4.7 Article

The ultraviolet luminosity function of star-forming galaxies between redshifts of 0.6 and 1.2

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 506, Issue 1, Pages 473-487

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stab1638

Keywords

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: luminosity function; mass function; ultraviolet: galaxies

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Facility Council (STFC) [ST/N000811/1, ST/S000216/1]
  2. STFC Ernest Rutherford Fellowship
  3. NASA
  4. STFC [ST/S000216/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study utilized UV imaging data from the XMM-Newton Optical Monitor telescope to measure UV luminosity functions of galaxies with redshifts between 0.6 and 1.2, supplemented by optical and infrared imaging for photometric redshifts. The results indicated that the characteristic absolute magnitude M * is brighter for the redshift range 0.8 < z < 1.2 compared to 0.6 < z < 0.8.
We use ultraviolet (UV) imaging taken with the XMM-Newton Optical Monitor telescope (XMM-OM), covering 280 arcmin(2) in the UVW1 band (lambda(eff) = 2910 angstrom) to measure rest-frame UV 1500-angstrom luminosity functions of galaxies with redshifts z between 0.6 and 1.2. The XMM-OM data are supplemented by a large body of optical and infrared imaging to provide photometric redshifts. The XMM-OM data have a significantly narrower point spread function (resulting in less source confusion) and simpler K-correction than the GALEX data previously employed in this redshift range. UV-bright active galactic nuclei are excluded to ensure that the luminosity functions relate directly to the star-forming galaxy population. Binned luminosity functions and parametric Schechter-function fits are derived in two redshift intervals: 0.6 < z < 0.8 and 0.8 < z < 1.2. We find that the luminosity function evolves such that the characteristic absolute magnitude M* is brighter for 0.8 < z < 1.2 than for 0.6 < z < 0.8.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available