1: \documentclass{pasj00}
2: %\draft
3:
4: \SetRunningHead{Totani et al.}{SN Ia Delay Time Distribution}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{Delay Time Distribution Measurement of Type Ia Supernovae by
8: the Subaru/XMM-Newton Deep Survey and Implications for the
9: Progenitor }
10:
11: \author{
12: Tomonori \textsc{Totani}\altaffilmark{1},
13: Tomoki \textsc{Morokuma}\altaffilmark{2},
14: Takeshi \textsc{Oda}\altaffilmark{1},
15: Mamoru \textsc{Doi}\altaffilmark{3}, and
16: Naoki \textsc{Yasuda}\altaffilmark{4}
17: }
18:
19: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, School of Science,
20: Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502}
21:
22: \altaffiltext{2}{National Astronomical Observatory, 2-21-1
23: Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-8588}
24:
25: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute of Astronomy, School of Science,
26: The University of Tokyo, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-0015}
27:
28: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, The University
29: of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, 227-8582}
30:
31: \KeyWords {stars: supernovae: general --- galaxies: evolution ---
32: cosmology: observations}
33:
34: \maketitle
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: The delay time distribution (DTD) of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia)
38: from star formation is an important clue to reveal the still unknown
39: progenitor system of SNe Ia. Here we report on a measurement of the
40: SN Ia DTD in a delay time range of $t_{\rm Ia} = $ 0.1--8.0 Gyr by
41: using the faint variable objects detected in the Subaru/XMM-Newton
42: Deep Survey (SXDS) down to $i' \sim 25.5$. We select 65 SN
43: candidates showing significant spatial offset from nuclei of the
44: host galaxies having old stellar population at $z \sim$ 0.4--1.2,
45: out of more than 1,000 SXDS variable objects. Although
46: spectroscopic type classification is not available for these, we
47: quantitatively demonstrate that more than $\sim$80 \% of these
48: should be SNe Ia. The DTD is derived using the stellar age estimates
49: of the old galaxies based on 9 band photometries from optical to
50: mid-infrared wavelength. Combined with the observed SN Ia rate in
51: elliptical galaxies at the local universe, the DTD in $t_{\rm Ia}
52: \sim $ 0.1--10 Gyr is well described by a featureless power-law as
53: $f_D(t_{\rm Ia}) \propto t_{\rm Ia}^\alpha$ with $\alpha \sim
54: -1$. The derived DTD is in excellent agreement with the generic
55: prediction of the double-degenerate scenario, giving a strong
56: support to this scenario. In the single-degenerate (SD) scenario,
57: although predictions by simple analytic formulations have broad DTD
58: shapes that are similar to the observation, DTD shapes calculated by
59: more detailed binary population synthesis tend to have strong peaks
60: at characteristic time scales, which do not fit the
61: observation. This result thus indicates either that the SD channel
62: is not the major contributor to SNe Ia in old stellar population, or
63: that improvement of binary population synthesis theory is required.
64: Various sources of systematic uncertainties are examined and tested,
65: but our main conclusions are not affected significantly.
66: \end{abstract}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: It is widely believed that type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) are
71: thermonuclear explosions of carbon-oxygen white dwarfs in binary
72: systems, triggered when a white dwarf grows up to the Chandrasekhar
73: mass by accretion from its companion (see Nomoto et al. 1997;
74: Hillebrandt \& Niemeyer 2000; Livio 2001 for reviews). However, the
75: progenitor binary system leading to SNe Ia is still unknown, and there
76: are two competing scenarios for the accretion process triggering SNe
77: Ia. In the single-degenerate (SD) scenario, the accretion is from a
78: non-degenerate companion star (Whelan \& Iben 1973; Nomoto 1982),
79: while in the double-degenerate (DD) scenario, a merger of two white
80: dwarfs results in a SN Ia (Iben \& Tutukov 1984; Webbink 1984). To
81: reveal the progenitor is important not only for better understanding
82: of this one of the brightest explosions in the universe, but also for
83: controlling systematic uncertainties when SNe Ia are used as a
84: standard candle to measure the expansion rate of the universe (Riess
85: et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999). SNe Ia are expected to have a
86: wide range of delay time from star formation to supernova explosions,
87: and the delay time distribution (DTD) can be used to discriminate the
88: proposed progenitor models, since different progenitor scenarios
89: predict different DTDs.
90:
91: The DTD $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$ is equivalent to the SN Ia occurrence rate
92: as a function of the Ia delay time $t_{\rm Ia}$, for a single-burst
93: stellar population of a unit stellar mass. Hence, observational
94: studies on SN Ia rates should be able to constrain DTD (Mannucci et
95: al. 2006 and references therein). One such approach is to examine the
96: evolution of the cosmic SN Ia rate density (Pain et al. 2002; Gal-Yam
97: \& Maoz 2004; Maoz \& Gal-Yam 2004; Strolger et al. 2004; Dahlen et
98: al. 2004; Barris \& Tonry 2006; F\"orster et al. 2006; Neill et
99: al. 2006; Botticella et al. 2008; Oda et al. 2008; Blanc \& Greggio
100: 2008). However, there is a degeneracy between SN Ia DTD and the
101: cosmic star formation history, and it is difficult to derive a strong
102: constraint on DTD from the currently available data (F\"orster et
103: al. 2006; Botticella et al. 2008; Oda et al. 2008; Blanc \& Greggio
104: 2008). Another approach is to study the dependence of SN rate on the
105: host galaxy properties, such as colors or spectral energy distribution
106: (SED) (Mannucci et al. 2005; Scannapieco \& Bildsten 2005; Sullivan
107: et al. 2006; Aubourg et al. 2007). This approach has already given
108: some useful constraints on DTD, indicating the existence of SN Ia
109: populations having both short ($\lesssim$ 0.1 Gyr) and long ($\gtrsim$
110: 10 Gyr) delay times. However, the functional shape of $f_D(t_{\rm
111: Ia})$ has not yet quantitatively been constrained well. What has
112: been done in previous studies is to assume simple mathematical
113: functions for DTD or adopt theoretical DTD models to predict the
114: distributions of some observational quantities such as host galaxy
115: colors, and then compare them to the observed data. A clear next step
116: is a measurement of DTD, i.e., to constrain the functional form of DTD
117: directly from the observed data, rather than testing particular DTD
118: functions or models.
119:
120: For a DTD measurement, one needs to reliably estimate the delay time
121: of an observed SN Ia and the stellar mass of its host galaxy. The mean
122: stellar age of the host galaxy is an indicator of the delay time, but
123: it is unreliable when the stellar age distribution has a large
124: dispersion, as in galaxies having extended star formation history.
125: The ideal population for this purpose is old galaxies with an
126: approximately uniform stellar age, which experienced major star
127: formation episode in the past and have little or no star formation
128: activity at the time of a SN explosion. Present-day elliptical
129: galaxies are good examples, but they have a typical age of $\gtrsim$
130: 10 Gyr (Barber et al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2007), and hence we need to
131: observe SNe at higher redshifts to get a sample of SNe having shorter
132: delay times. However, both detection of SNe and stellar age estimate
133: of host galaxies become difficult at high redshifts.
134:
135: The Subaru/XMM-Newton Deep Survey (SXDS, Furusawa et al. 2008), which
136: is the deepest survey among those wider than $\sim$1 deg$^2$ with a
137: broad coverage of various wavelengths, provides a unique data set for
138: this purpose. In optical bands, this field has been observed
139: repeatedly with some time intervals, and a systematic variable object
140: search has been performed (Morokuma et al. 2008a, b), leading to
141: detection of more than 1,000 variable objects down to a limiting
142: variability magnitude of $m_{i'} \sim 25.5$ (AB). The majority of them
143: are high-redshift supernovae and active galactic nuclei (AGNs). This
144: data set includes many passively evolving old galaxies at redshift $z
145: \sim 1$, which are believed to be the direct ancestors of the
146: present-day elliptical galaxies (Yamada et al. 2005). We can estimate
147: the stellar age and stellar mass of host galaxies by photometric
148: redshift calculations using the rich photometric data in the 9 band
149: filters ($BVR_c \ i'z'JK$, 3.6, and $4.5 \mu$m). The required
150: accuracy for the age estimate in this work is about a factor of two,
151: and we will show that such an accuracy can be achieved for the
152: galaxies used in this work, by a variety of tests for the age
153: estimates.
154:
155: In this paper we measure the SN Ia DTD by selecting the SXDS variable
156: objects found in old or passively evolving galaxies at $z \sim $
157: 0.4--1.2. Spectroscopic SN type confirmation is not available for the
158: faint SXDS SN candidates. It is difficult to construct a complete
159: high-redshift SN sample with spectroscopic type classification under
160: homogeneous conditions of spectroscopic observation, and contamination
161: of SNe with no or poor spectroscopic data is one of the most
162: challenging sources of uncertainty in SN rate studies (Strolger et
163: al. 2004; Neill et al. 2006; Sullivan et al. 2006; Poznanski et
164: al. 2007). Here, instead of using spectroscopic information, we
165: select variable objects in old galaxies with spatial offset from the
166: galactic centers, and hence the majority of them are expected to be
167: SNe Ia. In fact, we will quantitatively demonstrate that more than
168: 80 \% of them should be SNe Ia, based on the properties of
169: the SN candidates and their host galaxies.
170:
171: It should be noted that selecting SNe only in a particular type of
172: galaxies does not induce bias in the DTD estimates, since we measure
173: SN Ia rate normalized by stellar mass of host galaxies having the same
174: type. This is in contrast to measurements of total cosmic SN rate
175: density, in which selection of any particular galaxy type obviously
176: leads to an underestimate of the total rate. On the other hand, we
177: cannot measure DTD at short delay times obviously because of selecting
178: old galaxies. We will present a measurement of DTD in a range of
179: $t_{\rm Ia} $ = 0.1--8.0 Gyr, corresponding to the distribution of
180: mean stellar ages of the old galaxies used in this work. Our DTD
181: measurement will be supplemented by the SN Ia rate measured for
182: elliptical galaxies in the local universe, to obtain DTD in $t_{\rm Ia}
183: \sim $ 0.1--10 Gyr. The derived DTD will then be compared with a wide
184: range of the existing theoretical DTD predictions, to get implications
185: for the SN Ia progenitor.
186:
187: In section \ref{section:methods}, we describe the SXDS data set and
188: selection procedures of old galaxies and SN candidates. In section
189: \ref{section:DTD}, we describe the formulations of DTD measurement and
190: present the results. In section \ref{section:systematics}, we examine
191: various systematic uncertainties in our DTD estimates. We then
192: discuss about the implications for the SN Ia progenitor, from the
193: comparison between the measured DTD and theoretical predictions
194: (section \ref{section:models}). Summary and conclusions are given in
195: section \ref{section:conclusions} with some discussions. Throughout
196: this paper we use the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological parameters of
197: $(h, \Omega_M, \Omega_\Lambda) = (0.7, 0.27, 0.73)$, where $h \equiv
198: H_0$/(100 km/s/Mpc), and magnitudes are given in the AB magnitude
199: system unless otherwise stated.
200:
201:
202: \section{The SXDS SN Ia Candidates}
203: \label{section:methods}
204:
205: \begin{figure*}
206: \begin{center}
207: \includegraphics[width=150mm,angle=-90]{i_hist_AV.ps}
208: %\FigureFile(150mm, 150mm){i_hist_AV.ps}
209: \end{center}
210: \caption{The properties of the old galaxies selected for the SN
211: search. Upper left panel: the $i'$-band magnitude distributions of
212: all the 16,492 old galaxies used in the analysis (solid), the 314
213: old galaxies with spectroscopic data (dotted), and the host galaxies
214: of the 65 SN candidates (dashed). The dot-dashed line is the
215: distribution of the $i'$-band variability magnitude of the 65 SN
216: candidates. Upper right panel: the $A_V$ distributions of the old
217: galaxies (solid), non-old galaxies (dashed), and all (old plus
218: non-old) galaxies (dot-dashed) with $m_{i'} \leq 24.0$ and
219: $m_{3.6\mu \rm m} \leq 22.8$. Middle and lower panels: the
220: distributions of $\langle t_* \rangle$, $t_{\rm ga}/\tau_{\rm SF}$,
221: redshift, and stellar mass of all the old galaxies (solid) and the
222: host galaxies of the SN candidates (dashed).} \label{fig:i_hist}
223: \end{figure*}
224:
225:
226: \subsection{the SXDS Data and Photometric Redshift Calculations}
227: \label{section:photo-z}
228:
229: We utilize the rich photometric data set of SXDS in $BVR_c \ i'z'$
230: bands obtained by the Subaru/Suprime-Cam (Furusawa et al. 2008), in
231: $JK$ bands obtained by the UKIDSS survey (Warren et al. 2007), and in
232: 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m bands obtained by the SWIRE survey (Lonsdale et
233: al. 2004), with the limiting magnitudes ($3 \sigma$) of 28.4, 27.8,
234: 27.7, 27.7, 26.6, 24.1, 24.0, 23.1, and 22.4, respectively, for
235: aperture diameters of 2 (optical and $JK$) and 3.8 (the Spitzer bands)
236: arcsec. The point-spread-function size of the optical images is about
237: 0.8 arcsec FWHM (1 pixel = 0.2 arcsec). The total survey area used in
238: the variable object survey (Morokuma et al. 2008a) is 0.918 deg$^2$.
239: Though the $JK$ data is available only for 64.5\% of the SXDS
240: field, almost all (97.5\%) of the SXDS field is covered by the Spitzer
241: data. This is important for reliable stellar mass estimate, which is
242: crucial for a study of SN Ia DTD. Therefore we select relatively
243: bright 45,374 galaxies with $m_{i'} \leq 24.0$ and $m_{\rm 3.6\mu m}
244: \leq 22.8$, for reliable photo-$z$ and stellar mass/age estimations.
245: Stars have been removed by the two-color plot ($m_{R_c}-m_{i'}$ versus
246: $m_{R_c}-m_{3.6\mu \rm m}$) as in Morokuma et al. (2008a).
247:
248: Photometric redshift ($z_{\rm ph}$) calculations are performed by
249: using the publicly available code {\it hyperz} (Bolzonella, Miralles,
250: \& Pell 2000), with the GALAXEV library (Bruzual \& Charlot 2003) of
251: stellar population synthesis models based on the Padova 1994
252: evolutionary tracks. In our baseline analysis, we use the library
253: assuming the Salpeter initial mass function (IMF) in the mass range of
254: 0.1--100 $M_\odot$ and a supersolar abundance of $Z = 0.05$, since
255: massive galaxies with old stellar population are expected to have high
256: metallicity as known for the local elliptical galaxies (Barber et
257: al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2007). We use 7 models of star formation (SF)
258: history having exponentially decaying star formation rate (SFR) with
259: the exponential time scales of $\tau_{\rm SF} = $ 0.1, 0.3, 0.7, 1, 3,
260: 5, and 15 Gyrs. We also add a model with a constant SFR, and hence 8
261: SF history templates are used in total. Attenuation of galaxy spectra
262: by dust is taken into account with the Calzetti law (Calzetti et
263: al. 2000) within a range of $A_V = $ 0--2, where $A_V$ is the
264: restframe visual band attenuation. The minimum photometric error is
265: set to be $\pm 0.05$ mag, to include systematic errors for bright
266: objects having negligibly small statistical photometric errors. Then the
267: best-fit redshift, SF history template, galaxy age, and $A_V$ are
268: calculated for each galaxy. The age survey range is limited not to
269: exceed the age of the universe at a given redshift.
270:
271:
272: \subsection{Old Galaxy Selection}
273: \label{section:old_galaxies}
274:
275: We select old or passively evolving galaxies by requiring $t_{\rm ga}
276: / \tau_{\rm SF} > 2.3$, where $t_{\rm ga}$ is the galaxy age estimated
277: by the {\it hyperz} code, i.e., the time elapsed from the beginning of
278: the template SF history. This value is chosen so that
279: galaxies selected by this criterion have already formed more than $[1
280: - \exp(-2.3)] = $ 90\% of stars that the galaxies would form in all
281: the history. We also set a constraint of $A_V \leq 1.0$ to avoid
282: dusty objects. After selecting galaxies within $0.4 \leq z_{\rm ph}
283: \leq 1.2$, which is a typical redshift range expected for SNe Ia
284: detectable in SXDS, there remain 16,492 galaxies. We call these
285: galaxies simply ``the old galaxies'' in this work for convenience.
286:
287: Stellar masses are calculated for each of the old galaxies from the
288: results of the photo-$z$ fit. In this work, we define the stellar
289: mass of a galaxy, $M_*$, as the integration of SFR up to its
290: age. Because dying stars return a part of their mass into interstellar
291: medium, this is not exactly the same as the mass locked up in stars at
292: a given age, which changes with time even in a passive evolution
293: phase. [The difference between the two is typically $\lesssim$ 30\%;
294: see, e.g., Fig. 7 of Sullivan et al. (2006).] It should be noted that
295: the SFR-integrated mass is more appropriate for our purpose, because
296: DTD should be normalized by the amount of star formation for a single
297: starburst stellar population, which is constant against age. However,
298: stellar mass estimations for observed galaxies are generally
299: model-dependent. Therefore, when we derive DTD, we convert the
300: stellar mass of our definition into $L_{K,0}$, which is the restframe
301: $K$ band luminosity at the age of 11 Gyr (a typical age of local
302: elliptical galaxies; see e.g., Baber et al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2007)
303: after passive evolution, since restframe $K$ band luminosity at a
304: fixed large age is a good indicator of stellar mass. Then DTD will be
305: given per unit $L_{K,0}$, and hence the difference in mass definition
306: does not affect our DTD measurements. By this normalization, we can
307: avoid some observational uncertainties in stellar mass estimates such
308: as IMF (see also section \ref{section:syst_age_mass}), and a
309: comparison between our results and other SN rate studies also becomes
310: easier.
311:
312: The distributions of $i'$ magnitude, $A_V$, mass-weighted mean stellar
313: age $\langle t_* \rangle$, $t_{\rm ga}/\tau_{\rm SF}$, redshift, and
314: stellar mass of these old galaxies are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:i_hist}.
315: As expected for old galaxies, the distribution of $A_V$ is peaked at
316: $A_V=0$, with a mean value of $\langle A_V \rangle = $ 0.31. The
317: concentration to small $A_V$ values is obvious when it is compared
318: with the distribution of the non-old galaxies. To test the
319: reliability of photo-$z$, we compare the results with the
320: spectroscopic redshifts ($z_{\rm sp}$) of the 314 old galaxies having
321: observed spectra in Fig. \ref{fig:z_sp_z_ph}. The agreement is within
322: $\pm$20\% for the majority of the old galaxies. As a measure of
323: deviation that is not sensitive to outliers, we computed the median of
324: $1.48 |\Delta z|/(1+z)$, which is the same as the standard deviation
325: of $\Delta z /(1+z)$ in the case of the Gaussian distribution. The
326: result is 0.035, and this is comparable with other photometric
327: redshift studies at similar redshifts (e.g., Ilbert et al. 2006). The
328: magnitude distribution of the spectroscopic sample peaks at $m_{i'}
329: \sim 22$--23 and extends down to $m_{i'} \sim 24$
330: (Fig. \ref{fig:i_hist}), and hence our photometric old galaxy sample
331: is restricted to the magnitude range where the spectroscopic
332: calibration is possible. In the DTD analysis below, we use
333: spectroscopic redshifts when available, and otherwise use photometric
334: redshifts.
335:
336: For visual demonstrations, we randomly selected 8 objects as examples
337: from our final sample of SN candidates. The properties of the 8
338: objects are summarized in Table \ref{table:examples}. The host galaxy
339: images and the SED fits of the 8 objects are shown in
340: Figs. \ref{fig:images} and \ref{fig:SED}, respectively. The
341: photometric errors are very small especially in the optical bands
342: since we selected bright objects, but still the agreement between the
343: template SEDs and the observed data is quite good, which is an
344: encouraging result about the reliability of age and stellar mass
345: estimates.
346:
347:
348:
349: \begin{figure}
350: \begin{center}
351: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{z_sp_z_ph.ps}
352: \end{center}
353: \caption{ Spectral redshift versus photometric redshift of the old
354: galaxies selected for the SN Ia search. The dashed lines indicate the
355: $\pm$20\% accuracy region.} \label{fig:z_sp_z_ph}
356: \end{figure}
357:
358:
359: \subsection{Selection of the SN Candidates}
360:
361: We now search for variable objects associated with these old galaxies.
362: There are 1,040 variable objects selected by $i'$ band variability in
363: the catalog of Morokuma et al. (2008a). The SXDS field was monitored
364: 8--10 times during about four years, with a typical time interval from
365: a few days to one month within a year. The variable sources are
366: selected if it is detected in the subtracted images of any possible
367: pair of two different epochs. The detection efficiency of variable
368: sources has been carefully determined by simulations. ``The
369: variability flux'' of a SN candidate in this work refers to the
370: maximum of differential fluxes measured in time intervals
371: corresponding to all possible pairs of the SXDS observing epochs.
372: ``The variability magnitude'' is the magnitude corresponding to this
373: variability flux.
374:
375: We select variable objects within the detection isophote (i.e., the
376: area where the surface brightness is higher than the threshold level
377: of the source detection) of the old galaxies, and showing significant
378: offsets ($\geq$ 1.9 pixel = $0.38''$) from the nuclei of galaxies.
379: The mean area of detection isophote of the old galaxies is 409 pixels.
380: Here, the nuclei of galaxies are simply defined by their surface
381: brightness peaks. According to the simulations using artificial
382: objects (Morokuma et al. 2008a), this is a conservative limit to
383: remove variable objects at nuclei of the host galaxies, i.e., AGNs.
384: Morokuma et al. classified the nuclear variable sources into SNe or
385: AGNs based on the light-curve shape, and they found that such
386: classifications are broadly consistent with the X-ray
387: information. However, the classification is rather uncertain
388: especially for the faintest variable objects near the detection
389: limit. Therefore we conservatively reject all nuclear variable
390: sources. We do not use the X-ray information in the process of SN
391: candidate selection, since a small part ($\sim$ 10\%) of the survey
392: area is not covered by the X-ray observation. Galaxies detected in the
393: X-ray band are only 68 out of the 14,909 old galaxies observed in
394: X-ray, which is a negligible fraction in our analysis. In fact, we
395: confirmed that no object is detected in X-ray in our final SN
396: candidate sample.
397:
398: We thus found 67 variable objects associated with the old galaxies.
399: We examined the optical variability information of these objects by
400: using the full Suprime-Cam data set of the SXDS. We found that, as
401: expected, most of them are consistent with SN-like variability. Only 2
402: objects show clearly AGN-like variability, i.e., flaring up more than
403: twice during the four year observation duration. These two are
404: removed, leaving the 65 SN candidates. Such a contamination of AGNs is
405: possible by a chance superposition of a normal galaxy and an unrelated
406: AGN along the line of sight (e.g., the case of an AGN initially
407: classified as SN 1999de, Gal-Yam et al. 2008). We found that two such
408: events are reasonable from the number of AGNs in SXDS and the area
409: covered by the old galaxies selected here (2.3\% of the total survey
410: area). We cannot exclude a possibility that a few more
411: chance-superposition AGNs having SN-like light curves might be
412: included in the 65 SN candidates. To check this, we examine the offset
413: distribution of these objects with respect to the surface brightness
414: profile of galaxies as follows.
415:
416:
417: \begin{table*}
418: \caption{Properties of the eight examples randomly selected from the
419: final 65 SN sample. The redshifts are spectroscopic when available
420: (objects 2 and 4), and otherwise photometric. Magnitudes of host
421: galaxies and SN variability are in $i'$ band, and galaxy age ($t_{\rm
422: ga}$), the exponential decay time scale of SFR ($\tau_{\rm SF}$), and
423: mass-weighted mean stellar age ($\langle t_* \rangle$) are all in Gyrs.}
424: \begin{center}
425: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
426: \hline
427: \hline
428: Obj. No. & redshift & \ host mag. \ & \ var. mag. \ & \ $t_{\rm ga}$ \
429: & \ $\tau_{\rm SF}$ \ & \ $\langle t_* \rangle$ \ & \ $A_V$ \ \\
430: \hline
431: 1 & 0.47 & 22.5 & 25.4 & 2.30 & 1.0 & 1.56 & 0.2 \\
432: 2 & 0.63 & 21.6 & 24.6 & 0.36 & 0.1 & 0.27 & 0.0 \\
433: 3 & 0.81 & 23.0 & 25.8 & 0.72 & 0.1 & 0.62 & 0.8 \\
434: 4 & 0.92 & 22.6 & 24.2 & 1.02 & 0.3 & 0.75 & 0.0 \\
435: 5 & 1.01 & 23.7 & 24.5 & 0.72 & 0.1 & 0.62 & 0.2 \\
436: 6 & 0.60 & 22.0 & 23.5 & 3.50 & 0.7 & 2.82 & 0.6 \\
437: 7 & 0.70 & 23.0 & 25.2 & 0.72 & 0.3 & 0.49 & 0.0 \\
438: 8 & 0.47 & 21.3 & 25.1 & 1.02 & 0.3 & 0.75 & 0.0 \\
439: \hline
440: \hline
441: \end{tabular}
442: \end{center}
443: \label{table:examples}
444: \end{table*}
445:
446:
447: \begin{figure*}
448: \begin{center}
449: \includegraphics[width=150mm,angle=0]{selected_images.eps}
450: \end{center}
451: \caption{The images of the eight examples randomly selected from the
452: final SN candidates. The left panels are the 3-color composite images of
453: the host galaxies using $BVi'$ bands. The middle panels are color
454: contours of the host galaxy $i'$ band flux at the time of the maximum
455: luminosity of the SN candidates, and the right panels are those of
456: subtracted images showing the variability of the SN candidates. All
457: panels are centered at the surface brightness peak of the host galaxies,
458: and the locations of the SN candidates are indicated by white crosses.
459: The properties of the eight objects are summarized in Table
460: \ref{table:examples}. } \label{fig:images}
461: \end{figure*}
462:
463:
464: \begin{figure*}
465: \begin{center}
466: \includegraphics[width=150mm,angle=-90]{SED.ps}
467: \end{center}
468: \caption{The results of the SED fits for the old galaxies by the
469: photometric redshift calculations, for the 8 example objects listed
470: in Table \ref{table:examples}. The SED is given by energy flux per
471: unit wavelength in arbitrary units. The open squares are the
472: observed flux. The horizontal error bars indicate the approximate
473: width of band filters, and the vertical error bars are 1$\sigma$
474: flux errors (difficult to see in optical bands). The flux errors
475: include only statistical errors, while the minimum error is set to
476: be $\pm 0.05$ mag in the photometric redshift calculations to take
477: into account the systematic errors. }
478: \label{fig:SED}
479: \end{figure*}
480:
481:
482: \subsection{Radial Distribution of the SN Candidates in Host Galaxies}
483:
484: We performed ellipsoidal fits for each galaxy with the S\'ersic type
485: radial profile (S\'ersic 1968). The effective radius along the major
486: and minor axes, and the S\'ersic index are thus derived, taking into
487: account the seeing. We then calculated the fraction, $f_l$, of
488: $i'$-band light enclosed within the ellipsoidal radius to a variable
489: object, compared with the total flux within the detection isophote
490: (i.e., isophotal flux). Here, the nuclear region within the offset
491: threshold (1.9 pixel radius) is excluded in the $f_l$ calculation. If
492: we are selecting SNe Ia physically associated with the galaxies, we
493: expect that the distribution of $f_l$ is roughly uniform between 0--1, since
494: SNe Ia are expected to trace the host galactic light approximately
495: (Kelly et al. 2007; F\"orster \& Schawinski 2008). The distributions
496: of the offsets from nuclei and $f_l$ are shown for the 65 SN
497: candidates in Fig. \ref{fig:profiles}, and in fact we find an almost
498: uniform distribution for $f_l$.
499:
500: \begin{figure*}
501: \begin{center}
502: \includegraphics[width=60mm,angle=-90]{profiles.ps}
503: \end{center}
504: \caption{Left panel: the distribution of the spatial offsets of
505: the 65 SN candidates from the nuclei of their host galaxies. Right
506: panel: the distribution of the fraction of $i'$-band
507: galactic light $f_l$ enclosed
508: within the ellipsoidal radius to a SN candidate compared with the
509: isophotal flux of its host galaxy.}
510: \label{fig:profiles}
511: \end{figure*}
512:
513:
514: There is a deficit at $f_l \gtrsim 0.8$, and it indicates that our
515: profile fitting is not perfect or supernova locations do not exactly
516: trace galactic $i'$-band light. However, it is clear that the SN
517: candidates trace the galactic light reasonably well, and hence the
518: majority of these must be SNe physically associated with host
519: galaxies, rather than the chance superpositions of background AGNs. It
520: should be noted that, if there is a significant contamination of AGN
521: chance superpositions, we expect a distribution biased to larger
522: values of $f_l$, which is opposite from the observed trend. We thus
523: define these 65 objects as the final SN candidate sample, and the
524: distributions of variability and host galaxy magnitudes are shown in
525: Fig. \ref{fig:i_hist}. The images of the randomly selected eight
526: examples are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:images}.
527:
528: In the final SN sample, 7 SN candidates have measured spectroscopic
529: redshifts of host galaxies. We confirmed that the difference between
530: $z_{\rm sp}$ and $z_{\rm ph}$ is within $\sim$20 \% for all of these, as
531: expected from Fig. \ref{fig:z_sp_z_ph}. The fraction of available
532: spectroscopic redshifts, 7/65, is considerably higher than 314/16492 for
533: the old galaxies. This is mainly because the host galaxies of the SN
534: candidates are systematically brighter than the typical old galaxies
535: (see Fig. \ref{fig:i_hist}), reflecting the fact that SN rate is roughly
536: proportional to host galaxy luminosities. Another possible reason is
537: that some variable objects were followed up by spectroscopic
538: observations as a part of the Supernova Cosmology Project in
539: collaboration with the SXDS project.
540:
541:
542: \section{Measurement of Delay Time Distribution}
543: \label{section:DTD}
544:
545: \subsection{The Basic Formulations}
546: \label{section:formulations}
547:
548: Now we estimate the DTD from the 65 SN candidates. Later (section
549: \ref{section:systematics}) we will demonstrate that the majority of
550: them must be SNe Ia rather than core-collapse (CC) SNe, but here we
551: first estimate the DTD, taking into account the contamination of CC
552: SNe. We implicitly assume that DTD is universal for all stellar
553: populations, as often assumed in studies on the SN Ia DTD. It is
554: possible that DTD is dependent on the properties of stellar population
555: such as metallicity (e.g., Kobayashi et al. 1998), and in such a case
556: our measurement of DTD applies only to the old galaxies selected
557: here. This point should be kept in mind when a comparison is made with
558: theoretical predictions.
559:
560: Since we know the star formation history of the template galaxy
561: evolution model in the {\it hyperz} fit, we can estimate the
562: mass-weighted mean stellar age of galaxies, $\langle t_* \rangle$.
563: Since we selected old galaxies, in which most of stars have formed in
564: a starburst in the past, $\langle t_* \rangle$ is expected to be a
565: good estimator of the Ia delay time, $t_{\rm Ia}$. (By the
566: same reason, the difference between the mass-weighted and
567: luminosity-weighted mean stellar ages should be small.) The DTD
568: function $f_D (t_{\rm Ia})$ (per unit stellar mass and unit
569: delay time) can be estimated as the SN Ia rate per unit stellar mass
570: in these galaxies. Therefore the first rough estimate of the mean DTD
571: function $\bar{f}_D$ in a given bin of $t_l \leq t_{\rm Ia} < t_u$ can
572: be obtained by solving the following equation:
573: \begin{eqnarray}
574: N_{\rm Ia, exp} + N_{\rm CC, exp} = N_{\rm obs} \ ,
575: \label{eq:N_SN}
576: \end{eqnarray}
577: where $N_{\rm Ia, exp}$ and $N_{\rm CC, exp}$ are the expected numbers
578: of Ia and CC SNe, respectively, and $N_{\rm obs}$ is the number of the
579: observed SN candidates associated with the old galaxies satisfying $t_l
580: \leq \langle t_* \rangle < t_u$. We can calculate $N_{\rm Ia, exp}$ as:
581: \begin{eqnarray}
582: N_{\rm Ia, exp} =
583: \bar{f}_D \sum_{i} f_{\rm off, \it i} \ M_{*, i} \
584: \frac{T_{V, {\rm Ia}}(z_i)}{(1 + z_i)} \
585: \label{eq:N_Ia_exp} \ ,
586: \end{eqnarray}
587: where $M_{*, i}$ and $z_i$ are the stellar mass and redshift of $i$-th
588: galaxy, $f_{\rm off, \it i}$ the fraction of light (in $i'$ band)
589: outside the threshold offset (1.9 pixel radius), and the summation is
590: for all the old galaxies satisfying $t_l \leq \langle t_* \rangle <
591: t_u$. In this work, we set the shortest delay time bin to be 0.1--0.25
592: Gyr. This is reasonable because the minimum value of $\langle t_*
593: \rangle$ possible for the old galaxies selected by our criteria is
594: 0.16 Gyr corresponding to the case of $t_{\rm ga} = $ 0.23 Gyr and
595: $\tau_{\rm SF}$ = 0.1 Gyr, with an age dispersion of about 0.1 Gyr.
596: On the other hand, the number of the old galaxies with $\langle t_*
597: \rangle > $ 8.0 Gyr is very small because they are located at $z \ge
598: 0.4$, and hence we set the upper boundary of our DTD measurement to be
599: 8.0 Gyr.
600:
601: The visibility time $T_V$ (also often called as the control time),
602: which is the total integrated time during which a SN can be detected
603: by the SXDS observations, can be calculated as:
604: \begin{eqnarray}
605: T_V(z) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty P_{\rm det}(t, z) dt \ ,
606: \label{eq:T_V}
607: \end{eqnarray}
608: where $t$ is the explosion time of a supernova relative to the SXDS
609: observation campaign (in observer's frame), and $P_{\rm det} (t, z)$
610: is the detection probability of the supernova at redshift $z$. The
611: factor $(1+z_i)^{-1}$ in eq. (\ref{eq:N_Ia_exp}) corrects the
612: cosmological time dilation effect. This is the standard quantity in SN
613: rate analyses, and it can be calculated if the SN light curve is given
614: in the observing band filter. We apply the standard light curve and
615: color evolution of SNe Ia used in Oda \& Totani (2005), taking into
616: account the dispersion of the peak $B$ band luminosity and the
617: light-curve versus peak luminosity relation. We assume an extinction
618: corresponding to the reddening $E(B-V) = 0.05$, which is reasonable
619: for old galaxies and often used in rate studies of SNe Ia [see Oda et
620: al. (2008) and references therein]. We assume the standard Milky-Way
621: extinction curve. It should be noted that the Calzetti {\it
622: attenuation} law used in the photo-$z$ calculations is for the
623: synthesized flux from a galaxy, which is different from the {\it
624: extinction} law for a single star in a galaxy. Therefore $A_V$ of a
625: galaxy estimated by photo-$z$ calculation cannot be directly related
626: to extinction of a SN in the galaxy. The effect of changing extinction
627: of SN flux will be examined in section \ref{section:systematics}.
628: Finally, the exact procedure and efficiency of variable object
629: detection in SXDS (Morokuma et al. 2008a) are also taken into account
630: to calculate $P_{\rm det}$. The calculated visibility time is shown
631: in Fig. \ref{fig:vt}. Note that this visibility time includes the
632: multiplicity of many SXDS observations during four years, and not for
633: a single epoch observation.
634:
635: \begin{figure}
636: \begin{center}
637: \includegraphics[width=60mm,angle=-90]{vt.ps}
638: \end{center}
639: \caption{The visibility time $T_V$ (in observer's frame) of SNe in SXDS
640: as a function of redshift. The solid curve is for the standard case of
641: SNe Ia, while the dot-dashed curve is for CC SNe.
642: The dashed curves are for SNe Ia, but the luminosity is
643: shifted by $\pm$ 0.4 mag. The visibility time is slightly different in
644: the different subfields of SXDS, and those in the SXDS-C field (Morokuma
645: et al. 2008a) are shown here. } \label{fig:vt}
646: \end{figure}
647:
648:
649: The expected number of CC SNe, $N_{\rm CC, exp}$, can be calculated as
650: \begin{eqnarray}
651: N_{\rm CC, exp} = \sum_i \ f_{\rm off, \it i} \ \psi_i \ f_{\rm CC}
652: \ \frac{T_{V, {\rm CC}}(z_i)}{(1+z_i)} \ ,
653: \end{eqnarray}
654: where $\psi$ is SFR (mass per unit time) of a galaxy, and $f_{\rm CC}$
655: the production efficiency of CC SNe per unit mass of star formation.
656: The SFR $\psi$ is estimated by the observed $B$ band flux corresponding
657: to the restframe UV luminosity, with the conversion factor calculated by
658: the stellar population synthesis model used in this work. The factor
659: $f_{\rm CC}$ is calculated by assuming that all stars heavier than 8
660: $M_\odot$ produce CC SNe with the assumed IMF. The visibility time
661: $T_{V, \rm CC}$ is calculated with a standard mixture of light curves of
662: various types of CC SNe, as in Oda \& Totani (2005). We assume $E(B-V) =
663: 0.15$ for CC SNe, which is a typical value for CC SNe found in nearby
664: galaxies (Oda et al. 2008 and references therein). This value is larger
665: than that assumed for SNe Ia, but it is reasonable since CC SNe are
666: expected to occur in star forming regions where dust abundance is
667: generally high. Since we selected old galaxies, we found $N_{\rm CC,
668: exp} = 11.4$ (in all the considered range of $t_{\rm Ia}$ = 0.1--8 Gyr) and
669: this is small compared with $N_{\rm obs} = 65$. (See also Table
670: \ref{table:baseline} for numbers in each $t_{\rm Ia}$ bin.)
671:
672: \begin{table*}
673: \caption{The DTD measurements by the baseline analysis. The DTD results
674: are shown in [century$^{-1}$] for a single starburst population whose
675: total $K$ band luminosity is $10^{10} L_{K, \odot}$ at an age of 11
676: Gyr. The errors are statistical $1 \sigma$. The number of the old galaxies
677: ($N_{\rm gal}$), that of the detected SN candidates ($N_{\rm obs}$), and
678: the expected numbers of the prompt SNe Ia ($N_{\rm pIa, exp}$) and CC
679: SNe ($N_{\rm CC, exp}$) are shown. The last column shows the mean of
680: $\sigma_{t_{\rm Ia}}$ of galaxies in a time bin, where $\sigma_{t_{\rm
681: Ia}}$ is the standard deviation of the probability distribution of
682: $t_{\rm Ia}$ in a galaxy.}
683: \begin{center}
684: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
685: \hline
686: \hline
687: $t_{\rm Ia}$ bin [Gyr] & DTD $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$ \ \ & $N_{\rm gal}$ \ \ &
688: $N_{\rm obs}$ \ \ & $N_{\rm pIa, exp} \ \ $
689: & $N_{\rm CC, exp}$ \ \ & $\langle \sigma_{t_{\rm Ia}} \rangle $ [Gyr] \\
690: \hline
691: 0.1--0.25 & $2.89^{+1.60}_{-1.20}$ & 3719 & 12 & 1.0 & 2.7 & 0.05 \\
692: 0.25--0.5 & $1.98^{+0.96}_{-0.73}$ & 3086 & 14 & 0.92 & 3.1 & 0.14 \\
693: 0.5--1.0 & $0.84^{+0.30}_{-0.24}$ & 4260 & 19 & 0.88 & 3.0 & 0.30 \\
694: 1.0--2.0 & $0.49^{+0.17}_{-0.13}$ & 4764 & 19 & 0.66 & 2.3 & 0.50 \\
695: 2.0--4.0 & $0.12^{+0.38}_{-0.12}$ & 564 & 1 & 0.051 & 0.20 & 1.2 \\
696: 4.0--8.0 & $0.00^{+1.08}_{-0.00}$ & 99 & 0 & 0.007 & 0.032 & 2.1 \\
697: \hline
698: \hline
699: \end{tabular}
700: \end{center}
701: \label{table:baseline}
702: \end{table*}
703:
704:
705: The DTD estimated by this simple formulation is shown by open squares
706: in Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_obs}. The error bars are statistical $1\sigma$
707: errors, which are calculated by the confidence limits of the small
708: number Poisson statistics (Gehrels 1986). As mentioned in section
709: \ref{section:old_galaxies}, the normalization by stellar mass has been
710: converted into that by the $K$-band luminosity $L_{K,0}$, i.e., the
711: luminosity at the age of 11 Gyr after passive evolution. The
712: conversion is performed by calculating $M_*/L_{K,0}$ from the SED
713: templates used in the photo-$z$ calculations. For the template of
714: $\tau_{\rm SF} = $ 0.1 Gyr, we find $M_*/L_{K,0} = 1.8 \
715: [M_\odot/L_{K,\odot}$]. Here, we used $(V-K)_\odot = +1.49$ (Cox
716: 2000) and $f_\lambda = 4.17 \times 10^{-11} \ \rm erg \ cm^{-2} s^{-1}
717: \AA^{-1}$ for $K=0$ (Zombeck 2007) in the Vega magnitude system.
718:
719: We assume that the stellar age of nearby elliptical galaxies is 11
720: Gyr, based on the estimates for the SDSS early type galaxies (Barber
721: et al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2007, and see section
722: \ref{section:local_data} for more details). Hence, the observed SN Ia
723: rate per unit $K$ luminosity in nearby elliptical galaxies,
724: $0.035^{+0.013}_{-0.011} (h/0.75)^2 \ {\rm century^{-1}} \
725: (10^{10}L_{K, \odot})^{-1}$ (Mannucci et al. 2005), gives an estimate
726: of $f_D(11 \rm \ Gyr)$, which can directly be compared with our
727: estimates. This value is based on the rate measurement of Cappellaro
728: et al. (1999) assuming $H_0 = $ 75 km/s/Mpc, and it is translated into
729: a value for $h=0.7$ used in this work.
730:
731:
732: \begin{figure}
733: \begin{center}
734: \includegraphics[width=60mm,angle=-90]{dtd_obs.ps}
735: \end{center}
736: \caption{The SNe Ia DTD, $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$, per unit delay
737: time $t_{\rm Ia}$ [century$^{-1}$] for a single starburst
738: population whose total $K$-band luminosity is $10^{10} L_{K, \odot}$
739: at the age of 11 Gyr. The filled squares are the final
740: observational estimates by this work based on the baseline analysis,
741: and the error bars are statistical 1$\sigma$ errors. The open
742: squares are the same but using a simpler method to estimate the
743: delay time. The time bins are the same as those for the filled
744: squares, but the open squares are shifted in time by +0.03 dex in
745: this plot for presentation. The open circle is DTD inferred from
746: the SN Ia rate in elliptical galaxies in the local universe
747: (Mannucci et al. 2005). }
748: \label{fig:dtd_obs}
749: \end{figure}
750:
751:
752: Though these DTD results are derived by simply assuming $t_{\rm Ia} =
753: \langle t_* \rangle$, they are not significantly different from our
754: final results shown by the filled squares (see below), and well
755: described by a power-law, $f_D(t_{\rm Ia}) \propto {t_{\rm
756: Ia}}^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha \sim -1$ in 0.1--11 Gyr. However, to get a
757: more accurate estimate, we make a correction as follows.
758:
759:
760: \subsection{Correction for the Delay Time Estimates}
761:
762: In the above formulation, we simply estimated $t_{\rm Ia}$ of an
763: observed SN Ia by $\langle t_* \rangle$ of its host galaxy. However,
764: in reality, there is a probability distribution of $t_{\rm Ia}$, which
765: is determined by the DTD and star formation history $\psi(t)$, where
766: $t = t_{\rm ga} - t_{\rm Ia}$ is the time elapsed from the beginning
767: of star formation in the host galaxy. The expectation value of the Ia
768: delay time, $\langle t_{\rm Ia} \rangle$, is exactly the same as
769: $\langle t_* \rangle$ only when $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$ is constant against
770: $t_{\rm Ia}$. The expectation value is generally given by:
771: \begin{eqnarray}
772: \langle t_{\rm Ia} \rangle = \frac{\int_0^{t_{\rm ga}}
773: \ t_{\rm Ia}
774: \ \psi(t_{\rm ga} - t_{\rm Ia})
775: \ f_D(t_{\rm Ia}) \ dt_{\rm Ia} }{ \int_0^{t_{\rm ga}}
776: \ \psi(t_{\rm ga} - t_{\rm Ia}) \ f_D(t_{\rm Ia}) \ dt_{\rm Ia} } \ .
777: \label{eq:t_Ia}
778: \end{eqnarray}
779: Therefore, a more accurate estimate is obtained by the same
780: formulation but with a summation over galaxies satisfying $t_l \leq
781: \langle t_{\rm Ia} \rangle < t_u$. However, this integration diverges
782: when $t_{\rm Ia} \rightarrow 0$ if $\alpha \leq -1$. The possibility
783: of a significant population of the prompt SNe Ia with $t_{\rm Ia}
784: \lesssim 0.1$ Gyr has been discussed in recent years (Scannapieco \&
785: Bildsten 2005; Mannucci et al. 2006; Sullivan et al. 2006; Aubourg et
786: al. 2007). Such a prompt population may also affect the estimate of
787: the delay time. Therefore, we separate the ``prompt'' population
788: (defined by $t_{\rm Ia} < t_p = 0.1$ Gyr) from the ``delayed''
789: (``tardy'') population ($t_{\rm Ia} \geq t_p$). Then, the DTD of the
790: delayed component can be estimated by a modified version of
791: eq. (\ref{eq:N_SN}),
792: \begin{equation}
793: N_{\rm Ia, exp} + N_{\rm pIa, exp} + N_{\rm CC, exp} = N_{\rm obs} \ ,
794: \end{equation}
795: where $N_{\rm Ia, exp}$ is now for the delayed population and the
796: integration of eq. (\ref{eq:t_Ia}) is from $t_{\rm Ia} = t_p$ to
797: $t_{\rm ga}$. The expected number of the prompt Ia, $N_{\rm pIa,
798: exp}$, can be calculated from SFR in a similar way to get $N_{\rm
799: CC, exp}$, if the integrated DTD at $0 \leq t_{\rm Ia} \leq t_p$ is
800: given.
801:
802: An obvious difficulty in this new formulation is that we need to know
803: the DTD itself beforehand to make a measurement of DTD, because
804: $\langle t_{\rm Ia} \rangle$ and $N_{\rm pIa, exp}$ depend on
805: $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$. In fact, this circularity problem can be solved
806: easily; first we estimate $f_D$ with an initial guess of $f_D(t_{\rm
807: Ia})$, and then we can iterationally repeat this process with the
808: new estimate of $f_D (t_{\rm Ia})$. The first DTD estimate with a
809: constant $f_D$ prior (open squares in Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_obs}) is well
810: described by a power-law ($\propto {t_{\rm Ia}}^\alpha$) at $t_{\rm
811: Ia} \ge t_p$, and hence we assume this form of $f_D$ for the delayed
812: population at the later iterations. For the prompt population, we
813: assume that $f_D$ is constant at $t_{\rm Ia} \leq t_p$ and it is
814: continuously connected to the delayed component at $t_{\rm Ia} = t_p$,
815: for every iteration. This is reasonable from the DTD predictions by
816: the stellar evolution theory (section \ref{section:models}), and the
817: effect of this assumption on the DTD measurement will be examined in
818: section \ref{section:systematics}.
819:
820: We get sufficiently convergent results by just a few iterations of
821: this procedure, and they are shown by filled squares in
822: Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_obs} as our final results. Since we selected old
823: galaxies, $\langle t_* \rangle$ is already a good estimate of $\langle
824: t_{\rm Ia} \rangle$, and this is why the correction is not large. The
825: expected number of the prompt population, $N_{\rm pIa, exp}$, is 3.6
826: for the entire range of $t_{\rm Ia} = $ 0.1--8 Gyr, which is just
827: 5.5\% of the 65 SN candidates. The derived DTD, as well as important
828: quantities such as $N_{\rm pIa, exp}$, $N_{\rm CC, exp}$, and $N_{\rm
829: obs}$, are summarized in Table \ref{table:baseline} for the six time
830: bins in $t_{\rm Ia}$ = 0.1--8 Gyr. The best fit power-law to the
831: measured DTD is $f_D({\rm 1 \ Gyr}) = 0.55^{+0.12}_{-0.11} \ {\rm
832: century^{-1}} (10^{10} L_{K,0,\odot})^{-1}$ and $\alpha =
833: -1.08^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$. Here, we included the data point at $t_{\rm
834: Ia} = 11$ Gyr in the fit.
835:
836:
837:
838: \section{Examination of Systematic Uncertainties}
839: \label{section:systematics}
840:
841: \subsection{Are the SN candidates really SNe Ia?}
842:
843: In our statistical estimation of DTD, it is not necessary to prove that
844: all of the SN candidates are SNe Ia. Since we have already shown that
845: the selected variable objects are tracing the light profile of host
846: galaxies, the majority of them must be SNe Ia or CC SNe. What we need to
847: demonstrate is, then, that about 82\% of the 65 candidates are actually
848: SNe Ia, as inferred from the estimate of $N_{\rm CC, exp} = 11.4$.
849:
850: We first examine the $i'$ band variability magnitude $m_{\rm var, \it
851: i'}$ of the 65 SN candidates, and compare with the brightest
852: magnitude $m_{\rm min, \it i'}$ that is possible for SNe Ia
853: corresponding to the peak luminosity. We calculated this magnitude
854: for each SN candidate assuming the standard type Ia light curve with
855: the mean peak $B$ magnitude used in Oda \& Totani (2005). We find that
856: most (61/65) of the SN candidates have $m_{\rm var, \it i'} > m_{\min,
857: \it i'}$ as expected, and all objects satisfy $m_{\rm var, \it i'}
858: \geq m_{\min, i'} - 0.53$. The four objects with $m_{\rm var, \it i'}
859: < m_{\min, i'}$ are reasonable considering the dispersion of the peak
860: $B$ magnitude of SNe Ia ($\sim$0.4 mag). On the other hand, about half
861: of the SN candidates have the variability magnitudes brighter than
862: $m_{\rm min, \it i'} + 1$, and such variability cannot be explained by
863: CC SNe, because most of them are fainter than SNe Ia by 1--2
864: magnitudes (see e.g., Oda \& Totani 2005).
865:
866: We already made the DTD estimates, and we can predict the expected
867: distribution of redshifts and stellar masses of host galaxies for the SN
868: candidates, because we can calculate the expected number of SNe Ia in
869: each galaxy. Comparison of these expected distributions with those
870: observed provides us with an important consistency check of our DTD
871: estimates. Figure \ref{fig:zM_dist} shows such comparisons, and the
872: predictions based on our final DTD estimates are in nice agreement with
873: the data. In the calculation of the expected redshift and stellar mass
874: distributions, the light curve information of SNe is included through
875: the visibility time. Therefore, we do not expect such an agreement, if
876: our estimate of Ia/CC ratio is wrong or there is a significant
877: contamination from any non-SN objects. In fact, the predicted
878: distributions are in serious contradiction with the data if we assume
879: that all the SN candidates are CC SNe. The agreement between the
880: expected and observed distributions are quantitatively tested by the
881: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and the results are given in Table
882: \ref{table:KS}. Acceptable fits are obtained both for the redshift and
883: stellar mass distributions only when we make an appropriate mix of the
884: delayed/prompt Ia and CC SNe with the relative proportions predicted by
885: our DTD estimates: $N_{\rm exp}$ = 45.2 (delayed Ia), 3.6 (prompt Ia), and
886: 11.4 (CC). These results then give a strong support to the reliability
887: of our DTD estimates.
888:
889:
890: \begin{figure*}
891: \begin{center}
892: \includegraphics[width=70mm,angle=-90]{zM_dist.ps}
893: \end{center}
894: \caption{The cumulative distributions of redshift and stellar mass of
895: host galaxies for the SN candidates. The thick solid lines are the
896: observed distributions of the 65 SN candidates. The dashed and
897: dot-dashed curves are the expected distributions for the delayed ($t_{\rm Ia}
898: \ge$ 0.1 Gyr) and prompt ($t_{\rm Ia} <$ 0.1 Gyr) components of SNe Ia,
899: respectively, and the dotted curve is that for CC SNe. The thin solid
900: curve is our best guess, which is the sum of the three components with
901: the expected numbers in the baseline analysis: $N_{\rm exp} = 45.2$
902: (delayed Ia), 3.6 (prompt Ia), and 11.4 (CC). The results of the
903: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for these distributions are given in Table
904: \ref{table:KS}.} \label{fig:zM_dist}.
905: \end{figure*}
906:
907:
908:
909: \begin{table}
910: \caption{ The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for the redshift
911: and host galaxy stellar mass distributions of the SN candidates. The
912: chance probabilities of getting the observed distributions are
913: shown. (See Fig. \ref{fig:zM_dist} for the graphical presentations of
914: these distributions.) The columns 2--4 show the results when all SNe
915: are assumed to be delayed SNe Ia, prompt SNe Ia, and CC SNe,
916: respectively. The last column shows the results when the three
917: populations are mixed with the expected numbers (45.2, 3.6, and 11.4) in
918: our baseline analysis.}
919: \begin{center}
920: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
921: \hline
922: \hline
923: & delayed Ia & prompt Ia & \ CC \ & \ mix \ \\
924: \hline
925: redshift & 0.07 & 0.81 & 0.05 & 0.40 \\
926: stellar mass & 0.05 & 0.07 & 0.04 & 0.48 \\
927: \hline
928: \hline
929: \end{tabular}
930: \end{center}
931: \label{table:KS}
932: \end{table}
933:
934:
935: It should also be noted that we selected all variable objects
936: associated with the old galaxies with a significant offset from the
937: nuclei. Only 2 objects were removed by AGN-like variability, which is
938: a negligible number compared with the final 65 candidates. Therefore,
939: our DTD measurement gives a conservative upper limits to the true DTD,
940: and the derived DTD would always be overestimates if there was
941: any unknown contamination from non-SN objects.
942:
943: Finally, we repeated our DTD estimates with a more stringent criteria
944: for the old galaxies, $t_{\rm ga} / \tau_{\rm SF} \geq 3.0$, to select
945: more efficiently SNe Ia rather than CC SNe. In this case, the number
946: of the SN candidates is reduced to 44, but now $N_{\rm CC, exp} = 5.4$
947: and $N_{\rm pIa, exp} = 1.6$, and hence the expected Ia
948: (delayed+prompt) fraction is increased to 88\% from 82\% in the
949: baseline analysis. The DTD estimates and the power-law fit in this
950: case are shown in Table \ref{table:systematics} and
951: Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_syst}, and the difference from the baseline results
952: is within the statistical uncertainties. It should be noted that the
953: number of the SN candidates in the shortest bin (0.1--0.25 Gyr) is now
954: only 5, because the possible minimum of mean stellar age is increased to
955: 0.22 Gyr from 0.16 Gyr in the baseline analysis. Therefore, although
956: the DTD value in the shortest time bin shows a larger deviation from
957: the baseline analysis than in other time bins, the statistical
958: uncertainty is quite large.
959:
960:
961: \begin{table*}
962: \caption{ Examination of systematic errors in the DTD measurements.
963: Various DTD results are shown when the analysis method is changed from
964: the baseline analysis. The last two columns show the best-fit power-law
965: DTD, $f_D(t_{\rm Ia}) = f_{D, \rm 1Gyr} (t_{\rm Ia}/{\rm 1 \
966: Gyr})^{\alpha}$. The ``$t_{\rm Ia} = \langle t_* \rangle$'' results are
967: obtained by estimating $t_{\rm Ia}$ simply by mean stellar age $\langle
968: t_* \rangle$ of the host galaxies (open squares in Fig.
969: \ref{fig:dtd_obs}). The ``$t_{\rm ga}/\tau_{\rm SF} \geq 3.0$''
970: results are obtained when a more strict criterion of the old galaxies is
971: applied than the baseline analysis. The ``prompt $\times$2.5'' results
972: are obtained when the fraction of the prompt Ia population is increased
973: by a factor of 2.5 from the baseline analysis. The ``solar $Z$'',
974: ``Chabrier IMF'' and ``KA97'' results are obtained using stellar
975: age and mass
976: estimates with a different metallicity, a different IMF, and a different
977: stellar population synthesis model from the baseline analysis,
978: respectively. The ``$A_V < 0.5$'' results are obtained with a
979: more strict cut about the dust extinction of host galaxies.
980: The ``SN $\pm$0.3 mag'' results are obtained with the SN
981: Ia light curve $\pm 0.3$ mag fainter/brighter than in the baseline
982: analysis. All errors are in statistical 1$\sigma$.} \footnotesize
983: \begin{center}
984: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
985: \hline
986: \hline
987: & \multicolumn{6}{c}{$f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$
988: [century$^{-1}(10^{10} L_{K, 0, \odot})^{-1}$]
989: in $t_{\rm Ia}$ bins [Gyr]} & & \\
990: \cline{2-7}
991: Analysis & 0.1--0.25 & 0.25--0.5 & 0.5--1.0 & 1.0--2.0 & 2.0--4.0
992: & 4.0--8.0 & \ \ \ \ $f_{D, \rm 1Gyr}$ \ \ \ \ & $\alpha$ \\
993: \hline
994: baseline & $2.89^{+1.60}_{-1.20}$ & $1.98^{+0.96}_{-0.73}$ &
995: $0.84^{+0.30}_{-0.24}$ & $0.49^{+0.17}_{-0.13}$ &
996: $0.12^{+0.38}_{-0.12}$ & $0.00^{+1.08}_{-0.00}$ &
997: $0.55^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ & $-1.08^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ \\
998: $t_{\rm Ia} = \langle t_* \rangle$ &
999: $3.12^{+1.64}_{-1.21}$ & $2.87^{+1.26}_{-0.96}$ &
1000: $0.89^{+0.36}_{-0.28}$ & $0.52^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ &
1001: $0.56^{+0.42}_{-0.27}$ & $0.00^{+0.47}_{-0.00}$ &
1002: $0.63^{+0.14}_{-0.12}$ & $-1.09^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ \\
1003: $t_{\rm ga}/\tau_{\rm SF} \geq 3.0$ &
1004: $7.18^{+5.65}_{-3.61}$ & $2.81^{+1.76}_{-1.23}$ &
1005: $0.84^{+0.33}_{-0.26}$ & $0.45^{+0.17}_{-0.13}$ &
1006: $0.17^{+0.47}_{-0.17}$ & $0.00^{+1.19}_{-0.00}$ &
1007: $0.65^{+0.17}_{-0.14}$ & $-1.23^{+0.18}_{-0.17}$ \\
1008: prompt $\times$2.5 & $2.32^{+1.60}_{-1.20}$ & $1.70^{+0.96}_{-0.73}$ &
1009: $0.77^{+0.30}_{-0.24}$ & $0.46^{+0.17}_{-0.13}$ &
1010: $0.11^{+0.38}_{-0.11}$ & $0.00^{+1.07}_{-0.00}$ &
1011: $0.50^{+0.12}_{-0.12}$ & $-1.05^{+0.16}_{-0.15}$ \\
1012: solar $Z$ & $1.64^{+0.81}_{-0.62}$ & $1.65^{+0.84}_{-0.63}$ &
1013: $0.74^{+0.40}_{-0.30}$ & $0.48^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ &
1014: $0.30^{+0.19}_{-0.13}$ & $0.14^{+0.38}_{-0.14}$ &
1015: $0.47^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$ & $-0.92^{+0.15}_{-0.13}$ \\
1016: Chabrier IMF & $3.00^{+1.65}_{-1.23}$ & $2.56^{+1.15}_{-0.89}$ &
1017: $0.93^{+0.34}_{-0.27}$ & $0.40^{+0.17}_{-0.13}$ &
1018: $0.30^{+0.48}_{-0.23}$ & $0.00^{+0.84}_{-0.00}$ &
1019: $0.57^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ & $-1.11^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ \\
1020: KA97 & $6.43^{+2.65}_{-2.08}$ & $4.87^{+1.43}_{-1.18}$ &
1021: $0.87^{+0.55}_{-0.39}$ & $0.36^{+0.25}_{-0.17}$ &
1022: $0.38^{+0.33}_{-0.20}$ & $0.43^{+1.02}_{-0.37}$ &
1023: $0.79^{+0.19}_{-0.16}$ & $-1.27^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$ \\
1024: $A_V < 0.5$ & $3.27^{+2.88}_{-1.97}$ & $2.48^{+1.57}_{-1.15}$ &
1025: $1.00^{+0.47}_{-0.36}$ & $0.59^{+0.20}_{-0.16}$ &
1026: $0.00^{+0.35}_{-0.00}$ & $0.00^{+1.35}_{-0.00}$ &
1027: $0.64^{+0.17}_{-0.16}$ & $-1.16^{+0.17}_{-0.16}$ \\
1028: SN $+0.3$ mag & $3.21^{+1.78}_{-1.34}$ & $2.21^{+1.07}_{-0.82}$ &
1029: $0.94^{+0.34}_{-0.27}$ & $0.54^{+0.18}_{-0.15}$ &
1030: $0.14^{+0.42}_{-0.14}$ & $0.00^{+1.22}_{-0.00}$ &
1031: $0.60^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ & $-1.11^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ \\
1032: SN $-0.3$ mag & $2.58^{+1.44}_{-1.07}$ & $1.75^{+0.85}_{-0.65}$ &
1033: $0.75^{+0.27}_{-0.21}$ & $0.43^{+0.15}_{-0.12}$ &
1034: $0.11^{+0.33}_{-0.11}$ & $0.00^{+0.96}_{-0.00}$ &
1035: $0.50^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$ & $-1.05^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ \\
1036: \hline
1037: \hline
1038: \end{tabular}
1039: \end{center}
1040: \label{table:systematics}
1041: \end{table*}
1042:
1043:
1044:
1045: \begin{figure*}
1046: \begin{center}
1047: \includegraphics[width=100mm,angle=-90]{dtd_syst.ps}
1048: \end{center}
1049: \caption{ The SN Ia DTD $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$ estimated by different
1050: prescriptions from the baseline analysis are shown by lines. The
1051: data points are for the baseline analysis, which are the same as
1052: those in Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_obs}. The labels for the lines are the
1053: same as in Table \ref{table:systematics}, and see this table and
1054: main text for explanations. }
1055: \label{fig:dtd_syst}
1056: \end{figure*}
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060:
1061: \subsection{Estimates of $\langle t_{\rm Ia} \rangle$ and contribution
1062: from the prompt Ia population}
1063: \label{section:syst_tIa}
1064:
1065: In our analysis, the delay time $t_{\rm Ia}$ of each SN candidate has
1066: been estimated simply by the expectation value of $\langle t_{\rm Ia}
1067: \rangle$ from the star formation history of the host galaxy. We have
1068: already shown that the difference between $\langle t_{\rm Ia} \rangle$
1069: and the mean stellar age $\langle t_* \rangle$ is small and does not
1070: seriously affect the final results. However, the probability
1071: distribution of $t_{\rm Ia}$ should have some dispersion around $\langle
1072: t_{\rm Ia} \rangle$, and if this dispersion is larger than the bin width
1073: of the DTD estimate, it could affect the results. The dispersion around
1074: $\langle t_{\rm Ia} \rangle$, $\sigma_{t_{\rm Ia}} = (\langle t_{\rm
1075: Ia}^2 \rangle - \langle t_{\rm Ia} \rangle^2)^{1/2}$ is therefore
1076: calculated for each host galaxy in a similar way to eq. (\ref{eq:t_Ia}),
1077: and their average in a $t_{\rm Ia}$ bin is shown in Table
1078: \ref{table:baseline}. The dispersions are typically about half of the
1079: bin widths, and hence the binning size of our DTD estimates is
1080: appropriate.
1081:
1082: In our baseline analysis, the amount of prompt SNe Ia is calculated by
1083: assuming a constant $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$ at $t_{\rm Ia} \leq t_p$, and in
1084: this case the fraction of the prompt Ia is about 20\% of all SNe Ia
1085: when the DTD is integrated over a range of $t_{\rm Ia} = 0$--11
1086: Gyr. However, since we selected old galaxies, $N_{\rm pIa, exp} = 3.6$
1087: is just 5.5\% of our 65 SN candidates. The expected fraction of prompt
1088: SNe Ia is the largest in the shortest delay time bin (0.1--0.25 Gyr),
1089: but it is still less than 10\% (1.0/12, see Table
1090: \ref{table:baseline}). Therefore, our result will not be seriously
1091: affected by changing the prompt fraction, unless we assume an
1092: extremely higher prompt Ia rate (e.g., by a factor of about 10) than
1093: that assumed in the baseline analysis. We show the results of the DTD
1094: estimate when the prompt Ia population is enhanced by a factor of 2.5
1095: from our baseline analysis in Table \ref{table:systematics} and
1096: Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_syst}. In this case, the prompt fraction in all SNe
1097: Ia integrated over $t_{\rm Ia} = $0--11 Gyr becomes $\sim 50$\%, which
1098: is a typical value discussed in recent papers about prompt SNe Ia
1099: (e.g., Mannucci et al. 2006; Sullivan et al. 2006). Our DTD estimate
1100: for the delayed SNe Ia is not seriously affected.
1101:
1102:
1103: \subsection{Systematic Uncertainties in Stellar Age and Mass}
1104: \label{section:syst_age_mass}
1105:
1106: The estimates of stellar mass and age of the host galaxies are crucial
1107: in our DTD estimates. Since we selected old or passively evolving
1108: galaxies in a relatively bright magnitude range of $m_{i'} \leq 24$,
1109: the estimates are expected to be easier than general studies of
1110: high-$z$ galaxies. However, these estimates may sensitively depend on
1111: e.g. the SF history, IMF, and metallicity assumed in the photometric
1112: redshift calculation. Therefore the systematic uncertainties must be
1113: carefully examined.
1114:
1115: We test several age and mass estimations with different prescriptions
1116: of the photometric redshift calculation as follows. We first try the
1117: two cases of changing metallicity into the solar abundance ($Z=0.02$)
1118: and changing IMF into the Chabrier (2003) IMF, from the baseline
1119: analysis. The choice of the supersolar metallicity ($Z = 0.05$) in the
1120: baseline analysis is motivated by the metallicity estimates of local
1121: early-type galaxies (Barber et al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2007), as
1122: mentioned in \S \ref{section:photo-z}. Recent observations of the
1123: mass-metallicity relation at various redshifts give a further support
1124: to this choice. According to the mass-metallicity relation of Savaglio
1125: et al. (2005) measured for galaxies at a similar redshift range ($0.4
1126: \leq z \leq 1.0$) to our sample, metallicity of the old galaxies
1127: selected in this work is expected to be larger than the solar value,
1128: even when our definition of the stellar mass (integration of SFR) is
1129: taken into account. Therefore our examination in the metallicity range
1130: of $Z$ = (1--2.5) $Z_\odot$ is reasonable to check the systematic
1131: uncertainties in DTD.
1132:
1133: Furthermore, we used a completely different population synthesis model
1134: by Kodama \& Arimoto (1997, hereafter KA97), based on an independent
1135: stellar spectrum library. We used the $M_V= -21.98$ model in the
1136: metallicity-sequence KA97 models as a template. In this model, a gas
1137: infall and galactic wind are taken into account rather than a simple
1138: exponential SFR evolution, and the chemical evolution is solved in a
1139: self consistent manner. This is a model for a local elliptical galaxy,
1140: and the star formation time scale is about $\tau_{\rm SF} \sim$ 0.1
1141: Gyr. We have only one template for the star formation history, and
1142: hence the age estimate is likely to be less accurate than the baseline
1143: analysis, but we can check the dependence on different stellar
1144: population synthesis models as well as on the number of used SF
1145: history templates.
1146:
1147: In Fig. \ref{fig:age_hist}, we show the distribution of $\langle t_*
1148: \rangle / \langle t_* \rangle_{\rm bl}$ and $M_* / M_{*, \rm bl}$ of
1149: the old galaxies, i.e., the ratios of $\langle t_* \rangle$ and $M_*$
1150: estimated by different prescriptions to those in our baseline
1151: analysis. The logarithmic means and standard deviations of these
1152: quantities are tabulated in Table \ref{table:mean_sig_var}. It can be
1153: seen that the means of $\langle t_* \rangle$ are not significantly
1154: changed, and the typical dispersion of $\langle t_* \rangle / \langle
1155: t_* \rangle_{\rm bl}$ is about a factor of two. This means that the
1156: bin width of our DTD measurements is not unreasonably small compared
1157: with the systematic uncertainties. As for stellar masses, systematic
1158: offsets of mean values of $M_* / M_{*, \rm bl}$ from unity can be
1159: seen. However, for the solar $Z$ and the Chabrier IMF cases, these
1160: offsets are considerably reduced when we consider the $K$-band
1161: luminosity at the age of 11 Gyr ($L_{K,0}$) as the mass indicator. The
1162: mass-to-light ratios are $M_*/L_{K,0} = 2.0$ and 1.4
1163: $[M_\odot/L_{K,\odot}]$ for the solar $Z$ and the Chabrier IMF cases,
1164: respectively (1.8 for the baseline analysis),
1165: and hence the effective offsets in $\log_{10} L_{K,0}$
1166: now become 0.056 and $-$0.043, respectively, i.e., less than $\sim
1167: 10$\% difference in DTD estimates. This demonstrates the merit of
1168: using $L_{K,0}$ as the mass indicator to reduce the uncertainties
1169: about stellar mass estimates. On the other hand, $M_*/L_{K,0} = 2.1 \
1170: [M_\odot/L_{K,\odot}]$ for the KA97 model and it cannot compensate the
1171: large offset of $M_*/M_{*, \rm bl}$. This is most likely a result of
1172: the limited SF history template in the estimates using the KA97 model
1173: (only 1 template corresponding to $\tau_{\rm SF} \sim 0.1$ Gyr). It is
1174: expected that the age estimates with a single small value of
1175: $\tau_{\rm SF}$ tend to be underestimate of the true age, and this
1176: trend is in fact seen in the left panel of Fig.
1177: \ref{fig:age_hist}. The underestimate in stellar age would result in
1178: an underestimate in the stellar mass.
1179:
1180:
1181: To examine the sensitivity of our DTD estimates to these uncertainties
1182: of stellar ages and masses, we repeated the DTD estimates but using
1183: $M_*$, $(M_*/L_{K,0})$, and $\langle t_{\rm Ia} \rangle$
1184: calculated with the different prescriptions, and the results are shown
1185: in Table \ref{table:systematics} and Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_syst}. The
1186: change in the DTD is within the statistical 1$\sigma$ errors of the
1187: baseline results for most of the data points. The KA97 model case shows
1188: a large deviation from the baseline analysis at $t_{\rm Ia} \lesssim
1189: 0.5$ Gyr, compared with the other cases. This is probably due to the
1190: age underestimates by a single SF template as discussed above, and we
1191: consider that the baseline results are more reliable than those using
1192: the KA97 model. The data points at $t_{\rm Ia}$ = 0.5--2 Gyr are quite
1193: robust against these tests.
1194:
1195: Furthermore, we calculate $\langle t_* \rangle_{\rm spec}$ and $M_{*,
1196: \rm spec}$ for the old galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts, to
1197: examine the systematic uncertainties in stellar age and mass coming
1198: from the uncertainty about redshift. These are calculated from the
1199: same photometric redshift calculations, but fixing the redshift at the
1200: value known by spectroscopic observations. The results are shown in
1201: Fig. \ref{fig:age_mass_spec}, as the ratios to $\langle t_*
1202: \rangle_{\rm phot}$ and $M_{*, \rm phot}$ obtained by the normal
1203: photometric redshift calculations (i.e., redshift treated as a free
1204: parameter). The logarithmic mean and the standard deviation of these
1205: ratios are shown in Table \ref{table:mean_sig_var}. Many galaxies have
1206: exactly the same value of $\langle t_* \rangle_{\rm spec} = \langle
1207: t_* \rangle_{\rm phot}$ on the age grids of the {\it hyperz} code, and
1208: 73\% of the old galaxies have $\langle t_* \rangle_{\rm spec}$ within
1209: a factor of two from $\langle t_* \rangle_{\rm phot}$. It seems that
1210: these uncertainties are not greater than the others about the
1211: photometric age/mass estimates discussed above.
1212:
1213:
1214: \begin{figure*}
1215: \begin{center}
1216: \includegraphics[width=60mm,angle=-90]{age_hist.ps}
1217: \end{center}
1218: \caption{The histograms of the mean stellar ages $\langle t_* \rangle$
1219: (left) and stellar mass $M_*$ (right)
1220: of the old galaxies
1221: estimated by alternative photometric redshift calculations to the
1222: baseline analysis. They are shown in the ratios to those in the
1223: baseline analysis. The solid and dashed lines are for the cases of
1224: changing to the solar metallicity ($Z = 0.02$) and to the Chabrier IMF,
1225: respectively. The dotted line is for the estimates based on a
1226: completely different model (KA97) of stellar population synthesis.}
1227: \label{fig:age_hist}
1228: \end{figure*}
1229:
1230:
1231: \begin{table*}
1232: \caption{The logarithmic mean and standard deviation of the ratios of
1233: mean stellar age and stellar mass to those in the baseline analysis,
1234: for alternative photometric redshift calculations using
1235: the solar metallicity, the Chabrier IMF, the KA97 galaxy evolution model,
1236: and fixing redshifts at the spectroscopic values.}
1237: \begin{center}
1238: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
1239: \hline \hline
1240: & & solar $Z$ & Chabrier IMF & KA97 & spec \\
1241: \hline
1242: $\log_{10} [\langle t_*\rangle / \langle t_{*} \rangle_{\rm bl}]^*$ & mean
1243: & 0.04 & 0.004 & $-$0.09 & $-$0.11 \\
1244: & sigma & 0.35 & 0.23 & 0.27 & 0.25 \\
1245: $\log_{10} [M_* / M_{*, \rm bl}]^*$ & mean
1246: & 0.10 & $-$0.16 & $-$0.30 & $-$0.02 \\
1247: & sigma & 0.15 & 0.17 & 0.28 & 0.15 \\
1248: \hline \hline
1249: \end{tabular}
1250: \end{center}
1251: { \footnotesize
1252: $^*$These quantities should be replaced by
1253: $\langle t_{*} \rangle_{\rm spec}/\langle t_* \rangle_{\rm phot}$ and
1254: $M_{*, \rm spec} / M_{*, \rm phot}$ for the ``spec'' column.
1255: }
1256: \label{table:mean_sig_var}
1257: \end{table*}
1258:
1259:
1260: \begin{figure*}
1261: \begin{center}
1262: \includegraphics[width=60mm,angle=-90]{age_mass_spec.ps}
1263: \end{center}
1264: \caption{The ``spectroscopic'' mean stellar ages ($\langle t_*
1265: \rangle$) and stellar masses ($M_*$) versus spectroscopic redshifts,
1266: for the old galaxies with available spectroscopic data. See the
1267: main text for the definition of these quantities. They are given as
1268: the ratios to those by the normal photometric redshift calculations.
1269: }
1270: \label{fig:age_mass_spec}
1271: \end{figure*}
1272:
1273:
1274: A caveat in our analysis is that the variety of SF history used in
1275: photo-$z$ calculation is limited. It is computationally impractical to
1276: increase the number of SF history templates by a large factor from
1277: that used in this work (eight). However, the dependence on different
1278: SF histories has partially been tested by the KA97 model case as
1279: described above. We also note that, since we selected old galaxies,
1280: the estimates of mean stellar age are expected to be rather
1281: insensitive to assumed SF histories. What is important for DTD
1282: estimates is the mean stellar ages rather than the details of SF
1283: history, provided that the dispersion of stellar age around the mean
1284: is not greater than the bin width of DTD measurements. This has
1285: already been checked by the calculations of $\langle \sigma_{t_{\rm
1286: Ia}} \rangle$ in section \ref{section:syst_tIa}.
1287:
1288: A considerable fraction of the old galaxies have $A_V > 0.5$ in spite
1289: of low star formation activity, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:i_hist}. It
1290: might be an artifact due to the uncertainties in $A_V$ estimates, but
1291: in that case it would affect the age estimates. Therefore we removed
1292: the old galaxies with $A_V > 0.5$ and repeated the DTD calculations,
1293: which are shown in Table \ref{table:systematics} and
1294: Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_syst}. The number of the SN candidates is reduced to
1295: 48, but the change from the baseline analysis is not significant. The
1296: effect of dust extinction on supernova luminosities will be discussed
1297: in the next subsection.
1298:
1299: We have removed the nuclear region of host galaxies within 1.9 pix
1300: radius in our SN candidate search, and it might induce some biases in
1301: the age estimates if the removed nuclear regions have considerably
1302: different stellar age from the outer regions. The mean fraction of
1303: $i'$ flux within the nuclear region of the old galaxies is 35\% of the
1304: total isophotal flux, and hence the outer regions are more dominant
1305: than the nuclear regions in the photometric redshift calculation.
1306: Figure \ref{fig:images} indicates that most of the old galaxies have
1307: elliptical morphologies, and they are likely to be the ancestors of
1308: the present-day elliptical galaxies (Yamada et al. 2005). It is known
1309: that the radial color gradient of local elliptical galaxies is
1310: explained by metallicity gradient rather than age gradient (Tamura et
1311: al. 2000). The typical metallicity gradient is $d\log Z / d\log r
1312: \sim 0.3$ (Kobayashi \& Arimoto 1999), and the effect of metallicity
1313: gradient has already been tested, at least partially, by the above
1314: examination of the age dependence on metallicity.
1315:
1316:
1317: \subsection{Systematic Uncertainties in Supernova Luminosity}
1318:
1319: The light curves of SNe are essential for calculations of the
1320: visibility time and hence for a rate study. We used the standard light
1321: curves of various supernova types as in Oda \& Totani (2005). However, we
1322: selected SNe Ia in galaxies with old stellar population, and a
1323: systematic trend that SNe Ia in old stellar population are fainter
1324: than those in star forming galaxies by a peak magnitude difference of
1325: $\Delta M_B \sim 0.3$ has been known (Gallagher et al. 2005;
1326: Sullivan et al. 2006).
1327:
1328: Extinction in host galaxies may also change the apparent brightness of
1329: SNe, and hence the effective luminosity. We assumed a low extinction
1330: of $E(B-V) = 0.05$ (or $A_V = 0.155$ for the standard Milky Way
1331: extinction curve) for SNe Ia, which is reasonable for old
1332: galaxies. However, this value is smaller than $\langle A_V \rangle =
1333: 0.31$ of the old galaxies estimated by the photo-$z$ code, though this
1334: value should not naively be taken as the extinction of SN flux, as
1335: mentioned in section \ref{section:formulations}. It should also be
1336: noted that the distribution of old galaxy $A_V$ is strongly peaked at
1337: $A_V = 0$ (Fig. \ref{fig:i_hist}), and the uncertainty in $A_V$
1338: estimate may have resulted in a larger $\langle A_V \rangle$ than the
1339: real value.
1340:
1341: To examine the sensitivity of the DTD estimates to the effective
1342: changes of SN luminosity by these effects, we repeated the DTD
1343: estimates with the SN Ia light curve shifted by $\pm 0.3$ mag, and the
1344: results are shown in Table \ref{table:systematics} and
1345: Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_syst}. The difference from the baseline analysis is
1346: small, and the uncertainty about the SN luminosity or host galaxy
1347: extinction is unlikely to change our main conclusions.
1348:
1349:
1350: \subsection{Uncertainties in the Comparison with the SN Ia Rate of
1351: Local Elliptical Galaxies}
1352: \label{section:local_data}
1353:
1354: We assumed 11 Gyr for the mean age of the local elliptical galaxies
1355: and hence for the data of Mannucci et al. (2005). We have chosen this
1356: value as a mean value of the luminosity-weighted stellar ages of the
1357: early type galaxies at $0.05 \leq z \leq 0.2$ estimated by Jimenez et
1358: al. (2007), based on the MOPED fits to the SDSS spectra. A slightly
1359: smaller but similar age ($\sim$ 9 Gyr) is obtained for the SDSS
1360: luminous red galaxies at $0.15 \leq z \leq 0.4$ (Barber et al. 2007),
1361: when the look back time to the redshift of these galaxies is
1362: corrected. The age dispersion around the mean for these early-type
1363: galaxies is about 2 Gyr, both for the samples of Jimenez et al. and
1364: Barber et al. A systematic uncertainty of $\sim$ 2 Gyr in the 11 Gyr
1365: data point does not significantly affect the conclusion that the DTD
1366: is well described by a power-law. \footnote{Very recently, Gallagher
1367: et al. (2008) reported the age and metallicity estimates for the
1368: elliptical host galaxies of the local SNe Ia, and the ages estimated
1369: by them have a considerably wider distribution than those of Jimenez
1370: et al. (2007) and Barber et al (2007), including a significant
1371: fraction of young galaxies with ages less than 5 Gyr. There is no
1372: difference in the properties of the SN Ia host galaxies and field
1373: elliptical galaxies (Gallagher et al. 2008), indicating that the
1374: age difference comes from some systematic uncertainties in the age
1375: estimates. The origin of the difference is not clear to us, but it
1376: should be noted that the age estimate by Gallagher et al. (2008) is
1377: based on H$\beta$, Fe$\lambda5270$ and Fe$\lambda$4383 indices with
1378: the spectral library including only single-burst stellar population
1379: (SSP). In such analyses, the age estimates are easily affected by a
1380: small amount of recent star formation, and they stated in their
1381: paper that their age estimates should be regarded as lower limits to
1382: the true ages. Their figure 7 shows a strong correlation between
1383: the ages and metallicities especially for galaxies younger than 5
1384: Gyr, indicating an effect of the age-metallicity degeneracy in the
1385: fittings. The estimates by Jimenez et al. (2007) are based on full
1386: spectral information including continuum as well as absorption line
1387: indices, allowing any SF history in 11 time bins.}
1388:
1389:
1390: In the SN Ia rate estimate for the local elliptical galaxies (Mannucci
1391: et al. 2005), very faint SNe Ia with the stretch factor $s < 0.8$ are
1392: included, reflecting the observed trend that SNe Ia found in old
1393: galaxies are subluminous on average (Gallagher et al. 2005; Sullivan
1394: et al. 2006). On the other hand, such subluminous SNe Ia are hardly
1395: detected in flux-limited high-$z$ supernova searches [see, e.g.,
1396: Fig. 11 of Sullivan et al. (2006)]. If the fraction of subluminous SNe
1397: Ia does not evolve with the delay time, we should correct our DTD data
1398: points upward to make an unbiased comparison with the data of Mannucci
1399: et al. (2005). However, the fraction of $s < 0.8$ SNe Ia in local
1400: elliptical galaxies is $\sim$ 30\% [see again Fig. 11 of Sullivan et
1401: al. (2006)], and it does not significantly affect the main conclusions
1402: of this work. Furthermore, since our SN candidate sample is at high
1403: redshift, it mainly probes shorter delay times of $t_{\rm Ia}
1404: \lesssim$ 2 Gyr, and there may not be subluminous SNe Ia with such
1405: short delay times. In this case, the correction discussed here
1406: is not necessary.
1407:
1408:
1409: \section{Implications for the SN Ia Progenitor}
1410: \label{section:models}
1411:
1412: \subsection{the Double-Degenerate Scenario}
1413:
1414: The DTDs predicted by the four different theoretical models
1415: (Ruiz-Lapuente \& Canal 1998; Yungelson \& Livio 2000; Greggio 2005;
1416: Belczynski et al. 2005) based on the DD scenario are shown in Fig.
1417: \ref{fig:dtd_DD} in comparison with the observed DTD data points. The
1418: model curves are normalized at the data point of $t_{\rm Ia} = 11$
1419: Gyr, because the DTD behavior at large delay time is especially
1420: important for this scenario from the theoretical point of view (see
1421: below). However, the normalization should be regarded as a free
1422: parameter and we should compare only DTD shapes between the
1423: observations and the models. It is impressive that the predictions by
1424: different authors are very close, and in excellent agreement with the
1425: observed DTD at $t_{\rm Ia} \gtrsim$ 0.2 Gyr. It is not surprising
1426: that different authors made similar predictions, because it is a
1427: robust and generic prediction of the DD scenario as argued below.
1428:
1429: \begin{figure*}
1430: \begin{center}
1431: \includegraphics[width=100mm,angle=-90]{dtd_DD.ps}
1432: \end{center}
1433: \caption{The observed SN Ia DTD $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$ compared with the
1434: theoretical predictions based on the DD scenario by Ruiz-Lapuente \&
1435: Canal (1998, dotted), Yungelson \& Livio (2000, dot-dashed), Greggio
1436: (2005, solid), and Belczynski et al. (2005, dashed). The data
1437: points are the same as those in Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_obs}. The model
1438: curves are normalized by the DTD data at $t_{\rm Ia}$ = 11 Gyr, but
1439: the normalization is arbitrary and only the DTD shapes should be
1440: compared between the data and models.}
1441: \label{fig:dtd_DD}
1442: \end{figure*}
1443:
1444: A common feature for DTD models based on this scenario is that the
1445: delay time is mainly determined by the time $t_{\rm GW}$ from the
1446: formation of a DD binary (i.e., a binary of two white dwarfs) to a
1447: merger after the angular momentum loss by gravitational wave
1448: radiation, especially in the long delay time range of $t_{\rm Ia}
1449: \gtrsim 1$ Gyr. The general relativity tells us $t_{\rm Ia} \sim
1450: t_{\rm GW} \propto a^4$, where $a$ is the initial separation of the DD
1451: binary. If the separation distribution is given by $f_{\rm sep}(a)
1452: \propto a^\beta$, the DTD should be
1453: \begin{eqnarray}
1454: f_D(t_{\rm Ia}) \ \propto \ f_{\rm sep}(a) \ \frac{da}{dt_{\rm Ia}}
1455: \ \propto \ t_{\rm Ia}^{-(3-\beta)/4} \ ,
1456: \end{eqnarray}
1457: and hence $\alpha = - (3 - \beta) / 4$. It is known that the
1458: distribution of initial binary separation $a_0$ at the time of binary
1459: star formation is approximately flat in $\log a_0$, i.e., $f_{\rm sep,
1460: 0} (a_0) \propto a_0^{-1}$ (Abt 1983). Although there is a
1461: significant change and contraction of binary separations during the
1462: evolution from a binary star formation to a DD binary (e.g., Greggio
1463: 2005), it would be reasonable to assume $\beta \sim -1$ also for the
1464: initial separation of DD binaries. Then we expect $\alpha \sim -1$, as
1465: found in the DTD models based on the DD scenario. Though $\beta$ is
1466: rather uncertain and model-dependent, the dependence of $\alpha$ on
1467: $\beta$ is small. Furthermore, the range of the delay time from 0.1 to
1468: 10 Gyr corresponds to a range of $a$ only by a factor of 3.2.
1469: Therefore, if $a$ is smoothly distributed in this narrow range, we
1470: expect a power-law DTD with $\alpha \sim -1$ in wide and general
1471: conditions. This is a general result applicable to any merging
1472: phenomena triggered by gravitational wave radiation, such as binary
1473: neutron star mergers (Totani 1997), and this is why the DTD models by
1474: different authors are quite similar to each other, especially at large
1475: delay times. The agreement of the measured DTD with this generic
1476: prediction gives a strong support for the DD scenario.
1477:
1478: In Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_DD}, we selected the standard DTD model when a few
1479: models based on the DD scenario are presented by a single author group
1480: [the standard DDS model of Belczynski et al. (2005) and the close-DD
1481: model of Greggio (2005)]. The variation models predict slightly
1482: different value of $\alpha$, but smooth power-law like DTDs are always
1483: common predictions, as expected from the above consideration.
1484:
1485: On the other hand, the difference between the DTD predictions by
1486: different authors becomes bigger at short delay time ($t_{\rm Ia}
1487: \lesssim 0.1$ Gyr), where the delay time is dominated by stellar
1488: evolution time scale rather than $t_{\rm GW}$. There are large
1489: uncertainties in the treatments of stellar evolution in binary
1490: population synthesis, and the discrepancy between some of the DTD models
1491: and the observed data at this short $t_{\rm Ia}$ range is not serious
1492: for the DD scenario.
1493:
1494: It is generally assumed that DD binaries are formed through the common
1495: envelope evolution phase. If, in addition, DD binaries are formed also
1496: from intermediate mass binaries through the classical Roche lobe
1497: outflow phase, DD binaries of this channel with large separations may
1498: affect the late time behavior of the DTD in the DD scenario (De Donder
1499: \& Vanbeveren 2003). In other words, the observed DTD gives some
1500: constraints on the efficiency of DD binary formation via the Roche
1501: lobe outflow phase.
1502:
1503:
1504: \subsection{the Single-Degenerate Scenario}
1505:
1506: The measured DTD is compared with the theoretical models based on the
1507: SD scenario in Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_SD}. Again, the normalization of the
1508: models is arbitrary, and we should compare only the shape of the DTD
1509: function. Here, the theoretical curves are normalized by $\chi^2$
1510: minimization to the data (our own measurements at 0.1--8 Gyr plus the
1511: 11 Gyr data point). In contrast to the DD scenario, the predictions
1512: by this scenario are quite different depending on different
1513: authors. It is common to this scenario that the delay time is
1514: essentially determined by the main-sequence life time of the secondary
1515: star in a binary, because other time scales (e.g., accretion phase
1516: onto the white dwarf) are much shorter. However, the DTD models shown
1517: in this figure are calculated by considerably different methods with a
1518: wide range of complexity.
1519:
1520:
1521: \begin{figure*}
1522: \begin{center}
1523: \includegraphics[width=100mm,angle=-90]{dtd_SD.ps}
1524: \end{center}
1525: \caption{The same as Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_DD}, but for a comparison with
1526: the DTD predictions based on the SD scenario. The red curves are
1527: predictions of Greggio (2005, solid curve), Matteucci et al. (2006,
1528: dotted), and Kobayashi \& Nomoto (2008, dashed), based on analytic
1529: calculations in which the condition for successful SNe Ia is
1530: determined by stellar masses in a binary. The blue curves are
1531: predictions of Ruiz-Lapuente \& Canal (1998, dotted), Yungelson \&
1532: Livio (2000, dot-dashed), Belczynski et al. (2005, dashed), and Meng
1533: et al. (2008, solid), based on binary stellar population synthesis
1534: calculations. The theoretical curves are normalized by $\chi^2$
1535: minimization to the data, and only the DTD functional shapes should
1536: be compared in this plot. } \label{fig:dtd_SD}
1537: \end{figure*}
1538:
1539: The predictions by Matteucci et al. (2006) and the $Z=0.05$ model of
1540: Kobayashi \& Nomoto (2008, hereafter KN08) are close to a simple
1541: power-law, and they are relatively in good agreement with the observed
1542: DTD, compared with other models. However, it should be noted that the
1543: two models are based on the simplest calculations among the models
1544: shown here, though such a simple analytical approach is useful to see
1545: the general behaviors and in applications for e.g., studies of chemical
1546: evolution in galaxies (Kobayashi et al. 1998; Matteucci \& Recchi
1547: 2001; Matteucci et al. 2006; KN08). In these calculations, the
1548: condition for a binary system to evolve to a SN Ia event (i.e., stable
1549: accretion up to the Chandrasekhar mass) is determined by the initial
1550: masses of the primary and secondary stars, regardless of the binary
1551: separation. If the masses are in acceptable ranges, a binary evolves
1552: into a SN Ia with a constant efficiency, and no SN Ia is produced in
1553: other mass ranges. In such a calculation, the DTD shape is determined
1554: by IMF and the distribution of the primary/secondary mass ratio. If
1555: smooth functions are assumed for these, a smooth DTD without a
1556: characteristic scale of $t_{\rm Ia}$ is obtained. However, a constant
1557: SN Ia efficiency within an extended mass range is likely to be an
1558: oversimplification. The SN Ia condition should be determined by the
1559: combination of the stellar masses and binary separation, and it is
1560: natural to expect that there are some characteristic secondary mass
1561: scales preferred for successful SN Ia events, which should appear as
1562: particular time scales in DTD, rather than a power-law like DTD.
1563:
1564: In the KN08 model based on the progenitor model of Hachisu et
1565: al. (1996, 2008a), there are two distinct populations of the
1566: main-sequence donor channel (WD+MS) and the red-giant donor channel
1567: (WD+RG) for short and long delay times, respectively. The relative
1568: abundances of the two are determined empirically by fitting to the
1569: chemical evolution data, rather than by theoretical modeling.
1570: Therefore, the good agreement of the KN08 model with our DTD estimate
1571: may partially be a result of this feedback from other observations,
1572: indicating that our DTD estimate is also consistent with the chemical
1573: evolution data. Though the WD+MS channel is widely considered as the
1574: promising SD progenitor of SNe Ia, some theoretical calculations
1575: indicate that the SN Ia rate by the WD+RG channel is much lower than
1576: that of the WD+MS channel (Yungelson \& Livio 1998; Han \&
1577: Podsiadlowski 2004; Meng et al. 2008, but see also Hachisu et
1578: al. 2008b).
1579:
1580: The SN Ia condition is determined only by stellar masses also in the
1581: standard SD-Chandra model of Greggio (2005), but the mass budget of
1582: accretion up to the Chandrasekhar mass is treated in more detail. An
1583: interesting feature is the sharp drop of DTD at a large delay time of
1584: $\gtrsim 8$ Gyr. SNe Ia with such a large delay time are produced from
1585: binary systems with a small secondary mass. Such a low mass star has
1586: a small envelope mass that can be used for accretion onto its
1587: companion. Therefore, the primary stellar mass must be large enough
1588: to ensure that the initial white dwarf mass is sufficiently massive
1589: and the white dwarf successfully grows to the Chandrasekhar
1590: mass. Consequently, the number of binaries that can evolve to SNe Ia
1591: rapidly decreases with decreasing secondary mass. It seems difficult
1592: to reproduce a single power-law like DTD up to $\sim$10 Gyrs if this
1593: effect is incorporated.
1594:
1595: Finally, predictions of the SG-Ch model of Yungelson \& Livio (2000),
1596: the standard SDS model of Belczynski et al. (2005), the CLS model of
1597: Ruiz-Lapuente \& Canal (1998), and the model of Meng et al. (2008)
1598: ($\alpha_{\rm CE} = 3$ and $Z = 0.03$) are shown, which are based on
1599: detailed calculations of the binary population synthesis, where the
1600: calculations start from the initial conditions including the primary
1601: and secondary stellar masses and the binary separation. There are a
1602: number of parameters and uncertain physical processes in such
1603: calculations, and different conditions for SNe Ia are assumed by
1604: different authors, leading to vastly different DTD
1605: predictions. However, a clear trend is that some characteristic scales
1606: of the delay time appear in the DTD, making the DTD shape more complex
1607: than the simple analytic models. This is reasonable in realistic
1608: conditions, as argued above, and it is theoretically unlikely that a
1609: simple power-law like DTD is obtained in the framework of the SD
1610: scenario\footnote{After we put the first version of this paper on the
1611: preprint server (arXiv:0804.0909v1), Hachisu, Kato, \& Nomoto
1612: (2008b) performed a DTD calculation based on binary population
1613: synthesis incorporating their progenitor model. An important
1614: difference of this calculation from KN08 is that the ratio of the
1615: two evolutionary channels (WD+MS and WD+RG) is calculated
1616: theoretically rather than determined by fitting to observed data.
1617: They found that their DTD prediction is in good agreement with the
1618: data derived here, indicating that there is a viable model parameter
1619: space in the SD scenario. On the other hand, each of the two
1620: channels has a narrow DTD shape similar to the other SD models based on
1621: binary population synthesis, confirming the trend of the SD
1622: predictions. It seems somewhat a fine-tuning that two independent
1623: components form a featureless power-law DTD as a sum, although it
1624: could well happen in the nature. The ratio between the two
1625: components depends on still uncertain physical processes, such as
1626: mass-stripping of secondary stars by wind from accreting white
1627: dwarfs. Further theoretical investigation is important.}.
1628:
1629:
1630:
1631: \section{Conclusions}
1632: \label{section:conclusions}
1633:
1634: \subsection{Summary of This Work}
1635: We measured the delay time distribution (DTD) of type Ia supernovae by
1636: using the statistics of the faint variable objects detected in the
1637: systematic variable object survey performed as a part of the
1638: Subaru/XMM-Newton Deep Survey project.
1639:
1640: Based on photometric redshift calculations using 9 band
1641: ($BVR_ci'z'JK$, 3.6 $\mu$m, and 4.5 $\mu$m) photometries, we selected
1642: 16,492 old galaxies from the SXDS data in the redshift range of $0.4
1643: \leq z \leq 1.2$, by requiring that their SED can be fit by a single
1644: starburst and their ages are significantly greater than the star
1645: formation time scales of the bursts. This selection is essential to
1646: our work, because stellar age is expected to be a good estimator of Ia
1647: delay time in such galaxies. Furthermore, we have two more merits of
1648: this selection: (1) delayed SNe Ia are dominant compared with CC SNe
1649: and prompt SNe Ia, and (2) extinction effect should be small.
1650:
1651: We then selected variable objects
1652: associated with these galaxies but having significant offsets from the
1653: nuclei of galaxies, to remove the contamination of AGNs. We found 65
1654: variable objects, whose locations with respect to their host galaxies
1655: closely trace the profiles of galactic light, and hence the majority
1656: of them must be supernovae. Though we do not have spectroscopic
1657: confirmation of the SN types, we quantitatively demonstrated that the
1658: majority ($\gtrsim$80 \%) of the SN candidates should be SNe Ia, based
1659: on the variability luminosity, redshift distribution, and properties
1660: of the host galaxies.
1661:
1662: Then the DTD in the delay time range of $t_{\rm Ia}$ = 0.1--8 Gyr is
1663: derived by calculating the delay time for each SN Ia candidate from
1664: age and star formation history of host galaxies. Combined with the
1665: observed SN Ia rate in elliptical galaxies in the local universe, we
1666: derive the SN Ia DTD in a range of $t_{\rm Ia} = $ 0.1--11 Gyr, and
1667: found that it can well be described by a simple power-law, $f_D(t_{\rm
1668: Ia}) = 0.55^{+0.12}_{-0.11} (t_{\rm Ia}/{1 \ \rm Gyr})^{\alpha} \
1669: {\rm century}^{-1} (10^{10} L_{K, 0, \odot})^{-1}$ with $\alpha =
1670: -1.08^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$. Here, the DTD function $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$ is
1671: per unit delay time and per unit mass of a single-burst stellar
1672: population, and $L_{K,0}$ ($K$-band luminosity at an age of 11 Gyr) is
1673: used as an observational estimator of the stellar mass. We performed
1674: various tests about the systematic uncertainties in this DTD
1675: measurement, but the changes of DTD estimates are not large enough to
1676: change our main conclusions significantly. We tried a variety of DTD
1677: calculations with different prescriptions as shown in
1678: Fig. \ref{fig:dtd_syst}, but the decreasing trend of $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$
1679: consistent with $f_D(t_{\rm Ia}) \propto t_{\rm Ia}^{-1}$ at $t_{\rm
1680: Ia} \sim $ 0.3--3 Gyr is found in all cases, and the data points at
1681: 0.5--2 Gyr are especially robust against examined systematic
1682: uncertainties.
1683:
1684: The derived DTD at $t_{\rm Ia} \gtrsim$ 0.2 Gyr is in excellent
1685: agreement with the theoretical predictions based on the DD scenario. The
1686: theoretical predictions by different authors are very similar to each
1687: other, and a featureless power-law shape is inevitable consequence of
1688: the general relativity in this scenario. Therefore we consider that the
1689: agreement between the observed and predicted DTDs gives a strong support
1690: to this scenario. It indicates that the major contributor to SNe Ia is
1691: the DD channel for delay times larger than $t_{\rm Ia} \gtrsim 0.1$ Gyr,
1692: although some contribution from other channels cannot be excluded.
1693:
1694: On the other hand, the predictions by the competing SD scenario are
1695: vastly different for different authors. Although the predicted DTDs
1696: based on simple analytical approaches have smooth shapes which are
1697: broadly consistent with our measurement, predictions based on more
1698: detailed binary population synthesis calculations show strong peaks in
1699: the DTD shape, which do not fit the observed DTD. This trend can
1700: naturally be understood; if there is any preferred scale of the
1701: secondary stellar mass for a binary to successfully evolve into a SN
1702: Ia, it should be reflected as a characteristic delay time scale in
1703: this scenario. Therefore we consider that our result does not favor
1704: the SD scenario in general as the major channel to the delayed SN Ia
1705: population ($t_{\rm Ia} \gtrsim$ 0.1 Gyr). However, there are many
1706: degrees of freedom and uncertainties in the theoretical modeling based
1707: on the SD scenario, and it would be premature to reject the SD
1708: scenario simply from our result. Our result should set strong
1709: constraints on the model parameter space if the SD channel is
1710: responsible for the majority of the delayed SNe Ia, and it would be
1711: useful for the future theoretical studies of the SD progenitor
1712: models. It is highly desirable to examine physical effects and
1713: evolutionary paths that are not taken into account in existing models
1714: of binary population synthesis.
1715:
1716:
1717: \subsection{Discussion and Other Implications}
1718:
1719: In the literature, it has occasionally been argued that the SD
1720: scenario is more favored than the DD scenario, but arguments against
1721: the DD scenario are not particularly strong. A merger of two white
1722: dwarfs may result in an accretion induced collapse rather than a SN Ia
1723: (Saio \& Nomoto 1985), but theoretical uncertainties are still quite
1724: large (Piersanti et al. 2003; Yoon et al. 2007). Many binary systems
1725: are proposed as candidates of the SN Ia progenitor in the SD
1726: framework, compared with the observed number of DD binaries having
1727: total masses larger than the Chandrasekhar mass (Parthasarathy et
1728: al. 2007). However, DD binaries are difficult to detect and the
1729: statistics of DD binary searches is not sufficient yet to confirm or
1730: reject the DD scenario (Tovmassian et al. 2004; Geier et al. 2007;
1731: Napiwotzki 2007). There are some implications for the progenitor from
1732: studies of SN Ia remnants (Ruiz-Lapuente et al. 2004; Badenes et
1733: al. 2007; Ihara et al. 2007), or from spectroscopic studies (Leonard
1734: 2007; Patat et al. 2007a, b; Simon et al. 2007) and archival
1735: progenitor searches (Voss \& Nelemans 2008; Nelemans et al. 2008;
1736: Roelofs et al. 2008) for nearby SNe Ia. However, conclusive results
1737: from these methods have not yet been obtained, mainly because of the
1738: limited statistics and theoretical uncertainties.
1739:
1740: Another possibility is the SD sub-Chandra scenario (also known as
1741: helium ignitors or edge-lit detonations), in which white dwarfs
1742: explode as SNe Ia before they reach the Chandrasekhar mass. Since the
1743: required amount of accreting mass is smaller than in the SD Chandra
1744: scenario, binaries with lower secondary masses can more easily evolve
1745: to SNe Ia. This might be useful to overcome the difficulty of the SD
1746: scenario to explain SN Ia rate at $t_{\rm Ia} \gtrsim 10$ Gyr (Greggio
1747: 2005). However, this scenario is currently not popular because
1748: predicted spectra are in serious disagreement with observations
1749: (Hillebrandt \& Niemeyer 2000; Livio 2001).
1750:
1751: Recent studies (Scannapieco \& Bildsten 2005; Sullivan et al. 2006;
1752: Aubourg et al. 2007) have tried to model the DTD by two components:
1753: the prompt component proportional to SFR and the delayed component
1754: proportional to stellar mass (i.e., constant $f_D$). Although our
1755: result does not put a strong constraint on the amount of the prompt
1756: component, a constant $f_D$ seems to be an oversimplification for the
1757: delayed component, since $f_D(t_{\rm Ia})$ at an intermediate delay
1758: time of $t_{\rm Ia} \sim $ 1 Gyr is about 10 times larger than
1759: $f_D({\rm 11 \ Gyr})$. It should be noted that the prompt Ia
1760: population inferred from our data is a considerable fraction ($\sim
1761: 20$\%) of all SNe Ia integrated over $t_{\rm Ia} = $ 0--11 Gyr, if we
1762: make a modest assumption that $f_D (t_{\rm Ia})$ at $t_{\rm Ia} < $
1763: 0.1 Gyr is constant at the value of $f_D({\rm 0.1 \ Gyr})$. Most of
1764: the observed SN Ia rate dependence on galaxy properties can be
1765: reproduced by a DTD similar to those predicted by the DD scenario
1766: (Greggio 2005; Mannucci et al. 2006). The observed enhancement of SN
1767: Ia rate in radio galaxies may require an even higher prompt Ia
1768: fraction than that expected from our data or the DD scenario (Della
1769: Valle et al. 2005; Mannucci et al. 2006), if the enhancement is due to
1770: a recent starburst connected to AGN activity. However, this
1771: interpretation seems to be inconsistent with the fact that no
1772: enhancement of CC SN rate is observed in radio galaxies (Greggio,
1773: Renzini, \& Daddi 2008). The statistics of this enhancement is still
1774: small (2$\sigma$ level), and it must be confirmed by future
1775: observations.
1776:
1777: Recently, Pritchet et al. (2008) reported that DTD proportional to
1778: $t_{\rm Ia}^{-0.5 \pm 0.2}$ is implied based on the SNLS data
1779: (Sullivan et al. 2006), which seems to be inconsistent with our
1780: results. It should be noted that their constraint on DTD is not based
1781: on delay time estimate for each SN Ia, but it is indirectly derived
1782: from the correlation between SN Ia rate per unit galaxy mass (specific
1783: SN Ia rate) and SFR per unit galaxy mass (specific SFR). It is
1784: difficult to estimate how large is the systematic uncertainty in such
1785: an analysis. Especially, low specific SFR galaxies should be treated
1786: with caution. There should be no tight relation between specific SN Ia
1787: rate versus specific SFR in such galaxies; specific SFR could change
1788: significantly by changing SFR with a fixed stellar mass, but specific
1789: SN Ia rate is hardly affected if it is dominated by old stellar
1790: population. This should limit the power of this approach to constrain
1791: DTD. It should also be noted that the stellar mass estimates in
1792: Sullivan et al. (2006) are based on five optical bands
1793: ($u^*g'r'i'z'$), although near-infrared bands are essential to
1794: reliably estimate stellar masses of galaxies. Another important point
1795: is that we obtained a strong constraint on the slope index $\alpha$ by
1796: supportively using the SN Ia rate in nearby elliptical galaxies. If
1797: we fit only our own DTD data, we obtain $\alpha =
1798: -0.92^{+0.30}_{-0.27}$. It is important to combine the nearby rate
1799: data (large $t_{\rm Ia}$) and high-$z$ data (small $t_{\rm Ia}$) to
1800: get a strong constraint on the DTD shape in a wide range of the Ia
1801: delay time.
1802:
1803:
1804: \bigskip
1805:
1806: We would like to thank K. Belczynski, R. Canal, L. Greggio,
1807: F. Matteucci, X. Meng, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, and L. R. Yungelson for
1808: providing numerical data of their DTD models. This work is based in
1809: part on the observations made with the Subaru Telescope operated by
1810: the National Astronomical Observatory, the United Kingdom Infrared
1811: Telescope operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the
1812: Science and Technology Facilities Council of the U.K., and the Spitzer
1813: Space Telescope operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
1814: Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA of the U.S.A. A
1815: part of the optical imaging and spectroscopic data were obtained as a
1816: part of the Supernova Cosmology Project. This work was supported in
1817: part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (19740099, 19035005),
1818: for the 21st Century COE Program ``Center for Diversity and
1819: Universality in Physics'', and for the Global COE Program "The Next
1820: Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence" from the
1821: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).
1822: This work was also supported in part by the Core-to-Core Program
1823: ``International Research Network for Dark Energy'' and the Japan-USA
1824: Bilateral Program of the Japan Society for Promotion of Science
1825: (JSPS).
1826:
1827: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1828:
1829: \item Abt, H.A. 1983, ARA\&A, 21, 343
1830:
1831: \item
1832: Aubourg, E., Tojeiro, R., Jimenez, R.,
1833: Heavens, A.F., Strauss, M. A., Spergel, D. N. 2007,
1834: submitted to ApJL, arXiv:0707.1328v2
1835:
1836: \item
1837: Badenes, C., Hughes, J. P., Bravo, E., \& Langer, N. 2007,
1838: ApJ, 662, 472
1839:
1840: \item Barber, T., Meiksin, A., \& Murphy, T. 2007,
1841: MNRAS, 377, 787
1842:
1843: \item Barris, B. J., \& Tonry, J. L. 2006, ApJ, 637, 427
1844:
1845: \item
1846: Belczynski, K. Bulik, T., \& Ruiter, A. J. 2005, ApJ,
1847: 629, 915
1848:
1849: \item Blanc, G. \& Greggio, L. 2008, New Astron. 13, 606
1850:
1851: \item
1852: Bolzonella, M., Miralles, J.-M., \& Pell, R. 2000, A\&A,
1853: 363, 476
1854:
1855: \item
1856: Botticella, M. T. et al. 2008, A\&A, 479, 49
1857:
1858: \item Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
1859:
1860: \item Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C.,
1861: Kinney, A. L., Koornneef, J., \& Storchi-Bergmann, T. 2000, ApJ,
1862: 533, 682
1863:
1864: \item
1865: Cappellaro, E., Evans, R., \& Turatto, M. 1999, A\&A, 351, 459
1866:
1867: \item Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP,
1868: 115, 763
1869:
1870: \item Cox, A. N. 2000, Allen's Astrophysical Quantities
1871: (4th edition), Springer
1872:
1873:
1874: \item Dahlen, T. et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 189
1875:
1876: \item
1877: Della Valle M., Panagia N., Padovani P., Cappellaro E.,
1878: Mannucci F., Turatto M., 2005, ApJ, 629, 750
1879:
1880: \item
1881: De Donder, E. \& Vanbeveren, D. 2003, New Astron. 8, 817
1882:
1883: \item
1884: F\"orster, F., Wolf, C., Podsiadlowski, Ph., \& Han, Z. 2006,
1885: MNRAS, 368, 1893
1886:
1887: \item
1888: F\"orster, F. \& Schawinski, K. 2008, to appear in MNRAS,
1889: arXiv:0804.4690v2
1890:
1891: \item Furusawa, H. et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 1
1892:
1893: \item Gallagher, J. S., Garnavich, P. M., Berlind,
1894: P., Challis, P., Jha, S., \& Kirshner, R. P. 2005, ApJ, 634, 210
1895:
1896: \item Gallagher, J.S., Garnavich, P.M., Caldwell, N., Kirshner, R. P.,
1897: Jha, S. W., Li, W., Ganeshalingam, M., Filippenko A, V. 2008, to
1898: appear in ApJ, (arXiv:0805.4360v3 [astro-ph])
1899:
1900: \item Gal-Yam, A. \& Maoz, D. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 942
1901:
1902: \item Gal-Yam, A., Maoz, D., Guhathakurta, P.,
1903: \& Filippenko, A. V. 2008, ApJ, 680, 550
1904:
1905: \item Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336
1906:
1907: \item Geier, S., Nesslinger, S., Heber, U., Przybilla, N.,
1908: Napiwotzki, R., \& Kudritzki, R.-P. 2007, A\&A,
1909: 464, 299
1910:
1911: \item
1912: Greggio, L. 2005, A\&A, 441, 1055
1913:
1914: \item
1915: Greggio, L., Renzini, A., \& Daddi, E. 2008, to appear in MNRAS,
1916: arXiv:0805.1512v2
1917:
1918: \item
1919: Hachisu, I., Kato, M., \& Nomoto, K. 1996, ApJ, 470, L97
1920:
1921: \item
1922: Hachisu, I., Kato, M., \& Nomoto, K. 2008a, ApJ, 679, 1390
1923:
1924: \item
1925: Hachisu, I., Kato, M., \& Nomoto, K. 2008b, to appear in ApJ Lett.
1926: (arXiv:0805.2102v1)
1927:
1928: \item Han, Z., \& Podsiadlowski, Ph. 2004, MNRAS,
1929: 350, 1301
1930:
1931: \item Hillebrandt, W., \& Niemeyer, J. C. 2000,
1932: ARA\&A, 38, 191
1933:
1934: \item Iben, I. Jr. \& Tutukov, A. V. 1984, ApJS, 84, 335
1935:
1936: \item Ihara, Y., Ozaki, J., Doi, M., Shigeyama, T., Kashikawa, N.,
1937: Komiyama, K., \& Hattori, T. 2007, PASJ, 59, 811
1938:
1939: \item Ilbert, O. et al. 2006, A\&A, 457, 841
1940:
1941: \item Jimenez, R., Bernardi, M., Haiman, Z., Panter, B., \&
1942: Heavens, A. F. 2007, ApJ, 669, 947
1943:
1944: \item Kelly, P. L., Kirshner, R. P., \& Pahre, M. 2007,
1945: arXiv:0712.0430v1
1946:
1947: \item Kobayashi, C., Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Hachisu, I., \& Kato,
1948: M. 1998, ApJ, 503, L155
1949:
1950: \item Kobayashi, C., \& Arimoto, N. 1999, ApJ, 527, 573
1951:
1952: \item Kobayashi, C., \& Nomoto, K. 2008,
1953: submitted to ApJ (arXiv:0801.0215v1) (KN08)
1954:
1955: \item Kodama, T., \& Arimoto, N., 1997, A\&A, 320, 41 (KA97)
1956:
1957: \item Leonard, D. C. 2007, ApJ,
1958: 670, 1275
1959:
1960: \item Livio, M. 2001,
1961: in ``Supernovae and gamma-ray bursts: the greatest
1962: explosions since the Big Bang'' (eds M. Livio, N. Panagia, K. Sahu),
1963: 334 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge) (arXiv:astro-ph/0005344)
1964:
1965: \item Lonsdale, C. et al. 2004, ApJS,
1966: 154, 54
1967:
1968: \item Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., Panagia, N.,
1969: Cappellaro, E., Cresci, G., Maiolino, R., Petrosian, A., Turatto, M.
1970: 2005, A\&A, 433, 807
1971:
1972: \item Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., \& Panagia, N. 2006,
1973: MNRAS, 370, 773
1974:
1975: \item Maoz, D. \& Gal-Yam, A. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 951
1976:
1977: \item Matteucci, F., \& Recchi, S. 2001, ApJ,
1978: 558, 351
1979:
1980: \item Matteucci, F., Panagia, N.,
1981: Pipino, A., Mannucci, F., Recchi, S., \& Della Valle, M. 2006,
1982: MNRAS, 372, 265
1983:
1984: \item Meng, X., Chen, X., \& Han, Z. 2008,
1985: submitted to MNRAS (arXiv:0802.2471v1)
1986:
1987: \item Morokuma, T. et al. 2008a, ApJ, 676, 167
1988:
1989: \item Morokuma, T. et al. 2008b, ApJ, 676, 121
1990:
1991: \item Napiwotzki, R. 2007, in
1992: ``15th European Workshop on White Dwarfs''
1993: (eds. R. Napiwotzki and M.R. Burleigh), 387 (ASP Conference Series
1994: Vol. 372, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, 2007)
1995:
1996: \item Nelemans, G., Voss, R., Roelofs, G., \& Bassa, C. 2008,
1997: to appear in MNRAS (arXiv:0802.2239v2)
1998:
1999: \item
2000: Neill, J. D. et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1126
2001:
2002: \item Nomoto, K. 1982, ApJ, 253, 798
2003:
2004: \item Nomoto, K., Iwamoto, K., \& Kishimoto, N. 1997, Sci, 276, 1378
2005:
2006: \item Oda, T., \& Totani, T. 2005, ApJ, 630, 59
2007:
2008: \item Oda, T., Totani, T., Yasuda, N., Sumi, T., Morokuma, T.,
2009: Doi, M., \& Kosugi, G. 2008, PASJ 60, 169
2010:
2011: \item
2012: Pain, R. et al. 2002, ApJ, 577, 120
2013:
2014: \item Parthasarathy, M., Branch, D. Jeffery, D. J.,
2015: \& Baron, E. 2007, New Astron. Rev. 51, 524
2016:
2017: \item Patat, F. 2007a,
2018: Science, 317, 924
2019:
2020: \item Patat, F. 2007b, A\&A, 474, 931
2021:
2022: \item Perlmutter, S. et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
2023:
2024: \item Piersanti, L., Gagliardi, S. Iben, I. Jr.,
2025: \& Tornamb, A. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1229
2026:
2027: \item Poznanski, D. et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1169
2028:
2029: \item Pritchet, C. J., Howell, D. A., \& Sullivan, M. 2008,
2030: to appear in ApJ Lett., arXiv:0806.3729v1 [astro-ph]
2031:
2032: \item Riess, A. G. et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
2033:
2034: \item
2035: Roelofs, G., Bassa, C., Voss, R., \& Nelemans, G. 2008,
2036: submitted to MNRAS (arXiv:0802.2097v1)
2037:
2038: \item Ruiz-Lapuente, P., \& Canal, R. 1998, ApJ,
2039: 497, L57
2040:
2041: \item Ruiz-Lapuente, P., et al. 2004,
2042: Nature, 431, 1069
2043:
2044: \item Saio, H. \& Nomoto, K. 1985, A\&A,
2045: 150, L21
2046:
2047: \item Savaglio, S. et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 260
2048:
2049: \item
2050: Scannapieco, E., \& Bildsten, L. 2005, ApJ, 629, L85
2051:
2052: \item
2053: S\'ersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de galaxias australes
2054: (Cordoba, Argentina: Observatorio Astronomico)
2055:
2056: \item Simon, J. D. et al., 2007, ApJ, 671, L25
2057:
2058: \item Strolger, L.-G. et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 200;
2059: 635, 1370 (E)
2060:
2061: \item Sullivan, M., et al. 2006,
2062: ApJ, 648, 868
2063:
2064: \item Tamura, N., Kobayashi, C., Arimoto, N., Kodama, T.,
2065: \& Ohta, K. 2000, AJ, 119, 2134
2066:
2067: \item Totani, T. 1997, ApJ, 486, L71
2068:
2069: \item Tovmassian, G. H., Napiwotzki, R., Richer, M. G.,
2070: Stasiska, G., Fullerton, A. W., \& Rauch, T. 2004, ApJ, 616,
2071: 485
2072:
2073: \item Voss, R., \& Nelemans, G. 2008,
2074: Nature, 451, 802
2075:
2076: \item Warren, S. et al. 2007, MNRAS,
2077: 375, 213
2078:
2079: \item Webbink, R. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355
2080:
2081: \item Whelan, J., \& Iben, I. Jr. 1973, ApJ, 186, 1007
2082:
2083: \item Yamada, T. et al. 2005, ApJ,
2084: 634, 861; 659, 862 (E)
2085:
2086: \item Yoon, S.-C., Podsiadlowski, Ph., \& Rosswog, S.
2087: 2007, MNRAS, 380, 933
2088:
2089: \item Yungelson, L., \& Livio, M. 1998, ApJ, 497, 168
2090:
2091: \item Yungelson, L.R., \& Livio, M. 2000, ApJ,
2092: 528, 108
2093:
2094: \item Zombeck, M.V. 2007, Handbook of Space Astronomy and Astrophysics
2095: (3rd edition), Cambridge Univ. Press
2096:
2097:
2098: \end{thebibliography}
2099:
2100:
2101:
2102: %%%%%%%%%%%%% tables %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2103:
2104:
2105:
2106:
2107:
2108:
2109:
2110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figures %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2111:
2112:
2113:
2114:
2115: \end{document}
2116: