1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \shorttitle{A Steep Faint-End Slope at $z\sim 2-3$}
3: \shortauthors{Reddy \& Steidel}
4: \slugcomment{Received 2008 July 15; Accepted 2008 October 10}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \newcommand{\umg}{U_{\rm n}-G}
9: \newcommand{\rmk}{{\cal R}-\ks}
10: \newcommand{\ebmv}{E(B-V)}
11: \newcommand{\sfr}{{\rm M}_{\odot} ~ {\rm yr}^{-1}}
12: \newcommand{\ks}{K_{\rm s}}
13: \newcommand{\ugr}{U_{\rm n}G{\cal R}}
14: \newcommand{\bzk}{BzK}
15: \newcommand{\rs}{{\cal R}}
16: \newcommand{\gmr}{G-\rs}
17: \newcommand{\lya}{Lyman~$\alpha$}
18: \newcommand{\lyb}{Lyman~$\beta$}
19: \newcommand{\za}{$z_{\rm abs}$}
20: \newcommand{\ze}{$z_{\rm em}$}
21: %\newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
22: \newcommand{\cmtwo}{cm$^{-2}$}
23: \newcommand{\nhi}{$N$(H$^0$)}
24: \newcommand{\degpoint}{\mbox{$^\circ\mskip-7.0mu.\,$}}
25: \newcommand{\kms}{\,km~s$^{-1}$} % note leading thinspace
26: \newcommand{\minpoint}{\mbox{$'\mskip-4.7mu.\mskip0.8mu$}}
27: \newcommand{\peryr}{\mbox{$\>\rm yr^{-1}$}}
28: \newcommand{\secpoint}{\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}}
29: \newcommand{\sqdeg}{\mbox{${\rm deg}^2$}}
30: \newcommand{\squig}{\sim\!\!}
31: \newcommand{\subsun}{\mbox{$_{\twelvesy\odot}$}}
32: %\newcommand{\sun}{\mbox{$\twelvesy\odot$}}
33: \newcommand{\et}{{\rm et al.}~}
34:
35: %\twocolumn[
36: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
37: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
38: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
39: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
40: \def\arcs{$''~$}
41: \def\arcm{$'~$}
42: \def\erf{\mathop{\rm erf}}
43: \def\erfc{\mathop{\rm erfc}}
44:
45:
46: \title{A STEEP FAINT-END SLOPE OF THE UV LUMINOSITY FUNCTION AT $z\sim 2-3$:
47: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GLOBAL STELLAR MASS DENSITY AND STAR FORMATION IN LOW
48: MASS HALOS\altaffilmark{1}} \author{\sc Naveen
49: A. Reddy\altaffilmark{2,3} \& Charles C. Steidel\altaffilmark{4}}
50:
51: \altaffiltext{1}{Based, in part, on data obtained at the W.M. Keck
52: Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the
53: California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and
54: NASA, and was made possible by the generous financial support of the
55: W.M. Keck Foundation.}
56:
57: \altaffiltext{2}{National Optical Astronomy Observatory, 950 N. Cherry
58: Ave, Tucson, AZ 85719}
59: \altaffiltext{3}{Hubble Fellow.}
60: \altaffiltext{4}{California Institute of Technology, MS 105--24, Pasadena,
61: CA 91125}
62:
63: \begin{abstract}
64:
65: We use the deep ground-based optical photometry of the Lyman Break
66: Galaxy (LBG) Survey to derive robust measurements of the faint-end
67: slope ($\alpha$) of the UV luminosity function (LF) at redshifts
68: $1.9\le z\le 3.4$. Our sample includes $>2000$ spectroscopic
69: redshifts and $\approx 31000$ LBGs in $31$ spatially-independent
70: fields over a total area of $3261$~arcmin$^{2}$. These data allow us
71: to select galaxies to $0.07L^{\ast}$ and $0.10L^{\ast}$ at $z\sim 2$
72: and $z\sim 3$, respectively. A maximum-likelihood analysis indicates
73: steep values of $\alpha(z=2)=-1.73\pm0.07$ and
74: $\alpha(z=3)=-1.73\pm0.13$. This result is robust to
75: luminosity-dependent systematics in the Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width
76: and reddening distributions, is similar to the steep values advocated
77: at $z\ga 4$, and implies that $\approx 93\%$ of the unobscured UV
78: luminosity density at $z\sim 2-3$ arises from sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies.
79: With a realistic luminosity-dependent reddening distribution, faint to
80: moderately luminous galaxies account for $\ga 70\%$ and $\ga 25\%$ of
81: the bolometric luminosity density and present-day stellar mass
82: density, respectively, when integrated over $1.9\le z<3.4$. We find a
83: factor of $8-9$ increase in the star formation rate density between
84: $z\sim 6$ and $z\sim 2$, due to both a brightening of $L^{\ast}$ and
85: an increasing dust correction proceeding to lower redshifts.
86: Combining the UV LF with stellar mass estimates suggests a relatively
87: steep low mass slope of the stellar mass function at high redshift.
88: The previously observed discrepancy between the integral of the star
89: formation history and stellar mass density measurements at $z\sim 2$
90: may be reconciled by invoking a luminosity-dependent reddening
91: correction to the star formation history combined with an accounting
92: for the stellar mass contributed by UV-faint galaxies. The steep and
93: relatively constant faint-end slope of the UV LF at $z\ga 2$ contrasts
94: with the shallower slope inferred locally, suggesting that the
95: evolution in the faint-end slope may be dictated simply by the
96: availability of low mass halos capable of supporting star formation at
97: $z\la 2$.
98:
99: \end{abstract}
100:
101: \keywords{galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: formation --- galaxies:
102: high redshift --- galaxies: luminosity function}
103:
104: \section{INTRODUCTION}
105: \label{sec:intro}
106:
107: The last decade has seen significant advances in our understanding of
108: the history of star formation and stellar mass assembly. Today, one
109: can find several hundred determinations of the star formation rate
110: density (SFRD) estimated from observations at many wavelengths across
111: a large range of lookback time. Taken together, these observations
112: suggest a rapid increase in the SFRD from the epoch of reionization to
113: $z\sim 1-2$, after which time the SFRD steadily decreased over the
114: last $\sim 10$~billion years. This picture is generally understood in
115: the context of hierarchical buildup at early times and gas exhaustion
116: or heating at late times. While this characterization of the star
117: formation history is broadly accepted, there are several key details
118: that are missing from this interpretation, including the potentially
119: important contribution of UV-faint (sub-$L^{\ast}$) galaxies to the
120: census of star formation and baryon budget. If rest-UV/optical light
121: is a biased tracer of galaxy formation --- particularly at high
122: redshift where most of the baryons in galaxies are likely to reside in
123: cold gas \citep{prochaska08} --- then faint galaxies may constitute an
124: important population for studying the process of star formation and
125: feedback. Further, the number density of both bright and faint
126: galaxies departs significantly from expectations based on the
127: $\Lambda$CDM model, suggesting a regulation of star formation in both
128: luminosity regimes. In this paper, we present an extension of our
129: previous work on the UV luminosity function at $z\sim 2-3$ in order to
130: provide robust constraints on the prevalence of UV-faint galaxies at
131: epochs when galaxies were forming most of their stars.
132:
133: The luminosity function (LF) is a fundamental probe of galaxy
134: formation and evolution, and can be used to address the relative
135: importance of bright and faint galaxies to the energy budget at a
136: given epoch. Furthermore, comparison with the dark matter halo
137: distribution informs us of the efficiency of star formation and
138: effects of feedback at different mass scales \citep{rees77, silk98,
139: dekel06}. Therefore, constraining accurately the shape of the LF is a
140: necessary step in acquiring a more complete census of galaxies and
141: elucidating the relationship between the baryonic processes that
142: govern galaxy evolution and the dark matter halos that host them.
143:
144: The UV LF is relevant in several respects. Rest-frame UV emission is
145: a direct tracer of massive star formation, modulo the effects of dust.
146: Rest-frame UV observations of high redshift galaxies are generally not
147: limited by spatial resolution and the deepest observations are up to a
148: factor of $\approx 2000$ times more sensitive than those in the
149: infrared and longer wavelengths. The combination of resolution,
150: sensitivity, and the accessibility of UV wavelengths over almost the
151: entire age of the Universe makes the UV LF a unique tool in assessing
152: the star formation history. The relative efficiency of UV-dropout
153: selection has enabled a number of investigations of the UV LF at high
154: redshifts based on photometrically-selected samples \citep{steidel99,
155: adel00, yan04b, bunker04, dickinson04, bouwens07, sawicki06a, reddy08,
156: ouchi04, beckwith06, yoshida06, iwata07}.
157:
158: Apart from the uncertainties that can be constrained from photometry
159: alone, such as photometric errors and field-to-field variations,
160: spectroscopy is a critical means of quantifying several important
161: systematics that can affect the LF. These include contamination from
162: low redshift objects and high redshift AGN/QSOs, attenuation of UV
163: emission due to the opacity of the intergalactic medium (IGM), and
164: perturbation of galaxy colors due to Ly$\alpha$, reddening, and
165: stellar population ages of galaxies. The relevance of these
166: systematic effects is underscored by the fact that while there are
167: numerous studies of the UV LF, the results have been inconsistent,
168: both at low ($z\la 3$; e.g., \citealt{reddy08,lefevre05}) and at high
169: ($z\ga 4$; e.g., \citealt{beckwith06, bouwens07}) redshifts.
170:
171: Unfortunately, spectroscopic surveys have been limited to UV-bright
172: ($\rs\la 25.5$) galaxies at relatively low redshifts ($z\la 4$) and
173: spectroscopic constraints on the number density of faint sources at
174: $z\ga 2$ are still lacking. Deeper spectroscopy is expensive and will
175: remain so until the next generation of large ($\ga 10$~m) ground-based
176: telescopes come online. Given the present practical limitations and
177: the complexity of systematics involved in computing LFs, it seems
178: prudent to revisit and extend our initial estimate of the UV LF
179: (\citealt{reddy08}, hereafter R08) by evaluating the impact of these
180: systematics on the inferred number density of faint galaxies at $z\sim
181: 2-3$. We go beyond the initial analysis of R08 by quantifying several
182: important effects relevant in the computation of star formation rate
183: and stellar mass densities, including the effects of
184: luminosity-dependent dust corrections and the integrated stellar mass
185: of low mass galaxies.
186:
187: To this end, we combine what we know about the spectroscopic
188: properties of LBGs at $z\sim 2-3$ with deep ground-based optical data
189: in 31 spatially independent fields to determine the faint-end slope
190: with greater precision. A brief description of the LBG survey,
191: photometry, and followup spectroscopy is given in
192: \S~\ref{sec:selection}. Our method for computing the UV LF is
193: presented in \S~\ref{sec:maxlik}, and results are discussed in
194: \S~\ref{sec:results}. Our results are compared with those in the
195: literature and analyzed in the context of the early Hubble Deep Field
196: (HDF) results, and we assess the impact of sample variance in
197: \S~\ref{sec:lsc}. The evolution of the UV LF is quantified in
198: \S~\ref{sec:lfevol}. The contribution to the faint-end population
199: from dusty, star-forming galaxies as well as quiescently-evolving
200: galaxies with large stellar masses is discussed in
201: \S~\ref{sec:nature}. \S~\ref{sec:sfrd} and \ref{sec:sfrdevol} present
202: constraints on the star formation rate density (SFRD) and its
203: evolution. We also reassess the stellar mass density at $z\sim 2$ and
204: compare it to inferences from integrating the star formation history.
205: Finally, the evolution of the faint-end slope of the UV LF is
206: discussed briefly in \S~\ref{sec:alpha}. All magnitudes are expressed
207: in AB units, unless stated otherwise. Unless indicated, a
208: \citet{kroupa01} IMF is assumed. A flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology is
209: assumed with $H_{0}=70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$,
210: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, and $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3$.
211:
212: \section{DATA: SAMPLE SELECTION AND SPECTROSCOPY}
213: \label{sec:selection}
214:
215: \subsection{Fields and Photometry}
216: \label{sec:fields}
217:
218: The Lyman Break Galaxy (LBG) survey is being conducted in fields
219: chosen primarily for having relatively bright background QSOs with
220: which to study the interface between the IGM and galaxies at $z\sim
221: 2-3$ \citep{adel03, adelberger04, adelberger05b, steidel03,
222: steidel04}. Additionally, the survey was extended to include fields
223: that are the focus of multi-wavelength campaigns, including the
224: Groth-Westphal \citep{steidel03,groth94} and GOODS-North fields
225: \citep{dickinson03,giavalisco04}. Presently, the survey includes 31
226: fields, 29 of which have been targeted spectroscopically (see R08 for
227: further details). As emphasized throughout this paper, the large
228: number of spatially independent fields provides a precise handle on
229: the magnitude of sample variance, an effect that has limited the
230: conclusions that could be drawn from previous determinations of the
231: LF. For this analysis, we have included two additional fields beyond
232: the 29 that were presented in R08, ``Q1603'' and ``Q2240''.
233: Instruments used and dates of observation are presented in
234: \citet{steidel03, steidel04}. For ease of reference, the fields are
235: listed in Table~\ref{tab:fields}; together they include an area of
236: 3261 arcmin$^{2}$, or $0.91$~square degrees.
237:
238: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcrrrrr}
239: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
240: \tablewidth{0pc}
241: \tablecaption{Survey Fields}
242: \tablehead{
243: \colhead{} &
244: \colhead{$\alpha$\tablenotemark{a}} &
245: \colhead{$\delta$\tablenotemark{b}} &
246: \colhead{Field Size} &
247: \colhead{} &
248: \colhead{} &
249: \colhead{} \\
250: \colhead{Field Name} &
251: \colhead{(J2000.0)} &
252: \colhead{(J2000.0)} &
253: \colhead{(arcmin$^{2}$)} &
254: \colhead{$\rs_{\rm lim}$} &
255: \colhead{$N_{\rm BX}$\tablenotemark{c}} &
256: \colhead{$N_{\rm LBG}$\tablenotemark{d}}}
257: \startdata
258: Q0000 & 00 03 25 & -26 03 37 & \*18.9 & 25.5 & 78 & 29 \\
259: CDFa & 00 53 23 & 12 33 46 & \*78.4 & 26.0 & 490 & 192 \\
260: CDFb & 00 53 42 & 12 25 11 & \*82.4 & 25.5 & 347 & 123 \\
261: Q0100 & 01 03 11 & 13 16 18 & \*42.9 & 26.5 & 579 & 230 \\
262: Q0142 & 01 45 17 & -09 45 09 & \*40.1 & 26.0 & 379 & 158 \\
263: Q0201 & 02 03 47 & 11 34 22 & \*75.7 & 26.0 & 289 & 114 \\
264: Q0256 & 02 59 05 & 00 11 07 & \*72.2 & 25.5 & 325 & 105 \\
265: Q0302 & 03 04 23 & -00 14 32 & 244.9 & 25.5 & 2113 & 1025 \\
266: Q0449 & 04 52 14 & -16 40 12 & \*32.1 & 26.5 & 287 & 138 \\
267: B20902 & 09 05 31 & 34 08 02 & \*41.8 & 25.5 & 229 & 72 \\
268: Q0933 & 09 33 36 & 28 45 35 & \*82.9 & 26.0 & 723 & 313 \\
269: Q1009 & 10 11 54 & 29 41 34 & \*38.3 & 26.5 & 512 & 305 \\
270: Q1217 & 12 19 31 & 49 40 50 & \*35.3 & 26.0 & 311 & 83 \\
271: GOODS-N & 12 36 51 & 62 13 14 & 155.3 & 26.0 & 496 & 154 \\
272: Q1307 & 13 07 45 & 29 12 51 & 258.7 & 26.0 & 2011 & 718 \\
273: Westphal & 14 17 43 & 52 28 49 & 226.9 & 25.5 & 783 & 289 \\
274: Q1422 & 14 24 37 & 22 53 50 & 113.0 & 26.0 & 1041 & 518 \\
275: 3C324 & 15 49 50 & 21 28 48 & \*44.1 & 25.5 & 187 & 56 \\
276: Q1549 & 15 51 52 & 19 11 03 & \*37.3 & 26.0 & 329 & 153 \\
277: Q1603 & 16 04 56 & 38 12 09 & \*38.8 & 26.5 & 396 & 160 \\
278: Q1623 & 16 25 45 & 26 47 23 & 290.0 & 26.0 & 1878 & 735 \\
279: Q1700 & 17 01 01 & 64 11 58 & 235.3 & 26.0 & 2263 & 609 \\
280: Q2206 & 22 08 53 & -19 44 10 & \*40.5 & 26.0 & 257 & 70 \\
281: SSA22a & 22 17 34 & 00 15 04 & \*77.7 & 25.5 & 274 & 183 \\
282: SSA22b & 22 17 34 & 00 06 22 & \*77.6 & 26.0 & 435 & 217 \\
283: Q2233 & 22 36 09 & 13 56 22 & \*85.6 & 26.0 & 420 & 173 \\
284: DSF2237b & 22 39 34 & 11 51 39 & \*81.7 & 26.5 & 1004 & 474 \\
285: Q2240 & 22 40 02 & 03 17 50 & \*35.9 & 26.0 & 421 & 176 \\
286: DSF2237a & 22 40 08 & 11 52 41 & \*83.4 & 26.5 & 553 & 183 \\
287: Q2343 & 23 46 05 & 12 49 12 & 212.8 & 25.5 & 1209 & 436 \\
288: Q2346 & 23 48 23 & 00 27 15 & 280.3 & 26.0 & 1547 & 472 \\
289: \\
290: {\bf TOTAL} & {\bf ...} & {\bf ...} & {\bf 3260.8} & {\bf ...} & {\bf 22166} & {\bf 8663} \\
291: \enddata
292: \tablenotetext{a}{Right ascension in hours, minutes, and seconds.}
293: \tablenotetext{b}{Declination in degrees, arcminutes, and arcseconds.}
294: \tablenotetext{c}{Number of BX candidates to the limiting magnitude given in column (5).}
295: \tablenotetext{d}{Number of LBG candidates to the limiting magnitude given in column (5).}
296: \label{tab:fields}
297: \end{deluxetable*}
298:
299: Excepting Q1603, a modified version of FOCAS \citep{valdes82} was used
300: to extract photometry from the optical ($\ugr$) images of the survey
301: fields. Source Extractor \citep{bertin96} was used for photometry in
302: Q1603. We took care to minimize systematics between the FOCAS and
303: Source Extractor results for Q1603 from an examination of the color
304: distribution of recovered LBG candidates. Object detection was done
305: at $\rs$ band, and $\gmr$ and $\umg$ colors were computed by applying
306: the isophotal aperture from the $\rs$ band image to the $U_n$ and $G$
307: images. Further details on the photometry are discussed in
308: \citet{steidel03} and \citet{steidel04}. The images have a
309: $5$~$\sigma$ depth of $27.5-29.5$~AB as measured through a $\sim
310: 3\arcsec$ diameter aperture.
311:
312: \subsection{Color Selection}
313: \label{sec:colorselection}
314:
315: We used the BX and LBG criteria which are based on the rest-frame UV
316: colors expected of galaxies at redshifts $1.9\la z\la 2.7$ and $2.7\la
317: z\la 3.4$, respectively \citep{steidel04, steidel03}. For
318: spectroscopic followup, the sample of candidates was limited to
319: $\rs=25.5$. However, because we are interested in using the entire
320: photometric sample to constrain the LF at $1.9\la z\la 3.4$, we did
321: not impose this restriction. Rather, the detection significance and
322: color distribution of candidates were examined to establish a faint
323: limit. The limits applied to each field and numbers of candidates are
324: listed in Table~1. Fields with the deepest imaging in the survey
325: allow us to select candidates to $\rs\sim 26.5$ with a detection
326: completeness of $\approx 60\%$, based on the simulations described
327: below. Our maximum-likelihood method for computing the LF allows us
328: to extend the absolute magnitude limit $\approx 0.5$~mag fainter given
329: the broadness of the redshift distribution, $N(z)$, of the sample as
330: constrained from extensive spectroscopic followup. Even at these
331: depths, galaxies are detected with typically $\ga 5$~$\sigma$
332: significance in the $\rs$-band. The photometric sample used here
333: includes BX candidates in the original LBG survey fields where no
334: spectroscopic followup of BX candidates was undertaken.
335:
336: \subsection{Spectroscopy}
337: \label{sec:specfollow}
338:
339: The spectroscopy of UV-selected candidates including LBGs and BXs is
340: discussed in \citet{steidel03, steidel04}. To date, roughly $24\%$
341: and $35\%$ of BX and LBG candidates, respectively, with $\rs<25.5$
342: have been targeted spectroscopically. The resulting sample includes
343: $2023$ star-forming galaxies with $1.9\le z_{\rm spec}<3.4$, the
344: largest spectroscopic sample of star-forming galaxies at these
345: redshifts. The spectroscopic statistics, including the number of
346: spectroscopic redshifts, for each field of the LBG survey are given in
347: R08.
348:
349: The spectroscopic sample is used to estimate the overall contamination
350: rate in the photometric sample. This contamination can arise from
351: stars, low redshift galaxies and AGN, as well as QSOs and AGN at
352: $1.9\le z<3.4$. The contamination statistics and the extent to which
353: they can be applied to determine the number of contaminants in the
354: photometric sample are discussed in R08. Note that the contamination
355: rate is a strong function of magnitude (being largest at bright
356: magnitudes) and quantifying it is a crucial step in computing the
357: bright-end of the LF.
358:
359: \section{INCOMPLETENESS CORRECTIONS}
360: \label{sec:maxlik}
361:
362: \subsection{Method}
363:
364: The approach that we adopted to correct the LBG sample for
365: incompleteness and compute the UV LF is described in detail by R08.
366: For convenience, here we summarize a few of the key features of our
367: method. The primary goal is to construct a set of transformations
368: that relate the observed properties of galaxies (e.g., observed
369: luminosity, rest-frame UV slope, and redshift) to their true
370: properties (e.g., intrinsic luminosity, reddening, and redshift).
371: Using X-ray and mid-IR data for a sample of LBGs at $z\sim 2-3$,
372: \citet{reddy06a} demonstrate that the rest-frame UV slope can be used
373: to measure the amount of dust reddening for typical LBGs, and we will
374: assume this for the subsequent discussion.
375:
376: We first used a Monte Carlo simulation to add galaxies of varying
377: sizes and colors to our $\ugr$ images. The distribution of colors
378: reflects that expected for star-forming galaxies at $z\sim 2-3$ with
379: constant star formation for $>100$~Myr and varying amounts of dust
380: reddening. Specifically, we added objects with redshifts $1<z<4$ and
381: reddening of $0.0<\ebmv<0.6$. The simulated redshift is used to apply
382: an IGM opacity to the colors using the \citet{madau95} prescription.
383: To make the simulation as realistic as possible, we forced the
384: simulated galaxies to abide by a \citet{schechter76} luminosity
385: distribution and added just $100-200$ of them at a time to the images.
386: The latter restriction maintains the deblending statistics which in
387: turn affect the photometric errors. Photometry was performed in the
388: same manner as was used on the real data and the detection rate and
389: recovered magnitudes and colors of the simulated galaxies were
390: recorded. We repeated this procedure until $\approx 2\times 10^5$
391: galaxies were added to the images in each field of the survey.
392:
393: It is common to use such simulations to determine what fraction of
394: galaxies with a given magnitude will be detected with colors that
395: satisfy the LBG selection criteria. However, strictly speaking, the
396: simulation will only tell us the probability that galaxies with a
397: given {\em simulated} magnitude will be detected with a given {\em
398: recovered} magnitude, and there may not be a monotonic
399: correspondence between simulated and recovered magnitude. More
400: generally, it is not necessarily true that the average simulated
401: properties of galaxies are equivalent to their average observed
402: properties. This is particularly true if photometric errors have
403: significant biases and are comparable to the bin sizes used to compute
404: the LF and the selection window spans a region of color space not much
405: larger than the typical photometric errors. Other systematic effects,
406: such as the Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width distribution ($W_{\rm
407: Ly\alpha}$) of the population, may scatter galaxies in certain
408: directions of color space. Also, some galaxies with simulated colors
409: that do not initially satisfy the color criteria may have recovered
410: colors that do: by definition, these galaxies' simulated properties
411: will not, on average, reflect their observed properties. Because of
412: these systematic effects, the number of galaxies that lie in a
413: particular bin of observed properties will be some weighted
414: combination of the number of galaxies in any number of bins of
415: simulated properties.
416:
417: Because of these systematic effects, we approach the problem of
418: incompleteness by using the maximum likelihood method described in
419: R08. Using this formalism, our goal is to maximize
420: the likelihood of a given set of luminosity, reddening, and redshift
421: distributions, denoted by $\cal{L}$, according to the following
422: expression:
423: \begin{eqnarray}
424: -\ln{\cal{L}} \propto \sum_{ijk} \bar{n}_{ijk} - \sum_{ijk} n_{ijk}\ln
425: \bar{n}_{ijk},
426: \label{eq:minlik}
427: \end{eqnarray}
428: where $\bar{n}_{ijk}$ is the expected number of galaxies in the
429: i$^{\rm th}$ bin of luminosity, j$^{\rm th}$ bin of reddening, and
430: k$^{\rm th}$ bin of redshift that the values of the luminosity,
431: reddening, and redshift distributions imply and $n_{ijk}$ is the
432: observed number of galaxies in that bin. The Monte Carlo simulations
433: give the probability that a galaxy in the $i'j'k'$ bin of simulated
434: properties will lie in the $ijk$ bin of recovered properties. The set
435: of probabilities, defined as the transitional probability function,
436: \begin{eqnarray}
437: \xi \equiv \{p_{i',j',k'\rightarrow ijk}\},
438: \label{eq:xi}
439: \end{eqnarray}
440: is used to compute $\bar{n}_{ijk}$. The basic procedure is to then
441: vary the input distributions of luminosity, reddening, and redshift
442: until the differences between the expected and observed numbers of
443: galaxies in each $ijk$ bin are minimized.
444:
445: \subsection{Ly$\alpha$ Equivalent Width ($W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$) Distribution}
446:
447: An important systematic effect to consider is the scattering of colors
448: due to the presence of Ly$\alpha$ emission and absorption: the
449: Ly$\alpha$ line falls within the $U_n$ and $G$ bands at redshifts that
450: are targeted with the BX and LBG criteria, the same bands that are
451: used to select the galaxies. Rather than adding the $W_{\rm
452: Ly\alpha}$ distribution as another free parameter in the
453: maximum-likelihood analysis --- thus complicating our ability to
454: determine the LF --- we performed simulations where we made various
455: assumptions regarding the intrinsic $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution at
456: $z\sim 2-3$ and observed the effects on the best-fit LF (R08). We did
457: this by adding a random $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ drawn from a distribution
458: of $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ to each galaxy, and then recomputing the colors
459: of each galaxy. Effectively, the addition of Ly$\alpha$ will perturb
460: the colors and thus modulate the transitional probability function,
461: $\xi$. R08 showed that the BX and LBG color criteria did little to
462: alter the intrinsic $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution at $z\sim 2$ and
463: $z\sim 3$. Therefore, we assume the $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution
464: observed for BXs and LBGs (Figure~\ref{fig:lyaew}). Here, we repeat
465: the simulations of R08, but also allow for changes in the shape of the
466: $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution proceeding from UV-bright to UV-faint
467: galaxies (see Appendix).
468:
469: \begin{figure}[t]
470: \plotone{f1.eps}
471: \caption{Intrinsic rest-frame Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width ($W_{\rm
472: Ly\alpha}$) distribution for $\rs\le 25.5$ star-forming galaxies
473: at $1.9\le z<2.7$ and $2.7\le z<3.4$, from R08.
474: Ly$\alpha$ in emission is represented as $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}>0$. Error
475: bars are determined from simulations and reflect the variance in the
476: distributions allowed by the errors in the UV LF and reddening
477: distribution (see R08 for discussion).}
478: \label{fig:lyaew}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481: \section{RESULTS: THE UV LF AT $1.9\le z<3.4$}
482: \label{sec:results}
483:
484: \subsection{Computation of the LF and Errors}
485:
486: The value of the luminosity distribution that maximizes the likelihood
487: of observing our data (Eq.~\ref{eq:minlik}) is computed using the
488: method discussed in the previous section. Initially, we assumed that
489: the intrinsic distribution of (1) rest-frame UV slopes, (2) redshifts,
490: and (3) $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ remain constant as a function of apparent
491: magnitude. In R08, we justified these assumptions when computing the
492: LF to our spectroscopic limit of $\rs = 25.5$. However, it is not
493: unreasonable to suspect that, for example, the reddening and $W_{\rm
494: Ly\alpha}$ distributions of galaxies fainter than our spectroscopic
495: limit may be different than those for galaxies where we are able to
496: directly measure the distributions with spectroscopy (``spectroscopic
497: distributions''). Such differences will change $\xi$ and thus affect
498: our incompleteness corrections. First, we first made the simplified
499: assumptions that all of these distributions remain unchanged as a
500: function of apparent magnitude. LFs derived in this case are referred
501: to as the ``fiducial'' LFs. In the appendix, we discuss how
502: the LF would change if we adopt more realistic assumptions for the
503: properties of UV-faint galaxies. In our analysis, the effect of
504: increasing photometric error for fainter galaxies is already
505: incorporated in the calculation of $\xi$.
506:
507: LFs were computed separately for star-forming galaxies in the redshift
508: ranges $1.9\le z<2.7$ and $2.7\le z<3.4$ using the photometric BX and
509: LBG samples, respectively. For the lower redshift range, the LF is
510: computed in terms of a (composite) absolute magnitude that is the
511: average of the $G$ and $\rs$-band fluxes. For the higher redshift
512: range, the LF is computed using the $\rs$-band magnitude. This method
513: provides the closest match between rest-frame wavelengths, roughly
514: $1700$~\AA.
515:
516: The total error in the LF is computed using the following method. The
517: observed number counts of galaxies in each field were adjusted
518: randomly in accordance with a Poisson distribution and the
519: maximum-likelihood LF was computed for each field. This procedure was
520: repeated many times for all the fields. The dispersion in the LF
521: values for each bin in absolute magnitude is taken as the total error
522: which, as a consequence of the way in which it is computed, includes
523: both Poisson and field-to-field variations.
524:
525: \subsection{Summary of Systematic Effects and Final Results}
526: \label{sec:summary}
527:
528: The details of the systematic tests performed to judge the effects of
529: luminosity-dependent $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ and reddening distributions on
530: the LF are presented in the Appendix. To summarize, we analyzed the
531: influence of galaxies with (1) strong Ly$\alpha$ emission and (2) zero
532: or declining reddening with apparent UV magnitude. Employing current
533: estimates of the mean stellar population, reddening, and number
534: density of galaxies with strong Ly$\alpha$ emission as a function of
535: UV luminosity at high redshifts, we find that the inferred number
536: density of galaxies on the faint-end of the UV LF increases by $\la
537: 3\%$ at $1.9\le z<2.7$ and decreases by $\la 4\%$ at $2.7\le z<3.4$.
538: Because these changes are not negligible compared to the Poisson and
539: field-to-field errors on the faint-end number densities, they should
540: be included in any proper assessment of the LF. Nonetheless, these
541: changes in number density can be accommodated by Schechter
542: parameterizations that vary within the uncertainties of the individual
543: parameters, $\alpha$, $M^{\ast}$, and $\phi^{\ast}$.
544:
545: We have also examined how changes in the mean reddening of galaxies as
546: function of UV luminosity affects our measurement of the UV LF. We
547: considered two scenarios, one in which the extinction drops to zero
548: for galaxies fainter than $\rs=25.5$ and one in which the extinction
549: decreases monotonically with UV luminosity, and approaches zero in the
550: faintest luminosity bin considered here. The latter scenario is more
551: realistic than the former, and is parameterized as a linear relation
552: between $\ebmv$ and magnitude (see the appendix; we refer to
553: this latter scenario as the ``luminosity-dependent reddening model'').
554: In this case, we find appreciable increases of $\approx 10\%$ in the
555: inferred number density between $1.9 \le z<2.7$. In the higher
556: redshift range $2.7\le z<3.4$, there is little change in the inferred
557: number densities. Our final determinations of the LF and the
558: corresponding Schechter fits are shown by the data points and solid
559: lines, respectively, in Figure~\ref{fig:uvlf}, with the values and
560: Schechter parameterization listed in Tables~\ref{tab:uvlf} and
561: \ref{tab:schechterfinal}.
562:
563: \begin{figure*}[t]
564: \plotone{f2.eps}
565: \caption{Rest-frame UV luminosity functions of star-forming galaxies
566: at $1.9\le z<2.7$ ({\em circles}) and $2.7\le z<3.4$ ({\em squares}),
567: along with the best-fit \citet{schechter76} functions. The $68\%$ and
568: $95\%$ likelihood contours between $M^{\ast}$ and $\alpha$ for our
569: final determinations of the LFs are shown in the inset panel.}
570: \label{fig:uvlf}
571: \end{figure*}
572:
573: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
574: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
575: \tablewidth{0pc}
576: \tablecaption{Rest-Frame UV Luminosity Functions of $1.9\la z\la 3.4$ Galaxies}
577: \tablehead{
578: \colhead{} &
579: \colhead{} &
580: \colhead{$\phi$} \\
581: \colhead{Redshift Range} &
582: \colhead{M$_{\rm AB}(1700\AA)$} &
583: \colhead{($\times 10^{-3}$~$h^{3}_{0.7}$~Mpc$^{-3}$~mag$^{-1}$)}}
584: \startdata
585: $1.9\le z<2.7$ & $-22.83$ --- $-22.33$ & $0.004\pm0.003$ \\
586: & $-22.33$ --- $-21.83$ & $0.035\pm0.007$ \\
587: & $-21.83$ --- $-21.33$ & $0.142\pm0.016$ \\
588: & $-21.33$ --- $-20.83$ & $0.341\pm0.058$ \\
589: & $-20.83$ --- $-20.33$ & $1.246\pm0.083$ \\
590: & $-20.33$ --- $-19.83$ & $2.030\pm0.196$ \\
591: & $-19.83$ --- $-19.33$ & $3.583\pm0.319$ \\
592: & $-19.33$ --- $-18.83$ & $7.171\pm0.552$ \\
593: & $-18.83$ --- $-18.33$ & $8.188\pm0.777$ \\
594: & $-18.33$ --- $-17.83$ & $12.62\pm1.778$ \\
595: \\
596: $2.7\le z<3.4$ & $-23.02$ --- $-22.52$ & $0.003\pm0.001$ \\
597: & $-22.52$ --- $-22.02$ & $0.030\pm0.013$ \\
598: & $-22.02$ --- $-21.52$ & $0.085\pm0.032$ \\
599: & $-21.52$ --- $-21.02$ & $0.240\pm0.104$ \\
600: & $-21.02$ --- $-20.52$ & $0.686\pm0.249$ \\
601: & $-20.52$ --- $-20.02$ & $1.530\pm0.273$ \\
602: & $-20.02$ --- $-19.52$ & $2.934\pm0.333$ \\
603: & $-19.52$ --- $-19.02$ & $4.296\pm0.432$ \\
604: & $-19.02$ --- $-18.52$ & $5.536\pm0.601$ \\\enddata
605: \label{tab:uvlf}
606: \end{deluxetable}
607:
608: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
609: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
610: \tablewidth{0pc}
611: \tablecaption{Best-fit Schechter Parameters for UV LFs of $1.9\la z\la 3.4$ Galaxies}
612: \tablehead{
613: \colhead{Redshift Range} &
614: \colhead{$\alpha$} &
615: \colhead{M$^{\ast}_{\rm AB}(1700{\rm \AA})$} &
616: \colhead{$\phi^{\ast}$ ($\times 10^{-3}$~Mpc$^{-3}$)}}
617: \startdata
618: $1.9\le z<2.7$ & $-1.73\pm0.07$ & $-20.70\pm0.11$ & $2.75\pm0.54$ \\
619: $2.7\le z<3.4$ & $-1.73\pm0.13$ & $-20.97\pm0.14$ & $1.71\pm0.53$ \\
620: \enddata
621: \label{tab:schechterfinal}
622: \end{deluxetable}
623:
624: Our determinations of the bright-end of the UV LFs to $M(1700\AA) =
625: -18.83$ and $-19.52$ at $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 3$, respectively,
626: incorporate data over $3261$~arcmin$^{2}$ in $31$ independent fields.
627: Data from 22 fields and $2239$~arcmin$^{2}$ are used to constrain the
628: LFs at $-18.83\le M(1700\AA)<-18.33$ and $-19.52\le M(1700\AA) <
629: -19.02$ at $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 3$, respectively. Finally, data from
630: 6 spatially independent fields and $317$~arcmin$^{2}$ are used to
631: constrain the LF in the faintest magnitude bin to $M(1700\AA) =
632: -17.83$ and $-18.52$ at $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 3$, respectively. To
633: ensure that spatial variance in these 6 deep fields are not driving
634: the observed faint-end slope, we recalculated $\alpha$ by fitting
635: Schechter functions to the LFs excluding the faintest bin. Allowing
636: $\phi^{\ast}$ and $M^{\ast}$ to vary, we calculate $\alpha = -1.75\pm
637: 0.09$ and $-1.94\pm0.18$ at $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 3$, respectively,
638: still significantly steeper than the shallower $\alpha>-1.6$ found in
639: previous studies. The similarity in $\alpha$ obtained with or without
640: data from the faintest bin is not surprising given that the
641: uncertainty in the LF includes the sample variance from the $6$ fields
642: used to constrain the number density in this bin.
643:
644: The degeneracy between the faint-end slope ($\alpha$) and
645: characteristic magnitude ($M^{\ast}$) --- illustrated by the
646: likelihood contours in Figure~\ref{fig:uvlf} (inset) --- is reduced
647: significantly compared to that computed in R08. Our analysis extends
648: to luminosities that are $4$ times fainter than the limit dictated by
649: efficient spectroscopy, and $\approx 14$ and $10$ times fainter,
650: respectively, than the characteristic luminosity $L^{\ast}$ at $z\sim
651: 2$ and $3$. Our sample is large enough so that the error in the LF at
652: all magnitudes is dominated by field-to-field variations
653: (Figure~\ref{fig:frac}). Within the total errors, the UV LFs at
654: $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 3$ are virtually indistinguishable, indicating
655: little change between the two in the number density of both UV-bright
656: and UV-faint galaxies.
657:
658: \begin{figure}[t]
659: \plotone{f3.eps}
660: \caption{Poisson ({\em dashed line}) and total ({\em solid line})
661: error in the UV LF at $z\sim 2$. The Poisson error increases to
662: fainter magnitudes given the smaller survey area used to constrain the
663: faint-end. At all magnitudes, however, the error in the LF is
664: dominated by field-to-field variations. Similar results are obtained
665: for the $z\sim 3$ UV LF.}
666: \label{fig:frac}
667: \end{figure}
668:
669: \section{Discussion: Large-Scale Context}
670: \label{sec:lsc}
671:
672: \begin{figure*}[t]
673: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps}
674: \caption{Comparison of UV LFs at $z\sim 2$ ({\em left}) and $z\sim 3$
675: ({\em right}). For clarity, data points are excluded on all but our
676: current determinations and those of \citet{sawicki06a}, but the
677: errors are typically smaller than the observed differences discussed
678: in the text. Also shown are the survey areas over which the LF is
679: derived, with some surveys using a combination of wider shallower
680: data to anchor the bright-end of the LF and deeper data in smaller
681: areas to constrain the faint-end slope. Included are are data from
682: \citet{reddy08, sawicki06a, paltani07, arnouts05, gabasch04, poli01,
683: adel00, steidel99}.}
684: \label{fig:uvlfcomp}
685: \end{figure*}
686:
687: In the following sections, we discuss our results in the context of
688: previous determinations of the UV LF (\S~\ref{sec:context}) and its
689: evolution with redshift (\S~\ref{sec:lfevol}). To gain further
690: insight into the nature of sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies, we assess the
691: contribution to the faint-end population from dusty, star-forming
692: galaxies and those with large stellar masses (\S~\ref{sec:nature}).
693: In \S~\ref{sec:sfrd}, we discuss the implications of a
694: luminosity-dependent reddening distribution and the average
695: corrections required to recover the bolometric star formation rate
696: density. These findings are then discussed in the context of the star
697: formation history and the buildup of stellar mass in
698: \S~\ref{sec:sfrdevol}. Finally, we discuss briefly the evolution of
699: the faint-end slope in \S~\ref{sec:alpha}.
700:
701: \subsection{Comparisons at $z\sim 2-3$}
702: \label{sec:context}
703:
704: In this section, we place our results in the context of previous
705: determinations of the UV LFs, starting with those around $z\sim 2$.
706: Figure~\ref{fig:uvlfcomp} summarizes the results of several previous
707: studies including those of \citet{gabasch04, sawicki06a} and R08,
708: along with our current determination, at $z\sim 2$. The redshift
709: intervals over which the LF is computed are similar between these
710: studies, but we note the almost two orders of magnitude difference in
711: the areas probed, from $\approx 40$~arcmin$^{2}$ at the low end to
712: $3261$~arcmin$^{2}$ in the current determination. There are
713: significant differences between the LFs at faint magnitudes
714: ($M(1700\AA)\ga -20$). In general, it is possible that the
715: determinations of the smaller surveys (e.g., from the FORS-Deep Field;
716: \citealt{gabasch04}) could be mimicked by an overall under-density in
717: the small area probed combined with an overestimation of the
718: bright-end due to contamination from low redshift interlopers.
719: \citet{gabasch04} do not specify the contamination fractions for their
720: higher redshift samples at $z\ga 2$, so a fair comparison with our
721: findings at the bright-end is not possible. We also note that
722: \citet{gabasch04} relied on photometric redshifts which could not be
723: well-calibrated due to the lack of spectroscopically-confirmed
724: galaxies at $z\sim 2$ examined in their study (see their Figure~2).
725: R08 showed that biases in photometric redshifts can easily boost the
726: bright-end of the luminosity function with respect to the faint-end,
727: and the overall shape of their LF may be a result of this effect.
728:
729: Perhaps a fairer comparison can be made with \citet{sawicki06a} since
730: they use exactly the same filter set to select BX candidates at $z\sim
731: 2.3$ in the Keck Deep Fields (KDFs). For their fiducial model, they
732: assumed no perturbation of colors due to Ly$\alpha$ and a constant
733: $\ebmv=0.15$ with no dispersion, and they compute the LF using the
734: standard $V_{\rm eff}$ method. Their LF suggests a much shallower
735: slope of $\alpha\sim -1.2$ compared to our result
736: (Figure~\ref{fig:uvlfcomp}). However, \citet{sawicki06a} point out
737: that their LF derived at $z\sim 2$ is sensitive to the assumed
738: $\ebmv$, and that bluer values of $\ebmv$ will tend to yield larger
739: inferred number densities (see their Figure~7). This observation is
740: consistent with our finding and, in particular, if the $\ebmv$
741: distribution becomes significantly bluer proceeding to fainter
742: galaxies, this effect would manifest itself as a steepening of the
743: faint-end slope (appendix). However, this systematic
744: effect alone cannot account for all of the difference between our
745: result and that of \citet{sawicki06a}, since even in the fiducial case
746: of a luminosity-invariant $\ebmv$ distribution (but not
747: constant-valued) we find a steep $\alpha=-1.67\pm0.06$
748: (appendix). In any case, regardless of how the mean
749: $\ebmv$ varies with magnitude, the distribution itself is not a delta
750: function, of course, and has intrinsic dispersion; those galaxies at
751: the blue end of the distribution (i.e., less reddening) will tend to
752: escape the selection criteria more frequently than galaxies with
753: redder $\ebmv$. Hence, a bluer mean $\ebmv$, the intrinsic scatter in
754: $\ebmv$ for UV-faint galaxies, and a general perturbation of colors
755: due to Ly$\alpha$ will all result in larger corrected number densities
756: at the faint-end.
757:
758: Focusing on the higher redshift range, we find again reasonable
759: agreement among the various determinations of the bright-end of the UV
760: LF at $z\sim 3$.\footnote{\citet{sawicki06a} use the results from
761: \citet{steidel99} to constrain the bright-end of the UV LF at $z\sim
762: 3$.} The only significantly discrepant points are from the VVDS that
763: imply significant numbers of UV-bright galaxies \citep{paltani07}.
764: However, applying the correct contamination fractions (based on
765: spectroscopy) to their points brings them in accordance with the other
766: determinations (R08). As at lower redshifts, we find a
767: substantially steeper faint-end slope at $z\sim 3$ than suggested by
768: previous results. Most determinations have found $\alpha>-1.6$,
769: shallower than the canonical $\alpha=-1.6$ from \citet{steidel99},
770: although most of these studies (including \citealt{steidel99})
771: constrained $\alpha$ using deep data from only one or two small deep
772: fields (e.g., Hubble Deep Field, FORS Deep Field) where large-scale
773: structure may be an issue. \citet{sawicki06a} find $\alpha =
774: -1.43^{+0.17}_{-0.09}$ based on the Keck Deep Field data over an area
775: of $169$~arcmin$^{2}$.
776:
777: \subsection{Differences in LF Computation}
778: \label{sec:difflfcomp}
779:
780: What could be the reason for the disparity in the faint-end number
781: densities between our study and previous determinations? Without a
782: more detailed comparative analysis incorporating the data used in
783: these other studies, it is difficult to pinpoint a single cause for
784: the discrepancy. There are, however, a number of differences between
785: our analysis and others that may lead to the observed variance in
786: $\alpha$. Our analysis (1) uses over $2000$ spectroscopic redshifts
787: to evaluate and correct for contamination as a function of luminosity;
788: (2) models the systematic effects of a luminosity dependence in the
789: intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width and reddening distribution of
790: galaxies, likely to be the two dominant sources of systematic error in
791: the LF; (3) employs a maximum-likelihood method that is more robust
792: than the $V_{\rm eff}$ method against biases in photometry and other
793: non-uniform sources of scatter; and (4) takes advantage of data in
794: $31$ spatially uncorrelated fields over a total area of close to a
795: square degree. Even at the faint-end, our determinations are based on
796: $6$ independent fields with a total area of $317$~arcmin$^{2}$, a
797: roughly $88\%$ larger area than used in the previous faint-end
798: determination at $z\sim 2-3$ (but see next section). For all of these
799: reasons, we believe our LFs to be the most robust determinations to
800: date.
801:
802: The differences in faint-end slope derived between studies with
803: similar depth is not particularly significant within the marginalized
804: errors on $\alpha$. For example, the $\alpha=-1.43^{+0.17}_{-0.09}$
805: of \citet{sawicki06a} is still consistent within the $1$~$\sigma$
806: (marginalized) error of our determination of $\alpha=-1.73\pm 0.13$ at
807: $z\sim 3$. Yet, the difference in the actual number density of faint
808: galaxies is significant at the $2-3$~$\sigma$ level. This emphasizes
809: why comparisons between $\alpha$ derived in different studies should
810: perhaps not be taken too seriously without placing them in the context
811: of the errors on the actual number density of UV-faint galaxies.
812:
813: \subsection{Cosmic Variance}
814:
815: In spite of the care used in the present sample, even
816: $317$~arcmin$^{2}$ is a relatively small area over which to constrain
817: $\alpha$. As noted above, the uncertainties in the LF are dominated
818: by field-to-field variance at all magnitudes. We can assess how the
819: empirically-constrained errors on the UV LF compare to expectations
820: based on the correlation function. Following the procedure outlined
821: by \citet{trenti08}, we can estimate the combined uncertainty due to
822: cosmic variance and Poisson statistics by integrating the two point
823: correlation function for dark matter halos with some average galaxy
824: bias. The basic premise is that the spatial correlation function of
825: halos gives information on the variance in the spatial distribution of
826: galaxies along different lines of sight given various assumptions for
827: the cosmology and halo filling factor. For this calculation, we
828: assumed a number density of objects as implied by the
829: maximum-likelihood LF at $z\sim 2$ and a sample ``completeness''
830: fraction of $0.47$. This number is the ratio of star-forming galaxies
831: that satisfy the color selection criteria to the total number of
832: star-forming galaxies as determined from the LF (see R08 for a
833: discussion of this fraction). The cosmology is set as follows:
834: $\Omega_{\lambda} = 0.74$, $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.26$, $H_{\rm o} =
835: 70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$, a spectral index $n_{\rm s} = 1$, and
836: $\sigma_{\rm 8} = 0.9$ \citep{spergel07}. We must also make some
837: assumption for the halo filling factor. Star-forming galaxies are
838: scattered out of the LBG selection window due to primarily random
839: processes such as photometric scatter \citep{reddy05a}, and must
840: therefore cluster in the same way as galaxies that do satisfy the LBG
841: criteria \citep{conroy08}. Further, the comoving number density of
842: LBGs is similar to the number density of halos that have similar
843: clustering strength, suggesting a halo filling factor of $\approx 1$
844: \citep{conroy08}. Assuming this remains valid for UV-faint galaxies,
845: we find a fractional error in number counts of $\approx 9\%$ over a
846: survey area of $317$~arcmin$^{2}$. In general, we would expect this
847: calculation to yield a lower limit to the uncertainty since other
848: effects (e.g., uncertainties in zeropoints and systematics in the
849: color distributions from field to field) contribute to the error in
850: the LF, and indeed our empirically-derived error in the faintest bin
851: of the $z\sim 2$ UV LF is $\approx 50\%$ larger than the value
852: obtained from the two point correlation function. For comparison,
853: this calculation implies that the field-to-field variance is $\approx
854: 17\%$ lower than what we would have obtained over the area probed by
855: the KDFs of $169$~arcmin$^{2}$ \citep{sawicki06a}. This difference is
856: not large enough to explain the apparent discrepancy at the faint-end,
857: and some of the systematics discussed above are also likely to play a
858: role. Deep UV imaging over areas of close to a square degree (similar
859: to that used to estimate the bright-end of the LF) will be required to
860: constrain the fractional error in number counts to $\la 5\%$.
861:
862: \subsection{Hubble Deep Field (HDF)}
863: \label{sec:hdf}
864:
865: A comparison between the present work and those of the early HDF-based
866: studies of the UV LF is useful, particularly in light of the
867: often-used argument that the HDF presents a biased view of the
868: Universe, and one that is invoked to explain the divergent results on
869: the UV LF at $z\sim 3$ \citep{steidel99, dickinson03, giavalisco04b,
870: gabasch04, sawicki06a}. The bright-end of the LFs computed here and
871: by \citet{steidel99} are in excellent agreement. Within the
872: $1$~$\sigma$ marginalized errors, the faint-end slope derived at
873: $z\sim 3$ agrees with the slope found by \citet{steidel99} and
874: \citet{adel00}, and there is essentially no significant difference in
875: $\phi^{\ast}$ and $M^{\ast}$. However, given the widespread use of
876: the \citet{steidel99} results, it is important to note that their
877: determination of $\alpha$ --- constrained from a $U$-dropout sample in
878: the HDF --- does not take into account incompleteness from photometric
879: scatter. As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:maxlik}, the effect of such
880: scatter is to make the incompleteness corrections larger at the
881: faint-end, thus steepening the faint-end slope. In summary, contrary
882: to the suggestion that the HDF contained an over-density of faint
883: galaxies relative to bright ones when compared with other fields, our
884: results imply that the HDF is reasonably representative of the $z\sim
885: 2-3$ universe.
886:
887: \begin{figure*}[t]
888: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}
889: \caption{({\em Left}) Evolution of the UV LFs from $z\sim 7$ to $z\sim
890: 2$. For clarity and consistency, we show only LFs at $z\ga 4$ from
891: \citet{bouwens07, bouwens08} since they are calculated using a
892: maximum-likelihood technique similar to the one used here. For
893: comparison, the local UV LF from \citet{wyder05} is also shown. ({\em
894: Right}) Evolution of the characteristic UV luminosity or magnitude,
895: $M^{\ast}$, with redshift. Points are from \citet{wyder05} at $z\sim
896: 0$ ({\em open triangle}), \citet{arnouts05} at $0\la z\la 3.0$ ({\em
897: filled triangles}), \citet{bouwens08} at $z\ga 4$ ({\em squares}), and
898: our determinations at $z\sim 2-3$ ({\em circles}).}
899: \label{fig:uvlfevol}
900: \end{figure*}
901:
902: \begin{figure*}[t]
903: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}
904: \caption{({\em Left}) $dN/dz$ as a function of redshift, assuming our
905: determinations of the UV LF at $z\sim 2-3$ and those of
906: \citep{bouwens07} at $z\ga 4$, integrated to $0.1L^{\ast}_{z=3}$ ({\em
907: blue}) and $0.1L^{\ast}_{z}$ ({\em red}). The shaded regions indicate
908: approximately the uncertainty based on the errors in the Schechter parameters.
909: ({\em Right}) Total $dL/dz$ as a function of redshift ({\em green})
910: and $dL/dz$ brighter and fainter than $0.1L^{\ast}_{z=3}$ ({\em red} and {\em
911: blue}, respectively).}
912: \label{fig:dndldz}
913: \end{figure*}
914:
915: \section{Discussion: Evolution of the UV LF}
916: \label{sec:lfevol}
917:
918: Figure~\ref{fig:uvlfevol} summarizes our UV LFs at $z\sim 2-3$ along
919: with higher redshift determinations. For clarity and consistency, we
920: included the findings from \citet{bouwens07} only since those authors
921: use a maximum-likelihood method for determining the LF that is similar
922: to the method we use. These authors provide a detailed comparison of
923: UV LFs at $z\ga 4$ from different studies.
924:
925: \subsection{Evolution in $M^{\ast}$}
926: \label{sec:mstarevol}
927:
928: Despite the large number of investigations at $z\ga 4$, there is still
929: a fair amount of uncertainty regarding the parameterization of the
930: evolution in the UV LF. Some have claimed that the evolution occurs
931: primarily in $L^{\ast}$ \citep{bouwens07}, while others find an
932: evolution in $\phi^{\ast}$ \citep{beckwith06} or the faint-end slope
933: $\alpha$ \citep{iwata07}. Some have also suggested an evolution in
934: both $L^{\ast}$ and $\phi^{\ast}$ (e.g., \citealt{dickinson04,
935: giavalisco04b}) such that the total luminosity density could remain
936: constant from $z\sim 3 - 6$. Of course, the reach of some of these
937: conclusions is limited by the depth of data used to derive the LF.
938: Because the LFs at $z\ga 2$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:uvlfevol} are
939: derived using data of comparable depth and analyzed in a similar
940: manner --- although we note that our LFs at $z\sim 2-3$ are anchored
941: by spectroscopy and photometry in an area roughly an order of
942: magnitude larger than used at $z\ga 4$ --- hereafter we will assume
943: that the evolution of the LF at $z\ga 4$ can be accommodated by a
944: change in $L^{\ast}$ as advocated by \citet{bouwens07}. Given the
945: observed fading of galaxies at $z\la 2$ (e.g., \citealt{dickinson03,
946: madau96, lilly95, lilly96, steidel99}), it is useful to examine our
947: results in the context of this evolution in $L^{\ast}$
948: (Figure~\ref{fig:uvlfevol}). In particular, we find that $L^{\ast}$
949: is brightest at $z\sim 2-3$, with this average unobscured UV
950: luminosity decreasing at $z\ga 4$ (earlier cosmic time) and decreasing
951: by a factor of $\approx 16$ between $z\sim 2$ and the present-day.
952: Quantitatively, \citet{bouwens08} found a linear parameterization
953: between $M^{\ast}$ and $z$ at $z\ga 4$ that appears to follow that
954: generally expected for the growth of the halo mass function ---
955: assuming an evolution in the mass-to-light ratio for halos of $\sim
956: (1+z)^{-1}$ --- given standard assumptions for the matter power
957: spectrum, indicating that hierarchical assembly of halos may be
958: dominating the evolution in $M^{\ast}$, or equivalently $L^{\ast}$.
959: In the context of this study, the linear parameterization can be ruled
960: out at the $8$~$\sigma$ level at $z=2.3$ (in the sense that it would
961: predict a significantly larger $L^{\ast}$ at $z=2.3$ than is
962: observed), indicating that by these redshifts, some other effect(s)
963: modulate $L^{\ast}$ away from the value expected from pure
964: hierarchical assembly.
965:
966: These observations are illustrated more clearly by examining $dN/dz$
967: as a function of redshift (Figure~\ref{fig:dndldz}), which is
968: extrapolated based upon linearly fitting the relationship between
969: $L^{\ast}$ and $z$ and $\phi^{\ast}$ and $z$, and assuming a fixed
970: $\alpha=-1.73$ as indicated by the Schechter fits
971: (Table~\ref{tab:schechterfinal}). Integrating the number counts to a {\em
972: fixed} luminosity shows that bright galaxies with
973: $L>0.1L^{\ast}_{z=3}$ increase in number density by an order of
974: magnitude with cosmic time from $z\sim 7$ to $z\sim 2$.
975: Alternatively, the number counts are flatter at $z\ga 4$ when
976: integrating to $0.1L^{\ast}(z)$ (i.e., $L^{\ast}$ appropriate at the
977: redshift $z$ where $dN/dz$ is calculated) suggesting that
978: $\phi^{\ast}$ is relatively constant at these redshifts (e.g.,
979: \citealt{bouwens07}). There may be a slight increase in $\phi^{\ast}$
980: between $z\sim 2-3$, though the magnitude of the errors on
981: $\phi^{\ast}$ are large enough that we cannot rule out non-evolution
982: in the number density.
983:
984: Also shown is $dL/dz$, both above and below a fixed luminosity, in
985: this case $0.1L^{\ast}_{z=3}$, along with the total luminosity
986: density. The evolution implied by our LFs suggests that the
987: approximately order of magnitude increase in luminosity density
988: between $z\sim 7$ and $z\sim 4$ is followed by a flattening between
989: $z\sim 2-3$. This result itself is hardly surprising (see
990: \citealt{giavalisco04b}, R08), but its significance is constrained
991: robustly given that our LFs are determined over two orders of
992: magnitude in luminosity. We will return to a discussion of these
993: findings in the context of the cosmic star formation history
994: (\S~\ref{sec:sfrd}).
995:
996: \subsection{Evolution in $\alpha$}
997: \label{sec:alphaevol}
998:
999: \begin{figure}[t]
1000: \plotone{f7.eps}
1001: \caption{Faint-end slope $\alpha$ as a function of redshift. At $z\ga
1002: 2$, we include our results ({\em filled circles}), that of
1003: \citet{steidel99} ({\em open circle}), and those of \citet{bouwens07}
1004: ({\em squares}). At lower redshifts, we included only points in the
1005: \citet{ryan07} compilation that were derived from the rest-UV LF and
1006: that relied on data extending at least two magnitudes fainter than
1007: $M^{\ast}$, including results from \citet{budavari05} and
1008: \citet{wyder05} ({\em triangles}). Also shown are points from
1009: \citet{sawicki06a}, \citet{iwata03} (errors in $\alpha$ are not
1010: provided by these authors; {\em crosses}), and \citet{yan04b} (range
1011: of likely $\alpha$ indicated by hashed box). The dashed line marks
1012: the mean value of $\alpha$ found at $z \ga 2$ from our study and that
1013: of \citet{bouwens07} ($\langle\alpha\rangle\sim -1.73$).}
1014: \label{fig:alpha}
1015: \end{figure}
1016:
1017: Perhaps the most striking result of our analysis --- and one that is
1018: possible to address with confidence given the depth of data considered
1019: here --- is a very steep faint-end slope of $\alpha \sim -1.73$ at
1020: $z\sim 2-3$ that is robust to the luminosity-dependent systematics
1021: discussed in the Appendix. The $\alpha$ we derive at $z=2.30$ is
1022: virtually identical to that derived at $z=3.05$, and is remarkably
1023: similar to the steep faint-end slopes favored at $z\ga 4$
1024: (Figure~\ref{fig:alpha}). Given the rapid evolution in $L^{\ast}$ and
1025: the luminosity density at $z\ga 2$, the invariance of $\alpha$ over
1026: the same $\sim 3$~Gyr timespan and the shallow $\alpha$ found locally
1027: \citep{wyder05, budavari05} pose interesting constraints on models of
1028: galaxy formation. We revisit this issue in \S~\ref{sec:alpha}.
1029:
1030: \section{Discussion: Nature of Galaxies on the Faint-End of the UV LF}
1031: \label{sec:nature}
1032:
1033: Before proceeding to discuss the implications of our results, it is
1034: useful to assess the contribution of galaxies selected with different
1035: methods to the UV LF. R08 demonstrate that the BX and LBG criteria to
1036: $\rs=25.5$ select the majority of galaxies on the bright-end of the UV
1037: LF, namely those with $L_{\rm UV}\ga 0.1L^{\ast}$. We show in the
1038: appendix that these criteria recover the majority of star-forming
1039: galaxies fainter than $0.1L^{\ast}$. The tests discussed in the
1040: Appendix assume that the vast majority of galaxies on the faint-end of
1041: the UV LF are relatively unreddened, young galaxies. The aim of this
1042: section is to quantify the fraction of galaxies on the faint-end that
1043: are (1) UV-faint simply because they are heavily-reddened or (2) older
1044: galaxies that have passed their major phase of star formation. The
1045: latter investigation is relevant if we are to make inferences on the
1046: connection between the dark matter halo mass distribution and the
1047: luminosity function.
1048:
1049: \subsection{Bolometrically-Luminous Galaxies}
1050:
1051: Deep mid-to-far IR surveys have uncovered a sizable population of
1052: dusty and infrared luminous galaxies at $z\sim 2-3$ (e.g.,
1053: \citealt{yan07, caputi07, papovich07, reddy05a, chapman05,
1054: vandokkum04, smail97, barger98}). The first such galaxies were
1055: discovered via their submillimeter emission \citep{smail97, barger98,
1056: hughes98}, and are now commonly referred to as submillimeter galaxies
1057: (SMGs). \citet{chapman05} estimated that $\approx 65\%$ of such
1058: spectroscopically-confirmed bright SMGs (e.g., with $S_{\rm 850\mu
1059: m}\ga 5$~mJy) at $z\sim 2-3$ have rest-frame UV colors similar to
1060: those of BXs and LBGs, yet are on average a factor of $\approx 10$
1061: times more luminous. There is some uncertainty in the luminosities
1062: related both to the conversion between mid and IR luminosities to
1063: total bolometric luminosities and the fraction of the luminosity that
1064: arises from an AGN \citep{alexander05}. Taking the far-IR estimates
1065: of the SFRs of SMGs at face value then suggests that SMGs are examples
1066: of galaxies whose UV slopes typically under-predict their total
1067: attenuation and hence total bolometric luminosities \citep{reddy06a}.
1068:
1069: Measuring the frequency of such dusty galaxies among UV-faint sources
1070: requires that we estimate the former's space density.
1071: \citet{coppin06} determine a surface density of SMGs with $S_{\rm
1072: 850\mu m}>5$~mJy of $0.139$~arcmin$^{-2}$. The spectroscopic study of
1073: \citet{chapman05} found that $50\%$ of bright SMGs lie at redshifts
1074: $1.9\le z<2.7$, implying a space density at these redshifts of
1075: $2.63\times 10^{-5}$~Mpc$^{-3}$. These authors also found $30-50\%$
1076: of them have $25.5< \rs < 28.0$, corresponding to $L_{\rm UV} \la
1077: 0.34L^{\ast}$ at the mean redshift of the BX sample ($z=2.30$).
1078: According to our UV LF, the total number density of galaxies over this
1079: same apparent magnitude range is $3.28\times 10^{-2}$~Mpc$^{-3}$,
1080: implying that UV-faint SMGs with $\rs>25.5$ constitute $0.02-0.04\%$
1081: of sources on the faint-end. Even in the most conservative case where
1082: we assume that all SMGs with $S_{850\mu m}>5$~mJy lie at $1.9\le
1083: z<2.7$ and all have $\rs>25.5$, we find a fractional contribution of
1084: only $0.16\%$. The results of \citet{chapman05} indicate that this
1085: SMG fraction would be even lower among $z>2.7$ galaxies, although we
1086: note that their adoption of a radio-preselection may have biased the
1087: distribution of their sources to lower redshifts. We make note of the
1088: fact that the exact contribution will depend on the limit of what we
1089: consider to be ``bright'' SMGs, and extending the limit to fainter
1090: submillimeter fluxes will undoubtedly include galaxies that are less
1091: attenuated, on average, and more likely to be recovered via their UV
1092: colors (e.g., \citealt{reddy05a, adel00}). In any case, the current
1093: best estimates for SMGs that are observed routinely in the first
1094: generation of submm surveys imply that by number they make a very
1095: small contribution to the number density of sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies.
1096:
1097: \citet{reddy06a} demonstrate that the vast majority of luminous
1098: infrared galaxies (LIRGs) at $z\ga 2$ will have rest-frame UV colors
1099: that satisfy the BX/LBG criteria. While such criteria also pick up a
1100: non-negligible number of ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs), the
1101: best method of accounting for these galaxies is via their infrared
1102: emission. The launch of {\em Spitzer} enabled observations that are
1103: sensitive to the warmer dust in high redshift starburst galaxies.
1104: Such galaxies are luminous in the infrared and appear to account for
1105: an increasing fraction of galaxies at $z\ga 1$ (e.g., \citealt{dey08,
1106: caputi07, lefloch05}). Based on such studies, there have been a few
1107: estimates of the number density of ultraluminous infrared galaxies at
1108: $z\sim 2-3$. For instance, \citet{caputi07} find a density of
1109: $(1.5\pm0.2)\times 10^{-4}$~Mpc$^{-3}$ for $24\mu$m-selected galaxies
1110: with $L_{\rm bol}\ga 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ (excluding AGN) in the GOODS
1111: fields. Similarly, $24\mu$m-bright galaxies ($f_{\rm 24\mu m}\ge
1112: 0.3$~mJy) with red optical to mid-IR colors ($R-[24]\ge 14$) have a
1113: space density in the redshift range $0.5\le z\le 3.5$ of
1114: $(2.82\pm0.05)\times 10^{-5}$~Mpc$^{-3}$ \citep{dey08}, almost all of
1115: which lie below $L^{\ast}$, the characteristic unobscured UV
1116: luminosity. Assuming conservatively that all of the ULIRGs of
1117: \citet{caputi07} are fainter than $\rs=25.5$ and as faint as $\rs \sim
1118: 28.0$, we find a ULIRG fraction on the UV faint-end of $0.46\%$. In
1119: terms of the \citet{dey08} objects, assuming their space density does
1120: not evolve between $0.5\le z\le 3.5$, this fraction is $0.086\%$.
1121: Hence, while such dusty, star-forming galaxies contribute
1122: significantly to the total IR luminosity density, they must be vastly
1123: outnumbered by galaxies with fainter bolometric luminosities. This
1124: result is not surprising given the close-to-exponential drop-off in
1125: number counts of such infrared luminous galaxies according to the
1126: Schechter function, combined with the steep faint-end slope of the UV
1127: LF.
1128:
1129: Taken another way, if we make the supposition that a large fraction of
1130: galaxies on the faint-end of the UV LF are indeed very dusty
1131: star-forming ULIRGs, then by virtue of the sheer numbers of UV-faint
1132: galaxies, we would predict a number density of ULIRGs significantly in
1133: excess of the measured value. These calculations indicate that
1134: rapidly star-forming, dusty galaxies constitute a very small fraction
1135: of the total number density of star-forming galaxies on the faint-end
1136: of UV LF. Moreover, they support our premise that the $\ebmv$
1137: distribution is unlikely to be redder for UV-faint galaxies than for
1138: UV-bright ones (appendix).
1139:
1140: \subsection{Galaxies with Large Stellar Masses}
1141:
1142: Another population of galaxies at $z\ga 2$ characterized by their
1143: faint UV luminosities are those that have undergone their major
1144: episode(s) of star formation and are evolving quiescently
1145: \citep{franx03}, commonly referred to as ``Distant Red Galaxies,'' or
1146: DRGs. Such galaxies have low specific star formation rates
1147: \citep{papovich06, reddy06a} and are inferred to have low gas
1148: fractions \citep{reddy06a} relative to UV-selected galaxies. The bulk
1149: of BX/LBGs have stellar masses in the range $10^{9} -
1150: 10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$ \citep{erb06b, reddy06b, shapley05}, while $K <
1151: 20$ DRGs have typical stellar masses of $\ga 10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$
1152: (e.g., \citealt{vandokkum04, vandokkum06}), although there is some
1153: small overlap in the stellar mass distribution between BX/LBGs and
1154: DRGs \citep{shapley05, vandokkum06}, particularly at fainter $K$-band
1155: magnitude \citep{reddy05a}.
1156:
1157: \citet{vandokkum06} find that galaxies with stellar masses
1158: $>10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$ are also typically faint in the optical, with
1159: $>2/3$ fainter than $\rs = 25.5$. Conservatively assuming that all
1160: such galaxies are fainter than $\rs=25.5$ and as faint as $\rs \sim
1161: 28.0$, and have an estimated space density of $(2.2\pm0.6)\times
1162: 10^{-4}$~Mpc$^{-3}$ \citep{vandokkum06}, then we compute a fractional
1163: contribution to the faint-end of the UV LF in the same magnitude range
1164: of $0.67\%$. \citet{vandokkum06} noted that only $1/3$ of these
1165: massive galaxies had the colors of BX/LBGs. However, examination of
1166: their $\ugr$ color distribution shows that a large fraction of the
1167: ``missing'' $2/3$ have colors that hug the BX/LBG selection
1168: boundaries. Our incompleteness corrections will take into account
1169: objects that scatter into the BX/LBG samples because of stochastic
1170: effects like photometric errors, but conservatively assuming that
1171: $2/3$ of massive galaxies are missed even after these corrections
1172: would imply a massive galaxy fraction among UV-faint sources of
1173: $\approx 2\%$.
1174:
1175: These estimates imply that like dusty star-forming galaxies, those
1176: with large stellar masses ($>10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$) comprise a very
1177: small fraction ($\la 2\%$) of all UV-faint galaxies. Hence, virtually
1178: all sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies have smaller stellar masses and are less
1179: dusty than the types of galaxies considered above. From a broader
1180: perspective, several studies have shown that galaxies with large
1181: stellar masses tend to cluster more strongly than less massive
1182: galaxies \citep{quadri07, adelberger05a}. This is consistent with the
1183: expectation that galaxies with large stellar masses formed stars
1184: earlier in more massive potential wells which are expected to be the
1185: most clustered. Furthermore, \citet{adelberger05c} demonstrated that
1186: UV-bright galaxies cluster more strongly than UV-faint ones, at least
1187: at $z\ga 2$. Given the sheer number of UV-faint galaxies, these
1188: observations suggest that galaxies on the faint-end of the UV LF are
1189: likely to be less clustered than their brighter counterparts, and
1190: hence associated with lower mass halos.
1191:
1192: \section{Discussion: Constraints on the Star Formation Rate Density}
1193: \label{sec:sfrd}
1194:
1195: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcc}
1196: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1197: \tablewidth{0pc}
1198: \tablecaption{Total UV Luminosity Densities at $1.9\le z<3.4$}
1199: \tablehead{
1200: \colhead{} &
1201: \colhead{Unobscured\tablenotemark{a}} &
1202: \colhead{Dust-Corrected\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1203: \colhead{Redshift Range} &
1204: \colhead{(ergs~s$^{-1}$~Hz$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$)} &
1205: \colhead{(ergs~s$^{-1}$~Hz$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$)}}
1206: \startdata
1207: $1.9\le z<2.7$ & $(3.89\pm 0.24)\times 10^{26}$ & $(1.36\pm0.30)\times 10^{27}$ \\
1208: $2.7\le z<3.4$ & $(3.28\pm 0.24)\times 10^{26}$ & $(8.74\pm2.55)\times 10^{26}$ \\
1209: \enddata
1210: \tablenotetext{a}{Uncorrected for extinction, integrated to $0.04$~L$^{\ast}_{z=3}$.}
1211: \tablenotetext{b}{Corrected for luminosity-dependent extinction, including both obscured and
1212: unobscured UV luminosity, integrated to $0.04$~L$^{\ast}_{z=3}$.}
1213: \label{tab:lumdenstab}
1214: \end{deluxetable*}
1215:
1216: \begin{figure}[h]
1217: \plotone{f8.eps}
1218: \caption{Unobscured UV luminosity density, $\rho_{\rm UV}$, per $0.5$
1219: magnitude interval ({\em dashed lines}) and integrated ({\em solid
1220: lines}) at $1.9\le z<2.7$ ({\em cyan, blue}) and $2.7\le z<3.4$ ({\em
1221: magenta, red}), respectively. Dotted lines indicate $M^{\ast}$ at
1222: $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 3$. The equivalent star formation rate density
1223: assuming the \citet{kennicutt98} relation and a Kroupa IMF is shown on
1224: the right-hand axis.}
1225: \label{fig:lumdens}
1226: \end{figure}
1227:
1228: As is customary, the \citet{kennicutt98} relation is used to convert
1229: UV luminosity to star formation rate (SFR), adopting a Kroupa IMF from
1230: 0.1 to 100~M$_{\odot}$ (Figure~\ref{fig:lumdens},
1231: Table~\ref{tab:lumdenstab}, Table~\ref{tab:sfrdtab}). This results in
1232: factor of $\sim 1.7$ decrease in SFR for a given luminosity owing to
1233: the larger fractional contribution of high-mass stars to the Kroupa
1234: relative to the \citet{salpeter55} IMF. For consistency with previous
1235: investigations, the luminosity density is calculated to a limiting
1236: luminosity of $0.04L^{\ast}_{z=3}$ unless stated otherwise. The
1237: differential and cumulative unobscured UV luminosity densities to
1238: $0.04L^{\ast}_{z=3}$, $\rho_{\rm UV}(>0.04L^{\ast}_{z=3})$, are
1239: $\approx 6\%$ and $42\%$ larger at $z\sim 2$ and $3$, respectively,
1240: than reported by R08. This difference is attributable to
1241: the steeper faint-end slope and slightly brighter $L^{\ast}$ derived
1242: in this study. Below, we consider the effects of a
1243: luminosity-dependent dust correction, the bolometric luminosity
1244: functions at $z\sim 2-3$, and implications for the star formation
1245: history.
1246:
1247: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccc}
1248: %\rotate
1249: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1250: \tablewidth{0pc}
1251: \tablecaption{SFRD Estimates and Dust Correction Factors}
1252: \tablehead{
1253: \colhead{} &
1254: \colhead{} &
1255: \colhead{$z\sim 2$} &
1256: \colhead{} &
1257: \colhead{\,\,\,\,\,} &
1258: \colhead{} &
1259: \colhead{$z\sim 3$} &
1260: \colhead{} \\
1261: \colhead{} &
1262: \colhead{$L_{\rm lim}=0.04L^{\ast}$}\tablenotemark{a} &
1263: \colhead{} &
1264: \colhead{$L_{\rm lim}=0$} &
1265: \colhead{} &
1266: \colhead{$L_{\rm lim}=0.04L^{\ast}$}\tablenotemark{a} &
1267: \colhead{} &
1268: \colhead{$L_{\rm lim}=0$}}
1269: \startdata
1270: (1) UV SFRD$_{\rm uncor}$\tablenotemark{b} & $0.032\pm0.002$ & & $0.064\pm0.003$ & & $0.027\pm0.002$ & & $0.055\pm0.003$ \\
1271: (2) UV SFRD$_{\rm cor}$ (LDR)\tablenotemark{bc} & $0.112\pm0.025$ & & $0.122\pm0.027$ & & $0.072\pm0.021$ & & $0.080\pm0.023$ \\
1272: (3) UV Dust Correction (LDR)\tablenotemark{c} & $3.50\pm0.78$ & & $1.91\pm0.42$ & & $2.67\pm0.78$ & & $1.45\pm0.42$ \\
1273: (4) UV SFRD$_{\rm cor}$ (CR)\tablenotemark{bd} & $0.144\pm0.009$ & & $0.288\pm0.014$ & & $0.122\pm0.009$ & & $0.248\pm0.014$ \\
1274: (5) UV Dust Correction (CR)\tablenotemark{d} & $4.5$ & & $4.5$ & & $4.5$ & & $4.5$ \\
1275: (6) Total SFRD$_{\rm cor}$\tablenotemark{be} & $0.142\pm0.036$ & & $0.152\pm0.038$ & & $0.102\pm0.032$ & & $0.110\pm0.034$ \\
1276: (7) Total Dust Correction\tablenotemark{f} & $4.44\pm1.13$ & & $2.38\pm0.59$ & & $3.78\pm1.19$ & & $2.00\pm0.62$ \\
1277: \enddata
1278: \tablenotetext{a}{Integrated to include all galaxies with unobscured UV luminosities brighter than $0.04L^{\ast}_{z=3}$, or $M(1700\AA)\approx -17.48$.}
1279: \tablenotetext{b}{In $M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ assuming a Kroupa IMF.}
1280: \tablenotetext{c}{Invokes luminosity-dependent reddening (LDR).}
1281: \tablenotetext{d}{Invokes luminosity-invariant reddening (CR).}
1282: \tablenotetext{e}{Sum of LDR-corrected star formation rate density from row(2) and the
1283: contribution of $L_{\rm bol}>10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ galaxies from \citet{caputi07}.}
1284: \tablenotetext{f}{Dust correction required to recover total star formation rate density in row (6) from the
1285: unobscured star formation rate density in row (1).}
1286: \label{tab:sfrdtab}
1287: \end{deluxetable*}
1288:
1289: \subsection{Luminosity-Dependent Dust Corrections}
1290:
1291: As a consequence of the steep faint-end slopes at $z\sim 2-3$,
1292: $\approx 93\%$ of the unobscured UV luminosity density (integrated to
1293: zero luminosity) is contributed by galaxies fainter than $L^{\ast}$
1294: (Figure~\ref{fig:lumdens}). The abundance of UV-faint galaxies and
1295: their cumulative luminosity makes them ideal candidates for the
1296: sources responsible for most of the ionizing flux at $z\ga 3$.
1297: However, the luminosity dependence of reddening implies that their
1298: contribution to the {\em bolometric} luminosity is likely to be
1299: diminished compared to their contribution to the unobscured luminosity
1300: density. The bolometric luminosity density can be expressed simply
1301: as
1302: \begin{eqnarray}
1303: \rho^{\rm bol}_{\rm UV} = \int_{L}L\phi(L)10^{[0.4k'(\lambda){\sc A}(L)]}dL,
1304: \label{eq:rhobol}
1305: \end{eqnarray}
1306: where $A(L)$ is the reddening, parameterized by $\ebmv$, as a function
1307: of luminosity and $k'(\lambda)$ is the starburst attenuation relation
1308: defined in \citet{calzetti00}. For this calculation, we have assumed
1309: that the bolometric luminosity can be recovered from the rest-frame UV
1310: colors --- as motivated by {\em Spitzer} mid-IR observations of
1311: UV-selected galaxies \citep{reddy06a} --- via the \citet{calzetti00}
1312: relation. This has been shown to be valid for moderately luminous
1313: galaxies (i.e., LIRGs; \citealt{reddy05a, reddy06a}). We will
1314: consider shortly the contribution from high redshift galaxies that do
1315: not follow the local starburst attenuation relations \citep{meurer99,
1316: calzetti00}.
1317:
1318: Defining $N(\ebmv,L)\equiv N(\ebmv)$ will of course leave the relative
1319: contribution of UV-faint galaxies to $\rho^{\rm bol}_{\rm UV}$
1320: unchanged from their contribution to the unobscured UV luminosity
1321: density. The bolometric luminosity density is calculated under the
1322: more realistic case of a declining average reddening with unobscured
1323: luminosity (appendix), with the results tabulated
1324: in Tables~\ref{tab:lumdenstab} and \ref{tab:sfrdtab}. In this case,
1325: we find that galaxies fainter than $L^{\ast}$ --- defined as the
1326: characteristic {\em unobscured} UV luminosity --- contribute $0.62$
1327: and $0.78$ at $z\sim 2$ and $3$, respectively, to $\rho^{\rm bol}_{\rm
1328: UV}$ integrated to $0.04L^{\ast}_{z=3}$. These fractions are likely
1329: to be lower limits since there is a non-negligible number of very
1330: dusty and bolometrically luminous UV-faint galaxies at these redshifts
1331: (\S~\ref{sec:nature}). Below, we revisit our estimate of the
1332: bolometric luminosity density after incorporating the effect of the
1333: most luminous galaxies at $z\sim 2-3$.
1334:
1335: \subsection{Bolometric Luminosity Functions}
1336:
1337: Although so far we have defined $L^{\ast}$ in terms of the knee of the
1338: {\em UV} LF uncorrected for extinction, we can also examine the
1339: fractional contributions as a function of luminosity to the bolometric
1340: luminosity density. This is accomplished by reconstructing the UV LF
1341: corrected for extinction using a method similar to that presented in
1342: R08. Briefly, a large number of galaxies are simulated with
1343: magnitudes and $\ebmv$ drawn randomly from the LF and
1344: luminosity-dependent $\ebmv$ distribution. The \citet{calzetti00}
1345: relation is used to recover the bolometric luminosities, which are
1346: then binned to produce a luminosity function (Figure~\ref{fig:bollf}).
1347: We allow for the LF to vary within the errors and add a $0.3$~dex
1348: scatter to the dust correction implied by $\ebmv$, reflecting the
1349: approximate scatter in both the local relations \citep{meurer99,
1350: calzetti00} and those found at $z\sim 2$ \citep{reddy06a}. This
1351: scatter results in a $5\%$ random error in the faint-end of the
1352: bolometric LF, significantly smaller than the systematic errors that
1353: result from assuming different relations between dustiness and UV
1354: luminosity (Figure~\ref{fig:bollf}).
1355:
1356: \begin{figure}[t]
1357: \plotone{f9.eps}
1358: \caption{Bolometric luminosity functions at $z\sim 2$ ({\em blue}) and
1359: $z\sim 3$ ({\em red}), computed by combining the measurement of the UV
1360: luminosity function with a luminosity-dependent $\ebmv$ distribution
1361: (see text). The upper limits of the shaded regions indicate the LF
1362: derived assuming a constant $\ebmv$ distribution. The lower limits
1363: indicate the LF derived assuming that all galaxies with apparent
1364: magnitude fainter than $\rs = 25.5$ have zero reddening. These limits
1365: encompass the range of likely LFs and give an indication as to the
1366: systematic uncertainty in the bolometric LF. The solid lines denote
1367: the bolometric LF obtained using our model of the luminosity-dependent
1368: $\ebmv$ distribution that gradually falls to zero reddening for the
1369: faintest galaxies. At $z\sim 2$, the higher luminosity points ({\em
1370: circles}) from \citet{caputi07} are shown, along with their Schechter
1371: extrapolation to fainter luminosities ({\em long-dashed line}).}
1372: \label{fig:bollf}
1373: \end{figure}
1374:
1375: Note that we use only the $\ebmv$ distribution found for UV-selected
1376: galaxies to reconstruct the bolometric luminosity functions. The
1377: range in attenuation factors obtained for such galaxies will be
1378: smaller than the intrinsic range of reddening among all galaxies at
1379: $z\sim 2-3$. One obvious reason for this bias is the incompleteness
1380: for objects that never scatter into our sample because of their red
1381: colors. Another reason is that even if such red, dusty galaxies do
1382: satisfy the LBG color criteria, their bolometric luminosities may be
1383: underestimated severely based on the UV colors alone. Hence, the
1384: method for recovering bolometric LFs based on the $\ebmv$ distribution
1385: of galaxies that scatter into the BX/LBG windows will underestimate
1386: the contribution of galaxies to the bright-end of the bolometric
1387: luminosity function. Because of this, the contribution of these dusty
1388: galaxies is based on results published elsewhere. Specifically, we
1389: adopt the value of the bright-end of the infrared LF at $z\sim 2$
1390: (after exclusion of bright AGN) presented by \citet{caputi07} since
1391: the bright-end of the bolometric LF should track the bright-end of the
1392: IR LF. The results are summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:bollf} assuming
1393: no evolution in the bright-end of the LF ($L_{\rm bol}\ga
1394: 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$) in the redshift range $1.9\le z<3.4$. It is
1395: important to keep in mind that $\nu L_{\nu}$ at $1700$~\AA\, scales
1396: with SFR in a different way than the infrared luminosity ($L_{\rm IR}
1397: \equiv L(8-1000\mu)$). Hence, the bolometric luminosity --- the sum
1398: of the UV and IR luminosities as defined in this paper --- will scale
1399: in a non-linear way with SFR. In the present context, star formation
1400: rate densities are computed separately for (1) galaxies where $L_{\rm
1401: bol}$ is determined from the UV-corrected values and (2) galaxies with
1402: $L_{\rm bol}\ga 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ where the bolometric luminosity
1403: is determined purely from the infrared luminosity \citep{caputi07}.
1404: The star formation rate densities from the two contributions are then
1405: added to estimate the total. With the appropriate scalings, this
1406: calculation implies that $\approx 70-80\%$ of the bolometric
1407: luminosity density arises from galaxies with $L_{\rm bol}\la
1408: 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$, consistent with findings of R08.
1409:
1410: Taken together, these findings can be summarized as follows.
1411: Including ULIRGs --- those galaxies whose UV slopes tend to
1412: under-predict their bolometric luminosities (e.g.,
1413: \citealt{papovich06, papovich07, reddy06a}) --- does not change the
1414: fact that a large portion of the bolometric luminosity density arises
1415: from faint galaxies, either those that are fainter than the
1416: characteristic unobscured UV luminosity or those that are fainter than
1417: the characteristic bolometric luminosity. Placing these results in a
1418: wider context will require more precise estimates of the bright-end of
1419: the bolometric luminosity function that (1) take into account the
1420: luminosity-dependent conversion between mid-IR luminosity (upon which
1421: most estimates are based) and the total infrared luminosity and (2)
1422: the potential contamination from AGN that are prevalent among galaxies
1423: with such high IR luminosities. Nonetheless, combining the most
1424: recent estimate of the bright-end of the bolometric luminosity
1425: function \citep{caputi07} with our results at the faint-end points to
1426: a luminosity density that is dominated by bolometrically faint to
1427: moderately luminous galaxies. The implications for a
1428: luminosity-dependent reddening distribution on the average dust
1429: correction factors applied to high redshift samples and the evolution
1430: of the star formation rate density are discussed in the following
1431: sections.
1432:
1433: \subsection{Average Dust Correction Factors}
1434:
1435: A luminosity dependent dust correction and the large ratio of UV-faint
1436: to UV-bright galaxies implies an average UV dust correction that is
1437: sensitive to the limit of integration used to compute the luminosity
1438: density. It seems prudent to consider such a systematic effect given
1439: that estimates of the star formation rate density imply stellar mass
1440: densities in excess of what are actually measured \citep{wilkins08}.
1441: This effect is mentioned in R08; here, we proceed to quantify the
1442: average dust correction factors relevant for luminosity densities
1443: computed to different limits based on our new determination of the
1444: faint-end slope.
1445:
1446: The calculated dust corrections and star formation rate densities are
1447: listed in Table~\ref{tab:sfrdtab}. We have assumed a contribution of
1448: $L_{\rm bol}>10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ galaxies to the star formation rate
1449: density at $z\sim 2$ as computed from \citet{caputi07}. We also
1450: assume this same contribution at $z\sim 3$, though it has not been
1451: measured directly at these higher redshifts, in order to place
1452: conservative estimates on the effect of a luminosity-dependent dust
1453: correction on the average dust correction factors required to convert
1454: UV luminosity densities to star formation rate densities.
1455:
1456: The luminosity-dependent reddening model implies dust corrections of a
1457: factor of $3.5$ and $2.7$ at $z\sim 2$ and $3$, respectively,
1458: integrated to $0.04L^{\ast}$ (Table~\ref{tab:sfrdtab}), which are up
1459: to a factor of two smaller than the typical $4.5-5.0$ dust corrections
1460: found for $\rs\le 25.5$ galaxies \citep{steidel99, reddy04}. Aside
1461: from differences in the luminosity range probed, this difference in
1462: average extinction is mitigated somewhat by the fact that a
1463: significant fraction ($\sim 0.2-0.3$) of the bolometric luminosity
1464: density arises from ULIRGs, where the usual dust conversions do not
1465: apply (see discussion above). The expectation is that the lower
1466: dust-corrected luminosity densities inferred in the
1467: luminosity-dependent reddening case are compensated by the inclusion
1468: of galaxies where $\ebmv$ tends to under-predict the reddening. The
1469: total dust corrections required to recover the bolometric luminosity
1470: density, including that contributed by ULIRGs, are $4.4$ and $3.8$,
1471: somewhat larger than the values quoted above. While the differences
1472: between these dust corrections may seem small at $z\sim 2-3$, they do
1473: result in up to a factor of two in systematic scatter in star
1474: formation rate density measurements, comparable to the dispersion in
1475: the local calibrations between luminosity and star formation rate, and
1476: so should be taken into account. The dependency of the average dust
1477: correction on the integration limit will be even greater for steeper
1478: faint-end slopes given the larger fractional contribution of
1479: less-reddened faint galaxies to the luminosity density. The average
1480: dust correction factors stated above are relevant when integrating the
1481: UV luminosity function to $0.04L^{\ast}_{z=3}$. Integrating to zero
1482: luminosity alters the corrections to be a factor of $2.4$ and $2.0$ at
1483: $z\sim 2$ and $3$, respectively. To reiterate, these extinction
1484: corrections account for not only the dust-obscuration among moderately
1485: luminous galaxies prone to UV-selection, but also for those
1486: ultraluminous galaxies that may either escape UV-selection or simply
1487: have rest-UV slopes that under-predict their bolometric luminosities.
1488: These effects underscore the various subtleties that can affect
1489: extinction corrections for UV-selected samples.
1490:
1491: Of course, these dust corrections are equally important at higher
1492: redshifts $z\ga 3$ where the only constraints on the star formation
1493: rate density come from UV observations. Evidence suggests that
1494: UV-selected galaxies become bluer at redshifts $z\ga 3$, relative to
1495: galaxies at lower redshifts \citep{yan04b, bouwens07}.\footnote{It is
1496: generally accepted that the highest redshift star-forming populations
1497: exhibit bluer UV colors {\em on average} than similarly selected
1498: galaxies at lower redshifts, although the result has not been verified
1499: independently with longer wavelength observations. \citet{bouwens07}
1500: present a discussion of why there may not be a strong bias against
1501: dusty galaxies with the higher redshift dropout criteria.} This trend
1502: may be attributable to two effects. First, as noted above, $L^{\ast}$
1503: evolves strongly as a function of redshift at $z\ga 3$, such that the
1504: average UV luminosity of galaxies decreases with increasing redshift.
1505: If sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies have lower dust reddening than UV-bright
1506: ones, the trend in UV color may be interpreted as a decrease in dust
1507: reddening. A consequence of the luminosity-dependent reddening model
1508: is that, when examined over a large dynamic range of luminosity, the
1509: unobscured UV luminosity must track the bolometric luminosity, or SFR.
1510: This leads to the second effect which is tied to the observation that
1511: high redshift galaxies are less attenuated than lower redshift
1512: galaxies of the same bolometric luminosity, resulting in a trend of
1513: decreasing extinction per unit SFR proceeding to higher redshifts
1514: (\citealt{reddy06a}, R08). Stated another way, extrapolating the
1515: results of \citet{reddy06a} to redshifts $z\ga 4$ implies that higher
1516: redshift galaxies are less opaque at UV wavelengths than lower
1517: redshift galaxies of the same bolometric luminosity. Hence, the
1518: combined effect of a lower $L^{\ast}$ and lower average dust
1519: attenuation to a given bolometric luminosity implies lower dust
1520: corrections at higher $z$ (R08, \citealt{bouwens07}). The
1521: implications for this evolution in the average dust correction are
1522: discussed in the next section.
1523:
1524: There have been several explanations put forth to explain the
1525: discrepancy between the integrated star formation history and stellar
1526: mass density measurements, including missing stellar mass, an
1527: evolution of the IMF \citep{dave08, vandokkum08}, or more generally an
1528: evolving conversion between luminosity and star formation rate. In
1529: light of these effects, we consider the potential impact of an
1530: evolving dust correction on the star formation history, as described
1531: below.
1532:
1533: \section{Discussion: Star Formation History and Buildup of Stellar Mass}
1534: \label{sec:sfrdevol}
1535:
1536: We have already touched upon a few of the implications of a steep
1537: faint-end slope on the star formation rate density. In particular, we
1538: noted that a very large fraction of the unobscured UV luminosity
1539: density ($\ga 90\%$) arises from galaxies fainter than the
1540: characteristic unobscured UV luminosity. Similarly, our results
1541: suggest that even assuming a lower reddening among UV-faint galaxies
1542: relative to UV-bright ones implies a bolometric, or dust-corrected,
1543: luminosity density dominated by galaxies fainter than the
1544: characteristic bolometric luminosity. There are several important
1545: consequences of these results that we discuss in the next few
1546: sections.
1547:
1548: \subsection{Contributions at $z\sim 2-3$ to the Global Stellar Mass Density}
1549: \label{sec:smdcont}
1550:
1551: A significant fraction of the stellar mass density that formed between
1552: $z=1.9$ and $z=3.4$ (the redshift limits of our analysis) ---
1553: corresponding roughly to the epoch when galaxies were forming most of
1554: their stars (\S~\ref{sec:intro}) --- occurs in galaxies with $L_{\rm
1555: bol}\la 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$. Using a linear interpolation of the
1556: contributions of galaxies with different luminosities to the
1557: bolometric luminosity density between $z\sim 3$ and $z\sim 2$ and
1558: multiplying by the time between $z=3.4$ and $z=1.9$, yields a total
1559: SMD of $\Omega_{\ast}(1.9\le z < 3.4) = 0.0014\pm 0.0003$ in units of
1560: the critical density. This value is already $0.57$ times that of the
1561: present-day value reported in \citet{cole01}. As mentioned above,
1562: there is still a fair amount of uncertainty regarding the bright-end
1563: of the bolometric luminosity function. Irrespective of the number
1564: density of bolometrically-luminous galaxies, our calculations suggest
1565: that $43\pm 9\%$ of the present-day stellar mass density was formed in
1566: galaxies with $6\times 10^{8}<L_{\rm bol}<10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ between
1567: redshifts $z=3.4$ and $1.9$.\footnote{The limit of $6\times
1568: 10^{8}$~L$_{\odot}$ is adopted for consistency with R08. The
1569: bolometric LF exhibits a slope that is somewhat shallower than the UV
1570: LF, so changing the limit of integration to zero bolometric luminosity
1571: will add roughly $10\%$ to the luminosity density.} While much
1572: attention recently has been focused on the stellar mass buildup
1573: associated with luminous galaxies at high redshift, it is clear that
1574: fainter galaxies, those that are routinely picked up in UV surveys but
1575: may be missing from rest-optical and far-IR ones, also play an
1576: important role. It suggests that much of the stellar mass assembly at
1577: a time when galaxies where forming most of their stars occurred in the
1578: typical and more numerous galaxies that populate these redshifts.
1579:
1580: \subsection{Evolution of the Star Formation Rate Density}
1581:
1582: A luminosity-dependent dust correction not only has consequences for
1583: the total star formation rate density measured at a given redshift,
1584: but the strong evolution of $L^{\ast}$ suggests that it will induce a
1585: systematic effect with redshift. Figure~\ref{fig:sfrd} summarizes the
1586: star formation rate densities inferred with the luminosity-dependent
1587: reddening model from this study and those of \citet{bouwens07} at
1588: $z\ga 3.8$, compared with the star formation history assuming a
1589: constant dust-correction of $4.5$ ({\em red line}), along with lower
1590: redshift determinations compiled in \citet{hopkins04}. For
1591: consistency with the latter study, we have integrated to zero
1592: luminosity (see \S~\ref{sec:cautions} for a discussion of the
1593: systematic effects associated with the limits of integration). The
1594: luminosity-dependent reddening-corrected star formation history points
1595: to a factor of $8-9$ increase in the star formation rate density
1596: between $z\sim 6$ and $z\sim 2$ (e.g., see also R08,
1597: \citealt{bouwens07}), significantly steeper than the factor of $4$
1598: that we would have inferred in the case of a luminosity-invariant
1599: (constant) dust correction. As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:mstarevol},
1600: the evolution in the unobscured star formation rate density is
1601: connected to the increase in number, and hence luminosity, density of
1602: galaxies brighter than $L^{\ast}$. Figure~\ref{fig:sfrd} demonstrates
1603: that the comparable evolution in the bolometric star formation rate
1604: density is driven both by an increase in the number density of bright
1605: galaxies and an evolving dust correction.
1606:
1607: The elevated star formation rate densities predicted in the
1608: luminosity-invariant reddening model result in a stellar mass growth
1609: of $\Omega_{\ast} = 0.0026\pm0.0007$ between $2.3\le z\le 5.9$,
1610: compared to $\Omega_{\ast} = 0.0013\pm0.0003$ for the
1611: luminosity-dependent reddening model over the same redshifts, a factor
1612: of two difference between the two dust correction scenarios. More
1613: importantly, a constant dust correction model predicts stellar mass
1614: buildup between $2.3\le z\le 5.9$ that exceeds the local measurement.
1615: Notwithstanding the noted disagreement between stellar mass density
1616: measurements and the integral of the star formation history
1617: (Figure~\ref{fig:sfrd} and discussion below), these results suggest
1618: that we may be able to rule out the elevated star formation rates
1619: predicted by constant dust correction models, although we caution that
1620: the differences in total stellar mass accumulated by $z\sim 2.3$ based
1621: on a constant versus declining star formation history are small
1622: compared to the uncertainties in the star formation rate and stellar
1623: mass density measurements. In the next section, we discuss this
1624: disparity between the integrated star formation history and stellar
1625: mass density measurements and possible resolutions.
1626:
1627: \begin{figure}[t]
1628: \plotone{f10.eps}
1629: \caption{Cosmic star formation history, including the
1630: luminosity-dependent dust-corrected determinations at $z\sim 2-3$ from
1631: this analysis ({\em large pentagons}) and those of \citet{bouwens07}
1632: at $z\ga 3.8$ ({\em open circles} at high $z$), and the compilation
1633: from \citet{hopkins04} ({\em open squares}) at low $z$. Note that our
1634: estimates {\em include} the directly-measured contribution to the star
1635: formation rate density from ultraluminous infrared galaxies and assume
1636: that this contribution is non-evolving between $z\sim 3$ and $z\sim
1637: 2$. Also, for consistency with the \citet{hopkins04} compilation, our
1638: points and those of \citet{bouwens07} are computed by integrating the
1639: UV LF to zero luminosity. The {\em solid} red line shows the star
1640: formation history assuming a constant dust correction of $4.5$ to the
1641: unobscured UV luminosity densities at $z\sim 2-6$. The {\em
1642: short-dashed} line shows the fit to the star formation history
1643: including this constant dust correction model. The {\em solid} blue
1644: line indicates the best-fit star formation history assuming a
1645: luminosity-dependent dust correction to the $z\ga 2$ measurements.
1646: The {\em solid hatched purple} region indicates the $\pm 1$~$\sigma$
1647: star formation history inferred from the evolution of the stellar mass
1648: density \citep{wilkins08}, with an extrapolation at $z\ga 4.5$ based
1649: on stellar mass density measurements at $z\sim 5-6$ from
1650: \citet{mclure08, eyles07, stark07, verma07, yan06b} ({\em dashed
1651: purple} region). As discussed in the text, much of the discrepancy
1652: between the stellar mass density measurements and the integral of the
1653: star formation history may be due to incompleteness of low mass
1654: objects in the stellar mass estimates. A Kroupa IMF is assumed
1655: throughout.}
1656: \label{fig:sfrd}
1657: \end{figure}
1658:
1659: \subsection{Reconciling the Star Formation History with Stellar Mass Density Measurements:
1660: Luminosity-Dependent Dust Corrections and Missing Stellar Mass}
1661:
1662: Figure~\ref{fig:sfrd} shows the star formation history inferred by
1663: differentiating measurements of the stellar mass density (integrated
1664: to zero) as a function of redshift ({\em purple hashed region}). The
1665: results imply that there is a maximum disparity of $\approx 0.5$~dex
1666: in this inference and actual observations of the star formation rate
1667: density at $z\sim 2-3$. It is of general interest to determine
1668: whether this discord is due to some lack of understanding of the
1669: fundamental physical processes that govern star formation and/or to
1670: the mundane nature of the uncertainties that seemingly plague SFR and
1671: stellar mass estimates, including sample incompleteness and the limits
1672: to which one integrates to obtain the star formation rate and stellar
1673: mass densities.
1674:
1675: In light of the steep faint-end slopes of the UV LF advocated at $z\ga
1676: 2$, it is worthwhile to consider the possibility that the stellar mass
1677: density measurements at these redshifts are too low, primarily because
1678: they do not account for low mass galaxies that may escape stellar mass
1679: selected samples but, even with their low stellar masses, are
1680: sufficiently numerous to add appreciably to the total budget of
1681: stellar mass. The comparison drawn in Figure~\ref{fig:sfrd}
1682: implicitly assumes that all the galaxies contributing to the estimate
1683: of the star formation rate density are in some way also represented in
1684: the estimate of the stellar mass density. In practice, the problem is
1685: that unlike SFR-limited samples, mass-selected samples at high
1686: redshift do not probe far enough down the stellar mass function due to
1687: the significant amount of time required to assemble the requisite
1688: near-IR data. Hence, such studies may underestimate the low-mass
1689: slope of the stellar mass function.
1690:
1691: \subsubsection{Stellar Mass Density in UV-Bright ($\rs \le 25.5$) Galaxies}
1692:
1693: The slope of the stellar mass function at $z\sim 2-3$ is not
1694: well-constrained. However, if we are able to estimate the average
1695: stellar mass of LBGs, then knowing their number density from the UV LF
1696: will enable us to estimate their contribution to the stellar mass
1697: density. We compiled stellar mass estimates for BXs and LBGs in the
1698: GOODS-N and Q1700 fields \citep{reddy06b, shapley05}. Briefly,
1699: stellar masses are computed for spectroscopically-confirmed BXs and
1700: LBGs by fitting \citet{bruzual03} model templates to the observed
1701: $\ugr$+$J\ks$+IRAC photometry, and allowing the star formation history
1702: $\tau$ and $\ebmv$ to vary freely. The star formation rate and
1703: stellar mass are determined by the normalization of the model SED to
1704: the broadband photometry \citep{shapley05, erb06b, reddy06b}.
1705:
1706: Excluding spectroscopically identified AGN, the distributions of
1707: stellar mass for 208 BXs and 42 LBGs from the 2 aforementioned fields
1708: are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:smdist}. Since most moderately
1709: star-forming galaxies escape BX/LBG selection due to stochastic
1710: effects (e.g., photometric scatter; \S~\ref{sec:maxlik}), we adopt the
1711: reasonable premise that galaxies to $\rs=25.5$ that do not satisfy the
1712: BX/LBG criteria have a similar distribution in stellar masses to those
1713: that do. Note that, as discussed previously, this may not be the case
1714: for the most massive galaxies at these redshifts (e.g.,
1715: \citealt{vandokkum06}). However, in the present context we are
1716: interested primarily in the contribution of {\em typical} star-forming
1717: galaxies --- which outnumber by far the most massive galaxies at these
1718: redshifts (\S~\ref{sec:nature}) --- to the stellar mass density.
1719: Further, we show in the appendix that adopting a young stellar
1720: population does not affect appreciably the incompleteness corrections
1721: to the BX/LBG samples. Consequently, it is unlikely that large
1722: numbers of young galaxies with low stellar masses are scattered out
1723: the sample relative to the frequency with which more massive galaxies
1724: are scattered out of the sample, particularly among UV-bright
1725: galaxies. Therefore, we make the reasonable assumption that the
1726: stellar mass distributions for UV-bright BX/LBGs are representative of
1727: UV-bright star-forming galaxies in general. Figure~\ref{fig:smdist}
1728: also shows the distribution in absolute UV magnitude for galaxies with
1729: stellar mass estimates, spanning the full range of magnitudes
1730: represented in the spectroscopic sample. As first shown by
1731: \citet{shapley05}, we find no significant correlation between
1732: unobscured UV magnitude and stellar mass, perhaps not surprising since
1733: the two quantities are related only peripherally. We will revisit
1734: this issue below.
1735:
1736: \begin{figure*}[t]
1737: \plottwo{f11a.eps}{f11b.eps}
1738: \caption{({\em Left}): Distribution of stellar mass for spectroscopically-confirmed
1739: BX/LBG galaxies, excluding AGN, with mean values indicated in the panel and by the vertical
1740: lines. ({\em Right}): Stellar mass as a function of unobscured absolute UV magnitude for
1741: BX galaxies ({\em filled squares}) and LBGs ({\em open circles}).}
1742: \label{fig:smdist}
1743: \end{figure*}
1744:
1745: Based on these distributions, let us proceed to estimate the stellar
1746: mass density contributed by UV-bright galaxies. To do this, we
1747: generated many random realizations of the UV LF as allowed by the
1748: errors, and drew random absolute magnitudes from each of these
1749: realizations. We assigned a stellar mass drawn randomly from the
1750: observed distribution (Figure~\ref{fig:smdist}), which is then
1751: perturbed by $0.3$~dex to account for {\em random} uncertainties
1752: \citep{shapley05}. The masses are then binned to produce a rough
1753: proxy for the stellar mass function. The resulting Gaussian
1754: distributions for $\rs \le 25.5$ galaxies at $z\sim 2$ and $3$ --
1755: corresponding to galaxies with $M_{\rm AB}(1700\AA) \le -19.53$ and
1756: $-20.05$ and $z=2.3$ and $z=3.05$, respectively --- are shown in
1757: Figure~\ref{fig:massfcn}. Integrating these distributions for those
1758: galaxies with $M_{\ast}<10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$ yields:
1759: \begin{eqnarray}
1760: \Omega_{\ast}(M_{\rm AB}(1700\AA) \le -19.53; <10^{11}\, {\rm M}_{\odot}; z\sim 2.3) = \\
1761: (3.72\pm0.28)\times 10^{-4} \nonumber \\
1762: \Omega_{\ast}(M_{\rm AB}(1700\AA) \le -20.05; <10^{11}\, {\rm M}_{\odot}; z\sim 3.05) =\nonumber \\
1763: (1.53\pm0.15)\times 10^{-4}
1764: \end{eqnarray}
1765: in units of the critical density (Table~\ref{tab:smopt}). These
1766: estimates are meant to reflect the stellar mass densities contributed
1767: by UV-bright star-forming galaxies. Note that the stellar mass
1768: densities computed here differ from those derived in
1769: \S~\ref{sec:smdcont}; the latter are based on integrating the star
1770: formation rate density, whereas the former are based on masses
1771: determined from broadband fitting of galaxy SEDs, and so are subject
1772: to somewhat different systematics. The important result of this
1773: section is that even without corrections for (1) the most massive and
1774: dusty galaxies at these redshifts for which the BX/LBG criteria are
1775: incomplete (\S~\ref{sec:nature}) and (2) UV-faint galaxies with $\rs >
1776: 25.5$, we already find a stellar mass density at $z\sim 2$ comparable
1777: to estimates from rest-frame optically-selected samples
1778: (Figure~\ref{fig:massfcn}; \citealt{fontana03, dickinson03, rudnick03,
1779: drory05}). Of course, direct comparisons between our measurements and
1780: those from optically-selected samples are fraught with significant
1781: biases, both random (e.g., field-to-field variations in the optical
1782: samples) and systematic (adopted rest-frame optical limits,
1783: underestimates of stellar mass by assuming a single component SF
1784: model, or more generally systematics in the assumed $M/L$ ratio and
1785: differences in stellar population models). Some of the random
1786: uncertainties are constrained by taking values from different surveys
1787: conducted in spatially disjoint fields, and at face value, the results
1788: above suggest that typical star-forming galaxies already contain an
1789: amount of stellar mass comparable to that detected in rest-frame
1790: optically-selected surveys.
1791:
1792: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1793: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1794: \tablewidth{0pc}
1795: \tablecaption{Stellar Mass Density Budget at $1.9\le z<3.4$}
1796: \tablehead{
1797: \colhead{} &
1798: \colhead{$1.9\le z < 2.7$} &
1799: \colhead{$2.7\le z < 3.4$}}
1800: \startdata
1801: $\Omega_{\ast}(\rs \le 25.5; < 10^{11}\, {\rm M}_{\odot})$\tablenotemark{a} & $3.72\pm0.28$ & $1.53\pm0.15$ \\
1802: $\Omega_{\ast}(\rs > 25.5; < 10^{11}\, {\rm M}_{\odot})$\tablenotemark{b} & $2.06\pm0.26$ & $1.86\pm0.21$ \\
1803: $\Omega_{\ast}(> 10^{11}\, {\rm M}_{\odot})$\tablenotemark{c} & $1.64\pm0.45$ & ... \\
1804: $\Omega_{\ast}({\rm Total})$\tablenotemark{d} & $7.42\pm 0.59$ & $>3.39\pm 0.26$
1805: \enddata
1806: \tablenotetext{a}{Stellar mass density, in units of the critical density $\times 10^{-4}$, in galaxies
1807: with $\rs\le 25.5$ and stellar masses $<10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$ assuming a Kroupa IMF.}
1808: \tablenotetext{b}{Same as (a), but includes the contribution inferred for $\rs>25.5$
1809: galaxies based on the correlation between SFR and stellar mass for UV-selected galaxies (see text).}
1810: \tablenotetext{c}{Stellar mass density in galaxies with stellar masses $> 10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$,
1811: based on the data of \citet{vandokkum06}.}
1812: \tablenotetext{d}{Total stellar mass density, computed by adding the numbers from the first
1813: three rows, including the contribution of UV-bright and faint galaxies, as well as those
1814: with stellar masses $> 10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$.}
1815: \label{tab:smopt}
1816: \end{deluxetable}
1817:
1818: \begin{figure*}[t]
1819: \plottwo{f12a.eps}{f12b.eps}
1820: \caption{({\em Left}): Stellar mass functions for $\rs \le 25.5$
1821: star-forming galaxies at $1.9\le z < 2.7$ ({\em filled circles}) and
1822: $2.7\le z < 3.4$ ({\em open squares}), based on combining the number
1823: density computed from the UV LF and the stellar mass distribution
1824: measured for BXs and LBGs (Figure~\ref{fig:smdist}). The dotted lines
1825: indicate the inferred contribution from galaxies fainter than
1826: $\rs=25.5$, based on the trend between SFR and stellar mass for
1827: UV-selected galaxies (see text). The dashed lines indicate the total
1828: contribution from both UV-bright and faint galaxies. For comparison,
1829: the GOODS and FDF results at $2.25<z<3.00$ from \citet{drory05} are
1830: denoted by the open triangles. ({\em Right}): Stellar mass density
1831: measurements at $1.9<z<2.7$ ({\em open triangles}) from the following
1832: sources: \citet{rudnick03, drory05, pozzetti07, fontana03,
1833: dickinson03, fontana06}. All of these studies constrain the SMD over
1834: areas that are significantly smaller than the almost $1$~square degree
1835: probed in this study, and most rely on photometric redshifts. Our
1836: estimates at $z\sim 2.3$ are shown by the large circles: {\em dotted}
1837: shows the estimate for UV-bright ($\rs \le 25.5$) galaxies with
1838: $M_{\ast}<10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$; {\em dashed} shows the estimate
1839: including UV-faint galaxies with $M_{\ast}<10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$ to a
1840: faint limit of $M_{\rm AB}(1700\AA) = -18.0$; and {\em solid} denotes
1841: the total contribution including massive
1842: ($M_{\ast}>10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$) galaxies. The stellar mass density
1843: inferred by integrating the star formation history
1844: (Figure~\ref{fig:sfrd}) to a limit of $0.083L^{\ast}$ (same as that
1845: used to compute the stellar mass density) is denoted by the solid
1846: line. For comparison, the dashed line shows the result when
1847: integrating the star formation history to zero luminosity.}
1848: \label{fig:massfcn}
1849: \end{figure*}
1850:
1851: \subsubsection{Massive Galaxies}
1852:
1853: From the survey results of \citet{vandokkum04}, after converting to a
1854: common IMF, the mass density contributed by galaxies with stellar
1855: masses $> 10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$ at $2.0<z<3.0$ is
1856: $\Omega_{\ast}(>10^{11}\, {\rm M}_{\odot}) = (1.64\pm 0.45)\times
1857: 10^{-4}$ (Table~\ref{tab:smopt}), where the uncertainty does not
1858: include potentially large systematic errors in photometric redshifts
1859: (e.g., R08, \citealt{shapley05}). For this calculation, we have
1860: assumed that the mass density does not evolve over redshifts
1861: $2.0<z<3.0$, although it most likely does, and have assumed the
1862: aforementioned value is valid at $z\sim 2.3$. Adding this to the
1863: contribution from UV-bright galaxies yields a mass density of
1864: $\Omega_{\ast}(z\sim 2.3) = (5.36\pm 0.53)\times 10^{-4}$. Do
1865: UV-faint galaxies contain enough stellar mass to add appreciably to
1866: this number? We explore this question in the next section.
1867:
1868: \subsubsection{Stellar Mass in UV-faint Galaxies}
1869:
1870: How might the stellar mass distribution be expected to change for
1871: UV-faint sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies? \citet{shapley05} and
1872: \citet{reddy06a} highlight the biases inherent in photometric redshift
1873: estimates for star-forming galaxies at $z\sim 2$, perhaps even more so
1874: for UV-faint galaxies. We are at present targeting UV-faint galaxies
1875: with deep spectroscopy to remedy this situation. Such spectroscopy,
1876: combined with deep multi-wavelength data in several of our survey
1877: fields, should allow us to constrain the stellar populations and
1878: masses of sub-$L^{\ast}$ to as much confidence as one can obtain with
1879: such an analysis. A full SED analysis of such galaxies is beyond the
1880: scope of this paper, yet we can make some progress in determining the
1881: stellar mass content of sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies based on observations
1882: of UV-bright galaxies.
1883:
1884: To do this, we exploited the log-linear relation between SFR and
1885: stellar mass found at $z\sim 2.3$ from an analysis of deep HDF data by
1886: \citet{sawicki07}: $\log (M_{\rm
1887: stars}/M_{\odot})=9.0+0.86\log[SFR/(M_{\odot}yr^{-1})]$. They present
1888: evidence that this correlation remains valid for galaxies with SFRs of
1889: $\approx 1$~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$, corresponding to unobscured UV
1890: magnitudes of $M_{\rm AB}(1700\AA)\sim -18.0$. Several other
1891: correlations between SFR and stellar mass have been published,
1892: including most recently by \citet{reddy06a} and \citet{daddi07a}.
1893: Adopting these latter relations results in a slightly larger
1894: contribution of stellar mass from UV-faint galaxies. Therefore, as a
1895: conservative estimate, we have adopted the \citet{sawicki07}
1896: correlation in the subsequent discussion.\footnote{The zeropoint of
1897: the SFR-stellar mass relation appears to evolve with redshift
1898: \citep{noeske07}. For our analysis, we have assumed the correlation
1899: found at $z\sim 2.3$.} Although we do not observe a significant
1900: correlation between unobscured UV luminosity and stellar mass for
1901: UV-bright ($\rs \le 25.5$) galaxies, the log-linear behavior of SFR
1902: with stellar mass implies that such a correlation must exist when
1903: examined over a large dynamic range in unobscured UV luminosity. In
1904: particular, since UV-faint galaxies are likely to have lower reddening
1905: than their brighter counterparts (\S~\ref{sec:nature}), the UV
1906: luminosity for these galaxies is expected to track the bolometric
1907: luminosity given the tight relation between SFR and reddening (e.g.,
1908: \citealt{reddy06b}). This, combined with the trend between SFR and
1909: $M_{\ast}$, implies a correlation between UV luminosity and stellar
1910: mass when examined over a large range in luminosity. Using the
1911: procedure outlined above, we recomputed the stellar mass density by
1912: integrating the UV LF to $M_{\rm AB}(1700\AA) = -18.00$ and allowing
1913: the stellar mass to adjust according to the empirical relation between
1914: SFR and $M_{\ast}$. The SFR is determined by combining the absolute
1915: magnitude of galaxies with the luminosity-dependent reddening model.
1916: The resulting stellar mass densities (Table~\ref{tab:smopt}) suggest
1917: that roughly as much stellar mass is contained in UV-faint galaxies as
1918: is contained in UV-bright ones, implying a relatively steep low mass
1919: slope of the stellar mass function, a conclusion that appears to be a
1920: generic result of most cosmological simulations \citep{nagamine04,
1921: finlator07}. Note that this computation includes only those galaxies
1922: that are brighter than $M_{\rm AB}(1700\AA) = -18.00$, since it is
1923: down to this limit that the correlation between SFR and $M_{\ast}$ has
1924: been verified empirically. Assuming the correlation is valid at
1925: fainter magnitudes results in a $64\%$ larger stellar mass density
1926: contribution from UV-faint galaxies when integrated to $M_{\rm
1927: AB}(1700\AA) = -16.00$. For the subsequent discussion, however, we
1928: assume the numbers that result from integrating to the brighter limit.
1929: More importantly, this discussion highlights the considerable leeway
1930: in adjusting the stellar mass density estimates upwards even with
1931: conservative assumptions of the stellar mass distribution for UV-faint
1932: galaxies.
1933:
1934: \subsubsection{Comparisons with the Integrated Star Formation History}
1935:
1936: Can our revised estimate of the stellar mass density at $z\sim 2.3$
1937: account for the star formation that has occurred until then?
1938: Figure~\ref{fig:massfcn} shows a compilation of stellar mass density
1939: estimates from the literature, along with our determinations and the
1940: stellar mass density inferred by integrating the luminosity-dependent
1941: reddening-corrected star formation history. Recall that our
1942: calculation of the stellar mass density includes galaxies brighter
1943: than $M_{\rm AB}(1700\AA) = -18.0$ at $z=2.3$, corresponding to a
1944: luminosity of $0.083L^{\ast}$, where $L^{\ast}$ is the unobscured
1945: characteristic luminosity at $z=2.3$. When integrating the star
1946: formation history, we must keep track of how these galaxies evolved
1947: with time. We have already shown that $L^{\ast}$ evolves strongly
1948: with redshift, such that $>0.083L^{\ast}_{z=2.3}$ galaxies at $z=2.3$
1949: would have been fainter on average at higher z. To account for this
1950: fading with increasing redshift, we adopt a lower limit to the
1951: integral of the UV LF that evolves in the same way as $L^{\ast}$.
1952: Specifically, to find the star formation rate density, we integrate
1953: the UV LF to a limit of $0.083L^{\ast}$ where, in the integral,
1954: $L^{\ast}$ varies with redshift. By doing this, we are in effect
1955: keeping track of these galaxies' location on the UV LF as a function
1956: of time. Note that there may be individual galaxies that contribute
1957: to the stellar mass density prior to $z=2.3$, but then fall below a
1958: luminosity of $0.083L^{\ast}$ at some later epoch. However, galaxies
1959: will of course accumulate most of their stellar mass when they are
1960: forming stars at higher rather than lower rate. Further, virtually
1961: all of the evolution of the UV LF at $z>2.3$ can be accommodated by a
1962: brightening of $L^{\ast}$ with increasing cosmic time
1963: (\S~\ref{sec:mstarevol}) and, therefore, it is unlikely that there are
1964: large numbers of galaxies fading beyond a fixed fraction of
1965: $L^{\ast}$. We noted in \S~\ref{sec:lfevol} that there is little
1966: evolution in the UV LF between $z\sim 4$ and $z\sim 2.3$, but
1967: presumably most of the galaxies that are fading are destined to become
1968: massive galaxies by $z\sim 2.3$, and recall that our estimate of the
1969: stellar mass density at $z\sim 2.3$ {\em includes} that from massive
1970: galaxies with $M_{\ast}>10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$. Given these reasons, it
1971: is reasonable to assume that integrating to $0.083L^{\ast}(z)$ should
1972: approximate the stellar mass accumulated by galaxies brighter than
1973: this limit at all previous epochs.
1974:
1975: With this premise, we show the integrated star formation history in
1976: Figure~\ref{fig:massfcn}. Accounting for the stellar mass content of
1977: both UV-bright and faint galaxies results in a stellar mass density at
1978: $z=2.3$ that agrees well with our inference from integrating the star
1979: formation history. In fact, it is perhaps remarkable that with a
1980: simple calculation where we account for the fading of galaxies with
1981: increasing cosmic time, we are able to resolve the integrated star
1982: formation history with the global stellar mass density at the very
1983: epoch where their supposed disparity reaches its greatest amplitude
1984: (Figure~\ref{fig:sfrd}). A careful analysis of the stellar mass
1985: density contributed by galaxies over the bulk of the LF, combined with
1986: an integration of the luminosity-dependent reddening-corrected star
1987: formation history to an appropriate limit, may obviate the need to
1988: invoke some other mechanism, such as an evolving IMF, to explain the
1989: discrepancy. Of course, with the present analysis we cannot rule out
1990: that there may be {\em some} redshift evolution of the IMF, and there
1991: are theoretical arguments as to why this may be the case
1992: \citep{larson98, larson05}. Indeed, such an evolution may plausibly
1993: explain the shift in zeropoint of the trend between SFR and stellar
1994: mass as a function of redshift \citep{dave08}. All we have shown here
1995: is that there is a simpler explanation for the discrepancy between the
1996: integrated star formation history and stellar mass measurements at
1997: $z\sim 2$, namely that the former must take into account an evolving
1998: dust correction and the latter are likely to be incomplete for
1999: galaxies with low stellar masses. In point of fact, incompleteness of
2000: stellar mass density measurements and an evolving dust correction are
2001: physically well-motivated by observations of high redshift galaxies,
2002: as we have shown here and elsewhere (\citealt{reddy06a}, R08), whereas
2003: IMF evolution has yet to be verified observationally. The results of
2004: the last few sections highlight the subtleties that without proper
2005: accounting may lead to the types of discrepancies reported in the
2006: past. Our findings favor a more nuanced view of the purported
2007: discrepancy between the integral of the star formation history and
2008: stellar mass density measurements.
2009:
2010: Note that we have not measured directly the stellar mass function at
2011: $z\sim 2$, but have inferred it by combining our knowledge of the UV
2012: LF (which gives the number density of galaxies) with stellar masses
2013: determined from broadband SED fitting. Our analysis suggests that an
2014: appreciable fraction of stellar mass is hosted by sub-$L^{\ast}$
2015: galaxies and that the steepness of the slope of stellar mass function
2016: may have been underestimated in previous studies based on near-IR
2017: data. The robustness of our conclusions should be verified by
2018: significantly deeper rest-frame near-IR observations that constrain
2019: the low mass end of the stellar mass function. A more direct sampling
2020: of the stellar masses of UV-faint galaxies is required.
2021:
2022: \subsection{Concluding Remarks}
2023: \label{sec:cautions}
2024:
2025: We conclude this section with a few cautionary remarks. As stated
2026: previously, we have adopted the $z\ga 4$ measurements of the UV LF
2027: that are based on a maximum-likelihood analysis that is most analogous
2028: to the method we have used, and that are based on data that extend to
2029: comparable depths as achieved here, albeit over an area an order of
2030: magnitude smaller, in order to make the most consistent comparison
2031: between star formation rate density estimates. Obvious effects that
2032: can contribute to both random and systematic error in the star
2033: formation history include cosmic variance and the limit to which the
2034: UV LF is measured. Large-scale multi-field surveys at $z\ga 4$
2035: analogous to the present survey at $z\sim 2-3$ will provide better
2036: constraints on the random errors associated with cosmic variance.
2037: Further, it may be of interest to determine if the similarity in the
2038: UV LF from the HDF studies versus the universal one measured at $z\sim
2039: 2-3$ (\S~\ref{sec:hdf}) extends to higher redshifts.
2040:
2041: Another point of consideration is the expected turnover in the
2042: faint-end slope at very faint luminosities. This turnover is likely
2043: dictated by the threshold of cold gas surface density in halos
2044: required to trigger star formation \citep{schmidt59, kennicutt98}. In
2045: the context of the present analysis, the magnitude of the systematic
2046: effect that results from integrating the LF to zero luminosity will
2047: depend on the steepness of the faint-end slope. For a fixed
2048: $\phi^{\ast}$, the difference between integrating the LF to
2049: $0.04L^{\ast}$ versus zero luminosity is a factor of 1.85 for
2050: $\alpha=-1.73$, 1.44 for $\alpha=-1.6$, and 1.19 for $\alpha=-1.4$.
2051: However, at present there are no empirical constraints on the turnover
2052: of the faint-end slope of the LF. Even locally, where surveys can
2053: probe to luminosities significantly fainter than $L^{\ast}$, there is
2054: no evidence for a fall-off in number density of dwarf galaxies. The
2055: local $u$-band LF from the SDSS, for instance, appears to abide by a
2056: log-linear relationship between number density and magnitude down to
2057: $\approx 0.02L^{\ast}$ \citep{baldry05} and, in fact, surveys of the
2058: local group of star-forming dwarf galaxies suggest an increasing slope
2059: to $0.0001L^{\ast}$ (\citealt{mateo98}). Of course, there is no
2060: reason why the local rest-frame optical LFs should have the same slope
2061: as the rest-frame UV LF, particularly if the LF represents a sequence
2062: in mass-to-light ratio. Recall that we have adopted a zero luminosity
2063: limit for consistency with the SFRD compilation of \citet{wilkins08}
2064: and \citet{hopkins04}. Given the steep faint-end slopes found at
2065: $z\ga 2$ and the accommodation of a significant fraction of the
2066: luminosity density by faint galaxies, we should bear in mind the
2067: possible systematic effects of integrating to zero luminosity, both in
2068: terms of the unobscured UV luminosity density and the average dust
2069: corrections in the case of luminosity-dependent reddening. A further
2070: systematic in the star formation history may be caused by a
2071: redshift-dependency in the turnover of the faint-end slope of the UV
2072: LF. We note, however, that these systematics will not affect our
2073: comparison of the integrated star formation history and stellar mass
2074: density measurements at $z\sim 2$ given that we restricted our
2075: analysis to luminosities ($>0.083L^{\ast}$) where we do have empirical
2076: constraints on the LF.
2077:
2078: It is also worthwhile to mention that the \citet{kennicutt98} relation
2079: for converting UV luminosity to star formation rate is valid only for
2080: a stellar population age that is $\ga 100$~Myr, since it is after this
2081: time that the mix of O and B stars stabilizes assuming a constant star
2082: formation history. For galaxies much younger than this, the UV
2083: luminosity will underpredict the SFR based on this relation. Hence,
2084: discerning trends in the stellar population age as a function of
2085: unobscured UV luminosity is a necessary step in computing accurately
2086: the star formation rate density, particularly since the UV luminosity
2087: density appears to be dominated by UV-faint galaxies, if such UV-faint
2088: galaxies are systematically younger than their brighter counterparts.
2089:
2090: Finally, we note that because the stellar mass density is an
2091: integrated quantity, we cannot add arbitrarily large amounts of
2092: stellar mass at high redshift without violating the local constraints,
2093: assuming the latter are complete in stellar mass. Given that the
2094: local measurements can be systematically uncertain by up to $30\%$
2095: \citep{bell03}, and the additional contribution from faint galaxies to
2096: $M_{\rm AB}(1700\AA)=-18.0$ at $z\ga 2$ is only $\approx 9\%$ of the
2097: local value, then our finding of significant stellar mass in UV-faint
2098: galaxies at $z>2$ does not pose a problem in terms of the budget of
2099: stellar mass in the local universe. In practice, our preliminary
2100: estimates of the number density of galaxies with low stellar masses
2101: ($M_{\ast}\la 10^{10}$~M$_{\odot}$) may be used to constrain
2102: cosmological models that currently predict low-mass slopes of the
2103: stellar mass function at $z\ga 3$ that are comparably steep as the
2104: slope of the halo mass function \citep{nagamine08}. Ultimately, this
2105: issue may be resolved through detailed clustering analysis of
2106: sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies and inferences as to their local descendants.
2107: Alternatively, if LAEs represent a short phase in the lifetimes of
2108: UV-faint galaxies but are otherwise unremarkable sub-$L^{\ast}$
2109: galaxies, then the clustering of LAEs may provide clues to the
2110: descendants of UV-faint galaxies (e.g., \citealt{kovac07, gawiser07}).
2111:
2112: \section{Discussion: Evolution of the Faint-End Slope}
2113: \label{sec:alpha}
2114:
2115: So far, the discussion has focused on what the UV LFs can tell us
2116: about the star formation rate density and buildup of stellar mass.
2117: The modulation of the LF with respect to the underlying halo mass
2118: distribution also yields important information regarding the processes
2119: that regulate star formation, such as supernovae-driven or radiative
2120: winds, and energy injection from AGN, mechanisms generically referred
2121: to as ``feedback.'' For example, the sharp cutoff at the bright-end
2122: of the UV LF may be partly attributable to AGN feedback suppressing
2123: star formation in high mass halos \citep{croton06, scannapieco05,
2124: granato04}, even after taking into account the saturation of UV light
2125: with respect to the total star formation rates of galaxies with large
2126: SFRs \citep{adel00, reddy06a}. Similarly, the shallowness of the
2127: faint-end slope of the LF relative to that of the halo mass function
2128: suggests some regulating mechanism associated with star formation
2129: itself, such as through reionization \citep{kravtsov04, gnedin00},
2130: supernovae winds, or radiatively-driven winds \citep{martin99,
2131: springel03}.
2132:
2133: One important conclusion from our analysis is that the faint-end slope
2134: of the UV LF is relatively constant and steep between $z\sim 2$ and
2135: the highest redshifts where $\alpha$ can be measured well, around
2136: $z\sim 6$ (Figure~\ref{fig:alpha}). At the same time, $L^{\ast}$
2137: evolves strongly between these redshifts (\S~\ref{sec:mstarevol}).
2138: Because the average galaxy is brightening, the invariance of $\alpha$
2139: over these redshifts is not likely reflective of an equilibrium
2140: between fading and brightening galaxies. Rather, whatever
2141: sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies at $z\sim 6$ brighten to become $L^{\ast}$
2142: galaxies by $z\sim 2$ are made up in number by halos in which gas has
2143: newly condensed to form stars by $z\sim 2$.
2144:
2145: The steep $\alpha \sim -1.7$ at $z\ga 2$ stands in contrast with the
2146: shallower values of $\alpha \sim -1.1$ measured locally
2147: \citep{wyder05, budavari05}. The redshift evolution of $\alpha(z)$ is
2148: summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:alpha} and suggests that most of the
2149: change in $\alpha$ occurs mainly below $z\sim 2$. What may be the
2150: cause of this change? It has been suggested recently that the
2151: evolution in $\alpha(z)$, such that $\alpha$ is shallower at lower
2152: redshifts, may reflect the delayed onset of feedback from Type Ia SN
2153: \citep{khochfar07}. However, even if such feedback is energetically
2154: important, it is unclear whether it would have any perceivable effect
2155: on $\alpha(z)$ given that the faint-end population evolves strongly
2156: between the redshifts in question. A more likely explanation is that
2157: the evolution in $\alpha(z)$ is dictated simply by the availability of
2158: low mass halos with cold gas at redshifts $z\la 2$. Perhaps it is not
2159: surprising that the apparent shift from steep to shallow faint-end
2160: slopes occurs at an epoch ($z\sim 2$) that is marked by a confluence
2161: of other important transitions, including the reversal in the
2162: evolution of the cosmic star formation density.
2163:
2164: \section{Conclusions}
2165: \label{sec:conclusions}
2166:
2167: We have used the spectroscopic redshifts and photometric data in all
2168: of the fields of the Lyman Break Galaxy (LBG) survey to make the most
2169: robust determination of the UV luminosity functions (LFs) at $1.9\le
2170: z<2.7$ and $2.7\le z<3.4$. Our sample includes over $2000$
2171: spectroscopic redshifts, and $\approx 31000$ LBGs spread across $31$
2172: spatially-independent fields over a total area of $3261$~arcmin$^{2}$.
2173: The depth of these data allow us to select LBGs to $0.07L^{\ast}$ and
2174: $0.1L^{\ast}$ at redshift $z\sim 2$ and $3$, respectively. The LFs
2175: are constrained using a maximum-likelihood procedure that includes the
2176: effects of photometric errors, contaminants, and
2177: perturbation of galaxy colors due to Ly$\alpha$. The principle
2178: conclusions of this work are as follows:
2179:
2180: 1. We have quantified the effects of a luminosity dependent reddening
2181: and Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width ($W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$) distribution on
2182: the incompleteness corrections to our sample. Allowing for a larger
2183: fraction of galaxies with large $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ among UV-faint
2184: galaxies results in a $3-4\%$ increase in the faint-end number
2185: densities relative to those obtained by assuming a
2186: luminosity-invariant $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution as constrained
2187: from our spectroscopic sample. Similarly, adopting a
2188: luminosity-dependent reddening distribution where the mean reddening
2189: of galaxies decreases to fainter UV magnitudes results in an up to
2190: $10\%$ increase in the inferred number density of UV-faint galaxies.
2191: While these differences in the number density are not negligible,
2192: accounting for these luminosity-dependent systematics does little to
2193: alter the Schechter parameters, in particular the faint-end slope
2194: ($\alpha$), and it suggests that the UV-color criteria are robust to
2195: such systematics and that our derived LF must be reasonably complete
2196: for UV-faint galaxies. Adopting reasonable assumptions for the
2197: luminosity dependence of $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ and reddening, we derive
2198: faint-end slopes of $\alpha(z=2)=-1.73\pm0.07$ and
2199: $\alpha(z=3)=-1.73\pm0.13$.
2200:
2201: 2. A comparison indicates that our determination yields sub-$L^{\ast}$
2202: number densities that are significantly larger, and faint-end slopes
2203: that are somewhat steeper, than those published previously. We
2204: believe our results are robust given (a) the large number of
2205: spectroscopic redshifts used to constrain the bright-end of the UV LF,
2206: (b) photometry over a large area spread across many
2207: spatially-independent fields to mitigate cosmic variance, and (c) a
2208: careful analysis of the systematics (Ly$\alpha$ line perturbations and
2209: luminosity-dependent reddening) that are important for computing the
2210: faint-end slope. Our analysis suggests that LFs based on HDF-N data
2211: alone are not biased significantly from the universal value of the LF
2212: determined here, at least at redshifts $z\sim 2-3$.
2213:
2214: 3. There is very little evolution in the UV LF in the redshift range
2215: $1.9\le z<3.4$. However, examined over a larger baseline in redshift
2216: and using the published results at $z\sim 6$, we find a brightening of
2217: the characteristic unobscured UV magnitude of $\sim 1.2$~mag between
2218: $z\sim 6$ and $z\sim 2$. The faint-end slope remains relatively
2219: constant and steep between these redshifts, with a value of
2220: $\alpha\sim -1.7$ to $-1.8$.
2221:
2222: 4. To examine the frequency of atypical galaxies on the faint-end of
2223: the UV LF, we compared the number density of sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies
2224: to those of dusty ultraluminous infrared galaxies and galaxies with
2225: large stellar masses $>10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$. With conservative
2226: assumptions regarding their UV-magnitude distributions, we find that
2227: galaxies with large stellar masses and bolometrically-luminous
2228: galaxies comprise $\la 2\%$ of the total space density of galaxies
2229: fainter than $\rs = 25.5$. This small fraction underscores not only
2230: the rarity of these objects, but also the large number of UV-faint
2231: galaxies implied by the steep faint-end slope.
2232:
2233: 5. Integrating the UV LFs at $z\sim 2-3$ to zero implies that $93\%$
2234: of the unobscured luminosity density resides in galaxies fainter than
2235: $L^{\ast}$. Adopting our prescription for the luminosity-dependence
2236: of reddening, we construct bolometric luminosity functions to estimate
2237: that $>70\%$ of the bolometric luminosity density arises from galaxies
2238: fainter than the characteristic bolometric luminosity at these
2239: redshifts. The luminosity-dependent reddening model combined with a
2240: steep $\alpha$ imply that the average dust corrections needed to
2241: recover the bolometric luminosity density from the unobscured UV
2242: luminosity density will depend sensitively on the limit of integration
2243: used to compute the luminosity density. Of course, these corrections
2244: will depend also on whether they include only the reddening
2245: corrections for galaxies routinely selected by their rest-UV colors or
2246: if they also include corrections for galaxies that escape UV selection
2247: altogether.
2248:
2249: 6. Assuming a constant reddening correction of $4.5$ to the
2250: UV-determined star formation history results in a factor of two
2251: overestimate of star formation rates and stellar mass densities
2252: accumulated at $z\sim 2-3$ relative to the values obtained by assuming
2253: a luminosity-dependent reddening correction to the star formation
2254: history. Integrating the latter indicates that at least $25\%$ of the
2255: present-day stellar mass density was formed in sub-ultraluminous
2256: galaxies between redshifts $z=3.4$ and $z=1.9$.
2257:
2258: 7. The luminosity-dependent reddening-corrected star formation history
2259: points to a factor of $8-9$ increase in the star formation rate
2260: density (integrated to zero luminosity) between $z\sim 6$ and $z\sim
2261: 2$, significantly steeper than the factor of $4$ that we would have
2262: inferred in the case of constant dust reddening. The evolution in the
2263: bolometric star formation rate density is driven equally by an
2264: evolution in the unobscured characteristic luminosity and an evolving
2265: (luminosity-dependent) dust correction.
2266:
2267: 8. We have examined the offset between the integral of the star
2268: formation history and previously published determinations of the
2269: stellar mass densities at $z\sim 2$, the epoch where this discrepancy
2270: appears to peak in amplitude and where our data are most sensitive.
2271: Given the steep faint-end slopes observed at $z\sim 2$, we have
2272: explored whether UV-faint galaxies could plausibly account for the
2273: observed differences. By summing the stellar mass from all galaxies
2274: brighter than $0.083L^{\ast}_{z=2}$, we find a stellar mass density
2275: that is in remarkable agreement with the luminosity-dependent
2276: reddening-corrected star formation history when the latter is
2277: integrated to the same $0.083L^{\ast}$ limit that accounts for the
2278: fading of galaxies with increasing cosmic time. This exercise
2279: highlights the importance of UV-faint galaxies in the total budget of
2280: stellar mass, and suggests that computing the integral of the star
2281: formation history in a way that reflects how galaxies evolve may
2282: obviate the need to invoke other mechanisms (e.g., an evolution of the
2283: IMF) to reconcile the integrated star formation history and the global
2284: stellar mass density at $z\sim 2$.
2285:
2286: 9. Finally, while the faint-end slope at any given redshift is likely
2287: to be regulated by feedback, discerning the signatures of delayed
2288: feedback (e.g., from Type Ia SN) in the redshift evolution of $\alpha$
2289: is not trivial, particularly given the strong evolution of the UV LF
2290: at $z\ga 2$. Our results suggest that $\alpha$ is roughly constant at
2291: $z\ga 2$, contrasting with the shallower values found locally. This
2292: evolution may be dictated simply by the availability of low mass halos
2293: capable of supporting star formation at $z\la 2$.
2294:
2295: \acknowledgements
2296:
2297: This work benefited from discussions with Arjun Dey and Max Pettini.
2298: We thank Max Pettini for useful suggestions regarding the organization
2299: of the paper. N. A. R. thanks Romeel Dav\'{e} for sending the data
2300: included in Figure~\ref{fig:sfrd}, and Pieter van Dokkum for an
2301: electronic version of the stellar mass data from \citet{vandokkum06}.
2302: We thank the staff of the Keck Observatory for their help in obtaining
2303: the data presented here. Support for N. A. R. was provided by NASA
2304: through Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-01223.01 awarded by the Space
2305: Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of
2306: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract
2307: NAS 5-26555. Additional support has been provided by research funding
2308: for the {\em Spitzer} Space Telescope Legacy Science Program, provided
2309: by NASA through contracts 1224666 and 1287778, issued by the Jet
2310: Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
2311: C. C. S. has been supported by grants AST 03-07263 and AST 06-06912
2312: from the National Science Foundation and by the David and Lucile
2313: Packard Foundation.
2314:
2315: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
2316: %\bibliography{apj-jour,myrefs}
2317:
2318: \begin{thebibliography}{118}
2319: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
2320:
2321: \bibitem[{{Adelberger} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Adelberger}, {Erb},
2322: {Steidel}, {Reddy}, {Pettini}, \& {Shapley}}]{adelberger05a}
2323: {Adelberger}, K.~L., {Erb}, D.~K., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Reddy}, N.~A., {Pettini},
2324: M., \& {Shapley}, A.~E. 2005{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 620, L75
2325:
2326: \bibitem[{{Adelberger} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}}){Adelberger}, {Shapley},
2327: {Steidel}, {Pettini}, {Erb}, \& {Reddy}}]{adelberger05b}
2328: {Adelberger}, K.~L., {Shapley}, A.~E., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Pettini}, M., {Erb},
2329: D.~K., \& {Reddy}, N.~A. 2005{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 629, 636
2330:
2331: \bibitem[{{Adelberger} \& {Steidel}(2000)}]{adel00}
2332: {Adelberger}, K.~L. \& {Steidel}, C.~C. 2000, \apj, 544, 218
2333:
2334: \bibitem[{{Adelberger} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{c}}){Adelberger}, {Steidel},
2335: {Pettini}, {Shapley}, {Reddy}, \& {Erb}}]{adelberger05c}
2336: {Adelberger}, K.~L., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Pettini}, M., {Shapley}, A.~E.,
2337: {Reddy}, N.~A., \& {Erb}, D.~K. 2005{\natexlab{c}}, \apj, 619, 697
2338:
2339: \bibitem[{{Adelberger} {et~al.}(2004){Adelberger}, {Steidel}, {Shapley},
2340: {Hunt}, {Erb}, {Reddy}, \& {Pettini}}]{adelberger04}
2341: {Adelberger}, K.~L., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Shapley}, A.~E., {Hunt}, M.~P., {Erb},
2342: D.~K., {Reddy}, N.~A., \& {Pettini}, M. 2004, \apj, 607, 226
2343:
2344: \bibitem[{{Adelberger} {et~al.}(2003){Adelberger}, {Steidel}, {Shapley}, \&
2345: {Pettini}}]{adel03}
2346: {Adelberger}, K.~L., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Shapley}, A.~E., \& {Pettini}, M. 2003,
2347: \apj, 584, 45
2348:
2349: \bibitem[{{Alexander} {et~al.}(2005){Alexander}, {Bauer}, {Chapman}, {Smail},
2350: {Blain}, {Brandt}, \& {Ivison}}]{alexander05}
2351: {Alexander}, D.~M., {Bauer}, F.~E., {Chapman}, S.~C., {Smail}, I., {Blain},
2352: A.~W., {Brandt}, W.~N., \& {Ivison}, R.~J. 2005, \apj, 632, 736
2353:
2354: \bibitem[{{Arnouts} {et~al.}(2005){Arnouts}, {Schiminovich}, {Ilbert},
2355: {Tresse}, {Milliard}, {Treyer}, {Bardelli}, {Budavari}, {Wyder}, {Zucca}, {Le
2356: F{\`e}vre}, {Martin}, {Vettolani}, {Adami}, {Arnaboldi}, {Barlow}, {Bianchi},
2357: {Bolzonella}, {Bottini}, {Byun}, {Cappi}, {Charlot}, {Contini}, {Donas},
2358: {Forster}, {Foucaud}, {Franzetti}, {Friedman}, {Garilli}, {Gavignaud},
2359: {Guzzo}, {Heckman}, {Hoopes}, {Iovino}, {Jelinsky}, {Le Brun}, {Lee},
2360: {Maccagni}, {Madore}, {Malina}, {Marano}, {Marinoni}, {McCracken}, {Mazure},
2361: {Meneux}, {Merighi}, {Morrissey}, {Neff}, {Paltani}, {Pell{\`o}}, {Picat},
2362: {Pollo}, {Pozzetti}, {Radovich}, {Rich}, {Scaramella}, {Scodeggio},
2363: {Seibert}, {Siegmund}, {Small}, {Szalay}, {Welsh}, {Xu}, {Zamorani}, \&
2364: {Zanichelli}}]{arnouts05}
2365: {Arnouts}, S., et~al. 2005, \apjl, 619, L43
2366:
2367: \bibitem[{{Baldry} {et~al.}(2005){Baldry}, {Glazebrook}, {Budav{\'a}ri},
2368: {Eisenstein}, {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Blanton}, {Brinkmann}, {Csabai},
2369: {Heckman}, {Lin}, {Loveday}, {Nichol}, \& {Schneider}}]{baldry05}
2370: {Baldry}, I.~K., et~al. 2005, \mnras, 358, 441
2371:
2372: \bibitem[{{Barger} {et~al.}(1998){Barger}, {Cowie}, {Sanders}, {Fulton},
2373: {Taniguchi}, {Sato}, {Kawara}, \& {Okuda}}]{barger98}
2374: {Barger}, A.~J., et~al. 1998, \nat, 394, 248
2375:
2376: \bibitem[{{Beckwith} {et~al.}(2006){Beckwith}, {Stiavelli}, {Koekemoer},
2377: {Caldwell}, {Ferguson}, {Hook}, {Lucas}, {Bergeron}, {Corbin}, {Jogee},
2378: {Panagia}, {Robberto}, {Royle}, {Somerville}, \& {Sosey}}]{beckwith06}
2379: {Beckwith}, S.~V.~W., et~al. 2006, \aj, 132, 1729
2380:
2381: \bibitem[{{Bell}(2003)}]{bell03}
2382: {Bell}, E.~F. 2003, \apj, 586, 794
2383:
2384: \bibitem[{{Bertin} \& {Arnouts}(1996)}]{bertin96}
2385: {Bertin}, E. \& {Arnouts}, S. 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
2386:
2387: \bibitem[{{Bouwens} {et~al.}(2006){Bouwens}, {Illingworth}, {Blakeslee}, \&
2388: {Franx}}]{bouwens06}
2389: {Bouwens}, R.~J., {Illingworth}, G.~D., {Blakeslee}, J.~P., \& {Franx}, M.
2390: 2006, \apj, 653, 53
2391:
2392: \bibitem[{{Bouwens} {et~al.}(2007){Bouwens}, {Illingworth}, {Franx}, \&
2393: {Ford}}]{bouwens07}
2394: {Bouwens}, R.~J., {Illingworth}, G.~D., {Franx}, M., \& {Ford}, H. 2007, \apj,
2395: 670, 928
2396:
2397: \bibitem[{{Bouwens} {et~al.}(2008){Bouwens}, {Illingworth}, {Franx}, \&
2398: {Ford}}]{bouwens08}
2399: ---. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803
2400:
2401: \bibitem[{{Bruzual} \& {Charlot}(2003)}]{bruzual03}
2402: {Bruzual}, G. \& {Charlot}, S. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
2403:
2404: \bibitem[{{Budav{\'a}ri} {et~al.}(2005){Budav{\'a}ri}, {Szalay}, {Charlot},
2405: {Seibert}, {Wyder}, {Arnouts}, {Barlow}, {Bianchi}, {Byun}, {Donas},
2406: {Forster}, {Friedman}, {Heckman}, {Jelinsky}, {Lee}, {Madore}, {Malina},
2407: {Martin}, {Milliard}, {Morrissey}, {Neff}, {Rich}, {Schiminovich},
2408: {Siegmund}, {Small}, {Treyer}, \& {Welsh}}]{budavari05}
2409: {Budav{\'a}ri}, T., et~al. 2005,
2410: \apjl, 619, L31
2411:
2412: \bibitem[{{Bunker} {et~al.}(2004){Bunker}, {Stanway}, {Ellis}, \&
2413: {McMahon}}]{bunker04}
2414: {Bunker}, A.~J., {Stanway}, E.~R., {Ellis}, R.~S., \& {McMahon}, R.~G. 2004,
2415: \mnras, 355, 374
2416:
2417: \bibitem[{{Calzetti} {et~al.}(2000){Calzetti}, {Armus}, {Bohlin}, {Kinney},
2418: {Koornneef}, \& {Storchi-Bergmann}}]{calzetti00}
2419: {Calzetti}, D., {Armus}, L., {Bohlin}, R.~C., {Kinney}, . A.~L., {Koornneef},
2420: J., \& {Storchi-Bergmann}, T. 2000, \apj, 533, 682
2421:
2422: \bibitem[{{Caputi} {et~al.}(2007){Caputi}, {Lagache}, {Yan}, {Dole},
2423: {Bavouzet}, {Le Floc'h}, {Choi}, {Helou}, \& {Reddy}}]{caputi07}
2424: {Caputi}, K.~I., et~al. 2007, \apj, 660, 97
2425:
2426: \bibitem[{{Chapman} {et~al.}(2005){Chapman}, {Blain}, {Smail}, \&
2427: {Ivison}}]{chapman05}
2428: {Chapman}, S.~C., {Blain}, A.~W., {Smail}, I., \& {Ivison}, R.~J. 2005, \apj,
2429: 622, 772
2430:
2431: \bibitem[{{Charlot} \& {Fall}(1993)}]{charlot93}
2432: {Charlot}, S. \& {Fall}, S.~M. 1993, \apj, 415, 580
2433:
2434: \bibitem[{{Cole} {et~al.}(2001){Cole}, {Norberg}, {Baugh}, {Frenk},
2435: {Bland-Hawthorn}, {Bridges}, {Cannon}, {Colless}, {Collins}, {Couch},
2436: {Cross}, {Dalton}, {De Propris}, {Driver}, {Efstathiou}, {Ellis},
2437: {Glazebrook}, {Jackson}, {Lahav}, {Lewis}, {Lumsden}, {Maddox}, {Madgwick},
2438: {Peacock}, {Peterson}, {Sutherland}, \& {Taylor}}]{cole01}
2439: {Cole}, S., et~al. 2001, \mnras, 326, 255
2440:
2441: \bibitem[{{Conroy} {et~al.}(2008){Conroy}, {Shapley}, {Tinker}, {Santos}, \&
2442: {Lemson}}]{conroy08}
2443: {Conroy}, C., {Shapley}, A.~E., {Tinker}, J.~L., {Santos}, M.~R., \& {Lemson},
2444: G. 2008, \apj, 679, 1192
2445:
2446: \bibitem[{{Coppin} {et~al.}(2006){Coppin}, {Chapin}, {Mortier}, {Scott},
2447: {Borys}, {Dunlop}, {Halpern}, {Hughes}, {Pope}, {Scott}, {Serjeant}, {Wagg},
2448: {Alexander}, {Almaini}, {Aretxaga}, {Babbedge}, {Best}, {Blain}, {Chapman},
2449: {Clements}, {Crawford}, {Dunne}, {Eales}, {Edge}, {Farrah}, {Gazta{\~n}aga},
2450: {Gear}, {Granato}, {Greve}, {Fox}, {Ivison}, {Jarvis}, {Jenness}, {Lacey},
2451: {Lepage}, {Mann}, {Marsden}, {Martinez-Sansigre}, {Oliver}, {Page},
2452: {Peacock}, {Pearson}, {Percival}, {Priddey}, {Rawlings}, {Rowan-Robinson},
2453: {Savage}, {Seigar}, {Sekiguchi}, {Silva}, {Simpson}, {Smail}, {Stevens},
2454: {Takagi}, {Vaccari}, {van Kampen}, \& {Willott}}]{coppin06}
2455: {Coppin}, K., et~al. 2006, \mnras, 372, 1621
2456:
2457: \bibitem[{{Croton} {et~al.}(2006){Croton}, {Springel}, {White}, {De Lucia},
2458: {Frenk}, {Gao}, {Jenkins}, {Kauffmann}, {Navarro}, \& {Yoshida}}]{croton06}
2459: {Croton}, D.~J., et~al. 2006, \mnras, 365, 11
2460:
2461: \bibitem[{{Daddi} {et~al.}(2007){Daddi}, {Dickinson}, {Morrison}, {Chary},
2462: {Cimatti}, {Elbaz}, {Frayer}, {Renzini}, {Pope}, {Alexander}, {Bauer},
2463: {Giavalisco}, {Huynh}, {Kurk}, \& {Mignoli}}]{daddi07a}
2464: {Daddi}, E., et~al. 2007, \apj, 670, 156
2465:
2466: \bibitem[{{Dav{\'e}}(2008)}]{dave08}
2467: {Dav{\'e}}, R. 2008, \mnras, 385, 147
2468:
2469: \bibitem[{{Dekel} \& {Birnboim}(2006)}]{dekel06}
2470: {Dekel}, A. \& {Birnboim}, Y. 2006, \mnras, 368, 2
2471:
2472: \bibitem[{{Dey} {et~al.}(2008){Dey}, {Soifer}, {Desai}, {Brand}, {Le Floc'h},
2473: {Brown}, {Jannuzi}, {Armus}, {Bussmann}, {Brodwin}, {Bian}, {Eisenhardt},
2474: {Higdon}, {Weedman}, \& {Willner}}]{dey08}
2475: {Dey}, A., et~al. 2008, \apj, 677, 943
2476:
2477: \bibitem[{{Dickinson} {et~al.}(2003){Dickinson}, {Papovich}, {Ferguson}, \&
2478: {Budav{\' a}ri}}]{dickinson03}
2479: {Dickinson}, M., {Papovich}, C., {Ferguson}, H.~C., \& {Budav{\' a}ri}, T.
2480: 2003, \apj, 587, 25
2481:
2482: \bibitem[{{Dickinson} {et~al.}(2004){Dickinson}, {Stern}, {Giavalisco},
2483: {Ferguson}, {Tsvetanov}, {Chornock}, {Cristiani}, {Dawson}, {Dey},
2484: {Filippenko}, {Moustakas}, {Nonino}, {Papovich}, {Ravindranath}, {Riess},
2485: {Rosati}, {Spinrad}, \& {Vanzella}}]{dickinson04}
2486: {Dickinson}, M., et~al. 2004, \apjl, 600,
2487: L99
2488:
2489: \bibitem[{{Drory} {et~al.}(2005){Drory}, {Salvato}, {Gabasch}, {Bender},
2490: {Hopp}, {Feulner}, \& {Pannella}}]{drory05}
2491: {Drory}, N., {Salvato}, M., {Gabasch}, A., {Bender}, R., {Hopp}, U., {Feulner},
2492: G., \& {Pannella}, M. 2005, \apjl, 619, L131
2493:
2494: \bibitem[{{Erb} {et~al.}(2006){Erb}, {Steidel}, {Shapley}, {Pettini}, {Reddy},
2495: \& {Adelberger}}]{erb06b}
2496: {Erb}, D.~K., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Shapley}, A.~E., {Pettini}, M., {Reddy},
2497: N.~A., \& {Adelberger}, K.~L. 2006, \apj, 646, 107
2498:
2499: \bibitem[{{Eyles} {et~al.}(2007){Eyles}, {Bunker}, {Ellis}, {Lacy}, {Stanway},
2500: {Stark}, \& {Chiu}}]{eyles07}
2501: {Eyles}, L.~P., {Bunker}, A.~J., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Lacy}, M., {Stanway}, E.~R.,
2502: {Stark}, D.~P., \& {Chiu}, K. 2007, \mnras, 374, 910
2503:
2504: \bibitem[{{Finlator} {et~al.}(2007){Finlator}, {Dav{\'e}}, \&
2505: {Oppenheimer}}]{finlator07}
2506: {Finlator}, K., {Dav{\'e}}, R., \& {Oppenheimer}, B.~D. 2007, \mnras, 376, 1861
2507:
2508: \bibitem[{{Fontana} {et~al.}(2003){Fontana}, {Donnarumma}, {Vanzella},
2509: {Giallongo}, {Menci}, {Nonino}, {Saracco}, {Cristiani}, {D'Odorico}, \&
2510: {Poli}}]{fontana03}
2511: {Fontana}, A., et~al. 2003, \apjl, 594, L9
2512:
2513: \bibitem[{{Fontana} {et~al.}(2006){Fontana}, {Salimbeni}, {Grazian},
2514: {Giallongo}, {Pentericci}, {Nonino}, {Fontanot}, {Menci}, {Monaco},
2515: {Cristiani}, {Vanzella}, {de Santis}, \& {Gallozzi}}]{fontana06}
2516: {Fontana}, A., et~al. 2006, \aap, 459, 745
2517:
2518: \bibitem[{{Franx} {et~al.}(2003){Franx}, {Labb{\' e}}, {Rudnick}, {van Dokkum\
2519: }, {Daddi}, {F{\" o}rster Schreiber}, {Moorwood}, {Rix}, {R{\" o}ttgering},
2520: {van de Wel}, {van der Werf}, \& {van Starkenburg}}]{franx03}
2521: {Franx}, M., et~al. 2003, \apjl, 587, L79
2522:
2523: \bibitem[{{Gabasch} {et~al.}(2004){Gabasch}, {Salvato}, {Saglia}, {Bender},
2524: {Hopp}, {Seitz}, {Feulner}, {Pannella}, {Drory}, {Schirmer}, \&
2525: {Erben}}]{gabasch04}
2526: {Gabasch}, A., et~al. 2004, \apjl, 616, L83
2527:
2528: \bibitem[{{Gawiser} {et~al.}(2007){Gawiser}, {Francke}, {Lai}, {Schawinski},
2529: {Gronwall}, {Ciardullo}, {Quadri}, {Orsi}, {Barrientos}, {Blanc}, {Fazio},
2530: {Feldmeier}, {Huang}, {Infante}, {Lira}, {Padilla}, {Taylor}, {Treister},
2531: {Urry}, {van Dokkum}, \& {Virani}}]{gawiser07}
2532: {Gawiser}, E., et~al. 2007, \apj, 671, 278
2533:
2534: \bibitem[{{Giavalisco} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{a}}){Giavalisco}, {Dickinson},
2535: {Ferguson}, {Ravindranath}, {Kretchmer}, {Moustakas}, {Madau}, {Fall},
2536: {Gardner}, {Livio}, {Papovich}, {Renzini}, {Spinrad}, {Stern}, \&
2537: {Riess}}]{giavalisco04b}
2538: {Giavalisco}, M., et~al. 2004{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 600, L103
2539:
2540: \bibitem[{{Giavalisco} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{b}}){Giavalisco}, {Ferguson},
2541: {Koekemoer}, {Dickinson}, {Alexander}, {Bauer}, {Bergeron}, {Biagetti},
2542: {Brandt}, {Casertano}, {Cesarsky}, {Chatzichristou}, {Conselice},
2543: {Cristiani}, {Da Costa}, {Dahlen}, {de Mello}, {Eisenhardt}, {Erben}, {Fall},
2544: {Fassnacht}, {Fosbury}, {Fruchter}, {Gardner}, {Grogin}, {Hook},
2545: {Hornschemeier}, {Idzi}, {Jogee}, {Kretchmer}, {Laidler}, {Lee}, {Livio},
2546: {Lucas}, {Madau}, {Mobasher}, {Moustakas}, {Nonino}, {Padovani}, {Papovich},
2547: {Park}, {Ravindranath}, {Renzini}, {Richardson}, {Riess}, {Rosati},
2548: {Schirmer}, {Schreier}, {Somerville}, {Spinrad}, {Stern}, {Stiavelli},
2549: {Strolger}, {Urry}, {Vandame}, {Williams}, \& {Wolf}}]{giavalisco04}
2550: {Giavalisco}, M., et~al. 2004{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 600, L93
2551:
2552: \bibitem[{{Gnedin}(2000)}]{gnedin00}
2553: {Gnedin}, N.~Y. 2000, \apj, 542, 535
2554:
2555: \bibitem[{{Granato} {et~al.}(2004){Granato}, {De Zotti}, {Silva}, {Bressan}, \&
2556: {Danese}}]{granato04}
2557: {Granato}, G.~L., {De Zotti}, G., {Silva}, L., {Bressan}, A., \& {Danese}, L.
2558: 2004, \apj, 600, 580
2559:
2560: \bibitem[{{Gronwall} {et~al.}(2007){Gronwall}, {Ciardullo}, {Hickey},
2561: {Gawiser}, {Feldmeier}, {van Dokkum}, {Urry}, {Herrera}, {Lehmer}, {Infante},
2562: {Orsi}, {Marchesini}, {Blanc}, {Francke}, {Lira}, \& {Treister}}]{gronwall07}
2563: {Gronwall}, C., et~al. 2007, \apj, 667, 79
2564:
2565: \bibitem[{{Groth} {et~al.}(1994){Groth}, {Kristian}, {Lynds}, {O'Neil},
2566: {Balsano}, {Rhodes}, \& {WFPC-1 IDT}}]{groth94}
2567: {Groth}, E.~J., {Kristian}, J.~A., {Lynds}, R., {O'Neil}, Jr., E.~J.,
2568: {Balsano}, R., {Rhodes}, J., \& {WFPC-1 IDT}. 1994, in Bulletin of the
2569: American Astronomical Society, Vol.~26, Bulletin of the American Astronomical
2570: Society, 1403--+
2571:
2572: \bibitem[{{Hopkins}(2004)}]{hopkins04}
2573: {Hopkins}, A.~M. 2004, \apj, 615, 209
2574:
2575: \bibitem[{{Hughes} {et~al.}(1998){Hughes}, {Serjeant}, {Dunlop},
2576: {Rowan-Robinson}, {Blain}, {Mann}, {Ivison}, {Peacock}, {Efstathiou}, {Gear},
2577: {Oliver}, {Lawrence}, {Longair}, {Goldschmidt}, \& {Jenness}}]{hughes98}
2578: {Hughes}, D.~H., et~al. 1998, \nat, 394, 241
2579:
2580: \bibitem[{{Iwata} {et~al.}(2007){Iwata}, {Ohta}, {Tamura}, {Akiyama}, {Aoki},
2581: {Ando}, {Kiuchi}, \& {Sawicki}}]{iwata07}
2582: {Iwata}, I., et~al. 2007, \mnras, 376, 1557
2583:
2584: \bibitem[{{Iwata} {et~al.}(2003){Iwata}, {Ohta}, {Tamura}, {Ando}, {Wada},
2585: {Watanabe}, {Akiyama}, \& {Aoki}}]{iwata03}
2586: {Iwata}, I., et~al. 2003, \pasj, 55, 415
2587:
2588: \bibitem[{{Kennicutt}(1998)}]{kennicutt98}
2589: {Kennicutt}, R.~C. 1998, \araa, 36, 189
2590:
2591: \bibitem[{{Khochfar} {et~al.}(2007){Khochfar}, {Silk}, {Windhorst}, \&
2592: {Ryan}}]{khochfar07}
2593: {Khochfar}, S., {Silk}, J., {Windhorst}, R.~A., \& {Ryan}, Jr., R.~E. 2007,
2594: \apjl, 668, L115
2595:
2596: \bibitem[{{Kova{\v c}} {et~al.}(2007){Kova{\v c}}, {Somerville}, {Rhoads},
2597: {Malhotra}, \& {Wang}}]{kovac07}
2598: {Kova{\v c}}, K., {Somerville}, R.~S., {Rhoads}, J.~E., {Malhotra}, S., \&
2599: {Wang}, J. 2007, \apj, 668, 15
2600:
2601: \bibitem[{{Kravtsov} {et~al.}(2004){Kravtsov}, {Berlind}, {Wechsler}, {Klypin},
2602: {Gottl{\"o}ber}, {Allgood}, \& {Primack}}]{kravtsov04}
2603: {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Berlind}, A.~A., {Wechsler}, R.~H., {Klypin}, A.~A.,
2604: {Gottl{\"o}ber}, S., {Allgood}, B., \& {Primack}, J.~R. 2004, \apj, 609, 35
2605:
2606: \bibitem[{{Kroupa}(2001)}]{kroupa01}
2607: {Kroupa}, P. 2001, \mnras, 322, 231
2608:
2609: \bibitem[{{Larson}(1998)}]{larson98}
2610: {Larson}, R.~B. 1998, \mnras, 301, 569
2611:
2612: \bibitem[{{Larson}(2005)}]{larson05}
2613: ---. 2005, \mnras, 359, 211
2614:
2615: \bibitem[{{Le F{\`e}vre} {et~al.}(2005){Le F{\`e}vre}, {Paltani}, {Arnouts},
2616: {Charlot}, {Foucaud}, {Ilbert}, {McCracken}, {Zamorani}, {Bottini},
2617: {Garilli}, {Le Brun}, {Maccagni}, {Picat}, {Scaramella}, {Scodeggio},
2618: {Tresse}, {Vettolani}, {Zanichelli}, {Adami}, {Bardelli}, {Bolzonella},
2619: {Cappi}, {Ciliegi}, {Contini}, {Franzetti}, {Gavignaud}, {Guzzo}, {Iovino},
2620: {Marano}, {Marinoni}, {Mazure}, {Meneux}, {Merighi}, {Pell{\`o}}, {Pollo},
2621: {Pozzetti}, {Radovich}, {Zucca}, {Arnaboldi}, {Bondi}, {Bongiorno},
2622: {Busarello}, {Gregorini}, {Lamareille}, {Mathez}, {Mellier}, {Merluzzi},
2623: {Ripepi}, \& {Rizzo}}]{lefevre05}
2624: {Le F{\`e}vre}, O., et~al. 2005, \nat, 437, 519
2625:
2626: \bibitem[{{Le Floc'h} {et~al.}(2005){Le Floc'h}, {Papovich}, {Dole}, {Bell},
2627: {Lagache}, {Rieke}, {Egami}, {P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}, {Alonso-Herrero},
2628: {Rieke}, {Blaylock}, {Engelbracht}, {Gordon}, {Hines}, {Misselt}, {Morrison},
2629: \& {Mould}}]{lefloch05}
2630: {Le Floc'h}, E., et~al. 2005, \apj, 632, 169
2631:
2632: \bibitem[{{Lilly} {et~al.}(1996){Lilly}, {Le Fevre}, {Hammer}, \&
2633: {Crampton}}]{lilly96}
2634: {Lilly}, S.~J., {Le Fevre}, O., {Hammer}, F., \& {Crampton}, D. 1996, \apjl,
2635: 460, L1+
2636:
2637: \bibitem[{{Lilly} {et~al.}(1995){Lilly}, {Tresse}, {Hammer}, {Crampton}, \& {Le
2638: Fevre}}]{lilly95}
2639: {Lilly}, S.~J., {Tresse}, L., {Hammer}, F., {Crampton}, D., \& {Le Fevre}, O.
2640: 1995, \apj, 455, 108
2641:
2642: \bibitem[{{Madau}(1995)}]{madau95}
2643: {Madau}, P. 1995, \apj, 441, 18
2644:
2645: \bibitem[{{Madau} {et~al.}(1996){Madau}, {Ferguson}, {Dickinson}, {Giavalisco},
2646: {Steidel}, \& {Fruchter}}]{madau96}
2647: {Madau}, P., {Ferguson}, H.~C., {Dickinson}, M.~E., {Giavalisco}, M.,
2648: {Steidel}, C.~C., \& {Fruchter}, A. 1996, \mnras, 283, 1388
2649:
2650: \bibitem[{{Martin}(1999)}]{martin99}
2651: {Martin}, C.~L. 1999, \apj, 513, 156
2652:
2653: \bibitem[{{Mateo}(1998)}]{mateo98}
2654: {Mateo}, M.~L. 1998, \araa, 36, 435
2655:
2656: \bibitem[{{McLure} {et~al.}(2008){McLure}, {Cirasuolo}, {Dunlop}, {Foucaud}, \&
2657: {Almaini}}]{mclure08}
2658: {McLure}, R.~J., {Cirasuolo}, M., {Dunlop}, J.~S., {Foucaud}, S., \& {Almaini},
2659: O. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805
2660:
2661: \bibitem[{{Meurer} {et~al.}(1999){Meurer}, {Heckman}, \& {Calzetti}}]{meurer99}
2662: {Meurer}, G.~R., {Heckman}, T.~M., \& {Calzetti}, D. 1999, \apj, 521, 64
2663:
2664: \bibitem[{{Nagamine} {et~al.}(2008){Nagamine}, {Ouchi}, {Springel}, \&
2665: {Hernquist}}]{nagamine08}
2666: {Nagamine}, K., {Ouchi}, M., {Springel}, V., \& {Hernquist}, L. 2008, ArXiv
2667: e-prints, 802
2668:
2669: \bibitem[{{Nagamine} {et~al.}(2004){Nagamine}, {Springel}, {Hernquist}, \&
2670: {Machacek}}]{nagamine04}
2671: {Nagamine}, K., {Springel}, V., {Hernquist}, L., \& {Machacek}, M. 2004,
2672: \mnras, 350, 385
2673:
2674: \bibitem[{{Noeske} {et~al.}(2007){Noeske}, {Weiner}, {Faber}, {Papovich},
2675: {Koo}, {Somerville}, {Bundy}, {Conselice}, {Newman}, {Schiminovich}, {Le
2676: Floc'h}, {Coil}, {Rieke}, {Lotz}, {Primack}, {Barmby}, {Cooper}, {Davis},
2677: {Ellis}, {Fazio}, {Guhathakurta}, {Huang}, {Kassin}, {Martin}, {Phillips},
2678: {Rich}, {Small}, {Willmer}, \& {Wilson}}]{noeske07}
2679: {Noeske}, K.~G., et~al. 2007, \apjl, 660, L43
2680:
2681: \bibitem[{{Ouchi} {et~al.}(2008){Ouchi}, {Shimasaku}, {Akiyama}, {Simpson},
2682: {Saito}, {Ueda}, {Furusawa}, {Sekiguchi}, {Yamada}, {Kodama}, {Kashikawa},
2683: {Okamura}, {Iye}, {Takata}, {Yoshida}, \& {Yoshida}}]{ouchi08}
2684: {Ouchi}, M., et~al. 2008, \apjs, 176, 301
2685:
2686: \bibitem[{{Ouchi} {et~al.}(2004){Ouchi}, {Shimasaku}, {Okamura}, {Furusawa},
2687: {Kashikawa}, {Ota}, {Doi}, {Hamabe}, {Kimura}, {Komiyama}, {Miyazaki},
2688: {Miyazaki}, {Nakata}, {Sekiguchi}, {Yagi}, \& {Yasuda}}]{ouchi04}
2689: {Ouchi}, M., et~al. 2004, \apj, 611, 660
2690:
2691: \bibitem[{{Paltani} {et~al.}(2007){Paltani}, {Le F{\`e}vre}, {Ilbert},
2692: {Arnouts}, {Bardelli}, {Tresse}, {Zamorani}, {Zucca}, {Bottini}, {Garilli},
2693: {Le Brun}, {Maccagni}, {Picat}, {Scaramella}, {Scodeggio}, {Vettolani},
2694: {Zanichelli}, {Adami}, {Bolzonella}, {Cappi}, {Charlot}, {Ciliegi},
2695: {Contini}, {Foucaud}, {Franzetti}, {Gavignaud}, {Guzzo}, {Iovino},
2696: {McCracken}, {Marano}, {Marinoni}, {Mazure}, {Meneux}, {Merighi},
2697: {Pell{\`o}}, {Pollo}, {Pozzetti}, {Radovich}, {Bondi}, {Bongiorno},
2698: {Brinchmann}, {Cucciati}, {de La Torre}, {Lamareille}, {Mellier}, {Merluzzi},
2699: {Temporin}, {Vergani}, \& {Walcher}}]{paltani07}
2700: {Paltani}, S., et~al. 2007, \aap, 463, 873
2701:
2702: \bibitem[{{Papovich} {et~al.}(2006){Papovich}, {Moustakas}, {Dickinson}, {Le
2703: Floc'h}, {Rieke}, {Daddi}, {Alexander}, {Bauer}, {Brandt}, {Dahlen}, {Egami},
2704: {Eisenhardt}, {Elbaz}, {Ferguson}, {Giavalisco}, {Lucas}, {Mobasher},
2705: {P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}, {Stutz}, {Rieke}, \& {Yan}}]{papovich06}
2706: {Papovich}, C., et~al. 2006, \apj, 640, 92
2707:
2708: \bibitem[{{Papovich} {et~al.}(2007){Papovich}, {Rudnick}, {Le Floc'h}, {van
2709: Dokkum}, {Rieke}, {Taylor}, {Armus}, {Gawiser}, {Huang}, {Marcillac}, \&
2710: {Franx}}]{papovich07}
2711: {Papovich}, C., et~al. 2007, \apj, 668, 45
2712:
2713: \bibitem[{{Poli} {et~al.}(2001){Poli}, {Menci}, {Giallongo}, {Fontana},
2714: {Cristiani}, \& {D'Odorico}}]{poli01}
2715: {Poli}, F., {Menci}, N., {Giallongo}, E., {Fontana}, A., {Cristiani}, S., \&
2716: {D'Odorico}, S. 2001, \apjl, 551, L45
2717:
2718: \bibitem[{{Pozzetti} {et~al.}(2007){Pozzetti}, {Bolzonella}, {Lamareille},
2719: {Zamorani}, {Franzetti}, {Le F{\`e}vre}, {Iovino}, {Temporin}, {Ilbert},
2720: {Arnouts}, {Charlot}, {Brinchmann}, {Zucca}, {Tresse}, {Scodeggio}, {Guzzo},
2721: {Bottini}, {Garilli}, {Le Brun}, {Maccagni}, {Picat}, {Scaramella},
2722: {Vettolani}, {Zanichelli}, {Adami}, {Bardelli}, {Cappi}, {Ciliegi},
2723: {Contini}, {Foucaud}, {Gavignaud}, {McCracken}, {Marano}, {Marinoni},
2724: {Mazure}, {Meneux}, {Merighi}, {Paltani}, {Pell{\`o}}, {Pollo}, {Radovich},
2725: {Bondi}, {Bongiorno}, {Cucciati}, {de La Torre}, {Gregorini}, {Mellier},
2726: {Merluzzi}, {Vergani}, \& {Walcher}}]{pozzetti07}
2727: {Pozzetti}, L., et~al. 2007, \aap, 474, 443
2728:
2729: \bibitem[{{Prochaska} \& {Tumlinson}(2008)}]{prochaska08}
2730: {Prochaska}, J.~X. \& {Tumlinson}, J. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805
2731:
2732: \bibitem[{{Quadri} {et~al.}(2007){Quadri}, {van Dokkum}, {Gawiser}, {Franx},
2733: {Marchesini}, {Lira}, {Rudnick}, {Herrera}, {Maza}, {Kriek}, {Labb{\'e}}, \&
2734: {Francke}}]{quadri07}
2735: {Quadri}, R., et~al. 2007, \apj, 654, 138
2736:
2737: \bibitem[{{Reddy} {et~al.}(2005){Reddy}, {Erb}, {Steidel}, {Shapley},
2738: {Adelberger}, \& {Pettini}}]{reddy05a}
2739: {Reddy}, N.~A., {Erb}, D.~K., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Shapley}, A.~E., {Adelberger},
2740: K.~L., \& {Pettini}, M. 2005, \apj, 633, 748
2741:
2742: \bibitem[{{Reddy} \& {Steidel}(2004)}]{reddy04}
2743: {Reddy}, N.~A. \& {Steidel}, C.~C. 2004, \apjl, 603, L13
2744:
2745: \bibitem[{{Reddy} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Reddy}, {Steidel}, {Erb},
2746: {Shapley}, \& {Pettini}}]{reddy06b}
2747: {Reddy}, N.~A., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Erb}, D.~K., {Shapley}, A.~E., \& {Pettini},
2748: M. 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 653, 1004
2749:
2750: \bibitem[{{Reddy} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Reddy}, {Steidel}, {Fadda},
2751: {Yan}, {Pettini}, {Shapley}, {Erb}, \& {Adelberger}}]{reddy06a}
2752: {Reddy}, N.~A., et~al. 2006{\natexlab{b}},
2753: \apj, 644, 792
2754:
2755: \bibitem[{{Reddy} {et~al.}(2008){Reddy}, {Steidel}, {Pettini}, {Adelberger},
2756: {Shapley}, {Erb}, \& {Dickinson}}]{reddy08}
2757: {Reddy}, N.~A., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Pettini}, M., {Adelberger}, K.~L.,
2758: {Shapley}, A.~E., {Erb}, D.~K., \& {Dickinson}, M. 2008, \apjs, 175, 48
2759:
2760: \bibitem[{{Rees} \& {Ostriker}(1977)}]{rees77}
2761: {Rees}, M.~J. \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 1977, \mnras, 179, 541
2762:
2763: \bibitem[{{Rudnick} {et~al.}(2003){Rudnick}, {Rix}, {Franx}, {Labb{\' e}},
2764: {Blanton}, {Daddi}, {F{\" o}rster Schreiber}, {Moorwood}, {R{\" o}ttgering},
2765: {Trujillo}, {van de Wel}, {van der Werf}, {van Dokkum}, \& {van
2766: Starkenburg}}]{rudnick03}
2767: {Rudnick}, G., et~al. 2003, \apj, 599, 847
2768:
2769: \bibitem[{{Ryan} {et~al.}(2007){Ryan}, {Hathi}, {Cohen}, {Malhotra}, {Rhoads},
2770: {Windhorst}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Pirzkal}, {Xu}, {Panagia}, {Moustakas}, {di
2771: Serego Alighieri}, \& {Yan}}]{ryan07}
2772: {Ryan}, Jr., R.~E., et~al. 2007, \apj, 668, 839
2773:
2774: \bibitem[{{Salpeter}(1955)}]{salpeter55}
2775: {Salpeter}, E.~E. 1955, \apj, 121, 161
2776:
2777: \bibitem[{{Sawicki} {et~al.}(2007){Sawicki}, {Iwata}, {Ohta}, {Thompson},
2778: {Tamura}, {Akiyama}, {Aoki}, {Ando}, \& {Kiuchi}}]{sawicki07}
2779: {Sawicki}, M., et~al. 2007, in Astronomical
2780: Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 380, Deepest Astronomical
2781: Surveys, ed. J.~{Afonso}, H.~C. {Ferguson}, B.~{Mobasher}, \& R.~{Norris},
2782: 433--+
2783:
2784: \bibitem[{{Sawicki} \& {Thompson}(2006)}]{sawicki06a}
2785: {Sawicki}, M. \& {Thompson}, D. 2006, \apj, 642, 653
2786:
2787: \bibitem[{{Scannapieco} {et~al.}(2005){Scannapieco}, {Silk}, \&
2788: {Bouwens}}]{scannapieco05}
2789: {Scannapieco}, E., {Silk}, J., \& {Bouwens}, R. 2005, \apjl, 635, L13
2790:
2791: \bibitem[{{Schechter}(1976)}]{schechter76}
2792: {Schechter}, P. 1976, \apj, 203, 297
2793:
2794: \bibitem[{{Schmidt}(1959)}]{schmidt59}
2795: {Schmidt}, M. 1959, \apj, 129, 243
2796:
2797: \bibitem[{{Shapley} {et~al.}(2005){Shapley}, {Steidel}, {Erb}, {Reddy},
2798: {Adelberger}, {Pettini}, {Barmby}, \& {Huang}}]{shapley05}
2799: {Shapley}, A.~E., et~al. 2005, \apj, 626, 698
2800:
2801: \bibitem[{{Shapley} {et~al.}(2003){Shapley}, {Steidel}, {Pettini}, \&
2802: {Adelberger}}]{shapley03}
2803: {Shapley}, A.~E., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Pettini}, M., \& {Adelberger}, K.~L. 2003,
2804: \apj, 588, 65
2805:
2806: \bibitem[{{Silk} \& {Rees}(1998)}]{silk98}
2807: {Silk}, J. \& {Rees}, M.~J. 1998, \aap, 331, L1
2808:
2809: \bibitem[{{Smail} {et~al.}(1997){Smail}, {Ivison}, \& {Blain}}]{smail97}
2810: {Smail}, I., {Ivison}, R.~J., \& {Blain}, A.~W. 1997, \apjl, 490, L5+
2811:
2812: \bibitem[{{Spergel} {et~al.}(2007){Spergel}, {Bean}, {Dor{\'e}}, {Nolta},
2813: {Bennett}, {Dunkley}, {Hinshaw}, {Jarosik}, {Komatsu}, {Page}, {Peiris},
2814: {Verde}, {Halpern}, {Hill}, {Kogut}, {Limon}, {Meyer}, {Odegard}, {Tucker},
2815: {Weiland}, {Wollack}, \& {Wright}}]{spergel07}
2816: {Spergel}, D.~N., et~al. 2007, \apjs, 170, 377
2817:
2818: \bibitem[{{Springel} \& {Hernquist}(2003)}]{springel03}
2819: {Springel}, V. \& {Hernquist}, L. 2003, \mnras, 339, 312
2820:
2821: \bibitem[{{Stark} {et~al.}(2007){Stark}, {Bunker}, {Ellis}, {Eyles}, \&
2822: {Lacy}}]{stark07}
2823: {Stark}, D.~P., {Bunker}, A.~J., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Eyles}, L.~P., \& {Lacy}, M.
2824: 2007, \apj, 659, 84
2825:
2826: \bibitem[{{Steidel} {et~al.}(1999){Steidel}, {Adelberger}, {Giavalisco},
2827: {Dickinson}, \& {Pettini}}]{steidel99}
2828: {Steidel}, C.~C., {Adelberger}, K.~L., {Giavalisco}, M., {Dickinson}, M., \&
2829: {Pettini}, M. 1999, \apj, 519, 1
2830:
2831: \bibitem[{{Steidel} {et~al.}(2003){Steidel}, {Adelberger}, {Shapley},
2832: {Pettini}, {Dickinson}, \& {Giavalisco}}]{steidel03}
2833: {Steidel}, C.~C., {Adelberger}, K.~L., {Shapley}, A.~E., {Pettini}, M.,
2834: {Dickinson}, M., \& {Giavalisco}, M. 2003, \apj, 592, 728
2835:
2836: \bibitem[{{Steidel} {et~al.}(2004){Steidel}, {Shapley}, {Pettini},
2837: {Adelberger}, {Erb}, {Reddy}, \& {Hunt}}]{steidel04}
2838: {Steidel}, C.~C., {Shapley}, A.~E., {Pettini}, M., {Adelberger}, K.~L., {Erb},
2839: D.~K., {Reddy}, N.~A., \& {Hunt}, M.~P. 2004, \apj, 604, 534
2840:
2841: \bibitem[{{Trenti} \& {Stiavelli}(2008)}]{trenti08}
2842: {Trenti}, M. \& {Stiavelli}, M. 2008, \apj, 676, 767
2843:
2844: \bibitem[{{Valdes}(1982)}]{valdes82}
2845: {Valdes}, F. 1982, {FOCAS} User's Manual (NOAO, Tucson).
2846:
2847: \bibitem[{{van Dokkum}(2008)}]{vandokkum08}
2848: {van Dokkum}, P.~G. 2008, \apj, 674, 29
2849:
2850: \bibitem[{{van Dokkum} {et~al.}(2004){van Dokkum}, {Franx}, {F{\" o}rster
2851: Schreiber}, {Illingworth}, {Daddi}, {Knudsen}, {Labb{\' e}}, {Moorwood},
2852: {Rix}, {R{\" o}ttgering}\, {Rudnick}, {Trujillo}, {van der Werf}, {van der
2853: Wel}, {van Starkenburg}, \& {Wuyts}}]{vandokkum04}
2854: {van Dokkum}, P.~G., et~al. 2004, \apj, 611, 703
2855:
2856: \bibitem[{{van Dokkum} {et~al.}(2006){van Dokkum}, {Quadri}, {Marchesini},
2857: {Rudnick}, {Franx}, {Gawiser}, {Herrera}, {Wuyts}, {Lira}, {Labb{\'e}},
2858: {Maza}, {Illingworth}, {F{\"o}rster Schreiber}, {Kriek}, {Rix}, {Taylor},
2859: {Toft}, {Webb}, \& {Yi}}]{vandokkum06}
2860: {van Dokkum}, P.~G., et~al. 2006, \apjl, 638, L59
2861:
2862: \bibitem[{{Verhamme} {et~al.}(2008){Verhamme}, {Schaerer}, {Atek}, \&
2863: {Tapken}}]{verhamme08}
2864: {Verhamme}, A., {Schaerer}, D., {Atek}, H., \& {Tapken}, C. 2008, ArXiv
2865: e-prints, 805
2866:
2867: \bibitem[{{Verma} {et~al.}(2007){Verma}, {Lehnert}, {F{\"o}rster Schreiber},
2868: {Bremer}, \& {Douglas}}]{verma07}
2869: {Verma}, A., {Lehnert}, M.~D., {F{\"o}rster Schreiber}, N.~M., {Bremer}, M.~N.,
2870: \& {Douglas}, L. 2007, \mnras, 377, 1024
2871:
2872: \bibitem[{{Wilkins} {et~al.}(2008){Wilkins}, {Trentham}, \&
2873: {Hopkins}}]{wilkins08}
2874: {Wilkins}, S.~M., {Trentham}, N., \& {Hopkins}, A.~M. 2008, \mnras, 385, 687
2875:
2876: \bibitem[{{Wyder} {et~al.}(2005){Wyder}, {Treyer}, {Milliard}, {Schiminovich},
2877: {Arnouts}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Barlow}, {Bianchi}, {Byun}, {Donas}, {Forster},
2878: {Friedman}, {Heckman}, {Jelinsky}, {Lee}, {Madore}, {Malina}, {Martin},
2879: {Morrissey}, {Neff}, {Rich}, {Siegmund}, {Small}, {Szalay}, \&
2880: {Welsh}}]{wyder05}
2881: {Wyder}, T.~K., et~al. 2005, \apjl, 619, L15
2882:
2883: \bibitem[{{Yan} {et~al.}(2006){Yan}, {Dickinson}, {Giavalisco}, {Stern},
2884: {Eisenhardt}, \& {Ferguson}}]{yan06b}
2885: {Yan}, H., {Dickinson}, M., {Giavalisco}, M., {Stern}, D., {Eisenhardt},
2886: P.~R.~M., \& {Ferguson}, H.~C. 2006, \apj, 651, 24
2887:
2888: \bibitem[{{Yan} \& {Windhorst}(2004)}]{yan04b}
2889: {Yan}, H. \& {Windhorst}, R.~A. 2004, \apjl, 612, L93
2890:
2891: \bibitem[{{Yan} {et~al.}(2007){Yan}, {Sajina}, {Fadda}, {Choi}, {Armus},
2892: {Helou}, {Teplitz}, {Frayer}, \& {Surace}}]{yan07}
2893: {Yan}, L., et~al. 2007, \apj, 658, 778
2894:
2895: \bibitem[{{Yoshida} {et~al.}(2006){Yoshida}, {Shimasaku}, {Kashikawa}, {Ouchi},
2896: {Okamura}, {Ajiki}, {Akiyama}, {Ando}, {Aoki}, {Doi}, {Furusawa},
2897: {Hayashino}, {Iwamuro}, {Iye}, {Karoji}, {Kobayashi}, {Kodaira}, {Kodama},
2898: {Komiyama}, {Malkan}, {Matsuda}, {Miyazaki}, {Mizumoto}, {Morokuma},
2899: {Motohara}, {Murayama}, {Nagao}, {Nariai}, {Ohta}, {Sasaki}, {Sato},
2900: {Sekiguchi}, {Shioya}, {Tamura}, {Taniguchi}, {Umemura}, {Yamada}, \&
2901: {Yasuda}}]{yoshida06}
2902: {Yoshida}, M., et~al. 2006, \apj, 653, 988
2903:
2904: \end{thebibliography}
2905:
2906:
2907:
2908: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2909: % APPENDIX
2910: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2911:
2912: \appendix
2913:
2914: \section{Testing for Systematic Effects}
2915:
2916: As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:maxlik}, the transitional probability
2917: function $\xi$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:xi}) is sensitive to changes in the
2918: intrinsic properties of galaxies. Our goal is to determine if the
2919: resulting modulation of $\xi$ is significant enough to induce a
2920: noticeable difference in the maximum-likelihood LF. Since we are
2921: interested primarily in computing the UV luminosity distribution of
2922: galaxies at these redshifts, we will concentrate on how the reddening,
2923: $N(E[B-V])$, and Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width, $N(W_{\rm Ly\alpha})$,
2924: distributions might change with luminosity. More generally, the
2925: distributions may also be a function of redshift, but for this
2926: analysis we ignore such redshift evolution since there is little
2927: published evidence for it over the redshifts considered here (see
2928: below). We conclude by discussing the fraction of stellar objects and
2929: galaxies outside the redshift ranges of interest.
2930:
2931: The most direct approach for testing systematic changes in $N(E[B-V])$
2932: and $N(W_{\rm Ly\alpha})$ is to examine the LBG color distribution.
2933: However, it is difficult from an analysis of the candidates' colors
2934: alone to separate the selection effects imposed by the color criteria
2935: from those induced by other systematics, such as real changes in the
2936: reddening and/or $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distributions. A different
2937: approach takes advantage of the fact that the transitional probability
2938: function $\xi$ encapsulates all of the information regarding the
2939: selection biases imposed by the color criteria. Therefore, rather
2940: than examine directly the color distribution of BXs and LBGs, we chose
2941: to make various assumptions of how the reddening and $W_{\rm
2942: Ly\alpha}$ distributions vary as a function of magnitude. Then, based
2943: on these assumptions, we recalculated $\xi$ using Monte Carlo
2944: simulations and repeated the maximum-likelihood procedure to find the
2945: best-fit LF.
2946:
2947: \subsection{A. $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ Distribution}
2948:
2949: There is an increasing body of work that indicates that Ly$\alpha$
2950: emitters (LAEs), those objects selected by narrowband techniques,
2951: exhibit significantly larger rest-frame $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$, but are
2952: much fainter in the continuum, on average, than traditional
2953: color-selected galaxies that are restricted to $\rs\la 25.5$. Most of
2954: these LAEs will lie on the faint-end of the UV LF. Adding Ly$\alpha$
2955: emission to a star-forming galaxy's spectrum will tend to scatter such
2956: a galaxy out of the BX selection window
2957: (Figure~\ref{fig:lyaprob}).\footnote{For galaxies at $z>2.48$, where
2958: Ly$\alpha$ lies in the $G$-band, the presence of emission will
2959: scatter them out of the BX window and into the LBG window (see also
2960: Figure~4 of R08).} Therefore, for a fixed observed number of faint
2961: BX candidates, the incompleteness corrections will be {\em larger} if
2962: they have a distribution skewed towards high $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$, thus
2963: increasing the inferred number density of faint galaxies. The degree
2964: to which the faint-end slope $\alpha$ changes will depend on the
2965: $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution, the stellar population distribution,
2966: and the number density of high $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ systems. For
2967: example, there may be little difference in the faint-end slope derived
2968: assuming a high $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ (LAE) population relative to that
2969: derived assuming a constant $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution
2970: (\S~\ref{sec:results}) if LAEs constitute a small and constant
2971: percentage of galaxies as a function of magnitude on the faint-end of
2972: the UV LF. We will now consider in detail how a luminosity-dependent
2973: $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution affects our analysis.
2974:
2975: \begin{figure}[t]
2976: \epsscale{0.5}\plotone{f13.eps}
2977: \caption{Color tracks for a typical LBG with constant star formation
2978: for $100$~Myr and $\ebmv = 0.15$ ({\em solid line}) and our model for
2979: Ly$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) with constant star formation for $50$~Myr
2980: and $\ebmv = 0$ (no reddening; {\em dashed line}). The attenuation of
2981: colors due to the IGM has been accounted for following
2982: \citet{madau95}. The labels along each track indicate particular
2983: redshifts as follows: (1) $z=1.00$, (2) $z=1.68$, (3) $z=2.17$, (4)
2984: $z=2.48$, (5) $z=2.65$, and (6) $z=2.91$. The Ly$\alpha$ line falls
2985: in the $U_{\rm n}$ band at $1.68\le z<2.17$ (between points 2 and 3)
2986: and in the $G$-band at $z>2.48$ (above point 4), as indicated by the
2987: thicker lines. The effect of {\em adding} Ly$\alpha$ emission to the
2988: spectrum is shown by the arrows, tending to scatter galaxies out of
2989: the BX selection window ({\em trapezoid}).}
2990: \label{fig:lyaprob}
2991: \end{figure}
2992:
2993: \subsubsection{A.1. Assumptions}
2994:
2995: Here we quantify the effects of a luminosity dependent $W_{\rm
2996: Ly\alpha}$ distribution by making the following assumptions. First,
2997: for ease of discussion, we assume that an ``LAE'' is any star-forming
2998: galaxy with rest-frame $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}\ge 50$~\AA, corresponding
2999: roughly to the observational lower limits of typical LAE surveys
3000: (e.g., \citealt{ouchi08}) and upper $\la 10\%$ of continuum-selected
3001: galaxies to $\rs=25.5$ (e.g., \citealt{steidel03, shapley03}, R08).
3002: In a strict sense, an LAE is any galaxy with $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}>0$, but
3003: here we limit ourselves to those that are easily identified using
3004: narrowband techniques, to distinguish them from emission line galaxies
3005: that are routinely identified from spectroscopy of continuum-selected
3006: galaxies. The adoption of the $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}=50$~\AA\, cutoff is
3007: for reference purposes only, and does not affect the subsequent
3008: analysis since a separate assumption is made regarding the median
3009: value of $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ for LAEs. In particular, the simulations
3010: are performed using different values of $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ ranging
3011: from $50$~\AA\, to $250$~\AA\, (rest-frame), the latter being a
3012: canonical upper limit for standard assumptions of the IMF
3013: \citep{salpeter55} and solar metallicity \citep{charlot93}.
3014:
3015: Second, we adopt an average stellar population consistent with the
3016: most recent analyses of LAEs at high redshift. The range of ages
3017: found for LAEs is $\sim 10$~Myr at the low end to $\sim 1$~Gyr at the
3018: high end, with typical ages of $\sim 100-200$~Myr, and low metallicity
3019: and reddening (e.g., \citealt{gronwall07, ouchi08}). We
3020: conservatively assume an average LAE age of $50$~Myr, metallicity of
3021: $1/20$~Z$_{\odot}$, and zero dust reddening for the purposes of our
3022: simulation. For illustrative purposes, Figure~\ref{fig:lyaprob} shows
3023: the colors as a function of redshift for such a stellar population
3024: compared to a model that represents the typical LBG with age
3025: $>100$~Myr and $\ebmv \sim 0.15$ (assuming the BC06 model). As
3026: discussed above, irrespective of whether Ly$\alpha$ lies in the
3027: $U_{\rm n}$ or $G$ band, the effect of adding emission is to scatter
3028: galaxies at $1.9\le z<2.7$ out of the BX selection window.
3029:
3030: Third, we must determine the frequency of LAEs among the general
3031: star-forming population as a function of continuum magnitude.
3032: \citet{ouchi08} determine the UV LF of LAEs with $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}\ga
3033: 50$~\AA\, at $z\approx 3.1$ and find it to be fit adequately with a
3034: Schechter form of the LF with $\phi^{\ast} = (5.6^{+6.7}_{-3.1})\times
3035: 10^{-4}$~Mpc$^{-3}$ and $M^{\ast}_{\rm 1500\AA} = -19.8\pm 0.4$ with a
3036: fixed faint-end slope of $\alpha_{\rm LAE} = -1.6$. Integrating the
3037: continuum-UV LF of LAEs and comparing with the UV LF determined above
3038: for all star-forming galaxies implies an LAE fraction ($\epsilon$)
3039: that is a strong function of magnitude, ranging from less than
3040: $0.02\%$ in the brightest magnitude bin ($-22.83\le
3041: M(1700\AA)<-22.33$) to $\approx 9.3\%$ in the faintest bin ($-18.33\le
3042: M(1700\AA)<-17.83$). Note that the fraction of LAEs on the faint-end
3043: is based on an extrapolation of the UV LF of LAEs assuming
3044: $\alpha=-1.6$ \citep{ouchi08}. Further, the fractions will go up (or
3045: down) depending on whether we decrease (or increase) the limiting
3046: $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ that segregates LAEs from other galaxies (e.g.,
3047: using a limit of $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}=20$~\AA\, instead of $50$~\AA). In
3048: our simulations, we assume (1) no evolution in the UV LF of LAEs
3049: between $z\sim 2-3$ and (2) a fraction of LAEs that varies with
3050: absolute magnitude in accordance with our findings above, with a
3051: fraction of $10\%$ for $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}>50$~\AA\, in the faintest bin
3052: considered here.
3053:
3054: To recap, the main assumptions going forward are that LAEs are
3055: described by a $50$~Myr stellar population with no reddening and
3056: comprise anywhere from $<0.02\%$ to $10\%$, respectively, of galaxies
3057: within the bright and faint magnitude bins of our analysis. In the
3058: next section, we consider how different values of $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$
3059: among LAEs affects the faint-end of the UV LF of all star-forming
3060: galaxies.
3061:
3062: \subsubsection{A.2. Effect of a Changing $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ Distribution}
3063:
3064: With the aforementioned premises, the UV LF is computed for varying
3065: amounts of emission among the LAEs, with equivalent widths from
3066: $50$~\AA\, to $250$~\AA. In our simple model, the luminosity
3067: dependent $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution can be expressed as:
3068: \begin{eqnarray}
3069: N(W_{Ly\alpha},\rs) = [1-\epsilon(\rs)]N_{\rm o}(W_{\rm Ly\alpha}) + \epsilon(\rs)\delta(\omega),
3070: \end{eqnarray}
3071: where $N_{\rm o}(W_{\rm Ly\alpha})$ is the distribution for $\rs \le
3072: 25.5$ galaxies (Figure~\ref{fig:lyaew}), $\epsilon(\rs)$ is the
3073: $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}>50$~\AA\, fraction as a function of magnitude as
3074: determined above, and $\delta(\omega)$ is a delta function with center
3075: at $\omega =$ 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 \AA.\footnote{The intrinsic
3076: distribution for UV-bright galaxies (Figure~\ref{fig:lyaew}) also
3077: includes a small fraction of continuum-selected galaxies with $W_{\rm
3078: Ly\alpha}\ge 50$~\AA. We ignore this small overlap between the
3079: continuum and LAE $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distributions, with the obvious
3080: consequence of slightly increasing the total fraction of galaxies with
3081: $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}\ge 50$~\AA.} The results at $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 3$
3082: (Figure~\ref{fig:lyalf}) are presented in terms of the ratio of the
3083: number density ($\eta^{\ast}$) for different values of $W_{\rm
3084: Ly\alpha}$ for LAEs to the number density ($\eta$) derived using the
3085: fiducial $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution for $\rs\le 25.5$
3086: continuum-selected galaxies (e.g., Figure~\ref{fig:lyaew}),
3087: \begin{eqnarray}
3088: f={\eta^\ast \over \eta},
3089: \label{eq:lyarat}
3090: \end{eqnarray}
3091: with error given by
3092: \begin{eqnarray}
3093: \sigma_{f} = {[\eta^{2}\sigma_{\eta^{\ast}}^{2} + (\eta^{\ast})^{2}\sigma_{\eta}^2]^{1/2}
3094: \over \eta^{2}}.
3095: \label{eq:lyaerr}
3096: \end{eqnarray}
3097: The error in number density $\sigma_{\eta^{\ast}}$ is determined in
3098: exactly the same manner as the error in the LF ($\sigma_{\eta}$;
3099: \S~\ref{sec:results}). Even with the most conservative assumption for
3100: the $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ attributed to LAEs (an assumed value of $W_{\rm
3101: Ly\alpha}=250$~\AA), we find that inclusion of such a population
3102: alters the faint-end number densities at a $2-4\%$ level depending on
3103: the redshift. Not surprisingly, at lower redshifts, $1.9\le z<2.7$,
3104: the inclusion of LAEs increases the inferred number densities at the
3105: faint-end by $\la 3\%$, since such galaxies would be preferentially
3106: scattered out of the BX selection window. The opposite is found at
3107: higher redshifts ($2.7\le z<3.4$), where the number density is
3108: systematically lower by up to $4\%$, primarily because there are more
3109: LAEs scattered from $z<2.7$ into the LBG selection window than are (at
3110: any redshift $2.7\le z<3.4$) scattered out of the window, assuming no
3111: evolution of the UV LF of LAEs at the redshifts of concern. Hence,
3112: for a fixed number of $z\sim 3$ LBG candidates, the tendency would be
3113: to over-estimate the number density had we not accounted for the LAE
3114: population.
3115:
3116: \begin{figure*}[t]
3117: \plotone{f14.eps}
3118: \caption{Comparison of maximum-likelihood number density of galaxies
3119: as a function of magnitude for (1) our fiducial UV LFs assuming that
3120: {\em all} galaxies abide by the $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution seen
3121: for bright ($\rs\le 25.5$) continuum-selected galaxies
3122: (Figure~\ref{fig:lyaew}) and (2) the UV LFs derived assuming a
3123: population of Ly$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) with high $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$
3124: at faint magnitudes. The different lines show the ratio of the LFs
3125: determined from (2) to that determined from (1), and correspond to
3126: differing amounts of Ly$\alpha$ emission attributed to the LAE
3127: population. The typical error in this ratio ($\sigma_{f}$) is shown
3128: by the vertical errorbar. In all cases, we find that such a
3129: population of high $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ systems does little to alter the
3130: faint-end slope of the UV LF.}
3131: \label{fig:lyalf}
3132: \end{figure*}
3133:
3134: The expectation of a steepening $\alpha$ for the universal UV LF
3135: (i.e., for all star-forming galaxies) at $z\sim 2$ when including LAEs
3136: is not borne out with our simulations for several reasons. First, the
3137: overall fraction of LAEs, even at the faint-end of the UV LF, is small
3138: ($\la 10\%$). Their effect on the LF is further diminished because
3139: they will only affect the broadband colors if they are at particular
3140: redshifts (Figure~\ref{fig:lyaprob}). Second, the current
3141: determination of the UV LF of LAEs assumed a fixed $\alpha_{\rm
3142: LAE}=-1.6$ \citep{ouchi08}, which is not too different from the
3143: fiducial $\alpha$ (\S~\ref{sec:results}). Thus, while the fraction of
3144: LAEs among the general population is a strong function of magnitude
3145: between our brightest and faintest magnitude bin, it is in fact a
3146: relatively constant $\approx 8-9\%$ for bins fainter than $M(1700\AA)
3147: \approx -20$. Adopting a steeper faint-end slope of the UV LF of LAEs
3148: of $\alpha_{\rm LAELF} = -1.9$ still results in a universal faint-end
3149: slope ($\alpha_{\rm UVLF}$) that is consistent with the fiducial value
3150: (Figure~\ref{fig:lyalf}).
3151:
3152: Future studies that constrain more robustly $\alpha_{\rm LAELF}$ over
3153: the {\em entire} redshift range probed here will be useful for
3154: assessing the overall impact of high $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ systems on the
3155: faint-end slope inferred for all star-forming galaxies. It is also
3156: not unreasonable to suspect disparate absorption properties between UV
3157: bright versus faint galaxies, so {\em spectroscopic} studies, while
3158: difficult to carry out at present, are crucial for assessing the
3159: variation of $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ with luminosity (e.g.,
3160: \citealt{shapley03}).
3161:
3162: Nonetheless, while the inclusion of high $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ systems
3163: among the UV continuum-faint population may be a small systematic
3164: effect ($3-4\%$), it is not negligible compared to the error in number
3165: density at the faint-end of the UV LF ($10-15\%$), and so should be
3166: included in any proper assessment of the UV LF. The critical point,
3167: and one that is demonstrated unambiguously with our simulations
3168: (Figure~\ref{fig:lyalf}), is that such a systematic effect does little
3169: to alter the faint-end slope of the universal LF.\footnote{While the
3170: small change in the $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution brought on by the
3171: inclusion of LAEs does little to alter the faint-end slope,
3172: significant discrepancies in the faint-end of the UV LF arise when not
3173: accounting at all for the $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ distribution of galaxies
3174: at these redshifts (R08).} In our final determination of the LF, we
3175: have made the conservative assumption of a median value of $W_{\rm
3176: Ly\alpha} = 150$~\AA\, for the LAE population with $W_{\rm Ly\alpha} >
3177: 50$~\AA\, (although, as noted above, the exact value does little to
3178: alter the LF). The resulting best-fit Schechter parameters are listed
3179: in Table~\ref{tab:schechter}.
3180:
3181: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}
3182: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3183: \tablewidth{0pc}
3184: \tablecaption{Best-fit Schechter Parameters for UV LFs of $1.9\la z\la 3.4$ Galaxies}
3185: \tablehead{
3186: \colhead{Redshift Range} &
3187: \colhead{Systematic Effect} &
3188: \colhead{$\alpha$} &
3189: \colhead{M$^{\ast}_{\rm AB}(1700{\rm \AA})$} &
3190: \colhead{$\phi^{\ast}$ ($\times 10^{-3}$~Mpc$^{-3}$)}}
3191: \startdata
3192: $1.9\le z<2.7$ & Fiducial\tablenotemark{a} & $-1.67\pm0.06$ & $-20.65\pm0.08$ & $2.84\pm0.42$ \\
3193: & $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}=150$~\AA\tablenotemark{b} & $-1.68\pm0.06$ & $-20.68\pm0.08$ & $2.83\pm0.42$ \\
3194: & $[\ebmv]_{\rm grad}$\tablenotemark{c} & $-1.72\pm0.06$ & $-20.71\pm0.09$ & $2.64\pm0.46)$ \\
3195: & {\bf Combined}\tablenotemark{d} & $-1.73\pm0.07$ & $-20.70\pm0.11$ & $2.75\pm0.54$ \\
3196: \\
3197: $2.7\le z<3.4$ & Fiducial\tablenotemark{a} & $-1.77\pm0.12$ & $-20.98\pm0.13$ & $1.54\pm0.43$ \\
3198: & $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}=150$~\AA\tablenotemark{b} & $-1.80\pm0.12$ & $-21.06\pm0.13$ & $1.34\pm0.42$ \\
3199: & $[\ebmv]_{\rm grad}$\tablenotemark{c} & $-1.78\pm0.12$ & $-20.97\pm 0.13$ & $1.55\pm0.43$ \\
3200: & {\bf Combined}\tablenotemark{d} & $-1.73\pm0.13$ & $-20.97\pm0.14$ & $1.71\pm0.53$ \\
3201: \enddata
3202: \label{tab:schechter}
3203: \tablenotetext{a}{Fiducial LF assumes no change in the $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ and $\ebmv$
3204: distributions as a function of UV apparent magnitude.}
3205: \tablenotetext{b}{LF derived assuming an LAE population at the faint-end with
3206: $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}=150$~\AA\, (see text).}
3207: \tablenotetext{c}{LF derived assuming a linearly declining mean $\ebmv$ for galaxies
3208: with $\rs > 25.5$ (see text).}
3209: \tablenotetext{d}{LF derived combining the effects of a changing $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ and $\ebmv$
3210: distribution as a function of UV apparent magnitude.}
3211: \end{deluxetable*}
3212:
3213: \section{B. Reddening Distribution}
3214:
3215: \subsubsection{B.1. Test Cases}
3216:
3217: In the prior section, we assumed a young stellar population and no
3218: reddening when modeling LAEs. In this section, we test for modulation
3219: in the LF if {\em all} UV-faint galaxies are characterized with a
3220: young stellar population and lower reddening than UV-bright galaxies.
3221: In this case, the LAEs would simply represent a phase of UV-faint
3222: galaxies with a short duty cycle of $\la 10\%$, based on the number
3223: density of LAEs compared to the general continuum population (e.g.,
3224: \citealt{kovac07, nagamine08, verhamme08, gawiser07}). Note that here
3225: we are concerned with the changing distribution of reddening of
3226: galaxies as a function UV magnitude {\em at a given epoch}. A
3227: somewhat related issue is how the reddening distribution in general
3228: shifts to lower values at higher redshift for galaxies of a given star
3229: formation rate (R08; see also \S~\ref{sec:sfrd}).
3230:
3231: The first case under consideration is if the average $\ebmv$ of
3232: galaxies with $\rs>25.5$ is zero. This scenario would be the most
3233: conservative one we can make for two reasons. First, R08 demonstrate
3234: using UV continuum-slopes and {\em Spitzer} MIPS data that the
3235: reddening distribution of UV-selected galaxies does not vary
3236: significantly to the spectroscopic limit of $\rs\sim 25.5$. Because
3237: this limit is arbitrary with respect to galaxy properties, we would
3238: not expect the reddening to change so suddenly for galaxies fainter
3239: than this limit and indeed it would be unphysical. A more meaningful
3240: model is one in which the average reddening asymptotes to zero
3241: proceeding to fainter luminosities (R08). Second, there is a
3242: non-negligible fraction of galaxies at $z\sim 2-3$ on the faint-end of
3243: the UV LF that are bolometrically-luminous and dusty (e.g.,
3244: \citealt{chapman05, vandokkum04}). Yet, a large fraction of these
3245: galaxies have colors and UV opacity that do not differ significantly
3246: from those of UV continuum-bright objects (\citealt{chapman05,
3247: reddy05a, reddy06a}, R08). By assuming an average reddening that
3248: falls to zero for galaxies fainter than $\rs=25.5$, we are effectively
3249: seeking the {\em maximal} change in the LF under such a scenario. We
3250: also consider a more physical reddening distribution whose mean
3251: $\langle\ebmv\rangle$ decreases monotonically from a value of $\langle
3252: \ebmv\rangle \sim 0.13$ at $\rs=25.5$ to zero at the faintest apparent
3253: magnitude bin of our analysis (case 2). With this model, galaxies at
3254: the faint-end of the UV LF ($M(1700\AA)\approx -18.00$) will have
3255: close to zero reddening, similar to the mean reddening (as inferred
3256: from the rest-UV slopes) of dropout galaxies at $z\sim 6$ with
3257: comparable unobscured UV luminosities \citep{bouwens06}. If we define
3258: the $N(\ebmv)$ distribution for galaxies brighter than $\rs=25.5$ as
3259: \begin{eqnarray}
3260: N[\ebmv,\rs\le 25.5] \equiv N_{\rm o},
3261: \end{eqnarray}
3262: then our model for
3263: the luminosity dependence of $N(\ebmv,\rs)$ can be written
3264: as
3265: \begin{eqnarray}
3266: N(\ebmv,\rs) & = & N_{\rm o}, \,\,\,\,\,\rs\le 25.5 \nonumber \\
3267: & = & f(\langle\ebmv\rangle,\sigma(N_{\rm o})), \nonumber \\
3268: & & \rs > 25.5,
3269: \end{eqnarray}
3270: where the function $f(\langle\ebmv\rangle,\sigma(N_{\rm o}))$ is a
3271: Gaussian with mean $\langle \ebmv\rangle = 0$ (Case 1) and
3272: $\langle\ebmv\rangle = -0.09\rs+2.43$ (Case 2) and dispersion
3273: equivalent to that observed for $N_{\rm o}$ (i.e., $\sigma(N_{\rm
3274: o})$). Note that while $N_{\rm o}$ is not in fact distributed
3275: normally, the differences that arise by assuming a Gaussian are
3276: negligible. Further, for simplicity we have assumed that the
3277: dispersion of the $\ebmv$ distribution is independent of magnitude.
3278: R08 argue for an increased dispersion at faint magnitudes due to the
3279: mixing of galaxies with intrinsically low star formation rates and
3280: those that are UV-faint because of high extinction. The effect of
3281: such an increasing dispersion is to reduce the effective volume of the
3282: survey and thus the incompleteness corrections will be larger at the
3283: faint-end. In general, however, because the number density of
3284: UV-faint galaxies with little reddening is inferred to be much larger
3285: than that of heavily reddened UV-faint galaxies (\S~\ref{sec:nature}),
3286: the increase in dispersion attributable to the latter is likely to be
3287: negligible. In addition, at the faintest magnitudes where $\langle
3288: \ebmv\rangle$ approaches zero, the dispersion will be dominated not by
3289: reddening but by the intrinsic variation in SEDs of galaxies.
3290: Consequentially, the dispersion will likely be smaller than the
3291: $\sigma(N_{\rm 0})$ measured at brighter magnitudes. Note that there
3292: is a non-negligible number of galaxies in the spectroscopic sample
3293: that have measured $\ebmv<0$. Since we use $\ebmv$ as an indicator of
3294: dust, we set a lower limit of $\ebmv = 0$ for any galaxies that happen
3295: to be assigned a negative value. Finally, R08 demonstrate that the
3296: mean extinction among galaxies above a particular unobscured
3297: luminosity is roughly constant with redshift between $1.9\le z<3.4$.
3298: Motivated by this, we adopt non-evolution of reddening in the
3299: simulations; i.e., $N(\ebmv,\rs,z)\approx N(\ebmv,\rs)$. For brevity
3300: in the subsequent discussion, the abbreviation ZR refers to the case
3301: of a discontinuous reddening distribution such that galaxies with
3302: $\rs>25.5$ have $\ebmv = 0$. Similarly, LDR refers to our analytical
3303: model for the luminosity-dependent reddening distribution that has
3304: reddening decreasing monotonically with UV magnitude.
3305:
3306: \subsubsection{B.2. Results}
3307:
3308: The results are summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:ebmvlf} for both case 1
3309: (ZR), where all galaxies with $\rs>25.5$ have $\ebmv = 0$, and case 2
3310: (LDR), where the mean reddening decreases with magnitude. There are
3311: several conclusions of import. Focusing on the lower redshift
3312: galaxies, in the ZR case we find a significant increase of up to
3313: $70\%$ in the inferred number density of galaxies with
3314: $M(1700\AA)>-20$ relative to that inferred from the fiducial model.
3315: This can be understood by examining Figure~\ref{fig:lyaprob}.
3316: Galaxies with no reddening (e.g., as in the case of the LAE model)
3317: have bluer colors that approach the boundary of the BX color selection
3318: window. Thus, photometric errors preferentially scatter galaxies out
3319: of the selection window compared to typical BXs. The net effect is
3320: that for a fixed number of observed BX candidates, the incompleteness
3321: corrections will be larger, leading to larger number densities. We
3322: find a statistically insignificant difference between the fiducial and
3323: ZR faint-end slopes, attributable to the fact that the reddening
3324: distribution is fixed to have $\langle\ebmv\rangle=0$. A gradually
3325: declining distribution (case 2; LDR), results in number densities that
3326: are up to $\approx 10\%$ larger and a slightly steeper faint-end
3327: slope, although the parameters of the Schechter function are still
3328: consistent with those of the fiducial case within their respective
3329: marginalized errors.
3330:
3331: \begin{figure*}[t]
3332: \plottwo{f15a.eps}{f15b.eps}
3333: \caption{Change in faint-end slope of the UV luminosity function
3334: assuming that galaxies with $\rs>25.5$ have (1)
3335: $\langle\ebmv\rangle=0$ ($\alpha_{\rm \ebmv=0}$) and (2)
3336: $\langle\ebmv\rangle$ that falls off linearly with magnitude
3337: ($\alpha^{sys}_{\rm \ebmv}$), compared to the fiducial value that
3338: assumes galaxies have the same $\langle\ebmv\rangle\approx 0.13$
3339: irrespective of apparent magnitude ($\alpha_{\rm 0}$). For clarity,
3340: data points are shown only for case (2) in both panels and the
3341: Schechter fit for case (2) is excluded from the right
3342: panel.}
3343: \label{fig:ebmvlf}
3344: \end{figure*}
3345:
3346: The luminosity-dependent variation of the $\ebmv$ distribution has
3347: less of an effect on the faint-end number densities in the higher
3348: redshift range $2.7\le z<3.4$, primarily because the LBG criteria
3349: include colors that are much bluer than those expected for even a
3350: young and unreddened stellar population. However, because we account
3351: also for the intrinsic scatter in $N(\ebmv)$, the differences in
3352: faint-end number densities are still somewhat larger than we would
3353: have obtained had we modeled the $N(\ebmv)$ distribution as a $\delta$
3354: function at a given $\rs$-band magnitude (i.e., assuming all galaxies
3355: at a given $\rs$ have the same reddening). In any case, the LBG
3356: criteria are somewhat more robust to extreme assumptions regarding the
3357: $\ebmv$ distribution of UV-faint galaxies compared to the BX criteria.
3358: Simply altering the BX criteria to include candidates with bluer
3359: $\gmr$ colors could alleviate some of this difference, but we note
3360: that our deep photometry indicates that galaxies with such blue colors
3361: ($\gmr \la -0.2$) are rare. For the purposes of our present analysis,
3362: the exact placement of the color criteria is not important as long as
3363: the effect of the criteria is modeled appropriately and incompleteness
3364: is accounted for using a likelihood analysis.
3365:
3366: Deep spectroscopy combined with multi-wavelength indicators of the
3367: extinction of sub-$L^{\ast}$ galaxies is required to more robustly
3368: constrain the $\ebmv$ distribution as a function of unobscured UV
3369: luminosity. For the time being, however, we have shown that adopting
3370: simple scenarios for how the distribution changes with UV luminosity
3371: results in a faint-end slope that can be potentially steeper at $z\sim
3372: 2$ than we would have obtained by assuming a constant $\ebmv$
3373: distribution. For our final determination of the UV LF, we have
3374: adopted our prescription for the luminosity dependence of reddening,
3375: namely one in which the reddening declines linearly with apparent
3376: magnitude, as discussed above. The resulting best-fit Schechter
3377: parameters are listed in Table~\ref{tab:schechter}.
3378:
3379: \subsection{C. Objects Outside the Redshift Ranges of Interest}
3380:
3381: Intrinsic variations in the SEDs of star-forming galaxies and
3382: photometric errors lead to significant wings of the redshift selection
3383: functions, $N(z,L)$, for color-selected samples. Here, the selection
3384: function is parameterized in terms of both redshift and luminosity.
3385: In this analysis, we have computed the LFs specifically over the
3386: redshift ranges $1.9\le z<2.7$ and $2.7\le z<3.4$, although the exact
3387: redshift interval used is unimportant since the LF does not evolve
3388: over these redshifts (see R08 and \S~\ref{sec:lfevol}). More
3389: importantly, we estimate the fraction of photometric candidates that
3390: fall in the redshift ranges over which the LFs are computed,
3391: information that is provided directly from the spectroscopic sample.
3392:
3393: In the faintest apparent magnitude bin of the spectroscopic sample,
3394: $25.0\le \rs <25.5$, the observed fractions of galaxies (excluding
3395: AGN/QSOs) that fall in the ranges $1.9\le z<2.7$ and $2.7\le z<3.4$
3396: are $77\%$ and $72\%$, respectively (virtually all of the objects that
3397: are outside these redshift ranges still have $z>1$ since the
3398: contamination due to $z\le 1$ objects is very small at these faint
3399: magnitudes --- see R08). In the previous analysis, the fractions of
3400: $77\%$ and $72\%$ are assumed to remain constant for galaxies fainter
3401: than $\rs=25.5$. There are at least a couple of reasons why this is
3402: likely to be a reasonable assumption. First, the contamination from
3403: $z<1$ objects to the photometric sample is a strong function of
3404: magnitude. If this trend continues to fainter magnitudes, then we
3405: would expect the $z<1$ contamination rate to be less than $1\%$ for
3406: objects fainter than $\rs=25.5$. Adopting zero contamination from
3407: $z<1$ objects at $\rs>25.5$ results in number densities at the
3408: faint-end that are $\approx 1\%$ larger. This is an insignificant
3409: change given the magnitude of the other systematics discussed above.
3410: In theory, the larger photometric errors for UV-faint objects may
3411: result in an increase of the contamination rate at the faint-end. A
3412: small sample of 15 spectroscopically-confirmed galaxies with
3413: $25.0<\rs<26.0$ in the Q1422 field (\citealt{steidel03}; R08) implies
3414: a zero contamination fraction. Larger spectroscopic samples of
3415: UV-faint objects will be required to obtain a statistically-robust
3416: estimate of contamination at the faint-end. However, all of the
3417: previous studies that have attempted to constrain the faint-end of the
3418: UV LF \citep{steidel99, sawicki06a} also assume negligible
3419: contamination at the faint-end. Hence, the difference between our
3420: determination of a steep-faint end slope and the shallower values
3421: found elsewhere (see \S~\ref{sec:context}) cannot be attributable to
3422: differences in the assumed contamination rate as a function of UV
3423: luminosity.
3424:
3425: Second, the redshift distribution for UV-selected galaxies will be
3426: modulated primarily by systematics that affect the overall colors of
3427: galaxies at these redshifts, namely Ly$\alpha$ perturbations and the
3428: $\ebmv$ distribution, such that $N(z,L)=f(N[W_{\rm
3429: Ly\alpha}],N[E(B-V)])$. From this discussion, we conclude that the
3430: redshift distribution likely remains similar between UV-bright and
3431: faint galaxies (i.e., $N(z,L)\approx N(z)$). It is easy to see,
3432: however, the potential danger of assuming that $N(z)$ is insensitive
3433: to luminosity: even gradual changes in the stellar population and
3434: reddening of galaxies as a function of magnitude may result in an
3435: artificial suppression of the faint-end of the UV LF with respect to
3436: the bright-end. This motivates the need for selection criteria that
3437: are efficient at targeting galaxies with a wide range of intrinsic
3438: properties at the desired redshifts (see next section).
3439:
3440: For the selection criteria adopted here, the presence of high $W_{\rm
3441: Ly\alpha}$ systems and/or a bluer population of UV-faint galaxies does
3442: little to alter the parameterization of the maximum-likelihood LF
3443: under reasonable assumptions for LAE number densities and the
3444: reddening distribution. In other words, the modulation of $N(z,L)$,
3445: and more generally $\xi$, the transitional probability function, due
3446: to these systematic effects do not affect appreciably our LF
3447: determination. Substantial changes in the redshift distribution {\em
3448: can} arise from a rapid evolution of the LAE number density and
3449: $\ebmv$ distributions over the redshifts of concern. However, lacking
3450: evidence that such evolution is occurring --- and, as discussed above,
3451: there is little evolution in the $\ebmv$ distribution over these
3452: redshifts; R08) --- it is likely that the redshift distributions of
3453: BXs and LBGs with $\rs>25.5$ is similar to those of $\rs<25.5$
3454: galaxies.
3455:
3456: \subsection{D. Implications for Color Selection at High Redshift}
3457: \label{sec:selcrit}
3458:
3459: It is instructive to take a broader view and examine the significance
3460: of the tests described here in the context of the color selection
3461: criteria. The primary result of this section is that the systematics
3462: brought about by reasonable assumptions for the unobscured UV
3463: luminosity dependence of the $W_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ and reddening
3464: distributions do little to alter our inference of the UV LF {\em for
3465: the selection criteria used here}. We emphasize the latter part since
3466: obviously some sets of criterion will be more susceptible to
3467: modulations of $N(W_{\rm Ly\alpha})$ and $N(E[B-V])$ than others. As
3468: has been discussed elsewhere \citep{steidel03, steidel04,
3469: adelberger04}, the goal of observing efficiency dictates that a
3470: balance be struck between the inclusion of as many galaxies at the
3471: redshifts of interest as possible and the exclusion of as many
3472: foreground or background contaminants. In the context of the present
3473: analysis, luminosity-dependent properties of galaxies should also be
3474: taken into account when designing color criteria. UV-dropout criteria
3475: are in general the most efficient method for selecting high-redshift
3476: galaxies. Because they target preferentially bluer galaxies, the
3477: luminosity-dependent systematics expected for UV-faint galaxies works
3478: in favor of their selection via rest-frame UV emission. In contrast,
3479: near-IR selections that target redder galaxies (either because they
3480: are dusty, have large stellar masses, or both), may potentially miss
3481: an appreciable fraction of galaxies that populate the faint-end of the
3482: UV LF (\S~\ref{sec:nature}). Hence, the aggregate of these selection
3483: methods provides a complementary view and are necessary for obtaining
3484: an unbiased census of star formation.
3485:
3486: Obviously, incompleteness corrections for criteria that target blue
3487: galaxies are not completely immune to extreme luminosity-dependent
3488: gradients in $N(E[B-V],\rs)$, for example (Figure~\ref{fig:ebmvlf}).
3489: The power of our simulations and maximum-likelihood method is that
3490: they can be used to quantify and correct for even severe biases (e.g.,
3491: in the faint-end slope) imposed by high redshift galaxy selection in a
3492: way that is not possible with the traditional methods of computing
3493: luminosity functions (see discussion in R08). The keystone of our
3494: entire method is the spectroscopy: while not extending fainter than
3495: the typical ground-based magnitude limit, spectroscopy for UV-bright
3496: galaxies does provide a critical foundation, or ``zero-point,'' for
3497: assessing how luminosity dependent systematics may affect our
3498: inferences of the faint-end. Using these techniques, we showed in R08
3499: that, after correcting for low redshift objects and AGN/QSOs based on
3500: extensive spectroscopy, the UV LF inferred by magnitude limited
3501: surveys is similar to that derived from color-selected surveys.
3502: Hence, we argued that we must be complete for UV-bright galaxies. The
3503: slight modifications of the Schechter parameterization of the LF after
3504: taking into account $N(W_{\rm Ly\alpha},\rs)$ and $N(E[B-V],\rs)$
3505: implies that our determination must also be reasonably complete for
3506: UV-faint galaxies.
3507:
3508: \end{document}
3509: