1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
2: \def\arcs{$''$}
3: \def\arcm{$'$}
4: \def\dave{Dav{\'e}}
5: \def\sfrd{\,{\rm M_\odot\,yr^{-1}\,Mpc^{-3}}}
6: \def\HI{\hbox{H~$\scriptstyle\rm I\ $}}
7: \newcommand{\mathR}{\hbox{$\mathcal{R}$}}
8: \newcommand{\royalsociety}{Phil.\ Trans.\ R.\ Soc.\ Lond.\ A}
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{UV Luminosity Functions at $z\sim4$, 5, and 6 from the HUDF and
11: other Deep HST ACS Fields: Evolution and Star Formation History}
12: \author{Rychard J. Bouwens$^{2}$, Garth D. Illingworth$^{2}$, Marijn
13: Franx$^{3}$, Holland Ford$^{4}$}
14:
15: \affil{1 Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space
16: Telescope, which is operated by the Association of Universities for
17: Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. These
18: observations are associated with programs \#9425, 9575, 9797, 9803,
19: 9978, 10189, 10339, 10340, and 10632.}
20: \affil{2 Astronomy Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064}
21: \affil{3 Leiden Observatory, Postbus 9513, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands}
22: \affil{4 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins
23: University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26:
27: We use the ACS $BViz$ data from the HUDF and all other deep HST ACS
28: fields (including the GOODS fields) to find large samples of
29: star-forming galaxies at $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$ and to extend our
30: previous $z\sim6$ sample. These samples contain 4671, 1416, and 627
31: $B$, $V$, and $i$ dropouts, respectively, and reach to extremely low
32: luminosities ($0.01-0.04 L_{z=3}^{*}$ or $M_{UV}\sim-16$ to $-17$),
33: allowing us to determine the rest-frame $UV$ luminosity function (LF)
34: and faint-end slope $\alpha$ at $z\sim4-6$ to high accuracy. We find
35: faint-end slopes $\alpha$ of $-1.73\pm0.05$ at $z\sim4$,
36: $-1.66\pm0.09$ at $z\sim5$, and $-1.74\pm0.16$ at $z\sim6$ --
37: suggesting that the faint-end slope is very steep and shows little
38: evolution with cosmic time. We find that $M_{UV}^{*}$ brightens
39: considerably in the 0.7 Gyr from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$ (by $\sim0.7$
40: mag from $M_{UV}^{*}=-20.24\pm0.19$ to $M_{UV}^{*}=-20.98\pm0.10$).
41: The observed increase in the characteristic luminosity over this range
42: is almost identical to that expected for the halo mass function --
43: suggesting that the observed evolution is likely due to the
44: hierarchical coalescence and merging of galaxies. The evolution in
45: $\phi^*$ is not significant. The $UV$ luminosity density at $z\sim6$
46: is modestly lower ($0.45\pm0.09\times$) than that at $z\sim4$
47: (integrated to $-17.5$ AB mag) though a larger change is seen in the
48: dust-corrected star-formation rate density. We thoroughly examine
49: published LF results and assess the reasons for their wide dispersion.
50: We argue that the results reported here are the most robust available.
51: The extremely steep faint-end slopes $\alpha$ found here suggest that
52: lower luminosity galaxies play a significant role in reionizing the
53: universe. Finally, recent search results for galaxies at $z\sim7-8$
54: are used to extend our estimates of the evolution of $M^*$ from
55: $z\sim7-8$ to $z\sim4$.
56: \end{abstract}
57: \keywords{galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: high-redshift}
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60:
61: The luminosity function represents a key observable in astronomy. It
62: tells us how many galaxies at some epoch emit light of a given
63: luminosity. Comparisons of the luminosity function with other
64: quantities like the halo mass function provide critical insight into
65: galaxy formation by establishing the efficiency of star formation at
66: different mass scales (van den Bosch et al.\ 2004; Vale \& Ostriker
67: 2004). At ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths, this luminosity function has
68: been of keen interest because of its close relationship with the star
69: formation rate. With the exception of galaxies with the largest star
70: formation rates and therefore likely significant dust extinction
71: (e.g., Wang \& Heckman 1996; Adelberger \& Steidel 2000; Martin et
72: al.\ 2005b), UV light has been shown to be a very good tracer of this
73: star formation rate. Studies of the evolution of this LF can help us
74: understand the physical processes that govern star formation. Among
75: these processes are likely gas accretion and hierarchical buildup at
76: early times, SNe and AGN feedback to regulate this star formation, and
77: gravitational instability physics.
78:
79: Over the past few years, there has been substantial progress in
80: understanding the evolution of the rest-frame UV LF across cosmic
81: time, building significantly upon the early work done on these LFs at
82: $z\sim3-4$ from Lyman-Break Galaxy (LBG) selections (Madau et al.\
83: 1996; Steidel et al.\ 1999) and work in the nearby universe
84: ($z\lesssim0.1$: e.g., Sullivan et al. 2000). At lower redshift,
85: progress has come through deep far-UV data from the Galaxy Evolution
86: Explorer (GALEX: Martin et al.\ 2005a) which have allowed us to select
87: large samples of LBGs at $z\lesssim1.5$ (Arnouts et al.\ 2005;
88: Schiminovich et al.\ 2005) and thus derive the LF at the same
89: rest-frame wavelength ($\sim1600\AA$) as higher redshift samples. At
90: the same time, there has been an increasing amount of very deep,
91: wide-area optical data available from ground and space to select large
92: dropout samples at $z\sim4-6$ (e.g., Giavalisco et al.\ 2004b; Bunker
93: et al.\ 2004; Dickinson et al.\ 2004; Yan \& Windhorst 2004; Ouchi et
94: al.\ 2004; Bouwens et al.\ 2006, hereinafter, B06; Yoshida et al.\
95: 2006). This has enabled us to determine the $UV$-continuum LF across
96: the entire range $z\sim0-6$ and attempt to understand its evolution
97: across cosmic time (Shimasaku et al.\ 2005; B06; Yoshida et al.\ 2006;
98: Tresse et al.\ 2006).
99:
100: Although there has been an increasing consensus on the evolution of
101: the LF at $z<2$ (Arnouts et al.\ 2005; Gabasch et al. 2004; Dahlen et
102: al. 2006; Tresse et al.\ 2006), it is fair to say that the evolution
103: at $z\gtrsim3$ is still contentious, with some groups claiming that
104: the evolution occurs primarily at the bright-end (Shimasaku et al.\
105: 2005; B06; Yoshida et al.\ 2006), others claiming it occurs at the
106: faint-end (Iwata et al. 2003; Sawicki \& Thompson 2006a; Iwata et al.\
107: 2007), and still other teams suggesting the evolution occurs in a
108: luminosity-independent manner (Beckwith et al.\ 2006). Perhaps, the
109: most physically reasonable of these scenarios and the one with the
110: broadest observational support (Dickinson et al.\ 2004; Shimasaku et
111: al.\ 2005; B06; Bouwens \& Illingworth 2006; Yoshida et al. 2006) is
112: the scenario where evolution happens primarily at the bright-end of
113: the LF. In this picture, fainter galaxies are established first and
114: then the brighter galaxies develop later through hierarchical buildup.
115: Observationally, this buildup is seen as an increase in the
116: characteristic luminosity as a function of cosmic time (Dickinson et
117: al. 2004; B06; Yoshida et al. 2006). Less evolution is apparent in
118: the normalization $\phi^*$ and faint-end slope $\alpha$ (B06; Yoshida
119: et al. 2006).
120:
121: Despite much observational work at the bright end of the LF at high
122: redshift, the observations have not provided us with as strong of
123: constraints on what happens at the faint-end of the luminosity
124: function. Most large-scale surveys for galaxies at $z\sim3-6$ have
125: only extended to $\sim27$ AB mag (e.g., Yoshida et al.\ 2006;
126: Giavalisco et al.\ 2004b; Ouchi et al.\ 2004; Sawicki \& Thompson
127: 2005), which is equivalent to $\sim0.3L_{z=3} ^{*}$ at $z\sim4-5$.
128: This is unfortunate since galaxies beyond these limits may be quite
129: important in the overall picture of galaxy evolution, particularly if
130: the faint-end slope $\alpha$ is steep. For faint-end slopes $\alpha$
131: of $-1.6$, lower luminosity galaxies ($\lesssim0.3L_{z=3} ^{*}$) contribute
132: nearly 50$\%$ of the total luminosity density, and this fraction will
133: even be higher if the faint-end slope is steeper yet. Since these
134: galaxies will almost certainly play a more significant role in the
135: luminosity densities and star formation rates at very early times,
136: clearly it is helpful to establish how the LF is evolving at lower
137: luminosities. This topic has been of particular interest recently due
138: to speculation that lower luminosity galaxies may reionize the
139: universe (Bremer \& Lehnert 2003; Yan \& Windhorst 2004a,b; B06; Stark
140: et al.\ 2007a; Labb\'{e} et al. 2006).
141:
142: With the availability of deep optical data over the Hubble Ultra Deep
143: Field (HUDF: Beckwith et al.\ 2006), we have the opportunity to extend
144: current luminosity functions (LFs) to very low luminosities. The HUDF
145: data are deep enough to allow us to select dropout samples to
146: $\sim29.5$ AB mag, which corresponds to an absolute magnitude of
147: $\sim-16.5$ AB mag at $z\sim4$, or $\sim$0.01 $L^*$, which is
148: $\approx5$ mag below $L^*$. This is almost 2 mag fainter than has
149: been possible with any other data set and provides us with unique
150: leverage to determine the faint-end slope. Previously, we have used
151: an $i$-dropout selection over the HUDF to determine the LF at $z\sim6$
152: to very low luminosities ($-17.5$ AB mag), finding a steep faint-end
153: slope $\alpha=-1.73\pm0.21$ and a characteristic luminosity
154: $M^*\sim-20.25$ that was $\sim0.6$ mag fainter than at $z\sim3$ (B06;
155: see also work by Yan \& Windhorst 2004; Bunker et al.\ 2004; Malhotra
156: et al.\ 2005). Beckwith et al.\ (2006) also considered a selection of
157: dropouts over the HUDF and used them in conjunction with a selection
158: of dropouts over the wide-area Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey
159: (GOODS) fields (Giavalisco et al.\ 2004a) to examine the evolution of
160: the LF at high-redshift. Beckwith et al.\ (2006) found that the LFs
161: at $z\sim4-6$ could be characterized by a constant $M^*\sim-20.4$,
162: steep faint-end slope $\alpha\sim-1.6$, and evolving normalization
163: $\phi^*$. Bunker et al.\ (2004) and Yan \& Windhorst (2004) also
164: examined the evolution of the LF from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim3$,
165: intepreting the evolution in terms of a changing normalization
166: $\phi^*$ and faint-end slope $\alpha$, respectively.
167:
168: \textit{It is surprising to see that even with such high-quality
169: selections as are possible with the HUDF, there is still a wide
170: dispersion of results regarding the evolution of the UV LF at high
171: redshift.} This emphasizes how important both uncertainties and
172: systematics can be for the determination of the LF at these redshifts.
173: These include data-dependent uncertainties like large-scale structure
174: and small number statistics to more model-dependent uncertainties (or
175: systematics) like the model redshift distribution, selection volume,
176: and k-corrections. In light of these challenges, it makes sense for
177: us \textit{(i)} to rederive the LFs at $z\sim4-6$ in a uniform way
178: using the most comprehensive set of HST data available while
179: \textit{(ii)} considering the widest variety of approaches and
180: assumptions.
181:
182: To this end, we will make use of a comprehensive set of multicolour
183: ($BViz$) HST data to derive the rest-frame UV LFs at $z\sim4$,
184: $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$. These data include the exceptionally deep
185: HUDF data, the two wide-area GOODS fields, and four extremely deep ACS
186: pointings which reach to within $\sim1$ mag to $0.5$ mag of the HUDF.
187: These latter data include two deep ACS parallels ($\sim20$ arcmin$^2$)
188: to the UDF NICMOS field (HUDF-Ps: Bouwens et al.\ 2004a; Thompson et
189: al.\ 2005) and the two HUDF05 fields ($\sim23$ arcmin$^2$: Oesch et
190: al. 2007). Though these data have not been widely used in previous LF
191: determinations at $z\sim4-5$, they provide significant statistics
192: faintward of the GOODS probe, provide essential controls for large
193: scale structure, and serve as an important bridge in linking
194: ultra-deep HUDF selections to similar selections made over the much
195: shallower GOODS fields. By deriving the LFs at $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$,
196: we will fill in the redshift gap left by our previous study (B06)
197: between $z\sim6$ and $z\sim3$. We will also take advantage of the
198: additional HST data now available (i.e., the two HUDF05 fields) to
199: refine our previous determination of the LF at $z\sim6$ (B06). In
200: doing so, we will obtain an entirely self-consistent determination of
201: the UV LF at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$. This will allow us to
202: make a more direct assessment of the evolution of the LF from $z\sim6$
203: to $z\sim3-4$ than we were able to make in our previous comparison
204: with the LF at $z\sim3$ from Steidel et al.\ (1999). It also puts us
205: in a position to evaluate the wide variety of different conclusions
206: drawn by different teams in analyzing the evolution of the LF at very
207: high redshift (Bunker et al.\ 2004; Yan \& Windhorst 2004; Iwata et
208: al.\ 2003; Beckwith et al.\ 2006; Yoshida et al.\ 2006; Iwata et al.\
209: 2007). While deriving these LFs, we will consider a wide variety of
210: different approaches and assumptions to ensure that the results we
211: obtain are as robust and broadly applicable as possible.
212:
213: We begin this paper by describing our procedures for selecting our
214: $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropout samples (\S2). We then derive detailed
215: completeness, flux, and contamination corrections to model our
216: shallower HUDF05, HUDF-Ps, and GOODS selections in a similar fashion
217: to the way we model the HUDF data. We then move onto a determination
218: of the rest-frame $UV$ LFs at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ (\S3).
219: In \S4, we assess the robustness of the current LF determinations --
220: comparing the present results with those in the literature and trying
221: to understand the wide dispersion of previous LF results. Finally, we
222: discuss the implications of our results (\S5) and then include a
223: summary (\S6). Where necessary, we assume $\Omega_0 = 0.3$,
224: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$, $H_0 = 70\,\textrm{km/s/Mpc}$. Although
225: these parameters are slightly different from those determined from the
226: WMAP three-year results (Spergel et al.\ 2006), they allow for
227: convenient comparison with other recent results expressed in a similar
228: manner. Throughout, we shall use $L_{z=3}^{*}$ to denote the
229: characteristic luminosity at $z\sim3$ (Steidel et al.\ 1999). All
230: magnitudes are expressed in the AB system (Oke \& Gunn 1983).
231:
232: \section{Sample Selection}
233:
234: \subsection{Observational Data}
235:
236: A detailed summary of the ACS HUDF, HUDF-Ps, and GOODS data we use for
237: our dropout selections is provided in our previous work (B06).
238: Nevertheless, a brief description of the data is included here. The
239: ACS HUDF data we use are the v1.0 reductions of Beckwith et al.\
240: (2006) and extend to $5\sigma$ point-source limits of $\sim29-30$ in
241: the $B_{435}V_{606}i_{775}z_{850}$ bands. The HUDF-Ps reductions we
242: use are from B06 and take advantage of the deep ($\gtrsim72$ orbit)
243: $BViz$ ACS data fields taken in parallel with the HUDF NICMOS program
244: (Thompson et al.\ 2005). Together the parallel data from this program
245: sum to create two very deep ACS fields that we can use for dropout
246: searches. While of somewhat variable depths, the central portions of
247: these fields (12-20 arcmin$^2$) reach some $0.6-0.9$ mag deeper than
248: the data in the original ACS GOODS program (Giavalisco et al.\ 2004a).
249: Finally, for the ACS GOODS reductions, we will use an updated version
250: of those generated for our previous $z\sim6$ study (B06). These
251: reductions not only take advantage of all the original data taken with
252: ACS GOODS program, but also include all the ACS data associated with
253: the SNe search (A. Riess et al.\ 2007, in preparation), GEMS (Rix et
254: al.\ 2004), HUDF NICMOS (Thompson et al.\ 2005), and HUDF05 (Oesch et
255: al.\ 2007) programs. These latter data (particularly the SNe search
256: data) increase the depths of the $i_{775}$ and $z_{850}$ band images
257: by $\gtrsim0.2$ and $\gtrsim0.5$ mags over that available in the GOODS
258: v1.0 reductions (Giavalisco et al.\ 2004a).
259:
260: Finally, we also take advantage of two exceptionally deep ACS fields
261: taken over the NICMOS parallels to the HUDF (called the HUDF05 fields:
262: Oesch et al.\ 2007). Each field contains 10 orbits of ACS
263: $V_{606}$-band data, 23 orbits of ACS $i_{775}$-band data, and 71
264: orbits of ACS $z_{850}$-band data. As such, these fields are second
265: only to the HUDF in their total $z_{850}$-band exposure time. Though
266: these data were taken to search for galaxies at $z>6.5$ (e.g., Bouwens
267: \& Illingworth 2006), they provide us with additional data for the
268: $UV$ LF determinations at $z\sim5-6$. These data were not available
269: to us in our previous study on the LF at $z\sim6$ (B06). The ACS data
270: over these fields were reduced using the ACS GTO pipeline ``apsis''
271: (Blakeslee et al.\ 2003). ``Apsis'' handles image alignment, cosmic
272: ray rejection, and the drizzling process. To maximize the quality of
273: our reductions, we median stacked the basic post-calibration data
274: after masking out the sources and then subtracted these medians from
275: the individual exposures before drizzling them together to make the
276: final images. The reduced fields reach to $\sim29$ AB mag at
277: $5\sigma$ in the $V_{606}$, $i_{775}$, and $z_{850}$ bands using
278: $\sim0.2''$-diameter apertures. This is only $\sim0.4$ mag shallower
279: than the HUDF in the $z_{850}$ band. A detailed summary of the
280: properties of each of our fields is contained in
281: Table~\ref{tab:dataset}.
282:
283: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
284: \tablecaption{Observational Data.\label{tab:dataset}}
285: \tablehead{
286: \colhead{} & \colhead{Detection Limits\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{PSF FWHM} & \colhead{Areal Coverage}\\
287: \colhead{Passband} & \colhead{(5$\sigma$)} & \colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(arcmin$^2$)}}
288: \startdata
289: \multicolumn{4}{c}{HUDF} \\
290: $B_{435}$ & 29.8 & 0.09 & 11.2 \\
291: $V_{606}$ & 30.2 & 0.09 & 11.2 \\
292: $i_{775}$ & 30.1 & 0.09 & 11.2 \\
293: $z_{850}$ & 29.3 & 0.10 & 11.2 \\
294: $J_{110}$ & 27.3 & 0.33 & 5.8 \\
295: $H_{160}$ & 27.1 & 0.37 & 5.8 \\
296: \multicolumn{4}{c}{} \\
297: \multicolumn{4}{c}{HUDF05} \\
298: $V_{606}$ & 29.2 & 0.09 & 20.2\tablenotemark{b} \\
299: $i_{775}$ & 29.0 & 0.09 & 20.2\tablenotemark{b} \\
300: $z_{850}$ & 28.9 & 0.10 & 20.2\tablenotemark{b} \\
301: \multicolumn{4}{c}{} \\
302: \multicolumn{4}{c}{HUDF-Ps} \\
303: $B_{435}$ & 29.1 & 0.09 & 12.2\tablenotemark{b} \\
304: $V_{606}$ & 29.4 & 0.09 & 12.2\tablenotemark{b} \\
305: $i_{775}$ & 29.0 & 0.09 & 12.2\tablenotemark{b} \\
306: $z_{850}$ & 28.6 & 0.10 & 12.2\tablenotemark{b} \\
307: \multicolumn{4}{c}{} \\
308: \multicolumn{4}{c}{GOODS fields} \\
309: $B_{435}$ & 28.4 & 0.09 & 324 \\
310: $V_{606}$ & 28.6 & 0.09 & 324 \\
311: $i_{775}$ & 27.9 & 0.09 & 324 \\
312: $z_{850}$ & 27.6 & 0.10 & 324 \\
313: $J$ & $\sim25$ & $\sim$0.45$''$ & 131\\
314: $K_s$ & $\sim24.5$ & $\sim$0.45$''$ & 131
315: \enddata
316: \tablenotetext{a}{$0.2''$-diameter aperture for the ACS data,
317: $0.6''$-diameter aperture for NICMOS data, and $0.8''$-diameter for
318: ISAAC data. In contrast to the detection limits quoted in our
319: previous work, here our detection limits have been corrected for the
320: nominal light outside these apertures (assuming a point source). The
321: detection limits without this correction are typically $\sim0.3$ mag
322: fainter.}
323: \tablenotetext{b}{Only the highest S/N regions from the HUDF-Ps and
324: HDF05 fields were used in the searches to obtain a consistently deep
325: probe of the LF over these regions.}
326: \end{deluxetable}
327:
328: \subsection{Catalog Construction and Photometry}
329:
330: Our procedure for doing object detection and photometry on the HUDF,
331: HUDF-Ps, HUDF05, and GOODS fields is very similar to that used
332: previously (Bouwens et al.\ 2003b; B06). Briefly, we perform object
333: detection for $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropout selections by constructing
334: $\chi^2$ images (Szalay et al.\ 1999) from the $V_{606}$, $i_{775}$,
335: and $z_{850}$-band data, $i_{775}$ and $z_{850}$-band data, and
336: $z_{850}$-band data, respectively. $\chi^2$ images are constructed by
337: adding together the relevant images in quadrature, weighting each by
338: $1/\sigma^2$, where $\sigma$ is the RMS noise on the image.
339: SExtractor (Bertin \& Arnouts 1996) was then run in double-image mode
340: using the square root of the $\chi^2$ image as the detection image and
341: the other images to do photometry. Colors were measured using
342: Kron-style (1980) photometry (MAG\_AUTO) in small scalable apertures
343: (Kron factor 1.2, with a minimum aperture of 1.7 semi-major
344: (semi-minor) axis lengths). These colors were then corrected up to
345: total magnitudes using the excess light contained within large
346: scalable apertures (Kron factor 2.5, with a minimum aperture of 3.5
347: semi-major (semi-minor) axis lengths). We measured these corrections
348: off the square root of the $\chi^2$ image to improve the S/N. Figure
349: 5 of Coe et al.\ (2006) provides a graphic description of a similar
350: procedure. The median diameter of these apertures was
351: $\sim0.6\arcsec$ for the faintest sources in our samples. An
352: additional correction was made to account for light outside of our
353: apertures and on the wings of the ACS Wide Field Camera (WFC) PSF
354: (Sirianni et al.\ 2005). Typical corrections were $\sim0.1-0.2$ mag.
355:
356: To assess the quality of our total magnitude measurements, we compared
357: our measurements (which are based on global backgrounds) with those
358: obtained using local backgrounds and found that our total magnitude
359: measurements were $\sim0.04$ mag brighter in the mean. Comparisons
360: with similar flux measurements made available from the GOODS and HUDF
361: teams (Giavalisco et al.\ 2004a; Beckwith et al.\ 2006) also showed
362: good agreement ($\sim\pm0.2$ mag scatter), though our total magnitude
363: measurements were typically $\sim0.08$ mag brighter. We believe this
364: offset is the result of the $\sim0.1$ mag correction we make for light
365: on the PSF wings (Sirianni et al.\ 2005).
366:
367: While constructing our dropout catalogs, one minor challenge was in
368: the deblending of individual sources. The issue was that SExtractor
369: frequently split many of the more asymmetric, multi-component dropout
370: galaxies in our samples into more than one distinct source. This
371: would have the effect of transforming many luminous sources in our
372: selection into multiple lower luminosity sources and thus bias our LF
373: determinations. To cope with this issue, we experimented with a
374: number of different procedures for blending sources together based
375: upon their colours. In the end, we settled on a procedure whereby
376: dropouts were blended with nearby sources if (1) they lay within 4
377: Kron radii and (2) their colours did not differ at more than $2\sigma$
378: significance. Since SExtractor does not allow for the use of colour
379: information in the blending of individual sources, it was necessary
380: for us to implement this algorithm outside the SExtractor package. We
381: found that our procedure nearly always produced results which were in
382: close agreement with the choices we would make after careful
383: inspection.
384:
385: \subsection{Selection Criteria}
386:
387: We adopted selection criteria for our $B$, $V$, and $i$ dropout
388: samples which are very similar to those used in previous works. Our
389: selection criteria are
390: \begin{eqnarray*}
391: (B_{435}-V_{606} > 1.1) \wedge (B_{435}-V_{606} > (V_{606}-z_{850})+1.1) \\
392: \wedge (V_{606}-z_{850}<1.6)
393: \end{eqnarray*}
394: for our $B$-dropout sample and
395: \begin{eqnarray*}
396: [(V_{606}-i_{775} > 0.9(i_{775}-z_{850})) \vee (V_{606}-i_{775} > 2))]
397: \wedge \\ (V_{606}-i_{775}>1.2) \wedge (i_{775}-z_{850}<1.3)
398: \end{eqnarray*}
399: for our $V$-dropout sample and
400: \begin{displaymath}
401: (i_{775}-z_{850}>1.3) \wedge ((V_{606}-i_{775} > 2.8) \vee (S/N(V_{606})<2))
402: \end{displaymath}
403: for our $i$-dropout sample, where $\wedge$ and $\vee$ represent the
404: logical \textbf{AND} and \textbf{OR} symbols, respectively, and
405: \textbf{S/N} represents the signal to noise. Our $V$-dropout and
406: $i$-dropout selection criteria are identical to that described in
407: Giavalisco et al.\ (2004b) and B06, respectively. Meanwhile, our
408: $B$-dropout criteria, while slightly different from that used by
409: Giavalisco et al.\ (2004b), are now routinely used by different teams
410: (e.g., Beckwith et al.\ 2006).
411:
412: We also required sources to be clearly extended (SExtractor stellarity
413: indices less than 0.8) to eliminate intermediate-mass stars and AGNs.
414: Since the SExtractor stellarity parameter rapidly becomes unreliable
415: near the magnitude limit of each of our samples (see, e.g., the
416: discussion in Appendix D.4.3 of B06), we do not remove point sources
417: faintward of the limits $i_{775,AB}>26.5$ (GOODS), $i_{775,AB}>27.3$
418: (HUDF-Ps/HUDF05), and $i_{775,AB}>28$ (HUDF) for our $B$-dropout
419: sample and $z_{850,AB}>26.5$ (GOODS), $z_{850,AB}>27.3$
420: (HUDF-Ps/HUDF05), and $z_{850,AB}>28$ (HUDF) for our $V$ and
421: $i$-dropout samples. Instead contamination from stars is treated on a
422: statistical basis. Since only a small fraction of galaxies faintward
423: of these limits appear to be stars ($\lesssim$6\% of the dropout
424: candidates brightward of $27.0$ are unresolved in our GOODS selections
425: and $\lesssim1$\% of the dropout candidates brightward of 28.0 are
426: unresolved in our HUDF selections), these corrections are small and
427: should not be a significant source of error. Sources which were not
428: $4.5\sigma$ detections in the selection band ($0.3''$-diameter
429: apertures) were also removed to clean our catalogs of a few spurious
430: sources associated with an imperfectly flattened background. Finally,
431: each dropout in our catalogs was carefully inspected to remove
432: artifacts (e.g., diffraction spikes or low-surface brightness features
433: around bright foreground galaxies) that occasionally satisfy our
434: selection criteria.
435:
436: \begin{deluxetable*}{lr|rrr|rrr|rrr}
437: \tablewidth{0pt}
438: \tablecolumns{11}
439: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
440: \tablecaption{Summary of $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropout samples.\tablenotemark{a}\label{tab:bvdropsamp}}
441: \tablehead{
442: \colhead{} & \colhead{Area} &
443: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$B$-dropouts} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$V$-dropouts} &
444: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$i$-dropouts} \\
445: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{(arcmin$^2$)} &
446: \colhead{\#} & \colhead{Limit\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$L/L_{z=3} ^{*}$
447: \tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{\#} & \colhead{Limit\tablenotemark{a}} &
448: \colhead{$L/L_{z=3} ^{*}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{\#} & \colhead{Limit\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$L/L_{z=3} ^{*}$\tablenotemark{b}}}
449: \startdata
450: CDFS GOODS & 172\tablenotemark{*} & 2105 & $i\leq28.0$ & $\geq0.07$ &
451: 447 & $z\leq28.0$ & $\geq0.1$ & & & \\
452: CDFS GOODS-i & 196\tablenotemark{**} & & & & & & & 223 & $z\leq28.0$ & $\geq0.15$ \\
453: HDFN GOODS & 152 & 1723 & $i\leq28.0$ & $\geq0.07$ & 441 & $z\leq28.0$ & $\geq0.1$ & 142 & $z\leq28.0$ & $\geq0.15$ \\
454: HUDF-Ps & 12 & 283 & $i\leq29.0$ & $\geq0.04$ & 88 & $z \leq 28.5$ & $\geq0.08$ \\
455: HUDF-Ps-i & 17\tablenotemark{**} & & & & & & & 64 & $z\leq28.5$ & $\geq0.1$ \\
456: HUDF05 & 20 & --- & --- & --- & 244 & $z \leq 29.0$ & $\geq0.05$ & 96 & $z\leq29.0$ & $\geq0.06$ \\
457: HUDF & 11 & 711 & $i\leq30.0$ & $\geq0.01$ & 147 & $z \leq 29.5$ & $\geq0.03$ & 132 & $z\leq29.5$ & $\geq0.04$ \\
458: & & & & & 232 & $i \leq 30.0$ & $\geq0.02$ & & &
459: \enddata
460: \tablenotetext{*}{Due to our inclusion of the ACS parallels to the UDF
461: NICMOS field in our reductions of the CDF South GOODS field (\S2.3),
462: the total area available there for $B$ and $V$-dropout searches
463: exceeded that available in the HDF-North GOODS field.}
464: \tablenotetext{**}{Because our $i$-dropout selections do not require
465: deep $B$-band data, we can take advantage of some additional area
466: around the CDF-S GOODS and HUDF-Ps fields to expand our selection
467: beyond what is available to our $B$ and $V$-dropout selections.}
468: \tablenotetext{a}{The magnitude limit is the $\sim$5$\sigma$ detection
469: limit for objects in a 0.2\arcs-diameter aperture.}
470: \tablenotetext{b}{Magnitude limit in units of $L_{z=3} ^{*}$ (Steidel et al.\ 1999).}
471: \end{deluxetable*}
472:
473: In total, we found 711 $B$-dropouts, 232 $V$-dropouts, and 132
474: $i$-dropouts over the HUDF and $3828$ $B$-dropouts, $888$
475: $V$-dropouts, and $365$ $i$-dropouts over the two GOODS fields. This
476: is similar to (albeit slightly larger than) the numbers reported by
477: Beckwith et al.\ (2006) over these fields. We also found 283
478: $B$-dropouts over the HUDF-Ps (12 arcmin$^2$) and 332 $V$-dropouts and
479: 160 $i$-dropouts over the HUDF-Ps and HUDF05 fields (32 arcmin$^2$).
480: Altogether, our catalogs contain 4671, 1416, and 627 unique $B$, $V$,
481: and $i$-dropouts (151, 36, and 30 of the above $B$, $V$, and
482: $i$-dropouts occur in more than one of these catalogs).
483: Table~\ref{tab:bvdropsamp} provides a convenient summary of the
484: properties of our $B$, $V$, and $i$ dropout samples.
485: Figure~\ref{fig:bvcounts} compares the surface density of dropouts
486: found in our compilation with those obtained in the literature
487: (Giavalisco et al.\ 2004b; Beckwith et al.\ 2006). With a few notable
488: exceptions (see, e.g., Figure~\ref{fig:icount}), we are in good
489: agreement with the literature.
490:
491: \begin{figure*}
492: \epsscale{1.16}
493: \plotone{bvcounts_new.ps}
494: \caption{\textit{(top left)} The surface density of $B$-dropouts (per
495: 0.5 mag interval) found in the ACS GOODS (\textit{black circles}),
496: HUDF-Ps (\textit{blue circles}), and HUDF data (\textit{red circles})
497: before correction for incompleteness, contamination, flux biases, and
498: field-to-field variations. The data points have been slightly offset
499: relative to each other in the horizontal direction for clarity. The
500: black histogram show the surface density of $B$-dropouts obtained
501: after combining the results from the HUDF + HUDF-Ps + GOODS fields and
502: correcting for the above effects (\S2.6: see also
503: Table~\ref{tab:bcounts}). Our $B$-dropout selections suffer from
504: significant incompleteness in the ACS GOODS data faintward of
505: $i_{775,AB}\sim27$ AB mag, while the $B$-dropout selections over the
506: HUDF-Ps become rather incomplete at $i_{775,AB}\sim28$ AB mag.
507: (\textit{top center and right}) Similar to the top left panel, except
508: for $V$-dropouts (\textit{top center}) and $i$-dropouts (\textit{top
509: right}). The \textit{green circles} shows the surface density of
510: $V$-dropouts over the HUDF05 fields before any corrections are made.
511: (\textit{bottom panels}) Similar to top panels, but comparing current
512: determinations of the dropout surface densities (\textit{solid
513: circles}) with previous determinations in the literature from the ACS
514: GOODS data (Giavalisco et al.\ 2004a: \textit{black solid lines}) and
515: HUDF data (Beckwith et al.\ 2006: \textit{red solid lines}). In
516: general, our determinations agree quite well with those in the
517: literature, particularly at bright magnitudes. Notable exceptions
518: include the surface densities of the fainter $i$-dropouts in the HUDF
519: and GOODS fields. We find a much larger number of faint $i$-dropouts
520: over the GOODS fields than are found in the original GOODS v1.0
521: reductions of Giavalisco et al.\ (2004a) because we take advantage of
522: the considerable SNe search data taken over these fields which
523: increase the depths by $\sim0.4$ mag (\S2.1; B06). For a discussion
524: of the differences in the HUDF $i$-dropout counts, we refer the
525: reader to \S4.3 and Figure~\ref{fig:icount}.\label{fig:bvcounts}}
526: \end{figure*}
527:
528: \subsection{Flux/Completeness Corrections}
529:
530: The above samples provide us with an unprecedented data set for
531: determining the LFs at high-redshift over an extremely wide range in
532: luminosity. However, before we use these samples to determine the LFs
533: at $z\sim4-6$, we need to understand in detail how object selection
534: and photometry affects what we observe. These issues can have a
535: significant effect on the properties of our different selections, as
536: one can see in Figure~\ref{fig:bvcounts} by comparing the surface
537: density of dropouts observed in the HUDF, HUDF05, HUDF-Ps, and GOODS
538: fields, where clear differences are observed at faint magnitudes due
539: to obvious differences in the completeness of these samples at such
540: magnitudes.
541:
542: To accomplish these aims, we will use a very similar strategy to what
543: we employed in previous examinations of the rest-frame $UV$ LF at
544: $z\sim6$ (B06). Our strategy will be to derive transformations which
545: correct the dropout surface densities from what we would derive for
546: noise-free (infinite S/N) data to that recoverable at the depths of
547: our various fields. These transformations will be made using a set of
548: two-dimensional matrices, called transfer functions. These functions
549: are computed for each dropout selection and field under consideration
550: here (HUDF, HUDF05, HUDF-Ps, and GOODS). We describe the derivation
551: of these transfer functions in detail in Appendix A.1. A summary of
552: the properties of these functions is also provided in this section.
553:
554: \subsection{Contamination Corrections}
555:
556: Dropout samples also contain a small number of contaminants. We
557: developed corrections for three types of contamination: \textit{(i)}
558: intrinsically-red, low-redshift interlopers, \textit{(ii)} objects
559: entering our samples due to photometric scatter, and \textit{(iii)}
560: spurious sources. We estimated the fraction of intrinsically red
561: objects in our samples as a function of magnitude using the deep
562: $K_s$-band data over the Chandra Deep Field (CDF) South GOODS field
563: (B. Vandame et al.\ 2007, in preparation). Contaminants were
564: identified in our $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropout selections with a
565: $(i_{775}-K_s)_{AB}>2$, $(z_{850}-K_s)_{AB}>2$, and
566: $(z_{850}-K_s)_{AB}>1.6$ criterion, respectively. The contamination
567: rate from photometric scatter was estimated by performing selections
568: on degradations of the HUDF. Appendix D.4.2 of B06 provides a
569: description of how we previously calculated this at $z\sim6$. The
570: contribution of these two contaminants to our samples was relatively
571: small, on order $\sim2$\%, $\sim3$\%, and $\sim3$\%, respectively,
572: though this contamination rate is clearly magnitude dependent and
573: decreases towards fainter magnitudes. The contamination rate from
574: spurious sources was determined by repeating our selection on the
575: negative images (e.g., Dickinson et al.\ 2004; B06) and found to be
576: completely negligible ($\lesssim1$\%).
577:
578: \subsection{Number Counts}
579:
580: Before closing this section and moving onto a determination of the UV
581: LF at $z\sim4-6$, it is useful to derive the surface density of $B$,
582: $V$, and $i$-dropouts by combining the results from each of our
583: samples and implementing each of the above corrections. Although we
584: will make no direct use of these aggregate surface densities in our
585: derivation of the rest-frame $UV$ LF, direct tabulation of these
586: surface densities can be helpful for observers who are interested in
587: knowing the approximate source density of high-redshift galaxies on
588: the sky or for theorists who are interested in making more direct
589: comparisons to the observations. We combine the surface densities
590: from our various fields using a maximum likelihood procedure. The
591: surface densities are corrected for field-to-field variations using
592: the factors given in Table~\ref{tab:overdense}. Both incompleteness
593: and flux biases are treated using the transfer functions which take
594: our selections from HUDF depths to shallower depths. Our final
595: results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:bcounts}.
596:
597: \begin{deluxetable}{cc}
598: \tablewidth{0pt}
599: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
600: \tablecaption{Corrected surface densities of $B$, $V$, and
601: $i$-dropouts from all fields.\tablenotemark{a}\label{tab:bcounts}}
602: \tablehead{
603: \colhead{Magnitude} & \colhead{Surface Density (arcmin$^{-2}$)}}
604: \startdata
605: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$B$-dropouts ($z\sim4$)}\\
606: $23.00<i_{775}<23.50$ & $0.006\pm0.005$\\
607: $23.50<i_{775}<24.00$ & $0.019\pm0.008$\\
608: $24.00<i_{775}<24.50$ & $0.173\pm0.022$\\
609: $24.50<i_{775}<25.00$ & $0.412\pm0.035$\\
610: $25.00<i_{775}<25.50$ & $1.053\pm0.057$\\
611: $25.50<i_{775}<26.00$ & $1.685\pm0.071$\\
612: $26.00<i_{775}<26.50$ & $2.703\pm0.097$\\
613: $26.50<i_{775}<27.00$ & $4.308\pm0.134$\\
614: $27.00<i_{775}<27.50$ & $7.408\pm0.656$\\
615: $27.50<i_{775}<28.00$ & $8.263\pm0.701$\\
616: $28.00<i_{775}<28.50$ & $12.228\pm1.120$\\
617: $28.50<i_{775}<29.00$ & $11.401\pm1.082$\\
618: $29.00<i_{775}<29.50$ & $16.167\pm1.288$\\
619: $29.50<i_{775}<30.00$ & $7.668\pm0.887$\\
620: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$V$-dropouts ($z\sim5$)}\\
621: $23.50<z_{850}<24.00$ & $0.005\pm0.003$\\
622: $24.00<z_{850}<24.50$ & $0.008\pm0.004$\\
623: $24.50<z_{850}<25.00$ & $0.048\pm0.010$\\
624: $25.00<z_{850}<25.50$ & $0.163\pm0.021$\\
625: $25.50<z_{850}<26.00$ & $0.432\pm0.035$\\
626: $26.00<z_{850}<26.50$ & $0.842\pm0.053$\\
627: $26.50<z_{850}<27.00$ & $1.513\pm0.084$\\
628: $27.00<z_{850}<27.50$ & $2.314\pm0.244$\\
629: $27.50<z_{850}<28.00$ & $2.540\pm0.257$\\
630: $28.00<z_{850}<28.50$ & $5.403\pm0.529$\\
631: $28.50<z_{850}<29.00$ & $5.181\pm0.815$\\
632: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$i$-dropouts ($z\sim6$)}\\
633: $24.50<z_{850}<25.00$ & $0.003\pm0.003$\\
634: $25.00<z_{850}<25.50$ & $0.023\pm0.008$\\
635: $25.50<z_{850}<26.00$ & $0.072\pm0.019$\\
636: $26.00<z_{850}<26.50$ & $0.230\pm0.039$\\
637: $26.50<z_{850}<27.00$ & $0.501\pm0.075$\\
638: $27.00<z_{850}<27.50$ & $1.350\pm0.208$\\
639: $27.50<z_{850}<28.00$ & $1.791\pm0.261$\\
640: $28.00<z_{850}<28.50$ & $2.818\pm0.404$\\
641: $28.50<z_{850}<29.00$ & $4.277\pm0.625$\\
642: $29.00<z_{850}<29.50$ & $0.738\pm0.260$
643: \enddata
644: \tablenotetext{a}{The surface densities of dropouts quoted here have
645: been corrected to the same completeness levels as our HUDF selections.
646: They will therefore be essentially complete to $i_{775,AB}\sim29$,
647: $z_{850,AB}\sim28.5$, and $z_{850,AB}\sim28.5$ for our $B$, $V$, and
648: $i$-dropout selections, respectively.}
649: \end{deluxetable}
650:
651: \section{Determination of the $UV$ LF at $z\sim4-6$}
652:
653: The large $B$, $V$, and $i$ dropout samples we have compiled permit us
654: to determine the rest-frame $UV$ LFs at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and
655: $z\sim6$ to very faint $UV$ luminosities (AB mags $\sim-16$,
656: $\sim-17$, and $\sim-17.5$, respectively), with significant statistics
657: over a wide range in magnitude. This provides us with both the
658: leverage and statistics to obtain an unprecedented measure of the
659: overall shape of the LF for galaxies at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and
660: $z\sim6$.
661:
662: To maximize the robustness of our LF results, we will consider a wide
663: variety of different approaches to determining the LF at $z\sim4$,
664: $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$. We begin by invoking two standard techniques
665: for determining the LF in the presence of large-scale structure (both
666: modified for use with apparent magnitudes). The first technique is
667: the Sandage, Tammann, \& Yahil (1979: STY79) approach and the second
668: is the stepwise maximum likelihood (SWML) method (Efstathiou et al.\
669: 1988). With these approaches, we will determine the LF both in
670: stepwise form and using a Schechter parametrization. We then expand
671: our discussion to consider a wide variety of different approaches for
672: determining the LF at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ to ensure that
673: the Schechter parameters are not overly sensitive to our approach and
674: various assumptions we make about the form of the SEDs of galaxies at
675: $z\gtrsim4$. These tests are developed in Appendices B and C. We
676: will then update our STY79 LF determinations to correct for the effect
677: of evolution across our samples (Appendix B.8:
678: Table~\ref{tab:lfparm}). In \S3.4, we examine the robustness of the
679: conclusions that we derive regarding the faint-end slope and then
680: finally we compute the luminosity densities and star formation rate
681: densities at $z\sim4-6$ using our LF results.
682:
683: \subsection{STY79 Method}
684:
685: We will begin by estimating the rest-frame $UV$ LF from our $B$, $V$,
686: $i$-dropout samples using a Schechter parameterization
687: \begin{equation}
688: \phi^* (\ln(10)/2.5) 10^{-0.4(M-M^{*})(\alpha+1)} e^{-10^{-0.4(M-M^{*})}}
689: \end{equation}
690: and the maximum likelihood procedure of STY79. The parameter $\phi^*$
691: is the normalization, $M^*$ is the characteristic luminosity, and
692: $\alpha$ is the faint-end slope in the Schechter parametrization. The
693: STY79 procedure has long been the technique of choice for computing
694: the LF over multiple fields because it is insensitive to the presence
695: of large-scale structure. The central idea behind this technique is
696: to consider the likelihood of reproducing the relative distribution of
697: dropouts in magnitude space given a LF. Because only the distribution
698: of sources is considered in this measure and not the absolute surface
699: densities, this approach is only sensitive to the shape of the LF and
700: not its overall normalization. This makes this approach immune to the
701: effects of large-scale structure and our LF fit results very robust.
702:
703: It is worthwhile to note however that for our particular application
704: of this approach, our results will not be completely insensitive to
705: large-scale structure. This is because lacking exact redshifts for
706: individual sources in our samples we will need to consider the
707: apparent magnitudes of individual galaxies in computing the
708: likelihoods and not the absolute magnitudes. This will make our
709: results slightly sensitive to large-scale structure along the line of
710: sight due to the effect of redshift on the apparent magnitudes.
711: However, as we demonstrate in Appendix C, the expected effect of this
712: structure is extremely small, introducing $1\sigma$ variations of
713: $\sim 0.05$ mag in the value of $M^*$ and $\sim0.02$ in the value of
714: the faint-end slope $\alpha$.
715:
716: To use this approach to evaluate the likelihood of model LFs, we need
717: to compute the surface density of dropouts as a function of magnitude
718: $N(m)$ from the model LFs, so we can compare these numbers against the
719: observations. We use a two stage approach for these computations, so
720: we can take advantage of the transfer functions we derived in Appendix
721: A.1. These functions provide us with a very natural way of
722: incorporating the effects of incompleteness and photometric scatter
723: into our comparisons with the observations, so we will want to make
724: use of them. In order to do this, we first need to calculate the
725: surface density of dropouts appropriate for our deepest selection (the
726: HUDF). Then, we will correct this surface density to that appropriate
727: for our shallower field using the transfer functions.
728:
729: The nominal surface densities in our HUDF selections $N(m)$ are computed from
730: the model LFs $\phi(M)$ as
731: \begin{equation}
732: \int_z \phi(M(m,z)) P(m,z) \frac{dV}{dz} dz = N(m)
733: \label{eq:numcount}
734: \end{equation}
735: where $\frac{dV}{dz}$ is the cosmological volume element, $P(m,z)$ is
736: the probability of selecting star-forming galaxies at a magnitude $m$
737: and redshift $z$ in the HUDF, $M$ is the absolute magnitude at
738: $1600\,\AA$, and $m$ is the apparent magnitude in the $i_{775}$,
739: $z_{850}$, or $z_{850}$ band depending upon whether we are dealing
740: with a $B$, $V$, or $i$-dropout selection. Note that the $i_{775}$
741: and $z_{850}$ bands closely correspond to rest-frame $1600\,\AA$ at
742: the mean redshift of our $B$ and $V$-dropout samples ($z\sim3.8$ and
743: $z\sim5.0$, respectively), whereas for our $z\sim6$ $i$-dropout
744: selection, the $z_{850}$ band corresponds to rest-frame $1350\,\AA$.
745:
746: With the ability to compute the surface density of dropouts in our
747: different fields for various model LFs, we proceed to determine the LF
748: which maximizes the likelihood of reproducing the observed counts with
749: model LFs at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$. The formulas we use
750: for computing these likelihoods are given in Appendix A.2, along with
751: the equations we use to evaluate the integral in Eq.~\ref{eq:numcount}
752: and implement the transfer functions from Appendix A.1. We compute
753: the selection efficiencies $P(m,z)$ through extensive Monte-Carlo
754: simulations, where we take real $B$-dropouts from the HUDF,
755: artificially redshift them across the redshift windows of our samples,
756: add them to our data, and then reselect them using the same procedure
757: we use on the real data. A lengthy description of these simulations
758: are provided in Appendix A.3, but the following are some essential
759: points: (1) The HUDF $B$-dropout galaxy profiles used in our effective
760: volume simulations for each of our dropout samples are projected to
761: higher redshifts assuming a $(1+z)^{-1.1}$ size scaling (independent
762: of luminosity) to match the size evolution observed at $z\sim2-6$
763: (B06). (2) The distribution of $UV$-continuum slopes in our $z\sim4$
764: $B$-dropout effective volume simulations is taken to have a mean of
765: $-1.5$ and $1\sigma$ scatter of $0.6$ for $UV$-luminous $L^*$
766: star-forming galaxies. For our higher redshift samples and at lower
767: $UV$ luminosities, the mean $UV$-continuum slope is taken to be
768: $\sim-2$. In all cases, these slopes were chosen to match that found
769: in the observations (Meurer et al.\ 1999; Stanway et al.\ 2006; B06;
770: R.J. Bouwens et al.\ 2007, in preparation). (3) To treat absorption
771: from neutral hydrogen clouds, we have implemented an updated version
772: of the Madau (1995) prescription so that it fits more recent
773: $z\gtrsim5$ Lyman forest observations (e.g., Songaila 2004) and
774: includes line-of-sight variations (e.g., as performed in Bershady et
775: al.\ 1999). In calculating the equivalent absolute magnitude $M$ for
776: an apparent magnitude $m$ at $z\sim6$, we use an effective volume
777: kernel $V_{m,k}$ to correct for the redshift-dependent absorption from
778: the Lyman forest on the observed $z_{850}$-band fluxes (Appendix A.2).
779: For our $z\sim4$ LF, we restrict our analysis to galaxies brighter
780: than $i_{775,AB}=29.0$ since we found that our fit results were
781: moderately sensitive to the colour distribution we used to calculate
782: the selection volumes (Figure~\ref{fig:selfunc}: Appendix B.4).
783:
784: \begin{figure}
785: \epsscale{1.1}
786: \plotone{udf_z.ps}
787: \caption{Redshift distributions computed for our HUDF $B$, $V$, and
788: $i$-dropout samples (\textit{blue, green, and red lines,
789: respectively}) using our best-fit Schechter parameters
790: (Table~\ref{tab:olfparm}) from the STY79 approach and the selection
791: efficiencies given in Figure~\ref{fig:selfunc}. The mean redshift for
792: our HUDF $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropout selections is 3.8, 5.0, and 5.9,
793: respectively.\label{fig:zdist}}
794: \end{figure}
795:
796: The best-fit Schechter parameters are $M_{1600,AB}^{*}=-21.06\pm0.10$,
797: and $\alpha=-1.76\pm0.05$ at $z\sim4$ for our $B$-dropout sample,
798: $M_{1600,AB}^{*}=-20.69\pm0.13$ and $\alpha=-1.69\pm0.09$ at $z\sim5$
799: for our $V$-dropout sample, and $M_{1350,AB}^{*}=-20.29\pm0.19$ and
800: $\alpha=-1.77\pm0.16$ at $z\sim6$ for our $i$-dropout sample. Since
801: $z\sim6$ galaxies appear to be very blue ($\beta\sim-2$: Stanway et
802: al.\ 2005; B06), we expect $M_{1600,AB}$ at $z\sim6$ to be almost
803: identical ($\lesssim0.1$ mag) to the value of $M_{1350,AB}$. To
804: determine the equivalent normalization $\phi^*$ for our derived values
805: of $\alpha$ and $M^*$, we compute the expected number of dropouts over
806: all of our fields and compare that with the observed number of
807: dropouts in those fields. Following this procedure, we find
808: $\phi^{*}=0.0011\pm0.0002$ Mpc$^{-3}$ for our $B$-dropout sample,
809: $\phi^{*}=0.0009_{-0.0002}^{+0.0003}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ for our $V$-dropout
810: sample, and $\phi^{*}=0.0012_{-0.0004}^{+0.0006}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ for our
811: $i$-dropout sample. We present these LF values in
812: Table~\ref{tab:olfparm}. The clearest evolution here is in the
813: characteristic luminosity $M^*$ which brightens significantly across
814: this redshift range: from $\sim-20.3$ at $z\sim6$ to $\sim-21.1$ at
815: $z\sim4$. In contrast, both the faint-end slope $\alpha$ and
816: normalization $\phi^*$ of the LF remain relatively constant, with
817: $\alpha \sim -1.74$ and $\phi^*\sim0.001$ Mpc$^{-3}$. For context, we
818: have computed the redshift distributions for our HUDF $B$, $V$, and
819: $i$-dropout selections using these best-fit LFs and presented them in
820: Figure~\ref{fig:zdist}.
821:
822: We plot the likelihood contours for different combinations of $\alpha$
823: and $M^*$ in Figure~\ref{fig:contourml}. These contours were used in
824: our error estimates on $\alpha$ and $M^*$. For our estimates of the
825: uncertainties on the normalization $\phi^*$, we first calculated the
826: field-to-field variations expected over an ACS GOODS field ($\sim150$
827: arcmin$^2$). Assuming that our $B$, $V$, and $i$ dropout selections
828: span a redshift window of $dz=0.7$, $dz=0.7$, and $dz=0.6$,
829: respectively, have a bias of 3.9, 3.4, and 4.1, respectively (Lee et
830: al.\ 2006; Overzier et al.\ 2006), and using a pencil beam geometry
831: for our calculations, we derive field-to-field variations of
832: $\sim22$\% RMS, $\sim18$\% RMS, and $\sim22$\% RMS, respectively.
833: These values are similar to those estimated to other studies
834: (Somerville et al.\ 2004; B06; Beckwith et al.\ 2006; cf. Stark et
835: al.\ 2007c). With these estimates, we were then able to derive
836: likelihood contours in $\phi^*$ by marginalizing over $\alpha$ and
837: $M^*$, using the relationship between $\phi^*$ and the other Schechter
838: parameters and supposing that $\phi^*$ has a $1\sigma$ uncertainty
839: equal to the RMS values given above divided by $\sqrt{2}$ (to account
840: for the fact that each GOODS field provides us an independent measure
841: of the volume density of galaxies).
842:
843: \begin{figure}
844: \epsscale{1.20}
845: \plotone{udf_lf.ps}
846: \caption{(\textit{top panel}) Rest-frame $UV$ ($\sim1600\,\AA$)
847: luminosity functions at $z\sim4$ (blue), $z\sim5$ (green), and
848: $z\sim6$ (red), shown in terms of their best-fit Schechter functions
849: (solid lines) which were derived from fits to the number counts using
850: the STY79 method (\S3.1). Though nominally our $z\sim6$ LF requires a
851: k-correction to transform it from $\sim1350\,\AA$ to $\sim1600\,\AA$,
852: the blue rest-frame $UV$ slopes of $z\sim6$ galaxies (e.g., Stanway et
853: al.\ 2005; Yan et al.\ 2005; B06) means the correction is negligible.
854: (\textit{bottom panel}) Independent determinations of the LFs at
855: $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ using the SWML method (\S3.2) are
856: shown with blue, green, and red solid dark circles, respectively
857: ($1\sigma$ errors). The rest-frame $UV$ LF shows a rapid build-up in
858: the number of luminous galaxies from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$. On the
859: other hand, the number of lower luminosity systems ($M_{1600,AB} >
860: -19.5$ mag) shows much less evolution over this
861: interval.\label{fig:udflf}}
862: \end{figure}
863:
864: \subsection{SWML}
865:
866: As a second approach, we parametrize our derived LF in a stepwise
867: fashion, with 0.5 mag intervals. This approach is commonly known as
868: the Stepwise Maximum Likelihood (SWML) method (Efstathiou et al.\
869: 1988) and allows us to look at the evolution of the LF in a more
870: model-independent way than would be possible if we considered
871: Schechter parametrizations alone. As with our STY79 determinations,
872: we maximize the likelihood of reproducing the observed surface
873: densities of dropouts in our different fields given a LF. Similar to
874: that technique, this approach is robust to the presence of large-scale
875: structure. In order to match the magnitude interval used in our
876: stepwise LF, we bin the number counts $N_m$, effective volume kernels
877: $V_{m,k}$, and transfer functions $T_{m,l}$ on 0.5 mag intervals (see
878: Appendix A.2). We compute the surface densities from the model LFs in
879: the same way as for the STY79 approach, using Eq.~\ref{eq:numcountg}
880: from Appendix A.2. The likelihoods are computed using
881: Eq.~\ref{eq:likelihood}. Errors on each of the parameters $\phi_k$
882: are derived using the second derivatives of the likelihood $\cal{L}$.
883: We normalize our stepwise LFs $\phi(M)$ by requiring them to match the
884: total number of dropouts over all of our search fields. Our stepwise
885: determinations are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:swlf4} and also
886: included in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:udflf}. All LFs are
887: Schechter-like in overall shape, as one can see by comparing the
888: stepwise determinations with the independently derived Schechter fits
889: (\textit{dashed lines}).
890:
891: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
892: \tablewidth{0pt}
893: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
894: \tablecaption{Stepwise Determination of the rest-frame $UV$ LF at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ using the SWML method (\S3.2).\label{tab:swlf4}}
895: \tablehead{
896: \colhead{$M_{1600,AB}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\phi_k$ (Mpc$^{-3}$ mag$^{-1}$)}}
897: \startdata
898: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$B$-dropouts ($z\sim4$)}\\
899: $-22.26$ & $0.00001\pm0.00001$\\
900: $-21.76$ & $0.00011\pm0.00002$\\
901: $-21.26$ & $0.00025\pm0.00003$\\
902: $-20.76$ & $0.00067\pm0.00004$\\
903: $-20.26$ & $0.00106\pm0.00006$\\
904: $-19.76$ & $0.00169\pm0.00008$\\
905: $-19.26$ & $0.00285\pm0.00012$\\
906: $-18.76$ & $0.00542\pm0.00055$\\
907: $-18.26$ & $0.00665\pm0.00067$\\
908: $-17.76$ & $0.01165\pm0.00123$\\
909: $-17.26$ & $0.01151\pm0.00148$\\
910: $-16.76$ & $0.02999\pm0.00375$\\
911: $-16.26$ & $0.02610\pm0.01259$\\
912: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$V$-dropouts ($z\sim5$)}\\
913: $-21.66$ & $0.00003\pm0.00001$\\
914: $-21.16$ & $0.00012\pm0.00001$\\
915: $-20.66$ & $0.00031\pm0.00003$\\
916: $-20.16$ & $0.00062\pm0.00004$\\
917: $-19.66$ & $0.00113\pm0.00007$\\
918: $-19.16$ & $0.00179\pm0.00020$\\
919: $-18.66$ & $0.00203\pm0.00022$\\
920: $-18.16$ & $0.00506\pm0.00057$\\
921: $-17.66$ & $0.00530\pm0.00134$\\
922: $-17.16$ & $0.00782\pm0.00380$\\
923: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$i$-dropouts ($z\sim6$)}\\
924: $-22.13$ & $0.00001\pm0.00001$\\
925: $-21.63$ & $0.00001\pm0.00001$\\
926: $-21.13$ & $0.00007\pm0.00002$\\
927: $-20.63$ & $0.00013\pm0.00004$\\
928: $-20.13$ & $0.00054\pm0.00012$\\
929: $-19.63$ & $0.00083\pm0.00018$\\
930: $-18.88$ & $0.00197\pm0.00041$\\
931: $-17.88$ & $0.00535\pm0.00117$
932: \enddata
933: \tablenotetext{a}{The LF is tabulated at $1350\,\AA$ at $z\sim6$.}
934: \end{deluxetable}
935:
936: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
937: \tablewidth{0pt}
938: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
939: \tablecaption{
940: STY79 Determinations of the Schechter Parameters for the rest-frame $UV$ LFs
941: at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$.\label{tab:olfparm}}
942: \tablehead{\colhead{Dropout} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$\phi^*$
943: $(10^{-3}$} & \colhead{} \\
944: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$<z>$} &
945: \colhead{$M_{UV} ^{*}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Mpc$^{-3}$)} &
946: \colhead{$\alpha$}}
947: \startdata
948: $B$\tablenotemark{b} & 3.8 &
949: $-21.06\pm0.10$ & $1.1\pm0.2$ & $-1.76\pm0.05$\\
950: $V$\tablenotemark{b} & 5.0 & $-20.69\pm0.13$ & $0.9_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$ &
951: $-1.69\pm0.09$\\
952: $i$\tablenotemark{b} & 5.9 & $-20.29\pm0.19$ & $1.2_{-0.4}^{+0.6}$ &
953: $-1.77\pm0.16$\\
954: \enddata
955: \tablenotetext{a}{Values of $M_{UV}^{*}$ are at $1600\,\AA$ for our
956: $B$ and $V$-dropout samples and at $\sim1350\,\AA$ for our $i$-dropout
957: sample. Since $z\sim6$ galaxies are blue ($\beta\sim-2$: Stanway et
958: al.\ 2005; B06), we expect the value of $M^*$ at $z\sim6$ to be very
959: similar ($\lesssim0.1$ mag) at $1600\,\AA$ to the value of $M^*$ at
960: $1350\,\AA$.}
961: \tablenotetext{b}{Parameters determined using the STY79 technique
962: (\S3.1) not including evolution across the redshift window of the samples (see
963: Table~\ref{tab:lfparm} for the parameters determined including evolution).}
964: \end{deluxetable}
965:
966: % at a bluer rest-frame wavelength ($\sim1400\AA$)
967: % to maintain consistency with $z\sim6$ determinations.
968:
969: \begin{figure*}
970: \epsscale{1.19}
971: \plotone{contourml2.ps}
972: \caption{Best-fit Schechter parameters and likelihood contours for the
973: $z\sim4$ (\textit{blue contours}), $z\sim5$ (\textit{green contours}),
974: and $z\sim6$ (\textit{red contours}) UV ($\sim1600\,\AA$) luminosity
975: functions using the STY79 method (see \S3.1). Shown are the 68\% and
976: 95\% likelihood contours for different Schechter parameter
977: combinations. Though our $z\sim6$ LF nominally requires a
978: k-correction to transform it from $\sim1350\,\AA$ to $\sim1600\,\AA$, the
979: correction is negligible. Our best-fit parameters (and likelihood
980: contours) for the $z\sim6$ LF are similar to those in
981: B06.\label{fig:contourml}}
982: \end{figure*}
983:
984: \subsection{Robustness of Schechter Parameter Determinations}
985:
986: It seems legitimate to ask how robust the Schechter parameters are
987: that we derived in \S3.1 using the STY79 method. There are a number
988: of different approaches to treating large-scale structure
989: uncertainties, for example, and we could have easily adopted a
990: different approach (i.e., matching up the counts from each of our
991: surveys and then deriving the LFs through a direct approach as we did
992: in B06). By the same token, we also could have chosen to derive the
993: LFs using a different set of SED templates, different assumptions
994: regarding the Ly$\alpha$ equivalent widths, different opacity models
995: for absorption from neutral hydrogen clouds, or even different dropout
996: criteria. To ensure that our LF determinations were not unreasonably
997: affected by these choices, we repeated the present determinations of
998: the LF at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ adopting a wide variety of
999: different approaches. A detailed description of each of these
1000: determinations is provided in Appendix B. The corresponding Schechter
1001: parameters are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:robustlf}. In general,
1002: these other determinations are in reasonable agreement with our
1003: fiducial STY79 determinations, though it is clear that there are a few
1004: variables that can have a small ($\pm20$\%) effect on the derived
1005: parameters.
1006:
1007: The following are our most significant findings: (1) We found less
1008: evolution in the value of $M^*$ from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$ when making
1009: the measurement at a bluer rest-frame wavelength (i.e.,
1010: $\sim1350\,\AA$) than we did when making this measurement at
1011: $\sim1600\,\AA$. This is likely the result of the fact that $L^*$
1012: galaxies at $z\sim4$ (Ouchi et al.\ 2004) are much redder than they
1013: are at $z\sim5-6$ (Lehnert \& Bremer 2003; Stanway et al.\ 2005; B06).
1014: (2) The inclusion of Ly$\alpha$ emission lines in the SEDs of the
1015: model star-forming galaxies (assuming that 33\% of the sources have
1016: rest-frame equivalent widths of $50\AA$: see Appendix B.5) has a
1017: modest effect on the selection volumes computed for our three dropout
1018: samples and results in a modest decrease in $\phi^*$ at $z\sim4$ (by
1019: 10\%), but increase in $\phi^*$ at $z\sim5$ and $z\sim6$ (by
1020: $\sim10$\%). (3) At $z\sim4$, we found that our LF fit results could
1021: be somewhat sensitive to the distribution of $UV$ colours used --
1022: depending upon the faint-end limit we adopted in our analysis. As a
1023: result, we restricted ourselves to galaxies brighter than $29$ AB mag
1024: in our $z\sim4$ LF fits above to improve the overall robustness of the
1025: fit results. (4) We found that the Schechter parameters for our
1026: high-redshift LFs only show a slight ($\lesssim10$\%) dependence upon
1027: the model we adopted for the opacity coming from neutral hydrogen
1028: clouds. (5) If we allow for evolution in M* across the redshift
1029: window of each sample (by 0.35 mag per unit redshift as we find in our
1030: fiducial STY79 determinations), we recovered a slightly fainter value
1031: of M* (by $\sim$0.06 mag), a higher value of $\phi^*$ (by $\sim$10\%),
1032: and a shallower faint-end slope $\alpha$ (by $\sim$0.02) for our LF.
1033: (6) In each and every analysis we considered, we found a significant
1034: ($\sim0.5$ mag to $\sim0.9$ mag) brightening of $M^*$ from $z\sim6$ to
1035: $z\sim4$, suggesting that this evolutionary finding is really robust.
1036: We also consistently recovered a very steep ($\alpha\lesssim-1.7$)
1037: faint-end slope. We would consider both of these conclusions to be
1038: quite solid.
1039:
1040: Of all the issues considered in this section, the only issue which
1041: would clearly bias our LF determinations and for which we can
1042: accurately make a correction is the issue of evolution across the
1043: redshift selection windows of our dropout samples. Since this issue
1044: only has a minimal effect on the LF fit results (i.e., $\Delta M \sim
1045: 0.06$ mag, $\Delta \phi^* / \phi^* \sim 0.1$, $\Delta \alpha \sim
1046: 0.03$) and an even smaller effect on integrated quantities like the
1047: luminosity density, we will not be repeating much of the analysis done
1048: thus far to include it. Instead, we will simply adopt the results of
1049: the STY79 approach including this evolution in $M^*$ with redshift
1050: (Table~\ref{tab:robustlf}: see Appendix B.8) hereafter as our
1051: preferred determinations of the Schechter parameters at $z\sim4$,
1052: $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ (see Table~\ref{tab:lfparm}).
1053:
1054: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccc}
1055: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1056: \tablecaption{Determinations of the Schechter parameters for the rest-frame UV LFs at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$.\label{tab:robustlf}}
1057: \tablehead{
1058: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$B$-dropouts ($z\sim4$)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$V$-dropouts ($z\sim5$)} \\
1059: \colhead{Method} & \colhead{$M_{UV} ^{*}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\phi^*$ (10$^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{$\alpha$} & \colhead{$M_{UV} ^{*}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\phi^*$ (10$^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{$\alpha$}}
1060: \startdata
1061: STY79 & $-21.06\pm0.10$ & $1.1\pm0.2$ & $-1.76\pm0.05$ & $-20.69\pm0.13$ & $0.9_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$ & $-1.69\pm0.09$ \\
1062: $\chi^2$ (w/ LSS correction)\tablenotemark{b} & $-21.07\pm0.10$ & $1.1\pm0.2$ & $-1.76\pm0.04$ & $-20.69\pm0.13$ & $0.9\pm0.3$ & $-1.72\pm0.09$\\
1063: $\chi^2$ (w/o LSS correction)\tablenotemark{c} & $-21.04\pm0.10$ & $1.1\pm0.2$ & $-1.74\pm0.04$ & $-20.62\pm0.13$ & $1.0\pm0.3$ & $-1.66\pm0.09$ \\
1064: STY79 ($\sim1350\,\AA$)\tablenotemark{d} & $-20.84\pm0.10$ & $1.4\pm0.3$ & $-1.81\pm0.05$ & $-20.73\pm0.26$ & $0.8\pm0.4$ & $-1.68\pm0.19$ \\
1065: STY79 (mean $\beta=-1.4$)\tablenotemark{e} & $-21.20\pm0.14$ & $0.9\pm0.2$ & $-1.86\pm0.06^*$ & $-20.66\pm0.12$ & $1.0\pm0.3$ & $-1.66\pm0.09$ \\
1066: STY79 (mean $\beta=-2.1$)\tablenotemark{e} & $-21.16\pm0.10$ & $0.9\pm0.2$ & $-1.79\pm0.05$ & $-20.65\pm0.12$ & $1.1\pm0.3$ & $-1.70\pm0.09$ \\
1067: STY79 (Ly$\alpha$ contribution)\tablenotemark{f} & $-21.05\pm0.10$ & $1.0\pm0.2$ & $-1.76\pm0.05$ & $-20.70\pm0.13$ & $1.0\pm0.3$ & $-1.68\pm0.09$ \\
1068: STY79 (alt criteria)\tablenotemark{g} & $-20.97\pm0.13$ & $1.0\pm0.2$ & $-1.81\pm0.06$ & $-20.57\pm0.11$ & $1.3\pm0.3$ & $-1.63\pm0.08$ \\
1069: STY79 (Madau opacities)\tablenotemark{h} & $-21.06\pm0.10$ & $1.1\pm0.2$ & $-1.75\pm0.05$ & $-20.66\pm0.12$ & $1.0\pm0.3$ & $-1.71\pm0.09$ \\
1070: STY79 (Evolving M*)\tablenotemark{i,**} & $-20.98\pm0.10$ & $1.3\pm0.2$ & $-1.73\pm0.05$ & $-20.64\pm0.13$ & $1.0\pm0.3$ & $-1.66\pm0.09$ \\
1071: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$i$-dropouts ($z\sim6$)}\\
1072: STY79 & $-20.29\pm0.19$ & $1.2_{-0.4}^{+0.6}$ & $-1.77\pm0.16$ \\
1073: $\chi^2$ (w/ LSS correction)\tablenotemark{b} & $-20.53\pm0.25$ & $0.7_{-0.2}^{+0.4}$ & $-2.06\pm0.20$ \\
1074: $\chi^2$ (w/o LSS correction)\tablenotemark{c} & $-20.36\pm0.25$ & $0.9_{-0.3}^{+0.5}$ & $-1.88\pm0.20$ \\
1075: STY79 (mean $\beta=-1.4$)\tablenotemark{e} & $-20.22\pm0.18$ & $1.2_{-0.3}^{+0.5}$ & $-1.73\pm0.16$ \\
1076: STY79 (mean $\beta=-2.1$)\tablenotemark{e} & $-20.26\pm0.19$ & $1.2_{-0.3}^{+0.6}$ & $-1.73\pm0.16$ \\
1077: STY79 (Ly$\alpha$ contribution)\tablenotemark{f} & $-20.31\pm0.19$ & $1.3_{-0.4}^{+0.6}$ & $-1.76\pm0.16$ \\
1078: STY79 (alt criteria)\tablenotemark{g} & $-20.39\pm0.23$ & $1.0_{-0.4}^{+0.5}$ & $-1.78\pm0.17$\\
1079: STY79 (Madau opacities)\tablenotemark{h} & $-20.32\pm0.19$ & $1.3_{-0.4}^{+0.6}$ & $-1.76\pm0.16$\\
1080: STY79 (Evolving M*)\tablenotemark{i,**} & $-20.24\pm0.19$ & $1.4_{-0.4}^{+0.6}$ & $-1.74\pm0.16$
1081:
1082: \enddata
1083: \tablenotetext{a}{Values of $M_{UV}^{*}$ are at $1600\,\AA$ for our
1084: $B$ and $V$-dropout samples and at $\sim1350\,\AA$ for our $i$-dropout
1085: sample. Since $z\sim6$ galaxies are blue ($\beta\sim-2$: Stanway et
1086: al.\ 2005; B06), we expect the value of $M^*$ at $z\sim6$ to be
1087: very similar ($\lesssim0.1$ mag) at $1600\,\AA$ to the value of $M^*$ at
1088: $1350\,\AA$.}
1089: \tablenotetext{b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i}{LF determinations
1090: considered in Appendices B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, B.6, B.7, and B.8,
1091: respectively.}
1092: \tablenotetext{*}{Only galaxies brighter than 28 AB mag are used in
1093: the fit results (see Appendix B.4)}
1094: \tablenotetext{**}{Adopted determinations of the Schechter parameters: see Table~\ref{tab:lfparm}}
1095: \end{deluxetable*}
1096:
1097: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
1098: \tablewidth{0pt}
1099: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1100: \tablecaption{
1101: Adopted Determinations of the Schechter Parameters for the rest-frame $UV$ LFs
1102: at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, $z\sim6$, and $z\sim7.4$.\label{tab:lfparm}}
1103: \tablehead{\colhead{Dropout} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$\phi^*$
1104: $(10^{-3}$} & \colhead{} \\
1105: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$<z>$} &
1106: \colhead{$M_{UV} ^{*}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Mpc$^{-3}$)} &
1107: \colhead{$\alpha$}}
1108: \startdata
1109: $B$\tablenotemark{b} & 3.8 &
1110: $-20.98\pm0.10$ & $1.3\pm0.2$ & $-1.73\pm0.05$\\
1111: $V$\tablenotemark{b} & 5.0 & $-20.64\pm0.13$ & $1.0\pm0.3$ &
1112: $-1.66\pm0.09$\\
1113: $i$\tablenotemark{b} & 5.9 & $-20.24\pm0.19$ & $1.4_{-0.4}^{+0.6}$ &
1114: $-1.74\pm0.16$\\
1115: $z$\tablenotemark{c} & 7.4 & $-19.3\pm0.4$ (C) & $(1.4)$ & $(-1.74)$
1116: \\ & & $-19.7\pm0.3$ (L) & &
1117: \enddata
1118: \tablenotetext{a}{Values of $M_{UV}^{*}$ are at $1600\,\AA$ for our
1119: $B$ and $V$-dropout samples, at $\sim1350\,\AA$ for our $i$-dropout
1120: sample, and at $\sim1900\,\AA$ for our $z$-dropout sample. Since
1121: $z\sim6$ galaxies are blue ($\beta\sim-2$: Stanway et al.\ 2005; B06),
1122: we expect the value of $M^*$ at $z\sim6$ to be very similar
1123: ($\lesssim0.1$ mag) at $1600\,\AA$ to the value of $M^*$ at
1124: $1350\,\AA$. Similarly, we expect $M^*$ at $z\sim7-8$ to be fairly
1125: similar at $\sim1600\AA$ to the value at $\sim1900\AA$.}
1126: \tablenotetext{b}{Parameters determined using the STY79 technique
1127: (\S3.1) including evolution across the redshift window of the samples
1128: (Appendix B.8). They therefore differ from those in
1129: Table~\ref{tab:olfparm} which do not.}
1130: \tablenotetext{c}{$M_{UV}^{*}$ are
1131: derived from both the conservative and less-conservative
1132: $z_{850}$-dropout search results of Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006)
1133: (denoted here as ``(C)'' and ``(L)'' respectively) assuming simple
1134: evolution in $M^*$ and keeping the values of $\phi^*$ and $\alpha$
1135: fixed at the values we derived for these parameters at $z\sim6$ (see
1136: \S5.4). Since both $\phi^*$ and $\alpha$ show no significant
1137: evolution over the interval $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$, we assume that this holds
1138: at even earlier times and that $\phi^*=0.0014$ Mpc$^{-3}$ and
1139: $\alpha=-1.74$. These determinations are only mildly sensitive to the
1140: assumed values of $\phi^*$ and $\alpha$. Steeper values of $\alpha$
1141: (i.e., $\alpha\sim-2$) yield $M^*$'s that are $\sim0.1$ mag brighter
1142: and shallower values of $\alpha$ (i.e., $\alpha\sim-1.4$) yield
1143: $M^*$'s that are $0.1$ mag fainter. Changing $\phi^*$ by a factor of
1144: 2 only changes $M^*$ by 0.3 mag.}
1145: \end{deluxetable}
1146:
1147: \subsection{Faint-end Slope}
1148:
1149: It is worthwhile to spend a little time reemphasizing how robust the
1150: current determination of a steep faint-end slope really is and how
1151: readily this result can be derived from the data. In fact, we could
1152: have determined the faint-end slope $\alpha$ at $z\sim4$ simply from
1153: our HUDF $B$-dropout selection alone. At a rudimentary level, this
1154: can be seen from the number counts, which in our HUDF $B$-dropout
1155: sample increases from surface densities of 3 sources arcmin$^{-2}$ at
1156: $i_{775,AB}\sim25.5$ to 30 sources arcmin$^{-2}$ at
1157: $i_{775,AB}\sim29$, for a faint-end slope of
1158: $\sim0.3\,$dex/mag$\,\sim0.7$ (\textit{red line} in
1159: Figure~\ref{fig:numcount}). Since the selection volume is largely
1160: independent of magnitude over this range, one can essentially ``read
1161: off'' the faint-end slope from the number counts and find that it is
1162: steep $\sim-1.7$. Use of our LF methodology on our HUDF selections
1163: permits a more rigorous determination and yields $\alpha=-1.76\pm0.07$
1164: at $z\sim4$. We should emphasize that these results are robust and
1165: are not likely to be sensitive to concerns about large-scale structure
1166: (the counts are drawn from a single field), small number statistics
1167: (the HUDF contains $\gtrsim700$ $B$-dropout sources), or contamination
1168: (all known contaminants have \textit{shallower} faint-end slopes).
1169: Even the model selection volumes are not a concern for our conclusion
1170: that the faint-end slope is steep since we can derive this conclusion
1171: from simple fits to the number counts (i.e., the \textit{red line} in
1172: Figure~\ref{fig:numcount}) as argued above and the inclusion of
1173: realistic selection volumes (which \textit{decrease} towards fainter
1174: magnitudes) would only cause the inferred faint-end slope to be
1175: steeper. Similarly steep slopes are obtained from independent fits to
1176: the $B$-dropouts in our other fields (HUDF-Ps and both GOODS fields)
1177: and our other dropout selections, suggesting that a steep ($\sim-1.7$)
1178: faint-end slope is really a generic feature of high-redshift
1179: luminosity functions (see also Beckwith et al.\ 2006; Yoshida et al.\
1180: 2006; Oesch et al.\ 2007).
1181:
1182: \begin{figure}
1183: \epsscale{1.22}
1184: \plotone{numcount.ps}
1185: \caption{Surface density (number counts) of $B$-dropouts in the HUDF
1186: as a function of their $i_{775}$-band magnitude. The surface density
1187: of dropouts increases quite rapidly towards faint magnitudes. Since
1188: the selection volume is independent of magnitude (to first
1189: approximation), it is possible to obtain a rough estimate of the
1190: faint-end slope $\alpha$ of the LF from the number counts. Since the
1191: number counts have a faint-end slope of $\sim0.7$ (\textit{shown as a
1192: solid red line}), this corresponds to a faint-end slope $\alpha$ for
1193: the $LF$ of $\sim-1.7$. Note that if the faint-end slope of the LF
1194: were $\sim -1.3$ (as obtained in the recent determinations of Sawicki
1195: \& Thompson 2006a and Gabasch et al.\ 2004), the faint-end slope of
1196: the number counts would need to be $\sim0.3$ (\textit{shown as a
1197: dotted blue line}), which it clearly is not. (\textit{inset}) 68\%
1198: and 95\% likelihood contours on the values of $M^*$ and $\alpha$ from
1199: our HUDF $B$-dropout selection (\textit{thick red lines}) and GOODS
1200: $B$-dropout selection (\textit{thin black lines}) considered
1201: separately. The HUDF data demonstrate quite clearly that the
1202: faint-end slope $\alpha$ of the $UV$ LF at $z\sim4$ is very steep
1203: ($-1.76\pm0.07$). Note that independent support for such a steep
1204: faint-end slope is provided from our GOODS $B$-dropout selection
1205: (\textit{likelihood contours shown with the thin black lines}), where
1206: the preferred value is $-1.78\pm0.08$. Our HUDF-Ps $B$-dropout
1207: selection also supports a steep faint-end slope $\lesssim-1.5$ (95\%
1208: confidence).\label{fig:numcount}}
1209: \end{figure}
1210:
1211: \subsection{Luminosity / SFR Densities}
1212:
1213: Having derived the rest-frame $UV$ LF at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and
1214: $z\sim6$, we can move on to establish the luminosity densities at
1215: these epochs. The luminosity densities are of great interest because
1216: of their close link to the SFR densities. But, unlike the SFR
1217: densities inferred from luminosity density measurements, the
1218: luminosity densities are much more directly relatable to the
1219: observations themselves, requiring fewer assumptions. As such, they
1220: can be more useful when it comes to comparisons between different
1221: determinations in the literature, particularly when these
1222: determinations are made at the same redshift.
1223:
1224: It is common in determinations of the luminosity density to integrate
1225: the LF to the observed faint-end limit. Here we consider two
1226: faint-end limits: 0.04 $L_{z=3}^{*}$ (to match the limits reached by
1227: our LF at $z\sim6$) and 0.3 $L_{z=3}^{*}$ (to match the limits reached
1228: at $z\sim7-10$: Bouwens et al.\ 2004c; Bouwens et al.\ 2005; Bouwens
1229: \& Illingworth 2006). For convenience, we have compiled the
1230: calculated luminosity densities for our $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$ $UV$ LFs
1231: in Table~\ref{tab:lumdens}. We have also included these luminosity
1232: densities for our most recent search results for galaxies at
1233: $z\sim7-8$ (Bouwens \& Illingworth 2006). The $UV$ luminosity density
1234: at $z\sim6$ is modestly lower ($0.45\pm0.09\times$) than that at
1235: $z\sim4$ (integrated to $-17.5$ AB mag).
1236:
1237: The inferred evolution in the $UV$ luminosity density from $z\sim6$ to
1238: $z\sim4$ does not change greatly if we include the expected flux from
1239: very low luminosity galaxies, since the LFs have very similar slopes.
1240: Integrating our best-fit LFs to a much fainter fiducial limit, i.e.,
1241: $-10$ AB mag (significant suppression of galaxy formation would seem
1242: to occur faintward of this limit if not at even brighter magnitudes:
1243: e.g., Read et al.\ 2006; Wyithe \& Loeb 2006; Dijkstra et al.\ 2004),
1244: we find a luminosity density at $z\sim6$ which is just 0.5$\pm0.2$
1245: times the luminosity density at $z\sim4$. This is very similar to the
1246: evolution found (0.45$\pm$0.09) when integrating our LFs to $-17.5$ AB
1247: mag.
1248:
1249: We have compared our results to several previous determinations in the
1250: Figure~\ref{fig:sfz}. To our bright magnitude limit (\textit{top
1251: panel}), the present results appear to be in good agreement with
1252: several previous findings at $z\sim4$ (Giavalisco et al.\ 2004b; Ouchi
1253: et al.\ 2004). At $z\sim5$, our results are somewhat lower than those
1254: of Giavalisco et al.\ (2004b) and Yoshida et al.\ (2006). To our
1255: faint magnitude limit (\textit{bottom panel}), the only previous
1256: determinations which are available at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$
1257: are those of Beckwith et al.\ (2006). At each redshift interval, our
1258: determinations of the luminosity density are similar, albeit slightly
1259: higher. For a more complete discussion of how the present LFs and
1260: thus luminosity densities compare with previous determinations, we
1261: refer the reader to \S4.3.
1262:
1263: It is also of interest to convert the luminosity densities into the
1264: equivalent \textit{dust-uncorrected} SFR densities using the Madau et
1265: al.\ (1998) conversion factors:
1266: \begin{equation}
1267: L_{UV} = \textrm{const}\,\, \textrm{x}\,\, \frac{\textrm{SFR}}{M_{\odot} \textrm{yr}^{-1}} \textrm{ergs}\, \textrm{s}^{-1}\, \textrm{Hz}^{-1}
1268: \end{equation}
1269: where const = $8.0 \times 10^{27}$ at 1500 $\AA$ and where a
1270: $0.1$-$125\,M_{\odot}$ Salpeter IMF and a constant star formation rate
1271: of $\gtrsim100$ Myr are assumed. In view of the young ages
1272: ($\sim10$-50 Myr) of many star-forming galaxies at $z\sim5-6$ (e.g.,
1273: Yan et al.\ 2005; Eyles et al.\ 2005; Verma et al.\ 2007), there has
1274: been some discussion about whether the latter assumption would cause
1275: us to systematically underestimate the SFR density of the universe at
1276: very early times (Verma et al.\ 2007).
1277:
1278: \begin{figure}
1279: \epsscale{1.2}
1280: \plotone{sfz.ps}
1281: \caption{The rest-frame $UV$ continuum luminosity density integrated
1282: to $0.3L_{z=3}^{*}$ (top panel) and $0.04L_{z=3}^{*}$ (bottom
1283: panel) as a function of redshift. The equivalent star formation rate
1284: density is also shown assuming no extinction correction. The
1285: rest-frame UV continuum luminosity density is converted to a star
1286: formation rate density assuming a constant $>10^8$ yr star formation
1287: model and a Salpeter (1955) IMF (Madau et al.\ 1998). The present
1288: determinations are shown as large red circles, with $1\sigma$ errors.
1289: Also shown are the luminosity density determinations by Schiminovich
1290: et al.\ (2005: \textit{black hexagons}), Steidel et al.\ (1999:
1291: \textit{green crosses}), Giavalisco et al.\ (2004b: \textit{black
1292: diamonds}), Ouchi et al.\ (2004: \textit{magenta circles}), Yoshida et
1293: al.\ (2006: \textit{black circles}), Beckwith et al.\ (2006:
1294: \textit{black crosses}), Reddy et al.\ (2007: \textit{magenta
1295: crosses}), Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006: \textit{red pentagons}), and
1296: Bouwens et al.\ (2005: \textit{red square} shown with its $1\sigma$
1297: upper limit). The dotted hexagon in the lower panel shows the
1298: inferred luminosity density at $z\sim7.4$ assuming our fit results for
1299: the Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006) conservative selection (\S5.4:
1300: Table~\ref{tab:lfparm}).\label{fig:sfz}}
1301: \end{figure}
1302:
1303: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
1304: \tablewidth{0pt}
1305: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1306: \tablecaption{Observed Luminosity Densities.\tablenotemark{a}\label{tab:lumdens}}
1307: \tablehead{
1308: \colhead{Dropout} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\textrm{log}_{10} \mathcal{L}$ (ergs s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$)} \\
1309: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$<z>$} & \colhead{$L>0.3 L_{z=3}^{*}$} &
1310: \colhead{$L> 0.04 L_{z=3}^{*}$}}
1311: \startdata
1312: $B$ & 3.8 & 26.09$\pm$0.05 & 26.42$\pm$0.05 \\
1313: $V$ & 5.0 & 25.74$\pm$0.06 & 26.11$\pm$0.06 \\
1314: $i$ & 5.9 & 25.59$\pm$0.08 & 26.07$\pm$0.08 \\
1315: $z$ & 7.4 & 24.75$\pm$0.48 & 25.58 \\
1316: \enddata
1317: \tablenotetext{a}{Based upon LF parameters in Table~\ref{tab:lfparm}. At $z\sim7.4$, the luminosity densities are based upon the search results for the Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006) conservative selection (\S5.4).}
1318: \end{deluxetable}
1319:
1320: To calculate the total SFR density at early times, we must of course
1321: make a correction for the dust obscuration. Correcting for dust
1322: obscuration is a difficult endeavor and can require a wide variety of
1323: multiwavelength observations to obtain an accurate view of the total
1324: energy output by young stars. We will not attempt to improve upon
1325: previous work here and will simply rely upon several estimates of the
1326: dust extinction obtained in previous work. At $z\lesssim3$, we will
1327: use the dust corrections of Schiminovich et al.\ (2005) and at
1328: $z\sim6$ we will use a dust correction of $\sim0.18$ dex (factor of
1329: $\sim1.5$), which we derived from the $\beta $'s observed for $z\sim6$
1330: $i$-dropouts (Stanway et al.\ 2005; Yan et al.\ 2005; B06) and the
1331: IRX-$\beta$ relationship (Meurer et al.\ 1999). The IRX-$\beta$
1332: relationship provides a fairly good description of the dust extinction
1333: at $z\sim0$ (e.g., Meurer et al.\ 1999) and $z\sim2$ (Reddy \& Steidel
1334: 2004; Reddy et al.\ 2006). At redshifts of $z\sim4-5$, we will
1335: interpolate between the dust extinctions estimated at $z\sim2-3$ and
1336: those at $z\sim6$. The results of these calculations are shown in
1337: Figure~\ref{fig:dustsfz} for the luminosity densities integrated down
1338: to $0.04L_{z=3}^{*}$ (the faint-end limit for our $z\sim6$ searches)
1339: and $0.3L_{z=3}^{*}$ (the faint-end limit for our $z\sim7-10$
1340: searches). These star formation rate densities are also tabulated in
1341: Table~\ref{tab:sfrdens}. At $z\sim6$, the star formation rate density
1342: is just $\sim0.3$ times the SFR density at $z\sim4$ (integrated to
1343: $-17.5$ AB mag). Clearly the star formation rate density seems to
1344: increase much more rapidly from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$ than the $UV$
1345: luminosity density does. This is a direct result of the apparent
1346: evolution in the dust obscuration over this redshift interval.
1347:
1348: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
1349: \tablewidth{0pt}
1350: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1351: \tablecaption{Inferred Star Formation Rate Densities.\tablenotemark{a}\label{tab:sfrdens}}
1352: \tablehead{
1353: \colhead{Dropout} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\textrm{log}_{10}$ SFR density ($M_{\odot}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$)} \\
1354: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$<z>$} & \colhead{$L>0.3 L_{z=3}^{*}$} &
1355: \colhead{$L> 0.04 L_{z=3}^{*}$}}
1356: \startdata
1357: & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Uncorrected} \\
1358: $B$ & 3.8 & $-1.81\pm$0.05 & $-1.48\pm$0.05 \\
1359: $V$ & 5.0 & $-2.15\pm$0.06 & $-1.78\pm$0.06 \\
1360: $i$ & 5.9 & $-2.31\pm$0.08 & $-1.83\pm$0.08 \\
1361: $z$ & 7.4 & $-3.15\pm$0.48 & $-2.32$\\
1362: & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Dust-Corrected} \\
1363: $B$ & 3.8 & $-1.38\pm$0.05 & $-1.05\pm0.05$ \\
1364: $V$ & 5.0 & $-1.85\pm$0.06 & $-1.48\pm0.06$ \\
1365: $i$ & 5.9 & $-2.14\pm$0.08 & $-1.65\pm0.08$ \\
1366: $z$ & 7.4 & $-2.97\pm$0.48 & $-2.14$
1367: \enddata
1368: \tablenotetext{a}{Based upon LF parameters in Table~\ref{tab:lfparm} (see \S3.5). At $z\sim7.4$, the luminosity densities are based upon the search results for the Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006) conservative selection.}
1369: \end{deluxetable}
1370:
1371: \begin{figure}
1372: \epsscale{1.18}
1373: \plotone{dustsfz.ps}
1374: \caption{Star formation rate density of the universe integrated down
1375: to 0.3 $L_{z=3}^{*}$ (\textit{top panel}) and $0.04 L_{z=3}^{*}$
1376: (\textit{bottom panel}). This SFR density is shown both with and
1377: without a correction for dust extinction (\textit{upper and lower set
1378: of points, respectively}). This is also indicated with the shaded red
1379: and blue regions, where the width of the region shows the approximate
1380: uncertainties estimated by Schiminovich et al.\ (2005). Symbols for
1381: the data points are the same for Figure~\ref{fig:sfz}. At
1382: $z\lesssim3$, the dust corrections we assume are 1.4 mag and are
1383: intermediate between the high and low estimates of Schiminovich et
1384: al.\ (2005: 1.8 mag and 1.0 mag, respectively). At $z\sim6$, the dust
1385: corrections are $0.4$ mag as determined from the steep $UV$-continuum
1386: slopes (B06). At $z\sim4-5$, the dust corrections are interpolations
1387: between the $z\sim3$ and $z\sim6$ values.\label{fig:dustsfz}}
1388: \end{figure}
1389:
1390: \section{Robustness of LF Results}
1391:
1392: In the previous section, we used our very deep and wide-area $B$, $V$,
1393: and $i$ dropout selections to determine the $UV$-continuum LF at
1394: $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ to $\sim3-5$ mag below $L^*$. This
1395: is fainter than all previous probes not including the HUDF data.
1396: Since these determinations reach such luminosities with significant
1397: statistics and over multiple fields, they have the promise to provide
1398: us with a powerful measure of how galaxies are evolving at early
1399: times. However, given the considerable spread in LF results to date
1400: and significant differences in interpretation, it is important first
1401: to discuss the robustness of the current LF results. We devote some
1402: effort to this issue because the wide dispersion in observational
1403: results is really limiting their value.
1404:
1405: \subsection{Completeness of Current Census}
1406:
1407: In this work, our goal was to derive rest-frame $UV$ LFs that was
1408: representative of the star-forming galaxy population at
1409: $z\sim3.5-6.5$. However, since our LFs were based upon simple colour
1410: selections, it seems legitimate to ask how complete these selections
1411: are, and whether our selection might miss a fraction of the
1412: high-redshift galaxy population. Such concerns have become
1413: particularly salient recently given claims from spectroscopic work
1414: that LBG selections may miss a significant fraction of the
1415: high-redshift galaxy population that are $UV$ bright at $z\gtrsim3$
1416: (e.g., Le F{\`e}vre et al.\ 2005; Paltani et al.\ 2006). We refer our
1417: readers to Franx et al.\ (2003), Reddy et al.\ (2005), and van Dokkum
1418: et al.\ (2006) for an excellent discussion of these issues at slightly
1419: lower redshifts ($z\sim2-3$).
1420:
1421: \begin{figure}
1422: \epsscale{0.99}
1423: \plotone{SEL.eps}
1424: \caption{(\textit{top}) Colour-colour diagram used to select
1425: $B$-dropout galaxies over our deep ACS fields. The blue tracks shown
1426: the expected colours of starbursts with different $UV$-continuum
1427: slopes as a function of redshift, while the red lines show the colours
1428: of low-redshift interlopers. Attenuation from the Lyman forest was
1429: calculated using an opacity model which better fits recent
1430: observations (e.g., Songaila 2004: see Appendix A.3) than the Madau
1431: (1995) prescription does. The black squares shows the position of all
1432: bright ($i_{775,AB}<24.6$) sources in our $B$-dropout sample. Only
1433: sources which are detected in the $B$ band are shown to simplify the
1434: interpretation of this figure. This diagram shows that our
1435: $B$-dropout selection should be effective in selecting star-forming
1436: galaxies with $UV$-continuum slopes $\beta$ of $\sim$0.5 and bluer.
