Galaxy luminosity functions to z~1 from DEEP2 and COMBO-17: implications for red galaxy formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The DEEP2 and COMBO-17 surveys are compared to study luminosity functions of red and blue galaxies to z~1. The two surveys have different methods and sensitivities, but nevertheless results agree. After z~1, M*B has dimmed by 1.2-1.3 mag for all colors of galaxies, phi* for blue galaxies has hardly changed, and phi* for red galaxies has at least doubled (our formal value is ~0.5 dex). Luminosity density jB has fallen by 0.6 dex for blue galaxies but has remained nearly constant for red galaxies. These results imply that the number and total stellar mass of blue galaxies have been substantially constant since z~1, whereas those of red galaxies (near L*) have been significantly rising. To explain the new red galaxies, a ``mixed'' scenario is proposed in which star formation in blue cloud galaxies is quenched, causing them to migrate to the red sequence, where they merge further in a small number of stellar mergers. This mixed scenario matches the local boxy-disky transition for nearby ellipticals, as well as red sequence stellar population scaling laws such as the color-magnitude and Mg-sigma relations (which are explained as fossil relics from blue progenitors). Blue galaxies enter the red sequence via different quenching modes, each of which peaks at a different characteristic mass and time. The red sequence therefore likely builds up in different ways at different times and masses, and the concept of a single process that is ``downsizing'' (or upsizing) probably does not apply. Our claim in this paper of a rise in the number of red galaxies applies to galaxies near L*. Accurate counts of brighter galaxies on the steep part of the Schechter function require more accurate photometry than is currently available. Based on observations taken at the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated jointly by the University of California and the California Institute of Technology, and on observations made with the NASA/ESO Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archives at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555, and from the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".