1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: 

4: 

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \title{Low Resolution Spectral Templates For Galaxies From 0.2 -- 10$\mu$m} 

8: \author{R.J.~Assef\altaffilmark{1},  

9: C.S.~Kochanek\altaffilmark{1},

10: M.~Brodwin\altaffilmark{2},

11: M.J.I.~Brown\altaffilmark{3},

12: N.~Caldwell\altaffilmark{4},

13: R.J.~Cool\altaffilmark{5},

14: P.~Eisenhardt\altaffilmark{2},

15: D.~Eisenstein\altaffilmark{5},

16: A.H.~Gonzalez\altaffilmark{6},

17: B.T.~Jannuzi\altaffilmark{7}

18: C.~Jones\altaffilmark{4},

19: E.~McKenzie\altaffilmark{8},

20: S.S.~Murray\altaffilmark{4},

21: D.~Stern\altaffilmark{2}

22: }

23: 

24: \affil{

25:   \altaffiltext{1} {Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State

26:   University, 140 W.\ 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210}

27:   \altaffiltext{2}{Jet Propulsion, California Institute of Technology,

28:   Mail Stop 169-506, Pasadena, CA91109}

29:   \altaffiltext{3}{School of Physics, Monash University, Clayton 3800,

30:   Victoria, Australia}

31:   \altaffiltext{4}{Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60

32:   Garden St., MS-67, Cambridge, MA 02138}

33:   \altaffiltext{5}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 N

34:   Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85121}

35:   \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy, University of Florida,

36:   Gainesville, FL 32611-2055}

37:   \altaffiltext{7}{KPNO/NOAO, 950 N. Cherry Ave., P.O. Box 26732,

38:   Tucson, AZ 85726}

39:   \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Colgate

40:   University, 13 Oak Drive, Hamilton, NY 13346}

41: }

42: 

43: \begin{abstract}

44: We built an optimal basis of low resolution templates for galaxies

45: over the wavelength range from 0.2 to 10 $\mu$m using a variant of the

46: algorithm presented by \citet{budava00}. We derived them using eleven

47: bands of photometry from the NDWFS, FLAMEX, zBo\"otes and IRAC Shallow

48: surveys for 16033 galaxies in the NDWFS Bo\"otes field with

49: spectroscopic redshifts measured by the AGN and Galaxy Evolution

50: Survey. We also developed algorithms to accurately determine

51: photometric redshifts, $K$ corrections and bolometric luminosities

52: using these templates. Our photometric redshifts have an accuracy of

53: $\sigma_z/(1+z)\ =\ 0.04$ when clipped to the best 95\%. We used these

54: templates to study the spectral type distribution in the field and to

55: estimate luminosity functions of galaxies as a function of redshift

56: and spectral type. In particular, we note that the 5-8$\mu$m color

57: distribution of galaxies is bimodal, much like the optical g--r

58: colors.

59: \end{abstract}

60: 

61: \keywords{galaxies: photometry --- galaxies: distances and redshifts

62: --- galaxies: luminosity function}

63: 

64: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

65: 

66: 

67: 

68: Imaging surveys are a very important and common tool in

69: astronomy. Large wide field surveys, such as the Two-Micron All Sky

70: Survey \citep[2MASS;][]{2mass} and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

71: \citep[SDSS;][]{sdss}, and very deep ones, like GOODS \citep{goods}

72: and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field \citep{udf}, have radically improved

73: our understanding of the universe. The large galaxy samples yielded by

74: these surveys enable us, for example, to study the evolving space

75: density of galaxies \citep{bell04,brown07}, baryon oscillations

76: \citep{padma06} and the halo occupation distribution

77: \citep{zehavi05,ouchi05,lee06,white07,browninprep}. Astrophysical

78: applications of these surveys require measurements of quantities such

79: as the redshift, spectral type and rest frame and bolometric

80: magnitudes of the galaxies. Due to the enormous number or faintness of

81: the objects in these surveys, spectroscopic follow-up is extremely

82: expensive, if not impossible, for the great majority of the

83: sources. Even when spectra are available, they usually have low $S/N$,

84: so most estimates of these quantities still have to come from

85: broad-band photometry.

86: 

87: Extensive efforts over the last decade have shown that photometric

88: redshifts estimates from broad-band photometry are reasonably

89: accurate. Photometric redshift techniques can be divided into two main

90: families: methods based on empirical relations between color and

91: redshift that are usually implemented with neural networks

92: \citep[e.g.][]{wang98,brunner99,annz,connolly95}, and methods based on

93: Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) fitting techniques

94: \citep[e.g.][]{bolzonella00,benitez00}. The first family of methods

95: relies on the assumption that there is some relation between observed

96: properties of galaxies and redshift that can be empirically calibrated

97: using a training set of objects with both broad-band photometry and

98: spectroscopic redshifts. These methods can automatically accommodate

99: physical processes that are hard to model directly, such as dust

100: extinction and emission, but they cannot be used for estimating $K$

101: corrections, bolometric luminosities or redshifts outside the range of

102: the training set. SED fitting techniques rely on model spectra to

103: determine redshifts by minimizing the difference between observed and

104: expected broad-band colors. This family of methods does not have

105: redshift boundaries, as long as the observed rest-frame wavelengths

106: overlap those of the template SEDs, and they can be used to determine

107: $K$ corrections and bolometric luminosities. They typically have

108: larger uncertainties than the empirical methods

109: \citep[e.g.,][]{csabai03,brodwin06} and can fail badly for objects

110: poorly described by the templates.

111: 

112: Templates used by the SED fitting methods are either derived from

113: observations \citep[e.g.][]{cww80,kinney96} or from stellar population

114: synthesis models \citep[e.g.][]{bc93,bc03,pegase97}. Most of these

115: templates have limited wavelength coverage. In particular, the popular

116: \citet{cww80} and \citet{kinney96} templates do not extend into the

117: infrared and most synthetic templates have not been calibrated in this

118: range or lack physical processes that operate at these

119: wavelengths. Templates derived from observations sometimes come from

120: very noisy spectra \citep[e.g.][]{kinney96}, which could translate

121: small systematic errors into large errors in the broad band

122: colors. Templates from stellar population synthesis models do not

123: suffer from this problem, but sometimes do a poor job reproducing

124: observed properties of galaxies. For example, the red galaxy templates

125: of \citet{bc93} agree with observed optical colors, but severely

126: underestimate UV fluxes \citep[e.g., see Figure 4 of][]{donas95}, and

127: most models cannot reproduce the colors of star-forming galaxies

128: because they do not include or cannot model nebular emission, dust and

129: PAH emission features. While the \verb+Pegase.2+ models

130: \citep{pegase97} attempt to include these effects, their templates

131: have not been calibrated particularly far into the infrared.

132: 

133: \citet{budava00} and \citet{csabai00} developed a method that adjusts

134: template SEDs in order to overcome these problems. The method uses a

135: training data set to determine SEDs that accurately represent the

136: galaxies and then uses the updated SEDs for photometric redshifts, $K$

137: corrections and bolometric luminosities. A similar method has also

138: been developed by \citet[][also see \citealt{blanton06}]{blanton03},

139: focusing mostly on $K$ corrections, and by \citet{zebra06}, who

140: implemented it, along with other features, in their ZEBRA package.

141: 

142: In this paper, we derive low resolution spectral templates for

143: galaxies in the wavelength range 0.2--10 $\mu$m that accurately

144: reproduce galaxy SEDs. We derive them using the extensive photometric

145: observations of the NOAO Deep Wide-Field Survey

146: \citep[NDWFS;][]{ndwfs99} Bo\"otes field combined with the redshifts

147: from the spectroscopic observations of the AGN and Galaxy Evolution

148: Survey \citep[AGES;][]{ages} and a variant of the \citet{budava00}

149: method. AGES provides spectroscopic redshifts for approximately 17000

150: galaxies with $z\lesssim 1$, most of which have broad-band photometry

151: from 0.4 to 8 $\mu$m.

152: 

153: In \S~\ref{sec:data} we describe the data we use to obtain the

154: templates. In \S~\ref{sec:methods} we describe the method used to

155: derive the templates, as well as the algorithms used to determine

156: bolometric luminosities, $K$ corrections and photometric redshifts. In

157: \S~\ref{sec:results} we derive the templates and apply the algorithms

158: for $K$ corrections and photometric redshifts to the galaxies from the

159: AGES galaxy sample. And finally, in \S~\ref{sec:spec_clas}, we study

160: the spectral type distribution for approximately 65000 galaxies from

161: the NDWFS Bo\"otes field, based only on their photometry. We also use

162: photometric redshifts and $K$ corrections to determine luminosity

163: functions for this field. Throughout the paper we assume the

164: standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology ($\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\rm

165: \Lambda}=0.7$, $\Omega_{\rm K}=0$ and $H_0=70$ km/s/Mpc).

166: 

167: 

168: \section{Data}\label{sec:data}

169: 

170: The NOAO Deep Wide-Field Survey is a deep optical and near-infrared

171: imaging survey that covers two 9.3 square degree fields, the Bo\"otes

172: and Cetus fields.  Both fields were imaged in $B_W$ (3500-4750 \AA,

173: peak at $\approx$ 4000 \AA), $R$ and $I$ pass-bands to depths

174: (5$\sigma$, 2$''$ diameter apt.) of approximately 26.5, 26, and 25.5

175: AB magnitude.  Both NDWFS fields have been completely imaged in the K

176: and K$_{\rm s}$ bands to a limiting AB magnitude of 21.

177: 

178: In this paper we focus on the Bo\"otes field observations, for which

179: there has also been extensive coverage at other

180: wavelengths. Specifically, we will also use the observations of the

181: Flamingos Extragalactic Survey \citep[FLAMEX;][]{flamex06}, which

182: covered about half of this field in the J and K$_{\rm s}$ bands, the

183: z' band observations of the zBo\"otes survey \citep{cool06}, and the

184: IRAC Shallow Survey \citep{irac04}, which observed the field with the

185: {\it{Spitzer Space Telescope}} Infrared Array Camera

186: \citep[IRAC;][]{fazio04} in Channels 1, 2, 3 and 4 (3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and

187: 8 $\mu$m respectively). We will refer to this last four bands as C1,

188: C2, C3 and C4 respectively throughout the paper. It should be noted

189: that there are also radio (FIRST, \citealt{first};WENSS,

190: \citealt{wenss};WSRT, \citealt{devries02};NVSS, \citealt{nvss}),

191: far-IR (MIPS, \citealt{weedman06}), X-ray (XBo\"otes,

192: \citealt{murray05}) and UV ({\it{GALEX}}; \citealt{martin05})

193: observations of the NDWFS Bo\"otes field that we do not currently use.

194: 

195: The AGN and Galaxy Evolution Survey is a redshift survey in the NDWFS

196: Bo\"otes field. It has obtained spectra for $\approx$ 20000 objects in

197: the wavelength range from 3200\AA\ to 9200\AA\ with a resolution of

198: $R\approx 1000$ using the 6.5m MMT telescope and the 300 fiber robotic

199: Hectospec instrument \citep{fabricant05}. Spectroscopic redshifts have

200: been measured for about 17000 galaxies in the field with $0 < z <

201: 1$. The median redshift is approximately 0.31.

202: 

203: We derive the templates using a total of 16033 galaxies with

204: spectroscopic redshifts and photometry in at least 6 of these 11 bands

205: [$B_W$, $R$, $I$ and K from NDWFS; z' from zBo\"otes; J and

206: K$_{\rm s}$ from FLAMEX; and C1, C2, C3 and C4 from the IRAC Shallow

207: Survey]. We required 6 bands so that we would always include some

208: combination of optical and IR photometry for each galaxy, but

209: requiring 5 or 7 would not affect our results. We use 6\farcs0

210: aperture magnitudes to derive the templates and SExtractor

211: \citep{sextractor96} Kron-like magnitudes for estimates of the total

212: flux. The photometry was corrected for Galactic extinction with the

213: \citet{schlegel98} model. We cannot easily distinguish between

214: non-detections and survey gaps from the existing photometry

215: compilations, so we make no use of upper bounds.

216: 

217: The magnitudes measured by NDWFS and FLAMEX are in the Vega

218: system. The IRAC magnitudes are in their own system, which is based on

219: the Kurucz model spectrum of Vega \citep[see][]{reach05}. The z'

220: magnitudes are in the AB system. Throughout the paper we keep these

221: conventions -- every magnitude computed is presented in its respective

222: system. We will refer to the objects with both photometry and

223: spectroscopic redshifts as the AGES galaxy sample.

224: 

225: 

226: 

227: \section{Methods}\label{sec:methods}

228: 

229: In this section we present the algorithms developed to build the low

230: resolution templates from the Bo\"otes field observations and estimate

231: $K$ corrections, bolometric magnitudes and photometric redshifts. We

232: have made the latter algorithms publicly available

233: \footnote{www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/$\sim$rjassef/lrt} as part of a

234: Fortran-77 library that also incorporates other useful functions and

235: can carry out the calculations for any set of filters specified by the

236: user.

237: 

238: \subsection{Templates}\label{ssec:temp_proc}

239: 

240: We build our templates using a variant of the approach proposed by

241: \citet{budava00}. The flux $F_{i,b}$ of object $i$ in band $b$ is

242: given by

243: \begin{equation}\label{eq:flux}

244: F_{i,b}\ =\ c\ N_b\ \int_0^{\infty} \lambda^{-1}R_b(\lambda)\

245: f_i(\nu)\ d\lambda,

246: \end{equation}

247: \noindent where $N_b$ sets the normalization of the filter,

248: $R_b(\lambda)$ is the filter bandpass response per photon of

249: wavelength $\lambda$, $c$ is the speed of light, and $f_i(\nu)$ is the

250: object's observed spectrum measured in energy per unit area per unit

251: time per unit frequency.  In general, the spectra of a sample of

252: galaxies will not be fully independent of each other, but, instead,

253: can be regarded as different combinations of a small set, or basis, of

254: rest frame spectral templates $T_k (\nu)$. Thus, we can model the

255: observed flux of an object as

256: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mod_flux}

257: F_{i,b}^{mod}\ =\ c\ N_b\ \left(\frac{10\rm pc}{D_{l,i}}\right)^2\ \sum_k

258: a_{i,k}\ \int_0^{\infty}\ \lambda^{-1} R_b(\lambda)\ (1+z_i)\

259: T_k\left[(1+z_i)\nu\right]\ d\lambda,

260: \end{equation}

261: \noindent where $a_{i,k}$ is the contribution of spectral component

262: $k$ to the observed spectra, $z_i$ is the redshift of the galaxy and

263: $D_{l,i}$ is its luminosity distance. We have assigned a bolometric

264: luminosity of $10^{10} L_{\odot}$ and a distance of 10pc to the

265: template spectra (see \S~\ref{ssec:bol_lum_proc}). This relation can be

266: discretized as

267: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mod_flux_2}

268: F_{i,b}^{mod}\ =\ (1+z_i)\ c\ N_b\ \left(\frac{10\rm

269: pc}{D_{l,i}}\right)^2\ \sum_k a_{i,k}\ \sum_{\lambda_n} S_{i,b,\lambda_n}\

270: T_{k,\nu_n},

271: \end{equation}

272: \noindent where the $T_{k,\nu_n}$ are the discretized templates and 

273: \begin{equation}\label{eq:s_i_b_l}

274: S_{i,b,\lambda_n}\ =\ \int_{\lambda_n} ^{\lambda_{n+1}}\

275: \lambda^{-1} R_b[(1+z_i)\lambda]\ d\lambda

276: \end{equation}

277: \noindent is the sensitivity curve of filter $b$ shifted to the

278: redshift of the observed object and integrated over wavelength bin

279: $\lambda_n$.

280: 

281: The main idea of the method is to use the observed colors of galaxies

282: to fit for the spectral base components $T_{k,\nu_n}$ .

283: \citet{budava00} used as their initial guesses orthogonal spectral

284: components derived from a Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

285: decomposition of the \citet{cww80} galaxy templates (CWW from here

286: on). Keeping the best fit templates orthogonal to each other during

287: the iterative procedure, their final templates correspond to the

288: principal components of the observed galaxy spectra. One problem with

289: such a decomposition is that the model spectrum can be unphysical

290: (negative) in some regions unless there are priors on the permitted

291: values of the $a_{i,k}$.

292: 

293: Here we use an alternate approach that limits the construction of

294: unphysical spectra. We start from the Elliptical, Sbc and Im CWW

295: templates, extended to the mid infrared with the Bruzual and Charlot

296: synthetic models \citep{bc03}. To reproduce the mid-IR dust/PAH

297: features of star forming galaxies that these models lack, we spliced

298: onto the Sbc and Im models a combination of the mid-IR part of the

299: \citet{devriendt99} M82 and VCC 1003 templates, as shown in Figure

300: \ref{fg:cwwcomp}. We do not apply this modification to the Elliptical

301: template. Since all three templates represent very different star

302: formation histories (i.e. they have very different stellar

303: populations), they form a physical but not orthogonal basis set for

304: galaxy spectra. We will try to find the best modifications of these

305: spectra over the range 0.2 -- 10 $\mu$m which will fit the AGES

306: galaxies subject to the restrictions that the template spectra are

307: non-negative ($T_{k,\nu_n} \ge 0$) and that the spectrum of a galaxy

308: is a non-negative sum of these templates ($a_{i,k} \ge 0$). We will

309: refer to the templates as E, Sbc and Im throughout the paper since the

310: final optical spectra are sufficiently similar to the starting points

311: to retain the names.

312: 

313: Since we are building the template spectra with significantly higher

314: wavelength resolution than the broad band filters, we need to keep the

315: spectra from developing unphysical oscillatory structures during the

316: fit. We optimize the function

317: \begin{equation}\label{eq:G}

318: G\ = \chi^2\ +\ \frac{1}{\eta^2} H ,

319: \end{equation}

320: \noindent where the $\chi^2$ optimizes the fit to the templates, $H$

321: forces the templates to be smooth, and $\eta$ is a parameter that

322: determines the strength of the smoothing. The goodness of fit to the

323: data is

324: \begin{equation}\label{eq:chi2}

325: \chi^2\ =\ \sum_{i,b} \left(\frac{F_{i,b}\ -\

326: F^{mod}_{i,b}}{\sigma_{i,b}}\right)^2,

327: \end{equation}

328: \noindent where $F_{i,b}$ is the observed flux of object $i$ in band

329: $b$ with error $\sigma_{i,b}$, and the smoothing term 

330: \begin{equation}\label{eq:log_smooth}

331: H\ =\ \sum_{k,n} \left(\log

332: \frac{T_{k,\nu_n}}{Q_{k,\nu_n}} - \log

333: \frac{T_{k,\nu_{n+1}}}{Q_{k,\nu_{n+1}}}\right)^2 

334: \end{equation}

335: \noindent minimizes the logarithmic differences between the final

336: templates ($T_{k,\nu_n}$) and the initial templates

337: ($Q_{k,\nu_n}$). If a too small value of $\eta$ is selected, the final

338: templates will not be very different from their initial guesses and

339: they will not be a good fit to the data. On the other hand, if a too

340: large value of $\eta$ is selected, the final templates will better fit

341: the data but they will show non-physical oscillatory

342: behavior. Selecting a value for $\eta$ between these two extremes

343: allows us to obtain galaxy templates that fit the photometry of the

344: sample better than the initial ones but are still well behaved. Since

345: the splices of the dust/PAH features are somewhat ad hoc, we decreased

346: the weight of the logarithmic smoothing linearly with wavelength from

347: 1 to 10 $\mu$m.

348: 

349: Offsets in the photometry can potentially bias the final best fit

350: templates. Since our data covers a large range of redshifts, well

351: sampled in every filter, we can compute corrections to the nominal

352: photometric zero points of the AGES bands, as the overlapping regions

353: between filters should break any degeneracies. These adjustments

354: compensate both for the zero point errors and for any differences in

355: the effective photometric aperture created by the differing PSFs of

356: the observations. We can make these corrections to the extent that the

357: smoothing functions and the underlying templates we are trying to find

358: are not extremely different, since otherwise the smoothing can

359: compensate for the differences by introducing some large scale

360: behaviour into the zero point corrections rather than allowing the

361: templates to change. We assume that the zero point corrections are

362: small and not systematically related to each other, so all the large

363: scale behaviour in them should come from this degeneracy. We remove

364: any wavelength trend in the zero points by fitting a quadratic

365: function to the zero point corrections and then rescaling the

366: smoothing functions and the best fit templates.

367: 

368: We optimize equation (\ref{eq:G}) iteratively, starting with templates

369: matching the initial templates, $T_{k,\nu_n} = Q_{k,\nu_n}$. We then

370: iterate in steps: {\it{(a)}} estimate the galaxy weights $a_{i,k}$;

371: {\it{(b)}} estimate zero point corrections by adjusting $N_b$;

372: {\it{(c)}} sequentially optimize the templates and normalize them (see

373: \S~\ref{ssec:bol_lum_proc}); and {\it{(d)}} return to

374: {\it{(a)}}. After every five iterations, we remove the large scale

375: behaviour of the zero point corrections and rescale the smoothing

376: functions and templates. To optimize the templates we linearize the

377: smoothing term assuming that the change in $T_{k,\nu_n}$ is small

378: compared to $Q_{k,\nu_n}$. As the resulting equations are linear, we

379: can use a least squares algorithm in all the steps. Since we require

380: that every coefficient for which we fit is positive (all $a_{i,k}$,

381: $T_{k,\lambda}$ and $N_{b}$), we use the Non-Negative Least Squares

382: Solver (NNLS) of \citet{lawson74}. Our data sample contains objects

383: with bad data points or with heavy AGN contamination, so we adjust the

384: templates using only the 97\% of the galaxies with the best fits.

385: 

386: 

387: \subsection{Bolometric Luminosities and Template Normalization}\label{ssec:bol_lum_proc}

388: 

389: We normalize the templates to have a constant ``bolometric''

390: luminosity of $10^{10} L_{\odot}$ over the wavelength range from

391: $\lambda_{min} = 0.2 \mu$m to $\lambda_{max} = 10 \mu$m and to be at a

392: distance of 10pc. The ``bolometric'' luminosity we use is defined as

393: \begin{equation}\label{eq:lum_bol}

394: L_{bol}\ =\ 4 \pi D_l^2\ \int_{\lambda_{min}}^{\lambda_{max}} f(\nu)

395: \frac{d\lambda}{\lambda^2},

396: \end{equation}

397: \noindent where $f(\nu)$ is the observed SED of the object and $D_l$

398: is its luminosity distance. Since the normalizations of the templates

399: are the same, the total luminosity of a galaxy is simply

400: \begin{equation}\label{eq:lum_calc}

401: \frac{L_{bol}}{10^{10} L_{\odot}}\ =\ \sum_k\ a_{k},

402: \end{equation}

403: \noindent where the $a_k$ are the galaxy weight coefficients of

404: equation (\ref{eq:mod_flux}).

405: 

406: \subsection{$K$ Corrections}\label{ssec:kcorr_proc}

407: 

408: We can also use the templates to calculate $K$ corrections

409: \citep{oke68,hogg02} for virtually any band as long as it is inside

410: the wavelength range of the SED. This approach is similar to the one

411: taken by \citet[][also see \citealt{blanton06}] {blanton03}.

412: 

413: When observing a galaxy through a certain bandpass, the portion of the

414: rest frame SED of the object sampled by the bandpass will depend on

415: the redshift of the object. The $K$ correction can be defined as the

416: correction needed to transform the observed magnitude through bandpass

417: $b$ of an object at redshift $z$ to the magnitude we would measure

418: for an object with the same SED and the same apparent bolometric

419: magnitude but located at redshift $z_0$. We can write it as

420: \begin{equation}\label{kcorr_def}

421: m_b (z) = m_b (z_0) + K_b,

422: \end{equation}

423: \noindent with the $K$ correction $K_b$ defined as

424: \begin{equation}\label{eq:kcorr}

425: K_b\ =\ -2.5 \log{ \left[\frac{(1+z)}{(1+z_0)}\ \frac{\int_0^{\infty}

426: \frac{R_b (\lambda)}{\lambda} f[(1+z)\nu] d\lambda}{\int_0^{\infty}

427: \frac{R_b (\lambda)}{\lambda} f[(1+z_0)\nu] d\lambda} \right]},

428: \end{equation} 

429: \noindent where $f(\nu)$ is the rest frame SED of the object in units

430: of energy per unit area per unit time per unit wavelength. Usually,

431: $z_0 = 0$, so that the magnitude is corrected to the rest frame. One

432: alternative, adopted by the SDSS survey, is to set $z_0 = 0.1$,

433: corresponding to the mode of their redshift distribution, as this

434: minimizes the level of the corrections. Tables \ref{tab:3s_modmag} and

435: \ref{tab:4s_modmag} show the absolute magnitudes of the templates as a

436: function of redshift for the three and four templates model

437: respectively we discuss in \S~\ref{sec:results}. They can be used to

438: determine $K$ corrections for each of the AGES bands as well as other

439: commonly used ones (see captions for more information). 

440: 

441: 

442: \subsection{Photometric Redshifts}\label{ssec:photoz_proc}

443: 

444: Once we have derived the templates, it is very easy to estimate

445: photometric redshifts for galaxies with fluxes $f_b$. For a given

446: redshift, we find the best combination of the basis templates by

447: minimizing

448: \begin{equation}\label{eq:chi2_photoz}

449: \chi^2(z,a_k)\ =\ \sum_b \left(\frac{f_b\ -\ c\ N_b\ (10{\rm pc}/D_l)^2\

450: \sum_k a_k (1+z) \sum_{\lambda} S_{b,\lambda}(z)

451: T_{k,\nu}}{\sigma_b}\right)^2 ,

452: \end{equation}

453: \noindent where $S_{b,\lambda}(z)$ is equal to $S_{i,b,\lambda}$ from

454: equation (\ref{eq:s_i_b_l}), to solve for $a_k(z)$. We continue to

455: require that $a_k(z) \geq 0$ and find the solution with the NNLS

456: algorithm. Then, with a grid search on the redshift values, we can

457: obtain the optimal redshift for the galaxy.

458: 

459: We included a luminosity prior in our model to avoid selecting

460: improbable luminosities as the best fits. Moreover, at very low

461: redshifts, luminosity is a better distance measure than color. We set

462: the probability for redshift $z$ to be

463: \begin{equation}\label{eq:p_z}

464: P(z)\ \propto\ e^{-\chi^2(z)/2}\ \Phi[M]\ dV_{com}(z),

465: \end{equation}

466: \noindent where $\Phi[M]$ is the luminosity function, the probability

467: per unit of co-moving volume for a galaxy to have absolute magnitude

468: $M$, and $dV_{com}$ is the co-moving volume per unit redshift as a

469: function of redshift. We assume the $R$-band luminosity function from

470: the Las Campanas Redshift Survey \citep{lcrslf}, which is parametrized

471: by a Schechter function \citep{schech76} with $\alpha = -0.7$ and

472: $M_{\star} = -21.4$. Our estimates might be improved by the use of

473: spectral type priors \citep{benitez00,zebra06}, but they are not

474: included in our present implementation. The $K$ corrections in Tables

475: \ref{tab:3s_modmag} and \ref{tab:4s_modmag} can also be used to

476: estimate photometric redshifts (see caption for more information).

477: 

478: \section{Results}\label{sec:results}

479: 

480: \subsection{Templates}\label{ssec:temp_res}

481: 

482: Following the procedure outlined in \S~\ref{ssec:temp_proc}, we fit a

483: model based on the three modified CWW templates described in

484: \S~\ref{ssec:temp_proc} to the AGES galaxy sample, using the

485: photometry for the eleven bands described in \S~\ref{sec:data}. The

486: top panel of Figure \ref{fg:contrib} shows the number of objects used

487: to derive the templates as a function of wavelength and the response

488: curves of our eleven filters. The peaks in Figure \ref{fg:contrib}

489: correspond to the mean wavelengths of the filters displaced by the

490: redshift mode of our sample ($\sim 0.2$). Given our standard template

491: resolution, 160 logarithmically spaced wavelengths from 0.2--10

492: $\mu$m, these models have $N_{\rm DOF}=90669$ degrees of freedom. We

493: fit the data assuming the magnitude uncertainties are the larger of

494: the measured errors and 0.05 mag. This minimum error was imposed so

495: that low redshift galaxies with very small formal uncertainties did

496: not dominate the fits.

497: 

498: To choose an appropriate smoothing weight $\eta$, we first fit the

499: templates for a range of values. Figure \ref{fg:allspeceta} shows the

500: best fitting templates for different weights $\eta$, the $\chi^2$ of

501: each fit and the residuals when compared to their initial

502: guesses. In an ideal world, we would simply use the value of

503: $\eta$ that gives $\chi^2/N_{\rm DOF}=1$. Unfortunately, we have

504: imperfect errors for the data (e.g. bad data points and systematic

505: errors from seeing variations) and imperfect templates that cannot

506: encompass all physical parameters of real galaxies, so we are forced

507: to adjust $\eta$ on an empirical basis. Fortunately, the results are

508: not very sensitive to our choice provided it is reasonable. With

509: little smoothing ($\eta=0.1$) we obtain a relatively low $\chi^2$ but

510: find very unnatural, rapidly oscillating spectra. On the other hand,

511: very heavy smoothing ($\eta=10^{-4}$) gives spectra that are not

512: significantly different from their initial guesses and have

513: significantly higher $\chi^2$. Figure \ref{fg:chinorm} shows the

514: goodness of fit as a function of the smoothing weight, where we use a

515: renormalized fit statistic defined such that $\hat{\chi}^2\to N_{\rm

516: DOF}$ in the limit of no smoothing ($\eta\to \infty$). Clearly, we

517: want a value of $\eta$ near the zone of the steep decrease in

518: $\chi^2$. More specifically, we want a value of $\eta$ between

519: approximately $10^{-2}$ and $10^{-3}$ to ensure that the templates

520: have changed enough to fit the data well, but we have introduced no

521: unphysical oscillations. Since the photometric redshifts, the $K$

522: corrections and the bolometric luminosities are not very sensitive to

523: this parameter as long as it is on this range, we choose $\eta =

524: 0.004$ for our standard models. The resulting templates are shown in

525: Figure \ref{fg:allspeccomp} and are provided in Table

526: \ref{tab:3spectab}. They produce a $\chi^2$ of 201414, which

527: for the 90669 degrees of freedom available gives $\chi^2/N_{\rm

528: DOF}=2.22$. The output templates are substantially different from our

529: initial modified CWW ones and wildly different from the \citet{bc03}

530: extended CWW templates. The fitted Elliptical template has a lower

531: ratio of optical and mid-infrared to near-infrared emission, and the

532: Sbc and Im templates have stronger PAH emissions in the mid-infrared.

533: 

534: Even though the three template model fits the data well, there is no

535: physical reason why three templates should be enough to reconstruct

536: the spectra for all galaxies in the sample. In particular, the initial

537: templates are either actually star forming (Sbc, Im) or have had no

538: recent star formation (Elliptical) -- there is no intermediate age

539: template. We tested a model with a 4$^{\rm th}$ template whose prior

540: was a CWW Elliptical template combined with an A0 stellar spectra from

541: the \verb+Pegase.2+ libraries \citep{pegase97} to mimic an E+A/K+A

542: spectrum. Since the dependence of the $\chi^2$ deviations should not

543: be extremely dependent on the types of templates that we are trying to

544: fit, we will use $\eta = 0.004$ as above. The resulting

545: templates are provided in Table \ref{tab:4spectab} and produce a

546: $\chi^2$ of 146410, which for the 75028 degrees of freedom available

547: gives $\chi^2/N_{\rm DOF} = 1.95$.

548: 

549: Figure \ref{fg:allspeccomp} shows the best fit three and four template

550: models compared to their initial guesses. They are clearly very

551: different from their initial guesses. While the best fit elliptical

552: and Sbc templates do not differ significantly from the previous case,

553: the Im is very different. Even though Figure \ref{fg:chinorm} shows

554: that adding an additional template significantly reduces the $\chi^2$

555: values, the formal improvement from adding the 4th template is only

556: about 19$\sigma$ based on the F-test. Moreover, as we shall see in

557: \S~\ref{ssec:photoz_res}, adding the extra component also creates

558: problems.

559: 

560: Compared to common template SEDs used in the literature, these

561: templates do a significantly better job of tracing the observed

562: color--color distribution of galaxies. Figures \ref{fg:color_diag_opt}

563: and \ref{fg:color_diag_mir} show the color distributions of the AGES

564: galaxies compared to the color ranges permitted by our basis of

565: templates in the optical and mid-IR bands respectively for four

566: redshift ranges. For comparison, we also show the optical color ranges

567: spanned by six commonly used templates: the CWW Elliptical, Sbc, Scd

568: and Im, and the \citet{kinney96} SB1 and SB2. The older templates

569: represent the colors of galaxies poorly, especially in the redshift

570: range 0.2--0.4, where the Sbc spiral template differs significantly

571: from the observations. Notice that they span lines instead of full

572: areas because they are single color points smeared by the redshift

573: range. This can be somewhat overcome by interpolating between the

574: templates, but this is highly dependent on the implementation of the

575: interpolation scheme. In the mid-IR, we show for comparison the colors

576: spanned by the \citet{bc03} extended CWW templates. These clearly do a

577: very poor job reproducing the observed color--color distribution. In

578: this same figure, note that the mid-IR distribution of galaxies at low

579: redshift is strongly bimodal, resembling the g--r color distribution

580: \citep[e.g.][]{strateva01,blanton03b,madgwick03,bell04}.

581: 

582: Finally, it should be noted that while fitting the templates we also

583: fitted for corrections to the nominal zero points of each of the AGES

584: bands, relative to the $B_W$ band. The zero points used are

585: 3627.5, 3009.9, 2408.8, 3631.0, 1594.0, 666.7, 651.2, 277.5, 179.5,

586: 116.6 and 63.1 Jy for the $B_W$, $R$, $I$, z', J, K$_{\rm s}$, K,

587: C1, C2, C3 and C4 bands respectively. The correction factors (relative

588: to $B_W$) are 1.00, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 0.97, 1.00, 1.00, 1.06,

589: 0.98, 1.01 and 1.03 respectively (the large discrepancy for the IRAC

590: bands was also noted by \citet{brodwin06} and it seems to be related

591: to aperture corrections for the IRAC PSF). In general, these should be

592: viewed as corrections to a common mean photometric aperture rather

593: than errors in the zero-point calibrations. Note that we cannot

594: determine the absolute corrections since we are also fitting for the

595: fluxes of the galaxies. These corrections could be improved by

596: considering seeing variations between the individual observations, but

597: we will not pursue this question at present.

598: 

599: 

600: 

601: \subsection{$K$ Corrections}

602: 

603: As mentioned earlier, \citet{blanton03} followed an approach similar

604: to ours to determine $K$ corrections. To test our code, we compare our

605: $K$ corrections for the AGES galaxy sample with those from

606: the \verb+kcorrect v4_1_4+ code of \citet{blanton03}. Note that for

607: this comparison we use the 4 template basis model, as it provides a

608: better fit to the SEDs if the redshift is known (see

609: \S~\ref{ssec:temp_res} and \S~\ref{ssec:photoz_res}).

610: 

611: Figure \ref{fg:kcorr} shows the comparison for the $B_W$, $R$, $I$,

612: J, z and K bands at low ($z<0.3$) and high ($z>0.3$) redshift. We do

613: not examine the IRAC channels nor use them to fit the SEDs since

614: \verb+kcorrect v4_1_4+ cannot model mid-IR fluxes. In general, the

615: agreement is good, with a typical difference of less than about 0.1

616: magnitudes. The band with the largest dispersion is $B_W$. All

617: bands show some deviation in the mean of a few hundredths of a

618: magnitude, suggesting that there are some differences between the

619: templates used by the codes. Notice that there is a smaller deviation

620: at lower than at higher redshifts, which is expected since $K$

621: corrections tend to be bigger at higher redshifts and \verb+kcorrect+

622: was largely calibrated at lower redshifts than the AGES sample.

623: 

624: 

625: \subsection{Photometric Redshifts}\label{ssec:photoz_res}

626: 

627: Using the methods described in \S~\ref{ssec:photoz_proc}, we obtain

628: photometric redshifts for the AGES galaxy sample using the best fit

629: Elliptical, Sbc and Im templates described in \S~\ref{ssec:temp_res},

630: without considering the E+A component. We have so many sources that

631: there is no particular reason to have a separate training set. The top

632: left panel of Figure \ref{fg:zphot} shows a density contour plot of

633: the photometric redshifts, $z_p$, compared to the spectroscopic ones,

634: $z_s$, for the AGES galaxy sample. We show the dispersion in

635: $z_s$ at fixed $z_p$ since this is the distribution relevant for

636: characterizing the errors in photometric redshifts. The central

637: contours are tightly centered on the $z_p = z_s$ line, so the

638: algorithm works well for the typical galaxy. The results for this are

639: summarized in Table \ref{tab:zphot_sum}, as the ``3 templates/complete

640: sample'', where we give the standard dispersion

641: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sigmaz}

642: \left[\frac{\sigma_z}{(1+z)}\right]^2\ \equiv\ \frac{1}{N}\ \sum_{i=1}^N

643: \left(\frac{z_p^i - z_s^i}{1 + z_s^i}\right)^2 ,

644: \end{equation}

645: \noindent the median offset of $z_p - z_s$, the ranges of

646: $|z_p-z_s|/(1+z_s)$ encompassing 68.3, 95.5 and 99.7\% of the

647: distribution, and the dispersion $\Delta z$ defined by equation

648: (\ref{eq:sigmaz}) after clipping the sample to the 95\% of the

649: galaxies with the best $\left|z_p - z_s\right|$ to eliminate

650: outliers. The distribution of errors has very non-Gaussian tails. For

651: example, the region encompassing 68.3\% of the galaxies is 1.5 times

652: smaller than the dispersion. We explored the dependence of the

653: redshift errors on redshift, luminosity and color, finding that the

654: dominant effect is lower accuracy for bluer and fainter galaxies. For

655: example, if we sort the galaxies by their fitted SED elliptical

656: component fraction, $\hat{e}$, defined as

657: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ehat}

658: \hat{e} \equiv \frac{a_e}{a_e+a_s+a_i} ,

659: \end{equation}

660: \noindent where $a_e$, $a_s$ and $a_i$ are the Elliptical, Sbc and Im

661: template components of the galaxy SED, we find that $\sigma_z/(1+z) =

662: 0.047$ for the galaxies with $\hat{e} > 2/3$ and $\sigma_z/(1+z) =

663: 0.071$ for $\hat{e} < 1/3$.

664: 

665: Recently, \citet{brodwin06} estimated redshifts for galaxies and AGNs

666: in the IRAC Shallow survey using a hybrid algorithm between SED

667: fitting and empirical neural networks, calibrated with AGES

668: spectroscopic redshifts and photometry similar to that used in

669: here. Due to the lack of dust/PAH features in their templates, SED

670: fitting was only used for galaxies with $\rm C3 - \rm C4 < 1$, which

671: corresponds to galaxies with little or no star formation, while neural

672: networks were used for the rest of the galaxies and for the

673: AGNs. Eliminating the need to use different methods for star-forming

674: and quiescent galaxies was one of the motivations for our work. With

675: this hybrid approach, \citet{brodwin06} obtained $\sigma_z/(1+z) =

676: 0.105$ and $\Delta z = 0.047$ for galaxies, about a factor of 1.8 and

677: 1.2 larger than what we obtained, although the two galaxy samples are

678: not identical since \citet{brodwin06} used subset of AGES galaxies

679: with measured C2 magnitudes rather than the full sample.

680: 

681: We repeated the calculations using the 4 template model as shown in

682: the top right panel of Figure \ref{fg:zphot}. The distribution

683: statistics are again summarized in Table \ref{tab:zphot_sum}. The

684: dispersion when using four templates is equal to that for three

685: templates, while $\Delta z$ is larger. This seems to show that even

686: though the data are better fit using four templates rather than three,

687: the freedom introduced by including an extra template broadens the

688: photo-z distribution. Presumably this occurs because the four template

689: model allows colors that expand beyond the observed range for galaxies

690: (see Figs. \ref{fg:color_diag_opt} and \ref{fg:color_diag_mir}) while

691: the three template models do not.

692: 

693: We built the templates excluding the 3\% of galaxies most poorly fit

694: by them (see Figure \ref{fg:chinorm}). These poor fits are mostly

695: caused by extreme star formation, AGN contamination and bad

696: data. Figure \ref{fg:bad_ex} shows some examples of the worst and best

697: fit galaxies. The flat continuum in the mid-infrared is the signature

698: of an AGN \citep{stern05}. Figure \ref{fg:chi2z} shows that galaxies

699: that are poorly fit by the templates tend to have less reliable

700: photometric redshifts, so we examined the accuracy for galaxies whose

701: best fit photometric redshift yields a $\chi^2$ smaller than the 90th

702: percentile of its expected value. This criteria eliminates 25\% of the

703: original sample.  As summarized in Table \ref{tab:zphot_sum} and

704: illustrated in the bottom panels of Figure \ref{fg:zphot}, these

705: $\chi^2$-limited samples have distribution widths that are a factor of

706: 1.2--1.4 smaller than for the sample as a whole, and by similar

707: amounts for the 68.3, 95.5 and 99.7\% intervals. We tried improving

708: the photometric redshifts for objects with bad data by sequentially

709: dropping individual magnitude measurements during the template

710: fitting. While this greatly improved the fits, the redshift accuracy

711: $\sigma_z/(1+z)$ worsened by 5--10\% when considering the full

712: sample. For objects that have AGN contamination, photometric redshifts

713: could be improved by adding an AGN template when the galaxy templates

714: fit poorly.

715: 

716: In these calculations we forced all $a_k$ coefficients to be positive

717: both while building the templates and while estimating the photometric

718: redshifts. It is possible that this limitation might worsen the

719: photometric redshifts, essentially by limiting the permitted range of

720: star formation rates. When we tested this by recalculating the

721: photometric redshifts without forcing $a_k \geq 0$, we found that the

722: dispersion in the redshifts increases by factors of 1.3 and 1.5 for

723: the 3 and 4 template models respectively. The problem is that the

724: added freedom allows the accessible color space to expand well beyond

725: that occupied by galaxies, thereby allowing good fits at bad

726: redshifts. We also investigated the effects of the luminosity priors

727: on the the photometric redshifts, and found out that while they

728: improve the accuracy, the gain is marginal (5--10\% effect in all

729: cases).

730: 

731: To further test our photometric redshift determinations, we obtained

732: the five bands of SDSS photometry for the galaxies in the AGES sample

733: and estimated their redshifts based solely on this information. We

734: find a dispersion of $\sigma_z/(1+z) = 0.086$ and $\Delta z = 0.052$,

735: again with highly non-Gaussian tails. While these values are worse

736: than what we had previously obtained for the same sample, as they are

737: based on a smaller number of photometric bands, they prove the

738: validity of our templates and algorithms. \citet{csabai03} estimated

739: photometric redshifts for galaxies brighter than $r'=18$ in the early

740: data release of SDSS with a method similar to ours and found a

741: standard deviation of $\sigma_{rms}=0.045$. If we limit our SDSS

742: sample to that magnitude, we find a very similar result of

743: $\sigma_{rms}=0.048$.

744: 

745: 

746: \section{Spectral Classifications}\label{sec:spec_clas}

747: 

748: We can now use the SED models for other applications, such as studying

749: the spectral distribution of the galaxies in the sample. For this

750: section, we use the full photometric galaxy sample of the Bo\"otes

751: field up to $I \leq 21$ mag, as derived from NDWFS, FLAMEX, zBo\"otes

752: and IRAC observations. This ``photometric'' galaxy sample consists on

753: approximately 80000 galaxies in total of which 69000 are usable

754: because they have photometry in at least four of the eleven bands

755: described in \S~\ref{sec:data} and have not been flagged by AGES for

756: either having an AGN contribution or being near a bright star. We

757: estimate photometric redshifts using the algorithm of

758: \S~\ref{ssec:photoz_proc}.

759: 

760: Figure \ref{fg:type_hist} shows the distribution of galaxies as a

761: function of their relative elliptical component $\hat{e}$ (see eqn.

762: [\ref{eq:ehat}]). For this figure, and the rest of this section, we

763: use the three template model for the reasons discussed in

764: \S~\ref{ssec:photoz_res}. There are two components -- one peak

765: consists of nearly pure Elliptical galaxies, while the other covers a

766: broad range of star forming galaxies. The spike at $\hat{e}=0$ is a

767: consequence of requiring $a_k\geq 0$ and contains $\sim$ 20\% of the

768: objects. If we allow negative spectral coefficients, the distribution

769: develops a smooth tail (see Fig. \ref{fg:type_hist}) where the best

770: fitting SEDs subtract an Elliptical component from the Sbc/Im

771: templates to reduce the 1.6$\mu$m emission peak. We inspected spectra

772: of galaxies in the spike, and found that it is dominated by galaxies

773: with obvious evidence of star formation, plus a number of galaxies

774: with photometry issues ($\sim 10\%$). If we modify the templates by

775: subtracting $20\%$ of the Elliptical template from the two star

776: forming ones, the spike shrinks, but at the cost of making the Sbc

777: template unphysical and worsening the photometric redshifts. If we

778: modify the components in this way and then refit the templates to the

779: AGES sample using the method of \S~\ref{ssec:temp_proc}, they move

780: back toward the original solution. A possible reason for this is the

781: lack of a second parameter such as metallicity to differentiate

782: between star forming galaxies, as the templates will converge to the

783: typical galaxies. Lack of data also contributes to the formation of

784: the spike. If we restrict the sample to galaxies with six or more

785: bands of photometry, the fraction of galaxies in the spike goes down

786: by about 20\%. Photometric redshift errors also contribute, since the

787: spike drops by 20\% if we use spectroscopic redshifts and by 50\% if

788: we apply the $\chi^2$ cuts of \S~\ref{ssec:photoz_res} (see

789: Fig. \ref{fg:type_hist}).

790: 

791: Figure \ref{fg:lum_shades} shows the distribution of the Elliptical

792: template fraction $\hat{e}$ of the SEDs as a function of their

793: bolometric luminosity $L$ for three different redshift ranges. Note

794: that while we use the 6\farcs0 aperture fluxes to fit the templates,

795: we correct to the total flux for the bolometric luminosity. We do this

796: by scaling the best-fit SED by the ratio of the Kron-like SExtractor $I$

797: band magnitude to the 6\farcs0 one. In practice however, the $I$-band

798: Kron-like photometry is sometimes affected by nearby bright stars

799: beyond the AGES flagging, producing excessively bright magnitudes. To

800: deal with this, we follow the approach of \citet{eisenstein07} and use

801: a total $I$-band magnitude produced from a weighted mean between the

802: Kron-like measurement and the predicted one from the $R$-band

803: measurement and the 6\farcs0 colors that favors the faintest of the

804: two. To account for the volume and depth limitations of the survey, we

805: use the $V/V_{\rm max}$ method \citep{schmidt68}, to properly weight

806: each bin for the effects of the magnitude limits. The density of each

807: bin is given by

808: \begin{equation}

809: n\ =\ \sum_i \frac{1}{\rm min[V_{\rm max}^i,V_{\rm max}] - V_{\rm

810: min}},

811: \end{equation}

812: \noindent where $V_{\rm max}^i$ is the co-moving volume to which

813: galaxy $i$ can be detected and $V_{\rm max}$ and $V_{\rm min}$ are the

814: volumes corresponding to the upper and lower edges of the redshift

815: bin. The $V_{\rm max}^i$ are easily calculated with our algorithm,

816: since it only depends on the SED of the galaxy and the magnitude

817: limits of the survey. In this figure we do not show the galaxies in

818: the $\hat{e} = 0$ spike. As expected, we see a well-defined clump of

819: galaxies with low star formation rate in all three redshift ranges,

820: and also a less well-defined locus of star forming galaxies that spans

821: a broader luminosity range. The latter group becomes less well-defined

822: at higher redshifts. Notice that in the lowest redshift bin

823: we cannot map the high star formation peak well mostly because of the

824: problems discussed above with the blue spike of Figure

825: \ref{fg:type_hist}.

826: 

827: Using the $V/V_{\rm max}$ method we also estimated B-band luminosity

828: functions for the NDWFS Bo\"otes field. We limited the survey to a

829: central area of approximately 5.3 deg$^2$ that is uniformly sampled in

830: all bands and contains $\sim 43000$ galaxies to $I < 21$. This is a

831: conservative limit of the usable survey area, but it will not affect

832: our results. As we did before, we excluded galaxies with a possible

833: AGN contamination (1200 objects), photometry in fewer than 4 bands

834: (1350) and near bright stars (2400), leaving us with a sample of

835: approximately 39000 galaxies. Using our templates and algorithms, we

836: predict the B-band \citep{bessell90} absolute magnitude of each

837: galaxy. We corrected for the dropped objects as a simple sampling

838: fraction correction. Naively implemented, the low luminosity tail of

839: the LF estimates are dominated by $L\sim L_*$ objects with

840: ``catastrophic'' photo-z errors.  As discussed in section

841: \ref{ssec:photoz_res}, a $\chi^2$ cut can be implemented to minimize

842: such systematic failures. After some iterations, we decided on

843: eliminating the worst 10\% of the objects,leaving the sample with

844: $\sim 35000$ galaxies. This cut provides a good balance between

845: minimizing the statistical uncertainties from the diminished number of

846: objects and the systematic uncertainties from the photometric

847: redshifts. Our estimated luminosity functions, scaled to the total

848: number of galaxies in the selected sub-field (that is the ones used

849: for the estimation plus the ones with bad fits and the ones near

850: bright stars), are shown in Figure \ref{fg:lum_funcs} for four

851: redshift ranges and for four spectral type subdivisions: $0 \leq

852: \hat{e} < 0.4$ (high star formation rate ), $0.4 < \hat{e} < 0.8$

853: (intermediate star formation rate), $0.8 < \hat{e} \leq 1.0$ (low star

854: formation rate) and $0.0 \leq \hat{e} \leq 1.0$ (all star formation

855: rates). We estimated the errors by bootstrap re-sampling. This figure

856: also shows the best fit Schechter functions \citep{schech76} for each

857: case, with the parameters summarized in Table

858: \ref{tab:schech_fits}. We fit the Schechter functions only over the

859: magnitude ranges where the functional form is appropriate, dropping

860: the bins affected by the catalog magnitude limit and regions where

861: there is an apparent upturn at faint magnitudes. This upturn is

862: probably produced by a small artifact amplified by the $1/V_{max}$

863: weights. These present results are also limited by the photometry,

864: with problems in the total (Kron) magnitudes for objects with bright

865: neighbors affecting mostly the bright ends.

866: 

867: \citet{brown07} estimated the B-band luminosity functions of red

868: galaxies in the NDWFS field. The left panels of Figure

869: \ref{fg:early_lum_funcs} shows their results compared to our $0.8 <

870: \hat{e} \leq 1.0$ sample. Due to the different ways in which the

871: samples were selected, we only expect them to agree on the bright end

872: but not on the faint end slope or in the overall amplitude

873: $\phi_*$. \citet{brown07} defined their sample using the evolving and

874: luminosity dependent rest frame U--V color criterion (eqn. [3] of

875: \citealt{brown07})

876: \begin{equation}\label{eq:brown_crit}

877: \rm U - \rm V > 1.40 - 0.25 - 0.08(M_{\rm V} - 5 \log h + 20.0) -

878: 0.42(z-0.05) + 0.07(z-0.05)^2 ,

879: \end{equation}

880: \noindent which corresponds to the expected location of the red

881: sequence in the $M_{\rm V}$ U--V plane displaced to the blue by 0.25

882: mag. Our criteria, on the other hand, corresponds to a non-evolving

883: and luminosity independent U--V color (U--V $\gtrsim 1.1$), so, by

884: definition, our sample will include fewer faint galaxies than

885: \citet{brown07}. Moreover, the evolution of the criteria set by

886: \citet{brown07} follows the evolution of the red sequence, becoming

887: bluer with increasing redshift, so we expect the differences between

888: the two luminosity functions to occur at brighter magnitudes at higher

889: redshifts, as seen in Figure \ref{fg:early_lum_funcs}.

890: 

891: \citet{wolf03} carried out a similar analysis to ours, using galaxies

892: from COMBO-17 with photometric redshifts and classifying them by their

893: overall spectral shape rather than their colors. In particular, their

894: {\it{type 1}} sample, defined as all galaxies with spectral types from

895: Ellipticals to Sab spirals, is similar to our low star formation rate

896: sample. We recalculated the luminosity functions using the COMBO-17

897: survey B-band for our early type sample, again keeping $\alpha$ fixed

898: to the value from the $0.2<z<0.4$ redshifts bin, and found in general

899: a good agreement with \citet{wolf03}. The right panels of Figure

900: \ref{fg:early_lum_funcs} show our luminosity functions compared to

901: those of \citet{wolf03} in the three redshift ranges where we

902: overlap. The agreement is very good for the two lowest redshift ranges

903: in the Figure, but somewhat worse for the highest one, although

904: still compatible.  A comparison with the rest of their results is not

905: straightforward, as there is no trivial match between their selection

906: criteria and ours for groups other than their {\it{type 1}}.

907: 

908: \section{Conclusions}

909: 

910: We have built an optimized basis of low resolution spectral templates

911: for the wavelength range from 0.2--10 $\mu$m that accurately reproduce

912: most galaxy SEDs. We used a variant of the \citet{budava00} method to

913: fit the SEDs of 17000 AGES galaxies with photometry in at least 6 of

914: 11 possible bands. We considered a three template basis starting from

915: the CWW Elliptical, Sbc and Im templates and a four template basis

916: where we added an E+A post-starburst component. One novel feature of

917: our approach is that we model each galaxy as a non-negative sum of

918: templates, which markedly improves the match of the model to the

919: observed color range of galaxies (see Figs. \ref{fg:color_diag_opt}

920: and \ref{fg:color_diag_mir} ) and significantly improves photometric

921: redshift estimates.

922: 

923: We applied these optimized templates to calculate accurate photometric

924: redshifts. We find that while the four template models fit the galaxy

925: SEDs better than the three template models when the redshift is known,

926: they broaden the photometric redshifts errors by approximately

927: 50\%. Using the three templates basis, we showed that the accuracy of

928: our method is $\sigma_z/(1+z) = 0.060$ ($\Delta z = 0.038$), with the

929: accuracy being highest for early type galaxies. Many of the galaxies

930: with poor photometric redshifts estimates are also poorly fit by the

931: templates because of either bad photometric data points or AGN

932: contamination. If we consider only galaxies having $\chi^2$ values

933: smaller than the 90th percentile of their expected value, the accuracy

934: improves to $\sigma_z/(1+z) = 0.044$ ($\Delta z = 0.030$) when

935: dropping the worst 5\% of the redshifts. This is somewhat better than

936: that obtained by \citet{brodwin06} for a very similar data set but

937: using a hybrid approach that mixed SED fitting and neural

938: networks. Our results are somewhat worse than those obtained by the

939: ZEBRA code \citep{zebra06} for a COSMOS \citep{cosmos06} galaxy

940: sample, but this is probably due to the very small number of degrees

941: of freedom in their data set after fitting six redshift-dependent

942: templates to a sample of only 866 galaxies that is then used to test

943: those templates.

944: 

945: Besides photometric redshifts, we also applied these optimized

946: templates to calculate accurate $K$ corrections and bolometric

947: luminosities. We compared the $K$ corrections to those obtained using

948: the \verb+kcorrect v4_1_4+ code of \citet{blanton03} for the AGES

949: galaxy sample and found a very good agreement between them. We have

950: implemented our algorithms for calculating bolometric luminosities,

951: $K$ corrections and photometric redshifts, including our optimized

952: template basis, in a public code\footnote{Code available at

953: www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/$\sim$rjassef/lrt} that can carry out the

954: calculations for any set of filters provided by the user.

955: 

956: We applied these algorithms to the photometric galaxy sample of the

957: NDWFS Bo\"otes field with $I \leq 21$ mag ($\sim 69000$ galaxies)

958: and studied the galaxy luminosity distribution as a function of

959: redshift and star formation (parametrized by the early-type template

960: fraction $\hat{e}$). We find that our algorithms reproduce the bimodal

961: distribution of red and blue galaxies that has been observed as a

962: function of color and magnitude in the SDSS

963: \citep{strateva01,blanton03b,kauffmann03}, DEEP2

964: \citep{madgwick03,weiner05} and COMBO-17 \citep{bell04} surveys, for

965: example. We have also shown that the mid-infrared color-color

966: distribution of galaxies is strongly bimodal, resembling its optical

967: counterpart, except that rather than a red clump and a blue cloud, it

968: has a blue clump and a red cloud

969: (Fig. \ref{fg:color_diag_mir}). Finally, we used these algorithms to

970: estimate the B-band luminosity functions of the field from a central

971: region of the survey containing about 43000 galaxies. Our approach

972: allows us to easily study them as a function of redshift and star

973: formation. Our results, summarized in Figure \ref{fg:lum_funcs} and

974: Table \ref{tab:schech_fits}, agree broadly with the results of

975: \citet{brown07} and \citet{wolf03}.

976: 

977: \acknowledgments

978: 

979: We wish thank Richard W. Pogge for lending us his expertize in

980: analyzing spectra, Steve Willner for his suggestions and comments, and

981: all the people in the NDWFS, FLAMEX and IRAC Shallow Survey

982: collaborations that did not directly participate in this work. The

983: AGES observations were obtained at the MMT Observatory, a joint

984: facility of the Smithsonian Institution and the University of

985: Arizona. This work made use of data products provided by the NOAO Deep

986: Wide-Field Survey \citep{ndwfs99,jannuzi05,dey05}, which is supported

987: by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO). This research

988: draws upon data provided by Dr. Buell Jannuzi and Dr. Arjun Dey as

989: distributed by the NOAO Science Archive. NOAO is operated by AURA,

990: Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the National Science

991: Foundation. This work is based in part on observations made with the

992: Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion

993: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with

994: NASA.

995: 

996: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

997: 

998: \bibitem[Becker et al., 1995]{first}

999: Becker, R.H., White R.L. \& Helfand, D.J., 1995, \aj, 450, 559

1000: 

1001: \bibitem[Beckwith et al., 2006]{udf}

1002: Beckwith, S.V.W. et al.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 1729

1003: 

1004: \bibitem[Bell et al., 2004]{bell04}

1005: Bell, E.F. et al.\ 2004, \apj, 608, 752

1006: 

1007: \bibitem[Ben\'itez, 2000]{benitez00}

1008: Ben\'itez, N.\ 2000, \apj, 563, 571

1009: 

1010: \bibitem[{Bertin \& Arnouts}, 1996]{sextractor96}	

1011: Bertin, E. \& Arnouts, S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 393

1012: 

1013: \bibitem[Bessell, 1990] {bessell90}

1014: Bessel, M.S.\ 1990, \pasp, 102, 1181

1015: 

1016: \bibitem[Blanton et al., 2003a]{blanton03}

1017: Blanton, M.R., Brinkmann, J., Csabai, I., Doi, M., Eisenstein, D.,

1018: Fukugita, M., Gunn, J., Hogg, D. \& Schlegel, D.\ 2003a, \aj, 125, 2348

1019: 

1020: \bibitem[Blanton et al., 2003b]{blanton03b}

1021: Blanton, M.R. et al.\ 2003b, \apj, 594, 186

1022: 

1023: \bibitem[Blanton et al., 2006]{blanton06}

1024: Blanton, M.R. \& Roweis, S.\ 2006, submitted (astro-ph/0606170)

1025: 

1026: \bibitem[Bolzonella et al., 2000]{bolzonella00}

1027: Bolzonella, M., Miralles, J.-M. \& Pelló, R.\ 2000, \aap, 363, 476

1028: 

1029: \bibitem[Brodwin et al., 2006]{brodwin06}

1030: Brodwin, M. et al.\ 2006, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0607450)

1031: 

1032: \bibitem[Brown et al., 2007]{brown07}

1033: Brown, M.J.I. et al.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 858

1034: 

1035: \bibitem[Brown et al., in prep.]{browninprep}

1036: Brown, M. et al.\ in preparation. 

1037: 

1038: \bibitem[Brunner et al., 1999]{brunner99}

1039: Brunner, R.J, Connolly, A.J. \& Szalay, A.S.\ 1999, \apj, 516, 563

1040: 

1041: \bibitem[{Bruzual \& Charlot}, 1993]{bc93}

1042: Bruzual,G. Charlot, Stephane 1993ApJ...405..538B

1043: 

1044: \bibitem[{Bruzual \& Charlot}, 2003]{bc03}

1045: Bruzual, G. \& Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000

1046: 

1047: \bibitem[Budavari et al., 2000]{budava00} 

1048: Budavari T., Szalay, A.S., Connolly, A.J., Csabai, I. and Dickinson,

1049: M.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1588

1050: 

1051: \bibitem[{Coleman, Wu \& Weedman}, 1980]{cww80}

1052: Coleman, G.D., Wu, C.-C. \& Weedman, D.W.\ 1980, \apjs, 43, 393 

1053: 

1054: \bibitem[{Collister \& Lahav}, 2004]{annz}

1055: Collister, A.A. \& Lahav, O.\ 2004, \pasp, 116, 345

1056: 

1057: \bibitem[Cool, 2006]{cool06}

1058: Cool, R.J.\ 2006, \apjs, in press (astro-ph/0611508)

1059: 

1060: \bibitem[Condon et al., 1998]{nvss}

1061: Condon, J.J. et al.\ 1998, AJ, 115, 1693

1062: 

1063: \bibitem[Connolly et al., 1995]{connolly95}

1064: Connolly, A.J. et al.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 2655

1065: 

1066: \bibitem[Csabai et al., 2000]{csabai00}

1067: Csabai, I., Connolly, A.J., Szalay, A.S. and Budavari, T.\ 2000, \aj,

1068: 119, 69

1069: 

1070: \bibitem[Csabai et al., 2003]{csabai03}

1071: Csabai, I., et al.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 580

1072: 

1073: \bibitem[{Devriendt, Guiderdoni \& Sadat}, 1999]{devriendt99}

1074: Devriendt, J.E.G., Guiderdoni, B. \& Sadat, R.\ 1999, \aap, 350, 381

1075: 

1076: \bibitem[Dey et al., 2005]{dey05}

1077: Dey, A. et al.\ 2005, submitted.

1078: 

1079: \bibitem[de Vries et al., 2002]{devries02}

1080: de Vries, W.H. et al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 1784

1081: 

1082: \bibitem[Dickinson et al., 2003]{goods} 

1083: Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., and the GOODS Team\ 2003, {\it{The Great

1084: Observatories Origins Deep Survey}}, in ``The Mass of Galaxies at Low and

1085: High Redshift'' Proceedings of the ESO Workshop held in Venice, Italy,

1086: 24-26 October 2001; eds. R. Bender \& A. Renzini, p. 324

1087: 

1088: \bibitem[Donas et al., 1995]{donas95}

1089: Donas, J., Milliard, B. \& Laget, M.\ 1995, \aap, 303, 661

1090: 

1091: \bibitem[Elston et al., 2006]{flamex06}

1092: Elston, R.J., Gonzalez, A. H. et al.\ 2006, \apj, 639, 816

1093: 

1094: \bibitem[Eisenhardt et al., 2004]{irac04}

1095: Eisenhardt, P.R. et al.\ 2004, \apjs, 154, 48

1096: 

1097: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al., in prep.]{eisenstein07}

1098: Eisenstein, D.J. et al.\ 2007, in preparation

1099: 

1100: \bibitem[Fabricant et al., 2005]{fabricant05}

1101: Fabricant, D. et al.\ 2005, \pasp, 117, 1411

1102: 

1103: \bibitem[Fazio et al., 2004]{fazio04}

1104: Fazio, G.G., et al.\ 2004, \apjs, 154, 10

1105: 

1106: \bibitem[Feldmann et al., 2006]{zebra06} 

1107: Feldmann, R. et al.\ 2006, \mnras, in press (astro-ph/0609044)

1108: 

1109: \bibitem[{Fioc \& Rocca-Volmerange}, 1997]{pegase97}

1110: Fioc, M. \& Rocca-Volmerange, B.\ 1997, \aap, 326, 950

1111: 

1112: \bibitem[Hogg, 1999]{hogg99}

1113: Hogg, D.\ 1999, astro-ph/9905116

1114: 

1115: \bibitem[Hogg et al., 2002]{hogg02}

1116: Hogg, D., Baldry, I.K., Blanton, M.R. \& Eisenstein, D.J., 2002,

1117: astro-ph/0210394

1118: 

1119: \bibitem[Jannuzi \& Dey, 1999]{ndwfs99} 

1120: Jannuzi, B. T. \& Dey, A.\ 1999, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 191,

1121: p. 111

1122: 

1123: \bibitem[Jannuzi et al., 2005]{jannuzi05}

1124: Jannuzi, B.T. et al.\ 2005, submitted.

1125: 

1126: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al., 2003]{kauffmann03}

1127: Kauffmann, G. et al.\ 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33

1128: 

1129: \bibitem[Kinney et al., 1996]{kinney96}

1130: Kinney, A.L. et al.\ 1996, \apj, 1996, 467, 38

1131: 

1132: \bibitem[Kochanek et al., in prep]{ages}

1133: Kochanek, C.S. et al. in preparation.

1134: 

1135: \bibitem[{Lawson \& Hanson}, 1974]{lawson74} 

1136: Lawson, C.L. \& Hanson, R.J.\ 1974, \textit{Solving Least Squares

1137: Problems}, PrenticeHall.

1138: 

1139: \bibitem[Lee et al., 2006]{lee06}

1140: Lee, K. et al., 2006, \apj, 642,63

1141: 

1142: \bibitem[Lin et al., 1996]{lcrslf}

1143: Lin, H., Kirshner, R.P., Shectman, S.A., Landy, S.D., Oemler, A.,

1144: Tucker, D.L. \& Schechter, P. L.\ 1996, \apj, 464, 60

1145: 

1146: \bibitem[Madgwick et al., 2003]{madgwick03}

1147: Madgwick, D.S. et al.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 997

1148: 

1149: \bibitem[Martin et al., 2005]{martin05}

1150: Martin, D.C. et al.\ 2005, \apj, 619L, 1

1151: 

1152: \bibitem[Murray et al., 2005]{murray05}

1153: Murray, S.S. et al.\ 2005, \apjs, 161, 1

1154: 

1155: \bibitem[{Oke \& Sandage}, 1968]{oke68}

1156: Oke, J.B. \& Sandage, A.\ 1968, \apj, 154, 21

1157: 

1158: \bibitem[Ouchi et al., 2005]{ouchi05}

1159: Ouchi, M. et al.\ 2005, \apj, 635L, 117

1160: 

1161: \bibitem[{Padmanabhan \& Ray}, 2006]{padma06}

1162: Padmanabhan, T. \& Ray, Suryadeep\ 2006, \mnras, 372, 53

1163: 

1164: \bibitem[Schechter, 1976]{schech76}

1165: Schechter, P.\ 1976, \apj, 203, 297

1166: 

1167: \bibitem[Schlegel et al., 1998]{schlegel98}

1168: Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P. \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525

1169: 

1170: \bibitem[Schmidt, 1968]{schmidt68}

1171: Schmidt, M.\ 1968, \apj, 151, 393

1172: 

1173: \bibitem[Stern et al., 2005]{stern05}

1174: Stern, D. et al.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 163

1175: 

1176: \bibitem[Reach et al., 2005]{reach05}

1177: Reach, W.T. et al.\ 2005, \pasp, 117, 978

1178: 

1179: \bibitem[Rengelink et al., 1997]{wenss}

1180: Rengelink, R.B. et al.\ 1997, \aap, 124, 259

1181: 

1182: \bibitem[Scoville et al., 2006]{cosmos06}

1183: Scoville N. et al.\ 2006, \apjs, COSMOS Special Issue

1184: 

1185: \bibitem[Skrutskie et al., 2006]{2mass}

1186: Skrutskie, M.F. et al.\ 2006,\aj, 131, 1163

1187: 

1188: \bibitem[Strateva et al., 2001]{strateva01}

1189: Strateva, I. et al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 186

1190: 

1191: \bibitem[Wang et al., 1998]{wang98}

1192: Wang, Y., Bahcall, N. \& Turner, E.L.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 2081

1193: 

1194: \bibitem[Weedman et al., 2006]{weedman06}

1195: Weedman, D.W. et al.\ 2006, \apj, 651, 101

1196: 

1197: \bibitem[Weiner et al., 2005]{weiner05}

1198: Weiner, B.J. et al.\ 2005, \apj, 620, 595

1199: 

1200: \bibitem[White et al., 2007]{white07}

1201: White, M. et al.\ 2007, \apj, 655L, 69

1202: 

1203: \bibitem[Wolf et al., 2003]{wolf03} 

1204: Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., Rix, H.-W., Roch, A., Dye, S., and

1205: Kleinheinrich, M.\ 2003, \aap, 401, 73

1206: 

1207: \bibitem[York et al., 2000]{sdss}

1208: York D. et al.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1579

1209: 

1210: \bibitem[Zehavi et al., 2005]{zehavi05}

1211: Zehavi, I. et al.\ 2005, \apj, 630, 1

1212: 

1213: \end{thebibliography}

1214: 

1215: \include{tab1}

1216: \include{tab2}

1217: \include{tab3}

1218: \include{tab4}

1219: \include{tab5}

1220: \include{tab6}

1221: 

1222: 

1223: \begin{figure}

1224:   \begin{center}

1225:     \plotone{f1.eps}

1226:     \caption{The solid lines show our initial guesses for the Sbc

1227:     (left) and Im (right) templates, which were generated by extending

1228:     the CWW templates to the mid-IR with the \citet{bc03} synthetic

1229:     models and then adding the mid-IR part of the M82 and VCC 1003

1230:     templates of \citet{devriendt99} to include dust/PAH emission

1231:     features. For comparison, the dashed lines show the CWW templates

1232:     extended into the mid-IR based only on the \citet{bc03} models.}

1233:     \label{fg:cwwcomp}

1234:   \end{center}

1235: \end{figure}

1236: 

1237: \begin{figure}

1238:   \begin{center}

1239:     \plotone{f2.eps}

1240:     \caption{{\textit{(Top panel)}} The number of measurements used to

1241:     derive the templates as a function of wavelength. We consider

1242:     object $i$ to contribute to wavelength bin $n$ if

1243:     $S_{i,b,\lambda_n}$ (as defined in eqn. [\ref{eq:s_i_b_l}]) is at

1244:     least 10\% of its maximum in band $b$. {\textit{(Bottom panel)}}

1245:     Filter sensitivity curves for the AGES bands. The dips seen in the

1246:     top panel near 0.4, 1.2 and 2.1 $\mu$m are caused by the lack of V

1247:     and H-band data and the significant gap between K and C1.}

1248:     \label{fg:contrib}

1249:   \end{center}

1250: \end{figure}

1251:     

1252: 

1253: \begin{figure}

1254:   \begin{center}

1255:     \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}

1256:     \plottwo{f3c.eps}{f3d.eps}

1257:     \caption{{\textit{(Top sub-panels)}} The Elliptical (solid line),

1258:     Sbc (dotted) and Im (dashed) templates as a function of

1259:     the smoothing strength weight $\eta$. Lower values of $\eta$

1260:     correspond to stronger smoothing. {\textit{(Bottom sub-panels)}}

1261:     The fractional change in the templates from the extended-CWW

1262:     templates. For each case, we have approximately 90600 degrees of

1263:     freedom.}

1264:     \label{fg:allspeceta}

1265:   \end{center}

1266: \end{figure}

1267: 

1268: \begin{figure}

1269:   \begin{center}

1270:     \plotone{f4.eps}

1271:     \caption{The deviation of the goodness of fit $\chi^2$ from the

1272:     number of degrees of freedom $N_{\rm DOF}$ in units of the

1273:     expected standard deviation in the absence of smoothing, $\sqrt{2

1274:     \rm N_{\rm DOF}}$, as a function of the smoothing strength

1275:     parameter $\eta$ for the three {\it{(squares)}} and four

1276:     {\it{(triangle)}} template models. The selected value of

1277:     $\eta=0.004$ is indicated by the vertical line. In the plot,

1278:     $\hat{\chi}^2$ stands for the normalized $\chi^2$ such that if

1279:     $\eta \to \infty$, $\hat{\chi}^2 = \rm{N_{\rm DOF}}$ for the four

1280:     template model. The filled points show the results for the

1281:     subsample used to build the templates, where we drop the 3\% of

1282:     galaxies with the worst fit, and the open points show the results

1283:     including all objects. That those 3\% of galaxies contribute more

1284:     than 70\% of the total $\chi^2$ justifies their elimination.}

1285:     \label{fg:chinorm}

1286:   \end{center}

1287: \end{figure}

1288: 

1289: 

1290: \begin{figure}

1291:   \begin{center}

1292:     \plotone{f5.eps}

1293:     \caption{The templates derived using the algorithm described in

1294:     \S~\ref{ssec:temp_proc} for the three {\it{(dashed)}} and four

1295:     {\it{(dotted)}} template models compared to their initial guesses

1296:     {\it{(solid)}}. All templates are normalized so that they have the

1297:     same integrated energy from 0.5 to 2$\mu$m.}

1298:     \label{fg:allspeccomp}

1299:   \end{center}

1300: \end{figure}

1301: 

1302: \begin{figure}

1303:   \begin{center}

1304:     \plotone{f6.eps}

1305:     \caption{The color--color distributions of the AGES galaxy sample

1306:     for four different redshift ranges in the optical bands. The black

1307:     contours enclose 20 (bold), 40, 60 and 80\% of the galaxies in the

1308:     sample. Solid lines mark the borders of the areas covered by our

1309:     three {\it{(red)}} and four {\it{(blue)}} template models. The

1310:     error bars in the bottom right of each panel show the typical

1311:     color error for galaxies in each sample. For comparison we show in

1312:     thick lines the colors of six common templates from the

1313:     literature: CWW Elliptical {\it{(red)}}, Sbc {\it{(green)}}, Scd

1314:     {\it{(cyan)}} and Im {\it{(blue)}}, and \citet{kinney96} SB1

1315:     {\it{(yellow)}} and SB2 {\it{(magenta)}}.}

1316:     \label{fg:color_diag_opt}

1317:   \end{center}

1318: \end{figure}

1319: 

1320: \begin{figure}

1321:   \begin{center}

1322:     \plotone{f7.eps}

1323:     \caption{The color--color distributions of the AGES galaxy sample

1324:     for four different redshift ranges in the mid-IR bands. Contours

1325:     are defined in the same way as in

1326:     Fig. \ref{fg:color_diag_opt}. For comparison, we show the

1327:     \citet{bc03} extended CWW templates in the same color-coding as in

1328:     the optical. Notice that the E, Sbc and Scd colors sometimes

1329:     overlap since they are very similar in this wavelength range. Also

1330:     note that the low redshift galaxy distribution is strongly

1331:     bimodal.}

1332:     \label{fg:color_diag_mir}

1333:   \end{center}

1334: \end{figure}

1335: 

1336: 

1337:  \begin{figure}

1338:   \begin{center}

1339:     \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{f8a.eps}

1340:     \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{f8b.eps}

1341:     \caption{Histograms of the differences between the $K$ corrections

1342:     determined here and those determined by {\tt{kcorrect v4\_1\_4}}

1343:     of \citet{blanton03} for the AGES galaxy sample in all optical and

1344:     near-IR AGES bands (K and K$_{\rm s}$ have been combined into a

1345:     single K band) for redshifts lower {\textit{(top)}} and higher

1346:     {\textit{(bottom)}} than 0.3. Each panel also gives the standard

1347:     deviation between the methods $\sigma$, the mean $\mu$ of $\Delta

1348:     K_{corr}$ and the values of $\left|\Delta K_{corr}\right|$ that

1349:     encompasses 68.3, 95.5 and 99.7\% of the objects. The IRAC bands

1350:     are not considered since {\tt{kcorrect v4\_1\_4}} cannot model

1351:     mid-IR fluxes.}

1352:     \label{fg:kcorr}

1353:   \end{center}

1354: \end{figure} 

1355: 

1356: \begin{figure}

1357:   \begin{center}

1358:     \plotone{f9.eps}

1359:     \caption{Comparison of photometric and spectroscopic

1360:     redshifts. For a fixed photometric redshift, the solid line shows

1361:     the median of the spectroscopic redshifts, while the dotted and

1362:     dashed lines contain the 68.3 and 90\% of the distribution

1363:     respectively. The two redshifts are equal, $z_p = z_s$, on the

1364:     diagonal dot dashed line. Panel $a)$ shows the comparison for the

1365:     3 template model and $b)$ for the 4 template one. For the bottom

1366:     panels, $c)$ and $d)$, we have only included the 75\% of the

1367:     objects for which there is a probability greater than 10\% of

1368:     obtaining a $\chi^2$ larger than that of the best fit.}

1369:     \label{fg:zphot}

1370:   \end{center}

1371: \end{figure}

1372: 

1373: \begin{figure}

1374:   \begin{center}

1375:     \plotone{f10.eps}

1376:     \caption{Examples of bad and good fits to the data. In each panel

1377:     we show the photometric data {\it{(triangles)}}, the model

1378:     bandpass fluxes {\it{(squares)}}, the overall model SED

1379:     {\it{(solid line)}} and the E {\it{(dashed line)}}, Sbc

1380:     {\it{(dotted line)}} and Im {\it{(dot-dashed line)}} contributions

1381:     to the model SED. The top panels show the fit for galaxies with

1382:     AGN contamination. The bottom left panel is a galaxy with bad

1383:     photometry in the z' band. Finally, the bottom right panel shows

1384:     the median fit for comparison.}

1385:     \label{fg:bad_ex}

1386:   \end{center}

1387: \end{figure}

1388: 

1389: \begin{figure}

1390:   \begin{center}

1391:     \plotone{f11.eps}

1392:     \caption{{\it{(Top)}} The dispersion $\sigma_z/(1+z)$ defined in

1393:     equation (\ref{eq:sigmaz}) as a function of the $\chi^2$ per

1394:     degree of freedom for the fits to the photometry at the best

1395:     photometric redshift in the three {\it{(left)}} and four

1396:     {\it{(right)}} template models. The points are the mean values for

1397:     objects divided in bins with a width of one unit of $\chi^2$ per

1398:     degree of freedom. {\it{(Bottom)}} The fraction of objects with

1399:     fits better than that $\chi^2/N_{\rm DOF}$. The correlation

1400:     between $\chi^2$ and $\sigma_z/(1+z)$ justifies the $\chi^2$ cut

1401:     used in the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fg:zphot}.}

1402:     \label{fg:chi2z}

1403:   \end{center}

1404: \end{figure}

1405: 

1406: \begin{figure}

1407:   \begin{center}

1408:     \plotone{f12.eps}

1409:     \caption{Distribution of galaxies as a function of the elliptical

1410:     component fraction $\hat{e}$ in their SED. In both panels, the

1411:     bold solid line shows the distribution obtained using the NNLS

1412:     algorithm to enforce $a_k\geq 0$. The dotted line in the top panel

1413:     shows the distribution when we drop this restriction, while in the

1414:     bottom panel it shows the distribution when using the NNLS

1415:     algorithm but applying the $\chi^2$ cut of

1416:     \S~\ref{ssec:photoz_res}.}

1417:     \label{fg:type_hist}

1418:   \end{center}

1419: \end{figure}

1420: 

1421: \begin{figure}

1422:   \begin{center}

1423:     \plotone{f13.eps}

1424:     \caption{Contour plots of the distribution of galaxies as a

1425:     function of their bolometric luminosity and the amount of

1426:     elliptical component in their SEDs for three redshift ranges.

1427:     The contour levels, with the ordering of bold solid, bold

1428:     dashed, thin solid, thin dashed and thin dot-dashed, enclose

1429:     20\%,40\%,60\% and 100\% of the objects respectively. The

1430:     vertical dotted line shows $\log{L/10^{10} L_{\odot}} = 1$. In

1431:     each redshift range we see a bimodal distribution of galaxies with

1432:     either high or low star formation rates.}

1433:     \label{fg:lum_shades}

1434:   \end{center}

1435: \end{figure}

1436: 

1437: \begin{figure}

1438:   \begin{center}

1439:     \plotone{f14.eps}

1440:     \caption{Luminosity functions for the NDWFS Bo\"otes field. They

1441:     are divided into three $\hat{e}$ ranges 1--0.8 {\it{(left)}},

1442:     0.8--0.4 {\it{(middle-left)}} and 0.4--0.0 {\it{(middle-right)}},

1443:     and into four redshift ranges 0.0--0.2 {\it{(top)}}, 0.2--0.4

1444:     {\it{(middle-top)}}, 0.4--0.6 {\it{(middle-bottom)}} and 0.6--0.8

1445:     {\it{(bottom)}}. We also show the luminosity function of all

1446:     galaxies for the same redshift ranges in the rightmost panel. The

1447:     dashed lines show the best fit Schechter function. For all

1448:     $\hat{e}$ ranges there seems to be an evolutionary trend with

1449:     redshift.}

1450:     \label{fg:lum_funcs}

1451:   \end{center}

1452: \end{figure}

1453: 

1454: \begin{figure}

1455:   \begin{center}

1456:     \plotone{f15.eps}

1457:     \caption{Early-type galaxy luminosity functions for the redshift

1458:     ranges 0.2--0.4 {\it{(bottom)}}, 0.4--0.6 {\it{(middle)}} and

1459:     0.6--0.8 {\it{(top)}} from this work {\it{(solid lines and

1460:     points)}} and from \citet[][left]{brown07} and

1461:     \citet[][right]{wolf03} {\it{(dashed lines)}}. Note that the

1462:     shapes agree well for galaxies brighter than $M_*$. The difference

1463:     in the fainter end and in the normalization $\phi_*$ with the

1464:     functions of \citet{brown07} come from the different selection

1465:     criteria (see \S~\ref{sec:spec_clas} for details).}

1466:     \label{fg:early_lum_funcs}

1467:   \end{center}

1468: \end{figure}

1469: 

1470: 

1471: \end{document}

1472: