1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \newcommand{\HA}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}\alpha}}
5: \newcommand{\HB}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}\beta}}
6: \newcommand{\OII}{[O{\sc ii}]$\lambda3727$}
7: \newcommand{\OIII}{[O{\sc iii}]$\lambda\lambda$4959,5007}
8: \newcommand{\NII}{[N{\sc ii}]$\lambda\lambda6548,6583$}
9:
10: %\received{2002 December 25}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{THE H$\alpha$ LUMINOSITY FUNCTION AND STAR FORMATION RATE AT $z
15: \approx 0.24$ IN THE COSMOS 2 SQUARE-DEGREE FIELD\altaffilmark{1}}
16:
17: \author{Y. Shioya \altaffilmark{2},
18: Y. Taniguchi \altaffilmark{2},
19: S. S. Sasaki \altaffilmark{2, 3, 5},
20: T. Nagao \altaffilmark{4},
21: T. Murayama \altaffilmark{3},
22: M. I. Takahashi \altaffilmark{3},
23: M. Ajiki \altaffilmark{3},
24: Y. Ideue \altaffilmark{2},
25: S. Mihara \altaffilmark{2},
26: A. Nakajima \altaffilmark{2},
27: N. Z. Scoville \altaffilmark{5, 6},
28: B. Mobasher \altaffilmark{7},
29: H. Aussel \altaffilmark{6,8},
30: M. Giavalisco \altaffilmark{7},
31: L. Guzzo \altaffilmark{9},
32: G. Hasinger \altaffilmark{10},
33: C. Impey \altaffilmark{11},
34: O. LeFevre \altaffilmark{12},
35: S. Lilly \altaffilmark{13},
36: A. Renzini \altaffilmark{14},
37: M. Rich \altaffilmark{15},
38: D. B. Sanders \altaffilmark{6},
39: E. Schinnerer \altaffilmark{16},
40: P. Shopbell \altaffilmark{5},
41: A. Leauthaud \altaffilmark{12},
42: J.-P. Kneib \altaffilmark{5,12},
43: J. Rhodes \altaffilmark{5}, and
44: R. Massey \altaffilmark{5,17}
45: }
46:
47: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on data collected at
48: Subaru Telescope, which is operated by
49: the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.}
50: \altaffiltext{2}{Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ehime University,
51: Bunkyo-cho, Matsuyama 790-8577, Japan}
52: \altaffiltext{3}{Astronomical Institute, Graduate School of Science,
53: Tohoku University, Aramaki, Aoba, Sendai 980-8578, Japan}
54: \altaffiltext{4}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan,
55: Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
56: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, MS 105-24, California Institute of
57: Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}
58: \altaffiltext{6}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii,
59: 2680 Woodlawn Drive, HI 96822}
60: \altaffiltext{7}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive,
61: Baltimore, MD 21218}
62: \altaffiltext{8}{CEA Saclay, DSM/DAPNIA/SAp, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France}
63: \altaffiltext{9}{Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via Brera,
64: Milan, Italy}
65: \altaffiltext{10}{Max Planck Institut fuer Extraterrestrische
66: Physik, D-85478 Garching, Germany}
67: \altaffiltext{11}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona,
68: 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721}
69: \altaffiltext{12}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille,
70: BP 8, Traverse du Siphon, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France}
71: \altaffiltext{13}{Department of Physics, Swiss Federal Institute
72: of Technology (ETH-Zurich), CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland}
73: \altaffiltext{14}{European Southern Observatory,
74: Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2, D-85748 Garching, Germany}
75: \altaffiltext{15}{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
76: University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095}
77: \altaffiltext{16}{Max Planck Institut f\"ur Astronomie,
78: K\"onigstuhl 17, Heidelberg, D-69117, Germany}
79: \altaffiltext{17}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91109}
80:
81: \shortauthors{Shioya et al.}
82: \shorttitle{H$\alpha$ luminosity function at $z \approx 0.24$}
83:
84: \begin{abstract}
85: To derive a new H$\alpha$ luminosity function and to understand the clustering properties
86: of star-forming galaxies at $z \approx 0.24$, we have made a narrow-band imaging
87: survey for H$\alpha$ emitting galaxies in the HST COSMOS 2 square degree field.
88: We used the narrow-band filter NB816 ($\lambda_c = 8150$ \AA, $\Delta \lambda = 120$ \AA)
89: and sampled H$\alpha$ emitters with $EW_{\rm obs}(\rm H\alpha + [N\textsc{ii}]) > 12$ \AA\
90: in a redshift range between $z=0.233$ and $z=0.251$
91: corresponding to a depth of 70 Mpc.
92: We obtained 980 H$\alpha$ emitting galaxies in a sky area of 5540 arcmin$^2$,
93: corresponding to a survey volume of $3.1 \times 10^4 \; {\rm Mpc^3}$.
94: We derive a H$\alpha$ luminosity
95: function with a best-fit Schechter function parameter set of
96: $\alpha = -1.35^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$, $\log\phi_* = -2.65^{+0.27}_{-0.38}$, and
97: $\log L_* ({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) = 41.94^{+0.38}_{-0.23}$.
98: The H$\alpha$ luminosity density is $2.7^{+0.7}_{-0.6} \times 10^{39}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$.
99: After subtracting the AGN contribution (15 \%) to the H$\alpha$ luminosity density,
100: the star formation rate density is evaluated as
101: $1.8^{+0.7}_{-0.4} \times 10^{-2}$ $M_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$.
102: The angular two-point correlation function of H$\alpha$ emitting galaxies of $\log L({\rm H\alpha}) > 39.8$
103: is well fit by a power law form of $w(\theta) = 0.013^{+0.002}_{-0.001} \theta^{-0.88 \pm 0.03}$,
104: corresponding to the correlation function of $\xi(r) = (r/1.9{\rm Mpc})^{-1.88}$.
105: We also find that the H$\alpha$ emitters with higher H$\alpha$ luminosity are more strongly clustered than
106: those with lower luminosity.
107: \end{abstract}
108: \keywords{galaxies: distances and redshifts --- galaxies: evolution ---
109: galaxies: luminosity function, mass function}
110:
111: %\maketitle
112:
113: \section{INTRODUCTION}
114:
115: It is important to understand when and where intense star formation
116: occurred during the course of galaxy evolution.
117: Although the star formation history in individual galaxies is interesting,
118: a general trend of star formation in galaxies as a function of time (or
119: redshift) also provides important insights on the global star formation
120: history as well as on the metal enrichment history in the universe.
121: Therefore, the star formation rate density (SFRD) is one of the important
122: observables for our understanding of galaxy formation and evolution.
123: In the last decade, many works have followed the pioneer work of
124: Madau et al. (1996) which compiled the evolution of SFRD,
125: $\rho_{\rm SFR}$, as a function of redshift for the first time.
126: The evolution of $\rho_{\rm SFR}$ is now widely accepted as follows:
127: $\rho_{\rm SFR}$ steeply increases from $z \simeq 0$ to $z\sim1$,
128: and seems to be constant between $z \sim 2$ and $z \sim 5$
129: and may decline beyond $z \sim 5$
130: (Hopkins 2004 and references therein;
131: Giavalisco et al. 2004; Taniguchi et al. 2005; Bouwens \& Illingworth 2006).
132:
133: Recent observations by the {\it Galaxy Evolution Explorer} (GALEX) and
134: the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope} have confirmed that $\rho_{\rm SFR}$ increases from
135: $z \sim 0$ to $z \sim 1$ (e.g., Schiminovich et al. 2005; Le Floc'h et al. 2005).
136: However, their observations show that the IR luminosity density evolves as $(1+z)^4$
137: while the UV luminosity density evolves as $(1+z)^{2.5}$. This may imply
138: that extinction by dust and reradiation from dust becomes to play a more important role at higher redshift.
139: One of the remaining problems in this field is a relation between star-formation
140: activity and large-scale structure formation.
141: To study this issue, wide-field deep surveys are important.
142:
143: There are several star formation rate (SFR) estimators, e.g.,
144: UV continuum, H$\alpha$ emission,
145: [O{\sc ii}] emission, far-infrared (FIR) emission (Kennicutt 1998),
146: and radio continuum (Condon 1992).
147: Each estimator has both advantage and disadvantage to estimate SFR.
148: UV continuum and nebular emission lines are considered to be direct
149: tracers of hot massive young stars. However, they are often affected
150: by dust obscuration.
151: On the other hand, FIR and radio continuum are insensitive to dust obscuration.
152: FIR emission is due to the dust heated
153: by the general interstellar radiation field.
154: If most of the bolometric luminosity of a galaxy absorbed by dust
155: is radiated from young stars, as in the case of dusty starbursts,
156: the FIR luminosity is a good SFR estimator.
157: For early-type galaxies, much of the FIR emission is considered
158: to be related to the old stars and the FIR emission is not a good SFR estimator (Sauvage \& Thuan 1992; Kennicutt 1998).
159: For star-forming galaxies, there is a tight radio-FIR correlation (Condon 1992).
160: This relation suggests that the radio continuum also provides
161: a good SFR estimator. The radio continuum is considered to be dominated
162: by synchrotron radiation from relativistic electrons which are accelerated
163: in supernova remnants (SNRs) (Lequeux 1971; Kennicutt 1983a; Gavazzi, Cocito, \& Vettolani 1986).
164: We note that the radio continuum emission of some galaxies is dominated by the AGN component,
165: although such galaxies are distinguished from star-forming galaxies by using
166: the tight radio-FIR correlation (Sopp \& Alexander 1991; Condon 1992).
167: The nearly linear radio-FIR correlation also suggests that radio continuum
168: is affected by the efficiency of cosmic-ray confinement,
169: since the degree of dust attenuation becomes larger for more luminous
170: galaxies (Bell 2003).
171: Although SFRs evaluated from
172: different SFR estimators are consistent with each other within a factor of 3
173: if the appropriate correction is applied for each case
174: (e.g., Hopkins et al. 2003; Charlot \& Longhetti 2001; Charlot et al. 2002),
175: samples selected with a different method may have different biases.
176: For example, samples selected by an objective-prism imaging survey are
177: biased toward the system with large equivalent width (e.g., Gallego et al. 1995),
178: while those selected by UV radiation are biased against heavily
179: dusty galaxies (Meurer et al. 2006).
180: To evaluate the true SFRD, it is important to correct the obtained SFR
181: appropriately and to know probable biases for the sample selection.
182:
183: In this work, we use the H$\alpha$ luminosity as a SFR estimator.
184: The H$\alpha$ luminosity is directly connected to
185: the ionizing photon production rate.
186: There are two approaches to measure H$\alpha$ luminosities of galaxies.
187: One is a spectroscopic survey and the other is a narrow-band imaging survey.
188: Although spectroscopic observations tell us details of emission line properties,
189: e.g., Balmer decrement, metallicity, and so on,
190: it is difficult to obtain spectra of a large sample of faint galaxies.
191: On the other hand, narrow-band imaging observations make it possible to
192: measure an emission-line flux of galaxies over a wide field of view.
193: Another advantage of narrow-band imaging is that aperture corrections
194: dose not need to evaluate the total flux of H$\alpha$ emission.
195: However, there are some shortcomings in this method: e.g.,
196: narrow-band filter cannot separate H$\alpha$ emission from \NII\ emission
197: and we cannot evaluate the obscuration degree for each galaxy.
198: Therefore, we must correct these effects statistically.
199: Since the redshift coverage of emission-line galaxies discovered by
200: the narrow-band imaging method is restricted,
201: the survey volume of emission-line galaxies is small.
202: Therefore, it is difficult to obtain a large sample of H$\alpha$ emitters.
203: If this is the case, brighter (i.e., rarer) H$\alpha$ emitters could be missed
204: in such an imaging survey. In order to study the H$\alpha$ luminosity function
205: unambiguously, we need a large sample of H$\alpha$ emitters covering a wide range
206: of H$\alpha$ luminosity.
207: On the other hand, this restriction allows us to investigate large-scale structures of
208: emission-line galaxies (mostly, star-forming galaxies) at a concerned redshift slice.
209:
210: Motivated by this in part, we have carried out a narrow-band imaging survey of the
211: HST COSMOS field centered
212: at $\alpha$(J2000)$=10^{\rm h}00^{\rm m}28.6^{\rm s}$ and
213: $\delta$(J2000)$=+02^{\circ}12^\prime 21.0^{\prime \prime}$;
214: the Cosmic Evolution Survey (Scoville et al. 2007).
215: Since this field covers 2 square degree, it is suitable for our purpose.
216: Our optical narrow-band imaging observations of the HST COSMOS field have been
217: made with the Suprime-Cam (Miyazaki et al. 2002) on the Subaru Telescope
218: (Kaifu et al. 2000; Iye et al. 2004).
219: Since the Suprime-Cam consists of ten 2k$\times$4k CCD chips and
220: provides a very wide field of view ($34^\prime \times 27^\prime$),
221: this is suitable for any wide-field optical imaging surveys.
222: In our observations, we used the narrow-passband filter, {\it NB}816, centered at
223: 8150 \AA ~ with the passband of $\Delta\lambda = 120$ \AA.
224: Our {\it NB816} imaging data are also used to search both for Ly$\alpha$ emitters
225: at $z \approx 5.7$ (Murayama et al. 2007) and for [O{\sc ii}] emitters
226: at $z \approx 1.2$ (Takahashi et al. 2007).
227: In this paper, we present our results on H$\alpha$ emitters
228: at $z \approx 0.24$ in the HST COSMOS field.
229:
230: Throughout this paper, magnitudes are given in the AB system.
231: We adopt a flat universe with $\Omega_{\rm matter} = 0.3$,
232: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$,
233: and $H_0 = 70 \; {\rm km \; s^{-1} \; Mpc^{-1}}$.
234:
235: \section{PHOTOMETRIC CATALOG}
236:
237: In this analysis, we use the COSMOS official photometric redshift catalog which
238: includes objects whose total $i$ magnitudes ($i^\prime$ or $i^*$) are brighter than 25.
239: The catalog presents $3^{\prime \prime}$ diameter aperture magnitude of
240: Subaru/Suprime-Cam $B$, $V$, $r^\prime$, $i^\prime$, $z^\prime$, and $NB816$
241: \footnote{Our SDSS broad-band filters are designated as
242: $g^+$, $r^+$, $i^+$, and $z^+$ in Capak et al.
243: (2007) to distinguish from the original SDSS filters. Also, our $B$ and $V$
244: filters are designated as $B_J$ and $V_J$ in Capak et al. (2007) where
245: $J$ means Johnson and Cousins filter system used in Landolt (1992).}.
246: Details of the Suprime-Cam observations are given in Taniguchi et al. (2007).
247: Details of the COSMOS official photometric redshift catalog
248: is also described in Capak et al. (2007) and Mobasher et al. (2007).
249: Since the accuracy of standard star calibration ($\pm 0.05$ magnitude)
250: is too large to obtain an accurate photometric redshift,
251: Capak et al. (2007) re-calibrated the photometric zero-points for
252: photometric redshift using the SEDs of galaxies with spectroscopic
253: redshift.
254: Following the recommendation of Capak et al. (2007), we apply the
255: zero-point correction to the photometric data in the official catalog.
256: The offset values are 0.189, 0.04, $-0.040$, $-0.020$, 0.054, and $-0.072$
257: for $B$, $V$, $r^\prime$, $i^\prime$, $z^\prime$, and $NB816$,
258: respectively.
259: The zero-point corrected limiting magnitudes are
260: $B=27.4$, $V=26.5$, $r^\prime=26.6$, $i^\prime=26.1$,
261: $z^\prime = 25.4$, and $NB816 = 25.6$ for a $3 \sigma$ detection
262: on a $3^{\prime \prime}$ diameter aperture.
263: The catalog also includes $3^{\prime \prime}$ diameter aperture magnitude of CFHT $i^*$.
264: We use the CFHT $i^*$ magnitude for bright galaxies with $i^\prime < 21$
265: because such bright galaxies appear to be slightly affected by the saturation effect in $i^\prime$
266: obtained with Suprime-Cam.
267: We also apply the Galactic extinction correction adopting the median value
268: $E(B-V)=0.0195$ (Capak et al. 2007) for all objects.
269: A photometric correction for each band is as follows
270: (see Table 8 of Capak et al. 2007):
271: $A_B=0.079$, $A_V=0.061$, $A_{r^\prime}=0.050$, $A_{i^\prime}=0.037$,
272: $A_{z^\prime}=0.028$, $A_{NB816}=0.034$, and $A_{i^*}=0.037$.
273:
274: \section{RESULTS}
275:
276: \subsection{Selection of {\it NB}816-Excess Objects}
277:
278: We select H$\alpha$ emitter candidates using $3^{\prime \prime}$ diameter
279: aperture magnitude in the official catalog.
280: In order to select {\it NB}816-excess objects efficiently,
281: we need magnitude of frequency-matched continuum.
282: Since the effective frequency of the NB816 filter (367.8 THz) is different either from
283: those of $i^\prime$ (394.9 THz) and $z^\prime$ (333.6 THz) filters, we newly make a
284: frequency-matched continuum, ``$iz$ continuum'', using the following
285: linear combination ; $f_{iz} = 0.57 f_{i^\prime}+0.43 f_{z^\prime}$
286: where $f_{i^\prime}$ and $f_{z^\prime}$ are the $i^\prime$ and $z^\prime$
287: flux densities, respectively.
288: Its 3 $\sigma$ limiting magnitude is $iz \simeq 26.03$ in a $3^{\prime \prime}$
289: diameter aperture.
290: For the bright galaxies with $i^\prime < 21$, ``{\it iz} continuum'' is calculated as
291: $f_{iz} = 0.57 f_{i^*}+0.43 f_{z^\prime}$, where $f_{i^*}$ is the $i^*$ flux density,
292: since $i^\prime$ magnitude is incorrect because of the saturation effect.
293:
294: Since we use the ACS catalog prepared for studying weak lensing
295: (Leauthaud et al. 2007) to separate galaxies from stars,
296: our survey area is restricted to the area mapped in $I_{814}$ band with
297: Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) on HST.
298: After subtracting the masked out area, the effective survey area is 5540 arcmin$^2$.
299: Since the covered redshift range is between 0.233 and 0.251 ($\Delta z = 0.018$) and
300: the corresponding survey depth is 70 Mpc, our effective survey volume is
301: $3.1 \times 10^4 \; {\rm Mpc^3}$.
302:
303: We selected {\it NB}816-excess objects using the following criteria:
304: \begin{equation}
305: iz-NB816 > 0.1,
306: \end{equation}
307: and
308: \begin{equation}
309: iz-NB816 > 3 \sigma(iz-NB816),
310: \end{equation}
311: where
312: \begin{equation}
313: 3\sigma(iz-NB816)=-2.5\log
314: (1-\sqrt{(f_{3\sigma_{\mathit{NB}816}})^2+(f_{3\sigma_{iz}})^2}/f_{\mathit{NB}816}).
315: \end{equation}
316: In the calculation of $3 \sigma(iz-NB816)$, we applied the Galactic
317: extinction correction to the limiting magnitudes of $i^\prime$- and
318: $z^\prime$-band.
319: The former criterion corresponds $EW_{\rm obs} > 12$ \AA.
320: This criterion is exactly same as that of Fujita et al. (2003) and
321: similar to that of Tresse \& Maddox (1998) [$EW({\rm H\alpha+[NII]})_{\rm rest} > 10$ \AA].
322: Taking account of the scatter of $iz-NB816$ color,
323: we added the latter criterion.
324: These two criteria are shown by the solid and dashed lines, respectively, in
325: Figure \ref{Ha:iz-NBvsNB}.
326: As we will describe in the next section, we use the broad-band colors
327: of galaxies to separate H$\alpha$ emitters from other emission-line
328: galaxies. To avoid the ambiguity of broad-band colors,
329: we select galaxies detected above $3 \sigma$ in all bands.
330: Finally, we find 6176 galaxies that satisfy the above criteria.
331:
332: \subsection{Selection of {\it NB}816-Excess Objects at $z\approx0.24$}
333:
334: The emission-line galaxy candidates selected above include not only
335: H$\alpha$ emitters at $z=0.24$ but also possibly [O{\sc iii}] emitters at $z=0.63$,
336: or H$\beta$ emitters at $z=0.68$, or [O{\sc ii}] emitters at $z=1.19$
337: ~(Tresse et al. 1999; Kennicutt 1992b).
338: We also note here that the narrowband filter passband is too wide to
339: separate \NII\ from \HA.
340:
341: In order to distinguish H$\alpha$ emitters at $z \approx 0.24$ from
342: emission-line objects at other redshifts,
343: we investigate their broad-band color properties comparing
344: observed colors of our 6176 emitters with model ones that are estimated by using
345: the model spectral energy distribution derived by Coleman, Wu, \& Weedman (1980).
346: In Figures \ref{Ha:BVrcolor} \& \ref{Ha:Brizcolor},
347: we show the $B-V$ vs. $V-r^\prime$ and
348: $B-r^\prime$ vs. $i^\prime - z^\prime$ color-color diagram of the 6176 sources
349: and the loci of model galaxies.
350: Then we find that H$\alpha$ emitters at $z\approx0.24$ can be selected by
351: adopting the following three criteria;
352: (1) $B-V > 2 (V-r^\prime) - 0.2$,
353: (2) $B-r^\prime > 5 (i^\prime - z^\prime) -1.3$, and
354: (3) $B-r^\prime > 0.7 (i^\prime - z^\prime)+0.4$.
355: We can clearly distinguish H$\alpha$ emitters from [O{\sc iii}] or H$\beta$ emitters
356: using the first criterion.
357: We can also distinguish H$\alpha$ emitters from [O{\sc ii}] emitters
358: using the second and third criteria.
359: We have checked the validity of our photometric selection criteria using both the photometric data and
360: spectroscopic redshifts of galaxies in the GOODS-N region (Cowie et al. 2004).
361: Galaxies with redshifts corresponding to our H$\alpha$, [O{\sc iii}], H$\beta$,
362: and [O{\sc ii}] emitters are separately plotted in Figs. 2 \& 3.
363: It is shown that our criteria can separate well H$\alpha$ emitters
364: from [O{\sc iii}], H$\beta$, and [O{\sc ii}] emitters.
365: These criteria give us a sample of 981 \HA\ emitting galaxy candidates.
366: The properties of GOODS-N galaxies presented in Figs. 2 and 3 suggest
367: that there is few contamination in our H$\alpha$ emitter sample.
368:
369: \subsection{H$\alpha$ Luminosity}
370:
371: As we mentioned in section 1, one of the advantages of narrow-band
372: imaging is to measure the total flux of H$\alpha$ emission directly
373: without any aperture correction.
374: To derive the total H$\alpha$ flux, we have used
375: the total flux of $i^\prime$ (or $i^*$), $z^\prime$, and $\mathit NB816$
376: using public images.\footnote{http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/COSMOS/}
377: Our procedure is the same as that given in Capak et al. (2007);
378: MAG\_AUTO in SExtractor (Bertin \& Arnouts 1996).
379: Because of the contamination of the foreground galaxies,
380: one galaxy has a negative value of $iz-NB816$ based on the total magnitudes.
381: We do not use this object in further analysis. Therefore, our final
382: sample contains 980 H$\alpha$ emitters.
383:
384: Adopting the same method as that used by Pascual et al. (2001),
385: we express the flux density in each filter band as the sum of the line flux, $F_{\rm L}$,
386: and the continuum flux density, $f_{\rm C}$:
387: \begin{equation}
388: f_{\rm NB} = f_{\rm C} + \frac{F_{\rm L}}{\Delta NB},
389: \label{eqn:fnb}
390: \end{equation}
391: \begin{equation}
392: f_{i^\prime} = f_{\rm C} + \frac{F_{\rm L}}{\Delta i^\prime},
393: \end{equation}
394: and
395: \begin{equation}
396: f_{z^\prime} = f_{\rm C},
397: \end{equation}
398: where $\Delta NB$ and $\Delta i^\prime$ are the effective bandwidths of $\mathit{NB816}$ and $i^\prime$,
399: respectively.
400: The $iz$ continuum, $f_{iz}$, is expressed as
401: \begin{equation}
402: f_{iz} = 0.57 f_{i^\prime} + 0.43 f_{z^\prime} = f_{\rm C} + 0.57 \frac{F_{\rm L}}{\Delta i^\prime}.
403: \label{eqn:fiz}
404: \end{equation}
405: Using equation \ref{eqn:fnb} and \ref{eqn:fiz}, the line flux $F_{\rm L}$ is calculated by
406: \begin{equation}
407: F_{\rm L} = \Delta NB \frac{f_{\rm NB} - f_{iz}}{1-0.57(\Delta NB/\Delta i^\prime)}.
408: \end{equation}
409:
410: The line flux evaluated above includes both H$\alpha$ and \NII\ emission
411: since the narrow-band filter cannot separate the contribution of
412: these lines.
413: The flux of H$\alpha$ emission line is also affected by
414: the internal extinction.
415: Therefore, we have to correct the contamination of \NII\ emission and
416: the internal extinction $A_{\rm H\alpha}$.
417: Although several correction methods have been proposed
418: (e.g., Kennicutt 1992a; Gallego et al. 1997; Tresse et al. 1994; Helmboldt et al. 2004 for [N{\sc ii}] contamination:
419: Kennicutt 1983b; Niklas et al. 1997; Kennicutt 1998; Hopkins et al. 2001; Afonso et al. 2003 for $A_{\rm H\alpha}$),
420: there is few study which gives both corrections based on a single sample of galaxies.
421: Helmboldt et al. (2004) have derived
422: the relation between [N{\sc ii}]/H$\alpha$ and $M_R$ and
423: that between $A_{\rm H\alpha}$ and $M_R$
424: based on the data of the Nearby Field Galaxy Survey (Jansen et al. 2000a, 2000b).
425: We therefore adopt their relations
426: to correct the [N{\sc ii}] contamination and $A_{\rm H\alpha}$.
427: After correcting to the AB magnitude system (Meurer et al. 2006),
428: the relation between [N{\sc ii}]/H$\alpha$ and $M_R$ is
429: \begin{equation}
430: \log w_{6583} = -0.13 M_R -3.30,
431: \label{eqn:MeurerR}
432: \end{equation}
433: where
434: \begin{equation}
435: w_{6583} \equiv \frac{F_{\rm [NII] 6583 \AA}}{F_{\rm H \alpha}}
436: \end{equation}
437: and that between $A_{\rm H\alpha}$ and $M_R$ is
438: \begin{equation}
439: \log A_{\rm H \alpha} = -0.12 M_R - 2.47.
440: \label{eqn:MeurerA}
441: \end{equation}
442: To derive $M_R$ used in equations (\ref{eqn:MeurerR}) \& (\ref{eqn:MeurerA})
443: for each galaxy, we assume that the redshift of the galaxy is $z = 0.242$.
444: We have also calculated $k$-correction using the average SED of Coleman et al. (1980)'s Sbc and Irr.
445: Taking account of the luminosity distance and $k$-correction (average value of Scd and Irr),
446: $M_R$ is calculated from $r^\prime$-band total magnitude, $r^\prime$,
447: as $M_R = r^\prime - 40.90$.
448:
449: In addition to the above corrections, we also apply a statistical correction (21\%; the average value of flux decrease
450: due to the filter transmission) to the measured flux because the filter transmission
451: function is not square in shape (Fujita et al. 2003).
452: Note that this value is slightly different from that (28 \%) used in Fujita et al. (2003).
453: Our new value is re-estimated by using the latest filter response function.
454: The \HA\ flux is given by:
455: \begin{equation}
456: F_{\rm cor}({\rm H}\alpha) = F_{\rm L} \times
457: \frac{f({\rm H}\alpha)}{f({\rm H}\alpha)+f([\textrm{N{\sc ii}}])}
458: \times 10^{0.4A_{{\rm H}\alpha}} \times 1.21.
459: \end{equation}
460: Finally the \HA\ luminosity is estimated by $L({\rm H}\alpha) = 4\pi d_{\rm L}^2F_{\rm cor}({\rm H}\alpha)$.
461: In this procedure, we assume that all the H$\alpha$ emitters are located at $z = 0.242$
462: that is the redshift corresponding to the central wavelength of our {\it NB}816 filter.
463: Therefore, the luminosity distance is set to be $d_{\rm L}=1213$ Mpc.
464:
465: We summarize the total magnitude of $i^\prime$, $z^\prime$,
466: $\mathit{NB816}$, and $iz$ and the color excess of $iz-NB816$
467: for our H$\alpha$ emission-line galaxy candidates in Table 1.
468: Table 1 also includes $\log F_{\rm L}$, $\log F_{\rm cor}({\rm H}\alpha)$,
469: and $\log L({\rm H \alpha})$.
470:
471: \section{DISCUSSION}
472:
473: \subsection{Luminosity function of \HA\ emitters}
474:
475: Figure \ref{Ha:LF} shows the H$\alpha$ luminosity function (LF) at $z \approx 0.24$
476: for our H$\alpha$ emitter sample.
477: The H$\alpha$ LF is constructed by the relation
478: \begin{equation}
479: \Phi(\log L_i) = \frac{1}{\Delta \log L} \sum_j \frac{1}{V_j}
480: \end{equation}
481: with
482: \begin{equation}
483: |\log L_j - \log L_i| < \frac{1}{2} \Delta \log L,
484: \end{equation}
485: where $V_j$ is the volume of the narrow band slice in the range of redshift covered
486: by the filter.
487: We have used $\Delta \log L({\rm H\alpha}) = 0.2$.
488: If the shape of the filter response is square,
489: our survey volume is $3.1 \times 10^4 \; {\rm Mpc^{3}}$.
490: However, effective survey volume is affected by the shape of
491: filter transmission curve.
492: For example, since the transmission at 8092 \AA~ is a half of the peak
493: value, the color excess, $iz-NB816$, of an H$\alpha$ emitter at $z=0.233$
494: with $EW({\rm H\alpha + [N\textsc{ii}]})=12 {\rm \AA}$ is observed as 0.05
495: which does not satisfy our selection criterion, $iz-NB816 > 0.1$.
496: Taking account of the filter shape in the computation of the volume,
497: the correction can be as large as 23 \% for the faintest galaxies.
498: Adopting the Schechter function form (Schechter 1976), we obtain the following
499: best-fit parameters for our H$\alpha$ emitters with $L(\HA)> 10^{39.8}$ ergs s$^{-1}$;
500: $\alpha = -1.35^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$, $\log\phi_* = -2.65^{+0.27}_{-0.38}$, and
501: $\log L_* ({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) = 41.94^{+0.38}_{-0.23}$ (black solid line).
502:
503: Together with our H$\alpha$ LF, Figure \ref{Ha:LF} shows H$\alpha$ LFs of previous studies in which
504: H$\alpha$ emitters at $z < 0.3$ are investigated; Tresse \& Maddox (1998)
505: [which is characterized by $\alpha=-1.35$, $\phi_*=10^{-2.56}$ Mpc$^{-3}$,
506: and $L_*=10^{41.92}$
507: ergs s$^{-1}$; note that these parameters were converted by Hopkins (2004) to
508: those of our adopted cosmology], Fujita et al. (2003), Hippelein et al. (2003)
509: and Ly et al. (2007).
510: Fujita et al. (2003), Ly et al. (2007), and this work are based on
511: the $\mathit{NB816}$ imaging obtained with the Subaru Telescope.
512: Tresse \& Maddox (1998) is based on the Canada-France Redshift Survey (CFRS)
513: and Hippelein et al. (2003) is based on the Calar Alto Deep Imaging Survey
514: (CADIS).
515:
516: First, we compare our H$\alpha$ LF with that derived by Ly et al. (2007).
517: Their best-fit Schechter function parameters
518: ($\alpha = -1.71$, $\log \phi_*=-3.7$, $\log L_*=42.2$)
519: are quite different from those of our H$\alpha$ LF.
520: However we note that the data points between $\log L({\rm H\alpha}) \sim 39.5$
521: and $\sim 41.0$, shown in Fig.10b of Ly et al. (2007), are quite
522: similar to our results (Figure \ref{Ha:LF}).
523: We therefore consider that the H$\alpha$ LF of Ly et al. (2007) itself
524: is basically consistent with ours except the brightest point.
525: The difference of Schechter parameters between ours and Ly et al's may arise
526: from the data points of the brightest and the faintest ones,
527: especially the brightest one.
528: Since the field of view of the COSMOS is about an order wider than
529: that of the SDF, we consider that our H$\alpha$ LF is more accurate by determined than
530: that of Ly et al. (2007) at the bright end.
531:
532: Second, we compare our H$\alpha$ LF with the other H$\alpha$ LFs.
533: Although our H$\alpha$ LF is similar to those of Tresse \& Maddox (1998) and
534: Hippelein et al. (2003),
535: the H$\alpha$ LF of Fujita et al. (2003) shows a steeper faint-end slope
536: and a higher number density for the same luminosity than ours.
537: These differences may be attributed to the following different source selection
538: procedures: (1) Fujita et al. (2003) used their {\it NB816}-selected galaxies
539: while we used $i^\prime$-selected galaxies, Tresse \& Maddox (1998) used $I$-selected Canada-France
540: Redshift Survey (CFRS) galaxies, and Hippelein et al. (2003) used Fabry-Perot images
541: for pre-selection of emission-line galaxies.
542: As Fujita et al. (2003) demonstrated, samples based on a broad-band selected
543: catalog are biased against galaxies with faint continuum.
544: (2) Fujita et al. (2003) used their $B-R_{\rm C}$ vs. $R_{\rm C}-I_{\rm C}$ color - color diagram
545: to isolate H$\alpha$ emitters from other low-$z$ emitters at different redshifts.
546: However, we find that there are possible contaminations of [O{\sc iii}] emitters
547: if one uses the $B-R_{\rm C}$ vs. $R_{\rm C}-I_{\rm C}$ diagram, because of
548: the small difference between H$\alpha$ and [O{\sc iii}] emitters on that
549: color - color diagram. On the other hand,
550: we used $B-V$ vs. $V - r^\prime$ to isolate H$\alpha$ emitters from [O{\sc iii}] emitters.
551: Due to the large separation between H$\alpha$ emitters and [O{\sc iii}] emitters
552: on the $B-V$ vs. $V - r^\prime$ diagram, we can reduce the contamination
553: of [O{\sc iii}] emitters.
554: (3) Fujita et al. (2003) used population synthesis model GISSEL96 (Bruzual \& Charlot 1993)
555: to determine the criteria for selecting H$\alpha$ emitters.
556: To check the validity of the criterion,
557: we compare colors of GOODS-N galaxies at $z \sim 0.24$, 0.63, 0.68 \& 1.19
558: with model colors at corresponding redshifts based on GISSEL96 (Figure \ref{Ha:BRIzcolor}).
559: Unfortunately, the predicted colors are slightly different from
560: those of observed galaxies. We therefore redetermined the selection
561: criteria using the SED of Coleman, Wu, \& Weedman (1980) as
562: \[
563: (B-R_{\rm C}) > 2.5 (R_{\rm C}-I_{\rm C}) + 0.2.
564: \]
565: If we adopt this revised criterion, the number of H$\alpha$ emitters in the Fujita et al. (2003)
566: is reduced by about 20 \% (Figure \ref{Ha:BRIzcolor}).
567: This is one reason why the number density of H$\alpha$ emitters in
568: Fujita et al. (2003) is higher than other surveys.
569: Recently, Ly et al. (2007) pointed out that the fraction of
570: [O{\sc iii}] emitters in the H$\alpha$ emitter sample of Fujita et al. (2003)
571: may be about 50 \% using the Hawaii HDF-N sources with redshifts observed as $NB816$-excess objects.
572: The H$\alpha$ LF of Fujita et al. (2003) reduced by 50 \% appears to be
573: quite similar to our H$\alpha$ LF.
574:
575: \subsection{Luminosity density and star formation rate density}
576:
577: By integrating the luminosity function, i.e.,
578: \begin{equation}
579: \mathcal{L}(\HA) = \int^{\infty}_{0} \Phi(L)LdL = \Gamma(\alpha + 2) \phi_* L_*,
580: \end{equation}
581: we obtain a total \HA\ luminosity density of
582: $2.7^{+0.7}_{-0.6} \times 10^{39}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ at $z\approx0.24$ from our
583: best fit LF.
584: The star formation rate is estimated from the \HA\ luminosity using the relation
585: $SFR = 7.9\times10^{-42}L(\HA)\:M_\Sun {\rm yr}^{-1}$,
586: where $L(\HA)$ is in units of ergs s$^{-1}$ (Kennicutt 1998).
587: Using this relation, the \HA\ luminosity density can be translated into the SFR density of
588: $\rho_{\rm SFR} \simeq 2.1^{+1.0}_{-0.4} \times 10^{-2} M_\Sun$ yr$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$.
589:
590: However, not all the H$\alpha$ luminosity is produced by star formation,
591: because active galactic nuclei (AGNs) can also contribute to the H$\alpha$ luminosity.
592: For example, previous studies obtained the following estimates;
593: 8-17\% of the galaxies in the CFRS low-$z$ sample (Tresse et al.
594: 1996), 8\% in the Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) survey of local
595: H$\alpha$ emission line galaxies (Gallego et al. 1995), and 17-28\% in
596: the 15R survey (Carter et al. 2001).
597: Recently, Hao et al. (2005) obtained an H$\alpha$ luminosity function of
598: active galactic nuclei based on the sample of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
599: within a redshift range of $0<z<0.15$.
600: The H$\alpha$ luminosity density calculated from Schechter function
601: parameters which are shown in the paper is $1.1 \times 10^{38} \; {\rm erg \; s^{-1} \; Mpc^{-3}}$ (with no reddening correction).
602: Taking account of the reddening correction and the H$\alpha$ luminosity
603: density radiated from star-forming galaxies (Gallego et al. 1995),
604: the fraction of AGN contribution to the total H$\alpha$ luminosity
605: density is about 15 \% in the local universe.
606: If we assume that the 15 \% of the H$\alpha$ luminosity density is radiated from AGNs,
607: the corrected SFRD is $1.8^{+0.7}_{-0.4} \times 10^{-2}$ $M_\Sun$ yr$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$.
608:
609: We note here that the error to $\rho_{\rm SFR}$ (and $\mathcal{L}({\rm H}\alpha)$)
610: is probably underestimated, since it does not include the effect of
611: different correction methods and selection biases.
612: For example, adopting the different relation for correcting $A_{\rm H\alpha}$
613: may cause a different value of SFRD.
614:
615: We compare our result with the previous investigations compiled by Hopkins (2004) in Figure \ref{Ha:MadauPlot}.
616: We also show the evolution of SFRD derived from the observation of GALEX
617: with mean attenuation of $A_{\rm UV}^{\rm meas} = 1.8$, evaluated
618: from the FUV slope $\beta$ ($f_\lambda \propto \lambda^\beta$) and the relation of
619: $A_{\rm FUV} = 4.43 + 1.99 \beta$.
620: If we adopt the more representative value $A_{\rm UV}^{\rm min} = 1$ (Schiminovich et al. 2005)
621: determined by using the $F_{\rm dust}/F_{\rm UV}$ ratio (Buat et al. 2005),
622: their SFRD becomes smaller by a factor of 2, being similar to our SFRD.
623:
624: The left panel of Figure \ref{Ha:MadauPlot}
625: shows the evolution of the SFRD as a function of redshift from $z=0$ to $z=2$.
626: The right panel of Figure \ref{Ha:MadauPlot} shows that as a function of the look-back time.
627: It clearly shows that SFRD monotonically decreasing for 10 Gyr
628: with increasing cosmic time.
629: We note that the error of SFRD of our evaluation includes only random error,
630: since we adopt the same assumptions as those in Hopkins (2004).
631:
632: Our SFRD evaluated above seems roughly consistent with but
633: slightly smaller than the previous
634: evaluations, e.g., Tresse \& Maddox (1998) and Fujita et al. (2003).
635: Since we select emission-line galaxies with $EW({\rm H \alpha + [N\textsc{ii}]})_{\rm obs} > 12$ \AA,
636: our sample is considered to be biased against star-forming galaxies with small specific
637: SFR which is defined as the ratio of SFR to stellar mass of galaxy.
638: Since our criterion is similar to that of Tresse \& Maddox (1998) and the same as that of Fujita et al. (2003),
639: we consider that the difference between our survey and
640: theirs is not caused by the different criteria
641: of $EW({\rm H\alpha+[N\textsc{ii}]})_{\rm obs}$.
642: As we mentioned in section 4.1, the SFRD of Fujita et al. (2003) was overestimated
643: because of the contamination of [O{\sc iii}] emitters.
644: On the other hand, the difference between Tresse \& Maddox (19989 and
645: our work seems to be real; e.g., the cosmic variance.
646:
647: We discuss further the effect of the selection criterion of $EW({\rm H\alpha + [N\textsc{ii}]})_{\rm obs} > 12$ \AA\
648: on the evaluation of SFRD.
649: Being different from the previous H$\alpha$ emission-line galaxy surveys
650: using the objective-prism, the fraction of galaxies having
651: $EW({\rm H}\alpha) > 50$ \AA\ is 12 \% in our sample,
652: which is similar to or less than the value of the local
653: universe (15-20 \%: Heckman 1998) and SINGG SR1 (14.5 \%: Hanish et al. 2006).
654: On the other hand, the fractions of the galaxies with $EW({\rm H}\alpha) > 50$ \AA\
655: are 42 \% and 35 \% in the KPNO International Spectroscopic Survey (KISS) (Gronwall et al. 2004) and UCM objective-prism surveys, respectively.
656: Our sample seems to be not strongly biased
657: toward galaxies with high equivalent width.
658: Hanish et al. (2006) showed that 4.5 \% of the H$\alpha$ luminosity
659: density comes from galaxies with $EW({\rm H}\alpha) < 10$ \AA\ in local universe.
660: If the fraction (4.5 \%) is valid for the star-forming galaxies at $z \approx 0.24$,
661: our estimate of SFRD would be about 5 \% smaller than the true SFRD.
662:
663: \subsection{Spatial Distribution and Angular Two-Point Correlation Function}
664:
665: Figure \ref{Ha:RaDec} shows the spatial distribution
666: of our 980 H$\alpha$ emitter candidates.
667: There are some clustering regions over the field.
668: To discuss the clustering properties more quantitatively,
669: we derive the angular two-point correlation function (ACF), $w(\theta)$,
670: using the estimator defined by Landy \& Szalay (1993),
671: \begin{equation}
672: w(\theta) = \frac{DD(\theta)-2DR(\theta)+RR(\theta)}{RR(\theta)},
673: \label{two-point}
674: \end{equation}
675: where $DD(\theta)$, $DR(\theta)$, and $RR(\theta)$ are normalized numbers of
676: galaxy-galaxy, galaxy-random, random-random pairs, respectively.
677: The random sample consists of 100,000 sources with the same geometrical
678: constraints as the galaxy sample.
679: Figure \ref{Ha:LF} demonstrates that our H$\alpha$ emitter sample is
680: quite incomplete for $\log L({\rm H}\alpha) ({\rm erg \; s^{-1}})< 39.8$.
681: We therefore show the ACF for 693 H$\alpha$ emitter candidates
682: with $\log L({\rm H\alpha}) ({\rm erg \; s^{-1}})> 39.8$ in Figure \ref{Ha:ACF}.
683: The ACF is fit well by power law, $w(\theta) = 0.013^{+0.002}_{-0.001} \theta^{-0.88 \pm 0.03}$.
684: Recently, the departure from a power-law of the correlation function is
685: reported (Zehavi et al. 2004; Ouchi et al. 2005).
686: Such departure may be interpreted as the transition from a large-scale regime,
687: where the pair of galaxies reside in separate halos,
688: to a small-scale regime, where the pair of galaxies reside within the same halo.
689: We find no evidence for such departure in our result.
690: We however consider that the number of our sample is too small to discuss this problem.
691:
692: For Lyman break galaxies, brighter galaxies (with a larger star formation rate)
693: tend to show more clustered structures than faint ones (with a smaller star formation rate)
694: (e.g., Ouchi et al. 2004; Kashikawa et al. 2006).
695: We also show the ACF of H$\alpha$ emitters with larger H$\alpha$ luminosity [$\log L({\rm H}\alpha) ({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) > 40.94 = \log (0.1 L_*)$]
696: and that with lower H$\alpha$ luminosity ($39.8 < \log L({\rm H}\alpha) ({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) \le 40.94$) in Figure \ref{Ha:ACF}.
697: Both ACFs are well fit with a power law form:
698: $w(\theta) = 0.019^{+0.004}_{-0.004} \theta^{-1.08\pm0.05}$ for objects
699: with $\log L({\rm H} \alpha) ({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) > 40.94$,
700: while $w(\theta) = 0.011^{+0.002}_{-0.002} \theta^{-0.84\pm0.05}$ for objects
701: with $39.8 < \log L({\rm H} \alpha) ({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) \le 40.94$, respectively.
702: We conclude that galaxies with a higher star formation rate are more strongly clustered
703: than ones with a lower star formation rate.
704: This fact is interpreted as that galaxies with a higher star formation rate
705: reside in more massive dark matter halos, which are more clustered in
706: the hierarchical structure formation scenario.
707:
708: It is useful to evaluate the correlation length $r_0$ of the two-point
709: correlation function $\xi(r) = (r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$.
710: A correlation length is derived from the ACF through Limber's equation
711: (e.g., Peebles 1980).
712: Assuming that the redshift distribution of H$\alpha$ emitters is
713: a top hat shape of $z=0.242 \pm 0.009$, we obtain the correlation
714: length of $r_0 = 1.9$ Mpc.
715: Therefore, the two-point correlation function for all H$\alpha$ emitters
716: is written as $\xi(r) = (r/{\rm 1.9Mpc})^{-1.88}$.
717: The correlation length of H$\alpha$ emitters with $\log L({\rm H}\alpha)({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) > 40.94$
718: is 2.9 Mpc, while that of H$\alpha$ emitters with $39.8 < \log L({\rm H}\alpha)({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) \le 40.94$
719: is 1.6 Mpc.
720: These values are smaller than those evaluated for nearby $L_*$ galaxies
721: ($\sim 7$ Mpc) (Norberg et al. 2001; Zehavi et al. 2005) and
722: $z \sim 1$ galaxies ($\sim 4$ -- 5 Mpc)(Coil et al. 2004).
723:
724: It is known that the correlation length is smaller for fainter galaxies
725: in the nearby (Norberg et al. 2001; Zehavi et al. 2005) and
726: the $z \sim 1$ universe (Coil et al. 2006).
727: Figure \ref{Ha:LHaMr} shows the relation between the $L({\rm H}\alpha)$
728: and $R_{\rm C}$-band absolute magnitude $M_R$ for our sample.
729: Our sample includes many faint ($M_R > -18$) galaxies.
730: However, the correlation length for galaxies with $-18 < M_r < -17$ (3.8 Mpc: Zehavi et al. 2005)
731: is still larger than that of our sample.
732: This discrepancy may imply a weak clustering of emission-line galaxies.
733:
734: \section{SUMMARY}
735:
736: We have performed the H$\alpha$ emitter survey in the HST COSMOS
737: 2 square degree field using the COSMOS official photometric catalog.
738: Our results and conclusions are summarized as follows.
739:
740: 1.
741: We found 980 H$\alpha$ emission-line galaxy candidates
742: using the narrow-band imaging method.
743: The H$\alpha$ luminosity function is well fit by Schechter function
744: with $\alpha = -1.35^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$, $\log\phi_* = -2.65^{+0.27}_{-0.38}$,
745: and $\log L_* ({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) = 41.94^{+0.38}_{-0.23}$.
746: Using the parameter set of Schechter function,
747: the H$\alpha$ luminosity density is evaluated as
748: $2.7^{+0.7}_{-0.6} \times10^{39} \; {\rm erg \; s^{-1} \; Mpc^{-3}}$.
749: If we adopt the AGN contribution to the H$\alpha$ luminosity density is 15 \%,
750: we obtain the star formation rate density of
751: $1.8^{+0.7}_{-0.4} \times 10^{-2}M_\odot{\rm yr^{-1}Mpc^{-3}}$.
752: This error includes only random error.
753: Our result supports the strong increase in the SFRD from $z=0$ to $z=1$.
754:
755: 2.
756: We studied the clustering properties of H$\alpha$ emitters
757: at $z \sim 0.24$. The two-point correlation function is well fit
758: by power law, $w(\theta) = 0.013^{+0.002}_{-0.001}\theta^{-0.88\pm0.03}$,
759: which leads to the correlation function of $(r/1.9 {\rm Mpc})^{-1.88}$.
760: We cannot find the departure from a power law, which is recently found
761: in both low- and high-$z$ galaxies.
762: Although the power of $-1.88$ is consistent with the power for nearby galaxies,
763: the derived correlation length of $r_0 = 1.9$ Mpc is smaller than
764: that for nearby galaxies with the same optical luminosity range.
765: This discrepancy may imply a weak clustering of emission-line galaxies.
766: The galaxies with higher SFR are more strongly clustered than
767: those with lower SFR. Taking account of the fact that the SFR
768: of a luminous galaxy is higher than that of a faint galaxy,
769: this result is consistent with the fact already known that
770: the luminous galaxies are more strongly clustering.
771:
772:
773: The HST COSMOS Treasury program was supported through NASA grant HST-GO-09822.
774: We greatly acknowledge the contributions of the entire COSMOS collaboration
775: consisting of more than 70 scientists. The COSMOS science meeting in May 2005
776: was supported by in part by the NSF through grant OISE-0456439.
777: We would also like to thank the Subaru Telescope staff for their invaluable help.
778: This work was financially supported in part by the JSPS (Nos. 15340059 and 17253001).
779: SSS and TN are JSPS fellows.
780:
781: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
782: % References
783: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
784:
785: \begin{references}
786: \reference{1}{Afonso, J., Hopkins, A., Mobasher, B., \& Almeida, C. 2003, ApJ, 597, 269}
787: \reference{1}{Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S. 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393}
788: \reference{1}{Bell, E. F. 2003, ApJ, 586, 794}
789: \reference{1}{Bouwens, R. J., \& Illingworth, G. D. 2006, Nature, 443, 189}
790: \reference{1}{Bruzual A., G., \& Charlot, S. 1993, ApJ, 405, 538}
791: \reference{1}{Buat, V. et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L51}
792: \reference{1}{Capak, P., et al. 2007, ApJS in press}
793: \reference{1}{Carter, B. J., Fabricant, D. G., Geller, M. J., Kurtz, M. J.,
794: \& McLean, B. 2001, 559, 606}
795: \reference{1}{Charlot, S., \& Longhetti, M. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 887}
796: \reference{1}{Charlot, S., Kauffmann, G., Longhetti, M., Tresse, L., White, S. D. M., Maddox, S. J., \& Fall, S. M. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 876}
797: \reference{1}{Coil, A. L., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 525}
798: \reference{1}{Coil, A. L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 671}
799: \reference{1}{Coleman, G. D., Wu, C.-C., \& Weedman, D. W. 1980, ApJS, 43, 393}
800: \reference{1}{Condon, J. J. 1992, ARAA, 30, 575}
801: \reference{1}{Connolly, A. J., Szalay, A. S., Dickinson, M., Subbarao, M. U., \&
802: Brunner, R. J. 1997, ApJ, 486, L11}
803: \reference{1}{Cowie, L. L., Songaila, A., \& Barger, A. J. 1999, AJ, 118, 603}
804: \reference{1}{Cowie, L. L., Barger, A. J., Hu, E. M., Capak, P., \& Songaila, A. 2004, AJ, 127, 3137}
805: \reference{1}{Fujita, S. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, L115}
806: \reference{1}{Gallego, J., Zamorano, J., Arag\'{o}n-Salamanca, A., \& Rego, M. 1995,
807: ApJ, 455, L1; Erratum 1996, ApJ, 459, L43}
808: \reference{1}{Gallego, J., Zamorano, J., Rego, M., \& Vitores, A. G. 1997, ApJ, 475, 502}
809: \reference{1}{Gallego, J., Garc\'ia-Dab\'o, C. E., Zamorano, J., Arag\'on-Salamanca, A.,
810: \& Rego, M. 2002, ApJ, 570, L1}
811: \reference{1}{Gavazzi, G., Cocito, A., \& Vettolani, G. 1986, ApJ, 305, L15}
812: \reference{1}{Giavalisco, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L103}
813: \reference{1}{Glazebrook, K., Blake, C., Economou, F., Lilly, S., \& Colless, M. 1999,
814: MNRAS, 306, 843}
815: \reference{1}{Gronwall, C., Salzer, J. J., Sarajedini, V. L., Jangren, A, Chomiuk, L.,
816: Moody, J. W., Frattare, L. M., Boroson, T. A. 2004, AJ, 127, 1943}
817: \reference{1}{Gunn, J. E., \& Stryker, L. L. 1983, ApJS, 52, 121}
818: \reference{1}{Hammer, F., et al. 1997, ApJ, 481, 49}
819: \reference{1}{Hanish, D. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, 150}
820: \reference{1}{Hao, L., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 1795}
821: \reference{1}{Helmboldt, J. F., Walterbos, R. A. M., Bothun, G. D., O'Neil, K., \& de Blok, W. J. G. 2004, ApJ, 613, 914}
822: \reference{1}{Hippelein, H., Maier, C., Meisenheimer, K., Wolf, C., Fried, J. W.,
823: von Kuhlmann, B., K\"ummel, M., Phleps, S., R\"oser, H.-J. 2003, A\&A, 402, 65}
824: \reference{1}{Hogg, D. W., Cohen, J. G., Blandford, R., \& Pahre, M. A. 1998, ApJ, 504, 622}
825: \reference{1}{Hopkins, A. M. 2004, ApJ, 615, 209}
826: \reference{1}{Hopkins, A. M., Connolly, A. J., \& Szalay, A. S. 2000, AJ, 120, 2843}
827: \reference{1}{Hopkins, A. M., Connolly, A. J., Haarsma, D. B., \& Cram, L. E. 2001, AJ, 122, 288}
828: \reference{1}{Hopkins, A. M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 599, 971}
829: \reference{1}{Iwamuro, F., et al. 2000, PASJ, 52, 73}
830: \reference{1}{Iye, M., et al. 2004, PASJ, 56, 381}
831: \reference{1}{Jansen, R. A., Franx, M., Fabricant, D., \& Caldwell, N. 2000a, ApJS, 126, 271}
832: \reference{1}{Jansen, R. A., Fabricant, D., Franx, M., \& Caldwell, N. 2000b, ApJS, 126, 331}
833: \reference{1}{Kaifu, N., et al. 2000, PASJ, 52, 1}
834: \reference{1}{Kashikawa, N. 2006, ApJ, 637, 631}
835: \reference{1}{Kennicutt, R. 1983a, A\&A, 120, 219}
836: \reference{1}{Kennicutt, R. 1983b, ApJ, 272, 54}
837: \reference{1}{Kennicutt, R. C. 1992a, ApJ, 388,310}
838: \reference{1}{Kennicutt, R. C. 1992b, ApJS, 79, 255}
839: \reference{1}{Kennicutt, R. C. 1998 ARA\&A, 36, 189}
840: \reference{1}{Landolt, A. U. 1992, AJ, 104, 340}
841: \reference{1}{Landy, S. D., Szalay, A. S. 1993, ApJ, 412, 64}
842: \reference{1}{Leauthaud, A., et al. 2007, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/0702359)}
843: \reference{1}{Le Floc'h, E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, 169}
844: \reference{1}{Lequeux, J. 1971, A\&A, 15, 42}
845: \reference{1}{Lilly, S. J., Le Fevre, O., Hammer, F., Crampton, D. 1996, ApJ, 460, L1}
846: \reference{1}{Ly, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 738}
847: \reference{1}{Madau, P., Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M. E., Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C. C.,
848: \& Fruchter, A. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388}
849: \reference{1}{Massarotti, M., Iovino, A., \& Buzzoni, A. 2001, ApJ, 559, L105}
850: \reference{1}{Meurer, G. R., et al. 2006, ApJS, 165, 307}
851: \reference{1}{Miyazaki, S., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 833}
852: \reference{1}{Mobasher, B., et al. 2007, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/0612344)}
853: \reference{1}{Moorwood, A. F. M.,van der Werf, P. P., Cuby, J. G., \& Oliva, E. 2000, A\&A, 362, 9}
854: \reference{1}{Murayama, T., et al. 2007, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/0702458)}
855: \reference{1}{Norberg, P., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 64}
856: \reference{1}{Ouchi, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 685}
857: \reference{1}{Ouchi, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, L117}
858: \reference{1}{Pascual, S., Gallego, J., Arag\'{o}n-Salamanca, A., \& Zamorano, J. 2001, A\&A, 379, 798}
859: \reference{1}{Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton, N. J., Princeton Univ. Press}
860: \reference{1}{P\'erez-Gonz\'alez, P. G., Zamorano, J., Gallego, J., Arag\'on-Salamanca, A.,
861: \& Gil de Paz, A. 2003, ApJ, 591, 827}
862: \reference{1}{Sauvage, M., \& Thuan, T. X. 1992, ApJ, 396, L69}
863: \reference{1}{Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297}
864: \reference{1}{Schminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L47}
865: \reference{1}{Scoville, N. Z., et al. 2007, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/0612305)}
866: \reference{1}{Sopp, H. M., \& Alexander, P. 1991, MNRAS, 251, p.14}
867: \reference{1}{Sullivan, M., Treyer, M., Ellis, R. S., Bridges, B., \& Donas, J. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 442}
868: \reference{1}{Takahashi, M., et al. 2007, submitted to ApJS}
869: \reference{1}{Taniguchi, Y., et al. 2005, PASJ, 57, 165}
870: \reference{1}{Taniguchi, Y., et al. 2007, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/0612295)}
871: \reference{1}{Teplitz, H. I., Collins, N. R., Gardner, J. P., Hill, R. S., \& Rhodes, J. 2003, ApJ, 589, 704}
872: \reference{1}{Tresse, L., \& Maddox, S. 1998, ApJ, 495, 691}
873: \reference{1}{Tresse, L., Maddox, S., Le F\`{e}ver, O., \& Cuby, J.-G. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 369}
874: \reference{1}{Tresse, L., Maddox, S., Loveday, J., \& Singleton, C. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 262}
875: \reference{1}{Tresse, L., Rola, C., Hammer, F., Stasi\'{n}ska, G., Le F\`{e}vre, O., Lilly,~S.~J.,
876: \& Crampton,~D. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 847}
877: \reference{1}{Treyer, M. A., Ellis, R. S., Milliard, B., Donas, J., \& Bridges, T. J. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 303}
878: \reference{1}{Wilson, G., Cowie, L. L., Barger, A., \& Burke, D. J. 2002, AJ, 124, 1258}
879: \reference{1}{Yan, L., et al. 1999, ApJ, 519, L47}
880: \reference{1}{Zehavi, I., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 16}
881: \reference{1}{Zehavi, I., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 1}
882: \end{references}
883:
884: %\clearpage
885: %
886: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
887: % Table
888: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
889: %
890: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccccccccc}
891: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
892: \tablecaption{\label{Ha:tab:cover}A list of H$\alpha$ emitter candidates.}
893: %\rotate
894: \tablewidth{0pt}
895: \tablehead{
896: \colhead{\#} &
897: \colhead{ID} &
898: \colhead{RA} &
899: \colhead{DEC} &
900: \colhead{$i^\prime$} &
901: \colhead{$z^\prime$} &
902: \colhead{$NB816$} &
903: \colhead{$iz$} &
904: \colhead{$iz-NB816$} &
905: \colhead{$\log F_{\rm L}$} &
906: \colhead{$\log F_{\rm cor}$} &
907: \colhead{$\log L({\rm H}\alpha)$} &
908: \colhead{$EW_{\rm obs}$}
909: \\
910: {} &
911: {} &
912: {(deg)} &
913: {(deg)} &
914: {(mag)} &
915: {(mag)} &
916: {(mag)} &
917: {(mag)} &
918: {(mag)} &
919: {($\rm erg \; s^{-1} \; cm^{-2}$)} &
920: {($\rm erg \; s^{-1} \; cm^{-2}$)} &
921: {($\rm erg \; s^{-1}$)} &
922: {(\AA)}
923: }
924: \startdata
925: 1 & 58612 & 150.72533 & 1.611834 & 20.99 & 20.92 & 20.86 & 20.96 & 0.10 & -16.11 & -15.81 & 40.44 & 12 \\
926: 2 & 62649 & 150.67970 & 1.594458 & 20.89 & 20.64 & 20.64 & 20.78 & 0.13 & -15.88 & -15.57 & 40.67 & 17 \\
927: 3 & 101151 & 150.46013 & 1.600051 & 21.05 & 21.05 & 20.93 & 21.05 & 0.12 & -16.05 & -15.76 & 40.49 & 14 \\
928: 4 & 135016 & 150.33841 & 1.622284 & 22.98 & 22.58 & 22.70 & 22.79 & 0.09 & -16.87 & -16.67 & 39.58 & 11 \\
929: 5 & 137365 & 150.32673 & 1.605641 & 23.01 & 22.91 & 22.84 & 22.96 & 0.13 & -16.78 & -16.58 & 39.67 & 16 \\
930: \enddata
931:
932: \tablenotetext{}
933: {The complete version of the this table is in the electric edition of the Journal.
934: The printed edition contains only a sample. }
935:
936: \end{deluxetable}
937:
938: \clearpage
939:
940: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
941: % figure
942: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
943:
944: \begin{figure}
945: \epsscale{0.5}
946: \plotone{f1.eps}
947: \caption{Diagram of $iz-NB816$ vs. $NB816$ for all objects classified as
948: galaxies in the ACS catalog.
949: The horizontal solid line corresponds to $iz-NB816=0.1$.
950: The dashed lines show the distribution of $3\sigma$ error.
951: the dot-dashed line shows the limiting magnitude of $iz$.
952: Since the total $i^\prime$-magnitudes of galaxies in the official
953: photometric redshift catalog are brighter than 25,
954: $iz$ magnitudes of most of them are brighter than the limiting magnitude.
955: \label{Ha:iz-NBvsNB}}
956: \end{figure}
957:
958: \begin{figure}
959: \epsscale{0.6}
960: \plotone{f2.eps}
961: \caption{
962: Diagrams between $B-V$ vs. $V-r^\prime$.
963: {\it Top}: Colors of model galaxies (CWW) from $z=0$ to $z=3$ are shown with
964: dotted lines: red, orange, green, and blue lines show the loci of E, Sbc, Scd,
965: and Irr galaxies, respectively.
966: Colors of $z=0.24$, $0.64$, $0.68$, and $1.18$
967: (for H$\alpha$, [O {\sc iii}], H$\beta$, and [O {\sc ii}] emitters, respectively)
968: are shown with red, green, light blue, and blue lines, respectively.
969: Orange asterisks show Gunn and Stryker (1983)'s star.
970: {\it Bottom}: Plot of $B-V$ vs. $V-r^\prime$ for
971: the 6176 sources found with emitter selection criteria.
972: In this diagram, H$\alpha$ emitters are located above the
973: black line, that is adopted by us as one of the criteria for
974: the selection of H$\alpha$ emitters.
975: The 980 H$\alpha$ emitters are shown as black dots and
976: other emission-line galaxy candidates are shown by gray dots.
977: Galaxies in GOODS-N (Cowie et al. 2004) with redshifts corresponding to
978: H$\alpha$ emitters, [O{\sc iii}] emitters, H$\beta$ emitters and [O{\sc ii}] emitters
979: are shown as red, green, light blue and blue open squares, respectively.
980: \label{Ha:BVrcolor}}
981: \end{figure}
982:
983: \begin{figure}
984: \epsscale{0.5}
985: \plotone{f3.eps}
986: \caption{
987: Diagrams between $B-r^\prime$ vs. $i^\prime - z^\prime$.
988: {\it Top}: Colors of model galaxies (CWW) from $z=0$ to $z=3$ are shown with
989: dotted lines: red, orange, green, and blue lines show the loci of E, Sbc, Scd,
990: and Irr galaxies, respectively.
991: Colors of $z=0.24$, $0.64$, $0.68$, and $1.18$
992: (for H$\alpha$, [O {\sc iii}], H$\beta$, and [O {\sc ii}] emitters,
993: respectively) are shown with red, green, light blue, and blue lines, respectively.
994: Orange asterisks show Gunn and Stryker (1983)'s star.
995: {\it Bottom}: Plot of $B-r^\prime$ vs. $i^\prime-z^\prime$ for
996: the 6176 sources found with emitter selection criteria (black dots).
997: In this diagram, H$\alpha$ emitters are located above the
998: both of black lines, that is adopted by us as one of the criteria for
999: the selection of H$\alpha$ emitters.
1000: The 980 H$\alpha$ emitters are shown as black dots and
1001: other emission-line galaxy candidates are shown by gray dots.
1002: Galaxies in GOODS-N (Cowie et al. 2004) with redshifts corresponding to
1003: H$\alpha$ emitters, [O{\sc iii}] emitters, H$\beta$ emitters and [O{\sc ii}] emitters
1004: are shown as red, green, light blue and blue open squares, respectively.
1005: \label{Ha:Brizcolor}}
1006: \end{figure}
1007:
1008: \begin{figure}
1009: \epsscale{0.5}
1010: \plotone{f4.eps}
1011: \caption{
1012: Our H$\alpha$ luminosity function
1013: (filled squares and thick solid line) and
1014: H$\alpha$ luminosity functions in previous works.
1015: The Tresse \& Maddox (1998)'s H$\alpha$ luminosity function
1016: at $z\leq0.3$ is shown with the dashed line.
1017: The H$\alpha$ luminosity functions derived by Fujita et al. (2003),
1018: Hippelein et al. (2003), and Ly et al. (2007) are shown
1019: with the dotted line, the dot-dashed line, and
1020: dashed and double-dotted line, respectively.
1021: Data points of Ly et al. (2007)'s H$\alpha$ LF are shown as
1022: gray crosses.
1023: \label{Ha:LF}}
1024: \end{figure}
1025:
1026: \begin{figure}
1027: \epsscale{0.5}
1028: \plotone{f5.eps}
1029: \caption{
1030: $B-R_{\rm C}$ vs. $R_{\rm C}-I_{\rm C}$ color - color diagram of model
1031: galaxies. Colors of $z=0.24$, $0.64$, $0.68$, and $1.18$
1032: (for H$\alpha$, [O {\sc iii}], H$\beta$, and [O {\sc ii}] emitters, respectively)
1033: are shown with red, green, light blue, and blue lines, respectively.
1034: The loci calculated by using GISSEL96 (Bruzual \& Charlot 1993) are shown by solid lines and
1035: those calculated by using CWW are shown by dashed lines.
1036: Galaxies in GOODS-N (Cowie et al. 2004) with redshifts corresponding to
1037: H$\alpha$ emitters, [O{\sc iii}] emitters, H$\beta$ emitters and [O{\sc ii}] emitters
1038: are shown as red, green, light blue and blue open squares, respectively.
1039: Fujita et al. (2003) selected galaxies above the black solid line as
1040: H$\alpha$ emitter candidates.
1041: If we reselect H$\alpha$ emitter candidates as sources above the black
1042: dashed line, some of the H$\alpha$ emitter candidates (black dots)
1043: do not satisfy the new criterion.
1044: \label{Ha:BRIzcolor}}
1045: \end{figure}
1046:
1047: \begin{figure}
1048: \epsscale{1.0}
1049: \plotone{f6.eps}
1050: \caption{Star formation rate density (SFRD) at $z\approx0.24$ derived from
1051: this study (large red filled circle) shown together with the previous
1052: investigations compiled by Hopkins (2004).
1053: SFRDs estimated from H$\alpha$, [O{\sc ii}], and UV continuum are shown
1054: as orange open circles (P\'erez-Gonz\'alez et al. 2003; Tresse et al. 2002;
1055: Moorwood et al. 2000; Hopkins et al. 2000; Glazebrook et al. 1999;
1056: Yan et al. 1999; Tresse \& Maddox 1998; Gallego et al. 1995),
1057: green open diamonds (Teplitz et al. 2003; Gallego et al. 2002; Hogg et al. 1998;
1058: Hammer et al. 1997),
1059: and blue squares (Wilson et al. 2002; Massarotti et al. 2001;
1060: Sullivan et al. 2000; Cowie et al. 1999; Treyer et al. 1998;
1061: Connolly et al. 1997; Lilly et al. 1996).
1062: The light blue open squares show SFRDs based on the UV luminosity density
1063: by Schiminovich et al. (2005), assuming $A_{\rm FUV} = 1.8$.
1064: An orange open square and an orange open diamond show SFRDs at
1065: $z \approx 0.24$ derived by Fujita et al. (2003) and Ly et al. (2007),
1066: respectively.
1067: In the left panel, we show the evolution of SFRD as a function of redshift,
1068: and in the right panel, we show it as a function of lookback time.
1069: \label{Ha:MadauPlot}}
1070: \end{figure}
1071:
1072: \begin{figure}
1073: \epsscale{1.0}
1074: \plotone{f7.eps}
1075: \caption{
1076: Spatial distributions of our H $\alpha$ emitter candidates
1077: (black filled circles and black dots).
1078: Gray open squares in the both panels show our survey area.
1079: The shadowed regions in the right panel show the areas masked out for the detection.
1080: We show the luminous H$\alpha$ emitters
1081: [$\log L({\rm H \alpha})({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) > 40.94$] as large filled circles and
1082: the faint H$\alpha$ emitters [$39.8 < \log L({\rm H \alpha})({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) \le 40.94$]
1083: as small filled circles.
1084: H$\alpha$ emitters with $\log L({\rm H\alpha}) ({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) \le 39.8$
1085: are shown as black dots.
1086: \label{Ha:RaDec}}
1087: \end{figure}
1088:
1089: \begin{figure}
1090: \epsscale{0.5}
1091: \plotone{f8.eps}
1092: \caption{
1093: Angular two-point correlation function of all H $\alpha$ emitter candidates
1094: (filled circles), bright H$\alpha$ emitter candidates
1095: ($\log L({\rm H}\alpha)({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) > 40.94$: open squares), and
1096: faint H$\alpha$ emitter candidates ($39.8 < \log L({\rm H}\alpha)({\rm erg \; s^{-1}}) \le 40.94$:
1097: open triangles).
1098: Solid line shows the relation of $w(\theta) = 0.013 \theta^{-0.88}$.
1099: Dashed line shows the best-fitting power law for bright ones,
1100: $w(\theta) = 0.019 \theta^{-1.08}$, and dotted line shows
1101: that for faint ones, $w(\theta) = 0.011 \theta^{-0.84}$.
1102: \label{Ha:ACF}}
1103: \end{figure}
1104:
1105: \begin{figure}
1106: \epsscale{0.5}
1107: \plotone{f9.eps}
1108: \caption{
1109: Relation between H$\alpha$ luminosities and $R$-band absolute magnitudes
1110: for our H$\alpha$ emitters.
1111: \label{Ha:LHaMr}}
1112: \end{figure}
1113:
1114:
1115: \end{document}
1116: