1: \documentstyle[times,graphics,astrobib,amssymb]{mn2e}
2:
3:
4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\e}{\end{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\bear}{\begin{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand{\ear}{\end{eqnarray}}
8: \newcommand{\nline}{\nonumber \\}
9: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}
10: \newcommand{\de}{{\rm d}}
11: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}
12: %\newcommand{\la}{\langle}
13: %\newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title[Reionization scenarios]
18: {Updating reionization scenarios after recent data}
19: \author[Choudhury \& Ferrara]
20: {T. Roy Choudhury$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail: tirth@cts.iitkgp.ernet.in}~
21: and
22: A. Ferrara$^{2}$\thanks{E-mail: ferrara@sissa.it}\\
23: $^{1}$Centre for Theoretical Studies, Indian Institute of Technology,
24: Kharagpur 721302, India\\
25: $^{2}$SISSA/ISAS, via Beirut 2-4, 34014 Trieste, Italy}
26:
27:
28:
29: \maketitle
30:
31: \date{\today}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: The recent release of data on (i) high redshift source counts from NICMOS HUDF,
35: and (ii) electron scattering optical depth from 3-year WMAP, require a re-examination of
36: reionization scenarios. Using an improved self-consistent model, based on Choudhury \&
37: Ferrara (2005), we determine the range of reionization histories which can match a wide
38: variety of data sets simultaneously.
39: From this improved analysis we find that hydrogen reionization starts
40: around $z = 15$, driven by the metal-free stars (with normal Salpeter-like IMF),
41: and is 90\% complete by $z \approx 10$. The photoionizing power of PopIII stars fades
42: for $z \lesssim 10$ because of the concomitant action of radiative and chemical feedbacks, which
43: causes the reionization process to stretch considerably and to end only by $z \approx 6$.
44: The combination of different data sets still favours a non-zero contribution from
45: metal-free stars, forming with efficiencies $> 2$\%.
46: \end{abstract}
47: \begin{keywords}
48: intergalactic medium cosmology: theory large-scale structure of Universe.
49: \end{keywords}
50: \section{Introduction}
51:
52:
53: The determination of the high Thomson electron scattering optical
54: depth $\tau_{\rm el} = 0.17 \pm 0.04$ in the WMAP 1st year data
55: \cite{ksb++03,svp++03} had been a subject of extensive theoretical
56: study over the last few years.
57: For sudden reionization models, the high value of $\tau_{\rm el}$
58: implied that reionization
59: occurred at very high redshifts $z \approx 15$.
60: This scenario seemed to be at tension with the
61: measured Gunn-Peterson (GP) optical depth $\tau_{\rm GP}(z=6) \gtrsim 6$
62: from the absorption line experiments
63: of $z \gtrsim 6$ Sloan
64: Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) QSOs \cite{fnl+01,fss++03,fsb++05}.
65: Such high values of $\tau_{\rm GP}$ seem to indicate that
66: reionization was complete only at $z \approx 6$.
67:
68: Using a self-consistent formalism confronted with a wide range of observational data sets
69: (redshift evolution of Lyman-limit absorption systems,
70: GP and electron scattering optical depths,
71: temperature of the mean intergalactic gas,
72: and cosmic star formation history),
73: \nocite{cf05} Choudhury \& Ferrara (2005; hereafter CF05)
74: showed that the most favourable model
75: is the one in which hydrogen reionization was complete
76: at $z \approx 12$.
77: By using the statistics of dark gaps in the Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux,
78: this early reionization model was also shown not to be in conflict
79: with QSO absorption line experiments at $z \gtrsim 6$ \cite{gcf05}.
80: However,
81: a nearly equally good fit to the data could be achieved
82: for late reionization scenarios too (i.e., scenarios
83: in which reionization is complete only at $z \approx 6$), particularly
84: if one relaxes the constraints on $\tau_{\rm el}$. Given this,
85: the need was to find an additional way to distinguish between the early and
86: late reionization models,
87: either through new
88: theoretical methods \cite{gcf05} or from additional observational constraints.
89:
90: Fortunately, two new sets of data have been made available
91: recently which could help in constraining the reionization history. First
92: is the observations of high redshift sources
93: in the NICMOS HUDF \cite{bitf05}, where the analysis indicate that the number
94: of sources at $z \approx 10$ should be three or fewer.
95: This inevitably rules out the occurrence of very massive
96: ($\gtrsim 300 M_{\odot}$) stars \cite{sf05}.
97: The second set
98: of observations is the release of 3-year WMAP data \cite{hnb++06,phk++06,sbd++06}, which gives a
99: lower value of $\tau_{\rm el} = 0.09 \pm 0.03$, thus
100: questioning very early reionization scenarios.
101:
102: Given these new data sets, it is important to find out the
103: updated constraints on reionization using self-consistent
104: models. More importantly, one has to address the issue as to which
105: reionization histories
106: are still viable and which sources are responsible for it.
107: In this work, we extend the model of CF05 incorporating
108: some additional physics (like chemical feedback) thus reducing the
109: number of free parameters. We
110: then confront the model with a wide variety of available data sets (including the two
111: most recent ones above) with the aim of identifying a
112: set of parameter values which can fit {\it all} the
113: data sets simultaneously.
114:
115: \section{Model Description}
116:
117: In this Section, we first summarize the main features of the model
118: introduced in CF05; following that we discuss the modifications and
119: improvements made for the purpose of this work.
120:
121: \subsection{Summary of the model}
122:
123: The main features of the semi-analytical model used in CF05 could
124: be summarized along the following points (for detailed explanations
125: see CF05). The model accounts for IGM inhomogeneities by adopting
126: a lognormal distribution according to the method outlined in \citeN{mhr00};
127: reionization is said to be complete once all the low-density regions (say, with overdensities $\Delta <
128: \Delta_{\rm crit} \sim 60$) are ionized.
129: Hence, the distribution of high density regions determines the
130: mean free path of photons
131: \be
132: \lambda_{\rm mfp}(z) = \f{\lambda_0}{[1 - F_V(z)]^{2/3}}
133: \label{eq:lambda_0}
134: \e
135: where $F_V$ is the volume fraction of ionized regions and $\lambda_0$ is a normalization constant fixed
136: by comparing with low redshift observations. We follow the ionization and thermal histories
137: of neutral, HII and HeIII regions simultaneously and self-consistently, treating the IGM
138: as a multi-phase medium. As reionization by UV sources is accompanied by heating of the medium, which
139: can suppress star formation in low-mass halos, we compute the corresponding radiative feedback self-consistently
140: from the evolution of the thermal properties of the IGM.
141: To calculate the ionizing flux, three sources have been assumed: (i) metal-free (i.e., PopIII) stars, which dominate
142: the flux at high redshifts. In CF05, they were assumed to be massive ($M \geq 100 M_{\odot}$);
143: (ii) PopII stars with sub-solar metallicities having a Salpeter IMF in the mass range $1 - 100 M_{\odot}$.
144: The transition redshift, $z_{\rm trans}$
145: from PopIII to PopII stars was a free parameter, usually fixed to be $z_{\rm trans} \gtrsim 10$; (iii) QSOs, which are
146: significant source for hard photons at $z \lesssim 6$; however they have no effect on the IGM at higher redshifts.
147:
148: \subsection{New features}
149:
150: We now discuss the additional physics we have incorporated in this work in order to further improve the
151: predictive power of the model.
152: \begin{itemize}
153: \item {\it Radiative feedback}: We have assumed that no haloes with virial temperatures lower than $10^4$ K are able
154: to form stars; this completely neglects the contribution of minihaloes, which is now strongly supported by the 3-year
155: WMAP data \cite{hb06}.
156:
157: \item {\it Chemical feedback}: The main limitation of CF05 model was the idealized PopIII $\rightarrow$ PopII transition
158: which was assumed to start at $z_{\rm trans}$ and last for a dynamical time of the halo. According to the standard
159: chemical feedback interpretation \cite{sfno02,sfsob03}, the transition is driven by the enrichment of the medium which
160: forces a drastic change in the fragmentation properties of star-forming clouds when metallicity exceeds
161: the critical value of $Z_{\rm crit} = 10^{-5\pm 1} Z_{\odot}$ \cite{sfno02,sfsob03}.
162: Such feedback-regulated transition has been studied in detail by \citeN{ssfc05}, using a merger-tree approach to determine
163: the termination of PopIII star formation in a given halo. We incorporate the same prescription in our model (using Fig 3 of \citeNP{ssfc05}),
164: which allows us to compute the transition in a self-consistent manner. The main difference with respect to CF05 is
165: that the transition occurs over a prolonged epoch, i.e., no precise transition redshift can be identified.
166:
167: \item {\it IMF of PopIII stars}: In CF05, a top-heavy IMF for PopIII stars was used, which was found to be disfavoured
168: by a combination of constraints from source counts at $z \approx 10$
169: and the first year WMAP data \cite{ssfc05}.
170: In this work
171: we use a very ``conservative''
172: assumption that the metal-free PopIII stars have a simple Salpeter IMF, just like the PopII stars, which
173: is similar to the hypothesis made in \citeN{cfw03}. One should keep
174: in mind that the recent 3-year WMAP data need not necessarily
175: rule out the possibility that PopIII stars have a top-heavy IMF; however,
176: we limit ourselves to the most conservative model and check whether
177: it can match all available observations.
178:
179: \item {\it Escape fraction}: In CF05, the escape fractions for PopII and PopIII stars, $f_{\rm esc, II}$ and
180: $f_{\rm esc, III}$, were considered as free parameters, independent of the halo mass,
181: $M$, and redshift $z$. In reality, the situation is quite complex and the escape fractions
182: do depend on both $M$ and $z$. Unfortunately, there is still no good understanding of the process so as
183: to model it theoretically.
184:
185: In this work, we retain the assumption that the escape fraction is independent of $M$ and $z$;
186: however, we use a physical argument to relate the escape fraction of PopII and PopIII stars.
187: This is based on the fact that the escape fraction should scale according to the number of ionizing
188: photons produced by a given source. Let $N_{\rm abs}$ denote that number of photons that can be {\it potentially}
189: absorbed by the star-forming halo (which can be quite different from the number
190: of photons actually absorbed). It is usually proportional to the quantity ${\cal C} \alpha_R(T) n_H n_e$,
191: where ${\cal C}$ is the clumping factor of the halo gas density inhomogeneities.
192: There are further uncertainties related to the distribution of stars within the halo, and we assume
193: that such uncertainties can be absorbed within the proportionality factor.
194: Let $N_{\gamma, {\rm II}}$ ($N_{\gamma, {\rm III}}$) denote the number of photons produced by PopII (PopIII) stars
195: per unit mass of star formed and $\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}} (\epsilon_{*,{\rm III}})$ denote the star-forming efficiency of the population. We can then define the parameter
196: \be
197: \eta_{\rm esc} \equiv \f{N_{\rm abs}}{\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}} N_{\gamma, {\rm II}}}
198: \label{eq:eta_esc}
199: \e
200: which measures the fraction of photons absorbed in the halo.
201: Then one can write the relation
202: \be
203: f_{\rm esc, II} = 1 - {\rm Min}\left[1,\f{N_{\rm abs}}{\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}} N_{\gamma, {\rm II}}}\right]
204: = 1 - {\rm Min}[1,\eta_{\rm esc}]
205: \label{eq:f_esc_2}
206: \e
207: which takes into account the fact that $f_{\rm esc, II} = 0$
208: if $\eta_{\rm esc} > 1$ (which essentially means that the
209: halo is capable of absorbing more photons than what is produced
210: by the stars and thus all the photons produced are
211: absorbed within the halo). Note that a higher value of
212: $\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}}$ would give a higher $f_{\rm esc, II}$
213: signifying that a higher fraction of photons will escape
214: if the number of photons produced is larger.
215:
216: We now make the simplifying assumption that $N_{\rm abs}$ depends
217: only on the properties of the halo and is independent
218: of the nature of the stellar source. Then the escape fraction for
219: PopIII stars would be given by
220: \bear
221: f_{\rm esc, III} &=& 1 - {\rm Min} \left[1,\f{N_{\rm abs}}{\epsilon_{*,{\rm III}} N_{\gamma, {\rm III}}}\right]\\
222: &=& 1 - {\rm Min} \left[1,\f{\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}} N_{\gamma, {\rm II}}} {\epsilon_{*,{\rm III}} N_{\gamma, {\rm III}}}
223: \eta_{\rm esc}\right]
224: \label{eq:f_esc_3}
225: \ear
226: which relates the escape fractions of the two stellar populations. Note that no assumptions about the
227: gas density structure has been made; we simply used the fact that a higher fraction of photons will escape
228: if the number of photons produced is larger.
229: The above prescription can be extended to helium too. It thus helps us in reducing the number of free
230: parameters in our model with the escape fraction being given by a single free parameter $\eta_{\rm esc}$.
231:
232:
233: \item {\it Self-consistent calculation of the temperature-density relation}:
234: For calculations of the transmitted flux of the IGM (as would be observed in QSO absorption line experiments),
235: it is usually assumed that the temperature-density relation follows a power-law form, $T \propto \Delta^{\gamma - 1}$.
236: In this work, we solve the temperature evolution equation
237: for fluid elements of different densities and thus
238: obtain the value of $\gamma$ at each redshift in a self-consistent manner
239: \cite{hg97}.
240:
241: \item {\it Additional observational constraints}: In addition to the observations described in CF05, we use a few
242: additional constraints to determine our free parameters. The most notable of these is the experiments related
243: to the source counts at high redshifts \cite{bitf05}. Three possible high redshift candidates have been identified
244: by applying the J-dropout technique to the NICMOS HUDF; however the precise nature of these
245: three sources could not be confirmed. Hence, \citeN{bitf05} concluded that the actual number of $z \approx 10$
246: sources in the NICMOS parallel fields must be three or fewer.
247:
248:
249: The number of sources above a redshift $z$ observed within a solid angle $\de \Omega$ in the flux range
250: $[F_{\nu_0}, F_{\nu_0} + \de F_{\nu_0}]$ is
251: \be
252: N_{F_{\nu_0}}(>z) =
253: \f{\de N}{\de \Omega \de F_{\nu_0}}(F_{\nu_0}, z) = \int_z^{\infty}
254: \de z' \f{\de V}{\de z' \de \Omega} \f{\de n}{\de F_{\nu_0}} (F_{\nu_0}, z')
255: \e
256: where $\de V/\de z' \de \Omega$ denotes the comoving volume element per unit redshift per unit solid angle, and
257: \be
258: \f{\de n}{\de F_{\nu_0}} (F_{\nu_0}, z') = \int_{z'}^{\infty}
259: \de z'' \f{\de M}{\de F_{\nu_0}}(F_{\nu_0}, t_{z'}-t_{z''})
260: \f{\de^2 n}{\de M \de z''}(M,z'')
261: \e
262: is the comoving number of objects at redshift $z'$ with observed flux within
263: $[F_{\nu_0}, F_{\nu_0} + \de F_{\nu_0}]$.
264: The quantity $\de^2 n/\de M \de z''$ gives the formation rate of haloes of mass $M$, calculated using
265: Press-Schechter formalism. The flux is related to the mass of the halo $M$ by the relation
266: \be
267: F_{\nu_0} =
268: \f{\epsilon_{*} (\Omega_b/\Omega_m) M \int \de \nu' ~ l_{\nu'}(t_{z'}-t_{z''})~
269: {\rm e}^{-\tau_{\rm eff}(\nu_0,z=0,z')}}{4 \pi d_L^2(z') \Delta \nu_0}
270: \e
271: where $\epsilon_{*}$ is the star-forming efficiency of the
272: population under consideration, $l_{\nu'}(t_{z'}-t_{z''})$ is template
273: luminosity per unit solar mass for the stellar population
274: of age $t_{z'}-t_{z''}$ (the time elapsed between the two redshifts),
275: $d_L(z')$ is the luminosity distance and $\Delta \nu_0$ is the instrumental
276: bandwidth. The quantity $\tau_{\rm eff}(\nu_0,z=0,z')$ is the effective
277: optical depth at $\nu_0$ between $z'$ and $z = 0$, which can be calculated
278: self-consistently from the semi-analytical model given the
279: density distribution. While calculating the source distribution, we
280: apply the same selection criteria as is used in the observational
281: analysis. For calculating the template luminosity $l_{\nu}$, we
282: use stellar population models of \citeN{bc03} for PopII stars
283: and of \citeN{schaerer02} for PopIII stars.
284:
285: We have also incorporated constraints from
286: the observed transmitted flux in the Ly$\beta$ region of the QSO absorption
287: spectra (in addition to Ly$\alpha$), setting more severe constraints on the background ionizing flux.
288:
289:
290:
291: \end{itemize}
292:
293: \subsection{Free parameters}
294:
295: For the background cosmology, we use the best-fit parameters as given by the 3-year WMAP data \cite{sbd++06}, i.e.,
296: we assume a flat universe with total matter, vacuum, and baryonic densities in units of the
297: critical density of $\Omega_m = 0.24$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.76$, and
298: $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.022$, respectively, and a Hubble constant of $H_0 =
299: 100\,h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, with $h=0.73$. The parameters
300: defining the linear dark matter power spectrum are $\sigma_8=0.74$,
301: $n_s=0.95$, $\de n_s/\de \ln k =0$.
302: The reionization model, after improvements and modifications, contain
303: just four free parameters. They are the
304: star-forming efficiencies of PopII and PoIII stars ($\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}}$
305: and $\epsilon_{*,{\rm III}}$ respectively), $\eta_{\rm esc}$ related
306: to the escape fractions of the two stellar populations
307: [see equations (\ref{eq:eta_esc})-(\ref{eq:f_esc_3})]
308: and
309: the normalization of the mean
310: free path $\lambda_0$ [equation (\ref{eq:lambda_0})].
311: The main exercise of this paper
312: would be to find the range of parameter values which can match
313: all the observational data we have considered. A detailed exploration of the
314: parameter space using a statistical approach would be reported elsewhere.
315:
316:
317: \section{Results}
318:
319: We now constrain the above free parameters and select the best-fit model as the one
320: that fits {\it simultaneously} all the available experimental data.
321: \subsection{The best-fit model}
322:
323:
324: \nocite{nchos04,songaila04,smih94,stle99}
325: \begin{figure*}
326: \rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{0.65\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{bf.ps}}}
327: \caption{Comparison of model predictions with observations for
328: the best-fit model with
329: parameter values $\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}} = 0.2,
330: \epsilon_{*,{\rm III}} = 0.07, f_{\rm esc, II} = 0.003, f_{\rm esc, III} =
331: 0.72$ (keeping in mind that $f_{\rm esc, II}$ and $f_{\rm esc, III}$
332: are not independent). The different panels indicate:
333: (a) The volume-averaged neutral hydrogen fraction $x_{\rm HI}$, with observational
334: lower limit from QSO absorption lines at $z =6$ and upper limit from
335: Ly$\alpha$ emitters at $z = 6.5$ (shown with arrows). In addition, the
336: ionized fraction $x_e$ is shown by the dashed line.
337: (b) SFR for different stellar populations. The points with error-bars
338: indicate low-redshift observations taken from the compilation
339: of Nagamine et al. (2004) %\cite{nchos04}
340: (c) The number of source
341: counts above a given redshift,
342: with the observational upper limit from NICMOS HUDF shown by the
343: arrow. The contribution to the source count is zero at low
344: redshifts because of the
345: J-dropout selection criterion.
346: (d) Electron scattering optical depth, with observational constraint from
347: WMAP 3-year data release. (e) Ly$\alpha$ effective optical
348: depth, with observed data points from Songaila (2004).
349: (f) Ly$\beta$ effective optical
350: depth, with observed data points from Songaila (2004).
351: (g) Evolution of Lyman-limit systems, with observed data points from Storrie-Lombardi et al. (1994). (h) Photoionization
352: rates for hydrogen, with estimates from numerical simulations (shown
353: by points with error-bars; Bolton et al. 2005). (i) Temperature of the mean
354: density IGM, with observational estimates from Schaye et al. (1999).
355: }
356: \label{fig:bf}
357: \end{figure*}
358:
359: The best-fit model is characterized by the parameter values
360: $\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}} = 0.2, \epsilon_{*,{\rm III}} = 0.07, f_{\rm esc, II} = 0.003, f_{\rm esc, III} =
361: 0.72$ (keeping in mind that $f_{\rm esc, II}$ and $f_{\rm esc, III}$ are not independent). The comparison
362: between the best-fit model and different observations is shown in nine panels of Figure \ref{fig:bf}.
363: Quite remarkably, the model matches a wide variety of observations by fitting only four parameters.
364:
365: It is clear from the evolution of the neutral hydrogen fraction $x_{\rm HI}$ [Panel (a)] that
366: current observations favour a model where reionization starts around $z = 15$ and is 90 per cent complete
367: by $z \approx 10$.
368:
369: The initial phase of reionization is driven by metal-free (PopIII) stars
370: which are capable of producing a large number of ionizing photons, as can be seen from the evolution of the
371: photoionization rate of neutral hydrogen $\Gamma^{\rm HII}_{\rm PI}$ [Panel (h)].
372: The PopIII star-formation is severely quenched at $z \lesssim 10$ both because of the concomitant action of
373: both radiative and chemical feedback.
374: In fact, chemical feedback allows PopIII star formation only in small
375: mass ($\lesssim 2 \times 10^8 M_{\odot}$) haloes, while radiative feedback tends to prohibit star formation in those,
376: thus gradually terminating the PopIII stars. The total mass of PopIII stars formed is $\Omega_{*, {\rm III}} \approx 10^{-6} $. As PopIII stars can no longer be formed, the progress of
377: ionization fronts is limited, and hence the reionization extends and is completed only by $z \approx 6$.
378: This evolution of $x_{\rm HI}$ is consistent both with high GP optical depths for Ly$\alpha$ [Panel (e)] and
379: Ly$\beta$ [Panel (f)] and with the constraints from Ly$\alpha$ emitters at $z \approx 6.5$ [Panel (a)].
380:
381: At lower redshifts, the ionizing background seems to be dominated by QSOs as the PopII stars
382: have negligible escape fraction. Unlike CF05, the escape fractions of the PopII and PopIII stars
383: in this work are determined by the same quantity $\eta_{\rm esc}$; hence it is {\it not} possible
384: to hike up $f_{\rm esc, II}$ without affecting $f_{\rm esc, III}$, in turn possibly violating some
385: other observational constraints. At $z \approx 3-5$, our best-fit model is consistent with the observed
386: evolution of the SFR [Panel (b)], Lyman-limit systems [Panel (g)] and the temperature of the mean density IGM
387: [Panel (i)]; finally, our estimates of $\Gamma^{\rm HII}_{\rm PI}$ are consistent with those obtained from numerical
388: simulations of \cite{bhvs05} [Panel (h)].
389: Note that the SFR is almost always dominated by PopII stars [Panel (b)] as metal-free stars have
390: a low star formation efficiency (3 times smaller than that of PopII stars); however, PopIII stars
391: can still dominate the photoionization rate at high redshifts as they
392: produce larger number of photons per unit mass of stars formed.
393:
394: The best-fit model produces negligible source counts at $z \approx 10$, which suggests that the three NICMOS
395: HUDF candidates at $z\approx 10$ are probably spurious detections.
396: Note that the main contribution to the source counts comes from the nebular and Ly$\alpha$ line emission
397: of the PopIII stars. The low value of source count is mainly determined by the required high value of
398: $f_{\rm esc,III}$; since most of the photons escape the host halo, the amount of nebular and Ly$\alpha$
399: line emission is small, and hence no sources are above the detection threshold of the NICMOS experiments.
400: In this sense, one can rule out this best-fit model if at least one of the sources observed in the NICMOS HUDF
401: turns out be indeed at $z \approx 10$. We shall discuss this possibility later.
402: Before addressing other issues, it might be worthwhile mentioning the
403: ionization history of doubly-ionized helium. We find that the escape fraction for photons with energies
404: above 54.4 eV is not very high for PopIII stars, and hence the propagation
405: of doubly-ionized helium fronts is not very efficient at high redshifts.
406: The complete reionization occurs only around $z \approx 3.5$ because of
407: QSOs.
408:
409: \subsection{Variants of the best-fit model}
410:
411: In spite of the success of our best-fit model in fitting observations, it is instructive to study some
412: of its variants. In particular, we ask some interesting questions and try to find what the current data imply:
413:
414: (i) Is it possible to fit the data with reionization at higher redshifts? By increasing $\epsilon_{*,{\rm III}}$
415: one can force an earlier start of the reionization process. For example, a model with parameter values $\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}} = 0.2,
416: \epsilon_{*,{\rm III}} = 0.2, f_{\rm esc, II} = 0.006, f_{\rm esc, III} = 0.9$ gives a nearly equal good fit to the data.
417: In this model, reionization starts much earlier and the IGM is 95 (99) per cent ionized by $z \approx 10 (8)$.
418: However, as in the best-fit model, the contribution of the PopIII stars to the ionizing flux
419: decreases because of feedback and hence the reionization is extended till $z \approx 6$. Interestingly, the most
420: severe constraint on the early reionization scenarios comes from Ly$\beta$ observations at $z \approx 6$ which rule
421: out high values of $\epsilon_{*,{\rm III}} f_{\rm esc, III}$.
422:
423: (ii) What if one or some of the candidates in the NICMOS HUDF do turn out to be valid $z \approx 10$ sources?
424: Then the best-fit model above could be ruled out as it predicts negligible source counts at $z > 10$.
425: However, there are parameters within 2$\sigma$ of the best-fit value which predict high number of sources at
426: $z \approx 10$. For example, a model with parameter values $\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}} = 0.2,
427: \epsilon_{*,{\rm III}} = 0.4, f_{\rm esc, II} = 0.0, f_{\rm esc, III} = 0.36$ predicts $\approx 2.6$
428: sources at $z \approx 10$. The condition for producing high source counts is that
429: the escape fraction of PopIII stars should be low, which in turn means
430: that the ionizing flux is lower and reionization would be delayed.
431: Such models tend to overpredict the Ly$\alpha$ optical depth at $z \approx 4-5$ and thus the
432: parameter space is severely constrained. In other words, if one observes sources at high redshifts,
433: a very small parameter space would be allowed, and we would possibly be able to identify uniquely how
434: reionization occurred.
435:
436: (iii) Do we still require a prolonged epoch of metal-free star formation to explain observations?
437: In fact, one can explain the low redshift SFR constraints and the WMAP $\tau_{\rm el}$ without PopIII
438: stars provided $\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}} = 0.2$ and $f_{\rm esc} > 0.07$. However, such a high value of
439: escape fraction violates the Ly$\alpha$ and Ly$\beta$ optical depths at $z \approx 3-4$;
440: the GP optical depth measurements require that $f_{\rm esc} < 0.05$, which when combined with the WMAP
441: $\tau_{\rm el}$, gives $\epsilon_{*,{\rm II}} > 0.02$. Thus a combination of low redshift SFR, $\tau_{\rm el}$
442: and GP optical depth constraints imply that we still do require a non-zero contribution from metal-free
443: PopIII stars, albeit with a small star-forming efficiency.
444:
445:
446: \section{Summary}
447:
448: We have extended the self-consistent model of CF05 incorporating key additional physical processes
449: and compared the model predictions with a variety of data sets. Our formalism now includes
450: the inhomogeneous IGM density distribution, three different classes of ionizing photon sources
451: (metal-free PopIII stars, PopII stars and QSOs), chemical feedback inhibiting formation of PopIII
452: stars in metal-enriched haloes, and radiative feedback preventing the formation of stars in galaxies
453: below a certain circular velocity threshold. Our model is able to: (i) predict the star formation/emissivity
454: history of sources and the number of sources above a given flux detection threshold at various redshifts,
455: (ii) follow the evolution of H and He reionization and of the intergalactic gas temperature, and (iii)
456: yield a number of additional predictions involving directly observable quantities.
457:
458: By constraining the model free parameters with the available experimental data
459: we have found a best-fit model and a set of allowed parameter values which
460: matches very well all the available observations. From this analysis,
461: an updated
462: reionization scenario, which also takes into account the 3-year WMAP data, emerges:
463:
464: \begin{itemize}
465: \item Hydrogen reionization starts around $z \approx 15$ driven by
466: metal-free (PopIII) stars, and it is 90 per cent complete by $z \approx 10$.
467: The contribution of PopIII stars decrease below this redshift because of the combined action
468: of radiative and chemical feedback. As a result, reionization is extended considerably completing
469: only at $z \approx 6$.
470:
471: \item Scenarios in which reionization is completed much earlier are ruled out by a combination
472: of constraints from $\tau_{\rm el}$, the NICMOS source counts at $z \approx 10$ and the Ly$\beta$
473: optical depths at $z \approx 6$.
474:
475: \item The combination of $\tau_{\rm el}$ and GP optical depth constraints require non-zero
476: contribution from metal-free stars with a normal Salpeter IMF. Non-inclusion of PopIII
477: stars would require a relatively larger ionization flux from PopII stars to match the WMAP
478: $\tau_{\rm el}$, which would then violate the GP optical depth constraints.
479:
480: \end{itemize}
481:
482: \section*{Acknowledgments}
483:
484: A special thanks goes to R. Schneider for providing us with the data on chemical feedback.
485: We would like to thank B. Ciardi, M. Mapelli, S. Gallerani, and R. Salvaterra for enlightening discussions.
486:
487:
488: \bibliography{mnrasmnemonic,astropap-mod,reionization}
489: \bibliographystyle{mnras}
490:
491: \end{document}
492:
493:
494: