1:
2: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,usegraphicx]{mn2e}
3:
4:
5: \title[FOS Ly$\alpha $ Forest Absorption]{Continuous statistics of the
6: \lyaf\ at $0 < z < 1.6$: the mean flux, flux distribution,
7: and autocorrelation from HST FOS spectra.}
8: \author[D. Kirkman \etal]{David Kirkman$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail: dkirkman@ucsd.edu}
9: David Tytler$^{1}$,
10: Dan Lubin$^{1}$,
11: and Jane Charlton$^{2}$
12: \\
13: $^{1}$ Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences,
14: University of California San Diego,
15: La Jolla, CA, 92093-0424
16: \\
17: $^{2}$ 525 Davey Lab, Dept. of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Penn State,
18: University Park, PA, 16802
19: }
20:
21: \input{astmac}
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \date{\today}
25:
26: \maketitle
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29:
30: We measure the amount of absorption in the \lyaf\ at $0 < z < 1.6$
31: in Hubble Space Telescope Faint Object Spectrograph spectra of 74
32: QSOs. Starting with a 334 QSO sample compiled by Bechtold
33: \etal\ 2002, we selected 74 QSOs that have the highest signal to
34: noise and complete coverage of rest frame wavelengths 1070
35: --1170~\AA . We measure the absorption from the flux in each pixel
36: in units of the unabsorbed continuum level. We mask out regions of
37: spectra that contain metal lines, or strong \lya\ lines that are
38: accompanied by other Lyman series line or metals at the same
39: redshift, leaving \lya\ absorption from the low density
40: intergalactic medium. At $0 < z < 1.6$ we find that 79\% of the
41: absorption is from the low density intergalactic medium, 12\% from
42: metals and 9\% from the strong H~I lines, nearly identical to the
43: percentages (78, 15 and 7) that we measured independently at $z=2$
44: from spectra taken with the Kast spectrograph on the Lick 3-m. At
45: $z=1$ the low density intergalactic medium absorbs $0.037 \pm 0.004$
46: of the flux. The error includes some but not all of the uncertainty
47: in the continuum level. The remaining part gives relative errors of
48: approximately 0.21 when we report the mean absorption in eight
49: independent redshift intervals, and 0.047 when we average over all
50: redshifts. We find 1.46 times more absorption from the low density
51: intergalactic medium than comes from \lya\ lines that Bechtold
52: \etal\ 2002 listed in the same spectra. The amount of absorption
53: increases with $z$ and can be fit by a power law in $(1+z)$ with
54: index 1.01. This corresponds to no change in the number of lines, of
55: fixed rest frame equivalent widths, per unit redshift, consistent
56: with the Janknecht \etal\ 2006 results on the distribution of lines.
57: When we include similar measurements from higher redshifts, we need
58: more degrees of freedom to fit the amount of absorption at $0 < z <
59: 3.2$. A power law with a break in slope, changing from index 1.5 at
60: low $z$ to 3.0 above $z \sim 1.1$ is a better but only marginally
61: acceptable fit. We also calculate two other continuous statistics,
62: the flux probability distribution function and the flux
63: autocorrelation function that is non-zero out to $v \sim 500$ \kms\
64: at $0.5 < z < 1.5$.
65:
66: \end{abstract}
67:
68: \begin{keywords}
69: quasars: absorption lines -- cosmology: observations -- intergalactic medium.
70: \end{keywords}
71:
72: \section{Introduction}
73:
74: The \lyaf\ seen in the spectra of distant QSOs is a key probe of the
75: intergalactic medium (IGM) at redshifts $z < 6$. The \lyaf\ is
76: produced by neutral Hydrogen and so probes both the distribution
77: of matter and the ionization state of the IGM. We have been working
78: on extracting the properties of the IGM from detailed comparisons of
79: \lyaf\ observations with grids of numerical cosmological simulations
80: \citep{tytler04b, jena05a, kirkman05a}.
81:
82: The simplest measurement to make of the \lyaf\ is the average
83: absorption. This is sometimes reported as a mean flux $\overline{F}$
84: or as an effective opacity $\tau_{\rm eff}$, but in this paper we
85: follow the convention of \citet{oke82} and report DA
86: $=1-\overline{F}$, where DA stands for the flux Decrement in the Lyman
87: Alpha region of a QSO spectrum. DA and its redshift evolution have
88: long been known to place important constraints on the properties of
89: the IGM \citep{jenkins91}. Numerous authors have noted that
90: measurements of DA can constrain key cosmological and astrophysical
91: parameters such as the baryon density \ob, $\sigma_8$, the temperature
92: density relationship of the IGM, and the intensity of the UV
93: background $\Gamma_{912}$ \citep{hernquist96, rauch97, rauch98,
94: mcdonald01b, tytler04b}. Recent work at high redshift has focused
95: on using the evolution of DA as a probe of the ionization state of the
96: IGM \citep{songaila04a, bernardi03}. We \citep{tytler04b, jena05a,
97: kirkman05a} used the combination of DA and the distribution of line
98: widths to show which combinations of cosmological and astrophysical
99: parameters give numerical simulations of the \lyaf\ that best match
100: spectra.
101:
102: DA or the mean flux is an example of a continuous statistic that is
103: defined at all wavelengths in a spectrum. A complementary set of
104: discrete statistics are also widely used. These begin with a list of
105: absorption lines in a spectrum, each of which has fitted properties,
106: such as equivalent width W, and central wavelength. One such line
107: counting statistic is the number of lines with W exceeding some minimum
108: as a function of redshift.
109:
110: Most prior work at low redshifts used line counting \citep{ bahcall93,
111: bahcall96, weymann98, jannuzi98, dobrzycki02, janknecht06a}. The
112: decrease in the number of lines near to QSOs has been used to estimate
113: the intensity of the ultraviolet background (UVB) \citep{ kulkarni93,
114: shull99, scott00b, scott02}. At the lowest redshifts, QSOs and
115: Seyfert galaxies are bright enough to allow high resolution spectra
116: that also give line widths and hence column densities (Shull \etal\
117: 1999; Penton \etal\ 2000a, 2000b, 2004). \nocite{shull99b, penton00a,
118: penton00b, penton04a}
119:
120: A major early result from HST QSO spectra was
121: that the number of lines seen at $z < 1.7$ was significantly more than
122: expected from an extrapolation of the trend measured at higher
123: redshifts. \citet{dave99} showed that in the context of numerical IGM
124: simulations the evolution of the line counts was driven by a
125: combination of cosmological expansion (which tends to increase
126: ionization) and the fading of the UV background (which decreases H~I
127: ionization). The number of lines counted as a function of redshift is
128: often fit with a broken power law with a shallower slope below $z \sim
129: 1.7$. This is approximately the redshift where the ionization changes
130: caused by the fading UV background become comparable with the
131: ionization changes caused by the general expansion. At lower redshifts
132: the drop in the UVB tends to cancel the expansion, leading to
133: decreased evolution at lower redshifts.
134: In more detail, the redshift of the break in slope is poorly known, and can be
135: much lower than $z=1.7$. Recently \citet{janknecht06a}
136: claimed the break is at $z \sim 0.7$.
137:
138: The flux probability distribution function (PDF) gives the probability
139: that a pixel will have a given flux value on a scale from zero to one at
140: the continuum flux. This was first measured in the \lyaf\ by \citet{jenkins91}.
141: More recently, the flux PDF at $z > 2$ has been derived from Keck +
142: HIRES spectra \citep{mcdonald00a, becker06a} and from a sample of SDSS
143: quasars spectra \citep{desjacques06a}. \citet{becker06a} found that a
144: simple description of the \lyaf\ using a log-normal density distribution
145: \citep{bi93, bi97a} accurately reproduced the \lyaf\ flux PDF between
146: $1.7 < z < 5.8$. But \citet{desjacques06a} also found that the same
147: log-normal model failed to describe a large sample of SDSS spectra over a
148: similar redshift range, unless they assumed surprisingly
149: large 20\% errors in the continuum levels used for the SDSS spectra.
150:
151: In this paper, we use Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Faint Object Spectrograph
152: (FOS) spectra to measure DA, the flux PDF and the
153: flux autocorrelation function, a continuous version of the two point
154: correlation function that is often applied to samples of absorption
155: lines. We also combine these DA measurements with our earlier measurements
156: at higher redshifts up to $z = 3.2$.
157:
158: \section{HST QSO Spectra}
159:
160: We measure the properties of the \lyaf\ at rest frame wavelengths
161: 1070 -- 1170~\AA\ in the spectra of bright QSOs. At low redshifts we must use UV
162: spectra of QSOs, nearly all of which are from HST, since IUE spectra
163: are largely superseded by HST spectra of the same QSOs. We considered HST
164: spectra from FOS, GHRS and STIS, and chose the FOS spectra for this project.
165: The moderate resolution GHRS
166: spectra with spectral resolution R=21,000 are of little use because
167: they have a small wavelength coverage. There are about a dozen QSOs
168: with suitable high resolution STIS spectra
169: \citep{milutinovic06a, janknecht06a} with
170: R = 30,000. We will examine several of these to check
171: our FOS results, but otherwise they are too few. We
172: know from \cite{tytler04a} that we need many tens of spectra to
173: average over the huge variations in the amount of absorption from QSO
174: to QSO, and only FOS has observed this many QSOs.
175: We did not consider the low resolution STIS spectra.
176:
177:
178: %We previously determined that we need many tens of sight lines to
179: %obtain high accuracy measurements of DA \citet{tytler04b} because
180: %large scale structure leads to major difference between sight lines.
181: %Here
182:
183: We use the atlas of 334 HST FOS spectra published by
184: \citet[B02]{bechtold02}, who collected all of the
185: spectra of QSOs obtained with the FOS G130H, G190H, or G270H gratings
186: and reduced with the STSDAS package.
187: The spectra have a pixels of size
188: 0.25~\AA\ (G130H),
189: 0.37~\AA\ (G190H) and
190: 0.52~\AA\ (G270H), and 4 pixels per diode.
191: These gratings together provide overlapping wavelength coverage from
192: below 1200 to 3200~\AA\ at a spectral resolution of approximately
193: R=1300 (FWHM 230~\kms ) for the usual aperture width and guiding
194: jitter.
195:
196: For analysis, we selected spectra from the B02 archive that had an
197: average signal-to-noise ratio SNR $> 20$ per pixel between 1070 --
198: 1170~\AA, and complete coverage of the \lyaf\ between the \lya\ and
199: the \lyb\ emission lines of the QSO. These two criteria leave 71 QSOs
200: that we list in Table \ref{fosspectab}. We deliberately added three
201: more QSOs with lower SNR (3C298, Q1026-0045B, Q1258+285) to give more
202: spectra at the highest redshifts and 74 in total. These are amongst
203: the brightest QSOs in the sky at low redshifts, and we are not aware
204: of any factors in their selection that would bias a DA measurement. We
205: restrict the sample to QSOs with high SNR and complete coverage of the
206: \lyaf\ because we know that the continua that we fit have
207: significantly higher errors otherwise.
208:
209: Most of the QSOs listed in Table \ref{fosspectab} have spectra from
210: multiple FOS gratings. To combine the data sets from different
211: gratings, we re-sampled the spectrum from each grating onto a common
212: wavelength scale, and then combined the separate data sets pixel by
213: pixel. For the pixels in the overlap region between gratings, we took
214: the SNR weighted mean of the two observations. The B02 spectra are
215: well calibrated, and there are no apparent artifacts in the spectrum
216: overlap region between adjacent gratings.
217:
218:
219: \begin{table}
220: \caption{The 74 QSOs with FOS spectra used to measure the \lyaf\ absorption.
221: QSOs for which we have also analyzed STIS spectra are indicated
222: with a $^1$ after their name. $z_{\rm forest}$ is the mean redshift
223: of the \lyaf\ region analyzed.
224: }
225: \label{fosspectab}
226: \begin{tabular}{l cc cc c}
227: \hline
228: Name & RA & Dec & $z_{\rm em}$ & $z_{\rm forest}$ & LyaF\cr
229: & (J2000) & (J2000) & & & SNR \cr
230: \hline
231: \input{fos-qsos-snr.dat}
232: \end{tabular}
233: \end{table}
234:
235: \begin{table}
236: \caption{Table \ref{fosspectab} (continued)}
237: \begin{tabular}{l cc cc c}
238: \hline
239: Name & RA & Dec & $z_{\rm em}$ & $z_{\rm forest}$ & LyaF \cr
240: & (J2000) & (J2000) & & & SNR \cr
241: \hline
242: \input{fos-qsos-snr2.dat}
243: \end{tabular}
244: \end{table}
245:
246: \section{Preparation of the Spectra}
247:
248: We fit continua to the FOS spectra manually, using B-splines and the
249: software described in \citet{kirkman05a}. Two of us independently (DK
250: and DT) fit continua to each spectrum. We examined the fits using
251: plots with various aspect ratios, wavelength scales, and ordering. We
252: discussed the fits and the differences and then we independently made
253: slight adjustments. We repeated this process four times until we
254: agreed, either in the continuum level, or that there was more than one
255: reasonable interpretation of a spectral feature. Typically this comes
256: down to a decision on whether a given region contains a weak emission
257: line, correlated photon noise, or a group of weak absorption lines.
258: We found that both the discussions and iterations were essential.
259:
260: We developed a procedure to make the continua levels consistent among
261: the QSOs. We plot the whole spectrum and an enlargement of only the
262: region of interest. We fit the continua to spectra displayed with a
263: bin size of 1~\AA\ for all HST gratings because this larger pixel
264: reduces the clutter of having 4 pixels per resolution element, and
265: helps us see the continuum level. We also plot the residuals from the
266: continua in units of the error in each pixel, and we work in both
267: observed and rest wavelengths. We check, for example, that the DA and
268: the residuals from the continuum fit do not depend on rest
269: wavelength. We return to our continuum fits and the likely errors in
270: them in \S \ref{dafosdata}, \ref{discuss}.
271:
272: Because we are primarily interested in H I absorption from the low
273: density IGM, we identified regions of each spectrum suspected of
274: having either metal or high column density H I absorption. We first
275: flagged wavelengths at $\pm 3$~\AA\ of $z=0$ Galactic metal absorption
276: in every spectrum, whether or not we could see such absorption in a
277: particular spectrum. We then flagged all pixels within $\pm 3$~\AA\ of
278: each metal line identified by B02. We analyze the spectra with
279: different regions included or excluded. If we exclude a pixel from the
280: sum used to measure a DA value, we call this a masked region.
281:
282: We define strong H~I lines as any that B02 had identified as
283: H~I. These are typically absorption systems with higher H~I columns
284: which show either metal lines in low resolution FOS spectra or Lyman
285: series lines. Fewer than half of these strong H~I lines will be in
286: Lyman limit systems (LLS). This procedure will not remove a
287: statistically complete sample of high column density H~I lines. It is
288: a compromise to make use of the limited information in the FOS
289: spectra. We mask regions within $\pm 3$~\AA\ of each identified metal
290: line and the strong H~I lines. In some cases, such as for damped
291: \lya\ lines, we mask a wider region of the spectrum to cover the
292: absorption feature. In Fig. \ref{figfosspec} we show examples of
293: spectra with continua and flagged regions.
294:
295: \begin{figure}
296: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{fos-3pan}
297: \caption{\label{figfosspec} Examples of FOS spectra with
298: continua. The wavelengths are observed frame \AA ngstroms, and the
299: vertical scale is linear flux with zero at the lowest long
300: mark. The thin nearly flat line immediately above the zero level
301: is the 1$\sigma $ error. These three QSOs
302: have a range of redshifts and all have typical SNR. The shaded
303: regions are pixels that we flag because they are within 3~\AA\ of
304: Galactic and other metal lines and strong H~I lines. Some regions
305: appear wider because there are several masked features near to
306: each other (as in muli-component metal line systems).}
307: \end{figure}
308:
309: \section{DA in the FOS Spectra}
310: \label{dafosdata}
311:
312: We define ${\rm DA} =\left< 1-f_i/c_i \right>$ where $f_i$ is the flux
313: in pixel $i$ and $c_i$ is the continuum level in the same pixel. We
314: restrict our analysis to the rest frame interval 1070 -- 1170~\AA ,
315: which we divide into three intervals 1070 --
316: 1103\AA, 1103 -- 1137\AA, and 1137 -- 1170\AA. This gives 3
317: measurements of DA per QSO. This is a change from our choice at higher
318: redshifts where we averaged the DA over intervals of redshift path
319: 0.1, or 121.56~\AA\ in the observed frame, or $121.56/(1+z)$ in the
320: rest frame. At redshift $z=1.7$ these intervals are very similar to
321: those we now use for HST spectra with fixed rest frame. We discard
322: wavelength intervals with $<70$\% of pixels remaining after
323: the above masking procedure.
324:
325: In Figure \ref{fosonlyda} we show the DA from the low density IGM
326: alone as a function of redshift. The points shown do not include
327: pixels masked because they are flagged as metals or strong H~I lines.
328: All 74 QSOs contribute to this figure, but for many QSOs one or
329: occasionally two of the three wavelength regions are not used because
330: they lacked sufficient non-flagged pixels. At $z=1$ each point on the
331: plot includes pixels from a $z$ range of 0.0548, hence all three
332: points from each QSO appear in the same part of the plot. The relative
333: lack of points at z=0.3 and 0.95 is caused by the $z$ distribution of
334: the QSOs in the HST archive and the SNR in the \lyaf\ of those
335: spectra. The negative DA values show a combination of the true amount
336: of absorption, the continuum level errors and photon noise. The large
337: dispersion in the points at a given $z$ is largely real variability in
338: the IGM. The occasional very high points typically have two
339: conspicuous deep lines that were not masked. The mean absorption
340: apparently increases $z$.
341:
342: \begin{figure}
343: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{dazfos}
344: \caption{\label{fosonlyda} DA of the low density IGM vs. redshift.
345: Metal lines and strong \lya\ lines do not contribute because we
346: masked those wavelengths. Each point
347: shows the mean DA in 33.3~\AA\ in the rest frame, with up to 3
348: points per QSO. The line is the best fit power law ${\rm DA}(z)
349: =0.016(1+z)^{1.01}$.}
350: \end{figure}
351:
352: \begin{figure}
353: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{daz-lines}
354: \caption{\label{fosonlyw} As Fig. \ref{fosonlyda} for the same
355: QSOs and spectra but calculated by summing the equivalent widths of line
356: listed in B02. This method gives less absorption that we
357: measure from the flux in each pixel.
358: }
359: \end{figure}
360:
361:
362: We also show a power law ${\rm DA}(z) = A(1+z)^{\alpha}$ which is a
363: fit to these points, not to the DA per pixel. We found $A = 0.016$ and
364: $\alpha = 1.01$. We will not give errors on $A$ and $\alpha $ because
365: the two parameters are strongly anti-correlated. For fixed $A=0.016$,
366: $\sigma _{ \alpha } = 0.11$, and for fixed $\alpha = 1.01$, $\sigma _{
367: A } = 0.001$. However it is not unusual to see the value of $\alpha
368: $ change by many tenths for common changes in the sample of spectra.
369:
370: In Table \ref{tablefosda} we list values obtained from the points
371: shown in Figure \ref{fosonlyda}, binned into widths of $\delta z =
372: 0.2$, where the first bin covers $0.1 < z < 0.3$. The column labeled
373: ``IGM'' shows the total DA from the low density IGM alone, that is with
374: the metals and strong H~I lines masked. The column $\sigma_{\rm IGM}$
375: is the standard deviation of the points in the bin, divided by the
376: square root of the number of points (the standard error). The column
377: ``All H'' includes pixels flagged as H~I lines, while the column
378: labeled ``Total'' includes all pixels not flagged as Galactic
379: absorption. The column labeled ``Metal'' uses only those pixels
380: flagged as metal lines, column labeled ``IDH'' refers to the strong
381: lines that were Identified as H by B02. The values given in the
382: column ``All H'' are defined as the sum of IGM + IDH. The IDH values
383: are approximately constant with $z$, with a mean of 0.0032. The metal
384: absorption has a mean value of 0.0045 averaged over all redshifts in
385: the FOS data, and it systematically increases with increasing
386: redshift.
387:
388: When we ignore redshift and take the mean for the
389: whole sample, we find the total absorption of DA = 0.0371 is comprised of
390: 0.0293 (79\%) low density IGM,
391: 0.0043 (12\%) metals, and
392: 0.0034 (9\%) strong H~I lines.
393: The signal is dominated by the low density IGM, just as we found at
394: $z = 2$ where the values were 78, 15 and 7\% \citep{tytler04a}.
395:
396: The $\sigma_{\rm IGM}$ is a representation of the error on the DA that
397: we list for the IGM alone. The external error is probably larger,
398: because the points are not fully independent; there are large scale
399: correlations in the amount of absorption across spectra, and
400: systematic errors such as continuum level placement also extend across
401: spectra.
402:
403: The external error is also larger because the continuum level errors
404: are partly but not completely contained in the errors that we quote in
405: Table \ref{tablefosda}. The relative difference in IGM DA for our two
406: continuum fits (that is, the difference in our DA values at each
407: redshift divided by the mean DA at that redshift) has a root mean
408: squared value of 0.21. This is about the same size as the
409: $\sigma_{\rm IGM}$ that we list in Table \ref{tablefosda}, which we
410: take to mean that our errors due to continuum fitting and the (Poisson
411: like) uncertainty due to our sampling of large scale structure are
412: similar in magnitude. Immediately prior to finalizing our continuum
413: fits, we had two relatively independent fits, that gave mean DA values
414: averaged over all z, and these two DA values differed by a factor of
415: 1.049. Earlier in the fitting process, the two continua differed by
416: much larger amounts, for reasons that were apparent and which were
417: taken into account as we iterated on the continuum fitting. The
418: values given here are far from a precise measurements of the external
419: errors, but they may indicate the approximate size of the error from
420: continuum fitting alone. We speculate that the external errors for
421: the IGM DA are of order 1.4 to 2 times the values given in Table
422: \ref{tablefosda} for redshift intervals of 0.2.
423:
424: The effect of a given change in the continuum level on the DA value
425: depends on the distribution of the absorption line depths. The lower
426: the spectral resolution, the shallower the lines, and the more
427: sensitive the DA to a given continuum level change. If the evolution
428: of the DA with $z$ is primarily a change in the number of lines and
429: not in the line depths, then a given change in continuum level will
430: produce the same relative change in DA at all $z$. We know, for
431: example, that strong (typically deep) lines are increasingly common at
432: higher $z$ \citep{janknecht06a}, which will make DA less sensitive
433: to a given fractional error in the continuum.
434:
435: \begin{table*}
436: \caption{\label{tablefosda} DA as a function of redshift from rest frame wavelengths
437: 1070 -- 1170~\AA\ in FOS spectra of the 74 QSOs}
438: \begin{tabular}{l cc cc cc cc cc}
439: \hline
440: $z$ & IGM & $\sigma_{\rm IGM}$ & All H & $\sigma_{\rm All H}$
441: & Total & $\sigma_{\rm Total}$ & Metal & $\sigma_{\rm Metal}$
442: & IDH & $\sigma_{\rm IDH}$ \\
443: \hline
444: \input{da-binned.dat}
445: \end{tabular}
446: \end{table*}
447:
448: The five QSOs indicated in Table \ref{fosspectab} have STIS as well as
449: FOS spectra. In Figure \ref{stisda} we compare the DA measured from
450: both spectra, in our three wavelength bins. This shows that our
451: continuum placements and masks yield similar DA values, irrespective
452: of the instrument. The masks for the STIS spectra are from
453: \citet{milutinovic06a} while those for the FOS spectra are from
454: B02. In Figure \ref{pgstis} we show the two spectra for PG 0117 which
455: has intermediate SNR STIS and FOS spectra. We would expect the
456: continua on the STIS spectra to be more accurate, since more photons
457: are recorded per spectrum, while \citet{milutinovic06a} have made a
458: concerted effort to make the metal line identifications complete.
459:
460: \begin{figure}
461: \includegraphics[width=74mm]{da-sf}
462: \caption{\label{stisda}The DA from FOS spectra versus the DA from
463: STIS spectra of the same objects. Five QSOs each contribute up to
464: three points, each point using the flux from 33.3~\AA\ in the rest
465: frame. Three segments are not shown because more than 30\% of their
466: pixels were masked. The solid diagonal line shows expectation for ideal data and
467: measurements. }
468: \end{figure}
469:
470: \begin{figure}
471: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{PG0117-comp}
472: \caption{\label{pgstis} Rest frame wavelengths 1070 -- 1170~\AA\
473: in the FOS (top) and STIS (bottom) spectra of QSO
474: PG 0117+213 at \zem = 1.493. The upper smooth curve is the continuum while the
475: lower line just above zero is the $1\sigma $ error.
476: Known emission lines that vary in strength from QSO to QSO cause the
477: continuum level to rise at either end and near the middle.
478: }
479: \end{figure}
480:
481: %We can also estimate DA from the published lists of lines in the FOS
482: %spectra, both directly from the equivalent widths and from fits to the
483: %distribution of equivalent widths.
484:
485: We also calculate a version of DA for the low density IGM by summing
486: the W values that B02 give for the unidentified lines in the spectra
487: of the 74 QSOs. We measure this DA in the same redshift bins that we
488: used in Fig. \ref{fosonlyda}. In each bin we obtain DA by subtracting
489: the observed frame W values from the observed frame path length in \AA
490: ngstroms, and dividing the result by the path length. The results in
491: Fig. \ref{fosonlyw} show general similarity with the DA defined from
492: the flux in Fig. \ref{fosonlyda} except that the flux DA shows more
493: absorption, as we might expect. When we use the flux in pixels to
494: measure DA, we can detect absorption from features that do not make
495: the threshold to count as reliable lines. For these FOS spectra, the
496: line threshold varies from spectrum to spectrum, following the SNR.
497: When we average over all $z$, the two DA values for the low density
498: IGM are 0.020 from the lines, and 0.029 from the flux, larger by a
499: factor of 1.46.
500:
501: Following \citet{weymann98},
502: \citet{dobrzycki02} fit the number of lines in the 336 B02 spectra with a
503: power law in redshift and an exponential in rest equivalent width
504: \begin{equation}
505: {\partial^2 N \over \partial z \partial W_{\lambda0}} =
506: A_0 W_*^{-1} (1+z)^\gamma e^{-W_{\lambda0}/W_*},
507: \end{equation}
508: where $W_{\lambda0}$ is the rest equivalent width of a line, and
509: $A_0$, $W_*$, and $\gamma$ are constants that are fit to match the
510: observed distribution of line $W_{\lambda0}$. The mean of the exponential
511: distribution $e^{-(W_{\lambda0}/W_*)}$ from zero to infinity
512: is $W_*$, so the mean of $W_*^{-1} e^{-(W_{\lambda0}/W_*)}$ is unity,
513: and the number density of lines as a function of redshift is
514: \begin{equation}
515: {\partial N \over \partial z} = A_0 (1+z)^\gamma .
516: \end{equation}
517:
518: Since the average observed equivalent with of a line at redshift $z$
519: is $W=W_* (1+z)$, we find that the mean observed frame
520: equivalent width of absorption as a function of redshift is, as usual, given by
521: \begin{equation}
522: {\partial W \over \partial z} = W_* (1+z) {\partial N \over \partial z}
523: = A_0 W_* (1+z)^{\gamma + 1}.
524: \end{equation}
525: To convert to DA$(z)$, all we need to do is divide by the available
526: observed frame path length per unit redshift,
527: $\partial \lambda / \partial z = \lambda_0$
528: where $\lambda_0$ is the rest frame wavelength of the absorption line,
529: or 1215.67 \AA\ for H~I \lya. This gives
530: \begin{equation}
531: {\rm DA}(z) = {A_0 W_* \over \lambda_0} (1+z)^{\gamma + 1}.
532: \end{equation}
533: This shows that if the rest frame equivalent width distribution is
534: independent of redshift
535: and the number of lines per unit z changes as $(1+z)^{\gamma }$, then
536: DA$(z) \propto (1+z)^{\gamma +1}$, where the extra one in the power comes
537: from the increase in the observed equivalent width with $1+z$.
538:
539: The exponent $\alpha = 1 + \gamma = 1.01$ that we measured for the
540: flux in the pixels in the FOS spectra is consistent with $\gamma = 0$
541: which means no change in the number lines per unit redshift, if the
542: lines have fixed rest frame equivalent widths. From Table 2 in
543: \citet{dobrzycki02} we see that the evolution of \lyaf\ lines in the
544: FOS data is characterized by $1+\gamma \sim 1.5$, larger than the
545: value that we measured. Before we comment on this difference, we
546: should look at the amplitudes.
547:
548: For the ``forest'' sample with an equivalent width threshold of 0.24
549: \AA, and no maximum $W$ cutoff (line 6 of Table 2 in
550: \citet{dobrzycki02}), the amplitude is $A_0 W_* / \lambda_0 = 0.0048$,
551: about one third of what we find. But the line density $A_0$ in
552: \citet{dobrzycki02} is defined to give the density of lines with $W >
553: 0.24$ \AA . To compare with DA we can alternatively extrapolate to
554: $W=0$, which increases their amplitude by a factor of $
555: \int^{\infty}_0 e^{-W_{\lambda_0}/W_*} / \int^{\infty}_{0.24}
556: e^{-W_{\lambda_0}/W_*} = 2.9$ when $W_* = 0.22$ \AA. This
557: extrapolation gives an amplitude of 0.0139, similar to the 0.014 that
558: we found from the flux in pixels. This agreement is slightly
559: misleading because they include and we exclude strong H~I lines.
560:
561: It is possible to have both $1 + \gamma = 1.0$ for the DA from flux in
562: pixels, and $1 + \gamma = 1.5$ for the lines with $W > 0.24$ \AA ,
563: since the latter includes only 1/3 of the absorption in the former.
564: This would require that the stronger lines, the only ones seen in line
565: counting, decline rapidly in number with decreasing redshift. The
566: weaker lines that dominate the total absorption that we measure using
567: the flux in the pixels change little. The more rapid evolution of the
568: stronger lines has been reported before. \citet{janknecht06a} found
569: that lines with \lnhi\ $> 13.64$~\cmm\ had $1+ \gamma = 2.50 \pm 0.45$
570: while lines with $12.9 < $ \lnhi\ $< 14.0$~\cmm\ had $1+ \gamma = 0.74
571: \pm 0.31$, both for $0.7 < z < 1.9$. \citet{janknecht06a} also note
572: that the evolution is near zero at lower redshifts for even stronger
573: lines. They find $1 + \gamma = 1.13 \pm 0.06$ for the number of lines
574: with $W > 0.24$~\AA\ at $0 < z < 1.5$ from \citet{weymann98}.
575:
576: \section{FOS Flux PDF and Autocorrelation}
577:
578:
579: \begin{figure*}
580: \includegraphics[width=100mm, angle=270]{flux-pdf-grid}
581: \caption{\label{fluxpdf} PDF of the flux in FOS spectra of the 74 QSO,
582: from rest frame wavelengths 1070 -- 1170~\AA . The PDF is evaluated in three
583: independent redshift bins. There are 4 pixels per FOS diode.
584: We masked pixels containing metal or strong \lya\ lines, and hence these plots
585: should contain absorption from only the low density IGM.
586: The lower panels use the pixels with
587: SNR $> 40$ and the higher panels use pixels with all SNR values.}
588: \end{figure*}
589:
590: \begin{table*}
591: \caption{\label{tablefluxpdf} PDF of the flux at 1070 -- 1170~\AA\
592: in the FOS spectra of the 74 QSO,
593: for the low density IGM pixels only. We have masked all the strong \lya\
594: and metal lines. }
595: \begin{tabular}{c cc cc cc cc cc cc cc}
596: \hline
597: & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$0 < z <0.5$}
598: & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$0.5 < z <1$}
599: & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$1 < z <1.5$}
600: \cr
601: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{All} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{High SNR}
602: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{All} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{High SNR}
603: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{All} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{High SNR}
604: \cr
605: F & $P(F)$ & $\sigma_{P(F)}$
606: & $P(F)$ & $\sigma_{P(F)}$
607: & $P(F)$ & $\sigma_{P(F)}$
608: & $P(F)$ & $\sigma_{P(F)}$
609: & $P(F)$ & $\sigma_{P(F)}$
610: & $P(F)$ & $\sigma_{P(F)}$
611: \cr
612: \hline
613: \input{flux-pdf.dat}
614: \end{tabular}
615: \end{table*}
616:
617: \begin{figure*}
618: \includegraphics[width=60mm, angle=270]{flux-corr-grid}
619: \caption{\label{figauto} As Fig. \ref{fluxpdf} but showing the autocorrelation
620: of the flux defined in Eqn. \ref{eqncorr} as a function of velocity lag.
621: }
622: \end{figure*}
623:
624: \begin{table*}
625: \caption{\label{tableauto}
626: As Table \ref{tablefluxpdf}, but for the flux autocorrelation defined in
627: Eqn. \ref{eqncorr} as a function of the velocity in the center of
628: the 100~\kms\ wide bins.
629: }
630: \begin{tabular}{r ccc ccc}
631: \hline
632: $v$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0 < z <0.5$}
633: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.5 < z <1$}
634: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$1 < z <1.5$}
635: \cr
636: (km/sec)
637: & $\xi$ & $\sigma_\xi$
638: & $\xi$ & $\sigma_\xi$
639: & $\xi$ & $\sigma_\xi$
640: \cr
641: \hline
642: \input{flux-corr.dat}
643: \end{tabular}
644: \end{table*}
645:
646:
647:
648:
649: We also calculate the probability distribution of the flux -- the flux
650: PDF -- and the autocorrelation of the flux, two of the more common
651: higher order continuous statistics. We use exactly the same spectra
652: and masking to leave only the low density IGM that we used for the DA
653: calculation. The center of mass of the PDF should be the DA
654: value. This is unfortunately the only information that we can readily
655: obtain from the PDF without knowing the spectral resolution
656: and SNR for each pixel.
657:
658: In Figure \ref{fluxpdf} and Table \ref{tablefluxpdf} we show the PDF
659: in six panels, divided at redshifts 0.5 and 1.0 and showing the high
660: SNR spectra alone. P(F) is normalized so that its integral over all F
661: is unity. Some pixels have flux F above 1.0 because of a combination
662: of photon noise and continuum level errors. We believe that our
663: continuum level errors are smaller in units of F when the SNR is
664: higher. The lower three panels use only pixels with SNR $> 40$. They
665: show slightly fewer pixels with $F > 1.0$.
666:
667: We see that the most likely F is in the range 0.975 -- 1.025. This
668: is expected if most pixels in the FOS spectra have $DA < 0.025$. If
669: most pixels have $DA < 0.025$ then the mean error in our continuum
670: level is $< 0.025$. Alternatively if most pixels have $DA > 0.025$ then
671: the continuum error is large and unknown. At these low redshifts
672: visible absorption lines occupy a relatively small part of each
673: spectrum. If most of the total DA is in lines and not in a smooth GP
674: absorption then we expect most pixels to be near the continuum.
675:
676: The second most common flux value is that immediately below F=1.0, as
677: we expect for absorption lines. The flux PDF in the lowest redshift
678: bin is similar to a Gaussian, centered just below F=1.0, while at
679: higher $z$ we see a tail of lower F values from deeper lines. We do
680: not see many pixels with F near zero. This is mostly because of the
681: low spectral resolution, and also because we mask the strongest lines.
682: If we use high resolution spectra that resolve all lines, most with
683: column densities $ 14 < $ \lnhi $ < 17$~\cmm\ would reach near zero
684: flux, and some would not be masked using the criteria adopted here.
685: Using only the higher SNR pixels gives somewhat narrower
686: distributions, as we would expect, but this is a small change because
687: all the spectra have relatively high SNR.
688:
689: We calculated the autocorrelation of the flux in the 74 spectra in the
690: interval 1070 -- 1170~\AA\ with the usual masks to leave only the low
691: density IGM. We use a common definition for the autocorrelation at
692: velocity lag $v$
693: \begin{equation}
694: \label{eqncorr}
695: \xi(v) =
696: \left<
697: (F_i -\overline{F} )
698: (F_{i + v}-\overline{F} )
699: \right>
700: \end{equation}
701: where $F_{i+v}$ is the flux in a pixel separated from pixel $i$ by a
702: velocity $v$ and $\overline{F}$ is the mean flux in each spectrum, which
703: differs from spectrum to spectrum. To
704: estimate the uncertainty in $\xi(v)$, we divided each redshift
705: interval into 16 separate samples, and took the standard deviation of
706: the sub-samples.
707:
708: In Figure \ref{figauto} and Table \ref{tableauto} we show the results.
709: The autocorrelation is non-zero to $>500$~\kms\ ($\sim 1\sigma $) for
710: all three redshift intervals, and exceeds $2\sigma $ out to $\sim
711: 400$~\kms\ in lowest redshift bin and to $\sim 500$~\kms\ in the other
712: two bins. Overall the autocorrelation is larger at higher
713: redshifts. The velocity width of the signal is comparable to, but
714: wider than expected from the spectral resolution. We see only marginal
715: correlation beyond the spectral resolution and this is consistent with
716: results at higher redshifts where high resolution spectra show little
717: correlation beyond $150$~\kms . The points in each plot are highly
718: correlated by construction, and hence it is unclear how much
719: significance we should assign to the apparent broader distribution at
720: higher redshifts. \citet{janknecht06a} saw $2\sigma $ correlation out
721: to $< 200$~\kms\ for lower column density lines and to $< 100$~\kms\
722: for higher column density lines. The FOS spectra that we use here have
723: more correlation at intermediate lags $\sim 100$~\kms , the $\sigma $
724: of the Gaussian representing the line spread function. On larger
725: scales the spectral resolution has limited effect, and the FOS spectra
726: remain more sensitive because they contain 74 QSO spectra compared to
727: the 9 STIS spectra used by \citet{janknecht06a}.
728:
729:
730: \section{IGM H I opacity from $0 < z < 3.2$}
731:
732: In Figure \ref{allda} we show the DA over a range of redshifts from
733: the FOS data discussed here, from our Kast spectra \citep{tytler04a}
734: and from our HIRES spectra \citep{kirkman05a}. An extrapolation of the
735: best fitting power law from $1.6 < z < 3.2$ gives more absorption than
736: we see at $z \sim 1.5$, but then less at the lowest redshifts. The
737: power law fit to $z < 1.6$ alone crosses that from higher $z$ at $z =
738: 0.7$.
739:
740: In Table \ref{tabledabin} we bin the DA values shown Fig. \ref{allda}
741: in redshift intervals of 0.2. We list the mean DA in each bin and its
742: error. The best fit single power law to the DA values in Table
743: \ref{tabledabin} from FOS, Kast and HIRES gives $A = 0.0066$ and
744: $\alpha = 2.661$, but with an unacceptably large $\chi^2 = 41.1$ for
745: 14 degrees of freedom. The fit improves significantly when we use a
746: broken power law:
747: \begin{equation}
748: \label{eqnpower}
749: {\rm DA}(z) = \left\{ A (1+z)^{\alpha_l} \quad : \quad z < z_c \atop
750: B (1+z)^{\alpha_h} \quad : \quad z \ge z_c
751: \right.
752: \end{equation}
753: where $B = A (1+z_c)^{\alpha_l} / (1+z_c)^{\alpha_h}$, and $A$, $z_c$, $\alpha_l$,
754: and $\alpha_h$ are free parameters. The best fit we can find ($\chi^2 = 22.1$
755: for 12 degrees of freedom, Prob($\chi ^2 > 22.1) = 4$\%),
756: is not an excellent representation of the data.
757: This fit has $A = 0.013$, $z_c = 1.1$, $\alpha_l = 1.54$, and $\alpha_h = 2.98$.
758: \citet{janknecht06a} found that the distribution of lines at $0.5 < z < 1.9$
759: were fit with $\alpha = 1.74 \pm 0.31$ from STIS spectra of nine QSOs,
760: consistent with our $\alpha_l$ value.
761:
762: In Figure \ref{logdafit} we show the points from Table
763: \ref{tabledabin} and the broken power law. Although the data seem to
764: depart from a simple smooth distribution at several redshift, this is
765: probably an indication that we have underestimated the errors. The
766: data are noticeably lower than the fit at $z=1.4$, for no known
767: reason. This is the highest redshift bin that uses FOS spectra alone,
768: and it samples redshifts where we have few spectra.
769:
770: \begin{figure}
771: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{daz}
772: \caption{\label{allda} The DA as a function of redshift measured in
773: QSO spectra obtained with three spectrographs: FOS (triangles) at
774: the low redshifts, Kast (circles) at intermediate redshifts and
775: HIRES (dark squares) at the highest redshifts. Each point from
776: FOS represents 33.3~\AA\ in the rest frame, as in earlier
777: figures, while the other points are for 121.56~\AA\ in the
778: observed frame from \citet{kirkman05a}. We mask the identified
779: strong \lya\ and metals lines in the FOS and HIRES spectra, but
780: we subtract the mean expected amounts of such and metal line
781: absorption from all the Kast points. }
782: \end{figure}
783:
784: \begin{table}
785: \caption{\label{tabledabin}DA as function of redshift from FOS, Kast and HIRES}
786: \begin{center}
787: \begin{tabular}{llll}
788: \hline
789: $z$ & DA & $\sigma_{\rm DA}$ \cr
790: \hline
791: \input{da-binned-all.dat}
792: \end{tabular}
793: \end{center}
794: \end{table}
795:
796:
797:
798: \begin{figure}
799: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{dazll-fit}
800: \caption{\label{logdafit} log DA as a function of log(1+z) from
801: Table \ref{tabledabin}. The solid line is the best fit broken power
802: law of Eqn. \ref{eqnpower}. }
803: \end{figure}
804:
805:
806: \section{Discussion and Conclusion}
807: \label{discuss}
808:
809:
810: We have presented common continuous statistics on the H~I absorption
811: in the low density IGM at $0 < z < 1.6$. We work mostly with the flux
812: in each pixel, but also with line lists and fits to the distributions
813: of lines.
814:
815: DA(z) is a function that we have
816: previously used at higher redshifts to deduce the physical properties
817: of the IGM \citep{tytler04b}. We generally require that simulations of
818: the IGM should match the observed DA when they are using a concordant
819: set of cosmological and astrophysical parameters. When these other
820: parameters are known from other work, we can use DA to give the most
821: accurate measurements of the intensity of the UV background radiation
822: that ionizes the IGM.
823:
824: The DA is an explicit and easy to understand measurement of the total
825: absorption by \lya\ in the IGM. It is relatively easy to visualize the
826: effects of the continuum level error and contaminants. DA, as a mean,
827: is the only moment of the flux PDF that does not explicitly depend on spectral
828: resolution or SNR, although both do effect the continuum level placement
829: and line identification. This makes DA easy to use, especially with spectra
830: of low, mixed or poorly known resolution.
831:
832: The redshift evolution of DA is somewhat slower that given by published
833: analysis of the distribution of individual lines. From the DA
834: measured from the flux in pixels, we find $\gamma +1= 1.01$ while
835: \citet{dobrzycki02} find $1+ \gamma \sim 1.5 \pm 0.2$ from fits to the
836: number of lines in all 336 B02 spectra.
837: The difference may be explained by the more rapid evolution of the stronger
838: lines used by \citet{dobrzycki02}, lines which constitute only 1/3 of the
839: total absorption counted by the flux in the pixels.
840:
841: The DA for the low density IGM that we measure from the flux in each
842: pixel contains 1.46 times more absorption than is contained in lines
843: seen in the same spectra. This is less than the factor of 3
844: difference from the larger sample of 336 FOS QSOs, because the large
845: sample is does not have a uniform minimum rest frame $W$ value, and it
846: includes spectra with lower SNR -- spectra that are less sensitive to
847: weak lines. However, if we fit the distribution of line W values with
848: an exponential function and we extrapolate this fit to zero W, we
849: recover most of the missing absorption. The exponential distribution
850: gives approximately the correct amount of absorption that is not in
851: lines seen individually in these FOS spectra. These results are
852: broadly consistent with those from higher redshifts. At $z=2.7$
853: \citet{kirkman97a} found that only half of the absorption came from
854: lines with $\lnhi > 14~\cmm$ which are the rare saturated lines easily
855: seen in FOS spectra.
856:
857: The main limitation in line counting is the inability to individually
858: identify lines with low W. Measurement of DA from flux can include
859: these lines, but they are mostly shallower, and hence more sensitive
860: to the error in the placement of the continuum. The continuum level
861: error is the main error in the DA value, because much of the
862: absorption is from shallow features. This sensitivity to the continuum
863: level is intrinsic to the absorption, and does not depend on how we
864: measure the absorption, from the flux per pixel or from line lists.
865:
866: We found in \citet{tytler04b} that we required high SNR spectra to
867: obtain accurate DA values. Here we also need high SNR to give
868: continuum level errors that are not much larger than the DA signal. We
869: limit our measurements to the relatively unusual FOS spectra with SNR
870: $> 20$ per pixel.
871:
872: In addition to the SNR, the continuum error also depends on the the
873: emission lines, the range of wavelengths in a spectrum and the
874: methods used. We fit the continuum by hand because we do not yet have
875: automatic methods that do better. \citet{suzuki05a} used principal
876: component spectra trained on HST spectra with absorption removed. They
877: then attempted to predict the continuum in the \lyaf\ from the
878: components that fit the red side of a spectrum, where the absorption
879: is rare. This was only partly successful, we suspect, because of
880: changes in slope (intrinsic, and from Galactic and atmospheric extinction)
881: across each spectrum.
882:
883: The emission lines in the \lyaf\ are of different strengths in
884: different QSO spectra. The continuum is harder to fit when the lines are
885: strong (e.g. 0102-2713), especially in low SNR spectra with abundant
886: absorption. We made thin tall plots aligned in rest wavelength to help
887: us find these lines, and make their shapes consistent with the other
888: lines in the spectrum. If we underestimate the strengths of the
889: emission lines, which is readily done, then we will tend to place the
890: continuum too low near those lines, giving systematically too little
891: absorption at their wavelengths. It is very important to see a large
892: portion of each spectrum, well beyond the region of interest for DA,
893: both to establish the general strengths and shapes of the emission
894: lines, and to better distinguish random clumping of photon noise
895: from weak absorption.
896:
897: The size of the error associated with the DA at a given $z$ also
898: depends on the rate of change of DA with $z$.
899: If DA(z) were a power law over a wide range of $z$, and our
900: measurements were unbiased at all $z$, then the error obtained using
901: the power law fit will be very small because we can use points from
902: all $z$ together.
903: Alternatively, if the true DA(z) departs from a power law, or if the
904: DA that we measure at some $z$ is biased, then the error could be
905: systematically larger than we might expect from the plots, tabulated values
906: and errors.
907:
908: In \citet{tytler04b} we showed that most of the scatter in the DA at a
909: given $z \sim 2$ was due to large scale structure.
910: However, some of the scatter in Figs. \ref{fosonlyda}
911: and \ref{allda} could come from variable amounts of systematic error,
912: such as the continuum level too high in one QSO and too low in another, or
913: objects in which we failed to identify and mask metal lines. The
914: scatter in the points at a given $z$ appears non-Gaussian, with an
915: excess of large deviations. We would not be surprised if some of the
916: outliers had relatively low SNR, leading to unusual continuum level errors,
917: and in the case of the high points, unidentified metal lines.
918:
919: Overall, the metal lines are probably a smaller source of error in
920: the IGM DA than is the continuum level. Even if the true DA from metal
921: lines were twice our estimates, this would reduce the DA values for
922: the IGM in Table \ref{tablefosda} by a factor of 0.85. The STIS
923: spectra also indicate that missing metal lines are not the major
924: error. We obtained similar DA values from FOS and STIS spectra of the
925: same QSOs (Fig. \ref{stisda}), where we conducted an unusually
926: thorough search for metals in the STIS spectra \citep{milutinovic06a}.
927:
928: In this paper we also measured the flux autocorrelation and the PDF of
929: the flux in the FOS spectra. Both depend on the amount of absorption
930: (DA) as well as the factors that control the distribution of the
931: absorption in wavelength or velocity. These factors include the gas
932: temperature, the Hubble constant, large scale structure and the
933: SNR and spectral resolution. For the FOS spectra the spectral resolution is
934: the dominant factor in the shape of the flux autocorrelation and
935: PDF. However, the FOS sample is large enough that we can measure
936: non-zero autocorrelation out to much larger velocity lags than have
937: been seen in STIS spectra.
938:
939: The most obvious ways to improve the measurements of the absorption by
940: H~I in the IGM would be to include high SNR spectra of tens of QSOs at
941: $z \simeq 1.6 - 1.8$ with complete wavelength coverage, and to have
942: automated continuum fitting methods that are more accurate than manual methods.
943:
944: \section*{Acknowledgments}
945:
946: This work made extensive use of the FOS spectra and line
947: identifications prepared by Jill Bechtold, Jennifer Scott, and Adam
948: Dobrzycki (http://lithops.as.arizona.edu/$\sim$jill/QuasarSpectra/). This
949: work was supported by HST-AR-10288.01. The NSF REU program supported
950: Samuel Bockenhauer who helped identify metal lines in the STIS spectra.
951:
952:
953: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
954: \bibliography{archive}
955:
956: \clearpage
957:
958: \end{document}
959:
960:
961:
962:
963:
964:
965:
966: