1: %%

2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

3: %%

4: %% Modified 2005 June 21

5: %%

6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

8: 

9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

11: %% any data that comes before this command.

12: 

13: %% The command below calls the preprint style

14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Usex

16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

17: %%

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

19: 

20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

21: 

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

23: 

24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

25: 

26: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

27: 

28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

30: %% use the longabstract style option.

31: 

32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

33: 

34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

36: %% the \begin{document} command.

37: %%

38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

41: %% for information.

42: 

43: \usepackage{graphicx}

44: \usepackage{epstopdf}

45: 

46: \newcommand{\dn}{~D$_n$(4000)~}

47: \newcommand{\hda}{~H$\delta_A$~}

48: \newcommand{\hess}{Hess function}

49: \newcommand{\fuvcenter}{1530\AA}

50: \newcommand{\nuvcenter}{2310\AA}

51: \newcommand{\fuvband}{1350-1750\AA}

52: \newcommand{\nuvband}{1750-2750\AA}

53: \newcommand{\fuvwidth}{400\AA}

54: \newcommand{\nuvwidth}{1000\AA}

55: \newcommand{\fuvmag}{\ifmmode{FUV}\else{\it FUV~}\fi}

56: \newcommand{\nuvmag}{\ifmmode{NUV}\else{\it NUV~}\fi}

57: \newcommand{\degree}{\ifmmode{^\circ}\else{$^\circ$~}\fi}

58: \newcommand{\mh}{\ifmmode{{\rm M}_{\rm H}}\else{M$_{\rm H}$~}\fi}

59: \newcommand{\irx}{\ifmmode{\langle IRX \rangle}\else{$\langle IRX \rangle$}\fi}

60: \newcommand{\ssfr}{\ifmmode{\langle SSFR \rangle}\else{$\langle SSFR \rangle$}\fi}

61: \newcommand{\mass}{\ifmmode{\mathcal{M}}\else{$\mathcal{M}$}\fi}

62: 

63: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

64: 

65: \slugcomment{Submitted for publication in the Special GALEX Ap.J.Suppl. Issue}

66: 

67: \shorttitle{Co-evolution of Star Formation and Extinction}

68: \shortauthors{Martin et al.}

69: 

70: \begin{document}

71: 

72: 

73: \title{The Star Formation and Extinction Co-Evolution of UV-Selected Galaxies over $0.05<z<1.2$}

74: 

75: \author{

76: D. Christopher Martin\altaffilmark{1},

77: Todd Small\altaffilmark{1},

78: David Schiminovich\altaffilmark{13},

79: Ted K. Wyder\altaffilmark{1},

80: Pablo G. P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez\altaffilmark{12},

81: Benjamin Johnson\altaffilmark{13},

82: Christian Wolf\altaffilmark{10},

83: Tom A. Barlow\altaffilmark{1},

84: Karl Forster\altaffilmark{1},

85: Peter G. Friedman\altaffilmark{1},

86: Patrick Morrissey\altaffilmark{1},

87: Susan G. Neff\altaffilmark{8},

88: Mark Seibert\altaffilmark{1},

89: Barry Y. Welsh\altaffilmark{6}, 

90: Luciana Bianchi\altaffilmark{2},

91: Jose Donas\altaffilmark{4},

92: Timothy M. Heckman\altaffilmark{5},

93: Young-Wook Lee\altaffilmark{3},

94: Barry F. Madore\altaffilmark{7},

95: Bruno Milliard\altaffilmark{4},

96: R. Michael Rich\altaffilmark{9},

97: Alex S. Szalay\altaffilmark{5},

98: Sukyoung K. Yi\altaffilmark{3},

99: Klaus Meisenheimer\altaffilmark{11},

100: George Rieke\altaffilmark{12}.

101: }

102: 

103: \altaffiltext{1}{California Institute of Technology, MC 405-47, 1200 East

104: California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125}

105: 

106: \altaffiltext{2}{Center for Astrophysical Sciences, The Johns Hopkins

107: University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218}

108: 

109: \altaffiltext{3}{Center for Space Astrophysics, Yonsei University, Seoul

110: 120-749, Korea}

111: 

112: \altaffiltext{4}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, BP 8, Traverse

113: du Siphon, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France}

114: 

115: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins

116: University, Homewood Campus, Baltimore, MD 21218}

117: 

118: \altaffiltext{6}{Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California at

119: Berkeley, 601 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720}

120: 

121: \altaffiltext{7}{Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,

122: 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101}

123: 

124: \altaffiltext{8}{Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics, NASA Goddard

125: Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771}

126: 

127: \altaffiltext{9}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of

128: California, Los Angeles, CA 90095}

129: 

130: \altaffiltext{10}{Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Keble Road, Oxfordm OX1 3RHU, U.K.}

131: 

132: \altaffiltext{11}{Max-Planck-Institut fur Astronomie, Konigstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany.}

133: 

134: \altaffiltext{12}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721.}

135: 

136: \altaffiltext{13}{Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, 528 W. 120th St., New York, NY 10027.}

137: 

138: 

139: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

140: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

141: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

142: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

143: %% editorial office after submission.

144: 

145: \begin{abstract}

146: 

147: We use a new stacking technique to obtain mean mid IR and far IR

148: to far UV flux ratios over the rest near-UV/near-IR  color-magnitude diagram. 

149: We employ COMBO-17 redshifts and COMBO-17 optical, GALEX far and near UV, Spitzer

150: IRAC and MIPS Mid IR photometry.  This technique permits us to

151: probe infrared excess (IRX), the ratio of far IR to far UV luminosity, 

152: and specific star formation rate (SSFR)

153: and their co-evolution over two orders of magnitude of stellar

154: mass and redshift $0.1<z<1.2$. We find that the SSFR and the characteristic

155: mass (M$_0$) above which the SSFR drops increase with redshift

156: (downsizing).  At any given epoch, IRX is

157: an increasing function of mass up to M$_0$. Above this

158: mass IRX falls, suggesting gas exhaustion.  

159: In a given mass bin below M$_0$ IRX increases with time

160: in a fashion consistent with enrichment. 

161: We interpret these trends using a simple model with a Schmidt-Kennicutt

162: law and extinction that tracks gas density

163: and enrichment. We find that the average

164: IRX and SSFR follows a galaxy age parameter $\xi$ which is determined mainly

165: by the galaxy mass and time since formation. 

166: We conclude that blue sequence

167: galaxies have properties which show simple, systematic trends

168: with mass and time such as the steady build-up of heavy elements in the interstellar media of evolving galaxies

169: and the exhaustion of gas in galaxies that are evolving off the blue sequence.

170: The IRX represents a tool for selecting  galaxies

171: at various stages of evolution. 

172: 

173: \end{abstract}

174: 

175: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

176: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

177: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

178: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

179: 

180: \keywords{galaxies: evolution---ultraviolet: galaxies}

181: 

182: \section{Introduction}

183: 

184: It has long been recognized that the present day properties of most galaxies can be represented by

185: relatively simple star formation histories \citep{tinsley68,searle72}. While the physical basis for

186: exponential star formation histories is almost certainly oversimplified, the resulting spectral energy

187: distributions generally do an excellent job in representing galaxy spectra and broadband colors. 

188: If exponential models have a basis in the physics of star formation history, in particular

189: in the conversion of gas into stars, then they make basic predictions that relate the

190: specific star formation rate to the gas fraction in galaxies over time. Evidence

191: for such a picture is growing (e.g., \cite{bell05a,noeske07}). Coupled with 

192: a model for chemical evolution, and brushing aside for the moment

193: the complexities of dust reprocessing, this framework could also provide a description

194: of the evolution of dust extinction in galaxies and the co-evolution of extinction

195: and star formation rate. In particular, we could expect a growth in the dust-to-gas

196: ratio as gas is processed through stars and potentially an increase in extinction

197: over time (e.g., as seen at z$\sim$2 by \cite{reddy06}). At the same time, as galaxies exhaust their gas supply, by whatever

198: mechanism, we may detect a corresponding drop in extinction.

199: 

200: In order to discern such effects, we need to segregate galaxies by a parameter

201: which is likely to be related to the timescale for evolution. There is certainly

202: theoretical motivation for using stellar mass as the fundamental parameter. 

203: For example, surface density scales with stellar mass \citep{kauffmann03b}, and star formation rate

204: scales with gas surface density \citep{kennicutt89}. The observational

205: case for ``downsizing'' seems secure \citep{cowie96,brinchmann00}.

206: The mass-metallicity relation \citep{tremonti04} suggests that low metallicity in

207: lower mass galaxies could be related to higher gas fractions and lower

208: processing through star formation. Lower mass galaxies

209: have younger stellar ages (e.g., \cite{kauffmann03b}). There is a well-known relationship

210: between luminosity as a proxy for stellar mass and extinction \citep{wang96}

211: which is present even at high redshift \citep{meurer99,adelberger00,reddy06,papovich06}.

212: We have recently established a tight relationship between metallicity and

213: infrared excess (IRX), the ratio of far infrared to far ultraviolet luminosity \citep{johnson07},

214: that suggests that IRX may be used as a tracer of metallicity and its evolution.

215: Finally, there is growing evidence that the so-called ``blue cloud'' of

216: star forming galaxies on the color-magnitude diagram is

217: actually a ``blue sequence'' in stellar mass \citep{wyder06,johnson06a} that is

218: relatively tight in color space when extinction is corrected. 

219: 

220: In order to distinguish trends with stellar mass, it is critical to

221: have as large a mass dynamic range as possible. At the same

222: time, dust extinction is likely to be a complex process

223: that introduces considerable noise into any overall trends.

224: Inclination variations alone produce much variance for

225: an otherwise constant dust geometry and extinction law.

226: We need to develop an approach which reveals the

227: average trends with stellar mass in spite of this noise.

228: A major benefit of a large multiwavelength survey

229: is the ability to extract such trends by averaging over many galaxies.

230: We have used Spitzer IRAC data to measure stellar mass and MIPS24

231: data for dust luminosity. We combine this with GALEX UV and COMBO-17

232: optical photometry and redshifts. A major difficulty we face when combining

233: IR and UV survey data is the relatively small overlap in

234: detected sources, with the bulk of the overlap

235: occuring at high luminosity and mass. Thus we have developed a new stacking approach

236: which permits us to study IRX over two orders of magnitude in stellar mass

237: over the redshift range $0.05<z<1.2$. Using this and a bolometric correction

238: we obtain an average IRX over the UV, H-band color magnitude diagram.

239: We use this to find total star formation rate, stellar mass, and specific

240: star formation rate. Finally, we show that the co-evolution of the average IRX and specific star formation

241: rate can be modelled using simple exponential star formation histories

242: and closed box chemical evolution to $z\sim 1$. 

243: 

244: We note that \cite{zheng07} have recently used an independent stacking technique

245: \citep{zheng06} to derive the SF history vs. stellar mass, also

246: using COMBO-17 and Spitzer data, and reached many conclusions

247: that are similar to ours, although with important differences which we

248: discuss in \S 5.2.

249: 

250: We use a concordance cosmology $\Omega_\Lambda=0.70$, $\Omega_m=0.30$,

251: and $H_0=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.  We use AB magnitudes for all bands. 

252: We also use the following nomenclature: observed magnitudes are given

253: by $m_i$, for example the observed NUV and R magnitudes are $m_{NUV}$ and $m_R$.

254: Rest-frame magnitudes are denoted by FUV, NUV, H, etc. Extinction corrected

255: rest-frame absolute magnitudes are denoted M$_{FUV,0}$, M$_{NUV,0}$, M$_{H,0}$, etc. 

256: Finally, we define the infrared excess IRX as the log ratio

257: of FIR to FUV luminosity ($\nu\mathcal{L}_\nu$), unless specifically called out.

258: 

259: \section{Data and Source Catalogs}

260: 

261: \subsection{Primary Datasets}

262: 

263: \subsubsection{GALEX}

264: 

265: The GALEX observations of CDFS consist of a total of 61 orbital visits

266: over the period 4 November 2003 to 5 November 2005 for a total exposure time of 49,758 seconds.  

267: Simultaneous exposures were obtained in the Far UV (FUV, 1344-1786\AA, center 1549\AA)

268: and Near UV (NUV, 1771-2831\AA, center 2316\AA) bands.

269: The individual and co-added images were processed using version 5.0 of the GALEX data pipeline,

270: also used to process GALEX data releases GR2 and GR3.

271: The 1.25 \degree diameter GALEX images completely circumscribe the other two survey footprints.

272: The GALEX mission, on-orbit performance, and current status

273: of calibration and pipeline reductions are summarized in \cite{martin05}, \cite{morrissey05}, and

274: \cite{morrissey07} respectively. Source photometry errors (systematic) should be less than 0.05 mag

275: and astrometric errors less than 1 \arcsec.

276: Images of this exposure level in low background

277: regions should reach a 5$\sigma$ Poisson limited depth of $m_{NUV}\simeq$25.5 AB magnitudes in both bands,

278: and roughly 3$\sigma$ at $m_{NUV}\simeq 26.0$. 

279: However NUV data in particular are confusion limited because of the 5-6 \arcsec~ PSF FWHM.

280: We therefore used a PSF fitting source extraction procedure that uses the CDFS optical

281: positions as priors. This is described below. 

282: 

283: \subsubsection{COMBO-17}

284: 

285: The COMBO-17 survey  \citep{wolf03} combines a set of medium and wide photometric

286: bands to obtain robust photometric redshifts and basic object classification to a depth of $m_R \sim$24. 

287: A complete description of the survey can be found in \cite{wolf04}. The CDFS field is

288: 0.5 by 0.5 degree$^2$ centered on 

289: $(\alpha,\delta)_{J2000}= (03^h32^m25^s, -27^\circ48^\prime 50^{\prime\prime})$. Other than redshifts, we

290: use the COMBO-17 survey for two purposes: in order to generate a k-corrected NUV luminosity

291: and NUV-H color, and as the basis for the PSF fitting extraction of the FUV and NUV source fluxes.

292: \cite{wolf04} have used a Monte-Carlo technique to derive the

293: survey completeness vs. object color, type, and magnitude. We have used

294: these completeness matrices to derive the volume-corrected distributions, as we describe below.

295: 

296: \subsubsection{Spitzer}

297: 

298: The Spitzer data are described in detail in \cite{perez-gonzalez05}, which we briefly

299: recap here. The $1^\circ.5 \times 0^\circ.5$ rectangular areas

300: centered on CDFS, $(\alpha,\delta)_{J2000}=(03^h 32^m 02^s, -27^\circ 37^\prime 24^{\prime\prime})$,

301: are mapped in MIPS 24 $\mu$m in scan map mode, and also in the

302: four IRAC channels (3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0 $\mu$m). The MIPS 24 $\mu$m

303: reduction was performed using the MIPS Data Analysis Tool \citep{gordon05},

304: resulting in images with average exposures of $\sim$1400 s.  IRAC images

305: were reduced with the general Spitzer pipeline and mosaiced, yielding

306: an average exposure time of 500 s. Source catalogs for IRAC 3.6 $\mu$m detections

307: are used below in a jointly selected sample. We tested catalogs generated

308: by a simple one-pass SExtractor \citep{bertin96} extraction, and

309: by the multiband technique used by \cite{perez-gonzalez05}, with

310: no significant differences noted in our results. Source catalogs

311: of MIPS 24 $\mu$m objects were used to clean 24 $\mu$m images

312: for stacking, as we describe below in \S \ref{section_fir}. Again, a single-pass SExtractor catalog

313: produced very similar results to the mulit-pass PSF-fitting catalog generated

314: by \cite{perez-gonzalez05}. 

315: 

316: \subsection{Matched Datasets}

317: 

318: \subsubsection{GALEX/COMBO-17 PSF Fitting Catalog\label{section_psf}}

319: 

320: As noted above, deep GALEX images suffer from source confusion, especially in the NUV.  For fields with complementary deep optical photometry, we can use the positions of sources from the optical catalog to deblend the GALEX images and obtain more reliable flux estimates.  The center of the COMBO-17 field is only slightly offset (3.8 arcmin) from the center of the GALEX images and is much smaller than the GALEX image.  Within the COMBO-17 field, the variation of the GALEX PSF is small, and so we have have used one average PSF for each band.  After correcting for the small (less than 1 arcsec) systematic offsets between the GALEX and COMBO-17 astrometry, the deblending proceeds by dividing the region to be deblended into contiguous 100 x 100 pixel chunks and then simultaneously fitting the amplitudes of the sources at positions taken from the optical catalog and the mean background in each chunk.  We assume that the counts in each pixel are Gaussian-distributed, which is a safe assumption for the NUV (where the background level is ~100 counts), but is questionable for the FUV (where the background level is ~10 counts).  In order to test the reliability of our deblending, we have added approximately 1000 artificial point sources to the COMBO-17/GALEX overlap region and then compared the extracted fluxes with known input fluxes.  In the FUV, the deblended magnitudes are systematically fainter than the input magnitudes by 0.04 mag and have errors that are 20\% larger than expected from counting statistics.  In the NUV, the deblended magnitudes are systematically too faint by only 0.01 mag, but the errors, due to the source crowding, are a factor of 2 larger than expected from counting statistics.  For the 49,758 second GALEX images used here, the 95\% confidence detection limits are 25.55 mag in FUV and 25.10 mag in NUV.

321: 

322: \subsubsection{Merged Catalog \label{section_merge}}

323: 

324: There is a low fraction of sources detected in all three catalogs.

325: We generated individual source catalogs for the five Spitzer images using Sextractor.

326: We matched these detections to the merged COMBO-17/GALEX catalog

327: using a 2\arcsec search radius. The common area of the three surveys

328: is 0.19 degree$^2$. The matched source statistics are 

329: summarized in Table \ref{tab_matchstats}. Of the 11778 COMBO-17 $m_R<$24 sources

330: in the common region, 7498 are detected at $m_{NUV}<$26, 1784 in MIPS24 ($>$0.02 mJy),

331: 4955 in NUV and IRAC1 ($>$0.0002 mJy), and 1171 in NUV, IRAC1 and MIPS24.

332: As we discuss below, the main explanation for the low overlap fraction is that many UV-selected sources

333: have moderate to low infrared-to-UV ratios and are not directly detected in 

334: the mid-infrared. 

335: 

336: Because we are keenly interested in the evolution of the average extinction, infrared excess, and

337: star formation history of galaxies over cosmic time, we have adopted a

338: stacking approach. We summarize the complete methodology in the next section.

339: 

340: \section{Analysis}

341: 

342: Our goal in this paper is to determine the evolution of the average IRX and extinction and

343: relate this to the evolution of the star formation rate, as a function of stellar mass.

344: We would like to exploit a property of the blue sequence of star forming galaxies that is

345: rapidly becoming clear, that this sequence has a relatively low dispersion of properties

346: once the mass is given \citep{noeske07,wyder06,martin07a}. The dispersion of various

347: properties, such as extinction, stellar age and mass, measured in individual bins of the

348: NUV-r color magnitude diagram, for example, is low. 

349: The IRAC1 channel and COMBO-17 R-band give a good estimate

350: of the rest H-band flux over the redshift range $0<z<1.2$, providing

351: a good stellar mass tracer with low extinction sensitivity. 

352: We therefore feel it is reasonable to

353: stack using bins of the rest-frame M$_H$, NUV-H band color-magnitude diagram.

354: 

355: \subsection{Methodology}

356: 

357: Here is a step-by-step summary of our approach, with cross-references to

358: more detailed discussion:

359: 

360: \begin{enumerate}

361: 

362: \item Use COMBO-17 positions to generate a joint COMBO-17/GALEX catalog using PSF fitting (\S \ref{section_psf})

363: 

364: \item Match IRAC1 sources detected with Sextractor to joint COMBO-17/GALEX catalog (\S \ref{section_merge})

365: 

366: \item Generate rest-frame NUV, H-band magnitudes using SED interpolation (\S \ref{section_cmd})

367: 

368: \item Construct the volume-corrected color-magnitude diagram (CMD)  $\phi$(\mh,NUV-H)  in several redshift bins (\S \ref{section_cmd}).

369: 

370: \item For each (\mh, NUV-H,  redshift) bin, stack all IRAC2-4 and MIPS24 images at the

371: R-band COMBO-17 source positions falling in that (\mh, NUV-H,  z)  bin.  Our stacking

372: technique adds detected source fluxes to a stack of undetected source regions, as we discuss in \S \ref{section_fir}.

373: 

374: \item Use a bolometric correction obtained by fitting a local SWIRE/SDSS/GALEX sample \citep{johnson07}

375: and the total Far IR luminosity and infrared excess IRX=$\log{L_{FIR}/L_{FUV}}$ or $\log{L_{FIR}/L_{NUV}}$. (\S \ref{section_fir})

376: 

377: \item Use a standard extinction law to convert IRX into NUV and H-band extinction. (\S \ref{section_ssfr})

378: 

379: \item Determine the average extinction correction for galaxies in each (\mh, NUV-H,  z) bin. (\S \ref{section_ssfr})

380: 

381: \item Using $(NUV-H)_0$ and $M_{H,0}$ infer  the specific star formation rate and stellar mass

382: using a simple prescription.  (\S \ref{section_ssfr})

383: 

384: \item Determine the volume-corrected distributions of specific star formation and stellar mass ($\mathcal{M}$) in each redshift

385: bin $\phi$($\mathcal{M}$,SSFR,z).  (\S \ref{section_ssfr})

386: 

387: \item Finally, calculate the average IRX and specific star formation rate (\irx ~ and \ssfr) as a function of stellar mass and redshift (\S \ref{sec:avgirx}, \ref{sec:avgssfr}).

388: 

389: \end{enumerate}

390: 

391: \subsection{Evolution of the Color-Magnitude Distribution \label{section_cmd}}

392: 

393: We choose to use rest-frame FUV or NUV to derive star formation

394: rate and H-band magnitudes to obtain stellar mass. Rest-frame H-band flux was obtained by interpolating between

395: the COMBO-17 R-magnitude and the IRAC 3.6 $\mu$m flux, exploiting

396: the fact that the SED is essentially constant over this range for most galaxy templates. Rest-frame NUV flux is

397: an interpolation of the observed NUV and the COMBO-17 catalog rest-frame u-band flux.

398: Rest-frame FUV flux is an interpolation between observed FUV and NUV which accounts for the Lyman continuum break.

399: We also tried SED fitting, which produces very similar results. 

400: 

401: We derived the volume-corrected, rest-frame NUV-H vs \mh distributions as follows.

402: We used five redshift bins, $z=$0.05-0.2. 0.2-0.4, 0.4-0.6, 0.6-0.8, and 0.8-1.2.

403: Maximum detection volumes in  were derived for a sample jointly selected in observed NUV, r-band, and

404: IRAC channel 1 with the following limits: $m_{NUV}<26.0$, $m_r<24.0$, and $f(3.6)> 0.5 \mu$Jy. 

405: The minimum $V_{max}$ of the three bands was used. For each galaxy a completeness was calculated 

406: $f_c = f_c(NUV) * f_c(C17)$. We assume that the IRAC channel 1 completeness is high to

407: the flux limit. With PSF fitting, NUV completeness is estimated to be $\sim$80\% at $m_{NUV}$=25.5

408: and $\sim$56\% at $m_{NUV}$=26.0, based on comparison between the observed magnitude distribution

409: and that measured by \cite{gardner00}. Because of the soft rolloff of completeness for this PSF-fit catalog we choose to

410: use a deeper magnitude cutoff corresponding to a 3$\sigma$ detection threshold. 

411: The COMBO-17 redshift catalog completeness is a function

412: of object magnitude, color, and type. We used the completeness matrix derived by \cite{wolf03}

413: to calculate $f_c(C17)$ for each galaxy. The volume-corrected color-magnitude distribution

414: is then calculated by summing for each galaxy the term 

415: 

416: \begin{equation}

417: V_{max,i} = min[V_{max}(NUV_i,z_i),V_{max}(r_i,z_i),V_{max}(f(3.6)_i,z_i)] f_c(NUV_i) f_c(r_i; g_i-r_i)

418: \end{equation}

419: 

420: \begin{equation}

421: \phi(NUV-H,M_H,z) = \sum {1 \over {V_{max,i}} }

422: \end{equation}

423: 

424: The resulting distribution is displayed in contour plots in Figures \ref{fig_cmd_observed}.

425: The general trend that can be seen is a shift to bluer NUV-H colors and brighter \mh magnitudes.

426: These plots also show average IRX in each bin, to be discussed in the next section.

427: 

428: \subsection{IR Stacking, Bolometric Correction, Extinction Correction \label{section_fir}}

429: 

430: We have generated an average IRX for each bin in the \mh, NUV-H color magnitude

431: diagram. As we discussed earlier, we do this because of the small overlap in UV and MIPS

432: detections. There is considerable evidence that galaxies occupying a single

433: color magnitude bin have a relatively small dispersion in most properties, including

434: extinction \citep{martin07a,wyder06,johnson06a}. This approach allows us to estimate the

435: average IRX over a large range of stellar mass and redshift, offering sensitivity to

436: quite low IRX. In order to ensure that the technique is not affected by

437: systematic or random error, we perform a set of tests below.

438: 

439: The basic stacking technique is as follows.  We first generate a catalog of detected

440: sources in the MIPS 24 $\mu$m band using Sextractor. Using this catalog we

441: generate a set of cleaned images with detected sources removed.

442: For each redshift and each color-magnitude bin

443: (NUV-H, \mh, z) we stack images in each band that do not have detected sources. We then extract either

444: a source flux or an upper limit, and add this to the detected flux. This results in a flux or upper limit. 

445: 

446: We must then make a bolometric correction to the observed 24 $\mu$m luminosity.

447: We have used the GALEX/SWIRE catalog generated for

448: \cite{johnson06a,johnson07} to derive the bolometric correction

449: of rest frame flux from 12-24 $\mu$m (corresponding to 0$<z<$1).

450: We use the measured FIR fluxes and fits to \cite{dale02} SEDs

451: and derive coefficients in the following relationship using log-log fits:

452: \begin{equation}

453: \log L_{FIR} = a_\lambda + b_\lambda \log (L[\lambda]/10^{10}L_\odot)

454: \end{equation}

455: where $\lambda$ is the observed rest frame luminosity ($L[\lambda]=\nu L_\nu[\lambda]$).

456: We list in Table 2 the coefficients a$_\lambda$ and b$_\lambda$.

457: The rms errors in the fits used to derive the coefficients are small, $\sigma \simeq 0.03-0.06$.

458: 

459: Finally, we  correct the NUV-H color and H-band magnitude for internal extinction 

460: using the IRX and the following prescription based on \cite{calzetti00}:

461: 

462: \begin{equation}

463: A_i = 2.5 \log_{10} [ {{BC_{dust}} \over {BC_i}} IRX_i + 1 ]

464: \label{eqn:irx}

465: \end{equation}

466: where $i$ corresponds either to FUV or NUV, and the bolometric corrections

467: are $BC_{dust} = 1.75$, $BC_{FUV} = 1.68$, and $BC_{NUV} = 2.45$.

468: 

469: Since the H-band correction is small, the extinction correction is very insensitive

470: to the extinction law. It enters somewhat if we use L(FUV) to generate IRX$_{FUV}$

471: and use this to correct (NUV-H). Even if there is evolution in the extinction

472: law, we have found that using IRX$_{NUV}$,

473: gives very similar results to those using IRX$_{FUV}$. 

474: The volume-corrected distribution of extinction-corrected magnitudes $\phi$(\mh$_0$,[NUV-H]$_0$) vs. redshift

475: are given in Figure \ref{fig_cmd_corrected}. We show in Figure \ref{fig_nuvh_dist}

476: the uncorrected and corrected distribution in NUV-H.

477: 

478: \subsection{Stellar Mass and Specific Star Formation Rate \label{section_ssfr}}

479: 

480: We derive stellar mass $\mathcal{M}$ using extinction corrected rest-frame H-band absolute

481: magnitude and NUV-H color, following the basic scheme of \cite{bell03}. 

482: For smooth star formation histories the stellar mass-to-light ratio

483: is a single parameter function of a measure of the specific

484: star formation rate such as the rest frame extinction corrected NUV-H color.

485: This can be seen in Figure \ref{fig_sed_model}, which shows the predicted $\mathcal{M/L}$

486: vs. (NUV-H)$_0$ for different values of the exponential SFR decay, based

487: on solar metallicity models of \cite{bruzual03} and a (standard, non-diet) Salpeter

488: initial mass function\footnote{Note that all derived stellar masses and star formation rates can

489: be converted to the ``Diet Salpeter'' IMF of \cite{bell03} by multiplying

490: by 0.7 Specific star formation rates are unaffected.}.  There is

491: almost no dependence on the star formation history for (NUV-H)$_0$ for NUV-H$<$2.5,

492: where the bulk of the extinction-corrected galaxies fall. We use this parabolic fit:

493: 

494: \begin{equation}

495: \log_{10} (\mathcal{M/L}) = -0.667 + 0.17 (NUV-H)_0 + 0.00373 (NUV-H)_0^2

496: \end{equation}

497: 

498: We have also tested more complex star formation histories in which starbursts

499: become significant. These models produce the same general trends

500: between $\mathcal{M/L}$ and NUV-H color, with some dispersion. 

501: There is no significant impact on the results described below.

502: 

503: We derive the star formation rate from the extinction-corrected FUV luminosity

504: using $SFR=1.4 \times 10^{-28} \mathcal{L}_\nu (1500)$ \citep{kennicutt98}.

505: We obtain the specific star formation rate (SSFR) by dividing by

506: the stellar mass.

507: 

508: We also note that the specific star formation rate (SSFR) is tightly correlated with (NUV-H)$_0$ and

509: independent of decay timescale,

510: as can be seen in Figure \ref{fig_sed_model}.

511: We can also use the following linear fit to convert (NUV-H)$_0$ to SSFR.

512: 

513: \begin{equation}

514: \log_{10} (SSFR [yr^{-1}] ) = -7.8 - 0.65 (NUV-H)_0 

515: \end{equation}

516: Again, either technique for computing the SSFR produces essentially identical results.

517: 

518: We derive the stellar mass and SSFR for each galaxy by correcting its

519: rest-frame \mh, M$_{1500}$,  and NUV-H for the (bin-averaged) extinction.

520: Using these distributions

521: we derive the volume-corrected  bivariate \mass-SSFR distribution

522: $\phi$($\mathcal{M}$,SSFR,z) in

523: the same fashion as the volume-corrected color-magnitude distribution.

524: We also generate an average IRX in each bin of the \mass-SSFR distribution.

525: We calculate the mean log infrared excess in each bin,

526: using the IRX obtained in the previous section. These distributions

527: are displayed in Figure \ref{fig_ssfr_vs_mass}.

528: 

529: \subsection{Errors}

530: 

531: We use the bootstrap method \citep{bootstrap} to derive errors to all bivariate

532: distributions discussed above as well as the average

533: distributions discussed in the next section. 

534: Specifically,

535: in each redshift bin we randomly select objects, with replacement,

536: until we have the same number of objects found in that redshift bin.

537: We then proceed to determine the color-magnitude distribution,

538: the mean 24 micron flux in each color-magnitude bin by stacking

539: this new sample, the corrected CMD, the Mass-SSFR distribution, and the mean

540: IRX in each Mass-SSFR bin (cf. \S\ref{sec:avgirx}). Of order one hundred trials are used

541: to generate a standard deviation in each bin of every distribution calculated.

542: Such errors will not, however, account for cosmic variance due to

543: large scale structure. (cf. \S\ref{sec:sfhist}).

544: 

545: \section{Results}

546: 

547: \subsection{Infrared Excess vs. Stellar Mass}

548: 

549: We begin by examining the trends in the NUV-H, \mh CMD.

550: At a fixed \mh redder galaxies have a higher IRX.

551: In general, the blue sequence shows a significant tilt in the color-magnitude diagram,

552: much of which appears to be produced by this extinction-luminosity relationship.

553: Much of the color width of the blue sequence, which leads some authors to

554: refer to it as the ``blue cloud'', is also

555: produced by variance in extinction \citep{wyder06}, some of which is

556: simply due to inclination variations \citep{martin07a}.

557: Extinction correction produces a much tighter distribution

558: in the CMD, as we see in Figure \ref{fig_cmd_corrected} and Figure \ref{fig_nuvh_dist}.

559: The trend of increasing IRX with H-band

560: luminosity is even more apparent in the extinction-corrected CMD.

561: Consequently, there is a strong increase in IRX with stellar mass as is expected

562: from the trend in the CMD. This trend 

563: can be clearly detected in Figure \ref{fig_ssfr_vs_mass}. This trend persists

564: in all redshift bins. 

565: 

566: \subsection{Evolution of the Bivariate CMD}

567: 

568: There is clear evolution in the NUV-H, \mh color-magnitude

569: diagram, in the sense that the density of H-band luminous

570: galaxies is increasing with redshift.

571: This is consistent with the increase in characteristic

572: UV luminosity \citep{schiminovich05}

573: and B luminosity \citep{bell04}. 

574: As expected from the previous section,

575: this is accompanied by an increase in the contribution

576: from higher IRX galaxies.   The evolutionary trend is even easier to discern

577: in the extinction corrected CMD, Figure \ref{fig_cmd_corrected}.

578: 

579: \subsection{Infrared Excess vs. Stellar Mass and Redshift}

580: \label{sec:avgirx}

581: In order to further explore IRX-mass relationship and its evolution

582: we derive the average IRX in each mass and redshift bin.

583: We have calculated this average using the number density \irx(\mass)

584: and weighted by the star formation rate \irx$_{SFR}$(\mass).

585: The mass trend in redshift bins is shown in Figure \ref{fig_irx_mass}.

586: The average IRX increases sharply with mass up to a critical

587: mass. The slope in the in the IRX-log mass

588: relation is greater than one. The critical mass is lower at low

589: redshift, $\simeq 10.5$ at z$\sim$0.3, but

590: appears to move to higher mass at higher redshift, with

591:  $\sim11.5$ at z$\sim$1.

592: 

593: The redshift trend in mass bins is shown in Figure \ref{fig_irx_z}.

594: In the highest mass bin with good redshift coverage ($\log M_{\rm crit}=11.5$), IRX

595: increases slowly with time then sharply decreases for z$<$0.5.

596: In the lowest mass bin, IRX appears to increase with time to the lowest

597: redshift bin. These trends appear in both the number and SFR-weighted

598: average IRX. For our subsequent analysis we use the number-weighted average.

599: 

600: \subsection{Co-evolution of SFR and IRX}

601: \label{sec:avgssfr}

602: We have seen that the star formation rate density is moving to

603: higher masses at higher redshift. This can best be seen in the

604: SFR-weighted bivariate \mass-SSFR distributions shown

605: in Figure \ref{fig_ssfr_vs_mass_sfr}. It is interesting to

606: determine the average SSFR vs. mass and redshift as we

607: did for IRX. The number-averaged SSFR is given in Figure \ref{fig_ssfr_phi}.

608: This shows that at lower mass, $\log{\mass}=9.5$, \ssfr~

609: evolves slowly, while at higher masses the SSFR falls

610: rapidly with time. 

611: 

612: The behavior in Figures  \ref{fig_irx_mass}-\ref{fig_ssfr_phi}

613: can be explained by a simple model. We suppose that average

614: IRX is determined principally by the gas surface

615: density and by the metallicity.  This naturally produces

616: a rising then falling IRX as the gas becomes enriched

617: (in a closed box model) and then exhausted.

618: Downsizing implies that star formation, enrichment,

619: and ultimate gas exhaustion move to lower masses with time,

620: consistent with these resullts. 

621: 

622: We examine this model further in the next section.

623: But first we ask whether the observed trends could be

624: an artifact of selection effects or other aspects of

625: our technique. 

626: 

627: \subsection{Issues and Caveats}

628: 

629: We have performed a number of tests to ensure that the

630: results presented above are not a product

631: of the samples or analysis approach.

632: 

633: We could use either FUV (1530\AA) or NUV (2270\AA) flux

634: to derive star formation rates. Since we bin and stack

635: sources in the NUV-H CMD, there could be systematic

636: effects introduced by either the use of an extinction law

637: to correct FUV given the NUV-derived IRX, or there could be

638: effects introduced by the different data samples used to

639: derive FUV and NUV rest luminosities. The former

640: come completely from GALEX data, while the later

641: come from interpolating GALEX and COMBO-17 data.

642: We find however that there is no significant difference

643: in the results using FUV or NUV to derive IRX and SFR.

644: 

645: We tested stacking the MIPS24 data using detected sources and cleaned

646: images, and using only the fluxed images (stacking

647: detected and undetected sources together). This

648: produced no statistically significant difference.

649: We also were concerned about the MIPS24 detection

650: limit and whether the low limit of 0.02 mJy used

651: to detect and clean the images would include

652: some spuriously detected sources due to confusion,

653: yielding an artificially high 24 micron flux in the

654: stacked result. We checked this by increasing

655: the detection limit by a factor of two and repeating

656: the entire analysis. Again, these results showed

657: only minor quantitative changes. 

658: 

659: A very important question is whether our census

660: of objects is complete. We could be missing FIR

661: luminous objects that fall below the UV magnitude

662: limits of the sample. Moreover, it is likely that

663: as we move to higher redshift, more of the high IRX

664: and/or low SSFR sources are lost due to the UV magnitude limit.

665: This could clearly introduce a spurious

666: blueing trend as redshift increases, which is exactly

667: what we detect.

668: 

669: To test for this effect, we repeated the analysis on the following samples:

670: 1. Baseline: NUV$<$26.0, r$<$24.0;

671: 2. Case 2: NUV$<$25.0, r$<$24.0;

672: 3. Case 3: NUV$<$27.0, r$<$24.0;

673: 4. Case 4: NUV$<$26.0, r$<$25.0;

674: 5. Case 5: all r$<$24.0 objects, whether or not detected in NUV. Those objects below the NUV detection limit

675: are given an artificial magnitude NUV=27.0. 

676: The average IRX vs. redshift for these cases is shown in Figure \ref{fig_irx_cases}.

677: There are no significant changes to \irx~ or in the observed trends with mass and redshift.

678: 

679: Another test is to consider the inclination bias of the sample.

680: A sample at high redshift which has not included highly

681: inclined, more reddened galaxies of otherwise similar

682: overall dust content will display a higher

683: average minor to major axis ratio than the low redshift counterpart.

684: The average axis ratio obtained from the (seeing limited) COMBO-17

685: data shows no significant trends with redshift. This is true in the \mh, NUV-H

686: CMD and as we show in Figure \ref{fig_aoverb_ssfr}, the final \mass-SSFR diagram.

687: 

688: Finally, we used a Monte Carlo model to test whether the evolving

689: IRX-mass relationship could be an artifact of the sample selection. 

690: The model is semiempirical and we briefly summarize it here. The model predicts the

691: bivariate luminosity function in the extincted, rest-frame NUV-H, \mh CMD, and

692: the distribution of \irx~ over the same CMD (\irx[\mh, NUV-H]).

693: The number distribution

694: is given by a Schechter function in mass. The SSFR

695: is log-normal with a constant mean and variance to a certain critical mass, then falls. 

696: IRX is log-normal and the mean IRX scales with mass. 

697: Evolution is introduced into the

698: number density, mean SSFR, SFR cutoff mass, and the

699: IRX-mass relationship. 

700: In the latter case, the following relationship is introduced:

701: \begin{equation}

702: IRX = IRX_0 + a_m  (\log{M/M_0})  +  a_{m,z} (\log{M/M_0}) \log{(1+z)} + \sigma_{IRX} * \xi

703: \end{equation}

704: where $\xi$ is a normally-distributed random variable. 

705: This assumption allows for IRX dependence on mass, and evolution

706: of this dependence in a mass-dependent fashion, in other

707: words the evolutionary trends we appear to detect in the data.

708: 

709: We convert mass, SSFR, and IRX into observed SED's using (in reverse) the

710: identical transformations that we used for the data. SEDs are redshifted

711: and run through detection filters with appropriate completeness

712: functions. We then subject the list of objects and observed FUV, NUV, R-band, IRAC,

713: and MIPS24 fluxes to the identical analysis steps as the actual

714: sources, producing the various distributions. (We do not simulate the

715: actual image formation and detection process). Finally, we compare

716: the Monte Carlo and data distributions using a chi-square

717: statistic. For this comparison we combine data and Monte Carlo

718: errors (data errors calculated from bootstrap, Monte Carlo

719: errors calculated from Poisson statistics). To calculate $\chi^2$

720: we use all bins in which either data or Monte Carlo results

721: are predicted. We simultaneously fit both $\phi(M_{\rm H}, NUV-H)$

722: and \irx $(M_{\rm H}, NUV-H)$ over all five redshift bins.

723: 

724: Because the model has $\sim 10-14$ parameters, it is difficult to guarantee any

725: given local minimum is the global minimum. Extensive experimentation

726: has shown that the $\phi$ distribution and IRX distributions

727: are mainly influenced by separate variables, so some

728: minimization can be decoupled. We find best fits with

729: $a_{m,z}\simeq$1.5 and $a_m\simeq 0.3$, with $\log{M_0}\simeq 11.0$ and with small formal errors ($<0.05$).

730: The latter are derived in the usual way by fixing the parameter of interest

731: and marginalizing over all others. 

732: The key conclusion is that the significant non-zero value of $a_{m,z}$ 

733: provides additional evidence that the evolving IRX-mass relationship 

734: is not an artifact of the sample selection.

735: 

736: 

737: \section{Discussion\label{sec_discussion}}

738: 

739: \subsection{Simple Extinction, Metallicity, and Star Formation Evolution}

740: 

741: The phenomena displayed in Figures \ref{fig_irx_z} and \ref{fig_irx_mass}

742: have a very simple interpretation. At low mass, ongoing enrichment by

743: star formation increases the dust-to-gas ratio and mean extinction

744: per unit gas, resulting in a steady growth in IRX. Higher mass

745: galaxies had their periods of peak star formation in the past,

746: and the exhaustion of their star forming gas supply (by whatever

747: mechanism) leads to an IRX which falls with time. We reiterate that

748: our determination of IRX is obtained directly from

749: the Far UV-to-Far IR ratio (the latter from 12-24 $\mu$m luminosity

750: and a bolometric correction), and is independent of

751: the extinction law.

752: 

753: We can model this using the classical exponential SFR models introduced

754: by \cite{tinsley68} and a very simple extinction model. 

755: The SFR obeys:

756: \begin{equation}

757: SFR \sim e^{-(t-t_0)/\tau} = e^{-\xi}

758: \end{equation}

759: where $\xi$ is a scale-free ``age'' parameter. 

760: 

761: For simplicity, we characterize the extinction

762: as if it occurs in a simple foreground absorbing slab

763: of dust, and that its strength tracks the amount

764: of gas responsible for star formation:

765: \begin{equation}

766: A_{FUV} \sim  Z \Sigma_{gas}

767: \end{equation}

768: where $Z$ is the metallicity (we assume that gas-to-dust ratio scales accordingly), and

769: $\Sigma_{gas}$ is the gas surface density.

770: Ignoring inclination induced anisotropies, we have $IRX=\log{{(10^{(0.4A_{FUV})}-1)}}$.

771: Let us further assume a Schmidt-Kennicutt scaling law \citep{kennicutt89}

772: $SFR\sim \Sigma_{gas}^\beta$. Here we note

773: $\beta\simeq 1.5$. Then

774: \begin{equation}

775: \Sigma_{gas} \sim e^{-\xi/\beta}

776: \end{equation}

777: 

778: In a closed-box enrichment model, metallicity grows as 

779: \begin{equation}

780: Z = y \ln{\mu_{gas}^{-1}} = y~\xi

781: \label{eqn:metallicity}

782: \end{equation}

783: for an exponentially decaying SFR. 

784: The gas fraction is $\mu_{gas}$ and $y$ is the average yield \citep{searle72}.

785: Thus we expect

786: \begin{equation}

787: A_{FUV} = C_0 \xi e^{-\xi/\beta}

788: \label{eqn:afuv}

789: \end{equation}

790: Here $C_0$ is a scaling constant appropriate

791: for an average inclination.

792: 

793: This can be generalized to the leaky-box case \citep{hartwick76}

794: in which the outflow is proportional to the star formation rate

795: $\mathcal{M}_{wind}=-c~SFR$. In this case

796: \begin{equation}

797: Z = {y \over {1+c}}  \ln{\mu_{gas}^{-1}} = {y \over {1+c}} ~\xi.

798: \end{equation}

799: If $c<1$ then an accreting-box case \citep{binney98} with

800: infall proportional to SFR would obtain.

801: We do not consider other accreting-box scenarios.

802: 

803: Finally, we need to relate the age parameter to galaxy mass.

804: \footnote{We label galaxies by their

805: stellar mass. Over the redshift range we consider, a constant SFR would increase the stellar

806: mass by 0.5 dex, or one mass bin. We ignore this subtlety in order to make

807: the arithmetic simple for this very basic model.} 

808: We make

809: a simple {\it ansatz} that the age scales as mass to a constant power $\alpha$,

810: that a single formation time $t_f$ is appropriate, and that the

811: past age is reduced by the relative elapsed time from formation:

812: \begin{equation}

813: \xi (\mass,z) = \left( {\mass \over {\mass_0}} \right)^\alpha \left( {t(z) - t_f} \over {t(0) - t_f} \right)

814: \label{eqn:xi}

815: \end{equation}

816: 

817: The specific star formation rate (SSFR) is given for this

818: model very simply by:

819: \begin{equation}

820: SSFR = {1 \over \tau} {1 \over {e^\xi} - 1 }

821: \label{eqn:ssfr}

822: \end{equation}

823: where $\tau$ is a function of mass for a coeval

824: population: $\tau = (\mass/\mass_0)^{-\alpha} (13.47-t_f)$.

825: 

826: We jointly fit the \irx~ and \ssfr~ vs. mass and redshift with five free parameters:

827: $C_0$, $t_f$, $\mass_0$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$. We restrict the fits

828: to the mass range $9.5 \leq \log{\mass} \leq 11.5$,

829: over which the survey appears reasonably complete at all

830: redshifts (cf. below).

831: There are 46 independent

832: data points and four free parameters. The result is

833: a reasonable fit, with $\chi^2=31$, with

834: $C_0 = 4.5$, $t_f = 2.3$ Gyr, $\log{\mass_0}=10.58$, $\alpha=0.72$, and $\beta=2.1$.

835: Note that for Schmidt-Kennicutt star formation law we expected

836: $\beta\simeq1.5$.

837: The fits are displayed in Figure \ref{fig_irx_model} and \ref{fig_ssfr_model}.

838: Using this we predict that the mass metallicity relation shifts

839: towards higher masses roughly $\Delta (\log{\mass})\simeq 0.53$ at $z=0.7$

840: and $0.75$ at $z=1$, not inconsistent with \cite{savaglio05}.

841: This also predicts a peak equivalent extinction at $\xi_{peak}=\beta=2.2$

842: of $A_{FUV,peak}\simeq3.0$, or \irx$_{peak}$=1.2.

843: The only way to distinguish between the closed and open box cases

844: is to provide an independent measurement or prediction of the proportionality

845: constant $C_0$, which is beyond the scope of this paper.

846: 

847: We show the tight relationship between the age parameter $\xi$,

848: derived from the stellar mass and the best fit parameters:

849: \begin{equation}

850: \xi (\mass,z) = \left( {\mass \over {10^{10.5} \mass_\odot}} \right)^{0.70} \left( {t(z) - 2.37} \over {t(0) - 2.37} \right),

851: \end{equation}

852: and the mean IRX at  in Figure \ref{fig_irx_xi}.  

853: There is an equally tight relationship between the ``b-parameter'' which in terms of our

854: simple parameterization is:

855: \begin{equation}

856: b =  <SSFR> [t(z)-t(0)] = {\xi \over {e^\xi -1}}

857: \end{equation}

858: This is displayed in Figure \ref{fig_ssfr_xi}. Finally, we

859: show the co-evolution of \ssfr~ and \irx~ in Figure \ref{fig_irx_ssfr}.

860: 

861: We can also define a ``turnoff'' mass

862: where $\xi(\mass_t,z)=1.0$ so that

863: \begin{equation}

864: \mass_t(z) = 10^{10.5}  \left( {t(z) - 2.37} \over {t(0) - 2.37} \right)^{-1.43},

865: \end{equation}

866: which rises from $\log{\mass_t}=10.5$ at z=0 to $\log{\mass_t}=11.24$ at z=1. 

867: We note that $\log{\mass_t}=10.5$ is exactly the transition mass between

868: star forming and passively evolving galaxies noted by \cite{kauffmann03b}

869: in the SDSS spectroscopic sample.

870: 

871: Metallicity and age are simply related in this picture

872: (cf. equation \ref{eqn:metallicity}).

873: \cite{johnson07} have shown that

874: IRX correlates well with metallicity.

875: The mass-metallicity relationship \citep{tremonti04}

876: is a result of the lower net astration

877: in galaxies with a younger effective age $\xi$.

878: This simple picture does not predict the observed saturation

879: at high mass. This could be a result of

880: selection effects, since metallicity can only be measured

881: using emission lines in galaxies with high SSFR.

882: It is plausible that transition galaxies with low emission line equivalent widths

883: display a higher metallicity than the actively star forming sample at high mass.

884: It could also indicate a second quenching mechanism

885: in addition to simple gas exhaustion, or

886: a more complex enrichment picture

887: than simple closed box evolution.

888: 

889: \subsection{Star Formation History and Evolution of the Blue and Red Sequence}

890: \label{sec:sfhist}

891: We begin by determining the mass function by summing over SSFR in the

892: bivariate mass-SSFR function. The distribution in each redshift bin is displayed

893: in Figure \ref{fig_phi_mass}. The error bars include Poisson and cosmic variance, the

894: latter from \cite{somerville04}. Note that these combined errors will be highly

895: correlated between mass bins at a given redshift. This correlation is

896: not well represented by the plotted error bars, since there is

897: large covariance between mass bins in a given redshift bin. Note also that there is evidence for incompleteness

898: in the lowest mass bin ($\log{\mass}=9.75$) for z=1.0. Mass bins $\log{\mass}\leq 9.25$

899: were not used in the modelling of the previous section, because of obvious

900: incompleteness.

901: 

902: We model the mass function as an evolving Schechter function:

903: \begin{equation}

904: \phi(\mathcal{M},z) = {\ln{10} ~ \phi_*(z) }  \left( {\mathcal{M} \over {\mathcal{M}_*(z)}} \right) ^\alpha \exp{ \left( - {\mathcal{M} \over {\mathcal{M}_*(z)}} \right) }

905: \end{equation}

906: where

907: $\mathcal{M}_*(z) = \mathcal{M}_*(0) (1+z)^\beta$

908: and $\phi_*(z) = \phi_*(0) (1+z)^\gamma$.

909: We use a version of chi-square minimization

910: that accounts for the cosmic variance and

911: covariance between mass bins in a single

912: redshift bin (e.g., \cite{newman02})

913: The best fit parameters and one sigma errors (obtained

914: by marginalizing over other parameters) are

915: \begin{eqnarray}

916: \label{eqn:phi_fit}

917: \phi_*(0) & = & 0.0040 (-0.0023,+0.0036) Mpc^{-3} \log_{10} \mathcal{M}^{-1}   \\

918: \log\mathcal{M}_*(0) & = & 10.86 (-0.43, +0.33)   \\

919: \alpha & = & -0.93 (-0.10, +0.11)  \\

920: \beta & = & 2.4 (-1.0, +1.2)  \\

921: \gamma & = & -1.5 (-1.1, +0.5) 

922: \end{eqnarray}

923: The non-zero values of $\beta$ and $\gamma$ indicate evolution

924: in the characteristic mass and the number density,

925: although cosmic variance prevents tight

926: constraints on the evolutionary indices.

927: Note we have not parameterized an evolving

928: low mass slope.

929: 

930: We can compare the results of this mass function analysis with

931: the results of \cite{bell03} using a much larger cosmic volume at $z\sim0.15$.

932: Converted to our cosmology and corrected upward to a non-diet Salpeter IMF

933: (simply dividing their result by 0.7), they obtain 

934: $\phi_* = 0.0035 (0.0020) $ Mpc$^{-3}$  $\log_{10} \mathcal{M}^{-1}$, and

935: $\log\mathcal{M}_* = 11.17  (11.06) $ for all (late-type) galaxies vs. our values at z=0.125

936: $\phi_* =0.0040 (-0.0023 ,+0.0036) $ Mpc$^{-3}$ $\log_{10} \mathcal{M}^{-1}$, and

937: $\log\mathcal{M}_* = 10.86$. The mass cutoff is in fair agreement, but

938: our density is a factor of 2  larger if we compare to just their late-type (morphologically selected) sample.

939: The mass cutoff, slope and density parameters are highly correlated, and indeed

940: if we fix our mass cutoff (z=0) at 11.1 (which is within

941: our errors) we find $\phi_* =0.0025 $ Mpc$^{-3}$ $\log_{10} \mathcal{M}^{-1}$,

942: close to the \cite{bell03} value. If we fix the slope to $\alpha=-1.1$ we

943: find $\phi_* =0.0020 $ Mpc$^{-3}$ $\log_{10} \mathcal{M}^{-1}$ and

944: $\log\mathcal{M}_* = 11.1$.

945: Thus our results at $z\sim 0$ are consistent with \cite{bell03} within

946: the errors quoted above (dominated by cosmic variance).

947: 

948: We can also compare to the  evolving \cite{borch06} mass function which

949: uses all three COMBO-17 fields with a total of 25,000 galaxies.

950: We correct their masses to our standard Salpeter IMF by multiplying

951: by 1.8, as they suggest. At z=0.9, they obtain 

952: $\phi_*(z=0.9) = 0.0012 (0.0005) $ Mpc$^{-3}$ $\log_{10} \mathcal{M}^{-1}$

953: $\log\mathcal{M}_* = 11.08  (11.00) $ and , again for all (blue, color-selected) galaxies.

954: Using our evolutionary parameters, we find 

955: $\phi_*(z=0.9) = 0.0015 $ Mpc$^{-3}$ $\log_{10} \mathcal{M}^{-1}$ and

956: $\log\mathcal{M}_*(z=0.9) = 11.54$. 

957: Our results are compared to \cite{borch06} in Figure \ref{fig_phi_mass}.

958: Surprisingly, our results agree well with theirs for the entire galaxy sample

959: in all but the highest redshift bin. Our bin extends over (0.8<z<1.2), while

960: theirs is (0.8<z<1.0). Our mass function shows a distinctly higher mass cutoff

961: in the two highest redshift bins, which leads to the

962: stronger evolution in the characteristic mass. 

963:  

964: Searching for an explanation of this difference, 

965: we note that a significant fraction of our sample has red colors.

966: In the lowest redshift bin 

967: this is true even after the extinction correction.  For example, if

968: we eliminate galaxies with \ssfr$< 10^{-10.5}$, corresponding

969: to corrected $(NUV-H)_{0,AB}>4.25$, which from Figure \ref{fig_nuvh_dist}

970: can be seen to exclude the tail of the distribution, the mass function density parameter at z=0 falls

971: by a factor of two. This

972: suggests that a significant fraction of the mass (and even the star formation rate)

973: at low redshift is locked in high mass galaxies with low specific star formation rates and

974: red intrinsic (unextincted) colors. Some of these galaxies could be classified

975: as early-type in \cite{bell03} because their observed colors are even redder (as they are massive

976: and exhibit high IRX) while their morphologies could

977: be dominated by an evolved, bulge-like component.  The steepness

978: of the slope parameter obtained for color-selected blue samples \citep{bell03}

979: could also be a reflection of excluding extincted, reddened higher mass

980: galaxies and transition galaxies that still show some star formation.

981: 

982: The characteristic mass increases with redshift,

983: with $\Delta\log\mathcal{M}=0.7\pm0.4$, which can be compared

984: to the model change of $\log\mathcal{M}_t$ from 10.5 to 11.24. 

985: Thus the blue sequence mass function shows directly the

986: effects of downsizing.  The total mass of the blue sequence

987: obtained by integrating the mass function is a declining function of redshift

988: (since $\beta>-\gamma$),

989: $\rho_{\mathcal{M}} \simeq 4.8 \times 10^8 \rightarrow 2.8 \times 10^8 $M$_\odot$ Mpc$^{-3}$

990: (from z=0.8 to z=0).

991: Others \citep{borch06,blanton06} have found that the blue-sequence mass is constant with time,

992: and giving the uncertainty our results are not inconsistent with this

993: conclusion. In our model this occurs because the mass of the blue sequence

994: is moving from fewer massive galaxies to larger numbers of

995: lower mass galaxies. The decrease in blue luminosity density (e.g., \cite{bell04,faber05})

996: is a result of an increase in mass-to-light ratio due in turn to the falloff of the specific

997: star formation rate. The total stellar mass appears to remain constant or decline in spite of the

998: formation of new stars. Before exploring this point, we estimate the

999: star formation rate density and its evolution.

1000: 

1001: In order to calculate the star formation rate history while minimizing the effects of

1002: cosmic variance, we renormalize the observed mass function to the fit given in Figure \ref{fig_phi_mass}

1003: and Equation \ref{eqn:phi_fit}

1004: for all redshift bins. The results in each mass bin and the total

1005: are shown in Figure \ref{fig_sfhist}. We also calculate the star formation rate

1006: density evolution for the simple exponential model of the previous

1007: section. This is shown in the right-hand panel of Figure \ref{fig_sfhist}.

1008: Apparently the dominant galaxy population responsible for the

1009: fall in SFR density from z=1 to z=0 is $10.5<\log{\mass}<11.5$ (cyan and green points).

1010: This is consistent with the conclusion that the characteristic

1011: mass $M_c$ derived in the previous section evolves from $10^{10.5}$

1012: to $10^{11.25}$. \cite{zheng07}, also using COMBO-17 and Spitzer data, and

1013: the stacking technique of \cite{zheng06}, have reached conclusions that

1014: in many ways are similar to ours, but differ in some important details.

1015: In particular, they find that the SFR in the highest mass bin

1016: (log M$<$11.25 when converted to our IMF) does not fall more steeply

1017: than that in the lower mass bins.  

1018: 

1019: Stars formed over $0<z<1$ will increase the total mass of the blue sequence

1020: unless these galaxies transition to the red sequence. In order

1021: to maintain the constant or declining blue-sequence mass, we calculate that the

1022: average mass flux over $0<z<1$ must be $\rho_{B\rightarrow R}\simeq 0.03-0.05 $ \mass$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$.

1023: This is in agreement with the value we obtained by examining

1024: transition galaxies at $z\sim0.1$ \citep{martin07a}. 

1025: 

1026: \section{Summary}

1027: 

1028: We have used COMBO-17, Spitzer, and GALEX data to study the co-evolution of the IRX and star formation

1029: for galaxies over the mass range of $9.5<\log{M}<12.0$ and the redshift

1030: range $0<z<1.2$. We have reached a number of interesting conclusions:

1031: 

1032: \begin{enumerate}

1033: 

1034: \item IRX grows with stellar mass in a way that mirrors the mass-metallicity relationship.

1035: The rise of IRX with mass saturates at a characteristic mass, above which it appears to fall.

1036: 

1037: \item The SSFR is is roughly constant up to the same characteristic mass, above which it falls steeply.

1038: 

1039: \item The characteristic mass grows with redshift. 

1040: 

1041: \item At a given mass below the characteristic mass, the IRX grows with redshift.

1042: 

1043: \item The mass and evolutionary trends of the IRX and SSFR are 

1044: reasonably fit by a simple gas-exhaustion model in which

1045: IRX is determined by gas surface density and metallicity,

1046: metallicity grows with time following a closed box model,

1047: and SFR is determined by the exponentially falling gas density. The

1048: SFR time constant scales with the mass as $\tau \sim M^{-0.7}$. 

1049: 

1050: \item The characteristic mass is a ``turnoff'' mass indicating galaxies that are

1051: starting to move off the blue sequence.

1052: 

1053: \item The mass-metallicity relationship is understood to be determined largely by he

1054: characteristic age of the galaxies. The mass-IRX relationship is also

1055: influenced by gas exhaustion above the turnoff mass.

1056: 

1057: \item The factor of 6-8 rise in SFR density to z=1 is predominantly due

1058: to galaxies in the mass range $10.5<\log{M}<11.5$, the turnoff mass

1059: over the $0<z<1$ redshift range. 

1060: 

1061: \end{enumerate}

1062: 

1063: These observations show directly

1064: the steady build-up of heavy elements in the interstellar media of evolving galaxies,

1065: and that the infrared excess IRX represents an excellent tool for selecting similar mass galaxies

1066: at various stages of evolution. In particular, galaxies at early stages in their

1067: evolution can be selected by their low IRX (Figure \ref{fig_irx_xi}). 

1068: 

1069: It is important to stress that these trends were uncovered by considering the

1070: average properties, notably the IRX, of large numbers of galaxies.

1071: A more sophisticated treatment would study the detailed distribution

1072: of properties, for example the spread in SSFR in a given mass bin.

1073: The simple scaling model of course predicts no spread at all for

1074: a coeval population. This distribution may yield information

1075: about the burst and formation history of galaxies. For example

1076: it will be very interesting to study galaxies with an unusually low IRX

1077: at a given epoch and mass to determine whether they are more

1078: recently formed. It will also be interesting to compare this very simple picture

1079: with the results of semianalytic models combined with the latest

1080: numerical simulations. Finally, it is critical to improve the observational

1081: basis of this work, most notably with a better understanding

1082: of the FIR bolometric correction and its evolution, with a larger and deeper sample

1083: of galaxies, and by extending the redshift range of this approach to determine

1084: whether this simple picture continues to apply during the major

1085: epoch of star formation.

1086: 

1087: 

1088: 

1089: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1090: 

1091: \acknowledgments

1092: 

1093: GALEX (Galaxy Evolution Explorer) is a NASA Small Explorer, launched in April 2003.

1094: We gratefully acknowledge NASA's support for construction, operation,

1095: and science analysis for the GALEX mission,

1096: developed in cooperation with the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales

1097: of France and the Korean Ministry of 

1098: Science and Technology. 

1099: 

1100: 

1101: {\it Facilities:} \facility{GALEX}, \facility{SDSS}

1102: 

1103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1104: 

1105: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1106: \bibitem[Adelberger \& Steidel(2000)]{adelberger00} Adelberger, 

1107: K.~L., \& Steidel, C.~C.\ 2000, \apj, 544, 218 

1108: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2003)]{bell03} Bell, E.F., McIntosh, D.H., Katz, N., \& Weinberg, M.D.

1109: 2003, \apjs, 149, 289.

1110: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2004)]{bell04} Bell, E. F., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 752.

1111: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2005)]{bell05a} Bell, E.~F., et al.\ 2005,  \apj, 625, 23 

1112: \bibitem[Bertin\& Arnouts(1996)]{bertin96} Bertin, E. \& Arnouts, S. 1996, A.\&AS, 117, 393.

1113: \bibitem[Binney \& Merrifield(1998)]{binney98} Binney, J., \& 

1114: Merrifield, M.\ 1998, Galactic astronomy / James Binney and Michael 

1115: Merrifield.~ Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 1998.~ (Princeton 

1116: series in astrophysics)

1117: \bibitem[Blanton(2006)]{blanton06} Blanton, M., astro-ph/0512127

1118: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003)]{blanton03} Blanton, M.~R., et al.\ 

1119: 2003, \aj, 125, 2348

1120: \bibitem[Borch et al.(2006)]{borch06} Borch, A., et al.\ 2006, 

1121: \aap, 453, 869

1122: \bibitem[Brinchmann \& Ellis(2000)]{brinchmann00} Brinchmann, J., \& 

1123: Ellis, R.~S.\ 2000, \apjl, 536, L77 

1124: \bibitem[Brinchmann et al.(2004)]{brinchmann04} Brinchmann, J., 

1125: Charlot, S., White, S.~D.~M., Tremonti, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., \& 

1126: Brinkmann, J.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, 1151 

1127: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bruzual03} Bruzual, G., \& 

1128: Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000 

1129: \bibitem[Calzetti et al.(1994)]{calzetti94} Calzetti, D., Kinney, 

1130: A.~L., \& Storchi-Bergmann, T.\ 1994, \apj, 429, 582 

1131: \bibitem[Calzetti et al.(2000)]{calzetti00} Calzetti, D., Armus, 

1132: L., Bohlin, R.~C., Kinney, A.~L., Koornneef, J., \& Storchi-Bergmann, T.\ 

1133: 2000, \apj, 533, 682 

1134: \bibitem[Conselice et al.(2003)]{conselice03} Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A., Dickinson, M., \& Papovich, C. 2003, \apj, 126, 1183.

1135: \bibitem[Cowie et al.(1996)]{cowie96} Cowie, L.~L., Songaila, 

1136: A., Hu, E.~M., \& Cohen, J.~G.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 839 

1137: \bibitem[Dale\& Helou(2002)]{dale02} Dale, D.A., \& Helou, G. 2002, \apj, 576, 159.

1138: \bibitem[Efron(1979)]{bootstrap} Efron, B. 1979, {\it Ann. Statistics}, 7, 1.

1139: \bibitem[Faber et al.(2005)]{faber05} Faber, S. M., et al. 2005, astro-ph/0506044.

1140: \bibitem[Gardner et al.(2000)]{gardner00} Gardner, J.~P., Brown, 

1141: T.~M., \& Ferguson, H.~C.\ 2000, \apjl, 542, L79 

1142: \bibitem[Gordon et al.(2005)]{gordon05} Gordon, K.~D., et al.\ 

1143: 2005, \pasp, 117, 503 

1144: \bibitem[Hartwick(1976)]{hartwick76} Hartwick, F.~D.~A.\ 1976, 

1145: \apj, 209, 418 

1146: \bibitem[Heckman et al.(2004)]{heckman04} Heckman, T.~M., 

1147: Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Tremonti, C., \& White, 

1148: S.~D.~M.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 109

1149: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2006a)]{johnson06a}Johnson, B., et al., 2006. in press.

1150: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2007)]{johnson07}Johnson, B., et al., 2006., submitted for publication in GALEX Ap.J.Suppl.

1151: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2003)]{kauffmann03}Kauffman, G. et. {\it al}, 2003. \mnras, 341, 33.

1152: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2003)]{kauffmann03b} Kauffmann, G., et 

1153: al.\ 2003, \mnras, 341, 54 

1154: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1989)]{kennicutt89} Kennicutt, R.~C., Jr.\ 1989, \apj, 344, 685 

1155: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1998)]{kennicutt98} Kennicutt, R.~C., Jr.\ 1998, \araa, 36, 189 

1156: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2005)]{martin05} Martin, D.C., et al., 2005, \apjl, 619, L1.

1157: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2007a)]{martin07a} Martin, D.C., et al., accepted for publication in GALEX Ap.J.Suppl., astro-ph/0703281.

1158: \bibitem[Meurer et al.(1999)]{meurer99} Meurer, G.~R., Heckman, 

1159: T.~M., \& Calzetti, D.\ 1999, \apj, 521, 64 

1160: \bibitem[Morrissey et al.(2005)]{morrissey05} Morrissey, P., et al., 2005, \apjl, 619, L7.

1161: \bibitem[Morrissey et al.(2007)]{morrissey07} Morrissey, P. et al., accpted for publication in GALEX Ap.J.Suppl.,

1162: astro-ph/0706.0755

1163: \bibitem[Newman \& Davis(2002)]{newman02} Newman, J.~A., \& 

1164: Davis, M.\ 2002, \apj, 564, 567 

1165: \bibitem[Noeske et al.(2007)]{noeske07} Noeske, K.~G., et al.\ 

1166: 2007, \apjl, 660, L47 

1167: \bibitem[Papovich et al.(2006)]{papovich06} Papovich, C., et al.\ 

1168: 2006, \apj, 640, 92 

1169: \bibitem[P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez et al.(2005)]{perez-gonzalez05} 

1170: P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez, P.~G., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 630, 82

1171: \bibitem[Reddy et al.(2006)]{reddy06} Reddy, N.~A., Steidel, 

1172: C.~C., Fadda, D., Yan, L., Pettini, M., Shapley, A.~E., Erb, D.~K., \& 

1173: Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 792 

1174: \bibitem[Savaglio et al.(2005)]{savaglio05} Savaglio, S., et al.\ 

1175: 2005, \apj, 635, 260 

1176: \bibitem[Schiminovich et al.(2005)]{schiminovich05} Schiminovich, D. et al.2005, \apjl, 619, L47.

1177: \bibitem[Searle \& Sargent(1972)]{searle72} Searle, L., \& 

1178: Sargent, W.~L.~W.\ 1972, \apj, 173, 25 

1179: \bibitem[Somerville et al.(2004)]{somerville04} Somerville, R.~S., 

1180: Lee, K., Ferguson, H.~C., Gardner, J.~P., Moustakas, L.~A., \& Giavalisco, 

1181: M.\ 2004, \apjl, 600, L171 

1182: \bibitem[Tinsley(1968)]{tinsley68} Tinsley, B.~M.\ 1968, \apj,  151, 547 

1183: \bibitem[Tremonti et al.(2004)]{tremonti04} Tremonti, C.~A., et 

1184: al.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 898 

1185: \bibitem[Wang \& Heckman(1996)]{wang96} Wang, B., \& Heckman, 

1186: T.~M.\ 1996, \apj, 457, 645 

1187: \bibitem[Wolf et al.(2003)]{wolf03} Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, 

1188: K., Rix, H.-W., Borch, A., Dye, S., \& Kleinheinrich, M.\ 2003, \aap, 401, 73 

1189: \bibitem[Wolf et al.(2004)]{wolf04} Wolf, C., et al.\ 2004, 

1190: \aap, 421, 913 

1191: \bibitem[Wyder et al.(2006)]{wyder06} Wyder, T., et al. 2006, \apjs, submitted.

1192: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2005)]{yi05} Yi, S.K., et al., 2005. \apjl, 619, L111.

1193: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(2006)]{zheng06} Zheng, X.~Z., Bell, 

1194: E.~F., Rix, H.-W., Papovich, C., Le Floc'h, E., Rieke, G.~H., \& 

1195: P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez, P.~G.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 784 

1196: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(2007)]{zheng07} Zheng, X.~Z., Bell, 

1197: E.~F., Papovich, C., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., Rix, H.-W., Rieke, G.~H., 

1198: \& Somerville, R.\ 2007, \apjl, 661, L41 

1199: 

1200: \end{thebibliography}

1201: 

1202: \clearpage

1203: 

1204: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1205: 

1206: \begin{figure}

1207: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}

1208: \plottwo{f1c.eps}{f1d.eps}

1209: \plottwo{f1e.eps}{f1f.eps}

1210: \caption{Volume corrected bivariate color-magnitude distribution $\phi(M_H,NUV-H)$. Contours are

1211: equally spaced in $\log{\phi}$, with 10 divisions from $-4<\log{\phi}<-2$. Colors give IRX, which is the log of the FUV-to-FIR luminosity ratio.

1212: Hashed color bins are upper limits to the IRX. Dotted lines give loci of constant M$_{NUV}$=-15.5,-18.0,-20.5. 

1213: Dashed diagonal line indicates $m_{NUV}=26$ limit in center of redshift bin.

1214: \label{fig_cmd_observed}}

1215: \end{figure}

1216: 

1217: \begin{figure}

1218: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}

1219: \plottwo{f2c.eps}{f2d.eps}

1220: \plottwo{f2e.eps}{f2f.eps}

1221: \caption{Volume corrected bivariate {\it extinction corrected} color-magnitude distribution $\phi(M_{H.0},(NUV-H)_0)$. Contours are

1222: equally spaced in $\log{\phi}$[Mpc$^{-3}$], with 10 divisions from $-4<\log{\phi}<-2$. Colors give IRX, which is the log of the FUV-to-FIR luminosity ratio.

1223: Hashed color bins are upper limits to the IRX. Dotted lines give loci of constant M$_{NUV,0}$=-15.5,-18.0,-20.5. 

1224: \label{fig_cmd_corrected}}

1225: \end{figure}

1226: 

1227: \begin{figure}

1228: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}

1229: \caption{Distribution of observed NUV-H (LEFT) and extinction-corrected (NUV-H)$_0$ (RIGHT). Color

1230: gives redshift bin: $0.05<z<0.2$ (purple), $0.2<z<0.4$ (blue), $0.4<z<0.6$ (cyan), $0.6<z<0.8$ (green), and $0.8<z<1.2$ (red).

1231: \label{fig_nuvh_dist}}

1232: \end{figure}

1233: 

1234: \begin{figure}

1235: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps}

1236: \caption{LEFT: Mass-to-light ratio at H-band vs (NUV-H) for exponentially declining star formation histories $e^{-\gamma t}$,

1237: obtained using model of \cite{bruzual03}. RIGHT: Specific star formation rate (SSFR) for exponentially declining star formation histories.

1238: \label{fig_sed_model}}

1239: \end{figure}

1240: 

1241: \begin{figure}

1242: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}

1243: \plottwo{f5c.eps}{f5d.eps}

1244: \plottwo{f5e.eps}{f5f.eps}

1245: \caption{Volume corrected bivariate Mass-SSFR distribution $\phi(M, SSFR)$. Contours are

1246: equally spaced in $\log{\phi}$ [Mpc$^{-3}$], with 10 divisions from $-4<\log{\phi}<-1$. Colors give IRX, which is the log of the FUV-to-FIR luminosity ratio.

1247: \label{fig_ssfr_vs_mass}}

1248: \end{figure}

1249: 

1250: \begin{figure}

1251: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}

1252: \plottwo{f6c.eps}{f6d.eps}

1253: \plottwo{f6e.eps}{f6f.eps}

1254: \caption{Volume corrected bivariate Mass-SSFR distribution weighted by the SFR,  $SFR * \phi(M, SSFR)$. Contours are

1255: equally spaced in $\log{SFR*\phi} $ [M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$], with 10 divisions from $-4<\log{SFR*\phi}<-1$. Colors give IRX, which is the log of the FUV-to-FIR luminosity ratio.

1256: \label{fig_ssfr_vs_mass_sfr}}

1257: \end{figure}

1258: 

1259: \begin{figure}

1260: \plottwo{f7a.eps}{f7b.eps}

1261: \caption{Average IRX \irx~ (linear version plotted on a logarithmic scale) vs. mass in each redshift bin. LEFT: numerical average. RIGHT: SFR-weighted average.

1262: Errors are derived from bootstrapping.

1263: \label{fig_irx_mass}}

1264: \end{figure}

1265: 

1266: \begin{figure}

1267: \plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps}

1268: \caption{Average IRX \irx ~ (linear version plotted on a logarithmic scale) vs. redshift in each mass bin. LEFT: numerical average. RIGHT: SFR-weighted average.

1269: Errors are derived from bootstrapping.

1270: \label{fig_irx_z}}

1271: \end{figure}

1272: 

1273: \begin{figure}

1274: \plotone{f9.eps}

1275: \caption{Average specific star formation rate (\ssfr) in each mass and redshift bin. Errors are derived from bootstrapping.

1276: \label{fig_ssfr_phi}}

1277: \end{figure}

1278: 

1279: \begin{figure}

1280: \plotone{f10.eps}

1281: \caption{Average IRX (\irx) vs. redshift in each mass bin using various techniques as indicated by line styles.

1282: SOLID: 1. Baseline: NUV$<$26.0, r$<$24.0

1283: DOTTED:  Case 2: NUV$<$25.0, r$<$24.0.

1284: DASHED: Case 3: NUV$<$27.0, r$<$24.0.

1285: DASH-DOT: Case 4: NUV$<$26.0, r$<$25.0

1286: DASH-DOT-DOT: Case 5: all r$<$24.0 objects, whether or not detected in NUV.

1287: \label{fig_irx_cases}}

1288: \end{figure}

1289: 

1290: \begin{figure}

1291: \plottwo{f11a.eps}{f11b.eps}

1292: \plottwo{f11c.eps}{f11d.eps}

1293: \plottwo{f11e.eps}{f11f.eps}

1294: \caption{Same as Figure 5, with color-coding changed to axis ratio b/a.

1295: \label{fig_aoverb_ssfr}}

1296: \end{figure}

1297: 

1298: \begin{figure}

1299: \plottwo{f12a.eps}{f12b.eps}

1300: \caption{Simple SSFR-IRX model fits (lines) to \irx~ (linear version plotted on a logarithmic scale) vs. z (LEFT) and \irx ~vs. mass (RIGHT). 

1301: LEFT: Color gives mass, with $9.5<\log{M}<10.0$ (purple), 

1302: $10.0<\log{M}<10.5$ (blue), 

1303: $10.5<\log{M}<11.0$ (cyan), 

1304: $11.0<\log{M}<11.5$ (green), 

1305: $11.5<\log{M}<12.0$ (red). RIGHT: Color gives

1306: redshift bin: $0.05<z<0.2$ (purple), $0.2<z<0.4$ (blue), $0.4<z<0.6$ (cyan), $0.6<z<0.8$ (green), and $0.8<z<1.2$ (red).}

1307: \label{fig_irx_model}

1308: \end{figure}

1309: 

1310: \begin{figure}

1311: \plottwo{f13a.eps}{f13b.eps}

1312: \caption{Simple SSFR-IRX model fits (lines) to \ssfr ~vs. z (LEFT) and \ssfr~  vs. mass (RIGHT). 

1313: LEFT: Color gives mass, with $9.5<\log{M}<10.0$ (purple), 

1314: $10.0<\log{M}<10.5$ (blue), 

1315: $10.5<\log{M}<11.0$ (cyan), 

1316: $11.0<\log{M}<11.5$ (green), 

1317: $11.5<\log{M}<12.0$ (red). RIGHT: Color gives

1318: redshift bin: $0.05<z<0.2$ (purple), $0.2<z<0.4$ (blue), $0.4<z<0.6$ (cyan), $0.6<z<0.8$ (green), and $0.8<z<1.2$ (red).}

1319: \label{fig_ssfr_model}

1320: \end{figure}

1321: 

1322: \begin{figure}

1323: \plotone{f14.eps}

1324: \caption{IRX (linear version plotted on a logarithmic scale) vs. galaxy age parameter $\xi$ for all masses $9.5<\log{\mass}<12.0$ and all redshifts.

1325: Color gives mass, with $9.5<\log{M}<10.0$ (purple), 

1326: $10.0<\log{M}<10.5$ (blue), 

1327: $10.5<\log{M}<11.0$ (cyan), 

1328: $11.0<\log{M}<11.5$ (green), 

1329: $11.5<\log{M}<12.0$ (red).

1330: Symbol type gives redshift: 

1331:  $0.05<z<0.2$ (plus), $0.2<z<0.4$ (star), $0.4<z<0.6$ (diamond), $0.6<z<0.8$ (triangle), and $0.8<z<1.2$ (square).

1332: Solid line is from equation \ref{eqn:irx} and \ref{eqn:afuv}.}

1333: \label{fig_irx_xi}

1334: \end{figure}

1335: 

1336: \begin{figure}

1337: \plotone{f15.eps}

1338: \caption{Average b-parameter (\ssfr~ times time since formation t$_0$) vs. galaxy age parameter $\xi$ for all masses $9.5<\log{\mass}<12.0$ and all redshifts.

1339: Color gives mass, with $9.5<\log{M}<10.0$ (purple), 

1340: $10.0<\log{M}<10.5$ (blue), 

1341: $10.5<\log{M}<11.0$ (cyan), 

1342: $11.0<\log{M}<11.5$ (green), 

1343: $11.5<\log{M}<12.0$ (red).

1344: Symbol type gives redshift: 

1345:  $0.05<z<0.2$ (plus), $0.2<z<0.4$ (star), $0.4<z<0.6$ (diamond), $0.6<z<0.8$ (triangle), and $0.8<z<1.2$ (square).

1346: Solid line is from equation \ref{eqn:ssfr}.}

1347: \label{fig_ssfr_xi}

1348: \end{figure}

1349: 

1350: \begin{figure}

1351: \plotone{f16.eps}

1352: \caption{IRX (linear version plotted on a logarithmic scale) vs. b-parameter (\ssfr~ times time since formation t$_0$) for all masses $9.5<\log{\mass}<12.0$ and all redshifts.

1353: Color gives mass, with $9.5<\log{M}<10.0$ (purple), 

1354: $10.0<\log{M}<10.5$ (blue), 

1355: $10.5<\log{M}<11.0$ (cyan), 

1356: $11.0<\log{M}<11.5$ (green), 

1357: $11.5<\log{M}<12.0$ (red).

1358: Symbol type gives redshift: 

1359:  $0.05<z<0.2$ (plus), $0.2<z<0.4$ (star), $0.4<z<0.6$ (diamond), $0.6<z<0.8$ (triangle), and $0.8<z<1.2$ (square).

1360: Solid line is from equation \ref{eqn:irx}, \ref{eqn:afuv}, and \ref{eqn:ssfr}.}

1361: \label{fig_irx_ssfr}

1362: \end{figure}

1363: 

1364: \begin{figure}

1365: \plottwo{f17a.eps}{f17b.eps}

1366: \plottwo{f17c.eps}{f17d.eps}

1367: \plottwo{f17e.eps}{f17f.eps}

1368: \caption{Mass  distribution function $\phi(\log{\mass})$ vs. $\log{\mass}$ in each redshift bin.

1369: Points and error bars give mass function derived in this paper. Solid line gives result

1370: of fit to evolving Schechter function. Colored lines give Schechter functions derived

1371: by \cite{borch06}. Green (dotted) is for entire galaxy sample, red for red-sequence galaxies,

1372: and blue for blue-cloud galaxies. Note that the z=0 point is from \cite{bell03}, and our

1373: z$\sim$1.0 bin is compared to the \cite{borch06} z=0.9 bin.}

1374: \label{fig_phi_mass}

1375: \end{figure}

1376: 

1377: \begin{figure}

1378: \plottwo{f18a.eps}{f18b.eps}

1379: \caption{Star formation rate density [\mass$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$] vs. redshift derived

1380: assuming a non-evolving mass function.

1381: Error bars are based on bootstrap but do not

1382: include cosmic variance, which adds a relative error of 0.37

1383: to all the measurements. LEFT: density in each mass bin, with $9.5<\log{M}<10.0$ (purple), 

1384: $10.0<\log{M}<10.5$ (blue), 

1385: $10.5<\log{M}<11.0$ (cyan), 

1386: $11.0<\log{M}<11.5$ (green), 

1387: $11.5<\log{M}<12.0$ (red).

1388: and total (black).

1389: RIGHT: Compared with simple IRX-SSFR model, plotted in each mass bin (colors as in left panel)

1390: and total (black).

1391:  }

1392: \label{fig_sfhist}

1393: \end{figure}

1394: 

1395: 

1396: 

1397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1398: 

1399: \clearpage

1400: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}

1401: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1402: \tablecaption{Source Detection and Matching Statistics \label{tab_matchstats}}

1403: \tablewidth{0pt}

1404: \tablehead{

1405: \colhead{Bands} & 

1406: \colhead{Number} 

1407: }

1408: \startdata

1409:  R$<$24 & 15882 \\

1410:  IRAC1 $>$ 0.0005 mJy & 13754 \\

1411:  MIPS24 $>$ 0.02 mJy & 3098 \\

1412:  R$<$24, NUV$<$26.0 & 10298 \\

1413:  R$<$24, NUV$<$26.0, FUV$<$26.0 & 4356 \\

1414:  R$<$24, IRAC1$>$0.0005 & 8196 \\

1415:  R$<$24, MIPS24$>$0.02 & 2090 \\

1416:   R$<$24, NUV$<$26.0, MIPS24$>$0.02 & 1481 \\

1417:  R$<$24, NUV$<$26.0, IRAC1$>$0.0005, MIPS24$>$0.02 & 1274 \\

1418:  \enddata

1419: \end{deluxetable}

1420: 

1421: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1422: 

1423: \clearpage

1424: \begin{deluxetable}{lll}

1425: \label{tab_bcfit}

1426: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1427: \tablecaption{Bolometric Correction Coefficients}

1428: \tablecaption{$\log L_{FIR} = a_\lambda + b_\lambda \log (L[\lambda]/10^{10}L_\odot)$}

1429: \tablewidth{0pt}

1430: \tablehead{

1431: \colhead{$\lambda$} &

1432: \colhead{a$_\lambda$} & 

1433: \colhead{b$_\lambda$} 

1434: }

1435: \startdata

1436: 12 & 0.710 & 0.037 \\

1437: 13 & 0.705 & 0.036 \\

1438: 14 & 0.778 & 0.033 \\

1439: 15 & 0.860 & 0.030 \\

1440: 16 & 0.884 & 0.026 \\

1441: 17 & 0.878 & 0.023 \\

1442: 18 & 0.874 & 0.020 \\

1443: 19 & 0.880 & 0.016 \\

1444: 20 & 0.874 & 0.011 \\

1445: 21 & 0.873 & 0.007 \\

1446: 22 & 0.863 & 0.003\\

1447: 23 & 0.854 & 0.000\\

1448: 24 & 0.824 & -0.004\\

1449:  \enddata

1450: \end{deluxetable}

1451: 

1452: \end{document}

1453: 

1454: