The evolution of the luminosity functions in the FORS Deep Field from low to high redshift: I. The blue bands

By A. Gabasch, R. Bender, Stella Seitz, U. Hopp, R. Saglia, G. Feulner, J. Snigula, N. Drory, I. Appenzeller, J. Heidt and 10 more. 2004

151 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We use the very deep and homogeneous I-band selected dataset of the FORS Deep Field (FDF) to trace the evolution of the luminosity function over the redshift range 0.5 < z < 5.0. We show that the FDF I-band selection down to I(AB)=26.8 misses of the order of 10 % of the galaxies that would be detected in a K-band selected survey with magnitude limit K(AB)=26.3 (like FIRES). Photometric redshifts for 5558 galaxies are estimated based on the photometry in 9 filters (U, B, Gunn g, R, I, SDSS z, J, K and a special filter centered at 834 nm). A comparison with 362 spectroscopic redshifts shows that the achieved accuracy of the photometric redshifts is (Delta z / (z_spec+1)) < 0.03 with only ~ 1 % outliers. This allows us to derive luminosity functions with a reliability similar to spectroscopic surveys. In addition, the luminosity functions can be traced to objects of lower luminosity which generally are not accessible to spectroscopy. We investigate the evolution of the luminosity functions evaluated in the restframe UV (1500 Angstroem and 2800 Angstroem), u', B, and g' bands. Comparison with results from the literature shows the reliability of the derived luminosity functions. Out to redshifts of z ~ 2.5 the data are consistent with a slope of the luminosity function approximately constant with redshift, at a value of -1.07 +- 0.04 in the UV (1500 Angstroem, 2800 Angstroem) as well as u', and -1.25 +- 0.03 in the blue (g', B). We do not see evidence for a very steep slope (alpha < -1.6) in the UV at z ~ 3.0 and z ~ 4.0 favoured by other authors. There may be a tendency for the faint-end slope to become shallower with increasing redshift but the effect is marginal. We find a brightening of M_star and a decrease of Phi_star with redshift for all analyzed wavelengths. [abridged]

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7d1268b7d9d2209769343dd7dccf03f5c9f92eb2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

Spitzer View on the Evolution of Star-forming Galaxies from z = 0 to z ~ 3 (2005, background): “This range is also very similar to the values found at other wavelengths for different SFR estimators and at different redshifts (see Hopkins 2004 and references therein; see also Cohen 2002; Poli et al. 2003; Bouwens et al. 2004; Gabasch et al. 2004a, 2004b).”
Accurate photometric redshifts for the CFHT legacy survey calibrated using the VIMOS VLT deep survey (2006, background): “In addition, near infrared data are required to provide robust photometric redshifts in the “redshift desert” at z > 1.5 since the Balmer break is redshifted to λ > 10 000 Å (Rudnick et al. 2001; Cimatti et al. 2002; Gabasch et al. 2004; Mobasher et al. 2004).”
The Star Formation Rate Density and Dust Attenuation Evolution over 12 Gyr with the VVDS Surveys (2011, methodology): “We remark, however, that in a few cases we are in agreement with some previous work for what concernsM∗FUV and/or φ∗: we agree on bothM∗FUV andφ ∗ with Gabasch et al. (2004) atz = 2.5 and with Oesch et al. 2010 atz ∼ 2, and we agree onM∗FUV with Paltani et al. 2007 atz = 3.5 and Arnouts et al. 2005…”
The VIMOS VLT Deep Survey. Evolution of the luminosity functions by galaxy type up to z = 1.5 from first epoch data (2005, unknown): “…have up to now been computed only using photometric redshifts, for example the COMBO-17 survey (Wolf et al. 2003) and the FORS Deep Field (FDF, Gabasch et al. 2004) and the Hubble Deep Fields (HDF-N and HDF-S, see e.g. Sawicki et al. 1997; Poli et al. 2001, 2003); most of these projects…”
UV Luminosity Functions at z~4, 5, and 6 from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and Other Deep Hubble Space Telescope ACS Fields: Evolution and Star Formation History (2007, background): “However, this conclusion was a little uncertain due to the sizeable uncertainties on the faint-end slope α at z ∼ 6 – and some conflicting results at lower redshift (Gabasch et al. 2004; Sawicki & Thompson 2006a).”
Galaxy Luminosity Functions to z~1 from DEEP2 and COMBO-17: Implications for Red Galaxy Formation (2005, methodology): “Besides DEEP2 and COMBO-17, this figure adds data from other recent surveys (2dF [Norberg et al. 2002, Madgwick et al. 2002]; SDSS [Blanton et al. 2003, Bell et al. 2003]; VVDS [Ilbert et al. 2004]; FDF [Gabasch et al. 2004]; DEEP1 [Im et al. 2002]).”
COSMOS PHOTOMETRIC REDSHIFTS WITH 30-BANDS FOR 2-deg2 (2008, background): “Deep photo-z samples such as COMBO-17 (Wolf et al. 2003), CFHTLS (Ilbert et al. 2006), SWIRE (RowanRobinson et al. 2008), and COSMOS (Mobasher et al. 2007) contain more than 1,000,000 galaxies and go as faint as i ∼ 25 with a relatively small amount of telescope time.”
Galaxies at z ~ 6: The UV Luminosity Function and Luminosity Density from 506 HUDF, HUDF Parallel ACS Field, and GOODS i-Dropouts (2005, result): “This is in contrast to the strong decrease observed from z ∼ 2 to 0 (Arnouts et al. 2005; Gabasch et al. 2004) and suggests that galaxy formation is a very different process early on than it is at much later times.”
DEEP U BAND AND R IMAGING OF GOODS-SOUTH: OBSERVATIONS, DATA REDUCTION AND FIRST RESULTS, (2009, background): “If, instead, the faint end of the LF is flatter (Gabasch et al. 2004; Sawicki & Thompson 2006) then the integrated UV luminosity density would be significantly lower, as well as the contribution of faint galaxies to the ionizing 244 background.”
The star formation rate of the Universe at z~ 6 from the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (2004, background): “The faint end slope of the Schechter function at z ≈ 3 is relatively steep (α = −1.6) compared with α = −1.0 to −1.3 for lower-redshift galaxy samples (e.g. Efstathiou, Ellis & Peterson 1988; Lilly et al. 1995; Blanton et al. 2003 – see Gabasch et al. 2004 for recent determinations at 1500 Å ).”
PHOTOMETRIC REDSHIFT AND CLASSIFICATION FOR THE XMM–COSMOS SOURCES (2008, background): “Photometric redshifts for normal (inactive) galaxies can reach an accuracy of σ∆z/(1+z) = 0.05 (Grazian et al. 2006; Ilbert et al. 2006) or better (Gabasch et al. 2004; Wolf et al. 2004) and most recently better than 0.02 (Ilbert et al. 2008).”
Photometric redshifts in the SWIRE Survey (2008, background): “…and Lanzetta 2003, RowanRobinson 2003, Wolf et al 2004, Rowan-Robinson et al 2004, 2005, Babbedge et al 2004, Mobasher et al 2004, Vanzella et al 2004, Benitez et al 2004, Collister and Lahav 2004, Gabasch et al 2004, Hsieh et al 2005, Ilbert et al 2006, Brodwin et al 2006, Polletta et al 2007).”
The VIMOS-VLT deep survey - Evolution of the galaxy luminosity function up to z = 2 in first epoch data (2004, unknown): “At higher redshift, LF measurements based on photometric redshifts have been derived by, e.g., Wolf et al. (2003) up to z < 1.2, Gabasch et al. (2004) up to z < 5.”
The Luminosity Function and Star Formation Rate between Redshifts of 0.07 and 1.47 for Narrowband Emitters in the Subaru Deep Field (2006, background): “Gabasch et al. (2004, 2006) also see an evolution (although mild) in α from the blue and red band LFs of 5500 galaxies in the FORS Deep Field.”
z ~ 7-10 Galaxies in the HUDF and GOODS Fields: UV Luminosity Functions (2008, background): “4 where M∗UV reaches a maximum brightness at z ∼ 2−4 and then fades with cosmic time (e.g., Gabasch et al. 2004; Arnouts et al. 2005).”