The galaxy luminosity The galaxy luminosity function & its function & its

evolution evolution probed probed with with ChandraChandra

Ioannis Georgantopoulos Ioannis Georgantopoulos (NOA)(NOA)

Panayiotis Tzanavaris Panayiotis Tzanavaris (NOA)(NOA)

Antonis Georgakakis Antonis Georgakakis (ICL)(ICL)

XLF importanceXLF importance: : why why probingprobing X-rays ? X-rays ?

UniqueUnique probe of X-ray binaries probe of X-ray binaries and hot gas in and hot gas in normal normal galaxies:galaxies:

Early-type: Hot ISM (1 keV) + Early-type: Hot ISM (1 keV) + LMXRB LMXRB

Late type HMXRB+LMXRB Late type HMXRB+LMXRB

XLF importanceXLF importance

X-rays are a very good X-rays are a very good SFR indicator : :

almost linear Lx-Lir relation over 4 almost linear Lx-Lir relation over 4 orders of magnitudeorders of magnitude

Ranalli+03 , see also Grimm+03Ranalli+03 , see also Grimm+03

Time lagTime lag between optical and between optical and x-ray x-ray emission ?emission ?

HMXB dominant: HMXB dominant: LLxx ~ optical, IR ~ optical, IR

LMXB dominant: LMXB dominant: LLx x ~ delay w~ delay withith optical, optical, IRIR (eg Ghosh & White 01, Eracleous+06) (eg Ghosh & White 01, Eracleous+06)

The Chandra & XMM The Chandra & XMM potentialpotential

CDF-N CDF-N opened a opened a new window in the study of new window in the study of galaxies giving the first X-ray galaxies giving the first X-ray selected galaxy samples selected galaxy samples z-median~0.3).z-median~0.3).(Hornschemeier+03) (Hornschemeier+03)

XMM provided X-ray XMM provided X-ray ssaamples in the lomples in the low-zw-z Universe Universe (z-median~0.1) (z-median~0.1) (Georgakakis+04, Georgantopoulos+05, (Georgakakis+04, Georgantopoulos+05, Georgakakis+06) Georgakakis+06)

Low-z LF Low-z LF Schechter Schechter φφ((L) dL = L) dL = φφ* * ((L/L*)L/L*)αα exp exp ((--L/L*) d L/L*) d ((L/L*)L/L*)

or log-norm LF or log-norm LF

Previous work: Previous work: EvolutionEvolution

Pure Luminosity Evolution Pure Luminosity Evolution L ~ L ~ (1+(1+zz))kk

Norman et alNorman et al.. 2004 2004 k = k = 2.7 (all)2.7 (all)

Using the logN-logS Georgakakis et Using the logN-logS Georgakakis et al 2006 al 2006 k = k = 2.7 (late), Georgakakis 2.7 (late), Georgakakis et al 2007 et al 2007 k~0 (early)k~0 (early)

Ptak et al 2007 Ptak et al 2007 k = k = 2.3 (late), 1.6 2.3 (late), 1.6 (early)(early)

The Current work : The Current work : samplesample

E-CDF-SE-CDF-S CDF-NCDF-N CDF-SCDF-S XBOOTESXBOOTES

Normal galaxies: selection Normal galaxies: selection criteriacriteria

Source detected in the 0.5-2.0 keV Source detected in the 0.5-2.0 keV bandband

log (log ( f fX X [0.5-2.0 keV][0.5-2.0 keV]/f/fR R )) ≤ ≤ -1 (from -1 (from filter)filter)

log log LLXX ≤ ≤ 42 (cgs)42 (cgs) HR ≡ (H-S)/(H+S) HR ≡ (H-S)/(H+S) ≤ ≤ 0 0 object morphologically a galaxyobject morphologically a galaxy

H ≡ 2.0-8.0 keV; S ≡ 0.5-2.0 keV H ≡ 2.0-8.0 keV; S ≡ 0.5-2.0 keV

AGN contamination ?AGN contamination ?

For the above criteria ~25% For the above criteria ~25% likely likely

Lx-Lir relation CDF-N Lx-Lir relation CDF-N

See Georgakakis et al. 2007 See Georgakakis et al. 2007

LLX X - z - z

207 sources to 207 sources to

zz ~ 1.4 ~ 1.4 subsamplessubsamples

complementarycomplementary

Luminosity function:Total Luminosity function:Total samplesample

0 < 0 < z < z < 0.20.2 0.2 < 0.2 < z < z < 0.60.6 0.6 < 0.6 < z < z < 1.41.4Norman et al. (2004)Norman et al. (2004) z < z < 0.5 triangles0.5 triangles z > z > 0.50.5 crossescrossesKim et al (2006)Kim et al (2006)

z < z < 0.3 stars0.3 stars

Curves: ML fit parametersCurves: ML fit parameters PLE L~(1+z)PLE L~(1+z)kk

k=2.2, logL*~41k=2.2, logL*~41

Luminosity function by Luminosity function by typetype

Separate Separate EEarly and arly and LLate-type systemsate-type systems HyperzHyperz

61 template SEDs from smoothly 61 template SEDs from smoothly interpolated (Sullivan et al 2004) four interpolated (Sullivan et al 2004) four galaxy typesgalaxy types

Filters for different surveys Filters for different surveys

E = 0 → 25 E = 0 → 25 105 systems105 systems L = 25 → 60 L = 25 → 60 99 systems99 systems

Then binned XLF as beforeThen binned XLF as before

Redshift distributionsRedshift distributions

Histogram:Histogram: observed --observed --

early at low early at low zz

late at higher late at higher zz

Curves:Curves: ML results + area ---ML results + area ---

similarsimilar

Luminosity function: Luminosity function: Late typesLate types

0 < 0 < z < z < 0.40.4

0.4 < 0.4 < z < z < 1.41.4

Solid:Solid: ML fit ML fit Dashed: Dashed: Georgakakis et al. Georgakakis et al. (2006)(2006)

Luminosity function: Luminosity function: Early typesEarly types

0 < 0 < z < z < 0.40.4

0.4 < 0.4 < z < z < 1.41.4

No evolution ? No evolution ?

Curves as before…Curves as before…

Late-type: evolutionLate-type: evolution

k=2.2, , cf Ptak et al. Georgakakis et cf Ptak et al. Georgakakis et al 2006bal 2006b

Hopkins (2004) radio-selected SF Hopkins (2004) radio-selected SF galaxiesgalaxies

k = 2.7k = 2.7

Late type systems dominated by HMXRB Late type systems dominated by HMXRB and and

therefore follow the star-formation therefore follow the star-formation

Early-type: mild or no-Early-type: mild or no-evolution ?evolution ?

Consistent with no evolution (0.5 Consistent with no evolution (0.5 +/-0.8)+/-0.8)

In agreement with Georgakakis et al. In agreement with Georgakakis et al.

Ptak et al. again find mild Ptak et al. again find mild evolution evolution k~1.6(+1.1,-1.0)k~1.6(+1.1,-1.0)

Evolution rather different from the Evolution rather different from the optical oneoptical one

Comparison with optical Comparison with optical LF LF

Optical LF based on COMBO-17 and DEEP-2 Optical LF based on COMBO-17 and DEEP-2 Up to z~1 (Faber et al. 2005)Up to z~1 (Faber et al. 2005)

Red galaxies four times more density at z=0 Red galaxies four times more density at z=0 Blue galaxies have the same density Blue galaxies have the same density

Both red and blue galaxies less luminous at Both red and blue galaxies less luminous at z=0z=0

by a factor of 3. by a factor of 3.

Only the blue galaxies have the same Only the blue galaxies have the same evolution in the optical and X-rays. evolution in the optical and X-rays.

Convolving the optical LF (Nakamura 2003) with the Lx/LB relation(Shapley et al.) following Georgantopoulos et al. 1999

XLF from convolution XLF from

convolution

Number-counts Number-counts distributionsdistributions

Solid:Solid: all sources all sources (CDF)(CDF) Dotted: galaxies Dotted: galaxies Dot-dash:Dot-dash: extrapolationextrapolation Limits (left -> right):Limits (left -> right): CDF-N 2, 3, 4 MsCDF-N 2, 3, 4 Ms XEUS 1 MsXEUS 1 Ms

XEUS 1Ms predictionsXEUS 1Ms predictions

> 2 x 10> 2 x 104 4 / square deg for flux / square deg for flux > 4 x 10> 4 x 10-18-18 (cgs) (cgs)

log log LLxx ~ ~ 41 detectable to 41 detectable to z ~ z ~ 22

Counts from Counts from galaxiesgalaxies will will overtake AGN counts at fluxes > overtake AGN counts at fluxes > 5 x 105 x 10-18 -18 (cgs)(cgs)

SummarySummaryOne of the largest NG samples with very broad One of the largest NG samples with very broad coverage of coverage of L – z L – z spacespace

k (full) = k (full) = 2.2 2.2 k (late) = k (late) = 2.4 2.4 k (early) ~ 0 k (early) ~ 0

Late type systems evolve roughly in the same Late type systems evolve roughly in the same manner with the optical, rather in contrast manner with the optical, rather in contrast to the early type ones.to the early type ones.

These LF could be used to constrain These LF could be used to constrain models of models of

X-ray binary evolutionX-ray binary evolution