1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %% preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document:
4: %\documentclass[preprint]{emulateapj}
5:
6: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
7: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
8:
9: % User commands may be inserted here:
10: % ----------------------------------
11:
12: \newcommand{\Pom}{I$\!$P} % gives pomeron symbol
13: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
14: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}} % less than or approx. symbol
15: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
16: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}} % greater than or approx. symbol
17: \newcommand{\cmmt}{{\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}}
18: \newcommand{\cmsq}{{\mathrm{cm^{2}}}}
19: \newcommand{\kms}{{\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}
20: \newcommand{\ergs}{{\mathrm{erg~s^{-1}}}}
21: \newcommand{\ergscm}{{\mathrm{erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}}}}
22: \newcommand{\ang}{{\mathrm{\AA}}}
23: \newcommand{\lumcgs}{{\mathrm{erg~s^{-1}}}}
24: \newcommand{\rhobar}{\overline{\rho}}
25: \newcommand{\dd}{\mathrm{d}}
26: \newcommand{\msun}{\mathrm{M}_\odot}
27: \newcommand{\sfr}{\mathrm{M_\odot~yr^{-1}}}
28: \newcommand{\mpc}{\mathrm{Mpc}}
29: \newcommand{\oml}{\Omega_\Lambda}
30: \newcommand{\omm}{\Omega_m}
31: \newcommand{\lya}{Lyman~$\alpha$}
32: \newcommand{\amsq}{{\mathrm{arcmin^{2}}}}
33: \newcommand{\llim}{L_\mathrm{lim}(\mathbf{\Omega},z)}
34: \newcommand{\mg}{\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{\Omega},z)}
35: \newcommand{\flim}{f_\mathrm{lim}(z)}
36: \newcommand{\slit}{T(\mathbf{\Omega})}
37: \newcommand{\sky}{\mathbf{\Omega}}
38:
39: \shorttitle{A HST/Spitzer Survey for Gravitationally-Lensed Galaxies beyond Redshift Seven}
40:
41: \bibliographystyle{apj}
42: \def\aas{A\&AS} % Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series
43:
44: \begin{document}
45: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
46: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
47: %% you desire.
48:
49: \title{A Hubble \& Spitzer Space Telescope Survey for Gravitationally-Lensed Galaxies: Further Evidence for a Significant Population of Low Luminosity Galaxies beyond Redshift Seven}
50:
51: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
52: %% author and affiliation information.
53: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
54: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
55: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
56: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
57:
58: \author {
59: Johan Richard \altaffilmark{1},
60: Daniel P. Stark\altaffilmark{1},
61: Richard S. Ellis\altaffilmark{1},
62: Matthew R. George\altaffilmark{1,3},
63: Eiichi Egami\altaffilmark{4},
64: Jean-Paul Kneib \altaffilmark{1,2},
65: Graham P. Smith \altaffilmark{1,5}
66: }
67:
68: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astrophysics, California Institute of Technology,
69: MS 105-24, Pasadena, CA 91125; johan@astro.caltech.edu}
70: \altaffiltext{2}{Observatoire Astronomique de Marseille-Provence,
71: Traverse du Siphon - BP 8, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France}
72: %\altaffiltext{3}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
73: %Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA02138}
74: \altaffiltext{3}{Current address: Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK}
75: \altaffiltext{4}{Steward Observatory, University
76: of Arizona, 933 N. Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721}
77: \altaffiltext{5}{School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK}
78:
79: \begin{abstract}
80:
81: We present the results of a systematic search for gravitationally-lensed continuum Lyman break `drop-outs'
82: beyond a redshift 7 conducted via very deep imaging through six foreground clusters undertaken with the
83: Hubble and Spitzer Space Telescopes. The survey has yielded 10 $z$-band and 2 $J$-band drop-out
84: candidates to photometric limits of $J_{110}\simeq$26.2 AB (5$\sigma$). Taking into account the
85: magnifications afforded by our clusters (1-4 magnitudes), we probe the presence of $z>$7
86: sources to unlensed limits of $J_{110}\simeq$30 AB, fainter than those charted in the Hubble
87: Ultradeep Field. To verify the fidelity of our candidates we conduct a number of tests for
88: instrumental effects which would lead to spurious detections, and carefully evaluate the likelihood of
89: foreground contamination by considering photometric uncertainties in the drop-out signature, the
90: upper limits from stacked IRAC data and the statistics of multiply-imaged sources. Overall, we conclude
91: that we can expect about half of our sample of $z$-band drop-outs to be at high redshift.
92: An ambitious infrared spectroscopic campaign undertaken with the NIRSPEC spectrograph at the
93: WM Keck Observatory for seven of the most promising candidates failed to detect any Lyman $\alpha$
94: emission highlighting the challenge of making further progress in this field. While the volume density of
95: high redshift sources will likely remain uncertain until more powerful facilities are available,
96: our data provides the first potentially interesting constraints on the UV luminosity function at $z\simeq$7.5
97: at intrinsically faint limits. We discuss the implications of our results in the context of the hypothesis
98: that the bulk of the reionizing photons in the era $7<z<12$ arise in low luminosity galaxies undetected
99: by conventional surveys.
100:
101: \end{abstract}
102:
103: \keywords{cosmology: observations --- galaxies: evolution --- galaxies:
104: formation --- galaxies: high-redshift --- gravitational lensing}
105:
106: \section{Introduction}
107:
108: Very little is currently known about the abundance and luminosity distribution of star-forming sources
109: beyond $z\gtrsim7$. The two principal techniques used to locate distant star forming sources at lower
110: redshifts, the Lyman-break `drop-out' technique \citep{Bouwens06} and the location of Lyman $\alpha$
111: emitters \citep{Kashikawa,Shimasaku}, become challenged by the lower performance of infrared instruments.
112: In addition, the likely sources are much fainter, particularly if an increasing fraction are sub-luminous as
113: might be expected given mass assembly is at an early stage \citep{Loeb,Choudhury}. Despite these hurdles,
114: it seems reasonable to expect that there is an abundance of star-forming galaxies at these epochs. The
115: improved measurement of the optical depth to electron scattering derived from temperature-polarization correlations in the microwave background \citep{WMAP} suggests reionization occurred around
116: $z_{reion}=10.8\pm1.4$ assuming it happened instantaneously; more probably it proceeded over
117: an extended redshift window $7<z<12$ \citep{WMAP4}. Moreover, the detection of galaxies at $z\sim6$
118: with significant stellar masses and mature stellar populations \citep{Stark07a,Eyles07} and the ubiquity of
119: ionized carbon in the intergalactic medium probed by the highest redshift QSOs \citep{Songaila,Ryan},
120: together demand a significant amount of star-formation at earlier times, possibly enough to cause
121: reionization. Although uncertainties remain, these independent arguments strongly motivate the search for
122: $z>$7 star-forming sources.
123:
124: Most of the early progress in this quest has been made through the publicly-available deep Hubble
125: Space Telescope (HST) images. The Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS, \citet{goods}), the
126: Hubble Ultra Deep Field \citep[UDF]{UDF} and its associated parallel fields have been used to search
127: for `drop-outs' in the $i_{775}$ \citep{Bouwens06,Bunker}, $z_{850}$ \citep{BouwensNature,Bouwens08} and
128: $J_{110}$ \citep{Bouwens05,Bouwens08} bands, corresponding to effective source redshifts of z$\simeq$6,
129: 7.5 and 10. These studies found a highly uncertain number density of candidates, none of which has been confirmed spectroscopically at $z>7$. However, taken at face value, the overall conclusion from these
130: ultradeep images is that the declining abundance of luminous star forming sources beyond $z\simeq$7
131: is insufficient to account for reionization. Although there is no guarantee that star-forming sources did
132: reionize the Universe at $z\simeq$10, a possible solution is that the bulk of the early star formation resides
133: in an undetected population of intrinsically sub-luminous sources \citep{Stark07a}.
134:
135: Prior to the availability of the next generation of telescopes, gravitational lensing is an effective means
136: to evaluate this hypothesis. Depending on the method, foreground massive clusters can provide a
137: magnification boost of $\times5-30$ in flux (for unresolved sources) or in size (for resolved sources).
138: An analysis by \citet{Stark07c} concluded that lensing surveys should
139: be able to find ample candidates at $z\gsim 7$, permitting follow-up
140: spectroscopy and detailed studies at sensitivity limits that would be
141: unachievable otherwise. As pointed out by \citet{Broadhurst}, this gain is offset by a reduction
142: in the sky area surveyed, producing an overall increase or decrease in the number of
143: lensed sources, depending on the slope of the luminosity function.
144:
145: A first attempt at constraining the abundance of lensed drop-out galaxies at $6\lesssim z \lesssim 10$
146: was made by \citet{Richard06} using deep ISAAC near-infrared images obtained at the ESO VLT. A
147: number of faint (intrinsic $H (AB) \sim 26$) candidates were identified in two clusters, where the
148: {\it magnification factor} $\mu$ ranged from 0.4 to 2.5 magnitudes. This analysis suggested a star formation
149: rate density at $z\simeq$7.5 $\sim\times 10$ higher than that derived by \citet{Bouwens04}. Deeper
150: NICMOS images have failed to confirm some of these sources. The number densities of faint candidates are currently
151: being revised using follow-up imaging and spectroscopy for a small fraction of the ISAAC field of view
152: (Richard et al., in preparation). The deeper NICMOS imaging undertaken in the present study illustrates
153: the difficulties in making progress beyond $z\simeq$7 using ground-based facilities.
154:
155: In a parallel effort, \citet{Stark07b} concentrated on the much smaller regions of very high magnification
156: ($\mu>3$ mags) termed the `critical lines' of the lensing clusters. Using NIRSPEC on the Keck telescope
157: they undertook a `blind' spectroscopic search for lensed Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters in the redshift range
158: $8.5<z<10.4$. Despite the very small volumes probed in this unique survey, 6 faint candidates emerged
159: across 9 clusters.
160: Exhaustive follow-up imaging and spectroscopy has, so far, been unable to provide
161: unambiguous confirmation of the nature of these sources.
162: Taking into account the uncertainties, \citealt{Stark07b} concluded that the
163: abundance of low-luminosity emitters in this
164: redshift window may exceed 0.2 Mpc$^{-3}$, suggestive of a major contribution of low luminosity star-forming
165: galaxies to cosmic reionization.
166:
167: The caveats concerning this conclusion were discussed in detail by Stark et al. Although representing
168: a unique search for early star-forming sources at limits well beyond those probed otherwise, the volumes
169: addressed are modest and significantly affected by cosmic variance. The 6 candidates were found in only
170: 3 of the 9 lensing clusters; 6 clusters had no convincing candidates. Although Stark et al.\ were unable
171: to prove, unambiguously, that the detected emission is due to Lyman $\alpha$, the null detection of
172: associated lines was used as an argument for rejecting lower redshift emission for most of their
173: candidates.. Their conclusion that the bulk of the reionizing photons arose from low luminosity
174: ($\simeq0.1\,M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$) star-forming sources can be verified by this independent search
175: for lensed {\it continuum} drop-outs at $z>$7.
176:
177: In searching for faint lensed drop-outs, the advantage of HST over a ground-based survey such as that
178: undertaken by \citet{Richard06} is considerable. The ACS and NICMOS cameras are much more sensitive,
179: not only because of the reduced background level relative to that produced by the atmosphere and by ambient temperature optics, but also because the typical sources have
180: angular sizes of 0.2\arcsec\ or less \citep{Ellis}. With similar exposure times, NICMOS can readily attain a
181: depth of 26.5 AB mag, $\sim1$ magnitude deeper than the earlier VLT/ISAAC project. Viewed through
182: a typical $z\sim 0.2$ cluster, the NICMOS field (0.8 $\times$ 0.8 arcmin) closely matches the area of
183: moderate to high magnification factors ($\mu\sim1-4$ mag).
184: The effective increase in sensitivity to faint sources provided by the lensing magnification along the
185: line-of-sight to each NICMOS field probes limits fainter than those in the UDF \citep{Bouwens08},
186: albeit over a considerably reduced area.
187:
188: Early studies of lensed drop-outs with HST have served to illustrate the potential. \citet{Kneib} located a
189: source at $z\simeq$6.8 behind the cluster Abell 2218. This source forms a triply-imaged system with
190: two bright elongated arcs, easily recognized as morphologically-similar in ACS and NICMOS images.
191: Follow-up observations with Spitzer \citep{Egami} provided improved constraints on the photometric
192: redshift, stellar mass ($M\sim 10^9$ M$_\odot$) and past star formation history. Very recently, a
193: similar $z\simeq$7.6 lensed source was found by \citet{Bradley} but this was not multiply-imaged.
194: A semi-analytic analysis, empirically calibrated using the luminosity functions of Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters
195: and drop-out galaxies at $z\sim5-6$ \citep{Stark07c} predicts that such a NICMOS/ACS lensed imaging
196: survey should typically detect 0.5-1 sources per cluster in the redshift range 7.0$<z<$8.5.
197:
198: The present program represents the logical next step: a concerted effort to verify the hypothesis
199: advocated by Stark et al.\ as well as its associated predictions via deep imaging of 6 lensing clusters
200: with HST (GO 10504: PI: Ellis) and Spitzer (GO-20439, PI: E.Egami). The primary goal is to determine
201: the abundance of intrinsically sub-luminous $z$ and $J_{110}$ drop-outs, and to derive
202: constraints on the possible contribution of low luminosity sources to cosmic reionization,
203: independently of Lyman-$\alpha$ searches in blind or narrow-band surveys.
204:
205: The paper is organized as follows. In $\S2$ we present the new HST/Spitzer and associated ground-based
206: imaging observations and their data reduction. A discussion of the means of selecting the drop-out candidates
207: is presented alongside a catalog in $\S3$. Issues of completeness and contamination by spurious and
208: foreground sources are discussed. We conclude that a significant fraction of our candidates are possibly
209: at high redshift. We then describe a Keck spectroscopic follow-up campaign in $\S4$ which attempts
210: to detect Lyman $\alpha$ emission from some of the most promising candidates. In $\S5$ we discuss
211: the UV luminosity function at $z\simeq$7.5 and review the implications in the context of the possible
212: contribution of low luminosity to cosmic reionization. Our conclusions are summarized in $\S6$.
213:
214: All magnitudes given in this paper are standardized within the AB magnitude system \citep{AB}. We assume
215: a flat universe and ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_\Lambda$, $h$)=(0.3, 0.7, 0.7) whenever necessary.
216:
217: \section{Survey Strategy, Observations and Data Reduction}
218:
219: We begin by discussing the selection of lensing clusters, the imaging datasets we have secured to select
220: the various drop-out candidates and validate their high redshift nature, and the image processing
221: steps taken to produce photometric catalogs. In addition to the HST and Spitzer datasets which form
222: the fulcrum of this study, we have added ground-based imaging in both the optical and $K$ band.
223: In general terms, the HST data acts as the primary source of drop-out candidates and the associated
224: data is used to constrain the likely redshift distribution.
225:
226: \subsection{Lensing Cluster Sample}
227:
228: Our primary criterion in selecting foreground clusters for this lensing survey is the value of the
229: magnification factor expected for sources beyond $z\simeq$7 and the uncertainty implied in this
230: estimate based on an understanding of the mass model. We considered a number of massive
231: clusters at $z\simeq 0.1-0.5$ with well-understood mass models capable of producing regions of
232: strong magnification which match the imaging area of the HST cameras. Even though the area
233: enclosed by the critical line for a $z\simeq$7 source is sufficient for the design of the program,
234: a precise mass model is a clear advantage in determining the magnification of a particular source,
235: as well as for predicting accurately the location of any multiple images.
236:
237: Our strategy parallels that discussed in some detail by Stark et al. Indeed that Lyman $\alpha$
238: critical line survey placed greater demands on the reliability of the cluster mass models as
239: the magnifications are more extreme and positional uncertainties in the image plane are
240: critical. Notwithstanding this challenge, Stark et al.\ found that the typical magnification uncertainties
241: for their candidates were only $\simeq$30\% and that errors in the critical line location were
242: usually only $\pm$1 arcsec or so.
243:
244: In the present survey, six clusters was considered the minimum number necessary to mitigate
245: the effects of cosmic variance \citep{Stark07c} while being consistent with the observing time available.
246: In considering the final tally of clusters, we included clusters which we have modeled with the latest
247: version of the Lenstool\footnote{Publically available, see {\tt http://www.oamp.fr/cosmology/lenstool}
248: to download the latest version} software \citep{Jullo}. This improved code provides a new Bayesian
249: optimization method to derive error estimates for each optimized parameter. Following the discussion in
250: \citet{a68} and \citet{Limousin}, this optimization can be used to compute error estimates on
251: the individual magnification factors for each of our sources.
252:
253: Wherever possible, we included clusters with usefully deep archival HST and Spitzer/IRAC data. Deep
254: optical (AB$>$27.0) ACS and/or WFPC2 images, previously used for the identification of
255: multiple images during the development of the mass models, allow low redshift
256: contaminants to be identified reliably. IRAC images at 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu m$, to the same 1 $\mu$Jy sensitivity as our
257: previous work in Abell 2218 \citet{Egami}, are available as part of a Spitzer Lensing Cluster Survey
258: (GTO 83, PI: G. Rieke) or publicly from the archive (GTO 64, PI: G.Fazio). Finally, we required that
259: each of the selected clusters be visible from the northern hemisphere, in order to facilitate
260: spectroscopic follow-up and further $K$-band imaging with the Keck and Subaru telescopes.
261:
262: The six clusters satisfying the above criteria are presented in Table \ref{cluster}. Although the references
263: cite the most recently-published mass models, as described above, in each case we have utilized
264: the available multiple images and their redshifts in improving these mass models using Lenstool.
265: Four out of the six clusters are in common with the sample adopted by Stark et al.
266:
267: \subsection{Hubble Space Telescope Data and Reduction}
268:
269: Our large program with HST (GO 10504, PI: Ellis) comprised deep observations in the $z_{850}$,
270: $J_{100}$ and $H_{160}$ bands, using the Wide Field Camera of ACS and the NIC3 configuration
271: of NICMOS. The region enclosed by the critical line for the putative $z>$7 sources was typically covered
272: by two NICMOS pointings per cluster, usually adjacent. This ensured a magnification gain of
273: $\mu\sim 1$ to 4 magnitudes, with a typical value $\mu\sim2$ mags, throughout the NICMOS imaged
274: field (Fig. \ref{hmag}). The total sky area covered by the NICMOS observations is 8.9 arcmin$^2$ for the six
275: clusters.
276:
277: The ACS images were reduced with the {\tt multidrizzle} software \citep{multidrizzle}. This removes
278: cosmic rays and bad pixels and combines the dithered frames to correct for camera distortion. The output
279: pixel scale was fixed at 0.04\arcsec and we used a {\tt pixfrac} value of 0.8 for reducing the area of the
280: input pixels. We made small corrections to the absolute astrometry to allow for ACS frames taken at different
281: epochs (e.g. Abell 2218 in the F850LP band, see Table \ref{clusterimages}). These corrections were
282: computed by correlating the catalog positions of bright objects detected in the overlapping regions.
283:
284: Each single set of NICMOS observations consists of 8 (in F110W) and 10 (F160W) frames of $\sim$
285: 1000 secs, taken with the NIC3 camera using the SPARS64 or SPARS128 sampling sequences. A basic
286: reduction was performed by adopting the procedures given in the NICMOS data reduction
287: handbook\footnote{\tt http://www.stsci.edu/hst/nicmos/documents/handbooks/handbooks/DataHandbookv7/}.
288: Starting with the post-calibrated frames, bad pixels are flagged and rejected based on individual histograms,
289: cosmic ray are rejected using the {\tt LACOSMIC} \citep{lacosmic} IRAF procedures, frame-to-frame shifts
290: are measured using a cross correlation technique, and all frames are drizzled onto a NICMOS pixel scale
291: (0.2\arcsec) to produce an initial reduced image. This then serves as a comparison for each individual
292: frame so that deviant pixels can be flagged to improve image quality in a second drizzling operation,
293: this time undertaken with an image pixel of 0.1\arcsec, to obtain a better sampling.
294:
295: These initial images reveal a number of cosmetic effects (bias and flat residuals, bad columns and
296: bad pixels, quadrant-to-quadrant variations, background variations) that led to a second stage of image
297: reduction. We used an improved pixel mask to flag several bad columns and bad pixels close to the
298: frame edges, and we examined each frame individually in order to remove bias and flat residuals and
299: quadrant-to-quadrant variations. Finally, we subtracted a smoothed background obtained by averaging
300: the frames of all the observed clusters, masking every pixel lying on a physical object. In order to combine
301: all NICMOS observations of a given cluster, usually taken at different epochs and with slight variations in
302: the sky orientation, the individually-reduced images were registered onto the wider field ACS data prior
303: to the final drizzling procedure and combination into a NICMOS mosaiced image.
304:
305: The NICMOS data acts as the primary basis for selecting our drop-out candidates in association with
306: non-detections in very deep optical data. In addition to our own ACS data, we reduced deep ACS and
307: WFPC2 images from the archive for each cluster in our sample (Table \ref{clusterimages}). As with the
308: ACS F850LP data undertaken in our own program, we reduced these data using the IRAF procedures
309: {\tt multidrizzle} and {\tt drizzle} as discussed above.
310:
311: \subsection{Ground-based Data and Reduction}
312:
313: As mentioned, optical non-detection to deep limits is a key necessity in considering the validity of our
314: drop-out candidates. Most clusters have complete optical coverage with HST (from $\sim400$ to
315: $\sim 850$nm ) useful for this purpose. However, Abell 2219 has F702W only, and Abell 2390 has
316: F555W and F814W only. For these two clusters, additional deep ($R\sim26.7$ and $I\sim25.6$ at 5$\sigma$
317: in 1.2\arcsec diameter apertures) ground-based images taken with the CFH12k camera on CFHT \citep{Bardeau}
318: were also examined to check for non-detections at the locations of the drop-outs.
319:
320: Ground-based photometry in the $K$ band can likewise provide additional information for $z$ drop-outs,
321: improving the photometric redshift estimates, and for the reliability of $J$ drop-outs where otherwise
322: only a single color would be available (see Section \ref{dropouts}). Although a challenging undertaking
323: given the depth of the ACS and NICMOS data, we conducted various $K$-band imaging observations
324: of clusters using the Keck and Subaru telescopes.
325:
326: The Near Infrared Camera (NIRC) on Keck-I was used on July 2006 to observe the central regions of
327: the clusters Abell 2218 and Abell 2219. The square field of NIRC (38\arcsec a side) is slightly smaller
328: than that of NICMOS therefore we concentrated these observations on our best $z$ and $J$-band
329: drop-outs in each cluster (see section \ref{dropouts}). The seeing was stable and in the range
330: 0.5-0.6\arcsec. We used dithered exposures of 6 coadds $\times$ 10 secs exposure time each.
331: The NIRC pointing in Abell 2218 was partially covered, in the region of one of the drop-outs, by previous
332: NIRC observations obtained in 22/23 July 2002 (A. Blain \& N. Reddy 2003, private communication).\\
333:
334: The Multi-Object InfraRed Camera and Spectrograph (MOIRCS) \citep{moircs} at Subaru was also used
335: during two observing campaigns, in August 2006 and May 2007. The larger field of view (7' $\times$ 4')
336: of this camera ensures a complete coverage of the NICMOS, ACS and IRAC data in each cluster. The four clusters in common with the Stark et al.\ sample (Abell 2218, 2219, 2390 and CL0024) were imaged for
337: $\sim 5$ hours each under very good seeing conditions (0.3-0.4\arcsec) using dithered exposures of
338: 50 secs duration. We used the MCSRED software package\footnote{available from
339: http://www.naoj.org/staff/ichi/MCSRED/mcsred.html} to perform the flat-fielding, sky-subtraction,
340: distortion correction and mosaicing of individual images. The MCSRED package also includes
341: MOIRCS-specific tasks which correct for quadrant shifts and to fit sky residuals. The depth reached by
342: the MOIRCS imaging data ($K_{AB}\sim26.1$) in Abell 2218 and ABell 2219 is similar or deeper
343: than the NIRC observations of the same fields. Therefore, we used the NIRC images as independent
344: check for the MOIRCS photometric measurements, performed under better seeing conditions.
345:
346: \subsection{Spitzer Data and Reduction}
347:
348: %Each cluster has been observed in all four bands of Spitzer/IRAC, but for practical reasons we concentrate
349: %here on the reduction and analysis of only the first two channels (3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m) where the depth
350: %achieved is potentially useful in comparison with our ACS and NICMOS data. A single set of IRAC
351: %observations consists of individual exposures of 100 to 200 seconds each, usually observed during two
352: %different epochs, delivering a total integration time of 40 minutes in the majority of the cases
353: %(GTO 83 and 64, PI: Rieke). Abell 2218 was the subject of a deeper campaign (GO 20439, PI: Egami)
354: %and was observed for 10 hours per band, split into 4 epochs (see Table \ref{clusterimages}), and
355: %the corresponding depth (25.5 AB) in this particular cluster is much closer to the magnitude of our
356: %high redshift candidates.
357:
358: %In reducing the IRAC data, we used the basic calibrated data (BCD) of each individual frame and
359: %combined them using a custom IDL mosaicing routine, following the procedures described in
360: %\citet{Egami}. The final pixel size of the IRAC mosaics is 0.6 \arcsec/pixel, half that of the original
361: %data.
362:
363: Each cluster has been observed at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0 $\mu$m using
364: the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC; \citet{Fazio}) on board the {\em
365: Spitzer} Space Telescope \citep{Werner04}. In this paper, we only
366: discuss the first two channels (3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m) where the depth
367: achieved is potentially useful in comparison with our ACS and NICMOS
368: data. Each of the IRAC channels uses a separate detector array, and
369: the 3.6 $\mu$m channel ($\lambda_{c}=3.56 \mu$m; $\Delta\lambda = 0.75
370: \mu$m) and 4.5 $\mu$m channel ($\lambda_{c}=4.52 \mu$m; $\Delta\lambda
371: = 1.01 \mu$m) use $256 \times 256$ InSb arrays with a pixel scale of
372: 1\farcs2 pixel$^{-1}$, producing a field of view of
373: 5\farcm2$\times$5\farcm2. A frame time of 200 seconds was used with
374: the small-step cycling dither pattern initially, but this was later
375: changed to 100 seconds with the medium-step cycling pattern for a
376: better removal of cosmic rays and other artifacts.
377:
378: Most of the IRAC data come from the Spitzer GTO program PID:83 (PI:
379: G.~Rieke). The total integration time is 2400~s per channel, usually
380: obtained at two different epochs. CL0024 was observed as part of
381: another GTO program PID:64 (PI: G.~Fazio) with the integration times
382: of 2400~s at 3.6 $\mu$m and 3600~s at 4.5 $\mu$m. Abell 2218 was the
383: subject of a deeper GO campaign (PID:20439, PI: Egami), and was
384: observed for $\sim$10 hours per channel, split into 6 separate
385: observations (AORs). When these GO data are combined with those of
386: the GTO program (PID:83), the resultant total integration time is
387: 37700 seconds per channel. The corresponding depth (25.5 AB) in this
388: particular cluster is much closer to the magnitude of our high
389: redshift candidates. (see Table \ref{clusterimages} for a summary of
390: the data).
391:
392: In producing the IRAC images, we started with the basic calibrated
393: data (BCD) of each individual frame produced by the SSC pipeline, and
394: combined them using a custom IDL mosaicing routine as presented in
395: \citet{Egami}. The final pixel size of the IRAC mosaics is 0.6
396: \arcsec/pixel, half that of the original data. A conservative
397: estimate for the absolute calibration uncertainty is 10\%.
398:
399: \subsection{Foreground Subtraction}
400:
401: Although the magnification afforded by lensing clusters offers a unique gain in probing the distant
402: universe, the central regions are dominated by bright, extended spheroidal galaxies which obstruct
403: and whose light increases the background level. More importantly, it also affects the photometry
404: and color measurements of any underlying fainter source. Fortunately, the majority of these galaxies
405: are also good light deflectors, their morphology is usually regular and their light distribution can be
406: accurately modeled by a sequence of elliptical isophotes. Since the
407: major contributor to this deficiency is the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG), we have modeled and
408: subtracted its light for each cluster in the ACS ($I_{850}$ band) and NICMOS images using the
409: IRAF task {\tt ellipse}. Apart from a small region ($\sim 1.0\arcsec$ radius) around the core
410: of the removed BCG, this frees the image from the majority of the contamination in highly magnified
411: regions close to the critical line, and aids in the detection of underlying sources (see Figure
412: \ref{bcgsubtract}).\\
413:
414: Foreground subtraction is more challenging for the IRAC images because of the much coarser
415: PSF. The smaller number of available pixels per galaxy prevents the use of the {\tt ellipse} modeling
416: technique discussed above. Instead we adopted the {\tt ellipse} model of the BCG derived from the
417: NICMOS data and, on the assumption that the spectral energy distribution is identical across
418: the galaxy at these long wavelengths, convolved this model with the IRAC PSF derived by
419: stacking $\sim 50$ bright isolated point sources. This model of the BCG was subtracted after an
420: appropriate scaling factor. We found this procedure to be very effective, with residuals from the
421: subtraction confined within a 2.0\arcsec radius region (Figure \ref{bcgsubtract}).
422:
423: \subsection{Final Photometry}
424:
425: \label{quality}
426:
427: The primary filters we will use for identifying the near-infrared drop-outs are the ACS $z_{850}$
428: and NICMOS $J_{110}$, $H_{160}$ bands available for each cluster. The bulk of the rest-frame
429: UV flux is contained in the two reddest filters at high redshift, so we require all sources to be detected
430: in both. The signal to noise ratio is improved by combining the $J$ and $H$ images, once normalized
431: to a similar noise level, to form a single $<J+H>$ detection image. This provides a more accurate
432: measurement of the centroid and geometrical parameters of these objects,
433:
434: We use the ``double-image'' mode of the SExtractor package \citet{sex} to detect objects and compute
435: magnitudes within a 0.6\arcsec (NICMOS images) or 0.3\arcsec (ACS images) diameter aperture. Corrections
436: to total magnitudes, assuming a point source, were estimated using bright isolated unsaturated stars. The
437: corresponding values are 0.3 and 0.6 magnitudes for ACS and NICMOS, respectively.
438:
439: The drizzling procedure used in the HST reductions, while conserving flux, does introduce correlations
440: between neighboring pixels and hence unreliable error estimates \citep{casertano}. We applied their
441: equation $[$A20$]$ to the SExtractor photometric errors. Dithered exposures also introduce a varying
442: effective exposure time across the mosaic, this effect is clearly apparent close to the boundaries of
443: the field. We constructed a corresponding weight map, proportional to the effective integration time
444: at each pixel position in the detection image, and used it as an input parameter of SExtractor.
445: This ensures source detection at a uniform noise level across each image.
446:
447: The background noise level $\sigma$ was measured for the ACS and NICMOS images in order to
448: estimate the achievable photometric limits in each band. The 5$\sigma$ values
449: are reported in Table \ref{clusterimages} as total magnitudes.
450: We computed the completeness limits in each NICMOS filter used for source detection by adding
451: artificial unresolved sources in the magnitude range 23-28 AB. Such sources were added 1000 times
452: at 30 different random locations on the image and then extracted using the same photometric
453: techniques as applied bf to the science image. In this manner we compute the point source completeness
454: as a function of source magnitude. Only blank regions were chosen for this exercise, defined
455: after application of a 5$\sigma$ threshold to mask pixels associated with bright objects. The 50\%
456: completeness values derived in this way are listed for each cluster and band in Table \ref{clusterimages}.
457: Typically, our NICMOS data is 50\% complete to $J_{110}\simeq$25.9 AB and to
458: $H_{160}\simeq$26.05 AB. For each eventual drop-out candidate ($\S$3.3), we will assign a
459: completeness factor, $S_{comp}$, based on its magnitude, that will be taken into account in
460: estimating the high redshift luminosity function.
461:
462: Our NICMOS survey reaches limits of typically 26.2 and 26.5 AB in $J$ and $H$, respectively, over
463: 8.9 arcmin$^2$. For comparison, the UDF limits are 27.8 AB over 7 arcmin$^2$ \citep{Bouwens04}.
464: However the magnification provided by the foreground clusters (Fig. \ref{hmag}) enables us to reach unlensed
465: source magnitudes (assuming $z\sim7$) of 28-30 AB over a total area of 0.1-1 arcmin$^2$.
466:
467: \section{High Redshift Candidates}
468:
469: We now turn to the selection of our high redshift candidates. The primary selection will be based upon
470: the $z_{850}-J_{110}$ color for the $z$ drop-outs at redshifts $z\simeq$7-8, and the $J_{110}-H_{160}$
471: color for the $J$-band drop-outs at redshifts $z\simeq$8-10. This section has two components. First
472: we discuss the optimum color criteria for drop-out selection, the degree of completeness and issues of
473: possible contamination from spurious artefacts at these faint limits. In this way we establish a robust
474: set of candidates whose likelihood of being at high redshift we then assess in the second part
475: of this section using additional criteria including their photometry at other wavelengths and location
476: with respect to the cluster mass model. The catalog of candidates is summarized in $\S$3.3.
477:
478: \subsection{Photometric Selection and Completeness}
479: \label{dropouts}
480:
481: The primary concern in selecting high redshift drop-outs from photometric data alone is the issue of
482: contamination from lower redshift objects, including $z\simeq$2 early-type galaxies, dust-reddened
483: objects over a wide redshift range or low mass Galactic stars with deep molecular absorption bands.
484: Figure \ref{cz} illustrates the problem. A single color-cut fails to isolate $z$-band drop-outs from
485: a variety of $z\simeq$2-4 sources and the confusion is worse for $J$-band drop-outs (Fig. \ref{cz2}).
486:
487: This problem has formed the basis of much discussion in the literature. For the $z$-band drop-outs,
488: contamination can be reduced by considering a second color \citep{Stanway04}, of which the most useful with NICMOS data is $J_{110}-H_{160}$
489: \citep{Bouwens04}. Star-forming galaxies at high $z$ should display a prominent discontinuity in
490: $z-J$ while remaining blue in $J-H$, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{cz}. The first issue we address
491: is the optimum cut in both colors, on which depend both the redshift range explored and the amount
492: of contamination by lower redshift objects.
493:
494: Figure \ref{cz} shows color-redshift tracks for various galaxy classes (and also includes, for
495: convenience, the colors of our eventual candidates discussed in $\S$3.3). The location of these
496: tracks suggests the following prescription for selecting sources with redshifts
497: $6.8 \lesssim z \lesssim 8.0$:
498:
499: $$(z_{850}-J_{110})>0.8; \ (z_{850}-J_{110})>0.66\ (J_{110}-H_{160})+0.8; \ (J_{110}-H_{160}) <1.2$$
500:
501: The baseline $(z-J)>0.8$ color selection we adopt above is similar to that used by \citet{Bouwens04} and
502: \citet{Bouwens08}. However, as the photometric errors for our candidates are typically 0.2-0.3
503: magnitudes, the probability of low-redshift contamination remains significant in the range $0.8<(z-J)<1.1$.
504: We also explore the use of a more restrictive color cut $(z-J)>1.25$, close to the criterion used by
505: \citet{BouwensNature} ($(z-J)>1.3$), also shown on Figure \ref{cz}.
506:
507: Application of this color selection reveals 10 possible
508: candidates of which only two satisfy the more rigorous
509: $(z-J)_{AB} >$1.25 color cut. We discuss the merits of
510: each of these candidates in more detail in the following
511: sections. A striking feature is that all have J-H colors
512: bluer than predicted by the redshifting of local spectral
513: energy distributions. Similar claims for blue restframe
514: colors have been made for $i$-band drop-outs (Stanway et al 2004).
515:
516: Concerning the $J$ drop-outs, corresponding to the redshift range
517: $8.0\lesssim z \lesssim 10.5$, cuts of $(J-H)>1.8$ and $(J-H)>1.3$ were
518: adopted respectively by \citet{Bouwens05} and \citet{Bouwens08}.
519: In their shallower, larger area survey aimed at locating luminous
520: J drop-out candidates, \citet{Henry} adopted a more restrictive
521: $(J-H) >2.5$ cut. The large variation in these color cuts reflects the
522: differing depths of optical exclusion in the various samples.
523: The sample selected by Henry et al.\ is limited to NICMOS-detected
524: sources in 2 bands only, with no deep supporting optical observations.
525: Therefore, despite the apparent stringent color cut in $(J-H)$, it is still
526: more likely to suffer from contamination by lower redshift sources.
527: Noting our deep optical data, we adopted a $(J-H)>1.3$ cut, revealing
528: two candidates (Fig. \ref{cz2}). Neither would satisfy the $(J-H)>$1.8 cut.
529:
530: We now turn to the important question of how complete our likely drop-out sample will be given
531: our adopted magnitude limits with ACS and NICMOS. We can easily imagine that genuine drop-outs
532: will be missed because photometric errors will scatter points outside our selection region; likewise,
533: lower redshift sources will be scattered into our color selection box.
534:
535: Using the procedures adopted to determine the 50\% magnitude completeness limits in Section \ref{quality},
536: we can estimate the \textit{color selection completeness} and \textit{color selection contamination} by
537: introducing artificial objects with a range of $J$ magnitudes (AB=24 through 27) whose $z-J$ breaks
538: have a range (0.6 through 1.2) and determining what fraction of objects which would lie outside of the box
539: with perfect photometry but are scattered in, and what fraction of objects lying truly inside are scattered out.
540: We assume a flat $f_\nu$ spectrum for the UV continuum between the $J$ and $H$ bands so that, with
541: reference to Figure 3, the problem becomes effectively one dimensional.
542:
543: The two panels in Fig. \ref{select} show the results of this test. The {\it selection completeness fraction}
544: $f_{comp}$ (left) represents the fraction of objects of a given magnitude and break color that we are able to
545: recover in our selection. The {\it contamination fraction} $f_{cont}$ (right) accounts for the fraction of
546: objects with a lower break ($z-J<0.8$) that are photometrically scattered in the color-color diagram
547: so that their {\it observed} magnitude and color would allow them to enter our selection window.
548: As with our magnitude completeness function, $S_{comp}$ ($\S$2.6), both of these correction factors
549: will be used, for each candidate, to correctly estimate the true number density of objects having colors
550: corresponding to $z>6.8$ galaxies (i.e. a break $z-J$ above 0.8). Individual correction factors are
551: reported in Table \ref{magtable}.
552:
553: Examining Fig. \ref{select}, as expected we find negligible difficulties for the brightest sources, but
554: contamination and incompleteness become more troublesome at fainter magnitudes, depending on the $(z-J)$ color.
555: We find that the selection completeness ranges from 50 to 95\% and the contamination fraction is typically 15\%.
556:
557: \subsection{Verifying the Candidates}
558:
559: The selection techniques discussed above yields a list of candidates for more careful examination.
560: Here we discuss further tests to determine the possibility that some might be spurious prior to
561: establishing a catalog of genuine sources whose redshift distribution we will explore using our additional
562: photometric data.
563:
564: \subsubsection{Spurious Detections}
565: \label{reality}
566:
567: As the signature of both our $z$ and $J$-band drop-outs consists of a non-detection in the optical
568: band, we must seriously consider the possibility of spurious detections in the NICMOS data. This is
569: particularly the case for the $J$ drop-outs where only a single band is involved.
570: An optical non-detection is defined as a implied flux lower than the photometric limit (5 $\sigma$
571: in a 0.3\arcsec-diameter aperture, for ACS and WFPC2 data, see Table \ref{clusterimages}). These
572: measurements were made using SExtractor in its ``double-image'' mode after the data was resampled
573: and aligned to the NICMOS images. Further measures were made using the original multidrizzled images
574: (see Sect. \ref{mult}).
575:
576: A visual inspection was performed for each candidate in order to reject obviously spurious detections in the NICMOS images or false non-detections in the optical bands. The astrometric position of the candidates
577: was used to perform this examination on the original images, to prevent biases arising from resampling and geometrical transformations. During this process, we rejected a number of candidates due to their proximity
578: to the center of the removed BCG, or due to obvious contamination from very bright galaxy haloes, both
579: leading to noisier or biased photometric measurements.
580:
581: Our photometric detection is based on the combination of 10 individual NICMOS images per pointing
582: (4 and 6 exposures in the $J_{110}$ and $H_{160}$ band, respectively). Because of a significant number
583: of remaining hot and dead pixels in these individual frames, we investigated the fraction of spurious
584: sources that would contaminate our photometric catalogs. To quantify this problem, we constructed a
585: \textit{noise image} for each cluster and near-infrared band whose purpose is to remove signals from
586: all genuine sources while maintaining the same noise properties as the real data. This was done by
587: subtracting in pairs the individual frames prior to eventual coaddition. We then applied our usual
588: photometric detection software, using the same parameters as in the original images.
589:
590: This noise image reveals residuals near the frame edges (due to the dithering process undertaken during
591: the observations) and in the centers of the brightest objects, which were masked out in the detection process
592: (Figure \ref{spurim}). The affected area accounts, in total, for $\sim 20\%$ of the NICMOS field. By comparing
593: the number of spurious sources detected in the noise image with the number of objects present in the
594: original catalogs, we estimate the spurious fraction in the magnitude range of our candidates ($24.7<J<26.3$
595: and $25.3<H<26.7$) to vary from 4\% to 18\% from cluster to cluster, with an average value of 10\%.
596: Typically, therefore, we can expect around 90\% of our candidates to be robust astronomical detections.
597:
598: \subsubsection{Detector Remnance}
599:
600: One specific worry, not addressed in the tests mentioned above, concerns the possibility of image persistence
601: or ghosts appearing in the NICMOS frame during, or shortly after, an overexposure by a very bright
602: source \citep{persistence}. The source producing the largest number of counts ($\sim 25000$ ADU) in our
603: dataset is a $J_{AB}=17.9$ star in Abell 2390. We do not detect any measurable electronic ghost for this
604: particular source, but persistence is seen at the level of a $J_{AB}=24.9$ spurious source in an exposure
605: taken 20 minutes later. Once averaged over the entire sequence (6 exposures), this persistence corresponds to
606: a $J_{AB}=26.8$ source, i.e. fainter than our detection limit. We also verified, for each pair of successive
607: exposures, that none of our candidates is coincidently located at the relevant position of similarly bright
608: ($J<19$) stars in all clusters.
609:
610: Although NICMOS exposures from independent orbits are usually separated by a $>30$ minute delay,
611: persistence might arise as a result of much brighter sources observed immediately prior to execution
612: of our program. To eliminate this possibility, we located all preceding exposures and found no
613: measurable persistence in our data, even in the case of a calibration program (GO 10726, PI: de Jong)
614: aiming at measuring non-linearity effects by repeatedly saturating the NIC3 detector.
615:
616: \subsection{Catalog of Drop-out Candidates}
617:
618: As a result of our visual inspection of the initial candidate list selected according to the precepts of
619: Section 3.1, we emerge with 10 candidate $z$ drop-outs and 2 $J$ drop-outs. As seen in Fig. \ref{cz}, 2 of
620: the 10 $z$-dropouts satisfy the most restrictive color-selection $(z-J)>1.25$. The photometric
621: measurements for these are summarized in Table \ref{magtable} and the relevant detection images
622: are presented in Fig. \ref{candfigs}. Following the tests described above we can expect over 90\% of these
623: to be genuine astronomical sources.
624:
625: \subsection{Redshift Estimation}
626:
627: We now turn to the important problem of contamination by lower redshift sources. We first use the
628: spectral energy distribution (SED) of each candidate to estimate the individual photometric redshift. We then
629: consider statistical arguments that can be applied to our entire candidate population.
630:
631: \subsubsection{Photometric Redshifts}
632: \label{hyperz}
633:
634: As we have seen, the two color selection presented in Sect. \ref{dropouts} enables us to select high
635: redshift galaxies with some confidence. However, we can use the multiwavelength data available for
636: each source, including all upper limits arising from non-detections, in order to derive a
637: {\it photometric redshift probability distribution}. To accomplish this, we used an updated version of
638: the photometric redshift software HyperZ \citep{hyperz}. Best-fit redshift distributions were computed
639: using a standard SED procedure with a variety of templates,
640: including empirical data \citep{Kinney, Coleman} and evolutionary synthesis models \citep{BC}.
641: We searched the redshift range $0<z<10$, while reddening was kept as a free parameter ranging
642: between $A_V=0$ and 2 mag, assuming the \citet{Calzetti00} law. The effect of Lyman forest blanketting is included following the prescriptions of \citet{Madau}.
643:
644: This approach is only practical for the $z$ drop-out candidates and the main results are presented
645: in Fig. \ref{candfigs} (rightmost panels) where we overplot the best fit templates on each SED and
646: present the redshift probability distribution P(z), marginalized over the entire parameter space (templates and reddening). As has been found by many workers \citep{Lanzetta,Richard06}, the
647: likelihood function reveals two peaks with different relative intensities, the relative height of the lower
648: redshift peak acting as a valuable measure of foreground contamination, as it is linked to the color
649: degeneracy between high-redshift star-forming galaxies and lower redshift early-type or reddened objects.
650:
651: Encouragingly, each candidate is more likely to be at high redshift and the probability of a foreground
652: source is negligible for 4 out of our 10 sources. Integrated over all our candidates, we use
653: $P(z)$ to compute the probability that each object lies beyond a redshift of 6, $\alpha_6=P(z>6.0)$,
654: after normalizing $P(z)$ to unity over the redshift range $0<z<10$. We find $\alpha_6$ values ranging
655: from 0.46 to 0.91, with an average value of $0.65$.
656:
657: \subsubsection{Stacked Imaging}
658:
659: As is evident from Table \ref{magtable}, the individual candidate SEDs are mostly restricted
660: to detections in only one or two bands, with upper limits at other wavelengths. Although this precludes
661: precise photometric redshift measures for each candidate, we can make further progress by combining
662: data over several adjacent wavebands, and also by examining the average SED of the population to
663: see if it is statistically consistent with that expected for a high redshift source.
664:
665: Several of our clusters have ACS data in multiple bands (Abell 2218, CL1358, Cl0024) which we
666: combined after aligning the images with integer ACS pixel shifts and normalization each to a constant
667: signal to noise ratio. The depth of this combined image, covering the wavelength range 4500 - 8000 \AA\ ,
668: is typically 0.6 to 1.0 magnitudes deeper than the individual bands. Yet in each of the 5 $z$ drop-outs,
669: no optical detection is seen, increasing our confidence level in the corresponding drop-outs.
670:
671: We likewise generated stacked $z$, $J$ and $H$ images for all 10 z drop-outs, as well as a stacked $K$
672: image for the 4 sources observed with MOIRCS. In this case, We selected a 10\arcsec$\times$
673: 10\arcsec\ region around each candidate, and averaged the data rejecting 20\% of the outlier pixels.
674: For 6 objects free from contamination from nearby objects, the same stacking procedure was performed
675: in the 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m IRAC bands. The stacked images are presented in Fig. \ref{stackim}.
676: No significant flux was detected in either the stacked MOIRCS or IRAC images.
677:
678: Using the SExtractor parameters adopted for processing the individual images, an average SED was
679: constructed for 3 populations depending on the availability of multi-band ACS, $K$ band and IRAC
680: imaging. The photometric properties of each are listed in Table \ref{stackphot} and the SEDs are shown
681: in Fig. \ref{stacksed}. These various stacked datasets offers a new opportunity to address the
682: question of foreground contamination.
683:
684: Using HyperZ, we fit these three SEDs exactly as described in Sect. \ref{hyperz}. The optimal
685: photometric redshift is consistent in each case (Fig. \ref{allpz}), with $z_{ph}=7.35\pm0.07$, and a reduced
686: $\chi^2$ lower than 1. We also fitted the same SEDs, but now restricting the photometric redshift
687: to the range $0<z_{ph}<3$. The best fit at low redshift is found at $z_{ph}=1.75\pm0.03$, but with
688: a much higher $\chi^2$, between 5 and 10. To the extent that the low redshift solutions are credible,
689: they imply galaxies with typically ages of 500-700 Myrs and extinction values of $A_V\sim1.0-1.4$.
690:
691: One question that arises is whether the near-infrared $J-H$ color for our $z$ drop-outs is consistent
692: with expectations, and also with that of the other limited detections at high redshift \citep{Bouwens08}.
693: Using the stacked images, we find this color is typically very blue: $J_{110}-H_{160} \sim 0.0$. We define
694: the rest-frame ultraviolet slope $\beta$ as $f_\lambda\propto\lambda^{-\beta}$ between the restframe
695: wavelengths 1500 and 2000 \AA\ \citep{Calzetti94}, and estimate the uncertainty in $\beta$ for our
696: sources either from the dispersion within the range of plausible redshifts (at $\pm1$ $\sigma$), or by
697: using the adopted photometric error bars in $J$ and $H$. In both cases, we find a consistent value:
698: $\beta\sim2.8^{+0.05}_{-0.2}$. The mean slope is somewhat bluer than the average value of
699: 2.0$\pm$0.5 for a sample of $i$ band drop-outs measured at $z\sim6$ by \citet{Bouwens06} but
700: within the range of $\beta\sim3.0$ found by \citet{Bouwens04} in their sample of $z$ drop-outs, and
701: marginally consistent with $\beta\sim2.5$ given for several objects by \citet{BouwensNature}. In order
702: to produce such a blue ultraviolet slope, the SED can only be fit by very young models
703: (typically $<100$ Myrs) with little or no reddening ($A_V<0.1$).
704:
705: \subsubsection{Galactic Stars}
706: \label{stars}
707:
708: Our next test for foreground contamination concerns the question of low mass Galactic stars.
709: Various authors \citep{Stanway04,Bouwens04} have pointed out the difficulty of using optical-near
710: infrared colors to distinguish between cool stars and breaks arising from Lyman absorption at high
711: redshift. L \citep{Cruz} and T \citep{Burgasser04} dwarfs exhibit metal and H$_2$O absorption
712: features which produce features similar to the drop-out signature. Indeed, L and T dwarfs from the
713: SDSS and 2MASS surveys \citep{Knapp} lie well within our color-color selection region (Fig. \ref{cz}).
714: Likewise, we find $\chi^2$ values similar to the best template spectrum from HyperZ when fitting the
715: SEDs of the candidates with a library of L0 and T dwarf templates spectra.
716:
717: In such circumstances, HST data has occasionally been used to evaluate whether the sources have
718: half-light radii $R_h$ consistent with being extragalactic objects \citep{Stanway04}. However, this
719: is not a definitive criterion as we already know that many spectroscopically-confirmed low luminosity
720: high redshift sources are unresolved \citep{Ellis}. We measured $R_h$, defined as the radius enclosing
721: half of the flux in the detection (NICMOS) images, and compared the values with that derived for
722: bright not-saturated stars (0.2\arcsec). Figure \ref{sizemag} represents the location of our candidates
723: in a $R_h$ vs $J_{AB}$ diagram, together with all other objects in our photometric catalog. Unfortunately,
724: surface brightness dimming generates a cut-off at large values of $R_h$, which does not allow to
725: distinguish resolved and resolved sources at the faintest magnitudes. This is the case for 4 of the
726: $z$-dropouts. At most we can say that 2 dropouts are unresolved, whereas 4 are resolved.
727:
728: Noting the difficulty of separating stars from galaxies at these faint limits, a more practical approach
729: is to examine the likely contamination statistically. Using simulations by \citet{Burgasser04}, we
730: computed the number of expected low-mass stars in the total area surveyed with NICMOS (7.7 arcmin$^2$),
731: for all spectral types between L0 and T8, up to the extent of the thick disk (1 kpc). Assuming
732: a slope $\alpha=0.0$ for the mass function, consistent with recent observations by \citet{Metchev},
733: we predict only 1.1 dwarf in our survey. A more pessimistic $\alpha=0.5$ slope yields 1.5
734: stars. Thus, while there is undoubtedly some uncertainty surrounding these predictions, it
735: does seem unlikely that cool Galactic stars represent a significant contaminant at such
736: faint limits.
737:
738: \subsection{Magnification and Multiple Images}
739: \label{mult}
740:
741: Our final test concerning the high redshift nature of our candidate drop-outs concerns their location
742: within the image plane of the lensing cluster. A key question is whether any might be expected
743: to be multiply-imaged as was the case, for example, for the object studied by \citet{Kneib}.
744: Most of the area covered by our NICMOS observations lies within the region of high magnification
745: ($\mu>2.5$ mags) where multiple images may occur.
746:
747: Using the mass models for each cluster (updated using Lenstool from those referenced in
748: Table \ref{cluster}), we estimate the magnification of each drop-out based on its
749: photometric redshift and location and examine the likelihood of any counter images as well
750: as their predicted location and relative fluxes. The Bayesian optimization method incorporated
751: in Lenstool also provides the uncertainties in these quantities.
752:
753: In the majority of the cases (7 out of the 10 $z$ drop-outs), the model predicts a pair of
754: images with similar fluxes (within 0.2-0.4 magnitudes) straddling the critical line
755: (Figure \ref{sample}). Single images are expected in two other cases (CL1358z3 and A2667z1)
756: and in the final case (CL1358z1), the objects sits on the predicted critical line, but
757: is not expected to be viewed as a distinct pair at the finite angular resolution of NICMOS.
758: These three cases are consistent with our observations.
759: Considering the two J drop-outs, A2219j1 is predicted to be another example of close
760: merging unresolved by HST, and A2667j1 is predicted to have much fainter counter-images
761: (by 0.8 to 1.5 mags), below our detection limits.
762:
763: Our attention is thus focused on the 7 cases where second images are expected. The typical
764: positional errors are around 1-3 arcsecs. Unfortunately, most are located outside the area
765: surveyed by NICMOS or in regions close to the edge of the detector or under the central BCG
766: where the noise level is high. Only in two cases, A2218z1 and A2667z2, does the mass model
767: predicts a detectable counter-image in a relatively clean region of the NICMOS detector. Unfortunately,
768: no significant flux, within the range expected, was seen at either position in the J-band of H-band image.
769:
770: %This test provides the only null result in our exhaustive quest to confirm the high redshift nature
771: %of our candidates. Although it applies to only two of our 10 $z$-band drop-outs, there is no reason
772: %if these two are at high redshift that we should not see the counter-image. Nor is there any
773: %reason to consider these two drop-outs as inferior to the remainder. However, an identical search
774: %for multiple images was performed under the assumption that each candidate is at a lower
775: %redshift, $z\sim2$. In that case, we would expect counter-images at a different position, closer to
776: %the center of the cluster, symmetric to the lower redshift critical line. We detect no flux for any of
777: %the candidates either. However, we did recover a counter-image for one of our more marginal first
778: %cut $J$-drop candidate in Abell 2390 with $J-H=1.5\pm0.3$ (Fig. \ref{mult_lowz}). We subsequently
779: %eliminated this candidate and can now verify, from the location of the pair around the critical
780: %line, that this is a $z\sim2$ object. This discovery clearly illustrates how predictions from the
781: %lensing model can discriminate low-redshift contaminants.
782:
783: Unfortunately, this test, valuable in principle, provides an inconclusive outcome in our exhaustive
784: quest to confirm the high redshift nature of our candidates. Although the high redshift test is
785: only applicable to two of our 10 $z$-band drop-outs, we are unable to see either of
786: the counter images. However, an identical search for multiple images was performed under the
787: assumption that each candidate is at a lower redshift, $z\sim$2. We would then
788: expect counter-images at different locations, closer to the cluster center.
789: However, we did not detect any of these predicted counter images either, for 4 clear cases.
790: Only in a more marginal $J$-drop candidate,
791: which we dropped at an early stage, did this test succeed in demonstrating a $z\simeq$2
792: solution (Fig. 12). Given the strong likelihood that most of the candidates lie
793: either at $z\sim$2 or $z\sim$7-8, the test has a confused outcome. On the one hand, for those
794: high $z$ candidates where we could expect to see a counter-image, none is seen. On the other hand
795: for a larger sample of candidates, assumed to be at $z\simeq$2, none is seen either. Accordingly, we
796: deduce the test is not effective as a redshift discriminant.
797:
798: \subsection{Summary}
799:
800: We now summarize the possible success rate of our survey in generating high redshift sources,
801: concentrating on the $z$-band drop-outs. Out of our ten sources, we find that at most one source
802: is spurious and $\simeq$one is a Galactic star. Thus we conclude 8 are likely to
803: be extragalactic sources. Admittedly, about half of our candidates are
804: unresolved, but we believe this is to be expected given the intrinsically faint limits we are
805: probing with our lensing method. Discounting the inconclusive test based on counter-images (Section 3.5),
806: and noting the 35\% contamination from $z\simeq$2 sources, we conclude that, statistically, we can expect 5 of
807: our 10 sources to be $z>$6.8 star-forming galaxies.
808:
809: The foregoing analysis, whilst exhaustive, is however, statistical in nature. Our approach
810: has been to treat all candidates as equally possible and to determine the level of foreground
811: and spurious contamination as a fraction, without commenting on the nature of each
812: individual source. Important information is contained in the similarity or otherwise of
813: the candidate's morphology in the various NICMOS bands and the confidence with which
814: we see no optical detection at the location of each candidate. For the $z$-band drop-outs,
815: a marginal detection is permitted in the red wings of the F850LP filter, but any hint of
816: a signal at the location of the candidate in shorter wavebands would give cause for concern.
817: It is then a matter of judgement whether to rely primarily on the photometric redshift
818: solution (\S3.4.1) or to override such information and reject a candidate after visual
819: inspection.
820:
821: Concentrating again on the $z$-band drop-outs, two sources, A2219-z1 and A2390-z1, are
822: resolved and satisfy the more rigorous color cut in Figure \ref{cz}. One might therefore
823: imagine these are particularly robust candidates.
824: A2219-z1 has a detection in the WFPC2 F702W
825: filter very close to the location of the NICMOS image. Although
826: reasonably significant (27.1 or 4.5$\sigma$) it does not influence
827: the photometric solution (Figure 6). Nonetheless, it does raise
828: doubt about this candidate.
829:
830: In the case of A2390-z1, there is no detectable optical signal down to F555W$=27.6$ (2.0$\sigma$) F814W$=27.0$ (2.5$\sigma$) and F850LP$=27.8$ (2.0$\sigma$) but
831: the candidate's morphology differs somewhat between the NIC3 F110W and F160W filters.
832: This may reflect the presence of two sources, one or both of which is at high redshift,
833: or a genuine structural difference in the bands, for example as a result of line emission.
834:
835: The only other source worth commenting on is A2667-z2 for which there is a marginal
836: WFPC2 F606W detection at the position of the NIC3 source (28.25, or 2.0$\sigma$).
837: This is reflected in the fact that the photometric redshift solution is fairly ambiguous for this
838: source (Figure 6).
839:
840: Finally, we note as in Section \ref{dropouts} that the
841: $J-H$ color of most of our $z$ drop-outs are significantly bluer than predicted for a
842: normal SED at $z\simeq$7. Shifting the sources to lower redshift would not
843: significantly resolve this interesting observation.
844:
845: Concerning the $J$-band drop-outs, neither are particularly compelling. A2667-J1
846: has a similar morphological difference between the F160W and faint F110W image
847: and A2219-J1 has a marginal detection (27.0, 3.5$\sigma$) in the ACS
848: F850LP filter.
849:
850:
851: \section{Spectroscopic Follow-up}
852:
853: Although deep imaging with HST has delivered candidates whose photometric
854: redshifts lie beyond $z\simeq$7, to date there has been not a single spectroscopic confirmation despite
855: heroic efforts. A case in point is the $z\simeq$6.8 lensed system in Abell 2218 \citep{Kneib} which was
856: the subject of 9.2ks exposure with the LRIS optical spectrograph and a marathon 33ks exposure
857: with the NIRSPEC infrared spectrograph. A marginal continuum was seen but no emission
858: lines were detected. This contrasts with the successful detection of Lyman $\alpha$ in IOK-1
859: \citep{Iye} in 31ks. The latter source has an implied star formation rate of $\simeq10\,M_{\odot}$
860: yr$^{-1}$ whereas the source in Abell 2218, when magnified, was expected to have an observed
861: line flux equivalent to an unlensed system with a star formation rate of
862: 2.6$\times25 \simeq 50\,M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. A tantalizing explanation for the non-detection of
863: Lyman $\alpha$ in the object in Abell 2218 is preferential damping by neutral hydrogen in lower
864: luminosity sources.
865:
866:
867: The presence of the Ly$\alpha$ line provides a critical feature for
868: confirming the nature of candidate high-redshift galaxies. However,
869: the line is relatively easily attenuated and therefore may well be
870: obscured in actively star forming galaxies. Therefore, the absence of
871: the line does not provide evidence that high-redshift candidates
872: are false.
873: Nevertheless, we conducted an ambitious spectroscopic
874: campaign at Keck for some of our candidates. We naturally hoped that we might also secure
875: the first spectroscopic verification of a $z>$7 source.
876:
877: \subsection{Observations}
878:
879: We used the Near InfraRed SPECtrograph (NIRSPEC, \citet{nirspec}) on the 10 m Keck II Telescope
880: to follow-up the majority of our candidates in the window $0.964$--$1.120$ $\mu $m,
881: corresponding to the redshift range $6.9$--$8.2$ for the Lyman-$\alpha$ line (1216 \AA\ ).
882: Observations where conducted in several runs between January and September 2007 and
883: we secured good data for 7 $z$-band drop-outs in total (see Table \ref{table_spectro}).
884:
885: We used a 42\arcsec\ long and 0.76\arcsec\ wide slit, offering a resolving power of $R\sim 1500$
886: and used dithered exposures of 10 minutes each. We adjusted the dithering distance (in the
887: range 3-8\arcsec) in each case (third column of Table \ref{table_spectro}), to prevent
888: overlap between a candidate and another bright source. Occasionally it was possible to observe two
889: candidates simultaneously. For two candidates where we expect multiple images, the location of
890: the expected counter-image (see Sect. \ref{mult}) was used to optimize the slit positions (Figure
891: \ref{sample}).
892:
893: The NIRSPEC spectra were reduced following the flat-fielding, sky-subtraction, distortion
894: corrections and flux calibration procedures described by \citet{Stark07b}. These reduction techniques
895: ensure an improved removal of the sky background by subtraction prior to resampling.
896: We observed standard stars each night and used these to flux-calibrate the final spectra and
897: determine the associated variance and hence the 5$\sigma$ limiting line flux. Each position
898: was observed for about 3.5 to 4 hours in total, yield a limiting line flux of
899: $\sim3\times10^{-18}$ erg\ cm$^{-2}$\ s$^{-1}$ in regions of minimum OH contamination
900: (Figure \ref{flim}), assuming a line width $\sigma_\alpha\sim 300$ km\ s$^{-1}$, as
901: measured in the well-studied lensed system by \citet{Ellis}. For a different line
902: width value, this sensitivity would vary as $\sqrt{\sigma_\alpha}$.
903:
904: We inspected each reduced 2-D spectrum for faint emission lines at the position of the
905: candidate and, where relevant, that of the counter-image. No significant signal was detected
906: for any of the candidates.
907:
908: \subsection{Implications}
909:
910: While the outcome of our spectroscopic campaign is certainly disappointing, the presence of strong
911: OH lines in $z$-band means that our limiting Ly-$\alpha$ flux ($\sim3\times10^{-18}$ erg\ cm$^{-2}$\
912: s$^{-1}$) applies only across 50\% of the observed wavelength range. Thus we would only expect
913: partial success even if all of our sources had intense emission lines. Nonetheless it is informative
914: to consider what the absence of any emission might mean given the star formation implied by our
915: continuum detections. We can convert our flux limit into a rest-frame equivalent width using our
916: HST photometry. For our candidates, we find a typical upper limit of $W_{\lambda}\sim5-20$ \AA\ .
917:
918: \citet{Stanway07} have recently studied a sample of faint Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters at $z\sim6.0$
919: selected from their photometry to be $i$-band drop-outs. They found a tail of high values for
920: the $W_{\lambda}$ distribution compared to similar studies undertaken at $z\sim3.0$ \citep{Shapley}.
921: They attribute this evolution to a tendency for stronger line emission in intrinsically faint sources.
922: 58\% of their sample has $W_\lambda>25$ \AA\ rest-frame. Including the lower and upper limit measurements
923: of $W_{\lambda}$ from this sample, which most likely contains lower redshift contaminants,
924: the fraction is lowered to 34\%.
925:
926: Assuming no evolution in this distribution from $z\sim6$ to $z\simeq$7-8, we would expect in the optimistic
927: case (58\% value) $\sim4$ Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters in our spectroscopic campaign, prior to considerations of
928: the OH spectrum. The probability that all 4 objects lie in a region of the spectrum contaminated
929: by OH emission is thus $(0.5)^4\sim0.06$, which is low. Even if only 4 of the 7 candidates
930: we examined were at high redshift (based on our statistical estimates given in \S3), we should
931: expect to detect the emission for $\simeq3$ cases. Here there would be only a 12\% probability of
932: each one being occulted by OH emission. In the most pessimistic case from \citealt{Stanway07}
933: (34\%), we would expect to detect only one source, with 50\% probability of OH contamination.
934:
935: Thus, as in the case of the $z\simeq$6.8 source in Abell 2218, the absence of emission in 7
936: candidates is somewhat surprising. Assuming a significant fraction are at high redshift as
937: discussed in \S3, this may be an important indication of the evolution in the intergalactic medium
938: above $z\simeq$6. Regardless of the cause, it adds to the challenge of making progress in
939: verifying high redshift candidates.
940:
941: Reconciling the above with the abundance of intrinsically faint Lyman $\alpha$ emitters claimed
942: by \citet{Stark07b} is admittedly difficult. Should the bulk of the drop-out population
943: at $z>$7 continue to reveal no emission, this would suggest a moderate neutral fraction
944: that would challenge the transparency of the IGM at $z\simeq$8-10 implied by the presence
945: of feeble Lyman $\alpha$ emitters. The enigma simply reinforces the importance of
946: continuing to attempt the detection and verification of line emission in very faint sources.
947:
948: \section{Discussion}
949:
950: In the foregoing we have described a concerted effort to quantify the abundance of low
951: luminosity star forming galaxies conducted in parallel to a similar spectroscopic campaign
952: which has examined the abundance of $z\simeq$8-10 Lyman $\alpha$ emitters \citep{Stark07b}.
953: That study claimed that if even a small fraction of the candidates is truly at high redshift,
954: a significant contribution to reionization is provided by low luminosity galaxies. In a similar
955: manner, recognizing the limitations of our small samples, we now examine the luminosity
956: function at $z\simeq$7.5 and the possible contribution that our lensed drop-out sources may
957: make to cosmic reionization.
958:
959: \subsection{Number Densities and the Source Luminosity Function}
960: \label{ndensity}
961:
962: The intrinsic area of sky (i.e. that in the source plane) covered by the NICMOS images
963: is strongly dependent on the geometry of the critical lines (or caustics), which varies from
964: cluster to cluster. Furthermore, multiple images occur in the central regions, duplicating the
965: corresponding source plane area. The result of both effects is a smaller survey, reduced by
966: a typical factor of $\simeq$10 in the source plane, with an increased depth whose value
967: varies across the field of view.
968:
969: In order to derive the source density of our $z$-band drop-outs, and to compare our results
970: with those conducted in blank fields, we used the lensing models for each cluster to compute
971: the sky area effectively observed in the source plane, down to a given intrinsic AB magnitude.
972: We assumed our survey covers the image plane down to the measured 5$\sigma$ depth
973: $J_{110}\sim26.2$ in the central NICMOS region, and scaled according to the relative exposure
974: time near the edges. We also removed $\sim10\%$ of the NICMOS area affected by bright
975: galaxies. We supposed an average redshift of $z=7.5$ to compute the magnification factors.
976:
977: Errors in the magnification factors estimated from the lensing models will affect
978: the source plane areas and unlensed magnitudes in an opposite way. For an individual cluster,
979: the typical uncertainty is about 10\% in the resulting area. This error is even smaller for the entire
980: sample of six clusters.
981:
982: Our total surveyed area is a factor $\sim5$ smaller than the UDF in the same magnitude
983: range ($AB<27.7$, Fig. \ref{magsource}). However, the increased depth enables to reach
984: AB$\sim28-30$ in this area. A very similar result is found in the case of $J$-band drop-outs,
985: assuming $z$=9.
986:
987: We used the estimated color selection contamination factor, $f_{cont}$, and the selection completeness
988: factor, $f_{comp}$ (Sect. \ref{dropouts} and Table \ref{magtable}), to correct each $z$ drop-out
989: individually to derive intrinsic number densities. Because of the strong variations in the magnification
990: factor across the NICMOS field of view, we corrected for observed completeness by computing the
991: completeness factors in intrinsic (unlensed) $<J+H>$ magnitude. This combines both the observed
992: completeness factor, $S_{comp}$, given in Table \ref{clusterimages} and the surface reduction in
993: the source plane. Error bars in the number densities were computed using Poisson noise estimates.
994: We present the cumulative UV luminosity function of the $z$-band drop-outs in the magnitude range
995: $27.0<AB<30.0$ in Fig. \ref{ncounts}.
996:
997: As discussed, it is likely that 5 out of our 10 sources are at high redshift. Accordingly, in Fig. \ref{ncounts},
998: we randomly selected 100 $\times$ 5 sources from our sample to take into account object-to-object variations
999: in the magnification factor and used this to estimate more realistic error bars.
1000: Errors in the individual magnification factors vary between 0.05 and 0.2 mag. When compared
1001: with the luminosity bins we used (0.5 mags), this effect has very low significance on the results, and the
1002: errors are mainly recovered when randomly choosing 5 candidates from the sample.
1003:
1004: For comparison, we overplot in Fig. \ref{ncounts} the luminosity function found by
1005: \citet{Bouwens06} in the UDF, including redshift evolution between $z=6.0$ and $z=7.5$
1006: assuming the observed size scaling as $(1+z)^{-1}$ for fixed luminosity \citep{Ferguson}.
1007: Likewise, we overplot the best Schechter function fits recently claimed by \citet{Bouwens08} from an analysis of
1008: their sample of $z$-band drop-outs. Not surprisingly, there is no overlap between these blank field
1009: measures and our, much deeper, lensed survey. All that can be said is that our results, which probe
1010: more than $\simeq$2.5 magnitudes fainter are marginally consistent down to AB$\sim28.5$, and
1011: higher by $\sim0.3-0.6$ dex at fainter luminosities.
1012:
1013: \subsection{Contribution to Cosmic Reionization}
1014: \label{reiontext}
1015:
1016: We finally investigate whether the likely abundance of low luminosity sources found in our survey
1017: could make a significant contribution to cosmic reionization. The approach we use is somewhat
1018: similar to the one described by \citet{Stark07b}, who estimated the comoving number density of
1019: sources necessary to keep the intergalactic medium (IGM) reionized under reasonable assumptions,
1020: and compare those to the abundances derived from candidate Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters at high redshift.
1021:
1022: In our case, we can estimate the star formation rate density, measured in individual objects
1023: from their UV rest-frame luminosity, after applying the same completeness corrections described in
1024: Sect. \ref{ndensity}. We converted the intrinsic (unlensed) $J+H$ magnitudes of our candidates into a
1025: UV luminosity, $L_{1500}$, and infer the related star formation rate (SFR) by adopting the
1026: \citet{Kennicutt} calibration. All $z$-band drop-outs span the range SFR$\sim$0.1-1.0
1027: $M_\odot\ \rm{yr}^{-1}$, thus the overall star-formation rate observed yields the contribution of
1028: low star-formation rate sources to the entire star-formation rate density $\rho_{\rm{SFR}}$.
1029:
1030: We used the \citet{Madau99} formalism to estimate the amount of star-formation necessary to
1031: keep the IGM reionized at a given redshift. One important factor in this calculation, that would
1032: modify the efficiency of star-forming sources to reionize the IGM, is the $H_{II}$ clumping factor
1033: $C$, defined as $C=<n^{2}_{HII}>/<n_{HII}>^2$ with $N_{HII}$ being the density of ionized hydrogen.
1034: This factor measures the inhomogeneity of ionized hydrogen in the IGM which will likely increase
1035: between $z=10$ and $z=6$ due to the growth of structure. Assuming an IMF with a Salpeter slope
1036: with stellar masses ranging from 1 M$_\odot$ to 100 M$_\odot$, and a solar metallicity $Z$=0.02
1037: , the photon budget from star-forming sources necessary to reionize the IGM can be
1038: written as:
1039:
1040: \begin{eqnarray}
1041: %\rm n_{gal} = 2~\Big(\frac{B}{10}\Big) \left({\rm~n_H \over 10^{-7} \rm~cm^{-3}}\right)
1042: %\Big(\frac{f_{esc}}{0.05}\Big)^{-1} \Big(\frac{\dot{M_\star}}{0.1~M_\odot~yr^{-1}}\Big)^{-1} \rm \Big(\frac{\Delta t}{575~Myr}\Big)^{-1} ~Mpc^{-3}
1043: \dot{\rho}_{SFR}\simeq (0.031 {\rm M}_\odot\ {\rm yr}^{-1}\ {\rm Mpc}^{-3})\Big(\frac{f_{esc,rel}}{0.5}\Big)^{-1}\ \Big(\frac{C}{10}\Big) \Big(\frac{1+z}{8.5}\Big)^{3}
1044: \label{madau}
1045: \end{eqnarray}
1046:
1047: where f$_{esc,rel}$ is the escape fraction of ionizing photons. We assumed an escape fraction
1048: f$_{esc,rel}$=0.5 in our calculations. However, values as low as f$_{esc,rel}$=0.02 have been measured
1049: in $z\sim3$ galaxies by \citet{Shapley06}. Lower escape fractions would increase the amount of
1050: star formation necessary to reionize the Universe, so adopting f$_{esc,rel}$=0.5 gives us a lower limit
1051: on $\rho_{SFR}$. On the other hand, top-heavy IMFs and differences in metallicities would make
1052: galaxies produce more ionizing photons per star-formation rate, but this effect is less significant
1053: than variations in f$_{esc,rel}$ and $C$. \citet{Bolton07} have critically reviewed possible values for
1054: the clumping factor $C$. Many authors \citep{Bunker,Bouwens06} have assumed $C=30$, but
1055: much lower values are predicted from radiative transfer simulations (\citealt{Iliev} find $C<2$ at $z>11$).
1056:
1057: Fig.\ \ref{reion} illustrates the star formation rate densities obtained by integrating down to a given
1058: SFR for the two extreme luminosity functions derived by \citet{Bouwens08} when fitting their number
1059: densities at higher luminosities (equivalent to SFR$>1.0$ M$_\odot$\ yr$^{-1}$). We overplot on
1060: this figure the contributions derived from Eq. \ref{madau} with clumping factor varying between
1061: $C=2$ and $C=30$.
1062:
1063: As suggested before, luminous galaxies do not produce enough star formation to reionize the IGM
1064: at these redshifts, even when a low $C=2$ clumping factor is assumed. Our sample enables us
1065: to test whether lower luminosity galaxies help to solve this discrepancy.
1066: Combining the source density from our NICMOS survey with
1067: those claimed at SFR$>1.0$ M$_\odot$ estimated by integrating the luminosity function from
1068: \citet{Bouwens08}, we can compare the photon budget down to SFR$\sim0.1$ M$_\odot$\ yr$^{-1}$
1069: with the amount of star-formation rate necessary to reionize the IGM. The results, shown in the case of
1070: 5 objects randomly chosen from our sample of 10 $z$-dropouts, suggest a contribution compatible with that
1071: necessary for reionization for clumping factors in the range $2<C<10$.
1072:
1073: \section{Conclusions}
1074:
1075: The overall goal of this project has been to constrain the abundance of low-luminosity
1076: star forming galaxies at $z\sim7-10$, selected as $z$- and $J$-band drop-outs in the fields of 6
1077: lensing clusters observed with ACS and NICMOS onboard the Hubble Space Telescope, and the
1078: IRAC camera onboard the Spitzer Space Telescope. We summarize our results as follows:
1079:
1080: \begin{enumerate}
1081: \item{We have identified 12 high redshift candidates (10 $z$-band drop-outs and 2 $J$-band
1082: drop-outs) according to carefully-determined photometric selection criteria. These are located in 5 of
1083: the 6 clusters and span the observed magnitude range $J_{110}\simeq$25-26. Each is typically magnified
1084: by 1.5 to 4 magnitudes.}
1085:
1086: \item{Based on a comprehensive set of tests, we estimate the fraction of sources that might represent
1087: spurious detections and the extent to which low mass stars and low redshift interlopers may contaminate
1088: our sample. Collectively, these tests suggest that around 5 of of our 10 $z$ drop-outs are possible high redshift $z>$7 objects. }
1089:
1090: \item{By stacking the available ACS, NICMOS, ground-based $K$-band and IRAC images, we
1091: investigated further the averaged properties of our lensed $z$ drop-outs. We find a UV spectral
1092: slope $\beta\sim2.8^{+0.05}_{-0.2}$ similar to that of higher luminosity candidates from the
1093: UDF. Such a slope suggests a very young stellar population with little reddening and strengthens
1094: our case that the bulk of our candidates are high redshift sources.}
1095:
1096: \item{We searched for possible counter-images for our candidates based on the most recent lensing
1097: models for each cluster. Unfortunately, our results are inconclusive. Many of the counter-images either
1098: lie outside our NICMOS field or are close to foreground sources. We fail to detect a counter-image in
1099: two apparently clean cases but a further two sources may be potentially merging on the critical line.}
1100:
1101: \item{We undertook follow-up spectroscopy with NIRSPEC for 7 of our 10 $z$-band drop-out candidates
1102: in the hope of seeing confirmatory Lyman $\alpha$ emission. No emission was found in any candidate
1103: (or its counter-image location) to a flux limit corresponding to $3\times10^{-18}$ ergs\ s$^{-1}$\ cm$^{-2}$
1104: in the clean part of the OH spectrum. One explanation is possible evolution in the Lyman-$\alpha$
1105: rest-frame equivalent width distribution, compared to previous results by \citet{Stanway07} at $z\sim6$,
1106: such as might be expected if the neutral fraction rises with redshift. Such a deduction would be difficult
1107: to reconcile with the presence of intrinsically-faint lensed Lyman $\alpha$ emitters at $z\simeq$10
1108: \citealt{Stark07b}}
1109:
1110: \item{Our inferred luminosity function at $z\sim7.5$, after correcting for contamination and incompleteness,
1111: is marginally consistent with an extrapolation of available constraints at brighter luminosities, with a slightly
1112: higher normalization by 0.3-0.6 dex. If even a modest fraction of our sources are at high redshift,
1113: our results strengthen the suggestion that sources with star formation rates $\sim0.1-1.0$
1114: M$_\odot\rm{yr}^{-1}$ contribute significantly to cosmic reionization.}
1115:
1116: \end{enumerate}
1117:
1118: As we approach the era of JWST and the ELTs, the outcome of our project in lensed fields has been
1119: to provide new constraints on the faint part of the luminosity function at $z>7$, which confirmed
1120: the trends seen at higher luminosities. Despite being restricted to a small field after demagnification in the
1121: source plane, we expect that these results will be readily confirmed by the upcoming Wide Field
1122: Camera (WFC3) on HST, combining extremely sensitive infrared channels with a field of view much
1123: larger than NICMOS.
1124:
1125: \acknowledgments
1126:
1127: We thank the anonymous referee for a report that has improved the content of this paper, and Rychard Bouwens
1128: for his very helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We
1129: also acknowledge discussions with Rodger Thompson, Elizabeth Stanway, Roser Pell\'o, Daniel Schaerer,
1130: Kelle Cruz and Adam Kraus. Andrew Blain and Naveen Reddy kindly provided the Keck NIRC observations of
1131: Abell 2218. We are thankful to Ichi Tanaka for his support in the reduction of MOIRCS imaging data. We
1132: acknowledge funding from NASA grant HST-GO-10504.01-A and Spitzer program GO-20439. The authors recognize
1133: and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverance that the summit of Mauna Kea has always
1134: had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct
1135: observations from this mountain. This program is based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space
1136: Telescope, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA
1137: contract NAS 5-26555, the Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan,
1138: the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA,
1139: and the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT), which is operated by the National
1140: Research Council of Canada, the Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers of the Centre National de
1141: la Recherche Scientifique of France, and the University of Hawaii.
1142:
1143: \bibliography{references}
1144:
1145: %--------------------- TABLES -------------------------------------------------------------
1146:
1147: \newpage
1148:
1149: \begin{table*}
1150: \begin{tabular}{llllll}
1151: Cluster & RA & Dec & $z$ & Mass model & $N_{mult} (N_z)$ \\
1152: \tableline
1153: \tableline
1154: Abell 2218 & 248.95625 & 66.21444 & $0.176$& \citet{ardis} & 37 (26)\\
1155: Abell 2219 & 250.08541 & 46.70833 & $0.226$& \citet{Smith05} & 14 (6)\\
1156: Abell 2390 & 328.40086 & 17.69603 & $0.228$& \citet{Swinbank}& 11 (5)\\
1157: Abell 2667 & 357.91387 &-26.08541 & $0.233$& \citet{Covone} & 10 (5)\\
1158: Cl0024+16 & 6.65122 & 17.16060 & $0.390$& \citet{Kneib03} & 9 (5)\\
1159: Cl1358+62 & 209.96069 & 62.51808 & $0.328$& \citet{Franx} & 5 (3)\\
1160: \tableline
1161: \end{tabular}
1162: \caption{\label{cluster} Lensing Cluster Sample: $N_{mult}$: number of multiple images used
1163: in the lens model ($N_z$ number with spectroscopic redshifts)
1164: }
1165: \end{table*}
1166:
1167: \newpage
1168: \input tab2.tex
1169:
1170: %\begin{table*}
1171: %\begin{tabular}{lccc}
1172: %Cluster & Filter & Exposure Time & Seeing \\
1173: %\tableline
1174: %\tableline
1175: %A2219 & B & 5400 & 1\arcsec.0 \\
1176: % & R & 6300 & 0\arcsec.8 \\
1177: %& I & 3000 & 0\arcsec.8 \\
1178: %\tableline
1179: %A2390 & B & 2799 & 1\arcsec.1\\
1180: %& R & 5700 & 0\arcsec.7\\
1181: %& I & 3600 & 0\arcsec.9 \\
1182: %\tableline
1183: %\end{tabular}
1184: %\caption{\label{otherim}Additional CFHT optical data \citep{Bardeau}}
1185: %\end{table*}
1186:
1187: \begin{table*}[ht]
1188: \footnotesize
1189: \begin{tabular}{lllccccccccc}
1190: Candidate & R.A. & Dec. & $z_{850}$ (AB) & $J_{110W} (AB)$ & $H_{160W} (AB)$ & K (AB) & $\mu (mags)$ & $S_{comp}$ & $f_{cont}$ & $f_{comp}$ \\
1191: \tableline
1192: \smallskip
1193: A2218-z1 & 248.9713 & +66.2071 & $>27.32$ & 26.1$\pm$0.13 & 25.9$\pm$0.11 & $>25.7$ & 1.9 & 0.59 & 0.14 & 0.66 \\
1194: A2218-z2 & 248.9507 & +66.2150 & $>27.32$ & 26.2$\pm$0.18 & 26.0$\pm$0.11 & $>25.7$ & 2.7 & 0.50 & 0.19 & 0.72\\
1195: A2219-z1 & 250.0803 & +46.7071 & $26.3\pm0.15$ & 24.7$\pm$0.05 & 25.3$\pm$0.06 & $>25.7$ & 3.6 & 0.84 & 0.0 & 0.95\\
1196: A2390-z1 & 328.4130 & +17.6905 & $>26.82$ & 25.5$\pm$0.12 & 26.1$\pm$0.12 & $>25.6$ & 3.5 & 0.68 & 0.17 & 0.79\\
1197: A2390-z2 & 328.4001 & +17.6962 & $>26.82$ & 25.8$\pm$0.15 & 25.8$\pm$0.10 & $>25.6$ & 1.8 & 0.65 & 0.27 & 0.51\\
1198: A2667-z1 & 357.9119 & -26.0949 & $26.7\pm0.36$ & 25.9$\pm$0.15 & 26.1$\pm$0.18 & N/A & 1.6 & 0.59 & 0.34 & 0.51\\
1199: A2667-z2 & 357.9153 & -26.0826 & $26.7\pm0.42$ & 25.7$\pm$0.12 & 25.6$\pm$0.11 & N/A & 2.0 & 0.75 & 0.20 & 0.68\\
1200: CL1358-z1 & 209.9714 & +62.5128 & $>27.33$ & 26.3$\pm$0.17 & 26.1$\pm$0.12 & N/A & 1.9 & 0.43 & 0.15 & 0.63\\
1201: CL1358-z2 & 209.9521 & +62.5108 & $>27.33$ & 26.2$\pm$0.13 & 26.7$\pm$0.28 & N/A & 4.0 & 0.43 & 0.15 & 0.72\\
1202: CL1358-z3 & 209.9549 & +62.5187 & $>27.33$ & 26.3$\pm$0.17 & 26.6$\pm$0.19 & N/A & 4.0 & 0.35 & 0.14 & 0.66\\
1203: \tableline
1204: A2219-j1 & 250.0900 & +46.7040 & $>26.7$ & $>26.3$ & 25.0$\pm$0.05 & $>25.7$ & 4.0 \\
1205: A2667-j1 & 357.9136 & -26.0869 & $>26.7$ & $>26.5$ & 25.1$\pm$0.08 & N/A & 3.6\\
1206: \tableline
1207: \end{tabular}
1208: \caption{\label{magtable}High Redshift Candidate Photometry: total magnitudes and corresponding
1209: magnification assuming $z=7.5$ for $z$-band drop-outs and $z=9.0$ for $J$-band drop-outs. Each
1210: $z$ drop-out entry is followed by its observed completeness, selection contamination factor and selection
1211: completeness. Upper limits correspond to 5 $\sigma$.}
1212: \end{table*}
1213:
1214: \begin{table*}
1215: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
1216: \hline\hline
1217: Dropouts & z$_{850LP}$ & J$_{110W}$ & H$_{160W}$ & K & IRAC$_{3.6\mu \rm m}$ & IRAC$_{4.5\mu \rm m}$ \\
1218: \hline
1219: (all 10) & 28.59$\pm0.21$ & 25.72$\pm 0.14$ & 25.70$\pm 0.14$ & \\
1220: (all 4 with K-band) & 28.99$\pm0.32$ & 25.71$\pm0.14$ & 25.81$\pm 0.12$ & $>26.2$ & \\
1221: (all 6 with IRAC) & 29.10 $\pm0.23$ & 26.11$\pm0.16$ & 26.29$\pm 0.16$ & & $>25.0$ & $>24.8$\\
1222: \end{tabular}
1223: \caption{\label{stackphot}Stacked Photometry of the $z$-band drop-outs. Upper limits correspond to 5 $\sigma$.}
1224: \end{table*}
1225:
1226:
1227: \begin{table*}
1228: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1229: Run & Candidate(s) & Dither & Exposure Time & Seeing & Notes\\
1230: \tableline
1231: \tableline
1232: Jan 2007 & CL1358z1 and z2 & 3\arcsec & 9 $\times$ 600s& 0.5 & \\
1233: \tableline
1234: May 2007 & CL1358z1 and z2 & 3\arcsec & 15 $\times$ 600s& 0.5-0.6\arcsec & \\
1235: & A2219z1 & 5\arcsec & 13 $\times$ 600s& 0.5-0.8\arcsec & \\
1236: & & & 12 $\times$ 600s& 0.5\arcsec & \\
1237: & A2218z1 & 5\arcsec & 18 $\times$ 600s& 0.9\arcsec & candidate + counter-image\\
1238: & & & 13 $\times$ 600s& 0.5\arcsec & \\
1239: & A2390z1 & 5\arcsec & 4 $\times$ 600s& 0.8\arcsec & \\
1240: & & & 12 $\times$ 600s& 0.5\arcsec & \\
1241: \tableline
1242: Sep 2007 & A2390z2 & 8\arcsec & 21 $\times$ 600s& 0.5\arcsec & candidate + counter-image\\
1243: & A2667z1 & 6\arcsec & 17 $\times$ 600s& 0.5\arcsec & \\
1244: \tableline
1245: \hline\\
1246: \end{tabular}
1247: \caption{\label{table_spectro}
1248: Log of the spectroscopic observations performed on 7 of the $z$ band drop-outs. From left to right: epoch of observation, candidate name, spatial dithering between individual exposures, expoure time, seeing conditions. For two $z$ drop-outs, we managed to observe the predicted location of the counter-image at the same time as the candidate.
1249: }
1250: \end{table*}
1251:
1252: \begin{table*}[ht]
1253: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1254: Ref. & $z$ & $\Phi^*$ (Mpc$^{-3}$) & $M^*$ (mag) & $\alpha$ \\
1255: \hline
1256: \citet{Bouwens06} & $6$ & 1.4e-3 & -20.25 & -1.73 \\
1257: \hline
1258: \citet{Bouwens08} & $7.4$ & 1.1e-3 & -19.80 & -1.74 \\
1259: & & 1.7.8e-3& -19.60 & -1.4 \\
1260: & & 8e-4 & -19.90 & -2.0 \\
1261: \hline
1262: \end{tabular}
1263: \caption{\label{lfparam} Best-fit Schechter parameters of the high redshift UV luminosity function, from earlier results found in the UDF, and overplotted in Fig. \ref{ncounts}. For each work we give the normalization $\Phi^*$, the absolute magnitude $M^*$ at the exponential cutoff and the faint-end slope $\alpha$. \citet{Bouwens08} explore three possible evolutions of the $L^*$ and $\Phi^*$ parameters for different fixed slopes $\alpha$.
1264: }
1265: \end{table*}
1266: \cleardoublepage
1267:
1268: %--------------------- FIGURES -------------------------------------------------------------
1269:
1270: \begin{figure*}
1271: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{f1.eps}}}
1272: \caption{\label{hmag}
1273: Distribution of magnification factors $\mu$ (in magnitudes) for the survey,
1274: as predicted from the mass models assuming a point source at very high redshift ($z>7$).
1275: The vertical axis represents the observed surface area in each 0.1 mag (0.04 dex) magnification bin.
1276: The peak of this distribution indicates our typical magnification factor is $\sim 2.0$ mags.
1277: Filled triangles mark the individual magnification factors for the 10 $z$ drop-out and
1278: open triangles that of the $J$ drop-out candidates.
1279: }
1280: \end{figure*}
1281:
1282:
1283: \begin{figure}[ht]
1284: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{f2a.eps}}\hspace{0.2cm}\mbox{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{f2b.eps}}\hspace{0.2cm}\mbox{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{f2c.eps}}\hspace{0.2cm}\mbox{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{f2d.eps}}}
1285: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{f2e.eps}}\hspace{0.2cm}\mbox{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{f2f.eps}}\hspace{0.2cm}\mbox{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{f2g.eps}}\hspace{0.2cm}\mbox{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{f2h.eps}}}
1286: \caption{\label{bcgsubtract} Example of BCG subtraction in the clusters A2390 and A2667. Each panel is
1287: 45\arcsec on a side. (Left to right): ACS image without subtraction, BCG-subtracted images in ACS, NICMOS
1288: and IRAC respectively. Subtraction residuals appear within $\sim1$ arcsec of the center in the ACS and
1289: NICMOS case, $\sim2$ arcsec for IRAC. The critical line for a high redshift source is show by the black curve.
1290: }
1291: \end{figure}
1292:
1293: \begin{figure}[ht]
1294: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[height=0.52\textwidth,angle=270]{f3.eps}}}
1295: \caption{\label{cz}
1296: Color-color diagram used for selecting high redshift $z$-band drop-out candidates. The final set of candidates is presented in
1297: red (see $\S$3.3). Color tracks represent predicted colors of Hubble
1298: sequence galaxies (colored tracks) \citep{Coleman,Kinney}. Thick tracks assume no extinction, thin lines
1299: show the effect of including a selective extinction of $A_V=1.0$ magnitudes.
1300: The observed location of L and T dwarfs is shown as a cross-hatched region \citep{Knapp}. Two possible
1301: $z-J$ color selections ($>0.8$ and $>1.25$) are shown (see text for details).
1302: }
1303: \end{figure}
1304:
1305: \begin{figure}[ht]
1306: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[height=0.48\textwidth,angle=270]{f4.eps}}}
1307: \caption{\label{cz2} Optimizing the selection of high redshift $z$-band and $J$-band drop-out
1308: candidates using near-infrared colors (dotted lines) as compared to the expected colors of Hubble
1309: sequence galaxies (as in Fig.\ref{cz}).
1310: }
1311: \end{figure}
1312:
1313: \clearpage
1314:
1315: \begin{figure}
1316: \begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
1317: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f5a.eps}}}
1318: \end{minipage}
1319: \begin{minipage}{0.55\textwidth}
1320: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[height=\textwidth,angle=0]{f5b.eps}}}
1321: \end{minipage}
1322: \caption{\label{select} Testing the color-selection of $z$-band drop-outs. (Left) Completeness in the
1323: color-selection ($f_{comp}$), as a function of the $J$ or $H$ magnitude (assuming a flat spectrum in
1324: AB) and the $(z-J)$ color-break. Values represent the fraction (\%) of simulated objects whose
1325: photometry satisfies our color-selection criteria as indicated in the color bar beneath. (Right) As for the left panel but referring to the contamination fraction $f_{cont}$.
1326: }
1327: \end{figure}
1328: \clearpage
1329:
1330: \begin{figure}
1331: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=15cm]{f6.eps}}}
1332: \caption{\label{spurim} NICMOS image of the cluster CL1358 (left) compared with a noise image
1333: (right) in order to estimate the fraction of spurious sources in our sample (see text for details). Except
1334: in the vicinity of the edges and central cores of bright objects (which are masked out by applying a
1335: simple threshold), the noise properties of the two images are very similar.}
1336: \end{figure}
1337:
1338: \begin{figure}[ht]
1339: \begin{minipage}{11.cm}
1340: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7a.eps}
1341: \end{minipage}
1342: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
1343: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7b.eps}
1344: \end{minipage}
1345: \begin{minipage}{11.cm}
1346: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7c.eps}
1347: \end{minipage}
1348: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
1349: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7d.eps}
1350: \end{minipage}
1351: \begin{minipage}{11.cm}
1352: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7e.eps}
1353: \end{minipage}
1354: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
1355: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7f.eps}
1356: \end{minipage}
1357: \begin{minipage}{11.cm}
1358: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7g.eps}
1359: \end{minipage}
1360: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
1361: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7h.eps}
1362: \end{minipage}
1363: \begin{minipage}{11.cm}
1364: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7i.eps}
1365: \end{minipage}
1366: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
1367: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7j.eps}
1368: \end{minipage}
1369: \begin{minipage}{11.4cm}
1370: \includegraphics[width=11.cm]{f7k.eps}
1371: \end{minipage}
1372: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
1373: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7l.eps}
1374: \end{minipage}
1375: \caption{\label{candfigs}Snapshot images our final catalog of candidate drop-outs. (Left to right): HST
1376: images in the optical (ACS or WFPC2), in the ACS/F850LP (z) band, in the detection image (sum of
1377: F110W and F160W bands), in the NIC3/F110W and the NIC3/F160W images. To the right are the observed
1378: SED with the overplotted best fit template for HyperZ, and the redshift probability distributions (see
1379: Sect. \ref{hyperz}). Shown separately are the MOIRCS $K$ band images.).
1380: }
1381: \end{figure}
1382:
1383: \begin{figure}[ht]
1384: \begin{minipage}{11.cm}
1385: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7m.eps}
1386: \end{minipage}
1387: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
1388: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7n.eps}
1389: \end{minipage}
1390: \begin{minipage}{11.cm}
1391: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7o.eps}
1392: \end{minipage}
1393: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
1394: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7p.eps}
1395: \end{minipage}
1396: \begin{minipage}{11.cm}
1397: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7q.eps}
1398: \end{minipage}
1399: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
1400: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7r.eps}
1401: \end{minipage}
1402: \begin{minipage}{11.4cm}
1403: \includegraphics[width=11cm]{f7s.eps}
1404: \end{minipage}
1405: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
1406: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7t.eps}
1407: \end{minipage}
1408: \medskip\par
1409: \begin{minipage}{11.cm}
1410: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7u.eps}
1411: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7v.eps}
1412: \end{minipage}
1413:
1414: \begin{minipage}{18.cm}
1415: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7w.eps}
1416: \end{minipage}
1417: \end{figure}
1418: \cleardoublepage
1419:
1420: \begin{figure}
1421: \includegraphics[height=3.4cm]{f8a}\\
1422: \includegraphics[height=3.2cm]{f8b}
1423: \includegraphics[height=3.2cm]{f8c}
1424: \includegraphics[height=3.2cm]{f8d}
1425: \includegraphics[height=3.2cm]{f8e}\\
1426: \includegraphics[height=3.2cm]{f8f}
1427: \includegraphics[height=3.2cm]{f8g}
1428: \includegraphics[height=3.2cm]{f8h}
1429: \includegraphics[height=3.2cm]{f8i}
1430: \includegraphics[height=3.2cm]{f8j}
1431: \caption{\label{stackim}Stacked images of the $z$-band drop-outs.
1432: First row: ACS and NICMOS images of all 10 sources. Second row: stacked images
1433: for the 4 drop-outs with $K$-band imaging (rightmost image). Third row: stacked images
1434: for those 6 sources with unconfused IRAC data.}
1435: \end{figure}
1436:
1437: \clearpage
1438:
1439: \begin{figure}
1440: \includegraphics[width=5.cm]{f9a.eps}
1441: \includegraphics[width=5.cm]{f9b.eps}
1442: \includegraphics[width=5.cm]{f9c.eps}
1443: \caption{\label{stacksed} SED of the $z$-band drop-outs derived from the stacked photometry (see
1444: Fig. \ref{stackphot}). (Left to right): all 10 drop-outs with ACS/NICMOS data, drop-outs with
1445: useful ACS/NICMOS/MOIRCS data, drop-outs with useful ACS/NICMOS/IRAC data. In each case,
1446: the best template found with HyperZ over $0<z<10$ (red curve) or $0<z<3$ (blue curve) is shown.}
1447: \end{figure}
1448:
1449: \clearpage
1450:
1451: \begin{figure}
1452: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=9.5cm]{f10.eps}}}
1453: \caption{\label{allpz}
1454: Redshift probability distribution estimated using HyperZ for the stacked SEDs of the $z$-band drop-outs
1455: shown in Fig. \ref{stacksed}. The black, red and blue curves refer respectively to all 10 dropouts, those
1456: four with $K$-band imaging, and those 6 sources with useful IRAC upper limits. All three solutions are
1457: consistent with a mean population redshift of $z\sim7.35$.
1458: }
1459: \end{figure}
1460:
1461: \clearpage
1462:
1463:
1464: \begin{figure}
1465: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=270]{f11.eps}}}
1466: \caption{\label{sizemag}Distribution of half-light radii $r_h$ measured by SExtractor in the photometric
1467: catalogs, as a function of the total $J$ band magnitude. The blue dashed curve corresponds to the
1468: measured $r_h$ for bright non-saturating stars. The 10 $z$-band drop-outs are shown as red ellipses.
1469: Two objects are unresolved (filled ellipses) whereas four appear resolved (open ellipses.). The rest
1470: cannot be reliably categorized.}
1471: \end{figure}
1472:
1473: \begin{figure}
1474: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[height=6cm]{f12a.eps}\includegraphics[height=6cm]{f12b.eps}}}
1475: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[height=6cm]{f12c.eps}\includegraphics[height=6cm]{f12d.eps}}}
1476: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[height=6cm]{f12e.eps}}}
1477: \caption{\label{sample}
1478: Location of the $z$-band and $J$-band drop-outs with respect to the high redshift ($z=7.5$) critical line for
1479: each cluster field (blue curve). Ellipses with a ``CI'' label mark the position (and estimated error) of the
1480: brightest counter-images. The adopted NIRSPEC follow-up slit position angles are overplotted as black
1481: rectangles.}
1482: \end{figure}
1483:
1484: \begin{figure}
1485: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=17cm]{f13.eps}}}
1486: \caption{\label{mult_lowz} A pair of magnified optical drop-outs identified in the NICMOS images. The
1487: theoretical location of the $z=1.8$ critical line (right panel) confirms this source to be a low-$z$ contaminant.}
1488: \end{figure}
1489:
1490: \clearpage
1491:
1492: \begin{figure}
1493: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{f14.eps}
1494: \caption{\label{flim} Determining the limiting flux from the NIRSPEC follow-up campaign. The plot shows
1495: the 5 $\sigma$ limiting emission line flux versus wavelength (and inferred Lyman $\alpha$ redshift) for
1496: a typical 3.5 hours integration.}
1497: \end{figure}
1498:
1499: \clearpage
1500:
1501: \begin{figure}
1502: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{f15.eps}
1503: \caption{\label{magsource} Survey characteristics: the intrinsic (unlensed) surface area sampled in the
1504: source plane down to a given limiting magnitude for each cluster (thin red lines) and for all six clusters
1505: (thick black line). The upper scales give the corresponding absolute magnitudes assuming $z\sim7.5$. The green dashed lines illustrate the areas sampled in the absence of lensing. The blue dotted line
1506: shows the equivalent survey parameters for the UDF \citep{Bouwens04,BouwensNature}.
1507: }
1508: \end{figure}
1509:
1510: \clearpage
1511:
1512: \begin{figure}
1513: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=18cm]{f16.eps}}}
1514: \caption{\label{ncounts}
1515: The cumulative number density of star-forming galaxies at $z\sim7-8$ as a function of the effective
1516: (unlensed) magnitude. Datapoints and error bars correspond to the range of densities resulting when
1517: randomly selecting 5 candidates from our sample and adopting Poisson errors (open diamonds,
1518: offset for clarity). In the most pessimistic case, where no sources are at high redshift,
1519: the implied upper limit is shown by the thick red curve. We overplot the best fit luminosity functions
1520: found by \citet{Bouwens06} (light dotted line) and \citet{Bouwens08} (bold dashed lines) in the UDF
1521: (parameters in Table \ref{lfparam})
1522: }
1523: \end{figure}
1524:
1525: \begin{figure}
1526: \centerline{\mbox{\includegraphics[width=15cm]{f17.eps}}}
1527: \caption{\label{reion}
1528: The cumulative comoving density of star formation rate at $z\simeq$7.5 derived for the two extreme
1529: (two last entries of Table \ref{lfparam}) luminosity functions from \citet{Bouwens08} with faint end
1530: slopes of $\alpha=2.0$ (purple) or $\alpha=1.4$ (green). The constraints from the present survey are
1531: shown as a red circle, for the average and range of densities resulting when
1532: randomly selecting 5 candidates from our sample (as in Fig. \ref{ncounts}). The density necessary to keep the IGM reionized at $z=7.5$, calculated from
1533: Eq. \ref{madau} for a range of clumping factors $C$ and escape fraction $f_{escp,rel}$, is shown as the dashed lines.
1534: }
1535: \end{figure}
1536:
1537: \end{document}
1538:
1539: