Paper detail

The ALPINE-ALMA [CII] Survey: the population of [CII]-undetected galaxies and their role in the $\mathrm{L_{[CII]}}$-SFR relation

The [CII] 158$~μ$m emission line represents so far one of the most profitable tools for the investigation of the high-redshift galaxies in the early Universe. Being one of the brightest cooling lines in the rest-frame far-infrared regime of star-forming galaxies, it has been successfully exploited as a tracer of star-formation rate (SFR) in local sources. The picture is more complex at higher redshifts, where its usability in this context is still under investigation. Recent results from the ALMA Large Program to INvestigate [CII] at Early times (ALPINE) survey suggest that there is no (or weak) evolution of the L$\mathrm{_{[CII]}}$-SFR relation up to $z\sim6$ but their reliability is hampered by the presence of a large population of [CII] non-detected galaxies. In this work, we characterize the population of [CII] non-detections in ALPINE. By stacking their ALMA spectra, we obtain a signal detected at $\sim5.1σ$, resulting in a [CII] luminosity of $\mathrm{log(L_\mathrm{[CII]}}/\mathrm{L_{\odot}})$ $\sim7.8$. When combining this value with those from the [CII] detections, we find a $\mathrm{L_{[CII]}}$-SFR relation with a slope $b=1.14\pm0.11$, in agreement within the uncertainties both with the linear relation found in the local Universe, and with the previous findings from ALPINE at $z\sim5$. This suggests that the [CII] line can be considered a good tracer of star formation up to the distant Universe. Finally, we show that the galaxies of our sample that most deviate from the observed L$_\mathrm{[CII]}$-SFR relation could suffer from a less precise redshift estimation, perhaps artificially reducing their [CII] luminosity. In this respect, we claim that there is no evidence in favour of a deficit of [CII] content in high-z galaxies, in contrast with earlier studies.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.