4.7 Article

Directly Observing the Galaxies Likely Responsible for Reionization

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 835, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/113

Keywords

galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: luminosity function mass function; dark ages, reionization, first stars

Funding

  1. HST Frontier Fields program
  2. NASA [NAS 5-26555]
  3. University of Texas at Austin
  4. NASA from the Space Telescope Science Institute [AR-14300]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report a new analysis of the Hubble Frontier Fields clusters Abell 2744 and MACS 0416 using wavelet decomposition to remove the cluster light, enabling the detection of highly magnified (>50x) galaxies a factor of 10x. fainter in luminosity than previous studies. We find 167 galaxies at z greater than or similar to 6, and with this sample we are able to characterize the UV luminosity function to M-UV = - 12.5 at z similar to 6, - 14 at z similar to 7, and - 15 at z similar to 8. We find a steep faint-end slope (alpha < - 2), and with our improved statistics at the faint end we reduce the fractional uncertainty on a to < 2% at z similar to 6-7 and 4% at z similar to 8. We also investigate the systematic uncertainty due to the lens modeling by using every available lens model individually and comparing the results; this systematic fractional uncertainty on alpha is < 4% at all redshifts. We now directly observe galaxies in the luminosity regime where some simulations predict a change in the faint-end slope of the luminosity function, yet our results provide statistically very strong evidence against any turnover in the luminosity range probed, more consistent with simulations in which stars form in lower-mass halos. Thus, we find strong support for the extension of the steep luminosity function to M-UV = -13 at z > 6, consistent with the number of faint galaxies needed to reionize the universe under standard assumptions.

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