sort results by

Use logical operators AND, OR, NOT and round brackets to construct complex queries. Whitespace-separated words are treated as ANDed.

Show articles per page in mode

Dubois, C.

Normalized to: Dubois, C.

2 article(s) in total. 26 co-authors, from 1 to 2 common article(s). Median position in authors list is 11,5.

[1]  oai:arXiv.org:2003.06394  [pdf] - 2063877
The Synthetic Emission Line COSMOS catalog: H$\alpha$ and [OII] galaxy luminosity functions and counts at $0.3<z<2.5$
Comments: 21 pages, 22 figures, accepted for publication in MNRAS. Our catalog is available as "EL-COSMOS" on the ASPIC database, http://cesam.lam.fr/aspic/
Submitted: 2020-03-13
Star-forming galaxies with strong nebular and collisional emission lines are privileged target galaxies in forthcoming cosmological large galaxy redshift surveys. We use the COSMOS2015 photometric catalog to model galaxy spectral energy distributions and emission-line fluxes. We adopt an empirical but physically-motivated model that uses information from the best-fitting spectral energy distribution of stellar continuum to each galaxy. The emission-line flux model is calibrated and validated against direct flux measurements in subsets of galaxies that have 3D-HST or zCOSMOS-Bright spectra. We take a particular care in modelling dust attenuation such that our model can explain both H$\alpha$ and [OII] observed fluxes at different redshifts. We find that a simple solution to this is to introduce a redshift evolution in the dust attenuation fraction parameter, $f=E_{\rm star}(B-V)/E_{\rm gas}(B-V)$, as $f(z)=0.44+0.2z$. From this catalog, we derive the H$\alpha$ and [OII] luminosity functions up to redshifts of about 2.5 after carefully accounting for emission line flux and redshift errors. This allows us to make predictions for H$\alpha$ and [OII] galaxy number counts in next-generation cosmological redshift surveys. Our modeled emission lines and spectra in the COSMOS2015 catalog shall be useful to study the target selection for planned next-generation galaxy redshift surveys and we make them publicly available as `EL-COSMOS' on the ASPIC database.
[2]  oai:arXiv.org:1701.02734  [pdf] - 1581121
The COSMOS2015 galaxy stellar mass function: 13 billion years of stellar mass assembly in 10 snapshots
Comments: A&A, accepted
Submitted: 2017-01-10, last modified: 2017-05-23
We measure the stellar mass function (SMF) of galaxies in the COSMOS field up to $z\sim6$. We select them in the near-IR bands of the COSMOS2015 catalogue, which includes ultra-deep photometry from UltraVISTA-DR2, SPLASH, and Subaru/Hyper-SuprimeCam. At $z>2.5$ we use new precise photometric redshifts with error $\sigma_z=0.03(1+z)$ and an outlier fraction of $12\%$, estimated by means of the unique spectroscopic sample of COSMOS. The increased exposure time in the DR2, along with our panchromatic detection strategy, allow us to improve the stellar mass completeness at high $z$ with respect to previous UltraVISTA catalogues. We also identify passive galaxies through a robust colour-colour selection, extending their SMF estimate up to $z=4$. Our work provides a comprehensive view of galaxy stellar mass assembly between $z=0.1$ and 6, for the first time using consistent estimates across the entire redshift range. We fit these measurements with a Schechter function, correcting for Eddington bias. We compare the SMF fit with the halo mass function predicted from $\Lambda$CDM simulations. We find that at $z>3$ both functions decline with a similar slope in the high-mass end. This feature could be explained assuming that the mechanisms that quench star formation in massive haloes become less effective at high redshift; however further work needs to be done to confirm this scenario. Concerning the SMF low-mass end, it shows a progressive steepening as moving towards higher redshifts, with $\alpha$ decreasing from $-1.47_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ at $z\simeq0.1$ to $-2.11_{-0.13}^{+0.30}$ at $z\simeq5$. This slope depends on the characterisation of the observational uncertainties, which is crucial to properly remove the Eddington bias. We show that there is currently no consensus on the method to quantify such errors: different error models result in different best-fit Schechter parameters. [Abridged]