1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint,letterpaper]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript,letterpaper]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
4:
5: \shorttitle{UV Excess Evolution}
6: \shortauthors{Atlee, Assef \& Kochanek}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Evolution of the UV Excess In Early-Type Galaxies}
11:
12: \author{David W. Atlee, Roberto J. Assef and
13: Christopher S. Kochanek\altaffilmark{1}}
14: \affil{Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University}
15: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics,
16: The Ohio State University}
17: \email{atlee@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: We examine the UV emission from luminous early-type galaxies
21: as a function of redshift. We perform a stacking analysis using
22: Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) images of galaxies
23: in the NOAO Deep Wide Field Survey (NDWFS) Bo\"otes field and examine
24: the evolution in the UV colors of the average galaxy.
25: Our sample, selected to have minimal
26: ongoing star formation based on the optical to mid-IR SEDs of the galaxies,
27: includes 1843 galaxies spanning the redshift range
28: $0.05\leq~z\leq0.65$. We find evidence that the strength of the UV excess
29: decreases, on average, with redshift, and our
30: measurements also show moderate disagreement with previous models of the
31: UV excess. Our results show little evolution in the
32: shape of the UV continuum with redshift,
33: consistent either with the binary model for the formation of Extreme Horizontal
34: Branch (EHB) stars or with no evolution in EHB morphology with
35: look-back time. However, the binary formation model predicts that the
36: strength of the UV excess should also be relatively constant, in
37: contradiction with our measured results.
38: Finally, we see no significant influence of a galaxy's environment
39: on the strength of its UV excess.
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \keywords{galaxies: evolution, ultraviolet: galaxies}
43:
44: \section{Introduction}\label{secIntro}
45: The UV excess is defined as the presence of
46: more UV flux than predicted for a simple, old stellar population
47: and was first reported by \citet{code79}. It is sometimes also
48: called the UV upturn, because $F_{\lambda}$ is seen to rise
49: shortward of ${\rm 2500\AA}$ \citep{brow04}. \citet{dona95}, for example,
50: found that the average early-type galaxy in the Coma cluster is
51: more than a magnitude bluer in $m_{UV}-B$ than predicted by the
52: population synthesis models of \citet{bruz93}. They explaind the observed
53: emission by invoking residual star formation (RSF), but it is unlikely
54: that all of the early-type galaxies in the cluster experienced a recent
55: burst of star formation at around the same time; this indicates the
56: need for a source of UV emission not associated with star formation.
57: Population synthesis models have since suggested a number of
58: potential sources for this
59: emission, usually involving significant mass loss by stars leaving the
60: main sequence. The proposed sources include post-red
61: giant stars, hot horizontal branch stars and post-AGB stars
62: (e.g. \citealt{bres94}).
63: A combination of
64: population synthesis models and high resolution spectra obtained with the
65: Far UV Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE; \citealt{brow02}) and the
66: Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (HUT; e.g. \citealt{ferg93})
67: suggest that extreme horizontal branch (EHB) stars, also called
68: hot subdwarfs (sdB), are the objects most likely to give
69: rise to the UV emission, as the observed spectra closely match
70: predictions from a population of EHB stars with various surface temperatures
71: \citep{brow04}.
72:
73: Thus, conventional wisdom indicates that the stars giving rise to
74: the UV emission are produced by significant mass loss from stellar envelopes
75: on the red giant branch (RGB). If EHB stars are formed from stars with
76: massive winds on the RGB, then the fraction of stars that find themselves
77: in this unusual stage of stellar evolution, and thus the strength
78: of the UV excess, should depend on the average metallicity of the
79: host galaxy. Evidence for this picture can be found from several
80: sources. First is the direct correlation between the strength of the UV
81: excess and the Lick ${\rm Mg_{2}}$ spectral index, which measures
82: a galaxy's average metallicity \citep{burs88}.
83: Also in keeping with such a metallicity dependence is
84: the correlation between the UV excess and the mass (luminosity) of a
85: galaxy suggested by \citet{ocon99}.
86: However, this correlation has recently become controversial.
87: For example, \citet{rich05}
88: found no apparent correlation between the ${\rm Mg}_{2}$ index and
89: the UV excess in a sample of 172 early-type galaxies
90: from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).
91: By contrast, \citet{dona06} found a weak but significant correlation among
92: elliptical ($-5.5\leq~T<-3.5$) galaxies, but they found
93: no such correlation in lenticular ($-3.5\leq~T<-1.5$) galaxies.
94: They attribute this difference to the presence of residual star formation in
95: lenticulars.
96:
97: Recently, Ree et al. (2007; R07) used Galaxy Evolution
98: Explorer (GALEX) photometry of galaxy clusters
99: below redshift $z=0.2$ to measure the evolution in
100: the UV excess of Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCGs) of rich clusters
101: with redshift. The galaxies
102: they measured showed no significant evolution, but by expanding their galaxy
103: sample with objects studied using HST by Brown
104: et al. (2000, 2003), they found that the $FUV-V$ colors
105: of early-type galaxies in massive clusters become redder
106: at higher redshift.
107: They compare their expanded sample to two evolutionary models, one favoring
108: sdB formation in metal-rich populations and the other favoring metal-poor
109: populations, attempting to determine which model agrees
110: better with the measured colors. These models are
111: developed by picking a pair of populations to bracket the $z=0$ galaxies
112: and then passively ``evolving'' them backwards in time.
113: They find that both models agree reasonably well with the measurements,
114: and marginally favor the metal-poor model.
115:
116: Han, Podsiadlowski \& Lynas-Gray (2007; HPL)
117: suggested that sdB stars might form primarily via
118: close binary interactions rather than forming via wind-driven mass
119: loss on the RGB. Stars in close binary systems
120: may eject much of their hydrogen envelope after they evolve off the main
121: sequence via angular momentum exchange between the envelope
122: and the binary companion. Their model makes several specific
123: predictions, including that the correlation of the UV excess
124: with metallicity should be weak, as should the evolution of
125: the strength and shape of the UV excess with redshift.
126: The HPL model is rather appealing, as it can explain the
127: limited strength of the
128: metallicity correlation found in the SDSS galaxies \citep{rich05} and
129: the large fraction of Galactic field sdB stars found in binary systems
130: compared to those found in Galactic globular clusters \citep{cate07}.
131:
132: The alternative hypotheses for the formation of sdB stars can be tested
133: by examining the evolution of the UV colors of
134: early-type galaxies with redshift. In this work we measure the
135: evolution of the average early type galaxy by stacking GALEX images of
136: galaxies in the Bo\"otes field of the NOAO Deep Wide Field Survey (NDWFS).
137: The galaxies are selected based on their optical to mid-IR spectral
138: energy distribution (SEDs), following \citet{asse07}. We study
139: the UV emission from elliptical galaxies out to $z=0.65$,
140: where the number of sample
141: galaxies in each redshift bin begins to diminish and the risk of
142: AGN contamination increases.
143: In \S\ref{secTarget} we describe our galaxy selection procedures.
144: We describe our stacking algorithm and the
145: analysis of the resulting images in \S\ref{secGalaxy}, refine our
146: galaxy selection criteria in \S\ref{secRefine}, and we examine the
147: evolution of the UV excess in \S\ref{secEvolution}. Finally,
148: in \S\ref{secConclusion} we consider the consequences of our measurements
149: for models of sdB formation.
150:
151: \section{Target Selection}\label{secTarget}
152: The Bo\"otes field of the NOAO Deep Wide Field Survey (NDWFS) covers
153: approximately 9 ${\rm deg}^{2}$ centered at
154: ($14^{\rm h}32^{\rm m}$, $+34^{\circ}17'$).
155: We used the optical
156: (NDWFS, \citealt{jann99}; zBo\"otes, \citealt{cool07}), near-IR (NDWFS;
157: FLAMEX, \citealt{elst06}) and mid-IR (The IRAC Shallow Survey,
158: \citealt{eis04}) photometry for objects in the field. The AGN and Galaxy
159: Evolution Survey (AGES) redshift catalog has galaxy spectra complete
160: to $I=18.5$ and an extended sample with $18.5<I\leq20$ for objects in
161: the Bo\"otes field (\citealt{kochIP}). The AGES catalog contains
162: spectroscopic redshifts for approximately 17,000 objects, and we use these
163: redshifts for the galaxies in our sample wherever possible. We rely on
164: photometric redshifts for objects without spectroscopy, which is the
165: majority of our sample.
166:
167: The GALEX satellite is conducting a survey of
168: the ultraviolet sky in two photometric bands, the Far-UV ($FUV$;
169: $\lambda_{eff}=1528$\AA, $\Delta\lambda=442$\AA) and Near-UV ($NUV$;
170: $\lambda_{eff}=2271$\AA, $\Delta\lambda=1060$\AA; \citealt{morr05}).
171: We acquired GALEX Release 3 (GR3) images of sixteen GALEX Deep
172: Imaging Survey (DIS) fields overlap the Bo\"otes field.
173: The names and GR3 exposure times for all sixteen fields,
174: in both the $FUV$ and $NUV$ bands, are listed in Table \ref{tblPointings}.
175: The different pointings vary widely in depth for both the $FUV$ and
176: $NUV$ bandpasses, with a typical
177: integration time for the $NUV$ fields of approximately 7000s.
178: The $FUV$ pointings are fewer and their exposure times more widely
179: distributed.
180:
181: \citet{asse07} developed and tested a set of three moderate-resolution
182: template galaxy spectra extending from 0.2 to 10$\mu{\rm m}$.
183: We used these templates to model the SEDs of the galaxies in the Bo\"otes
184: field with $I<21.5$ mag by fitting the measured optical, NIR and MIR
185: fluxes. The templates are able to distinguish between passively evolving
186: galaxies and galaxies with on-going star formation based on their MIR fluxes,
187: which are extremely sensitive to the PAH emission features associated
188: with star formation.
189: The MIR fluxes are also sensitive to the presence of AGN since the power-law
190: continuum typical of AGN results in much stronger $3.6-4.5\mu {\rm m}$
191: emission than is typical for a stellar population \citep{ster07}.
192:
193: Using the template spectra, we identified
194: passively evolving galaxies, eliminated AGN, computed K-corrections and
195: synthesized unmeasured bands. We eliminated AGN from our galaxy
196: sample by first removing any object flagged as
197: an AGN or candidate AGN by AGES and accepting the remaining galaxies only if
198: their photometry fit the galaxy templates with $\chi^{2}_{\nu}\leq2.0$.
199: AGES targeted galaxies as AGN candidates if they were identified as
200: X-ray sources in the xBo\"otes survey \citep{murr05}, as radio sources
201: by FIRST \citep{beck95} or by \citet{devr02}, or as possessing a
202: red mid-IR color \citep{ster07}.
203: The AGES database further identifies galaxies as AGN by the spectral
204: template used for estimating redshifts in a modified version of
205: the Sloan Digital Sky Survey spectroscopic pipeline.
206: Our $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ cut would eliminate the objects
207: flagged based on their optical and MIR colors, but it is also able to
208: identify AGN based solely on how well the measured fluxes agree with a
209: purely stellar origin across a wide wavelength baseline (i.e. whether the
210: $B_{\rm w}$ and IRAC 8$\mu {\rm m}$ fluxes can simultaneously agree
211: with the $I$-band fluxes).
212:
213: \citet{asse07} classified
214: galaxies by the fraction of their bolometric luminosity contributed
215: by the elliptical component of their SED, designated $\hat{e}$. We selected an
216: initial sample of early-type galaxies by requiring
217: $\hat{e}\geq0.8$, which \citet{asse07} found
218: roughly divides the Red Sequence the Blue Clump for
219: galaxies in the Bo\"otes field.
220: We also required that galaxies in our sample have ``bolometric'' luminosities,
221: computed using the model SEDs, in the range
222: $0.5\leq\log\biggl(\frac{L_{\rm bol}}{10^{10}L_{\odot}}\biggr)\leq1.5$.
223: This roughly corresponds to $-24\leq {\rm M}_{R}\leq-21.5$.
224: After applying these selection criteria, we eliminated an additional seven
225: galaxies whose MIR fluxes exceed their $K_{s}$ fluxes, since
226: these galaxies may host hidden AGN or are otherwise unusual. These
227: criteria yield an initial
228: sample of 6630 galaxies in the range $0\leq z\leq0.65$.
229:
230: \section{Galaxy Stacking}\label{secGalaxy}
231: We divided our galaxy sample into redshift
232: bins of width $\Delta z=0.1$, using spectroscopic
233: redshifts from AGES where available and photometric redshifts from fits
234: to the \citet{asse07} spectral templates otherwise (approximately 80\%
235: of the initial sample). The photo-z algorithm we employ has been extensively
236: discussed in \citet{asse07}. For early-type galaxies,
237: it is accurate to $\Delta z/z\approx0.02$ based on comparisons
238: to AGES spectroscopic redshifts (see their Fig. 9).
239:
240: Of the 6630 galaxies with $\hat{e}>0.80$, 328 (122) were detected
241: as individual GALEX sources in the $NUV (FUV)$ and
242: appear in the GALEX catalogs; the majority of these belong to the
243: first two redshift bins. Since the vast majority of galaxies in
244: the sample had no measured UV fluxes, we employed a stacking analysis
245: to measure the exposure-weighted mean UV fluxes of our galaxy sample as
246: a function of redshift. One obvious disadvantage of this approach
247: is that we are insensitive to variations in individual galaxy properties.
248: For example, we will be unable to measure the
249: presence or strength of any correlation between the UV excess
250: and metallicity.
251:
252: We stack the GALEX images of the Bo\"otes field,
253: as described in \S\ref{secImage},
254: to measure the average UV fluxes of our sample galaxies. We also
255: require optical fluxes to compare with the UV emission.
256: We obtain these by computing exposure-weighted averages of the measured
257: optical, NIR and MIR fluxes for the galaxies in our sample.
258: Since the Bo\"otes photometry is much deeper than the GALEX pointings, the
259: statistical errors on the appropriately averaged optical fluxes are much
260: smaller than the uncertainty on the stacked GALEX magnitudes; in fact,
261: the systematic uncertainties associated with the Bo\"otes photometry dominate
262: the error budget of the optical, NIR and MIR photometry.
263: In order to account for the systematic uncertainties, we assign the
264: averaged magnitudes an uncertainty of 0.05 magnitudes
265: before fitting to the spectral templates (see \S\ref{secPhot})
266: unless the statistical uncertainty implied by averaging the fluxes
267: exceeds this value. The statistical uncertainties only exceeded this
268: systematic limit in the case of the $K_{s}$ band observations, for which
269: a small number of galaxies with
270: exceptionally large uncertainties dominate the error budget.
271:
272: \subsection{GALEX Image Stacking}\label{secImage}
273: We obtained the GALEX observations
274: for each DIS field as well as the associated source catalogs
275: from the GALEX archive at the Space Telescope Science
276: Institute\footnote{http://galex.stsci.edu/GR2/?page=tilelist\&survey=dis}.
277: The pixel scale of these images is $1\farcs{5}$ per pixel. We use the
278: {\it Funtools}\footnote{http://hea-www.harvard.edu/saord/funtools/}
279: package to parse the images and manage the stacking.
280: We masked identified GALEX sources falling outside an annulus with
281: diameter equal to twice the FWHM of the PSF and
282: centered on the nearest target galaxy;
283: this guaranteed that the stacked images had a well-defined sky flux. It also
284: means that we masked differently in the $FUV$ and $NUV$ images,
285: both because the PSF size differs between the two bands (4\farcs{5} and
286: 6\farcs{0} in the $FUV$ and $NUV$, respectively) and because there are
287: more sources in the $NUV$.
288: We extracted a list of identified sources from the GALEX
289: catalog for comparison with the sample
290: galaxies belonging to each redshift bin. We identified a set of
291: GALEX objects to be masked by comparing the central coordinates
292: of the objects in the two lists and created separate masked images for
293: each redshift bin.
294:
295: Once we identified a GALEX source to be masked, we examined a series of
296: square frames expanding outward from the center listed in the catalog,
297: determining whether each individual pixel in the frame needed to be masked.
298: We masked pixels whose fluxes exceeded the sky
299: background by more than $1\sigma$ and all those within the FWHM of
300: the PSF. If more than half of the pixels in a given frame were
301: masked, we expanded the masking region by one pixel in each direction
302: and processed the next frame. In all cases we terminated the
303: process if the masking region reached 50 pixels from the center. The
304: flux in masked pixels was set to the nominal sky flux in the
305: appropriate band \citep{morr05}.
306: We deliberately allowed the masking of flagged objects to
307: extend over nearby objects, as this limited the contamination of the
308: stacked images by stray flux from nearby objects. It also
309: removed some flux from the target galaxies, which can introduce a
310: bias. We tested the algorithm and found the effects of this bias
311: to be small (\S\ref{secTest}).
312: A visual comparison of the GALEX images before and after masking indicated
313: that the masking algorithm was quite efficient.
314:
315: After converting the masked images from counts ${\rm s}^{-1}$ to
316: counts, we added the
317: counts in an $81\times81$ pixel ($121\farcs{5}\times121\farcs{5}$)
318: box around each galaxy in a given redshift bin. We divided the
319: number of counts in each stacked pixel by the total exposure time,
320: converting the
321: counts back to counts ${\rm s}^{-1}$. The masking and stacking
322: procedures were repeated for each of six redshift bins, centered
323: from $z=0.1$ to $z=0.6$. Our stacked galaxy images from each redshift bin
324: are shown in Figure \ref{figStacked}. All of the stacked images beyond
325: the $z=0.1$ redshift bin are consistent with the contributing objects
326: being unresolved, as expected for the angular resolution of GALEX.
327:
328: The choices we made in setting the parameters of our masking algorithm
329: were very conservative, especially the decision to mask pixels down to
330: $1\sigma$ above the mean sky level. These choices
331: were necessitated by the very large number of galaxies, often several
332: hundred, that go into a single stacked image. In order to insure that
333: we measure the sky flux correctly and that we do not introduce stray flux from
334: the outskirts of nearby sources into the stacked galaxies, we require
335: our masking algorithm to err on the side of caution. This decision makes
336: it easier to address any intrinsic contamination in our sample.
337:
338: \subsection{UV Photometry}\label{secPhot}
339: We performed our UV photometry using the IRAF {\it phot} program with
340: $15''$ diameter photometric apertures.
341: We converted the measured count rates to magnitudes using the GALEX
342: photometric zero points \citep{morr05}:
343: \begin{equation}\label{eqFuvMag}
344: m_{FUV} = \log(f_{FUV}) + 18.82
345: \end{equation}
346: \begin{equation}
347: m_{NUV} = \log(f_{NUV}) + 20.08
348: \end{equation}
349: where $f_{X}$ is the count rate in band $X$. We also obtained
350: optical, NIR and MIR fluxes in the same aperture from the NDWFS,
351: FLAMEX and IRAC Shallow surveys where available.
352:
353: Our large photometric aperture is required by the irregularity of the
354: GALEX PSF, which differs between bands and depends on the
355: position of a source in the image \citet{mart05}.
356: Using a Moffat PSF profile with $\beta=3$, which is a reasonable match
357: to the GALEX PSF, we computed aperture
358: corrections for our $FUV$ and $NUV$ magnitudes. Our targets were effectively
359: point sources beyond $z=0.1$, so a $15''$
360: aperture includes 99\% and 97\% of the $FUV$ and $NUV$ fluxes, respectively.
361: These translate to aperture corrections of 0.01 and 0.02 magnitudes
362: for the $FUV$ and $NUV$ bands, respectively. Both corrections
363: are significantly smaller than the errors in the mean stacked magnitudes,
364: so we neglect them.
365:
366: We computed Galactic extinction corrections using the polynomial
367: extinction law of
368: \citet{card89} based on the mean E($B-V$) of 0.011 for objects in the
369: Bo\"otes field
370: \citep{schl98}. Due to the rapid changes in extinction
371: across the GALEX photometric bands, we computed a weighted average of the
372: ${\rm R}_{\lambda}$ values across each GALEX bandpass,
373: \begin{equation}\label{eqExtinction}
374: R_{\rm x} = \frac{\int^{\lambda_{2}}_{\lambda_{1}} R(\lambda)T(\lambda)d\lambda}
375: {\int^{\lambda_{2}}_{\lambda_{1}} T(\lambda)d\lambda},
376: \end{equation}
377: where $R(\lambda)$ is the \citet{card89} R-value at
378: wavelength $\lambda$, $T(\lambda)$ is the filter bandpass, and the
379: extinction in band X is given by
380: $A_{\rm x}=R_{\rm x}\times E(B-V)$.
381: Using Eq. (\ref{eqExtinction}), we found ${\rm R}_{FUV}=8.24$
382: and ${\rm R}_{NUV}=8.10$.
383:
384: We used bootstrap re-sampling of our galaxies to estimate the uncertainty
385: on the mean magnitude. This procedure
386: naturally includes both counting statistics
387: and the effects of intrinsic scatter in the sample population, which
388: could easily cause the uncertainty in the mean magnitude to exceed
389: the intrinsic photometric uncertainty. Any factor that leads to
390: variation in $L_{UV}$ at fixed $L_{bol}$ might contribute to the
391: measured scatter. Such variables include metallicity \citep{burs88},
392: age \citep{bres94}, recent star formation \citep{kavi06} and total
393: stellar mass \citep{ocon99}. Our bootstrapping
394: analysis folds all such intrinsic variations in our galaxy sample into
395: the error on the mean magnitude.
396: We drew 250 bootstrapping realizations in each
397: redshift bin and used the
398: RMS of the resulting magnitudes as the uncertainty on the mean magnitude.
399: The results of these calculations are listed in
400: Table \ref{tabSystematics}.
401:
402: %\subsubsection{K-corrections}\label{secCorrect}
403: We did not use the \citet{asse07} spectral templates in our final
404: analysis because they were computed without using UV photometry to
405: constrain the shapes of the spectral templates beyond
406: $\lambda\approx3000{\rm \AA}$.
407: Instead, we rely on new, unpublished templates \citep{asse08} that have
408: been modified by employing GALEX photometry and MIPS $24\mu m$ fluxes
409: to provide additional constraints on the shapes of the templates.
410: These templates were developed using the techniques described
411: in \citet{asse07} and employing the additional UV and MIR photometry.
412: The new
413: templates significantly improve the quality of the fit to our stacked UV
414: data, and we therefore rely on them for UV K-corrections. The
415: new elliptical template is compared with the published version in Figure
416: \ref{figTemplate}. The figure also shows the spiral and (new) AGN templates
417: for comparison. It is apparent that the contributions of AGN and
418: star-formation can be significant, and it is important that we eliminate
419: these contaminants wherever possible and subtract the contribution to the
420: measured UV fluxes where they cannot be eliminated.
421: (See \S\ref{secEvolution}.)
422:
423: \subsection{Stacking Tests}\label{secTest}
424: We conducted two tests to verify that our stacking
425: code behaved as expected.
426: First, we tested whether the masking algorithm affected the measured
427: fluxes from the the stacked galaxies, whether by removing flux from the
428: target galaxies or by adding extra flux through poor masking of nearby sources.
429: We divided the 122 galaxies with identified GALEX counterparts in both the $FUV$
430: and $NUV$ into redshift bins and stacked them. We compared the magnitudes
431: of our stacked images with the magnitudes predicted using the
432: fluxes in the GALEX catalog.
433: The results, listed in Table \ref{tabSystematics}, suggest
434: a small bias of approximately 0.05 mag, which is similar to the typical
435: uncertainty on the bias.
436: Also included in Table \ref{tabSystematics}
437: are the dispersions about the mean magnitude and the estimated bias, showing
438: that any bias in the measured fluxes is small compared to the
439: intrinsic scatter in the measured fluxes.
440:
441: We also repeated our entire analysis chain on a set of $\sim8000$
442: galaxies selected to be strongly star-forming---galaxies
443: with an elliptical contribution to their bolometric luminosity of
444: less than 20\%. We compared the colors of the
445: stacked star-forming galaxies to those of passively evolving
446: galaxies, as shown in Figure \ref{figOptColor}. (Figure \ref{figOptColor}
447: was created using the photometry of the final galaxy sample, as discussed
448: in \S\ref{secRefine}, and uses $V$ magnitudes computed using the
449: template SEDs.)
450: We compute the uncertainties on our colors using
451: the bootstrap uncertainties for the $FUV$ magnitudes and setting
452: $\sigma_{V}=\sqrt{\left[(Bw-Bw_{\rm model})^{2} + (R-R_{\rm model})^{2}\right]/2}$.
453: As expected, the average star forming
454: galaxy was significantly bluer than the average elliptical galaxy.
455: Furthermore, the colors of the stacked galaxies agree well with
456: the colors of the template spectra at low redshifts and
457: show different evolution in their $FUV-V$
458: colors compared to the early-type sample. This indicates that our stacking
459: procedure does not introduce a bias toward bluer $FUV-V$ color
460: at high redshift. This is significant because, as apparent from
461: Figure \ref{figOptColor}, the $FUV-V$ colors of our stacked galaxies become
462: somewhat bluer with increasing redshift.
463:
464: \section{Refining the Galaxy Sample}\label{secRefine}
465: We selected our initial sample based on the results of
466: \citet{asse07}, who found that galaxies with $\hat{e}\geq0.80$ fall
467: on the red sequence. However, the UV photometry
468: we used is more sensitive to low
469: levels of star formation than optical photometry (e.g. \citealt{kavi06}),
470: and we needed to determine whether any of our selection criteria
471: introduce an obvious bias in our galaxy sample. We therefore broke our
472: galaxies into subsamples according to various properties and
473: looked for any significant differences between them.
474:
475: We examined the effect of our three selection criteria---$\hat{e}$, luminosity
476: and the $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ of the fit to the template spectra---on
477: the redshift evolution of the observed $FUV-V$ color
478: of the stacked galaxies, which is an indicator for the
479: strength of the UV excess. The results are shown in Figure
480: \ref{figSelection}. There is no significant bias associated with
481: $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$. While a small trend with luminosity is observed,
482: it is only marginally significant. Also, the sense of the trend is to
483: introduce a systematic shift toward redder $FUV-V$ at all redshifts.
484: This does not affect the observed global trend, and is therefore little
485: cause for concern. However, it should be noted that a sample with different
486: $\langle L_{bol}\rangle$ will show slightly different colors.
487: Examining the variation in $FUV-V$ between samples binned in stellar
488: mass would not yield additional information because we have
489: selected only early-type galaxies, so there will
490: be little variation in mass-to-light ratio.
491:
492: The $\hat{e}$ test suggests that the initial $\hat{e}>0.80$ limit
493: is too loose. For the rest of our analysis,
494: we used a stricter $\hat{e}>0.925$ limit to reduce the
495: contribution of recent star formation as much as possible. We
496: compared the results using this criterion to those
497: obtained using $\hat{e}>0.87$.
498: The new $\hat{e}>0.925$ ($\hat{e}>0.87$) limit left 1843 (4943)
499: of the original 6330 galaxies.
500: The uncertainties in our optical and IR photometry are still
501: dominated by systematic issues in both cases. Figure \ref{figEhatDist}
502: shows the distribution of galaxies in $\hat{e}$ as a function of
503: redshift. The distribution broadens toward higher redshift largely
504: because the redshift of the PAH emission features
505: (see Fig. \ref{figTemplate}) reduces our ability to detect low-level
506: star formation. Some of the increase in the fraction of
507: low-$\hat{e}$ galaxies is due to evolution in the stellar
508: populations of the sample galaxies. Note that the peak in the
509: $\hat{e}$-distribution only moves by $\Delta\hat{e}\approx0.03$
510: between panels. A strict $\hat{e}$ limit
511: reduces the contribution from both of these effects,
512: but it cannot eliminate them. As a result, Figure \ref{figTemplates}
513: shows an increased contribution from the Sab template at higher redshift.
514:
515: The magnitudes we measured
516: from our stacked images are listed in Table \ref{tblPhot} along with
517: the associated errors and K-corrections.
518: We examined the evolution of
519: $\left<\hat{e}\right>$ with redshift and found no significant trend in
520: either the $\hat{e}\geq0.925$ or $\hat{e}\geq0.87$ cases.
521: We verified that the choice between the two alternative selection criteria
522: has little effect on our conclusions by comparing
523: the results obtained using the two $\hat{e}$ selection criteria,
524: which effectively correspond to two different rest-frame color cuts.
525: We could adopt an $\hat{e}$ limit that varies with redshift
526: to allow for evolution in the optical
527: properties of early-type galaxies, but we choose
528: not to do so because it would also lead to changes in our sensitivity to
529: star formation and low-level AGN contamination.
530:
531: We also stacked the AGES spectra of the galaxies in bins of
532: $\hat{e}$ to determine how significantly contamination by
533: star formation or low-level nuclear activity may contribute to our results.
534: We divided the sample into three different $\hat{e}$ bins and examined
535: the spectra in the vicinity of the {\sc [oii]} 3727\AA,
536: {\sc [oiii]}4959,5007\AA\ and H$\alpha$ emission lines.
537: The stacked spectra are shown in Figure \ref{figSpectra} and
538: indicate the presence of very weak LINERs, which we could not
539: have detected in a typical individual spectrum.
540: The agreement between the mean and median spectra indicates that the
541: features are common to most of the galaxies in our sample rather than being
542: restricted to a few unusual objects. The strength of the features also
543: decreases with increasing $\hat{e}$, further motivating the use of the
544: stricter $\hat{e}>0.925$ limit. We have now exhausted our ability
545: to reduce the presence of weak AGN,
546: and we must consider this minimal contamination in the
547: interpretation of our results.
548:
549: One additional source of contamination that might be important, especially
550: at higher redshifts, is blending of the UV light in galaxies
551: with nearby star-forming companions due to the large scale of the GALEX
552: PSF. To assess this possibility, we searched the optical catalogs
553: for objects within
554: 4\farcs{5} (6\farcs{0}) of our $\hat{e}\geq0.925$ sample and with
555: $I\leq22.5$; beyond these radii, any object with a significant UV
556: flux would have been masked. We found 43 (226) total matches to the
557: 1843 objects in the sample. If we fit the photometry of the
558: companions with the \citet{asse08} templates, compute their
559: rest-frame colors and require that any ``contaminating'' companions
560: have $B-R$ at least 0.1 mag bluer than a pure elliptical,
561: only 8 (42) companions survive.
562: We eliminated those galaxies with a blue companion
563: and repeated our analysis. The resulting UV fluxes were
564: consistent with the main sample given the uncertainties.
565:
566: \section{Redshift Evolution}\label{secEvolution}
567: In Figure \ref{figTemplates}, we show the average spectral energy densities
568: of the stacked $\hat{e}>0.925$ galaxies as a function of
569: redshift, including the average optical, near-IR and mid-IR
570: fluxes of the sources. It is apparent that the
571: templates provide adequate fits in all redshift bins out to
572: $z=0.4$, but the last two redshift bins show discrepancies. The
573: fit to the UV fluxes
574: in the $z=0.6$ bin is particularly bad because increasing the
575: late-type contribution to fit the UV fluxes would overpredict the MIR
576: fluxes, which have smaller uncertainties.
577: This may be due, in part, to evolution in the shape of the UV excess
578: with look-back time (e.g. \citealt{brow00}). Early-type
579: galaxies are also known to grow bluer and brighter with increasing
580: redshift due to their younger stellar populations
581: (e.g. \citealt{ferr05}), which the
582: templates model by changing the relative contributions
583: of the various components. Changes in the intrinsic shape
584: of the stellar SEDs may lead to under-predicting the UV flux of
585: a passively-evolving stellar population. We see some evidence for
586: this in Figure \ref{figEhatDist}, in which the $\hat{e}$-distribution
587: moves to lower $\hat{e}$ with redshift out to $z=0.4$, and in
588: Figure \ref{figTemplates}, which shows an excess of both UV and MIR
589: emission in the $z=0.6$ bin.
590:
591: Figure \ref{figOptColor} shows the evolution of the
592: measured $FUV-V$ colors (uncorrected for star formation) of
593: our stacked galaxies.
594: The $FUV-V$ color of the uncorrected galaxies becomes moderately
595: bluer at higher redshifts,
596: in contrast with the results of R07, which suggest that
597: color stays relatively constant with redshift. The K-corrected colors,
598: shown in the lower panel, indicate that the rest-frame colors exhibit
599: no obvious evolution.
600:
601: While the late-type templates never
602: contribute a significant fraction of the bolometric luminosity, averaging
603: only 7\%, their contribution to the UV flux can be significant.
604: The colors shown in Figure \ref{figOptColor} do not account for
605: contamination by star formation, so we must correct for the contribution
606: of star formation to the measured UV fluxes before attempting to
607: interpret the colors in the context of the UV excess. If we assume that half
608: of the UV flux in all redshift bins beyond $z=0.2$ is contributed by star
609: formation, then a correction of 0.75 magnitudes to the $FUV-V$ colors
610: is required. Such a correction would bring our colors
611: into rough agreement with the colors reported in R07. Since the
612: results of Figure \ref{figSpectra} indicate that $\hat{e}$ is
613: a reasonable tracer of contamination, we can use the
614: templates to estimate the contribution of young stars to
615: the measured UV flux. These young stars may be due to
616: recent star formation or a component of the old stellar
617: population that has not yet evolved off the main sequence.
618: At any given wavelength, the two late-type templates contribute a
619: fraction of the total flux, $r_{sf}$, given by
620: \begin{equation}\label{eqFluxRatio}
621: r_{sf}\left(\lambda\right) = \frac{f_{spiral}\left(\lambda\right)+f_{irregular}\left(\lambda\right)}{f_{ellip}\left(\lambda\right)+f_{spiral}\left(\lambda\right)+f_{irregular}\left(\lambda\right)}
622: \end{equation}
623: where $f_{x}\left(\lambda\right)$ is the density from template $x$ at
624: wavelength $\lambda$. If we assume that the UV
625: flux from the elliptical
626: template has no contribution from young stars and that the UV fluxes
627: from the two star forming templates are contributed entirely by young stars,
628: we can then determine the $FUV-V$ colors
629: the stacked galaxies would have in the absence of young stars,
630: \begin{equation}\label{eqColorCorrection}
631: \left(FUV-V\right)_{corr} = \left(FUV-V\right)_{obs} - 2.5\log\biggl[1-r_{sf}\left(1550{\rm \AA}\right)\biggr]
632: \end{equation}
633: where $r_{sf}\left(1550{\rm \AA}\right)$ is the fraction of flux
634: contributed by star formation at the approximate center of the
635: $FUV$ band. The correction to the $V$-band magnitudes is negligible
636: for the relevant values of $\hat{e}$.
637: The corrections derived using this approach are not exact because the
638: star forming templates will likely have at least a small contribution
639: to their UV fluxes from hot, old stars and the elliptical template will
640: similarly contain a contribution from low-level star formation.
641:
642: If we use the corrected colors derived
643: from Eq. (\ref{eqColorCorrection}), our results agree
644: reasonably well with previous measurements, as shown in Figure
645: \ref{figEvolutionCorrected}. The resulting colors
646: from both the $\hat{e}>0.925$ and $\hat{e}>0.87$ samples
647: agree within the error bars, despite the different corrections for
648: star formation, so we conclude that our approach
649: is robust. This agreement also suggests that our use of a fixed
650: $\hat{e}$ cut to select our galaxy sample does not significantly bias
651: our conclusions.
652: While the \citet{brow03} colors show a
653: slight disagreement with our results, the significant scatter about the
654: mean colors can likely account for the observed differences. The
655: $z=0.6$ bin remains quite blue, probably because of the poor fit to the
656: UV fluxes (see Fig. \ref{figTemplates}).
657:
658: Figure \ref{figEvolutionCorrected} indicates a systematic disagreement
659: between our high-z measurements and the non-evolving ``model'' for the
660: UV excess. While the $\hat{e}$ data points are discrepant at only the
661: $1\sigma$ level, the considerably better statistics in the $\hat{e}>0.87$
662: sample lead to disagreement at the $2\sigma$ level in each redshift bin.
663: Disregarding the $z=0.6$ bin due to its poor fit, there is a 23\% (0.6\%)
664: probability of getting 3/5 data points to disagree with the model at
665: the $1\sigma$($2\sigma$) level. If we also disregard the $z=0.5$ data point,
666: these probabilities increase to 38\% and 2\%, respectively. This
667: indicates that, while our highest quality sample is consistent with an
668: unevolving model, the extended ($\hat{e}\geq0.87$) sample is not. The
669: two samples return basically the same results, so we can reject an
670: unevolving model for the UV excess at $>$98\% confidence.
671:
672: In addition to considering the strength of the UV excess, we
673: examine its intrinsic shape by looking at the $FUV-NUV$ colors
674: of the stacked galaxies, as shown in Figure \ref{figUvEvolution}.
675: Figure \ref{figUvEvolution}a shows that the
676: modified templates provide a reasonable approximation to the
677: shape of the UV excess over our entire redshift range.
678: The agreement between the measured and predicted colors in the $z=0.6$ bin
679: indicates that the disagreement between the measured fluxes and the model
680: spectrum in Figure \ref{figTemplates}
681: is one of normalization rather than shape. We have not
682: corrected the colors in Figure \ref{figUvEvolution} for star
683: formation because any such correction
684: will depend critically on the assumed shape of the UV excess, which we
685: are trying to measure. Assuming that the early- and late-type templates give
686: a reasonable match to the UV excess and the emission from young
687: stars, respectively, the values of $r_{sf}\left(1550\right)$
688: and $r_{sf}\left(2250\right)$ should be similar and the correction small.
689: (See Fig. \ref{figTemplates}.)
690: Figure \ref{figUvEvolution}b compares our K-corrected UV
691: colors to the prediction in HPL; the error bars in this panel do not
692: include the systematic uncertainties associated with applying K-corrections
693: from the model spectra.
694: The colors in Figure \ref{figUvEvolution}b appear to show
695: moderate evolution toward redder $FUV-NUV$ beyond $z=0.4$,
696: and are inconsistent with the HPL
697: model. However, if we use the differences between the measured $FUV-NUV$
698: colors and those predicted by the templates to estimate the
699: systematic uncertainties associated with the templates, the error
700: bars on the $z=0.5$ and $z=0.6$ redshift bins increase by $\sim75\%$,
701: and we are no longer able to distinguish between the HPL model and an
702: unevolving spectral shape.
703:
704: The principle difference between our work and existing studies is that
705: we examined a sample including all early-type galaxies above a fixed
706: luminosity cutoff rather than restricting the sample to galaxies
707: in rich clusters. Since
708: galaxies in clusters are likely to be stripped of their gas, they are
709: also less likely to show recent star formation. Different
710: star formation histories may also affect the metallicity distributions
711: of cluster ellipticals compared to those in the field, and either effect
712: could alter the UV properties of galaxies in rich clusters.
713:
714: We measure the effect of a galaxy's environment on its UV properties by
715: counting the number of bright elliptical galaxies within a projected
716: radius of $2{\rm h}^{-1}$ Mpc of each sample galaxy and
717: within a photometric $\Delta z=0.03$, which is similar to the
718: resolution of our photometric redshifts. We sorted the
719: galaxies in our $\hat{e}>0.925$ sample in order of increasing
720: numbers of nearby bright ellipticals and divided the sample into four
721: bins labeled 1-4 (low density to high density) with equal numbers
722: of galaxies in each bin. We stacked the galaxies in each density bin as
723: described in \S\ref{secImage}, and the results are shown
724: in Figure \ref{figDensity}. The displayed colors have not been
725: corrected for residual star formation, but since the different samples
726: have similar $\left<\hat{e}\right>$, the corrections
727: for the different density samples should also be similar.
728: The trend toward bluer
729: $FUV-V$ color at higher redshift is found in all density bins,
730: although the scatter between the samples is sometimes significant.
731: We do not find any significant trend in $FUV-V$ as a function of environment.
732: This suggests that either the Horizontal Branch morphology does not
733: differ significantly between clusters and the field or the galaxies
734: that are significantly affected by their environment are so rare
735: that the effects are overwhelmed by averaging with a
736: large number of ``normal'' galaxies.
737:
738: \section{Summary and Conclusions}\label{secConclusion}
739: We have measured the evolution of the UV emission from the average
740: luminous, early-type galaxy with redshift by performing a stacking analysis
741: with photometrically selected galaxies from the Bo\"otes field.
742: To the extent possible with the available data, we have eliminated AGN
743: from our sample, although the stacked AGES spectra suggest that weak
744: LINERs are ubiquitous. LINERs show very weak UV continua compared to
745: broad-line AGN of similar luminosity, so the contamination of our
746: results due to nuclear activity is minimal.
747: We find that the observed $FUV-V$ colors of our stacked galaxies are
748: bluer than the colors of the BCGs studied by \citet{ree07},
749: \citet{brow00} and \citet{brow03}
750: and show a pronounced tendency to become bluer with redshift.
751: The presence of a small excess in
752: 8$\mu m$ emission indicates the need to correct for residual
753: star formation. The necessity of such a correction,
754: even among a sample of galaxies that has been carefully selected to have
755: as little star formation as possible, suggests that contributions from
756: star formation should always be considered when measuring the UV excess
757: photometrically. This is consistent with the results of other authors
758: (e.g. \citealt{kavi06}).
759:
760: After correcting for star formation, we find that the intrinsic strength
761: of the UV excess, as measured by the $FUV-V$ colors, is inconsistent
762: with a non-evolving model. The measured evolution shows reasonable
763: agreement with
764: previous studies. However, the $FUV-V$ colors of the averaged galaxies
765: remain modestly bluer than the individual cluster galaxies that have
766: been studied previously.
767: Our results agree with the R07 results in the first two redshift
768: bins, but their preferred models are inconsistent with our higher
769: redshift data, suggesting that one or more of the model parameters
770: needs to be adjusted. At least some of the evolution may be
771: due to an increase in $\langle L_{bol}\rangle$ from $5\times10^{10}{\rm L_{\odot}}$
772: to $8\times10^{10} {\rm L_{\odot}}$ as we go from $z=0.1$ to $z=0.5$,
773: since more luminous galaxies tend to show redder $FUV-V$.
774: The relatively good agreement between our results and the individual
775: galaxies measured by other authors indicates that
776: our stacking analysis is able to probe the evolution of the UV excess
777: as well as detailed studies using small galaxy samples.
778:
779: We also measured the evolution of the intrinsic shape of the UV excess,
780: finding little evidence for evolution in the rest-frame $FUV-NUV$ colors of
781: early-type galaxies in the 6 Gyr since $z=0.6$.
782: Our two highest-redshift data points are slightly
783: redder than the others, possibly due to systematic effects
784: in our K-corrections, but the differences are not significant.
785: The UV colors of our stacked galaxies are also consistent
786: with the slow evolution predicted by HPL, but the change in the
787: intrinsic $FUV-V$ color with redshift is inconsistent with their
788: predictions for the evolution in the UV-optical color. While HPL
789: do not show any predictions for evolution in $FUV-V$, they do predict
790: the change in $FUV-r$, which should be quite similar to $FUV-V$, to be
791: only $\sim0.1$ mag. (See HPL, Figure 3.)
792:
793: We found evidence that the UV excess might weaken in more luminous,
794: and therefore more massive, galaxies. The evidence for this trend is
795: marginal at best, however, and this result should be explored further.
796: If true, it would contradict the suggestion that the UV excess is
797: stronger in more metal-rich galaxies, since the most massive galaxies tend
798: also to have the highest metallicities.
799:
800: We also divided our galaxies into subsamples by density to explore the
801: impact of environment on the UV excess, and
802: found that the trend for bluer $FUV-V$ colors at higher redshift
803: occurs in all environments. There is no identifiable trend in color
804: with density. The lack of such trends is surprising, as
805: effects such as ram pressure stripping, felt by galaxies
806: in rich clusters, could lead to changes in the age, mean metallicity
807: or residual star formation rates of the constituent galaxies.
808:
809: While several open questions remain, including the possible
810: variation in the UV excess with stellar mass,
811: it appears that the average early-type galaxy evolves in roughly the same
812: way as the individual cluster galaxies measured thus far.
813: The measured evolution, along with
814: the lack of significant trends in color with galaxy environment,
815: should provide interesting constraints for
816: future models of stellar evolution.
817:
818: \acknowledgments
819: We wish to thank Thomas Brown and Henry Ferguson for providing us
820: with their published UV spectra for a sample of elliptical galaxies; while
821: not used in the final text, these spectra were extremely useful for earlier
822: versions of this work. We
823: are grateful to Tim Heckman for answering occasional questions
824: concerning the GALEX satellite and for helpful suggestions for ways to
825: exclude possible instrumental effects as sources of systematic uncertainty.
826: Thanks are due Marc Pinsonneault, Michael Brown, Daniel Stern, Anthony
827: Gonzalez and an anonymous referee for their helpful comments on
828: earlier drafts of this paper. We
829: thank Rick Pogge for a useful discussion concerning the
830: our stacked spectra.
831: Additionally, we wish to thank the developers of the Funtools package of FITS
832: utilities, which we used extensively in our masking and
833: stacking routines. We acknowledge the GALEX collaboration
834: for providing access to the DIS images used in this work.
835: This work made use of data products provided by the NOAO Deep Wide-Field Survey
836: (Jannuzi and Dey 1999; Jannuzi et al. 2005; Dey et al. 2005), which is
837: supported by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO). NOAO is
838: operated by AURA, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the National
839: Science Foundation.
840:
841: \begin{thebibliography}{}
842: \bibitem[Assef et al.(2008)]{asse07}Assef, R.J., et al. 2008, \apj, 676, 286
843: \bibitem[Assef et al.(in prep)]{asse08}Assef, R.J. et al. {\it in preparation}
844: \bibitem[Becker, White \& Helfand(1995)]{beck95}Becker, R.H., White, R.L. \& Helfand, D.J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559
845: \bibitem[Bianchi et al.(1999)]{bian99}Bianchi, L., et al. 1999, Mem. Soc. Astron. Ital., 70, 365
846: \bibitem[Bressan et al.(1994)]{bres94}Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., \& Fagotto, F. 1994, \apjs, 94, 63
847: \bibitem[Blanton \& Roweis(2007)]{blan07}Blanton, M.R., \& Roweis, S. 2007, \aj, 133, 734
848: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2000)]{brow00}Brown, T.M., Bowers, C.W., Kimble, R.A., Ferguson, H.C. 2000, \apj, 529, L89
849: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2002)]{brow02}Brown, T.M., Ferguson, H.C., O'Connell, R.W., Ohl, R.G. 2002, ApJ, 568, L19
850: \bibitem[Brown et al.(1995)]{brow95}Brown, T.M., Ferguson, H.C., \& Davidsen, A.F. 1995, \apj, 454, L15
851: \bibitem[Brown et al.(1998)]{brow98}Brown, T.M., Ferguson, H.C., Deharveng, J. \& Jedrejewski, R.I. 1998, \apj, 508, L139
852: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2003)]{brow03}Brown, T.M., et al. 2003, \apj, 584, L69
853: \bibitem[Brown(2004)]{brow04}Brown, T.M. 2004, Ap\&SS, 291, 215
854: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(1993)]{bruz93}Bruzual, G.A. \& Charlot, S. 1993, \apj, 405, 538
855: \bibitem[Burstein et al.(1988)]{burs88}Burstein, D., Bertola, F., Buson, L.M., Faber, S.M., Lauer, T.R. 1988, \apj, 328, 440
856: \bibitem[Cardelli, Clayton \& Mathis(1989)]{card89}Cardelli, J.A., Clayton G.C., \& Mathis, J.S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245
857: \bibitem[Catelan(2007)]{cate07}Catelan, M. 2007, arXiv: 0708.2445
858: \bibitem[Code \& Welch(1979)]{code79}Code, A.D. \& Welch, G.A. 1979, ApJ, 228, 95
859: \bibitem[Cool(2007)]{cool07}Cool, R.J. 2007, ApJS, 169, 21
860: \bibitem[Donas, Milliard \& Laget(1995)]{dona95}Donas, J., Milliard, B. \& Laget, M. 1995, A\&A, 303, 661
861: \bibitem[Donas et al.(2007)]{dona06}Donas, J., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 597
862: \bibitem[Elston et al.(2006)]{elst06}Elston, R.J., et al. 2006, \apj, 639, 816
863: \bibitem[Eisenhardt et al.(2004)]{eis04}Eisenhardt, P.R., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 48
864: \bibitem[Eisenhardt et al.(2007)]{eis07}Eisenhardt, P.R., et al. 2007, ApJS, 169, 225
865: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.(2003)]{eise03}Eisenstein, D.J. et al. 2003, ApJ, 585, 694
866: \bibitem[Ferguson et al.(1991)]{ferg91}Ferguson, H.C., et al. 1991, \apj, 382, L69
867: \bibitem[Ferguson \& Davidsen(1993)]{ferg93}Ferguson, H.C. \& Davidsen, A.F. 1993, \apj, 408, 92
868: \bibitem[Ferreras et al.(2005)]{ferr05}Ferreras, I., Lisker, T., Carollo, C.M., Lilly, S.J., Mobasher, B. 2005, ApJ, 635, 243
869: \bibitem[Han, Podsiadlowski \& Lynas-Gray(2007)]{han07}Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, Ph. \& Lynas-Gray, A.E. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1098
870: \bibitem[Jannuzi \& Dey(1999)]{jann99}Jannuzi, B.T. \& Dey, A. 1999, ASP Conference Series, Vol 191, p. 111
871: \bibitem[Kaviraj et al.(2007)]{kavi06}Kaviraj, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 619
872: \bibitem[Kochanek et al.(in prep)]{kochIP}Kochanek, C.S., et al. {\it in preparation}
873: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2005)]{mart05}Martin, D.C., et al. 2005, \apj, 619, L1
874: \bibitem[Morrissey et al.(2005)]{morr05}Morrissey, P., et al. 2005, \apj, 619, L7
875: \bibitem[Murray et al.(2005)]{murr05}Murray, S.S., et al. 2005, ApJS, 161, 1
876: \bibitem[O'Connell(1999)]{ocon99}O'Connell, R.W. 1999, A\&A, 37, 603
877: \bibitem[Ree et al.(2007)]{ree07}Ree, C.H., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 607
878: \bibitem[Rich et al.(2005)]{rich05}Rich, R.M., et al. 2005, \apj, 619, L107
879: \bibitem[Schlegel, Finkbeiner \& Davis(1998)]{schl98}Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P. \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
880: \bibitem[Stern et al.(2007)]{ster07}Stern, D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 677
881: \bibitem[de Vries et al.(2002)]{devr02}de Vries, W.H., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 1784
882: \end{thebibliography}
883:
884: \clearpage
885: \input{tab1.tex}
886:
887: \clearpage
888: \input{tab2.tex}
889:
890: \clearpage
891: \input{tab3.tex}
892:
893: \clearpage
894: \begin{figure}
895: \epsscale{1.0}
896: \plotone{f1.eps}
897: \caption{Stacked galaxy images. The first and third columns show the
898: $FUV$ images while second and fourth show the $NUV$ images. The redshift
899: increases first down columns and then across rows, as indicated. Each
900: frame shows a region at the center of the stacked image that is approximately
901: $45\times65$ pixels, where the plate scale is 1\farcs{5}
902: per pixel. The $FUV$ PSF FWHM of 4\farcs{5} and the $NUV$ PSF
903: FWHM of 6\farcs{0} are indicated by the circles in the $z=0.1$ images.
904: The images in the higher redshift bins appear to be extended due to jitter
905: in the positions of the individual sample galaxies caused by finite pixel
906: sizes.
907: \label{figStacked}}
908: \end{figure}
909:
910: \clearpage
911: \begin{figure}
912: \epsscale{1.0}
913: \plotone{f2.eps}
914: \caption{The elliptical template we use to compute K-corrections
915: ({\it thick}), which has been modified from the original ({\it thin})
916: \citet{asse07} elliptical template, in internal template (arbitrary) units.
917: Also shown are the AGN ({\it dashed}) and Sbc ({\it dotted}) templates,
918: normalized to contain 1\%, 10\% and 100\% of the bolometric luminosity
919: contained in the elliptical template.
920: \label{figTemplate}}
921: \end{figure}
922:
923: \clearpage
924: \begin{figure}
925: \epsscale{0.9}
926: \plotone{f3.eps}
927: \caption{Evolution of the observed UV-optical colors
928: of the stacked early-type galaxies ($\hat{e}\geq0.925$),
929: compared with the colors of galaxies presented in \citet{ree07}.
930: {\it Filled squares} and {\it open hexagons}
931: indicate colors from our stacked galaxies,
932: {\it open squares} from \citet{brow00},
933: {\it open triangles} from \citet{brow03},
934: {\it filled triangles} BCGs from \citet{ree07},
935: {\it crosses} elliptical galaxies from the Fornax
936: and Virgo clusters, and {\it stars} stacked star-forming galaxies.
937: The {\it dashed line} shows the color that would be measured from NGC 1399
938: as a function of redshift. The lower panel shows colors
939: K-corrected to redshift zero. The error on the $FUV$ magnitudes
940: is determined using the dispersion about the average bootstrapped $FUV$
941: magnitude. Error bars show $1\sigma$ uncertainties.
942: \label{figOptColor}}
943: \end{figure}
944:
945: \clearpage
946: \begin{figure}
947: \epsscale{1.0}
948: \plotone{f4.eps}
949: \caption{Dependence of the redshift evolution of the stacked
950: galaxy color on the
951: (a) goodness of SED fit, (b) elliptical fraction and
952: (c) bolometric luminosity. The bolometric luminosity is
953: determined by integrating the galaxy templates. It is clear
954: that the trend shown in Fig. \ref{figOptColor} is largely independent
955: of the selection criteria. A trend toward redder $FUV-V$ with
956: higher luminosity is apparent. Truncated lines in Figs.
957: (b) and (c) are due to a lack of galaxies in the missing redshift bins.
958: \label{figSelection}}
959: \end{figure}
960:
961: \clearpage
962: \begin{figure}
963: \epsscale{1.0}
964: \plotone{f5.eps}
965: \caption{The distributions of the $\hat{e}$ parameter in our different
966: redshift bins for the initial galaxy sample ($\hat{e}>0.80$). The fraction
967: of blue (low $\hat{e}$) galaxies increases slowly with redshift,
968: indicating an increase in fraction of young stars
969: out to $z=0.5$. In the $z=0.5$ and $z=0.6$ redshift bins,
970: the IRAC bands are no longer sensitive to PAH emission from star-forming
971: galaxies, and we see an increased fraction of sample galaxies at
972: moderate to high $\hat{e}$.
973: \label{figEhatDist}}
974: \end{figure}
975:
976: \clearpage
977: \begin{figure}
978: \epsscale{1.0}
979: \plotone{f6.eps}
980: \caption{Fluxes and model SEDs for stacked galaxies from the
981: $\hat{e}>0.925$ sample in all redshift bins.
982: The {\it dotted} line indicates the spiral component,
983: the {\it dashed}
984: line the irregular component and the {\it thin} line the elliptical
985: component of the model spectra. The {\it heavy} line is the sum of
986: the three components, and it is
987: used to compute model magnitudes and K-corrections.
988: \label{figTemplates}}
989: \end{figure}
990:
991: \clearpage
992: \begin{figure}
993: \epsscale{1.0}
994: \plotone{f7.eps}
995: \caption{Stacked spectra centered near the {\sc [oii]} (3727\AA; {\it left}),
996: {\sc [oiii]} (5007\AA; {\it middle}) and H$\alpha$/{\sc [nii]}
997: (6563\AA/6583\AA; {\it right}) emission
998: lines. Both the mean ({\it gray}) and median ({\it red}) spectra are
999: shown. The constituent galaxies were taken from the $\hat{e}>0.85$
1000: sample and divided into $\hat{e}$ bins as shown. The spectra have been
1001: normalized so the average value across the displayed range is 1. Vertical
1002: lines indicate important emission lines.
1003: \label{figSpectra}}
1004: \end{figure}
1005:
1006: \clearpage
1007: \begin{figure}
1008: \epsscale{1.0}
1009: \plotone{f8.eps}
1010: \caption{Evolution of the observed colors of the
1011: stacked elliptical galaxies, corrected for star formation.
1012: Flux contributed by young stars has been subtracted
1013: using the method described in Eq. (\ref{eqColorCorrection}).
1014: The unevolving colors
1015: ({\it dashed line}) from Fig. \ref{figOptColor} have been translated
1016: to pass through the $z=0.1$ point, but have not been otherwise
1017: modified. All other symbols
1018: are the same as in Fig. \ref{figOptColor}. Assuming Gaussian errors,
1019: the $\hat{e}>0.87$ colors at $z\leq0.5$ are inconsistent with the
1020: non-evolving ``model'' at $>99\%$ confidence.
1021: \label{figEvolutionCorrected}}
1022: \end{figure}
1023:
1024: \clearpage
1025: \begin{figure}
1026: \epsscale{1.0}
1027: \plotone{f9.eps}
1028: \caption{Evolution of the UV color, uncorrected for star formation.
1029: Panel (a) shows the observer
1030: frame evolution of UV color. The {\it filled squares} give the
1031: UV colors of the stacked
1032: galaxies, and the {\it open triangles} give the colors predicted by the
1033: model spectra. Panel (b) shows the rest frame evolution of UV
1034: color, with error bars from the measured fluxes only.
1035: The {\it solid line} shows
1036: the evolution predicted by the model of \citet{han07}, and the {\it dashed line}
1037: shows the colors of the model galaxy spectra.
1038: \label{figUvEvolution}}
1039: \end{figure}
1040:
1041: \clearpage
1042: \begin{figure}
1043: \epsscale{1.0}
1044: \plotone{f10.eps}
1045: \caption{Dependence of $FUV-V$ on galaxy environment. Rank 1 galaxies
1046: ({\it filled squares}) fall in the least dense regions while Rank 4
1047: galaxies ({\it open triangles}) fall in the densest regions. The data show
1048: no significant pattern, indicating that either a galaxy's environment has
1049: little impact on its UV properties or
1050: the influence of environment is limited to so few galaxies
1051: that the other galaxies in the bin overwhelm any effect.
1052: \label{figDensity}}
1053: \end{figure}
1054:
1055: \end{document}
1056: