1. Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe Hubble Fellow - NOAO Hubble Fellows Symposium 2012 March 7

2. Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe Hubble Fellow - NOAO Hubble Fellows Symposium 2012 March 7 z < 0.3 z~2

3. What are LIRGs/ULIRGs? L IR (8-1000  m) > 10 11 L   LIRGs L IR > 10 12 L   ULIRGs, L IR > 10 13 L   HyLIRGs!! Rare locally … PAH Complex Dust Stellar Continuum Arp 220 Kennicutt et al. 2003

4. High Redshift (U)LIRGs ULIRGs LIRGs Comoving Infrared Energy Density Low Lum Le Floc’h et al. 2005 LIRGs dominate IR energy density (and cosmic star formation rate) at z > 0.7 Le Floc’h et al. 2005 ULIRGs as important or dominate by z~2 Caputi et al. 2007; Magnelli et al. 2009, 2011; Bethermin et al. 2011; Murphy et al. 2011 Important role at the peak of galaxy assembly

6. Motivation What drives star formation and AGN activity and how does this change as a function of redshift? What is the role of galaxy mergers? Are mergers necessary for the extreme luminosities of (U)LIRGs? What was the role of ‘cold flow’ gas accretion in the early universe? How does galaxy morphology correlate with luminosity and therefore star formation rate?

7. Properties of Local (U)LIRGs ULIRGs: IRAS 1 Jy Sample, med(z) = 0.145 (Veilleux, Kim, & Sanders 2002) > 99% are major mergers of gas rich spirals LIRGs: RBGS, med(z) =0.0082 (Sanders et al 2003, Ishida 2004) log(L IR ) > 11.5 strongly interacting major mergers (65%) doubles (18%) minor interactions (18%) log(L IR ) < 11.5 strongly interacting major mergers (36%) doubles (23%), minor interactions (15%) high luminosity end of normal starforming disks (26%) Fraction of mergers increases systematically with L IR !

8. Properties of Local (U)LIRGs Fraction of (U)LIRGs with an AGN increases with L IR Veilleux et al. 1995, 1999; Tran et al. 2001; Yuan et al. 2010 < 20% for L IR < 10 11 L  > 50% for L IR > 10 12.3 L  Large fraction of composites Mix of SF, AGN, shocks Difficult to disentangle Yuan et al. 2010

9. The Merger Scenario Mergers among ULIRGs are ubiquitous High AGN fraction among ULIRGs Leads to the merger scenario (Sanders et al. 1988) Evolutionary connection: Gas- rich mergers  LIRG  ULIRG  QSO Eventually form “red and dead” elliptical Hopkins et al. 2008

10. The Role of Cold Flows Theoretical simulations suggest that the high SFRs of (U)LIRGs can be sustained at high redshift (z~2) by ‘cold flows’ (e.g., Dekel et al. 2009, Davé et al. 2009) Accretion of cold gas along filaments Minor mergers Observationally supported by apparent lack of mergers among high redshift (U)LIRGs (e.g., Genzel et al. 2006; Forster-Schreiber et al. 2009) Mix of results at high redshift so far High redshift mergers are hard to see Cold flows have yet to be observed!

11. High Redshift (U)LIRGs Are mergers necessary to produce these extreme luminosities? Studies at high redshift have been limited so far Small samples Uncertain luminosities Lack of rest-frame optical imaging Most previous studies have been based on Spitzer 24  m selection Pre-Herschel, longer wavelength data has only been available for small numbers of objects (e.g., Spitzer 70/160  m, Submillimeter)

12. Previous High Redshift (z~2) Studies 24  m / color selected samples e.g., Dasyra et al. 2008; Melbourne et al. 2009; Bussmann et al. 2009, 2011; Zamojski et al. 2010 Wide range of results Submillimeter Galaxies (SMGs) Morphology (e.g., Conselice et al. 2003; Swinbank et al. 2010) Kinematics (e.g., Tacconi et al. 2008) Tend to find high fractions of mergers IFU Kinematics of massive star forming galaxies (SMGs/BzKs, etc.) e.g., Genzel et al. 2008; Forster-Schreiber et al. 2009 Mixed results – 1/3 mergers, 1/3 rotation dominated, 1/3 dispersion dominated

13. GOODS-Herschel Herschel coverage of both GOODS fields (PI: D. Elbaz) Deepest Herschel data taken! Full GOODS-N field: 1.6 mJy (@ 100  m) Central part of GOODS-S: 0.6 mJy (@ 100  m) Small area coverage but very deep Well suited for identifying high redshift (z > 1) sources 100-500  m coverage is closer to the peak of emission Better for constraining L IR and T dust GOODS-NGOODS-S

14. Identifying Merging Galaxies Easy in the local universe! Nearby Examples: The Mice & NGC 520

15. Identifying Merging Galaxies Easy in the local universe! At high redshift surface brightness dimming becomes a problem… Hibbard & Vacca 1997

16. Identifying Merging Galaxies And band shifting becomes important! Rest-frame UV versus Rest-frame optical ACS I band WFC3 H band

17. CANDELS Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (PIs: S. Faber & H. Ferguson) Multi-cycle HST Treasury Program WFC3 NIR imaging of portions of 5 deep fields GOODS-N, GOODS-S, UDS, COSMOS, EGS UDS Mosaic

18. GOODS-Herschel & CANDELS A match made in heaven! Rest-frame optical imaging for z~2 galaxies Ideal for probing structure of z~2 ULIRGs

19. GOODS-Herschel ULIRG Sample 52 ULIRGs with CANDELS imaging First complete, FIR selected sample of ULIRGs at z~2! Additional 70 LIRGs over this z range ~ 2.2 ~ 12.26 Focus on all ULIRGs with z = 1.5 - 3.0 in GOODS-S

20. Comparison Sample Selected 260 comparison galaxies (5 for each ULIRG) Not Herschel detected  less luminous z~2 population Matched to redshift and H magnitude Randomized and classified ULIRGs + comparison Visual classification scheme Classified by me + 3-5 other classifiers Analyzed agreement Eventually compare to quantitative merger selections

21. Visual Classification Scheme Main Morphological Class Interaction Class

22. Results Merger+Int+Irr Kartaltepe et al. 2012

23. Comparison with z ~ 1 COSMOS 70 m m 277 sources 0.8 < z < 1.2 Relatively shallow, but large area coverage log(L IR ) = 11.3 - 12.9 GOODS-Herschel North+South 100/160 m m Smaller area, significantly deeper 293 sources w/ 0.8 < z < 1.2 Log(L IR ) = 10.6 – 12.4 Classified using ACS imaging and same scheme

25. ”Main Sequence” and Starburst Galaxies Correlation between star formation rate (SFR) and stellar mass True locally (e.g., Brinchmann et al. 2004) and at high redshift (e.g., Noeske et al. 2007; Daddi et al. 2007) Evolves with redshift (increase in gas fraction?) Galaxies elevated above this relation  Starbursts Noeske et al. 2007

26. ”Main Sequence” and Starburst Galaxies Elbaz et al. 2011 Rodighiero et al. 2011 What is the role of mergers among starbursts and “main sequence” galaxies at z~2?

27. Are z~2 (U)LIRGs Starbursts? Main Sequence (MS) from Elbaz et al. 2011 MS x3 Kartaltepe et al. 2012

28. Are z~2 (U)LIRGs Starbursts? Starbursts Kartaltepe et al. 2012

29. Starbursts Kartaltepe et al. 2012 Are z~2 (U)LIRGs Starbursts? Disks: med(sSFR/sSFR MS ) = 2.4

30. Starbursts Kartaltepe et al. 2012 Are z~2 (U)LIRGs Starbursts? Interactions & Mergers: med(sSFR/sSFR MS ) = 3.8

31. Starbursts Kartaltepe et al. 2012 What are z~2 “Main Sequence” Galaxies? “Main Sequence” Non-interacting disks: 57% Interactions & Mergers: 24%

32. Starbursts Kartaltepe et al. 2012 Are z~2 Starbursts Mergers? Starbursts Non-interacting disks: 42% Interactions & Mergers: 50%

33. Conclusions Morphologies of z~2 ULIRGs span a wide range ‘Disks’ make up a significant fraction (many irregular) 40% non-interacting, 60% total ~45% are mergers or interactions Additional ~25% are irregular (minor mergers?) Comparable to fractions at z~1, slightly lower More likely to be interacting pairs than advanced mergers  z~2 ULIRGs are more like z~0 LIRGs

34. Conclusions Most (U)LIRGs on the main sequence are non- interacting disks (57%) BUT significant (24%) number are mergers/interactions Significant enhancement of SFR for a short time during the merger Half of starbursts are clear mergers/interactions Large fraction of “Irregular Disks” Enhanced role of minor mergers?

35. Future Directions (aka: Next Year’s Talk) The results presented were small numbers! Need rest of CANDELS fields + expanded Herschel coverage for firm conclusions/statistics Herschel+CANDELS – PI: M. Dickinson (OT2) Coming soon! NIR spectroscopic follow-up Starburst-AGN emission line diagnostics What is the role/contribution of the AGN? Large international Subaru FMOS program of COSMOS

36. Starburst Montage

38. Fiber Multi-Object Spectrograph (FMOS) Low-res (R~600) Hi-res (R~2200) In low-res mode, can cover 0.9-1.8  m at once 400 fibers 30’ diameter FOV Ideal for COSMOS!

39. AGN Fraction 5% at low L IR >70% for ULIRGs 100% of HyLIRGs log (L IR ) AGN Fraction AGN Fraction increases systematically with L IR (as it does locally)! Kartaltepe et al. 2010a

40. Spectroscopic AGN Selection Spectroscopic selection (e.g., Baldwin et al. 1981, Veilleux & Osterbrock 1987, Kauffmann et al. 2003, Kewley et al. 2006, Yuan et al. 2010) Classes: SF, AGN dominated and composites D AGN measure separates relative contribution Kewley et al. 2006Yuan et al. 2010

41. Spectroscopic AGN Selection At low redshift, we can classify 283 galaxies from COSMOS 70  m sample using standard line diagnostics 0 < z < 0.5 (where H  still observable, 38% of sample at these redshifts) log(L IR ) = 8.8 – 12.1, = 10.7 AGN HII Comp.

42. Beyond z>0.5, lose H  and [NII] lines, but have [OIII] and H  out to z~1 Color as a proxy for [NII]/H  ? (e.g., Yan et al. 2010) Appears to work well for normal galaxies locally… At higher redshifts…. Yan et al. 2010

43. Applied to 70  m Sample 500 galaxies with [OIII] and H  0 < z < 1 (~40% of sample in this range) log(L IR ) = 8.5 – 12.5, = 11.1 30 ULIRGs, 256 LIRGs 70  m selected galaxies just aren’t red! AGN

44. Mass-Excitation Method of Juneau et al. 2011 uses mass instead

45. Applied to 70  m Sample Same 500 galaxies with O[III] and H  Appears to work better for infrared selected galaxies X-ray mostly in AGN region Trend with L IR AGN

46. What about higher redshifts? Current and future surveys with NIR spectrographs Until now, only small samples possible with longslit spectographs Several multi-object spectrographs now online or will be soon MOIRCS, FMOS, LUCIFER, FLAMINGOS2, MOSFIRE, etc. Will become possible to use BPT type analysis at z = 1 - 3 for large samples COSMOS FMOS survey will cover 1000’s of IR selected galaxies and AGN over the next few years

47. Sample Spectra

48. Preliminary FMOS Results ~60 (U)LIRGs at 1.0 < z < 1.6 with coverage of all four lines

49. Preliminary FMOS Results Same sources on Mass-Excitation Diagram