1: \def\TBD{{\bf TBD}\ }
2: \def\mnras{MNRAS}
3: \def\aap{A\&A}
4: \def\aj{AJ}
5: \def\araa{ARA\&A}
6: \def\apjl{ApJ}
7: \def\apj{ApJ}
8: \def\apjs{ApJS}
9: \def\pasp{PASP}
10: \def\nat{Nature}
11: \def\um{$\mu$m}
12:
13: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
14:
15: \usepackage{subfigure}
16: \usepackage{graphicx}
17: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{An AzTEC 1.1\,mm Survey of the GOODS-N
22: Field I: Maps, Catalogue, and Source Statistics}
23:
24: \author[T.~A.~Perera et al.]{T.~A.~Perera,$^1$
25: E.~L.~Chapin,$^2$
26: J.E.~Austermann,$^1$
27: K.S.~Scott,$^1$
28: G.W.~Wilson,$^1$
29: \newauthor
30: M.~Halpern,$^2$
31: A.~Pope,$^{2,3}$
32: D.~Scott,$^2$
33: M.S.~Yun,$^1$
34: J.~D.~Lowenthal,$^4$
35: G.~Morrison,$^{5,6}$
36: \newauthor
37: I.~Aretxaga,$^7$
38: J.J.~Bock,$^8$
39: K.~Coppin,$^9$
40: M.~Crowe,$^2$
41: L.~Frey,$^2$
42: D.H.~Hughes,$^7$
43: Y.~Kang,$^{10}$
44: \newauthor
45: S.~Kim,$^{10}$
46: P.D.~Mauskopf$^{11}$\\
47: $^1$Department of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA\\
48: $^2$Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of British Columbia,
49: 6224 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, B\.C\., V6T 1Z1, Canada\\
50: $^3$Spitzer Fellow; National Optical Astronomy Observatory, 950 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA\\
51: $^4$Department of Astronomy, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063, USA\\
52: $^5$Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA\\
53: $^6$Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope, Kamuela, HI 96743, USA\\
54: $^7$Instituto Nacional de Astrof\'{i}sica, \'{O}ptica y
55: Electr\'{o}nica, Tonantzintla, Puebla, M\'{e}xico\\
56: $^8$Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA\\
57: $^9$Institute for Computational Cosmology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK\\
58: $^{10}$Astronomy \& Space Science Department, Sejong University, Seoul,
59: South Korea\\
60: $^{11}$Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Wales, UK\\
61: }
62:
63: \date{\today}
64:
65: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
66:
67: \maketitle
68:
69: \label{firstpage}
70:
71: \begin{abstract}
72: We have conducted a deep and uniform 1.1\,mm survey of the GOODS-N
73: field with AzTEC on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT). Here we
74: present the first results from this survey including maps, the source
75: catalogue, and 1.1\,mm number-counts. The results presented here were
76: obtained from a 245\,arcmin$^2$ region with near uniform coverage to a
77: depth of 0.96--1.16\,mJy\,beam$^{-1}$. Our robust catalogue contains
78: 28 source candidates detected with S/N $\ge3.75$, only $\sim$1--2 of
79: which are expected to be spurious detections. Of these source
80: candidates, 8 are also detected by SCUBA at 850\,\um\ in regions where
81: there is good overlap between the two surveys. The major
82: advantage of our survey over that with SCUBA is the uniformity of
83: coverage. We calculate number counts using two different techniques:
84: the first using a frequentist parameter estimation, and the second
85: using a Bayesian method. The two sets of results are in good
86: agreement. We find that the 1.1\,mm differential number counts are
87: well described in the 2--6\,mJy range by the functional form $dN/dS =
88: N' (S'/S)\mathrm{exp}(-S/S')$ with fitted parameters $S' =
89: 1.25\pm0.38$\,mJy and $dN/dS = 300\pm90$\,mJy$^{-1}$\,deg$^{-2}$ at
90: 3~mJy.
91: \end{abstract}
92:
93: \begin{keywords}
94: instrumentation:detectors, sub-millimetre, galaxies:starburst, galaxies:high redshift
95: \end{keywords}
96:
97: \section{Introduction}
98: \label{intro}
99:
100: Identifying and studying the galaxies at high redshift that will
101: evolve into today's normal and massive galaxies remains a major goal
102: of observational astrophysics. Galaxies discovered in deep
103: sub-millimetre and mm-wavelength surveys
104: \citep[e.g.][]{Smail1997, Hughes1998, Barger1998, Blain1999A,
105: Barger1999A, Eales2000, Cowie2002, sescott2002, Webb2003, Borys2003,
106: Greve2004, Laurent2005} are generally thought to be dominated by
107: dusty, possibly merger-induced starburst systems and active galactic
108: nuclei (AGN) at redshifts $z>2$ with star formation rates as high as
109: SFR $\sim 1000 ~ \mathrm{M}_{\sun}
110: \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$~\citep{Blain2002}. The high areal number density of
111: these sub-mm and mm-detected galaxies (SMGs), combined with their
112: implied high star formation rates and measured FIR luminosities
113: \citep[$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}\sim10^{12}
114: \mathrm{L}_{\sun}$,][]{Kovacs2006,Coppin2008}, makes their estimated contribution
115: to both the global star formation density and the sub-mm background radiation as
116: high as 50\% at $z\sim2$ \citep[e.g.,][]{Borys2003,Wall2008}. Their observed
117: number counts imply strong evolution between $z=2$ and today
118: \citep[e.g.][]{sescott2002,Greve2004,Coppin2006}. The high star formation rates
119: at early epochs of SMGs generally match the expectation for rapidly forming
120: elliptical galaxies, a view supported by the high rate of mergers seen locally
121: in samples of ultra-luminous infrared galaxies \citep[ULIRGs;][]{Borne2000}, which are
122: plausible local counterparts of distant SMGs. Together, these characteristics
123: have led many observers to surmise that SMGs are likely to evolve into the
124: massive galaxies observed locally \citep[e.g.,][]{Dunlop1994,Smail1997,Bertoldi2007}
125: and may hold important clues to the processes
126: of galaxy and structure formation in general at high redshift.
127:
128: GOODS-N is one of the most intensively studied extragalactic fields,
129: with deep multi-wavelength photometric coverage from numerous
130: ground-based and space-based facilities. These include Chandra in the
131: X-ray \citep{Alexander2003A}, HST in the optical and NIR
132: \citep{Giavalisco2004}, Spitzer in the NIR--MIR (Chary et al. in prep.,
133: Dickinson et al. in prep.), and the Very Large Array in the radio
134: \citep[][Morrison et al. in prep.]{Richards2000}, as well as highly complete
135: spectroscopic surveys from ground-based observatories
136: \citep[e.g.][]{Wirth2004,Cowie2004}. This field is therefore ideally
137: suited for deep mm-wavelength studies of SMGs: the extensive coverage
138: in GOODS-N allows the identification of SMG counterparts in X-ray, UV,
139: optical, IR, and radio bands, as well as constraints on photometric
140: redshifts and investigation of SMG power sources and evolution.
141:
142: Deep mm surveys of blank fields are needed in order to constrain the
143: faint end of the SMG number counts, while large areal coverage is
144: required to constrain the bright end. Together they provide strong
145: constraints on evolutionary scenarios. Previous sub-mm surveys of
146: GOODS-N have been carried out with SCUBA on the JCMT
147: \citep{Hughes1998,Barger2000,Borys2003,Wang2004,Pope2005}. The
148: `Super-map' of the GOODS-N field, which was assembled from all available JCMT
149: shifts covering the field, contains 40 robust sources at 850\,\um\
150: down to an average sensitivity of 3.4\,mJy ($1 \sigma$) and covers
151: 200\,arcmin$^2$
152: \citep{Borys2003,Pope2005}. However, the r.m.s. is highly non-uniform ranging from
153: 0.4 mJy to 6 mJy (see Fig.~\ref{fig_goodsn_cover}). That
154: non-uniformity presents serious complications for comparisons with
155: multi-wavelength data.
156: \begin{figure}
157: \centering
158: \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{cov_regions.eps}
159: \caption{AzTEC and SCUBA coverage contours for the GOODS-N region
160: demonstrates our uniform coverage. The dark rectangular contour
161: corresponds to the AzTEC region with a map r.m.s. $\le$1.16\,mJy at
162: 1.1\,mm, the coverage region presented here. The grey contours,
163: according to increasing line thickness, are the 850\,\um\ SCUBA
164: contours for r.m.s. values of 4\,mJy, 2.5\,mJy, and 0.5\,mJy
165: respectively. The underlying map is the IRAC 3.6\,\um\ image from the
166: Spitzer legacy program (Dickinson et al. in prep). The AzTEC map
167: represents a significant improvement in the uniformity of coverage at
168: faint flux levels.}
169: \label{fig_goodsn_cover}
170: \end{figure}
171:
172: In this paper we present a new 1.1 mm survey of the GOODS-N field made
173: with AzTEC \citep{Wilson08} at the 15-m James Clerk Maxwell Telescope
174: (JCMT) on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. This map is the deepest blank-field
175: survey undertaken during the AzTEC/JCMT observing campaign, and is one
176: of the largest, deepest, and most uniform mm-wavelength maps of any
177: region of the sky. Our map covers $245$\,arcmin$^2$ and completely
178: encompasses the $16.5^{\prime}\times10^{\prime}$ {\em Spitzer} GOODS-N
179: field and all of the previous GOODS-N sub-mm and mm-wavelength fields,
180: including the original HDF map of
181: \citet{Hughes1998} and the SCUBA GOODS-N `Super-map'
182: \citep[indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig_goodsn_cover} here and presented
183: in][]{Borys2003,Pope2005}. The large number and high stability of the
184: AzTEC bolometers has enabled us to produce a map with small variations
185: in r.m.s., from 0.96--1.16\,mJy, across the 245 min$^2$ field. This
186: uniformity is a drastic improvement over the SCUBA GOODS-N `Super-map.'
187: The sensitivity variations of the AzTEC and SCUBA maps are
188: compared in Fig.~\ref{fig_goodsn_cover}.
189:
190: In this work, we extract a catalogue of mm sources from the map and
191: calculate number counts towards the faint end of the 1.1-mm galaxy
192: population. The main results we discuss here were obtained from the
193: AzTEC data alone; data from other surveys have been used only as tools
194: to check the quality of our map. A second paper will address
195: counterpart identification of our AzTEC sources at other wavelengths
196: (Chapin et al. in prep.). We present the JCMT/AzTEC observations of
197: GOODS-N in
198: \S~\ref{obs}, data reduction and analysis leading to source
199: identification in \S~\ref{ana}, properties of our source catalogue in
200: \S~\ref{sources}, the number counts analysis in
201: \S~\ref{nc}, the discussion of results in \S~\ref{results}, and the
202: conclusion in \S~\ref{conclusion}.
203:
204:
205: \section{AZTEC OBSERVATIONS OF GOODS-N}
206: \label{obs}
207: AzTEC is a 144-element focal-plane bolometer array designed for use at
208: the 50-m Large Millimetre Telescope (LMT) currently nearing completion
209: on Cerro La Negra, Mexico. Prior to permanent installation at the
210: LMT, AzTEC was used on the JCMT between Nov. 2005 and Feb. 2006,
211: primarily for deep, large-area blank field SMG surveys
212: \citep[e.g.][Austermann et al. in prep.]{Scott08}. We imaged the
213: GOODS-N field at $1.1\,$mm with the AzTEC camera during this
214: 2005--2006 JCMT observing campaign. Details of the AzTEC optical
215: design, detector array, and instrument performance can be found in
216: \citet{Wilson08}. Each detector has a roughly Gaussian-shaped beam on
217: the sky with an 18-arcsec full-width at half-maximum (FWHM). Given
218: the beam separation of
219: 22\,arcsec, the hexagonal close-packed array
220: subtends a ``footprint'' of 5\,arcmin on the sky. Out of the full
221: array complement of 144 bolometer-channels, 107 were operational during this
222: run.
223:
224: We mapped a 21\,arcmin $\times$ 15\,arcmin area centred on the
225: %the 16.7arcmin~$\times$~10arcmin\
226: GOODS-N field (12$^{\rm h}$37$^{\rm m}$00$^{\rm s}$,
227: +62$^\circ$13\arcmin00\arcsec) in unchopped raster-scan mode, where
228: the primary mirror scans the sky at constant velocity, takes a small
229: orthogonal step, then scans with the same speed in the opposite
230: direction, repeating until the entire area has been covered. We used a
231: step size of 9\,arcsec in order to uniformly Nyquist-sample the sky.
232: We scanned at speeds in the range
233: 60\,arcsec\,s$^{-1}$--180\,arcsec\,s$^{-1}$ as allowed by the fast
234: time constants of our micro-mesh bolometers, with no adverse
235: vibrational systematics. In total, we obtained 50 usable individual
236: raster-scan observations, each taking 40~minutes (excluding
237: calibration and pointing overheads). The zenith opacity at 225~GHz is
238: monitored with the CSO tau meter, and ranged from 0.05--0.27 during
239: the GOODS-N observations. This corresponds to 1.1\,mm transmissions
240: in the range 70--94\%. A detailed description and justification of
241: the scan strategy we used can be found in
242: \citet{Wilson08}.
243:
244: \section{Data Reduction: from time-streams to source catalogue}
245: \label{ana}
246:
247: In this section, we summarise the processing of the AzTEC/GOODS-N
248: data, which is specifically geared towards finding mm {\em point}
249: sources. The data reduction procedure generally follows the method
250: outlined in \citet{Scott08}, although we emphasise several new pieces
251: of analysis that were facilitated by the improved depth of this map
252: over the COSMOS survey. We begin with the cleaning and calibration of
253: the time-stream data in \S~\ref{ana_cleaning}, which includes a new
254: investigation into the sample length over which to clean the data. In
255: \S~\ref{ana_map_filter}, we describe the map making process and the
256: optimal filtering for point sources. We asses the properties and
257: quality of the AzTEC/GOODS-N map in \S~\ref{ana_map_qual}. The depth
258: of this survey has enabled us to ascertain the degree to which our
259: data follow Gaussian statistics and detect, directly, a departure from
260: it at long integration times indicating a component of
261: signal variance due to source confusion. The astrometry of the map is
262: analysed in \S~\ref{ana_stacking}, and we describe the extraction of
263: sources from the optimally filtered map in
264: \S~\ref{ana_sources}.
265:
266: \subsection{Filtering, cleaning, and calibration of time-stream data}
267: \label{ana_cleaning}
268:
269: The AzTEC data for each raster-scan observation consists of pointing,
270: housekeeping (internal thermometry, etc.), and bolometer time-stream
271: signals. Because the bolometer data are sampled at 64~Hz, all other
272: signals are interpolated to that frequency as needed by the analysis.
273: The raw time-streams of the 107 working bolometers are first despiked
274: and low-pass filtered at 16\,Hz, as described in \citet{Scott08}. The
275: despiked and filtered time-streams are next ``cleaned'' using a
276: principal component analysis (PCA) approach, which primarily removes
277: the strong atmospheric signal from the data. This ``PCA-cleaning''
278: method was developed by the Bolocam group
279: \citep{Laurent2005} and later adapted for AzTEC, as described in
280: \citet{Scott08}. As explained there, we also generate PCA-cleaned time streams
281: corresponding to a simulated point source near the field centre, in
282: order to produce the {\em point-source kernel}, which is used later
283: for beam-smoothing our maps (see \S~\ref{ana_map_filter}).
284:
285: In this work we go beyond the analysis in \citet{Scott08} to verify
286: that we have made good choices with regard to several aspects of the
287: general cleaning procedure that has been adopted for all of the
288: existing AzTEC data. We examine two outstanding questions in
289: particular: 1) does PCA-cleaning work better than a simple
290: common-mode subtraction based only on the average signal measured by
291: all detectors as a function of time? and 2) over what time scale
292: should each eigenvector projection be calculated in order to give the
293: best results?
294:
295: The first question addresses whether simple physical models may be
296: used in place of PCA-cleaning, where the choice of which modes to
297: remove from the data is not physically motivated. We investigate this
298: by creating a simple sky-signal template as the average of all of the
299: detectors at each time sample. We then fit for an amplitude
300: coefficient of the template to each detector by minimising the r.m.s.
301: between the scaled template and the actual data. This scaled template
302: is removed from the bolometer data and we examine the residual signal,
303: which ideally consists only of astronomical signal and white noise.
304: We find that this residual signal contains many smaller
305: detector-detector correlations that are clearly visible in the data
306: and are dominant compared to the signal produced by astronomical
307: sources in the map. The residual time-stream r.m.s.\ from the simple
308: sky-template subtraction is usually about twice the r.m.s.\ resulting
309: from PCA cleaning. This test shows that the simple common-mode
310: removal technique is insufficient.
311:
312: In the ``standard'' PCA-cleaning procedure for AzTEC data, outlined in
313: \citet{Scott08}, the eigenvector
314: decomposition is performed on each scan ($\sim5$--15~s of data). We
315: now study which time scales give the best results using a statistical
316: correlation analysis. We generate a bolometer-bolometer Pearson
317: correlation matrix using sample lengths that range from a fraction of
318: a second to tens of minutes (the length of a complete observation).
319: On the shortest time scales, the correlation coefficients have large
320: uncertainties due to sample variance (too few samples from which to
321: make estimates). On time scales corresponding to a single raster-scan
322: ($\sim$5--15~sec), however, the sample variance decreases and a clear
323: pattern emerges: the strength of the correlations drops off uniformly
324: with physical separation between the detectors. The most obvious
325: trend is the gradient in correlations that we see with detector
326: elevation, which is presumed to be produced by the underlying gradient
327: in sky emission. As the sample length increases, a different pattern
328: emerges, in which the dominant correlation appears to be related to
329: the order in which the detectors are sampled by the read-out
330: electronics, rather than their physical separation. These
331: correlations, likely due to electronics-related $1/f$ drifts, are
332: effectively removed when using scan-sized sample lengths (5--15\,s) as
333: well, since they appear as DC baseline differences on these short
334: time-scales. These results verify that scan-sized sample lengths
335: produce the best results as they provide a sufficient number of
336: samples on short enough time scales.
337:
338: After PCA-cleaning the bolometer signals, we apply a calibration
339: factor to convert the bolometers' voltage time-streams into units of
340: Jy per beam. Details of this procedure are given in
341: \citet{Wilson08}. The total error on the calibrated signals (including
342: the error on the absolute flux of Uranus) is 11\%.
343:
344: \subsection{Map-making and optimal filtering}
345: \label{ana_map_filter}
346:
347: The map-making process used to generate the final optimally filtered
348: AzTEC/GOODS-N map is identical to that used in \citet{Scott08}, and
349: the reader is directed to that paper for the details of this process,
350: which we briefly summarise below.
351:
352: We first generate maps for each of the 50 individual raster-scan
353: observations separately by binning the time-stream data onto a
354: 3\arcsec~$\times$~3\arcsec\ grid in RA-Dec which is tangent to the
355: celestial sphere at (12$^\mathrm{h}$37$^\mathrm{m}$00$^\mathrm{s}$,
356: +62$^\circ$13\arcmin00\arcsec). We chose the same tangent point and
357: pixel size as that used for the SCUBA map of GOODS-N
358: \citep[see for example][]{Pope2006} so that the two maps can easily be
359: compared in a future paper. We find that this pixel size provides a
360: good compromise between reducing computation time, while sampling with
361: high resolution the 18-arcsec FWHM beams. Individual signal maps and
362: their corresponding weight maps for each observation are created as
363: described in
364: \citet{Scott08}, along with kernel maps that reflect how a faint point
365: source is affected by PCA-cleaning and other steps in the
366: analysis. Next, we form a single ``co-added'' signal map from the
367: weighted average over all 50 individual observations. An averaged
368: kernel map is also created in a similar way. The total weight map is
369: calculated by summing the weights from individual observations, pixel
370: by pixel. As described by \citet{Scott08} we also generate 100 noise
371: realization maps corresponding to the co-added map.
372:
373: We then use a spatial filter to beam-smooth our map using the
374: point-source kernel, by optimally weighting each spatial-frequency
375: component of this convolution according to the spatial power spectral
376: density (PSD) of noise-realization maps. Details of this optimal filter can
377: also be found in \citet{Scott08}.
378:
379: \subsection{Map quality: depth, uniformity, point-source response, and noise integration}
380: \label{ana_map_qual}
381:
382: \begin{figure*}
383: \centering
384: \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{source_map.eps}
385: \caption{AzTEC/GOODS-N signal map with the 36 S/N$\geq$3.5 source
386: candidates circled. Information about these source candidates is
387: given in Table~\ref{table_sources}. Here and in that table, source
388: candidates are numbered in decreasing order of S/N. The source
389: candidates marked with dashed-line circles do not belong to the
390: robust sub-list, indicated by a horizontal line in
391: Table~\ref{table_sources}. The map has been trimmed to show only the
392: 70\% coverage region (245\,arcmin$^2$).}
393: \label{fig_source_map}
394: \end{figure*}
395: The final co-added, optimally filtered signal map for the GOODS-N
396: field is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_source_map}. Of the
397: 315-arcmin$^2$ solid angle scanned by the telescope boresight
398: during our survey, we expect $\sim$250\,arcmin$^2$ to be imaged
399: uniformly by the complete AzTEC array. We identify this region by
400: imposing a coverage cut. We find that weights within 70\% of the
401: central value occur in a contiguous region of 245\,arcmin$^2$. The
402: map of Fig.~\ref{fig_source_map} has been trimmed to only show this
403: region. Much of the analysis presented here is limited to this
404: region, which we will henceforth refer to as the the ``70\% coverage
405: region.'' The 1-$\sigma$ flux-density error estimates in the trimmed
406: map range from 0.96~mJy\,beam$^{-1}$ in the centre to
407: 1.16~mJy\,beam$^{-1}$ at the edges.
408:
409:
410: \begin{figure}
411: \centering
412: \includegraphics[width=2.3in,angle=90]{kernel_profile.eps}
413: \caption{Cross section of the point-source kernel. The Gaussian that best fits
414: the inner $R = 10$\,arcsec region is shown in the lighter shade and
415: has a FWHM of 19.5\,arcsec. The negative ring around the centre and
416: other peripheral features (not visible here) are induced by
417: PCA-cleaning as well as the optimal filter.}
418: \label{fig_kernel}
419: \end{figure}
420: We also run the co-added kernel map through the same filtering process
421: as the signal map. The resulting filtered kernel map, whose profile
422: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_kernel}, is our best approximation of the
423: shape of a point source in the co-added, filtered signal map. As
424: demonstrated in
425: \S~\ref{ana_stacking}, our pointing jitter/uncertainty has a
426: sub-2-arcsec characteristic scale; this will have little impact on the
427: kernel shape and therefore is not included in generating the kernel
428: map. The negative troughs around the central peak are due to a
429: combination of array common-mode removal in the PCA-cleaning and
430: de-weighting of longer spatial wavelength modes by the optimal filter.
431: The point-source kernel also has radial scan-oriented features, or
432: ``spokes,'' due to PCA cleaning that are $<$0.1\% of the kernel
433: amplitude. The directions of these spokes would vary across the map
434: as the scan angle changes with RA-Dec. Therefore, the kernel map
435: accurately reflects these spokes only for point sources near the
436: centre of the field. However, because it is difficult to analytically
437: model a point source (through PCA cleaning and optimal filtering) and
438: because the radial features are very faint, we use the kernel map as a
439: point source-template for injection of sources in the simulations
440: described later.
441:
442: Because this GOODS-N survey is the deepest blank-field survey
443: conducted thus far with AzTEC on the JCMT, we demonstrate in
444: Fig.~\ref{fig_quietness_plot} how the map noise averages down with the
445: successive co-addition of individual observations. The central
446: 200\arcsec$\times$200\arcsec\ region of the signal map and the noise
447: realisation maps are used for this calculation. The x-axis represents
448: the average weight of a 3-arcsec pixel in this region prior to
449: filtering. A scale factor converts this raw weight to an effective
450: time, $T^{*}$, so that the final effective time equals the final
451: integration time devoted to an {\em average} 3-arcsec pixel in this
452: central patch. Thus, the increment in $T^{*}$ gained with the
453: addition of an individual observation is the effective integration
454: time contributed by that particular observation to the central region.
455: The $i$th y-axis value is calculated by co-adding (averaging)
456: individual signal maps from observations 1 through $i$, then applying
457: the optimal filter, and finally taking the standard deviation of this
458: co-added, filtered map in the central region. The crosses represent
459: the signal map. The 100 curves shown in a lighter shade are
460: calculated by carrying out the same process on 100 noise realisations.
461: In the absence of systematics or astronomical signal, we expect all
462: curves to scale as $1/\sqrt{T^{*}}$, in accordance with Gaussian
463: statistics, as indicated by the dashed line. At higher $T^{*}$, we
464: may expect a slight steepening in all curves because later
465: co-additions better reflect our assumptions of circular symmetry (in
466: the optimal filtering process) as we add more scan directions to the
467: mix. However, this effect appears to be unmeasurably small in our
468: data.
469:
470: While the noise realisations follow the $1/\sqrt{T^{*}}$ trend, the
471: signal map initially follows it but flattens near the point where
472: ${\sim}20$--30~s of effective time is spent on a 3-arcsec pixel.
473: Switching the order in which signal maps are co-added does not alter
474: this trend or the noisy behaviour of these points at large $T^{*}$.
475: Therefore, we conclude that: 1) single individual observations yield
476: maps that are consistent with our noise realisations; 2) map features
477: that do not survive scan-by-scan ``jack-knifing,'' presumably
478: astronomical signal due to source confusion, prevent the signal map's
479: r.m.s. from improving as $1/\sqrt{T^{*}}$; and 3) the fact that noise
480: realisations continue to follow this trend indicates that we are far
481: from a systematics floor due to atmospheric or instrumental effects,
482: even at the highest $T^{*}$.
483: \begin{figure}
484: \centering
485: \subfigure{
486: \hspace{.17in}
487: \includegraphics[width=2.4in,angle=90]{quietness.eps}}
488: \caption{Behaviour of the signal map's r.m.s. (crosses), as well as the
489: r.m.s. of 100 separate noise realisations (collection of curves), as a
490: function of the mean effective integration time $T^{*}$ spent on each
491: 3-arcsec central pixel of map. The dashed curve shows the 1/$\sqrt{T^*}$
492: relationship expected in the absence of systematics and astronomical
493: signal. This demonstrates how the map noise averages down with the
494: successive addition of more observations. The ``flattening'' of the
495: central r.m.s. at
496: large $T^*$ in the signal map, compared to the noise maps, is due to
497: astronomical signal. The fluctuations of this curve at large $T^*$ are
498: simply due to noise in the r.m.s. itself, as re-ordering observations
499: gives similar features near the same region.}
500: \label{fig_quietness_plot}
501: \end{figure}
502:
503: \subsection{Astrometry calibration}
504: \label{ana_stacking}
505:
506: The pipeline used to produce this map of GOODS-N interpolates pointing
507: offsets inferred from regular observations of pointing calibrators
508: interspersed with science targets \citep{Wilson08,Scott08}. In order
509: to verify the quality of this pointing model for GOODS-N, both in an
510: absolute sense, and in terms of small variations between passes, we
511: compare the AzTEC map with the extremely deep 1.4\,GHz VLA data in
512: this field
513: \citep[][Morrison et al. in prep.]{Richards2000}.
514: The radio data reduction and source list used here is the same as that of
515: \citet{Pope2006}, with a 1-$\sigma$ noise of $\sim$5.3\,$\mu$Jy at the
516: phase centre. The catalogue is constructed with a 4-$\sigma$ cut, and
517: has positional uncertainties $\sim0.2^{\prime\prime}$
518: (Morrison et al. in prep.).
519:
520: We stack the signal in the AzTEC map at the positions of radio sources
521: to check for gross astrometric shifts in the AzTEC pointing model, as
522: well as any broadening in the stacked signal which may indicate
523: significant random offsets in the pointing between visits. A more
524: detailed comparison between the mm and 1.4\,GHz map is presented in
525: (Chapin et al. in prep.) to assist with the MIR/NIR identifications of
526: individual AzTEC SMGs, and the production of radio--NIR SEDs.
527:
528: The stack was made from the 453 1.4\,GHz source positions that are
529: within the uniform noise region of the AzTEC map. As in
530: \citet{Scott08} we check for an astrometric shift and broadening by
531: fitting a simple model to the stacked image, which consists of an
532: astrometric shift ($\delta$RA, $\delta$Dec) to the ideal point source
533: kernel, convolved with a symmetric Gaussian with standard deviation
534: $\sigma_{\rm p}$. This Gaussian represents our model for the random
535: pointing error in the AzTEC map. We determine maximum likelihood
536: estimates $\delta$RA $= 0.2^{\prime\prime}$, $\delta$Dec $=
537: -0.9^{\prime\prime}$, and $\sigma_{\rm p}=0.6^{\prime\prime}$. The
538: expected positional uncertainty (in each coordinate) for a point
539: source with a purely Gaussian beam is approximately
540: $0.6\times$FWHM/(S/N) \citep[see the Appendix in][]{Ivison2007} where
541: the FWHM is 18\,arcsec in our case. The S/N of our stack is
542: approximately 10, so the expected positional uncertainty is
543: ${\sim}\,1^{\prime\prime}$. Therefore the total astrometric shift
544: measured by the fitting process, $0.9^{\prime\prime}$, is consistent
545: with the hypothesis that there is {\em no} significant underlying
546: shift. We also note that the $\chi^2$ function for this fit is
547: extremely shallow along the $\sigma_{\rm p}$ axis, so although the
548: minimum occurs at $0.6^{\prime\prime}$, it is not significantly more
549: likely than $0^{\prime\prime}$. We therefore conclude from this
550: analysis that there is no significant offset, nor beam broadening
551: caused by errors in the pointing model.
552:
553:
554: \subsection{Source finding}
555: \label{ana_sources}
556:
557: \begin{figure}
558: \centering
559: \includegraphics[width=2.4in,angle=90]{pix_histos.eps}
560: \caption{Pixel flux histogram of the final signal map in a dark shade and
561: the average pixel flux histogram made from 100 noise realizations in a
562: lighter shade. The positive tail and smaller negative excess in the
563: signal map is due to the presence of point sources.}
564: \label{fig_pix_histograms}
565: \end{figure}
566: To investigate the presence of astronomical sources in our map, we
567: plot in Fig.~\ref{fig_pix_histograms} a histogram of pixel fluxes in
568: the 70\% coverage region of the field. Also shown in a lighter shade
569: is the average pixel histogram made from the 100 noise-realization
570: maps. The noise histogram can be modelled well by a Gaussian centred
571: on $0\,$mJy with a standard deviation of 1.0\,mJy. The obvious excess
572: of large positive pixel values and the small excess of negative values
573: in the signal map are caused by the presence of sources.
574:
575: To identify individual point sources, we first form a S/N map by
576: multiplying the final (i.e.\ co-added and filtered) signal map by the
577: square-root of the weight map. We then identify local maxima in this
578: S/N map with S/N $\geq 3.5$. There are 36 local maxima that meet this
579: condition in the 70\% coverage region of the field. Our analysis of
580: these source candidates is simplified because no pair of them are
581: close enough to significantly alter each other's recovered flux
582: densities ($>$36\,arcsec apart in each case). We have evidence that
583: AzGN01 is a blend of two sources. However, since this knowledge is
584: not based on AzTEC data alone, we defer a detailed discussion of that
585: source for the second paper of this series (Chapin et al. in prep.).
586:
587: The final signal map and these source candidates
588: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_source_map}. Table~\ref{table_sources}
589: lists details of all the AzTEC/GOODS-N $\geq3.5$-$\sigma$ source
590: candidates, including their locations, measured fluxes, S/N, and
591: additional quantities which are defined below. The source positions
592: are given to sub-pixel resolution by calculating a centroid for each
593: local maximum based on nearby pixel fluxes. Sources with clear
594: counterparts in the SCUBA map of GOODS-N
595: \citep{Borys2003,Pope2005} are highlighted in
596: Table~\ref{table_sources}.
597:
598: \begin{table*}
599: \centering
600: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c}
601: \hline
602: Source ID & RA (J2000) & Dec (J2000) & 1.1\,mm flux [mJy] & source S/N & de-boosted
603: flux [mJy] & non-positive PFD integral \\
604: \hline
605: \hline
606: AzGN01$^S$ & 12:37:12.04 & 62:22:11.5 & 11.45$\pm$0.99 & 11.58 & 10.69$^{+0.94}_{-1.12}$ & 0.000 \\
607: AzGN02 & 12:36:32.98 & 62:17:09.4 & 6.84$\pm$0.97 & 7.03 & 5.91$^{+1.02}_{-1.00}$ & 0.000 \\
608: AzGN03$^S$ & 12:36:33.34 & 62:14:08.9 & 6.23$\pm$0.97 & 6.43 & 5.35$^{+0.94}_{-1.08}$ & 0.000 \\
609: AzGN04 & 12:35:50.23 & 62:10:44.4 & 5.76$\pm$1.01 & 5.71 & 4.69$^{+1.06}_{-1.06}$ & 0.000 \\
610: AzGN05 & 12:37:30.53 & 62:12:56.7 & 5.21$\pm$0.97 & 5.38 & 4.13$^{+1.08}_{-0.98}$ & 0.000 \\
611: AzGN06 & 12:36:27.05 & 62:06:06.0 & 5.28$\pm$1.00 & 5.29 & 4.13$^{+1.12}_{-1.00}$ & 0.000 \\
612: AzGN07$^S$ & 12:37:11.94 & 62:13:30.1 & 5.04$\pm$0.97 & 5.21 & 3.95$^{+1.08}_{-0.98}$ & 0.000 \\
613: AzGN08$^S$ & 12:36:45.85 & 62:14:41.9 & 4.94$\pm$0.97 & 5.09 & 3.83$^{+1.08}_{-1.00}$ & 0.000 \\
614: AzGN09$^S$ & 12:37:38.23 & 62:17:35.6 & 4.50$\pm$0.97 & 4.63 & 3.39$^{+1.02}_{-1.10}$ & 0.003 \\
615: AzGN10 & 12:36:27.03 & 62:12:18.0 & 4.46$\pm$0.97 & 4.60 & 3.35$^{+1.02}_{-1.10}$ & 0.003 \\
616: AzGN11 & 12:36:35.62 & 62:07:06.2 & 4.44$\pm$0.98 & 4.53 & 3.27$^{+1.08}_{-1.08}$ & 0.004 \\
617: AzGN12 & 12:36:33.17 & 62:06:18.1 & 4.32$\pm$0.99 & 4.39 & 3.07$^{+1.12}_{-1.08}$ & 0.008 \\
618: AzGN13 & 12:35:53.86 & 62:13:45.1 & 4.30$\pm$0.99 & 4.36 & 3.07$^{+1.10}_{-1.12}$ & 0.008 \\
619: AzGN14$^S$ & 12:36:52.25 & 62:12:24.1 & 4.18$\pm$0.97 & 4.31 & 2.95$^{+1.10}_{-1.08}$ & 0.009 \\
620: AzGN15 & 12:35:48.64 & 62:15:29.9 & 4.76$\pm$1.12 & 4.26 & 3.23$^{+1.26}_{-1.32}$ & 0.016 \\
621: AzGN16$^S$ & 12:36:16.18 & 62:15:18.1 & 4.12$\pm$0.97 & 4.23 & 2.89$^{+1.08}_{-1.14}$ & 0.013 \\
622: AzGN17 & 12:35:40.59 & 62:14:36.1 & 4.75$\pm$1.13 & 4.20 & 3.23$^{+1.24}_{-1.42}$ & 0.020 \\
623: AzGN18 & 12:37:40.80 & 62:12:23.3 & 4.09$\pm$0.97 & 4.20 & 2.79$^{+1.16}_{-1.08}$ & 0.014 \\
624: AzGN19 & 12:36:04.33 & 62:07:00.2 & 4.54$\pm$1.09 & 4.15 & 3.07$^{+1.20}_{-1.36}$ & 0.022 \\
625: AzGN20$^N$ & 12:37:12.36 & 62:10:38.2 & 4.01$\pm$0.97 & 4.14 & 2.79$^{+1.08}_{-1.16}$ & 0.016 \\
626: AzGN21 & 12:38:01.96 & 62:16:12.6 & 3.99$\pm$0.99 & 4.05 & 2.65$^{+1.16}_{-1.16}$ & 0.023 \\
627: AzGN22$^N$ & 12:36:49.70 & 62:12:12.0 & 3.81$\pm$0.97 & 3.93 & 2.55$^{+1.08}_{-1.24}$ & 0.030 \\
628: AzGN23 & 12:37:16.81 & 62:17:32.2 & 3.75$\pm$0.97 & 3.88 & 2.39$^{+1.16}_{-1.18}$ & 0.035 \\
629: AzGN24$^S$ & 12:36:08.46 & 62:14:41.7 & 3.77$\pm$0.98 & 3.86 & 2.39$^{+1.18}_{-1.20}$ & 0.038 \\
630: AzGN25 & 12:36:52.30 & 62:05:03.4 & 4.19$\pm$1.09 & 3.85 & 2.55$^{+1.32}_{-1.42}$ & 0.050 \\
631: AzGN26 & 12:37:13.86 & 62:18:26.8 & 3.70$\pm$0.97 & 3.82 & 2.39$^{+1.10}_{-1.28}$ & 0.041 \\
632: AzGN27$^N$ & 12:37:19.72 & 62:12:21.5 & 3.68$\pm$0.97 & 3.81 & 2.31$^{+1.16}_{-1.22}$ & 0.043 \\
633: AzGN28 & 12:36:43.60 & 62:19:35.9 & 3.68$\pm$0.98 & 3.76 & 2.31$^{+1.14}_{-1.30}$ & 0.050 \\
634: \hline
635: AzGN29 & 12:36:21.14 & 62:19:12.1 & 4.17$\pm$1.13 & 3.70 & 2.39$^{+1.34}_{-1.64}$ & 0.077 \\
636: AzGN30 & 12:36:42.83 & 62:17:18.3 & 3.58$\pm$0.97 & 3.69 & 2.13$^{+1.20}_{-1.26}$ & 0.059 \\
637: AzGN31 & 12:36:22.16 & 62:16:11.0 & 3.58$\pm$0.97 & 3.68 & 2.13$^{+1.20}_{-1.28}$ & 0.061 \\
638: AzGN32 & 12:37:17.14 & 62:13:56.0 & 3.56$\pm$0.97 & 3.67 & 2.13$^{+1.18}_{-1.28}$ & 0.061 \\
639: AzGN33 & 12:36:51.42 & 62:20:23.7 & 3.54$\pm$0.98 & 3.63 & 2.13$^{+1.12}_{-1.40}$ & 0.069 \\
640: AzGN34 & 12:36:48.30 & 62:21:05.5 & 3.65$\pm$1.02 & 3.59 & 2.13$^{+1.16}_{-1.50}$ & 0.080 \\
641: AzGN35 & 12:38:18.20 & 62:14:29.8 & 4.02$\pm$1.12 & 3.59 & 2.13$^{+1.32}_{-1.68}$ & 0.096 \\
642: AzGN36 & 12:36:17.38 & 62:15:45.5 & 3.41$\pm$0.97 & 3.50 & 1.87$^{+1.16}_{-1.40}$ & 0.091 \\
643: \hline
644: \end{tabular}
645: \caption{Source candidates in AzTEC/GOODS-N with S/N$\geq$3.5 ordered
646: according to S/N. The horizontal line between AzGN28 and AzGN29
647: represents our threshold for source robustness, as explained in
648: \S~\ref{sources_fdr}. The last two columns are defined in
649: \S~\ref{sources_deboost}. The superscripts $S$ and $N$ highlight sources
650: in our robust sub-list that lie within the considered SCUBA region
651: (where the 850-\um\ r.m.s.\ is $<$2.5\,mJy). The sources denoted by
652: $S$ have robust detections at 850\,\um\ within 12\,arcsec of the given
653: positions while the sources denoted by $N$ do not (Chapin et al. in
654: prep.).}
655: \label{table_sources}
656: \end{table*}
657:
658: \section{The AzTEC/GOODS-N source catalogue}
659: \label{sources}
660:
661: As evident from Table~\ref{table_sources}, the number of source
662: candidates increases rapidly with decreasing S/N. However, if we use
663: a S/N threshold to make a sub-list of the sources in
664: Table~\ref{table_sources}, the false positives contained in such a
665: list will also increase with lower S/N thresholds. Our aim here is to
666: find a S/N threshold above which $\ga$95\% of source candidates are,
667: on average, expected to be true sources. This is a practical choice
668: aimed at maximising the number of sources recommended for follow-up
669: studies (the subject of Chapin et al. in prep.) in a way that limits
670: the effect of false detections on any conclusions drawn. The
671: horizontal line in Table~\ref{table_sources} below source AzGN28
672: (S/N$\geq$3.75) marks the cut-off of the sub-list that we expect will
673: satisfy our robustness condition. We first explain in
674: \S~\ref{sources_fdr} the analysis of false detection rates (FDRs) that
675: yields this threshold. In that section, we go beyond previous FDR
676: treatments for AzTEC \citep{Scott08} and derive some general results
677: about FDRs that are applicable to (sub)mm surveys in general.
678:
679: Next, we explain in \S~\ref{sources_deboost} the last two columns of
680: Table~\ref{table_sources} which contain a re-evaluation of source flux
681: densities and an assessment of the relative robustness of our source
682: candidates. Then, in \S~\ref{sources_completeness}, we discuss the
683: survey completeness and present a brief consistency check of our
684: source candidates against SCUBA detections at 850\,\um.
685:
686:
687: \subsection{False detection rates}
688: \label{sources_fdr}
689:
690: Two obvious methods for estimating the false detection rate (FDR) of a
691: survey are to run the source finding algorithm on: 1) simulated noise
692: realization maps; or 2) the {\em negative} of the observed signal map.
693: For several S/N thresholds, Table~\ref{table_fdr} lists the number of
694: source candidates in the actual map (row 1), the average number of
695: ``sources'' found in simulated pure noise realizations (row 2), and
696: the number of ``sources'' in the negative of the actual map (row 4).
697: When using the map negative, regions within 36\,arcsec of a bright
698: positive source were excluded in order to avoid their ``negative
699: ring'' (see Fig.~\ref{fig_kernel}).
700: \begin{table}
701: \centering
702: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
703: \hline
704: Source Threshold & 3.5-$\sigma$ & 3.75-$\sigma$ & 4-$\sigma$ &
705: 5-$\sigma$ \\
706: \hline
707: \hline
708: Sources Detected & 36 & 28 & 21 & 8 \\
709: Pure-noise FDR & 4.32 & 1.69 & 0.68 & 0.01 \\
710: Best-fit-model FDR & 2.65 & 1.13 & 0.42 & 0.00\\
711: \hline
712: Negative FDR & 6 & 4 & 4 & 0 \\
713: Pure-noise Negative FDR & 4.55 & 1.58 & 0.33 & 0.00\\
714: Best-fit-model Negative FDR & 5.96 & 2.85 & 1.16 & 0.04\\
715: \hline
716: \end{tabular}
717: \caption{The number of source candidates passing a given S/N threshold
718: in the actual map are indicated in row 1. Several methods for
719: determining the false detection rates (FDRs) were explored.
720: ``Pure-noise'' refers to averages computed over 100 noise-realization
721: maps. ``Best-fit-model'' corresponds to averages from 100
722: noise+source realization maps using the best fit model of
723: \S~\ref{nc_parametric}. We have settled on the values of row 2 as our
724: nominal FDRs because they give a conservative overestimate, as
725: explained in the text.}
726: \label{table_fdr}
727: \end{table}
728:
729: We conclude that these two estimates of the FDR are not very accurate
730: for our maps. Because of the high number density of SMGs in the sky
731: compared to our beam size, every point of the map is in general
732: affected by the presence of sources. This source confusion causes the
733: simple FDR estimates above to be inaccurate. In particular, there are
734: equal numbers of negative and positive ``detections'' in noise
735: realizations to within the statistical error of our noise simulations,
736: as indicated by rows 2 and 5. However, the presence of sources skews
737: this balance in the actual map, making the false negatives rate higher
738: than the pure-noise numbers and the false positives rate (what we are
739: after) lower than the pure-noise numbers.
740:
741: Both these effects can be understood by considering the following
742: hypothetical construction: a noise-less AzTEC map of the sky
743: containing many point sources, all with the shape of the point-source
744: kernel. Because each kernel has a mean of zero, such a map would have
745: an excess of negative valued pixels over positive valued pixels (about
746: 70\% to 30\%) to counter the high positive values near the centre of
747: the kernel (see \ref{fig_kernel}). When noise that is symmetric
748: around zero is ``added'' to such a map, this small negative bias will
749: cause a larger number of high-significance negative excursions in that
750: sky map compared to a map containing just the symmetric noise. The
751: pixel flux histogram of the actual map, shown in
752: Fig.~\ref{fig_pix_histograms} (darker shade), also shows evidence of
753: this effect through its negatively shifted peak as well as the excess
754: of negative pixels in comparison with pure noise realizations
755: (lighter-shade histogram). This small negative bias, in pixels that do
756: not lie atop a source peak, also explains why there are fewer
757: high-significance false positives in an actual sky map compared to a
758: pure noise map.
759:
760: To verify our reasoning, we generated 100 noise+source realizations
761: for the best-fit number counts model described in
762: \S~\ref{nc_parametric}. For each realization, we find the number of
763: positive and negative ``detections'' just as for the true map. False
764: positives are defined as detections occurring $>$10\,arcsec away from
765: {\em inserted} sources of brightness $>$0.1\,mJy. The FDR results for
766: these simulations are given in rows 3 and 6 of Table~\ref{table_fdr}.
767: The results show that the negatives rate is indeed boosted by the
768: presence of sources, compared to pure noise maps (rows 2 and 5).
769: Furthermore, the negative FDR of the actual map (row 4), which
770: drops to 0 at a S/N of 4.2, is statistically consistent with the
771: simulated negative FDR means of row 6. As expected, the simulated
772: false positives rate is lower than the pure-noise FDR, as
773: evident from row~3.
774:
775: As the true positive FDR depends on the number counts, we adopt the
776: model-independent pure-noise values of row 2 as our nominal FDRs.
777: These will be conservative overestimates of the FDR regardless of the
778: true $1.1\,$mm number-counts of the GOODS-N field.
779:
780: Based on these nominal FDRs, we divide the source candidate list of
781: table~\ref{table_sources} into two categories of
782: robustness, with the dividing line at a S/N of 3.75. On average, we
783: expect 1--2 source candidates with S/N$\geq$3.75 (above the horizontal
784: line in Table~\ref{table_sources}) and 1--3 candidates with S/N$<$3.75
785: (below the line) to be false detections.
786:
787:
788: \subsection{Flux bias correction}
789: \label{sources_deboost}
790:
791: In our map, where the signal from sources does not completely dominate
792: over noise, the measured flux density can be significantly shifted
793: from the true $1.1\,$mm flux density of a source due to noise. The
794: measured flux densities in column~4 of Table~\ref{table_sources} are
795: more likely to be overestimates than underestimates of the true flux
796: densities because of the sharply decreasing surface density of (sub)mm
797: galaxies with increasing flux density. As this slope in the number
798: counts is quite steep \citep[see for example][]{Blain1999A, Barger1999A,
799: Eales2000, Borys2003, Greve2004, Coppin2006}, this {\em bias} can be a
800: large effect. Therefore, we estimate a ``de-boosted'' flux density
801: for all our 3.5-$\sigma$ source candidates. This estimate is based on
802: the Bayesian technique laid out in
803: \citet{Coppin2005} for calculating the posterior flux density (PFD)
804: distribution of each source.
805:
806: The number-counts model that we use to generate the prior is given by
807: \begin{equation}
808: {\mathrm{d}N \over \mathrm{d}S} = N^\prime {S^\prime \over S} e^{-S/S^\prime}
809: \label{eq_prior}
810: \end{equation}
811: where d$N$/d$S$ represents the differential number counts of sources
812: with flux density $S$. We use $N^\prime=3500\,$mJy$^{-1}$deg$^{-1}$
813: and $S^\prime=1.5\,$mJy, which is consistent with taking the Schechter
814: function number-counts fit of
815: \citet{Coppin2006} and scaling the 850$\,\mu$m fluxes by a factor of 2.2
816: to approximate the $1.1\,$mm fluxes of the same population. It is
817: sufficient to use a prior that is only approximately correct, since
818: many of the derived results (as we have checked explicitly) are
819: independent of the exact form of the assumed number counts. We take
820: as our Bayesian prior the noise-less pixel flux histogram of a large
821: patch of sky simulated according to this model. Since our
822: point-source kernel has a mean of zero, the prior is non-zero for
823: negative fluxes and peaks near $0\,$mJy.
824:
825: The de-boosted flux density given in column~6 of
826: Table~\ref{table_sources} is the location of the PFD's local maximum
827: closest to the measured flux density. This de-boosted flux density is
828: fairly insensitive to changes in the prior that correspond to other
829: number-counts models allowed by current constraints. The upper and
830: lower error bounds quoted for a de-boosted flux density correspond to
831: the narrowest PFD interval bracketing the local maximum that
832: integrates to 68.3\%.
833:
834: In order to determine the relative robustness of each source
835: individually, we calculate the integral of the PFD below zero flux.
836: This quantity, given in column~7 of Table~\ref{table_sources}, is not
837: a function of just S/N but depends on the flux (signal) and its error
838: (noise) separately. Although the values given in column~7 can vary
839: appreciably among reasonable choices of number-counts priors and the
840: PFD integration upper bounds (set to zero here), the source robustness
841: {\it order\/} inferred by the non-positive PFD integral is quite
842: insensitive to these choices. Therefore, the values in column~7
843: provide a useful indicator of the relative reliability of individual
844: sources.
845:
846: However, due to the arbitrariness present, the values in
847: this column cannot be used to directly calculate the FDR of a source
848: list. For instance, the sum of column~7 values for our robust source
849: list is $\sim$0.5, which is an underestimate of the expected FDR (see
850: \S~\ref{sources_fdr}). We note that, for our choice of prior, the
851: requirement of a non-positive PFD $\le$5\% {\em happens to} identify
852: the same robust source-candidate list as the S/N cut of 3.75.
853: However, this statement is specific to a particular choice of prior
854: and PFD integration upper bound.
855:
856: \subsection{Survey completeness and comparison with SCUBA detections}
857: \label{sources_completeness}
858:
859: \begin{figure}
860: \centering
861: \includegraphics[width=2.4in,angle=90]{completeness.eps}
862: \caption{Survey completeness for the S/N$\geq$3.75 cut used here to
863: select robust sources is represented with the dark symbols and error
864: bars. The lighter symbols and error bars are estimates of the survey
865: completeness when the integrated posterior flux distribution below
866: 0\,mJy is required to be $<$5\%.}
867: \label{fig_completeness}
868: \end{figure}
869: We next compute the survey completeness by injecting one source at a
870: time, in the form of the point-source kernel scaled to represent each
871: flux, at random positions in the GOODS-N signal map
872: (Fig.~\ref{fig_source_map}) and tallying the instances when a {\em
873: new\/} source is recovered with S/N$\geq$3.75 within 10\,arcsec of the
874: insertion point. We choose this radius because it is small enough for
875: conducting quick searches in our simulations and because, barring
876: incompleteness, simulations show that $>$99.5\% of $\ge3.75$-$\sigma$
877: sources will be found within 10\,arcsec of their true position given
878: the size of the AzTEC beam and the depth of coverage. This method of
879: calculating completeness allows for the inclusion of ``confusion
880: noise'' without altering the map properties appreciably, because only
881: one artificial source is injected per
882: simulation~\citep{sescott2006,Scott08}.
883:
884: We have also assessed completeness by inserting point sources of known
885: flux, one at a time, into pure noise-realisation maps rather than the
886: signal map. With this method, we also require that each recovered
887: artificial source has a $<5$\% non-positive PFD. Since this
888: constraint is essentially equivalent to a limiting S/N threshold of
889: 3.75 (as evident from Table~\ref{table_sources}), it is not surprising
890: that the survey completeness determined this way (lighter-shade points
891: of Fig.~\ref{fig_completeness}) is similar to that derived from the
892: previous method. The similarity in results also shows that the
893: effects of confusion noise on survey completeness is small.
894:
895: Finally, to verify that our source-candidate list has overlap with
896: previously detected extragalactic (sub)mm sources, we compare our
897: source list against 850-\um\ SCUBA detections within overlapping
898: survey regions. For this purpose, we only consider the regions in the
899: SCUBA/850-\um\ map with noise r.m.s. $<$ 2.5\,mJy. Of the 28 AzTEC
900: sources in the robust list, 11 lie within this region of the SCUBA
901: map; of these 8 (73\%) have robust detections at 850\,\um\
902: \citep{Pope2005} within 12\,arcsec of the AzTEC position. Those 8 are
903: highlighted with the superscript ``$S$'' in Table~\ref{table_sources}
904: while the other 3 are marked with the superscript ``$N$.'' On
905: the other hand, all 38 robust SCUBA sources within the r.m.s. $<$
906: 2.5\,mJy region
907: \citep{Pope2005,Wall2008} lie within the 70\% coverage region of
908: AzTEC. In Chapin et al. (in prep.) we will
909: discuss the 850\,\um\ properties of AzTEC sources by performing
910: photometry in the SCUBA map at AzTEC positions, and more fully explore
911: the overlap of the AzTEC and SCUBA populations in general.
912:
913: \section{1.1~mm Number counts}
914: \label{nc}
915:
916: Using our AzTEC/GOODS-N data, we next quantify the number density of
917: sources as a function of their intrinsic (de-boosted) 1.1\,mm flux.
918: These counts cannot be read directly from the recovered distribution
919: of source flux densities due to: 1) the bias towards higher fluxes in
920: the data (as described in section~\ref{sources_deboost}), which
921: includes false detections; and 2) the survey incompleteness at lower
922: fluxes. In order to estimate the counts we use two independent
923: methods: a Monte Carlo technique that implicitly includes the flux bias
924: and completeness issues; and a Bayesian approach that accounts for
925: both these effects explicitly.
926:
927: Fig.~\ref{fig_diffnc_results} shows the results of our number-counts
928: simulations. It shows the source flux density histogram simulated for
929: the best fit model from the parametric method overlaid on the actual
930: distribution from the true map. It also shows the differential number
931: counts vs.\ de-boosted source flux density as returned by both
932: methods. The dot-dashed lines in the lower right correspond to the
933: survey limits of the frequentist and Bayesian approaches, which are
934: 27.8 and 33.8\,deg$^{-2}$\,mJy$^{-1}$, respectively. The survey limit
935: is the y-axis value (number counts) that experiences Poisson
936: deviations to zero sources per mJy-bin 32.7\% of the time, given the
937: map area considered. The two limits differ slightly because the
938: frequentist simulations include the slightly larger area 50\% coverage
939: region, as opposed to the 70\% coverage region that we use for the
940: Bayesian method. The survey limit occurs at around 6\,mJy for both
941: the best-fit frequentist and Bayesian type simulations. Thus, we are
942: not sensitive to the differential number counts {\em with 1\,mJy
943: resolution\/} beyond that point.
944:
945: The power of the AzTEC/GOODS-N survey is in constraining number-counts
946: at lower flux densities, given the depth reached in this relatively
947: small field. We have, however, excluded results below the $<$2\,mJy
948: level from both methods, because of low survey completeness ($<$10\%)
949: and the possibility of increasing systematic effects. Therefore, the
950: noteworthy features of Fig.~\ref{fig_diffnc_results} are the points
951: from the Bayesian approach, indicated by crosses and error bars, in
952: the range 2\,mJy to 6\,mJy and the allowed functional forms from the
953: parametric (frequentist) method within those flux density bounds.
954: Models allowed by the 68.3\% confidence interval of the parametric
955: method form the shaded region while the dark curve is the best-fit
956: model. Given the error bounds from the two methods, they are in good
957: agreement. Both methods are briefly described below.
958:
959: \subsection{Parametric frequentist approach}
960: \label{nc_parametric}
961:
962: An obvious choice of indicator for the underlying source population is
963: the recovered brightness distribution of source candidates in the
964: GOODS-N map. Here, we use a S/N threshold of 3.5 and the 50\%
965: coverage region of the map. After identifying S/N$\geq$3.5 source
966: candidates, we make a histogram of their measured flux densities using
967: 0.25\,mJy bins, for comparison against histograms made from simulating
968: various number-counts models. This approach is similar, in spirit, to
969: the method employed in \citet{Laurent2005} and the parametric version
970: of number counts derived in \citet{Coppin2006}. However, we avoid
971: intermediate analytical constructs, as the procedure outlined below
972: accounts for all relevant effects.
973:
974: \begin{figure}
975: \centering
976: \includegraphics[width=2.45in, angle=90]{diff_nc_schech2_rec.eps}
977: \caption{The thick solid curve and the enveloping shaded region
978: correspond to the best fit number counts model and the 68.3\%
979: confidence interval from the parametric approach of
980: \S~\ref{nc_parametric}. The distribution of measured fluxes of
981: 3.5-$\sigma$ sources in the actual map is shown by the triangles in
982: the 3.5-8\,mJy interval while the corresponding average distribution
983: of the best fit model is indicated by the thin solid-line histogram.
984: The difference between the thick solid line and the thin solid
985: histogram indicates the importance of accounting for flux boosting and
986: completeness. The crosses and error bars represent the differential
987: number counts derived from the Bayesian method, which are in excellent
988: agreement with the result from the parametric method. The dashed-line
989: curve indicates the Bayesian prior. The upper and lower dot-dashed
990: lines indicate the survey limits of the Bayesian and parametric
991: methods, respectively.}
992: \label{fig_diffnc_results}
993: \end{figure}
994:
995: We generate model realisation maps by injecting kernel-shaped point
996: sources into noise realisation maps. The input source positions are
997: {\em uniformly} distributed over the noise realisation map while their
998: number density and flux distribution reflect the number-counts model
999: being considered. For every model we have considered, we make 1200
1000: simulated maps by constructing 12 different source realisations for
1001: each of the 100 noise realisation maps. Next, we use the same
1002: source-finding algorithm used on the signal map to extract all
1003: S/N$\geq$3.5 peaks in each simulated map. We then compare the average
1004: histogram of recovered source fluxes from the 1200 model realisations
1005: against the actual distribution of source fluxes. The data vs.\
1006: models comparison is restricted to the 3.5--8\,mJy measured flux
1007: density range. This comparison process is illustrated in
1008: Fig.~\ref{fig_diffnc_results}.
1009:
1010: The likelihood of the data given a model is determined according to
1011: Poisson statistics as in
1012: \citet{Laurent2005} and \citet{Coppin2006}.
1013: One set of parameterised models that we have explored has the functional form given
1014: by Equation~\ref{eq_prior}. We chose to re-parametrise these models
1015: so that the normalisation factor depends on only one of the fit
1016: parameters. The parameters we chose are the same $S^\prime$ as in
1017: Equation~\ref{eq_prior} and $N_{\rm 3mJy}$, the differential counts at
1018: 3\,mJy, given by
1019: \begin{equation}
1020: N_{\rm 3mJy} = N^\prime \left({S^\prime \over 3\mathrm{mJy}}\right)
1021: e^{-3\mathrm{mJy} / S^\prime}.
1022: \label{eq_N3mJy}
1023: \end{equation}
1024: In terms of these parameters, Equation~\ref{eq_prior} becomes
1025: \begin{equation}
1026: {\mathrm{d}N \over \mathrm{d}S} = N_{\rm 3mJy}
1027: \left({3\mathrm{mJy}} \over S \right)
1028: e^{-(S - 3\mathrm{mJy}) / S^\prime}.
1029: \label{eq_ncparam}
1030: \end{equation}
1031:
1032: We explored the $S^\prime$--$N_{\rm 3mJy}$ parameter space over the
1033: rectangular region bracketed by 0.5-2\,mJy and
1034: 60-960\,mJy$^{-1}$\,degree$^{-2}$ using a $(\Delta S^\prime,
1035: \Delta N_{\rm 3mJy})$ cell size of (0.15,60). The likelihood function, ${\cal
1036: L}$, is a maximum for the model with $S^\prime = 1.25 \pm 0.38\,$mJy
1037: and $N_{\rm 3mJy} = 300 \pm 90$\,mJy$^{-1}$\,degree$^{-2}$. We did
1038: not assume $\chi^2$-like behaviour of $-\ln({\cal L})$ for calculating
1039: the 68.3\% confidence contours whose projections are the error bars
1040: quoted above. Instead, as outlined in \citet{press92}, we made many
1041: realisations of the best-fit model and put them through the same
1042: parameter estimation procedure that was applied to the actual data.
1043: In terms of the goodness of fit, we find that 66\% of the simulated
1044: fits yield a higher value of $-\ln({\cal L})$ compared to the actual
1045: value. Fig.~\ref{fig_diffnc_results} shows this best-fit
1046: number-counts estimate against the de-boosted 1.1\,mm flux density
1047: along with a continuum of curves allowed by the 68.3\% confidence
1048: region.
1049:
1050: \subsection{Bayesian method}
1051: \label{nc_bayes}
1052:
1053: We also estimate number counts from the individual source PFDs
1054: calculated in \S~\ref{sources_deboost} using a modified version of the
1055: bootstrapping method described in \citet{Coppin2006}. A complete
1056: discussion of the modifications and tests of the method will be
1057: presented in Austermann et al. (in prep.). For these calculations, we
1058: use only the sub-list of {\em robust\/} sources in
1059: Table~\ref{table_sources}. We have repeated this bootstrapping
1060: process 20{,}000 times to measure the mean and uncertainty
1061: distributions of source counts in this field. The differential and
1062: integrated number counts extracted with this method, using $1\,$mJy
1063: bins, are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_diffnc_results}. Our simulations
1064: show that the extracted number counts are quite reliable for a wide
1065: range of source populations and only weakly dependent on the assumed
1066: population used to generate the Bayesian prior (the dashed-line curve
1067: of Fig.~\ref{fig_diffnc_results}) with the exception of the lowest
1068: flux density bins, below 2\,mJy, which suffer from source confusion
1069: and low (and poorly constrained) completeness. Overall, the results
1070: from the Bayesian method are in excellent agreement with those from
1071: the parametric method between the lower sensitivity bound (2\,mJy) and
1072: the survey limit ($\sim$6\,mJy).
1073:
1074:
1075: \section{Discussion}
1076: \label{results}
1077:
1078: \begin{figure}
1079: \centering
1080: \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{int_counts_both.eps}
1081: \caption{The cumulative (integral) number counts from other
1082: 1.1--1.2\,mm surveys are shown alongside our results. The
1083: AzTEC/GOODS-N parametric number-counts results are indicated by the
1084: hatched region that represents the 68.3\% confidence region for
1085: parametric models. The dot-dashed line indicates the survey limit.
1086: Results from the Bolocam 1.1\,mm Lockman Hole survey are indicated by
1087: a thin solid line and two bounding dotted-lines that represent the
1088: best-fit model and 68.3\% confidence region as found by
1089: \citet{Maloney2005}. The 1.2-mm MAMBO-IRAM results reported in
1090: \citet{Greve2004} also shown (triangles). The stars represent the
1091: ``reduction D'' results of \citet{Coppin2006} with 850\,\um\ flux
1092: densities scaled by the factor 1/2.08 as explained in the text. The
1093: dashed curve indicates the best combined fit to the Bayesian results
1094: from both surveys.}
1095: \label{fig_int_counts}
1096: \end{figure}
1097: In Fig.~\ref{fig_int_counts}, we display our cumulative number-counts
1098: results with the 68.3\%-allowed hatched region derived from the
1099: parametric method. We next compare those results with previous
1100: surveys of (sub)mm galaxies. Combined results from the 1.2-mm MAMBO
1101: surveys of the Lockman Hole and ELAIS-N2 region~\citep{Greve2004} and
1102: the 1.1-mm Bolocam Lockman Hole survey~\citep{Maloney2005} are shown
1103: in Fig.~\ref{fig_int_counts}. Our GOODS-N number counts are in good
1104: agreement with MAMBO results. Our results are in disagreement with
1105: the results of \citet{Maloney2005}, even within a limited flux range
1106: such as 3--6\,mJy where we expect both surveys to be sensitive to the
1107: number counts.
1108: %% We also find that the total flux from our best-fit parametric
1109: %% number-counts model, integrated above 2\,mJy, accounts for $\sim$10\%
1110: %% of the cosmic surface brightness at 1.1\,mm, as measured by
1111: %% \citet{Fixsen1998}.
1112:
1113: In Fig.~\ref{fig_int_counts}, we also compare our results with the
1114: 850-\um\ number counts of \citet{Coppin2006}. If the 1.1--1.2\,mm
1115: surveys detect the same population of sub-mm sources seen by
1116: SCUBA at 850$\,\mu$m -- an assumption that is not obviously valid
1117: given the possible redshift-dependent selection effects
1118: \citep{Blain2002} -- we would expect a general correspondence between
1119: number counts at these two wavelengths, with a scaling in flux density
1120: that represents the spectral factor for an average source. Therefore,
1121: we perform a simultaneous fit to the SCUBA/SHADES and AzTEC/GOODS-N
1122: {\em differential} Bayesian number counts in order to determine the
1123: average dust emissivity spectral index, $\alpha_{\rm{dust}}$ (and thus
1124: the flux density scaling factor from 1.1~mm wavelength to 850\,\um\
1125: wavelength), and the parameters, $N_{\rm 3mJy}$ and $S^{\prime}$, of
1126: Equation~\ref{eq_ncparam}. This fit results in the best-fit parameters and
1127: correlation matrix given in Table~\ref{tab:params}. We overlay the
1128: \citet{Coppin2006} number counts on Fig.~\ref{fig_int_counts} with
1129: the 850-\um\ fluxes scaled by the scaling factor derived from this
1130: fit, which is 2.08$\pm$0.18. For visual comparison, the shaded region
1131: of Fig.~\ref{fig_int_counts}, which represents our {\em parametric}
1132: result, is sufficient because it represents well the results from both
1133: methods (see Fig.~\ref{fig_diffnc_results}).
1134: Fig.~\ref{fig_int_counts} shows that the scaled SCUBA-SHADES
1135: points fall well within the bounds allowed by our results.
1136: \begin{table}
1137: \centering
1138: \begin{tabular}{r|c|c|c}
1139: \hline
1140: Survey & $S^{\prime}$ & $N_{\rm 3mJy}$ & $\alpha_{\rm{dust}}$ \\
1141: \hline
1142: \hline
1143: AzTEC/GOODS-N & $1.25\pm0.38$ & $300\pm90$ & \\
1144: AzTEC/GOODS-N \\+ SCUBA/SHADES & $1.60\pm0.25$ & $274\pm54$ & $2.84\pm0.32$ \\
1145: \hline
1146: & $S^{\prime}$ & $N_{\rm 3mJy}$ & $\alpha_{\rm{dust}}$ \\
1147: $S^{\prime}$ & 1 & 0.05 & -0.32 \\
1148: $N_{\rm 3mJy}$ & 0.05 & 1 & -0.8 \\
1149: $\alpha_{\rm{dust}}$ & -0.32 & -0.8 & 1 \\
1150: \end{tabular}
1151: \caption{Best-fit Schechter function parameters and dust emissivity
1152: spectral index using the Bayesian results from the
1153: AzTEC/GOODS-N, SCUBA/SHADES, and combined surveys. The
1154: correlation matrix for the combined fit is also listed.
1155: Caveats on this analysis are given in the text.}
1156: \label{tab:params}
1157: \end{table}
1158:
1159: The $\alpha_{\rm{dust}}$ of Table~\ref{tab:params} was computed for
1160: the nominal AzTEC and SCUBA band centres, which are 1.1\,mm and
1161: 850\,\um\ respectively. However, the quoted error on
1162: $\alpha_{\rm{dust}}$ brackets the effects of small shifts in the
1163: effective band centres due to spectral index differences between SMGs
1164: and flux calibrators. The dust emissivity spectral index may also be
1165: estimated by averaging the 1.1\,mm to 850\,\um\ flux density ratio of
1166: individual sources or by performing the appropriate stacking analysis.
1167: Due to the moderate S/N of sources in our surveys, the effects of flux
1168: bias and survey completeness must be accounted for in such analyses.
1169: Therefore, performing a combined fit to the differential number counts
1170: vs.\ de-boosted flux from the two surveys, where those effects are
1171: already included, is an appropriate method for estimating the spectral
1172: index. From Fig.~\ref{fig_int_counts}, the hypothesis that
1173: SCUBA and AzTEC detect the same underlying source population appears
1174: plausible.
1175:
1176: However, we do not comment on the formal goodness of fit as the
1177: $\chi^2$ obtained for the combined fit is unreasonably small because
1178: the full degree of correlation between data points is underestimated
1179: in the standard computation of the two covariance matrices
1180: \citep{Coppin2006}. In addition, the best-fit parameters of the
1181: combined fit may have a large scatter from a global mean value (if one
1182: exists), due to sample variance, as the two surveys cover different
1183: fields. Although SCUBA 850\,\um\ number-counts are available for
1184: GOODS-N \citep{Borys2003}, the survey region (see
1185: Fig.~\ref{fig_goodsn_cover}) and the method used to estimate number
1186: counts in that work are quite different from those used here.
1187: Therefore, we chose to fit to the SCUBA/SHADES number counts
1188: \citep{Coppin2006} instead, since they were determined using methods
1189: similar to ours.
1190:
1191: \section{Conclusion}
1192: \label{conclusion}
1193:
1194: We have used the AzTEC instrument on the JCMT to image the GOODS-N
1195: field at 1.1~mm. The map has nearly uniform noise of
1196: 0.96--1.16$\,{\rm mJy}\,{\rm beam}^{-1}$ across a field of $245\,{\rm
1197: arcmin}^2$. A stacking analysis of the map flux at known radio source
1198: locations shows that any systematic pointing error for the map is
1199: smaller than 1\,arcsec in both RA and Dec. Thus, the dominant
1200: astrometric errors for the 36 source-candidates with S/N$\geq$3.5 are
1201: due to noise in the centroid determination for each source. Using a
1202: S/N$\geq$3.75 threshold for source robustness, we identify a subset of
1203: 28 source candidates among which we only expect 1--2 noise-induced
1204: spurious detections. Furthermore, of the 11 AzTEC sources that fall
1205: within the considered region of the SCUBA/850-\um, 8 are detected
1206: unambiguously.
1207:
1208: This AzTEC map of GOODS-N represents one of the largest, deepest
1209: mm-wavelength surveys taken to date and provides new constraints on
1210: the number counts at the faint end (down to ${\sim}\,2\,{\rm mJy}$) of
1211: the 1.1~mm galaxy population. We
1212: compare two very different techniques to estimate the number density
1213: of sources as a function of their intrinsic flux--a frequentist
1214: technique based on the flux histogram of detected sources in the map
1215: similar in spirit to that of \citet{Laurent2005},
1216: and a Bayesian approach similar to that of
1217: \citet{Coppin2006}. Reassuringly, the two techniques give similar
1218: estimates for the number counts. Those results are in good agreement
1219: with the number counts estimates of
1220: \citet{Greve2004} but differ significantly from those of \citet{Maloney2005}.
1221:
1222: The 1.1~mm number counts from this field are consistent with a direct
1223: flux scaling of the 850~\micron\ SCUBA/SHADES number counts
1224: \citep{Coppin2006} within the uncertainty of the two measurements,
1225: with a flux density scaling factor of $2.08\pm0.18$. If we assume
1226: that the two instruments are detecting the same population of sources,
1227: we obtain a grey body emissivity index of $2.84\pm0.32$ for the dust
1228: in the sources. While there is no evidence based on the number counts
1229: that 1.1~mm surveys select a significantly different population than
1230: 850~\micron\ surveys, we caution that the number counts alone cannot
1231: really test this hypothesis. A more thorough study of whether AzTEC
1232: is selecting a systematically different population than SCUBA can come
1233: only from comparison of the redshifts and multi-wavelength SEDs of the
1234: identified galaxies, which we will describe in Chapin et al. (in
1235: prep.), the second paper in this series.
1236:
1237: There is also a survey of GOODS-N with MAMBO at 1.25\,mm performed by
1238: Greve et al. (in prep.). A comparison between these two millimetre
1239: maps and, possibly, the SCUBA `Super-map' is reserved for a future
1240: paper (Pope et al. in prep.).
1241:
1242: This AzTEC/GOODS-N map is one of the large blank-field SMG surveys at
1243: 1.1~mm taken at the JCMT. Combined with the AzTEC surveys in the
1244: COSMOS \citep{Scott08} and SHADES (Austermann et al. in prep.)
1245: fields, these GOODS-N data will allow a study of clustering and
1246: cosmic variance on larger spatial scales than any existing (sub)mm
1247: extragalactic surveys.
1248:
1249: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1250: \label{acknowledgement}
1251:
1252: The authors are grateful to J. Aguirre, J. Karakla, K. Souccar,
1253: I. Coulson, R. Tilanus, R. Kackley, D. Haig, S. Doyle, and the
1254: observatory staff at the JCMT who made these observations possible.
1255: Support for this work was provided in part by the NSF grant AST
1256: 05-40852 and the grant from the Korea Science \& Engineering
1257: Foundation (KOSEF) under a cooperative Astrophysical Research Center
1258: of the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC). DHH and IA
1259: acknowledge partial support by CONACT from research grants 60878 and
1260: 50786. AP acknowledges support provided by NASA through the Spitzer
1261: Space Telescope Fellowship Program, through a contract issued by the
1262: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a
1263: contract with NASA. KC acknowledges support from the Science and
1264: Technology Facilities Council. DS and MH acknowledge support from the
1265: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
1266:
1267: %\bibliography{references}
1268:
1269: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1270:
1271: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Alexander} et~al.,}{{Alexander}
1272: et~al.}{2003}]{Alexander2003A}
1273: {Alexander} D.~M., et~al., 2003, \aj, 126, 539
1274:
1275: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Barger}, {Cowie} \& {Richards}}{{Barger}
1276: et~al.}{2000}]{Barger2000}
1277: {Barger} A.~J., {Cowie} L.~L., {Richards} E.~A., 2000, \aj, 119, 2092
1278:
1279: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Barger}, {Cowie} \& {Sanders}}{{Barger}
1280: et~al.}{1999}]{Barger1999A}
1281: {Barger} A.~J., {Cowie} L.~L., {Sanders} D.~B., 1999, \apjl, 518, L5
1282:
1283: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Barger}, {Cowie}, {Sanders}, {Fulton},
1284: {Taniguchi}, {Sato}, {Kawara} \& {Okuda}}{{Barger} et~al.}{1998}]{Barger1998}
1285: {Barger} A.~J., {Cowie} L.~L., {Sanders} D.~B., {Fulton} E., {Taniguchi}
1286: Y., {Sato} Y., {Kawara} K., {Okuda} H., 1998, Nature, 394, 248
1287:
1288: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bertoldi} et~al.,}{{Bertoldi}
1289: et~al.}{2007}]{Bertoldi2007}
1290: {Bertoldi} F., et~al., 2007, \apjs, 172, 132
1291:
1292: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Blain}, {Kneib}, {Ivison} \& {Smail}}{{Blain}
1293: et~al.}{1999}]{Blain1999A}
1294: {Blain} A.~W., {Kneib} J.-P., {Ivison} R.~J., {Smail} I., 1999, \apjl,
1295: 512, L87
1296:
1297: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Blain}, {Smail}, {Ivison}, {Kneib} \&
1298: {Frayer}}{{Blain} et~al.}{2002}]{Blain2002}
1299: {Blain} A.~W., {Smail} I., {Ivison} R.~J., {Kneib} J.-P., {Frayer} D.~T.,
1300: 2002, Phys.~Rep., 369, 111
1301:
1302: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Borne}, {Bushouse}, {Lucas} \&
1303: {Colina}}{{Borne} et~al.}{2000}]{Borne2000}
1304: {Borne} K.~D., {Bushouse} H., {Lucas} R.~A., {Colina} L., 2000, \apjl,
1305: 529, L77
1306:
1307: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Borys}, {Chapman}, {Halpern} \&
1308: {Scott}}{{Borys} et~al.}{2003}]{Borys2003}
1309: {Borys} C., {Chapman} S., {Halpern} M., {Scott} D., 2003, \mnras, 344,
1310: 385
1311:
1312: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Coppin} et~al.,}{{Coppin}
1313: et~al.}{2006}]{Coppin2006}
1314: {Coppin} K., et~al., 2006, \mnras, 372, 1621
1315:
1316: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Coppin}, {Halpern}, {Scott}, {Borys} \&
1317: {Chapman}}{{Coppin} et~al.}{2005}]{Coppin2005}
1318: {Coppin} K., {Halpern} M., {Scott} D., {Borys} C., {Chapman} S., 2005,
1319: \mnras, 357, 1022
1320:
1321: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Coppin}, {Halpern}, {Scott}, {Borys},
1322: {Dunlop}, {Dunne}, {Ivison}, {Wagg} et~al.,}{{Coppin}
1323: et~al.}{2008}]{Coppin2008}
1324: {Coppin} K., {Halpern} M., {Scott} D., {Borys} C., {Dunlop} J., {Dunne}
1325: L., {Ivison} R., {Wagg} J., et~al., 2008, \mnras, 384, 1597
1326:
1327: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cowie}, {Barger}, {Hu}, {Capak} \&
1328: {Songaila}}{{Cowie} et~al.}{2004}]{Cowie2004}
1329: {Cowie} L.~L., {Barger} A.~J., {Hu} E.~M., {Capak} P., {Songaila} A.,
1330: 2004, \aj, 127, 3137
1331:
1332: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cowie}, {Barger} \& {Kneib}}{{Cowie}
1333: et~al.}{2002}]{Cowie2002}
1334: {Cowie} L.~L., {Barger} A.~J., {Kneib} J.-P., 2002, \aj, 123, 2197
1335:
1336: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dunlop}, {Hughes}, {Rawlings}, {Eales} \&
1337: {Ward}}{{Dunlop} et~al.}{1994}]{Dunlop1994}
1338: {Dunlop} J.~S., {Hughes} D.~H., {Rawlings} S., {Eales} S.~A., {Ward}
1339: M.~J., 1994, \nat, 370, 347
1340:
1341: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Eales}, {Lilly}, {Webb}, {Dunne}, {Gear},
1342: {Clements} \& {Yun}}{{Eales} et~al.}{2000}]{Eales2000}
1343: {Eales} S., {Lilly} S., {Webb} T., {Dunne} L., {Gear} W., {Clements} D.,
1344: {Yun} M., 2000, \aj, 120, 2244
1345:
1346: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Giavalisco} et~al.,}{{Giavalisco}
1347: et~al.}{2004}]{Giavalisco2004}
1348: {Giavalisco} M., et~al., 2004, \apjl, 600, L93
1349:
1350: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Greve}, {Ivison}, {Bertoldi}, {Stevens},
1351: {Dunlop}, {Lutz} \& {Carilli}}{{Greve} et~al.}{2004}]{Greve2004}
1352: {Greve} T.~R., {Ivison} R.~J., {Bertoldi} F., {Stevens} J.~A., {Dunlop}
1353: J.~S., {Lutz} D., {Carilli} C.~L., 2004, Monthly Notices of the RAS,
1354: 354, 779
1355:
1356: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hughes}, {Serjeant}, {Dunlop},
1357: {Rowan-Robinson}, {Blain}, {Mann}, {Ivison}, {Peacock}, {Efstathiou}, {Gear},
1358: {Oliver}, {Lawrence}, {Longair}, {Goldschmidt} \& {Jenness}}{{Hughes}
1359: et~al.}{1998}]{Hughes1998}
1360: {Hughes} D.~H., {Serjeant} S., {Dunlop} J., {Rowan-Robinson} M., {Blain}
1361: A., {Mann} R.~G., {Ivison} R., {Peacock} J., {Efstathiou} A., {Gear} W.,
1362: {Oliver} S., {Lawrence} A., {Longair} M., {Goldschmidt} P., {Jenness}
1363: T., 1998, Nature, 394, 241
1364:
1365: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ivison} et~al.,}{{Ivison}
1366: et~al.}{2007}]{Ivison2007}
1367: {Ivison} R.~J., et~al., 2007, \mnras, 380, 199
1368:
1369: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kov{\'a}cs}, {Chapman}, {Dowell}, {Blain},
1370: {Ivison}, {Smail} \& {Phillips}}{{Kov{\'a}cs} et~al.}{2006}]{Kovacs2006}
1371: {Kov{\'a}cs} A., {Chapman} S.~C., {Dowell} C.~D., {Blain} A.~W., {Ivison}
1372: R.~J., {Smail} I., {Phillips} T.~G., 2006, \apj, 650, 592
1373:
1374: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Laurent} et~al.,}{{Laurent}
1375: et~al.}{2005}]{Laurent2005}
1376: {Laurent} G.~T., et~al., 2005, Astrophysical Journal, 623, 742
1377:
1378: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Maloney}, {Glenn}, {Aguirre}, {Golwala},
1379: {Laurent}, {Ade}, {Bock}, {Edgington}, {Goldin}, {Haig}, {Lange}, {Mauskopf},
1380: {Nguyen}, {Rossinot}, {Sayers} \& {Stover}}{{Maloney}
1381: et~al.}{2005}]{Maloney2005}
1382: {Maloney} P.~R., {Glenn} J., {Aguirre} J.~E., {Golwala} S.~R., {Laurent}
1383: G.~T., {Ade} P.~A.~R., {Bock} J.~J., {Edgington} S.~F., {Goldin} A.,
1384: {Haig} D., {Lange} A.~E., {Mauskopf} P.~D., {Nguyen} H., {Rossinot} P.,
1385: {Sayers} J., {Stover} P., 2005, \apj, 635, 1044
1386:
1387: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pope}, {Borys}, {Scott}, {Conselice},
1388: {Dickinson} \& {Mobasher}}{{Pope} et~al.}{2005}]{Pope2005}
1389: {Pope} A., {Borys} C., {Scott} D., {Conselice} C., {Dickinson} M.,
1390: {Mobasher} B., 2005, \mnras, 358, 149
1391:
1392: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pope}, {Scott}, {Dickinson}, {Chary},
1393: {Morrison}, {Borys}, {Sajina}, {Alexander}, {Daddi}, {Frayer}, {MacDonald} \&
1394: {Stern}}{{Pope} et~al.}{2006}]{Pope2006}
1395: {Pope} A., {Scott} D., {Dickinson} M., {Chary} R.-R., {Morrison} G.,
1396: {Borys} C., {Sajina} A., {Alexander} D.~M., {Daddi} E., {Frayer} D.,
1397: {MacDonald} E., {Stern} D., 2006, \mnras, 370, 1185
1398:
1399: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Press, Teukolsky, Vetterling \&
1400: Flannery}{Press et~al.}{1992}]{press92}
1401: Press W.~H., Teukolsky S.~A., Vetterling W.~T., Flannery B.~P., 1992,
1402: Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd edn.
1403: Cambridge Univ., Cambridge
1404:
1405: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Richards}}{{Richards}}{2000}]{Richards2000}
1406: {Richards} E.~A., 2000, \apj, 533, 611
1407:
1408: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Scott et~al.,}{Scott et~al.}{2008}]{Scott08}
1409: Scott K.~S., et~al., 2008, accepted to MNRAS, arXiv:astro-ph/0801.2779
1410:
1411: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Scott}, {Dunlop} \& {Serjeant}}{{Scott}
1412: et~al.}{2006}]{sescott2006}
1413: {Scott} S.~E., {Dunlop} J.~S., {Serjeant} S., 2006, \mnras, 370, 1057
1414:
1415: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Scott}, {Fox}, {Dunlop}, {Serjeant},
1416: {Peacock}, {Ivison}, {Oliver}, {Mann}, {Lawrence}, {Efstathiou},
1417: {Rowan-Robinson}, {Hughes}, {Archibald}, {Blain} \& {Longair}}{{Scott}
1418: et~al.}{2002}]{sescott2002}
1419: {Scott} S.~E., {Fox} M.~J., {Dunlop} J.~S., {Serjeant} S., {Peacock} J.~A.,
1420: {Ivison} R.~J., {Oliver} S., {Mann} R.~G., {Lawrence} A., {Efstathiou}
1421: A., {Rowan-Robinson} M., {Hughes} D.~H., {Archibald} E.~N., {Blain} A.,
1422: {Longair} M., 2002, \mnras, 331, 817
1423:
1424: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Smail}, {Ivison} \& {Blain}}{{Smail}
1425: et~al.}{1997}]{Smail1997}
1426: {Smail} I., {Ivison} R.~J., {Blain} A.~W., 1997, ApJ, 490, L5+
1427:
1428: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wall}, {Pope} \& {Scott}}{{Wall}
1429: et~al.}{2008}]{Wall2008}
1430: {Wall} J.~V., {Pope} A., {Scott} D., 2008, \mnras, 383, 435
1431:
1432: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wang}, {Cowie} \& {Barger}}{{Wang}
1433: et~al.}{2004}]{Wang2004}
1434: {Wang} W.-H., {Cowie} L.~L., {Barger} A.~J., 2004, \apj, 613, 655
1435:
1436: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Webb}, {Eales}, {Lilly}, {Clements}, {Dunne},
1437: {Gear}, {Ivison}, {Flores} \& {Yun}}{{Webb} et~al.}{2003}]{Webb2003}
1438: {Webb} T.~M., {Eales} S.~A., {Lilly} S.~J., {Clements} D.~L., {Dunne} L.,
1439: {Gear} W.~K., {Ivison} R.~J., {Flores} H., {Yun} M., 2003, \apj, 587,
1440: 41
1441:
1442: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wilson et~al.,}{Wilson
1443: et~al.}{2008}]{Wilson08}
1444: Wilson G.~W., et~al., 2008, accepted to MNRAS, arXiv:astro-ph/0801.2783
1445:
1446: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wirth}, {Willmer}, {Amico}, {Chaffee},
1447: {Goodrich}, {Kwok}, {Lyke}, {Mader} et~al.,}{{Wirth}
1448: et~al.}{2004}]{Wirth2004}
1449: {Wirth} G.~D., {Willmer} C.~N.~A., {Amico} P., {Chaffee} F.~H., {Goodrich}
1450: R.~W., {Kwok} S., {Lyke} J.~E., {Mader} J.~A., et~al., 2004, \aj, 127,
1451: 3121
1452:
1453: \end{thebibliography}
1454:
1455:
1456: \end{document}
1457: