1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[apj, numberedappendix]{emulateapj}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx} % to include .ps, .eps figures
5: \usepackage{amsmath} % to include mathematical formatting
6: \usepackage{amssymb}
7: \usepackage{exscale, relsize}
8: \usepackage{amscd}
9: \usepackage{natbib}
10: \usepackage{lscape}
11:
12: \newcommand{\eg}{\textit{e.g.}}
13: \newcommand{\ie}{\textit{ie.}}
14: \newcommand{\viz}{\textit{viz.}}
15: \newcommand{\cf}{\textit{cf.}}
16:
17: \newcommand{\zphot}{z_{\mathrm{phot}}}
18: \newcommand{\zspec}{z_{\mathrm{spec}}}
19: \newcommand{\zform}{z_{\mathrm{form}}}
20: \newcommand{\delz}{{\cal D}_z}
21:
22: \newcommand{\masslimit}{10^{11}}
23: \renewcommand{\sun}{$_{\odot}$}
24:
25: \newcommand{\ptot}{\gamma_{\mathrm{tot}}}
26: \newcommand{\pred}{\gamma_{\mathrm{red}}}
27: \newcommand{\pfrac}{\gamma_{\mathrm{frac}}}
28:
29: \usepackage{morefloats}
30:
31: % _____________________________________________________________________
32:
33: \begin{document}
34:
35: \title{The Rise of Massive Red Galaxies: \\ the Color--Magnitude and
36: Color--Stellar Mass Diagrams for $\zphot \lesssim 2$ \\ from the
37: MUltiwavelength Survey by Yale--Chile (MUSYC)}
38: %\submitted{}
39:
40: \shorttitle{The Rise of Massive Red Galaxies}
41: \shortauthors{E N Taylor et al.}
42:
43: % _____________________________________________________________________
44: % _____________________________________________________________________
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47: We present the color--magnitude and color--stellar mass diagrams for
48: galaxies with $\zphot \lesssim 2$, based on a $K^{\mathrm{(AB)}} <
49: 22$ catalog of the $\frac{1}{2} \times \frac{1}{2}~\square^{\circ}$
50: Extended Chandra Deep Field South (ECDFS) from the MUltiwavelength
51: Survey by Yale--Chile (MUSYC). Our main sample of 7840 galaxies
52: contains 1297 $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies in the range $0.2 <
53: \zphot < 1.8$. We show empirically that this catalog is
54: approximately complete for $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies for
55: $\zphot < 1.8$. For this mass--limited sample, we show that the
56: locus of the red sequence color--stellar mass relation evolves as
57: $\Delta(u-r) \propto (-0.44 \pm 0.02) ~ \zphot$ for $\zphot \lesssim
58: 1.2$. For $\zphot \gtrsim 1.3$, however, we are no longer able to
59: reliably distinguish red and blue subpopulations from the observed
60: color distribution; we show that this would require much deeper near
61: infrared (NIR) data. At $1.5 < \zphot < 1.8$, the comoving number
62: density of $M_* > 10^{11}$ M\sun\ galaxies is $\approx 50 \%$ of the
63: local value, with a red fraction of $\approx 33$ \%. Making a
64: parametric fit to the observed evolution, we find $n_\mathrm{tot}
65: (z) \propto (1+\zphot)^{-0.52 \pm 0.12 (\pm 0.20)}$. We find
66: stronger evolution in the red fraction: $f_\mathrm{red}(z) \propto
67: (1+\zphot)^{-1.17 \pm 0.18 (\pm 0.21)}$. Through a series of
68: sensitivity analyses, we show that the most important sources of
69: systematic error are: 1.\ systematic differences in the analysis of
70: the $z \approx 0$ and $z \gg 0$ samples; 2.\ systematic effects
71: associated with details of the photometric redshift calculation; and
72: 3.\ uncertainties in the photometric calibration. With this in
73: mind, we show that our results based on photometric redshifts are
74: consistent with a completely independent analysis which does not
75: require redshift information for individual galaxies. Our results
76: suggest that, at most, 1/5 of local red sequence galaxies with $M_*
77: > 10^{11}$ M\sun\ were already in place at $z \sim 2$.
78: \end{abstract}
79:
80: \author{Edward N Taylor$^1$, % \altaffilmark{1}
81: Marijn Franx$^1$, %\altaffilmark{1},
82: Pieter G van Dokkum$^2$, %\altaffilmark{2},
83: Eric F Bell$^3$, %\altaffilmark{3},
84: Gabriel B Brammer$^2$, \\%\altaffilmark{2},
85: Gregory Rudnick$^4$, %\altaffilmark{4},
86: Stijn Wuyts$^5$, %\altaffilmark{1,5},
87: Eric Gawiser$^6$, %\altaffilmark{2,6,7},
88: Paulina Lira$^7$, %\altaffilmark{6},
89: C Megan Urry$^2$, %\altaffilmark{2},
90: Hans-Walter Rix$^3$, %\altaffilmark{3}
91: }
92:
93: %\affiliation{Leiden Observatory, Leiden University}
94: %\email{ ent@strw.leidenuniv.nl }
95: %\altaffiltext{1}
96: %{Sterrewacht Leiden, Leiden University, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands; ent@strw.leidenuniv.nl}
97: %\altaffiltext{2}
98: %{Department of Astronomy, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8101}
99: %\altaffiltext{3}
100: %{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
101: %\altaffiltext{4}
102: %{Goldberg Fellow, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ 85721}
103: %\altaffiltext{5}
104: %{W. M. Keck Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138}
105: %\altaffiltext{6}
106: %{Departamento de Astronom\'ia, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile}
107: %\altaffiltext{7}
108: %{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ}
109:
110: \affil{$^1$ Sterrewacht Leiden, Leiden University, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands; ent@strw.leidenuniv.nl, \\
111: $^2$ Department of Astronomy, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8101,
112: $^3$ Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, \\ D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany,
113: $^4$ Goldberg Fellow, National Optical Astronomy Observatories,
114: Tucson, AZ 85721; currently \\at Department of Physics and
115: Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 66045
116: $^5$ W. M. Keck Postdoctoral Fellow, \\Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
117: Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138,
118: $^6$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, \\Rutgers University,
119: Piscataway, NJ, 08854
120: $^7$ Departamento de Astronom\'ia, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile}
121:
122: \keywords{Galaxies: Formation --- Galaxies: Evolution --- Galaxies}
123:
124: % _____________________________________________________________________
125: % _____________________________________________________________________
126:
127: \section{Introduction} \label{ch:intro}
128:
129: Observing the evolution of the massive galaxy population provides
130: basic constraints on cosmological models of structure formation, and
131: so helps to identify the physical processes that govern the formation
132: and evolution of massive galaxies. In this context, the
133: color--magnitude diagram (CMD)---astronomy's most basic diagnostic
134: plot---has been particularly important and useful over the past five
135: years. Physically, a galaxy's restframe color is determined by the
136: (luminosity weighted) mean stellar age, modulo the mean stellar
137: metallicity and extinction from dust in the ISM. The restframe
138: optical brightness acts as a proxy for the total stellar mass,
139: although the connection between the two has a similarly complicated
140: dependence on star formation history, metallicity, and dust. The CMD
141: thus offers two complementary means of characterizing the star
142: formation history of individual galaxies, in terms of the amount and
143: character of their starlight.
144:
145: In the local universe, galaxies can be separated into two distinct but
146: overlapping populations in color--magnitude space \citep{Baldry2004}:
147: a relatively narrow and well--defined `red sequence', as distinct from
148: the more diffuse `blue cloud', with each following its own
149: color--magnitude relation (CMR). Red sequence galaxies dominate the
150: bright galaxy population, and tend to have the more concentrated light
151: distributions typical of morphologically early type galaxies
152: \citep{Strateva2001, Blanton2003, Driver2006, vdWel2008}. They
153: typically have stellar masses greater than $10^{10.5}$ M\sun\ and are
154: dominated by old stars, whereas blue cloud galaxies are typically less
155: massive and continue to be actively star forming \citep{Kauffmann2003,
156: BrinchmannEtAl, WyderEtAl}. Further, red sequence galaxies lie
157: preferentially in higher density environments \citep{Hogg2003,
158: Blanton2005Env, Baldry2006}. The emergent picture is of a population
159: of massive, quiescent, concentrated, and strongly clustered red
160: sequence galaxies, as distinct from the typically less massive,
161: disk--dominated, and star forming blue cloud population
162: \citep{Ellis2005}. This paper focuses on the redshift evolution of
163: the red sequence galaxy population.
164:
165: Using high quality photometric redshifts from the COMBO-17 survey,
166: \citet{Bell2004} showed that a red galaxy sequence is already in place
167: at $\zphot \sim 1$ \citep[see also, \eg,][]{ImEtAl, WeinerEtAl,
168: WillmerEtAl}. Further, as in the local universe, the $\zphot \approx
169: 0.7$ red sequence is dominated by passive, morphologically early type
170: galaxies \citep{Bell2004-Morph}. The combined mass of red sequence
171: galaxies at $z \sim 1$ is at least half of the present day value
172: \citep{Bell2004, Faber2007, BrownEtAl2008}. By contrast, the stellar
173: mass density of actively star forming blue cloud galaxies remains more
174: or less constant for $z \lesssim 1$ \citep{Arnouts2007, Bell2007},
175: even as the combined star formation rate drops by an order of
176: magnitude over the same interval \citep{Lilly1996, Madau1996,
177: Hopkins2004}. These results---a steadily growing number of passively
178: evolving red galaxies, and a relatively constant number of actively
179: star forming blue galaxies---have led to the idea of a quenching
180: mechanism for star formation, operating to incite a transformation
181: that moves active galaxies from the blue cloud onto the passive red
182: sequence \citep{Menci2005, Croton2006, Cattaneo2006, DekelBirnboim,
183: DeLucia2007}.
184:
185: Our specific goal in this paper is to quantify the evolution of
186: massive galaxies in general, and of red sequence galaxies in
187: particular, in the color--magnitude and color--stellar mass planes for
188: $\zphot \lesssim 2$. The $1 \lesssim z \lesssim 2$ interval is
189: particularly interesting: whereas the $z \sim 1$ galaxy population
190: appears qualitatively similar to the local universe, at least in terms
191: of the existence and properties of red sequence galaxies, the
192: situation at $z \gtrsim 2$ may be quite different. While massive,
193: passive galaxies have been confirmed at $z \gtrsim 1.5$
194: \citep{Daddi2005, McGrath2007} and even $z \gtrsim 2$
195: \citep{Kriek2006}, these galaxies do not appear to dominate the
196: massive galaxy population as they do at $z \lesssim 1$. Indeed, it
197: appears that the median massive galaxy at $z \sim 2$ has the infrared
198: luminosity of a LIRG or ULIRG \citep{Reddy2006}. Moreover, whereas
199: the number density of massive galaxies at $z \sim 1$ is $\gtrsim 50$
200: \% of the local value \citep{Juneau2005, BorchEtAl, Scarlata2007}, at
201: $z \gtrsim 2$ it is inferred to be $\lesssim 15$ \%
202: \citep{Fontana2006, Arnouts2007, PozzettiEtAl, PerezGonzalez}. This
203: marks the redshift interval $1 \lesssim z \lesssim 2$ as potentially
204: being an era of transition in the universe, in which massive galaxies
205: first begin both to appear in large numbers, and to take on the
206: appearance of their local antecedents. This coincides with end of the
207: period of peak star formation in the universe; while the cosmic star
208: formation rate rises sharply for $z \lesssim 1$, it appears to plateau
209: or even peak for $z \gtrsim 2$ \citep[see, \eg,][]{Hopkins2004,
210: NagamineEtAl, PanterEtAl, TresseEtAl, PerezGonzalez}. Whatever the
211: mechanism that quenches star formation in massive galaxies may be, it
212: is in operation at $1 < z < 2$.
213:
214: \vspace{0.2cm}
215:
216: The technical key to gaining access to the $1 \lesssim z \lesssim 2$
217: universe is deep near infrared (NIR) data \citep{ConnollyEtAl1998},
218: since at these redshifts the restframe optical features on which both
219: spectroscopic and photometric redshift and stellar mass determinations
220: rely are shifted beyond the observer's optical window. Moreover, the
221: inclusion of NIR data makes it possible to construct stellar mass
222: limited samples with high completeness \citep{VanDokkum2006}. Among
223: the next generation of NIR--selected cosmological field galaxy
224: surveys, the MUltiwavelength Survey by Yale--Chile (MUSYC; Gawiser et
225: al.\ 2006) is among the first to become public. MUSYC has targeted
226: four widely dispersed Southern fields, covering a total of one square
227: degree in the $UBVRIz'$ bands. Coupled with this optical imaging
228: programme, MUSYC also has two NIR imaging campaigns: a wide
229: ($K^\mathrm{(AB)} \lesssim 22$) component over three of the four
230: fields \citep[][hereafter Paper I]{Blanc2008,PaperI}, and a deeper
231: ($K^\mathrm{(AB)} \lesssim 23.5$) component for four 10' $\times$ 10'
232: fields \citep{QuadriEtAl}.
233:
234: This present paper focuses on the Extended Chandra Deep Field South
235: (ECDFS), one of the four $\frac{1}{2} \times
236: \frac{1}{2}~\square^{\circ}$ MUSYC fields. Centered on the historical
237: Chandra Deep Field-South \citep[$\alpha =
238: 03^\mathrm{h}32^\mathrm{m}28\mathrm{s}$, $\delta = -27^\circ48'30''$;
239: J2000 ---][]{Giacconi2001}, this is one the best studied fields on the
240: sky, with observations spanning the full electromagnetic spectrum from
241: the X-ray to the radio. Notably, this field is also a part of the
242: COMBO-17 survey \citep{WolfEtAl}, and has received {\em Hubble Space
243: Telescope} ACS coverage as part of the GEMS project \citep{RixEtAl},
244: as well as extremely deep {\em Spitzer Space Telescope} imaging from
245: the SIMPLE \citep{DamenEtAl} project. Further, the GOODS project
246: \citep{DickinsonEtAl} covers the 160 $\square$' at the centre of this
247: field, including supporting NIR data from the ISAAC instrument on the
248: VLT \citep{GrazianEtAl, WuytsEtAl}. Complementing these and other
249: imaging surveys, a wealth of spectroscopic redshifts are available
250: from large campaigns including the K20 survey \citep{K20}, the VVDS
251: project \citep{VVDS}, the two GOODS spectroscopic campaigns
252: \citep{FORS2, VIMOS}, and the IMAGES survey \citep{IMAGES}, among
253: others.
254:
255: \vspace{0.2cm}
256:
257: The plan of this paper is as follows. We begin in
258: \textsection\ref{ch:data} by giving a brief overview of the data used
259: in this paper --- the MUSYC ECDFS dataset itself, as well as the $z
260: \approx 0$ comparison sample from \citet{BlantonEtAl-lowz}. Next, in
261: \textsection\ref{ch:methods}, we describe our basic methods for
262: deriving redshifts and restframe properties for $z \gg 0$ galaxies;
263: our analysis of the $z \approx 0$ comparison sample is described
264: separately in Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}. In
265: \textsection\ref{ch:masslimit}, we construct a stellar-mass limited
266: sample of massive galaxies from our $K$--selected catalog.
267:
268: Our basic results --- the color--magnitude and color--stellar mass
269: diagrams for $\zphot < 2$ --- are presented in
270: \textsection\ref{ch:results}. We then analyse three separate aspects
271: of the data: evolution in the color distribution of the massive galaxy
272: population in (\textsection\ref{ch:bimodality}); the color evolution
273: of the red galaxy population as a whole (\textsection\ref{ch:redseq});
274: and the $\zphot \lesssim 2$ evolution in the absolute and relative
275: numbers of massive red/blue galaxies (\textsection\ref{ch:growth}).
276: Our final results are in conflict with those from COMBO-17 in the same
277: field; in Appendix \ref{ch:combo}, we show that this is a product of
278: calibration errors in the COMBO-17 data, rather than differences in
279: our analyses. In \textsection\ref{ch:sens}, we present a series of
280: sensitivity analyses in which we repeat our analysis a number of
281: times, while varying individual aspects of our experimental design,
282: and seeing how these changes affect our results; this tests thus
283: enable us to identify and quantify the most important sources of
284: systematic uncertainty in our main results.
285:
286: Finally, in \textsection\ref{ch:obcol}, we present a completely
287: independent consistency check on our results: we measure the $z
288: \lesssim 2$ evolution of the relative number of bright, red galaxies
289: based only on directly observed quantities --- that is, without
290: deriving redshifts or stellar masses for individual galaxies. A
291: summary of our results and conclusions is given in
292: \textsection\ref{ch:conc}.
293:
294: % _____________________________________________________________________
295:
296: \input{tab1.tex}
297: % _____________________________________________________________________
298:
299: Throughout this work, magnitudes are expressed in the AB system;
300: exceptions are explicitly marked. All masses have been derived
301: assuming a `diet Salpeter' IMF \citep{BellDeJong}, which is defined to
302: be 0.15 dex less massive than a standard \citet{Salpeter} IMF. In
303: terms of cosmology, we have assumed $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.70$, $\Omega_m
304: = 0.30$, and $H_0 = 70~h_{70}$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, where $h_{70} = 1$.
305:
306: % _____________________________________________________________________
307: % _____________________________________________________________________
308:
309: \section{Data} \label{ch:data}
310: % _____________________________________________________________________
311: % _____________________________________________________________________
312:
313: \subsection{An Overview of the MUSYC ECDFS Dataset} \label{ch:musyc}
314: % _____________________________________________________________________
315:
316: This work is based on a $K$--selected catalog of the ECDFS from the
317: MUSYC wide NIR imaging programme; these data are described and
318: presented in Paper I. We will refer hereafter to this dataset as
319: `the' MUSYC ECDFS catalog, although it should be distinguished from
320: the optical ($B$+$V$+$R$)--selected catalog, and the narrow band
321: (5000 \AA)--selected photometric catalogs described by
322: \citet{GronwallEtAl}, and the spectroscopic catalog described by
323: \citet{TreisterEtAl}.
324:
325: The vital statistics of the imaging data that have gone into the MUSYC
326: ECDFS catalog are summarized in Table \ref{tab:observations}. Unlike
327: the three other MUSYC fields, the ECDFS dataset was founded on
328: existing, publicly available optical imaging: specifically, archival
329: $UU_{38}BVRI$ WFI data,
330: %\footnote{Two separate WFI $U$ filters have
331: %been used. The first, ESO\#877, which we refer to as the $U$ filter,
332: %is slightly broader than a Broadhurst $U$ filter, and has
333: %($\lambda_0$,~ $\Delta \lambda$) = (3400 \AA, 732 \AA). This filter is
334: %known to have a red leak beyond 8000 \AA . The second filter,
335: %ESO\#841, is something like a narrow Johnson $U$ filter, with
336: %($\lambda_0$,~$\Delta \lambda$) = (3637 \AA, 383 \AA), and which we
337: %refer to as $U_{38}$.}
338: including those taken as part of the COMBO-17 survey \citep{WolfEtAl}
339: and ESO's Deep Public Survey \citep[DPS;][]{ArnoutsEtAl2001}, which
340: have been re-reduced as part of the GaBoDS project \citep{ErbenEtAl,
341: HildebrandtEtAl}. We also include $H$ band imaging (P Barmby, priv.\
342: comm.)\ from SofI on the 3.6m NTT, covering $\sim 80$ \% of the field,
343: taken to complement the ESO DPS data, reduced and described by
344: \citet{MoyEtAl}.
345: % ____________________________________________________________________
346:
347: \subsubsection{Original Data Reduction and Calibration}
348:
349: These existing data have been supplemented with original $z'$ band
350: imaging from MOSAIC-II, reduced as per \citet{GawiserEtAl}, as well as
351: $J$ and $K$ band imaging from ISPI; both instruments are mounted on
352: the Blanco 4m telescope at CTIO. To cover the full $\frac{1}{2}
353: \times \frac{1}{2}~ \square^{\circ}$ ECDFS in the $JK$ bands, we have
354: constructed a mosaic of nine $\sim 10 \times 10 ~ \square$' subfields
355: (the size of the ISPI field of view). The data reduction for the $JK$
356: imaging closely follows \citet{QuadriEtAl} and \citet{Blanc2008}, and
357: is described in detail in Paper I, where we present the MUSYC ECDFS
358: catalog.
359:
360: In brief, to facilitate multiband photometry, each reduced image has
361: been shifted to a common astrometric reference frame ($0\farcs267$
362: pix$^{-1}$). The relative astrometry has been verified to $0\farcs15$
363: (0.56 pix). To combat aperture effects (\ie\ similar apertures
364: capturing different fractions of light, due to variable seeing across
365: different images), we have PSF-matched our images to the one with the
366: worst effective seeing. Among the $K$ band pointings, the worst
367: effective seeing is $1\farcs 0$ FWHM; this sets our limits for
368: detection and for total $K$ band flux measurements. Among the other
369: bands, the worst seeing is $1\farcs 5$ FWHM in the Eastern $J$
370: subfield; this sets the limit for our multi-color photometry. After
371: PSF matching, systematic errors due to aperture effects are estimated
372: to be $\lesssim 0.006$ mag for the smallest apertures we use.
373:
374: We have tested the photometric calibration through comparison with the
375: COMBO-17 catalog of the ECDFS \citep{WolfEtAl}, and with the FIREWORKS
376: catalog of the GOODS-CDFS region \citep{WuytsEtAl}. While there are
377: significant differences between the COMBO-17 and MUSYC photometry, the
378: comparison to FIREWORKS validates our photometry and photometric
379: calibration to $\lesssim 0.02$ mag in most cases, particularly for the
380: redder bands. Further, we have tested the relative calibration of all
381: bands using the observed colors of stars; this test validates the
382: photometric cross-calibration to $\lesssim 0.05$ mag. (See
383: \textsection\ref{ch:zps} for a discussion of how sensitive our main
384: results are to photometric calibration errors.)
385:
386: %We have tested the impact that calibration errors on our main results
387: %in two ways. In order to determine how sensitively our results depend
388: %on calibration accuracy, in \textsection\ref{ch:zps}, we perturb the
389: %calibration of each individual band by $\pm 0.05$ mag. Then in
390: %\textsection\ref{ch:calib}, in order to quantify the systematic
391: %uncertainty in our results due to uncertainties in the calibration, we
392: %see how our results vary if we adjust our calibration to match the
393: %FIREWORKS catalog of the GOODS-CDFS region, or if we do not adopt the
394: %zeropoint revisions derived from stellar colors.
395: % ____________________________________________________________________
396:
397: \subsubsection{Photometry}
398:
399: The photometry itself was done using SExtractor \citep{BertinArnouts}
400: in dual image mode, using the $1\farcs0$ FWHM $K$ mosaic as the
401: detection image. Note that, as we were unable to find a combination
402: of SExtractor background estimation parameters (for the detection
403: phase) that were fine enough to map real spatial variations in the
404: background level, but still coarse enough to avoid being influenced by
405: the biggest, brightest sources, we were forced to perform our own
406: background subtraction for the NIR images. Total fluxes were measured
407: from this $1\farcs0$ $K$ image, using SExtractor's FLUX\_AUTO. In
408: Paper I, we that (in the photometry phase) SExtractor systematically
409: overestimates the background flux level by $\sim 0.03$ mag; we have
410: taken steps to correct for this effect. Following \citet{LabbeEtAl},
411: we also apply a minimal correction to account for missed flux beyond
412: the finite AUTO aperture, treating each object as though it were a
413: point source. We quantify the impact these two corrections have on
414: our final results in \textsection\ref{ch:background} and
415: \textsection\ref{ch:totalmags}.
416:
417: Multicolor spectral energy distributions (SEDs) were constructed for
418: each object using the larger of SExtractor's ISO aperture and a
419: $2\farcs 5$ diameter circular aperture, measured from the $1\farcs5$
420: FWHM $U$---$K$ images; we then normalize each object's SED using the
421: total $K$ flux. This flexibility in aperture size is important to
422: compromise between using apertures that are small enough to optimize
423: S:N (the $2\farcs5$ diameter aperture is close to optimal in terms of
424: S:N for a point source in the $1\farcs5$ FWHM $J$ band image), but
425: also large enough to account for color gradients, which are important
426: for the nearest, brightest objects. (See \textsection\ref{ch:seds}
427: for a discussion of how our results vary using only fixed aperture
428: photometry to construct SEDs.)
429:
430: Photometric errors (accounting for sky noise, imperfect background
431: subtraction, etc., as well as the pixel--pixel correlations introduced
432: at various stages in the reduction process) were derived empirically
433: by placing large numbers of `empty' apertures on each image \citep[see
434: also][]{LabbeEtAl, GawiserEtAl, QuadriEtAl}. For the $J$ and $K$
435: bands, this was done for each subfield individually.
436: % ____________________________________________________________________
437:
438: \subsubsection{Completeness and Reliability}
439:
440: We have assessed the completeness of the MUSYC catalog of the ECDFS
441: in two ways (Paper I). First, we have tested our ability to recover
442: synthetic, $R^{1/4}$ profile sources of varying total flux and size
443: introduced into empty regions of the data, using procedures identical
444: to `live' detection. This analysis suggests that, at $K = 22$, the
445: MUSYC catalog should be 100 \% complete for point sources, dropping
446: to 64 \% for $R_\mathrm{eff} = 0\farcs6$ (2.25 pix, or 4.8 kpc at $z =
447: 1$) ellipticals. Secondly, we have compared our catalog to the much
448: deeper FIREWORKS \citep{WuytsEtAl} catalog of the CDFS-GOODS region.
449: In the region of overlap, for $21.8 < K \le 22.0$ bin, $\gtrsim 85$ \%
450: of FIREWORKS detections are found in the MUSYC catalog; all MUSYC
451: detections in this bin are confirmed in the FIREWORKS catalog.
452: Taken together, these two analyses suggest that, at our limiting
453: magnitude of $K = 22$, the MUSYC catalog is primarily magnitude
454: (\cf\ surface brightness) limited, $\gtrsim 85$ \% complete, and $\sim
455: 100$ \% reliable.
456: % ____________________________________________________________________
457:
458: \subsubsection{Sample Selection}
459:
460: In constructing our main galaxy sample, we have identified stars on
461: the basis of the ($B-z'$)--($z'-K$) color--color diagram. This
462: selection performs extremely well in comparison with both COMBO-17's
463: SED classification, and with GEMS point sources (Paper I). We also
464: make three further selections. First, to protect against false
465: detections in regions with lower weights (\eg\ the mosaic edges, and
466: exposure `holes' in the Eastern $K$ subfield), we require the
467: effective weight in $K$ to be greater than 75 \%, corresponding to an
468: effective exposure time of 45 min or more. Secondly, we have masked
469: out, by hand, regions around bright stars where the SEDs of faint
470: objects may be heavily contaminated; this problem is most severe in
471: the $z'$ band, where the PSF has broad wings. With these two
472: selections, the effective area of the catalog becomes 816
473: $\square$'. Thirdly, to protect against extremely poorly constrained
474: redshift solutions, we will limit our analysis to those objects with
475: S:N $> 5$ for the $K$ SED point. (See
476: \textsection\ref{ch:sncompleteness} for a discussion of how this
477: selection impacts our results.)
478:
479: Of the 16910 objects in the MUSYC ECDFS catalog, these selections
480: produce 10430 reliable $K \le 22$ detections, of which 9520 have
481: reliable photometry in the ISPI, MOSAIC-II, and WFI band passes. Of
482: these, 8790 cataloged objects have $K$ S:N $> 5$; 950 of these objects
483: are excluded as stars, leaving 7840 galaxies in our main sample.
484:
485: \subsection{The $z \approx 0$ Comparison Sample}
486:
487: We will investigate the $\zphot \lesssim 2$ evolution in the massive
488: galaxy population by comparing the situation at $z \gg 0$ to that for
489: $z \approx 0$ galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
490: \citep[SDSS;][]{YorkEtAl}; specifically, we use the `low-z' sample
491: from the New York University (NYU) Value Added Galaxy Catalog (VAGC)
492: of the SDSS presented by \citet{BlantonEtAl-lowz}. The (Data Release
493: 4) low-z catalog contains $ugriz$ photometry for 49968 galaxies with
494: $10 < D < 150$ Mpc ($\zspec \lesssim 0.05$), covering an effective
495: area of 6670 $\square^{\circ}$; 2513 of these galaxies have $M_* >
496: \masslimit$ M\sun . Our analysis of these data closely follows that
497: of the $z \gg 0$ sample, and is described separately in Appendix
498: \ref{ch:z=0}.
499:
500: % ____________________________________________________________________
501: % ____________________________________________________________________
502:
503: \section{Photometric Redshifts \\ and Restframe Properties}
504: \label{ch:methods}
505: % ____________________________________________________________________
506: % ____________________________________________________________________
507:
508: % ____________________________________________________________________
509:
510: \subsection{Photometric Redshifts} \label{ch:photzs}
511:
512: The technical crux on which any photometric lookback study rests is
513: the determination of redshifts from broadband SEDs. We have computed
514: our photometric redshifts using EAZY \citep{eazy}, a new,
515: fully--featured, user--friendly, and publicly--available photometric
516: redshift code. By default, the $\zphot$ calculation is based on all
517: ten bands, although we do require that the effective weight in any
518: given band is greater than 0.6; in practice, this requirement only
519: affects the $H$ band, where we do not have full coverage of the field.
520: The characteristic filter response curves we use account for both
521: atmospheric extinction and CCD response efficiancy as a function of
522: wavelength.
523:
524: For our fiducial or default analysis, we simply adopt the recommended
525: default settings for EAZY: \viz , we adopt the EAZY default redshift
526: and wavelength grids, template library, template combination method,
527: template error function, $K$ luminosity prior, etc.\ \citep[See][for a
528: complete description.]{eazy} Note that, by default, EAZY assigns each
529: object a redshift by marginalizing over the full probability
530: distribution rather than, say, through $\chi^2$ minimization. For
531: this work, a key feature of EAZY is the control it offers over how the
532: SED fitting is done: the user is able to specify whether and how the
533: basic template spectra are combined, whether or not to include
534: luminosity prior and/or a template error function, and how the output
535: redshift is chosen. We will make use of EAZY's versatility in
536: \textsection\ref{ch:photzsens} to explore how these particular choices
537: affect our results.
538:
539: \begin{figure}[t]
540: \centering \includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{f1.eps}
541: \caption{Validating the MUSYC catalog photometric redshift
542: determinations---{\em Main panel}: the $\zspec$--$\zphot$ diagram
543: for the 1656 galaxies from our main $K < 22$ sample, using a
544: compendium of `robust' spectroscopic redshifts from the literature
545: (see Paper I). {\em Inset}: the distribution of $\Delta z = \zphot
546: - \zspec$ for the same set of galaxies; the curve shows a Gaussian
547: fit to this distribution, with parameters as given. {\em Lower
548: panel}: the redshift distributions of the main and spec-$z$ samples;
549: our photometric redshifts appear to mildly underestimate the
550: redshift of the three overdensities at $0.5 < \zspec < 0.8$.
551: Quantitatively, we find the median and NMAD of $\Delta z/(1+\zspec)$
552: for the full spec-$z$ sample to be -0.029 and 0.036, respectively
553: (See also Figure \ref{fig:derived}); for $\zspec > 1$, we find these
554: numbers to be -0.023 and 0.060; for the K20 sample, which is 92 \%
555: complete for $K^{\mathrm{(AB)}} < 21.8$, these numbers are -0.028
556: and 0.033.
557: \label{fig:specz}}
558: \end{figure}
559: % ____________________________________________________________________
560:
561: One of the unique aspects of the ECDFS is the high number of publicly
562: available spectroscopic redshift determinations, which can be used to
563: validate and/or calibrate our photometric redshifts. In Paper I, we
564: describe a compilation of spectroscopic redshifts for 2914 unique
565: objects in our catalog, including `robust' redshifts for 1656 galaxies
566: in our main $K < 22$ sample. These redshifts come from some of the
567: many literature sources available in the ECDFS, including those large
568: surveys referred to in \textsection\ref{ch:intro}, as well as the
569: X-ray selected spectroscopic redshift catalogs of \citet{Xray} and
570: \citet{TreisterEtAl}, a new survey by \citet{KoposovEtAl}, and a
571: number of smaller projects. K20 is particularly useful in this
572: regard, given its exceptionally high spectroscopic completeness,
573: albeit over a very small area: 92 \% of $K^{(\mathrm{Vega})} < 20$
574: sources over 52 $\square $'.
575:
576: The main panel of Figure \ref{fig:specz} shows our $\zspec$--$\zphot$
577: plot. We prefer to quantify the photometric redshift quality in terms
578: of the normalized median absolute deviation (NMAD\footnote{The NMAD is
579: defined as $1.48 \times \mathrm{median}[|x - \mathrm{median}(x)|]$; the
580: normalization factor of 1.48 ensures that the NMAD of a Gaussian
581: distribution is equal to its standard deviation.}) in $\Delta
582: z/(1+\zspec)$, which we will abbreviate as $\sigma_z$; for this
583: comparison sample, $\sigma_z=0.035$. Further, the outlier fraction is
584: acceptably small: 5.9 \%. Comparing only to the 241 redshifts from
585: K20, we find $\sigma_z = 0.033$; for the \citet{vdwel05} sample of 28
586: $z \sim 1$ early type galaxies the figure is 0.022. For $1 < \zspec <
587: 2$, we find $\sigma_z = 0.059$. For the 20 \% (269/1297) of $0.2 <
588: \zphot < 1.8$ galaxies from our mass limited sample defined in
589: \textsection\ref{ch:masslimit} that have spectroscopic redshifts, we
590: find $\sigma_z = 0.043$.
591:
592: Based on their catalog of the GOODS ACS and ISAAC data,
593: \citet{GrazianEtAl} have achieved a photometric redshift accuracy of
594: $\left<\Delta z/(1+\zspec)\right>$ of 0.045. For comparison to
595: \citet{GrazianEtAl}, the inset panel shows the distribution of $\Delta
596: z = (\zphot-\zspec)$ for $0 < \zspec < 2$; although offset by -0.046,
597: the best fit Gaussian to the distribution has a width of 0.046, as
598: opposed to 0.06 for \citet{GrazianEtAl}. For an identical sample of
599: 938 galaxies with $\zspec$s, we find $\sigma_z = 0.043$ for the
600: \citet{GrazianEtAl} $\zphot$s and $\sigma_z = 0.035$ for ours. In
601: other words, our photometric redshift determinations are at least as
602: good as the best published for $K$--selected samples at high
603: redshifts. We also note in passing that our $\zphot \lesssim 1$
604: photometric redshifts agree very well with those from COMBO-17
605: \citep{WolfEtAl}; a detailed comparison to both these catalogs is
606: presented in Paper I.
607:
608: The lower panel of Figure \ref{fig:specz} shows the redshift
609: distributions for both our main galaxy sample (based on $\zphot$), and
610: the spectroscopic comparison sample (based on $\zspec$). Note the
611: presence of three prominent redshift spikes at $0.5 < \zspec < 0.8$
612: \citep[see also][]{FORS2}; it appears that our redshift determinations
613: may slightly underestimate the redshifts of these structures. The
614: structures at $z \sim 1.0$, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 \citep{FORS2} are
615: also visible in the $\zspec$ distribution, but are `washed out' in the
616: $\zphot$ distribution.
617:
618: \subsection{Restframe Photometry and Stellar Masses} \label{ch:rfprops}
619:
620: The many degeneracies between SED shape and the intrinsic properties
621: of the underlying stellar population, which are actually a help when
622: deriving photometric redshifts, make the estimation of such properties
623: from SED fitting highly problematic. Systematic uncertainties
624: associated with parameterisations of the assumed star formation
625: history are at the level of 0.1 dex \citep{PozzettiEtAl}, while
626: uncertainties in the stellar population models themselves are
627: generally accepted to be $\lesssim 0.3$ dex; this is comparable to the
628: uncertainty associated with the choice of stellar IMF. For these
629: reasons, we have opted for considerably simpler means of deriving
630: restframe parameters.
631:
632: Once the redshift is determined, we have interpolated restframe fluxes
633: from the observed SED using a new utility dubbed InterRest, which is a
634: slightly more sophisticated version of the algorithm described in
635: Appendix C of \citet{RudnickEtAl}, and is described in detail in Paper
636: I. InterRest is designed to dovetail with EAZY, and is also freely
637: available.\footnote{Code and documentation can be found at:
638: http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/\~{}ent/InterRest/.} We estimate the
639: systematic errors in our interpolated fluxes (\cf\ colors) to be less
640: than 2 \% (Paper I).
641:
642: We then use this interpolated restframe photometry to estimate
643: galaxies' stellar masses using a prescription from \citet{BellDeJong},
644: which is a simple linear relation between restframe $(B-V)$ color and
645: stellar mass-to-light ratio: $M_*/L_V$:
646: \begin{equation}
647: \log_{10}~M_*/L_V = -.734 ~+~ 1.404~\times ~(B-V + 0.084) ~ ,
648: \label{eq:bellmass} \end{equation}
649: assuming $M_{V,\odot} = 4.82$. (Here, the factor of 0.084 is to
650: transform from the Vega magnitude system used by \citet{BellDeJong} to
651: the AB system used in this work.) This prescription assumes a `diet
652: Salpeter' IMF, which is defined to be 0.15 dex less massive than the
653: standard \citet{Salpeter} IMF, and is approximately 0.04 dex more
654: massive than that of \citet{Kroupa2001}. Further, to prevent the most
655: egregious overestimates of stellar masses, we limit $M_*/L_V \le 10$
656: (see also Figure 4 of Borch et al.\ 2006). Although this limit
657: affects just 1.2 \% of our main sample, we found it to be important
658: for getting the high-mass end of the $z \approx 0$ mass function right
659: (Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}).
660:
661: It is not immediately obvious whether using these color-derived $M/L$s
662: is significantly better or worse than, say, from using stellar
663: population synthesis to fit the whole observed SED. The prescription
664: we use has been derived from SED-fit $M/L$s; the scatter around this
665: relation is on the order of 0.1 dex. By comparison, the precision of
666: SED-fit $M/L$ determinations is limited to 0.2 dex by degeneracies
667: between, \eg, age, metallicity, and dust obscuration \citep[see,
668: \eg,][]{PozzettiEtAl, ConseliceEtAl}. Thus, the increase in the
669: random error in $M_*$ due to the use of color-derived rather than
670: SED-fit stellar masses is $\sim 10$ \%.
671:
672: In addition to being both simpler and more transparent, however, the
673: use of color--derived $M/L$s has the major advantage of using the same
674: restframe information for all galaxies, irrespective of redshift.
675: This is especially important when it comes to the comparison between
676: the high-z and low-z samples, where the available photometry samples
677: quite different regions of the restframe spectrum. Since Equation
678: \ref{eq:bellmass} has ultimately been derived from SED-fit mass
679: estimates, however, our color--derived mass estimates are still
680: subject to the same systematic uncertainties. To the extent that such
681: systematic effects are independent of color, redshift, etc., they can
682: be accommodated within our results by simply scaling our limiting
683: mass. On the other hand, if there is significant evolution in the
684: color--$M/L$ relation with redshift, then there is the risk that the
685: use of color-derived $M/L$s may introduce serious systematic errors
686: with redshift. We investigate this issue further in
687: \textsection\ref{ch:masses}, in which we also demonstrate that our
688: results are essentially unchanged if we use conventional SED-fitting
689: techniques to derive $M/L$s.
690:
691: \subsection{The Propagation of Redshift Errors} \label{ch:derived}
692:
693: A primary concern in this paper is the importance of systematic
694: errors. To address this concern in the context of our photometric
695: redshift determinations, we show in the top panels of Figure
696: \ref{fig:derived} the $\zspec$--$\zphot$ agreement as a function of
697: redshift, S:N in the $K$ `color' aperture, and restframe color. In
698: each panel, the points with error bars show the median and 15/85
699: percentiles in discrete bins.
700:
701: % ____________________________________________________________________
702:
703: \begin{figure*}[t]
704: \centering \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f2.eps}
705: \caption{Photometric redshift errors, and their effect on other
706: derived quantities---In each panel, the abscissa shows the
707: difference in a derived quantity, derived assuming the spectroscopic
708: or photometric redshift; in all cases, `$\Delta$' should be
709: understood as the difference between the $\zphot$-- minus
710: $\zspec$--derived values. We show: ({\em top to bottom, in rows})
711: redshift, absolute magnitude, restframe color, and stellar mass, as
712: a function of ({\em left to right, in columns}) redshift, observed
713: signal--to--noise, restframe color, and photometric redshift error.
714: The black points are for the spectroscopic sample shown in Figure
715: \ref{fig:specz}; the red points show the median offset in bins; the
716: error bars reflect the 15/85 percentiles. In each panel, points
717: that fall outside of the plotted range are shown as small grey
718: plusses. The separate panels at right show the distribution of
719: $\Delta$s for all galaxies in the $\zspec$ sample; the median and
720: scatter (NMAD) in the difference between $\zphot$-- and
721: $\zspec$--derived quantities are as shown. In all cases, the
722: clearest systematic effects are as a function of redshift, with some
723: systematic errors for the reddest and bluest galaxies. The way that
724: redshift errors propagate mean that the uncertainties {\em due to
725: redshift errors} are much smaller for stellar masses than they are
726: for either absolute magnitudes or restframe colors.
727: \label{fig:derived} }
728: \end{figure*}
729: % ____________________________________________________________________
730:
731: Looking first at our photometric redshifts: the first panel of Figure
732: \ref{fig:derived}, shows the photometric redshift error, $\Delta z /(1
733: + \zspec)$, as a function of $\zspec$. We see that there is a
734: systematic offset between $\zphot$ and $\zspec$ for $\zspec \lesssim
735: 1$, such that our $\zphot$s tend to be slightly too low (see also
736: Figure \ref{fig:specz}); for $z \gtrsim 1$, this effect appears to be
737: less. At least for $K$ S:N $\gtrsim 10$, random errors in the
738: photometric redshifts do not appear to be a strong function of
739: S:N.
740:
741: There is a clear systematic effect as a function of restframe color.
742: For galaxies redder than ($u-r$) $\approx 2$ (approximately the lower
743: limit for $z \approx 0$ red sequence galaxies), the agreement between
744: $\zphot$ and $\zspec$ is very good. For galaxies with $(u-r) \lesssim
745: 2$, however, it seems that we systematically underestimate the true
746: redshift by approximately $\Delta z \lesssim 0.02 (1 + \zspec)$. It
747: is plausible that this is in fact the driver of the weak apparent
748: systematic effect with redshift, coupled with there being a greater
749: proportion of blue galaxies in the spectroscopic redshift sample at
750: lower redshifts.
751:
752: \vspace{0.2cm}
753:
754: How do these errors in redshift estimation play out in the derivation
755: of restframe properties? We address this question with reference to
756: the lower panels of Figure \ref{fig:derived}, which illustrate how
757: redshift uncertainties affect our derivation of three basic restframe
758: quantities ({\em top to bottom}): absolute luminosity, restframe
759: color, and stellar mass. In each panel, we plot the difference
760: between the values derived adopting the spectroscopic or photometric
761: redshift, as a function of ({\em left to right}) redshift, $K$ band
762: S:N, and restframe color, as well as photometric redshift error.
763:
764: Quantitatively, for our $\zspec$ comparison sample, the random
765: photometric redshift error of $\Delta z/(1 + \zspec) = 0.035$
766: translates into a 0.360 mag error in absolute magnitude, 0.134 mag
767: error in restframe color, and a 0.107 dex error in stellar mass. (By
768: contrast, the typical uncertainty in for a $K$ S:N = 10 galaxy is
769: $\Delta K$ = 0.12--0.16 mag $\approx$ 0.05--0.07 dex.) Just as for
770: the redshifts themselves, the clearest systematic effects in the
771: derived quantities is with restframe color: there appear to be mild
772: systematics with redshift for $z \lesssim 1$, and no clear trend with
773: S:N, at least for S:N $>$ 10.
774:
775: It is straightforward to understand why redshift errors play a larger
776: role in the derivation of magnitudes rather than colors. When
777: calculating magnitudes, the primary importance of the redshift is a
778: distance indicator. For the $\zspec$ sample shown in Figure
779: \ref{fig:derived}, the random scatter in $\Delta M_r$ due to distance
780: errors alone (calculated by taking the difference in the distance
781: modulus implied by $\zphot$ versus that by $\zspec$) is 0.28 mag; \ie\
782: $\sim 75$ \% of the scatter seen in Figure \ref{fig:derived}. On the
783: other hand, colors are distance independent, and this element of
784: uncertainty is cancelled out.
785:
786: What is surprising is the relative insensitivity of our stellar mass
787: estimates to redshift errors. Focusing on the right panels of Figure
788: \ref{fig:derived}, it can be seen that where the photometric redshift
789: underestimates the true redshift/distance, we will infer both too
790: faint an absolute luminosity and too red a restframe color. When it
791: comes to computing a stellar mass, however, these two effects operate
792: in opposite directions: although the luminosity is underestimated, the
793: too--red color leads to an overestimate of the stellar mass--to--light
794: ratio. The two effects thus partially cancel one another, leaving
795: stellar mass estimates relatively robust to redshift errors.
796:
797: In a photometric redshift survey, the measurement uncertainty {\em due
798: to random photometric redshift errors} is considerably less for
799: stellar masses than it is for absolute magnitudes. This conclusion
800: remains unchanged using SED--fit stellar masses, rather than our
801: favored color--derived ones. Conversely, we can say that (random)
802: photometric redshift errors are not a dominant source of uncertainty
803: in our stellar mass estimates. Indeed, as we have already noted, the
804: size of these errors is comparable to the uncertainties in our total
805: flux measurements.
806:
807: % _____________________________________________________________________
808: % _____________________________________________________________________
809:
810: \section{Constructing a \\ Stellar Mass Selected Sample}
811: \label{ch:masslimit}
812: % _____________________________________________________________________
813: % _____________________________________________________________________
814:
815: \begin{figure*}
816: \centering \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f3a.eps}
817: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f3b.eps}
818: \caption{Empirically determining our mass completeness limit as a
819: function of redshift---{\em Left panel}--- The black points show
820: stellar masses for MUSYC ECDFS galaxies with $21.5 < K < 22.0$,
821: scaled down in flux to match our $K = 22$ detection limit, and
822: plotted as a function of photometric redshift. The other symbols
823: show stellar masses for $22.5 > K > 22.0$ galaxies, scaled up in
824: flux to $K = 22$; these galaxies are drawn from the MUSYC deep
825: fields ({\em blue crosses}), the FIREWORKS catalog ({\em yellow
826: circles}), and the FIRES catalogs ({\em red squares}). Each sample
827: has been analyzed in exactly the same manner. The upper envelope of
828: these points effectively defines, as a function of redshift, the
829: limiting stellar mass corresponding to our observed $K$ flux limit.
830: For $M_* > \masslimit $ M\sun , we are nearly complete ($\gtrsim 90
831: \%$) to $\zphot = 1.8$. {\em Right panel}---the color--stellar mass
832: diagram for $K \approx 22$ galaxies at $1.7 < \zphot < 1.9$---the
833: large squares show the median values for the MUSYC ECDFS points,
834: binned by color; all other symbols are as in the left panel. Here,
835: the right envelope of the colored points defines our mass
836: completeness limit at $\zphot \approx 1.8$ as a function of color.
837: For comparison with Figures \ref{fig:cmr} and \ref{fig:mstar}, the
838: hatched region shows estimated completeness limits based on
839: synthetic SSP spectra. While we may well miss galaxies considerably
840: redder than the predicted red sequence (see
841: \textsection\ref{ch:redseq}), at $\zphot \approx 1.8$, this
842: empirical argument suggests that we are approximately complete
843: ($\gtrsim 85$ \%) for galaxies with $M_* > 10^{11}$ M\sun\ and
844: $(u-r) < 2$.
845: \label{fig:masslimit} }
846: \end{figure*}
847: % _____________________________________________________________________
848:
849: For moderate to high redshifts, NIR selection has the key advantage of
850: probing the restframe optical light, which is a reasonable tracer of
851: stellar mass. In this section, we empirically relate our observed
852: flux detection/selection limit to an approximate completeness limit in
853: terms of stellar mass and redshift.
854:
855: To this end, we have taken galaxies with $K$ fluxes immediately below
856: our detection limit from three significantly deeper $K$--selected
857: catalogs; \viz\ the MUSYC deep NIR catalogs \citep{QuadriEtAl},
858: the FIREWORKS catalog \citep{WuytsEtAl}, and the FIRES catalogs
859: \citep{LabbeEtAl, NFS}. By taking objects from these catalogs that lie
860: immediately below our detection threshold, and scaling their fluxes
861: (and so stellar masses) to match our $K = 22$ limit, it is then
862: possible to empirically determine the stellar mass--redshift relation
863: for $K \approx 22$ galaxies. The upper envelope of points in
864: ($M_*,~\zphot$) space thus represents the most massive galaxies at our
865: observed flux limit, and so directly provides a redshift-dependent
866: mass completeness limit.
867:
868: This is illustrated in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:masslimit}.
869: In this panel, the large, open, colored symbols represent $22.0 < K <
870: 22.5$ objects from the deeper catalogs, scaled up in flux to $K =
871: 22$; \viz\ the MUSYC deep NIR catalogs ({\em blue crosses}), the
872: FIREWORKS catalog ({\em yellow circles}), and the FIRES catalogs
873: ({\em red squares}). Again, these points represent objects
874: immediately at our detection limit; the upper envelope of these points
875: therefore represents the most massive galaxies that might escape
876: detection/selection in our analysis. This suggests that for $M_* >
877: \masslimit$ M\sun , we are approximately complete for $\zphot < 1.8$.
878:
879: It is possible to do the same thing using the faintest detections
880: from our own catalog, scaled down in flux to our selection limit.
881: Specifically, we have taken galaxies with $21.5 < K < 22.0$ and scaled
882: their fluxes (and masses) down to $K=22$. For this test, we also
883: restrict our attention to galaxies with well constrained redshifts, by
884: requiring that the EAZY `odds' parameter be greater than 0.95.
885:
886: These points are shown as the closed circles in the left panel of
887: Figure \ref{fig:masslimit}. While the results of this `internal' test
888: are broadly consistent with the previous `external' one, they do
889: suggest slightly higher incompleteness. Of the $21.5 < K < 22.0$
890: sources with $1.6 < \zphot < 1.8$, 23 \% (20/87) would have $M_* >
891: \masslimit$ M\sun\ when scaled down to $K = 22$, indicating that our
892: completeness for $K = 22$, $M_* = 10^{11}$ M\sun\ galaxies is $\sim
893: 75$ \% for $1.6 < \zphot < 1.8$. However, the $21.5 < K < 22.0$
894: subsample shown here represents only 30 \% of our full $K < 22$
895: sample in this mass and redshift range, suggesting that the overall
896: completeness is more like $> 90$ \%. %We thus interpret these results
897: %as supporting the conclusion that we are complete to better than 90 \%
898: %for $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies for $\zphot < 1.8$.
899:
900: \vspace{0.2cm}
901:
902: As a second and complimentary check on this conclusion, the right
903: panel of Figure \ref{fig:masslimit} shows the color--stellar mass
904: diagram for a narrow redshift slice at $1.7 < \zphot < 1.9$. Here,
905: the large squares show the median values from the MUSYC ECDFS points,
906: binned by color; the other symbols are the same as in the other panel
907: of this Figure. As before, the points in this panel represent objects
908: at our detection limit; the right envelope of these points thus
909: describes our mass completeness limit for $\zphot \approx 1.8$, this
910: time as a function of restframe color.
911:
912: Again, the `internal' and `external' analyses broadly agree. For blue
913: galaxies, both tests suggest that MUSYC should be very nearly complete
914: for $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ and $\zphot < 1.8$. For $(u-r) > 1.5$
915: galaxies, however, the down--scaled MUSYC points again suggest
916: slightly lower completeness than those scaled up from deeper
917: catalogs: 45 \% (13/29) of these galaxies would fall foul of one of
918: our selection criteria if their masses were scaled down to $M_* =
919: \masslimit$ M\sun . Using an argument analogous to that above, this
920: suggests that our completeness fraction for galaxies with $M_* >
921: \masslimit$ M\sun , $\zphot = 1.8$, and $(u-r) > 1.5$ is at least
922: $\sim 85$ \%.
923:
924: \vspace{0.2cm}
925:
926: % _____________________________________________________________________
927:
928: \begin{figure*}
929: \centering \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f4.eps}
930: \caption{The color--magnitude diagram (CMD) for galaxies with $\zphot
931: \lesssim 2$ --- The first panel shows a random selection from the
932: NYU VAGC's `low-z' sample, based on DR4 of the SDSS
933: \citep{BlantonEtAl-lowz}, discussed in Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}; the
934: other panels show the MUSYC ECDFS data, discussed in the main text.
935: Except where marked, bins are of equal comoving volume; for the
936: low-z sample, we have plotted a random sub--sample to yield the same
937: effective volume: the density of points is thus directly related to
938: bivariate comoving number density. The shaded area shows the
939: approximate $K = 22$ detection/selection limits, based on synthetic
940: spectra for an SSP; the error bars show representative errors for a
941: $M_* \approx 10^{11}$ M\sun , $(u-r) \approx 2.0$ galaxy at the mean
942: redshift of each bin. The dotted line in each panel shows our fit
943: to the CMR for bright, red sequence galaxies at $z \approx 0$,
944: derived in Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}. In this work, we prefer to use
945: stellar mass, rather than absolute magnitude, as a basic
946: parameter---accordingly, we focus our attention on the CM$_*$D,
947: presented in Figure \ref{fig:mstar}. \label{fig:cmr}}
948: \end{figure*}
949: % _____________________________________________________________________
950:
951: We therefore adopt $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ and $\zphot < 1.8$ as our
952: approximate completeness limits, corresponding to our $K < 22$
953: detection/selection limit. In \textsection\ref{ch:undetected}, we
954: apply simple completeness corrections to determine the extent to which
955: our results may be affected by incompleteness.
956: %Our argument for this limit is based primarily on analysis of objects
957: %from significantly deeper $K$--selected catalogs, and supported by
958: %an internal analysis based on objects at the faint end of our own
959: %catalog. This internal analysis suggests that at $\zphot \approx
960: %1.8$, we are $> 90$ \% complete for $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\
961: %galaxies. While it is true that, since $K$ selection is not
962: %equivalent to mass selection, we will inevitably be significantly
963: %incomplete for extremely red objects, comparison to significantly
964: %deeper samples suggest that, even for $(u-r) > 1.5$, we are $> 85$ \%
965: %complete at $\zphot \approx 1.8$.
966: As a final caveat, however, there remains the concern of additional
967: incompleteness due to our $K$ S:N $> 5$ criterion, which we will
968: address in \textsection \ref{ch:sncompleteness}.
969:
970: % _____________________________________________________________________
971: % _____________________________________________________________________
972:
973: %\section{The Color--Magnitude and Color--Stellar Mass Diagrams: Color
974: %Bimodality for $\zphot \lesssim 2$}
975:
976: \section{The Color--Magnitude and \\Color-Stellar Mass Diagrams for $\zphot \lesssim 2$} \label{ch:results}
977:
978: % _____________________________________________________________________
979:
980: \begin{figure*}
981: \centering \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f5.eps}
982: \caption{The color--stellar mass diagram (CM$_*$D) for galaxies with
983: $\zphot \lesssim 2$ --- As in Figure \ref{fig:cmr}, the $z \approx
984: 0$ bin is based on the low-z sample of SDSS galaxies, discussed in
985: Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}; the $\zphot \gg 0$ points based on the MUSYC
986: ECDFS data, described in the main text. The hatched area shows
987: approximate selection limits, based on synthetic spectra for an SSP;
988: our empirical completeness limit is marked in the last bin. The
989: error bars show representative errors for a $M_* \approx 10^{11}$
990: M\sun , $(u-r) \approx 2.0$ galaxy near the bin's mean redshift,
991: based on 100 Monte Carlo realizations of the catalog data,
992: including photometric redshift errors. Within each panel, the
993: dotted line shows our fit to the CM$_*$R for bright red sequence
994: galaxies at $z \approx 0$, derived as per Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}; for
995: the $\zphot \gg 0$ bins, the solid lines show our fit to the color
996: evolution of the massive red galaxy population, derived in
997: \textsection\ref{ch:redseq}; the dashed line shows our red galaxy
998: selection criterion, introduced in \textsection\ref{ch:growth}. We
999: analyse the key features of this diagram further in Figures
1000: \ref{fig:hists}, \ref{fig:redseq}, \ref{fig:redseq2}, and
1001: \ref{fig:evo}. \label{fig:mstar}}
1002: \end{figure*}
1003: % _____________________________________________________________________
1004:
1005: % _____________________________________________________________________
1006: % _____________________________________________________________________
1007:
1008: In this section, we present our basic observational results: the
1009: color--magnitude and color--stellar mass diagrams for $\zphot \lesssim
1010: 2$.
1011:
1012: % _____________________________________________________________________
1013:
1014: \subsection{The Color--Magnitude Diagram for $\zphot \lesssim 2$} \label{ch:cmr}
1015: % _____________________________________________________________________
1016:
1017: Figure \ref{fig:cmr} shows the color--magnitude diagram (CMD), plotted
1018: in terms of ($u-r$) color and absolute $r$ magnitude, $M_r$, for
1019: $\zphot \lesssim 2$.
1020:
1021: The first panel of Figure \ref{fig:cmr} is for $z \approx 0$ galaxies
1022: from the `low-$z$' comparison sample; these data and our analysis of
1023: them are described in Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}. The basic features of
1024: the CMD --- the red sequence, blue cloud, and green valley --- are all
1025: easily discernible. The dotted line shows our characterization of the
1026: $z \approx 0$ CMR for red galaxies (Equation \ref{eq:cmr}), also
1027: discussed in Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}.
1028:
1029: The other eight panels show the $0.2 < \zphot < 1.8$ MUSYC ECDFS data.
1030: Except for the two highest redshift bins, which are twice as large,
1031: the $\zphot \gg 0$ bins have been chosen to have equal comoving
1032: volume.\footnote{The exact redshift limits we have used are $\zphot =
1033: 0.200$, 0.609, 0.825, 0.987, 1.127, 1.254, 1.373, 1.486, 1.595, 1.700,
1034: 1.804, 1.906, and 2.000; elsewhere we will round these values as
1035: convenient.} For the $z \approx 0$ bin, we plot only a random
1036: sub-sample of the low-z catalog, chosen to effectively match the
1037: volume of the higher redshift bins. Thus, the density of points in
1038: the color--magnitude plane is directly related to changes in the
1039: bivariate comoving number density.
1040:
1041: In the bottom-right corner of each panel, we show representative error
1042: bars for a $M_* \approx 10^{11}$ M\sun\ galaxy with $(u-r) \approx
1043: 2.0$, near the mean redshift of each bin. In order to derive these
1044: errors, we have created 100 Monte Carlo realizations of our catalog,
1045: in which we have perturbed the catalog photometry according to the
1046: photometric errors, and repeated our analysis for each: the error bars
1047: show the scatter in the values so derived. The shaded grey regions
1048: show approximately how our $K < 22$ completeness limit projects onto
1049: color--magnitude space through each redshift bin, derived using
1050: synthetic single stellar population (SSP) spectra.
1051:
1052: Examining this diagram it is clear that, in the most general terms
1053: possible, bright/massive galaxies were considerably bluer in the past.
1054: At a fixed magnitude, the entire $z \sim 1$ galaxy population is a few
1055: tenths of a magnitude bluer than at $z \approx 0$. At the same time,
1056: particularly for $z \gtrsim 1$, there is a growing population of
1057: galaxies with $M_r < -22$ and $(u-r) < 2$ that has no local analogue.
1058: While there are some indications of a red sequence within the $z \gg
1059: 0$ data, particularly for $\zphot \lesssim 1$, it is certainly not so
1060: easily distinguishable as locally.
1061:
1062: % _____________________________________________________________________
1063:
1064: \subsection{The Color--Stellar Mass Diagram for $\zphot \lesssim 2$}
1065: \label{ch:mstar}
1066: % _____________________________________________________________________
1067:
1068: There are a number of advantages to using stellar mass as a basic
1069: parameter, rather than absolute magnitude. Principal among these is
1070: the fact that stellar mass is more directly linked to a galaxy's
1071: growth and/or assembly: while a galaxy's brightness will wax and wane
1072: with successive star formation episodes, a galaxy's evolution in
1073: stellar mass is more nearly monotonic. On the other hand, it must be
1074: rememebered that the necessary assumptions in the derivation of
1075: stellar mass estimates produce greater systematic uncertainties than
1076: for absolute luminosities. As bursts of star formation and other
1077: aspects of differing star formation histories among galaxies are
1078: likely greater at higher redshifts, however, we will focus on the
1079: color--stellar mass diagram in this and following sections.
1080:
1081: \begin{figure*}
1082: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f6.eps}
1083: \caption{Color distributions for $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies at
1084: $z \lesssim 2$ --- In each panel, the histograms show the color
1085: distribution for $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies, after
1086: subtracting out the slope of the local CM$_*$R, normalized at $M_* =
1087: 10^{11}$ M\sun . The shaded distributions show the data themselves.
1088: The smooth curves show double Gaussian fits to the observed
1089: distributions. For $\zphot \gtrsim 1.2$, the Gaussian fits to the
1090: observed color distributions are not robust; our inability to
1091: reliably distinguish separate red and blue populations for $\zphot
1092: \gtrsim 1.2$ is likely due to insufficient S:N in our NIR data (see
1093: Figure \ref{fig:delur}). In each panel, the vertical dotted line
1094: shows the location of the $z \approx 0$ red sequence; the vertical
1095: solid lines show our fit to the observed color evolution of the red
1096: sequence, derived in \textsection\ref{ch:redseq}; the dashed lines
1097: show our red galaxy selection criterion, introduced in
1098: \textsection\ref{ch:growth}.
1099: \label{fig:hists} }
1100: \end{figure*}
1101: % _____________________________________________________________________
1102:
1103: Figure \ref{fig:mstar} shows the color--stellar mass diagram (CM$_*$D)
1104: for $z \lesssim 2$. As in Figure \ref{fig:cmr}, the first panel shows
1105: a random sub-sample of the low-z sample; the other panels show the
1106: MUSYC ECDFS data. The dotted line in each panel shows the $z \approx
1107: 0$ color--stellar mass relation (CM$_*$R), which we have derived in
1108: Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}, given in Equation \ref{eq:cmr}.
1109:
1110: Each of the basic features of the CMD are also seen in the CM$_*$D.
1111: We see an increasing number of galaxies with $\zphot \gtrsim 1$ and
1112: with $M_* > 10^{11}$ M\sun\ and $(u-r) \lesssim 2$ which have no
1113: analogues in the local universe. For a SSP, the colors of these
1114: galaxies would suggest ages of $\lesssim 1$ Gyr: these massive
1115: galaxies appear to be in the throes of their final star formation
1116: episodes. For $\zphot \gtrsim 1.2$, these galaxies may even dominate
1117: the massive galaxy population. Some evidence for a distinct red
1118: sequence is visible in the CM$_*$D for $\zphot \lesssim 1$, but not
1119: much beyond.
1120:
1121: The next three sections are devoted to more quantitative discussion of
1122: each of the following three specific observations:
1123: \begin{enumerate}
1124: \item We see evidence for a red galaxy sequence for $\zphot \lesssim
1125: 1.2$; beyond this redshift, whether due to physical evolution or to
1126: observational errors, it becomes impossible to unambiguously
1127: identify a distinct red sequence on the basis of the present data
1128: (\textsection\ref{ch:bimodality}).
1129:
1130: \item At a fixed mass, a red sequence galaxy at $z \sim 1$ is a few
1131: tenths of a magnitude bluer than its $z \sim 0$ counterpart
1132: (\textsection\ref{ch:redseq}).
1133:
1134: \item At higher redshifts, there appear to be fewer massive galaxies on
1135: the red sequence. Further, it appears that the proportion of blue
1136: cloud galaxies among the most massive galaxies increases;
1137: conversely, the red fraction is lower at higher redshifts.
1138: (\textsection\ref{ch:growth}).
1139: \end{enumerate}
1140:
1141: % _____________________________________________________________________
1142:
1143: \section{The Color Distribution \\of Massive Galaxies for $\zphot < 2$} \label{ch:bimodality}
1144: % _____________________________________________________________________
1145:
1146: In an attempt to quantitatively separate the massive galaxy population
1147: into distinct red and blue sub-populations, Figure \ref{fig:hists}
1148: plots the color distribution of the $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxy
1149: population, after subtracting out the slope of the $z \approx 0$
1150: CM$_*$R, and using the same redshift bins as in Figures \ref{fig:cmr}
1151: and \ref{fig:mstar}. The grey histograms in each panel show the data
1152: themselves. Note that for the $z \approx 0$ panel of this plot, we
1153: have used the full low-z sample. Also, recall that for this mass
1154: regime, we are approximately complete (volume limited) to $\zphot =
1155: 1.8$.
1156:
1157: \subsection{The Massive Galaxy Red Sequence at $\zphot \lesssim 1.2$}
1158:
1159: Locally, red sequence galaxies totally dominate the massive galaxy
1160: population: what bimodality exists between the red and blue
1161: populations is weak. (As the name suggests, `bimodality' implies two
1162: distinct local maxima in the distribution.) This is a reflection of
1163: the apparent `transition mass' between red and blue galaxies observed
1164: by \citet{Kauffmann2003}; the bimodality is stronger in a luminosity
1165: limited sample, including a greater proportion of bright but less
1166: massive blue cloud galaxies (see also Figure \ref{fig:sdss}; Appendix
1167: \ref{ch:z=0}). At slightly higher redshifts, where some progenitors
1168: of $z \approx 0$ red sequence galaxies are still forming stars in the
1169: blue cloud, we may then expect the bimodality to actually become
1170: stronger, before weakening again as the fraction of those galaxies
1171: already on the red sequence becomes small at moderate--to--high
1172: redshifts. In general, however, the color distributions shown in
1173: Figure \ref{fig:mstar} are not clearly bimodal.
1174:
1175: With this in mind, as a simple means of separating red from blue
1176: galaxies, we have fit the observed distributions in each redshift bin
1177: with double Gaussian functions. These fits are shown by the smooth
1178: curves in each panel of Figure \ref{fig:hists}. For the most part,
1179: these fits provide a reasonable description of the $0.2 < \zphot
1180: \lesssim 1.2$ data \citep[see also][]{BorchEtAl}.
1181:
1182: \subsection{A Massive Galaxy Red Sequence at $\zphot \gtrsim 1.3$?}
1183:
1184: In contrast to lower redshifts, for $\zphot \gtrsim 1.3$, we are no
1185: longer able to reliably fit the color distributions in this manner: on
1186: the basis of the sensitivity tests presented in
1187: \textsection\ref{ch:sens}, neither the red/blue separation nor the
1188: fits to the distributions of these populations is robust. Looking at
1189: the typical errors shown in each panel of Figure \ref{fig:mstar}, the
1190: measurement errors on the ($u-r$) colors of red galaxies rises sharply
1191: from $\Delta (u-r) \lesssim 0.1$ mag for $\zphot \lesssim 1.2$ to 0.2
1192: mag for $\zphot \sim 1.3$, 0.3 mag for $\zphot \sim 1.5$, and 0.4 mag
1193: for $\zphot \sim 1.7$. This would suggest that our inability to
1194: reliably distinguish both a red and a blue population at these higher
1195: redshifts may very well be due to the large errors in restframe colors
1196: for higher redshift galaxies.
1197:
1198: In order to help interpret our $\zphot \gtrsim 1$ results, we have
1199: tested our ability to recover a single--color galaxy population, given
1200: our observational and analytical errors. To this end, we have
1201: generated a mock photometric catalog containing only red sequence
1202: galaxies: beginning with our main galaxy sample, we have replaced each
1203: galaxy's photometry using synthetic spectra for a SSP formed over a
1204: short period beginning at $\zform = 5$, assuming the catalog values
1205: of $\zphot$ and $M_*$, and then adding typical MUSYC ECDFS photometric
1206: errors. We have then re--analyzed this catalog using the same
1207: methods and procedures as for the main analysis, including
1208: re-computing photometric redshifts, restframe colors, and stellar
1209: masses.
1210:
1211: % _____________________________________________________________________
1212:
1213: \begin{figure}[b] \centering
1214: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f7.eps}
1215: \caption{The effects of photometric errors on our ability to recover a
1216: (red) single--color galaxy population---These results are based on
1217: mock galaxy catalogs containing only passively evolving galaxies,
1218: taking redshifts and stellar masses of galaxies from the main
1219: sample, which we have analyzed in the same manner as the actual
1220: data: we are thus testing our ability to recover a single--color
1221: galaxy population as a function of redshift. The squares,
1222: triangles, and circles show the width of the recovered color
1223: distributions assuming typical errors for the MUSYC ECDFS data
1224: divided by 1, 2.5, and 10, respectively; the dotted line shows the
1225: results assuming MUSYC ECDFS photometric errors, but no redshift
1226: errors. Even with spectroscopic redshifts, the depth of the MUSYC
1227: ECDFS NIR data precludes the detection of a $\zphot \gtrsim 1.4$ red
1228: sequence.
1229: \label{fig:delur}}
1230: \end{figure}
1231: % _____________________________________________________________________
1232:
1233: The results of these tests are shown in Figure \ref{fig:delur}, which
1234: plots the observed width of the color distribution for this
1235: intrinsically single color population, as a function of photometric
1236: redshifts, assuming photometric errors typical for the MUSYC ECDFS
1237: (squares). The measurement errors on the $(u-r)$ colors of red
1238: galaxies rise sharply from 0.05---0.07 mag for $\zphot \lesssim 1$ to
1239: 0.10 mag for $\zphot \approx 1$, and then continue to increase for
1240: higher redshifts. In order to demonstrate that this is a product of
1241: photometric errors {\em per se} and not redshift errors, we have also
1242: repeated this analysis holding the redshifts of each object fixed; the
1243: results of this test are shown as the dotted line. Even with
1244: spectroscopic redshifts, the depth of our NIR data would seem to
1245: preclude the detection of a distinct red sequence at $z \gtrsim 1.3$.
1246:
1247: What then would be required in order to confirm the non/existence of a
1248: red sequence at $\zphot \gtrsim 1.5$? We have also constructed mock
1249: galaxy catalogs with S:N that is 2.5 and 10 times greater than
1250: typical values for the MUSYC ECDFS catalog; the results of these
1251: tests are shown as the triangles and circles, respectively. Even
1252: pushing a full magnitude deeper, it would be difficult to identify a
1253: red sequence at $z \sim 1.5$, assuming that observational errors of
1254: $\Delta (u-r) \lesssim 0.1$ mag would be required to robustly identify
1255: a red sequence. In order to probe $z \gtrsim 1.5$, an order of
1256: magnitude improvement is required. This would suggest that the
1257: detection of a red sequence at $z \gtrsim 1.5$ would require a $J$
1258: band ($5 \sigma$ point source) limit of $\sim 25.8$, roughly the final
1259: target depth for the Ultra Deep component of the UKIRT Infrared Deep
1260: Sky Survey \citep{LawrenceEtAl}.
1261:
1262: It is clear from this analysis that we cannot confirm or exclude the
1263: existence of a red galaxy sequence at $z \gtrsim 1.3$ on the basis on
1264: the present data. This is in good accord with the recent detections
1265: of a $z \lesssim 1.5$ red galaxy sequence by \citet{CirasuoloEtAl} and
1266: Franzetti et al.\ (2007 --- see also Kriek et al.\ 2008). Moreover,
1267: we note in passing that if we were to subtract away the broadening
1268: effect of photometric errors, as derived from the test described
1269: above, then the implied intrinsic width of the red sequence is
1270: $\approx 0.1$ mag for all $\zphot \lesssim 1.2$, consistent with the
1271: $\zspec < 1.0$ findings of \citet{Ruhland2008}.
1272:
1273: % _____________________________________________________________________
1274: % _____________________________________________________________________
1275:
1276: \section{The Color Evolution \\ of Massive Red Galaxies} \label{ch:redseq}
1277: % _____________________________________________________________________
1278: % _____________________________________________________________________
1279:
1280: % _____________________________________________________________________
1281:
1282: \begin{figure}[t] \centering
1283: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f8.eps}
1284: \caption{The color evolution of massive galaxies for $z \lesssim 2$
1285: --- Points show the fit centers of the color distributions for the
1286: red and blue galaxy subpopulations (see Figure \ref{fig:hists}).
1287: Only the $\zphot \lesssim 1.2$ points ({\em circles with error
1288: bars}) were used when fitting for the color evolution of the red
1289: galaxy sequence ({\em solid line}); the errors were derived from
1290: bootstrap resampling. The large square at $z = 2$ shows the
1291: approximate equivalent ($u-r$) color of the $3.3 \sigma$ detection
1292: of a $(U-B)$ red sequence among $z \sim 2$ galaxies from
1293: \citet{Kriek2008}, based on NIR spectra. We see rather a rather
1294: smooth reddening of the red sequence from $z \sim 1.2$ to the
1295: present day, which is well described by the linear fit given.
1296: \label{fig:redseq}}
1297: \end{figure}
1298: % _____________________________________________________________________
1299:
1300: \begin{figure}[t] \centering
1301: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f9.eps}
1302: \caption{Comparing the color evolution of massive galaxies for $z
1303: \lesssim 2$ to passively evolving stellar population models --- The
1304: data in this panel are identical to Figure \ref{fig:redseq}. The
1305: overlaid curves show simple expectations for the passive evolution
1306: of a SSP, formed in a short burst ($e$-folding
1307: time of 100 Myr) beginning at $\zform = 2$, 3, 5, and 10 ({\em
1308: bottom to top}). While the $\zform \gtrsim 3$ curves provide a good
1309: qualitative description of the observed evolution, they have
1310: substantially lower metallicity than would be expected from the
1311: local mass-metallicity relation. Moreover, these very simple models
1312: make no attempt to account for progenitor bias, and other important
1313: effects.
1314: \label{fig:redseq2}}
1315: \end{figure}
1316: % _____________________________________________________________________
1317:
1318: Our next task is to quantify the color evolution of the massive red
1319: galaxy population. We have addressed this question based on the
1320: double Gaussian fits to the (CM$_*$R--corrected) color distributions
1321: of $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies shown in Figure \ref{fig:hists}.
1322: In Figure \ref{fig:redseq}, we plot the fit centers of the blue ({\em
1323: lower points}) and red ({\em upper points}) galaxy color distributions
1324: as a function of redshift; the errors on the locus of the massive red
1325: galaxy population shown in this Figure have been obtained by bootstrap
1326: resampling.
1327:
1328: From this plot, it is clear that the red galaxy population as a whole
1329: has become progressively redder by $\sim 0.4$ mag in $(u-r)$ over the
1330: past 9 Gyr; the evolution in the blue cloud is similar. Making a
1331: linear fit to the (robust) $\zphot < 1.1$ measurements, we find
1332: $\Delta (u-r)_{\mathrm{corr}} = 2.57 - (0.44 \pm 0.02) ~ \zphot$.
1333: (Note that this fit is constrained to match the $z \approx 0$ point.)
1334: These results do not change significantly if we also include the point
1335: $\zphot \sim 1.2$, but it is clear that if we were to fit to the
1336: $\zphot \gtrsim 1.3$ points, we would find slightly less strong
1337: evolution.
1338:
1339: %This is in strong contradiction with the very recent findings of
1340: %\citet{CowieBarger}, based on a sample with high spectroscopic
1341: %completeness from the HDFN; in their Figure 49, they find no evolution
1342: %in the CM$_*$R for $z < 1.5$. \citet{CowieBarger} argue that
1343: %correcting for internal extinction---\ie , de-reddening the observed
1344: %colors to obtain an intrinsic stellar color---is critical in analyzing
1345: %galaxy colors. In particular, most 24 $\mu$m sources are found in the
1346: %`green valley': after correcting for internal dust extinction, these
1347: %sources rejoin the main star forming population in the blue cloud.
1348:
1349: %It is not clear how such a correction might account for our different
1350: %results. Such a correction can only make galaxy colors {\em bluer},
1351: %and so cannot change the apparent lack of $z \gg 0$ galaxies laying
1352: %near the $z \approx 0$ CM$_*$R seen in Figures \ref{fig:cmr} and
1353: %\ref{fig:hists}. In any case, we have repeated this analysis
1354: %excluding all 5$\sigma$ MIPS detections from SIMPLE \citep{DamenEtAl}.
1355: %In agreement with \citet{CowieBarger}, most of these sources do fall
1356: %in the green valley. However, we do not find significant changes in
1357: %either the fit centers of the blue and red populations, or in the
1358: %color evolution of the red sequence. This argues against the idea
1359: %that the inconsistency between the results of \citet{CowieBarger} and
1360: %our own are due to the use of `observed' rather than `intrinsic'
1361: %restframe colors.
1362: %\vspace{0.2cm}
1363:
1364: \citet{Kriek2008} report a $3.3 \sigma$ detection of a red sequence in
1365: the spectrally derived $(U-B)$ color distribution of a mass-selected
1366: sample of 36 $\zphot \gtrsim 2$ galaxies, 12 of which lie in the
1367: ECDFS. The square at $z = 2$ in Figure \ref{fig:redseq} shows the
1368: approximate ($u-r$) color equivalent of their red sequence detection.
1369: While the \citet{Kriek2008} point is slightly redder than an
1370: extrapolation of our linear fit, the two results agree rather well.
1371:
1372: In Figure \ref{fig:redseq2}, we compare the observed color evolution
1373: of the red galaxy population with na\" ive expectations from passive
1374: evolution of synthetic spectra. For this purpose, we have used P\'
1375: egase V2.0 \citep{pegase} models with an initial metallicity of $Z =
1376: 0.004$, and assuming a short burst of star formation ($e$--folding
1377: time of 100 Myr), beginning at $\zform = 2$, 3, 5, or 10 ({\em bottom
1378: to top}).
1379:
1380: The $\zform \gtrsim 3$ tracks do an adequate job of describing the
1381: amount of observed evolution for $\zphot < 1.3$. However, to get this
1382: level of agreement, the model (luminosity weighted) metallicities at
1383: $z = 0$ must be roughly solar ($Z \approx 0.2$), whereas the local
1384: mass--metallicity relation would suggest that these abundances should
1385: be super--solar by a factor of 3 or more \citep{TremontiEtAl}. If we
1386: were to adopt $Z=0.2$ initially, leading to final metallicities that
1387: are super--solar by approximately 50 \%, the model colors would
1388: become nearly 0.5 mag too red. The problem is even worse for SSP
1389: models: while solar metallicities lead to colors which are too red by
1390: 0.25 mag, an acceptable description of the data is only possible
1391: assuming roughly half solar abundances. (See also Bell et al. 2004.)
1392:
1393: Nevertheless, these simple models do provide an acceptable description
1394: of the rate or amount of color evolution of the red galaxy population,
1395: $\Delta (u-r)$, if not the $(u-r)$ colors {\em per se}. Using these
1396: extremely simple models to interpret the color evolution of the red
1397: galaxy population, the observations suggest that the bulk of the stars
1398: in massive red galaxies were formed at $z \gtrsim 3$; including the
1399: point from \citet{Kriek2008} would suggest a formation redshift
1400: $\gtrsim 5$.
1401:
1402: % _____________________________________________________________________
1403:
1404: \begin{figure*}[t]
1405: \centering
1406: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{f10.eps}
1407: \caption{The rise of massive, red galaxies over cosmic time---{\em
1408: Lower panel}: evolution in the number density of all galaxies
1409: ({\em black histograms}) and of red galaxies ({\em red
1410: histograms}) with $M_* > 10^{11}$ M\sun\ in the MUSYC ECDFS
1411: catalog; The error bars shown reflect the expected
1412: field--to--field variation, calculated as per
1413: \citet{SomervilleEtAl}. {\em Upper panel}: evolution in the red
1414: galaxy fraction among $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies, as a
1415: function of photometric redshift. In this panel, the error bars
1416: have been derived by bootstrap resampling. In both panels, the
1417: dotted histograms show where we are significantly affected by
1418: incompleteness. The $z \approx 0$ points ({\em circles}) are
1419: derived from the low-z sample, discussed in Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}.
1420: The smooth curves show our fits to the observations; the shaded
1421: regions show the $1 \sigma$ uncertainties in the fits: we find
1422: $\ptot = -0.52 \pm 0.12$, $\pred = -1.70 \pm 0.14$, and $\pfrac =
1423: -1.17 \pm 0.18$.
1424: \label{fig:evo}}
1425: \end{figure*}
1426: % _____________________________________________________________________
1427:
1428: This is not to say, however, that the observations are consistent with
1429: all massive red galaxies being formed at $z \gtrsim 5$, or even 3:
1430: even among $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies, there are simply not
1431: enough stars at $z \gtrsim 2$ to build the $z \approx 0$ red sequence
1432: population \citep[][see also Figure \ref{fig:evo}]{Fontana2006,
1433: ConseliceEtAl}. Instead, what we see is that the colors of massive
1434: red galaxies are consistent with being dominated by ancient stars at
1435: all redshifts. This implies both extended star formation histories
1436: among red galaxies (and/or their progenitors), as well as a large
1437: spread in the times at which galaxies of a given (stellar) mass join
1438: the red population --- a kind of long migration of galaxies, occurring
1439: over many Gyr \citep[\cf][]{BrownEtAl2008}. A proper description of
1440: red sequence evolution would therefore have to account for, among
1441: other things, progenitor bias \citep{VanDokkumFranx}: the continual
1442: skewing of the population by new additions \citep[see
1443: also][]{Faber2007, Ruhland2008}. This is beyond the scope of this
1444: work.
1445:
1446: % (BrownEtAl2008 argue that truncation depends on halo mass.)
1447:
1448: % _____________________________________________________________________
1449:
1450: %\subsection{Defining a Red Galaxy Selection Criterion}
1451: % _____________________________________________________________________
1452:
1453: %We offer three observations in support of this particular choice.
1454: %First, for $z \approx 0$, a cut 0.25 mag bluer than the red sequence
1455: %approximately maps the blue edge of the red sequence, closely
1456: %coinciding with the `green valley'. Looking at Figure
1457: %\ref{fig:hists}, this cut also closely matches the location of the
1458: %`green valley' in our own data, at least as far as we are able to
1459: %identify it. Thirdly, in comparison to the 0.2 and 0.15 mag widths of
1460: %the red and blue galaxy color distributions, respectively, and the 0.4
1461: %mag offset between the centers of the red and blue galaxy color
1462: %distributions, a cut offset from the passive track by 0.3 mag is a
1463: %balance between maximizing the number of galaxies from the red
1464: %population, and minimizing the number of blue `interlopers'.
1465:
1466: % _____________________________________________________________________
1467: % _____________________________________________________________________
1468:
1469: \section{The Rise of Red Galaxies Over $\zphot \lesssim 2$}
1470: \label{ch:growth}
1471: % _____________________________________________________________________
1472: % _____________________________________________________________________
1473:
1474: In this section, we turn our attention to the third of our basic
1475: results. Whereas our focus until now has been on the properties of
1476: the red galaxy population as a whole, we now look at how the number of
1477: red galaxies within the total massive galaxy population---\ie\ the red
1478: galaxy fraction---evolves with time.
1479:
1480: \subsection{Defining a Red Galaxy Selection Criterion} \label{ch:redsel}
1481:
1482: Our inability to robustly distinguish separate red and blue galaxy
1483: populations on the basis of the observed color distributions for
1484: $\zphot \gtrsim 1.2$ forces us to devise some alternate means of
1485: separating `red' galaxies from the general field population.
1486:
1487: We have already seen that the color evolution of the red galaxy
1488: population is roughly consistent with ancient stars at all redshifts
1489: (Figure \ref{fig:redseq2}). Our simple solution is therefore to use
1490: the predicted color evolution for a passively evolving stellar
1491: population formed at high redshift to define a redshift-dependent
1492: `red' selection criterion, \viz :
1493: \begin{eqnarray}
1494: (u-r) > 2.57 &+& 0.24 \times \log _{10} (M_* / 10^{11} \text{M\sun})
1495: \nonumber \\
1496: &+& \delta(\zphot) - 0.25 ~ , \label{eq:redseq}
1497: \end{eqnarray}
1498: where $\delta(\zphot)$ is the $(u-r)$ color evolution of a SSP with
1499: $z_\mathrm{form}=5$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:redseq2}. This
1500: selection limit is shown as the dashed lines in each of Figures
1501: \ref{fig:mstar}, \ref{fig:hists}, and \ref{fig:redseq}.
1502:
1503: How does this definition of `red' relate to things like membership of
1504: the red sequence, star formation rate and/or history, etc.? As we
1505: remarked in the first paragraph, a galaxy's optical color is a
1506: reflection of its mean stellar age, modulo the complicating factors of
1507: metallicity and dust extinction. In addition to `red and dead'
1508: galaxies, therefore, simply selecting `red' galaxies can potentially
1509: catch a significant number of star forming galaxies with high dust
1510: obscuration. In other words, while all passive galaxies are red, not
1511: all red galaxies are passive.
1512:
1513: In this sense, it is not unreasonable to interpret the redshift
1514: evolution of the number and fraction of red, massive galaxies as
1515: placing an upper limit on the numbers of `fully formed' (in the sense
1516: that they have essentially completed their star formation and/or
1517: assembly) massive galaxies. These results can thus be used to
1518: constrain the epoch at which the star formation quenching mechanism
1519: operates.
1520:
1521: % _____________________________________________________________________
1522:
1523: \subsection{The Number Density Evolution of Massive Galaxies for $\zphot < 1.8$}
1524: % _____________________________________________________________________
1525:
1526: Figure \ref{fig:evo} shows the evolving number density of $M_* >
1527: \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies for $\zphot < 1.8$. As before, the $z
1528: \approx 0$ point comes from our analysis of the low-z sample discussed
1529: in Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}; the histograms are for the main MUSYC ECDFS
1530: sample. For the $z \gg 0$ galaxies, since we have used bins of equal
1531: comoving volume, the observed numbers ({\em right axes}) can be
1532: directly related to a comoving number density ({\em left axes}),
1533: modulo uncertainties in the cosmological model. The black
1534: point/histograms refer to the total $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\
1535: population; the red point/histograms refer to red galaxies only; the
1536: dotted lines show where our results are significantly affected by
1537: incompleteness.
1538:
1539: The error bars on the $z \gg 0$ histograms include the estimated
1540: measurement uncertainty due to field--to--field variation, derived as
1541: in \citet{SomervilleEtAl}, but modified for cuboid rather than
1542: spherical volumes (R Somerville, priv.\ comm.). For any single
1543: measurement, this is the dominant source of uncertainty: typically
1544: $\sim 30$ \%, as compared to random photometric errors, which are at
1545: the $\sim 10$ \% level. Note, however, that each of the $\zphot
1546: \gtrsim 1$ bins contains its own `spike' in the $\zspec$ distribution
1547: \citep{FORS2}; the $0.6 < \zphot < 0.8$ bin contains two, and the $0.8
1548: < \zphot < 1.0$ bin none. Further, note that for $\zphot \gtrsim 1$,
1549: our redshift errors are comparable to the size of the bins themselves;
1550: in this sense, the densities in neighboring bins are correlated, and
1551: the variations due to large scale structure are to a certain extent
1552: masked.
1553:
1554: The observed evolution in the number density of massive galaxies is
1555: moderate: the number density of $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies at
1556: $1.5 < \zphot < 1.8$ is $52 \pm 8$ \% of the $z \approx 0$ value. We
1557: see a very similar trend in the mass density, although a handful of
1558: galaxies with inferred $M_* \gg 10^{12}$ M\sun\ make this measurement
1559: considerably noisier.
1560:
1561: In order to quantify the observed evolution, we have made a parametric
1562: fit to our measured number densities of the form:
1563: \begin{equation}
1564: n_{\mathrm{tot}}(z) = n_{0} ~ (1 + z)^{\ptot} ~ . \label{eq:ptot}
1565: \end{equation}
1566: In practice, since the dominant source of uncertainty in any single
1567: point is from field--to--field variance, we perform a linear fit in
1568: $\log n$--$\log (1+z)$ space, weighting each point according to its
1569: uncertainty as shown in Figure \ref{fig:evo}. Further, we constrain
1570: the fits to pass through the $z \approx 0$ point, effectively
1571: eliminating $n_0$ as a free parameter. In this way, we find $\ptot =
1572: -0.52 \pm 0.12$. The fit itself is shown in Figure \ref{fig:evo} as
1573: the smooth black curve; the shaded region shows the $1 \sigma$
1574: uncertainty in the fit.
1575:
1576: %\vspace{0.2cm}
1577:
1578: %Wherever the mass or luminosity function is steep, random errors have
1579: %the potential to induce strong systematic biases. For example, for a
1580: %steeply declining mass function, more low mass galaxies will be
1581: %scattered up than high mass galaxies down; this can both flatten the
1582: %observed mass function and inflate the observed number of massive
1583: %galaxies. This is sometimes called the Eddington bias.
1584:
1585: %We addressed this concern by constructing a catalog, based on our
1586: %main galaxy sample, with a non-evolving mass function: for each galaxy
1587: %in the main sample, we have randomly chosen 20 masses from the local
1588: %mass function, and then scaled the observed photometry to match these
1589: %masses. After adding typical MUSYC ECDFS errors, we apply our
1590: %analysis to this catalog, testing our ability to recover the known
1591: %mass function. Because errors in the original photometry are
1592: %effectively amplified when galaxies are scaled up, we have only used
1593: %$K < 21.5$ galaxies to construct the mock catalog; the resultant
1594: %catalog extends well beyond $K > 23$. For the same reason, this
1595: %analysis is likely to overestimate the true extent of biasing in the
1596: %data.
1597:
1598: %In most cases, we are able to recover the inputted number of $M_* >
1599: %\masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies to better than 10 \%; errors comparable to
1600: %the Poissonian statistical uncertainties in the input catalog;
1601: %moreover, the tendency is for the recovered numbers to be lower than
1602: %expected. The most strongly affected bin is the $\zphot \approx 1.2$
1603: %bin, where the recovered numbers are 20 \% higher than expected. The
1604: %suggested bias for the apparently overdense $\zphot \approx 0.7$ bin
1605: %is --5 \%. These results are in qualitative agreement with simply
1606: %Monte Carlo--ing the catalog photometry. These values should be
1607: %compared to Poissionian errors (typically 10 \% for the actual data)
1608: %and the predicted uncertainties from field--to--field variance
1609: %(typically 30 \%). We thus conclude that our results are not strongly
1610: %affected by biases due to low signal--to--noise.
1611:
1612: %At first blush, this may seem to contradict the claims of, for
1613: %example, \citet{Faber2007}, \citet{Cattaneo2006}, and others.
1614:
1615: % _____________________________________________________________________
1616:
1617: \subsection{Evolution in the Red Galaxy Fraction from $\zphot = 1.8$ to the Present Day}
1618: % _____________________________________________________________________
1619:
1620: \label{ch:redfrac}
1621: We now turn our attention to the red galaxy population. From Figure
1622: \ref{fig:evo}, it is clear that the observed evolution is much
1623: stronger for red galaxies than it is for the total population: the
1624: number density of red galaxies at $1.5 < \zphot < 1.8$ is $18 \pm 3$
1625: \% of the $z \approx 0$ value. Making a fit to the red galaxy number
1626: densities to quantify this evolution, in analogy to the previous
1627: section, we find $\pred = -1.60 \pm 0.14$ ({\em smooth red curve}).
1628:
1629: A complementary way of characterizing the rise of massive red galaxies
1630: is to look at the evolution of the red galaxy fraction. There are
1631: several advantages to focusing on the red galaxy fraction, rather than
1632: the number density of red galaxies {\em per se}. First and foremost,
1633: the uncertainty in the red fraction due to large scale structure and
1634: field--to--field variation should be considerably smaller than those
1635: in the number density, especially at $z \gtrsim 1$ \citep{CooperEtAl}.
1636:
1637: We show the red fraction as a function of photometric redshift in the
1638: upper panel of Figure \ref{fig:evo}. Fitting these results ({\em
1639: smooth red curve}) with the same functional form as in Equation
1640: \ref{eq:ptot}, we find $\pfrac = -1.06 \pm 0.16$. Taken together, the
1641: results encapsulated in Figure \ref{fig:evo} suggest that $\lesssim
1642: 20$ \% of $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies in the local universe
1643: were already on the red sequence by $\zphot \approx 1.6$ (9.5 Gyr
1644: ago). By the same token, approximately 50 \% of these galaxies only
1645: (re-)joined the red sequence after $z = 0.5$ (5.0 Gyr ago).
1646: %______________________________________________________________________
1647:
1648: %\subsection{Pushing beyond $\zphot = 2$} \label{ch:z=2}
1649: %______________________________________________________________________
1650:
1651: %______________________________________________________________________
1652:
1653: %\begin{figure}[t]
1654: %\centering
1655: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{figures/evo.incomplete.eps}
1656: %\caption{The rise of red sequence galaxies over cosmic time,
1657: % correcting for incompleteness---All symbols and their meanings are
1658: % as in Figure \ref{fig:evo}. See \textsection\ref{ch:completeness}
1659: % for a discussion of uncertainties in our completeness corrections.
1660: % \label{fig:compevo}}
1661: %\end{figure}
1662: %______________________________________________________________________
1663:
1664: %In \textsection\ref{ch:masslimit}, we have argued that we are
1665: %approximately complete for $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies for
1666: %$\zphot < 1.8$. In this section, we attempt to push past this
1667: %redshift limit to $\zphot \gtrsim 2$ by adopting simple corrections
1668: %for incompleteness.
1669:
1670: %We have derived these corrections as follows. Taking the $M_* >
1671: %\masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxy population in a given redshift bin, we then
1672: %predict what the observed $K$ magnitude for each galaxy would if the
1673: %galaxy were shifted through the next most distant redshift bin. In
1674: %other words, we effectively `K correct' each galaxy's observed $K$
1675: %flux from its default $\zphot$ to higher redshifts, using the same
1676: %machinery as for the interpolation of restframe fluxes. This makes it
1677: %possible to determine the fraction (in terms of volume) of the next
1678: %redshift bin over which a given galaxy would remain detectable; the
1679: %overall completeness is then simply the average of this quantity for
1680: %all galaxies in the bin. We have performed this correction
1681: %for red and blue galaxies separately.
1682:
1683: %Based on this analysis, we are indeed 100 \% complete for $\zphot <
1684: %1.25$; for $1.7 < \zphot < 1.8$, we are more than 80 \% complete
1685: %overall, and at least 75 \% complete for red galaxies. This agrees
1686: %reasonably well with our completeness estimates in
1687: %\textsection\ref{ch:masslimit} (see also discussion in
1688: %\textsection\ref{ch:completeness}). For higher redshifts, our
1689: %estimated completeness drops to 75 \% for $1.9 < \zphot < 2.0$, and to
1690: %65 \% for $2.1 < \zphot < 2.2$. The estimated incompleteness
1691: %correction factor to the measured number densities is thus
1692: %$\frac{3}{2}$ or less for all $\zphot < 2.2$.
1693:
1694: %The results of this exercise are shown in Figure \ref{fig:comp}.
1695: %Fitting to these incompleteness--corrected measurements for the number
1696: %density of massive galaxies with $\zphot < 2.2$, we find $\ptot =
1697: %-0.58 \pm 0.10$, $\pred = -1.61 \pm 0.11$, and $\pfrac = -1.01 \pm 0.10$. In
1698: %comparison to our uncorrected results for $\zphot < 1.8$, this
1699: %represents a change of -0.06, -0.09, and +0.16, respectively. That
1700: %is, we see significant, if slightly weaker, evolution in the total
1701: %numbers of galaxies, but especially in the red population, for $\zphot
1702: %< 2.2$.
1703:
1704: %_____________________________________________________________________
1705: %_____________________________________________________________________
1706:
1707: \subsection{The Importance of the $z \approx 0$ Comparison Point} \label{ch:z=0impact}
1708:
1709: It is clear from Figure \ref{fig:evo} that almost all the signal for
1710: $z \gg 0$ evolution in the red fraction comes from the $z \approx 0$
1711: comparison point \citep[see also][]{BorchEtAl}. Fitting to the $z \gg
1712: 0$ data alone, we find $f_\mathrm{red} = (0.53 \pm 0.05) ~ (1 +
1713: \zphot)^{-0.29 \pm 0.17}$; that is, less than a 2$\sigma$ signal of
1714: evolution. The same is also true for the number density measurements
1715: \citep[see also][]{BorchEtAl}; the reasons for this are not just the
1716: relatively mild evolution, but also to the relative size of the error
1717: bars on the low-- and high--redshift measurements. Fitting only to
1718: the $z \gg 0$ points, we find $\ptot = -1.55 \pm 0.84$ and $\pred =
1719: -1.77 \pm 1.84$; these fits `overpredict' the $z \approx 0$ number
1720: densities by factors of 2.2 and 1.3, respectively.
1721:
1722: In this sense, then, rather than quantifying the absolute evolution in
1723: the $z \gg 0$ population, we are performing a difference measurement
1724: between the situations at $z \approx 0$ and $z \gg 0$. For this
1725: reason, it is imperative that care is taken when deriving the $z
1726: \approx 0$ comparison values to ensure that the low-- and
1727: high--redshift samples have been analyzed in a uniform way (Appendix
1728: \ref{ch:z=0}).
1729:
1730: In comparison to more sophisticated analyses by \citet{Bell2003} and
1731: \citet{ColeEtAl}, both of which combine the 2MASS and SDSS datasets,
1732: our $z \approx 0$ number densities are approximately 10 \% higher, and
1733: 15 \% lower, respectively. Adopting these values in place of our own
1734: determinations, we find $\ptot = -0.72 \pm 0.12$ using the
1735: \citet{Bell2003} mass function, and $\ptot = -0.42 \pm 0.12$ using the
1736: \citet{ColeEtAl} mass function, changes of $-0.2$ and +0.1 with
1737: respect to our default analysis. These rather large discrepancies
1738: underline the importance of uniformity in the analysis of high-- and
1739: low--redshift galaxies.
1740:
1741: %_____________________________________________________________________
1742: %_____________________________________________________________________
1743:
1744: \subsection{Comparison with Other Works} \label{ch:comparisons}
1745:
1746: In Figure \ref{fig:comp}, we compare our results to a selection of the
1747: steadily growing number of similar measurements; we show results from:
1748: the COMBO-17 survey \citep{BorchEtAl}, the GOODS-MUSIC catalog
1749: \citep{Fontana2006}, the K20 survey \citep{Fontana2004}, the VVDS
1750: \citep{PozzettiEtAl}, the DEEP2 survey \citep{Bundy2006}, and MUNICS
1751: \citep{Drory2004}. (Note that all of these results have come within
1752: the last five years.) In all cases, the points shown in Figure
1753: \ref{fig:comp} have been obtained by integrating up a fit mass
1754: function, taking into account different choices of cosmology and IMF.
1755: We note that the strong redshift spike at $\zphot \sim 0.7$ is also
1756: present in the GOODS-MUSIC results, which are based on the CDFS.
1757:
1758: \begin{figure}[t] \centering
1759: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{f11.eps}
1760: \caption{Comparison with other works---The different symbols
1761: correspond to different authors and surveys as marked: the filled
1762: symbols refer to other authors' analyses of SDSS data; references
1763: for other $z \gg 0$ surveys are given in the main text. As in
1764: Figure \ref{fig:evo}, % and \ref{fig:compevo},
1765: the smooth curves show
1766: our fits to the MUSYC ECDFS data; the shaded regions show the
1767: $1 \sigma$ errors on the fits. Excepting the MUSYC ECDFS data points,
1768: all points have been derived by integrating up Schechter function
1769: fits to the observed mass functions, in redshift bins. Apart from
1770: the MUNICS and the COMBO-17 ECDFS data points, there is good
1771: agreement between the many different groups' results; the cause for
1772: the discrepancy between the COMBO-17 and MUSYC results in the ECDFS
1773: is investigated in Appendix \ref{ch:combo}.
1774: \label{fig:comp}}
1775: \end{figure}
1776:
1777: The comparison with the COMBO-17 results deserves some further
1778: comment. While our results agree reasonably well with the combined
1779: results from three of the COMBO-17 fields ({\em large diamonds}),
1780: there is significant disagreement between our results and the COMBO-17
1781: results in the ECDFS ({\em small diamonds}). In Appendix
1782: \ref{ch:combo}, we present a detailed comparison between the MUSYC and
1783: COMBO-17 datasets, and demonstrate that the discrepancy between the
1784: two results is due to systematic calibration errors in the COMBO-17
1785: photometry, rather than differences in our analyses. We note in
1786: passing that these calibration errors have only a small effect on the
1787: COMBO-17 photometric redshifts, and affect the ECDFS only; not the
1788: other COMBO-17 fields \citep{combocalib}.
1789:
1790: Particularly given the significant uncertainties in these
1791: measurements, and with the possible exception of the MUNICS results,
1792: the degree of agreement between these surveys is impressive. However,
1793: in all of these surveys, field--to--field variance is a---if not
1794: the---major source of uncertainty. More and larger fields are
1795: necessary to lock down the growth rate of massive galaxies.
1796:
1797: %Further, following \citet{BorchEtAl}, we note that much of the signal
1798: %for evolution comes from comparison to the $z \approx 0$ point:
1799: %indeed, excepting the redshift spike at $0.6 < \zphot < 0.8$, the
1800: %MUSYC ECDFS data alone are consistent with no evolution. The reasons
1801: %for this are not just the relatively mild evolution, but also to the
1802: %relative size of the error bars on the low-- and high--redshift
1803: %measurements. With this in mind, note the $\sim 40$ \% discrepancies
1804: %in the mass function determinations of \citet{ColeEtAl} and
1805: %\citet{Bell2003}. The amount of evolution inferred from $z \gg 0$
1806: %measurements thus depends somewhat on the choice of the $z \approx 0$
1807: %results used. This underlines the importance of uniform analysis of
1808: %the high-- and low--redshift universe.
1809:
1810: %_____________________________________________________________________
1811: %_____________________________________________________________________
1812:
1813: %As we have repeatedly stressed, systematic errors in our analysis are
1814: %at least as important as random ones, since systematic errors can so
1815: %easily mimic genuine evolution. In these section, we attempt to
1816: %identify the main sources of uncertainty stemming from our
1817: %experimental design, as well as to quantify the systematic uncertainty
1818: %in our results, through a series of `sensitivity tests'. The basic
1819: %idea is to repeat our analysis many times while varying different
1820: %aspects of our analysis, in order to see how large an effect each
1821: %change has on our results---in other words, how sensitive our results
1822: %are to the choices we have made in establishing our experimental
1823: %design.
1824:
1825: %In \textsection\ref{ch:tests}, we provide a wide but shallow
1826: %description of a number of these sensitivity tests, including how our
1827: %results change with our analysis. The results of these many tests are
1828: %encapsulated in Table \ref{tab:sens}, which gives the raw numbers of
1829: %$M_* > 10^{11}$ M\sun\ galaxies in the same equal volume bins as used
1830: %for Figure \ref{fig:evo}; the numbers of red galaxies are also given
1831: %in brackets. We illustrate the effects of a selection of variations
1832: %in Figure \ref{fig:sens}; each panel shows the analogue of Figure
1833: %\ref{fig:evo} for different assumptions in our analysis.
1834:
1835: %Much of the material presented in \textsection\ref{ch:tests} will be
1836: %of interest primarily to readers with a detailed, operational
1837: %knowledge of the techniques involved in photometric redshift surveys.
1838: %A reader who is happy to avoid such a technical description may choose
1839: %to inspect Figure \ref{fig:sens}, and then skip to
1840: %\textsection\ref{ch:syssum}, in which we attempt to synthesize the
1841: %results of these many tests.
1842:
1843: % ____________________________________________________________________
1844: % ____________________________________________________________________
1845:
1846: \section{Quantifying Potential Systematic Errors} \label{ch:sens}
1847:
1848: Having now described our experiment in full, in this section we
1849: describe a wide array of sensitivity analyses, in order to determine
1850: how sensitively our results depend on specific choices in our
1851: experimental design. The basic idea is to vary individual aspects of
1852: our analysis, and see what effects these changes have on the results
1853: presented in \textsection\ref{ch:growth}; in particular, we will focus
1854: on how the best-fit values of $\ptot$ and $\pfrac$ depend on our
1855: experimental design. The results of many of these tests are
1856: summarized in Tables \ref{tab:zps} and \ref{tab:sens}. Note that we
1857: have used the same red galaxy selection criterion (Equation
1858: \ref{eq:redseq}) throughout all of these tests.
1859:
1860: We will consider, in turn, how sensitive or robust our results are to
1861: basic photometric calibration errors (\textsection\ref{ch:zps}), the
1862: methods used for the photometry itself
1863: (\textsection\ref{ch:photometry}), incompleteness
1864: (\textsection\ref{ch:completeness}), and variations on our photometric
1865: redshift computation (\textsection\ref{ch:photzsens}). We then
1866: discuss possible systematic effects arising from our method for
1867: estimating stellar masses in \textsection\ref{ch:masses}, and other
1868: concerns in \textsection\ref{ch:others}. Our findings in the section
1869: are summarized in \textsection\ref{ch:systematics}.
1870:
1871: % ____________________________________________________________________
1872: % ____________________________________________________________________
1873:
1874: \subsection{Photometric Calibration} \label{ch:zps}
1875: % ____________________________________________________________________
1876:
1877: %The basic reduction and calibration of the MUSYC data set has been
1878: %done using four very different schemes, corresponding to the four
1879: %different instruments used.
1880: How sensitive or robust are our results to errors in the basic
1881: photometric calibration? And how accurate are the calibrations of
1882: each of the different bands, relative to one another, and in an
1883: absolute sense? We address these two questions in this section.
1884:
1885: % ____________________________________________________________________
1886:
1887: \subsubsection{The Effect of Perturbing Individual Bands}
1888: % ____________________________________________________________________
1889:
1890: In order to gauge the effect of calibration errors on our final
1891: results, we have perturbed the photometry in each band in turn by $\pm
1892: 0.05$ mag, and repeated our full analysis, from the derivation of
1893: photometric redshifts and stellar masses to fitting the $\gamma$s.
1894: Roughly speaking, these perturbations can affect our results in two
1895: separate ways: either through direct changes in the SEDs themselves,
1896: or indirectly, through changes in the derived photometric redshifts,
1897: and so the transformation from observed to restframe quantities. In
1898: order to disentangle these two effects, we have also repeated our
1899: analysis with these $\pm 0.05$ mag shifts, but while holding the
1900: photometric redshifts fixed to their default values. The results of
1901: these tests are summarized in Table \ref{tab:zps}.
1902:
1903: For the $UBV$ bands, the effect of changing the photometric
1904: calibration on our main results is driven almost exclusively by
1905: changes in the photometric redshifts. This is simply because our
1906: stellar mass estimates typically do not depend directly on the
1907: observed $UBV$ photometry: the restframe $B$ has already shifted past
1908: the observed $V$ by $z \approx 0.25$. (Recall that we use the $B-V$
1909: color to infer $M_*/L_V$, and thus $M_*$.) Similarly, the effect that
1910: changing the reddest $H$ and $K$ bands has on $\ptot$ is small: $\pm <
1911: 0.02$ for both. The situation changes for the $RIz'J$ bands, where
1912: the direct effect comes to dominate over the indirect effect from
1913: changes in the redshifts.
1914:
1915: In terms of the SED photometry, our results are most sensitive to
1916: errors in the $R$ and $J$ band photometric calibrations: a $\pm 0.05$
1917: mag shift in the $R$ or $J$ zeropoint changes the value of $\ptot$ by
1918: $\mp 0.08$ or $\pm 0.14$, respectively. For the $R$ band, the effect
1919: on restframe properties is focused on the $\zphot \approx 0.7$ bin,
1920: where we happen to measure the highest density; this is also the $z
1921: \gg 0$ bin that has the single greatest effect on our measurement of
1922: $\ptot$. The critical importance of the $J$ band stems from the fact
1923: that it plays a role in the derivation of restframe $V$ photometry,
1924: and thus $M_*$, for all $\zphot \gtrsim 1$; \ie , roughly two thirds
1925: of our surveyed volume. It seems plausible that our sensitivity in
1926: this regard might be substantially reduced if we were to use a
1927: different method for estimating stellar masses (see also
1928: \textsection\ref{ch:masses}).
1929:
1930: While the SED modeling results are not particularly sensitive to the
1931: $K$ band calibration, it still plays a critical role in normalizing
1932: each SED through the total $K$ flux measurement. Although changing
1933: the $K$ calibration by $\pm 0.05$ mag effectively rescales the stellar
1934: masses by just $\mp 0.02$ dex, this can change the inferred number
1935: densities by as much as $\mp 10$ \%. In terms of $\ptot$, the effect
1936: is $\mp 0.07$.
1937:
1938: %To this point, we have focussed only on the effects of calibration
1939: %errors on the measured value of $\ptot$. The effects of such changes
1940: %on $\pred$ are similar in both sign and magnitude. However, this
1941: %means that $\pfrac \approx \pred - \ptot$ is more stable. When the
1942: %photometric redshifts are recalculated, the biggest changes in
1943: %$\pfrac$ are $\pm 0.03$ and $\pm 0.05$ for $\pm 0.05$ mag shifts in
1944: %the $J$ and $K$ band calibrations, respectively.
1945: % ____________________________________________________________________
1946: % ____________________________________________________________________
1947:
1948: \input{tab2.tex}
1949: % ____________________________________________________________________
1950: % ____________________________________________________________________
1951:
1952: \subsubsection{Testing the MUSYC ECDFS Photometric Calibration} \label{ch:calib}
1953: % ____________________________________________________________________
1954:
1955: We now turn our attention to identifying and quantifying potential
1956: calibration errors in the MUSYC ECDFS dataset. We will then be able
1957: to use this information to estimate the extent to which our results
1958: may actually be affected by such errors.
1959:
1960: To address this question, we have used EAZY to fit main sequence
1961: stellar spectra from the BPGS stellar atlas \citep{bpgs}, fixing
1962: $\zphot = 0$, to the observed photometry for stars. Assuming that
1963: whatever calibration errors do exist do not affect the choice for the
1964: best fit template spectrum, we can then interpret the mean difference
1965: between the best fit and the observed photometry as being the product
1966: of calibration errors. We note that since this test is concerned
1967: exclusively with SED shapes, it cannot comment on the absolute
1968: calibration of any given band; instead it assesses the relative-- or
1969: cross--calibration of the ten band photometry that makes up the MUSYC
1970: ECDFS dataset.
1971:
1972: The offsets we derive in this way are given in Col.\ (10) of Table
1973: \ref{tab:zps}. The most notable offsets derived in this way are
1974: $-$0.048 in $(U-U_{38})$, $0.033$ in $(I-z')$, 0.064 in ($J-H$), and
1975: $0.032$ in $(J-K)$. These offsets give an indication of the
1976: plausible size of any calibration errors or inconsistencies in the
1977: MUSYC SED photometry. If we recalibrate our photometry to eliminate
1978: these apparent offsets (holding the $K$ band fixed), and repeat our
1979: full analysis, we find that the best fit values of $\ptot$, $\pred$,
1980: and $\pfrac$ change by $+0.00$, $+0.02$, and $+0.04$, respectively.
1981:
1982: \vspace{0.2cm}
1983:
1984: We have also checked the absolute calibration of each band in
1985: comparison to the FIREWORKS catalog \citep{WuytsEtAl} in the region
1986: of overlap (Paper I). Using $(B-z')$--$(z'-K)$ selected stars, we have
1987: constructed empirical `color transforms' between FIREWORKS and MUSYC
1988: filters, as a function of HST color. Comparing these diagrams to
1989: predictions derived from the BPGS stellar spectral atlas \citep{bpgs},
1990: we treat any offset between the predicted and observed stellar
1991: sequences as a calibration error in the MUSYC photometry. (This is
1992: the same method we used to identify the disagreement between the
1993: COMBO-17 and MUSYC calibrations discussed in Appendix \ref{ch:combo}.)
1994:
1995: The offsets we have derived in this way are given in Col.\ (11) of
1996: Table \ref{tab:zps}. The biggest offsets derived in this way are
1997: $\approx 0.05$ mag in ($B$-F435W) and ($I-F850LP$). The offset in
1998: ($K$-$K_\mathrm{ISAAC}$) is $-0.017$ mag; for the crucial $J$ band,
1999: the offset is just $+0.015$ mag. In agreement with the stellar SED
2000: fitting test, this analysis also finds an inconsistency between the
2001: $I$ and $z$ bands at the level of 0.05 mag. If we recalibrate our
2002: photometry to match the FIREWORKS catalog, we find that our values
2003: of $\ptot$, $\pred$, and $\pfrac$ change by $-0.03$, $-0.13$, and
2004: $-0.08$ with respect to our default results. The sizes of these
2005: changes are in excellent agreement with the results of the previous
2006: section; more than half of these changes can be ascribed just to the
2007: 0.02 mag rescaling of total $K$ magnitudes.
2008:
2009: We estimate that the systematic uncertainty in our main results due to
2010: photometric calibration errors is at the level of $\Delta \ptot
2011: \lesssim 0.05$ and $\Delta \pfrac \sim 0.10$.
2012:
2013: %\subsubsection{Photometric Calibration --- Summary}
2014: % ____________________________________________________________________
2015:
2016: %The indirect effect (through changes in the photometric redshifts) of
2017: %$\pm 0.05$ mag changes in the photometry in any single band on the
2018: %value of $\ptot$ is at most 0.05, with a change in sign from $\mp
2019: %0.05$ for $R$ to $\pm 0.03$ for $z$ and $J$. The effect of direct
2020: %changes to the inferred restframe photometry, and so stellar masses,
2021: %is confined to discrete redshift intervals. In this respect, the $J$
2022: %band is crucial, as it affects the calculation of stellar masses for
2023: %all $\zphot > 1$. While the $K$ band calibration is not particularly
2024: %important for the SED analysis, it plays an important role in the
2025: %total flux normalization: a $\pm 0.05$ mag change in the total fluxes
2026: %changes $\ptot$ by $\pm 0.08$.
2027:
2028: %Separate tests of the absolute and relative photometric calibration of
2029: %the MUSYC ECDFS data validate the MUSYC ECDFS photometric calibration
2030: %at the typical level of 0.01---0.02 mag. We do not see any evidence
2031: %for serious calibration errors or inconsistencies. Using the results
2032: %of these tests as plausible estimates for the uncertainties in our
2033: %photometric calibration, we can then estimate the systematic
2034: %uncertainty in our final results due to calibration errors. In this
2035: %way, we estimate that the lingering systematic uncertainty in the
2036: %values of $\ptot$ and $\pred$ are on the order of $\pm 0.05$ due to
2037: %the relative calibration of the ten band photometry, including the
2038: %effect through changes in the photometric redshifts. In addition, we
2039: %estimate the uncertainty in $\ptot$ and $\pred$ associated with the
2040: %absolute calibration of $K$ band to be a further $\pm 0.05$. The
2041: %measurement of $\pfrac$ is slightly more robust; we estimate the
2042: %systematic uncertainty in $\pfrac$ due to each effect to be of order
2043: %$\pm 0.03$.
2044: % ____________________________________________________________________
2045:
2046: \subsection{Photometric Methods} \label{ch:photometry}
2047: % ____________________________________________________________________
2048:
2049: %Unlike the photometric calibration errors discussed above, most of the
2050: %effects due to errors in the photometry {\em per se} will have
2051: %definite direction, and will correlate with observed flux, and thus
2052: %with redshift. For example, any finite aperture will tend to miss
2053: %flux; a flexible aperture will tend to miss a greater fraction of
2054: %light from fainter sources. These kinds of differential
2055: %effects---between the faintest, furthest galaxies and brighter, nearby
2056: %ones---are a major concern, since they have the potential to induce
2057: %spurious evolutionary signals.
2058:
2059: %While we rely on SExtractor for our basic photometry, we have
2060: %therefore taken steps to protect against such biases. In this
2061: %section, we describe three ways in which our catalog photometry
2062: %differs from the basic SExtractor outputs, and the impact that these
2063: %modifications have on our final results.
2064:
2065: While we rely on SExtractor for our basic photometry, we have
2066: introduced three sophistications in our analysis. In this section, we
2067: investigate the effects that these three changes have on our results.
2068:
2069: \subsubsection{Background Subtraction} \label{ch:background}
2070: % ____________________________________________________________________
2071:
2072: We have applied a correction to account for the tendency of SExtractor
2073: to overestimate the background level; for individual objects, this
2074: correction is typically on the order of $-$0.03 mag. To test the
2075: sensitivity of our results to background subtraction errors, we have
2076: repeated our analysis without applying this correction. Repeating our
2077: analysis relying on our own background estimation we find changes in
2078: $\ptot$ and $\pred$ of $-0.06$ and $-0.05$, respectively; the change
2079: in $\pfrac$ is just $-0.02$.
2080:
2081: \subsubsection{Total Magnitudes} \label{ch:totalmags}
2082: % ____________________________________________________________________
2083:
2084: Our total flux measurements are based on SExtractor's AUTO flux
2085: measurement. It is well known that the AUTO aperture misses a
2086: significant amount of flux, especially for the faintest sources
2087: \citep{BertinArnouts, LabbeEtAl, BrownEtAl}. Following
2088: \citet{LabbeEtAl}, we partially redress this by applying a minimal
2089: correction to correct for light laying beyond the AUTO aperture,
2090: treating each object as if it were a point source. For individual
2091: sources, this correction amounts to as much as 20 \%. Experiments
2092: with synthetic $r^{1/4}$ sources placed in our own image suggest that
2093: for the specific example of a $K = 22$ elliptical galaxies with $R_e =
2094: 0\farcs4$ ($\approx 3$ kpc at $z = 1$), this correction reduces the
2095: missed flux from 0.33 mag to 0.15 mag.
2096:
2097: In terms of the measured number densities, the effect of adopting this
2098: correction is 1---5 \% for $\zphot \lesssim 1.5$, rising to 5---10 \%
2099: for $1.5 < \zphot < 1.8$. The use of uncorrected AUTO fluxes as total
2100: flux measurements thus produces a rather mild spurious evolutionary
2101: signal. Repeating our analysis without this correction, we find
2102: slightly steeper evolution in the number densities: the values of
2103: $\ptot$, $\pred$ change by $-0.07$ and $-0.06$, respectively. By
2104: comparison, the red fraction measurements remain almost unchanged:
2105: $\pfrac$ changes by $-$0.01.
2106:
2107: \subsubsection{SED Apertures and Colour Gradients} \label{ch:seds}
2108: % ____________________________________________________________________
2109:
2110: When constructing multi-color SEDs, we have used the larger of
2111: SExtractor's ISO aperture (based on the $1\farcs0$ FWHM $K$ mosaic)
2112: and a fixed $2\farcs5$ diameter aperture. This aperture flexibility
2113: is intended to guard against potential biases due to color gradients
2114: in individual galaxies. This problem is presumably the most severe
2115: for the largest, relatively low redshift galaxies with significant
2116: bulge components, leading to overestimates in both ($B-V$) and $M_*$.
2117:
2118: Consistent with this expectation, when repeating our analysis relying
2119: exclusively on the fixed $2\farcs5$ aperture fluxes to construct SEDs,
2120: we find the measured number densities of massive galaxies increases by
2121: $\sim 5$ \% for $\zphot < 1.1$. The increases in these low redshift
2122: bins brings them closer to the $z \sim 0$ point, leading to a slight
2123: decrease in the measured evolution: $\ptot$ and $\pred$ change by
2124: +0.05 and +0.13, respectively; $\pfrac$ changes by just +0.02.
2125:
2126: We estimate that the systematic uncertainty in our results associated
2127: with our photometric methods are on the order of $\ptot \lesssim 0.07$
2128: and $\pfrac \approx 0.00$.
2129:
2130: %\subsubsection{Photometric Methods --- Summary}
2131: % ____________________________________________________________________
2132:
2133: %We have shown that the effect of background subtraction errors on our
2134: %main results is acceptably small ($\Delta \gamma \approx 0.03$). We
2135: %have also shown that color gradients have the potential to
2136: %significantly bias our results ($\Delta \gamma \approx 0.1$). We
2137: %have mitigated that effect for the biggest, brightest galaxies by
2138: %using the flexible ISO aperture to construct SEDs. We do not,
2139: %therefore, consider these two effects as lingering sources of
2140: %systematic uncertainty in the measurement of $\ptot$ or $\pred$.
2141:
2142: %The effect of missing flux ($\Delta \gamma \approx 0.05$), however,
2143: %remains a concern. We do not attempt to further quantify the
2144: %remaining uncertainty in our measurements due to missing flux.
2145: %Instead, we adopt a value of +0.03 (\viz , roughly half of the effect
2146: %of our own missing flux correction) as a plausible estimates for the
2147: %remaining uncertainty in $\pred$ and $\ptot$ due to missed flux. The
2148: %true size of this effect depends on the true size--magnitude
2149: %distribution of the $z < 2$ universe, which is presently inaccessible.
2150: %Further, we note that our measurement of $\pfrac$ is not strongly
2151: %biased by missed flux.
2152: % ____________________________________________________________________
2153:
2154: \subsection{Correcting for Incompleteness} \label{ch:completeness}
2155: % ____________________________________________________________________
2156:
2157: In \textsection\ref{ch:masslimit}, we have argued that we are
2158: approximately complete for $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies for
2159: $\zphot < 1.8$. In this section, we examine the effects of
2160: incompleteness due to both the $K < 22$ detection threshold and the
2161: $K$ S:N $> 5$ `analysis' selection, by deriving simple completeness
2162: corrections.
2163:
2164: \subsubsection{Incompleteness Due to Low S:N} \label{ch:sncompleteness}
2165: % ____________________________________________________________________
2166:
2167: In addition to incompleteness due to our $K < 22$ detection limit,
2168: discussed below, there is the concern of incompleteness due to the $K$
2169: S:N $> 5$ selection limit, which we have imposed to ensure against
2170: extremely poorly constrained photometric redshifts. This cut affects
2171: 4.5 \% of all $K \le 22$ sources in the ECDFS catalog, with 43 \% of
2172: those galaxies laying in the slightly shallower Eastern pointing. At
2173: a fixed magnitude, there is not a strong dependence of the fraction of
2174: S:N $< 5$ detections as a function of $J-K$ color or---with the caveat
2175: that this cut is designed to remove poorly constrained redshifts---as
2176: a function of $\zphot$.
2177:
2178: In order to assess the impact of this cut on our results, in this
2179: section we attempt to correct for this additional source of
2180: incompleteness. Our procedure is as follows: we determine the
2181: completeness fraction in the face of this selection, as function of
2182: total $K$ magnitude, $f(K)$; this can then be used to weight each
2183: retained galaxy according to its $K$ magnitude, $w(K)=1/f(K)$. Of
2184: galaxies in our main sample, 8 \% of all galaxies, and 11 \% of $M_* >
2185: \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies at $1 \le \zphot \le 2$ are given $w(K) >
2186: 1.25$.
2187:
2188: Recalculating our number density measurements using these weights, we
2189: find that the number density of massive galaxies at $1.2 < \zphot <
2190: 1.8$ changes by less than 5 \%; the same is true for red galaxies
2191: alone. Repeating our analysis with these corrections, we find $\ptot
2192: = -0.49$, $\pred = -1.56$, and $\pfrac = -1.05$, amounting to
2193: differences of +0.03, +0.04, and +0.01 with respect to our fiducial
2194: analysis. We get similar results adopting a more stringent S:N $> 10$
2195: criterion. To put this change into perspective, it is comparable to
2196: that due to uncertainty in the background subtraction for our basic
2197: photometry.
2198:
2199: %Finally for this section, we have also trialed repeating this
2200: %analysis requiring S:N $> 10$. Adopting this cut, the incompleteness
2201: %fraction rises smoothly from $\sim 0$ at $\zphot = 1$ to $\gtrsim 60
2202: %\%$ to $\zphot \gtrsim 1.5$, in contrast to the S:N $> 5$ sample
2203: %above. Even despite this, however, the total number of massive
2204: %galaxies over the interval $1.2 < \zphot < 1.8$ adopting the S:N $>
2205: %10$ cut agrees with our fiducial analysis to within 1.8 \%; for red
2206: %galaxies the measured number adopting the S:N $> 10$ cut is 10 \%
2207: %higher than the fiducial value. Repeating our analysis using this cut
2208: %of S:N $> 10$, our results become $\ptot = -0.52$, $\pred =
2209: %1.62 $, and $\pfrac = 1.086 $. These values
2210: %represent changes of --0.06 and +0.07 for $\ptot$ and $\pred$;
2211: %$\pfrac$ changes by just +0.014.
2212:
2213: \subsubsection{Correcting for Undetected Sources} \label{ch:undetected}
2214: % ____________________________________________________________________
2215:
2216: We have corrected for incompleteness due to our $K < 22$ detection
2217: limit as follows: taking the $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxy
2218: population in a given redshift bin, we then predict what the observed
2219: $K$ magnitude for each galaxy would be if the galaxy were shifted
2220: through the next most distant redshift bin. In other words, we
2221: effectively `K correct' each galaxy's observed $K$ flux from its
2222: fiducial $\zphot$ to higher redshifts, using the same machinery as for
2223: the interpolation of restframe fluxes. This makes it possible to
2224: determine the fraction (in terms of volume) of the next redshift bin
2225: over which a given galaxy would remain detectable; the overall
2226: completeness is then simply the average of this quantity for all
2227: galaxies in the bin. We have performed this correction for red and
2228: blue galaxies separately.
2229:
2230: Based on this analysis, we are indeed 100 \% complete for $\zphot <
2231: 1.25$; for $1.7 < \zphot < 1.8$, we are more than 80 \% complete
2232: overall, and at least 75 \% complete for red galaxies. This agrees
2233: reasonably well with our completeness estimates in
2234: \textsection\ref{ch:masslimit}. For higher redshifts, our estimated
2235: completeness drops to 75 \% for $1.9 < \zphot < 2.0$, and to 65 \% for
2236: $2.1 < \zphot < 2.2$. The estimated incompleteness correction factor
2237: to the measured number densities is thus less than 1.5 for all $\zphot
2238: < 2.2$. Using these completeness corrections to extend our analysis to
2239: $\zphot < 2.2$, we find $\ptot = -0.47 $ and $\pfrac = -0.90$; changes
2240: of $-0.05$ and $-0.16$ with respect to our default values for $\zphot
2241: < 1.8$.
2242:
2243: Fitting to these incompleteness--corrected measurements for the number
2244: density of massive galaxies with $\zphot < 1.8$ (\ie , repeating our
2245: default analysis, but with a completeness correction), we find $\ptot
2246: = -0.37$, $-1.42$, and $\pfrac = -1.06$. In comparison to our
2247: uncorrected results for $\zphot < 1.8$, these represent changes of
2248: $-0.15$, $-0.18$, and $-0.00(3)$, respectively. However, we also note
2249: that if we were to assume that we are 100 \% complete for $\zphot <
2250: 1.4$, these changes become $-0.10$, $-0.12$, and $+0.01$; that is, the
2251: uncertainties on these incompleteness corrections are comparable to in
2252: size to the corrections themselves.
2253:
2254: %In \textsection\ref{ch:z=2}, we described a method for correcting for
2255: %incompleteness, which we used to extend our range beyond our
2256: %approximate completeness limit of $\zphot = 1.8$. There is one caveat
2257: %on the numbers given there: based on the $1.25 < \zphot < 1.4$ bin,
2258: %the incompleteness for the $1.4 < \zphot < 1.5$ bin is 90 \%. Since
2259: %the correction is cumulative across redshift bins (\eg , if bin 1 is
2260: %90 \% complete, and 90 \% of bin 1 galaxies would be detectable in the
2261: %volume of bin 2, then bin 2 will be 80 \% complete), this modest level
2262: %of incompleteness at intermediate redshift ends up having a rather
2263: %large effect on the derived correction for $z = 2$.
2264:
2265: %Specifically, if we were to assume instead that we are 100 \% complete
2266: %for $\zphot < 1.5$, then our estimated completeness for would rise by
2267: %10 \% for all $\zphot > 1.5$, reducing the corrected number densities
2268: %by the same amount. Adopting these corrections for $\zphot < 1.8$, we
2269: %find $\ptot = -0.46$ and $\pfrac = -1.175$
2270: %differences of +0.05 and -0.003 with respect to our fiducial analysis,
2271: %and differences of +0.09 and +0.04 with respect to the corrections
2272: %used in \textsection\ref{ch:z=2}. In other words, at least in terms
2273: %of $\ptot$ and $\pfrac$ measured over $\zphot < 1.8$, and bearing in
2274: %mind that the corrections are indeed small, the uncertainty in the
2275: %completeness correction is comparable to the size of the correction
2276: %itself.
2277:
2278: %Again, the difference between these results and those given in
2279: %\textsection\ref{ch:z=2} comes from the slightly lower predicted
2280: %completeness of the $1.4 < \zphot < 1.5$ bin, based on five points in
2281: %the $1.25 < \zphot < 1.4$ bin. Four of these five points have ($u-r$)
2282: %$> 2.5$, being 0.25 mag redder than the predicted location of the red
2283: %sequence. Moreover, three of those four have $\zphot \approx 1.27$;
2284: %in comparison to both COMBO-17 and GOODS-MUSIC photometric redshifts
2285: %there are some signs for a preferred redshift solution at this
2286: %redshift. It is therefore plausible that these points are the product
2287: %of photometric redshift errors. In this respect, the incompleteness
2288: %corrections used in \textsection\ref{ch:z=2} may be regarded as
2289: %approximately maximal, giving a soft upper limit on the number
2290: %densities, and a similarly soft lower limit on the amount of
2291: %evolution.
2292:
2293: %If we adopt these alternate corrections for $\zphot < 2.2$, we find
2294: %$\ptot = -0.62$ and $\pfrac = -0.96$. In
2295: %comparison to our default measurements, these represent changes of
2296: %--0.10 and +0.21, respectively; in comparison to the
2297: %completeness--corrected measurements given in
2298: %\textsection\ref{ch:z=2}, the changes are --0.04 and +0.16. This
2299: %gives some indication as to the uncertainty in the measured value of
2300: %$\ptot$ or $\pfrac$ due to uncertainties in the completeness
2301: %correction.
2302:
2303: %Finally for this section, we note that pushing out even as far as
2304: %$\zphot < 2.4$, where we approach 50 \% completeness, our measurements
2305: %of $\ptot$ and $\pred$ do not change a great deal. Using either the
2306: %corrections described above or those used in \textsection\ref{ch:z=2},
2307: %we find that the values for $\ptot$ and $\pfrac$ based on $\zphot <
2308: %2.4$ are 0.03 and 0.05 higher, respectively, than those based on
2309: %$\zphot < 2.0$.
2310:
2311: %\subsubsection{Incompleteness Corrections --- Summary}
2312: % ____________________________________________________________________
2313:
2314: %We have shown, at least in terms of the values of $\ptot$ and $\pred$,
2315: %that the uncertainties involved in correcting for incompleteness are
2316: %comparable to the corrections themselves: for $\zphot < 1.8$,
2317: %correcting for incompleteness changes the values of $\ptot$ by
2318: %0.05---0.10, and $\pred$ by 0.05---0.12. Further, we have shown that
2319: %our results are not significantly affected by incompleteness
2320: %associated with our $K$ S:N $> 5$ analysis threshold.
2321: %
2322: % ____________________________________________________________________
2323:
2324: \subsection{Photometric Redshifts} \label{ch:photzsens}
2325: % ____________________________________________________________________
2326:
2327: The next major aspect of our analysis that we will explore in detail
2328: is systematic effects associated with the derivation of photometric
2329: redshifts; we split this discussion into two parts. In the first part
2330: part (\textsection\ref{ch:templates}) we explore how our results
2331: depend on the choice of templates used in the $\zphot$ calculation.
2332: Then, in the second (\textsection\ref{ch:zdissect}), we investigate
2333: how our results depend on the exact method used for deriving
2334: photometric redshifts, by varying individual aspects of the EAZY
2335: algorithm. Some illustrative results from a selection of these
2336: sensitivity tests are given in Figure \ref{fig:photzplots}.
2337:
2338: \subsubsection{Trialing Different Template Sets} \label{ch:templates}
2339: % ____________________________________________________________________
2340:
2341:
2342: % ____________________________________________________________________
2343:
2344: \begin{figure*} \centering
2345: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f12.eps}
2346: \caption{The effect of different photometric redshift analyses on our
2347: results---In rows, we show how our results would change ({\em top to
2348: bottom}): adopting the template set used by \citet{RudnickEtAl};
2349: adopting the template set described by \citet{FontanaEtAl2006};
2350: emulating hyperz in its default configuration; adopting the maximum
2351: likelihood (\ie $\chi^2$ minimisation) photometric redshift value;
2352: neglecting the $U$ band photometry. In each row, we show ({\em left
2353: to right}) the analogues of Figure \ref{fig:specz}, the third panel
2354: of Figure \ref{fig:mstar}, and Figure \ref{fig:evo}.
2355: \label{fig:photzplots}}
2356: \end{figure*}
2357: % ____________________________________________________________________
2358:
2359: {\em Using the \citet{Fontana2006} template set}---Using a library of
2360: $\sim 3000$ synthetic P\'egase V2.0 \citep{pegase} spectra described
2361: by \citet{Fontana2006}, \citet{GrazianEtAl} obtain $\sigma_z \approx
2362: 0.045$ for $K$ selected galaxies from their catalog of the GOODS-CDFS
2363: data. In fact, this library provides the parent catalog for EAZY's
2364: default template set \citep[see][]{eazy}. If we use this template
2365: library in place of the EAZY default, and do not allow template
2366: combination, we find $\sigma_z = 0.039$; the fraction of objects
2367: having $\Delta z/(1+z) > 0.1$, $f_{0.1}$, is 16 \% (\cf\ 12.4 \% for
2368: our default redshifts). Adopting these redshifts in place of our
2369: default determinations, we find $\ptot = -0.55$ and $\pfrac =
2370: -1.00$; differences of $-0.03$ and $-0.06$, respectively
2371: (see Figure \ref{fig:photzplots}).
2372:
2373: {\em Using the \citet{RudnickEtAl} template set}---In the past, our
2374: group has tended to determine photometric redshifts as per
2375: \citet{RudnickEtAl}, which considers linear combinations among: four
2376: empirical template spectra from \citet{cww}; two starburst spectra
2377: from \citet{Kinney}; and two \citet{BruzualCharlot} synthetic spectra
2378: for SSPs with ages of 10 Myr and 1 Gyr. If we use these templates
2379: with EAZY, we find $\sigma_z$ = 0.055, with $f_{0.1} = 27 $ \%.
2380: Looking at Figure \ref{fig:photzplots}, these photometric redshift
2381: determinations suffer from a number of systematics whereby there are
2382: clear preferred redshift solutions at, \eg , $\zphot \sim 0.4$, as
2383: well as a larger systematic underestimate of the true redshift: in
2384: addition to the larger random error, we also find a systematic offset
2385: in $\Delta z/(1+z)$ of $-0.054$. The effect this has on the $\zphot
2386: \lesssim 0.8$ number densities is strong, and is dominated by the
2387: shifting of many of the galaxies from the $0.6 \lesssim \zphot
2388: \lesssim 0.8$ bin down into the $0.2 \lesssim zphot \lesssim 0.6$ bin.
2389: The net effect of this change on our final results is considerably
2390: less, however: using these redshifts, we find $\ptot = -0.58$
2391: and $\pfrac = -1.11$; changes of $-0.06$ and $-0.05$ with
2392: respect to our fiducial results.
2393:
2394: {\em Emulating hyperz with empirical templates}---As a final test for
2395: this section, we have also repeated our photometric redshift analysis
2396: emulating the popular hyperz \citep{hyperz} code in its default
2397: configuration; that is, $\chi^2$ minimization between the observed
2398: photometry and synthetic photometry using four \citet{cww} empirical
2399: template spectra, and making no allowance for dust extinction beyond
2400: what is included in the empirical spectra. Using the spectroscopic
2401: redshift sample shown in Figure \ref{fig:specz}, we find $\sigma_z =
2402: 0.060$, and again a substantial systematic offset: $\Delta z/(1+z)$ =
2403: $-0.051$.
2404:
2405: One very striking consequence of using so few template spectra is a
2406: very pronounced biasing of galaxy restframe colors, corresponding to
2407: the colors of the template spectra themselves (see Figure
2408: \ref{fig:photzplots}). This of course has a very strong effect on our
2409: stellar mass estimates. For this reason, it is critical when relying
2410: on photometric redshifts to derive restframe properties to use a
2411: template basis set that spans the full range of galaxy colors.
2412:
2413: \subsubsection{Variations in our Default Photometric Redshift Calculation} \label{ch:zdissect}
2414: % ____________________________________________________________________
2415:
2416: {\em Adopting the best fit redshift}---By default, EAZY assigns each
2417: object a redshift by taking a probability weighted integral over the
2418: full redshift grid. However, it also outputs the single most likely
2419: redshift, determined by $\chi^2$ minimization. For these redshifts,
2420: we find $\sigma_z = 0.035$, and $f_{0.1} = 14.7$ \%. For $1 < \zspec
2421: < 2$, however, we find $\sigma_z = 0.086$. We also see evidence for
2422: rather strong systematic effects in the photometric redshifts, such
2423: that there are preferred photometric redshift solutions, for example
2424: at $\zphot \sim 0.8$ and $1.2$ (see Figure \ref{fig:photzplots}),
2425: corresponding to the points where the optical breaks fall between the
2426: observed filters. With these redshifts, the values of $\ptot$,
2427: $\pred$, and $\pfrac$ change by $-0.11$, $-0.05$, and $-0.14$,
2428: respectively.
2429:
2430: {\em No Luminosity Prior}---Our default analysis makes use of a
2431: Bayesian $K$ band luminosity prior. If we do not include this
2432: feature, we find $\sigma_z = 0.038$ and $f_{0.1} = 13.5$ \%. The best
2433: fit values of $\ptot$, $\pred$, and $\pfrac$ change by $-0.11$,
2434: $-0.38$, and $-0.54$, respectively. These changes are large; however,
2435: we note that these results are not internally consistent, in that it
2436: is not true that $\pfrac \approx \pred / \ptot$. Further, these
2437: results are not consistent with the test we describe in
2438: \textsection\ref{ch:obcol}.
2439:
2440: {\em No Template Error Function}---A novel feature of the EAZY code is
2441: the inclusion of a template error function; \ie\ a systematic error,
2442: as a function of restrame wavelength, designed to down-weight those
2443: parts of the spectra like the restframe near-UV where galaxies show an
2444: greater intrinsic variation. If we do not include this feature, we
2445: find $\sigma_z = 0.034$, and $f_{0.1} = 15.3$ \%; the best fit values
2446: of $\ptot$, $\pfrac$, and $\pfrac$ change by $-0.04$, $-0.14$, and
2447: $-0.13$, respectively.
2448:
2449: {\em Two Template Combination}---By default, we allow non-negative
2450: combinations of all six EAZY templates when fitting to the observed
2451: SEDs to determine the redshift. If we instead allow combinations of
2452: only two (but any two) of the template spectra, we find $\sigma_z =
2453: 0.038$ and $f_{0.1} = 14.4$ \%. The fit values of $\ptot$ and $\pfrac$
2454: change by +0.02 and $-0.02$, respectively.
2455:
2456: {\em `Best Effort' Photometric Redshifts}---It is well known that the
2457: WFI $U$ filter suffers from a red leak beyond 8000 \AA . We find that
2458: we get our best $\zphot$--$\zspec$ agreement if we ignore the $U$ band
2459: photometry in the computation of photometric redshifts. For the
2460: spectroscopic sample shown in Figures \ref{fig:specz} and
2461: \ref{fig:derived}, we find $\sigma_z = 0.035$ and $f_{0.1} = 12.0$ \%;
2462: this translates into an uncertainty in the stellar mass estimates due
2463: to redshift uncertainties of just 0.1 dex. This only modest
2464: improvement in our photometric redshift estimates changes the fit
2465: values of $\ptot$ and $\pfrac$ change by $-0.01$ and $+0.05$,
2466: respectively.
2467:
2468: \vspace{0.2cm}
2469:
2470: These tests show that our results do depend rather sensitively on the
2471: details of the photometric redshift calculation, typically at the
2472: level of $\Delta\gamma \lesssim$ 0.15. In particular, the inclusion
2473: of a luminosity prior is crucial in shaping our results. However, we
2474: note that in most cases there are objective reasons to favor our
2475: default redshifts and/or results. Similarly, the use of different
2476: template sets changes our results at the level of $\Delta\gamma
2477: \approx 0.06$. The effect of minor refinements to our photometric
2478: redshift calculation (two template combination versus unrestricted;
2479: the inclusion/omission of the $U$ band data) is small: $\Delta\gamma
2480: \lesssim 0.05$. Note that, in any case, changing the photometric
2481: redshift calculation cannot change our qualitative results: a gradual
2482: increase in the red galaxy fraction with time.
2483:
2484: % ____________________________________________________________________
2485:
2486: %\subsubsection{Photometric Redshifts --- Summary}
2487: % ____________________________________________________________________
2488:
2489: %In the first part of this section, we showed how the accuracy of our
2490: %photometric redshift determinations improves from $\Delta z / (1+z)
2491: %\approx 0.1$ to $\lesssim 0.05$ with a more sophisticated calculation.
2492: %However, in the second part, we showed that the choice of template set
2493: %also matters: $\Delta z / (1+z)$ using the \citet{RudnickEtAl}
2494: %template set is 0.084. While our results are not qualitatively
2495: %changed with changes in the photometric redshift calculation, the
2496: %different systematics that arise with different algorithms and
2497: %template choices are actually what produce the largest variations in
2498: %$\pfrac$ that we will see. Further, we stress that is each of the
2499: %cases considered in \textsection\ref{ch:zdissect}, there are good
2500: %reasons to prefer our default redshift calculation, based on the
2501: %$\zphot$--$\zspec$ plot.
2502:
2503: %We have also investigated several ways of improving our redshift
2504: %accuracy, and demonstrated that these do not significantly affect our
2505: %results: whether using our `best effort' $\zphot$s ($\Delta z/(1+z) =
2506: %0.043$), incorporating $\zphot \lesssim 0.8$ redshifts from COMBO-17
2507: %($\Delta z/(1+z)$ = 0.035), or including spectroscopic redshifts for
2508: %roughly 20 \% of the sample, our results do not change by more than a
2509: %few percent. Furthermore, the results in Figures \ref{fig:hists} and
2510: %\ref{fig:redseq} do not change significantly: the observed existence
2511: %and evolution of the red sequence population as a whole does not
2512: %change.
2513:
2514: % ____________________________________________________________________
2515:
2516: \input{tab3.tex}
2517: % ____________________________________________________________________
2518:
2519: % ____________________________________________________________________
2520:
2521: \subsection{Stellar Mass Estimates} \label{ch:masses}
2522:
2523: We have relied on a rather simple method for estimating stellar
2524: mass--to--light ratios, based on restframe ($B-V$) colors. Certainly
2525: this method does not make use of the full amount of information
2526: available in the full, ten-band SED; on the other hand, it does ensure
2527: that the same information is used for all galaxies, irrespective of
2528: redshift.
2529:
2530: Nevertheless, we have trialed reanalyzing our data using standard
2531: population synthesis SED fitting techniques to estimate stellar masses
2532: for our main sample, in order to assess the potential scale of biases
2533: arising from this aspect of our experimental design. Specifically, we
2534: have fit \citet{BruzualCharlot} synthetic spectra to the observed
2535: photometry, with redshifts fixed to the fiducial $\zphot$, using the
2536: hyperzspec utility, which is a part of the hyperz v1.2 release package
2537: (M Bolzonella, priv.\ comm.).
2538:
2539: While the random scatter in comparison to the color-derived stellar
2540: mass estimates is 0.18 dex, after correcting for IMF, cosmology, etc.,
2541: the SED--fit masses are systematically lower by 0.3 dex. This is also
2542: true for both the FIREWORKS \citep{WuytsEtAl} or GOODS-MUSIC
2543: \citep{GrazianEtAl} catalogs of the CDFS-GOODS data. Besides this
2544: offset, we do not see evidence for strong evolution in the
2545: normalization of the color relation in comparison to the SED fit
2546: masses \citep[but see][]{LinEtAl}. Since we have not been able to
2547: identify the source of this offset, we have simply corrected for it.
2548: Note, however, that we have not refit the $z \approx 0$ SEDs for this
2549: test.
2550:
2551: Using these SED--fit stellar masses, we find $\ptot = -0.49$ $\pred =
2552: -1.62$, and $\pfrac = -1.11$. These represent differences of just
2553: +0.03, $-0.02$, and $-0.05$ with respect to our fiducial values.
2554: Similarly, using the prescription for $M/L$ as a function of $(B-V)$
2555: from \citet{Bell2003} rather than that from \citet{BellDeJong}, we
2556: find $\ptot = -0.41$, $\pred = -1.55$, and $\pfrac = -1.12$; changes
2557: of +0.11, +0.05, and $-0.06$, respectively.
2558:
2559: This suggests that our results are not grossly effected by our choice
2560: of method for estimating stellar masses, and especially not by the use
2561: of color-- as opposed to SED--derived stellar masses.
2562:
2563: %\vspace{0.2cm}
2564:
2565: %The particular color relation we have used was derived for $z \approx
2566: %0$ galaxies, based on the combination of optical and NIR data, and
2567: %assuming a particular star formation history; it is not immediately
2568: %obvious that this relation should be universally applicable. Indeed,
2569: %since single age tracks do not in general follow this relation, the
2570: %relation is expected to evolve --- in rough terms, the relation might
2571: %evolve in normalization, slope, and scatter.
2572:
2573: %To first order, a change in the normalization of the color relation
2574: %(\ie , a simple scaling of $M_*/L$ for all galaxies) would have the
2575: %same effect as a change in the IMF. For a truly universal IMF, the
2576: %simplest way to accommodate a different IMF choice is to scale our
2577: %limiting mass; for example, adopting a \citet{Kroupa2001} IMF in place
2578: %of our default `diet Salpeter' IMF would shift our mass limit to
2579: %$10^{11.05}$ M\sun , but otherwise leave our results unchanged.
2580: %Similarly, an evolving IMF, like a redshift dependence of the color
2581: %relation normalization, would effectively scale our mass limit as a
2582: %function of redshift. The evolution in the normalization of the color
2583: %relation required to match our $1.1 < \zphot < 1.25$ measurements to
2584: %the $z \approx 0$ point---\ie\ to make our results consistent with no
2585: %evolution---is approximately +0.23 dex. Assuming evolution of the
2586: %same magnitude but in the opposite direction, our measured number
2587: %density for $1.1 < \zphot < 1.25$ would drop from 60 \% to 25 \% of
2588: %the $z \approx 0$ value.
2589:
2590: %One can think about changes in the slope, shape, or scatter of the
2591: %color relation in the same terms. Any discrepancies between the
2592: %relation we use (Equation \ref{eq:bellmass}) and the true relation
2593: %would manifest itself as a difference in the IMF as a function of
2594: %restframe color; conversely, it would be possible to account for a
2595: %color--dependent IMF by adjusting the coefficients in Equation
2596: %\ref{eq:bellmass}. It is not trivial, however, to accommodate such a
2597: %change in our results as presented, but is worth noting in this
2598: %context that the above comparison with BC03 masses is at least
2599: %consistent with little or no evolution in the slope or shape of the
2600: %color relation.
2601:
2602: % ____________________________________________________________________
2603:
2604: \subsection{Other Potential Systematic Effects} \label{ch:others}
2605: % ____________________________________________________________________
2606:
2607: {\em Large Scale Structure and Field--to--Field Variance}---One
2608: interesting test of the effect of field--to--field variance is to
2609: restrict our attention only to the MUSYC ECDFS coverage of the
2610: GOODS-CDFS region. For this 143 $\square$' sub-field, we find $\ptot
2611: = -0.62$, $\pred = -1.37$, and $\pfrac = -1.00$, differences of
2612: --0.10, +0.23, and +0.06 with respect to the full 816 $\square$'
2613: ECDFS. In comparison to the full ECDFS, the dearth of galaxies at
2614: $\zphot \sim 0.8$ is even more pronounced, and seems to extend over
2615: the range $0.8 < \zphot < 1.2$; this appears to be the main driver of
2616: the strong change in $\pred$. Conversely, if we exclude the
2617: significantly underdense GOODS area, we find $\ptot = -0.49$,
2618: $\pred = -1.60$, and $\pfrac = -1.10$; differences of
2619: $+0.03$, $-0.00$, and $-0.04$, respectively. Again, this analysis
2620: underscores the fact that measurements of the red fraction are more
2621: robust against the effects of large scale structure than those of the
2622: number densities themselves.
2623:
2624: {\em The $z \approx 0$ value}---In \textsection\ref{ch:z=0impact}, we
2625: have shown that the $z \approx 0$ comparison point is critical in
2626: providing most of the signal for $z \gg 0$ evolution in the massive
2627: galaxy population. We have also considered our results vary if we
2628: change the way we treat the $z \approx 0$ point. In our default
2629: analysis, we constrain the fits so that they pass through the $z
2630: \approx 0$ points, effectively using the $z \approx 0$ point to
2631: normalize the high--redshift measurements. Since the (Poisson
2632: statistical) errors on the $z \approx 0$ points are just a few
2633: percent, our results do not change significantly if we include the $z
2634: \approx 0$ points in the fits.
2635:
2636: For our default analysis, we have approximately accounted for the
2637: effect of photometric redshift errors, as they apply to the $z \gg 0$
2638: sample, on the $z \approx 0$ measurements; we have done this by
2639: randomly perturbing the masses and colors of $z \approx 0$ galaxies
2640: using the typical uncertainties for $z \gg 0$ galaxies, due to the use
2641: of photometric redshifts, and given in Figure \ref{fig:derived}.
2642: Systematic and random errors in the number densities both of all and
2643: of red galaxies are on the order of 5 \%. If we do not account for
2644: the Eddington bias in this way, we find that $\ptot = -0.46$ and
2645: $\pfrac = -1.16$, changes of 0.06 and -0.10, respectively.
2646:
2647: {\em Correcting for Galactic Dust Extinction}---Note that we have not
2648: included specific corrections for Galactic foreground dust extinction.
2649: The CDFS was specifically chosen for its very low Galactic gas and
2650: dust column density; the suggested corrections for the optical bands
2651: are $\lesssim 0.05$ mag. These corrections are typically as large or
2652: larger than the uncertainties on the photometric zeropoints
2653: themselves; it is for this reason that we have chosen not to apply
2654: these corrections. If we were to include these corrections, however,
2655: our derived values of $\ptot$ and $\pfrac$ change by $-0.03$ and
2656: $+0.04$, respectively.
2657:
2658: {\em Including Spectroscopic Redshift Determinations}---From among the
2659: thousands of spectroscopic redshift determinations that are publicly
2660: available in the ECDFS, we have robust $\zspec$s for just over 20 \%
2661: (1669/7840) of galaxies in our main sample, and for 20 \% (269/1297)
2662: of those with $0.2 < \zphot < 2.0$ and $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun .
2663: Repeating our analysis with this additional information included, our
2664: results do not change significantly: we find $\ptot = -0.50$
2665: and $\pred = -1.70$, differences of just +0.02 and +0.00,
2666: respectively. Similarly, we show in Appendix \ref{ch:combo} that our
2667: $z \lesssim 0.8$ results do not change by more than a few percent if
2668: we adopt photometric redshifts from COMBO-17 (Wolf et al. 2004;
2669: $\sigma_z = 0.035$).
2670:
2671: {\em Excluding X-ray--Selected Galaxies}---Note that we have made no
2672: attempt to exclude Type I AGN or QSOs from our analysis. In order to
2673: discover how significant an omission this is, we have repeated our
2674: analysis excluding all those objects appearing in the X-ray selected
2675: catalogs of \citet{Xray} and \citet{TreisterEtAl}. This excludes
2676: 3.2 \% (250/7840) of galaxies from our main sample, and 6.5 \%
2677: (96/1482) from our $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ sample. Given these
2678: numbers, it is perhaps unsurprising that the exclusion of these
2679: objects does not greatly affect our results: $\ptot$ and $\pfrac$
2680: change by $-0.07$ and $+0.03$, respectively.
2681:
2682: \subsection{Quantifying Potential Systematic Errors --- Summary} \label{ch:systematics}
2683:
2684: How, and how much, do our results depend on our analytical methods and
2685: experimental design? We have now described a rather large number of
2686: sensitivity tests, designed both to identify which aspects of our
2687: experimental design are crucial in determining our results, as well as
2688: to estimate the size of lingering systematic errors in our results.
2689: The results of many of these tests are summarized in Table
2690: \ref{tab:sens}. Clearly, these sorts of tests can provide a
2691: staggering array of `metadata', offering insights to guide not only
2692: the interpretation of the present data and results, but also the
2693: design of future experiments.
2694:
2695: As we have shown in \textsection\ref{ch:z=0impact}, the systematic
2696: uncertainties in the $\gamma$s due to discrepancies between the
2697: treatment of $z\approx0$ and $z \gg 0$ galaxies is on the order of
2698: $\pm 0.2$; this is the single greatest potential source of systematic
2699: uncertainty. Since we have treated these two samples in a uniform
2700: manner, we do not consider this as a lingering source of systematic
2701: uncertainty.
2702:
2703: The dominant sources of systematic uncertainty are, in order of
2704: importance: the method of deriving photometric redshifts ($\Delta
2705: \ptot \approx 0.15$, $\Delta \pfrac \approx 0.15$); photometric
2706: calibration errors ($\Delta \ptot \approx 0.05$; $\Delta \pfrac
2707: \approx 0.10$); incompleteness ($\Delta \ptot \approx 0.1$, $\Delta
2708: \pfrac \approx 0$); the choice of photometric redshift template set
2709: ($\Delta \ptot \approx 0.06$; $\Delta \pfrac \approx 0.06$);
2710: photometric methods ($\Delta \ptot \approx 0.07$; $\Delta \pfrac
2711: \approx 0$); and stellar mass estimates ($\Delta \ptot \approx 0.05$;
2712: $\Delta \pfrac \approx 0.05$). We can also, for example, dismiss
2713: incompleteness due to our $K$ S:N criterion, contamination of the
2714: sample by QSOs, and minor details of our photometric redshift
2715: calculation as significant sources of systematic uncertainty.
2716:
2717: In summary, we estimate the systematic errors on the measured values
2718: to be $\Delta \ptot = 0.21$ and $\Delta \pfrac = 0.20$; these values
2719: have been obtained by adding the dominant sources of systematic error
2720: in quadrature. We note that previous studies have not generally taken
2721: (all) sources of systematic error into account in their analysis.
2722:
2723: % _____________________________________________________________________
2724: % _____________________________________________________________________
2725:
2726: \section{A Final Independent Consistency Check: \\
2727: Quantifying the Evolution of \\
2728: Bright, Red Galaxies Without Redshifts} \label{ch:obcol}
2729: % _____________________________________________________________________
2730: % _____________________________________________________________________
2731:
2732: Our goal in this paper has been to quantify the growth of massive
2733: galaxies in general, and of massive red galaxies in particular, over
2734: the past 10 Gyr, or since $z \sim 2$. We have now seen---not
2735: completely unexpectedly---that the use of photometric redshifts is
2736: potentially a major source of systematic error in such measurements.
2737: For this reason, in this section we present a complementary and
2738: completely independent measurement which does not rely on redshift
2739: information {\em at all}.
2740:
2741: % _____________________________________________________________________
2742:
2743: \subsection{Selecting Red Galaxies in Redshift Intervals}
2744: \label{ch:bctracks}
2745:
2746: % _____________________________________________________________________
2747:
2748: Figure \ref{fig:bctracks} shows evolutionary tracks for a passively
2749: evolving stellar population, in terms of observed colors in the MUSYC
2750: ECDFS bands. Specifically, we have used P\'egase V2.0 \citep{pegase}
2751: models with a short star formation episode ($e$-folding timescale of
2752: 100 Myr), beginning with $Z = 0.004$ at $\zform = 5$, and ending with
2753: $Z \approx$ Z\sun . This (approximately) maximally old model
2754: describes a `red envelope' for the colour--redshift relation for
2755: observed galaxies: at a given redshift only extreme dust extinction
2756: can produce observed colors redder than these tracks.
2757:
2758: % _____________________________________________________________________
2759:
2760: \begin{figure}[t]
2761: \centering \includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{f13.eps}
2762: \caption{Evolutionary tracks, in terms of observed colors, for a
2763: passively evolving stellar population --- Each track is for a
2764: synthetic P\'egase V2.0 \citep{pegase} stellar population that
2765: evolves passively from $\zform = 5$; each of these tracks describe
2766: an approximate `red envelope' for the true $z \lesssim 2$
2767: color--redshift distribution. The sharp rise in each track is
2768: due to the Balmer and/or 4000 \AA\ breaks becoming redshifted
2769: between the two observed filters. The shaded regions show where
2770: each of the four observed color criteria given will select red
2771: galaxies ; taken together, they therefore provide a means for
2772: selecting passive galaxies in rough redshift bins (see also
2773: \textsection\ref{ch:bcselect}).
2774: \label{fig:bctracks} }
2775: \end{figure}
2776: % _____________________________________________________________________
2777:
2778: As is evident in this figure, as the Balmer and/or 4000 \AA\ breaks
2779: are first redshifted between the observed bands, there is a sharp rise
2780: in the observed colour --- by selecting objects that are very red in a
2781: certain colour, it is thus possible to select galaxies that lie beyond
2782: a certain redshift. This is completely analogous to the ERO
2783: \citep[and references therein]{McCarthy} or DRG \citep{FranxEtAl}
2784: selection criteria for red galaxies at moderate--to--high redshifts.
2785: The particular selections we have adopted in Figure \ref{fig:bctracks}
2786: (and given in Col.\ 1 of Table \ref{tab:colresults}) translate to
2787: minimum redshifts of approximately 0.16, 0.40, 0.66, 1.12, and 2.05.
2788:
2789: By applying several of these colour criteria in concert, with the
2790: reddest criteria given primacy, it is then possible to select red
2791: galaxies in rough redshift intervals: the highest redshift galaxies
2792: are selected by the criterion $(J - K) > 1.4$; then, the next highest
2793: redshift galaxies are then selected from the remaining set (\ie\
2794: $(J-K) < 1.4$) by the criterion $(I - J) > 1.4$, and so on. In the
2795: current context, this can be thought of as a two-colour, binned
2796: photometric redshift.
2797:
2798: The prevalence of objects selected in this way are given in Col.\ 4 of
2799: Table \ref{tab:colresults}. To our limit of $K < 22$, we find 386,
2800: 655, 690, 304, and 286 objects selected by this tiered set of colour
2801: criteria.
2802:
2803: % _____________________________________________________________________
2804:
2805: \begin{table}[t]
2806: \caption{Quantifying the evolution of bright, red galaxies without
2807: redshifts \label{tab:colresults}}
2808: \begin{center}
2809: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c r }
2810: \hline
2811: \hline
2812: Color Criterion &
2813: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Redshift} &
2814: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Prevalence} \\
2815: & $z_{\mathrm{low}}$ &
2816: $\left<z\right>$ & Observed & Expected & Relative \\
2817: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) \\
2818: \hline
2819: &&&&\\
2820: $B - R > 1.6$ & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.47 / $\square$'' & 0.76 / $\square$'' & 62 \% \\
2821: $V - I > 2.0$ & 0.4 & 0.6 & 0.80 / $\square$'' & 1.80 / $\square$'' & 45 \% \\
2822: $R - z > 1.5$ & 0.6 & 0.9 & 0.84 / $\square$'' & 1.94 / $\square$'' & 43 \% \\
2823: $I - J > 1.4$ & 1.1 & 1.4 & 0.37 / $\square$'' & 1.29 / $\square$'' & 29 \% \\
2824: $J - K > 1.4$ & 2.0 & 2.6 & 0.35 / $\square$'' & 1.55 / $\square$'' & 23 \% \\
2825: &&&&\\
2826: \hline
2827: \hline
2828: \end{tabular}
2829: \end{center}
2830: \tablecomments{We have used a tiered set of color selection criteria
2831: (Col.\ 1) to select red galaxies in approximate redshift intervals.
2832: Here, it is understood that redder criteria are given primacy; for
2833: example, objects counted in the second row may or may not satisfy
2834: the first criterion, but do not satisfy any of the three subsequent
2835: criteria. We give the minimum and mean redshifts of color-selected
2836: galaxies from the synthetic, `passive evolution' catalog in Col.s
2837: (2) and (3), respectively. The observed prevalence of
2838: color-selected objects in the MUSYC ECDFS catalog are given in
2839: Col.\ (4); Col.\ (5) gives the same quantity for the synthetic
2840: catalog. The ratio of the two is given in Col.\ (6), which gives
2841: an estimate of the relative number of (potentially) passively
2842: evolving galaxies at different redshifts.} \end{table}
2843: % _____________________________________________________________________
2844: % _____________________________________________________________________
2845:
2846: \subsection{Interpreting the Numbers of Colour Selected Galaxies}
2847: \label{ch:bcselect}
2848:
2849: % _____________________________________________________________________
2850:
2851: %The reader should immediately recognize that these colour criteria
2852: %will not necessarily select the same kinds of objects. Indeed, a
2853: %single colour criterion will select different kinds of galaxies at
2854: %different redshifts across the interval. For example, notice from
2855: %Figure \ref{fig:bctracks} that a galaxy at redshift 0.3 with a B -- R
2856: %color that is 0.5 mag bluer than the passive track can still satisfy
2857: %the B -- R selection criterion, whereas the same galaxy would not be
2858: %selected at redshift 0.2 or below. Further, independent of the
2859: %particular colour criterion, the apparent magnitude limit translates
2860: %to progressively greater intrinsic brightnesses along the redshift
2861: %interval. The faintest galaxies picked up at the near side of the
2862: %redshift interval would therefore be missed at higher redshift. And,
2863: %at the same time, the luminosity function is itself evolving.
2864:
2865: %Thus, the details of the evolving, bi-variate colour--luminosity
2866: %distribution are folded into the numbers of galaxies that will satisfy
2867: %a given colour selection criterion. For this reason (and others) we
2868: %are forced to interpret the relative numbers of galaxies selected by
2869: %different colour criteria with reference to a particular model for the
2870: %evolution of red galaxies.
2871:
2872: It is clear that the exact redshift range over which a galaxy might
2873: satisfy a given color criterion depends on that galaxy's SED: as well
2874: as passively evolving galaxies, these selections will also include
2875: galaxies whose red observed colors are due to, \eg , dust obscuration
2876: or considerably higher redshifts. Thus, the details of the evolving,
2877: bivariate color--magnitude distribution is folded into the numbers of
2878: color-selected galaxies. For this reason, we are forced to interpret
2879: the numbers of color-selected galaxies with reference to a particular
2880: model for the evolution of red galaxies.
2881:
2882: This is done as follows: we construct a mock catalog in which
2883: galaxies' luminosities are distributed according to the $z \approx 0$
2884: luminosity function for red galaxies, which we have determined from
2885: the low-z sample, as analyzed in Appendix \ref{ch:z=0}. This
2886: luminosity function is nearly identical to that of
2887: \citet{BlantonEtAl-lf}; our results do not change significantly
2888: adopting the red galaxy luminosity functions from either
2889: \citet{Bell2003} or \citet{ColeEtAl}. Galaxies are placed randomly
2890: (\ie\ uniform comoving density) in the volume $z < 5$. Next, we
2891: generate synthetic photometry for each object in the catalog using
2892: the set of P\'egase V2.0 \citep{pegase} models shown in Figure
2893: \ref{fig:bctracks}, which are essentially passively evolving from
2894: $\zform = 5$. We also include typical errors for the MUSYC ECDFS
2895: catalog, to approximately account for photometric scatter. Finally,
2896: we apply our colour selection criteria to this catalog, exactly as
2897: for the observed ECDFS catalog. The predicted prevalence of colour
2898: selected galaxies, to be compared to those observed, are given in the
2899: Col.\ 5 of Table \ref{tab:colresults}.
2900:
2901: %\vspace{0.2cm}
2902:
2903: %There is one remaining issue complicating our interpretation of these
2904: %results, and that is the degree of correspondence between the observed
2905: %and synthetic samples; that is, the extent to which the selected `red'
2906: %galaxies are truly passive. With this question in mind, we return to
2907: %the point that galaxies considerably bluer than the passive track will
2908: %satisfy our colour criteria at higher redshifts: as samples of
2909: %passively evolving galaxies, these colour selected samples are likely
2910: %to be significantly `contaminated' by objects whose red colors are
2911: %due something other than an intrinsically old stellar population. In
2912: %other words, while all passive galaxies are red, not all red galaxies
2913: %are passive.
2914:
2915: %\vspace{0.2cm}
2916:
2917: Whereas all red galaxies are assumed to evolve passively in the
2918: synthetic reference catalog, the real color selected samples will
2919: include dusty or high--redshift star--forming galaxies: while all
2920: passive galaxies are red, not all red galaxies are passive. As we
2921: argue in \textsection\ref{ch:redsel}, the number of color selected
2922: galaxies can therefore be used to place an upper limit on the number
2923: of passively evolving galaxies, since these color criteria should
2924: select a complete but contaminated sample of genuinely passive
2925: galaxies.
2926:
2927: The results presented in Table \ref{tab:colresults} thus suggest that
2928: the number density of bright, passively evolving galaxies has
2929: increased by a factor of at least $\sim 2$ since $z \sim 1$.
2930: Moreover, we find that the number density of passive galaxies in the
2931: range $1 \lesssim z \lesssim 2$ is at most $\sim$ 25 \% of the present
2932: day value. Taken at face value, this would suggest that at most 1/4
2933: present day red sequence galaxies can have evolved passively from $z
2934: \sim 2$; the remainder were still forming, whether through star
2935: formation or by the hierarchical assembly of undetected, and thus
2936: fainter, subunits, or some combination of the two.
2937:
2938: Finally, we emphasize the essential simplicity of this analysis, and
2939: thus its suitability for comparisons between different datasets, which
2940: may use different strategies for the computation of photometric
2941: redshifts, restframe colors, stellar masses, and so on.
2942:
2943: \subsection{Tying it all Together}
2944:
2945: Our final task is to compare the results of this section with those in
2946: \textsection\ref{ch:growth}; we do this in Figure \ref{fig:obcols}.
2947: In this plot, the abscissa is the effective wavelength of the bluer of
2948: the two filters used in each color criterion; the ordinate is the
2949: number of color selected galaxies observed in the MUSYC ECDFS
2950: catalog, relative to the expectation for passive evolution. The
2951: yellow squares refer to the $\zform = 5$ model shown in Figure
2952: \ref{fig:bctracks} and presented in Table \ref{tab:colresults}. The
2953: blue triangles and red pentagons show how these results would vary had
2954: we assumed $\zform = 4$ and $\zform = 6$, respectively.
2955:
2956: The specific redshift range that is selected by each color criterion
2957: depends on the particular tracks used. For a given color criterion,
2958: the mean redshift of selected sources (derived from the synthetic
2959: `passive evolution' catalog) thus varies for different choices of
2960: $\zform$: approximate transformations are given for each scenario at
2961: the top of the Figure.
2962:
2963: Finally, the solid line shows our fit results for the $\zphot \lesssim
2964: 2$ number density evolution of red galaxies, shown in Figure
2965: \ref{fig:evo} . In order to put this curve on this plot, we have used
2966: the mean redshift of (synthetic, passive) color--selected sources
2967: assuming passive evolution from $\zform=5$. Given the very different
2968: assumptions and methods lying behind these two results, the agreement
2969: is very impressive.
2970:
2971: Both analyses clearly indicate that the number of red galaxies at $z
2972: \approx 0.7$ is approximately 50 \% of the present day value; at $z
2973: \approx 1.5$, it is approximately 25 \%. In other words, at most,
2974: approximately 1/2 local red sequence galaxies were already `in place'
2975: by $z \approx 0.7$, and have evolved passively since that time; at $z
2976: \approx 1.5$, at most 1/4 were in place.
2977:
2978: % _____________________________________________________________________
2979:
2980: \begin{figure}[t]
2981: \centering \includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{f14.eps}
2982: \caption{Quantifying the number evolution of bright, red galaxies
2983: without redshifts---The observed numbers of color-selected galaxies,
2984: relative to the number expected for passive evolution, plotted as a
2985: function of the effective wavelength of the bluer filter used in the
2986: selection criterion; the criteria themselves are given in Table
2987: \ref{tab:colresults}. The ordinate in this plot is essentially the
2988: number of galaxies with colors that are consistent with passive
2989: evolution from $\zform$, relative to the number of $z \approx 0$ red
2990: sequence galaxies; we have plotted results assuming $\zform$ = 4
2991: ({\em blue triangles}), 5 ({\em yellow squares}), and 6 ({\em red
2992: pentagons}). The mean redshift of color selected galaxies, as
2993: derived from the synthetic `passive evolution' catalog, does
2994: depend mildly on the choice of evolutionary scenario. The mean
2995: redshift of galaxies selected by each criterion, $\left<z\right>$,
2996: is given separately for each choice of $\zform$ at the top of the
2997: Figure. The minimum redshift is more robust; this is given as
2998: $z_{\mathrm{min}}$. Lastly, the solid line and shaded region show
2999: the fit to the $\zphot \lesssim 2$ evolution in the number density
3000: of massive red galaxies, derived in \textsection\ref{ch:growth} (see
3001: Figure \ref{fig:evo}); the shaded region shows the $1 \sigma$
3002: uncertainty in the fit. (To put this relation on this plot, we have
3003: used the $\zform=5$ catalog to map each color criterion to
3004: $\left<z\right>$.) The agreement between these two very different
3005: calculations is impressive.
3006: \label{fig:obcols} }
3007: \end{figure}
3008: % _____________________________________________________________________
3009:
3010: % _____________________________________________________________________
3011: % _____________________________________________________________________
3012:
3013:
3014: \section{Summary and Conclusions} \label{ch:conc}
3015:
3016: % _____________________________________________________________________
3017: % _____________________________________________________________________
3018:
3019: We have presented the color--magnitude (Figure \ref{fig:cmr}) and
3020: color--stellar mass diagrams (Figure \ref{fig:mstar}) for $z \lesssim
3021: 2$, based on a sample of $K < 22$ galaxies drawn from the MUSYC
3022: catalog of the ECDFS. On the basis of the ten band SEDs, we achieve a
3023: photometric redshift accuracy of $\sigma_z = 0.036$ (Figure
3024: \ref{fig:specz}); this figure represents the current state of the art
3025: for broadband photometric lookback surveys. We have used an empirical
3026: argument to demonstrate that our main galaxy sample is approximately
3027: complete (volume limited) for $M_* > \masslimit$ and $\zphot < 1.8$
3028: (Figure \ref{fig:masslimit}).
3029:
3030: Based on the joint color--stellar mass--redshift distribution of this
3031: mass-selected sample, we make the following conclusions:
3032: \begin{enumerate}
3033: \item The color distribution of the massive galaxy population is well
3034: described by the sum of two separate Gaussian distributions for
3035: $\zphot \lesssim 1.2$ (Figure \ref{fig:hists}). Beyond this
3036: redshift, the depth of our NIR data makes it impossible to identify
3037: distinct red and blue subgroups from within the general massive
3038: galaxy population on the basis of the observed color distribution.
3039: The question as to the existence or otherwise of a $\zphot \gtrsim
3040: 1.5$ red sequence will require data approximately an order of
3041: magnitude deeper than our own (Figure \ref{fig:delur}).
3042:
3043: \item The colors of red sequence galaxies have become progressively
3044: redder by $\sim 0.5$ mag since $\zphot \approx 1.1$ (Figure
3045: \ref{fig:redseq}). Making a linear fit to the observed evolution,
3046: we find $\Delta (u-r) \propto (-0.44 \pm 0.02) ~ \zphot$. Simple
3047: models can only describe the observations assuming sub--solar
3048: metallicities (Figure \ref{fig:redseq2}): it remains a challenge to
3049: consistently describe the observed colors and the mass--metallicity
3050: relation.
3051:
3052: \item While the number density of massive galaxies evolves mildly for
3053: $\zphot \lesssim 2$, we see strong evolution in the red galaxy
3054: fraction. That is, the massive galaxy population appears to be {\em
3055: changing} more than it is {\em growing}. We have quantified this
3056: evolution using parametric fits of the form $(1+z)^{\gamma}$. For
3057: $\zphot < 1.8$, we find $\ptot = -0.52 \pm 0.12 (\pm 0.20)$, $\pred
3058: = -1.60 \pm 0.14 (\pm 0.21)$, and $\pfrac = -1.06 \pm 0.16 (\pm 0.21)$.
3059: \end{enumerate}
3060:
3061: The systematic errors (given in brackets above) have been derived on
3062: the basis of a whole raft of sensitivity analyses, and are due
3063: primarily to photometric calibration errors and systematic effects
3064: arising from the photometric redshift calculation (\textsection
3065: \ref{ch:sens}).
3066:
3067: Finally, in \textsection\ref{ch:obcol}, we showed that these results
3068: are completely consistent with an independent analysis based only on
3069: directly observed quantities; that is, without deriving redshifts,
3070: etc., for individual galaxies.
3071:
3072: \vspace{0.2cm}
3073:
3074: The two major advances in this work are the quantification of the
3075: $\zphot \lesssim 1.2$ color evolution of the red galaxy sequence as a
3076: whole, and the quantification of the $\zphot \lesssim 2$ evolution of
3077: the red fraction among $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies.
3078:
3079: Knowing that the vast majority of $\masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies in the
3080: local universe fall on the red sequence (Figure \ref{fig:hists}), we
3081: can identify our massive galaxy sample as the immediate progenitors of
3082: local red sequence galaxies. Further, by extrapolating the observed
3083: $\zphot < 1.4$ color evolution of the red sequence to higher
3084: redshifts, we can identify our `red' galaxies as those which {\em
3085: potentially} have already found their place on the red sequence: the
3086: high redshift analogues of local red sequence galaxies. However,
3087: simply selecting `red' galaxies may include a significant number of
3088: galaxies whose red colors are due to heavy dust obscuration, we argue
3089: that our red galaxy measurements provide an approximate upper limit on
3090: the number of passive or quiescent galaxies.
3091:
3092: With this assumption, our results suggest that at least 1/2 of all
3093: $M_* \gtrsim \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies joined (or rejoined) the red
3094: sequence only after $z \sim 1$, and that at most 1/5 massive galaxies
3095: have resided on the red sequence since $z \sim 2$. These results
3096: provide new constraints for quenching models, such as quasar and
3097: ``radio mode'' AGN feedback \citep{Croton2006, Cattaneo2006}.
3098: Establishing which of our `red' galaxies are genuinely `red and dead'
3099: offers the opportunity to considerably tighten these constraints.
3100:
3101: \vspace{0.2cm}
3102:
3103: This work was supported through grants by the Nederlandse Organisatie
3104: voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), the Leids Kerkhoven-Bosscha
3105: Fonds (LKBF), and National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER grant AST
3106: 04-49678. We also wish to thank the organizers and participants of
3107: the several workshops hosted by the Lorentz Center, where many aspects
3108: of this work were developed and refined. SW gratefully acknowledges
3109: support from the W M Keck Foundation.
3110:
3111: % _____________________________________________________________________
3112: % _____________________________________________________________________
3113:
3114:
3115: \begin{thebibliography}{199}
3116:
3117: % _____________________________________________________________________
3118: % _____________________________________________________________________
3119:
3120: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Arnouts et al.}{2001}]
3121: {ArnoutsEtAl2001} Arnouts S et al., 2001, A\&A 379, 740
3122:
3123: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Arnouts et al.}{2007}]{Arnouts2007}
3124: Arnouts S et al., 2007, A\&A 476, 137
3125:
3126: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baldry et al.}{2004}]{Baldry2004}
3127: Baldry I K, Glazebrook K, Brinkmann J, Ivezi\'c \u Z, Lupton R H,
3128: Nicol R C, Szalay A S, 2004, ApJ 600, 694
3129:
3130: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baldry et al.}{2006}]{Baldry2006}
3131: Baldry I K, Balough M L, Bower R G, Glazebrook K, Nichol R C,
3132: Bamford S P, Budavari T, 2006, MNRAS 373, 469
3133:
3134: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Balough et al.}{2003}]{BaloughEtAl}
3135: Balough M L, Baldry I K, Nichol R, Miller C, Bower R, Glazebrook K,
3136: 2003, ApJ 615, L101
3137:
3138: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell \& de Jong}{2001}]{BellDeJong}
3139: Bell E F, de Jong R S, 2001, ApJ 550, 212
3140:
3141: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2003}]{Bell2003}
3142: Bell E F, McIntosh D H, Katz N, Weinberg M D, 2003, ApJS 149, 289
3143:
3144: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2004a}]{Bell2004-Morph}
3145: Bell E F et al., 2004, ApJ 600, L11
3146:
3147: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2004b}]{Bell2004}
3148: Bell E F et al., 2004, ApJ 608, 752
3149:
3150: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2007}]{Bell2007}
3151: Bell E F, Zheng X Z, Papovich C, Borch A, Wolf C, Meisenheimer K,
3152: 2007, ApJ (in press)
3153:
3154: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ben\'itez}{2000}]{Benitez} Ben\`itez
3155: N, 2000, ApJ 536, 571
3156:
3157: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bertin \& Arnouts}{1996}]
3158: {BertinArnouts} Bertin E \& Arnouts S, A\&A 117, 393
3159:
3160: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanc et al.}{2008}]{Blanc2008} Blanc
3161: G A et al., 2008, ApJ, submitted
3162:
3163: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton et al.}{2003}]{Blanton2003}
3164: Blanton M R et al., 2003, ApJ 594, 186
3165:
3166: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton et al.}{2005a}]
3167: {Blanton2005Env} Blanton M R, Eisenstein D, Hogg D W, Schlegel B K,
3168: Brinchmann J, 2005, ApJ 629, 143
3169:
3170: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton et al.}{2005b}]
3171: {BlantonEtAl-lowz} Blanton M R, Schlegel D J, Strauss M A, Brinkmann
3172: J, Finkbeiner D, Fukugita M, Gunn J E, Hogg D W, Ivezi\'c \u Z, Knapp
3173: G R, Lupton R H, Munn J A, Schneider D P, Tegmark M, Zehavi I, 2005,
3174: AJ 129, 2562
3175:
3176: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton et al.}{2005c}]
3177: {BlantonEtAl-lf} Blanton M R, Lupton R H, Schlegel D J, Strauss M
3178: A, Brinkmann, Fukugita M, Loveday J, 2005, ApJ 631, 208
3179:
3180: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton \& Roweis}{2007}]
3181: {Blanton-kcorrect} Blanton M R \& Roweis S, 2007, ApJ 133, 734
3182:
3183: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bolzonella, Miralles \& Pello}{2000}]
3184: {hyperz} Bolzonella M, Miralles J-M \& Pell\'o R, 2000, A\&A 363,
3185: 476
3186:
3187: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Borch et al.}{2006}]{BorchEtAl} Borch
3188: A, Meisenheimer K, Bell E F, Rix H-W, Wolf C, Dye S, Kleinheinrich
3189: M, Kovacs Z, Wisotzki L, 2006, A\&A 453, 869
3190:
3191: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brammer et al.}{2008}]{eazy}
3192: Brammer G B, Van Dokkum P G, Coppi P, 2008, submitted
3193:
3194: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brinchmann et al.}{2004}]
3195: {BrinchmannEtAl} Brinchmann J, Charlot S, White S D M, Tremonti C,
3196: Kauffmann G, Heckman T, 2004, MNRAS 351, 1151
3197:
3198: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brown et al.}{2007}]{BrownEtAl} Brown
3199: M J I, Dey A, Jannuzi B T, Brand K, Benson A J, Brodwin M, Croton D
3200: J, Eisenhardt P R, 2007, ApJ 164, 858
3201:
3202: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brown et al.}{2008}]{BrownEtAl2008}
3203: Brown M J I, Zheng Z, White M, Dey A, Jannuzi B T, Benson A J, Brand
3204: K, Brodwin M, Croton D J
3205:
3206: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bruzual \& Charlot}{2003}]
3207: {BruzualCharlot} Bruzual G, Charlot S, 2003, MNRAS 344, 1000
3208:
3209: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bruzual}{2008}]
3210: {Bruzual} Bruzual G A, 2008, astro-ph/0703052 (v2)
3211:
3212: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bundy et al.}{2006}] {Bundy2006}
3213: Bundy K et al., 2006, ApJ 651, 120
3214:
3215: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cattaneo et al}{2006}]{Cattaneo2006}
3216: Cattaneo A, Dekel A, Devriendt J, Guiderdoni B, Blaizot J, 2006,
3217: 370, 1651
3218:
3219: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cattaneo et al}{2008}]{CattaneoEtAl}
3220: Cattaneo A, Dekel A, Faber S M, Guiderdoni B, 2008, MNRAS
3221: (submitted), arXiv:0801.1673
3222:
3223: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cimatti et al.}{2002}]{K20} Cimatti
3224: A, Mignoli M, Daddi E, Pozzetti L, Fontana A, Saracco P, Poli F,
3225: Renzini A, Zamorani G, Broadhurst T, Cristiani S, D'Odorico S,
3226: Giallongo E, Gilmozzi R, Menci N, 2002, A\& A 392, 395
3227:
3228: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cirasuolo et al.}{2007}]
3229: {CirasuoloEtAl} Cirasuolo M, McLure R J, Dunlop J S, Almaini O,
3230: Foucaud S, Smail I, Sekiguchi K, Simpson C, Eales S, Dye S, Watson M
3231: G, Page M J, Hist P, 2007, MNRAS 380, 585
3232:
3233: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cole et al.}{2001}]{ColeEtAl}
3234: Cole S et al., 2001, MNRAS 326, 255
3235:
3236: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Coleman, Wu \& Weedman}{1980}]{cww}
3237: Coleman G D, Wu C C, Weedman D W, 1980, ApJS 43, 393
3238:
3239: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Connolly et al.}{1997}]
3240: {ConnollyEtAl1998} Connolly A J, Szalay A S, Dickinson M,Subbarao M U,
3241: Brunner R J, 1997, ApJ 486, L11
3242:
3243: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Conselice et al.}{2007}]
3244: {ConseliceEtAl} Conselice C J, Bundy K, Trujillo I, Coil A,
3245: Eisenhardy P, Ellis R S, Georgakakis A, Huang J, Lotz J, Nandra K,
3246: Newman J, Papovich C, Weiner B, Willmer C, 2007, MNRAS 381, 962
3247:
3248: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cooper et al.}{2007}]{CooperEtAl}
3249: Cooper M J et al., 2007, MNRAS 376, 1445
3250:
3251: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cowie \& Barger}{2008}] {CowieBarger}
3252: % Cowie L L, Barger A J, 2008, ApJ (accepted), arXiv:0806.3457v1
3253:
3254: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Croton et al.}{2006}] {Croton2006}
3255: Croton D J, Springel V, White S D M, De Lucia G, Frenk C S, Gao L,
3256: Jenkins A, Kauffmann G, Navarro J F, Yoshida N, 2006, MNRAS 365, 11
3257:
3258: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Daddi et al.}{2005}]{Daddi2005}
3259: Daddi E et al., 2005, ApJ 626, 680
3260:
3261: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Damen et al.}{2008}]{DamenEtAl}
3262: Damen M et al., 2008, ApJ (submitted)
3263:
3264: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dekel \& Birnboim}{2006}]
3265: {DekelBirnboim} Dekel A, Birnboim Y, 2006, MNRAS 368, 2
3266:
3267: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{De Lucia et al.}{2007}]{DeLucia2007}
3268: De Lucia G et al., 2007, MNRAS 374, 809
3269:
3270: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dickinson et al.}{2002}]{DickinsonEtAl}
3271: Dickinson M E, Giavalisco M, et al., 2002, astro-ph/0204213 (v1)
3272:
3273: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Driver et al.}{2006}]{Driver2006}
3274: Driver S P, Allen P D, Graham A W, Cameron E, Liske J, Ellis S C,
3275: Cross N J G, De Propris R, Phillipps S, Couch W J, 2006, MNRAS 368,
3276: 414
3277:
3278: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Drory}{2004}]{Drory2004} Drory N et
3279: al., 2004, ApJ 608, 742
3280:
3281: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ellis et al.}{2005}]{Ellis2005} Ellis
3282: S C, Driver S P, Allen S D, Liske J, Bland-Hawthorn J, De Propris R,
3283: 2005, MNRAS 363, 1257
3284:
3285: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Erben et al.}{2005}]{ErbenEtAl} Erben
3286: T et al., 2005, AN 326, 432
3287:
3288: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Faber et al.}{2007}]{Faber2007} Faber
3289: S M et al., 2007, ApJ 665, 265
3290:
3291: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fontana et al.}{2004}]{Fontana2004}
3292: Fontana A et al., 2004, A\&A 424, 23
3293:
3294: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fontana et al.}{2006}]{Fontana2006}
3295: Fontana A et al., 2006, A\&A 459, 745
3296:
3297: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{F\" orster-Schreiber et al.}{2006}]
3298: {NFS} F\"orster-Schreiber N M, Franx M, Labb\'e I, Rudnick G,
3299: Van Dokkum P G, Illingworth G D, Kuijken K, Moorwood
3300: A F M, Rix, HW., R\" ottgering H, Van der Werf P, 2006, AJ 131, 1891
3301:
3302: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Franx et al.}{2003}]{FranxEtAl} Franx
3303: M et al., 2003, ApJ 587, L79
3304:
3305: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Franzetti et al.}{2007}]
3306: {FranzettiEtAl} Franzetti P et al., 2007, A\&A, 165, 711
3307:
3308: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gawiser et al.}{2006}] {GawiserEtAl}
3309: Gawiser E et al., 2006, ApJS 162, 1
3310:
3311: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Giacconi et al.}{2001}]{Giacconi2001}
3312: Giacconi R, Rosati P, Tozzi P, Nonino M, Hasinger G, Norman C,
3313: Bergeron J, Borgani S, Gilli R, Gilmozzi R, Zheng W, 2001, ApJ 551,
3314: 624
3315:
3316: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Grazian et al.}{2006}]{GrazianEtAl}
3317: Grazian A, Fontana A, De Santis C, Nonino M, Salimbeni S, Giallongo
3318: E, Cristiani S, Gallozzi S, Vanzella E, 2006, A\& A 449, 951
3319:
3320: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gronwall et al.}{2007}]{GronwallEtAl}
3321: Gronwall C et al., 2007, ApJ, 667. 79
3322:
3323: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gunn \& Stryker}{1983}]{bpgs} Gunn J
3324: E \& Stryker L L, 1983, ApJSS 52, 121
3325:
3326: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hildebrandt et al.}{2006}]
3327: {HildebrandtEtAl} Hildebrandt H et al., 2006, A\&A 452, 1121
3328:
3329: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hildebrandt, Wolf \& Ben\'
3330: % itez}{2008}] {combocalib} Hildebrandt H, Wolf C, Ben\'itez N,
3331: % 2008, A\&A, 480, 703
3332:
3333: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hogg et al.}{2003}]{Hogg2003} Hogg D
3334: W, Blanton M R, Eisenstein D J, Gunn J E, Schlegel D J, Zehavi I,
3335: Bahcall N A, Brinkmann J, Csabai I, Schneider D P, Weinberg D H,
3336: York D G, 2003, ApJ 585, L5
3337:
3338: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hopkins}{2004}]{Hopkins2004} Hopkins
3339: A M, 2004, ApJ 615, 209
3340:
3341: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Im et al.}{2002}]{ImEtAl} Im M et
3342: al., 2002, ApJ 571, 136
3343:
3344: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Juneau et al.}{2005}]{Juneau2005}
3345: Juneau S et al., 2005, ApJ 619, L135
3346:
3347: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kauffmann et al.}{2003}]
3348: {Kauffmann2003} Kauffman G, Heckman T M, White S D M, Charlot S,
3349: Tremonti C, Peng E W, Seibert M, Brinkmann J, Nichol R C, SubbaRao
3350: M, York D, 2003, MNRAS 341, 54
3351:
3352: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kinney et al.}{1996}]{Kinney} Kinney
3353: A L, Calzetti D, Bohlin R C, McQuade K, Storchi-Bergmann T, Schmitt
3354: H R, 1996, ApJ 467, 38
3355:
3356: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{S Koposov et al.}{in prep.}]
3357: {KoposovEtAl} Koposov et al., 2008 (in prep.)
3358:
3359: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kriek et al.}{2006}] {Kriek2006}
3360: Kriek M, et al., 2006, ApJ, 649, L71
3361:
3362: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kriek et al.}{2008}] {Kriek2008}
3363: Kriek M, Van der Wel A, Van Dokkum P G, Franx M, Illingworth G D,
3364: 2008, ApJ (accepted); arXiv:0804:4175v1
3365:
3366: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kroupa}{2001}]{Kroupa2001} Kroupa P,
3367: 2001, MNRAS 322, 231
3368:
3369: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Labb\'e et al.}{2003}] {LabbeEtAl}
3370: Labb\'e I et al., 2003, AJ 125, 1107
3371:
3372: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Labb\'e et al.}{2005}] {Labbe2005}
3373: Labb\'e I et al., 2005, ApJ 624, L81
3374:
3375: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Labb\'e et al.}{2007}] {Labbe2007}
3376: Labb\'e I, Franx M, Rudnick G, Forster Schrieber N M, Van Dokkum P
3377: G, Moorwood A, Rix H-W, R\:ottgering H, Trujillo I, Van der Werf P,
3378: 2007, ApJ 665, 964
3379:
3380: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lawrence et al.}{2007}]{LawrenceEtAl}
3381: Lawrence A et al., 2007, MNRAS 379, 1599
3382:
3383: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Le Borgne \& Rocca-Volmerange}{2002}]
3384: {pegase} Le Borgne D \& Rocca-Volmerange B, 2002, A\&A 386, 466
3385:
3386: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Le F\` evre et al.}{2004}]{VVDS} Le
3387: F\` evre O et al., 2004, A\& A 428, 1043
3388:
3389: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lilly et al.}{1996}]{Lilly1996} Lilly
3390: S, Le F\` evre O, Hammer F, Crampton D, 1996, ApJ 460, L1
3391:
3392: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lin et al.}{2007}]{LinEtAl} Lin L et
3393: al., 2007, ApJ 660, L51
3394:
3395: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Madau et al.}{1996}]{Madau1996} Madau
3396: P, Ferguson H C, Dickinson M E, Giavalisco M, Steidel C C, Fruchter
3397: A, 1996, MNRAS 283, 1388
3398:
3399: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Maraston}{2005}]{Maraston} Maraston
3400: C, 2005, MNRAS 362, 799
3401:
3402: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{McCarthy}{2004}]{McCarthy} McCarthy P
3403: J, 2004, ARAA, 42, 477
3404:
3405: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{McGrath et al.}{2007}]{McGrath2007}
3406: McGrath E J, Stockton A, Canalizo G, 2007, ApJ 669, 241
3407:
3408: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Menci et al}{2005}]{Menci2005} Menci
3409: N, Fontana A, Giallongo E, Salimbeni S, 2005, ApJ 632, 49
3410:
3411: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Moy et al.}{2003}] {MoyEtAl} Moy E et
3412: al., 2003, A\&A 403, 493
3413:
3414: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Nagmine et al.}{2006}]{NagamineEtAl}
3415: Nagamine K, Ostriker J P, Fukugita M, Cen R, 2006, ApJ 653, 881
3416:
3417: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Panter et al.}{2007}]{PanterEtAl}
3418: Panter B, Jimenez R, Heavens A F, Charlot S, 2007, MNRAS 378, 1550
3419:
3420: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{P\'erez-Gonzal\'ez et al.}{2008}]
3421: {PerezGonzalez} P\'erez-Gonzal\'ez P G et al., 2008, ApJ 675, 234
3422:
3423: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Popesso et al.}{2008}] {VIMOS}
3424: Popesso P et al., 2008, arxiv:0802.2930v1
3425:
3426: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pozzetti et al.}{2007}]{PozzettiEtAl}
3427: Pozzetti L et al., 2007, A\&A, 474, 447
3428:
3429: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Quadri et al.}{2007}]{QuadriEtAl}
3430: Quadri R et al., 2007, AJ 134, 3
3431:
3432: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ravikumar et al.}{2006}]{IMAGES}
3433: Ravikumar C D et al., 2006, A\& A 465, 1099
3434:
3435: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Reddy et al.}{2006}]{Reddy2006} Reddy
3436: N A, Steidel C C, Fadda D, Yan L, Pettini M, Shapley A E, Erb D K,
3437: Adelberger K L, 2006, ApJ 644, 792
3438:
3439: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rix et al.}{2004}]{RixEtAl} Rix H-W
3440: et al., 2004, ApJSS 152, 163
3441:
3442: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rudnick et al.}{2003}] {RudnickEtAl}
3443: Rudnick G et al., 2003, ApJ 599, 847
3444:
3445: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ruhland et al.}{2008}]
3446: {Ruhland2008} Ruhland C, Bell E F, H\"au\ss ler B, Taylor E N,
3447: Barden M, McIntosh D, 2008, submitted
3448:
3449: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Salpeter}{1955}]{Salpeter}
3450: Salpeter E E, 1955, ApJ 121, 161
3451:
3452: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Scarlata et al.}{2007}]{Scarlata2007}
3453: Scarlata C et al., 2008, ApJSS, 172, 510
3454:
3455: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Somerville et al.}{2004}]
3456: {SomervilleEtAl} Somerville R S, Lee K, Ferguson H, Gardner J P,
3457: Moustakas L A, Giavalisco M, 2004, ApJ 600, L171
3458:
3459: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Strateva et al.}{2001}]{Strateva2001}
3460: Strateva I et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 1861
3461:
3462: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Szokoly et al.}{2004}]{Xray} Szokoly
3463: G P et al., 2004, ApJSS 155, 271
3464:
3465: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Taylor et al.}{2008}]{PaperI} Taylor
3466: E N et al., 2008 (Paper I), ApJSS (submitted)
3467:
3468: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Treister et al.}{2008}]{TreisterEtAl}
3469: Treister E, Virani S, Gawiser E, Urry C M, Lira P, Francke H, Blanc
3470: G A, Cardamone C N, Damen M, Taylor E N, Schawinski K
3471:
3472: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tremonti et al.}{2004}]
3473: {TremontiEtAl} Tremonti C A et al., 2004, ApJ 613, 898
3474:
3475: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tresse et al.}{2007}]{TresseEtAl}
3476: Tresse L et al., A\&A 472, 403
3477:
3478: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Van der Wel et al.}{2005}]{vdwel05}
3479: Van der Wel A, Franx M, Van Dokkum P G, Rix H-W, Illingworth G D,
3480: Rosatti P, 2005, ApJ 631, 145
3481:
3482: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Van der Wel}{2008}]
3483: {vdWel2008} Van der Wel A, 2008, ApJ 675, L13
3484:
3485: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Van Dokkum \& Franx}{2001}]
3486: {VanDokkumFranx} Van Dokkum P G \& Franx M, 2001, ApJ 553, 90
3487:
3488: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Van Dokkum et al.}{2006}]
3489: {VanDokkum2006} Van Dokkum P G et al., 2006, ApJ 638, 59
3490:
3491: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Vanzella et al.}{2008}]{FORS2}
3492: Vanzella et al., 2008, A\& A 471, 83
3493:
3494: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Weiner et al.}{2005}]{WeinerEtAl}
3495: Weiner B J et al., 2005, ApJ 620, 595
3496:
3497: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Willmer et al.}{2006}]{WillmerEtAl}
3498: Willmer C N A et al., 2006, ApJ, 647, 853
3499:
3500: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wolf et al.}{2003}] {WolfEtAl}
3501: Wolf C et al., 2004, A\&A 421, 913
3502:
3503: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wolf et al.}{2008}]{combocalib} Wolf
3504: C, Hildebrandt H, Taylor E N, Meisenheimer K, 2008, A\&A
3505: (submitted), arXiv:0809.2066
3506:
3507: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wuyts et al.}{2008}]{WuytsEtAl} Wuyts
3508: S et al, 2008, ApJ (in press), arXiv:0804.0615v2
3509:
3510: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wyder et al.}{2007}]{WyderEtAl} Wyder
3511: T K, 2007, ApJSS 173, 293
3512:
3513: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{York et al.}{2000}]{YorkEtAl} York D
3514: G et al., 2000, ApJ 120, 1579
3515:
3516:
3517:
3518: % _____________________________________________________________________
3519: % _____________________________________________________________________
3520:
3521: \end{thebibliography}
3522:
3523: % _____________________________________________________________________
3524: % _____________________________________________________________________
3525:
3526: \appendix
3527:
3528: % _____________________________________________________________________
3529: % _____________________________________________________________________
3530:
3531: \section{The $z=0$ comparison point}
3532: \label{ch:z=0}
3533:
3534: % _____________________________________________________________________
3535: % _____________________________________________________________________
3536:
3537: In this Appendix, we describe the process by which we have derived the
3538: $z \approx 0$ number density of massive galaxies in general, and of
3539: red galaxies in particular, from the low-z subsample of the New York
3540: University (NYU) Value Added Galaxy Catalog (VAGC) from the Sloan
3541: Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data release 4 (DR4); this catalog has
3542: been compiled and described by \citet{BlantonEtAl-lowz}. We will
3543: refer to this sample simply as the `low-z' sample, as opposed to the
3544: `high-z', K-selected sample in the main text. The overarching concern
3545: is uniformity in the analysis of the low-z and high-z samples, where
3546: possible and appropriate, in order to make as fair as possible a
3547: comparison between the high-z and low-z data. Our discussion proceeds
3548: in three parts: first, we describe our analysis of low-z galaxies; we
3549: then describe our characterisation of the galaxy red sequence;
3550: finally, we give our derived number density of massive galaxies at $z
3551: \approx 0$, including mimicking the effects of the random photometric
3552: redshift errors typical for the $z \gg 0$ sample.
3553:
3554: % _____________________________________________________________________
3555:
3556: \begin{figure*}[b]
3557: \centering \includegraphics[width=16cm]{fa1.eps}
3558: \caption{The `low z' sample from the NYU VAGC of the SDSS (DR4), used
3559: to derive the $z \approx 0$ comparison point for the main, `high z'
3560: sample discussed in the text---Color--magnitude ({\em left}) and
3561: color--stellar mass ({\em right}) diagrams --- The greyscale shows
3562: the density of points. The errors bars show the center and width of
3563: the color distributions of the red and blue populations, obtained
3564: from double Gaussian fits in narrow magnitude/mass slices. These fits
3565: to the populations are also represented by the logarithmic (0.5 dex)
3566: contours, to give some idea of the data density of red/blue
3567: galaxies.
3568: \label{fig:sdss} }
3569: \end{figure*}
3570:
3571: % _____________________________________________________________________
3572:
3573: \subsection{Low-z Galaxy Analysis}
3574: % _____________________________________________________________________
3575:
3576: For each galaxy in the low-z sample, we have constructed a $ugriz$ SED
3577: using `model' magnitudes (measured by fitting either an exponential or
3578: $r^{1/4}$ profile in each band, with structural parameters derived
3579: from the $i$ band image) as given in the low-z catalog. In analogue
3580: to high-z galaxies, these SEDs are then scaled up to the `Petrosian'
3581: $r$ magnitude. The Petrosian apertures are designed to measure a
3582: fixed fraction of a galaxy's light, irrespective of brightness or
3583: distance, but with some dependence on the light distribution:
3584: neglecting the effects of seeing, the Petrosian aperture captures 99
3585: \% of the total light for an exponential profile, compared to $\gtrsim
3586: 80$ \% for a de Vaucouleurs profile \citep{BlantonEtAl-lowz}. We make
3587: no attempt to correct for missed flux, but note that similar effects
3588: are present at a similar level in our own data (see
3589: \textsection\ref{ch:totalmags}). Following \citep{BlantonEtAl-lowz},
3590: we use the following factors to correct the basic SDSS calibration to
3591: AB magnitudes: (-0.042, +0.036, +0.015, +0.013, -0.002) for
3592: ($u,~g,~r,~i,~z$).
3593:
3594: We have derived restframe photometry and stellar masses for low-z
3595: galaxies using exactly the same machinery as for the high-z sample,
3596: adopting the heliocentric redshifts given in the low-z catalog. Our
3597: interpolated restframe $ugriz$ photometry agrees quite well with that
3598: given by \citet{BlantonEtAl-lowz} in the low-z catalog. (Whereas we
3599: use galaxy color-color relations, based on six empirical galaxy
3600: template spectra, to interpolate restframe photometry,
3601: \citet{BlantonEtAl-lowz} determine restframe fluxes by fitting a
3602: non-negative linear combination of five carefully chosen synthetic
3603: spectra, and then integrating the best fit spectrum.) On average, in
3604: comparison to \citet{BlantonEtAl-lowz}, our $u-r$ colors are $\sim
3605: 0.02$ mag bluer for blue galaxies and $\sim 0.03$ mag redder for red
3606: galaxies. We calculate the distance modulus using the proper motion
3607: corrected redshifts given in the catalog. Finally, we have derived
3608: stellar masses based on the interpolated restframe $B$ and $V$ fluxes,
3609: using Equation \ref{eq:bellmass}.
3610:
3611: % _____________________________________________________________________
3612:
3613: \subsection{The Red Galaxy Sequence at $z=0$}
3614: % _____________________________________________________________________
3615:
3616: Figure \ref{fig:sdss} shows our CMD ({\em left}) and CM$_*$D ({\em
3617: right}) diagrams for the general $z \approx 0$ field galaxy
3618: population; in each panel, the logarithmic greyscales show the data
3619: density. We note that these two plots are very nearly equivalent: the
3620: CM$_*$D can be seen as simply a `sheared' version of the CMD,
3621: with the bluer galaxies dragged further towards the left. A separate
3622: red galaxy sequence is easily discernible in each panel.
3623:
3624: We have characterized this red galaxy sequence, as a function of
3625: magnitude or of mass, by taking a narrow slices in either absolute
3626: magnitude or stellar mass, and fitting double Gaussians to the color
3627: distribution in each bin. The results of these fits are shown in each
3628: panel of Figure \ref{fig:sdss} as the red and blue contours. This
3629: gives some indication of the relative numbers of red and blue galaxies
3630: as a function of magnitude/mass. In order to characterize the
3631: separate red and blue populations, we also show the center and width
3632: of each Gaussian fit as the yellow and cyan points and error bars.
3633:
3634: In order to determine the slope of the high luminosity/mass end of the
3635: red sequence CMR and CM$_*$R, we have simply made linear fits to the
3636: centers of the $M_r < -21$ and $M_* > 10^{10.5}$ M\sun\ `red'
3637: distributions. The results of these fits are:
3638: \begin{equation}
3639: (u-r) = 2.612 - 0.090 \times (M_r + 22)
3640: = 2.573 + 0.237 \times \log _{10} (M_* / 10^{11} \text{ M\sun} ) ~ .
3641: \label{eq:cmr} \end{equation}
3642: These relations are shown as the solid black lines in each panel.
3643: Finally, in order to make some distinction between `red' and `blue'
3644: galaxies which could be easily applied to the high-$z$ sample, we
3645: simply use a cut 0.25 mag bluer than this relation. In each panel,
3646: this cut can be seen to approximately coincide with the so--called
3647: `green valley' between the red and blue galaxy populations.
3648:
3649: %These cuts agree well with those used in, for example,
3650: %\citet{BlantonEtAl-lf} and \citet{Bell2003}, which present the
3651: %$z\approx0$ luminosity functions. Although the projection of our
3652: %($u$, $r$) color--magnitude criterion onto the ($g$, $r$)
3653: %color--magnitude plane agrees very closely with the ($g$, $r$)
3654: %selection criterion used by \citet{BlantonEtAl-lf}, ($u$, $r$)
3655: %selected galaxies do show considerable spread in their ($g$, $r$)
3656: %properties. To express this quantitatively: restricting our attention
3657: %to $M_r < -21$, approximately 90 \% (3971/4348) of galaxies selected
3658: %by the \citet{BlantonEtAl-lf} ($g$, $r$) criterion are also selected by
3659: %our ($u$, $r$) criterion; conversely, 8 \% (348/4319) of our ($u$,
3660: %$r$) red galaxies are ($g$, $r$) blue. Because of the correlation
3661: %between our ($u$, $r$) and ($B$, $V$) photometry, the projection of
3662: %our criterion onto the ($B$, $V$) plane is much sharper. For $M_V
3663: %\lesssim -20$, our criterion has approximately the same ($B$, $V$)
3664: %slope as the criterion used by \citet{Bell2003}, but is roughly 0.1
3665: %mag redder in ($B-V$); for $M_V \gtrsim -20$, the slope is somewhat
3666: %steeper. As a consequence, for $M_r < -21$, the overlap between the
3667: %($u$, $r$) and ($B$, $V$) selected samples is very high: only 1 \%
3668: %(46/4239) of ($B$, $V$) red galaxies are ($u,~r$) blue, while less
3669: %than 2 \% (80/4319) of ($u,~r$) red galaxies are ($B,~V$) blue.
3670:
3671: Finally, in the inset of each diagram, we show the color distribution
3672: for the brightest ($M_r < -21$) or most massive ($M_* > \masslimit$)
3673: galaxies, after subtracting away the color-magnitude or color-stellar
3674: mass relations given by Equation \ref{eq:cmr}. (See also
3675: \ref{fig:hists}.) We also show double Gaussian fits to these
3676: distributions, which are the basis for the $z \approx 0$ points shown
3677: in Figures \ref{fig:redseq} and \ref{fig:redseq2}. We note in passing
3678: that, at least for $-19 \gtrsim M_r \gtrsim -21.5$, the width of the
3679: color distributions of red and blue galaxies is not a strong function
3680: of magnitude: $\Delta (u-r) \sim 0.12$, and $\Delta (u-r) \approx
3681: 0.20$ for red and blue galaxies, respectively.
3682:
3683: \subsection{The Number Density of Massive Galaxies at $z \approx 0$}
3684:
3685: For our purposes (see \textsection\ref{ch:growth}), the crucial final
3686: quantity is the number density of massive galaxies at $z \approx 0$.
3687: We find that the number density of $M_* > 10^{11}$ M\sun\ galaxies is
3688: $(6.64 \pm 0.38) \times 10^{-4}~ h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$; for ($u$, $r$) red
3689: galaxies, the number is $(6.07 \pm 0.36) \times 10^{-4}~ h^3$
3690: Mpc$^{-3}$. This measurement is not significantly affected by either
3691: volume or surface brightness incompleteness. Compared to the more
3692: sophisticated analyses of \citet{Bell2003} and \citet{ColeEtAl}, our
3693: value for the number density of massive galaxies is 10 \% higher and
3694: 25 \% lower, respectively.
3695:
3696: %\subsection{Simulating the Effect of Redshift Errors} \label{ch:z=0errs}
3697:
3698: As we have repeatedly stressed, our prime concern is uniformity in the
3699: analysis of the low- and high-$z$ samples. Photometric redshift
3700: errors are a major source of uncertainty for the high-$z$ sample ---
3701: how would comparable errors affect the low$z$ measurements? Given the
3702: redshift range of our low-$z$ galaxies ($0.003 < z < 0.05$) and the
3703: estimated photometric redshift errors among high-$z$ galaxies ($\Delta
3704: z/(1+z) \sim 0.035$), it would be inappropriate to simply apply typical
3705: redshift errors and repeat our calculations: this would effectively throw
3706: away all distance information. Instead, what we have done is to apply
3707: the typical uncertainties on $M_r$, ($u-r$) and $M_*$ due to
3708: photometric redshift errors, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:derived}.
3709: For simplicity, we have ignored correlations between these errors.
3710:
3711: In line with our earlier findings, including the effects of
3712: photometric redshift errors makes less of a difference to measurements
3713: based on stellar masses than to those based on absolute magnitudes.
3714: Our fits to the red sequence become:
3715: \begin{equation}
3716: (u-r) = 2.608 - 0.113 \times (M_r + 22) = 2.577 + 0.223 \times \log
3717: _{10} (M_* / 10^{11} \text{ M\sun} ) ~ .
3718: \label{eq:cmrdelz} \end{equation}
3719: Our measurements of the $z \approx 0$ number density of galaxies more
3720: massive than $\masslimit$ M\sun\ becomes $(6.93 \pm 0.38) \times 10^{-4}~
3721: h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$ in total, and $(5.86 \pm 0.35) \times 10^{-4}~ h^3$
3722: Mpc$^{-3}$ for red sequence galaxies. That is, the effects of the
3723: redshift errors expected among $z \gg 0$ galaxies affect the
3724: measurement of the $z \approx 0$ number density by less than 5 \%.
3725:
3726: These numbers, approximately accounting for the Eddington bias due to
3727: photometric redshift errors (as they apply to the $z \gg 0$ sample),
3728: are then what have used as a local reference value to compare to the
3729: $z \gg 0$ data.
3730:
3731: % _____________________________________________________________________
3732: % _____________________________________________________________________
3733:
3734:
3735: \section{A Detailed Comparison with COMBO-17} \label{ch:combo}
3736:
3737: % _____________________________________________________________________
3738: % _____________________________________________________________________
3739:
3740: In the ECDFS, the COMBO-17 and MUSYC datasets represent parallel
3741: analytical paths describing the same physical reality---indeed the
3742: COMBO-17 broadband observations form the foundation of the MUSYC raw
3743: optical data. Ideally, then, the two surveys' results should agree
3744: identically; instead, in comparison to COMBO-17, the MUSYC results
3745: suggest 40 \% more massive ($M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun ) galaxies at
3746: $0.2 < \zphot < 0.8$---a degree of difference more on a par with that
3747: expected from field--to--field variation. In this Appendix, we
3748: identify the main cause of this discrepancy.
3749:
3750: %The analytical pathway leading from data to final measurement proceeds
3751: %along the following sequence: SED construction, redshift
3752: %determination, derivation of restframe properties (\viz , luminosity,
3753: %color, and stellar mass), statistical description of the data. The
3754: %basic idea of this section is to reanalyze the MUSYC and COMBO-17
3755: %datasets, mixing and matching different aspects of the two analyses,
3756: %and looking at how our principal result changes. In this way, we can
3757: %identify which aspects of the datasets and analysis are most
3758: %significant in producing the two surveys' very different results.
3759:
3760: %The following sections investigate, in turn, how differences in the
3761: %two surveys' analytical methods, and basic photometric calibrations
3762: %affect the measured number densities of massive galaxies. For the
3763: %purposes of this comparison, we will restrict our attention to $0.2 <
3764: %\zphot < 0.8$ (\ie\ the first two redshift bins in Figure
3765: %\ref{fig:evo}), where the COMBO-17 redshifts and restframe luminosity
3766: %determinations are most robust.
3767:
3768: % _____________________________________________________________________
3769:
3770: \subsection{Photometric Redshift Accuracy: MUSYC photometry with COMBO-17 redshifts}
3771: % _____________________________________________________________________
3772:
3773: \begin{figure}[b] \centering
3774: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{fb1.eps}
3775: \caption{Reanalysis of the MUSYC data adopting redshifts from
3776: COMBO-17---{\em Main panel}: The measured number density of $M_* >
3777: \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies for $z \lesssim 1$ based on the MUSYC
3778: photometry, but adopting redshifts from the COMBO-17 catalog in
3779: place of our own ({\em solid histograms}). These results should be
3780: compared to the fiducial results from MUSYC ({\em dashed
3781: histograms}) and from COMBO-17 ({\em dotted histograms}). The red
3782: and black histograms are for red and all galaxies, respectively.
3783: Where the COMBO-17 and MUSYC results differ by 40 \%, the effect of
3784: using of COMBO-17 redshifts is less than 10 \%; the difference
3785: between the two surveys' results cannot be explained by differences
3786: in the photometric redshifts. {\em Left panels}: the difference
3787: between the ({\em from top to bottom}) photometric redshifts,
3788: absolute $B$ and $V$ magnitudes, restframe $(B-V)$ colors, and
3789: stellar masses used to produce the results shown in the main panel,
3790: in comparison to those found in the COMBO-17 catalog, plotted as a
3791: function of the COMBO-17 redshift. In comparison to COMBO-17, even
3792: using the same redshifts, the MUSYC data and/or data analysis make
3793: galaxies appear brighter and redder, and so more massive.
3794: \label{c17:photz} }
3795: \end{figure}
3796: % _____________________________________________________________________
3797:
3798: The essential differences between the COMBO-17 and MUSYC datasets are
3799: COMBO-17's twelve medium bands, allowing much more precise photometric
3800: redshift determinations for $z \lesssim 1$, and the MUSYC $z'JHK$ data,
3801: which open the door to the $z \gtrsim 1$ universe. The first and most
3802: obvious concern is thus that the difference between the two surveys'
3803: $\zphot \lesssim 1$ results are a product of their different
3804: photometric redshift accuracies. To test this, we have tried simply
3805: adopting the COMBO-17 photometric redshifts in place of our own
3806: determinations, and repeated our analysis.
3807:
3808: The results of this test are shown in Figure \ref{c17:photz}: the main
3809: panel shows our primary result (\viz , the number density of $M_* >
3810: \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies as a function of redshift; see Figure
3811: \ref{fig:evo}). The solid histograms show this trial re-analysis of
3812: the MUSYC data adopting COMBO-17 redshifts; this should be compared to
3813: the fiducial results from MUSYC ({\em dashed histogram}) and COMBO-17
3814: ({\em dotted histograms}). We have derived these `COMBO-17' results
3815: from the public catalog presented by \citet{WolfEtAl}, supplemented
3816: with the stellar mass determinations used by \citet{BorchEtAl}.
3817:
3818: At least for $\zphot < 0.8$, the use of COMBO-17 redshifts in place of
3819: our own does not have a great effect on our results: the solid
3820: histograms lie quite close to the dashed ones. Quantitatively,
3821: adopting COMBO-17 redshifts in place of our own leaves the number of
3822: $M_* > 10^{11}$ M\sun\ galaxies over $0.2 < \zphot < 0.8$ unchanged to
3823: within 1 \%; the effect is slightly greater for the red population,
3824: leading to a red fraction that is 17 \% higher over the same interval.
3825: This implies that, at least for $\zphot \lesssim 1$, our results are
3826: not seriously affected by our lower photometric redshift accuracy
3827: ($\sigma_z \approx$ 0.03 for MUSYC, versus 0.02 for COMBO-17, for $R <
3828: 24$ and $\zspec < 1$).
3829:
3830: To the left of the main panel in Figure \ref{c17:photz}, we show the
3831: difference in ({\em from top to bottom}) the photometric redshifts,
3832: absolute B, and V magnitudes, restframe ($B-V$) colors, and stellar
3833: masses used to produce the solid histograms, and those from the
3834: COMBO-17 catalog. In all cases, the `$\delta$' is in the sense of
3835: `MUSYC re-analysis' minus `COMBO-17 catalog', and is plotted as a
3836: function of the COMBO-17 catalog redshift. Within each panel, we
3837: also give the biweight mean offset for each quantity, evaluated for
3838: sources with $R < 23$ (to reduce random scatter due to photometric
3839: uncertainties) and $0.2 < \zphot < 0.5$ (where the COMBO-17 photometry
3840: still samples restframe $V$) in the COMBO-17 catalog.
3841:
3842: Looking now briefly at these panels, we see that for $\zphot \gtrsim
3843: 0.5$, where the COMBO-17 value for the restframe $V$ magnitude comes
3844: from an extrapolation of the best-fit template spectrum, there is a
3845: progressive offset between the restframe $V$ luminosities inferred by
3846: the MUSYC and COMBO-17 data and analyses---even while using the same
3847: redshifts. Even for $\zphot < 0.5$, however, we see a systematic
3848: offset of 0.05 mag in ($B-V$) color. Finally, we note that the
3849: greater number of $0.6 < \zphot < 0.8$ galaxies in comparison to $0.2
3850: < \zphot < 0.6$ that we see in the MUSYC data is also present in the
3851: COMBO-17 photometric redshift distribution; the difference is that
3852: these galaxies do not have $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ in the COMBO-17
3853: catalog.
3854:
3855: We therefore conclude that the difference between the COMBO-17 and
3856: MUSYC results is not a product of the two surveys' different
3857: photometric redshift accuracies: the use of COMBO-17 rather than MUSYC
3858: redshifts affects our results only by a few percent. This leaves the
3859: possibilities that the difference between the two results is due to
3860: the different methods used to infer galaxies' restframe properties, or
3861: to differences in the data themselves.
3862: % _____________________________________________________________________
3863:
3864: \subsection{Derivation of Restframe Properties: MUSYC analysis of the COMBO-17 photometry}
3865: % _____________________________________________________________________
3866:
3867: \begin{figure} [b] \centering
3868: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{fb2.eps}
3869: \caption{MUSYC analysis of the COMBO-17 photometry---The solid
3870: histograms in the main panel show the measured number density of
3871: $M_* > \masslimit$ galaxies, applying the MUSYC analysis to the
3872: COMBO-17 photometry. In order to isolate the effect on our
3873: measurements due to the different methods for deriving restframe
3874: properties, we continue to adopt the COMBO-17 redshifts for this
3875: test. All other symbols and their meanings are as in Figure
3876: \ref{c17:photz}. Applying the MUSYC analysis to the COMBO-17
3877: photometry, we reproduce the COMBO-17 result to better than 1 \%;
3878: the difference between the COMBO-17 and MUSYC results cannot be
3879: explained solely by our different analytical methods.
3880: \label{c17:analysis}}
3881: \end{figure}
3882: % _____________________________________________________________________
3883:
3884: Are the discrepancies between the COMBO-17 and MUSYC results due to
3885: different systematic effects inherent in our different methods for
3886: deriving restframe photometry and stellar masses? In order to address
3887: this concern, we have reanalyzed the COMBO-17 data using the
3888: procedures described in the main text. For this test, in order to
3889: isolate the effect of the different analytical methods, we also adopt
3890: the COMBO-17 redshift determinations; the difference between this test
3891: and the previous one is thus the use of the COMBO-17, rather than the
3892: MUSYC, photometry.
3893:
3894: The results of this re-analysis are shown as the solid histograms in
3895: Figure \ref{c17:analysis}; all other symbols and their meanings are as
3896: in Figure \ref{c17:photz}. The results of the MUSYC re-analysis of
3897: the COMBO-17 data agree very well with the COMBO-17 analysis proper:
3898: the solid black histogram lies very near the dotted black histogram.
3899: Quantitatively, the MUSYC analysis of the COMBO-17 data leads to a red
3900: fraction which is 33 \% higher than for COMBO-17's own analysis; the
3901: total number density of $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies agree to
3902: better than 1 \%.
3903:
3904: Comparing the MUSYC-- and COMBO-17--derived restframe properties ---
3905: again, based on the same photometry and redshifts --- we do see
3906: systematic differences. We make three specific observations: 1.\
3907: there appear to be discrete redshift regimes where the MUSYC-- and
3908: COMBO-17--derived restframe fluxes compare differently; 2.\ for $0.2
3909: \lesssim \zphot \lesssim 0.35$, we see a `bimodal' offset in the
3910: MUSYC-- and COMBO-17--derived ($B-V$) colors, corresponding to red and
3911: blue galaxies; 3.\ the MUSYC--derived restframe fluxes appear to be
3912: systematically brighter than those derived by COMBO-17, even for the
3913: same photometry. Remarkably, even despite these differences, our
3914: stellar mass estimates agree to within 0.04 dex, with a scatter of
3915: just 0.11 dex. Finally, we note that the progressive offset in
3916: extrapolated $V$ luminosities for $\zphot \gtrsim 0.5$ seen in the
3917: previous test is not seen here; that is, applied to the same data,
3918: the two techniques for extrapolating restframe photometry yield
3919: similar results.
3920:
3921: We therefore conclude that the difference between the COMBO-17 and
3922: MUSYC results in the ECDFS cannot be explained by differences in the
3923: analytical methods employed by each team: the MUSYC reanalysis of the
3924: COMBO-17 data agrees with the COMBO-17 fiducial results. Instead, it
3925: seems that the different results are really in the data themselves.
3926:
3927: % _____________________________________________________________________
3928:
3929: \subsection{Photometric Calibration: MUSYC analysis of the recalibrated COMBO-17 photometry}
3930: % _____________________________________________________________________
3931:
3932: \begin{figure}[b] \centering
3933: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{fb3.eps}
3934: \caption{Recalibration of the COMBO-17 photometry---the solid
3935: histograms in the main panel show the measured number density of
3936: $M_* > \masslimit$ galaxies, applying the MUSYC analysis to the
3937: COMBO-17 photometry, recalibrated to match the MUSYC photometry.
3938: Specifically, the UBVRI bands have been scaled up by 0.00, 0.06,
3939: 0.08, 0.08, and 0.14 mag; each of the medium bands has been scaled
3940: to match the nearest broad band. We continue to adopt the COMBO-17
3941: redshifts for this test. All other symbols and their meanings are
3942: as in Figure \ref{c17:photz}. The effect of this rescaling is to
3943: increase the measured values by a further 30 \%, in comparison to the
3944: previous test. Together, the combined effect of this recalibration
3945: is nearly 50 \%, almost completely explaining the difference between
3946: the COMBO-17 and MUSYC results.
3947: \label{c17:seds} }
3948: \end{figure}
3949: % _____________________________________________________________________
3950:
3951: A direct, object-by-object comparison of COMBO-17 and MUSYC photometry
3952: reveals significant differences in the photometric calibration of the
3953: two surveys (Paper I). Specifically, we see differences of 0.00,
3954: 0.06, 0.08, 0.08, and 0.14 mag between the MUSYC and COMBO-17
3955: $UBVRI$--band photometry for galaxies, such that the MUSYC photometry
3956: is systematically brighter and redder. This has subsequently been
3957: confirmed to be due to an error in the photometric calibration of the
3958: COMBO-17 data \citep{combocalib}. Can this difference in photometric
3959: calibration explain the different results found by COMBO-17 and MUSYC?
3960:
3961: To address this issue, we have simply scaled the COMBO-17 photometry
3962: to match the MUSYC photometry, and repeated our analysis. The
3963: COMBO-17 team has calibrated each of the medium bands relative to the
3964: nearest broad band; accordingly we have scaled each of the medium
3965: bands by the MUSYC--minus--COMBO-17 offset for the nearest broad band.
3966: The results of this test are shown in Figure \ref{c17:seds}. The
3967: MUSYC re-analysis of the recalibrated COMBO-17 photometry agrees
3968: extremely well with the fiducial MUSYC results: the measured number
3969: density of $M_* > \masslimit$ M\sun\ galaxies at $0.2 < \zphot < 0.8$
3970: agree to better than 1 \%.
3971:
3972: There are two separate aspects to this re-calibration: galaxies are
3973: both brighter and redder in the MUSYC catalog than in COMBO-17.
3974: Since COMBO-17 measures total fluxes from their $R$ band image, the
3975: 0.08 mag offset between the COMBO-17 and MUSYC zeropoints makes
3976: galaxies appear 7.6 \% brighter (and thus more massive) in the MUSYC
3977: catalog; this effect is responsible for approximately 70 \% of the
3978: change in the measured number density. At the same time, the
3979: reddening of the SED shape implies a higher mass--to--light ratio
3980: after recalibration; this effect is responsible for the other 30 \% of
3981: the change in the measurements.
3982:
3983: \vspace{0.2cm}
3984:
3985: We therefore conclude that the primary cause for the disagreement
3986: between the results of the MUSYC and COMBO-17 surveys in the ECDFS is
3987: the different photometric calibrations of the two surveys: reanalyzing
3988: the COMBO-17 data set, recalibrated to match the MUSYC photometry, the
3989: results agree with the MUSYC fiducial analysis.
3990:
3991: % _____________________________________________________________________
3992: % _____________________________________________________________________
3993:
3994:
3995: \end{document}
3996:
3997: % _____________________________________________________________________
3998: % _____________________________________________________________________
3999:
4000: % LocalWords: CMD Baldry CMR Cristiani D'Odorico Giallongo Gilmozzi Cirasuolo
4001: % LocalWords: McLure Dunlop Almaini Foucaud Smail Sekiguchi Eales Weedman Gao
4002: % LocalWords: Conselice Eisenhardy Georgakakis Nandra Weiner Willmer
4003: % LocalWords: Springel Frenk Yoshida Liske Propris Phillipps Erben Franx Tozzi
4004: % LocalWords: Franzetti Rosati Nonino Hasinger Bergeron Borgani Grazian Santis
4005: % LocalWords: Salimbeni Gallozzi Vanzella Hildebrandt Bahcall Csabai Kauffman
4006: % LocalWords: Heckman Tremonti Peng Seibert SubbaRao Calzetti Bohlin McQuade
4007: % LocalWords: Storchi Bergmann Schmitt Labb Schrieber Dokkum Moorwood der Werf
4008: % LocalWords: ottgering Borgne Rocca Volmerange evre Crampton Giavalisco Moy
4009: % LocalWords: Steidel Fruchter Canalizo Popesso Ravikumar Fadda Yan Pettini au
4010: % LocalWords: Shapley Erb Adelberger ApJSS ler Barden Somerville Moustakas Wel
4011: % LocalWords: Wuyts
4012: