4.6 Article

ULTRADEEP KS IMAGING IN THE GOODS-N

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT SERIES
卷 187, 期 1, 页码 251-271

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/1/251

关键词

catalogs; cosmology: observations; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: high-redshift; infrared: galaxies

资金

  1. NRAO
  2. National Science Council of Taiwan [98-2112-M-001-003-MY2]
  3. NSF [AST 0709356, AST 0708793]
  4. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
  5. David and Lucile Packard Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present an ultradeep K-S-band image that covers 0.5 x 0.5 deg(2) centered on the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey-North (GOODS-N). The image reaches a 5 sigma depth of K-S, (AB) = 24.45 in the GOODS-N region, which is as deep as the GOODS-N Spitzer Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) 3.6 mu m image. We present a new method of constructing IRAC catalogs that uses the higher spatial resolution K-S image and catalog as priors and iteratively subtracts fluxes from the IRAC images to estimate the IRAC fluxes. Our iterative method is different from the chi(2) approach adopted by other groups. We verified our results using data taken in two different epochs of observations, as well as by comparing our colors with the colors of stars and with the colors derived from model spectral energy distributions of galaxies at various redshifts. We make available to the community our WIRCam K-S-band image and catalog (94,951 objects in 0.25 deg(2)), the Interactive Data Language pipeline used for reducing the WIRCam images, and our IRAC 3.6 -8.0 mu m catalog (16,950 objects in 0.06 deg(2) at 3.6 mu m). With this improved K-S and IRAC catalog and a large spectroscopic sample from our previous work, we study the color-magnitude and color-color diagrams of galaxies. We compare the effectiveness of using KS and IRAC colors to select active galactic nuclei and galaxies at various redshifts. We also study a color selection of z = 0.65-1.2 galaxies using the K-S, 3.6 mu m, and 4.5 mu m bands.

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