--- abstract: 'The dispersion measure (DM) of fast radio bursts (FRBs) provides a unique way to probe ionised baryons in the intergalactic medium (IGM). Cosmological models with different parameters lead to different DM-redshift ($\mathrm{DM}-z$) relations. Additionally, the over/under-dense regions in the IGM and the circumgalactic medium of intervening galaxies lead to scatter around the mean $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relations. We have used the Evolution and Assembly of GaLaxies and their Environments () simulations to measure the mean $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relation and the scatter around it using over one billion lines-of-sight between redshifts $0<z<3$. We investigated two techniques to estimate line-of-sight DM: 'pixel scrambling' and 'box transformations'. We find that using box transformations (a technique from the literature) causes strong correlations due to repeated replication of structure. Comparing a linear and non-linear model, we find that the non-linear model with cosmological parameters, provides a better fit to the $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relation. The differences between these models are the most significant at low redshifts ($z<0.5$). The scatter around the $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relation is highly asymmetric, especially at low redshift $\left(z<0.5\right)$, and becomes more Gaussian as redshift approaches $z\sim3$, the limit of this study. The increase in Gaussianity with redshift is indicative of the large scale structures that is better probed with longer lines-of-sight. The minimum simulation size suitable for investigations into the scatter around the $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relation is 100 comoving Mpc. The $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relation measured in is available with an easy-to-use python interface in the open-source FRB redshift estimation package <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fruitbat</span>.' author: - | Adam J. Batten,$^{1,2}$[^1] Alan R. Duffy,$^{1,2}$ Nastasha A. Wijers,$^{3}$ Vivek Gupta,$^{1}$ Chris Flynn,$^{1}$ Joop Schaye,$^{3}$ Emma Ryan-Weber$^{1,2}$\ \ $^{1}$Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria 3122, Australia\ $^{2}$ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D)\ $^{3}$Sterrewacht, Leiden University, Niels Bohrweg 2, 2333 CA Leiden, The Netherlands\ bibliography: - 'references.bib' date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ' title: The Cosmic Dispersion Measure in the EAGLE Simulations --- \[firstpage\] intergalactic medium – hydrodynamics – methods: numerical – radio continuum: general Introduction ============ The whereabouts of almost a third of the baryons in the Universe is still unknown. A census by @Shull2012 to identify the baryonic content of the Universe at redshift $z=0$ found that $29 \pm 13\%$ remains undetected. This is known as the 'missing baryon problem'. Cosmological hydrodynamic simulations of a lambda cold dark matter ($\Lambda$CDM) Universe predict that these 'missing baryons' reside in the intergalactic medium (IGM), where the extremely low densities ($n_\mathrm{H}\sim 10^{-6} \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$) and high temperatures ($T\sim 10^6~\mathrm{K}$) make observational confirmation elusive due to the lack of UV and optical transition lines in this temperature-density regime [@Cen1999; @Bregman2007; @Shull2012]. Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) offer a promising tool to find these missing baryons by directly probing the ionised gas that has eluded the emission and absorption line census to date: highly ionised low density material [@McQuinn2014; @Deng2014; @Keane2019; @Macquart2020]. FRBs are a class of newly discovered, bright extragalactic radio transients ($\sim1~\mathrm{Jy}$) with short, millisecond durations and unknown origins [@Lorimer2007; @Thornton2013]. For recent reviews on FRBs see @Petroff2019 and @Cordes2019. The majority of the 137 FRBs detected to date (November 2020) have been one-off events – only 22 have been seen to repeat [@Spitler2014; @Spitler2016; @Petroff2016; @Marcote2017; @CHIME2019_second_repeater; @CHIME2019_Repeaters]. Currently, the host galaxies have been identified for three repeating (FRB 21102; @Tendulkar2017, FRB 180916; @Marcote2020, FRB 190711; @Macquart2020) and nine non-repeating FRBs (FRB 180924; @Bannister2019, FRB 190523; @Ravi2019, FRB 181112; @Prochaska2019b, FRB 190102, FRB 190611, FRB 190711; @Macquart2020, FRB 191001; @Bhandari2020, FRB 190717 and FRB 200430; @Heintz2020). One of the defining features of FRBs, and the key to finding the missing baryons, is their large dispersion measures (DM[^2]) relative to the DM of the interstellar medium. The DM of an FRB is an observed quantity that measures the delay in arrival time of the burst as a function of frequency. Electromagnetic waves travelling in an ionised medium will experience a frequency dependent delay. The lower frequency electromagnetic waves of the FRB will be delayed relative to higher frequencies, causing the pulse to become 'dispersed'. The larger the quantity of plasma along the line-of-sight, the larger the observed time delay between frequencies an (i.e the larger the DM). The observed DMs of FRBs currently span more than an order of magnitude: the lowest FRB DM is 103 ${{\rm pc~cm}^{-3}}$ [@CHIME2019_Repeaters] and the largest is 2596 ${{\rm pc~cm}^{-3}}$ [@Bhandari2018]. Taking into account cosmological effects, the DM of a source at redshift $z$ is exactly equal to: $$\mathrm{DM} = \int_0^z \frac{n_e(z)}{1 + z}\,\mathrm{d}l\,, \label{eq:dispersion_measure}$$ where $n_e$ is the physical electron density, $\mathrm{d}l$ is the physical distance element such that $\mathrm{d}l = c(1+z)^{-1} \mathrm{H}_0^{-1} E(z)^{-1} \mathrm{d}z$, $E(z)~=~\sqrt{\Omega_m (1+z)^3 + \Omega_{\Lambda}}$, $c$ is the speed of light, $\mathrm{H}_0$ is the Hubble parameter at redshift $z = 0$, $\Omega_b$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ are the cosmic matter density and cosmic dark energy density respectively. The $(1 + z)$ factor in the denominator accounts for cosmological time dilation due to the expanding Universe. Because FRBs originate from galaxies external to the Milky Way, it is convenient to break the observed DM ($\mathrm{DM_{Obs}}$) into 3 components: $\mathrm{DM_{MW}}$, $\mathrm{DM_\mathrm{cosmic}}(z)$ and $\mathrm{DM_{Host}}$ as shown in . $$\mathrm{DM_{Obs}}(z) = \mathrm{DM_{MW}} + \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}(z) + \frac{\mathrm{DM_{Host}}}{1+z} \,, \label{eq:DM_components}$$ where $\mathrm{DM_{MW}}$ is the DM due to the the Milky Way (this includes the ionised plasma in both the interstellar medium and the circumgalactic medium), $\mathrm{DM_\mathrm{cosmic}}(z)$ is the DM component due to the IGM and any contributions from intervening galaxy halos along the line-of-sight, and $\mathrm{DM_{Host}}$ is the DM component due to the host galaxy and local source environment of the FRB. The $\mathrm{DM_{MW}}$ component is usually estimated using a galaxy electron density model such as NE2001 [@NE2001] or YWM16 [@YMW2016]. This quantity is typically a small fraction of $\mathrm{DM_{Obs}}$. For example, FRB 121002 has a $\mathrm{DM_{Obs}}$ of 1629.18 ${{\rm pc~cm}^{-3}}$, whereas the NE2001 and YMW16 models estimate a $\mathrm{DM_{MW}}$ in the direction of the burst of $72.2~{{\rm pc~cm}^{-3}}$ and $60.5~{{\rm pc~cm}^{-3}}$ respectively. It should be noted that these models have their own uncertainties of a factor 2 or 3 (Price et al. *submitted*). The $\mathrm{DM_{Host}}$ is currently the least constrained parameter of the three contributing components of $\mathrm{DM_{Obs}}$. The value of $\mathrm{DM_{Host}}$ is unique for each galaxy, modulated further by the path of the FRB with respect to the plane of the galaxy. For example, a highly inclined galaxy is likely to have a higher $\mathrm{DM_{Host}}$ because the burst must traverse the ionised material in the denser ISM in the disk of the galaxy. Additionally there may be some contributions to $\mathrm{DM_{Host}}$ from the local source environment around the FRB. There have been some attempts to provide estimates of $\mathrm{DM_{Host}}$ [@Yang2017], however it is frequently assumed $\mathrm{DM_{Host}} = 0$ or a value similar to the Milky Way ($\mathrm{DM_{Host}} = 100~\mathrm{pc~cm^{-3}}$). The third component, $\mathrm{DM_\mathrm{cosmic}}$, is the focus of this paper. The $\mathrm{DM_\mathrm{cosmic}}$ component includes both the contribution from the IGM ($\mathrm{DM_{IGM}}$) and any intervening galaxy halos ($\mathrm{DM_{Halo,Int.}}$). Whilst $\mathrm{DM_{Halo,Int.}}$ is unique to the line-of-sight towards each FRB, $\mathrm{DM_{IGM}}$ can be analytically estimated using as derived in @Deng2014: $$\mathrm{DM_{IGM}} = \frac{3 c \mathrm{H}_0 \Omega_b}{8 \pi G m_p} \large\int_0^z \frac{ (1 + z)f_{\mathrm{IGM}}(z) \chi (z)}{\sqrt{\Omega_m (1+z)^3 + \Omega_\Lambda}} dz \,, \label{eq:DM_IGM}$$ where $\Omega_b$ is the cosmic baryon density, $G$ is the gravitational constant, $m_p$ is the proton mass and $f_\mathrm{IGM}(z)$ is the fraction of baryons in the IGM at redshift $z$. For a model of the IGM containing only hydrogen and helium, the ionisation parameter $\chi(z)$ is given by: $$\chi (z) = \left[0.75 y_1 \chi_{e, \mathrm{H}}(z) + 0.25 \frac{y_2}{2} \chi_{e,\mathrm{He}} (z)\right] \,, \label{eq:ionisation_parameter}$$ where $\chi_{e, \mathrm{H}}(z)$ and $\chi_{e, \mathrm{He}}(z)$ are the ionisation fractions of hydrogen and helium respectively, and $y_1 \sim 1$ and $y_2 \simeq 4 - 3y_1 \sim 1$ indicating the small deviations from the $0.75$-to-$0.25$ split of primordial hydrogen and helium mass fractions. The helium ionisation factor has an additional factor of $\frac{1}{2}$ due to helium only providing 0.5 electrons per proton mass. The key to identifying the missing baryons is the relationship between the DM and the redshift (i.e the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation, also the Macquart $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation) of FRBs. The shape and slope of the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation depends on the quantity of ionised baryons in the IGM. Therefore by measuring the host galaxy redshift and the $\mathrm{DM_{IGM}}$ component of FRBs and comparing with a theoretical $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation, it becomes possible to measure the fraction of baryons in the IGM. This exact analysis was performed by @Macquart2020 to conclude that FRBs are able to find all the 'missing baryons' in the IGM. The $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relations in the literature have been established using various techniques including: analytic models, semi-analytic models, and hydrodynamic simulations. Each of these techniques have significant differences in both the assumptions that they make and the resulting $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation. The analytic models of @Ioka2003, @Inoue2004 and @Zhang2018 approximate the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation through the cosmic baryon density, $\Omega_b$, in addition to assuming a composition and ionisation state of the Universe. The differences in the analytic models arise due to these differing assumptions. The @Ioka2003 model matches a homogeneous Universe with all the baryons ($\Omega_b = 0.044$) fully ionised. It also assumes the Universe is homogeneously filled with 100% ionised hydrogen. These assumptions lead to an approximately linear $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation with a slope of $\mathrm{DM_{\mathrm{Ioka}}}(z)/z~\approx~1174~{{\rm pc~cm}^{-3}}$. The @Inoue2004 and @Zhang2018 models are is similar to @Ioka2003, except with different parameters. @Inoue2004 instead assumes the IGM consists of 24% helium by mass and the rest hydrogen. Additionally it models hydrogen as fully ionised and helium as singly ionised. The @Zhang2018 model on the other hand adds two additional parameters: the helium abundance and the baryonic fraction locked inside galaxies. @Zhang2018 assumes that all baryons are fully ionised and a 0.875-to-1 ratio between electrons and baryons (to account for helium) and also assumes that only 85% of baryons are in the IGM (with the remaining 15% locked up within galaxies and the CGM). These differing assumptions lead to a flatter $\mathrm{DM} - z$ slope of $\mathrm{DM_{\mathrm{Inoue}}}(z)/z~\approx~960~{{\rm pc~cm}^{-3}}$ and $\mathrm{DM_{\mathrm{Zhang}}}(z)/z~\approx~850~{{\rm pc~cm}^{-3}}$ for @Inoue2004 and @Zhang2018 respectively. Since the analytic formulations all assume a homogeneous Universe, there is no scatter around the relation. These analytic models can not provide information on the line-of-sight variations due to the clumpy IGM. There has been additional work to calculate analytic estimates of the scatter around the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation by @McQuinn2014 and @Macquart2020. However, simulations are required to support these estimates of line-of-sight variations. The semi-analytic approach from @Pol2019 uses a large $N$-body/dark matter simulations to estimate the electrons density in the IGM from the dark matter distribution. This technique allows the use of extremely large simulations with high-resolution, however the drawback is that it only use dark matter density distributions and do not include any baryonic physics. @Pol2019 used the MareNostrum MICE large $N$-body/dark matter simulations [@Fosalba2008] which have box sizes $3072\ \mathrm{Mpc}\ h^{-1}$ with $2048^3$ particles. These simulations are a series of concentric radial shells of finite width around a central observer. @Pol2019 convert the dark matter density into a free electron density and then integrate this to find the DM as a function of redshift. They find $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ at redshift $z=1$ to be $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}(z=1)~=~800^{+7000}_{-170}~\mathrm{pc~cm^{-3}}$. However, their $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation has a significantly reduced estimate of IGM baryons compared to all other studies at low redshifts ($z < 1$). Their 95% confidence interval predicts IGM column densities of electrons equivalent to that of the Milky Way halo ($\sim 30-100\ {{\rm pc~cm}^{-3}}$) out to redshift $z=0.5$. Studies of the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation using cosmological hydrodynamic simulations have previously been used by @McQuinn2014, @Dolag2015 and @Jaroszynski2019. Each of these have used a different suite of simulations and arrive at different estimates of the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation. @McQuinn2014 calculated the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation with different models (analytic and simulations) for the distribution of cosmic baryons. These showed that the variance around the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation is quite sensitive to whether the 'missing' baryons are at the boundary of the IGM and CGM or significantly further out. From their cosmological simulation they found a variance around the mean $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation of $40\%$. However their simulation was relatively small (40 $h^{-1}$ cMpc; For comparison: = 100 cMpc, Magneticum Pathfinder = 896 $h^{-1}$ cMpc and Illustris = 75 $h^{-1}$ cMpc) and do not specify the number of lines-of-sight they have used. @Dolag2015 used the Magneticum suite of simulations to constrain the origins of FRBs by calculating the DM contributions from the Milky Way, local Universe and large scale structure. The Magneticum Pathfinder simulations are large enough (896 $h^-1$ Mpc) that their simulation boxes overlap in redshift, however their resolution is significantly lower than and Illustris. They used $4096^2~(\sim 1.7\times 10^6)$ sight lines to generate the DM probability distribution function at 7 redshifts between $0 < z < 1.980$. @Jaroszynski2019 used the Illustris simulations and found a $13$ percent scatter around the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation at $z~=~1$ and $7$ percent at $z~=~3$. They also simulated populations of FRBs to determine if they are able constrain cosmological parameters such as the Hubble constant, $\mathrm{H}_0$. They concluded that to constrain the mean ionised fraction to $\sim 1\%$ at various epoch, would require $10^4$ FRBs with known redshifts, a number significantly higher than the current number of measured FRB redshifts. In this work we have used the simulations to calculate the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation from redshift $z = 0$ to 3 using over a billion lines of sight. This is the largest number of lines of sight used in the analysis of the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation; exceeding the previous highest by @Jaroszynski2019 by a factor of 4. In doing so we have produced $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ PDFs at the highest number of redshift samples (66 samples between redshifts $z = 0$ and 3). We compare our results to those in the literature and find that the mean $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ broadly agrees with previous work and is well fitted by a non-linear model that includes parameters for cosmology. We have performed an explicit investigation into the scatter around the mean finding that there is significant asymmetry in the shape of the PDFs. We also provide convergence tests for both volume and resolution, which has previously not been performed. We also compare our $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation to the redshifts of known FRB host galaxies and find that many FRBs lay in the $2 - 3 \sigma$ region of the confidence interval. We suggest that this could be an indication that these FRBs have intersected with filaments of the IGM. In we provide an overview of the cosmological hydrodynamic simulations. In we describe the process of generating projected DM maps from . In we describe the process of generating interpolated DM maps for 66 redshift samples and the process of combining these maps to produce a $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation in . In we present the DM-redshift relation and discuss the scatter around the mean. We also compare with observations of localised FRBs. Finally, we summarise our results and provide our conclusions in . Length units with the prefixes 'p' and 'c' indicate 'proper' and 'comoving' quantities respectively. The exception is centimetres (cm) which is in proper units. The EAGLE Simulations {#sec:EAGLE} ===================== ----------------- ------------------- ---------- ------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------- ------- ------------------------ -- Name $L_\mathrm{box}$ $N$ Resolution $m_{\mathrm{gas}}$ $m_{\mathrm{cdm}}$ $\epsilon_{\mathrm{phys}}$ $N_\mathrm{pixels}$ $N_z$ Associated $(\mathrm{cMpc})$ $\left(\mathrm{M}_{\odot}\right)$ $\left(\mathrm{M}_{\odot}\right)$ $(\text {pkpc})$ Convergence Test RefL0100N1504 100 $1504^3$ Medium $1.81 \times 10^6$ $9.70 \times 10^6$ 0.70 $32000^2$ 66 Reference RefL0050N0752 50 $752^3$ Medium $1.81\times 10^6$ $9.70 \times 10^6$ 0.70 $16000^2$ 131 Volume RefL0025N0376 25 $376^3$ Medium $1.81 \times 10^6$ $9.70 \times 10^6$ 0.70 $8000^2$ 262 Volume and Resolution RefL0025N0752 25 $752^3$ High $2.26 \times 10^5$ $1.21 \times 10^6$ 0.35 $8000^2$ 262 Resolution and Physics RecalL0025N0752 25 $752^3$ High $2.26 \times 10^5$ $1.21 \times 10^6$ 0.35 $8000^2$ 262 Physics ----------------- ------------------- ---------- ------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------- ------- ------------------------ -- \[tab:EAGLE\_sim\] In this section we provide an overview of the (Evolution and Assembly of GaLaxies and their Environments) simulations. For a more detailed description of the simulations see @Schaye2015 and @Crain2015. The simulations are a suite of high resolution cosmological $N$-body/hydrodynamic simulations performed using a modified version of the smooth particle hydrodynamic (SPH) code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget-3</span>, last described in @Springel2005. adopts a @Planck2014 $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, with the following parameters: $\Omega_m = 0.307$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.693$, $\Omega_b = 0.04825$, $H_0 = 67.77~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$, $\sigma_8 = 0.8288$, $n_s = 0.9611$ and $Y = 0.248$. The main simulation cubes were run with volumes of 25, 50 and 100 cMpc per side and employed a gravitational softening length of 0.7 pkpc. The resolution in is not sufficient to fully resolve the multi-phase nature of the interstellar medium (ISM), but is able to marginally resolve the warm ISM ($\mathrm{T \sim 10^4~K}$) on $\sim \mathrm{kpc}$ scales. Galactic-scale processes that occur on scales that are unresolved in (these processes are often referred to as 'subgrid physics') are implemented using subgrid models. Gas is cooling is implemented through tracking the abundances of 11 elements (H, He, C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Ca, and Fe) and their cooling rates following @Wiersma2009a. Hydrogen reionisation is implemented by 'turning-on' a @HaardtMadau2001 time-dependent spatially uniform UV/X-ray background at $z = 11.5$. Star formation follows @Schaye2008 and, by-design, reproduces the Kennicutt-Schmidt star formation law [@Kennicutt1998]. Star particles are treated as simple stellar populations with a @Chabrier2003 IMF with stellar evolution and mass loss based on @Wiersma2009b. Galactic winds are driven by energy feedback from star formation [@DallaVecchia2012] and active galactic nuclei (AGN; @Booth2009) through the stochastic heating of gas particles to temperatures large enough to overcome the over-cooling problem. We have chosen to use the simulations to study the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation of the IGM for the following reasons: 1. The physics scheme implemented in is successful in reproducing observed galaxy properties at low redshift such as the cosmic star formation history [e.g. @Madau1996] in @Furlong2015. 2. @Rahmati2015 showed that is in broad agreement with observed absorption line statistics [@Rudie2012; @Prochaska2013]. Since absorption and DM are linked ( absorption traces neutral gas, whereas DM traces ionised gas), it should be expected that is also well suited to predicting the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation of the IGM. 3. The resolution in is high enough to resolve the Jeans length in the IGM. 4. Since is a hydrodynamic simulation, it evolves both the baryonic matter and dark matter together self-consistently. Hence we do not make any assumptions about the distribution of baryons based on dark matter distributions, as is done with semi-analytic models. summarises the simulations that were used in this work. The reference feedback model was calibrated at the standard resolution (i.e the resolution of RefL0100N1504). The reference feedback model is used in the simulations listed in with the prefix 'Ref'. The simulation RecalL0025N0752 was re-calibrated in the same manner as the reference feedback model except at eight times higher resolution. Using a variety of box sizes (i.e. 25, 50 and 100 cMpc), resolutions and feedback calibrations is necessary to test for resolution and box size convergence. Except for in we will only be sharing the results obtained from the analysis of RefL0100N1504. Methods {#sec:methods} ======= We have used to calculate the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation between redshifts $0 < z \lesssim 3$. We limit our analysis to redshifts $z \lesssim 3$ because helium reionisation is expected to be complete by redshift $z \sim 3$ and the @HaardtMadau2001 UV background may not accurately reproduce the abundances of singly ionised helium (i.e. at redshift $0 < z \lesssim 3$ the properties of the IGM are relatively simple). Creating Dispersion Measure Maps {#sec:creating_dm_maps} -------------------------------- For each of the simulations listed in , we produced integrated electron column density ($N_e$) maps from all the snapshots in the redshift range $z = 0$ to $3.016$. We then converted each of these column density maps into DM maps. The method we used to calculate these integrated column densities is detailed in Section 2.2 of @Wijers2019; however we provide an overview of this process in below. ### Column Density Calculation {#sec:cd_calculation} We post-processed the snapshots to obtain the ion abundances of , and . We determined the number density of ions using tabulated ionisation fractions as a function of density, temperature, redshift. These ionisation fraction tables were computed using the spectral synthesis program Cloudy (version c07.02.00, @Ferland1998) under the same cooling assumptions that were used in . We used the @Rahmati2013 prescription to obtain the fraction of neutral hydrogen because the ionisation tables do not account for self-shielding against ionising radiation in high-density ($n_\mathrm{H} \gtrsim 10^{-3} ~\mathrm{cm}^{3}$) gas. We obtained the column densities ($N_x$; where $x$ is H, , He, or ) of these ions by summing within columns (thin elongated rectangular prisms) of fixed length and finite area. We divided the $X$ and $Y$ directions of a snapshot such that each column had an area of $3.125^2~\mathrm{ckpc}^2$. This area was chosen such that the column density statistics had converged. The length of each column is equal to the box size ($L_\mathrm{box}$) This gives us the number of lines-of-sight ($N_\mathrm{pixels}$) shown in . We use the SPH kernel to project the ion abundances within SPH particles into columns, then add the particle contributions in each column together. We then divide the total abundance in each column by the area ($3.125^2~\mathrm{ckpc}^2$) to get the column densities in lines-of-sight along the $Z$-axis.[^3] We refer to this 2D projection as a column density 'map'. Each pixel in the map is the column density along that line-of-sight. ### Electron Column Density Maps {#sec:electron_cd_maps} We calculated the electron column density, $N_{e}$, along each line-of-sight from the calculated ion column densities as shown in , $$\begin{aligned} N_e = \left(N_{\mathrm{H}} - N_{{\ion{H}{i}}} \right) + \left(2 N_{\mathrm{He}} - 2N_{{\ion{He}{i}}} - N_{{\ion{He}{ii}}} \right). \label{eq:electron_column_density}\end{aligned}$$ Here $N_{\mathrm{H}}$, $N_{\mathrm{H{\textsc{i}}}}$, $N_{\mathrm{He}}$, $N_{\mathrm{He{\textsc{i}}}}$, $N_{\mathrm{He{\textsc{ii}}}}$ are the column densities of hydrogen, neutral hydrogen, helium, neutral helium and singly ionised helium respectively. The values for $N_e$ were determined in this manner because we did not have ionisation tables to calculate ion fractions for singly ionised hydrogen () and doubly ionised helium (). We converted these electron column density maps into DM maps by a change of units (from $\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$ to $\mathrm{pc~cm^{-3}}$). We note that for snapshots with redshift $z > 0$, this is not the 'true' DM map at that redshift, but the DM map of that snapshot as if it was at redshift $z = 0$. We corrected for this by introducing a factor of $(1+z)^{-1}$ (see and for a derivation of this factor). In we show three of the DM maps at redshifts $z = 0, 1.004$ and $3.017$. We clarify here that in this step we are not computing the total DM to a source, but the DM over the length of the boxes at different redshifts. In we generate interpolated DM maps at redshift intervals equal to the $L_\mathrm{box}$. We sum these interpolated DM maps in to obtain the total DM to sources at different redshifts. Interpolated Dispersion Measure Maps {#sec:interpolated_dm_maps} ------------------------------------ To study the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation for distances larger than one box size, we need to connect snapshots together (as discussed above) by creating continuous lines-of-sight from redshifts $z = 0$ to 3. However the boxes do not overlap because the redshift spacing between the snapshots is larger than the box size ($L_\mathrm{box}$). In other words, there are 'gaps' in redshift that does not cover. Without creating maps to fill in these redshift 'gaps' we would be significantly underestimating the line-of-sight DM. For each of the simulations we generated a sequence of sample redshifts between $z = 0$ and $3.016$ (the redshift of snapshot 17) separated by $L_\mathrm{box}$. The redshift samples were generated assuming the same cosmology as implemented as in [@Planck2014]. This gave us $N_z$ redshift samples (see for a summary of the simulations used). We calculated an interpolated DM map for each of the redshift samples by linearly interpolating between neighbouring DM maps. In other words; to create an interpolated DM map at redshift $z = 0.2$ in the RefL0100N1504 simulation, we linearly interpolated between the DM maps created from neighbouring snapshot outputs at redshifts $z = 0.18$ and $z = 0.27$. We linearly interpolated in redshift rather than using comoving distance because as shown in DM scales linearly with the scale factor $a = (1 + z)^{-1}$. We multiplied each of these interpolated DM maps by a factor of $(1 + z)^{-1}$ to obtain the true DM values at that redshift (see for a derivation of this $(1+z)^{-1}$ factor). This gave us $N_z$ DM maps, all separated spatially by $L_\mathrm{box}$. Because the spatial separation between the maps is $L_\mathrm{box}$, we were able to add these maps together to obtain a continuous sight lines up to redshift $z = 3.017$. In we show a quadrant from three DM maps at redshifts $z = 0, 1.004$ and $3.017$. ![image](figures/testing.png){width="\linewidth"} ### Pixel Randomisation ('Scramble Technique' ) {#sec:shuffle} A common issue that arises when connecting simulation boxes to create larger volumes is the replication of structure. If these boxes were naively combined as is, then there would be a periodic repeating of structure along each line-of-sight. This would lead to results that would not match our Universe. One way to minimise the effects of periodic repeating of structure is to perform a randomised transformation on each replicated simulation box [@Blaizot2005]. These transformations are a series of rotations, mirrors and translations. However, as we show in , in the case of DM maps this transformation technique is ineffective at removing correlations in the smaller simulations (25 and 50 cMpc). This is because there is less space in the smaller boxes to 'translate' the boxes, which leads to a greater number of repeating structures. We have instead used a 'scramble' technique to remove the structure of the DM maps. For each map we randomly reassign the individual lines-of-sight (pixels) to new locations. The reassignment of lines-of-sight to new position is completely independent for each map. This process scrambles the positions of the lines-of-sight to ensure there we have no repeating structures. Cumulative Sum and PDF Normalisation {#sec:cumulative_sum} ------------------------------------ After scrambling the positions of the lines-of-sight we have a 3-dimensional array ($N_\mathrm{pixels} \times N_\mathrm{pixels} \times N_z$) containing DM maps separated by $100~\mathrm{cMpc}$ with no periodic structure (see ). For each pixel, we performed a cumulative sum along $z$. This gave us $N_\mathrm{z}$ redshift samples, each with $N_\mathrm{pixels} \times N_\mathrm{pixels}$ line-of-sight DM measurements. For each of the $N_\mathrm{z}$ redshift samples we constructed the DM probability density function (PDF). We created histograms using 1000 ($N_\mathrm{bins}$) logarithmically spaced bins between $10^0 - 10^5\ \mathrm{pc\ cm^{-3}}$. We normalised each histogram to produce the probability density function (PDF). This normalisation is: $$\mathrm{PDF}(z) = N_{\mathrm{los}, i} \left(\Delta \mathrm{DM}_i\sum_{i=0}^{N_\mathrm{bins}} N_{\mathrm{los}, i}\right)^{-1} \,, \label{eq:normalisation}$$ where $\mathrm{PDF}(z)$ is the $\mathrm{DM}_\mathrm{cosmic}$ PDF at redshift $z$, $N_{\mathrm{los}, i}$ is the number of lines-of-sight within the $i$th DM bin, and $\Delta \mathrm{DM}_i$ is the width of the $i$th DM bin. Results and Discussion {#sec:Results} ====================== Dispersion Measure - Redshift Relation {#sec:dmz-relation} -------------------------------------- ![image](figures/RefL0100N1504_DMz_Mean_All.png){width="\linewidth"} In the left panel of we show the PDFs of <span>$\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$</span> from the RefL0100N1504 simulation at 66 redshift intervals between $0~<~z~<~3.016$. The thick solid black line is the mean <span>$\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$</span> ($\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$) at each redshift and the dot-dashed, dashed, and dotted lines are the $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$, and $3\sigma$, confidence intervals respectively. See and for more details on $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ and the confidence intervals. The PDFs have been normalised to unity as described in . We have truncated the colour bar at $\log_{10} \mathrm{PDF}(z) = -6$ because below this value there is noise in the PDF bins due to the low number of lines-of-sight. In the right panel of , we plot the $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ with existing analytic (solid), hydrodynamic (dashed) and semi-analytic (dotted) analysis in the literature. The analytic models of @Ioka2003, @Inoue2004, @Zhang2018 and @Macquart2020 are coloured yellow, purple, orange and green respectively. The hydrodynamic models of @McQuinn2014, @Dolag2015 and @Jaroszynski2019 are coloured light brown, red and light-blue respectively. The semi-analytic model of @Pol2019 is coloured grey. The line for @Jaroszynski2019 is difficult to see because it almost perfectly overlaps with $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$. We find a large spread in the <span>$\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$</span> PDFs. This is not unexpected since this spread is indicative of the variation in cosmic electron column density between different lines-of-sight. See for further analysis of the non-Gaussianity of these PDFs. Our $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ broadly agree with the other models in the literature; in-particular @Jaroszynski2019 is an extremely close match for all redshifts. The @Ioka2003 can be considered an upper-limit to the slope of the $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relation because it assumes the Universe is homogeneously filled with ionised hydrogen alone. Increasing the helium fraction or the amount of baryons locked inside galaxies both decrease the slope of the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation. On the other hand, @Zhang2018 uses a $f_\mathrm{IGM}$ factor ($f_\mathrm{IGM} = 0.85$) to analytically exclude baryons locked inside galaxies from contributing to $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$. However, their model underestimates $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}\right\rangle$ at all redshifts compared to the results of this work and other hydrodynamic simulations. This suggests that simulations predict a higher fraction of baryons residing in the IGM than analytic models. Mean Dispersion Measure {#sec:mean_dm} ----------------------- ![*Top:* The solid black line is the $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ at each redshift. The red and blue lines are the Model A (linear model) and Model B (non-linear model) fits the mean respectively. *Middle:* The residuals of $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ minus the model fits. The colours here are the same as the top panel. *Bottom:* The relative residuals of the mean minus the model fits. The colours here are the same as the other panels.<span data-label="fig:mean_DM_fits"></span>](figures/RefL0100N1504_Mean_DM_Fits.png){width="\linewidth"} We calculated the mean $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_\mathrm{cosmo}} \right\rangle$ at each of the 66 redshift samples using the relation $$\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \rangle = \sum_{i=0}^{N_\mathrm{bins}} \mathrm{DM}_i~P(\mathrm{DM}_i | z)~ \Delta \mathrm{DM}_i \,, \label{eq:DM_Mean}$$ where $\mathrm{DM}_i$ is a bin value, $P(\mathrm{DM}_i | z)$ is the probability of a line-of-sight with $\mathrm{DM}_i$ at redshift $z$ and $\Delta \mathrm{DM}_i$ is the width of the $\mathrm{DM}_i$ bin. In the top we show the measured $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_\mathrm{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ for each redshift. To fit this data we have considered both a linear and non-linear model for the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation. We term the linear relation between $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ and redshift as Model A where, $$\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle = az + b \,.$$ This model has been used previously in the literature to provide a simple a 'rule-of-thumb' for converting $\mathrm{DM_{Obs}}$ into an estimated redshift [e.g. @Zhang2018; @Petroff2019]. We have fit this model with both a zero and non-zero intercept and find that $b \neq 0$ is preferred. We note however that most of the literature uses Model A with $b=0$ . Model B is a non-linear parameterisation of the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation to include the cosmology of the Universe $$\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle = \alpha F(z)\,,$$ here the parameter $F(z)$ is given by the following $$F(z) = \int_0^z\frac{1 + z}{\sqrt{(1+z)\Omega_m + \Omega_\Lambda }} \mathrm{d}z \,.$$ Model B is based on which relates $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ to $z$. At redshift $z=0$, $F(z) = 1$. This means we are able to measure the redshift $z=0$ value of $\alpha = \frac{3 c \mathrm{H}_0 \Omega_b}{8 \pi G m_p} f_\mathrm{IGM}(z=0) \chi(z=0)$. We calculated a least squares fit for both models as a function of redshift $z$. In the top panel of we present the best fitting parameters for both Model A and Model B. In the lower two panels of we have also plotted the absolute and relative residuals to the best fitting model. We find that the best fit to Model A has parameters $a = 999 \pm 4$ and $b = 17 \pm 6$, with a reduced $\chi^2=809.3$ with 64 degrees of freedom and a mean relative residual of 14.6% in the redshift range $z = 0 - 3$. The best fit to Model A with $b = 0$ has parameters $a = 1009 \pm 3$ with a reduced $\chi^2=899.2$ with 65 degrees of freedom. We find that the Model A fit with $b\neq0$ is preferred. The best fitting Model B has parameters $\alpha = 934.5 \pm 0.3$, with a reduced $\chi^2 = 13.2$ with 65 degrees of freedom and a mean relative residual of 0.732%. We find that Model B is a better fit to the $\left<\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right>$ particularly at low redshifts ($z < 0.5$). We would urge caution when using a linear model for estimating FRBs redshifts with low DM values. Using $\alpha = 934.5$ we find $f_\mathrm{IGM}(z=0) \chi(z=0) = 0.85$. Standard Deviation {#sec:sigma_dm} ------------------ We have use two different (but related) metrics to measure the scatter around $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ at a given redshift. These metrics are: 1. $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$: the variance of the PDF, and 2. $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$: the 1 $\sigma$ (68%) confidence interval. We have used two metrics because they both quantify the spread around the mean but in different ways. $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ quantifies the expected deviation from the mean, whereas $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ describes the width. These $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$, $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ are defined as, $$\sigma_\mathrm{Var}^2(z) = \sum_{i=0}^{N_\mathrm{bins}} (\mathrm{DM}_i - \left\langle\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}\right\rangle)^2 P(\mathrm{DM}_i|z)\Delta \mathrm{DM}_i \,, \label{eq:sigma_var}$$ $$\sigma_\mathrm{CI}(z) = \frac{\mathrm{DM}_{84}(z) - \mathrm{DM}_{16}(z)}{2} \label{eq:sigma_ci} \,.$$ In , $\mathrm{DM}_i$ is a bin value, $\left\langle\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}\right\rangle$ is mean of the PDF at redshift $z$, $P(\mathrm{DM}_i | z)$ is the probability of a line-of-sight with $\mathrm{DM}_i$ at redshift $z$ and $\Delta \mathrm{DM}_i$ is the width of the bin. In $\mathrm{DM}_{84}(z)$ and $\mathrm{DM}_{16}(z)$ are the upper and lower limits of the 68% confidence interval respectively. When the $\left\langle\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}\right\rangle$ PDF is Gaussian, both $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ are identical. However for distributions that are skewed, $\sigma_\mathrm{Var} > \sigma_\mathrm{CI}$. The larger the difference between $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$, the more skewed the distribution. In the top panel of we show $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ for each redshift. ![*Top:* The solid and dashed black lines $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ at each redshift respectively. The red and blue lines are the best fitting exponential models for $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ (solid) and $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ (dashed) respectively. *Middle:* The residuals of $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ minus the model fits. The line styles here are the same as the top panel. *Bottom:* The relative residuals of $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ minus the model fits. The line styles here are the same as the other panels.<span data-label="fig:sigma_fits_v_redshift"></span>](figures/RefL0100N1504_Sigma_CI_Sigma_Var_Fits_None_Uncert.pdf){width="\linewidth"} We calculated a least squares fit for both $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ assuming an exponential form with redshift $z$ as $$\sigma = Ae^{Bz} + C \,. \label{eq:expon}$$ We plot the best fitting exponential models in . In the lower two panels of we have also plotted the absolute and relative residuals. We find that the best exponential fit to $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ has parameters $A=-205\pm2$, $B=-1.35\pm0.04$ and $C=254\pm2$ with a reduced $\chi^2=21.4$ with 63 degrees of freedom and a mean relative residual of 7.12% in the redshift range $z = 0 - 3$. Similarly the best fitting exponential to $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ has the parameters $A=-234.3\pm0.7$, $B = -0.991 \pm 0.009$ and $C = 237.2 \pm 0.8$ with a reduced $\chi^2=2.18$ with 63 degrees of freedom and a mean relative residual of 7.9% in the redshift range $z = 0 - 3$. We find that $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ is significantly larger than $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ for all redshifts indicating that the $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ PDF are non-Gaussian. PDF Non-Gaussianity ------------------- ![Non-Gaussainity of the PDFs, $f_\mathrm{NG}$, as a function of redshift, $z$. A value of $f_\mathrm{NG}$ of 0.0 indicates that the $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}\right\rangle$ PDF at redshift $z$ is Gaussian. Ratios other than 0.0 indicate that the PDF is skewed from normality. The Gaussianity of the $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}\right\rangle$ PDFs increases with redshift.<span data-label="fig:f_NG_v_redshift"></span>](figures/RefL0100N1504_fng_v_redshift.pdf){width="\linewidth"} We introduce the quantity $f_\mathrm{NG}$ as a measure of the "non-Gaussianity" of the PDFs at any given redshift as described by $$f_\mathrm{NG} = 1 - \frac{\sigma_\mathrm{CI}}{\sigma_\mathrm{Var}} \,. \label{eq:f_NG}$$ A value of $f_\mathrm{NG}$ that is close to zero indicates the PDF is close to Gaussian, whereas a value close to unity indicates extremely strong non-Gaussianity. In we plot $f_\mathrm{NG}$ for each redshift. Over the redshift range $0 < z < 3$, we find that the Gaussianity of the PDFs increases markedly with redshift. We note that even at redshift $z = 3$, $f_\mathrm{NG}\approx 0.1$. This indicates that even at high redshifts ($z \sim 3$), the shape of the $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ is still significantly non-Gaussian. This increase in Gaussianity with redshift can be well interpreted in terms of the FRB path length and the amount of substructure up to that distance. The shorter path length of low-redshift ($z < 0.5)$ FRBs increases the probability that the line-of-sight will not intersect with any galaxy halos or IGM filaments. The few high DM structures that intersect the sight lines of these low-redshift FRBs cause the PDF to become skewed to reflect the log-normal matter distribution. At higher-redshifts ($z > 0.5$), the FRB sight lines are likely intersect with more high DM structures, causing the PDF to become more Gaussian with increasing redshift. Additionally, the size of the simulation box contributes to the shape of the PDF distribution because it physically determines the maximum size of structures. A small, 25 cMpc box is physically unable to contain the low-density voids, or extremely rare high-density clusters because they would extend outside the box. Using larger boxs alleviates this problem because they are able to contain larger substructure. See for a comparison of $f_\mathrm{NG}$ with different simulation box sizes. Another factor to consider is that different parameterisations of galaxy feedback mechanisms (i.e AGN and star formation) will lead to different growths of substructure. For example: increases in AGN feedback would likely eject more baryons into the IGM and decrease baryons in galaxies. The reduced amount of baryons in galaxies could cause the shape of the $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ to become more Gaussian at low redshifts ($z < 0.5$). In the future as we move towards a situation of hundreds (or thousands) of localised FRBs, it may become possible to constrain the feedback mechanisms involved in galaxy evolution. The ability of future FRB host galaxy surveys to measure galaxy feedback processes will be explored more in Batten et al. *in prep.* Comparison to Localised Fast Radio Bursts ----------------------------------------- ------------ -------------- --------------- ------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ---------- ----------------- Name R.A. (J2000) Dec. (J2000) $z_\mathrm{host}$ $\mathrm{DM_{Obs}}$ $\mathrm{DM_{MW}}$ Repeater (Deg) (Deg) $\left[\mathrm{pc\ cm^{-3}}\right]$ $\left[\mathrm{pc\ cm^{-3}}\right]$ FRB 180916 01:58:00.28 $+$65:42:53.0 0.034 348.8 199 Yes @Marcote2020 FRB 190608 22:16:04.90 $-$07:53:55.8 0.118 339.5 37.2 No @Macquart2020 FRB 200430 15:18:49.52 $+$12:22:35.8 0.160 380.0 27.2 No @Heintz2020 FRB 121102 05:31:58.70 $+$33:08:52.7 0.193 557.0 188 Yes @Tendulkar2017 FRB 191001 21:33:24.44 $-$54:44:54.7 0.2340 507.9 44.2 No @Bhandari2020 FRB 190714 12:15:55.09 $-$13:01:16.0 0.2365 504.1 38.5 No @Heintz2020 FRB 190102 21:29:39.72 $-$79:28:32.2 0.291 364.5 57.3 No @Macquart2020 FRB 180924 21:44:25.25 $-$40:54:00.8 0.321 361.4 40.5 No @Bannister2019 FRB 190611 21:22:58.71 $-$79:23:49.6 0.378 321.4 57.8 No @Macquart2020 FRB 181112 21:49:23.68 $-$52:58:15.4 0.476 589.3 40.2 No @Prochaska2019b FRB 190711 21:57:40.63 $-$80:21:29.3 0.522 593.1 56.5 Yes @Macquart2020 FRB 190523 13:48:15.43 $+$72:28:14.4 0.660 760.8 37.0 No @Ravi2019 ------------ -------------- --------------- ------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ---------- ----------------- ![The solid black line is the mean $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation found in this work shown in . The blue contours indicate the 1, 2 and 3 $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ confidence intervals. The data points show the DM versus redshift, $z$, for FRBs which have been associated with host galaxies (listed in ). For each FRB, the symbols show the DM excess ($\mathrm{DM_{obs}}$ - DM$_{\mathrm{MW}}$), the tip of the upward error bar shows the observed DM (DM$_{\mathrm{obs}}$). The Milky Way DM is estimated using the NE2001 galactic electron density model [@Cordes2019]. The tip of downward error bar indicates an additional contribution of 130 pc cm$^{-3}$ (composed of 100 pc cm$^{-3}$ for an estimated host galaxy and 30 pc cm$^{-3}$ for the contribution due to the Milky Way halo from @Prochaska2019a; which is not modelled in NE2001). Diamonds (black) indicate known repeating FRBs, while filled circles (yellow) are FRBs that have not yet been seen to repeat.<span data-label="fig:localised_frbs"></span>](figures/Localised_FRBS.png){width="\linewidth"} In we plot $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ from this work and the 1, 2 and 3 $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ confidence intervals. We clarify here that the $3 \sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ region is not simply $3 \times \sigma_\mathrm{CI}$, but the region that encompasses 99.7% of the $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ PDF. We have also plotted the redshifts of the FRBs with localised host galaxies (see ). The tips of the error bar tops indicates $\mathrm{DM_{Obs}}$. The symbols here represent the DM excess ($\mathrm{DM_{Obs}} - \mathrm{DM_{MW}}$) with diamonds (black) and filled circles (yellow) indicating repeating and not observed to repeat FRBs respectively. We remind the reader that the DM excess of an FRB is not the same as $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$. There are additional contributions to $\mathrm{DM_{Obs}}$ that are not model in the NE2001 electron density model. The two additional contributions that we consider are the halo of the Milky Way and the ionised gas inside of the FRBs host galaxy. For the Milky Way halo, we used the estimated 30 pc cm$^{-3}$ from @Prochaska2019a. We have excluded FRB 190614 [@Law2020] because the localisation identifies two possible host galaxies at redshift $z \sim 0.6$. The contribution due to ionised gas inside the host galaxy is unique to each FRB. We adopt a rather conservative estimate that each of the localised FRBs has a host galaxy contribution of 100 pc cm$^{-3}$. We expect that 100 pc cm$^{-3}$ is close to the upper limit for most FRBs based on the Milky Way DM contributions. This is assuming that there is not a large contribution to $\mathrm{DM_{Obs}}$ from the local environment surrounding the source of the FRB within the galaxy. The bottom of the error bars indicate an additional 130 pc cm$^{-3}$ of subtracted DM. This additional contribution accounts for contribution of ISM contribution We expect that for most FRBs, the DM excess falls above our mean $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation when not accounting for the host galaxy contribution. shows that the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation obtained using the simulations broadly agrees with the observed FRBs host galaxies. We note that the number of localised FRBs is still small and a larger number is required, particularly at higher redshifts ($z \sim 2 - 3$). Of particular note that even with the significant amount of scatter we measure around $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmo}} \right\rangle$, the six FRBs with the lowest redshifts (FRB 180916, FRB 190608, FRB 200430, FRB 121102, FRB 191001 and FRB 190714) all reside in the $2-3\ \sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ regions, whereas the remaining high redshift FRBs more closely follow $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$. There are a few reasons why an FRB would have a significantly larger $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ than is expected given its redshift. (i) the DM contribution from host galaxy and/or source environment around the FRB is larger than estimated, (ii) the FRB intersects with an unseen intervening galaxy halo, (iii) the FRB intersects with an over-dense filament of the IGM. @Simha2020 showed that FRB 190608 traverses through an over-dense filament of the IGM, which is why it has a DM excess much larger than the $\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}} \right\rangle$ at redshift $z = 0.378$. We predict that if the IGM reconstruction similar to @Simha2020 is performed on FRB 200430, FRB 191001 and FRB 190714 we expect that these will also indicate they intersect through an over-dense filament. We have not included the repeaters FRB 180916 and FRB 121102 as it is currently unclear if repeating FRBs and single burst FRBs have the same progenitors. A difference in progenitors could lead to significantly different source environment DM contributions. On the other hand, it is unlikely that of the 12 localised FRB host galaxies, one quarter of them would intersect IGM filaments, particularly because they all originate from different locations on the sky. The large DM excess of the FRBs could instead be explained by significant host galaxy or source environment. Summary and Conclusions {#sec:Conclusions} ======================= In this paper we measured the DM for over 1 billion ($1504^2$) sight lines through the cosmological, hydrodynamic simulations. We used these sight lines to calculate the $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation and the scatter around it for FRBs between redshifts $0 < z < 3$. We then compared our model with the observations of FRB host galaxy redshifts. We summarise our results as follows. - We have fit the mean $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relation using both a linear relation (used often through the literature) and a non-linear relation that accounts for the cosmology of the Universe. We find that between redshifts $0 < z < 3$, the mean $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relations is best fit by the non-linear relation, $$\left\langle \mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}\right\rangle = \left( 934.5 \pm 0.3 ~\mathrm{pc~cm^{-3}} \right) \int_0^z\frac{1 + z}{\sqrt{(1+z)\Omega_m + \Omega_\Lambda }} \mathrm{d}z \,.$$ with $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ being 0.307 and 0.693 respectively. This fit has a mean residual of approximately 0.7% in the redshift range $0 < z < 3$. - We find significant asymmetric scatter around the mean $\mathrm{DM} - z$ relation that increases exponentially with redshift. Due to the asymmetry in the $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ PDFs, we have used two different metrics to quantify the scatter around the mean $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ (the standard deviation) and $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ (the width of the 68% confidence interval). The best fitting relations (exponential with $z$) for $\sigma_\mathrm{Var}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{CI}$ are: $$\begin{aligned} &\sigma_\mathrm{Var} = (-205\pm 2) \exp[(-1.35\pm 0.04)z] + (254 \pm 2) \\ &\sigma_\mathrm{CI} = (-237.3\pm 0.7) \exp[(-0.991\pm 0.009)z] + (237.2\pm 0.8) \end{aligned}$$ These fits have a mean residual of approximately 7-8% in the redshift range $0 < z < 3$. - We find that the $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ PDFs are strongly asymmetric at low-redshifts ($z < 0.5$) and become more Gaussian as the redshift approaches $z \sim 3$. This is explained by the increasing path length of high redshift FRBs intersecting with many more high DM structures, causing the PDF to become more Gaussian. However, the box size of the simulation is also an important factor. The smaller the simulation, the faster the PDFs will become Gaussian. This is because the box size physically constrains the maximum size of structure in the Universe. The simulations with box sizes of 25 cMpc can not contain clusters and voids of that scale or larger. Large simulations of the order 100 cMpc is required to measure the effects of the log-normal matter density profile on the shape of the $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ PDFs. - Even with the large amount of scatter, we find that the six FRBs with the closest host galaxies in redshift all have $\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}$ values that places them in the $2-3\sigma$ confidence interval above the mean $\left\langle\mathrm{DM_{cosmic}}\right\rangle$. These FRBs include: FRB 180916, FRB 190608, FRB 200430, FRB 121102, FRB 191001 and FRB 190714. We predict that when an IGM reconstruction similar to the work of @Simha2020 is performed on FRB 200430, FRB 191001 and FRB 190714, it will indicate that these FRBs also intersect a filament of the IGM. Alternatively, if these FRBs are not found to have intersected with an IGM filament, it would indicate a significant host galaxy or local environment DM contribution. - We have made the $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relation published in this work publicly available through inclusion in the open source FRB redshift estimation package <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fruitbat</span> [@Batten2019] which is available via pip and . Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ AJB would like to thank Chris Blake for the many helpful discussions and feedback he has given to the results presented in this work. We acknowledge the Wurundjeri People, the traditional owners of the land upon on which The Swinburne University of Technology (Hawthorn) is located. This research was supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), through project number CE170100013. This work was performed on the OzSTAR national facility at Swinburne University of Technology. The OzSTAR program receives funding in part from the Astronomy National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) allocation provided by the Australian Government. This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System. This research made use of `matplotlib` [@Hunter:2007], `SciPy` [@Virtanen_2020], `IPython` [@PER-GRA:2007], `Astropy` , `NumPy` [@van2011numpy; @harris2020array], `Pandas` [@McKinney_2010; @McKinney_2011] and `CMasher` for scientific colour maps [@CMasher]. This paper made use of WebPlotDigitizer (http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/) by Ankit Rohatgi. Model Availability in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fruitbat</span> ============================================================================ We have made the $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relation from this work available in the open source python package <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fruitbat</span> [@Batten2019]. In we show an example plot of using the $\mathrm{DM}-z$ relation presented in this work to estimate the redshift of FRB 190711. The solid black line is the redshift PDF at $536.6~\mathrm{pc~cm^{-3}}$, the DM excess for FRB 190711. In this case we used a uniform prior ($P(z) = 1$). The filled orange region is the 68% confidence interval for redshift, and the dotted blue line is the median redshift estimate. In we show the IPython console input and output that was used to create using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fruitbat</span>. ![An example redshift PDF created with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fruitbat</span> for FRB 190711. The dotted blue line is the median of the redshift PDF and the orange shaded region highlights the 68% confidence interval.<span data-label="fig:fruitbat_pdf_example"></span>](figures/FRB190711_Fruitbat_Example.png){width="\linewidth"} In [1]: import fruitbat as frbat In [2]: frb190711 = frbat.Frb( dm=593.1, raj="21:57:40.68", decj="-80:21:28.8", name="FRB\ 190711") In [3]: frb190711.calc_dm_galaxy( model="ne2001") Out[3]: <Quantity +1-513-248-4430 pc / cm3> In [4]: frb190711.calc_redshift( method="Batten2020") Out[4]: <Quantity 0.54406244> In [5]: frb190711.plot_redshift_pdf( filename="FRB190711_z_PDF", usetex=True) Derivation of DM {#app:dm_derivation} ================ In this appendix we describe how we calculate DM along lines-of-sight in the simulations. We begin with the definition of DM. The total DM along a line-of-sight d$l$ to redshift $z$ is as we defined in $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{DM} = \int_0^z \frac{n_{e, \mathrm{p}}(z)}{1+z}\mathrm{d}l_\mathrm{p} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{DM}$ is
{'source': 'arXiv_out/2011'}