1: \documentstyle[times,graphics,astrobib,amssymb]{mn2e}
2:
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\e}{\end{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\bear}{\begin{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\ear}{\end{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand{\nline}{\nonumber \\}
8: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}
9: \newcommand{\de}{{\rm d}}
10: \newcommand{\hmpc}{$h^{-1}$\,Mpc}
11: \newcommand{\hkpc}{$h^{-1}$\,Kpc}
12:
13: \title[Cosmology with GRBs]
14: {Probing the dark ages with redshift distribution of GRBs}
15: \author[Choudhury \& Srianand]
16: {T. Roy Choudhury\thanks{E-mail: tirth@iucaa.ernet.in},
17: R. Srianand\thanks{E-mail: anand@iucaa.ernet.in}\\
18: IUCAA, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007, India.}
19:
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: \maketitle
24: \begin{abstract}
25: In this article, we explore the possibility of using the properties of gamma
26: ray bursts (GRBs) to probe the physical conditions in the epochs prior
27: to reionization.
28: The redshift distribution of GRBs is modelled
29: using the Press-Schechter formalism with an
30: assumption that they follow the cosmic
31: star formation history.
32: We reproduce the observed star formation rate
33: obtained from
34: galaxies in the redshift range $0 < z < 5$,
35: as well as the redshift distribution
36: of the GRBs inferred from the luminosity-variability
37: correlation of the
38: burst light curve.
39: We show that the fraction of GRBs at high redshifts,
40: whose afterglows cannot be observed in
41: R and I band
42: due to H{\sc i} Gunn Peterson optical depth can, at the most,
43: account for \emph {one third of the dark GRBs}.
44: The observed redshift distribution of GRBs,
45: with much less scatter than the one
46: available today, can put stringent constraints on the epoch
47: of reionization and the nature of gas cooling in the epochs prior
48: to reionization.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51:
52: \begin{keywords}
53: cosmology: theory --- early universe --- gamma rays: bursts
54: \end{keywords}
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57:
58: The usefulness of gamma ray bursts (GRBs) to probe the evolution
59: of the universe is realized ever since the redshift measurements
60: of GRBs became possible \cite{kdr++98}. A direct connection
61: between the GRBs and star formation rate (SFR) in the host galaxy
62: is expected in the two popular models for GRB progenitors
63: (collapsar and binary coalescence). There are also growing
64: observational indications for the association of supernova-like
65: components in several afterglows \cite{gbw++99,bkd++99}. If indeed
66: the rate of formation of GRBs is related to the SFR
67: of host galaxy, they can be used as an effective probe of the star
68: formation history of the universe \cite{lr00,pm01,cl00,bn00,bl02}.
69: Thus the redshift distribution of GRBs can complement the studies
70: based on Lyman break galaxies in understanding the cosmic star formation
71: history. At present only few tens of GRBs have redshift measurement
72: and the list is, by no means, statistically complete. Recently
73: it has been suggested that the redshift distribution of the GRBs
74: can be probed using the global correlation that seems to exist
75: between different observables of the afterglow. The redshift
76: distribution of GRBs, albeit with large scatter, can be obtained using
77: the correlation between GRB luminosity and variability
78: \cite{fr00,rlfrch01,lfr02}.
79:
80: The formation of galaxies and cosmic star formation histories have been
81: studied extensively through analytical calculations and numerical
82: simulations (see, for example, \citeN{ro77}, \citeN{wr78},
83: \citeN{kwh96}, \citeN{go97}, \citeN{co00}).
84: These studies have been extended to investigate
85: the cosmological implications of the GRBs. In this work, we take a simple
86: model of the cosmic star formation history, based on Press-Schechter
87: theory of collapsing
88: haloes
89: (in this work, the term `halo' is used for
90: referring to the dark matter halo)
91: and elementary ideas on cooling and galaxy
92: formation. The SFR density at low redshift in the model
93: is constrained by the rest-UV luminosity observations of galaxies
94: \cite{temdb98,csb99,sagdp99,spf01}.
95: However, at high redshifts (say $z \ge 6$) the nature of reionization
96: (viz. the epoch of reionization and nature of baryonic cooling in
97: haloes) strongly influence the star formation history. The main aim
98: of this article is to use observed redshift distribution of GRBs
99: to probe the physical processes in the pre-reionization epoch.
100: Indeed, one cannot probe this epoch directly in the optical
101: wave band due to high Gunn-Peterson
102: optical depth even if the intergalactic medium (IGM)
103: is not completely neutral.
104:
105:
106: \section{Analytical Formalism and Model Parameters}
107:
108:
109: We use the Press-Schechter (PS) formalism to obtain the comoving number
110: density of collapsed objects having mass in the range $(M, M + \de M)$,
111: which are formed at the redshift interval $(z_c, z_c + \de z_c)$
112: and observed at redshift $z$ \cite{sasaki94,co00}
113: \bear
114: N(M,z,z_c) \de M \de z_c &=&
115: N_M(z_c) \left(\f{\delta_c}{D(z) \sigma(M)}\right)^2
116: \f{\dot{D}(z_c)}{D(z_c)} \nline
117: &\times&\f{D(z_c)}{D(z)} \f{\de z_c}{H(z_c)
118: (1 + z_c)} \de M
119: \ear
120: where the overdot represents derivative with respect to time.
121: The parameter
122: $N_M(z_c) \de M$ is the number of collapsed objects per unit comoving
123: volume within a mass range $(M, M+\de M)$ at redshift $z_c$, known as
124: the PS mass function \cite{ps74}, and $\delta_c$ is the
125: critical overdensity for collapse, usually taken to be equal to 1.69
126: for a matter dominated flat universe $(\Omega_m=1)$.
127: This parameter is quite insensitive to cosmology and hence the same value
128: can be used for all cosmological models \cite{ecf96}. The other parameters
129: are: $H(z)$ is the Hubble parameter,
130: $D(z)$ is the growth factor for linear perturbations and
131: $\sigma(M)$ is the rms mass fluctuation at a mass scale~$M$.
132:
133: At early epochs, (i.e., redshifts larger than the reionization
134: redshift, $z > z_{\rm re}$), the lower mass cutoff for the
135: haloes which can host star formation will be
136: decided by the cooling efficiency of the baryons. Indeed, the absence of
137: heavier elements and lower freezout molecular fraction of hydrogen
138: ($f_{{\rm H}_2} \simeq 10^{-6}$) in the primordial gas favours pure atomic
139: cooling of the gas. This process can only make the gas cool upto 10$^4$ K.
140: However, if one can somehow increase H$_2$ (and probably HD) content of
141: the gas, the final temperature can be reduced which can lead to the
142: formation of
143: cold gas condensations within the
144: low mass haloes \cite{tsrbap97}.
145: Density enhancement during the collapse of the haloes can
146: increase the molecular fraction upto $10^{-4}$ in central parts of the
147: haloes \cite{har00}. However, the Lyman and Werner band photons
148: that are produced by luminous objects can easily destroy
149: these H$_2$ molecules. \citeN{har00} have shown that
150: the haloes smaller than $T_{\rm vir} = 10^{2.4}$ K cannot cool
151: even in the absence of any Lyman and Werner band flux.
152: In what follows we consider models with $T_{\rm vir} = 300$,
153: $10^3$ and $10^4$~K separately, which
154: essentially covers
155: the whole range of possibilities.
156:
157: After the universe has been reionized ($z < z_{\rm re}$),
158: the lower mass cutoff for the haloes which are
159: able to host star formation is set by the
160: photoionization temperature ($T \simeq 10^4$ K).
161: It is known from simulations that the photoionizing
162: background suppresses galaxy formation within haloes
163: with circular velocities less than 35 km s$^{-1}$, while the mass
164: of cooled baryons is reduced by 50\%
165: for haloes with circular velocities $\sim$ 50 km s$^{-1}$
166: \cite{tw96}. However, the exact value will depend on the
167: intensity and spectral shape of the ionizing background radiation.
168: We consider this as a free parameter spanning a range of 35
169: km s$^{-1}$ to 75 km s$^{-1}$ for the circular velocity cutoff
170: ($v_c^{\rm cut}$).
171: Note that $v_c^{\rm cut}$
172: is taken to be time-independent -- hence, it does not correspond to
173: the linear theory Jeans mass (which
174: decreases with time) \cite{gnedin00}.
175: Also, in our model, the change from the neutral to reionized phase happens
176: abruptly at $z = z_{\rm re}$.
177: However, in realistic models one needs to consider the
178: transition region where considerable fraction of gas remains in the
179: ionized phase.
180: This will lead to an extra suppression in the low mass haloes even in
181: the pre-overlapping era.
182:
183: We assume that the SFR, of a halo of mass $M$ which is
184: formed at redshift $z_c$, is given by \cite{els62,co92,gnedin96}
185: \bear
186: \dot{M}_{\rm SF}(M,z,z_c) &=& \epsilon_{\rm SF}
187: \left(\f{\Omega_b}{\Omega_m} M \right)
188: \f{t(z)-t(z_c)}{t_{\rm dyn}^2} \nline
189: &\times&
190: \exp\left[-\f{t(z)-t(z_c)}{ t_{\rm dyn}}\right]
191: \ear
192: where $\epsilon_{\rm SF}$ is a efficiency parameter for
193: the conversion
194: of gas into stars.
195: The function $t(z)$ gives the age of the universe at redshift $z$;
196: thus, $t(z)-t(z_c)$ is the age of the collapsed halo at $z$.
197: We have assumed here that the duration
198: of star formation activity in a given
199: halo extends over a dynamical
200: time-scale $t_{\rm dyn}$.
201: The exponential decrease of the SFR comes from the assumption that it
202: is proportional to the mass of the cold gas
203: (= total baryonic mass {\it minus} the mass already gone into stars)
204: inside the halo (Schmidt's law).
205: We use data obtained from rest-UV luminosities of galaxies,
206: compiled and corrected for extinction by \citeN{spf01},
207: to normalize $\epsilon_{\rm SF}$.
208: Physically, this quantity depends on the metallicity
209: of the gas and the effect of feedback due to outflows
210: and local radiation field.
211: For simplicity, we assume this to be
212: independent of redshift for most of this article.
213: Now we can write the cosmic SFR per unit comoving
214: volume at a redshift $z$,
215: \begin{equation}
216: \dot{\rho}_{\rm SF}(z) = \int_z^{\infty} \de z_c
217: \int_M^{\infty} \de M' \dot{M}_{\rm SF}(M',z,z_c)
218: \times N(M',z,z_c).
219: \end{equation}
220: The lower mass cutoff $M$ at a given epoch is decided by the
221: Jeans criteria as explained above.
222:
223: Assuming the formation GRBs is closely related to the formation
224: of stars, we get the birthrate of GRBs at redshift $z$
225: per unit comoving volume as
226: \be
227: \phi(z) = f \dot{\rho}_{\rm SF}(z)
228: \e
229: where $f$ is a efficiency factor which links the formation of
230: stars to that of GRBs. It is the number of GRBs per
231: unit mass of forming stars, hence it depends on the fraction of
232: mass contained in (high mass) stars which are potential progenitors
233: of the GRBs. This implies that $f$ is crucially
234: dependent on the slope of the
235: stellar initial mass function (IMF).
236:
237:
238: Given the formation rate, it is straightforward to obtain the rate
239: of GRB events
240: per unit redshift range
241: expected over the whole sky at present:
242: \be
243: \f{\de \dot{N}^{\rm GRB}}{\de z} = \phi(z) \f{1}{1+z} \f{\de V(z)}{\de z}
244: \e
245: where the factor $(1+z)$ is due to the time dilation between $z$ and the
246: present epoch, and $\de V(z)$ is the comoving volume element
247: \be
248: \de V(z) = 4 \pi c ~ \f{d_L^2(z)}{H(z) (1+z)^2} \de z
249: \e
250: The parameter $d_L(z)$ is the luminosity distance. Note that the
251: difference between $\phi(z)$ and $\de \dot{N}^{\rm GRB}/\de z$ is
252: purely geometrical in nature.
253: The number of GRBs per
254: unit redshift range observed over a time $\Delta t_{\rm obs}$
255: is then given by
256: \be
257: \f{\de N}{\de z} = \f{\de \Omega}{4 \pi}
258: \Delta t_{\rm obs} \Phi(z) \f{\de \dot{N}^{\rm GRB}}{\de z}
259: \label{dndz}
260: \e
261: where $\de \Omega/4 \pi$ is the mean
262: beaming factor and $\Phi(z)$ is the
263: weight factor due to the limited sensitivity of the detector, because of
264: which, only brightest bursts will be observed at higher redshifts.
265:
266: \section{Results and Discussion:}
267:
268:
269: The analysis presented here is based on LCDM model with the
270: parameters $\Omega_m=0.3, \Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7, h=0.65,
271: \Omega_b h^2=0.02, \sigma_8=0.93, n=1$.
272: We consider three epochs of reionization ($z_{\rm re}$),
273: three virial temperatures ($T_{\rm vir}$) upto which the gas can cool before
274: reionization (i.e $z \ge z_{\rm re}$) and three circular
275: velocity cutoff (${v_c^{\rm cut}}$) for epoch after
276: reionization.
277: For a given set of model parameters,
278: changing the reionization epoch is equivalent to changing
279: the escape fraction of Lyman limit photons from the haloes.
280: The SFR density obtained from our model is plotted as a function
281: of redshift in Fig~\ref{fig1}. In the panel (a) we plot
282: the results for three epochs of reionization for $T_{\rm vir} =
283: 10^4$ K(solid curves) and 300 K (dashed curves) considering
284: $v_c^{\rm cut} = 35$ km s$^{-1}$.
285: %
286: \begin{center}
287: \begin{figure*}
288: \resizebox{0.99\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}}
289: \caption{
290: The SFR density as a function of
291: redshift.
292: In the panel (a) we plot
293: the results for three epochs of reionization ($z_{\rm re} = 6$, 9 and 12)
294: for $T_{\rm vir} = 10^4$ K(solid curves) and 300 K (dashed curves) considering
295: $v_c^{\rm cut} = 35$ km s$^{-1}$.
296: In panel (b) the results are plotted for
297: $v_c^{\rm cut}$ = 35, 50 and 75 km s$^{-1}$ considering
298: $T_{\rm vir} = 10^4$ K and $z_{\rm re} = 6$.
299: The curves are normalized using
300: the extinction corrected
301: data points
302: from Somerville, Primack, \& Faber (2001).}
303: \label{fig1}
304: \end{figure*}
305: \end{center}
306: \vspace{-0.6cm}
307:
308: Our models consistently reproduce the observed points
309: inferred from
310: rest-UV luminosities of
311: galaxies at $z \le 5$
312: for $\epsilon_{\rm SF}$ of 0.1. Indeed the maxima in the curve
313: occurs in the pre-reionization era. This is mainly due to the
314: substantial contribution from the low mass haloes where
315: the star formation is not suppressed by the photoionization
316: \cite{bl00,bl02}.
317: However, as expected, the SFR density depends
318: strongly on the epoch of reionization and the nature of the cooling
319: (hence $T_{\rm vir}$).
320: Interesting point to
321: note is that across the reionization epoch there is
322: upto 3 fold increase in the SFR density. This should
323: be considered as a strict upper limit as
324: is achieved when the Lyman and Werner band photons are completely
325: absent (hence $T_{\rm vir}=300$ K).
326: Additional difference of factor two could be introduced
327: across $z_{\rm re}$ by increasing the $v_c^{\rm cut}$ to
328: 75 km s$^{-1}$, thereby
329: suppressing star formation in more low-mass haloes
330: in the post-recombination era, which is shown in panel (b).
331:
332: \subsection{Dark GRBs:}
333:
334:
335: The optical afterglows are only detected in one third of the well
336: localized GRBs
337: \cite{fjg+01,lcg02,ry01}.
338: The GRBs without afterglows are called dark GRBs.
339: The optical limits obtained in the case
340: of dark afterglows are fainter than the detected ones.
341: This suggests
342: that the dark GRBs can not be accounted for by the failure to image
343: deeply enough quickly
344: (see \citeN{rp02} and references therein).
345: The reason for these missing optical afterglows is attributed
346: either (i) to the extinction in the host galaxy, or (ii) to the fact
347: that some of the GRBs lie beyond the reionization epoch and the
348: neutral IGM absorbs the afterglow. Indeed high-$z$ QSO observations
349: show complete Gunn-Peterson absorption for $z \ge 6$ QSOs
350: \cite{fnl+01,dcs+01}.
351:
352: Our model predicts the redshift distribution of GRBs for a given $f$.
353: Realistically, time evolution of the mass function
354: of stars (for example triggered by the evolving metallicity)
355: and the change in mean properties of the interstellar medium (ISM)
356: will introduce time
357: dependency for $f$. However, here we assume
358: $f$ to be constant.
359:
360: To predict the {\it observed} redshift distribution, one
361: needs to take into account the fact that only the brightest bursts
362: will be observed at higher redshifts due to limited detector
363: sensitivity.
364: We take this into account by
365: assuming a luminosity function of the form
366: \be
367: \psi(L) \propto \left(\f{L}{L_0}\right)^{\gamma}
368: \exp\left(-\f{L_0}{L}\right)
369: \e
370: and then calculating the fraction of GRBs observed, $\Phi(z)$, at a
371: particular $z$ using the relation
372: \be
373: \Phi(z) = \f{\int_{L_{\rm min}(z)}^{\infty} \psi(L) \de L}
374: {\int_0^{\infty} \psi(L) \de L}
375: \e
376: Here,
377: $L$ is the ``isotropic
378: equivalent'' intrinsic burst luminosity in the energy band $30 - 2000$ keV
379: (as defined by \citeN{pm01}) and
380: $L_{\rm min}(z)$ is the corresponding
381: minimum intrinsic luminosity that can be
382: observed with the detector.
383: We consider two separate cases -- {\bf Case A:} $\psi(L)$, and hence,
384: $L_0$ is independent of
385: $z$, and {\bf Case B:} $\psi(L)$ evolves with redshift, with the evolution
386: given by $L_0 \sim (1+z)^{1.4}$ as suggested by \citeN{lfr02}.
387:
388: For a given detector sensitivity,
389: we can determine $L_{\rm min}(z)$ from the relation
390: \be
391: L_{\rm min}(z) =
392: P \f{4 \pi d_L^2(z)
393: \int_{30~{\rm keV}}^{2000~{\rm keV}} E S(E) \de E}
394: {(1+z)
395: \int_{(1+z) E_{\rm min}}^{(1+z) E_{\rm max}} S(E) \de E}
396: \label{burstlum}
397: \e
398: where $P$ is the minimum observed photon flux (sensitivity) at the detector
399: in the energy band $[E_{\rm min}, E_{\rm max}]$ and $S(E)$ is the
400: rest frame GRB energy spectrum. $S(E)$ is taken to be
401: a broken powerlaw with
402: a low-energy spectral
403: index $\alpha$, a high-energy spectral
404: index $\beta$ and a break energy $E_b$ \cite{bmf++93}. In this work,
405: we take $\alpha = -1$ and $\beta = -2.25$, which are the mean values
406: measured by \citeN{pbm++00}, and $E_b = 511$ keV \cite{pm01}.
407:
408: The minimum intrinsic luminosity at $z$ that can be observed by
409: the detector depends on $z$ in two ways: (i) the decrease
410: in the flux due
411: to distance and (ii) K-correction.
412: For the
413: luminosity function, we take $\gamma = -2.5,
414: L_0 = 3.2 \times 10^{51}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ (which are
415: obtained by \citeN{pm01} using the $\log N - \log P$ relation
416: for BATSE bursts)
417: and $[E_{\rm min}, E_{\rm max}] = [50, 300]$ keV. We consider
418: values of $P$ corresponding to two
419: detectors, namely, $P = 0.2$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
420: (BATSE)
421: and $P = 0.04$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ ($Swift$) \cite{lr00}.
422:
423: \begin{figure}
424: \resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig2.eps}}
425: \caption{Powerlaw spectrum of GRB afterglow at different
426: redshifts (labeled at emission wavelength of the Lyman-$\alpha$
427: line) modified by Gunn-Peterson effect of neutral IGM.
428: The effect of damping wings is not considered here.
429: We also plot the window function of the R, I and J bands.
430: This figure illustrates the fact that afterglow will be
431: invisible in R and I band for $z \ge 6.8$ and 8.8 respectively.}
432: \label{fig2}
433: \end{figure}
434:
435: A similar analysis needs to be carried out for the afterglows too.
436: According to the simplest afterglow model
437: of \citeN{wrm97}, the spectrum follows a power-law form
438: when observed in the optical and X-ray wave-bands
439: about 1 day after the burst. A simple analysis
440: shows that the afterglow of the faintest detectable GRB
441: will always be brighter than 23rd magnitude within 1 day
442: after the burst in both I and R band.
443: Hence, if a substantial fraction of GRB afterglows are not observed
444: in I and R bands within 1 day after the burst, it must be because of
445: radiative transfer effects and \emph {not} because of cosmological effects.
446:
447:
448: We can now predict the percentage fraction of detectable GRBs at redshifts
449: greater than $z$, called $F^{\rm GRB}(z)$.
450: From Fig~\ref{fig2}, it is clear that
451: due to high opacity of the IGM neither the afterglows
452: nor the corresponding host galaxies will be detected in the R and I-band
453: if the GRBs are located at
454: $z\ge6.8$ and 8.8 respectively. The fraction of R and I band dropout
455: afterglows for a range of model parameters and
456: detector sensitivities are given in the fourth
457: to the seventh
458: columns of the Table~\ref{table1} ($F^{\rm GRB}{\rm (R)}$ and
459: $F^{\rm GRB}{\rm (I)}$).
460: The results clearly indicate that even in the optimistic
461: case (with luminosity evolution and high sensitivity of the
462: detectors), only 38\% (25\%)of the afterglows will not be detected
463: in the R (I) band because of the extinction due to the IGM opacity.
464: It is interesting to note that even
465: if the H{\sc i} optical depth of the ISM in the host galaxy
466: is as high as 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$, due to the redshift effect,
467: X-ray absorption produced by this gas will not affect our
468: visibility of this source in the soft X-ray band (0.5 to 2 keV)
469: whenever it is detected in the hard X-rays. However such a
470: gas will produce damped Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption.
471: %
472:
473:
474:
475:
476: \subsection{Redshift distribution of GRBs:}
477:
478: We next compare the differential redshift distribution of
479: GRBs
480: with that obtained
481: using the luminosity - variability $(L - V)$ correlation of GRBs
482: \cite{lfr02,sdb01}.
483: The variability $V$
484: of a GRB gives a measure of the rms fluctuation
485: of the
486: burst light curve around the mean value.
487: For the GRBs with known redshifts, it was seen that
488: there is a correlation
489: between the luminosity and the variability of the light curve,
490: of the form $L \propto V^a$,
491: with $a = 3.35^{+2.45}_{-1.15}$ \cite{fr00},
492: $3.3^{+1.1}_{-0.9}$ \cite{rlfrch01} and
493: $1.57^{+0.48}_{-0.54}$ \cite{lfr02}.
494: The difference between various results is because of
495: the precise definition of variability used.
496: Since the
497: number of GRBs with known redshifts is small ($\sim 20$),
498: the scatter
499: in the $(L - V)$ correlation is very large.
500:
501: \begin{table}
502: \caption{The predicted range in the percentage
503: fraction of dark GRBs due to
504: Gunn-Peterson effect, taking into account
505: two different models for the luminosity evolution (Case A and B).
506: The lower and upper limits of $F$ are obtained with
507: detector sensitivities similar to that of BATSE and $Swift$
508: respectively.}
509: \centerline
510: {
511: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
512: \hline
513: {$z_{\rm re}$} & {$v_c^{\rm cut}$}
514: & {$T_{\rm vir}$}&
515: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$F^{\rm GRB}{\rm (R)}$} &
516: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$F^{\rm GRB}{\rm (I)}$}
517: \\
518: &km s$^{-1}$ & K &
519: {Case A} &
520: {Case B} &
521: {Case A} &
522: {Case B}
523: \\
524: \hline
525: 6 & 75 & $10^4$ & $0.8\!-\!3.9$ & $15.5\!-\!25.6$
526: & $0.2\!-\!0.9$ & $5.6\!-\!11.4$ \\
527: 6 & 50 & $10^4$ & $0.8\!-\!3.5$ & $14.1\!-\!23.7$
528: & $0.2\!-\!0.8$& $5.1\!-\!10.5$ \\
529: 6 & 35 & $10^4$ & $0.7\!-\!3.3$ & $13.3\!-\!22.5$
530: & $0.1\!-\!0.7$& $4.8\!-\!10.0$ \\
531: 6 & 35 & $10^3$ & $1.1\!-\!5.0$ & $20.0\!-\!32.9$
532: & $0.3\!-\!1.4$& $8.8\!-\!17.7$ \\
533: 6 & 35 & $300 $ & $1.3\!-\!5.7$ & $22.7\!-\!36.9$
534: & $0.4\!-\!1.7$& $10.7\!-\!21.1$ \\
535: \\
536: 9 & 35 & $10^4$ & $0.6\!-\!2.7$ & $12.3\!-\!21.8$
537: & $0.1\!-\!0.7$& $5.2\!-\!11.1$ \\
538: 9 & 35 & $10^3$ & $0.9\!-\!4.1$ & $19.1\!-\!33.3$
539: & $0.3\!-\!1.5$& $10.1\!-\!20.7$ \\
540: 9 & 35 & $300 $ & $1.0\!-\!4.7$ & $22.1\!-\!37.9$
541: & $0.4\!-\!1.8$& $12.4\!-\!24.9$ \\
542: \\
543: 12 & 35 & $10^4$ & $0.4\!-\!1.9$ & $8.7\!-\! 16.1$
544: & $0.0\!-\!0.5$& $3.7\!-\!8.4 $ \\
545: 12 & 35 & $10^3$& $0.5\!-\!2.3$ & $12.3\!-\!24.0$
546: & $0.2\!-\!0.9$& $7.3\!-\!16.7$ \\
547: 12 & 35 & $300 $ & $0.5\!-\!2.5$ & $14.3\!-\!28.0$
548: & $0.2\!-\!1.1$& $9.2\!-\!20.9$ \\
549: \hline
550: \end{tabular}
551: }
552: \label{table1}
553: \end{table}
554:
555:
556: From
557: this observed correlation, one can, in principle, obtain the
558: the redshift distribution of GRBs.
559: \citeN{lfr02} use a sample of 220 bursts to obtain the
560: intrinsic cumulative
561: redshift distribution of GRBs
562: $N_{\rm obs}(<1+z)$. Their analysis, that corrects for
563: the truncation effects in the sample due to limited
564: detector sensitivities, gives the \emph {intrinsic} redshift
565: distribution of the GRBs.
566: We distributed this data into logarithmic redshift bins and calculated
567: the slope [which is essentially the
568: differential distribution $\de N_{\rm obs}/\de z$] for each bin.
569: The error in each bin is mainly contributed by the scatter in
570: the $L - V$ correlation.
571:
572: The quantity predicted by our model $\de N/\de z$
573: (given by eq (\ref{dndz}), but without the factor $\Phi(z)$
574: in the right hand side)
575: contains a
576: normalization factor $f \Delta t_{\rm obs} \de \Omega/4 \pi$, which is
577: fixed by fitting to the data
578: using $\chi^2$-minimization technique.
579: In Fig~\ref{fig3}, we show
580: the comparison between our predictions
581: and the data obtained by \citeN{lfr02}
582: using the
583: $L - V$ correlation.
584: %
585: \begin{figure}
586: \resizebox{0.49\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig3.eps}}
587: \caption{
588: The redshift distribution of GRBs for different model parameters.
589: The data points
590: with error bars are from the observed $L -V$ correlation
591: (Lloyd-Ronning, Fryer, and Ramirez-Ruiz 2002).
592: The error bars along the y-axis represent the
593: 1$\sigma$ error due to the scatter
594: in the observed
595: $L - V$ correlation, while the error bars along the x-axis show the bin size.
596: The results from our model are shown for $z_{\rm re} = 6$ and 9, and for
597: three different values of $T_{\rm vir}$ -- namely,
598: $10^4$ K (solid curves), $10^3$ K (dotted curves) and 300 K (dashed curves).
599: }
600: \label{fig3}
601: \end{figure}
602: Most of our models are
603: broadly consistent with the data mainly because of large error bars.
604: It is interesting to note that models
605: with $T_{\rm vir} \le 10^3$ K deviate a lot from the mean
606: observed points; but large errors, mainly from the large
607: scatter in the $L - V$ relation, do not
608: exclude these models. If the errors in the observed distribution
609: reduce, one will be in a position to constrain the epoch of
610: reionization and the contribution of molecular cooling
611: (and other feedback mechanisms) in the formation
612: of first generation of galaxies.
613:
614: \subsection{Discussions and Conclusions}
615:
616: In this article we have modelled the redshift distribution of GRBs
617: assuming that they follow the cosmic star formation history.
618: The main conclusions are summarized below:
619:
620: \noindent
621: (i) A peak in the SFR before reionization is seen because of
622: substantial contribution from the low mass haloes where
623: the star formation is not suppressed by the photoionization
624: (also noticed by \citeN{bl00} and \citeN{bl02}). We show that the
625: redshift distribution of the SFR density
626: depends on the reionization epoch and the
627: minimum virial temperature ($T_{\rm vir}$)
628: of star forming haloes. The minimum virial temperature is set by the
629: nature of the cooling -- if H$_2$ cooling is effective, haloes
630: with much lower virial temperatures can participate in the star formation.
631:
632: \noindent
633: (ii) Our results clearly indicate that even in the optimistic
634: case (with luminosity evolution and high sensitivity of the
635: detectors), only 38\% (25\%)of the afterglows will not be detected
636: in the R (I) band because of the extinction due to the IGM opacity.
637: This means that a
638: substantial fraction of optically dark GRBs ($\gtrsim 66$\%)
639: originate because of effects such as dust extinction
640: \cite{wd00,rtb02,bkb++02}.
641:
642: \noindent
643: (iii) Although our predictions vary a lot as we change our model
644: parameters, we cannot constrain the parameter space effectively
645: because of large scatter in observations. One needs an
646: improved observed redshift distribution to make real
647: progress in understanding the physical processes
648: in epochs prior to the reionization.
649:
650: \noindent
651: (iv) In general,
652: the efficiency parameters $\epsilon_{\rm SF}$ and $f$ depend
653: of redshift. The star
654: forming efficiency $\epsilon_{\rm SF}$ evolves
655: because of its dependence on
656: the metallicity of the collapsing gas and the effect of feedback due to
657: outflows and local radiation field.
658: Similarly, the parameter $f$ evolves
659: as the stellar IMF becomes less top-heavy
660: with decreasing $z$ \cite{larson98}.
661: With improved observational data,
662: one can use our model to constrain the evolution of
663: these parameters.
664:
665: One would naively expect that the
666: presence of damping wing of H{\sc i} absorption could be useful for
667: probing the neutral IGM. However, in a simple picture of GRBs
668: following supernovae, the presence of H{\sc ii} region
669: and damped Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption because of the host galaxy
670: will complicate the matter. Thus, we believe that the redshift
671: distribution with less scatter may be a better way to
672: probe the reionization.
673:
674: \vspace{0.3cm}
675: We thank N. M. Lloyd-Ronning for providing us with data
676: on the cumulative redshift distribution of GRBs.
677: We also thank T. Padmanabhan for useful comments.
678: T.R.C. is supported by the University Grants Commission, India.
679:
680: \bibliography{mnrasmnemonic,astropap}
681:
682: \bibliographystyle{mnras}
683: \end{document}
684: