1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \newcommand{\um}{\,$\mu$m}
3: \newcommand{\sst}{{\it Spitzer}}
4: \newcommand{\hst}{{\it Hubble}}
5: \newcommand{\z}{{\it z}}
6: \newcommand{\sfrd}{{M$_{\sun}$~yr$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$}}
7: \newcommand{\stmd}{{M$_{\sun}$~~Mpc$^{-3}$}}
8: \def\deg{\ifmmode {^{\circ}}\else {$^\circ$}\fi}
9: \newcommand{\ab}{$\sim$}
10: \def\plotfiddle#1#2#3#4#5#6#7{\centering \leavevmode
11: \vbox to#2{\rule{0pt}{#2}}
12: \special{psfile=#1 voffset=#7 hoffset=#6 vscale=#5 hscale=#4 angle=#3}}
13:
14: \slugcomment{{\it Astrophysical Journal}, in press}
15: \shorttitle{A J-dropout at z$\sim$2 ?}
16: \shortauthors{Chary et al.}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{HUDF-JD2: Mid-infrared Evidence for a $z\sim2$ Luminous Infrared Galaxy}
21:
22: \author{Ranga-Ram Chary\altaffilmark{1}, Harry I. Teplitz\altaffilmark{1}, Mark E. Dickinson\altaffilmark{2},
23: David C. Koo\altaffilmark{3}, Emeric Le Floc'h\altaffilmark{4,7},
24: Delphine Marcillac\altaffilmark{5}, Casey Papovich\altaffilmark{5,7}, Daniel Stern\altaffilmark{6}}
25: \altaffiltext{1}{{\it Spitzer} Science Center, California Institute of
26: Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; {\tt rchary@caltech.edu}}
27: \altaffiltext{2}{NOAO, 950 N. Cherry St., Tucson, AZ 85719}
28: \altaffiltext{3}{UCO/Lick Observatories, Santa Cruz, CA 95064}
29: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute for Astronomy, Honolulu, HI 96822}
30: \altaffiltext{5}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
31: \altaffiltext{6}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91109}
32: \altaffiltext{7}{\sst\ Fellow}
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35: The \hst\ Ultra Deep Field source JD2 presented in Mobasher et al. (2005)
36: is an unusual galaxy that is very faint at all wavelengths shortward
37: of 1.1$\mu$m. Photometric redshift fits to data at 0.4 to 8\,\um\ yield a significant
38: probability that it is an extremely massive galaxy at $z\sim6.5$. In this
39: paper we present new photometry at 16\,$\mu$m and 22\,$\mu$m from \sst\
40: Infrared Spectrograph (IRS)
41: peak-up imaging of the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) fields.
42: We find that the spectral
43: energy distribution shows a factor of $\sim$4 rise in flux density between
44: the 16\,$\mu$m and 22\,$\mu$m bandpass which is most likely
45: due to the entrance of
46: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emission features
47: into the 22\um\ and 24$\mu$m passbands. The flux ratio between
48: these bandpasses can be best fit by a $z\sim1.7$ luminous infrared
49: galaxy with a bolometric luminosity of (2$-$6)$\times$10$^{11}$~L$_{\sun}$ corresponding to
50: a star-formation rate of 80~M$_{\sun}$~yr$^{-1}$.
51: The predicted flux density values at other longer wavelengths are
52: below the detection limits of current instrumentation but
53: such sources could potentially be detected in lensed submillimeter surveys.
54: Re-evaluation of the optical/near-infrared photometry continues to favor $z>6$
55: photometric redshift solutions, but we argue that the consistency of the
56: multiwavelength parameters of this galaxy with other dusty starbursts
57: favor the $z\sim2$ mid-infrared photometric redshift.
58: The data presented here provide evidence that optically undetected
59: near-infrared sources which
60: are detected at 24\,$\mu$m are most likely dusty, starburst galaxies
61: at a redshift of $z\sim2$ with stellar masses $>$10$^{10}$~M$_{\sun}$.
62:
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \keywords{cosmology: observations --- early universe ---
66: galaxies:evolution -- galaxies:individual (HUDF-JD2)}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: JD2 is an interesting object in the Hubble Ultradeep Field \citep[UDF;][]{RIT, Beckwith}.
71: Its non-detection shortward of the 1.1$\mu$m bandpass,
72: even in ultradeep Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) UDF optical data which
73: are sensitive down to $\sim$29 AB mag, has been interpreted
74: as being due to the redshifted Lyman break. In addition, it displays a break
75: in its broad band spectral energy distribution (SED) between 2.2$\mu$m and 3.6$\mu$m which has been interpreted as
76: the redshifted Balmer break.
77: \citet{Mobasher} argue that it may be a very massive (6$\times$10$^{11}$~M$_{\sun}$) galaxy with very little
78: ongoing star-formation at $z\sim6.5$.
79: The large stellar mass of this galaxy derived from fitting population synthesis models to the multiband photometry,
80: and high source density implied by the presence of one such object in the small area subtended by
81: the Near-infrared Camera and Multi-object Spectrograph (NICMOS) UDF, suggest
82: that UV-faint objects, if indeed at such high redshifts,
83: contribute as much to the stellar mass density at $z\sim6.5$ as rest-frame ultraviolet-bright Lyman break galaxies.
84: Since the age of the stellar population in JD2 is thought
85: to be $\sim$600 Myr, galaxies like JD2 might harbor remnants of
86: the first epoch of star-formation, and play an important role in the
87: reionization of the intergalactic medium (IGM). Such an object, if truly at high redshift,
88: would challenge current models of galaxy formation, which do not predict a large
89: number density of galaxies more massive than 10$^{11}$~M$_{\sun}$ at $z>6$ \citep{Dave:06}.
90:
91: The photometric redshift solutions in \citet{Mobasher} favor a $z\approx6.5$ solution but provide
92: a 15\% probability that the source is at $z<5$, with the most likely alternative solution implying a
93: dusty galaxy at $z\approx2.5$.
94: There are a few inconsistencies in the high-redshift
95: interpretation of JD2. The optical/near-infrared SED is best fit by a template
96: without significant extinction or star-formation. However, the object is detected in the Great Observatories Origins Deep
97: Survey (GOODS) \sst\ Multiband Imaging Photometer and Spectrometer (MIPS)
98: 24$\mu$m survey with a flux density of
99: 51.4$\pm$4$\mu$Jy. Since the 24$\mu$m flux would be dominated by redshifted
100: hot dust and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emission, it indicates the presence of dust within the galaxy.
101: The age-extinction degeneracy is very well known for red galaxies. Most recently, \citet{Stern:06} have shown that
102: the optical/near-infrared photometry of dusty, extremely red objects (EROs) is almost identical to that
103: of evolved, passive EROs, and that only the detection of reprocessed emission at mid- and
104: far-infrared wavelengths can break
105: the degeneracy. Nevertheless,
106: Mobasher et al. (2006) suggest that the 24$\mu$m
107: emission could be explained by the presence of an obscured
108: active nucleus. While this is possible, at $z\sim6.5$,
109: the {\it Chandra} 2$-$8 keV band traces 15$-$60 keV emission, energies which are relatively immune to absorption.
110: The $Chandra$ detection limit corresponds to
111: L$_{\rm X}$ of 3$\times$10$^{43}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ at $z=6.5$ while the mid-infrared detection
112: implies $\nu$L$_{\nu}$ at rest 3\um\ of 3$\times$10$^{45}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. The 10\um\
113: to X-ray luminosity ratios of local Seyfert nuclei are $\sim$3 \citep[e.g.][]{Krabbe}, and the flat
114: spectrum of Seyferts in $\nu L_{\nu}$, implies that
115: either large (N$_{\rm H}>>10^{24}$\,cm$^{-2}$) column densities of neutral gas must be obscuring the hard X-ray emission
116: or the active galactic nucleus (AGN) is an unusually low luminosity X-ray source.
117:
118: In a recent paper, \citet{Dunlop}
119: question the optical limits in the $B$, $V$, $i$ and $z$ passbands
120: adopted by \citet{Mobasher} and demonstrate that the $\chi^{2}$ values in the
121: redshift fits are skewed in the \citet{Mobasher} analysis
122: by adopting optical flux limits which are too stringent.
123: By refitting the source with revised optical limits, they conclude
124: the source to be at $z\sim2.2$ rather than at $z\sim6.5$.
125: We also note that JD2 has been visited in work by \citet{Yan:04} and \citet{Chen} prior to the
126: \citet{Mobasher} analysis,
127: and had been classified as a $z\sim3$ ERO.
128:
129: In this paper, we present new 16\um\ and 22$\mu$m photometry of this source from \sst\
130: Infrared Spectrograph (IRS) peak-up imaging of the
131: GOODS fields \citep{Teplitz:07}. We fit the photometry at these two wavelengths and the published
132: 24\um\ data with a variety
133: of dust spectral energy distributions and demonstrate that the mid-infrared photometry is most
134: consistent with a redshift of $z\sim1.7$ for JD2. We assess the accuracy
135: of the optical/near-infrared photometry and refit the data with this redshift constraint
136: to determine physical properties of the galaxy. We conclude that it is a luminous infrared galaxy
137: with L$_{\rm IR}\sim10^{11.7}$~L$_{\sun}$ and not a $z>6$ galaxy with a dust obscured AGN. Throughout
138: this paper, we adopt a $\Omega_{M}=0.27$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$, H$_{0}$=71 km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$
139: cosmology.
140:
141: \section{IRS Peak-Up Imaging of GOODS-S }
142:
143: The 16$\mu$m and 22$\mu$m observations were carried out using the peak-up imaging capability of the Infrared Spectrograph
144: (IRS) instrument \citep{Houck:04} on the \sst\ {\it Space Telescope}. The field of view of the peak-up imaging
145: camera is 54$\arcsec\times$80$\arcsec$. The central $\sim$130~arcmin$^{2}$ of the
146: GOODS-S field was observed with 60s frame times. Most of the area within the GOODS fields had four dithers
147: per position while the UDF area had 32 dithers per position. Each frame was distortion corrected and
148: background subtracted. The dithered frames were combined
149: using ``drizzle'' \citep{Fruchter}. Due to the limited number of dithers per position, point kernel drizzling,
150: which would have minimized the correlated noise in the mosaics was not possible. The final mosaics
151: have a plate scale of 0.9$\arcsec$ per pixel. The exposure time in the final mosaics is
152: $\sim$4 min~pix$^{-1}$ over most of the GOODS area while the UDF area was observed with 32 min pix$^{-1}$.
153: JD2, although in the UDF region, seredipitously lies in a part of the coverage map where the exposure time is 68 min,
154: twice that of the nominal UDF. As a result, the statistical uncertainty on its flux is lower than for the average
155: UDF source of the same brightness.
156:
157: The spatial resolution of $Spitzer$ at 16$\mu$m and 22$\mu$m
158: is 4.1$\arcsec$ and 5.2$\arcsec$ full width at half maximum (FWHM), respectively. At this
159: resolution, the majority of sources, including JD2,
160: are point sources. This makes it possible to use prior positions from higher resolution
161: data, such as the GOODS 3.6$-$8\um\ imaging \citep[][Dickinson et al., in prep.]{MED03} and apply point-source fitting techniques
162: to measure the flux density of the source. The technique has successfully been used for cataloging
163: 24$\mu$m sources from the GOODS/MIPS imaging survey. The
164: results are consistent with aperture photometry, with appropriate aperture corrections, for
165: isolated sources and alleviate the contamination to the photometry
166: from the wings of the point spread function for sources which have nearby companions.
167: Postage stamp image cutouts of JD2 are shown in Figure 1.
168:
169: The 16$\mu$m and 22$\mu$m flux densities of the source are 13.5$\pm$3.5\,$\mu$Jy and 56$\pm$12\,$\mu$Jy respectively.
170: In comparison, the 24\,$\mu$m flux density of the source from the GOODS imaging of the field is 51$\pm$4\,$\mu$Jy.
171: HUDF-JD2 is separated by 7$\arcsec$ from a brighter mid-infrared
172: source to the south east which is a $z=0.457$ spiral galaxy (Stern et al., in prep.).
173: In order to estimate the systematic
174: uncertainty associated with fitting the flux density of a faint source near a bright one, we performed
175: a Monte-Carlo simulation. We identified a relatively isolated source in the mosaic
176: with about the same
177: flux density as the spiral galaxy: this is the galaxy at 3:32:43.49, -27:45:56.45 (J2000)
178: which has a flux density of 121$\pm$10$\mu$Jy
179: at 16$\mu$m.
180: We added an artificial source at a distance between 7$\arcsec$ and 8$\arcsec$ from this
181: source and extracted the flux density using the positional priors. The process was repeated 100 times
182: each for a range of flux densities straddling the measured flux density of the source. The
183: extracted flux was compared with the input flux density to assess the systematic uncertainty and/or
184: flux bias in the measurement. For a source with a brightness comparable to JD2, the Monte-Carlo analysis yielded 1$\sigma$
185: uncertainties of 14$\mu$Jy, 12$\mu$Jy and 10$\mu$Jy at 16, 22 and 24\,\um,
186: respectively. This
187: systematic uncertainty is primarily due to the extended wings of the brighter source and is a factor of
188: $\sim$2-3 larger than the statistical uncertainty. We therefore adopt values
189: of 14$\pm$14$\mu$Jy at 16$\mu$m, 56$\pm$12$\mu$Jy at 22$\mu$m and 51$\pm$10$\mu$Jy at 24$\mu$m for JD2.
190:
191: The sharp increase in flux density between 16$\mu$m and 22$\mu$m can either be due to the entrance of
192: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons into the 22 and 24\um\ bandpasses or the 9.7$\mu$m silicate absorption feature entering the
193: 16$\mu$m bandpass. A third possibility is the decreasing contribution from hot dust surrounding an AGN
194: because the dust is close to its sublimation temperature. We evaluate each of these possibilities
195: in the following sections.
196:
197: We note that the IRS is calibrated with respect to a constant $\nu$F$_{\nu}$ source spectrum. Color
198: correction terms to the observed flux are smaller than 1\% for the 16$\mu$m and 22$\mu$m data for the observed
199: source spectrum and can be neglected. Furthermore,
200: when we estimate fits to the observed photometry, we integrate template spectra over the filter bandpasses
201: (Figure 2).
202:
203: \section{Derived Source Parameters}
204:
205: The optical/near-infrared photometry of JD2 has been discussed in \citet{Mobasher} and
206: \citet{Dunlop}. Spectral energy distribution fits to the photometry, which provide a photometric redshift
207: solution, show a bimodal distribution of
208: minimum $\chi^{2}$ values at $z\sim2.5$ and $z\sim6.5$. One set of $\chi^{2}$ values are favored
209: over the other depending on the choice of optical photometry. \citet{Mobasher}, with their
210: stringent $BViz$ limits, derive the probability of a $z<5$ source to be 15\%. \citet{Dunlop} instead
211: adopt marginal detections of the source in the $Viz$ bandpasses which we discuss in
212: Secion 3.2. Any significant detection
213: of the galaxy at optical wavelengths would rule out a photometric redshift solution which favors $z>6$.
214: \citet{Dunlop} find a minimum in the $\chi^{2}$ distribution at $z\sim2.2$.
215:
216: The detection of HUDF-JD2 in the deep GOODS 24$\mu$m images did not break the degeneracy.
217: \citet{Mobasher} suggests the hot dust emission is from an obscured AGN in the galaxy.
218: Alternately, the 24\um\ emission could be dominated from polycyclic
219: aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) features which
220: would be present if the object is an extremely red, dusty starburst galaxy at $z\sim2.5$ \citep{Yan:04, Stern:06}.
221: Inclusion of the 16 and 22\um\ data allows us to measure a photometric redshift from the mid-infrared
222: which could potentially break this degeneracy,
223: independent of the
224: optical/near-infrared SED fits.
225: Although fitting optical to mid-infrared simultaneously is more elegant, it is virtually impossible
226: since there is virtually no correlation between optical/near-infrared SEDs and mid-infrared SEDs of galaxies.
227:
228: \subsection{Mid-Infrared Photometric Redshifts}
229:
230: The mid-infrared SED of a star-forming galaxy is a complicated interplay
231: of warm dust continuum, PAH emission and silicate absorption features. The
232: ratio of flux densities in the three abutting \sst\ passbands at 16, 22 and 24\um\ allow redshifts
233: of objects to be constrained as these dust features move through these filters.
234: PAH are only 0.5-1$\mu$m wide, while the 9.7$\mu$m silicate feature is 3$-$4$\mu$m wide, depending on the continuum
235: level adopted. As a result, adjacent passbands can show widely different flux density ratios as a function
236: of redshift (Figure 3).
237:
238: At $0.2<z<0.6$,
239: the 9.7\um\ silicate feature enters the 16$\mu$m bandpass while the 22 and 24\um\ bandpasses are
240: tracing the warm dust and 11 and 12\um\ PAH features. At these redshifts, sources
241: show low 16\um/22\um\ flux density ratios.
242: At $0.6<z<1.2$, the 9.7$\mu$m features moves out of the 16\um\ bandpass and into the 22\um\ bandpass,
243: while the 6.2\um\ and 7.7\um\ PAH features fall in the 16\um\ window, boosting the 16\um/22\um\ ratio.
244: At $1.2<z<1.7$, the 9.7\um\ feature moves into the 24\um\ band. Since the 22\um\ bandpass is $\sim$2\um\ wider
245: than the MIPS 24\um\ band, the 7.7\um\ feature enters the 22\um\ bandpass. The net effect is to boost the
246: 22\um/24\um\ flux ratio while lowering the 16\um/22\um\ ratio. At $z>1.9$, the PAH emission shifts out of the
247: 16\um\ band, decreasing the 16\um/22\um\ ratio while the 22\um/24\um\ flux ratio varies as the 6.2 and 7.7\um\ PAH features
248: move within the passbands. This variation in flux ratios is illustrated in Figure 3 for four different SED
249: types derived from spectral observations of galaxies in the local Universe \citep{Armus, Brandl:04}.
250:
251: While it is true that variation of PAH line ratios or strength of silicate absorption can cause broadband fluxes
252: to vary significantly, the combination of photometric redshifts from the optical/near-infrared and mid-infrared
253: photometric redshifts using these three bandpasses can help break redshift degeneracies.
254:
255: The flux density ratios observed for HUDF-JD2 are a 16\um/22\um\ ratio of 0.25$^{+0.19}_{-0.08}$ and a 22\um/24\um\ ratio
256: of 1.1$^{+0.37}_{-0.13}$. This indicates that the galaxy must either be at $z\sim0.6$ if it has very strong silicate absorption or at
257: $z\sim1.7$ if it is a typical starburst galaxy with strong PAH emission.
258:
259: In Figure 4 and Table 1, we illustrate the quality of fits to the photometry at 16, 22 and 24$\mu$m from
260: different mid-infrared template spectral energy distributions. We consider starbursts, AGN and composite sources
261: which span the range of strong PAH, weak PAH and strong silicate
262: absorption \citep{CE01, FS01, lef:01, Dale:02, Brandl:04, Armus}.
263: We also consider the non-detection of JD2 in deep 70\um\ observations
264: of the GOODS fields which achieve 5$\sigma$ flux density limits of $\sim$2 mJy \citep{Frayer:06}.
265: The best fit to the 16$\mu$m,
266: 22\,\um\ and 24\,$\mu$m photometry is from a starburst source with strong PAH emission at $z=1.7$. The increase
267: in the 22$\mu$m and 24$\mu$m flux relative to 16$\mu$m is due to the entrance of the 7.7$\mu$m PAH complex into the 22$\mu$m and
268: 24$\mu$m bandpasses.
269: The flux in the
270: 16$\mu$m bandpass is lower since the 6.2$\mu$m PAH feature is much weaker.
271:
272: Extrapolating the templates that are fit to the mid-infrared photometry also yields an estimate of the far-infrared
273: luminosity for the galaxy.
274: The L$_{\rm IR}$=L(8$-$1000\um) luminosity of the source is $\sim$5$\times$10$^{11}$~L$_{\sun}$,
275: which corresponds to a star-formation rate of 80~M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$.
276: We compare this with optical/UV estimates of star-formation in the following section.
277: Using the radio-FIR correlation in \citet{Yun}, we predict the 1.4 GHz to be 12$\mu$Jy and the 8.4 GHz flux density to be
278: 3.7$\mu$Jy while the predicted fluxes at 70\um\ and 850\um\ are shown in Table 1. The deepest 70\um\ and 850\um\ surveys
279: are currently sensitive to 1.5$-$2 mJy. The
280: predicted intensities of JD2 are below these limits implying that confirmation of the derived
281: far-infrared luminosity will have to await deeper observations by {\it Herschel} and ALMA.
282:
283: $\chi^{2}$ values are also reduced for an obscured AGN template at $z=0.6$ which has
284: the observed
285: 16\um\ flux density suppressed relative to the flux density at 22\um\ and 24\um\ due to the entrance of the 9.7\,\um\
286: silicate absorption feature.
287: An obscured AGN template like Mrk231 can also fit the 8\um\ flux density of the source as shown in Figure 4
288: while the starburst template fits at $z\sim1.7$ require the optical/near-infrared flux to be dominated
289: by starlight (Figure 6). The non-detection
290: of any spectral lines in the optical/near-infrared spectroscopic
291: data presented by \citet{Mobasher}, as well as the difficulty in accounting for the non-detection of the source
292: at optical wavelengths (Section 3.3)
293: makes the $z\sim0.6$ hypothesis unlikely. On the other hand, $z\sim1.7$ lies within the so-called
294: redshift ``desert", where the [OII] $\lambda$3727 doublet,
295: [OIII] $\lambda$5007 line and H$\alpha$+[NII] lines are all severely affected
296: by atmospheric transmission and strong OH sky lines. Furthermore, as we discuss in Section 3.3, at $z=1.7$, the red
297: SED of the source between 2.2$\mu$m and IRAC 3$-$8\um\ could be due to the broad 1.6\um\ bump
298: in the stellar SED being in the IRAC passbands.
299:
300: We now consider the implications of the IRS detections to the high redshift advocated in \citet{Mobasher}.
301: If we adopt the hypothesis that JD2 is at $z\sim6.5$ and the 24\um\ emission is dominated by AGN light, we
302: must first subtract the stellar contribution to
303: the mid-infrared flux densities. We find that for the SED fit by \citet{Mobasher}, the contribution of stellar
304: photospheric emission to the flux densities at 16, 22 and 24\um\ are 10.7, 6.5 and 6.0 $\mu$Jy respectively.
305: We then attempt to fit the starlight-subtracted mid-infrared photometry with the two mid-infrared AGN
306: templates presented in \citet{Mobasher}.
307: The $\chi^{2}$ values are significantly worse than the best fits at $z\sim1.7$ (Table 1 and Figure 5). The Mrk231 template, fairly
308: typical of an obscured AGN, is bluer in its 16\um/22\um\ flux ratios at $z=6.5$ than what the observations indicate.
309: NGC1068, which is a Compton-thick AGN with decreasing hot dust continuum at shorter wavelengths due to dust sublimation,
310: would best fit the observed mid-infrared photometry at $z=3.7$. The hot dust emission falls off too rapidly for it to
311: account for the 22\um\ flux density with respect to the 24\um\
312: flux density if it were at $z=6.5$. One could imagine that varying the AGN
313: template could allow for the mid-infrared photometry here to be fit but given that the $z=1.7$ fit using typical
314: mid-infrared templates agrees with the parameters derived from the optical/near-infrared fits, we find the
315: $z=6.5$ interpretation for JD2 substantially weakened.
316:
317: \subsection{The Optical/Near-infrared Photometry}
318:
319: Given the derived redshift based on the mid-infrared photometry of the source, we critically investigate the
320: optical/near-infrared photometry to assess potential sources of error.
321:
322: The ACS $BViz$ photometric measurements are very important to the interpretation
323: of JD2, since a significant optical detection would almost certainly rule out the
324: $z \approx 6.5$ hypothesis. We note that \citet{Mobasher} erroneously
325: reported that their ACS photometry was measured in an $0\farcs9$ diameter
326: aperture, when in fact a smaller, $0\farcs48$ diameter aperture was used
327: (M.\ Dickinson, private communication). A larger aperture size would lead to more
328: conservative photometric limits, and is probably to be recommended, given the
329: size of the galaxy as measured from the NICMOS $H$-band images
330: (measured half-light radius $0\farcs3$, uncorrected for PSF effects, see Mobasher et al.).
331: However, a larger aperture risks including light from three faint, neighboring galaxies
332: located about 1\arcsec\ away from JD2. We have masked out regions with
333: diameter $0\farcs9$ around those three galaxies\footnote{In another typographical
334: error, \citet{Mobasher} reported masking regions $0\farcs5$ in diameter around
335: the neighboring galaxies. In fact, the masking diameter was $0\farcs9$, which we
336: also adopt here.} before measuring photometry for JD2 in a $1\farcs0$ diameter circular aperture.
337:
338: The ACS images were drizzled using a point kernel \citep[see][]{Beckwith} which
339: should lead to noise that is uncorrelated between adjacent pixels. We verified that this
340: is the case by measuring the autocorrelation function of the noise after masking galaxies.
341: We measured the noise on various scales, including 50 pixel apertures as used by
342: \citet{Beckwith}. Our most conservative (largest) noise
343: measurements are 31 to 37\% smaller than those reported by \citet[][their Table 5]{Beckwith}.
344:
345: \citet{Dunlop} report faint detections of positive flux in the ACS $V$, $i$
346: and $z$-bands, which, taken together, drive their photometric redshift estimate
347: to favor a lower value, $z \approx 2.15$. We do not reproduce these measurements;
348: using a $1\farcs0$ diameter aperture and our noise measurements, and the
349: correction of $\sim$0.1 mag for the energy falling outside the aperture
350: reported in \citet[][Table 3]{Sirianni}, we find
351: the $2\sigma$ photometric limits given in Table~2. These are
352: $\sim$0.8 mag brighter than the limits reported in Mobasher et al.\ (2005), mainly
353: due to the larger aperture adopted here. It is possible that the positive flux detected
354: in the Dunlop et al.\ measurements arises in part from the faint neighboring galaxies.
355:
356: The NICMOS $J_{110}$ photometry and $H_{160}$ photometry in \citet{Mobasher} are very similar to those in the UDF
357: catalog of \citet{RIT}. As a result, we have not remeasured these values.
358: However, we note that the photometric values in \citet{Mobasher} do not include the NICMOS count rate dependent non-linearity
359: correction discussed in \citet{deJong}. The effect of this non-linearity correction is to make the photometry
360: brighter by 0.22 mag in the $J_{110}$ band and 0.12 mag in the $H_{160}$ band as shown in Table 2.
361:
362: We also remeasured the photometry of the source at IRAC wavelengths. We used SExtractor catalogs
363: and measured the photometry in 3$\arcsec$ diameter beams, similar to \citet{Mobasher}. To derive
364: aperture corrections and systematic uncertainties, we adopt a different approach. The primary
365: systematic uncertainty in this measurement is the uncertain sky level due to the bright galaxy
366: 7$\arcsec$ to the South-East. We input an artificial point source whose brightness is that of JD2 into
367: the final mosaic.
368: The centroid of the source with respect to the bright galaxy is kept similar to that of JD2,
369: i.e the artificial source has a centroid which is between
370: 7$\arcsec$ and 8$\arcsec$ from the galaxy. The SExtractor routine was
371: run on this fake image and the photometry of the fake source measured. We find a systematic uncertainty
372: whereby the extracted flux of the fake source in the catalog was brighter at 3.6 and 4.5\um\ but
373: fainter at 5.8 and 8.0\um.
374: The process was repeated a 100 times to measure the average systematic and statistical error
375: using the corresponding point spread function at each of the four IRAC wavelengths.
376: We revise the aperture corrected magnitudes for JD2 to 22.24, 22.00, 21.63 and 21.51 AB mag at
377: 3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and 8.0 \um\ respectively. There is, however, a correction to be applied
378: to these magnitudes.
379:
380: There are three faint galaxies within 1$\arcsec$
381: of JD2. Two of these are rather faint and blue while the brightest of the three falls within the IRAC 3$\arcsec$ beam.
382: These galaxies are detected at all wavelength between the $B$ and $H_{160}$ band.
383: To estimate the contribution of these sources to the photometry within the IRAC beam, we fit \citet{BC03} templates
384: to the multiband photometry of these sources, leaving redshift as a free parameter. We use the best fit SEDs
385: to estimate the redshift and corresponding flux densities at the IRAC wavelengths. We find the brightest
386: of these three sources, located at 3:32:38.76,-27:48:28.91 (J2000), to be at redshift 3.4 with magnitudes
387: of 25.95, 25.83, 25.82 and 25.80 at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and 8.0\um\ respectively. The second source, located
388: at 3:32:38.81,-27:48:39.79, is at $z\sim3.1$ with a contribution that is about 0.6 mag fainter at each of the
389: four passbands. We subtracted the contribution of both these sources from the photometry of JD2.
390:
391: To summarize,
392: the corrected limits for JD2 in the ACS bands are about 0.8 mag brighter
393: due to the larger aperture, the photometry in the
394: NICMOS $J_{110}$ and $H_{160}$ bands is brighter by $\sim10-20$\% due to the non-linearity
395: correction and the photometry in the IRAC bands is about 10\% fainter on average than those
396: adopted in \citet{Mobasher}. The net effect is to reduce the amplitude of the apparent near-infrared
397: to IRAC ``break" slightly.
398: The optical/near-infrared photometry of JD2 after these corrections have been applied
399: is shown in Table 2 and which we fit for in Section 3.3. For the sake of
400: completeness, we also investigate redshift constrained fits to the \citet{Dunlop} and \citet{Mobasher}
401: optical/near-infrared photometry.
402:
403: In addition, we attempted to fit elliptical isophotes to the galaxy to the SE and subtracted it out from the image.
404: This process left significant residuals due to the asymmetric nature of the \sst/IRAC point spread function.
405: The aperture corrected point source photometry we measure for JD2 in images with the galaxy subtracted
406: is 22.36, 21.95, 21.72 and 21.64 AB mag. The difference between these values and those
407: quoted in Table 2 can be attributed
408: almost entirely to the difficulty in measuring the absolute sky background. Thus, we provide photometric
409: uncertainties of 0.15 mag for all 4 bands.
410:
411: \subsection{Revisiting the Optical/Near-Infrared Photometric Fits}
412:
413: We first evaluate the quality of the fits to the optical/near-infrared photometry at $z=0.6$ using
414: the \citet{BC03} population synthesis models. The range of parameter space for the models was
415: solar and 0.2 solar metallicity, 19 e-folding timescales ($\tau$) for the starburst from
416: an instantaneous starburst to constant star-formation, ages ($t$) from 0.1 Myr to the age of the Universe
417: at the chosen redshift and extinction (A$_{\rm V}$) between 0 and 10 mags.
418: At $z=0.6$,
419: the 8\um\ flux density is affected by dust emission and is ignored in the fits.
420:
421: If JD2 is a $z=0.6$ starburst like NGC6240 but with silicate absorption which suppresses the observed
422: 16\um\ flux density, the weakness/non-detection of the source in the $BViz$ passbands requires A$_{\rm V}$=9.9 mag
423: of visual extinction irrespective of whether we adopt the \citet{Dunlop} or \citet{Mobasher} photometry.
424: This is not impossible but unusually large. It would imply a young 8 Myr old starburst with a mass of
425: 2$\times$10$^{9}$~M$_{\sun}$ and a true star-formation rate, as derived
426: from extinction correction of the ultraviolet flux, of $\sim$100~M$_{\sun}$~yr$^{-1}$, all of which
427: is dust obscured. The fits to the mid-infrared photometry at $z=0.6$ imply a much lower dust-obscured star-formation rate of
428: $\sim$5~M$_{\sun}$~yr$^{-1}$. Although it is possible for optically thick star-formation, such as that found in local
429: ULIRGs, to result in the mid- and far-infrared luminosity of galaxies exceeding their extinction corrected ultraviolet
430: luminosity, the converse is rarely true. This weakens the possibility of a $z=0.6$ starburst.
431:
432: If the source is a $z=0.6$ obscured AGN like Mrk231, then the contribution of the hot dust
433: around the AGN to the near-infrared photometry needs to be subtracted before fitting. For the Mrk231 template,
434: we find this to be 0.8, 1.2,
435: 1.4, 2.6, 3.5, 5.6 and 10.5$\mu$Jy
436: at 1.2, 1.6, 2.2, 3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and 8.0$\mu$m respectively. The photometry at 1.1 and 1.6\um\ of the source is
437: a factor of $3-10$ below the expected values again indicating that a Mrk231 type source, while consistent
438: with the mid-infrared photometry, cannot fit the entire SED.
439:
440: Thus, a $z=1.7$ dusty star-forming galaxy SED is most consistent with all the photometry. We adopt this redshift and
441: re-fit the optical/near-infrared data using the BC03 models. Results are shown in Table 3.
442: HUDF-JD2 is best fit with a solar metallicity template from the BC03 library with A$_{\rm V}\sim4$~mag
443: of visual extinction using a \citet{Calzetti:01} dust extinction law. We caution that
444: the metallicity is not strongly constrained. The best-fit model is a post-starburst BC03 SED
445: with $t=570$~Myr, $\tau$=30 Myr and a stellar mass of 6$\times$10$^{10}$~M$_{\sun}$.
446: This is similar to the $z\sim2.5$ fits presented in \citet{Mobasher}.
447: The result is not surprising since post-starburst galaxies
448: could have significant dust content from dust produced in supernovae and AGB stars. In fact,
449: it has been observationally shown that the host galaxies of core-collapse and Type Ia supernovae are
450: dustier than field galaxies with the same observed optical brightness \citep{Chary05}.
451: We caution however, that the post-starburst hypothesis, motivated by the large value of
452: $t/\tau$, would be weakened if most of the star-formation
453: takes place in optically thick regions of the galaxy.
454:
455: From the SED fits, we estimate that the star-formation rate, as measured by
456: the 1500\AA\ flux escaping the galaxy, is very small ($\sim$2$\times$10$^{-4}$~M$_{\sun}$~yr$^{-1}$).
457: Application of an extinction
458: correction to the UV luminosity results in a star-formation rate of $<$1~M$_{\sun}$~yr$^{-1}$.
459: In contrast, its true star-formation rate as
460: derived from the mid-infrared fits is $\sim$80-90~M$_{\sun}$~yr$^{-1}$. The
461: fact that JD2 is a compact near-infrared source with a scale length of $\sim$0.3$\arcsec$, combined
462: with the large ratio of infrared to ultraviolet star-formation rate estimates, strongly suggests that
463: JD2 is being powered by a compact, optically-thick starburst in its nucleus.
464:
465: There is a caveat. If we use the \citet{BC03} models to solve for an independent redshift from the
466: optical/near-infrared photometry presented
467: in this paper, we continue to get a high redshift minimum at $z=7.2$ which has a reduced $\chi^{2}$ of
468: 1.05 compared to the reduced $\chi^{2}$ values of 1.9 and 2.4 at $z=2.4$ and $z=1.7$ respectively.
469: Thus, optical/near-infrared photometric redshifts continue to favor the high redshift hypothesis,
470: while mid-infrared photometric redshifts favor the lower redshift hypothesis. We favor the mid-infrared
471: photometric redshifts derived here since optical photometric redshifts for dusty galaxies have been shown to have a
472: large scatter based on a comparison between spectroscopic and photometric redshifts for 24\um\ detected sources
473: in GOODS-N \citep{Chary:06}.
474:
475: A comparison of the properties of HUDF-JD2 with the massive, red galaxy population at $1.5<z<3$ is illustrative.
476: \citet{Papovich} show that the star-formation rate of galaxies scale with the stellar mass at these redshifts
477: and that the specific star-formation rate of a dusty starburst with mass of $\sim$6$\times$10$^{10}$~M$_{\sun}$ is
478: about $\sim1-20$ Gyr$^{-1}$. UDF-JD2, for $z\sim1.7$, has a specific star-formation
479: rate of 1.6 Gyr$^{-1}$ which is consistent with the massive, dusty starbursts at these redshifts. The optical extinction
480: derived for this galaxy is rather large, corresponding to $E(B-V)$=1.2. Spectroscopically confirmed galaxies
481: at these redshifts which are 24$\mu$m detected have $E(B-V)$ values derived from their ultraviolet
482: slopes of $\sim$0.3. This is most likely a bias since spectroscopic confirmation requires the detection of
483: optical/ultraviolet lines which are preferentially detected in galaxies that are relatively transparent
484: and have low extinction values.
485: A better comparison is with the derived extinction values for local dusty starbursts
486: presented in \citet{Hopkins}. The average $E(B-V)$ to the stellar continuum
487: for that sample at an infrared luminosity of 5$\times$10$^{11}$~L$_{\sun}$
488: is about 0.25. Thus, HUDF-JD2 does not appear to be dissimilar from dusty, luminous infrared
489: galaxies (LIRGs) at $z\sim2$. However, its
490: derived $E(B-V)$ appears to be a factor of $\sim$4 higher than other LIRG samples, consistent with
491: its significant detection at mid-infrared wavelengths and compact morphology in the NICMOS 1.6\,\um\ image which
492: suggests a compact, nuclear starburst similar to many local infrared luminous galaxies.
493:
494: JD2 is about 1.4 mags redder in observed $R-$[3.6] colors and about 3 mags fainter
495: at 3.6\,\um\ than HR10, a $z=1.44$ spectroscopically confirmed dusty starburst \citep{Stern:06}.
496: The predicted H$\alpha$ line flux for this galaxy, including the extinction in the line,
497: is $\sim$10$^{-18}$\,erg\,\,s$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$. This is a factor of 3 below
498: the sensitivity of the existing observations in \citet{Mobasher} but should be detectable with a space-based
499: near-infrared spectrograph.
500:
501: \section{Conclusions}
502:
503: We present new 16 and 22\um\ mid-infrared photometry of the HUDF source JD2 which had tentatively been classified
504: as a $z\sim6.5$ massive galaxy. The mid-infrared spectral energy distribution shows a sharp increase in flux
505: density between 16\um\ and 22\um, most consistent with the 7.7\um\ PAH feature entering the 22\um\ bandpass.
506: Our analysis concludes that the galaxy is a starbursting, luminous infrared galaxy (LIRG) at a redshift of $z\sim1.7$.
507: The non-detection of the source
508: in the UDF $BViz$ data is due to the presence of $A_{\rm V}\sim4$ mag of dust internal to the galaxy.
509: We have re-evaluated the optical/near-infrared photometry of this source and find the stringent
510: limits in \citet{Mobasher} are more consistent with the data rather than the marginal detection reported in
511: \citet{Dunlop}. Photometric redshift fits to the optical/near-infrared data alone continue to favor a $z>6$ solution.
512: However, the unusually high L$_{\rm MIR}$/L$_{X}$ for JD2 compared to other obscured AGN, the large
513: scatter in optical photometric redshift solutions for dusty galaxies and the similarity
514: between the multiwavelength properties of this galaxy and other dusty starbursts in the $1.5<z<3$ range lead
515: us to favor the mid-infrared photometric redshift solution.
516: The non-detection of a $z\sim2$ LIRG in the deepest optical data taken to date
517: strongly cautions against interpreting near-infrared dropout sources in shallower surveys as
518: $z>6$ galaxies.
519:
520: \acknowledgements
521: We wish to thank Dave Frayer and Megan Eckart for useful advice.
522: This work is based on observations made with the {\it Spitzer} Space
523: Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
524: Institute of Technology, under a NASA contract. Support for this work
525: was provided by NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech.
526:
527: \begin{thebibliography}{}
528: \bibitem[Armus et al.(2007)]{Armus}
529: Armus, L., et al., 2007, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0610218
530:
531: \bibitem[Beckwith et al.(2006)]{Beckwith}
532: Beckwith, S. V. W., et al., 2006, AJ, 132, 1729
533:
534: \bibitem[Brandl et al.(2004)]{Brandl:04}
535: Brandl, B., et al., 2004, ApJS, 154, 188
536:
537: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot\,(2003)]{BC03}
538: Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
539:
540: \bibitem[Calzetti\,(2001)]{Calzetti:01}
541: Calzetti, D., 2001, PASP, 113, 1449
542:
543: \bibitem[Chary\,(2006)]{Chary:06}
544: Chary, R., 2006, Proceedings of ``At the Edge of the Universe'', astro-ph/0612736
545:
546: \bibitem[Chary et al.(2005)]{Chary05}
547: Chary, R., et al., 2005, ApJ, 635, 1022
548:
549: \bibitem[Chary \& Elbaz\,(2001)]{CE01}
550: Chary, R., \& Elbaz, D., 2001, ApJ, 556, 562
551:
552: \bibitem[Chen \& Marzke\,(2004)]{Chen}
553: Chen, H.-W., \& Marzke, R. O., 2004, ApJ, 615, 603
554:
555: \bibitem[Dale \& Helou\,(2002)]{Dale:02}
556: Dale, D., \& Helou, G., 2002, ApJ, 576, 159
557:
558: \bibitem[Dav\'{e} et al.(2006)]{Dave:06}
559: Dav\'{e}, R., Finlator, K., \& Oppenheimer, B. D., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 273
560:
561: \bibitem[de Jong et al.(2006)]{deJong}
562: de Jong, R., et al., 2006, Proceedings of The 2005 HST Calibration Workshop, eds. A. Koekemoer, P. Goudfrooij, L. Dressel, 121
563:
564: \bibitem[Dickinson et al.(2003)]{MED03}
565: Dickinson, M., et al., 2003, Proceedings of the Mass of Galaxies at Low and High Redshift, 324, Springer-Verlag
566:
567: \bibitem[Dunlop et al.(2007)]{Dunlop}
568: Dunlop, J., Cirasuolo, M., \& McLure, R. J., 2007, MNRAS, submitted, astro-ph/0606192
569:
570: \bibitem[Forster-Schreiber et al.(2001)]{FS01}
571: Forster-Schreiber, N. M., et al., ApJ, 552, 544
572:
573: \bibitem[Frayer et al.(2006)]{Frayer:06}
574: Frayer, D., et al., 2006, ApJ, 647, L9
575:
576: \bibitem[Fruchter \& Hook(2002)]{Fruchter}
577: Fruchter, A. S., \& Hook, R. N., 2002, PASP, 114, 144
578:
579: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2001)]{Hopkins}
580: Hopkins, A. M., et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 288
581:
582: \bibitem[Houck et al.(2004)]{Houck:04}
583: Houck, J., et al., 2004, ApJS, 154, 18
584:
585: \bibitem[Krabbe et al.(2001)]{Krabbe}
586: Krabbe, A., Boeker, T., \& Maiolino, R., 2001, ApJ, 557, 626
587:
588: \bibitem[Le Floc'h et al.(2001)]{lef:01}
589: Le Floc'h, E., et al., 2001, A\&A, 367, 487
590:
591: \bibitem[Mobasher et al.(2005)]{Mobasher}
592: Mobasher, B., et al., 2005, ApJ, 635, 832
593:
594: \bibitem[Papovich et al.(2006)]{Papovich}
595: Papovich, C., et al., 2006, ApJ, 640, 92
596:
597: \bibitem[Sirianni et al.(2005)]{Sirianni}
598: Sirianni, M., et al., 2005, PASP, 117, 1049
599:
600: \bibitem[Stern et al.(2006)]{Stern:06}
601: Stern, D., Chary, R., Eisenhardt, P., \& Moustakas, L., 2006, AJ, 132, 1405
602:
603: \bibitem[Thompson et al.(2005)]{RIT}
604: Thompson, R. I., et al., 2005, AJ, 130, 1
605:
606: \bibitem[Teplitz et al.(2006)]{Teplitz:07}
607: Teplitz, H. I., et al., 2006, BAAS, 2091, 3203
608:
609: \bibitem[Yan et al.(2004)]{Yan:04}
610: Yan, H., et al., 2004, ApJ, 616, 63
611:
612: \bibitem[Yun et al.(2001)]{Yun}
613: Yun, M. S., Reddy, N. A., \& Condon, J., 2001, ApJ, 554, 803
614:
615: \end{thebibliography}
616: `
617: \begin{figure}
618: \epsscale{0.7}
619: \plotone{f1.eps}
620: \caption{
621: 16, 22 and 24\um\ snapshots of the \hst\ Ultradeep Field source JD2 (circled) illustrating the quality of
622: \sst\ mid-infrared data on this source. Images are $\sim$40$\arcsec$ on a side with North up and East to the left.
623: JD2 is at 3:32:38.74, -27:48:39.9 (J2000).
624: }
625: \end{figure}
626:
627: \begin{figure}
628: \plotone{f2.eps}
629: \caption{Response curves for the IRS 16\um\ and 22\um\ bandpasses and MIPS 24\um\ bandpass.}
630: \end{figure}
631:
632: \begin{figure}
633: \plotone{f3.eps}
634: \caption{
635: 16\um/22\um\ and 22\um/24\um\ flux density ratios as a function of redshift
636: for typical infrared luminous galaxies at 0$<z<3$.
637: The sources shown are NGC7714 - a typical starburst (SB) with strong PAH, NGC6240 - a composite AGN+SB object with
638: strong PAH, Arp220 - a starburst with strong silicate absorption and weak PAH
639: and Mrk231 - an AGN with weak silicate absorption. The range of flux
640: ratios of HUDF-JD2 with statistical errors is shown by the horizontal dot-dash lines.
641: The flux ratios indicate a starburst with strong PAH at $z\sim1.7$ or a source with strong silicate absorption at $z\sim0.6$.
642: }
643: \end{figure}
644:
645: \begin{figure}
646: \plotone{f4.eps}
647: \caption{
648: (Left panel) Spectral energy distribution fits to the mid-infrared
649: photometry of HUDF-JD2 along with the distribution of $\chi^{2}$ values
650: with redshift (Right panel). The SEDs are plotted at their best fitting redshift
651: which is $z=1.7$ for the \citet{Dale:02} starburst templates, $z=0.5$ for NGC6240 and $z=0.5$ for Mrk231.
652: The preferred fit (i.e. lowest $\chi^{2}$ value) indicates the source is a luminous infrared
653: galaxy with strong PAH emission at $z\sim1.7$. A low $\chi^{2}$ is also obtained
654: at $z\sim0.6$ from a source with either strong silicate absorption or the gap between the
655: 8 and 11 $\mu$m PAH complexes. However, the $z\sim1.7$
656: fit is more consistent with the fits to the optical/near-infrared
657: photometry. The stars in the left panel are the \citet{Dale:02} SED convolved
658: with the filter curves.
659: }
660: \end{figure}
661:
662: \begin{figure}
663: \plotone{f5.eps}
664: \caption{
665: (Left panel) Fits to the mid-infrared
666: photometry of HUDF-JD2 at $z=6.5$ using the two AGN templates presented in \citet{Mobasher}.
667: The solid red and purple circles are the AGN templates of the corresponding color
668: integrated through the relevant bandpasses.
669: The right panel shows the distribution of $\chi^{2}$ values. The solid black square shows
670: the minimum $\chi^{2}$ obtained at $z=1.7$ for the starburst spectral energy distribution
671: discussed in Figure 4 and in Section 3.1. If the source were really at $z=6.5$, there
672: would be a stellar contribution to the mid-infrared photometry as discussed in the text.
673: Although, this improves the formal $\chi^{2}$ estimates, the $z=6.5$ fits still yield substantially worse $\chi^{2}$
674: estimates than the best fit at $z=1.7$ as shown in Table 1.
675: }
676: \end{figure}
677:
678:
679: \begin{figure}
680: \plotone{f6.eps}
681: \caption{
682: Optical to mid-infrared spectral energy distribution of HUDF-JD2. Solid black squares are the
683: photometry presented in this paper. Solid red squares are the photometry in \citet{Mobasher}.
684: The optical/near-infrared
685: photometry has been fit with the \citet{BC03} model and the mid-infrared photometry fit
686: with the \citet{Dale:02} model.
687: The source is most likely a luminous infrared galaxy (LIRG) with strong PAH emission at $z\sim1.7$.
688: The inferred star-formation rate is $\sim$80~M$_{\sun}$~yr$^{-1}$ with $\sim$4 mag of visual
689: extinction.
690: }
691: \end{figure}
692:
693: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccl}
694: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
695: \tablecaption{Results of Mid-infrared Spectral Energy Distribution Fits}
696: \tablewidth{0pt}
697:
698: \tablehead{
699: \colhead{Template Adopted} &
700: \colhead{Best fit redshift} &
701: \colhead{L$_{\rm IR}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
702: \colhead{$\chi^{2}$} &
703: \colhead{Predicted Fluxes} &
704: \colhead{Type of Object\tablenotemark{b}} &
705: \colhead{Notes} \\
706:
707: \colhead{} &
708: \colhead{} &
709: \colhead{L$_{\sun}$} &
710: \colhead{} &
711: \colhead{(70, 850$\mu$m in mJy)} &
712: \colhead{} &
713: \colhead{}
714: }
715: \startdata
716: Dale \& Helou & 1.7 & 4.7$\times$10$^{11}$& 0.30 & 0.6, 0.5& ... &\\
717: Chary \& Elbaz & 1.6 & 5.6$\times$10$^{11}$ & 0.37 & 0.9, 0.4& ... &\\
718: NGC7714 & 1.6 & 2.5$\times$10$^{11}$ & 0.42 & 0.4, 0.2 & Starburst&\\
719: M82 & 1.7 & 1.6$\times$10$^{11}$& 0.48 & 0.2, 0.09& Starburst &\\
720: NGC6240 & 0.5 & 1.5$\times$10$^{10}$& 0.60 & 1.0, 0.02& Compton thick AGN+SB & large A$_{\rm V}$ \\
721: &&&&&&inconsistent UV/IR SFR\\
722: Mrk231 & 0.5 & 6.9$\times$10$^{9}$& 0.76 & 0.4, 0.004& Obscured AGN & exceed NIR flux\\
723: Arp220 & 1.8 & 2.1$\times$10$^{12}$& 0.95 & 1.7, 1.5& Starburst & \\
724: NGC1068-nucleus & 3.7 & 1.4$\times$10$^{12}$& 1.02 & 0.3, 1.0& Obscured AGN & Worse $\chi^{2}$\\
725: &&&&&&\\
726: Mrk231 & 6.5 & 7.4$\times$10$^{12}$& 2.0 & 0.2, 2.4& Obscured AGN & Worse $\chi^2$ \\
727: NGC1068-nucleus & 6.5 & 1.3$\times$10$^{13}$& 1.1 & 0.6, 7.1& Obscured AGN & Worse $\chi^2$ \\
728:
729: \enddata
730: \tablenotetext{a}{For the star-forming templates, the star-formation rate is 1.71$\times$10$^{-10}\times$L$_{\rm IR}$.}
731: \tablenotetext{b}{For the AGN templates at $z=6.5$, the stellar photospheric emission has been subtracted from the mid-infrared photometry. To identify the best-fit mid-infrared redshift for the AGN templates the actual mid-infrared photometry was used.}
732: \end{deluxetable}
733:
734: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}
735: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
736: \tablecaption{Revised Optical/Near-infrared Photometry for JD2}
737: \tablewidth{0pt}
738:
739: \tablehead{
740: \colhead{Wavelength} &
741: \colhead{Photometry (AB mag)\tablenotemark{a}}
742: }
743: \startdata
744: {\it B} & $>$29.7 \\
745: {\it V} & $>$30.1 \\
746: {\it i} & $>$30.0 \\
747: {\it z} & $>$29.3 \\
748: $J_{110}$ & 26.8$\pm$0.3 \\
749: $H_{160}$ & 24.82$\pm$0.07 \\
750: $K_s$ & 23.95$\pm$0.132 \\
751: 3.6\um\ & 22.29$\pm$0.15 \\
752: 4.5\um\ & 22.05$\pm$0.15\\
753: 5.8\um\ & 21.67$\pm$0.15\\
754: 8.0\um\ & 21.54$\pm$0.15\\
755: 16\um\ & 21.04$_{-0.76}^{+2.86}$ \\
756: 22\um\ & 19.53$\pm$0.21 \\
757: 24\um\ & 19.63$\pm$0.21 \\
758: \enddata
759: \tablenotetext{a}{Photometric limits, where provided, are 2$\sigma$. See text for details.}
760: \end{deluxetable}
761:
762: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccl}
763: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
764: \tablecaption{z=1.7 SED Fits to Optical-Near-infrared Photometry}
765: \tablewidth{0pt}
766:
767: \tablehead{
768: \colhead{Mass} &
769: \colhead{A$_{\rm V}$} &
770: \colhead{Age} &
771: \colhead{$\tau$} &
772: \colhead{UV SFR} &
773: \colhead{Corrected SFR} &
774: \colhead{$\chi^{2}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
775: \colhead{Notes} \\
776:
777: \colhead{M$_{\sun}$} &
778: \colhead{mag} &
779: \colhead{Myr} &
780: \colhead{Myr} &
781: \colhead{M$_{\sun}$~yr$^{-1}$} &
782: \colhead{M$_{\sun}$~yr$^{-1}$} &
783: \colhead{} &
784: \colhead{}
785: }
786: \startdata
787: {\bf 6.3$\times$10$^{10}$} & {\bf 3.6} & {\bf 570} & {\bf 30} & {\bf 1.7$\times$10$^{-4}$} & {\bf 0.74} & {\bf 2.4} & {\bf Photometry from Table 2, Solar metallicity BC03} \\
788: 9.8$\times$10$^{10}$ & 4.7 & 400 & 0 & 8$\times$10$^{-5}$ & 5 & 3.9 & Mobasher et al. photometry, Solar metallicity BC03 \\
789: 1.3$\times$10$^{11}$ & 4.6 & 1020 & 30 & 4$\times$10$^{-5}$ & 1.8 & 4.0 & Mobasher et al. photometry, 0.2 solar metallicity BC03 \\
790: 4.6$\times$10$^{10}$ & 4.3 & 453 & 700 & 0.003 & 93 & 1.6 & Dunlop et al. photometry, Solar metallicity BC03 \\
791: 1.9$\times$10$^{10}$ & 4.7 & 47.5 & 50 & 0.005 & 308 & 1.6 & Dunlop et al. photometry, 0.2 solar metallicity BC03 \\
792: \enddata
793: \tablenotetext{a}{4 degrees of freedom with 7 data points and 3 parameters (Age, Extinction and $\tau$) for the \citet{Mobasher}
794: photometry. The \citet{Dunlop} photometry has 10 data points.}
795: \end{deluxetable}
796:
797: \end{document}
798: