论文标题

烧焦。 iii。与不同的集结因子的分析模型

SCORCH. III. Analytical Models of Reionization with Varying Clumping Factors

论文作者

Chen, Nianyi, Doussot, Aristide, Trac, Hy, Cen, Renyue

论文摘要

在宇宙氢(Scorch)项目的电离的模拟和构造中,我们将氢电离分数的分析模型与放射线流动力学模拟进行了比较。我们从局部电离平衡方程中得出了大量加权氢电离分数的分析模型,这是基于体积填充因子广泛采用的模型的更准确的替代方法。特别是,我们的模型在离子化部分中具有重组项二次,这与重组的两体相互作用性质一致。然后,我们使用辐射流动力模拟来研究解决分析方程所需的结块因子,并提供准确的拟合功能。我们发现,来自辐射转移模拟的离子化氢团结因子与使用均匀光电离背景的其他模拟中的氢化因子显着不同。除了红移依赖性外,我们还看到了电离氢结块因子对离子化部分的依赖性,并且将其纳入拟合中。我们使用我们的分析模型和集结因子来计算电源历史,并与广泛采用的模型进行比较,并且我们所有的模型都在模拟结果中获得$ <7 \%$的差异,而其他模型具有$> 20 \%$ $的偏差。从我们的分析模型中计算出的电源的汤姆森光学深度导致$ <5 \%$与模拟的偏差,而先前的分析模型的$> 20 \%$的差异,并可能导致IGM恢复的结论有偏见。

In the Simulations and Constructions of the Reionization of Cosmic Hydrogen (SCORCH) project, we compare analytical models of the hydrogen ionization fraction with radiation-hydrodynamic simulations. We derive analytical models of the mass-weighted hydrogen ionization fraction from the local ionization balance equations as a more accurate alternative to the widely adopted model based on the volume filling factor. In particular, our model has a recombination term quadratic in the ionization fraction, which is consistent with the two-body interaction nature of recombination. Then, we use the radiation-hydrodynamic simulations to study the clumping factors needed to solve the analytical equations, and provide accurate fitting functions. We find that the ionized hydrogen clumping factors from our radiative transfer simulations are significantly different than those from other simulations that use a uniform photoionization background. In addition to redshift dependence, we also see the dependence of ionized hydrogen clumping factor on ionization fraction, and we incorporate this into our fits. We calculate the reionization histories using our analytical models and clumping factors and compare with widely adopted models, and all of our models achieve $<7\%$ difference from simulation results while the other models have $>20\%$ deviations. The Thomson optical depths from reionization calculated from our analytical models result in $<5\%$ deviation from simulations, while the previous analytical models have $>20\%$ difference in and could result in biased conclusions of the IGM reionization.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源