respectively. As
1477: expected, the PDF in this model is rather different from that in the
1478: other two models. The PDF in model IR-HM has a wider distribution
1479: compared to the other two models. The model predicts $T_b/\bar{T}_b
1480: \gtrsim 0.5$ even when the IGM is 50 per cent ionized by
1481: mass. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether the first generation 21
1482: cm experiments will have enough sensitivity to constrain the shape of
1483: the PDF.
1484:
1485:
1486:
1487: \subsection{Comparison with other work}
1488:
1489: As discussed in the
1490: introduction, there has been a number of recent studies which aim at
1491: predicting the 21cm brightness distribution. These studies range
1492: from radiative transfer simulation generally performed by
1493: post-processing the density field of DM simulations
1494: \cite{cfw03,impmsa06,mips06,imsp07,mzzhf06,mlz+07,zlm+07} to semi-numerical
1495: simulations \cite{mf07,aa07,gw08} similar in spirit to the work
1496: presented here. Most of these studies appear to agree that
1497: reionization occurs inside-out all the way from the start
1498: until nearly the completion of reionization.
1499: \citeN{zlm+07} have thereby shown that results for
1500: semi-numeric schemes based on collapsed mass fractions and variants
1501: of the excursion set formalism to identify regions which can
1502: self-ionize give very similar results to full radiative transfer
1503: simulations if similar assumptions regarding the sources of ionizing
1504: radiation are made. Most similar to our work here is probably the
1505: work of \citeN{mlz+07} who have studied a wide range of
1506: assumptions regarding the sources and sinks of ionizing radiation.
1507: When modelling the effects of sinks of ionizing radiation \citeN{mlz+07}
1508: mainly study mini-haloes, dark matter haloes with potential
1509: wells shallow enough so that they can be photo-evaporated by ionizing
1510: photons. For these mini-haloes they find a noticeable but rather
1511: small effect (see \citeNP{bh07} for a brief discussion of the
1512: role of mini-haloes during reionization in the photon-starved regime).
1513: \citeN{mlz+07}, however, do not try to model recombinations in
1514: high-density regions in deeper potential wells which can hold on to photo-ionized
1515: gas in a way so that their models are likely to be
1516: consistent with the \lya\ forest data.
1517: They generally find that sinks of
1518: ionizing radiation and
1519: their spatial distribution have little effect on the topology of
1520: reionization and the power spectrum. This is obviously quite
1521: different from our findings. There is a number of differences
1522: to our modelling but the most likely reason appears to be
1523: the following. The emissivity used in the models of \citeN{mlz+07} is
1524: rather high and reionization proceeds quickly. This
1525: strongly diminishes the importance of recombination compared to our
1526: modelling of reionization in the photon-starved regime suggested
1527: by the Ly$\alpha$ forest data.
1528:
1529:
1530:
1531:
1532:
1533: \section{Conclusions}
1534:
1535: We have used here semi-numerical simulations to investigate the role
1536: of the spatial distribution of sinks and sources of ionizing
1537: radiation on the topology of hydrogen reionization. Our main results
1538: are the following.
1539:
1540:
1541: \begin{itemize}
1542:
1543:
1544: \item The combination of Zel'dovich approximation, halo-finder and
1545: excursion set formalism is a powerful tool to calculate realistic
1546: ionization maps with high dynamic range at a very moderate
1547: computational cost.
1548:
1549: \item Enforcing consistency with the \lya\ forest data helps to
1550: significantly shrink the otherwise rather unconstrained
1551: parameter space of models of reionization. In the photon-starved
1552: regime of reionization suggested by the \lya\ forest data
1553: recombinations are much more important than in models with high
1554: ionizing emissivity where
1555: reionization occurs quickly. Taking into account a realistic
1556: spatially inhomogeneous distribution of sinks of ionizing radiation
1557: has a large effect on the topology of reionization in the
1558: photon-starved regime.
1559:
1560: \item Initially reionization proceeds inside-out with the
1561: high-density regions hosting the sources of ionizing sources becoming
1562: ionized first. In the later stages of photon-starved reionization the
1563: sinks of ionizing region in our models remain neutral and reionization proceeds
1564: deep into the underdense regions before slowly evaporating denser
1565: regions not hosting ionizing sources where recombinations are
1566: important. This reversal to a more
1567: outside-in progression in the late stages of reionization is more
1568: pronounced if the emission of ionizing radiation is restricted to
1569: massive highly-clustered and rare sources.
1570:
1571: \item If the emission of ionizing radiation is restricted to rare
1572: sources reionization proceeds more quickly and the sizes of
1573: coherently ionized regions are significantly larger. The latter
1574: results in an about factor two or more larger mean free path for
1575: ionizing photons.
1576:
1577: \item Like other studies we find that the amplitude of the 21cm power
1578: spectrum and its evolution in the later stages of reionization is
1579: mainly sensitive to the space density of ionizing sources. The
1580: sensitivity to the space density of ionizing sources is, however, significantly
1581: increased if a realistic spatially inhomogeneous distribution of
1582: sinks of ionizing radiation is taken into account. The slope of
1583: the power spectrum is very sensitive to the spatial distribution of
1584: sinks of ionizing radiation.
1585:
1586: \item Measurements of the amplitude and slope of the 21cm power
1587: spectrum at scales corresponding to $k \sim 0.3 - 0.5 h{\rm
1588: Mpc}^{-1}$ with the upcoming low-frequency instruments LOFAR and
1589: MWA have excellent prospects to reveal important
1590: information on the spatial distribution of sinks and sources of
1591: ionizing radiation and the speed of reionization if the daunting tasks
1592: of accurate calibration and foreground removal are mastered successfully.
1593: The PDF of the 21cm brightness distribution contains important
1594: complimentary information. Measuring the PDF will, however,
1595: unfortunately most likely require higher sensitivity than can be
1596: achieved with first generation 21cm experiments.
1597:
1598: \end{itemize}
1599:
1600: Our modelling here has involved a number of significant
1601: simplifications. The spatial distribution of dark matter modelled
1602: in the Zel'dovich approximation was used as an proxy for the spatial
1603: distribution of the IGM. The ionizing emissivity of sources and
1604: recombination in dense region was modelled only in an approximate
1605: integrated fashion and the dynamical effects of the ionization
1606: radiation on the gas were neglected. Despite the large particle
1607: number used in the simulations resulting in a substantial dynamic
1608: range there were still clear deficiencies in modelling high-density
1609: regions and low-mass collapsed objects/mini-haloes.
1610: We nevertheless
1611: think that our simulations have caught the essential properties of
1612: the topology of the epoch of reionization.
1613: Our simulations suggest
1614: that the idea that reionization proceeds strictly inside-out from
1615: beginning to nearly to the end may need revision if reionization
1616: indeed occurs in a photon-starved regime as suggested by the
1617: \lya\ forest data.
1618:
1619:
1620: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1621:
1622: We thank Tom Abel, Benedetta Ciardi, Nick Gnedin, Ilian Iliev, Adam
1623: Lidz, Avi Loeb, Matthew McQuinn, Jordi Miralda-Escud\'e and Paul
1624: Shapiro for valuable comments made at the 2008 Harvard
1625: conference on 21cm Cosmology where part of this work was presented.
1626: This research was conducted in cooperation with SGI/Intel utilizing
1627: the Altix 4800 supercomputer COSMOS at the Department of Applied
1628: Mathematics and Theoretical Physics in Cambridge. COSMOS is a UK-CCC
1629: facility which is supported by HEFCE and STFC/PPARC. Part of the
1630: simulations where performed on the Cambridge High Performance
1631: Computing Cluster Darwin.
1632:
1633:
1634: \bibliography{mnrasmnemonic,astropap-mod,reionization}
1635: \bibliographystyle{mnras}
1636:
1637: \appendix
1638: \section{Comparison of different methods of generating the halo field}
1639: \label{app:compzeldo}
1640:
1641: \begin{figure*}
1642: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.9\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{plotdensity.ps}}}
1643: \caption{The density field (left panel) and the location of collapsed
1644: haloes (right panel) at $z=6$ obtained from the three methods,
1645: namely, ``N-body + FoF'' (top panel), ``ZA + FoF'' (middle panel) and
1646: ``PS + ES'' (bottom panel). The thickness of the slice shown is $0.2
1647: h^{-1}$Mpc.}
1648: \label{fig:plotdensity}
1649: \end{figure*}
1650:
1651: \begin{figure*}
1652: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.3\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{densitydist.ps}}}
1653: \caption{Left panel: the volume-averaged probability distribution of
1654: the density field $P_V(\Delta)$ obtained from N-body simulations
1655: (solid curve), Zel'dovich approximation (dashed curve) and gaussian
1656: random field (dot-dashed curve) respectively. Right panel: the power
1657: spectrum of density fluctuations obtained by the same three methods.}
1658: \label{fig:densitydist}
1659: \end{figure*}
1660:
1661:
1662:
1663: In this Appendix, we compare three different ways of generating the density
1664: field and locating haloes within the simulation volume.
1665: Dark matter haloes were identified for density distributions
1666: with identical initial conditions within a
1667: simulation box of comoving length 50 $h^{-1}$ Mpc with $256^3$
1668: particles, giving a mass resolution of $5.4 \times 10^8 h^{-1}
1669: M_{\odot}$. For definiteness, we concentrate our comparison on
1670: $z=6$ (which is the fiducial redshift of study throughout the paper).
1671:
1672: \begin{itemize}
1673:
1674: \item{\it N-body + FoF:} In this approach, the dark matter density
1675: field is generated by running a full N-body simulation (with
1676: GadgetII) and then a standard Friends-of-friends (FoF) algorithm with
1677: linking length $b \approx 0.2$ times the mean inter-particle separation
1678: is applied to find the haloes. Typically, one is able to identify
1679: haloes as small as $\sim 20$ times the mass resolution which are
1680: consistent with theoretical predictions of halo mass
1681: function. This is most accurate method to obtain
1682: the spatial distribution of dark matter haloes.
1683: The disadvantage is that in order to achieve the dynamic range required
1684: for studying reionization is generally computationally expensive (both in
1685: terms of CPU time and memory). The density field and the location of
1686: dark matter haloes obtained in this way are shown in the top panels
1687: of Figure \ref{fig:plotdensity}.
1688:
1689: \item{\it ZA + FoF:} An alternate method of generating the density
1690: field is the Zel'dovich approximation. In this case, we have
1691: generated the density field at a given redshift by displacing
1692: the particles from their initial positions using the linear velocity
1693: field. This procedure is significantly less computationally expensive than a
1694: N-body simulation and nevertheless gives give a reasonable representation of the
1695: density field at high redshifts. The location and mass of the haloes
1696: was then obtained with FoF halo finder with
1697: a variable linking length with $b \approx 0.3-0.35$. The
1698: detailed internal structure of the haloes is not correct in this case
1699: (the density profiles of the haloes is generally much more diffuse
1700: and the halo particle may even not not be bound). However, these details
1701: are not important for our work here where we want to investigate
1702: qualitatively the topology of reionization.
1703: The density field and the location of the haloes obtained in this way
1704: are shown in the
1705: middle panels of Figure \ref{fig:plotdensity}. One immediately
1706: appreciates that the visual impression of both the density structure
1707: and halo field generated by this approach is very similar to the
1708: previous one, the differences being rather minor.
1709:
1710:
1711: \item{\it GRF + ES:} The third method we have explored is evolving
1712: the initial Gaussian random field (GRF) linearly (i.e., multiplying by
1713: the appropriate growth factor) and applying the excursion set (ES)
1714: formalism to identify the haloes. The advantage in this case is that
1715: the formalism is computationally very cheap and can identify
1716: haloes as small as the mass resolution of the box. The disadvantage is
1717: that the linear density field does not necessarily capture the true
1718: density distribution which is a serious problem for the analyses
1719: presented here. The results obtained by this approach are
1720: shown in the bottom panels of Figure \ref{fig:plotdensity}. It is
1721: immediately apparent that the density structure is drastically different
1722: from the previous two approaches with no apparent filamentary networks
1723: visible. The same is true for the location of the haloes (though it
1724: should be mentioned that the number of haloes identified are much
1725: larger than the previous methods as one can locate smaller
1726: haloes). A better match with the simulations can be achieved if both the
1727: densities and halo positions are adjusted using the Zel'dovich approximation
1728: \cite{zlm+07,mf07}; however it is not clear how well the density peaks would correspond to
1729: halo locations if both are displaced independently. Since a reasonable representation of the density field and
1730: location of the haloes are vital for our work here, this very simple
1731: computationally least expensive scheme is unfortunately not appropriate for this work.
1732:
1733: The fact that the ``ZA + FoF'' method gives a reasonable
1734: approximation of the density and halo field can also be seen
1735: quantitatively from Figure \ref{fig:densitydist} where we have
1736: plotted the volume-weighted density distribution $P_V(\Delta)$ (left
1737: panel) and the power spectrum of density fluctuations $P(k)$ (right
1738: panel) for the three methods. The density
1739: distribution obtained with the ``ZA + FoF'' method (dashed curve)
1740: closely resembles that obtained with ``Nbody + FoF'' (solid curve),
1741: which is quite different from the gaussian distribution (dot-dashed
1742: curve) obtained with the ``GRF + ES'' method. Similarly, the plots of
1743: the power spectrum shows that the ``GRF + ES'' method deviates from the
1744: ``Nbody + FoF'' at scales $\sim 10 h^{-1}$ Mpc, while the ``ZA + FoF''
1745: method is reasonable down to scales of a few $h^{-1}$ Mpc. At smaller
1746: scales, the ``Nbody + FoF'' method generates more power than the other
1747: two cases due to a correct treatment of non-linearities. It appears
1748: thus fair to say that the ``ZA + FoF'' method is a good approximation for scales
1749: $\gtrsim 1 h^{-1}$ Mpc, which should be sufficient for generating the
1750: ionization maps in this work.
1751:
1752:
1753:
1754:
1755: \end{itemize}
1756:
1757:
1758: \section{Numerical convergence}
1759: \label{app:numres}
1760:
1761: \begin{figure}
1762: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{plot_compare_mfp_boxsize.ps}}}
1763: \caption{The effect of box size on the photon mean free path for
1764: models HR and IR-1.0. The solid (dot-dashed) and the dashed
1765: (dotted) curves represent the results for the
1766: 100$h^{-1}$ Mpc and
1767: 200$h^{-1}$ Mpc box, respectively, for the IR-1.0 (HR) model.}
1768: \label{fig:plot_compare_mfp_boxsize}
1769: \end{figure}
1770:
1771: \begin{figure}
1772: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{haloes-multb-large.ps}}}
1773: \caption{The halo mass function at $z=6$ for the high-resolution
1774: simulation. The points with errorbars show the results from our
1775: simulation; the vertical errors correspond to the statistical
1776: uncertainties while the horizontal errors denote the bin size. The
1777: solid curve is the theoretical mass function of Sheth \& Tormen
1778: (2002), with the fitting function adopted from Jenkins et
1779: al. (2001).}
1780: \label{fig:haloes-multb-large}
1781: \end{figure}
1782:
1783: \begin{figure}
1784: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{plot_compare_mfp_resol.ps}}}
1785: \caption{Effect of resolution on the photon mean free path for model
1786: IR-1.0. The solid curve represents the lower resolution simulation with
1787: $1000^3$ particles, while the dashed curve is for the higher resolution
1788: simulation with $2000^3$ particles. The box size in both cases is 100$h^{-1}$ Mpc.}
1789: \label{fig:plot_compare_mfp_resol}
1790: \end{figure}
1791:
1792: In this appendix, we discuss the effects of limited box size and mass
1793: resolution on our results. For simplicity, we shall keep our
1794: discussion focussed on the models HR and IR-1.0.
1795:
1796: In order to study the effect of box size, we have run a simulation
1797: with a box of length 200 $h^{-1}$ Mpc (comoving) with $2000^3$
1798: particles, thus giving the same mass resolution as our fiducial box.
1799: We find that the effect on quantities like ionized fraction
1800: $Q_i(\Delta)$ and the distribution of 21cm brightness temperature
1801: $P_M(\Delta_{21})$ is negligible for all models. The only
1802: significant effect of a larger box size concerns the evolution of the
1803: photon mean free path $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ (which is shown in Figure
1804: \ref{fig:plot_compare_mfp_boxsize}) and, to some extent, the 21cm
1805: power spectrum $\Delta_{21}^2(k)$.
1806:
1807: For model IR-1.0, we find no significant effect of the limited box
1808: size on the shape or amplitude of $\Delta_{21}^2(k)$ other that we
1809: are able to probe larger scales with a larger box size. The mean
1810: free path $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ is not affected by the limited box size
1811: for scales smaller than the box as can be seen by comparing the solid
1812: and dashed curves in Figure \ref{fig:plot_compare_mfp_boxsize}).
1813: However, with our fiducial box size of 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, it is not
1814: possible to probe the IGM when the mass-averaged neutral fraction $1 -
1815: x_i^M < 0.01$. If the box size is doubled to 200 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, we are
1816: able to probe a much smaller neutral fraction $1 - x_i^M <
1817: 0.002$. This confirms the result that larger boxes are essential when
1818: reionization enters its final stages.
1819:
1820: The requirement for larger box sizes is more apparent for model HR,
1821: where we find that the limited box size affects the value of
1822: $\lambda_{\rm mfp}$ for scales about half the box size (dotted and
1823: dot-dashed curves in Figure \ref{fig:plot_compare_mfp_boxsize}). In
1824: fact, we find that a box size of as large as 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc is
1825: only sufficient for neutral fractions $1 - x_i^M > 0.25$. This is
1826: not surprising as the HR model tends to produce large ionized regions
1827: whose growth can be affected seriously with a limited box size. We
1828: come to similar conclusions when studying the 21cm power spectrum.
1829: However the differences are not as statistically significant as the
1830: number of points which are neutral decreases during the late stages of
1831: reionization.
1832:
1833:
1834:
1835:
1836: Finally, we present the effect of numerical resolution on our
1837: analyses. For this purpose, we have run a simulation box of length
1838: 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc (comoving) with $2000^3$ particles, which gives a
1839: mass resolution of $M_{\rm part} = 9.02 \times 10^6 h^{-1} M_{\odot}$.
1840: Applying the FoF method with adaptive linking length on this
1841: distribution, we are able to locate haloes as small as $9.02 \times
1842: 10^7 h^{-1} M_{\odot}$, thus achieving sensitivities corresponding to
1843: haloes able to cool via atomic transitions. The mass function of
1844: haloes at $z=6$ for this high-resolution simulation is shown in Figure
1845: \ref{fig:haloes-multb-large}; we have also shown the corresponding
1846: theoretical mass function \cite{jfw++01} for comparison. The halo
1847: mass function agrees now very well with the theoretical expectation
1848: for an even larger dynamic range.
1849:
1850: In Section \ref{sec:results} we have shown that the spatial distribution of
1851: sources of ionizing radiation have a huge effect on the
1852: ionization fields. Thus, it is
1853: naturally expected that the ionization maps would be very different
1854: for a high resolution box if we include all the low-mass
1855: sources. However, our main concern is to study the resolution effects
1856: for an identical source distribution is identical. Keeping that in mind,
1857: we include only sources with $M > 10^9 h^{-1} M_{\odot}$ so that the
1858: source distribution is statistically identical to that in our fiducial
1859: box. For the high resolution box,
1860: we smooth the density field to a grid-size of $0.5 h^{-1}$ Mpc
1861: corresponding to $200^3$ grid points in the box.
1862:
1863: The main effect of the resolution enters into our results through the
1864: recombination rate. Since it is dependent on the local density, we
1865: find that the rate is higher when we include high resolution (i.e.,
1866: high density) pixels in the analysis. We would thus expect, for example,
1867: that the mean free path is smaller in the high
1868: resolution simulation (even when the source distribution is statistically
1869: similar). That is indeed the case as is shown in Figure
1870: \ref{fig:plot_compare_mfp_resol} where we have compared the high
1871: resolution simulation with the fiducial simulation model IR-1.0.
1872: At the very late stages of reionization, however, the mean free path
1873: in the two cases is similar. In fact, at large ionized mass fraction,
1874: the only structures to remain neutral have intermediate densities,
1875: which should be equally well probed by
1876: the two simulations with different resolution.
1877:
1878:
1879:
1880: \end{document}
1881:
1882:
1883: