Paper detail

Correcting the z~8 Galaxy Luminosity Function for Gravitational Lensing Magnification Bias

We present a Bayesian framework to account for the magnification bias from both strong and weak gravitational lensing in estimates of high-redshift galaxy luminosity functions. We illustrate our method by estimating the $z\sim8$ UV luminosity function using a sample of 97 Y-band dropouts (Lyman break galaxies) found in the Brightest of Reionizing Galaxies (BoRG) survey and from the literature. We find the luminosity function is well described by a Schechter function with characteristic magnitude of $M^\star = -19.85^{+0.30}_{-0.35}$, faint-end slope of $α= -1.72^{+0.30}_{-0.29}$, and number density of $\log_{10} Ψ^\star [\textrm{Mpc}^{-3}] = -3.00^{+0.23}_{-0.31}$. These parameters are consistent within the uncertainties with those inferred from the same sample without accounting for the magnification bias, demonstrating that the effect is small for current surveys at $z\sim8$, and cannot account for the apparent overdensity of bright galaxies compared to a Schechter function found recently by Bowler et al. (2014a,b) and Finkelstein et al. (2014). We estimate that the probability of finding a strongly lensed $z\sim8$ source in our sample is in the range $\sim 3-15 \%$ depending on limiting magnitude. We identify one strongly-lensed candidate and three cases of intermediate lensing in BoRG (estimated magnification $μ>1.4$) in addition to the previously known candidate group-scale strong lens. Using a range of theoretical luminosity functions we conclude that magnification bias will dominate wide field surveys -- such as those planned for the Euclid and WFIRST missions -- especially at $z>10$. Magnification bias will need to be accounted for in order to derive accurate estimates of high-redshift luminosity functions in these surveys and to distinguish between galaxy formation models.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.