1: %%
2: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
3: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
4:
5: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
6: \usepackage{psfig}
7:
8: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
9:
10: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
11:
12: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
13:
14: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
15:
16: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
17: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
18: %% use the longabstract style option.
19:
20: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
21: %\usepackage{graphicx}
22: %\usepackage{epstopdf}
23: \usepackage{psfig}
24: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
25: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
26: %% the \begin{document} command.
27: %%
28: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
29: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
30: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
31: %% for information.
32:
33: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
34: \newcommand{\myemail}{ccarilli@nrao.edu}
35: %\newcommand{\etal}{\mbox{et al.\}}
36:
37: \newcommand{\etal}{\mbox{et~al.}}
38: \newcommand{\Msol}{\mbox{$M_{\odot}$}}
39: \newcommand{\msun}{\mbox{$M_{\odot}$}}
40: \newcommand{\Msun}{\mbox{${\bf M_{\odot} }$}}
41: \newcommand{\Lsol}{\mbox{$L_{\odot}$}}
42: \newcommand{\lsun}{\mbox{$L_{\odot}$}}
43: \newcommand{\ergsec}{\mbox{erg s$^{-1}$}}
44: \newcommand{\beam}{\mbox{beam$^{-1}$}}
45: \newcommand{\Mdyn}{\mbox{$M_{\rm dyn}$}}
46: \newcommand{\Mgas}{\mbox{$M_{\rm gas}$}}
47: \newcommand{\HH}{\mbox{H$_2$}}
48: \newcommand{\Mgasfive}{\mbox{$M_{\rm gas}(r<500{\rm pc})$ }}
49: \newcommand{\Halpha}{\mbox{H$\alpha$} }
50: \newcommand{\tm}[1]{\tablenotemark{#1}}
51: \def\deg {{\ifmmode^\circ\else$^\circ$\fi}} %%% Overwrites TeX \deg
52: \def\Ho {{$H_{0}$} }
53: \def\qo {{$q_{0}$} }
54: \def\kmsMpc {{\ km\ s$^{-1}$\ Mpc$^{-1}$} }
55:
56: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
57:
58: \slugcomment{to appear in the Astrophysical Journal}
59:
60: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
61: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
62: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
63: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
64: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
65: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
66:
67: \shorttitle{Star formation rates in Lyman break galaxies.}
68: \shortauthors{Carilli et al.}
69:
70: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
71: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
72:
73: \begin{document}
74:
75: \title{Star formation rates in Lyman break galaxies: radio stacking of
76: LBGs in the COSMOS field and the sub-$\mu$Jy radio source population.}
77:
78: \author{
79: C.L. Carilli\altaffilmark{1},
80: Nicholas Lee\altaffilmark{1},
81: P. Capak\altaffilmark{2},
82: E. Schinnerer\altaffilmark{3},
83: K.-S. Lee\altaffilmark{4},
84: H. McCraken\altaffilmark{5},
85: M.S. Yun\altaffilmark{4},
86: N. Scoville\altaffilmark{2},
87: V. Smol{\v c}i{\' c}\altaffilmark{2},
88: M. Giavalisco\altaffilmark{4},
89: A. Datta\altaffilmark{1},
90: Y. Taniguchi\altaffilmark{6}
91: C. Megan Urry\altaffilmark{7,8}
92: }
93:
94: \altaffiltext{$\star$}{Based on observations in the COSMOS Legacy Survey
95: including those taken on the HST, Keck, NRAO-VLA, Subaru, KPNO 4m, CTIO 4m,
96: and CFHT 3.6m. The Very Large Array of the National Radio Astronomy
97: Observatory, is a facility of the National Science Foundation
98: operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc}
99:
100: %
101: \altaffiltext{1}{National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box 0, Socorro, NM
102: 87801-0387}
103: %
104: \altaffiltext{2}{California Institute of Technology, MC 105-24, 1200 East
105: California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125}
106: %
107: \altaffiltext{3}{Max Planck Institut f\"ur Astronomie, K\"onigstuhl
108: 17, Heidelberg, D-69117, Germany}
109: %
110: \altaffiltext{4}{Dept. of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA}
111: %
112: \altaffiltext{5}{IAP, Paris, France}
113: %
114: \altaffiltext{6}{Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ehime University,
115: Bonkyo-cho, Matsuyama, 790-8577m Japan}
116: %
117: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Astronomy, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA}
118: \altaffiltext{8}{Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Yale University, P.O.~Box 208121, New Haven, CT 06520}
119:
120: \begin{abstract}
121:
122: We present an analysis of the radio properties of large samples of
123: Lyman Break Galaxies (LBGs) at $z \sim 3$, 4, and 5 from the COSMOS
124: field. The median stacking analysis yields a statistical detection of
125: the $z \sim 3$ LBGs (U-band drop-outs), with a 1.4 GHz flux density of
126: $0.90 \pm 0.21 \mu$Jy. The stacked emission is unresolved, with a size
127: $< 1"$, or a physical size $< 8$kpc. The total star formation rate
128: implied by this radio luminosity is $31\pm 7$ $M_\odot$ year$^{-1}$,
129: based on the radio-FIR correlation in low redshift star forming
130: galaxies. The star formation rate derived from a similar analysis of
131: the UV luminosities is 17 $M_\odot$ year$^{-1}$, without any
132: correction for UV dust attenuation. The simplest conclusion is that
133: the dust attenuation factor is 1.8 at UV wavelengths. However, this
134: factor is considerably smaller than the standard attenuation factor
135: $\sim 5$, normally assumed for LBGs. We discuss potential reasons for
136: this discrepancy, including the possibility that the dust attenuation
137: factor at $z \ge 3$ is smaller than at lower redshifts. Conversely,
138: the radio luminosity for a given star formation rate may be
139: systematically lower at very high redshift. Two possible causes for a
140: suppressed radio luminosity are: (i) increased inverse Compton cooling
141: of the relativistic electron population due to scattering off the
142: increasing CMB at high redshift, or (ii) cosmic ray diffusion from
143: systematically smaller galaxies. The radio detections of individual
144: sources are consistent with a radio-loud AGN fraction of 0.3\%. One
145: source is identified as a very dusty, extreme starburst galaxy (a
146: 'submm galaxy').
147:
148: \end{abstract}
149:
150: \keywords{galaxies: formation --- galaxies: evolution --- galaxies:
151: radio --- surveys}
152:
153: \section{Introduction}
154:
155: The power of discovering high redshift galaxies via the broad-band
156: drop-out technique, ie. Lyman Break galaxies (LBGs), is now well
157: established (Steidel et al. 1999; 2000). Using this technique, over a
158: thousand galaxies have now been detected at $z > 2$. Detailed studies
159: show that these galaxies have stellar masses between 10$^{10}$ and
160: 10$^{11}$ $M_\odot$, and a (comoving) volume density at $z \sim 3$ of
161: $\sim 0.005$ Mpc$^{-3}$ (Giavalisco 2002).
162:
163: A number of issues are still being investigated for LBGs. One
164: important issue is deriving the total star formation rate. Besides
165: model parameters such as the IMF and star formation history, the dust
166: correction in the UV remains under investigation. Steidel et
167: al. (1999) originally estimated a typical UV dust attenuation factor
168: of about 5, based on optical spectroscopy. Adelberger \& Steidel
169: (2000) applied a similar method to a larger sample of LBGs, as well as
170: observations at other wavebands (radio, submm), and conclude: "...the
171: mean extinction at 1600 \AA ~ for LBGs, a factor of 6 in our best
172: estimate, could lie between a factor 5 and a factor of 9." More
173: recently, Reddy \& Steidel (2004) have derived the average dust
174: correction factors for UV-selected galaxies at $z \sim 2$ based on
175: deep X-ray, radio, and optical spectroscopic studies of galaxies in the
176: GOODS north field. They find that, for galaxies with total star
177: formation rates $> 20$ $M_\odot$ year$^{-1}$, the dust attenuation
178: factor is between 4.4 and 5.1.
179:
180: A second issue for LBGs is the AGN fraction. Shapley et al. (2003)
181: found that $\sim 3\%$ of LBGs at z$\sim$3 have optical emission line
182: spectra that are consistent with AGN.
183:
184: The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS), covering 2 \sq\deg, is a
185: comprehensive study of the evolution of galaxies, AGN, and dark matter
186: as a function of their cosmic environment. The COSMOS field has
187: state-of-the-art multiwavelength observations, ranging from the radio
188: through the X-ray (Scoville et al. 2007; Capak et al. 2007). A major
189: part of this study is to identify the largest samples of LBGs to date.
190: In section 2 we describe the LBG samples from the COSMOS survey based
191: on U, B, and V-band drop-out searches.
192:
193: In this paper we consider the radio properties of these large samples
194: of LBGs, similar to the study of $z = 5.7$ Lyman-$\alpha$ emitting
195: galaxies by Carilli et al. (2007). Observations of the COSMOS field
196: have been done at 1.5$"$ resolution (FWHM) at 1.4 GHz with the Very
197: Large Array (Schinnerer et al. 2007). We employ the new VLA image
198: that has added integration time in the central $\sim 1^o$ (Schinnerer
199: in prep.), giving an rms at the field center of $\sim 7$ $\mu$Jy
200: beam$^{-1}$. In section 3.1 we search for radio counterparts to
201: individual LBGs, while in section 3.2 we perform a stacking analysis
202: to derive the statistical properties of the samples. In section 4 we
203: discuss the implications these observations have on the questions of
204: dust extinction and the AGN fraction in LBGs. We adopt a standard
205: concordance cosmology.
206:
207: \section{A conservative COSMOS LBG sample}
208:
209: We have identified large samples of U,B, and V-band drop-out galaxies
210: using the COSMOS photometric data (Capak et al. 2007). For an
211: initial, robust analysis of the radio properties of high z LBGs, we
212: have adopted a series of conservative criteria to identify LBGs at the
213: different redshifts. The U, B, and V-band drop selection criteria are
214: give in Table 1, where u' = CFHT u, i' = Subaru i, and r' = Subaru r
215: (Lee et al. in prep.).
216:
217: It is well documents that LBG samples can include contaminants
218: (see Steidel et al. 2000, Capak et al. 2004, Bouwens et
219: al. 2007). In the U and B-band drop-out selection, the contamination
220: comes from A and M stars along with $z<0.3$ star forming galaxies,
221: while the V-band drop-out selection is contaminated with M and T stars
222: along with $1.5<z<2.5$ obscured galaxies. Since these contaminating
223: objects can be sources of radio emission, we take several steps to
224: produce a clean sample of high redshift objects. We begin by removing
225: all ACS point sources with a star- or AGN-like spectral energy
226: distribution using the star/galaxy/AGN classifier described in Robin
227: et al. (2007). In addition we remove all stars identified by a BzK
228: diagram (Daddi et al. 2007) at $K_{AB}<22$, this removes very red
229: stars which may not be identified by the Robin et al. (2007)
230: classifier. We then use the BPZ photometric redshifts from Mobasher
231: \& Mazzei (2000) to remove objects with a best fit photo-z at $z<2.5$,
232: $z<3.5$, and $z<4.5$ for the U, B, and V-band drop-outs, respectively.
233: Finally we remove objects with a $>5$\% probability of being at
234: $z\leq1$.
235:
236: The resulting sample is largely clear of contaminants. Redshifts
237: were obtained with DEIMOS on Keck-II using the 830l/mm grating and
238: 3.5-4h of integration time for a sample of color selected objects with
239: $i<26$ and $0.6<z<1.4$ or $z>4$ (Capak et al. in Prep). The
240: spectroscopic sample matches 2 U-band drop-outs, 18 B-band drop-outs,
241: and 7 V-band drop-outs in our cleaned LBG sample. Of these objects,
242: only 1 V-band drop-out object, which is a faint M star, is not in the
243: expected redshift range, yielding a contamination fraction of
244: $4\pm4$\%. However, the U-band drop-outs sample was not specifically
245: targeted, so the constraint on the contamination fraction for these
246: objects is weak. Of the remaining 26 objects at $z>3$, one B-band
247: drop-out shows an AGN signature, implying a residual AGN fraction of
248: $4\pm4$\%.
249:
250: Although our sample is clean, it is not complete. In general, the
251: phot-z cut creates a bias towards galaxies which have good photometry,
252: and closely match the expected UV-Optical spectral templates used for
253: the photometric redshifts. Objects with unusual spectra, such as
254: AGN/galaxy composites, or objects with reddening that does not conform
255: to the Calzetti et al. (1997) or Milky Way laws, will likely be
256: excluded. Furthermore, we have explicitly excluded optically bright
257: broad line AGN, and the probability requirements systematically bias
258: us against faint ($i<25$) objects. The flux bias occurs because faint
259: objects have broad probability distributions due to their poor
260: photometric measurements.
261:
262: We are also potentially biased against heavily obscured objects which
263: will have fainter UV fluxes, and hence poor phot-z fits. An effort to
264: use intermediate band photometry (Ilbert et al. in prep) and a
265: systematic deep spectroscopic follow-up (Lilly et al. 2007, Capak et
266: al. in prep) is underway to fully characterize this sample and
267: understand the biases.
268:
269: Table 2 summarizes the current samples. Column 2 indicates the
270: redshift range implied for a given drop-out band. Column 3 shows the
271: number of sources in the sample. Even with these conservative
272: selection criteria, we identify thousands of high redshift LBGs due to
273: the very wide COSMOS field. In this initial study, we feel it
274: important to work with such a conservative sample of sources, in order
275: to make robust conclusions concerning the radio properties of LBGs.
276:
277: For reference, the radio luminosity density at a rest frame frequency
278: of 1.4 GHz, for a source with $S_{\rm 1.4GHz} = 60\mu$Jy, assuming a
279: spectral index of $-0.8$ (Condon 1992), at $z \sim 3$ is: $L_{\rm
280: 1.4GHz} = 3 \times 10^{31}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$. For comparison,
281: the nearby radio AGN source M87 has $L_{\rm 1.4GHz} = 9\times 10^{31}$
282: erg s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$, while the luminous starburst galaxy Arp 220
283: has $L_{\rm 1.4GHz} = 4\times 10^{30}$ erg s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$. In
284: M87, the radio emission is powered by a relativistic jet emanating
285: from the supermassive black hole with $M_{BH} \sim 2.5\times 10^9$
286: $M_\odot$ (Gebhardt et al. 2000), while in Arp 220 the radio emission
287: is driven by star formation with a total star formation rate $\sim
288: 500$ $M_\odot$year$^{-1}$ (Carilli \& Yun 2000; Yun \& Carilli
289: 2001). Even at the sensitivity of the COSMOS survey, we are limited to
290: detecting either radio AGN sources, or extreme starburst galaxies,
291: ie. galaxies with star formation rates $>$ a few thousand $M_\odot$
292: year$^{-1}$.
293:
294: \section{The Radio properties of Lyman Break Galaxies}
295:
296: \subsection{Individual sources}
297:
298: We have searched for radio emission from each of the LBGs in the
299: COSMOS field. At each position we determine the surface brightness,
300: and the rms noise in the region. The median rms in the LBG fields was
301: $\sim 15\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$ for all three samples, implying a median
302: $4\sigma$ detection limit of 60$\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$. Our radio images
303: have a synthesized beam FWHM = 1.5'', hence we have searched for radio
304: sources brighter than 4$\sigma$, within 1$''$ radius of the LBG
305: optical position. Column 4 in Table 2 lists the number of 4$\sigma$
306: radio counterparts in each sample. Roughly, for each drop-out band,
307: we detect radio counterparts for $\sim 0.6\%$ of the UV sources.
308:
309: We need to correct for the number of detections we expect by chance in
310: such a survey, either due to image noise, or faint sources unrelated
311: to the LBG. We calculate this correction factor by performing
312: searches with identical criteria as for the LBG positions, but at
313: random positions selected to be $20''$ away from the coordinates of
314: the LBG samples. This should give us a random sampling of the COSMOS
315: field, with noise statistics that match the LBG regions. We find 19
316: 4$\sigma$ random detections in the U-band drop-out fields, 4 for the
317: B-band drop-outs, and 3 for the V-band drop-outs. These correspond to
318: 0.29\%, 0.28\%, and 0.49\%, respectively. We apply these corrections
319: in column 5 of Table 2.
320:
321: Overall, we detect radio counterparts to $\sim 0.6\%$ of the UV
322: sources, with the expected number of detections at random being $\sim
323: 0.3\%$. These results imply that only a small fraction, $\sim 0.3\%$,
324: of the LBGs, are radio sources brighter than $\sim 4\sigma$,
325: where, on average $4\sigma \sim 60\mu$Jy.
326:
327: \subsection{A stacking analysis}
328:
329: We investigate the statistical radio properties of the LBGs through a
330: stacking analysis. We adopt the median stacking method used by White
331: et al. (2007) in their stacking analysis based on the FIRST radio
332: survey. White et al. perform detailed calculations that show that a
333: median stacking analysis is superior to a mean stacking, since it is
334: robust to small numbers of bright sources, and it does not require any
335: maximum allowed flux density cut-off prior to stacking. Moreover, they
336: show that: '...in a limit where almost all of the values in the sample
337: are small compared to the noise, it is straight-forward to interpret
338: the median stack measurements as representative of the mean for the
339: population.' The COSMOS sample obeys this criterion.
340:
341: Figure 1 shows the images derived by a median stacking of all the
342: sources in each drop-out band. These images are derived by extracting
343: sub-images centered around each LBG with a size of $18''\times
344: 18''$. We then 'stack' these sub-images, aligned at the center
345: (on-source) position, and derive the median surface brightness at each
346: pixel position. The off-source pixels serve as test positions for a
347: random stacking analysis. We find that the mean values for the off
348: positions equal zero, to within the noise, as expected for random
349: positions. We also derive the statistical noise of the analysis from
350: these off-positions.
351:
352: Column 6 in Table 2 lists the peak surface brightnesses derived at the
353: stacked LBG position, plus the rms off-source noise, for each sample.
354: We obtain a clear detection of radio emission in the U-band drop-out
355: sample, with a value of $0.9\pm0.21\mu$Jy.
356: The other bands show marginal detections, although at $<
357: 3\sigma$ value, and hence we consider these upper limits.
358:
359: Our results are consistent with the upper limit found by Ivison et
360: al. (2007), who performed a 1.4 GHz stacking analysis of 107 $z \sim
361: 3$ LBGs in the extended Groth strip (the AEGIS survey), for which they
362: obtained a median value of $-0.6 \pm 2.3\mu$Jy.
363:
364: The stacked source is unresolved, with a size $< 1"$. The implied
365: physical size is $< 8$kpc, hence the typical source must be galaxy
366: size, or smaller.
367:
368: \section{Discussion}
369:
370: \subsection{The AGN fraction and massive starbursts}
371:
372: At the sensitivity limits of current deep radio surveys, such as
373: COSMOS, detection of individual sources at $z > 2$ is limited to
374: either extreme starbursts (star formation rates $> 1000$ $M_\odot$
375: year$^{-1}$), or radio jet sources with luminosities comparable to
376: M87.
377:
378: After correcting for random detections, we obtain a detection rate of
379: $\sim 0.3\%$. Shapley et al. (2003) find an AGN fraction in LBG
380: samples of $\sim 3\%$, based on optical spectroscopy. If all of
381: our detected sources are radio AGN, then the implied radio loud
382: fraction is $\sim 10\%$. Interestingly, a value of 10\% is the
383: canonical value for radio loud AGN based on studies of nearby
384: galaxies (eg. Ivezic et al. 2002; Petric et al. 2007).
385:
386: We emphasize caution in interpreting our results on the radio loud
387: fraction of AGN at high redshift, for a number reasons. First, in a recent
388: comparison of the FIRST and SDSS surveys, Jiang et al. (2007) find
389: that the radio loud fraction likely depends on both optical luminosity
390: and redshift. This study is not directly comparable to our COSMOS
391: study, since they were limited to much more luminous sources at high
392: redshift, by about two orders of magnitude in the radio.
393:
394: Second, the above analysis does not consider the possibility that
395: some of the 0.3\% of the radio detections are extreme, highly obscured
396: starbursts, comparable to the submm galaxies. Indeed, in a companion
397: paper, we present the discovery of a submm galaxy in our
398: radio-selected LBG COSMOS sample (Capak et al. 2008). The
399: radio-detected LBG has a spectroscopic redshift of $z =4.5$, and a
400: radio flux density of $45\pm 10\mu$Jy. Thermal emission from warm dust
401: is detected from this galaxy at 250GHz using the MAMBO
402: bolometer camera, with a flux density of $3.4\pm 0.7$mJy. This
403: source is the first submm galaxy yet identified (spectroscopically) at
404: $z > 4$ (Capak et al. 2008).
405:
406: And third are the caveats mentioned in section 2 concerning our
407: conservative source selection criteria, eg. excluding obvious
408: optically bright broad line AGN.
409:
410: \subsection{The sub-$\mu$Jy radio source population}
411:
412: The unprecedented size of the COSMOS LBG sample has allowed us to
413: reach sub-$\mu$Jy sensitivity levels in the stacking analysis of the
414: LBG samples. We obtain a clear statistical detection of $S_{\rm 1.4GHz} =
415: 0.90\pm 0.21\mu$Jy for the U-band ($z \sim 3$) drop-outs. The implied
416: rest frame 1.4 GHz luminosity density is $L_{\rm 1.4\rm GHz} = 5.1\times
417: 10^{29}$ erg s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$, assuming a spectral index of $-0.8$
418: (Condon 1992).
419:
420: Assuming the radio emission is driven by star formation, we can derive
421: a total star formation rate (0.1 to 100 $M_\odot$), from the rest
422: frame 1.4 GHz luminosity density. There are a number of recent
423: calibrations of this relationship for nearby galaxies using, eg. the
424: IRAS and NVSS surveys. These studies adopt the star formation rates
425: derived from the far-IR emission based on the relations in Kennicutt
426: (1998), assuming a Salpeter IMF, and then calibrate the radio
427: conversion factor using the tight radio to far-IR correlation for star
428: forming galaxies. We adopt the conversion factor from the study of
429: Yun, Reddy, and Condon (2001):
430:
431: $$\rm SFR = 5.9 \pm 1.8 \times 10^{-29} {\sl L}_{\rm 1.4GHz} ~
432: M_\odot~ year^{-1}, $$
433:
434: \noindent where $L_{\rm 1.4\rm GHz}$ is in erg s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$.
435: From this, we calculate a mean star formation rate of $31\pm 7$
436: $M_\odot$ year$^{-1}$. Note that the conversion factor above is within
437: 10\% of that derived by Bell (2003).
438:
439: The mean observed UV luminosity at a rest frame wavelength of 1600 \AA
440: ~of the U-band drop-out sample is: $L_{2000A} = 1.2\times 10^{29}$ erg
441: s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$ (Capak et al. 2008 in prep). Using equation (1) in
442: Kennicutt (1998) for the relationship between UV luminosity and total
443: star formation rate, we derive a total star formation rate of 17
444: $M_\odot$ year$^{-1}$, uncorrected for dust attenuation.
445:
446: The ratio of radio derived star formation rate to UV derived star
447: formation rate is $1.8\pm 0.4$. The simplest conclusion is that the
448: UV emission is attenuated by dust by a factor of 1.8. However, this
449: factor is considerably smaller than the standard factor $\sim 5$
450: adopted for LBGs (see Section 1). We consider some possible reasons
451: for this difference.
452:
453: One possibility is that the dust attenuation factor for the $z \sim 3$
454: COSMOS LBG sample is indeed smaller than for other LBG samples. Most
455: of the studies of dust attenuation of LBG galaxies have been at $z <
456: 3$ (see section 1), and hence it is possible that at higher redshift
457: the dust attenuation factor decreases. An argument against this
458: decrease is the recent X-ray and optical study of a sample of LBGs at
459: $z \sim 3$ by Nandra et al. (2002), who also derive a dust attenuation
460: factor of about 5. We also re-emphasize that the COSMOS LBG sample
461: analyzed herein de-selected sources with poor phot-z fits, which can
462: occur for very heavily obscured objects (Section 2).
463:
464: On the other hand, Wilkins, Trentham, \& Hopkins (2008) present a
465: detailed comparison of the build up of stellar mass in galaxies versus
466: the cosmic star formation rate density. They conclude that there is a
467: discrepancy between the rate of stellar mass creation, and the star
468: formation rates derived from the UV luminosities, at high redshift, if
469: one assumes the standard factor $\sim 5$ dust attenuation. The
470: discrepancy is in the sense that the UV derived star formation rates
471: are too high. They find that the peak in the discrepancy occurs at $z
472: \sim 3$, and they suggest that the UV-derived star formation rates at
473: this redshift may be over-estimated by a factor $\sim 4$. They also
474: point out that '...this large deviation at high redshift offers an
475: explanation for why the integrated star formation history implies a
476: local stellar mass density in excess of that measured.'
477:
478: A second possibility is that the conversion factor of radio luminosity
479: to star formation rate is higher in the $z \sim 3$ LBG COSMOS sample
480: than has been derived for low redshift galaxies. Radio studies of
481: 24$\mu$m selected galaxies by Appleton et al. (2004) imply that the
482: radio conversion factor is constant out to $z \sim 1$, ie. that the
483: radio-FIR correlation is constant out to this redshift. Reddy \&
484: Steidel (2004) extend this conclusion out to $z \sim 2$ in their
485: extensive study of UV selected galaxies. Most recently, Ibar et
486: al. (2008) conclude that the radio conversion factor remains constant
487: out to $z \sim 3$, using a 24$\mu$m source sample with redshifts from
488: the SXDF. However, given the need for individual source detections in
489: the radio, their $z \sim 3$ radio sources have star formation rates
490: about two orders of magnitude larger than the stacking results
491: presented herein, and hence a direct comparison is problematic.
492:
493: One physical reason why we might expect the radio conversion factor to
494: diverge at the highest redshifts is increased relativistic electron
495: cooling due to inverse Compton scattering off the cosmic microwave
496: background (CMB). The ratio of relativistic electron energy losses due
497: to synchrotron radiation, to energy losses due to inverse Compton
498: radiation, equals the ratio of the energy density in the magnetic
499: field to that in the photon field. The energy density in the CMB
500: increases as: $U_{CMB} = 4.2\times 10^{-13} (1+z)^4$ ergs cm$^{-3}$.
501: Figure 2 shows a comparison of $U_{CMB}$ with the typical energy
502: densities in the magnetic fields in different regions in galaxies. We
503: show the range of fields considered typical for spiral arms ($\sim$
504: few $\mu$G), and for starburst galaxy nuclei (of order 100$\mu$G; Beck
505: et al. 1994; see review by Beck 2005). The important point is that IC
506: losses off the CMB will dominate synchrotron losses in a typical ISM
507: at $z \ge 0.5$, and dominate in starburst nuclei at $z \ge 4$.
508:
509: We note that inverse Compton losses will not affect the thermal
510: electrons responsible for Free-Free emission from star forming
511: galaxies. Such Free-Free emission may dominate the total radio
512: emission from galaxies at rest frequencies between roughly 40 GHz and
513: 100 GHz (Condon 1992), and hence become an important factor in radio
514: continuum studies of very high redshift galaxies.
515:
516: A depressed radio luminosity for a given star formation rate could
517: also arise if the $z \sim 3$ LBGs are systematically smaller
518: galaxies. The standard model that produces the radio-FIR correlation
519: (Condon 1992) requires a cosmic ray processing box size $\ge 1$
520: kpc. It has been observed that dwarf galaxies at low redshift depart
521: from the radio-FIR correlation by about a factor of 2, in the sense of
522: being radio under-luminous. The hypothesis is that the cosmic rays
523: diffuse out of the galaxy on timescales shorter than required to
524: maintain the standard radio-FIR correlation (Yun et
525: al. 2001). Giavalisco (2002) describes high $z$ LBGs as having typical
526: half-light radii of 4 to 7 kpc, significantly larger than typical
527: dwarf galaxies. However, he points out that: "..frequently the
528: galaxies have disturbed or fragmented morphologies, with one bright
529: core, or multiple knots embedded in diffuse nebulosity, reminiscent of
530: merger events."
531:
532: In this paper, we report the first robust statistical (median)
533: detection of sub-$\mu$Jy radio emission from LBG galaxies at $z \sim
534: 3$. This detection was made possible by the very wide area, and depth,
535: of the Cosmos field. While our physical interpretation of the result
536: remains inconclusive, there are a number of future studies we are
537: pursuing to address the interesting questions raised concerning the UV
538: attenuation factor for LBGs, and the the radio luminosity to star
539: formation rate conversion factor, at $z \ge 3$. The most important
540: study involves obtaining optical spectra of a large sample of LBGs
541: from the COSMOS sample. Spectra will elucidate the nature of the
542: sources, and allow for a study of the dust correction factor as a
543: function of galaxy type (AGN, starburst, elliptical...). Also, the
544: selection criteria for this LBG sample were very conservative (Section
545: 2). We will further refine (and increase) our LBG samples using the
546: Cosmos multiband photometry, and perform statistical analyses of the
547: radio properties as a function of eg. stellar mass, or $A_V$. We are
548: also exploring the IR properties of these samples with Spitzer. Such
549: IR studies have particular relevance in the light of the results of
550: Ivison et al. (2007), who find that for the seven IR luminous $z \sim
551: 3$ LBGs in their AEGIS sample ($S_{24\mu m} > 60\mu$Jy), the median
552: 1.4 GHz flux density is 44$\mu$Jy, comparable to that expected for
553: sub-mm galaxies. Lastly, unambiguous identification of radio AGN using
554: eg. optical spectra, will provide input into faint radio source
555: population models that are being generated in the context of planning
556: for future, large area radio telescopes (Wilman et al. 2008). The
557: results presented herein indicate that future deep (sub-$\mu$Jy), wide
558: field surveys with the Expanded Very Large Array, will detect
559: routinely the radio emission from individual LBGs out to $z \sim 3$.
560:
561: \acknowledgments
562:
563: The HST COSMOS Treasury program was supported through NASA grant
564: HST-GO-09822. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the
565: entire COSMOS collaboration consisting of more than 70 scientists.
566: More information on the COSMOS survey is available \\ at {\bf
567: \url{http://www.astro.caltech.edu/cosmos}}. CC thanks the
568: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft and the Humboldt-Stiftung for support through
569: the Max-Planck-Forschungspreis. We thank the referee for helpful
570: comments.
571:
572: % {\it Facilities:} \facility{HST (ACS)}, \facility{HST (NICMOS)},
573: %\facility{HST (WFPC2) \facility{VLA}}.
574:
575: \begin{thebibliography}{}
576:
577: \bibitem[]{}Appleton, P.N., Fadda, D. T.; Marleau, F. et al.
578: 2004, ApJS, 154, 147
579:
580: \bibitem[]{}Adelberger and Steidel 2000, ApJ, 544, 218
581:
582: \bibitem[]{}Bell, E. 2003, ApJ, 586, 794
583:
584: \bibitem[]{}Beck, R. 2005, in 'Magnetic fields in the Universe: From
585: Laboratory and Stars to Primordial Structures,' AIP Conference
586: Proceedings, 784, 343
587:
588: \bibitem[]{}Beck, R. Carilli, C.L., Holdaway, M.A., Klein, U. 1994,
589: 292, 409
590:
591: \bibitem[]{}Bouwens,R.J., Illingworth, G.D., Franx, M.,
592: Ford, H. 2007, ApJ, 670, 928
593:
594: \bibitem[]{}Capak, P. et al. 2008, ApJ letters, 681, L53
595:
596: \bibitem[]{}Capak, P. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 99
597:
598: \bibitem[]{}Capak, P. et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 180
599:
600: \bibitem[]{}Carilli, C.L. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 518
601:
602: \bibitem[]{}Carilli, C.L., Yun, M.S. 2000, 530, 618
603:
604: \bibitem[]{}Calzetti, D. 1997, AJ, 113, 162
605:
606: \bibitem[]{}Condon, J. 1992, ARAA, 30, 575
607:
608: \bibitem[]{}Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G. et al.
609: 2007, ApJ, 670, 156
610:
611: \bibitem[]{}Gebhardt, K. et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L13
612:
613: \bibitem[]{}Giavalisco, M. 2002, ARAA, 40, 579
614:
615: \bibitem[]{}Ibar, E., Cirasoulo, M., Ivison, R., Best, P., Smail, I.
616: et al. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 953
617:
618: \bibitem[]{}Ivezic, Z., Menou, K., Strauss, M., Knapp, J., et
619: al. 2002, AJ, 124, 2634
620:
621: \bibitem[]{}Ivison, R.J. Chapman, S.C., Faber, S.M., Smail, I., Biggs,
622: A. et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L77
623:
624: \bibitem[]{}Jiang, L., Fan, X., Ivezic, Z. et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, 680
625:
626: \bibitem[]{}Kennicutt, R. 1998, ARAA, 36, 189
627:
628: \bibitem[]{}Meurer, G., Calzetti, D., Heckman, T. 1999, ApJ, 512, 64
629:
630: \bibitem[]{}Mobasher, B. \& Mazzei, P. 2000, A\& A, 363, 517
631:
632: \bibitem[]{}Nandra, K. et al. 2002, ApJ, 576, 625
633:
634: \bibitem[]{}Petric, A., Carilli, C.L., Bertoldi, F., Beelen, A., Cox,
635: P., Omont, A. 2006, AJ, 132, 1307
636:
637: \bibitem[]{}Reddy, N. \& Steidel, C. 2004, ApJ, 603, L13
638:
639: \bibitem[]{}Robin, A.C., Rich, R.M., Aussel, H. et al.
640: 2007, ApJS, 172, 545
641:
642: \bibitem[]{}Schinnerer, E. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 46S
643:
644: \bibitem[]{}Scoville, N. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 38S
645:
646: \bibitem[]{}Shapley, A., Steidel, C., Pettini, M.,
647: Adelberger, K. 2003, ApJ, 588, 65
648:
649: \bibitem[]{}Steidel, C., Adelberger, K., Shapley, A., Pettini, M.,
650: Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M. 2000, ApJ, 532, 170
651:
652: \bibitem[]{}Steidel, C.C., Adelberger, C., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson,
653: M., Pettini, 1999, ApJ, 519, 1
654:
655: \bibitem[]{}Wilkins, S., Trentham, N., Hopkins, A. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 687
656:
657: \bibitem[]{} White, Richard L., Helfand, David J., Becker, Robert H.,
658: Glikman, Eilat; de Vries, Wim 2007, ApJ, 654, 99
659:
660: \bibitem[]{}Wilman, R.J, Miller, L., Jarvis, M., Mauch, T., Levrier, F.
661: et al. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1335
662:
663: \bibitem[]{}Yun, M.S., Reddy, N., Condon, J. 2001, ApJ, 554, 803
664:
665: \bibitem[]{}Yun, M.S., Carilli, C.L. 2002, ApJ, 568, 88
666:
667: \end{thebibliography}
668:
669:
670: \clearpage
671: \newpage
672:
673: \begin{table}\label{LBGtable}
674: \begin{center}
675: \caption{COSMOS drop-out selection}
676: \begin{tabular}[ht]{|c|c|c|c|}
677: \tableline
678: U-band drop-outs & ($\mbox{u'} - B) \geq 0.7 (B - \mbox{i'})
679: + 0.7$ & ($\mbox{u'} - B) \geq 1.4$ & ($B - \mbox{i'}) \leq 2.5$ \\
680: B-band drop-outs & ($B-V) \geq 0.7~(V - \mbox{i'}) + 0.7$ & ($B-V)
681: \geq 1.0$ & $(V - \mbox{i'}) \leq 2.5$ \\
682: V-band drop-outs & $(V-\mbox{r'}) \geq 0.3~(\mbox{r'}-\mbox{i'}) +1.0$ & ($V-\mbox{r'})\geq 1.4$ & $(\mbox{r'}-\mbox{i'}) \leq 3.0 $\\
683: \tableline
684: \end{tabular}
685: \end{center}
686: \end{table}
687:
688:
689: \begin{table}\label{LBGtable}
690: \begin{center}
691: \caption{Statistics of Lyman Break Sample and Results of the $4\sigma$ Counterpart Search}
692: \begin{tabular}[ht]{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
693: \tableline
694: Band & Redshift & \# of LBGs & \# of $4\sigma$ Sources &
695: Corrected \# of Sources & Median flux density \\
696: ~ & ~ & ~ & ~ & ~ & $\mu$Jy \\
697: \tableline
698: U & 2.5--3.5 & 6457 & 43 (0.67\%) & 24 (0.38\%) & $0.90\pm 0.21$ \\
699: B & 3.5--4.5 & 1447 & 8 (0.55\%) & 5 (0.34\%) & $0.83\pm 0.42$ \\
700: V & $>$ 4.5 & 614 & 5 (0.81\%) & 2 (0.33\%) & $1.72\pm 0.68$ \\
701: \tableline
702: \end{tabular}
703: \end{center}
704: \end{table}
705:
706:
707: \begin{figure}
708: \psfig{file=f1a.ps,width=3in}
709: \vskip -3.74in
710: \hspace*{3in}
711: \psfig{file=f1b.ps,width=3in}
712: \psfig{file=f1c.ps,width=3in}
713: \caption{Images at 1.4 GHz of the median stacking results
714: for the different drop-out samples. In each case, the contour
715: levels are -3, -2, -1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4 $\times$ the rms value in the image, and
716: the cross indicates the source stacking position. The synthesized
717: beam FWHM is shown in the lower left corner.
718: Top left: U-band drop-out result, with rms = 0.21 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$.
719: Top Right: The B-band drop-outs result, with rms = 0.42 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$.
720: Bottom: The V-band drop-outs result, with rms = 0.68 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$.
721: }
722: \end{figure}
723:
724:
725: \begin{figure}
726: \psfig{file=f2.ps,width=5in}
727: \caption{The energy density in the CMB as a function of
728: redshift, plus shaded regions showing typical ranges for magnetic
729: fields in spiral arms, and starburst galaxy nuclei.}
730: \end{figure}
731:
732:
733: \end{document}
734:
735:
736: \begin{table}\label{V_4_sigma}
737: \begin{center}
738: \caption{$4\sigma$ Counterparts to V-band drop-outs}
739: \begin{tabular}[ht]{|c|c|c|c|}
740: \tableline
741: COSMOS ID & RA & Dec & Flux Density ($\mu{}$Jy) \\
742: \tableline
743: 18641 & 10 00 5.71 & 02 37 58.32 & 4.8457E-05 \\
744: 9167 & 09 59 15.92 & 01 52 28.33 & 4.1299E-05 \\
745: 17871 & 10 01 27.08 & 02 08 55.80 & 5.4538E-05 \\
746: 1205 & 10 02 24.76 & 01 36 59.27 & 1.6492E-04 \\
747: 5364 & 10 00 54.52 & 02 34 35.07 & 4.4867E-05 \\
748: \tableline
749: \end{tabular}
750: \end{center}
751: \end{table}
752:
753:
754:
755: \begin{table}\label{B_4_sigma}
756: \begin{center}
757: \caption{$4\sigma$ Counterparts to B-band drop-outs}
758: \begin{tabular}[ht]{|c|c|c|c|}
759: \tableline
760: COSMOS ID & RA & Dec & Flux Density ($\mu{}$Jy) \\
761: \tableline
762: 3352 & 10 01 9.48 & 01 46 1.47 & 6.8627E-05 \\
763: 4765 & 10 01 29.87 & 02 15 15.56 & 3.8704E-05 \\
764: 7942 & 10 00 19.21 & 02 13 38.91 & 8.7268E-05 \\
765: 8752 & 10 02 36.00 & 02 32 46.16 & 6.1271E-05 \\
766: 10248 & 10 00 57.49 & 02 42 20.59 & 1.3570E-04 \\
767: 3351 & 10 01 9.45 & 01 46 3.16 & 5.9979E-05 \\
768: 6546 & 10 01 32.07 & 02 04 29.06 & 3.8391E-04 \\
769: 5156 & 10 02 56.36 & 02 24 5.92 & 2.7007E-04 \\
770: \tableline
771: \end{tabular}
772: \end{center}
773: \end{table}
774:
775:
776: \begin{deluxetable}{|c|c|c|c|}
777: \tablehead{
778: \colhead{COSMOS ID} & \colhead{RA} & \colhead{Dec} & \colhead{Flux Density ($\mu{}$Jy)}}
779: \tablecaption{$4\sigma$ Counterparts to U-band drop-outs \label{U_4_sigma}}
780: \tablewidth{0pt}
781: \startdata
782: \tableline
783: 2367 & 10 01 19.14 & 02 26 17.50 & 3.9663E-05 \\
784: 788 & 09 58 58.11 & 02 37 7.13 & 5.1523E-05 \\
785: 9401 & 10 01 1.32 & 02 21 59.39 & 2.2910E-04 \\
786: 13697 & 10 01 46.23 & 02 29 6.41 & 1.0377E-04 \\
787: 5309 & 10 02 43.71 & 01 53 53.35 & 7.8327E-05 \\
788: 1415 & 10 00 46.62 & 02 46 44.07 & 8.2603E-04 \\
789: 13186 & 10 00 37.77 & 01 49 34.51 & 5.0641E-05 \\
790: 6955 & 10 00 11.04 & 01 53 14.38 & 9.3061E-05 \\
791: 1288 & 09 59 0.91 & 01 56 45.26 & 4.2922E-05 \\
792: 8217 & 09 59 30.34 & 02 41 59.85 & 5.3797E-05 \\
793: 15072 & 10 00 36.53 & 02 18 28.22 & 4.8128E-05 \\
794: 7672 & 10 00 54.99 & 02 42 53.61 & 5.7537E-05 \\
795: 14091 & 10 01 11.57 & 02 28 41.09 & 3.6775E-05 \\
796: 15303 & 10 00 54.71 & 01 38 12.74 & 6.2560E-05 \\
797: 8185 & 10 01 9.25 & 01 42 41.12 & 8.5213E-05 \\
798: 12159 & 09 59 29.59 & 01 49 26.43 & 4.0179E-05 \\
799: 481 & 10 02 28.77 & 02 17 21.77 & 2.9689E-03 \\
800: 7009 & 09 59 1.38 & 02 52 4.03 & 9.8580E-05 \\
801: 2839 & 10 01 9.48 & 01 46 1.47 & 6.8627E-05 \\
802: 2408 & 10 00 53.77 & 02 16 14.80 & 1.9877E-04 \\
803: 12795 & 10 02 3.36 & 02 48 17.95 & 7.2447E-05 \\
804: 1016 & 09 59 34.08 & 02 17 6.47 & 1.4397E-04 \\
805: 1894 & 10 01 57.02 & 02 16 12.22 & 1.1569E-04 \\
806: 13001 & 09 58 3.24 & 01 58 56.20 & 8.8272E-05 \\
807: 5560 & 10 01 32.07 & 02 04 29.06 & 3.8391E-04 \\
808: 10033 & 10 00 9.56 & 02 01 42.26 & 3.6324E-05 \\
809: 339 & 09 58 25.21 & 02 27 28.08 & 7.2221E-05 \\
810: 4257 & 09 58 25.18 & 02 14 56.19 & 1.0408E-04 \\
811: 10643 & 09 57 48.53 & 01 40 5.12 & 1.0038E-04 \\
812: 2838 & 10 01 9.45 & 01 46 3.15 & 5.9979E-05 \\
813: 13718 & 10 00 42.39 & 02 09 39.73 & 1.7848E-04 \\
814: 16563 & 10 00 52.24 & 01 58 10.80 & 4.7588E-05 \\
815: 14571 & 09 58 45.20 & 02 08 23.68 & 4.2184E-05 \\
816: 861 & 09 58 58.06 & 02 37 7.97 & 5.1523E-05 \\
817: 8606 & 09 59 58.16 & 02 42 4.83 & 6.1345E-05 \\
818: 8539 & 09 59 48.35 & 02 02 38.64 & 3.3381E-05 \\
819: 13545 & 09 58 30.19 & 01 58 52.64 & 9.0971E-05 \\
820: 12412 & 09 59 50.92 & 02 48 36.76 & 7.3366E-05 \\
821: 6655 & 10 00 19.22 & 02 13 38.89 & 8.7268E-05 \\
822: 12942 & 10 02 24.32 & 01 38 32.52 & 6.6815E-05 \\
823: 13569 & 09 58 34.43 & 01 37 55.39 & 6.7613E-05 \\
824: 7558 & 10 02 28.44 & 02 32 32.82 & 2.1540E-04 \\
825: 15498 & 09 59 39.13 & 01 47 35.13 & 4.0474E-05 \\
826: \tableline
827: \enddata
828: \end{deluxetable}
829:
830:
831:
832:
833: \begin{figure}[ht]
834: \includegraphics[width=6in]{SFRplot.ps}
835: \caption{Radio Flux Densities for Different SFRs and Redshifts}
836: \label{SFRplot}
837: \end{figure}
838:
839:
840:
841: \begin{figure}[ht]
842: \includegraphics[width=6in]{J1000.eps}
843: \caption{An r,z,3.6 color image of J100054.52+023435.1 with the radio contours (10,20,30 $\mu$Jy). r (cyan) is mostly Lyalpha, z (green to orange) is UV emission and 3.6um (red) is rest frame optical $+$ Halpha. Blue objects are in the foreground.}
844: \label{J1000}
845: \end{figure}
846: