The Deep Evolutionary Exploratory Probe 2 Galaxy Redshift Survey: The Galaxy Luminosity Function to<i>z</i> ∼ 1

Willmer, Christopher N. A.; Faber, S. M.; Koo, David C.; Weiner, Benjamin J.; Newman, Jeffrey A.; Coil, Alison L.; Connolly, Andrew J.; Conroy, Charlie; Cooper, Michael C.; Davis, Marc; Finkbeiner, Douglas P.; Gerke, Brian F.; Guhathakurta, Puragra; Harker, Justin; Kaiser, Nick; Kassin, Susan; Konidaris, Nick; Lin, Lihwai; Luppino, Gerard A.; Madgwick, Darren; Noeske, K. G.; Phillips, Andrew C.; Yan, Renbin

doi:10.1086/505455

Cited by 376 publications

(674 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

624

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the blue sample, the evolution in redshift is more pronounced than for the red sample, as also seen in DEEP2 ( Willmer et al 2006) and VVDS (Zucca et al 2006). Unfortunately, in this case, the slope depends on stellar mass, ranging from −0.69 to −1.10 in the mass range [10 9.5 , 10 11.5 ], and has a larger scatter.…”

Section: Transforming To Stellar Mass Threshold Samplesmentioning

confidence: 72%

Galaxy clustering in the CFHTLS-Wide: the changing relationship between galaxies and haloes sincez ~ 1.2

Coupon

Kilbinger

McCracken

et al. 2012

A&A

172

245

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has become increasingly apparent that studying how dark matter haloes are populated by galaxies can provide new insights into galaxy formation and evolution. In this paper, we present a detailed investigation of the changing relationship between galaxies and the dark matter haloes they inhabit from z ∼ 1.2 to the present day. We do this by comparing precise galaxy clustering measurements over 133 deg 2 of the "Wide" component of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) with predictions of an analytic halo occupation distribution (HOD) model where the number of galaxies in each halo depends only on the halo mass. Starting from a parent catalogue of ∼3 × 10 6 galaxies at i AB < 22.5 we use accurate photometric redshifts calibrated using ∼10 4 spectroscopic redshifts to create a series of type-selected volume-limited samples covering 0.2 < z < 1.2. Our principal result, based on clustering measurements in these samples, is a robust determination of the luminosity-to-halo mass ratio and its dependence on redshift and galaxy type. For the full sample, this reaches a peak at low redshifts of M peak h = 4.5 × 10 11 h −1 M and moves towards higher halo masses at higher redshifts. For redder galaxies the peak is at higher halo masses and does not evolve significantly over the entire redshift range of our survey. We also consider the evolution of bias, average halo mass and the fraction of satellites as a function of redshift and luminosity. Our observed growth of a factor of ∼2 in satellite fraction between z ∼ 1 and z ∼ 0 is testament to the limited role that galaxy merging plays in galaxy evolution for ∼10 12 h −1 M mass haloes at z < 1. Qualitatively, our observations are consistent with a picture in which red galaxies in massive haloes have already accumulated most of their stellar mass by z ∼ 1 and subsequently undergo little evolution until the present day. The observed movement of the peak location for the full galaxy population is consistent with the bulk of star-formation activity migrating from higher mass haloes at high redshifts to lower mass haloes at lower redshifts.

show abstract

Section: Transforming To Stellar Mass Threshold Samplesmentioning

confidence: 72%

Galaxy clustering in the CFHTLS-Wide: the changing relationship between galaxies and haloes sincez ~ 1.2

Coupon

Kilbinger

McCracken

et al. 2012

A&A

172

245

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, a number of studies disagree with the universal shape of LF (e.g., Godwin & Peach 1977;de Filippis et al 2011;Hansen et al 2005;Giodini et al 2012). The luminosity evolution of the bright end and slope of the faint end of the galaxy LF in the field and clusters has been well understood (Bowler et al 2014;Lilly et al 1995;Norberg et al 2002;Willmer et al 2006;Ellis et al 1996;Alshino et al 2010). However, because of a lack of data for fossil groups, the nature of such evolution in fossils has remained an open question.…”

Section: Composite Luminosity Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the galaxy luminosity function in progenitors of fossil groups

Gozaliasl

Khosroshahi

Dariush

et al. 2014

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the semi-analytic models based on the Millennium simulation, we trace back the evolution of the luminosity function of galaxies residing in progenitors of groups classified by the magnitude gap at redshift zero. We determine the luminosity function of galaxies within 0.25 R 200 , 0.5 R 200 , and R 200 for galaxy groups/clusters. The bright end of the galaxy luminosity function of fossil groups shows a significant evolution with redshift, with changes in M * by ∼1−2 mag between z ∼ 0.5 and z = 0 (for the central 0.5 R 200 ), suggesting that the formation of the most luminous galaxy in a fossil group has had a significant impact on the M * galaxies e.g. it is formed as a result of multiple mergers of M * galaxies within the last 5 Gyr. In contrast, the slope of the faint end, α, of the luminosity function shows no considerable redshift evolution and the number of dwarf galaxies in the fossil groups exhibits no evolution, unlike in non-fossil groups where it grows by ∼25−42% towards low redshifts. In agreement with previous studies, we also show that fossil groups accumulate most of their halo mass earlier than non-fossil groups. Selecting the fossils at a redshift of 1 and tracing them to a redshift 0, we show that 80% of the fossil groups (10 13 M h −1 < M 200 < 10 14 M h −1 ) will lose their large magnitude gap. However, about 40% of fossil clusters (M 200 > 10 14 M h −1 ) will retain their large gaps.

show abstract

“…In addition to the luminosity functions from Faber et al (2007), we also consider fitted Schechter parameters presented in Giallongo et al (2005), as well as the sets of luminosity functions published by Wolf et al (2003), Willmer et al (2006), and Brown et al (2007). We determine fit functions to the redshift dependence of both M * and φ * for the latter three works because we have to extrapolate beyond the range of redshift analysed therein.…”

Section: A2 Incorporating Photometric Redshiftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraints on intrinsic alignment contamination of weak lensing surveys using the MegaZ-LRG sample

Joachimi¹,

Mandelbaum²,

Abdalla³

et al. 2011

A&A

284

512

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correlations between the intrinsic shapes of galaxies and the large-scale galaxy density field provide an important tool to investigate galaxy intrinsic alignments, which constitute the major potential astrophysical systematic in cosmological weak lensing (cosmic shear) surveys, but also yield insight into the formation and evolution of galaxies. We measure galaxy position-shape correlations in the MegaZ-LRG sample for more than 800 000 luminous red galaxies for comoving transverse separations of 0.3 < r p < 60 h −1 Mpc, making the first such measurement with a photometric redshift sample. In combination with a re-analysis of several spectroscopic SDSS samples, we constrain an intrinsic alignment model for early-type galaxies over long baselines in redshift (z 0.7) and luminosity (4 mag) with high statistical precision. We develop and test the formalism to incorporate photometric redshift scatter in the modelling of these observations. For r p > 6 h −1 Mpc, the fits to galaxy position-shape correlation functions are consistent with the scaling with r p and redshift of a revised, nonlinear version of the linear alignment model for all samples. An extra redshift dependence ∝ (1 + z) η other is constrained to η other = −0.3 ± 0.8 (1σ). To obtain consistent amplitudes for all data, an additional dependence on galaxy luminosity ∝L β with β = 1.1 +0.3 −0.2 is required. The normalisation of the intrinsic alignment power spectrum is found to be (0.077 ± 0.008) ρ −1 cr for galaxies at redshift 0.3 and r band magnitude of −22 (k-and evolution-corrected to z = 0). Assuming zero intrinsic alignments for blue galaxies, we assess the bias on cosmological parameters for a tomographic CFHTLSlike lensing survey given our new constraints on the intrinsic alignment model parameter space. Both the resulting mean bias and its uncertainty are smaller than the 1σ statistical errors when using the constraints from all samples combined. The addition of MegaZ-LRG data is critical to achieving constraints this strong, reducing the uncertainty in intrinsic alignment bias on cosmological parameters by factors of three to seven.

show abstract

The Deep Evolutionary Exploratory Probe 2 Galaxy Redshift Survey: The Galaxy Luminosity Function toz ∼ 1

Cited by 376 publications

References 57 publications

Galaxy clustering in the CFHTLS-Wide: the changing relationship between galaxies and haloes sincez ~ 1.2

Galaxy clustering in the CFHTLS-Wide: the changing relationship between galaxies and haloes sincez ~ 1.2

Evolution of the galaxy luminosity function in progenitors of fossil groups

Constraints on intrinsic alignment contamination of weak lensing surveys using the MegaZ-LRG sample

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About