206 lines
3.9 KiB
Markdown
206 lines
3.9 KiB
Markdown
# Comments for the presentation
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
// COMMENTS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
// Explanation
|
|
- further modulation by _RSD_
|
|
|
|
|
|
// From first principles
|
|
// small scales to resolve sources + sinks + feedback
|
|
// large scales to capture statistics
|
|
|
|
// IF ASKED: difference with `21cmFAST`:
|
|
// based on excursion formalistm -> only valid >= 1Mpc, which is ideal for large volumes + statistics => 21-cm forecasts
|
|
|
|
// interesting to build emulators for instance
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
// From the xray emission
|
|
// primordial + heating term
|
|
// expansion + deposition by xrays
|
|
// => xrays are assumed to be the only source of heating
|
|
|
|
|
|
// $
|
|
// x_("HII")(r bar M, z) = theta_"H" lr([R_b (M, z) - r], size: #150%)
|
|
// $
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
// COMMENTS:
|
|
// - contribution from the lyman lines
|
|
// - 1/r^2 decrease from spreading photons
|
|
// - more steep outwards + sharp drop due to redshifting out of line
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
== Revisiting the 21cm signal
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Procedure
|
|
Painting using all halos that match in a SINGLE step
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
OVERLAP EXPLICITLY ALLOWED
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
### Postprocessing
|
|
- ionization overlaps
|
|
- corrections due to RSD
|
|
- computation of derived quantities
|
|
- summary statistics
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
### Maps
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Signal
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Halo growth
|
|
|
|
### Motivation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Effect on the flux profiles
|
|
|
|
// COMMENTS
|
|
// That will be directly affect the global signal as well
|
|
// shifting
|
|
//
|
|
// Yu-Siu already investigated the more nuanced effect of stochasticity but the approach we propose should supersede that
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Inferring growth from #smallcaps[Thesan] data
|
|
// ideal for rapid iterations
|
|
|
|
// in a parallelized fashion => want to stay fast
|
|
// fix the original mass for max. consistency
|
|
// fix the allowed dynamic range
|
|
|
|
// this sort of "breaks the degeneracy" between halos of the same mass but different growth histories
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
RESULT OF LOADING:
|
|
// COMMENTS:
|
|
// no clear trend between mass and growth rate
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Adaptations
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Central changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
// important since the bins are more now
|
|
|
|
|
|
// largely through vectorization -> still "native" python
|
|
// usage of HDF5
|
|
// solid caching mechanisms -> resume simulations, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Simplified usage
|
|
|
|
In a page or less
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Results
|
|
### Map outputs
|
|
// the ones where the accretion rate is likely higher
|
|
|
|
// in particular: no values where the coupling has become weaker
|
|
// will become apparent in the signal as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
// those are the ones where the diff vanishes: e.g. top right
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
// more variation due to the different accretion rates
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
// Globally:
|
|
// more dynamic range while the mean systematically shifts towards the (biased) lower accretion rates
|
|
|
|
// Intermezzo - compare with lower alpha range - mostly similar but occasional contributions from higher alpha values
|
|
// => recommend keeping a wide range since it does not affect performance (if the bins are empty anyway)
|
|
// the more intersting discussion to be had is the effect of a more fine binning - thesan data already gives an indication which values will be most frequent
|
|
// => the implementation to test that is there
|
|
|
|
|
|
// the halos themselves produce a stronger singal while the background is usually
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Signals
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Conclusion
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
### Summary
|
|
|
|
// since it affects the SFR and thus the emissivity
|
|
|
|
|
|
// change in profiles trivially
|
|
|
|
// which could in theory be absorbed by shifting other paremeters
|
|
|
|
// which we can hope to observe (although many are subtle)
|
|
|
|
// unique position of 21-cm cosmology -> cannot discuss observational constraints
|
|
|
|
|
|
// invite you to check out
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Outlook
|
|
// finally ready for direct comparison with c2ray? now that parameters and loading have been properly implemented
|
|
|
|
// Assuming other relations related to production of photons is (hopefully by now well motivated) complex
|
|
// these cannot directly be inferred => expressed as a distribution as a function of another halo property
|
|
|
|
// the scale-up -> large volumes with usable merger trees
|
|
// comitting to reserving some 100s of node hours (which I would still quantify as fast)
|