1: \documentclass[10pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %%
3: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
4: %%
5: %% Modified 03 Nov 99
6: %%
7: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
8: %% AASTeX v5.0 LaTeX 2e macros.
9:
10: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.0 document
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the default manuscript style,
14: %% which will produce a double-spaced document on one column.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17:
18:
19: %% preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document:
20:
21:
22: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
23:
24: %\usepackage{emulateapj}
25: %\usepackage[dvips]{graphics}
26: %\usepackage{epsfig}
27: %\usepackage[sectionbib]{natbib}
28:
29:
30: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
31: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
32: %% the \begin{document} command.
33: %%
34: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
35: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
36: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.0 Author Guide
37: %% for information.
38:
39: \newcommand{\vv}[1]{{\bf #1}}
40: \newcommand{\df}{\delta}
41: \newcommand{\dfft}{{\tilde{\delta}}}
42: \newcommand{\betaft}{{\tilde{\beta}}}
43: \newcommand{\erf}{{\mathrm{erf}}}
44: \newcommand{\erfc}{{\mathrm{erfc}}}
45: \newcommand{\Step}{{\mathrm{Step}}}
46: \newcommand{\ee}[1]{\times 10^{#1}}
47: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{{\langle{#1}\rangle}}
48: \newcommand{\Avg}[1]{{\left\langle{#1}\right\rangle}}
49: \def\simless{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox
50: {$\,\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'074$}}\mathchar"7218\,$}}} % < or of order
51: \def\simgreat{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox
52: {$\,\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'076$}}\mathchar"7218\,$}}} % > or of order
53: \newcommand{\iras}{{\sl IRAS\/}}
54:
55:
56:
57: \newcounter{thefigs}
58: \newcommand{\fignum}{\arabic{thefigs}}
59:
60: \newcounter{thetabs}
61: \newcommand{\tabnum}{\arabic{thetabs}}
62:
63: \newcommand{\EW}{W}
64: %\def\bibsep{0pt}
65:
66: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
67:
68: %\slugcomment{Submitted to \apj}
69:
70: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
71: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
72: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
73: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
74: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
75: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
76:
77: %\shortauthors{Blanton \& Lin (2000)}
78: %\shorttitle{Distribution of Emission-line Widths of Galaxies}
79:
80: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
81: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
82:
83: \begin{document}
84:
85: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
86: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
87: %% you desire.
88:
89: \title{The Distribution of [OII] Emission-line Widths of LCRS Galaxies}
90:
91: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
92: %% author and affiliation information.
93: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
94: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
95: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
96: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
97:
98: \author{Michael Blanton}
99: \affil{NASA/Fermilab Astrophysics Center\\
100: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510-0500;\\
101: blanton@fnal.gov}
102: \author{\and Huan Lin\footnote{Hubble Fellow}}
103: \affil{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona,\\
104: 933 N.~Cherry Ave.,
105: Tucson, AZ 85721; \\
106: hlin@as.arizona.edu}
107: %\email{blanton@fnal.gov}
108:
109: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
110: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
111: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
112: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
113: %% editorial office after submission.
114:
115: \begin{abstract}
116: We present a simple functional form for the joint distribution of
117: $R$-band luminosity and [OII] 3727 emission-line equivalent widths of
118: galaxies, and show that this form is a good fit to the galaxies in the
119: Las Campanas Redshift Survey. We find a relationship between [OII]
120: equivalent width $W$ and $R$-band luminosity $L_R$ of the approximate
121: form: $\avg{W}\approx (10\AA) (L_R/L_{R,\ast})^{-1/2}$, where
122: $L_{R,\ast}$ is the characteristic luminosity in the Schechter
123: function. Because this joint distribution yields information about the
124: relationship between stellar mass in a galaxy and its recent
125: star-formation rate, it can be useful for testing theories of galaxy
126: formation. Furthermore, understanding this joint distribution locally
127: will make it easier to interpret the evolution of [OII] emission-line
128: widths to higher redshifts.
129: \end{abstract}
130:
131: \keywords{galaxies: luminosity function, mass function --- galaxies:
132: fundamental parameters --- galaxies: statistics}
133:
134: %
135: % Introduction and motivation
136: %
137:
138: \section{Motivation}
139: \label{motiv}
140:
141: Modern redshift surveys such as the Las Campanas Redshift Survey
142: (LCRS; \citealt{shectman96a}) have large, homogeneous sets of spectra
143: from which one can measure star-formation indicators such as the [OII]
144: 3727 \AA\ forbidden line. It is known that the luminosity function of
145: galaxies is dependent on the emission-line properties of the galaxies
146: under consideration (\citealt{lin96a}; \citealt{cowie96a};
147: \citealt{ellis96a}; \citealt{small97a}) but the detailed relationship
148: between these emission-line properties and galaxy luminosity has not
149: been explored. Here we present a calculation of the joint
150: distribution of $R$-band luminosity and the equivalent width of the
151: [OII] 3727 line for LCRS galaxies, as well as an analytic form for
152: this distribution which fits the data well. This joint distribution is
153: a useful quantity to compare with the predictions of galaxy formation
154: models ({\it e.g.}, \citealt{cen98a},
155: \citealt{pearce99a},
156: \citealt{somerville99a}, \citealt{kauffmann99a}).
157:
158: While the LCRS is the largest completed redshift survey to date, there
159: are at least three drawbacks to the sample to be kept in mind. First,
160: the survey is $R$-band selected and limited by central surface
161: brightness; thus, the latest type galaxies, which typically have the
162: strongest emission lines, are preferentially excluded from the survey,
163: potentially biasing our results. Second, the fits to the equivalent
164: widths of the emission lines fail for some galaxies, because their
165: spectra do not have sufficient signal-to-noise to measure the line. It
166: is likely that the failure rate of the fit depends on the true
167: equivalent width of the line, and this unknown incompleteness is a
168: potential worry. On the other hand, we show below that our results are
169: robust to the lower limit of equivalent widths we consider. Given the
170: typical equivalent width errors of $2\AA$, our results are most
171: appropriate for galaxies with equivalent widths $> 4\AA$, to which we
172: limit our sample. Redshift surveys underway, such as the Sloan Digital
173: Sky Survey (SDSS;
174: \citealt{york00a}) and the Two-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey
175: (2dFGRS;
176: \citealt{colless98a}), will be able to overcome these two
177: difficulties. A final problem, noted by \citet{kochanek00a}, is that
178: the spectra are taken using fibers with a diameter of $\sim 3''$,
179: which for typical distances of galaxies in the sample is about 4
180: $h^{-1}$ kpc. This may cause an ``aperture bias'' which underestimates
181: the equivalent width of emission lines at low redshift because the
182: fiber probes the inner, bulge component of spirals, rather than their
183: disks, which contain the bulk of the star-formation. The SDSS may be
184: able to constrain this effect by examining the four optical colors
185: which the survey will measure, and comparing the colors within
186: fiber-sized apertures to the global colors of each galaxy.
187:
188: This paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{method} briefly
189: describes our method for calculating the joint luminosity and
190: equivalent width function, and presents a simple fitting function
191: based on that of
192: \citet{schechter76a}. Section
193: \ref{results} describes the results using LCRS $R$-band luminosities
194: and equivalent widths of [OII] 3727 measured by \citet{lin96a}.
195: Section \ref{conclusions} suggests directions of future research.
196:
197: \section{Joint Distribution of Luminosity and Equivalent Width}
198: \label{method}
199:
200: %Our approach to calculating the joint distribution of luminosity,
201: %denoted $L$, and the equivalent width of the line in question, denoted
202: %$\EW$, is to
203: We follow \citet{sandage79a} and \citet{efstathiou88a},
204: maximizing the conditional probability that each galaxy $j$, given its
205: redshift $z_j$, has its
206: measured luminosity $L_j$ and equivalent width $W_j$:
207: \begin{eqnarray}
208: \label{conditional}
209: p(L_{j}, \EW_j | z_j) &=& \frac{p(L_j, \EW_j ,z_j)}{p(z_j)} \cr
210: &=& \frac{\Phi(L_j,
211: \EW_j)f_g(m_j)}
212: {\int_{L_{{\mathrm{min}}(z_j)}}^{L_{{\mathrm{max}}(z_j)}} dL
213: \int_{\EW_{{\mathrm{min}}}}^{\EW_{{\mathrm{max}}}} d\EW
214: \Phi(L,\EW) f_g(m)},
215: \end{eqnarray}
216: Here $L_{{\mathrm{min}}(z_j)}$ and $L_{{\mathrm{max}}(z_j)}$ are the minimum
217: and maximum luminosities observable at redshift $z_j$, given the flux
218: limits of the field which contains galaxy
219: $j$. $\EW_{{\mathrm{min}}}$ and $\EW_{{\mathrm{max}}}$ are the
220: minimum and maximum values of the equivalent widths of our
221: sample. (\citealt{lin96a} find the minimum observable equivalent width
222: to be approximately constant with redshift). $f_g(m)$ represents the
223: magnitude dependence of the redshift completeness. The likelihood of
224: a given model for $\Phi(L,\EW)$ is given by the product of this
225: conditional probability over all galaxies in the sample. Since this
226: conditional likelihood is independent of density, the normalization
227: must be calculated separately. We use the simple estimator:
228: \begin{equation}
229: n_1 = \frac{1}{V} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\mathrm{gals}}} \frac{1}{\phi(z_j)},
230: \end{equation}
231: where $V$ is the size of the volume probed, and $\phi(z)$ is the
232: selection function:
233: \begin{equation}
234: \phi(z) =
235: \int_{L_{\mathrm{min}}(z)}^{L_{\mathrm{max}}(z)} dL\,
236: \int_{\EW_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\EW_{\mathrm{max}}}
237: d\EW\,
238: \Phi(L,\EW) f_g(m) f_t .
239: %{\int_{L_{\mathrm{min}}}^{L_{\mathrm{max}}} dL\,
240: %\int_{\EW_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\EW_{\mathrm{max}}}
241: %d\EW\,
242: % \Phi(L,\EW)}.
243: \end{equation}
244: $f_t$ is the local sampling fraction.\footnote{For a fuller
245: explanation of the meaning of the quantities $f_g$ and $f_t$, consult
246: \citet{lin96a}.} \citet{lin96a} find for the luminosity function that
247: this estimator yields similar results to the minimum variance
248: estimator of \citet{davis82a} for this sample.
249:
250: We use two models to describe $\Phi(L,\EW)$. First, we use the
251: non-parametric form described by \citet{efstathiou88a}, whose
252: extension to the two dimensional plane of $L$ and $\EW$ is
253: trivial. Essentially, this method divides the $(L,W)$ plane into bins
254: of equal logarithmic width, and assumes the distribution within each
255: bin is constant. A fast iterative method can then find the set of
256: values which maximize the likelihood, and we can estimate the errors
257: by evaluating the second derivatives of the likelihood function at the
258: fitted values.
259:
260: Second, following \citet{sandage79a}, we find the maximum likelihood
261: fit to a parametrized function. To do so, we parametrize the joint
262: function as a modified Schechter function, which is motivated by the
263: results below:
264: \begin{equation}
265: \label{modschechter_eq}
266: \Phi(L,\EW) dL d\EW = \phi_\ast
267: \left(\frac{L}{L_\ast}\right)^{\alpha}
268: \exp\left(-L/L_\ast\right) \Psi(\EW | L)
269: d\EW
270: \frac{dL}{L_\ast}
271: \end{equation}
272: where the conditional equivalent width function is:
273: \begin{equation}
274: \Psi(\EW | L) d\EW =
275: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_{\EW}}
276: \frac{d\EW}{\EW}
277: \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma_{\EW}^2}
278: \left(\ln\frac{\EW}{\EW_0} - A
279: \ln\frac{L}{L_\ast}+\frac{\sigma_{\EW}^2}{2}\right)^2
280: \right]
281: \end{equation}
282: That is, at each luminosity, the equivalent widths are distributed
283: log-normally about a mean value which can be expressed as a function
284: of luminosity as:
285: \begin{equation}
286: \avg{\EW} = \EW_0
287: \left(\frac{L}{L_\ast}\right)^A.
288: \end{equation}
289: $\sigma_W$ parametrizes the width of the log-normal distribution. We
290: use this function, and maximize the likelihood in Equation
291: (\ref{conditional}) over the five parameters $L_\ast$, $\alpha$,
292: $\EW_0$, $\sigma_{\EW}$, and $A$.
293:
294: For the parametric fit, we calculate the error bars using 200 Monte
295: Carlo realizations. For each realization, we take the redshifts of all
296: the galaxies in the actual LCRS sample to be the redshifts for the
297: ``galaxies'' in our realization. Then, we select a luminosity and
298: [OII] equivalent width for each galaxy using Equation
299: (\ref{modschechter_eq}), limiting the range of absolute luminosities
300: for each galaxy to that which is within the flux limits at that
301: redshift. Then we maximize the likelihood for this realization. This
302: procedure allows us to examine the distribution of the parameters over
303: all the realizations, and thus calculate the error bars, and to
304: determine whether our method is biased. We are also able to directly
305: compare the likelihood values for the realization to the likelihood
306: value of the data sample. If the fit is consistent with the data,
307: these likelihoods should be comparable; if the fit is not consistent,
308: the likelihood value for the data will always be smaller than that for
309: the realizations.
310:
311: We calculate distance moduli assuming an Einstein-de Sitter
312: universe. We use $K$-corrections of the form $K(z)=2.5
313: \log_{10}(1+z)$ (\citealt{lin96a}).
314: Throughout, we assume $H_0 = 100$ $h$ km/s/Mpc with $h=1$; to convert
315: to other values of $h$, the absolute magnitude scale is shifted by $5
316: \log_{10} h$, and the luminosity function normalization by $h^3$. For
317: plotting purposes we show the luminosity function expressed per unit
318: logarithm $\hat\Phi(L,\EW) = n_1 (\ln 10) L \Phi(L,\EW)$.
319:
320: \section{Results for the LCRS}
321: \label{results}
322:
323: Here we present the joint distribution of $L_R$ and the equivalent
324: width of $[\mathrm{OII}]$ 3727, for a sample of galaxies with
325: $-22.5<M_R<-16.5$ and $5,000$ km/s $< cz< 50,000$ km/s, selected from
326: the North and South 112-fiber fields in the LCRS. The equivalent
327: widths were measured by \citet{lin96a}, by fitting for the position,
328: the width, and the amplitude of a Gaussian to the continuum-subtracted
329: spectrum near the predicted location of [OII] based on the
330: redshift. For about 25\% of the objects, the spectra were too low
331: signal-to-noise to constrain these parameters; the equivalent-width
332: dependence of this incompleteness is unknown. The estimated errors in
333: the measured equivalent widths are about $2\AA$ on average. To
334: minimize the effects of incompleteness and errors, we include only
335: measured equivalent widths $> 4 \AA$ in our analysis, leaving about
336: 8,500 galaxies in our sample.
337:
338: Figure \ref{lewf_phi} shows the non-parametric fit as the thin solid
339: lines with error bars. Each line shown represents a bin of equivalent
340: widths, whose central value is given. Some of the lines are offset for
341: clarity, as described in the caption. Note the characteristic
342: difference between the strong emission line galaxies, which are in
343: general less luminous and have a steeper faint-end slope, and the weak
344: emission line galaxies, which are brighter with a shallower faint-end
345: slope. This result accords qualitatively with that of \citet{lin96a}
346: and those of numerous other investigations of the dependence of the
347: luminosity function on [OII] equivalent width (\citealt{cowie96a};
348: \citealt{ellis96a}; \citealt{small97a}) and
349: on spectral type in general (\citealt{zucca97a};
350: \citealt{bromley98a}; \citealt{folkes99a}; \citealt{loveday99a}).
351:
352: We also show the modified Schechter function fit in Figure
353: \ref{lewf_phi} as the thick solid lines for each equivalent width
354: shown (again, some are offset for clarity). Apparently this model
355: does a pretty good job, though it uses 6 parameters: the ordinary
356: Schechter parameters $\phi_\ast$, $L_\ast$, $\alpha$, plus the
357: parameters describing the dependence of equivalent width on luminosity
358: $\EW_0$, $\sigma_{\EW}$, and $A$ (which is negative, because brighter
359: galaxies have smaller equivalent widths). The best-fit values of these
360: parameters are given in Table
361: \ref{lewf_phi_table}. Note that it is approximately true from these
362: results that
363: \begin{equation}
364: \avg{\EW} \approx (10 \AA) \left(\frac{L_R}{L_{R,\ast}}\right)^{-1/2}.
365: \end{equation}
366: Also, the Schechter parameters $\phi_\ast$, $L_\ast$ and $\alpha$
367: agree generally with the results of the independent analysis of
368: \citet{lin96a}, although the faint end slope here is a bit
369: steeper.
370:
371: Table \ref{lewf_phi_table} also gives the errors in the modified
372: Schechter parameters, as well as the correlation matrix between these
373: parameters, determined from 200 Monte Carlo realizations, as described
374: above. We have found that the bias in the maximum likelihood method is
375: smaller than the error bars in this sample. Furthermore, we find that
376: the fraction of Monte Carlo realizations which have likelihoods worse
377: than that found for the data is about $P_{\mathrm{worse}}\approx
378: 0.47$; this means that the likelihood for the data is comparable to
379: the likelihoods from the Monte Carlo realizations, indicating that the
380: fit is consistent with the data.
381:
382: %In Figure \ref{lewf_ew}, we integrate the joint function between
383: %$-17.5<M_R<-22$ to obtain $\Phi(L_R,W)$ for such galaxies. We take
384: %this restricted range because outside of this range there are bins
385: %without galaxies in them simply because of Poisson fluctuations. Note
386: %that this function
387:
388: We have experimented with performing the modified Schechter function
389: fit with limiting equivalent widths between $0.5\AA$ and $9.5\AA$,
390: instead of the limiting value of $4 \AA$ used for the results
391: just presented. The parameters appear fairly robust to what this lower
392: limit is. The largest changes are in the faint-end slope, which
393: varies from $\alpha\sim -0.75$ at a limiting equivalent width of $0.5
394: \AA$ to $\alpha\sim -1.1$ at a limiting equivalent width of $9.5
395: \AA$; that we measure a slightly different faint-end slope than
396: \citet{lin96a} is thus related to our choice of a limiting equivalent
397: width of $4\AA$. Meanwhile, $M_\ast$ varies by about 0.15
398: magnitudes. However, the changes in the parameters which describe the
399: distribution of equivalent widths are quite small. $\EW_0$ varies by
400: $<3\%$, $\sigma_\EW$ varies from $0.85$ to $0.75$, and $A$ varies from
401: $-0.45$ to $-0.49$. This consistency simply tells us that the modified
402: Schechter function is good at fitting the combination of the intrinsic
403: equivalent width distribution and the incompleteness as a function of
404: equivalent width. Nevertheless, we find it encouraging that the
405: nearly same analytic form fits equally well the high equivalent width
406: galaxies, which we are fairly confident of, and the low equivalent
407: width galaxies, which may suffer from incompleteness as a function of
408: equivalent width.
409:
410:
411: \section{Discussion}
412: \label{conclusions}
413:
414: We have presented a simple functional form which seems to describe
415: well the joint distribution of luminosity and the equivalent width of
416: the [OII] 3727 emission line in the LCRS. We caution that the
417: dependence of completeness on equivalent width is unknown, and
418: further, that we have not accounted for the distribution of the
419: equivalent width errors (on average about $2 \AA$) in our analysis.
420: Upcoming surveys such as the SDSS and 2dFGRS will provide larger
421: homogeneous sets of spectra with better resolution, and will overcome
422: a number of the problems encountered here.
423:
424: The joint distribution function $\Phi(L_R,W)$ can provide a useful
425: tool for testing theories of galaxy formation, because the $R$-band
426: luminosity is an approximate indication of the stellar mass contained
427: in each galaxy and the equivalent width of [OII] 3727 is an
428: approximate indication of recent star-formation in the galaxy. By
429: combining hydrodynamic or semi-analytic models for galaxy formation,
430: such as those mentioned above, with spectral synthesis models
431: (\citealt{leitherer96a}; \citealt{kennicutt98a}), it may be possible
432: to place strong constraints on the properties of the star-formation
433: history of galaxies. In this vein, understanding this joint
434: distribution locally is also helpful in interpreting the evolution of
435: [OII] emission at higher redshifts and thus the evolution of the
436: star-formation rate of the universe (\citealt{hogg98a}).
437:
438: \acknowledgments
439:
440: Thanks to Scott Dodelson, Daniel Eisenstein, David Hogg, Siang Peng
441: Oh, Ravi Sheth, Doug Tucker, and Idit Zehavi for useful discussions.
442: Thanks to Michael Strauss for extensive advice and comments. MB is
443: grateful for the hospitality of the Department of Physics and
444: Astronomy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, who
445: kindly provided computing facilities on his frequent visits there. MB
446: acknowledges the support of the DOE and NASA grant NAG 5-7092 at
447: Fermilab. HL acknowledges support provided by NASA through Hubble
448: Fellowship grant \#HF-01110.01-98A awarded by the Space Telescope
449: Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of
450: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA under contract
451: NAS 5-26555. Finally, this work would not have been possible without
452: the public availability of the Las Campanas Redshift Survey data, for
453: which we thank the LCRS team.
454:
455: %\begin{references}
456: %\begin{list}{}{
457: %\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
458: %\setlength{\leftmargin}{10pt}
459: %\setlength{\rightmargin}{0pt}
460: %\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
461: %\setlength{\labelwidth}{0pt}
462: %\setlength{\itemindent}{-10pt}
463: %}
464: \begin{thebibliography}{DUM}
465: \bibitem[Bromley {\it et al.} (1998)]{bromley98a}
466: Bromley, B.~C., Press, W.~H., Lin, H., \& Kirshner, R.~P.~1998,
467: \apj, 505, 25
468: \bibitem[Cen \& Ostriker (1998)]{cen98a} % Physical bias
469: Cen, R.,~\& Ostriker, J.~P.~1998, preprint (astro-ph/9809370)
470: \bibitem[Colless (1998)]{colless98a}
471: Colless, M. 1998, preprint (astro-ph/9804079)
472: \bibitem[Cowie {\it et al.} (1996)]{cowie96a}
473: Cowie, L.~L., Songaila, A., Hu, E.~M., \& Cohen, J.~G.~1996,
474: \aj. 112. 839
475: \bibitem[Davis \& Huchra (1982)]{davis82a}
476: Davis, M., \& Huchra, J.~1982, \apj, 254, 437
477: \bibitem[Efstathiou, Ellis, \& Peterson (1988)]{efstathiou88a}
478: Efstathiou, G., Ellis, R.~S., \& Peterson, B.~S.~1988, \mnras, 232, 431
479: \bibitem[Ellis, {\it et al.}~(1996)]{ellis96a}
480: Ellis, R.~S., Colless, M., Broadhurst, T., Heyl, J., \& Glazebrook,
481: K.~1996, \mnras, 280, 235
482: \bibitem[Folkes, {\it et al.} (1999)]{folkes99a}
483: Folkes, S., Ronen, S., Price, I., Lahav, O., Colless, M., Maddox, S.,
484: Deeley, K., Glazebrook, K., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Cannon, R., Cole, S.,
485: Collins, C., Couch, W., Driver, S., Dalton, G., Efstathiou, G., Ellis,
486: R., Frenk, C., Kaiser, N., Lewis, I., Lumsden, S., Peacock, J.,
487: Peterson, B., Sutherland, W., \& Taylor, K.~1999, \mnras, 308, 459
488: \bibitem[Hogg {\it et al.} (1998)]{hogg98a}
489: Hogg, D.~W., Cohen, J., Blandford, R., \& Pahre, M.~A.~1998, \apj 504,
490: 622
491: \bibitem[Kauffmann~{\it et~al.} (1999)]{kauffmann99a}
492: Kauffmann, G., Colberg, J.~M., Diaferio, A., \& White S.~D.~M.~1999,
493: \mnras, 303, 188
494: \bibitem[Kennicutt (1998)]{kennicutt98a}
495: Kennicutt, R.~C.~1998, \araa, 36, 189
496: \bibitem[Kochanek, Pahre, \& Falco (2000)]{kochanek00a}
497: Kochanek, C.~S., Pahre, M., \& Falco, E.~E.~2000, in preparation
498: \bibitem[Leitherer {\it et al.} (1996)]{leitherer96a}
499: Leitherer {\it et al.}~1996, \pasp, 108, 996
500: \bibitem[Lin {\it et al.} (1996)]{lin96a}
501: Lin, H., Kirshner, R.~P., Shectman, S.~A., Landy, S.~D., Oemler, A.,
502: Tucker, D.~L., \& Schechter, P.~L.~1996, \apj, 464, 60
503: \bibitem[Loveday, Tresse, \& Maddox (1999)]{loveday99a}
504: Loveday, J., Tresse, L., \& Maddox, S.~1999, \mnras, 310, 281
505: \bibitem[Pearce {\it et al.} (1999)]{pearce99a}
506: Pearce, F.~R., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.~S., Colberg, J.~M., White,
507: S.~D.~M., Thomas, P.~A., Couchman, H.~M.~P., Peacock, J.~A., \&
508: Efstathiou, G.~1999, \apj, 521, L99
509: \bibitem[Sandage, Tammann, \& Yahil (1979)]{sandage79a}
510: % STY luminosity function fitting method
511: Sandage, A., Tammann, G.~A., \& Yahil, A.~1979, \apj, 232, 352
512: \bibitem[Schechter (1976)]{schechter76a}
513: Schechter, P.~1976, \apj, 203, 297
514: \bibitem[Shectman {\it et al.} (1996)]{shectman96a}
515: Shectman, S.~A., Landy, S.~D., Oemler, A., Tucker, D.~L., Lin, H.,
516: Kirshner, R.~P., \& Schechter, P.~L. 1996, \apj, 470, 172
517: \bibitem[Small {\it et al.} (1997)]{small97a}
518: Small, T.~A., Ma, C.-P., Sargent, W.~L.~W., \& Hamilton, D.~1997,
519: \apj, 487, 512
520: \bibitem[Somerville {\it et al.} (1999)]{somerville99a}
521: % Non-linear Stochastic Galaxy Biasing in Cosmological Simulations
522: Somerville, R.~S., Lemson, G., Sigad, Y., Dekel, A., Kauffmann, G., \&
523: White, S.~D.~M.~1999, submitted to \mnras, preprint (astro-ph/9912073)
524: \bibitem[York, {\it et al.} (2000)]{york00a}
525: York, D., {\it et al.} (2000), submitted to \aj
526: \bibitem[Zucca {\it et al} (1997)]{zucca97a}
527: Zucca, E., Zamorani, G., Vettolani, G., Cappi, A., Merighi, R.,
528: Mignoli, M., Stirpe, G.~M., MacGillivray, H., Collins, C., Balkowski,
529: C., Cayatte, V., Maurogordato, S., Proust, D., Chincarini, G., Guzzo,
530: L., Maccagni, D., Scaramella, R., Blanchard, A., \& Ramella, M.~1997,
531: \aap, 326, 477
532: \end{thebibliography}
533: %\end{list}
534: %\end{references}
535:
536: \newpage
537:
538: \begin{deluxetable}{crrrrr}
539: \tablewidth{0pt}
540: \tablecolumns{6}
541: %\tablenum{\tabnum}
542: \tablecaption{\label{lewf_phi_table} Modified Schechter Fit to LCRS
543: Galaxies}
544: \tablecomments{Parameters of the modified Schechter function given in
545: Equation (\ref{modschechter_eq}) and correlation matrix between the
546: parameters. The first line of the table gives the values of the
547: parameters and their errors. The bottom section of the table gives the
548: correlation matrix. Normalization is $\phi_\ast = 1.34 \pm 0.03$
549: ($\times 10^{-2}$) Mpc $^{-3}$. The errors and the correlation matrix
550: were calculated using 200 Monte Carlo simulations. The fraction of
551: realizations which had worse fits to the model than did the data was
552: about $P_{\mathrm{worse}}=0.47$, indicating that the model is
553: consistent with the data.}
554: \tablehead{ & $M_\ast$ & $\alpha$ & \EW$_0$ ($\AA$) &
555: $\sigma_{\mathrm{\EW}}$ & A }
556: \startdata
557: & $ -20.32 \pm 0.01$ & $ -0.91 \pm 0.02$ & $ 10.14 \pm 0.03$ & $ 0.77 \pm 0.01$ & $ -0.47 \pm 0.01$ \cr
558: \hline
559: \hline\cr
560: $M_\ast$ & 1.00 & 0.39 & -0.69 & 0.16 & -0.25 \cr
561: $\alpha$ & 0.39 & 1.00 & -0.73 & 0.28 & -0.32 \cr
562: $W_0$ & -0.69 & -0.73 & 1.00 & -0.34 & 0.11 \cr
563: $\sigma_W$ & 0.16 & 0.28 & -0.34 & 1.00 & -0.45 \cr
564: $A$ & -0.25 & -0.32 & 0.11 & -0.45 & 1.00 \cr
565: \enddata
566: \end{deluxetable}
567:
568:
569: \clearpage
570:
571: \setcounter{thefigs}{0}
572:
573: \newpage
574: \stepcounter{thefigs}
575: \begin{figure}
576: \figurenum{\fignum}
577: \plotone{f1.eps}
578: \caption{\label{lewf_phi} Joint distribution of luminosity and [OII]
579: equivalent width for the approximately 8,500 LCRS galaxies (in the
580: N112 and S112 fields) for which we have measured equivalent widths in
581: the range $4$--$100$ $\AA$. Curves with error bars represent the
582: results of a two-dimensional non-parametric fit based on the method of
583: \citet{efstathiou88a}. They are labeled by the central value of each
584: logarithmically spaced bin in equivalent width. Note the
585: characteristic differences in $M_\ast$ and faint-end slope between the
586: star-forming, high equivalent width galaxies, and the quiescent, low
587: equivalent width galaxies. Smooth curves represent the best fit
588: modified Schechter function of Equation (\ref{modschechter_eq}), which
589: appears to model the data well. Parameters of this fit as well as
590: their error bars and covariances are given in Table
591: \ref{lewf_phi_table}. For the purposes of clarity, we have offset the
592: $5.5 \AA$, $10.5 \AA$, and $20.0 \AA$ curves (for both the
593: non-parametric and the modified Schechter fits) by 1.8, 1.0, and 0.3
594: dex, respectively. }
595: \end{figure}
596:
597:
598: \end{document}
599: