The ALMA Spectroscopic Survey in the HUDF: CO Luminosity Functions and the Molecular Gas Content of Galaxies through Cosmic History

Roberto Decarli,Fabian Walter,Jorge Gónzalez-López,Manuel Aravena,Leindert Boogaard,Chris Carilli,Pierre Cox,Emanuele Daddi,Gergö Popping,Dominik Riechers,Bade Uzgil,Axel Weiss,Roberto J. Assef,Roland Bacon,Franz Erik Bauer,Frank Bertoldi,Rychard Bouwens,Thierry Contini,Paulo C. Cortes,Elisabete da Cunha,Tanio Díaz-Santos,David Elbaz,Hanae Inami,Jacqueline Hodge,Rob Ivison,Olivier Le Fèvre,Benjamin Magnelli,Mladen Novak,Pascal Oesch,Hans-Walter Rix,Mark T. Sargent,Ian Smail,A. Mark Swinbank,Rachel S. Somerville,Paul van der Werf,Jeff Wagg,Lutz Wisotzki
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab30fe
IF: 5.521
2019-09-11
The Astrophysical Journal
Abstract:We use the results from the ALMA large program ASPECS, the spectroscopic survey in the <i>Hubble</i> Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), to constrain CO luminosity functions of galaxies and the resulting redshift evolution of <i>ρ</i>(H<sub>2</sub>). The broad frequency range covered enables us to identify CO emission lines of different rotational transitions in the HUDF at <i>z</i> &gt; 1. We find strong evidence that the CO luminosity function evolves with redshift, with the knee of the CO luminosity function decreasing in luminosity by an order of magnitude from ~2 to the local universe. Based on Schechter fits, we estimate that our observations recover the majority (up to ~90%, depending on the assumptions on the faint end) of the total cosmic CO luminosity at <i>z</i> = 1.0–3.1. After correcting for CO excitation, and adopting a Galactic CO-to-H<sub>2</sub> conversion factor, we constrain the evolution of the cosmic molecular gas density <i>ρ</i>(H<sub>2</sub>): this cosmic gas density peaks at <i>z</i> ~ 1.5 and drops by a factor of to the value measured locally. The observed evolution in <i>ρ</i>(H<sub>2</sub>), therefore, closely matches the evolution of the cosmic star formation rate density <i>ρ</i> <sub>SFR</sub>. We verify the robustness of our result with respect to assumptions on source inclusion and/or CO excitation. As the cosmic star formation history can be expressed as the product of the star formation efficiency and the cosmic density of molecular gas, the similar evolution of <i>ρ</i>(H<sub>2</sub>) and <i>ρ</i> <sub>SFR</sub> leaves only little room for a significant evolution of the average star formation efficiency in galaxies since <i>z</i> ~ 3 (85% of cosmic history).
What problem does this paper attempt to address?