1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{apjfonts}
3: %% preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document:
4:
5: % \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
6:
7: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
8:
9: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
10: %\input{psfig}
11:
12: \def\hi{\ifmmode {\rm H}\,{\sc i}~ \else H\,{\sc i}~\fi}
13: \def\kms{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}}
14: \def\hubunits{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}
15: \def\K{\,{\rm K}}
16: \def\cm{{\rm cm}}
17: \def\brizjk {BRi^\prime z^\prime JK}
18: \def\zphot {z_{\rm phot}}
19:
20: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
21:
22: \slugcomment{Accepted to The Astrophysical Journal}
23:
24:
25: \shorttitle{Quiescent galaxies in a bicolor sequence}
26: \shortauthors{Williams et al.}
27:
28:
29:
30: \begin{document}
31:
32:
33: \title{Detection of quiescent galaxies in a bicolor sequence from $z=0-2$
34: \altaffilmark{1}}
35:
36:
37: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
38: %% author and affiliation information.
39:
40: \author{Rik J. Williams\altaffilmark{2},
41: Ryan F. Quadri\altaffilmark{2},
42: Marijn Franx\altaffilmark{2},
43: Pieter van Dokkum\altaffilmark{3},
44: Ivo Labb\'e\altaffilmark{4}}
45: \altaffiltext{1}{
46: Based in part on data collected at Subaru Telescope through the ``Subaru
47: Observatory Project,'' which is operated by the National Astronomical
48: Observatory of Japan.
49: }
50: \altaffiltext{2}{Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, Niels Bohrweg 2,
51: NL--2333 CA Leiden, The Netherlands}
52: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, Yale University,
53: New Haven, CT 06520--8101}
54: \altaffiltext{4}{Carnegie Observatories, 813 Santa Barbara Street,
55: Pasadena, CA 91101; Hubble Fellow}
56:
57: \email{williams@strw.leidenuniv.nl}
58:
59:
60: \begin{abstract}
61: We investigate the properties of quiescent and star--forming galaxy
62: populations to $z\sim 2$ with purely photometric data, employing a novel
63: rest--frame color selection technique. From the UKIDSS
64: Ultra--Deep Survey Data Release 1, with matched optical and mid--IR photometry
65: taken from the Subaru XMM Deep Survey and Spitzer Wide--Area Infrared
66: Extragalactic Survey respectively, we construct a $K$--selected galaxy
67: catalog and calculate photometric redshifts. Excluding stars,
68: objects with uncertain $\zphot$ solutions, those that fall in bad or
69: incomplete survey regions, and those for which reliable rest--frame colors
70: could not be derived, 30108 galaxies with $K<22.4$ (AB) and $\zphot\le 2.5$
71: remain. The galaxies in this sample are found to occupy two distinct
72: populations in the rest--frame $U-V$ vs.~$V-J$ color space: a clump of
73: red, quiescent galaxies (analogous to the red sequence) and a
74: track of star--forming galaxies extending from blue to red $U-V$ colors.
75: This bimodal behavior is seen up to $z\sim 2$. Due to a combination
76: of measurement errors and passive evolution, the color--color diagram
77: is not suitable to distinguish the galaxy bimodality at $z>2$ for this sample, but
78: we show that MIPS 24$\mu$m data suggest that a significant population of
79: quiescent galaxies exists even at these higher redshifts. At $z=1-2$,
80: the most luminous objects in the sample are divided roughly equally between
81: star--forming and quiescent galaxies, while at lower redshifts most of
82: the brightest galaxies are quiescent. Moreover,
83: quiescent galaxies at these redshifts are clustered more strongly than
84: those actively forming stars, indicating
85: that galaxies with early--quenched star formation may occupy more massive
86: host dark matter halos. This suggests that the end of star formation is
87: associated with, and perhaps brought about by, a mechanism related to
88: halo mass.
89: \end{abstract}
90:
91: \keywords{cosmology: observations --- galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: high-redshift --- infrared: galaxies}
92:
93: % Vega-AB conversion: 1.900 (K), 0.938 (J)
94:
95: \section{Introduction}
96: The stellar mass in the local universe lies largely within two distinct
97: classes of galaxies: actively star--forming spirals, and massive
98: ellipticals with evolved stellar populations and little current
99: star formation. These populations show strongly bimodal behavior
100: in a number of measured and derived quantities, including color
101: \citep{baldry04}, the 4000\AA--break strength $D_n(4000)$
102: \citep[an indicator of stellar population age;][]{kauffmann03}, and
103: clustering strength \citep{budavari03}.
104: Relatively low--mass galaxies with high
105: star--formation rates have also been found at high redshifts
106: \citep[e.g., $z>3$ Lyman--break galaxies or LBGs;][]{steidel96}.
107: Surprisingly, the population of massive, ``dead'' galaxies appears to
108: persist to high redshift as well \citep[e.g.][]{labbe05,daddi05,kriek06,kriek08b}, even though
109: the universe was only a few Gyr old at that point. Since the stellar
110: populations of evolved galaxies often have ages that are a significant
111: fraction of the age of the universe at these redshifts,
112: the implication is that they must have formed (and
113: their star formation ceased) far earlier than anticipated by standard
114: hierarchical structure formation models.
115:
116: Investigating the evolution of star formation activity and the assembly
117: of stellar mass
118: over the past $\sim 12$\,Gyr are therefore two key avenues to understanding
119: how the present galaxy population came to be, and large samples of galaxies
120: during this peak formation epoch ($z\sim 2$) are needed for this.
121: As spectroscopy of faint
122: objects is extremely expensive with regard to telescope time, several
123: highly efficient broadband selection techniques have been designed to weed out
124: low--redshift interlopers. In addition to the
125: aforementioned LBG selection, which primarily finds unobscured
126: star--forming galaxies at $z>3$, the distant red galaxy (DRG) criterion
127: \citep[$J-K>2.3$ (Vega) or $>1.34$ (AB);][]{franx03} instead tends to find
128: the most
129: {\it massive} galaxies at $2<z<3$ \citep{vdokkum06}, about half of
130: which show signs of heavily--obscured star formation \citep{papovich06}.
131: Other methods, such as the $BzK$ selection of \citet{daddi04}, are adept at
132: selecting $z\sim 2$ galaxies over a wide range of masses and star--formation
133: rates.
134:
135: Each of these techniques has its advantages and disadvantages, but one point
136: has become clear: to effectively study the mass evolution of high--redshift
137: galaxies, deep near--infrared data are crucial. The observed $JHK$ bands
138: trace rest--frame optical light at $z\sim 2-3$ and provide a more reliable
139: indicator of stellar mass than the rest--frame UV (observed optical); indeed,
140: DRGs themselves appear to represent an important fraction, if not the
141: majority, of stellar mass at high redshifts \citep{rudnick06,grazian07}.
142: Such galaxies are typically faint in the observed optical bands,
143: either from old stellar populations or dust obscuration, and are
144: often missed by purely optical selection techniques \citep{quadri07b}.
145: Selecting galaxies from deep near--infrared fields is therefore likely
146: to yield a more complete picture of the stellar mass at high redshift than
147: similar studies at optical wavelengths.
148:
149: Until recently, the small sizes (at most a few square arcminutes) and
150: relatively low efficiencies of the available infrared detectors
151: made large, deep near--IR surveys impractical. Such projects therefore
152: typically followed the ``pencil--beam'' approach, surveying a single frame
153: to high sensitivity \citep[e.g., the {\it Faint Infrared
154: Extragalactic Survey, FIRES};][]{franx03}, or alternatively observing
155: somewhat larger areas at the expense of depth \citep[e.g.,
156: GOODS--S;][]{giavalisco04}. While such surveys have
157: revealed a great deal about the high--redshift universe, the necessarily
158: small survey volumes proved problematic for statistical studies
159: of galaxy populations (as a result of both cosmic variance and small--number
160: statistics).
161:
162: Large--format near--IR detectors on 4m--class telescopes (such as
163: ISPI, WFCAM,
164: and the upcoming VISTA camera) now provide the ability to conduct deep
165: surveys over wide areas, and a number of past, present, and planned
166: projects take advantage of this capability -- examples include
167: the Multiwavelength Survey by Yale--Chile \citep[MUSYC;][]{gawiser06,quadri07b},
168: the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey \citep[UKIDSS;][]{lawrence07}, and
169: ULTRA--VISTA. Until this latter survey is complete, the UKIDSS
170: Ultra--Deep Survey
171: (UDS\footnote{\url{http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/astronomy/UDS/}}) is
172: the premier near--IR dataset in
173: terms of depth and area. Overlapping deep optical imaging from the
174: Subaru--XMM Deep Survey \citep[SXDS;][]{sekiguchi04} and shallow mid--IR data
175: from the
176: {\it Spitzer} Wide--Area Infrared Extragalactic
177: \citep[SWIRE;][]{lonsdale03} survey provide complementary data over
178: a broad range of wavelengths.
179:
180: Here we derive a multiband $K$--selected galaxy catalog from the
181: UDS, SXDS, and SWIRE data, calculating photometric redshifts and rest--frame
182: colors for all objects in the overlapping survey area. Rather than rely
183: on a specific color selection
184: technique, we instead define samples of galaxies at various redshifts directly
185: from the computed $\zphot$ values, and further subdivide the samples into
186: star--forming and quiescent galaxies based on their rest--frame colors.
187: The color evolution with redshift, and the clustering of $1<\zphot<2$
188: galaxies, are then determined. Readers who are primarily interested
189: in these science results can find this discussion beginning
190: in \S\ref{sec_analysis}.
191:
192: We present an overview of the
193: survey data in \S\ref{sec_surveys}, and the process of
194: preparing and matching the datasets to each other
195: in \S\ref{sec_data}. The extraction of the catalog is then
196: discussed in \S\ref{sec_catalog}, and the derivation of photometric
197: redshifts and rest--frame colors in \S\ref{sec_photz}. \S\ref{sec_analysis}
198: describes the bimodality of galaxies in rest--frame color space and
199: the separation into quiescent and star--forming samples, and the
200: clustering properties of these two populations are discussed in
201: \S\ref{sec_clustering}.
202: Further discussion, caveats, and a summary of the results can then be
203: found in \S\ref{sec_discussion}, \S\ref{sec_caveats}, and
204: \S\ref{sec_conclusions} respectively.
205:
206: A cosmology with
207: $H_0=70$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.3$, and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$
208: is assumed throughout, and
209: magnitudes are quoted in the AB system unless otherwise noted.
210:
211: \section{Data characteristics} \label{sec_surveys}
212: In this analysis we employ the reduced $J$-- and $K$--band UDS mosaics
213: provided as a subset of the UKIDSS Data Release 1
214: \citep[DR1;][]{warren07a}; $H$--band data
215: were not available in this release. The UKIDSS project, defined
216: in \citet{lawrence07}, uses the UKIRT Wide Field Camera
217: \citep[WFCAM][]{casali07} and a photometric system described in
218: \citet{hewett06}; the pipeline processing and science archive are
219: described in Irwin et al. (in preparation) and \citet{hambly08} respectively.
220: The UDS field consists of a single
221: repeatedly--observed UKIDSS survey tile (in turn comprising four subsequent
222: WFCAM observations arranged in a square to produce uniform coverage), with
223: a total area of $0.77$\ deg$^2$ and reaching nominal depths of $K<23.45$
224: and $J<23.55$ (AB;
225: $5\sigma$ point--source threshold in a 2\arcsec\ aperture). The 0\farcs4
226: pixel scale of WFCAM does not sufficiently sample the $K-$band PSF
227: of $\sim 0\farcs7$, so the individual observations are offset by
228: fractions of a pixel and the combined mosaics regridded by a factor of 3
229: to a pixel scale of 0\farcs 134. Note that while
230: Data Release 2 has since been made available \citep{warren07b}, this
231: release contains
232: identical UDS mosaics to DR1; only data in the shallower UKIDSS surveys
233: were updated.
234:
235: \begin{figure}
236: \epsscale{1.0}
237: \plotone{f1.eps}
238: \caption{UKIDSS $K$-band image of the UDS field, with SXDS ({\it solid line})
239: and SWIRE ({\it dashed line}) coverage overplotted. The image is about
240: 52\arcmin\ on a side; north is up and east is to the left.
241: \label{fig_fields}}
242: \end{figure}
243:
244: Optical imaging of most of the UDS field is provided by the Subaru--XMM
245: Deep Survey (SXDS) beta release\footnote{\url{http://www.naoj.org/Science/SubaruProject/SXDS/}},
246: a deep wide--field survey employing the Subaru telescope and Subaru Prime
247: Focus Camera \citep[Suprime--Cam or SUP;][]{miyazaki02}. This imager
248: contains ten $2048\times 4096$
249: pixel CCDs arranged in a $5\times 2$ mosaic, providing a rectangular
250: field--of--view of roughly $34\arcmin \times 27\arcmin$. The SXDS then
251: consists of five overlapping SUP fields arranged in a cross--shaped
252: pattern (three adjacent fields in the north--south direction, and two
253: on the eastern and western flanks with the camera rotated $90^\circ$;
254: see Figure~\ref{fig_fields}).
255: Reported $5\sigma$ depths (in a 2\arcsec\ aperture) are
256: $B<27.5$, $R<26.8$, $i^\prime<26.5$, and $z^\prime<25.4$, though the
257: sensitivity varies by $\sim 0.2$ between the five fields
258: (with a $\sim 0.6$ mag variation in $z$); our independent sensitivity
259: estimates are comparable to the reported values.
260:
261: The SWIRE survey covers a total of
262: $\sim 49$\,deg$^2$ with IRAC and MIPS in six subfields, one
263: of which (the XMM--LSS field) includes nearly the entire UDS/SXDS area.
264: The orientations of the IRAC/MIPS fields are at an angle to the UDS;
265: therefore, only a small
266: triangular region in the southwest corner of the UDS has no SWIRE
267: coverage (shown in Figure~\ref{fig_fields}).
268: SWIRE reaches nominal $5\sigma$ point--source depths of 3.7, 5.4, 48, and
269: 37.8 $\mu$Jy in the
270: 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0\,$\mu$m IRAC bands respectively, and 230\,$\mu$Jy
271: in MIPS 24\,$\mu$m.
272: The IRAC mosaics of this field are
273: divided into 16 separate subimages, with four of these having some overlap
274: with the UDS field; the MIPS 24\,$\mu$m image of the field is
275: available as a single file. The relevant subimages of all four IRAC bands,
276: as well as the full 24\,$\mu$m MIPS image, were
277: obtained from the public SWIRE data
278: website\footnote{\url{http://swire.ipac.caltech.edu/swire/astronomers/}\\
279: \url{data\_access.html}}. Due to their far broader point--response functions
280: and lower sensitivities, we do not analyze the MIPS 70\,$\mu$m or 160\,$\mu$m
281: data here; similarly, the $5.8\mu$m and $8\mu$m data are excluded
282: due to their order--of--magnitude lower sensitivity compared to the first two
283: IRAC bands. Furthermore, since most objects seen in the UDS $K$--band are not
284: individually detected in the SWIRE $24\mu$m image, the $24\mu$m
285: data are therefore not included in our final $K$--selected catalog
286: (but a stacking analysis of these data are discussed in \S\ref{sec_mips}).
287: A summary of the data employed in the production of our $K$--selected
288: catalog, including areas and measured limiting
289: depths (as discussed in \S\ref{sec_complete}) is given in
290: Table~\ref{tab_limits}.
291:
292:
293: \section{Data preparation} \label{sec_data}
294: \subsection{Image registration}
295: The simplest way to achieve consistent flux measurements across multiple
296: bands with arbitrary PSFs is to transform the images such that they are all
297: on the
298: same coordinate system and pixel scale. The pixel scale of the UDS
299: images is 0\farcs134; however, all of these images have PSF FWHMs
300: larger than 0\farcs7 (the UDS $K$--band seeing). To reduce file sizes
301: and processing time, we thus adopt
302: a standard pixel scale of 0\farcs202, the native scale of the SXDS
303: images. This is somewhat coarser than the original regridded UDS pixel
304: scale, but still sufficiently samples all PSFs.
305:
306: The SWarp software package\footnote{See
307: \url{http://terapix.iap.fr/rubrique.php?id\_rubrique=49} for
308: further information} \citep{bertin02} was used to crop,
309: resample, and transform these sets of images to a common coordinate system
310: before combining the subimages (in the cases of the IRAC and SXDS data)
311: into single mosaics.
312: Since the UDS $K$ image has the best seeing and is the band from which
313: objects are detected,
314: this was taken as the ``standard'' field to which all other images were
315: registered. The $J$ and $K$ data were resampled to the SXDS pixel scale
316: and cropped to remove noisy and missing data regions near the edges, resulting
317: in 52\farcm4 by 53\farcm0 images. Likewise, the
318: SWIRE MIPS 24\,$\mu$m image and the IRAC subimages that cover the UDS field
319: were transformed, resampled, and cropped to cover the same area.
320: However, since the five SXDS pointings taken with each filter can exhibit
321: different
322: seeing and geometric distortions, those images were PSF--matched
323: (see \S\ref{sec_psf}) and astrometrically corrected prior to combining
324: with SWarp.
325:
326: As SWarp transformed the images based solely on the astrometric information
327: in the
328: image FITS headers, some distortions are likely to remain (particularly
329: between data from differing instruments).
330: The measured positions of stars were thus used to correct these distortions.
331: Source Extractor version 2.5.0 \citep[SExtractor;][]{bertin96} was first
332: used to find the positions
333: of bright objects in the $K$ image and measure their approximate $J$ and $K$
334: fluxes. $1179$ stars were selected on the basis of their blue IR colors
335: ($J-K<0$) and bright but unsaturated $K$--band fluxes ($17.4<K<21.4$).
336: The radial profiles of these objects were
337: fitted with Gaussians to determine their centers and PSF widths in the
338: $K$ band; all but a negligible fraction ($<1$\%)had FWHMs
339: comparable to the nominal image resolution, indicating that this simple
340: color cut indeed primarily selects point sources. Next, a centroid
341: algorithm was employed to
342: determine the positions of these stars in each of the $\brizjk/3.6/4.5$
343: images. Finally, the pixel positions of these stars along
344: with the IRAF tasks {\tt geomap} and {\tt geotran} were used to
345: transform the SXDS, UDS $J$, and IRAC images to the same coordinate system as
346: the UDS $K$ mosaic. To check the agreement between the images, the pixel
347: coordinates of these stars were again measured in the transformed images
348: and found to agree well, e.g.~in the $B$ mosaic the image coordinates agree
349: with those in the $K$ image to within 0.5 pixel (0\farcs 1) in 75\%
350: of cases, with a median absolute deviation of 0\farcs06. Similar offsets
351: are seen in the transformed IRAC $3.6$ and $4.5\mu$m images (in addition,
352: automatic astrometric corrections are performed in the IRAC deblending
353: described in \S\ref{sec_iracphot}). Such
354: astrometric deviations typically translate to systematic flux errors of at
355: most $\sim 1$\%.
356:
357: \subsection{IR/Optical PSF matching} \label{sec_psf}
358: The observed seeing width varies significantly between the different bands:
359: point sources in the UDS have FWHMs of approximately 0\farcs7
360: in $K$ and 0\farcs8 in $J$, while in SXDS they range between
361: $0\farcs7-0\farcs9$ depending on the field and band. Additional
362: higher--order variations are likely to be present in the PSFs due to
363: differences
364: in the two instruments' optics. Directly performing aperture photometry
365: on these images would lead to flux offsets in the different bands (with
366: less flux falling inside the aperture for the poorer--seeing images), and
367: thus systematic color errors.
368:
369: To mitigate this, all images were smoothed to
370: the same PSF before fluxes were measured. Although this can be
371: accomplished by convolving each with a
372: simple Gaussian or higher--order kernel, the multitude
373: of stars within these images can themselves be used to generate
374: empirical kernels that contain all structural
375: information about the PSFs. This is accomplished by deconvolving
376: a low--resolution (``reference'') PSF with one constructed from a
377: higher--resolution image:
378: \begin{equation}
379: K = P_{\rm ref} \otimes^{-1} P_{\rm hires}
380: \end{equation}
381: where $P_{\rm ref}$ and $P_{\rm hires}$ are the low--resolution and
382: high--resolution PSFs respectively.
383: The resulting kernel can then be convolved with the high--resolution
384: image in its entirety to bring it to the same PSF as the reference image.
385: \begin{equation}
386: I_{\rm match}(x,y)= I_{\rm hires}(x,y) \otimes K
387: \end{equation}
388: Since the deconvolution step strongly magnifies any intrinsic
389: noise in the PSFs, a large number of bright (but unsaturated) stars are
390: necessary in each band to produce PSFs with sufficiently low noise levels.
391:
392: For the $J$ and $K$ images, the PSFs were constructed from the same stars that
393: were selected
394: for astrometric matching, keeping the 200 brightest in each band. However,
395: many of these stars are saturated in the SXDS images due to the
396: much longer exposure times employed in this survey. As the effects of
397: saturation are far more detrimental for the PSF shape than in the
398: astrometric correction, a different method for selecting stars in the
399: SXDS images is necessary.
400: For these images, the IRAF {\tt psfmeasure} task was used to estimate
401: widths of unsaturated
402: objects in the image based on a Gaussian fit. In a histogram of the widths
403: of these objects, there is an obvious cutoff on the low--FWHM end
404: accompanied by a sharp peak and an overlying broad distribution
405: extending to larger FWHMs. Objects in the narrow peak were presumed to
406: be point sources to within the image resolution, and the brightest of
407: these were selected as stars in each optical image.
408:
409: \begin{figure} %% BRizJK growth curves
410: \plotone{f2.eps}
411: \caption{Average growth curves of the six optical/IR bands divided by
412: the growth curve of
413: the worst image (SXDS--West $z$-band, with a PSF FWHM $\sim 0\farcs 9$).
414: Relative growth curves before ({\it dashed}) and after ({\it solid with
415: points}) convolution to the broadest PSF are shown. The vertical dotted
416: line shows the ``color'' aperture size of 1\farcs75. Typical systematic
417: flux errors due to PSF matching at this aperture size are $<2$\%.
418: \label{fig_gc}}
419: \end{figure}
420:
421: Square postage stamps (21 pixels or 4\farcs2 on a side) of the stars selected
422: in each image were then created, and these in turn were median--combined
423: to create 22 empirical PSFs (one for each of the 20
424: SXDS subimages, plus one for each UDS mosaic).
425: Enclosed flux as a function of aperture size (growth curves) were then created
426: for these PSFs. The ``slowest--growing''
427: growth curve, indicating the broadest PSF, is that of the western SXDS
428: $z-$band image with a FWHM of $\sim 0\farcs9$. Thus, we take this as the
429: reference PSF and match the other 19 SXDS fields and two UDS
430: images to it. The average growth curves for point sources in the
431: smoothed $\brizjk$ images, expressed as a fraction of the SXDS--West
432: $z^\prime$ (reference) growth curve, before and after smoothing, are shown
433: in Figure~\ref{fig_gc}. At the aperture sizes used for flux
434: measurements in the following section ($>1\farcs75$ or $\sim 9$ pixels in
435: diameter), the PSFs are matched to within 2\%.
436:
437: The point--response functions of the IRAC 3.6\,$\mu$m and 4.5\,$\mu$m
438: images are roughly $1.7\times$ as broad as
439: in the worst SXDS image ($\sim 1\farcs 6$ for both);
440: they also contain significant non-Gaussian structure resulting from point
441: source diffraction. While it would have been simpler in principle to
442: smooth the $\brizjk$ images to the IRAC PSF shape, this would substantially
443: reduce the detection efficiency in $K$ while (for most high--redshift
444: sources) providing only weak detections in IRAC to begin with. Additionally,
445: blending from nearby sources is more likely to adversely affect simple
446: aperture photometry in the IRAC images. PSF--matching and photometry are
447: thus performed on these data using a different technique, described
448: in \S\ref{sec_iracphot}.
449:
450: \section{Catalog extraction} \label{sec_catalog}
451: \subsection{Source detection and photometry}\label{sec_sextractor}
452: To measure fluxes of sources in the $\brizjk$ images we used
453: SExtractor in dual--image mode, whereby one image is used to detect sources
454: and aperture photometry is performed on another image registered to the
455: identical coordinate system. The
456: unsmoothed (pre--PSF matching) $K$ mosaic was used as the detection image,
457: and fluxes were measured in each of the six PSF--matched IR/optical mosaics.
458: The sensitivity across the $K$ image is not perfectly uniform due to
459: overlapping exposures and array efficiency variations; such nonuniformity
460: can lead to corresponding variations in the number of detected galaxies,
461: and thus to spurious clustering signals. We used the UKIDSS--supplied
462: confidence map to construct an RMS map of the $K$ image, and this
463: map was applied as the weight image within SExtractor
464: in order to detect sources in an effectively
465: noise--equalized and uniform manner.
466: Several initial SExtractor runs were performed with varying detection
467: parameters and the results checked by eye; the final choice of parameters
468: appeared to find all faint objects with few spurious detections
469: (see \S\ref{sec_complete}).
470:
471:
472: \begin{figure}
473: \plotone{f3.eps}
474: \caption{{\it Top panel:} Median growth curves of point sources in
475: the PSF--matched $\brizjk$ images; {\it Bottom panel:} Signal--to--noise in the
476: six bands, defined as the growth curve divided by the empty aperture
477: noise function in each band, normalized to the peak SN in each band.
478: The solid vertical line denotes the color aperture size of 1\farcs75.
479: \label{fig_gcsn}}
480: \end{figure}
481:
482: Total fluxes were determined using
483: a flexible elliptical aperture \citep[SExtractor's
484: {\tt AUTO} aperture;][]{kron80}. To ensure that color measurements are
485: consistent, fluxes in a fixed circular aperture were also measured.
486: The optimal size of this ``color'' aperture is subject
487: to two primary considerations: while a larger aperture encloses a greater
488: fraction of a given object's flux, it also suffers from higher uncertainty
489: due to background
490: fluctuations. To determine the best aperture size, we divided the
491: growth curve of each image by its noise function (i.e., photometric
492: uncertainty versus aperture size, described in detail in
493: \S\ref{sec_photerr}). This is effectively equivalent to the signal--to--noise
494: (SN) of each image as a function of aperture size, and is shown in the
495: lower panel
496: of Figure~\ref{fig_gcsn}.
497:
498: The $K$--band SN peaks at a diameter of $\sim 4$
499: pixels or 0\farcs8, which is lower than the ideal aperture size theoretically
500: expected with uncorrelated noise ($\sim 1\farcs 0$), but
501: consistent with the $1.1-1.4\times$FWHM optimal aperture found for the MUSYC
502: data \citep{quadri07b}. The growth curves shown in the top panel of
503: Figure~\ref{fig_gcsn} indicate
504: that an aperture of this size misses about 70\% of a point source's flux.
505: Such a small aperture is highly susceptible to systematic errors
506: from imperfect PSF matching and astrometric offsets. Additionally,
507: larger apertures appear to produce slightly bluer $J-K$ colors (on the
508: order of 0.05 magnitudes between 1\arcsec\ and 2\arcsec\ apertures),
509: perhaps due to intrinsic galaxy color gradients and/or imperfect image
510: matching. To
511: ensure more accurate colors of non--point sources, as a compromise
512: we adopt a somewhat larger
513: ``color'' aperture of 1\farcs75 diameter. This more than doubles the enclosed
514: flux while only decreasing the SN by $\sim 30$\% from the optimal value.
515:
516: \begin{figure}
517: \plotone{f4.eps}
518: \caption{Distribution of total $K$ magnitudes for objects in the UDS
519: $K$-selected catalog detected
520: at $>5\sigma$ significance in the ``color'' (1\farcs 75 diameter) aperture
521: {\it black histogram}.
522: The vertical black line indicates the mean $5\sigma$ detection limit of
523: $K=23.57$. Overplotted are raw number counts from the \emph{FIRES} MS1054-03
524: cluster field \citep[][{\it red histogram}]{forster06} and the CDFS--GOODS
525: $K$-selected catalog \citep[][{\it green histogram}]{wuyts08}.
526: \label{fig_kdist}}
527: \end{figure}
528:
529: In cases where the {\tt AUTO} aperture is smaller than 1\farcs75
530: (primarily occurring for faint, point--like sources), the color aperture
531: flux is substituted for the total flux. All total fluxes are corrected
532: for flux falling outside the aperture assuming a minimal (point--like)
533: source flux distribution.
534: The SExtractor photometry was verified by comparing the $z^\prime$ total
535: flux values with those of objects
536: in spatially coincident HST/ACS images.\footnote{Found using the MAST archive,
537: \url{http://archive.stsci.edu}.} The only useful ACS data in the archive
538: were taken with the F850LP filter, which is approximately equivalent
539: to SXDS $z^\prime$; fluxes of objects in these ACS data were consistent
540: with those derived from SXDS. The
541: photometric zeropoints of the SXDS $z^\prime$ data thus appear to be
542: properly calibrated. Since the
543: same calibration techniques and standard star fields were used
544: by the SXDS team to determine the
545: $BRi^\prime$ image zeropoints, we assume the calibrations in these bands
546: are accurate as well (though the lack of available verification data should be
547: kept in mind). Figure~\ref{fig_kdist} shows the distribution of $K$ magnitudes
548: for all objects detected by SExtractor, with number counts overplotted from two
549: other $K$--selected samples: FIRES MS1054-03 \citep{forster06}
550: and CDFS-GOODS \citep{wuyts08}.
551: The number counts of the three surveys are similar to the UDS limiting
552: magnitude, though the enhanced number of faint objects in the FIRES
553: field (due to the presence of the $z=0.83$ cluster MS $1054-03$) is
554: evident.
555:
556: \subsection{IRAC PSF--matching and photometry}\label{sec_iracphot}
557: As previously mentioned, the optical and NIR images were smoothed to
558: the seeing of the
559: SXDS--West $z^\prime$--band data rather than the much broader point--response
560: function of the IRAC data. The direct aperture photometry
561: from SExtractor would therefore not measure IRAC fluxes that are
562: properly matched to the other bands. Moreover, the lower--resolution
563: IRAC images are more prone to blending than the other bands, which can
564: introduce significant systematic errors in the measured colors.
565: We thus employed the method of \citet{labbe06} to correct this,
566: summarized below.
567:
568: Sources that are bright in $K$ are also typically bright in the
569: 3.6/4.5\,$\mu$m bands; thus,
570: the $K$ image is used as a high--resolution template to
571: deblend the IRAC images.
572: Convolution kernels used to transform from
573: the $K$ to the IRAC PSFs are constructed from bright and unsaturated sources
574: (computed by fitting a series of
575: Gaussian--weighted Hermite functions to the Fourier transforms of the
576: objects in IRAC and $K$), and a smoothed map of the kernel
577: coefficients as a function of image position is then produced.
578: For a given object detected in $K$, neighboring sources are
579: fitted and subtracted out using the local convolution kernel (derived
580: from the aforementioned smoothed coefficient map) and the
581: SExtractor--derived segmentation map. This results in a ``cleaned'' IRAC
582: subimage containing only the source in question; standard
583: photometry with a 3\arcsec\ diameter aperture\footnote{
584: As with the UDS and SXDS images, this aperture size was chosen as a
585: compromise between maximal signal--to--noise and enclosing a sufficient
586: fraction of a point source's flux.} is then performed on the source, and
587: this process is repeated for each object in the $K$--selected catalog.
588: Through a visual inspection of the IRAC residual image with all sources
589: subtracted, we conclude that this method effectively removes
590: contaminating sources \citep[for an illustration of this technique, see
591: also Figure 1 in][]{wuyts07}.
592:
593: Since the IRAC photometry from this procedure is
594: performed using a larger aperture on images with significantly
595: broader PSFs than the matched $\brizjk$ images, these fluxes must be
596: corrected in order to obtain accurate IRAC--IR/optical colors. This
597: is accomplished by multiplying the IRAC flux measured in a 3\arcsec\
598: aperture by a correction factor to obtain a ``matched'' IRAC flux:
599: \begin{equation}
600: f_{\rm IRAC,match}=f_{\rm IRAC}(3\arcsec) \times \frac{f_{\rm K}(1\farcs 75)}{f_{\rm K,conv}(3\arcsec)}
601: \end{equation}
602: where $f_{\rm K,conv}$(3\arcsec) is the flux of the object measured in the
603: $K$--band image after smoothing it to the IRAC resolution, and
604: $f_{\rm K}$ is the K--band flux measured in the fixed ``color'' aperture
605: (see \S\ref{sec_sextractor}). This correction implicitly assumes
606: that the ratio of fluxes between the two aperture sizes is the same
607: for $K$ and IRAC, i.e. color gradients
608: between 1\farcs75 and 3\arcsec\ are insignificant. While this technique
609: could introduce
610: systematic errors in measurements of extended sources with strong
611: color gradients, at the redshifts primarily considered here
612: ($z\ga 1$) most galaxies have small angular sizes and
613: are not likely to be adversely affected.
614:
615: \subsection{Bad pixels \label{sec_badpix}}
616: All three sets of images (UDS, SXDS, SWIRE) contained regions where either no
617: data were available or the derived photometry was unreliable. Thus,
618: even though SExtractor finds objects in these regions, their fluxes
619: should be considered unreliable. To account for this we created bad--pixel
620: maps for each image set; if an object's ``color'' aperture contains
621: any such bad pixels, we set a flag indicating as such in the catalog.
622: The bad pixel maps created for each survey are mostly a result of the
623: following effects:
624: \begin{enumerate}
625: \item{
626: UDS $JK$:{\it False sources and large negative residuals.}
627: In rows and columns containing bright stars, there are often significant
628: positive and negative images (repeated at regular intervals) as a result
629: of crosstalk between WFCAM detector nodes. These ``false positive'' images,
630: while obviously not true astrophysical sources upon visual inspection,
631: are nonetheless picked up as
632: real objects by SExtractor. To make matters worse, many such ``false
633: positives'' in $K$ have negative apparent flux in $J$, causing these
634: to appear as very red objects. They can thus mimic high--redshift near--IR
635: galaxy colors and may be an important contaminant in our catalog.
636: Fortunately, adjacent to most of the false positive images in $K$,
637: some strongly negative residuals are also typically seen. We thus
638: searched for such strong $K$ residuals in the image, removing any object
639: falling on or within 10 pixels of any such artifact as bad. As a secondary
640: check, we searched for objects which were detected in $K$ but undetected
641: in the sum of the $B+R+i^\prime+z^\prime$ mosaics. This cut finds an
642: additional $\sim 1900$ possible bad spots. A visual inspection confirms
643: that about $80$\% of these are indeed artifacts (including diffraction
644: spikes from bright stars and meteor streaks in $K$) that were undetected
645: by the aforementioned ``negative residual'' technique, and most of the
646: remaining $20$\% are extremely faint and likely to be spurious detections.
647: However, since some of these optically--nondetected objects are real,
648: they have been
649: included in the catalog with a flag indicating that they are likely to
650: be bad.
651:
652: }
653: \item{
654: SXDS $BRi^\prime z^\prime$: {\it Non--covered regions and bright stars.}
655: As shown in Figure~\ref{fig_fields}, the corners of the $UDS$ fields
656: are not covered by the SXDS imaging. Additionally, bright stars in SXDS
657: are surrounded by concentric halos and extended readout streaks. The
658: Subaru team has provided files which define the regions affected by these
659: bright
660: stars; a visual inspection of the SXDS frames confirms that these regions
661: accurately describe the affected areas. For each of the five pointings
662: we created a map such that pixels falling within these regions had a value
663: of 1, and zero otherwise. Using SWarp, these bad pixel masks were then
664: transformed and combined into a single mosaic on the same coordinate system
665: as the other images (assigning a value of 1 to the corners with no
666: SXDS coverage as well).
667: }
668: \item{
669: SWIRE: {\it One non--covered region.}
670: The SWIRE survey spans an area many times larger than the UDS field,
671: with nearly uniform coverage over the UDS/SXDS area except for a small
672: triangular
673: region in the southwest corner of the field. As most of this triangle
674: is also outside the SXDS coverage area, reliable IRAC flux measurements
675: (or upper limits) are available
676: for essentially all objects with SXDS photometry. Objects with coordinates
677: falling in this missing SWIRE piece are flagged in the catalog.
678: }
679: \end{enumerate}
680:
681: It should be noted that, while these techniques were effective at
682: automatically finding many false detections and areas of unreliable
683: photometry, some undetected artifacts are likely to remain in the
684: full catalog. For the analysis described herein we therefore visually
685: inspected subsets of our samples to ensure that such artifacts
686: do not significantly affect our results.
687:
688:
689: \subsection{Photometric Error Determination}\label{sec_photerr}
690: The uncertainty of a flux determined through aperture photometry contains
691: contributions from the intrinsic Poisson error in the source counts
692: and from background noise. While the first (automatically calculated by
693: SExtractor) is straightforward to determine
694: and is the dominant source of uncertainty for bright objects,
695: the background uncertainty is important for fainter sources. For perfectly
696: random (uncorrelated) background noise the additional photometric
697: uncertainty is simply $\sigma_{\rm aper}\sim\sigma\sqrt{N}$, where $N$ is the
698: number of pixels contained within the aperture and $\sigma$ is the
699: pixel--to--pixel RMS. On the other extreme, if the noise is perfectly
700: correlated, then $\sigma_{\rm aper}\sim\sigma N$.
701: Typical images will fall somewhere between these two cases,
702: exhibiting a general form of $\sigma_{\rm aper}\sim \sigma(\sqrt{N})^\beta$.
703:
704: We estimated the background uncertainty following the method of
705: \citet{labbe03} and \citet{gawiser06}.
706: First, to estimate this power--law index, several hundred
707: apertures of a given size were randomly placed on empty parts of the images
708: (i.e., those containing no emission detected by SExtractor).
709: The RMS variation $\sigma_{\rm aper}$ was found by fitting a Gaussian
710: to the resulting histogram of aperture fluxes, and this
711: process was repeated for aperture diameters from 2 to 40 pixels
712: (0\farcs 4--8\arcsec). We then fit a general power--law function to the
713: $\sigma_{\rm aper}$ vs.~$\sqrt{N}$ curve to determine the average
714: value of $\beta$ over each image; these $\beta$ parameters were
715: near 1.5 for all images (ranging from $\beta=1.37$ for $J$ to
716: $\beta=1.58$ for $i^\prime$).
717:
718: Ideally, the power--law normalization should simply be equal to
719: the local pixel--to--pixel RMS $\sigma$. However, in real images some
720: deviation from this is possible. To accurately determine this relation,
721: we performed the aforementioned procedure
722: over $\sim 300$ random, small ($2000\times 2000$ pixel) subregions of each
723: image, this time fitting a function of the form
724: $\sigma_{\rm aper} = \alpha \sigma (\sqrt{N})^\beta$ and fixing $\beta$
725: to the average value measured for each mosaic. The value of $\sigma$
726: for the pixels contained within the apertures was also calculated, and
727: a linear fit performed to determine the constant of proportionality
728: $\alpha$. For the six images $\alpha$ averages about 1.3 (ranging between
729: 1.22 and 1.40),
730: reasonably near the theoretically--expected value of 1. For each
731: object in the catalog, the local value of $\sigma$ and the above formula
732: was used to estimate the background uncertainty, and this was combined
733: in quadrature with the SExtractor--derived Poisson noise to compute the total flux
734: uncertainty.
735:
736: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
737: \tablecolumns{4}
738: \tablewidth{200pt}
739: \tablecaption{UDS/SXDS/SWIRE data characteristics \label{tab_limits}}
740: \tablehead{
741: \colhead{Survey\tablenotemark{1}} &
742: \colhead{Band\tablenotemark{2}} &
743: \colhead{Area\tablenotemark{3}} &
744: \colhead{$m_{5\sigma}$\tablenotemark{4}}
745: \\
746: \colhead{} &
747: \colhead{} &
748: \colhead{(deg$^2$)} &
749: \colhead{(AB)}
750: }
751: \startdata
752: SXDS &$B$ &0.70 &27.65 \\
753: SXDS &$R$ &0.70 &27.05 \\
754: SXDS &$i^\prime$ &0.70 &26.82 \\
755: SXDS &$z^\prime$ &0.70 &25.53 \\
756: UDS &$J$ &0.77 &23.93 \\
757: UDS &$K$ &0.77 &23.57 \\
758: SWIRE&3.6$\mu$m &0.76 &22.25 \\
759: SWIRE&4.5$\mu$m &0.76 &21.53
760: \enddata
761: \tablenotetext{1}{SXDS --- Subaru--XMM Deep Survey; UDS---
762: UKIDSS Ultra--Deep Survey; SWIRE---Spitzer Wide-Area Extragalactic Survey.\\}
763: \tablenotetext{2}{The photometric systems are: Johnson--Cousins ($B$/$R$); SDSS ($i^\prime/z^\prime$); Mauna Kea ($J/K$).\\}
764: \tablenotetext{3}{Survey areas are in square degrees overlapping the UDS.\\}
765: \tablenotetext{4}{
766: Limiting magnitudes ($5\sigma$) are calculated from the average noise properties
767: of each image using the 1\farcs75 color aperture, and scaled up to
768: the total object flux using a minimal aperture correction factor (i.e.,
769: assuming a point source) derived from the growth curves in
770: Figure~\ref{fig_gcsn}.
771: }
772: \end{deluxetable}
773:
774: \subsection{Limiting magnitudes and completeness} \label{sec_complete}
775: From the noise estimates we calculated approximate $5\sigma$ limiting
776: magnitudes in the 1\farcs75 color aperture for each band, listed in
777: Table~\ref{tab_limits}. These
778: are based on the aperture noise measurements in
779: each image as described in \S\ref{sec_photerr}; the actual limiting magnitudes
780: vary as a function of position in each mosaic, particularly
781: in the SXDS mosaics. The magnitudes listed in the table have been corrected
782: for flux falling outside the color aperture (assuming a point source), as
783: determined from the growth curves shown in Figure~\ref{fig_gcsn}. Note
784: that these limiting magnitudes are slightly fainter than those
785: reported by the survey teams; this is due to our use of a smaller color
786: aperture (1\farcs 75 vs. 2\arcsec).
787:
788: \begin{figure}
789: \plotone{f5.eps}
790: \caption{Point--source completeness of the $K$--selected catalog, for
791: the average mosaic depth ({\it solid line}) and the least sensitive
792: part of the mosaic ({\it dotted line}).
793: \label{fig_complete}}
794: \end{figure}
795:
796: Completeness was tested by placing simulated point sources in a
797: $5000\times 5000$ pixel subregion
798: of the unconvolved UDS $K$ image. This subregion sits exactly
799: in the center of the full mosaic, and was chosen to contain roughly
800: equal contributions from the four WFCAM arrays (which individually have
801: slightly different sensitivities), thereby providing a representative sample
802: of the full mosaic. The $K$ PSF generated for the PSF matching step was
803: used to create the simulated stars. Approximately 1700 such stars,
804: scaled to magnitudes between $K=18-23$, were placed in the image
805: on a semi--random grid designed to avoid other real or simulated sources.
806: SExtractor was then run on the image with the point sources included
807: (using identical detection parameters to those in \S\ref{sec_sextractor}),
808: and the number of detected fake stars as a function of magnitude recorded.
809: At the mean $5\sigma$ $K$--band detection limit of $K=23.57$, the survey
810: is 95\% complete.
811:
812:
813: \begin{figure}
814: \plotone{f6.eps}
815: \caption{Comparison of our photometric redshifts to 119 spectroscopic redshifts in the UDS field ({\it top panel})
816: and fractional error ({\it bottom panel}). Red filled circles denote those
817: points flagged as QSOs in the \citet{simpson06} sample, and green open
818: circles are objects with $\log(\chi^2)>2.9$ as derived by EAZY.
819: \label{fig_zcompare}}
820: \end{figure}
821:
822: This process was repeated for one of the lowest--sensitivity regions
823: in the mosaic, the area of a single
824: WFCAM chip in the northwest quadrant of the image. Even in this worst
825: case the catalog is 100\% complete for $K<23.2$ and 95\% complete for
826: $K\la 23.5$ (see Figure~\ref{fig_complete}).
827: It should be noted that these completeness estimates are entirely based
828: on point sources; for real galaxies with extended flux distributions,
829: the completeness at a given magnitude will be lower. However,
830: for the relatively bright galaxies considered in this analysis
831: ($K<22.4$, or 1 magnitude brighter than the worst--case 95\% completeness
832: limit), this should not be an issue. Also,
833: this does not take into account the possibility of close pairs of objects
834: being blended, and thus mistakenly being counted as a single object
835: by SExtractor; however, for this analysis such effects are likely
836: to be small (further discussed in \S\ref{sec_discussion}).
837:
838:
839:
840: \subsection{Catalog format}
841: The final $K$--selected catalog employed in this analysis was generated from
842: the 99022 objects (not lying near bad pixels) detected by SExtractor in the
843: UDS mosaic. Some of these may be image artifacts and/or fall on bad
844: or missing regions in the SXDS and SWIRE images as described in
845: \S\ref{sec_badpix}. Such objects are
846: included in the catalog, but with flag(s) noting that their photometry in a
847: given band is likely to be unreliable.
848: Photometry in the $B$ through IRAC 4.5\,$\mu$m bands, as well
849: as limited morphological information, are included, and all fluxes
850: are given with an AB zeropoint of 25. The columns of
851: the catalog\footnote{Available from\\
852: \url{http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/galaxyevolution/UDS}} are as follows:
853:
854: %id position(x,y;ra,dec) field(*meaningless*) BRizJK\_colf,colfe K\_totf,totfe BRizJKw ap\_col,tot f\_deblend1,2 Kr50 Keps Kposang totcor Kstarclass Opt,NIR\_badpix BJ\_maxflags K\_flags \\
855: \noindent
856: {\it Columns (1)--(3).}---Running ID, right ascension, and declination (J2000)\\
857: {\it Columns (4)--(15).}---$\brizjk$ ``color'' fluxes and errors (1\farcs 75
858: diameter aperture, listed in the order $f_B$, $\sigma_B$, $f_R$, $\sigma_R$,
859: ...)\\
860: {\it Column (16).}---Total $K$ flux in the SExtractor {\tt AUTO} aperture\\
861: {\it Columns (17)--(20).}---IRAC 3.6$\mu$m and 4.5$\mu$m fluxes and errors
862: (matched to the optical/IR ``color'' aperture)\\
863: {\it Columns (21)--(23).}---$K$--band half--light radius, ellipticity, and position angle\\
864: {\it Columns (24)--(25).}---Optical and SWIRE bad--pixel flags\\
865: {\it Column (26).}---Flag for objects not detected in the stacked
866: $B+R+i^\prime+z^\prime$ image\\
867: {\it Column (27).}---Internal flag generated by SExtractor
868:
869: \section{Photometric Redshifts and rest--frame colors} \label{sec_photz}
870: \subsection{EAZY fitting}
871: Photometric redshifts were determined with the EAZY code\footnote{Code
872: and documentation are available at \url{http://www.astro.yale.edu/eazy}},
873: described in
874: detail in \citet{brammer08}. In its default configuration, EAZY uses
875: $\chi^2$ minimization to fit linear combinations of six basis templates to
876: broadband galaxy spectral energy distributions; a $K-$band luminosity
877: prior and estimates of systematic errors due to template mismatch are
878: also taken into account. These default settings
879: have been demonstrated to provide reliable photometric redshifts for
880: other $K$--selected samples \citep[see][]{brammer08}.
881:
882: To test the reliability of the UDS $\zphot$ values we compared them
883: to galaxies in this field with known spectroscopic redshifts. A query using
884: the {\it NASA Extragalactic Database} (NED) finds 96 published redshifts,
885: most of which are old passively--evolving galaxies at $0.8<z<1.2$ from
886: \citet{yamada05}. An additional 60 redshifts of radio sources
887: are from the catalog of \citet{simpson06}. After
888: cross--correlating these objects with objects detected in the UDS $K$ band,
889: 119 spectroscopic redshifts remained; EAZY was able to find $\zphot$
890: solutions for 110 of these (and found no $\chi^2$ minimum for the other 9).
891: The left--hand panel of Figure~\ref{fig_zcompare} shows a comparison
892: of the photometric and spectroscopic redshifts of these galaxies.
893: Objects flagged by \citet{simpson06} as ``QSO'' or ``XQSO''
894: (X-ray emitting QSO), which may not be well--fit
895: by typical galaxy templates if the AGN light contributes significantly
896: to the overall flux, are shown as filled red circles in the plot. Of the
897: aforementioned nine objects for which EAZY failed to find $\zphot$ solutions,
898: four of them fell in this AGN category.
899:
900: While the agreement between the photometric and spectroscopic redshifts
901: is quite good (particularly at $z\sim 1$), roughly 8\% of the points are
902: outliers with fractional errors of 0.2 or more (and about half of these in turn
903: are serious outliers,
904: with $\left|\Delta z\right|/(1+z_{\rm spec})>0.5$). Determining {\it a priori}
905: from photometry alone which objects are likely to be outliers is
906: difficult -- although most of the QSOs are indeed strong outliers, weak
907: (or even strong) AGN activity in galaxies is not always evident. However,
908: the $\chi^2$ value returned by EAZY appears to be a somewhat reliable
909: indicator: all objects with $\log \chi^2>2.9$
910: have $(1+\zphot)$ values that deviate more than 20\% from their
911: measured spectroscopic redshifts. When objects with these high $\chi^2$
912: values are removed from the sample,
913: the remaining normalized median absolute deviation (NMAD) in
914: $\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm spec})$ is 0.033 with a median offset
915: of $\Delta z=-0.013$.
916:
917: At $z\sim 1.2$ the photometric redshifts appear to exhibit a small
918: systematic offset of $\Delta z/(1+z)\sim -0.05$ (though due to the small
919: number of points here it
920: is difficult to assess the magnitude of the offset). A similar offset at
921: the same redshift is seen by \citet{brammer08} even with more
922: photometric bands included (notably $U$, $V$, and $H$), and the offset
923: persists when different template sets and input parameters are
924: used. Additionally, relatively small--scale ``spikes'' and ``voids''
925: (on the scale of $\Delta z=0.1-0.2$) in the photometric redshift
926: distribution are apparent--see Figure~\ref{fig_zdist}. These may
927: in part represent real variations in the large--scale galaxy
928: distribution, but some are also likely to be numerical artifacts intrinsic to
929: the photometric redshifts. However, since these effects are relatively
930: small, and since in our analysis we employ redshift intervals
931: ($\Delta z>0.5$) larger than the observed ``spikes'' in the $\zphot$
932: distribution, such effects are not likely to significantly affect our
933: results.
934:
935: \begin{figure}
936: \plotone{f7.eps}
937: \caption{Distribution of apparent $K$ magnitude as a function of photometric
938: redshift ({\it top panel}), and number of galaxies as a function of
939: $\zphot$ ({\it bottom panel}).
940: \label{fig_zdist}}
941: \end{figure}
942:
943: The rest--frame near-- and mid--infrared properties of typical galaxies
944: are not as well constrained as the optical SEDs, so the
945: galaxy templates employed by EAZY tend to be uncertain in this regime.
946: This uncertainty
947: is taken into account during the $\zphot$ calculations; nevertheless,
948: the inclusion of the IRAC data could still in principle introduce
949: systematic effects. To check this, we re--ran
950: EAZY with only the $\brizjk$ photometry and compared the
951: results to those with the IRAC fluxes included. While the resulting
952: $\zphot$ values were similar, the scatter and systematic offset increased
953: substantially, with ${\rm NMAD}\left[\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm spec})\right]=0.044$
954: and median $\Delta z=-0.017$. Moreover, although the number of major outliers
955: is comparable, such outliers are no longer easily rejected: even with
956: the $\chi^2$ cut and excluding objects where solutions were not found,
957: only three of the AGNs are excluded, and overall the worst outliers
958: are no longer confined to the fits with the highest $\chi^2$ values.
959:
960: Including IRAC data in the calculation of photometric redshifts
961: thus reduces the $\zphot$ scatter and allows outlying points (including
962: many AGNs) to be rejected from the sample . This is
963: perhaps not surprising: for
964: example, \citet{stern05} find that AGNs typically have redder
965: IRAC $[3.6]-[4.5]$ colors than typical galaxies. Since the galaxy templates
966: employed by EAZY do not take possible AGN components into account, the
967: 4.5\,$\mu$m excess
968: in galaxies with nuclear activity in turn cannot be matched well by any
969: of these templates. Indeed, most of the
970: objects that either had high $\chi^2$ values or no solutions from EAZY
971: appeared to exhibit redder $[3.6]-[4.5]$ colors than those galaxies with
972: good $\zphot$ fits.
973:
974: \begin{figure}
975: \plotone{f8.eps}
976: \caption{Rest--frame color--color diagram for $K_{\rm AB} <22.4$, $\zphot<2.5$
977: UDS galaxies ({\it black points}). Red points denote
978: spectroscopically--confirmed $z\sim 1$ old passively--evolving galaxies (OPEGs)
979: from \citet{yamada05} with little or no detected line emission
980: ($W_\lambda({\rm OII})<5$\,\AA). \citet{bc03} evolutionary tracks of
981: passively--evolving ({\it red line}) and constantly star--forming ({\it cyan
982: line}) stellar populations from $0.1-10$\,Gyr are overplotted,
983: and the arrow shows the effect of 1 magnitude of
984: dust extinction. The extended star--forming track
985: and the ``quiescent clump'' (which overlaps with the OPEG sample) are
986: clearly separated.
987: \label{fig_rfcol}}
988: \end{figure}
989:
990: \subsection{Monte Carlo analysis} \label{sec_montecarlo}
991: During the process of computing $\zphot$ values, EAZY also provides
992: estimates on the redshift uncertainty and a probability distribution
993: $p(z)$ for each object. The $p(z)$ curves in particular are useful
994: for estimating the redshift distribution of a large sample of objects,
995: since the true distribution is likely to be broader than a histogram
996: of the best--fit $\zphot$ values (e.g., in an extreme case with a sample
997: of $\zphot=2.00$ galaxies, the true distribution would be much broader
998: than a delta function). To assess the consistency of the $p(z)$ distributions,
999: we performed 120 Monte Carlo iterations
1000: varying the input photometry assuming Gaussian errors. Though this
1001: is a relatively small number of iterations, it gives a rough
1002: estimate of the $\zphot$ uncertainty for any given object, and an accurate
1003: computation of the redshift distribution of a large sample of objects.
1004:
1005: For each object, the median and dispersion among the 120 Monte Carlo
1006: runs were determined and compared to the estimates from EAZY. The median
1007: values for the UDS sample were consistent with the best--fit values
1008: derived by EAZY from the original (unperturbed) catalog, as were the
1009: $1\sigma$ uncertainty estimates. Furthermore, for subsets of the
1010: catalog, the redshift distributions derived from the Monte Carlo analysis
1011: closely reflected the EAZY--derived $p(z)$ distributions. The uncertainties
1012: derived by EAZY thus appear to be internally consistent for the UDS data.
1013:
1014: %%BoundingBox: 18 324 592 718
1015: \begin{figure*}
1016: \plotone{f9.eps}
1017: \caption{Rest--frame $U-V$ vs. $V-J$ colors of UDS $K<22.4$ galaxies
1018: in five redshift bins. The greyscale represents the density of points
1019: in the central region of each plot, while outlying points are plotted
1020: individually.
1021: The solid lines show the adopted divisions between the
1022: star--forming and quiescent galaxy samples at each redshift, defined
1023: in Equation~\ref{eq_division}. Median
1024: uncertainties in the rest--frame colors of quiescent and star--forming galaxies
1025: (only taking random errors into account) are shown in the
1026: upper left and lower right of each frame, respectively.
1027: \label{fig_evol}}
1028: \end{figure*}
1029:
1030:
1031: \subsection{Interpolating rest--frame photometry}
1032: At $z\sim 2.5$, the $U$, $V$, and $J$ rest--frame bands fall roughly into
1033: the observed $J$, $K$, and IRAC $4.5\mu$m bands
1034: respectively. Up to this redshift, intrinsic $UVJ$ fluxes can thus be
1035: interpolated from the observed data. Filter response curves for the observed
1036: bands, taking into account atmospheric
1037: absorption and detector quantum efficiency, were downloaded from each of the
1038: WFCAM, Suprime--Cam, and IRAC websites. For rest--frame filter
1039: definitions we used the standard filter definitions without atmospheric
1040: absorption or detector response included: the \citet{bessell90} $U$ and $V$
1041: curves, and the Mauna Kea definition \citep{tokunaga02} for $J$.
1042: Rest--frame fluxes were then interpolated following the
1043: method of \citet{rudnick03}\footnote{This was
1044: carried out using the InterRest script (E. Taylor et al., in preparation);
1045: see \url{http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~ent/InterRest}}.
1046: Uncertainties on the rest--frame fluxes were derived using the perturbed input
1047: catalogs and output redshifts from the Monte Carlo analysis described
1048: in \S\ref{sec_montecarlo}. Note that these color uncertainties only take
1049: into account photometric errors (and the resulting $\zphot$ errors),
1050: and do not include the uncertainties intrinsic to the templates used for
1051: $\zphot$ fitting.
1052:
1053:
1054: \section{Evidence for quiescent galaxies to $z\sim 2.5$} \label{sec_analysis}
1055: \subsection{The rest--frame colors of quiescent and star--forming galaxies}
1056: We use the galaxy catalog derived from the UDS/SXDS/SWIRE data,
1057: along with the photometric redshifts and interpolated rest--frame
1058: colors described in the previous section, to analyze the
1059: rest--frame color distribution of galaxies out to $z=2.5$. Beyond this
1060: redshift the rest--frame $J$ band begins to ``fall off'' the reddest
1061: filter in our catalog (IRAC $4.5\mu$m), and rest--frame colors
1062: at $z>2.5$ are therefore less reliable.
1063: Stars are selected (and removed from the sample) using the two criteria:
1064: $J-K<0$ and $(J-K)<0.2(i^\prime-K)-0.16$. This two--color cut was
1065: derived by inspection of the $J-K$ vs.~$i^\prime-K$ color--color diagram,
1066: wherein stars form a tight, well--defined track. Additionally, we exclude
1067: all objects that fall on bad pixels or missing data regions in any band,
1068: as well as those with bad photometric redshift solutions ($\log\chi^2>2.9$
1069: as derived in \S\ref{sec_photz}), and apply a magnitude limit of
1070: $K<22.4$. When all these criteria are met, the subsample analyzed
1071: hereafter contains 30108 galaxies between $0<z<2.5$. By comparison
1072: with 119 spectroscopic redshifts in the field we find typical
1073: photometric redshift errors of $\Delta z/(1+z)\sim 0.033$, though
1074: this is almost entirely measured with galaxies at $z\la 1.2$; at higher
1075: redshifts the $\zphot$ uncertainty is likely to be substantially larger.
1076:
1077: Figure~\ref{fig_rfcol} shows the rest--frame $U-V$ vs. $V-J$ (hereafter
1078: $UVJ$) diagram for this subset of UDS galaxies. A striking bimodality
1079: emerges: one diagonal track extends from
1080: blue to red $V-J$, while a localized clump that is red in $U-V$ but
1081: blue in $V-J$ lies above this track. Previously,
1082: \citet{labbe05} and \citet{wuyts07} found that actively star--forming
1083: and quiescent galaxies segregate themselves in this plane, with
1084: the star--forming galaxies forming a diagonal track and
1085: quiescent galaxies populating mostly the upper left--hand region; with the
1086: far larger number of sources in the UDS, it is now evident that the galaxies
1087: form a truly bimodal distribution in this plane. Indeed,
1088: this interpretation is supported here by both data and models:
1089: the red points overlying the ``quiescent clump'' in Figure~\ref{fig_rfcol}
1090: are spectroscopically--confirmed old passively--evolving galaxies
1091: from \citet{yamada05}, while the star--forming and quiescent loci are
1092: reasonably coincident with the corresponding \citet{bc03} stellar population
1093: models; a detailed analysis of the star--formation properties of galaxies
1094: in the $UVJ$ plane will be presented in a forthcoming paper (Labb\'e et al.,
1095: in preparation).
1096:
1097: Essentially, the $UVJ$ diagram allows the degeneracy between
1098: red star--forming and red quiescent galaxies to be broken:
1099: while galaxies with blue $U-V$ colors
1100: in general exhibit relatively unobscured star formation activity, red
1101: galaxies could be either
1102: quiescent galaxies with evolved stellar populations or dust--obscured
1103: starbursts. But since dust--free quiescent galaxies are {\it blue} in
1104: $V-J$, they occupy a locus in the $UVJ$ plane that is distinct from
1105: the star--forming galaxies, allowing the two populations to be empirically
1106: separated. Clearly, such a separation using a single color (such as
1107: $U-V$) would be fraught with problems: at best, the quiescent sample
1108: derived in this manner would be contaminated by red starbursts, and if
1109: the number of such starbursts were sufficiently high the bimodality would
1110: no longer be visible (see also Figure~\ref{fig_dahist}). Note that
1111: although the $U-B$
1112: color is better at distinguishing between a narrow break (characteristic of
1113: an old stellar population) and broader dust reddening when spectroscopic
1114: redshifts are available, the larger uncertainties on photometric redshifts
1115: do not allow sufficiently accurate $U-B$ colors to be estimated.
1116:
1117: Even when photometric
1118: redshifts are derived using alternative template sets within EAZY,
1119: or an entirely different $\zphot$ code \citep[HYPERZ;][]{hyperz},
1120: the basic bimodal shape of Figure~\ref{fig_rfcol}
1121: persists, indicating that this method is robust to the specific
1122: numerical technique employed.
1123:
1124: \begin{figure*}
1125: \plottwo{f10a.eps}{f10b.eps}
1126: \caption{{\it Left panel:} Number of red galaxies
1127: as a function of the normal distance from the diagonal dividing lines shown in
1128: Figure~\ref{fig_evol}; the normal distance is defined such that,
1129: in these histograms, star--forming galaxies are to the left (i.e.
1130: negative values) and quiescent galaxies are on the right.
1131: Bimodality along this diagonal line is
1132: clearly evident up to $z=2$. {\it Right panel:} Color--magnitude
1133: diagrams in the same bins; red and black points denote quiescent and
1134: star--forming galaxies (selected on the basis of the cuts in
1135: Figure~\ref{fig_evol})
1136: respectively. The green line is a fit to the red points in the $0.0<z<0.5$
1137: bin, and the inset plots show galaxy counts as a function of the distance
1138: in $U-V$ from this line (with quiescent galaxies plotted separately
1139: as a red histogram). Note that no $U-V$ bimodality is evident at $z>1.5$,
1140: even though it is clearly seen in the $UVJ$ plane.
1141: \label{fig_dahist}}
1142: \end{figure*}
1143:
1144: \subsection{Color Evolution}
1145: Changes in rest--frame colors with redshift reflect the intrinsic evolution of
1146: stellar populations, since all spectra have in
1147: principle been transformed to the same reference frame (barring possible
1148: $\zphot$ systematic errors). $UVJ$ diagrams at five different
1149: redshifts (in bins of width $\Delta \zphot=0.5$) are shown in
1150: Figure~\ref{fig_evol}. The most immediately apparent feature is that
1151: the observed bimodal distribution of star--forming and quiescent galaxies
1152: is clearly seen up to $z\sim 2$. Although the scatter increases substantially
1153: at higher redshifts (to the point where it likely washes out any intrinsic
1154: bimodality at $z>2$), most likely due to a combination of larger
1155: photometric redshift uncertainties and weaker observed fluxes, the two
1156: distinct populations are nonetheless visible.
1157:
1158: It is also notable that the shape
1159: of the star--forming sequence appears to change: at the lowest redshifts
1160: the sequence curves, but this may be due to the effects of using a small
1161: aperture on relatively nearby galaxies (i.e.,
1162: the outermost, bluer parts of galaxies with large angular sizes falling
1163: outside the ``color'' aperture).
1164: At $z\ga 0.5$, where the angular size--redshift relation begins to flatten,
1165: the dust sequence indeed becomes more linear.
1166: The increase in star formation activity at higher redshifts is also
1167: apparent in two ways: the fractional number of dusty, star--forming
1168: galaxies (the upper--right portion of the dust sequence) increases,
1169: and the entire dust sequence appears to move to redder $V-J$ colors.
1170: Note that at $2.0<\zphot<2.5$ a concentration at red $V-J$ and $U-V$ appears;
1171: this mainly comprises galaxies with a substantial contribution from
1172: the red $A_V=2.75$ template included with EAZY. This single template
1173: substantially improves the $\zphot$ solutions of very dusty galaxies, but
1174: can lead to the observed discrete clump in color--color space.
1175:
1176:
1177: With increasing redshift the dead clump appears to steadily move to
1178: bluer $U-V$ (with the median $U-V$ changing by $\sim 0.15$ magnitudes
1179: between the $z=0-0.5$ and $z=1.5-2$ bins), while the
1180: $V-J$ color remains more or less unchanged. This is expected from
1181: passive evolution of the stellar populations in the clump, but
1182: relatively small systematic errors in the photometric redshifts
1183: (on the order of $\Delta z/(1+z)\sim 0.05$) can produce similar offsets
1184: in the average $U-V$ color of quiescent galaxies at $z\sim 1.5$.
1185: The $\zphot$ estimates show a
1186: systematic offset that is smaller than this, about
1187: $(\zphot-z_{\rm spec})/(1+z_{\rm spec})\sim -0.01$ over the full redshift
1188: range (see Figure~\ref{fig_zcompare}).
1189: Nonetheless, given the lack of spectroscopic redshifts at $z\ga 1.3$, we
1190: cannot ascertain whether there are larger systematic offsets at higher
1191: redshift, and therefore cannot accurately measure the color evolution
1192: of galaxies in the quiescent clump or absolutely define the boundaries of the
1193: box in which they live.
1194: %XXX note: +5% (1+z) offset in z=1.0-1.5 bin gives deltaUV=-0.18,deltaVJ=-0.05
1195: % -5% (1+z) offset deltaUV=0.10 deltaVJ=0.08
1196:
1197:
1198: \subsection{Sample Division}
1199: Since the color bimodality is visible up to $z\sim 2$, we employ
1200: empirical criteria to divide this sample into quiescent and
1201: star--forming subsamples. In each redshift bin of Figure~\ref{fig_evol}
1202: where the bimodality could be seen,
1203: an initial diagonal cut was first made between
1204: the two populations. Histograms of red galaxy counts relative to this
1205: line were then derived. The position of the
1206: diagonal cut was fine--tuned (keeping the same slope at all redshifts)
1207: to fall roughly between the two peaks (except in the lowest--redshift bin,
1208: where the shapes of the quiescent and star--forming galaxy loci made
1209: this impossible); Figure~\ref{fig_dahist} (left panel) shows these histograms
1210: along the adjusted diagonal lines.
1211:
1212: The adopted diagonal selection criteria for quiescent galaxies between
1213: $0<z<2.0$ bin are:
1214: \begin{equation}
1215: \label{eq_division}
1216: \begin{array}{lcccr}
1217: (U-V)>0.88\times(V-J)+0.69 & & & &\left[0.0<z<0.5\right]\\
1218: (U-V)>0.88\times(V-J)+0.59 & & & &\left[0.5<z<1.0\right]\\
1219: (U-V)>0.88\times(V-J)+0.49 & & & &\left[1.0<z<2.0\right]
1220: \end{array}
1221: \end{equation}
1222: Additional criteria of $U-V>1.3$ and $V-J<1.6$ are applied to the
1223: quiescent galaxies at all redshifts to prevent contamination from
1224: unobscured and dusty star--forming galaxies, respectively.
1225: The samples of star--forming galaxies are then defined by everything
1226: falling outside this box (but within the color range plotted in
1227: Figure~\ref{fig_evol}, such that the very small number of extreme color
1228: outliers are not included in either sample).
1229: The two distinct populations are no longer visible at $\zphot>2.0$,
1230: but the same dividing line used at $z=1-2$ is shown for reference.
1231: Note that the exact placement of this division does not significantly
1232: affect the results presented herein (see also \S 7 for a more detailed
1233: discussion).
1234: Typical random color uncertainties for the star--forming and quiescent
1235: samples at each redshift interval are shown in the lower right and upper
1236: left corners, respectively, of each panel in Figure~\ref{fig_evol}.
1237:
1238:
1239: \begin{figure}
1240: \plotone{f11.eps}
1241: \caption{Rest frame $UVJ$ diagram in four redshift ranges
1242: with bins color coded by the median specific star--formation rate of
1243: the galaxies within each bin; outliers in the $UVJ$ plane are plotted
1244: individually. The
1245: $z<0.5$ bin is not included here because the adopted SSFR proxies are not
1246: reliable at low redshifts. Quiescent galaxies lie in approximately
1247: the same region at all redshifts.
1248: \label{fig_div24um}}
1249: \end{figure}
1250:
1251: \subsection{MIPS $24\mu$m measurements} \label{sec_mips}
1252: Between $z\sim 1-2.5$, the $24\mu$m flux of galaxies is strongly correlated
1253: with dust--obscured star formation due to the presence of redshifted
1254: $6-12\mu$m polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) features in this
1255: band \citep[e.g.]{yan04}. The observed $24\mu$m fluxes of the UDS galaxies
1256: can thus be used to empirically confirm whether the $UVJ$ criteria indeed
1257: select star--forming and quiescent galaxies.
1258: Since the $K$ band, which at these redshifts corresponds to rest--frame
1259: optical/NIR light, is a rough tracer of stellar mass, the $24\mu$m/$K$ flux
1260: ratio then provides an estimate of the dust--obscured specific
1261: star--formation rate (SSFR). Likewise, the UV--to--$K$ flux ratio provides
1262: an approximate measure of the unobscured SSFR, and thus the combination of
1263: these three bands provides a reasonably robust estimate of total
1264: SSFR.
1265:
1266: Using the {\it FIREWORKS}
1267: catalog of \citet{wuyts08} we derive proxies
1268: for the IR and UV SSFR based on UV/$K$ and $24\mu m/K$ flux ratios, and
1269: use these proxies to obtain order--of--magnitude estimates of the SSFRs
1270: of UDS galaxies; the details of this derivation are given in the Appendix.
1271: Figure~\ref{fig_div24um} shows the
1272: $UVJ$ diagram in four redshift bins between $0.5<z<2.5$ (the
1273: bin at $z<0.5$ is not shown, since the SSFR proxies are not expected to
1274: be effective at such low redshifts).
1275: Since the $24\mu$m data are too
1276: shallow for most galaxies in this sample to be detected individually,
1277: we combine the SSFRs of multiple galaxies as a function of $UVJ$ color as
1278: follows: at each redshift
1279: galaxies are divided into square $UVJ$ color bins. If $>10$ objects fall into
1280: a given bin, a square is plotted with a color corresponding to
1281: the {\it median} SSFR of the underlying galaxies
1282: (in essence ``binning'' the galaxies' SSFR estimates); otherwise, individual
1283: points are plotted.
1284: A strong trend is clearly seen from $z=0.5-2$: the ``quiescent
1285: clump'' on average exhibits low SSFR, and is distinctly offset from the
1286: adjacent red star--forming galaxies.
1287:
1288:
1289: In the $2.0<z<2.5$ bin of Figure~\ref{fig_evol} the scatter in the $UVJ$
1290: diagram is too large for any intrinsic bimodality to be seen,
1291: and the trend in SSFR also appears weaker (Figure~\ref{fig_div24um}),
1292: perhaps due in part to the
1293: smaller number of points at high redshift and passive evolution. At
1294: $z>2$, we employ another approach to verify
1295: the presence of galaxies with relatively low SFRs: the top panel of
1296: Figure~\ref{fig_rf24um}
1297: again shows the $z=2-2.5$ $UVJ$ plot, with red galaxies selected by
1298: the rectangular boxes shown. The median $24\mu$m flux of the $N$ galaxies
1299: within each box, measured in 8\arcsec\ diameter apertures, is then
1300: calculated. To estimate the uncertainties in the median
1301: fluxes, $N$ apertures were placed randomly on the MIPS image
1302: and the median $24\mu$m flux within these apertures calculated. This
1303: was repeated 500 times for each value of $N$, and the clipped standard
1304: deviation of these 500 trials was taken as the uncertainty in the median
1305: of the galaxy fluxes for every bin of $N$ galaxies. Note that since the
1306: randomly--placed apertures
1307: may contain bright and/or confusing $24\mu$m sources, this error estimate
1308: inherently takes both background and confusion noise into account.
1309:
1310: \begin{figure}
1311: \plotone{f12.eps}
1312: \caption{Rest--frame colors of bright ($K<22.4$), $2.0<z<2.5$ galaxies
1313: ({\it top panel}). Red galaxies with $1.3<(U-V)<2.0$ are selected
1314: by the boxes shown, and the median $24\mu$m MIPS flux for the galaxies
1315: within each box is plotted in the lower panel. The $24\mu$m flux rises at
1316: red $V-J$, confirming the trend suggested in the corresponding panel of
1317: Figure~\ref{fig_div24um}.
1318: \label{fig_rf24um}}
1319: \end{figure}
1320:
1321: The median $24\mu$m fluxes within each bin are shown in the lower panel
1322: of Figure~\ref{fig_rf24um}; indeed, $24\mu$m flux increases strongly
1323: with $V-J$ color, indicating that $V-J$ does indeed provide a good
1324: proxy for star formation rate at $z=2-2.5$ (with a factor of $\sim 5$
1325: difference in $24\mu$m flux between the bluest and reddest galaxies
1326: in $V-J$).
1327: The trends in $24\mu$m flux and SSFR strongly suggest that the $UVJ$
1328: selection criteria indeed separate quiescent from
1329: star--forming galaxies (even given the limited number of photometric
1330: bands available in UDS) at $z<2$, and may work reasonably well
1331: up to higher redshifts, $z\la 2.5$. Since the color bimodality can no longer
1332: be seen at $z>2$ it is possible that the quiescent galaxy sample at these
1333: redshifts contains somewhat more contamination from red, star--forming
1334: galaxies; furthermore, the rest--frame $J$ flux estimate relies on the
1335: relatively shallow $3.6/4.5\mu$m data at $z>2$, which may result in subtle
1336: incompleteness effects in the sample at these redshifts. Therefore, for
1337: the remainder of our analysis we focus only
1338: on galaxies at $z<2$ where the bimodality can obviously be seen.
1339: It is also important to note that the presence of AGN
1340: may produce enhanced $24\mu$m emission and redder $V-J$ colors, and
1341: thus mimic the photometric effects of star formation. As described
1342: in \S\ref{sec_photz}, most objects with known strong AGN activity do
1343: not have valid $\zphot$ solutions and have likely been removed from the
1344: sample; even so, some weak AGN activity may remain and contribute to the
1345: observed correlation.
1346:
1347: \begin{figure}
1348: \plotone{f13.eps}
1349: \caption{Rest--frame $V$ magnitude distributions of the quiescent
1350: ({\it red
1351: histogram}) and star--forming ({\it black histogram}) galaxies in the four
1352: redshift ranges shown in Figure~\ref{fig_dahist}. The vertical dashed line
1353: shows the value of $M_V^\star$ at the central redshift of each bin,
1354: assuming the $z=0.1$ SDSS value of \citet{blanton03} and evolving
1355: as $M_V^\star(z)=M_V^\star(0)-z$. At high redshifts,
1356: quiescent galaxies compose roughly half of the total bright galaxy population,
1357: and a larger fraction at lower redshifts.
1358: \label{fig_maghist}}
1359: \end{figure}
1360:
1361: \subsection{Luminosities}
1362: Absolute rest--frame $V$ magnitude histograms of the number counts of
1363: quiescent and star--forming
1364: galaxies in each redshift interval are shown in Figure~\ref{fig_maghist}.
1365: The value of $M_V^\star$ at the center of each redshift bin, assuming
1366: the \citet{blanton03} SDSS value at $z=0.1$ and evolving as
1367: $M_V^\star(z)=M_V^\star(0)-z$, is also shown.
1368: At bright magnitudes ($M_V\la -22.5$)
1369: between $z\sim 1-2$, quiescent galaxies contribute approximately as much
1370: to the galaxy number density as those that are actively star--forming.
1371: This is similar to the result of \citet{kriek06}, who found star formation
1372: rates consistent with zero in 9/20 bright galaxies at $z=2.0-2.7$, though
1373: their spectroscopic determination of SFRs is likely to produce fundamentally
1374: different ``quiescent'' samples than our rest--frame color definition.
1375: At lower redshifts ($0.5<z<1.0$), the luminous
1376: galaxy population is comprised of an larger fraction of
1377: quiescent galaxies, while galaxies with fainter $V$ luminosities (and hence
1378: which typically have lower stellar masses) are dominated by those
1379: undergoing star formation.
1380:
1381:
1382: \section{Clustering of quiescent and star--forming galaxies} \label{sec_clustering}
1383: To investigate the relation between halo mass and star formation
1384: activity at $z>1$, we calculate the clustering
1385: of the star--forming and quiescent galaxies (as defined by their rest--frame
1386: $UVJ$ colors) at these redshifts following the method of
1387: \citet{quadri07a,quadri08}; a brief summary of this method follows.
1388: The angular correlation function of each sample was computed using
1389: the \citet{landy93} estimator, taking into
1390: account all ``bad'' data regions (described in detail in \S\ref{sec_badpix}).
1391: Figure~\ref{fig_acf} shows these functions for the quiescent
1392: and star--forming samples, with the former clearly exhibiting stronger
1393: clustering (in angular space) than the latter.
1394:
1395: Because of the large number of objects in this catalog at $z=1-2$, it
1396: is possible to further break each of the quiescent and star--forming
1397: samples into bright and faint subsamples, thereby also investigating
1398: the effect of luminosity on clustering strength.
1399: Angular correlation functions were recomputed for star--forming
1400: and quiescent galaxies within two luminosity bins divided at
1401: $M_V=-22.0$. This is approximately the minimum luminosity at which
1402: the $z=1-2$ sample is complete---essentially all galaxies with
1403: $M_V<-22$ at $z=2$ have observed $K$ fluxes brighter than the $K<22.4$ cutoff,
1404: while at $M_V>-22$ some galaxies (most of which are low--mass and blue)
1405: fall below the $K$ flux limit.
1406: However, this should not affect the reliability of the
1407: $r_0$ determination itself since the Monte Carlo $\zphot$ simulations
1408: (\S\ref{sec_montecarlo}) fully account for differences
1409: in the redshift distributions. For each subsample we fit power laws to
1410: the angular correlation functions over the range $60\arcsec - 300\arcsec$,
1411: and estimated $r_0$ using the Limber projection
1412: \citep[see][for details]{quadri07a}.
1413: The lower cutoff ensures that we are only measuring the large--scale
1414: correlation function, and are not unduly influenced by the clustering of
1415: galaxies within individual halos. The upper cutoff was chosen to minimize
1416: the importance of the integral constraint correction \citep[see][]{quadri08}.
1417: The slope of the spatial correlation function is fixed to 1.6, which
1418: is consistent with each of the subsamples studied here, and the
1419: uncertainties are estimated using bootstrap resampling.
1420:
1421: \begin{figure}
1422: \plotone{f14.eps}
1423: \caption{Angular correlation functions for the $1.0<\zphot<2.0$ quiescent
1424: ({\it red filled circles and errorbars}) and star--forming
1425: ({\it blue open circles }) samples. The
1426: quiescent galaxy sample shows significantly stronger angular clustering.
1427: \label{fig_acf}}
1428: \end{figure}
1429:
1430: The resulting clustering lengths of the quiescent and
1431: star--forming samples in both luminosity bins are shown in
1432: Figure~\ref{fig_r0}. The clustering of bright
1433: quiescent galaxies is stronger (at $1.4\sigma$ significance)
1434: than that of the bright star--forming sample, with
1435: $r_0=9.5^{+1.1}_{-1.2}$\,h$^{-1}$\,Mpc and $7.4\pm 0.9$\,h$^{-1}$\,Mpc
1436: respectively, and the difference in clustering length becomes far more
1437: pronounced in the fainter bin.\footnote{Since the objects which are ``missed''
1438: in the faint luminosity bin are predominantly low--mass blue galaxies, the
1439: true clustering of the star--forming sample in this bin is likely to be
1440: even lower than what we find; i.e. the difference between $r_0$ for
1441: the faint quiescent and star--forming galaxies would {\it increase} with
1442: a deeper $K$ flux limit.}
1443: Interestingly, the clustering length
1444: of quiescent galaxies appears to be independent of luminosity; star--forming
1445: galaxies, on the other hand, exhibit a marginal increase in clustering
1446: strength with luminosity. The stronger clustering of bright galaxies
1447: in the {\it combined} (star--forming plus quiescent) sample thus appears to be
1448: driven by both the larger quiescent fraction among bright galaxies as well
1449: as the stronger clustering of star--forming galaxies.
1450:
1451: The exact criteria used to divide the ``quiescent'' and ``star--forming''
1452: samples (i.e. the lines shown in Figure~\ref{fig_evol}) may have an
1453: effect on this result. While we chose the diagonal dividing line to
1454: lie centered between the star--forming track and quiescent ``clump,''
1455: this is not necessarily the best criterion. For example, moving the
1456: line ``upward'' (toward redder $U-V$ and bluer $V-J$) would result in a
1457: less complete sample of quiescent galaxies that is also less contaminated
1458: by star--forming galaxies scattering across the line; similarly, moving
1459: the line down toward the star--forming track increases completeness at
1460: the expense of contamination. To check whether this affects the clustering
1461: measurement, we moved the diagonal divider
1462: by $0.1$~magnitudes in both directions and re--calculated the $r_0$
1463: values. The perturbed $r_0$ values were all within $1\sigma$ of the
1464: old values, with one exception: when the dividing line was moved upwards
1465: (i.e. defining a less complete quiescent galaxy sample with less
1466: contamination),
1467: the clustering strength of bright ($M_V<-22$) quiescent galaxies increased
1468: by $\sim 1.5\sigma$. Therefore, the result that quiescent galaxies
1469: exhibit a larger clustering length appears robust to the color
1470: criteria used to select the quiescent sample.
1471:
1472: The clustering length we have found for quiescent galaxies
1473: at $z=1-2$ is fully consistent with the value of $r_0=10.6\pm 1.6h^{-1}$\,Mpc
1474: for $\zphot=2-3$ DRGs in this catalog \citep{quadri08}. This is perhaps
1475: not surprising, as roughly half of the $\zphot>2$ DRGs in this sample
1476: fall within the ``quiescent'' $UVJ$ selection region.
1477:
1478: \begin{figure}
1479: \plotone{f15.eps}
1480: \caption{Deprojected real--space clustering length in two absolute
1481: magnitude bins ($M_V<-22$ and $M_V>-22$) for the $1.0<\zphot<2.0$ quiescent
1482: ({\it red filled circles and errorbars}), star--forming
1483: ({\it blue open circles}), and combined
1484: ({\it black crosses}) galaxy samples. For each point, the median $M_V$
1485: of the corresponding sample is plotted. The lower panel shows the fraction
1486: of quiescent galaxies in each bin. Quiescent galaxies exhibit stronger
1487: clustering, and thus occupy more massive dark matter halos, than star--forming
1488: galaxies in both magnitude bins.
1489: \label{fig_r0}}
1490: \end{figure}
1491:
1492: \section{Discussion} \label{sec_discussion}
1493: The presence of a bimodal population of galaxies in the $UVJ$ plane
1494: to at least $z\sim 2$ is
1495: consistent with previous spectroscopic studies, such as \citet{kriek08b},
1496: who find a nascent red sequence at $z\sim 2.3$.
1497: The purely photometric analysis presented herein allows
1498: much larger samples of quiescent galaxies to be found, albeit with lower
1499: confidence for any individual object. At first glance, however, this
1500: appears to be in conflict with the \citet{ciras07} claim that the
1501: galaxy bimodality disappears at $z\sim 1.25-1.5$. In fact, the
1502: apparent discrepancy
1503: between these results is probably due to observational effects: \citet{ciras07}
1504: consider only bimodality in the rest--frame color--magnitude ($U-B$ vs.~$M_B$)
1505: diagram, i.e.~the ``red sequence'' method. Indeed, as the right panel
1506: of Figure~\ref{fig_dahist} shows, such a plot does not show a bimodal
1507: population of galaxies at $\zphot>1.5$, even though the bimodality is still
1508: present in the $UVJ$ diagram. Similarly, the absence of a bimodal distribution
1509: in the $UVJ$ diagram at $z>2$ (Figure~\ref{fig_dahist}, left panel) does not
1510: necessarily imply the disappearance of bimodality in the underlying galaxy
1511: population, but rather reflects the larger photometric and $\zphot$
1512: uncertainties at these redshifts (as can also be seen from the large $UVJ$
1513: error bars at $2<\zphot<2.5$; Figure~\ref{fig_evol}).
1514:
1515: Using a single rest--frame color (determined via photometric redshifts)
1516: to select quiescent and star--forming galaxies can
1517: obscure an underlying bimodality for two reasons: (1) the population of
1518: dusty, star--forming galaxies increases with redshift, and these have
1519: significant overlap their optical colors with any red, quiescent galaxies that
1520: may be present; and (2) the greater scatter in the rest--frame $U-V$ or $U-B$
1521: at higher redshifts can effectively wash out the intrinsic red sequence. This
1522: increased scatter is due not only to the larger uncertainties on measured
1523: photometry of fainter galaxies at large redshift, but also the
1524: larger photometric redshift uncertainties \citep{kriek08a}.
1525: As previously mentioned, $U-B$ by itself is only effective at distinguishing
1526: quiescent from dusty galaxies when accurate spectroscopic redshifts are
1527: available; with photometric redshifts the rest--frame color
1528: uncertainty is too large to see the quiescent red sequence.
1529: The use of $V-J$ in addition to $U-V$ helps mitigate
1530: both of these problems: $V-J$ separates red, quiescent galaxies from
1531: red, dust--obscured starbursts (Figure~\ref{fig_rfcol}), and a
1532: two--dimensional color bimodality
1533: is more resilient to increased scatter than a single color. Thus,
1534: when only photometric redshifts are available, the two--color $UVJ$ technique
1535: employed herein appears to provide a ``cleaner''
1536: selection of high--redshift, quiescent galaxies than standard red--sequence
1537: methods.
1538:
1539: The differences between high--redshift quiescent and star--forming
1540: galaxy properties can provide clues to the physical mechanisms behind
1541: star formation (or the lack thereof). In the moderately high--redshift
1542: ($z=1-2$) sample considered here, the most striking
1543: contrasts between the two populations are in their clustering
1544: strengths and luminosities. Quiescent galaxies cluster more strongly than
1545: those undergoing active star formation (implying, from standard CDM theory,
1546: that they reside preferentially in higher--mass halos) and typically
1547: exhibit brighter absolute $V$ magnitudes, comprising about half of the bright
1548: galaxy population at all redshifts. However, the clustering strength
1549: of quiescent galaxies does not appear to be strongly dependent on
1550: luminosity: as shown in Figure~\ref{fig_r0}, the bright and faint
1551: quiescent samples exhibit roughly equal clustering lengths, which in turn
1552: are consistently higher than the corresponding values for star--forming
1553: galaxies. This may be indicative of a characteristic halo mass above which
1554: star formation is inhibited.
1555:
1556: Our results may be taken to suggest that the star formation-density
1557: relation was already in place at $z\sim 1.5$, with quiescent galaxies
1558: more strongly clustered and hence situated, on average, in denser regions.
1559: On first glance this would seem
1560: to contradict recent claims of a ``reversal'' of the
1561: star formation--density relation that occurs at $z\sim 1-1.5$
1562: \citep[e.g.][]{elbaz07,cooper08}. These authors present evidence
1563: that the average SFR per galaxy
1564: in dense regions is higher than in less dense regions, in contrast to the
1565: well--known relationship in the local universe. Whether this constitutes
1566: a ``reversal'' is in part a matter of terminology; it may be true that
1567: the typical star formation rate increases with environmental density
1568: \citep[as found by, e.g.,][]{cooper08}, but this does not preclude the
1569: possibility that
1570: the relatively rare quiescent galaxies are preferentially found in the
1571: densest regions (as suggested by our results). We also note that the
1572: star formation--density relation may be qualitatively different depending
1573: on whether one is considering absolute star formation rates or
1574: specific star formation rates \citep[see][]{cooper08}.
1575:
1576: The observed segregation of quiescent and star--forming
1577: galaxies both in clustering strength and luminosity suggests
1578: strong links between halo mass, stellar mass, and the cessation
1579: of star formation. Different theoretical bases for the quenching of star
1580: formation in galaxies hosted by massive halos have been proposed,
1581: some focusing on radio--mode AGN feedback processes which prevent
1582: further gas cooling and star formation
1583: \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{croton06,bower06}, while others
1584: suggest that hot accretion and shock processes in high--mass halos
1585: may be sufficient to produce quiescent galaxies without invoking AGN
1586: \citep{keres05,birnboim07}. Although these models
1587: may not represent the definitive explanation for the observational results
1588: presented here, the correspondence between theory and observation is
1589: nonetheless intriguing. Further observations of large quiescent galaxy
1590: samples (e.g., comparing the radio emission of high--$z$ quiescent
1591: and star--forming galaxies) are likely to shed further light on the underlying
1592: quenching mechanism.
1593:
1594:
1595: \section{Caveats} \label{sec_caveats}
1596: This analysis employs photometric redshifts,
1597: which of course are much less well--constrained than those determined
1598: using spectroscopy. Furthermore, the number of spectroscopic redshifts
1599: for comparison is quite small, with 119 available spec--$z$s in this field.
1600: Essentially all of these known redshifts are from two samples, neither
1601: of which can be considered unbiased: a set of
1602: $z\sim 1$ old passively--evolving galaxies, and galaxies selected from
1603: their radio emission (thus all likely exhibiting some degree of AGN
1604: activity). If anything, one might expect photometric redshift determinations
1605: to be worse in this latter sample since the templates used to derive the
1606: phot--$z$s do not include AGN activity; however, Figure~\ref{fig_zcompare}
1607: shows that the fits are actually quite good from about $z=0-1.5$
1608: (and the worst outliers, including two--thirds those with signatures of AGN,
1609: are excluded through either a $\chi^2$ cut or the lack of a $\zphot$
1610: solution). The fit to the
1611: ``old'' $z\sim 1$ galaxy sample was even better, with fractional redshift
1612: errors on the order of 2\%. At $z\ga 1.5$ it is likely that these fractional
1613: errors are {\it at least} $\sim 0.07$, the scatter found in the EAZY--derived
1614: photometric redshifts from the
1615: CDFS--GOODS catalog \citep[which included several more photometric bands
1616: than the UDS$+$SXDS$+$SWIRE dataset;][]{brammer08}.
1617:
1618: It is nonetheless possible that some additional systematic errors remain in the
1619: photometric redshifts. Such errors would manifest themselves as shifts
1620: in the rest--frame colors, the magnitude of which primarily depend on the
1621: galaxy redshift and template shape. However, the results presented herein
1622: are not dependent on the exact rest--frame colors themselves, but rather
1623: on the relative separation between the quiescent and star--forming
1624: populations. Since the two populations are clearly visible from $z=0-2$
1625: (Figure~\ref{fig_evol}), and the positions of galaxies in the $UVJ$
1626: plane are strongly correlated with
1627: $24\mu$m flux (Figure~\ref{fig_div24um}), we conclude that
1628: we can distinguish populations of galaxies based on their {\it relative}
1629: star--formation rates. It is nonetheless important to note that
1630: the {\it absolute} values of the
1631: interpolated rest--frame colors may still be subject to systematic,
1632: possibly redshift--dependent offsets, and these offsets may be different
1633: depending on the SED (e.g. for quiescent and star--forming
1634: galaxies). Further differences are likely
1635: to come about with differing photometric redshift codes and techniques
1636: for determining rest--frame colors. This underscores the importance
1637: of defining such empirical color cuts based on the actual data and
1638: analysis techniques employed; relying on criteria defined on other datasets
1639: can lead to inaccurate results.
1640:
1641: Another possible source of error is the ability of SExtractor to deblend
1642: close pairs of objects. Where two extended sources overlap, or
1643: if the separation of two point sources is smaller than a few times
1644: the $K$--band PSF FWHM ($\sim$0\farcs 7), oftentimes the two objects
1645: will be counted as a single object. In this case, the galaxy clustering
1646: is probably underestimated at the smallest scales ($<1.5$\arcsec\ or so).
1647: Even if they are successfully identified
1648: as separate objects, the fixed color apertures used to measure fluxes
1649: are likely to be contaminated, and thus may cause errors in photometric
1650: redshifts and rest--frame colors. However, the fraction of objects in
1651: such close pairs is negligible compared to the total catalog. Furthermore,
1652: these clustering results are based on larger--scale
1653: correlations---i.e., we do not calculate the clustering below
1654: $\theta\sim 2\farcs$. Thus, this incompleteness at the smallest
1655: scales is unlikely to affect our results.
1656:
1657:
1658: \section{Conclusions} \label{sec_conclusions}
1659: From our matched multiband UDS$+$SXDS$+$SWIRE $K$--selected catalog we have
1660: derived reliable photometric redshifts and rest--frame colors. For
1661: a relatively bright ($K<22.4$) subsample of this catalog, we find that:
1662: \begin{enumerate}
1663: \item{Galaxies show strong bimodal behavior in rest--frame $U-V$ vs.
1664: $V-J$ color--color space, with one population of ``dead'' (non--star
1665: forming) galaxies, and a sequence of dusty, actively star--forming
1666: galaxies. This behavior can be seen out to $z\sim 2$, so the observed
1667: present--day galaxy bimodality was present at least to this redshift;
1668: however, at $z\ga 1.5$ the bimodality is not seen in a single--color--magnitude
1669: diagram.}
1670: \item{From $z=0$ to $2.5$, the rest--frame $V-J$ color (at red $U-V$ colors)
1671: shows a strong correlation with our estimates of specific star--formation
1672: rate, indicating that
1673: the $V-J$ color is a reliable tracer of star formation activity even at
1674: $z>2$ where the rest--frame color uncertainties are too large for the
1675: bimodality to be seen.}
1676: \item{Quiescent and star--forming galaxies at $z>1$ contribute roughly equally
1677: to the overall galaxy population at the brightest $V$ luminosities;
1678: the less luminous population is dominated by actively star--forming objects.}
1679: \item{The clustering strength of quiescent galaxies from $z=1-2$
1680: appears to be independent of galaxy luminosity, and is consistently
1681: stronger than the clustering of the actively star--forming galaxies;
1682: thus, ``dead'' galaxies appear
1683: to occupy more massive halos than those which are in the process of
1684: forming stars. This suggests a link
1685: between halo mass and the early cessation of star formation activity.}
1686: \end{enumerate}
1687:
1688: Forthcoming data releases of the UKIDSS UDS, including deep
1689: $H$--band data
1690: and ultimately reaching a depth of $K=24.9$ (AB), will allow these results
1691: to be tested with even fainter, higher--redshift galaxies. More importantly,
1692: the 290--hour ultra--deep {\it Spitzer} legacy survey of the UDS field
1693: ({\it SpUDS}; PI: J.~Dunlop) currently being undertaken will provide
1694: at least an order--of--magnitude increase in exposure time compared
1695: to the SWIRE data used in this
1696: paper, giving much--improved constraints on photometric redshifts,
1697: AGN activity, and rest--frame colors.
1698:
1699: \acknowledgments
1700: We are grateful to the UKIDSS, SXDS, and Spitzer/SWIRE teams for making
1701: their reduced data available, and Chris Simpson for providing us with
1702: his spectroscopic redshifts in this field. We also thank Gabe Brammer and Ned
1703: Taylor for their extensive help with computing photometric redshifts
1704: and rest--frame colors respectively, Stijn Wuyts for providing the
1705: specific star--formation rates from {\it FIREWORKS}, and Mariska Kriek
1706: and the anonymous referee for many constructive comments and suggestions.
1707: R.J.W. acknowledges the support of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific
1708: Research (NWO) and the Leids Kerkhoven--Bosscha Fonds. R.Q. is
1709: supported by a NOVA postdoctoral fellowship.
1710: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)
1711: which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
1712: Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
1713: Administration.
1714:
1715: \appendix
1716: \section{Estimating specific star--formation rates} \label{sec_appendix}
1717: Accurately determining specific star formation rates (SSFR; i.e. SFR as a
1718: fraction of galaxy mass) typically requires deep UV and $24\mu$m
1719: data in order to measure unobscured and obscured star formation, respectively.
1720: Unfortunately, the UDS data presented here currently lack several
1721: key ingredients; i.e. there are no $U$-band data, the available
1722: {\it SWIRE} $24\mu$m data are shallow, and the necessary detailed
1723: models for determining galaxy masses and the $24\mu$m--$L_{IR}$ conversions
1724: are beyond the scope of this work. However, to test the validity
1725: of the $UVJ$ colors as a tracer of SSFR, such precision is not necessary:
1726: simple order--of--magnitude estimates will suffice.
1727:
1728: Over the redshift range $0.5<z<2.5$, we therefore resort
1729: to a proxy based entirely on observed photometry and calibrated with
1730: the Chandra Deep Field--South {\it FIREWORKS} catalog of \citet{wuyts08}.
1731: Reliable SSFRs were
1732: derived from {\it FIREWORKS} based on the rest--frame 2800\AA\
1733: luminosity and observed $24\mu$m fluxes (Wuyts et al., in preparation).
1734: The sum of these two contributions should then
1735: approximate the total amount of star formation in ``typical'' galaxies
1736: (i.e. those without extreme obscuration, like SMGs). Since $K$ flux
1737: is itself a tracer of stellar mass, it follows that the
1738: $f_{\rm UV}/f_K$ flux ratio (for some observed band that falls in or
1739: near the rest--frame ultraviolet) can provide a rough
1740: estimate of the unobscured SSFR, and $f_{24\mu m}/f_K$ should do the
1741: same for the ``dusty'' SSFR.
1742:
1743: From the {\it FIREWORKS} data we find that a single linear relation sufficiently
1744: describes the correlation between the IR SSFR and $f_{24\mu m}/f_K$
1745: over $0.5<z<2.5$. There is also a strong correlation between
1746: UV SSFR and $f_R/f_K$; however, the exact slope and normalization of the
1747: relation appear to change abruptly at $z\sim 1$; for the UV relation
1748: we thus perform separate linear fits at $0.5<z<1$ and $1<z<2.5$.
1749: This UV proxy is somewhat flatter (i.e. insensitive to $f_R/f_K$) than
1750: the $24\mu$m--SFR relation, and substantially underestimates the
1751: largest UV SSFRs by a factor of $\sim 2$, but it appears to accurately
1752: reproduce relatively low SSFRs ($la 2\times 10^9$\,yr$^{-1}$); thus, this UV
1753: proxy is effectively used as an additive term to correct the fluxes of galaxies
1754: which are faint in $24\mu$m. The best--fit relations, shown in
1755: Figure~\ref{fig_ssfrrel}, are:
1756: \begin{equation}
1757: \begin{array}{l}
1758: {\rm SSFR}_{\rm IR} = -2.2\times 10^{-11} + 1.85\times 10^{-10} (f_{24}/f_K)\\
1759: {\rm SSFR}_{\rm UV} (z<1) = -7.4\times 10^{-10} + 3.8\times 10^{-9} (f_R/f_K)\\
1760: {\rm SSFR}_{\rm UV} (z>1) = -5.8\times 10^{-10} + 5.8\times 10^{-9} (f_R/f_K)
1761: \end{array}
1762: \end{equation}
1763: Note that the UV relations formally yield substantially negative SSFR values
1764: even when $f_R/f_K>0$, since SSFR$_{\rm UV}$ is not quite a linear function
1765: of $f_R/f_K$; thus, we require that
1766: the UV contribution to the total SSFR be positive (i.e. for any object
1767: where SSFR$_{\rm UV}<0$, we set SSFR$_{\rm UV}=0$). Since a large number
1768: of galaxies have $f_{24\mu m}<0$ due to background noise, and the
1769: SSFR$_{\rm IR}$ relation appears very close to linear,
1770: we do allow individual objects to have SSFR$_{\rm IR}<0$ in the stacking
1771: analysis.
1772:
1773:
1774:
1775: \begin{figure}
1776: \epsscale{0.6}
1777: \plotone{f16.eps}
1778: \caption{Relations used to derive specific star--formation rates
1779: from the observed IR ($f_{\rm 24\mu m}/f_K$; {\emph top panel}) and UV
1780: ($f_R/f_K$; {\emph bottom panel}) flux ratios. Data in this figure
1781: are from the FIREWORKS catalog of \citet{wuyts08}; the IR relation shown is fit to
1782: galaxies between $0.5<z<2.5$ and the UV at $1.0<z<2.5$ (a similar UV
1783: relation was derived for the $z=0.5-1$ galaxies, not shown here).
1784: The IR SSFR shows a good correlation with $f_{24\mu m}/f_K$ over the full
1785: range, but the UV relation tends to underestimate large SSFRs.
1786: \label{fig_ssfrrel} }
1787: \end{figure}
1788:
1789:
1790: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1791: \bibitem[Baldry et al.(2004)]{baldry04} Baldry, I.~K., Glazebrook, K.,
1792: Brinkmann, J., Ivezi\'c, \v{Z}., Lupton, R~.H., Nichol, R.~C.,
1793: \& Szalay, A.~S.~2004, \apj, 600, 681
1794: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{bertin96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S.~1996,
1795: A\&AS, 117, 393
1796: \bibitem[Bertin et al.(2002)]{bertin02} Bertin, E., Mellier, Y., Radovich, M.,
1797: Missonnier, G., Didelon, P., \& Morin, B.~2002, in ASP Conf. Ser.
1798: 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, ed. D.~A.
1799: Bohlender, D.~Durand, \& T.~H.~Handley (San Francisco: ASP), 228
1800: \bibitem[Bessell(1990)]{bessell90} Bessell, M.~S.~1990, \pasp, 102, 1181
1801: \bibitem[Birnboim, Dekel, \& Neistein(2007)]{birnboim07} Birnboim, Y., Dekel,
1802: A., \& Neistein, E.~2007, \mnras, 380, 339
1803: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003)]{blanton03} Blanton, M.~R., et al.~2003,
1804: \apj, 592, 819
1805: \bibitem[Bolzonella, Miralles, \& Pell\'o(2000)]{hyperz} Bolzonella,
1806: M., Miralles, J.-M., \& Pell\'o, R.~2000, \aap, 363, 476
1807: \bibitem[Bower et al.(2006)]{bower06} Bower, R.~G., et al.~2006,
1808: \mnras, 370, 645
1809: \bibitem[Brammer et al.(2008)]{brammer08} Brammer, G.~B., van Dokkum,
1810: P.~G., \& Coppi, P.~2008, \apj, 686, 1503
1811: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G. \& Charlot, S.~2003,
1812: \mnras, 344, 1000
1813: \bibitem[Budavari et al.(2003)]{budavari03} Budav\'ari, T., et al.~2003,
1814: \apj, 595, 59
1815: \bibitem[Casali et al.(2007)]{casali07} Casali, M., et al.~2007, \aap,
1816: 467, 777
1817: \bibitem[Cirasuolo et al.(2007)]{ciras07} Cirasuolo, M., et al.~2007,
1818: \mnras, 380, 585
1819: \bibitem[Cooper et al.(2008)]{cooper08} Cooper, M.~C., et al.~2008,
1820: \mnras, 383, 1058
1821: \bibitem[Croton et al.(2006)]{croton06} Croton, D., et al.~2006,
1822: \mnras, 365, 11
1823: \bibitem[Daddi et al.(2004)]{daddi04} Daddi, E., et al.~2004, \apj, 617, 746
1824: \bibitem[Daddi et al.(2005)]{daddi05} Daddi, E., et al.~2005, \apj, 626, 680
1825: \bibitem[Elbaz et al.(2007)]{elbaz07} Elbaz, D., et al.~2007, \aap, 468, 33
1826: \bibitem[F\"orster Schreiber et al.(2006)]{forster06} F\"orster Schreiber,
1827: N., et al.~2006, \aj, 131, 1891
1828: \bibitem[Franx et al.(2003)]{franx03} Franx, M., et al.~2003, \apj, 587, L79
1829: \bibitem[Gawiser et al.(2006)]{gawiser06} Gawiser, E., et al.~2006, \apjs,
1830: 162, 1
1831: \bibitem[Giavalisco et al.(2004)]{giavalisco04} Giavalisco, M., et al.~2004,
1832: \apj, 600, L93
1833: \bibitem[Grazian et al.(2007)]{grazian07} Grazian, A., et al.~2007, \aap,
1834: 465, 393
1835: \bibitem[Hambly et al.(2008)]{hambly08} Hambly, N.~C., et al.~2008,
1836: \mnras, 384, 637
1837: \bibitem[Hewett et al.(2006)]{hewett06} Hewett, P.~C., Warren, S.~J.,
1838: Leggett, S.~K., \& Hodgkin, S.~T.~2006, \mnras, 367, 454
1839: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2003)]{kauffmann03} Kauffmann, G., et al.~2003,
1840: \mnras, 341, 33
1841: \bibitem[Keres et al.(2005)]{keres05} Keres, D., Katz, N., Weinberg,
1842: D.~H., \& Dav\'e, R.~2005, \mnras, 363, 2
1843: \bibitem[Kriek et al.(2006)]{kriek06} Kriek, M., et al.~2006, \apj, 649, L71
1844: \bibitem[Kriek et al.(2008a)]{kriek08a} Kriek, M., et al.~2008, \apj, 677, 219
1845: \bibitem[Kriek et al.(2008b)]{kriek08b} Kriek, M., et al.~2008, \apj, 682, 896
1846: (arXiv:0804.4175)
1847: \bibitem[Kron(1980)]{kron80} Kron, R.~1980, \apj, 43, 305
1848: \bibitem[Labb\'e et al.(2003)]{labbe03} Labb\'e, I., et al.~2003, \aj, 125, 1107
1849: \bibitem[Labb\'e et al.(2005)]{labbe05} Labb\'e, I., et al.~2005, \apj,
1850: 624, L81
1851: \bibitem[Labb\'e et al.(2006)]{labbe06} Labb\'e, I., Bouwens, R.,
1852: Illingworth, G.~D., \& Franx, M.~2006, \apj, 649, L67
1853: \bibitem[Landy \& Szalay(1993)]{landy93} Landy, S.~D., \& Szalay, A.~S.~1993,
1854: \apj, 412, 64
1855: \bibitem[Lawrence et al.(2007)]{lawrence07} Lawrence, A., et al.~2007,
1856: \mnras, 379, 1599
1857: \bibitem[Lonsdale et al.(2003)]{lonsdale03} Lonsdale, C.~J., et al.~2003,
1858: \pasp, 115, 897
1859: \bibitem[Miyazaki et al.(2002)]{miyazaki02} Miyazaki, S., et al.~2002,
1860: \pasj, 54, 833
1861: \bibitem[Papovich et al.(2006)]{papovich06} Papovich, C., et al.~2006,
1862: \apj, 640, 92
1863: \bibitem[Quadri et al.(2007a)]{quadri07a} Quadri, R., et al.~2007a, \apj,
1864: 654, 138
1865: \bibitem[Quadri et al.(2007b)]{quadri07b} Quadri, R., et al.~2007b, \aj,
1866: 134, 1103
1867: \bibitem[Quadri et al.(2008)]{quadri08} Quadri, R., et al.~2008, \apjl,
1868: 685, 1
1869: \bibitem[Rudnick et al.(2003)]{rudnick03} Rudnick, G., et al.~2003,
1870: \apj, 599, 847
1871: \bibitem[Rudnick et al.(2006)]{rudnick06} Rudnick, G., et al.~2006,
1872: \apj, 650, 624
1873: \bibitem[Sekiguchi et al.(2004)]{sekiguchi04} Sekiguchi, K., et al.~2004,
1874: BAAS, 36, 1478
1875: \bibitem[Simpson et al.(2006)]{simpson06} Simpson, C., et al.~2006,
1876: \mnras, 372, 741
1877: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(1996)]{steidel96} Steidel, C.~C., Giavalisco, M.,
1878: Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., Adelberger, K.~L.~1996, \apj, 462, L17
1879: \bibitem[Stern et al.(2005)]{stern05} Stern, D., et al.~2005, \apj, 631, 163
1880: \bibitem[Tokunaga et al.(2002)]{tokunaga02} Tokunaga, A.~T., Simons, D.~A.,
1881: \& Vacca, W.~D.~2002, \pasp, 114, 180
1882: \bibitem[van Dokkum et al.(2006)]{vdokkum06} van Dokkum, P.~G., et al.~2006,
1883: \apj, 638, L59
1884: \bibitem[Warren et al.(2007a)]{warren07a} Warren, S.~J., et al.~2007,
1885: \mnras, 375, 213
1886: \bibitem[Warren et al.(2007b)]{warren07b} Warren, S.~J., et al.~2007,
1887: preprint, arXiv:astro-ph/0703037
1888: \bibitem[Wuyts et al.(2007)]{wuyts07} Wuyts, S., et al.~2007, \apj, 655, 51
1889: \bibitem[Wuyts et al.(2008)]{wuyts08} Wuyts, S., Labb\'e, I., F\"orster
1890: Schreiber, N., Franx, M., Rudnick, G., Brammer, G., \& van
1891: Dokkum, P.~2008, \apj, 682, 985
1892: \bibitem[Yamada et al.(2005)]{yamada05} Yamada, T., et al.~2005, \apj, 634, 861
1893: \bibitem[Yan et al.(2004)]{yan04} Yan, L., et al.~2004, \apjs, 154, 75
1894: \end{thebibliography}
1895:
1896:
1897:
1898: \end{document}
1899: