1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{/scisoft/latex-style-files/aastex52/aastex}
3: \documentclass[epsfig]{emulateapj}
4:
5: \citestyle{aa}
6: %%\usepackage{lscape}
7:
8: \def\logh{5\,\mbox{log}\,h}
9: \newcommand{\petroratio}{{{\mathcal{R}}_P}}
10: \newcommand{\petroradius}{{{\theta}_P}}
11: \newcommand{\petronumber}{{{N}_P}}
12: \newcommand{\petroratiolim}{{{\mathcal{R}}_{P,\mathrm{lim}}} }
13: \newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\tt #1}}\def\zbootes{$z$Bootes\,}
14:
15: \slugcomment{To Be Submitted to ApJ} \shorttitle{LRG Luminosity Function Evolution to $z\sim0.9$}
16: \shortauthors{Cool et al.}
17:
18:
19:
20: \begin{document} \title{Luminosity Function Constraints on the
21: Evolution of Massive Red Galaxies Since $z\sim0.9$}
22:
23:
24: \author{Richard J. Cool\altaffilmark{1} ,
25: Daniel J. Eisenstein\altaffilmark{1},
26: Xiaohui Fan\altaffilmark{1},
27: Masataka Fukugita\altaffilmark{2}
28: Linhua Jiang\altaffilmark{1},
29: Claudia Maraston\altaffilmark{3}
30: Avery Meiksin\altaffilmark{4}
31: Donald P. Schneider\altaffilmark{5}
32: David A. Wake\altaffilmark{6}
33: }
34: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, 933 N Cherry Avenue, Tucson,
35: AZ 85721;rcool@as.arizona.edu}
36: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of
37: Tokyo, 515 Kashiwa, Kashiwa City, Chiba 2778582, Japan.}
38: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute of Cosmology \& Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 2EG}
39: \altaffiltext{4}{Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, and
40: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory, University of Edinburgh,
41: Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK.}
42: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, The Pennsylvania State
43: University, University Park PA 16802}
44: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics, University of Durham,
45: South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK}
46:
47: \bibliographystyle{astronat}
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50:
51: We measure the evolution of the luminous red galaxy (LRG)
52: luminosity function in the redshift range $0.1<z<0.9$ using samples of galaxies
53: from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey as well as new spectroscopy
54: of high-redshift massive red galaxies. Our high-redshift sample of galaxies
55: is largest spectroscopic sample of massive red galaxies at $z\sim0.9$ collected
56: to date and covers 7 deg$^2$, minimizing the impact of large scale structure
57: on our results. We find that the
58: LRG population has evolved little beyond the passive fading
59: of its stellar populations since $z\sim0.9$. Based on our luminosity
60: function measurements and assuming a non-evolving Salpeter stellar
61: initial mass function, we find that the most massive
62: ($L>3L^*$) red galaxies have grown by less than 50\% (at 99\% confidence),
63: since $z=0.9,$ in stark contrast to the factor of 2-4 growth
64: observed in the $L^*$ red galaxy population over the same epoch. We also
65: investigate the evolution of the average LRG
66: spectrum since $z\sim0.9$ and find the high-redshift composite to
67: be well-described as a passively evolving example of the composite
68: galaxy observed at low-redshift. From spectral fits to the composite spectra, we find
69: at most 5\% of the stellar mass in massive red galaxies may
70: have formed within 1Gyr of $z=0.9$. While $L^*$ red galaxies are
71: clearly assembled at $z<1$, $3L^*$ galaxies appear to be largely in place
72: and evolve little beyond the passive evolution of their stellar populations
73: over the last half of cosmic history.
74:
75:
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78:
79: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD - galaxies: evolution -
80: galaxies: photometry - galaxies: statistics - galaxies: fundamental
81: parameters}
82:
83: \section{Introduction}
84:
85: The favored model for the evolution of galaxies is through the
86: hierarchical merging of smaller satellite galaxies into larger
87: systems.
88: The details of the frequency and efficiency of the merging process
89: are
90: poorly constrained, especially in the densest environments. As the
91: endpoint of the hierarchical merging process, the most massive
92: galaxies are most sensitive to various merger models assumptions
93: and thus offer a strong opportunity to constrain models of galaxy
94: formation and evolution.
95:
96:
97: Observations of the evolution of early-type galaxy stellar populations
98: have shown that the stars in these galaxies formed at
99: $z>2$ and that the galaxies have had little star formation since
100: that epoch
101: \citep{BowerLuceyEllis92,Ellis97,Kodama1998,dePropris1999,Brough2002,Holden2005,Wake2005,Pimbblet2006,Jimenez2006,Bernardi2003a,Bernardi2003b,Bernardi2003c,Bernardi2003d,Glazebrook2004,McCarthy2004,Papovich2005,Thomas2005,Bernardi2006,Cool2006}.
102: While the average population of massive galaxies appears
103: to be quite old and passively evolving, a number of
104: studies have indicated that local massive early-type
105: galaxies show signs of recent star formation activity
106: \citep{Trager2000,Goto2003,Fukugita2004,Balogh2005}. The fraction
107: of early-type galaxies with evidence of recent star formation seems
108: to increase to high redshift and decreases with increasing stellar
109: mass \citep{LeBorgne2005,Caldwell2003,Nelan2005,Clemens2006}.
110:
111:
112: At $z<1$, early-type galaxies form a tight relationship between their
113: rest-frame color and luminosity (the so-called color-magnitude
114: relation or red-sequence of galaxies) wherein more luminous (and
115: hence more massive) galaxies
116: have
117: redder colors then less-massive counterparts
118: \citep{Visvanathan1977,BowerLuceyEllis92,Hogg2004,McIntosh2005,Willmer2006}.
119: The tight dispersion
120: around this relationship implies that, at fixed luminosity,
121: galaxies on
122: the red-sequence share very similar star formations histories.
123: If massive galaxies have undergone any mergers since
124: $z\sim1$, the mergers must have resulted in very little star
125: formation; the addition of even a small fraction of blue stars would
126: result in a larger intrinsic scatter than observed \citep{Cool2006}.
127:
128: The extent to which gas-poor mergers that result in no new star
129: formation
130: are involved in the build-up of massive galaxies is
131: a topic of much current research. While examples of these mergers
132: have been observed at low redshift \citep{Lauer1988,vanDokkum2005,McIntosh2007}
133: and at intermediate redshifts
134: \citep{vanDokkum1999,Bell2006_Gemsmerger,Tran2005,Rines2007,Lotz2008},
135: the extent to which massive galaxies participate in these merger
136: events is controversial. \citet{Bell2006} and \citet{LeFevre2000}
137: estimate that $L^*$ red galaxies experience 0.5-2 major mergers since
138: $z\sim1.0$ based on pair counts of galaxies.
139: \citet{vanDokkum2005}
140: identified galaxies which have likely undergone a recent gas-poor
141: merger based on the presence of diffuse emission extended from the
142: main galaxies and
143: found that 35\% of today's bulge dominated galaxies have
144: experienced a merger with mass ratio greater than 1:4 since $z\sim1$.
145: Based on the very small-scale correlation function of luminous red galaxies
146: from SDSS, \citet{Masjedi2006} concluded that mergers between these
147: very massive systems occur quite rarely at $z\sim0.3$ with
148: rates $<1/160 \, \hbox{Gyr}^{-1}$. \citet{Masjedi2007} calculate
149: that massive early-type galaxies have grown by 1.7\% per Gyr on
150: average since $z\sim0.2$ due to mergers with all other galaxies.
151:
152: Studies based on the number counts of galaxies from COMBO-17,
153: DEEP2, and the NOAO Deep Wide-Field Survey (NDWFS) all
154: agree that the stellar mass averaged all red-galaxies has at least doubled
155: since $z\sim1$
156: \citep{Brown2007,Willmer2006,Bell2004}. While the truncation of star
157: formation in blue galaxies and subsequent passive fading of the
158: stellar populations can explain the growth of $L^*$ galaxies since
159: $z\sim1$, the lack of very massive blue galaxies at redshift of unity
160: \citep{Bell2004} indicates that any evolution of the most massive
161: galaxies must be fueled by mergers of less luminous red-galaxies
162: and not from pure passive evolution of massive star forming galaxies.
163: While red galaxies with $L\approx L^*$ appear to grow substantially
164: since $z\sim1$, results from \citet{Brown2007} indicate that very
165: luminous ($L\gtrsim4L^*$) galaxies have grown
166: by only 25\% since $z\sim1.0$. Similarly, \citet{Wake2006},
167: used a combination of the SDSS and 2dF-SDSS LRG and QSO (2SLAQ)
168: sample to measure the evolution of the massive galaxy luminosity
169: functions to $z=0.6$ and found that at least half of the massive
170: early-type galaxies present at $z=0.2$ must have been well assembled
171: by $z\sim0.6$. These investigations agree with a number of studies
172: which have suggested little or no
173: evolution in the most massive galaxy populations
174: \citep{Lilly1995,Lin1999,Chen2003,Bundy2006,Willmer2006,Cimatti2006}.
175:
176: In this paper, we present new observations of massive red galaxies at
177: $0.7<z<0.9$ and augment it with samples of massive red-sequence
178: galaxies from SDSS in order to quantify the evolution of the massive
179: galaxy luminosity function over half of cosmic history. Our
180: high-redshift spectroscopic survey is unaffected by possible
181: systematic errors from photometric redshifts and covers 7 square
182: degrees,
183: minimizing the effects of cosmic variance due to large-scale galaxy
184: clustering.
185:
186: After describing our galaxy sample selection criteria in \S\ref{sec:sample}, we
187: discuss the construction of our massive red galaxy luminosity functions
188: in
189: \S\ref{sec:lfconst}. In \S\ref{sec:lfanalysis}, we interpret out luminosity function measurements and
190: examine the composite spectrum of massive red galaxies since $z\sim0.9$
191: in \S\ref{sec:coadded_spec}
192: before closing in \S\ref{sec:conclusions}. All magnitudes discussed in the text are AB
193: \citep{Oke1983}. When calculating luminosities and volumes, we
194: use the
195: cosmological world model of $\Omega_m=0.25,
196: \Omega_m+\Omega_{\Lambda}=1$, and $H_{0}$
197: = $100\,h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ \citep{Spergel}. When calculating
198: time, for example when considering the
199: aging of stellar populations, we use $h = 0.7$. All magnitudes are
200: corrected for dust extinction using the dust maps of \citet{SFD}.
201:
202:
203:
204: \section{Sample Construction}
205: \label{sec:sample}
206: \subsection{SDSS Galaxy Sample}
207: \label{sec:sdsssamp}
208: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey
209: \citep[SDSS;][]{york2000,sdssdr6} has imaged $\pi$
210: steradians of the sky in five bands, $ugriz$,
211: \citep{fukugita1996} with a dedicated 2.5m
212: telescope located at Apache Point Observatory
213: \citep{Gunn2006}. Imaging is performed with a CCD
214: mosaic in drift-scan mode \citep{gunn1998} with an
215: effective exposure time of 54s. After images are reduced
216: \citep{lupton2001,stoughton2002,pier2003} and calibrated
217: \citep{hogg2001,smith2002,ivezic2004,Tucker2006},
218: objects are chosen for follow-up spectroscopy using
219: an automated spectroscopic fiber assignment algorithm
220: \citep{blanton2003a}. Two galaxy samples are selected for
221: spectroscopy from SDSS imaging. The MAIN galaxy sample
222: \citep{strauss2002} is a complete, flux-limited ($r<17.77$),
223: sample of galaxies with an average redshift of 0.1.
224: The Luminous Red Galaxy (LRG) sample \citep{Eisenstein2001}
225: selects luminous early-type galaxies out to $z\sim0.5$ with
226: $r<19.5$ using several color-magnitude cuts in $g$, $r$,
227: and $i$. The average redshift of the LRG sample is $\sim0.3$.
228:
229:
230: In addition to its contiguous coverage of the Northern Galactic
231: cap, the SDSS also conducts a deep imaging survey, SDSS Southern
232: Survey, by repeatedly imaging an area on the celestial equator in the
233: Southern Galactic Cap. The data we utilize here includes 300 deg$^2$
234: of imaging that has been observed an average of 20 times and up to
235: 30 times. Objects detected in each observational epoch were matched
236: using a tolerance of 0.5 arcseconds to create the final coadded
237: catalog. The measured photometry from each epoch were combined by
238: converting the reported asinh magnitudes \citep{LGS1999} to flux
239: and then calculating the mean value. Errors on each parameter are
240: reported as the standard deviation of the flux measurements.
241:
242: While the LRG color selection criteria identify massive red galaxies
243: at moderate redshifts, at redshifts below $z\sim0.2$ the LRG
244: color selection becomes too permissive -- under-luminous blue
245: galaxies are
246: allowed into the sample \citep{Eisenstein2001}. In order to
247: construct a sample of galaxies at $0.1<z<0.2$, we thus rely on the
248: MAIN galaxy sample; in this redshift range, the massive galaxies
249: of interest pass the $r<17.77$ flux limit of the MAIN sample.
250: We utilize a simple rest-frame color-luminosity cut, $M_g < -21$
251: and $(g-i)_\mathrm{rest}>2$ to select low-redshift galaxies on
252: the red-sequence. These cuts result in 23,854 LRGs
253: at $0.1<z<0.2$. At $0.2<z<0.4$, the LRG selection provides
254: a clean sample of 46,856 massive red galaxies which we consider our
255: intermediate redshift galaxy sample. Our low- and intermediate-
256: redshift samples clearly have quite different selection functions
257: in their rest-frame colors which must be considered when measuring
258: the evolution between samples; we will address this when we present
259: our luminosity function measurements in \S\ref{sec:lfconst}.
260:
261: \subsection{SDSS Photometry}
262: \label{sec:sdssphot}
263: As described in detail in \citet{stoughton2002}, \citet{strauss2002}, and
264: \citet{blanton2001}, SDSS galaxy photometry is reported using two
265: systems. Each galaxy in SDSS is fit by two seeing-convolved models,
266: a pure \citet{dv1948} model and a pure exponential profile. The
267: best-fitting model in the $r$-band is used to determine the flux of
268: the galaxy in each of the other bands by adjusting the normalization
269: to the model while leaving all other parameters fixed to those
270: derived in the $r$-band. Alternatively, the Petrosian
271: magnitude is defined to be the flux within $2 \petroradius$ where
272: $\petroradius$ is defined to be the radius at which point
273:
274: \begin{equation}
275: \label{petroratio}
276: \petroratio (\theta)\equiv \frac{\left.
277: \int_{0.85 \theta}^{1.25 \theta} d
278: \theta' 2\pi \theta'
279: I(\theta') \right/ \left[\pi(1.25^2 -0.85^2) \theta^2\right]}{\left.
280: \int_0^\theta dr' 2\pi \theta'
281: I(\theta')\right/ [\pi \theta^2]}
282: \end{equation}
283: falls below 0.2. Here, $I(\theta)$ is the azimuthally averaged
284: surface brightness profile of the galaxy. The Petrosian radius
285: is determined in the $r$-band and then applied to each of the
286: other bands. While the Petrosian flux measurement contains a
287: constant fraction of the galaxy's light in the absence of seeing,
288: independent of its size or distance, model magnitudes are
289: unbiased in the absence of color gradients and provide a higher
290: signal-to-noise ratio color measurement than Petrosian colors.
291: As the Petrosian flux aperture is defined based on the shape of
292: the light distribution, it doesn't require measuring the faint,
293: low-surface brightness, isophotes of the galaxy at large radius
294: which is quite difficult with shallow photometry. Throughout this
295: paper, we use model magnitudes when discussing colors of galaxies
296: and Petrosian quantities when calculating luminosities.
297:
298: As has been noted by \citet{Lauer2007}, SDSS photometry of very
299: large ($r_\mathrm{eff} > 10"$) galaxies at low redshift have large
300: systematic differences from measured photometry in the literature.
301: For very large galaxies, the automated photometric pipeline includes
302: galaxy light in the estimation of the local sky background and thus
303: underestimates the total galaxy flux. At $z>0.1$, we expect this
304: effect to play a minimal role and thus perform no correction to our
305: photometry. In order to ensure that this is a valid approach, we
306: simulate 2,000 galaxies at $0.1<z<0.4$ with properties of observed
307: massive early-type galaxies. Specifically, we simulate a $M_r - 5\mathrm{log}h = -22.5$ galaxy
308: with a half-light radius of 12$h^{-1}$ kpc and Sersic parameter of $n=4$.
309: Galaxies were assigned colors assuming
310: a passively evolving simple stellar population (SSP) that was formed in a single burst at $z=3$.
311: For each galaxy, we convolve the
312: simulated postage stamp with the local seeing, apply the flat
313: field, bias, and bad column corrections in reverse, and add it to
314: a raw SDSS image. Each image is then reduced using the standard
315: SDSS PHOTO pipeline. Figure \ref{fig:fakedata} shows the result
316: of this test. We find no significant trend with redshift of the
317: measured flux compared to the total galaxy flux, indicating that
318: our photometry is not biased strongly due to sky subtraction errors.
319: The mean flux ratio found in our simulations, 80\%, is quite close
320: to that expected as the Petrosian flux systematically estimates the
321: total flux of a galaxy with a $n=4$ surface brightness profile
322: to be $\sim 82\%$ of its total flux \citep{Graham2005}. Throughout this work, we use
323: the luminosity derived from the measured Petrosian flux directly,
324: and thus if comparisons are done to luminosity functions based on
325: total flux measurements, care must be taken to account for this
326: systematic effect.
327:
328:
329: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
330:
331: \begin{figure}[h!t]
332: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f1.eps}}
333: \caption{Ratio of reconstructed Petrosian flux to
334: the total galaxy light for 2,000 simulated galaxies with
335: $M_r-5\mathrm{log}h=-22.5$, half-light radii of 12$h^{-1}$kpc, and
336: colors of a passively fading SSP formed at $z=3$. The
337: dark asterisks mark the mean and 1$\sigma$ dispersion of the
338: simulations while the gray points show each of the fake galaxy
339: trials. We find no mean trend in the recovered flux with redshift
340: and thus our galaxies are unaffected by overestimates of the local
341: sky background which lead to underestimated galaxy fluxes for very
342: large galaxies at low redshift. }
343: \label{fig:fakedata}
344: \end{figure}
345: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
346:
347: While Petrosian fluxes are unbiased in the absence of seeing,
348: as a galaxy becomes unresolved, the Petrosian flux will
349: report a systematically smaller fraction of the galaxy light
350: \citep{blanton2001}. Similarly, when working near the detection
351: limit of our imaging, one may worry that a given object only
352: scatters above the detection threshold a fraction of the time; an
353: average flux across many epochs can systematically overestimate the
354: flux of such a source. At $z>0.7$, the sizes of our sample galaxies
355: are approaching the size of the typical SDSS seeing disk and are quite
356: faint relative to typical SDSS applications. To ensure that photometry
357: of these high-redshift galaxies are unbiased, we simulate 10,000
358: galaxies at $z>0.7$ with $M_{r}-5\mathrm{log}h=-21.5$ (corresponding to the
359: faintest galaxies used in our luminosity function calculations in \S\ref{sec:lfconst}),
360: half-light radii of 8$h^{-1}$ kpc, and colors characteristic of a
361: passively fading SSP which formed at $z=3$. Using an identical procedure to
362: that described in \S\ref{sec:sdssphot}, we add simulated images to raw SDSS frames and
363: measure their photometry using PHOTO. We generate 30 realizations
364: of the simulations with the galaxy parameters and positions held
365: constant but allowing the Poisson noise of the fake stamp to vary
366: between realizations. We then coadd the photometric measurements
367: in each fake observation epoch to generate a mock coadded catalog
368: of massive high-redshift galaxies using the same method
369: described in \S\ref{sec:sdsssamp} to generate the SDSS coadded catalog. Figure \ref{fig:petrotest}
370: shows the results of this test for the SDSS $z$-band which is the
371: basis of our high redshift luminosity measurements. The grey points
372: show each galaxy simulated in this experiment while the stars show
373: the mean in bins of input total flux. The mean ratio of Petrosian
374: flux to input total flux is consistent with the ratio
375: of 80\% measured for low-redshift simulations above and thus we do
376: not expect our use of Petrosian quantities when measuring luminosities
377: to bias our results to the flux limit of our survey (shown by the
378: vertical dashed line). Below our selection limit, galaxies become
379: unresolved and the total recovered flux begins to decline.
380:
381:
382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
383: \begin{figure}[!t]
384: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f2.eps}}
385: \caption{Simulation of coadded Petrosian flux
386: measurements in high-redshift photometric data. Each grey point
387: represents the coadded Petrosian flux from 30 realizations measured
388: with the same method used to coadd the individual SDSS photometric
389: epochs to generate our deep photometric catalog. The mean in
390: bins of total flux are shown as stars. Each photometric galaxy has
391: properties of known high-redshift massive galaxies and thus the input
392: flux, color, and size are all correlated -- the faintest galaxies in
393: this figure are also the smallest. We find that galaxies above the
394: $z$-band flux limit (vertical dashed line) are not strongly affected
395: by the seeing disk; the $g$,$r$,and $i$ bands follow similar trends.
396: The horizontal dashed line shows the mean flux ratio measured for
397: low-redshift simulations. }
398: \label{fig:petrotest}
399: \end{figure}
400: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
401:
402:
403:
404:
405: \subsection{High-redshift Galaxy Sample}
406: \label{sec:selection}
407:
408: The 54s exposure time of SDSS imaging is not sufficient to
409: select galaxies at $z\sim0.9$ based on their colors. The added
410: depth of the SDSS Southern Survey, however, allows for the selection
411: of massive galaxies to $z\sim1.0$. Using a similar method
412: utilized to select LRGs at moderate redshifts
413: from SDSS, we employ color cuts in $griz$ to isolate high-redshift
414: LRGs for spectroscopy. In designing this
415: selection, we capitalize on the fact that the strong 4000\AA\,
416: break of
417: early-type galaxies moves through the $i$-band at $0.6<z<1$ resulting
418: in progressively redder $i-z$ colors while the $r-i$ color shows
419: less variation.
420: Figure \ref{fig:selection} illustrates the expected color evolution
421: of massive galaxies at $z>0.5$. The gray scale
422: shows the locus of galaxy colors from the deep
423: SDSS imaging. The solid curves show the expected evolutionary tracks for
424: three different star formation histories; the reddest curve in
425: $r-i$ is a very early-type SED while the bluest track in $r-i$
426: is roughly an early-type spiral (e.g. an Sa) from \citet{bc03}.
427: Galaxies with later spectral types never get comparably red in $r-i$;
428: for comparison, the dot-dashed track shows the color evolution of an Sc type
429: galaxy.
430: The open circles are
431: separated by $\Delta z = 0.1 $ with the break in the color tracks
432: occurring at $z\sim0.7$. Above $z\sim0.7$, the $r-z$ color
433: measures
434: the distance from the turn in the color tracks and thus provides a
435: good estimate of the photometric redshift of early-type galaxies.
436:
437: We construct two regions in this color-color space to select galaxies
438: for deep spectroscopic observations. Similarly to
439: \citet{Eisenstein2001}, we define
440: \begin{equation}
441: c_{\perp} =
442: (r-i)_\mathrm{model} - (g-r)_\mathrm{model}/4 - 0.177 .
443: \label{eqn:cperp}
444: \end{equation}
445: We require every galaxy candidate to satisfy
446: \begin{equation}
447: i_{\mathrm{psf}} - i_{\mathrm{model}} > 0.2 ,
448: \label{eqn:stargal}
449: \end{equation}
450: \begin{equation}
451: 0.15 < c_{\perp} < 1.2
452: \label{eqn:cperpcut}
453: \end{equation}
454: \begin{equation}
455: 0 < (r-i)_\mathrm{model} < 1.7
456: \end{equation}
457: \begin{equation}
458: 0.3 < (i-z)_\mathrm{model}<1.5
459: \end{equation}
460: \begin{equation}
461: 17 < z_{\mathrm{model}} < 20.3
462: \label{eqn:fluxlimit}
463: \end{equation}
464: \begin{equation}
465: 1.5 < (r-z)_\mathrm{model} < 2.5
466: \label{eqn:rz}
467: \end{equation}
468: Here, the magnitude and color subscripts mark if the
469: magnitude was based on SDSS PSF magnitudes or MODEL magnitudes
470: \citep{stoughton2002}. Equation (\ref{eqn:stargal}) limits targets
471: to objects in which at
472: least 20\% of the flux arises outside a central point source to
473: select only
474: extended objects in the SDSS photometry. At
475: $z=0.9$, 1.2 arcseconds (the median seeing of our deep photometry)
476: corresponds to 6.7 $h^{-1}$ kpc, smaller than the typical luminous
477: red galaxy, and thus we do not
478: expect galaxies of interest to be unresolved at $0.7<z<0.9$. The definition
479: of $c_{\perp}$ follows that of \citet{Eisenstein2001} and is designed to be
480: parallel to the low-redshift galaxy locus in $g-r$ versus $r-i$ color-color space;
481: Equation (\ref{eqn:cperpcut}) removes $z<0.45$ interlopers from the sample.
482:
483: %R%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
484: \begin{figure}[hb]
485:
486: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3.0in]{f3.eps}}
487: \caption{\scriptsize Selection of massive red galaxies
488: at $z>0.5$. The greyscale illustrates the observed galaxy locus
489: for galaxies brighter than $z_\mathrm{model}=20.3$ from the SDSS
490: Southern Survey. The three solid tracks show the expected colors of
491: passively fading galaxies from \citet{bc03}. The reddest track in
492: $r-i$ shows the expected colors of a very early-type galaxy and
493: the bluest solid track shows those of an early-type disk galaxy (such as an Sa).
494: The dot-dashed track shows the colors of an Sc type galaxy, for comparison.
495: The tracks are marked by open circles at $\Delta z=0.1$ intervals
496: between redshifts of 0.5 and 1.0; the strong break in the colors
497: occurs at $z \approx 0.7$. The boxed regions illustrate our
498: photometric color selection. As detailed in section \S\ref{sec:selection},
499: galaxies at $i-z>0.6$ are targeted
500: at higher priority than galaxies with $0.3<i-z<0.6$ as the redder
501: galaxies are most likely to reside at $z>0.7$. }
502:
503: \label{fig:selection}
504: \end{figure}
505: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
506: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
507: \begin{figure}[ht]
508: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f4.eps}}
509: \caption{Angular correlation functions for stars and
510: galaxies selected with our high-redshift galaxy color criteria.
511: The galaxy-galaxy correlation function (squares) shows strong
512: clustering on all scales while both the star-star auto-correlation
513: function (asterisks) and star-galaxy cross-correlation function
514: (diamonds) show very little clustering signal on several arcminute
515: scales. If many galaxies were lost from our sample due to being
516: unresolved by our star-galaxy separation, the star-galaxy cross
517: correlation function would mirror that of the galaxy-galaxy
518: auto-correlation function. Thus, the lack of signal at small separations
519: in the star-galaxy cross correlation function indicates we lose,
520: at most, 2\% of our galaxy targets due to our star-galaxy separation errors.}
521:
522: \label{fig:wp}
523: \end{figure}
524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
525:
526:
527: Equations (\ref{eqn:cperpcut}) - (\ref{eqn:rz}) limit our sample to
528: red galaxies at $0.5<z<1.0$ and the flux limit imposed by
529: Equation (\ref{eqn:fluxlimit}) isolates only the most luminous
530: galaxies in this redshift range. We divide our selection into two
531: groups based on their $i-z$ color. Galaxies with
532: $i-z>0.6$ are given higher priority than galaxies with $0.3<i-z<0.6$
533: as the redder
534: subset of galaxies are more likely to lie at $z>0.7$ as shown in
535: Figure \ref{fig:selection}.
536: Based on early observations and data simulations, we found
537: that our redshift success would degrade at fluxes fainter than
538: $z_{\mathrm{model}}=20$. In order to maximize the number of
539: high-quality redshifts obtained,
540: we targeted galaxies at $z_{\mathrm{model}}<20$ at a higher priority
541: than galaxies
542: with $20<z_{\mathrm{model}}<20.3$. After target selection,
543: fibers were allocated to 20\% of the available galaxy candidates
544: in the field.
545:
546:
547:
548:
549: If there are unresolved galaxies that were untargetted with our
550: algorithm, we can quantify this sample bias by comparing the galaxy
551: angular correlation function to the star-galaxy cross correlation
552: function from our targeting data. As the locations of distant
553: galaxies are uncorrelated with Galactic stars, the presence of
554: unresolved galaxies in our star sample will result in an apparent
555: signal in the star-galaxy cross-correlation function due to the
556: correlated galaxy interlopers in the sample. We construct a sample
557: of stars which meet identical selection criteria used to select
558: galaxies with the exception of Equation (\ref{eqn:stargal}).
559: After masking out 2' regions around bright ($r<12$) stars, we count
560: the number of galaxy-galaxy, star-galaxy, and star-star pairs as
561: a function of separation compared to the expected number of pairs
562: derived from a mock catalog of objects over the same area and subject
563: to the same bright star mask. Our spectroscopic observations
564: directly probe the contamination by stars in our galaxy sample; we
565: use this known contamination rate to correct for the dilution of
566: the galaxy-galaxy auto-correlation function arising from the addition
567: of an uncorrelated stellar sample and create the average correlation
568: function shown in Figure \ref{fig:wp}. As expected, the star-star
569: auto-correlation function (asterisks) shows little power on several
570: arcminute scales whereas the galaxy-galaxy auto-correlation (squares)
571: function shows significant clustering. The lack of strong signal
572: in the star-galaxy cross-correlation function implies only a small
573: fraction of galaxies can be lost to the star sample. Based on our
574: measurements, we find that a maximum of 3\% of the star sample
575: can be contributed by interloper galaxies at 99\% confidence.
576: As the average number density of stars in our fields is about 40\%
577: larger than galaxy targets, we find that we lose, at most, 2\%
578: of our galaxy targets due to our star-galaxy separation.
579:
580: \subsection{MMT Spectroscopy Observations and Data Processing}
581:
582: We observed selected galaxies using Hectospec
583: \citep{fabricant1998,fabricant2005,roll1998}, a 300-fiber
584: spectrograph on the 6.5m MMT telescope between Mar 2004 and Oct 2005.
585: Hectospec offers a 1 deg$^2$ field of view and covers
586: from 4000-9000 \AA\, with 6\AA\, resolution. Observations were completed
587: using seven pointings with Hectospec. For each field, approximately half of
588: the fibers were used to target high-redshift massive red galaxy
589: candidates and half were used to measure the faint quasar luminosity
590: function \citep{Jiang2006}. Exposure times varied due to
591: conditions, but each field was observed for an average of 3
592: hours.
593:
594: %R%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
595:
596: \begin{figure}[hb]
597: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.in]{f5.eps}}
598: \caption{ Example of MMT spectra of high-redshift
599: galaxies. Each spectrum has been smoothed by 2 resolution elements for
600: display; the spectra each have resolution of 6\AA. In each panel, vertical
601: lines highlight prominent spectral features to guide the eye. The top panel
602: shows a $z=0.92$ galaxy with moderate signal-to-noise. The strong
603: Ca~$\!${\footnotesize II} H+K absorptions lines and G-band at
604: 4300\AA\, allow for accurate redshift determination even at low
605: signal-to-noise ratio. The middle panel shows a high signal-to-noise
606: ratio $z=0.76$ spectrum and the bottom panels shows a $z=0.82$
607: galaxy with strong Balmer absorption features characteristic of 1
608: Gyr populations. The spectral range plotted was chosen to highlight
609: the key features of our spectra; Hectospec observes considerably
610: further into the blue but those data are generally of quite low
611: signal-to-noise for the high-redshift galaxies studied here. }
612: \label{fig:specexample}
613: \end{figure}
614: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\
615:
616:
617: All Hectospec data were reduced using the HSRED
618: \footnote[1]{http://mizar.as.arizona.edu/hsred/index.html}
619: package which
620: is based
621: upon the SDSS spectroscopic pipeline. Data were flat-fielded using
622: observations of an
623: illuminated screen in the dome to remove pixel-to-pixel sensitivity
624: variations as well as to correct for the strong fringing in the
625: Hectospec
626: CCDs in the red. When possible, spectra of the twilight sky were
627: taken to provide a secondary correction to account for any low-order
628: residuals between fibers after the flat field derived from the dome
629: flat corrections were applied. Wavelength solutions were obtained
630: each night using observations of HeNeAr calibration lamps and the
631: location of strong emission lines in the spectrum of the night sky
632: were used to correct for any drift in the wavelength solution between
633: the observations of the calibration frames and the data frames.
634:
635:
636: Observations of each field included approximately 30 sky fibers which we used
637: to construct the master sky spectrum from each exposure and subtract
638: that from each object spectrum. Additionally, 3-5 photometrically
639: selected F stars were targeted in each field. The extracted
640: spectra of these stars are compared to a grid of \citet{Kurucz}
641: model atmospheres to determine the spectral type of each
642: star. Once we have determined the spectral type of each F star, we
643: measure the average ratio between the observed spectra and the model
644: prediction to determine the global calibration to convert counts
645: pixel$^{-1}$ to ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \mbox{\AA}$^{-1}$. Figure
646: \ref{fig:specexample} shows three fully-processed spectra from this
647: survey.
648:
649: To determine the redshift of each object we compare the observed
650: spectra with stellar, galaxy, and quasar template spectra and
651: choose the template and redshift which minimizes the $\chi^2$
652: between model and data. As many
653: of our spectra have low signal-to-noise ratios, every spectrum is
654: examined by eye to ensure that the fitted redshift was correct. In
655: cases in which the automated routine failed to converge to the
656: correct
657: redshift, a hand-measured redshift is used in its place.
658: Our spectroscopy resulted in redshifts for 470 galaxies at
659: $0.6<z<1.0$ over 7 deg$^2$ and 302 galaxies at $0.7<z<0.9$
660: which will be used in our analysis, here. Figure \ref{fig:colorselect} shows
661: the color distribution of the confirmed galaxies at $0.7<z<0.9$
662: which are used for our luminosity function calculations at high
663: redshift. Of the 890 galaxy candidates
664: that were targeted for spectroscopy, 12\% of the spectra did not
665: result in a redshift measurement.
666:
667: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
668:
669: \begin{figure}[ht]
670: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f6.eps}}
671: %\centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6in]{f6_bw.eps}}
672: \caption{Colors of confirmed galaxies at $0.7<z<0.9$
673: from our MMT spectroscopy. The early-type galaxy color tracks
674: and color selection criteria are as shown in Figure \ref{fig:selection}.
675: The colored points show the
676: location of each of our sample galaxies in this color space; the
677: shape (color) of each point denotes its redshift. Stars (magenta)
678: show $0.70<z<0.75$ galaxies, diamonds (blue) mark $0.75<z<0.80$
679: objects, and the squares (green) and filled circles (red) illustrate
680: $0.80<z<0.85$ and $0.85<z<0.90$ galaxies respectively. The grey
681: dot-dashed lines show the sub-regions of color-color space used to
682: measure the fraction of spectroscopically observed galaxies which
683: were excluded when evolved to our lower-redshift bins. We use this
684: correction factor when bootstrapping to our full photometric sample
685: as described in \S\ref{sec:lfmeasure}.}
686: \label{fig:colorselect}
687: \end{figure}
688: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
689:
690:
691:
692: \section{Luminosity Function Construction}
693: \label{sec:lfconst}
694: \subsection{Calculation of Rest-frame Luminosities}
695: \label{sec:kcorr}
696: In order to compare the populations of massive red galaxies as a function
697: of redshift, we first need to transform the observed photometry
698: to the
699: rest-frame of each galaxy to remove the effects of redshift on the
700: observed properties. A number of approaches
701: have been
702: developed to perform $k$-corrections to the rest-frame system;
703: each approach
704: has its advantages and drawbacks. In order to minimize errors
705: introduced due to errors in the stellar synthesis models used to
706: calculate our $k$-corrections, we consider the rest-frame properties
707: of our galaxies through a modified SDSS filter set. This system,
708: denoted $^{0.3}u^{0.3}g^{0.3}r^{0.3}i^{0.3}z$, consists of the SDSS
709: $ugriz$ filters which have been blueshifted by a redshift
710: of 0.3 similar to the approach used in \citet{Blanton2003},
711: \citet{Cool2006}, and \citet{Wake2006}. In
712: this system, a galaxy at a $z=0.3$ will have a $k$-correction that is
713: independent of its spectral energy distribution and will equal $-2.5
714: \hbox{log}_{10} (1+0.3).$ We choose a shift of 0.3 to draw
715: upon the fact that at $z\sim0.8$ (near the median redshift of
716: our high-redshift galaxy sample), the observed $z$-band probes a
717: similar portion of the spectrum as probed by the $r$-band observing
718: a $z=0.3$ galaxy. In the following sections, we will measure
719: the $M_{^{0.3}r}$ luminosity function of massive galaxies; for
720: comparison, $B-^{0.3}r \approx -0.01$ for an old stellar population.
721: Based on luminosity function fits from
722: \citet{Brown2007}, $M_{^{0.3}r}^*-5\mathrm{log}{h}=-20.3$ and thus our sample
723: focuses on galaxies with $L>3L^*.$ For reference, a $3L^*$ SSP at $z=0.3$
724: which formed its stars at $z=3$ has an approximate stellar mass of $3\times10^{11}M_\odot$.
725:
726:
727: To construct the $k$-corrections for galaxies in each of our
728: samples, we create a grid of evolving and non-evolving SSP
729: at solar metallicity with formation redshifts ranging from 1
730: to 10 from \citet{bc03} based on a \citet{Salpeter} initial mass
731: function (IMF).
732: We find that this set of models adequately span the range of observed
733: colors for all of our galaxies. Each galaxy is assigned a template
734: based on a maximum likelihood comparison of the predicted colors
735: and observed SDSS photometry.
736:
737: While the
738: $k$-corrections based on non-evolving models assume that the
739: underlying stellar population remains unchanged from the observed
740: epoch, our $k+e$ corrections include the
741: passive evolution, normalized to $z=0.3$, of the stellar populations
742: in the galaxies between
743: the observed epoch and the rest-frame redshift. For each galaxy,
744: we use the
745: best fitting SSP to predict the SED the galaxy would have at
746: $z=0.3$; a galaxy fit by a SSP with age $\tau$ will age into a
747: SSP with age $\tau+\Delta\tau(z_0)$ where $\Delta\tau(z_0)$ is the
748: lookback time difference between $z=0.3$ and $z_0$, the observed
749: redshift of the galaxy. We include both
750: types
751: of models in order to compare the affects of passive evolution on the
752: inferred evolution of the luminosity function of massive galaxies
753: since $z\sim0.9$.
754:
755: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
756: \begin{figure}[!t]
757: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f7.eps}}
758: \caption{Redshift success versus the $z$-band flux
759: in a 1.5 arcsecond aperture for two of our targeted fields.
760: The triangles show a high quality mask observed under photometric
761: conditions and excellent ($\approx 0.5$'') seeing. The asterisks
762: show a poor-quality mask affected by clouds and poor seeing
763: leading to degraded success at the faintest fluxes. We correct
764: for this incompleteness in each of our Hectospec fields before
765: computing the luminosity function using low-order fits as show by the
766: dot-dashed lines. The grey histogram illustrates the distribution
767: of fiber magnitudes for all of our spectroscopic targets. The sharp
768: decline in objects at $z_{\mathrm{fiber}}=20.8$ corresponds to our
769: sparser sampling of objects with $z_{\mathrm{model}}>20$. The squares
770: mark the redshift completeness of our full spectroscopic sample.}
771: \label{fig:apercomplete}
772: \end{figure}
773: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
774:
775:
776: \subsection{Luminosity Functions}
777: \label{sec:lfmeasure}
778: Luminosity functions are calculated using the standard
779: $1/V_\mathrm{max}$ method
780: \citep{Schmidt1968}. For each galaxy, we calculate the redshifts
781: at which the galaxy would have been selected and observed in
782: our survey. In this calculation, we utilize the best-fit template
783: chosen when calculating $k$-corrections, as described above,
784: to estimate each galaxy's colors
785: as a function of redshift. Based on these predicted colors, we
786: assign a probability (0 or 1)
787: that a given galaxy would have been selected at each redshift. The maximum
788: available volume is then the integral over the redshift
789: range weighted by the selection probability at each redshift.
790:
791: Each sample is corrected independently for the spectroscopic
792: completeness of the observations. The low-redshift SDSS MAIN and
793: intermediate-redshift SDSS LRG galaxies
794: were corrected to account for the spatially-dependent
795: incompleteness of SDSS spectroscopy.
796: As we have several priority classes in our high-redshift target
797: selection, we must correct our sample with more detail than merely
798: the fraction of the galaxies that received fibers. Instead, we
799: break our sample into four regions in color-magnitude
800: space and calculate the completeness in
801: each region independently. As described in \S2.2, galaxies
802: were given priority based both on their $i-z$ color and
803: $z_\mathrm{model}$ flux. This results in four color-magnitude regions in
804: which we then calculate the photometric completeness by counting
805: the number of photometrically selected galaxies which were given
806: a fiber compared to the number of galaxies in the parent catalog
807: in that color and magnitude bin. Our completeness correction was calculated
808: independently for each of our seven Hectospec fields. In each field, we
809: compare the number of spectroscopically observed objects to the
810: total number of photometric objects within a 2 deg$^2$ square
811: box around the field center when calculating our incompleteness.
812: In doing this, we bootstrap our spectroscopic sample to 9000
813: photometrically selected galaxies over twice the area observed with
814: Hectospec, thus minimizing the effects of cosmic variance on our
815: sample. The inclusion of this photometric sample doesn't change the
816: normalization of the high-redshift luminosity function
817: we measure, but results in smaller errors due to field-to-field
818: variations in the galaxy number counts.
819:
820: Signal-to-noise ratio variations in our high-redshift galaxy
821: spectroscopy result in approximately 12\% of our observed
822: objects with no measurable redshift. In order to correct for
823: this effect, we measure the fraction of observed galaxies with
824: viable
825: redshifts as a function of the $z$-band flux within an 1.5 arcsecond
826: aperture centered on our fiber location to
827: estimate the flux available to the spectroscopic fiber.
828: We then fit this relationship with a low-order polynomial for each
829: Hectospec field and apply the derived correction
830: before calculating the the final luminosity function. Figure
831: \ref{fig:apercomplete} shows an example of this technique on two
832: different fields spanning the full range of data
833: quality. The triangle symbols show the completeness for a
834: field with high signal-to-noise observed under photometric
835: conditions and superb seeing ($\approx0\farcs5$) while the
836: asterisks show a field observed
837: under less photometric conditions. The range in data quality leads
838: to significant completeness variations between each of our
839: spectroscopically observed fields; neglecting this
840: would bias our final inferred luminosity function. The square
841: symbols in the figure show the composite completeness for the full
842: galaxy sample as a function of fiber magnitude.
843:
844: We make a further correction to ensure that the galaxies utilized
845: in the construction of the luminosity function in each redshift
846: bin probe a homogeneous population of objects. Using the
847: best-fit stellar population template derived when calculating
848: the $k+e$-corrections, we estimate the colors
849: of each galaxy as a function of redshift from $z=0.1$ to $z=0.9$.
850: We then require that every galaxy included in our calculation of the
851: luminosity function would have been selected in each of our redshift
852: samples thus ensuring that the population of galaxies we consider at
853: $0.1<z<0.2$ are consistent with galaxies at $0.7<z<0.9$ after the
854: passive evolution of their stellar populations has been included.
855: When bootstrapping to the entire photometric sample of galaxies at
856: high redshift, we grid the $r-i$ versus $i-z$ color-color plane
857: into 12 subsections as shown in Figure \ref{fig:colorselect} and
858: calculate the fraction of galaxies in each subregion that would be
859: excluded based on this criterion. The size of these sub regions was chosen
860: to sample both the $i-z<0.6$ and the $i-z>0.6$ subsamples with similar
861: detail. The final results are not strongly dependent on the
862: exact subregions chosen for this correction.
863:
864: \input{tab1}
865: \input{tab2}
866: %R%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
867: \begin{figure}[b]
868: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3in]{f8.eps}}
869: %\centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=6in]{f8_bw.eps}}
870: \caption{Luminosity function of massive galaxies with
871: only a $k$-correction applied to account for the redshifting of
872: galaxy light. The symbols (color) mark the four redshift bins used
873: : diamonds (black) $0.1<z<0.2$, asterisks (magenta) $0.2<z<0.3$,
874: squares (green) $0.3<z<0.4$, and circles (red) $0.7<z<0.9$.
875: The luminosity functions show the characteristic brightening toward
876: higher redshifts due to the passive aging of stars. We must correct
877: for the passive evolution of stellar populations in order to measure
878: the evolution in the underlying galaxy population. }
879: \label{fig:noevlf}
880: \end{figure}
881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
882:
883:
884:
885: When target selection is based on noisy photometry, the effects
886: of photometric scattering of objects into or out of the nominal
887: color- and flux-limits can be quite significant \citep{Wake2006}.
888: As our high-redshift sample of galaxies is selected from SDSS
889: stacked photometry, we perform an empirical test
890: of this photometric scattering on our sample. Using the full
891: sample of SDSS main galaxies observed at $0.1<z<0.2$ we create
892: a mock sample of $0.7<z<0.9$ galaxies based on the best-fit
893: $k+e$-corrections described in \S\ref{sec:kcorr}. We then subject this mock galaxy
894: sample to representative photometric errors present in our coadded
895: photometric catalog and determine the fraction of mock galaxies that
896: would have been selected in the presence of photometric errors.
897: For galaxies brighter than $z=20$, we find that $\sim2\%$ of
898: selected galaxies have colors that would fall outside our color-cuts
899: but scatter into the sample when photometric errors are included.
900: At fainter magnitudes, $20<z<20.3$, approximately 10\% of the
901: galaxies included in the mock high-redshift galaxy sample have
902: scattered above the survey flux-limit due to photometric errors.
903: When calculating our high-redshift luminosity functions, we include
904: these contamination rates as a statistical weight assigned to each
905: galaxy based on its observed $z$-band flux.
906:
907:
908: %%%%R%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
909: \begin{figure}[b]
910: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f9.eps}}
911: %\centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6in]{f9_bw.eps}}
912: \caption{Luminosity function of massive galaxies after
913: both the redshifting of their spectra and the passive evolution of
914: their stellar populations have been accounted for when calculating
915: galaxy luminosities. The symbols are as described in Figure
916: \ref{fig:noevlf}. We find very little evolution in the number counts
917: of massive galaxies to $z\sim0.9$, indicating that the most massive
918: galaxies have grown little over the latter half of cosmic history. }
919: \label{fig:evlf}
920: \end{figure}
921: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
922:
923:
924: In order to estimate the error on our high-redshift luminosity
925: function measurements, we remove each of our spectroscopic fields
926: (and ancillary photometric data), in turn, from our calculation
927: of the ensemble luminosity function and repeat our calculations;
928: we use the measured variation in the luminosity functions created
929: with this test as an estimate of the large scale structure error
930: on our luminosity function measurements. Similarly, for our
931: SDSS samples, we divide the SDSS survey area into 20 subregions
932: and perform the same experiment. These jack-knife errors are
933: $\sim 25\%$ larger than those based on Poisson errors alone in the
934: lowest-luminosity bins and are comparable to those estimated from
935: counting statistics at the bright end. While subsampling can result
936: in an underestimate of the error if a single large scale feature
937: is present in multiple subfields, the large area surveyed by
938: SDSS at low redshift and the several degree separation between our
939: spectroscopic fields at high-redshift minimize this effect and thus
940: jack-knife errors are a robust estimate of the cosmic variance
941: errors for our samples. Throughout this paper, we utilize the
942: larger of the two errors when doing calculations with our measured
943: luminosity functions.
944:
945: Figure \ref{fig:noevlf} and Table \ref{tab:petro_kcorr} show the non-evolving
946: luminosity function
947: measured from our samples. The symbol (color) denotes the redshift
948: bin : diamonds (black) $0.1<z<0.2$, asterisks (magenta) $0.2<z<0.3$,
949: squares (green) $0.3<z<0.4$, and circles (red) $0.7<z<0.9$.
950: The figure shows a clear separation between each luminosity
951: function with
952: higher-redshift galaxies having higher luminosities (or larger
953: number
954: density). This characteristic behavior is expected due to
955: the passive fading of the stellar populations in these massive red
956: galaxies. We must remove this effect in order to understand any
957: true changes in the underlying population of massive galaxies
958: since $z\sim0.9$. The turnover at low-luminosities is an
959: artifact of the color-selection of these galaxies. As shown in
960: \citet{Eisenstein2001}, the LRG sample selection results in a
961: diagonal cut across the red-sequence at low luminosities which
962: is being reflected here as the turn over at low-luminosities
963: in our luminosity function. This should not be interpreted as a
964: characteristic luminosity of the sample. The luminosity functions
965: of galaxies in our survey are
966: shown in Figure \ref{fig:evlf} and recorded in Table \ref{tab:petro_kecorr}
967: after the effects of evolution are
968: included. After the effects of passive evolution are accounted
969: for, the luminosity functions show little variation between
970: redshift bins. The integrated luminosity densities for both the
971: evolutionary-corrected and $k$-corrected luminosity functions are
972: listed in Table \ref{tab:integrated_ldens}. Analysis of these luminosity
973: functions is the focus of \S\ref{sec:lfanalysis}.
974:
975: \input{tab3}
976:
977:
978:
979: \section{Luminosity Function Analysis}
980: \label{sec:lfanalysis}
981: \subsection{Evolution in the Massive Galaxy Population Since
982: $z\sim0.9$}
983:
984:
985: The agreement between the luminosity function measurements at
986: $0.1<z<0.9$ as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:evlf} indicates that
987: the massive galaxy population has evolved little since $z\sim0.9$.
988: In order to quantify this evolution, we have adopted a similar
989: parameterization to that discussed by \citet{Brown2007}. Instead of
990: measuring the evolution in the total luminosity density contained
991: in massive galaxies, we instead measure the magnitude at which
992: the integrated number density reaches a certain value. As massive galaxies
993: populate the exponential tail of the luminosity distribution,
994: small photometric errors can result in significant errors in the
995: total luminosity density derived. For example, a shift of 3\%
996: in the luminosity threshold corresponds to a 10\% change in the
997: inferred number density of the population. Thus, if the integrated
998: number or luminosity density at a given magnitude is used to measure
999: the evolution of a population, results are quite sensitive to the
1000: magnitude threshold utilized. Here, we use the inverse; we measure
1001: the magnitude at which the integrated number density reaches a threshold
1002: of $10^{-4.5}$ and $10^{-5.0} h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$. These magnitudes
1003: are denoted by $M_{^{0.3}r}(10^{-4.5})$ and $M_{^{0.3}r}(10^{-5.0})$
1004: throughout this discussion.
1005:
1006:
1007: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1008: \begin{figure}[hb]
1009: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3.3in]{f10.eps}}
1010: \caption{The evolution of $M_{^{0.3}r}(10^{-4.5})$
1011: and $M_{^{0.3}r}(10^{-5})$ , the magnitudes at which the integrated
1012: luminosity density reaches values of $10^{-4.5} h^{3}$
1013: Mpc$^{-3}$ (asterisks) and $10^{-5.0} h^{3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ (squares) respectively.
1014: Here, we show the evolution of this parameter if the passive fading of
1015: stellar populations is not removed when calculating galaxy
1016: luminosities. Both measurements show the characteristic brightening
1017: toward higher redshifts. Without removing the luminosity evolution
1018: induced by the passive evolution of stars in these massive galaxies,
1019: the observed trends may be due to both the passive fading of galaxies
1020: over time or the build up in the number density of these galaxies
1021: over cosmic history.}
1022: \label{fig:evmag_nev}
1023: \end{figure}
1024: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1025: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1026: \begin{figure}[!t]
1027: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3in]{f11.eps}}
1028: \caption{The evolution of $M_{^{0.3}r}(10^{-4.5})$,
1029: the magnitude at which the integrated luminosity function reaches
1030: a number density of $10^{-4.5} h^{3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$. This parameter
1031: is used to quantify the evolution of the LRG population as these
1032: galaxies populate the exponential tail of the luminosity function
1033: and small changes to the magnitude threshold chosen may lead to
1034: significant errors when calculating the total number or luminosity
1035: density in these objects. The asterisks show
1036: measurements using the \citet{bc03} stellar templates, the squares
1037: show the derived evolution based on \citet{Maraston2005} models
1038: (see \S\ref{sec:maraston}),
1039: and the diamonds show measurements based on the flux within fixed
1040: $20 h^{-1}$ kpc apertures and \citet{bc03} $k+e$ corrections as described in
1041: \S\ref{sec:aperture}. For
1042: clarity, the \citet{bc03} and \citet{Maraston2005} points have been shifted
1043: by -0.02 and +0.02 in redshift, respectively. None of these samples
1044: shows a strong evolution in the massive galaxy population since
1045: $z=0.9$. The dot-dashed line shows the best fit linear relationship
1046: based upon the \citet{bc03}-derived luminosity functions and the
1047: shaded area shows the 1-$\sigma$ confidence of the fit. The best
1048: fitting slope predicts an evolution of $0.03\pm0.08$ mag between
1049: $z=0$ and $z=1$ and is consistent with no-evolution (shown by the
1050: dotted line).}
1051: \label{fig:evmag_ev}
1052: \end{figure}
1053: %%%\clearpage
1054: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1055:
1056:
1057: In order to measure $M_{^{0.3}r}(10^{-4.5})$ and $M_{^{0.3}r}(10^{-5.0})$,
1058: we fit each of our
1059: luminosity functions with a quadratic polynomial in the logarithm.
1060: We then integrate the best fitting polynomial and determine the
1061: magnitude at which the integrated number density reaches $10^{-4.5}$
1062: and $10^{-5.0} h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$. Error bars were calculated by
1063: repeating this calculation while removing one of our subfields
1064: in turn in the same manner we calculated jack-knife errors on our
1065: luminosity function measurements. The exact form we use to fit the
1066: luminosity function has little effect on our final results. Figure
1067: \ref{fig:evmag_nev} shows the evolution in $M_{^{0.3}r}(10^{-4.5})$
1068: and $M_{^{0.3}r}(10^{-5.0})$ before the passive evolution of
1069: stellar populations is removed from our galaxies and columns (2) and (4)
1070: of Table \ref{tab:evolution_kcorr} reports
1071: these measurements. Columns (2) and (6) of
1072: Table \ref{tab:evolution_kecorr} and Figures \ref{fig:evmag_ev} and
1073: \ref{fig:evmag5_ev} show the same critical magnitudes recalculated
1074: after the affects of passive evolution have been removed from
1075: our galaxy luminosity measurements. In both
1076: figures, the differences between the number density measured in each redshift
1077: bin are significant within our errors. The large area probed by SDSS makes
1078: cosmic variance between the redshift bins smaller than the
1079: observed differences at $0.1<z<0.4$, so large scale structure is unlikely the
1080: cause. We fit the measured critical
1081: magnitudes with a linear evolution with redshift. The best fit
1082: relation is shown as dot-dashed lines in Figures \ref{fig:evmag_ev}
1083: and \ref{fig:evmag5_ev}; the shaded region shows the one sigma
1084: confidence of the fit. Fits to both critical magnitude thresholds
1085: find similar evolution; the critical magnitudes have evolved by
1086: $0.03\pm0.08$ mag between $z=0$ and $z=1$. When fitting this
1087: value, we add systematic floor of 0.02 mag in quadrature
1088: to each magntiude threshold. As shown by the dotted
1089: lines in the figures, the best fit to our data does not rule out
1090: pure passive evolution in the massive galaxy population.
1091:
1092: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1093: \begin{figure}[b]
1094: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3in]{f12.eps}}
1095: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:evmag_ev} except
1096: showing the evolution of $M_{^{0.3}r}(10^{-5.0})$. The best fit
1097: to the $k+e$-corrected luminosity functions based on \citet{bc03}
1098: models is shown, again. The fit here is independently calculated
1099: from the one in Figure \ref{fig:evmag_ev}, but shows the same slope.}
1100: \label{fig:evmag5_ev}
1101: \end{figure}
1102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1103:
1104: \input{tab4}
1105: \input{tab5}a
1106:
1107:
1108: \subsection{Importance of $k$-corrections on the Result}
1109: \label{sec:maraston}
1110:
1111: Central to any study of the rest-frame photometric properties of
1112: extragalactic sources are the $k$-corrections used to convert the
1113: observed quantities to the rest-frame properties of the galaxy.
1114: There are a number of inherent problems with this method, in
1115: particular when applied to the massive galaxies of interest here.
1116: As demonstrated in \citet{Eisenstein2003} and \citet{Cool2006},
1117: popular stellar synthesis models such as \citet{bc03} and PEGASE.2
1118: \citep{Fioc1999} do not
1119: match the spectral properties of LRGs,
1120: especially $\alpha$-element features; LRGs are
1121: $\alpha$-enhanced compared to solar while the synthesis models
1122: do not include non-solar $\alpha$-abundances. Furthermore,
1123: a number of studies \citep[e.g.][]{Eisenstein2001,Wake2006}
1124: demonstrate that the current generation of
1125: stellar synthesis models poorly reconstruct the observed
1126: broad-band colors of galaxies on the red-sequence over
1127: a variety of redshifts.
1128:
1129: To explore the importance of the $k$-correction models on
1130: our inferred
1131: results, we employ a second set of $k$-corrections based on the
1132: \citet{Maraston2005} models provided by C. Maraston (private
1133: communication). These models were created to more accurately
1134: track the colors of massive red galaxies than simple
1135: stellar populations. The spectrum is modeled as a composite
1136: of a metal-rich (2Z$_\odot$) population and a metal poor
1137: (0.005Z$_\odot$) population; the metal-poor population holds 10\%
1138: of the mass in the galaxy.
1139:
1140:
1141: Figure \ref{fig:marastoncompare} shows the expected colors of
1142: a passively fading galaxy from the
1143: the \citet{Maraston2005} and \citet{bc03} models utilized in our
1144: analysis. As shown in the figure, at $z>0.6$, the Maraston
1145: models predict significantly bluer $g-r$ colors, and more
1146: closely follows the observed color locus of galaxies in
1147: our sample. While the $g-r$ and $g-i$ colors of galaxies are
1148: better matched with the \citet{Maraston2005} models, the $r-i$
1149: colors predicted from both templates are systematically bluer
1150: than observed galaxies.
1151:
1152: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1153: \begin{figure}[!t]
1154: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f13.eps}}
1155: \caption{Predicted passively evolving color tracks
1156: from \citet{bc03} (solid line) and a composite stellar population
1157: based on \citet{Maraston2005} models (dot-dashed) as described in
1158: \S\ref{sec:maraston}. The data show the colors of galaxies in our intermediate
1159: and high-redshift samples. The \citet{Maraston2005} models predict
1160: significantly bluer $g-r$ colors at high redshifts which follow
1161: the observed locus of galaxy colors more closely than \citet{bc03}
1162: SSP predictions.}
1163: \label{fig:marastoncompare}
1164: \end{figure}
1165: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1167: \begin{figure}[b]
1168: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3in]{f14.eps}}
1169: %\centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=6in]{f14_bw.eps}}
1170: \caption{Evolution of the massive galaxy luminosity
1171: function using \citet{Maraston2005} models when correcting for
1172: the redshifting of the galaxy spectra and the passive evolution
1173: of their stellar populations. The data points are as in Figure
1174: \ref{fig:noevlf}. The dot-dashed line shows the $0.1<z<0.2$
1175: luminosity function calculated using \citet{bc03} templates for
1176: comparison. We find no strong difference in the inferred evolution
1177: of massive galaxies when different stellar synthesis models are
1178: used. }
1179: \label{fig:marastonlf}
1180: \end{figure}
1181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1182: In order to understand any systematics introduced based on the
1183: stellar synthesis models used, we re-performed our
1184: analysis using the \citet{Maraston2005} models as the basis
1185: for our $k-$ and
1186: $k+e$-corrections. Figure \ref{fig:marastonlf} shows the
1187: result of this analysis compared to the low-redshift luminosity
1188: function derived using Bruzual \& Charlot spectral templates.
1189: The number density of massive galaxies shows
1190: little evolution after the passive evolution of the stellar
1191: evolutions are taken into account regardless of the models used
1192: to perform the $k+e$-corrections as shown in Figures \ref{fig:evmag_ev} and
1193: \ref{fig:evmag5_ev} and columns (4) and (7) in
1194: Table \ref{tab:evolution_kecorr}. There is, however, a net
1195: offset in the measured luminosity of galaxies between the two
1196: methods, so care must be taken that $k$-correction differences
1197: are
1198: accounted for when comparing galaxy samples from differing
1199: analysis techniques. To quantify any difference in the implied
1200: evolution based on these two sets of stellar templates, we plot
1201: both the Bruzual \& Charlot and Maraston derived $M_{^{0.3}r}
1202: (10^{-4.5})$ and $M_{^{0.3}r}
1203: (10^{-5.0})$ in Figures \ref{fig:evmag_ev}, \ref{fig:evmag5_ev}.
1204: In
1205: both data sets, these quantities have only evolved by less than
1206: 0.05 mag since $z\sim0.9$, implying that massive galaxies do
1207: little more
1208: than fade over the latter half of cosmic history.
1209: %
1210:
1211: \subsection{Merger Fraction from $z\sim0.9$}
1212:
1213: \label{sec:merger_constaint}
1214: Following the method
1215: described in \citet{Wake2006}, we construct a toy model for the
1216: merger history of LRGs to constrain
1217: the merger rate of massive red galaxies since $z\sim0.9$.
1218: Using our $0.1<z<0.2$ luminosity function, we create a mock
1219: sample of galaxies and then allow a fixed fraction of them
1220: to have undergone a 1:1 merger since $z=0.9$. We then compare
1221: the luminosity function prediction for this mock sample to the
1222: observed luminosity function to determine the probability that
1223: both were drawn from the same population. Examples of predicted
1224: luminosity functions assuming different merger
1225: fractions are shown with the
1226: high-redshift data in Figure \ref{fig:merger_constraint}.
1227:
1228:
1229: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1230: \begin{figure}[!t]
1231: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3in]{f15.eps}}
1232: %\centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=6in]{f15_bw.eps}}
1233: \caption{Models of the high-redshift luminosity function (points and errorbars).
1234: Each of the solid lines shows a simulation in which our $0.1<z<0.2$ luminosity function
1235: is evolved backward assuming a fixed fraction of the LRGs has doubled its luminosity
1236: through 1:1 mergers between $z\sim0.9$ and $z\sim0.1$. Full details can be found in
1237: \S\ref{sec:merger_constaint}.
1238: Our data are consistent with no growth in the massive red galaxy population since $z\sim0.9$
1239: ;
1240: merger fractions larger than 25\% are ruled out at the 50\% confidence level and merger frac
1241: tions
1242: larger than 40\% are ruled out at the 99\% level. }
1243: \label{fig:merger_constraint}
1244: \end{figure}
1245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1246:
1247:
1248: Our high-redshift luminosity function is best fit by no
1249: merging over the latter half of cosmic history. Merger rates
1250: greater than 25\%
1251: are ruled out with 50\% confidence and merger rates larger than 40\%
1252: are excluded at the 99\% level based on our measured
1253: high-redshift luminosity function. This result agrees with
1254: previous studies based on lower-redshift
1255: data and photometric redshift surveys
1256: \citep{Brown2007,Masjedi2006,Masjedi2007,Wake2006}. If less
1257: massive mergers are considered,
1258: more substantial merger rates are permitted. Performing the
1259: same experiment but instead
1260: considering 1:3 mergers, no merging is still favored, but
1261: rates as high as 40\% are allowed at 50\% confidence and only
1262: merger rates larger than 60\% are ruled out at 99\% confidence.
1263: These rate limits imply the total stellar mass in massive
1264: red galaxies from $z\sim0.9$ must not have grown by more than
1265: 50\% (at 99\% confidence) in order to reproduce the observed
1266: luminosity functions.
1267:
1268: The fact that the most massive red galaxies appear to have evolved very
1269: little beyond the passive aging of their stellar populations since
1270: $z\sim0.9$ is quite interesting. The most massive galaxies reside in
1271: the most massive dark matter halos -- these halos have not remained
1272: static since $z\sim1$. In a standard $\Lambda$CDM universe, the
1273: most massive halos ($M\gtrsim3\times10^{13}M_\odot$) have grown by a factor
1274: of two or three since redshift
1275: of unity \citep{Seo2007, Conroy2007b}; one would naively estimate that the
1276: galaxies that reside in these halos would have grown, as well.
1277:
1278: LRGs at $z=0.3$ are known to reside in dense environments
1279: with mean clustering similar to rich groups
1280: and poor clusters \citep{Zehavi2005}.
1281: The formation and assembly of groups and clusters at $z<1$ would
1282: naturally result in a discrepancy between the stellar
1283: mass growth of the massive central galaxy
1284: and the dark matter halo mass in which it resides. As satellite galaxies are
1285: accreted into the group or cluster halo, these satellites contribute stellar
1286: mass to the total stellar mass of the halo but not to the stellar mass of the
1287: central galaxy. The fact that galaxies with masses
1288: $M>10^{11}M_\odot$ are observed
1289: to reside in a broad range of halo masses \citep{McIntosh2007} may be a natural
1290: outcome of group and cluster formation.
1291:
1292: If the lack of evolution in the number density of LRGs is due to the growth
1293: of clusters rather than the growth of the central LRG, one would expect
1294: to observe multiple LRGs within a single cluster halo. To address this hypothesis, \citet{Ho2007}
1295: performed a
1296: thorough accounting of the number of LRGs which reside in a single halo
1297: in the SDSS dataset and \citet{Conroy2007a} used this multiplicity
1298: function to conclude that there are fewer LRG satellites of other LRG
1299: galaxies than predicted from N-body simulations. Furthermore,
1300: \citet{White2007} noted that the apparent lack of evolution in the
1301: clustering strength of massive galaxies since $z\sim1$ implies that
1302: these galaxies themselves must be merging as the underlying dark
1303: matter distribution has undergone substantial merging during that
1304: epoch. \citet{Wake2008} measure the evolution of
1305: LRG clustering from $z=0.55$ to
1306: $z=0.2$ and find that it is consistent with the idea that LRGs
1307: which originally resided in different halos merged to create a single
1308: galaxy when their host haloes merged.
1309: From the measured clustering of red galaxies in the NDWFS
1310: Bootes field, \citet{White2007} estimate that 1/3 of the LRGs which
1311: are satellites galaxies of another LRG have merged or been destroyed between $z=0.9$
1312: and $z=0.5$.
1313:
1314: One model suggested to explain the deficit of LRG satellites suggests
1315: that the stars from late mergers onto massive
1316: galaxies feed the growth of an intracluster-light (ICL) type of
1317: extended envelope rather than the central galaxy. \citet{Conroy2007b} recently simulated the
1318: dissipationless evolution of galaxies since $z=1$ and find that a
1319: model in which $\gtrsim80\%$ of the stars from merged satellites go
1320: into a low surface brightness extended stellar halo such as an ICL
1321: best predicts measurements of the galaxy stellar mass function and
1322: the observed distribution of ICL and brightest cluster galaxies in
1323: the local universe. If the total stellar content of the most massive
1324: haloes grow considerably at $z<1$ but the accreted stellar content
1325: resides in an extended, diffuse, envelope around the central galaxy,
1326: the total luminosity function of massive galaxies as measured by
1327: our technique would remain unchanged.
1328:
1329: It is clear from our observations that massive red galaxies evolve in a
1330: systematically different manner than $L^*$ red galaxies. While the stellar
1331: mass in $L^*$ red galaxies has doubled since $z=1$, our analysis implies
1332: the mass in the $L>3L^*$ red galaxies has grown, at most, by 50\% over the
1333: same epoch. The growth of clusters and groups, including the intracluster
1334: light, may play a role in shaping the massive end of the red galaxy mass
1335: function while the lower-mass red galaxies are formed through the quenching
1336: of star forming galaxies at low redshifts. Alternatively, if the processes
1337: that govern star formation at the epoch of massive red galaxy formation
1338: are systematically different from those which govern star formation at
1339: $z<1$, our analysis may underestimate the number density evolution in our
1340: sample. In the following section, we explore the impact that an evolving
1341: IMF would have on our analysis.
1342:
1343:
1344: \subsection{Implication in the Presence of an Evolving Initial
1345: Mass Function}
1346: Throughout all of our analyses, the slope of the stellar IMF is held fixed.
1347: While our dataset is not sufficient to constrain any evolution in the
1348: IMF of massive galaxies, if this evolution exists, it can strongly
1349: affect our conclusions.
1350: Local measurements of the IMF show that at $M \gtrsim 1M_\sun$
1351: the IMF follows a power-law ($M/M_\sun \propto M^{-x}$; $x=1.3$) with a
1352: turnover at lower masses \citep{Salpeter,kroupa2001,chabrier2003}.
1353: For this discussion, we will only consider the IMF at $M\gtrsim
1354: 1M_\sun$; lower-mass stars, while contributing significant
1355: stellar mass to the galaxy, do not contribute significantly
1356: to the galaxy luminosity and thus play a negligible
1357: role in the evolution of the M/L ratio compared to variations
1358: in more massive stars. Suggestions of top-heavy IMFs have
1359: been found in environments dominated by violent star-formation
1360: \citep{Rieke1993,mccradey2003,figer1999,stolte2005,maness2007}.
1361: Also, one may expect the IMF to evolve with redshift as
1362: the temperature of the cosmic microwave background
1363: begins to dominate over temperatures
1364: typically found in Galactic prestellar cores \citep{Larson1998}.
1365: Recently, \citet{vandokkum2007} compared the luminosity evolution
1366: of galaxies in clusters at $0.02<z<0.83$, coupled with the
1367: color-evolution of these systems, to test models of IMF evolution
1368: in early-type galaxies. These data prefer a logarithmic slope
1369: of $x=-0.3^{+0.4}_{-0.7}$, considerably flatter than $x=1.3$
1370: derived in the Milky Way disk. Similarly, \citet{dave2007} used
1371: hydro-dynamical models of galaxy formation and observations of the
1372: correlation between galaxy stellar mass and star formation rate
1373: to $z=2$ to suggest that the characteristic mass at which the IMF
1374: turns over, $\hat{M}$, evolves strongly with redshift : $\hat{M}
1375: = 0.5(1+z)^2M_\sun$.
1376:
1377: To explore the importance of the assumed
1378: IMF slope on the inferred density evolution in the LRG population, we
1379: show luminosity evolution tracks predicted using the fits of
1380: \citet{vandokkum2007} for SSPs formed at $z=2.0$ and $z=6.0$
1381: in Figure \ref{fig:imf_ev}; the $B$-band luminosity evolution in each of the three tracks
1382: has been normalized to $z=0.3$. The details
1383: of these models can be found in \citet{vandokkum2007}. Briefly, these tracks
1384: show the expected luminosity evolution given three different IMF slopes using
1385: \citet{Maraston2005} synthesis models and [Fe/H]=0.35.
1386: For slopes shallower than $x=1.3$,
1387: our current passive evolution correction will systematically
1388: undercorrect for the passive fading of stars which will lead to
1389: significant underestimations of the density evolution experienced
1390: by these galaxies. For example, if we underestimate the luminosity
1391: evolution from $z=0.8$ to $z=0.3$ by 0.2 mag, we would conclude that
1392: the massive galaxy population has evolved little since $z=0.8$ when,
1393: in actuality, the number density of these massive systems has grown
1394: by a factor of two. Clearly, more detailed constraints are needed
1395: on the fraction of high mass to low mass stars in these galaxies
1396: in order to place any evolutionary measurement into proper context.
1397:
1398:
1399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1400: \begin{figure}[b]
1401: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3in]{f16.eps}}
1402: \caption{B-band luminosity evolution based on initial mass
1403: functions with different slopes using the fits presented in
1404: \citet{vandokkum2007}. The grey lines show the expected evolution
1405: of an SSP formed at $z=6$ while the black lines show the trends
1406: for $z=2$; all of the tracks have been normalized at $z=0.3$.
1407: If galaxies in our sample have IMF slopes shallower
1408: than the traditional $x=1.3$ \citet{Salpeter} value, we would
1409: underestimate the evolution of galaxies at $z=0.8$ by $\gtrsim0.15$
1410: mag by utilizing synthesis models based on the \citet{Salpeter} IMF.}
1411: \label{fig:imf_ev}
1412: \end{figure}
1413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1414:
1415:
1416:
1417: \subsection{Measurements of Massive Galaxy Luminosity Functions
1418: Using Aperture Luminosities}
1419: \label{sec:aperture}
1420: Comparisons of several recent studies of the evolution of
1421: the red galaxy luminosity function since $z\sim1$ have
1422: revealed a number of possible systematic differences which have
1423: been attributed to differences in the methods used to measure the
1424: total galaxy luminosities. For example, \citet{Brown2007}
1425: find that the stellar mass of the red galaxy population has grown by
1426: of a factor of 2 since $z=1.0$ while results
1427: from DEEP2 suggest growth of a factor of 4 during the same
1428: epoch \citep{Willmer2006,faber2007}. One alternative
1429: is to measure the luminosity of each galaxy in an aperture of fixed
1430: physical size and to study the evolution of the luminosity function
1431: based on this quantity. This method removes the
1432: systematics introduced by comparing analyses
1433: done with fixed angular size aperture or extrapolations to the total
1434: galaxy flux. Furthermore, extrapolations to a total brightness
1435: requires careful treatment of the low surface-brightness outer
1436: isophotes which are quite difficult to photometer without very
1437: deep imaging. It is important to note, however, that
1438: the evolution of the luminosity within a fixed physical aperture size
1439: addresses a slightly different question than
1440: the total
1441: luminosity function; instead of tracking the total contribution
1442: of
1443: starlight, we instead focus on the growth of the stellar mass
1444: only in the inner region of the galaxy. Depending on the
1445: physical
1446: aperture size chosen, these luminosity measurements will not only
1447: be affected by the total starlight in the galaxy but also by the
1448: central concentration. Furthermore, the aperture luminosity
1449: function and total luminosity function may exhibit different evolution if the
1450: ratio of the luminosity within the physical aperture to the total galaxy luminosity
1451: changes with time. For example, the aperture to total luminosity ratio may
1452: change if significant mass is accreted
1453: at large radii or the stellar concentration evolves due to recent
1454: merger activity.
1455:
1456:
1457: To investigate this method, we measure the evolution of the
1458: luminosity
1459: within the inner 20$h^{-1}$ kpc for each galaxy in our sample. We choose 20$h^{-1}$ kpc radii apertures as this size will
1460: enclose a majority of the galaxy
1461: light, thus minimizing the effects on color gradients and galaxy
1462: concentration on our results, and yet not be too large such that the
1463: photometric errors due to sky subtraction uncertainties become
1464: significant. For the low-redshift SDSS galaxy samples, we make use of
1465: the measured aperture fluxes at fixed angular sizes output by the
1466: SDSS pipeline. For reference, the SDSS pipeline measures galaxy flux in
1467: apertures with radii of 0.23, 0.68, 1.03, 1.76, 3.0, 4.63, 7.43, 11.42, 18.20,
1468: 28.20, 44.21, 69.00, 107.81, 168.20, and 263.00 arcseconds
1469: \citep[see Table 7 in][]{stoughton2002}. Based on the measured redshift
1470: of each galaxy in our sample, we interpolate the
1471: measured aperture photometry to the radius corresponding to
1472: 20$h^{-1}$ kpc at the redshift of the galaxy. In order to measure
1473: the fluxes of our $z\sim0.9$
1474: galaxies
1475: at the highest possible signal-to-noise, we photometer
1476: these galaxies directly from the SDSS imaging data.
1477: As our high-redshift sample was constructed from galaxies lying
1478: in the SDSS Southern Survey region, which has been scanned several times over the
1479: course of the survey, we construct a coadded image of 90$h^{-1}$
1480: kpc x 90$h^{-1}$ kpc
1481: around each of our sample galaxies. Only data with seeing less than
1482: 1.5 arcseconds was used to construct the postage stamps. Before
1483: coadding each of the individual SDSS
1484: frames, we do not account for the seeing variations between
1485: each run;
1486: this has a negligible effect on the aperture fluxes on the scales we
1487: consider here. On each coadded postage stamps, known sources were
1488: masked out to avoid contamination and the flux of each galaxy was
1489: measured in a 20$h^{-1}$ kpc radius aperture.
1490:
1491: \input{tab6}
1492: \input{tab7}
1493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1494: \begin{figure}[t]
1495: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f17.eps}}
1496: %\centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6in]{f17_bw.eps}}
1497:
1498: \caption{Evolution of the luminosity function based
1499: upon luminosities contained within the central $20 h^{-1}$ kpc
1500: of massive galaxies. No significant differences are seen when the
1501: evolution of this central flux compared to the total galaxy luminosity functions
1502: presented in Figure \ref{fig:evlf}.
1503: Measuring luminosities in apertures of fixed physical size eliminates
1504: systematic differences in estimates of the total galaxy flux and thus
1505: will allow for more robust comparisons between future samples. }
1506: \label{fig:aperlf}
1507: \end{figure}
1508: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1509: Figure \ref{fig:aperlf} and Tables \ref{tab:aper_kcorr} and
1510: \ref{tab:aper_kecorr} show the aperture magnitude luminosity
1511: functions as a function of redshift.
1512: The aperture luminosity functions shown in Figure \ref{fig:aperlf} show
1513: some systematic differences compared to the total luminosity functions presented
1514: in Figure \ref{fig:evlf}. At fixed luminosity, the aperture luminosity function
1515: reports a systematically smaller number density than the total luminosity function.
1516: As the aperture luminosity measurements do not
1517: measure the full galaxy flux (with a median $M_\mathrm{aper}-M_\mathrm{total}\sim0.15$ mag),
1518: the aperture luminosity function is shifted toward fainter magnitudes compared to
1519: the total luminosity function. Secondly, the number density falls off more rapidly
1520: toward more luminous galaxies when aperture magnitudes are considered
1521: rather than total luminosities. This appears to be due to differential
1522: aperture losses as a function of luminosity; more luminous early-type
1523: galaxies have larger effective radii and thus more flux is missed by a
1524: fixed physical size aperture.
1525: While the shape and normalization of the aperture luminosity function
1526: have systematic differences with the total luminosity function, the aperture
1527: luminosity functions show little evolution in the $0.1<z<0.9$ range after
1528: the effects of passive evolution are removed just as is seen for the total
1529: galaxy luminosity function.
1530:
1531:
1532: The squares on Figure \ref{fig:evmag_ev} and values in columns (3) and (5) of Table
1533: \ref{tab:evolution_kcorr} and columns (3) and (6) of Table \ref{tab:evolution_kecorr}
1534: show the lack of evolution quantitatively - while
1535: the luminosities computed using physically sized apertures were
1536: systematically
1537: fainter than the total galaxy luminosities, as expected, the
1538: evolution of the central 20 $h^{-1}$ kpc of these massive red galaxies appears to
1539: follow the evolution of the ensemble starlight. These measurements
1540: can provide a benchmark for future comparisons of the luminosity
1541: function without the need to correct for systematic differences
1542: between the photometric methods used.
1543:
1544:
1545: \section{Spectral Evolution of Massive Galaxies Since $z\sim0.9$}
1546: \label{sec:coadded_spec}
1547:
1548: While each of our individual MMT galaxy spectra have too low
1549: signal-to-noise to perform any detailed measurements of line
1550: strengths, averaging the entire sample results in a modest quality
1551: spectrum which can be used to measure the change in the spectral
1552: structure of massive red galaxies since $z\sim0.9$.
1553: We construct the average LRG spectra in each redshift
1554: bin used to calculate our luminosity functions presented above :
1555: $0.1<z<0.2$, $0.2<z<0.3$, $0.3<z<0.4$, and $0.7<z<0.9$.
1556: We limit the luminosity of the galaxies used in this
1557: analysis to the evolution-corrected magnitude range of
1558: $-23<M_{^{0.3}r}-5\mathrm{log}\,\,h<-22$ to focus on galaxies
1559: for which we are very complete. After masking within 10 \AA\,
1560: of each of the strong emission lines
1561: arising from the Earth's atmosphere, we shift the observed spectrum
1562: of each galaxy to the rest-frame and normalize it by the average
1563: flux between 4100-4200\AA. We construct the mean spectrum by
1564: weighting each individual spectrum with the same weight assigned
1565: to that galaxy when calculating the luminosity function (including
1566: the $1/V_\mathrm{max}$) and thus construct the composite spectrum
1567: of a typical galaxy in each of our redshift bins.
1568:
1569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1570:
1571: \begin{figure}[b]
1572: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f18.eps}}
1573: \caption{Average spectrum of LRGs since
1574: $z=0.9$. Each composite spectrum shows features characteristic of
1575: old stellar populations while the highest redshift spectrum shows
1576: enhanced [O~$\!${\scriptsize II}]$\lambda3727$ emission and stronger Balmer
1577: absorption indicating the presence of younger stars. The location of
1578: Balmer features are marked by vertical bars. As discussed in \S\ref{sec:coadded_spec},
1579: we model the high-redshift average spectrum with a passively faded version of the
1580: low-redshift composite combined with a recent frosting of young
1581: stars. We find at most 5\% of the stellar mass in the average high-redshift LRG has
1582: formed within 1Gyr of $z=0.9$.}
1583: \label{fig:coaddedspectrum}
1584: \end{figure}
1585: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1586:
1587:
1588: Figure \ref{fig:coaddedspectrum} shows the coadded spectra of massive
1589: red galaxies from $z=0.1$ to $z=0.9$. Each of the composite spectra
1590: look quite similar showing the strong spectral features
1591: characteristic to
1592: old stellar populations. While the high-redshift composite spectrum
1593: clearly shows enhanced [O~$\!${\footnotesize II}] emission
1594: compared to
1595: the lower-redshift spectra other differences between the spectra
1596: are more subtle. Figure \ref{fig:linemeasure} shows the measured
1597: $H\delta$ and G-band at 4300 \AA\ absorption equivalent width, from our
1598: composite spectra. A solar-metallicity stellar population formed at
1599: $z=2$ using a \citet{Salpeter} IMF with subsequent passive fading is
1600: shown with the solid line. Our measurements are broadly consistent
1601: with the passive fading of stars since $z\sim0.9$. Note that we make
1602: no claim that since these points lie near the solar-metallicity track
1603: that we expect these galaxies to have solar metallicity or have a
1604: given age. It has been shown \citep[e.g.][]{Eisenstein2003,Cool2006}
1605: that LRGs show $\alpha$-enhancements compared to solar and also
1606: that the age and metallicity of the stellar populations one might
1607: derive from most spectral indicies are degenerate. Instead, we
1608: simply illustrate that the data follow the same trend expected for
1609: a passively fading population.
1610:
1611: In order to model the amount of recent star formation activity allowed by our
1612: high-redshift composite spectrum, we model
1613: it as the linear combination of a passively faded version of our
1614: low-redshift spectrum plus a frosting of more recent star formation
1615: activity. The lowest-redshift composite is well fit by a 7.0 Gyr,
1616: solar metallicity, population. Thus, we model our high-redshift
1617: composite as the non-negative linear sum of a 1.9 Gyr population
1618: -- the universe has aged by 5.1 Gyr between $z=0.8$ to $z=0.15$
1619: -- and a frosting of either 10Myr, 100Myr, or 1Gyr stars. We find that the
1620: high-redshift composite is best modeled by a single-age population at
1621: 1.9 Gyr with no need for the presence of younger stars save for the
1622: [O~$\!${\footnotesize II}] which may be generated by either young
1623: stars or enhanced AGN activity. We can constrain the presence of
1624: 10Myr, 100Myr, and 1Gyr stars to contribute less than 0.1\%, 0.5\%,
1625: and 5\% of the stellar mass based on our spectral fits with 99\% confidence.
1626: Thus, it appears that high-redshift LRGs have enhanced
1627: signatures of youth compared to their low-redshift counterparts due
1628: to the passive evolution of their stellar populations. We find no
1629: signatures of more recent star formation activity in our high-redshift sample
1630: indicative of recent gas-rich mergers at $z\sim0.9$.
1631:
1632: The evolution of the average spectrum presented here may be
1633: underestimated in the event that galaxies with weak absorption
1634: lines are preferentially removed from the sample due to redshift
1635: determination failures. We do not expect our spectroscopy to be
1636: biased in this way, however. Primarily, as the absorption line strength is correlated
1637: with the total galaxy luminosity, we expect the galaxies
1638: with weak lines to have luminosities fainter than the limits
1639: imposed in creating our composite spectra. Secondly, we would
1640: expect the presence on [O~$\!${\footnotesize II}] emission to allow
1641: redshift determination even if the absorption lines were very weak.
1642: To examine this effect, we refit each of our galaxies after masking
1643: out the wavelengths affected by the [O~$\!${\footnotesize II}]
1644: emission line and find that only 3 of the galaxies in our sample
1645: had sufficiently weak absorption lines that the presence of
1646: [O~$\!${\footnotesize II}] dominated the redshift fitting.
1647:
1648: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1649:
1650: \begin{figure}[b]
1651: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f19.eps}}
1652: \caption{Equivalent widths of H$\delta$ and G-band absorption
1653: features from the composite galaxy spectra. The style of
1654: data point corresponds to the redshift of the composite spectrum; star: $0.1<z<0.2$,
1655: asterisk: $0.2<z<0.3$, square: $0.3<z<0.4$, and circle: $0.7<z<0.9$.
1656: The solid line
1657: shows the expected trend for a solar-metallicity galaxy formed at
1658: $z=2$ from \citet{bc03} models. Errors are comparable to the size
1659: of each data point. While only illustrative, the observed composite
1660: spectra show similar trends as that expected of a passively fading
1661: population.}
1662: \label{fig:linemeasure}
1663: \end{figure}
1664: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1665:
1666: \section{Conclusions}
1667: \label{sec:conclusions}
1668: Massive galaxies serve as probes of the merger history
1669: of the universe as these galaxies have participated most heavily in
1670: the merger process. Using samples of massive ($L>3L^*$) red galaxies
1671: observed by SDSS at low redshift augmented with a new spectroscopic
1672: sample of galaxies targeted from deep SDSS coadded photometry and
1673: observed with the MMT, we have measured the evolution of massive red
1674: galaxies at $0.1<z<0.9$. Our sample is currently the largest collection
1675: of massive red galaxies spectroscopically observed at $z\sim0.9$ and
1676: thus provides an excellent tool for constraining the evolution of
1677: the most massive galactic systems over half of cosmic history.
1678:
1679: After correcting for passive evolution using a non-evolving \citet{Salpeter} IMF, we
1680: find the magnitude at which the
1681: integrated number density of the LRG population has reached $10^{-4.5} h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$
1682: is consistent with constant with a best-fit evolution
1683: of $0.03\pm0.08$ mag from $z=1$ to $z=0$. Simple toy models for
1684: the merger histories of massive red galaxies
1685: indicate that 1:1 merger rates larger than 25\% are disfavored
1686: at 50\% confidence and merger rates larger than 40\% are ruled out at $99\%$
1687: significance. Even if lower-mass mergers are considered, we find
1688: that the total stellar mass contained in massive red galaxies must not
1689: have grown by more than $\sim 50\%$ since $z=0.9$. This growth
1690: rate starkly contrasts the factor of 2-4 in stellar mass growth observed
1691: in $L^*$ red galaxies over the same epoch. The processes that
1692: regulate the growth of massive red galaxies and yet allow
1693: the large growth observed in the $L^*$ red galaxy population are
1694: poorly understood. As the most massive galaxies reside in group and
1695: cluster sized haloes, the processes that govern the assembly of clusters
1696: or the growth or an intracluster stellar envelope may play an important
1697: role in the shaping of LRGs.
1698:
1699: The evolution in the average LRG spectrum to high redshift
1700: also supports a purely passive fading of LRGs since $z\sim0.9$.
1701: The composite spectrum of our high-redshift LRGs is
1702: well-described by a passively faded version of the average
1703: galaxy spectrum at $0.1<z<0.2$. No recent star
1704: formation is needed to explain our composite spectrum at
1705: $z=0.9$; we constrain the mass fraction of 10Myr, 100Myr, and 1Gyr
1706: stars to be less than 0.1\%, 0.5\%, and 5\% with 99\% confidence.
1707: Star formation in these LRGs must have
1708: completely ended by $z\sim0.9$ and very few
1709: blue stars must have been accreted since that epoch.
1710:
1711: While our sample comprises the largest spectroscopic sample of massive
1712: red galaxies at $z\sim0.9$ collected to date, a sample of 300 galaxies
1713: suffers from small numbers of objects per luminosity bin,
1714: especially at the highest masses. Future surveys aiming to collect
1715: spectroscopic samples of many thousand LRGs at redshifts up to $z\sim0.7$, while
1716: at slightly lower redshifts, will have the statistics to place tighter constraints on the
1717: overall density evolution of the massive red galaxy population
1718: as well as to study the evolution in the LRG luminosity function shape to constrain
1719: the role of mass-dependent processes which regulate LRG growth.
1720:
1721: \acknowledgements
1722: We thank the anonymous referee for a thorough and critical review of this
1723: work. RJC and DJE were supported by National Science Foundation
1724: grant AST-0407200. XF was supported by NSF grant AST-0307384.
1725: Observations reported here were obtained at the MMT Observatory
1726: at the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Arizona.
1727: Both the MMT staff and the Hectospec support team were instrumental
1728: in completing this work. This research made use of the NASA
1729: Astrophysics Data System.
1730:
1731: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred
1732: P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National
1733: Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National
1734: Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho,
1735: the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council
1736: for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
1737:
1738: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
1739: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
1740: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
1741: University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve
1742: University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the
1743: Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns
1744: Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics,
1745: the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the
1746: Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los
1747: Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy
1748: (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico
1749: State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,
1750: University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
1751: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
1752:
1753:
1754: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1755:
1756: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al. (2007)]{sdssdr6} Adelman-McCarthy,
1757: J.~K., et al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.3413
1758: %\bibitem[Baldry et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...600..681B} Baldry, I.~K.,
1759: Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., Lupton, R.~H.,
1760: Nichol, R.~C., \& Szalay, A.~S.\ 2004, \apj, 600, 681
1761: \bibitem[Balogh et al.(2005)]{Balogh2005} Balogh, M.~L., Miller,
1762: C., Nichol, R., Zabludoff, A., \& Goto, T.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 587
1763: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2004)]{Bell2004} Bell, E.~F., et al.\ 2004,
1764: \apj, 608, 752
1765: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2006a)]{Bell2006} Bell, E.~F., Phleps, S.,
1766: Somerville, R.~S., Wolf, C., Borch, A., \& Meisenheimer, K.\ 2006,
1767: \apj, 652, 270
1768: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2006b)]{Bell2006_Gemsmerger} Bell, E.~F., et al.\ 2006,
1769: \apj, 640, 241
1770: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003a)]{Bernardi2003a} Bernardi, M.,
1771: et al.\ 2003a, \aj, 125, 1817
1772: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003b)]{Bernardi2003b} Bernardi, M.,
1773: et al.\ 2003b, \aj, 125, 1849
1774: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003c)]{Bernardi2003c} Bernardi, M.,
1775: et al.\ 2003c, \aj, 125, 1866
1776: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003d)]{Bernardi2003d} Bernardi, M.,
1777: et al.\ 2003d, \aj, 125, 1882
1778: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2006)]{Bernardi2006} Bernardi, M., Nichol,
1779: R.~C., Sheth, R.~K., Miller, C.~J., \& Brinkmann, J.\ 2006, \aj,
1780: 131, 1288
1781: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2001)]{blanton2001} Blanton, M.~R., et al.\
1782: 2001, \aj, 121, 2358
1783: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003)]{Blanton2003} Blanton, M.~R., et al.\
1784: 2003, \apj, 592, 819
1785: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003a)]{blanton2003a} Blanton, M.~R., Lin,
1786: H., Lupton, R.~H., Maley, F.~M., Young, N., Zehavi, I., \& Loveday,
1787: J.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 2276
1788: \bibitem[Bower et al.(1992)]{BowerLuceyEllis92} Bower, R.~G., Lucey,
1789: J.~R., \& Ellis, R.~S.\ 1992, \mnras, 254, 589
1790: \bibitem[Brough et al.(2002)]{Brough2002} Brough, S., Collins, C.~A.,
1791: Burke, D.~J., Mann, R.~G., \& Lynam, P.~D.\ 2002, \mnras, 329, L53
1792: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2007)]{Brown2007} Brown, M.~J.~I., Dey, A.,
1793: Jannuzi, B.~T., Brand, K., Benson, A.~J., Brodwin, M., Croton,
1794: D.~J., \& Eisenhardt, P.~R.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 858
1795: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot,
1796: S.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
1797: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2006)]{Bundy2006} Bundy, K., et al.\ 2006,
1798: \apj, 651, 120
1799: \bibitem[Caldwell et al.(2003)]{Caldwell2003} Caldwell, N., Rose,
1800: J.~A., \& Concannon, K.~D.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 2891
1801: \bibitem[Chabrier(2003)]{chabrier2003} Chabrier, G.\ 2003, \pasp,
1802: 115, 763
1803: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2003)]{Chen2003} Chen, H.-W., et al.\ 2003,
1804: \apj, 586, 745
1805: \bibitem[Cimatti et al.(2006)]{Cimatti2006} Cimatti, A., Daddi,
1806: E., \& Renzini, A.\ 2006, \aap, 453, L29
1807: \bibitem[Clemens et al.(2006)]{Clemens2006} Clemens, M.~S., Bressan,
1808: A., Nikolic, B., Alexander, P., Annibali, F., \& Rampazzo, R.\
1809: 2006, \mnras, 370, 702
1810: \bibitem[Conroy et al.(2007a)]{Conroy2007a} Conroy, C., Ho, S., \&
1811: White, M.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, 1491
1812: \bibitem[Conroy et al.(2007b)]{Conroy2007b} Conroy, C.,
1813: Wechsler,R.~H., \& Kravtsov, A.~V.\ 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics
1814: e-prints,arXiv:astro-ph/0703374
1815: \bibitem[Cool et al.(2006)]{Cool2006} Cool, R.~J., Eisenstein,
1816: D.~J., Johnston, D., Scranton, R., Brinkmann, J., Schneider, D.~P.,
1817: \& Zehavi, I.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 736
1818: \bibitem[Dav{\'e}(2007)]{dave2007} Dav{\'e}, R.\ 2007, ArXiv
1819: e-prints, 710, arXiv:0710.0381
1820: \bibitem[De Lucia et al.(2006)]{deLucia2006} De Lucia, G., Springel,
1821: V., White, S.~D.~M., Croton, D., \& Kauffmann, G.\ 2006, \mnras,366,
1822: 499
1823: \bibitem[de Propris et al.(1999)]{dePropris1999} de Propris, R.,
1824: Stanford, S.~A., Eisenhardt, P.~R., Dickinson, M., \& Elston, R.\
1825: 1999, \aj, 118, 719
1826: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs(1948)]{dv1948} de Vaucouleurs, G.\ 1948,
1827: Annales d'Astrophysique, 11, 247
1828: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.(2001)]{Eisenstein2001} Eisenstein, D.~J.,
1829: et al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2267
1830: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.(2003)]{Eisenstein2003} Eisenstein, D.~J.,
1831: et al.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 694
1832: \bibitem[Ellis et al.(1997)]{Ellis97} Ellis, R.~S., Smail, I.,
1833: Dressler, A., Couch, W.~J., Oemler, A.~J., Butcher, H., \& Sharples,
1834: R.~M.\ 1997, \apj, 483, 582
1835: \bibitem[Faber et al.(2007)]{faber2007} Faber, S.~M., et al.\ 2007,
1836: \apj, 665, 265
1837: \bibitem[Fabricant et al.(1998)]{fabricant1998} Fabricant, D.~G.,
1838: Hertz, E.~N., Szentgyorgyi, A.~H., Fata, R.~G., Roll, J.~B., \&
1839: Zajac, J.~M.\ 1998, \procspie, 3355, 285
1840: \bibitem[Fabricant et al.(2005)]{fabricant2005} Fabricant, D.,
1841: et al.\ 2005, \pasp, 117, 1411
1842: \bibitem[Figer et al.(1999)]{figer1999} Figer, D.~F., Kim, S.~S.,
1843: Morris, M., Serabyn, E., Rich, R.~M., \& McLean, I.~S.\ 1999,
1844: \apj, 525,750
1845: \bibitem[Fioc \& Rocca-Volmerange(1999)]{Fioc1999} Fioc, M., \& Rocca-Volmerange
1846: , B.\ 1999, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/9912179
1847: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1996)]{fukugita1996} Fukugita, M.,
1848: Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J.~E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Schneider,
1849: D.~P.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
1850: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(2004)]{Fukugita2004} Fukugita, M., Nakamura,
1851: O., Turner, E.~L., Helmboldt, J., \& Nichol, R.~C.\ 2004, \apjl,
1852: 601, L127
1853: \bibitem[Glazebrook et al.(2004)]{Glazebrook2004} Glazebrook, K.,
1854: et al.\ 2004, \nat, 430, 181
1855: \bibitem[Goto et al.(2003)]{Goto2003} Goto, T., et al.\ 2003, \pasj,
1856: 55, 771
1857: \bibitem[Graham et al.(2005)]{Graham2005} Graham, A.~W., Driver,
1858: S.~P., Petrosian, V., Conselice, C.~J., Bershady, M.~A., Crawford, S.~M.,
1859: \& Goto, T.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 1535
1860: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(1998)]{gunn1998} Gunn, J.~E., et al.\ 1998,
1861: \aj, 116, 3040
1862: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(2006)]{Gunn2006} Gunn, J.~E., et al.\ 2006,
1863: \aj, 131, 2332
1864: \bibitem[Ho et al.(2007)]{Ho2007} Ho, S., Lin, Y.-T., Spergel, D., \& Hirata, C.~M.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 706, arXiv:0706.0727
1865: \bibitem[Hogg et al.(2004)]{Hogg2004} Hogg, D.~W., et al.\ 2004,
1866: \apjl, 601, L29 25,000-5,337
1867: \bibitem[Hogg, et al. (2001)]{hogg2001} Hogg, D.~W., Finkbeiner,
1868: D.~P., Schlegel, D.~J., \& Gunn, J.~E.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2129
1869: \bibitem[Holden et al.(2005)]{Holden2005} Holden, B.~P., et al.\
1870: 2005, \apj, 626, 809
1871: \bibitem[Ivezi{\' c} et al.(2004)]{ivezic2004} Ivezi{\' c}, {\v Z}.,
1872: et al.\ 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 583
1873: \bibitem[Jiang et al.(2006)]{Jiang2006} Jiang, L., et al.\ 2006,
1874: \aj, 131, 2788
1875: \bibitem[Jimenez et al.(2006)]{Jimenez2006} Jimenez, R., Bernardi,
1876: M., Haiman, Z., Panter, B., \& Heavens, A.~F.\ 2006, ArXiv
1877: Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0610724
1878: \bibitem[Kodama et al.(1998)]{Kodama1998} Kodama, T., Arimoto, N.,
1879: Barger, A.~J., \& Arag'on-Salamanca, A.\ 1998, \aap, 334, 99
1880: \bibitem[Kroupa(2001)]{kroupa2001} Kroupa, P.\ 2001, \mnras, 322,231
1881: \bibitem[Kurucz(1993)]{Kurucz} Kurucz, R.\ 1993, ATLAS9 Stellar
1882: Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid.~Kurucz CD-ROM No.~13.~
1883: Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1993, 13
1884: \bibitem[Larson(1998)]{Larson1998} Larson, R.~B.\ 1998, \mnras,
1885: 301, 569
1886: \bibitem[Lauer et al.(2007)]{Lauer2007} Lauer, T.~R., et al.\ 2007,
1887: \apj, 662, 808
1888: \bibitem[Lauer(1988)]{Lauer1988} Lauer, T.~R.\ 1988, \apj, 325, 49
1889: \bibitem[Le Borgne et al.(2006)]{LeBorgne2005} Le Borgne, D.,
1890: et al.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 48
1891: \bibitem[Le F{\`e}vre et al.(2000)]{LeFevre2000} Le F{\`e}vre, O.,
1892: et al.\ 2000, \mnras, 311, 565
1893: \bibitem[Lilly et al.(1995)]{Lilly1995} Lilly, S.~J., Tresse, L.,
1894: Hammer, F., Crampton, D., \& Le Fevre, O.\ 1995, \apj, 455, 108
1895: \bibitem[Lin et al.(1999)]{Lin1999} Lin, H., Yee, H.~K.~C., Carlberg,
1896: R.~G., Morris, S.~L., Sawicki, M., Patton, D.~R., Wirth, G., \&
1897: Shepherd, C.~W.\ 1999, \apj, 518
1898: \bibitem[Lotz et al.(2008)]{Lotz2008} Lotz, J.~M., et al.\ 2008,
1899: \apj, 672, 177
1900: \bibitem[Lupton et al.(1999)]{LGS1999} Lupton, R.~H., Gunn, J.~E.,
1901: \& Szalay, A.~S.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 1406
1902: \bibitem[Lupton et al.(2001)]{lupton2001} Lupton, R.~H., Gunn,
1903: J.~E., Ivezi{\' c}, Z., Knapp, G.~R., Kent, S. \& Yasuda, N.\ 2001,
1904: ASP Conf.~Ser.~238:Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems
1905: X, 10, 269
1906: \bibitem[Maness et al.(2007)]{maness2007} Maness, H., et al.\ 2007,
1907: ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.2382
1908: \bibitem[Maraston(2005)]{Maraston2005} Maraston, C.\ 2005, \mnras,
1909: 362, 799
1910: \bibitem[Masjedi et al.(2006)]{Masjedi2006} Masjedi, M., et al.\
1911: 2006, \apj, 644, 54
1912: \bibitem[Masjedi et al.(2007)]{Masjedi2007} Masjedi, M., Hogg,
1913: D.~W., \& Blanton, M.~R.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 708, arXiv:0708.3240
1914: \bibitem[McCarthy et al.(2004)]{McCarthy2004} McCarthy, P.~J., al.\
1915: 2004, \apjl, 614, L9
1916: \bibitem[McCrady et al.(2003)]{mccradey2003} McCrady, N.,
1917: Gilbert,A.~M., \& Graham, J.~R.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 240
1918: \bibitem[McIntosh et al.(2005)]{McIntosh2005} McIntosh, D.~H.,
1919: Zabludoff, A.~I., Rix, H.-W., \& Caldwell, N.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 193
1920: \bibitem[McIntosh et al.(2007)]{McIntosh2007} McIntosh, D.~H., Guo,
1921: Y., Hertzberg, J., Katz, N., Mo, H.~J., van den Bosch, F.~C.,
1922: \& Yang, X.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 710, arXiv:0710.2157
1923: \bibitem[Nelan et al.(2005)]{Nelan2005} Nelan, J.~E., Smith, R.~J.,
1924: Hudson, M.~J., Wegner, G.~A., Lucey, J.~R., Moore, S.~A.~W., Quinney,
1925: S.~J., \& Suntzeff, N.~B.\ 2005, \apj, 632, 137
1926: \bibitem[Oke \& Gunn(1983)]{Oke1983} Oke, J.~B., \& Gunn, J.~E.\
1927: 1983, \apj, 266, 713
1928: \bibitem[Papovich et al.(2005)]{Papovich2005} Papovich, C.,
1929: Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Conselice, C.~J., \& Ferguson, H.~C.\
1930: 2005, \apj, 631, 101
1931: \bibitem[Pier et al.(2003)]{pier2003} Pier, J.~R., Munn, J.~A.,
1932: Hindsley, R.~B., Hennessy, G.~S., Kent, S.~M., Lupton, R.~H., \&
1933: Ivezi{\' c}, {\v Z}.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1559
1934: \bibitem[Pimbblet et al.(2006)]{Pimbblet2006} Pimbblet, K.~A.,
1935: Smail, I., Edge, A.~C., O'Hely, E., Couch, W.~J., \& Zabludoff,
1936: A.~I.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 645
1937: \bibitem[Rieke et al.(1993)]{Rieke1993} Rieke, G.~H., Loken,
1938: K.,Rieke, M.~J., \& Tamblyn, P.\ 1993, \apj, 412, 99
1939: \bibitem[Rines et al.(2007)]{Rines2007} Rines, K., Finn, R.,
1940: \& Vikhlinin, A.\ 2007, \apjl, 665, L9
1941: \bibitem[Roll et al.(1998)]{roll1998} Roll, J.~B., Fabricant,
1942: D.~G ., \& McLeod, B.~A.\ 1998, \procspie, 3355, 324
1943: \bibitem[Salpeter(1955)]{Salpeter} Salpeter, E.~E.\ 1955, \apj,
1944: 121, 161
1945: \bibitem[Schmidt(1968)]{Schmidt1968} Schmidt, M.\ 1968, \apj,
1946: 151, 393
1947: \bibitem[Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis (1998)]{SFD} Schlegel, D.~J.,
1948: Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1949: \bibitem[Seo et al.(2007)]{Seo2007} Seo, H.-J., Eisenstein,
1950: D.~J., \& Zehavi, I.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 712, arXiv:0712.1643
1951: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{smith2002} Smith, J.~A., et al. 2002,
1952: \aj, 123, 2121
1953: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2007)]{Spergel} Spergel, D.~N., et al.\
1954: 2007, \apjs, 170, 377
1955: \bibitem[Stolte et al.(2005)]{stolte2005} Stolte, A., Brandner, W.,
1956: Grebel, E.~K., Lenzen, R., \& Lagrange, A.-M.\ 2005, \apjl, 628, L113
1957: \bibitem[Stoughton et al.(2002)]{stoughton2002} Stoughton, C.,
1958: et al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 485
1959: \bibitem[Strauss et al.(2002)]{strauss2002} Strauss, M.~A., et al.\
1960: 2002, \aj, 124, 1810
1961: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2005)]{Thomas2005} Thomas, D., Maraston,
1962: C., Bender, R., \& Mendes de Oliveira, C.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 673
1963: \bibitem[Trager et al.(2000)]{Trager2000} Trager, S.~C., Faber,
1964: S.~M., Worthey, G., \& Gonz{\'a}lez, J.~J.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 165
1965: \bibitem[Tran et al.(2005)]{Tran2005} Tran, K.-V.~H., van
1966: Dokkum, P., Franx, M., Illingworth, G.~D., Kelson, D.~D.,
1967: \& Schreiber, N.~M.~F.\ 2005, \apjl, 627, L25
1968: \bibitem[Tucker et al.(2006)]{Tucker2006} Tucker, D.~L., et al.\
1969: 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 821
1970: \bibitem[van Dokkum et al.(1999)]{vanDokkum1999} van Dokkum, P.~G.,
1971: Franx, M., Fabricant, D., Kelson, D.~D.,
1972: \& Illingworth, G.~D.\ 1999, \apjl, 520, L95
1973: \bibitem[van Dokkum(2005)]{vanDokkum2005} van Dokkum, P.~G.\ 2005,
1974: \aj, 130, 2647
1975: \bibitem[van Dokkum(2007)]{vandokkum2007} van Dokkum, P.\ 2007,
1976: ArXiv e-prints, 710, arXiv:0710.0875
1977: \bibitem[Visvanathan \& Sandage(1977)]{Visvanathan1977} Visvanathan,
1978: N., \& Sandage, A.\ 1977, \apj, 216, 214
1979: \bibitem[Wake et al.(2005)]{Wake2005} Wake, D.~A., Collins, C.~A.,
1980: Nichol, R.~C., Jones, L.~R., \& Burke, D.~J.\ 2005, \apj, 627, 186
1981: \bibitem[Wake et al.(2006)]{Wake2006} Wake, D.~A., et al.\ 2006,
1982: \mnras, 372, 537
1983: \bibitem[Wake et al.(2008)]{Wake2008} Wake, D.~A., et al.\ 2008,
1984: ArXiv e-prints, 802, arXiv:0802.4288
1985: \bibitem[White et al.(2007)]{White2007} White, M., Zheng, Z., Brown,
1986: M.~J.~I., Dey, A., \& Jannuzi, B.~T.\ 2007, \apjl, 655, L69
1987: \bibitem[Willmer et al.(2006)]{Willmer2006} Willmer, C.~N.~A.,
1988: et al.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 853
1989: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{york2000} York, D.~G., et al.\ 2000,
1990: \aj, 120, 1579
1991: \bibitem[Zehavi et al.(2005)]{Zehavi2005} Zehavi, I., et al.\
1992: 2005, \apj, 621, 22
1993:
1994:
1995:
1996: \end{thebibliography}
1997:
1998:
1999:
2000:
2001: \end{document}
2002:
2003:
2004:
2005:
2006:
2007:
2008:
2009:
2010: