1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27: %\usepackage{epstopdf}
28:
29: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
30: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
31: %% use the longabstract style option.
32:
33: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
34:
35: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
36: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
37: %% the \begin{document} command.
38: %%
39: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
40: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
41: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
42: %% for information.
43:
44: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
45: \newcommand{\myemail}{ilbert@ifa.hawaii.edu}
46: \newcommand{\ts}{\thinspace}
47: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
48:
49: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
50:
51: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
52: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
53: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
54: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
55: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
56: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
57:
58: \shorttitle{COSMOS-30 Photometric Redshifts}
59: \shortauthors{}
60:
61: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
62: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
63:
64: \begin{document}
65:
66: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
67: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
68: %% you desire.
69:
70: \title{COSMOS Photometric Redshifts with 30-bands for 2-deg$^2$ \altaffilmark{1}}
71: %\title{COSMOS-30 Photometric Redshifts\altaffilmark{1}}
72:
73: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
74: %% author and affiliation information.
75: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
76: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
77: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
78: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
79:
80:
81: \author{
82: O. Ilbert\altaffilmark{2},
83: P. Capak\altaffilmark{3,4},
84: M. Salvato \altaffilmark{3},
85: H. Aussel\altaffilmark{5},
86: H. J. McCracken\altaffilmark{6},
87: D. B. Sanders\altaffilmark{2},
88: N. Scoville\altaffilmark{3},
89: J. Kartaltepe\altaffilmark{2},
90: S. Arnouts\altaffilmark{7},
91: E. Le Floc'h\altaffilmark{2},
92: B. Mobasher\altaffilmark{8},
93: Y. Taniguchi\altaffilmark{9},
94: F. Lamareille\altaffilmark{10},
95: A. Leauthaud\altaffilmark{11},
96: S. Sasaki\altaffilmark{12,13},
97: D. Thompson\altaffilmark{3,14},
98: M. Zamojski\altaffilmark{3},
99: G. Zamorani\altaffilmark{15},
100: S. Bardelli\altaffilmark{15},
101: M. Bolzonella\altaffilmark{15},
102: A. Bongiorno\altaffilmark{11},
103: M. Brusa\altaffilmark{16},
104: K.I. Caputi\altaffilmark{17},
105: C.M. Carollo\altaffilmark{17},
106: T. Contini\altaffilmark{10},
107: R. Cook\altaffilmark{3},
108: G. Coppa\altaffilmark{15},
109: O. Cucciati\altaffilmark{18},
110: S. de la Torre\altaffilmark{12},
111: L. de Ravel\altaffilmark{12},
112: P. Franzetti\altaffilmark{19},
113: B. Garilli\altaffilmark{19},
114: G. Hasinger\altaffilmark{16},
115: A. Iovino\altaffilmark{18},
116: P. Kampczyk\altaffilmark{17},
117: J.-P. Kneib\altaffilmark{11},
118: C. Knobel\altaffilmark{17},
119: K. Kovac\altaffilmark{17},
120: J.F. Le Borgne\altaffilmark{10},
121: V. Le Brun\altaffilmark{11},
122: O. Le F\`evre\altaffilmark{12},
123: S. Lilly\altaffilmark{17},
124: D. Looper\altaffilmark{2},
125: C. Maier\altaffilmark{17},
126: V. Mainieri\altaffilmark{10},
127: Y. Mellier\altaffilmark{6},
128: M. Mignoli\altaffilmark{15},
129: T. Murayama, \altaffilmark{13}
130: R. Pell\`o\altaffilmark{10},
131: Y. Peng\altaffilmark{17},
132: E. P\'erez-Montero\altaffilmark{10},
133: A. Renzini\altaffilmark{20}
134: E. Ricciardelli\altaffilmark{20},
135: D. Schiminovich\altaffilmark{21},
136: M. Scodeggio\altaffilmark{19},
137: Y. Shioya\altaffilmark{9},
138: J. Silverman\altaffilmark{17},
139: J. Surace\altaffilmark{4},
140: M. Tanaka\altaffilmark{22},
141: L. Tasca\altaffilmark{11},
142: L. Tresse\altaffilmark{11},
143: D. Vergani\altaffilmark{19},
144: E. Zucca\altaffilmark{15}
145: }
146:
147:
148:
149:
150: \email{}
151:
152:
153:
154: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
155: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
156: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
157: %% affiliation.
158:
159:
160: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
161: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
162: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
163: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
164: %% editorial office after submission.
165:
166:
167:
168:
169: \begin{abstract}
170:
171: We present accurate photometric redshifts in the 2-deg$^2$ COSMOS
172: field. The redshifts are computed with 30 broad, intermediate, and
173: narrow bands covering the UV ({\it GALEX}), Visible-NIR (Subaru, CFHT,
174: UKIRT and NOAO) and mid-IR ({\it Spitzer}/IRAC). A $\chi^2$
175: template-fitting method ({\it Le Phare}) was used and calibrated with
176: large spectroscopic samples from VLT-VIMOS and Keck-DEIMOS. We develop
177: and implement a new method which accounts for the contributions from
178: emission lines ([\ion{O}{2}], H$\beta$, H$\alpha$ and Ly$\alpha$) to
179: the spectral energy distributions (SEDs). The treatment of emission
180: lines improves the photo-z accuracy by a factor of 2.5. Comparison of
181: the derived photo-z with 4148 spectroscopic redshifts (i.e. $\Delta z
182: = z_{\rm s} - z_{\rm p}$) indicates a dispersion of $\sigma_{\Delta
183: z/(1+z_{\rm s})}=0.007$ at $i^+_{\rm AB}<22.5$, a factor of $2-6$
184: times more accurate than earlier photo-z in the COSMOS, CFHTLS and
185: COMBO-17 survey fields. At fainter magnitudes $i^+_{\rm AB}<24$ and
186: $z<1.25$, the accuracy is $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm s})}=0.012$.
187: The deep NIR and IRAC coverage enables the photo-z to be extended to
188: $z\sim2$ albeit with a lower accuracy ($\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm
189: s})}=0.06$ at $i^+_{\rm AB}\sim 24$). The redshift distribution of
190: large magnitude-selected samples is derived and the median redshift is
191: found to range from $z_{\rm m}=0.66$ at $22 <i^+_{\rm AB}<22.5$ to
192: $z_{\rm m}=1.06$ at $24.5 <i^+_{\rm AB}<25$. At $i^+_{\rm AB} <26.0$,
193: the multi-wavelength COSMOS catalog includes approximately 607,617
194: objects. The COSMOS-30 photo-z enable the full exploitation of this
195: survey for studies of galaxy and large scale structure evolution at
196: high redshift.
197:
198:
199:
200: \end{abstract}
201:
202:
203:
204: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
205: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
206: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
207: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
208:
209:
210: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
211: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
212: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
213: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
214: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
215: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
216: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
217: %% each reference.
218:
219:
220: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
221: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
222: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
223: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
224: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
225: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
226: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
227: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
228: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
229: %%
230: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,
231: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first
232: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).
233: %% Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error.
234:
235:
236:
237:
238:
239:
240: \keywords{galaxies: distances and redshifts --- galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: formation}
241:
242: %\altaffiltext{$\star$}{Based in part on observations with : The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science
243: %Institute, which is operated by AURA Inc, under NASA contract NAS5-26555. The Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. The MegaPrime/MegaCam, a joint project of CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the Institute National des Science de l'Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche and the University of Hawaii. The Kitt Peak National Observatory, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory and the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy Inc. (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}
244:
245: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations with the NASA/ESA {\em
246: Hubble Space Telescope}, obtained at the Space Telescope Science
247: Institute, which is operated by AURA Inc, under NASA contract NAS
248: 5-26555. Also based on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope,
249: which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute
250: of Technology, under NASA contract 1407. Also based on data collected at :
251: the Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical
252: Observatory of Japan; the XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with
253: instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and
254: NASA; the European Southern Observatory under Large Program 175.A-0839,
255: Chile; Kitt Peak National Observatory, Cerro Tololo Inter-American
256: Observatory and the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which are
257: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.
258: (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation;
259: and the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope with MegaPrime/MegaCam operated as a
260: joint project by the CFHT Corporation, CEA/DAPNIA, the NRC and CADC of
261: Canada, the CNRS of France, TERAPIX and the Univ. of Hawaii.}
262: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute for Astronomy, 2680 Woodlawn Dr., University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96822}
263: \altaffiltext{3}{California Institute of Technology, MC 105-24, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125}
264: \altaffiltext{4}{Spitzer Science Center, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}
265: \altaffiltext{5}{AIM Unit\'e Mixte de Recherche CEA CNRS Universit\'e Paris VII UMR n158}
266: \altaffiltext{6}{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, UMR7095 CNRS, Universit\'e Pierre et Marie Curie, 98 bis Boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France}
267: \altaffiltext{7}{Canada France Hawaii telescope corporation, 65-1238 Mamalahoa Hwy, Kamuela, Hawaii 96743, USA}
268: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Riverside, CA, 92521, USA}
269: \altaffiltext{9}{Research Center for Space and Cosmic Evolution, Ehime University, Bunkyo-cho, Matsuyama 790-8577, Japan}
270: \altaffiltext{10}{Max Planck Institut f\"{u}r Extraterrestrische Physik, D-85478 Garching, Germany}
271: \altaffiltext{11}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Toulouse/Tarbes, Universit\'e de Toulouse, CNRS, 14 avenue E. Belin, 31400 Toulouse, France }
272: \altaffiltext{12}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, BP 8, Traverse du Siphon, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France}
273: \altaffiltext{13}{Astronomical Institute, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Aramaki, Aoba, Sendai 980-8578, Japan}
274: \altaffiltext{14}{Physics Department, Graduate School of Science \& Engineering, Ehime University, 2-5 Bunkyo-cho, Matsuyama, 790-8577, Japan}
275: \altaffiltext{15}{LBT Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 N. Cherry Ave., Tucson, Arizona, 85721-0065, USA}
276: \altaffiltext{16}{INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, via Ranzani 1, I-40127 Bologna, Italy}
277: \altaffiltext{17}{Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland}
278: \altaffiltext{18}{INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, Milano, Italy}
279: \altaffiltext{19}{INAF - IASF Milano, via Bassini 15, 20133 Milano, Italy}
280: \altaffiltext{20}{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universitˆ di Padova, vicolo dell'Osservatorio 2, I-35122 Padua, Italy}
281: \altaffiltext{21}{Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, MC2457, 550 W. 120 St. New York, NY 10027}
282: \altaffiltext{22}{European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2, D-85748 Garching, Germany}
283:
284:
285: \section{Introduction}
286:
287:
288: Photometric redshifts (hereafter photo-z) are an estimate of galaxy
289: distances based on the observed colors (Baum 1962). This method is
290: extremely efficient for assembling large redshift samples for faint
291: galaxies. Despite having a lower accuracy than spectroscopic redshifts
292: (hereafter, spectro-z), photo-z have the advantage of significantly
293: improved completeness down to a flux limit fainter than the
294: spectroscopic limit. Deep photo-z samples such as COMBO-17 (Wolf et
295: al. 2003), CFHTLS (Ilbert et al. 2006), SWIRE (Rowan-Robinson et
296: al. 2008), and COSMOS (Mobasher et al. 2007) contain more than
297: 1,000,000 galaxies and go as faint as $i\sim 25$ with a relatively
298: small amount of telescope time.
299:
300: Typical photo-z with an accuracy of $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm s})}
301: \sim0.02-0.04$ ($\Delta z = z_{\rm s}-z_{\rm p}$) are widely
302: used to study the evolution of galaxy stellar masses and luminosities
303: (e.g. Fontana et al. 2000; Wolf et al. 2003; Gabasch et al. 2004;
304: Caputi et al. 2006; Arnouts et al. 2007), for angular clustering
305: analysis (e.g. Heinis et al. 2007; McCracken et al. 2007), to study
306: the relation between galaxy properties and environment (e.g. Capak et
307: al. 2007), to trace large-scale structures (Mazure et al. 2007;
308: Scoville et al. 2007) and to identify clusters at high redshift (Wang
309: \& Steinhardt 1998). Photo-z are also necessary for dark energy and
310: dark matter weak lensing studies to separate foreground and background
311: galaxies and to control systematic effects such as intrinsic shape
312: alignment, shear shape correlation, and the effects of source
313: clustering (Peacock et al. 2006). All of these applications require
314: strict control of systematic effects in the photo-z estimate. An
315: efficient way of identifying and removing systematics is to calibrate
316: photo-z on a spectroscopic sample. The most common methods of
317: calibration are neural network methods (e.g. Ball et al. 2004,
318: Colister et al. 2004), a calibration of the color-z relation (Brodwin
319: et al. 2006; Ilbert et al. 2006), or a reconstruction of the SED
320: templates (Budav\'ari et al. 2000; Feldmann et al. 2006).
321:
322: As is also true for spectroscopic redshift measurements, photo-z
323: accuracy depends on spectral coverage and resolution. It is also
324: degraded for sources with a low signal-to-noise ratio (Bolzonella et
325: al. 2000). The Balmer and Lyman breaks contain much of the photo-z
326: information, so accuracy is lower in redshift ranges where these
327: features are not well sampled by the filter set. As the photometric
328: accuracy degrades, it becomes more difficult to constrain the
329: positions of these features, leading to lower accuracy. This creates
330: a dual dependency of photo-z accuracy on magnitude and redshift which
331: is defined by the survey design (exposure time, filter choice, and
332: calibration accuracy). For this reason, any photo-z sample should be
333: extensively tested and characterized in the same way a spectroscopic
334: sample would be. This analysis is necessary in order to identify the
335: redshift/magnitude ranges over which the photo-z can be trusted and
336: used for a given scientific application.
337:
338: This paper presents a new version of the photometric redshifts for the
339: Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS: Scoville et al. 2007) and an analysis
340: of their accuracy. COSMOS is the largest {\it Hubble Space Telescope
341: (HST)} survey ever undertaken - imaging an equatorial 2-deg$^2$ field
342: to a depth of $I_{\rm F814W} = 27.8$ mag (5 $\sigma$, AB). The COSMOS
343: field is equatorial to ensure visibility by all ground-based
344: astronomical facilities. This project includes extensive
345: multi-wavelength imaging from X-ray to radio ({\it XMM}, {\it
346: Chandra}, {\it GALEX}, Subaru, CFHT, UKIRT, {\it Spitzer}, VLA). New
347: ground-based NIR data (McCracken et al. 2008; Capak et al. 2008), {\it
348: Spitzer}-IRAC data (Sanders et al. 2007), and medium/narrow band data
349: from the Subaru Telescope (Taniguchi et al. 2007; Sasaki et al. 2008;
350: Taniguchi et al. 2008; Capak et al. 2008) greatly improve the previous
351: photometry catalogue (Capak et al. 2007). These new data are used for
352: the photo-z derived here, yielding a factor of 3 higher accuracy than
353: the first release of COSMOS photo-z (Mobasher et al. 2007).
354:
355: The COSMOS data are presented in \S2. The technique used to estimate
356: the photo-z is presented in \S3. In \S4, we quantify the photo-z
357: accuracy as a function of the magnitude and redshift. In \S5, we
358: provide the photo-z distribution of the $i^+$ selected
359: samples. Specialized photo-z for X-ray selected sources, AGN, and
360: variable objects, are discussed in a companion paper (Salvato et
361: al. 2008).
362:
363: Throughout this paper, we use the standard WMAP cosmology
364: ($\Omega_{\rm m}~=~0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda~=~0.7$) with $h=0.7$ and
365: $h~=~H_{\rm0}/100$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$. Magnitudes are given in the
366: AB system.
367:
368:
369: \section{Data}
370:
371: Compared to the previous optical/near -infrared catalogue (Capak
372: et al. 2007) the new photometry implements 14 new medium/narrow band
373: data from the Subaru Telescope, deep ground-based NIR data ($J$ and
374: $K$ bands) and {\it Spitzer}-IRAC data. The spectroscopic sample used
375: to calibrate/test the photo-z is 10 times larger at $i^+_{AB}<22.5$
376: than that of Mobasher et al. (2007). The spectroscopic sample is
377: supplemented with faint infrared selected sources and a deep faint
378: spectroscopic sample at $z>1.5$. Hereafter, we detail the photometric
379: and spectroscopic data used to measure the photo-z.
380:
381: \subsection{Photometric data}
382:
383: Fluxes are measured in 30 bands from data taken on the Subaru
384: (4200-9000\AA), CFHT (3900-21500\AA), UKIRT (12500\AA), {\it Spitzer}
385: (3.6-8$\mu m$) and {\it GALEX} (1500-2300\AA) telescopes. We refer to
386: Capak et al. (2008) for a complete description of the observations,
387: data reduction and the photometry catalogue. The equivalent width and
388: the effective wavelength of each filter are listed in
389: Table~\ref{shift}. The sensitivities are given in Capak et al. (2008)
390: and in Table~1 of Salvato et al. (2008). Table~\ref{shift} indicates
391: the fraction of sources detected in each band with an error less than
392: 0.2{\ts}mag for a selection at $i^+ <24.5$, $i^+ <25$ and $i^+
393: <25.5$. We summarize below the datasets used in this paper.
394:
395: {\bf Ultraviolet:} Very deep $u^*$ band data were obtained at the 3.6m
396: Canada-France Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) using the Megacam camera
397: (Boulade et al. 2003). The $u^*$ band data were processed at the
398: TERAPIX data reduction center\footnote{terapix.iap.fr}. The $u^*$ band
399: data cover the entire COSMOS field and reach a depth of $u^* \sim
400: 26.5${\ts}mag for a point source detected at 5$\sigma$. The $u^*$ band
401: images are also used as priors in the measurement of FUV (1500\AA) and
402: NUV (2300\AA) fluxes in order to ensure a proper deblending of sources
403: in the GALEX images (Zamojski et al. 2007). GALEX fluxes are then
404: extracted using the EM-algorithm (Guillaume et al. 2006). They reach
405: a depth of $FUV \sim 26$ mag and $NUV \sim 25.7$ mag.
406:
407:
408: {\bf Optical:} The COSMOS-20 survey (Taniguchi et al. 2008) entailed
409: 30 nights of observation at the Subaru 8.2m telescope using the
410: Suprime-Cam instrument. The observations are complete in 20 bands: 6
411: broad bands ($B_J$, $V_J$, $g^+$, $r^+$, $i^+$, $z^+$), 12 medium
412: bands ($IA427$, $IA464$, $IA484$, $IA505$, $IA527$, $IA574$, $IA624$,
413: $IA679$, $IA709$, $IA738$, $IA767$, $IA827$) and 2 narrow bands
414: ($NB711$, $NB816$).
415:
416: {\bf Near-infrared:} The catalogue includes deep $J$ and $K$
417: band data obtained using the WFCAM and WIRCAM wide-field infrared
418: cameras on UKIRT and CFHT, respectively. The NIR data reduction is
419: detailed in Capak et al. (2008) and McCracken et al. (2008). The data
420: reach $J \sim 23.7${\ts}mag and $K \sim 23.7${\ts}mag for a
421: point source detected at 5$\sigma$.
422:
423: {\bf Mid-infrared:} Deep IRAC data were taken during the {\it Spitzer}
424: cycle 2 S-COSMOS survey (Sanders et al. 2007). A total of 166{\ts}hr
425: were dedicated to cover the full 2-deg$^2$ with the IRAC camera in 4
426: bands: 3.6$\mu$m, 4.5$\mu$m, 5.6$\mu$m and 8.0$\mu$m. Source detection
427: is based on the 3.6$\mu m$ image and the fluxes were measured in the
428: four IRAC bands using the ``dual mode'' configuration of
429: SExtractor. The IRAC catalogue is 50\% complete at $1\mu Jy$ at
430: $3.6\mu m$ ($m_{3.6\mu m} \sim 23.9$ mag).
431:
432: All of the imaging data were combined to generate a master photometry
433: catalogue (Capak et al. 2008). Photometry was done using SExtractor
434: in dual mode (Bertin \& Arnouts 1996). Source detection was run on the
435: deepest image ($i^+ \sim 26.2$ for a point source detected at
436: 5$\sigma$). For the UV-NIR data, the Point Spread Function (PSF)
437: varies from 0.5\arcsec\ to 1.5\arcsec\ from the $K$ to the $u*$
438: images. In order to obtain accurate colors, all the images were
439: degraded to the same PSF of 1.5\arcsec\ following the method described
440: in Capak et al. (2007). The final photometry catalogue contains PSF
441: matched photometry for all the bands from the $u^*$ to the $K$ band,
442: measured over an aperture of 3\arcsec\ diameter at the position of the
443: $i^+$ band detection. For the FUV and NUV data, we transformed the
444: total flux provided for the {\it GALEX}-FUV and -NUV counterpart by
445: multiplying it by a factor 0.759. This factor is the fraction of the
446: flux observed in optical into a 3\arcsec\ aperture flux as determined
447: for point sources from simulations by Capak et al. (2007). To
448: compensate for this approximation, we add in quadrature 0.1 and
449: 0.3{\ts}mag to the all the measured errors in the GALEX NUV and FUV
450: bands.
451:
452: For the MIR data we did not degrade the optical data to the larger IRAC PSF.
453: Instead, the following procedures were used. An IRAC flux
454: was first associated with the optical sources by matching their positions
455: in each of the 4 IRAC bands within a search radius of 1\arcsec.
456: Following Surace et al. (2004), the IRAC fluxes were then measured
457: in a circular aperture of radius 1.9\arcsec.
458: The aperture flux was then converted to a total flux using the
459: aperture correction factors 0.76, 0.74, 0.62, 0.58 at 3.6$\mu m$,
460: 4.5$\mu$m, 5.6$\mu$m and 8.0$\mu$m, respectively (Surace et
461: al. 2004). Since the optical fluxes were measured over an aperture of
462: 3\arcsec\ diameter which encloses $\sim 75\%$ of the flux for a point
463: like source, we then multiply the IRAC total fluxes by a factor
464: 0.75. This approximation provides good agreement between the predicted
465: and observed colors ($z^+ - 3.6\mu m$ and $3.6\mu m - 4.5\mu m$
466: colors). In order to compensate for this approximation, we add in
467: quadrature 0.1, 0.1, 0.3 and 0.3{\ts}mag to the errors in the IRAC
468: 3.6, 4.5, 5.6 and 8.0$\mu$m.
469:
470: Finally, all magnitudes are corrected for galactic extinction
471: estimated for each object individually, using dust map images from
472: Schlegel et al. (1998). We limit the photo-z analysis to an area of
473: 2-deg$^2$ ($1.49878<\alpha<2.91276$ and $149.41140<\delta<150.826934$)
474: which has a uniform and deep coverage in all the bands. Poor image
475: quality areas (e.g. field boundary, saturated stars, satellite tracks
476: and image defects) are masked. Photo-z are computed only in the
477: non-masked regions with a total covered area of 1.73-deg$^2$. 126 071,
478: 293 627 and 607 617 sources are detected at $i^+<24$, $i^+<25$ and
479: $i^+<26$.
480:
481:
482:
483:
484:
485:
486: \begin{table*}
487: \begin{center}
488: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c } \hline \\
489:
490: filter & telescope& effective $\lambda$ & FWHM & $s_f$ & \% at &
491: \% at & \% at \\ & & & & & $i^+ <24.5$ & $i^+ <25$ &
492: $i+ <25.5$ \\
493: \\
494: \hline\\
495: $u*$ & CFHT & 3911.0 & 538.0 & 0.054 & 89.3 & 85.2 & 77.2 \\
496: $B_{\rm J}$ & Subaru & 4439.6 & 806.7 & -0.242 & 97.1 & 95.2 & 90.5 \\
497: $V_{\rm J}$ & Subaru & 5448.9 & 934.8 & -0.094 & 99.3 & 98.2 & 94.2 \\
498: $g^+$ & Subaru & 4728.3 & 1162.9 & 0.024 & 96.4 & 93.6 & 86.0 \\
499: $r^+$ & Subaru & 6231.8 & 1348.8 & 0.003 & 99.6 & 99.5 & 98.4 \\
500: $i^+$ & Subaru & 7629.1 & 1489.4 & 0.019 & 99.9 & 99.9 & 99.8 \\
501: $i*$ & CFHT & 7628.9 & 1460.0 & -0.007 & 37.8 & 25.4 & 17.4 \\
502: $z^+$ & Subaru & 9021.6 & 955.3 & -0.037 & 99.8 & 97.9 & 83.8 \\
503: $J$ & UKIRT & 12444.1 & 1558.0 & 0.124 & 65.4 & 49.1 & 35.7 \\
504: $K_S$ & NOAO & 21434.8 & 3115.0 & 0.022 & 15.3 & 10.3 & 7.08 \\
505: $K$ & CFHT & 21480.2 & 3250.0 & -0.051 & 84.1 & 68.5 & 52.1 \\
506: $IA427$ & Subaru & 4256.3 & 206.5 & 0.037 & 77.1 & 64.3 & 48.4 \\
507: $IA464$ & Subaru & 4633.3 & 218.0 & 0.013 & 78.5 & 64.3 & 47.6 \\
508: $IA484$ & Subaru & 4845.9 & 228.5 & 0.000 & 88.7 & 78.3 & 62.0 \\
509: $IA505$ & Subaru & 5060.7 & 230.5 & -0.002 & 84.0 & 70.0 & 52.0 \\
510: $IA527$ & Subaru & 5258.9 & 242.0 & 0.026 & 93.2 & 84.6 & 68.7 \\
511: $IA574$ & Subaru & 5762.1 & 271.5 & 0.078 & 92.5 & 80.0 & 60.6 \\
512: $IA624$ & Subaru & 6230.0 & 300.5 & 0.002 & 97.4 & 90.2 & 72.2 \\
513: $IA679$ & Subaru & 6778.8 & 336.0 & -0.181 & 99.5 & 96.7 & 82.9 \\
514: $IA709$ & Subaru & 7070.7 & 315.5 & -0.024 & 99.8 & 97.7 & 83.5 \\
515: $IA738$ & Subaru & 7358.7 & 323.5 & 0.017 & 99.5 & 94.2 & 73.6 \\
516: $IA767$ & Subaru & 7681.2 & 364.0 & 0.041 & 99.6 & 93.5 & 72.0 \\
517: $IA827$ & Subaru & 8240.9 & 343.5 & -0.019 & 99.7 & 97.2 & 81.8 \\
518: $NB711$ & Subaru & 7119.6 & 72.5 & 0.014 & 84.8 & 60.7 & 41.9 \\
519: $NB816$ & Subaru & 8149.0 & 119.5 & 0.068 & 99.8 & 99.1 & 88.2 \\
520: $IRAC1$ & {\it Spitzer} & 35262.5 & 7412.0 & 0.002 & 70.6 & 60.8 & 48.4 \\
521: $IRAC2$ & {\it Spitzer} & 44606.7 & 10113.0 & 0.000 & 62.6 & 51.6 & 39.7 \\
522: $IRAC3$ & {\it Spitzer} & 56764.4 & 13499.0 & 0.013 & 33.7 & 26.0 & 19.5 \\
523: $IRAC4$ & {\it Spitzer} & 77030.1 & 28397.0 & -0.171 & 15.7 & 11.3 & 8.1 \\
524: $FUV$ & {\it GALEX} & 1551.3 & 230.8 & 0.314 & 8.5 & 5.8 & 4.0 \\
525: $NUV$ & {\it GALEX} & 2306.5 & 789.1 & -0.022 & 19.7 & 13.4 & 9.2 \\
526: \hline
527: \end{tabular}
528: \caption{Effective wavelength, width and systematic offsets $s_f$ in magnitude (with our definition, $s_f$ have the opposite sign to Table.13 of Capak et al. 2007) plus the fraction of sources in each band with an error less than 0.2 magnitude at $i^+ <24.5$, $i^+ <25$, $i^+ <25.5$. }
529: \label{shift}
530: \end{center}
531: \end{table*}
532:
533:
534:
535: \subsection{Spectroscopic data}
536:
537: The spectroscopic samples were observed with the VIMOS/VLT
538: spectrograph (zCOSMOS; Lilly et al. 2007) and the DEIMOS/Keck
539: spectrograph (Kartaltepe et al. 2008). These two spectroscopic samples
540: have very different selection criteria (see below); they therefore
541: cover very different ranges of redshift and color space, providing a
542: broad sample for evaluation of the photo-z.
543:
544: The zCOSMOS survey (Lilly et al. 2007) has two components:
545: zCOSMOS-bright with a sample of 20,000 galaxies selected at $i^* \le
546: 22.5$ and zCOSMOS-faint with approximately 10,000 galaxies
547: color-selected to lie in the redshift range $1.5 \lesssim z
548: \lesssim 3$. In the latter, galaxies are selected by color based
549: either on the $BzK$ criterion (Daddi et al. 2004) or the $UGR$ ``BM"
550: and ``BX" criterion of Steidel et al. (2004), and the magnitude cut
551: was $B_{\rm J} <24-25$ (depending on the color cut). zCOSMOS-bright
552: galaxies were observed using the red grism of VIMOS covering a
553: wavelength range $5500\rm{ \AA} <
554: \lambda < 9000\rm{ \AA}$ at a resolution of 600 (MR grism). For the zCOSMOS-faint sample,
555: observations were carried out with the blue grism of VIMOS ($3600\rm{
556: \AA} < \lambda < 6800\rm{ \AA}$) at a resolution of 200.
557:
558: The zCOSMOS-bright survey is now $\sim50$\% complete. Here we make use
559: of only the extremely secure spectro-z measurements with a confidence
560: level greater than 99\% (class 3 and 4). This secure zCOSMOS-bright
561: sample contains 4148 galaxies with a median redshift of $\sim
562: 0.48$. The zCOSMOS-faint survey is in its early stages, and here we
563: use a preliminary sample of 148 galaxies with a median redshift of
564: $z_{\rm m} \sim 2.2$ and as faint as $i^+\sim 25$. This zCOSMOS-faint
565: spectroscopic sample is not fully representative of the average
566: population at $1.5<z<3$ due to the selection criteria (e.g. $B_{\rm J}
567: <24-25$).
568:
569: The Keck{\ts}II spectroscopic follow-up of $24 \mu m$ selected sources
570: (Kartaltepe et al. 2008) is on-going and we refer to this sample as
571: MIPS-spectro-z. The DEIMOS spectra cover a wavelength range $4000\rm{
572: \AA} < \lambda < 9000\rm{ \AA}$ at a resolution of 600. This sample of
573: $24 \mu m$ selected galaxies contains 317 secure spectro-z (at least
574: two spectral features) with an average redshift of $z\sim 0.74$ and
575: apparent magnitude in the range $18< i^+< 25$.
576:
577: For all of the spectroscopic samples used in this paper for testing
578: and verification of the photo-z, we include only secure spectro-z.
579: Therefore, the uncertainties in the spectro-z are neglected and the
580: spectro-z are used as a reference to assess the quality of the
581: photo-z.
582:
583:
584:
585: \section{Photometric Redshift derivation}
586:
587: Photometric redshifts were derived using the {\it Le Phare}
588: code\footnote{www.oamp.fr/people/arnouts/LE\_PHARE.html} (S. Arnouts
589: \& O. Ilbert) which is based on a $\chi^2$ template-fitting procedure.
590: In the discussion below, we focus on the improvements introduced here
591: as compared to Ilbert et al. (2006) and the previous COSMOS photo-z
592: (Mobasher et al. 2007).
593:
594:
595: \subsection{Galaxy SED template library}
596:
597:
598: \begin{figure}[htb]
599: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1.ps}
600: \caption{SED templates.
601: The flux scale is arbitrary. The top 12 SEDs (cyan) are generated with
602: Bruzual \& Charlot (2003). The spiral (green) and elliptical (red)
603: SEDs are from Polletta et al. (2007). \label{SED}}
604: \end{figure}
605:
606:
607: Ilbert et al. (2006) and Mobasher et al. (2007) used a set of local
608: galaxy SED templates (CWW: Coleman, Wu, \& Weedman 1980) which have
609: been widely employed for photo-z (e.g. Sawicki 1997;
610: Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto et al. 1999; Arnouts et al. 1999; Brodwin et
611: al. 2006). Here, we employ a new set of templates generated by
612: Polletta et al. (2007) with the code GRASIL (Silva et al. 1998).
613: Polletta et al. selected their templates for fitting the VVDS sources
614: (Le F\`evre et al. 2005) from the UV-optical (CFHTLS: McCracken et
615: al. 2007) to the mid-IR (SWIRE: Lonsdale et al. 2003). Therefore, this
616: set of templates provides a better joining of UV and MIR than those by
617: CWW. The 9 galaxy templates of Polletta et al. (2007) include 3 SEDs of
618: elliptical galaxies and 6 templates of spiral galaxies (S0, Sa, Sb,
619: Sc, Sd, Sdm).
620:
621: We did find that the blue observed colors of the spectroscopic sample
622: were not fully reproduced by the Polletta et al. (2007) templates. We
623: therefore generated 12 additional templates using Bruzual \& Charlot
624: (2003) models with starburst (SB) ages ranging from 3 Gyr to 0.03 Gyr.
625: We extend the BC03 templates beyond $3\mu m$ rest-frame using the Sdm
626: template of Polletta et al. (2007). The full library of template SEDs,
627: 9 from Polletta et al. (2007) and 12 from Bruzual \& Charlot (2003),
628: is shown in Fig.~\ref{SED}. Finally, we linearly interpolated between
629: some Polletta et al. templates to refine the sampling in $color-z$
630: space.
631:
632: Figure~\ref{colour_z} shows the observed colors and redshifts of the
633: spectroscopic sample compared with the predicted colors for the library
634: SEDs.
635:
636:
637:
638:
639: \begin{figure*}
640: \begin{tabular}{c c}
641: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2a.ps} &
642: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2b.ps} \\
643: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2c.ps} &
644: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2d.ps}
645: \end{tabular}
646: \caption{The observed colors and redshifts ($z_{\rm s}$) for the spectroscopic
647: sample galaxies (open stars). The solid lines are the predicted colors
648: as a function of redshift for some SEDs of the library (red:
649: Elliptical and green: Spiral from Polletta et al. 2007 ; cyan: Bruzual
650: \& Charlot 2003). The solid curves are the predicted colors without
651: including emission lines (no reddening for the elliptical templates,
652: $E(B-V)=0.2$ for the late types) whereas the dashed curves are the
653: same templates including the emission line fluxes (assuming
654: $M_{FUV}=-20$ in this example). The top right panel clearly shows that
655: the emission lines can change the colors up to 0.4 mag.
656: \label{colour_z}}
657: \end{figure*}
658:
659:
660:
661: \subsection{Emission lines}
662:
663: Fig.~\ref{colour_z} clearly shows how the observed colors oscillate
664: with the redshift, especially when the colors are measured with the
665: medium bands (top panels). Comparing the template curves with (dashed)
666: and without (solid) emission lines, one sees that the expected line
667: fluxes can cause up to 0.4{\ts}mag changes in the color. This effect
668: is particularly important when colors involving intermediate and
669: narrow band filters are computed (see for example the upper-right
670: panel in Fig.\ref{colour_z}) but can be already noticed using broad
671: band colors. The color oscillations are well explained by the
672: contribution of emission lines like H${\alpha}$, [\ion{O}{3}], and
673: [\ion{O}{2}] to the observed flux; thus the contribution of the
674: emission lines to the flux must be taken into account to obtain
675: accurate photo-z and this is a major change implemented here compared
676: to Ilbert et al. (2006) and Mobasher et al. (2007).
677:
678: In order to include the emission line contribution to the SED, we need
679: to model the emission line fluxes (\ion{O}{2}, \ion{O}{3}, H$\beta$,
680: H$\alpha$, Ly$\alpha$) at any redshift, template and extinction. The
681: rescaling of the template ($A$ in eqn.\ref{chi2}) determines also the
682: emission line fluxes (therefore, the modeling of the fluxes must be
683: done galaxy per galaxy).
684:
685: Our new procedure estimates the [\ion{O}{2}] emission line flux from
686: the UV luminosity of the rescaled template, using the Kennicutt (1998)
687: calibration laws. In the template fitting, a UV rest-frame luminosity
688: corrected for dust extinction can be computed at every step of the
689: redshift/template/extinction grid (the rescaling factor $A$ is taken
690: into account in the UV luminosity). The UV luminosity (at 2300\AA) is
691: then related to the SFR using the relation $SFR{\ts}(M_{\Sun}\
692: yr^{-1}) = 1.4 \times 10^{-28} L_{\nu}{\ts}(erg\ s^{-1} Hz^{-1}$) from
693: Kennicutt (1998). This SFR can then be translated to an [\ion{O}{2}]
694: emission line flux using the relation $SFR{\ts}(M_{\Sun}~yr^{-1})=
695: (1.4 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-41} L_{\rm [OII]}{\ts}(erg~s^{-1})$
696: (Kennicutt 1998). This translates to :
697: \begin{equation}\label{FOII_eqn}
698: log (F_{\rm [OII]}) = -0.4\times M_{\rm UV} + 10.65 -
699: \frac{DM(z)}{2.5}
700: \end{equation}
701: where $DM$ is the distance modulus, $F_{\rm [OII]}$ is expressed in
702: units of $10^{-17}{\ts}erg\ s^{-1}cm^2$ and $M_{\rm UV}$ is the dust
703: corrected $UV$(2300\AA) absolute magnitude.
704:
705:
706: \begin{figure}[htb]
707: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f3.ps}
708: \caption{Relation between the [\ion{O}{2}] flux and the absolute
709: magnitudes in UV (2300\AA). The solid line corresponds to the relation
710: obtained by applying the Kennicutt (1998) relations between $SFR_{\rm
711: OII}$ and $SFR_{\rm UV}$ as used here to include emission line fluxes
712: in the photo-z fitting (see eqn.\ref{FOII_eqn}) and the points are
713: observed emission line fluxes from VVDS (Lamareille et al. 2008).
714: (The UV luminosities and \ion{O}{2} fluxes are corrected for dust
715: extinction.) The red and blue points are galaxies with $M_U-M_R>1.6$
716: and $M_U-M_R<1.6$, respectively. The larger symbols correspond to
717: larger equivalent width.
718: \label{fOII_MNUV}}
719: \end{figure}
720:
721: Figure~\ref{fOII_MNUV} shows the measured [\ion{O}{2}] fluxes from
722: VVDS (Lamareille et al. 2008) and the relation (solid line) expected
723: from Kennicutt (1998). We can perform this comparison only at
724: $0.5<z<1.4$, when the [\ion{O}{2}] line is observable in the VIMOS
725: spectra. Figure~\ref{fOII_MNUV} shows the good correlation between the
726: measured and predicted [\ion{O}{2}] fluxes, with an rms dispersion of
727: 0.2 dex. In acknowledgment of this dispersion, we allow the intrinsic
728: [\ion{O}{2}] flux to vary by a factor of 2 in the templates with
729: respect to the nominal flux predicted by eqn.\ref{FOII_eqn}.
730:
731: With our procedure, we can predict for each galaxy the [\ion{O}{2}]
732: flux at every redshift, template and extinction combination. For the
733: other emission lines, we adopt intrinsic, unextincted flux ratios of
734: [\ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}] = 0.36; [H$\beta$/\ion{O}{2}] = 0.61;
735: [H$\alpha$/\ion{O}{2}] = 1.77 and [Ly$\alpha$/\ion{O}{2}] = 2 (McCall
736: et al. 1985, Moustakas et al. 2006, Mouhcine et al. 2005, Kennicutt
737: 1998). When we apply an additional extinction to the template, we
738: modify these ratios with the corresponding attenuation. Then, we sum
739: the emission line fluxes to the template continuum before integrating
740: through the filter transmission curves.
741:
742: The effect of these emission lines on the modeled $color-redshift$
743: relation is shown in Fig.~\ref{colour_z} for a galaxy at
744: $M_{UV}=-20$. The oscillations in the observed colors versus redshift
745: are well reproduced by the models.
746:
747:
748: \begin{figure*}
749: \includegraphics[width=15.5cm]{f4.ps}
750: \caption{Attenuation by dust as a function of $\lambda$. The points
751: are the extinction $A_i/(E_i(B-V))$ estimated from the galaxies with a
752: spectro-z (see \S3.4). The red points at $\lambda < 3000\rm{\AA}$ are
753: not used to estimate $E_i(B-V)$. The Prevot et al. (1984) and Calzetti
754: et al. (2000) extinction curves are shown with the blue and green
755: solid lines, respectively. The Prevot et al. (1984) extinction law is
756: rescaled to the same $A_{\rm V}$ as the Calzetti law by applying a
757: factor $4.05/2.72$. The extinction curve derived by Prevot et
758: al. (1984) is used for the galaxies redder than SB3 and the Calzetti
759: et al. (2000) extinction law for the galaxies bluer than
760: SB3.\label{SEDext}}
761: \end{figure*}
762:
763:
764: \subsection{Systematic offsets}
765:
766: The $\chi^2$ template-fitting method is meaningful only if the
767: $color-z$ relation predicted from the templates is a good
768: representation of the observed $color-z$ relation. Uncertainties in
769: the zero-point offsets of photometric bands can lead to systematic
770: shifts between the predicted $color-z$ relation and the observed
771: colors of the spectroscopic sample.
772:
773: To evaluate the zero-point errors, we use the spectroscopic sample and
774: set the redshift to the spectro-z value. Then, we determine the
775: best-fit template for each spectroscopic galaxy. For random, normally
776: distributed uncertainties in the flux measurements, $\overline{\Delta
777: F_f}$ should be $\sim$0 (where $\overline{\Delta F_f}$ is the average
778: difference between predicted and observed fluxes in the filter $f$).
779: Instead, we initially find systematic offsets of $\overline{\Delta
780: F_f}$ (as for earlier photo-z derivations, e.g. Brodwin et al. 2006;
781: Ilbert et al. 2006; Mobasher et al. 2007). Such offsets are mainly due
782: to:
783: \begin{itemize}
784: \item uncertainties in the absolute calibration of the photometric
785: zero-points.
786: \item uncertainties in the color modeling (filter transmission
787: curves, incomplete set of templates or an incorrect extinction curve).
788: \end{itemize}
789:
790: These systematic offsets were removed using the iterative procedure
791: detailed in Ilbert et al. (2006). For each filter, $f$, we estimate
792: the values $s_f$ which minimize $\overline{\Delta F_f}$. After having
793: applied the corrections, $s_f$, in each band $f$, the systematic
794: offsets derived in a second iteration can change. The values converge
795: after 3 iterations and we adopted the systematic offsets listed in
796: Table.~\ref{shift}.
797:
798:
799:
800: \subsection{Extinction law}
801:
802: Ilbert et al. (2006) adopted the dust extinction law measured in the
803: Small Magellanic Cloud (Prevot et al. 1984). However, considerable
804: changes in the extinction curve are expected from galaxy to
805: galaxy. Maraston et al. (2006) considered as a free parameter the
806: different extinction curves of the ``Hyperz" package (Bolzonella et
807: al. 2000) (e.g. Milky Way, large and small Magellanic clouds and
808: Calzetti). In order to limit the risk of catastrophic failures, we
809: adopt an intermediate approach here, using the most suitable
810: extinction curve depending on the SED template.
811:
812: For each galaxy of the zCOSMOS sample, we set the redshift to the
813: spectroscopic redshift value. Then, we determine the best fit-template
814: and the appropriate color excess $E(B-V)^{\rm best}$. In this fit, we
815: assume an extinction curve $k(\lambda)$ ($=A(\lambda)/ E(B-V)$). Since
816: the extinction curves do not differ strongly at $\lambda>3000\rm{\AA}$
817: (blue and green curves in Fig.~\ref{SEDext}), we fit the templates
818: using only passbands with $\lambda > 3000 (1+z) \rm{\AA}$. With this
819: procedure, the $E(B-V)^{\rm best}$ value does not depend significantly
820: on the adopted extinction curve.
821:
822: The extinction curves differ strongly at
823: $\lambda<3000\rm{\AA}$. Therefore, we use the rest-frame observed SEDs
824: at $\lambda_{\rm rest-frame} < 3000 \rm{\AA}$ to discriminate between
825: the different extinction curves. Using $m^{\rm obs}$ to represent the
826: observed magnitude and $m^{template}_{uncor}$ to represent the
827: predicted magnitude from the best-fit template (uncorrected for
828: extinction), the extinction $A(\lambda)$ is given by
829: $A(\lambda)=m^{\rm obs} - m^{\rm template}_{\rm uncor}$.
830: Fig.~\ref{SEDext} shows the rest-frame $(m^{\rm obs} - m^{\rm
831: template}_{\rm uncor})/E(B-V)^{\rm best}$ for each flux measurement,
832: i.e the extinction curve $k(\lambda)$. These points are compared with
833: the Calzetti et al. (2000) and the Prevot et al. (1984) extinction
834: curves. (We scaled the Prevot et al. curve to the same $A_{\rm V}$
835: value as Calzetti et al. by applying a factor $4.05/2.72$ which is the
836: ratio between the $R_V$ of the Calzetti and Prevot laws.) The Small
837: Magellanic Cloud extinction curve (Prevot et al. 1994) is well suited
838: for galaxies redder than the starburst template SB3. For galaxies
839: bluer than SB3, the Calzetti et al. (2000) extinction curve is found
840: to be more appropriate (see Fig.~\ref{SEDext}). For the IR sources
841: which are strongly star-forming, Caputi et al. (2008) show also that
842: the Calzetti et al. (2000) extinction law is more appropriate. This
843: result is not surprising since the Calzetti law was determined from
844: observed starburst galaxies. A broad absorption excess at
845: 2175$\rm{\AA}$ (UV bump) seems necessary to explain the UV flux in
846: some starburst galaxies. The presence of this UV bump can be seen in a
847: theoretical modeling of the Calzetti law (Fischera et al. 2004) and in
848: the K20 sample of high redshift galaxies at $1<z<2.5$ (Noll et
849: al. 2007).
850:
851: To summarize, we apply an additional extinction to the templates
852: according to a grid $E(B-V)=0,0.05,0.1,0.15,0.2,0.25,0.3,0.4, 0.5$. We
853: use the Prevot et al. (1994) extinction curve for the templates redder
854: than SB3, and Calzetti et al. (2000) for the templates bluer than
855: SB3. We allow an additional bump at 2175$\rm{\AA}$ for the Calzetti
856: extinction law if it produces a smaller $\chi^2$. No reddening is
857: allowed for galaxies redder than $Sb$.
858:
859:
860:
861: \subsection{$\chi^2$ minimization}
862:
863: The photo-z is the redshift value which minimizes the merit function
864: $\chi^2(z, T, A)$:
865: \begin{equation}
866: \chi^2=\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} \left( \frac{ F_{\rm obs}^f-A\times
867: F_{\rm pred}^f(z, T) \; 10^{-0.4 s_f}}{\sigma_{\rm obs}^f} \right)^2,
868: \label{chi2}
869: \end{equation}
870: where $F_{{\rm pred}}^f(T, z)$ is the flux predicted for a template
871: $T$ at redshift $z$. $F_{{\rm obs}}^f$ is the observed flux and
872: $\sigma_{\rm obs}^f$ is the associated error. The index $f$ refers to
873: each specific filter and $s_f$ is the zero-point offset listed in
874: Table.\ref{shift}. The opacity of the inter-galactic medium (Madau et
875: al. 1995) is taken into account. The photo-z is estimated from the
876: minimization of $\chi^2$ with respect to the free parameters, $z$, $T$
877: and the normalization factor $A$. The color excess $E(B-V)$ is
878: included in the term $T$ (see section 3.4). The grid spacing in
879: redshift is $\delta z=0.01$ and the final redshift is derived by
880: parabolic interpolation of the redshift probability distribution. The
881: redshift probability distribution function (PDFz) is derived directly
882: from the $\chi^2(z)$ distribution:
883: \begin{equation}
884: P(z) \propto exp(- \frac{\chi^2(z)-\chi^2_{\rm min}}{2}).
885: \end{equation}
886: The minimum and maximum redshifts around the photo-z solution,
887: corresponding to the 1$\sigma$ errors, are estimated from the equation
888: $\chi^2(z)=\chi^2_{\rm min}+1$. As in Ilbert et al. (2006), we
889: increased the SExtractor flux errors by a factor of 1.5. This factor
890: does not shift the best-fit photo-z value but broadens the $\chi^2$
891: peak and derived redshift uncertainty.
892:
893:
894:
895:
896:
897:
898: \begin{figure}[htb]
899: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f5.ps}
900: \caption{Color-color diagnostics for sources including stars and galaxies.
901: Stars revealed by the $\chi^2$ classification are shown in green; the
902: red and grey points are galaxies with $z_{\rm p}>1$ and $z_{\rm p}<1$,
903: respectively. \label{BzK}}
904: \end{figure}
905:
906:
907: \subsection{Star/AGN/galaxy classification}
908:
909: For each object, $\chi^2$ is evaluated for both the galaxy templates
910: and stellar SED templates (Chabrier et al. 2000, Bixler et
911: al. 1991). If $\chi^2_{\rm gal}-\chi^2_{\rm star}>0$, where
912: $\chi^2_{\rm gal}$ and $\chi^2_{\rm star}$ are the minimum $\chi^2$
913: values obtained with the galaxy and stellar templates respectively,
914: the object is flagged as a possible star. Leauthaud et al. (2007)
915: catalogued point-like sources in the COSMOS field using the peak
916: surface brightness measured on the ACS images. The SED $\chi^2$ and
917: morphological classification methods were found to be in excellent
918: agreement -- 84\% of the point-like sources at $i^+ <24$ are
919: classified as stars with the SED $\chi^2$ criterion mentioned above,
920: while only 0.2\% of the extended sources on the ACS images are
921: misclassified as stars with the same $\chi^2$ criterion. As shown in
922: Fig.~\ref{BzK}, the star sequence colors are well distinguished from
923: the bulk of the galaxy population if the colors include a NIR
924: band. NIR and MIR data are crucial to separate stars from
925: galaxies. Therefore, we limit the $\chi^2$ star classification to
926: $K<24$ or $F_{3.6 \mu m} > 1
927: \mu Jy$. 2\% of the point-like sources with $i^+ <24$ have $K>24$
928: and $F_{3.6 \mu m} > 1 \mu Jy$. These objects, which are only 2\% of
929: the total population at $i^+<24$, could be stars not recognized as
930: such by our SED $\chi^2$ classification.
931:
932:
933:
934: AGN can be identified by their point-like X-ray emission. Most ($\sim
935: 90\%$) of the 1887 sources detected in {\it XMM}-COSMOS (Brusa et
936: al. 2007) are dominated by an AGN. Their photo-z determinations
937: require a different treatment: a correction for variability of the
938: photometric data and the use of SED templates specifically tuned to
939: AGN and their host galaxies. Accurate photo-z for the {\it XMM}-COSMOS
940: sources are derived in a companion paper (Salvato et al. 2008). Due to
941: the flux limit in XMM-COSMOS (Brusa et al. 2007), the moderately
942: luminous (log(Lx)=42-43 erg/s) and luminous (log(Lx)=43-44 erg/s) AGN
943: are not sampled by XMM-COSMOS at $z=0.5-1.25$ and $z=1.5-3$,
944: respectively. Therefore, this population is not identified as AGN in
945: the galaxy catalogue.
946:
947:
948: \section{Photometric redshift accuracy}
949:
950: In this section, we assess the quality of the derived photometric
951: redshifts by two approaches: comparison with high confidence
952: spectroscopic redshifts and an analysis of the width of the redshift
953: probability distribution function obtained from the $\chi^2$ fitting
954: for the photo-z. The latter approach is justified by the excellent
955: agreement of the z$_s$-z$_p$ distribution with the width of the
956: probability distribution function for the spectroscopic sample.
957:
958:
959: \begin{figure*}
960: \begin{tabular}{c c}
961: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f6a.ps} &
962: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f6b.ps} \\
963: \end{tabular}
964: \caption{Left panel: Comparison between $z_{\rm p}$ and $z_{\rm s}$
965: for the bright spectroscopic selected sample $17.5 \le i^+_{\rm AB}
966: \le 22.5$ (zCOSMOS-bright: Lilly et al. 2008). The dotted and dashed
967: lines are for $z_{\rm p}=z_{\rm s} \pm 0.15 (1 + z_{\rm s})$ and
968: $z_{\rm p}=z_{\rm s} \pm 0.05 (1 + z_{\rm s})$, respectively. The
969: 1$\sigma$ dispersion, the fraction of catastrophic failures and the
970: median apparent magnitude are listed in the top left corner of the
971: left panel. Right panel: $\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm s})$ distribution. The
972: dashed line is a gaussian distribution with $\sigma=0.007$.
973: \label{zp_zs_bright}}
974: \end{figure*}
975:
976: \begin{figure*}
977: \begin{tabular}{c c}
978: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f7a.ps} &
979: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f7b.ps}
980: \end{tabular}
981: \caption{Comparison between $z_{\rm p}$ and $z_{\rm s}$.
982: \ \ Left panel: zCOSMOS-faint sample (Lilly et al. 2008). The open
983: triangles are objects with a secondary peak in the redshift
984: probability distribution function. \ \ Right panel: infrared selected
985: sample (Kartaltepe et al. 2008) split into a bright sample $i^+ <
986: 22.5$ (black), a faint sample $22.5<i^+ <24$ (red) and a very faint
987: sample $24<i^+ <25$ (green).
988: \label{zp_zs}}
989: \end{figure*}
990:
991:
992:
993: \subsection{Comparison of Photometric and Spectroscopic Redshifts}
994:
995: We first assess the quality of the photo-z by comparison with the
996: spectro-z. If $\Delta z = z_{\rm s} - z_{\rm p}$, we can estimate the
997: redshift accuracy from $\sigma_{\Delta z /(1+z_{\rm s})}$ using the
998: normalized median absolute deviation (NMAD: Hoaglin et al. 1983)
999: defined as $1.48 \; \times \; {\rm median}(| z_{\rm p} -z_{\rm s}
1000: |/(1+z_{\rm s}))$. The NMAD is directly comparable to other papers
1001: which directly quote the $rms/(1+z)$. This dispersion estimate is
1002: robust with respect to catastrophic errors (i.e., objects with $|
1003: z_{\rm p}-z_{\rm s} |/(1+z_{\rm s}) > 0.15$). The percentage of
1004: catastrophic errors is denoted by $\eta$.
1005:
1006: Figure~\ref{zp_zs_bright} (left panel) shows the comparison between
1007: $z_{\rm p}$ and $z_{\rm s}$ for the zCOSMOS-bright sample selected at
1008: $i^+<22.5$. The spectro-z sample is selected only by apparent
1009: magnitude and is therefore representative of the entire $i^+<22.5$
1010: population. We obtain an accuracy of $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z)}=0.007$
1011: at $i^+<22.5$ and the distribution of offsets ($(z_{\rm p}-z_{\rm
1012: s})/(1+z_{\rm s})$) is well fit by a gaussian with $\sigma=0.007$
1013: (Fig.~\ref{zp_zs_bright} right panel). The percentage of catastrophic
1014: failures is below 1\%.
1015:
1016: The zCOSMOS-faint sample (Fig.~\ref{zp_zs}, left panel) with a median
1017: apparent magnitude of $i_{\rm med}^+\sim 24$ provides a quality check
1018: for the photo-z at $1.5<z<3$ where the photo-z are expected to have a
1019: significantly higher uncertainty. The faint sample includes galaxies
1020: at $i^+\sim 25$ and the Balmer break is shifted into the NIR where the
1021: filter set has gaps. At $1.5<z<3$, the accuracy is found to be
1022: $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z)}=0.06$ with 20\% catastrophic failures. The
1023: fraction of high-redshift galaxies ($z_{\rm s}>1.5$) for which a
1024: low-redshift photo-z ($z_{\rm p}<0.5$) was assigned is $7\%$ but this
1025: failure rate drops to $4\%$ if the sample is restricted to galaxies
1026: detected at $IRAC(3.6\mu m) >1 \mu Jy$. The zCOSMOS-faint sample
1027: actually includes 54 galaxies with low spectroscopic redshift ($z_{\rm
1028: s}<0.5$ ); 53 out of the 54 galaxies ($>98$\%) were assigned the
1029: correct photo-z low redshift. In summary, we conclude that, for the
1030: faint galaxies, the photo-z of low redshift objects are still assigned
1031: correctly, while the failure rate for high redshift objects is
1032: significantly reduced if the objects have good IRAC detections. Such
1033: result is expected since the photo-z are already including the same
1034: information present in high-z color selections such as $BzK$ (Daddi et
1035: al. 2004) or similar diagnostics using the IRAC bands (Fig.~\ref{BzK})
1036: to isolate the good redshift range.
1037:
1038:
1039: The zCOSMOS-bright and zCOSMOS-faint samples do not probe $0.2<z<1.5$
1040: at $i^+>22.5$. Here, we use as a comparison sample the MIPS-spectro-z
1041: (Kartaltepe et al. 2008). In Fig.~\ref{zp_zs} (right panel), we split
1042: the MIPS-spectro-z sample into bright ($i^+ <22.5$), faint ($22.5<i^+
1043: <24$) and very faint samples ($24<i^+ <25$). For the bright
1044: sub-sample, the dispersion of the MIPS-selected galaxies is
1045: $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm s})}=0.009$, only slightly greater than
1046: that of the optically selected sample at $i^+ <22.5$. For the faint
1047: sub-sample (median apparent magnitude $i^+
1048: \sim 23.1$), $\sigma_{\Delta z /(1+z_{\rm s})}=0.011$, i.e. slightly
1049: worse than for the brighter optically-selected objects. For the very
1050: faint sub-sample, the accuracy is degraded to $\sigma_{\Delta z
1051: /(1+z_{\rm s})}=0.053$ with a catastrophic failures rate of 20\%.
1052: This degradation is due to decreasing signal-to-noise photometry for
1053: faint objects and could be amplified by the infrared selection which
1054: picks up more heavily obscured galaxies and higher redshift galaxies
1055: (e.g. Fig.4 of Le Floc'h et al. 2005).
1056:
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060: \begin{figure}[ht]
1061: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f8.ps}
1062: \caption{Cumulative distribution of the ratio
1063: $|z_{\rm p}-z_{\rm s}|/ (1\sigma \; {\rm error})$. 65\% of the photo-z
1064: have a spectro-z solution encompassed within the 1$\sigma$ error,
1065: close to the expected value of 68\% (magenta dashed line).
1066: \label{error68}}
1067: \end{figure}
1068:
1069: \begin{figure}[ht]
1070: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f9.ps}
1071: \caption{1$\sigma$ uncertainty for the $z_{\rm p}$ estimate as a function of
1072: redshift in different apparent magnitude bin. Each value is computed
1073: with 50 galaxies per bin. The thick solid green lines, the solid
1074: red line, the dashed blue lines and the dotted magenta lines are for
1075: $i^+<22.5$, $22.5<i^+<24$, $24<i^+<25$, $25<i^+<25.5$, respectively.
1076: \label{error_zp}}
1077: \end{figure}
1078:
1079:
1080:
1081:
1082: \subsection{Accuracy derived from the Photo-z Probability Distribution Function}
1083:
1084: Since evaluation of the photo-z accuracy from the comparison with
1085: spec-z is limited to specific ranges of magnitude and redshift, we use
1086: the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty in the derived photo-z probability
1087: distribution to extend the uncertainty estimates over the full
1088: magnitude/redshift space.
1089:
1090:
1091: The reliability of the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty estimate for the photo-z
1092: as derived from the Probability Distribution Function (PDFz) (see
1093: \S3.5) can be checked by comparing this uncertainty with that
1094: derived directly from the photo-z - spec-z offsets for the
1095: spectroscopic sample. Figure~\ref{error68} shows the cumulative
1096: distribution of these offsets normalized by the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty
1097: in the probability function for the zCOSMOS-bright sample (the ratio
1098: $|z_p-z_s|/(1\sigma \; error)$ is lower than 1 if the measured offset
1099: $z_p-z_s$ is lower than the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty). 65\% of the
1100: $z_{\rm p}$ are within the 1$\sigma$ error bars, whereas the expected
1101: fraction is 68\%. We therefore conclude that the 1$\sigma$
1102: uncertainties in the probability function as derived here provide a
1103: robust assessment of the accuracy in $z_{\rm p}$.
1104:
1105: Figure~\ref{error_zp} shows the 1$\sigma$ negative and positive
1106: uncertainties derived from the probability function as a function of
1107: redshift and apparent magnitude. Two clear conclusions emerge: the
1108: accuracy is inevitably degraded for fainter galaxies at all redshifts
1109: and the photo-z have significantly higher uncertainty at $z\gtrsim
1110: 1.25$.
1111:
1112:
1113: \begin{figure*}[htb]
1114: \begin{tabular}{c c}
1115: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f10a.ps} &
1116: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f10b.ps}
1117: \end{tabular}
1118: \caption{Comparison between $z_{\rm p}$ and $z_{\rm s}$ at different steps of
1119: the method. The comparison is done for the zCOSMOS-bright sample
1120: selected at $17.5 \le i^+ \le 22.5$. The left panel shows the photo-z
1121: computed with a standard $\chi^2$ method (no emission lines
1122: contributions and without calibration of the band offsets). The right
1123: panel shows $z_{\rm p}$ computed with the calibration of the band
1124: offsets, but without including emission lines in the
1125: templates. Including emission lines improves the accuracy by a factor
1126: $\sim$2.5. \label{zp_zs_method}}
1127: \end{figure*}
1128:
1129: From $z>0$ out to $z=1.25$, the 1$\sigma$ errors do not depend
1130: significantly on the redshift, with $\sigma_{\Delta z}
1131: \lesssim 0.02$ at $i^+ <24$ (note that we dropped out the division of $\sigma$
1132: by $(1+z)$ in this analysis). To first order, the photo-z are accurate
1133: when the wavelengths of the Balmer and/or Lyman breaks are well
1134: constrained. Therefore, the wavelength coverage of the filter set and
1135: the photometry sensitivities determine the photo-z accuracy as a
1136: function of redshift. The COSMOS photometry coverage is continuous and
1137: dense in the optical from the $u^*$ band ($\lambda_{\rm eff}\sim
1138: 3911{\rm \AA}$) to the $z^+$ band ($\lambda_{\rm eff}\sim 9021{\rm
1139: \AA}$). The average wavelength spacing between consecutive filters is
1140: also only 230\AA. The Balmer break at redshift $z=0$ out to $z=1.25$
1141: is always at $\lambda<9000{\rm \AA}$, thus the high accuracy in this
1142: redshift range.
1143:
1144:
1145: The accuracy degrades at $z>1.25$, where the 4000${\rm \AA}$ Balmer
1146: break goes out of the $z^+$ band ; at $z\sim 1.8$ it is a factor 3
1147: larger than at $z\sim 1.25$ ($\sigma_{\Delta z} \sim 0.14$ for $i^+
1148: \sim 24$). The lack of coverage between the $z'$ and the $J$ band
1149: accounts for the discontinuous increase in uncertainty at $z>1.25$
1150: since the Balmer break can not be located with precision. At $z>1.5$,
1151: the estimated error from the photo-z -- spectro-z comparison is
1152: $\sigma_{\Delta z}=0.19$ (see \S4.1; $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm
1153: s})}=0.06$ at the median redshift $z\sim 2.2$). This accuracy is $\sim
1154: 1.4$ bigger than that estimated from the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty
1155: ($\sigma_{\Delta z}\sim 0.14$ at $i^+\sim 24$). Errors due to bias in
1156: photo-z will not be recovered from the probability distribution
1157: function which could explain this difference. At $z>1.25$, all the
1158: optical filters, which are about 80\% of all used filters, are
1159: sampling the rest-frame UV at $\lambda<3500 {\rm \AA}$. Uncertainties
1160: in the adopted extinction law have considerable impact on the UV slope
1161: and could introduce small biases in the estimate of the photo-z.
1162:
1163: At $z>2.5$, the accuracy improves improves again ($\sigma_{\Delta z}
1164: \lesssim 0.1$ for $24<i^+<25$) when the 4000${\rm \AA}$ Balmer break enters
1165: in the $J$ band ($z\sim 2$) and the UV light shortward of $L_{\alpha}$
1166: enters the $u^*$ band ($z\sim 2.3$).
1167:
1168:
1169:
1170:
1171:
1172: \subsection{Importance of zero-point offsets and emission lines}
1173:
1174:
1175: The major improvements in the technique implemented here are the
1176: carefully iterative evaluation of the photometric zero-point offsets
1177: for all bands and the allowance for a range of emission line
1178: contributions to the fluxes of template SEDs.
1179:
1180: The left panel of Fig.~\ref{zp_zs_method} shows the comparison between
1181: $z_{\rm p}$ and $z{\rm s}$ computed without correction of the
1182: systematic band offsets (see \S3.3) and without including the emission
1183: lines (see \S3.2). Some systematic biases (horizontal and vertical
1184: stripes in Fig.~\ref{zp_zs_method}) greater than $\delta_{z}\sim 0.1$
1185: are clearly seen in the photo-z estimate. For example, galaxies with
1186: $z_{\rm s} \sim 0.8$ are often shifted to $z_z \sim 0.7$. With the
1187: iterative calibration of the band offsets turned on (right panel of
1188: Fig.~\ref{zp_zs_method}), these biases are limited to
1189: $\delta_z<0.05$. This clearly demonstrates the importance of
1190: zero-point calibration to reduce the photo-z bias (as already shown by
1191: Brodwin et al. 2006 and Ilbert et al. 2006).
1192:
1193: The right panel of Fig.~\ref{zp_zs_method} shows the comparison
1194: between $z_{\rm p}$ and $z_{\rm s}$ without including the emission
1195: lines (see \S 3.2). The accuracy is $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm s})}
1196: \sim 0.02$. When the emission lines are included in the templates, the
1197: accuracy is improved by a factor of 2.5 ($\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm
1198: s})}=0.007$, left panel of Fig.~\ref{zp_zs_bright}). Therefore,
1199: including emission lines in the SEDs is crucial, especially when the
1200: medium bands are used to measure $z_{\rm p}$.
1201:
1202:
1203:
1204: \begin{figure}[htb]
1205: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f11.ps}
1206: \caption{Same as Fig.\ref{error68} for the
1207: CFHTLS-Deep survey (Ilbert et al. 2006) and the COMBO-17 survey
1208: (Wolf et al. 2004).
1209: \label{cumule68}}
1210: \end{figure}
1211:
1212:
1213: \begin{figure}[htb]
1214: \centering
1215: \includegraphics[width=8.cm]{f12.ps}
1216: \caption{1$\sigma$ error for the $z_{\rm p}$ estimate as a function of the
1217: apparent magnitude in the redshift range $0.2<z<1.25$. The 1$\sigma$
1218: errors have been rescaled by a factor 1.2 for the COMBO-17 survey
1219: (Wolf et al. 2004) (see text and Fig.~\ref{cumule68}).
1220: \label{error_Ip}}
1221: \end{figure}
1222:
1223:
1224:
1225: \section{Discussion}
1226:
1227: \subsection{Comparison with Other Surveys}\label{other-surveys}
1228:
1229: We now compare the accuracy of the COSMOS-30 photo-z (this work) with
1230: those obtained previously for COMBO-17 (Wolf et al. 2004) and
1231: CFHTLS-DEEP (Ilbert et al. 2006). The accuracies can be compared as a
1232: function of apparent magnitude using the 1$\sigma$ measured
1233: uncertainties in the photo-z probabilities. Once again, we check also
1234: the validity of the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties for other surveys
1235: following the method described in \S4.2. For the COMBO-17 and CFHTLS
1236: photo-z, we use the spectro-z from the VIMOS-VLT Deep Survey (Le
1237: F\`evre et al. 2004, 2005). Figure~\ref{cumule68} shows that about
1238: 53\%, 67\% of the values for $z_{\rm s}$ are included inside the
1239: 1$\sigma$ uncertainties for COMBO-17 and CFHTLS-DEEP survey,
1240: respectively. The 1$\sigma$ errors for $z_{\rm p}$ in COMBO-17 are
1241: rescaled by $\sim$1.2 to obtain 68\% of the $z_s$ within the $1\sigma$
1242: error (This rescale is small and changes nothing in our conclusions).
1243:
1244: Figure~\ref{error_Ip} shows the redshift dependence of the 1$\sigma$
1245: uncertainties in photo-z as a function of magnitude for
1246: $0.2<z<1.25$. The $z_{\rm p}$ for the CFHTLS-DEEP were derived from 5
1247: broad bands ($u^*$, $g^\prime$, $r^\prime$ , $i^\prime$ ,
1248: $z^\prime$). The accuracy of the COSMOS photo-z is improved by a
1249: factor of 3 when compared to CFHTLS-DEEP. This improvement is largely
1250: due to the 12 medium bands in this redshift range (NIR data have a
1251: real impact only at $z>1.25$). We checked this by deriving photo-z
1252: without the 12 medium bands, obtaining an accuracy of $\sigma_{\Delta
1253: z/(1+z_{\rm s})}=0.03$ at $i^+ <22.5$ (similar to the COSMOS release
1254: of Mobasher et al. 2007 using 8 broad bands $u^*$, $B_{\rm J}$,
1255: $V_{\rm J}$, $g^+$, $r^+$, $i^+$, $z^+$ and $K_S$). COMBO-17 includes
1256: 12 medium bands in addition to the 5 broad bands and Wolf et
1257: al. (2004) achieved an accuracy of $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z)}=0.02$ at
1258: $i^+ \sim 21.5$. The accuracies of COMBO-17 photo-z are intermediate
1259: between those of COSMOS-30 and CFHTLS for $i^+_{AB}<22.5$ but become
1260: larger that the CFHTLS accuracies at fainter magnitudes, because the
1261: COMBO-17 data are about 1.5{\ts}mag shallower than the CFHTLS data.
1262: Since only secure photo-z (one solution) have been kept in the
1263: COMBO-17 catalogue, it explains the flattening of the error bars at
1264: $i^+_{AB}>24$.
1265:
1266:
1267: \begin{figure}[htb]
1268: \centering
1269: \includegraphics[width=8.cm]{f13.ps}
1270: \caption{Redshift distribution from the 2-deg$^2$ COSMOS survey (black solid
1271: line), from the 1-deg$^2$ CFHTLS-D2 field (green dashed line), from
1272: the 4-deg$^2$ CFHTLS-DEEP fields (blue dotted line, including also
1273: D2). CFHTLS-D2 covers 1 deg$^2$ within the COSMOS field. The red
1274: long dashed line is the redshift distribution obtained by Fu et
1275: al. (2008) who fit the CFHTLS-DEEP photo-z in the magnitude bin
1276: $21.5<i^+ <24.5$ and the dashed-dotted line is obtained without the
1277: weight applied for the CFHTLS weak lensing selection (J. Coupon,
1278: private communication). \label{distz_convoluee}}
1279: \end{figure}
1280:
1281: \begin{figure}[htb]
1282: \centering
1283: \includegraphics[width=8.cm]{f14.ps}
1284: \caption{Top panel: Evolution of the redshift distribution as a function of $i^+$ magnitude in the COSMOS field. We use the parametrization of Fu et al. (2008) in different redshift bins. Bottom panel: Cumulative redshift distribution. \label{distz_cosmos}}
1285: \end{figure}
1286:
1287:
1288:
1289: \begin{table*}
1290: \begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c c } \hline \\
1291: mag range & $a$ & $b$ & $c$ & $A$ & average z & median z\\
1292: \\
1293: \hline\\
1294: $22.0<i^+_{auto}<22.5$ & 0.497$\pm$0.019 & 12.643$\pm$0.409 & 0.381$\pm$0.016 & 4068.19 & 0.66 & 0.66 \\
1295: $22.5<i^+_{auto}<23.0$ & 0.448$\pm$0.016 & 9.251$\pm$0.218 & 0.742$\pm$0.030 & 9151.98 & 0.76 & 0.72 \\
1296: $23.0<i^+_{auto}<23.5$ & 0.372$\pm$0.012 & 6.736$\pm$0.094 & 1.392$\pm$0.055 & 18232.24 & 0.90 & 0.82 \\
1297: $23.5<i^+_{auto}<24.0$ & 0.273$\pm$0.008 & 5.281$\pm$0.039 & 2.614$\pm$0.096 & 35508.58 & 1.05 & 0.92 \\
1298: $24.0<i^+_{auto}<24.5$ & 0.201$\pm$0.005 & 4.494$\pm$0.024 & 3.932$\pm$0.134 & 60306.30 & 1.18 & 1.00 \\
1299: $24.5<i^+_{auto}<25.0$ & 0.126$\pm$0.003 & 4.146$\pm$0.021 & 5.925$\pm$0.191 & 103340.04 & 1.25 & 1.06 \\
1300: \hline
1301: \end{tabular}
1302: \caption{Galaxy redshift distribution per deg$^2$. The parameters $a$, $b$, $c$ and $A$ of the eqn.\ref{NZ} function (Fu et al. 2008) are given per apparent bin.}
1303: \label{fu}
1304: \end{table*}
1305:
1306:
1307: \subsection{Redshift Distribution of Galaxies}
1308:
1309: Fig.~\ref{distz_convoluee} shows the galaxy redshift distribution per
1310: deg$^2$ from the COSMOS and CFHTLS surveys (for $21.5<i^+_{auto}
1311: <24.5$). Although the surveys are largely independent and the photo-z
1312: are computed with different codes, the overall agreement in the
1313: redshift distributions is excellent. The agreement is particularly
1314: good between COSMOS and CFHTLS-D2 which covers 1 deg$^2$ within the
1315: COSMOS field.
1316:
1317: The density of galaxies at $z>1.5$ in the CFHTLS fields is of a
1318: crucial interest for weak lensing analysis (Benjamin et al. 2007). The
1319: CFHTLS redshift distribution presents a bump at $z\sim 3$, but this
1320: excess could be due to misidentifications between the $z<0.4$ and
1321: $z>1.5$ photo-z (Van Waerbeke et al. 2008) when no NIR data are
1322: available (as is the case for CFHTLS). The COSMOS photo-z are computed
1323: with NIR data and such catastrophic failures are limited (see \S4.1).
1324: Fig.~\ref{distz_convoluee} shows that this bump seems created by a
1325: deficit of galaxies at $2.5<z<3$, by comparing CFHTLS-D2 and COSMOS.
1326:
1327: Fu et al. (2008) used the CFHTLS photo-z distribution to estimate the
1328: matter density parameter $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and the amplitude of the
1329: matter power spectrum $\sigma_8$. The redshift distribution from Fu
1330: et al. (2008) at $21.5<i^+ <24.5$ and $z<2.5$ is over-plotted in
1331: Fig.~\ref{distz_convoluee} with and without (J. Coupon, private
1332: communication) the weight applied for the weak lensing selection
1333: (dashed and dashed-dot lines, respectively). Given the 20\% variation
1334: expected from cosmic variance (Ilbert et al. 2006), it is in excellent
1335: agreement with the COSMOS-30 redshift distribution. This agreement
1336: suggests that the derivation of $\sigma_8(\Omega_{\rm
1337: m}/0.25)^{0.64}=0.785\pm 0.043$ by Fu et al. (2008) is not suffering
1338: from biases due to the photo-z or significant cosmic variance.
1339:
1340: The COSMOS-30 redshift distribution can be fit with a parametrization
1341: similar to that used by Fu et al. (2008):
1342: \begin{equation}\label{NZ}
1343: n(z) = A \frac{(z^a+z^{ab})}{(z^b+c)}
1344: \end{equation}
1345: where A is the normalization factor and $a$, $b$ and $c$ are free parameters.
1346: The best fit parameters $a$, $b$ and $c$ are given in Table~\ref{fu},
1347: as well as the median redshifts. Fig.~\ref{distz_cosmos} shows the
1348: best fit redshift distribution per apparent magnitude bin. As
1349: expected, the median redshift increases at fainter apparent magnitude,
1350: ranging from $z_{\rm m}=0.66$ at $22<i^+ <22.5$ to $z_{\rm m}=1.06$ at
1351: $24.5<i^+ <25$.
1352:
1353:
1354:
1355:
1356: \begin{table*}[htb]
1357: \begin{tabular}{ l l c c c c c } \hline \\
1358: Sample & & N & median $z_s$ & median $i^+$ & $\sigma_{\Delta z /(1+z_{\rm s})}$ & $\eta$ in \% \\
1359: \\
1360: \hline\\
1361: zCOSMOS bright & $17.5<i^+<22.5$ & 4146 & 0.48 & 21.6 & 0.007 & 0.7 \\
1362: zCOSMOS faint & $1.5<z_s<3$ & 147 & 2.20 & 24.0 & 0.054 & 20.4 \\
1363: MIPS bright & $17.5<i^+<22.5$ & 186 & 0.68 & 21.7 & 0.009 & 0.0 \\
1364: MIPS faint & $22.5<i^+<24.0$ & 116 & 0.90 & 23.1 & 0.011 & 0.0 \\
1365: MIPS very faint & $24.0<i^+<25.0$ & 15 & 1.15 & 24.2 & 0.053 & 20.0 \\
1366: \hline
1367: \end{tabular}
1368: \caption{Redshift accuracies estimated from the comparison between photometric redshifts and spectroscopic redshifts.}
1369: \label{sigma}
1370: \end{table*}
1371:
1372:
1373: \section{Summary}
1374:
1375: This paper presents a new version of the photometric redshift catalog
1376: for the 2-deg$^2$ COSMOS survey computed with new ground-based NIR
1377: data, deeper IRAC data and a new set of 12 medium bands from the
1378: Subaru Telescope. The COSMOS photometry now includes a total of 30
1379: filters -- from the UV ({\it GALEX}) to the MIR ({\it
1380: Spitzer}-IRAC). The photo-z catalogue derived here contains 607,617
1381: sources at $i^+ <26$. The 1887 {\it XMM}-COSMOS sources (mainly AGN)
1382: are not included in this catalogue; their photo-z are derived in
1383: Salvato et al. (2008) with similarly good accuracy using a set of
1384: templates for composite AGN/galaxies.
1385:
1386: The galaxy photo-z were tested and improved using spectroscopic
1387: redshift samples from the zCOSMOS and Keck surveys. Biases in the
1388: photo-z were removed by iterative calibration of the photometric band
1389: zero-points. As suggested by the data, two different dust extinction
1390: laws were applied specific to the different SED templates. A new
1391: method to take into account the emission lines was implemented using
1392: relations between the UV continuum and the emission line fluxes
1393: associated with star formation activity. The allowance for emission
1394: lines decreased the photo-z dispersion by a factor 2.5.
1395:
1396: Based on a comparison between our new values for $z_{\rm p}$ and 4148
1397: measured values of $z_{\rm s}$ from zCOSMOS, we estimate an accuracy
1398: of $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z_{\rm s})}=0.007$ for the galaxies brighter
1399: than $i^+ =22.5$. The accuracies measured with the various
1400: spectroscopic samples are summarized in table.\ref{sigma}. We
1401: extrapolate this result to fainter magnitudes using the 1$\sigma$
1402: uncertainties in the photometric redshift probability functions. This
1403: is found to provide reliable uncertainty estimates for the photo-z
1404: technique developed here since these uncertainties agree with the
1405: dispersion in the offsets of photo-z from spec-z for the spectroscopic
1406: sample. At $z<1.25$, we estimate a photo-z accuracy of
1407: $\sigma_{\Delta z}=0.02$, 0.04, 0.07 for $i^+ \sim 24$, $i^+ \sim 25$,
1408: $i^+ \sim 25.5$. The accuracy is strongly degraded at $i^+>25.5$ and
1409: the exploitation of the COSMOS-30 photo-z at fainter magnitudes should
1410: be done carefully. The accuracy is 3-5 times better than the photo-z
1411: determined for the CFHTLS-DEEP (Ilbert et al. 2006) and the previous
1412: COSMOS photo-z release (Mobasher et al. 2007), and 2 times better than
1413: the accuracy of the photo-z determined for COMBO-17 at $i^+<23$ (Wolf
1414: et al. 2004). Deep NIR ($J$, $K$) and IRAC data were essential to keep
1415: the catastrophic failures low at $z>1.25$. We note that the accuracy
1416: of the COSMOS photo-z could soon be further improved at z $> 1.25$
1417: with the addition of new data currently being obtained in the $Y$ band
1418: (UKIRT), $H$ band (CFHT) and the ULTRA-VISTA survey.
1419:
1420:
1421:
1422:
1423:
1424: Our photo-z catalogue contains 607,617 sources at $i^+<26$. The
1425: accurate photo-z derived here for this extremely large sample of
1426: galaxies are crucial to scientifically exploit the full legacy value
1427: of the multi-$\lambda$ data sets in the COSMOS field ({\it HST}-ACS,
1428: {\it Spitzer}, {\it GALEX}, VLA, {\it XMM} and {\it Chandra}).
1429:
1430: \acknowledgments
1431: We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the entire COSMOS
1432: collaboration consisting of more than 100 scientists. The {\it HST}
1433: COSMOS program was supported through NASA grant HST-GO-09822. French
1434: co-authors acknowledge support from the French Agence National de la
1435: Recheche fund ANR-07-BLAN-0228 (DESIR project). More information on
1436: the COSMOS survey is available at http://www.astro.caltech.edu/cosmos
1437: . We also greatly appreciate the hospitality provided by the Aspen
1438: Center for Physics where this manuscript was completed.
1439:
1440:
1441:
1442: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1443:
1444:
1445: \bibitem[{Arnouts et al. }]{Arnouts99} Arnouts, S. et al. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 540
1446: \bibitem[{Arnouts et al. }]{Arnouts07} Arnouts, S., Walcher, C. J., Le F\`evre O. et al. 2007, A\&A, 476, 137
1447: \bibitem[{Ball et al. 2004}]{Ball04} Ball N.M., Loveday J., Fukugita M., Nakamura O., Okamura S., Brinkmann J. \& Brunner R.J., 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1038
1448: \bibitem[{Baum }]{Baum62} Baum, W.A. 1962, Problems of Extra-Galactic Research, 15, 390
1449: %\bibitem[{Ben{\'{\i}}tez }]{Benitez00} Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N. 2000, ApJ, 536, 571
1450: %\bibitem[{Ben{\'{\i}}tez }]{Benitez04} Ben{\'{\i}}tez N., Ford H., Bouwens R. et al. 2004, ApJS, 150, 1
1451: \bibitem[{Benjamin et al. }]{Benjamin07} Benjamin J., Heymans C., Semboloni E. et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 702
1452: \bibitem[{Bertin \& Arnouts }]{Bertin96} Bertin E.~\& Arnouts S. 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
1453: \bibitem[{Bixler et al. }]{Bixler91} Bixler J.V., Bowyer S. \& Laget M., A\&A, 250, 370
1454: %\bibitem[{Blake et al. }]{Blake06} Blake, C., Parkinson, D.; Bassett, B. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 355, 265
1455: \bibitem[{Bolzonella et al. }]{Bolzonella00} Bolzonella, M., Miralles, J.-M. \& Pell{\' o}, R. 2000, A\&A, 363, 476
1456: %\bibitem[{Bolzonella et al. }]{Bolzonella02} Bolzonella, M., Pell{\' o}, R., \& Maccagni, D. 2002, A\&A, 395, 443
1457: \bibitem[{Boulade et al. }]{Boulade03} Boulade, O., Charlot, X., Abbon, P. et al. 2003, SPIE, 4841, 72
1458: \bibitem[{Brodwin et al. }]{Brodwin06} Brodwin, M., Lilly, S.J., Porciani, C. et al. 2006, ApJS, 162, 20
1459: \bibitem[{Brusa et al. }]{Brusa07} Brusa, M., Zamorani, G., Comastri, A. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 353
1460: %\bibitem[{Bruzual et al. }]{Bruzual93} Bruzual, A.,G. \& Charlot, S. 1993, ApJ, 405, 538
1461: \bibitem[{Bruzual et Charlot }]{Bruzual03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
1462: \bibitem[{Budav{\' a}ri et al. }]{Budavari00} Budav{\' a}ri, T., Szalay, A.~S., Connolly, A.~J., Csabai, I. \& Dickinson, M. 2000, AJ, 120, 1588
1463: \bibitem[{Calzetti et al. }]{Calzetti00} Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R.,C. et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682
1464: \bibitem[{Capak et al. }]{Capak08} Capak, P. et al., 2008, in preparation
1465: \bibitem[{Capak et al. }]{Capak07} Capak, P., Aussel, H., Ajiki, M. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172 , 99
1466: \bibitem[{Caputi et al. }]{Caputi06} Caputi K.I., McLure R.J., Dunlop J.S., Cirasuolo M. \& Schael A.M., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 609
1467: \bibitem[Caputi et al. ]{Caputi08} Caputi K.I., Lilly S.J., Aussel H. et al., 2008, ApJ, 680, 939
1468: \bibitem[{Chabrier et al. }]{Chabrier00} Chabrier G., Baraffe I., Allard F. \& Hauschildt P., 2000, ApJ, 542, 464
1469: \bibitem[{Coleman et al. }]{Coleman80} Coleman, G. D., Wu, C.-C., Weedman, D.W. 1980, ApJS, 43, 393
1470: \bibitem[{Colister et al. }]{Colister04} Collister, A. A. \& Lahav, O. 2004, PASP, 116, 345
1471: %\bibitem[{Connolly et al. }]{Connolly95} Connolly, A.~J., Csabai, I., Szalay, A.~S., Koo, D.~C., Kron, R.~G., \& Munn, J.~A. 1995, AJ, 110, 2655
1472: %\bibitem[{Csabai et al. }]{Csabai00} Csabai, I., Connolly, A.~J., Szalay, A.~S. \& Budav{\' a}ri, T. 2000, AJ, 119, 69
1473: \bibitem[Daddi et al. ]{Daddi04} Daddi, E., Cimatti, A., Renzini, A. et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, 127
1474: %\bibitem[{Desai et al. }]{Desai08} Desai, V., Soifer, B. T., Dey, A. et al. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1204
1475: \bibitem[{Feldmann et al. }]{Feldmann06} Feldmann, R., Carollo, C. M., Porciani, C. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 565
1476: \bibitem[{Fern{\' a}ndez-Soto et al. }]{Fernandez99} Fern{\' a}ndez-Soto, A., Lanzetta, K.~M. \& Yahil, A. 1999, ApJ, 513, 34
1477: \bibitem[Fischera et al. ]{Fischera03} Fischera, J., Dopita, M.~A., \& Sutherland, R.~S. 2003, ApJL, 599, L21
1478: \bibitem[{Fontana et al. }]{Fontana00} Fontana, A., D'Odorico, S., Poli, F. et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 2206
1479: \bibitem[Fu et al.(2008)]{Fu08} Fu, L., Semboloni, E., Hoekstra, H. et al. 2008, A\&A, 479, 9
1480: \bibitem[{Gabasch et al. }]{Gabasch04} Gabasch, A., Bender, R., Seitzer, S. al. 2004, A\&A, 421, 41
1481: \bibitem[Guillaume et al. (2006)]{Guillaume06} Guillaume M., Llebaria A., Aymeric D., Arnouts S. \& Milliard B. 2006, SPIE, 6064, 332
1482: \bibitem[{Heinis et al. }]{Heinis07}Heinis, S., Milliard, B., Arnouts, S. et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 503
1483: \bibitem[{Hoaglin et al. }]{Hoaglin83}Hoaglin, D. C., Mosteller, F., \& Tukey, J. W 1983, Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis. John Wiley \& Sons, 404-414.
1484: \bibitem[{Ilbert et al. }]{Ilbert06} Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J. et al. 2006, A\&A, 457, 841
1485: \bibitem[{Kartaltepe et al. }]{Kartaltepe08} Kartaltepe, J. et al. 2008, in preparation
1486: \bibitem[Kennicutt ]{Kennicutt98} Kennicutt, R.C. 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 189
1487: \bibitem[{Lamareille et al. }]{Lamareille08} Lamareille, F. et al. 2008, in preparation
1488: \bibitem[{Leauthaud et al. }]{Leauthaud07} Leauthaud, A., Massey, R., Kneib, J.-P. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 219
1489: \bibitem[{Le F\`evre et al. }]{LeFevre04} Le F{\` e}vre, O., Vettolani, G., Paltani, S. et al. 2004, A\&A, 428, 1043
1490: \bibitem[{Le F\`evre et al. }]{LeFevre05} Le F\`evre, O., Vettolani, G., Garilli, B. et al. 2005, A\&A, 439, 845
1491: \bibitem[{Lilly et al. }]{Lilly07} Lilly S. J., Le F\`evre, O., Renzini, A. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 70
1492: \bibitem[{Lilly et al. }]{Lilly08} Lilly, S. J. et al., 2008, in preparation
1493: \bibitem[{Lonsdale et al. }]{Lonsdale03} Lonsdale, C. J., Smith, H. E., Rowan-Robinson, M. et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 897
1494: \bibitem[{Madau et al. }]{Madau96} Madau, P., Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M. E. et al. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388
1495: \bibitem[{Maraston et al. }]{Maraston06} Maraston, C., Daddi, E., Renzini, A., Cimatti, A. et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 85
1496: \bibitem[{Mazure et al. }]{Mazure07} Mazure, A., Adami, C., Pierre, M. et al. 2007, A\&A, 467, 49
1497: \bibitem[{McCall et al. }]{McCall85} McCall, M. L., Rybski, P. M., \& Shields, G. A. 1985, ApJS, 57, 1
1498: %\bibitem[{McCracken et al. }]{McCracken03} McCracken, H. J., Radovich, M., Bertin, E. et al. 2003, A\&A, 410, 17
1499: \bibitem[{McCracken et al. }]{McCracken07} McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., Mellier, Y. 2007, A\&A, 479, 431
1500: \bibitem[{McCracken et al. }]{McCracken08} McCracken, H. J. et al. 2008, in preparation
1501: %\bibitem[Meisenheimer \& Wolf]{Meisenheimer02} Meisenheimer, K. \& Wolf, C. 2002, Astronomy and Geophysics, 43, 15
1502: \bibitem[Mobasher et al. ]{Mobasher07}Mobasher, B., Capak, P., Scoville, N. Z. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 117
1503: \bibitem[Mouhcine et al. ]{Mouhcine05} Mouhcine, M., Lewis, I., Jones, B., Lamareille, F., Maddox, S.~J. \& Contini, T. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 1143
1504: \bibitem[Moustakas et al. ]{Moustakas06} Moustakas, J., Kennicutt, R.~C. \& Tremonti, C.~A. 2006, ApJ, 642, 775
1505: \bibitem[Noll et al. ]{Noll07} Noll, S., Pierini, D., Pannella, M. \& Savaglio, S. 2007, A\&A, 472, 455
1506: \bibitem[Peacock et al. ]{Peacock06} Peacock, J. A., Schneider, P., Efstathiou, G. et al. 2006, ESA-ESO Working Group on ''Fundamental Cosmology'', arXiv:astro-ph/0610906
1507: \bibitem[{Polletta et al. }]{Polletta06}Polletta, M., Tajer, M., Maraschi, L. et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 81
1508: \bibitem[{Prevot et al. }]{Prevot84} Prevot, M. L., Lequeux, J., Prevot, L., Maurice, E. \& Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1984, A\&A, 132, 389
1509: \bibitem[{Rowan-Robinson et al. }]{Rowan-Robinson08} Rowan-Robinson, M., Babbedge, T., Oliver, S. et al. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 697
1510: \bibitem[{Sanders et al. }]{Sanders07}Sanders, D. B., Salvato, M., Aussel, H. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 86
1511: \bibitem[{Sasaki et al. }]{Sasaki08} Sasaki, S. et al. 2008, ApJ, in preparation
1512: \bibitem[{Salvato et al.}]{Salvato08}Salvato, M. et al. 2008, ApJ, in preparation
1513: \bibitem[{Sawicki et al. }]{Sawicki97}Sawicki, M. J., Lin, H., Yee, H. K. C. 1997, AJ, 113, 1
1514: \bibitem[{Scoville et al. }]{Scoville07}Scoville, N. Z., Abraham, R. G., Aussel, H. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 38
1515: \bibitem[{Schlegel et al. }]{Schlegel98} Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., \& Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
1516: \bibitem[{Silva et al. }]{Silva98}Silva, L., Granato, G. L., Bressan, A. et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, 103
1517: %\bibitem[{Steidel et al. }]{Steidel99} Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson M., Pettini M. 1999, ApJ, 519, 1
1518: \bibitem[{Steidel et al. }]{Steidel04} Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A., Pettini, M. et al. 2004, ApJ, 604, 534
1519: %\bibitem[{Stern et al. }]{Stern05} Stern, D., Eisenhardt, P., Gorjian, V. et al. 2005, ApJ, 631, 163
1520: \bibitem[{Surace et al. }]{Surace04} Surace, J. A., Shupe, D. L., Fang, F. 2004, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2255, 0
1521: \bibitem[{Taniguchi et al. }]{Taniguchi07} Taniguchi, Y., Scoville N. Z., Murayama, T. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 9
1522: \bibitem[{Taniguchi et al. }]{Taniguchi08} Taniguchi, Y. et al. 2008, ApJ, in preparation
1523: \bibitem[{van Waerbeke et al.}]{vanWaerbeke08} van Waerbeke, L. 2008, ApJ, in preparation
1524: \bibitem[{Wang \& Steinhardt}]{Wang98} Wang, L., \& Steinhardt, P. J. 1998, ApJ, 508, 483
1525: \bibitem[{Wolf et al. }]{Wolf03} Wolf C., Meisenheimer, K., Rix, H.-W. et al. 2003, A\&A, 401, 73
1526: \bibitem[{Wolf et al. }]{Wolf04} Wolf C., Meisenheimer, K., Kleinheinrich, M. et al. 2004, A\&A, 421, 913
1527: \bibitem[{Zamojski et al. }]{Zamojski07} Zamojski, M. A., Schiminovich, D., Rich, R. M. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 468
1528: \bibitem[{Zucca et al. }]{Zucca06} Zucca, E., Ilbert, O., Bardelli, S. et al. 2006, A\&A, 455, 879
1529:
1530:
1531:
1532: \end{thebibliography}
1533:
1534: \clearpage
1535:
1536: \end{document}
1537:
1538: