1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}

3: \usepackage{apjfonts}

4: \usepackage{amsmath, amsthm, amssymb}

5: 

6: \newcommand{\fuvcenternum}{1530}

7: \newcommand{\nuvcenternum}{2310}

8: \newcommand{\fuvcenter}{1530\AA}

9: \newcommand{\nuvcenter}{2310\AA}

10: \newcommand{\fuvband}{1350-1750\AA}

11: \newcommand{\nuvband}{1750-2750\AA}

12: \newcommand{\fuvwidth}{400\AA}

13: \newcommand{\nuvwidth}{1000\AA}

14: \newcommand{\fuvmag}{\ifmmode{FUV}\else{\it FUV}}

15: \newcommand{\nuvmag}{\ifmmode{NUV}\else{\it NUV}}

16: 

17: \newcommand{\etal}{{\sl{}et~al.}}

18: \newcommand{\gsim}{\rlap{\raise -.3ex\hbox{${\scriptstyle\sim}$}}%

19:                    \raise .6ex\hbox{${\scriptstyle >}$}}%

20: \newcommand{\lsim}{\rlap{\raise -.3ex\hbox{${\scriptstyle\sim}$}}%

21:                    \raise .6ex\hbox{${\scriptstyle <}$}}%

22: 

23: \shortauthors{Budav\'ari et~al.}

24: \journalinfo{To Appear in the {\sl GALEX} special edition of ApJ Letters}

25: \submitted{Received: 2004 May 6 \ \ \ \ \ \ Accepted: 2004 June 10}

26: %\received{2004 May 6}

27: \begin{document}

28: 

29: \title{The Ultraviolet Luminosity Function of GALEX Galaxies at \\

30: Photometric Redshifts Between 0.07 and 0.25}

31: %\shorttitle{UV Luminosity Function of GALEX Galaxies from Photometric Redshifts}

32: 

33: \author{Tam\'as Budav\'ari\altaffilmark{1}, 

34: Alex S. Szalay\altaffilmark{1},

35: St\'ephane Charlot\altaffilmark{2,3},

36: Mark Seibert\altaffilmark{4},

37: Ted K. Wyder\altaffilmark{4},

38: St\'ephane Arnouts\altaffilmark{5},

39: Tom A. Barlow\altaffilmark{4}, 

40: Luciana Bianchi\altaffilmark{1},

41: Yong-Ik Byun\altaffilmark{6}, 

42: Jos\'e Donas\altaffilmark{5},

43: Karl Forster\altaffilmark{4},

44: Peter G. Friedman\altaffilmark{4},

45: Timothy M. Heckman\altaffilmark{1},

46: Patrick N. Jelinsky\altaffilmark{7},

47: Young-Wook Lee\altaffilmark{6}, 

48: Barry F. Madore\altaffilmark{8},

49: Roger F. Malina\altaffilmark{5},

50: D. Christopher Martin\altaffilmark{4}, 

51: Bruno Milliard\altaffilmark{5},

52: Patrick Morrissey\altaffilmark{4}, 

53: Susan G. Neff\altaffilmark{9},

54: R. Michael Rich\altaffilmark{10},

55: David Schiminovich\altaffilmark{11},

56: Oswald H. W. Siegmund\altaffilmark{7}, 

57: Todd Small\altaffilmark{4},

58: Marie A. Treyer\altaffilmark{4,5},

59: and

60: Barry Welsh\altaffilmark{7}

61: }

62: 

63: \email{budavari@jhu.edu}

64: 

65: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins

66: University, 3701 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA}

67: 

68: \altaffiltext{2}{Max-Planck-Institute f\"ur Astrophysik,

69: Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 1, 85748 Garching, Germany}

70: 

71: \altaffiltext{3}{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, CNRS, 98 bis

72: boulevard Arago, F-75014 Paris, France}

73: 

74: \altaffiltext{4}{California Institute of Technology, MC 405-47, 1200

75: E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125}

76: 

77: \altaffiltext{5}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, BP 8, Traverse 

78: du Siphon, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France}

79: 

80: \altaffiltext{6}{Center for Space Astrophysics, Yonsei University, Seoul

81: 120-749, Korea}

82: 

83: \altaffiltext{7}{Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California at

84: Berkeley, 601 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720}

85: 

86: \altaffiltext{8}{Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,

87: 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101}

88: 

89: \altaffiltext{9}{Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics, NASA Goddard

90: Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771}

91: 

92: \altaffiltext{10}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of

93: California, Los Angeles, CA 90095}

94: 

95: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, New

96: York, NY 10027, USA}

97: 

98: 

99: \begin{abstract} 

100: We present measurements of the UV galaxy luminosity function and the

101: evolution of luminosity density from GALEX observations matched to the

102: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). We analyze galaxies in the Medium

103: Imaging Survey overlapping the SDSS DR1 with a total coverage of 44

104: $\deg^2$. Using the combined GALEX+SDSS photometry, we compute

105: photometric redshifts and study the LF in three redshift shells

106: between $z=0.07$ and 0.25. The Schechter function fits indicate that

107: the faint-end slope $\alpha$ is consistent with $-1.1$ at all

108: redshifts but the characteristic UV luminosity $M^*$ brightens by 0.2

109: mag from $z=0.07$ to 0.25. In the lowest redshift bin, early and

110: late type galaxies are studied separately and we confirm that red

111: galaxies tend to be brighter and have a shallower slope $\alpha$ than

112: blue ones. The derived luminosity densities are consistent with other

113: GALEX results based on a local spectroscopic sample from 2dF and the

114: evolution follows the trend reported by deeper studies.

115: \end{abstract}

116: 

117: \keywords{ultraviolet: galaxies --- surveys --- galaxies: luminosity

118: function, evolution}

119: 

120: 

121: \section{Introduction} 

122: 

123: In the era of precision cosmology, the star formation history of the

124: universe can be studied accurately as one can detect evolutionary

125: effects in the observables on top of the global expansion. In

126: particular, the restframe ultraviolet luminosity of galaxies has

127: proven to yield a good handle on the star formation rate

128: \citep{kennicutt98}. A number of galaxy surveys have probed the

129: history of star formation at different redshifts. While most studies

130: agree on a relatively rapid rise in the star formation rate (SFR) out

131: to redshift of $z \sim 1$, significant uncertainties remain even at

132: lower redshifts \citep{lilly96,connolly97,cowie99,wilson02}.

133: The restframe UV continuum of local galaxies is not accessible

134: from the ground. The balloon-borne telescope of the FOCA experiment

135: \citep{milliard92} had been the best window onto the UV sky until last

136: year, when the {\sl Galaxy Evolution Explorer} (GALEX)

137: satellite was successfully launched to orbit.

138: %

139: This paper is one in the first series of luminosity function papers on

140: GALEX sources and focuses on galaxies at redshifts between

141: $z = 0.07$ and $0.25$.  We use photometric redshifts to boost our

142: sample size by a factor of 20 compared to spectroscopic data

143: available.  Throughout the paper, we assume a flat $\Lambda$CDM

144: cosmology with $\Omega_M = 0.3$ and

145: $H_0 = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.

146: 

147: 

148: \section{The Sample}

149: 

150: The GALEX telescope has two photometric bands at \fuvcenter{}

151: (\fuvmag{}) and \nuvcenter{} (\nuvmag) and a 1.2 degree field of

152: view. For a detailed description of survey and performance, see

153: \citet{martin04} and \citet{morrissey04} in the present volume.

154: %

155: Our sample consists of Medium Imaging Survey (MIS) fields overlapping

156: with the Data Release One coverage of the SDSS \citep{dr1}, see also

157: \citet{seibert04}. The depth of the MIS fields is well matched to SDSS

158: and this unique 7-band multicolor dataset provides a good basis for

159: various statistical studies.  We select the 57 fields with more than

160: $1400$ second exposure times and no objects with higher extinction

161: than $E(B\!-\!V)=0.08$. We use 36 arcmin radius circles in the center

162: of the fields to ensure uniform image quality. The intersection of the

163: unique area of these MIS fields with the SDSS DR1 footprint is 43.9

164: square degrees. Our catalog contains only objects that are classified

165: as galaxies by the SDSS photometric pipeline based on their

166: morphology. We use total magnitudes corrected for foreground

167: extinction: SExtractor's {\tt{}MAG\_AUTO} for GALEX and model

168: magnitudes from SDSS. For the limiting magnitudes, we elect to choose

169: a safe $m_{\rm{}lim}=21.5$ cut in both bands to ensure completeness

170: \citep{xu04}.

171: 

172: \begin{figure}[]

173: \epsscale{1.15}

174: \plotone{f1.eps}

175: \caption{Comparison of the spectroscopic and photometric redshifts for

176: the MIS objects in our training set. The equation of the black dashed

177: line is $z_{\rm{}phot}=0$.}

178: \label{fig:zz}

179: \end{figure}

180: 

181: \subsection{Photometric Redshifts}

182: 

183: Photometric redshifts are utilized to fully exploit the data set. We

184: choose empirical photometric redshifts over template based estimates

185: because currently the GALEX photometric system is only known to about

186: 10\% accuracy and SED fitting is sensitive to zeropoint errors.

187: Following \citet{connolly95a}, a third order polynomial formula was

188: applied to map the GALEX \nuvmag{} and SDSS $u'g'r'i'z'$ magnitudes to

189: photometric redshifts. Note that the \fuvmag{} magnitude was excluded

190: from the fitting formula as the \nuvmag{} observations go deeper and

191: not all galaxies have \fuvmag{} measurements. This way there is only

192: one redshift estimator that can be used for both \fuvmag{} and

193: \nuvmag{} limited samples.  We find that the empirical fit yields

194: reliable redshift estimates out to redshift of 0.25. For the training

195: set of 6295 galaxies, the rms scatter is $\Delta z_{\rm{}rms} = 0.026$

196: and there is about 2\% outliers. This accuracy is about 15\% better

197: than SDSS alone using the same technique.  A more detailed analysis

198: and a photometric redshift catalog will be published elsewhere

199: \citep{budavari04c}.  We expect the uncertainty in the photometric

200: redshifts to be a significant source of error in our statistical

201: analysis, so we adopt a conservative nominal redshift error of

202: $\sigma_z = 0.03$.  Figure~\ref{fig:zz} compares the spectroscopic and

203: photometric redshifts as a function of redshift.

204: 

205: One of the disadvantages of the empirical photometric redshifts is

206: that the method does not provide a direct measurement of the spectral

207: types or K-corrections. To overcome this, we fit synthetic model

208: spectra with full wavelength coverage from the UV to the IR to the

209: SDSS photometry and pick the best fitting template for each

210: galaxy. Our template set has 10 interpolated spectra from Ell to Irr

211: of \citet{bc03}.  For each of these templates, the K-correction is

212: calculated as a function of redshift.  In addition to the galaxy

213: templates, we also include a series of QSO spectra in an attempt to

214: identify AGNs in the sample. Those objects which are best fitted with

215: quasar templates, roughly 10\%, are removed from the sample.

216: %

217: Our photometric redshift catalog contains 190,489 MIS galaxies out of

218: which 9,356 pass the area, magnitude, redshift and SED cuts in the

219: \nuvmag{} and 6,174 in \fuvmag{}.

220: 

221: 

222: \section{Luminosity Function Results}

223: 

224: There are several methods for calculating the luminosity function

225: \citep{schmidt68,lyndenbell71,choloniewski86,subbarao96}. We use the

226: $V_{\rm{}max}$ method \citep{schmidt68} to calculate the LF in 0.1

227: magnitude wide bins, First, we derive the absolute magnitude using the

228: distance modulus and the K-correction, then the maximum redshift where

229: the object could be observed from.  The LF is then calculated as

230: $\phi(M)\,dM = \sum 1 / V(z_{\max})$, where $V(z) = \frac{\Omega}{3}

231: d^3(z)$ for a flat universe, $\Omega$ is the areal coverage and $d(z)$

232: is the comoving distance.

233: 

234: To estimate the uncertainty in the LF, we create 50 Monte-Carlo (MC)

235: realizations of the catalogs drawing the redshifts randomly from

236: Gaussian distributions with means of the originally estimated

237: redshifts and widths of $\sigma_z = 0.03$. We coadd the MC

238: realizations for a more robust estimate of the true LF. This method

239: allows us to propagate the errors. The errorbars plotted in the

240: figures are combinations of the variations among the MC realizations

241: and the Poisson errors added in quadrature.

242: 

243: \subsection{Evolution with Redshift and Spectral Type}

244: 

245: To study the evolution of the UV LF as a function of redshift, we

246: split the sample into three redshift shells. These low, medium and

247: high redshift subsamples have galaxies in the 0.07--0.13, 0.13--0.19

248: and 0.19--0.25 intervals.  Figure~\ref{fig:lfz} shows the \fuvmag{}

249: and \nuvmag{} LFs for the three redshift slices along with their best

250: fitting \citet{schechter76} functions.  The absolute magnitude range

251: over the luminosity functions can be fitted is limited at the faint

252: end by the lower redshift cutoff in the more distance shells and also

253: at the bright end at $M \lsim -20$, where the measurements depart from

254: the Schechter function. The latter is due to residual contamination

255: from QSO light that the SED fitting could not eliminate completely.

256: The insets show the $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ confidence

257: regions on the $M^* - \alpha$ plane. As seen in Figure~\ref{fig:lfz},

258: there is a modest evolution in $M^*$ with redshift in both bands but

259: the leverage is not enough to constrain $\alpha$ to high

260: accuracy at higher redshifts. In all cases, the slope is consistent

261: with $\alpha = -1.1$.  Table~\ref{tbl:lf} lists the Schechter

262: parameters.

263: 

264: We further divide the lowest redshift \nuvmag{} and \fuvmag{} limited

265: samples into two spectral classes based on the assigned SEDs. The

266: early type galaxy class consists of objects with the five reddest

267: templates and late type galaxies with the five bluer SEDs, which

268: corresponds to a restframe color cut of $(u'\!-\!r')_0 =

269: 1.7$. This technique is expected to be more robust than the actual

270: $(u'\!-\!r')_0$ discriminator as all multicolor information is used.

271: %

272: Figure~\ref{fig:lftype} shows the \fuvmag{} and \nuvmag{} luminosity

273: function for the early and late type galaxies.  We find that $M^*$ is

274: brighter for the red population by approximately 0.2 magnitudes in

275: \fuvmag{} and by 0.4 in \nuvmag{} and $\alpha$ is shallower than for

276: the blue population by 0.3, see Table~\ref{tbl:lf}. The marginalized

277: errors on both $M^*$ and $\alpha$ are large but the difference between

278: the joint distribution of parameters is significant (see insets of

279: Figure~\ref{fig:lftype}.)

280: %

281: When using the restframe colors to split galaxies into red and

282: blue, the plots exhibit the same features; the LFs at the

283: faint end ($M \gsim -18$) are essentially indistinguishable and the bright

284: end is also consistent with the template based results although the

285: difference is slightly less pronounced as expected due to the larger scatter.

286: %

287: The inverse concentration indices, simply the ratios of the radii

288: containing 50\% and 90\% of the Petrosian $r'$ fluxes, scatter

289: significantly but on average they are larger for galaxies in the blue

290: class than the red ones, $C^{-1}_{\rm{}blue} = 0.46$ and

291: $C^{-1}_{\rm{}red} = 0.42$. The red value is noticeably higher than

292: that of the elliptical SDSS galaxies, $C^{-1}_{} \approx{} 0.35$

293: \citep{strateva01}, which indicates that our redder class too contains

294: spiral galaxies.

295: 

296: \begin{figure*}[]

297: \epsscale{1.05}

298: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}

299: \caption{The GALEX \fuvmag{} and \nuvmag{} luminosity functions in

300: three redshift bins ({\it{}black open circle:} $0.07 < z < 0.13$,

301: {\it{}green solid circle:} $0.13 < z < 0.19$, {\it{}magenta star:}

302: $0.19 < z < 0.25$.)  The top panel illustrates the $1/V_{\rm{}max}$

303: measurements along with the best fit Schechter functions. The

304: confidence regions on $M^*$ and $\alpha$ are shown in the insets. The

305: bottom panel shows the number of objects involved in the analysis for

306: a particular selection.}

307: \label{fig:lfz}

308: \end{figure*}

309: 

310: \begin{figure*}[]

311: \epsscale{1.05}

312: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}

313: \caption{The luminosity functions differ in both passbands for the

314: early and late type galaxies in the lowest redshift shell. The red

315: galaxy population is brighter and has a shallower faint-end slope

316: than the blue.}

317: \label{fig:lftype}

318: \end{figure*}

319: 

320: \subsection{Luminosity Density}

321: 

322: We derive the mean luminosity density (LD) by integrating the

323: luminosity with the Schechter function, $\rho_L = \int \phi(L)\,L\,dL

324: = \phi^*\,L^*\,\Gamma(\alpha\!+\!2).$ In fact, the integral is

325: calculated for not just the optimal fit but over the whole range of

326: parameters. Weighting the results by the probability, $w =

327: \exp(-\chi^2/2)$, is essentially the same as using Monte-Carlo

328: realizations for estimating the errors, $\delta\rho_L^2 = \langle

329: \rho_L^2 \rangle_w - \langle \rho_L \rangle_w^2$. Since the redshift

330: range is limited, the errorbars on the higher redshift bins are rather

331: large. Table~\ref{tbl:lf} shows the LD measurements along with the

332: statistical errors and estimates for the systematics due to cosmic

333: variance that were derived similarly as in \citet{wyder04}. As seen in

334: Figure~\ref{fig:zevol}, both $\rho_{FUV}$ and $\rho_{NUV}$ increase

335: with redshift and are consistent with $(1+z)^3$ as well as

336: $(1+z)^{1.5}$.  The errorbars in the figure are the combinations of

337: the two sources of errors added in quadrature. They do not include

338: errors from calibration uncertainties of $\sim\!\!10\%$ that may

339: account for $\delta \lg \rho_L = 0.04$ in both bands.

340: 

341: 

342: \begin{figure}[b]

343: \epsscale{0.9}

344: \plotone{f4.eps}

345: \caption{The luminosity density as a function of redshift in \fuvmag{}

346: {\it{}(blue open circles)} and \nuvmag{} {\it{}(green filled circles)}

347: along with local GALEX results {\it{}(squares)} by \citet{wyder04}.

348: The dotted and dashed lines correspond to $(1 + z)^3$ and

349: $(1 + z)^{1.5}$, respectively, scaled to fit the lowest redshift

350: bin of this study.

351: }

352: \label{fig:zevol}

353: \end{figure}

354: 

355: \section{Discussion}

356: 

357: Using 2dF redshifts, the local GALEX studies by \citet{wyder04} and

358: \citet{treyer04} derived very consitent results with the present

359: findings. In the corresponding redshift ranges, the Schechter fits are

360: mostly within the 68\% confidence regions with perhaps the one

361: exception of $M^*$ in \nuvmag{}, which seems to be brighter based on

362: this photometric sample. The reason is that the different magnitude

363: cuts in the UV yield slightly different galaxy populations and our

364: sample has more redder galaxies, which makes $M^*$ brighter.

365: 

366: The LD measurements are also in good agreement with \citet{wyder04},

367: %see Figure~\ref{fig:zevol}, 

368: and the observed trend is consistent with

369: the GALEX Deep Imaging Survey results by \citet{arnouts04} and

370: \citet{schiminovich04} probing the higher redshift universe out to $z

371: = 1.2$. The evolution, in turn, is also consistent with results by

372: \citet{wilson02}, who find it to be proportional to $(1 +

373: z)^{1.7\pm{}1.0}$ for galaxies out to $z = 1.5$ at restframe

374: 2500\AA{}.

375: 

376: Going from the observed UV luminosity function to a SFR function is

377: complicated by dust and the fact that the \fuvmag{} and \nuvmag{} light trace

378: stars forming on different timescales. We will address this problem in

379: subsequent GALEX papers.

380: 

381: 

382: \acknowledgments 

383: 

384: GALEX (Galaxy Evolution Explorer) is a NASA Small Explorer, launched

385: in April 2003. We gratefully acknowledge NASA's support for

386: construction, operation, and science analysis for the GALEX mission,

387: developed in cooperation with the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales

388: of France and the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology.

389: 

390: 

391: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

392: \bibitem[DR1; Abazajian \etal (2003)]{dr1} Abazajian, K., \etal, 2003, 

393:   	\aj, 126, 2081

394: 

395: \bibitem[Arnouts \etal (2004)]{arnouts04} Arnouts, S., \etal, 2004,

396: \apjl, present volume

397: 

398: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S.,

399: 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000

400: 

401: \bibitem[Budav\'ari \etal (2004c)]{budavari04c} Budav\'ari, T., \etal, 2004c,

402: in preparation

403: 

404: \bibitem[Choloniewski(1986)]{choloniewski86} Choloniewski, J., 1986,

405: \mnras, 223, 1

406: 

407: \bibitem[Connolly \etal (1995a)]{connolly95a} Connolly, A.J., Csabai, I.,

408:         Szalay, A.S., Koo, D.C., Kron, R.G., \& Munn, J.A., 1995a, \aj, 110,

409:         2655

410: 

411: \bibitem[Connolly \etal (1997)]{connolly97} Connolly, A.J., Szalay, A.S.,

412: 	Dickinson, M., SubbaRao, M.U., Brunner, R.J., 1997, \apj, 486, L11

413: 

414: \bibitem[Cowie \etal (1999)]{cowie99} Cowie, L.L., Songaila, A.,

415: Barger, A.J., 1999, \aj, 118, 603

416: 

417: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1998)]{kennicutt98} Kennicutt, R.C., 1998, ARAA\&A, 36, 189

418: 

419: \bibitem[Lilly \etal (1996)]{lilly96} Lilly, S.J., \etal, 1996, \apj, 460, L1

420: 

421: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell(1971)]{lyndenbell71} Lynden-Bell, D., 1971,

422: \mnras, 155, 95

423: 

424: \bibitem[Madau \etal (1996)]{madau96} Madau, P., 1996, \mnras, 283, 1388

425: 

426: \bibitem[Martin \etal (2004)]{martin04} Martin, D. C., \etal, 2004,

427: \apjl, present volume

428: 

429: \bibitem[Milliard \etal (1992)]{milliard92} Milliard, B., Donas, J.,

430: Laget, M., Armand, C. \& Vuillemin, A., 1992, A\&A, 257, 24

431: 

432: \bibitem[Morrissey \etal (2004)]{morrissey04} Morrissey, P., \etal,

433: 2004, \apjl, present volume

434: 

435: \bibitem[Schechter(1976)]{schechter76} Schechter, P., 1976, \apj, 203, 297

436: 

437: \bibitem[Schiminovich \etal (2004)]{schiminovich04} Schiminovich, D.,

438: \etal, 2004, \apjl, present volume

439: 

440: \bibitem[Schmidt(1968)]{schmidt68} Schmidt, M, 1968, \apj, 151, 393

441: 

442: \bibitem[Seibert \etal (2004)]{seibert04} Seibert, M., \etal, 2004,

443: \apjl, present volume

444: 

445: \bibitem[Strateva \etal (2001)]{strateva01} Strateva, I., \etal, 2001,

446: \aj, 122, 1861

447: 

448: \bibitem[SubbaRao \etal (1996)]{subbarao96} SubbaRao, M.U., Connolly, A.J.,

449: Szalay, A.S., \& Koo, D.C., 1996, \apj, 112, 929

450: 

451: \bibitem[Sullivan \etal (2000)]{sullivan00} Sullivan, M., Treyer,

452: M.A., Ellis, R.S., Bridges, T.J., Milliard, B., \& Donas, J., 2000,

453: \mnras, 312, 442

454: 

455: \bibitem[Treyer \etal (2004)]{treyer04} Treyer, M.A., \etal, 2004,

456: \apjl, present volume

457: 

458: \bibitem[Wilson \etal (2002)]{wilson02} Wilson, G., Cowie, L.L.,

459: Barger, A.J., \& Burke, D.J., 2002, \aj, 124, 1258

460: 

461: \bibitem[Wyder \etal (2004)]{wyder04} Wyder, T.K., \etal, 2004, \apjl,

462: present volume

463: 

464: \bibitem[Xu \etal (2004)]{xu04} Xu, K., \etal, 2004, \apjl, present volume

465: 

466: \end{thebibliography}

467: 

468: \begin{deluxetable}{lllcccc}

469: %\tablefontsize{\footnotesize}

470: \tablecolumns{7}

471: \tablecaption{Schechter parameters and luminosity density}

472: \tablehead{

473: \colhead{Passband} & 

474: \colhead{Redshift} &

475: \colhead{Type} &

476: \colhead{$M^*$} &

477: \colhead{$\alpha$} & 

478: \colhead{$\lg \phi^*$ $[{\rm{}Mpc}^{-3}]$} & 

479: \colhead{$\lg \rho_L$ $[\frac{{\rm{}ergs}}{{\rm{}s\,Hz\,Mpc}^{3}}]$}

480: }

481: \startdata

482: \fuvmag{}...... & 0.07--0.13 & all & $-17.97\pm{}0.14$ & $-1.10\pm{}0.12$ & $-2.35\pm{}0.07$ & $25.51\pm{}0.02\pm{}0.06$ \\

483: & 0.13--0.19 & ........ & $-18.07\pm{}0.17$ & $-1.09\pm{}0.23$ & $-2.33\pm{}0.07$ & $25.58\pm{}0.07\pm{}0.04$ \\

484: & 0.19--0.25 & ........ & $-18.15\pm{}0.17$ & $-1.03\pm{}0.34$ & $-2.35\pm{}0.06$ & $25.61\pm{}0.12\pm{}0.03$ \\

485: \cline{2-7}

486: & 0.07--0.13 & early & $-17.98\pm{}0.20$ & $-0.80\pm{}0.19$ & $-2.74\pm{}0.08$ & $25.06\pm{}0.02\pm{}0.06$ \\

487: & 0.07--0.13 & late & $-17.74\pm{}0.19$ & $-1.12\pm{}0.17$ & $-2.47\pm{}0.09$ & $25.31\pm{}0.04\pm{}0.06$ \\

488: \\

489: \nuvmag{}...... & 0.07--0.13 & all & $-18.54\pm{}0.15$ & $-1.12\pm{}0.10$ & $-2.38\pm{}0.07$ & $25.71\pm{}0.02\pm{}0.06$ \\

490: & 0.13--0.19 & ........ & $-18.57\pm{}0.17$ & $-0.97\pm{}0.20$ & $-2.33\pm{}0.07$ & $25.74\pm{}0.05\pm{}0.04$ \\

491: & 0.19--0.25 & ........ & $-18.74\pm{}0.23$ & $-0.99\pm{}0.35$ & $-2.39\pm{}0.08$ & $25.79\pm{}0.10\pm{}0.03$ \\

492: \cline{2-7}

493: & 0.07--0.13 & early & $-18.53\pm{}0.23$ & $-0.73\pm{}0.21$ & $-2.66\pm{}0.08$ & $25.35\pm{}0.03\pm{}0.06$ \\

494: & 0.07--0.13 & late & $-18.11\pm{}0.17$ & $-1.09\pm{}0.14$ & $-2.48\pm{}0.08$ & $25.43\pm{}0.03\pm{}0.06$ \\

495: \enddata

496: 

497: \label{tbl:lf}

498: \end{deluxetable}

499: 

500: 

501: \end{document}

502: