z ~ 7-10 Galaxies in the HUDF and GOODS Fields: UV Luminosity Functions

By R. Bouwens, G. Illingworth, M. Franx, H. C. Ford. 2008

248 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We use all available deep optical ACS and near-IR data over both the HUDF and the two GOODS fields to search for star-forming galaxies at z≳ 7 and constrain the UV LF within the first 700 Myr. Our data set includes ~23 arcmin2 of deep NICMOS J + H data and ~248 arcmin2 of ground-based (ISAAC+MOIRCS) data, coincident with ACS optical data of greater or equal depths. In total, we find eight ∼ 7.3 z-dropouts in our search fields, but no z ∼ 9 J-dropout candidates. A careful consideration of a wide variety of different contaminants suggest an overall contamination level of just ~12% for our z-dropout selection. After performing detailed simulations to accurately estimate the selection volumes, we derive constraints on the UV LFs at z ∼ 7 and z ∼ 9. For a faint-end slope α = − 1.74, our most likely values for MUV* and φ* at z ∼ 7 are –19.8 ± 0.4 mag and 1.1+ 1.7−0.7 × 10−3 Mpc−3, respectively. Our search results for z ∼ 9 J-dropouts set a 1 σ lower limit on MUV* of –19.6 mag assuming that φ* and α are the same as their values at slightly later times. This lower limit on MUV* is 1.4 mag fainter than our best-fit value at z ∼ 4, suggesting that the UV LF has undergone substantial evolution over this time period. No evolution is ruled out at 99% confidence from z ∼ 7 to z ∼ 6 and at 80% confidence from z ∼ 9 to z ∼ 7. We find that the mass-to-light ratio of halos evolves as ~(1 + z)−1 if we require that the observed brightening in MUV* with redshift [i.e., MUV* = (− 21.02 ± 0.09) + (0.36 ± 0.08) (z − 3.8) ] be consistent with the expected evolution in the halo mass function. Finally, we consider the shape of the UV LF at z≳ 5 and discuss the implications of the Schechter-like form of the observed LFs, particularly the unexpected abrupt cutoff at the bright end.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ea7c69cd92d7cf0831b806b54ff8031939e55da0

How researchers see this paper

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

  1. R. Bouwens
  2. P. Hopkins
  3. P. Oesch
  4. Richard S. Ellis
  5. G. Illingworth
  6. R. Dav'e
  7. Brant Robertson
  8. J. Dunlop

Citations in the corpus