1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[]{aastex}
3: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \citestyle{aa}
6:
7: \newcommand{\kmsmpc}{{\rm\ km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}}
8: \newcommand{\LCDM}{$\Lambda$CDM}
9: \newcommand{\WMAP}{{\it WMAP}}
10: \newcommand{\GOODS}{{\it GOODS}}
11:
12: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{
13: \def\@captype{figure}
14: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
15: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
16:
17: %----------------------------------------------------
18: %\received{2003 May 23}
19: \begin{document}
20: %\slugcomment{{\em submitted to Astrophysical Journal Letters}}
21:
22: \shorttitle{The Redshift Distribution of Near-IR Selected Galaxies in \GOODS}
23:
24: \shortauthors{Somerville et al.}
25:
26: \title{The Redshift Distribution of Near-IR Selected Galaxies in
27: the {\it Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey}
28: as a Test of Galaxy Formation Scenarios \altaffilmark{1}}
29:
30: %-------------------------------------------------------------
31: \author{
32: Rachel S. Somerville\altaffilmark{2},
33: Leonidas A. Moustakas\altaffilmark{2},
34: Bahram Mobasher\altaffilmark{2},
35: Jonathan P. Gardner\altaffilmark{3},
36: Andrea Cimatti\altaffilmark{4},
37: Christopher Conselice\altaffilmark{5},
38: Emanuele Daddi\altaffilmark{6},
39: Tomas Dahlen\altaffilmark{2},
40: Mark Dickinson\altaffilmark{2},
41: Peter Eisenhardt\altaffilmark{7},
42: Jennifer Lotz\altaffilmark{8},
43: Casey Papovich\altaffilmark{9},
44: Alvio Renzini\altaffilmark{6},
45: Daniel Stern\altaffilmark{7}
46: }
47:
48: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on
49: observations taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, which is
50: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
51: Inc.\ (AURA) under NASA contract NAS5--26555, and on observations
52: collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile, Programs
53: 164.O-0561, 169.A-0725, 267.A-5729}
54: \altaffiltext{2}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin
55: Drive, Baltimore MD 21218; somerville,leonidas,mobasher,dahlen,med@stsci.edu}
56: \altaffiltext{3}{Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics,
57: Code 681, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD 20771; jonathan.p.gardner@nasa.gov}
58: \altaffiltext{4}{Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, I-50125 Firenze,
59: Italy; cimatti@arcetri.astro.it}
60: \altaffiltext{5}{California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 105-24,
61: Pasadena CA 91125; cc@astro.caltech.edu}
62: \altaffiltext{6}{European Southern Observatory, D-85748, Garching, Germany; edaddi,arenzini@eso.org}
63: \altaffiltext{7}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
64: Technology, Mail Stop 169-506, Pasadena, CA 91109; prme@kromos.jpl.nasa.gov; stern@zwolfkinder.jpl.nasa.gov}
65: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
66: Santa Cruz, CA 95064; lotz@stsci.edu}
67: \altaffiltext{9}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; papovich@as.arizona.edu}
68:
69: \begin{abstract}
70: The redshift distribution of near-IR selected galaxies is often used
71: to attempt to discriminate between the classical view of galaxy
72: formation, in which present-day luminous galaxies were assembled at
73: early times and evolve due to the passive aging of their stellar
74: populations, and that of hierarchical structure formation, in which
75: galaxies were assembled more recently via the merging of smaller
76: objects. We carry out such a test here, by computing the distribution
77: of photometric redshifts of $K_{\rm AB}<22$ galaxies in the Great
78: Observatories Origins Deep Field Survey (\GOODS) Southern Field, and
79: comparing the results with predictions from a semi-analytic model
80: based on hierarchical structure formation, and a classical `passive
81: evolution' model. We find that the redshift distributions at $z\la1.5$
82: of both the hierarchical and passive models are very similar to the
83: observed one. At $z\ga1.5$, the hierarchical model shows a deficit of
84: galaxies, while the passive model predicts an excess. We investigate
85: the nature of the observed galaxies in the redshift range where the
86: models diverge, and find that the majority have highly disturbed
87: morphologies, suggesting that they may be merger-induced
88: starbursts. While the hierarchical model used here does not produce
89: these objects in great enough numbers, the appearance of this
90: population is clearly in better qualitative agreement with the
91: hierarchical picture than with the classical passive evolution
92: scenario. We conclude that the observations support the general
93: framework of hierarchical formation, but suggest the need for new or
94: modified physics in the models.
95:
96: \end{abstract}
97: \keywords{galaxies: formation --- galaxies: evolution}
98:
99:
100: %\subjectheadings{galaxies: formation --- galaxies: evolution}
101:
102: %=======================
103: % 1
104: \section{Introduction}
105: \label{sec:intro}
106: %=======================
107:
108: While the stars that produce the bulk of the optical light in nearby
109: luminous galaxies are known observationally to be quite old, it is
110: possible that the time at which the mass was assembled into a single
111: object is different from the formation time of the stars. In fact, in
112: the hierarchical paradigm of galaxy formation, one expects mass
113: assembly to be a gradual process, in contrast to the classical
114: monolithic dissipative collapse picture \citep*{els}. A generic
115: prediction of hierarchical (Cold Dark Matter; CDM) theories is that
116: galaxies should be less massive in the past. Direct searches for
117: galaxies at high redshift should therefore provide a crucial test of
118: this class of theories \citep{kc98}. Determining the epoch of
119: formation and assembly of present-day luminous galaxies is central to
120: our understanding of galaxy formation and cosmology, and is a primary
121: goal of the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (\GOODS), as well
122: as of many other deep surveys.
123:
124: In practice, however, there are many complications involved in
125: carrying out this test. Of course, we cannot follow an individual
126: galaxy back in time, but can only study populations observed at
127: different redshifts. Cosmological k-corrections (redshifting of light
128: to longer wavelengths) and stellar evolution both make it difficult to
129: relate high redshift populations to local ones. One can attempt to
130: account for these effects by artificially redshifting template spectra
131: for representative galaxy types and/or by using stellar population
132: models with assumed star formation histories. Starting from an
133: empirical low-redshift luminosity function, one can then predict how
134: the local galaxy population would appear at high redshift, with the
135: effects of k-corrections only (`no evolution') or with the additional
136: effects of stellar evolution (`passive evolution') included. However,
137: these corrections can be sensitive to the input assumptions.
138:
139: There are several advantages to carrying out this test using a sample
140: selected in the near-IR rather than the optical. The corrections
141: described above are considerably smaller, and the near-IR light more
142: closely traces the stellar mass. The observed K-band (2.2 $\mu$m)
143: probes the SED longwards of the rest-frame I-band ($\sim 8600$ \AA)
144: out to $z\sim 1.5$. However, it also necessary to probe a large enough
145: volume to contain a statistically significant sample of rare luminous
146: objects. The availability of accurate photometric redshift estimates,
147: requiring multi-band U through K photometry, enables such tests to be
148: extended into the $z\ga 1.2$ `spectroscopic desert', where
149: spectroscopic redshifts are difficult to procure. Only recently have
150: sufficiently deep and wide near-IR selected surveys with multi-band
151: photometry begun to become available.
152:
153: The original study by \citet[][KC98]{kc98} showed that the cumulative
154: redshift distribution of K-selected galaxies differed greatly in a
155: hierarchical model compared with a passive (or Pure Luminosity
156: Evolution; PLE) model: they found that the fraction of galaxies at
157: $z>1$ with $18 < K_{\rm VEGA} < 19$ was an order of magnitude higher
158: in the PLE model. Based on the small observational samples available
159: at the time, KC98 concluded that the hierarchical model provided a
160: better match to the observed redshift distribution out to
161: $z\sim1$. Recently, several studies have carried out this test using
162: updated hierarchical models (including, among other things, the
163: transition to a low-$\Omega_m$, cosmological constant-dominated
164: cosmology) and larger, deeper observational samples
165: \citep{firth,cimatti:02b,kashikawa:03}. Both \citet{cimatti:02b} and
166: \citet{kashikawa:03} concluded that the PLE models produced better
167: agreement with the observed redshift distribution at $z\ga1.5$ than
168: the hierarchical models, although the disagreement was relatively
169: subtle compared with the expectations set out in KC98.
170:
171: In this paper, we use a K$_s$-band selected sample ($K_{AB}<22$) from
172: the \GOODS\ Southern field to repeat the KC98-type redshift
173: distribution test, using accurate, well-calibrated photometric
174: redshifts \citep{mobasher:03}. The \GOODS\ field probes a
175: considerably larger area and volume than previous studies at a similar
176: depth. We also have the advantage of the exquisite ACS imaging, which
177: allows us to investigate the morphologies of high redshift galaxies,
178: gaining further insights into the nature of these objects. We confront
179: these observations with predictions from semi-analytic hierarchical
180: galaxy formation models, and with PLE models, both normalized to the
181: $z=0$ K-band luminosity function recently determined from the 2MASS
182: survey \citep{kochanek:01,cole:01}.
183:
184: \section{The Data}
185: The \GOODS\ data are described in \citet{giavalisco:03}. Our study is
186: based on the \GOODS\ Southern field (Chandra Deep Field South; CDFS),
187: which has an area of 160 arcmin$^2$. In addition to the 4-band (BViz)
188: ACS imaging, we make use of an extensive set of complementary
189: ground-based observations from the VLT, NTT, and ESO 2.2m telescopes,
190: including optical WFI (U'UBVRI) and FORS (RI), and infrared SOFI
191: (JHK$_{s}$) photometry, which covers the entire ACS \GOODS\ CDFS
192: field. This work is based on a PSF-matched SOFI-K$_s$ selected
193: catalog. Clearly-unresolved sources (stars) based on the ACS
194: $z_{850}$ data down to z$_{AB}<26.2$ have been removed. The 50\%
195: completeness limit is K$_{s}=22.8$, and the sample should be close to
196: 100\% complete at K$_s<22$ \citep{moy:03,giavalisco:03}, the limit we
197: adopt for our analysis. Photometric redshifts were estimated as
198: described in \citet{mobasher:03}, using all the available bands (U'
199: through K$_s$), and are well-calibrated to $K_{\rm VEGA}<20$ using
200: spectroscopic redshifts from the K20 survey \citep{cimatti:02} and
201: additional spectra obtained from FORS2 on the VLT as part of the
202: \GOODS\ program. Typical redshift errors for the K$_s<22$ sample are
203: $\sim \Delta z/(1+z_{\rm spec}) = 0.1$ \citep{mobasher:03}.
204:
205: In the remainder of the paper, we refer to the $K_s$ band as $K$ for
206: brevity, and give all magnitudes in the AB system unless otherwise
207: specified. Note that for our filter bands, $K_{AB} = K_{VEGA}+1.85$,
208: and $(R-K)_{AB}= (R-K)_{VEGA}-1.65$.
209:
210: \section{Models}
211: Where relevant, we assume the following values for the cosmological
212: parameters: matter density $\Omega_m = 0.3$, baryon density $\Omega_b
213: =0.044$, dark energy $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.70$, Hubble parameter
214: $H_0=70$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$, fluctuation amplitude $\sigma_8 =
215: 0.9$, and a scale-free primordial power spectrum $n_s=1$. These values
216: are consistent with the recent \WMAP\ data \citep{spergel:03}.
217:
218: The basic ingredients of the semi-analytic hierarchical models used
219: here are described in \citet{sp} and \citet{spf}. The models are based
220: on hierarchical merger trees within a \LCDM\ model, and include
221: modeling of gas cooling, star formation, supernova feedback, chemical
222: enrichment, stellar population synthesis, and dust. We use the
223: multi-metallicity stellar SED models of \citet{dgs}, assuming a
224: Kennicutt IMF. Here we have considered a model based on the
225: `collisional starburst' recipe described in \citet{spf}, which was
226: found to produce the best agreement with high redshift ($z\sim3$)
227: galaxy observations. Several parameters and model ingredients have
228: been adjusted to give better agreement with the low redshift optical
229: and K-band luminosity functions recently determined by SDSS and 2MASS
230: \citep[e.g.][]{blanton:01,cole:01}, and with low redshift galaxy
231: colors (details will be given in Somerville et al. 2003, in prep). We
232: produced a mock catalog with the same angular extent and depth as the
233: \GOODS\ ACS and ground-based data, which was run `blind' before the data
234: were analyzed.
235:
236: The passive evolution models are computed as described in
237: \citet{gardner:98}, and are normalized to the type-dependent $z=0$
238: K-band luminosity functions derived from the 2MASS survey by
239: \citet{kochanek:01}. These models contain six different types of
240: galaxies with simple parameterized star formation histories: E, S0,
241: Sb, Sc, Irr, and starburst. All galaxies except the starburst type
242: begin forming stars at $z=15$. The E, S0, Sb and Sc types have
243: exponentially declining star formation rates with e-folding timescales
244: of 1 Gyr for the E/S0, 4 Gyr for the Sb and 7 Gyr for the Sc
245: types. The Irr types have a constant star formation rate. The
246: starburst population has a constant star formation rate and constant
247: age (1 Gyr) at every redshift.
248:
249: \section{Results}
250:
251: %\clearpage
252:
253: \begin{figure*}
254: \epsscale{2.0}
255: \plotone{f1.eps}
256: \caption{\small [left] Cumulative redshift distribution of $K<22$
257: galaxies. Bold solid line: \GOODS\ CDFS; Light solid line: K20 sample;
258: dashed: semi-analytic model; dot-dashed: passive model. [right]
259: Differential redshift distribution ($K<22$), with Poisson errors shown
260: on the \GOODS\ data [bold histogram]. Line types are as in the left
261: panel. The hierarchical model is highlighted by diamond symbols. The
262: cross symbols show the hierarchical model with a crude correction of
263: 0.2 magnitudes applied to account for the isophotal magnitudes used in
264: the \GOODS\ observations (see text).
265: \label{fig:nofz}}
266: \end{figure*}
267:
268: %\clearpage
269:
270: The cumulative and differential redshift distributions for the $K<22$
271: selected samples are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nofz}, for the \GOODS\
272: data, the K20 survey, and the semi-analytic and passive models. The
273: redshift distribution of \GOODS\ agrees very well with that obtained
274: from the K20 spectroscopic survey, which was carried out independently
275: in a smaller area of the same field. The agreement between the
276: semi-analytic models and the observations is quite good --- well
277: within the fluctuations expected from large scale structure --- up to
278: about $z\sim1.5$. This good low redshift agreement is in contrast with
279: previous comparisons with semi-analytic models from several groups
280: \citep{firth,cimatti:02b}. In previous models, the luminosity function
281: was too steep on the faint end, leading to an excess of intrinsically
282: faint galaxies at low redshift. Improved modeling of sub-halo merging,
283: and including ejection of gas by superwinds and suppression of gas
284: infall in small halos after reionization produce better agreement with
285: the observed K-band luminosity function at $z=0$
286: \citep{squelch,benson:02}, and also to better agreement with the
287: low-redshift $N(z)$ shown here. Also of note is the similarity of the
288: predicted $N(z)$ at $z<1$ for the hierarchical and the PLE models ---
289: in contrast with the results of KC98.
290:
291: At $z\ga 1.5$, the number of $K<22$ galaxies in the semi-analytic
292: models is significantly and systematically smaller than the observed
293: value, while the PLE model systematically \emph{overpredicts} the
294: number of objects in this range by a similar factor. The isophotal
295: magnitudes used in our \GOODS\ catalog are probably fainter than the
296: true total magnitudes by about 0.2--0.3 magnitudes
297: \citep{cimatti:02}. Correcting the semi-analytic models for this
298: effect further exacerbates the discrepancy, as shown in
299: Fig.~\ref{fig:nofz}. We note that the redshift range in which the
300: models suffer from the most significant discrepancy ($z\ga 1.5$) is
301: precisely where the photometric redshifts are the least secure, as
302: very few spectroscopic redshifts are available to test them --- though
303: progress is being made in this area \citep{daddi:03}. In addition, at
304: these redshifts, the observed K-band has shifted into the rest
305: optical, and is therefore more sensitive to recent star formation
306: activity.
307:
308: It is interesting to investigate the nature of the galaxies that
309: appear in the high redshift tail of the observed distribution, but are
310: under-represented in the hierarchical models. Fig.~\ref{fig:rminusk}
311: shows the (observed frame) $R-K$ colors as a function of redshift for
312: the observed and semi-analytic model galaxies. The colors of solar
313: metallicity, single-age populations are also shown. The semi-analytic
314: model reproduces the locus of observed colors fairly well up to
315: $z\sim0.8$. At $z\sim0.8$--1.2, the semi-analytic model produces
316: enough $K<22$ galaxies overall, but does not produce enough galaxies
317: with very red colors. This problem has been noted before
318: \citep{dcr:00,firth,cimatti:02b}. The number densities and
319: morphologies of these $R-K \ga 3.35$ Extremely Red Objects (EROs) in
320: \GOODS\ are discussed in more detail in \citet{moustakas:03}.
321:
322: At higher redshift ($z\ga 1.5$), the observed distribution of $R-K$
323: colors is bimodal, with the `dip' around $R-K\sim3$ (see
324: Fig.~\ref{fig:rminusk}). Focusing on galaxies in the redshift interval
325: $1.7 < z < 2.5$ and with $K<22$, we find that about 60\% (44 out of
326: 75) of the \GOODS\ galaxies have colors bluer than $R-K=3$, while in
327: the semi-analytic mock catalog, 52\% (11 out of 21) of the objects
328: have $R-K<3$. Considering the small number statistics, this implies
329: that the semi-analytic model produces approximately the correct
330: \emph{relative fraction} of red and blue galaxies.
331: %; or put another way,
332: %that the observed high redshift galaxies causing the discrepancy are
333: %nearly evenly divided between red and blue objects.
334: We have visually inspected all of the objects in this sub-sample, and
335: find that the great majority of both red and blue galaxies have highly
336: irregular morphologies, many with multiple components and the
337: appearance of ongoing mergers.
338:
339: From comparison with the single-burst model tracks, we can deduce that
340: the high redshift, blue galaxies ($R-K \la 3$) must be dominated by
341: extremely young ($\la 500$ Myr), nearly unreddened stars.
342: % (or, that these galaxies have mis-assigned photometric redshifts).
343: Intriguingly, \citet{daddi:03} have recently obtained spectra for a
344: sample of galaxies with $K_{\rm VEGA}<20$ and $z_{\rm phot} > 1.7$ in
345: the \GOODS\ CDFS/K20 field, and have successfully obtained redshifts
346: for 9 such objects, confirming that they lie in the range $1.7 \la z
347: \la 2.3$. On the basis of these spectra and the ACS images,
348: \citet{daddi:03} argue that these objects are strongly clustered,
349: massive, merger-driven starbursts. We show the location of these
350: objects on our color-redshift diagram, and see that they lie precisely
351: in the regime of the `missing blue galaxies'.
352:
353: %\clearpage
354:
355: \begin{figure*}
356: \epsscale{2.0}
357: \begin{center}
358: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
359: \end{center}
360: \figcaption{\small Observed frame color $(R-K)_{AB}$ vs redshift for
361: the \GOODS\ CDFS [left] and the semi-analytic mock catalog
362: [right]. Tracks are shown for single age, stellar metallicity
363: populations with ages of 13.5, 5.8, 3.2, 1, 0.5, and 0.1 Gyr
364: (unreddened), from top to bottom. Large star symbols show the colors
365: of spectroscopically confirmed objects from
366: \protect\citet{daddi:03}. The color distribution of galaxies with
367: $K<22$ in the redshift range $1.7 < z < 2.5$ is shown in the right
368: panel as histograms (diagonal hatched: \GOODS; horizontal fill: mock
369: catalog).
370: \label{fig:rminusk}}
371: \end{figure*}
372:
373: %\clearpage
374:
375: \section{Discussion}
376:
377: In this paper, we address a central question in galaxy formation
378: theory: were most of the luminous galaxies that we see today already
379: in place at high redshift, or were they assembled gradually over time?
380: To answer this question, we confronted observations from the \GOODS\
381: CDFS field with predictions from two models representing what are
382: traditionally considered opposing points of view: a semi-analytic
383: hierarchical model based on CDM theory, and a `passive evolution'
384: model, in which galaxy properties evolve only due to the aging of
385: their stellar populations. Our main conclusions are as follows:
386:
387: \begin{enumerate}
388: \item Up to $z\sim1$, redshift distributions of $K<22$ galaxies in the
389: hierarchical model, the passive model, and the data are all consistent
390: with one another. However, the hierarchical model underproduces the
391: number of Extremely Red Objects (EROs) at $z\sim1$.
392:
393: \item The hierarchical model underproduces near-IR selected objects
394: ($K<22$) by about a factor of three at $z\ga1.7$ and by an order of
395: magnitude at $z\ga 2$. The PLE model overproduces these galaxies by
396: about a factor of two at $z\sim2$.
397:
398: \item At $z\ga 1.5$, the objects underproduced in the hierarchical
399: model are nearly equally divided between red ($R-K>3$) and blue
400: galaxies. Based on ACS imaging, many of these objects appear to be
401: highly morphologically disturbed, and a large fraction may be
402: merger-driven starbursts.
403:
404: \end{enumerate}
405:
406: Not surprisingly, the predicted colors of model galaxies in the
407: hierarchical models are quite sensitive to the details of the star
408: formation recipes, as well as the stellar IMF and dust modeling. For
409: example, if we assume that starbursts occur in major mergers only, we
410: can produce more extremely red galaxies at $z\sim1$, but we then
411: produce even fewer luminous blue galaxies at
412: $z\sim1.5$--2. Alternatively, if we brighten all model galaxies by 0.5
413: magnitudes (40\%), we find that the semi-analytic model then produces
414: sufficient numbers of $K<22$ objects at $z\ga1.5$, but this naturally
415: causes an excess at lower redshift. Cosmic variance is also expected
416: to be significant for these luminous, rare objects --- assuming that
417: these objects are strongly clustered, like EROs at $z\sim 1$
418: \citep[e.g.][]{daddi:01}, we estimate an uncertainty due to cosmic
419: variance of about 60\% in the number density of objects at $1.5 \la z
420: \la 2$ \citep[see][]{cosvar}. This implies that the semi-analytic
421: model is discrepant at less than 2$\sigma$. Results from additional
422: fields will determine whether there is an overdensity of objects at
423: $z\ga1.5$--2 in the CDFS.
424:
425: A significant conclusion from this work is that the test proposed by
426: KC98, when carried out with recent models, is not as strong a
427: discriminator between the traditionally opposing points of view of
428: hierarchical vs. PLE models as was found in that work. Adoption of the
429: flat, low-$\Omega_m$ cosmology now favored by observation, and the
430: refinement of the star formation and feedback recipes has resulted in
431: more early star formation in the modern semi-analytic models. At the
432: same time, the use of the observed K-band $z=0$ luminosity function to
433: normalize the PLE models has reduced the uncertainty due to dust and
434: k-corrections in those models. The net effect is that the two
435: scenarios diverge significantly only at a higher redshift ($z\ga1.5$)
436: than predicted by KC98. Several other recent studies
437: \citep{cimatti:02,firth,kashikawa:03} have reached a similar
438: conclusion.
439:
440: However, the morphologies of the observed objects in this redshift
441: interval are inconsistent with the passive evolution hypothesis ---
442: the majority seem to be highly disturbed morphologically, and many are
443: clearly interacting or merging \citep[see
444: also][]{daddi:03}. Qualitatively, this is clearly more consistent with
445: the hierarchical scenario. However, the \emph{quantitative}
446: disagreement between the number of predicted and observed objects
447: indicates that some ingredients in the models need to be modified, or
448: else that some physics is missing. Further study of the nature of this
449: population at $1.5 \la z \la 2.2$, which forms a `bridge' between the
450: better-studied populations of `normal' galaxies at $z\la1$ and
451: Lyman-break galaxies at $z\ga 2.2$, will certainly provide important
452: new insights into some of the remaining mysteries of galaxy formation.
453:
454: %===================================
455: \section*{Acknowledgments}
456: \begin{small}
457:
458: We thank our collaborators in the \GOODS\ team for useful feedback on
459: this work. Support for this work was provided by NASA through grants
460: GO09583.01-96A and GO09481.01-A from the Space Telescope Science
461: Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for
462: Research in Astronomy, under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support for
463: this work, part of the {\it Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF)}
464: Legacy Science Program, was also provided by NASA through Contract
465: Number 1224666 issued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
466: Institute of Technology under NASA contract 1407.
467:
468: \end{small}
469: %=====================================
470:
471: \bibliographystyle{apj}
472: \bibliography{apj-jour,massgal}
473:
474: \end{document}
475:
476: