1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[usenatbib, apjfonts]{emulateapj}
3: %\documentclass[12pt, preprint, usenatbib]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
5:
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7: \usepackage{amssymb}
8: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
9: %\usepackage{natbib}
10: %\usepackage{mn-nat}
11:
12: %\topmargin0.5cm
13:
14:
15: %\slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
16: \shorttitle{Incidence Rate of GRB-host-DLAs}
17: \shortauthors{Nagamine et al.}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{Incidence Rate of GRB-host-DLAs at High Redshift}
22:
23: \author{Kentaro Nagamine\altaffilmark{1,2}, Bing Zhang\altaffilmark{1},
24: Lars Hernquist\altaffilmark{3}}
25: \altaffiltext{1}{University of Nevada Las Vegas, Department of Physics \& Astronomy, 4505 Maryland Pkwy, Box 454002, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4002 U.S.A.; Email: kn@physics.unlv.edu}
26: \altaffiltext{2}{Visiting Researcher, Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha Kashiwa-shi, Chiba 277-8582 Japan}
27: \altaffiltext{3}{Harvard University, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.}
28:
29:
30: \newcommand{\Mstar}{M_{\star}}
31: \newcommand{\Mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}
32: \newcommand{\Mhalo}{M_{\rm halo}}
33: \newcommand{\Mpeak}{M_{\rm peak}}
34: \newcommand{\Mmed}{M_{\rm med}}
35: \newcommand{\Mmean}{\avg{M_{\rm DLA}}}
36: \newcommand{\sdla}{\sigma_{\rm DLA}}
37: \newcommand{\Muv}{M_{\rm UV}}
38:
39: \def\avg#1{\langle#1\rangle}
40: \newcommand{\Lam}{\Lambda}
41: \newcommand{\lam}{\lambda}
42: \newcommand{\Del}{\Delta}
43: \newcommand{\del}{\delta}
44: \newcommand{\mpc}{\rm Mpc}
45: \newcommand{\kpc}{\rm kpc}
46: \newcommand{\pc}{\rm pc}
47: \newcommand{\cm}{\rm cm}
48: \newcommand{\yr}{\rm yr}
49: \newcommand{\erg}{\rm erg}
50: \newcommand{\s}{\rm s}
51: \newcommand{\kms}{\,\rm km\, s^{-1}}
52: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}
53: \newcommand{\Lsun}{L_{\odot}}
54: \newcommand{\Zsun}{Z_{\odot}}
55: \newcommand{\hinv}{h^{-1}}
56: \newcommand{\himpc}{\hinv{\rm\,Mpc}}
57: \newcommand{\hikpc}{\hinv{\rm\,kpc}}
58: \newcommand{\himsun}{\,\hinv{\Msun}}
59:
60: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega_{\rm m}}
61: \newcommand{\Ol}{\Omega_{\Lam}}
62: \newcommand{\Ob}{\Omega_{\rm b}}
63: \newcommand{\OHI}{\Omega_{\rm HI}}
64: \newcommand{\HI}{H{\sc i}}
65: \newcommand{\NHI}{N_{\rm HI}}
66: \newcommand{\NHGRB}{N_{\rm HI}^{\rm GRB}}
67:
68: \newcommand{\MgII}{Mg{\sc ii}}
69: \newcommand{\XH}{X_{\rm H}}
70: \newcommand{\Mtot}{M_{\rm tot}}
71: \newcommand{\Lbox}{L_{\rm box}}
72: \newcommand{\highz}{high-$z$}
73: \newcommand{\SFR}{{\rm SFR}}
74: \newcommand{\lgZ}{\log (Z/Z_\odot)}
75: \newcommand{\Ssfr}{\Sigma_{\rm SFR}}
76: \newcommand{\egrb}{\eta_{\rm GRB}}
77: \newcommand{\Lya}{{\rm Ly}\alpha}
78: \newcommand{\zgrb}{\zeta_{\rm GRB-host-DLA}}
79: \newcommand{\GDLA}{{\small GRB-host-DLA}}
80: \newcommand{\GDLAs}{{\small GRB-host-DLAs}}
81: \newcommand{\QDLA}{{\small QSO-DLA}}
82: \newcommand{\QDLAs}{{\small QSO-DLAs}}
83:
84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
85:
86: \begin{abstract}
87:
88: We study the incidence rate of damped $\Lya$ systems associated with
89: the host galaxies of gamma-ray bursts (\GDLAs) as functions of neutral
90: hydrogen column density ($\NHI$) and projected star formation rate
91: (SFR) using cosmological SPH simulations. Assuming that the
92: occurrence of GRBs is correlated with the local SFR, we find that the
93: median $\NHI$ of \GDLAs\ progressively shifts to lower $\NHI$ values
94: with increasing redshift, and the incidence rate of \GDLAs\ with $\log
95: \NHI > 21.0$ decreases rapidly at $z\ge 6$.
96: Our results suggest that the likelihood of observing the signature of
97: IGM attenuation in GRB afterglows increases towards higher redshift,
98: because it will not be blocked by the red damping wing of DLAs in the
99: GRB host galaxies. This enhances the prospects of using high-redshift GRBs
100: to probe the reionization history of the Universe. The overall
101: incidence rate of \GDLAs\ decreases monotonically with increasing
102: redshift, whereas that of \QDLAs\ increases up to $z=6$.
103: A measurement of the difference between the two incidence rates would
104: enable an estimation of the value of $\egrb$, which is the mass
105: fraction of stars that become GRBs for a given amount of star formation.
106: Our predictions can be tested by upcoming \highz\ GRB missions,
107: including {\it JANUS (Joint Astrophysics Nascent Universe Scout)}
108: and {\it SVOM (Space multi-band Variable Object Monitor)}.
109: \end{abstract}
110:
111: \keywords{cosmology: theory --- stars: formation --- galaxies: evolution -- galaxies: formation -- methods: numerical}
112:
113:
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115:
116: \section{Introduction}
117: \label{section:intro}
118:
119: A number of authors have proposed using GRBs to probe the history of
120: cosmic star formation and the reionization of the Universe
121: \citep[e.g.,][]{Totani97a, Miralda98a, Lamb00, Barkana04}, neither of
122: which is well-understood \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Holder03, Nag06c}.
123: To date, observations of high-redshift (hereafter \highz) quasars and
124: galaxies have been able to constrain reionization only up to $z\sim 7$
125: \citep{Fan06a}.
126: However, if GRBs are associated with the deaths of massive stars
127: \citep[e.g.,][]{Woosley93, Paczynski98}, then
128: %the results from data analysis
129: %\citep{Schaefer01} and theoretical modeling of early star formation
130: %\citep{Abel02b, Bromm06, Yoshida07}
131: theoretical studies
132: imply that GRBs may be detectable out to $z\simeq 10-20$ through their
133: prompt $\gamma$-ray emission and afterglows \citep{Lamb00, Ciardi00,
134: Gou04, Inoue07}.
135: This raises the possibility of using GRBs to investigate the reionization
136: history of the Universe, and the {\it Swift} satellite has indeed
137: detected \highz\ GRBs with bright afterglows
138: \citep{Cusumano06, Haislip06, Kawai06}.
139:
140: However, GRB lines-of-sight (LOSs) tend to probe more the inner parts
141: of galaxies than the random QSO LOSs do, and are therefore often
142: associated with neutral hydrogen (\HI) absorption \citep{Pro07a}.
143: Indeed, analyses of the afterglow spectra reveal the presence of DLAs
144: in the red damping wing \citep{Vreeswijk04, Berger06, Watson06, Ruiz07},
145: and the DLAs may hide the absorption signatures of the neutral IGM
146: \citep{Totani06}.
147: If such cases dominate the \highz\ GRB afterglow spectra, then
148: it may be difficult to use GRBs to probe the detailed reionization history
149: of the Universe \citep{McQuinn08a}. Thus, it is important to understand
150: the redshift evolution of the incidence rate of \GDLAs\ at $z\ge 6$
151: as a function of $\NHI$.
152:
153: In this {\it Letter}, we use cosmological SPH simulations based on the
154: concordance $\Lam$ cold dark matter (CDM) model to study the $\NHI$
155: distribution and the incidence rate of \GDLAs\ as a function of
156: redshift between $z=1-10$. The DLAs associated with quasar LOSs are
157: often referred to as \QDLAs. Since quasars serve as randomly
158: distributed background beacons in the Universe, \QDLAs\ can be more
159: broadly interpreted as all the \HI\ gas clouds that satisfy the DLA
160: criterion ($\NHI > 2\times 10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$), regardless of whether
161: or not they have been intersected by quasar LOSs. We adopt the latter
162: broad interpretation of \QDLAs\ in this paper, and by this definition
163: \GDLAs\ are a subset of \QDLAs.
164:
165: \begin{figure*}
166: \begin{center}
167: \includegraphics[angle=0, scale=0.4]{dist_norm.eps}
168: \includegraphics[angle=0, scale=0.4]{sfrdist.eps}
169: \caption{Distribution of all DLAs (including both \QDLAs\ and \GDLAs)
170: as a function of $\NHI$ (panel [{\it a}]) and $\Ssfr$ (panel [{\it b}])
171: at $z=1-10$.
172: The top axis in each panel indicates corresponding values of $\NHI$ and
173: $\Ssfr$ based on the empirical \citet{Kennicutt98} law.
174: }
175: \label{fig:nh}
176: \end{center}
177: \end{figure*}
178:
179:
180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
181:
182: \section{Simulations}
183: \label{sec:sim}
184:
185: Our simulations were performed with the smoothed particle hydrodynamics
186: (SPH) code {\small GADGET-2} \citep{Springel05e}, which
187: includes radiative cooling by hydrogen and helium, heating by a
188: uniform UV background \citep{Katz96a, Dave99}, star formation and
189: supernova feedback based on a sub-particle multiphase ISM model, and
190: a phenomenological description of galactic winds
191: \citep{Springel03a, Springel03b}.
192:
193: Here, we use the Q5 \& G5 runs from \citet{Springel03a}, which have box
194: sizes of 10 \& $100\,\himpc$, respectively. The total particle number
195: is $N_p = 2\times 324^3$ for gas and dark matter in each run. The
196: initial gas particle mass is $m_{\rm gas}=3.3\times 10^5$ ($3.3\times
197: 10^8$) $\himsun$, and the dark matter particle mass is $m_{\rm
198: dm}=2.1\times 10^6$ ($2.1\times 10^9$) $\himsun$. The comoving
199: gravitational softening length, a measure of the spatial resolution of
200: the simulation, is $1.2$ (8.0) $\hikpc$ for the Q5 (G5) run.
201: We use the Q5 run for $z>3$ (for higher resolution), and the G5
202: run for $z<3$ (for better sampling of more massive halos and longer
203: wavelength perturbations).
204:
205: Previously, we have used these simulations to study the properties of
206: DLAs \citep{Nag04g, Nag04f, Nag07a}, Ly-break galaxies at $z=3-6$
207: \citep{Nag04e, Night06}, and $\Lya$ emitters \citep{Nag08b}. In
208: general, the simulations show reasonable agreement with available galaxy
209: observations, giving some confidence that we are capturing the basic
210: aspects of hierarchical galaxy evolution in the context of the
211: $\Lam$CDM model. Moreover, the cosmic star formation history implied
212: by the simulations \citep{Her03} agrees with observational estimates
213: \citep{Faucher08a} and supports the association of GRBs with massive star
214: formation \citep{Faucher08b}. The adopted cosmological parameters of all
215: simulations considered here are $(\Om,\Ol,\Ob,\sigma_8, h)= (0.3, 0.7,
216: 0.04, 0.9, 0.7)$, where $h=H_0 / (100\kms\,\mpc^{-1})$.
217:
218:
219: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
220:
221: \section{Results}
222: \label{sec:NHI}
223:
224: First, we present the distribution of all DLAs in the simulation as a
225: function of $\NHI$ in Figure~\ref{fig:nh}a. The method of calculating
226: $\NHI$ in the simulations is described fully in \citet{Nag04g}.
227: Briefly, we set up a cubic grid that covers each dark matter halo, and
228: calculate $\NHI$ by projecting the \HI\ mass distribution onto one of
229: the planes. The quantity ``$dn$'' is the area covering fraction on
230: the sky along the line element $cdt$ \citep[see Eqns.~5--7
231: of][]{Nag07a}, and the function $d^2n/(d\log \NHI\,dX) = f(\NHI, X)\,
232: \NHI \,\ln(10)$ is the `incidence rate' per unit $\log \NHI$ and per
233: unit absorption distance $X(z)$, where $dX=\frac{H_0}{H(z)}(1+z)^2
234: dz$. The function $f(\NHI, X)$ is usually referred to as the column
235: density distribution function.
236:
237: Figure~\ref{fig:nh}a shows that, from $z=10$ to $z=6$, the incidence
238: rate increases monotonically with decreasing redshift at all $\NHI$,
239: reflecting the rapidly growing number of dark matter halos. From
240: $z=6$ to $z=3$, there is not much change at $\log\NHI>22$, but the
241: number of columns at $\log \NHI<21$ has decreased significantly, which
242: could owe to the UV background radiation field imposed at $z=6$ in the
243: simulation to model reionization. From $z=3$ to $z=2$, the number of
244: columns at $\log\NHI>22$ increases, but it decreases from $z=2$ to
245: $z=1$, owing to the conversion of high-density gas into stars.
246:
247: If long GRBs are associated with the collapse of massive stars,
248: then their occurrence should be correlated with the local SFR.
249: Therefore we define the following to quantify the distribution
250: of \GDLAs:
251: \begin{equation}
252: \zgrb \equiv \frac{d^2 n}{dX d\log \Ssfr}~ \frac{\Ssfr}{\avg{\Ssfr}}~\egrb,
253: \label{eq:grb_rate}
254: \end{equation}
255: where $\Ssfr$ is the projected SFR in units of $[\Msun\,\yr^{-1}\,\kpc^{-2}]$,
256: and $\avg{\Ssfr}$ is a normalization parameter. Although it is somewhat
257: arbitrary, we take $\avg{\Ssfr}=10^{-4}$, because it roughly corresponds
258: to $\log \NHI \approx 20$ based on the \citet{Kennicutt98} law.
259: The parameter $\egrb$ denotes the mass fraction of stars that become GRBs
260: and have associated afterglows for a given amount of star formation
261: with a certain stellar initial mass function (IMF).
262: The exact value of $\egrb$ depends on the IMF and other GRB physics.
263: Here, we take $\egrb = 10^{-3}$, because the mass fraction of stars
264: with $M>8\,\Msun$ is 23\% of the total for a \citet{Chab03b} IMF with
265: a mass range [0.1, 100]\,$\Msun$, and the global average of the
266: GRB/SN ratio is $\sim 0.5$\% \citep{Yoon06, Soderberg07, Campana08}.
267: If one takes the number fraction ($\sim 6$\% for $M>8\,\Msun$ stars)
268: instead, then $\egrb = 3\times 10^{-4}$. Here we use the mass fraction,
269: because weighting by $\Ssfr/\avg{\Ssfr}$ is done on the basis of stellar mass.
270:
271: In principle, one could absorb the factor $\avg{\Ssfr}$ into $\egrb$
272: and treat them as one parameter: $\egrb^{\prime} \equiv \egrb/\avg{\Ssfr}$,
273: which would be the GRB rate per projected SFR.
274: However, here we choose to treat them separately to keep the
275: physical meaning of $\egrb$ clear. In the future, GRB theory
276: may be able to estimate the value of $\egrb$, and observations of
277: \GDLAs\ will constrain the ratio of $\egrb/\avg{\Ssfr}$
278: (see \S~\ref{sec:prob} and \ref{sec:discussion}).
279:
280: It is worthwhile to look at the distribution $d^2n/(dX d\log \Ssfr)$,
281: before weighting it by $\Ssfr$. Figure~\ref{fig:nh}b shows that the redshift
282: evolution of this distribution is stronger than in Fig.~\ref{fig:nh}a.
283: The number of columns with $\log \Ssfr \gtrsim -2.5$
284: ($\approx \log \NHI \gtrsim 21.0$ for the Kennicutt law)
285: decreases systematically from $z=1$ to $z=10$.
286:
287:
288: \begin{figure}[t]
289: \begin{center}
290: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fsig_pro.eps}
291: \caption{
292: Distribution of \GDLAs\ as a function of $\Ssfr$ and $\NHGRB$ at $z=1-10$
293: is shown in the bottom panel. The vertical tick-marks indicate the median
294: of the distribution for columns with $\log \Ssfr > -3.0$ or
295: $\log\NHGRB > 20.3$. The top panel shows the observed sample of 28 \GDLAs\
296: from \citet[][broader (finer) hatching for $z<3$ ($z>3$)]{Chen07} and
297: 11 \GDLAs\ from \citet[][yellow shade; excludes those at $z<1.6$ with
298: no $\NHI$ measurements]{Pro07a}.
299: The axis range of $\NHGRB$ corresponding to that of $\Ssfr$ is determined
300: from the empirical \citet{Kennicutt98} law, divided by a factor of 2
301: to take into account of the fact that the GRB LOSs go through only a half
302: of the \HI\ slab on average compared to the QSO LOSs \citep{Pro07a}.
303: }
304: \label{fig:fsig}
305: \end{center}
306: \end{figure}
307:
308:
309: Figure~\ref{fig:fsig} shows $\zgrb$ as a function of $\log \Ssfr$.
310: Because of the weighting by $\Ssfr/\avg{\Ssfr}$, the distribution now
311: exhibits a peak with a broad tail at high $\Ssfr$. The number of columns
312: with $\log \NHI > 21$ decreases progressively from $z=1$ to $z=10$,
313: owing to the decreasing number of massive dark matter halos with deep
314: potential wells towards higher redshifts. This is encouraging for the
315: use of GRB afterglows to probe reionization, because the IGM attenuation
316: signature is less likely to be blocked by the red damping wing of \GDLAs.
317: The median value of the distribution at $\log \Ssfr > -3.0$
318: ($\approx \log\NHI > 20.3$) is
319: $\log \NHI = 21.4, 21.1, 21.0, 20.7, 20.6, \& 20.4$ for
320: $z=1, 2, 3, 6, 8\, \& 10$, respectively.
321:
322: The distributions at $z=1$ \& 2 have broad peaks at $\log \NHI = 21.0-22.3$.
323: The current observed sample \citep{Chen07, Pro07a} is shown in the top
324: panel of Figure~\ref{fig:fsig}, and observationally there appears to be no
325: indication that $\NHI$ drops towards \highz. If there is any observed trend,
326: it might even be in the opposite sense, and all the observed \GDLAs\ are
327: at $z\gtrsim 2$.
328: However the current observed sample is still small, and observational
329: selection effects are at play. For example, systems with low $\NHI$ and
330: low metal content are more difficult to identify, especially at higher
331: redshift where the afterglows are typically fainter.
332: We also note that the decline of the distribution at $\log \Ssfr < -2.5$
333: for $z=1$ \& 2 may owe to the limited resolution of the G5 run compared
334: to the Q5 run.
335:
336: By integrating $\zgrb$ over $\log \Ssfr$, we obtain the `incidence rate'
337: of \GDLAs. The integral at $\log \Ssfr > -3.3$ yields rates of
338: $(6.4, 5.7, 4.4, 1.7, 0.52, 0.14)\times 10^{-4}$ for $z=1, 2, 3, 6, 8\,\& 10$,
339: respectively, for the assumed value of $\egrb / \avg{\Ssfr} = 10$.
340: Figure~\ref{fig:rate} compares the derived incidence rate of \GDLAs\ to that
341: of QSO-DLAs. The red data points are the updated
342: version\footnote{http://www.ucolick.org/\,$\tilde{}$\,xavier/SDSSDLA/}
343: of \citet{Pro05} using SDSS DR5. Our simulations somewhat underpredict the
344: QSO-DLA incidence rate owing to the underestimate of $f(\NHI)$ at
345: $\log \NHI < 21$ \citep{Nag04g}.
346: There is a stark difference between the evolution of the two rates:
347: the incidence rate of \GDLAs\ decreases monotonically towards \highz,
348: whereas the QSO-DLA rate increases from $z=1$ to $z=6$.
349: This is because we assumed that GRBs are correlated with star formation
350: and their distribution is not random, unlike the background quasars.
351: The offset between the two rates tells us about the difference between
352: the total \HI\ cross section of galaxies and the area covering fraction
353: of star-forming regions. The \QDLA\ sight-lines can also probe the
354: outskirts of galaxies where star formation is nonexistent,
355: therefore their incidence rate is much higher than that of \GDLAs.
356:
357:
358: \begin{figure}[t]
359: \begin{center}
360: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{roi_ratio.eps}
361: \caption{{\it Top panel}: Incidence rates of \GDLAs\ and \QDLAs\ as
362: a function of redshift. (See text for the source of the data points.)
363: For \GDLAs, the three blue curves correspond to
364: $\egrb/\avg{\Ssfr}=10^2, 10$, \& 1 from top to bottom.
365: {\it Bottom panel}: Ratio of the two incidence rates.
366: }
367: \label{fig:rate}
368: \end{center}
369: \end{figure}
370:
371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
372:
373: \section{Probability for a Given GRB}
374: \label{sec:prob}
375:
376: Of immediate interest to GRB observers is the chance probability of
377: finding a \GDLA\ for a given GRB event.
378: For individual GRBs, the probability of having a \GDLA\ should depend
379: on the geometry of the \HI\ gas distribution around the GRB along the
380: LOS. While our simulations do not have the resolution to
381: follow the gas dynamics within molecular clouds, the Q5 run has a
382: physical gravitational softening length of 0.31 (0.18)\,$\hikpc$ at
383: $z=3$ (6), and the gas distribution above these scales is followed
384: reasonably well. The O and B stars would have ionized all the gas
385: within $\sim 100$\,pc of the GRB creating an H{\sc ii} region, thus
386: we expect the DLA gas to be located at $> 0.1$\,kpc from the GRB
387: \citep{Pro07a}. Then, our simulations can follow the qualitative trend
388: in the redshift evolution of the incidence rate of \GDLAs.
389:
390: Since our simulations roughly match the Kennicutt law \citep{Nag04f},
391: it is guaranteed that columns with $\log \NHI > 20.3$ will have star
392: formation along the LOS.
393: Therefore if long GRBs are associated with star formation as we
394: have assumed, most of the GRB LOSs will have a high-$\NHI$ gas
395: in their host galaxy, majority of which are \GDLAs.
396: A more detailed analysis would be required to fully confirm this,
397: by generating the absorption line profiles for each GRB LOS, and
398: we plan to examine this in due course using higher resolution
399: simulations.
400:
401: Nevertheless, Figure~\ref{fig:fsig} shows that the number of high-$\NHI$
402: systems decreases with increasing redshift, and so we expect that
403: the chance probability of having a high-$\NHI$ DLA for a given GRB event
404: will also decline towards \highz\ with a similar qualitative trend as shown
405: in Figure~\ref{fig:rate}. But we stress that the incidence rate
406: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:rate} is {\it not} the probability of
407: detecting a DLA for a given GRB.
408:
409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
410:
411: \section{Conclusions \& Discussions}
412: \label{sec:discussion}
413:
414: Using cosmological SPH simulations, we have examined the redshift
415: evolution of incidence rates of \GDLAs, assuming that long GRBs are
416: correlated with local SFR.
417: The distribution of \GDLAs\ is intrinsically different from that
418: of \QDLAs, and the incidence rate of \GDLAs\ decreases monotonically
419: towards \highz, whereas that of \QDLAs\ increases from
420: $z=1$ to $z=6$.
421: Quasars are assumed to be randomly distributed background sources
422: in the sky, which illuminate the DLA gas in foreground galaxies.
423: GRBs can also serve as randomly distributed beacons with respect to
424: the DLA gas in foreground galaxies, but for \GDLAs, GRBs are not random
425: background sources because they are in the same host galaxy.
426:
427: We find that the incidence rate of \GDLAs\ with $\log \NHI > 21.0$
428: decreases rapidly at $z\ge 6$, suggesting that the likelihood of
429: observing the IGM attenuation signature in GRB afterglows increases
430: toward higher redshifts, without being blocked by the red damping of
431: DLAs in the GRB host galaxies. This enhances the prospects for using
432: \highz\ GRBs to probe the reionization history of the Universe.
433: Our predictions can be tested by upcoming \highz\ GRB missions, including
434: {\it JANUS (Joint Astrophysics Nascent Universe Scout)} and
435: {\it SVOM (Space multi-band Variable Object Monitor)}.
436:
437: It might be hoped that it would be possible to estimate the incidence rate
438: of \GDLAs\ by accumulating a large GRB sample. However, because
439: GRBs are not random background sources for \GDLAs, this would require
440: a prohibitively large GRB sample to estimate the area covering fraction
441: of \GDLAs\ from GRB observations alone. If long GRBs do indeed trace
442: star-forming regions, and if all the LOSs to star-forming regions are
443: coincident with DLAs, then one could estimate the total \GDLA\ incidence
444: rate simply by measuring the area covering fraction of star-forming
445: regions from deep imaging surveys of galaxies.
446: When the number of GRBs becomes comparable to that of QSOs, one should
447: expect non-negligible new intervening DLAs in GRB LOSs that are not
448: associated with GRB hosts, since GRB afterglows now act as random beacons.
449:
450: An alternative possibility would be to search for quasars in the proximity
451: of GRBs, or vice versa. Such a search of QSO-GRB pair-LOSs would yield
452: a coincidence probability between \QDLAs\ and \GDLAs, which roughly
453: corresponds to the ratio of the two incidence rates.
454: For this purpose, only those systems, for which the QSOs are in the
455: background and the GRBs in the foreground, can be used.
456: So far, no such cases have been identified, but a combination
457: of all-sky GRB surveys (e.g., BATSE, Swift, GLAST) and optical-IR imaging
458: surveys of galaxies (e.g., SDSS, Pan-STARRS, LSST) may prove
459: successful in the future.
460: A constraint on the ratio of the two incidence rates would make it
461: possible to estimate the ratio $\egrb / \Ssfr$.
462: In addition, deep observations of GRB host galaxies could constrain $\Ssfr$
463: independently. Then combining the above two constraints would allow us to
464: estimate the value of $\egrb$.
465:
466:
467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
468:
469: \section*{Acknowledgments}
470:
471: This work is supported in part by the National Aeronautics
472: and Space Administration under Grant/Cooperative Agreement No. NNX08AE57A
473: issued by the Nevada NASA EPSCoR program and the President's
474: Infrastructure Award from UNLV.
475: BZ acknowledges the support from the NASA grant NNG06GH62G.
476: We acknowledge the significant contribution of Volker Springel for the
477: simulations used in this work.
478: KN is grateful for the hospitality of Institute for the Physics and
479: Mathematics of the Universe, The University of Tokyo, where part of
480: this work was done.
481: %The simulations were performed at the Institute of Theory and Computation at
482: %Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the analyses were performed
483: %at the UNLV Cosmology Computing Cluster.
484:
485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
486:
487: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
488: %\bibliography{ken}
489:
490: \begin{thebibliography}{41}
491: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
492:
493: %\bibitem[{{Abel} {et~al.}(2002){Abel}, {Bryan}, \& {Norman}}]{Abel02b}
494: %{Abel}, T., {Bryan}, G.~L., \& {Norman}, M.~L. 2002, Science, 295, 93
495:
496: \bibitem[{{Barkana} \& {Loeb}(2004)}]{Barkana04}
497: {Barkana}, R. \& {Loeb}, A. 2004, \apj, 601, 64
498:
499: \bibitem[{{Berger} {et~al.}(2006){Berger}, {Penprase}, {Cenko}, {Kulkarni},
500: {Fox}, {Steidel}, \& {Reddy}}]{Berger06}
501: {Berger}, E., et al. 2006, \apj, 642, 979
502:
503: %\bibitem[{{Bromm} \& {Loeb}(2006)}]{Bromm06}
504: %{Bromm}, V. \& {Loeb}, A. 2006, \apj, 642, 382
505:
506: \bibitem[{{Campana} {et~al.}(2008){Campana}, {Panagia}, {Lazzati}, {Beardmore},
507: {Cusumano}, {Godet}, {Chincarini}, {Covino}, {Della Valle}, {Guidorzi},
508: {Malesani}, {Moretti}, {Perna}, {Romano}, \& {Tagliaferri}}]{Campana08}
509: {Campana}, S., et al. 2008, arXiv:0805.4698
510:
511: \bibitem[{Chabrier(2003)}]{Chab03b}
512: Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763
513:
514: \bibitem[{{Chen} {et~al.}(2007){Chen}, {Prochaska}, \& {Gnedin}}]{Chen07}
515: {Chen}, H.-W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 667, L125
516:
517: \bibitem[{{Ciardi} \& {Loeb}(2000)}]{Ciardi00}
518: {Ciardi}, B. \& {Loeb}, A. 2000, \apj, 540, 687
519:
520: \bibitem[{{Cusumano} {et~al.}(2006){Cusumano}, {Mangano}, {Chincarini},
521: {Panaitescu}, {Burrows}, {Parola}, {Sakamoto}, {Campana}, {Mineo},
522: {Tagliaferri}, {Angelini}, {Barthelemy}, {Beardmore}, {Boyd}, {Cominsky},
523: {Gronwall}, {Fenimore}, {Gehrels}, {Giommi}, {Goad}, {Hurley}, {Kennea},
524: {Mason}, {Marshall}, {M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros}, {Nousek}, {Osborne}, {Palmer},
525: {Roming}, {Wells}, {White}, \& {Zhang}}]{Cusumano06}
526: {Cusumano}, G., et al. 2006, \nat, 440, 164
527:
528: \bibitem[{{Dav{\'e}} {et~al.}(1999){Dav{\'e}}, {Hernquist}, {Katz}, \&
529: {Weinberg}}]{Dave99}
530: {Dav{\'e}}, R., et al. 1999, \apj,
531: 511, 521
532:
533: \bibitem[{{Fan} {et~al.}(2006){Fan}, {Carilli}, \& {Keating}}]{Fan06a}
534: {Fan}, X., {Carilli}, C.~L., \& {Keating}, B. 2006, \araa, 44, 415
535:
536: \bibitem[{{Faucher-Giguere} {et~al.}(2008){Faucher-Giguere}, {Lidz},
537: {Hernquist}, \& {Zaldarriaga}}]{Faucher08a}
538: {Faucher-Giguere}, C.-A., et al. 2008, arXiv:0807.4177
539:
540: \bibitem[{{Faucher-Gigu{\`e}re} {et~al.}(2008){Faucher-Gigu{\`e}re}, {Lidz},
541: {Hernquist}, \& {Zaldarriaga}}]{Faucher08b}
542: {Faucher-Gigu{\`e}re}, C.-A., et al. 2008, \apjl, 682, L9
543:
544: \bibitem[{{Gou} {et~al.}(2004){Gou}, {M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros}, {Abel}, \&
545: {Zhang}}]{Gou04}
546: {Gou}, L.~J., et~al. 2004, \apj, 604, 508
547:
548: \bibitem[{{Haislip} {et~al.}(2006){Haislip}, {Nysewander}, {Reichart}, {Levan},
549: {Tanvir}, {Cenko}, {Fox}, {Price}, {Castro-Tirado}, {Gorosabel}, {Evans},
550: {Figueredo}, {MacLeod}, {Kirschbrown}, {Jelinek}, {Guziy}, {Postigo},
551: {Cypriano}, {Lacluyze}, {Graham}, {Priddey}, {Chapman}, {Rhoads}, {Fruchter},
552: {Lamb}, {Kouveliotou}, {Wijers}, {Bayliss}, {Schmidt}, {Soderberg},
553: {Kulkarni}, {Harrison}, {Moon}, {Gal-Yam}, {Kasliwal}, {Hudec}, {Vitek},
554: {Kubanek}, {Crain}, {Foster}, {Clemens}, {Bartelme}, {Canterna}, {Hartmann},
555: {Henden}, {Klose}, {Park}, {Williams}, {Rol}, {O'Brien}, {Bersier}, {Prada},
556: {Pizarro}, {Maturana}, {Ugarte}, {Alvarez}, {Fernandez}, {Jarvis}, {Moles},
557: {Alfaro}, {Ivarsen}, {Kumar}, {Mack}, {Zdarowicz}, {Gehrels}, {Barthelemy}, \&
558: {Burrows}}]{Haislip06}
559: {Haislip}, J.~B., et al. 2006, \nat, 440, 181
560:
561: \bibitem[{Hernquist \& Springel(2003)}]{Her03}
562: Hernquist, L. \& Springel, V. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1253
563:
564: \bibitem[{{Holder} {et~al.}(2003){Holder}, {Haiman}, {Kaplinghat}, \&
565: {Knox}}]{Holder03}
566: {Holder}, G.~P., et al. 2003, \apj, 595,
567: 13
568:
569: \bibitem[{{Inoue} {et~al.}(2007){Inoue}, {Omukai}, \& {Ciardi}}]{Inoue07}
570: {Inoue}, S., {Omukai}, K., \& {Ciardi}, B. 2007, \mnras, 380, 1715
571:
572: \bibitem[{{Jakobsson} {et~al.}(2006){Jakobsson}, {Fynbo}, {Ledoux},
573: {Vreeswijk}, {Kann}, {Hjorth}, {Priddey}, {Tanvir}, {Reichart}, {Gorosabel},
574: {Klose}, {Watson}, {Sollerman}, {Fruchter}, {de Ugarte Postigo}, {Wiersema},
575: {Bj{\"o}rnsson}, {Chapman}, {Th{\"o}ne}, {Pedersen}, \&
576: {Jensen}}]{Jakobsson06a}
577: {Jakobsson}, P., et al. 2006, \aap, 460, L13
578:
579: \bibitem[{Katz {et~al.}(1996)Katz, Weinberg, \& Hernquist}]{Katz96a}
580: Katz, N., Weinberg, D.~H., \& Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJS, 105, 19
581:
582: \bibitem[{{Kawai} {et~al.}(2006){Kawai}, {Kosugi}, {Aoki}, {Yamada}, {Totani},
583: {Ohta}, {Iye}, {Hattori}, {Aoki}, {Furusawa}, {Hurley}, {Kawabata},
584: {Kobayashi}, {Komiyama}, {Mizumoto}, {Nomoto}, {Noumaru}, {Ogasawara},
585: {Sato}, {Sekiguchi}, {Shirasaki}, {Suzuki}, {Takata}, {Tamagawa}, {Terada},
586: {Watanabe}, {Yatsu}, \& {Yoshida}}]{Kawai06}
587: {Kawai}, N., et al. 2006, \nat, 440, 184
588:
589: \bibitem[{Kennicutt(1998)}]{Kennicutt98}
590: Kennicutt, R. C.~J. 1998, \apj, 498, 541
591:
592: \bibitem[{{Lamb} \& {Reichart}(2000)}]{Lamb00}
593: {Lamb}, D.~Q. \& {Reichart}, D.~E. 2000, \apj, 536, 1
594:
595: \bibitem[{{McQuinn} {et~al.}(2008){McQuinn}, {Lidz}, {Zaldarriaga},
596: {Hernquist}, \& {Dutta}}]{McQuinn08a}
597: {McQuinn}, M., et al. 2008, \mnras, 388, 1101
598:
599: \bibitem[{{Miralda-Escude}(1998)}]{Miralda98a}
600: {Miralda-Escude}, J. 1998, \apj, 501, 15
601:
602: \bibitem[{{Nagamine} {et~al.}(2006){Nagamine}, {Ostriker}, {Fukugita}, \&
603: {Cen}}]{Nag06c}
604: {Nagamine}, K., et~al. 2006, \apj, 653, 881
605:
606: \bibitem[{{Nagamine} {et~al.}(2008){Nagamine}, {Ouchi}, {Springel}, \&
607: {Hernquist}}]{Nag08b}
608: {Nagamine}, K., et al. 2008, ApJ, submitted (arXiv:0802.0228)
609:
610: \bibitem[{{Nagamine} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{a}}){Nagamine}, {Springel}, \&
611: {Hernquist}}]{Nag04g}
612: {Nagamine}, K., et al. 2004{\natexlab{a}}, \mnras,
613: 348, 421
614:
615: \bibitem[{{Nagamine} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{b}}){Nagamine}, {Springel}, \&
616: {Hernquist}}]{Nag04f}
617: ---. 2004{\natexlab{b}}, \mnras, 348, 435
618:
619: \bibitem[{{Nagamine} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{c}}){Nagamine}, {Springel},
620: {Hernquist}, \& {Machacek}}]{Nag04e}
621: {Nagamine}, K., et~al. 2004{\natexlab{c}}, \mnras, 350, 385
622:
623: \bibitem[{{Nagamine} {et~al.}(2007){Nagamine}, {Wolfe}, {Hernquist}, \&
624: {Springel}}]{Nag07a}
625: {Nagamine}, K., et~al. 2007, \apj, 660, 945
626:
627: \bibitem[{{Night} {et~al.}(2006){Night}, {Nagamine}, {Springel}, \&
628: {Hernquist}}]{Night06}
629: {Night}, C., et~al. 2006, \mnras, 366, 705
630:
631: \bibitem[{{Paczynski}(1998)}]{Paczynski98}
632: {Paczynski}, B. 1998, \apjl, 494, L45
633:
634: \bibitem[{{Prochaska} {et~al.}(2007){Prochaska}, {Chen}, {Dessauges-Zavadsky},
635: \& {Bloom}}]{Pro07a}
636: {Prochaska}, J.~X., et al. 2007, \apj, 666, 267
637:
638: \bibitem[{{Prochaska} {et~al.}(2005){Prochaska}, {Herbert-Fort}, \&
639: {Wolfe}}]{Pro05}
640: {Prochaska}, J.~X., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 123
641:
642: \bibitem[{{Ruiz-Velasco} {et~al.}(2007){Ruiz-Velasco}, {Swan}, {Troja},
643: {Malesani}, {Fynbo}, {Starling}, {Xu}, {Aharonian}, {Akerlof}, {Andersen},
644: {Ashley}, {Barthelemy}, {Bersier}, {Castro Cer{\'o}n}, {Castro-Tirado},
645: {Gehrels}, {G{\"o}{\u g}{\"u}{\c s}}, {Gorosabel}, {Guidorzi}, {G{\"u}ver},
646: {Hjorth}, {Horns}, {Huang}, {Jakobsson}, {Jensen}, {K{\i}z{\i}lo{\u g}lu},
647: {Kouveliotou}, {Krimm}, {Ledoux}, {Levan}, {Marsh}, {McKay}, {Melandri},
648: {Milvang-Jensen}, {Mundell}, {O'Brien}, {{\"O}zel}, {Phillips}, {Quimby},
649: {Rowell}, {Rujopakarn}, {Rykoff}, {Schaefer}, {Sollerman}, {Tanvir},
650: {Th{\"o}ne}, {Urata}, {Vestrand}, {Vreeswijk}, {Watson}, {Wheeler}, {Wijers},
651: {Wren}, {Yost}, {Yuan}, {Zhai}, \& {Zheng}}]{Ruiz07}
652: {Ruiz-Velasco}, A.~E., et al. 2007, \apj, 669, 1
653:
654: \bibitem[{{Savaglio}(2006)}]{Savaglio06a}
655: {Savaglio}, S. 2006, New Journal of Physics, 8, 195
656:
657: %\bibitem[{{Schaefer} {et~al.}(2001){Schaefer}, {Deng}, \& {Band}}]{Schaefer01}
658: %{Schaefer}, B.~E., {Deng}, M., \& {Band}, D.~L. 2001, \apjl, 563, L123
659:
660: \bibitem[{{Soderberg}(2007)}]{Soderberg07}
661: {Soderberg}, A.~M. 2007, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series,
662: Vol. 937, Supernova 1987A: 20 Years After: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters,
663: ed. S.~{Immler} \& R.~{McCray}, 492--499
664:
665: \bibitem[{{Springel}(2005)}]{Springel05e}
666: {Springel}, V. 2005, \mnras, 364, 1105
667:
668: \bibitem[{{Springel} \& {Hernquist}(2003{\natexlab{a}})}]{Springel03b}
669: {Springel}, V. \& {Hernquist}, L. 2003{\natexlab{a}}, \mnras, 339, 289
670:
671: \bibitem[{{Springel} \& {Hernquist}(2003{\natexlab{b}})}]{Springel03a}
672: ---. 2003{\natexlab{b}}, \mnras, 339, 312
673:
674: \bibitem[{{Totani}(1997)}]{Totani97a}
675: {Totani}, T. 1997, \apjl, 486, L71
676:
677: \bibitem[{{Totani} {et~al.}(2006){Totani}, {Kawai}, {Kosugi}, {Aoki}, {Yamada},
678: {Iye}, {Ohta}, \& {Hattori}}]{Totani06}
679: {Totani}, T., et al. 2006, \pasj, 58, 485
680:
681: \bibitem[{{Vreeswijk} {et~al.}(2004){Vreeswijk}, {Ellison}, {Ledoux}, {Wijers},
682: {Fynbo}, {M{\o}ller}, {Henden}, {Hjorth}, {Masi}, {Rol}, {Jensen}, {Tanvir},
683: {Levan}, {Castro Cer{\'o}n}, {Gorosabel}, {Castro-Tirado}, {Fruchter},
684: {Kouveliotou}, {Burud}, {Rhoads}, {Masetti}, {Palazzi}, {Pian}, {Pedersen},
685: {Kaper}, {Gilmore}, {Kilmartin}, {Buckle}, {Seigar}, {Hartmann}, {Lindsay},
686: \& {van den Heuvel}}]{Vreeswijk04}
687: {Vreeswijk}, P.~M., et al. 2004, \aap, 419, 927
688:
689: \bibitem[{{Watson} {et~al.}(2006){Watson}, {Fynbo}, {Ledoux}, {Vreeswijk},
690: {Hjorth}, {Smette}, {Andersen}, {Aoki}, {Augusteijn}, {Beardmore}, {Bersier},
691: {Castro Cer{\'o}n}, {D'Avanzo}, {Diaz-Fraile}, {Gorosabel}, {Hirst},
692: {Jakobsson}, {Jensen}, {Kawai}, {Kosugi}, {Laursen}, {Levan}, {Masegosa},
693: {N{\"a}r{\"a}nen}, {Page}, {Pedersen}, {Pozanenko}, {Reeves}, {Rumyantsev},
694: {Shahbaz}, {Sharapov}, {Sollerman}, {Starling}, {Tanvir}, {Torstensson}, \&
695: {Wiersema}}]{Watson06}
696: {Watson}, D., et al. 2006, \apj, 652, 1011
697:
698: \bibitem[{{Woosley}(1993)}]{Woosley93}
699: {Woosley}, S.~E. 1993, \apj, 405, 273
700:
701: \bibitem[{{Yoon} {et~al.}(2006){Yoon}, {Langer}, \& {Norman}}]{Yoon06}
702: {Yoon}, S.-C., {Langer}, N., \& {Norman}, C. 2006, \aap, 460, 199
703:
704: %\bibitem[{{Yoshida} {et~al.}(2007){Yoshida}, {Omukai}, \&
705: %{Hernquist}}]{Yoshida07}
706: %{Yoshida}, N., {Omukai}, K., \& {Hernquist}, L. 2007, \apj, 667, 117
707:
708: \end{thebibliography}
709:
710:
711: \end{document}
712: