Paper detail

On the accuracy of common moment-based radiative transfer methods for simulating reionization

Cosmological simulations of reionization often treat radiative transfer by solving for the monopole and dipoles of the intensity field and by making ansatz for the quadrupole moments to close the system of equations. We investigate the accuracy of the most common closure methods, i.e. Eddington tensor choices. We argue that these algorithms are most likely to err after reionization and study quasi-analytic test problems mimicking these situations: large-scale post-reionization ionizing background fluctuations and radiative transfer in a predominantly ionized medium with discrete absorbers. We show that OTVET and M1 over-ionize self-shielding absorbers when fixing the background photoionization rate, leading to 30-40% higher emissivity to balance the increased recombination. This over-ionization results in a simulation run with these algorithms having a factor of ~2 lower average metagalactic photoionization rate relative to truth given an ionizing emissivity. Furthermore, these algorithms are unlikely to reproduce ionizing background fluctuations on scales below the photon mean path: OTVET tends to overpredict the fluctuations there when the simulation box is smaller than twice the mean free path and underpredict otherwise, while M1 drastically underpredicts these fluctuations. As a result, these numerical methods are likely not sufficiently accurate to interpret the Ly$α$ forest opacity fluctuations observed after reionzation. We show that a high number of angular directions need to be followed to capture the post-reionization ionizing background fluctuations accurately with ray-tracing codes. Lastly, we argue that the strong dependence of the post-reionization ionizing background on the value of the reduced speed of light found in many simulations signals that the ionizing photon mean free path is several times larger in such simulations than the observationally measured value.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.