Paper detail

ALMA Spectroscopic Survey in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field: Search for [CII] line and dust emission in 6<z<8 galaxies

We present a search for [CII] line and dust continuum emission from optical dropout galaxies at $z>6$ using ASPECS, our ALMA Spectroscopic Survey in the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (UDF). Our observations, which cover the frequency range $212-272$ GHz, encompass approximately the range $6<z<8$ for [CII] line emission and reach a limiting luminosity of L$_{\rm [CII]}\sim$(1.6-2.5)$\times$10$^{8}$ L$_{\odot}$. We identify fourteen [CII] line emitting candidates in this redshift range with significances $>$4.5 $σ$, two of which correspond to blind detections with no optical counterparts. At this significance level, our statistical analysis shows that about 60\% of our candidates are expected to be spurious. For one of our blindly selected [CII] line candidates, we tentatively detect the CO(6-5) line in our parallel 3-mm line scan. None of the line candidates are individually detected in the 1.2 mm continuum. A stack of all [CII] candidates results in a tentative detection with $S_{1.2mm}=14\pm5μ$Jy. This implies a dust-obscured star formation rate (SFR) of $(3\pm1)$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. We find that the two highest--SFR objects have candidate [CII] lines with luminosities that are consistent with the low-redshift $L_{\rm [CII]}$ vs. SFR relation. The other candidates have significantly higher [CII] luminosities than expected from their UV--based SFR. At the current sensitivity it is unclear whether the majority of these sources are intrinsically bright [CII] emitters, or spurious sources. If only one of our line candidates was real (a scenario greatly favored by our statistical analysis), we find a source density for [CII] emitters at $6<z<8$ that is significantly higher than predicted by current models and some extrapolations from galaxies in the local universe.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access32 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.