4.7 Article

THE DEEP SWIRE FIELD. IV. FIRST PROPERTIES OF THE SUB-mJy GALAXY POPULATION: REDSHIFT DISTRIBUTION, AGN ACTIVITY, AND STAR FORMATION

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 714, 期 2, 页码 1305-1323

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1305

关键词

cosmology: observations; galaxies: active; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: starburst; radio continuum: galaxies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a study of a 20 cm selected sample in the Deep Spitzer Wide-area InfraRed Extragalactic Legacy Survey Very Large Array Field, reaching a 5 sigma limiting flux density at the image center of S-1.4GHz similar to 13.5 mu Jy. In a 0.6 x 0.6 deg(2) field, we are able to assign an optical/IR counterpart to 97% of the radio sources. Up to 11 passbands from the NUV to 4.5 mu m are then used to sample the spectral energy distribution ( SED) of these counterparts in order to investigate the nature of the host galaxies. By means of an SED template library and stellar population synthesis models, we estimate photometric redshifts, stellar masses, and stellar population properties, dividing the sample into three sub-classes of quiescent, intermediate, and star-forming galaxies. We focus on the radio sample in the redshift range 0.3 < z < 1.3 where we estimate to have a redshift completeness higher than 90% and study the properties and redshift evolution of these sub-populations. We find that, as expected, the relative contributions of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and star-forming galaxies to the mu Jy population depend on the flux density limit of the sample. At all flux levels, a significant population of green-valley galaxies is observed. While the actual nature of these sources is not definitely understood, the results of this work may suggest that a significant fraction of faint radio sources might be composite (and possibly transition) objects, thus a simple AGN versus star-forming classification might not be appropriate to fully understand what faint radio populations really are.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据