1: %%
2: %%
3:
4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5:
6: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
7:
8: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
9:
10: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
11:
12: \documentclass{emulateapj}
13:
14: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
15: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
16: %% the \begin{document} command.
17: %%
18: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
19: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
20: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
21: %% for information.
22:
23: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
24: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
25:
26: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
27:
28: %\slugcomment{Submitted to Ap.J.Letters}
29:
30: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
31: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
32: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
33: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
34: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
35: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
36:
37: \shorttitle{Star Formation Rate in Local Universe}
38: \shortauthors{Martin et al.}
39:
40: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
41: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
42:
43: \newcommand{\fuvcenter}{1530\AA}
44: \newcommand{\nuvcenter}{2310\AA}
45: \newcommand{\fuvband}{1350-1750\AA}
46: \newcommand{\nuvband}{1750-2750\AA}
47: \newcommand{\fuvwidth}{400\AA}
48: \newcommand{\nuvwidth}{1000\AA}
49: \newcommand{\fuvmag}{\ifmmode{FUV}\else{\it FUV~}\fi}
50: \newcommand{\nuvmag}{\ifmmode{NUV}\else{\it NUV~}\fi}
51:
52: %\received{2004 June 7}
53:
54: \begin{document}
55:
56: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
57: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
58: %% you desire.
59:
60: \title{The Star Formation Rate Function of the Local Universe}
61:
62: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
63: %% author and affiliation information.
64: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
65: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
66: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
67: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
68:
69: \author{
70: Christopher Martin\altaffilmark{1},
71: Mark Seibert\altaffilmark{1},
72: Veronique Buat\altaffilmark{4},
73: Jorge Inglesias-Paramo\altaffilmark{4},
74: Tom A. Barlow\altaffilmark{1},
75: Luciana Bianchi\altaffilmark{2},
76: Yong-Ik Byun\altaffilmark{3}, Jose Donas\altaffilmark{4},
77: Karl Forster\altaffilmark{1},
78: Peter G. Friedman\altaffilmark{1},
79: Timothy M. Heckman\altaffilmark{5},
80: Patrick N. Jelinsky\altaffilmark{6},
81: Young-Wook Lee\altaffilmark{3},
82: Barry F. Madore\altaffilmark{7,8},
83: Roger F. Malina\altaffilmark{4},
84: Bruno Milliard\altaffilmark{4},
85: Patrick F. Morrissey\altaffilmark{1},
86: Susan G. Neff\altaffilmark{9},
87: R. Michael Rich\altaffilmark{10},
88: David Schiminovich\altaffilmark{1},
89: Oswald H. W. Siegmund\altaffilmark{6},
90: Todd Small\altaffilmark{1},
91: Alex S. Szalay\altaffilmark{5},
92: Barry Y. Welsh\altaffilmark{6}, and
93: Ted K. Wyder\altaffilmark{1}}
94:
95: \altaffiltext{1}{California Institute of Technology, MC 405-47, 1200 East
96: California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125}
97:
98: \altaffiltext{2}{Center for Astrophysical Sciences, The Johns Hopkins
99: University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218}
100:
101: \altaffiltext{3}{Center for Space Astrophysics, Yonsei University, Seoul
102: 120-749, Korea}
103:
104: \altaffiltext{4}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, BP 8, Traverse
105: du Siphon, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France}
106:
107: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins
108: University, Homewood Campus, Baltimore, MD 21218}
109:
110: \altaffiltext{6}{Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California at
111: Berkeley, 601 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720}
112:
113: \altaffiltext{7}{Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,
114: 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101}
115:
116: \altaffiltext{8}{NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, California Institute
117: of Technology, Mail Code 100-22, 770 S. Wilson Ave., Pasadena, CA 91125}
118:
119: \altaffiltext{9}{Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics, NASA Goddard
120: Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771}
121:
122: \altaffiltext{10}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
123: California, Los Angeles, CA 90095}
124:
125: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
126: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
127: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
128: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
129: %% editorial office after submission.
130:
131: \begin{abstract}
132:
133: We have derived the bivariate luminosity function for the far ultraviolet (\fuvcenter) and far infrared (60 $\mu$m). We used
134: matched GALEX and IRAS data, and redshifts from NED and PSC-z.
135: We have derived a total star formation luminosity function $\phi(L_{tot})$,
136: with $L_{tot} = L_{FUV}+L_{FIR}$. Using these, we determined
137: the cosmic ``star formation rate'' function and density for the local universe.
138: The total SFR function $\phi(L_{tot})$
139: is fit very well by a log-normal distribution over five decades of luminosity.
140: We find that the bivariate luminosity function $\phi(L_{FUV},L_{FIR})$~shows a bimodal behavior, with $L_{FIR}$ tracking
141: $L_{FUV}$ for $L_{TOT}< 10^{10} L_\odot$, and $L_{FUV}$ saturating at $\sim 10^{10} L_\odot$,
142: while $L_{TOT}\sim L_{FIR}$ for higher
143: luminosities. We also calculate the SFR density
144: and compare it to other measurements.
145:
146: \end{abstract}
147:
148: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
149: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
150: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
151: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
152:
153: \keywords{Ultraviolet: galaxies Infrared: galaxies galaxies: fundamental parameters galaxies: luminosity function, mass function galaxies: evolution}
154:
155: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
156: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
157: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
158: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
159: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
160: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
161: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
162: %% each reference.
163:
164: \section{Introduction}
165:
166: The evolution of the cosmic star formation rate (SFR) density represents
167: a fundamental constraint on the growth of stellar mass in galaxies over time \citep{madau96,fallpei}.
168: The distribution of star formation rates, or the ``SFR Function'',
169: in galaxies is potentially also a fundamental constraint on cosmological models and on the physics
170: of star formation in galaxies.
171:
172: While a number of SFR metrics have been used in the past, perhaps the most direct measurement of
173: SFR is the bolometric luminosity of massive stars, usually obtained from the sum of far ultraviolet and
174: far infrared luminosities. With the launch of GALEX, a large, homogeneous, magnitude limited sample of
175: UV measurements can be combined with the IRAS FIR sample to generate a true bolometric luminosity function in the local universe.
176: As discussed in this volume by \cite{buat04}, FUV and FIR selected samples have
177: quite distinct far ultraviolet (FUV; \fuvband) to far infrared (FIR; 60$\mu$m) luminosity ratios. However, if the samples are large, homogeneous,
178: flux limited, and deep enough in both bands, volume dependence can be removed and the
179: fundamental bivariate distribution derived for either sample. To provide the most information, the samples can also be combined
180: \citep{avni80}.
181:
182: Our goal in this paper is to generate a bolometric
183: luminosity function and luminosity density for the bands which sample recent star formation. We do this by
184: using FUV-selected, FIR-selected, and combined samples to estimate the bivariate luminosity function (BVLF)
185: in $L_{FUV}$ and $L_{FIR}$,~$\phi(L_{FUV},L_{FIR})$, using the V$_{max}$ method.
186: We then bin this BVLF into a single, total luminosity function (TLF)
187: $\phi(L_{tot})$, where $L_{tot} = L_{FUV}+L_{FIR}$. We provide some simple parametric fits for the TLF, and estimate the cosmic SFR density.
188: We discuss whether FUV and FIR selected samples provide consistent measurements of these functions.
189: We conclude with a brief discussion of the implications. Our cosmology is $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, $H_0=70$ km/s/Mpc.
190:
191: \section{Samples}
192:
193: We used two samples to generate the TLF: a far-UV-selected sample (FUVS) and a far-IR-selected sample (FIRS).
194: The FUVS consists of a primary FUV-selected sample and a IRAS FIR matched co-sample.
195: The FIRS consists of a primary FIR-selected sample and a GALEX FUV-selected matched co-sample.
196: We measured aperture fluxes for all co-sample matches using optical catalog ellipses. A small fraction in each
197: co-sample are formally non-detections--the effect of including these (negligible) is discussed in \S 3.
198:
199: The FUVS was generated using GALEX All-sky Imaging Survey (AIS) and Medium Imaging Survey (MIS) data
200: \citep{martin04a, morrissey04}. The sample consists of objects in GALEX Internal Release 0.2 (consisting of
201: 649 AIS and 94 MIS pointings) with FUV$<$17 that
202: have a catalog entry in NED. The FUV magnitude limit was selected to insure that, if the galaxy
203: was not detected in the FIR, an IRAS SCANPI \citep{1988ApJS...68..151H,scanpi} upper limit ($\sim$0.1 Jy) would be
204: meaningful. NED was used to determine the galaxy redshift and size.
205: An elliptical aperture based on the galaxy size (usually from RC3)
206: was used to determine the FUV magnitude, since the patchy nature of
207: galaxies in the FUV occasionally leads to object shredding by the GALEX pipeline.
208: We verified that the requirement for a NED entry
209: did not compromise completeness or the FUV-selected nature of the sample.
210: We did this using the GALEX/SDSS-DR2 overlap. Out of 32 FUV$<$17 objects that SDSS classified as
211: galaxies, 31 objects were in NED (the other was a close degenerate star).
212:
213: The IRAS 60 and 100 micron data for the FUVS has been compiled from the following
214: sources - listed in the order of preference. 1. Bright Galaxy Catalog \citep{1989AJ.....98..766S}
215: 2. IRAS Large Optical Catalog \citep{1988ApJS...68...91R}. 3. Faint Source Catalog \citep{1990IRASF.C......0M}. 4. SCANPI (v2.4).
216: Of the 220 galaxies, 83 had no published IRAS fluxes. Detections $\ge$3
217: sigma were extracted from SCANPI processing for 37 of the 83. The
218: remaining 46 are 3 sigma upper limits (all are $>$0.1 Jy) as measured from
219: the SCANPI processing. With regard to SCANPI, the median coadded scan flux
220: values are always used. We assume all are extended sources.
221:
222: The FIRS was generated using PSC-z as the primary catalog \citep{2000MNRAS.317...55S}.
223: GALEX FUV data from the AIS was available (as of 4/8/2004) for 3938 deg$^2$ of the all-sky PSC-z catalog.
224: In the overlap area, 991 galaxies appear in the PSC-z catalog, with 878 having valid redshift and FUV data,
225: for a completeness of 89\%. This small incompleteness is unlikely to affect the results. Two methods were used to
226: correct for shredding of large galaxies, both using
227: the APM ellipse parameters \citep{1990MNRAS.243..692M,1990MNRAS.242..318S},
228: which are based on second-moment fitting and are scaled to equal the APM detection isophotal area
229: (24 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ for O-plates and 23 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ for E-plates). In the first method, all GALEX catalog objects found
230: within the optical APM ellipse were summed
231: to produce a total magnitude. In the second, an aperture magnitude was obtained within the APM ellipse multiplied by two.
232: The latter also provides FUV fluxes for PSC-z objects with no GALEX-detected FUV counterpart (112 out of 878 objects).
233: As we discuss below, including these non-detections (our default) does not affect the results.
234:
235:
236: \section{Luminosity Functions\label{sec_lf}}
237:
238: We calculate the bivariate and total luminosity functions using the $1/V_{max}$ weighting method \citep{schmidt68}.
239: V$_{max}$ is calculated for each
240: object \citep{willmer97}, and for the FUV and the FIR limits
241: of the sample. For the FUV limits, we account for the field exposure time and local
242: extinction (standard GALEX catalog value). A higher extinction reduces $V_{max}[FUV]$.
243: The adopted $V_{max}$ depends on the treatment of non-detections. For both FIRS and FUVS, we created samples that excluded the
244: non-detections and included them. When excluding non-detections,
245: we use $V_{max} = min(V_{max}[FUV], V_{max}[FIR])$,
246: since an object can only be detected in both samples if it falls within both volumes.
247: When including non-detections, all sources are formally included with flux estimates obtained in the identical fashion as true detections.
248: In this case, $V_{max}$ for the co-sample is formally infinite. For the FUVS, $V_{max} = V_{max}[FUV]$, and for the
249: the FIRS $V_{max} = V_{max}[FIR]$. Finally, both the BVLF and the TLF are
250: obtained by summing $1/V_{max}$ into logarithmic luminosity bins, with $\Delta log L=0.5$.
251:
252: For simplicity in this preliminary study, luminosities are defined as follows: $L_{FUV} = \nu_{FUV} L_{FUV,\nu}$, where $L_{FUV,\nu}$ is the monochromatic
253: FUV luminosity; $L_{FIR} = \nu_{60} L_{60,\nu}$, where $L_{60,\nu}$ is the monochromatic luminosity at 60 $\mu$m.
254: The total luminosity is defined as $L_{TOT} = L_{FUV} + L_{FIR}$, and converted to star formation rate using
255: SFR[M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$]$ = 3.5 \times 10^9 L_{TOT}$ [L$_\odot$] \citep{kennicutt1998}.
256: More complex relations (e.g., $L_{FIR} = 0.65 \nu_{60} L_{60,\nu} + 0.42 \nu_{100} L_{100,\nu}$)
257: produce similar results but with more dispersion with respect to the simple functional fits discussed below.
258: We make no k-corrections, as redshifts are quite low ($z \le 0.04$).
259:
260: The TLF has been calculated for the FUVS (168 objects including non-detections, 136 excluding them),
261: the FIRS (878 objects including non-detections, 766 otherwise), and a combined sample.
262: We find that the results do not depend on the the inclusion of non-detections, so all results we present include them.
263: If all three samples include representative galaxies present in the local universe, the
264: derived luminosity functions should be consistent within errors from sampling and cosmic variance.
265: The combined sample is generated following the ``incoherent'' combination method
266: of \cite{avni80}. The FUVS is obtained in a subset of regions covered by the FIRS.
267: Thus the FUVS adds information only for objects that have $f_{60}<0.6$, the PSC-z 60 $\mu$m limit. The combined
268: sample therefore consists of the FIRS sample plus the FUVS ($f_{60}<0.6$) subsample (113), for a total of 991~objects.
269:
270: The three TLF are displayed in Figure \ref{fig_sfrfunc}.
271: As hoped, the three samples give quite consistent results. The
272: FUVS slightly exceeds the FIRS at lower luminosities, while the FIRS fills out the
273: high luminosity end not represented in the fairly bright cutoff FUVS. We restrict our analysis here to the combined sample.
274: The error bars are generated using a bootstrap method.
275:
276: As is apparent in Figure \ref{fig_sfrfunc}, a Schechter function provides a very poor fit to the higher luminosity
277: portion of the TLF, giving a total $\chi^2=115$ for 9 d.o.f.
278: On the other hand, a {\it log-normal} function \citep{1990MNRAS.242..318S}
279: \begin{equation}
280: \phi(L) d\log{L}= {{\phi_*} \over {\sigma \sqrt{2\pi}}} \exp{ [ {-{(\log{L/L_*})^2} \over {2 {\sigma}^2} } ] }d \log{L}
281: \end{equation}
282: provides a remarkably good fit. In this case, the parameters
283: $\phi_*=0.150\pm 0.035$, $\log{L_*}=7.43\pm 0.17$, and $\sigma=0.87 \pm 0.03$
284: (errors generated by the bootstrap) yield a total $\chi^2=8$ for 9 d.o.f.
285:
286: The luminosity distribution $L\phi(L)$ is also log-normal, peaking at $L_*^\prime = L_* + \sigma^2 \ln{10}$, or
287: $L_*^\prime = 9.37$, as we show in the inset of Figure \ref{fig_sfrfunc}.
288: It can be seen that 50\% of the SFR density comes from galaxies with $\log L_{TOT}<9.4$, or
289: about 1 $M_\odot/yr$.
290:
291: We have estimated the BVLF using the combined sample, and we show a 2D histogram normalized by the TLF in Figure \ref{fig_bvlf}a.
292: The histogram shows quite dramatically why the local FUV LF is well fit by a Schechter function
293: \citep{wyder04, treyer04}: the FUV luminosity appears to ``saturate'' at $L_{FUV}>10^{10} L_\odot$,
294: with all increase in the total luminosity coming from FIR radiation. This saturation
295: apparently occurs at higher redshift, but at a factor of 20 higher $L_{FUV}$ for z=3
296: \citep{adelberger00}. For $L_{FUV}<10^{10} L_\odot$,
297: the FIR and FUV luminosities track, but with a slope steeper than unity.
298: There appears to be a trough between these regions. The trough is statistically significant
299: as it falls in the range in which the object number distribution peaks.
300:
301: In Figure \ref{fig_bvlf}b, we show the BVLF rebinned in logarithmic $L_{TOT}$ and $L_{FIR}/L_{FUV}$ bins.
302: The total luminosity is well correlated with the FIR/UV ratio, and a line is shown with the fit
303: $L_{TOT}=9.4+1.3(\log{L_{FIR}/L_{FUV}}) - 0.15*(\log{L_{FIR}/L_{FUV}})^2$. The trend of increasing
304: $L_{FIR}/L_{FUV}$ with increasing $L_{TOT}$ was first noted by \cite{wangheckman96}.
305:
306: Note also that the FUV projection of the BVLF for the FUVS sample is in excellent agreement
307: with \cite{wyder04}.
308:
309: We use the BVLF to calculate the luminosity density using a simple sum:
310: \newline
311: $\rho_i = \int \int L_i \phi(L_{FUV},L_{FIR}) d\log{L_{FUV}} d\log{L_{FIR}}$.
312: From the inset in Figure \ref{fig_sfrfunc}, it is apparent that extrapolation to low or high luminosity
313: using a model fit to calculate the luminosity density would not alter this result greatly.
314: The results, using the \cite{kennicutt1998} SFR conversion factor, are
315: $[L_{FUV}, L_{FIR}, L_{TOT}] = [0.010\pm0.0014, 0.011\pm0.0005, 0.021\pm0.0019] M_\odot yr^{-1} Mpc^{-3}$. Hence
316: the luminosity density is split roughly 50/50 into primary FUV and reprocessed FIR light.
317:
318:
319: \section{Discussion}
320:
321: We have made the first attempt at deriving the bivariate luminosity function for the two bands
322: which trace the high mass star formation rate in galaxies. The BVLF can be derived from FUV, FIR, or
323: combined samples. The resulting functions agree for the samples we studied, as hoped. Large, homogeneous,
324: combined samples that probe the bulk of the BVLF will provide an excellent tool for studying the
325: relationship between FUV and FIR emission.
326:
327: We have used the BVLF to generate a total
328: high mass star formation luminosity function and luminosity density for the local universe.
329: Our value for the star formation rate density, 0.021 $M_\odot yr^{-1} Mpc^{-3}$ ($<z>\simeq0.02$), is in good agreement with the
330: estimate of \cite{ha03} using extinction corrected H$\alpha$ of 0.025 $M_\odot yr^{-1} Mpc^{-3}$ and that using
331: extinction corrected FUV from GALEX \citep{wyder04}, also 0.025 $M_\odot yr^{-1} Mpc^{-3}$.
332:
333: There are a number of striking features of the BVLF and TLF. We have pointed out the divergence of $L_{FIR}$ and $L_{FUV}$,
334: behavior similar to that observed when comparing FIR and optical light \citep{1990MNRAS.242..318S,buat98}.
335: The BVLF has a bimodal appearance, roughly divided at 3 $M_\odot yr^{-1}$.
336: Perhaps below the threshold SFR, star formation is an equilibrium process and feedback
337: is successful at clearing sightlines for FUV emergent flux. With a very high SFR,
338: the process may take on a non-equilibrium character, where feedback fails to (or has yet to) clear paths for primary radiation.
339: The FIR/FUV flux ratio appears to be a rough total luminosity proxy.
340: One explanation is that the highest SFRs occur in the most massive star forming galaxies \citep{brinchmann04}.
341: The most massive galaxies are the most metal rich \citep{tremonti04}, and a high metallicty ISM
342: has a high gas to dust ratio. Also, the highest SFRs appear to occur in galaxies with the highest ISM
343: surface mass densities \citep{kennicutt89}, and higher dust column density.
344:
345: It has also been known for some time that the FIR luminosity function was not a Schechter function \citep{1990MNRAS.242..318S},
346: whereas we now know from GALEX that FUV luminosity function is \citep{wyder04}.
347: Taken together with the diversity of star formation modalities making up our sample, it is therefore surprising
348: to learn how well the total luminosity function is described by a single log-normal function, over
349: five decades of luminosity. \cite{norman04} found a log-normal distribution
350: for the X-ray luminosity function, and notes that it is the expected distribution
351: for a complex multiplicative random process. Perhaps a unifying physical framework can be found for
352: star formation in galaxies ranging from irregular dwarfs to ultra-luminous merging galaxies.
353:
354: Optical and near IR band luminosity functions that trace stellar mass are
355: well fit by Schechter functions \citep{2003ApJS..149..289B}, as is the UVLF.
356: The fact that the TLF is so distinct from that of the fuel, HI \citep{2003AJ....125.2842Z}
357: and CO \citep{2003ApJ...582..659K}, which are also well fit by Schechter functions, implies that
358: the star formation efficiency is much higher in luminous star forming galaxies, a widely accepted result.
359: The fact that the TLF rises far above the stellar mass LF argues strongly that the timescale for star formation
360: is a falling function of the SFR, perhaps due to fuel consumption or feedback. The BVLF in Figure 3a is clearly a major
361: clue to the ultimate origin of the high luminosity cutoff of the Schechter function.
362:
363: With this background, it is extremely interesting to study how the BVLF evolves over cosmic time.
364: Lyman break galaxies (LBG) show rest FUV well-fit by Schechter functions, but
365: with a characteristic UV luminosity a factor of 20 larger. While there is no question that luminous star forming galaxies
366: were more pervasive in the past, a major question in extragalactic astronomy remains the relationship between
367: galaxies selected by rest UV vs. rest FIR. Our work suggests that with the launch of GALEX and the Spitzer Space Telescope,
368: and the flowering of Sub-mm astronomy, a unified approach to
369: combining rest FUV and FIR information will bring major insights in the next few years.
370:
371: %comparison to UVLF
372: %comparison to HI, CO
373: %comparison to LBGs
374: %comparison to stellar mass functions -- starburst duration
375: %evolution of the BVLF
376: %physical origins
377:
378:
379:
380: \acknowledgments
381:
382: GALEX (Galaxy Evolution Explorer) is a NASA Small Explorer, launched in April 2003.
383: We gratefully acknowledge NASA's support for construction, operation,
384: and science analysis for the GALEX mission,
385: developed in corporation with the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales
386: of France and the Korean Ministry of
387: Science and Technology. The grating, window, and aspheric corrector were supplied by France.
388: We also acknowledge valuable comments from the referee.
389:
390:
391: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
392: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
393: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
394:
395: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
396: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
397: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
398:
399: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
400: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
401: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
402: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
403: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
404: %%
405: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
406: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
407: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
408: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
409: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
410: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
411: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
412: %% place of the \cite commands.
413:
414: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
415: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
416: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
417:
418: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
419: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
420: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
421: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
422: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
423:
424: \begin{thebibliography}{}
425: \bibitem[Adelberger and Steidel(2000)]{adelberger00} Adelberger, K.~L.~\& Steidel, C.~C.\ 2000, \apj, 544, 218
426: \bibitem[Avni and Bahcall(1980)]{avni80} Avni, Y. , and Bahcall, J. N. 1980, \apj,
427: 235, 694
428: \bibitem[Beichman et al.(1988)]{scanpi} Beichman, C.A., Neugebauer, G., Habing, H.J., Clegg, P.E., and
429: Chester, T.J. (1988) "IRAS Catalogs and Atlases: Explanatory
430: Supplement". (Washington, DC: GPO)
431: \bibitem[Bell, McIntosh, Katz, \& Weinberg(2003)]{2003ApJS..149..289B}
432: Bell, E.~F., McIntosh, D.~H., Katz, N., \& Weinberg, M.~D.\ 2003, \apjs,
433: 149, 289
434: \bibitem[Brinchmann et al.(2003)]{brinchmann04} Brinchmann, J.~et al.\ 2003, astro-ph/0311060
435: \bibitem[Buat et al.(2004)] {buat04} Buat, V., et al., 2004. \apjl, this volume
436: \bibitem[Buat \& Burgarella(1998)]{buat98} Buat, V.~\&
437: Burgarella, D.\ 1998, \aap, 334, 772
438: \bibitem[Fall, Charlot, \& Pei(1996)]{fallpei} Fall, S.~M.,
439: Charlot, S., \& Pei, Y.~C.\ 1996, \apjl, 464, L43
440: \bibitem[Helou, Khan, Malek, \& Boehmer(1988)]{1988ApJS...68..151H} Helou,
441: G., Khan, I.~R., Malek, L., \& Boehmer, L.\ 1988, \apjs, 68, 151
442: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1989)]{kennicutt89} Kennicutt, R.~C.\ 1989,
443: \apj, 344, 685
444: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1998)]{kennicutt1998} Kennicutt, R.~C.\ 1998,
445: \araa, 36, 189
446: \bibitem[Keres, Yun, \& Young(2003)]{2003ApJ...582..659K} Keres, D., Yun,
447: M.~S., \& Young, J.~S.\ 2003, \apj, 582, 659
448: \bibitem[Madau et al.(1996)] {madau96} Madau, P., et al., 1996. \mnras, 283, 1388.
449: \bibitem[Maddox, Efstathiou, Sutherland, \&
450: Loveday(1990)]{1990MNRAS.243..692M} Maddox, S.~J., Efstathiou, G.,
451: Sutherland, W.~J., \& Loveday, J.\ 1990, \mnras, 243, 692
452: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2004)] {martin04a} Martin, C., et al., 2004, \apjl, this volume
453: \bibitem[Moshir \& et al.(1990)]{1990IRASF.C......0M} Moshir, M.~\& et
454: al.\ 1990, IRAS Faint Source Catalogue, version 2.0 (1990), 0
455: \bibitem[Morrissey et al.(2004)] {morrissey04} Morrissey, P., et al., 2004, \apjl, this volume.
456: \bibitem[Norman et al.(2004)]{norman04} Norman, C., et al.\
457: 2004, \apj, 607, 721
458: \bibitem[P{\' e}rez-Gonz{\' a}lez et al.(2003)]{ha03} P{\'
459: e}rez-Gonz{\' a}lez, P.~G., Gallego, J., Zamorano, J., Alonso-Herrero, A.,
460: de Paz, A.~G., \& Arag{\' o}n-Salamanca, A.\ 2003, \apjl, 587, L27
461: \bibitem[Rice et al.(1988)]{1988ApJS...68...91R} Rice, W., Lonsdale,
462: C.~J., Soifer, B.~T., Neugebauer, G., Koplan, E.~L., Lloyd, L.~A., de Jong, T.,
463: \& Habing, H.~J.\ 1988, \apjs, 68, 91
464: \bibitem[Saunders et al.(1990)]{1990MNRAS.242..318S} Saunders, W.,
465: Rowan-Robinson, M., Lawrence, A., Efstathiou, G., Kaiser, N., Ellis, R.~S.,
466: \& Frenk, C.~S.\ 1990, \mnras, 242, 318
467: \bibitem[Saunders et al.(2000)]{2000MNRAS.317...55S} Saunders, W., et al.\
468: 2000, \mnras, 317, 55
469: \bibitem[Schmidt(1968)] {schmidt68} Schmidt, M. 1968, \apj, 151, 393
470: \bibitem[Soifer, Boehmer, Neugebauer, \&
471: Sanders(1989)]{1989AJ.....98..766S} Soifer, B.~T., Boehmer, L.,
472: Neugebauer, G., \& Sanders, D.~B.\ 1989, \aj, 98, 766
473: \bibitem[Tremonti et al.(2004)]{tremonti04} Tremonti, C.~et al.\ 2004, \apj, submitted.
474: \bibitem[Treyer et al. (2004)]{treyer04} Treyer, M., et al., 2004, \apjl, this volume
475: \bibitem[Wang \& Heckman(1996)]{wangheckman96} Wang, B.~\& Heckman,
476: T.~M.\ 1996, \apj, 457, 645
477: \bibitem[Willmer(1997)] {willmer97} Willmer, C. N. A. \ 1997, \aj, 114, 898
478: \bibitem[Wyder et al.(2004)]{wyder04} Wyder, T. et al., 2004, \apjl, this volume
479: \bibitem[Zwaan et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125.2842Z} Zwaan, M.~A., et al.\
480: 2003, \aj, 125, 2842
481: \end{thebibliography}
482:
483: \clearpage
484: \begin{figure*}
485: \plotone{f1.eps}
486: \caption{The total star formation luminosity function for the local universe. Black points show the FUVS, red points the FIRS,
487: and green points the combined sample, for the samples that include non-detections. Error bars are shown for the combined
488: sample.
489: A histogram shows the number of galaxies in each one-half decade luminosity bin. The low
490: luminosity bin with one galaxy has been suppressed.
491: The curve is the best fit
492: log-normal function with $\phi_*=0.15$, $\log{L_*}=7.43$, and $\sigma=0.87$.
493: The histogram shows the number of FUVS (blue), and FIRS (red) sources in the combined sample in each luminosity bin, with numbers indicating the total in each bin.
494: INSET: The luminosity density distribution function $L_{TOT}\phi(L_{TOT})$ for the combined sample,
495: with a line showing the theoretical distribution using the TLF log-normal model fit parameters.
496: \label{fig_sfrfunc}}
497: \end{figure*}
498:
499: \clearpage
500:
501: %\clearpage
502: \begin{figure*}
503: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
504: \caption{LEFT: a) The bivariate luminosity function $\phi(L_{FUV},L_{FIR})$, normalized by $\phi(L_{TOT}$ to
505: compress the dynamic range. RIGHT: b) The BVLF rebinned as $\phi^\prime(L_{TOT}), L_{FIR}/L_{FUV})$, again
506: normalized by $\phi(L_{TOT})$. The line shows a quadratic fit discussed in the text. In both cases the
507: grayscale density scales linearly with the normalized distribution. \label{fig_bvlf}}
508: \end{figure*}
509: \clearpage
510:
511:
512: \end{document}
513:
514: