![[PukiWiki]](image/pukiwiki.png "[PukiWiki]")
[[FrontPage]] - [[Action Items Related to LAE Full Paper>LAEfullpaper#AI]] - [[Manuscript>LAEfullpaper#Manuscript]] - [[Figures & Tables>LAEfullpaper#Figures]] - [[Fixed Action Items>LAEfullpaper#FixedAIs]] * &aname(AI){Action Items Related to LAE Full Paper}; [#y64eaa39] - evaluating the EW(CIV) or EW(CIII]) significance of the following LAE candidates selected in Step 2 with N_ex^cons > 1 -- the LAE candidates w/ N_ex^cons = 2: +++ ID=1237451: (IA427, IA527) = (Lya, CIV) @ z_ph = 2.444 +++ ID= 994378: (IA464, IA709) = (Lya, CIII]) @ z_ph = 2.754 +++ ID= 996586: (IA464, IA738) = (Lya, CIII]) @ z_ph = 2.835 +++ ID=1110706: (IA464, IA574) = (Lya, CIV) @ z_ph = 2.764 +++ ID=1212266: (IA484, IA624) = (Lya, CIV) @ z_ph = 3.002 +++ ID=1260735: (IA484, IA624) = (Lya, CIV) @ z_ph = 3.002 +++ ID= 991118: (IA527, IA679) = (Lya, CIV) @ z_ph = 3.346 -- the LAE candidates w/ N_ex^cons = 3: +++ ID=1199858: (IA484, IA505, IA624) = (Lya, Lya, CIV) @ z_ph = 3.073 -- this process is required to confirm whether they are also real emitters in CIV or CIII], while they are already confirmed to be real emitters in Lya - SED fits for low-z emitters -- necessary to evaluate the efficiency of our photo-z determination to LAEs (i.e., to see the number of low-z emitter candidates with z_spec consistent with high-z LAEs) - counting the number of LAEs separately according to the number of the detected bands among YJHK (N_{NIR,detect}) and excess IA band -- this information is required because the results of the SED fitting seem to be reliable only for the LAEs with N_{NIR,detect} >= 2 -- the criteria of N_{NIR,detect} >= 2 can select the LAEs w/ log10(Mstar/Msun) > 9 and Δlog10(Mstar/Msun) < 0.5 dex (see email from Y. Shioya on 2015/06/10 20:27) - evaluating SFR(UV) instead of SFR(SED) -- to make the error-bar of SFR smaller -- L_λ @ λ = 1500 +/- 150 A and E(B-V) of the best-fit model SED --[Kennicutt98 relation]--> SFR(UV) - revising Fig. 2: color-magnitude diagram - revising Fig. 3: Donley+12 criteria - revising Fig. 4: photo-z vs. spec-z - revising Fig. 5: spatial distribution of LAEs - revising Fig. 6: spatial distribution of LAEs at z=4.86 and 5.70 - revising Fig. 7: EWobs distribution - revising Fig. 8: EW0 distribution - revising Fig. 9: L(Lya) distribution - revising Fig. 10: EW0--L(Lya) distribution - revising Fig. 11: EW0--Mstar distribution w/ histogram - revising Fig. 12: SFR(UV)--Mstar distribution - revising Fig. 13: sSFR distribution separated into 3 groups according to Mstar - revising Fig. 14: average SED normalized at λ = 1350 A separated into 3 panels - revising Fig. A3: flowchart for the Step 3 -- criteria for the number of the undetected IA bands? -- criteria for the number of the undetected UltraVISTA/YJHK bands? - revising Fig. B1: observed SED of the strong LAEs w/ EW0 >= 100 A * &aname(Manuscript){Manuscript}; [#m063575c] - latest manuscript: &ref(ms_LAE_COSMOS20.pdf); &ref(ms_LAE_COSMOS20.tex); ** &aname(Figures){Figures & Tables}; [#haf67aa1] - Tab. 1: Quantities Related to the Step 1 of Our Sample Selection &ref(Tab1_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_151013.jpg,,40%); -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 1 (2015/08/08): &ref(Tab1_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp_150808.jpg,,30%); -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 1: &ref(Tab1_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp.jpg,,30%); -- old Tab. 1: &ref(Tab1.jpg,,40%); - Tab. 2: Number of the IA-band Excess Candidates in Step 1 &ref(Tab2_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_151022.jpg,,30%); -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 2 (2015/10/22): &ref(Tab2_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp_151022.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is originated from the change of the flux for the undetected objects whose 3σ upper limit magnitude is fainter than the 3σ limiting magnitude of the band given uniformly. -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 2 (2015/10/13): &ref(Tab2_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp_151013.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is originated from the change of the treatment magnitude and its error for the undetected objects: In the previous analysis, since their magnitudes are remained to be the original values, that is, 99.0, the linear fluxes are negligibly small. In the case that these fluxes are used to evaluate IAc, the resultant IAc become too faint. In the revised analysis, their magnitudes are revised to be 1.5σ. 28 excess candidates (35 excess IA-bands) are removed from the sample of Step 1 IA-excess candidates. No candidate is newly added. -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 1 (2015/08/15): &ref(Tab2_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp_150815.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is originated from the change of the treatment of the Subaru i' and CFHT i* bands: for the objects whose Subaru i'-band images saturate, the CFHT i*-band magnitudes are used to evaluate the IAc. However, in the original code written by Y. Shioya, the limiting magnitude of the Subaru i' band is used even for these objects. This modification changes the number of the IA574- and IA624-excess candidates for which i band is used to evaluate IAc. --- the numbers of N_{>3σ} are reevaluated using the revised code to select Step 1 IA-excess candidates; the conditions to count the number are (1) outside of the BB masks (i.e., B_mask = 0, V_mask = 0, I_mask = 0, z_mask = 0, and deep_mask = 0), (2) outside of the IA masks defined by Y. Shioya, (3) non-starts (i.e., zph in the photoz catalog is not zero), (4) all of the 4 UltraVISTA bands are observed (i.e., these magnitudes are larger than zero), (5) observed in the IA-band and BBs used to evaluate the IAc (i.e., IA > 0, BB1 > 0, and BB2 > 0), and (6) the IA-band magnitude is brighter than 3σ. -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 1 (2015/08/08): &ref(Tab2_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp_150808.jpg,,30%); -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 2: &ref(Tab2_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp.jpg,,30%); -- old Tab. 2: &ref(Tab2.jpg,,30%); - Tab. 3: Number of LAE candidates in Step 2 &ref(Tab3_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_151022.jpg,,30%); -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 3 (2015/10/22): &ref(Tab3_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp_151022.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is originated from the change of the flux for the undetected objects whose 3σ upper limit magnitude is fainter than the 3σ limiting magnitude of the band given uniformly. see above. -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 3 (2015/10/14): &ref(Tab3_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp_151014.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is originated from the change of the treatment magnitude and its error for the undetected objects. see above. -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 3 (2015/10/02): &ref(Tab3_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_151002.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is caused by the modification of IRAC-bands' magnitudes and their limiting magnitudes -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 3 (2015/07/18): &ref(Tab3_ms_LAE_COSMOS20.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is caused by (1) a bug to determine z_ph of the IA-excess objects and (2) a contamination of others population into LAE because of the coincidence of z_ph //--- catalog of the LAE candidates in Step 2: &ref(Step2_LAEcand_all.txt); -- old table: &ref(Tab3.jpg,,30%); - Tab. 4: The Adopted Parameters in Our SED Fitting in Step 3 &ref(Tab4.jpg,,30%); - Tab. 5: Number of LAEs in Step 3 and Step 4 and of the LAEs with EW_0 >= 100 A &ref(Tab5_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_151110.jpg,,30%); -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 5 (2015/11/10): &ref(Tab5_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp_151110.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is originated from the fix of a bug which underestimates <L_ν> at λ = 1300--1400 A and thus overestimates EW0(Lyα) -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 5 (2015/10/23): &ref(Tab5_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp_151023.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is originated from the bug fix. see [[Transfer-Step2-Catalogs]] for detail. -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 5 (2015/10/15): &ref(Tab5_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_comp_151015.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is originated from the change of the treatment magnitude and its error for the undetected objects. see above for detail. -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 5 (2015/10/02): &ref(Tab5_ms_LAE_COSMOS20_151002.jpg,,30%); -- comparison w/ previous Tab. 5 (2015/07/25): &ref(Tab5_ms_LAE_COSMOS20.jpg,,30%); -- old table: &ref(Tab5.jpg,,30%); -- comparison w/ previous numbers: &ref(Tab5_20150623.jpg,,30%); - Tab. A1: Definition of the Variables Used in Our Flowcharts for Step 1 to Step 4 -- new (18th July, 2015): &ref(TabA1_ms_LAE_COSMOS20.jpg,,30%); -- old: &ref(TabA1.jpg,,30%); - Fig. A1: Flowchart for the Step 1 &ref(Flowchart1.jpg,,30%); - Fig. A2: Flowchart for the Step 2 -- new (18th July, 2015): &ref(Flowchart2_new.jpg,,30%); --- this modification is motivated by the prescription used in the actual program of this Step 2; z_ph for the IA-excess candidates with Nsol >= 1 is determined essentially by using the same prescription -- old: &ref(Flowchart2.jpg,,30%); - Fig. A3: Flowchart for the Step 3 &ref(Flowchart3.jpg,,30%); - Fig. A4: Flowchart for the Step 4 &ref(Flowchart4.jpg,,30%); * &aname(FixedAIs){Fixed Action Items}; [#l927fc29] ** as of 2015/07/26 [#n08ccca9] - revising Tab. 5: number of LAEs in Step 3 and 4 and of the LAEs with EW0 >= 100 A -- done by MARK (see email from MARK on 22:20 26th July, 2015) ** as of 2015/06/17 [#z18e706c] - related to the change of selection criteria for the number of undetected IA data On 2015/06/12 13:14, Yasuhiro Shioya wrote: > LAE の選出条件を「Lyα より長波長側の IA バンドの中で検出されていない > バンド数が 5未満」に改めれば、MAESTLO の数は従来のままで、ID 986273 は棄却される。 > ＃ID 986273 は SED を見て棄却した天体なので、この天体が棄却される条件を採用 > この選出条件を使うと Step 3 での選出数は > http://cosmos.phys.sci.ehime-u.ac.jp/~shioya/Cosmos21Ses/allLAEselection.pdf#page=6 > の N<5 の欄の数 に関してですが、LAE 選出条件をこのように変更することに関しては同意します。 既に今日の打ち合わせで議論があったかもしれませんが、こうすると以前の N < 6 の条件では 保たれていた、他の low-z emitter の選択条件との consistency が保たれなくなります。 他の low-z emitter でもこの条件を採用することにした場合、サンプルが変わるかどうかを 見ておくのは重要かと思いますが、こちらに関してはどのようにお考えでしょうか。 -- LAE の非検出IA バンド数の条件は、LAE に対してSED fitting を行って得たbest-fit model が非検出IA バンドのデータの扱いのために観測データを適切に再現していないか否かを見て 決めたもの。 -- low-z emitters に対して同じ条件を採用する必然はなく、low-z emitters についてもbest-fit model SED と観測データとの一致具合を見て決める https://selaluokdiatm4d.com/ https://rebrand.ly/3g44awa https://bit.ly/3TpAvdK [[FrontPage]]
