4.6 Article

THE REDSHIFT DISTRIBUTION OF GIANT ARCS IN THE SLOAN GIANT ARCS SURVEY

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 727, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L26

关键词

galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: high-redshift; gravitational lensing: strong

资金

  1. Illinois Space Grant Consortium
  2. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We measure the redshift distribution of a sample of 28 giant arcs discovered as a part of the Sloan Giant Arcs Survey. Gemini/GMOS-North spectroscopy provides precise redshifts for 24 arcs, and redshift desert constrains for the remaining 4 arcs. This is a direct measurement of the redshift distribution of a uniformly selected sample of bright giant arcs, which is an observable that can be used to inform efforts to predict giant arc statistics. Our primary giant arc sample has a median redshift z = 1.821 and nearly two-thirds of the arcs, 64%, are sources at z greater than or similar to 1.4, indicating that the population of background sources that are strongly lensed into bright giant arcs resides primarily at high redshift. We also analyze the distribution of redshifts for 19 secondary strongly lensed background sources that are not visually apparent in Sloan Digital Sky Survey imaging, but were identified in deeper follow-up imaging of the lensing cluster fields. Our redshift sample for the secondary sources is not spectroscopically complete, but combining it with our primary giant arc sample suggests that a large fraction of all background galaxies that are strongly lensed by foreground clusters reside at z greater than or similar to 1.4. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests indicate that our well-selected, spectroscopically complete primary giant arc redshift sample can be reproduced with a model distribution that is constructed from a combination of results from studies of strong-lensing clusters in numerical simulations and observational constraints on the galaxy luminosity function.

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

4.6
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