1437: Since most $B$-dropouts in our sample are much bluer than this
1438: selection limit, this suggests that our census of star-forming
1439: galaxies at $z\sim3-4$ is largely complete ($\gtrsim90$\%) at bright
1440: magnitudes (unless there is a distinct population of galaxies with
1441: much redder UV continuum slopes). The insert presents the selection
1442: more explicitly in terms of $\beta$, comparing the distribution of
1443: $UV$-continuum slopes for this bright sample of $B$-dropouts with the
1444: region in $\beta$ space where galaxies are not selectable
1445: ($\beta\gtrsim0.5$: \textit{grey region}). Again, it is quite clear
1446: that the observed distribution of $\beta$'s is much bluer on average
1447: than the selection limit. \textit{(Bottom)} Similar colour-colour
1448: diagram for our $V$-dropout selection. Black squares represent all
1449: the bright ($z_{850,AB}<25$) $V$-dropouts in CDF-South GOODS field and
1450: HUDF ($z_{850,AB}<27$) with optical-infrared colours consistent with
1451: these sources being at high redshift ($z\gtrsim4$). Our $V$-dropout
1452: criterion should select star-forming galaxies to very red
1453: $UV$-continuum slopes ($\beta\lesssim2-3$). We do not show the
1454: distribution of $UV$-continuum slopes for our bright $V$-dropout
1455: samples because they cannot be derived from the optical data. To
1456: measure such slopes, we require two fluxes unaffected by Lyman forest
1457: absorption and we only have one ($z_{850}$-band flux) for
1458: $V$-dropouts.
1459: \label{fig:selb}}
1460: \end{figure}
1461:
1462: Figure~\ref{fig:selb} shows a colour-colour diagram illustrating our
1463: $z\sim4$ $B$-dropout and $z\sim5$ $V$-dropout selections. The
1464: expected colours of galaxies with different $UV$ continuum slopes
1465: plotted as a function of redshift to show how our selection depends
1466: upon the UV colour. To illustrate how the observed distribution of
1467: dropout colours compares with these selections, a small sample of
1468: bright dropouts are overplotted on these diagrams. We elected to only
1469: include the bright dropouts on this diagram because it is only at
1470: bright magnitudes that we can efficiently select dropouts over a
1471: wide-range of $UV$-continuum slopes. Since all high-redshift galaxies
1472: will become quite red in their Lyman-break colours ($B-V$ for
1473: $z\gtrsim4$ galaxies and $V-i$ for $z\gtrsim5$ galaxies), it seems
1474: clear that the only way galaxies will miss our selection is if they
1475: are too red in their $UV$-continuum slopes. As is evident in the
1476: figure, the majority of the dropouts in our $B$ and $V$-dropout
1477: selections are significantly bluer than our selection limits in
1478: $(V_{606}-z_{850})_{AB}$ and $(i_{775}-z_{850})_{AB}$, respectively.
1479: Unless is a distinct population of star-forming galaxies which are
1480: much redder than these limits (i.e., the UV colour distribution is
1481: bimodal), we can conclude that our selection must be largely complete
1482: at bright magnitudes. Another way of seeing this is to compare the
1483: distribution of observed $UV$-continuum slopes $\beta$ (calculated
1484: from the $i_{775}-z_{850}$ colours) for bright ($i_{775,AB}<24.6$)
1485: $B$-dropouts from our sample with the selection limit (\textit{insert}
1486: on Figure~\ref{fig:selb}), and it is again apparent that the bulk of
1487: our sample is significantly blueward of the selection limit.
1488:
1489: Independent evidence for the $z\sim4$ galaxy population having very
1490: blue $UV$-continuum slopes is reported by Brammer \& van Dokkum
1491: (2007). By applying a Balmer-break selection to the Faint Infrared
1492: Extragalactic Survey (FIRES) data (Labb{\'e} et al.\ 2003; F{\"o}rster
1493: Schreiber et al.\ 2006), Brammer \& van Dokkum (2007) attempt to
1494: isolate a sample of $z\sim4$ galaxies with sizeable breaks. Since
1495: almost all ($\gtrsim90$\%) of the galaxies in their $z\sim4$ sample
1496: have measured $UV$-continuum slopes bluer than 0.5 (and none having
1497: $UV$-continuum slopes redder than 1.0), this again argues that the
1498: $z\sim4$ galaxy population is very blue in general. The key point to
1499: note in the Brammer \& van Dokkum (2007) analysis is that in contrast
1500: to our LBG selection their Balmer-break selection should not be
1501: significantly biased against galaxies with very red $UV$-continuum
1502: slopes. Therefore, unless there is a distinct population of
1503: $UV$-bright galaxies with minimal Balmer breaks \textit{and} very red
1504: $UV$-continuum slopes (which seems unlikely given that galaxies with
1505: redder UV colours have more dust, which in turn suggests a more
1506: evolved stellar population), it would appear that our census of
1507: $UV$-bright galaxies at $z\sim4-6$ is largely complete. Apparently,
1508: the very red $\beta\sim1-2$ population seen at $z\sim2-3$ (e.g., van
1509: Dokkum et al.\ 2006) has not developed significantly by $z\sim4$.
1510:
1511: \subsection{Cosmic Variance}
1512:
1513: One generic concern for the determination of any luminosity function
1514: is the presence of large-scale structure. This structure results in
1515: variations in the volume density of galaxies as a function of
1516: position. For our dropout studies, these variations are mitigated by
1517: the large comoving distances surveyed in redshift space ($\sim300-500$
1518: Mpc for a $\Delta z \sim 0.7$) for typical selections (see, e.g.,
1519: Figure~\ref{fig:selfunc}). Since these distances cover $\sim40-100$
1520: correlation lengths, typical field-to-field variations of
1521: $\sim16-35$\% are found in the surface density of dropouts (Somerville
1522: et al.\ 2004; Bunker et al.\ 2004; B06; Beckwith et al.\ 2006).
1523:
1524: Fortunately, these variations should only have a very minor effect on
1525: our results, and this effect will largely be on the normalization of
1526: our LFs. It should not have a sizeable effect on the shape of our LF
1527: determinations, because of our use of the STY79 and SWML techniques --
1528: which are only mildly sensitive to these variations in the modified
1529: form used here (see Appendix C). The uncertainty in the normalization
1530: of our LFs was derived by taking the expected variations expected over
1531: each GOODS field (22\% RMS, 18\% RMS, and 22\% RMS for our $B$, $V$,
1532: and $i$-dropout selections, respectively: see \S3.1) and dividing by
1533: $\sqrt{2}$ to account for the fact that we have two independent
1534: fields. This implies a $\sim14$\% RMS uncertainty in the overall
1535: normalization. We incorporated this into our final results by
1536: convolving our likelihood distributions for $\phi^*$ with this
1537: smoothing kernel (\S3.1).
1538:
1539: \subsection{Comparison with Previous Determinations at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$}
1540:
1541: It is helpful to compare LFs with several previous determinations to
1542: put the current results in context and provide a sense for their
1543: reliability. We will structure this section somewhat in order of
1544: depth, beginning with a discussion of all pre-HUDF determinations of
1545: the UV LF at $z\sim4$ and at $z\sim5$ before moving onto more recent
1546: work involving the HUDF (Beckwith et al.\ 2006). We postpone a
1547: discussion of the UV LF at $z\sim6$ until the end of this section
1548: because we had included a fairly comprehensive discussion of previous
1549: $z\sim6$ determinations in B06.
1550:
1551: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}
1552: \tablewidth{0pt} \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1553: \tablecaption{Determinations of the best-fit Schechter Parameters for the
1554: rest-frame $UV$ LFs at $z\sim4$.\label{tab:complf4}} \tablehead{
1555: \colhead{Reference} & \colhead{$M_{UV} ^{*}$} & \colhead{$\phi^*$
1556: ($10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{$\alpha$}}
1557: \startdata
1558: This work & $-20.98\pm0.10$ & $1.3\pm0.2$ & $-1.73\pm0.05$ \\
1559: Yoshida et al.\ (2006) & $-21.14_{-0.15}^{+0.14}$ & $1.5_{-0.4}^{+0.4}$ & $-1.82\pm0.09$\\
1560: Beckwith et al.\ (2006) & $-20.7$ & 1.3 & $-1.6$ (fixed) \\
1561: Sawicki \& Thompson (2006) & $-21.0_{-0.5}^{+0.4}$ & $0.9\pm0.5$ & $-1.26_{-0.36}^{+0.40}$\\
1562: Giavalisco (2005) & $-21.20\pm0.04$ & $1.20\pm0.03$ & $-1.64\pm0.10$\\
1563: Ouchi et al.\ (2004) & $-21.0\pm0.1$ & $1.2\pm0.2$ & $-2.2\pm0.2$\\
1564: Steidel et al.\ (1999) & $-21.2$ & 1.1 & $-1.6$ (assumed)
1565: \enddata
1566: \end{deluxetable*}
1567:
1568: \subsubsection{Comparison at $z\sim4$}
1569:
1570: At $z\sim4$, there had already been a number of notable determinations
1571: of the UV LF (Steidel et al.\ 1999; Ouchi et al.\ 2004; Gabasch et
1572: al.\ 2004; Sawicki \& Thompson 2006a; Giavalisco 2005; Yoshida et al.\
1573: 2006; Paltani et al.\ 2006; Tresse et al.\ 2006). These include a
1574: determination of the $z\sim4$ LF from Steidel et al.\ (1999) based
1575: upon an early imaging survey for $G$ dropouts, a determination based
1576: upon a $B$-dropout search over deep wide-area imaging (1200
1577: arcmin$^2$) available over the Subaru XMM-Newton Deep Field and Subaru
1578: Deep Field (SDF: Ouchi et al.\ 2004), a determination based on a
1579: $G$-dropout search over $\sim180$ arcmin$^2$ of imaging over the three
1580: Keck Deep Fields (Sawicki \& Thompson 2006a), an earlier determination
1581: based upon the two wide-area (316 arcmin$^2$) ACS GOODS fields
1582: (Giavalisco 2005; Giavalisco et al.\ 2004b), a determination based
1583: upon a $B$-dropout search over a deeper version of the SDF (Yoshida et
1584: al.\ 2006), and several determinations based upon the VVDS
1585: spectroscopic sample (Paltani et al.\ 2006; Tresse et al.\ 2006). A
1586: comparison of these determinations is in Figure~\ref{fig:udflf4} and
1587: Table~\ref{tab:complf4}.
1588:
1589: \begin{figure}
1590: \epsscale{1.2}
1591: \plotone{udf_lf4.ps}
1592: \caption{Comparison of our rest-frame $UV$-continuum LFs
1593: (Figure~\ref{fig:udflf}: \textit{red line} and \textit{red circles})
1594: at $z\sim4$ with those of other groups. Included in the comparison
1595: are the LFs of Steidel et al.\ (1999: \textit{green circles}), Ouchi
1596: et al.\ (2004: \textit{magenta circles}), Gabasch et al.\ (2004:
1597: \textit{blue crosses}), Giavalisco (2005: \textit{blue circles}),
1598: Sawicki \& Thompson (2006a: \textit{cyan circles}), Beckwith et al.\
1599: (2006: \textit{black crosses}), Yoshida et al.\ (2006: \textit{black
1600: circles}), and Paltani et al.\ (2006: \textit{grey circles}). In
1601: general, our $z\sim4$ LF are in good agreement with previous
1602: determinations at bright magnitudes, but diverge somewhat from these
1603: determinations at fainter magnitudes.\label{fig:udflf4}}
1604: \end{figure}
1605:
1606: We will split our discussions between the bright and faint ends of the
1607: $z\sim4$ LF. At bright magnitudes, our LF is in good agreement with
1608: most previous determinations. Though there is a fair amount of
1609: scatter between the individual LFs, the observed differences seem
1610: consistent with originating from small systematics in the photometry
1611: ($\pm0.1$ mag). Our LF agree less well with the LFs derived from the
1612: VVDS spectroscopic sample (Le F{\`e}vre et al.\ 2005; Paltani et al.\
1613: 2006), underproducing their volume densities by factors of $\sim3$.
1614: It is unclear why the VVDS results would be so different from those
1615: derived from standard LBG selections though it has been suggested that
1616: this excess may arise from galaxies whose SEDs are quite a bit
1617: different from the typical LBG. In \S4.1, we investigated whether
1618: this excess could result from galaxies with particularly red
1619: $UV$-continuum slopes, but found no evidence for a significant
1620: population of such galaxies at $z\sim4$ using the GOODS broadband
1621: imaging data, in agreement with the results of Brammer \& van Dokkum
1622: (2007). Despite this null result, it is possible that spectroscopic
1623: surveys have identified a population of bright galaxies at $z\sim3-4$
1624: whose colours are somewhat different from those typically used to
1625: model LBG selections (though there is some skepticism on this front:
1626: see, e.g., Reddy et al.\ 2007).
1627:
1628: While such a population would need to be large to match the Paltani et
1629: al.\ (2006) numbers, it is interesting to ask what the effect of such
1630: a population would be on our derived $UV$ LFs. To investigate this,
1631: we have replaced the bright points in our $z\sim4$ LF with the Paltani
1632: et al.\ (2006) values (from their $z\sim3-4$ LF) and then refit this
1633: LF to a Schechter function. We find $M^*=-21.88$, $\phi^*=0.0005$
1634: Mpc$^{-3}$, and $\alpha=-1.82$. Not surprisingly, the characteristic
1635: luminosity $M^*$ is brighter than measured from our LBG selection, and
1636: the faint-end slope $\alpha$ a little steeper, but these changes only
1637: result in a slight ($\sim$14\%) increase in the overall luminosity
1638: density at $z\sim4$ to our faint-end limit ($-16$ AB mag). This being
1639: said, the reduced $\chi^2$ ($=3.2$) for the fit is poor, so we should
1640: perhaps not take these best-fit Schechter parameters too seriously.
1641:
1642: At fainter magnitudes, differences with respect to other LFs become
1643: much more significant. At the one extreme, there is the Ouchi et al.\
1644: (2004), Giavalisco (2005), and Yoshida et al.\ (2006) determinations
1645: which exceed our determination by factors of $\sim1.5$, and at the
1646: other extreme, this is the determinations of Gabasch et al.\ (2004)
1647: and Sawicki \& Thompson (2006a), which are a factor of $\sim2-3$
1648: lower. For the two most discrepant LFs, the difference in volume
1649: densities is nearly a factor of $\sim4$. What could be the source of
1650: such a significant disagreement? Though it is difficult to be sure,
1651: there are a number of factors which could contribute to this large
1652: dispersion (e.g., the assumed Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width
1653: distribution, the assumed SED template set, the assumed $\beta$
1654: distribution, large-scale structure errors: see Appendix B). Perhaps,
1655: the most problematic, however, are the incompleteness, contamination,
1656: and flux biases present near the detection limit of these probes.
1657: Since these effects can be quite challenging to model and may result
1658: in modest to significant errors (factors of $\sim1.5$ to 2 in the
1659: volume density), it is quite possible that some systematics have been
1660: introduced in performing the corrections. By contrast, we would
1661: expect our own determinations to be essentially immune to such large
1662: errors (to at least an AB mag of $\lesssim28-28.5$) given that our
1663: deepest data set the HUDF extends some $\sim2.5$ mag deeper than the
1664: data used in most previous determinations (the deep determinations of
1665: Beckwith et al.\ 2006 are discussed below). Even in our shallowest
1666: data sets, systematics should be much less of a concern in this
1667: magnitude range since we are able to make use of the significantly
1668: deeper HUDF, HUDF-Ps, and HUDF05 data to quantify the completeness,
1669: flux biases, and contamination through degradation experiments (see
1670: Appendix A.1). In conclusion, because of this greater robustness of
1671: our selection at faint magnitudes, we would expect our LF to be the
1672: most accurate in these regimes.
1673:
1674: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}
1675: \tablewidth{0pt}
1676: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1677: \tablecaption{Determinations of the best-fit Schechter Parameters for the rest-frame $UV$ LFs at $z\sim5$.\label{tab:complf5}}
1678: \tablehead{
1679: \colhead{Reference} & \colhead{$M_{UV} ^{*}$} &
1680: \colhead{$\phi^*$ ($10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{$\alpha$}}
1681: \startdata
1682: This work & $-20.64\pm0.13$ & $1.0\pm0.3$ & $-1.66\pm0.09$ \\
1683: Oesch et al.\ (2007) & $-20.78\pm0.21$ & $0.9\pm0.3$ & $-1.54\pm0.10$ \\
1684: Iwata et al.\ (2007) & $-21.28\pm0.38$ & $0.4\pm0.3$ & $-1.48_{-0.32}^{+0.38}$ \\
1685: Yoshida et al.\ (2006) & $-20.72_{-0.14}^{+0.16}$ & $1.2_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ & $-1.82$ (fixed)\\
1686: Beckwith et al.\ (2006) & $-20.55$ & $0.9$ & $-1.6$ (fixed)\\
1687: Giavalisco (2005) & $-21.06\pm0.05$ & $0.83\pm0.03$ & $-1.51\pm0.18$ \\
1688: Iwata et al.\ (2003) & $-21.4$ & 0.4 & $-1.5$\\
1689: Ouchi et al.\ (2004) & $-20.7\pm0.2$ & $1.4\pm0.8$ & $-1.6$ (fixed)
1690: \enddata
1691: \end{deluxetable*}
1692:
1693: \begin{figure}
1694: \epsscale{1.18}
1695: \plotone{udf_lf5.ps}
1696: \caption{Comparison of our rest-frame $UV$-continuum LFs
1697: (Figure~\ref{fig:udflf}: \textit{red line} and \textit{red circles})
1698: at $z\sim5$ with those of other groups. Included in the comparison
1699: are the LFs of Iwata et al.\ (2003: \textit{green circles}), Ouchi et
1700: al.\ (2004: \textit{magenta circles}), Giavalisco (2005: \textit{blue
1701: circles}), Yoshida et al.\ (2006: \textit{black circles}), Iwata et
1702: al.\ (2007: \textit{cyan circles}), Beckwith et al.\ (2006:
1703: \textit{black crosses}), and Oesch et al.\ (2007: \textit{blue
1704: crosses}). We are unable to match the Iwata et al.\ (2003) and Iwata
1705: et al.\ (2007) LFs at the bright end.\label{fig:udflf5}}
1706: \end{figure}
1707:
1708: \subsubsection{Comparison at $z\sim5$}
1709:
1710: Now we will compare our results with several determinations of the LF
1711: at $z\sim5$ using moderately deep data (Iwata et al.\ 2003; Ouchi et
1712: al.\ 2004; Giavalisco 2005; Yoshida et al.\ 2006; Iwata et al.\ 2007).
1713: Iwata et al.\ (2003) made their determination from deep Subaru data
1714: ($\sim575$ arcmin$^2$) they had around the larger HDF-North,
1715: Giavalisco (2005) from the wide-area ($\sim316$ arcmin$^2$) ACS GOODS
1716: data, Ouchi et al.\ (2004) from the deep wide-area ($\sim1200$
1717: arcmin$^2$) Subaru data they had over the Subaru XMM-Newton Deep Field
1718: and SDF, Yoshida et al.\ (2006) from an even deeper imaging over the
1719: SDF, and Iwata et al.\ (2007) from the $\sim1290$ arcmin$^2$ Subaru
1720: data around the HDF-North and J053+1234 region. A comparison of these
1721: LF determinations is provided in Figure~\ref{fig:udflf5} and
1722: Table~\ref{tab:complf5}.
1723:
1724: Our $z\sim5$ results are in excellent agreement with many previous
1725: studies (Yoshida et al.\ 2006; Ouchi et al.\ 2004), particularly at
1726: fainter magnitudes $z_{850,AB}>25$. However, we are not able to
1727: reproduce the large number density of bright galaxies found by Iwata
1728: et al.\ (2003), Giavalisco (2005), and Iwata et al.\ (2007). We are
1729: unsure of why this might be -- since field-to-field variations should
1730: not produce such large differences, but it has been speculated that a
1731: significant fraction of the candidates in the probes deriving the
1732: higher volume densities (e.g., Iwata et al.\ 2003; Iwata et al.\ 2007)
1733: may be contaminants (e.g., Ouchi et al.\ 2004). While Iwata et al.\
1734: (2007) have argued, however, that such contamination rates are
1735: unlikely for their bright samples given the success of their own
1736: spectroscopic follow-up campaign ($\gtrsim6$ out of 8 sources that
1737: they followed up at $24<z_{AB}<24.5$ were at $z\gtrsim4$), we were
1738: only partially able to verify this success over the HDF-North GOODS
1739: field, where our searches overlap. Of the three bright
1740: ($z_{AB}\leq24.5$) sources cited by Iwata et al.\ (2007) with
1741: spectroscopic redshifts, one (GOODS J123647.96+620941.7) appears to be
1742: an AGN. This suggests that a modest fraction of the sources in the
1743: Iwata et al. (2007) bright selection may be point-like contaminants
1744: like AGN (we note that Iwata [2007, private communcation] report that
1745: they removed this particular AGN from their bright sample). We will
1746: continue to regard our determination of the volume densities of the LF
1747: at $z\sim5$ as the most robust due to the superb resolution and
1748: photometric quality of the GOODS data set (which allowed us to very
1749: effectively cull out high-redshift galaxies from our photometric
1750: samples and to reject both stars and AGNs).
1751:
1752: Having discussed previous LFs at $z\sim4-5$ based on shallower data,
1753: we compare our LF determinations with that obtained by Beckwith et
1754: al.\ (2006) at $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$ using the HUDF data and Oesch et
1755: al.\ (2007) at $z\sim5$ using the HUDF+HUDF05 data. We begin with the
1756: results of Oesch et al.\ (2007). Oesch et al.\ (2007) based their LFs
1757: on large $V$-dropout selections over the HUDF+HUDF05 fields and then
1758: combined their results with the Yoshida et al.\ (2006) results to
1759: derive best-fit Schechter parameters. Compared to our $z\sim5$ LF
1760: results (which also take advantage of data from the GOODS, HUDF-Ps,
1761: and HUDF05-2 fields), the Oesch et al.\ (2007) LF appears to be in
1762: good overall agreement, albeit a little ($\sim20-30$\%) lower at the
1763: faint-end. These differences appear to be attributable to (1) the
1764: larger ($\sim20$\%) contamination corrections made by Oesch et al.\
1765: (2007) and (2) Oesch et al.\ (2007) not correcting their fluxes for
1766: the light lost on the wings of the PSF (typically a $\sim0.1-0.25$ mag
1767: correction for the small kron apertures appropriate for faint
1768: galaxies: Sirianni et al.\ 2007).
1769:
1770: Beckwith et al.\ (2006) based their LFs on large $B$ and $V$-dropout
1771: samples derived from the ACS HUDF and GOODS fields and used nearly
1772: identical selection criteria to those considered here. They also
1773: considered a LF fit which included several previous determinations
1774: (Steidel et al.\ 1999; Ouchi et al.\ 2004; Sawicki \& Thompson 2006a)
1775: to demonstrate the robustness of their results. Their results are
1776: plotted in Figures~\ref{fig:udflf4} and \ref{fig:udflf5} with the
1777: black crosses. Both LFs seem to be fairly similar to our own in their
1778: overall shape, but appear to be shifted to slightly lower volume
1779: densities. At the faint end of the LF, this shift is the most
1780: prominent. After careful consideration of the Beckwith et al.\ (2006)
1781: results, it appears that this occurs because Beckwith et al. (2006) do
1782: not include the modest incompleteness (see Figure~\ref{fig:selfunc})
1783: that occurs at fainter magnitudes near the upper redshift end of the
1784: selection (i.e., $z\gtrsim4$ and $z\gtrsim5.2$) due to photometric
1785: scatter. In addition, at $z\sim5$, the faint end of the Beckwith et
1786: al.\ (2006) LF is derived from the HUDF, which as we show in Appendix
1787: B.1 (Table~\ref{tab:goodsdegrade}) is underdense in $V_{606}$-dropouts
1788: (see also Oesch et al.\ 2007). Since Beckwith et al.\ (2006) do not
1789: use an approach that is insensitive to field-to-field variations
1790: (e.g., STY79 or SWML), we would expect this underdensity in $z\sim5$
1791: $V$-dropouts in the HUDF to propagate directly into the Beckwith et
1792: al.\ (2006) LF and therefore the faint-end of their $z\sim5$ LF to be
1793: low. Together these two effects appear to account for the differences
1794: seen.
1795:
1796: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}
1797: \tablewidth{0pt}
1798: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1799: \tablecaption{Determinations of the best-fit Schechter Parameters for the rest-frame $UV$ LFs at $z\sim6$.\label{tab:complf6}}
1800: \tablehead{
1801: \colhead{Reference} & \colhead{$M_{UV} ^{*}$} &
1802: \colhead{$\phi^*$ ($10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{$\alpha$}}
1803: \startdata
1804: This work & $-20.24\pm0.19$ & $1.4_{-0.4}^{+0.6}$ & $-1.74\pm0.16$ \\
1805: Bouwens et al.\ 2006 & $-20.25\pm0.20$ & $2.0_{-0.8}^{+0.9}$ & $-1.73\pm0.21$\\
1806: Beckwith et al.\ 2006 & $-20.5$ & $0.7$ & $-1.6$ (fixed)\\
1807: Malhotra et al.\ 2005 & $-20.83$ & 0.4 & $-1.8$ (assumed)\\
1808: Yan \& Windhorst 2004b & $-21.03$ & 0.5 & $-1.8$\\
1809: Bunker et al.\ 2004 & $-20.87$\tablenotemark{a} & 0.2 & $-1.6$\\
1810: Dickinson et al.\ 2004 & $-19.87$\tablenotemark{a} & 5.3 & $-1.6$ (fixed)\\
1811: Bouwens et al.\ 2004a & $-20.26$ & $1.7$ & $-1.15$
1812: \enddata
1813: \tablenotetext{a}{Since the quoted LF was expressed in terms of the
1814: $z\sim3$ LF (Steidel et al.\ 1999) which is at rest-frame $1700\AA$,
1815: it was necessary to apply a k-correction ($\sim0.2$ mag) to obtain the
1816: equivalent luminosity at 1350 $\AA$ to make a comparison with the
1817: other LFs given here.}
1818: \end{deluxetable*}
1819:
1820: \begin{figure}
1821: \epsscale{1.22}
1822: \plotone{udf_lf6.ps}
1823: \caption{Comparison between the present determination of the LF at
1824: $z\sim6$ and other determinations in the literature. Included in
1825: these comparisons are the LFs by Dickinson et al.\ (2004:
1826: \textit{dashed light blue line}), Bouwens et al.\ (2004a:
1827: \textit{dotted green line}), Yan \& Windhorst (2004: \textit{solid
1828: magenta line}), Bunker et al.\ (2004: \textit{solid blue line}), and
1829: Malhotra et al.\ (2005: \textit{red dot-dashed line}). For Beckwith
1830: et al.\ (2006), we present both the LF derived from a fit to the
1831: number counts (\textit{solid line}) and that obtained by applying a
1832: simple offset to the counts (\textit{dotted black line}). The present
1833: determination of the $z\sim6$ LF is a slight refinement on our
1834: previous determination (B06) and includes $\sim100$ additional
1835: $i$-dropouts identified over the two very deep HUDF05 fields (reaching
1836: to within 0.4 mags of the HUDF in the $z_{850}$ band).\label{fig:lf6}}
1837: \end{figure}
1838:
1839:
1840: \subsubsection{Comparison at $z\sim6$}
1841:
1842: Finally, we discuss the $UV$ LF at $z\sim6$. Already, there have been
1843: quite a significant number of LF determinations at $z\sim6$ (e.g.,
1844: Dickinson et al.\ 2004; Bouwens et al.\ 2004a; Yan \& Windhorst 2004;
1845: Bunker et al.\ 2004; Malhotra et al.\ 2005; B06; Beckwith et al.\
1846: 2006). See Figure~\ref{fig:lf6} for these comparisons. Most of these
1847: determinations have been made using some combination of $i$-dropouts
1848: selected from the HUDF, HUDF-Ps, and GOODS data. Since almost all of
1849: these determinations have already received significant discussion in
1850: our $z\sim6$ study (B06), we will only comment on the two most recent
1851: determinations (B06 and Beckwith et al.\ 2006). One of these
1852: determinations is our own and based upon a slightly smaller data set
1853: (the B06 determination did not include the $\sim100$ $i$-dropouts
1854: available over the second and third deepest $i$-dropout search fields:
1855: HUDF05-1 and HUDF05-2). In general, the present determination is in
1856: good agreement with the previous one (B06), though somewhat
1857: ($\sim30$\%) lower in normalization. This latter change is not
1858: unexpected given the errors on our previous determination and occurred
1859: as a result of a lower surface density of dropouts in the two HUDF05
1860: fields (see Table~\ref{tab:degrade} and \ref{tab:overdense}) and the
1861: different SED templates and opacity model we assume. We explore the
1862: effect of these assumptions on our LF results in Appendix B.
1863:
1864: Beckwith et al.\ (2006) also made a determination of the $UV$ LF at
1865: $z\sim6$ using the same methodology they used at $z\sim4$ and
1866: $z\sim5$. We consider the Beckwith et al. (2006) $z\sim6$
1867: determination obtained from the fit to their number counts (i.e.,
1868: $M^*=-20.5$, $\phi^*=0.0007$ Mpc$^{-3}$,
1869: $\alpha=-1.6$).\footnote{Beckwith et al.\ (2006) also presented a
1870: stepwise determination of the $z\sim6$ LF obtained directly from the
1871: number counts assuming a distance modulus and selection volume. We do
1872: not make a comparison against that determination since the Beckwith et
1873: al.\ (2006) assumption of a simple distance modulus leads to
1874: substantial biases in the reported LF. Note the significant
1875: differences between the solid and dotted black lines in
1876: Figure~\ref{fig:lf6}.} A comparison with both our previous (B06) and
1877: updated determination is provided in Figure~\ref{fig:lf6}. While the
1878: Beckwith et al.\ (2006) LF is in excellent agreement with the present
1879: determinations at bright magnitudes, at fainter magnitudes the
1880: Beckwith et al.\ (2006) LF is markedly lower ($\approx2\times$) than
1881: our results. Why might this be? A comparison of the total number of
1882: galaxies in the Beckwith et al.\ (2006) HUDF catalog shows only 54\%
1883: as many sources as our catalog to the same faint limit and only 25\%
1884: as many sources over the interval $28.0<z_{850,AB}<28.7$
1885: (Figure~\ref{fig:icount}). While one might imagine that the
1886: differences might be due to differing levels of incompleteness,
1887: Beckwith et al.\ (2006) estimate that only $\sim35$\% of the galaxies
1888: are missing at $28<z_{850,AB}<28.7$ (see Figure 13 from Beckwith et
1889: al.\ 2006), which is much smaller than the $\sim75$\% we estimate
1890: empirically through a comparison with our counts.
1891:
1892: What then is the probable cause for this discrepancy? We suspect that
1893: it is due to the systematic differences between the $z_{850}$-band
1894: photometry Beckwith et al.\ (2006) use to select their sample (which
1895: appear to come from the photometric catalog initially provided with
1896: the HUDF release since an application of the Beckwith et al.\ 2006
1897: criteria to that catalog yields precisely the same set of $i$-dropouts
1898: as are found in their paper) and that used in our analysis, which as
1899: shown in the insert to Figure~\ref{fig:icount} are systematically
1900: brighter by $\sim0.4$ mag near the HUDF magnitude limit (\textit{red
1901: crosses}). Though such significant differences may be cause for
1902: concern, it is interesting to note that the $z_{850}$-band magnitudes
1903: provided by Beckwith et al.\ (2006) for $i$-dropouts in the HUDF
1904: (Table 8 from that work) are also typically $\sim0.3$ mag brighter
1905: than that initially provided with the HUDF release (\textit{black
1906: crosses}). So it would appear that Beckwith et al.\ (2006) quote
1907: different $z_{850}$-band magnitudes for $i$-dropouts in the HUDF than
1908: they initially provided with the HUDF release and which they used to
1909: select their $i$-dropout sample!
1910:
1911: \begin{figure}
1912: \epsscale{1.16}
1913: \plotone{icounts_new.ps}
1914: \caption{Number of $i$-dropouts in the HUDF as a function of
1915: $z_{850}$-band magnitude in the present compilation (\textit{red
1916: histogram}) and that obtained by Beckwith et al.\ (2006:
1917: \textit{hatched histogram}). The selection limit for the Beckwith et
1918: al.\ (2006) probe is shown with the solid vertical line. While the
1919: two studies are in good agreement at bright magnitudes
1920: ($z_{850,AB}<28$), there are significant differences at fainter
1921: levels. In particular, the Beckwith et al.\ (2006) catalog only
1922: contains 25\% as many sources as our catalog over the interval
1923: $28<z_{850,AB}<28.7$ and 54\% as many to their magnitude limit
1924: $z_{850,AB}<28.7$. While one might imagine that the differences might
1925: be due to different levels of incompleteness, Beckwith et al.\ (2006)
1926: estimate that only $\sim35$\% of the galaxies are missing at
1927: $28<z_{850,AB}<28.7$ (see Figure 13 from Beckwith et al.\ 2006), which
1928: is much smaller than the $\sim75$\% we estimate empirically through a
1929: comparison with our counts. The insert shows the differences between
1930: the $z_{850}$-band photometry of the $i$-dropouts in our catalogs
1931: (denoted here as ``New'') and that initially provided with the HUDF
1932: release (denoted as ``v1'') versus $z_{850}$-band magnitude
1933: (\textit{red crosses}). We note that our $z_{850}$-band magnitudes
1934: are typically $\sim0.4$ mag brighter than that provided with the HUDF
1935: release. This could be the cause of the discrepancy, if Beckwith et
1936: al.\ (2006) used the photometry from the initial HUDF release to
1937: select their sources (as it appears they did since an application of
1938: the $i$-dropout criteria to the photometry from the initial release
1939: yields precisely the Beckwith et al.\ 2006 $i$-dropout sample). Since
1940: the published photometry of Beckwith et al.\ (2006) [Table 8 from that
1941: work] is in good agreement with our work and also typically $\sim0.3$
1942: mag brighter than the initial release (the differences between the
1943: Beckwith et al.\ 2006 photometry and that initially provided with the
1944: initial release are shown in the insert as the black crosses), it
1945: would appear that Beckwith et al.\ (2006) selected their $i$-dropout
1946: sample using photometry (from the initial release) which is
1947: significantly fainter ($\sim0.3$ mag) than what they publish (which
1948: should represent their best estimates of the total magnitudes) and
1949: what we derive. This suggests their HUDF $i$-dropout selection may be
1950: subject to at least a few small concerns.\label{fig:icount}}
1951: \end{figure}
1952:
1953: \subsection{State of the LF at $z\sim6$, 5, and 4}
1954:
1955: Not surprisingly there has already been a great deal of discussion
1956: regarding how the UV LF evolves at high redshift ($z\sim3-6$) based
1957: upon previous determinations, with some studies arguing for an
1958: evolution in the faint-end slope (Yan \& Windhorst 2004), some studies
1959: advocating an evolution in $\phi^*$ (Beckwith et al.\ 2006), other
1960: studies suggesting an evolution in the characteristic luminosity (B06;
1961: Yoshida et al.\ 2006), and yet other studies arguing for an evolution
1962: at the faint-end of the LF (Iwata et al.\ 2003; Sawicki \& Thompson
1963: 2006a; Iwata et al.\ 2007).
1964:
1965: In this paper, we found strong evidence for \textit{(i)} an increase
1966: in the characteristic luminosity $M^*$ as a function of cosmic time,
1967: from $\sim-20.2$ at $z\sim6$ to $\sim-21.1$ at $z\sim3$ and
1968: \textit{(ii)} a steep faint-end slope $\alpha\sim-1.7$ at $z\sim4-6$.
1969: While this agrees with the evolution found by some groups (B06;
1970: Yoshida et al.\ 2006; M. Giavalisco et al.\ 2007, in preparation), it
1971: is in significant contradiction with others (Iwata et al.\ 2007;
1972: Sawicki \& Thompson 2006a; Beckwith et al.\ 2006). We find it quite
1973: disturbing that there are a wide variety of different conclusions
1974: being drawn by different teams.\footnote{The diversity of conclusions
1975: drawn in high-redshift LF studies certainly illustrates how difficult
1976: it is to accurately control for systematics. Of course, one
1977: additional complicating factor is clearly the extremely steep
1978: faint-end slopes possessed by high-redshift LFs. This makes it very
1979: difficult to locate the ``knee'' in the LF and therefore distinguish
1980: evolution in $\phi^*$ from evolution in $M^*$.} However, we think
1981: that our large data set, unprecedented in both its size and leverage
1982: (both in redshift and luminosity), should allow us to come to more
1983: robust conclusions than have previously been obtained. We are
1984: encouraged by the fact that one of the most recent studies using the
1985: deep wide-area (636 arcmin$^2$) Subaru Deep Field (Yoshida et al.\
1986: 2006) obtain similar values for $M^*$ and $\alpha$ to what we find at
1987: $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$ and derive almost essentially the same evolution
1988: in $M^*$ over this interval ($\sim0.35$ mag). Similar results are
1989: obtained by Ouchi et al.\ (2004) using somewhat shallower data over
1990: the Subaru Deep Field and by M. Giavalisco et al.\ (2007, in
1991: preparation) using an independent analysis of the HUDF + GOODS data.
1992:
1993: One of the most noteworthy of several previous studies to differ from
1994: the present conclusions is that conducted by Beckwith et al.\ (2006).
1995: The Beckwith et al.\ (2006) analysis is noteworthy because while
1996: Beckwith et al.\ (2006) use a very similar data set to own (our data
1997: set also includes four deep intermediate depth ACS fields, i.e., the
1998: two HUDF05 and two HUDF-Ps fields), Beckwith et al.\ (2006) arrive at
1999: significantly different conclusions from our own. Beckwith et al.\
2000: (2006) argue that the evolution in the $UV$ LFs at $z\sim4-6$ can be
2001: most easily explained through an evolution in $\phi^*$ and cannot be
2002: explained through an evolution in $M^*$. What could be the cause of
2003: these different conclusions? After a careful analysis of the Beckwith
2004: et al. (2006) results, we have three significant comments. First of
2005: all, Beckwith et al.\ (2006) determine their LFs using the surface
2006: density of galaxies binned according to their flux in passbands
2007: affected by absorption from the Ly$\alpha$ forest (i.e., $V_{606}$ for
2008: their $z\sim4$ LF, $i_{775}$ for their $z\sim5$ LF, and $z_{850}$ for
2009: their $z\sim6$ LF). This is worrisome since the Ly$\alpha$ forest
2010: absorption is quite sensitive to the redshift of the sources, and
2011: therefore any systematic errors in the model redshift distributions
2012: (or forest absorption model) will propagate into the luminosities used
2013: for deriving their LFs. While we understand that Beckwith et
2014: al. (2006) used this procedure to determine the LF at $z\sim4$,
2015: $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ in a self-consistent way, in doing so they have
2016: introduced unnecessary uncertainties into these determinations at
2017: $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$. These LFs can be derived from $UV$-continuum
2018: fluxes not subject to these uncertainties.\footnote{Of course, in our
2019: determinations of the LF at $z\sim6$ from $i$-dropout samples, we
2020: cannot easily avoid coping with the effects of Ly$\alpha$ absorption
2021: on the $z_{850}$-band fluxes of $i$-dropouts in our samples, and
2022: therefore it is expected that our LF determinations at $z\sim6$ will
2023: be affected by uncertainties in modelling this absorption.}
2024:
2025: Secondly, the value of $M^*$ that Beckwith et al.\ (2006) derive at
2026: $z\sim4$ (alternatively quoted as $-20.3$, $-20.5$, and $-20.7$
2027: depending on the fitting procedure) is significantly fainter than the
2028: values (i.e., $M^*\lesssim-21.0$) that have been derived in previous
2029: studies (Steidel et al.\ 1999; Sawicki \& Thompson 2006a; Paltani et
2030: al.\ 2006: see Table~\ref{tab:complf4}). While these differences will
2031: partially result from Beckwith et al.\ (2006)'s determining the LF at
2032: $\sim1400\AA$ ($L^*$ galaxies at $z\sim4$ are somewhat redder in their
2033: $UV$-continuum slopes $\beta$ than $-2.0$ and thus yield somewhat
2034: fainter values of $M^*$ at 1400$\AA$ than they do at $1600\,\AA$:
2035: Appendix B.3), probably the biggest reason for these differences is
2036: one of procedure. Beckwith et al.\ (2006) derive their LFs using the
2037: surface density of dropouts binned in terms of the flux in bands
2038: affected by Lyman-forest absorption ($\sim0.2-1.0$ mag) while other
2039: analyses use $UV$-continuum fluxes where this absorption has no
2040: effect. As discussed in the paragraph above, analyses which are much
2041: less sensitive to modeling this absorption would seem to be more
2042: reliable than those which are more sensitive. If the value of $M^*$
2043: in the Beckwith et al.\ (2006) analysis is systematically too faint
2044: (and $\phi^*$ too high) for these reasons, this would shift the
2045: evolution from $M^*$ (which is what we believe the data suggest) to
2046: $\phi^*$ (which is what Beckwith et al.\ 2006 report).
2047:
2048: Third, at $z\sim6$, we disagree with the value of $\phi^*$ and $M^*$
2049: obtained by Beckwith et al.\ (2006). Our basic disagreement hinges on
2050: the assessment we made of the Beckwith et al.\ (2006) HUDF $i$-dropout
2051: selection at faint magnitudes ($28<z_{850,AB}<28.7$: see \S4.3.3 and
2052: Figure~\ref{fig:icount}) and our suspicion that this selection may be
2053: somewhat incomplete due to a flux bias (Figure~\ref{fig:icount}). If
2054: indeed this incompleteness was not properly accounted for in the
2055: Beckwith et al.\ (2006) analysis, it would effectively lower their
2056: value of $\phi^*$ and brighten $M^*$. Again, this would shift the
2057: evolution in the LF from $M^*$ to $\phi^*$.
2058:
2059: \section{Discussion}
2060:
2061: The unprecedented depth and size of current $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropout
2062: samples, along with the great experience represented in the previously
2063: determined LFs from the literature, have enabled us to establish what
2064: we think are the most robust $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ LFs to
2065: date. These LFs extend significantly fainter than has been possible
2066: in all previous efforts that have not included the ultra-deep HUDF
2067: data -- providing us with unique leverage for constraining the
2068: evolution at the faint-end of the LF. These deep LFs put us in a
2069: strong position to discuss a number of issues which are of current
2070: interest in studies of galaxy evolution.
2071:
2072: \subsection{Evolution of the rest-frame $UV$ LF}
2073:
2074: Having established the evolution of the LF from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$,
2075: it is interesting to compare this evolution with that found at lower
2076: redshifts (Steidel et al.\ 1999; Arnouts et al.\ 2005; Wyder et al.\
2077: 2005). We look at this evolution in terms of the three Schechter
2078: parameters $\phi^*$, $M^*$, and $\alpha$
2079: (Figures~\ref{fig:abmagz}-\ref{fig:abmagz2}). This may give us some
2080: clue as to the physical mechanisms that are likely to be at work in
2081: global evolution of the galaxy population. The clearest trend seems
2082: to be present in the evolution of $M^*$, which brightens rapidly at
2083: early times, reaches a peak around $z\sim4$, and then fades to
2084: $z\sim0$. The simplest explanation for the observed brightening in
2085: $M_{1600}^*$ from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$ is that it occurs through
2086: hierarchical coalescence and merging of smaller halos into larger
2087: systems. Not only do we expect such a buildup to occur at early times
2088: in almost any generic model for galaxy formation, but as we will see
2089: in \S5.2, such a mechanism predicts growth which is very similar
2090: \textit{quantitatively} to that observed in our data.
2091:
2092: \begin{figure}
2093: \epsscale{1.14}
2094: \plotone{abmagz.ps}
2095: \caption{Evolution of the characteristic luminosity ($M^{*}$) of the
2096: $UV$ LF as a function of redshift. Determinations are from the
2097: present work (red circles) at $z\sim4-6$, Steidel et al.\ (1999) at
2098: $z\sim3$ (green square), Arnouts et al.\ (2005) (blue crosses) at
2099: $0.1\lesssim z\lesssim3$, and Wyder et al.\ (2005) at $z\lesssim0.1$
2100: (blue square). Error bars are $1\sigma$. See compilation in
2101: Table~\ref{tab:lfparm}. The values of $M^*$ shown at $z\sim7.4$
2102: (\textit{solid red circle} and \textit{open red circle}, respectively)
2103: are determined (\S 5.2) using the results from the conservative and
2104: less-conservative $z$-dropout searches over the two GOODS fields
2105: (Bouwens \& Illingworth 2006) and assuming that the evolution in the
2106: rest-frame $UV$ LF can be accommodated by changes in $M^*$. The
2107: evolution in $M^*$ predicted from the Night et al.\ (2006) model, the
2108: momentum-driven wind model of Oppenheimer \& \dave~ (2006), and the
2109: empirically-calibrated model of Stark et al.\ (2007c) are shown as the
2110: dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted lines, respectively (see \S5.2-\S5.3
2111: for details). The solid line shows the evolution in $M^*$ predicted
2112: from the halo mass function (Sheth \& Tormen 1999) assuming a constant
2113: mass to light ratio. To extract a well-defined evolution in $M^*$
2114: with redshift from the models (which resemble power laws in shape), we
2115: needed to assume that $\phi^*$ was fixed, as seen in the observations
2116: (Figure~\ref{fig:abmagz2}). In addition, because the changes we
2117: derive for $M^*$ from the models are only differential, the absolute
2118: values plotted here are a little arbitrary. The observed
2119: characteristic luminosity $M^*$ shows significant evolution at both
2120: high-redshift and low-redshift. At high redshift ($z\gtrsim4$), the
2121: characteristic luminosity brightens very rapidly, reaches a peak at
2122: around $z\sim2-4$, and then fades to $z\sim0$. The evolution we
2123: observe at high redshift in $M^*$ is quite consistent with that found
2124: in the halo mass function and in the momentum-driven wind model of
2125: Oppenheimer \& \dave~ (2006).
2126: \label{fig:abmagz}}
2127: \end{figure}
2128:
2129: \begin{figure}
2130: \epsscale{1.14}
2131: \plotone{abmagz2.ps}
2132: \caption{Evolution of the normalization ($\phi^*$) and faint-end end
2133: slope ($\alpha$) of the $UV$ LF as a function of redshift.
2134: Determinations are as in Figure~\ref{fig:abmagz}. Adjacent
2135: determinations from Arnouts et al.\ (2005) have been binned together
2136: to reduce the scatter so that possible trends with redshift could be
2137: seen more clearly. Evolution in the faint-end slope $\alpha$ is not
2138: very significant, though there is some hint that this slope is
2139: somewhat steeper at high redshift than it is at low redshift.
2140: Evolution in $\phi^*$ is not significant over the interval $z\sim0.5$
2141: to $z\sim6$, but may show a possible increase at low redshift
2142: ($z\lesssim0.5$) and high redshift ($z\sim6$). We do not show
2143: predictions for evolution in $\phi^*$ from the models since they
2144: cannot be well-established independently of evolution in $M^*$ due to
2145: the very power-law like appearance of the model LFs. The faint-end
2146: slope $\alpha$ is predicted to be $\sim-1.8$ in the theoretical models
2147: at $z\gtrsim4$ (e.g., Night et al.\ 2006; Oppenheimer \&
2148: \dave~2006).\label{fig:abmagz2}}
2149: \end{figure}
2150:
2151: At later times ($z\lesssim3$), this steady brightening in $M^*$ halts
2152: and then turns around, so that after this epoch the most luminous
2153: star-forming galaxies become progressively fainter with time. This
2154: may be partially due to the gradual depletion of the cold gas
2155: reservoirs in galaxies with cosmic time (independent of mass) and
2156: partially due to the preferential depletion of gas in the highest mass
2157: galaxies (e.g., Erb et al.\ 2006; Reddy et al.\ 2006; Noeske et al.\
2158: 2007). This latter process would cause vigorous star-formation
2159: activity to move from the most massive galaxies to galaxies of lower
2160: and lower mass. This process has hence been called ``downsizing''
2161: (Cowie et al.\ 1996). Similar ``downsizing'' trends are found in many
2162: different areas of galaxy evolution, from the decrease in the
2163: cross-over mass between spheroids and disk galaxies (Bundy et
2164: al. 2005) to the greater late-stage star formation in the lowest
2165: luminosity ellipticals (e.g., Kodama et al. 2004; Cross et al.\ 2004;
2166: Treu et al. 2005; McIntosh et al. 2005; van der Wel et al. 2005).
2167: Such trends are also observed in the evolution of the AGN population
2168: (e.g., Pei 1995; Ueda et al. 2003), where the buildup of supermassive
2169: black-holes mirrors that in galaxy-scale star formation.
2170:
2171: Over most of the redshift range $z\sim0-6$ probed by current LF
2172: determinations, we observe no significant evolution in the
2173: normalization $\phi^*$ and only a modest amount of evolution in the
2174: faint-end slope $\alpha$. The evolution in $\phi^*$ and $\alpha$
2175: becomes more substantial at the lowest redshifts being probed here, as
2176: $\phi^*$ evolves from $10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ at $z\sim1-6$ to
2177: $4\times10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ at $z\sim0$ (Wyder et al.\ 2005) and
2178: $\alpha$ evolves from $-1.74$ at $z\sim4$ to $\sim-1.2$ at $z\sim0$
2179: (Wyder et al.\ 2005). Broadly, we expect some flattening of the
2180: faint-end slope $\alpha$ with cosmic time to match that predicted for
2181: the halo mass function. We would also expect $\phi^*$ to be somewhat
2182: higher at early times to account for the large population of lower
2183: luminosity galaxies predicted to be present then. At late times, we
2184: expect the value of $\phi^*$ to increase to compensate for the
2185: evolution in $M^*$ and thus keep the population of lower luminosity
2186: galaxies (which appear to evolve more slowly with cosmic time: e.g.,
2187: Noeske et al.\ 2007) more constant. While we observe this increase in
2188: $\phi^*$ at late times, it is unclear at present whether $\phi^*$ is
2189: really higher at very early times ($z\gtrsim6$). Progress on this
2190: question should be possible from on-going searches for galaxies at
2191: $z\gtrsim7$ (e.g., Bouwens \& Illingworth 2006; Mannucci et al.\ 2006;
2192: Stark et al.\ 2007b).
2193:
2194: \subsection{Interpreting the Observed Evolution in $M^*$}
2195:
2196: We have already remarked that one probable interpretation for the
2197: observed brightening in $M^*$ is through the hierarchical coalescence
2198: and merging of galaxies into larger halos. We can look at the
2199: hypothesis in detail by comparing the observed brightening with the
2200: mass buildup seen in the halo mass function (Sheth \& Tormen 1999)
2201: over this range. We will assume we can characterize the growth in the
2202: mass function by looking at the mass of halos with a fixed comoving
2203: volume density $10^{-2.5}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ and that there is a fixed
2204: conversion from mass to UV light (halo mass to apparent star formation
2205: rate). A volume density of $10^{-2.5}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ corresponds to that
2206: expected for halos near the knee of the luminosity function assuming a
2207: duty cycle of $\sim25$\% (see Stark et al.\ 2007c; Verma et al.\ 2007)
2208: and $\phi^*$ of $10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, which is the approximate volume
2209: density of $L^*$ galaxies in the observations. The duty cycle tells
2210: us the approximate fraction of halos that have lit up with star
2211: formation at any given point in time. This analysis effectively
2212: assumes that $\phi^*$ is fixed as a function of time, which we assume
2213: to match the observations (Figure~\ref{fig:abmagz2}). We plot the
2214: predicted brightening on Figure~\ref{fig:abmagz} with the solid line.
2215: We note that these predictions are only modestly sensitive to the
2216: volume densities chosen to make these comparisons. At volume
2217: densities of $\sim10^{-2}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, the predicted brightening is
2218: 0.6 mag from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$ while at $\sim10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$,
2219: the predicted brightening is 0.9 mag. Surprisingly, the growth in the
2220: mass function is in striking agreement with the evolution we observe
2221: in $M^*$, even out to $z\sim7.4$ where we derive our values of $M^*$
2222: from the Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006) search results (see \S5.4).
2223: This remarkable agreement strongly suggests that hierarchical buildup
2224: may contribute significantly to the evolution we observe.
2225:
2226: While this is surely an interesting finding in itself, the overall
2227: level of agreement we observe here is surprising since we make a
2228: fairly simple set of assumptions above about the relationship between
2229: the halo mass and the UV light in galaxies hosted by these halos --
2230: supposing that it is constant and non-evolving. Had we assumed this
2231: ratio evolves with cosmic time we would have made considerably
2232: different predictions for the evolution of the LF. This is
2233: interesting since there are many reasons for thinking the
2234: mass-to-light ratio might be lower at early times and therefore the
2235: evolution in $M^*$ to be less rapid with cosmic time. For one, the
2236: efficiency of star formation is expected to be higher at early times.
2237: The universe would have a higher mean density then and therefore the
2238: gas densities and star formation rate efficiencies should be higher.
2239: In addition, the cooling times and dynamical times should be less at
2240: early times. All this suggests that the evolution in the LF should
2241: much more closely resemble that predicted by Stark et al.\ (2007c),
2242: who also model the evolution in the LF using the mass function but
2243: assume that the star formation time scale evolves as
2244: $H(z)^{-1}\sim(1+z)^{-3/2}$. As a result of these star formation time
2245: scales, the Stark et al.\ (2007c) model predicts a mass-to-light ratio
2246: which evolves as $\sim(1+z)^{-3/2}$. This model yields significantly
2247: different predictions for how $M^*$ evolves with redshift (shown as
2248: the dash-dotted line in Figure~\ref{fig:abmagz}). These latter
2249: predictions appear to fit our data somewhat less well than for the
2250: simple toy model we adopted above assuming no-evolution in the
2251: mass-to-light ratio. This suggests that this mass-to-light ratio may
2252: not evolve that dramatically with cosmic time. One possible
2253: explanation for this would be if supernovae feedback played a
2254: significant role in regulating the star formation within galaxies at
2255: these times -- keeping it from reaching the rates theoretically
2256: achievable given the time scales and gas densities expected. Of
2257: course, while it is interesting to note the possible physical
2258: implications of our observational results, we should be cautious about
2259: drawing too strong of conclusions based upon these comparisons. Our
2260: treatment here is crude, and the observational uncertainties are still
2261: quite large.
2262:
2263: \subsection{Comparisons with Model Results}
2264:
2265: Given the success of our simple toy model for reproducing the observed
2266: evolution in $M^*$, it is interesting to ask if this success is
2267: maintained if we consider more sophisticated treatments like those
2268: developped in the literature (Finlator et al.\ 2006; Oppenheimer \&
2269: \dave~2006; Nagamine et al.\ 2004; Night et al.\ 2006; Samui et al.\
2270: 2007). The most complicated of these models include a wide variety of
2271: physics from gravitation to hydrodynamics, shocks, cooling, star
2272: formation, chemical evolution, and supernovae feedback (see, e.g.,
2273: Springel \& Hernquist 2003). We examined two different models
2274: produced by leading teams in this field and which we suspect are
2275: fairly representative of current work in this area. These models are
2276: the momentum-driven wind ``vzw'' model of Oppenheimer \& \dave~ (2006)
2277: and the model of Night et al.\ (2006), which appears to be similar to
2278: the constant wind model of Oppenheimer \& \dave~ (2006). Since LFs in
2279: these models more closely resemble power laws in overall shape than
2280: they do Schechter functions, we were not able to extract a unique
2281: value of $M^*$ from the model LFs. We were however able to estimate
2282: an evolution in $M^*$ by comparing the model LFs at a fixed number
2283: density and looking at the change in magnitude. In doing so, we
2284: effectively assume that the value of $\phi^*$ is fixed just like we
2285: find in the observations (Figure~\ref{fig:abmagz2}). To improve the
2286: S/N with which to estimate this evolution from the models, we looked
2287: at this evolution over a range of number densities (i.e., $10^{-3.2}$
2288: Mpc$^{-3}$ to $10^{-1.5}$ Mpc$^{-3}$). We plot the derived evolution
2289: from these models in Figure~\ref{fig:abmagz}, and it is apparent that
2290: our observed evolution is in good agreement with the momentum-driven
2291: wind models of Oppenheimer \& \dave~(2006), but exceeds that predicted
2292: by the Night et al.\ (2006) model. The fact that our results agree
2293: with at least one of the two models is encouraging -- since it
2294: suggests that the evolution we infer is plausible. Moreover, the fact
2295: that the two model results disagree suggests that we may be able to
2296: begin to use our observational results to begin constraining the
2297: important aspects of the theoretical models. Particularly relevant on
2298: this front are the implications for the feedback prescription, which
2299: differ quite significantly between the two models considered here.
2300: For the momentum-driven wind models, feedback is much more important
2301: at early times than it is for the Night et al.\ (2006) model. This
2302: feedback effectively suppresses star formation at early times and
2303: therefore results in a much more rapid brightening of $M^*$ with
2304: cosmic time, in agreement with the observations.
2305:
2306: \subsection{Evolution of $UV$ Luminosity at $z>6$}
2307:
2308: The present determinations of the LF at $z\sim4-6$ should provide us
2309: with a useful guide to the form of the LF at even earlier times and
2310: should be helpful in interpreting current searches for very
2311: high-redshift ($z>6$) galaxies. Currently, the most accessible regime
2312: for such probes lies just beyond $z\sim6$, at $z\sim7-8$, and can be
2313: probed by a $z$-dropout search. At present, the most comprehensive
2314: such search was performed by our team using $\sim19$ arcmin$^2$ of
2315: deep NICMOS data over the two GOODS fields (Bouwens \& Illingworth
2316: 2006: but see also Mannucci et al.\ 2006). In that work, we applied a
2317: very conservative $(z_{850}-J_{110})_{AB}>1.3$, $(z_{850}-J_{110})_{AB} > 1.3
2318: + 0.4(J_{110}-H_{160})_{AB}$, $(J_{110}-H_{160})_{AB}<1.2$
2319: $z_{850}$-dropout criterion to that data and found only one plausible
2320: $z$-dropout, but expected $\sim10$ sources assuming no-evolution from
2321: $z\sim6$. We also applied a slightly less conservative $z$-dropout
2322: criterion and found three other possible candidates. From this, we
2323: concluded that the volume density of bright ($\gtrsim0.3L_{z=3}^{*}$)
2324: galaxies at $z\sim7.4$ was just $0.10_{-0.07}^{+0.19}$ and
2325: $0.24_{-0.12}^{+0.20}$ times the volume density of bright sources at
2326: $z\sim6$ for our conservative and less conservative criteria,
2327: respectively. Both large-scale structure and Poissonian statistics
2328: are included in the estimated errors here. For both selections, the
2329: result was significant and suggested to us that there was substantial
2330: evolution from $z\sim7-8$ to $z\sim6$. Given the sizeable evolution
2331: we had observed in $M^*$ between $z\sim6$ and $z\sim3$ (B06; see also
2332: Dickinson et al.\ 2004), it made sense for us to model our $z\sim7-8$
2333: search results in terms of an evolution of $M^*$, keeping $\phi^*$ and
2334: $\alpha$ fixed. We also considered a model where changes in $M^*$
2335: were offset by changes in $\phi^*$ such as to keep the total
2336: luminosity density fixed. Using these two sets of assumptions, we
2337: estimated that $M^*$ was $1.1\pm0.4$ mag and $1.4\pm0.4$ mag fainter
2338: at $z\sim7.4$ than it was at $z\sim6$.
2339:
2340: With our current work on the LFs at $z\sim4-6$, we have been able to
2341: demonstrate more clearly than before that the most significant change
2342: in the LF occurs through a brightening of $M^*$ from $z\sim6$ to
2343: $z\sim4$ (see also Yoshida et al.\ 2006). This strengthens the
2344: underlying motivations behind the Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006)
2345: decision to model the evolution of the LF in terms of a change in
2346: $M^*$. The parameter $\phi^*$ is consistent with being constant,
2347: though it may also decrease with time, as suggested by hierarchical
2348: buildup. Unfortunately, there are still too many uncertainties in the
2349: data to be sure about the trends in $\phi^*$, and so it is difficult
2350: to significantly improve upon the $M^*$ estimates made in Bouwens \&
2351: Illingworth (2006) study for our most conservative selection.
2352:
2353: Nevertheless, we will update our estimates for $M^*$ at $z\sim7-8$
2354: based upon our conservative selection to be consistent with the
2355: present determinations for $\phi^*$ and $\alpha$ at $z\sim6$ while
2356: taking the evolution in the UV LF at $z\gtrsim6$ to simply be in
2357: luminosity ($M^*$). With these assumptions (i.e., taking
2358: $\alpha=-1.74$ and $\phi^*=0.0014$ Mpc$^{-3}$), we find a value of
2359: $M_{UV}^*=-19.3\pm0.4$ for our UV LF at $z\sim7-8$. It also makes
2360: sense to estimate the value of $M^*$ at $z\sim7-8$ using the results
2361: of the less-conservative selection of Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006).
2362: We did not consider this selection in our original estimates of $M^*$
2363: in Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006) to avoid possible concerns about
2364: contamination and thus simplify the discussion. However, the
2365: contamination is not likely to be larger than $25$\% (see Bouwens \&
2366: Illingworth 2006), and this selection offers much better statistics
2367: than for our conservative selection (4 sources vs. 1 source) as well
2368: as a larger selection window which should make our selection volume
2369: estimates more reliable. Repeating the determination of $M^*$ using
2370: the results of our less conservative selection
2371: ($\rho(z=7.4)/\rho(z=6)=0.24_{-0.12}^{+0.20}$) and assuming simple
2372: evolution in $M^*$, we find $M_{UV}^*=-19.7\pm0.3$. The normalization
2373: $\phi^*$ and faint-end slope $\alpha$ were kept fixed at
2374: $1.4\times10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ and $-1.74$, the values preferred at
2375: $z\sim6$, for this modelling. Though it seems probable that the
2376: faint-end slope $\alpha$ may be quite steep at earlier times, this
2377: does not have a big effect on the derived values for $\phi^*$ and
2378: $M^*$. For example, making a $\Delta \alpha=0.4$ change in the
2379: assumed faint-end slope only results in a 0.1 mag change in $M^*$. We
2380: added this determination of $M^*$ to Figure~\ref{fig:abmagz} as an
2381: open red circle, and it is in remarkable agreement with some of the
2382: theoretical predictions as well as simple extrapolations of our lower
2383: redshift results (\S5.1-\S5.3). We include the Bouwens \& Illingworth
2384: (2006) search results in Figure~\ref{fig:udflfhighz} along with a
2385: comparison with the LFs at $z\sim4-6$. The Mannucci et al.\ (2006)
2386: search results for very luminous (brighter than $-21.5$ AB mag)
2387: $z\sim7$ galaxies are also included on this figure.
2388:
2389: %Two of the most significant observational findings in this regard are
2390: %the following: (1) most of the evolution in the rest-frame $UV$ LF can
2391: %be explained through a brightening of $M^*$ from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$
2392: %and (2) the faint-end slope $\alpha$ of this LF is very steep, i.e.,
2393: %$\sim-1.75$.
2394:
2395: \begin{figure}
2396: \epsscale{1.22}
2397: \plotone{udf_lf_highz.ps}
2398: \caption{Two different determinations of the volume density of
2399: luminous star-forming galaxies at $z\sim7.4$ compared with the $UV$
2400: LFs at $z\sim4-6$ (from Figure~\ref{fig:udflf}). The $z\sim7.4$
2401: search results are shown as solid and open circles (where the error
2402: bars are $1\sigma$) for the Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006) conservative
2403: and less conservative selections, respectively. The Mannucci et al.\
2404: (2006) upper limit on this volume density is shown as the magenta
2405: downward arrow at $-21.8$ AB mag. We have plotted one possible $UV$
2406: LF at $z\sim7.4$ (dashed magenta line) which is in good agreement with
2407: the Bouwens \& Illingworth (2006) determination (see
2408: \S5.4).\label{fig:udflfhighz}}
2409: \end{figure}
2410:
2411: \subsection{Reionization}
2412:
2413: Finally, it seems worthwhile to discuss the implications of the
2414: current LF determination on the ionizing flux output of $z\gtrsim4$
2415: galaxies. There has been a great deal of interest in the ionizing
2416: radiation output of high-redshift galaxies since it was discovered
2417: that hydrogen remains almost entirely ionized since a redshift of
2418: $z\sim6$ (Becker et al.\ 2001; Fan et al.\ 2002; White et al.\ 2003;
2419: Fan et al.\ 2006) and that galaxies are the only obvious candidates to
2420: produce this radiation. The situation has even become more
2421: interesting now with the availiability of the WMAP results, indicating
2422: that the universe may have been largely ionized out to redshifts as
2423: early as $10.9_{-2.3}^{+2.9}$ (Spergel et al.\ 2006; Page et al.\
2424: 2006; cf. Shull \& Venkatesan 2007).
2425:
2426: \begin{figure}
2427: \epsscale{1.16}
2428: \plotone{relfract.ps}
2429: \caption{$UV$ Luminosity density per unit magnitude for galaxies of
2430: various luminosities at $z\sim4$ (\textit{blue histogram}: from our
2431: $B$-dropout sample), $z\sim5$ (\textit{green histogram}: from our
2432: $V$-dropout sample) and $z\sim6$ (\textit{red histogram}: from our
2433: $i$-dropout sample). Error bars here are $1\sigma$ and were derived
2434: from the rest-frame $UV$ LF at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$
2435: (Table~\ref{tab:swlf4}). This shows that lower luminosity galaxies
2436: make up a significant part of the overall $UV$ background and thus
2437: likely play an important role in reionization. Assuming that it is
2438: possible to extrapolate the LF to very low luminosities and the LFs
2439: truncate below some very faint fiducial limit of $-10$ AB mag, we
2440: estimate that 27\%, 24\%, and 34\% of the total flux comes from
2441: galaxies faintward of $-16$ AB mag for our $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and
2442: $z\sim6$ LFs, respectively (\S5.5).\label{fig:relfrac}}
2443: \end{figure}
2444:
2445: Yet, despite galaxies' being the only obvious source of ionizing
2446: photons at high redshift, there has been some controversy about the
2447: ability of galaxies to keep the universe reionized at high redshift.
2448: Much of the controversy has centered around the fact that the escape
2449: fraction is observed to be very low for galaxies at $z\sim0-3$
2450: (Leitherer et al.\ 1995; Hurwitz et al.\ 1997; Deharveng et al.\ 2001;
2451: Giallongo et al.\ 2002; Fern{\' a}ndez-Soto et al.\ 2003; Malkan et
2452: al.\ 2003; Inoue et al.\ 2005; Shapley et al.\ 2006; cf. Steidel et
2453: al.\ 2001), and therefore while high-mass stars in galaxies may be
2454: efficient producers of ionizing photons, only a small fraction of
2455: these photons succeed in making it out into the intergalactic medium.
2456: This has led some researchers to question whether high redshift
2457: galaxies are even capable of keeping the universe ionized (e.g.,
2458: Stanway et al.\ 2003; Bunker et al.\ 2004). We must emphasize,
2459: however, that the escape fraction is still relatively poorly
2460: understood, and that the true value may still be quite appreciable
2461: (e.g., Shapley et al.\ 2006).
2462:
2463: Fortunately, it appears that there may be several ways of resolving
2464: this situation -- even for relatively low values of the escape
2465: fraction. One of these is to suppose that the traditional assumptions
2466: about the intergalactic medium are not quite right and that one should
2467: use a smaller value for the clumping factor (e.g., Bolton \& Haehnelt
2468: 2007; Sokasian et al.\ 2003; Iliev et al.\ 2006; Sawicki \& Thompson
2469: 2006b) or higher temperature for the IGM (e.g., Stiavelli et al.\
2470: 2004) than has been assumed in many previous analyses of the
2471: ionization balance (i.e., Madau et al.\ 1999). Another possible
2472: solution is to suppose that there has been a change in the
2473: metallicities or initial mass function (IMF) of stars at early times,
2474: such that these objects have a much higher ionizing efficiency than
2475: sources at lower redshift (Stiavelli et al.\ 2004). One final
2476: solution has been to assume a significant contribution to the ionizing
2477: flux from very low-luminosity galaxies (e.g., Lehnert \& Bremer 2003;
2478: Yan \& Windhorst 2004a,b; B06).
2479:
2480: The present determination of the luminosity functions at $z\sim4-6$,
2481: and in particular the steep faint-end slopes $\alpha=-1.73\pm0.05$
2482: ($z\sim4$), $\alpha=-1.66\pm0.09$ ($z\sim5$), and
2483: $\alpha=-1.74\pm0.16$ ($z\sim6$) provide significant support for the
2484: idea that lower luminosity galaxies contribute significantly to the
2485: total ionizing flux (see also Beckwith et al.\ 2006). Previously,
2486: there was some support for the idea that lower luminosity galaxies may
2487: have been important from the steep faint-end slopes obtained at
2488: $z\sim6$ (B06; Yan \& Windhorst 2004b) and at lower redshift (e.g.,
2489: Steidel et al.\ 1999; Arnouts et al.\ 2005; Yoshida et al.\ 2006).
2490: However, this conclusion was a little uncertain due to the sizeable
2491: uncertainties on the faint-end slope $\alpha$ at $z\sim6$ -- and some
2492: conflicting results at lower redshift (Gabasch et al.\ 2004; Sawicki
2493: \& Thompson 2006a). Now, with the present LF determinations (see also
2494: Yoshida et al.\ 2006; Beckwith et al.\ 2006; Oesch et al.\ 2007), it
2495: seems quite clear that the faint-end slope $\alpha$ must be quite
2496: steep (i.e., $\sim-1.7$) at $z\gtrsim4$ -- though it is still
2497: difficult to evaluate whether this slope evolves from $z\sim6$ to
2498: $z\sim4$ due to considerable uncertainties on this slope at $z\sim6$.
2499:
2500: We can use the stepwise LF at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ to look
2501: at the contribution that galaxies of various luminosities make to the
2502: total ionizing flux. Assuming a luminosity-independent escape
2503: fraction, we can examine this contribution by plotting up the $UV$
2504: luminosity densities provided by galaxies at different absolute
2505: magnitudes (Figure~\ref{fig:relfrac}). Clearly, the lower luminosity
2506: galaxies provide a sizeable fraction of the total.
2507:
2508: What fraction of the total flux that would be provided by galaxies
2509: faintward of the current observational limits ($-16$ AB mag), assuming
2510: that the present LFs can be extrapolated to very faint levels? With
2511: no cut-off in the LF, this fraction is 0.31, 0.27, and 0.40 for our
2512: $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ LFs, respectively (from
2513: Table~\ref{tab:lfparm}). However, for the more physically-reasonable
2514: situation that the LF has a cut-off (at a fiducial limit of $-10$ AB
2515: mag, e.g., Read et al.\ 2006: see \S3.5), the fraction is 0.27, 0.24,
2516: and 0.34, respectively. In all cases, this fraction is substantial
2517: and suggests that a significant fraction of the total ionizing flux
2518: may come from galaxies at very low luminosities. In fact, even if we
2519: suppose that our high-redshift LFs cut off just below the
2520: observational limit of our HUDF selection (i.e., $-16$ AB mag),
2521: $\gtrsim50$\% of the total ionizing flux would still arise from
2522: galaxies fainter than $-19.0$ AB mag. Since $-19$ AB mag is
2523: comparable to or fainter than the observational limits relevant for
2524: most previous studies of high redshift galaxies (i.e.,
2525: Figures~\ref{fig:udflf4} and \ref{fig:udflf5}), this shows that most
2526: previous studies do not come close to providing a complete census of
2527: the total $UV$ light or ionizing radiation at high redshift. Ultra
2528: deep probes (such are available in the HUDF) are necessary.
2529:
2530: \section{Summary}
2531:
2532: Over its years in operation, the HST Advanced Camera for Surveys has
2533: provided us with an exceptional resource of ultra deep, wide-area,
2534: multiwavelength optical ($BViz$) data for studying star-forming
2535: galaxies at high redshift. Such galaxies can be effectively
2536: identified in these multiwavelength data using a dropout criterion,
2537: with $B$, $V$, and $i$ dropout selections probing galaxies at a mean
2538: redshift of $z\sim3.8$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim5.9$. Relative to
2539: previous observations, deep ACS data reach several times fainter than
2540: ever before and do so over large areas. This allows us to investigate
2541: the properties of high-redshift star-forming galaxies at extremely low
2542: luminosities in unprecedented detail.
2543:
2544: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccc}
2545: \tablewidth{0pt}
2546: \tablecolumns{9}
2547: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2548: \tablecaption{Summary of key results.\tablenotemark{*}\label{tab:summary}}
2549: \tablehead{
2550: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$\phi^*$} &
2551: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$\textrm{log}_{10}$ SFR density ($M_{\odot}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$)} \\
2552: \colhead{Dropout} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$(10^{-3}$} &
2553: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Uncorrected\tablenotemark{b}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Dust-Corrected} \\
2554: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$<z>$} & \colhead{$M_{UV} ^{*}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
2555: \colhead{Mpc$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{$\alpha$} & \colhead{$L>0.3 L_{z=3}^{*}$} &
2556: \colhead{$L> 0.04 L_{z=3}^{*}$} & \colhead{$L>0.3 L_{z=3}^{*}$} &
2557: \colhead{$L> 0.04 L_{z=3}^{*}$}}
2558: \startdata
2559: $B$ & 3.8 & $-20.98\pm0.10$ & $1.3\pm0.2$ & $-1.73\pm0.05$ & $-1.81\pm0.05$ & $-1.48\pm0.05$ & $-1.38\pm0.05$ & $-1.05\pm0.05$ \\
2560: $V$ & 5.0 & $-20.64\pm0.13$ & $1.0\pm0.3$ & $-1.66\pm0.09$ & $-2.15\pm0.06$ & $-1.78\pm0.06$ & $-1.85\pm0.06$ & $-1.48\pm0.06$ \\
2561: $i$ & 5.9 & $-20.24\pm0.19$ & $1.4_{-0.4}^{+0.6}$ & $-1.74\pm0.16$ & $-2.31\pm0.08$ & $-1.83\pm0.08$ & $-2.14\pm0.08$ & $-1.65\pm0.08$ \\
2562: $z$ & 7.4 & $-19.3\pm0.4$ & $(1.4)$ & $(-1.74)$ & $-3.15\pm0.48$ & $-2.32$ & $-2.97\pm0.48$ & $-2.14$ \\
2563: \enddata
2564: \tablenotetext{a}{Values of $M_{UV}^{*}$ are at $1600\,\AA$ for our
2565: $B$ and $V$-dropout samples, at $\sim1350\,\AA$ for our $i$-dropout
2566: sample, and at $\sim1900\,\AA$ for our $z$-dropout sample. Since
2567: $z\sim6$ galaxies are blue ($\beta\sim-2$: Stanway et al.\ 2005; B06),
2568: we expect the value of $M^*$ at $z\sim6$ to be very similar
2569: ($\lesssim0.1$ mag) at $1600\,\AA$ to the value of $M^*$ at
2570: $1350\,\AA$. Similarly, we expect $M^*$ at $z\sim7-8$ to be fairly
2571: similar at $\sim1600\AA$ to the value at $\sim1900\AA$.}
2572: \tablenotetext{b}{The luminosity densities, which are used to compute
2573: the uncorrected SFR densities presented here (\S3.5), are given in
2574: Table~\ref{tab:lumdens}.}
2575: \tablenotetext{*}{These LF determinations are based upon STY79
2576: technique, including evolution in $M^*$ across the redshift window of
2577: each sample (see Table~\ref{tab:lfparm} and Appendix B.8). They
2578: therefore differ from those given in Table~\ref{tab:olfparm}, which do
2579: not include evolution.}
2580: \end{deluxetable*}
2581:
2582: Here we have taken advantage of the historic sample of deep, wide-area
2583: ACS fields (HUDF, HUDF05, HUDF-Ps, and the two GOODS fields) to
2584: identify large, comprehensive selections of very faint, high-redshift
2585: galaxies. Our collective sample of $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropouts over
2586: these fields totalled 4671, 1416, and 627 unique sources. Putting
2587: together our deepest probe (HUDF) with our widest area probe (GOODS),
2588: our samples cover a 6-7 mag range with good statistics (factor of
2589: $\sim1000$ in luminosity), extending from $-23$ AB mag to $-16$ or
2590: $-17$ AB mag. Through detailed simulations, we have carefully
2591: modelled the completeness, photometric scatter, contamination, and
2592: selection functions for each of our samples. We then put together the
2593: information from our combined sample of $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropouts to
2594: derive LFs at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$. To ensure that our LF
2595: determinations are robust, we considered a wide variety of approaches
2596: and assumptions in the determinations of these LFs and made extensive
2597: comparisons with other determinations from the literature.
2598:
2599: Here are our principal conclusions:
2600:
2601: \textit{Best-fit LFs:} We find that the rest-frame UV LFs at
2602: $z\sim4-6$ are well fit by a Schechter function over a $\sim5-7$ mag
2603: (factor of $\sim100$ to $\sim1000$) range in luminosity, from $-23$ AB
2604: mag to $-16$ AB mag (see also Beckwith et al.\ 2006). The best-fit
2605: parameters for our rest-frame $UV$ LFs are given in
2606: Table~\ref{tab:summary}. The present $z\sim6$ LF determination is in
2607: reasonable agreement with those from B06 (see
2608: Table~\ref{tab:complf6}), but is slightly more robust at the
2609: faint-end. The most salient finding from the individual LF
2610: determinations is that the faint-end slope $\alpha$ is very steep
2611: $\sim-1.7$ at all redshifts considered here (see \S3.4).
2612:
2613: \textit{Completeness of $z\sim4$ $B$-dropout census:} The bulk of the
2614: bright $B$-dropouts we identify over the GOODS have $\beta$'s of
2615: $\lesssim-1.0$ (\S4.1: see Figure~\ref{fig:selb}). Since our $z\sim4$
2616: $B$-dropout selection should be effective in identifying $UV$-bright
2617: galaxies as red as $\beta\sim0.5$, the fact that we do not find many
2618: such galaxies in our selection in the range $\beta\sim-0.5$ and
2619: $\sim-0.5$ suggests that this selection is largely complete
2620: ($\gtrsim90$\%) at bright magnitudes. This supposition would appear
2621: to be supported by complementary selections of galaxies at $z\sim4$
2622: with the Balmer-break technique (Brammer \& van Dokkum 2007), which
2623: also find that galaxies have very blue $UV$-continuum slopes
2624: ($\gtrsim90$\% of the galaxies in the Brammer \& van Dokkum 2007
2625: selection had $\beta$'s $\lesssim0.5$). Since Balmer-break selections
2626: do not depend upon the value of the $UV$-continuum slope, this again
2627: suggests that the bulk of the star-forming galaxy population at
2628: $z\sim4$ is quite blue and will not be missed from our bright
2629: $B$-dropout selection.
2630:
2631: \textit{Evolution of the LF}: Comparing our best-fit Schechter
2632: parameters determined at $z\sim6$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim4$, we find
2633: little evidence for evolution in the faint-end slope $\alpha$ or
2634: $\phi^*$ from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$. On the other hand, the
2635: characteristic luminosity for galaxies $M_{UV}^{*}$ brightens by
2636: $\sim0.7$ mag from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$ (see also Yoshida et al.\
2637: 2006).
2638:
2639: \textit{UV Luminosity / SFR Densities:} The $UV$ luminosity
2640: densities and SFR densities we infer at $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and
2641: $z\sim6$ are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:summary}. The $UV$
2642: luminosity density we derive at $z\sim6$ is modestly lower
2643: ($0.45\pm0.09\times$) than that at $z\sim4$ (integrated to $-17.5$ AB
2644: mag). Taking into account the likely evolution in dust properties of
2645: galaxies across this interval suggested by the apparent change in mean
2646: $UV$-continuum slope (e.g., B06), we infer a much more significant
2647: change in the dust-corrected SFR densities over this same interval of
2648: cosmic time, i.e., the SFR density at $z\sim6$ appears to be just
2649: $\sim0.3$ times this density at $z\sim4$ (integrated to $-17.5$ AB
2650: mag).
2651:
2652: \textit{Galaxies at $z\sim7-8$:} By quantifying the evolution of the
2653: $UV$ LF from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim3$, we were able to better interpret
2654: the results of recent $z_{850}$-dropout searches of Bouwens \&
2655: Illingworth (2006) in terms of an evolution of the LF (see \S5.4).
2656: Supposing that the evolution of the $UV$ LF is simply in $M^*$ (as
2657: observed from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$), we estimated that $M_{UV}^{*}$ at
2658: $z\sim7.4$ is equal to $-19.3\pm0.4$ AB mag and $-19.7\pm0.3$ AB mag
2659: using the conservative and less conservative search results of Bouwens
2660: \& Illingworth (2006), respectively (see \S5.4).
2661:
2662: \textit{Comparison with Model Results:} The brightening we observe in
2663: $M^*$ from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$ (and plausibly from $z\sim7.4$) is
2664: almost identical to what one finds in the evolution of the halo mass
2665: function over this range (see also Stark et al.\ 2007c) assuming a
2666: constant proportionality between mass and light (see \S5.2). This
2667: suggests that hierarchical buildup largely drives the evolution in
2668: $M^*$ over the redshift range probed by our samples. It also may
2669: indicate that there is no substantial evolution in the ratio of halo
2670: mass to $UV$ light over this range. Since we might expect this ratio
2671: to evolve significantly due to changes in the mean gas density of the
2672: universe and therefore star formation efficiency, this suggests that
2673: feedback may be quite important in regulating the star formation of
2674: galaxies at early times. Of course, given the considerable
2675: uncertainties in the value of $M^*$ at very high redshift
2676: ($z\gtrsim6$), it seems worthwhile to emphasize that these conclusions
2677: are still somewhat preliminary. Our observational results are also in
2678: reasonable agreement with that predicted by the momentum-conserving
2679: wind models of Oppenheimer \& \dave~(2006).
2680:
2681: \textit{Implications for Reionization:} The very steep faint-end
2682: slopes $\alpha$ of the $UV$-continuum LF ($\sim -1.7$) suggest that
2683: lower luminosity galaxies provide a significant fraction of the total
2684: ionizing flux at $z\gtrsim4$ (see also discussion in Lehnert \& Bremer
2685: 2003; Yan \& Windhorst 2004a,b; B06; Sawicki \& Thompson 2006b).
2686: Assuming that the escape fraction is independent of luminosity and
2687: that the high-redshift LFs maintain a Schechter-like form to a very
2688: faint fiducial limit ($-10$ AB mag) and cut off beyond this limit, we
2689: estimate that 27\%, 24\%, and 34\% of the total flux comes from
2690: galaxies faintward of $-16$ AB mag for our $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and
2691: $z\sim6$ LFs, respectively (see \S5.5).
2692:
2693: The recent failure of the Advanced Camera for Surveys aboard HST is a
2694: great loss for studies of galaxies. Even with the installation of
2695: WFC3, future HST observations will require approximately three times
2696: the telescope time that ACS required to obtain comparable constraints
2697: on the faint, $z\sim4-6$ population. As a result, it would appear
2698: that for the near-to-distant future the current probes of the UV LF at
2699: very high redshift will remain an important standard, until future
2700: facilities with superior surveying capabilities like JWST come online
2701: (or unless ACS is repaired).
2702:
2703: \acknowledgements
2704:
2705: We acknowledge Romeel \dave, Kristian Finlator, Brad Holden, Mauro
2706: Giavalisco, Ikiru Iwata, Olivier Le F{\`e}vre, Ken Nagamine, Masami
2707: Ouchi, and Naveen Reddy for stimulating conversations and Piero Rosati
2708: and Rick White for helpful suggestions. We are grateful to Kristian
2709: Finlator and Kentaro Nagamine for computing rest-frame $UV$ LFs for us
2710: from their models, and then allowing us to include these calculations
2711: in our paper. We thank Alice Shapley for sending us a copy of her
2712: implementation of the Bershady et al.\ (1999) MC-NH model to compute
2713: attenuation from neutral hydrogen along random lines of sight. We are
2714: appreciative to Naveen Reddy and Crystal Martin for a careful reading
2715: of this manuscript and our anonymous referee for a number of very
2716: insightful comments. ACS was developed under NASA contract
2717: NAS5-32865, and this research was supported under NASA grant
2718: HST-GO09803.05-A and NAG5-7697.
2719:
2720: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2721: \bibitem[Adelberger \& Steidel(2000)]{2000ApJ...544..218A} Adelberger,
2722: K.~L., \& Steidel, C.~C.\ 2000, \apj, 544, 218
2723: \bibitem[Arn]{2005arn} Arnouts, S., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L43
2724: \bibitem[Becker et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....122.2850B} Becker, R.~H.~et al.\
2725: 2001, \aj, 122, 2850
2726: \bibitem[Beckwith et al.(2006)]{2006AJ....132.1729B} Beckwith, S.~V.~W., et
2727: al.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 1729
2728: \bibitem[Bershady et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...518..103B} Bershady, M.~A.,
2729: Charlton, J.~C., \& Geoffroy, J.~M.\ 1999, \apj, 518, 103
2730: \bibitem[Bertin and Arnouts (1996)]{1996A&AS..117..393B} Bertin, E.\ and
2731: Arnouts, S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 39
2732: \bibitem[Blakeslee et al.(2003)]{2003adass..12..257B} Blakeslee,
2733: J.~P., Anderson, K.~R., Meurer, G.~R., Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N., \& Magee,
2734: D.\ 2003a, ASP Conf.~Ser.~295: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and
2735: Systems XII, 12, 257
2736: \bibitem[Bolton \& Haehnelt(2007)]{2007astro.ph..3306B} Bolton, J.~S., \&
2737: Haehnelt, M.~G.\ 2007, astro-ph/0703306
2738: \bibitem[Bouwens, Broadhurst and Silk (1998)]{1998ApJ...506..557B} Bouwens,
2739: R., Broadhurst, T.\ and Silk, J.\ 1998a, \apj, 506, 557
2740: \bibitem[Bouwens, Broadhurst and Silk (1998)]{1998ApJ...506..579B}
2741: Bouwens, R., Broadhurst, T.\ and Silk, J.\ 1998b, \apj, 506, 579.
2742: \bibitem[Bouwens, Broadhurst, \&
2743: Illingworth(2003)]{2003ApJ...593..640B} Bouwens, R., Broadhurst, T.,
2744: \& Illingworth, G.\ 2003a, \apj, 593, 640
2745: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...595..589B} Bouwens, R.~J., et
2746: al.\ 2003b, \apj, 595, 589
2747: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...606L..25B} Bouwens, R.~J., et al.\
2748: 2004a, \apjl, 606, L25
2749: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.\ 2004]{b2004b} Bouwens, R.~J., Illingworth,
2750: G.D., Blakeslee, J.P., Broadhurst, T.J., \& Franx, M. 2004b, \apjl,
2751: 611, L1
2752: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.\ 2004]{b2004c} Bouwens, R.~J., et al.\ 2004c, \apjl,
2753: 616, L79
2754: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.\ 2005]{b2005} Bouwens, R.~J., Illingworth,
2755: G.D., Thompson, R.I., \& Franx, M. 2005, \apj, 624, L5
2756: \bibitem[Bouwens et al. 2006]{Bouwens} Bouwens, R.J., Illingworth,
2757: G.D., Blakeslee, J.P., \& Franx, M. 2006, \apj, 653, 53 (B06)
2758: \bibitem[Bouwens \& Illingworth(2006)]{2006Natur.443..189B} Bouwens, R.~J.,
2759: \& Illingworth, G.~D.\ 2006, \nat, 443, 189.
2760: \bibitem[Brammer \& van Dokkum(2007)]{2007ApJ...654L.107B} Brammer, G.~B.,
2761: \& van Dokkum, P.~G.\ 2007, \apjl, 654, L107
2762: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{2003MNRAS.344.1000B} Bruzual, G., \&
2763: Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
2764: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...625..621B} Bundy, K., Ellis, R.~S.,
2765: \& Conselice, C.~J.\ 2005, \apj, 625, 621
2766: \bibitem[Bunker, Stanway, Ellis, \& McMahon(2004)]{2004MNRAS.355..374B}
2767: Bunker, A.~J., Stanway, E.~R., Ellis, R.~S., \& McMahon, R.~G.\ 2004,
2768: \mnras, 355, 374
2769: \bibitem[Calzetti et al.(1994)]{1994ApJ...429..582C} Calzetti, D., Kinney,
2770: A.~L., \& Storchi-Bergmann, T.\ 1994, \apj, 429, 582
2771: \bibitem[Coe et al.(2006)]{2006AJ....132..926C} Coe, D., Ben{\'{\i}}tez,
2772: N., S{\'a}nchez, S.~F., Jee, M., Bouwens, R., \& Ford, H.\ 2006, \aj, 132,
2773: 926
2774: \bibitem[Cowie et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....112..839C} Cowie, L.~L., Songaila,
2775: A., Hu, E.~M., \& Cohen, J.~G.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 839
2776: \bibitem[Cross et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....128.1990C} Cross, N.~J.~G., et al.\
2777: 2004, \aj, 128, 1990
2778: \bibitem[Dahlen et al.(2006)]{2006astro.ph..9016D} Dahlen, T., Mobasher,
2779: B., Dickinson, M., Ferguson, H.~C., Giavalisco, M., Kretchmer, C., \&
2780: Ravindranath, S.\ 2006, \apj, 654, 172
2781: \bibitem[Deharveng et al.(2001)]{2001A&A...375..805D} Deharveng, J.-M.,
2782: Buat, V., Le Brun, V., Milliard, B., Kunth, D., Shull, J.~M., \& Gry, C.\
2783: 2001, \aap, 375, 805
2784: \bibitem[Dijkstra et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...601..666D} Dijkstra, M., Haiman,
2785: Z., Rees, M.~J., \& Weinberg, D.~H.\ 2004, \apj, 601, 666
2786: \bibitem[Dow-Hygelund et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...660...47D} Dow-Hygelund,
2787: C.~C., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 660, 47
2788: \bibitem[Efstathiou et al.(1988)]{1988MNRAS.232..431E} Efstathiou, G.,
2789: Ellis, R.~S., \& Peterson, B.~A.\ 1988, \mnras, 232, 431
2790: \bibitem[Erb et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...646..107E} Erb, D.~K., Steidel, C.~C.,
2791: Shapley, A.~E., Pettini, M., Reddy, N.~A., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2006,
2792: \apj, 646, 107
2793: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....123.1247F} Fan, X., Narayanan, V.~K.,
2794: Strauss, M.~A., White, R.~L., Becker, R.~H., Pentericci, L., \& Rix, H.\
2795: 2002, \aj, 123, 1247
2796: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2006)]{2005astro.ph.12082F} Fan, X., et al.\ 2005,
2797: \aj, 132, 117
2798: \bibitem[Fern{\' a}ndez-Soto, Lanzetta, \& Chen(2003)]{2003MNRAS.342.1215F}
2799: Fern{\' a}ndez-Soto, A., Lanzetta, K.~M., \& Chen, H.-W.\ 2003, \mnras,
2800: 342, 1215
2801: \bibitem[Finlator et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...639..672F} Finlator, K.,
2802: Dav{\'e}, R., Papovich, C., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2006, \apj, 639, 672
2803: \bibitem[F{\"o}rster Schreiber et al.(2006)]{2006AJ....131.1891F}
2804: F{\"o}rster Schreiber, N.~M., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1891
2805: \bibitem[Franx et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...587L..79F} Franx, M., et al.\ 2003,
2806: \apjl, 587, L79
2807: \bibitem[Gabasch et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...421...41G} Gabasch, A., et al.\
2808: 2004, \aap, 421, 41
2809: \bibitem[Giallongo, Cristiani, D'Odorico, \&
2810: Fontana(2002)]{2002ApJ...568L...9G} Giallongo, E., Cristiani, S.,
2811: D'Odorico, S., \& Fontana, A.\ 2002, \apjl, 568, L9
2812: \bibitem[Giavalisco et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...600L..93G} Giavalisco, M., et
2813: al.\ 2004a, \apjl, 600, L93
2814: \bibitem[Giavalisco et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...600L.103G} Giavalisco, M., et
2815: al.\ 2004b, \apjl, 600, L103
2816: \bibitem[Giavalisco(2005)]{2005NewAR..49..440G} Giavalisco, M.\ 2005, New
2817: Astronomy Review, 49, 440
2818: \bibitem[Hurwitz, Jelinsky, \& Dixon(1997)]{1997ApJ...481L..31H} Hurwitz,
2819: M., Jelinsky, P., \& Dixon, W.~V.~D.\ 1997, \apjl, 481, L31
2820: \bibitem[Iliev et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.369.1625I} Iliev, I.~T., Mellema,
2821: G., Pen, U.-L., Merz, H., Shapiro, P.~R., \& Alvarez, M.~A.\ 2006, \mnras,
2822: 369, 1625
2823: \bibitem[Inoue et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...435..471I} Inoue, A.~K., Iwata, I.,
2824: Deharveng, J.-M., Buat, V., \& Burgarella, D.\ 2005, \aap, 435, 471
2825: \bibitem[Iwata et al.(2003)]{2003PASJ...55..415I} Iwata, I., Ohta, K.,
2826: Tamura, N., Ando, M., Wada, S., Watanabe, C., Akiyama, M., \& Aoki, K.\
2827: 2003, \pasj, 55, 415
2828: \bibitem[Iwata et al.(2006)]{2003PASJ..} Iwata, I., Ohta, K., Tamura,
2829: N., Akiyama, M., Aoki, K., Ando, M., Kiuchi, G., \& Sawicki, M. 2007,
2830: \mnras, in press, astro-ph/0701841
2831: \bibitem[Kodama et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.350.1005K} Kodama, T., et al.\
2832: 2004, \mnras, 350, 1005
2833: \bibitem[Kron(1980)]{1980ApJS...43..305K} Kron, R.\ G.\ 1980, \apjs, 43,
2834: 305
2835: \bibitem[Labb{\'e} et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125.1107L} Labb{\'e}, I., et
2836: al.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1107
2837: \bibitem[labbe et al.(2006)]{2006astro.ph..8444L} Labb\'{e}, I., Bouwens, R.,
2838: Illingworth, G.~D., \& Franx, M.\ 2006, \apjl, 649, 67
2839: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...642...63L} Lee, K.-S., Giavalisco, M.,
2840: Gnedin, O.~Y., Somerville, R.~S., Ferguson, H.~C., Dickinson, M., \& Ouchi,
2841: M.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 63
2842: \bibitem[Le F{\`e}vre et al.(2005)]{2005Natur.437..519L} Le F{\`e}vre, O.,
2843: et al.\ 2005, \nat, 437, 519
2844: \bibitem[Lehnert \& Bremer(2003)]{2003ApJ...593..630L} Lehnert, M.~D.~\&
2845: Bremer, M.\ 2003, \apj, 593, 630
2846: \bibitem[Leitherer, Ferguson, Heckman, \&
2847: Lowenthal(1995)]{1995ApJ...454L..19L} Leitherer, C., Ferguson, H.~C.,
2848: Heckman, T.~M., \& Lowenthal, J.~D.\ 1995, \apjl, 454, L19
2849: \bibitem[Madau(1995)]{1995ApJ...441...18M} Madau, P.\ 1995, \apj, 441, 18
2850: \bibitem[Madau et al.\ 1998]{mad98} Madau, P., Pozzetti, L. \&
2851: Dickinson, M. 1998, \apj, 498, 106
2852: \bibitem[Madau, Haardt, \& Rees(1999)]{1999ApJ...514..648M} Madau, P.,
2853: Haardt, F., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1999, \apj, 514, 648
2854: \bibitem[Malhotra et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...626..666M} Malhotra, S., et al.\
2855: 2005, \apj, 626, 666
2856: \bibitem[Malkan, Webb, \& Konopacky(2003)]{2003ApJ...598..878M} Malkan, M.,
2857: Webb, W., \& Konopacky, Q.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 878
2858: \bibitem[Mannucci et al. (2006)]{mannucci} Mannucci, F., Buttery, H.,
2859: Maiolino, R., Marconi, A. \& Pozzetti, L. 2006, \aap, 461, 423
2860: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...619L...1M} Martin, D.~C., et al.\
2861: 2005a, \apjl, 619, L1
2862: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...619L..59M} Martin, D.~C., et al.\
2863: 2005b, \apjl, 619, L59
2864: \bibitem[McIntosh et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...632..191M} McIntosh, D.~H., et
2865: al.\ 2005, \apj, 632, 191
2866: \bibitem[Meiksin(2005)]{2005MNRAS.356..596M} Meiksin, A.\ 2005, \mnras,
2867: 356, 596
2868: \bibitem[Meurer et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...521...64M} Meurer, G.~R., Heckman,
2869: T.~M., \& Calzetti, D.\ 1999, \apj, 521, 64
2870: \bibitem[Nagamine et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.350..385N} Nagamine, K.,
2871: Springel, V., Hernquist, L., \& Machacek, M.\ 2004, \mnras, 350, 385
2872: \bibitem[Night et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.366..705N} Night, C., Nagamine, K.,
2873: Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 705
2874: \bibitem[Noeske et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...660L..47N} Noeske, K.~G., et al.\
2875: 2007, \apjl, 660, L47
2876: \bibitem[Oesch et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0706.2653O} Oesch, P.~A., et al.\
2877: 2007, \apj, submitted, astro-ph/0706.2653
2878: \bibitem[Oke \& Gunn(1983)]{1983ApJ...266..713O} Oke, J.~B., \& Gunn,
2879: J.~E.\ 1983, \apj, 266, 713
2880: \bibitem[Oppenheimer \& Dav{\'e}(2006)]{2006MNRAS.373.1265O} Oppenheimer,
2881: B.~D., \& Dav{\'e}, R.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 1265
2882: \bibitem[Ouchi et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...611..660O} Ouchi, M., et al.\ 2004,
2883: \apj, 611, 660
2884: \bibitem[Overzier et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...648L...5O} Overzier, R.~A.,
2885: Bouwens, R.~J., Illingworth, G.~D., \& Franx, M.\ 2006, \apjl, 648, L5
2886: \bibitem[Page et al.(2006)]{2006astro.ph..3450P} Page, L., et al.\
2887: 2006, \apj, in press, astro-ph/0603450
2888: \bibitem[Paltani et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...463..873P} Paltani, S., et al.\
2889: 2007, \aap, 463, 873
2890: \bibitem[Pei(1995)]{1995ApJ...438..623P} Pei, Y.~C.\ 1995, \apj, 438, 623
2891: \bibitem[Read et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.371..885R} Read, J.~I., Pontzen,
2892: A.~P., \& Viel, M.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 885
2893: \bibitem[Reddy \& Steidel(2004)]{2004ApJ...603L..13R} Reddy, N.~A., \&
2894: Steidel, C.~C.\ 2004, \apjl, 603, L13
2895: \bibitem[Reddy et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...633..748R} Reddy, N.~A., Erb, D.~K.,
2896: Steidel, C.~C., Shapley, A.~E., Adelberger, K.~L., \& Pettini, M.\ 2005,
2897: \apj, 633, 748
2898: \bibitem[Reddy et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...644..792R} Reddy, N.~A., Steidel,
2899: C.~C., Fadda, D., Yan, L., Pettini, M., Shapley, A.~E., Erb, D.~K., \&
2900: Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 792
2901: \bibitem[Reddy et al. 2007]{2007...} Reddy, N.A., Steidel, C.C.,
2902: Pettini, M., Adelberger, K.L., Shapley, A.E., Erb, D.K., \& Dickinson,
2903: M. 2007, \apjs, in press, astro-ph/0706.4091
2904: \bibitem[Samui et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.377..285S} Samui, S., Srianand, R.,
2905: \& Subramanian, K.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 285
2906: \bibitem[Sandage, Tammann, \& Yahil(1979)]{1979ApJ...232..352S} Sandage,
2907: A., Tammann, G.~A., \& Yahil, A.\ 1979, \apj, 232, 352
2908: \bibitem[Sawicki \& Thompson(2006)]{2006ApJ...642..653S} Sawicki, M., \&
2909: Thompson, D.\ 2006a, \apj, 642, 653
2910: \bibitem[Sawicki \& Thompson(2006)]{2006ApJ...648..299S} Sawicki, M., \&
2911: Thompson, D.\ 2006b, \apj, 648, 299
2912: \bibitem[Schiminovich et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...619L..47S} Schiminovich, D.,
2913: et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L47
2914: \bibitem[Shapley et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...588...65S} Shapley, A.~E.,
2915: Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 65
2916: \bibitem[Shapley et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...651..688S} Shapley, A.~E.,
2917: Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K.~L., \& Erb, D.~K.\ 2006, \apj,
2918: 651, 688
2919: \bibitem[Sheth \& Tormen(1999)]{1999MNRAS.308..119S} Sheth, R.~K.~\&
2920: Tormen, G.\ 1999, \mnras, 308, 119
2921: \bibitem[Shimasaku et al.(2005)]{2005PASJ...57..447S} Shimasaku, K., Ouchi,
2922: M., Furusawa, H., Yoshida, M., Kashikawa, N., \& Okamura, S.\ 2005, \pasj,
2923: 57, 447
2924: \bibitem[Shimasaku et al.(2006)]{2006PASJ...58..313S} Shimasaku, K., et
2925: al.\ 2006, \pasj, 58, 313
2926: \bibitem[Shull \& Venkatesan(2007)]{2007astro.ph..2323S} Shull, M., \&
2927: Venkatesan, A.\ 2007, \apj, submitted, astro-ph/0702323
2928: \bibitem[Sirianni et al.(2005)]{2005PASP..117.1049S} Sirianni, M., et al.\
2929: 2005, \pasp, 117, 1049
2930: \bibitem[Sokasian et al.(2003)]{2003MNRAS.344..607S} Sokasian, A., Abel,
2931: T., Hernquist, L., \& Springel, V.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 607
2932: \bibitem[Somerville et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...600L.171S} Somerville, R.~S.,
2933: Lee, K., Ferguson, H.~C., Gardner, J.~P., Moustakas, L.~A., \& Giavalisco,
2934: M.\ 2004, \apjl, 600, L171
2935: \bibitem[Songaila(2004)]{2004AJ....127.2598S} Songaila, A.\ 2004, \aj, 127,
2936: 2598
2937: \bibitem[Spergel]{} Spergel, D.N., et al. 2006, \apj, in press,
2938: astro-ph/0603449
2939: \bibitem[Springel \& Hernquist(2003)]{2003MNRAS.339..289S} Springel, V., \&
2940: Hernquist, L.\ 2003, \mnras, 339, 289
2941: \bibitem[Stanway, Bunker, \& McMahon(2003)]{2003MNRAS.342..439S}
2942: Stanway, E.~R., Bunker, A.~J., \& McMahon, R.~G.\ 2003, \mnras, 342,
2943: 439
2944: \bibitem[Stanway et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...604L..13S} Stanway, E.~R., et al.\
2945: 2004, \apjl, 604, L13
2946: \bibitem[Stanway et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.359.1184S} Stanway, E.~R.,
2947: McMahon, R.~G., \& Bunker, A.~J.\ 2005, \mnras, 359, 1184
2948: \bibitem[Stark et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659...84S} Stark, D.~P., Bunker,
2949: A.~J., Ellis, R.~S., Eyles, L.~P., \& Lacy, M.\ 2007a, \apj, 659, 84
2950: \bibitem[Stark et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...663...10S} Stark, D.~P., Ellis,
2951: R.~S., Richard, J., Kneib, J.-P., Smith, G.~P., \& Santos, M.~R.\ 2007b,
2952: \apj, 663, 10
2953: \bibitem[Stark et al.(2007)]{2007stark} Stark, D.~P., Loeb, A., \&
2954: Ellis, R.~S. 2007c, \apj, submitted, astro-ph/0701882
2955: \bibitem[Steidel et al.\ (1999)]{1999ApJ...519....1S} Steidel, C.\ C.,
2956: Adelberger, K.\ L., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M.\ and Pettini, M.\ 1999,
2957: \apj, 519, 1
2958: \bibitem[Steidel, Pettini, \& Adelberger(2001)]{2001ApJ...546..665S}
2959: Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2001, \apj, 546, 665
2960: \bibitem[Stiavelli, Fall, \& Panagia(2004)]{2004ApJ...610L...1S} Stiavelli,
2961: M., Fall, S.~M., \& Panagia, N.\ 2004, \apjl, 610, L1
2962: \bibitem[Sullivan et al.(2000)]{2000MNRAS.312..442S} Sullivan, M., Treyer,
2963: M.~A., Ellis, R.~S., Bridges, T.~J., Milliard, B., \& Donas, J.\ 2000,
2964: \mnras, 312, 442
2965: \bibitem[Szalay et al.(1999)]{1999AJ....117...68S} Szalay, A.~S., Connolly,
2966: A.~J., \& Szokoly, G.~P.\ 1999, \aj, 117, 68
2967: \bibitem[Thompson et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....130....1T} Thompson, R.~I., et
2968: al.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 1
2969: \bibitem[Tresse et al.(2006)]{2006astro.ph..9005T} Tresse, L., et al.\
2970: 2006, \aap, submitted, astro-ph/0609005
2971: \bibitem[Treu et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...622L...5T} Treu, T., Ellis, R.~S.,
2972: Liao, T.~X., \& van Dokkum, P.~G.\ 2005, \apjl, 622, L5
2973: \bibitem[Ueda et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...598..886U} Ueda, Y., Akiyama, M.,
2974: Ohta, K., \& Miyaji, T.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 886
2975: \bibitem[Vale \& Ostriker(2004)]{2004MNRAS.353..189V} Vale, A., \&
2976: Ostriker, J.~P.\ 2004, \mnras, 353, 189
2977: \bibitem[van der Wel et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...631..145V} van der Wel, A.,
2978: Franx, M., van Dokkum, P.~G., Rix, H.-W., Illingworth, G.~D., \& Rosati,
2979: P.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 145
2980: \bibitem[van Dokkum et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...638L..59V} van Dokkum, P.~G.,
2981: et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 638, L59
2982: \bibitem[Vanzella et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...454..423V} Vanzella, E., et al.\
2983: 2006, \aap, 454, 423
2984: \bibitem[Verma et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.377.1024V} Verma, A., Lehnert,
2985: M.~D., F{\"o}rster Schreiber, N.~M., Bremer, M.~N., \& Douglas, L.\ 2007,
2986: \mnras, 377, 1024
2987: \bibitem[Wang \& Heckman(1996)]{1996ApJ...457..645W} Wang, B., \& Heckman,
2988: T.~M.\ 1996, \apj, 457, 645
2989: \bibitem[White, Becker, Fan, \& Strauss(2003)]{2003AJ....126....1W} White,
2990: R.~L., Becker, R.~H., Fan, X., \& Strauss, M.~A.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 1
2991: \bibitem[Wyder et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...619L..15W} Wyder, T.~K., et al.\
2992: 2005, \apjl, 619, L15
2993: \bibitem[Wyithe \& Loeb(2006)]{2006Natur.441..322W} Wyithe, J.~S.~B., \&
2994: Loeb, A.\ 2006, \nat, 441, 322
2995: \bibitem[Yan \& Windhorst(2004)]{2004ApJ...600L...1Y} Yan, H.~\& Windhorst,
2996: R.~A.\ 2004a, \apjl, 600, L1
2997: \bibitem[Yan \& Windhorst(2004)]{2004ApJ...612L..93Y} Yan, H.~\& Windhorst,
2998: R.~A.\ 2004b, \apjl, 612, L93
2999: \bibitem[Yan et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...634..109Y} Yan, H., et al.\ 2005,
3000: \apj, 634, 109
3001: \bibitem[Yoshida, M.]{2004} Yoshida, M., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 988
3002: \end{thebibliography}
3003:
3004: \appendix
3005:
3006: \section{A. LF determinations}
3007:
3008: \subsection{A.1 Modelling Incompleteness and Photometric Scatter}
3009:
3010: To compare the expectations of the model LFs with the surface
3011: densities of dropouts observed, we need to be able to include the
3012: effect of incompleteness and photometric scatter in our calculations.
3013: We will accomplish this by computing corrections which transform the
3014: surface density of dropouts from that recoverable in noise-free
3015: (infinite S/N) data to that recoverable in each of the fields
3016: considered in our study. We employ a two part strategy: first
3017: deriving corrections necessary to transform the dropout surface
3018: densities from what we would recover for noise-free data to that
3019: recoverable in our HUDF selections and second deriving corrections to
3020: transform these surface densities from HUDF depth data to that
3021: recoverable in even shallower data. Our use of a two part strategy
3022: enables us to ensure that the corrections we derive for the shallower
3023: selections are extremely model independent (the most notable
3024: corrections being derived from degradation experiments).
3025:
3026: Both corrections are implemented using a set of transfer functions,
3027: which correct the surface density of dropouts recoverable in deeper
3028: data to that recoverable in shallower data. We express these transfer
3029: functions as two-dimensional matrices, with the rows and the columns
3030: of these matrices indicating specific magnitude bins in the deeper and
3031: shallower data, respectively. Elements in these matrices indicate the
3032: fraction of galaxies with specific magnitudes in the deeper data
3033: recovered to have some other magnitude in the shallower data (see
3034: below). These transfer functions can then be applied to the surface
3035: density of dropouts in a given field, expressed as one dimensional
3036: vectors, through simple matrix multiplication. For our $B$ and
3037: $V$-dropout selections, the axes of these matrices are given in terms
3038: of the $i_{775}$ and $z_{850}$ band magnitudes, respectively. These
3039: bands most closely correspond to flux at an approximately constant
3040: rest-frame wavelength ($1600\,\AA$) at the mean redshift of our
3041: samples ($z\sim3.8$ and $z\sim5$, respectively) and are not affected
3042: by attenuation from the Ly$\alpha$ forest. For our $i$-dropout
3043: selections, we express these transfer functions in terms of the total
3044: magnitude in the $z_{850}$-band, which corresponds to rest-frame
3045: $1350\,\AA$.
3046:
3047: As noted, our first set of corrections is designed to correct the
3048: surface density of dropouts from what we would recover with noiseless
3049: (infinite depth) data to what we would recover in our HUDF selections.
3050: We will restrict these corrections to a modelling of the flux biases
3051: and photometric scatter -- since completeness will be handled
3052: separately using a separate factor $P(m,z)$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:numcount}
3053: in \S3.1). Modelling this scatter is important because of the
3054: tendency for fainter, lower significance sources to scatter into our
3055: selection through a Malmquist-like effect. To quantify this effect,
3056: we ran a series of simulations where we took $B$-dropout galaxies from
3057: the HUDF, artificially redshifted them across the redshift selection
3058: windows of our samples using our well-tested cloning software (Bouwens
3059: et al.\ 1998a,b; Bouwens et al. 2003a), measured their photometry off
3060: of the simulated frames, and finally reselected these sources using
3061: our dropout criteria. By comparing the input magnitudes with those
3062: recovered, we were able to construct the transfer functions, which
3063: successfully incorporated the photometric scatter present in the real
3064: data. The assumptions we use in these simulations (e.g.,
3065: size-redshift scalings, colours) are the same as those given in
3066: Appendix A.3.
3067:
3068: Now we derive corrections to take selections made with the HUDF data
3069: to similar selections made with shallower data. We accomplish this
3070: through a straightforward procedure, degrading the HUDF data to the
3071: depths of our shallower data and then repeating our selection and
3072: photometry at both depths. We perform these experiments for all three
3073: dropout samples and between the HUDF and all of our shallower fields
3074: (GOODS, HUDF-Ps, HUDF05). Again, we express the results of these
3075: experiments as transfer functions, which correct the surface density
3076: of dropouts from what we would recover in the deeper data to that
3077: recoverable in shallower data. To improve the statistics at bright
3078: magnitudes, we performed similar degradation experiments on our other
3079: deep fields (e.g., HUDF-Ps and HUDF05) and used those results at
3080: magnitudes where those fields appear to be essentially complete (i.e.,
3081: AB mag $<26$). The transfer functions were binned on 0.1-mag
3082: intervals, and then smoothed along the diagonal. The smoothing length
3083: was set so that at least 20 sources from the input images contributed
3084: to each element in the matrix. An illustration of one of the transfer
3085: functions we derived using this procedure is shown in
3086: Figure~\ref{fig:transf}. Typical fluxes recovered from our GOODS data
3087: set were $\sim0.1$ mag fainter than in the HUDF, with a completeness
3088: of $\gtrsim90$\% at $z_{850,AB}\sim25.5$ and $\sim50-70$\% at
3089: $z_{850,AB}\sim26.5$. Flux biases in our deeper HUDF-Ps and HUDF05
3090: data were somewhat smaller in general at brighter magnitudes, and
3091: significant incompleteness did not set in until $i_{775,AB}\sim27.5$
3092: in our $B$-dropout selections and $z_{850,AB}\sim27.5$ in our
3093: $V$-dropout and $i$-dropout selections.
3094:
3095:
3096: \begin{figure}
3097: \epsscale{0.99}
3098: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=3in]{transf.ps}
3099: \caption{One of the transfer functions that we use in our analysis
3100: (see Appendix A.1). This transfer functions allow us to calculate the
3101: surface density of galaxies that would be identified at a given
3102: magnitude in shallower data (here the ACS GOODS data) given a specific
3103: surface density of dropouts in a deeper data set (here the ACS HUDF
3104: data). The transfer function plotted here is for a $B$-dropout
3105: selection and is binned on 0.1-mag intervals.\label{fig:transf}}
3106: \end{figure}
3107:
3108: %We estimated these corrections through a stacking analysis, reasoning
3109: %that through stacking, we can obtain a better measure of the total
3110: %photometry of sources of a given magnitude than we can analyzing the
3111: %faint sources individually. Separating dropouts in the HUDF as a
3112: %function of magnitude and stacking the sources, we performed
3113: %photometry on both the stacks and each of the sources in these stacks
3114: %individually and then compared the results. We found a $\sim0.03$ mag
3115: %faintward bias in the measured magnitudes of individual sources at
3116: %bright magnitudes ($i_{775,AB},z_{850,AB}\lesssim27.5$) and a
3117: %$\sim0.1$ mag bias at fainter magnitudes
3118: %($i_{775,AB},z_{850,AB}\gtrsim27.5$). To assess the reasonability of
3119: %these flux corrections, we compared these results with XXXX. For
3120: %simplicity, we expressed these corrections using the same type of
3121: % transfer functions we used for our first set of corrections and at the
3122: % same magnitude resolution (0.1 mag).
3123:
3124: \subsection{A.2. Evaluating the Likelihood of Model LFs}
3125:
3126: In this paper (\S3), we evaluate candidate LFs by comparing the
3127: predicted dropout counts from these LFs with that found in our
3128: different fields. We compute the dropout counts from the LFs using a
3129: two step procedure: first calculating the number of galaxies we would
3130: expect in our deepest selection the HUDF using Eq.~\ref{eq:numcount}
3131: and then correcting this for photometric scatter and incompleteness
3132: using the transfer functions we derived in Appendix A.1.
3133:
3134: To perform the integral in Eq.~\ref{eq:numcount}, we recast it in
3135: discrete form
3136: \begin{equation}
3137: \Sigma _k \phi_k V_{m,k} = N_m
3138: \label{eq:numcountf}
3139: \end{equation}
3140: $N_m$ is the number counts binned in 0.1 mag intervals $\int _{m-0.05}
3141: ^{m+0.05} N(m') dm'$, $\Sigma \phi_k W(M-M_k)$ is the LF binned on 0.1
3142: mag intervals, and $V_{m,k}$ is an effective volume-type kernel which
3143: can be used to calculate the number counts $N_m$ given some LF. It is
3144: calculated as
3145: \begin{equation}
3146: V_{m,k} = \int _z \int _{m-0.05} ^{m+0.05} W(M(m',z) - M_k) P(m',z)
3147: \frac{dV}{dz} dm' dz
3148: \label{eq:vmk}
3149: \end{equation}
3150: where
3151: \begin{equation}
3152: W(x) =
3153: \begin{array}{cc}
3154: 0, & x < -0.05\\
3155: 1, & -0.05 < x < 0.05\\
3156: 0, & x > 0.05
3157: \end{array}
3158: \end{equation}
3159:
3160: Because of the minimal k-correction required in using the
3161: $i_{775}$-band fluxes of $z\sim4$ $B$-dropouts to derive luminosities
3162: at rest-frame $\sim1600\,\AA$ and in using the $z_{850}$-band fluxes
3163: of $z\sim5$ $V$-dropouts to derive luminosities at $\sim1600\,\AA$ (no
3164: Lyman forest absorption to consider), there is a fairly tight
3165: relationship between apparent and absolute magnitudes in our $z\sim4$
3166: and $z\sim5$ determinations (the only sizeable differences are due to
3167: small changes in the distance modulus: see Figure~\ref{fig:selfunc}).
3168: The only elements which are non-zero in the kernel $V_{m,k}$ span a
3169: small range in magnitude ($\Delta m \sim 0.3$ mag). At $z\sim6$,
3170: there is no deep wide-area imaging which probes rest-frame
3171: $\sim$1600$\,\AA$ for $i$-dropouts, and therefore we must resort to
3172: examining galaxy luminosities at a slightly bluer wavelength (i.e.,
3173: $\sim$1350$\,\AA$) using the $z_{850}$-band fluxes of $i$-dropouts.
3174: Since the $z_{850}$-band flux is affected by attenuation from the
3175: Lyman forest, the relationship between the apparent and absolute
3176: magnitudes is considerably less tight (see Figure~\ref{fig:selfunc}),
3177: so the non-zero elements in the kernel $V_{m,k}$ span a much wider
3178: range in magnitude (i.e., $\Delta m \gtrsim 1.5$ mag: see Figure 7 of
3179: B06).
3180:
3181: To incorporate the effects of incompleteness and photometric scatter
3182: on our results, we need to modify Eq.~\ref{eq:numcountf} to include
3183: the transfer functions we computed in Appendix A.1. The resultant formula is
3184: \begin{equation}
3185: \Sigma _{l,k} \phi_k T_{m,l} V_{l,k} = N_m
3186: \label{eq:numcountg}
3187: \end{equation}
3188: where $T_{m,l}$ are the transfer functions we derived in Appendix A.1 to take
3189: galaxies from a true total magnitude of $l$ to an observed total
3190: magnitude of $m$. This is the equation we use throughout our analysis
3191: in computing the surface density of dropouts in a given field from a
3192: model LF.
3193:
3194: With the ability to calculate the number counts $N(m)$ given a LF, we
3195: need some means to decide which model LF fits our data the best. Our
3196: two primary approaches, STY79 and SWML, accomplish this by maximizing
3197: the likelihood of reproducing the distribution of galaxies as a
3198: function of magnitude. Since we consider the surface density of
3199: galaxies over multiple fields in our analysis, we express this
3200: likelihood {\cal L} as a simple product
3201: \begin{equation}
3202: {\cal L} = \Pi_{field} (\Pi_i p(m_i))
3203: \label{eq:likelihood}
3204: \end{equation}
3205: where
3206: \begin{equation}
3207: p(m_i)=\left(\frac{n_{expected,i}}{\Sigma_j n_{expected,j}}
3208: \right)^{n_{observed,i}}.
3209: \end{equation}
3210: and $n_{observed,i}$ is the number of sources observed in the
3211: magnitude interval $i$ and $n_{expected,j}$ is the number of sources
3212: expected in the magnitude interval $j$. In Eq.~\ref{eq:likelihood},
3213: note that we only include magnitude intervals $i$ where
3214: $n_{observed,i}$ is positive. The value of $n_{expected,i}$ has no
3215: bearing on whether a magnitude interval $i$ is included or not.
3216:
3217: \subsection{A.3. Selection Efficiencies}
3218:
3219: In the determinations of the LF we performed in this paper, it was
3220: essential for us to account for the efficiency with which we can
3221: select dropouts in our data. We computed this efficiency as a
3222: function of redshift $z$ and the apparent magnitude $m$ of the
3223: star-forming galaxy in question. We establish these selection
3224: efficiencies for galaxies in the HUDF since we reference our shallower
3225: selections to the HUDF through transfer functions (Appendix A.1). The
3226: apparent magnitudes here are in the same passband as we use to bin our
3227: dropout samples, i.e., the $i_{775}$ band for our $B$-dropout sample,
3228: the $z_{850}$ band for our $V$-dropout sample, and the $z_{850}$ band
3229: for $i$-dropout sample.
3230:
3231: We estimate the selection efficiencies $P(m,z)$ using our well-tested
3232: cloning software (Bouwens et al.\ 1998a,b; Bouwens et al.\ 2003a;
3233: R.J. Bouwens et al.\ 2007, in preparation) to project individual
3234: sources from our $z\sim4$ HUDF $B$-dropout sample across the redshift
3235: range of our high-redshift samples. In calculating the selection
3236: efficiencies $P(m,z)$ for our $z\sim4$ $B$-dropout selection, our
3237: projected $B$-dropout sample was taken to have mean $UV$ continuum
3238: slopes $\beta$ of $-1.5$ at $L_{z=3}^{*}$ $UV$ luminosities, but
3239: steeper mean $UV$ continuum slopes $\beta$ of $-2.1$ at lower $UV$
3240: luminosities ($<0.1L_{z=3}^{*}$) while at intermediate luminosities
3241: the mean $\beta$ is varied smoothly between these two extremes. This
3242: is to account for the fact that $UV$ luminous galaxies at high-redshift
3243: ($z\sim2-4$) are found to have redder $UV$ continuum slopes
3244: (Adelberger \& Steidel 2000; Ouchi et al.\ 2004) than lower luminosity
3245: galaxies at these redshifts (Meurer et al.\ 1999; Beckwith et al.\
3246: 2006; Iwata et al.\ 2007; R.J. Bouwens et al.\ 2007, in preparation).
3247: For our $z\sim5$ $V$-dropout and $z\sim6$ $i$-dropout selections, the
3248: mean $UV$-continuum slope of galaxies was taken to be $-2.0$ to match
3249: the bluer observed colours for these sources (Lehnert \& Bremer 2003;
3250: Stanway et al.\ 2005; B06; Yan et al.\ 2005). The $1\sigma$ scatter
3251: in the $\beta$ distribution was taken to be 0.6, which gives a good
3252: fit to the observed colours. Instead of using simple power laws to
3253: represent model SEDs of given $UV$ continuum slope $\beta$, we elected
3254: to use $10^8$-yr continuous star-formation models (Bruzual \& Charlot
3255: 2003) where the dust extinction (Calzetti et al.\ 1994) is varied to
3256: reproduce the model slopes. This should provide for a slightly more
3257: realistic representation of the SEDs of star-forming galaxies at
3258: $z\sim4-5$ than can be obtained from simple power law spectra. The
3259: sizes of $B$-dropouts in our simulations are scaled as $(1+z)^{-1.1}$
3260: (for fixed luminosity) to match the observed size-redshift
3261: relationship (B06; see also Bouwens et al.\ 2004b; Ferguson et al.\
3262: 2004).
3263:
3264: We include the opacity from the Lyman series line and continuum
3265: absorption from neutral hydrogen using the Monte-Carlo approach of
3266: Bershady et al.\ (1999). With this approach, absorbers are randomly
3267: laid down along the line of sight to each model galaxy according to a
3268: distribution of HI column densities and then the colours computed
3269: based upon the net opacity in a given passband. For the distribution
3270: of column densities, we adopt that given in Eq. (10) of Madau (1995),
3271: but modified so that the volume densities of absorbers varied much
3272: more rapidly with redshift, i.e., as $\sim(1+z)^3$ instead of
3273: $\sim(1+z)^2$. The latter change was necessary to match the
3274: substantial Lyman decrements measured by Songaila (2004) for very
3275: high-redshift ($z\gtrsim5$) quasars.
3276:
3277: The resultant selection functions $P(m,z)$ for our $B$, $V$, and
3278: $i$-dropout samples are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:selfunc}.
3279:
3280: \begin{figure*}
3281: \epsscale{1.18}
3282: \plotone{selfunc.ps}
3283: \caption{Selection functions $P(m,z)$ for our HUDF $B$, $V$, and
3284: $i$-dropout samples (\textit{top, middle, and bottom panels,
3285: respectively}). These functions were estimated by artificially
3286: redshifting HUDF $B$-dropouts over the redshift intervals of our
3287: samples $z\sim3-7$, adding them to the HUDF data, and then attempting
3288: to recover them as dropouts using the procedure described in \S2. The
3289: sizes of sources were scaled as $(1+z)^{-1.1}$ to match the
3290: size-redshift relationship observed at $z\gtrsim3$ for sources of
3291: fixed UV luminosity (e.g., B06; Bouwens et al.\ 2004b; Ferguson et
3292: al.\ 2004). Other details relevant to our simulations are provided in
3293: Appendix A.3. As a result of the covering area of foreground sources
3294: in the HUDF, the selection function $P(m,z)$ never exceeds $\sim0.9$.
3295: The solid black lines show the apparent magnitudes of $0.5L_{z=3}^{*}$
3296: galaxies as a function of redshift. Galaxies at $z\gtrsim6.5$ only
3297: contribute a small fraction of the sources in our $i$-dropout
3298: selection at all $z_{850}$-band magnitudes considered due to the
3299: significant impact of Lyman forest absorption on their apparent
3300: magnitudes. As such, galaxies at $z\gtrsim6.5$ do not provide an
3301: important contribution to the ``effective'' selection volumes for our
3302: $i$-dropout samples.\label{fig:selfunc}}
3303: \end{figure*}
3304:
3305: \section{B. Alternate Determinations of the $UV$ LF at $z\sim4-6$}
3306:
3307: To test the robustness of our LF determinations against the many
3308: significant uncertainties (e.g., large-scale structure and the model
3309: k-corrections) which can affect our results, it is useful to consider
3310: a variety of different approaches in the determination of these LFs.
3311:
3312: In this appendix, we consider seven such approaches. Our first two
3313: approaches employ alternative techniques to cope with large-scale
3314: structure uncertainties and to explore the resulting uncertainties.
3315: Our third approach explores possible uncertainties related to
3316: measuring the rest-frame UV LF at a bluer rest-frame wavelength where
3317: Lyman forest absorption is a concern. Our fourth and fifth approaches
3318: examine the dependence of our LF results on the assumptions we make
3319: about the form of SED templates and Ly$\alpha$ emission. Our sixth
3320: approach explores the dependence of these LF results on different
3321: selection criteria. Finally, with our final approach, we investigate
3322: the effect that an inherent evolution in $M^*$ across the selection
3323: windows of each of our samples would have on our results. A summary
3324: of the LF determinations is provided in Table~\ref{tab:robustlf}.
3325:
3326: \subsection{B.1. $\chi^2$ Method (LSS correction)}
3327:
3328: One of the most significant uncertainties in the determination of the
3329: luminosity function is the effect of large-scale structure (``cosmic
3330: variance''). Large-scale structure can result in significant
3331: variations in the effective normalization of the LF as a function of
3332: position or line of sight. In this paper, we cope with these
3333: variations by fitting for the shape of the LF (i.e., $\alpha$ and
3334: $M^*$) in each of our fields using the STY79 maximum likelihood
3335: procedure. Since the normalization of the LF $\phi^*$ does not factor
3336: into the fits, our determinations of $M^*$ and $\alpha$ should be
3337: robust to the presence of large-scale structure.
3338:
3339: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccc}
3340: \tablewidth{0pt}
3341: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3342: \tablecaption{Surface Densities of $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropouts by
3343: field, to a fixed magnitude limit.\tablenotemark{a}\label{tab:goodsdegrade}}
3344: \tablehead{ \colhead{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Surface Density\tablenotemark{b}}\\
3345: \colhead{Field} & \colhead{$B$-dropouts} & \colhead{$V$-dropouts} & \colhead{$i$-dropouts} }
3346: \startdata
3347: HDFN GOODS & 8.05$\pm$0.22 & 2.23$\pm$0.12 & 0.49$\pm$0.06 \\
3348: CDFS GOODS & 8.67$\pm$0.23 & 2.06$\pm$0.11 & 0.67$\pm$0.06 \\
3349: HUDFP1 & 7.97$\pm$1.09 & 1.56$\pm$0.46 & 0.56$\pm$0.25 \\
3350: HUDFP2 & 6.66$\pm$1.11 & 3.00$\pm$0.80 & 0.15$\pm$0.15 \\
3351: HUDF05-1 & --- & 2.92$\pm$0.53 & 0.49$\pm$0.22 \\
3352: HUDF05-2 & --- & 2.55$\pm$0.52 & 0.55$\pm$0.24 \\
3353: HUDF & 8.09$\pm$0.79 & 1.45$\pm$0.32 & 0.83$\pm$0.26
3354: \enddata
3355: \tablenotetext{a}{As observed in these fields after degrading the
3356: imaging data to the depth of the GOODS fields and reselecting dropouts
3357: in the same way as performed on the GOODS data.}
3358: \tablenotetext{b}{Units are arcmin$^{-2}$. Only $B$-dropouts with
3359: $i_{775,AB}<27$, $V$-dropouts with $z_{850,AB}<27$, and $i$-dropouts
3360: with $z_{850,AB}<27$ are included in the quoted surface densities. We
3361: chose 27.0 AB mag as a limit here because our GOODS dropout selections
3362: are still $\gtrsim50$\% complete to this limit.}
3363:
3364: \end{deluxetable*}
3365:
3366: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
3367: \tablewidth{0pt}
3368: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3369: \tablecaption{Comparison of the number of $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropouts
3370: in our intermediate depth fields with the HUDF degraded to the same
3371: depths.\tablenotemark{a}\label{tab:degrade}}
3372: \tablehead{
3373: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$B$-dropouts} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$V$-dropouts} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$i$-dropouts}\\
3374: \colhead{Field} & \colhead{Observed} & \colhead{HUDF\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Observed} & \colhead{HUDF\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Observed} & \colhead{HUDF\tablenotemark{b}}}
3375: \startdata
3376: HUDFP1 & 127 & 137 & 46 & 34 & 34 & 31 \\
3377: HUDFP2 & 78 & 88 & 35 & 19 & 10 & 19 \\
3378: HUDF05-1 & --- & --- & 130 & 96 & 53 & 63 \\
3379: HUDF05-2 & --- & --- & 113 & 74 & 28 & 49
3380: \enddata
3381: \tablenotetext{a}{Only $B$-dropouts, $V$-dropouts, and $i$-dropouts to
3382: a depth $i_{775,AB}<28$, $z_{850,AB}<28$, $z_{850,AB}<28$,
3383: respectively, are considered in these comparisons for the HUDF-Ps.
3384: For the HUDF05 fields, this comparison is made to a depth of
3385: $z_{850,AB}<28.5$ for our $V$ and $i$-dropout selections.}
3386: \tablenotetext{b}{Number of dropouts found in the HUDF after degrading
3387: the HUDF to the depths of the shallower intermediate depth fields and
3388: repeating the selection. Note that the HUDF is underabundant in
3389: $V$-dropouts relative to all four intermediate depth fields (see also
3390: Oesch et al.\ 2007).}
3391: \end{deluxetable}
3392:
3393: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
3394: \tablewidth{0pt}
3395: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3396: \tablecaption{Surface density of dropouts in our deep ACS fields relative to that present in GOODS.\tablenotemark{a}\label{tab:overdense}}
3397: \tablehead{\colhead{Field} & \colhead{$B$-dropouts} & \colhead{$V$-dropouts} & \colhead{$i$-dropouts}}
3398: \startdata
3399: HUDFP & 0.88$\pm$0.08 & 1.18$\pm$0.18 & 0.93$\pm$0.23 \\
3400: HUDF05 & --- & 1.11$\pm$0.17 & 0.76$\pm$0.19 \\
3401: HUDF & 0.96$\pm$0.10 & 0.77$\pm$0.11 & 1.06$\pm$0.25
3402: \enddata
3403: \tablenotetext{a}{Computed from Table~\ref{tab:goodsdegrade} and
3404: \ref{tab:degrade} using the procedures outlined in \S3.6 of B06.
3405: Factors greater than $1.0$ indicate that the dropouts in those fields
3406: are overdense relative to the cosmic average defined by the GOODS
3407: fields and factors less than $1.0$ indicate an underdensity.}
3408: \end{deluxetable}
3409:
3410: An alternate approach is to establish the relative normalization of
3411: the LF in each of our fields and then correct for field-to-field
3412: variations directly. The relative normalization is established
3413: through a two stage process, where we first establish the relative
3414: normalization of the UDF to our intermediate depth fields (HUDF-Ps,
3415: HUDF05) and second establish the relative normalization of the
3416: intermediate depth fields to the GOODS fields. In each step, we
3417: establish the relative normalization by degrading our deeper fields
3418: down to the depth of our shallower fields, reapplying our selection
3419: procedure, and then comparing the surface densities to those found in
3420: the shallower field. To maximize the significance of these
3421: measurements of the relative normalization, we repeated these
3422: degradation experiments 10 times and then took the average. Appendix
3423: B of B06 provides a detailed description of our degradation procedure.
3424: The numbers and surface densities found for each of our degraded and
3425: observed fields are presented in Table~\ref{tab:goodsdegrade} and
3426: \ref{tab:degrade}. Then, using these results and the same procedure
3427: presented in \S3.6 of B06, we estimated the relative normalization of
3428: dropouts in each of our fields. We scaled the surface density of
3429: dropouts in these fields by the reciprocal of the tabulated factors to
3430: make them consistent with the GOODS fields, which sampling the largest
3431: comoving volume should provide us with the best estimate of the cosmic
3432: average.
3433:
3434: After normalizing the surface density of dropouts in each of our
3435: fields to the GOODS areas, we computed the luminosity function by
3436: comparing the expected counts with the surface densities (binned in
3437: 0.5 mag intervals) observed in each of our fields, computing $\chi^2$,
3438: and then calculating the corresponding likelihood. To account for the
3439: uncertainties in the LF that result from the uncertain normalizations
3440: of our various fields (Table~\ref{tab:goodsdegrade}), we ran a series
3441: of simulations to compute the effect on the Schechter parameters
3442: $M^*$, $\alpha$, $\phi^*$ (see, e.g., Appendix E from B06). In these
3443: simulations, we varied the normalizations of our different fields
3444: according to the approximate errors given in Table~\ref{tab:overdense}
3445: and calculated the resulting covariance matrix. We then smoothed our
3446: likelihood contours according to this covariance matrix and also
3447: included an additional $\sim 14\%$ uncertainty in the value of
3448: $\phi^*$ due to field-to-field variations on the scale of the two
3449: GOODS fields (Somerville et al.\ 2004; see also \S3.1). The latter
3450: two effects make up a significant fraction of our overall error budget
3451: in deriving the LFs. The best-fit Schechter parameters are provided
3452: in Table~\ref{tab:robustlf} and are in excellent agreement with our
3453: fiducial STY79 determinations. Previously we used this approach in
3454: our determination of the LF at $z\sim6$ (\S5.1 of B06), where it was
3455: called the ``Direct Method.''
3456:
3457:
3458: \subsection{B.2. $\chi^2$ Method (no LSS correction)}
3459:
3460: In our STY79 determinations (\S3.1) and the above determination
3461: (Appendix B.1), we considered two different methods for computing the
3462: LF at $z\sim4-5$ in the presence of large-scale structure. In the
3463: first approach (\S3.1), we attempted to treat large-scale structure by
3464: using the STY79 fitting procedure, and in the second (Appendix B.1),
3465: we accomplished this by renormalizing the surface density of dropouts
3466: found in the HUDF, HUDF05, and HUDF-Ps fields to match the GOODS
3467: fields. Though both approaches should provide us with an effective
3468: means of dealing with large-scale structure, it is also interesting to
3469: determine the LF at $z\sim4-5$ ignoring these considerations
3470: altogether (and thus implicitly assuming that each survey field is
3471: representative of the cosmic average). This will allow us to better
3472: assess the impact that large-scale structure could have on the current
3473: LF determinations. Using the same $\chi^2$ methodology as we
3474: described in Appendix B.1, we repeat our determination of the LFs
3475: without making any large-scale structure corrections to the observed
3476: surface densities. The results are presented in
3477: Table~\ref{tab:robustlf} and are quite consistent with our fiducial
3478: STY79 determinations. This suggests that large-scale structure
3479: variations only have a modest effect on the Schechter parameters we
3480: derive.
3481:
3482: \subsection{B.3. STY79 Method (at $\sim1350\,\AA$)}
3483:
3484: Thus far we have presented two alternate determinations of the
3485: rest-frame $UV$ LFs at $z\sim4-6$. Each determination offered a
3486: different approach for dealing with the uncertainties that arise from
3487: large-scale structure. However, in both the $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$
3488: determinations, we have derived the LFs using the surface density of
3489: dropouts binned as a function of their magnitude at the same
3490: approximate rest-frame wavelength ($\sim1600\,\AA$). For our $z\sim4$
3491: $B$-dropout sample, dropouts were binned according to their $i_{775}$
3492: band magnitudes, and for our $z\sim5$ $V$-dropout sample, dropouts
3493: were binned according to their $z_{850}$-band magnitudes. These two
3494: bands are sufficiently redward of Ly$\alpha$ (1216$\AA$) that they are
3495: not contaminated by absorption from the Ly$\alpha$ forest. This makes
3496: the determination of the UV LF relatively straightforward using
3497: approaches like the effective-volume technique of Steidel et al.\
3498: (1999).
3499:
3500: Unfortunately, when moving to our highest redshift $z\sim6$
3501: $i$-dropout sample, it simply has not been possible to determine the
3502: LF in the same manner as at $z\sim4-5$ due to the lack of deep
3503: near-infrared ('J'-band) data to obtain coverage at $\sim1600\,\AA$.
3504: Consequently, in our determinations of the $z\sim6$ LF (here and in
3505: B06), we had to resort to use of the flux in the $z_{850}$ band
3506: (rest-frame $\sim1350\,\AA$) as a measure of the $UV$-continuum
3507: luminosity. The difficulty with this is that since the $z_{850}$ band
3508: extends below $1216\AA$ for galaxies at $z\gtrsim5.7$, flux in this
3509: band is significantly attenuated by the Ly$\alpha$ forest, and so it
3510: was necessary for us to carefully model the redshift distribution of
3511: $i$-dropouts in our sample to remove this effect.
3512:
3513: Though this latter procedure should be effective in treating the
3514: effects of the Ly$\alpha$ forest, it is not obvious that it will not
3515: result in any significant systematics in our determination of the LF.
3516: After all, the results will clearly depend somewhat upon the
3517: rest-frame wavelength at which LF is determined as well as the model
3518: redshift distributions and assumed forest absorption model (see
3519: Appendix A.3 and B.7). To verify that no large systematics are
3520: introduced, it is useful to repeat the determinations of the
3521: rest-frame $UV$ LF at $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$ but instead compiling the
3522: dropout surface densities in terms of their magnitudes in the optical
3523: passband just redward of the dropout band (i.e., the $V_{606}$ band
3524: for our $B$-dropout samples and the $i_{775}$ band for our $V$-dropout
3525: samples) to parallel use of the $z_{850}$ band for our $i$-dropout
3526: samples. In this way, we will obtain a determination of the
3527: rest-frame $UV$ LF at $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$ at $\sim1350\,\AA$ to
3528: match our determination at $z\sim6$. The best-fit parameters obtained
3529: using this approach are as follows: $\phi^* = 1.4\pm0.3\times10^{-3}$
3530: Mpc$^{-3}$, $M_{1350}^{*} = -20.84\pm0.10$, and $\alpha=-1.81\pm0.05$
3531: for our $z\sim4$ $B$-dropout samples and $\phi^* =
3532: 0.8\pm0.4\times10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, $M_{1350}^{*} = -20.73\pm0.26$,
3533: and $\alpha=-1.68\pm0.19$ for our $V$-dropout samples. Here the value
3534: of $M^*$ at $z\sim4$ is somewhat fainter than in our fiducial STY79
3535: determination. However, to make a fair comparison, it is necessary to
3536: account for the k-correction from $1350\,\AA$ to $1600\,\AA$. The
3537: typical $L^*$ galaxy at $z\sim4$ has an approximate $UV$-continuum
3538: slope $\beta$ of $-1.5$ (e.g., Ouchi et al.\ 2004), but at $z\sim5-6$,
3539: the $UV$-continuum slope is much bluer, i.e., $\lesssim-2.0$ (Lehnert
3540: \& Bremer 2003; Stanway et al.\ 2005; B06; Yan et al.\ 2005). This
3541: results in a typical k-correction of $\sim-0.14$ mag for $z\sim4$
3542: galaxies and $\sim0$ mag for $z\sim5-6$ galaxies, resulting in an
3543: approximate value of $M^*$ at $1600\,\AA$ of $-20.9$ at $z\sim4$ and
3544: $-20.7$ at $z\sim5$. These values are in good agreement with our
3545: other determinations (Table~\ref{tab:robustlf}), particularly when one
3546: considers the fact that the results of this approach are sensitive to
3547: the forest absorption model, large-scale structure along the line of
3548: sight, and an accurate model of the redshift distributions for each of
3549: our dropout samples.
3550:
3551: \subsection{B.4. STY79 Method (Alternate SED templates)}
3552:
3553: Throughout this paper, we have modelled the spectra of LBGs with
3554: $10^8$-yr constant star formation systems with varying amounts of dust
3555: extinction. We have used these model spectra to estimate the
3556: selection volumes of star-forming galaxies in our $B$, $V$, and
3557: $i$-dropout selections. For our $z\sim4$ $B$-dropout selections, the
3558: model SEDs were taken to have mean $UV$ continuum slopes of $-1.5$ at
3559: higher $UV$ luminosities while at lower $UV$ luminosities (see
3560: Appendix A.3), the model SEDs were taken to have much bluer mean $UV$
3561: slopes in accordance with the observations (Meurer et al.\ 1999;
3562: R.J. Bouwens et al. 2007, in preparation). At $z\sim5$ and $z\sim6$,
3563: the model SEDs were assumed to have $UV$ continuum slopes of $-2$ to
3564: match that present in the observations (Lehnert \& Bremer 2003;
3565: Stanway et al.\ 2005; B06).
3566:
3567: However, it is legitimate to ask how much our estimated selection
3568: volumes may depend upon the form of the SED templates. For example,
3569: we could have just as easily have modelled high-redshift galaxies
3570: using different star formation histories, dust content, or
3571: metallicities, even electing to model these systems as power laws
3572: $f_{\lambda} \propto \lambda^{\beta}$. Fortunately, these choices can
3573: largely be constrained by the observed colours of our sample galaxies,
3574: and in fact in our simulations of the HUDF $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropout
3575: data (\S3) we find excellent agreement between our model results and
3576: the observed colors. Even so, different SED templates only have a
3577: modest effect ($\lesssim20\%$) on the selection volumes of our dropout
3578: samples (e.g., see Tables 9-10 of Beckwith et al.\ 2006), particularly
3579: if we ignore concerns about the limited S/N of the data and
3580: photometric scatter. Within $\sim1-2$ mag of the selection limit,
3581: however, the limited S/N of the data becomes a real concern and the
3582: selection volume can often be quite different. This makes it
3583: necessary to run detailed Monte-Carlo simulations like those described
3584: in Appendix A.3 (Figure~\ref{fig:selfunc}) to compute these selection
3585: volumes.
3586:
3587: To test the sensitivity of our LF determinations to the precise
3588: assumptions we make about the colour and $UV$-continuum slopes of
3589: high-redshift galaxies, we repeated our determination of the LF at
3590: $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ assuming a mean $UV$-continuum slope
3591: of $-1.4$ and $-2.1$, with $1\sigma$ scatter of 0.6. As in our
3592: fiducial STY79 determinations, we use $10^8$-yr constant
3593: star-formation models (Bruzual \& Charlot 2003) with the extinction
3594: (Calzetti et al.\ 1994) varied to match these $UV$-continuum slopes.
3595: In general, we found Schechter parameters (Table~\ref{tab:robustlf})
3596: consistent with our fiducial determinations. One important exception
3597: was in our determinations of the $z\sim4$ LF assuming the redder
3598: $\beta=-1.4$ $UV$-continuum slopes. In that case, we found a
3599: significantly steeper faint-end slope $\alpha$ (i.e., $\sim-2.1$) than
3600: we obtained in our fiducial determinations. A quick investigation
3601: indicated that this resulted from the fact that red galaxies have a
3602: significantly more difficult time satisfying our
3603: $(B_{435}-V_{606})_{AB}>(V_{606}-z_{850})_{AB}+1.1$ dropout criterion
3604: than blue galaxies, and therefore it is much more difficult to select
3605: red galaxies to fainter magnitudes than blue galaxies. To see whether
3606: our $z\sim4$ $\beta=-1.4$ LF fit results were driven by the selection
3607: efficiency of faint ($\gtrsim28$ AB mag) galaxies, we repeated our LF
3608: determination but restricted ourselves to galaxies brighter than 28.0
3609: mag. In this case, we recovered Schechter parameters which were in
3610: good agreement with our fiducial STY79 determinations
3611: (Table~\ref{tab:robustlf}).
3612:
3613: \subsection{B.5. STY79 Method (Significant Contribution of Ly$\alpha$ emission to Broadband Fluxes)}
3614:
3615: Another significant uncertainty in modelling the SEDs of high-redshift
3616: star-forming galaxies -- and therefore estimating their selection
3617: volumes -- is the distribution of Ly$\alpha$ equivalent widths. At
3618: $z\sim3$, it is known that only a small fraction ($\sim25$\%) of
3619: star-forming galaxies show significant Ly$\alpha$ emission, i.e.,
3620: EW(Ly$\alpha$) $> 20\AA$ (Shapley et al.\ 2003). At $z>3$, the
3621: incidence of Ly$\alpha$ emission is thought to increase, both in
3622: strength and overall prevalence, though the numbers remain somewhat
3623: controversial. Some groups, using a narrowband selection, claim that
3624: $\gtrsim80$\% of star-forming galaxies at the high-redshift end of our
3625: range ($z\sim5.7$) have Ly$\alpha$ equivalent widths of
3626: $\gtrsim100\AA$ (Shimasaku et al. 2006), while spectroscopic follow-up
3627: of pure dropout selections indicate that the fraction is closer to
3628: $\sim32$\%, with typical Ly$\alpha$ equivalent widths of 30$\AA$ to
3629: 50$\AA$ (Dow-Hygelund et al.\ 2007; Stanway et al.\ 2004; Vanzella et
3630: al.\ 2006). These results suggest a modest to substantial increase in
3631: the fraction of Ly$\alpha$ emitting galaxies from $z\sim3$ to
3632: $z\sim6$.
3633:
3634: It is interesting to model the effect such emission would have on our
3635: computed selection volumes and thus overall determinations of the LF
3636: at $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$. We do this using the same procedure as we
3637: used in \S3, but assume that $33$\% of the star-forming galaxies at
3638: $z\sim4-5$ have Ly$\alpha$ equivalent widths of $50\AA$. This
3639: fraction exceeds slightly the findings of the Dow-Hygelund et al.\
3640: (2007) study above and was chosen partially as a compromise with the
3641: Shimasaku et al. (2006) work. The Schechter parameters we find
3642: following this procedure are presented in Table~\ref{tab:robustlf} for
3643: our $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropout samples. At $z\sim4$, these LFs have
3644: slightly lower $\phi^*$'s than similar LF determinations assuming no
3645: such emission. At $z\sim5$ and $z\sim6$, however, the derived
3646: $\phi^*$'s are higher. This owes to the fact that Ly$\alpha$ lies
3647: outside of the dropout band at the lower redshift end of our
3648: $B$-dropout selections, but inside this band at the lower redshift end
3649: of our $V$ and $i$-dropout selections. Note that we did not include
3650: such emission in the SEDs for our fiducial STY79 determinations since
3651: (1) Ly$\alpha$ can also be seen in absorption, not just emission
3652: (which would counteract this effect somewhat) and (2) the overall
3653: distribution of Ly$\alpha$ equivalent widths in star-forming galaxies
3654: at $z\sim4-6$ still has not been firmly established.
3655:
3656: \subsection{B.6. STY79 Method (With Alternate Selection Criteria)}
3657:
3658: The present dropout selections rely upon the presence of a two-colour
3659: selection to isolate a sample of high-redshift star-forming galaxies
3660: at $z\sim4$ and $z\sim5$ and a one-colour criterion at $z\sim6$.
3661: These colour criteria were chosen to maximize our sampling of the
3662: high-reshift galaxies, while minimizing contamination by low-redshift
3663: galaxies. However, we could have just as easily chosen a different
3664: set of colour criteria for our $B$, $V$, and $i$-dropout selections
3665: and computed our LFs on the basis of those criteria. To test the
3666: robustness of the present LFs, we elected to modify the present
3667: selection criteria slightly and repeat our determination of the
3668: $z\sim4$, $z\sim5$, and $z\sim6$ LFs using the methodology laid out in
3669: \S2 and \S3. The criteria we chose were
3670: $((B_{435}-V_{606})>1.2)\wedge(B_{435}-V_{606}>1.4(V_{606}-z_{850})+1.2)\wedge(V_{606}-z_{850})<1.2)$
3671: for our alternate $B$-dropout selection, $(V_{606}-i_{775} >
3672: 0.9(i_{775}-z_{850})) \vee (V_{606}-i_{775} > 1.8)) \wedge
3673: (V_{606}-i_{775}>1.2) \wedge (i_{775}-z_{850}<1.3)$ for our alternate
3674: $V$-dropout selection, and $(i_{775}-z_{850}>1.4) \wedge
3675: ((V_{606}-i_{775} > 2.8) \vee (S/N(V_{606})<2))$ for our alternate
3676: $i$-dropout selection. The $B$-dropout criterion above is the same as
3677: used in the Giavalisco et al.\ (2004b) work and results in a sample
3678: about half the size of the present one, with a narrower selection
3679: window in redshift and similar mean redshift. The $V$-dropout
3680: criterion is similar to that used in our primary selection, except
3681: that the $(V_{606}-i_{775})$ colour cut was lowered to make our
3682: selection more complete at the higher redshift end of the $V$-dropout
3683: selection window. The best-fit Schechter parameters for these
3684: selections are presented in Table~\ref{tab:robustlf} and are in
3685: reasonable agreement with our fiducial STY79 determinations.
3686:
3687: \subsection{B.7. STY79 Method (Madau Opacities)}
3688:
3689: In this work, we use the Monte-Carlo procedure of Bershady et al.\
3690: (1999) to model the effects that HI line and continuum absorption have
3691: on the colours of high-redshift galaxies (Appendix A.3). We adopted
3692: this approach rather than the more conventional approach of using the
3693: Madau (1995) opacities to better account for the stochastic effects
3694: that line of sight variations have on the colours of high-redshift
3695: galaxies and to take advantage of advances in our knowledge of HI
3696: column densities at $z\gtrsim5$ (e.g., from Songaila 2004). This
3697: should make the present determinations of the LF slightly more
3698: accurate overall than we would have obtained had we not made these
3699: refinements. This being said, it is useful nevertheless to compare
3700: our LF results with what we would have obtained using the wavelength
3701: and redshift dependent opacities compiled by Madau (1995). This will
3702: allow us to ascertain what the effect of these changes are on the
3703: present results. Repeating our determination of the selection
3704: efficiencies of $B$, $V$, and $i$ dropouts with the Madau (1995)
3705: opacities (Appendix A.3), we find that our $V$ and $i$-dropout
3706: selection windows are shifted to slightly higher redshifts in general,
3707: by $\Delta z\sim0.05$, but overall look very similar. The LFs we
3708: derive using these assumptions are presented in
3709: Table~\ref{tab:robustlf} and are quite similar to our fiducial STY79
3710: determinations, except at $z\sim5-6$ $M^*$ is $\sim$0.05 mag brighter
3711: and at $z\sim6$ the value of $\phi^*$ is $\sim$10$\%$ higher.
3712:
3713: \subsection{B.8. STY79 Method (With An Evolving M*)}
3714:
3715: In our fiducial STY79 determinations of the LF for each dropout
3716: sample, we assume that the LF does not evolve in redshift across the
3717: selection window of each sample. Since we observe significant
3718: evolution in the LF over the redshift range probed by our LFs
3719: ($z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$), this assumption clearly cannot be correct in
3720: detail. To investigate whether our determinations may have been
3721: affected by this assumption, we repeated our determination of the LF
3722: for each of our samples, but assumed that $M^*$ evolves by 0.35 mag
3723: per unit redshift. This evolution in $M^*$ is a good match to the
3724: evolution we observe in the UV LF from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim4$. The
3725: values of $M^*$, $\phi^*$, and $\alpha$ we derive at $z\sim3.8$,
3726: $z\sim5$, and $z\sim5.9$ assuming an evolving $M^*$ are presented in
3727: Table~\ref{tab:robustlf}. Encouragingly enough, the values we obtain
3728: including evolution are very similar to those recovered without
3729: evolution. This suggests that the overall Schechter parameters we
3730: have derived here are quite robust. Nonetheless, there do appear to
3731: be small systematic changes in the best-fit Schechter parameters if
3732: evolution is included. Accounting for evolution, the $M^*$'s
3733: recovered are $\sim0.06$ mag fainter, the $\phi^*$'s recovered are
3734: $\sim10$\% higher, and the faint-end slopes $\alpha$ are marginally
3735: shallower (by $\sim$0.02). Since the inclusion of evolution in the
3736: determination of the LF is presumably a better assumption than not
3737: including this evolution, the LF parameters we adopt in this paper
3738: (Table~\ref{tab:lfparm}) will be from this section.
3739:
3740: \section{C. Effect of Large-Scale Structure Variations Along the Line of Sight on our Results}
3741:
3742: The standard SWML and STY79 maximum likelihood approaches allow us to
3743: determine the shape of the LF in a way that is insensitive to the
3744: presence of large-scale structure. Unfortunately, since we do not
3745: have exact redshift information for the galaxies in our samples, we
3746: cannot determine the absolute magnitudes for individual galaxies in
3747: our sample and therefore we must modify the SWML and STY79 maximum
3748: likelihood approaches slightly so that the likelihoods are expressed
3749: in terms of the apparent magnitude for individual sources (instead of
3750: the absolute magnitude). Since the apparent magnitudes are related to
3751: the absolute magnitudes via the redshift and the distribution of
3752: redshifts is uncertain due to the presence of large-scale structure
3753: along the line of sight, our LF fit results will show some sensitivity
3754: to this structure.
3755:
3756: To determine the effect of this structure on the derived values of
3757: $M^*$, $\phi^*$, and $\alpha$, we ran a number of Monte-Carlo
3758: simulations where we introduced large-scale structure variations upon
3759: a canonical mock catalog of dropouts for each dropout sample which we
3760: generated using the Schechter parameters given in
3761: Table~\ref{tab:lfparm}. Our use of one standard mock catalog for each
3762: sample was necessary to ensure that variations in the best-fit
3763: parameters only resulted from large-scale structure fluctuations and
3764: not poissonian-type fluctuations (which would arise if we regenerated
3765: these catalogs for each trial in our Monte-Carlo simulations). We
3766: then proceeded to introduce large-scale structure fluctuations into
3767: this catalog. Within redshift slices of size $\Delta z = 0.05$, we
3768: calculated the expected density variations expected for each of our
3769: dropout samples assuming the values of the bias given in \S3.1, made
3770: random realizations of these density variations, applied these
3771: variations to our mock catalogs, and then recomputed the Schechter
3772: parameters using our implementation of the STY79 method. Repeating
3773: this process several hundred times for each dropout sample, we
3774: computed the $1\sigma$ RMS variations in $\phi^*$, $M^*$, and $\alpha$
3775: expected to result from large-scale structure along the line of sight.
3776: For our $z\sim4$ $B$-dropout sample, we found $1\sigma$ RMS variations
3777: of 0.07 mag, 13\%, and 0.01 in $M^*$, $\phi^*$, and $\alpha$,
3778: respectively. For our $z\sim5$ $V$-dropout sample, we found $1\sigma$
3779: RMS variations of 0.05 mag, 12\%, and 0.01, respectively, and for our
3780: $z\sim5.9$ $i$-dropout sample, we found $1\sigma$ RMS variations of
3781: 0.05 mag, 16\%, and 0.04, respectively. Since the nominal errors from
3782: the STY79 method on $M^*$ and $\alpha$ are typically at least two to
3783: three times as large as this, this structure only increases the
3784: uncertainties on $M^*$ and $\alpha$ by a minimal $\sim10$\%.
3785:
3786: \end{document}
3787:
3788: